PC 4-22-2025 Written Communications (Updated 4-23-2025)PC 4-22-2025
Item No.3
Update to
Parking
Restrictions
Written
Communications
From:S B
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:New ordinance
Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 3:00:16 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 in the written comments
TO the planning commission,
I’m writing to express a concern that I know many residents share regarding the increasing
number of recreational vehicles (RVs) being parked throughout our city, particularly in public
areas like near Target and Memorial Park.
As a resident, I understand and follow the regulations that prohibit RV parking on public
streets unless it's within designated time limits or on private property. However, there appears
to be a lack of consistent enforcement of these rules. To ensure fairness and uphold the
integrity of our community standards, I believe the city should either enforce the existing
ordinances more effectively or consider implementing a new, clearly defined policy that
addresses long-term or overnight RV parking in public areas.
In addition, I recognize that some of these vehicles may be occupied by individuals
experiencing homelessness. While enforcement is necessary, it must be paired with
compassionate, long-term solutions. I strongly urge the city to invest in resources such as
transitional housing, mental health services, and job placement programs. Repurposing vacant
properties, like the soon-to-close Aloft Hotel, into temporary or supportive housing could be a
meaningful step in addressing this issue in a humane and constructive way.
Our city should be a place that upholds the rule of law while also providing support for those
in need. Addressing these challenges responsibly will help ensure a cleaner, safer, and more
compassionate community for everyone.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards
Sashi
Sent from my iPhone
From:Rhoda Fry
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Council
Subject:Planning Commission 4/22/2025 please include in public comment agenda 3, parking
Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 3:16:56 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 Commission 4/22/2025 please include in public comment agenda 3, parking
Hi Planning Commission,
The presence of RVs as housing in the city has become problematic.
Thanks for working on this issue and restoring our neighborhoods.
I’ve heard that many are occupied by Apple employees – if so, it would be nice if the Apple
parking lots would accommodate those RVs.
Regards, Rhoda Fry
PC 4-22-2025
Item No. 4
Westport
Written
Communications
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
PiuG@cupertino.gov
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mahesh Gurikar <mgurikar@yahoo.com>
Date: April 17, 2025 at 9:17:24 PM EDT
To: lukec@cupettion.gov, "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.gov>,
planningcomission@cupertino.org
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
YIMBY La w
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
hello@yimbylaw.org
1
YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114
1
04/18 /2025
City of Cupertino
Planning Commission
10300 Torre Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
Via email (planning@cupertino.gov)
Re: April 22, 2025 hearing, agenda item 4
Dear Planning Commission of Cupertino,
We are pleased to submit this letter of support of the proposed Summerhill Homes project at
20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard. YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non -profit corporation, whose
mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. The
Summerhill Homes project will consist of 59 townhomes, which include 12 below market rate
townhomes, on a site designated for residential development in the Cupertino Housing 2023-
2031 Housing Element.
Summerhill’s proposal is consistent with the Heart of the City specific plan, the Cupertino
General Plan, and local zoning ordinances. As your officials have already identified to
California’s Department of Housing and Community Development that the site is appropriate
for residen tial use and may contribute to the RHNA obligations, it is inarguably beneficial to
public welfare that it be used for that purpose.
California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities
from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality’s general plan
YIMBY La w
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
hello@yimbylaw.org
2
YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114
2
at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that
the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety.
I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a
resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. 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,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY 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
hello@yimbylaw.org
April 18, 2025
Santosh Rao, Chair
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
srao@cupertino.org
Re: Westport Cup ertino Project
Dear Chair Rao:
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the
accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities
when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Government Code
Section 65589.5, also known as the Housing Accountability Act ("HA A"), and the
Minimum Parking Requirements law, Government Code section 65863.2, commonly
known as “AB 2097.” The Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant
state housing laws, including AB 2097, when evaluating the above-referenced project.
We write this letter to express YIMBY Law ’s deep concern ab out the City’s position in the
staff report for the proposed modifications to the Westport Cupertino project that the
project is not eligible to use AB2097 to reduce its previously approved parking because
AB2097 cannot be applied retroactively. Simply put, there is no basis in the text of
AB2097 supporting this p osition. Instead, the interpretation of AB2097 is plainly
inconsistent with the expressed intent of AB2097 to reduce the cost of constructing
housing.
Taking the position that AB2097 cannot be applied to previously approved projects
would also b e 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
hello@yimbylaw.org
We encourage the Planning Commission to reject the staff report’s unsupported p osition
that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project and instead approve the
project’s requested parking reduction under AB2097
I am signing this letter b oth in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY L aw, and
as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in 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
PiuG@cupertino.gov
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rafa Sonnenfeld <rafa@yimbylaw.org>
Date: April 18, 2025 at 4:58:00 PM EDT
To: Santosh Rao <srao@cupertino.org>
Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission
<planningcommission@cupertino.gov>
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
hello@yimbylaw.org
April 18, 2025
Santosh Rao, Chair
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
srao@cupertino.org
Re: Westport Cup ertino Project
Dear Chair Rao:
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the
accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities
when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Government Code
Section 65589.5, also known as the Housing Accountability Act ("HA A"), and the
Minimum Parking Requirements law, Government Code section 65863.2, commonly
known as “AB 2097.” The Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant
state housing laws, including AB 2097, when evaluating the above-referenced project.
We write this letter to express YIMBY Law ’s deep concern ab out the City’s position in the
staff report for the proposed modifications to the Westport Cupertino project that the
project is not eligible to use AB2097 to reduce its previously approved parking because
AB2097 cannot be applied retroactively. Simply put, there is no basis in the text of
AB2097 supporting this p osition. Instead, the interpretation of AB2097 is plainly
inconsistent with the expressed intent of AB2097 to reduce the cost of constructing
housing.
Taking the position that AB2097 cannot be applied to previously approved projects
would also b e 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
hello@yimbylaw.org
We encourage the Planning Commission to reject the staff report’s unsupported p osition
that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project and instead approve the
project’s requested parking reduction under AB2097
I am signing this letter b oth in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY L aw, and
as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in 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
SRao@cupertino.gov
From: Nicholas Roosevelt <nroosevelt@jabramslaw.com>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 2:54 PM
To: Santosh Rao <srao@cupertino.org>; Tracy Kosolcharoen <Tkosolcharoen@cupertino.gov>; David
Fung <dfung@cupertino.gov>; Seema Lindskog <slindskog@cupertino.gov>; Steven Scharf
<SScharf@cupertino.gov>
Cc: James Abrams <jabrams@jabramslaw.com>; Simsik, Balint <Balint.Simsik@related.com>; Zak,
Cascade <cascade.zak@related.com>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <piug@cupertino.gov>; Gian Martire
<GianM@cupertino.gov>; fandrews@awattorneys.com <fandrews@awattorneys.com>
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: nroosevelt@jabramslaw.com
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
nroosevelt@jabramslaw.com
VIA E-EMAIL
April 18, 2025
Santosh Rao
Chair
City of Cupertino Planning Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
srao@cupertino.org
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
piug@cupertino.gov
Gian Martire
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
GianM@cupertino.org
Floy Andrews
City Attorney
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
fandrews@awattorneys.com
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)
MPO 23 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
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
david.ying@hcd.ca.gov.
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
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
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 david.ying@hcd.ca.gov.
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 application for an
entitlement was filed and fees were paid to DCP) for a discretionary development project. These findings
may not be made against the following housing development projects that:
o.y.
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 planning.ab2097@lacity.org, with
the subject line including “Evidence” followed by the project case number, or if not available the street
address of the project. Evidence submitted by the general public will only be considered for discretionary
development projects processed by the Department of City Planning and will be considered alongside
other citywide policy priorities around equity, housing, mobility and sustainability, as well as opportunities
for other mitigation strategies and the state legislative intent. The intent of the bill, as described in §
65863.2(i) states:
(i) The Legislature finds and declares that the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can
increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of
parking spaces, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this section shall be
interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as
outlined in this section.
A parking study must be provided by the public or other interested parties as part of the evidence of a
parking impact for a given project. The parking impact evidence must conform to the following industry
standards utilized by LADOT for review of a parking study or analysis. To provide a complete picture of
overall usage and whether a consistent parking impact is present, the analysis should include the total
amount of parking supply within the study area using the following parameters:
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 the June 30, 2023 memo by the California
Coastal Commission. It acknowledges that minimum automobile parking requirements may not be
imposed or enforced but that all other Coastal Act provisions remain, including those protecting,
enhancing, and maximizing public access and recreation.
Commercial Parking Subject to Existing Contractual Agreements
AB 2097’s ban on imposing or enforcing parking minimums does not apply to any commercial parking
requirements that are subject to an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was
executed before January 1, 2023, so long as the required commercial parking is shared with all members
of the public.
Event Center
The bill provides that an event center is not subject to all of the parking reductions permitted in this bill
and is required to provide automobile parking required by local ordinance for employees and other
workers. Since the LAMC does not currently have separate parking requirements for employees or other
workers, this provision does not apply. AB 2097 does not define “event center” nor does the LAMC.
California Health and Safety Code Section 40717.8 defines the term to mean “a community center,
activity center, auditorium, convention center, stadium, coliseum, arena, sports facility, racetrack,
pavilion, amphitheater, theme park, amusement park, fairgrounds, or other building, collection of
buildings, or facility which is used exclusively or primarily for the holding of sporting events, athletic
contests, contests of skill, exhibitions, conventions, meetings, spectacles, concerts, or shows, or for
providing public amusement or entertainment.” The City will use this definition until it creates its own.
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 <mgurikar@yahoo.com>
Date: April 17, 2025 at 6:17:07 PM PDT
To: lukec@cupettion.gov, piug@cupertino.gov,
planningcomission@cupertino.org
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
PiuG@cupertino.gov
(408) 777-3277
Begin forwarded message:
From: Corey Smith <corey@housingactioncoalition.org>
Date: April 21, 2025 at 10:14:34 AM PDT
To: Santosh Rao <srao@cupertino.org>, Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>,
"Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.gov>
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: corey@housingactioncoalition.org | 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
srao@cupertino.org
Re: April 22 Hearing on the Westport Cupertino Project
Dear Chair Rao:
The Housing Action Coalition does not support the City’s position in the staff report for
the proposed modifications to the Westport Cupertino project that the project cannot use
AB2097 to reduce its previously approved parking because AB2097 does not allow
retroactive application to previously approved projects. There is no basis in the text of
AB2097 supporting this position. Instead, AB2097 provides for limited circumstances
where previously approved commercial projects cannot use the law, but otherwise
clearly provides the broad use of the law for existing, approved, or newly proposed
projects, particularly housing projects.
The staff report position on AB2097 is inconsistent with the clear intent of law and would
by contrary to published guidance from State HCD and the housing production goals of
the state.
We encourage the Planning Commission read the clear text of AB2097 and reject the
staff report’s position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project.
Corey Smith, Executive Director
Housing Action Coalition (HAC)
CC: Piu Ghosh
1
Planning Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
piug@cupertino.gov
Gian Martire
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
GianM@cupertino.org
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
SRao@cupertino.gov
From: Corey Smith <corey@housingactioncoalition.org>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:13 AM
To: Santosh Rao <srao@cupertino.org>; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>; Piu Ghosh (she/her)
<piug@cupertino.gov>
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: corey@housingactioncoalition.org | 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
srao@cupertino.org
Re: April 22 Hearing on the Westport Cupertino Project
Dear Chair Rao:
The Housing Action Coalition does not support the City’s position in the staff report for
the proposed modifications to the Westport Cupertino project that the project cannot use
AB2097 to reduce its previously approved parking because AB2097 does not allow
retroactive application to previously approved projects. There is no basis in the text of
AB2097 supporting this position. Instead, AB2097 provides for limited circumstances
where previously approved commercial projects cannot use the law, but otherwise
clearly provides the broad use of the law for existing, approved, or newly proposed
projects, particularly housing projects.
The staff report position on AB2097 is inconsistent with the clear intent of law and would
by contrary to published guidance from State HCD and the housing production goals of
the state.
We encourage the Planning Commission read the clear text of AB2097 and reject the
staff report’s position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project.
Corey Smith, Executive Director
Housing Action Coalition (HAC)
CC: Piu Ghosh
1
Planning Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
piug@cupertino.gov
Gian Martire
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
GianM@cupertino.org
2
3
Apr 21, 2025
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard
By email: srao@cupertino.org; Tkosolcharoen@cupertino.gov; dfung@cupertino.gov;
slindskog@cupertino.gov; SScharf@cupertino.gov;
planningcommission@cupertino.gov
CC: piug@cupertino.gov; planning@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov;
CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov
Dear Cupertino Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its
obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 272-unit
housing development project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, including 29 units
a ordable to very low-income households. These laws include the Housing Accountability
Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and AB 2097.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general
plan compliant housing development projects unless indings can be made regarding
speci ic, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The
HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would
render the project infeasible or reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written
indings are made. (Id. at subd. (d).) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area
devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with
local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers
that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project
noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, §
65589.5, subd. (j)(3).) The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the
project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL o ers the proposed development certain
protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers
and concessions with respect to ground floor retail, in addition to the previously approved
waivers and concessions, unless it makes written indings as required by Government Code,
section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) that the waivers would have a speci ic, adverse impact upon
health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid
the speci ic adverse impact, or as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision
(d)(1) that the concessions would not result in identi iable and actual cost reductions, that
the concessions would have a speci ic, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the
concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, i it makes any such indings, bears
the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL speci ically allows for a
reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and
concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when
an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL,
the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude
construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the
bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74
Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Finally, the project is exempt from o -street parking pursuant to AB 2097 given its location
near transit. CalHDF understands that City sta is contesting the applicability of the law to
the project, given that the previous version of the project was entitled before the law came
into e ect.
First, the project is seeking amended entitlements, and sta have accordingly forced the
project to go through additional environmental review accordingly. It is unclear why sta
feels that this amended entitlement process does not provide the applicant an opportunity
to invoke the law.
Additionally, AB 2097 clearly states “Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of
the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this
section.” (Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (i).) The Legislature has clearly articulated its intent that
local agencies should interpret the law as prohibiting parking requirements.
Furthermore, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”)
has issued guidance that AB 2097 can, in fact, be applied retroactively. From page 6 of the
linked January 2025 memorandum:
Can AB 2097 be used to eliminate an existing parking agreement?
Yes, with the exception of contractual commercial parking agreements with a public
agency that were executed before January 1, 2023.
2 of 3
The parking in question is not a contractual commercial parking agreement with a public
agency, and therefore the HCD guidance is that AB 2097 can be used to eliminate the parking
agreement between the applicant and the city.
Finally, it is unclear why sta are ighting to impose parking requirements on assisted living
and memory care units, where residents are likely unable to drive or choose not to.
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing
shortage. New housing such as this is a public bene it;; it will provide badly-needed
a ordable housing; it will bring increased tax revenue and new customers to local
businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents into homelessness. Most
importantly, it will allow seniors to age with dignity by providing invaluable assisted living
and memory care housing. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the
proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it,
consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-pro it corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased
access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
From: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
james@calhdf.org
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: srao@cupertino.org; Tkosolcharoen@cupertino.gov; dfung@cupertino.gov;
slindskog@cupertino.gov; SScharf@cupertino.gov;
planningcommission@cupertino.gov
CC: piug@cupertino.gov; planning@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov;
CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov
Dear Cupertino Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its
obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 272-unit
housing development project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, including 29 units
a ordable to very low-income households. These laws include the Housing Accountability
Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and AB 2097.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general
plan compliant housing development projects unless indings can be made regarding
speci ic, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The
HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would
render the project infeasible or reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written
indings are made. (Id. at subd. (d).) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area
devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with
local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers
that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project
noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, §
65589.5, subd. (j)(3).) The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the
project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL o ers the proposed development certain
protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers
and concessions with respect to ground floor retail, in addition to the previously approved
waivers and concessions, unless it makes written indings as required by Government Code,
section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) that the waivers would have a speci ic, adverse impact upon
health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid
the speci ic adverse impact, or as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision
(d)(1) that the concessions would not result in identi iable and actual cost reductions, that
the concessions would have a speci ic, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the
concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, i it makes any such indings, bears
the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL speci ically allows for a
reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and
concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when
an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL,
the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude
construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the
bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74
Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Finally, the project is exempt from o -street parking pursuant to AB 2097 given its location
near transit. CalHDF understands that City sta is contesting the applicability of the law to
the project, given that the previous version of the project was entitled before the law came
into e ect.
First, the project is seeking amended entitlements, and sta have accordingly forced the
project to go through additional environmental review accordingly. It is unclear why sta
feels that this amended entitlement process does not provide the applicant an opportunity
to invoke the law.
Additionally, AB 2097 clearly states “Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of
the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this
section.” (Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (i).) The Legislature has clearly articulated its intent that
local agencies should interpret the law as prohibiting parking requirements.
Furthermore, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”)
has issued guidance that AB 2097 can, in fact, be applied retroactively. From page 6 of the
linked January 2025 memorandum:
Can AB 2097 be used to eliminate an existing parking agreement?
Yes, with the exception of contractual commercial parking agreements with a public
agency that were executed before January 1, 2023.
2 of 3
The parking in question is not a contractual commercial parking agreement with a public
agency, and therefore the HCD guidance is that AB 2097 can be used to eliminate the parking
agreement between the applicant and the city.
Finally, it is unclear why sta are ighting to impose parking requirements on assisted living
and memory care units, where residents are likely unable to drive or choose not to.
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing
shortage. New housing such as this is a public bene it;; it will provide badly-needed
a ordable housing; it will bring increased tax revenue and new customers to local
businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents into homelessness. Most
importantly, it will allow seniors to age with dignity by providing invaluable assisted living
and memory care housing. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the
proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it,
consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-pro it corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased
access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
From: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:grenna5000@yahoo.com; 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:grenna5000@yahoo.com; 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 <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025, 1:24 PM
To: planningcommission@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org
CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com,citycouncil@cupertino.org
(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: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 <SRao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 11:08 AM
To: radler digiplaces.com <radler@digiplaces.com>
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
SRao@cupertino.gov
From: radler digiplaces.com <radler@digiplaces.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:48 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <planningcommission@cupertino.gov>
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.
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
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 <SRao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 11:08 AM
To: radler digiplaces.com <radler@digiplaces.com>
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
SRao@cupertino.gov
From: radler digiplaces.com <radler@digiplaces.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:48 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <planningcommission@cupertino.gov>
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.
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
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