City Council approves modified Westport senior housing plan with reduced retail and added units

The Cupertino City Council on May 20 approved amendments to the Westport development that increase the assisted‑living unit count, reduce ground‑floor retail, eliminate an underground parking level and require additional on‑site parking and a transportation demand management (TDM) program.

The council approved a modification to Building 1 of the Westport project after presentations from City senior planner John Martier and representatives of Related Companies and Oakmont Management Group, which will operate the assisted‑living facility. The amended project raises the assisted‑living unit count for Building 1 from 123 to 136 units and reduces the proposed retail footprint from 17,600 square feet (original entitlement) to 4,000 square feet as currently proposed by the developer; council discussion and follow‑up allowed staff to work with the applicant on possible adjustments to increase retail modestly while protecting city requirements. The council vote carried, with Councilmember Mohan voting no.

City staff and the applicant told the council Related has been unable to secure financing on the originally entitled plan because of increased construction and operating costs since 2020. Related senior vice president Balan Simcic told the council construction costs have risen about 42% since 2020 and that eliminating the roughly 50,000‑square‑foot underground parking level would lower the project cost by an estimated $10 million–$15 million. Simcic said the developer has already paid about $3,600,000 in park‑in‑lieu fees and is asking council to reduce or waive a further roughly $300,000 park payment tied to the 13 additional units, and separately discussed seeking up to $4,000,000 in park‑fee reductions under the city’s housing element policies. He said the applicant would provide a 12,250‑square‑foot public park on the property and maintain it in perpetuity.

Oakmont vice president Terry Irvin described how assisted‑living operations reduce parking demand compared with other residential uses, citing observed resident vehicle‑use rates of about 3%–10% in similar communities and describing employee TDM measures (transit vouchers, bike incentives, subsidized ride‑share, valet and off‑site resident parking). Oakmont said it would operate memory‑care apartments and provide programs for residents with dementia.

Staff and the applicant discussed parking, retail location and park‑fee options at length. City staff advised AB 2097 (state law limiting parking minimums) likely does not apply to Westport because the project was entitled before Jan. 1, 2023, so any parking reduction under that statute would not be guaranteed; the applicant disagreed and submitted letters from housing advocates taking the opposite view. Staff noted the project as modified must still provide reserved surface parking for the adjacent occupied BMR building and townhomes and required the applicant to add about 19–20 additional on‑site parking spaces beyond the developer’s initial proposal as a condition of approval.

Public commenters were divided. Senior‑housing advocates and local aging‑services groups, including Age Friendly Cupertino and the Senior Center Advisory Council, urged approval and emphasized Cupertino’s shortage of assisted‑living and memory‑care beds. Several residents and the planning commission chair urged the council to preserve retail where feasible to create an active “place” around the project’s central park. A representative of the NorCal Carpenters Union urged inclusion of fair labor standards in construction agreements.

Council members pressed the developer on profit, financing and the specifics of any retail tradeoffs. Councilmembers asked whether a sliding scale or pro‑rata refund could be arranged if the developer increased retail square footage in exchange for a reduced park‑fee payment; the developer said it could study up to about an additional 2,500 square feet of retail but that adding retail has significant cost implications and would require design changes and potentially additional gross square footage. The planning commission had recommended approval with two possible options: a TDM program and, as a voluntary option, an increase in retail to 8,000 square feet in exchange for refunding or waiving the park‑in‑lieu fees; council removed the option that would automatically exchange park fees for extra retail and instead adopted the staff/recommended resolutions plus direction authorizing the director of community development to approve modest, reasonable plan adjustments consistent with the council’s action.

The council’s approval included: adoption of an addendum to the project EIR, approval of the development permit amendment and architectural site approval; a TDM program to be implemented prior to building permit issuance; a requirement that the applicant provide roughly 19–20 additional on‑site parking spaces compared with the applicant’s initial submission; and conditions aligning BMR unit sizes and protections for the occupied BMR building and townhomes. The planning commission’s recommendation and the council action also referenced the developer’s prior payments and the possibility to further study limited additional retail (the council did not promise to refund the city’s park‑in‑lieu payments).

The council and applicant said they expect to proceed with refined design and financing next; the applicant said it has spent three years seeking financing and that the adjustments increase the likelihood the project will be financeable. The council directed staff to finalize any necessary plan adjustments and to return any unresolved items through the normal permit tracking process.

Votes at a glance: the amended motion to approve the EIR addendum and the development and site approvals carried; Councilmember Mohan cast the lone opposing vote.

Why this matters: Westport is a multi‑phase project at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue adjacent to Memorial Park and Cupertino’s senior center. The changes affect the city’s supply of assisted‑living and memory‑care units, the amount and placement of retail and parking, parkland‑in‑lieu revenue and traffic/parking conditions in the surrounding neighborhoods. The council’s approval balances the developer’s financing constraints with city requirements for parking, public open space and TDM measures.

What’s next: staff will work with the applicant on plan refinements authorized by council and continued design and financing; any substantive changes beyond council’s authorization will return to the council for review.