Loading...
CC 08-18-2020 Item No. 13 Westport_Written CommunicationsCC 08-18-20 #13 Westport Cupertino Project Written Comments 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jia Li <jli@kturban.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 2:27 PM To:Gian Martire Cc:City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia; Beth Ebben; Deborah L. Feng; Heather Minner Law Email; bkautz@goldfarblipman.com; Mark Tersini; Randy Bekerman; Witte, Matthew; Laura Forbes; Steven Ohlhaber Subject:Letter for Council Meeting 8-18-20_Westport Cupertino Project Attachments:LTR ALF to Gian Martire for Council 8-18-20 Meeting re Westport.pdf; LTR KT UrbanAtriaRelated to Gian Martire for Council 8-18-20 Meeting re Westport.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.    Good afternoon Gian,    Please see the letters attached for the Council meeting on Aug 18th, 2020 regarding the Westport Cupertino project.  One is prepared by Andrew Faber with Berliner Cohen, and the other one is prepared by the applicant KT Urban, Atria  Senior Living, and Related California.        Please let me know if you have any questions. Please kindly confirm upon receipt of this email.  ‐‐   Best regards.    Jia Li    Project Manager    KT Urban  21710 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 200  Cupertino, CA  95014  Email ‐ jli@kturban.com  Phone ‐ (408) 257‐2100 x108   Fax ‐ (408) 255‐8620  4837-2293-3189v3 ALF\25608020 TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD ELEVENTH FLOOR SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2233 TELEPHONE: (408) 286-5800 FACSIMILE: (408) 998-5388 www.berliner.com Branch Offices Merced, CA • Modesto, CA ____________ ____________ RETIRED SANFORD A. BERLINER SAMUEL J. COHEN HUGH L. ISOLA ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS ROBERT L. CHORTEK JOSEPH E. DWORAK JEFFREY S. KAUFMAN OF COUNSEL STEVEN L. HALLGRIMSON FRANK R. UBHAUS RALPH J. SWANSON NANCY L. BRANDT LESLIE KALIM McHUGH BRADLEY HEBERT July 31, 2020 VIA E-MAIL Gian Martire Senior Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 GianM@Cupertino.org Re: Westport Project, Application Nos: DP-2018-05, ASA-2018-05, TM- 2018-03, TR-2018-22, U-2019-03, EXC-2019-03 (EA-2018-04) Council Meeting August 18-2020 Dear Mr. Martire: This office represents the interests of the Applicant, KT Urban, for the Westport Project. The Project is deserving of City support on its merits, as it will be providing a variety of much- needed housing opportunities to the residents of Cupertino. But in addition, because this application is subject to many constraints imposed upon the City by State Law and the Cupertino City Code (to the extent it is consistent with State Law), we want to take this opportunity to spell out clearly the legal framework within which this application must be processed for approval. Please make this letter part of the record of the proceedings. I. The Legislative Mandate – Interpret City Plans, Policies, Etc., in Favor of Housing. The City’s consideration of this Project is heavily constrained by two major State Housing laws, the Density Bonus Law (Govt. Code Sec. 65915) and the Housing Accountability Act (Govt. ANDREW L. FABER PEGGY L. SPRINGGAY SAMUEL L. FARB JAMES P. CASHMAN STEVEN J. CASAD NANCY J. JOHNSON JEROLD A. REITON JONATHAN D. WOLF KATHLEEN K. SIPLE KEVIN F. KELLEY MARK MAKIEWICZ JOLIE HOUSTON BRIAN L. SHETLER HARRY A. LOPEZ CHARLES W. VOLPE CHRISTINE H. LONG AARON M. VALENTI CHRISTIAN E. PICONE SUSAN E. BISHOP SANDRA G. SEPÚLVEDA MICHAEL B. IJAMS KIMBERLY G. FLORES DAWN C. SWEATT TYLER A. SHEWEY JAMES F. LANDRUM, JR. C. DAVID SPENCE THOMAS P. MURPHY ALESHIA M. WHITE EILEEN P. KENNEDY MICHAEL J. CHENG ALEXANDRIA N. NGUYEN GHAZALEH MODARRESI ANDREW J. DIGNAN ERIK RAMAKRISHNAN LEILA N. SOCKOLOV BEAU C. CORREIA TIMOTHY K. BOONE ANGELA HOFFMAN SHAW DAVID A. BELLUMORI BENJAMIN M. JOHNSON MARY T. NGUYEN STEPHEN C. SCORDELIS ELLEN M. TAYLOR BRANDON L. REBBOAH LINDSAY I. HOVER EMILY TEWES CHRISTIAN SIMON MARISA J. MARTINSON ROBERT A. QUILES MARIA I. PALOMARES Gian Martire July 31, 2020 -2- 4837-2293-3189v3 ALF\25608020 Code Sec. 65589.5). Both of these laws prevent the City from denying, reducing density, or otherwise conditioning the Project in a manner that would hinder its ability to supply housing to the City. Under both of these State laws, the Legislature has made it clear in a number of ways that all matters of interpretation are to be decided in favor of maximizing housing, particularly affordable housing. First, both the Housing Accountability Act and the Density Bonus Law contain statements of Legislative intent. Thus, from the Housing Accountability Act: “It is the policy of the State that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Sec. 65589.5(a)(2)(L)). And from the Density Bonus Law: “This chapter shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.” (Sec. 65915(r)). Second, with regard to non-housing projects, a city has traditionally been given deference in the interpretation of its own General Plan, and ordinances. That deference is taken away in the Housing Accountability Act by recent amendments; now consistency for housing projects is found if a reasonable person would think that the project is consistent. Thus: “For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.” (Sec. 65589.5(f)(4)). The next sections of this letter will demonstrate how the Project complies both with the Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act. II. The Project Complies with the Density Bonus Law and is Entitled to a Density Bonus, Waivers of Development Standards, and Incentives/Concessions. Staff has consistently acknowledged that the Westport Project is entitled to a density bonus of up to 35% because of its provision of affordable housing. The Project does not require the full 35% bonus, but is entitled to waivers and incentives/concessions for the Project as a whole, not just for any extra units added as a density bonus. That this is the proper interpretation was made clear by amendments to the Density Bonus Law. Thus, the Density Bonus Law was amended to add into the definition of the term “density bonus” the concept that a density bonus can be, if the applicant so chooses, just a few or even zero units. The definition of “density bonus” now reads in relevant part: Gian Martire July 31, 2020 -3- 4837-2293-3189v3 ALF\25608020 “[D]ensity bonus” means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density as of the date of application…or if elected by the applicant, a lesser percentage of density increase, including, but not limit to, no increase in density.” (Sec. 65915(f)). Thus, all provisions of the Density Bonus law – including waivers and incentives/concessions – apply to the totality of the Westport Project, regardless of the actual density bonus requested. Waivers The waiver provision states: “In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) [affordability percentage) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section.” (Sec. 65915(e)(1)). Since the Density Bonus Law amendments make it clear that the density “permitted by this section” can include the base density, even with zero bonus units, it is obvious that an applicant need not show that waivers are needed for the density bonus units themselves, but rather for the Project as a whole as designed by the applicant’s architect. Furthermore, the case law establishes unambiguously that the applicant does not have to establish that the project could not be built in some other way that would lessen the need for waivers. There is no authority that allows the City to look at alternate designs. This law was clearly established in the leading case of Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011), 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1347, in which project opponents challenged the grant of waivers, arguing that the project could have been redesigned to avoid the need for them. The Court rejected this challenge, holding that waivers must be granted for a development that meets the criteria of the Density Bonus Law, with the design and amenities chosen by the applicant, and that the design is not subject to second-guessing by opponents. Incentives/Concessions The Density Bonus Law also requires cities to grant incentives and concessions (hereafter, just “concessions”) in addition to waivers. Incentives and concessions are defined as: (1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). Gian Martire July 31, 2020 -4- 4837-2293-3189v3 ALF\25608020 (2) Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located. (3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (Sec. 65915(k)). As can be seen from this definition, the only requirement to be eligible for an concession is that it result in “identifiable and actual” cost reductions in the provision of the affordable units. We had not originally applied for a concession primarily because the Cupertino Density Bonus Ordinance appeared to contain many more requirements than allowed by State law, which has been amended in recent years to reduce the documentation that can be required by a City. The information now permitted to be requested is stated right at the beginning of the Density Bonus Law, as follows: “A local government shall not condition the submission, review, or approval of an application pursuant to this chapter on the preparation of an additional report or study that is not otherwise required by state law, including this section. This subdivision does not prohibit a local government from requiring an applicant to provide reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for a requested density bonus, incentives or concessions, as described in subdivision (d), waivers or reductions of development standards, as described in subdivision (e), and parking ratios, as described in subdivision (p).” (Sec. 65915(a)(2)). By contrast, the Cupertino Municipal Code, section 19.56.060, demands much more information, including a very detailed “project financial report”, an appraisal report showing the value of the incentive or concession, and a use of funds statement, all to be peer reviewed by outside consultants. While these requirements may have been valid years ago when written, they are now prohibited by the Density Bonus Law. When asked at the July 14, 2020 Planning Commission meeting why we had not applied for a concession from the BMR dispersal requirement , I explained that we had been concerned that the excessive and onerous demands of the existing ordinance could be used for purposes of delay by project opponents. We were assured on the record that the City knew the ordinance was invalid, that Vallco had submitted just a simple explanation for their request, and that if we would just do the same that would suffice. After the meeting we reviewed the Vallco request, and it is indeed very simple, consisting of only two paragraphs justifying their request for a concession to save many tens of Gian Martire July 31, 2020 -5- 4837-2293-3189v3 ALF\25608020 millions of dollars on their 1201 affordable units. The City accepted Vallco’s explanation justifying their request as adequate and in compliance with State law and the City’s Ordinance, and granted the requested concession. For comparison purposes and completeness of the record, their request is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. So, at the invitation of the Planning Commission and Staff, we are also asking to be considered for a concession to remove the condition of dispersal contained in the City’s BMR Manual. To be clear, our position on concessions is as follows: 1) No concession is needed from the dispersal requirements for because, with respect to the rowhouses/townhomes, it is not possible to build isolated senior affordable units, due to Federal and State requirements on senior housing. We had requested a waiver for such dispersal and Staff has consistently (since Fall 2018) agreed. With respect to Building 1, dispersal does not apply since Building 1 is a State-licensed Assisted Living facility, and is not market-rate housing subject to dispersal. My letter to the Planning Commission of July 13, 2020, incorporated herein by this reference, explains this reasoning further. 2) If the City believes dispersal does apply to Building 1, then a waiver can be granted as it is not physically possible to put the affordable rental units into the licensed assisted care facility in which all residents are required to pay for services such as meals, daily living care, etc. 3) If the City prefers not to grant a waiver, then a concession must be given for the reasons elaborated on in KT Urban’s companion letter of July 31, 2020. In essence the cost of an affordable unit in Building 1 would be several hundred thousand dollars greater than in Building 2 (and this rationale applies even more strongly to the idea of building affordable units in the rowhouses/townhomes). Thus there are very clear “identifiable and actual” cost savings for the construction of the affordable housing, so the requirement of Section 65915(d) is satisfied. The project is entitled to up to two incentives or concessions because it is supplying 20% affordable housing at very low and low income levels. (Sec. 65915(d)(2)(B). The city is required to grant the concession unless it “makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following: (A) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (B) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health Gian Martire July 31, 2020 -6- 4837-2293-3189v3 ALF\25608020 and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households. (C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.” (Sec. 65915(d). These findings cannot be made for the Westport Project, so the requested concession must be granted. III. The Housing Accountability Act Prevents the City from Denying, Reducing Density, or Otherwise Conditioning the Project to Make it Infeasible. The Project is a “housing development project” that is subject to the Housing Accountability Act, Govt. Code Sec. 65589.5. Accordingly, the Project can only be denied, reduced in density or significantly conditioned based on objective standards in existence at the time the application was deemed complete. Subsection (j) of the Housing Accountability Act is pertinent. It provides (j) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. In addition to Subdivision (j) quoted above, since the Project is an affordable housing project as defined in Subdivision (h)(3) of the Housing Accountability Act, its approval is also governed by the requirements of Subdivision (d) of the Act. In particular, under Subdivision (d) (2)(A) of the Gian Martire July 31, 2020 -7- 4837-2293-3189v3 ALF\25608020 Act a claimed inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan cannot be used to make a finding of denial or to require reduced density. There are also some helpful definitions in the Housing Accountability Act: (7) “Lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing. (8) Until January 1, 2025, “objective” means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. (Sec. 65589.5(h)(7)(8)). Thus, under the Housing Accountability Act, the City cannot impose conditions on the Project that would have the effect of reducing the Project’s ability to provide housing at the density and in the manner proposed by the Applicant. III. The CUP and HOC Exception Were Applied For Under Protest – they Cannot be Denied or Conditioned Adversely to the Project . Although we disagreed, Staff insisted that we file two additional applications before they would consider the application to be complete. These were (a) for a Conditional Use Permit to increase the base density from 25 du/ac to 30 du/ac; and (b) a Heart of the City exception regarding retail on Stevens Creek Boulevard. We applied for both the CUP and the HOC exception under protest. Here’s why they were not needed. No Conditional Use Permit is Necessary Staff’s requirement for a CUP is based on an incorrect reading of the City’s General Plan, and is contrary to the Density Bonus Law itself. The Project as originally proposed in 2018 was for 204 units, a density of 25 du/ac. This had been based on direction received from the City’s Planning Staff that the maximum density that could be achieved on the site should be based on the 200 Housing Units “allocated” for the site in the General Plan and the Heart of the City Specific Plan, even though the General Plan Land Use Map identifies the maximum density allowed for this site as 30 units per acre (which would allow 237 units). However, after the application was submitted Planning Staff took the position that the maximum density allowed in the General Plan (i.e., 30 du/ac, not the 25 du/ac. that would follow from relying on the 200 units shown for the site in the General Plan) should serve as base maximum density for purposes of requesting density bonus waivers or concessions. Staff and your outside attorneys took the position that the site would not qualify for a density bonus or waivers under Gian Martire July 31, 2020 -8- 4837-2293-3189v3 ALF\25608020 the Density Bonus Law unless the application qualified for a density bonus by proposing a density of 30 units per acre. Staff’s position was that we could not get a density bonus for our original requested density (25 du/ac), but could not go to a qualifying higher density of 30 du/ac without obtaining a conditional use permit to authorize the change from 25 to 30 du/ac. However, this position clearly violates the State Density Bonus Law, which states categorically that a discretionary permit cannot be required in order to obtain a density bonus. (Sec. 65915(f)(5)). In effect, we were told that the use permit is not being required to obtain the density bonus – but that is the exact effect of Staff’s stated position: we cannot get a density bonus unless we develop at 30 units per acre, but we cannot develop at 30 units per acre without a discretionary use permit. This interpretation would place the developer in an unacceptable Catch-22 situation. The position that a CUP is required is also is a misinterpretation of the City’s own plan. As quoted above, the Density Bonus law provides that a density bonus means “a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density…” (Sec. 65915(f)). And the phrase “maximum allowable residential density” means: “the density allowed under the zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, or, if a range of density is permitted, means the maximum allowable density for the specific zoning range and land use element of the general plan applicable to the project. Where the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevail.” (Sec. 65915(o)(2)). In this case, the General Plan Land Use Map shows the Oaks as a Priority Housing Site. The legend to the Land Use Map states that such sites “shall have the densities shown in the Housing Element unless allowed a different density with a State Density Bonus…” Thus, the General Plan tells the reader to look to the Housing Element to see what density is shown for the site. In the Housing Element, Table HE-5 lists the five Priority Housing Element Sites, of which the Oaks is identified as Site A3. The only reference to density in the Housing Element is contained in this table. Under the heading “Max Density (DUA)” for the Oaks, it says “30.” Thus, the density allowed by the General Plan for the Oaks is 30 dwelling units per acre, not 25 or some other number. It is true that another column in Table HE-5 lists 200 as the “Realistic Capacity (units)” for the Oaks, but that is not stated, and cannot be interpreted reasonably, as a density figure. As noted in your outside attorney’s letter to us of Aug. 10, 2018, “that figure is not a limitation on development, but rather an estimate for purposes of demonstrating that the City has adequately zoned land to accommodate its share of regional housing needs.” In order to move forward, we did apply for the Staff-demanded CUP, under protest. Because of the application of the Housing Accountability Act and the Density Bonus Law to this Project, the City lacks discretion to deny the CUP, reduce density, or impose other conditions that would impact the ability of the Project to provide housing at the density proposed. Gian Martire July 31, 2020 -9- 4837-2293-3189v3 ALF\25608020 Finally, we do not think our reading of the General Plan is actually inconsistent with the development standard in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. But if it is, then since the HOC acts as the zoning for the property, any inconsistency must be decided in favor of the General Plan. See Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, at 1344. Or, if the development standard in the HOC is interpreted as creating a “range” of densities, then under the Density Bonus Law, clearly the applicant is entitled to propose, without discretionary permit requirement, a density at the top end of the range. The Heart of the City Exception is not Required The HOC provides that of the permitted commercial uses, those “that do not involve the direct retailing of goods or services to the general public shall be limited to occupy no more than 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard and/or 50% of the rear of the building.” We understand this requirement of the HOC to be that of the actual building commercial frontage, only 25% along Stevens Creek may be non-retail commercial (as opposed to retail commercial). The amount of commercial space that will be built as part of the Project is clearly indicated on the plans. The City may incorporate the requirements quoted above as a condition of approval. The actual division, if any between retail commercial uses and non-retail commercial uses would be determined when the commercial spaces are occupied by tenants. Staff’s interpretation of the HOC Plan was that 75% of all frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard, even that portion of this Project that would be in Rowhouses or Townhomes, needed to be devoted to retail. This is an obviously incorrect reading of the HOC Plan, and would fail the “reasonable person” interpretation test under the Housing Accountability Act. Nonetheless, at Staff’s insistence, we applied for the exception under protest. As with the CUP discussed above, because of the application of the Housing Accountability Act and the Density Bonus Law to this Project, the City lacks discretion to deny the Exception, reduce density, or impose other conditions that would impact the ability of the Project to provide housing at the density proposed. Five-Hearing Limitation SB330 has placed a limit of five on the number of hearings allowed to a city in processing a housing development project. Thus, pursuant to Government Code Section 65905.5, “if a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete, . . . a city . . . shall not conduct more than five hearings . . . in connection with the approval of that housing development project.” The term “hearing” is defined very broadly: "Hearing" includes any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting conducted by the city or county with respect to the housing development project, whether by the legislative body of the city or county, the planning agency established pursuant to Section 65100, or any other agency, department, board, commission, or any other Gian Martire July 31, 2020 -10- 4837-2293-3189v3 ALF\25608020 designated hearing officer or body of the city or county, or any committee or subcommittee thereof.” (Sec. 65905.5(b)(2)). The Council hearing set for August 18, 2020 will be the fifth hearing on this Project. Thus, the Council may not continue the hearing nor send the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review. Conclusion In summary, this is an exemplary Project that will revitalize an inefficient, aging shopping center, and transform it into a variety of needed housing types for the City – including market rate for-sale rowhouses and townhomes, senior affordable rental units, and assisted living and memory care facilities, along with ancillary retail uses. It deserves support and approval on its merits. And State law mandates its approval. Very truly yours, BERLINER COHEN, LLP ANDREW L. FABER E-Mail: andrew.faber@berliner.com ALF cc: City Clerk Deborah Feng Heather Minner, Esq. Ellen Garber, Esq. Barb Kautz, Esq. Mark Tersini, KT Urban Randy Bekerman, Atria Matt Witte, Related Laura Worthington-Forbes Steven Ohlhaber Gian Martire July 31, 2020 -11- 4837-2293-3189v3 ALF\25608020 Exhibit A This is the Vallco Project’s justification for their requested concession (from their Supplemental Submittal dated June 19, 2018, found on the City’s website). “As for the concession eliminating certain design requirements for below market rate units, cost reductions will be achieved as follows: •First, the BMR units are smaller than the comparable studio and 1-bedroom market rate units because building units of a smaller area reduces costs. EPS also reported last week that for every square foot of BMR unit developed, the developer realizes a straight loss of $250 to $300 (which we believe to be much too low). Using the mid-range loss of $275 per square foot, a 527-square foot 1- bedroom BMR unit would result in $92,400 less loss than an 863-square foot 1- bedroom. Further, the rent for BMR units is set by unit type, not sizes, so if larger area BMRs of a certain unit type were built, the additional loss would not be offset by any increased rental income. •Second, BMR units are limited to studios and 1-bedrooms and do not include units with two or more bedrooms, which also achieves cost reductions. Of course, units with more bedrooms are by necessity larger, which increases cost and loss. In addition, while BMR units with a greater number of bedrooms allow for nominal rent limit increases, such increases are not commensurate with the incremental project costs resulting from the additional areas built. For example, according to the most recent rent limits published by the City, a 1-bedroom BMR unit affordable to the very low-income level can be rented for $1,195 per month, and a 2-bedroom BMR unit affordable to the very low income level can be rented for $1,344 per month. Based on the $275 loss per square foot and an estimated 250 square foot difference between a 1-bedroom and a 2-bedroom, loss resulting from providing the 1-bedroom would be less by approximately $68,750, while rent would only be $149 per month less than the 2-bedroom (which avoids an abnormally low 2.6% return-on-cost). For these reasons, eliminating certain below market rate design requirements will result in cost reductions for the Project that will allow for the construction of the Project’s affordable housing.” 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Beth Ebben Sent:Friday, August 14, 2020 12:47 PM To:Gian Martire; City Clerk Subject:written communications Attachments:written communication Westport.pdf Hello‐  This note came in the postal mail today regarding the Westport project  Thanks,       Beth Ebben  Deputy Board Clerk  Community Development, Planning  BethE@cupertino.org  (408) 777-3297      1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: Westport Cupertino plan still doesn't add up From: Caryl Gorska <gorska@gorska.com>   Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 11:04 AM  To: Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey  <JWilley@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>  Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Deborah L. Feng <DebF@cupertino.org>  Subject: Westport Cupertino plan still doesn't add up  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 Mayor Scharf and City Council;  Please don’t approve the latest Westport Cupertino plan.  First, there is a problem with BMR units: they are all in one building, and 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 small triangle of grass, unprotected and with no privacy, for residents to step outside; 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  1 Cyrah Caburian From:radler@digiplaces.com Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 11:35 AM To:City Clerk Cc:City Council; Jean Bedord; Henry Sang; David Stearns; Minh Le Subject:California’s Lowest-Income Seniors Desperate for Affordable Housing Attachments:California’s Lowest Income Seniors Desperate for Housing.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.    Attached is an article from the California Health Report titled "California’s Lowest-Income Seniors Desperate for Affordable Housing." I would appreciate it if you would distribute this article to members of the City Council in preparation for tomorrow night's hearing on the Westport project. I am planning to speak during public comments at the hearing and will send some slides later today. Thank you, Richard Adler Chair, Age Friendly Cupertino Tel: 650-968-9975 | Cell: 650-520-3045                California’s Lowest-Income Seniors Desperate for Affordable Housing By Kellie Schmitt • October 16, 2017 The day before a Bay Area affordable housing complex opened up its waiting list, seniors formed a line at the entrance of the building, which quickly spilled into the street. The older adults stayed all day—despite sun so intense that staff supplied water—and camped overnight, recalled Priscilla Haynes, the executive director of the Santa Clara Methodist Retirement Foundation. In 2015, four thousand low-income seniors applied for the 120 units at The Dr. George W. Davis Senior Center in San Francisco. Even those who ended up securing a spot after that harrowing 2015 experience may still be waiting up to three more years for a rent-subsidized apartment in one of the hottest real estate markets in the country. “It takes forever—there isn’t enough affordable housing,” said Haynes, whose foundation provides low-income housing for more than 270 seniors and disabled adults. “The very low-income folks are the ones who are hit the hardest and who suffer the most.” The combination of soaring rents and aging baby boomers has created an insatiable demand for affordable housing in California. Thousands of people apply just to get on a wait list. As a result, some low-income seniors die still hoping for a place of their own. In the meantime, they cram into shared spaces, live with family, sleep on couches or even end up homeless. Amid that tremendous demand, housing officials say they work hard to market in underrepresented communities, trying to ensure their buildings’ ethnic and racial make-up reflects the overall community—a challenging feat in some areas of California. “California has so many households in need of affordable housing, that it is more important than ever to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to access it, regardless of race, ethnicity, family status or disability,” said Meghan Rose, director of housing policy for LeadingAge California, a senior advocacy group. Waiting and Hoping Before Oakland resident Doris Pitts, 79, moved into affordable housing, her rent was $920 a month. With a fixed income from social security and a pension, she had exactly $23 left.  “I didn’t have money for my medicine and I went to food banks to eat,” said Pitts, who worked in senior care herself before retirement. “I had to give up my car because I had no gas to get around.” After waiting for about a year on an affordable housing list, she moved into her current one-bedroom in 2013, where she pays 30 percent of the rent, or about $400. She’s been able to pay off her bills, and can afford medicine and food. “Now, I can live,” she said. For those still waiting for affordable housing, daily life can be stressful. In San Jose, Emma Olagova has spent almost seven years trying to secure affordable housing, and is now on four different lists. For now, she’s living with her daughter and her family. At 78, Olagova craves some space of her own and quiet when she wants to sleep early, she said through a Russian translator. Similarly, Cupertino resident Maureen Whalen, 69, has also been waiting seven years. Whalen, an artist on a fixed income of $900 a month, lives with her two 30- something nephews and their two roommates. She’s frustrated that too much of the affordable housing discussion centers around seniors who can afford to pay more than her—many of the state’s new tax-credit projects, which offer private developers tax incentives to create affordable housing, cater to people who make a certain percentage of the area’s median income—instead of “the lowest of the low.” She’s appreciative of her nephews’ generosity, but knows she needs to find her own place. “If it weren’t for these homes, I would become homeless,” Whalen said. Reflecting the Community While it’s hard to quantify the exact demand for senior affordable housing in California, Los Angeles’ experience this month with its overall affordable housing program offers a telling snap shot. This month the housing authority will open its waiting list for its Section 8 voucher lottery for the first time in 13 years. Housing authorities anticipate 600,000 people will apply for the 20,000 spots on the wait list. Even then, some people could spend more than a decade waiting on the list, said housing authority spokeswoman Annie Kim. “The need is so great because rents continue to go up and people aren’t making much more,” Kim said. “There is a huge disparity and that makes it pretty dire.” In general, affordable housing attracts diverse populations, managers say. Of the 5,000 seniors in his units, about 70 percent are women and 60 percent people of color, said Don Stump, the president of Oakland-based Christian Church Homes. But having a waitlist that accurately reflects the make-up of the surrounding communities isn’t always an easy feat, officials say. Some ethnic groups might be more aware of the wait lists’ openings, and spread the word quickly to their friends and families, they say. Donna Griggs-Murphy, the social services coordinator at Allen Temple Arms in Oakland, said she spreads the word via Spanish-language radio, newspapers  and television as well as African American churches. Ensuring that people in these demographic groups—who are the ones least likely to apply, based on her building’s current demographics—land on the wait list is challenging. The wait list is often “not reflective of our community, but it’s reflective of people who know how to utilize a network,” she said. That’s been the challenge in Campbell as well, Haynes said. She offered the example of the wait list for the Wesley Manor one-bedroom apartments. Of the about 300 waiting lists spots in 2016, 78 percent were Asian American, 15 percent white, 5 percent Latino and less than 1 percent African American. According to the 2010 census, the racial makeup of that city is about 67 percent white, 18 percent Hispanic or Latino, 16 percent Asian and 3 percent African American. Earlier this year, Haynes opened the wait list for studios in Santa Clara. This time, she intensified outreach to the Latino community, visiting community centers and senior lunch centers in places such as East Palo and San Jose. Her staff did presentations in Spanish about when and how to get on a wait list. As a result, 16 percent of people on the current waitlist for the Santa Clara units are Latino residents. Cause for Optimism Despite the unprecedented need for senior housing, there’s some cause for optimism—especially in California. Just last month, the governor signed a wave of bills aimed at increasing affordable housing statewide. These include a $75 fee on many real estate transactions to create a permanent revenue source. Rose, at LeadingAge California, said she wants to ensure these changes directly impact low-income seniors. Along with adding housing units, Rose also stressed the importance of policies that integrate health care and housing. “We strongly believe that housing is health care,” she said. “We can’t properly care for people if they don’t have a safe place to live.” In fact, some affordable housing organizations plan to incorporate on-site health services to help seniors age in place—delaying the move to costly nursing homes. At Oakland’s Allen Temple Arms, Griggs-Murphy describes a pilot program that will use a nurse and wellness director to help residents stay healthier at home. For now, though, the depth of the crisis is tough to ignore, especially when there’s “an 80-year-old sitting in a lawn chair in a line,” Griggs-Murphy said. “If the government doesn’t think that’s a crisis, come on.” 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Dave Stearns <stearnsdave@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 11:35 AM To:City Clerk Subject:City council Tuesday, Stearns PPT slides Attachments:Dave Stearns PPT for City Council - 8.18.20.ppt 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.    Pls add these to the council info. Pls schedule me with Age Friendly if possible. Thanks! Dave Stearns, Age Friendly Cupertino 8/18/2020 1 Westport Comments David Stearns •City resident since 1977 •Age 74. Downsized 2015. •Resident, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio •Age Friendly Cupertino •Past-President Rotary Club of Cupertino Advantages of Westport Westport provides: ** memory care & congregate living (B1 Atria) and ** affordable senior housing (B2, BMR). Why build Westport in Cupertino? Seniors want to age in place, and remain in their family home. Why downsize? 1 2 8/18/2020 2 Downsize? “I want to age in place. I’ll hire help.” Aging in place works …till it doesn’t. The event happens, often suddenly.Stroke, cancer, fall, Alzheimer's frailty or disability. The event comes to all seniors. Plan for it. Downsize. Sell/rent your house to a young family with kids.Property tax base advantage to City! Move, but where? We moved from Pear Tree to The Forum 5 years ago. No regrets. Not many places nearby. Westport adds to senior housing options. 3 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Henry Sang <henry_sang@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 1:58 PM To:City Clerk Cc:Richard Adler Subject:Comment for Aug 18 Item #13 Westport Attachments:20200818 City Council Sang Senior Options text.pdf; 20200818 Sang Age Friendly comment to City Council.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.    Kirsten, Attached are my slides and text copy of my comments that I wish to present during the comment section for Item #13 on the Westport proposal. I am a member of the Age Friendly Cupertino Task Force, a citizens advocacy group. We are planning several comments on different needs for Cupertino. Please have Richard Adler go before me as he introduces Age Friendly Cupertino and our mission and work to date. Henry Woo Sang, Jr 21975 Hyannisport Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Cell,WhatsApp: +1.408.821.5152 Senior Housing Alternative Map comment to Cupertino City Council Aug 18, 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 Cupertino 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 LivingMemroy CareAdult Day CareMarket Rate Senior HousingSkilled NursngVVV Median Low Very Low Extr. Low BMR Post Surgical Rehabilitation + Phys TherapyWestport’s fill-in price Range of options Forum at Rancho San AntonioSunny ViewChateau Cupertino 18 ELI The Veranda Long term continuing care NOT meant to be quantitative 80 rental 167 rental 319 units Assisted LivingMemroy CareAdult Day CareMarket Rate Senior HousingSkilled NursngPost Surgical Rehabilitation + Phys Therapy29 VLI 19 LI 27 Memory Care131 Assisted Living Max 9% AMI Max 15% AMI Max 18% AMI 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 Senior Housing and Services Options Henry Woo Sang, Jr. Resident of Cupertino since 1987 Age Friendly Cupertino Task Force 2020-08-18 Comment/presentation to the City of Cupertino City Council meeting Agenda item #13: Westport Slide 1 Thank you Mayor Scharf, Councilmembers, 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 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. Here 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 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 moderate 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. Slide 4 I was asked to try to overlay the Westport additions on top of this chart and here is my interpretation of the parts they fill in the Middle. We strongly support the City of Cupertino 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. 1 Cyrah Caburian From:radler@digiplaces.com Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 2:16 PM To:City Clerk Cc:Henry Sang; Jean Bedord; David Stearns Subject:Slides for August 18 City Council meeting Item 13 (Oaks/Westport hearing) Attachments:AFC PPT for City Council-RPA 8.18.20.ppt 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.    Kirsten, Attached is a set of Powerpoint slides that I would like to use in the public comments for tomorrow night's City Council meeting in reference to item #13 (Oaks/Westport proposal). I am chair of Age Friendly Cupertino, and three other members of this group are also planning to speak on this item. We would like to request that we be called sequentially in the following order, which is based on the sequence of our content: 1. Richard Adler (me) 2. Henry Sang 3. Jean Bedord 4. David Stearns Thanks, Richard Age Friendly Cupertino Tel: 650-968-9975 | Cell: 65-=520-3045 8/18/2020 1 Richard Adler Chair, Age Friendly Cupertino Presentation to the Cupertino City Council Tuesday, August 18, 2020 January 2018 1 2 8/18/2020 2 Age Friendly Cupertino Task Force Richard Adler, chair Henry Sang Jean Bedord Dave Stearns Minh Le 3 4 8/18/2020 3 Report is online at: https://issuu.com/agefriendlycupertino/docs/report_on_cupertino_seniors_august_2019 Cupertino Population, 2020-2030 2020 Total Population: 57,965 65+ Population: 7,029 2030 Total Population: 63,681 Senior Population: 9,717 5 6 8/18/2020 4 Population Growth By Age, 2015-2025 https://jointventure.org/images/stories/pdf/population-brief-2015-05.pdf Senior Serving Groups We are Working With 7 8 8/18/2020 5 Top Concerns for Older Cupertinians (Survey by Age Friendly Silicon Valley) #1: Housing Availability of housing appropriate for older adults Economics and affordability 9 1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: Bedord Re: Slides for August 18 City Council meeting Item 13 (Oaks/ Attachments:Bedord -Council 2020-08 -18 Senior Housing.ppt From: Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com>   Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 4:19 PM  To: henry_sang@sbcglobal.net  Cc: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; radler@digiplaces.com; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; David  Stearns <stearnsdave@yahoo.com>  Subject: Bedord Re: Slides for August 18 City Council meeting Item 13 (Oaks/    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.    Kirsten,  Attached are my slides for public comment. The numbers are fairly dense, so can you ensure that our presentations are  shown full screen so they are more readable?  That was a problem at the planning commission meeting.    Also it would be greatly appreciated if you include the Age Friendly Cupertino presentations in order in the public  record:  Richard Adler  Henry Sang  Jean Bedord  Dave Stearns    Thanks much!  Wheeew, that 3273 page searchable packet for this meeting was a monster.    Warm regards,    Jean Bedord  Cell:  408‐966‐6174 / Land line: 408‐252‐5220    On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 3:40 PM Henry Sang <henry_sang@sbcglobal.net> wrote:  Kirsten,     Got it.  We will find a way to coordination our hand raising.    Thanks!    Henry  Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android    On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 2:27 PM, Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org> wrote: 2 Hi All, regarding your request order the speakers as noted‐ the speakers are called on through the digital raised hand  feature. When participants raise their hands, they queue up in the order in which their hands were raised. The Mayor  calls on the participants as they are listed in the queue so please try and coordinate this amongst yourselves. If one of  you is called on earlier than desired, perhaps you could cede your time to the other first but this will be the Mayor’s  discretion to allow. I will queue up your respective presentation though.   Thanks, Kirsten   Kirsten Squarcia City Clerk City Manager's Office/City Clerk's Office KirstenS@Cupertino.org (408) 777-3225   From: radler@digiplaces.com <radler@digiplaces.com>   Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 2:16 PM  To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>  Cc: Henry Sang <henry_sang@sbcglobal.net>; Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com>; David Stearns  <stearnsdave@yahoo.com>  Subject: Slides for August 18 City Council meeting Item 13 (Oaks/Westport hearing)  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.  Kirsten,  Attached is a set of Powerpoint slides that I would like to use in the public comments for tomorrow night's City Council meeting in reference to item #13 (Oaks/Westport proposal).   I am chair of Age Friendly Cupertino, and three other members of this group are also planning to speak on this item. We would like to request that we be called sequentially in the following order, which is based on the sequence of our content:  1. Richard Adler (me)  2. Henry Sang  3. Jean Bedord  4. David Stearns  Thanks,  Richard  Age Friendly Cupertino  Tel: 650-968-9975 | Cell: 65-=520-3045  8/18/2020 1 Senior Housing Shortage in Cupertino Public Comment to City Council 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. Jean Bedord * Age Friendly Task Force Market for Senior Housing Total households in Cupertino: 20,181 Households with one or more persons 60+: 6,585 Households with 2 or more persons 60+ 4,689 1 person households 1,896 Households with owner/renter 75 + 2,221 Households with owner/renter 60 – 74 3,125 Housing needs change, particularly after 80 Loss of driver’s license (10 years before death per Don Weden) Need for assistance with meals, personal grooming, medication management Social isolation for well spouse or widowed spouse Increase in dementia Census data: suburbanstats.org 1 2 8/18/2020 2 Senior Housing Availability Extremely limited supply 584 TOTAL units (Chateau Cupertino, Sunnyview, Forum, Veranda) ZERO Memory units other than CCRCs ZERO Multifamily developments approved in 2019 NO new market rate senior independent living for decades NO assisted living other than CCRCs which require buyin Senior Housing in Cupertino Chateau Cupertino – 80 units rental – independent living with meals Sunnyview Manor – 167 units, CCRC full range independent living to skilled nursing The Forum at Rancho San Antonio - 319 units, CCRC full range Veranda – 19 units, BMR independent living for very low income seniors Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing 400 people on the Hello Housing wait list - points/lottery biased to working adults BMR Rental Program 142 Units 15 – 25 turnover each year BMR Ownership Program 120 Homes – mix of condos, townhomes and single-family residences 1-2 turnover each year Senior BMR – 18 units at the Veranda Market Rate Housing - extremely limited options 237 Total single-family homes sold in Cupertino in 2019 ( 1-2% turnover) ZERO Multifamily developments approved in 2019 3 4 8/18/2020 3 Thank you Questions? 5 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Geoff Paulsen <geoffpaulsen@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 9:52 AM To:City Council Cc:Gian Martire; Piu Ghosh; Benjamin Fu; Beverley Bryant; Kammy Lo; Holly Pearson Subject:Please approve the Westport 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.      Hello, honorable council members.    I know you’re busy, so I’ll keep this short. I concur with the staffs recommendation regarding the Westport project.    Three thoughts:    1. All of us will be senior citizens, and senior housing is much needed. I wish that this project could ‐ literally ‐ be three  times taller, but I understand the current development climate in Cupertino.    2. It is helpful to increase building height to preserve ground level open space.    3. As a former board member of the tree‐planting nonprofit Canopy.org, I love the “Oak Grove” planting concept!  However, small trees tend to grow healthier, faster, and stronger than 36‐inch box trees. At Canopy, Calfire actually  funded our planting of acorns. Also, I would suggest a diversity of species, mixing live oaks with valley oaks.    Thanks again for the time you devote to public service.    Regards, Geoff    Geoff Paulsen  Former Chair, Cupertino Planning Commission  (408) 480‐7509 cell  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Kirsten Squarcia Sent:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 12:19 PM To:City Clerk Subject:FW: Item 13 Support for Westport Cupertino August 18th City Council Meeting Attachments:BC Donna Austin.Support.Westport Cupertino.7.14.20.docx For written comms    ‐‐  Kirsten Squarcia  City Clerk  City Manager's Office/City Clerk's Office KirstenS@Cupertino.org  (408) 777‐3225  ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Donna Austin <primadona1@comcast.net>  Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 11:39 AM  To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>  Subject: Item 13 Support for Westport Cupertino August 18th City Council Meeting    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.      Kirsten Squarcia, city clerk       I plan to attend this city council meeting online. I have registered and will wait in a online room. I hope the meeting  doesn't go into the wee hours. I do have a written document attached that I want for the records. Is this the process I  use? I did register and have a zoom link.  But written documents need to be sent separately it says. Please advise.  Thank you so much. Donna Austin    DATE: August 18th, 2020 FROM: Donna Austin, primadona1@comcast.net TO: Cupertino City Clerk, Kirsten Squarcia kirstens@cupertino.org SUBJECT: Support for Westport Cupertino Item 13 on the Agenda I support of the Westport Cupertino project that is before you this evening with the Enhanced Senior and Family Living on the site of the aged Oaks Shopping Center and the 88 Rowhouses/Townhomes, and 179 senior apartments, and 27 memory care residences, as well as 20,000 square feet of ground floor retail. In the 90’s a big concern was that Cupertino didn’t have a heart. This development finally ties the hearts of Cupertino together incorporating De Anza College, Quinlan, the Sports Center, Blackberry Farm, and the Senior Center and will provide an amazing wealth of intergenerational experiences all within walking, biking and shuttle distance. 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. 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 As a former Cupertino Planning Commissioner, forty five year resident and senior citizen, I urge you to vote this evening to accept the staff report and approve Westport Cupertino project. Thank you, Donna Austin   1 Cyrah Caburian From:Roma Ankolekar <romaanky@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 1:03 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Comment for August 18 City Council Item #13 Westport Attachments:Roma Ankolekar-Presentation.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 Ms. Squirca,     My name is Roma Ankolekar, and I am requesting a 3 minute comment for the August 18 City Council Item #13  Westport.    I have attached my presentation materials below.    Thank you so much!!    Sincerely,  Roma Ankolekar        ‐‐   Roma Ankolekar    Dementia Insight    6SQE%ROSPIOEV Ɣ 6IWMHIRXSJ'MX]SJ'YTIVXMRSJSV]IEVW Ɣ .YRMSV1SRXE:MWXE,MKL7GLSSP Ɣ 4EWWMSREXIEFSYX(IQIRXME%[EVIRIWW ERH6IWIEVGL Ɣ :SPYRXIIVEXXLI=SYXL1SZIQIRX %KEMRWX%P^LIMQIVƅW Ɣ 7XEVXIHFPSKKMRKWMXIMRQIQSV]SJ KVERHQSXLIV[[[HIQIRXMEMRWMKLXSVK Ɣ ,SWXIH7IQMREV(IQIRXME-RWMKLX%KMRK ;IPP-R8LIWX'IRXYV]SR7ITXIQFIV WX ;SVPH%P^LIMQIVƅW(E] 7LEMPENE%ROSPIOEV Ɣ 0SZMRKQSXLIVERHKVERHQSXLIV Ɣ -RMXMEPP]HMEKRSWIH[MXL(ITVIWWMSR Ɣ 7]QTXSQWSJ%P^LIMQIVƅWWXEVXIHMRLIV IEVP]W Ɣ (MEKRSWIH[MXL%P^LIMQIVƅWMRLIV QMHW Ɣ 1ENSVJEQMP]-QTEGX Ɣ (MWIEWIEGGIPIVEXIHEJXIV]IEVW Ɣ QSRMXSVMRKF]EXVEMRIHRYVWI Ɣ 7IZIVI7XEKISJ%P^LIMQIVƅWMRXLIPEWX ]IEV  (IQIRXME-RWMKLX%KMRK;IPP-R8LIWX'IRXYV]7IQMREV KWWSVZZZDO]RUJJHWPHGLDHFFHEEIGDGEFDOLIRUQLDDO]KHLPHUVIDFWVILJXUHV 1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: Westport Cupertino_Presentation Attachments:Westport - City Council - Atria Related 200818 FINAL.pptx From: Jia Li <jli@kturban.com>   Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 1:10 PM  To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>  Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org>; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>  Subject: Re: Westport Cupertino_Presentation    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.    Hi Kirsten,     Thank you for your email.  Please see our presentation attached.     There will be a total of 3 presenters sharing the 10 minutes. There are no slides for the 1st presenter.  The 3rd presenters will share  his screen after the 1st presenter finishes his part, and control the slides for the 2nd presenter and himself (the 3rd presenter). Is it  Okay for the 3rd presenter to control the slides for both himself and the 2nd speaker? I didn't see any issues from prior experience.  Just want to confirm with you.     During the meeting, if the council members ask us questions, and we will need to share screens (eg. showing graphics, site plans,  etc.) to answer these questions, do we also need to send these materials after the meeting?    Thanks in advance for your help.    Best regards,  Jia    On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:12 PM Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org> wrote:  Hi Jia, Thank you for sending ‐ you can share your own screen. We do like to review and keep it on file as a backup, in case of any  technical issues so much appreciated.  Regards, Kirsten    Kirsten Squarcia  City Clerk  City Manager's Office/City Clerk's Office  KirstenS@Cupertino.org  (408) 777-3225    From: Jia Li <jli@kturban.com>   Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 4:13 PM  To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>  2 Cc: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org>; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>  Subject: Westport Cupertino_Presentation  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 afternoon City Clerk's office,   My name is Jia Li with KT Urban. Our project Westport Cupertino is on the agenda for tomorrow's meeting.   Do we need to send you our presentations prior to the meeting? Or can we share our screens during the meeting?  Thank you in advance for your help.  Best regards,  Jia  \\\  ‐‐   Best regards.  Jia Li    Project Manager  KT Urban  21710 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 200  Cupertino, CA  95014  Email ‐ jli@kturban.com  Phone ‐ (408) 257‐2100 x108   Fax ‐ (408) 255‐8620  ‐‐   Best regards.    Jia Li    Project Manager  KT Urban  21710 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 200  Cupertino, CA  95014  Email ‐ jli@kturban.com  Phone ‐ (408) 257‐2100 x108   Fax ‐ (408) 255‐8620  8/18/2020 1 Related Companies|Atria Senior Living 1 2 •Global leader in high quality residential and  commercial real estate development  •Established in 1972 •$60 billion real estate portfolio •30 Million SF of commercial space including  retail, office and hotel •Developed and manages over 55,000  affordable housing and workforces units  across the country •Innovator in mixed‐use development •Developer of Hudson Yards and Time  Warner Center in NYC •Leader in green building practices and  environmentally‐conscious operations 1 2 8/18/2020 2 3 •Focus on urban or “town center” locations in suburban  markets aiming for mixed‐use intergenerational connectivity  like Westport Cupertino •Highest quality physical buildings •Licensed to provide Assisted Living (AL) and Memory Care  (MC) services •Holistic wellness approach customized to residents’  individual needs and managed across the care and lifestyle platform (Care, Concierge, F&B, Resident Engagement) •Commitment to sustainability‐design, construction,  maintenance and operations of high performance green  buildings Illustrative renderings Atria|Related Communities 4 •Approaching the “Silver Wave” as the first  wave of Baby Boomers start to reach age 75  in 2020 •From 2020‐2030, the 75+ population is  expected to grow by 11 million people,  representing 50% increase •Rising demand and shrinking family sizes will  cause a shortage in support services at home •In 2010, the ratio between potential  caregivers and seniors exceeded 7:1 and is  expected to drop to 4:1 by 2030  ‐  0.3  0.6  0.9  1.2  1.5  ‐  10  20  30  40  50 '80 '90 '00 '10 '20 '30 '40 '50 '85 '95 '05 '15 '25 '35 '45 Year over Year Growth in 75+ Population (MM)Total 75+ Population (MM)75+ Population 75+ Population Year over Year Growth in 75+ Population “Silver Wave” is  upon us Percent of U.S. Population Age 75+ 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%% of U.S. Population1980      1990      2000      2010      2020E      2030E      2040E      2050E Demographic Trends Require  Additional Supply 3 4 8/18/2020 3 5 Westport Cupertino Site Plan 6 •Highest quality, large platform senior housing  operator in North America •Home to over 22,000 residents and 14,400  employees in over 200+ communities in 26 states and 7 Canadian provinces •First “Purpose‐Built” 3rd party management  services company in senior housing •Leading market position, East and West coast  markets Management team with 20+ years of  experience working together across multiple  brands •In 2018, formed partnership with Related  Companies to develop best‐in‐class assisted living  communities 5 6 8/18/2020 4 7 •Facility will be licensed by the California  Department of Social Services as a Residential Care  Facility for the Elderly for the provision of Assisted  Living and Memory Care Services •RCFE license requires the provision of certain  basic services, including three meals a day,  housekeeping, transportation, among others Assisted Living (“AL”) •Personal care for seniors needing assistance with activities  of daily living (e.g. bathing, grooming, dressing, medication,  management, etc.) •Care, services for residents in a way that enhances their  independence, dignity, privacy, and individuality Memory Care (“MC”) •Specialized service specifically for individuals facing the  challenges memory impairment (e.g. Alzheimer’s disease,  dementia) •Assistance with medication management and activities of  daily living in a secure environment with 24‐hour care from  specially trained caregivers Licensed Housing – Assisted Living and Memory Care 7 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Connie Cunningham (Obama 2012) <coffeewalk7am@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 2:50 PM To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:August 18, 2020 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 13, Westport-Cupertino 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.    August 18, 2020 City Council, Agenda Item 13, Westport‐Cupertino    Mayor, Vice‐Mayor and Councilmembers:   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.  I quote from the Housing Element: “Introduction: The long‐term vitality of Cupertino and the local economy depend  upon the availability of all types of housing to meet the community’s diverse housing needs. As Cupertino looks towards  the future, increasing the range and diversity of housing options will be integral to the City’s success. Consistent with the  goal of being a balanced community, this Housing Element continues the City’s commitment to ensuring new  opportunities for residential development, as well as for preserving and enhancing our existing neighborhoods.” End  quote   During this pandemic‐induced economic downturn, you can approve the Westport‐Cupertino.  Our City can begin its  new‐normal life, post‐COVID, with a housing project that will help ease our housing shortage.    I am persuaded by tonight’s discussion that changes that have been made to the project serve our community well.  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 Below Market‐Rate units in the same facility as the Memory Care  units.    I support the Westport‐Cupertino project.  I can see myself living one of these lovely new townhomes.  267 homes,  including senior homes, 48 Below Market Rate homes and 27 memory care homes.  All are critical needs in Cupertino,  with its growing population of older residents.   This project will locate 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 very much look forward to the day when families and individuals move into Westport‐Cupertino.  On a personal note, my father began his journey into the nightmare of Alzheimer’s Disease when he was 78 years old.  There is no cure for Alzheimer's disease or a way to stop or slow its progression. He died 8 years later.  Since I am 70  now, it is possible that I could use one of these memory‐care homes.  My husband’s grandparents suffered Alzheimer’s  2 Disease, too, so he has some concern about it for himself.  As I speak here tonight, I know that many listeners have had  this tragedy strike a loved one.  I would love to have these memory‐care units in Cupertino.   I urgently call on you to approve the Westport‐Cupertino project tonight.   Thank you for your time.  Connie Cunningham  Housing Commission (self only)  Lived here for 33 years.       1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 2:54 PM To:City Council; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Item 13 on City Council Agenda - The Oaks/ West Port 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 writing in concern of the large construction project planned for The Oaks Shopping Center?West Port which is Item 9 on the Cupertino City Council Agenda for August 18, 2020. I do not believe that there should be the large construction proposed at The Oaks/West Port Shopping Center. Ten stories is way too high for the corner of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd. It is completely against our General Plan and does not fit in with the height limits along Stevens Creek Blvd. in Cupertino. It does not follow the Heart of the City plan which runs the length of Stevens Creek Blvd. from the western edge of the city to the eastern edge of the city. There is supposed to be a full 35 foot setback from Stevens Creek Blvd. and any buildings built facing Stevens Creek Blvd. are supposed to be stepped back in a 1 to 1.5 ratio or greater. The Heart of the City was worked on as a street plan for Stevens Creek Blvd. to retain the look and feel of Stevens Creek Blvd. with shade trees and a full 35 foot setback. It is unique to Cupertino and should be respected for that. Many people spent many hours working on Heart of the CIty for many years and over the years so that Heart of the City remains a vital planning document for Our City. I am proud that Heart of the CIty Plan is very specific about the street trees and the 35 foot public right of way. it is a very intrinsic plan to Cupertino and it says a lot about what our city values-- trees and greenspce. i am also against the removal of the oak trees on The Oaks property. They are trying to remove many 100 year old or older oak trees. They are also trying to cut down many young 12 year old oak trees that were planted on the property by direction of the City Council as mitigation for other trees removed from the property. this was in 2008. The City Council studied the property for many hours and went over the trees tree by tree to make sure trees were saved and also replaced. There are two oak trees on The Oaks Shopping Center entrance on Stevens Creek Blvd. that are in the public right of way and they were planted as mitigation from having to remove an oak at that location at the shopping center entrance from Steveens Creek Blvd. These two young oaks were planted in 2008 by order of the City Council. There are also 20 young 12 year old oak trees that were planted on the western boundary of The Oaks Shopping adjacnet to Highway 280/85 on ramp and this is near the southwest corner of the property. It is not proper to cut down trees that another City Council and the public spent hours on in 2008 to build tall high density housing and buildings all over. I suggest that the City Council records from 2008 be pulled up and consulted for the issues with the oaks being planted by the City Council at that time period. I also think it would be a travesty to remove any of the ancient oak trees on the property. These are on the south side of the jewelery store and on the north side of the jewelery store. 2 Also, the traffic load on Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd is already at full capacity and overload and adding tons of traffic and vehicles from this proposed high rise construction would further exacerbate an already bad traffic situation. This proposed construction project is way too big and dense for this site. This has been the problem with most past proposed projects for this site and this project does not seem to have improved that overbuilding problem at all. The architecture is nice and evokes a sense of Cupertino's architectural heritage, rather than having some sort of stucco megalith, but the project is over ambitious, . too tall, too dense and leaves no open space on the site to retain the historic and important oak legacy of the property. I am so glad I was able to see it when I was a child with the big oaks there when the area was still used for farming..To me more and more those are precious and important memories that we in modern day Cupertino should try to recreate and encourage our young people to love their trees and embrace Cupertino's rural roots.One of our gifts to our youngsters is Cupertino's love of trees. To cut down oak trees needlessly is counter intuitive and counter productive to that legacy. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Jennifer Griffin 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:47 PM To:Steven Scharf; City Clerk Cc:Richard Adler; Henry Sang; David Stearns 4F DMS Subject:Public input on Agenda Item #13: Westport from Age Friendly Cupertino Task Force 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.    Mayor Scharf,   The Age Friendly Cupertino Task Force will have four speakers tonight, each for 3 minutes.  We request that these be  allowed to present in order: Richard Adler, Henry Sang, Jean Bedord and Dave Stearns.    Thank you for your consideration.  Warm regards,    Jean Bedord  Cell:  408‐966‐6174 / Land line: 408‐252‐5220  1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: Comments: Westport Cupertino City Council Hearing From: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>   Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 4:01 PM  To: Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>  Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>  Subject: RE: Comments: Westport Cupertino City Council Hearing    Thanks Gian – we will include in written communications     Kirsten Squarcia  City Clerk  City Manager's Office/City Clerk's Office  KirstenS@Cupertino.org  (408) 777-3225      From: Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>   Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 2:36 PM  To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>  Subject: Fwd: Comments: Westport Cupertino City Council Hearing    Sent from my iPhone    Begin forwarded message:  From: Sun <mt.sunrise1@gmail.com>  Date: August 18, 2020 at 2:28:39 PM PDT  To: Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>  Subject: Comments: Westport Cupertino City Council Hearing  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.    • I am concerned about removing 74 protected healthy trees. Are you planning to relocate those trees? • Are there many seniors who are looking for senior apartments and assisted living facilities in Cupertino? There are already a couple senior living facilities in Cupertino. • We also need affordable housing for teachers just like Mountain View. Cupertino is well known by high tech companies and good schools. For the reason, people live in Cupertino. 4 high schools (Monta Vista, Cupertino, Lynbrook, Homestead) are listed in Bay area top 25 best high schools. In order to stay a good school district, we need good teachers who can live in Cupertino. 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 4:58 PM To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:2020-08-18 CC Agenda Item 13 Oaks/Westport - BMR units are NOT "IDENTICAL" 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 above City Council Agenda Item 13 tonight, 2020‐ 08‐18.      Dear City Council,    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.  The Staff Report leaves it to the City Council to  decide.    Q:  What’s to decide?!?!  The municipal code 19.56.050 G.2 says “Affordable units SHALL BE IDENTICAL…”!    I heard this requirement was being ignored because it was not an objective requirement.  What’s subjective in the term  “IDENTICAL”???    Below, I’ve included the excerpt from the Staff Report that describes this requirement as “generally representative of  the unit sizes…” but the Muni Code says “identical”!  See below.    Staff Report, middle of page 17      CMC 19.56.050 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.    2 Also note that the units get larger, the difference between the overall size of these units increases substantially until a 2‐ bedroom market rate unit has the equivalent of a huge additional 15’x16’ room.  THIS cannot be considered  IDENTICAL any way you look at it!    In the Staff Report pages 17‐18 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’ huge 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 without the proper concessions is  cheating the very people our Density Bonus Laws were written to protect!    Sincerely,  Peggy Griffin