Planning commission approves modified Westport Building 1 plan after months-long debate; conditions include park-fee refund tied to added retail and TDM

The Cupertino Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve changes to Building 1 of the Westport project — an assisted‑living and memory‑care building with ground‑floor retail — while attaching conditions including a refund of the remaining parkland dedication fee contingent on adding retail and a transport-demand-management (TDM) plan for on-site employees.

Why it matters: Westport is a large multi‑parcel redevelopment of the former Oaks shopping center. The developer, Related Companies, said economic conditions and construction‑cost escalation since the project’s original entitlement made the previously approved program infeasible. The commission’s action keeps the project moving but adds conditions intended to protect community retail access and address potential parking impacts.

Key approvals and changes - Unit count: The applicant requested a density‑bonus concession to increase assisted‑living dwelling units on Building 1 from 123 to 136. The commission approved the requested change as part of the modification. - Retail: The original entitlement included approximately 17,600 square feet of ground‑floor retail. The applicant proposed reducing the retail footprint to roughly 4,000 square feet (corner-concentrated). The commission approved the modification but attached a condition that would refund the outstanding parkland dedication fee in exchange for the developer increasing the retail footprint (the staff motion that passed ties the refund to adding 4,000 square feet of retail, for a total of roughly 8,000 square feet). - Parking: The applicant proposed eliminating about 50,000 square feet of below‑grade parking on the Building 1 parcel and replacing it with surface stalls, based on operational assumptions for assisted living. Staff and the applicant reported a projected deficiency compared with the prior entitlement; staff added a condition requiring the applicant to identify 20 additional on‑site surface parking spaces before building permits are issued. The commission and developer also discussed a request to secure additional on‑ or off‑site parking, employee TDM measures, and a condition that retail growth not automatically generate further parking minimums. - Parkland dedication fee: Staff’s initial recommendation opposed waiving the parkland in‑lieu fee (the newly proposed Building 1 program would have required an incremental fee for 13 added units). The commission ultimately approved a condition that would refund the remaining parkland in‑lieu fee contingent on the developer increasing ground‑floor retail by an additional 4,000 square feet (bringing total Building 1 retail to ~8,000 sq ft). The commission approved that as part of its motion.

What the developer said Related Companies (Balan Simcic) explained they could not finance the previously approved design because construction costs have risen about 40% since 2020 and financing markets tightened. Related and its operator, Oakmont Senior Living (Matt Stephenson), argued the assisted‑living/memory‑care population typically generates far lower vehicle demand than standard housing: Oakmont said its experience across many California communities shows resident vehicle ownership and driving rates are low (staff and operator cited figures under 10% vehicle ownership and ~3% actively driving for similar high‑acuity residents). Oakmont said visitor stays are short and the operator would provide valet service and already has negotiated off‑site parking agreements with nearby related properties for the limited number of resident vehicles.

Staff analysis and environmental review Staff noted that Assembly Bill 2097 (AB 2097) — state law that limits local minimum parking requirements for projects near major transit — was not available at the original entitlement date and therefore cannot be applied ministerially to transform the entitlement. Because this is a modification to an approved Planned Development, staff said the commission retains discretion. Staff also had PlaceWorks prepare a CEQA addendum to the certified Environmental Impact Report; PlaceWorks concluded the proposed modifications would not create new or more severe impacts than previously identified in the EIR.

Public comment and commissioner concerns The hearing drew numerous speakers. Opponents urged maintaining more retail and deeper parking, arguing the corridor has lost retail over decades and the project was initially pitched as a significant retail and community space. Several speakers worried about how reduced retail and parking would affect Memorial Park, De Anza College foot traffic and nearby restaurants. Supporters, including Age‑Friendly Cupertino and other advocates, emphasized urgent senior‑housing needs and noted that no new assisted‑living/memory‑care product of this type has been added in Cupertino for decades.

Commissioner questions focused on: - Quantitative parking evidence and comparables: commissioners repeatedly asked staff for data comparing parking demand at similar assisted‑living communities; staff reported operator data but also requested on‑site parking be increased where feasible. - Retail placemaking: commissioners said consolidated retail near the park would better support walking and curbside activity than isolated, one‑off storefronts. - Park‑fee tradeoffs: several commissioners said using an in‑lieu park fee refund as leverage to secure more ground‑floor retail was a reasonable negotiation to preserve community benefits.

Formal action and vote The Planning Commission adopted the staff resolution approving the Building 1 development‑permit amendment and architectural‑site approval, together with the following material conditions: (1) require the applicant to identify or provide 20 additional on‑site parking spaces before building permits are issued (on or off‑site options discussed); (2) require a TDM plan for employees and employee parking; and (3) refund the outstanding parkland in‑lieu fee contingent on the developer increasing Building 1 retail by approximately 4,000 square feet (resulting in roughly 8,000 sq ft total on Building 1), with the caveat the added retail need not trigger new parking minimums beyond those conditions negotiated. The roll-call vote was unanimous: Commissioner Fung — aye; Commissioner Linscog — aye; Commissioner Scharf — aye; Vice Chair Kasolsharon — aye; Chair Rao — aye.

Implementation and next steps - Building permits: Staff conditioned that the developer must demonstrate the additional 20 parking spaces (surface or other documented arrangement) before permits are issued for Building 1. - TDM and parking management: The applicant and operator were asked to produce a TDM program for employees (transit incentives, carpooling, valet/stacking protocols) and to demonstrate arrangements for off‑site resident vehicle storage if needed. - Park fee refund mechanics: The refund of parkland in‑lieu fees was approved as a contingent element; staff will work with the applicant to document the retail increase and the refund timing.

Ending note The commission’s action is intended to balance the city’s desire for ground‑floor, publicly useful retail and park‑near retail activation with the developer’s economic constraints and the city’s need for senior‑serving housing. The conditions create a pathway for the project to move forward while preserving leverage for retail activation and mechanisms intended to limit spillover parking impacts in surrounding neighborhoods.