Exhibit CC 09-20-2016 Item No. 5 Kimberly Sandstrom PresentationCity Council
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
Overview
•Milestones
•My eligibility
•BMR unit
eligibility
•Rules / rule
changes
•Relevant
documents
•Conflict of
interest
•Denial of due
process
•Investigation
questions
Role of
Commissioners
and
Councilmembers
January, 2016
20:Notified that I was selected candidate
(with 2 backups) and application must be
completed by 27-Jan
21:I asked about income over limit in 2015
–answer was that over limit in the past
does not disqualify, as eligibility depends
on current income
25:I completed my application
26:I met with Christine at 4pm. She said I
was over limit. I showed her that current
wages plus last year’s performance bonus
was under limit, she said she would consult
with city staff
28:Christine emailed, saying after staff
consultation, I am over limit
February, 2016
2:C.J. emailed, saying my eligibility is
not yet determined; he asked for latest
paystub; later he said unit failed
inspection and instructed Christine to
remove it from list of units eligible for sale
9:Christine cancelled meeting with C.J.
and I. The unit passed inspection, but I
was not informed of this
11:I attended Housing Commission
meeting at 9am. C.J. explained that if I
applied 12-Feb, I would be eligible. I
attended meeting at WVCS (with
Christine, C.J.) at 2pm where I provided
mid-year bonus statement. Christine
emailed attachment on letterhead
stating my ineligibility at 6:50pm
February, 2016,
continued
12:I delivered my first grievance
to WVCS, but Ms Venkatraman
was not in the office
16:Ms Venkatraman called me,
in response to voicemails I left on
April 12th regarding bringing /
leaving grievance. She said I was
ineligible; no unit was available
and sale to alternate was 80%
done
22:I received Ms Venkatraman’s
response to my grievance by
certified mail
Capital Gains
Policy and Procedures
Manual for Administering
Deed Restricted Affordable
Housing Units, as amended
2-Aug by City Council
Resolution No. 16-084
(although no changes to
Exhibit 3, per the Resolution)
From Agenda Packet: E-
Referenced Regluations (24 CFR
5.pdf (near bottom of page E-2 on
left)
(and near top of page E-2, below)
March, 2016
1:I handed my second grievance to Mr Selo
8:I received Mr Selo’s response to my grievance by certified mail
10:I attended Housing Commission meeting at 9am
15:I attended City Council meeting at 6:45pm and during Oral
Communications, I asked the City Council to investigate my
case. I provided detailed and pertinent records
29:BMR unit was sold on or about this date to Director of Client
Services at WVCS and her adult sister, but this fact was not
discovered by me for about four weeks
Excerpt from CC Resolution No. 16-084 Adopting
Amendments to the Policy and Procedures Manual for
Administering Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units.pdf
Although this regulation
was not part of the BMR
Manual in March, 2016,
a Conflict Of Interest
event clearly occurred
with WVCS’s approval of
the eligibility of their own
employee, after denying
my eligibility
Excerpt from
California Law
Governing
Conflict of
Interest, by
Orange County
Department of
Education, June,
2014
April, 2016
5:I attended City Council meeting at
6:45pm
14:I attended Housing Commission
meeting at 9am, where I was allowed
to speak for 3 minutes. I recalled 11-
Feb meeting and asked
commissioners to take action against
capricious decision. C.J. said that
grievances to WVCS must continue
19:I attended meeting of the Board
Administration Committee of the
Board of Directors of WVCS at 4pm
where I was allowed to speak for 3
minutes. I asked committee to take
action against capricious decision
and I handed my third grievance to
the Board Chair
19, continued: I attended City Council
meeting at 6:45pm, where C.J. presented
CDBG Annual Plan and funding details (item
15 on Agenda). Afterwards, he was asked by
Councilmember Paul for an update on my
appeal. C.J. stated that I had two more
levels of grievance to complete at WVCS. He
said that, in the future, the Assistant City
Manager could be asked to place my
appeal on the agenda of the Housing
Commission
27:I received, by certified mail, Mr Barkey
and Ms Harper’s response to grievance
three, which told me to forward any
following grievance to Mr Selo. I discovered
the identity of the buyer of the BMR unit in
public records search
May, 2016
3:I sent my fourth grievance to Mr Selo as an email attachment (copying C.J.,
Assistant City Manager, Mayor and Councilmembers) expressing my outrage at
the Conflict of Interest that arose when WVCS qualified their own staff after
disqualifying me. I asked for a full investigation; acknowledgment and rectification
of the error that resulted in my disqualification; a complete reconsideration of the
unlawful sale and a lawful sale to take its place. Mr Selo responded with
attachment BMR Policy for WVCS Staff. I attended City Council meeting at 6:45pm
6:C.J. emailed Mr Selo suggesting that WVCS recuse itself and that the appeal
would move to the Housing Commission. I responded to C.J. and Ms Shrivastava
asking that my appeal appear on the Agenda of the 12-May Housing Commission
meeting. There was no response to my email
12: I attended Housing Commission meeting at 9am, where my appeal was not on
the agenda and I was allowed to speak for 3 minutes. C.J. said my appeal would
be heard at the 9-Jun meeting because there had not been time to get it on
today’s agenda. He said that Ms Shrivastava would follow up, as he was leaving
the City of Cupertino for other employment and this was his last Housing
Commission meeting
BMR Policy for WVCS Staff
Below Market Rate Policy
for
WVCS Staff
adopted 7/19/11
Below Market Rate
West Valley Community Services staff who does not have decision making authority or influence of the BMR program may
apply as a potential candidate for the BMR program. Staff excluded from application include but not limited to: Executive
Director, Department Directors, WVCS BMR staff. There will be no special consideration or accommodations for the staff's
application. The staff member must qualify based on BMR requirements set forth by the City of Cupertino and WVCS, and will
be given priority points based on the same criteria as all qualified applicants. The staff member will not participate in any BMR
program decision making processes for application, qualification or placement. The staff member will not have any access to
BMR files or other BMR client information.
June, 2016
6:I emailed Ms Shrivastava because no agenda was posted for
9-Jun Housing Commission meeting. Mr Fu replied that my
appeal was continued to 23-Jun
9:Housing Commission meeting is cancelled “due to lack of
business”
23:Special meeting of the Housing Commission had my appeal
on the Agenda as item 3. External Counsel, acting as staff, made
a presentation. I made a presentation. There were comments
from the public. From the minutes: “Chair Barnett said that the
Commission would take all the information received today into
consideration, review with Staff and bring this item back for a
recommendation at the meeting of July 14, 2016”
July and August, 2016
July 6:Mr Fu called and told me
that the 14-Jul Housing
Commission meeting would be
cancelled because external
counsel needed more time to
investigate the determination of
my income. When I asked about
the criminality of the transfer, he
said they were investigating that
too. He said my appeal would be
continued to 11-Aug. He also sent
an email with essentially the same
information
14:Housing Commission meeting
is cancelled “due to lack of
business”
August 2:City Council adopted
Resolution No. 16-084 amending the
Policy and Procedures Manual for
Administering Deed-Restricted
Affordable Housing Units (Below
Market Rate (BMR) Manual), with
modification, after 4-1 vote
11:At Housing Commission meeting
External Counsel presented, including incorrect income calculation. I
presented, but was prevented from showing my investigative findings related to COI. There were comments
from the public. There was a motion to
deny my appeal, which passed after
a 3-1 vote
Handout
presented
by Ms Klueck
at 11-Aug
Housing
Commission
meeting has
math error
and bonus
error
Excerpt from F-
Technical Guide for
Determining
Income.pdf
My application included
verifiable evidence that:
•S Recogn Bonus was
one time (2015 only)
•Wellness Bonus would
not be earned in 2016
•Performance Bonus was
sharply decreased in
2016
•Stock value declined
precipitously
My Company, our main competitor and
Nasdaq Composite 2013 –2016
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/stx/interactive-chart
Demonstrates
that larger
economic forces
are driving the
loss in value
My latest paystub
August, 2016, continued
23:External counsel, Ms Lee, emailed me, inviting me to share my presentations with her,
while stating she would not share her findings with me
24:Mr Fu emailed, asking me to forward my presentation
25:Mr Fu emailed saying that my appeal before the City Council would be continued from
6 to 20-Sep
26:I received a letter from Ms Squarcia informing me that my appeal would be heard by
the City Council 6-Sep and that any issues not raised before the Council on that date may
be inadmissible, if I later bring an action in court
27: I received a second letter from Ms Squarcia informing me that my appeal would be
continued to an unknown date
29:I uploaded presentations, audio recordings, letters from City to a Google Drive folder
that I shared with Ms Lee and the Mayor and Councilmembers. Ms Lee asked me to invite
her via a gmail account, and I complied
31: I emailed the City Clerk expressing utter confusion and asking for guidance on my
hearing before the City Council. Ms Schmidt clarified that my appeal would be heard 20-
Sep
September, 2016
6:I attended City Council meeting
at 6:45, where the Council
approved postponement of my
appeal to 20-Sep
8:I attended Housing Commission
meeting at 9am. During the
approval of minutes, I attempted to
make errors in the draft minutes
known. However I was silenced
and told I could speak during Oral
Communications. This is a violation
of my Brown Act rights
54954.3.(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity
for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item
of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration
of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body,
provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the
agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section
54954.2.However, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members
of the public to address the legislative body on any item that has already
been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the
legislative body, at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the
public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item,
before or during the committee's consideration of the item, unless the item
has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as
determined by the legislative body. Every notice for a special meeting shall
provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the
legislative body concerning any item that has been described in the notice
for the meeting before or during consideration of that item.
(b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations
to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not
limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public
testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.
(c) The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of
the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or
omissions of the legislative body. Nothing in this subdivision shall confer any
privilege or protection for expression beyond that otherwise provided by law.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=54001-
55000&file=54950-54963
$88,670.00
$90,286.00
$103,773.22
$98,248.80$101,300.00 $101,300.00 $102,050.00 $102,800.00
$88,600.00 $88,600.00 $89,300.00 $89,950.00
$80,000.00
$85,000.00
$90,000.00
$95,000.00
$100,000.00
$105,000.00
2013 2014 2015 2016
My Gross Income and State Income Limits for Santa Clara
County
My Gross Income State Income Limit (Moderate, 2-Person)
State Income Limit (Moderate, 1-Person)
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housing-resource-
center/reports/state/incnote.html
Conflict of interest / Due process
Although Christine Nguyen told me that a conflict of
interest would arise if I were both a volunteer and a client
at WVCS…
…she nonetheless denied me and then sold the 2-
bedroom, moderate unit –while the appeal process was
still underway –to her coworker, Michelle Ma, the Director
of Client Services at WVCS;a single woman with no
dependents
This is clearly unacceptable and I am
asking YOU, City Council, to take
action and reverse this illegal sale
Investigative Questions
Is Michelle Ma the Director of Client Services at West Valley Community Services?
Date of hire –2008, per Ms Lee
Date of termination –April 2016, per Ms Lee
How many City of Cupertino Below Market Rate units are owned by
current West Valley Community Services staff
former West Valley Community Services staff
current City of Cupertino staff
former City of Cupertino staff
How many City of Cupertino Below Market Rate units are rented by
current West Valley Community Services staff
former West Valley Community Services staff
current City of Cupertino staff
former City of Cupertino staff
Questions about sale of APN 369-
55-036 on or around 21-Mar-2016
How many applicants were contacted and invited to complete their applications,
including Ms Ma and I? –3, per Ms Lee: Sandstrom, Ma and additional backup?
How many applicants submitted complete applications?
Did all of the applicants have the same number of priority points? –No, per Ms Lee
How many priority points did Ms Ma have? –2, per Ms Lee
At the time of application, where was Michelle Ma’s residency?
Longevity at that address?
At the time of application, where was Marissa Ma’s residency?
Longevity at that address?
What was Marissa Ma’s income?
What was the waitlist priority number of Ms Ma? –23, per Ms Lee
City Council has the power to find a
transaction fraudulent and overturn it
Excerpt from CC Resolution No. 16-084 Adopting Amendments to the Policy and Procedures Manual for
Administering Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units
Responsibilities of Commissioners (excerpted
from COMMISSIONER’S HANDBOOK, 2016, City of Cupertino)
D. DISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL PROTECTION
All rules, regulations, laws, services and facilities must apply equally to all persons, and not give
favor to any segment of the community. Similarly, all laws and ordinances of the city must afford
equal protection to all facets of the community, unless the purpose of a city action requires special
classification of the community.
E. DUE PROCESS
All governmental procedures and process must allow an affected party a right to be heard, and to
present controverting fact or testimony on the question of right in the matter involved. Unfair
determinations, such as bias, predetermination, refusal to hear, etc., may invalidate actions.
F. REASONABLENESS
Every action of municipal government must be reasonable, or otherwise stated, not capricious,
extreme, arbitrary, or abusive.
In closing
Affordable housing is one of the most valuable things in
existence in Cupertino…
A valuable BMR unit has been sold in a frankly illegal manner
Please restore justice and undo the sale
Please reject the recommendation of staff, denying my appeal
Please recognize that no speculation is needed to find that I
met the income eligibility limit, even assuming performance
bonus at same level in 2016 as in 2015
Please do not play a part in continuing the unethical action
that has occurred and instead, work to undue this action