CC 07-15-2025
#10
Weed Abatement Lien
Assessment
Presentation
Cupertino City Council
July 15, 2025
Weed and Brush Abatement
Lien Assessment and Collection of Fees
Overview
● Applies to weed and brush abatement cost
recovery provisions
● City Code Chapters 9.08 and 16.40.200
● Property owners notified to clear hazards
● Must comply by deadline
● Cleanup costs charged if noncompliant
● Hearing confirms unpaid fees
● Fees added to property tax bill
2025 Fee Schedule
Initial Inspection Fee* $105
First Administrative Fee $597
Second Administrative Fee $961
Warrant fee $1,323
100% of the contractor invoice Prices
Vary
*Charged to every property on the list
Assessment Report
June 30, County report filed with City
Assessment Report 89 parcels $52,302
July 1, City notice and report mailed to owners
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing to consider objections
from any property owners listed on the assessment
report; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-067 approving the lien
assessment and collection of fees on private
parcels for the annual Weed and Brush
Abatement Programs.
CC 07-15-2025
#11
Study Session on BMR Housing
Mary Ave
Presentation
Mary Avenue Villas – City Council Study
Session
Charities Housing Development Corporation
Cupertino Rotary Housing Corporation
Housing Choices Coalition
July 15, 2025
CHARITIES HOUSING
• Our Mission
To develop, preserve, own and manage affordable homes for low- income individuals and their families. Through service enhanced property management and structured resident involvement, Charities Housing contributes to the highest standards of human dignity and participation in our community.
• Affiliate of Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County • Incorporated in December of 1993
• Resident services provided by Catholic Charities
• Portfolio
• In operation: 32 properties, 1,777 units
• Under construction: 2 properties, 184 units
• Entitled: 7 properties, 957 units
• Pipeline/land holding: 8 properties, 650 units
Charities Housing: Committed Community Partner
Charities Housing: Service Area
The Veranda: Senior Housing
• 19 Units – Affordable Senior Housing
• Cupertino, CA
• Unit Type: Studios
Location Overview
Project Information
Project Information
• Two, 2-story residential buildings,
~25’
• 40 apartment homes: 39 resident
apartments 100% affordable + one
3-bedroom staff apartment:
• 3 Studios
• 22 1-Bedrooms
• 14 2-Bedrooms
• 1 3-Bedroom staff apartment
• Income Limits: 30% - 50% AMI
• 19 (47.5%) units serving
Intellectual and Developmental
Disability population
Site Plan
Rendering 3
Rendering 4
Unit prototype plans
TYP. STUDIO FLOOR PLAN
TYP.ONE
-
BEDROOM FLOOR PLAN
TYP. TWO
-
BEDROOM FLOOR PLAN
Common building areas
COMMUNITY CENTER
PROPERTY MANAGER’S OFFICE
Services
• Housing Choices Case management and support for residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities
• West Valley Community Services
• Cupertino Rotary Club
• Resident Services from Catholic Charities
• Referrals to financial resources
• Referrals to mental health resources
• Education classes surrounding health and nutrition
• Community events for residents
Housing Choices
Housing Choices started in 1997 to help people with
developmental disabilities live in inclusive communities.
Serve Regional Center consumers in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Benito and San Mateo County
Mission:
Create quality, affordable housing options for people with developmental disabilities.
Strategies:
• Help people apply for affordable housing.
• Partner with affordable housing developers to include units specifically for people with developmental disabilities in typical affordable housing.
Housing Choices
Resident Coordination Services
Resident Coordinator will:
•Assist residents in seeking reasonable accommodations or reasonable modifications •Assist residents in preparing for unit inspections and annual re-certifications •Assisting residents in understanding and complying with lease terms and property rules and regulations
•Assist residents in responding to notices from property management •Assist in mediation of conflicts between other residents, property management, service providers and other conflicts as necessary
•Assist in making any needed community referrals (such as emergency rental assistance, legal services, etc…)
•Attending Circle of Support and Individual Program Plan meetings •Participating in weekly check-ins with the property manager to identify any housing issues or other challenges
•Host regular social gatherings at property (such as Holiday & Seasonal celebrations) Design Challenges Addressed
• Noise – acoustic study indicates interior noise levels will be within regulated guidelines with installation of required STC-rated windows
• Air Quality – completed analysis indicates ability to keep apartments at healthy air quality with installation of appropriate filtration and HVAC systems.
• Soils Mitigation – all investigations completed. Multiple investigations indicate one area of concentrated lead deposits.
Location is under proposed parking area – contractor will off-haul soil at time of grading and demolition. County DEH is overseeing the soil management plan.
Development Schedule
Development Schedule
Enter ENA with Cupertino April 2024
City Funding Commitment April 2025
Entitlements Fall 2025
Enter DDA with City Fall 2025
Financing Commitments May 2026
Construction Start November 2026
Construction Completion January 2028
100% Lease Up March 2028
Community Outreach
www.mary-ave-villas.com
CC 07-15-2025
#12
Oversized Vehicle Parking
Restrictions
Presentation
City Council Study Session
Oversized Vehicle Parking
Ordinance Update
Floy Andrews
Interim City Attorney
Oversized Vehicle Parking
• Consider amending Municipal Code
• Address enforcement loopholes, resident
concerns, traffic circulation, safety and
aesthetics
• Balance quality of life, safety, legal risks and
enforcement
* City Work Program item
• 11.24.130 (update current 72-hour parking limit)
• 11.24.200 (vehicle removal, unchanged)
• 11.28.010 (adding definition of oversized vehicle)
• 11.28.020 (parking regulations updates,
incorporating current restriction on living or
sleeping in vehicles)
Municipal Code Sections Affected
Current Practice
72-hour limit for all vehicles parking
on public streets within the City
Municipal Code Section 11.24.130
• Complaint-driven enforcement process
• Tire marking (not chalk)
• Re-inspection after 72 hours
Challenges in Current Enforcement
• Vehicles move inches to avoid citation
• Coordinated rotations among RV owners
• Allows vehicles to stay indefinitely
• Current Areas impacted:
- Alves between Saich & Bandley
(behind Target)
- Stelling & Rainbow
- Foothill/SCB and other intersections
Enforcement Statistics
• ~200 complaints annually, mostly RVs with
tagging of 5+ vehicles/week
• Citations 2024-25: Only ~21 issued to RVs
• Revenue: ~$1,700 from RV citations
• Total Revenue: ~$180,000 from all citations
April 22 Planning Commission Meeting
Considered ordinance requiring:
1. oversized vehicles to move at least 1,500
feet after 27 hours
2. banning parking in residential districts
3. banning parking near customer-facing
retail
* Residents expressed concern, indicating they needed
the 72 hours parking to load/unload RVs and for visitors June 24 Planning Commission Meeting (1)
• Citywide ban on parking oversized vehicles
• “Oversized vehicles” (Vehicle Code § 670)
Vehicles exceeding:
22 feet in length
6 feet in width, and
7 feet in height
(includes trailers, boats, and loads)
* would not include even the largest pickup trucks (Ford F-450 Super Duty or Tesla Cybertruck)
June 24 Planning Commission Meeting (2)
Exceptions
• 3-hour parking allowed during daytime (6AM – 8PM)
1-hour parking allowed overnight (8PM – 6AM)
• Residents may obtain annual permits to
park oversized vehicles on City streets (no charge)*
• Nonresidents may obtain five 72-hour permits to park annually (but not within 1,500 feet of a commercial
district)*
* Vehicles must be moved every 72 hours to new location at least1,500 ft away and stay away 72 hours.
June 24 Planning Commission Meeting (3)
• City should install signage at Alves and
Bandley and other problem areas
Pros & Cons of General Ban Proposal
• Pros:
Allows signage at only City entrances,
clears streets, improves visibility,
deters long-term parking on City streets
• Cons:
Daytime and nighttime time limit
exceptions are difficult to manage
Resident Permit Program (exception)
Residential households may obtain annual
permit for vehicle(s) owned by resident
• No charge for permit
• Park up to 72 hours, then move 1,500 ft
• Unlimited 72-hour periods allowed if
moved properly
“Resident” Defined
• Physically resides in a dwelling in a residential district within the City as their primary residence
• Provides evidence of residency, such as:
- CA driver’s license/ID card showing the resident address - utility bill displaying person’s name and address
- current lease or deed showing person’s occupancy
- current vehicle registration showing residential address - documentation acceptable to the Public Works Director • A person need not own the dwelling unit to qualify as a resident.
Nonresident Permit Program (exception)
Up to 5 permits per year (max. 15 days) for
nonresidents
• Park up to 72 hours then move from City
• If using a second permit, move at least
1,500 ft
• No parking near commercial zones*
*would need to provide map of commercial and residential zones when issuing permits
Pros & Cons of Resident Permits
•Pros:
Residents maintain RV use close to home,
balances needs of residents and their
guests, eliminates need for multiple permits
• Cons:
Potential near-permanent street parking
Neighborhood aesthetic concerns
Pros & Cons of Nonresident Permits
•Pros:
Nonresidents, tourists, and others may visit
Discourages long-term dwelling
Provides limited access to otherwise more
permanent RVs
• Cons:
Nonresidents may have no other nearby options
Nonresidents may view this rule as unwelcoming
Signage Rules and Costs
• If City posts signs, enforcement is more
efficient, initial warning not required
• Citywide parking regulations allows for signs
to be placed at City entrances only: cost
~$25,000, 50 signs
• Otherwise, signs must be posted on each
City block: cost prohibitive($513 per sign,
$2,000 per block)
Local Cities’ Large Vehicle Solutions
Redwood City: Vehicles may not park on public streets
at night, with limited exceptions.
Saratoga: Vehicles may not park in residential areas for more than 72 hours; must be moved 1 mile.
Los Gatos: Vehicles may not park where posted or on
designated streets.
Mountain View: Vehicles may not park on certain
streets adjacent to class II bikeways or on certain
narrow streets.
Legal Context
• Mountain View litigation & settlement
• Redwood City’s safe RV lot approach
• Fremont litigation – unhoused, not parking
ordinance
Grants Pass Supreme Court Opinion (2024)
Shifts rules in Ninth Circuit
Fiscal and Operational Considerations
• Signage: $513 per sign, $25,000 for entrance-only
signage
• Signage: one city clock $2,000 (well over $3M for city) • Permit processing cost: ~$46.50 each permit
• Anticipated volume: 3-4 permits/week (may require
more staff time if volume is greater)
• FY 2024 parking citation revenue: ~$180,000
• Uniform Citywide rules: 1) reduce confusion and cost
and 2) allows for entrance signs only
Other Local Options for Parking
We talked to:
• West Valley Rotating Safe Car Park Program
• Amigos de Guadelupe
• 211 line
• Bill Wilson Center
None of these facilities allow RVs
We talked to West Valley Community Services manager who confirmed that they do not accept RVs, but they do allow camper vans
Next Steps for Council
Council to consider:
• General Ban on oversized vehicles parking
- day/night parking windows
• Resident permit program
• Nonresident permit program
• Signage strategy
• Other options?
Questions
CC 07-15-2025
#13
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Corridor Vision Study
Presentation
A Multijurisdictional Transportation Planning Study
Stevens Creek Blvd Corridor Vision Study
Matthew Schroeder
City of Cupertino
Senior Transportation Planner
Project Background
History
• Informally initiated in 2017 as a working group for regional transportation coordination with VTA, Santa Clara, San Jose, and the County. The project was initiated in 2019 with the adoption of Resolution No. 19-089.
Purpose
• Develop an aspirational community ‘vision’ for the Corridor • Balancing the needs of all roadway users
• Not an immediate, prescriptive plan
• Phased approach based on agency discretion
Cupertino’s Role
Directed by Resolution No. 19-089
• Support efforts to study improving transit efficiency and streetscape.
• Support continuing ongoing conversations regarding high- capacity transit service along the Corridor, with the
understanding that it would:
• Not use general-purpose lanes or adversely impact
vehicular capacity on City surface streets;
• Be grade-separated and time-competitive with
automobile travel;
• Study an alternate alignment along I-280.
Project Location
Project Limits
• Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street (9 miles) • From Foothill Blvd in Cupertino to Diridon Station in San Jose
Project Location
Project Limits
• Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street (9 miles) • The roadway varies along the Corridor
Project Location
Project Structure
Group Roles & Responsibilities
• Steering Committee - 5 members
• Elected officials from Cupertino, Santa Clara, San José, Santa Clara County, and VTA
• Community Advisory Group (CAG) - 12 members
• Residents, businesses, and advocacy groups
• The Public
• Surveys, webinars, and pop-up events
• Outreach led by Winter Consultants
Project Schedule
Community Outreach
Engagement Methods
• Stakeholder interviews (40)
• Focus groups (4)
• Pop-Ups (7)
• Corridor tours (4)
• Online webinars (4)
• Community Advisory Group
meetings (4)
• Steering Committee meetings (5)
• Website/agency
communications/surveys
Community Outreach
Engagement Methods
• Agencies provided an
equivalent amount of outreach
Cupertino Events
• De Anza Farmers Market
• Cupertino 4 All Regular Meeting
• Bike Corridor Tour
• Steering Committee Corridor
Tour
• High School Student Virtual
Corridor Tour
• Walking/Transit Corridor
Tour
• College Student Virtual
Focus Group
• De Anza Flea Market
Community Outreach
Community Feedback by Phase
The Vision
Vision Statement
• “The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor transportation
infrastructure changed little in the past 50 years while the area it serves grew into a worldwide hub of innovation. Therefore, we envision the transportation corridor our community deserves to support continued residential and commercial vibrancy: safe and enjoyable travel for people of every age, ability, and chosen mode.”
The Vision
Vision Statement
“Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by:
• A high-capacity transit system supported by station access enhancements to connect the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José from Diridon Station and Downtown San José to De Anza College within twenty minutes, with connection to Foothill Boulevard, for reliable travel to local and regional destinations. Station areas would be well- maintained and inviting community assets.
• A stress-free and enjoyable walking and bicycling environment. High-quality pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure would be prioritized to connect neighborhoods to the corridor within a 20-minute walk of transit stops.
• Safe and efficient vehicle travel would be accommodated for connections to neighborhoods, businesses, and expressways and freeways.
This Vision would be implemented by an open and inclusive process of continuous evaluation to promote equitable access and use.”
Recommended Projects
‘Implementation’ Plan
• Near-Term (5 Years)
• Corridor identity and maintenance
• Bus speed, reliability, and experience
• Enhanced corridor walking and biking infrastructure and connections
• Mid-Term (10 Years)
• Intersection and crossing improvements
• Long-Term (20+ Years)
• Separated, high-capacity transit
Near-Term Projects
Corridor Identity and
Maintenance
• Convene businesses and business
groups to explore:
• Joint advertising and
branding opportunities
• Marketing and special events
• Public safety and hospitality
• Small business grants/loans
• Communicate business resources to
Corridor businesses.
• Coordinate street cleaning and
maintenance, including graffiti
removal and sidewalk and vegetation
maintenance.
• Reduce the speed limit to 35 miles per
hour from Lawrence Expressway to
Harold Avenue.
• Coordinate vehicle speed enforcement
and speed education efforts.
• Develop a process for ongoing
community input and engagement for
corridor issues through the Stevens Creek
Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee.
Near-Term Projects
Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience
• Complete an administrative policy for
the four agencies operating signals in
the Corridor to cooperate with VTA to
implement a corridor-wide transit signal
priority through a centralized system.
• VTA will develop a Speed and Reliability
Improvement Plan for the frequent
network routes.
• Cupertino does not support the
conversion of general-purpose lanes for
transit.
Near-Term Projects
Enhanced Corridor Walking
and Biking Infrastructure and
Connections
• Physically protect/separate/buffer
bicycle lanes while maintaining
access to driveways.
• Widen sidewalk widths consistent
with City standards
• Plant shade trees.
• Review locations for installation of
median refuge islands.
• Implement existing agency plans.
• Review the potential for leading
pedestrian intervals at signalized
intersections (LPIs).
• Implement pedestrian-oriented
lighting when street lighting is installed
or replaced in the corridor.
Mid-Term Projects
Intersection and Crossing
Improvements
• Implement enhanced, high-
visibility crossings for pedestrians
and bicyclists.
• Implement curb extensions and
protected intersections.
• Prioritize crossings of barriers for
pedestrians and bicycles
• Review key hotspots for crossing
improvements, such as Monroe
Street and Stevens Creek
Boulevard at I-880, for potential
reconfiguration to accommodate
clearer travel patterns for all
modes.
Long-Term Project
Separated High-Capacity Transit
• Continue conversations and pursue grant
funding to study the project.
Example Project Delivery Timeline
• Preliminary Engineering (2025-2028)
• Design and Engineering (2029-2030)
• Environmental Clearance (2031-2036)
• Utility Relocation (2037-2039)
• Construction (2040-2045)
Final Steering Committee Meeting
Dec 18, 2024
• Acknowledged the participation of new members on the Steering Committee moving forward due to recent elections.
• Supported a review of the document and proposed that each agency organize a study session tailored to the needs of each jurisdiction.
• Approved the amended plan, changing the name from
Implementation Plan to Recommendation Plan.
BPC Meeting
April 16, 2025
• Passed a motion recommending that the City Council accept the Study with specific qualifications.
• The City maintains final decision-making authority
regarding any projects or recommendations contained
within the Vision Study.
• The BPC reaffirms the City’s commitment to the provisions contained within Resolution 19-089.
• All projects within the City of Cupertino, including any intersection modifications, will conform to the City’s
standard processes, plans, and procedures relating to
public outreach and approval.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 13, 2025
• Passed a motion recommending that the City Council accept the Study with specific qualifications.
• Prioritize investments in identity and maintenance.
• Prioritize investments in safety, with a focus on, but not limited to, technology and innovation such as adaptive
traffic signalization and active pedestrian detection.
• Prioritize cost by limiting the corridor up to Bubb Road and limiting the study of transit alternatives to grade-separated transit.
• Invest in off-corridor bicycle and pedestrian networks such as, but not limited to, the Lawrence Mitty Trail and Tamien Innu.
Next Steps
Ongoing Coordination
• Reconvene long-term Stevens Creek Vision Steering Committee and staff working group to lay out near, mid, and long-term strategies for projects.
• Pursue grant opportunities to advance project recommendations. • Accepting the Study now doesn’t constitute the approval of approving the Study's recommended projects, like the grade- separated transit project.
Recommended Action
• Adopt Resolution 25-068 accepting the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study, including the additional qualifications recommended by the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission, and directing City staff to work through the multijurisdictional working group and Steering Committee to further asses the Study’s recommendations and opportunities for implementation.