CC 3-17-2026
#1 -Study Session
Housing Development
at 10333 N. Wolfe Rd.
Presentation
March 17, 2026
Presentation by County of Santa Clara
Office of Supportive Housing,
Eden Housing, Engage FORA, and
Architects FORA
City Council Study Session
Mixed-income Educator
Workforce Housing
at 10333 N Wolfe Road
Project Team Introduction
Engage FORA
Community Engagement
Team
Architectural Design
Team
Architects FORA
Project Developer
Long-Term Building Owner
Property Manager
Resident Services Provider
Eden HousingCounty of Santa Clara
Project Sponsor
Future Land Owner
Prioritizing Housing in a High-Resource Area
● City rezoned the site to R4 (50-65 DU/acre) and designated the site as a Priority Housing Site eligible for by-right approval in Housing Element 2023-2031 Update ● Project proposes 251 units, just above the density minimum across the 5-acre site satisfying the Housing Element goals and contributing to the City’s RHNA needs Project Goals
Satisfy Density
Requirement of
250-300 Total Units
Mixed-income
Housing
Portion of Housing
for Educators /
Remainder to be
Affordable Housing
Range of
Apartment Sizes
and Variety of
Types
I-280
N Wolfe Road
Perimeter Road
Hyatt House Hotel
Portal Plaza
Neighborhood
The Hamptons
Courtyard Marriott
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
EDEN HOUSING
Eden creates and
sustains high-quality
affordable housing in
partnership with local
communities.
Summary of Community Events
2024 City Council Update 2024 Events 2025 Events
On March 25, 2024, County
staff provided a housing
development update to the
City of Cupertino to introduce
the Eden team and the project
timeline.
1.30+ stakeholder interviews
2.Pop-up table at Earth Day Festival (4/20)
3.Educators and School Staff Listening Workshop (4/25)
4.Community-wide Listening Workshop at LP Collins (6/3)
5.Educator Co-Creation Focus Group (9/11)
6.Community-wide Virtual Co-Creation Workshop (9/19)
7.Pop-up table at N Portal Block Party (10/6)
8.Virtual Listening Meeting with Portal neighbors (11/12)
9.Community-wide Listening Workshop at LP Collins (11/20)
1.Community-wide
Co-Creation Workshop
(2/12)
2.Councilmember Progress
Updates (April)
3.Cupertino Rotary Club
(7/16)
4.Cupertino for
All/Catalyze SV (9/10)
Pop-ups + Workshops
From neighbor meetings to
formal workshops to tabling
at local events
10 Website Views
With an average view time
of 3 ½ minutes.
1900+
participants
Sum of attendance of public
events including neighbors,
broader Cupertino community,
and local educators
~400
People on email list
Community members who
have signed up for our
project interest mailing list
260+
Engagement Statistics
Interviewees
Including local Cupertino
community leaders, Portal
Block Leaders & West Valley
School District Leadership
30+
Invitations
Personalized mailers and/or
flyers sent out on multiple
occasions to project neighbors
and community organizations
1100+
Who we are serving
Phase 1: Educator + School
District Employee Housing
Unit Count: 94 Homes
Mix of Two-Story Townhomes
and Walk-up Flats
Parking Count: 95 Spaces
Ratio: 1.01 Spaces Per 1 Unit
100% Income-Restricted with
mix of Low-Income and
Moderate-Income units
City BMR Units: 0
Phase 2: Affordable Housing for
Low-Income Families
Unit Count: 157 Homes
Mix of 3BD, 2BD, 1BD and Studio
Apartments
Parking Count: 145 Spaces
Ratio: 0.93 Spaces Per 1 Unit
100% Affordable Housing with
mix of ELI, VLI and LI units
City BMR Units: 51
Who benefits from affordable housing at this site?
Number of People in Household
Income Level One Two Three Four Five
40% Income Level $51,640 $59,000 $66,360 $73,720 $79,640 60% Income Level $77,460 $88,500 $99,540 $110,580 $119,460 80% Income Level $103,280 $118,000 $132,720 $147,440 $159,280 Area Median Income $129,100 $147,500 $165,900 $184,300 $199,100 120% Income Level $154,920 $177,000 $199,080 $221,160 $238,920 Source: 2024 Income Limits for Santa Clara County published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Affordable eligibility
Educator Income eligibility
2 high school certificated
Teachers as Roommates
$78K average = $156k/yr
Special Education
Teacher
$107k/yr
Grocery Store
Manager + her child
$88k/yr
First Responder + Nursing
Assistant + 2 children
$74K + $57k =$131k/yr
Source: Indeed Salaries in Cupertino, CA, 2024.
School Nutrition Employee
+ Phys Ed Teacher + Child
$62K + $68k = $130k/yr
A
B
C
D
E
A
B C D E
Eligible School Districts for Educator Housing
K-12 Districts:
1. Cupertino Union School District
2. Sunnyvale Elementary School District
3. Fremont Union High School District
4. Cambrian School District
5. Campbell Union School District
6. Union School District
7. Luther Burbank Elementary School District
8. Campbell Union High School District
9. Lakeside Joint School District
10. Loma Prieta Joint Union School District
11. Los Gatos Union School District
12. Saratoga Union School District
13. Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District
Community College Districts:
1. Foothill-De Anza Community College District
2. West Valley-Mission Community College District
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
WE BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF DESIGN TO CREATE
MORE BEAUTIFUL, SUSTAINABLE, AND RESTORATIVE
LIVING ENVIRONMENTS - FOR ALL
We create the housing needed to make sure all of our neighbors have a place to call home.
And advocate for still more. Because safe and affordable housing helps families stay secure, allows communities to thrive, and solves many of our cities’ most pressing challenges.
Sarah Vaccaro
/ Principal / Architect
/ Equitable Communities
Nicole Little
Designer / Community Engagement
Lead & Visual Storytelling Specialist
Kate Conley
/ Principal / Architect
/ Building Excellence
Victoria Via
/ Associate / Architect
/ Livable Communities Lead
Overall Design Feedback: Site Organization + Building Form We shared what we’ve
heard from neighbors and
educators as highest
priorities and how the site
organization and building
form respond to these
priorities.
Stakeholders appreciated
the thoughtful design
responses and expressed
support for the proposed
design direction:
Overall Design Feedback: Unit Types + Amenities
We shared what we’ve
heard from the educators
as highest priorities in their
homes and how the unit
designs respond to those
priorities.
We received comments
supporting in-unit laundry
& natural light.
One comment highlighted
the need add more
common laundry rooms:
Overall Design Feedback: Common Area Amenities
We shared what we’ve heard as
the educators and broader
communities highest priorities
for indoor and outdoor
amenities.
Participants expressed support
for the proposed amenities
and locations on this property.
One comment suggested
adding a library or book
sharing space.
Community Engagement allows for a Thoughtful and Responsive Design Rendered view of the
Central Courtyard at the heart
of the development
providing a range of outdoor
amenity spaces for all residents.
Buildings wrap around the
outdoor spaces providing
sound buffer and a sense of
safety.
Community Engagement allows for a Thoughtful and Responsive Design Rendered view from the
Tamien Innu Bike and
Pedestrian Trail wrapping
around the new homes
providing active
transportation and
recreational opportunities for
current Cupertino residents
and future residents on this
site. Public Art visible from
trail activating building
facades.
Community Engagement allows for a Thoughtful and Responsive Design Rendered view from
Wolfe Road illustrating how this
development will frame the gateway into
Cupertino. Buildings scale up in size and
density along Wolfe Road while still
incorporating a warm and familiar
architectural style.
Community Feedback Regarding Connectivity
NO
Do not pen the
Wall for Bike +
Ped Access
We presented the vehicular, bike, and
pedestrian site circulation on and around
the site.
Based on previously gathered feedback
provided in opposition to and in support
of bike and pedestrian connections from
this site to Auburn and Merritt Road, we
provided space for participants to
comment on the pro’s and con’s.
Supporters emphasized the benefits of
walkability and connectivity, while
opponents raised concerns about
safety, parking, and traffic.
Throughout
engagement, we’ve
identified all of the
options for secondary
emergency access.
The majority of
neighbors favored any
option that doesn’t
require a connection
through Auburn Drive.
Option 2a and 2d do
not meet the Fire
Departments
requirements. The
project team is
actively working
through CalTrans
approval process for
Option 2b.
Secondary Emergency Access Requirements & Options
Next Steps
Start
Q1 2024
End
Q2 2026
Start
Q2 2026
End
Q2 2027
Start
Q3 2027
End
Q3 2029
Start
Q4 2029
Community
Engagement +
Entitlements
Permitting +
Financing
Construction Occupancy
Formal Planning Application
submitted June 2025
Planning Commission Hearing
anticipated Q2 2026
Phase 1 Educator Housing will start construction first
Phase 2 Affordable Housing will start ~6 months later
WE ARE HERE
Thank you!
Questions?
CC 3-17-2026
#10
Potential Revenue Ballot
Measure Options
Presentation
Potential Revenue Ballot
Measure Options
March 17, 2026
City Council
Administrative Services
Jonathan Orozco
• Purpose of Tonight’s Item
• Fiscal Context
• Revenue Options Overview
• Utility Users Tax (UUT)
• Sales Tax (TUT)
• Business License Tax
• Additional Considerations
• Next Steps / Council Direction
Agenda
Purpose of Tonight’s Item
• Follow-up to February 19 Council direction
• Provide deeper analysis of key revenue
options
• Receive Council feedback on potential
ballot measure
Fiscal Context
• Sheriff’s contract under negotiation
• Long-term fiscal sustainability
considerations
• Need to evaluate both revenues and
expenditures
Council Direction from February 19
• Focus on:
• Utility Users Tax (UUT)
• Sales Tax (TUT)
• Business License Tax
• Evaluate:
• CIP and staffing impacts
• Business competitiveness
Revenue Options Overview
Tax Option Revenue Potential Key Consideration
UUT Moderate-High Regressive, stable
Sales Tax Moderate-High Non-Resident share
Business Tax Moderate-High Competitiveness
Utility Users Tax (UUT)
• Current rate: 2.4% (sunsets in 2030)
• Generates ~$3.9M annually
• Potential:
• Increase rate (up to ~$7.9M at 4.8%)
• Modernize tax base (+$0.3M–$4.4M)
• Senior exemption in place
Sales Tax (TUT)
• Up to 0.25% capacity available
• Revenue:
• 0.125% ≈ $2.7M
• 0.25% ≈ $5.4M
• ~28.8% paid by non-residents
• Sensitive to economic cycles
Business License Tax
• Structure dates to 1992
• Lower than many peer cities
• Potential updates:
• Employee-based or gross receipts
models
• Industry-specific tiers
• Must balance competitiveness
Expenditure & Policy Considerations
• CIP project prioritization
• Staffing and operational efficiencies
• Economic development strategies
• Business-friendly policies
Next Steps / Council Direction
• Identify preferred option(s)
• Direction on polling and outreach
• Potential November 2026 ballot
Thank You!
CC 3-17-2026
#11
Blesch Property Study
Presentation
Blesch Property
March 17, 2026
City Council
Public Works
Chad Mosley
Tonight’s Action
Subject
Blesch Property Study on Opportunities for
Optimal Use
Recommended Action
Receive the presentation and accept staff
recommendation (Option 1) on the future
use of the property .
Background
• Located at 22050 Stevens Creek Blvd
• Purchased in 2014
• Approximately 28,000 SF (0.64Ac)
• Zoned PR (Parks and Recreation)
• Currently has a single-family residence
• Located in FEMA SFHA Zone AE
• Needs significant upgrades if used for
Public Facility (including ADA access)
Background (cont.)
Located:
• West of BBF Golf Course/Blue Pheasant
Parking Lot
• Northwest of BBF Golf Course
• South of Stevens Creek Blvd
• Northeast of Stevens Creek
• East of Stocklmeir House
Aerial View of Property
Potential Options
Option 1:
Convert to Park (staff recommended):
Demolish structure and convert to park.
• Passive park and recreational uses
• No building structures
• Minimal grading to avoid floodway impacts
• Amenities consistent with PRMP and
community interests
Potential Options
Option 1 (continued):
Convert to Park (staff recommended):
• Consistent with Zoning
• Could use Park In-Lieu Funds
• Could include PRMP Recommendations
and community requested amenities:
- Pollinator/Healing Garden and Paths
- Outdoor Seating and Tables
- Labyrinth
Potential Options
Option 2:
Modified Scope of Park Improvements
• Consider alternative use concepts (parking
lot or a mix of uses)
• No building structures
• Minimal grading to avoid floodway impacts
Potential Options
Option 3:
Retain the Existing Structure
• Further evaluate rehabilitation of building
(Costs, ADA, Floodplain, etc.)
• Likely more expensive and longer timeline
• Ongoing flood zone limitations
Potential Options
Option 4:
Build a New Structure
• Evaluate constructing new building
(to support City functions)
• Most expensive option and longest timeline
• Need to consider long-term flood risks
• Need to consider PR Zoning designation
Potential Options
Option 5:
• Defer Action (No Action)
Retain property as is
• Continued deferred maintenance
• Limited usability of property
Tonight’s Action
Subject
Blesch Property Study on Opportunities for
Optimal Use
Recommended Action
Receive the presentation and accept staff
recommendation (Option 1) on the future
use of the property.
Thank You!
CC 3-17-2026
#12
SummerHill Homes - Linda
Vista Drive
Presentation
City Council
March 17, 2026
Housing Development
10857, 10867, 10877, & 10887 Linda Vista Dr
Project Site
Address
10857, 10867, 10877,
and 10887 Linda Vista
Drive
Zoning District
R3/TH
(20.01 to 35 du/acre)
Request
51-unit housing
development and
removal of 35 trees
Linda Vista Dr
Baxley Ct
Deep Cliff Golf
Course Evulich Ct
Dryden Ave
Project Background
Existing Uses
Four single-family residences
Applications
● SB330 Application submitted on October 9, 2024
● Formal application submitted on December 18, 2024
Housing Element Context
● 2023-2031 Housing Element adopted May 2024
● Priority Housing Sites #25-28
● SB330 application after HE adoption
State Housing Laws
● Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
Cannot make project infeasible or reduce density.
● Housing Crisis Act (“SB 330” or “HCA”)
Streamlines permit processing and locks-in fees and
standards. Vesting Date: October 9, 2024
● Density Bonus Law
Allows for additional units, waivers, concessions, and
reduced parking standards.
● No Net Loss (SB 166)
Sites to accommodate RHNA by income level must be
available.
Proposal Data
Project Data Required Proposed
Minimum Density 20.01 units/acre
20.35 units/acre
Maximum Density Up to 35 units/acre
Building Height 30’ max. 37’ – 40’-7”*
Setbacks
Front 20’ 20’
Interior Sides 6’ 10’
Street Sides 12’ 3’-7” *
Rear 15’ 22’-11”
Private Open Space
60 s.f. / unit
no dimension less
than 6’
> 60 s.f. / unit *
Parking 1 space per unit
(51 spaces) 102 spaces
* Density Bonus Waiver
Project Details
● Ten residential buildings
● 51 units (10 BMR, 41 market rate), 2,356 to 2,779 sq. ft. ● Three stories
● 50 new onsite trees, inc. replacements for 8 protected trees
Project Consistency Analysis
● Project is consistent with applicable objective
standards.
● One Density Bonus concession to waive requirement in
the BMR Manual that BMR units be comparable to
market rate units in terms of unit type.
● Five Density Bonus waivers:
1. Side Setbacks
2. Private Outdoor Space Clearance
3. 30-Foot Height Limitation
4. Floor Area Maximum
5. Minimum Parking Space Size
Street Side Setback Waiver
Required 12’ Setback
Provided 3’-7” Setback
Private Outdoor Space Clearance
Required 6’ dimension
Example of proposed
5’-5” dimension
Required 6’ dimension
Example of proposed
4’-6” dimension
Height, Floor Area, and Stall Size
Project Data Required Proposed
Maximum Height* 30’ 37’ – 40’-7”
(All Buildings)
Floor Area Ratio 85% max. 136%
Parking Stall Size 9’-6” x 20’ min. 9’-6” x 18-6”
*Measured from natural grade to peak of roof for Planning purposes
● Proposed public art plaza on
the south side of Evulich and
Linda Vista intersection
● To be reviewed and
approved by Arts and Culture
Commission after project
approval.
Public Art Dedication
Park Land Dedication
● Staff recommends payment of in-lieu fee.
● Project is conditioned to pay in-lieu fee of $1,998,000 for the 37 market rate units (credit for 4 existing units). ● Consistent with Quimby Act requirements.
Trail Connection
● Proposal for trail connection between project site and Stevens Creek Trail
● Public pedestrian and bike access
● Aligns with General Plan and transportation policies
● If approved by Council, applicant is seeking a Park
Land fee credit, up to $377,000
BMR Requirements
Number of
Units
Number of
Bedrooms
Average Unit
Size
BMR Units 10 4 2,356 square
feet
Market-Rate
Units 41 4 2,727 square
feet
10 BMR units – 5 moderate and 5 median income
Proposed BMR units are comparable to market rate
units in type and size:
AB 130 Exemption
AB 130 Exemption Memorandum prepared:
● Reviewed environmental reports:
● Biological Assessment
● Environmental Site
Assessment
● Transportation Analysis
● Project qualifies for a statutory exemption under
Public Resources Code Section 21080.66.
● AB130 Timelines: Final decision by April 4, 2026
● Noise Assessment
● Air Quality Analysis
Fire Hazard Designation
Prior to 2024 - Site designated high fire hazard area
May - July 2024 - Housing Element adopted and
zoning designation changed
October 2024 – Project’s SB 330 preliminary
application submitted
February 2025 - Fire maps revised, identifying site in
the Very High Fire Hazard Zone
The project has been reviewed under, and meets, current standards for the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Planning Commission Hearing
February 24th Planning Commission Hearing:
● 3-2 vote to recommend conditional approval
● Unanimous support for development; Majority
support for trail connection
● Discussion:
● Potential traffic concerns
● Fire safety concerns
● Project density
● Setbacks to neighbors
● Project scale
Noticing and Public Comments
Noticing
● Site Signage
● Legal ad
Public Comments
Density – Concerns with multi-family development in
single family neighborhood
Traffic – Concern of increased traffic and congestion
Fire – Concerns of increased fire risk due to project
● Mailed notices (449)
● E-notifications (1315)
Recommended Actions
That the City Council adopt the draft resolutions to:
1. Find the project exempt from CEQA;
2. Make the required findings of No Net Loss; and
3. Approve the following permits based on draft
resolutions:
a. Resolution No. 26-029 Tentative Final Map (TM-
2024-009);
b. Resolution No. 26-030 Architectural & Site
Approval Permit (ASA-2024-015); and
c. Resolution No. 26-031 Tree Removal Permit (TR-
2024-044).