Desk Items 08-13-20191 ` 1 _
I w I 1
r
S
i`'i la flllil-L1
From: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Seat: Monday, August 12, 2019 8:40 AM
To: Abby Ayende; Benjamin Fu; Bonnie Yee. Cheung; Ellen Yau; Erick Serrano; Erika Poveda;
Gian Martire; Jeff Tsumura; Kerri Heusler; Krista Yost; Piu Ghosh
Subject: FW: Resident feedback on July 30th, 2019 Planning Commission meeting
From the Planning General Mailbox
From: Luke Lang <lukelang@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 4:25 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>
)Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>; City
Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>
Subject: Resident feedback on July 30th, 2019 Planning Commission meeting
To Cupertino Planning Commission,
I'm deeply disappointed with the following items in the July 30th, 2019 Planning Commission meeting.
1) Commissioner Fung said that "South Vallco" has been zoned for office and residential since
2005. This is a topic that Commissioner Fung and I had numerous discussion on NextDoor over the
past ferny years. "South Vallco" includes Main Street, Nineteen800 and nearby offices, as`well as the
Vallco Mall. It's totally inappropriate to mention "South Vallco" when the topic. of discussion is only
about the Vallco Mall.
encourage the Planning Commission as well as the City Staff to review the 2008 South Vallco
Master Plan: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showd-ocument?id=1975 Figure 1.2 clearly labels the
Vallco Mall as "REGIONAL SHOPPING MALL" and is colored red. Figure 1.10 shows the same for
"Future Land Uses."
I hope Commissioner Fung would stop making these misleading claims.
2) Commissioner Takahashi raised the concern of having a Vallco plan that pencils out for the
developer. In a previous City Council meeting, Councilman Willey pointed out tat.there are currently
two residential developments in progress on Lawrence Expwy. I think it's reasonable to assume that
these two residential developments pencil out for their developers without office space. If
Commission Takahashi missed Councilman Willey`s comment, I'm sure Commissioner Takahashi is
1
aware of the Westport plan for the Oaks Shopping Center. It is also a residential development
without office space.
These are three examples of residential developments penciling out within a few miles of
Vallco. Please don't ignore facts and real data.
Thanks,
Luke Lang
Cupertino resident
Might be written communications for the PC meeting.
From: Frank Geefay <fgeefay@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 6:19 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <PlanningCommission@cupertino.org>
Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; City Council
<CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao<LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Rod
Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org>
Subject: Planning Commission: Agenda item #3
Dear Chairperson Wang and Planning Commissioners,
It appears that you are considering including the housing impacts fees for new development. May I suggest that such
impacts fees be reduced to 10% for everything except for offices. Office space housing inpact fees should be increased
to 20% to help pay for more housing to offset adding new employees.
May I also suggest that impact fees in general be decreased for all but office space which should be proportionately
increased.
Sincerely,
Frank Geefay,
Cupertino resident
1
" -A. -3 ok3lIq
Abby Avende .
From: Lauren Sapudar fc
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:43 AM
To: Benjamin Fu
Cc: Abby Ayende; Beth Ebben
Subject: FW: written communication, Planning Commission, 8/13/2019, Agenda Item 3: BMR
linkage fees (office/research & development/Industrial)
Lauren Sapudar
Executive Assistant to City Manager & City Council
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
PERTI, 9
From: Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 11:52 AM
To: R Wang <RWang@cupertino.org>; Vikram Saxena <VSaxena@cupertino.org>; David Fung <DFung@cupertino.org>;
Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Alan Takahashi <ATakahashi@cupertino.org>
Cc: Kerri Heusler <KerriH@cupertino.org>; Nina Daruwalla <NDaruwaIla@cupertino.org>; Sue Bose
<sbose@cupertino.org>; Connie Cunningham <CCunningham@cupertino.org>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>;
Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Jon
Robert Willey<JWileey@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: written communication, Planning Commission, 8/13/2019, Agenda Item 3: BMR linkage fees (office/research &
development/Industrial)
Dear Planning Commission Chair Wang, Vice Chair Saxena, and Commissioners Fung, Moore, and
Takahashi:
Please include my comments as part of the public record for 8/13/2019 Planning Commission
meeting, Agenda Item 3, "Below Market Rate Residential Housing and Commercial Mitigation Fees
Update".
Refer to the previous messages in this thread for background information and context for my
comments offered here.
In April 2015, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc (KMA). prepared the Non -Residential Jobs -Housing
Nexus Analysis for the City of Cupertino. In the report, KMA identified the following maximum impact
fees (linkage fees) for non-residential building types:
Office/Research & Develop ment/Industria1, $129.05 per square foot
Hotel, $49.15,per square foot
Retail, $222.32 per square foot
(2015 KMA report, Exhibit 6: Maximum Fee Per Square Foot of Building Area)
1
Path to the 2016 KMA report and public comment offered in advance of the 5/5/2015 Council
meeting:
cupertino.orq> "Records" > "Digital Archive" > "City Council" > "City Council Agenda Packets" >
"2015 CC Packets" > "05-05-2015" > "05-05-2015 Regular Meeting Searchable Packet
Relevant content: PDF pp 236 to 292, public comments PDF pp 293 to 395.
City of Cupertino, CA Home
31 Y(+1�. €1'. i � JG€ ?:. i[ 'i iiiii;':."iiici [G•''i
.w;.a�: •. €1t5; %Jtt5inc5st:.5, 3...t3i'...
As residents have asserted through multiple actions that they do not.support unbridled office
development that increases demand for housing, infrastructure, transportation services, and natural
resources that do not exist and are not planned, I request that the Planning Commission approve
Office/Research & Development/industrial linkage fees for BMR housing that are aligned with
or approaching the legal maximum of $129.05.
Actions by residents that assert their opposition to unsupported office development!
® oral and written communication opposing office land use entitlements proposed and gifted to a
property owner in the December 2014 General Plan amendment
® defeat of the 2016 Measure D office complex development
® elections in 2016 and 2018 of residentialist Council Members
® signatures collected from 1,200 area residents in favor of a "community -friendly Vallco" that
-includes the removal of commercial office allocations (except office uses for personal, medical,
dental, optometry services granted under retail use in the Cupertino Municipal Code). Link to
the petition results: Neighbors' Concerns and an Alternative Vision for Vallco
( y CJ :.i}4_iic t CS:�.1] _:} .i4 ri �1. L.:.}
7
® successful referendum to repeal the 2018 Vallco Town Center Specific Plan office complex
project approval
® support for 2019 rezoning of the Vallco Shopping District site to remove the office allocation
that expired on 5/31/2018 and reassert maximum building densities (height, setback, building
plane) that are suburban in scale..
While it can be argued that many office jobs created in Cupertino will pay above median wages, if we
are not increasing our housing supply and infrastructure to accommodate the new workers, the
demand the new workers would place on existing nearby housing supply would further increase rents
and home prices, squeezing out existing residents who have lower income or insufficient wealth to
keep pace with housing inflation and associated infrastructure improvement costs.
As residents are generally supportive of hotel development and will benefit if market conditions are
made more favorable for retain and service providers within the City limits, I support the 2019 linkage
fee updates for hotel and retail construction as approved by the Housing Commission (or lower fees
for hotel and retail at the discretion of commissioners).
The Haas Institute offers a concise overview of the role and limitations of affordable housing
linkage fees here:
Affordable Housing_ Linkage Fees I Haas Institute
Affordable Housing Linkage Fees I Haas Institute
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
representing myself only
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Kerri Heusler <KerriH cupertino.orq>
To: Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com>
Cc: Nina Daruwalla <NDaruwalla@cupertino.org>
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019, 8:54:21 AM PDT
Subject: RE: written communication, Housing Commission, 7/25/2019, Agenda Item 2: request for source documentation
for linkage fee legal maximums (office, hotel, retail)
Hi Liana,
I have looked into this for you and provided my answers below in blue.
Thank you,
3
Kerri
From: Liana Crabtree[maiIto: IianacrabtreeCa7yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 8:08 PIUI
To: Kerri Heusler <KerriH cupertino.orq>
Cc: Nina Daruv+ alla<NDaruwalla@cupertino.orq>
Subject: Re: written communication, Housing Commission, 7/25/2019, Agenda item 2: request for source
documentation for linkage fee legal maximums (office, hotel,. retail)
Hi Kerri,
Thank you for taking the time to research my questions related to non-residential construction linkage fees in support.of
BMR housing. Thank you also for confirming the date when the Planning Commission will consider the BMR housing
linkage fees for residential and non-residential construction (8/13/2019).
I have a couple of follow-up questions and comments:
(1) Question: Probably i misunderstood, but I thought the attorney from Goldfarb & Lipman who spoke during the 7/25/2019
housing commission meeting said that the City is vulnerable to litigation in the event that it, assigns commercial
officelhotel/retail linkage fees that EXCEED the stated maximums ($1291$49/$222), which is why the fees were identified
as ,maximums"., If assigning a linkage fee that less than the stated maximum is considered grounds for a "takings" claim by
the property owner, then what is reason to identify any linkage fee "maximums" at all? What do the "maximums" signify? The
2015 Nexus Study establishes the legal maximum for impact fees that may be imposed on commercial projects. It also
analyzed the "affordability gap" that creates increased demand for affordable housing when market rate housing is
developed. The Economic Feasibility Analysis provides a more current analysis of what increased affordability requirements
and impact fees maybe feasible in connection with future development in Cupertino by analyzing the economic effects of
various affordability requirements on future projects. By analyzing the costs of development (such as land acquisition, soft
costs, construction costs, and City requirements) in comparison to projected revenues, the Economic Feasibility Analysis
evaluates whether the expected returns would be enough to support development in the City if affordability requirements
were increased.
4
(2) Question: When you reference "the nexus study" as the source for data identifying maximum linkage fees, are you
referring to the "Non-residential Jobs -Housing Nexus Analysis" report by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA report) dated
April 2015 and presented to Council on 5/5/2015? The 2015 Nexus Study is located here: https://www.cupertino.org/our-
city/departments/community-development/housing/housing-documents.
(3) Comment: The KMA report is included in the searchable packet for the 5/5/2019 Council meeting as PDF pp 236 to
292, public comments PDF pp 293 to 395. 1 note the following quotes and observations from the report and public
comments:
(a) "The purpose of a Non -Residential Jobs -Housing Nexus Analysis is to quantify and
document
the impact of the construction of new workplace buildings (office, retail, hotel, R&D and
industrial) and the employees that work in them, on the demand for affordable housing.
Since
job's in all buildings cover a range in compensation levels, and the households of the
workers
range in size, there are needs at all affordability levels. This analysis quantifies the need
for
moderate and lower income housing created by each type of workplace building." PDF p
238
(b) "The analyses in this report have been prepared using the best and most recent data
available.
Local and current data was used whenever possible. Sources such as the American
Community
Survey of the U.S. Census, the 2010 Census, and California Employment Department
(EDD)
data were used extensively. Other sources and analyses when used are noted in the text
and
footnotes. While we believe all sources utilized are sufficiently accurate for the purposes
of the
analyses, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. KMA assumes no liability for information
from
these and other sources." PDF p 239
(c) "The first jobs -housing linkage fee programs were adopted by the cities of San
Francisco and
Boston in the mid-1980s. To support the fees, the City of San Francisco commissioned
an early
version of a nexus analysis.
In 1987, the California legislature enacted AB 1600, the Mitigation Fee Act, which
requires local
agencies proposing an impact fee on a development project to identify the purpose of the
fee,
5
the use of the fee, and to determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the
fee's
use and the development project on which the fee is imposed. The local agency must
also
demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee amount and the cost
of
mitigating the problem that the fee addresses. Studies by local governments designed to
fulfill
the requirements of AB 1600 are often referred to as AB 1600 or "nexus" studies. While
commercial linkage fees for affordable housing are not clearly "fees" as defined by the
Mitigation
Fee Act, the methodology specified by the Act is appropriate for any nexus study.
e Gup'ertino'' were' upheld m Commercial Builders of
I Y V I t l i \+ 1 �. :..
Calif v Cty of Sacramento Commercialu►Iders �n Sacramento sued thity
of a tousirg Imicage fee;; Both the U.S District Court and the Ninfih Circuit
of Appeals upheld the Olty`of Sacramento and, rejected the builders' pefition " PDF p 240
(d) The KMA report cites an office employment density value of 300 square feet per
employee. Even in 2015, residents who offered public comments flagged this Value as
conservative to the point of inflated. For new and renovated office development today,
150 to 200 square feet per employee is likely a more accurate employee/area ratio.
References:
7 Million Square Feet of Office Coming to Downtown San Jose" by George Avalos,
6/14/2019, Mercury News. 'The addition of 7 million square feet would be enough room
for potentially 40,000 workers, or even more — which would roughly equal the population
of Campbell or Danville.' (7,000,000 square feet / 40,000 workers = 175 square feet of
office space per employee), Link: https://www mercurynews.com/2019/06/14/7-million-
square-feet-of-downtown-san-lose-office-space-mayor/
"Million Square Foot Office Coming Next Year Near San Jose's Google Village Site" by
George Avalos, 7/8/2018, East Bay Times. 'City officials have green -lighted the
construction of a million -square -foot office complex that could accommodate 5,000 .
workers in sleek, new buildings rising near Google's planned downtown transit village.'
(1,000,000 square feet / 5,000 workers = 200 square feet of office space per employee),
Link: https://www eastbaytimes com/2018/07/09/million=square-foot-office-complex-
sprout downtown-san-lose-google-viIIage-site-apple-facebook-amazon-adobe/
(4) Comment: During the 7/25/2019 housing commission meeting, at least one
commissioner expressed an interest in keeping office linkage fees low because they want
to encourage the development of medical offices in the City. However, medical,
optometry, and dental offices are generally covered under Commercial General zoning
(retail use), not office use. As such, increasing the office/research &
development/industrial linkage fees should have no effect on whether
medical/optometry/dental providers locate in Cupertino. Cupertino Municipal Code,
Chapter 19.60, General Commercial (CG) Zones
It seems today we have an acute disconnect between the land value ascribed to commercial office use and the societal
costs (infrastructure, housing, community services, public parkland, and open space) associated with commercial office
development. By its purpose statement, the KMA report identifies the nexus report analysis
exists to quantify and document the impact of the construction of new workplace buildings (office/R&D/industrial, hotel,
retail) and the employees that work in them, on the demand for affordable housing".
While the KMA report is careful to state that "Nexus findings (for Maximum Fee Per Square Foot of Building Area) are not
recommended fee levels," if excessive development of office is a root cause of the affordable housing shortage,
then it seems it is incumbent upon responsible cities with significantly more jobs than can be supported by
available housing to (a) discourage office development on parcels with mixed use land designations; and (b)
assign maximum allowable linkage fees to all parcels with office use (including mixed use/office) to ensure that if
new office inventory is added, that the societal costs borne by those new offices are assigned to the property
owner to the maximum extent permissible by law:.
Regarding hotel and retail linkage fees, if the resident community wants to encourage hotel and/or retail development,
then the fees recommended by the housing commission and/or included in the "Economic Feasibility Analysis: Cupertino
Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program" report by Strategic Economics and shared during the 7/25/2019 BMR
linkage fees study session: $'12-$15 per square foot (or less) for hotel development; $0 per square foot for retail
development.
Thank you again,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
representing myself only
Path to the 5/16/2019 City Council Meeting Searchable Agenda Packet containing the"Non-residential Jobs -
Housing Nexus Analysis" report by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA report) dated April 2015:
City of Cupertino, CA I Home
tJ? C:i i city of ...0 1•_ri- o Wel site. H r> VOU .Jill find f71 V,Ji'!
u� : f"'( J . Si`entS, bu51f;
cupertino.orp "Records" > "Digital Archive" > "City Council" > "City Council Agenda Packets" > "2015 CC
Packets" > "05-05-2015" > "05-05-2015 Regular Meeting Searchable Packet"
Relevant content: PDF pp 236 to 292, public comments PDF pp 293 to 395.
7
Relevant content: PDF pp 236 to 292, public comments PDF pp 293 to 395.
on Friday, August 2, 2019, 6:06:36 AM PDT,' Kerri Heusler <KerriKCDcupertino.org> wrote:
Hi Liana
Thank you for your patience as I looked into this for you.
There is no obligation to charge the maximum fee. The nexus study sets a legal maximum fee, but the amount
that is implemented is up to the local jurisdiction (cities and counties). In most cases; cities and counties do not
charge the maximum fee' due to feasibility issues. The commercial linkage fee revenues that are collected are
combined with other housing funds (local, state, federal, and tax credits, for example) to build affordable
housing units.
If there isn't an adequate nexus, commercial. linkage fees can be challenged as invalid on their face by an,
interested party (developer) that uses the City after adoption of the fee. There is also a risk that a few would be
challenged as a taking as applied to a particular project. In either case, the City runs the risk of returning the
improper fees plus interest and paying attorney's fees.for the successful plaintiff. In addition, the affordability
gap (difference between the cost of building a unit and the amount that a lower income household can afford)
is higher now than it was in 2015. Therefore, the maximum nonresidential linkage fees would likely be higher in
20�19. However, since'the City is not able to charge the 2015 max fees due to infeasibility; it is not necessary to
revisit the nexus study to establish higher max fees.
This item is going to Planning Commission on 8/13/19 and the packet will be published next week, Thursday I
believe. Let me know if l can help with anything else. Have a nice weekend.
Thank you,
Kerri
!Kerri
Housing Division
Housing Manager
CUPERT NO
From: Liana Crabtree(mailto:lianacrabtreeQvahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 12:12 PM.
To: Kerri Heusler <KerriH cup.ertino.om>
Subject: Re: written communication, Housing Commission, 7/25/2019, Agenda Item 2: request for source
documentation for linkage fee legal maximums (office, hotel, retail)
Thank you, Kerri. I appreciate your mid -research update. I see the non -housing linkage fee maximums included on PDF
pp 5, 27, and 28 of the 5/5/2015 report. The maximum non-residential linkage fees are labeled "Nexus Analysis Max
Fees" and "Maximum Supported Impact Fees Per Sq Ft of Building Area".
I understand that if linkage fees are set too high, the fee can be cited as an unauthorized "taking" of the property owner's
right to profit from the land uses ascribed to its real estate investment. So, lam wondering; what entity or agency is
accountable to the maximum fee values ($929.051$49.95/$222.32) (?). And, when or under what conditions are the
maximum fee values changed? Business conditions have changed in the past 4 years; when should we expect "
updates to the maximum fee values for non-residential linkage fees?
Again, thanks very much. I appreciate all your efforts to create and maintain affordable housing in Cupertino.
I Liana
On Monday, July 29, 2019, 11:17:03 AM PDT, Kerri Heusler <KerriH(o.cupertino.org> wrote:
I Hi Liana,
I 9
I am still working on your information. In the meantime, I wanted to send the attached presentation from the
5/5/15 CC meeting. I believe this is what you are looking for.
From: Liana CrabtreeLmailto:lianacrabtreeCa-byahoo.comj
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2019 8:23.AM
To: Kerri Heusler <KerriH .cupertino.orq>
Subject: Re: written communication, Housing Commission, 7/25/2019, Agenda Item 2: request for source
documentationfor linkage fee legal maximums (office, hotel, retail)
Hi Kerri,
Thank you very much. I expect Planning Commissioners and Council Members will be interested in the information I have
requested, so while the research may take some time, I expect your efforts will be appreciated.
Someone mentioned to me that the housing report. presented during the 5/5/2015 Council meeting includes a reference to
the $129 office linkage fee maximum. My search of that document was cursory and I didn't find the reference, but my
source is reliable. I also learned that when Palo Alto had a residentialist majority on its Council, the office linkage fee in
that City was $65 per square foot.
Thanks again and have a lovely weekend!
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
10
representing myself only
On Saturday, July 27, 2019, 8:05:04 AM PDT, Kerri Heusler <KerriHCDcupertino.org> wrote:
Hi Liana,
Thank you for reaching out. I have started looking into your questions and it is going to take a significant
amount of time to research and develop answers. I will wrap these questions into preparation for the 8/13
Planning Commission meeting and get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks again for attending Housing
Commission and participating in this big item. Have a nice weekend!
iKerri Heusler
Housing Manager
•Division
KerriH@cupertino.or�
•
�,:
t
.t a.
From: Liana Crabtree`[mailto:lianacrabtree(Zyahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 5:15 PM
To: Kerri Heusler <KerriH(a),cupertino.orq>
Cc: Nina Daruwalla <NDaruwalla(@cupertino.org>
Subject: written communication, Housing Commission, 7/25/2019, Agenda Item 2: request for source
documentation for linkage fee legal maximums (office, hotel, retail)
Hi Kerri,
11
Thank you for providing the informative staff report and presentation for the Below Market Rate (BMR) Linkage Fees
Update for the Cupertino BMR Housing Program during today's Housing Commission meeting.
During the meeting, consultants presented high-level findings from the report Economic Feasibility Analysis: Cupertino
Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program. Something mentioned during today's meeting --but that 1 could not find in the
report --was that linkage fees (impact fees) for commercial construction (office, hotel, retail) are subject to different
constraint maximums than linkage fees for residential construction (inclusionary housing percentage or "in lieu of
construction" fees).
While legal constraints mandate that residential linkage fees must protect a certain percentage of profitability for the
property owner (feasability) to ensure that unduly burdensome fees do not discourage residential construction,
preservation of a specific profit margin is not a requirement for commercial linkage fees.
Instead, maximum linkage fees are set (by whom or what entity?) for commercial construction by use type. During the
meeting, I understood the following fees were the current maximums for Cupertino, though I am concerned I recorded the
retail maximum wrong as it seems exceptionally high:
Office (likely office/research and development use), $129 per square foot
Hotel (likely upscale, select -service chains for business travelers), $49 per square foot
Retail (likely small, low -density retail center), $220 per square foot
Please correct any errors in the values I have recorded above.
Also, what is the source for the linkage fee maximums for commercial construction in Cupertino?
I note that on PDF p 42 of the Economic Feasibility Analysis states that office located in Cupertino and rented to Apple is
typically rented at a rate that is lower than the greater Santa Clara County office market rate:
"For office rents, Strategic Economics reviewed Cupertino's office market and the greater
Santa Clara County office market. The largest office development in Cupertino has been
the Apple Park project, which is a build -to -suit development specifically intended for
Apple. There has been minimal recent speculative office development in Cupertino
targeting other users. (Main Street was the only such project completed in the last five
years, and most of the space has also been leased to Apple.) Buildings that are leased
by Apple typically achieve rents of $4 per square foot per month (NNN), compared to
lease rates of $4.50-$5.00 per square foot for tech office buildings in neighboring West
San Jose and Sunnyvale (see Figure 33). This is due to the fact that landlords are willing
to accept a lower rent for a long-term lease with Apple, due to the low risk associated
with a major corporation. According to brokers and developers, there is potential to
achieve higher rents for buildings that attract other smaller tech office tenants. For the
purposes of this analysis, the rental rate assumption is $4.50 per square foot per month
12
(NNN). While this rental rate is higher than the current average office rent in Cupertino, it
is a reasonable estimate for a new, multi -tenant tech office building in the Silicon Valley."
I appreciate that all Housing Commissioners were well -prepared for today's discussion, asked excellent questions, and
gave thoughtful reasons for the guidance they offered to the Planning Commission and Council regarding BMR housing
linkage fees. I was a little bit surprised, however, that commissioners adhered so closely to the feasibility maximum
linkage fee of $30 per square foot for new office construction when the legal linkage fee ceiling is more than 4x that
amount. In a time when residents and would-be residents are frustrated to maintain or find housing in a city with more jobs
than housing units, it seems lucrative office development is its own reward. Increased linkage fees for commercial
construction that are more closely aligned to the legal maximum of $129 per square foot could be one opportunity to add
affordable housing ,for a few of the new workers drawn to Cupertino for employment.
Thank you again,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
representing myself only
13
Abby Avende
From: Grace Schmidt, MMC 1151l qt
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Abby Ayende
Subject: FW: Recommendations for Study Session Agenda Item 3 for 8/13/19 CPC Mtg
Additional probable written communications for tonight's PC meeting.
Grace Schmidt, MMC
City Clerk
City Manager's Office/City Clerk's Office
GraceS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3224
1P I
......... ..... .. .... . ... ...... . ....,...,_ ... ...... ...
From: James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 7:14 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission<PlanningCommission@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
<planning@cupertino,org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office
<manager@cupertino.org>; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Recommendations for Study Session Agenda Item 3 for 8/13/19 CPC Mtg
Dear Planning Commissioners, Planning Staff, City Council, City Manager, and City Attorneys,
Thank you for studying the BMR linkage and in -lieu fees, weighing the Pros and Cons of updating them, and making the
recommended changes to enable the construction of more (quantity) affordable housing in Cupertino. Here are my
recommendations and comments:
The Housing Commission made a number of Recommendations (unnumbered pages 9 - 10) that I consider mandatory
updates:
1) Prohibit in -lieu fees for any residential development project with seven or more units,
2) Allow some residential projects to be housing only ...,
3) Raise linkage fees to $30/sf for office,
4) Increase % BMR for single family residential prototype to 20% and to 30% for townhomes and condos.
The linkage fees, based on my analyses of the SB35 VTC project, are way low but it seems HUD and prior lawsuits are
keeping them way below what is required today to build affordable residential units here in high -cost Cupertino.
I'm pleased that you are meeting with our Sacramento lawmakers to inform them of the reality that CA cities are dealing
with re getting developers to pull permits and build affordable housing in 2019.
I'd like to highlight a historical truth that appears on un-numbered page 10 in the Staff Report:
"Most developments that include affordable units for extremely -low income (ELI) households (up to 30% AN) or for
people with disabilities require public subsidies to operate_ ".
1
Some residents are very vocal, credible, and passionate on this need. As Cupertino voters, my wife and I support a Bond
issue to buy land and build these ELI units for our residents with disabilities. I believe sufficient caring residents will do
likewise.
Thank you for considering my suggestions.
Jim Moore
Lindy Lane
********* Please make this part of the Public Record ********
K
Beth Ebbenv
From: James Moore <cinco777@icloud.com> 1 �� `q 1-1-96
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 7:14 PM 11
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Council;
Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Attorney's Office
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Recommendations for Study Session Agenda Item 3 for 8/13/19 CPC Mtg
Dear Planning Commissioners, Planning Staff, City Council, City Manager, and City Attorneys,
Thank you for studying the BMR linkage and in -lieu fees, weighing the Pros and Cons of updating them, and making
the recommended changes to enable the construction of more (quantity) affordable housing in Cupertino. Here are
my recommendations and comments:
The Housing Commission made a number of Recommendations (unnumbered pages 9 -10) that I consider
mandatory updates:
1) Prohibit in -lien fees for any residential development project with seven or more units,
2) Allow some residential projects to be housing only ...,
3) Raise linkage fees to $30/sf for office,
4) Increase % BMR for single family residential prototype to 20% and to 30% for townhomes and condos.
The linkage fees, based on my analyses of the S133S VTC project, are way low but it seems I -IUD and prior lawsuits
are keeping their way below what is required today to build affordable residential units here in high -cost
Cupertino.
I'm. pleased. that you are meeting with our Sacramento lawmakers to inform them of the reality that CA cities are
dealing with re getting developers to pull permits and build affordable housing in 201.9.
I'd like to highlight a historical truth that appears on un-numbered page 10 in the Staff Report:
"Most developments that include affordable units for extremely -low income (ELI) households (up to 30%AMI) or for
people with disabilities require public subsidies to operate. -
Some residents are very vocal, credible, and passionate on this need. As Cupertino voters, my wife and I support a
Bond issue to buy land and build these ELI units for our residents with disabilities. I believe sufficient caring
residents will do likewise.
Thank you for considering my suggestions.
Jim Moore
Lindy Lane
*********** Please make this part of the Public Record ********
R
From: rccw <rccw99@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2019 12:39 PM
Subject: Response/support to your letter
Hi,
I received your letter couple days ago with detail information about your plan.
Similar info was sent to us earlier by the City. I agree with all your points and
see no down side of your plan. I like to hereby offer full support to your
application.
I will not be able to attend the public hearing. Believe that City planning
commission will make a favorable decision toward your application. Best luck.
Roger Wang
11631, Upland Way
Cupertino, CA 95014
July 15th, 2019
21690 Rainbow Court
Cupertino Ca, 95014
To,
The planning commissioner
City Review board
Cupertino city hall
Cupertino Ca. 95014
Dear Sir/ Madam
We are residents of Cupertino since 1990. Currently we reside at 21690 Rainbow court, California. Since
1995.
We have met Michal Barniv and family and fully support house plans of the family in building on the
mentioned lot. We have absolutely no objection. We would like to see if that project can be permitted
without any delay.
i
j
If u wish to get in touch and talk to us, please do not hesitate to do so. We can pick a mutually
agreeable time slot in the future.
Thank you.
Prakash Bhalerao
PRAKASH BHALERAO
General Partners
Rainbow Enterprises LP
21690 Rainbow Court Cupertino CA 95014
T: +1408 343 1215 1 C: +1408 209 1900
Bhalerao Towers I Behind Pride Hotel
Shivaji Nagar I Pune I M. S. 1 411005
C: +91860 542 2200
Jim Cunningham
11838 Upland Way
Cupertino, CA 95014
August 13, 2019
Cupertino` Planning Commission
Re: 21650 Rainbow Ct.
Dear Cupertino Planning Commission:
I have been a resident of Upland Way since 1993. We bought a lot from our neighbor, hired an architect,
and built our house. We have lived there over twenty-five years.
We are aware of the proposed design and planned construction at 21650 Rainbow Court.
We support approval by the planning commission without delay and look forward to welcoming our new
neighbors.
Sincerely,
y
27CunninghamCU�ninoharn
3 h
From: B Lau 1131q
To: Gian Martire; R Wang; Vikram Saxena; Kitty Moore; Alan Takahashi; David Fung
Cc: Z BB
Subject: City Council Hearing for Zuri Barniv Residence I Hillside Exemption
®ate: Monday, August 12, 2019 9:36:51 PM
Hi All,
I received a hearing notice in the mail as well as a personal email from my future neighbor to
be (Zuri). Since I will not be able to attend in person, I would like to send my feedback ahead
of the hearing.
Mwife, Jean, and I support his plans to develop the property and seek a.hillside
exemption,
I live at 21600 Rainbow Drive and have been a Cupertino resident for over 40 years. I was
educated through the Cupertino school system (Regnart, Kennedy and Monta Vista). My
parents originally purchased the property in the late 80s and owned it for decades.
Thus, I am intimately familiar with the Rainbow Drive, Rainbow Court, and Upland Way
area. I am not a new Cupertino resident. I have the history and context of this local area as I
now live in my childhood home and live next door to my mother who lives in 21608 Rainbow
Drive after my father subdivided and developed another house in 2011-2013.
The Barniv property has been a blight to this neighborhood before Zuri and his family
purchased it. INfact, I was the one filing code enforcement cases through Cupertino 311 due
to graffiti on the existing concrete foundation. After several complaints and pictures from me,
Cupertino code enforcement worked with the previous owners to make sure the graffiti was
repainted.
Why graffiti?
Well, therein is a more fundamental problem with an undeveloped property. Local high
school kids (as well as those not from the area) have typically gone up to that property to drink
alcohol, smoke weedwhen it was illegal, and just enjoy the views. How do I know? I found
all the beer bottles and trash in our property including a sofa that some kids dragged up to
view the area.
I have spent a great deal of effort cleaning up our property, driving the kids away and posting
signs stating this is private property.
After speaking with Zuri, the real long-term solution is for someone.to.develop that
property which has been an eyesore for decades and live in it. That more than anything
will deter loitering and other public nuisance that would be deterred if there was a viable
residence with residents laving on the property.
I believe the Barniv's would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood based on my previous
interactions thus far. I also believe they have been thoughtful and considerate WRT the design
and approach for their residence, taking neighbor input into account.
If City Planning or the Council have any further questions or concerns, let me know as I have
a great deal of personal history and experience with the area that predates many of the
neighbors and residents in this area.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
Brion Lau
Cell: (408) 219-6415
�grrgn If collino
%VI(/) Ko( L G(vt,- Q, qo
1',7bo C? C 4ee rf('o 0 SlilC'e C%C� . �q��
A r3 (Ale ve
7"u�e- �vf oaf
&ecyl Va cad -
C) (X r OP
C.� i V-e 11MI'Sir Ace- v co
aq ors ice' -eve )
0 /(' C'Q- car's
(-Or
ea� �` � i��- �° �ea, w ; Y� 7� i S
�n%� too (o vt- lo
io vc
�cc, onnd
�� � �e �` � LDrS v /I �ierre . �e
" Co uf-q 0 CA- l�,v v s
�c� (( 'd lof