Cupertino council hears hours of debate over Mary Avenue Villas; 40‑unit IDD housing proposal remains under review

Cupertino — The City Council on Feb. 3 held an extensive public hearing on the Mary Avenue Villas, a proposed 40‑unit, 100% affordable housing development on city‑owned land that would reserve 19 units for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Staff and the developer described the project as meeting the city’s housing element priorities and asked council to approve a disposition and development agreement (DDA) that includes a 99‑year affordability regulatory agreement and a city option to reacquire improvements at fair market value.

In a staff presentation, John Martier, senior planner for the city, said the two‑building project would sit on about 0.76 acres, include roughly 22 on‑site parking spaces, and require reconfiguration of the right‑of‑way that will result in an estimated net loss of about 89 on‑street parking spaces. Martier said the project qualifies for a CEQA exemption under state guidelines for infill housing (CEQA Guidelines §15332, class 32) and that the project was structured to meet surplus‑land exemptions the staff anticipates seeking from the council in a later hearing.

Kathy Robinson, deputy director of Charities Housing (the proposed developer), described the unit mix, accessibility features, an on‑site community room for service providers, and the project’s emphasis on accessible design and onsite support. She said Charities Housing has developed and manages affordable housing across Santa Clara County and intends to provide ongoing property management and coordination with service providers.

Why it matters: Supporters argued the project will provide stable, local housing for a population with few nearby options and that it advances the city’s housing‑element obligations. Opponents said the right‑of‑way vacation, the loss of parking near Memorial Park, and the city’s reliance on a CEQA exemption and a pending Surplus Land Act finding require more study before the council approves conveyance or exemption decisions.

Financing and legal terms: Deputy City Attorney Michelle Hernandez and other staff summarized the city’s support package: a $3,000,000 below‑market BMR loan, a CDBG grant of $174,567.37, a PLHA loan of approximately $908,683, and a waiver of park development fees estimated at $2,160,000. The regulatory agreement would run for 99 years, Hernandez said, and the city would have an option to reacquire the property at the fair market value of improvements (excluding land) at the end of the term; staff said any reacquisition price would be adjusted by outstanding loan balances as set in the DDA.

Council questions and protections: Council members pressed staff about contingencies in the DDA, bankruptcy and foreclosure protections, whether loan disbursements could be staged with milestone payments, loan assumption restrictions, and who would pay to relocate underground utilities and fiber lines. Public Works Director Chad Mosley said utility relocations and public‑improvement standards are part of the standard development requirements and would be enforced during permitting and construction.

Public comment divided the meeting: More than three dozen speakers addressed the council. Supporters included advocates for people with developmental disabilities, housing nonprofits, and family members who said the project is critical to keep people with IDD in the community and connected to services. Jennifer Lucas of the California State Council on Developmental Disabilities urged the council to allow the project to move forward, describing housing as essential to access to services guaranteed by state law.

Opponents — led by neighborhood speakers and counsel for the Garden Gate Coalition — argued the city had not yet obtained required planning‑commission findings for a public‑right‑of‑way vacation, that the Surplus Land Act findings were incomplete, and that the CEQA exemption analysis was flawed because it omitted peak festival parking and other environmental effects. Joshua Safran, attorney for the Garden Gate Coalition, asked the council to slow the process, set aside the notice of exemption, and direct staff to perform the analyses he said the law requires.

What the council did: The council heard staff and developer presentations, conducted two rounds of clarifying questions, and then opened an extended public‑comment period. Staff told the council that the proposed Surplus Land Act resolution would be postponed so staff could make the findings more robust; the DDA and other approvals were presented as conditional on subsequent planning‑commission actions (right‑of‑way vacation and disposition findings) and other contingencies. The council recessed for a short break with public comment and deliberations still pending.

Next steps: Staff said the non‑summary vacation of right‑of‑way will go to the Planning Commission for a consistency finding (anticipated submission noted in staff remarks) and then return to council for decisions required to close the transaction. The Surplus Land Act resolution was deferred for further drafting. No final disposition vote on the DDA was recorded in the hearing segment provided.

Quotes: "We need more housing for people with disabilities," said Anne Barry, speaking as part of a group of residents and service providers supporting the project. Deputy City Attorney Michelle Hernandez said the city structured the deal to meet statutory exemptions and that the regulatory agreement would include tenant eligibility limits and an annual compliance requirement.

The council paused the hearing for a brief break; additional deliberations, votes or continuations were expected after staff returns with the planning‑commission findings and the revised Surplus Land Act resolution.