The URL can be used to link to this page

Exhibit CC 06-21-2016 Item No. 13 Written CommunicationsSANTA CLARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1889 Lnwrer:ce Rd. Santa C!ara, CA 95051 (408) 423 .. 2000 SIMLEY ROSE ill, Ed .D. SUPERI NTEN DE:-.."f BOARD OF .lfilUCATlON INA K. Bt-:.'IOIS JIM CANOVA AUlERT OO NZ.'.LEl CHRISTl1'E KOLfER .. \!A.'":-; .. ~NDREY/ RATERM ASN ~.1!CHELERYAN CHRISTOPHE.R STA~!POUS October 9, 2 014 Piu Ghosh Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE : City of Cupertino General Plan Amendment, Housing Update Dear Mr. Ghosh, The Santa Clara Unified School District appreciates the opportunity to provide input for the General Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report (BIR). The Amendment and Housing Elements have several impacts to schools. Pedestrian friendly communities are a catalyst for residential interaction, outdoor activities and walking or biking to school. Student safety is paramount for the District and safe routes to schools help to protect the students and parents walking and/or bicycling to school. The District requests safe routes to the schools to be identified prior to large residential development projects. Students are extremely sensitive receptors to pollution and the air quality around the school can have a significant effect on students ' health. The increased traffic congestion, construction equipment, and ongoing airborne contaminants due to the projects should be studied relative to the proximity of the schools. The increase in vehicle trips may also affect the transportation of students to and from the schools. The Proposed Project also presents an increase of 5,383,910 square feet of office and commercial construction. Every 1,664 square feet of commercial or industrial development creates the need for one additional housing unit in the Santa Clara area for new employees of the businesses. The District's sc ools do ot current! have the capacity to accommodate the students from these - homes. Developers need to col orate WI e 1 ct ID ord er tTremedy th ese capacity •• shortfalls within the Santa Clara Unified School District due to the development growth. Education Code 17620, paragraph (5), states a city " ... shall not issue a building permit for any construction absent certification by the appropriate school district that any fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement levied by the governing board of that school district has been complied with, or of the district's detennination that the fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement does not apply to the construction." Santa Clara Unified School District requests the City of Cupertino to uphold the code section above and not issue building permits without the appropriate response "The mission of Santa Clara Unified School District is to prepare stullMNs 1 of all ages and abilities to succeed in an ever-cfianging world." .... from the District. When the City does not enforce this section of the code, Santa. Clara Unified is not able to appropriately plan for student growth within the District The Santa Clara Unified School District is requesting the City of Cupertino to encourage developers work with the District to mitigate these impacts as well as the fees related to additional classrooms and/or schools . Please contact Michal Healy, mhealy@scusd.net with any questions. MA:mh t uperintendent, Business Services \ Page 12 2001 Gateway Place, Suite 101E San Jose, Calffomia 95110 (408)501-7864 sv/g.org CARL GUARDINO President & CEO Board Officers: GREG BECKER, Chair SVB Financial Group KEN KANNAPPAN, Vice Chair Plantronics JOHN ADAMS, Secrelaryffreasurer Wells Fargo Bank TOM WERNER, Fonner Chair Sun Power AART DE GEUS, Former Chair Synopsys STEVE BERGLUND, Former Chair Trimble Navigation Board Members: MARTIN ANSTICE Lam Reseerch SHELL YE ARCHAMBEAU MetricStream, Inc. ANDY BALL Suffolk Cons/rucUon GEORGE BLUMENTHAL Universffy of California, Santa Cruz JOHN BOLAND KQED CHRIS BOYD Kaiser Permanente BRADLEY J. BULLINGTON Bridgelux HELEN BURT Pacific Gas & Electric DAVID CUSH Virgin America CHRISTOPHER DAWES Lucile Packcrd Children's Hospital KENDRAZAN Johnson& Johnson MICHAEL ENGH, S.J. Santa Clara University TOM FALLON Jnfinera Corporation BRANT FISH Che'A'on Corporation HANK FORE Comcast KEN GOLDMAN Yahoo! RAQUEL GONZALEZ Bank of America DOUG GRAHAM Lockheed Marlin Space Systems LAURAGU/O IBM JAMES GUTIERREZ lnsikt MARK HAWKINS Salesforce JEFFREY M. JOHNSON San Francisco Chronicle AARIF KHAKOO Amgen GARY LAUER eHea/th ENRIQUE LORES HP MATT MAHAN Brigade TARKAN MANER Nexenta KEN MCNEELY AT&T STEPHEN MILLIGAN Western Digital Corporation KEVIN MURAI Synnex JES PEDERSON Webcor KIMPOLESE ClearStreet MOQAYOUMI San Jose State University STEVEN ROSSI Bay Area News Group TOM/RYBA El Camino Hospital ALAN SALZMAN VantagePoint Capital Partners RONSEGE Echelon Corporation ROSEMARY TURNER UPS RICK WALLACE KLA-Tencor KEN XIE Forline/ JED YORK San Francisco 49ers Established in 1978 by DAVID PACKARD June 20, 2016 Mayor Chang and Council Members City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Agenda Item No. 13: The Hamptons Dear Mayor Chang and Council Members, On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I am writing to endorse the proposed apartment development project by the Irvine Company, referred to as The Hamptons, located at 19500 Pruneridge Ave in Cupertino. This is exactly the type of exciting development that we hope to see more of in Silicon Valley-one that thoughtfully integrates bicycle use and proximity to job centers to reduce traffic impacts and provide healthy living options for our community. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, founded in 1978 by David Packard of Hewlett-Packard, represents nearly 400 of Silicon Valley's most respected employers on issues, programs and campaigns that affect the economic health and quality of life in Silicon Valley, including energy, transportation, education, housing, health care, tax policies, economic vitality and the environment. Leadership Group members collectively provide nearly one of every three private sector jobs in Silicon Valley and have more than $6 trillion in annual revenue. On an annual basis, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group surveys its member companies at the CEO level to find out which issues are most important to a healthy economy in Silicon Valley. Each year, housing affordability and attainability is selected as the top impediment. The cause of our housing crunch is clear. Demand consistently outpaces supply. For that reason, the Leadership Group seeks out and supports quality housing proposals that can help alleviate our persistent housing crisis by bringing more homes to the market. The Irvine Company's Project, The Hamptons, provides a unique way to utilize an existing property, appropriately renovating to supply additional housing stock to meet our growing regional need. We applaud the residential density that will be applied to this site. This is a project that enriches the surrounding community and creates a new standard for future growth in the area. Its addition of the proposed bike hub and storage, as well as access to nearby job centers is particularly attractive to those hoping to reduce their carbon footprint. Additionally, the plaza that incorporates space for community gatherings at the comer of Wolf Rd. and Pruneridge Ave. adds character and excitement to the neighborhood and is well thought out. We look forward to learning about the council's decision and we thank you for your consideration of our input. Sincerely, p~L3 Carl Guardino President and CEO Silicon Valley Leadership Group Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Your Partner In SI/Icon Valley 20455 Silverado Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel (408) 252-7054 Fa x (408) 252-0638 www .cupertino-chamber.org Anjali Kausar Chief Executive Officer 2016 BOARD OF DIRECTORS BOARD OFFICERS Mike Rohde , President The Hills at Val/co Keith Warner, President Elect Pacific Workplaces Richard Abdalah , Immediate Pa st President Abdalah Law Offices Janice Chua, VP Special Events Bitter + Sweet Sandy James, VP HR & Staffing Sand Hill Properties Kevin McClelland, VP LAC Leeward Financial & Insurance Services Inc. Andrew Walters, VP Finance San Jose Water BOARD MEMBERS Claudio Bono Cupertino Inn Catherine Chen State Farm Insurance Art Cohen BlueLight Cinemas 5 Jessica Epstein SIL VAR Scott Jeng HSBC Bank USA, N.A. Jason Lundgaard Apple Inc. Elizabeth Marchu Te chnology Credit Union Tim Widman Law Office of Timothy D. Widman John Zirelli Recology June 16, 2016 Mayor Chang & Members of the City Council Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Support for Planning Commission Recommendation for Hamptons, June 21, 2016, Item #13 Dear Mayor and Council Members, The Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors fully supports the staff recommendation for the proposed Development Permit for The Hamptons to allow the demolition of a 342-unit apartment complex and the construction of a 942-unit apartment complex in a Planned Residential Zoning District. Increasing available housing close to jobs, shopping and transportation represents best land-use practices and an unsurpassed opportunity to address current housing needs in our community while protecting the quality of life here in Cupertino. The Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors urges the City Council to approve the recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding this important project. The increased availability of housing in this area will be a benefit both for local businesses and for the City of Cupertino. We ask that you adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopt the Resolutions, and conduct the first reading of the Ordinance for this project. Sincerely, AKc~.~ ~ Kevin McClelland Vice Chair, Legislative Action Committee Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Toni Oasay -Anderson Tuesday, June 21 , 2016 1:57 PM City Clerk FW : Agenda Item 13 : Hamptons Proposal From: scottahughes@comcast.net [mailto:s ] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:54 PM To: City Council Cc: Subject: Agenda Item 13: Hamptons Proposal Hello Council Members, I watched the Planning Commission meeting and I think the developer has done a good job preparing this proposal; especially the computer generated video demonstrations which provide one with a realistic sense of the look and feel of the proposal. In line with the primary concerns raised at the PC meeting , I believe that you should hold the developer to a higher standard in 2 areas and only approve the project after they agree to make improvements: (1) BMR units Existing project has 34 BMR units out of 342 total units but present proposal has 34 BMR units out of 942 total units. This is pretty lame and I doubt it was what anyone had in mind for this site when you provided such a high allocation of units to HCD. They can provide more BMR units but I doubt they will do so unless you make this a condition of approval. (2) Parking In my opinion , there have been very few recent developments of any type in Cupertino which have provided adequate park.ing. Of course, this can be a matter of opinion but the defense of the current '1.8 per unit' proposal doesn 't sync with my every day experience. Few , if any, of the staff who are "confident" that less than the required '2 spaces per unit' is adequate actually reside in Cupertino. In contrast, I cannot recall a single resident telling you that any project provided "too much" parking. Further, in this location, there is little to no adjacent capacity to handle overflow if the projections are wrong . As Commissioner Lee stated, "in order to increase their parking ratio , they could decrease the number of units". Alternatively, they could add 1 more level of underground parking in just a few of the many buildings on site . I believe you should make '2 spaces per unit' a condition of approval. I appreciate your consideration in these matters. Regards, Scott Hughes 1 Section 6932. 2016 Income Limits County San Mateo County 4-Person Area Med ian Income : $107,700 Santa Barbara County 4-Person Area Med ian Income : $77,100 Santa Clara County 4-Person Area Med ian Income : $107 ,100 Santa Cruz County 4-Person Area Median Income : $87,000 Shasta County 4-Person Area Med ian Income : $59,000 Sierra County 4-Person Area Median Income : $71,800 Siskiyou County 4-Person Area Median Income : $58,900 Solano County 4-Person Area Median Income : $82,600 Income Category Extremely Low Very Low Income Low Income Median Income Moderate Income Extremely Low Very Low Income Low Income Median Income Moderate Income Extremely Low Very Low Income Low Income Median Income Moderate Income Extremely Low Very Low Income Low Income Median Income Moder ate Income Extremely Low Very Low Income Low Income Median Income Moderate Income Extremely Low Very Low Income Low Income Median Income Moderate Income Ext r emely Low Very Low Income Low Income Median Income Moderate Income Extremely Low Very Low Income Low Income Median Income Moderate Income 1 2 25850 29550 43050 49200 68950 78800 75400 86150 90500 103400 17700 20200 29500 33700 47150 53900 53950 61700 64750 74000 23450 26800 39100 44650 59400 67900 74950 85700 89950 102800 21200 24200 35300 40350 56500 64550 60900 69600 73100 83500 12400 16020 20650 23600 33050 37800 41300 47200 49550 56650 14800 16900 24650 28150 39400 45000 50250 57450 60300 68900 12400 16020 20650 23600 33000 37700 41250 47100 49500 56550 17400 19850 28950 33050 45500 52000 57800 66100 69350 79300 Number of Persons in Household 3 4 5 6 7 8 33250 36900 39900 42850 45800 48750 55350 61500 66450 71350 76300 81200 88650 98500 106400 114300 122150 130050 96950 107700 116300 124950 133550 142150 116350 129250 139600 149950 160250 170600 22750 25250 28440 32580 36730 40890 37900 42100 45500 48850 52250 55600 60650 67350 72750 78150 83550 88950 69400 77100 83250 89450 95600 101750 83250 92500 99900 107300 114700 122100 30150 33500 36200 38900 41550 44250 50250 55800 60300 64750 69200 73700 76400 84900 91650 98450 105250 112050 96400 107100 115650 124250 132800 141350 115650 128500 138800 149050 159350 169600 27250 30250 32700 35100 37550 40890 45400 50400 54450 58500 62500 66550 72600 80650 87150 93600 100050 106500 78300 87000 93950 100900 107900 114850 93950 104400 112750 121100 129450 137800 20160 24300 28440 32580 36550 38900 26550 29500 31900 34250 36600 38950 42500 47200 51000 54800 58550 62350 53100 59000 63700 68450 73150 77900 63700 70800 76450 82150 87800 93450 20160 24300 28440 32580 36730 40890 31650 35150 38000 40800 43600 46400 50650 56250 60750 65250 69750 74250 64600 71800 77550 83300 89050 94800 77550 86150 93050 99950 106850 113700 20160 24300 28440 32580 36550 38900 26550 29450 31850 34200 36550 38900 42400 47100 50900 54650 58450 62200 53000 58900 63600 68300 73050 77750 63650 70700 76350 82000 87650 93300 22350 24800 28440 32580 36730 40890 37200 41300 44650 47950 51250 54550 58500 65000 70200 75400 80600 85800 74350 82600 89200 95800 102400 109050 89200 99100 107050 114950 122900 130800 EXHIBIT 19 CURRENT BMR RENTAL RATES VERY LOW AND LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS 2016 INCOME STANDARDS PUBLISHED BY HCD SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA I. Mod Income 1-Bdrm 2-Bdrm 3-Bdrm Income@ 110% County Median $94 ,270 $106,040 $117,810 % of Income Allotted to Housing 30% 30% 30% Monthly Housing Expenses $2 ,357 $2 ,651 $2,945 (Less) Utilities Expenses (132) (153) (208) !Monthly Rent $2,220 $2,500 $2,740 I II. Low Income lncome@60% County Median $51,420 $57,840 $64,260 % of Income Allotted to Housing 30% 30% 30% Monthly Housing Expenses $1,286 $1 ,446 $1 ,607 (Less) Utilities Expenses (132) (153) (208) I Monthly Rent $1,150 $1,290 $1,400 I Ill. Very Low Income Income @ 50% County Median $42 ,850 $48,200 $53,550 % of Income Allotted to Housing 30% 30% 30% Monthly Housing Expenses $1,071 $1 ,205 $1,339 (Less) Utilities Expenses (132) (153) (208) !Monthly Rent $940 $1,050 $1 ,130 I Utility expenses will vary by project and type of utilities. For estimating expenses, we assume natural gas cooking, natural gas water heating and natural gas heating , electricity , water, sewer, and trash. Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Z :\Master Documents\STABILITY SUPPORT SERVICES\Housing Services\Below Market Rate Program\BMR Admin\Rental Rates and calculations\Rental Rates\2016\2016 rental rates with MOD income ;exh 19 Rents;5/26/2016;hgr Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Liana Crabtree < > Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:29 PM City Council City Clerk 21 June 2016, City Council meeting, agenda item 14, Hamptons expansion Please include my letter below as part of the public record for the June 21, 2016 City Council meeting, agenda item 14, "An Ordinance of the Cupertino City Council approving a Development Agreement by and between the City of Cupertino and IAC at Cupertino LLC for the Hamptons project located at 19500 Pruneridge A venue". Dear Mayor Chang, Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan, and Council Members Paul, Sinks, and Wong: It is deeply disappointing to see the City Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the Hamptons apartment expansion intended to enlarge the existing for-rent housing development from 342 units to 942 units with zero (0) additional below market rate units . The West Valley does not need more market rate housing. Market rate housing by definition resolves itself. Those able to afford the market rate get housing. All others will wait. However, the area desperately needs housing for people with extremely low, very low, low, and moderate incomes. People who will live in below market rate residences are people whose work is essential to the success of our community but who often must be present at their work site, often at non-standard hours when public transit service is sporadic or not available. As a result, while people with below median incomes are the ones who would benefit most from public transit, they are often the ones who are least able to avail themselves to its use. Therefore, they must be offered safe, secure homes located in our community that they can afford. If approved as proposed, the 942-unit Hamptons project will have just 34 below market rate units, or less than a total 4% below market rate units for the site. I wrote to the Planning Commission in advance of the May 10th meeting when they voted on the Hamptons expansion. In my message I requested that 25% or 150 of the new units be set aside for people earning very low, low, and moderate incomes. The additional below market rate units would bring the total number of lower income residences to 184, which is just less than the 20% below market rate total number of units recommended by the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California's Inclusion Advocacy Toolkit, which states in part: " ... Potential Policies: + City adopts an inclusionary housing ordinance for ownership units with no less than 20% of affordable units in new construction. Tiered income policies should also be considered with a smaller percentage of affordable units required for deeper affordability, or a range of affordability levels that equate to 20%. Affordability should be maintained for a minimum of 55 years with an ideal of pennanent affordability. Consider inclusion of an in-lieu fee sufficient to exceed the number of units that would have been built on-site. Consider affordable units specially set aside for seniors .... " (LINK: http://abag.ca .gov/files /HousingElementPoliciesBestPracticesv2.pdf "California Housing Element Policy Best Practices, Version 1.2, Updated August 21, 2014", see PDF p 23) Unfortunately, the Hamptons will not be offering "ownership" units. But then, when will we see large developments of for-sale housing in Cupertino again? Not soon enough . Absent the opportunity for residents to buy "ownership" units, we must adhere to the intent of the best practice housing policy for new construction and increase the availability of affordable for-rent housing for all residents with lower incomes . From what is reported the draft minutes and staff report from the May 10th Planning Commission meeting, we have a 1 recommendation regarding the Hamptons expansion that falls short of the Nonprofit Housing Association's guidance for increasing the inventory of housing for lower income earners in three (3) key areas: + instead of 20% below market rate housing for new construction , we have a reco1mnendation for a net 0% increase in below market housing units at the Hamptons . + instead of a inclusion of an in-lieu fee "sufficient to exceed the number of units that would have been built on-site" to replace below market rate units the Hamptons declines to build, we have a recommendation for a one-time $25 per square foot fee for 600 market rate units at a total price of $12,900,000 or approximately ($21 ,500 per 600 units), which works out to about $86,000 per unit if the in-lieu fee were to replace the 150 below market units that should be required at the site ( 4 x $21 ,500). However, from March 9, 2016 to June 8, 2016 the average home price per square foot in Cupertino was $1,036. The token $25 square foot offering per market rate unit (or token [ 4 x $25] or $100 square foot offering for the 150 not-planned below market rate housing) from the Hamptons development represents only about 10% of the expected purchase price of an actual below market rate unit to be built elsewhere in the 95014 zip code(!). (LINK: http://www . trulia. com/real_ estate/Cupertino-California/) +instead of "affordability ... maintained for a minimum of 55 years with an ideal of permanent affordability," we have an extension of affordability on the existing 34 units to 38 years. The Irvine Company and its CEO Donald Bren, whose net worth of $15.l Billion ranks him as the wealthiest real estate developer in the US and the 30th "Richest American" hardly needs a handout from the West Valley's least financially able residents to secure his company's financial future . (LINKS: http://www.forbes .com/profile/donald-bren/; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bren). Instead, the Hamptons expansion project must include the necessary 150 below market rate units for community members with extremely low, very low, low, and moderate incomes. The people of the West Valley, especially those employed in essential but lower income occupations such as bus drivers, emergency medical technicians, our favorite grocery store employees, postal workers, elder care providers , teaching assistants, gardeners , and so many others without access to legacy family money or lucrative stock options , do need housing and are counting on our local legislative bodies, our City Councils , to do right by them and ensure that the housing they need will be built for them and made available in sufficient numbers and at a price they can afford. With respect, I request that the City Council members withhold approval of the Hamptons expansion project until the proposal is reworked to meet our community's need for at least 20% total below market rate housing units (184 units of 942 total units) to be maintained for a minimum of 55 years . Sincerely, Liana Crabtree Cupertino resident 2 Lauren Sapudar From: Sent: To: Subject: Toni Oasay-Anderson Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:45 PM City Clerk FW: The Importance and Benefits of Affordable housing for Cupertino From: Frank Geefay [mailto ] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:38 PM To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: The Importance and Benefits of Affordable housing for Cupertino Dear Honorable Mayor Chang, City Councilmembers, and Planning Commision members This message may be too late since I was just informed that this will be the subject of agenda two items at tonight's (6 /21/2016) Council meeting, but I feel compelled to express my feelings on the matter of Below Market Rate (BMR) housing in Cupertino. The city does support a BMR program as described on the city website on Affordable Housing. So the city does acknowledge the importance and need for Affordable Housing. There are economic and social benefits to such entitlement programs. It provide housing for employees working in Cupertino thus reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, and the dependancy on oil from employees commuting long distances from out of town. It provides more sales taxes for the city from these residents spending on local goods and services which also helps the local economy. It provides a social environment and educational opportunities for the upwards mobility of their children, the next generation, to contribute far more to society. And it is simply the right thing to do as already acknowledged by the city. In a city where the median income is among the highest in Silicon Valley we are far more able to be charitable to help the upwards mobility of those less able to make a living wage here than other communities. These are the employees of Target, Marina, many restaurants, and office employees who serve the residents of Cupertino daily . Yet the city in which they serve and spend most of their waking hours is out of their reach to live in. Yet most residents who are far better endowed live here willingly but work elsewhere adding to traffic congestion, air pollution, and the consumption of oil. They do so to take advantage of our outstanding schools. We complain that we pay far too much taxes while the super rich pay much less. What is the moral difference when we residents make enough to afford to live in our almost exclusive Cupertino, where our grown children cannot afford to live, in two of the top and exclusive public school districts in the country while many who work here cannot afford to live here and we are unwilling to reach out to them, only to use them? I know of many people living in our wealthy city who are very much against BMR housing. The reasons they give are that they are convinced our schools are overcrowded and that more students will negatively impact their educational experiences. Yet one of our most crowded schools, Monta Vista High School, is among the highest ranked in the district and my children who attended it did not complain about it being overcrowded because they adapted to the situation. Our two school superintendents have said our school are in no immediate danger of being overcrowded. So there is no basis for such fears. I've also hear reasons such as they will bring crime into our area or make messy homeowners and tum neighborhood down. Yet there is absolute! y nothing to substantiate these fears. We are talking about maybe a few hundred households or less in new high density housing units not part of existing neighborhoods. BMR housing must be mandated or there will always be a strong community uproar against it from some vocal no- growth advocates and others and nothing will happen as is apparently happening now by our city government according to the Agenda tonight. All new housing developments must have some well defined percentage of BMR housing units. If the city truly believes in BMR then it should act accordingly. Otherwise it is hypocritical to have Affordable Housing as a city program yet only take token efforts to do anything. 1 I s upport the Governor's specified housing development plans to force communities like Cupertino to do what is right for those less endowed, to help solve our traffic problem, to bring in more tax revenues, to lower pollution and energy consumption, and to help those working in our city better afford to live here and take advantage of our public schools and other benefits. We are not talking about tens of thousands of individuals but only a few hundred. The city has a healthy surplus so is not desperate for more income from developers in exchange for BMR. BMR serves an impo1iant purpose for our region and must not be used as a trading card. We have the ability to be better neighbors to this region of growth and prosperity. Low income people serve a valuable service to our community. Without them everything would cost far more making residents shop and dine out of town. It only seems Right to accommodate and incorporate them into our city as not only employees but residents. Best Regards, Frank Geefay, Long time Cupertino Residents 2