Joint Meeting for the Rules and Open Government Committee and Committee of the Whole
September 28, 2022

RULES COMMITTEE: 09/28/2022
Item: B.1
File ID: ROGC 22-409
TO: Honorable Mayor & FROM: Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Council City Clerk
SUBJECT: The Public Record DATE: September 28, 2022
September 15 – September 22, 2022

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

1. Letter from Terri Williams, dated September 20, 2022, regarding: 9/28/22 rules meeting agenda # B.1 public comment.

2. Letter from Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, dated September 21, 2022, regarding: Measure A (2016) - Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee relating to the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Third Quarter Report.
____________________________
Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Clerk
TJT/tt
9/22/22, 9:45 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 Fw: 9/28/22 rules meeting agenda # B.1 public comment
Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Tue 9/20/2022 10:18 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> 4 attachments (5 MB)
Letter for City Council Meeting.pdf; SJMC Existing language.pdf; Proposed changes for SJMC.pdf; Current SJMC for other retirement plan in CSJ.pdf;
From: Terri Williams <
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 9:49 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: 9/28/22 rules meeting agenda # B.1 public comment [External Email]
I am submitting my letter and supporting documents for the rules meeting on 9/28/22.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Thank you,
Terri Williams
Public Record: 1
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a letter for today’s council meeting. I am asking for support to make changes to the current City of San Jose (CSJ) Municipal codes (MC) that are discriminatory toward CSJ employees with disability retirements.

Applicable SJMC Federated Employees Retirement System
(FERS) Sections:
• SJMC section 3.28.1325 - Reports of earnings from outside occupation
• SJMC section 3.28.1330 - Deductions - Recipient's earnings from outside occupation
These SJMC codes require CSJ disabled retirees, who have gainful employment outside of the CSJ and who are younger than 55, to report earnings to the CSJ. The code specifies that the former employee’s retirement earnings and outside employment earnings be equal to that of an active employee in the same position from which the employee retired. If the retiree exceeds the base salary of the active position, the retiree must pay back excess earnings or have the overage amount deducted from their retirement allowance. These
rules are in effect until the retiree turns 55.

Those two SJMC sections discriminate against disabled
employees as the rules are different for active employees and service-connected retirees than for disabled retirees in that they require a payback provision until the age of 55 with no allowance for a service credit of 30 years. This mandate is unfair and discriminatory against employees who can or
could have retired prior to age 55, with 30 years of service, had they not been injured and received a disability
retirement.

Personal example:

My CSJ employment began in 1986 with a part-time position when I was 14 years old. In 1994, I was hired full-time and purchased some of my part-time service credit. In 2006, after working as a Police Safety Dispatcher II, I was injured and received a disability retirement. A month later, I was rehired as a Crime Prevention Specialist and surrendered my
retirement. In 2010, I was laid off after 17.68 years of service.

In November, 2022, I will be 51 years old and would have reached 30 years of service and received a service retirement with a pension earning of 75% of my highest salary. However, the current SJMC language requires I report outside earnings until I am 55 years old; four years beyond eligible retirement age.

Recommendation:

The above-referenced CSJ MC sections be amended to align with other CSJ retirement plans in that the age-related reporting and deduction provisions be modified to include the years of service with no minimum age requirement; the same option as those with 30 years of service credit.

Conclusion:

It is my sincere wish that the honorable members of the SJ City Council support the amendment of the above referenced codes so that active employees and both service-connected and disabled retirees in the FERS are treated equally.

Attachments:

1. Applicable CSJMC

2. Suggested amendments to the existing CSJMC

3. Current CSJMC for other retirement plan which includes calculations for outside earnings and deductions
Terri Williams, CSJ employee ID #

Muni Code Sections for the other retirement plan in the CSJ

3.36.1035 Reports of earnings from outside occupation.

A. Except as provided in subsection E., as a condition of payment of a disability retirement allowance from the retirement fund, a person who has been retired for disability shall file written statements with the board which conform to the requirements of subsection B. below.

B. A recipient described in subsection A. shall file statements as described either in subsection A.1. or in subsection A.2.:

1. Monthly and annual statements.
a. Within ten days after the end of each calendar month, the recipient shall file a monthly statement of the total income and earnings received by the recipient during the reporting month from any gainful occupation, other than service as an officer or employee of the city, and the sources of such income and earnings; and
b. On or before May 1 of each year, the recipient shall file a notarized declaration under penalty of perjury, in a form approved by the board, of the total income and earnings received by the recipient during the preceding calendar year, or any portion thereof, from any gainful occupation outside city service and the sources of such income and earnings.

2. Income tax returns.
a. Instead of the statements described in subsection A.1., the recipient may file copies of the recipient's federal and state income tax returns and the recipient's W-2 and/or 1099 forms showing the total income and earnings received by the recipient from any gainful occupation, other than service as an officer or employee of the city, and the sources of such income and earnings. Such tax returns and forms shall be filed on or before the first day of May following the tax reporting period.
b. If a recipient elects to file tax returns, the recipient shall provide written notice of such election to the board not later than the date the next monthly statement would otherwise be due. c. If a recipient elects to file tax returns, the recipient shall file with the board a written statement of the recipient's projected reportable income and earnings for each calendar year, and the sources of such income and earnings. Such statement shall be filed on or before the tenth day of January in the applicable calendar year. The recipient may file an amended statement in any case where there is a change in the projected income and earnings.

C. For the purposes of this section, income and earnings shall not include interest, dividends or rent.

D. If a recipient described in Subsection A. fails to furnish the information required by this section, the disability retirement allowance shall be discontinued until such time as the required information is furnished. When the required information is furnished, the disability retirement allowance shall be reinstated and allowances withheld pending receipt of the required information shall be paid, less any applicable deductions.

E. This section shall not apply to any recipient of a disability retirement allowance when either of the following conditions is satisfied:

1. The recipient retired for disability with at least twenty years of service credit in this plan; or

2. The recipient's service credit in this retirement plan plus the time the recipient has been retired for disability equals at least twenty years.

Muni Code Sections for the other retirement plan in the CSJ.

3.36.1040 Deductions of recipient's earnings from outside occupation.

A. In any case where the recipient of a disability retirement allowance meets the following conditions, the recipient's disability retirement allowance shall be reduced as provided in subsection B. below:

1. The recipient retired for disability with less than twenty years of service credit in this retirement plan and the sum of the recipient's service credit plus the time the recipient has been retired for disability is less than twenty years; and

2. The recipient is still incapacitated for the performance of duty; and

3. The recipient is engaged in a gainful occupation other than service as an officer or employee of the city.

B. During the period the recipient is engaged in gainful employment, the recipient's disability retirement allowance shall be reduced to the amount which, when added to the recipient's income or earnings from such gainful occupation and when also added to all other applicable deductions, if any, required by other provisions of this Chapter 3.36, shall not exceed the amount of the maximum compensation earnable in such period by a person holding the position which the recipient held at the time of retirement, or, if that position has been abolished, the maximum compensation earnable by a person holding it immediately prior to its abolition. In no event, however, shall the disability retirement allowance payable for any period exceed the amount of disability retirement allowance to which the recipient would have been entitled for such period in the absence of this section.

C. For the purposes of this section, income and earnings shall not include interest, dividends or rent.

D. Any overpayment of disability retirement allowance made to a recipient may be deducted from future allowances payable to the recipient or any beneficiary of the recipient or shall otherwise be collected from the recipient.

E. The following conditions shall apply in any case where, pursuant to Section 3.36.1035, the recipient has elected to file tax returns in lieu of monthly statements of income and earnings:

1. Reductions in disability retirement allowances shall be made based upon the statement of projected reportable income and earnings filed by the recipient.

2. Any overpayment of disability retirement allowance made during the applicable tax reporting period may be deducted from future allowances in substantially equal monthly deductions over a period not to exceed twelve months. If the deductions are made as provided in this subsection E., the deductions shall include interest on the outstanding overpayment at the actuarial rate adopted by the board.

3. Any underpayment of disability retirement allowance made during the applicable tax reporting period shall be paid to the disability retirement allowance recipient in one lump sum within thirty days of the verification of the underpayment by the secretary to the board.

F. When the sum of the recipient's service credit in this retirement plan plus the time the recipient has been retired for disability reaches twenty years, the deductions described in this section shall cease except to the extent necessary to recover any overpayment.
9/22/22, 11:50 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 [External Email]
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Measure A (2016) - Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee relating to the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Third Quarter Report
Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Thu 9/22/2022 11:22 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> For public record.

Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Clerk
City of San Jose
200 E Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
408-535-1260
From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 7:44 AM
To: Taber, Toni <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Measure A (2016) - Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee relating to the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Third Quarter Report
From: BoardOperations <
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 7:52 PM
To: BoardOperations <
Subject: Measure A (2016) - Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee relating to the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Third Quarter Report
Hello,
At its regularly scheduled meeting held on August 16, 2022 (Item No. 115), the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors received report from Measure A (2016 Housing Bond) Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee relating to the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Third Quarter Report and Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Financial Audit Report from the Independent Auditor.

Enclosed is a pdf copy of the Measure A (2016 Housing Bond) - Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee Third Quarter Report Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Financial Audit Report from the Independent Auditor for your records. If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact our office.

Regards,
Public Record: 2
9/22/22, 11:50 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.

Joanna Saucedo
Deputy Clerk, Board Operations
Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
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.

Received: 08/16/2022

County of Santa Clara
Citizen’s Oversight Committee’s Measure A
2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program
Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report –
Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2021-2022
June 17, 2022
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 2 of 43
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................... 3 Message to the Board of Supervisors ............................................................................................................ 3 Bond Proceeds .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Quarterly Update............................................................................................................................................ 6 Progress to Date............................................................................................................................................ 7 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................10 Period in Review..........................................................................................................................................10 Purpose of the Measure A Affordable Housing Bond Program.....................................................................10 Purpose of the Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee.........................................................................10 Activity Reported: Citizens’ Oversight Committee ........................................................................................10 Summary of Program Activity in Quarter......................................................................................................11 SECTION 1 – TOTAL PROGRAM COMMITMENTS .......................................................................................12 SECTION 2 – DEVELOPMENT AND RENOVATION PROJECTS ..................................................................13

2.1 – Development and Renovation Projects’ Financials..............................................................................13

2.2 – Program Expenditures per Housing Project.........................................................................................18

2.3 – Measure A Leveraging Ratio...............................................................................................................21

2.3.1 – Average vs. Median Leveraging Ratios.........................................................................................21

2.3.2 – Leveraging Ratio vs. Program’s Estimated Cost Share per Unit ...................................................22

2.3.3 – Measure A Leveraging Ratio By Project .......................................................................................23

2.4 – Housing Development Units................................................................................................................25

2.4.1 – Housing Types..............................................................................................................................25

2.4.2 – Total Housing Development Units................................................................................................. 26

2.4.3 – Housing Development Goals ........................................................................................................26

2.5 – Housing Development Milestones .......................................................................................................29

2.5.1 – Significant Activities by Development and Renovation Projects ....................................................33 SECTION 3 – PROPERTIES AND PARTNERSHIPS......................................................................................36

3.1 – Properties’ Financial Data ...................................................................................................................36

3.2 – Partnership Projects’ Financial Data....................................................................................................38 SECTION 4 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOAN PROGRAMS ........................................................................39

4.1 – First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program (Empower Homebuyers).................................................39

4.2 – Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) – Supportive Housing Fund (SHF)............................................. 41 SECTION 5 – GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS.............................................................................................42

5.1 – 2017 Series A Housing General Obligation Bonds ..............................................................................42

5.2 – 2021 Series B Housing General Obligation Bonds ..............................................................................43 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 3 of 43

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an update on the activity regarding the County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program (Program) and to its Citizens’ Oversight Committee (Committee) for the third quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22, from January 1, 2022 through March 31, 2022.

The Program, approved by Santa Clara County (County) voters in 2016, authorizes the issuance of up to $950 million in general obligation bonds for the acquisition or improvement of real property in order to provide affordable local housing for vulnerable populations within Santa Clara County. The Program has issued $600 million in bonds: $250 million in October 2017 and $350 million in July 2021.

Message to the Board of Supervisors
As of March 31, 2022, the Program had committed in total 81.36 percent of all allowable bond proceeds. The Program had committed to development and renovation projects 59.30 percent of available bond proceeds to finance 71.06 percent of its housing goals. During the third quarter of FY 2021-22, the Program added five development and one renovation projects with a total of 758 units; completed one development project with a 135 units; and had thirteen development and renovation projects in construction. In addition, the Program had selected developers to work on preliminary designs for nine of the 20 properties listed in Section 3.1. The six new development and renovation projects, as well as shifting funds to non-Measure A for one development project, increased the average Measure A Leveraging Ratio to 4.26, which means the Program secured outside investments of over $4 for every $1 dollar of Measure A funding.

The Program is well managed by the County’s Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) and is moving forward toward achieving its goals. However, there are areas that require attention and the Committee continues to monitor the following issues with the Program:

1. The Program’s delays in delivering affordable housing units. The Program was greatly hindered and setback years due to the challenges projects faced in securing financing, as well as issues from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Program continues to make progress with 13 of the 31 (42%) development and renovation projects currently in construction and 1 renovation project anticipated to be completed during the next quarter. However, the increasing construction costs, labor shortages, and inflation could cause the Program’s development and renovation projects to take longer to complete and to cost more than initially anticipated. In addition, while leveraging multiple sources of funding for each project enables more projects overall to be funded, the inclusion of multiple parties increases the projects’ vulnerability to delays and resulting increase in costs depending on the length of delay. Therefore, the County should consider ways to create pools of stopgap funding to overcome any potential delays.

Recommendations:

The Committee recommends the Board of Supervisors:
• Continue to support the efforts of OSH to seek additional funding sources, especially the new State legislation and potential federal legislation.
• Track the U.S. White House’s Housing Supply Action Plan and its possible effect on the Program.

The Housing Supply Action Plan includes expanding and improving existing forms of federal financing, such as reforms to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), which provides credits to private investors developing affordable rental housing, and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), which provides grants to states and localities that communities use to fund a wide range of housing activities.
• Consider studying the use of multiple sources of funding for projects and determine whether the use of multiple parties increases the risk of delays and increased project costs.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 4 of 43
• Consider conducting a study on the effects of the escalating construction costs, labor shortages, and inflation on the Program in order to determine if changes need be made to the Program.

2. The slowness in spending committed funds. As of March 31, 2022, the Program had committed $772.95 million or 81.36 percent of the $950 million allowable bond proceeds, but had only spent $426.23 million of the $600 million bond proceeds issued and received. The variance between Program funds committed and spent is partly due to the timing of construction costs and to the funding structure for a number of projects which have the Program’s committed funds being used for permanent financing after the completion of construction.

3. The slow rate of development of rapid rehousing (RRH) units, as shown in Section 2.4 Exhibit 7. The Committee understands that due to this type of client and housing needs it is harder to obtain funding for RRH projects. Accordingly, only 492 units or 30.75 percent of the 1,600 unit goal have been approved by the County Board of Supervisors. Of the Program’s total remaining units to be constructed (1,389), more than 80 percent will need to be RRH units (1,108) in order for the Program to achieve its goal of 1,600 RRH units. The Committee recognizes the Program is tracking RRH and has set December 2022 as when it will revise the RRH goal if the goal is not attainable with the remaining Program resources.

Recommendation:

The Committee recommends the Board of Supervisors continue to review the Program’s RRH unit goals and revise the goal if the target is not met by the established deadline.

4. There is a lack of evenly or diverse geographic distribution of the Program’s projects. The Program’s current 41 development and renovation projects, 20 properties, and 4 partnership projects are located within nine cities in the County1
; 44 of the 65 projects are located in the City of San Jose. The Committee recognizes that OSH has been actively working with cities in the County to assist in their developing of affordable housing. Two of the development projects added in the third quarter of FY 2021-22 were not in San Jose, but in Mountain View and Sunnyvale. OSH has developed development plans, negotiated memorandums of understanding (MOUs) for partnership projects, and offered grants. The additional Measure A goals include the following geographic areas for distribution: Campbell, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Palo Alto, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, the unincorporated county, and District 8 of San Jose.

Recommendations:

The Committee recommends the Board of Supervisors:
• Continue encouraging cities to participate in the Program. • Continue to support the efforts of OSH in developing relationships with cities other than the City of San Jose.
1 Projects are located in the nine cities of Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 5 of 43

5. There is a lack of effectiveness with the First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program (Empower Homebuyers), as shown in Section 4.1 Exhibits 11 and 12. Empower Homebuyers continues to have a low number of applications that make it beyond pre-screening (i.e., intake applications) to the successful funding of a new loan (i.e., closed). The Board of Supervisors approved version 7 of the Empower Homebuyers’ Santa Clara County Program Guidelines (guidelines) on November 16, 2021. Version 7 of the guidelines includes homeownership as a project type and other changes, which Program staff believe will provide additional workforce and homeownership housing opportunities for the community. The Program applied for and was awarded $5 million of CalHome Program funding from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The Program intends to use the funds for its homeownership program within the next six months.

Recommendations:

The Committee recommends the Board of Supervisors:
• Continue to support the efforts of OSH to revise the First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program. • Monitor the activity of the Empower Homebuyers Program and the impact of the CalHome Program funds over the next six months.

On December 16, 2021, the 2021 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County (Civil Grand Jury) issued a report about the Program. The Civil Grand Jury found that “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.” The Civil Grand Jury had two findings with recommendations related to rapid re-housing and the members structure of the Oversight Committee. On March 8, 2022, the County Board of Supervisors (Board) approved the Program to provide the following responses to the Grand Jury’s recommendations.

1. Rapid Re-Housing:
a. The County agrees with recommendation 3a and the County is aggressively pursuing Homekey Program funding either directly or by partnering with local jurisdictions who are also pursuing these funds.
b. The County partially disagrees with recommendation 3b. “The County believes more time is needed to realize and analyze the impact of program changes before modifications to goals should be made. Specifically, on November 16, 2021 (Item No. 22), the Board of Supervisors approved a recommendation to update the County’s development guidelines to further incentivize the production of Rapid Re-Housing Units. Furthermore, on February 8, 2022 (Item No. 46), County Administration provided an update on the County’s Housing Development pipeline which should accommodate the remaining supportive housing units. The County will analyze the impact of the recent program change noted above before considering any other changes to unit goals.

The County anticipates this to be done in June 2022.”

2. Oversight Committee Members. The County generally agrees with recommendation 5.”The County will consider whether this selection model could extend to other advisory boards and commissions.” The Committee will continue to monitor the progress of the Program’s development of rapid re-housing units.

The Committee would like to thank the County’s Office of Supportive Housing for their hard work and dedication to providing affordable housing in the County.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 6 of 43
Bond Proceeds
During the third quarter of FY 2021-22, the Program’s bond activity was as follows:

The Program’s net spending of bond proceeds amounted to $52.56 million during the third quarter of FY 2021- 22, which was primarily used for development and renovation projects and property acquisition.

Quarterly Update
During the third quarter of FY 2021-22, January 1, 2022 through March 31, 2022, the Program spent the following:

Development projects $ 35,889,176
Renovation projects 2,530,142
Property acquisitions 14,022,562
Partnership projects 83,128
First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program 929
Administrative costs 35,106
Spending during third quarter $ 52,561,043
During the third quarter of FY 2021-22, the Program had the following activity:
• Six development and renovation projects with a total of 758 units added. See Section 2. • Committed program funding was changed for two development projects resulting in a net shift of $6.4 million to non-Measure A funds. See Section 2.
• The following activity occurred (See Section 2.5):
 One project completed construction (Iamesi Village);
 Three projects (Sango Court, Mariposa Place and Vitalia) started and ten projects continued construction; and
 One project secured all financing (Roosevelt Park).
• Committed program funding of $8 million was shifted to non-Measure A funds for two properties. See Section 3.1.

Balance of Bond Proceeds
at December 31, 2021 $ 226,336,522
Other revenues 236,770
Spending during the quarter (52,561,043)
Net decrease in bond proceeds (52,324,273)
Balance of Bond Proceeds
at March 31, 2022 $ 174,012,249
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 7 of 43
Progress to Date
As of March 31, 2022, the Program had committed $772.95 million as follows:
• $563.32 million for 41 development and renovation projects and $25 million for a bridge loan (see Section 2),
• $146.93 million for 20 properties and $800,000 for 4 VTA partnerships (see Section 3), • $25.0 million to the first-time homebuyer assistance program (Empower Homebuyers) (Section 4.1), and • $11.9 million to the supportive housing fund (Section 4.2).

As of March 31, 2022, the Program had spent $426.23 million (Section 1). The Program had financed approximately 19.01 percent of total development and renovation costs for 41 projects, at an average per unit cost of approximately $126,845 (see Section 2.1), and 71.06 percent (3,411 units) of its goal of 4,800 affordable housing units (see Section 2.4).

Chart 1 below compares the Measure A affordable housing bonds authorized to the Program's commitment and spending of the bonds proceeds as of March 31, 2022. The left bar shows the total of the $950 million in affordable housing bonds authorized, of which $600 million have been issued. The right bar depicts the $772.96 million the Program has committed for affordable housing projects, which is split into three categories: expended, not expended, and available to commit. The County Board of Supervisors has approved the commitment of funds for projects beyond the $600 million in bonds issued. The Program does not anticipate those funds to be expended before the issuance of the remaining $350 million in bonds. The Program has committed more funds than spent mainly due to the funding structure of a number of projects, which will use the Program’s committed funds for permanent financing after the completion of construction.

Chart 1
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing $600.00
$350.00
$426.23
$346.73
$177.04
$-
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$950M Bonds Authorized $772.96M Committed Funds
In Millions
Measure A Bonds Authorized vs. Program Committed
Funds, as of March 31, 2022
Issued Remaining Authorized Expended Not Expended Available to Commit Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 8 of 43
Chart 2 below shows the number of units completed, in construction, and in pre-construction. As of March 31, 2022, a total of 4,171 units were committed for development; 3,411 units counted towards the goal of 4,800 units. There were 1,389 units remaining to be developed to reach the goal of 4,800 units.

Chart 2
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing.

Total 4,171
Total 3,411
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 9 of 43
Development and renovation projects prepare timelines with dates for key development milestones to estimate when the project will be completed and submit revised timelines throughout the course of the projects. Chart 3 below shows for the Program’s development and renovation projects the cumulative number of units to be delivered in each calendar year from 2019 through 2025 based on the original projection dates, actual dates, and revised projection dates. The original projections total the 4,171 units that had been committed as of March 31, 2022. Due to the nature of the Program, only the revised projections for development and renovation projects completed or in construction were included.

Chart 3
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 10 of 43

INTRODUCTION
Period in Review
This report provides an update on the activity regarding the County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program (Program) and its Citizens’ Oversight Committee (Committee) for the of FY 2021-22, January 1, 2022 through March 31, 2022.

Purpose of the Measure A Affordable Housing Bond Program Generate up to $950 million through the issuance of general obligation bonds for the acquisition or improvement of real property in order to provide affordable local housing for vulnerable populations within Santa Clara County.

Purpose of the Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee In accordance with County Ordinance No. NS-300.902, the Committee was formed to serve as an advisory body to the County Board of Supervisors over the implementation of the Program with the following purpose:

1. To advise on whether the County is spending the bond proceeds for the stated purpose approved by voters and not for any other purpose;

2. To advise on whether the County has been spending bond proceeds efficiently, effectively, and in a timely manner;

3. To advise on whether the County’s issuance of bond proceeds and temporary investment of bond proceeds has been fiscally sound;

4. To recommend any changes to the County’s implementation of the Housing Bond in order to ensure that bond proceeds are spent for the stated purpose approved by voters; and

5. To conduct an annual review of the report issued by the County describing the amount of funds collected and expended, and the status of any project required or authorized to be funded.

Activity Reported: Citizens’ Oversight Committee
Oversight Committee Meetings and Report
During this reporting period, the Oversight Committee met on March 17, 2022, and one report was submitted and approved by the Committee: the Independent Advisor’s Second Quarter Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22.

The report was subsequently forwarded by the County Clerk of the Board to the County Board of Supervisors and each city within the County.

Performance Dashboards
MGO collaborated with the Subcommittee of the Citizens’ Oversight Committee, the County’s Office of Supportive Housing, and the County’s Finance Agency to develop user-friendly and easily understandable dashboards that assist in presenting Program data and operational performance in order to promote accountability and transparency. The performance dashboards are located on the County’s Office of Supportive Housing’s website at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/osh/Pages/home.aspx.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 11 of 43
Summary of Program Activity in Quarter
The following information summarizes the different sections of the report and highlights the Program’s activities during the third quarter of FY 2021-22 or as of the quarter end, March 31, 2022:
• Section 1: The Program committed in total 81.36 percent of all allowable bond proceeds. The Program committed to development and renovation projects 59.30 percent of available bond proceeds to finance

71.06 percent of its housing goals.
• Section 2.1: During the quarter, the Program added five development projects and one renovation project, increased committed program funding for one project, and shifted committed program funds to nonMeasure A funding for one project. The Program committed $563.32 million for 41 development and renovation projects.
• Section 2.2: 14 development and renovation projects expended $38.42 million during the quarter. As a result, the cumulative expenditures increased 14.02 percent to $312.46 million as of quarter end. • Section 2.3: During the quarter, the Program’s changes described in Section 2.1 caused the Measure A Leveraging Ratio to increase to an average of 4.26 of non-Measure A funds invested for every dollar of Measure A funding.
• Section 2.4: The Program’s current funding commitment will result in developing a total of 4,171 units:
3,411 units (71.06 percent) count toward the Program’s goal of 4,800 units, and an additional 760 units do not count toward the Program’s goal.
• Section 2.5: The following milestones were achieved during the period: one project completed construction; three projects started construction; one project secured all financing; and six projects were added.
• Section 3.1: During the quarter, the Program did not add properties, but for two properties shifted committed program funds to non-Measure A funds. The Program committed $146.93 million in total and expended $14.02 million on 3 properties during the quarter. • Section 3.2: The Program committed $800,000 and expended $83,128 on the four VTA partnership projects during the quarter.
• Section 4.1: The First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program (Empower Homebuyers) received 283 intake applications, purchased no loans, and expended $929 for the administration of the loan program during the quarter.
• Section 4.2: The Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) – Supportive Housing Fund (SHF) did not provide or have predevelopment loans outstanding during the quarter. • Section 5: The principal and interest outstanding on the 2017 Series A Housing General Obligation Bonds issued in October 2017 was $143.61 million. The principal and interest outstanding on the 2021 Series B Housing General Obligation Bonds issued in July 2021 was $418.19 million.

More information on Measure A, including an interactive performance dashboard, can be found online on the County’s Office of Supportive Housing’s website at https://osh.sccgov.org/housing-communitydevelopment/2016-measure-affordable-housing-bond.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 12 of 43
SECTION 1 – TOTAL PROGRAM COMMITMENTS
The 2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond Program approved by Santa Clara County voters authorized the issuance of up to $950 million in general obligation bonds to fund the Program. The Program has issued $600 million in bonds: $250 million in October 2017 and $350 million in July 2021.

As of March 31, 2022, the Program had committed a total of $772.95 million of the $950 million of bonds authorized, or 81.36 percent of all allowable bond proceeds. Although the total commitments to-date exceeded the amount available from the bonds issued of $600 million, the Program had only spent $426.23 million, or

71.04 percent of the $600 million of bond proceeds as of March 31, 2022. The Program does not anticipate spending more than the $600 million before the next issuance of bonds due to the funding structure of a number of the projects, which will use the Program’s committed funds for permanent financing after construction is completed.

As of March 31, 2022, the Program had committed $563.32 million of the $950 million of authorized bonds to development and renovation projects, or 59.30 percent of available bond proceeds. As discussed in Section

2.4.3, the $563.32 million will finance the development of 3,411 units that count towards the Program’s goal of 4,800 units, or 71.06 percent of the Program’s housing goals.

Exhibit 1 below provides a summary of the Program’s total committed and expended funds as of March 31, 2022.

Exhibit 1
Total Committed and Expended Program Funds
As of Third Quarter FY 2021-22
Project Name
Committed
Program
Funding
to-date
Total Program
Funds
Expended
to-date
Percent of $950
million of
bonds
authorized a
Development and Renovation Projects (Section 2) $ 563,319,628 $ 287,454,066 59.30% Bridge Loan for Hillview Court (Section 2) b 25,000,000 25,000,000 2.63% Property Acquisitions (Section 3.1) 146,933,900 96,116,629 15.47% Partnership Projects (Section 3.2) 800,000 226,756 0.08% First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program (Section

4.1) 25,000,000 5,041,040 1.25%
HTSV – Supportive Housing Fund c (Section 4.2) 11,900,000 11,900,000 2.63% Consulting and audit services 489,824
Program Totals $ 772,953,528 $ 426,228,315 81.36%
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing. a Percentage of $950 million bonds authorized is calculated by dividing the Committed Program Funding to-date column by $950,000,000 (maximum bonds approved).
b The bridge loan to the developers of Hillview Court will be repaid by the developers and the funds returned to the Program. c The HTSC – Supportive Housing Fund is a revolving loan program. It continuously loans up to $11.9 million to Program projects as the projects repay the loans.

SECTION 2 – DEVELOPMENT AND RENOVATION PROJECTS

2.1 – Development and Renovation Projects’ Financials
As shown in Exhibit 2 below and on the following pages, as of March 31, 2022, the Program had committed $563.32 million of Measure A funds for 41 development and renovation projects, which are estimated to finance approximately 19.01 percent of all total development and renovation costs, at an average cost share per unit of $126,845.

During the third quarter of FY 2021-22, the Program added five development projects and one renovation project with an estimated total development cost totaling $618.02 million and 758 units; increased committed program funds by $200,000 for one project (Gallup & Mesa); shifted $6.6M in committed program funds to non-Measure A funds for one project (Kifer Senior Apartments); and reallocated the committed program funds between two joint projects by moving $20.5 million from the Dupont Family Apartments to the McEvoy Apartments. Exhibit 2 below and on the following pages lists projects in two different categories (development projects and renovation projects) and sequences projects in each category in the order that the projects were approved by the County Board of Supervisors (program commitment date). For example, for development projects, Gateway Senior Apartments was the first project approved on November 14, 2017, and Residence Inn was the most recent housing development project approved on February 8, 2022.

Exhibit 22
Development and Renovation Projects’ Financial Data as of March 31, 2022 (unaudited)
# Project Name (City)
Program
Commitment
Date
No. of
Units/
Bedrooms
Estimated Total
Development
Cost a
Estimated
Total Cost
Per Unit
Committed
Program
Funding
To-Date
Program
Commitment
as % of Total
Estimated
Cost
Program's
Estimated
Cost Share
Per Unit
Development Projects
1 Gateway Senior Apartments (Gilroy) 11/14/2017
(Q2 FY18) 75/86 $34,972,249 $466,297 $ 7,500,000 21.45% $ 100,000 2 Crossings on Monterey (Morgan Hill) 11/14/2017
(Q2 FY18) 39/87 26,056,436 668,114 5,800,000 22.26 148,718 3 Leigh Avenue Senior Apartments
(San Jose)
11/14/2017
(Q2 FY18) 64/65 50,348,927 786,702 13,500,000 26.81 210,938 2 Project names colored grey indicate projects completed.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 14 of 43
Development and Renovation Projects’ Financial Data as of March 31, 2022 (unaudited)
# Project Name (City)
Program
Commitment
Date
No. of
Units/
Bedrooms
Estimated Total
Development
Cost a
Estimated
Total Cost
Per Unit
Committed
Program
Funding
To-Date
Program
Commitment
as % of Total
Estimated
Cost
Program's
Estimated
Cost Share
Per Unit
4 Villas on the Park (San Jose) 12/05/2017
(Q2 FY18) 84/85 41,955,319 499,468 7,200,000 17.16 85,714 5 The Veranda (Cupertino) 12/05/2017
(Q2 FY18) 19/20 11,937,416 628,285 1,000,000 8.38 52,632 6 Quetzal Gardens (San Jose) 12/05/2017
(Q2 FY18) 71/140 63,630,448 896,203 9,830,000 15.45 138,451 7 Sango Court (Milpitas) b 06/05/2018
(Q4 FY18) 102/153 72,488,258 710,669 16,000,000 22.07 156,863 8 Iamesi Village (formerly North San
Pedro Apartments) (San Jose)
06/05/2018
(Q4 FY18) 135/136 69,418,863 514,214 10,327,100 14.88 76,497 9 Calabazas (formerly Corvin)
Apartments (Santa Clara)
06/05/2018
(Q4 FY18) 145/146 104,480,486 720,555 29,000,000 27.76 200,000 10 Page Street Apartments (San Jose) 06/05/2018
(Q4 FY18) 82/83 55,178,667 672,911 14,000,000 25.37 170,732 11 Agrihood Senior Apartments
(Santa Clara)
12/18/2018
(Q2 FY19) 165/177 83,273,350 504,687 23,550,000 28.28 142,727 12 Mariposa Place (formerly West San
Carlos Housing) (San Jose)
12/18/2018
(Q2 FY19) 80/103 51,687,253 646,091 9,300,000 17.99 116,250 13 Blossom Hill Housing (San Jose) 12/18/2018
(Q2 FY19) 147/163 79,676,906 542,020 19,100,000 23.97 129,932 14 Vela Apartments (formerly Alum Rock
Family Housing) (San Jose)
12/18/2018
(Q2 FY19) 87/155 61,433,464 706,132 15,650,000 25.47 179,885 15 Roosevelt Park (San Jose) 12/18/2018
(Q2 FY19) 80/135 69,658,643 870,733 14,400,000 20.67 180,000 16 Auzerais Apartments (San Jose) 10/22/2019
(Q2 FY20) 130/148 92,062,481 708,173 13,200,000 14.34 101,538 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 15 of 43
Development and Renovation Projects’ Financial Data as of March 31, 2022 (unaudited)
# Project Name (City)
Program
Commitment
Date
No. of
Units/
Bedrooms
Estimated Total
Development
Cost a
Estimated
Total Cost
Per Unit
Committed
Program
Funding
To-Date
Program
Commitment
as % of Total
Estimated
Cost
Program's
Estimated
Cost Share
Per Unit
17 Gallup & Mesa (San Jose) 10/22/2019
(Q2 FY20) 46/63 33,741,318 733,507 2,600,000 7.71 56,522 18 Villas at 4th St (formerly 4th and E.

Younger Apartments) (San Jose)
03/10/2020
(Q3 FY20) 94/94 46,811,323 497,993 7,500,000 16.02 79,787 19 Immanuel-Sobrato (formerly Moorpark)
Apartments (San Jose)
03/10/2020
(Q3 FY20) 108/110 73,548,992 681,009 16,654,646 22.64 154,210 20 Vitalia (formerly Bascom) Apartments
(San Jose) b
03/10/2020
(Q3 FY20) 79/101 64,054,314 810,814 15,800,000 24.67 200,000 21 Kifer Senior Apartments (Santa Clara) 03/10/2020
(Q3 FY20) 80/85 59,016,497 737,706 7,400,000 12.54 92,500 22 La Avenida Apartments
(Mountain View)
03/10/2020
(Q3 FY20) 100/111 78,077,678 780,777 19,000,000 24.33 190,000 23 Algarve Apartments (San Jose) 03/10/2020
(Q3 FY20) 91/119 64,635,282 710,278 11,500,000 17.79 126,374 24 Gateway Tower (San Jose) 03/10/2020
(Q3 FY20) 300/381 243,010,413 810,035 53,000,000 21.81 176,667 25 Alum Rock Multifamily (San Jose) 02/23/2021
(Q3 FY 21) 60/106 47,804,774 796,746 11,600,000 24.27 193,333 26 Dupont Family Apartments
(San Jose)
02/23/2021
(Q3 FY 21) 141/269 135,698,724 962,402 7,000,000 5.16 49,645 27 Sunol-West San Carlos (San Jose) 02/23/2021
(Q3 FY 21) 154/273 139,383,616 905,088 29,720,215 21.32 192,988 28 Tamien Station TOD (San Jose) 02/23/2021
(Q3 FY 21) 135/240 100,867,325 747,165 25,000,000 24.79 185,185 29 The Charles (San Jose) 02/23/2021
(Q3 FY 21) 99/177 78,729,074 795,243 12,480,000 15.85 126,061 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 16 of 43
Development and Renovation Projects’ Financial Data as of March 31, 2022 (unaudited)
# Project Name (City)
Program
Commitment
Date
No. of
Units/
Bedrooms
Estimated Total
Development
Cost a
Estimated
Total Cost
Per Unit
Committed
Program
Funding
To-Date
Program
Commitment
as % of Total
Estimated
Cost
Program's
Estimated
Cost Share
Per Unit
30 Royal Oak Village (Morgan Hill) 08/31/2021
(Q1 FY22) 73/169 49,438,333 677,237 9,891,000 20.01 135,493 31 McEvoy Apartments (San Jose) 02/08/2022
(Q3 FY22) 224/224 134,939,435 602,408 23,500,000 17.42 104,911 32 Orchard Gardens (Sunnyvale)
02/08/2022
(Q3 FY22) 93/116 107,210,734 1,152,804 13,850,000 12.92 148,925 33 Bellarmino Place (San Jose)
02/08/2022
(Q3 FY22) 116/204 96,736,665 833,937 5,750,000 5.94 49,569 34 Hawthorn Senior Apartments
(San Jose)
02/08/2022
(Q3 FY22) 103/108 76,107,250 738,905 15,550,000 20.43 150,971 35 Lot 12 (Mountain View)
02/08/2022
(Q3 FY22)) 120/211 115,683,548 964,030 9,750,000 8.43 81,250 35 Development Projects Total 3,721 c /
5,043 $2,713,754,460 $506,902,961 18.68% $ 136,228
Renovation Projects
1 Markham I d (San Jose) 12/18/2018
(Q2 FY19) 153/155 26,809,742 175,227 7,000,000 26.11 45,752 2 Markham II d (San Jose) 12/18/2018
(Q2 FY19) 152/154 26,593,698 174,959 7,200,000 27.07 47,368 3 Curtner Studios d (San Jose) 12/18/2018
(Q2 FY19) 179/179 14,995,679 83,775 14,950,000 99.70 83,520 4 Hillview Court e (Milpitas) 10/06/2020
(Q2 FY21) 134/134 80,300,000 599,254 21,900,000 27.27 163,433 5 Casa de Novo f (San Jose) 12/08/2020
(Q2 FY21) TBD TBD TBD 4,366,667 32.83 TBD
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 17 of 43
Development and Renovation Projects’ Financial Data as of March 31, 2022 (unaudited)
# Project Name (City)
Program
Commitment
Date
No. of
Units/
Bedrooms
Estimated Total
Development
Cost a
Estimated
Total Cost
Per Unit
Committed
Program
Funding
To-Date
Program
Commitment
as % of Total
Estimated
Cost
Program's
Estimated
Cost Share
Per Unit
6 Residence Inn (San Jose)
02/08/2022
(Q3 FY22) 102/201 87,340,000 856,275 1,000,000 1.14 9,804 6 Renovation Projects Total 720 c / 823 $ 249,339,119 $ 56,416,667 22.63% $ 78,356 41 Total Development and Renovation Projects 4,441c /
5,866 $2,963,093,579 $ 563,319,628 19.01% $ 126,845 d
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing. * TBD = To be determined.
a The estimated total development costs include items such as common lounges, community kitchens, fitness rooms, and laundry facilities, in addition to the costs necessary to build the respective projects. b Program is in the process of acquiring the real property as included in the original Program commitment. The Program would own the land and ground lease for the development of affordable housing. c The number of units includes units dedicated for a property manager for each development (55 property manager units in total) and 270 existing renovation units (see footnote d). d The number of units for each project includes pre-existing units that were inherited with Markham I (102 units), Markham II (101 units), and Curtner Studios (67 units). It is important to note that while only a portion of these renovated units will contribute to Program Housing Goals, the Estimated Total Development Cost and the Estimated Total Cost Per Unit incorporate costs for the renovation of other affordable housing units in these structures not specified in the Measure A Program. The Program's Estimated Cost Share Per Unit excludes the 270 existing units as the Program’s Committed Funding is not financing the renovation of those units. e The County acquired property that is currently developed with a 146-room hotel. The intent of the Program acquiring the property is to convert to a 132 unit permanent supportive housing (PSH) development with approximately 6,000 square feet of community space and outdoor space of over 10,000 square feet including a community garden, sports court, barbecue and seating area, dog park and pet wash area. The developers received a $25 million bridge loan from the County, which is to be repaid and is not included in the Committed Program Funding. f The County acquired property that is currently developed with a 54-room motel. The intent of the Program acquiring the property is to operate the 54 units as permanent supportive housing and interim housing until approximately July 2022, when the buildings would be demolished and the site redeveloped as affordable housing.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 18 of 43

2.2 – Program Expenditures per Housing Project
Of the $563.32 million committed to the 41 development and renovation projects, $312.45 million, or approximately 55.47 percent, was expended as of March 31, 2022. During the third quarter of FY 2021-22, the Program expended $38.42 million, which represented an increase in cumulative expenditures of 14.02 percent when compared to the $274.03 million spent as of December 31, 2021. Exhibit 3 below and on the following pages provides an overview by project of the expenditures to-date (as of March 31, 2022) by cost category (acquisition, pre-development, construction and permanent financing3 ) expended from Measure A funds.

Exhibit 34
Program Expenditures per Housing Project
through March 31, 2022
# Project Name
Total Program
Funds
Committed
To-Date
Total
Program
Funds
Expended
Program
Funds
Expended
During Q3
Program to-date Expenditures
Acquisition PreDevelopment Construction
Permanent
Financing
Development Projects
1 Gateway Senior Apartments $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 0 $ 3,600,000 $ 0 $ 3,900,000 $ 0 2 Crossings on Monterey 5,800,000 5,800,000 0 2,400,000 1,179,946 2,220,054 0 3 Leigh Ave Senior Apartments 13,500,000 10,745,963 0 3,700,000 49,723 6,996,240 0 4 Villas on the Park 7,200,000 7,199,999 0 0 1,644,502 5,555,497 0 5 The Veranda 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 68,564 151,434 780,002 0 6 Quetzal Gardens 9,830,000 9,830,000 0 3,900,000 284,522 5,645,477 0 7 Sango Court 16,000,000 9,400,000 38,289 6,900,000 2,500,000 0 0 8 Iamesi Village (formerly North
San Pedro Apartments) 10,327,100 9,530,901 0 93,633 0 9,437,268 0 9 Calabazas (formerly Corvin)
Apartments 29,000,000 29,000,000 0 9,500,000 2,000,000 17,500,000 0 10 Page Street Apartments 14,000,000 12,652,812 (920,425) 4,186,089 1,053,911 7,412,812 0 3 Permanent expenditures occur when a project is completed and the Program uses committed funds to payment to decrease the construction loan. 4 Project names colored grey indicate projects completed.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 19 of 43
Program Expenditures per Housing Project
through March 31, 2022
# Project Name
Total Program
Funds
Committed
To-Date
Total
Program
Funds
Expended
Program
Funds
Expended
During Q3
Program to-date Expenditures
Acquisition PreDevelopment Construction
Permanent
Financing
11 Agrihood Senior Apartments 23,550,000 23,550,000 10,522,004 0 2,000,000 21,550,000 0 12 Mariposa Place (formerly West
San Carlos Housing) 9,300,000 9,300,000 2,472,000 5,500,000 1,328,000 2,472,000 0 13 Blossom Hill Housing 19,100,000 19,100,000 0 9,000,000 2,000,000 8,100,000 0 14 Vela Apartments (formerly Alum
Rock Family Housing) 15,650,000 8,587,052 0 3,700,000 2,000,000 2,887,052 0 15 Roosevelt Park 14,400,000 6,433,597 0 4,000,000 2,433,597 0 0 16 Auzerais Apartments 13,200,000 13,200,000 0 12,500,000 0 700,000 0 17 Gallup & Mesa 2,600,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 Villas at 4th St. (formerly 4th and
E. Younger Apartments) 7,500,000 7,500,000 0 6,798,000 0 702,000 0 19 Immanuel-Sobrato (formerly
Moorpark) Apartments 16,654,646 3,475,305 2,440,491 0 0 3,475,305 0 20 Vitalia (formerly Bascom
Apartments) 15,800,000 6,468,944 6,468,944 5,450,000 0 1,018,944 0 21 Kifer Senior Apartments 7,400,000 5,642,928 269,228 4,700,000 942,928 0 0 22 La Avenida Apartments 19,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 Algarve Apartments 11,500,000 5,995,000 0 3,495,000 2,500,000 0 0 24 Gateway Tower 53,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 Alum Rock Multifamily 11,600,000 10,366,121 4,498,174 3,000,000 1,498,174 5,867,948 0 26 Dupont Family Apartments 7,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 Sunol-West San Carlos 29,720,215 12,230,322 78,603 11,200,000 1,030,322 0 0 28 Tamien Station TOD 25,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
29 The Charles 12,480,000 4,641,520 4,641,520 3,200,000 1,441,520 0 0 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 20 of 43
Program Expenditures per Housing Project
through March 31, 2022
# Project Name
Total Program
Funds
Committed
To-Date
Total
Program
Funds
Expended
Program
Funds
Expended
During Q3
Program to-date Expenditures
Acquisition PreDevelopment Construction
Permanent
Financing
30 Royal Oak Village 9,891,000 5,380,348 5,380,347 4,835,000 545,348 0 0 31 McEvoy Apartments 23,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 Orchard Gardens 13,850,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 Bellarmino Place 5,750,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
34 Hawthorn Senior Apartments 15,550,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 Lot 12 9,750,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Development Projects Total 506,902,961 244,530,812 35,889,176 111,726,286 26,583,927 106,220,660 0 Renovation Projects
1 Markham I 7,000,000 5,766,050 66,050 0 0 0 5,766,050
2 Markham II 7,200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Curtner Studios 14,950,000 13,036,104 1,024,240 0 0 13,036,104 0 4 Hillview Court 21,900,000 44,754,434 a 1,439,852 44,754,434 a - - 0 5 Casa de Novo 4,366,667 4,366,667 0 4,366,667 - - 0
6 Residence Inn 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Renovation Projects Total 56,416,667 67,923,255 2,530,142 49,121,101 0 13,036,104 5,766,050 Total Development and Renovation
Projects $563,319,628 $312,454,067 $38,419,318 $160,847,387 $26,583,927 $119,256,703 $5,766,050 Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing. a The developers for Hillview Court received a bridge loan of $25 million from the Program that is to be repaid to the Program. The bridge loan amount is included in the expenditures, but is not included in the Total Program Funds Committed.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Second Quarter FY 2021 - 2022 MGO Advisory

2.3 – Measure A Leveraging Ratio

2.3.1 – Average vs. Median Leveraging Ratios
Exhibit 4 below provides the average vs. median leveraging ratios for the third quarter of FY 2021-22. During the quarter, the Program added five development projects and one renovation project with an estimated total development cost totaling $618.02 million and 758 units, increased the committed program funds by $200,000 for one project, and shifted committed program funds to non-Measure A funding for $6.6 million for one project.

These changes increased the average leveraging ratios from the second quarter of FY 2021-22.

Average Leveraging Ratio - Based on the financial projections for the housing projects, it is estimated that in the third quarter of FY 2021-22 for every one dollar invested by the Measure A Program, the Program incentivized

4.26, on average, from outside investments (non-Measure A Funding)5 into affordable housing projects.

Median Leveraging Ratio - Based on the financial projections for the housing projects, it is estimated that in the third quarter of FY 2021-22 for every one dollar invested by the Measure A Program, the Program incentivized

3.69, per the median, from outside investments (non-Measure A Funding)5 into affordable housing projects.

The average of a set of numbers is the total of those numbers divided by the number of items in that set. The median of a set of numbers is the middle number, where half the numbers are lower and half the numbers are higher. The median and average might be close, but they could also be significantly different, depending upon outliers (data points that may have wide variances [differences] between the low and high points).

The County’s Supportive Housing Development Program Guidelines, version 5 (approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 13, 2019), requires that Program applicants must propose the maximum use of available non-local funds to achieve the highest reasonable financial leverage of capital resources. Measure A funds must be leveraged at a 1:3 ratio, which is, for every one dollar invested by the Measure A Program, there are three dollars available from non-Measure A funds. For purposes of the Measure A leveraging requirements, local funds will be considered non-Measure A funds.

Exhibit 4
Estimated Ratio of Outside Investments
Quarter
FY 2021-22
Estimated Total
Development
Cost
Committed
Program Funding
To-Date
Non-Measure A
Funding 5
Measure A
Leveraging Ratio
Average Median
Q3 $ 2,963,093,579 $ 563,319,628 $ 2,399,773,951 4.26 3.69 Q2 $ 2,345,075,947 $ 520,819,628 $ 1,824,256,319 3.50 3.49 Q1 $ 2,329,526,832 $ 520,819,628 $ 1,808,707,204 3.47 3.49 Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing. 5 Non-Measure A Funding includes other County funds, such as No Place Like Home funds, as well as funds from cities, the State, Federal Government and non-public entities.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory

2.3.2 – Leveraging Ratio vs. Program’s Estimated Cost Share per Unit Exhibit 5 below compares the average Measure A leveraging ratio and the average for the Program’s estimated cost share per unit (from Exhibit 2) for all development and renovation projects from the beginning of FY 2018- 19 through the third quarter of FY 2021-22. For the third quarter of FY 2021-22, the average Measure A Leverage Ratio increased and the Program’s estimated cost share per unit decreased due to the Program adding five development projects and one renovation project, increasing the committed program funds for one project, and shifting the committed program funds to non-Measure A funds for one project.

For the second quarter of FY 2021-22, the average Measure A Leverage Ratio increased and the Program’s estimated cost share per unit decreased due to the Program increasing the estimated total development cost and the number of units of one development project, The Charles. For the first quarter of FY 2021-22, the average Measure A Leverage Ratio increased and the Program’s estimated cost share per unit decreased due to the Program adding one development project. For the fourth quarter of FY 2020-21, the two averages increased due to the adjusting of the Program committed funding for one development project, adjusting the estimated total development costs for fifteen development projects, and adding two units to one development project. For the third quarter of FY 2020-21, the two averages increased due to the Program adding five development projects and adjusting the estimated total development costs and/or the number of units for seven development projects.

For the second quarter of FY 2020-21, the average Measure A Leverage Ratio decreased and the Program’s estimated cost share per unit increased due to adding two new renovation projects – Hillview Court and Casa de Novo. The two averages held steady from third quarter FY 2019-20 through the first quarter of FY 2020-21 as no new housing projects were added to the Program.

The averages will continue to fluctuate each quarter as new housing projects are added, estimated costs and Program committed funding are adjusted and finalized when projects are completed, and the number of units change.

Exhibit 5
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing. $50,000
$70,000
$90,000
$110,000
$130,000
$150,000
$170,000
$190,000

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 4.50

5.00 Q1
FY19
Q2 - Q4
FY19 &
Q1 FY20
Q2
FY20
Q3 - Q4
FY20 &
Q1 FY21
Q2
FY21
Q3
FY21
Q4
FY21
Q1
FY22
Q2
FY22
Q3
FY22
Program's Estimated Cost Share per Unit
Measure A Leveraging Ratio
Average Measure A Leveraging Ratio and
Average Program's Estimated Cost Share per Unit,
per Quarter for FYs 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 Measure A Leveraging Ratio Program's Estimated Cost Share Per Unit Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory

2.3.3 – Measure A Leveraging Ratio By Project
For the 41 development and renovation projects in the Program, the Measure A Leveraging Ratio ranged from a high of 86.34 for Residence Inn, which leveraged significant outside funding, to a low of 0.0031 for Curtner Studios, where nearly all funding came from the Program.

Exhibit 66
Estimated Ratio of Outside Investments per Housing Project as of March 31, 2022
# Project Name Estimated Total
Development Cost
Committed
Program Funding
To-Date
Non-Measure A
Funding a
Measure A
Leveraging
Ratio b
Development Projects
1 Gateway Senior Apartments $ 34,972,249 $ 7,500,000 $ 27,472,249 3.66 2 Crossings on Monterey 26,056,436 5,800,000 20,256,436 3.49 3 Leigh Avenue Senior Apartments 50,348,927 13,500,000 36,848,927 2.73 4 Villas on the Park 41,955,319 7,200,000 34,755,319 4.83 5 The Veranda 11,937,416 1,000,000 10,937,416 10.94
6 Quetzal Gardens 63,630,448 9,830,000 53,800,448 5.47
7 Sango Court 72,488,258 16,000,000 56,488,258 3.53
8 Iamesi Village (formerly North
San Pedro Apartments) 69,418,863 10,327,100 59,091,763 5.72 9 Calabazas (formerly Corvin)
Apartments 104,480,486 29,000,000 75,480,486 2.60
10 Page Street Apartments 55,178,667 14,000,000 41,178,667 2.94 11 Agrihood Senior Apartments 83,273,350 23,550,000 59,723,350 2.54 12 Mariposa Place (formerly West
San Carlos Housing) 51,687,253 9,300,000 42,387,253 4.56 13 Blossom Hill Housing 79,676,906 19,100,000 60,576,906 3.17 14 Vela Apartments (formerly Alum
Rock Family Housing) 61,433,464 15,650,000 45,783,464 2.93 15 Roosevelt Park 69,658,643 14,400,000 55,258,643 3.84 16 Auzerais Apartments 92,062,481 13,200,000 78,862,481 5.97 17 Gallup & Mesa 33,741,318 2,600,000 31,141,318 11.98
6 Project names colored grey indicate projects completed.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory

Estimated Ratio of Outside Investments per Housing Project as of March 31, 2022
# Project Name Estimated Total
Development Cost
Committed
Program Funding
To-Date
Non-Measure A
Funding a
Measure A
Leveraging
Ratio b
18 Vilas at 4th St (formerly 4th and
E. Younger Apartments) 46,811,323 7,500,000 39,311,323 5.24 19 Immanuel-Sobrato (formerly
Moorpark) Apartments 73,548,992 16,654,646 56,894,346 3.42 20 Vitalia (formerly Bascom)
Apartments 64,054,314 15,800,000 48,254,314 3.05
21 Kifer Senior Apartments 59,016,497 7,400,000 51,616,497 6.98 22 La Avenida Apartments 78,077,678 19,000,000 59,077,678 3.11 23 Algarve Apartments 64,635,282 11,500,000 53,135,282 4.62 24 Gateway Tower 243,010,413 53,000,000 190,010,413 3.59 25 Alum Rock Multifamily 47,804,774 11,600,000 36,204,774 3.12 26 Dupont Family Apartments 135,698,724 7,000,000 128,698,724 18.39 27 Sunol-West San Carlos 139,383,616 29,720,215 109,663,401 3.69 28 Tamien Station TOD 100,867,325 25,000,000 75,867,325 3.03 29 The Charles 78,729,074 12,480,000 66,249,074 5.31
30 Royal Oak Village 49,438,333 9,891,000 39,547,333 4.00 31 McEvoy Apartments 134,939,435 23,500,000 111,439,435 4.74 32 Orchard Gardens 107,210,734 13,850,000 93,360,734 6.74 33 Bellarmino Place 96,736,665 5,750,000 90,986,665 15.82 34 Hawthorn Senior Apartments 76,107,250 15,550,000 60,557,250 3.89 35 Lot 12 115,683,548 9,750,000 105,933,548 10.86
Development Projects Total 2,713,754,460 506,902,961 2,206,851,499 Renovation Projects
1 Markham I 26,809,742 7,000,000 19,809,742 2.83
2 Markham II 26,593,698 7,200,000 19,393,698 2.69
3 Curtner Studios 14,995,679 14,950,000 45,679 <0.01
4 Hillview Court 80,300,000 21,900,000 58,400,000 2.67
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory

Estimated Ratio of Outside Investments per Housing Project as of March 31, 2022
# Project Name Estimated Total
Development Cost
Committed
Program Funding
To-Date
Non-Measure A
Funding a
Measure A
Leveraging
Ratio b
5 Casa de Novo 13,300,000 4,366,667 8,933,333 2.05
6 Residence Inn 87,340,000 1,000,000 86,340,000 86.34
Renovation Projects Total 249,339,119 56,416,667 192,922,452 Total Development and Renovation
Projects $ 2,963,093,579 $ 563,319,628 $ 2,399,773,951 4.26 Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing. a Non-Measure A Funding includes other County funds, such as No Place Like Home funds, as well as funds from cities, the State, Federal Government and non-public entities. b The Measure A Leveraging Ratio is calculated by dividing “Non-Measure A Funding” by “Committed Program Funding.” It is important to note that the Measure A Leveraging Ratios are based on projections and are likely to change over time as more housing projects are added to the Program and as individual projects are completed and actual costs are finalized.

2.4 – Housing Development Units

2.4.1 – Housing Types
The following six types of housing are being developed by the Program’s development and renovation projects.

The Measure A Program Guidelines includes development goals for four of the six housing types, which are listed below. Goals are not included in the guidelines for low income and moderate income. • Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH): Housing units that provide long-term rental assistance, case management, and supportive services to the most vulnerable chronically homeless individuals and families. Goal is 1,800 units.
• Rapid Rehousing (RRH): Housing units offered to individuals and families to transition from homelessness to permanent housing through time-limited support services such as rental and financial assistance, case management, and other support services. Goal is 1,600 units. • Extremely Low-Income (ELI): Housing units offered at rental rates below market value to households making up to 30 percent of the area median income (AMI). Goal is 800 units. • Very Low-Income (VLI): Housing units offered at rental rates below market value to households making 31 to 50 percent of the AMI. Goal is 600 units.
• Low Income (LI): Housing units offered at rental rates below market value to households making 51 to 80 percent of the AMI. The Measure A Program Guidelines do not include a development goal for LI. • Moderate Income (MI): Housing units offered at rental rates below market value to households making between 81 percent and 120 percent of the AMI. The Measure A Program Guidelines do not include a development goal for MI.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory

2.4.2 – Total Housing Development Units
The Program’s current funding commitment will result in developing a total of 4,171 units as of March 31, 2022. 3,411 units (71.06 percent) have housing types that count towards the Program’s development goal of 4,800 units. An additional 760 units (705 low and moderate income units, and 55 staff units7 ) are in development but
do not count towards the Program’s development goal of 4,800.

Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing.

2.4.3 – Housing Development Goals
As of March 31, 2022, the Program’s current funding commitment will assist in developing 71.06 percent of development and renovation units (3,411) per the Program’s goal (4,800). As of March 31, 2022, each housing type had the following development commitments:
• 88.33 percent of the goal for PSH units,
• 30.75 percent of the goal for RRH units,
• 78.50 percent of the goal for ELI housing units, and
• 116.83 percent of the goal for VLI housing units.

There are also 630 units of LI housing and 80 units of MI housing that are currently planned for development or being built. The Program Guidelines do not stipulate a development goal for those types of housing.

Exhibit 7 below and on the following pages outlines, by project, the number of units being built by the Program by the six housing types. Exhibit 7 also includes at the end of the table the Program’s development goals for each housing type as listed in the Measure A Program Guidelines.

The Program’s units and percentages increased during the third quarter of FY 2021-22 due to the Program adding six development and renovation projects. In addition, the types of housing units changed for eight development projects.
7 Staff units are units that staff of the property management company occupy in exchange for managing the property. 3,411 705 35
- 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 3,000 3,600 4,200 4,800
Total Units
in Development
Measure A Units in Development as of March 31, 2022
Count Toward Goal MI & LI Staff Units
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory

Exhibit 78
Housing Development Goals vs Units Under Development
as of March 31, 2022
# Project Name No. of
Units a PSH RRH ELI VLI LI b MI b
Development Projects
1 Gateway Senior Apartments 75 37 0 0 7 30 0
2 Crossings on Monterey 39 20 0 0 11 7 0
3 Leigh Avenue Senior
Apartments 64 63 0 0 0 0 0
4 Villas on the Park 84 83 0 0 0 0 0
5 The Veranda 19 6 0 6 6 0 0
6 Quetzal Gardens 71 28 0 19 0 23 0
7 Sango Court 102 47 0 30 16 8 0
8 Iamesi Village (formerly North
San Pedro Apartments) 135 109 0 0 25 0 0
9 Calabazas (formerly Corvin)
Apartments 145 80 0 0 50 14 0
10 Page Street Apartments 82 27 0 27 27 0 0
11 Agrihood Senior Apartments 165 54 0 54 0 55 0
12 Mariposa Place (formerly West
San Carlos Housing) 80 0 40 0 20 19 0
13 Blossom Hill Housing 147 49 0 48 48 0 0
14 Vela Apartments (formerly Alum
Rock Family Housing) 87 29 14 8 18 16 0
15 Roosevelt Park 80 0 40 0 20 19 0
16 Auzerais Apartments 130 64 0 0 43 21 0
17 Gallup & Mesa 46 23 0 2 15 5 0
18 Villas at 4th St (formerly 4th and
E. Younger Apartments) 94 93 0 0 0 0 0
19 Immanuel-Sobrato (formerly
Moorpark) Apartments 108 106 0 0 0 0 0
20 Vitalia (formerly Bascom)
Apartments 79 16 23 0 4 34 0
21 Kifer Senior Apartments 80 47 0 15 17 0 0
22 La Avenida Apartments 100 32 0 18 39 9 0
23 Algarve Apartments 91 46 0 0 44 0 0
8 Project names colored grey indicate projects completed.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory

Housing Development Goals vs Units Under Development
as of March 31, 2022
# Project Name No. of
Units a PSH RRH ELI VLI LI b MI b
24 Gateway Tower 300 55 18 73 19 53 80
25 Alum Rock Multifamily 60 0 30 0 29 0 0
26 Dupont Family Apartments 141 20 20 53 0 46 0
27 Sunol-West San Carlos 154 0 51 51 0 51 0
28 Tamien Station TOD 135 0 67 0 0 67 0
29 The Charles 99 0 49 0 48 0 0
30 Royal Oak Village 73 0 18 30 24 0 0
31 McEvoy Apartments 224 20 56 56 0 90 0
32 Orchard Gardens 93 14 31 12 25 9 0
33 Bellarmino Place 116 24 0 29 52 10 0
34 Hawthorn Senior Apartments 103 20 0 27 54 0 0
35 Lot 12 120 0 20 20 40 39 0
Development Projects Total 3,721 1,212 477 578 701 625 80 Renovation Projects
1 Markham I 153 c 50 0 0 0 0 0
2 Markham II 152 c 50 0 0 0 0 0
3 Curtner Studios 179 c 111 0 0 0 0 0
4 Hillview Court 134 132 0 0 0 0 0
5 Casa de Novo TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
6 Residence Inn 102 35 15 50 0 0 0
Renovation Projects Total 720 378 15 50 0 0 0
Program Totals Development and
Renovation Projects d 3,411 1,590 492 628 701 625 80
Program Goals 4,800 1,800 1,600 800 600 N/A N/A
Percentage of Units for
Development and Renovation
Projects

71.06% 88.33% 30.75% 78.50% 116.83% N/A N/A
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing. * TBD = To be determined. N/A = not applicable. a The number of units includes units dedicated for property managers for each project. b Amounts are only included for tracking purposes since the Measure A Program Guidelines do not stipulate a development goal for LI or MI units. c These projects contain ELI and VLI units that are going to be renovated with Measure A funds. As these units are pre-existing units, they are not counted toward the housing development goals. However, pre-existing conversions to new PSH and RRH are counted towards the housing development goals identified above. d Total number of units excludes the LI units (625 units) and MI units (80 units) since the Program Guidelines do not stipulate a development goal for LI or MI units. The total number of units also excludes the property manager units (55 units) and the pre-existing units that were inherited with the Markham I (102 units), Markham II (101 units), and Curtner Studios (67 units) projects.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory

2.5 – Housing Development Milestones
Exhibit 8 on the following pages shows the key development milestones for development and renovation projects as of March 31, 2022, and presents the initial or revised projected dates and the actual dates of achieving each milestone. The colors in the actual columns indicate the timeliness of the actual milestone dates compared to the projected dates. Green indicates the actual milestone was on time or early; yellow indicates that it occurred within 6 months of the projected date; and red indicates that it occurred six months or more after the projected date.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Second Quarter FY 2021 - 2022 MGO Advisory Page 30 of 43
Exhibit 89
Development Timeline: Projected vs. Actual Milestones
as of March 31, 2022
# Project Name
Land Use Approval Securing All Financing Construction Starts Construction Completion 100% Occupancy
Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual Development Projects
1 Gateway Senior Apartments 4/2016 4/2016 11/2017 11/2017 4/2018 9/2018 5/2020* 5/2020 7/2020* 7/2020 2 Crossings on Monterey 1/2016 2/2018 6/2018 5/2018 10/2018 10/2018 10/2019 1/2020 1/2020 1/2020 3 Leigh Avenue Senior
Apartments 7/2009 7/2009 5/2018 5/2018 8/2018 2/2019 5/2021* 4/2021 7/2021* 7/2021 4 Villas on the Park 11/2016 11/2016 11/2017 11/2017 3/2018 3/2018 4/2019 10/2019 10/2019* 3/2020 5 The Veranda 6/2017 6/2017 11/2017 12/2017 3/2018 5/2018 4/2019 5/2019 6/2019 6/2019 6 Quetzal Gardens 6/2017 6/2017 12/2018 7/2019 1/2019 1/2020 10/2021* 12/2021 1/2022* 2/2022 7 Sango Court 7/2018 6/2018 8/2021* 8/2021 1/2022* 2/2022 5/2023* 8/2023* 8 Iamesi Village (formerly North
San Pedro Apartments) 12/2011 12/2011 9/2018 9/2018 11/2018 3/2019 2/2022* 2/2022 5/2022* 9 Calabazas (formerly Corvin)
Apartments 11/2018 1/2019 5/2019 6/2019 9/2019 1/2020 11/2021* 11/2021 3/2022* 3/2022 10 Page Street Apartments 9/2018 12/2018 4/2020* 4/2020 11/2020* 11/2020 9/2022* 2/2023* 11 Agrihood Senior Apartments 1/2019 1/2019 9/2020* 9/2020 6/2021* 6/2021 11/2023* 5/2024* 12 Mariposa Place (formerly
West San Carlos Housing) 12/2018 12/2019 8/2021* 8/2021 1/2022* 1/2022 4/2024* 9/2023* 13 Blossom Hill Housing 4/2019 12/2019 5/2021* 6/2021 6/2021* 6/2021 3/2023* 1/2024* 9 Project names colored grey indicate projects completed.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 31 of 43
Development Timeline: Projected vs. Actual Milestones
as of March 31, 2022
# Project Name
Land Use Approval Securing All Financing Construction Starts Construction Completion 100% Occupancy
Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual 14 Vela Apartments (formerly
Alum Rock Family Housing) 4/2019 1/2020 4/2020* 4/2020 11/2020* 12/2020 7/2022* 7/2023* 15 Roosevelt Park 2/2019 2/2019 2/2022* 2/2022 7/2022* 4/2024* 7/2024* 16 Auzerais Apartments N/A 6/2018 4/2021* 4/2021 10/2021* 10/2021 12/2024* 4/2025* 17 Gallup & Mesa 11/2019 5/2020 12/2020* 12/2020 4/2021* 4/2021 9/2022* 6/2023* 18 Villas at 4th St (formerly 4th
and E. Younger Apartments) 6/2020 6/2020 3/2021 4/2021 4/2021 4/20/21 10/2022* 4/2023* 19 Immanuel-Sobrato (formerly
Moorpark) Apartments 7/2020 8/2020 4/2021 6/2021 7/2021* 7/2021 3/2023* 9/2023* 20 Vitalia (formerly Bascom)
Apartments 2/2021* 2/2021 8/2021* 8/2021 1/2022* 1/2022 8/2023* 10/2023* 21 Kifer Senior Apartments 8/2021* 3/2021 12/2021* 12/2021 6/2022* 6/2024* 8/2024* 22 La Avenida Apartments 7/2021* 7/2021 6/2022* 12/2022* 6/2024* 9/2024* 23 Algarve Apartments 10/2020* 10/2020 12/2021* 12/2021 6/2022* 5/2024* 5/2024* 24 Gateway Tower 12/2016 12/2023* 1/2023* 10/2024 1/2025 25 Alum Rock Multifamily 8/2021* 9/2021 9/2022* 11/2022 5/2024 9/2024 26 Dupont Family Apartments 2/2020 12/2022* 1/2023* 11/2024* 5/2025* 27 Sunol-West San Carlos
Apartments 6/2021 8/2021 9/2022* 12/2022* 10/2024 12/2024 28 Tamien Station TOD 12/2020 9/2022* 12/2022* 4/2024 7/2024 29 The Charles 6/2021 10/2021 9/2022* 11/2022 11/2024* 7/2025* 30 Royal Oak Village 8/2021 12/2021 12/2021 6/2022* 6/2022 12/2024* 3/2025* 31 McEvoy Apartments 2/2020 5/2022 6/2022 3/2024 9/2024 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 32 of 43
Development Timeline: Projected vs. Actual Milestones
as of March 31, 2022
# Project Name
Land Use Approval Securing All Financing Construction Starts Construction Completion 100% Occupancy
Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual Projected Actual 32 Orchard Gardens 11/2021 4/2023 4/2023 5/2025 8/2025
33 Bellarmino Place 12/2020 12/2022 12/2022 7/2024 9/2024 34 Hawthorn Senior Apartments 6/2022 1/2024 1/2024 6/2025 7/2025 35 Lot 12 3/2022 9/2023 9/2023 9/2025 3/2026
Renovation Projects
1 Markham I a N/A N/A 5/2019 5/2019 11/2019* 11/2019 12/2020 12/2020 12/2020 12/2020 2 Markham II a N/A N/A 12/2020* 12/2020 5/2021* 5/2021 8/2022* 9/2022* 3 Curtner Studios 2/2019 2/2019 3/2019 3/2020 9/2019 3/2020 10/2021* 10/2021 1/2022* 4 Hillview Court 8//2020 12/2020 12/2020 5/2022* 5/2022* 5 Casa de Novo b
6 Residence Inn 3/2022 4/2022 7/2022 4/2023 7/2023
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing.

Green indicates the actual date of the action occurred ahead of or on schedule with the revised projected date.

Yellow indicates the actual date of the action occurred later than the revised projected date, but within six months of the revised projected date; or no action has occurred within six months of the revised projected date.

Red indicates the actual date of the action occurred more than six months after the revised projected date; or no action has occurred more than six months after the original projected date.
* Original project dates were revised. a These projects have previously been constructed and the Program’s commitment is to preserve and renovate the existing ELI housing, which will also result in new PSH units. b The property is currently operating the 54-room motel as permanent supportive housing and interim housing until approximately July 2022, when the buildings will be demolished and the site redeveloped as affordable housing. Therefore, milestone dates are not applicable.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2020 - 2021 MGO Advisory Page 33 of 43

2.5.1 – Significant Activities by Development and Renovation Projects The following milestones were achieved during the third quarter of FY 2021-22 (January 1, 2022 through March 31, 2022):
• One project completed construction (Iamesi Village);
• Three projects started construction (Sango Court, Mariposa Place and Vitalia); • One project secured all financing (Roosevelt Park); and • Six projects were added.

While it is taking longer than originally planned for development and renovation projects to be completed, all of the development and renovation projects continue to move forward. Below are highlights of significant activity by project as of March 31, 2022, and as illustrated in Exhibit 8 on the previous pages. Statements in bold are new to the report.
10 For activity occurring after March 31, 2022, see the County OSH website. • Quetzal Gardens
o 100% occupancy as of February 2022.
• Sango Court
o Missed its initial goal to begin construction by March 2019, but started in February 2022. Estimated completion is May 2023.
• Iamesi Village (formerly North San Pedro Apartments)
o Missed its initial goal to complete construction by July 2020, but completed in February 2022. o Lease up activities are underway with a target date of May 2022 for 100% occupancy. • Calabazas (formerly Corvin) Apartments
o 100% occupancy as of March 2022.
• Page Street Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to complete construction by March 2021. The revised target date is September 2022.
• Agrihood Senior Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to complete construction by January 2022. The revised target date is November 2023.
• Mariposa Place (formerly West San Carlos Housing)
o Missed its initial goal to begin construction by January 2020, but started January 2022. o Missed its initial goal to complete construction by January 2022. The revised target date is April 2024.
• Blossom Hill Housing
o Missed its initial goal to complete construction by September 2021. The revised target date is March 2023.
• Vela Apartments (formerly Alum Rock Family Housing)
o Missed its initial goal to complete construction by August 2021. The revised target date is July 2022. • Roosevelt Park
o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by March 2020, but secured in February 2022. o Missed its initial goal to start construction by May 2020. The revised target date is July 2022. 10 Project status information provided by the Office of Supportive Housing.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 34 of 43
• Auzerais Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to being construction by December 2020, but began construction in October 2021. The construction completion target date is December 2024. • Gallup and Mesa
o Missed its initial goal to begin construction in October 2020, but started construction in April 2021. o The construction completion target date is September 2022. • Villas at 4th St (formerly 4th & E Younger Apartments) o Missed its initial goal to start construction by March 2021, but started in April 2021 with a target completion date of October 2022.
• Immanuel-Sobrato (formerly Moorpark) Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to start construction by June 2021, but started in July 2021 with a target completion of March 2023.
• Vitalia (formerly Bascom) Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to start construction by May 2021, but started in January 2022 with a target completion date of August 2023.
• Kifer Senior Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by June 2021, but received in December 2021 with the awarding of a 4 percent tax credit.
o Missed its initial goal to start construction by June 2021. The revised target date is June 2022. • La Avenida Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by July 2021. The revised target date is September 2022. o Submitted financing application for a 4 percent tax credit in March 2022, with an anticipated award date in June 2022.
• Algarve Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by October 2020, but received in December 2021 with the awarding of a 4 percent tax credit.
o Missed its initial goal to start construction by November 2020. The revised target date is June 2022. • Gateway Tower
o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by September 2021. The revised target date is December 2023.
• Alum Rock Multifamily
o Missed its initial goal to obtain land use approval by August 2021, but received in September 2021. o Anticipates applying for a 9 percent tax credit in June 2022.The revised target date to secure all financing in September 2022.
• Dupont Family Housing
o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by December 2021. The revised target date is December 2022. Anticipates applying for a 4 percent tax credit in September 2022 • Sunol-West San Carlos Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by December 2021. The revised target date is September 2022. Anticipates applying for a 4 percent tax credit in July 2022. • The Charles
o Missed its initial goal to obtain land use approval by June 2021, but received in October 2021. o Anticipates applying for a 4 percent tax credit in July 2022. • Royal Oak Village
o Submitted a financing application for a 4 percent tax credit in September 2021, with anticipated award date in December 2021. Target date to secure all financing and start construction is June 2022.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 35 of 43
• Markham II
o Missed its initial goal to begin construction by September 2019, but started construction in May 2021. o Missed its initial goal to complete construction by October 2020. The revised target date is August 2022.
• Curtner Studios
o Completed construction in October 2021.
o Lease up activities are underway with a target date of May 2022 for 100% occupancy. • Hillview Court
o The project achieved its Homekey goal of occupying 50% of the units in February 2021. o Missed its initial goal to complete construction of the second rehabilitation phase by December 2021. The revised target date is May 2022.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 36 of 43
SECTION 3 – PROPERTIES AND PARTNERSHIPS

3.1 – Properties’ Financial Data
Starting in FY 2019-20, in response to concerns of the Committee and at the direction of the Board of Supervisors, the Program began the strategy of purchasing property and re-purposing County-owned property to use for future development of affordable housing. Acquiring property in advance is a promising strategy to reduce the Program’s future cost share per unit for these developments. During the third quarter of FY 2021-22, the Program did not add any properties, but shifted $8 million in total from committed program funds to nonMeasure A funding for 330 Distel Circle and The Hub. As presented in Exhibit 9 below, the Program had committed $146.93 million of Program funds to-date and expended $96.10 million on 20 properties as of March 31, 2022.

The Program expects to develop each property with affordable housing within five years of the property’s acquisition date. Until a development plan has been approved by the Board of Supervisors, the estimated total cost, additional committed program funding to develop the properties into affordable housing, and the number of units will be unknown. The Program estimates a total of 600 – 700 units will developed on the following properties. Developers have been selected for nine of the properties as noted in Exhibit 9 below.

Exhibit 9
Properties’ Financial Data
as of March 31, 2022
(Unaudited)
# Project Name
Program Funds
Committed
To-Date
Total Program
Funds
Expended
To-Date
Program Funds
Expended
During Q3
Developer
Selected
1 Western Motel a (Santa Clara) $ 9,000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 0 Yes 2 3071 Driftwood Drive b (San Jose) 830,000 760,699 0 Yes 3 62 Ferrari Avenue c (San Jose) 763,406 760,000 0
4 92 Ferrari Avenue c (San Jose) 763,406 760,000 0
5 98 Ferrari Avenue c (San Jose) 763,406 760,000 0
6 110 Ferrari Avenue c (San Jose) 763,406 760,000 0
7 120 Ferrari Avenue c (San Jose) 743,316 740,000 0
8 Atlanta Avenue & Hull Avenue d (San Jose) 1,305,826 1,300,000 0 9 Clayton Avenue d (San Jose) 592,644 590,000 0
10 Almaden Road d (San Jose) 9,994,590 9,950,000 0
11 330 Distel Circle e (Los Altos) 11,031,600 500,000 0 Yes 12 3075 Driftwood Drive f (San Jose) 2,199,800 2,001,314 0 Yes 13 10591 N. De Anza Blvd g (Cupertino) 8,300,000 6,901,228 15,785 14 The Hub, 1540 Parkmoor Ave h (San Jose) 12,000,000 0 0 Yes 15 2001 The Alameda i (San Jose) 14,862,500 14,869,588 0 Yes 16 1870 & 1888 Senter Road j (San Jose) 28,040,000 27,995,967 0 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 37 of 43
Properties’ Financial Data
as of March 31, 2022
(Unaudited)
# Project Name
Program Funds
Committed
To-Date
Total Program
Funds
Expended
To-Date
Program Funds
Expended
During Q3
Developer
Selected
17 1390 S Winchester Blvd. k (San Jose) 4,440,000 4,402,090 0 Yes 18 3550 El Camino Real l (Santa Clara) 14,040,000 14,002,778 14,002,778 Yes 19 901 and 903 E El Camino Real m (Mountain
View) 7,000,000 62,966 4,000
20 East Santa Clara Street Site n
(San Jose) 19,500,000 0 0 Yes
Properties Total $ 146,933,900 $ 96,116,629 $ 14,022,562 Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing. a The County acquired property that is currently developed with a single-story 31-room motel building totaling 12,150 square feet. The intent of the Program acquiring the property is to work with a development corporation to redevelop the property for affordable housing to provide between 35 and 65 units. b The County acquired property that is currently developed with a single-tenant office building with a gross and rentable area of 4,259 square feet. The property was the former fire department headquarters and has been vacant since 2014. The intent of the Program acquiring the property is to demolish the building and develop affordable housing. c The County transferred property it owns from the Roads and Airports Department. The property is currently developed with a single family home, which the Program would preserve and offer as affordable housing. d The County transferred property it owns from the Roads and Airports Department. The property is currently vacant and zoned for residential use. The intent of transferring the property is for the Program to develop affordable housing. e The County acquired property that is currently developed with a 12,204 square foot building with a single tenant. The intent of the Program acquiring the property is to develop affordable housing. f The County acquired property that is currently developed with a vacant one-story retail building containing 2,600 square feet. The intent of the Program acquiring the property is to hold the property in its vacant condition for two to three years in connection with a potential assemblage of the 3071 Driftwood Drive property and the 1390 S Winchester Blvd property (owned by Charities Housing Development Corporation) for development as affordable housing in the future. g The County acquired property that is currently developed with a single-story commercial building including 13,300 square feet of space formerly occupied by the Outback Steakhouse. The intent of the Program acquiring the property is to hold the property in its vacant condition and work with a developer in the County’s Developer Qualified Pool to explore options for the development of the site. h In August 2017, the County used non-Measure A funds to acquire the property at 1540 Parkmoor Ave. to be part of the Hub, the Social Services Agency program that serves current and former foster youth. In December 2019, the Board directed the County to proceed with exploring a affordable and supportive housing option for the property. In March 2021, the Program selected a developer proposal for the property and the Board approved delegation of authority to execute a development agreement on May 25, 2021. i The County acquired property that is currently developed with a 26,341 square foot class C office and 137 parking spaces. The intent of the Program acquiring the property is to redevelop the property for affordable housing. The property is located in the Alameda (West) Urban Village, an area slated for growth in the City of San Jose’s Horizon 3 timeframe under the Envison San Jose 2040 General Plan. j The County acquired property that is currently developed with a 35,343 square foot single story office building on 3.04 acres, a 26,546 square foot single story office building on 1.93 acres, and a vacant 1.16 acre parcel. The intent of the Program acquiring the property is to work with a developer in the County’s Developer Qualified Pool to explore options for the development of the site. k The County acquired this property with the intent to assemble it with the properties of 3071 Driftwood Drive and 3075 Driftwood Drive to develop affordable housing. l The County acquired property that is currently developed with the Bella Vista Hotel, consisting of approximately 1.12 acres of land and a hotel with 67 total rooms and 61 parking spaces. The intent of the Program acquiring the property is to use it for interim housing for people experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of experiencing homelessness and then work with a development corporation to redevelop the property for affordable housing. m The County acquired property that is currently developed with the Crestview Hotel, consisting of 66 total rooms and 79 parking spaces.

The intent of the Program acquiring the property is to rehabilitate it into a site suitable for families and youth experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of experiencing homelessness and then work with a development corporation to redevelop the property for affordable housing. n The County used non-Measure A funds to acquire the property that is approximately comprised of seven acres bounded by East Santa Clara Street, East St. John Street, N. Seventeenth Street, and a vacated portion of N. Fifteenth Street in San José. The intent of the Program acquiring the property is to work with a development corporation to develop multi-family affordable housing.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 38 of 43

3.2 – Partnership Projects’ Financial Data
On November 17, 2020, the Program entered into a ten year funding agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Through the funding agreement the Program will provide funding for predevelopment activities and VTA will provide staff to serve as contract administrators. In addition, VTA commits to making the four sites listed in Exhibit 10 below available for affordable and supportive housing.

As of March 31, 2022, the Program had committed $800,000 and expended $226,756 for the four VTA partnership projects. As presented in Exhibit 10 below, these properties are in the pre-development phase, and therefore, the estimated total cost, additional committed program funding to develop the properties into affordable housing, and the number of units are unknown as of March 31, 2022.

Exhibit 10
Partnership Projects’ Financial Data
as of March 31, 2022
(Unaudited)
# Project Name a
Program Funds
Committed
To-Date
Total Program
Funds
Expended
To-Date
Program Funds
Expended
During Q3
1 VTA Berryessa BART Station
$ 800,000 $ 226,756 $ 83,128
2 VTA Branham Station
3 VTA Capitol LRT Station
4 VTA Gilroy Transit Center
Partnership Projects Total $ 800,000 $ 226,756 $ 83,128 Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 39 of 43
SECTION 4 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOAN PROGRAMS
In addition to housing developments and property acquisitions, the Program has also committed funds to the First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program and the Housing Trust Silicon Valley – Supportive Housing Fund, which are discussed in this section.

4.1 – First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program (Empower Homebuyers) On June 5, 2018, the County Board of Supervisors approved $25 million of Measure A funds to finance a new, first-time homebuyer down payment loan program. The First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program is administered through a partnership between the County’s Office of Supportive Housing and the Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) and is called Empower Homebuyers. Of the $25 million, $23.5 million will be used to fund loans; and $1.5 million will be used for expenditures associated with the administration of the loan program, including program administration, outreach activities, educational workshops for first-time homebuyers, underwriting, and loan origination. The funds will assist approximately 235 households over the first five years of the program by providing deferred loans for down payments of up to 17% of a home’s purchase price. The loan will be subordinate to the first mortgage. The program does not require monthly principal or interest payments. Borrowers will repay the principal loan amount plus a share of the appreciation, based on the percentage of the loan borrowed. Payments will be deferred until the earlier of the maturity date of the loan, the sale of the home, or a refinance of the first mortgage.

In accordance with the Office of Supportive Housing’s agreement with HTSV for the administration of the loan program, HTSV monitors the number of applicants that apply for a Measure A funded loan. HTSV maintains statistics for six different stages of the loan process as defined below:
• Intake Applications: This is the pre-screening of applicants to determine whether applicants are eligible for the loan program (review income, confirm first-time homebuyer status, and review credit history). • Applications: Only the applicants that make it through the pre-screening in the intake application phase are able to submit an Empower program eligibility application that includes required documentation such as a senior lender pre-approval letter by an interested applicant during a face-to-face appointment with HTSV staff.
• Pre-Approvals: Completion of underwriting and determination of program eligibility for the applicant. A program pre-approval letter will be provided to verify program eligibility that includes a 90-day expiration date. Includes a one-time underwriting review after the 90-day expiration and reissuance of the program eligibility for 90 days.
• Purchase Loan Application: Submission of the purchase loan application and accompanying purchase transaction documents after acceptance of a purchase sale agreement for selected property. Begin the preparation of program loan documents and escrow instructions. Funding and recording of purchase loan.
• Closed: Successful funding and the creation of a new loan. Recorded legal documents are received. • Cancelled: Applicant failed to provide required documentation for the program within 30 days of submission of application.
• Withdrawn: Applicant decides to withdraw the application. • Denied: Applicant fails to meet required eligibility requirements for the program.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 40 of 43
Exhibit 11 below provides an overview of the application statistics for the six stages of the loan process described above for the third quarter of FY 2021-22.

Exhibit 11
Empower Homebuyers Application Statistics
By Quarter of FY 2021-22
Quarter
Intake
Applications Applications
PreApprovals
Purchase
Loan
Application Closed*
Cancelled/
Withdrawn/
Denied
Loans
Purchased
Q3 283 5 3 2 1 15 0
Q2 327 16 9 2 4 6 11
Q1 424 13 4 6 5 4 0
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing. *There may be timing differences between when a loan is closed and when it is funded.

HTSV received their first intake applications in September 2018, and Empower Homebuyers officially launched November 20, 2018. Empower Homebuyers began funding loans in the second quarter of FY 2019-20, and todate has purchased a total of 36 loans for $4,135,810. Exhibit 12 below provides a summary of the funds expended for the administration of the loan program and the total program funds expended to-date. Of the $25 million committed to Empower Homebuyers, $5.04 million was expended to-date for the purchase of loans and administration of the loan program. During the third quarter of FY 2021-22, Empower Homebuyers expended $929 for the administration of the loan program.

Exhibit 12
Empower Homebuyers Funds Expended
By Quarter of FY 2021-22
Administration of Program Funding of Loans Total Empower Funds Expended Quarter
Program Funds
Expended
During Quarter
Total Program
Funds
Expended
to-date*
Program Funds
Expended
During Quarter
Total Program
Funds
Expended
to-date*
Expended
during the
Quarter
Expended
to-date*
Q3 $ 929 $ 905,230 $ 0 $ 4,135,810 $929 $ 5,041,040
Q2 $ 98,011 $ 904,301 $ 1,266,500 $ 4,135,810 $1,364,511 $ 5,040,111 Q1 ($ 28,203) $ 806,290 $ 0 $ 2,869,310 ($ 28,203) $ 3,675,600 Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing. * Total program funds expended to-date from the inception of the Empower Homebuyers through the third quarter of FY 2021-22, which ended March 31, 2022.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 41 of 43

4.2 – Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) – Supportive Housing Fund (SHF) In June 2015, the County Board of Supervisors approved $5 million in lending capital (“County Contribution”) to the Supportive Housing Fund (SHF) to make predevelopment loans for the creation and preservation of permanent housing with supportive services for extremely low-income individuals and families, and those with special needs. In addition, in June 2015, the County Board of Supervisors entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) to administer the SHF to make loans to qualified developers.

On April 11, 2017, the County Board of Supervisors entered into an amended MOU with HTSV to augment the County’s contribution to the SHF by an additional $11.9 million to make predevelopment loans in accordance with the 2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond. This additional contribution to SHF was initially funded through the County’s general fund, with the intent to be repaid by Measure A bond funds once the bonds were issued. The 2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond, which was approved by the voters of Santa Clara County, authorizes the County Board of Supervisors to provide affordable housing 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 illness.

The amended MOU stipulates that the use of the $11.9 million funded by Measure A shall be used only for the purposes authorized by Measure A. The MOU further states that HTSV will provide the County with an annual summary report on all SHF’s disbursed funds, including demographic information collected. HTSV shall also provide the County with a report showing the amount of funds expended and the status of any project required or authorized to be funded with sufficient detail that is needed for the completion of an annual report and to ensure compliance with Measure A. Upon termination of the MOU, HTSV is to return to the County and County Contributions (including Measure A contributions) funds that have never been committed to a revolving loan through the SHF to the County no later than 30 days from the date of termination, expiration, or cancellation of the MOU. After termination, expiration, or cancellation of the MOU, any loan repayments received by HTSV must continue to be used for the intent and purpose of the SHF.

The SHF is a revolving loan fund, which uses Program funds to continuously provide predevelopment loans to qualified Program housing developments. SHF provides new loans using the funds received from the repayments of its loans. As of the third quarter of FY 2021-22, no new loans had been provided or were outstanding during the quarter.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 42 of 43
SECTION 5 – GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS

5.1 – 2017 Series A Housing General Obligation Bonds
On November 9, 2017, the County issued the 2017 Series A Housing General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $250 million. The total cost of the bonds is projected to be $321.38 million, including $71.38 million in interest.

The 2017 Series A Housing General Obligation Bonds fully mature in 30 years on August 1, 2047. Exhibit 14 below details the amount of bonds issued, the cost of the bonds, total interest payable, total amount paid on the bonds through March 31, 2022, and the amount left to pay on the bonds as of March 31, 2022. Exhibit 15 details the amount of interest paid during the third quarter of FY 2021-22. Interest on the bonds is payable semi-annually on February 1st and August 1st. No principal payment was made during the quarter as the principal is payable annually on August 1st.

Exhibit 14
2017 Series A Housing General Obligation Bonds
Quarter Amount of
Bonds Issued
Total Cost of
Bonds*
Total Interest
Payable on
Bonds
Total Amount
Paid Through
end of quarter
Total Amount Left
to Pay as of end of
quarter
Q3 $ 250,000,000 $ 321,376,386 $ 71,376,386 $ 177,763,551 $ 143,612,835 Source: Data provided by the County Finance Agency.
* This is the total cost of the bonds (principal and interest) over the 30 years that the bonds will be outstanding.

Exhibit 15
2017 Series A Housing General Obligation Bonds Activity Amounts Paid During the Quarter of FY 2021-22
Quarter Principal Paid Interest Paid Total Debt
Service Paid
Q3 $ 0 $ 1,543,978 $ 1,543,978
Source: Data provided by the County Finance Agency.

The total interest cost for the 2017 bonds issued was 3.199%. The range of interest rates is dependent upon the type and duration of the bonds. The serial bonds that mature through 2032 range from 1.65% to 3.24%. The term bonds, which are due in 2037 and 2047, have interest rates of 3.43% and 3.55%, respectively. The bonds were rated AAA and AA+, respectively, by two of the national rating agencies, Standard and Poor’s (S&P) and Fitch Ratings, Inc. (Fitch).

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report – Third Quarter FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 43 of 43

5.2 – 2021 Series B Housing General Obligation Bonds
On July 14, 2-21, the County issued the 2021 Series B Housing General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $350 million. The total cost of the bonds is projected to be $422.01 million, including $72.01 million in interest. The 2021 Series B Housing General Obligation Bonds fully mature in 26 years on August 1, 2047. Exhibit 16 below details the amount of bonds issued, the cost of the bonds, total interest payable, total amount paid on the bonds through March 31, 2022, and the amount left to pay on the bonds as of March 31, 2022. Exhibit 17 details the amount of interest paid during the third quarter of FY 2021-22. Interest on the bonds is payable semi-annually on February 1st and August 1st. No principal payment was made during the quarter as the principal is payable annually on August 1st.

Exhibit 16
2021 Series B Housing General Obligation Bonds
Quarter Amount of
Bonds Issued Total Cost of Bonds*
Total Interest
Payable on
Bonds
Total Amount
Paid Through
end of quarter
Total Amount
Left to Pay as of
end of quarter
Q3 $ 350,000,000 $ 422,006,152 $ 72,006,152 $ 3,812,313 $ 418,193,839 Source: Data provided by the County Finance Agency.
* This is the total cost of the bonds (principal and interest) over the 26 years that the bonds will be outstanding.

Exhibit 17
2021 Series B Housing General Obligation Bonds Activity Amounts Paid During the Quarter of FY 2021-22
Quarter Principal Paid Interest Paid Total Debt
Service Paid
Q3 $ 0 $ 3,812,313 $ 3,812,313
Source: Data provided by the County Finance Agency.

The total interest cost for the 2021 bonds issued was 2.148%. The 2021 bonds were issued (sold) in a competitive sale and were rated AAA and AA+, respectively, by two of the national rating agencies, Standard and Poor’s (S&P) and Fitch Ratings, Inc. (Fitch).

Draft Performance Dashboard / Website Snapshot
Program Overview
On November 8, 2016, the people of the County of Santa Clara approved Measure A, a proposition authorizing the County to issue up to $950 million in general obligation bonds to acquire or improve real property for the purpose of providing affordable housing for vulnerable populations throughout the County. The following are highlights about the Measure A Program (Program):
• Program funds are targeted to help construct 4,800 units of affordable housing, in addition to assisting about 235 families to secure loans to finance their first homes. • In October 2017 the County issued its first series of bonds for $250 million and in July 2021 issued the second series of bonds for $350 million.
• As of March 31, 2022, the Program has committed $772.95 million, of which $25 million is committed to the first-time homebuyer loan program, $11.9 million has been committed to a Supportive Housing Fund for predevelopment loans, $25 million bridge loan for Hillview Court, $146.93 million for 20 property acquisitions, $800,000 for 4 partnership projects, and $563.32 million for 41 development and renovation projects.
• The development and renovation projects are in the process of adding 3,411 units of affordable housing included in the County’s housing goals, and an additional 625 units of low-income housing and 80 units of moderate-income housing that are not addressed in the Program’s housing goals (as discussed in the Housing Program Goals section below). • As detailed in the program overview dashboard below, this means that 59.30 percent of the bond proceeds committed for development and renovation projects are financing the development of

71.06 percent of the Program’s housing goals.
• In addition, for every dollar invested by the Program, the Program incentivizes an average of $4.26 from outside investments (Public/Private Leveraging Ratio).

Use of Bond Proceeds
The dashboards below provide details on the estimated cost share per unit and housing development, sources of funding by housing development, and actual expenditures to-date. As of March 31, 2022, we provide the following highlights:
• The Program has committed $563.32 to 41 development and renovation projects, with individual commitments ranging from $1 million (The Veranda) to $53 million (Gateway Tower). • When looking at the estimated cost per unit of housing, the Program has committed anywhere from $45,752 per unit (Markham I) to $210,938 per unit (Leigh Avenue Senior Apartments), with an average cost share of $126,845 per unit of housing.
• Although $563.32 million has been committed by the Program for these 41 development and renovation projects to-date, only $312.45 million has been actually expended to-date.

Housing Program Goals
Program housing goals aim to create 4,800 units of affordable housing. As of March 31, 2022, Program funds committed to date are projected to finance 59.30 percent of the Program’s total affordable housing goal. Based on the Program’s funding commitments through March 31, 2022, the status of housing development goals by type of housing are as follows:
• Helping to finance 88.33 percent of the Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) goal. • Helping to finance 30.75 percent of the Rapid Rehousing (RRH) goal. • Helping to finance 78.50 percent of the Extremely Low-Income (ELI) housing goal. • Helping to finance 116.83 percent of the Very Low-Income (VLI) housing goal. • There are 625 units of Low-Income (LI) housing incorporated into the current housing projects; however, the Program has no stated goal for this category of housing. • There are 80 units of Moderate-Income (MI) housing incorporated into the current housing projects; however, the Program has no stated goal for this category of housing.

The dashboards below provide detail on the number of units in development by housing type, as well as how each housing development contributes to each housing goal.

Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program
A high level summary of Measure A key financial and program performance metrics as of March 31, 2022.

Affordable Housing Development Goal
The affordable housing development goal of Measure A is to commit and/or deliver 4,800 units of affordable housing within Santa Clara County starting November 2016 and over approximately 10 years. As of March 31, 2022, a total of 4,171 units were committed for development using Measure A funds; 3,411 units counted towards the goal of 4,800 units.

Total Measure A Units* 1,303 (31.24%) 2,075 (49.75%)
4,800 Unit Goal** 1,127 (33.04%) 1,573 (46.12%)
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 e Units Completed e In Construction e Pre-Construction
* Note: Excludes the 270 pre-existing units for Curtner Studios (68 units, Completed), Markham I (103 units, Completed), and Markham II (99 units, In Construction). ** Note: The number of units excludes moderate (Ml) and Low income (LI) units (705 units), property manager units (55 units), and renovation projects' pre-existing units (270 units).

Measure A Affordable Housing Bonds
The graph below compares the Measure A affordable housing bonds authorized to the Program's commitment and spending of the bonds proceeds as of March 31, 2022. The Left bar shows the total of the $950 million in affordable housing bonds authorized, of which $600 million have been issued. The middle bar depicts the $786.35 million the Program has committed and expended and the $177.05 million available to commit for affordable housing projects. The right bar shows the total expended as of March 31, 2022, $426.23 million. The County Board of Supervisors has approved the commitment of funds for projects beyond the $600 million in bonds issued. The Program does not anticipate those funds to be expended before the issuance of the remaining $350 million in bonds. The Program has committed more funds than spent mainly due to the funding structure of a number of projects, which will use the Program's committed funds for permanent financing after the completion of construction.

Bonds Authorized vs. Program Funds Committed and Expended $1B
$0.9B
$0.8B
$0.7B
$0.6B
$0.SB
$0.4B
$0.3B
$0.2B
$0.1B
0 $177,046,472 (18.64%)
$350,000,000
$346,725,213 (36.50%)
$99,409,017 (12.86%)
$132,988,545 (17.21%)
$55,056,504 (7.12%)
$96,116,629 (12.43%)
$950M Authorized Bonds Total Expended Total Expended
e Bonds Issued e Bonds Not Issued e Total Expended e Committed, Unspent Available to Commit Expended by Audit and Consulting Services e Expended by First-Time Homebuyer Program e Expended Supportive Housing Fund e Expended by Bridge Loan Hillview Court e Expended by VTA Partnership Projects e Expended by Properties Expended by Projects in Pre-Construction e Expended by Projects in Construction e Expended by Projects Now Complete Key Performance Results:

Bond Proceeds Committed vs Housing Units Approved
The chart below depicts as of March 31, 2022, 1) the percentage of bond proceeds committed and expended of the $950 million authorized and 2) the percentage of housing units in development towards the goal of 4,800 units.

Bond Proceeds Committed and Expended
Compared to Total Measure A Bonds 81.36% ($772,953,528 / $950,000,000) Authorized
Housing Units Approved by Board Compared
to Program Goals
0 20% 40%
Delivery Projections
60% 80% 100%
Development and renovation projects prepare timelines with dates for key development milestones to estimate when the project will be completed and submit revised timelines throughout the course of the projects. Chart 2 below shows for the Program's development and renovation projects the cumulative number of units to be delivered in each calendar year from 2019 through 2024 based on the original projection dates, actual dates, and revised projection dates. Due to the nature of the Program, only the revised projections for development and renovation projects completed or in construction were included. 5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
tl 3,000
C
::::,
'o 2,500
'­
Q)
� 2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0 Original vs. Revised Projection vs. Actual Unit Delivery, Cumulative by Calendar Vear, as of March 31, 2022
---
-----·
·-
-----
.�
• �-
12/31/19 12/31/20 12/31/21 3/31/22 6/30/22 9/30/22 12/31/22 12/31/23 12/31/24 12/31/25 e Original Projection e Actual e Revised Projection for Projects in Construction e 4,800 Goal Measure A Leveraging Ratio
The chart below shows the Leveraging ratio from outside sources for every $1 of Measure A funding committed to date per affordable housing development project. Measure A funds must be Leveraged at a 1:3 ratio, which is, for every one dollar invested by the Measure A Program, there are $3.00 available from non-Measure A funds. - completed - in construction - pre-construction
Goal 3.00
Gateway Senior Apartments
Crossings on Monterey
Leigh Avenue Senior Apartments
Villas on the Park '
The Veranda
Quetzal Gardens
Sango Court
lamesi Village (formerly North San Pedro ...

Calabazas (formerly Corvin) Apartments
Page Street Apartments
Agrihood Senior Apartments
Mariposa Place (formerly West San Carlos Housing)
Blossom Hill Housing
Vela Apartments (formerly Alum Rock Family ...

Roosevelt Park 3.84
San Jose Auzerias 5.97
Gallup & Mesa 11.98
Villas at 4th St. (formerly 4th & E Younger... 5.24
lmmanuel-Sobrato (formerly Moorporak) ...

Vita Lia (formerly Bascom Apartments)

3.42 3.05
Kifer Senior Apartments 6.98
La Avenida Apartments
Algarve Apartments
Gateway Tower
Alum Rock Multifamily

3.11 3.12
Dupont Family Apartments 18.39
Sunol-West San Carlos
Tamien Station TOD

3.69 3.03
The Charles 5.31
Royal Oak Village 4.00
McEvoy Apartments 4.74
Orchard Gardens 6.74
Bellarmino Place 15.82
Hawthorn Senior Apartments 3.89
Lot 12 10.86
Markham I
Markham II
Curtner Studios
Hillview Court
Casa de Novo

2.83 2.05
Residence Inn 86.34
Overall Average
0 -
20 40
Leveraging Ratio
60 80
Development and Renovation Projects
Estimated Cost Share Per Unit
For information on the Location of each development and renovation project, use the arrows within the title bar to navigate to Listings of the projects organized by city. Only cities with existing Measure A Program housing projects are included.

Development (Number of Units/ Bedrooms)
< Existing Development Projects
e Measure A Estimated Cost Share per Unit e Non-Measure A Estimated Cost Share per Unit Gateway Senior Apartments (75/86)
Crossings on Monterey (39/87)
Leigh Avenue Senior Apartments (64/65)
Villas on the Park (84/85)
The Veranda (19/20)
Ouetzal Gardens (71/140)
Sango Court (102/153)
lamesi Village (formerly North San Pedro Apartments ...

Calabazas Apartments (145/146)
Page Street Apartments (82/83)
Agrihood Senior Apartments (165/177)
Mariposa Place (formerly West San Carlos Housing) ...

Blossom Hill Housing (147 /163)
Vela Apartments (formerly Alum Rock Family Housin ...

Roosevelt Park (80/135)
San Jose Auzerias (130/148)
Gallup & Mesa (46/63)
Villas at 4th St. (formerly 4th & E Younger Apartment .. . lmmanuel-Sobrato (formerly Moorporak) Apartments .. .

Vita Lia (formerly Bascom Apartments) (79/101)
Kifer Senior Apartments (80/85)
La Avenida Apartments (100/111)
Alga rve Apartments (91/119)
Gateway Tower (300/381)
Alum Rock Multifamily (58/106)
Dupont Family Apartments (141/269)
Sunol-West San Carlos (154/273)
Tamien Station TOD (135/240)
The Charles (99/177)
Royal Oak Village (73/169)
McEvoy Apartments (224/224)
Orchard Gardens (93/116)
Bellarmino Place (116/204)
Hawthorn Senior Apartments (103/108)
Lot 12 (120/211)
Markham I (153/155)
Markham II (152/154)
Curtner Studios (179/179)
Hillview Court (134/132)
Residence Inn (102/201) $846,471
$575,765
0 $0.1M $0.2M $0.3M $0.4M $0.5M $0.6M $0.7M $0.8M $0.9M V
$1M $1.1M
>
Development (Number of Units/Bedrooms)
Development and Renovation Projects
Sources of Funding for Developments
e Committed Measure A Funding e Non-Measure A Estimated Funding Gateway Senior Apartments (75/86)
Crossings on Monterey (39/87)
Leigh Avenue Senior Apartments (64/65)
Villas on the Park (84/85)
The Veranda (19/20)
Ouetzal Gardens (71/140)
Sango Court (102/153)
lamesi Village (formerly North San Pedro Apartments ...

Calabazas Apartments (145/146)
Page Street Apartments (82/83)
Agrihood Senior Apartments (165/177)
Mariposa Place (formerly West San Carlos Housing) ...

Blossom Hill Housing (147 /163)
Vela Apartments (formerly Alum Rock Family Housin ...

Roosevelt Park (80/135)
San Jose Auzerias (130/148)
Gallup & Mesa (46/63)
Villas at 4th St. (formerly 4th & E Younger Apartment .. . lmmanuel-Sobrato (formerly Moorporak) Apartments .. .

Vitalia (formerly Bascom Apartments) (79/101)
Kifer Senior Apartments (80/85)
La Avenida Apartments (100/111)
Alga rve Apartments (91/119)
Gateway Tower (300/381)
Alum Rock Multifamily (68/106)
Dupont Family Apartments (141/269)
Sunol-West San Carlos (154/273)
Tamien Station TOD (135/240)
The Charles (78/138)
Royal Oak Village (73/169)
McEvoy Apartments (224/224)
Orchard Gardens (93/116)
Bellarmino Place (116/204)
Hawthorn Senior Apartments (103/108)
Lot 12 (120/211)
Markham I (153/155)
Markham 11 (152/154)
Curtner Studios (179/179)
Hillview Court (134/132)
Casa de Novo (TBD)
Residence Inn (102/201)
Average per Development
c:=:::;-r---i
c;;;;;;;;;;;;::�..l.._ __ _j_ __ ---1...,
$53,800,448
$56,488,258
$75,480,486
$60,576,906
$58,088,992
$190,010,413
$109,663,401
$111,439,435
$105,933,548
$58,400,000
c=:==-J...._ __ J...._ __ .J..._ __ ...J....._
0 $20M $40M $60M $80M $100M $120M $140M $160M $180M $200M $220M $240M •
►
n
.0
C
l/l
r-1-:
::J
•
-0
-,
(1)
I
0 (1)
<
(1) ,--0
"'CJ
3 (1)
::J
•
n
0 ::J
l/l
rt-
-,
C
n
!:!.
0 ::J
-0
(1)
-,
3 OJ
::J
(1)
::J
rt-
"TI
::J
::J
n
::J
lO
I Gateway Senior Apartme ...

Crossings on Monterey
Leigh Ave Senior Apartm ... 11
Villas on the Park
The Veranda
Ouetzal Gardens
Sango Court
lamesi Village (formerly ...

Calabazas (formerly Corv ...

Page Street Apartments
Agrihood Senior Apartme ...

Mariposa Place (formerly ...

Blossom Hill Housing
Vela Apartments (formerly ...

Roosevelt Park
San Jose Auzerias
Gallup & Mesa
Villas at 4th St. (formerly ...
lmmanuel-Sobrato (forme ...

Vitalia (formerly Bascom ...

Kifer Senior Apartments
La Avenida Apartments
Algarve Apartments
Gateway Tower
Alum Rock Multifamily
Dupont Family Apartmen ...

Sunol-West San Carlos
Tamien Station TOD
The Charles
Royal Oak Village
McEvoy Apartments
Orchard Gardens
Bellarmino Place
Hawthorn Senior Apartm ...

Lot 12
Markham I
Markham II
Curtner Studios
0 I tA- ti'!- ti'!- ti'!- ti'!- ti'!- ti'!- ti'!-
V, .....,. .....,. l'-J l'-J LN LN ...i:,..
3:: 0 V, 0 V, 0 V, 0
3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: 3:: I I
!1if.4:ol•" � ., , ,
$9,000,000
$12,500,000
$6,798,000
$11,200,000
I $13,036,104
Hi LL view Court e:_44 __ ,
_
7 S_ 4
.,,..
,4_3_4_"""T"" __ �---.----..-----,------..--"""T""------' Casa de Novo1, __ ....,
Residence Inn
ti'!-
...i:,..

V,
3::
�
n,
QJ •
V, ► C: ""I n
rt- n, C
> C OJ ,--
m � m
C" >< ><
'< j n,
- "'CJ
(1) 0 C :::l "C ::J

0. � 9: 3 rtn, ,... n, C C: :::l -
-,
(1) 0 tD ,... l/l
"C V, QJ 3 o' :::l •
n, ""I

0. :::l > f
o;J
,... OJ
n al ,-- :::l OJ
0 � ::J
� ""I n 0. (1)
n C"
QJ � -· 0
QJ 0 --t,
,... -
n, n, :::l n
I.C :::c 0
0 "'tJ 3 0 ""I
'< C: -0
· 3
V, -· n, ::1="
:::l A. (1)
I.C V, 0.
"'tJ "TI
""I C
0 ::J
-· 0. n, l/l
n
(it
Gateway Senior Apartme ...

Crossings on Monterey
Leigh Ave Senior Apartm ...

Villas on the Park
The Veranda
Ouetzal Gardens
Sango Court
lamesi Village (formerly .. .

Calabazas (formerly Corv .. .

Page Street Apartments
Agrihood Senior Apartm .. .

Mariposa Place (formerly .. .

Blossom Hill Housing
Vela Apartments (formerly ...
0 Roosevelt Park
San Jose Auzerias •·•
Gallup & Mesa
Villas at 4th St. (formerly .. .
lmmanuel-Sobrato (form .. .

Vitalia (formerly Bascom .. .

Kifer Senior Apartments
ti'!­
......
0 3::
tl'l1'-J
0 3::
tl'l1...N
0 3::
tl'l­
...i:,..
0 3::
tl'lv,
0 3::
ti'!­
°'
0 3::
tl'l­
-....J
0 3::
� �
)> n, C
al � �
""I C: n,

0. QJ
tD -
-
0 C" - "C
ii, "T1 3
:::c C: n,
0 :::l :::l

0. ,...

C:

V, QJ
V, -· n ::::J
:::l O 0.

I.C 3 �
C 3
n,
La Avenida Apartments I . ,
. I
�
� �-
n, �
QJ
0 0. ,... Algarve Apartments
Gateway Tower
I
�--,---,--- ,
_____ 1n 1 1 1 1
"C < -·
3 V, g
n, m "'tJ
:::l >< ""I ,... "C 0
Alum Rock Multifamily
Dupont Family Apartmen ...
1 __
Sunol-West San Carlos
"'tJ n, -·
""I :::l n,
----- ---
o o.
n
$17,489,893
I I
fD
0 t1) (it
I I
n Q.

I r-1-
�•••J1•itfi
Ta mien Station TOD IJ1s,ooo,o�o : I
The Charles
Royal Oak Village
Mc Evoy Apartments ,�$__2__ 3 ,_so_o .... ,o
... oo ___ ...,.... .....

Orchard Gardens I $13,850,000
Bellarmino Place
1 __
Hawthorn Senior Apartm ... I $15,sso,ooo
Lot 12
1 __ ___.
1 Markham I
Markham II
1 _ ____.

Curtner Studios
Hillview Court
Casa de Novo
Residence Inn
{$22,854,434}
$3OM
$25M
$2OM
$15M
$1OM
$SM
0 _, -0 Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
.j..J 0 > Vl Vl
0 0 ,._
::::l 0 ::::l 0 C C � 0 --, --, L Q) Q) 4:: > C � C
C <( ro ro
,._ ,._ V) V)
.j..J
Q) 0 ,._ ,._
Vl .-I ro ro
,._ ,._
�
" ,._ ,._
0 Q) Q)
t-r'l LL LL
N N
'° (J'\
$SOOK
$6OOK
$4OOK
$2OOK
0 Q) Q)
Vl ::::l 0 C --,
Q)
� C
ro
V)
,._
ro
,._
,._
Q)
LL
00 (J'\
Q) Q)
Vl ::::l 0 C --,
Q)
� C
ro
V)
,._
ro
,._
,._
Q)
LL
0 .-I
.-I
Program Properties Measure A Commitments and
Expenditures by Property
0 0
'°
.-I
r-t'l
LI)
0-
.-I
-
Q) _,
Q) _, Q) C Q) C Q) Q)
Vl -0 Q) ro
::::l
Vl ::::l Vl ro Vl ro Vl _, 0 0 Vl N 0 0 0 0 u .j..J 0 C --, :r: --, V) --, V) --, ,._ _, 0 C -0 <( � --, <( ,._
Q) ro � C o<l C Q) -0 u Vl 4:: C
ro ro ::::l ro _, ro Q) >
V) 0 Q) Q) V) C 0 Q) _J ,._ V) 0 _,
,._ �
Q) 0:::: .j..J 0 . ::::l
Q)
� ro Vl Q) z
�
C I./") > 0
,._
,._ ro Q) 0 " .-I co
Q) .j..J C -0 ,._
LL C (J'\
0 0 0 0
ro
ro t-r'l t-r'l I./")
.j..J 0 _, >, E t-r'l 0
N .j..J .-I <( ro _,
.-I _, <( u
0 0
0 0
0 0
N
.-I
-
0 .
.
"""" .

I./") C
.-I ro
V)
.0 Q) ::::l
:r: �
Q) ,._
..c 0
f- 0
E
�
,._
ro

0...
e Actual Expenditures e Balance Committed Program Funding To-Date Program VTA Partnership Projects
Measure A Commitments and Expenditures by Property
$573,244
Q) ,._
ro Q) Q)
-0 Vl Vl
0 .j..J 0 Q) --, C --,
E

Q) C V) C
_, ro ro ro
V) 00 V) <( 00
Q) 00 -0
..c .-I ro
f- 0
o<l 0::::
.-I
0 0
0 "
N 00
.-I
VTA Berryessa BART Station, Branham Station, Capital LRT Station, and Gilroy Transit Center e Actual Expenditures e Balance Committed Program Funding To-Date 0 -.:I" 0
r-t'l 0
0 0 r--" 0
r-t'l LI)

CJ' CJ'
'° .-I
- -
,._ Q) 0 ro
_, LLJ
ro Q)
.j..J
Q) Vl C ,._ ,._ Vl
Vl 0 ro _,- ro 0
E
_, LLJ ro _,
Q) --, u u --,
..c C t-r'l Q) ro 0:::: C
u ro u ro 0 ro ro
C V) .j..J (J'\ 0 _, C
.j..J
C V)
� -0 LLJ ro -0 C ro Q)
> 0 V) C
E
V) .j..J
V) _, I./") _,- ro .j..J co ro Vl V)
0 I./") ro .-I u ro .j..J
(J'\ t-r'l 0::::

Q) 0 LLJ Q)
t-r'l (J'\ Q)
.-I ,._
.j..J
V)
Development and Renovation Projects - Housing Goals by Affordable Housing Category (Number of Units)
Permanent Support Housing (PSH) -1,800 Unit Goal
Rapid Rehousing (RRH) -1,600 Unit Goal
Extremely Low Income (ELI) -800 Unit Goal
Very Low Income (VU) -600 Unit Goal
Low Income (LI) -No Unit Goal
Moderate Income (Ml) -No Unit Goal
0 80
200
434
411
393
400
4t Units Completed 4t Units in Construction
600 800 1,000 1,200
Units in Pre-Constuction 4t Remaining Units to Meet Goal Development and Renovation Projects - Housing Projects by Affordable Housing Category (Number of Units)
Permanent Support Housing (PSH) -1,800 Unit Goal 37
Extremely Low Income (ELI) -800 Unit Goal
Very Low Income (VU) -600 Unit Goal
Low Income (LI) -No Unit Goal
Moderate Income (Ml) -No Unit Goal 80
0 73
43 53
200 400
54 49 64 106 47 32 46 55
so
52 54 40
39 600 800 1,000
1,400 1,600 1,800
50 so 111
1,200 1,400