Desk Items - Written CommunicationsDATE: July 14, 2020
FROM: Donna Austin, primadona1@comcast.net
TO: Cupertino City Clerk; Beth Ebben, Cupertino Planning Commission Clerk
kirstens@cupertino.org; BethE@cupertino.org
SUBJECT: Support for Westport Cupertino, Cupertino Planning Commission
This email is sent in support of the Westport Cupertino project that is before you this
evening. Unfortunately, I have an unavoidable conflict and will not be able to
participate in the meeting. Therefore, I request that my message be read aloud by
the Clerk at the appropriate time.
I have reviewed the plans for Westport Cupertino and declare my support for this
important project. The proposed Enhanced Senior and Family Living Project, on the
site of the old Oaks Shopping Center on Stevens Creek Boulevard, will include 88
Rowhouses/Townhomes, and 179 senior apartments, and 27 memory care residences,
as well as 20,000 square feet of ground floor retail.
Westport Cupertino meets an important housing demand for seniors in our area, offers
an affordable option for those who need it, and creates a diverse community range of
townhouses and rowhouses that will bring together people of all ages. The project is
part of a movement to reinvent retirement living, with options to suit multiple
generations.
Having lived in Cupertino for most of my life, I feel Westport Cupertino is an example
of a project our population needs that will enable us to think outside of the box,
while creating opportunities for intergenerational interaction that help us build a
stronger and more engaged community.
The transformation of an aged old shopping site into something new and beneficial to
our city can only serve to strengthen us all. Community support is the key to
continued growth in our city.
As a former Cupertino Planning Commission, 45 year resident and senior citizen, I urge
you to vote this evening to recommend that our City Council approve Westport
Cupertino.
Thank you,
Donna Austin
Senior Housing and Services Options
Henry Woo Sang, Jr.
Age Friendly Cupertino Task Force
2020-07-14 Comment/presentation to the City of Cupertino Planning Commission meeting
Agenda item: Westport
Slide 1
Thank you Madame Chairperson, Commissioners, and staff.
My name is Henry Woo Sang, Jr. I am speaking to you today as a member of the Age Friendly
Cupertino Task Force. My views and statements do not necessarily reflect the position of other
organizations of which I am a member.
We need serious conversations within Cupertino about our growing senior needs. Key among these
are for a range of housing and support services specific to seniors. I am coming to the Planning
Commission as an Advocate for the Community to share our insights into the evolving needs. And to
ask for your attention to these areas, encouraging studies and community discussions.
Slide 2.
Shown is a qualitative summary of our existing Cupertino Housing options. Here we plot price
against a set of options provided by a facility. As you can see, some places offer a very narrow set of
options and are located towards the Y Axis. Others offer a multitude of options. For example, Long
Term Continuing Care Facility has a mix of housing and services across a spectrum from fully
independent to fully dependent residents.
Note that presently we have four options and a big gap which we call the Missing Middle. While we
have a foothold such as the Veranda for extremely low income BMR housing. We are at a severe
deficit in available units. Further, we are completely missing some BMR categories.
On a whole, given the expected increases in the number of seniors in Cupertino, all areas are in
deficit.
Slide 3
What are these missing elements? Here are some examples in that Missing Middle.
Let’s start with the missing other types of BMR. Some of our citizens rank as very low, low, or even
median income and will need senior housing. Actually, we even need Market Rate Senior Housing. All of
these types need designs for a range of senior conditions.
Add to those types of independent housing, a lack of Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing rooms.
Our service needs range from Post-Surgery Rehabilitation needed after joint replacement or open heart
surgery to Memory Care, Physical Therapy Facilities, or Adult Day Care.
BTW, Adult Day Care is very important for families taking care of elder relatives or for a spouse taking
care of their love one, but needing an occasional hand. Even if you have a personal healthcare assistant,
every now and then you need another option.
Further, we need these options across a wide range of price points.
For most of us, we don’t know about these things until something bad happens to our family. Then you
need to scurry to find options.
Will these choices really be available when you need them? There is a veritable Silver
Tsunami about to crash on Cupertino’s shores. We need to aware and to plan for this.
We strongly support the Planning Commission investigating and studying our future needs for a
range of senior living and services options. Age Friendly Cupertino is a volunteer Advocacy
Organization that is willing to help.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Senior Housing Alternative Map
July 14, 2020
Henry Woo Sang, Jr.*
Age Friendly Cupertino Task Force**
*My comments today are solely in my role as a citizen member of the Age Friendly Cupertino Task Force.
They do not necessarily reflect the position of other organizations of which I am a member.
**Age Friendly Cupertino is a member of Age-Friendly Silicon Valley. Views expressed in this presentation do
not necessarily reflect the position of Age-Friendly Silicon Valley.
Missing Middle
Senior Housing Options
price
Range of options
Forum at
Rancho
San
AntonioSunny
ViewChateau
Cupertino
The
Veranda
Long term
continuing care
Not meant to be quantitative
80 rental
167 rental
319 units
18 rental
Todays Total = 584
Filling the Middle
price
Range of options
Forum at
Rancho
San
AntonioSunny
ViewChateau
Cupertino
The
Veranda
Long term continuing care
Not meant to be quantitative
80 rental
167 rental
319 units
18 rental Assisted LivingMemroyCareAdult Day CareMarket Rate Senior HousingSkilled NursngExtr Low
Very Low
Low
BMR Post Surgical Rehabilitation + Phys Therapy
Thank you
Independent Living Assisted
Living
Skilled
Nursing
Memory Care (for spouse)
Rehabilitation, day care,
In-home support
Cupertino Within 2.5mi
Chateau Cupertino The Forum at Rancho San Antonio
Sunny View Cupertino The Veranda
At Home Senior Living Our Lady of Fatima Villa
Atria Sunnyvale Rose Meadows Elder Care
Belmont Village Saratoga Retirement Community
International Order of Odd Fellows Sunny Orchard Place
Homestead Park Sunrise of Sunnyvale
Life's Garden Villa Siena
Westgate Villa
Retirement Communities Near Cupertino
Seniors in Cupertino:
2020-2030
Cupertino Planning Commission
July 14, 2020
Richard Adler
Cupertino Population, 2020-2030
2020
Total Population: 57,965
65+ Population: 7,029
2030
Total Population: 63,681
Senior Population: 9,717
Cupertino’s 65+ Population, 2020-3030
.
+38%
+68%
+51%
+27%
+16%
Cupertino Household Living
Arrangements
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml
https://mimahealth.com/social-isolation-a-big-risk-for-seniors-mental-physical-health
“Social isolation significantly increases a
person’s risk of premature death from all
causes, a risk that may rival those of
smoking, obesity, and physical inactivity.”
Cupertino Planning Commission July14, 2020
Slide 1
Thank you Madame Chairperson, Commissioners and Staff
My name is Jean Bedord, and I’ve lived in Cupertino for 30 years. I am President
of the Cupertino Senior Center Advisory Council, but tonight I am speaking as a
citizen member of the Age Friendly Cupertino Task Force.
Slide 2
Our community is aging, like it or not. Approximately one third of households in
Cupertino have at least one resident over the age of 60. These households vary
from boomers with aging parents to adult children living with their parents.
Households with at least two older persons can function at a higher level, just
because there is more than one person to share tasks of daily living. However,
one person households are particularly at risk for both social isolation and lack of
caregiving. Cupertino, in particular, has a lot of large family homes occupied by
one or two people, with very limited options to move into more appropriate
housing. These older adults want to stay in their community, close to their friends
and family, where they have lived for 30, 40, or 50 years or even longer. They
want to keep their trusted medical providers.
The needs of older adults change over time. Today’s vigorous 70 year old will
probably need more services after 80. Loss of a spouse suddenly turns the
functioning two person household into a single person household with a bigger
need for eldercare. Dementia, which increases with age, has the same effect,
with one spouse often moving to a memory care unit, leaving the well spouse as a
single person household.
Slide 3
There aren’t many choices to make a housing change in Cupertino. There are
6,585 households with a resident over 60. When those residents need additional
care, and many will need some type of long term assisted living, there is a grand
total of 584 units available, less than 10% of our older adult households.
Furthermore, most of those units require buying into a life community – a CCRC.
Where are the memory units? Where is the assisted living? NOT in Cupertino.
The upcoming RHNA allocations will require the city to build thousands of new
housing units. Given that older adults occupy one third of our households,
shouldn’t at least one-third of those new units be some type of senior housing?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Any questions?
Senior Housing: Demand vs. AvailabilityMy comments today are solely in my role as a citizen member of the Age Friendly Cupertino Task Force. They do not necessarily reflect the position of other organizations of which I am a member.Jean Bedord *Age Friendly Task Force
Market for Senior HousingTotal households in Cupertino: 20,181Households with one or more persons 60+: 6,585Households with 2 or more persons 60+ 4,6891 person households 1,896Households with owner/renter 75 + 2,221 Households with owner/renter 60 – 74 3,125Housing needs change, particularly after 80Loss of driver’s license (10 years before death per Don Weden)Need for assistance with meals, personal grooming, medication managementSocial isolation for well spouse or widowed spouseIncrease in dementia Census data: suburbanstats.org
Senior Housing AvailabilityExtremely limited supply584 TOTAL units (Chateau Cupertino, Sunnyview, Forum, Veranda)ZEROMemory units other than CCRCsZEROMultifamily developments approved in 2019NOnew market rate senior independent living for decadesNO assisted living other than CCRCsRHNA allocations next cycle: 4,000 – 5,000 housing unitsAssisted living and senior independent living count as housing units.Senior housing generally smaller units than single family residenceShouldn’t 1/3 of these units be senior housing?
Thank youQuestions?
LLP
ANDREW L. FABER HARRY A. LL~PEZ THQMAS P. MURPHY DAVID A. B~ILIiMURI
PEGGY L. SPRINGGAY CHARLES W. VULPE ALESHIA M. WHITE BENJAMIN M. JC?NNSON
SAMUEL L. FARE CNRlSTINE H. LC?NU TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD EILEEN P. KENNEDY MARY T. NGUYEN
JAMES P. CASHMAN AARON M. VALENTI ELEVENTH FLOOR MIC".iiAEl J. CHENG STEPHEN C. SCUk[JELIS
STEVEN J. CASAD CNRlSTlAN E. PICC?NE SAN JaSE, CALIFORNIA 451 i 3-2233 ALEXANDRIA N. NGIfYEN ALLEN M. TAYLOR
NANCY J. J(JNNSQN SUSAN E. ~lSMOP (~HAZALEH MODARRESI BkANdCaN L. REBBt~AH
JERQL.D A. REITC~N SANDRA G. SEPl1LVEDA ANDREW J. DIGNAN LINQSAY i. HQVER
J(aNATHAN D. WOLF MICHAEL B. iJANidS TELEPHONE: (408) 286-5800 ERIK RAMAKRfSHNAN EMILY TEWES
KAT"Ht.EEN K. SiPLE KIMBERLY G. FLC.?RES FACSIMILE: (4U8) 99$-S~ LEILA N. Sc~CKOLOV CHkISTIAN SIMC~N
KEVIN F. KELLEY DAWN L, SWEAiT 6EAU C. CURREIA MARISA J. MARTINSCJN
MARK MAKIEWICZ TYLER A. SNEWEY ~w•berliner.COf7i TIMOTHY K. BU(~NE R~BEf~T A. Q111L~5
JQLIE HOUSTON JAMES F. LANdRUR~4, Jk. Branch Offices ANGEtA tiC`~~~MAN SHAW MARIA 1. PAIUMAhES BRfAN L SHE7LER (`.. DAVID SPENCE
Merced, CA • Modesto, CA
RETIt~Ed aF COUNSEL
SANFC~RD A. BERLINER f~O6Ef~T L.. CNC~RTEK STEVEN L. HALLt~RIMSt)N NANCY !.. 9i~ANC7T
SAMUEL..!. ~OHEN JOSEPH E. DWt~RAK CRANK R. UBHAtJS LESLIE KALlM Mc:H~GN
HtlGH 1. ISOLA .1EFFREY S. KAl1FMAN RALPH .l. SWANSC7N L~i2ADLEY HEBEE2T
R~BEf2T W. HUMPHREYS
July 13, 2o2a
~TIA EMAIL QNLY
ditty Moare, Chairperson
and Pla~lning Commissioners
City of Cupertino
103 OQ Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 950)14-3255
Re: Westport Project, Application Noy: DP-2~ 1 ~-OS, ASA-2(~ I ~-D_5, TM -2U 18-()3, TR-
2C~ 18-22, tJ-2019-03, EXC-2U 19-03 (EA-2U 1 x-~4)
PC Meeting 7-14-2~; Agenda Item 2
Dear Chair Moore and Commissioners:
This letter is written on behalf of the applicant, K.T Urban, for the Westport Project.
This project was already recommended by the Cal mission for appro~~al on May 12,
2O2U, by a unanimous vote. However, upon further refinement of the design, parCly in response
to concerns expressed by Commissioners, the applicant realized that a minor modification to the
residences in Buildings 1 and 2 was necessary to make the project feasible, and that ~~lodification
is before you. now.
Thus, while the Staff Report discusses the project as though it were new, in fact what is
before you. is only a minor change to the location of nine of the senior ~.ffordable units. The Staff
Report appears to treat this slight change as creating a neu' legal issue, but that is not correct.
The slightly revised project deser~~es your recommendation of approval ,just as the original
project did.
Staff s concerns all revolve around the change to move nine of the senior affordable units
from Building I to Building 2. The Staff Report argues that the need far a waiver of the BMR
dispersal policy has not been shown under the Density Bonus Law (Govt. Code Sec. E~5915~. It
4824-4499-3218v4
ALF124070001
Kitty Moore, Chairperson and Planning Commissioners
July 13, 2n2U
also argues that the modification can be rejected under. the Housing Accountability Act {Govt.
Code Sec. E~S589.5} because of an a1le~ed failure to comply with the dispersal requirement.
Both. of these arguments in the Staff Report are incorrect. 'VVe first explain why the
argument fails under the Housing Accountability Act.
The Dispersal Requirement Does Not Require Affordable Units in Building
The dispersal requirement is derived from Section 19._S~.~SO(G)(1 ~ of the Cupertino
Municipal Code, v~rhich simply says: "Affordable units shall be dispersed. throughout the
project."
A dispersal concept is sometimes included in such ordinances as a way of avoiding the
social s~i~ma of having affordable housing built in comp~e~ely separate projects, separated from.
normal market-rate housing.
Tt is clear from the City's BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural IVIan~~al (``BMR
Manual") that dispersal is inten~.ed in only relation to market-rate units. Thus, in Section 2.3.4
("BMR Unit Design Requirements"} of the BMR Manual, SubdivTision D contains a dispersal
requirement, while Subdivisions A and B require compara.bilit~ and similarity of unit sizes
specifically to "the market-rate portion" of the project. Similarly, Municipal Code Section
1 ~.SE~.OSO(G)(2) requires similarity of design between affordable units and "any market rate
rental units in the project." This further indicates that the dispersal requirement is intended to
apply only to the market-rate portion of the project.
As the staff Report properly notes, ire had. requested a dispersal waiver to keep the senior
affordable units in Building 2, and not in the rawhouses or ~ownhomes or in Building 1. Staff
has consistently acknowledged. that this waiver is justified because of the various special State
and Federal requirements that impose different building azld design standards on senior housing.
However, Staff does not. seem to realise that as currentl}~ proposed, Building 1 simply
does not contai~i normal market-rate housing. Rather, it will be aState-licensed RCFE
Residential Care Facility far the Elderly) providing assisted-living and memory-care services to
its residents. All of these units come with numerous additional services, listed more fully below.
And the residents pay a bundled price for their unit plus the services.
In particular, though both are residential uses under the Cupertino Municipal Code,
Building 2 is an apartment building with special features that are required for senior housing,
including elevators, voider hallways, common areas on-site, etc. Building 1 on the other hand, is
a State-licensed RC'FE.
As such, all occupants of bui lding 1 receive additional services that are part. of the
compensation paid by the residents. As a licensed RCFE, the operator will provide its residents
Vvitll:
4824-4499-3218v4 _2 _
ALF~24070001
Kitty Moore, Chairperson and Planning Cor~lmissioners
July 13, 2U2C1
• Three chef-prepared meals served restaurant-stye daily
• Housekeeping services
• Educational and Social activities and programming
• Transportation (indi~•idual and organized) to nearby shops, physicians' offices and
special events
• Laundering of personal clothing and. bed linens
• Emergency alert systems ~Ecall, pull cords, vvearables}
• Night supervision by on-duty a~ld awake staff
• Utilities
• Access to care ser~~ices such as bathing, ~roomin~, and medication management.
~ Regular monitoring of residents' v~ellness and health assessments
There ire ~o units in ~uild~ng 1 that are standard apartments, v~There the residents merely
pay a monthly rent for occupancy of the space, as in a normal apartment building. A par~icuiar
apartment or certain number of apartments in a licensed building cannot be unlicensed and
outside the ,jurisdiction of the State regulators. All persons resi~in~ in a licensed RCFE are
entitled to these basic sertif Ices.
Affordability is defi~ied in State and local lau- solely in relation toy space rents. ~'upertina
requires that space rents be affordable to persons making SU% of the Area Median Income (very-
low income) or EAU% of AMI ~lov~j income). The Cit~~'s BMR Manual requires that maximum
initial rents far BMR units "shall be determined based on: ~. N1~ilnum housing ~.11owance of
3~°iQ of gross income for a household site of one person more than the number ~f bedrooms in
the rental BMR unit." There is nn concept of affordability either in State or local law for a
product that bundles extensive services together with the space rental.
Thus, in essence, Buildi~~ 1 contains a very different product than Building ?. This is
what the applicant came to appreciate upon further analysis of the project, axed is why the
affordable units were moved out of Building 1.
Because ~uildin~ 1 is not a normal market-rage residetltial product, the concept of
dis~aersal of the affordable wits into Bualdin~ I dogs not apply. In discussing this ~r~th Aria and
Related, they emphasize that the Sate licensing and op~ratianal nature of zhe facility i~ Building
1 requ-ire 2417 staff and a comprehensive set of ser~~ices as well as certain design requirements to
~CCommOdate residents with limned mob~li~~. These physical and operational requirements are
not necessar~~or appropriate for the b~low~ market rate reside~zts of normal apartment units.
Staff seems to read the dispersal requirement as an objective standard under the Housing
Accoul~tability Act. However, vie believe that it is more reasonable to interpret the dispersal
requirement as not being an objective standard and not applying to Building 1 for the reasar~s
~i~ren above° We note that the teen "dispersed" is not defined either in the C~t~'s ~Vlunicipal
bode or in t~ze AMR Manual. In this debate, the Legislature has reversed the normal deference
given ~o a city to interpret its own policies. There are ~~vo section of the Housing Accountability
Act that are relevant.
4824-4499-3218v4 _3 _
ALF124070001
I~.itt~ Moore, Chairpersa~ and Planning C'ominissioners
July 13, ?O20
First, Section f 5589.5{fj(4~ provides:
"For purposes of this section, a housi~~ development project or
emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and. in confor~niry with
an applicable plan pr~~ram, polic}~, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other
Similar provision if there is substa~.tia1 e~~idence that ~~ould allow a reasonable
person to conclude that the ht~usi~~de~elopment project or emer_ encv shelter is
consistent, com~,liant, or in conformity_" (.emphasis added)
Noting that the dispersal requirement is brief and contains no objectively defined berms or
conditions, v~7e are confident that a r.ourt would conclude that in this instance a reasonable person
could. conclude, based on substantial evid~~ce as to the nature o~ the project. and the differences
between Buildings 1 and 2, that the project is ire c~znp~iance with that requirement, even. without
a waiver.
Second, ar~y issues of interpretatiar~ involving ~x~aivers under tie Housing Accounta~►ility
Act must be resolved in favor Qf allowring a project to proceed ~o provide housing. Thus, Section
655~9.5(a)(2~(L) states:
"It is the pa~icy of the state that this section be inte~reted and
implemented in ,~ manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of,
and the approval and provision of, housing."
If the Dispersal Requirement does Require a waiver, the Waiver Must be Granted.
As presented above, we belie~Te that no waiver is required to keep all of the senior
affordable units in Building 2. They were only in Building 1 because Buildi~i~ ~ had formerly
been planned as a market-rate apartment building for seniors. Novo that it is a licensed facility,
tie dispersal requirement no longer applies to it.
Nevertheless at Staff's request. we did ask for a waver ar~d provided some justification to
the staff as to the reaso~zs vc~hy requiring the nine affordable units to be in Building 1 would
physically preclude the construction of the project in the manner proposed ~by the applicant.
Certain physical changes have been nec~s~ary to acca:m~nodate the anticipated
complications of opera~in~ a facilityr in the v~rake of Co`rid-19. A~ the last Pl~.nning ~'onimission
hearing, the representative of Atria was asked v~ Nether ~n the then-current design as a State-
1 icensed RCFE there was enough common-area and "back-of-house" space, especially
considering the social distancing rubs, His response was that. stria m~~ht have to ~nodifv the
plays.
As a result of this review, it was determined that such spaces would have to be
substantially enlarged, including more space for hausekeepin~; st~.~f and staging for sanitation
storage, and in-morn meal delivery. Since tie only alternative would have been to add aonother
flair to Building l (making it a seven-story buildin~~, phis meant the elimination. of ~er~ain
4824-4499-3218v4
ALF12407Q~01 w4'
Kitty Moore, Chairperson and Planning Commissioners
July 13, ?42C)
apartment units. Because they were not consistent with the rest of t ie licensed pr~duc~, the best
solution was to move the nine affordable units, which should not hive been put into Building 1
in the first place, over. to Building 2, and use th~~ space to add the additional ~ovid-1 ~ space
rnentianed above v~hile ~eepi~~ the court of licensed units at the proposed number.
In order to keep the unit col~nt constant. end to provide the necessary common-area and
ba.ek-office space, the nine units cannot be put beck into Building 1 while keeping v~~ithin the
envelope as designed. Thus, the dispersal req~~irement, if applied ~o these units, vc~ould ha~~e the
effect of physically prec~ud~n~ the construction of the project as proposed., and must be waived.
Finally, similarly to the Housing Accountability Act_, the Density Bonus Laver is to be
interpreted in favor of providing housi~lg (i.e., in fa~ar of ~rantin~ the requested ~vaiver~):
"This chapter shall be interpreted. liberally in favor of producing the
maximum number of total housing units.' ~Gov~, Cody Sep. ~5~15(r~)
Conclusion.
Ix~ conclusion, you unanimously reeomn~ended this project for approval in May. The
proposed changes are minor and improve the project's ability to provide ~~~uch needed affordable
senior hausin~ and assisted-Ii~7in,~ housing to the City of Cupertino. There ire no Ie~;al issues
that v~ould justify the C'ite's not approvi~lg the project
VVe look forward accordingly, to your recommendation ~f appro~~al, Phase feel free to
contact the undersigned for any questions as to the content of this letxer.
Very truly }ours,
BERLINER COVEN, ~.r...~
ANDREW L. FABER
E-Mail: andrev~~.faher~crfberlil~er.con~
ec:
Beth. Ebben
Dian Paolo M~rtire
Deb~r~h Fen,
Heather Manner, Esq.
Ellen Garber, Esq.
1Vlark Tersini, KT Urban
Randy Bel~erman, Atria
Matt Witte, Related
Laura. War~hi~gtQn-Forbes.
Steven Uhlhaber
4824-4499-3218v4 _ 5
ALF124074~01
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:City Clerk; Deborah L. Feng; Gian Martire
Subject:2020-07-14 PC Agenda Item #2-Oaks/Westport - BMR Comparability Requirement not met
Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 5:24:23 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.
Please include this in the Written Communication for the 2020-07-14 Planning Commission
Meeting, Agenda Item #2 - Oaks/Westport Project
Dear Planning Commission,
The latest version of the Westport project DOES NOT meet the BMR Comparability
Requirement and no waiver or concession has been requested therefore the project should be
denied.
CMC 19.50.050 Density Bonus General Requirements
Section G.2 states “Affordable units SHALL BE IDENTICAL with the design of any market
rate rental units in the project...”
This means identical in size and layout! A BMR studio should be identical in size and layout
as a market rate studio. This goes for 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units, too.
In the Staff Report top of page 14 it lists the size of the different unit types.
Average 2-bedroom unit:
Market Rate = 1,087 sf
BMR = 843 sf
Difference = BMR is 244 sf smaller, equivalent to about a 15’x16’ large room!
Average 1-bedroom unit:
Market Rate = 691.3 sf
BMR = 615.7 sf
Difference = BMR is 75.6 sf smaller, equivalent to about a 8.5’x8.5’ room!
Average Studio unit:
Market Rate = 537.7 sf
BMR = 518.6 sf
Difference = BMR is 19.1 sf smaller, about a 4’x4’ area, a big space for a studio!
As you can see, none of the units are “identical” and they are not close in size! These BMR
units are not meant to be substandard units. They are meant to provide the same
accommodations as market rate housing.
WARNING: If you allow this to pass you will be setting a precedent for all future Density
Bonus projects that try to abuse our laws and our City will not be able to deny the project!
Allowing this to pass is cheating the very people our Density Bonus Laws were written to
protect!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:City Clerk; Deborah L. Feng; Gian Martire
Subject:2020-07-14 PC Agenda Item #2-Oaks/Westport-Deny BMR Dispersement Waiver
Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 6:16:54 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.
Please include this email as part of the Written Communication for the 2020-07-14 PC
Meeting Agenda Item #2-Oaks/Westport Project.
Dear Planning Commission,
In the Staff Report, it states that the Oaks/Westport project does not need a waiver for the
BMR dispersement to build the project because dispersing the units across the senior units
does not prevent it from building those units.
I agree that the project does not need a waiver for this requirement because it can and should
disperse the BMR units. Nothing physical is preventing that from happening.
BUT I believe that this dispersement should be across the entire project! Yes, the
developer wants to build two senior high rise buildings but the project consists of more that
that. It also has townhomes and row houses that are not age-restricted.
CMC 19.56.050 Bonus Density General Requirements
Section G.1. Affordable units SHALL BE DISPERSED THROUGHOUT the project.
The “project” is not limited to senior housing. It is not a senior housing project and because
it’s not entirely a senior housing project, the BMR CAN and SHOULD be throughout the
project. BMR in the townhouses and rowhouses do not need to be senior BMR. They just
need to be BMR!
This dispersement requirement is to ensure that there is a blending of income levels and to
provide a variety of BMR housing options. Again, we have these laws to protect and ensure
that the BMR housing we get, at a tremendous cost to our community, provides the kind of
BMR our community needs!
By allowing this dispersement to be restricted, you are limiting the BMR options available to
people who need it. There are no 3-bedroom senior BMR units in Buildings 1 or 2. There are
no non-senior BMR units. These are reasons why we have this law/requirement!
PLEASE deny the waiver from the BMR dispersement requirement to build this project. It
only needs it to increase it’s profits significantly!
IF you have doubts, hire a 3rd party Density Bonus expert to analyze this. This was not done
but it’s not too late to do this!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
COMMENTS:
LIKE the project overall – just wish Buildings 1 and 2 were less dense.
LIKE the variety of housing options-rentals/for sales/income
LIKE that the amenities were moved to the 6 th floor so it is not mixed
with the commercial space on the ground floor and towers were
removed
VERY concerned about KT Urban’s phasing - feels like it would replicate
the Main Street senior housing fiasco.
ASKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO:
1) Require BMR dispersement throughout the project or at least all but
Building #1 at the minimum.
2) Require a waiver or concession for the BMR comparability.
3) CLARIFY in writing in Conditions of Approval:
a) That the 88 townhouses/rowhouses are FOR SALE.
b) Exact location and size of all BMR units as part of approval.
c) That “Prior to certificate of occupancy” also applies to “Temporary
Occupancy”
d) That ALL commercial retail and restaurant services are accessible to all
the public, not just seniors (see Attachment #9, Project Description, page 5 paragraph 4, last
sentence)
e) Where exactly is the bike path through the complex
From:Connie Cunningham
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Beth Ebben
Subject:2020-07-14 Planning Commission Agenda Item 2, Study Session Westport
Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 9:18:46 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.
I spoke before the Planning Commission this evening. This is the hard copy for the records.
2020-07-14 Planning Commission Agenda Item 2, Study Session Westport-Cupertino
Chair, Vice-Chair and Commissioners: Thank you for this opportunity to speak.
Tonight, you can take a step forward to help residents of all incomes and abilities, as
envisioned in the Housing Element of the General Plan.
During this pandemic-induced economic downturn, you can approve the Westport Cupertino
Project. Cupertino can begin its new-normal life, post-COVID, with a housing project that
will help ease our housing shortage.
I support the Westport project. I can see myself living one of these lovely new homes. I was
pleased to see the plan that was approved by the Housing Commission on May 12, 2020 . 267
housing units with Senior housing, 48 Below Market Rate homes and 27 memory care homes.
All are critical needs in Cupertino, with its growing population of older residents.
I am persuaded by tonight’s discussion that the changes that have been made to the project
better serves our community than the previous plan. In line with The Housing Accountability
Act, I consider myself a reasonable person. I think the changes are consistent with the
dispersal requirement, without having to put the BMR units in the same facility as the Memory
Care units.
This project will provide significant housing for 267 families or individuals with 48 Below-
market-rate homes - in an area that has access to transportation, businesses, the Senior Center,
and schools, including De Anza College.
A Gateway project at this site was envisioned by our General Plan. KT Urban recognized the
needs in our City and has carefully designed this project. I urge you to approve this plan
tonight.
I very much look forward to the day when families and individuals move in to Westport-
Cupertino.
Thank you for your time.
Connie Cunningham
Housing Commission (self only)
Lived here for 33 years.
From: Caryl Gorska <gorska@gorska.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 1:43 PM
To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; R Wang <RWang@cupertino.org>; Vikram Saxena
<VSaxena@cupertino.org>; Alan Takahashi <ATakahashi@cupertino.org>; David Fung <DFung@cupertino.org>
Cc: Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Jon . <jonbobw@hotmail.com>;
Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Deborah L. Feng <DebF@cupertino.org>
Subject: Do not recommend approval for Westport Cupertino development
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.
City Clerk, please enter this into the public record.
Dear Chair Kitty Moore and Planning Commissioners;
Please don’t recommend approval of the latest Westport Cupertino plan.
First, there is a problem with BMR units: they are all in one building, and there are only senior BMR units. According
to the Staff Report, page 12,
“…staff recommends …either conditioning approval of the project on dispersing the BMR units between Buildings 1
and 2 … or denying the project as inconsistent with the BMR unit dispersion requirement. If the City conditions
approval of the project on dispersing the BMR units between Buildings 1 and 2, the City would still need to waive the
BMR unit dispersion requirement for the non-age-restricted portion of the project.” (italics added for emphasis)
Second, this is a terrible location for a long-term senior care facility.
There’s nothing but a triangle of grass, unprotected and with no privacy, for residents to enjoy outdoor space at
home; most memory care patients would be stuck in their rooms.
This even contradicts what is said on Atria’s website:
“Thoughtfully Designed Spaces – Our Life Guidance neighborhoods are designed with our residents' abilities in mind,
offering secure indoor and outdoor spaces, which allow them to maintain a sense of independence within their
environment.” (https://www.atriaseniorliving.com/living-options/memory-care/)
The “amenities” require taking an elevator to the top floor— not very conducive to socializing for seniors with
dementia. And to get to the senior center, Memorial Park, Whole Foods, or Target requires walking on and crossing
high-traffic streets.
To put it most simply, when my mother needed assisted living then memory care, I would never, ever have chosen to
put her in such a place.
So I urge you not only to not recommend approval based on the BMR issues, but to also do more research on what a
good long-term senior care facility looks like. It’s not this place.
Respectfully,
Caryl Gorska
10103 Senate Way
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Oak Trees at the Oaks Shopping Center/ West Port
Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 10:11:57 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.
Dear City Council:
The development at The Oaks/West Port Shopping Center is trying to take out a
number of oak trees which are currently on the site. This site had a presence
of many large oak trees even before the shopping center was built in the late
1970s. There was a huge grove of ancient oaks on the west side of the'
property and more ancient oaks on the Stevens Creek and Mary side of the
property.
The farmers who had orchards and raised apricots and other fruit trees would
cut the apricots and other fruit on long tables set up under the stands of
oak trees.
The site now has a very old (175 years or more) oak tree that is facing Stevens
Creek Blvd. on the south side of the jewelery store. This tree is part of
a larger ancient stand of oak trees from the past. This tree should be preserved.
There is a old oak on the Mary side of the property just north of the Jewelery
Store in the parking lot. This tree is about 80 or more years old. It should be
preserved,
There is another old oak tree that is facing Mary Avenue and close to the movie
theatre. It is most likely over 100 years old. This oak should be preserved.
There are many young oak trees that are planted along the western side of the
property facing Highway 280/85. They were planted as mitigations from other oaks
from 2010. These 15 or more oak trees are now about ten to 12 years old and were
planted at the direction of the City Council. They should be preserved.
There are two oak trees that are in the public right of way of Stevens Creek Blvd.
at the furthest most western entrance/exit to the shopping center. These oak
trees are now 10 to 12 years old and they were planted on the west side of
the driveway as mitigation for the removal of one oak tree at that location in 2010.
This was at the direction of the City Council. These two oak trees should be preserved
and they are in the public right of way and are Cupertino Street Trees.
It is important that we replace oak trees on site where they existed in years past,
especially in ancient groves that had survived on the property for hundreds of
years.
The new buildings being proposed for this site are way too dense and are proposing
cutting down all these historic oak trees and also young trees that our CIty Council from
2010 required to be planted. There is no reason to cut down old oak on the site and
no reason to cut down ten year old oak trees on the site.
These trees are part of Cupertino's heritage and history and it a travesty to even
think of cutting them all down to put up the proposed massive, ten story development
which is too tall and too dense for the lot and does not even allow any room for the
trees already there or any new ones to be planted.
Please save the oak trees at the Oaks!
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council; City Clerk
Cc:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Oak Trees at WestPort/The Oaks
Date:Sunday, July 12, 2020 12:27:50 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 Council:
I am very concerned because the West Port/The Oaks Project is calling for
cutting down so many oaks at the shopping center. The original site had a
huge grove of oak trees that farmers cut apricots under. The city had
any young oaks replanted on the property in 2012 as mitigation for
some trees that were taken down. How can we cut down so many
young oak trees to put in a project as dense as this project?
The project is too tall and too dense and leaves no room for the trees that
were planted on site as directed by the City Council in 2012.
Many of these young oak trees on the west side of the parking lot by the freeway and
they are slated to be taken down. There is absolutely no reason to cut down young
oak trees that ten years old and were planted at City Council direction.
There is a young oak tree on the left/west side of the westmost Stevens Creek Blvd.
entrance to the property that was planted at that location to replace a larger oak
tree. The plans for the West Port/The Oaks building project stomps right on top
of that oak tree like it does not mean anything at all.
Don't the hours the City Council took back then in 2012 to go over the property tree
by tree count for anything? The hours we/they spent looking at every tree on the
tree report means nothing? It is all to be cut down and carted away because of some
mega size project that does not fit on the property at all is supposed to be constructed
there,all ten stories of it? They do not leave any room for trees at all.
Do the oak trees that City Council had planted mean nothing? I think that it was
very wise of that City Council to have those young oak trees planted. They are the
strength of our city. Those young oak trees and other trees on the property
represents the very best of Cupertino and its love of trees, and to cut them down and
to cover them over with ten stories of solid high rise is a travesty beyond measure.
Please keep our oak trees at West Port/The Oaks safe. They are the heart and soul
of Cupertino and California. They are part of our town.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Geoff Paulsen
To:City of Cupertino PRA
Cc:Beth Ebben; Beverley Bryant
Subject:Please approve the replacement for The Oaks
Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 4:39:14 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.
Hello, esteemed planning commissioners.
Please approve Westport’s replacement for The Oaks.
The developer’s requests are reasonable, and any development that accommodates our aging population - especially
across the street from our senior center - will be an important asset to our community.
I also encourage you to also consider the landscape plan. Large shade trees and various pollinating plants may seems
like a minor issue, but they will provide significant benefits over time.
Regards, Geoff
Geoff Paulsen
Former Chair, Cupertino Planning Commission.
(408) 480-7509 cell
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Gian Martire
Cc:City Council; Deborah L. Feng; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject:Re: 2020-07-14 PC Meeting Agenda Item #2 Westport/Oaks-Comments and slide
Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 10:58:06 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 Chair Woman Moore and Gian Martire,
I watched tonight’s PC meeting and want to thank all of you for persistent questions to clarify
what is and is not required and how it can be adjusted. Your discussion identified an area of
our municipal code that needs improvement. Sorry more work for you!
I want to thank Gian for protecting our municipal code even though his conclusion was not a
“convenient” choice. It was accurate!
It was refreshing to see that you had legal support that was knowledgeable, strong enough to
stand up to KT Urban’s lawyer and someone who several times stepped in and offered
suggestions or alternatives. Finally some support!
I also want to thank you for denying the project based on the law, not your desires. I, too, like
the project but it needs to follow our laws. It is annoying that they did not provide Gian with
the reason they would not submit a request for a concession. Instead, they thought they could
just blow y’all over.
That said, I’m very disappointed that you all DID NOT amend your resolution to list the 3-4
concerns you wanted to convey to the City Council. They were and are critical! I encourage
you each to send an email to the City Council listing your concerns. If I remember correctly
they were:
Put in place Conditions of Approval that ensure:
1. All 88 of the townhouse/rowhouses are FOR SALE units. There’s nothing in writing!
2. All commercial/retail space (not just the restaurant) is open to all the public.
3. The building phases will guarantee that Building 1 and 2 are built as senior housing
BEFORE the townhouses/rowhouses are completed otherwise you risk repeating the Main
Street Senior Housing fiasco. (KT Urban does not want to do this.)
If I forgot some, send an email to the CC! Thank you for your hard work!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
On Jul 14, 2020, at 9:11 PM, Peggy Griffin <Griffin@compuserve.com> wrote:
Dear Chair Women Moore and Planning Commissioners,
Attached is what I presented during Agenda Item #2 Westport/Oaks Project.
Thank you all for your constant questions and clarifying questions! We appreciate your
hard work.f
Please include the attached as part of written communication for the 2020-07-14 PC
Meeting Agenda Item #2.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
<2020-07-14 PC Agenda Item 2-Peggy Griffin slide.pdf>
From:Umesh Toprani
To:City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject:File #: 20-7606 Version: 1
Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 7:45:52 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.
Listening to the request for approval from builders on property formerly known as the
Oaks (corner of Mary and Stevens Creek)
I am not confident of the data being presented
Concerns i have:
1. Traffic - data is clearly inaccurate - 267 new homes is going to lead to FAR MORE
TRAFFIC than is being shown
2. Ramifications on Schools is unclear - i understand that the primary purpose is
Senior Housing for a subset of the units but i do believe we will see a demand for
these units
3. No Commercial space
Suggestion:
Reduce the # of housing units and add Commercial Space to attract new companies
to Cupertino - this is sorely missing and we need to place emphasis on this to bring in
more companies. This would alleviate the above concerns, still be lucrative for the
builder and work to bring more business to Cupertino
Umesh Toprani
10705 Orline Court
Cupertino
From:Rhonda Nunez
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Request to Deny Westport Cupertino Development Proposal
Date:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 7:50:41 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.
Good Evening,
Please consider our denial request regarding the "Westport Cupertino Development Proposal":
1. Deny, the Heart of the City Exception for retail frontage along Stevens Creek Blvd, across
from De Anza College.
2. Deny, the density bonus & density bonus waivers for height, building plane, and below
market rate housing.
There were reasons why Cupertino City placed limits for height & density construction plans.
By the way, there is already major congestion on 85, we don't need to intensify our traffic
issues.
If you haven't seen it already, check out the corner of San Carlos and Sunol Street in San Jose
as an example of the gross appearance of such buildings.
I am available and will continue to monitor this project proposal.
Best Regards,
Rhonda Nunez