Cupertino council approves 99‑year DDA for 19‑unit IDD affordable housing amid CEQA and parking debate

Cupertino — The City Council voted to approve a disposition and development agreement (DDA) and related resolutions to enable a 19‑unit independent living housing project for residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities, setting affordability restrictions for 99 years.

Councilmember Mohan moved the recommended actions as updated by the city attorney; the motion included a finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and adoption of a resolution approving architectural and site approval (ASA) permit ASA‑22025‑006 updated to reflect 19 IDD units. The DDA was approved subject to revising the term of affordability from 55 to 99 years and updating reacquisition dates, with staff directed to finalize ancillary documents for execution. The motion carried with three yes votes, Councilmember Wong voting no and the vice mayor abstaining.

The vote followed extended questions from council members and public speakers about the CEQA exemption and local impacts. Vice Mayor Chao asked for clarification whether the units are independent or assisted living; staff and council members said the 19 units would be independent IDD housing with supportive services, citing an example operated by Housing Choices in Sunnyvale. City staff and the city attorney told council the ASA and density/affordability attributes make the project non‑discretionary for CEQA purposes, and that class 32 categorical exemption applies to the DDA.

Concerns about parking were central to the public record. Paul Krupka of Krupka Consulting presented a peer review asserting the project would create an “unsustainable deficiency” by reducing available parking and that the city’s study did not analyze festival‑day demand. Krupka said photographic evidence showed near‑full use of Mary Avenue spaces at peak festival times and recommended a festival‑focused parking study. Public works director Moseley responded that observed worst‑case festival use reached about 140 spaces and that the project’s post‑construction supply (as presented) would total 146 spaces, arguing those numbers fit within observed capacity for most of the year; he also said public works will further review ingress/egress and drive patterns to limit loss of off‑site parking.

Councilmember Wong opposed final approval on process grounds, arguing the council and taxpayers deserved more due diligence for a 99‑year restriction and a “tighter” DDA that addresses repayment, foreclosure and bankruptcy protections. Vice Mayor Chao said she supports providing IDD housing but urged adherence to surplus‑land and exemption procedures and proposed a postponement to allow the Planning Commission to finish required steps; that substitute motion failed.

City attorneys and staff emphasized the time sensitivity: the DDA enables the applicant to prepare a tax‑credit application with a late‑March deadline. The city attorney said approval now allows the applicant to proceed while contingencies and remaining edits are finalized in the coming weeks.

Next steps: Staff was directed to revise the DDA and associated documents to reflect the council’s edits, finalize the affordability covenant to be recorded on title for 99 years, and circulate documents for execution. The council moved on to the next agenda item at the conclusion of the vote.