CC 12-21-2021 Item No. 24 Westport Development Project_Written CommunicationsCC 12-21-21
#24
Westport
Development
Project
Written Commentsnd
$GYRFDWLQJ&RPPXQLW\1HHGV
WR:HVWSRUW
$JH)ULHQGO\&XSHUWLQR
:HVWSRUW·VILOOVLQSDUWRI
WKH0LVVLQJ0LGGOH
SULFH
5DQJHRIRSWLRQV
)RUXPDW
5DQFKR
6DQ
$QWRQLR6XQQ\
9LHZ&KDWHDX
&XSHUWLQR
(/,
7KH
9HUDQGD
/RQJWHUPFRQWLQXLQJFDUH
UHTXLUHVRZQHUVKLS
127PHDQWWREHTXDQWLWDWLYH
UHQWDO
UHQWDO
XQLWV
$V
V
L
V
W
H
G
/
L
Y
L
Q
J
0H
P
U
R
\
&
D
U
H
$G
X
O
W
'
D
\
&
D
U
H
0D
U
N
H
W
5
D
W
H
6
H
Q
L
R
U
+R
X
V
L
Q
J
6N
L
O
O
H
G
1
X
U
V
L
Q
J
3R
V
W
6
X
U
J
L
F
D
O
5
H
K
D
E
L
O
L
W
D
W
L
R
Q
3
K
\
V
7
K
H
U
D
S
\
9/,
/,
0
H
P
R
U
\
&
D
U
H
$
V
V
L
V
W
H
G
/
L
Y
L
Q
J
0D[ $0,
0D[$0,
0D[$0,
$)&DGYRFDWLQJIRU
VHQLRUKRXVLQJ
VHQLRUVHUYLFHV
6HQLRU&RPPXQLW\$FFHVV
%DFNXSVOLGHV
)URQWHQWUDQFHH[LWIURP6HQLRU&HQWHU
SOXVH[LVWLQJEXVVWRS
y 6KRUWHVWDQGVDIHVWSDWKWR:HVWSRUWVKRSV
6LJQDOL]HGSHGHVWULDQFURVVZDONDW0DU\
6ZDLO/RFDWLRQ
&URVVZDONDWWKHFXUYHRI0DU\
y 1RVLJQDOVFHQWHUVWUXFWXUHKLGHVSHGHVWULDQV ORQJSDWKWR:HVWSRUW
y 1RWWKHSUHIHUUHGSDWK
1HZ6WURNH5HFRYHU\
)RUXPDW5DQFKR6DQ$QWRQLR
SULFH
5DQJHRIRSWLRQV
)RUXPDW
5DQFKR
6DQ
$QWRQLR6XQQ\
9LHZ&KDWHDX
&XSHUWLQR
(/,
7KH
9HUDQGD
/RQJWHUPFRQWLQXLQJFDUH
127PHDQWWREHTXDQWLWDWLYH
UHQWDO
UHQWDO
XQLWV
$V
V
L
V
W
H
G
/
L
Y
L
Q
J
0H
P
U
R
\
&
D
U
H
$G
X
O
W
'
D
\
&
D
U
H
0D
U
N
H
W
5
D
W
H
6
H
Q
L
R
U
+R
X
V
L
Q
J
6N
L
O
O
H
G
1
X
U
V
Q
J
3R
V
W
6
X
U
J
L
F
D
O
5
H
K
D
E
L
O
L
W
D
W
L
R
Q
3
K
\
V
7
K
H
U
D
S
\
9/,
/,
0
H
P
R
U
\
&
D
U
H
$
V
V
L
V
W
H
G
/
L
Y
L
Q
J
0D[ $0,
0D[$0,
0D[$0,
6WURNH37WRUHJDLQ
ZDONLQJ
3URSRVHG:HVWSRUW
Dear Mayor Paul, Vice-Mayor Chao, Councilmember Willey, and Councilmember Moore:
This letter is regarding the changes that KT Urban is proposing for the Westport project. Thank you so much for
not approving these changes at the December 7th City Council meeting. Don’t succumb to veiled threats by the
property owner and don’t get pressured into approving the changes at the December 21st City Council meeting.
There are multiple reasons why the City Council should not approve these changes to the Westport Project, at
least not without due process which would include sending the revised project back to the Planning Commission
for review.
These are 19 reasons to not accede to the property owner’s demands:
1. Aging in Place. We all know that Cupertino could use additional senior housing, both market-rate and
below market rate. On the other hand, Cupertino has a large senior population that is aging in place, has
considerable equity in their homes, plan to pass their homes to their children, and has zero interest in
moving out of a paid-off house into a very expensive rental apartment. KT Urban’s proposed changes
will make the market rate housing in the Westport project even more expensive.
2. Proposition 19. What seniors are more likely to do, thanks to Proposition 19, is to sell their Cupertino
home, take their low assessed value with them, and buy a home in a less expensive area. Proposition 19
only took effect earlier this year and has not yet had a chance to yield results.
3. Need for more mixed-age, mixed-income housing. While the approved Westport project may be the
best that could have been negotiated at the time, the reality is that the construction of so much age-
restricted housing, not available to families, is disappointing. What would be much better is a mixed-
age, mixed-income project, such as what EAH Housing is building in Emeryville.
4. Density Bonus Shortfall. The current project does not use the entire Density Bonus that the property
owner is entitled to. Given the RHNA numbers in the next cycle, the Westport location would be ideal
for a project that takes full advantage of California’s Density Bonus Law. In fact it would make sense
for the City to grant a GPA to allow a taller project.
5. “The Poor Door.” If you look at the Coterie project in San Francisco, which, like Westport, is being
built by Related and Atria, it appears as if what will be built at Westport is a very luxurious and very
expensive senior housing project situated next to a stripped-down BMR project for poor people. Coterie
rents range from $7,900 for a studio to as high as $27,000 per month for two bedroom apartment. In the
article “SNEAKING IN THROUGH THE BACK POOR DOOR: WHY MIXED-INCOME HOUSING
MERELY MANAGES DISCRIMINATION,” (see https://www.uclalawreview.org/the-properties-of-
integration-mixed-income-housing-as-discrimination-management-2/) author Jamila Jefferson–Jones
writes: “The market-rate entrances, which are located on the buildings’ front façades, have luxury
amenities, like doormen and valets, while the entrance set aside for the lower-income residents are
merely functional and usually hidden on the side of the building, away from the main entrance. Some
buildings even preclude access to community amenities, like gyms and courtyards to preserve exclusivity
by keeping the poorer residents from mixing with their economic “betters.””
6. Optics. Think of the terrible optics of Cupertino approving such expensive and luxurious housing next
to a starkly spartan BMR building. This kind of discrimination is actually not allowed by Cupertino's
inclusionary housing ordinance, but it will exist at Westport thanks to waivers and concessions taken by
the property owner. It will also exist in the Vallco SB-35 project. The City of Cupertino has already
been repeatedly attacked by the media for high housing prices, even though the City has nothing to do
with setting housing prices.
7. “Zoom Meeting Redesign.” It was incredible that the applicant kept insisting that the project could not
be redesigned in a Zoom meeting, as if it was the fault of the City Council, or residents, that all of these
significant design changes were brought forward at the last minute in what only could be described as a
bait and switch. Please don’t reward this appalling behavior.
8. Threats and Bullying. The City Council should not be bullied. The applicant has made repeated veiled
threats that if the City Council doesn’t go along with all the proposed changes that the project will be
abandoned. Please don’t reward this detestable and threatening behavior.
9. Completely Different Project than What was Approved. Even though the approved project has
issues, such as the lack of even a single unit of affordable housing for families, the City Council
approved it.
The loss of open space, the loss of the restaurant, the elimination of parking under the BMR housing, the
valet parking and stacker, the changes in unit sizes, the lack of comparability of the BMR with the
market-rate housing, now make this a completely different project than what was originally approved.
10. Loss of Retail. The tiny amount of extra retail that the property owner has now proposed does not
nearly make up for the loss of the ground floor publicly accessible restaurant. That location would have
been great for the return of a new Hobee’s franchise.
11. Worsening of the BMR Portion. It’s disappointing to see the worsening of the Below Market Rate
portion of the project, including the worsening of the BMR parking. Since the BMR is senior-only, it
should have parking under the building, reducing the distance from the parking lot to the apartments.
12. Project Should Have Gone Back to Planning Commission. These are not minor modifications. The
project should have went back to the Planning Commission, and not have gone straight to City Council.
The whole job of the Planning Commission is to look at new projects and make recommendations in
order to allow the City Council to concentrate on more policy issues.
13. City Council Performance. The performance of the City Council at the December 7th City Council
meeting was, frankly, disappointing.
a. Vice-Mayor Chao was attempting to redesign the project in a motion, at midnight, which was
absurd. Moving the resident dining area to an upper floor, while keeping the restaurant on the
ground floor open to the public as originally planned, is an excellent idea, however changes need
to be carefully considered in a review process, by the Planning Commission, then sent to City
Council, and not be made in haste.
b. Mayor Paul stated that the project could not go back to the Planning Commission because of
“time constraints.” But what is the rush? A few extra weeks for a project that went through more
than a year of review before being approved now comes back with significant changes that make
it less attractive and there’s an expectation by the property owner that approval of the changes
that they want to be rushed through in one night? Don’t succumb to threats and pressure from the
property owner; send this back to the Planning Commission.
c. Council-member Moore proposed that in exchange for approving all of the changes that the
applicant be required to change one of the for-sale units to BMR. This is ridiculous! The
proposed changes are so major, and would increase profits and reduce costs by such a large
amount, that trading the loss of retail, the loss of underground parking, and the changes in
comparability between market-rate and BMR for public benefits should result in much more than
a single unit of the non-senior housing becoming BMR. 20% is Cupertino’s requirement for
inclusionary, for-sale BMR units. Converting seventeen of the for-sale housing units to BMR
might be an acceptable trade-off for the other changes that the property owner wants.
d. Mayor Paul suggested that perhaps Cupertino seniors would sell their homes to young families
and use the money to move into the market-rate senior housing. The reality is that a) very few
seniors that actually want to leave their long-term homes and move into senior housing, and b)
those that do move into senior housing usually finance the costs by renting out their homes.
When this happens, the city loses potential property tax revenue since houses are not reassessed,
the schools lose parcel taxes because of senior exemptions, and young families do not have the
opportunity to buy homes in Cupertino.
e. Mayor Paul kept letting the property owner speak, even when their time was used up. The public
should have been able to speak again as well if this is a new system of commenting.
f. Councilmember Hung Wei repeatedly stated that seniors in Cupertino support the project. But
we only heard from one organized, developer-backed, group of three seniors, one of whom is a
founding member of an anti-affordable housing organization, Catalyze Silicon Valley.
g. Councilmember Hung Wei repeatedly stated that, to her, this was “new project” since she had
not been on City Council at the time it was approved. This was very insulting to the current and
prior City Council members that voted to approve the project, as well as insulting to
councilmember Moore, who was on the Planning Commission when this project was approved.
14. Lack of Notice for Director’s Approval of Parking Changes. The lack of notice to the City Council
and the Planning Commission, of the Planning Director’s decision to allow the removal of parking
beneath the BMR building, and the removal of one level of parking under the market-rate building by
the use of stackers, should not have been allowed to occur. The planning staff needs to be disciplined for
their lack of transparency.
15. Projects that Get Approved that the Developer Has No Intention of Building. Developers should
not waste the time of City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council by presenting projects
that they have no intention of actually building. Coming back to the City Council, a year after a project
has been approved, with major changes that worsen the project, is an unacceptable bait and switch. We
saw this with Main Street and we should have learned our lesson.
16. Precedent. Approving these changes would set a terrible precedent of developers proposing a project,
obtaining approval because of how wonderful the project appears to be, then coming back with last-
minute changes and proclaiming that if the City doesn’t approve these changes that they’ll abandon the
whole project.
17. Long-Term Impact. We will have to live with this project for many decades, and the attempts to
cheapen the project, solely for a short-term financial benefit to the property owner, is a bad idea. We
have seen the problems at the Millenium Tower in San Francisco, which were the result of cheaping out
during design and construction.
18. Don’t worry, if the Current Project is Abandoned then Something Else Will Be Built. If KT Urban
wants to abandon the project that the City approved then that would be disappointing, but it would not
be the end of the world. They can sell the land to a more experienced developer that won’t engage in
such egregious bait and switch tactics.
19. No Need to Rush. We need to take a deep breath and not rush through such major modifications to what
was once a great project. This is the time for careful consideration not a time to respond to threats.
I would urge that the City Council members not approve these major changes. This is not the same project that
was originally approved. Major changes to an approved project, that reduce its quality, need to be carefully
considered. Again, don’t succumb to veiled threats
Sincerely,
Grace Chan
18 year Cupertino Resident
chan.grace88@yahoo.com
P.S. I have not sent this letter to councilmember Hung Wei since everyone in Cupertino knows that she will
always vote for whatever a developer asks for.
From:Donna austin
To:City Council; Darcy Paul; City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia; Hung Wei; Liang Chao; johnwilley@cupertino.org
Subject:The Oaks
Date:Thursday, December 9, 2021 9:00:45 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.
Item 30 Westport/ Atria
Historically retail never made it at the oaks, Especially restaurants! Pedro’s was the first and I loved it! The
restaurants went out of business there all the time, and there was some really nice ones.
Today people shop online. They go to a place to meet someone for coffee or lunch! Our city limits evening hours to
9:00 for restaurants, unless you pay extra. A Clean Well Lighted place was a popular bookstore at the Oaks that
everyone loved, that died when books went digital. Libraries continues to be successful because they grew and
became an information center digitally and continues to have story hours and job information and teen rooms. Our
library is always jumping. If you don’t grow you die!
I laughed when the council said the Oaks didn’t follow the heart of the city plan. I was on the planning commission
and on many groups that developed that policy they believed that bringing the shops to the street was more attractive
with parking in back! That was the 80’s and 90’s. That policy needs to be revisited, especially the Oaks adjacent to
the freeway. Meanwhile this senior project that has so much synergy and is interrelated to the whole West Port
project and so vitally needed for seniors is jeopardized by this antiquated policy. It would be so sad to lose Atria in
this project. They are renown and specializes in senior care. They are required by law to have a private dining room
for nutrition and care and safety, just to make way for more struggling retail. Vote yes for the vital changes so that
senior care is available at Westport. Make this your legacy to the City of Cupertino!
Donna Austin
Sent from my iPhone
1
Melissa Robertson
From:J Shearin <shearin.jen@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 10:45 AM
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Agenda item 24: Please approve modifications to the Westport Development for increased
senior/memory housing
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 Esteemed Mayor Paul and City Councilmembers,
Cupertino needs more senior housing, including memory care housing. Our population in Cupertino is aging, and we just
don’t have enough comfortable places to live that meet the unique needs of seniors. There is a distinct lack of memory
housing in Cupertino, and the need is increasing. I urge you today to approved the modifications to the Westport
project.
Westport Development is a prime place to put such housing, and the revised modifications to Westport Cupertino adds
much‐needed Assisted Living senior apartments and a Memory Care facility to Cupertino. The location has access to
transportation, shops and businesses, the post office, and very easy access to the Cupertino Senior Center. The seniors
would be in a community with a variety of ages which is important for keeping physically healthy and sharp mentally.
A key feature is that the Assisted Living facility is comprised of rental units so residents are able to choose how long they
wish to stay. I personally have seen that this is necessary, as my father‐in‐law (and previously mother‐in‐law) needed
this flexibility to meet his needs when he moved into Assisted Living in eastern North Carolina.
Tonight, please vote to approve the revised modifications to Westport Cupertino and help our growing population of
seniors that love Cupertino and want to stay here in their later retirement. Thank you for your work on behalf of
Cupertino.
Best Wishes,
Jennifer Shearin
Sr. Warden, St. Jude’s Episcopal Church, Cupertino
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Mary Souza <marysouza1@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 3:30 PM
To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Hung Wei; Jon Robert Willey; Cupertino City Manager's Office;
City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Approve Westport modifications
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council and officials,
I am writing to ask you to approve the modifications to the Westport Development project so that Cupertino can
provide much needed assisted living and memory care housing for seniors. I especially appreciate that Westport is not a
buy‐in community, but has the rental option and that it is close to the Senior Center, and other amenities.
I am a 50‐year Cupertino homeowner currently aging in place. Many of my neighbors are in the same situation. We need
more options for continuing to live in Cupertino. I have attended St. Jude’s Episcopal Church for 46 years and my
husband’s ashes are interred there in the beautiful Memorial Garden. I have been active in the Cupertino faith
community and hope to remain a vital, contributing member to the faith community and the city for many more years.
But I am beginning to look at my future options other than maintaining a home by myself.
Please approve this project at the meeting tonight.
Sincerely,
Mary Souza
7894 Belknap Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
% *
$'1
'$% +* +" &,
&2'%%-&",1'$$
, . &+* #$.
-( *,"&'
*-( *,"&'",1'-& "$ % *+
%/*","& ,'1'-+,! * +" &,'
&2'$$ ,' 0(* ++'-*+-(('*,'
,*"3+
(*'('+$,' . $'($" &+ !'-+"& '*+ &"'*+/",! ' -+'&++"+, $"."& & % %'*1
* $'& /",!'-*." (* +" &, '*"&+,*- ,"'&! &'(('*,-&",1,'% ,/",!*#
$ 0& *& -*"$$ *,',$#'-,('++"$ (*,& *+!"(+ ,/ &
,*"&
&2
'$$
+&'-, '% ' ,!,% ,"& / / * )-" #$1$ ,'+ &-% *'-+('++""$"," + '*
'-*+,- &,+ %($'1 +& (', &,"$* +" &,+' -( *,"&'" ,! ($&"+((*'.
! (*,& *+!"(+ "+ -++ !. ,! (', &,"$,' * ,$1 & ",,! +,- &,+'
&2'$$
1(*'." "& /'*# 0( *" & ,!*'- !(" "&, *&+!"(+'* %($'1% &,'(('*,-&"," +& $+'
'-$ -+ ++", '*'-*-*+"& *' *%& $,! !&'$' " ++,- &,+,' '%($ ,
,! "** )-"* !'-*+ '*$" &+-* & ","'&/ + . *1* $ .&, + '*+,- &,+ *&"&
* +'* *," " , +"&,! * +' -+"& ++
%"&"+,*,"'&'%(-, * " & *# ,"&
& '%%-&" ,"'&+&."*'&% &, " & & $$' '-*! $,!* $, $++ +
!'- '*,! '(('*,-&",1,'(*'." ,!"+$ ,, *' +-(('*,
"& * $1
$'1
'$% +3K'
* +" &,
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Anne Ezzat <aezzat95014@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 2:08 PM
To:Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Jon Robert Willey; Kitty Moore; City Clerk
Subject:Westport project and SB9 standards
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 Paul, Vice Mayor Chao, Council Member Wiley and Council Member Moore,
I am writing to request that you reject modifications to the Westport Project. By moving the parking, the safety of the
less affluent members of the community will be impacted; a virtual “poor door,” will be created‐ a notion that has been
rejected in other states. Do we really want to be the sort of community that tells our less affluent residents that they do
not matter? Is that the message the community should send? When will the requests for modification of this project
end? And what type of project will this be in the end? Something the residents did not want and did not bargain for?
Please keep the project as is.
Regarding standards for SB9, please make sure that the residents, not the developers are first in your minds. Please do
not allow balconies where they eliminate privacy for the residents, etc. Contrary to the proponents of SB9, most people
do not relish the thought of others being in their inner ear canal. I hope that you will be able to ensure that Cupertino
does not wind up looking like Mountain View, which looks increasingly like a tech ghetto from the brutally ugly and
stupid school of architecture. Please ensure that the standards allow for aesthetically pleasing buildings and maximize
privacy.
And finally, in what universe do people not grasp SB9 is a developer give a way? Developer lobbyists can chant “supply
and demand” all they want, but that does not change the fact that classical economic theory has not worked in the past
hundred years because of government intervention and technology. And the two markets classical economic theory has
rarely impacted is housing and healthcare because people will pay anything for housing and the opportunity not to die.
Lobbyists can chant “supply and demand,” “the earth is flat,” and “the government is putting tracking devices in
vaccines,” but that does not make it so. The wanton disregard this legislation has for communities, with evidence to the
contrary (see how split lots have impacted the prices of housing in Vancouver), clearly demonstrates this movement is
about housing capital and not people. And is completely at odds with the mission of a democratic and compassionate
government which should seek to improve the lives of its citizens, not provide commercial interests with risk free
environments.