The Public Record — Joint Meeting for the Rules and Open Government Committee and Committee of the Whole, February 16, 2022

RULES COMMITTEE: 2/16/2022
Item: B.1
File ID: ROGC 22-067
TO: Honorable Mayor & FROM: Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Council City Clerk
SUBJECT: The Public Record DATE: February 16, 2022
February 3 – February 10, 2022

ITEMS FILED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Letters from Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Letters from the Public

1. Letter from David Tran, dated February 4, 2022, regarding: Re: Blair Beekman. Friday, February 4,, 2022.....Consent Calendar language.

2. Letter from Paul Soto, dated February 4, 2022, regarding: Public Record.

3. Letter from Paul Soto, dated February 4, 2022, regarding: Public Record.

4. Letter from Paul Soto, dated February 7, 2022, regarding: Public Record Housing in San Jose.

5. Letter from Paul Soto, dated February 7, 2022, regarding: Re: Measure A Final Report.pdf.

6. Letter from Martha O'Connell, dated February 7, 2022, regarding: Re: Measure A Final Report.pdf.

7. Letter from Kris Cameron and Michele Lew, dated February 9, 2022, regarding: Tamien Park.
____________________________
Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Clerk
TJT/tt
2/10/22, 9:58 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/4 [External Email]
Fw: Blair Beekman. Friday, February 4,, 2022.....Consent Calendar language.

City Clerk <[email protected]>
Fri 2/4/2022 11:27 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]>; Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Cc: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
From: Tran, David <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 11:09 AM
To: b. beekman <
Cc: Ramos, Christina M <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Blair Beekman. Friday, February 4,, 2022.....Consent Calendar language.

Hi Blair,
Thank you for your email. I have moved the balance of the email addresses into BCC and CC my chief of staff Christina Ramos.

Please be advised that by CCing the numerous council offices including the mayor’s office, you could possibly be placing our offices at risk of inadvertent Brown Act violations. We advise that you email the council offices separately on any policy matter to be safe. Appreciate your understanding and passionate civic engagement!
Thank you,
David Hai Tran | Policy & Legislative Director
Office of Councilmember Raul Peralez
City of San José | District 3
200 E. Santa Clara St. 18th Floor | San José, CA 95113
| [email protected] | www.sjd3.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 4, 2022, at 10:16 AM, b. beekman < wrote:

Dear David Tran, and other staff, of sj elected officials.

Public Record: 1
2/10/22, 9:58 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/4 Thank you David, for your most recent letter, writing to the City Clerks office, and for wanting to address, the future Consent Calendar language, in some way.

I feel, the new current Consent Calendar language, simply needs a few additional words, to make its language, more clear and instructive. To do this may very much help, has future public meeting efficiency. And as, the better democratic practices. of a community.

I feel, at consent calendar time, the day of a public meeting - it may still be the intention, of sj city govt, to continue to allow the public, to be able to ask, if a consent calendar item, can be pulled, and heard separately, if sponsored, agreed to, or asked for, by a councilperson.

But sj city govt. currently wants to hide this fact, and how to more formally continue, a way of working, that make a process, more clear, for the public, in new more streamlined procedures, for councilpersons. I ask we do not fear, the public, when we can invite, a better clarity, in trying to practice, new procedural ideas of the mayor and city attorney.

A few, additional, instructional words, offering how the public can ask, questions, at consent calendar time, still allows, sj city council, an important final word, in the public ask, to pull items, to be heard separately.

This works towards, more efficient, good practices, of open community democracy. And it can work, to respect, not only the new procedural ideas, of the mayor & city attorney, but continue to respect, previous consent calendar language, and its good intentions.

In sharing this letter with yourselves, at this time, I am hopeful, for some continual good thought and dialogue, over the next few weeks and months. As many simply feel shortchanged, by the current language. And in comparison. to all the important city charter study session work, this past fall, on public meeting openness, community accessibility and participation.

Councilperson Cohen, has offered, he has some understanding, of the history, of the former Consent Calendar language. I hope, he or his staff, can write back, to better explain this history, when possible.

Please look at, the language examples, at the bottom, of this letter. Please write back, or call, with a few simple words or ideas, when you can. I am interested, in the history, of the previous Consent Calendar language. Was it from the time of Occupy movement, ? Or is it older than that. As it ideas, obviously can be. 2/10/22, 9:58 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 3/4 sincerely,
blair beekman
Example, #1
The goal should be, how the public meeting process, can offer, clear, accessible, good guidelines & instructions, for everyone, to better understand. Note, both examples, in bold, below. Note, the important differences, and better clarity, with a few, additional, helpful words. Example #1, is the current language. '....Notice to the public: There will be no separate discussion, of Consent Calendar items, as they are considered to be routine, by the City Council, and will be adopted, by one motion. If a member of the City Council, requests discussion on a particular item, that item may be removed, from the Consent Calendar, and considered separately.'
Example #2,
I feel, a few additional words, can keep the same procedures, of what the mayor and city attorney, are currently trying to work towards. Yet help make more clear, a Consent Calendar language, that can be, more inclusive, participatory, instructive, and understandable, for everyone. Notice use of the word 'sponsor', as a good clarifying term, as well.
'.....If a person, of the City Council, city govt. staff, or public, requests discussion, on a particular item - if sponsored, and asked for, by a councilperson - that item may be removed, from the Consent Calendar, and considered separately.' Example #3,
This is a new one. i just worked it out today. It respects, Councilperson Cohens ideas & comments, from the RaOG meeting, Jan. 26, 2022. '.....it is preferable, city govt. the everyday public, consult with a councilperson, or city clerks office, before a public meeting, if they want particular item, or items, pulled from the consent calendar, for separate review, on the day, of a public meeting. ' However, at the time, of the city council public meeting, if a person, of the City Council, city govt. staff, or public, requests discussion, on a particular Consent Calendar item - if sponsored, or asked for, by a councilperson - that item may be removed, from the Consent Calendar, and considered separately.' 2/10/22, 9:58 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 4/4 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
- blair
2/10/22, 10:02 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/3 [External Email]
Fw: Public Record.

Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/7/2022 11:43 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 8:18 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Public Record.

From: Paul Soto <
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 4:47:53 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Record.

On Tue, Feb 1, 2022, 10:05 AM Paul Soto < wrote:

Secondly tell me how this has nothing to do with today... working with your district in crafting a racial equity policy that reflects your districts acceptance that Racist Governmental Policies created Willow Glen&Rose Garden concentrating wealth and consequently economic political power while at the same time creating and benefiting from the Inhumane deplorable marginalized second class neighborhood of Sal Si Puedes.The District you so proudly and vigorously serve was created by Redlined racist policy..created racist immigration policies stirring up fear that both over and under policed East San Jose.Exploited the Bodies of Mexicans to support the Primary Economic Foundation of ALL of San Joses Wealth and Power..Agriculture.

Again Congratulations.You again represent the District 6.The primary beneficiary of the Systematic Calculated Ruthless Inhumane Redlining policies..Racial Discrimination..Marginalization and Criminalization of Mexicans who worked the toiled the land.Endured the poisoning of their Children with pesticides leading to thousands of birth defects.Fought valiantly and Courageously as any other race and endured the greatest amount of casualties per capita on behalf of a country that treated Mexicans and their families like slaves beast of burden existing only to maintain the comforts and privileges of White Society.Mexicans were awarded The most "Medals of Congressional Honor"during WW2 with 38 medals.Yet were refused burial back hete in the states in certain cemetaries because they were Mexican.Even in death White contempt for Mexicans held power segregating cemetaries.We fought for Democracy and Freedom abroad Yet my Mother was shamed Public Record: 2
2/10/22, 10:02 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/3 and literally beaten physically as a matter of policy for exercising a right enshrined in the US CONSTITUTION and that her ancestors fought and died for in War...Freedom of Speech.

If ALL men are created EQUAL and possess inalienable rights such as Life..Liberty..Pursuit of Happiness???Then why were Mexicans so savagely and violently treated with contempt hatred and relegated to an impovershed existence??Taught to feel ashamed of Mexican Language as well as BEING Mexican???what kind of people treat other human beings like Whites in San Jose treated Mexicans??what churches do they worship God and righteously espouse the Virtues of a Jesus Christ who advocated on behalf and was crucified for promoting..

Food for the Hungry
Generosity to the Stranger
Water for the thirsty
Clothing for the naked
Attention to both the Orphans and Widows
Medicine to the sick
And to Love eachother as He Loved us
San Jose was filled with Protestant and Catholic Churches..Mormon Churches..What dissonance exist in a mind and soul that would not only treat Mexicans as sub human but create systems to profit from such ruthless indifference to human suffering yet think so piously and righteously of themselves.So much so that Whites actually felt a RIGHT to ALL the natural resources all the devices of civil administration with a 2fold purpose in mind

1.Maintain Power and Control of All resources necessary to the Comforts of Whites and future Generations

2.Continue the campaign of Racist Marginalization.Disenfrachisement.Suspicion.Controlling the educational system to limit the range of thought and ability to rightfully and accurately participate in a Democratic Society.We racism and sophistry chicanery willfully intended have infected our educational system so much so that it is only within the past 20 that revisions have been made to amend and rectify the lies and half truths that have been propagated and codified into law.Examples like Christopher Columbus having his own Holiday celebrating a man who sadistically enslaved peoples for profit and designating humans as property.A commodity to be bought and sold.

2.Junipero Sera who through the system of colonialism enslaved abused tortured psychologically oppressed the Native populations.Decimating them and enslaving them both psychologically as well as physically enhancing his power and influence with both the Vatican and with Spain and maintaining power via The California Missions which he is the Chief Architect of the Suffering and burdensome toil to build them.Stanford University recently removed the Name of this Tyrant from buildings at their Campus as they did not want to be associated in the promotion of a legacy that was predicated on the complete Decimation Extermination and Re Creation of Native History..Philosophy..Spirituality..Ethics..Medicine..Cultural Traditions..Mythologies..Yet Catholicism revers such a man Canonizing him to Sainthood.This Act further demonstrates the attempt to overlay and Sanitize the Viciousness..Cruelty..Inhumanity..of Junipero Sera.

In these 2 example I have highlighted how the Educational System in schools can be best Characterized that part of the Library that has "Story Telling Time" Text books are filled with lies conjecture half truths and omissions with 1 goal in mind....Keep the populations in Everlasting Ignorance.In so doing Manifest Destiny is maintained and the people are stripped of the most Fundamental Principle of Democracy...

A PROPERLY AND WELL INFORMED CITIZENRY.The fairy tales we are told are on par with the Easter bunny and Santa Claus.The lies demonstrate in themselves the power of the Truth.Truth is so powerful that it can confer upon the Individual as well as the Collective Our Humanity.Individuality..Legacy rooted in accurate appraisal of History.But most of all in Truth we find the most valuable of all Principles..Freedom
2/10/22, 10:02 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 3/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. .......Paul Soto...
2/10/22, 10:02 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Fw: Public Record
Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/7/2022 9:12 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 8:18 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Public Record
From: Paul Soto <
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 6:17:30 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Esparza, Maya <[email protected]>; Carrasco, Magdalena <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Jimenez, Sergio <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Knies, Scott < District8 <[email protected]>; Davis, Dev <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;
< < Ramon J
Martinez, Ph.D., Secretary La Raza Historical Society of Santa Clara Valley < Jesús L. Orosco < Wilcox, Leland <[email protected]>; Rios, Angel <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Record
Ignorance is great worst Enemy of the People.The California Textbooks must be Changed.Removal of the Statue was never about Fallon.It is and Always Has Been to Ammend the truth about the Tragedies Extermination and Enslavement of Natives All Across California.The pain experienced by My Community 35 yes ago was never ever directed at Fallon and to suggest otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of understanding or Appreciation of what has happened to Mexicans and Natives.

The San Jose City Council needed scholars professors to affirm for them what is embedded in Our Oral Documented Histories???Yet San Jose will Practice Ostentatious public displays of Humility before the Chinese??Both tragedies that befell both groups flow from the Same Source.The difference is that There is Documented Decapitations paid for by State of California at $5 per head (refer to San Jose Historical Context Document)and that the Mexicans/Natives are both Indigenous to California.Chinese were not at that time (1840-1882)
So Certain Members of Council would feel more compelled to apologize and acknowledge San Jose's conspiratorial motives to destroy Chinatown,Yet feel absolutely NO sense of humanity humility Public Record: 3
2/10/22, 10:02 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. desire need to Explicitly apologize to Mexicans who From That time forward were IMMIGRANTS in their Lwn Land.???
All of those Children placed in Cages were put there cause they are Immigrants.That Idea never existed here until WAR was Declared ..Yet Mexicans on this Council never once acknowledged That Historical Injustice ???The only reason why we have the Idea of a Mexican Immigrant is because of that Statue.

The Council Has an opportunity to do the Right Just Moral act and Vindicate the spirit that has haunted the Native and Mexican Since...Or Council can Choose to do nothing and let that Petty Condescending Odious Document stand.We All know now Chinese Come first when it comes to Atonement.Mexicans Chicanos Our City refuses to acknowledge REDLINING and all the Systematic wealth deprivation poor schools neglect Park deficits community centers San Jose took from us.Then blamed us for it.The schools humiliated violently attacked Mexicans for speaking Spanish .Ask Sophie Mendoza Ernestina Garcia Consuelo Rodriguez Raquel Silva Las Mujeres De Aztlan..Ask them they know because they Protected the Barrio and Children.

If The Mexican And Native Community can't rcv Justice Vindication and Public Apology on par with the Chinese,With this many Mexicans on the Council.???The Mexican will be banished to a perpetual Injustice and not know why.Political Expediency was more valuable and important then the Soul and Generational Trauma he experienced....Live with that San Jose.I have been since 1767 when My People were enslaved to build Mission San Diego.The Muewekma have their vindication and that is just.I just would have appreciated their support in ensuring that the document produced by the City Reflected The Mexican Chicano experience..I have been doing it on Muewekma behalf at Charter mtgs and Publically.

Hijo de Los Campesinos de Sal Si Puedes,
Paul Soto.
2/10/22, 10:03 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/3 [External Email]
Fw: Public Record Housing in San Jose
Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/7/2022 11:04 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> 1 attachments (512 KB)
Measure A Final Report.pdf;
From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 8:19 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Public Record Housing in San Jose
From: Paul Soto <
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 7:31:45 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Record Housing in San Jose
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Paul Soto <
Date: Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 3:05 AM
Subject: Measure A Final Report.pdf
To: SCCo. D5. supvJoseph Simitian < SCCo. D4. Supv. Susan Ellenberg < S.C.Co.D2. Brd.Supv- Cindy Chavez
< SC.Co.D1. Supv-Mike Wasserman.
< <
<[email protected]>, Taber, Toni <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, d5.sj. Magdelena Carrasco <[email protected]>, martha O'Connell < Maciel, Zulma <[email protected]>, d7.sj.

Maya Esparza <[email protected]>, d1.sj. Matt Mahan <[email protected]>, d9.sj. Pam Foley <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, d4.sj. David Cohen <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, d2.sj. Sergio Jimenez <[email protected]>, c.clerk.sj. RaOG Committee Public Record: 4
2/10/22, 10:03 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/3 <[email protected]>, < b. beekman
< < <
The Conclusion Page is a Mockery to any rational erudite mind that even remotely knows how to critically analyze Language,Measure A Intention ( which is paramount in this discussion)Let me go step by step.

1.Conspicuously ABSENT from this Report is map of completed units..Land or Hotels that are already bought and what stage of construction they are in??
What projected completion dates??

2.The VERY 1ST HOUSING PROJECT BUILT WITH MEASURE A FUNDS,( WHICH BY THE WAY WAS BUILT COMPLETED 2 YRS AGO) IS A 19 UNIT COMPLEX FOR SENIORS ....YOU READY FOR IT...IT WAS BUILT IN THE GHETTO AREA OF CUPERTINO!!!!@@@!!!
When the Voters were in the booth voting after listening to all the hype as well as Reading Supervisor Cortese report back in 2016( which I have and have used on many occasions as a reference due to its language of urgency accurate interpretation of Data)
The voter believed funding would go to the "Columbus Park" crowd.NOT 19 UNITS IN CUPERTINO?? ARE YOU SERIOUS.

3.ALL corruption flows from that decision.That salient fact disgusted me with the level of Chicanery,Duplicity,Rationalized Rhetoric that tries to cast doubt upon the reality of what I am looking at.

4.I literally Attend 35hrs plus of County S.J.COUNCIL mtgs ,Reimagine SJPD,I attend Jail Oversight Committee,Child abuse Committee,I do research I read ALL memos pertaining to 11 SJ COUNCIL members& 5 Supervisors,I study Redlining I memorized detail on Redlining Documents,So please don't insult me by lying to me.Lie to the public who doesn't know better.

Every person on this email knows 4bullets we're fired at me in attempt to kill me because of what I know and how vocal I am about Non Profit Corruption ( Working Partnerships,SVRISING,SOMOS,P.A.T.H...P.A.C.T...SV@HOME,SOUTH BAY LABOR COUNCIL) Councilwoman Rebeca Armendariz of Gilroy is the key that connects ALL these ORGS. To Google deal,Her paid work for Carrasco Chavez South bay ,working partnerships)Armendariz was minimizing denying casting doubt ,mocking,joking,minimizing,the verbal threats that I told her I rcvd.I suspected her knowledge due to her complete lack of concern for my safety,life..1 week later Armendariz is on phone with me when 2 cars sped up and stopped in middle of street in front of Gardener( 175 E Virginia ave)firing 4 shots missing me.She never once suggested that I was correct in threat to my life..I warned Councilman Peralez Immediatly of what happened and my suspicion of Armendariz involvement.I also told Carrasco due to fact they are also co signers of NDA with Google in 2016.That is start point of Corruption.

MEASURE A EARNS AN A:

Good Management and Oversight Supports
Progress
2021 Civil Grand Jury
of Santa Clara County
December 16, 2021

Page 2 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
Table of Contents
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 6 AH Development Is a Lengthy Process................................................................................... 6 Development Takes Many Players........................................................................................... 7 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 8 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................ 9 Measure A Program and Progress .......................................................................................... 9 Building Challenges ................................................................................................................ 12 Housing the Homeless............................................................................................................. 14 Higher Costs in the Future? ................................................................................................... 16 The Oversight Challenge ........................................................................................................ 17 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 19 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 20 Finding 1 .................................................................................................................................. 20 Finding 2 .................................................................................................................................. 20 Finding 3 .................................................................................................................................. 20 Finding 4 .................................................................................................................................. 20 Finding 5 .................................................................................................................................. 21 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................................. 23

Page 3 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
AH Affordable Housing
AMI Area Median Income
B Billion
BMR Below Market Rate: a BMR unit is priced to be affordable to households that are moderate income or below
CTCAC California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
ELI Extremely Low-Income: households with income at or below the Poverty Guideline or 30% of Area Median Income (AMI),
whichever is higher
Homekey A program providing grants to local public entities to provide housing for the chronically homeless.

HUD Housing and Urban Development
Leveraging Ratio The amount of funding from Measure A proceeds compared to the amount of non-bond funding sources required by a project LI Low Income: households with incomes between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income
LIHTC Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
M Million
MGO Macias, Gini & O’Connell: a certified public accounting firm MOU Memorandum of Understanding: a binding document between two organizations that outlines roles, responsibilities, and deliverables
OSH County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing
Oversight Committee Measure A (2016 Housing Bond) Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee
Pipeline The length of time from building project inception to units being ready-to-lease.

Program Goals Measure A Program Goals specify the amount and type of housing that will be funded.

Program Guidelines The rules governing the use of Measure A Program funds

Page 4 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
PSH Permanent Supportive Housing: a Measure A housing category providing housing units and long-term rental assistance, case management, and supportive services for homeless persons with disabling conditions, including the chronically homeless RRH Rapid Re-Housing: these units house clients who have become homeless through a recent adverse life event. RRH provides timelimited rental subsidy, case management, and supportive services.

In RRH programs, individuals and families eventually take over the full rent of their leased housing units.

VLI Very Low-Income: households with income below 50% of the Area Median Income. This also includes the extremely lowincome category.

Page 5 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A

INTRODUCTION
In 2016, voters of Santa Clara County (County) passed Measure A, which allows the County to borrow up to $950M (million) by issuing general obligation bonds. Bond proceeds can only be used to acquire or improve real property for the purposes of providing Affordable Housing (AH) and related support and services for vulnerable populations:
including veterans, seniors, the disabled, low- and moderate-income individuals or families, foster youth, victims of abuse, the homeless and individuals suffering from mental health or substance abuse illnesses, which housing may include supportive mental health and substance abuse services.
1 After Measure A passed, the County Board of Supervisors (Board) took two actions. They first set Measure A Program Goals, which included building, by developing or financing, at least 4,800 housing units for residents within the Measure’s designated categories.2 Second, the Board established the Measure A Independent Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee (Oversight Committee).
3 The nature and complexity of Measure A warrants a strong oversight group tasked with reviewing the expenditures of bond proceeds. Further, as required, an independent, external auditor reviews the County's spending of bond proceeds to ensure accountability.

Less than five years into the Measure’s 11-year cycle, 289 units have been built. Recently, several news outlets have noted that the number of Measure A authorized AH units built is low. 4 Additionally, the 2021 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County (Civil Grand Jury) received a complaint asking about the slow pace of Measure A construction. The purpose of this investigation

1 County of Santa Clara, “List of Local Measures Presidential General Election November 8, 2016,” accessed October 28, 2021,
https://sccvote.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb1106/files/E110%20List%20of%20local%20measures.pdf. 2 County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing, “2016 Measure A Housing Bond Progress,” accessed November 1, 2021, https://osh.sccgov.org/housing-community-development/2016-measure-affordablehousing-bond/2016-measure-housing-bond. 3 County of Santa Clara Code of Ordinances, “Measure A (2016 Housing Bond) Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee,” October 25, 2021,
https://library.municode.com/ca/santa_clara_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITAGEAD_DIVA6BOCO _CHXXIME2016HOBOINCIOVCO.
4 Barry Holtzclaw and Dan Pulcrano, “Billion-Dollar Boondoggle: Four Years After Measure A, Santa Clara Co. Has Little to Show for It,” sanjoseinside, June 25, 2020, https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/billiondollar-boondoggle-four-years-after-measure-a-santa-clara-co-has-little-to-show-for-it/; Madelyn Reese, “Measure A Housing Not Moving Fast Enough, Oversight Committee Says,” San Jose Spotlight, September 21, 2020, https://sanjosespotlight.com/measure-a-housing-not-moving-fast-enough-oversight-committee-says/.

Page 6 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
is to understand the County’s performance on Measure A, including why the number of units completed to date is so low.

BACKGROUND
It is important to note that Measure A (See Appendix) accountability safeguards state that “the specific purposes of the bond are to fund [emphasis added] the acquisition or improvement of real property in order to provide affordable housing” for the vulnerable populations defined above.
5 The County utilizes the bond proceeds to partner with cities and the affordable and supportive housing community to address the AH needs of the target population. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) is largely responsible for administering the funding available from the bond proceeds for these AH projects. But OSH is only one player. When it comes to building AH, other factors and organizations have significant control over the development process.

AH Development Is a Lengthy Process
Developing AH is a complex and lengthy process from project inception to the construction of units ready to be leased by qualified occupants. That process includes land acquisition, project design, zoning and permit approval, financing, and, finally, construction and leasing. Multiple entities are involved, and all project stages take time. The length of the development pipeline, which is the time from project inception to units being ready-to-lease, is 4-5 years. The process steps noted below are simplified. For example, project financing work begins quite early and often changes as the entitlement steps are finalized and the overall scope and design of the plan is completed.

Figure 1: 15 Step Affordable Housing Development Process6

5 County of Santa Clara, “List of Local Measures,”
https://sccvote.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb1106/files/E110%20List%20of%20local%20measures.pdf. 6 Yun Soo Kim and Lintong Li, Housing on Merit: Stakeholder Mapping of Affordable Housing Development in Los Angeles County, February 2020, p. 5, https://housingonmerit.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/04/HOM-Final-Report-lm-edits-to-HOM-April-2020.pdf.

Page 7 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
Development Takes Many Players
AH development involves a complex mix of organizations which are outside the County’s direct control. Cities, both the city governments and their residents, play an independent role in this process. Cities control entitlement processes, which include land use approvals, the density of housing projects, and design-related issues. Developers negotiate with city councils to obtain AH project approvals. Also, developers and city councils must engage directly with those most impacted by a project, particularly those living near it. These approvals alone can take one to two years. Cities vary widely in their willingness to approve AH projects and in the amount of time it may take to obtain that approval.

Similarly, the funding process for an AH project is complex and involves many sources. A general example of the funding complexity and funding sources in California are illustrated in the chart below:

Figure 2: Financing Multi-Family Affordable Housing7
How is the County performing? Is OSH going to achieve the voter approved goals specified in Measure A? What is the prognosis for the successful attainment of Measure A goals, both in terms of funding and building 4,800 affordable units for those vulnerable populations?

7 City of Golden, “How Does Affordable Housing Happen?” December 7, 2017, https://www.guidinggolden.com/affordable-housing/news_feed/how-does-affordable-housing-happen.

Page 8 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A

METHODOLOGY
During the course of this investigation, the Civil Grand Jury conducted interviews, read reports, and followed public discussion about Measure A.

The Civil Grand Jury interviewed County officials charged with implementing Measure A and individuals involved in the oversight effort. The Civil Grand Jury also interviewed public officials involved in AH, who provided information about Measure A progress and effectiveness.

Civil Grand Jury members attended the most recent quarterly meeting (September 2021) of the Oversight Committee, and also reviewed earlier Oversight Committee meeting information. 8 The Civil Grand Jury reviewed reports from the independent external auditor of bond expenditures, the OSH’s Annual Report, and local media articles.

8 County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors & Boards and Commissions, “Meeting Calendar,” accessed November 1, 2021, http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/calendar.aspx.

Page 9 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A

DISCUSSION
Measure A Program and Progress
Guidelines and goals
In 2017, the Board approved Measure A Program Guidelines, which detailed how the Program would be managed and the amount of Measure A funds committed to projects. The Board also established Program Goals, which identified how many units would be assigned to each category of housing. (Finding 1) This was intended to meet the varying needs of the targeted populations.

Housing categories, target populations, and the number of units assigned to each are:
• Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Goal: 1,800 units
o This housing category provides units with long-term rental assistance, case management, and supportive services for homeless persons with disabling conditions, including the chronically homeless.
• Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) Goal: 1,600 units
o RRH units house clients who have become homeless through a recent adverse life event. RRH provides time-limited rental subsidy, case management, and supportive services. In RRH programs, individuals and families eventually take over the full rent of their leased housing units.
• Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Goal: 800
o ELI units are rented at Below Market Rate (BMR) to households making less than 30% of a region’s Area Median Income (AMI).
• Very Low-Income (VLI) Goals: 600 units
o VLI units are rented at BMR to households making between 31% and 50% of a region’s AMI.9
The 2017 Program Guidelines also established a target Leveraging Ratio.10 The County set that target requirement at 3:1, which means that, on average, there needs to be $3 of non-County money for every $1 of Measure A money invested. Success in attracting adequate funding from nonCounty sources is critical to the success of Measure A Goals.

9 County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing, “Measure A Affordable Housing Bond Implementation Report #3,” p. 4, August 15, 2017,
https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/Housing%20Bond%20Report_03%208.15.17.pdf. 10 Through the fourth quarter of FY 2020-2021, total project approval costs were $2.3B. Funds from Measure A totaled $511M, leaving $1.8B in funding from non-County sources. The leveraging ratio equals 3.46:1.

Page 10 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
Measure A funding progress
Macias, Gini, and O’Connell (MGO), the independent auditors of Measure A, reported that by the close of the fourth quarter of the 2021 fiscal year (ending 6/30/2021), project funding commitments and expenditures totaled $683.6M, or 72.0% of the $950M allowable bond proceeds. At that time, Measure A was just over 4 years into its 11-year Program cycle.

By that same date, OSH had committed $510.9M for 34 development and renovation projects to fund 57.6% of the Measure A Program housing unit goals. An additional $110.0M has been committed to purchasing 16 properties. These acquisitions include County properties and privately owned properties. All these purchases will be converted to or redeveloped as AH. Development plans are not yet in place for these properties, so AH unit numbers are not yet associated with these commitments. The balance of Measure A commitments total $72M and are detailed in the footnote below.11
The expenditures and activity to-date suggest that Measure A’s stated responsibility, to fund development of multi-family rental housing for the community’s most vulnerable populations, is on target. (Finding 2)
However, performance by housing category has varied. Housing unit achievement is very strong in three of the four Program Guideline categories. The RRH Category is well behind schedule.

This RRH lag will be addressed later in this report. (Finding 3)

11 Program commitments-to-date include a $25.0M bridge loan to developers that will be returned. In addition, the County has committed $25.0M to a first-time homebuyer assistance program and $11.9M to a supportive housing fund. While not building activity per se, both are commitments made consistent with the Measure A Program Guidelines and are targeted to assist the vulnerable populations specified in Measure A.

Page 11 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
Program Category Goal Units Units Funded
(as of 6/30/21)
% of Goal
Achieved
Permanent
Supportive Housing 1,800 1,494 83.0%
Rapid Re-Housing 1,600 315 19.7%
Extremely LowIncome 800 417 52.1%
Very Low-Income 600 539 89.8%
Total 4,800 2,765 56.7%
Table 1: Measure A Housing Unit Funding Commitments by Category12 On August 31, 2021, OSH reported back to the Board of Supervisors on the implementation of Measure A.
13 In the OSH’s unaudited report, the housing funding commitments, including building new units, were up another 291 units, raising the housing Program Goal total performance to 64%.

The switch from fund to build
Measure A’s funding pace appears reasonable, and the money is being committed in a manner that is aligned with the language of Measure A. But construction has been slow.

As noted earlier, the pipeline for complete, ready-to-lease units is long. As of June 2021, 289 AH units have been built. In addition, 1,008 units, or 21.0% of the Program Goals, are in construction.

Another 1,468 units, 30.6% of the Program Goals, are in pre-construction. Pre-construction includes projects that are still working on one or more of the project elements listed in the first two phases of Table 1, such as design, entitlements, non-County financing, and construction preparation. As noted earlier, these are very challenging and time-consuming processes, which are in the hands of numerous non-County parties.
12 MGO, “County of Santa Clara, Citizens’ Oversight Committee’s Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Annual Report and Fourth Quarter Report for Fiscal Year 2020-21,” September 16, 2021, Agenda Item 4.a, p. 51,
http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=12256&Inline=True. 13 County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing, “Supportive Housing Development Program Update,” August 31, 2021, Agenda Item 59, p. 735,
http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=12217&Inline=True.

Page 12 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
The construction of units is not explicitly in Measure A’s charter. However, the building lag is a topic of discussion for both OSH and the Oversight Committee. Both parties understand that the County can control the funding commitments it makes, and that funding is only part of Measure A’s goals. AH needs to be built, and OSH and the Oversight Committee are discussing how to influence that outcome too.

Building Challenges
As noted above, the County has provided on average about 20% of the required financing for an AH project. The balance of the funds comes from multiple sources, each with their own requirements.

Financing 100% Affordable Housing
Mixed use development projects contain enough high margin office space to finance the inclusion of affordable units. However, developments that are comprised solely of 100% AH units require very large amounts of public money and/or subsidies. Not only is a significant amount of money required, but also many funding sources. One example of this complexity is the La Avenida project, which is a 100-unit, 119-bedroom AH development in Mountain View.

Figure 3: La Avenida Funding Plan Totaling $74.2M14
14 City of Mountain View, “1100 La Avenida-Affordable Housing Development Appropriation of Funding,” October 12, 2021, Agenda Item 4.3, p. 4, https://mountainview.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx; The California Housing Consortium, “Resources :: Affordable Housing 101 :: How Is It Built?” accessed November 22, 2021, https://calhsng.org/resources/affordable-housing-101/how-is-it-built/; Local Housing Solutions, “How Is Affordable Housing Funded?” accessed November 22, 2021, https://localhousingsolutions.org/housing-101-thebasics/how-is-affordable-housing-funded/. $-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000

Page 13 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
The project’s funding profile illustrates many of the challenges that a 100% AH project faces for both County and City staff implementing Measure A as well as for the developers. The County has committed $19M in Measure A funds, or 25.6% of the total. Mountain View has committed $15M, a large share of its AH development fund. As Figure 3 shows, the Tax Credit and General Partner Equity funding comprise the largest sources ($25M) of AH funding in this and many other AH projects. The challenges of these two funding sources are described below.

Leveraging tax credits and general partner equity contributions In the La Avenida project, the Tax Credit funds and the General Partner Equity funds (the developer’s investment) are combined as the first column in Figure 3 above. Together, they are the single largest line item of the project’s financing, totaling $25.4M. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is a primary source of funding for building 100% AH. LIHTC funds come from a program administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
15 In California, this HUD program is administered by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC).16
La Avenida’s success relies heavily on obtaining LIHTC funds. The amounts committed by the County and City of Mountain View are predicated on the project receiving these tax credit funds.

However, the State awards these funds on a competitive scoring basis, with preference going to projects in areas of the state where development costs are relatively low. Because the Bay Area has very high land and building costs, the County is at a clear disadvantage under the State’s current scoring criteria.

The County’s lack of competitiveness for this critical funding has been an ongoing topic of discussion between the Oversight Committee and OSH. The Oversight Committee recommended that the County lobby the State to change its scoring system. The County has written CTCAC requesting a scoring change. While out of the County’s control, this tax credit money is a critical financing element for many Measure A projects and merits the attention and effort being made.

Leveraging ratio
As noted above, in the Measure A Program Guidelines, the County set the target leveraging ratio requirement at 3:1. For all 34 projects funded through June 30, 2021, the average amount of nonCounty funding sources to Measure A money results in a ratio of 3.5:1, exceeding the Guideline. 15 U.S. Housing and Urban Development, “Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC),” accessed November 1, 2021, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/lihtc.html. 16 California Office of the State Treasurer, “Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Programs,” accessed November 1, 2021, https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/tax.asp.

Page 14 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
The fact that Measure A supported AH projects have been able to attract increasing shares of nonCounty funding bodes well for the coming years of the Measure’s term.

Land use and entitlements challenges
The public record is replete with examples of local contention about the location, design, and developer concessions involved in building AH. Many issues emerge from these discussions, including density and design concerns, neighborhood preservation, and local control. Community acceptance of and desire to build AH varies significantly. To date, 38 of the 54 committed Measure A development and renovation projects and property acquisitions are in San José. To broaden the geographic distribution of projects, OSH has supplemented its funding commitments with additional outreach and support to other cities. OSH is negotiating loan terms with cities through Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and developing grant programs to encourage the cities in the County to commit to AH projects.

One example of a creative approach to working through city entitlement issues is the County’s proposal for the La Avenida site. The La Avenida project was first brought to the Mountain View City Council in December of 2020. The County will own the La Avenida property, because they have contributed more funds than the City. Measure A’s financing terms include a 55-year term and affordability covenant.17 Upon expiration of the 55-year term, the County could then repurpose the site for another use and might not be subject to the City’s building code and land use authority.
18 The County and Mountain View are currently drafting an MOU that addresses funding commitments to the project and this land use issue.

Housing the Homeless
Rapid Re-Housing challenges
In the case of OSH-managed RRH programs, the unhoused client is a recently homeless individual or family who became homeless due to an event that has upended their life. This event may have been a loss of employment, the loss of a partner or family member, or a serious health problem. In the RRH program, these clients are moved into housing with rent subsidies, case management, and other support services to help them re-stabilize their lives. The expectation is that the rent subsidies will decline over 24 months or less. Then, the clients can transition in place in their AH units. This transition is usually accompanied by a phase out of program service support. To ensure that those

17 City of Mountain View, Agenda Item 4.3, p. 6, https://mountainview.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. 18 This project is designed so that its purpose and use must remain AH for 55 years. In year 56, that AH restriction lapses.

Page 15 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
individuals and families can transition in place, units that are set aside for RRH programs will have their rent restricted to a level affordable to households earning nor more than 30% of AMI.

All four of the housing categories in the Program Goals (see Table 1) require significant rent subsidies, and both RRH and PSH clients receive supportive services. Rent subsidies and supportive services are an integral part of meeting Measure A’s overall success. While scarce, both the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and County funding are currently available to support these subsidies and services. But as more units are built, the subsidies and services required will grow, and the County may have to look to other funding sources to achieve Measure A Program Goals.

RRH is an important Program Goal. As noted earlier, OSH has had significant success in funding AH projects in the PSH, ELI, and VLI goal categories. This has not yet been the case in the RRH goal. The Civil Grand Jury learned that OSH and the Oversight Committee are discussing this lag in the RRH progress.19
Chronically homeless challenges
The chronically homeless, as defined by HUD, are either:
• an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a year or more, or
• an unaccompanied individual with a disabling condition who has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years.20
In addition to PSH programs, the chronically homeless are also candidates for transitional housing.

The need for transitional housing is caused by the lack of PSH in the County and across the U.S.

While they are the most visible homeless population, this group has traditionally been either unserved or underserved, and moved in and out of homeless shelters.

Recently, a funding program called Homekey has made significant grant money available to local public entities to specifically target this homeless population. Homekey is funded through a mix of federal funds originating in the CARES Act (83%) and State general fund sources (17%).21 19 “The [Oversight] Committee recognizes that County staff are aware of the Committee’s concerns and are taking steps to address them.” from Attachment “SSC Measure A – BOS transmittal letter annual Q4 FY20-Final,” p. 1, October 20, 2020,
http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=12219&MediaPosition=&ID=103181 &CssClass=.
20 HUD, “Defining Chronic Homelessness,” September 2007, accessed December 1, 2021, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/DefiningChronicHomeless.pdf.

Page 16 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
Several Homekey funded approaches to housing this target population have been developed, from lightly engineered units in Mountain View to motel and hotel rooms and other relatively inexpensive property acquisitions throughout the County. The clients in this program benefit from a secure, dry place to live with some level of case management.

Homekey projects cost less per bedroom and require less time to complete than traditional AH development. OSH is evaluating this program as an additional and significant non-Measure A funding source. OSH has used Homekey funding in Measure A PSH unit projects and is evaluating its applicability as a RRH solution.

While the Homekey program has had some success getting people off the street, its value as part of the solution to chronic homelessness is yet to be determined. When Homekey funded projects are used as transitional housing, and a client’s stay is long enough to enable them to move into PSH, it can be a meaningful housing solution. However, there are different implementations of Homekey. Some organizations running a Homekey project provide sufficient length of stay. There are also cases, such as the Homekey development in Mountain View, where the expected stay is 90-120 days and then the client is back on the streets. When the client has nowhere affordable to go, the program fails.

Higher Costs in the Future?
OSH and the Oversight Committee have noted concerns about inflation.22 The County’s average contribution per unit has remained relatively stable over the 4.5 years of Measure A. The stability of the County’s contribution does not reflect cost pressures that may develop in the future.

More relevant to the concern about inflation is the estimated total cost per unit or bedroom. The challenge in using this metric is the relatively small sample size of 34 development projects over four years, although that sample includes more than 4,000 bedrooms. Additionally, a project’s location complicates the inflation issue because land and other costs are higher in some cities than others. However, if one examines only the San José projects, which are over 80% of the bedrooms built, it is not clear that inflation has yet affected the unit costs. 21 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), H.Res. 748, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., (January 3, 2020), https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr748/BILLS-116hr748enr.pdf. 22 MGO, “Independent Advisor’s Annual Report and Fourth Quarter Report for Fiscal Year 2020-21,” September 16, 2021, Agenda Item 4.a, p. 23,
http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=12256&Inline=True.

Page 17 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
Overall, Bay Area construction trade groups indicate that building/unit inflation has not yet risen significantly.
23 The pandemic reduced construction activity in the County, which would not surprise people who walked by halted construction sites in their communities in 2020. This general slowdown idled many contractors and suppliers. As activity resumes, those contractors and suppliers have been eager to re-build their volume of work and have competitively vied for business. In the 2021 calendar year, the industry expected construction pricing increases in the range of 1-5%.
24 While currently uncertain, there is a possibility that inflation in the coming years may become significant. Recognizing those risks, the County has committed $108M of program funds to the acquisition of 16 properties suitable for development of AH. A primary motivation for these acquisitions was to hedge against likely increases in land costs.

The Oversight Challenge
Measure A’s full text required an Oversight Committee.
25 In June of 2017, the Board established
the Oversight Committee structure, purpose, and responsibilities.26 (Finding 4) The Committee’s mandatory activities were detailed in a memorandum from the Santa Clara County Office of the County Counsel.
27 Those responsibilities include:
• To send advisory reports at least quarterly to the Board and each of the cities in the County • To receive reports on bond implementation provided by OSH and other County departments – including a monthly dashboard of metrics with project level detail • To receive an annual financial audit and quarterly report from an independent financial auditor

23 ONESF, “2021 Annual Infrastructure Construction Cost Inflation Estimate,” October 26, 2020, https://www.onesanfrancisco.org/sites/default/files/2020- 10/Agenda%20Item%204_2021%20Proposed%20AICCIE.pdf.
24 Ibid.
25 County of Santa Clara, “Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Bond – Measure A 2016,” accessed November 1, 2021, https://www.sccgov.org/sites/scc/Documents/Complete-Text-of-Measure-A-20.pdf. 26 County of Santa Clara Municipal Code, “Measure A (2016 Housing Bond) Independent Oversight Committee,” accessed November 1, 2021,
https://library.municode.com/ca/santa_clara_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITAGEAD_DIVA6BOCO _CHXXIME2016HOBOINCIOVCO.
27 James R. Williams and Steve Mitra, “Overview of the Measure A (2016 Housing Bond) Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee,” June 13, 2017, Agenda Item 5a, pp. 6-8, http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=8402&Inline=True.

Page 18 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
• To receive other financial reports as provided
• To provide an annual report with public and wide distribution In this same memorandum, the Office of the County Counsel specified the Committee’s role with respect to the independent auditor:

The Board has provided an independent, external auditor who will report directly to the Committee to the extent permitted by law. While the auditor is to be selected by the Board after a competitive selection process, the Committee, or representatives of the Committee, are required to participate in the selection process. Such participation would most logically occur through a subset of the members of the Committee sitting on an evaluation panel, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the firms or persons bidding to fill the role of the auditor. The Committee is also able to make a recommendation to the Board regarding the selection of the auditor. Once the auditor is selected, the Committee will have direct access to the firm or person selected. The Committee may request "spot check" audits by the auditor in addition to the annual financial audit.28 The memorandum established the Oversight Committee’s roles and independence. In addition, the Board selected a number of knowledgeable members to serve on the Oversight Committee. While it is common to have both geographical and interest group representation on oversight boards, it is far less common to select members with capabilities related to the subject matter of the bond.29 Members of the Oversight Committee have housing policy experience, accounting expertise, and senior level organizational and political leadership experience. (Finding 5).

The Oversight Committee has been diligent and has worked effectively to exercise its oversight responsibilities. In addition, the Oversight Committee has worked with OSH and the independent auditors, MGO, to promote transparency and to communicate Measure A’s performance. An example of this is the Measure A activity dashboard.30 This set of metrics and reports supplies information on projects and performance at both a detailed project level and in the aggregate. The dashboard was a collaborative and cooperative effort on the part of a sub-committee of the Oversight Committee, OSH, and the independent auditors, MGO.

The Oversight Committee makes recommendations on a quarterly basis. The Civil Grand Jury learned that inquiries, challenges, and concerns are openly shared between the OSH and the 28 Ibid., p. 8.
29 Williams and Mitra, “Overview of Measure A,” p. 14.
30 County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing, “2016 Measure A Housing Bond Progress,” accessed November 22, 2021, https://osh.sccgov.org/housing-community-development/2016-measure-affordablehousing-bond/2016-measure-housing-bond.

Page 19 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
Oversight Committee in a manner that is transparent and promotes the public’s understanding of Measure A progress.

CONCLUSION
The direct response to the question that prompted this investigation is that the funding purpose specified in Measure A is being addressed – the County is funding the right categories of AH in a timely manner. This could change over time, but for now it looks to be on track.

Reframing the question to ask, “Are we building at an appropriate pace?” leads to a more subtle answer. It is important to recognize that there are many factors in the AH development process that are beyond the control of OSH and the County. A very capable and assertive Oversight Committee has independently come to the same conclusion.

Despite the narrow charter found in Measure A’s language, both OSH and the Oversight Committee have moved the discussion beyond County funding. They are now examining how to ensure the goal of 4,800 units are constructed. The Civil Grand Jury sees value in shining a light on the current state of building progress and the challenges posed in reaching the Measure A Program Goals. While the recommendations to achieve Measure A Program Goals mirror those of the Oversight Committee, the Civil Grand Jury hopes Santa Clara County residents will benefit from this examination of the largest bond measure in County history.

The related Findings 4 and 5 point to the effectiveness and value of the oversight function. The Civil Grand Jury has reviewed other bond oversight committees and attended the California Association of Bond Oversight Committeesstatewide conference.31 All oversight committees have rules for committee representation, most often expressed as geographical or interest group (e.g., seniors, students, taxpayer advocacy groups). None of the reviewed bond oversight committees specify skills or experience relevant to the bond program, such as financial, analytical, political, or legal expertise.

In contrast, members of the Oversight Committee bring housing policy and high-level accountancy expertise, as well as senior political and organizational leadership experience. In the Civil Grand Jury’s judgement, this has strongly contributed to the Oversight Committee’s effectiveness and benefited County residents. The Board of Supervisors is to be commended for their selection of this Oversight Committee’s membership.
31 California Association of Bond Oversight Committees, “First Annual Virtual CABOC Statewide Conference 2021,” accessed November 24, 2021, https://www.bondoversight.org/caboc-conference/.

Page 20 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
The Office of Supportive Housing is managing the funding commitments in a manner consistent with Measure A language. The Program Goals and projects are targeted at the vulnerable populations specified in Measure A.

No recommendation.

Finding 2
Measure A funding of Affordable Housing projects is at pace with the eleven-year cycle specified in the Program Guidelines
No recommendation.

Finding 3
The needs of the Rapid Re-Housing target population may not be met because unit completion is lagging in that Category.

Recommendation 3a
To address this Rapid Re-Housing lag, the County should aggressively pursue Homekey funding where consistent with Measure A Goals and Guidelines. The County should develop a plan to address this recommendation by June 30, 2022.

Recommendation 3b
If Rapid Re-Housing development continues to lag, the County should consider redistributing unit goals in a way which still supports the core homeless and disabled vulnerable populations. The County should develop a plan to address this recommendation by June 30, 2022.

Finding 4
The Civil Grand Jury commends the Board of Supervisors and the members of the Measure A Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee for providing strong and transparent oversight to Measure A implementation.

No recommendation.

Page 21 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
Finding 5
The mix of relevant skills of the Measure A Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee members has enabled the Committee to play an effective oversight role.

Recommendation 5
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County evaluate whether this selection model can be extended to other advisory boards and commissions. This evaluation should be completed June 30, 2022.

Page 22 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests responses as follows from the following governing bodies:

Responding Agency Finding Recommendation
The County of Santa Clara 3, 5 3a, 3b, 5

Page 23 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A

APPENDIX
COMPLETE TEXT OF MEASURE A32

BOND AUTHORIZATION
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara recognizes the existence of a housing crisis in Santa Clara County: The rising costs of home ownership and the increasing cost of rental units throughout the county have resulted in a persistently high number of homeless individuals within Santa Clara County. The latest homeless count revealed a total of 6,556 homeless individuals in Santa Clara County with 4,627 unsheltered.

In response to this housing crisis, the Board of Supervisors is placing a general obligation bond on the ballot to generate up to $950 million for the acquisition or improvement of real property in order to provide affordable local housing for vulnerable populations including veterans, seniors, the disabled, low and moderate income individuals or families, current or former foster youth, victims of abuse, the homeless and individuals suffering from mental health or substance abuse illnesses. "Low income” means individuals and families whose income does not exceed 80 percent of area median income. "Moderate income" means individuals and families whose income lies in the range of 80 percent to 120 percent of area median income. The housing may be provided at below market rates, and may be provided in connection with supportive mental health and substance abuse services.

A portion of the proceeds, not to exceed $150 million, with not more than $50 million for firsttime homebuyers, may be used to provide housing that is affordable for moderate income individuals and families; such portion may be used, by way of example only, for first-time homebuyers or to promote housing that is in proximity to employment.

Even though housing for vulnerable populations is currently being built, the number of units available does not satisfy the projected demand within our community. The Board of Supervisors intends to distribute the new affordable housing units within the County and to leverage the resources acquired through this bond to attract both private and public matching funds, including from state and federal sources. Different forms of assistance for vulnerable populations may be provided based on programs and spending as determined by the Board of Supervisors.

32 County of Santa Clara, “Complete Text of Measure A,” accessed November 4, 2021, https://www.sccgov.org/sites/scc/Documents/Complete-Text-of-Measure-A-20.pdf.

Page 24 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
The Board of Supervisors views housing as a critical need of vulnerable populations, without which individuals in these populations are unlikely to achieve any level of stability. Creating and improving housing for the County's vulnerable populations is consistent with the County's mission to plan for the needs of a dynamic community, provide quality services, and promote a healthy, safe and prosperous community for all. The County is seeking to achieve this in a cost-effective way.

ACCOUNTABILITY SAFEGUARDS
Statement of Purpose: The specific purposes of the bond are to fund the acquisition or improvement of real property in order to provide affordable local housing for vulnerable populations including veterans, seniors, the disabled, low and moderate income individuals or families, victims of abuse, the homeless and individuals suffering from mental health or substance abuse illnesses, which housing may include supportive mental health and substance abuse services.

The proceeds of any bonds issued pursuant to this bond measure will be applied only to these specific purposes.

Special Bond Proceeds Account: The proceeds of the bonds issued pursuant to this measure shall be deposited in a special account created by the County.

Annual Report: The County will ensure that an annual report pursuant to Government Code section 53411 describing the amount of funds collected and expended, and the status of any project required or authorized to be funded, shall be filed with its governing body.

Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee: A Citizens’ Oversight Committee will be established and will review the annual report each year to ensure fiscal accountability.

Independent and External Audit: An independent, external auditor will review the County's spending of bond proceeds to ensure accountability.

Page 25 of 25 ends

MEASURE A EARNS AN A
This report was ADOPTED by the 2021 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County on this 16th day of December, 2021.
______
Ms. Karen Delaney
Foreperson
2/10/22, 9:59 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
Re: Measure A Final Report.pdf
Paul Soto <
Mon 2/7/2022 7:34 AM
To: SCCo. D5. supvJoseph Simitian < SCCo. D4. Supv. Susan Ellenberg < S.C.Co.D2. Brd.Supv- Cindy Chavez < SC.Co.D1. SupvMike Wasserman. < < Liccardo, Sam <[email protected]>; Taber, Toni <[email protected]>; Arenas, Sylvia <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; martha O'Connell < Maciel, Zulma <[email protected]>; Esparza, Maya <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Davis, Dev <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Jimenez, Sergio <[email protected]>; Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]>; b. beekman <
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 3:07 AM Paul Soto < wrote:

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 3:05 AM Paul Soto < wrote:

The Conclusion Page is a Mockery to any rational erudite mind that even remotely knows how to critically analyze Language,Measure A Intention ( which is paramount in this discussion)Let me go step by step.

1.Conspicuously ABSENT from this Report is map of completed units..Land or Hotels that are already bought and what stage of construction they are in?? What projected completion dates??

2.The VERY 1ST HOUSING PROJECT BUILT WITH MEASURE A FUNDS,( WHICH BY THE WAY WAS BUILT COMPLETED 2 YRS AGO) IS A 19 UNIT COMPLEX FOR SENIORS ....YOU READY FOR IT...IT WAS BUILT IN THE GHETTO AREA OF CUPERTINO!!!!@@@!!!
When the Voters were in the booth voting after listening to all the hype as well as Reading Supervisor Cortese report back in 2016( which I have and have used on many occasions as a reference due to its language of urgency accurate interpretation of Data) The voter believed funding would go to the "Columbus Park" crowd.NOT 19 UNITS IN CUPERTINO?? ARE YOU SERIOUS.

3.ALL corruption flows from that decision.That salient fact disgusted me with the level of Chicanery,Duplicity,Rationalized Rhetoric that tries to cast doubt upon the reality of what I am looking at.

Public Record: 5
2/10/22, 9:59 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

September 30 I sent Cindy Chavez an explicit detailed email where I told her warned her of how lethally dangerous Councilwoman Rebeca Armendariz is and that the issue of her Corruption lethality must be addressed...
30days to the day after I warned Cindy Chavez...1 boy is Murdered in Rebeca Armendariz house 3 boys severely wounded ,2 guns found on scene,she is there,70people there...yet no one in custody??? So a murderer is in our community 4 families impacted 1 family permanently..And the 1st words out of Rebeca Armendariz mouth when she had chance to speak was"I AM JUST GLAD NOTHING HAPPENED TO ME OR MY FAMILY"???? WHA??
This Corruption is killing citizens in tents .someone lacing dope with fetanyl...Unbelievable the truth needs to come out and Chavez and Peralez must step out of race.Your both Responsible for Rebeca Armendariz and what she did to those boys.You both knew and wilfully deliberately refused to act.your negligence led to boys death...we need a new grand jury report as this one is Prima Facie illegitimate.
2/10/22, 9:59 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/3 [External Email]
Re: Measure A Final Report.pdf
martha O'Connell <
Mon 2/7/2022 7:53 AM
To: Paul Soto < martha O'Connell <
Cc: SCCo. D5. supvJoseph Simitian < SCCo. D4. Supv. Susan Ellenberg < S.C.Co.D2. Brd.Supv- Cindy Chavez < SC.Co.D1. SupvMike Wasserman. < < Liccardo, Sam <[email protected]>; Taber, Toni <[email protected]>; Arenas, Sylvia <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; Maciel, Zulma <[email protected]>; Esparza, Maya <[email protected]>; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Davis, Dev <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Jimenez, Sergio <[email protected]>; Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]>; b. beekman < <
I am in the chain for this email
Mr Soto alleges in pertinent part:
"Every person on this email knows 4bullets we're fired at me in attempt to kill me because of what I know and how vocal I am about Non Profit Corruption ( Working Partnerships,SVRISING,SOMOS,P.A.T.H...P.A.C.T...SV@HOME,SOUTH BAY LABOR COUNCIL) Councilwoman Rebeca Armendariz of Gilroy is the key that connects ALL these ORGS. To Google deal,Her paid work for Carrasco Chavez South bay ,working partnerships)Armendariz was minimizing denying casting doubt ,mocking,joking,minimizing,the verbal threats that I told her I rcvd.I suspected her knowledge due to her complete lack of concern for my safety,life..1 week later Armendariz is on phone with me when 2 cars sped up and stopped in middle of street in front of Gardener( 175 E Virginia ave)firing 4 shots missing me.She never once suggested that I was correct in threat to my life."
my emphasis added.

As a citizen who is very involved in public testimony and community action, as well as service on a City Commission, I request that the City investigate this matter. It is either true or not. Ignoring Mr. Soto is not the solution. I for one want to know the truth of this matter one way or the other. I am a vocal critic of some of the non profits also.

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. – Desmond Tutu
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 7:34 AM Paul Soto < wrote:

Public Record: 6
2/10/22, 9:59 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/3 On Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 3:07 AM Paul Soto < wrote:

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 3:05 AM Paul Soto < wrote:

1.Conspicuously ABSENT from this Report is map of completed units..Land or Hotels that are already bought and what stage of construction they are in?? What projected completion dates??

2.The VERY 1ST HOUSING PROJECT BUILT WITH MEASURE A FUNDS,( WHICH BY THE WAY WAS BUILT COMPLETED 2 YRS AGO) IS A 19 UNIT COMPLEX FOR SENIORS ....YOU READY FOR IT...IT WAS BUILT IN THE GHETTO AREA OF CUPERTINO!!!!@@@!!! When the Voters were in the booth voting after listening to all the hype as well as Reading Supervisor Cortese report back in 2016( which I have and have used on many occasions as a reference due to its language of urgency accurate interpretation of Data) The voter believed funding would go to the "Columbus Park" crowd.NOT 19 UNITS IN CUPERTINO?? ARE YOU SERIOUS.

3.ALL corruption flows from that decision.That salient fact disgusted me with the level of Chicanery,Duplicity,Rationalized Rhetoric that tries to cast doubt upon the reality of what I am looking at.

From: Kris Cameron <
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:29 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Michele Lew <
Subject: Tamien Park
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important February 8, 2022
The Honorable Mayor Liccardo and Members of the City Council City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Re: Guadalupe-Washington Neighborhood Access to Parks and Recreation Spaces Dear Mayor Liccardo and City Council Members:

The Health Trust is writing to encourage appropriate expansion of accessibility of the GuadalupeWashington neighborhood’s public parks and community center. As a nonprofit operating foundation Public Record: 7
2/10/22, 10:04 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/3 focused on building health equity in Silicon Valley, we believe that children’s and families’ access to recreational and open spaces is an increasing public health concern that demands attention, especially in underserved and under-resourced communities.

We understand that, in the short time since the June 2021 grand opening of Tamien Park, its large sports field is now unusable. Further, while Washington Community Center is a welcome addition to the community, the reservation system could be more accessible in recognition of those that are not native English speakers and those that suffer from access issues due to the digital divide. Many residents in the Guadalupe-Washington Neighborhood are low-income residents of color. These residents have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, both physically and economically. As we now find ourselves in another COVID-19 surge, open spaces and parks play a pivotal role in the health and emotional well-being of our residents.

The Health Trust requests that the City of San Jose improve the field at Tamien Park and ensure the accessibility of the neighborhood’s city recreation spaces to the immediate community residents. We welcome continued collaboration on both this and future initiatives to address health equity and accessible spaces in our community. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we might be of assistance.

Sincerely,
Michele Lew
Chief Executive Officer
The Health Trust
Kris Cameron
Policy and Communications Associate
The Health Trust
Kris Cameron, MPH
Pronouns: she, her, hers
Policy and Communications Associate
(o)
The Health Trust | healthtrust.org
Because everyone’s health matters.

NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. 2/10/22, 10:04 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 3/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Secured by Paubox - HITRUST CSF certified

Joint Meeting for the Rules and Open Government Committee and Committee of the WholeFebruary 16, 2022

Joint Meeting for the Rules and Open Government Committee and Committee of the Whole
February 16, 2022