Long study session on Mary Avenue affordable housing project draws hundreds of comments, procedural disputes and direction to negotiate

Cupertino — A lengthy study session on the Mary Avenue affordable housing project drew sustained public comment, technical clarifications from staff and attorneys, and formal direction for the city’s negotiators.

What the project is: City planners described a 40‑unit, 100% affordable development on a 0.76‑acre city parcel that would reserve roughly 19 of the 40 units (about 45%) for residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). The site concept includes two two‑story buildings with roughly 22 parking stalls on site and a proposed reconfiguration of Mary Avenue that staff said would result in a net loss of about 89 on‑street parking spaces while adding 33 parallel spaces on the west side and new sidewalks and buffered bike lanes.

Funding and timeline: Staff said the city has committed up to $4,000,000 in support (including a $3,000,000 BMR loan at 3% interest and a $1 conveyance for the land); staff also cited PLHA and CDBG funds (amounts discussed during the presentation) and a park‑fee waiver associated with affordable housing. Staff told council that a signed disposition and development agreement (DDA) and entitlements would be required to submit an application for 9% low‑income housing tax credits anticipated for April 2026; the Surplus Land Act (SLA) declaration and right‑of‑way vacation are typically completed nearer to disposition.

Legal and procedural issues: The city attorney and outside counsel explained options for transferring property rights — a non‑statutory DDA or a statutory DA — and described the non‑summary vacation process for public right‑of‑way. Counsel said the project was structured to pursue an SLA exemption, but noted that declarations and notices would be filed with the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as required.

Public reaction: Neighborhood speakers opposed the project primarily on safety, traffic and parking grounds, noting a petition of more than 600 signatures, fears of narrower traffic lanes and impacts on children and seniors, and allegations that outreach was insufficient. Several neighbors asked the council to halt or relocate the project. Other speakers — including the Housing Commission chair, representatives of Charities Housing and Housing Choices, regional housing advocates and disability housing advocates — urged the council to move forward, stressing both local demand for extremely low‑income and IDD housing and the city’s housing‑element commitments.

Contamination and safety concerns: An attorney representing Garden Gate neighbors summarized environmental reports that he said found arsenic, legacy pesticides and elevated lead and recommended county oversight and a soil‑management/remediation plan; staff and consultants said remediation and a soil management plan overseen by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health would be standard conditions where contamination is identified.

Council action and outcome: During the study session councilmembers posed a range of technical and policy questions (loan repayment structure, parking priority for Cupertino residents, sequencing of DDA/entitlements/vacation, fire access). The council voted unanimously to extend the meeting. The mayor moved to appoint the city manager and the city attorney as negotiators with Cupertino Rotary Housing Corporation, Housing Choices Coalition and Charities Housing to negotiate either a DDA/repurchase option or a long‑term ground lease; a friendlier amendment to continue item 12 and to direct staff to prepare the surplus‑land act declaration, the right‑of‑way vacation and project entitlements was accepted. The amended motion to appoint negotiators and continue the item carried unanimously on roll call. The meeting then became procedurally contentious over whether the agenda item had been properly noticed for an action, and one councilmember disconnected before the meeting was formally closed.

What’s next: Staff will prepare the drafts required for negotiation (forms of DDA or ground lease, entitlement applications, and the SLA declaration and vacation materials) and return to council with negotiated documents and required findings for formal action. Remediation plans, traffic and fire‑service conditions will also be addressed as part of entitlements and DDA conditions.

Why it matters: The Mary Avenue project is the city’s only site in the current housing element identified for extremely low‑income units; delaying or removing the site could complicate compliance with state housing requirements. The project pits neighbor concerns about local street safety and parking against the city’s obligation to provide extremely low‑income and IDD housing and the risk of losing state housing‑element credit if units are not produced or replaced.