Planning commission backs Westport Building 1 changes with conditions including retail increase and park-fee refund

The Cupertino Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend city council approve amendments to the Westport project’s Building 1 development permit and architectural site approval, adopting an addendum to the project’s environmental impact report and attaching conditions that require the developer to increase retail area and implement employee parking controls before permits are issued.

The commission’s action, taken after a three‑hour hearing on the proposal, approves the development‑permit amendment and architectural site approval and forwards a draft resolution recommending that city council adopt the first addendum to the Westport EIR. The commissioners retained staff’s parking conditions and added a requirement that the developer increase the Building 1 retail footprint by 4,000 square feet (to a total of roughly 8,000 square feet) in exchange for refunding the project’s parkland‑in‑lieu fee; the approval also requires a transportation demand management (TDM) plan addressing employee travel and parking. The commission’s vote was recorded as unanimous.

Why it matters: The Westport site on Stevens Creek Boulevard is one of the largest redevelopment parcels in western Cupertino. The changes approved Tuesday affect whether Building 1 will be built as an assisted‑living and memory‑care facility with ground‑floor retail, how much retail and parking the site will provide, and how much the developer will pay into the city’s parkland fund.

What the commission approved and why: Staff presented the application as a modification to the previously approved Westport entitlement. John Martier, senior planner in the community development department, told commissioners the developer is asking to use a remaining density‑bonus concession to reduce Building 1 retail from roughly 17,600 square feet to about 4,000 square feet, increase the assisted‑living unit count from 123 to 136, and eliminate an underground parking level (a reduction of roughly 46 stalls for the development). Martier noted the project team also asked to move some sixth‑floor amenities to the ground floor and reduce the building’s overall height and square footage slightly. He said an addendum to the adopted EIR prepared by PlaceWorks concluded the changes “would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified impacts.”

Developer and operator presentations: Balan Simcic of Related Companies and Matt Stevenson of Oakmont Senior Living described the economics and operations behind the requested changes. Simcic said construction costs and financing have made the originally‑entitled design infeasible: “construction costs are up 40% since 2020,” he said, and removing the underground garage materially reduces the project cost. Simcic said Related intends to remain a long‑term owner and to operate the public spaces. Oakmont’s Stevenson said the operator’s experience shows low resident driving rates in assisted‑living and memory‑care communities and described staffing, valet and shuttle strategies commonly used to manage parking demand: “our average age of our resident across our 10,000 seniors that we care for is about 85 years old,” he said, and added that visitor stays are short and operators routinely provide valet and off‑site arrangements for vehicles.

Staff analysis and recommended conditions: Staff told commissioners AB 2097 (state law limiting local parking minimums near major transit) was enacted after the project’s original entitlement and therefore does not apply automatically to this modification; because the site is in a planned‑development zone, the planning commission retains discretion on parking. Staff’s analysis showed Building 1 previously had entitlement for about 218 parking spaces (surface and underground) and that the applicant was proposing 73 surface spaces for Building 1. To address the shortfall, staff recommended a condition requiring the applicant to secure space for about 20 additional parking spaces on the Building 1 parcel (or otherwise demonstrate the ability to provide them) prior to issuance of building permits, and added a condition to require off‑site parking and management if on‑street overflow persists under a specified threshold.

Public comments and concerns: More than a half‑dozen residents spoke. Several neighbors and representatives of Age Friendly Cupertino said the city lacks senior housing and that Westport would add needed assisted‑living and memory‑care units; Richard Adler of Age Friendly Cupertino said the project’s memory care would expand the city’s supply by adding 35 beds. Other speakers focused on parking impacts in the Mary Avenue/Memorial Park area and urged the commission to preserve retail and to require sufficient employee parking. Diana Farris, a nearby resident, said: “I want this building built, but I also wanna be able to park at night.” Jean Bedord, a longtime resident, urged approval to get the project built: “What’s most important is to get this project approved and under construction.”

Commission debate and final conditions: Commissioners and staff extensively debated retail versus parking tradeoffs, AB 2097’s applicability, and whether to waive the parkland‑in‑lieu fee. After several failed motions and amendments, the commission passed a motion that retained staff’s recommendation (including the on‑site parking condition) and added two additional commission conditions: (1) the city will refund the developer’s parkland‑in‑lieu fee in full contingent on the developer increasing Building 1 retail by 4,000 square feet (bringing Building 1 retail to roughly 8,000 square feet) and (2) the developer must implement a TDM plan addressing employee parking and travel; the motion also specified that no additional parking would be required for the incremental retail. The commission voted unanimously to approve the staff resolution with those added conditions.

What was not decided: The planning commission’s action forwards its recommendation and conditions to city council; council will consider the EIR addendum and the requested permit amendments and the commission’s recommended conditions. The commission did not itself change entitlements for the other Westport parcels; commissioners also left flexibility for the applicant on the retail layout and for staff to refine parking conditions.

Details and clarifications from the hearing: The developer said it had already paid $3.6 million of the $4.0 million parkland‑in‑lieu fee for the 123 approved assisted‑living units; public‑works staff said the additional 13 units would generate a roughly $400,000 incremental fee at $30,000 per unit. Staff reported the modified Building 1 footprint would shrink from about 200,000 to 195,000 square feet. Martier noted the addendum to the EIR found no new impacts requiring mitigation. The commission emphasized that the staff parking condition (locating the additional ~20 spaces on‑site or otherwise ensuring availability prior to permits) remains part of the approval package.

Next steps: The commission’s recommendation and the addendum to the EIR will be forwarded to Cupertino City Council for final action on the EIR addendum and the requested amendments. The commission’s conditions, if accepted by council, will be incorporated into permit approvals and any building permits must demonstrate conformance with those conditions.

Quotes used in this article are taken verbatim from the planning commission hearing transcript and are attributed to the speakers named in the transcript.