CC 04-01-2026
#3
Housing Development - Linda
Vista Drive
Presentation
City Council
April 1, 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. Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-009);
b. Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-
015); and
c. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-044).
CC 04-01-2026
#4
Petitions for
Reconsideration Mary Ave
Villas
Presentation
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
MARY AVENUE VILLAS PROJECT
Michelle Hernandez
Deputy City Attorney
(1) DENYING A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND AFFIRMING ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 3, 2026 and (2) DENYING A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND AFFIRMING ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 3, 2026
Two resolutions for consideration today
Addresses reconsideration of Council actions (Petition 1):
(i) Architectural and Site Approval Permit Application No. ASA- 2025-006,
(ii) Preliminary CEQA Exemption Determination, and
(iii) the Disposition and Development Agreement
BACKGROUND – FEBRUARY 3, 2026 RESOLUTION
Under CMC 2.08.096, reconsideration limited to the following:
1. New relevant evidence
2. Evidence improperly excluded at prior city hearing
3. Proof that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction
4. Proof that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing
5. Proof that the City Council abused its discretion by: (a) Not preceding in a manner required by law; (b) Rendering a decision not supported by findings of fact; (c) Rendering a decision not supported by the evidence
GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION
ASA Permit and Preliminary CEQA Exemption Determination - adjudicatory actions subject to reconsideration
Disposition and Development Agreement - legislative
actions not subject to reconsideration
ADJUDICATORY AND LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
CLAIM: External commentary by Krupka Consulting; documentation submitted February 10, 2026; and the City’s Planning Commission agenda published on February 10, 2026
RESPONSE: Minutes reflect that Paul Krupka presented and discussed his findings; part of the record before the City Council; and do not constitute “new evidence.” Documentation on February 10th not related to actions before City Council on February 3, 2026. Items listed on Planning Commission agenda not before City Council on February 3, 2026
Ground 1: New relevant evidence
CLAIM: Impaired ability to present exhibits; insufficient public access to the complete plan set; failure to provide the final/amended versions of key approval documents
RESPONSE: Public afforded their allotted time. The plan set and supporting technical materials made available. Agenda compliant with Government Code, section 54954.2(a)(1)(A). Members of public afforded opportunity to comment, per Government Code, section 54954.3(a)(1). At no time was petitioner prevented from offering evidence or arguments Ground 2: Evidence improperly excluded
Total time 59:47, 27 speakers on February 3, 2026 meeting re Mary Avenue Development
Total time 1:09:30, 26 speakers on December 2, 2025 Study Session – Mary Avenue Project
Time Expended on Public Comment
CLAIM: Sequencing/jurisdictional defect; approval predicated on future right-of-way vacation and public property disposition; and Public Land Disposition via Disposition and Development Agreement not compliant RESPONSE: Analysis related to sequencing provided in Staff Report for December 2, 2025 Study Session. Additional info related to sequencing in Supplemental Report for February 3rd meeting. Disposition and Development Agreement conditions implementation on subsequent approvals Ground 3: Proceeding without, or in excess of, its
jurisdiction
CLAIM: Amendments adopted without public review; inconsistent bases presented to the public and decisionmakers; post hoc process to retrofit findings. Conflict of interest/ bias, due process violations, and attacks on counsel’s ethics and credibility
RESPONSE: Applicable CEQA treatment for each relevant approval. Agenda provides participation and comment per GC section 54954.3(b)(1). Minutes and Transcript reflects City Council considered Petitioner correspondence.
Councilmembers’ statements reflect their evaluation of the arguments presented in the record
Ground 4: Failure to provide a fair hearing
CLAIM: Invalid reliance on CEQA exemption and improper segmentation.
Required findings not made for vacation; constraints on Public subsidies/Gifts of public funds. Findings inadequate re public health, safety, or welfare.
RESPONSE: Parking, traffic, and other project-specific conditions extensively considered, including August 12, 2025 info memo, and November 13, 2025 traffic study. No evidence demonstrating a lack of support for the legal adequacy or proportional public benefit of the financial contributions provided by the City. The CEQA documentation included in the February 3 Staff Report. Disposition and Development Agreement contemplates and conditioned on subsequent approvals.
Ground 5: Abuse of discretion
Petition 1 failed to satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096. No new or improperly excluded evidence; no procedural errors or improper actions
Disposition and Development Agreement not adjudicatory action; not subject to reconsideration; and any request for reconsideration denied on that basis
CONCLUSION - FEBRUARY 3, 2026 RESOLUTION
Addresses reconsideration of Council actions (Petition 2):
(i) Resolution No. 26-024 vacating the public right-of-way along Mary Avenue (ii) CEQA exemption determination
(iii) Resolution No. 26-025 declaring the Project site exempt surplus land pursuant to the Surplus Land Act
BACKGROUND - MARCH 3, 2026 RESOLUTION
No claim raised
Ground 1: New Relevant Evidence
CLAIM: Procedures materially constrained presenting documentary and visual evidence
RESPONSE: Agenda sets forth the terms to participate and comment in accordance with Government Code, section 54954.3(b)(1). At no time was petitioner prevented from offering evidence or arguments Ground 2: Evidence improperly excluded
Total time 18:28, 16 speakers on Resolution Vacating Public Right of Way at March 3, 2026 meeting re Mary Avenue Development Total time 12:51, 11 speakers on Exempt Surplus Land at March 3, 2026 meeting re Mary Avenue Development
Time Expended on Public Comment
CLAIM: The March 3 actions cannot cure or retroactively validate jurisdictional defects because City unlawfully committed itself through February 3 approvals; sequence of Surplus Land Act declaration RESPONSE: No evidence that City proceeded without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction or that City’s actions were inconsistent with applicable law; no evidence re Surplus Land Act sequencing improper; Vacation not adjudicatory action
Ground 3: Proceeding without, or in excess of, its
jurisdiction
CLAIM: No recusal of Councilmember with a disqualifying conflict of interest; restrictions impaired presenting responsive evidence
RESPONSE: No evidence of bias or disqualifying conflict of interest. Agenda provides participation and comment per Government Code, section 54954.3(b)(1)
Ground 4: Failure to provide a fair hearing
CLAIM: Invalid reliance on CEQA exemption and improper segmentation.
Failure to follow Streets and Highways Code § 8324(b), Surplus Land Act / public disposition requirements. Resolution No. 26-025, section 3 improperly bootstraps determination. No finding re Vacation; CEQA finding contradicted by Krupka
RESPONSE: Environmental determinations and CEQA analysis appropriately made; no evidence supporting claim of unlawful predetermination or improper sequencing. The March 3 Staff Report, the staff’s oral and PowerPoint presentation and the minutes included in record determination regarding the SLA Declaration. Extensive consideration including August 12, 2025 info memo, November 13, 2025 traffic study. CEQA analysis in February 3 Staff Report.
Ground 5: Abuse of discretion
Petition 2 failed to satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096. No new or improperly excluded evidence; no procedural errors or improper actions
Vacation not adjudicatory action; not subject to reconsideration; and any request for reconsideration denied on that basis as well.
CONCLUSION – MARCH 3, 2026 RESOLUTION
Subject: Conduct public hearing pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 to hear Petitions for Reconsideration filed on behalf of the Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety, including: (1) Petition for Reconsideration, dated February 27, 2026, pertaining to actions taken at the February 3, 2026 City Council meeting pursuant to the Mary Avenue Villas Project, including (i) CEQA Exemption Determination, (ii) Resolution No 26-016, regarding Architectural and Site Approval Permit, and (iii) Resolution No. 26-018, regarding the Disposition and Development Agreement; and (2) Petition for Reconsideration, dated March 13, 2026, pertaining to actions taken at the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting pursuant to the Mary Avenue Villas Project, including (i) Resolution No. 26-024, regarding the vacation of public right-of-way, and (ii) Resolution No. 26-025, regarding the surplus land act exemption.
Recommended Action:
1. Find that the Petition for Reconsideration, dated February 27, 2026, pertaining to actions taken at the February 3, 2026 City Council meeting, failed to satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096; and
2. Find that Petition for Reconsideration, dated March 13, 2026, pertaining to actions taken at the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting, failed to satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration required pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096; and
3. Adopt Draft Resolution No. 26-032 (Attachment 3); and
4. Adopt Draft Resolution No. 26-033 (Attachment 4)
Recommended Action