Cupertino council hears study-session presentation on Mary Avenue Villas, directs staff to clarify parking and legal issues

Charities Housing presented plans for Mary Avenue Villas, a 40-unit, 100% affordable housing development on a narrow, city-owned parcel on Mary Avenue, during a City of Cupertino study session. The presentation described two buildings with parking between them and on-site services for residents, including a partner organization that will provide supports for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).

The project team said the proposal includes 40 accessible units: three studios, 22 one-bedroom units, 14 two-bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit intended for on-site staff. Kathy Robinson, senior representative of Charities Housing, said the organization intends the development to serve extremely low-, very low- and low-income households and emphasized a long partnership with local service providers. “We have a whole range of services and supports that we have planned,” Denise Houdeghe, executive director of Housing Choices, said, describing weekly coordination with property management and quarterly “circle of support” meetings that will include regional center staff and family members.

The council and members of the public focused most sharply on parking and public-right-of-way changes related to creating the buildable parcel. John Martier, senior planner in community development, said the parcel was created in 2023 and that configuring a buildable lot in the existing right of way required removing diagonal parking and reworking the road. Chad Mosley, director of public works, explained staff trimmed lane widths and retained sidewalks and bike lanes to produce a roughly 56-foot right of way that still supports two-way traffic and bike lanes while widening the developable parcel.

Staff and the applicant described the anticipated approvals path: because the site is identified in Cupertino’s housing element and the project is a by-right affordable housing proposal, the development permit would normally be resolved through an administrative hearing and the council would not typically make the permit decision. However, because the land is city-owned and the council will need to approve a disposition and development agreement (DDA) and ground lease, council action on the DDA will be required later in the process. Staff said tax-credit and other financing steps are expected to proceed this year, with tax-credit applications in March, an anticipated commitment in May and construction possibly starting late next year with occupancy in early 2028, subject to financing and approvals.

Public comment included multiple supporters and opponents. Supporters — including members of Housing Choices, the California State Council on Developmental Disabilities and longtime local volunteers — called the development a rare opportunity to provide extremely low- and very low-income housing for residents with IDD within Cupertino. Jennifer Lucas, manager at the California State Council on Developmental Disabilities, said the project would provide “affordable, permanent, and inclusive housing options” for adults with developmental disabilities who otherwise largely live with aging parents.

Opponents and neighbors raised concerns about parking loss and health and safety because of the site’s proximity to Highway 85 and 280. A resident who spoke identified safety, traffic and air-quality concerns and urged the council to “reconsider this proposal and instead identify a more suitable, healthier and safer location.” Sam Rao, who submitted a written letter, asked the council to evaluate legal and financial liability and specifically to consider whether Article 34 of the California Constitution (voter approval for certain publicly owned low-rent housing) applies to this ground-lease model.

Council discussion centered on three procedural and factual clarifications: (1) a clearer map and accounting of how many parking spaces will be removed and where new spaces will be located, (2) whether the council can or should act as final approving body for this city-owned project rather than relying on an administrative hearing, and (3) legal exposure related to Article 34 and other financing contingencies. Council members asked staff to post a supplemental memo and the plan drawings on the project web page that show “before” and “after” parking conditions; staff said they would provide that information.

On a motion related to next steps, the council voted 3–2 to allow the project to proceed while directing staff to provide additional information via informational memos. The motion passed with council members Fruin, Mohan and Vice Mayor Moore voting yes and Mayor Chow and Council Member Wong voting no. The council directed staff and the city attorney to prepare information on parking configuration, to evaluate whether council approval is appropriate for the project (given that the land is city-owned), and to provide an informational memo about Article 34 risks before approval of a DDA.

Next steps identified by staff and the applicant include posting the detailed site and parking plans online, preparing memos on Article 34 and parking impacts, continuing community outreach (applicants said they can hold another neighborhood meeting), and moving forward with the administrative-permit and DDA process consistent with council direction. No final permit or lease was approved at the study session.