H - Public Comments — Cupertino City Council, May 6, 2025

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 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).

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.

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
#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
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
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.

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

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 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
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]
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.

Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar
Resident of Cupertino

YI M BY La w
2261 Market Street STE 1 041 6
S an Francisco, C A 941 1 4
hello@yim bylaw.org

1 Y IMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 1 041 6, San Francisco, C A 941 1 4 1 04/ 18/2025

Cit y o f Cu p er t in o
Planning Com m ission
1 0300 Torre A ve
Cu p er t in o , CA 9 50 14

Via em ail ([email protected])

Re: A pril 22, 2025 hearing, agenda item 4

Dear Planning Com m ission of Cupertino,

We are pleased to subm it this letter of support of the proposed Sum m erhill Hom es project at 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Y IMBY Law is a 501 (c)3 non - profit corporation, whose m ission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. The Sum m erhill Hom es project will consist of 59 townhomes , which include 1 2 below m arket rate townhomes , on a site designated for residential development in the C upertino Housing 2023 - 2031 Housing Elem ent.

Sum m erhill’s proposal is consistent with the Heart of the C ity specific plan, the C upertino General Plan, and local zoning ordinances. As your officials have already identified to California’s Departm ent of Housing and Com m unity Developm ent that the site is appropriate for residen tial use and m ay contribute to the RHNA obligations, it is inarguably beneficial to public welfare that it be used for that purpose.

California Governm ent Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development proj ects that are compliant with the locality’s general plan

YI M BY La w
2261 Market Street STE 1 041 6
S an Francisco, C A 941 1 4
hello@yim bylaw.org

2 Y IMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 1 041 6, San Francisco, C A 941 1 4 2 at the tim e the application was deem ed com plete, unless the locality can m ake findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety.

I am signing this letter both in m y capacity as the Executive Director of Y IMBY Law, and as a resident of C alifornia who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. I look forward to seeing this project approved and bought to realization to help change the tides of the housing crisis in the Bay Area.

Sincerely,

Son ja Trauss
Executive Director
YI M BY La w

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!

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

housing

California.

YIMBY

Law

sues

municipalities

when

they

fail

comply

with

state

housing

laws,

including

the

Government

Code

Section

65589.5,

also

known

the

Housing

Accountability

Act

("HAA"),

and

the

Minimum

Parking

Requirements

law,

Government

Code

section

65863.2,

commonly

known

“AB

2097.”

The

Planning

Commission

has

obligation

abide

all

relevant

state

housing

laws,

including

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

the

Westport

Cupertino

project

that

the

project

not

eligible

use

AB2097

reduce

its

previously

approved

parking

because

AB2097

cannot

applied

retroactively.

Simply

put,

there

basis

the

text

AB2097

supporting

this

position.

Instead,

the

interpretation

AB2097

plainly

inconsistent

with

the

expressed

intent

AB2097

reduce

the

cost

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.

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

unavailable

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

resident

California

who

affected

the

shortage

housing

our

state.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law

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
Check out everything we achieved in 2024!

YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 [email protected]

and

affordability

housing

California.

YIMBY

Law

sues

municipalities

when

they

fail

comply

with

state

housing

laws,

including

the

Government

Code

Section

65589.5,

also

known

the

Housing

Accountability

Act

("HAA"),

and

the

Minimum

Parking

Requirements

law,

Government

Code

section

65863.2,

commonly

known

“AB

2097.”

The

Planning

Commission

has

obligation

abide

all

relevant

state

housing

laws,

including

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

the

Westport

Cupertino

project

that

the

project

not

eligible

use

AB2097

reduce

its

previously

approved

parking

because

AB2097

cannot

applied

retroactively.

Simply

put,

there

basis

the

text

AB2097

supporting

this

position.

Instead,

the

interpretation

AB2097

plainly

inconsistent

with

the

expressed

intent

AB2097

reduce

the

cost

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.

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

unavailable

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

resident

California

who

affected

the

shortage

housing

our

state.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law

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

-------------

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.

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. 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. 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. 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] 5 ATTACHMENT 1 State HCD Technical Advisory on AB2097

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

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.

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)
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).

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 non-
residential 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).

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)
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).

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.

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).

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.

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.
6 ATTACHMENT 2 State HCD Technical Assistance Letters to Los Angeles 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.

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
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
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.

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
7 ATTACHMENT 3 Los Angeles Memorandum Regarding AB2097 Implementation 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 appli cation 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.
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 th e total amount of parking supply within the study area using the following parameters:
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.
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 th e 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. 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.

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
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
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
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".

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

the

Westport

Cupertino

project

that

the

project

cannot

use

AB2097

reduce

its

previously

approved

parking

because

AB2097

does

not

allow

retroactive

application

previously

approved

projects.

There

basis

the

text

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

the

law

for

existing,

approved,

newly

proposed

projects,

particularly

housing

projects.

The staff report position on AB2097 is inconsistent with the clear intent of law and would by

contrary

published

guidance

from

State

HCD

and

the

housing

production

goals

the

state.

We encourage the Planning Commission read the clear text of AB2097 and reject the staff

report’s

position

that

AB2097

unavailable

the

Westport

Cupertino

project.

Corey Smith , Executive Director Housing Action Coalition (HAC) CC: Piu Ghosh
1 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 3

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.

To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".

The Housing Action Coalition does not support the City’s position in the staff report for the

proposed

modifications

the

Westport

Cupertino

project

that

the

project

cannot

use

AB2097

reduce

its

previously

approved

parking

because

AB2097

does

not

allow

retroactive

application

previously

approved

projects.

There

basis

the

text

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

the

law

for

existing,

approved,

newly

proposed

projects,

particularly

housing

projects.

The staff report position on AB2097 is inconsistent with the clear intent of law and would by

contrary

published

guidance

from

State

HCD

and

the

housing

production

goals

the

state.

We encourage the Planning Commission read the clear text of AB2097 and reject the staff

report’s

position

that

AB2097

unavailable

the

Westport

Cupertino

project.

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

abide

all

relevant

state

housing

laws

when

evaluating

the

proposed

272-unit

housing

development

project

21267

Stevens

Creek

Boulevard,

including

29 units

affordable

very

low-income

households.

These

laws

include

the

Housing

Accountability

Act

(“HAA”),

the

Density

Bonus

Law

(“DBL”),

and

2097.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan

compliant

housing

development

projects

unless

findings

can

made

regarding

specific,

objective,

written

health

and

safety

hazards.

(Gov.

Code,

65589.5,

subds.

(d),

(j).)

The

HAA

also

bars

cities

from

imposing

conditions

the

approval

such

projects

that

would

render

the

project

infeasible

reduce

the

project’s

density

unless,

again,

such

written

findings

are

made.

(
Id
.

subd.

(d).)

development

with

least

two-thirds

its

area

devoted

residential

uses,

the

project

falls

within

the

HAA’s

ambit,

and

complies

with

local

zoning

code

and

the

City’s

general

plan.

Increased

density,

concessions,

and

waivers

that

project

entitled

under

the

DBL

(Gov.

Code,

65915)

not

render

the

project

noncompliant

with

the

zoning

code

general

plan,

for

purposes

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

health

and

safety

standards,

outlined

above.

CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections.

The

City

must

respect

these

protections.

addition

granting

the

increase

in
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610 www.calhdf.org

residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and

concessions

with

respect

ground

ﬂoor

retail,

addition

the

previously

approved

waivers

and

concessions,

unless

makes

written

findings

required

Government

Code,

section

65915,

subdivision

(e)(1)

that

the

waivers

would

have

specific,

adverse

impact

upon

health

safety,

and

for

which

there

feasible

method

satisfactorily

mitigate

avoid

the

specific

adverse

impact,

required

Government

Code,

section

65915,

subdivision

(d)(1)

that

the

concessions

would

not

result

identifiable

and

actual

cost

reductions,

that

the

concessions

would

have

specific,

adverse

impact

public

health

safety,

that

the

concessions

are

contrary

state

federal

law.

The

City,

ifit

makes

any

such

findings,

bears

the

burden

proof.

(Gov.

Code,

65915,

subd.

(d)(4).)

note,

the

DBL

specifically

allows

for

reduction

required

accessory

parking

addition

the

allowable

waivers

and

concessions.

(
Id
.

subd.

(p).)

Additionally,

the

California

Court

Appeal

has

ruled

that

when

applicant

has

requested

one

waivers

and/or

concessions

pursuant

the

DBL,

the

City

“may

not

apply

any

development

standard

that

would

physically

preclude

construction

that

project

designed,

even

the

building

includes

‘amenities’

beyond

the

bare

minimum

building

components.”

(
Bankers

Hill

150

City

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

contesting

the

applicability

the

law

the

project,

given

that

the

version

the

project

was

entitled

before

the

law

came

into

effect.

First, the project is seeking amended entitlements, and staff have accordingly forced the project

through

additional

environmental

review

accordingly.

unclear

why

staff

feels

that

this

amended

entitlement

process

does

not

provide

the

applicant

opportunity

invoke

the

law.

Additionally, AB 2097 clearly states “Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the

prohibition

the

imposition

mandatory

parking

minimums

outlined

this

section.”

(Gov.

Code,

§ 65863.2,

subd.

(i).)

The

Legislature

has

clearly

articulated

its

intent

that

local

agencies

should

interpret

the

law

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

2023.

2 of 3

The parking in question is not a contractual commercial parking agreement with a public agency,

and

therefore

the

HCD

guidance

that

2097

can

used

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

drive

choose

not

to.

As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage.

New

housing

such

this

public

benefit;;

will

provide

badly-needed

affordable

housing;

will

bring

increased

tax

revenue

and

new

customers

local

businesses;

and

will

reduce

displacement

existing

residents

into

homelessness.

Most

importantly,

will

allow

seniors

age

with

dignity

providing

invaluable

assisted

living

and

memory

care

housing.

While

one

project

will

solve

the

statewide

housing

crisis,

the

proposed

development

step

the

right

direction.

CalHDF

urges

the

City

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

housing

for

Californians

all

income

levels,

including

low-income

households.

You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3

From: 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 low- income households.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
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

abide

all

relevant

state

housing

laws

when

evaluating

the

proposed

272-unit

housing

development

project

21267

Stevens

Creek

Boulevard,

including

29 units

affordable

very

low-income

households.

These

laws

include

the

Housing

Accountability

Act

(“HAA”),

the

Density

Bonus

Law

(“DBL”),

and

2097.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan

compliant

housing

development

projects

unless

findings

can

made

regarding

specific,

objective,

written

health

and

safety

hazards.

(Gov.

Code,

65589.5,

subds.

(d),

(j).)

The

HAA

also

bars

cities

from

imposing

conditions

the

approval

such

projects

that

would

render

the

project

infeasible

reduce

the

project’s

density

unless,

again,

such

written

findings

are

made.

(
Id
.

subd.

(d).)

development

with

least

two-thirds

its

area

devoted

residential

uses,

the

project

falls

within

the

HAA’s

ambit,

and

complies

with

local

zoning

code

and

the

City’s

general

plan.

Increased

density,

concessions,

and

waivers

that

project

entitled

under

the

DBL

(Gov.

Code,

65915)

not

render

the

project

noncompliant

with

the

zoning

code

general

plan,

for

purposes

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

health

and

safety

standards,

outlined

above.

CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections.

The

City

must

respect

these

protections.

addition

granting

the

increase

in
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610 www.calhdf.org

residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and

concessions

with

respect

ground

ﬂoor

retail,

addition

the

previously

approved

waivers

and

concessions,

unless

makes

written

findings

required

Government

Code,

section

65915,

subdivision

(e)(1)

that

the

waivers

would

have

specific,

adverse

impact

upon

health

safety,

and

for

which

there

feasible

method

satisfactorily

mitigate

avoid

the

specific

adverse

impact,

required

Government

Code,

section

65915,

subdivision

(d)(1)

that

the

concessions

would

not

result

identifiable

and

actual

cost

reductions,

that

the

concessions

would

have

specific,

adverse

impact

public

health

safety,

that

the

concessions

are

contrary

state

federal

law.

The

City,

ifit

makes

any

such

findings,

bears

the

burden

proof.

(Gov.

Code,

65915,

subd.

(d)(4).)

note,

the

DBL

specifically

allows

for

reduction

required

accessory

parking

addition

the

allowable

waivers

and

concessions.

(
Id
.

subd.

(p).)

Additionally,

the

California

Court

Appeal

has

ruled

that

when

applicant

has

requested

one

waivers

and/or

concessions

pursuant

the

DBL,

the

City

“may

not

apply

any

development

standard

that

would

physically

preclude

construction

that

project

designed,

even

the

building

includes

‘amenities’

beyond

the

bare

minimum

building

components.”

(
Bankers

Hill

150

City

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

contesting

the

applicability

the

law

the

project,

given

that

the

version

the

project

was

entitled

before

the

law

came

into

effect.

First, the project is seeking amended entitlements, and staff have accordingly forced the project

through

additional

environmental

review

accordingly.

unclear

why

staff

feels

that

this

amended

entitlement

process

does

not

provide

the

applicant

opportunity

invoke

the

law.

Additionally, AB 2097 clearly states “Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the

prohibition

the

imposition

mandatory

parking

minimums

outlined

this

section.”

(Gov.

Code,

§ 65863.2,

subd.

(i).)

The

Legislature

has

clearly

articulated

its

intent

that

local

agencies

should

interpret

the

law

prohibiting

parking

requirements.

that

were

executed

before

January

2023.

2 of 3

The parking in question is not a contractual commercial parking agreement with a public agency,

and

therefore

the

HCD

guidance

that

2097

can

used

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

drive

choose

not

to.

As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage.

New

housing

such

this

public

benefit;;

will

provide

badly-needed

affordable

housing;

will

bring

increased

tax

revenue

and

new

customers

local

businesses;

and

will

reduce

displacement

existing

residents

into

homelessness.

Most

importantly,

will

allow

seniors

age

with

dignity

providing

invaluable

assisted

living

and

memory

care

housing.

While

one

project

will

solve

the

statewide

housing

crisis,

the

proposed

development

step

the

right

direction.

CalHDF

urges

the

City

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

housing

for

Californians

all

income

levels,

including

low-income

households.

You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3

From: 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 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
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

Cupertino’s 65+ and 75+ Population
2015-2035

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 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 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
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 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
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
Age Friendly Cupertino
650-520-3045
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.

Thank you Richard for sharing your slides ahead of time and for your engagement on the item.

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
Age Friendly Cupertino
650-520-3045
Presentation to
Cupertino Planning Commission
Richard Adler
Age Friendly Cupertino
April 22, 2024
V2
1 Cupertino’s 65+ and 75+ Population
2015-2035
Richard Adler April 22, 2025 2
Prevalence of Alzheimer’s
in Cupertino’s 65+ Population
Richard Adler April 22, 2025 3

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

Cupertino City CouncilMay 6, 2025

Cupertino City Council
May 6, 2025