Cupertino Matters
- In the News
- UPCOMING – City Council, Tues. April 7, 2026, 6:45 p.m. , 5:45 Special
- RECAP – City Council, Wed. April 1, 2026, 6:30 p.m. Special meeting; 5:30 Closed
April is a busy month with Easter, Passover and other springtime secular and religious celebrations important to wide cross-sections of Cupertino. This is a great period for enjoying family time in the city!
Last week’s council meeting was unexpectedly eventful. Council had to meet by April 4 to take action on the Evulich Court project, so this special meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, April 1, starting at 5:30 with a Closed Session, followed by the Special Session which started late. Speakers included the usual Planning Division staff and the development applicant (SummerHill Homes), but in addition, included two fire department officials, including the assistant chief, to address wildfire safety issues. Council questions droned on, followed by over 25 public comments, both for and against the project. Finally, at midnight, the meeting paused for a pizza break, then council resumed questions and deliberations, only to be jolted by a magnitude 4.1 earthquake at 1:41 a.m. Council then continued deliberations finally adjourning at 3:11 a.m.–nearly 10 hours between the open and closed sessions! The Evulich Court project was ultimately approved 4-1, avoiding massive monetary penalties and preventing the city from being subject to the builder’s remedy (again). See below for additional details.
Retail is showing some new glimmers of life in Cupertino. The 2,500 sq. ft. space at 21301 Point Reyes Terrace, Westport Senior Apartments (the old Oaks shopping center), which has been vacant since the building was opened for occupancy a few years ago, has finally been leased to Taste Buds Kitchen, which offers hands-on cooking classes and events for all ages in a nut-free kitchen environment. To learn more, visit their website at tastebudskitchen.com.
This development comes on the heels of plans for Barnes and Noble Booksellers to open a bookstore in the vacant Party City building as announced in the San Jose Spotlight: Barnes & Noble plans store in Cupertino.
In housing matters, Cupertino struggles with getting housing actually built, despite the approval of several housing projects, as detailed in The Real Deal: Cupertino signs off on townhouse-style units as city butts heads with state over housing production:Silicon Valley city must plan for nearly 4.6K units by 2031. Agenda Item No. 12 is authorization to hire a consultant to address some of the Housing Element issues. City processes regarding Mary Avenue Villas continue to drag on, as explained in this San Jose Spotlight article entitled Cupertino council declines to reconsider housing project regarding last Wednesday’s late-night vote.
In budget issues, a Regional Telephone Town Hall – Understanding Proposed Sheriff Contract Increases will take place on Tuesday, April 14 to discuss proposed increases to the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office contract and the Cities’ joint response. Mayors will present a phased counterproposal focused on transparency in cost calculations and impacts on city budgets and services. Cupertino Today highlighted details in Cupertino, Saratoga, and Los Altos Hills Offer Transparent Counterproposal to Santa Clara’s Law Enforcement Contract.
The most recent numbers for Santa Clara County’s proposed public safety contracts show a 39.6% increase. The three impacted cities have submitted a counterproposal that includes an alternative 12% increase with a three-year phased approach to overhead costs while working with the County to establish a transparent cost methodology. More information on the cities’ position is available at sheriff-contract-facts.com as discussions with the County continue.
For research, past issues back to January 2020 of Cupertino Matters are posted on the website. Encourage your friends who would like to become better informed about our community to subscribe to our email newsletter at CupertinoMatters.org.
UPCOMING – City Council, Tues., April 7, 2026, 6:45 p.m., Special Meeting; 5:45 p.m.
Special Meeting/Study Session
Item No. 1: An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a summary of Phase 2, explanations of plan edits, revised scoring criteria, and next steps. The council is being asked to provide feedback on this plan, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission (and subsequently by the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission). This is a new, comprehensive Active Transportation Plan (ATP), which combines recommended projects from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan to meet evolving community needs. This unified, citywide plan will align bicycle and pedestrian initiatives while accounting for the needs of drivers of motorized vehicles. This coordinated approach ensures consistency across policies and projects, avoids duplication, and addresses overlapping concerns. The City Council approved the FY 24/25 City Work Program on April 3, 2024, with the ATP included as an approved project. City staff then identified Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA3) funds as an external funding source to wholly fund the Plan’s development. On December 3, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to award a contract to Alta Planning + Design, Inc., for development of an ATP. The plan has remained funded throughout the 2025-2026 budget process.
Regular meeting
Ceremonial Items are Item No. 1: Proclamation in recognition of April as Donate Life Month, and Item No. 2: Proclamation in recognition of April as Fair Housing Month. Oral Communications from the public on off-agenda items precede the Consent Calendar, which contains eight routine items, including approval of a budget increase of $475,000 for ballot measure preparation services and County of Santa Clara County Voter election service fees for a potential revenue measure.
Item No. 11: Consider a Use Permit, Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a 122-unit residential development, consisting of 66 small-lot single family homes and 56 townhomes located at the Stevens Creek Office Center site, which includes a multi-tenant retail building (Voyager Coffee and Panera Bread). The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No(s): U-2024-008, TM-2024-006, ASA-2024-011, TR-2024-033; Applicant: Kevin Choy, Harvest Properties; Location: 20807, 20813, 20823 & 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd; APNs: 326-32-050, -051, -052, and -053.). This project is located between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Alves Drive, adjacent to Whole Foods. Currently, most of the property is occupied by outdated office buildings 65% occupied by Apple, which will vacate them at the end of their lease. The biggest downside to this project is the loss of Voyager Coffee and Panera Bread retail along Stevens Creek.
These will be large homes, attractive to families with children who can attend local schools and can accommodate multi-generational families. The townhomes will range in size from 2273 sq. ft. to 3304 sq. ft., while the single family detached homes (rare these days) will be 2973 sq. ft. to 3541 sq. ft. The taller townhomes will be clustered along Stevens Creek, with the single family homes stepping the project heights down toward the single story homes on Alves Drive. There will be 24 below market rate homes, all townhouses. Staff is recommending an in-lieu park fee of $5,880,00 for the market rate homes. The Planning Commission had previously approved the project on a 5-0 vote.
Item No. 12: Award of a consultant agreement with PlaceWorks, not to exceed $468,450, to prepare a Housing Element update (and internal consistency updates to the General Plan), related rezoning, and all necessary environmental review as required under State law, and associated budget modification in the amount of $660,00, to address requirements of Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss) and authorize no-cost contract change. Due to the City’s approval of several residential developments on Housing Element PriorityHousing Sites at lower densities and proportionally lower levels of lower and moderate income units than anticipated in the Housing Element, the City has been unable to make the No Net Loss findings required by State law since mid-December 2025. Under State law, the City has180 days from the date (December 16, 2025) that it was initially unable to make the No Net Loss findings to amend its Housing Element and bring it into compliance as it relates to SB 166 (No Net
Loss law). PlaceWorks prepared the state approved Housing Element, so they are best qualified to prepare an update to bring the city into compliance, and avoid a fresh round of Builder’s Remedy projects.
Item No. 13: Consider updates to procedures administering the City’s Commissions and Committees and revising the City Commissioners’ Handbook to reflect the new procedures. There have been issues with the functioning of commissions, including lack of quorum due to commissioner absences, roles of staff with regard to commissioners, as well as how commissioners use email and present themselves in communications. This was an agenda item at the January 13, 2026, council meeting and council direction has been integrated into the staff recommendation.
Item No. 14 Determine next steps for the agreement with the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. The city has a five year agreement with the Chamber of Commerce which is reviewed each year. The original agreement was budgeted for $52,000 a year; the recommended renewal is $5,000 per year.
Item No.15: City Manager Report, (now submitted in written form).
Item No. 16 Council Reports (now submitted in written form) are provided by Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen and Mohan. Vice-Mayor Chao and Wang did not submit reports.
Item No. 17: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report.
RECAP – City Council, Wed., April 1, 2026, 6:30 p.m., Special Meeting; 5:30 p.m. Closed session
YouTube: Part 1 – 2 hr. 14 min.; Part 2 – 2 hr.20 min.; Part 3: 3 hr. 19 min.
Prior to consideration of Agenda Item 3, The city attorney then opined on public complaints that Councilmember Sheila Mohan be recused from this item because her house is 969 feet away from the Evulich Court development. Both the city attorney and a real estate appraiser found no financial impact from the development on her property so there was no conflict of interest and Councilmember Mohan was not recused.
Special Meeting
Item No. 3: Consider a Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a 51-unit townhome condominium development on Housing Element Priority Housing Sites 25 through 28. The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No(s): TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; Applicant: SummerHill Homes, LLC; Location: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive; APNs: 356-06-001, -002, -003, and -004). (Continued from March 17, 2026). This housing site has been quite controversial due to its location in the very high fire hazard severity zone of the current state fire maps. Known as Evulich Court, this project sits on a Priority Housing Site included in the state-approved Housing Element primarily for townhome-style development. The site has been continuously included in the update to the Housing Element since the first meeting on new development sites in January 2022. There has been neighborhood opposition to the development, citing perceived wildfire danger and increased traffic, but the city is bound by state law.
Council grilled the applicants and legal team on minutiae, trying to find loopholes to deny the application, at times asserting their own unprofessional interpretation of housing legislation and the law. Both the applicant attorney and the city legal team emphasized that rejecting the application would result in legal action against the city, which it would almost certainly lose. State minimum civil penalties are a minimum of $10,000 per month per unit, and range up to $50,000 per unit for failure to comply with housing laws or upon a finding of bad faith. The city would have also been required to pay its own attorney’s fees as well as those of the developer (both measured in millions of dollars), and would have faced decertification of the Housing Element by California HCD, opening the city to new builder’s remedy projects like Linda Vista Heights and Scofield Drive.
In a major concession to the neighbors negotiated by Councilmember Fruen, the developers agreed to building two story townhomes on the side immediately adjoining Baxley Court. Mayor Moore proposed changes to the roadway design for fire truck access but the developer was not able to redesign the project on the dais.
The community lost out when council voted 3-2 with Fruen and Mohan voting nay to reject the Planning Commission recommendation to build a pedestrian trail connection between the project property and the adjacent Linda Vista Trail. The developer was willing to construct it for a cost effective $377,023, while still paying an in-lieu parkland fee of $1,621,000. This modification would have significantly improved access to the city’s existing parkland and open space for the entire neighborhood.
Councilmember Chao made a motion–against the advice of the city attorney, the fire officials, and planning staff–to find the project ineligible for a special legal exemption under AB 130 (2025), which would have killed the project. This failed on a 2-3 vote with Moore, Fruen and Mohan voting nay. The succeeding motion was to find the project in compliance which passed 4-1 with Wang voting nay.
Item No. 4: 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. This frivolous legal petition asserting that new evidence warranting reconsideration was heard at 2:40 AM (after the earthquake). After brief discussion and minimal public comment, the Council denied reconsideration 4-1 with Wang voting nay.
CUPERTINO COURIER: April 3, 2026
The front page photo and article on page 5 are entitled Haggling over public safety: Counterproposal offered to increased sheriff’s contract costs. An additional Community Brief on page 5 is entitled Cherry on top, an announcement for the Cherry Blossom Festival on April 25-26. The sole legal notice is Notice of Amendments to the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Fee Schedule to be heard at city council on April 21, 2026.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
Cupertino Matters
Publisher and Editor
