Council hears Mary Avenue Villas plan for 40 affordable units for adults with developmental disabilities; asks for parking and legal memos

Charities Housing and partners presented Mary Avenue Villas — a proposed 40-unit, 100%-affordable housing development on a narrow, city-owned parcel carved from the Mary Avenue right-of-way — at a July 15 study session. The proposal would provide 19 units targeted to extremely low-income adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and 21 other affordable units, plus on-site supportive services coordinated by Housing Choices and Catholic Charities.

Why it matters: The site is city-owned and was placed in the housing-element portfolio because it can deliver deeply affordable units that are otherwise scarce in Cupertino. The parcel geometry and proximity to highways, parkland and existing development raise local concerns about parking, traffic, noise and legal and financial implications for the city.

Project summary and timeline

Charities Housing described the site design as two low-rise buildings spread along a long, narrow lot with a central parking court. The planned unit mix is 3 studios, 22 one-bedroom units and 14 two-bedroom units plus one three-bedroom manager unit; all units would be accessible and the buildings served by elevators. On-site services would be provided by Housing Choices (supportive-services coordination), Catholic Charities (case coordination) and West Valley Community Services (food and other supports). The team said a federal low-income housing tax credit application is planned for March of next year, construction could start late next year if funding is secured, and occupancy was targeted for early 2028.

Site and technical issues discussed

- Parking and right-of-way: Staff and the applicant confirmed the proposed project will require reconfiguration of Mary Avenue and that street parking will change. During discussion staff later cited a net loss of street parking of about 89 spaces under the proposed street layout (approximately 46 spaces removed on the west side and 43 on the east), with 33 on-street spaces shown in the current plan and 22 on-site parking spaces included in the project (including accessible spaces). Council asked staff to prepare a clear before/after parking map and to explore whether nearby parcels or developer coordination (for example, with the adjacent Westport project) could yield additional parking or shared spaces.

- Environmental and health mitigations: The applicant said it completed an acoustical study and will install STC-rated windows and mechanical filtration per recommendations; it also reported an engineered soils-management plan with off-haul of a localized lead deposit area under county oversight. Opponents raised concerns about freeway-related air pollution and noise for sensitive residents; project proponents said mechanical/filtration measures and building design would address indoor noise and air-quality thresholds and that project proceeds under applicable environmental review and code requirements.

- Governance and legal questions: Because the parcel is city-owned and the project would proceed under an administrative entitlement process, staff explained that a later disposition and development agreement (DDA) and ground-lease would come to council for approval and would set lease terms and city controls. Multiple public commenters asked that the city attorney assess whether Article 34 of the California Constitution (voter approval required for certain low-rent housing on public land) applies and whether the city could be exposed to legal or financial liabilities if the housing sponsor becomes insolvent or tax credits are recaptured. Several commenters asked for robust review of insurance, lease recourse and long-term operational responsibility.

Public reaction

Public comment included advocates and families supporting the project as one of the few opportunities to create very-low and extremely-low-income housing in Cupertino, and service providers who described the supportive-service model. Opponents and nearby residents asked for more information about parking loss, traffic circulation, and long-term noise and air-quality impacts for sensitive occupants. One commenter asked the council not to proceed without a full legal and financial review of city liabilities; other speakers urged the council to move forward to meet an urgent housing need.

Council direction and next steps

After extended discussion, the council voted on a substitute motion that carried. Council approved moving the project forward while directing staff to provide additional information and analyses before final approvals. Specifically the council asked staff to:

- Prepare and post a supplemental memo and web materials that show an explicit before/after parking map and quantify net parking changes, and to explore options (including coordination with adjacent property owners) to mitigate parking impacts. - Ask the city attorney to evaluate Article 34 risks and return an informational memo explaining whether voter approval is required and what exemptions may apply for tax-credit-funded affordable housing. - Confirm that the city council would retain authority over the DDA/ground-lease and return options for whether the council should be the final approving body for the project.

The applicant said it will continue entitlement work and proceed with tax-credit applications; staff and the applicant agreed to additional neighborhood outreach and to post updated material on the project website.

What the council did (procedural): The council did not approve an entitlement at the study session. The substitute motion to let the project proceed while staff provides the requested clarifications carried (substitute motion outcome: passed; recorded roll-call on the substitute after discussion).