RULES COMMITTEE: 2/22/2023
Item: B.1
File ID: ROGC 23-084
TO: Honorable Mayor & FROM: Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Council City Clerk
SUBJECT: The Public Record DATE: February 22, 2023
February 9 – February 16, 2023
ITEMS FILED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Letters from Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Letters from the Public
1. Letter from Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Joanna Saucedo), dated February 10, 2023, regarding: Measure A (2016) - Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee.
2. Letter from Sandeep Bhaarat, dated February 14, 2023, regarding: Investigation into Shivaji Maharaj Statue hate-crime.
3. Letter from Viraj Raut, dated February 14, 2023, regarding: Public Comment: San Jose City Council meeting Feb 14th 2023.
4. Letter from Blair Beekman, dated February 15, 2023, regarding: ¹Blair Beekman.
Wednesday, February 15, 2023....A few thoughts, on BAUASI Approval Authority Meetings. Fall '22 - Spring '23.
____________________________
Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Clerk
TJT/tt
2/16/23, 8:42 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
FW: Measure A (2016) - Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee City Clerk <[email protected]>
Mon 2/13/2023 7:43 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: BoardOperations <
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 4:28 PM
To: BoardOperations <
Subject: Measure A (2016) - Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee Hello,
At its regularly scheduled meeting held on January 24, 2023 (Item No. 61), the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors receive report from Measure A (2016 Housing Bond) Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee relating to the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 First Quarter Report from the Independent Auditor.
Enclosed is a pdf copy of the Measure A (2016 Housing Bond) - Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee Fourth Quarter Report and Fiscal Year 2022-2023 First Quarter Report from the Independent Auditor for your records. If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact our office.
Regards,
Joanna Saucedo
Board Clerk I, 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.
Public Record: 1
Received: 01/24/2023
County of Santa Clara
Citizen’s Oversight Committee’s Measure A 2016
Affordable Housing Bond Program
Independent Advisor’s Quarterly Report –
First Quarter Fiscal Year 2022-2023
December 8, 2022
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 2 of 44
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................... 3 Message to the Board of Supervisors............................................................................................................. 3 Quarterly Update............................................................................................................................................ 5 Bond Proceeds .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Progress to Date ............................................................................................................................................ 6 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 First 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 ...............................................................................................................22
2.3.1 – Average vs. Median Leveraging Ratios.........................................................................................22
2.3.2 – Leveraging Ratio vs. Program’s Estimated Cost Share per Unit ...................................................23
2.3.3 – Measure A Leveraging Ratio By Project .......................................................................................24
2.4 – Housing Development Units................................................................................................................27
2.4.1 – Housing Types..............................................................................................................................27
2.4.2 – Total Housing Development Units................................................................................................. 27
2.4.3 – Housing Development Goals ........................................................................................................28
2.5 – Housing Development Milestones .......................................................................................................30
2.5.1 – Significant Activities by Development and Renovation Projects ....................................................34 SECTION 3 – PROPERTIES AND PARTNERSHIPS......................................................................................37
3.1 – Properties’ Financial Data ...................................................................................................................37
3.2 – Partnership Projects’ Financial Data....................................................................................................39 SECTION 4 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING LOAN PROGRAMS ........................................................................40
4.1 – First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program (Empower Homebuyers).................................................40
4.2 – Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) – Supportive Housing Fund (SHF)............................................. 42 SECTION 5 – GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS.............................................................................................43
5.1 – 2017 Series A Housing General Obligation Bonds ..............................................................................43
5.2 – 2021 Series B Housing General Obligation Bonds ..............................................................................44 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 3 of 44
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Message to the Board of Supervisors
Background
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 first quarter of FY 2022-23, from July 1, 2022 through September 30, 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.
Key Takeaways
The Committee presents the Board of Supervisors the following key takeaways regarding the Program, as of September 30, 2022.
Favorable Outcomes
• The Program is on track to create 4,800 affordable housing units, but delivery will be later than 2026. • The Program’s leveraging of $4 in financing from other sources for every $1 of Program funds continues to exceed the leveraging goal of 3:1.
The higher leveraging ratio is necessary to compensate for increased costs in order to achieve the Program’s goals.
Unfavorable Outcomes
• The Program’s rapid rehousing (RRH) goal of 1,600 units will not be achieved. With an increased focus on this goal, substantially more RRH units could be built; and any shortfall in RRH units will be matched by increases in the other housing types.
• The total cost per unit is significantly higher than anticipated and growing, with some projects having costs approaching or exceeding $1,000,000 per unit.
• The Empower Homebuyer Program has not been successful. • The balanced geographical distribution of projects across the county has not yet been achieved.
Recommendations
• Redeploy the $19.15 million remaining funds for the Empower Homebuyer Program to the development of affordable housing production.
• Enlist a university to conduct an independent in-depth case study of the Measure A Program to identify what worked, what did not work, and why, as well as analyze the external challenges and delays. In addition, the case study should analyze the State’s housing policies, including the state tax credits program, and their effect on the Program.
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 4 of 44
Additional Information
During the first quarter of FY 2022-23, one development project and two renovation projects completed construction of 271 units for a total of 962 units delivered to-date. The Program did not add any projects or properties during the quarter. As of September 30, 2022, the Program had committed $583.32 million for 3,693 units at an average of $122,212 per unit. The Program continued progressing in its development of affordable housing units under the effective management of the County’s Office of Supportive Housing. As a result of those efforts, the Program’s Measure A Leveraging Ratio continued to be more than 4:1, or more than $4 of nonMeasure A funds invested for every one dollar of Measure A funding.
In July 2022, the U.S. Department of Treasury announced new guidance to increase the ability of state and local governments to use American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds for affordable housing. While more funding is being made available at the State and Federal level for affordable housing, there are still significant challenges with the financing and development of affordable housing that are not being addressed or fixed, such as the need to leverage multiple sources of funding for each project and the increasing cost per affordable housing unit.
Despite the Program’s progress, the Committee continues to be concerned with the following:
1. The Program will not reach the RRH goal of 1,600 units. The Program had 1,107 units remaining to finance to meet its goal of 4,800 units as of September 30, 2022. As shown in Section 2.4, Exhibit 7, of the remaining 1,107 units, 1,099 units will need to be RRH in order to meet the RRH goal; as only 501 units or
31.31 percent of the 1,600 unit RRH goal have been approved by the Board of Supervisors.
2. Will the Program be able to finance the 1,107 units remaining to meet its goal with the $157.05 million remaining in program funds? The Program estimates it will commit all funds by June 2023.
3. Eighteen development and renovation projects are still working to secure financing and the Program is unable to predict if all the projects will obtain financing and when. Developers have up to 3 years to secure all financing before the Program considers reallocating a project’s committed program funds to another project. The longer it takes for a project to secure financing the more likely the overall project cost will increase and the less likely a developer will be able to obtain sufficient financing and build the affordable housing units.
4. The continuously 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) for the First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program (Empower Homebuyers).
5. The effect of the delays in the Program’s delivery of affordable housing units. The increasing construction costs, labor shortages, and inflation causes the Program’s development and renovation projects to take longer to complete and to cost more than initially anticipated.
6. The lack of evenly or diverse geographic distribution of the Program’s projects. The Program’s current 44 development and renovation projects, 20 properties, and 4 partnership projects are located within nine cities in the County1
; 48 of the 68 projects are located in the City of San Jose. The Committee recognizes the Program has turned down projects in San Jose in order to use Program funds for projects in other locations.
In the fourth quarter of FY 2021-22 report, the Committee recommended the Board of Supervisors make a policy decision for the Program’s RRH unit goal. As of September 30, 2022, there has been no formal decisions made by the Board of Supervisors.
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.
1 Projects and properties are located in the nine cities of Cupertino (2), Gilroy (2), Los Altos (1), Milpitas (2), Morgan Hill (3), Mountain View (3), San Jose (48), Santa Clara (5) and Sunnyvale (2).
MGO Advisory Page 5 of 44
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 Quarterly Update
During the first quarter of FY 2022-23, the Program’s net spending of bond proceeds amounted to $35.43 million, which was primarily used for development and renovation projects and property acquisition, as follows:
Development and Renovation projects $ 26,823,061
Property acquisitions 8,590,205
Administrative costs 19,658
Spending during first quarter $ 35,432,924
The Program had the following activity as shown in Section 2 during the first quarter of FY 2022-23:
• Three projects (Vela Apartments, Markham II and Hillview Court) completed construction; • One project (Roosevelt Park) started construction;
• Thirteen projects continued construction; and
• One project (Hawthorn Senior Apartments) obtained land use approval.
Bond Proceeds
During the first quarter of FY 2022-23, the Program’s bond activity was as follows:
Balance of Bond Proceeds
at June 30, 2022 $ 132,539,816
Interest Earnings 130,455
Other revenues 113,310
Change in accounts payable (1,093,961)
Spending during the quarter (35,432,924)
Net increase in bond proceeds (36,283,120)
Balance of Bond Proceeds
at September 30, 2022 $ 96,256,696
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 6 of 44
The table below summarizes the sources and uses of the Housing Bond (program funds authorized), the Program funds committed and Program funds remaining.
Table 1
Program Category Unit Goals Program Funds
Authorized
Program Funds
Committed
Program Funds
Remaining
Empower Homebuyers 100 $ 25,000,000 $ 25,000,000 $ 0
Other Homeownership
400
25,000,000 0 25,000,000
Mixed Income Rental &
Homeownership Housing 100,000,000 33,000,000 67,000,000 Supportive Housing Fund PSH: 1,800
RRH: 1,600
ELI: 1,400
Total: 4,800
800,000,000
11,900,000
County Acquisitions 139,733,900 65,046,472
Rounds 1 - 8 583,319,628
Totals 5,300 $ 950,000,000 $ 792,953,528 $ 157,046,472
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing Progress to Date
As of September 30, 2022, the Program had committed $792.95 million as follows:
• $583.32 million for 44 development and renovation projects (see Section 2), • $25.0 million for a bridge loan for Hillview Court (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 September 30, 2022, the Program had spent $505.08 million (Section 1). The Program had financed approximately 17.99 percent of total development and renovation costs for 44 projects, at an average per unit cost of approximately $122,212 (see Section 2.1), and 76.94 percent (3,693 units) of its goal of 4,800 affordable housing units (see Section 2.4).
Chart 1 on the following page compares the Measure A affordable housing bonds authorized to the Program's commitment and spending of the bonds proceeds as of September 30, 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 $792.95 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.
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 7 of 44
Chart 1
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing Chart 2 below shows the number of units completed, in construction, and in pre-construction. As of September 30, 2022, 962 units were completed, 1,106 units were in construction and 1,625 units were in pre-construction for a total of 3,693 units counted towards the goal of 4,800 units. There were 1,107 units remaining to be developed to reach the goal of 4,800 units.
Chart 2
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing. *Note: Excludes the 270 pre-existing units for Curtner Studios (67 units, Completed), Markham I (102 units, Completed), and Markham II (101 units, Completed), 751 moderate (MI) and low income (LI) units, and 59 property manager units. $600.00
$350.00
$505.08
$287.87
$157.05
$-
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$950M Bonds Authorized $792.95M Committed Funds
$157.05M Remaining Available
In Millions
Measure A Bonds Authorized vs. Program Committed Funds, as of September 30, 2022
Issued Remaining Authorized Expended Committed Available to Commit Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 8 of 44
Chart 3 below shows the 13 development and renovation projects completed and number of units delivered as of September 30, 2022.
Chart 3
Completed Projects as of September 30, 2022
# Project Name (City) Goal
Units
Non-Goal
Units *
Total
Units
1 Gateway Senior Apartments (Gilroy) 44 31 75
2 Crossings on Monterey (Morgan Hill) 31 8 39
3 Leigh Avenue Senior Apartments
(San Jose) 63 1 64
4 Villas on the Park (San Jose) 83 1 84
5 The Veranda (Cupertino) 18 1 19
6 Quetzal Gardens (San Jose) 47 24 71
7 Iamesi Village (formerly North San Pedro
Apartments) (San Jose) 134 1 135
8 Calabazas (formerly Corvin) Apartments
(Santa Clara) 130 15 145
9 Vela Apartments (formerly Alum Rock Family
Housing) (San Jose) 69 18 87
10 Markham I (San Jose) 50 1 51
11 Markham II (San Jose) 50 1 51
12 Curtner Studios (San Jose) 111 1 112
13 Hillview Court (Milpitas) 132 2 134
TOTAL UNITS COMPLETED 962 105 1,067
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing. *Note: Includes moderate (MI) and low income (LI) units, and property manager units.
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 9 of 44
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 4 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 2026 based on the original projection dates, actual dates, and revised projection dates. The original projections total the 3,693 units that had been committed as of September 30, 2022. Due to the nature of the Program, the revised projection only includes development and renovation projects in construction.
Chart 4
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing.
Note: The gray box is calendar year 2022, which was expanded to show the projections by quarter.
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 10 of 44
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 first quarter of FY 2022-23, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 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 September 22, 2022, and one report was submitted and approved by the Committee: the Independent Advisor’s Annual and Fourth 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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 11 of 44
Summary of Program Activity in First Quarter
The following information summarizes the different sections of the report and highlights the Program’s activities during the first quarter of FY 2022-23 or as of the quarter end, September 30, 2022:
• Section 1: The Program committed in total 83.47 percent of all allowable bond proceeds. The Program committed to development and renovation projects 61.40 percent of available bond proceeds to finance 76.94 percent of its housing goals.
• Section 2.1: During the quarter, the Program did not add any development or renovation projects. The Program committed $583.32 million for 44 development and renovation projects. • Section 2.2: Five development and renovation projects expended $26.82 million during the quarter. As a result, the cumulative expenditures increased 7.57 percent to $380.98 million as of quarter end. • Section 2.3: During the quarter, the Program’s Measure A Leveraging Ratio remained at an average of 4.56 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 4,503 units: 3,693 units (7694 percent) count toward the Program’s goal of 4,800 units, and an additional 810 units do not count toward the Program’s goal.
• Section 2.5: The following milestones were achieved during the quarter: three projects completed construction; one project started construction; and one project obtained land use approval. • Section 3.1: The Program committed $146.93 million as of September 30, 2022 and expended $8.59 million on four properties during the quarter.
• Section 3.2: The Program committed $800,000 on the four VTA partnership projects as of September 30, 2022.
• Section 4.1: The First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program (Empower Homebuyers) received 257 intake applications. No loans were purchased or funds expended for the administration of the loan program during the quarter.
• Section 4.2: The Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) – Supportive Housing Fund (SHF) had one predevelopment loan outstanding for $2.21 million during the quarter. • Section 5: The principal and interest outstanding on the 2017 Series A Housing General Obligation Bonds issued in October 2017 was $140.84 million. The principal and interest outstanding on the 2021 Series B Housing General Obligation Bonds issued in July 2021 was $345.94 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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 12 of 44
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 September 30, 2022, the Program had committed a total of $792.95 million of the $950 million of bonds authorized, or 83.47 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 $505.08 million, or
84.18 percent of the $600 million of bond proceeds as of September 30, 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 September 30, 2022, the Program had committed $583.32 million of the $950 million of authorized bonds to development and renovation projects, or 61.40 percent of available bond proceeds. As discussed in Section
2.4.3, the $583.32 million will finance the development of 3,693 units that count towards the Program’s goal of 4,800 units, or 76.94 percent of the Program’s housing goals.
Exhibit 1 below provides a summary of the Program’s total committed and expended funds as of September 30, 2022.
Exhibit 1
Total Committed and Expended Program Funds
As of First Quarter FY 2022-23
Project Name
Committed
Program
Funding
to-date
Total Program
Funds
Expended
to-date
Total Program
Funds
Expended in
Q1 FY 2022-23
Percent of $950
million of
bonds
authorized a
Development and Renovation Projects
(Section 2) $ 583,319,628 $ 357,245,034 $ 26,823,061 61.40% Bridge Loan for Hillview Court (Section
2) b 25,000,000 23,736,368 0 2.63%
Property Acquisitions (Section 3.1) 146,933,900 105,560,594 8,590,205 15.47% Partnership Projects (Section 3.2) 800,000 250,857 0 0.08% First-Time Homebuyer Assistance
Program (Section 4.1) 25,000,000 5,852,940 0 1.25%
HTSV – Supportive Housing Fund c
(Section 4.2) 11,900,000 11,900,000 11,900,000 2.63%
Consulting and audit services 531,785 19,658
Program Totals $ 792,953,528 $ 505,077,578 $ 35,432,924 83.47% 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 September 30, 2022, the Program had committed $583.32 million of Measure A funds for 44 development and renovation projects, which are estimated to finance approximately 17.99 percent of all total development and renovation costs, at an average cost share per unit of $122,212.
During the first quarter of FY 2022-23, the Program did not add any development or renovation projects. 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 Sonora Court was the most recent housing development project approved on June 28, 2022.
Exhibit 22
Development and Renovation Projects’ Financial Data as of September 30, 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 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 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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 14 of 44
Development and Renovation Projects’ Financial Data as of September 30, 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
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 17 Mesa Terrace (formerly Gallup &
Mesa) (San Jose)
10/22/2019
(Q2 FY20) 46/63 33,741,318 733,507 2,600,000 7.71 56,522 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 15 of 44
Development and Renovation Projects’ Financial Data as of September 30, 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
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 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 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 16 of 44
Development and Renovation Projects’ Financial Data as of September 30, 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
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 36 Alvarado Park (San Jose)
06/28/2022
(Q4 FY22) 90/97 70,391,207 782,125 4,600,000 6.53 51,111 37 The Magnolias (Morgan Hill)
06/28/2022
(Q4 FY22) 66/117 64,368,522 975,281 13,200,000 20.51 200,000 38 Sonora Court (Sunnyvale)
06/28/2022
(Q4 FY22) 176/311 144,652,410 821,889 2,200,000 1.52 12,500 38 Development Projects Total 4,053 c /
5,568 $2,993,166,599 $526,902,961 17.60% $ 130,003
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 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 17 of 44
Development and Renovation Projects’ Financial Data as of September 30, 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 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
6 Residence Inn (San Jose)
02/08/2022
(Q3 FY22) 102/201 87,340,000 856,275 1,000,000 1.14 9,804 5 Renovation Projects Total 720 c / 823 $ 249,339,119 $ 56,416,667 22.63% $ 78,356 43 Total Development and Renovation Projects 4,773c /
6,391 $3,242,505,718 $ 583,319,628 17.99% $ 122,212 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 (59 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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 18 of 44
2.2 – Program Expenditures per Housing Project
Of the $583.32 million committed to the 44 development and renovation projects, $380.98 million, or approximately 65.31 percent, was expended as of September 30, 2022. During the first quarter of FY 2022-23, the Program expended $26.82 million, which represented an increase in cumulative expenditures of 7.57 percent when compared to the $354.16 million spent as of June 30, 2021. Exhibit 3 below and on the following pages provides an overview by project of the expenditures to-date (as of September 30, 2022) by cost category (acquisition, pre-development, construction and permanent financing3
) expended from Measure A funds.
Exhibit 34
Program Expenditures per Housing Project
through September 30, 2022
# Project Name
Total Program
Funds
Committed
To-Date
Total
Program
Funds
Expended
Program
Funds
Expended
During Q1
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 13,500,000 0 3,700,000 49,723 9,750,277 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 16,000,000 995,398 6,900,000 2,500,000 6,600,000 0 8 Iamesi Village (formerly North
San Pedro Apartments) 10,327,100 9,530,901 0 93,633 0 9,437,268 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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 19 of 44
Program Expenditures per Housing Project
through September 30, 2022
# Project Name
Total Program
Funds
Committed
To-Date
Total
Program
Funds
Expended
Program
Funds
Expended
During Q1
Program to-date Expenditures
Acquisition PreDevelopment Construction Permanent
Financing
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 0 4,186,089 1,053,911 7,412,812 0 11 Agrihood Senior Apartments 23,550,000 23,550,000 0 0 2,000,000 21,550,000 0 12 Mariposa Place (formerly West
San Carlos Housing) 9,300,000 9,300,000 0 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 8,596,833 0 3,700,000 2,000,000 2,896,833 0 15 Roosevelt Park 14,400,000 8,515,300 0 4,000,000 2,500,000 2,015,300 0 16 Auzerais Apartments 13,200,000 13,200,000 0 12,500,000 0 700,000 0 17 Mesa Terrace (formerly Gallup &
Mesa) 2,600,000 2,600,000 0 0 0 2,600,000 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 15,459,999 7,204,920 0 15,459,999 0 20 Vitalia (formerly Bascom
Apartments) 15,800,000 14,765,002 4,010,344 5,450,000 0 9,315,002 0 21 Kifer Senior Apartments 7,400,000 6,442,631 (397,369) 4,700,000 1,182,631 560,000 0 22 La Avenida Apartments 19,000,000 15,009,768 15,009,768 12,510,000 2,499,768 0 0 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 20 of 44
Program Expenditures per Housing Project
through September 30, 2022
# Project Name
Total Program
Funds
Committed
To-Date
Total
Program
Funds
Expended
Program
Funds
Expended
During Q1
Program to-date Expenditures
Acquisition PreDevelopment Construction Permanent
Financing
23 Algarve Apartments 11,500,000 5,995,000 0 3,495,000 2,500,000 0 0 24 Gateway Tower 53,000,000 18,170,000 0 18,170,000 0 0 0 25 Alum Rock Multifamily 11,600,000 10,590,317 0 3,000,000 1,732,150 5,858,167 0 26 Dupont Family Apartments 7,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 Sunol-West San Carlos 29,720,215 12,518,182 0 11,200,000 1,318,182 0 0 28 Tamien Station TOD 25,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
29 The Charles 12,480,000 4,641,520 0 3,200,000 1,441,520 0 0 30 Royal Oak Village 9,891,000 4,274,000 0 3,307,000 967,000 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
36 Alvarado Park 4,600,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 The Magnolias 13,200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 Sonora Court 2,200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Development Projects Total $526,902,961 $312,242,263 $26,823,061 $140,878,286 $30,333,289 $141,030,688 $0 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 21 of 44
Program Expenditures per Housing Project
through September 30, 2022
# Project Name
Total Program
Funds
Committed
To-Date
Total
Program
Funds
Expended
Program
Funds
Expended
During Q1
Program to-date Expenditures
Acquisition PreDevelopment Construction Permanent
Financing
Renovation Projects
1 Markham I $7,000,000 $5,700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,700,000 2 Markham II 7,200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Curtner Studios 14,950,000 13,036,104 0 0 0 13,036,104 0 4 Hillview Court 21,900,000 45,636,368 a 0 45,636,368 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 68,739,139 0 50,003,035 0 13,036,104 5,700,000 Total Development and Renovation
Projects $583,319,628 $380,981,402 $26,823,061 $190,881,321 $30,333,289 $154,066,792 $5,700,000 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 first quarter of FY 2022-23. The Program did not add any projects during the quarter, and therefore, the average leveraging ratio remained the same as the fourth quarter of FY 2021-22.
Average Leveraging Ratio - Based on the financial projections for the housing projects, it is estimated that in the first quarter of FY 2022-23 for every one dollar invested by the Measure A Program, the Program incentivized
4.56, 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 first quarter of FY 2022-23 for every one dollar invested by the Measure A Program, the Program incentivized
3.86, 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 2022-23
Estimated Total
Development
Cost
Committed
Program Funding
To-Date
Non-Measure A
Funding 5
Measure A
Leveraging Ratio
Average Median
Q1 $ 3,242,505,718 $ 583,319,628 $ 2,659,186,090 4.56 3.86 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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 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 first quarter of FY 2022-23. For the first quarter of FY 2022-23, the average Measure A Leverage Ratio decreased and the Program’s estimated cost share per unit increased due to the Program removing one renovation project.
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.
Historical Information
For the fourth quarter of FY2021-22, the average Measure A Leverage Ratio increased and the Program’s estimated cost share per unit decreased due to the Program adding three development projects. 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 nonMeasure 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. $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
Q4
FY22
Q1
FY23
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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory
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.
2.3.3 – Measure A Leveraging Ratio By Project
For the 44 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 September 30, 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 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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory
Estimated Ratio of Outside Investments per Housing Project as of September 30, 2022
# Project Name Estimated Total
Development Cost
Committed
Program Funding
To-Date
Non-Measure A
Funding a
Measure A
Leveraging
Ratio b
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 Mesa Terrace (formerly Gallup &
Mesa) 33,741,318 2,600,000 31,141,318 11.98
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
36 Alvarado Park (San Jose) 70,391,207 4,600,000 65,791,207 14.30 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory
Estimated Ratio of Outside Investments per Housing Project as of September 30, 2022
# Project Name Estimated Total
Development Cost
Committed
Program Funding
To-Date
Non-Measure A
Funding a
Measure A
Leveraging
Ratio b
37 The Magnolias (Morgan Hill) 64,368,522 13,200,000 51,168,522 3.88 38 Sonora Court (Sunnyvale) 144,652,410 2,200,000 142,452,410 64.75 Development Projects Total $2,993,166,599 $526,902,961 $2,466,263,638 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
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 $ 3,242,505,718 $ 583,319,628 $ 2,659,186,090 4.56 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.
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory
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.
2.4.2 – Total Housing Development Units
The Program’s current funding commitment will result in developing a total of 4,503 units as of September 30, 2022. 3,693 units (76.94 percent) have housing types that count towards the Program’s development goal of 4,800 units. An additional 810 units (751 low and moderate income units, and 59 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. 7 Staff units are units that staff of the property management company occupy in exchange for managing the property. 3,693 751 59
- 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 September 30, 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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory
2.4.3 – Housing Development Goals
As of September 30, 2022, the Program’s current funding commitment will assist in developing 76.94 percent of development and renovation units (3,693) per the Program’s goal (4,800). As of September 30, 2022, each housing type had the following development commitments:
• 93.11 percent of the goal for PSH units,
• 31.31 percent of the goal for RRH units,
• 90.13 percent of the goal for ELI housing units, and
• 132.50 percent of the goal for VLI housing units.
There are also 671 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 remained the same for the first quarter of FY 2022-23 due to the Program not adding any projects.
Exhibit 78
Housing Development Goals vs Units Under Development
as of September 30, 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 0 12 0 0
6 Quetzal Gardens 71 28 0 19 0 23 0
7 Sango Court 102 51 0 26 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
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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory
Housing Development Goals vs Units Under Development
as of September 30, 2022
# Project Name No. of
Units a PSH RRH ELI VLI LI b MI b
12 Mariposa Place (formerly West
San Carlos Housing) 80 0 39 0 40 0 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 Mesa Terrace (formerly 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 54 0 8 17 0 0
22 La Avenida Apartments 100 32 0 32 25 9 0
23 Algarve Apartments 91 46 0 0 44 0 0
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
36 Alvarado Park (San Jose) 90 23 0 31 17 18 0
37 The Magnolias (Morgan Hill) 66 7 10 23 21 4 0
38 Sonora Court (Sunnyvale) 176 45 0 42 44 43 0
Development Projects Total 4,053 1,298 486 671 795 671 80 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory
Housing Development Goals vs Units Under Development
as of September 30, 2022
# Project Name No. of
Units a PSH RRH ELI VLI LI b MI b
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 3,693 1,676 501 721 795 671 80
Program Goals 4,800 1,800 1,600 800 600 N/A N/A
Percentage of Units for
Development and Renovation
Projects
76.94% 93.11% 31.31% 90.13% 132.50% 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 (671 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 (57 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.
2.5 – Housing Development Milestones
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. Exhibit 8 on the following pages shows the key development milestones for development and renovation projects as of September 30, 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 31 of 44
Exhibit 89
Development Timeline: Projected vs. Actual Milestones
as of September 30, 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 8/2023* 11/2023* 8 Iamesi Village (formerly North
San Pedro Apartments) 12/2011 12/2011 9/2018 9/2018 11/2018 3/2019 2/2022* 2/2022 8/2022* 9/2022 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 6/2023* 12/2023* 12 Mariposa Place (formerly
West San Carlos Housing) 12/2018 12/2019 8/2021* 8/2021 1/2022* 1/2022 5/2024* 9/2024* 13 Blossom Hill Housing 4/2019 12/2019 5/2021* 6/2021 6/2021* 6/2021 7/2023* 8/2023* 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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 32 of 44
Development Timeline: Projected vs. Actual Milestones
as of September 30, 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 8/2022* 9/2022 11/2022* 15 Roosevelt Park 2/2019 2/2019 2/2022* 2/2022 7/2022* 7/2022 7/2024* 12/2024* 16 Auzerais Apartments N/A 6/2018 4/2021* 4/2021 10/2021* 10/2021 1/2024* 4/2024* 17 Mesa Terrace (formerly
Gallup & Mesa) 11/2019 5/2020 12/2020* 12/2020 4/2021* 4/2021 11/2022* 1/2023* 18 Villas at 4th St (formerly 4th
and E. Younger Apartments) 6/2020 6/2020 3/2021 4/2021 4/2021 4/20/21 11/2022* 4/2023* 19 Immanuel-Sobrato (formerly
Moorpark) Apartments 7/2020 8/2020 4/2021 6/2021 7/2021* 7/2021 3/2023* 6/2023* 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* 6/2022 1/2024* 4/2024* 22 La Avenida Apartments 7/2021* 7/2021 12/2022* 12/2022* 4/2025* 11/2025* 23 Algarve Apartments 10/2020* 10/2020 12/2021* 12/2021 9/2023* 5/2025* 9/2025* 24 Gateway Tower 12/2016 12/2023* 12/2023* 6/2025 7/2026 25 Alum Rock Multifamily 8/2021* 9/2021 9/2024* 9/2024* 5/2025 9/2025 26 Dupont Family Apartments 2/2020 12/2024* 1/2025* 11/2026* 5/2027* 27 Sunol-West San Carlos
Apartments 6/2021 8/2021 11/2022* 5/2023* 5/2025 8/2025 28 Tamien Station TOD 12/2020 11/2022* 12/2022* 4/2024 7/2024 29 The Charles 6/2021 10/2021 11/2022* 5/2023* 4/2025* 9/2025* 30 Royal Oak Village 8/2021 12/2021 12/2021 6/2022* 6/2022 10/2023* 3/2024* Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 33 of 44
Development Timeline: Projected vs. Actual Milestones
as of September 30, 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 31 McEvoy Apartments 2/2020 12/2023* 6/2024* 3/2026* 9/2026* 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 8/2022* 9/2022 1/2024 1/2024 6/2025 7/2025 35 Lot 12 3/2022 4/2022 9/2023 9/2023 9/2025 3/2026
36 Alvarado Park 8/2020 12/2023 12/2023 6/2025 9/2025
37 The Magnolias 11/2021 4/2023 9/2023 5/2025 7/2025
38 Sonora Court 11/2021 12/2023 10/2024 10/2026 3/2027
Renovation Projects
1 Markham I a N/A N/A 5/2019 5/2019 11/2019* 11/2019 12/2020 12/2020 3/2021 3/2021 2 Markham II a N/A N/A 12/2020* 12/2020 5/2021* 5/2021 8/2022* 7/2022 11/2022* 3 Curtner Studios 2/2019 2/2019 3/2019 3/2020 9/2019 3/2020 10/2021* 10/2021 1/2022* 1/2022 4 Hillview Court 8//2020 12/2020 12/2020 9/2022* 9/2022 9/2022* 9/2022 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 Annual and Fourth Quarter Report for FY 2021-22 MGO Advisory Page 34 of 44
2.5.1 – Significant Activities by Development and Renovation Projects The following milestones were achieved during the first quarter of FY 2022-23 (July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022):
• Three projects completed construction (Vela Apartments, Markham II and Hillview Court) • One project started construction (Roosevelt Park); and • One project obtained land use approval (Hawthorn Senior Apartments).
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 September 30, 2022, and as illustrated in Exhibit 8 on the previous pages. Statements in bold are new to the report.
10 For activity occurring after September 30, 2022, see the County OSH website. • Sango Court
o Missed its initial goal to begin construction by March 2019, but started in February 2022. Estimated completion is November 2023.
• Iamesi Village (formerly North San Pedro Apartments)
o 100% occupancy as of September 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 June 2023.
• Mariposa Place (formerly West San Carlos Housing)
o Missed its initial goal to complete construction by January 2022. The revised target date is May 2024.
• Blossom Hill Housing
o Missed its initial goal to complete construction by September 2021. The revised target date is July 2023.
• Vela Apartments (formerly Alum Rock Family Housing)
o Missed its initial goal to complete construction by August 2021, but completed construction in September 2022.
o 100% occupancy is anticipated by November 2022.
• Roosevelt Park
o Missed its initial goal to start construction by May 2020, but started in July 2022. The construction completion target date is July 2024.
• Auzerais Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to being construction by December 2020, but started in October 2021. The construction completion target date is January 2024.
• Mesa Terrace (formerly Gallup and Mesa)
o Missed its initial goal to begin construction in October 2020, but started construction in April 2021. o Missed its initial goal to complete construction by May 2022. The revised target date is November 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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 35 of 44
• 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 November 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, but started in June 2022 with a target completion date of January 2024.
• La Avenida Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by July 2021. The revised target date is December 2022.
o Missed its initial goal to start construction in July 2021. The revised target date is December 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 September 2023.
• Gateway Tower
o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by September 2021. Anticipates applying for a 4 percent tax credit in fall of 2022. The revised target date is February 2023. • Alum Rock Multifamily
o Missed its initial goal to obtain land use approval by August 2021, but received in September 2021. o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by June 2022. Applied for a 9 percent tax credit in August 2022.The revised target date to secure all financing is September 2024. • Dupont Family Housing
o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by December 2021. The revised target date is December 2024. Applied for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) funding in June 2021 and was awarded on January 2022. Anticipates applying for a 4 percent tax credit in September 2024.
• Sunol-West San Carlos Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by December 2021. The revised target date is November 2022. Applied for a 4 percent tax credit in August 2022. • Tamien Station TOD
o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by September 2021. The revised target date is November 2022. Applied for a 4 percent tax credit in August 2022. • The Charles
o Missed its initial goal to obtain land use approval by June 2021, but received in October 2021. o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by June 2022. The revised target date is November 2022. Applied for a 4 percent tax credit in August 2022. • Royal Oak Village
o Missed its initial goal to being construction by May 2022, but started in June 2022. Construction is estimated be completed in October 2023.
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 36 of 44
• McEvoy Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to secure all financing by May 2022. The revised target date is December 2023.
• Bellarmino Place
o Applied for 9 percent tax credits in March 2022 and received an award in June 2022.
Anticipated to secure all financing and begin constructions in December 2022. • Hawthorn Senior Apartments
o Missed its initial goal to obtain land use approval by April 2022, but received in September 2022. • Lot 12
o Missed its initial goal to obtain land use approval by March 2022, but received in April 2022. • Markham II
o Missed its initial goal to complete construction by October 2020, but completed in July 2022. • Hillview Court
o Missed its initial goal to complete construction of the second rehabilitation phase by December 2021, but completed in September 2022.
• Casa de Novo
o The developer is working on entitlement and securing all financing.
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 37 of 44
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 first quarter of FY 2022-23, the Program did not add any properties. As presented in Exhibit 9 below, the Program had committed $146.93 million of Program funds to-date and expended $105.56 million on the 20 properties as of September 30, 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 ten of the properties as noted in Exhibit 9 below.
Exhibit 9
Properties’ Financial Data
as of September 30, 2022
(Unaudited)
# Project Name
Program Funds
Committed
To-Date
Total Program
Funds
Expended
To-Date
Program Funds
Expended
During Q1
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 8,095,235 7,595,235 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 0 14 The Hub, 1540 Parkmoor Ave h (San Jose) 12,000,000 1,024,857 171,097 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 17 1390 S Winchester Blvd. k (San Jose) 4,440,000 4,402,090 0 Yes Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 38 of 44
Properties’ Financial Data
as of September 30, 2022
(Unaudited)
# Project Name
Program Funds
Committed
To-Date
Total Program
Funds
Expended
To-Date
Program Funds
Expended
During Q1
Developer
Selected
18 3550 El Camino Real l (Santa Clara) 14,040,000 13,826,651 (176,127) Yes 19 901 and 903 E El Camino Real m (Mountain
View) 7,000,000 1,062,966 1,000,000 Yes
20 East Santa Clara Street Site n
(San Jose) 19,500,000 0 0 Yes
Properties Total $ 146,933,900 $ 105,560,594 $ 8,590,205 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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 39 of 44
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 September 30, 2022, the Program had committed $800,000 and expended $250,857 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 September 30, 2022.
Exhibit 10
Partnership Projects’ Financial Data
as of September 30, 2022
(Unaudited)
# Project Name a
Program Funds
Committed
To-Date
Total Program
Funds
Expended
To-Date
Program Funds
Expended
During Q4
1 VTA Berryessa BART Station
$ 800,000 $ 250,857 $ 0
2 VTA Branham Station
3 VTA Capitol LRT Station
4 VTA Gilroy Transit Center
Partnership Projects Total $ 800,000 $ 250,857 $ 0
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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 40 of 44
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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 41 of 44
Exhibit 11 below provides an overview of the application statistics for the six stages of the loan process described above for the first quarter of FY 2022-23.
Exhibit 11
Empower Homebuyers Application Statistics
By Quarter of FY 2022-23
Quarter
Intake
Applications Applications
PreApprovals
Purchase
Loan
Application Closed*
Cancelled/
Withdrawn/
Denied
Loans
Purchased
Q1 257 5 4 3 3 3 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 41 loans for $4,713,640. 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, $5.85 million has been expended to-date for the purchase of loans and administration of the loan program. During the first quarter of FY 2022-23, Empower Homebuyers did not expend funds on the administration of the loan program or the purchase of loans.
Exhibit 12
Empower Homebuyers Funds Expended
By Quarter of FY 2022-23
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*
Q1 $ 0 $ 1,139,300 $ 0 $ 4,713,640 $ 0 $ 5,852,940
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing. * Total program funds expended to-date from the inception of the Empower Homebuyers through the first quarter of FY 2022-23, which ended September 30, 2022.
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 42 of 44
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 first quarter of FY 2022-23, one loan was outstanding for $2.21 million for the development project Alum Rock Multifamily.
Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 43 of 44
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 September 30, 2022, and the amount left to pay on the bonds as of September 30, 2022.
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
Quarter End
Total Amount Left
to Pay as of
Quarter End
Q1 $ 250,000,000 $ 321,376,386 $ 71,376,386 $ 180,532,529 $ 140,843,857 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.
As shown in Exhibit 15 below, the Program paid $1.23 million in principal and $1.54 million in interest during the first quarter of FY 2022-23. Interest on the bonds is payable semi-annually on February 1st and August 1st; while principal is payable annually on August 1st.
Exhibit 15
2017 Series A Housing General Obligation Bonds Activity Amounts Paid During the Quarter of FY 2022-23
Quarter Principal Paid Interest Paid Total Debt
Service Paid
Q1 $ 1,225,000 $ 1,543,978 $ 2,768,978
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 First Quarter Report for FY 2022-23 MGO Advisory Page 44 of 44
5.2 – 2021 Series B Housing General Obligation Bonds
On July 14, 2021, 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 September 30, 2022, and the amount left to pay on the bonds as of September 30, 2022.
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
Quarter End
Total Amount
Left to Pay as of
Quarter End
Q1 $ 350,000,000 $ 422,006,152 $ 72,006,152 $ 76,062,129 $ 345,944,023 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.
As shown in Exhibit 17 below, the Program paid $281.50 million in principal and $3.75 million in interest paid during the first quarter of FY 2022-23. Interest on the bonds is payable semi-annually on February 1st and August 1st; while principal is payable annually on August 1st.
Exhibit 17
2021 Series B Housing General Obligation Bonds Activity Amounts Paid During the Quarter of FY 2022-23
Quarter Principal Paid Interest Paid Total Debt
Service Paid
Q1 $ 281,500,000 $ 3,749,816 $ 76,062,129
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 September 30, 2022, the Program has committed $792.95 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 $583.32 million for 44 development and renovation projects.
• The development and renovation projects are in the process of adding 3,693 units of affordable housing included in the County’s housing goals, and an additional 671 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 61.40 percent of the bond proceeds committed for development and renovation projects are financing the development of
76.94 percent of the Program’s housing goals.
• In addition, for every dollar invested by the Program, the Program incentivizes an average of $4.56 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 September 30, 2022, we provide the following highlights:
• The Program has committed $583.32 to 44 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 $122,212 per unit of housing.
• Although $583.32 million has been committed by the Program for these 44 development and renovation projects to-date, only $505.08 million has been actually expended to-date.
Housing Program Goals
Program housing goals aim to create 4,800 units of affordable housing. As of September 30, 2022, Program funds committed to date are projected to finance 61.40 percent of the Program’s total affordable housing goal. Based on the Program’s funding commitments through September 30, 2022, the status of housing development goals by type of housing are as follows:
• Helping to finance 93.11 percent of the Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) goal. • Helping to finance 31.31 percent of the Rapid Rehousing (RRH) goal. • Helping to finance 90.13 percent of the Extremely Low-Income (ELI) housing goal. • Helping to finance 132.50 percent of the Very Low-Income (VLI) housing goal. • There are 671 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.
2/16/23, 8:42 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/2 You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [External Email]
Fw: Investigation into Shivaji Maharaj Statue hate-crime Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Tue 2/14/2023 10:24 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 10:03 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Investigation into Shivaji Maharaj Statue hate-crime From: Sandeep Bhaarat <
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:37 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Investigation into Shivaji Maharaj Statue hate-crime My name is Sandeep Dedage. I have served on the California Board of Education as an Instructional Material reviewer, and I am a resident of this beautiful city.
I recently came to know about hate-crime around Emperor Shivaji Maharaj, the beloved inspiration of Millions of Indian Americans and a jewel to humanity. Having his beautiful statue in this city has inspired my family and numerous friends and families I know. I have been in utter shock and pain this whole week; I am writing to you on behalf of the community that is waking up to what has happened.
I want to bring to your notice, the numerous hate crimes that have been happening against south Asians in the last few years, in particular Indian americans. The temples have been vandalized, the Gandhi statues in Davis and NY have been damaged. And hate has made it to my doorsteps. This I suspect is a hate crime.
This is the only Shivaji maharaj statue in the entire United States. We have many questions. I definitely would like to learn what I have been finding thus far on this? Who were the criminals? How many of them? Why has the video footage not been published yet? What is the analysis of the incident? Few weeks after the crime, why is there no information around this? What is the work being done on the investigation? When can we expect the outcome?
Sincerely
Public Record: 2
2/16/23, 8:42 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.
Sandeep
2/16/23, 8:43 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Fw: Public Comment: San Jose City Council meeting Feb 14th 2023 Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Tue 2/14/2023 10:26 AM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:36 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Public Comment: San Jose City Council meeting Feb 14th 2023 From: Viraj Raut <
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:58 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment: San Jose City Council meeting Feb 14th 2023 Dear Council members and Attendees: My Name is Viraj Raut. I would like to share my deep shock at the incident of vandalism of the Shivaji Maharaj statue in San Jose. He was a great Indian warrier in his time and is a role model for my kids and my family. I am a US citizen and have worked in Cisco in San Jose and would like to appeal to the San Jose city to condemn such vandalizm and ensure steps are taken, so similar incidents do not repeat in the future. I appeal to the city Law enforcement heads to share any answers they may have found on this incident.
I would like to request the council members to hold a public meeting to share any additional information and what the city plans to do going forward about the matter. Thank you. Regards Viraj Raut Public Record: 3
2/16/23, 8:44 AM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQANAhJz… 1/11 [External Email]
¹Blair Beekman. Wednesday, February 15, 2023....A few thoughts, on BAUASI Approval Authority Meetings. Fall '22 - Spring '23.
b. beekman <
Wed 2/15/2023 2:15 PM
Dear SF Bay Area city govts, and community,
Section 1.
This letter, is in 3 sections. It is to offer, a few additional words, after the bi-monthly, BAUASI Approval Authority public meeting, of January 12, 2023. This letter will also try to summarize, my letters and public comment, to BAUASI, Approval Authority, local govt,and community advocacy, over the past six months. I again, respectfully address these letters, separately, to local govt. and community advocacy. It is my hope, all sides, can find good ways to connect, and can add much, to these initial ideas. A thank you, to the years of service & good practices, from Alameda Co.
Supervisor, Richard Valle, who has recently passed away.
From this initial introduction - with the recent events, in Southern Turkey, and northern Syria - a reminder, that the possibility, of a large earthquake, in the SF Bay Area, in the next few years, or within the next decade, is being much questioned, privately & openly.
I feel many, within Bay Area local govt & community govt, including myself, in the past few years, have worked much, to openly ask, if there may, or may not be, an upcoming Bay Area earthquake. I currently feel, a large earthquake, is not coming, to the SF Bay Area, in the next few years.
This good SF Bay Area outlook, for at least, the next few years, is no way, a guarantee. A good openness and understanding, for everyone, is part of the reasoning, in why I openly write, on this subject. As I hope these words, can help better allow, your own ways, to check up with each other, on the current status, of this issue, as I am sure you have often, over the past few years.
From this, it may be wise, for BAUASI, to simply begin a new focus, for the next few years, on neighborhood emergency planning. And a good new focus, on community openness. I'm interested, in how we can learn, to more openly prepare everyday community, in whatever may take place, in the SF Bay Area, in next few years, and into the next few decades.
Public Record: 4
2/16/23, 8:44 AM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQANAhJz… 2/11 There are good current practices, in the past few years, by the city of San Jose, that has been developing, a very good, comprehensive, open community process, in natural disaster planning. To more openly consider & acknowledge, the current capabilities of human society, that can manipulate weather patterns & earthquake faults. And to question these practices, used as political or economic tools, seems as interesting ways to help develop, actual mitigation, of large, future earthquakes, in populated regions.
From my well-intentioned words, above, and as, there has simply been, much new law enforcement planning, technology tools, and national security preparedness operations, within the SF Bay Area, in the past few years, And as, BAUASI, may possibly be, at a time, to begin to consider new tasks, with the midterm elections, now completed -
2023-25, may be a time, for BAUASI, to refocus its attention, on how to better consider & develop, community emergency preparedness, and natural disaster preparedness practices. And to continue, the initial good intentions, of community reimagine, with Health and Human services, as it's main focus.
It is from, these good new efforts - local law enforcement, should not have to dominate, future community emergency planning, in their years of practice, with a very specific set, of community emergency planning goals. As it is health and human services ideas, that can usually better answer the questions, of law enforcement, overall.
From this, a simple reminder, that as federal SARS reporting, has gone through much back & forth, over the past 5 years - Federal law enforcement, should always be balanced, with the practices, of good civil rights & civil protections ideals, sensitivity, care, and the concepts of health & human services. And from this, to then respect, how all of these current best practices, will probably be, already better developing, at the local community level.
Section 2.
To try to better speak to, a few of my words, from January Approval Authority public comment - Law enforcement technology, commercial technology, and its data collection, in local communities, is currently purchased, by local govts, from private tech. companies.
Private tech. companies, are then allowed, small windows of time, to collect the data, from their tech. placed, in local neighborhoods, local govt depts, and communities. This can often allow, private tech. companies, to do what it wants, with local govt. data. And to often, sell this data to distributors, at the national level. To be clear - Our current system, allows private tech. companies, to circumvent local privacy laws. And to then sell, at the national level, the local data gathered, from locally placed, law enforcement and commercial technology.
The city of Berkeley, along with community advocacy, and their everyday community, has developed, new civil protections, to address the selling of local data, at the national level. Good civil 2/16/23, 8:44 AM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQANAhJz… 3/11 protection practices, are ways to continually develop, a better procurement & contract process, between local govt and private tech companies.
This is learning, how to develop, better civil protection practices with data, that will better respect, the Berkeley community. Its sanctuary city policies, its privacy rights, and its local autonomy. And simply helps develop, good community guidelines & practices. To note, these good openness practices, can also be helpful, for other local govt. projects. As in, how to create, better privacy standards, around abortion clinics. And with data being collected and used, from the streetlights & billboards, around the clinics.
Good guidelines, in civil protections & openness, with data collection, is simply meant to create, a more negotiative process, in how data is shared & used. It is a fair system, of checks and balances, meant to build the ideas, of trust, hope, less apathy, and more positive, community sustainability. And how everyday community & local govt. can learn to better trust each other. And to decide together, the future of responsible technology & data collection practices, within their local community. .
These may be important, precedent setting concepts to remember, with community technology and data collection. And should be of interest, to other cities, across the SF Bay Area, the state, and the country.
It is the step by step ways, that can invite, all parts of a community, to better define, the future balance, and good practices, of this country's democracy, as a representational republic, and as, a participatory democracy of individuals. And how, we can better consider, the ideas of open democracy, and shared community dialogue, as concepts, of peace, better reasoning, and the ways to better build, a more positive, sustainable future. And as, we should always question, the continual use of secrecy, obfuscation, & opacity, that are usually based, on the concepts of war, Section 3.
To follow up, with my letters to yourselves, this past December & January. A newly elected, Oakland City Council, Oakland mayor, and Alameda County District Attorney,, are all dedicated, to the concepts & good intentions, of reimagine, health and human services, and civil protections, as how to better address, the future of local Bay Area neighborhoods and law enforcement concerns.
Since the fall of 2022, Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, and councilperson Noel Gallo, have been trying to develop, new law enforcement strategies, for Oakland neighborhoods, I hope, BAUASI will be interested, in a process, of more open, new dialogue, about neighborhood law enforcement planning in Oakland, with new Oakland mayor Thao. And also with, good local community advocacy, like the Oakland Anti-Police Terror Project, APTP.
As Mayor Thao, wants to better organize, a future process, with state of Ca. OES - I am learning, from important local advocacy, like APTP - that we need to better consider, neighborhood dialogue, and health & human services options, before the deployment, of more officers, more technology, and more, overall harmful tools & tactics .
2/16/23, 8:44 AM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQANAhJz… 4/11 The links below, from the Coalition on Homelessness-SF, an advocacy group, for the San Francisco unhoused, can very much help address, the current impasse, in SF politics, to better understand, good minded housing options, and health and human services practices, before the overuse, of the law enforcement & judicial system.
For years, Coalition on Homelessness, has been developing good studies, services, & reporting. I feel the website links, below, can help create, important, overall understandings, in how to better connect, the complex issues in SF, of the unhoused, future housing, street drugs, and the use of law enforcement.
Coalition on Homelessness.
https://www.cohsf.org/cart-report
https://www.cartsf.org/our-plan
As I have bcc'd these email letters - A reference list below, as ways to help share thoughts & ideas, that I hope does not hurt, Brown Act guidelines. I will also write, to local community advocacy, with these letters & ideas. I hope, overall, you will want to work, to connect with each other. And to better address, the initial ideas of these letters.
And to conclude, a reminder that openness, transparency, good dialogue, negotiation, and trust, for all sides, can usually allow work towards, an open, caring, good balance, and peace before war & hostility,, at the local, state, national, and intl level. sincerely,
blair beekman
Berkeley.
Hmn Resources. Berkly. <
City Clerk.Berkeley. M. Numainville <
<
City Clerk. Berkeley <
Hsg. dept. berkly. Barbara Amaro <
BFD. c.mgr <
BFD. c.mgr <
D2. Berkly. <
BPD <
D3.Berkly <
Mayor. Berkeley Jesse Arreguin <
o.fire <
2/16/23, 8:44 AM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQANAhJz… 5/11 D5.Berkly. <
D6.Berkly. <
Health Dept. Srvcs. Brkly <
cl. <
Hsg.Dept. <
Public Works. Berkly <
Housing Dept.Berkly. <
O.E.S.Berkly <
Parks.Berkly. <
C.Mgr.Berkly. <
Planning.Berkly <
D1.Berkly. <
D7.Berkly. <
DoT.Berkly. <
City Attorney. Berkeley. <
D4. <
mayor.ch.staff.berkeley. J.McCormick <
D8.brkly. cl.staff <
Oakland.
AASEG <
Oakland A's. Dave Kavel <
OES.Oak. Olga Crowe. <
cl.d3.Oak. Carol Fife <
Aud/Vid Michael Munson <
cl.d7.oak. Treva Reid <
R. Leon <
staff.chf.d2.Oak. <
Neighborhood Services. <
Cook, Brigitte <
Dept.Violence Prevention <
d6. oak. cl. Jenkins. <
cl.d1.oak. Dan Kalb <
cl.d5. oak. Noel Gallo <
Equity.oak. Darlene Flynn. <
OPD. B.Cook <
cl.d4.Oak. <
OES Oak. J Feil/Bauasi <
Oakland Police Review Commission <
cl.d2. oak. Niki Fortuno Bas <
City Administration <
Joseph DeVries <
cl.at large.oak. Rebecca Kaplan <
z. Piedmont. T. Rood. <
SLAP <
city clerk.Oak.Records <
City Clerk.Oak. <
2/16/23, 8:44 AM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQANAhJz… 6/11 Neighborhood Services <
J.Ramachandran <
DoT. Oakland. <
Office of the Mayor <
Auditor.Oak. <
Brian Hofer <
Fremont.
d6.Frmnt. Teresa Cox <
C. Manager. Fremont. <
Human Services.Frmnt <
Hsg.G.Jara.Frmnt <
AHeredia <
City.Mgr. Fremont. <
Hans Larsen <
Eric Hu <
Candice Rankin <
C.Clerk.Fremont <
Fremont Fair Housing Mark <
d5. Frmnt. Raj Salwan <
d3.Frmnt. Jenny Kassan <
d4. Frmnt. Yang Shao <
cl.d1.frmnt. Teresa Keng.
Teresa Keng <
Mayor.Fremont. Lily Mei <
Hsg.Lindsay Mendez.Frmnt. <
Hsg.Margeret Juta.Frmnt <
Human Services. Laurie Flores <
Hsg. J.Harrett.Frmnt. <
cl.d2.frmt. Desriee Campbell <
Alameda Co.
Perkins, Cheryl, CAO <
ALCo.D5.Supv. Keith Carson <
ALCo.D2. Supv. Richard Valle <
ALCo.D4.Supv. Nate Miley <
AC Transit D. Shaw <
ALCo.D1.Supv.David Haubert <
AC Transit <
Al. Co. Sheriff <
AL. Co. Administrator <
AL.Co. District Attorney <
2/16/23, 8:44 AM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQANAhJz… 7/11 Scott Haggarty. <
clrk. Anika Campbell Belton. <
Sumoba, Charisse <
D.Attorney. Pamela Price <
AL.Co.D3.Supv. <
ALCo.D1.Supv. <
EBCE.
S.F.
C.Clerk.S.F. Angela Calvillo <
SF District Attorney <
SFPD Community Relations <
SFPD Media Relations. <
c.clerk.sf-asst. <
S.f. Board of Supervisors <
SFPD Commission <
Mayor.S.F. London Breed <
z. <
David Rocha <
c. attorney David Chiu <
Santa Clara Co.
D3.SCCo.Supv. Otto Lee <
SCCo.Supv.D2 Cindy Chávez <
SCCo. Board Operations <
BNC <
h.aikoy.
<
h.Destination Home <
h.Soo Jung <
p.jose guzman <
p.Damon Silver <
h.benjamin chou. <
h.Pandit, Rajul <
h.dianne timan. <
h.Hilary Barroga <
D. Attorney. SCCo. <
D4.SCCo. Supv. Susan Ellenberg <
D5.SCCo.Supv. Joseph Simitian <
VTA Board Secretary <
2/16/23, 8:44 AM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQANAhJz… 8/11 s.PIO <
OES. Louay Toma <
D1.SCCo.Supv. Sylvia Arenas <
Saleh, Basil <
San Jose.
DoT.sj. v. zero. Vu Dao <[email protected]>,
SJCE. < [email protected],
Mayor-Cf. of Staff-Jim Reed <[email protected]>,
PRNS. J. Cicirelli <[email protected]>
, Lee Wilcox <[email protected]>,
c airport. sj < c. attrny.sj. <[email protected]>, c.mgr.sj.CCEC. Elise Doan <[email protected]>,
C. Innovation. lalaine.leynes <[email protected]>, c. attrny.sj. Mark Vanni <[email protected]>,
staff.d1.sj. David Gomez <[email protected]>,
Envrnmntl.Servcs. Erica Gamboa <[email protected]>, DoT.sj. Arian Collen <[email protected]>,
Envrion. Laura Mitchell <[email protected]>,
d9.sj. Pam Foley <[email protected]>,
IT.sj. Matthew Loesch <[email protected]>,
IT.sj. Ashish Lakhiani <[email protected]>, d1.sj. Charles "Chappie" Jones <[email protected]>, c.mgr.sj. Sabrina Parra <[email protected]>, sj.Aziza Amiri.Measure T.c.mgr. <[email protected]>, sjpd Lt. Ellen. Washburn <[email protected]>, sjpd Lt. Jason Dwyer-s.ops.. <[email protected]>, Ec.Dvlpt.Nanci Klein <[email protected]>,
Plng.sj. Stefanie Farmer <[email protected]>, staff.sj.d3. David Tran <[email protected]>,
Police Ofc. Anthony Mata <[email protected]>,
Ilene G. <[email protected]>, Publc.Wrks.sj.
Walter Lin <[email protected]>,
Fire Dept. SJFD. <[email protected]>,
C.Attrny.sj. Nora Frimann <[email protected]>,
Plng.Dir. Rosalynn Hughey <[email protected]>, SJCE. K.Mitchell <[email protected]>
Ec.Dvlpt.Blage Zelalich.asst.c.mgr <[email protected]>, SJCE. Zachary Struyk <[email protected]>,
C.Auditor.sj. Joe Rois <[email protected]>,
Pblc.Wrks. sj. Silvia Bustamante <[email protected]>, SAAG-Lori Severino <[email protected]>,
MGPTF. Mario Maciel <[email protected]>,
c. mgr.sj. Equity. Zulma Maciel <[email protected]>, DOTsj. Laura Wells <[email protected]>,
Police Lt. Michael Kihmm <[email protected]>,
Police Lt. Heather Randol <[email protected]>,
2/16/23, 8:44 AM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQANAhJz… 9/11 Evmntl.Srvcs.Dir.sj. Kerrie Romanow <[email protected]>, Library Jill Bourne <[email protected]>,
Housing.dept. Jacky Morales-Ferrand <[email protected]>, d2.sj. Sergio Jimenez <[email protected]>,
DOTsj. TrafficDataCtr. <[email protected]>, C. Innovation. Mike Jones <[email protected]>,
d4.sj. David Cohen <[email protected]>,
PlanningSupport <[email protected]>,
d6.sj. Devora. Davis <[email protected]>,
c.mgr.sj. Jim Ortbal <[email protected]>,
Housing.dept. Rachel VanderVeen <[email protected]>, Mayor.sj. Matt Mahan <[email protected]>,
cDoT.Dir.John Ristow <[email protected]>,
Path. Megan Colvard <
Hsg.dept. IT-Robert Lopez <[email protected]>, police Sgt. Doug Wedge <[email protected]>,
C. Mgr.sj. Jennifer Maguire <[email protected]>, IPA.sj <[email protected]>,
Path. Sergei <
c. attrny.sj. Shasta Green <[email protected]>, C.Innovation.Mgr.Kip Harkness <[email protected]>, C. Innovation Broadband <[email protected]>,
Pblic.Wrks. - Matt Cano <[email protected]>,
C. Innovation. Rajani Nair <[email protected]>, C. Innovation. Dolan Beckel <[email protected]>, Pblc Wrks.sj. Kevin Lee <[email protected]>,
OES.sj. Office of Emergency Services <[email protected]>, V.Zero.sj. Anna Le <[email protected]>,
Civic Center TV -Craig Jutson <[email protected]>, SAAG. Dave. PlantToPlace. <[email protected]>,
SJFD chief. Robert Sapien <[email protected]>, city of s.j. airport. John Aitken <[email protected]>, Paul Pereira <[email protected]>,
DoTsj.Tree Arborist <[email protected]>,
c.mgr.sj.staff. Kathy Tsukamoto <[email protected]>, S.J. Arena Authority <
city clerk-sj. Toni Taber <[email protected]>,
C. Manager Angel Rios <[email protected]>,
HCDC <[email protected]>,
C. Innovation Rob Lloyd <[email protected]>,
Bena Chang <[email protected]>,
cl.d10. <[email protected]>, [email protected], Camarena, Carolina <[email protected]>,
Ruby Ramirez < d5.sj.
Peter Ortiz <[email protected]>, d3.sj.
Omar Torres <[email protected]>, d7.sj.
Bien Doan <[email protected]>,
d8.sj. <[email protected]>
2/16/23, 8:44 AM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/ id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQANAhJ… 10/11 d1.sj. Rosemary Kamei <[email protected]>
San Diego.
c.clerk.SD. Diana Fuentes <
cl. d7. SD <
Communications. <
staff.d9.sd.<
cl. d3. SD. <
cl. d5. SD. <
cl. d6. SD <
cl. d2.SD <
cl. d8. SD <
cl. d4.SD. Monica Montgomery Steppe <
SD. Performance & Analytics. <
,
Osman, Maryan <
cl.d9.SD. Sean Elo-Rivera. <
Mayor. SD. Todd Gloria <
SD. Human Resources. <
SD. Planning. <
SD. Gov. Affairs. <
cl. d1. SD. <
SD. Sustainability. <
SDPD <
City Clerk. SD. <
Mayor.SD.chf.stf.
Paola Avila <
LA Mayor.
BAUASI.
Mike Casten <
Christophe Arnold <
Maryellen Carroll <
SF Card. Brian <
SF Card. Heather <
Amy Ramirez <
c Anthony Pérez <
Corinne Bartshire <
SDUASI. Renee Coleman <
<
Phillip White <
SDUASI. Megan Beall <
BAUASI. Craig Dziedzic <
2/16/23, 8:44 AM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQANAhJ… 11/11 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Analyn Tam <
Lloyd Shand <
OES Director.Ray Riordan <
Matthew Devine <
Scott Kaplan <
Jodi Traversaro <
David Rocha <
CADRE <
Dana Reed <
Baker, Ethan (ECD) <
BAUASI. Janell Myhre <
Mary Landers <
Mikyung Kim-Molina <
UASIMT (DEM) <
Gary Malais <
SDOES/SANDAG/SDUASI.
UDC. Barbara Ayers <
SANDAG.Clerk of the Board. <
SANDAG. Kirsten Uchitel <
SD.County.OES <
SDUASI. Megan Beall <
SDUASI. Renee Coleman <
SDUASI A. Franklin <