CC 05-01-2018 Exhibit Item No. 3 Below Market Rate Housing Program - Written CommunicationsHonorable Mayor Darcy Paul and Cupertino Councilmembers
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Sinks, and Councilmembers Vaidhyanathan, Chang, and Scharf
Subject: City of Cupertino BMR Housing Program Study Session, May 1, 2018
On behalf of our members and the undersigned partner organizations, we express our
appreciation for the City’s initiative in revisiting its Below Market Rate (BMR) ordinance and
providing the opportunity for feedback on what is a critical component of any city’s affordable
housing toolkit. That being said, to address the City’s housing crisis, Cupertino will need
multiple tools in its toolbox to ease housing affordability for its existing and future workers and
residents. To that end, we recommend that the City continue to refine its BMR ordinance while
simultaneously adopting a broader, more holistic approach to affordable housing.
With the passage of AB 1505 last fall, SV@Home has been working with jurisdictions to
resurrect or create inclusionary ordinances that reflect best practices and result in increased
availability of affordable homes. Attached is SV@Home’s best practices document for
inclusionary ordinances for your reference.
Refinements to the BMR Ordinance. We’re pleased to see that Cupertino’s BMR ordinance
already calls for a 15 percent set aside for new rental and ownership residential developments
and that it offers a suite of alternative compliance methods for meeting the affordability
requirements. To ensure that the policy delivers the intended results, we respectfully
recommend the following changes to respond to the diversity of affordable housing needs,
including the need for extremely low-income, very low-, low-, and moderate-income homes.
Rental, income targeting. Require that affordable units provided on-site have restricted
rents that average 80 percent of the area median income (AMI);
Ownership, income targeting. Require that affordable units provided on-site have
restricted rents that average out at 120 percent AMI;
Off-site alternatives. We support allowing off-site alternatives, whether land
dedication, paying an in-lieu fee, or partnering with a nonprofit on stand-alone
affordable housing. For these alternative options, we suggest setting the requirement
at 20 percent to incentivize the development of integrated units on site.
CC 05-01-2018 Item No. 3
Honorable Mayor Darcy Paul and Cupertino Councilmembers
Subject: City of Cupertino BMR Housing Program Study Session May 1, 2018
Page 2 of 2
Serving the Communities of Cupertino, West San Jose, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno
10104 Vista Drive, Cupertino, California 95014 ∙ 408-255-8033 ∙ Fax 408-366-6090 ∙
www.wvcommunityservices.org
Other Actions to Increase Housing Affordability. We also respectfully recommend that the City
adopt a holistic approach to planning, creating, and preserving housing for extremely low-
income, very low-, low-, and moderate-income families by undertaking the following policies
and actions:
Increase the number of homes allowed, with a minimum of 20% affordable, on the
Vallco and Oaks development sites
Ease regulatory barriers for accessory dwelling units (enclosed are SV@Home’s
recommendations from December 2017)
Identify current publicly owned surplus or underutilized sites that can be developed for
affordable homes and/or acquire land for the purposes of stand-alone affordable
housing development
The depth and scale of the housing crisis requires all communities -- including Cupertino-- to act
expediently and boldly. We are encouraged by tomorrow’s conversation and hope that you to
take swift action on the BMR ordinance and expand on current opportunities available in the
City.
We appreciate your efforts to increase affordable housing options, and look forward to working
with you as you implement your housing program.
Sincerely,
Josh Selo Executive Director , West Valley Community Services
cc
David Brandt, davidb@cupertino.org
Aarti Shrivastava aartis@cupertino.org
Piu Gosh, piug@cupertino.org
Transmitted via email: citycouncil@cupertino.org
Honorable Mayor Darcy Paul and Cupertino Councilmembers
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Sinks, and Councilmembers Vaidhyanathan, Chang, and Scharf,
Subject: City of Cupertino BMR Housing Program Study Session, May 1, 2018
On behalf of West Valley Community Services and SV@Home and our members, we express our
appreciation for the City’s initiative in revisiting its Below Market Rate (BMR) ordinance and
providing the opportunity for feedback on what is a critical component of any city’s affordable
housing toolkit. That being said, to address the City’s housing crisis, Cupertino will need
multiple tools in its toolbox to ease housing affordability for its existing and future workers and
residents. To that end, we recommend that the City continue to refine its BMR ordinance while
simultaneously adopting a broader, more holistic approach to affordable housing.
With the passage of AB 1505 last fall, SV@Home has been working with jurisdictions to
resurrect or create inclusionary ordinances that reflect best practices and result in increased
availability of affordable homes. Attached is SV@Home’s best practices document for
inclusionary ordinances for your reference.
Refinements to the BMR Ordinance. We’re pleased to see that Cupertino’s BMR ordinance
already calls for a 15 percent set aside for new rental and ownership residential developments
and that it offers a suite of alternative compliance methods for meeting the affordability
requirements. To ensure that the policy delivers the intended results, we respectfully
recommend the following changes to respond to the diversity of affordable housing needs,
including the need for extremely low-income, very low-, low-, and moderate-income homes.
•Rental, income targeting. Require that affordable units provided on-site have restricted
rents that average 80 percent of the area median income (AMI);
•Ownership, income targeting. Require that affordable units provided on-site have
restricted rents that average out at 120 percent AMI;
•Off-site alternatives. We support allowing off-site alternatives, whether land
dedication, paying an in-lieu fee, or partnering with a nonprofit on stand-alone
affordable housing. For these alternative options, we suggest setting the requirement
at 20 percent to incentivize the development of integrated units on site.
Other Actions to Increase Housing Affordability. We also respectfully recommend that the City
adopt a holistic approach to planning, creating, and preserving housing for extremely low-
income, very low-, low-, and moderate-income families by undertaking the following policies
and actions:
Honorable Mayor Darcy Paul and Cupertino Councilmembers
Subject: City of Cupertino BMR Housing Program Study Session May 1, 2018
Page 2 of 2
• Increase the number of homes allowed, with a minimum of 20% affordable, on the
Vallco and Oaks development sites
• Ease regulatory barriers for accessory dwelling units (enclosed are SV@Home’s
recommendations from December 2017)
• Identify current publicly owned surplus or underutilized sites that can be developed for
affordable homes and/or acquire land for the purposes of stand-alone affordable
housing development
The depth and scale of the housing crisis requires all communities-- including Cupertino-- to act
expediently and boldly. We are encouraged by today’s conversation and hope that you to take
swift action on the BMR ordinance and expand on current opportunities available in the City.
We appreciate your efforts to increase affordable housing options, and look forward to working
with you as you implement your housing program.
Sincerely,
Pilar Lorenzana, Deputy Director, SV@Home
Josh Selo, Executive Director, West Valley Community Services
cc
David Brandt, davidb@cupertino.org
Aarti Shrivastava aartis@cupertino.org
Piu Gosh, piug@cupertino.org
Inclusionary Housing in Santa Clara County:
Aligning Local Policies toward a Countywide Affordable Housing Strategy
Inclusionary Housing: An Introduction
Inclusionary housing policies require or encourage developers to set aside a certain percentage of
housing units in newly constructed or rehabilitated projects for low - and moderate-income
residents. By creating mixed-income developments, people from different socio-economic
backgrounds are given the opportunity to access the same services and ameni ties, furthering equity
and inclusion, and addressing federal fair housing obligations.
For a number of years, inclusionary housing was only legal for for -sale housing in California due to
the Palmer Sixth Street Properties v Los Angeles court case. This changed effective January 1, 2018
when new law created by AB 1505 went into effect. AB 1505 expressly supersedes the Palmer
decision by authorizing the legislative bod y of any city or county to adopt ordinances requiring that, as
a condition of developing rental housing units, the development include a certain percentage of rental
units affordable to moderate- income, lower-income, very low -income, or extremely low -income
households.
In February 2016, the US Supreme Court declined to review a challenge brought by the California
Building Industry Association, which questioned the validity of local inclusionary ordinances for for -
sale housing. This decision removed any q uestions over the ability for local government to adopt and
implement inclusionary ordinances for for -sale housing.
Legal and Legislative Requirements
AB 1505 authorizes communities to adopt rental inclusionary requirements by ordinance. An
ordinance should be adopted to implement inclusionary requirements contained in general plans,
housing elements, or other policy documents.
Existing rental inclusionary ordinances that were not amended after Palmer can be implemented after
January 1, 2018 as long as they include provisions for alternative means of compliance.
No nexus study is required to justify a rental inclusionary requirement. In the 2015 California Supreme
Court decision California Building Industry Ass'n v. City of San Jose (CBIA), it determined that
inclusionary requirements were “land use provisions similar to rent and price controls and met
constitutional requirements so long as not ‘confiscatory’ and designed to further the public health,
safety, and welfare.”1
If a rental inclusionary ordinance was adopted prior to September 15, 2017, no economic feasibility
study is required to justify a rental inclusionary requirement, regardless of the required set -aside
percentage. If the ordinance was adopted or amended after September 15, 2017 to require affordable
rental housing, a feasibility study would not be required if the set -aside percentage required is 15
percent or less. However, if the ordinance requires a higher inclusionary requirement, or if affordability
1 Goldfarb and Lipman
restrictions are deeper (targeting extremely low - income or very low-income households), a
jurisdiction may choose to prepare a feasibility study .
The State Department of Housing and Community Development has the authority to require that an
economic feasibility study be provided for any inclusionary ordinance that was adopted after
September 15, 2017 if the ordinance requires that more than 15% of the homes be affordable , but
only in two circumstances: (1) if the jurisdiction has failed to meet at least 75% of its RHNA need in
the above moderate income category for five or more years, or (2) if the jurisdiction has not submitted
its annual housing element report for two consecutive years. If HCD should find that the study is
insufficient, the jurisdiction w ould only be able to require 15% affordability until it could prove through
an economic feasibility study that additional affordability was feasible.
CASA-- the Committee to House the Bay Area-- is currently considering potential inclusionary housing
requirements for the 9-County Bay Area. Recommendations from CASA are not expected until late
2018 or early 2019.
SV@Home’s Recommendations:
Local jurisdictions must make many choices when designing an inclusionary housing ordinance. As
these choices are made, it is important to ensure that the inclusionary requirements are both feasible
for developers and support achievement of affordable housing goals. To the extent that all 16 Santa
Clara County jurisdictions adopt similar requirem ents, it will provide more certainty to the development
community working in the South Bay.
SV@Home encourages all Santa Clara County jurisdictions to consider SV@Home’s
recommendations as a way to align local policy goals with a broader countywide inclusionary housing
strategy.
Criterion Recommendation Rationale
Set-Aside Percentage Adopt a minimum 15% onsite
inclusionary housing onsite
requirement for both for-sale and
rental housing. If an Alternative
Compliance Option is selected (see
below) then this percentage should
be increased to a minimum of 20%
Creating a consistent 15% requirement
across the county provides predictability for
developers as well as a level playing field for
cities. The cities of Campbell, Cupertino,
Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and San Jose have
set 15% affordability as their inclusionary
requirement.
The recommended set -aside percentage is
increased to 20% to incentivize the
development of integrated on-site affordable
units.
Project Size Threshold Apply the inclusionary requirements
to projects of ten or more units.
Do not apply to ADUs.
For projects that are smaller than
ten units, require that developers
pay a fee if the units exceed 1,200
square feet. The fee can increase
for larger units.
It is important to offer “missing middle”
opportunities, and requiring inclusionary
percentages for smaller developments can
discourage developers from pursuing small
infill development like row houses, stacked
flats, duplexes and fourplexes which tend to
be more naturally affordable, and therefore
affordable to teachers, nurses, construction
workers, and others.
At the same time, it is recognized that some
developments that are small are offered at
luxury prices and not naturally affordable.
Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties have
Criterion Recommendation Rationale
adopted inclusionary ordinances that tier
fees according to unit size.
No fees should apply to ADUs, a building
type that should be encouraged with fewer
fees, not new and additional fees.
Income Restrictions—
Rental
Average 80% of Area Median
Income (AMI)
This allows a developer to provide units for a
variety of income levels.
Income Restrictions—
Owner
Average 120% of Area Median
Income (AMI)
This allows a developer to provide units for a
variety of income levels.
Term of Affordability --
Rental
Place affordability restrictions on
rental homes for a minimum of 55
years
This ensures that the homes are available for
an extended period, and is consistent with
other State and federal affordable housing
programs.
Term of Affordability --
Owner
Place affordability restrictions on for
sale homes for a minimum of 45
years
This ensures that the homes are available for
an extended period, and is consistent with
other State and federal affordable housing
programs. (Note: these restrictions can be
removed upon an equity share sale)
Resale Restrictions—
Owner
Implement an equity share
provision that allows the original
buyer of an affordable unit to sell
the unit at market rate and share in
the equity appreciation
This allows homeowners to acquire equity,
making it possible for them to purchase a
new home when they need to move. It also
allows the local agency to re-invest its share
in a new first-time homebuyer family who can
purchase a new home anywhere in the
jurisdiction.
Home Amenities Affordable homes are
indistinguishable from market rate
homes and are integrated into the
development
This is a best practice that ensures that
lower- and moderate-income households
have access to the same amenities as
market-rate households.
Alternative
Compliance Options
Provide a variety of alternative
options for compliance:
-Build Onsite
-Offsite construction
-Credit trading/transfer
-Housing Preservation credits
-In lieu fee
-Land dedication
-Acquisition/Rehabilitation
-Combination
Recognizes that not all developments are the
same, and provides both the developer and
the City with flexibility to respond, particularly
when a different option would result in more
affordability. Additionally, in some
circumstances, payment of an in-lieu fee or
another compliance option may be
preferable, as in the case of a multi-million
dollar home subdivision.
According to AB 1505, all rental inclusionary
ordinances must include alternative means
of compliance, however jurisdictions have
broad discretion over the alternative means
provided.
Criterion Recommendation Rationale
Incentives Provide a robust suite of incentives
to developers that should include:
- Density bonus
- Reduction in parking spaces
- Changes to setbacks, height
requirements, and other zoning
variances
- Expedited review
- Fee or tax exemptions
- Financial support
Provides developers the opportunity to
achieve cost savings that can offset the cost
of providing the affordable units.
Timeframe and
Grandfathering
While an ordinance should go into
effect in 30 days, provide an
adequate timeframe for the market
to adjust when adopting new
inclusionary requirements. Our
recommendation is to grandfather
those projects that
Establish requirements that ensure
that any project that is
grandfathered continues to move
forward through the development
process.
This is a best practice that recognizes that
the development process is long, and that
many developers have invested time and
resources into projects that are already in the
development pipeline.
Requiring that the developments that receive
grandfather status meet key requirements for
progress ensures that those requesting an
exemption are verifiably in the development
process.
Incentives Adopt incentives that offset the cost
to the developer of providing the
affordable units.
This can include reduced parking,
reduction in fees, reduced setbacks,
increased height, and fast track
permitting.
Recognizes that there is a cost to providing
the inclusionary units.
Board of Directors
Ron Gonzales, Chair
Hispanic Foundation
of Silicon Valley
Janice Jensen, Vice Chair
Habitat for Humanity
East Bay/Silicon Valley
Kevin Zwick, Treasurer
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Kathy Thibodeaux, Secretary
KM Thibodeaux Consulting LLC
Shiloh Ballard
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Bob Brownstein
Working Partnerships USA
Christine Carr
Rahul Chandhok
San Francisco 49ers
Katie Ferrick
LinkedIn
Amie Fishman
Non-Profit Housing Association of
Northern California
Javier Gonzalez
Google
Poncho Guevara
Sacred Heart Community Service
Jan Lindenthal
MidPen Housing
Jennifer Loving
Destination: Home
Mary Murtagh
EAH Housing
Chris Neale
The Core Companies
Andrea Osgood
Eden Housing
Kelly Snider
Kelly Snider Consulting
Jennifer Van Every
The Van Every Group
Staff
Leslye Corsiglia
Executive Director
350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL
December 18, 2017
Honorable Mayor Paul and Members of the City Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Sinks, and Councilmembers Chang, Scharf, and
Vaidhyanathan:
Re: December 19, 2017 City Council Agenda Item 17 —
Consider an ordinance to amend regulations in Title 19, Zoning of the
Municipal Code with regard to Accessory Dwelling Units
On behalf of our members, we thank you for considering amendments to the City of
Cupertino’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance in order to comply with State
legislation adopted in 2016 and 2017. We support the staff recommendations, but we
also urge the Council to consider further revisions to allow and encourage more
Cupertino homeowners to consider building ADUs.
The amendments adopted by the Council in November 2016 were an important first
step. However, in order to fully leverage ADUs as a policy solution, Cupertino must
take additional steps to encourage homeowners to build them. SV@Home encourages
the City of Cupertino to consider the following policy changes that would allow the City
to unlock the potential of ADUs:
•Reduce the minimum lot size requirement for ADUs. Cupertino has one of the
highest minimum lot size requirements in Santa Clara County – 10,000 square feet
for a detached ADU. This is an enormous barrier that automatically bars many, if
not most, of the City’s single family lots from eligibility. By comparison, Palo Alto
recently reduced its minimum lot size to 5,000 square feet, and Mountain View
eliminated its minimum lot size requirement entirely. A separate minimum lot
size requirement, in addition to the existing zoning requirements, creates an
additional constraint that could exclude a significant number of homeowners
from the opportunity to build an ADU. We strongly recommend that the City of
Cupertino reduce or eliminate its extremely high minimum lot size requirement.
•Broadly legalize existing ADUs that can meet basic building, health, and safety
standards even if they are non-compliant with current planning codes. A
legalization program for such units would encourage owners to come forward and
Cupertino City Council
Re: December 19, 2017 City Council Agenda Item 17 – Accessory Dwelling Units
December 18, 2017
Page 2 of 2
•bring their units into compliance with building and safety codes, while keeping current tenants
from being permanently displaced. ADUs that are safe for occupants and neighbors should be
allowed to come into compliance with building and safety codes and be legally occupied,
without facing any penalties.
•Reduce fees associated with ADU construction. Fees can add tens of thousands of dollars to
the cost of creating ADUs, especially those that treat an ADU like a new use rather than an
accessory to a single family home. Reducing financial burden for homeowners through reduced
fees or a fee-waiver program can make ADUs more affordable. As an example, the City of
Mountain View significantly reduced its Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee for ADUs, recognizing
that an ADU will likely have fewer occupants than the average single family home.
•Finally, we recommend that the City of Cupertino dedicate resources toward the creation of a
robust Accessory Dwelling Unit program that provides resources and guidance to homeowners
who are interested in creating secondary dwelling units on their property. The City of Santa
Cruz’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program, combined with its flexible ADU ordinance,
demonstrates the positive impact of this combined approach; between 2003 and 2015, the City
has built nearly 350 secondary dwelling units.
ADUs can provide a rapid means of providing missing-middle housing within the existing fabric of
Cupertino’s single family neighborhoods. Among the City's homeowners are retirees looking for a way
to age in place, working families who could benefit from an additional source of income to help pay for
their mortgage, and parents with older children who have moved back home and otherwise would not
be able to afford a home in Silicon Valley. For these individuals and the many moderate-income
renters who struggle to find housing in this area, ADUs can provide a broader range of affordable
housing options that allow them to live near their family and/or place of work.
We thank you for considering these recommendations. As interest in ADUs grows among residents and
other jurisdictions across the County, we hope to serve as resource to the City for information
regarding ADU policy best practices. Please let us know how we can support your efforts to address
Cupertino’s housing affordability challenges.
Sincerely,
Pilar Lorenzana
Deputy Director
Cc
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager & Director of Community Development
Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner
Andrae Wara-Macapinlac, Senior District Representative, Office of Senator Bob Wieckowski
Senator Bob Wieckowski, California Senate District 10
50 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110
408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org
1
April 30, 2018
Dear Mayor Paul and City Council Members,
The May 1 study session on Cupertino’s inclusionary housing ordinance presents an ideal opportunity
for the City Council to consider how to foster the development of housing in Cupertino that meets the
needs of people with different incomes and different abilities. The mission of my organization, Housing
Choices, is to create housing opportunities for people with developmental disabilities. The Cupertino
residents we support in seeking housing are severely disabled and have very limited ability to compete
for jobs that would lift them out of the Extremely Low Income category. There are currently almost no
housing options for them in the City of Cupertino.
To address this concern, I recommend four changes to the Cupertino ordinance:
1. Expressly include ELI households in the policy.
2. Reduce the incentives for the developer to “fee out” of the inclusionary housing requirement.
3. Re-consider certain provisions of the current ordinance that, on their face, seem to violate Fair
Housing laws.
4. Expressly allow developers to accommodate the supportive service needs of people with
developmental and other disabilities by allowing a set-aside of units for that population, as long as
income targeting and other requirements of the ordinance are met.
First, the City should take advantage of the clarity provided by AB 1505, which allows the city to include
extremely low-income (ELI) households in its inclusionary policy.
Why is this necessary?
1. The city is lagging far behind on its 2015 RHNA goal of creating 178 units of housing for ELI
households. Since 2015, Cupertino has supported the creation of six ELI units at the Charities
Housing project, the Veranda. This number is 3% of the city’s ELI goal, and the six units are
available only for people age 62 and older. Most of the City’s ELI population, including
Cupertino’s residents with developmental disabilities, are not 62 or older.
2. Other than The Oaks—the future of which is uncertain--the VallCo site was the last significant
affordable housing opportunity site identified in the 2015 Housing Element. With the SB 35
application pending, it appears that that developer will not be required to (and the developer
does not propose to) create any ELI units.
3. The city has little land or zoning in place that makes it feasible for affordable housing developers
to use low-income housing tax credits to create housing for lower income (60% of AMI), very
low income (50% of AMI) and extremely low income (30% of AMI) Cupertino residents. This is
evident in the multiple rounds of RFPs for the City’s Affordable Housing Funds from which no
new projects other than the 19-unit Veranda have emerged.
2
4. The city has a growing homeless population. Many Cupertino households, including people with
developmental disabilities, are at risk of homelessness simply because of the lack of housing
affordable to extremely low income people. The costs of homelessness are enormous. The city
should use one of the tools in its policy toolbox, now strengthened by AB 1505, to prevent
homelessness by having an inclusionary housing ordinance that benefits its ELI households.
Other than by amending its inclusionary housing ordinance, the City of Cupertino has no realistic
option for making a dent in its RHNA goal for extremely low-income housing.
Within the scope of AB 1505, the city can adopt income mixes for its inclusionary policy that would
make the economic impact of having some ELI income units in market rate rental projects the same as
the economic impact of the current mix of low and very low income units, for example, by:
a. Offering the developer an alternative mix of moderate income and extremely low income
units.
b. Changing the current mix of low and very low to a different distribution of low, very low and
extremely low income units.
Second, I recommend that the city amend its ordinance to increase the fee that must be paid to opt
out of the inclusionary ordinance and also require the developer to apply to the City Council in order
to “fee out” of the inclusionary ordinance.
The current fee alternative has simply not created a real choice for the developer because it is so much
lower than the opportunity cost of unregulated, market rate housing in a community that has seen rents
double in a five year period. This is evident in the housing impact of the current ordinance, with
developers mostly “feeing out” of their inclusionary housing responsibility, leaving the city with a small
number of affordable housing units and a contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund that largely goes
unused because affordable housing developers cannot buy land in Cupertino that is feasible for
affordable housing.
The City can balance its inclusionary housing goal with the developer’s due process rights by providing
developers the option to apply to City Council for an exemption to the inclusionary ordinance when it is
appropriate because of the specific challenges of the project and when the developer pays a fee equal
to the cost of the construction of the inclusionary units. As long as there is a policy in place to protect
the due process rights of developers, there is simply no legal reason for the city to make it so enticing
for developers to “fee out” of the inclusionary requirement.
Third, I recommend that the City Council initiate a Fair Housing legal review of its existing ordinance
because of its systemic, discriminatory impact on people with developmental disabilities. The current
ordinance is flawed for several reasons:
1. By excluding people with extremely low incomes from the benefits of the program, the current
ordinance has a disparate impact on people with developmental disabilities, many of whom are
unable to work or work in very low-wage, part-time jobs.
3
2. By granting preference points for people who work in Cupertino, the current ordinance has a
further disparate impact on people with developmental disabilities, most of who are unable to
work, or have almost no job options in the City of Cupertino proper because they must find
employment with an employer that is focused on affirmatively hiring people with
developmental disabilities.
3. By granting additional preference points for people who work in certain favored job categories,
such as teaching, firefighting, and other public sector employment, the current ordinance has a
further disparate impact on people with developmental disabilities, who are unable to meet the
physical, cognitive, or educational requirements of these jobs.
4. The policies and procedures of the program provide for addressing barriers faced by people with
different linguistic needs and with physical disabilities, but have no regard for the needs of
people with different cognitive abilities.
People with developmental and other mental disabilities have been documented by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development to experience the highest rates of housing
discrimination of any category of disability. Rather than affirmatively furthering the fair housing rights
of a group of Cupertino residents who have long experienced discrimination in the housing market, the
current inclusionary housing ordinance has a direct exclusionary impact on this group.
Fourth, I recommend that the ordinance expressly allow developers to meet the ordinance
requirements with units offered on a preferential basis for people with disabilities, including those
with developmental disabilities, who require supportive services to apply for and retain housing. This
set-aside housing model has had tremendous success at other large market-rate developments,
including the 450-unit Estancia Apartments in the City of Santa Clara. This preference is allowed under
Fair Housing laws as a means to accommodate the special supportive service needs of people with
developmental disabilities, who need help both to navigate the housing application process and to
retain their housing. Of course, the units would still need to satisfy the income targeting and other
requirements of the inclusionary ordinance.
Comments on the Staff Report
Some statements in the staff report on the inclusionary housing ordinance seem incorrect or
unintentionally misleading with respect to the ability of and need for the City Council to amend the
ordinance to include housing for its extremely low-income residents.
1. The staff report on page 2 states that City Council is bound by the description of the
inclusionary ordinance that was included in the Housing Element. The staff report states several
times that Cupertino cannot amend the ordinance if an amendment would conflict with the
language of the 2015 Housing Element.
a. Strategy HE-2.3.2 of the Housing Element describes the Cupertino inclusionary
ordinance as it existed before the adoption of AB 1505 by the California legislature in
2017. AB 1505 granted cities specific authority to adopt or revise inclusionary
4
ordinances within certain state-imposed parameters, thereby eliminating the
uncertainty created by the Palmer decision. There is nothing in AB 1505 that states the
city cannot amend an ordinance simply because the language of the ordinance was
described as a strategy in the 2015 Housing Element--a time when the Palmer decision
constrained the city’s exercise of its police power to create inclusionary rental housing.
The fundamental purpose of AB 1505 was to give California cities struggling with the
housing crisis a tool for meeting their RNHA goals, not to limit Cupertino’s ability to
improve its inclusionary housing ordinance simply because the language of the existing
ordinance was described as a strategy in the Housing Element.
b. The Housing Element is a plan to achieve housing goals that the city has largely not
met—especially with respect to housing for low-income, very low-income, and
extremely low income households. It’s the worst form of disingenuousness for staff to
use the Housing Element as a shield for not taking advantage of the legal clarity the city
has been granted under AB 1505 to have a truly effective inclusionary ordinance in
Cupertino—one that addresses the city’s unmet need for housing for moderate-income
low-income, very-low income levels, and extremely low income households.
c. Raising the Housing Element as a barrier to revising the inclusionary ordinance also
seems inappropriate in that the Cupertino Housing Element ignores the requirement of
SB 812 (adopted in 2010, before the 2015 Housing Element) that the city specifically
address the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Simply lumping
this group into the larger category of “special needs” populations does not do justice to
the special barriers people with developmental disabilities face in securing housing.
The failure of the Housing Element to consider this housing need is mirrored in the city’s
lack of housing options for people with developmental disabilities.
2. The staff report states that the city can meet its RNHA allocation for creating extremely low-
income units by using the funds created by the “fee-out” option in the existing inclusionary
ordinance to finance affordable housing. On page 4, the staff offers as an example the single
affordable housing project approved in Cupertino since the adoption of the Housing Element in
2015—the 19 unit senior housing project, the Veranda, with six ELI units for people age 62 and
over. That is six ELI units towards a goal of 178 ELI units in the Housing Element. The Veranda
project is wonderful but very, very limited in its impact. Instead of calling attention to this single
project, shouldn’t the city housing staff instead emphasize in their report that the inclusionary
ordinance is now more essential than ever because the city has had several rounds of Requests
for Proposals for its Affordable Housing Funds with no viable projects emerging except the
Veranda? Why wouldn’t the city staff also point out that the County Board of Supervisors has
prioritized the use of Measure A for housing the homeless, while projects that house ELI
households at risk of homelessness (which describes most of Cupertino’s ELI population) are not
even competitive for county Measure A funding?
3. The staff report on page 3 states that the city’s existing inclusionary housing ordinance is, in
fact, addressing the need for ELI housing because ELI households can apply for a unit affordable
5
to someone with very low income or low income. A very low-income unit is priced with rents
affordable to that higher income group—a studio unit set aside for a very low-income single
person household can charge rent of $1,045, which is more than the typical monthly SSI check a
person with disabilities received. ELI households can apply for the waitlist for very low income
units, but their application will not usually be accepted because, by definition, their income does
not meet the minimum qualifying income for those higher priced units, which, depending on the
developer, is typically twice or two and a half times or three times the rent. The staff’s
statement that ELI households can apply for units affordable to very low income households is
akin to Marie Antoinette telling the starving Parisians who were rioting over the cost of
bread—“Let them eat cake.” It’s difficult to understand why the city housing staff would make
a statement that is so patently misleading and so detrimental to the City Council’s
understanding of the plight of the city’s most vulnerable people.
4. The staff report at several points warns the City Council not to adopt an inclusionary ordinance
with some ELI units on the grounds that it might be treated as “confiscatory”, citing the 2015
case of California Building Industry Assocation and referring to AB 1505. The California Building
Industry Association case actually upheld a city of San Jose inclusionary ordinance, treating it as
a regulation of the owner’s use of the property and therefore subject to the deference accorded
to the city’s reasonable exercise of its police powers, and not an exaction. And AB 1505 adopted
in 2017 explicitly overturned the Palmer decision and allows city inclusionary ordinances to
create rental housing for moderate income, low income, very low income and extremely low
income households. A city like Cupertino that has failed to meet the RNHA goals set forth in its
Housing Element may be required to submit an economic feasibility report showing that the city
ordinance has not unduly constrained housing production, but HCD may only request this report
when the city adopts an ordinance in which more than 15% of the units are required to be
affordable to people below 80% of area median income. Cities like Cupertino which are lagging
far behind in meeting their RNHA goals can readily avoid HCD review of economic feasibility by
creating an ordinance that does not require more than 15% of the units be affordable to people
below 80% of area median income. There’s no issue of a “confiscatory” impact simply on the
basis that the ordinance would require some units that are affordable to people with
extremely low income people.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Very truly yours,
Janette E. Stokley
Executive Director
Email jan@housingchoices.org
From:Hal and Janet Van Zoeren
To:Darcy Paul; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Steven Scharf; Savita Vaidhyanathan
Cc:Jan Stokley
Subject:Inclusionary Housing Agenda Item 5-1-18
Date:Monday, April 30, 2018 6:54:25 PM
Attachments:Janet Van Zoeren letter to City Council 4.30.2018 Final.docx
Hal and Janet Van Zoeren <vanzoeren@gmail.com>
6:42 PM (4 minutes ago)
to me
Dear Mayor Paul and City Council members,
I have attached to this email a letter containing my comments regarding affordable housing in Cupertino for people who have
developmental disabilities and why it is essential that a percentage of ELI units be specified within the percent of affordable units
required of housing developments in this city. As near as I can tell, under the current requirements, no housing developer (with
the possible exception of Catholic Charities, an affordable housing developer) has included any ELI units in their project and there
is currently no way the city can require them to do so. Without specifically including ELI, there is no way Cupertino can expect to
produce them within otherwise market rate projects. There is also no way Cupertino will be able to put much of a dent into their
RHNA for this housing category, let alone meets the needs of people with developmental disabilities. Building such units using
monies from the BLM AHF may seem like a good alternative, but not when the lack of affordable land is measured into the
equation.
Thank you for studying this issue.
Total Control Panel Login
To: sscharf@cupertino.org
From: vanzoeren@gmail.com
Remove this sender from my allow list
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
April 30, 2018
Dear Mayor Paul and City Council members:
I. MY RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend that the City Council revise the existing inclusionary
housing (AKA BMR ordinance) to provide for the following:
1. Include Extremely Low Income people in the population that
will benefit from the ordinance.
2. Create a level playing field between the developer’s option to
participate in the inclusionary housing program and the option
to “fee out”.
3. Expressly allow developers to satisfy the inclusionary
ordinance with units set-aside for specific populations who
need help applying for and retaining housing (such as people
with developmental disabilities), provided the income
requirements of the ordinance are met.
II. MY REASONS
In the spirit of the pride that Cupertino has for its diversity, this
community’s General Plan states within its introduction
“The long term vitality of Cupertino and the local economy depend upon the
availability of all types of housing to meet the community’s diverse housing needs.“
and further states “As Cupertino looks towards the future, increasing the range
and diversity of housing options will be integral to the City’s success. Consistent
with the goal of being a balanced community, this Housing Element continues the
City’s commitment to ensuring new opportunities for residential development……”
I commend the people of Cupertino for wanting a community that is
inclusive and balanced!
Over the past several months, I have been advocating for affordable housing in general
and, more specifically for creation of additional Extremely Low Income units, needed by an
overlooked special needs population that is and should be included in our community. These
are the people who have developmental disabilities.
Despite the desire of this community to include people with developmental disabilities,
within our city, Cupertino’s housing documents contain omissions, restrictions and language
that create obstacles preventing people with developmental disabilities from attaining
affordable housing in this city. Furthermore, the Cupertino Housing Documents need to
specifically require that a percentage of all rental housing units be set aside as extremely
low income housing.
These are some examples of the many obstacles that prevent people who have
developmental disabilities from securing affordable housing in Cupertino.
Obstacle #1:
Confusion and inconsistencies regarding terms used in Cupertino’s various housing
documents and what they mean when used here or there
Persons with disability
People with developmental disabilities
The disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities
Special Needs Groups
Etc.
It is important to be intentional about including people with developmental
disabilities-- otherwise they often get left out, for example:
In the General Plan section “SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS”, “the disabled”
is identified as one of the special needs groups. Are people with
developmental disabilities part of that special needs group?
In the “PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES” section of the General Plan
the description of persons with disabilities does not include the persons
with developmental disabilities.
Obstacle #2:
• Cupertino’s current Housing Element failed to take into consideration the
housing needs of its citizens who have Developmental Disabilities and as a
result, the unmet needs of this target service populationfor Extremely Low
Income housing are not identified and are excluded from the Cupertino
Housing Element. Their need for Extremely Low-Income Housing along with
that of other groups should have resulted in a specific % of ELI housing
being required of all rental housing developments where more than 7 units
of rental are housing planned for development.
Obstacle #3:
• The low mitigation rates required of developers in Cupertino’s Below Market
Rate (BMR) Housing Mitigation Manualgreatly favor the desires of
developers to increase their profits over the needs of low income people,
such as those with developmental disabilities who need extremely affordable
housing.
Due to unreasonably low required mitigation fees, increases to Cupertino’s
affordable housing are kept out of pace with Cupertino’s attempts to fulfill its
Regional Housing Needs Allocation for affordable housing.
Cases in point:
Developers of both the Hamptons and the Marina projectshad little
incentive to build the required 15% affordable units and instead pay
mitigation fees to reduce the number of affordable units they must
build:
♦ Hamptons… the project was approved to build 942 units including only
3.7% BMR units instead of the required 15% [34 rather than 141
BMR]
♦ Marina Plaza… the project was approved to build 188 units including
only 8.5% BMR units instead of the required 15% [16 rather than 28
BMR]
♦ Main Street Cupertino just built 120 apartments and none are
affordable. How many units of affordable housing did we fail to get
here? 24
The city cannot afford to pay to build those 193 units of BMR it
exchanged for mitigation fees because the low rate fees collected
create insufficient funds with which to do so!
Low mitigation fees act as a disincentive for producing affordable
housing for anyone, let alone for people with developmental disabilities.
I do not know what the current mitigation fee structure is for Cupertino,
but as recent as April 2015, Cupertino was charging only $3 per square
foot when most nearby cities were charging $17 per square foot.
Obstacle #4:
Housing Element and the BMR Ordinance of the Below Market Rate Manual Fail
to require housing developers to provide any Extremely-low-Income units!
ELI units are the only ones that many people with developmental
disabilities can even hope to afford! Without any ELI units available,
people with developmental disabilities are excluded from this community!
Reguired units within the required 15% affordable housing units
• Sixty percent (60%) very low-income and
• forty percent (40%) low-income
• ZERO percent (0%) Extremely low-income
Obstacle # 5:
Census data derived from 6 disability groups, not including persons with
developmental disabilities was used by the Nexus Study to assess the needs of
developmentally disabled persons. Nexus needs assessments are used following,
procedures in the Mitigation Program Procedural Manual, to determine which
affordable housing projects receive BMR AHF. The lack of appropriate data
for people with developmental disabilities could put this group at a disadvantage
when competing for BLM AHF funds.
The following obstacles relate to policies in Cupertino’s Policy and Procedures Manual for
Administering Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units
Obstacle #5: Solicitation of applicantsfor BMR rental units fails to include outreach to
potential applicants for Extremely Low Income rental units and/or of applicants who have
developmental disabilities.
Obstacle #6: Outreach for the BMR program although sensitive to the needs of our
multi-cultural society, lacks sensitivity toward connecting with the economically diverse or
ability challenged members of this community.
Obstacle #7: Residency in Cupertino at the time of application presents an obstacle to
those who grew up and/or lived in their parent’s home, but could not find affordable
and/or appropriate housing in Cupertino before needing to move into another community to
obtain an affordable and in some cases a more restrictive housing situation.As is the case
for Homeless applicants, and exception to this requirement may be appropriate for people
with developmental disabilities, especially considering that there have never been any
Extremely Low Income set-asides for people with developmental disabilities this city.
Obstacle #8: Income Minimum: Individual properties may have minimum income
requirements to qualify. These requirements, often based on 2 or 3 times the rent, make
it impossible for extremely low-income people to income-qualify for very low income rental
units. This shows we need Extremely Low Income units to be included in the ordinance—it
is not meaningful to say that extremely low income people can qualify for very low-income
units.
Obstacle #9: The Priority Points system used by the BMR Program discriminates
against people with developmental disabilities in many ways
One Point: Cupertino resident
Two Points: Work in Cupertino--many people who have developmental disabilities are
unable to work for wages
One Point: work for wages or salary for a public agency within the boundaries of
Cupertino. Here again, the chances of this are nil,
Although Cupertino pays lip service to the housing needs of people with disabilities,
including people who have developmental disabilities, in its affordable housing program,
inclusion has turned into exclusion of this special needs population due to weaknesses
in the General Plan, the Housing Element, the Residential Housing Mitigation Program,
the Below Market Rate Manual and the BMR Ordinance.
I am advocating for people who have developmental disabilities,loved and
respected members of our community who are the sons and daughters of our
friends, our relatives and our neighbors. If we strengthen Cupertino’s General
Plan and its Housing Element by using appropriate language, by specifying the
percent of Extremely Low Income housing units that must be included in all
housing projects and by requiring higher more appropriate mitigation fees
making those units will be more profitable, then builders will build such units,
paving the way toward inclusion rather than exclusion of these members of our
community.
I have attached some of the documents that I have referred to in this letter.
III. CONCLUSION
In considering the role that the inclusionary housing ordinance plays in the
future of Cupertino, please adopt the following recommendations to prevent
the exclusion of people with developmental disabilities from the benefits of
the ordinance:
1. Include Extremely Low-Income people in the income group served by
the inclusionary ordinance.
2. Reduce the incentive for developers to “fee out” of the ordinance—put
participation in the program on a level playing field with the option to
“fee out”.
3. Eliminate points that discriminate against people with developmental
disabilities who often are born with a disability that prevents them from
holding a unsheltered job.
4. Expressly allow developers who would like to create a set-aside of units
for people with developmental disabilities to do so, as long as the set-
aside satisfies the income requirements of the inclusionary ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
Janet Van Zoeren
1105 Milky Way, Cupertino, CA
Email vanzoeren@gmail.com
ATTACHMENT OF REFERENCE
MATERIALS
VALLCO Revised Guiding Principles 4/12/18
Provide housing choices for people of all incomes and abilities who live or work in Cupertino
CA DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITY
*WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE – WIC DIVISION 4.5. SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED [4500 - 4885] ( Division 4.5 added by Stats. 1977, Ch. 1252. )CHAPTER 1.6. General Provisions [4507 -
4519.8]( Chapter 1.6 heading added by Stats. 2014, Ch. 178, Sec. 4. )
“Developmental disability” means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years
of age; continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely; and constitutes a substantial
disability for that individual. As defined by the Director of Developmental Services, in
consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction, this term shall include intellectual
disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term shall also include disabling conditions
found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that
required for individuals with an intellectual disability, but shall not include other handicapping
conditions that are solely physical in nature.
** Notes pertaining to people with
Developmental Disabilities
They have a Developmental Disability*
Not a mental illness [unless they have also been diagnosed as such]
Not a physical disability [unless the person has a dual diagnosis]
The term disabled may include all disabilities, but more often than not in the
public’s mind, equates only to physically disabled. The term handicapped has
the same connotations and confusions.
Housing documents that refer to people with disabilities need to use
appropriate language and to do so with intention so as to avoid confusion that
might otherwise create insurmountable barriers against the very people they
are trying to serve
Having a developmental disability significantly
Impacts one’s income potential
Restrict one’s assets (because of certain social security regulations)
Impacts one’s life skills performances
Requires assistance from nearby support systems such as
Family
Independent Living Skills Instructors or Supported living Supports
Housing Choices Advisors
Etc.
***Data for that group was obtained from
ACS (the American Community Survey) which
collects data on only six disability types,
none of which include people with
developmental disabilities despite ACS’s
claim this data is used to review and analyze
the unmet needs of people with
developmentaldisabilities and to identify the
characteristics of this target service
population. They seem unaware that people who have developmental disabilities, are not
disabled because of a physical, mental or emotional condition. They are developmentally disabled
because of a condition that occurs during their development prior to adulthood (age 18).
Furthermore that condition which occurs before age 18 is not a physical or an emotional condition
and whether or not it is a mental condition depends on how you define mental! (Google equates a
mental condition with a mental disorder which the Mayo Clinic defines as a wide range of conditions
that affect mood, thinking, and behavior such as clinical depression, anxiety disorder and bipolar
disorder.)
``````````````````````````````````````````
HOUSING ELEMENT
PROGRESS TOWARD THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION The City of Cupertino may count
housing units constructed, approved, or proposed since January 1, 2014 toward satisfying its RHNA goals
for this planning period. Between January 1 and May 31, 2014, building permits for 14 single-family
housing units and three second units were approved in Cupertino. In addition, six single-family homes
and seven apartments received Planning approvals. Also included in the RHNA credits are 32 second
units projected to be developed within the planning period. This projection is based on historical
approvals of second units during the past Housing Element planning period. With these credits, the City
has a remaining RHNA of 1,002 units: 356 extremely low/ very low-income units, 207 low-income units,
196 moderate-income units, and 243 above moderate-income units.
Table HE-4: RHNA, Cupertino,
2014-2022 Income Category Projected Need Percent of Total
Extremely Low/Very Low (0-50% of AMI) 356 33.5% 356
Low (51-80% of AMI) 207 19.5% 207
Moderate (81-120% of AMI) 231 21.7% 196
Above Moderate (over 120% AMI) 270 25.4% 243
Total Units 1,064 100.0% 1002
`````````````````````````````````````````
HOUSING PLAN This section presents the quantified objectives for new housing unit construction,
conservation, and rehabilitation during the 2014-2022 projections period, as well as the policies and
strategies to meet these objectives and address local housing needs. Policies and strategies are grouped
into the following goals:
• Goal HE-1: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for all Economic Segments
• Goal HE-2: Housing that is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households
• Goal HE-3: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods
• Goal HE-4: Energy and Water Conservation
• Goal HE-5: Services for Extremely Low-Income Households and Special Needs Neighborhoods
• Goal HE-6: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities
• Goal HE-7: Coordination with Regional Organizations and Local School Districts
This section also identifies the responsible party and timeline for each implementation strategy
Table HE-3: Special Needs Groups in Cupertino
Special Needs Group Person or Household Renter Owner
Percent of Total Senior-Headed Households 3,983 785 (19.7%) 3,198 (80.3%) 19.7%
Households with a Senior Member 5,069 n/an/a 25.1%
Seniors Living Alone 1,612 516 (32.0%) 1,096 (68.0%) 8.0%
Large Households 1,883 619 (32.9%) 1,264 (67.1%) 9.3%
Single-Parent Households 883 n/an/a 4.4%
Female Single-Parent Households 667 n/an/a 6.9%
Persons with Disabilities (a) 3,445 n/an/a 5.9%
Agricultural Workers (b) 36 n/an/a
Notes: (a) 2010 Census data not available for persons with disabilities. Estimate is from the 2008-2012
ACS. Estimate is for persons 5 years of age and older. (b) 2010 Census data not available. Estimate is
from the 2007-2011 ACS. (c) 2010 Census data not available. Estimate is from 2013 Santa Clara County
Homeless Point-In-Time Census and Survey Comprehensive Report. Of the 112 homeless persons
counted in Cupertino in 2013, 92 persons were unsheltered and 20 were sheltered. Sources: Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Housing Element Data Profiles, December 2013; U.S. Census,
American Community Survey (ACS), 2008-2012; 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Point-In-Time Census
and Survey Comprehensive Report
`````````````````````````````````````````````````
• Priority. To the extent permitted by law, priority for occupancy is given to Cupertino residents,
Cupertino full-time employees and Cupertino public service employees as defined in Cupertino’s
Residential Housing Mitigation Manual.What law???
General Plan (HE-2.3.3: Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF).
The City will target a portion of the BMR AHF to benefit extremely lowincome households and persons
with special needs (such as the elderly, victims of domestic violence, and the disabled, including persons
with developmental disabilities), to the extent that these target populations are found to be consistent
with the needs identified in the nexus study the City prepares to identify the connection, or “nexus”
between new developments and the need for affordable housing. To ensure the mitigation fees
continue to be adequate to mitigate the impacts of new development on affordable housing needs, the
City will update its Nexus Study for the Housing Mitigation Plan by the end of 2015.
This updated Housing Element focuses on housing needs from January 31, 2015 through January 31,
2023, in accordance with the housing element planning period for San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions
established by State law.
From:Connie (Comcast)
To:Darcy Paul; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Steven Scharf; Savita Vaidhyanathan
Cc:City.Manager
Subject:BMR Study Discussion, May 1
Date:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 2:47:50 PM
To: Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Councilmembers and City Manager:
I am Connie Cunningham , 31 year resident of Cupertino, 1 mile south of De Anza College.
I want to thank the City Council for studying the BMR Housing issue.
I specially want to direct your attention to two things.
1) only recently, during the Vallco ‘Charette’ process did I learn that our Municipal Code and
our General Plan were not in agreement, and that, somehow, that meant the City couldn’t
require more than 15% BMR. Also, more of a problem, could require neither moderate-
income nor extremely-low income housing.
2) When I first read , last year, the Municipal Code, I thought that it and the General Plan
sounded inclusionary and supportive of all Cupertino residents, of all income levels and
abilities. however, After reading more about the struggle to get housing for ‘developmentally
disabled persons’ I realized that wording in our General Plan, and our Municipal Code plus
more requirements in our City ordinances, are so detailed, or paradoxically, not detailed
enough, that they can lead to misinterpretation, and wrong decisions about land use.
In effect, our City has not built nearly enough of any needed affordable housing. To go farther,
it has built practically none for Extremely Low Income, Developmentally Disabled’ residents.
This is not the intention of Cupertino residents.
Thank you for studying this issue.
From Connie's iPhone
Total Control Panel Login
To: sscharf@cupertino.org
From: swim5am@comcast.net
Remove this sender from my allow list
You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.
From:Morton Malkofsky
To:Darcy Paul; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Steven Scharf; Savita Vaidhyanathan
Cc:lrngltr@aol.com
Subject:Affordable housing for people with disabilities
Date:Monday, April 30, 2018 7:12:24 PM
May 1, 2018
Cupertino City Council
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3203
Dear City Council Members,
We are the parents of a 51 year old daughter with developmental
disabilities. Jane has lived at San Antonio Place in Mountain View since
2006 in one of the 15 studio apartments (out of 118 studios) that
Housing Choices Coalition secured for low income people with
developmental disabilities. Jane has made close friends with two
people who live in the same type of studios across the hall from her.
They watch sports on television together frequently, eat at one another’s
apartment sometimes, and have a community they enjoy. The building
is immaculately maintained and has someone at the front desk 24 hours
a day and is a secure building.
Jane works as a receptionist at the HOPE offices three days a week.
She loves her job, her supervisors and her co-workers. Two days a
week Jane, who is also a HOPE client, attends classes and explores the
community with other clients who she considers friends no matter the
severity of their physical or developmental disabilities. HOPE is a place
she feels happy and “at home”.
But if you ask Jane what is best about her life she’ll tell you having her
own apartment. It has given a significant boost to her self esteem and a
sense of power over her life.
Jane is a happy, productive individual. We believe, with all our hearts,
that if Jane remained living at home with us , while her two sisters
moved out to live on their own, she would never have become the
person she is today.
We are now in our eighties and live in a senior community on Torre
Avenue in Cupertino. Our apartment is 800 square feet and meets our
needs as we are aging. This is certainly not a place for Jane. But
knowing that Jane is living in affordable housing, where she is safe and
content, gives us immeasurable peace of mind because we know we
won’t be here forever to take care of her.
We know so many developmentally disabled people who are not as
fortunate as Jane. We hope that Jane’s story will inspire the City
Council
members to create as much affordable housing in Cupertino as you
possibly can.
Sincerely,
Marion and Morton Malkofsky
10150 Torre Avenue, Apt. 106
Cupertino, CA 95014
669-342-7401
Total Control Panel Login
To: sscharf@cupertino.org
From: lrngltr@aol.com
Message Score: 10 High (60): Pass
My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
Block this sender
Block aol.com
This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
May 1, 2018
Hon. Mayor Darcy and Cupertino City Council
1300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mayor Darcy, Vice Mayor Sinks, and Councilmembers Vaidhyanathan, Chang, and Scharf:
RE: City of Cupertino Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program Study Session
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Cupertino’s Below Market Rate Housing (BMR)
Program Study Session.
Greenbelt Alliance is the San Francisco Bay Area’s leading organization working to protect natural and
agricultural landscapes from sprawl development and help our cities and towns grow in smart ways to make the
region welcoming for everyone. We are the champions of the places that make the Bay Area special, with more
than 10,000 supporters and a 60-year history of local and regional successes.
We strongly support your decision to reexamine the Below Market Rate (BMR) ordinance to help address the Bay
Area’s housing affordability challenges, and we appreciate that you have opened the process for community
feedback. Providing more homes that are affordable for residents across the income spectrum will have a broad
array of benefits for our community. By allowing more people to live close to where they work, we can reduce
commutes and greenhouse gas emissions, and help alleviate economic and financial strain on our neighbors and
workforce. A closer proximity of homes and employment centers also relieves development pressure on our
farms, forests, and watershed lands at the edge of our region.
As you proceed through the adjustment of the BMR program, we urge you to consider the following
recommendations:
We support Cupertino’s proposal to establish a BMR ordinance with 15% of new rental and ownership
residential units dedicated as affordable with a suite of compliance methods and options. We recommend that
this policy be refined to require that affordable units provided on-site have rents established at no more than 80%
of the area median income (AMI) on average and ownership units are restricted to no more than 120% AMI on
average.
The city should also explore other methods to expand affordable housing options. For example, it should include
robust housing options for residents across the income spectrum at major opportunity sites such as the Vallco
Mall and through dispersed strategies such as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
Page 2 of 2
We appreciate that the City of Cupertino is taking these important steps to address housing affordability and
encourage smart development patterns. We look forward to working with you during this process to make our
community an even better place to live.
Sincerely,
Kiyomi Honda Yamamoto
Regional Representative, South Bay
Greenbelt Alliance
(408) 983-0856