CC 03-02-04cUPeMINO
AGENDA
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall, Council Chambers
Tuesday, March 2, 2004
3:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
STUDY SESSION
1. Conduct a joint study session with the Planning Commission to consider
recommendations from the General Plan Task Fome
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to Monday, March 15 at 5:00 p.m. for commission interviews, Conference Room A,
City Hall, 10300 Torte Avenue.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special
theassistance, meeting, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of
EXHIBITS
BEGIN
HERE
San
June 2002
Francisco Bay Area
Housing
Crisis
Report
Card
EXHIBIT
Key Findings
72% of Bay Area governments are failing
to take the most basic steps to address
the affordable housing shortage,
Three local actions could double the
production of affordable homes: allowing
more apartments to be built, dedicatin9
local funds to affordable housing, and
adopting inclusionary zoning.
Local governments helped cause our
affordable housing shortage but also have
the means to turn failure into success.
Desperate for housing
A crowd gathers at San Francisco Housing Authority
after the waiting list for low income housing vouchers
was reopened for the first time in three years.
The Voice of Affordable Housing
.... San Francisco Bay Area
Housing Report
Card
Table Of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1
Grades on the Housing Crisis Eeport Card ............................................................................... 3
How Cities Prolong The Bay Area Housing Crisis ................................................................. 4
What the Grades Mean ............................................................................................................... 6
Who Needs Affordab e Hous ng in the Bay Area? .................................................................. 7
The Status Quo Is [;ailing To Provide Housing Choices ........................................................... 8
Housing Element Results Fall Short: New Affordable Housing 1988--1998 ........................ 9
How Cities Can Make The Grade .............................................................................................. 10
Housing i01: Zoning for Housing Choices and Smart Growth ........................................... 10
Dedicated Funds for Affordable Housing .............................................................................. 12
Jobs-Housing Linkage Programs ..................................................................................... I2
Increasing Redevelopment Funds for Affordable Housing .............................................. 14
Housing Trust Funds & Bonds ....................................................................................... 15
Inclusinnary Policies .............................................................................................................. 16
The Bay Area's Homework: Housing Reform ............................................................................ 18
Appendix A: Report Card Grading System ................................................................................... 20
Appendix B: Regional Housing Needs Determination ..................................................................21
Notes ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ 25
Copyright Non-Profit Housing As~-ecia fion of Northern California, C~'enbdt Alli~nc~ 2002
The Voice of Affordable Housing
The Non-Profit Hou~ng A~ociation of Northern
California (NPH)
369 Pine St., Suite 350, San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 989-81§0 · www. nonproflthousing.org
Co~eenbelt Alliance
530 Bush St., Suite 303,
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 398-3730 * www. greenbelt.org
Nine County Housing Advocacy Network
East Bay Housing Organizationz
Association of Homeless & Housing Service Providers of Contra Costa County
Marm Housing Council
Napa Valley Nonprofit Housing Coition
Housing Leadership Council of ~an Mateo County
Executive Summary
Local Government Inaction is Worsening
the Bay Area's Housing Crisis
This l~eport Card reveals why the San Francisco Bay
Area continues to have a housing crisis, and how
local governments can help end it. A major cause
of the crisis is that 72% of the region's cities and
counties are failing to take basic steps to address the
Bay Area's affordable housing shortage.
There is a set of proven solutions that can provide a
range of housing choices for everyone, from young
working families to grandparents on fixed incomes.
These solutions can increase the overall supply of
housing, including permanently affordable housing,
yet all too many local governments have declined to
adopt them. The Housing Crisis Report Card
examines the extent to which cities and counties are
adopting common sense strategies for affordable
housing. It takes a closer look at 40 key cities and
counties, selected because they are among the
largest and fastest growing places in the Bay Area.
Of these 40 cities and counties, only seven made
the housing Honor Roll, while nearly three-
quarters earned unsatisfactory marks.
According to the Association of Bay Area
Governments, to house its growing population this
nine-county region will need to add over 230,000
new homes from 1999-2006. Of those, at least
72,000--nearly 10,000 per year--must be
affordable to lower-income families. If local
governments do not act, homelessness
will rise and young families with
children will continue to be priced out
of the region. Low wage workers--who
are disproportionately people of color--
will be unable to live near their jobs,
and commutes will only get longer.
The Housing Crisis Can be Solved
Three straightforward local government actions
could double the creation of affordable homes in
our existing cities and towns across the Bay Area.
They are:
1. Creating Housing Choices: In order to
increase the overall supply of housing, allow
apartments and condominiums to be built
where they are now prohibited.
2. Dedicating Local Funds to Housing: Use
jobs-hOusing linkage fees, housing trust funds,
and additional revenues from Redevelopment
Areas to create new affordable housing.
3. Adopting Inclusionary Zoning: Require that
new housing include at least 15% of all homes
as affordable to lower income residents.
As the examples that follow show, these policies are
already in place and effective in some Bay Area
cities and counties that are serious about solving the
housing crisis. They should be in effect in every one
of the Bay Area's 109 jurisdictions.
Failing to Plan, Planning for Failure
The Housing Crisis Report Card is the first
comprehensive look at housing elements in the Bay
Area. California law requires each city and
county to plan for its "fair share" of housing for
people of all income levels. The housing element
is the state-mandated plan for meeting housing
Stmbddge Court Apartments in Castro Valley
was built by BRIDGE Housing as a mixed-
u~e development adjacent to B/ia~,which also
incorporates an historic home. Photo: Tom
Jones/California Futu~ Neu~rk.
Housing is considered affordable ir'it costs no
more fhan 30~ of household income. ~lsing
fha~ definition, #affordable housing~ in fhis
Repor~ Card means housing affordable fo
lower income housel~olds, fhuse earning less
1:hen 80~ of area median income.
needs. Bay Area housing elements were due to be
updated in 2001 for the first time in ten years.
By law, cities must provide for a broad spectrum of
housing by using their zoning power to
accommodate a range of housing choices, removing
local government obstacles to housing, and carrying
out programs to assist in the development of
affordable housing. At the end of the 1990s, 39%
of Bay Area cities were out of compliance with the
"fair share" housing law. And this Report Card's
findings show that less than one-third of the needed
affordable housing was actually built.
The problem of failing to plan for a diversity of
housing types, including affordable housing, is
getting worse. Today, 89% of Bay Area cities and
counties are not complying with our state's "fair
ehare" housing law.1 This report puts Bay Area
leaders on alert that the region's housing crisis will
worsen unless they act to adopt needed solutions.
Investing to solve the housing crisis
makes sense
Building more housing overall--and investing in
affordable housing in particular--strengthens our
economy by ensuring that businesses have access to
high quality workers. It strengthens our
communities by ensuring that the full diversity of
Bay Area residents has decent housing, everyone
from our children to our grandparents. And it
protects our environment by guiding new growth
toward our existing cities and towns and away from
our beautiful rolling hills and rich farmlands.
Solving the housing crisis will take all
levels of government
The federal and state government are two legs of a
three-legged stool that supports the creation of
affordable housing. The third leg is our cities and
counties, and that leg's weakness could collapse the
whole stool if stronger action is not taken soon.
One important development that will start us
toward solutions is recent action by the California
legislature. The C~overnor and legislators have
placed a $2.1 billion housing bond--the l-Iousing
and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002--
before voters in November 2002. And in
Washington D.C., a National Housing Trust Fund
to produce and preserve 1.5 million affordable
homes has been introduced in Congress.
But as this Report Ca~'dshows, local government
is not doing its part. Because California's "fair
share~ housing law has no teeth, far too many city
leaders continue to shirk their responsibilities. The
alternative is a new state law with real rewards for
cities and counties that are doing their ~fair share"
to meet housing needs--and real consequences for
those that, year after year, refuse to provide housing
choices for all of us.
Grades of 40 Key Cities
on the Housing Crisis Report Card
These grades were developed by scoring housing elements on the 105-
point report card shown in the Appendix. In the next section, the factors
making up each city's grade are described below. Later sections give
specific examples of local housing policies and programs that aid--or
prevent--cities and counties from meeting their goals.
Honor Roll
Berkeley
East Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Petaluma
San Jose
Santa Clara (City)
Sunnyvale
Good
Mountain View
Napa (City)
Sonoma County
Vacaville
Needs
Improvement
Concord
Contra Costa County
Cupertino
San Mateo
Milpitas
San Ramon
Incomplete*
Antioch
Dublin
Livermore
Mountain View
Novato
Oakland
Pleasanton
Richmond
San Francisco
San Leandro
San Rafael
Solano County
*Housing element not
available as of 5/1/02
Fail
Alameda (City)
Alameda County2
Brentwood
Daly City
Fairfield
Fremont
Hayward
Pittsburg
Redwood City
Santa Rosa
Valle jo
Walnut Creek
EXHIBIT
The Economic and Fiscal Impacts
of Affordable Housing,
A Santa Clara County Perspective
SPONSORED BY
Silicon Valley £itizens
for Affordable Housing
A STUDY PREPARED BY
Nl.£ubed
Winter 2004
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SANTA CLARA COUNTY is in the midst of a severe, protracted housing crisis - the county is the
second least affordable area in the United States. Simultaneously, as with most other counties and
the state-as-a-whole, Santa Clara is experiencing reduced tax revenues, and a constrained county
budget. Emerging evidence suggests that there is a dose linkage between the availability of affordable
housing and public sector expenditures, particularly on social services.
Shortages in affordable housing supplies have adverse impacts on the county's fiscal condition. County
expenditures on social services, including temporary shelter, health care, and the judidal system, are higher,
and tax revenues are lower, because of the inability of individuals' and families to find adequate housing.
Conversely, increased access to housing would result in a number of benefits to the county. Based on an
extensive review of the literature these include:
· Reductions in spending on county-provided health, social and other public services. Increased
access to housing can both reduce the demand for and increase the cost-effectiveness of public
service ddivety. For example:
- Formerly homeless individuals who were provided supportive housing experienced almost a
60 percent drop in emergency room visits and the number of inpatient hospital days.
- Placing a foster child with a relative who has sufficient housing space costs the county $140 a
month, compared to $300 a day in an emergency facility.
- Keeping a patient in the hospital because of inadequate alternative housing options costs up
to $1,000 a day, compared to just $40 a day for adult supportive housing.
- Maintaining youth who have been emandpated from foster care in transitional supportive
housing costs the county up to $1,268 a month, compared with county costs of $2,389 for
group home placement.
TABLE t
Adequate Affordable Housing Would be More Cost-Effe~ive than Current Solutions
Extra Spending Without Affordable Housing
COST PER DAY
FACILITY TYPE
Keeping Patient
in Hospital
Foster Child in ~
Emergency Facility ~lll~l~~%~g~~
Provide Same Youth with a ~
Group Home Placement
Affordable Housing Solutions
FACILITY TYPE COST PER DAY
Provide Transitional I
Youth Housing
ProvideAffordab~eHousing I
Foster Child with a Relative L
with Sufficient Housing~:~5
Source: AI. Cubed
The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Affordable Housing · I
· I.ncreased access to publicly-provided programs. By either expanding peoples' knowledge of or
nme to access publidy available programs, affordable housing can result in greater use of some
publicly-provided services.
- Use of Food Stamps, with concomitant nutritional benefits to children, has increased in cases
where supportive housing has been provided.
- Greater supplies of available housing would enable the county to place formerly addicted or
mentally ill residents in adequate housing once their treatment has been completed, opening
up slots for other needy individuals.
· Higher tax revenues. There is strung evidence of the reladunship between appropriate housing
and the ability to get and keep a job. Increased access to housing would almost certainly result
in higher employment levels for lower income individuals. This, in turn, would both reduce
county spending on social services (e.g., working people are more likely to be able to afford
health care insurance), and increase county tax revenues..
- A Santa Clara County resident earning $40,000 contributes approximately $2,000 in federal
and $700 in state and local (e.g., sales) taxes.
· Reduced traffic congestion, with concomitant air quality benefits. More than 35 percent of
Santa Clara County residents spend in excess of 30 minutes - 40 minutes for San Jose residents
- commuting to work each day. Greater housing supplies within the county could serve to
truncate these traffic patrerns, with associated savings.
Public expenditures on housing also create economic benefits. For example, $18 million in county
expenditures on affordable housing - a relatively small investment - can leverage up to $90 million in total
spending on construction due to state and federal grants and financing. This investment, in turn, would
produce almost 1,000 jobs, and generate dose to $5 million in taxes. Given that the current unemployment
rate in the county hovers between 7 and 8 percent -- the highest of any metropolitan area in the nation
-- even this modest amount of jobs, combined with the likely increased employment associated with those
gaining access to the housing, would be noticeable.
The Economic and Rsca( Impacts of Affordable Housing I~ il
INTRODUCTION
At the request of Silicon Valley Citizens for Affordable Homes, Full Circle fimded M.Cubed,' a consulting
firm specializing in resource economics and public policy analysis, m investigate the impact increased access
to affordable housing may have on public sector costs and program effectiveness. This research consisted
of a re~4ew of existing data and literatttre related to the issue, as well as an analysis of the impact of
increasing the supply of affordable housing on the county's fiscal status.
Santa Clara County is in the midst of a severe, protracted housing crisis. The county is the second least
affordable area in the United States.2 The fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the county is
$1,387, requiring at least a $50,000 household income to meet minimum affordability standards,s This
compares with median Bay Area wages of $51,000 for elementary school teachers, and $19,000 for child
care workers.~ As a result of high housing costs, a large number of county residents are forced into
temporary, sub-standard, or crowded conditions, and many individuals cannot afford the rent on a
lower-priced apartment, much less purchase a home.
Low income individuals and families have been particularly haxd-hit by the housing crises. In 2000 the
county had a shortage of berween 82,000 and I00,000 housing units that were affordable to extremely low
income and very low income households.5 If current trends continue, this shortage could reach 135,000
units by 2010. What's more, each year there are more than 20,000 episodes of homelessness by individuals
and families in the county.6
TABLE 2
Housing Shortage Expected to Worsen...
Estimated Deficit in Housing Units in Santa Clara County
·.. and Residents are Paying too much for Housing
Number of county residents who pay more than indicated
% on housing
More than 3o%: More than 5o%:
Source: CounW o[ Santa Clam
Housing Task Force
Low income families and individuals who are homed pay a significant portion of their income towards rent.
Nearly 90,000 Santa Clara County residents pay more than 30 percent of their incomes simply to be
housed. And 43,000 residents pay more than half of their incomes in rent. Higher housing cost burdens
squeeze families' ability to pay for other needed items, induding food and work-related transportation and
other expenses.
At least in part became of high housing costs, a gmwing percentage of the county's workforce - 20 percent
- lives outside the county, up from 16 percent in 1990.7 More than 35 percent of county residents spend
in excess of 30 minutes commuting m work each day.a Long distance commutes axe expensive and time-
consuming, and can threaten peoples' ability m maintain regtdax work hours.~ As a result, many families
may face a Catch-22 situation. If they live in homing they can better afford outside of the county, they may
not be able to get or keep a job; but if they move closer to work, their homing costs may rise to the point
where they have difficulties affording necessities, induding work-relared expenses (e.g., transportation).'°
The Economic and Rscal impacts of Affordable Housing
HOUSING-PUBLIC SERVICES BALANCE
Housing is more than just bricks and mortar. It is a key factor in determining a family's access to economic
and educational opportunities, exposure to violence and environmental hazards, and ability to accumulate
financial assets. Likewise, peoples' access to housing - or the lack thereof- is closely related to their need
for other publidy-provided social services, such as food (e.g., Food Stamps), health care (e.g., MediCal),
and rehabilitation (e.g., for drugs, alcohol, or mental illnesses).
There is a dose linkage between the availability of affordable housing and public sector expenditures and
revenues. When people are inadequately housed, their demand for public services increases, and their
contribution to tax revenues declines. The housing-public services balance consists of a number of key
elements, including the following:
· As the number of affordable units in the county decreases, the population of people seeking
county assistance increases,n In some respects housing, or the tack of it, is the gateway to other
public sector services.
- Individuals and families with inadequate housing are subjected to higher health and other
risks, and are more dependent on publicly-provided medical care, emergency shelter, and
other services.
-The higher the percentage of a family's income paid for housing, the lower the amount of
funds they have to pay for other essential services, again increasing their reliance on public
sector programs.
· The county's ability to cost-effectively deliver social services is directly tied to the availability of
low cost housing. The county's social service system depends on the ongoing availability of a
variety of housing options and for short- and long-term lodging for the homdess and working
poor - to work effectively. When housing is scarce, as it currently is, county social services
managers and case workers must spend greater amounts of their work day trying to find housing
for their clients who are already in the system, thereby redudng the time they can spend on
delivering other services. For example,
- More than 200 county residents with less than serious mental health disabilities are being
"housed" in medical institutions at a cost of approximately $800 per day, until suitable, less
cosily ($50/day) supportive housing becomes available.'2
- Individuals who have been court-ordered to undergo rehabilitadun are being "housed" in jail
for 90 to 120 days until supportive housing becomes available.'~
As a result of high housing costs, the county's 'Continuum of Care" strategy for serving special
needs populafiuns is being severely challenged, as the county and its clients spend more dollars
on fewer units and consequently have less filnds to provide other services)4
· Access to public services is reduced as a result of a shortage of affordable housing. Because
housing is both scarce and expensive, county residents in treatment, rehabilitation, or training
programs are frequently unable to move to a permanent situation once their program is
completed. Social workers are loath to put these individuals and families on the streets because
they are likely to return to their previous environments and end up back at the county's front
door in six months, a cosily and ineffective process. As a result, low-income individuals and
families are staying longer in transitional homes, thereby diminishing the availability of these
slots to other needy people?
· Inadequate or distantly located housing can result in a loss of tax revenues. Access to stable
housing improves county residents' ability to get and keep a job.
- Without adequate housing, individuals' participation in the workforce is lower
- For those who are employed an unstable housing situation can lead to higher absentee levels,
and reduced productivity.
Job-related income is an essential county revenue source, most predominately as reflected in the
resulting sales tax receipts made possible by the income generated through steady employment.
The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Affordable Housing
HOUSING THE HOMELESS
Perhaps the most obvious connection between the availability of affordable housing and public sector
expenditures relates to the homdess population. Homeless individuals and families tend to rely on a
panoply of county services. And, at least in part because of their unstable and poor quality housing
situations, this population is expensive to serve. In particular, homelessnets leads to higher health care costs
(i.e., less cost-effective treatment delivery); the need for ongoing and costly provision ofemergeney shelters;
and higher rates of incarceration.
· Homelessness is associated with excess hospital stays, as well as higher costs per stay.'6
- Homdess individuals are subjected to much higher health risks than the general population;
are more likely m wait to receive care; and as a result require more intensive care once they do
seek treatment.
- Physicians may be reluctant to release their homeless padenrs back on the street, where, as a
result of their poor living conditions, there is a high probability that they will soon return to
the medical system.
· Homdess individuals suffering from substance abuse or mental illnesses are even more costly
- It costs more than twice as much to provide emergency psychiatric care under involuntary
detention than out-patient treatment services - approximately $170 versus $80 an hour.'7
· H~meless people placed in supportive homing experience significant reductions in shelter use,
hospitalizations (regardless of type), length of stay per hospitalization, and rime incarcerated.
The Corporation for Supportive Housing found that formerly homeless individuals who were
provided supportive housing experienced almost a 60 percent &dine in emergency room visits
and inpatient hospital days.l* There is substantial evidence indicating that stable housing
situations can gready improve the cost effectiveness of service delivery - as well as reduce rates
of incarceration - particularly when provided as part of "supportive housing" situations. Since
more than half of all homdess individuals suffer from substance abuse or (severe) mental illness,
improving access to affordable housing for the homdess is likely to reduce expenditures on
mental health and substance abuse programs.
The Economic and Rscal Impacts of Affordable Housing
· An in-depth study of the New York/New York (NY/NY) program - in which partidpants were
provided both housing and focused services - found that significant savings resulted from the
provision of supportive housing to homeless individ-als suffering from severe mental illness.
- Prior to their housing placement, homeless individuals with severe mental illness used an
average of $40,449 per person per year in public services.'~ Eighty-six percent of these
expenditures were related to health care; I 1 percent were associated with emergency shelter
services; with criminal justice services accounting for approximately 3 percent.2~
- Housing placement was associated with a reduction in service use of $12,145 per individual
placed, and $16,282 per housing unit per year. Half of these cost reductions were the result
of decreases in the use of state psychiatric inpatient services, and another quarter were related
to reduced use of emergency shelter services. Taken together, about 95 percent of the cost
savings were associated with reductions in health care and shelter services.
TABLE 3
Housing the Homeless Serves to Reduce Other Public Sector Costs, New York, New York Initiative
Annual cost per placement before and at,er the provision of stable housing.
Department of
Homeless Service
Office of
Mental Health
· Before
· After
Health and Hospital
Corporation
Medicaid, Inpatient
Medicaid, Outpatient
Administration
Department of ~$367
Corrections, State I $55
Department of I $645
Corrections, City ~ $4oo
TOTAL
- Criminal jusdce system costs accounted for the remaining 4.5 percent of the total expenditure
reductions induced by supportive housing placement. The total number of days incarcerated
fell 39.8 percent after the placements. The average number of people and days incarcerated
fell such that not only did fewer people get jailed at~er their housing placements, but, for those
incarcerated, the average time spent behind bats also dedined.
The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Affordable Housing
Overall, the NY/NY initiative, which induded some licensed community mental health residences,
resulted in a net cost of $159 per unit per month.:' This nmnber reflects the costs associated with
providing greater access to homing and social services, and the associared improvement in cost-
effectiveness related to the provision of public programs. It does not account for the long-term fiscal
and economic benefits of any associated increase in employment and income.
THE LOW INCOME AND WORKING POOR HEALTH-HOUSING CONNECTION
Santa Clara County residents who are neither fully homdess nor suffering from addiction- or mentally-
related dis-funcfinn axe also likely to experience noticeable reductions in their need for public services as a
result of gaining access to stable housing situations. This is particularly the case for county-provided health
For the non-homeless population, the availability of a stable supply of affordable housing effects county
health care expenditures in two important ways. First, inadequate housing can increase health risks, thereby
inducing greater reliance on publicly-provided medical interventions. Second, unstable housing situations
cam reduce individuals' and families' ability to manage their health-related needs. This, in turn, can result
in greater use of costly in-patient and emergency room care, as opposed to relying on less expensive
outpatient facilities.
· The relationship between substandard housing and poor health has been recognized for more
than a century.
- Research indicates significant associations between cockroach allergen and asthma, between
lead paint and chronic neurologic damage, and between substandard homes and fatal fires.
- Inadequate housing has also been linked to increased rates of respiratory disease. And poor
housing conditions have been connected with higher levels of violence. For example, in 1999
almost a quarter of homeless women in Santa Clara County experienced domestic violence,z:
· People with stable housing who are receiving services are in a better position to engage in regular
outpatient regimens that could prevent the need for costly hospitalization. Furthermore, if they
are hospitalized, access to homing and support can reduce their length of hospital stay.
In-patient care can cost between $800 to $1,000 a day - just a few additional days spent at a
hospital costs more than a market-rate apartment in the county.25 And if stable housing enables
them to find and retain employment (see below), they may be in a better position to pay for all
or part of this care.
Low income people with mental illness, when they seek psychiatric hospitalization, often do so more as a
short-term housing arrangement than for psychiatric reasons. Enhancing services - either housing or case
management - can generate reductions in the use of inpatient mental health services, especially among
heavy hospital users.2~
HOUSING AND CHILDREN
Children access county programs principally through the foster care, education and health care systems.
Unstable or sub-standard housing can increase children's demands for both of these services. For example:
· Frequent moves caused by financially unsustainable housing situations can undermine school
performance, reduce skill development, and increase the risk of dropping out of school entirely.
The Economic and Fiscal impacts of Affordable Housing · 5
· Low income parents in expensive housing situations can be forced to make trade-offs between
paying the rent and pttrchasing food. The resulting adverse impact on children's nutrition can
retaxd a child's physical and intellectual development. Conversel~ increasing access to housing
can improve children's nutrition, with concomitant benefits.25
TABLE 5
Access to Affordable Housing Can Reduce Foster Care Expenditures
FACILITY TYPE COST PER DAY
Relative Care 155
Group Home ~
Placement
Emergency /llll
SheEter, per day:
Source: Office o[ Housin§
Resources and Development
Children are also impacted by the effectiveness with which their addicted or mentally ill parents move
through care systems, and are placed in affordable housing situations. For example, children in the county
whose parents have completed their rehabilitation or treatment are spending longer in foster care separated
from their families because of the difficulty of finding housing. Likewise, access to affordable housing can
enable both parents and relatives to take care of children who would otherwise be transferred to other foster
care situations at much greater expense. For example, a relative family foster placement results in county
costs of $140 a month, compared with group home placement of as much as $2,389 a month, and
emergency child shelter costs of $300 a day.~
Over the last decade the number of foster families in the county has been approximately halved. The high
cost of housing has almost certainly contributed to the loss of in-county foster family slots. For example,
among foster family prodders who are homeowners, 24 percent reported that their current housing
situation prevents them from providing care to at least one additional child; and 47 percent indicated that
they'd be interested in accepting housing assistance to provide care for at least one more childY
In addition, maintaining youth who have been emancipated from foster care in transitional supportive
housing, which typically consists of small homes, costs the county up to $1,268 a month, compared with
county costs of $2,389 for group home placement. As a result, investing in affordable housing associated
with transitional living programs could reduce county costs associated with emergency shelters and other
spedalized placements.
Stable housing situations can improve the life chances of a large number of poor children. Most of the
positive outcomes - in the form of better employment and more productive civic engagement - will not
be realized for a decade or more. However, improvements in school performance and reductions in youth-
related criminal activity would serve to reduce pressure on schools and the criminal justice system, with
concomitant fiscal benefits.
INCREASED HOUSING ACCESS WILL RESULT IN HIGHER TAX REVENUES
In addition m its impact on public sector expendituses, increasing access m affordable housing can result
in higher local tax revenues. This is because access to affordable housing is a key element in getting and
keeping a job for (former) welfare recipients and other low-income families,u Employment generates the
income individuals and families need to make purchases, generating concomitant sales and other tax
revenue.25 For example, a Santa Clara County family earning $40,000 contributes approximatdy $2,000
in federal and $700 in state and local (e.g., sales) taxes.~
The Economic and Fiscal Impacts ofAffordaNe Housingl~ 6
The need to pay high housing costs leaves low income families who are attempting to move into the
workforce with little money for employment-relared costs, such as additional dothing and food expenses,
child care, and transportation to and from work. By redudng a family's homing cost burden, housing
assistance can free up additional dollars for work-related expenses and other basic needs.
Stable housing is a foundation for greater self-suffidency. Housing instability can disrupt work schedules
and hinder job search activities, and moving may drain energy and resources. Not having a stable address
may also limit a job seeker's prospects.
There is a growing body of research indicating that welfare reform successes are greater among families with
assisted housing than among other low income families. For example,
· Among families that left welfare in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, in 1996, households with housing
assistance were 16 percent less likely to return to the welfare rolls in the following year than
families without housing assistanceY
· Employment was higher among welfare leaven in Massachusetts with housing subsidies than
among those without housing assistance, even though the former had greater barriers to work
(e.g., out-of-the-job market for longer periods; minotities).~:
· Among families unnsifioning from welfare in Los Angeles County, those with housing assistance
were more likely to be employed in each quarter of the first year after leaving welfare than
families without such assistance.~3
· A study of welfare redpients in four counties in California, conducted while the JOBS program
(known as GAIN) was under way, found that participation in the Section 8 tenant-based
program had a substantial positive effect on the number of hours that welfare redpients worked.
· Enrollment in the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) - which provided housing
assistance - boosted the employment rates of long-term welfare recipients by 18 percentage
points. This was more than double the gain in employment rotes for long- term welfare
recipients not living in public or subsidized housing who were eligible for the same services.
Quarterly earnings increased an average of 25 percent among the families eligible for full MFIP
services that lived in public or subsidized housing. Earnings increased only two percent,
an amount that was not stau'stically significant, among families eligible for full MFIP services
that did not live in public or subsidized housing. Taken as a whole, the gains found -induding
reductions in poverty as well as increases in employment, earnings, and even marriage rotes - are
among the strongest ever documented for a welfare reform undertaking in the United States.u
The provision of affordable housing which enables families to live closer m employment opporttmifies may
also help welfare recipients and other low income individuals get and keep jobs. Families with low earnings
may be confined to sub-standard housing at considerable distance from job opportunities. Such locations
can increase rime and commuting costs to work, and prevent the wage earner from participating effectively
throughout the regional labor market. Lack of affordable housing can prevent families from moving in
circumstances in which they could improve their economic prospects by doing so. These include moves to
areas with greater employment oppottunides, as well as to areas where parents fed safe enough to go m
work and leave older children unattended or to retttrn from their job at night on public transportation.
The Economic and Rscal Impacts of Affordable Housing · 7
OTHER ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Housing investment has long been considered a
key economic stimulus? And for much of the
past century, national, state, and local
governments have used housing subsidies and
investment incentives to spur economic growth
and recovery. For example, $18 million in
county expenditures on affordable housing - a
relatively small investment - can leverage up to
$90 million in total spending on construction
due to state and federal grants and financing.~
This investment, in turn, would produce almost
1,000 jobs, and generate dose to $5 million in
taxes.~ This estimate does not include the
economic benefits associated with housing-
induced improvements in neighborhood quality
and property values.
CONCLUSION: THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING-FISCAL HEALTH LINKAGE
While difficult to quantify in total, significant secondary benefits to Santa Clara County's budget would
result fi.om improved access to affordable housing.
REDUCED COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICE EXPENSES
Increased access to affordable housing can result in greater benefits than the direct provision of shelter to
needy families. Available evidence indicates that stable housing can directly induce public sector cost
savings, particularly for such programs as foster care, health care, and mental services. On the other hand,
adequate housing supplies can also beneficially serve to increase families' use of SOme social services,
including the federally-funded Food Stamps program.
NEW JOB CREATION AND NEW TAX REVENUES
Increased supplies of affordable housing can also result in noticeable economic benefits. This is particularly
noteworthy given the county's ongoing employment woes - almost 90,000 jobs were lost between March
2001 and March 2002, more than a 7 percent dedine.~ The construction resulting fi.om an $18 million
county investment - combined with the "leveraging" affect induced by the ability to attract state and
federal matching funds - would support upwards of 1,000 jobs in Santa Clara. Likewise, stable housing
situations enable Santa Clara residents to obtain and maintain employment, with concomitant
contributions to state and local tax revenues.
The Economic and RSCal Impacts of Affordable Housing · 8
APPENDIX A
MORE INFORMATION NEEDED TO EVALUATE THE BENEFITS OF HOUSING INVESTMENTS
There is substantial evidence that investments in affordable housing can improve state and local fiscal
conditions, by both reducing the demand for and the cost of social services provided to those who are
inadequately housed. However, there is a scarcity of data from which policymakers can base both their
housing investment decisions, and fully understand the relationship between expenditures on housing and
the resulting impact on other social service outlays. Likewise, for the most part county social service
agencies do not track their clients by their housing status, making it difficult to evaluate the fiscal
relationship between affordable housing and other publicly-provided services.
It is important that new information be developed so that cost-effective and beneficial decisions can be
made related to the range of county-, state-, and federally-provided social services. Key analytical needs
include:
· An ability to track the outcomes associated with investments in a range of publicly provided
programs, including housing, heath services, and employment assistance.
· A comprehensive analysis of the linkage between affordable housing supplies and expenditures
on related public sector services.
· The devdopment of quantitative means to assess the fiscal implications of affordable housing
supply gaps, as well as investments in affordable housing.
· An evaluation of how the provision of stable housing impacts individuals, families, the county,
and the general economy.
The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Affordable Housing Il 9
ENDNOTES
In addition, it would be useful to examine the financial implicafious of increased investments in housing
from one fimding source (e.g., Redevelopment funds), and changes in expenditures associated with another
(e.g., General Fund monies dedicated to social services). For example, it would be useful to track the
implications of increasing access to affordable housing for foster families and the resulting impacts on
expenditures on foster services in general.
1. Steven Moss, M. Cubed Partner, served as lead investigator for the project, with support from Jill Staplemn. Julie Ann
Yuen was responsible for report graphica. In addition to his work at M. Cubed he is an Adjunct Lecm~t in the Public
Administration Program at San Francisco State University;, and is a frequent conuibutor to KQED-Radio's Perspective
series. HIS previous publications include Smart Growth Versus Sprawl in California, published by American Farmland
Trust; Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California, published by the Bank of America; and
ommg Price Impacts of Land Use Iniuauve~: Evidence from Celifomia,~ in Superior California Builder. Mc Mo~ has
a Masters of Public Policy from the Univenity of Michigan.
2. Radha Bhatmcharya, Further Concerns Regarding the Low-Income Homing Crla~ in California, Delmrtment of
Economics, Callfomia State University, Fullerton, April 2001.
3. ~Real Fac~," February 24, 2003.
4. California Budget Project, I. axked Out 2002, October 2002.
5. This number does not take into account the housing need* of uncounted familie*, those living in over-crowded conditions
or tn illegally converted garages~ or of workers forced by hotumg costs to commute long di.~mcez. Low income households
are defined as those earning between 50 and 80 pezcent of median income. Report of the Homing Needs Workgroup of
the Regional Housing Blueprint Subcommittee of the Cotmty of Santa Clam Housing Task Force;
6. Sixty peroent of homdess children are under the age of 12. Jerome Bum-ein and Linda Woodsmall, 1999 Santa Clara
County Homeleas Survey, September 8, 2000.
7. Santa Clara County Housing Task Force, Housing Need: Supplemental Materials, 2002.
8. "Cereus 2000: Table P048: Travel Time to Work for Workers 16 Years or Older. Santa Clara County, San Jose,'
U. S. Census Bureau, 2001. 40 minutes for San Jose residents - commuting to work each day.
9. In 2000, 30 percent of total freeway miles in Santa CLara County received the worst possible conge~on rating, up from
15 percent in 1991. Ibid.
10. ' ' · ....
H~gh honsmg cosu also adversdy umpact the county's ability to recrmt and retain public employe~. To the extent that
educ~ the quality of the countys worlfforce, t can affect the delivery of public programs, including such critical
services as education, public health, and saK*ty.
11. A countervailing factor is that as available affordable housing supplies ~hrlnk, some individuah and families who cannot
afford to live in the county will move elsewhere, thereby eliminating them.selvea from the county roils entfil~y.
12. Office of the County F.~ecutive, Supportive Housing Initiative, 2002.
13. Ibid.
I4. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Salit, S.A.,et,al 1998 ~Hosp~talizauon Costs Associated wub HomdessnessmNewYorkC~ty,-NewEoglandjoumal
of Medidne, 338(24): 173440.
17. Hoenigman, op. cit.
18. CSH, Health, Housing and Integrated Services Initiative, 2002.
19. 1999 dollars.
Housing · 9
The Economic and F~scal Impacts of Affordable Housing
However, costs associated w~th mcarcerauon alone ~vere included m the study inclusion of po ce and court ume and
20. ' ' . .
expense would undoubtably increase this percentage stgmficandy.
al. , The Impact of Supportive Housing on Homeless People wath Severe Mental Illness on the
21. Culhane, Dennis P.. et. Corrections, and Emergency Shelter Systems: The New York, Hew York Initiative,
Utklization of the Public Health,
FannieMae Foundation, May 2001.
22. Santa Clara County Housing Task Force, op. cit. . Sodal
23. Supportive housing can be provided for approximatdy $40 a day. Ot~ce of Housing Resources and Devdopment,
Service Agency of Santa Clara County, ~Houslng Needs Analysis, Social Sen'ice Agency Target Populations," December
....... Land, lanuary 2003.
e Hoeni an, ~Homelessness in a Progeess~ve taty, urban s
2002; Vine gm
27. Ibid.
28. Santa Clara County Social Services Agency, Promise Your Family a Better Future, September 2002.
30. Based on U. S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
in Massachusetts. MA: MassachUSetts
33. Verna, Nandita and Rick Hendra, Comparing Outcome~ for Los Angele~ County,s HUD- A~sisted and Unassisted
CalWorks Leavers, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, December 2001, U. S. Department of Housing
program, Manpower Demonsrrauon Research Corporauon, percent, the highest of any major metropolitan area.
35. The unemployment rate in the San Jose metropolitan area is 7. 9
an "'obless Statistics Overlook Many," San FrancisCO Chronicle, November 17, 2002.
36. The leveraging, or "subsidy," effect - the amount of funds attracted from public and non- profit sources outside the
jurisdiction - of affordable housing can range substantially, from virtually nothing to fifty to one. Both the City of San
Jose and the City and County of San Francisco typically experience a leverage ratio of between two and three. See
"Housing Trust Fact Sheet," December 2002; ~San Francasco Clear ng raousg lc" -'r
The Economic and Rscai impacts of Affordable Housing
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Your Partner in Silicon Valley
The Honorable Sandra James, Mayor
and Honorable City Council Members
City of Cupertino
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
February27,2004 , "'HIBIT.
RE: GENERAL PLAN TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION AND MINORITY REPORT
Dear Mayor James and Honorable Members of the Cupertino City Council:
On behalf of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, we would like to officially voice our position on the
recommendations proposed by the General Plan Task Force (GPTF). In our vision, the General Plan is the blueprint for our city, and
we want to make sure that Cupertino remains a good place to live, work and conduct business. Good design and beautiful architecture
sometimes require planning flexibility.
The Chamber believes the existing General Plan is a better model for supporting the needs of the business community and is more
consistent with economic development goals, because it offers far more flexibility in areas such as building height and density.
Building height and density are better evaluated on a site specific basis.
For the most part, The Chamber of Commerce does not endorse the January 2003 Draft General Plan as originally put forth by the
GPTF. Instead, the Chamber supports both the general concepts and concerns of the Minority Report of the GPTF as outlined in
the attached document.
Areas where we agree with the GPTF recommendations include: (1) the decoupling of on-site housing currently required for
commercial expansion and (2) Policy 2-9: Jobs/Housing Balance, with the exception that the Chamber supports reinstating
housing in the Vallco district.
· In addition, the Chamber does not support "spot" or "pocket" rezoning in commercial districts, which is consistent with our past
stated land use positions.
Finally, if the GPTF recommendations are adopted, the Chamber strongly supports a "carve-out" district for Vallco that permits
higher heights, more signage, mixed use, and greater all-around flexibility than allowed in the rest of the General Plan. The
Chamber wants to give Vallco every opportunity to reach its highest retail potential.
Our concerns are that the current GPTF recommendations will discourage business attraction, retention and expansion in the
community. There needs to be a better balance between the needs of business and the desires of some parties for affordable housing,
share the road/walkability, slower growth, and sustainability (e.g. energy efficiency and green building materials).
The Chamber beheves that the C ty s dependence o sales tax dollars demands strong support for flexibility in business-related
projects, particularly those that generate retail sales tax revenue. Thank you for this opportunity to weigh in on an issue of great
significance to the citizens and businesses of Cupertino.
Best regards,
President
Chief Executive Officer
Cupertino Planning Commission
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
wvvw. cupertino-chamberorg · info~cupertino-chamberorg
20455 SilveradoAvenue · Cupertino, CA95014 · /408) 252-7054 · FAX (408) 252-0638
Cupertino General Plan Task Force Minority Report:
Mixed Use Development, Building Density, and Below-Market-Rate Housing
January 8, 2004
Summary of minority report key concerns with the General Plan Task Force
recommendations:
1. Housing needs are inadequately addressed.
Goal of balance between jobs and housing is eliminated.
Residential growth from Vallco, Crossroads, and Homestead areas is eliminated.
Affordable housing ob.~ectives are eliminated.
2. Mixed use is severely restricted.
Deleted from Crossroads and Vallco areas.
Reduced in Homestead area.
Restricted elsewhere.
3. Building design is severely restricted and not considered in context.
Building heights are severely restricted and confused with "view preservation".
Crossroads design considerations (such as moving buildings closer to street) are
eliminated.
Most density increases are eliminated.
4. Flexibility of the council to make changes for varying conditions and benefit of the
city is severely restricted.
Little growth is allowed.
No exceptions to height limits are allowed.
Commercial to residential conversions are prohibited.
Density exceptions are prohibited.
Reasons for concerns:
I. Incentives for property owners to improve properties and eliminate blight are
removed.
2. Housing needs of public servants (teachers, public safety personnel), seniors, and
lower-income residents are not considered.
3. Community desire for a downtown area is not considered.
4. Flexibility for changing economic and other circumstances is eliminated.
5. Regional issues such as housing and traffic are not considered.
EXHIBIT
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
Recommends
Retain Pedestrian Emphasis
-Traffic calming (P. 4-2)
-Pedestrian grid (P. 4-8)
Cupertino General Plan I
Retain Policy 4-6:
Balancing LOS & Pedestrians
X = Intersections with Most Auto/Pedestrian Collisions
S = Grade Schools Near Problem Intersections
Cuperlino General Plan
Cupertino General Plan Task Force:
Problems with Land Use, Community
Design, and Housing
Recommendations
Rod Brown
March 1,2004
Hurts Cupertino economic viability
Economic viability of our city is impaired
by excessive restrictions on height,
density, and mixed use.
Income potential is reduced.
- Productivity and sales tax revenues are
diminished.
- Incentives for property owners to improve
declining properties are removed.
Eliminates creation of a downtown
· Recent community survey indicated 75%
of residents desire a downtown.
· Task force recommendation cuts key
downtown design features and fails to
consider them in context.
- Building heights are severely restricted.
- Moving buildings closer to street is deleted.
- Density increases are eliminated.
Discourages housing of key
community members
Housing needs of key community members with
below-average incomes, such as teachers, public
safety personnel, and fixed-income seniors are not
considered.
To afford average Bay Area home ($560K), family
needs to earn $104K (20% down) to $126K (5%
down).
Task force recommendation
- Eliminates most below-market-rate housing objectives.
- Establishes obstacles to building more affordable housing by
unduly limiting density, height, and mixed use.
- Eliminates residential growth from Vallco, Crossroads, and
Homestead areas.
Fails to address problems
· Inter-city issues such as traffic and
housing are not adequately considered.
· Many of the sources of these problems
lie outside of our city; we must partner
with our neighbors to resolve them.
· Task force recommendation advocates
for more business without increasing
housing, thus increasing traffic problems.
Recommendation: approve the
draft general plan
· Increases Cupertino's economic vitality
· Supports Cupertino citizens' desire for a
downtown
· Encourages Cupertino housing of key
community members
· Addresses traffic and other inter-city
problems
3
EXHIBITS
END
HERE