CC 05-06-2025 Searchable Packet.pdf — Cupertino City Council, May 6, 2025 (part 3 of 4)

7. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
Per the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15), a maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape installation report, or any time before the landscape installation report is submitted. a. Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and water requirements for established landscapes. b. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and dethatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and removing obstructions to emission devices. c. Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size-adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional.

8. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full Landscape Documentation Package, per sections 14.15.050 A, B, C, and D of the Landscape Ordinance, for projects with landscape area 500 square feet or more or elect to submit a Prescriptive Compliance Application per sections 14.15.040 A, B, and C for projects with landscape area between 500 square feet and 2,500 square feet. The Landscape Documentation Package or Prescriptive Compliance Application shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits, and additional requirements per sections 14.15.040 D, E, F, and G or 14.15.050 E, F, G, H, and I will be required to be reviewed and approved prior to final inspections.

9. SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
A soils analysis report shall document the various characteristics of the soil (e.g. texture, infiltration rate, pH, soluble salt content, percent organic matter, etc) and provide recommendations for amendments as appropriate to optimize the productivity and water efficiency of the soil.The soil analysis report shall be made available to the professionals preparing the landscape and irrigation design plans in a timely manner either before or during the design process. A copy of the soils analysis report shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development as part of the landscape documentation package.

10. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS
The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, and the pesticide control 317
CC 05-06-2025
317 of 554
Resolution No.

Page 7 ends

measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code.

11. SIGN PROGRAM
A sign program is required for this project. The sign program shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of sign permits.

12. SITE IMPROVEMENTS
All proposed site improvements shall be completed prior to final occupancy of any structures approved in conjunction with the project.

13. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area.

14. SCREENING
All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development priorto issuance of building permits.

15. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan:
 For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.  No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
 No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City’s consulting arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree.  Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a fourinch depth.  Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.  Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. 318 CC 05-06-2025
318 of 554
Resolution No.

Page 8 ends

 A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the protected trees, prior to final occupancy.

The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City’s consulting arborist shall inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews prior to issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy.

16. UTILITY STRUCTURE PLAN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a detailed utility plan to demonstrate screening or undergrounding of all new utility structures [including, but not limited to backflow preventers (BFP), fire department connections (FDC), post-indicator valves (PIV), and gas meters] to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, Public Works, Fire Department, and applicable utility agencies.

17. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.

18. INDEMNIFICATION
As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding.

Page 9 ends

applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement.

The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project.

The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages.

19. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of May, 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
Date
320
CC 05-06-2025
320 of 554
Resolution No.

Page 10 ends

ATTEST:

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Date
321
CC 05-06-2025
321 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-05

OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO

RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE

APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT

PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND

GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, PARK LAND DEDICATION FEES AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK
BOULEVARD (APN: 326-27-048)
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit, in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit ASA.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino the 22nd day of April 2025, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung, Lindskog NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

RECUSED: COMMISSIONERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Piu Ghosh /s/Santosh Rao
Piu Ghosh Santosh Rao
Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission
322
CC 05-06-2025
322 of 554

EXHIBIT ASA
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED

TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, PARK LAND
DEDICATION FEES AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN: 326-27-048)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: ASA-2024-003
Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak)
Property Owner: Related California
Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL:

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20- 105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks, Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a X-X vote that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA-2018-04) and approve the Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. XXXX), and approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented(Resolution No. XXX); and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and WHEREAS, on May X, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Project; and
323
CC 05-06-2025
323 of 554
Resolution No.

Page 3 ends

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proofrequired to support the application for a Development Permit.

WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by Placeworks, Inc. indicates that the proposed project would not require major revisions to the EIR adopted on August 18, 2020, due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.

Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Adopted EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.

WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project.

Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approval of the proposed project.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:

1. The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, waivers, and incentive/concession the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. All mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and incorporated into the project in order to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. The modifications do not influence the programming of the site and are all within the provisions of state law. As a result, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.

2. The proposed development is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria:
324
CC 05-06-2025
324 of 554
Resolution No.

Page 4 ends

a. Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bulk should be achieved between new and existing buildings.

The project is within the approved Building 1 proposal as approved by City Council on December 21, 2021. This maintains the mix of housing types that include two multistory high-density structures, as well as lower density townhome/rowhouse condominiums. The site is bordered by high density residential to the north and De Anza College to the South, across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The development is designed to concentrate the taller structures on the northwest corner of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection while the shorter townhome/rowhouse structures are placed closer to the lower scale apartment and townhomes developments along Mary Avenue. This design provides a gradual transition between buildings of different height and bulk.
b. In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with design and color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting should harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots should be concealed. The planting of ground cover or various types of pavements should be used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees should be avoided. Lighting for development should be adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments and provide shielding to prevent spill-over light to adjoining property owners.

The design quality of the development is consistent with the original approval of Westport development from August 2020, as further modified in December 2021. Both the high-density structures and townhome/rowhouse buildings are consistent with the design qualities of a Mediterranean-type development and the architectural style is consistent throughout the development. Further, the planting plan is consistent with the intent of the Heart of the City Specific Plan guidelines. Unsightly uses such as loading and trash pickup have been placed within the buildings away from view of neighboring uses. Utility installations have been designed to be screened by landscaping and or incorporated into the building design. The final lighting for the development will be reviewed as part of the review of the project construction 325
CC 05-06-2025
325 of 554
Resolution No.

Page 5 ends

documents to ensure that they meet safety requirements while avoiding spill-over light to adjacent properties.
c. The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development.

Signage approval is not included in this application.
d. With respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures.

The project does not abut any existing residential development. The existing multifamily development located across Mary Avenue (Glenbrook Apartments) will be buffered from any impact because the project has been designed to maintain trees along the frontage and has been designed with adequate parking on-site. The buildings have been designed with setbacks from the curb line greater than the 9-feet required within the General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 5 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project, the City Council hereby Approves the application for a Architectural and Site Approval, Application No. ASA-2024-003
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. ASA-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of April XX, 2025 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.

1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set dated April 1, 2024 consisting of 12 sheets labeled as Westport Building 1: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014, 326
CC 05-06-2025
326 of 554
Resolution No.

Page 6 ends

G00-G14, and A10 – A31, drawn by Studio Architects, Steinberg Hart, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.

2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.

3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. M-2024-003 shall be applicable to this approval.

4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans.

5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. The final building design and exterior treatment plans (including but not limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural treatments, doors, windows, lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development priorto issuance of building permits and through an in-field mock-up of colors prior to application to ensure quality and consistency. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall either require a modification to this permit or a new permit based on the extent of the change.

6. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT
The project is subject to all provisions delineated in the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15). A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have been installed. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report.

The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule.
327
CC 05-06-2025
327 of 554
Resolution No.

Page 7 ends

The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.”

Page 8 ends

The soil analysis report shall be made available to the professionals preparing the landscape and irrigation design plans in a timely manner either before or during the design process. A copy of the soils analysis report shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development as part of the landscape documentation package.

11. SIGN PROGRAM
A sign program is required for this project. The sign program shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of sign permits.

12. SITE IMPROVEMENTS
All proposed site improvements shall be completed prior to final occupancy of any structures approved in conjunction with the project.

Page 9 ends

Page 10 ends

The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement.

The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages. 331
CC 05-06-2025
331 of 554
Resolution No.

Page 11 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this XXth day of May, 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
Date
ATTEST:

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Date
332
CC 05-06-2025
332 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-06

OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO

RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF AN ADDENDUM TO A

PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND

APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MODIFICATION TO MODIFY

THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT

NOT LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN #326-27-048)
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and approve the Modification to the Development Permit, in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit M, with the following modifications:
 Add the following Conditions of approval:

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM REQUIRED The applicant shall submit a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program for the assisted living employees prior to Building Permit issuance.

RETAIL/PARKLAND IN-LIEU OF DEDICATION FEE
Applicant to consider increasing the proposed retail square footage to 8,000 square feet, with no increased parking requirement for the additional 4,000 square feet retail component, in exchange for a refund of park in-lieu fees already paid in the approximate amount of $3.69MM, with no further payment of such fees required for the additional thirteen (13) assisted living units proposed (i.e. forego payment of approximately $300,000).

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino the 22nd day of April 2025, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung, Lindskog NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
333
CC 05-06-2025
333 of 554
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Piu Ghosh /s/Santosh Rao
Piu Ghosh Santosh Rao
Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission
334
CC 05-06-2025
334 of 554

EXHIBIT M
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVAL OF A

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MODIFICATION TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,

DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, AND MINOR
CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK
BOULEVARD (APN #326-27-048)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: M-2024-003
Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak)
Property Owner: Related California
Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20- 105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks, Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a X-X vote that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA-2018-04) and approve the Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. XXXX), and approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented(Resolution No. XXX); and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and 335
CC 05-06-2025
335 of 554
WHEREAS, on May X, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proofrequired to support the application for a Development Permit.

WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project.

Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approval of the proposed project.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:

1. The proposed residential development and/or use will be located and conducted in a manner consistent with any applicable Government Code requirements, the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, and underlying zoning regulations of the Municipal Code, and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, parking reduction, waivers, and incentive/concession, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses.

Additionally, all mitigation measures through the EIR Addendum that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and will be made conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.

2. Notwithstanding subsection 19.156.040B(1), the Director of Community Development may deny a housing development project proposed under this Section with a written finding based upon a preponderance of evidence, that the proposed housing 336
CC 05-06-2025
336 of 554
development project would have a specific adverse impact, as defined and determined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.

An Initial Study was prepared and a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse 2019070377) was certified for the project by City Council on August 18, 2020. To analyze the modifications of the project, an addendum was prepared in which they concluded that the proposed modified project is not a substantial change to the Final EIR because it is on the same project site as the approved project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Final EIR and most impacts would be less than evaluated in the Final EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the information provided in the Addendum, construction and operation of the modified project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Adopted EIR.

3. The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need. (Findings required by Government Code Section 65863(b)(2).) The remaining sites in the housing element inventory are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need. The proposed project does not reduce the density of the site below what was projected in the City’s 5th Cycle housing element; the housing element shows a site capacity of 200 units, whereas 272 units are proposed. However, the proposed project includes only 48 lower income units, whereas the site was projected to contain 200 lower income units. Nonetheless, with the update to the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the Priority Housing sites in the inventory are adequate to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need in that 1,2421lower income units have been approved by the City at the remaining housing element sites (Vallco Shopping District, Marina Plaza, the Hamptons, and the Barry Swenson site), well in excess of the 563 units that must be accommodated to meet the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need. The City has approved a total of 3,2092 units on these four sites, also well in excess of the City’s allocation of 1,064 units to meet its total share of the regional housing need.
1 Consisting of the following lower income units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 1,201 units; Veranda affordable housing (Barry Swenson site), 18 units; Marina Plaza, 16 units; Hamptons, 7 units net. 2 Consisting of the following total units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 2,402 units; Veranda (Barry Swenson site), 19 units; Marina Plaza, 188 units; Hamptons, 600 net new units. 337
CC 05-06-2025
337 of 554

4. The applicant has requested a density bonus. Pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.56.070, before approving an application that includes a request for density bonus, incentive, parking reduction and/or waiver, the decision-making body shall make the following findings, as applicable:
a) A finding that the residential project is eligible for the density bonus and any incentives, parking reductions or waivers requested.

The application is for a density bonus project that provides for 20.5% of its base density as Below Market Rate Housing. Because 12% of the base units on-site will be available to Very Low Income seniors, the project is eligible for a 38.75 density bonus, parking reduction, waivers, and up to two (2) incentives/concessions. b) A finding that the requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions based upon the documentation provided by the applicant and the findings of the peer reviewer, if incentive(s) or concession(s) are requested (other than mixed use development).

Consolidation of BMR Units: On August 19, 2020, the City Council approved a concession to consolidate all BMR units in Building 2, rather than dispersing them throughout Building 1 and the Townhouse/Rowhouse portion.

Reduction in Ground Floor Retail: In December 2021, the City Council approved a Heart of the City Exception to allow a reduced frontage along Stevens Creek to have retail uses (17,600 square feet of retail at the ground floor.) Since the project is eligible for two state density bonus law incentives and concessions, due to the amount of affordable housing provided with the project, the developer requests to use the second available incentive and concession to further reduce the required ground floor retail in Building 1. The currently approved retail occupies ground floor space that could be used to create a more efficient building design for the applicant. The applicant proposes to do this by locating required mechanical systems and back-of-house spaces on the ground floor level of Building 1 rather than the previously approved, more expensive-to-build basement or upper-level building locations.
c) If the density bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all requirements included Section 19.56.030C have been met.

The density bonus is not based on the donation of land, so the finding is not applicable. d) If the density bonus is based all or in part on the inclusion of a childcare facility, a finding that all requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (D) have been met.

The density bonus is not based on the inclusion of a childcare facility, so the finding is not applicable.
338
CC 05-06-2025
338 of 554
e) If the density bonus or incentive is based on a condominium conversion, a finding that all the requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (E) have been met.

The density bonus is not based on a condominium conversion, so the finding is not applicable.
f) If the incentive includes mixed-use development, a finding that all requirements included in Section 19.56.40 (B) (2) have been met.

While the project is a mixed-use development, the density bonus is not based on the mixedused development as an incentive, so the finding is not applicable. g) If a waiver is requested, a finding that that the development standards for which the waivers are requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development with the density bonus and incentives or concessions permitted.

Height and Slope Setback Waivers: On August 19, 2020, the City Council found that applying the height and slope setback limitations to Buildings 1 & 2 would physically preclude the project by: (a) decreasing the amount of proposed open space and landscaped areas below what is otherwise required by the City; (b) reducing the average size of senior units; (c) reducing commercial ceiling heights; (d) decreasing above-ground parking and increasing underground parking. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would not increase the previously approved Height and Slope Setback waivers since the height of the proposed building is lower and therefore, the waiver is reduced. h) If a reduction in off-street parking standards for an eligible housing development is requested, a finding that all the applicable requirements in Section 19.56.040.C have been met. (The project is eligible to provide 0.5 space per bedroom, which requires at least 11% very low income or 20% low income units; within one-half mile of a Major Transit Stop; and unobstructed Access to the Major Transit Stop.) The applicant is no longer requesting a reduction in off-street parking standards pursuant to State Density Bonus law.

5. Since the applicable findings required above can be made, the decision-making body may deny an application for a waiver only if one of the following written findings as applicable to each type of application, supported by substantial evidence:
a) That the incentive or concession, or waiver would have an adverse impact on real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources; or There are no affected Historic Resources in the vicinity. 339
CC 05-06-2025
339 of 554
b) That the incentive, concession or waiver would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the residential project unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. For the purpose of this subsection, "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the residential project was deemed complete; or
As evidenced by the findings and conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the First Addendum to the EIR, there are no significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the residential Project was deemed complete.
c) That the incentive, concession or waiver is contrary to state or federal law.

The requested waivers are not contrary to state or federal law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter and the Addendum, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 7 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project, the City Council hereby:

1. Determines that the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and

2. Adopts the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project; and

3. Approves the application for a Modification to the Development Permit, Application No. M-2024-003; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. M-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of April X, 2025 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 340
CC 05-06-2025
340 of 554
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

3. CONCURRENT AND PRIOR APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file no. ASA-2024-003 shall be applicable to this approval. The conditions of approval contained in file nos. TR-2018-22, TM-2018- 03, TM-2021-002, DP-2018-05, U-2019-03, EXC-2019-03, EA-2018-04, EXC-2021-003, ASA-2021-007, and M-2021-003 shall be applicable to this approval unless in conflict with the conditions of approval of this resolution.

4. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
Due to the reduction in retail commercial square footage in the development, 13,600 square feet of commercial allocation is returned to the available commercial allocation city-wide.

5. PARKING MODIFICATION
The applicant will work with Staff to supply a further 20 parking spaces dispersed within the Building 1 parcel to accommodate the employees, guests, and residents of the assisted living facility (including memory care).

6. PARKING SPACE SIGNAGE
All spaces within the development shall be marked to identify:
a. Parking for retail use restricted to retail use during the hours of operation of the business
b. Parking for Residential Building 2 for exclusive use c. Parking for Townhomes for exclusive use
d. Parking for Residential Building 1 for exclusive use for employees, residents and guests

7. INDEMNIFICATION
As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold 341 CC 05-06-2025
341 of 554
harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding.

The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary 342
CC 05-06-2025
342 of 554
by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project.

The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages.

8. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENT

1. PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE
Prior to building permit issuance, the project is subject to payment of park fees in-lieu of park land dedication under the City’s Park Land Dedication Fee (Chapter 13.08 and Chapter 18.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) for the 13 new dwelling units. The current fee is $30,000 per unit and may be subject to modifications per the City’s annual property assessment and latest fee schedule adjustment.

SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY

FIRE DEPARTMENT

1. EMERGENCY RADIO RESPONDER COVERAGE
Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings. All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. Refer to CFC Sec. 510 for further requirements.

2. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED
343
CC 05-06-2025
343 of 554
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.

NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s)

3. STANDPIPES REQUIRED
Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with this section. Fire hose threads used in connection with standpipe systems shall be approved and shall be compatible with fire department hose threads. The location of fire department hose connections shall be approved. Standpipes shall be manual wet type. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire hose protection shall be in accordance with Chapter 32. Installation standard. Standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47.

CFC Sec. 905

4. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED
Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 6500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B and associated Tables, and Appendix C.

See approved hydrant spotting plan pc#20-4568

5. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7

6. REQUIRED FIRE DEPT. ACCESS
344
CC 05-06-2025
344 of 554
Commercial and Industrial Developments 1. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. 2.

Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 mm) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. Multi-Family Residential Developments (R-1 & R-2 occupancies) 1. Multi-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. CFC Sec. Chp. 5 as adopted and amended by CUPMC.

7. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED
Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 42 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1.

8. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) ROADWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED Provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification sheet A-1. cul-de-sac. CFC Sec. 503 as adopted and amended by CUPMC.

9. REQUIRED AERIAL ACCESS

1. Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3.

Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official.

10. TURN RADIUS (CIRCULATING):
345
CC 05-06-2025
345 of 554
The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required access roadways. Greater radius up to 60 feet may be required where the Fire Department determines that Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating refers to travel along a roadway without dead ends.

11. TIMING OF INSTALLATION
When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2 CFC Sec. 501.4

12. FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS
Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72.

13. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY
All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33

14. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION
New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response.

Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1

15. FIRE LANES REQUIRED
The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shall be 20 feet. The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required circulating access roadways and 60 feet where aerial access is required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designated and marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code.
346
CC 05-06-2025
346 of 554
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this Xth day of May 2025, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
Date
ATTEST:

Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Date
347
CC 05-06-2025
347 of 554
1 J. ABRAMS LAW, P.C.

538 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Jim Abrams
[email protected]
(415) 999-4402

VIA E-EMAIL
June 18, 2024
Gian Martire
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Re: Westport Cupertino Project, Building 1
Dear Mr. Martire:

This firm represents the project sponsor of the “Building 1” development (“Building 1”) within the Westport Cupertino project (the “Project”). This letter responds to your request for an explanation of the legal justifications authorizing the following modifications to the Building 1 approvals issued by the City Council on December 7, 2021:
• Modify the approved senior assisted living dwelling unit count to 136 dwelling units • Eliminate the basement-level parking garage;
• Reduce the ground floor retail in Building 1 to 4,000 square feet; and • Waive application of the Park Land Dedication Fee.

Though not discussed at length herein, we underscore that each of the above modifications are being pursued to make the construction of Building 1 and the overall approved Project financeable. Development of Building 1 is currently not financeable due to challenging capital market conditions, inflated construction costs, shifts in market demand, and expensive design elements in the currently approved design of Building 1. We respectfully submit that prompt processing of the modifications would further the goals of the City’s pending draft Housing Element, promote the use of the density bonus consistent with state law, reduce impact fees that constrain the production of housing, and streamline application processing. 348
CC 05-06-2025
348 of 554
2 Allowing Range of Dwelling Unit Density
The Project’s records and approvals reflect that Cupertino’s General Plan and Zoning Code permit a maximum residential density on the site (that is, the site’s “base density”) of 237 units.1 Twenty-nine units (or 12% of the base density units) are designated as affordable to very low income households.2 Under the state density bonus law, this means the Project is eligible for a density bonus of up 38.75% and could contain up to 329 units.3 As currently approved, the Project includes 88 dwelling units in townhomes, 48 total affordable units in Building 2, and 123 dwelling units in Building 1, well below maximum permitted density under the state density bonus law.4
As there are no proposed changes to the Project’s
townhome program or the Project’s on-site affordable program in Building 2, this means Building 1 is eligible to contain up to 193 units (237 base density units multiplied by 1.3875, less the 88 townhome units and 48 on-site affordable units).

The project sponsor respectfully requests that the City Council modify the Project approvals to permit the final design of Building 1 to contain 136 dwelling units (this would be in addition to the 35 non-residential memory care units). The project sponsor will submit plans demonstrating that the increase in dwelling units would not require any increase to the approved height and bulk of Building 1. Instead, the unit count increase would be accommodated through floor plan modifications and minor façade alterations necessary to include additional balconies. Further, the submitted plans will demonstrate that the increase to 136 dwelling units would not require additional state density bonus law waivers or concessions. For example, the design of Building 1 with 136 dwelling units would satisfy increased open space requirements, along with other Code requirements associated with the increased unit count.

The proposal would allow less than an 11% increase in dwelling unit count over the currently approved 123-unit count. This is well under the Project’s eligible 38.75% density bonus under the state density bonus law.

Elimination of Subsurface Basement Garage Level
After the 2021 City Council approval of the current Building 1 design and program, the state enacted AB-2097 (which prohibits cities from imposing minimum parking requirements on residential, commercial, and other development projects that are located within one-half mile of public transit.5 The Project’s approvals reflect that the Project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop.6
1 See Figure 2 of the Staff Report for the City Council’s August 18, 2020 meeting. 2 An additional 19 units (8% of the base density units) are designated affordable to low-income households. 3 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65915(f)(2). 4 The project also includes 35 memory care units; however, the Project’s approval record clearly reflects that these units are not considered dwelling units by the City and are instead non-residential. 5 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65863.2. 6 See page 25 of the Staff Report for the City Council’s August 18, 2020 and December 7, 2021 meetings. 349
CC 05-06-2025
349 of 554
3 While AB-2097 allows cities to impose minimum parking requirements under certain, limited circumstances,7 the City cannot apply this exemption because more than 20% of its units are dedicated to very low- and low-income households and/or the elderly.8 As such, the project sponsor is eligible to invoke AB-2097 to eliminate required parking minimums.

The below-grade parking garage level in Building 1 was included solely for purposes of addressing the otherwise applicable minimum parking required by Cupertino. The project sponsor respectfully elects under AB-2097 to eliminate the basement level and associated parking. No change to Building 1’s current surface parking is proposed, which is permitted under AB-2097 as voluntarily included.

Reduction in Ground Floor Retail
The 2021 Heart of the City Exception approval for Building 1 requires 17,600 square feet of retail.9 Since 2021, the retail program has proven detrimental to the financial feasibility of Building 1 and thereby to completing the sitewide Project improvements associated with Building 1. This is because the current amount of retail occupies ground floor space that could be used to create significantly more efficient building design, achieved by locating required mechanical systems and back-of-house spaces on the ground floor level of Building 1 rather than current, more expensive-to-build basement or upper-level building locations.

The Project’s approvals make clear that the Project only uses one of the two state density bonus law incentives and concessions for which it is eligible.10 The project sponsor now requests to use the second available incentive and concession to reduce required ground floor retail in Building

1. The cost-reduction rationale for modifying the otherwise applicable ground floor retail requirements for Building 1 meets the requirement that state density bonus law concessions result in identifiable and actual cost reduction.11 The successful construction of Building 1 is closely tied to the ability of the Building 2 operator to finance affordable housing costs, because, when completed, the users of Building 1 will pay for a share of on-going site maintenance costs of shared infrastructure with the Building 2 operator. Unless the financial feasibility of Building 1 is enhanced through the requested concession, Building 1 will not be constructed, and all of these costs will fall on the affordable housing at Building 2. 7 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65863.2(b). 8 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65863.2(c)(1). 9 See Resolution No. 21-117. 10 See City Council Resolution Nos. 20-106 & 21-118. We note that these resolutions contain a condition of approval that purports to “waive” any future claim of the project sponsor to receive the second concession for which it is eligible under state law. The project sponsor would eliminate this condition through a revised application to be approved by the City Council along with the other design and program changes described herein; however, we note that nothing in the density bonus law or other state laws (including the Housing Accountability Act) support that the City may condition project approval upon an applicant’s permanent waiver of state law rights and benefits. Instead, we respectfully submit that a court and/or the state Housing and Community Development Housing Accountability Unit would find such a condition unlawful and unenforceable under state law. 11 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65915(k)(1). 350
CC 05-06-2025
350 of 554
4 Credit Against Park Land Dedication Fee
At the revised 136-unit count, Building 1 would be required to pay approximately $4,080,000 ($30,000 per senior citizen housing development unit per City Council Resolution No. 23-094) under the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee. The project sponsor respectfully requests that the City Council waive application of the Park Land Dedication Fee ordinance to help facilitate the implementation of Building 1 and completion of the Project. We believe that two important factors specific to the Building 1 development support this waiver.

First, the development of Building 1 includes new pedestrian walkways connecting Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. The construction of the walkways is not strictly required by the City’s Zoning Code; however, will improve pedestrian circulation in the area, including between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Cupertino Memorial Park.

Second, while senior citizen housing developments are subject to a lesser impact fee than general population housing projects, the project sponsor respectfully asserts that residents of the senior housing units in Building 1 cannot reasonably be anticipated to generate a material demand on city park lands and instead are more reasonably anticipated to use the open space amenities included in Building 1 and its publicly accessible, privately maintained Central Green.

The November 2023 draft of the Cupertino Housing Element expressly requires the City to explore revising its Park Land Dedication Fee, including a specific reference to allowing credits for privately owned and maintained public open spaces and other pedestrian connections and trails. The Housing Element states that the objective of this revision would be to, among other things, facilitate a substantial amount of lower-income, moderate-income, and above moderateincome housing, such as the Project and its Building 1.12 Though the draft Housing Element provides that the City would have until June 2026 to complete the review and revision process, the project sponsor respectfully submits that waiving application of the Park Land Dedication Fee to the Building 1 more immediately advance the City’s goals, while still providing the City with the complete set of publicly accessible, privately maintained green spaces in the Project, as well as enhanced pedestrian circulation, all maintained at no on-going cost to the City.

Sincerely,
Jim Abrams
12 See Strategy HE-2.3.9 in November 2023 Draft Housing Element. 351
CC 05-06-2025
351 of 554
December 2024 | Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377
Westport Mixed-Use Project
Environmental Impact Report
Addendum No. 1
City of Cupertino
Prepared for:

City of Cupertino
Contact: Gian Martire, Senior Planner
City of Cupertino | Community Development
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
(408) 777-3319
[email protected]
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Terri McCracken, Principal
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
(510) 848-3815
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
352
CC 05-06-2025
352 of 554
.
353
CC 05-06-2025
353 of 554
Table of Contents
Introduction and Purpose..............................................................................................................1-1 Standard for Preparation of an Addendum ...................................................................................2-1 Project Description........................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 OVERVIEW AND SETTING ................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 APPROVED PROJECT.........................................................................................................3-3

3.3 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT........................................................................................3-4 Environmental Analysis..................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 AIR QUALITY .....................................................................................................................4-3

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................4-6

4.3 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................4-9

4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ......................................................................................................4-12

4.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.......................................................................................4-14

4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................4-16

4.7 NOISE .............................................................................................................................4-18

4.8 TRANSPORTATION ..........................................................................................................4-21

4.9 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...................................................................................4-24 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT........................................................................5-1

5.2 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES...................................................................5-1

5.3 NEW INFORMATION.........................................................................................................5-1 List of Preparers.............................................................................................................................6-1 354
CC 05-06-2025
354 of 554

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Aerial View of Project Site ................................................................................................3-2 Figure 3-2 Proposed Site Plan for Building 1......................................................................................3-6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Development Analyzed in the Certified EIR...................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2 Changes Following Certification of the EIR....................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-3 Approved Project Compared to Proposed Modified Project ............................................ 3-4 Table 3-4 Units in Building 1 ............................................................................................................ 3-5

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Trip Generation Study
355
CC 05-06-2025
355 of 554
Introduction and Purpose
On August 19, 2020, the City of Cupertino certified Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377, and approved the Westport Mixed-Use Project.

This document is an Addendum to the 2020 EIR. For the purposes of this Addendum, the 2020 EIR is considered the “Certified EIR.” Following EIR certification, minor changes were made to the 2020 project (see Table 3-2, Changes Following Certification of the EIR) and approved by City Council. The 2020 project with these changes is considered the “Approved Project.” This document is the first Addendum to the Certified EIR.

Since the time of the Certified EIR and Approved Project, the developer, Related Companies, has proposed modifications to the Approved Project from what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. For the purposes of this Addendum, the proposed modifications to the Approved Project are considered the “proposed Modified Project.” The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed Modified Project.

Based on the information provided in this Addendum, construction and operation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. The proposed modifications to the Approved Project would not result in a substantial change to the project and, therefore, additional environmental review is not necessary. Detailed discussions of the standards for the preparation of an Addendum, the proposed modifications, and the environmental analysis of the proposed modifications are provided in Chapter 2, Standard for Preparation of an Addendum; Chapter 3, Project Description; and Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, respectively.

Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Cupertino is the lead agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed action.
356
CC 05-06-2025
356 of 554
This page has been intentionally left blank.
357
CC 05-06-2025
357 of 554
Standard for Preparation of an Addendum
Pursuant to Section 21166, Subsequent or Supplement Impact Report; Conditions, of CEQA and Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations, of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:
 Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;  Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
 New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified was adopted shows any of the following:
 The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.
 Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR or negative declaration.
 Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.  Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.

Where none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 are present,1 the lead agency must determine whether to prepare an Addendum or whether no further CEQA documentation is required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[b]). An Addendum is appropriate where some minor technical changes or additions to the previously certified EIR are necessary, but there are no new or substantially more severe significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration). 1 See also Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which applies the requirements of Section 15162 to supplemental EIRs.
358
CC 05-06-2025
358 of 554
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that an Addendum to the Certified EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Modified Project. This Addendum reviews the changes proposed by the Modified Project and examines whether, as a result of any changes or new information, a subsequent EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis pursuant to the provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines concerning their applicability to the proposed Modified Project.
359
CC 05-06-2025
359 of 554
Project Description
This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed Modified Project as it compares to the Approved Project, including the location, setting, and characteristics of the project site, as well as the proposed project features, approximate construction schedule, and required permits and approvals.

3.1 OVERVIEW AND SETTING

3.1.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
The 8.1-acre project site evaluated in the Certified EIR is at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in the central portion of Cupertino, in Santa Clara County. Cupertino is approximately 46 miles southeast of San Francisco and is one of the cities that make up the area commonly known as Silicon Valley. Cupertino is north of the city of Saratoga, east of unincorporated Santa Clara County, south of the city of Sunnyvale, and west of the city of San José. Cupertino also shares a boundary with the city of Los Altos to the north.

Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 280 (I-280), State Route 85 (SR-85), Stevens Creek Boulevard, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus service, and by Caltrain via the Sunnyvale, Lawrence, and Santa Clara Caltrain Stations. The site is within the regional Plan Bay Area VTA City Cores, Corridors, & Station Areas priority development area (PDA). The closest VTA bus stop (Line 81) is at the Mary Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection, approximately 200 feet east of the site, and bus stops are at De Anza College, approximately 1,900 feet to the east at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/South Stelling Road intersection. The nearest Caltrain station to the project site is the Sunnyvale station, which is approximately 4 miles to the north.

The project site is bounded by Mary Avenue to the north and east, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, and a SR-85 onramp to the west, off Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project site is surrounded by the Glenbrook Apartments to the north, the Cupertino Senior Center and Cupertino Memorial Park to the east, De Anza College to the south, and residential and industrial land uses to the west beyond SR-85. The project site is directly accessible from Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue.

3.1.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Since the time of the Certified EIR and Approved Project, the existing development (Oaks Shopping Center) on the project site has been demolished and each of the components of the Approved Project are developed and occupied except for the proposed Building 1, which is the subject of the proposed Modified Project. The eastern portion of the project site is dedicated to Building 1 and is currently graded and is a vacant dirt lot (see Figure 3-1, Aerial View of Project Site). No other aspects of the site conditions, including the General Plan Land Use designation or zoning district, have changed since the time of the Certified EIR.
360
CC 05-06-2025
360 of 554
Figure 3-1 Aerial View of Project Site
361
CC 05-06-2025
361 of 554

3.2 APPROVED PROJECT
The Approved Project includes rowhouses, townhomes, and two residential/retail buildings to be developed across the entire 8.1-acre site. The development that was analyzed in the Certified EIR is shown in Table 3-1, Development Analyzed in the Certified EIR.

TABLE 3-1 DEVELOPMENT ANALYZED IN THE CERTIFIED EIR
Building Type Buildings Units
Square Footage
Residential Garage Retail
Common
Open Space
Rowhouses 3 19 34,245 10,840
155 square feet
per unit
Townhomes 13 69 139,850 39,450
Residential-Retail Building 1 1 115 193,500 97,750 17,600 Residential-Retail Building 2 1 39 38,800 n/a 2,400
Total 18 242 406,395 148,040 20,000 37,601
Note: Square footages are rounded up and include residential and parking.

Source: C2K Architecture Inc. , November 2018.

As previously described in Chapter 1, Introduction and Purpose, since the time of the Certified EIR, revisions were made to the development shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-2, Changes Following Certification of the EIR, shows the revisions made after EIR certification. As shown, the changes include an increase of 8 units in Building 1 and 9 units in Building 2 for a total increase of 17 units, which represents a 7 percent increase in overall units.

TABLE 3-2 CHANGES FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
Building Type
Project Approved Under Certified EIR Approved Project
Units
Residential
(sf) Retail (sf) Units
Residential
(sf)
Retail
(sf) Difference
Rowhouses and
Townhomes 88 174,095 0 88 174,095 0 0
Building 1
115 + 35 nonresidential
memory units
193,500 17,600
123 + 35 nonresidential
memory units
199,800 17,60
0 +8 units
Building 2 39 38,800 2,400 48 47,760 2,400 +9 units
Total 242 406,395 20,000 259 421,655 20,00
0 +17 units
Notes: sf = square feet
Source: City of Cupertino, 2020.
362
CC 05-06-2025
362 of 554

3.3 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
The proposed Modified Project would result in the following changes to Building 1:
 Increase the senior assisted living dwelling unit count to 136 dwelling units from 123 dwelling units;  Reduce the ground floor retail in Building 1 to 4,000 square feet from 17,600 square feet;  Eliminate the two subterranean parking levels to be located below Building 1.

Table 3-3, Approved Project Compared to Proposed Modified Project, shows the modifications proposed for Building 1. No changes are proposed to the landscaping, access and circulation, bird safe design, or utilities connections. Thus, this Addendum includes an evaluation of the potential impacts associated with the differences shown in Table 3-3. The proposed Modified Project is shown on Figure 3-2, Proposed Site Plan for Building 1.

TABLE 3-3 APPROVED PROJECT COMPARED TO PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT Building 1 Only Approved Project Proposed Modified Project Difference between Approved and
Proposed Modified Project
Residential 123 senior living units
35 memory care units
136 senior living units
35 memory care units
+ 13 senior living units
Retail 17,600 sf 4,000 sf - 13,600 sf
Vehicular Parking Spaces 191 0 -191
Entire Project Site
Open Space 37,601 sf 47,780 sf +10,179 sf
Notes: sf = square feet
Source: Related Companies. (project applicant), April 2024

3.3.1 RESIDENTIAL
The 117,303-square-foot building would be six stories tall with an overall height of 78 feet, 8 inches. This would be 8 feet and 8 inches taller than what was included in the Approved Project, but still within the allowable height of 80 feet with the Density Bonus. There would be a total of 171 units (136 senior living units and 35 memory care units). Of the 136 senior living units, 27 would be studios, 79 would be one bedroom, and 30 would be two bedrooms, as shown in Table 3-4, Units in Building 1. 363
CC 05-06-2025
363 of 554
TABLE 3-4 UNITS IN BUILDING 1
Level Gross Area (SF)
Studio
530 SF
1 Bedroom
710 SF
2 Bedroom
1,110 SF
Memory
Care
Total
Units
6 27,562 0 11 5 0 16
5 34,979 9 21 7 0 37
4 34,709 9 21 7 0 37
3 34,716 9 21 7 0 37
2 35,742 0 5 4 35 44
1 27,728 0 0 0 0 0
Total 195,253 27 79 30 35 171
Notes: SF= square feet
Source: Related Companies. (project applicant), April 2024.

Building 1 would also include residential facilities including a memory care outdoor terrace on the second level; communal terrace on the sixth level; and pool/wellness center/gym on the ground level, all for resident use only; and a dining facility on the ground level, for use by residents and their guests only.

3.3.2 RETAIL
The proposed Modified Project includes modifications to the retail component on the ground level of Building 1. Building 1 would have 4,000 square feet of retail space compared to the 17,600 square feet under the Approved Project. There would be 2,400 square feet on the southwest corner of Building 1 along Stevens Creek Boulevard and 1,600 square feet would be on the southeast corner of Building 1 at the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. At-grade parking for these retail uses would be provided along Mary Avenue. There would be no subterranean parking garage as originally described under the Approved Project.

3.3.3 VEHICULAR PARKING
The proposed Modified Project would not include the subterranean parking garage under Building 1 but otherwise would not change access and circulation as is described under the Approved Project. All parking would be provided at grade. Residents and visitors of Building 1 would be provided with valet parking and staff parking would be coordinated off-site. Access to Building 1 would be from Mary Avenue to the north and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south.

3.3.4 OPEN SPACE
Private open space areas would be provided for each residential unit either as a balcony or patio. Building 1 would include private balconies that range in size from 60 to 132 square feet per unit. Common open space areas would be provided to residents of Building 1 throughout the project site, including the central green space. The proposed Modified Project would include 47,789 square feet of common open space, an increase of 10,188 square feet of total project site open space from the Approved Project. 364
CC 05-06-2025
364 of 554

Figure 3-2 Proposed Site Plan for Building 1

365
CC 05-06-2025
365 of 554

3.3.5 CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed Modified Project would occur over an approximately 16-month period and is anticipated to be completed by the year 2027. Because the project site is currently graded, no demolition or haul of materials would occur.

3.3.6 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
The proposed Modified Project would add 13 additional units to Building 1 compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, based on an average household size of 2.94 persons,2 the proposed Modified Project would generate about 38 new residents. The proposed Modified Project would decrease retail space by 13,600 square feet compared to the Approved Project. Using the generation rates applied in the General Plan EIR,
3 of 450 square feet of commercial space per employee, the proposed Modified Project would generate 30 fewer employees for the proposed retail uses.4 It is anticipated that future residents and employees would be drawn largely from Cupertino and other communities in the San Francisco Bay Area.

3.3.7 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Following the approval of this Addendum and the proposed Modified Project, the following discretionary permits and approvals from the City would be required:
 Development Permit
 Architectural and Site Approval Permit
 Use Permit

2 Population is calculated by applying the City’s generation rate used in the General Plan EIR of 2.94 persons per household 3 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, (December 2014) and approved General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR Final Addendum, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007 (October 2015).
4 17,600 square feet of retail divided by 450 square feet per employee equals 39 employees for the Approved Project. 4,000 square feet of retail divided by 450 square feet per employee equals 9 employees. 366
CC 05-06-2025
366 of 554
This page has been intentionally left blank.
367
CC 05-06-2025
367 of 554
Environmental Analysis
As previously described in Chapter 2, Standard for Preparation of an Addendum, this Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 to determine whether implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in any new impacts or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. As described in the Certified EIR, due to the proposed project’s location in an urbanized setting and a qualified infill site in a Transit Priority Area (TPA), the project would not have a significant effect on agriculture, forestry, mineral resources, or aesthetics. It was determined through the preparation of an Initial Study that development of the Approved Project would also not result in significant environmental impacts for the listed environmental issues and these issues were not evaluated further in the Certified EIR. The following provides an explanation of why the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts in these topics.  Energy. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would involve the same energy-conserving features of the Approved Project, would be on the same site, and would have less energy demand by eliminating the subterranean parking levels.
 Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would occur on the same site and general footprint as that of the Approved Project and associated impacts to groundwater recharge would be similar under either scenario. The same regulatory setting as that of the Approved Project applies to the proposed Modified Project and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans identified in the Certified EIR would ensure that water quality standards would not be violated. The proposed Modified Project would be connected to the same municipal water supplies and would generate less water demand due to the elimination of the subterranean parking component.  Land Use and Planning. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would occur on the same site and general footprint as Building 1 as that of the Approved Project and would include the same land uses.

The proposed Modified Project would remain consistent with existing land use and zoning and the site’s Density Bonus pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus.

Therefore, the proposed Modified Project, same as the Approved Project, would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.  Population and Housing. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would occur on the same site and same general footprint as the Approved Project and would result in about the same percentage of population growth with 13 additional senior living units (38 additional residents).  Public Services. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would be on the same site, include the same land uses, and would generally generate the same population growth (38 additional residents and 30 fewer employees) as the Approved Project.
368
CC 05-06-2025
368 of 554
 Recreation. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would be on the same site near existing parks and provide the same facilities as the Approved Project, would roughly generate the same population growth (38 additional residents and 30 fewer employees). Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would create the need for new or improved recreational facilities, which could cause an environmental impact.
 Wildfire. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would be on the same site as the Approved Project and not in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones.

Accordingly, this Addendum only considers the extent to which the proposed modifications could result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts; it does not reevaluate impacts that would remain consistent with the analysis in the Certified EIR. The environmental topic areas analyzed in the Certified EIR include:
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
 Geology and Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Noise
 Transportation
 Utilities and Service Systems
The sections below provide an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed Modified Project and are organized to correspond with the standards of significance in the Certified EIR, consistent with Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the CEQA Guidelines. Because the Initial Study determined that construction and operation of the Approved Project would not result in significant environmental impacts for some of the environmental checklist questions, the topics are presented as “Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study,” and “Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR.” Each section contains a summary of the findings of the evaluation, organized into the following columns:
 Level of Impact in the Certified EIR presents the level of significance identified for the project analyzed in the Certified EIR, using the following acronyms:
 NI = No Impact. For these topics, there is no adverse effect on the environment.  LTS = Less than Significant. These effects are noticeable but do not exceed established or defined thresholds, and no mitigation is required.
 LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation. For these circumstances, an established or defined threshold would be exceeded, and a significant impact would occur; mitigation is required and would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.  Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified Project presents the level of significance identified for the proposed Modified Project based on the evaluation in this Addendum, using the following categories:
 New Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Modified Project would have a noticeable but less-than-significant effect on the environment that was not identified in the Certified EIR.  Same Impact as Certified EIR. The proposed Modified Project would create the same level of impact identified in the Certified EIR.
369
CC 05-06-2025
369 of 554
 Less Impact than in Certified EIR. The proposed Modified Project would create a noticeable effect on the environment, with a lesser level of impact than was identified in the Certified EIR.  Topic Not Applicable to the Proposed Modified Project. The proposed Modified Project would not have the potential to create an impact on an environmental topic that was evaluated in the Certified EIR.

4.1 AIR QUALITY
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
AQ-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? LTS X
AQ-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standards?

LTS/M X
AQ-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? LTS X
AQ-4: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topic of other emissions, such as those leading to odors, adversely affecting a substantial amount of people has been screened out from further evaluation in this Addendum because the type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., 370
CC 05-06-2025
370 of 554
auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Residential and retail uses are not associated with foul odors that constitute a public nuisance. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum.

Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
AQ-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to conflicting with or obstructing the applicable air quality plan (2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan) based on consistency with the General Plan’s land use designation and zoning district for the site, as well as the location within a PDA and a TPA. The proposed Modified Project would not change the location, nor the General Plan land use designation and zoning district of the project site. Additionally, the Approved Project was not considered a regionally significant project that would affect regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and warrant intergovernmental review by Association Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), nor would it exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) emissions thresholds. The proposed Modified Project, with minor changes to the residential units and nonresidential space, is not significant enough to change these findings. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

AQ-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation during the construction phase and less than significant during operation for impacts associated with an increase in criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The site has already been graded in preparation for construction of the Approved Project, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project, so the impact due to fugitive dust would be lessened for the remainder of the construction activities. The Approved Project would be required to comply with the BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures as described in Mitigation Measure AQ-2 in the Certified EIR. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 has been replaced by compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1), which requires the project applicant to implement the BAAQMD Basic Control Measures included in the latest version of BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced, to control fugitive dust (i.e., particulate matter [PM2.5 and PM10]) during demolition, ground-disturbing activities, and/or construction.

The project applicant shall include these measures in the applicable construction documents, prior to issuance of the first permit. As a result, the proposed Modified Project must control fugitive dust during construction in accordance with CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1) and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 as presented in the Certified EIR is no longer warranted. BAAQMD considers all impacts related to fugitive dust emissions from construction to be less than significant with implementation of BAAQMD’s best management practices. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to constructionrelated fugitive dust.

Operational emissions for residential developments are typically generated from mobile sources (burning of fossil fuels in cars); energy sources (cooling, heating, and cooking); and area sources (landscape 371
CC 05-06-2025
371 of 554
equipment and household products). The Certified EIR found that none of the emission sources analyzed would create pollutant levels exceeding the BAAQMD thresholds under the Approved Project. The proposed Modified Project would include the same types of uses as the Approved Project and would eliminate the subterranean parking for residents and guests of Building 1. The residents and visitors would rely on valet parking. This would decrease the mobile source emissions estimated under the Approved Project. Based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum). 5 The number of residential units in Building 1
under the proposed Modified Project would increase by 8 percent, though retail space would decrease by 30 percent. Overall, this would decrease the energy source and area source emissions under the proposed Modified Project. As mobile source emissions would generate the majority of increases in longterm criteria air pollutants, the decrease in daily vehicle trips due to the loss of parking would result in a decrease in operation-related emissions as well. As a result, like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would not exceed the BAAQMD regional significance threshold. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the operational air quality impacts identified in the Certified EIR.

AQ-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact associated with construction- and operational-related health risks (i.e., exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations). Construction-related activities of the Approved Project would result in emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., demolition, clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. The Certified EIR found that the maximum concentration of PM2.5 during construction of the Approved Project was 0.011 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3 ), which is below the
BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 μg/m3
. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk from project construction was 2.23 per million based on an annual PM10 concentration of 0.012 μg/m3 . Non-cancer
hazards for DPM was below the BAAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.001 and an acute hazard index of 0.01. Construction of the proposed Modified Project would reduce the amount of DPM emissions, since site grading is complete and the subterranean parking garage is not included in the proposed Modified Project. The Certified EIR found that operation of the Approved Project would not be a source of toxic air contaminants. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

AQ-4: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with air quality under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project is all development within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin contributes to regional emissions of criteria pollutants and basinwide projections of emissions. There have not been significant changes in cumulative setting and the proposed Modified Project would result in less development. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
5 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20, Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. 372
CC 05-06-2025
372 of 554

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community type. NI X
Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means.

LTS X
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, their
wildlife corridors, or nursery sites.

LTS X
Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal
population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special-status species.

LTS/M X
BIO-2: Conflict with any local ordinances or policies
protecting biological resources. LTS/M X
BIO-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS/M X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. 373
CC 05-06-2025
373 of 554
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topics regarding sensitive habitat, wetlands, migratory movement, and an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan have been screened out from further evaluation since the project site and surrounding area are urbanized and support roadways, structures, other impervious surfaces, and ornamental landscaping. The project site is bound by roadways on all sides and property beyond the roadways is developed with residential, senior services, and educational land uses. Thus, there is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community type or State or federally protected wetlands on the project site. The site contains no creeks or aquatic habitat that would support fish, and development would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurseries.

No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plan includes the project site. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
BIO-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to having a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. Though there are no known occurrences of special-status plant or animal species and no suitable habitat for such species on the project site, there is a possibility that birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code could nest in trees and other landscaping near the project site that could be disturbed during construction of Building 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in the Certified EIR would require preconstruction surveys and protective measures for active nests. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been replaced by CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1), which requires the project applicant to avoid nesting birds during construction and describes the procedures to be implemented to ensure avoidance and CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(2), which requires the project applicant to avoid special-status roosting bats during construction and describes the procedures to be implemented to ensure avoidance.

Additionally, the Approved Project included designs to minimize the risk of bird collisions through the use of bird-safe design for window treatments, rooftop equipment, and night-time lighting. The applicant has committed to implementing bird-safe design measures in the new buildings, which would further address the low risk of collision.

Further, bat species found in the Cupertino vicinity may forage and occasionally roost in the site vicinity, but suitable habitat conditions for maternity roots is absent from the project site. The potential for any special-status bat species to be present on the site is considered highly remote, given the urbanization of the site vicinity and intensity of human activity, which typically discourages possible occupation by specialstatus bats.

Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would adhere to CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1), which outlines steps to avoid disturbance or removal of bird nests protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code and special-status bats. Further, the project site would 374
CC 05-06-2025
374 of 554
remain the same, is already graded, and would have similar construction activities as under the Approved Project. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to having a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined candidate, sensitive, or special-status species.

BIO-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to local ordinances and policies protecting biological resources. The Approved Project would not conflict with any relevant goals and policies in the General Plan related to the protection of biological resources. CMC Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees Ordinance, provides regulations for the protection, preservation, and maintenance of trees of certain species and sizes. The Certified EIR described 14 trees that were proposed for removal under the Approved Project that qualified as Specimen trees pursuant to the Protected Trees Ordinance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 in the Certified EIR would ensure the project complies with the City of Cupertino’s Protected Trees Ordinance.

The proposed Modified Project would also be required to adhere to Mitigation Measure BIO-2; however, since the site is already graded, the removal of these required trees has already occurred. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to local ordinances and policies protecting biological resources.

BIO-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation cumulative impact associated with biological resources under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project considers the surrounding incorporated and unincorporated lands. Cumulative development projects within the city are in urbanized areas of the city and contain limited biological resource value.

Redevelopment and infill projects, including those in built-out urban areas, would remove vegetation that could be used for nesting by birds protected under various laws and would remove buildings and trees that could be used for roosting by sensitive bat species. However, these development projects would be required to follow applicable local and State regulations and impacts to nesting birds and the removal of protected trees, and for those in Cupertino, would be required to comply with CMC Section

17.04.050(D)(1) and CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(2). There have not been significant changes in cumulative setting since the certification of the Certified EIR and the proposed Modified Project would result in less development on the same project site. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
375
CC 05-06-2025
375 of 554

4.3 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

LTS X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
CULT-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

LTS/M X
CULT-2: Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? LTS X
CULT-3: Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
 Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
 A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of the Public Resource Code Section
5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead
agency shall consider the significance to a California
Native American tribe.

LTS/M X
CULT-4: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation

Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. 376
CC 05-06-2025
376 of 554
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topic regarding historic resources has been screened out from further evaluation since there are no local, State, or federally recognized historic properties on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. The historical building (Le Petit Trianon) at 21250 Stevens Creek Boulevard is within 1 mile of the project site; however, construction of the Approved Project would not affect this structure. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
CULT-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to archaeological resources. The Certified EIR referenced the General Plan EIR and stated that the cultural resources study did not identify any known archaeological deposits on the project site.6 The project site and the surrounding area is already developed, though it could still contain subsurface archaeological deposits, including unrecorded Native American prehistoric archaeological materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 in the Certified EIR would provide protection protocols should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered during ground disturbance. Mitigation Measure CULT1 has been replaced by CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1), Protect Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, which contains cultural resources permit requirements that are necessary to protect archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources. Same as Mitigation Measure CULT-1, the CMC requirements include providing written verification to the City that contractors and construction crews have been notified of basic archaeological site indicators, the potential for discovery of archaeological resources, laws pertaining to these resources, and procedures for protecting cultural and tribal cultural resources.

Since the time of the Certified EIR, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded and most of the construction is complete. The discovery of archaeological resources during ground disturbance is less likely to occur under the proposed Modified Project since minimal ground disturbance would be required under the proposed Modified Project, the project site location has not changed, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project. Further, the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1) (i.e., Mitigation Measure CULT-1), which outlines what to do should an archaeology resource be discovered.

Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to archaeological resources.

CULT-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to disturbing human remains. The Certified EIR found that there are no known human remains on the project site; however, the potential to unearth unknown remains during ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of the proposed project could occur. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) contain the mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of 6 City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources. 377
CC 05-06-2025
377 of 554
human remains. As previously described, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded and most of the construction is complete with the exception of Building 1. The discovery of human remains during ground disturbance is less likely to occur at this remaining location under the proposed Modified Project since minimal ground disturbance would be required under the proposed Modified Project, the project site location has not changed, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to disturbing human remains.

CULT-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to tribal cultural resources. As described under Impact CULT-1 and Impact CULT-2, no known archaeological resources, ethnographic sites, or Native American remains are located on the project site; however, the project site could contain undiscovered subsurface archaeological deposits, including unrecorded Native American prehistoric archaeological materials. Compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1) would provide protection protocols should resources with traditional or cultural significance to Native American or other descendant communities cultural resources be discovered during ground disturbance. As previously described, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded, and most of the construction is complete with the exception of Building 1. The discovery of tribal cultural resources during ground disturbance is less likely to occur under the proposed Modified Project since minimal ground disturbance would be required under the proposed Modified Project, the project site location has not changed, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project.

Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to tribal cultural resources.

CULT-4: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with cultural and tribal cultural resources under the Approved Project. Impacts to cultural resources tend to be site specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis. The significance of the impacts would depend largely on what, if any, cultural resources occur on or near the sites of related projects that are developed in the cumulative setting. Through compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1) (i.e., Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and CULT-3), the Approved Project would not be cumulatively considerable. There have not been significant changes to the project site or cumulative setting and the proposed Modified Project would result in less ground disturbance and less development than evaluated in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project.

Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts. 378
CC 05-06-2025
378 of 554

4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury or death
involving:
 Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault.
 Strong seismic ground shaking.
 Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction.
 Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards.

NI X
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. LTS X Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

LTS X
Be located on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

LTS X
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
GEO-1: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature.

LTS/M X
GEO-2: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. 379
CC 05-06-2025
379 of 554
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topics regarding risk of loss, injury, or death involving ground shaking and liquefaction, substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, unstable soil, expansive soil, and alternative wastewater disposal systems have been screened out from further evaluation because development on the project site is subject to compliance with State and City building requirements and CMC Section 16.08.110, which requires the preparation and submittal of Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. Further, the project site is not in a seismically induced liquefaction hazard zone and development of the Approved Project would not require the construction or use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
GEO-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The certified EIR found that the geology and soils on the project site are common throughout the city and region and are not considered to be unique. Further, no paleontological resources have been identified within the project site. However, ground-disturbing construction associated with development of the Approved Project, specifically the excavation of the subterranean parking facilities, could cause damage to, or destruction of, unique paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would protect paleontological resources if they are discovered during ground disturbance. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 has been replaced by CMC Section 17.04.050(H), Paleontological Resources Permit Requirements, which provides protocols to protect paleontological resources during construction that the project applicant must adhere to in the event that there is a find. The proposed Modified Project would remove the subterranean parking garage from the project, thus reducing ground-disturbing activities and lessening the likelihood that paleontological resources are discovered during construction of Building 1. Further, since the time of the Certified EIR, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded, and most of the construction is complete. The proposed Modified Project would require minimal ground disturbance, and the project site location has not changed. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to paleontological resources.

GEO-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation cumulative impact associated with geology and soils under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project considers the buildout of the city and the region. Impacts to paleontological resources tend to be site specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis and CMC Section 17.04.050(H) would be adhered to.

There have not been significant changes to the project site or cumulative setting and the proposed Modified Project would result in less ground disturbance and less development than evaluated in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts. 380
CC 05-06-2025
380 of 554

4.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
LTS X
GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
LTS X
GHG-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Discussion
Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
GHG-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to generating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Construction of the Approved Project would result in direct emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) from the operation of construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the project site. The Certified EIR found that emissions from the Approved Project would be 58 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year and would not exceed BAAQMD’s threshold.

Construction associated with the proposed Modified Project would use a similar type of construction equipment and transport of materials. The modifications to Building 1 would not alter the overall GHG emissions from construction on the project site, and the subterranean parking garage would not be included in the proposed Modified Project. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would result in less development and less construction emissions.
381
CC 05-06-2025
381 of 554
Operational GHG emissions of the Approved Project would result from direct emissions such as projectgenerated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, operation of any landscaping equipment, and would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the project, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the project site, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the project site, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would generate 1,843 MTCO2e per year and the previous 71,250-square-foot shopping center on the project site generated 1,484 MTCO2e per year. The Approved Project’s emissions would represent a net increase in GHG emissions of 359 MTCO2e per year that would not exceed the BAAQMD’s screening threshold. The proposed Modified Project would increase residential units in Building 1 by 8 percent, decrease retail space by 30 percent, and eliminate the subterranean parking garage. Based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum).
7 As a result, there would be a decrease in GHG emissions compared to the Approved Project and therefore would not increase emissions beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to generating GHG emissions.

GHG-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with consistency with California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) 2017 Scoping Plan, MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area, and the Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP). The Approved Project would be required to achieve the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards, comply with CMC Chapter 16.58, Green Building Ordinance, and would be required to build to LEED or an alternative reference standard and would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan.

Further, because the Approved Project is an infill residential mixed-use development it would be consistent with the overall goals of Plan Bay Area. Lastly, as an infill redevelopment priority housing development on a designated PDA and TPA, the Approved Project would be consistent with the overall intent of the CAP to support reductions in GHG emissions, and the Approved Project would not conflict with any goals or measures to reduce GHG emissions in the CAP.

The proposed Modified Project would result in less development and continue to be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area, and Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) as an infill development project in a PDA and TPA. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to consistency with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

GHG-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with GHG emissions under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project is not confined to a particular air basin since GHG emissions are dispersed worldwide. The impact of the Approved Project is addressed in Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2. There have not been significant changes in cumulative setting and the proposed Modified Project would result in less development. Therefore, the proposed Modified 7 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20. Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. 382
CC 05-06-2025
382 of 554
Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.

4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

LTS X
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.

NI X
For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area.

NI X
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.

LTS X
Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
HAZ-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.

LTS X
HAZ-2: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
LTS X
HAZ-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS/M X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation 383
CC 05-06-2025
383 of 554
Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topic regarding the release of hazardous materials into the environment has been screened out from further evaluation since the Approved Project, a mixed-use commercial and residential development, is not a type of project that would create a hazardous materials threat to the users of the site or the surrounding land uses. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Compliance Division would be required through the duration of the construction of the Approved Project. The topics regarding the location of the site on a hazardous materials site and within an airport land use plan have also been screened out from further evaluation since the Approved Project is not on a hazardous materials site or in an airport land use plan.

The Approved Project would not block roads and would not impede emergency access to surrounding properties or neighborhoods nor is it in a very high fire hazard severity zone in the Local Responsibility Areas of Cupertino or in the General Plan designated Wildland-Urban Interface Area. Thus, the topics regarding interfering with an emergency response plan or risk involving wildland fires have been screened out. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
HAZ-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner to minimize the potential for safety impacts. Further, none of the soils at the project site that were proposed to be excavated for off-site disposal contain elevated concentrations exceeding federal or State hazardous waste levels. Like the Approved Project, construction under the proposed Modified Project would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations regarding the use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials. Further, less soil would be exported from the project site since the proposed Modified Project no longer includes the subterranean parking garage. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

HAZ-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to hazardous emissions within 0.25 miles of a school. De Anza College is directly south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, within 140 feet of the project site. In addition, one preschool is within 0.25 miles of the project site. The Certified EIR described that since Impacts HAZ-1 and AQ-3 were both less than significant, there would be no hazardous emissions released near the schools under the Approved Project. 384
CC 05-06-2025
384 of 554
The proposed Modified Project would be on the same project site and construction of the proposed Modified Project would not greatly alter construction emissions and would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations regarding the use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to emitting hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

HAZ-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with hazards and hazardous materials under the Approved Project. Under the Approved Project, the excavation, hauling, and disposal of potentially contaminated soils would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in the city. Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would include similar construction activities and materials. Thus, the excavation, hauling, and disposal of potentially contaminated soils under the proposed Modified Project would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in the city.

Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.

4.7 NOISE
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
LessThanSignificant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
NOISE-1: Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or federal standards.

LTS/M X
NOISE-2: Generation of excessive groundborne noise
levels. LTS X
NOISE-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS/M X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation 385
CC 05-06-2025
385 of 554
Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topic regarding the location of the project site near an airport has been screened out from further evaluation since the proposed project is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. The nearest public airports are San José International Airport, approximately 7 miles to the northeast, and Palo Alto Airport, approximately 9.5 miles to the northwest. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
NOISE-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation impact with respect to increasing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Sensitive receptors near the project site include residences approximately 90 feet north of the site, the Cupertino Senior Center approximately 80 feet east of the site, and De Anza College approximately 140 feet south of the site, across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Certified EIR found that during construction of the Approved Project, the highest noise levels would occur during the grading and demolition phases and would be 75.9 A-weighted decibels (dBA) equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) during the grading phase and 79.5 dBA Lmax during the demolition phase at the nearest receptor. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 in the Certified EIR would ensure construction noise levels do not exceed the City’s standard of 80 dBA. This includes requiring appropriate work timing, notifications, and noise-reducing measures. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 has been replaced with CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2), Manage Noise During Construction, which requires the applicant and contractor to submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to the City’s Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the first permit. The Construction Noise Control Plan would demonstrate compliance with daytime and nighttime decibel limits based on the type of construction equipment, distance of construction activities from sensitive receptors, site terrain, and other project features.

Construction of the proposed Modified Project would likely use the same equipment and type of construction at the same location. Therefore, noise generated by construction of the proposed Modified Project would likely be the same as the Approved Project; however, the grading and demolition have already been completed and noise from those activities would be less for the proposed Modified Project.

Further, the subterranean parking garage is not included in the proposed Modified Project, so no excavation and soil haul would be required. Thus, impacts would be less than evaluated in the Certified EIR with compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2) (i.e., Mitigation Measure NOISE-1).

Operational noise issues evaluated in the Certified EIR include vehicle traffic noise as well as stationary source noise (e.g., mechanical equipment, on-site trucks/loading docks). The Certified EIR found that the new trips from the Approved Project would not have a significant impact on traffic noise levels as the increase would be less than 3 dBA. Based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation 386
CC 05-06-2025
386 of 554
Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum). 8 Stationary noise from the
Approved Project would be similar to typical residential, mixed-use development with most noise occurring in the daytime. Noise from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units, landscaping maintenance, parking, and truck deliveries would be likely but would not create greater noise levels than currently exist in the vicinity.

The proposed Modified Project would include 13 more senior living units, 13,600 square feet less commercial space resulting in 30 fewer employees, and elimination of the subterranean parking garage, which would reduce traffic noise when compared to the Approved Project. Further, operation of the proposed Modified Project would include similar noise-generating activities, typical of residential development as evaluated in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

NOISE-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to generating excessive groundborne noise levels. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the Approved Project would be primarily associated with construction-related activities such as jackhammering and using bulldozers or large trucks. Pile drivers were not included for construction under the Approved Project. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors would be the building 82 feet to the north. Based on typical vibration levels, ground vibration generated by other heavy-duty equipment could reach levels of 0.035 inches per second (in/sec) Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) at 82 feet. The use of construction equipment would not result in a groundborne vibration velocity level above the established threshold of 0.20 in/sec PPV.

Further, operation of the Approved Project would not generate substantial levels of vibration because there are no notable sources of vibrational energy associated with the Approved Project, such as heavy industrial machinery, railroad, or subway operations.

Construction of the proposed Modified Project would use the same construction equipment as the Approved Project. Additionally, without the inclusion of the subterranean parking garage, there would be less groundborne vibration during project construction. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

NOISE-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation cumulative impact associated with noise under the Approved Project. At the time of the Certified EIR, the nearest cumulative project was the Loc-N-Stor project at 10655 Mary Avenue about 0.5 miles to the north. This project was under preliminary review and no construction timeline had been established. With compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2) (i.e., Mitigation Measure NOISE-1), construction noise levels would not exceed 80 dBA for the surrounding off-site sensitive receptors.

Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would include similar construction activities and materials and would implement CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2) (i.e., Mitigation Measure NOISE-1). Since certification of the Certified EIR, the Loc-N-Stor project still has not begun construction. Even if the Loc-N8 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20, Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. 387
CC 05-06-2025
387 of 554
Stor project were to be constructed at a similar time as the proposed Modified Project, it would be considered too far away to cause a cumulative construction noise impact. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.

4.8 TRANSPORTATION
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

LTS X
Result in inadequate emergency access. LTS X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
TRANS-1: Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

LTS X
TRANS-2: Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). LTS X
TRANS-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topics regarding an increase in road hazards or inadequate emergency access have been screened out from further evaluation since the Approved Project, a mixed-use commercial and residential development, would not modify any design features to a public road or introduce a potentially unsafe feature that would increase hazards and access for emergency vehicles would be provided from access points off Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. The circulation pattern on the project site would 388
CC 05-06-2025
388 of 554
allow emergency vehicles full access to all internal streets. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
TRANS-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to consistency with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would generate 3 fewer (or negative 3) inbound trips and 50 new outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 4 new inbound and 26 fewer (or negative 26) outbound trips during the PM peak hour. In regard to pedestrian facilities, the Approved Project would be expected to increase the number of pedestrians using the existing sidewalks and crosswalks in the area by 20 percent, so the Approved Project would include an internal sidewalk and bicycle network, in addition to sidewalk modifications along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue.

Thus, the Approved Project would not eliminate or impede any existing pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any of the goals and policies in the City’s Pedestrian Plan. The Approved Project would also install a Class IV separated bikeway on the portion of Stevens Creek Boulevard and a Class I bike path on the western portion of the project site to connect Stevens Creek Boulevard to Mary Avenue. Further, the Approved Project would include a total of 117 bicycle parking spaces and would be consistent with the City’s bike plan. Lastly, the Approved Project would also install a bus stop on the section of Stevens Creek Boulevard west of Mary Avenue and east of the SR-85 northbound ramp and the new transit trips generated by the Approved Project are not expected to create a significant demand in excess of the capacity of the transit service that is currently provided.

The proposed Modified Project only includes modifications to Building 1 and would not impact the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities included under the Approved Project. The subterranean parking garage would not be included in the proposed Modified Project and parking for residents and visitors of Building 1 would be off-site. With respect to generated trips, based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum). 9 As described in Appendix A, the increase in residential units under the proposed Modified Project would increase trip generation for the residential portion by 32 daily trips and the reduction in retail in Building 1 would reduce trip generation by 871 daily trips. Overall, there would be less trips generated by the proposed Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to conflicts with policies addressing the circulation network.

TRANS-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). The Approved Project is a residential mixed-use development on an infill site recognized as a PDA and TPA by the regional Plan Bay Area. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would produce an approximate annual VMT of 2,662,683 miles, or a daily VMT of 7,295 miles. This would be a reduction of approximately 120,064 miles annually, or 329 miles daily from existing conditions at the time of the Certified EIR.
9 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20, Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. 389
CC 05-06-2025
389 of 554
As described in Impact TRANS-1, the proposed Modified Project would increase residential units by 8 percent and decrease retail space by 30 percent. This would generate 839 fewer trips under the proposed Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), projects within 0.25 miles of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. On February 16, 2021, the City adopted CMC Chapter 17.08, Evaluation of Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act, which provides screening criteria and VMT thresholds for land-use development projects, transportation projects, and other projects pursuant to CEQA. As previously described, the location of the project site meets this criterion. Accordingly, no transportation impacts related to VMT from the proposed Modified Project are presumed. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

TRANS-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with transportation under the Approved Project. Impact TRANS-1 and Impact TRANS-2 in the Certified EIR addresses cumulative impacts to the transportation network in the city and its surroundings; accordingly, cumulative impacts would be the same as those discussed previously and no additional analysis is warranted.

Like the Certified EIR, Impact TRANS-1 and Impact TRANS-2 address cumulative impacts to the transportation network in the city and its surroundings under the proposed Modified Project. Fewer trips would be generated under the proposed Modified Project compared to the Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project does not include any changes to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities described in the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
390
CC 05-06-2025
390 of 554

4.9 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Proposed Modified Project:

LTS X
Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

LTS X
Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals.

LTS X
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. LTS X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
UTIL-1: Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments.

LTS/M X
UTIL-2: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater
treatment.

LTS/M X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topics regarding the construction of new water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities; insufficient water supplies; and generating solid waste have been screened out from further evaluation. The Approved Project would connect to existing City infrastructure and demand would not exceed existing capacity of the infrastructure. Further, the General Plan EIR considered development in the city through the 2040 buildout horizon and found 391
CC 05-06-2025
391 of 554
that the buildout of the General Plan would not result in insufficient water supplies or other utilities.10 Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum. The topic regarding regulations related to solid waste has also been screened out from further evaluation since the Approved Project would be required to follow the City’s CAP and Zero Waste Policy regarding operational waste and CMC Chapter 16.7 regarding construction waste. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum.

Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
UTIL-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to wastewater capacity. Wastewater would be treated at the San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP). The General Plan EIR found that the estimated wastewater generation from the Approved Project and from other potential projects, as established by the General Plan and other approved projects, is the total capacity needed to serve the General Plan buildout. 11 Thus,
implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 of the Certified EIR would ensure that no building permits shall be issued by the City for the Approved Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 million gallons per day (mgd) through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system and would require the applicant to demonstrate that the Approved Project would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 has been replaced by CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, which includes Utilities and Service Systems Permit Requirements in Section 17.04.050(I) to manage wastewater inflow and infiltration to the sewer system. The proposed Modified Project would increase the residential units of Building 1 by 8 percent but decrease the retail space by 30 percent. Thus, there would a decrease in overall wastewater created by the proposed Modified Project. Further, the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(I) (i.e., Mitigation Measure UTIL-1), which would ensure that modifications to Building 1 would not exceed the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. Accordingly, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to wastewater treatment provider capacity.

UTIL-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with utilities and service systems with respect to wastewater treatment under the Approved Project. Impact UTIL-1 in the Certified EIR addresses cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment since it considers the impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with the citywide wastewater generation and demand and all development in Cupertino is bound to the same treatment allocation contractual limits and contributes to demand on the SJ/SCWPCP wastewater treatment capacity.

Like the Certified EIR, Impact UTIL-1 addresses cumulative impacts to wastewater generation and treatment capacity. Further, less wastewater would be created with the decrease in retail space under the proposed Modified Project. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
10 City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.9, Utilities and Service Systems. 11 City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.9, Utilities and Service Systems. 392
CC 05-06-2025
392 of 554
This page has been intentionally left blank.
393
CC 05-06-2025
393 of 554
Conclusion
As summarized in the following sections and for the reasons described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, the City has concluded that the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new significant impacts not previously identified in the Certified EIR; nor would it result in a substantial increase in the severity of any significant environmental impact previously identified in the Certified EIR.

For these reasons, a subsequent EIR is not required, and an Addendum to the Certified EIR is the appropriate CEQA document to address the proposed Modified Project.

5.1 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT
The proposed Modified Project is not a substantial change to the Certified EIR because it is on the same project site as the Approved Project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Certified EIR and most impacts would be less than evaluated in the Certified EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

5.2 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES
As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR, would not substantially increase the severity of significant environmental effects identified in the Certified EIR, and thus would not require major revisions to the Certified EIR. The proposed Modified Project, therefore, is not substantial and does not require major revisions to the Certified EIR or preparation of a subsequent EIR. In addition, beyond the site preparations and construction to the rest of the Approved Project, the physical conditions of the project site and vicinity have not changed substantially since the certification of the Certified EIR.

5.3 NEW INFORMATION
There has been no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known when the Certified EIR was certified in 2020, that shows that the proposed Modified Project would be expected to result in: (1) new significant environmental effects not identified in the Certified EIR; (2) substantially more severe environmental effects than shown in the Certified EIR; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible that would in fact be feasible and would 394
CC 05-06-2025
394 of 554
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project sponsor declines to adopt the mitigation or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those identified in the Certified EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project sponsor declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 395
CC 05-06-2025
395 of 554
List of Preparers
City of Cupertino
Gian Martire .................................................................................. Senior Planner, Community Development PlaceWorks
Terri McCracken................................................................................................. Principal, Principal-in-Charge Rachel Goren........................................................................................................Associate, Project Manager Christopher Giamarino................................................................. Associate, Geographic Information System Grant Reddy....................................................................................................................... Graphics Specialist Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Gary Black......................................................................................................................................... President Jonathan Chang................................................................................................................................. Engineer 396
CC 05-06-2025
396 of 554
This page has been intentionally left blank.
397
CC 05-06-2025
397 of 554

A PPENDIX A

T RI P G E N ER A T I O N S T U D Y
398
CC 05-06-2025
398 of 554
399
CC 05-06-2025
399 of 554
Memorandum
Date: September 20, 2024
To: Ms. Rachel Goren, PlaceWorks
From: Gary Black, Jonathan Chang
Subject: Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a trip generation study for the proposed assisted living and retail development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California.

The proposed project consists of 136 units for assisted living and 4,000 square feet (s.f.) of retail space. This newly proposed plan will replace a previously approved project with 124 units for assisted living and 20,000 s.f. of retail space.

Project Trip Generation
Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by many types of land uses. The research is compiled in the manual entitled Trip Generation, 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE). The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular development is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rates by the size of the development. The ITE trip generation rates for Assisted Living (Land Use 254) and Strip Retail Plaza (Land Use 822) were used for this study.

As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is estimated to generate 839 fewer daily vehicle trips than the previously approved project, with 22 fewer trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 52 fewer trips during the PM peak hour. In conclusion, the new proposed project would generate fewer trips than the previously approved project, so there is no need for additional traffic analysis.

Table 1
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Rate Trips Rate In % In Out Total Rate In % In Out Total Proposed Uses
Assisted Living1 136.0 d.u. 2.60 354 0.18 60% 14 10 24 0.24 39% 13 20 33 Retail2 4.0 ksf 54.45 218 2.36 60% 5 4 9 6.59 50% 13 13 26 Approved Uses
Assisted Living1 124 d.u. 2.60 (322) 0.18 60% (13) (9) (22) 0.24 39% (12) (18) (30) Retail2 20 ksf 54.45 (1,089) 2.36 60% (28) (19) (47) 6.59 50% (66) (66) (132) Net Project Trips -839 -22 -14 -36 -52 -51 -103
d.u. = dwelling unit
ksf = 1,000 square feet
1 2
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Size
Notes:

Assisted Living (Land Use 254) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021.

Strip Retail Plaza (Land Use 822) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. 400
CC 05-06-2025
400 of 554
401
CC 05-06-2025
401 of 554

PROPERTY LINE

STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD

MARY AVE

ROWHOUSE

TOWNHOUSE

TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE

TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE

TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE

TOWNHOUSE

EASEMENT

PROPERTY LINE
BLDG 2: BMR

SENIOR LIVING /
RETAIL
BLDG 1: SENIOR LIVING /
RETAIL

BMR SENIOR
LIVING
BMR
SENIOR
LIVING

LOBBY /

OFFICE /
MAIL

LOADING /
TRASH

PARKING
GARAGE
LOBBY

LOBBY LOUNGE

CENTRAL GREEN

CENTRAL GREEN
SITE AREA LEGEND:

BUILDING COVERAGE AREA = 111,997 SF
111,997 / 343,958 = 32.56% NET SITE
HARDSCAPE AREA = 136,582 SF
136,582 / 343,958 = 39.70% NET SITE
LANDSCAPE AREA = 95,378 SF
95,378 / 343,958 = 27.73% NET SITE
NET SITE AREA = 343,958 SF (7.9 Acres)
GROSS AREA RETAIL = 20,000 SF
SURFACE PARKING AREA = 15,577 SF
GROSS SITE AREA = 352,836 SF (8.1 Acres) RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING LOBBIES/ SUPPORT SPACE
RETAIL
6 6
6 6
6 BLDG 1: SENIOR
LIVING / RETAIL 17,405 SF 10,000 SF 92,278 SF 112,392 SF 112,392 / 343,958 = 32.67% NET SITE
137,598 SF
137,598 / 343,958 = 40.00% NET SITE
92,278 / 343,958 = 26.82% NET SITE 7
7 7
On the entitled set this sheet is G206A.

All three Westport parcel site areas were
represented together. This updated sheet reflects
the changes proposed for Building 1 site only. Any
updates from other parcels (Building 2, Townhomes)
are not reflected here.

09.28.2021 137,078 137,078 CENTRAL GREEN
BLDG 1: SENIOR
LIVING / RETAIL 17,600
SITE AREA LEGEND:

BUILDING LOBBIES/ SUPPORT SPACE
RETAIL
6 17,405 SF 10,000 SF 92,278 SF 112,392 SF
112,392 / 343,958 = 32.67% NET SITE
137,598 SF
137,598 / 343,958 = 40.00% NET SITE
92,278 / 343,958 = 26.82% NET SITE
On the entitled set this sheet is G206A.

11.0'
D
209G GREAS TAL E LOW BIN
A- A
- SIM
A P OLLO MODE L A 1000 S TA TIONARY
HA ND-FED COMPA CTOR (2) TOTA L
1/8" THICK S TE E L DIA MOND TREA D BA CK ING, TY P S E E NOTE 4 120V 15A SE RVICE OUTLE T, S EE NOTE 10
HB
1HR FIRE-RATE D WA LL B Y OTHERS
TY P (S.A .D.) S EE NOTE 3
PP
4C COM Y FL P AC TOR CON TA INERCOM BINED WASTE
PP
4C Y FL C OMP AC TOR C ON TAINER COM BINED RECYC LING
E
T
L
R
E
U
C
C
.

K
P ALLET SEE NOTE9
7'-0" WIDE ROLL-UP DOOR
O C
C
SP
OM
AR E 4C YFL PACTOR C ON TA INER COMBINED RECYC LI NG
3C Y FL LOOSE C ON TA NI ER COMBINED CO MPOST
C
SP
OM
AR
P
E
A
4C YFL CTOR C ON TA INER COMBINED WASTE
FD
3'-0" FIRE

EGRESS DOOR
11'-10"

WELLNESS/GYM/POOL
RETAIL

ADMIN/OFFICE
ADMIN

LOBBY/LOUNGE

MAIN DINING

MAIN KITCHEN

STAFF/BOH
AMENITIES = 17,118 sf BOH/SUPPORT = 9,043 sf

LOBBY/LOUNGE
GROSS AREA RETAIL = 4,000 sf
8 Enhanced Senior and Living Project (Revised) 04.01.2024 8 8
8 BLDG 1
RETAIL

BOH/MECH
402
CC 05-06-2025
402 of 554
From: Sarah Schueler
To: Gian Martire
Subject: [Urgent] Re: Westport Plan amendments - please review Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:06:48 PM
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 Mr. Martire,
I am writing on behalf of the concerned residents of Arroyo Village and Glenbrook Apartments, located near the proposed Westport Senior Living Community. After reviewing the arguments presented by the builder/owner, Jim Abrahms, we would like to express our concerns to the city’s elected officials and sincerely hope that these issues will be taken into consideration.

Overall concerns:

1. Revisions to the Original Agreement: The builder/owner of the Westport Community made several promises to city officials and to nearby residents, committing to the construction of a community that would not negatively impact the City of Cupertino.

However, the builder has since revised the plans multiple times, now proposing a new design that primarily benefits the builder's profits, while disregarding the needs of future residents and the surrounding community. [Further details of these concerns are outlined below.]

2. Rethinking the Lot Ownership: There is a risk that the builder may continue to revise the plans in ways that reduce construction costs, ultimately leaving the city with an abandoned structure. Now is the time for the city to make tough decisions, either by asking the builder to propose alternative solutions or by purchasing the site for more beneficial uses in the future (e.g., a new senior center, daycare facility, or recreational space). Cupertino has limited prime real estate, and it should not be compromised to save money for a builder at the expense of the residents who contribute significantly in taxes.

3. Traffic and Safety Issues: The traffic and crosswalk situation at Mary and Memorial Park is already dangerous for families, children, and the elderly. Vehicles rarely stop, and with the new construction, visibility will be further impaired, making it difficult for drivers to see pedestrians in time and potentially leading to fatal accidents.

Arguments Raised by the Builder
Retail and Garage Concerns:

Insufficient Parking for Retail Visitors: If the builder does not add more underground 403
CC 05-06-2025
403 of 554
parking, the existing parking spots will be fully occupied by residents, leaving no space for retail visitors. This lack of designated parking is already a problem, as current parking spots are often filled throughout the day, and there is no additional parking available due to the limited spaces on 85 Entrance and Mary (which only allows permit parking).

Inadequate Parking for Residents: With the proposed increase in units, parking will become even more strained. The current plan provides fewer than 30% of the required parking spaces for residents. This suggests that fewer than 30% of residents will own cars, which is highly unlikely, especially considering that some residents may not have access to nearby transit hubs.

Unkept Promises to Current Residents: Current residents were initially promised underground parking for the next phase of construction. This promise has now been abandoned, creating further frustration for those living in the Westport community.

Arguments Raised by the Builder
Retail and Garage Concerns:

Lack of Effort in Retail Space Development: The retail space in Building 1 has not been properly promoted, and the placement of benches along that side of the building makes it difficult for potential merchants to envision occupying the space. The builder instead uses the building 1 residents as scapegoats to carry the burden of failed retail. (page 3 of Jim Abraham's letter).

Insufficient Parking for Retail Visitors: If the builder does not add more underground parking, the existing parking spots will be fully occupied by residents, leaving no space for retail visitors. This lack of designated parking is already a problem, as current parking spots are often filled throughout the day, and there is no additional parking available due to the limited spaces on 85 Entrance and Mary (which only allows permit parking).

Park Land Dedication fee Argument:

Contradiction in the Builder’s Argument: The builder claims that future residents will be able to walk 0.5 miles to a "major public transit hub," yet they argue that these same residents will be unable to walk to the nearby park, which is less than 0.5 miles away. This contradiction suggests that the builder is trying to circumvent the $4M agreement, which would significantly impact both current residents and the city. 404
CC 05-06-2025
404 of 554
Impact on Existing Residents: Residents of Building 1 regularly utilize nearby facilities, such as the park, senior center, and Quilan Community Center. They also frequently walk their pets in the park. The addition of new residents would put additional strain on these public amenities, including the park and nearby transit options, potentially leading to increased trash and other environmental impacts.

Sidewalk argument: The current proposal does not offer a better pedestrian flow and the existing sidewalks / crosswalks offer the only way into Memorial Park, the new structure actually increases risks rather than improves the situation. ----------------
We sincerely hope that our elected city officials will carefully consider these concerns before agreeing to any further changes proposed by the builder. The builder’s main priority seems to be maximizing profits at the expense of the community’s well-being—whether through circumventing the $4M agreement, increasing the number of units to boost profits, or worsening parking and traffic conditions for existing residents.

Unfortunately, due to the arrival of my newborn son, I will be unable to attend the upcoming meeting. However, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with any city official in person to discuss these concerns. I strongly urge the city to engage with community members, not just the builder, to ensure that our voices are heard.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,
Sarah Schueler
405
CC 05-06-2025
405 of 554
#129769 Concern with the modification to the Westport Project Submitted
February 23, 2025 at 5:59 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
greatben3 <[email protected]>
Status
Solved
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Gian Martire
Address
21267 Stevens Creek Blvd
Planning Request Type
Planning Permit Submission/Resubmission
greatben3 February 23, 2025 at 5:59 PM
Dear Director,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the latest modification to the WestPort Project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard. In particular, the modification seems to include the elimination of the underground garage.

As a current resident and home owner of the Arroyo Village community, we are quite frustrated by the lack of guest parking availability as it is now. At the moment, there are 21 guest parking spots within the community, and 40 parking spots that are near the existing senior apartments. These parking spots are almost always full, and primarily occupied by the residents of the senior apartments (which does not have dedicated underground parking). With the addition of 136 new units in the larger senior apartment, but only 40 more ground parking spots, I could not see how this would allow a reasonable life quality for whoever lives in the new senior apartments, let alone allowing any guests to find parking within the Arroyo Village community.

Imagine a senior resident returning to home from grocery shopping, only to find no parking available, and the nearest public parking is either the Cupertino Sports Center or Target. They would have to hand carry all the grocery and walk a quarter mile to get home.

Eventually, people will learn to avoid using their cars whenever possible, so as to not lose the precious parking spot that they currently occupy. These situations are common in Beijing or Tokyo, where parking is scarce and expensive, but I did not expect people living in a newly built apartment in the center of Cupertino would have to face the same difficulty.

I understand that there will be a public hearing to discuss the modification proposal, but I am unable to attend due to some conflicts. If this item is being discussed as part of the modification proposal, please take this fact into your careful consideration. Also please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions regarding the current situation of the parking space.

Thank you
Hanchi C.

Gian Martire February 25, 2025 at 4:50 PM
Thank you for your comment. I will add this to the file and include it in the staff report.

Support Software by Zendesk
2/25/25, 4:51 PM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/129769/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/129769/print 1/1 406 CC 05-06-2025
406 of 554
From: Luke Connolly
To: Gian Martire
Subject: FW: Project Changes At Westport
Date: Sunday, March 2, 2025 4:44:43 PM
FYI.

Luke Connolly
Assistant Director of Community Development
Community Development
[email protected]
(408)777-1275
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2025 3:59 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Cc: Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]>; Floy Andrews <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Project Changes At Westport
What's the approval process for the following amendment for the Westport project plus a reduction in parking?
"Development Permit Amendment and Architectural & Site Approval to modify Building 1 to increase the residential unit from 123 units to 136 units (an overall increase of 13 units), eliminate the basement-level parking garage, reduce the ground floor retail from ~12,000 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft., and a request to waive the Park Land Dedication Fee. " The Westport site has been sold to three property owners as I understand. Would the waiver on Park Land Dedicate Fee be applicable to all three parcels or just to the remaining unfinished parcel?
The last approval included underground parking for the BMR units for senior independent living. What will happen to the parking spaces promised for that project in the underground garage of the last approval?
Thanks for clarifying these.

Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
407
CC 05-06-2025
407 of 554
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Danessa Techmanski <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2025 11:57 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; City of Cupertino Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: Project Changes At Westport
Dear City Council, City Manager, and Planning Commission, I am writing you regarding the following project change proposal for the Westport development:

M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003
Development Permit Amendment and Architectural & Site Approval to modify Building 1 to increase the residential unit from 123 units to 136 units (an overall increase of 13 units), eliminate the basement-level parking garage, reduce the ground floor retail from ~12,000 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft., and a request to waive the Park Land Dedication Fee. For details, please see the 2024 Applications tab below. This proposal is under review.

I find the request for these changes to the retirement development at Westport to be ludicrous on a number of levels including setting precedents for other developments within our city and also for their negative impact on our residents' quality of life.

In terms of precedents, I think that we need to hold developers accountable to their development agreements in most cases. Allowing developers to go back on their word is like having no real plan at all. Additionally this allows developers to secure plan approvals that would otherwise not pass and then partially build while awaiting new housing bills that they can take advantage of in the future. Keep in mind bills like pending SB79 or any of the other housing bills that call for a reduction in parking. Ditto for reductions in park or other fees. It has become a game with developers being the only ones who are winning at this.
408
CC 05-06-2025
408 of 554
As for quality of life, this is wrong on so many levels. As our residential developments become denser and denser we need to rely on more public park spaces and their upgrades, Not less!
The parking reduction is awful. Although Hopper works well for some it is too area restricted and inconvenient for many. How do you use Hopper when you want to load up or purchase large bulky items? What about multiple stops? How do you carpool and pick up friends? I carry many items that I use in my car and I can’t do that with Hopper either. I can only take it part way to many places and then I would have to figure out how to do the last miles and the first miles getting back to Hopper on my return. If people are forced to use Uber and Hopper that means double the trips as the rides come in and then leave after the return which doubles our traffic! We just don’t have the connected mass transit to support this.

The proposed cut to retail is also horrible. We need to put something in place that ensures that retail that is removed from a site is reincorporated in any new development plans. Already we are losing so much retail space along Steven’s Creek where Staples and Panera and Voyager coffee are. Those places continue to be busy and will be sorely missed when they are gone. I hear of many residents really being tired of the inconvenience of having to drive farther and spend their tax dollars in other cities. I can’t believe that the original retail of 40,000 sq. ft. was reduced to 12,000 sq. ft. and now they want only 4,000 sq. ft?!!! This is right across from our busy De Anza College as well.

Thank you sincerely,
Danessa Techmanski
33-year Cupertino resident
409
CC 05-06-2025
409 of 554
From: Steve Lim
To: Gian Martire
Subject: Re: Westport Senior Community Center - important arguments for public hearing Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:11:30 PM
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 Mr. Martire,
I am a current resident and owner of a property at Arroyo Village, bordering onto the proposed Westport community, I am expressing my deepest concerns for the proposed changes and hope you can review these and take them into consideration.

Key Concerns

1. Changes to the Original Agreement: The builder/owner made commitments to both city officials and residents to create a community that wouldn’t negatively impact Cupertino. However, the builder has since revised the plans to prioritize profit, disregarding the needs of future and nearby residents.

2. Traffic and Safety: The traffic and crosswalk conditions at Mary and Memorial Park are already hazardous. The new construction will worsen visibility for pedestrians, increasing the risk of accidents, especially for families and the elderly.

Concerns Regarding the Builder’s Arguments
Retail and Parking Issues:

Retail Space Planning: The retail space in Building 1 has not been properly marketed, and the placement of benches limits its appeal to potential merchants. The lack of designated retail parking is a problem, with current spaces often filled and no additional parking available due to permit-only restrictions.

Inadequate Resident Parking: The current proposal offers fewer than 30% of units with parking, which assumes an unrealistic number of residents won’t own cars. This will worsen parking problems for all.

Unkept Promises to Residents: Existing residents were promised underground parking for the next phase, but this promise is no longer being honored.

Senior Fee Concerns:

Contradictory Arguments: The builder claims future residents can walk 0.5 miles to a “major public transit hub” but argues they can’t walk to the nearby park (less than 0.5 miles away). This inconsistency suggests an attempt to bypass the $4M agreement, which would impact residents and the city.

Impact on Local Facilities: Current residents frequently use nearby amenities like the 410
CC 05-06-2025
410 of 554
park, senior center, and community center. The addition of more residents will strain these resources and increase trash and congestion.

I kindly urge the city’s elected officials to carefully consider these issues before approving further changes proposed by the builder. The builder is prioritizing profit at the expense of the community’s well-being.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Steven Lim
411
CC 05-06-2025
411 of 554
March 7,2025
Gian Martire
Re: Westport Cupertino Project, Building 1
Dear Mr. Matire,
I am a, long time, resident of the Casa De Anza Condominium complex on Mary Ave. Unfortunately, I cannot attend the March 11 meeting of the Planning Commission, to share my concerns about one modification for this project. I believe that the Planning Commission needs to carefully evaluate the impact of the elimination of the underground parking. From the drawings that are available, it looks like onsite, ground level, parking is inadequate to serve the needs of a project consisting of 135 dwelling units and 35 non-residential memory care units. There appears to be only 40 or parking spaces. I would hope the Commission would ascertain the number of staff needing parking spaces during the day and evening and how many spaces would be available for visitors and outside medical staff visiting residents.

From the early planning for the Westport projects, there were promises of underground parking. First, that was eliminated from the project #3 townhomes. There were still promises that there would be underground parking for the #2 and #1 projects. The #2 building developers, managed to talk the City into letting them eliminate the underground parking and now, the developer of the #1 building wants to eliminate underground parking, claiming that they could be allowed to eliminate it because it is close to a major transportation hub. A bus stop on Stevens Creek Blvd., in no way, constitutes a major transportation hub for the foreseeable future.

There is another project planned for the west side of Mary Ave, to be called the Villa Apartments. This is to be a complex of 40 apartments, which will require restructuring the traffic lanes, downsizing the width of the bike lanes, eliminating parallel parking on the east side of Mary Ave. and replacing diagonal parking with parallel parking along the length of the Villa Apartments, resulting in a significant reduction of parking space along Mary Ave. In addition, the need for parking for Memorial Park visitors and events and Senior Center members is growing, as parking on Mary Ave is diminishing. For these reasons, the need for adequate parking within the building #1 property is imperative. I highly recommend that the #1 building project developers not be allowed to eliminate underground parking.

Another concern is that the building #1 drawing, is very unclear, as to what the impact will be on west bound traffic on Stevens Creek Blvd. The drawings look as though the proposed bike lane and bus stop will reduce the number of west bound traffic lanes to two, on a portion of Stevens Creek Blvd., from Mary Ave to the highway 85 on ramp. Additional traffic coming out of Mary Ave added to that from De Anza College, as well as west bound traffic coming along Stevens Creek Blvd. and the relocation of the bus stop to the west side of the Mary Ave intersection, would l cause serious backups.

I am copying this letter to the Planning Commissioners. Thank you for your attention to my concerns and I hope the Planning Commissioners have a chance to read the letter before the meeting on March 11.

Sincerely,
Jean Schwab
10353 Mary Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
[email protected]
412
CC 05-06-2025
412 of 554
From: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
To: Luke Connolly; Lindsay Nelson; Gian Martire
Subject: Fwd: Westport Project Changed
Date: Thursday, April 17, 2025 6:32:19 PM
Public comment for WP.

Thanks!
Piu
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:

From: Mahesh Gurikar <[email protected]>
Date: April 17, 2025 at 9:17:24 PM EDT
To: [email protected], "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Westport Project Changed
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.

Members of the Planning Commission,
Westport’s proposal to reduce the retail space and eliminate underground parking Please do not allow the requested changes to the project. 4000 sq fr retail space is too small.

One restaurant may take 4000 sft.

We need several retail businesses here.

May be it can be reduced to about 12000 Sft.

If underground parking is eliminated, those vehicles compete for parking on Mary Avenue.

Please recommend Westport stick to original plan approved. 413
CC 05-06-2025
413 of 554
Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar
Resident of Cupertino
414
CC 05-06-2025
414 of 554
415
CC 05-06-2025
415 of 554
04/ 18 /2025
Cit y of Cu p ert in o
Plan n in g Com m ission
10 30 0 Torre Ave
Cu p ert in o, CA 9 50 14
Via em ail (p lan n in g@ cu p ert in o.gov)
Re: Ap ril 22, 20 25 h earin g, a gen d a it em 4

Dear Plan n in g Com m ission of Cu p ert in o,
We are pleased to subm it th is letter of support of th e proposed Sum m erh ill Hom es project at 20 8 4 0 St even s Cr eek Bo u levard . YIMBY Law is a 50 1(c)3 n on - profit corporation, whose m ission is t o in crease t h e accessibilit y an d affordabilit y of h ou sin g in Californ ia. Th e Sum m erh ill Hom es project will con sist of 59 town h om es, wh ich in clu d e 12 below m arket rat e townhomes, on a site designated for residential d evelop m en t in t h e Cu p ert in o Hou sin g 2023- 20 31 Hou sin g Elem en t .

Sum m erh ill’s proposal is con sist en t wit h t h e Heart of t h e Cit y sp ecific p lan , t h e Cu p ert in o Gen eral Plan , an d local zon in g ord in an ces. As you r officials h ave alread y id en t ified t o Californ ia’s Dep art m en t of Hou sin g an d Com m u n it y Develop m en t t h at t h e sit e is ap p rop riat e for residen t ial u se an d m ay con t ribu t e t o t h e RHNA obligat ion s, it is in argu ably ben eficial t o public welfare that it be used for that purpose.

Californ ia Govern m en t Cod e § 6 558 9 .5, t h e Hou sin g Accou n t abilit y Act , p roh ibit s localit ies from den yin g h ousin g developm en t projects th at are com plian t with th e locality’s gen eral plan 416
CC 05-06-2025
416 of 554
at the tim e the application was deem ed com plete, unless the locality can m ake findings that the proposed housing developm ent would be a threat to public health and safety.

I am sign in g t h is let t er bot h in m y cap acit y as th e Execu t ive Dir ect or of YIMBY Law, an d as a resid en t of Californ ia wh o is affect ed by t h e sh ort age of h ou sin g in ou r st at e. I look forward to seein g th is project approved an d bough t to realization to help change the tides of the housing crisis in t h e Bay Area.

Sin cerely,
Son ja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
417
CC 05-06-2025
417 of 554
From: Rafa Sonnenfeld
To: Santosh Rao
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 - Westport Cupertino Project Date: Friday, April 18, 2025 1:58:01 PM
Attachments: Westport Cupertino letter of support.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 Rao and Commissioners,
Please find attached YIMBY Law's support letter for the above-referenced housing development project, which is being heard at your upcoming April 22nd meeting.

Thank you,
Rafa Sonnenfeld he/him
Senior Manager
Check out everything we achieved in 2024!
418
CC 05-06-2025
418 of 554
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
April 18, 2025
Santosh Rao, Chair
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Re: Westport Cupertino Project
Dear Chair Rao:

YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Government Code Section 65589.5, also known as the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"), and the Minimum Parking Requirements law, Government Code section 65863.2, commonly known as “AB 2097.” The Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws, including AB 2097, when evaluating the above-referenced project.

We write this letter to express YIMBY Law’s deep concern about the City’s position in the staff report for the proposed modifications to the Westport Cupertino project that the project is not eligible to use AB2097 to reduce its previously approved parking because AB2097 cannot be applied retroactively. Simply put, there is no basis in the text of AB2097 supporting this position. Instead, the interpretation of AB2097 is plainly inconsistent with the expressed intent of AB2097 to reduce the cost of constructing housing.

Taking the position that AB2097 cannot be applied to previously approved projects would also be inconsistent with State HCD guidance, including in a Technical Advisory published this past January.
419
CC 05-06-2025
419 of 554
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
We encourage the Planning Commission to reject the staff report’s unsupported position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project and instead approve the project’s requested parking reduction under AB2097
I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
420
CC 05-06-2025
420 of 554
From: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
To: Lindsay Nelson
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 - Westport Cupertino Project Date: Friday, April 18, 2025 2:33:26 PM
Attachments: Westport Cupertino letter of support.pdf
Hi! Lindsay
When you get comments re: agenda items, please make sure to forward to the project planner and Ben (if he doesn’t get PC emails).

Thanks
Piu
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:

From: Rafa Sonnenfeld <[email protected]>
Date: April 18, 2025 at 4:58:00 PM EDT
To: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
<[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 - Westport Cupertino Project
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 Rao and Commissioners,
Please find attached YIMBY Law's support letter for the above-referenced housing development project, which is being heard at your upcoming April 22nd meeting.

Thank you,
Rafa Sonnenfeld he/him
Senior Manager
421
CC 05-06-2025
421 of 554
Check out everything we achieved in 2024!
422
CC 05-06-2025
422 of 554
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
April 18, 2025
Santosh Rao, Chair
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Re: Westport Cupertino Project
Dear Chair Rao:

Taking the position that AB2097 cannot be applied to previously approved projects would also be inconsistent with State HCD guidance, including in a Technical Advisory published this past January.
423
CC 05-06-2025
423 of 554
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
We encourage the Planning Commission to reject the staff report’s unsupported position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project and instead approve the project’s requested parking reduction under AB2097
I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
424
CC 05-06-2025
424 of 554
From: Santosh Rao
To: Lindsay Nelson; Luke Connolly
Subject: Fw: [April 22 Planning Commission Hearing, Item #4] Letter regarding Westport Cupertino Project Use of AB2097
Date: Friday, April 18, 2025 6:23:50 PM
Attachments: J Abrams Letter re Westport Building 1 Use of AB2097_041825.pdf Please include in written communications. Thank you.

Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
[email protected]
From: Nicholas Roosevelt <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 2:54 PM
To: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>; Tracy Kosolcharoen <[email protected]>; David Fung <[email protected]>; Seema Lindskog <[email protected]>; Steven Scharf <[email protected]>
Cc: James Abrams <[email protected]>; Simsik, Balint <[email protected]>; Zak, Cascade <[email protected]>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <[email protected]>; Gian Martire <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [April 22 Planning Commission Hearing, Item #4] Letter regarding Westport Cupertino Project Use of AB2097
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 Chair Rao and Commissioners—
Attached please find a letter from the project sponsor of Item #4 on the Planning Commission’s agenda for next Tuesday, April 22 (Modifications to the Development Permit and Architectural & Site Approval for the Westport Development).

The letter regards the project’s proposed use of the parking reduction measures provided for in AB2097.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Nick
425
CC 05-06-2025
425 of 554
-------------
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.
426
CC 05-06-2025
426 of 554
1 J. ABRAMS LAW, P.C.
538 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Nick Roosevelt
[email protected]

VIA E-EMAIL
April 18, 2025
Santosh Rao
Chair
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Re: Westport Cupertino Project, Building 1
Dear Chair Rao and Commissioners:

This firm represents the project sponsor of the “Building 1” development (“Building 1”) within the Westport Cupertino project (the “Project”). The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear proposed modifications to the Project on April 22, 2025.

We were surprised and disappointed to read the staff report published on April 17, in which the City states that the Project is ineligible to utilize a state law (AB2097) intended to make housing more feasible to construct by reducing residential parking requirements. The staff report simply states without justification that “AB2097 cannot apply retroactively to this previously entitled project.” This conclusion is surprising, partially because the Project’s application was filed nearly one year ago, the law was adopted prior to such application, and the sponsor has been consistently working with the City since that time.

As reflected in the staff report, the sponsor team is open to continuing to work with Planning staff on a design solution to add approximately 19 spaces to the Project’s surface parking lot if that is what it will take for the City to expediently approve the proposed design modifications to Building 1. However, we respectfully submit to the Planning Commission and City that its position that AB2097 cannot apply to the Project is inconsistent with: (1) the text of AB2097, (2) well established principles of statutory interpretation, (3) technical guidance published by State HCD, (4) technical assistance provided to the City of Los Angeles, and (5) the well-established AB2097 implementation program in the City of Los Angeles.

As such, we respectfully request the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Project’s proposed parking modifications as originally submitted (a total of 73 surface parking spaces with no basement parking) and without conditioning its recommendation on the provision of additional surface parking that would be inconsistent with applicable state law.
427
CC 05-06-2025
427 of 554
2 Background
The application for the proposed modifications to Building 1 was submitted June 17, 2024 and accepted by Planning staff as complete on October 31, 2024. As detailed in the staff report, the application requests five modifications:
• Increase the approved senior assisted living dwelling unit count to 136 dwelling units, which is within the permitted density bonus for the Westport Cupertino project; • Reduce the total amount of proposed parking by eliminating the basement-level parking garage pursuant to AB2097, which allows for the elimination of parking requirements for projects within a half-mile of a major transit stop, such as the bus stop at Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard;1
• Utilize an available state density bonus concession to reduce otherwise required ground floor retail in Building 1 to 4,000 square feet;
• Make minor adjustments to the design of Building 1 that will reduce its height and decrease its overall square footage; and
• Waive application of the Park Land Dedication Fee.

We generally refer the Commission to the Staff Report and our June 18, 2024 letter included in the agenda package for the April 22 hearing for further detail and justification for the requested modifications unrelated to AB2097.

The application was initially noticed for a hearing before the Planning Commission on February 25, 2025, then successively rescheduled to March 11, March 25, and then April 22 based on varying justifications including errors in required public noticing, onboarding of new staff, and the need for further time for City decisionmakers to understand the state laws being invoked as part of the proposed modifications.

On the same day the project sponsor was informed on April 10 that the hearing would actually proceed on April 22, we were verbally informed that the City might take the position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Project because it cannot be applied retroactively to already approved projects.

For the following reasons, we respectfully submit this interpretation of AB2097 is not supportable.
1 We note that previous approvals for the Westport Cupertino project, Staff Report, and the Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1 all make clear that there is no dispute that the Project is located within a half-mile of a major transit stop as required by AB2097. See, e.g., Staff Report p. 8 and Addendum p. 4-23.
428
CC 05-06-2025
428 of 554
3 Nothing in AB2097 Says It Only Applies to Wholly “New” Projects Simply stated, there is no language in AB2097 stating that it only applies to projects approved after its effective date of January 1, 2023. However, the law is clear about which types of previously approved projects are disqualified. Disqualified projects are those that:
[eliminate] commercial parking requirements if it conflicts with an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2023, provided that all of the required commercial parking is shared with the public. See Govt. Code § 65863.2(h)(1).

Through this clause, the authors of the legislation identified which projects are disqualified. The authors did not include previously approved projects in this list.

It is a well-established principle of California statutory interpretation that the reader may not insert language, nor ignore language which has been inserted. See Harbor Fumigation, Inc. v.

County of San Diego Air Pollution Control Dist., 43 Cal.App.4th 854, 860 (1996). Here, the City’s position that AB2097 cannot apply retroactively to the Project depends on a broad prohibition on retroactive use that simply is not in the text of the law, while ignoring text that conversely supports there is no such broad prohibition on retroactive use of the law and that the clear intent of the law is to allow projects (particularly housing projects) to reduce their cost of construction, subject to narrow exceptions.

More specifically, AB2097 states that the “Legislature finds and declares that the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increased greenhouse gas emissions” and that “[t]herefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section.” See Govt. Code § 65863.2(i). This clause does not say the intent of AB2097 is to prohibit the imposition of parking requirements moving forward, it instead clearly and broadly expresses the intent of the state legislature to prohibit the imposition of parking requirements for all projects within a half mile of a major transit stop.

AB2097 also provides that cities may impose EV and ADA parking requirements to “new” multifamily residential or nonresidential development. See Govt. Code § 65863.2(f). That is, in addition to setting forth the limited circumstances where an otherwise eligible project can be disqualified from using AB2097, the state legislature also clearly provides the certain instances where “new” projects can be subject to certain parking requirements. In other words, AB2097 addresses both retroactive and prospective application of the law for certain types of projects, but does not broadly prohibit retroactive use of the law, certainly not for an approved housing development like this Project.

State HCD Guidance Makes Clear that AB2097 Can Apply to Existing Uses Included as Attachment 1 to this letter is a Technical Advisory published by State HCD this past January which clearly states that AB2097: (1) can apply to existing buildings or structures; and (2) can be used to eliminate existing parking agreements with a public agency that were executed before January 1, 2023. See highlighted text on page 6. 429
CC 05-06-2025
429 of 554
4 State HCD Has Issued Technical Assistance Letters for a Project in Los Angeles Proposing to Invoke AB2097 After Initially Being Approved With a Parking Requirement Included as Attachment 2 are two letters issued by State HCD to the City of Los Angeles where the underlying project facts make clear that the project in question was approved with a parking requirement and thereafter proposed to eliminate it using AB2097. See highlighted text on page 2 of the March 28, 2024 letter and page 1 of the November 17, 2023 letter.

Well Established AB2097 Implementation Policy in Los Angeles Supports Applicability of AB2097 to Previously Approved Projects
Including as Attachment 3 is City of Los Angeles Inter-Departmental Memo regarding Implementation of AB 2097 provided detailed guidance on the City’s implementation of law and clearly setting forth the City’s position that AB2097 applies to previously approved projects seeking to amend their entitlements to invoke AB2097. See page 5.

Conclusion
For the reasons above, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission reconsider the position regarding AB2097 in the Staff Report and recommend approval of the sponsor’s proposed modification to the Project’s parking proposal as proposed (utilizing AB2097). We emphasize that project sponsor is not proposing the parking modifications on a whim (nor is it proposing to entirely eliminate parking as it is entitled to under AB2097), but instead is pursuing the modification in a tailored effort to make the construction of Building 1 financeable in a manner that will deliver new housing consistent with the City’s Housing Element and state law.

Sincerely,
Nick Roosevelt
CC:

Piu Ghosh
Planning Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Gian Martire
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Floy Andrews
City Attorney
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
[email protected]
430
CC 05-06-2025
430 of 554
5 ATTACHMENT 1
State HCD Technical Advisory on AB2097
431
CC 05-06-2025
431 of 554
California Department of Housing and Community Development

TECHNICAL ADVISORY
On the Implementation of AB 2097, Prohibition on Minimum Parking Requirements (Statutes of 2022)
Housing Policy Development Division
January 2025
432
CC 05-06-2025
432 of 554
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 2 of 11
Contents
Section 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 2 Section 2.Key Provisions of AB 2097 ............................................................................. 3 Section 3.Project Site Eligibility ...................................................................................... 4 Section 4.Determining AB 2097 Eligibility....................................................................... 5 Section 5.Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) .............................................................. 5  Voluntary and Required Parking .......................................................................... 5  Project Eligibility ................................................................................................... 6  Major Transit Stop Eligibility ................................................................................. 6  Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) .................................................................... 7  Transit Service Frequency ................................................................................... 7 Section 6.Recommended Methodologies ....................................................................... 8  Peak Morning and Afternoon Commute Periods .................................................. 8  Peak Period Bus Service Interval Frequency ....................................................... 9  Intersections of Two or More Major Bus Routes .................................................. 9  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations ........................................................................ 9 Section 7. Links to Other State Resources ...................................................................... 9 Section 8.AB 2097 Statute (Government Code Section 65863.2) ................................ 10 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
On September 22, 2022, Governor Newsom signed
Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 (Chapter 459, Statutes of
2022), which aims to promote more affordable housing
solutions and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
removing mandatory parking minimums within one-half
mile of major transit stops (with some exceptions) and
addressing excess parking spaces that drive up costs.

This law took effect on January 1, 2023.

On September 19, 2024, Governor Newsom
strengthened these efforts by signing AB 2553 (Chapter
275, Statutes of 2024), which expands the definition of “major transit stop” by increasing the frequency of bus service intervals to 20 minutes or less during peak periods. This portion of the law takes effect January 1, 2025.

In combination, AB 2097 empowers developers and communities to prioritize housing and other development projects near transit hubs, which supports more sustainable and connected communities while addressing California’s critical housing and climate challenges.

The California Department of
Housing and Community
Development (HCD) has authority
to enforce AB 2097 pursuant to
Government Code section 65585,
subdivision (j)(12). This technical
advisory provides guidance and
considerations regarding
implementation of AB 2097.
433
CC 05-06-2025
433 of 554
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 3 of 11
SECTION 2. KEY PROVISIONS OF AB 2097
The applicable statutory citations that define the provisions of AB 2097 can be found in the following sections of the Government and Public Resources Codes.

AB 2097 Statute
1 A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on eligible residential, commercial, or other development projects located within one-half mile of public transit.

Gov. Code,
§ 65863.2,
subd. (a)
2 “Public transit” means a “major transit stop” as defined in Public Resources Code section 21155.

Gov. Code,
§ 65863.2,
subd. (e)(5)
3 “Major transit stop” is defined in Public Resources Code section 21064.3.

A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units, or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop. Major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan also qualify.

Pub. Res. Code,
§ 21155,
subd. (b)
4 “Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following:
(a) Existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
(b) Ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) Intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

Pub. Res. Code,
§ 21064.3
5 (a) “Bus rapid transit” means a public mass transit service provided by a public agency or by a public private partnership that includes all the following features:
(1) Full-time dedicated bus lanes or operation in a separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
(2) Transit signal priority.
(3) All-door boarding.
(4) Fare collection system that promotes efficiency.
(5) Defined stations.
(b) “Bus rapid transit station” means a clearly defined bus station served by a bus rapid transit.

Pub. Res. Code,
§ 21060.2
6 The “applicable regional transportation plan” is prepared by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) as part of the organization’s sustainable communities strategy. There are 18 MPOs throughout the state of California.

Pub. Res. Code,
§ 21155,
subd. (a)
434
CC 05-06-2025
434 of 554
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 4 of 11
SECTION 3. PROJECT SITE ELIGIBILITY
Whether AB 2097 prohibits a public agency from imposing minimum parking requirements on a development project depends on the proposed land use or whether there is a commercial parking agreement in place. For residential projects, the applicability of AB 2097 depends on the type of proposed housing, total number of housing units, and proposed affordability mix.

Table 1. Project Site Eligibility
AB 2097 prohibition on minimum parking requirements…
Does not apply to
the following uses
or circumstances

 Event centers. 1
 Hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging. 2  Commercial parking in a contractual agreement with a public agency, executed before January 1, 2023. 3
Applies without
exceptions to the
following uses 
 Development containing fewer than 20 housing units. 4  Affordable, senior, student, or special needs housing, where at least 20 percent of the total number of units are dedicated to very low-, low-, or moderate-income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities. 5
 Developments subject to other state law parking reductions. 6 Applies with
exceptions* to the
following uses 
 Other residential-only developments. 7
 Other mixed-use developments with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.7
 Transitional or supportive housing.
7  Commercial and other developments. 8
 Residential hotels, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50519. 2 *EXCEPTIONS. A local public agency can make written findings—supported by a preponderance of evidence—within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application that having no minimum parking requirements would have a substantially negative impact on any of the following:
 Regional Housing Needs. The local jurisdiction’s ability to meet its share of the regional housing need for low- and very low-income households. 9  Special Housing Needs. The local jurisdiction’s ability to meet housing needs for elderly or persons with disabilities as identified in Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(7). 10  Existing Residential or Commercial Parking. Within 0.5 mile of the development project. 11 1 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (d).
2 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (e)(6).
3 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (h)(1).
4 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (c)(2).
5 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (c)(1).
6 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (c)(3).
7 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (e)(1).
8 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (a).
9 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (b)(1).
10 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (b)(2).
11 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (b)(3).
435
CC 05-06-2025
435 of 554
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 5 of 11
SECTION 4. DETERMINING AB 2097 ELIGIBILITY
Does the project include an event center or transient
lodging (e.g., hotel, motel, bed and breakfast)?
No. Is the project located within one-half mile of a major transit stop in the applicable Regional Transportation Plan? Yes. A public agency may impose
min. automobile parking requirements.

No. Is the project within one-half mile of a major
transit stop as defined in PRC § 21064.3?
Yes. Eligible for AB 2097, possibly
with exceptions (see Section 3).

Yes. Eligible for AB 2097, possibly
with exceptions (see Section 3).

No. A public agency may impose min.
automobile parking requirements
SECTION 5. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS)
 Voluntary and Required Parking

1. Can a public agency still require
parking in certain circumstances?
Yes, but only in limited situations and only
for certain types of projects – see Section
3 (Project Site Eligibility). 12

2. Is voluntary parking allowed?
Yes. AB 2097 prohibits minimum required
parking for qualifying projects but does not
impose a maximum parking standard. An
applicant may choose to add parking even
if they qualify for a full parking exemption
under state law, although local jurisdictions
may impose a maximum parking
requirement. A public agency may require
voluntary parking spaces be used for car
share vehicles, be made publicly available
(e.g., not assigned to a specific use or
business), or be charged a parking fee, but
cannot require that any voluntary parking is
free of charge to residents. 13
12 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (b).
13 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (g).

3. Does AB 2097 apply to commercial or
other non-residential development?
Yes. AB 2097’s prohibition on minimum
parking requirements also extends to
commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential land uses – with exceptions.

See Section 3 (Project Site Eligibility). 14

4. Can a public agency still require
accessible or electric vehicle (EV)
parking?
Yes, a public agency can still require the
same percentage or number of accessible
and EV parking spaces as would have
otherwise applied if AB 2097 did not apply,
based on local and state requirements. AB
2097 does not change (i.e., reduce,
eliminate, or preclude enforcement of) the
minimum parking requirement for spaces
that are accessible for persons with
disabilities or provide charging equipment
for EVs. 15
14 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (a).
15 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (f).
436
CC 05-06-2025
436 of 554
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 6 of 11
A public agency should be aware that it
may eliminate local parking standard
requirements and nonetheless require
accessible and EV parking, for example,
calculated as a percentage of provided
parking.

5. Can a public agency still require bicycle
parking?
A public agency may require and enforce
bicycle parking. AB 2097 applies solely to
automobile parking requirements. 16
 Project Eligibility

6. Does AB 2097 only apply to new
“ground-up” development projects?
No. In addition to new construction,
AB 2097 also applies to changes of use in
existing buildings or structures, including
the creation or expansion of qualifying
uses. See Section 3 above for Project Site
Eligibility.

7. Which public agencies does AB 2097
apply to? What about the coastal zone?
AB 2097 defines “public agency” to mean
the state or any state agency, board, or
commission, any city, county, city and
county, including charter cities, or special
district, or any agency, board, or
commission of the city, county, city and
county, special district, joint powers
authority, or other political subdivision. 17
AB 2097 applies to public agencies, which
includes the Coastal Commission. See
memo by the California Coastal
Commission, dated June 30, 2023.

8. 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. 18
 Major Transit Stop Eligibility

9. How is the “within one-half mile” distance
measured for AB 2097?
The distance to a major transit stop is
measured in a straight line from the nearest
edge of the parcel containing the proposed
project to any point on the parcel or parcels
that make up the property upon which a
major transit stop is located. See HCD
Technical Assistance Letter to the City of
San Clemente, dated November 17, 2023.

Note: other statutes may measure distance
from transit differently from AB 2097.
16 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (a).
17 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (e)(4).
18 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (h)(1).

10. Does any type of existing rail station
qualify as a major transit stop?
Any existing rail station – including those
without facilities, that are unstaffed or have
infrequent or limited service – automatically
qualifies as a major transit stop. 19

11. What is the difference between “major
transit stop” and “high quality transit
corridor?”
A “high quality transit corridor” is generally
more expansive compared to “major transit
stop.” A “high quality transit corridor” is a bus
corridor with a fixed-route and service
intervals no longer than 15 minutes during
peak commute hours. 20 A major transit stop
identifies a point, parcel, or intersection.
19 Pub. Res. Code, § 21064.3, subd. (a).
20 Pub. Res. Code, § 21155, subd. (b)
437
CC 05-06-2025
437 of 554
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 7 of 11
AB 2097 specifies a site’s relationship to a
“major transit stop” and not a “high quality
transit corridor.”

12. What type of ferry terminal qualifies as a
major transit stop for AB 2097?
A ferry terminal qualifies as a major transit
stop if it is served by either a bus or rail
transit service. 21
 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

13. What if a location is a “major transit stop”
in the current RTP, but does not meet any
criteria in Public Resources Code section
21064.3 as a “major transit stop”?
A major transit stop that is included in the
applicable RTP qualifies nearby sites for the
purposes of AB 2097. 22 The statute does not
distinguish between existing and planned
major transit stops, nor future changes or
improvements. A site that qualifies based on
its proximity to a major transit stop that is
included in the RTP does not need to meet
any criteria in Public Resources Code
section 21064.3. See HCD Technical
Assistance Letters to the City of Los
Angeles, dated November 17, 2023 and
March 28, 2024.

14. What if the current RTP identifies a major
transit stop that no longer meets any
criteria in Public Resources Code section
21064.3?
The RTP remains in effect and binding for
AB 2097 eligibility during its applicable time
period, including if a major transit stop no
longer meets the criteria in Public Resources
Code section 21064.3.22
 Transit Service Frequency

15. Can different bus routes be combined for
calculating service frequency?
No, except for “colinear line families” (see
Question 16). For the purposes of AB 2097,
a major transit stop must have two or more
bus routes present, and each route must
stop at the intersection with a frequency of
service interval of 20 minutes or less during
peak morning and afternoon commute
periods.

See Section 6 (Peak Period Bus Service
Interval Frequency) for HCD
recommendation on calculating interval
frequency.

16. Can a local and rapid or express bus line
schedule be combined for calculating
service frequency?
For purposes of applying AB 2097, “colinear
line families” (i.e., bus routes that share the
same route, such as local and rapid lines)
21 Pub. Res. Code, § 21064.3, subd. (b).
are combined and considered as one service
route for service frequency. A line family that
creates a loop (e.g., clockwise and
counterclockwise service) is also considered
one route for service frequency, even if each
direction has a unique route number. Line
families are intended to function as one bus
route, where transit riders typically board the
first bus available whether it is a local or
rapid/express line, or whether the route
loops. Only the intersections where the
buses stop with a frequency interval of 20
minutes or less during morning and
afternoon peak periods may qualify as major
transit stops. Note: to qualify as an
intersection of two or more major bus routes,
a colinear line family must intersect with
another qualifying major bus route that is not
part of the line family. See HCD Technical
Assistance Letter to the City of Los Angeles,
dated March 8, 2024.
22 Pub. Res. Code, § 21155, subd. (b).
438
CC 05-06-2025
438 of 554
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 8 of 11

17. Can different bus routes be combined to
calculate frequency for the portion of a
shared route (“trunk line”) but calculated
separately where the routes are split?
Aside from colinear line families (see
Question 16), each bus route is individually
assessed for frequency, including unique bus
lines that share the same course for a
portion of their route.

SECTION 6. RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGIES
HCD presents the following recommendations to assist local agencies in their implementation of AB 2097. These recommendations, while not required, are intended to facilitate consistent implementation of the law. HCD acknowledges there are certain methodological details absent from the law for which local agencies must necessarily “fill in the gaps” to process development applications. The recommendations in this section are intended to reduce barriers to development due to required parking minimums.
 Peak Morning and Afternoon Commute Periods
Where available, HCD recommends public agencies refer to the peak hours in their applicable RTP to account for regional variability. Public Resources Code section 21064.3, subdivision (c) identifies a threshold bus service interval of 20 minutes or less “during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods” but does not indicate definitive ranges of time. The most commonly identified peak hours from a sampling of MPOs and their RTPs were 6:00 to 9:00 am and 3:00 to 7:00 pm (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1. Sampling of MPO Peak Morning and Afternoon Peak Commute Periods (2024) Morning (AM) Afternoon (PM)
MPO23 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00
AMBAG
BCAG
Fresno COG
Kern COG
MTC
SACOG
SANDAG
SBCAG
SCAG
Tahoe RPA
TCAG
23 For a full list of MPOs, see https://calcog.org/our-members. 439
CC 05-06-2025
439 of 554
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 9 of 11
 Peak Period Bus Service Interval Frequency
HCD recommends averaging bus service intervals across the combined morning and afternoon peak periods for the purposes of maximizing housing production potential and to account for peak-directional service (e.g., more frequent inbound morning service). The average frequency must be 20 minutes or less across both peak periods. In other words, two or more bus routes must stop at a given location at least 21 times in a seven-hour period to qualify for AB 2097 prohibition on minimum parking requirements. Public Resources Code section 21064.3, subdivision (c) identifies a statutory threshold of “two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less” during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods but does not provide a methodology for calculating peak frequency.  Intersections of Two or More Major Bus Routes
HCD recommends that a location or parcel should be considered within one-half mile of a major transit stop if it is served by two or more major bus routes that are within 500 feet of each other (about 0.1 mile) measured in a straight line. Public Resources Code section 21064.3, subdivision (c) identifies an “intersection of two or more major bus routes” as one criterion that may qualify as a major transit stop, but the statute does not provide a definition of “intersection.” Based on feedback from MPOs and Caltrans, acceptable distances for a passenger to transfer between transit routes on foot range between 150 feet and 500 feet. Therefore, any two or more unique bus routes that stop within 500 feet walking proximity to one another would be considered “intersecting.” See Section 5, Question 9 for measurement of one-half mile distance.  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations
HCD recommends that a BRT station may qualify as a major transit stop if the station itself is adjacent to a full-time dedicated transit lane, since AB 2097 is based on distance from a major transit stop as opposed to a corridor. Public Resources Code section 21064.2, subdivision (a) defines “major transit stop” to include a site that contains an existing BRT station, which in turn is defined as a bus station served by BRT. 24 In addition to frequent peak service intervals, transit signal priority, and other boarding features, BRT is considered a faster bus-based system because the service includes operation in a full-time dedicated bus lane or separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation. 25 However, the statute does not indicate whether the entirety of the BRT route, a majority portion of the BRT route, or just the station itself must be within or adjacent to a separate lane from other vehicular traffic.

SECTION 7. LINKS TO OTHER STATE RESOURCES
Please note that the CEQA Site Check map uses Caltrans data, which is updated regularly and may vary in methodology from those recommended in Section 6 above.  California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI). CEQA Site Check Map. Layer:

Existing Major Transit Stops per Public Resources Code sections 21155 and 21064.3. https://sitecheck.opr.ca.gov/
24 Pub. Res. Code, § 21060.2, subd. (b).
25 Pub. Res. Code, § 21060.2, subd. (a).
440
CC 05-06-2025
440 of 554
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 10 of 11
 Caltrans. High Quality Transit Stops Online Map, Layer: “Major Transit Stop.” https://data.ca.gov/dataset/ca-hq-transit-stops
 California Coastal Commission AB 2097 Memorandum.
https://www.coastal.ca.gov/lcp/mrfcj/housing.html
SECTION 8. AB 2097 STATUTE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65863.2) 65863.2.
(a) A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a city, county, or city and county may impose or enforce minimum automobile parking requirements on a project that is located within one-half mile of public transit if the public agency makes written findings, within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application, that not imposing or enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements on the development would have a substantially negative impact, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, on any of the following:
(1) The city’s, county’s, or city and county’s ability to meet its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 for low- and very low income households. (2) The city’s, county’s, or city and county’s ability to meet any special housing needs for the elderly or persons with disabilities identified in the analysis required pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
(3) Existing residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of the housing development project.
(c) For a housing development project, subdivision (b) shall not apply if the housing development project satisfies any of the following:
(1) The development dedicates a minimum of 20 percent of the total number of housing units to very low, low-, or moderate-income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities.
(2) The development contains fewer than 20 housing units. (3) The development is subject to parking reductions based on the provisions of any other applicable law.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), an event center shall provide parking, as required by local ordinance, for employees and other workers.
(e) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Housing development project” means a housing development project as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5.
(2) “Low- and very low-income households” means the same as “lower income households” as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) “Moderate-income households” means the same as “persons and families of moderate income,” as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. 441
CC 05-06-2025
441 of 554
AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 11 of 11
(4) “Public agency” means the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.
(5) “Public transit” means a major transit stop as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.
(6) “Project” does not include a project where any portion is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except where a portion of a housing development project is designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
(f) This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a new multifamily residential or nonresidential development that is located within one-half mile of public transit to provide electric vehicle supply equipment installed parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if this section did not apply.
(g) When a project provides parking voluntarily, a public agency may impose requirements on that voluntary parking to require spaces for car share vehicles, require spaces to be shared with the public, or require parking owners to charge for parking. A public agency may not require that voluntarily provided parking is provided to residents free of charge. (h) (1) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to commercial parking requirements if it conflicts with an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2023, provided that all of the required commercial parking is shared with the public. This subdivision shall apply to an existing contractual agreement that is amended after January 1, 2023, provided that the amendments do not increase commercial parking requirements. (2) A project may voluntarily build additional parking that is not shared with the public. (i) The Legislature finds and declares that the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section.
442
CC 05-06-2025
442 of 554
6 ATTACHMENT 2
State HCD Technical Assistance Letters to Los Angeles
443
CC 05-06-2025
443 of 554
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
March 28, 2024
Lisa Webber, AICP, Deputy Director of Project Planning
City of Los Angeles
200 North Spring Street, Suite 525
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Lisa Webber:

RE: Los Angeles AB 2097 Implementation – 12124 Pacific Avenue – Letter of Technical Assistance
Thank you for providing clarification on the circumstances surrounding the proposed project at 12124 Pacific Avenue (Project). The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) previously provided a Letter of Technical Assistance relating to this Project on November 17, 2023 (attached). The purpose of this letter is to expand upon the technical assistance provided in the previous letter.

As you are aware, Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21155, subdivision (b) – which serves as the basis for the definition of public transit in Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 (Chapter 459, Statutes of 2022) – defines major transit stops as equivalent to those in PRC section 21064.3, “except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan” (emphasis added). This indicates that any major transit stop that is identified in a regional transportation plan (RTP) can and should serve to qualify nearby sites for the purposes of AB 2097. The law does not distinguish between planned and existing major transit stops, or indeed place any qualifiers on the major transit stops other than their “inclusion” within the RTP. Therefore, a site that qualifies on the basis of its proximity to a major transit stop that is included in the RTP does not need to meet the 15-minute qualification standard of PRC section 21064.3, nor should it be evaluated for that purpose.

In the context of the Project, the Venice Boulevard/Centinela Avenue stop is shown in (i.e., is “included in”) the 2020 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan.1 SCAG staff has confirmed that this stop qualified as a planned major transit stop for the 2020 plan based on the methodology employed at the 1 Page 75 of the Connect SoCal 2020 Transit Technical Report. Connect SoCal 2020 is the current RTP for the SCAG region and will remain in effect until it is next updated. 444
CC 05-06-2025
444 of 554
Lisa Webber, AICP, Deputy Director of Project Planning

Page 2 ends

time of its adoption. This stop is therefore currently considered a major transit stop for the purposes of AB 2097.

During a meeting between HCD and the City on February 27, 2024, City staff explained that the City is hesitant to process the Project application because it is currently updating/syncing various other local programs that rely on designated transit stops to establish project eligibility. In consultation with SCAG, the City is studying various methodologies that can be used to identify and categorize transit stops. While HCD recognizes the importance of these long-range planning efforts, they do not constitute a legal basis to deny the Project applicant the benefits of AB 2097 to which they are entitled. The City must confirm the applicant’s eligibility under the law in writing and without further delay.

HCD remains committed to supporting the City of Los Angeles in implementing state law and hopes the City finds this clarification helpful. HCD would also like to remind the City that HCD has enforcement authority over AB 2097, among other state housing laws. Accordingly, HCD may review local government actions and inactions to determine consistency with these laws. If HCD finds that a city’s actions do not comply with state law, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that the local government is in violation of state law (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j).) If you have questions or need additional information, please contact David Ying at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
Enclosure: Letter of Technical Assistance RE: Los Angeles AB 2097 Implementation, November 17, 2023
445
CC 05-06-2025
445 of 554
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
November 17, 2023
Lisa Webber, AICP, Deputy Director of Project Planning
City of Los Angeles
200 North Spring Street, Suite 525
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Lisa Webber:

RE: Los Angeles AB 2097 Eligibility – Letter of Technical Assistance HCD received a request for technical assistance from Jeffer Mangles Butler & Mitchell LLP (JMBM) on September 27, 2023, regarding the application of Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 (Chapter 459, Statutes of 2022). AB 2097 limits the ability of a public agency to impose minimum automobile parking requirements for residential, commercial, or other qualifying development projects if they are located within one-half mile of public transit, as defined.

The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance for the benefit of both the City of Los Angeles (City) and JMBM.

Project Description and Background
HCD understands that the proposed Project,1 located at 12124 Pacific Avenue, would provide 74 housing units, including 11 units affordable to very low-income households.

The Project application, which was submitted on November 10, 2022, was approved by the City Planning Commission on August 23, 2023. After the Project was approved, the applicant became aware of the provisions of Government Code section 65863.2 (i.e., AB 2097). The applicant currently seeks to use this statute as a basis to terminate an existing parking covenant on the property. In email discussions that HCD has reviewed, the City has taken the position that the Project is not eligible under AB 2097 because it relies on a planned transit stop, rather than an existing transit stop, to establish eligibility under the law. The City does not dispute that the project site is located within one-half mile of the planned Venice Boulevard/Centinela Avenue major transit stop, as shown in the regional transit plan (RTP) adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
1 City permit number CPC-2022-8256-CU-DB-PHP-HCA
446
CC 05-06-2025
446 of 554
Lisa Webber, AICP, Deputy Director of Project Planning

Page 2 ends

Interpretation of AB 2097
Government Code section 65863.2 requires that eligible projects be located within 0.5 miles of “public transit” to qualify for the parking exemption. “Public transit,” in this instance, means a “major transit stop” as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. The definition of “major transit stop” referenced in Public Resources Code section 21155, subdivision (b), provides the following:
“A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan.” (Emphasis added) Finally, Public Resources Code section 21064.3 defines a major transit stop per the following:
“Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following:
(a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
(b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. (Emphasis added)
Therefore, the question at hand is: Can a planned “major transit stop,” as identified in an RTP, serve to qualify a site for a parking exemption pursuant to AB 2097, despite the fact that bus service frequency interval cannot yet be observed and therefore verified?
The answer is “yes,” for the following reasons. First, Public Resources Code section 21155, subdivision (b), does not condition the eligibility of planned major transit stops on their current existence. The statute only specifies that the stops be “included” in the applicable region’s RTP (in this case, SCAG’s). It is presumed that planning documents, by their very nature, will anticipate future infrastructure and conditions that do not yet exist.

Second, it is reasonable to assume that by referencing Public Resources Code section 21155, subdivision (b), the Legislature intended for the law to include both current and planned major transit stops. Had the Legislature intended for the parking exemption to apply only to major transit stops that currently exist, it could have defined applicability using only Public Resources Code section 21064.3.
447
CC 05-06-2025
447 of 554
Lisa Webber, AICP, Deputy Director of Project Planning

Page 3 ends

Conclusion
In summary, HCD finds that the project is within the one-half mile radius of a major transit stop and therefore meets the basic eligibility requirements for a parking exemption under AB 2097. HCD remains committed to supporting the City of Los Angeles in achieving planning objectives and hopes the City finds this clarification helpful. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact David Ying at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
448
CC 05-06-2025
448 of 554
7 ATTACHMENT 3
Los Angeles Memorandum Regarding AB2097 Implementation
449
CC 05-06-2025
449 of 554
FORM GEN. 160 (Rev. 6-80)

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
DATE: October 23, 2023
TO: Interested Parties
Department of City Planning Staff
FROM: Vincent P. Bertoni, AICP
Director of Planning
Department of City Planning
Osama Younan, P.E.

General Manager
Department of Building and Safety
SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF AB 2097 (2022)
On September 22, 2022, the Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2097, which added Government Code Section (§) 65863.2. AB 2097 prohibits a public agency from imposing or enforcing any minimum automobile parking requirement on any residential, commercial, or other development project that is within one-half mile of a major transit stop, with minor exceptions detailed below. A development project, for purposes of this bill, includes any project requiring a discretionary entitlement or building permit to allow the construction, reconstruction, alteration, addition, or change of use of a structure or land.

This updated memorandum supersedes the memorandum dated December 29, 2022 and will serve as guidance for staff and project applicants on the implementation of AB 2097 for discretionary and ministerial projects until the time this memo is superseded. Staff and interested parties are encouraged to refer to state law in Government Code §65863.2 for additional information as this memo is not exhaustive.

AB 2097 Eligibility and Restrictions
AB 2097 prohibits a public agency from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on most types of development within half a mile of a major transit stop. AB 2097 specifies that the parking reductions in this bill do not apply to projects that designate (i.e., create or expand) any portion of the project as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn or other transient lodging use, or reduce parking spaces designated for this use. A residential hotel as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code is not considered transient lodging and can use AB 2097. Furthermore the parking reductions do not apply to employee parking for an event center, or publicly accessible commercial parking, that is not obligated to specific use, in a contractual agreement with a public agency executed before January 1, 2023.

In addition, a public agency has the option to impose minimum parking requirements if it can make written findings within 30 days of receipt of a completed application (e.g., a complete application for an entitlement was filed and fees were paid to DCP) for a discretionary development project. These findings may not be made against the following housing development projects that:
o.y.
450
CC 05-06-2025
450 of 554
2 • Include a minimum of 20 percent of the total dwelling units for very low, low, or moderate income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities. • Contain fewer than 20 dwelling units.
• Are subject to parking reductions of any other applicable law (by satisfying the applicable eligibility requirements).

Any public agency findings to impose parking minimums must be supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record, showing that not imposing or enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements on the development would have a substantially negative impact, on any of the following:

1. The City’s ability to meet its share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for low and very low income households.

2. The City’s ability to meet any special housing needs for the elderly or persons with disabilities.

3. Existing residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of the housing development project (defined in Govt. Code Sec. 65589.5).

As part of the implementation of AB 2097, the Department of City Planning will be collecting data during the first year of implementation of the statute, and will be evaluating whether invoking either of the two housing-related findings is appropriate after such time. This will include tracking the number of projects utilizing the parking relief, the number of affordable and senior/disabled units proposed, as well as the utilization of affordable housing incentive programs. This data is critical to determine the impacts of the legislation on affordable and special needs housing production as well as to gather the data needed to determine whether or not the City sees evidence and a future rationale to invoke the exception findings related to housing production for the City’s share of RHNA numbers or special needs housing. The utilization of these findings will be based on the information collected by the City and be based on the development trends shown by this data and other City collected housing production data.

In regards to the general finding that a project may create substantial negative impacts on “existing residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of the housing development project,” members of the public and other interested parties may submit evidence to the record within 25 days of the project being accepted by the Department (the earlier the better) by emailing [email protected], with the subject line including “Evidence” followed by the project case number, or if not available the street address of the project. Evidence submitted by the general public will only be considered for discretionary development projects processed by the Department of City Planning and will be considered alongside other citywide policy priorities around equity, housing, mobility and sustainability, as well as opportunities for other mitigation strategies and the state legislative intent. The intent of the bill, as described in § 65863.2(i) states:
(i) The Legislature finds and declares that the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section.

A parking study must be provided by the public or other interested parties as part of the evidence of a parking impact for a given project. The parking impact evidence must conform to the following industry standards utilized by LADOT for review of a parking study or analysis. To provide a complete picture of overall usage and whether a consistent parking impact is present, the analysis should include the total amount of parking supply within the study area using the following parameters:
451
CC 05-06-2025
451 of 554
3 • Parking Study Area
o Minimum radius of 1,000 feet or two city blocks, whichever is greater, around the project o The study area should be enlarged proportionally to the size of the project • Parking Inventory
o Counts of both on-street and off-street parking spaces o Counts of both public and restricted parking spaces
• Parking Duration
o Monitor occupancy at three 4-hour intervals between 8am and 8pm on both weekends and weekdays
o Record both occupancy duration and turnover of parking spaces during intervals • Parking Analysis
o Areas with more than 85% utilization throughout the day should be highlighted o Mitigation measures should be recommended
Parking studies should be reviewed and stamped by a licensed traffic engineer, though they are not required to be completed by one. LADOT will determine whether evidence for parking impacts exists, in collaboration with the Department of City Planning. Substantial negative impacts will be weighed alongside potentially positive impacts on a variety of citywide policy priorities, as well as individual circumstances. Any findings under section 65863.2(b) must be made in writing within 30 days of a completed application and supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record.

In line with state and local objectives, such as reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) policy goals as well as housing equity goals, projects located in the following areas will be accorded substantial consideration against imposing or enforcing parking minimum standards on these projects:

1. Projects located within one-half mile of a fixed rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) line

2. Projects located in high and highest resource areas in the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Maps
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) and Disabled Access Parking Spaces Government Code Section 65863.2(f) of the law states that AB 2097 does not invalidate any otherwise applicable requirements regarding the provision of electric vehicle (EV) supply and charging equipment installed in parking spaces or to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities.

The EV requirements are stated in the LAMC section beginning with Section 99.04.106.4.2 and Disabled Access requirements are found in Chapter 11A or 11B of the Los Angeles Building Code (LABC). Since EV and Disabled Access requirements apply to parking spaces otherwise "provided" by the development project, if any parking spaces are voluntarily provided, EV and Disabled Access standards should be complied with when applicable.

Additional Standards for Voluntarily Provided Vehicle Parking When a project provides parking voluntarily, the state law specifies that the City may impose certain other applicable requirements, including that the voluntary parking require spaces for car share vehicles, require spaces to be shared with the public (e.g., not obligated to a specific use or business), or require parking owners to charge for parking. A public agency may not require that voluntarily provided parking is provided to residents free of charge.
452
CC 05-06-2025
452 of 554
4 If parking is not required but voluntarily provided, AB 2097 does not preclude the application of standards relating to accessing those spaces, their size, design and similar standards designed to ensure safety. (e.g. LAMC Section 12.21 A.5 - Design of Parking Facilities). Those standards are not affected by AB 2097 and shall remain in effect. However, restrictions on the number or percentage of compact stalls per LAMC 12.21 A.5(c), shall not be enforced. A project may provide any combination of standard or compact stalls for non-required, voluntarily provided parking as long as they also meet EV and Disabled Access requirements.

Bike Parking
AB 2097 addresses automobile parking in areas near transit, and does not affect required bicycle parking.

Therefore, the City will continue to require bicycle parking for residential and non-residential uses pursuant to the bicycle parking provisions in LAMC Section 12.21 A.16.

Offsite Parking Affidavits, Offsite Parking Lease Agreements and Valet Parking For an existing offsite parking affidavit, if the project site for which the parking is to be provided for is eligible to use AB 2097, the affidavit may be terminated by contacting Building and Safety for review and permitting. For an existing offsite parking lease agreement approved by City Planning, if the project site for which the parking is to be provided for is eligible to use AB 2097, the lease agreement requirement may be removed by contacting DCP and Building and Safety for review and permitting. While offsite and valet parking can not be imposed or enforced if qualified under the law, any volunteered valet parking system must follow the provisions of LAMC 103.203 including the requirement for a Valet Parking Operator permit.

Coastal Zone
For properties located in the Coastal Zone, please refer to the June 30, 2023 memo by the California Coastal Commission. It acknowledges that minimum automobile parking requirements may not be imposed or enforced but that all other Coastal Act provisions remain, including those protecting, enhancing, and maximizing public access and recreation.

Commercial Parking Subject to Existing Contractual Agreements AB 2097’s ban on imposing or enforcing parking minimums does not apply to any commercial parking requirements that are subject to an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2023, so long as the required commercial parking is shared with all members of the public.

Event Center
The bill provides that an event center is not subject to all of the parking reductions permitted in this bill and is required to provide automobile parking required by local ordinance for employees and other workers. Since the LAMC does not currently have separate parking requirements for employees or other workers, this provision does not apply. AB 2097 does not define “event center” nor does the LAMC.

California Health and Safety Code Section 40717.8 defines the term to mean “a community center, activity center, auditorium, convention center, stadium, coliseum, arena, sports facility, racetrack, pavilion, amphitheater, theme park, amusement park, fairgrounds, or other building, collection of buildings, or facility which is used exclusively or primarily for the holding of sporting events, athletic contests, contests of skill, exhibitions, conventions, meetings, spectacles, concerts, or shows, or for providing public amusement or entertainment.” The City will use this definition until it creates its own. 453
CC 05-06-2025
453 of 554
5 Implementation
On January 1, 2023, the AB 2097 provisions became effective and available to any qualified project, provided it meets the criteria in state law. The City’s Zone Information and Map Access System (ZIMAS) identifies parcels within a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop under the Planning and Zoning tab within the table of contents.

For Planning projects that intend to utilize AB 2097, the applicant will need to print the ZIMAS AB 2097 Eligibility map with a date-stamp that is within 180 days of the date of submission of a City Planning application, along with a written request to utilize AB 2097, preferably at the time of application. Please note that the ZIMAS AB 2097 Eligibility map printout includes an automatic date stamp. AB 2097 may also be requested after a City Planning application has been filed but prior to issuance of a letter of determination. This may result in the need for a revised application and/or plans to be submitted to the Project Planning team. In this instance, a written request is required along with the printed ZIMAS AB 2097 Eligibility map showing a date within 180 days of the date of a revised submission. Furthermore, staff verification of AB 2097 eligibility may be required to ensure accuracy with current transit and bus line data. ZIMAS is provided as a public service, and due to the dynamic nature of zoning and transportation information verification of information may be required.

For projects with an approved entitlement, the applicant shall submit the following: revised plans showing the changes made as a result of reducing automobile parking spaces; a date-stamped ZIMAS AB 2097 Eligibility map (dated within 180 days of the submission date); and, a written request to utilize AB 2097, to the Senior Planner of the Project Planning team that processed the entitlement. Project modifications may require additional review and payment of fees. For projects that are already existing and operating, please contact the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety for instructions on how to implement AB 2097.

For a project which is submitted for a permit application with LADBS, if it is eligible to use AB 2097 at any point between submittal date and permit issuance date, or if a ZIMAS AB 2097 Eligibility map is printed with a date-stamp within 180 days prior to submittal date and provided to the assigned Plan Check Engineer, or if a Planning entitlement indicates eligibility for AB 2097, it is eligible to utilize AB 2097 for the duration of the project until the permit is finaled and/or Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Verification of AB 2097 eligibility may be required to ensure accuracy with current transit and bus line data. If a project is already in plan check or under construction, and would like to utilize AB 2097, revised plans showing the changes as a result of reducing automobile parking spaces will need to be submitted to Building and Safety for a supplemental permit. Furthermore, if there is a Planning entitlement that needs to be updated for AB 2097 eligibility, a Planning clearance approval will need to be obtained. A fee may be required to process this request.
454
CC 05-06-2025
454 of 554
From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Fwd: Westport Project Changed
Date: Friday, April 18, 2025 6:48:58 PM
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.

Resend
Begin forwarded message:

From: Mahesh Gurikar <[email protected]>
Date: April 17, 2025 at 6:17:07 PM PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Westport Project Changed
Members of the Planning Commission,
Westport’s proposal to reduce the retail space and eliminate underground parking Please do not allow the requested changes to the project. 4000 sq fr retail space is too small.

One restaurant may take 4000 sft.

We need several retail businesses here.

May be it can be reduced to about 12000 Sft.

If underground parking is eliminated, those vehicles compete for parking on Mary Avenue.

Please recommend Westport stick to original plan approved.

Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar
Resident of Cupertino
455
CC 05-06-2025
455 of 554
From: David Rolnick
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Westport Changes
Date: Sunday, April 20, 2025 4:05:41 PM
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.

Planning Commissioners,
Please reject the proposed modifications to the Westport development.

The city has already come to a compromise development agreement with the developer – one which reduced retail from 20,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet. Now the developer is trying to break the agreement in major ways. If the Planning Commission and City Council give into this developer, it will open the floodgates for other developers to come back and reduce or eliminate retail, avoid park dedication fees, and provide insufficient parking for residents and guests.

This developer needs to be held accountable to what it agreed to. They have likely made hefty profits from subdividing the property and selling off portions to other developers for apartments and townhouses. If the developer doesn’t want to build what they agreed to, they can just let the land sit idle (making the project even less economical), or better yet, sell it to the city for a park or pickleball courts.

Regards,
David Rolnick
Resident of Cupertino
456
CC 05-06-2025
456 of 554
From: Piu Ghosh (she/her)
To: Michael Woo; Luke Connolly; Lindsay Nelson; Benjamin Fu Subject: Fwd: HAC re Westport
Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:21:23 AM
Attachments: HAC Letter re Westport.pdf
FYI…
Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Planning Manager
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:

From: Corey Smith <[email protected]>
Date: April 21, 2025 at 10:14:34 AM PDT
To: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>, Gian Martire <[email protected]>, "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <[email protected]>
Subject: HAC re Westport
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.

Chair Rao,
On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, please see our attached letter regarding the Westport project.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Respectfully,
Corey Smith
Executive Director, Housing Action Coalition
--
Corey Smith 陈锐 | Pronouns: He/Him
Executive Director | Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 720, San Francisco, CA 94111 Cell: (925) 360-5290 | Office: (415) 300-0967
457
CC 05-06-2025
457 of 554
Email: [email protected] | Web: housingactioncoalition.org Please note the new email and website.

To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". 458
CC 05-06-2025
458 of 554
April 21, 2025
Santosh Rao
Chair
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Re: April 22 Hearing on the Westport Cupertino Project
Dear Chair Rao:

The Housing Action Coalition does not support the City’s position in the staff report for the proposed modifications to the Westport Cupertino project that the project cannot use AB2097 to reduce its previously approved parking because AB2097 does not allow retroactive application to previously approved projects. There is no basis in the text of AB2097 supporting this position. Instead, AB2097 provides for limited circumstances where previously approved commercial projects cannot use the law, but otherwise clearly provides the broad use of the law for existing, approved, or newly proposed projects, particularly housing projects.

The staff report position on AB2097 is inconsistent with the clear intent of law and would by contrary to published guidance from State HCD and the housing production goals of the state.

We encourage the Planning Commission read the clear text of AB2097 and reject the staff report’s position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project.

Corey Smith, Executive Director
Housing Action Coalition (HAC)
CC: Piu Ghosh
1 459
CC 05-06-2025
459 of 554
Planning Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Gian Martire
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
2 460
CC 05-06-2025
460 of 554
3 461
CC 05-06-2025
461 of 554
From: Santosh Rao
To: Lindsay Nelson; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly
Subject: Fw: HAC re Westport
Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:39:36 AM
Attachments: HAC Letter re Westport.pdf
Dear City Clerk, Staff,
Would you please include the below in written communications for the 04/22/25 planning commission meeting and also share with the planning commissioners.

Thank you.

Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
[email protected]
From: Corey Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:13 AM
To: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>; Gian Martire <[email protected]>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <[email protected]>
Subject: HAC re Westport
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.

Chair Rao,
On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, please see our attached letter regarding the Westport project.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Respectfully,
Corey Smith
Executive Director, Housing Action Coalition
--
Corey Smith 陈锐 | Pronouns: He/Him
Executive Director | Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 720, San Francisco, CA 94111 462
CC 05-06-2025
462 of 554
Cell: (925) 360-5290 | Office: (415) 300-0967
Email: [email protected] | Web: housingactioncoalition.org Please note the new email and website.

To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". 463
CC 05-06-2025
463 of 554
April 21, 2025
Santosh Rao
Chair
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Re: April 22 Hearing on the Westport Cupertino Project
Dear Chair Rao:

The staff report position on AB2097 is inconsistent with the clear intent of law and would by contrary to published guidance from State HCD and the housing production goals of the state.

We encourage the Planning Commission read the clear text of AB2097 and reject the staff report’s position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project.

Corey Smith, Executive Director
Housing Action Coalition (HAC)
CC: Piu Ghosh
1 464
CC 05-06-2025
464 of 554
Planning Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
Gian Martire
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
[email protected]
2 465
CC 05-06-2025
465 of 554
3 466
CC 05-06-2025
466 of 554
467
CC 05-06-2025
467 of 554
Apr 21, 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 Planning Commission,
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 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
468
CC 05-06-2025
468 of 554
residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers 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, ifit 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. It is unclear why staff feels that this amended entitlement process does not provide the applicant an opportunity to invoke the law.

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
469
CC 05-06-2025
469 of 554
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 staff are 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
470
CC 05-06-2025
470 of 554
From: James Lloyd
To: Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Steven Scharf; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
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 4 for 4/22/25 Planning Commission meeting Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 4:52:21 PM
Attachments: Cupertino - 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard - HAA Letter.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 Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 4 for 4/22/25 Planning Commission meeting, the proposed 272-unit housing development project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, which includes 29 units affordable to very lowincome 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/
471
CC 05-06-2025
471 of 554
Apr 21, 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 Planning Commission,
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.

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 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
472
CC 05-06-2025
472 of 554
residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers 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, ifit 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.

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
473
CC 05-06-2025
473 of 554
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 staff are fighting to impose parking requirements on assisted living and memory care units, where residents are likely unable to drive or choose not to.

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
474
CC 05-06-2025
474 of 554
From: Jean Bedord
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Cc: Simsik, Balint; Zak, Cascade
Subject: Agenda Item 4, Planning Commission, Apr. 22: Modifications for Westport Development Assisted Living Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:48:50 AM
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.

Planning Commission and Planning Staff,
I urge you to approve the application for modification of this previously approved project, WITHOUT the additional condition of adding 20 more parking spaces. Retention of the retail space for restaurants is crucial to this location. The city lost Hobees, Coffee Society, Togos, Jamba Juice, an ice cream shop, and an Indian restaurant at this location. It was a community gathering place for both residents and DeAnza College. A new event center is being built across the street at DeAnza Community College, but there is no food service to entice the attendees to spend money in Cupertino, which they did at Hobee's when Flint Center was operational. DeAnza also has another theatre and Euphrat Art Center across the street. Students and staff at DeAnza congregate at eating places. The Bistro planned at the corner of Mary and Stevens Creek is crucial for the Senior Center. Our members want a place to go to have coffee and lunch with their friends since the Senior Center does not have food service. Later in the day, DeAnza students need a place to get something besides student union food, which closes before evening classes are over. The pickleball and tennis players would like a place to eat, as well as other users of Memorial Park. Currently this location is a food desert, in an area that could be a vibrant center and a revenue generator for the city.

Failing to retain the 4,000 sq. ft. of retail in this project would doom the retail already included in the Westport BMR housing due to lack of foot traffic.

I realize that parking in this area has been contentious, but no matter how much parking is built, there will always be complainers. Same is true for traffic . Depending on the time of day, traffic and parking on Mary is not heavy. I urge the city to rethink parking management.

Why is the city prioritizing car space over people space? Isn’t it time to figure out how to manage “shared parking” with multiple uses? Spaces do not have to be used 24/7 for the same use. Specifically:

Retail spaces are empty after closing hours and overnight Residential spaces need overnight parking but are largely empty during the day while residents are working
Service providers for seniors and IDD clients generally work during the day, not on weekends.

Visitors to assisted living/memory care do not stay long, and are usually afternoon and evening
Festivals utilize the abundant FREE public parking at DeAnza Community College Abundant FREE overflow public parking is available at DeAnza Community College Senior Center parking lot is empty in the evenings and weekends, other than festivals The parking dilemma needs to be addressed holistically by the city, rather than attempting to burden individual housing projects. New state laws, specifically AB2097, are aimed at 475
CC 05-06-2025
475 of 554
forcing cities to reduce parking requirements. Why isn’t Cupertino adjusting its requirements?
Cupertino needs to build more housing, specifically for its aging senior population, so this project needs to move ahead without additional delays. It's already been five years since the initial approval which couldn't be financed. In the meantime, COVID impacted the project and now interest rates, tariffs and rising construction costs threaten to derail it once again.

Keep in mind that the city issued only 80 building permits for new housing units in 2024, leaving a deficit of 4,431 units to fulfill the city’s RHNA number of 4,588 housing units by Jan. 31, 2031, in only six years. I urge Planning to remove obstacles to building housing, not create obstacles.

Very concerned long-time resident,
Jean Bedord
Cupertino Senior Center Advisory Council President
Age Friendly Cupertino task force member
476
CC 05-06-2025
476 of 554
From: radler digiplaces.com
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Slide for Public Comment at Planning Commission meeting, 4.22, re Item #4 Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:49:56 AM
Attachments: Richard Adler 4.22.25.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 slide that I plan to use in making a public comment at this evening's planning commission meeting regarding Agenda Item #4, regarding the Westport Development plan modifications.

I am currently planning to participate by Zoom, but may participate in person if I can.

Richard Adler
Age Friendly Cupertino
650-520-3045
477
CC 05-06-2025
477 of 554
478
CC 05-06-2025
478 of 554
Cupertino’s 65+ and 75+ Population
2015-2035
479
CC 05-06-2025
479 of 554
Data Sources
2015 City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Master Plan Demographic Analysis (2016) 2020 Same as above (updated for 2020)
2025 Neilsberg demographic insights
2030–2035 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 480
CC 05-06-2025
480 of 554
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Westport Underground Parking, Retail, Park Dedication Fees and Mary Avenue Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 1:25:03 PM
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 include the following comments as public input for Item Number 4 on the 4/22/25 Cupertino Planning Commission Agenda for Westport. )
Dear Planning Commission:

Most of the Westport Community (formerly the Oaks) has been developed. I am very Happy to see the young oak trees planted to replace the historic oak trees that were on site Before the development.

The only part of the Westport Community that needs to be finished is the section next To Mary Avenue (west side). This is being called Building 1.

I am very concerned about the proposed changes at Building 1.

A. Underground Parking. It looks as if the developer is not wanting to build the underground Parking under Building 1 that would provide promised parking for the residents of Building 2, provide Parking for the residents and support folks (family members, doctors, nurses, helpers, technicians, Emergency personnel, security, food delivery etc.) of Building 1, and parking for the retail for Building 1.

Not providing adequate parking for Building 1 and Building 2 and Retail is an extremely bad plan.

This parking was promised in the original discussions of this project over ten years ago. The parking Garage was a selling point to the city and public. I attended all those meetings. The current project Needs that parking. It is a disgrace to say everyone can walk 1/2 mile, especially when you are Dealing with seniors. To have Building 1 be regarded and marketed as an up-to-date state of the art senior care Facility there must be adequate parking. Families paying 5,000 to 8,000 dollars a month for Family members expect there to be adequate parking on site or else they may decide to Place family members elsewhere in other cities who care about the needs of patients and Their families.

B. Loss of Proposed Retail. The proposal to drastically reduce the ground floor retail on Building 1 is not a good plan. This site, as the Oaks, previously provided Cupertino with a lot of ground Floor retail, and the decision to try to eliminate so much promised retail for Building 1 is not A good fit for the city of Cupertino and residents who want to shop in their own city.

C. Loss of Park Dedication Fees. It is not a good idea to not provide parkland or pay the Park Dedication fee for Building 1. There is the need for new open space and parkland For the number of people being housed in Building 1. Parkland should be provided on Site or fees paid to allow the purchase of parkland for everyone in the city. That is the Expectation of the residents of Cupertino.

D. Mary Avenue Traffic Management. Mary Avenue is going to be greatly affected by Building 1 and careful attention needs to be paid to make sure Mary Avenue is able To carry this traffic load, especially with its complicated intersection with Stevens Creek Blvd, Highway 85 and DeAnza College ramps to Stevens Creek Blvd crossing 481
CC 05-06-2025
481 of 554
Thid intersection.

Providing adequate underground parking, retaining a lot of retail, paying park fees and Carefully configuring Mary Avenue will ensure that Building 1 at Westport will be a Success for everyone.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
Cupertino Resident
482
CC 05-06-2025
482 of 554
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Council Subject: Fwd: Westport Underground Parking, Retail, Park Dedication Fees and Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 1:27:54 PM
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 City Clerk: Please include the following comment as public input for Item Number 4 In the Planning Commission Agenda for the 4/22/25 Planning Commission meeting on Westport. Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Westport Underground Parking, Retail, Park Dedication Fees and Mary Avenue From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025, 1:24 PM
To: [email protected],[email protected] CC: [email protected],[email protected]
(Please include the following comments as public input for Item Number 4 on the 4/22/25 Cupertino Planning Commission Agenda for Westport. )
Dear Planning Commission:

Most of the Westport Community (formerly the Oaks) has been developed. I am very Happy to see the young oak trees planted to replace the historic oak trees that were on site Before the development.

The only part of the Westport Community that needs to be finished is the section next To Mary Avenue (west side). This is being called Building 1.

I am very concerned about the proposed changes at Building 1.

A. Underground Parking. It looks as if the developer is not wanting to build the underground Parking under Building 1 that would provide promised parking for the residents of Building 2, provide
Parking for the residents and support folks (family members, doctors, nurses, helpers, technicians,
Emergency personnel, security, food delivery etc.) of Building 1, and parking for the retail for Building 1.

Not providing adequate parking for Building 1 and Building 2 and Retail is an extremely bad 483
CC 05-06-2025
483 of 554
plan.

This parking was promised in the original discussions of this project over ten years ago. The parking
Garage was a selling point to the city and public. I attended all those meetings. The current project
Needs that parking. It is a disgrace to say everyone can walk 1/2 mile, especially when you are Dealing with seniors. To have Building 1 be regarded and marketed as an up-to-date state of the art senior care
Facility there must be adequate parking. Families paying 5,000 to 8,000 dollars a month for Family members expect there to be adequate parking on site or else they may decide to Place family members elsewhere in other cities who care about the needs of patients and Their families.

B. Loss of Proposed Retail. The proposal to drastically reduce the ground floor retail on Building 1 is not a good plan. This site, as the Oaks, previously provided Cupertino with a lot of ground
Floor retail, and the decision to try to eliminate so much promised retail for Building 1 is not A good fit for the city of Cupertino and residents who want to shop in their own city.

Providing adequate underground parking, retaining a lot of retail, paying park fees and Carefully configuring Mary Avenue will ensure that Building 1 at Westport will be a Success for everyone.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
Cupertino Resident
484
CC 05-06-2025
484 of 554
From: radler digiplaces.com
To: Santosh Rao
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Slides for Public Comment at Planning Commission meeting, 4.22, re Item #4 -- Revised version Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 2:09:07 PM
Attachments: Richard Adler 4.22.25 V2.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.

I have added a second slide to my presentation, so please substitute this version (labelled V2) for the one I sent previously. I have added a list of references for this data following my two slides, but I don't plan to show them, during my presentation.

From: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 11:08 AM
To: radler digiplaces.com <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Slide for Public Comment at Planning Commission meeting, 4.22, re Item #4 Thank you Richard for sharing your slides ahead of time and for your engagement on the item.

Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
[email protected]
From: radler digiplaces.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:48 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Slide for Public Comment at Planning Commission meeting, 4.22, re Item #4 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.

I am currently planning to participate by Zoom, but may participate in person if I can.

Richard Adler
485
CC 05-06-2025
485 of 554
Age Friendly Cupertino
650-520-3045
486
CC 05-06-2025
486 of 554
From: radler digiplaces.com
To: Santosh Rao
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Slides for Public Comment at Planning Commission meeting, 4.22, re Item #4 -- Revised version Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 2:09:07 PM
Attachments: Richard Adler 4.22.25 V2.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.

I am currently planning to participate by Zoom, but may participate in person if I can.

Richard Adler
487
CC 05-06-2025
487 of 554
Age Friendly Cupertino
650-520-3045
488
CC 05-06-2025
488 of 554
Presentation to
Cupertino Planning Commission
Richard Adler
Age Friendly Cupertino
April 22, 2024
V2
1 489
CC 05-06-2025
489 of 554
Cupertino’s 65+ and 75+ Population
2015-2035
Richard Adler April 22, 2025 2 490
CC 05-06-2025
490 of 554
Prevalence of Alzheimer’s
in Cupertino’s 65+ Population
Richard Adler April 22, 2025 3 491
CC 05-06-2025
491 of 554
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Gian Martire; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: 2025-04-22 Planning Commission Mtg - ITEM 4 Westport - PLEASE POST 2 PRESENTATIONS Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 8:55:12 PM
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 INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THIS ITEM.

Dear Gian, Piu and Luke,
Would you please post both Gian’s and the developer’s presentations to the city website for this meeting so people like myself can review them more slowly? Thank you very much,
Peggy Griffin
492
CC 05-06-2025
492 of 554
Cupertino Assisted Living - Project Modification Back Up Building 1 (Senior Assisted Living) Parking Needs:

Use Expected Count Typical Parking Need Onsite
Stalls
Potential
Surplus
Reasoning for Delta Alternative for Potential Overflow
Residents 171 Units 14 Stalls
= 8% Utilization Rate
(# of Cars / # of Units)
3 11 Residents will be encouraged against
bringing cars. Onsite stalls will be
dedicated to concierge vehicles.

Concierge vehicles take Residents w/in 25 min
radius, nearby Oakmont Properties have surplus
parking (6.5-8.0 miles away in SJ)
Staff 110 Staff / 3 Shifts
= 37 Staff per Shift
10-13 Stalls
= 25-35% of Max
40 Shift Staff
10 3 75% of staff at nearby Oakmont
Properties take alt transit, staff will be
incentivized through vouchers, etc.

Bus, Bike, Hopper, Carpool, De Anza, Use of Retail
Space when not open (i.e. night shift)
Visitor 30 Daily throughout Day
= 5-10 at given time
5-10 Stalls
= 17-33% of
Daily Visitors
5 5 Guest count is variable on day/time,
estimated 30 guests per day spread
across 3-6 visit times
Uber/Carshare, De Anza
Public Parking
Subtotal - Senior Assisted Living 37 Stalls 18 Stalls 19 Stalls Retail 4 Stalls per 1,000 GSF
on 4,000 GSF
16 Stalls 16 0 N/A
Total 53 Stalls 34 Stalls 19 Stalls
ALTERTNATIVE: REMOVE RETAIL SF Reallocate 16 Retail Stalls Reallocate 16 Retail Stalls to Resident/Staff Parking 16 Stalls to Residential/Staff Parking Total - Senior Assisted Living 53 Stalls 34 Stalls
Impacts to Building 2 (Senior Independent) if Building 1 (Senior Assisted Living) doesn’t get built:

1. Added Annual Maintenance Costs per REA Budget:

Year 1 REA Budget $97,945
Building 1 Share $50,931

2. Loss of 7 Parking Stalls to be provided following construction of Building 1 7 Parking Stalls Cost PSF SF per Stall Total Cost
Underground $ value $300.00 325 $682,500
Surface $ value $60.00 325 $136,500

3. Loss of Common Open Space (Building 2 Open Space included in Building 1’s Central Green) Park SF Cost PSF Total Cost
Estimated Cost of Park 12,250 $170 $2,082,500 includes Hard + Soft Costs 493
CC 05-06-2025
493 of 554

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13893 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025
Agenda #: 14.

Subject: Per the Council's direction, review potential Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects to be defunded from the current approved list.

City Council shall consider:

A) Which of the following projects to consider defunding and eliminating, or; B) Reaffirm the current Capital Improvement Programs project list.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/30/2025
powered by Legistar™494
CC 05-06-2025
494 of 554

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: May 6, 2025
Subject
Per the Council’s direction, review potential Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects to be defunded from the current approved list.

Recommended Action
City Council shall consider:

A) Which of the following projects to consider defunding and eliminating, or; B) Reaffirm the current Capital Improvement Programs project list.

Background
The proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-2026 CIP and Five-year Plan was presented to the City Council on April 2. The Council instructed staff to identify potential CIP projects to be considered for removal or reduction in scope, and to be discussed in May. The motion from the April 2 meeting is as follows:

MOTION: Chao moved and Moore seconded to approve the $2 million funding for the three projects proposed by staff, including the following input:
• City Hall Annex to move forward with 100% design
• City Hall renovation to come back in October/November, including financing options, cost-benefit analysis
• Potential items to consider for removal or reduction in scope – based on Council input at the meeting or later – to come back in May • Capital budget format goes to Audit Committee for consideration Following the Council’s direction, staff has engaged with individual council members to survey which existing CIP projects should be considered for removal or reduction in the current approved scope. The following list comprises individual councilmember’s suggestions:

1. Stevens Creek Boulevard CL IV Bikeway - Phase 2A Construction & Design of Phase 2: requested by Councilmember Wang for defunding consideration.

2. Stevens Creek Boulevard CL IV Bikeway - Phase 2B Construction: requested by Councilmember Wang for defunding consideration.

3. Stevens Creek Boulevard CL IV Bikeway - Bandley Dr. Signal: requested by Councilmember Wang for defunding consideration.
495
CC 05-06-2025
495 of 554

Page 2 ends

Cupertino City CouncilMay 6, 2025

Cupertino City Council
May 6, 2025