CC 05-06-2025
Item No. 13
Modification to
Westport
Development
Written Communications
From: James Lloyd
To: Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang; City Council Cc: Piu Ghosh (she/her); City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject: public comment re item 13 for 5/6/25 Council meeting Date: Monday, May 5, 2025 2:54:51 PM
Attachments: Cupertino - 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard - HAA Letter - CC.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 13 for the 5/6/25 Council meeting, the proposed 272-unit housing development project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, including 29 units affordable to very low-income households.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
May 5, 2025 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Dear Cupertino City Council, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation
to
abide
by
all
relevant
state
housing
laws
when
evaluating
the
proposed
272-unit
housing
development
project
at
21267
Stevens
Creek
Boulevard,
including
29 units
affordable
to
very
low-income
households.
These
laws
include
the
Housing
Accountability
Act
(“HAA”),
the
Density
Bonus
Law
(“DBL”),
and
AB
2097.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan
compliant
housing
development
projects
unless
findings
can
be
made
regarding
specific,
objective,
written
health
and
safety
hazards.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subds.
(d),
(j).)
The
HAA
also
bars
cities
from
imposing
conditions
on
the
approval
of
such
projects
that
would
render
the
project
infeasible
or
reduce
the
project’s
density
unless,
again,
such
written
findings
are
made.
(
Id
.
at
subd.
(d).)
As
a
development
with
at
least
two-thirds
of
its
area
devoted
to
residential
uses,
the
project
falls
within
the
HAA’s
ambit,
and
it
complies
with
local
zoning
code
and
the
City’s
general
plan.
Increased
density,
concessions,
and
waivers
that
a
project
is
entitled
to
under
the
DBL
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915)
do
not
render
the
project
noncompliant
with
the
zoning
code
or
general
plan,
for
purposes
of
the
HAA.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65589.5,
subd.
(j)(3).)
The
HAA’s
protections
therefore
apply,
and
the
City
may
not
reject
the
project
except
based
on
health
and
safety
standards,
as
outlined
above.
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections.
The
City
must
respect
these
protections.
In
addition
to
granting
the
increase
in
residential
units
allowed
by
the
DBL,
the
City
must
not
deny
the
project
the
proposed
waivers
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610 www.calhdf.org
and concessions with respect to ground floor retail, in addition to the previously approved waivers
and
concessions,
unless
it
makes
written
findings
as
required
by
Government
Code,
section
65915,
subdivision
(e)(1)
that
the
waivers
would
have
a
specific,
adverse
impact
upon
health
or
safety,
and
for
which
there
is
no
feasible
method
to
satisfactorily
mitigate
or
avoid
the
specific
adverse
impact,
or
as
required
by
Government
Code,
section
65915,
subdivision
(d)(1)
that
the
concessions
would
not
result
in
identifiable
and
actual
cost
reductions,
that
the
concessions
would
have
a
specific,
adverse
impact
on
public
health
or
safety,
or
that
the
concessions
are
contrary
to
state
or
federal
law.
The
City,
if
it
makes
any
such
findings,
bears
the
burden
of
proof.
(Gov.
Code,
§
65915,
subd.
(d)(4).)
Of
note,
the
DBL
specifically
allows
for
a
reduction
in
required
accessory
parking
in
addition
to
the
allowable
waivers
and
concessions.
(
Id
.
at
subd.
(p).)
Additionally,
the
California
Court
of
Appeal
has
ruled
that
when
an
applicant
has
requested
one
or
more
waivers
and/or
concessions
pursuant
to
the
DBL,
the
City
“may
not
apply
any
development
standard
that
would
physically
preclude
construction
of
that
project
as
designed,
even
if
the
building
includes
‘amenities’
beyond
the
bare
minimum
of
building
components.”
(
Bankers
Hill
150
v.
City
of
San
Diego
(2022)
74 Cal.App.5th
755,
775.)
Finally, the project is exempt from off-street parking pursuant to AB 2097 given its location near
transit.
CalHDF
understands
that
City
staff
is
contesting
the
applicability
of
the
law
to
the
project,
given
that
the
previous
version
of
the
project
was
entitled
before
the
law
came
into
effect.
First, the project is seeking amended entitlements, and staff have accordingly forced the project
to
go
through
additional
environmental
review
accordingly.
A
denial
of
the
amended
entitlements
would
be
a
denial
of
the
project,
governed
by
the
restrictions
imposed
on
the
City
by
the
HAA,
outlined
above.
The
presence
of
any
previous
entitlement
on
the
site
does
not
change
the
need
for
the
city
to
make
findings
under
the
HAA
for
any
denial
of
the
project
currently
under
consideration.
Additionally, AB 2097 clearly states “Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the
prohibition
of
the
imposition
of
mandatory
parking
minimums
as
outlined
in
this
section.”
(Gov.
Code,
§ 65863.2,
subd.
(i).)
The
Legislature
has
clearly
articulated
its
intent
that
local
agencies
should
interpret
the
law
as
prohibiting
parking
requirements.
Furthermore, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) has issued guidance that AB 2097 can, in fact, be applied retroactively. From page 6 of the linked January 2025 memorandum: Can AB 2097 be used to eliminate an existing parking agreement? Yes, with the exception of contractual commercial parking agreements with a public agency
that
were
executed
before
January
1,
2023.
2 of 3
The parking in question is not a contractual commercial parking agreement with a public agency,
and
therefore
the
HCD
guidance
is
that
AB
2097
can
be
used
to
eliminate
the
parking
agreement
between
the
applicant
and
the
city.
Finally, it is unclear why the City is fighting to impose parking requirements on assisted living
and
memory
care
units,
where
residents
are
likely
unable
to
drive
or
choose
not
to.
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage.
New
housing
such
as
this
is
a
public
benefit;
it
will
provide
badly-needed
affordable
housing;
it
will
bring
increased
tax
revenue
and
new
customers
to
local
businesses;
and
it
will
reduce
displacement
of
existing
residents
into
homelessness.
Most
importantly,
it
will
allow
seniors
to
age
with
dignity
by
providing
invaluable
assisted
living
and
memory
care
housing.
While
no
one
project
will
solve
the
statewide
housing
crisis,
the
proposed
development
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
CalHDF
urges
the
City
to
approve
it,
consistent
with
its
obligations
under
state
law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access
to
housing
for
Californians
at
all
income
levels,
including
low-income
households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3
From: radler digiplaces.com
To: City Clerk
Subject: PPT slides for May 6 City Council meeting, Item #13 Date: Monday, May 5, 2025 10:55:33 AM
Attachments: Richard Adler 5.6.25.pptx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Attached is a Powerpoint presentation (3 slides) that I would like to use with a public comment I plan to make in relation to Item #13 on the City Council meeting agenda for tomorrow night, May 6th (Modification to a previously approved Development Permit and Architectural & Site Approval for the Westport Development).
Thank you,
Richard Adler
Age Friendly Cupertino
Presentation to
Cupertino City Council
Item #13:
Westport Development Permit Modification
Richard Adler
Age-Friendly Cupertino
May 6, 2025
Cupertino’s 65+ and 75+ Population
2015-2035
Richard Adler May 6, 2025 2
Need for Assisted Living by Age
Richard Adler May 6, 2025 3
Prevalence of Alzheimer’s
in Cupertino’s 65+ Population
Richard Adler May 6, 2025 4
Memory Care 103 ? Units Available:
Data Sources
1. Cupertino’s 65+ Population, 2015-2035
2015 City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Master Plan Demographic Analysis (2016) 2020 Same as above (updated for 2020)
2025 Neilsberg demographic insights
2030-35 Projections:
• Santa Clara County Office of Aging Reports
• State of California Department of Finance population projections • U.S. Census Bureau trends and regional aging patterns in Silicon Valley Richard Adler May 6, 2025 5
2. Prevalence of Alzheimer’s in Cupertino, 2025-2035
Alzheimer’s Association: 2024 Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures https://www.alz.org/media/Documents/alzheimers-facts-and-figures.pdf California Department of Public Health – Alzheimer’s in California https://www.cdph.ca.gov
U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates and Projections Santa Clara County Public Health Department – Aging and Health Reports https://publichealth.sccgov.org
Neilsberg Demographic Reports (2025 estimates)
https://www.neilsberg.com/insights/cupertino-ca-population-by-age/ From: DeWitt, Cascade <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 1:32 PM
To: Nicholas Roosevelt <[email protected]>; Liang Chao <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Cc: James Abrams <[email protected]>; Simsik, Balint <[email protected]>; Gian Martire <[email protected]>; Floy Andrews <[email protected]>; City Attorney's Office <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Letter Regarding Item #13 on City Council's Agenda for May 6 (Westport Project Building #1)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please try this link:
https://related.box.com/s/qf05uttembjt7hgk3d2frcqyfnhg21xi
Cascade Zak DeWitt
(415) 342-4638
[email protected]
From: Nicholas Roosevelt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 12:55 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: James Abrams <[email protected]>; Simsik, Balint <[email protected]>; DeWitt, Cascade <[email protected]>; Gian Martire <[email protected]>; Floy Andrews <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Letter Regarding Item #13 on City Council's Agenda for May 6 (Westport Project Building #1)
Dear Mayor Chao and Councilmembers—
In the following link, please find a letter regarding tomorrow’s hearing on the proposed modifications to Westport Project Building 1 (Item #13 on the Council’s agenda for tomorrow evening):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bo74navus1i21wi48hrs4/J-Abrams-Letter-re-Westport- Revised-Program.pdf?rlkey=0fajpzbthtz0s25jp5rpwne8b&dl=0 [dropbox.com]
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any issue accessing the file link (the link is necessary as opposed to an email attachment due to the size of the attached September 6, 2024 plan set for the proposed modifications).
Thanks,
Nick
-------------
Nick Roosevelt
J. Abrams Law, P .C.
538 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Email: [email protected]
Cell: (504)-717-9251
______________________________
This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) may be privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise protected from disclosure and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this email and permanently delete the message from your computer. Nothing contained in this message and/or any attachment(s) constitutes a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities.