Presented to:
City of San Jose
October 11, 2023
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 629 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | www.centuryurban.com Century | Urban
Affordable Housing
Development Cost Study
Attachment B – Affordable Housing Development Cost Study by Century | Urban
PAGE 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1. TBD Construction Bid Index ........................................................................................ 3 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH ....................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. San Jose Projects – Current Study vs. 2022 Study ...................................................... 4 Figure 3. Summary of Projects ..................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4: Project Building Height ................................................................................................ 5 Figure 5. List of Projects Evaluated .............................................................................................. 6 GENERAL TRENDS IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COSTS .............................................. 6 Figure 6. San Jose Projects Total Development Costs per Unit by Year ...................................... 7 Affordable Housing Developments Costs by Housing Type ............................................................ 8 Figure 7. Summary of Comparison of Total Development Costs per Unit .................................. 8 Figure 8. Unit Size by Location and Housing Type ..................................................................... 9 Figure 9. Average Development Cost ELI Buildings Compared to All Buildings ..................... 10 The Components of Development Costs ......................................................................................... 10 Site Acquisition Costs by Housing Type ....................................................................................... 10 Figure 10. Summary of Site Acquisition Costs per Unit ........................................................... 11 Direct Construction Costs by Housing Type ................................................................................. 11 Figure 11. Total Direct Construction Costs, Average Per Unit ................................................ 12 Indirect Soft Costs .......................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 12. Indirect Soft Costs per Unit ...................................................................................... 12 Impact Fees ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 13. Impact Fees per Unit ................................................................................................. 14 Figure 14. Affordable Housing Impact Fees per Unit Comparison to Market Rate .................. 15 Financing Costs .............................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 15. SOFR Rate Over Prior 12 Months ........................................................................... 16 Figure 16. Financing Costs Average Per Unit ........................................................................... 16 Tax Credit Pricing .......................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 17. Tax Credit Pricing Average by Year ......................................................................... 17 Share of Development Costs Funded by City Subsidies and Other Sources .................................. 17 Figure 18. City Subsidy Amount Per Unit ................................................................................ 18 Figure 19. San Jose Projects Subsidy Amounts Per Unit by Housing Type ............................. 19 Figure 20. Other City Projects Subsidy Amounts Per Unit by Housing Type ......................... 20 Affordable Housing Development Costs as Compared to Market Rate Housing Development Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 21. San Jose Affordable Housing Versus Market Rate ................................................... 21 Affordable Housing Development Cost Key Factors ...................................................................... 22
PAGE 3
INTRODUCTION
The City of San Jose (the “City”) has engaged Century Urban, LLC (“Century | Urban”) to prepare an update to a study completed in 2022 regarding the cost of developing affordable housing within the City (“2022 Study”). This updated study examin es the typical funding sources used to pay for such costs and the unique attributes of affordable housing that contribute to higher construction costs. Additionally, this study provides an analysis of affordable housing development costs in the City as compared to such costs in other major California cities.
Since the onset of the pandemic in 2020, construction costs in San Jose and the broader Bay Area have increased substantially. According to TBD Cons ultants, a construction cost estimating firm with a focus on the Bay Area, construction cost s have escalated at an average annual rate of approximately 8% from March 2010 to March 2020. The pandemic and associated slowdown in construction activities led to only a 1% increa se in construction costs in 2020. However, 2021 witnessed a substantial 15% increase, the highest on record under the TB D Bid Index. This was followed by an 8% increase in 2022. Both material and labor cost inflation have contributed to this upward trend. Predicting future construction cost escalation is challengin g. Higher interest rates have curtailed new construction activity and ma y lead to lower escalation as demand for construction labor wanes. However, as depicted in Figure 1 below, there have only been a few marginal instances of construction cost declines since 2010.
Figure 1. TBD Construction Bid Index
This report analyzes factors influencing affordab le housing construction costs and changes in constructions costs since the last study was prep ared through a review of California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (“CTCAC”) applications submitted by affordable housing developers for new construction projects that were awarded a tax cred it allocation since the last study was completed.
This report analyzes the information included in these CTCAC applications such as detailed development budgets, funding sources, and operat ing assumptions for projects that will start construction within 180 days of tax credit award. The analysis results are compared to market rate development prototype assumptions to identify areas where affordable housing development costs vary from market rate housing development costs.
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2010 Q1 2011 Q3 2013 Q1 2014 Q3 2016 Q1 2017 Q3 2019 Q1 2020 Q3 2022 Q1
PAGE 4
METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
CTCAC accepts applications for tax credits two to three times per year. Within approximately 90 days following the application deadline, th e California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (“CDLAC”) releases a list of the projects that were awarded an allocation. Century | Urban obtained copies of applications for projects within the City that received an allocation from March 2022 through February 2023. The analysis begins with th e March 2022 applications as it marks the first application cycle after the 2022 Study. Eight projects in the City received tax credit allocations during this period ("San Jose Projects"). These projects range in height from five to seven stories, a departure from the 2022 Study's range of four to 13 stories. The narrower range in building height and absence of high-rise projects receiving a ta x credit allocation reflects the c hallenges in constructing Type I affordable housing in the current market. It may also be a sign of scarcity of available land for lower- density projects, as all but two of the projects were six to seven stories. In contrast to the 2022 Study, half of the projects were categorized as "Large Family" housing, a housing type absent in the previous study. Three of the remaining four projec ts were categorized as "Special Needs" housing, with the remaining project classified as "Non-Targeted." Non-Targeted projects pursue a geographic set-aside rather than a target population set-asid e. Figure 2 below provides a comparison of the projects included in this study versus those evaluated in the 2022 Study.
Figure 2. San Jose Projects – Current Study vs. 2022 Study Current Study 2022 Study
Housing Type
Number
of
Projects
Number
of Units % of Total
Number
of
Projects
Number
of Units % of Total
Special Needs 3 294 30% 9 795 45%
Large Family 4 422 43% 0 0 0%
Non-Targeted 1 271 27% 5 655 37%
Seniors 0 0 0% 1 301 17%
Total 8 987 100% 15 1,751 100%
Avg. Building Height 6 7
Given the unique characteristics of the San Jose Projects, which are largely comprised of more dense buildings with smaller units, this analysis compares the costs of San Jose Projects to the costs of projects with similar profiles in large California counties. These counties include Santa Clara County, Los Angeles County, the City & County of San Francisco and Alameda County, which were also evaluated in the 2022 Study. Century | Urban reviewed the CTCAC applications for projects within these counties that received a tax credit award during the same time period as the San Jose Projects.
During that time period a total of 43 projects in these counties received tax credit awards excluding projects in the City. Of these 43 projects, 21 five- to eight-story projects were found to be comparable in building typology to the San Jose Projects. These 21 projects (“Other City Projects”) are compared to the San Jose Projects in this study. Table 2 below summarizes the San Jose Projects and Other City Projects.
PAGE 5
Figure 3. Summary of Projects
San Jose Projects Other City Projects
Housing Type
Number
of Projects
Number
of Units
% of
Total
Number
of Projects
Number
of Units
% of
Total
Large Family 4 422 43% 9 1,369 47%
Special Needs 3 294 30% 5 543 19%
Non-Targeted 1 271 27% 7 1,017 35%
Total 8 987 100% 21 2,929 100%
The San Jose Projects included 422 units in four projects serving families, which include larger units and more bedroom counts per unit, 294 units in th ree projects serving a special needs population such as permanent supportive housing for the fo rmerly homeless, and 271 units in one project classified as non-targeted housing, which may provide housing to a mix of tenant populations. Two projects propose five or fewer stories comprising 14% of the total units, and the remaining six projects, comprising 86% of the total units propose six to seven stories with a weighted average of approximately six stories across all San Jose Projects. The Other City Projects totaled 2,929 units with nine projects serving families, five projects serv ing a special needs population and seven projects classified as non-targeted housing. Six projects propose five stories comprising 35% of the total units, and the remaining 18 projects propose six to eight stories comprising 65% of the total units with a weighted average of just over six stories across all Other City Projects.
Figure 4: Project Building Height
The development costs in the TCAC application for each project reflect the project sponsor’s best information available at the time of application submittal and may not reflect the final actual cost of 2 4
2 0
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
5 Stories 6 Stories 7 Stories 8 Stories
# Buildings
San Jose Projects
66 5
4 5 Stories 6 Stories 7 Stories 8 Stories
Other City Projects
PAGE 6
development. However, applicants must demonstrate readiness to proceed with construction within 180 days of an award. As such, the final actual project development costs should not vary significantly from the development costs shown in the TCAC applications.
Provided below is a list of the projects that were analyzed in this study. Construction cost detail by project is provided in Appendix A, Table 1 and Table 2.
Figure 5. List of Projects Evaluated
GENERAL TRENDS IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Affordable housing costs in the Bay Area have generally increased faster than costs elsewhere in the State of California per a 2022 investigation by the Los Angeles Times 1 which found that affordable
1 https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2022-06-20/california-affordable-housing-cost-1-million-apartment Project Name City County Housing Type Stories
Total
Units
Application
Date
San Jose Projects
Dry Creek Crossing San Jose Santa Clara Large Family 6 64 2/7/2023 Parkmoor San Jose Santa Clara Large Family 5 81 2/7/2023 777 West San Carlos San Jose Santa Clara Large Family 6 154 8/9/2022 Tamien Station Affordable San Jose Santa Clara Special Needs 6 135 8/9/2022 View at Blossom Hill San Jose Santa Clara Non-Targeted 7 271 8/9/2022 Alum Rock Multifamily San Jose Santa Clara Special Needs 5 60 8/9/2022 The Charles San Jose Santa Clara Special Needs 7 99 8/9/2022 2350 S. Bascom San Jose Santa Clara Large Family 6 123 3/16/2022 Total/Wtd. Average 6 987
Other City Projects
80 Saratoga Avenue Apartments Santa Clara Santa Clara Large Family 6 200 2/7/2023 Warner Center I Los Angeles Los Angeles Large Family 7 173 2/7/2023 Woodlake Family Apartments Los Angeles Los Angeles Large Family 8 100 2/7/2023 Grandview Apartments Los Angeles Los Angeles Special Needs 6 100 2/7/2023 Metro @ Florence Alhambra Los Angeles Special Needs 7 160 2/7/2023 Hunters Point Shipyard Block 52 and 54 San Francisco San Francisco Large Family 5 112 8/9/2022 730 Stanyan San Francisco San Francisco Large Family 8 160 8/9/2022 Hunters Point Shipyard Block 56 San Francisco San Francisco Non-Targeted 5 73 8/9/2022 2111 Firestone Alhambra Los Angeles Special Needs 6 85 8/9/2022 Sunnydale HOPE SF Block 3A San Francisco San Francisco Non-Targeted 5 80 8/9/2022 Hunters View Phase 3 San Francisco San Francisco Large Family 5 118 8/9/2022 Mariposa on Second Alhambra Los Angeles Special Needs 7 50 8/9/2022 Osgood Apartments South Fremont Alameda Large Family 6 100 3/16/2022 Miramar Development Los Angeles Los Angeles Non-Targeted 7 137 3/16/2022 La Vista Residential Hayward Alameda Large Family 5 176 3/16/2022 Mainline North Apartments Santa Clara Santa Clara Non-Targeted 8 151 3/16/2022 West Carson Alhambra Los Angeles Large Family 6 230 3/16/2022 Serra Apartments Fremont Alameda Non-Targeted 6 179 3/16/2022 515 Pioneer Drive Glendale Los Angeles Non-Targeted 5 340 3/16/2022 710 Broadway Santa Monica Los Angeles Non-Targeted 8 57 3/16/2022 Residency at Empire I Burbank Los Angeles Special Needs 7 148 3/16/2022 Total/Wtd. Average 6 2,929
PAGE 7
housing projects can cost upward of $1 million per unit. Most of th e projects in the investigation were located in the Bay Area. Additionally, a comprehensive study conducted by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation Study2 also found that affordable housing costs in the Bay Area exceed that of other parts of the state. The higher Bay Area co sts are driven by multiple factors. Notably, land prices have remained high, while material and labor cost inflation continue to outpace general cost inflation rates. Furthermore, financing costs have experienced a spike, doubling in the past year alone. In the ensuing pages, each of these factor s is evaluated with comparisons between San Jose Projects and Other City Projects.
As illustrated in Figure 6 below, total development costs for San Jose Projects increased significantly from the prior study, which spanned the period from late 2019 to the beginning of 2022. While projects in this study averaged over $811,000 per unit over the 18 month period studies, costs for projects that secured a tax credit award in 2023 averaged approximately $938,700 per unit, a 24% increase over costs per unit for projects with aw ards in the prior year. However, when comparing costs on per square foot basis, the escalation is more modest. From 2022 to 2023, the total development costs per square foot increased by just 4% per year. Accordingly, the increase in total development cost per unit is likely attributable to a higher number of large family housing types with larger units receiving awards in 2023. Neverthe less, an increase in the per unit cost may still translate to an elevated need for subsidies to construct each new unit.
Figure 6. San Jose Projects Total Development Costs per Unit by Year
YOY %
Change NA 6% 6% 13% 24%
As noted in the prior study, higher developmen t costs have coincided with demand for 4% tax credits that have exceeded tax-exempt bond capacity (which determines the amount of 4% tax credits available each year) since 2019. Indeed, during the current study period, 15 projects located in San
2 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/LIHTC_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf $602,400 $635,600 $672,600
$757,900
$938,700
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
PAGE 8
Jose submitted TCAC applications, but only eight were awarded tax credit allocations continuing the trend noted in the 2022 Study of a 2-to-1 oversubscription rate for 4% tax credits.
Affordable Housing Developments Costs by Housing Type
As illustrated in Figure 7 below, the total development costs for the eight San Jose Projects analyzed averaged approximately $811,700 per unit. Special needs projects incurred the highest per unit cost, averaging approximately $925,600, a notable increase from the 2022 Study's figure of approximately $700,000. Large family projects followed with the second highest per unit cost at approximately $875,700. The sole non-targeted project averaged $588,600 per unit, a contrast to the prior study's five non-targeted projects, which had average total development costs of $609,900 per unit.
Comparatively, the average per unit cost for Other City Projects was approximately $658,800 for all housing types. Costs per unit averaged $683,600 for special needs projects, $727,000 for large family projects, and $553,700 for non-targeted projects. On average, San Jose Projects have costs that are 23 percent higher than those of Other City Projects. Notably, the average cost per unit for special needs projects in San Jose was 35 percent higher, a su bstantial increase compared to the 2022 Study's finding of a 24 percent cost differential between th e City’s special needs projects and special needs projects in other cities.
Figure 7. Summary of Comparison of Total Development Costs per Unit San Jose Projects Other City
Projects
San Jose Cost
Difference
All Projects $811,700 $658,800 23%
Large Family $875,700 $727,000 20%
Special Needs $925,600 $683,600 35%
Non-Targeted $588,600 $553,700 6%
$811,700
$875,700 $925,600
$588,600
$658,800
$727,000 $683,600
$553,700
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
All Projects Large Family Special Needs Non-Targeted
San Jose Projects Other City Projects
PAGE 9
While the composition of housing types between the two datasets may influence the variance in average total development costs per unit, unit size does not appear to be a significant factor for most housing types. Figure 8 below illustrates that on average, units in San Jose Projects are roughly equivalent in size to units in Other City Projects . However, the special needs projects in San Jose were significantly larger than the special needs projects in the Other City Projects evaluated and may contribute to the cost differential.
Figure 8. Unit Size by Location and Housing Type
Housing Type San Jose Projects Average
Unit Size
Other City Projects Average
Unit Size
All Projects 1,171 1,125
Large Family 1,018 1,187
Special Needs 1,293 974
Non-Targeted 1,275 1,123
A review of affordability levels reveals that San Jose Projects offer significantly deeper affordability than Other City Projects. Approximately 54 percent of units in San Jose Projects are located in buildings with 50% or more units designated fo r Extremely Low-Income ("ELI") households ("ELI Buildings"). ELI households are defined as those earning no more than 30 percent of the Area Median Income (“AMI”). In contrast, only about 8% of units in Other City Projects are within ELI Buildings, down from 29% in the 2022 Study. Development co sts for ELI Buildings are generally higher than costs for buildings at higher affordability levels , and ELI Building costs in San Jose surpass the average of other cities evaluated in this study by a significant margin as shown in Figure 9 below.
The higher cost for ELI Buildings in San Jose is, in part, attributable to the larger average unit size in these projects.
Development costs for ELI Buildings are generally higher than costs for buildings at higher affordability levels due to the need for more amenit ies and office space, hi gher operating reserves and greater support services. For example, ELI Bu ildings have lower rental revenue which may be insufficient to cover operating expenses. Thus, ELI Buildings may require capitalized operating subsidies to ensure adequate operating reserves at completion. In addition, ELI Buildings must provide sufficient amenity space to provide the typical support services required by ELI households.
The higher number of ELI buildings in San Jose as compared to other cities is one of the factors that may account for the cost differential between S an Jose Projects and Other City Projects. A comprehensive discussion of other potential factors contributing to the cost differential is provided on page 22 below.
PAGE 10
Figure 9. Average Development Cost ELI Buildings Compared to All Buildings
The Components of Development Costs
Developing affordable housing involves various costs that can be catego rized into three main components: (1) land or property acquisition costs; (2) direct or “hard” costs; and (3) indirect soft costs such as architectural/engineering costs, local development fees, as well as other fees (e.g., legal fees, appraisals, and insurance). An overview of each component and its impact on the overall cost of affordable housing development is provided below.
Site Acquisition Costs by Housing Type
Land costs can vary significantly between affordable housing projects with some benefiting from contributed land, others involving ground leases , and some paying fair market value. Site acquisition costs include the land purchase price or capitalized ground lease amount, demolition costs, site enhancements, and associated legal and financing costs reported in tax credit applications.
For San Jose Projects, land acquisition costs have remained relatively stable since the 2022 Study, averaging approximately $41,800 per unit, compar ed to the 2022 average of $39,000 per unit.
Similarly, land acquisition costs for Other Ci ty Projects have remained stable averaging approximately $42,100 per unit, compared to the 2022 average of $42,000 per unit. A small portion of projects did not report any land costs in th eir tax credit applications, likely the result of contributed land. Excluding these pr ojects, the average land cost per unit for San Jose Projects was approximately $52,000, which is consistent with the 2022 Study figure. Other City Projects also averaged around $52,000 per unit, which is lo wer than the 2022 Study figure of approximately $57,000 per unit.
$919,800
$811,700
$667,000 $658,783
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
ELI Buildings All Buildings
San Jose Projects Other City Projects
PAGE 11
Figure 10. Summary of Site Acquisition Costs per Unit
San Jose Projects
Other City
Projects
San Jose Cost
Difference
All Projects $41,800 $42,100 -1%
Large Family $60,400 $47,700 27%
Special Needs $17,100 $62,300 -73%
Non-Targeted $39,900 $24,000 66%
Direct Construction Costs by Housing Type
Direct construction costs primarily encompass la bor and material for site improvements, parking facilities, and building construction. This catego ry represents the largest portion of overall development costs, accounting for approximately 69% of the total costs for San Jose Projects, which is consistent with the 2022 Study. For Other City Projects, direct constructi on costs constituted an average of approximately 68% of total development costs, which represents a 2% decrease from the prior study.
San Jose Projects exhibit higher di rect construction costs compared to Other City Projects across all housing types except for the non-targeted housing type, which may be attributable to there being only one project in this category. This disparity is most pronounced in the case of special needs projects, where direct construction costs in San Jose surpass those in other cities by 64%. However, the unit size differential largely explains the high er cost. When comparing the per square foot cost for special needs San Jose Projects and special needs Other City Projects, the difference is modest at just 2% higher for San Jose Projects. However, unit size does not explain the cost difference for the other housing types and one potential explanation ma y be variances in market area costs. Both material and labor expenses are higher in the Bay Area compared to other markets. A scarcity of labor in the construction industry, along with prev ailing wage requirements specific to San Jose Projects, continue to contribute to elevated dire ct construction costs. While only three San Jose Projects reported prevailing wage costs in their ta x credit applications, discussions with affordable housing developers consistently highlight this requirement as a significant cost factor. $41,800
$60,400
$17,100
$39,900$42,100
$47,700
$62,300
$24,000
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
All Projects Large Family Special Needs Non-Targeted
San Jose Projects Other City Projects
PAGE 12
Figure 11. Total Direct Construction Costs, Average Per Unit San Jose Projects Other City Projects
San Jose Cost
Difference
All Projects $560,700 $446,700 26%
Large Family $612,700 $512,700 20%
Special Needs $661,900 $402,800 64%
Non-Targeted $370,100 $381,400 -3%
Indirect Soft Costs
Indirect soft costs include professional fees for design and engineering, as well as various other expenses such as taxes, insurance, and planning and permitting fees levied by municipalities. These costs have seen an upward trend over recent years and have been identified in studies and discussions with affordable housing stakeholders as contributing factors to the high cost of affordable housing development in the City. As illust rated in Figure 12 below, San Jose Project soft costs per unit exceed that of Other City Projects in all soft cost categories. Certain soft costs, which are a function of construction costs, may be higher in San Jose Projects due to the higher construction costs for those projects. For example, higher constr uction costs will result in higher financing fees.
However, other soft costs such as impact fees ar e not directly related to construction costs. A discussion of select soft cost categories is provided below. $560,700
$612,700
$661,900
$370,100
$446,700
$512,700
$402,800 $381,400
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
All Projects Large Family Special Needs Non-Targeted
San Jose Projects Other City Projects
PAGE 13
Figure 12. Indirect Soft Costs per Unit
Impact Fees
Municipalities impose impact fees on new developments to fund essential infrastructure required to support housing growth. These fees play a crucial ro le in funding local services, including schools, parks, and transportation. In San Jose, these fees apply to new residential developments and include an Affordable Housing In-Lieu-Fee, a Park Impact In -Lieu Fee, and fees specific to area plans. The Affordable Housing In-Lieu-Fee does not apply to affordable housing projects. Residential units with deed restrictions that align with the City's affordable housing guidelines qualify for a 50% credit towards the Parks Impact In-Lieu Fee. This fee can range from $8,000 to $41,600 per unit, depending on the neighborhood. Additionally, the Ci ty may grant waivers for impact fees in select cases. San Jose Projects reported average impact fees of approximately $19,900 per unit. In contrast, 17 Other City Projects included impact fees in their tax credit application budgets, averaging around $15,400 per unit—23% lower than San Jose Projects. Figure 12 provides a comparison of impact fees per unit between San Jose Projects and Other City Projects, including a breakdown by county. $19,815 $16,723
$40,983
$31,726
$74,133
$58,664
$7,397
$6,494
$62,138
$51,753
$4,709
$4,545
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
$200,000
$220,000
San Jose Projects Other City Projects
Architecture &
Engineering
Permits &
Third Party
Financing Costs
Reserves
Developer Fees
Soft Cost Contingency
Architecture &
Engineering
Permits and Third
Party Costs
Developer Fees
Soft Cost Contingency
Reserves
Financing Costs
PAGE 14
Figure 13. Impact Fees per Unit
To evaluate whether other cities provide impact fee waivers and the extent of those waivers, Figure 14 compares the impact fees that would be asse ssed on a market rate project with a similar construction typology as the projects in this stu dy versus the impact fees reported in the TCAC applications. This analysis specifically compares impa ct fees for projects in the City of Los Angeles and the City and County of San Francisco, which represent nine of the 21 Other City Projects, to San Jose Projects. The City of Los Angeles and the Ci ty and County of San Francisco impose various impact fees on new developments including an affordable housing mitigation fee, transportation fee and other local impact fees. As shown below, the City and County of San Francisco average impact fees for market rate projects exceed the impact fees assessed by the City of San Jose and the City of Los Angeles. However, impact fees for affordable housing projects in the City and County of San Francisco are significantly lower than the affordable housing project impact fees for both the City of Los Angeles and the City of San Jose and represent just 3% of what a market rate project would be assessed. The City of Los Angeles impact fees for affordable housing projects reflect 16% of what a market rate project would be assessed. This compar es to San Jose Projects which pay impact fees equal to approximately 25% of market rate. This suggests that affordable housing projects in the City and County of San Francisco and the City of Lo s Angeles receive impact fee waivers that are proportionally higher than San Jose Projects.
$19,900
$27,000
$35,200
$7,400
$2,400
$15,400
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
San Jose
Projects
Alameda Other Santa
Clara
Los Angeles San Francisco All Other
City Projects
PAGE 15
Figure 14. Affordable Housing Impact Fees per Unit Comparison to Market Rate
Financing Costs
Interest rates have experienced a rapid increase over the past year, initiated by the Federal Reserve's federal funds rate hikes starting in March 2022. This has led to interest rates reaching their highest level in 22 years, with the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”), a key indicator for borrowing costs collateralized by Treasury securities, following suit. As illustrated in Figure 15, the SOFR Rate rose from approximately 3.00% in October 2022 to 5.31% as of September 1, 2023. Construction lenders have also increased the interest rate spread on loans, increasing borrower costs at a disproportionately higher level than the SOFR rate. Presently, construction loan interest rates are estimated to be in the 8.00% range. This near-doubling of interest rates within the last 12 months has resulted in a substantial increase in the financing costs for developing affordable housing. $19,900
$5,100 $2,400
$78,578
$31,575
$95,443
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
San Jose Projects Los Angeles San Francisco
Affordable Project Market Rate Project
PAGE 16
Figure 15. SOFR Rate Over Prior 12 Months
Moreover, the increased complexity of financing affo rdable housing projects has led to additional development costs for affordable housing projects as compared to market rate projects. Financing costs include capitalized interest during construc tion, origination fees, bond issuance costs, tax credit syndication costs, and financing legal fees. Due to the multitude of funding sources required to develop affordable housing projects, financing costs account for approximately 9% of San Jose Projects and Other City Projects total development co sts. This reflects an increase of approximately 2% from the 2022 Study. Provided below is a summa ry of the average financing costs per unit for San Jose Projects and Other City Projects since 2019
Figure 16. Financing Costs Average Per Unit
Application Year San Jose Projects Other City Projects
2019 $30,700 $39,500
2020 $40,900 $34,800
2021 $43,600 $37,600
2022 $69,000 $53,000
2023 $103,800 $65,400
Tax Credit Pricing
A primary source of funding for affordable housing projects is tax credit investor equity. Investors receive tax credit benefits over a 10-year period in the form of dollar-for-do llar reductions in taxes owed. The pricing of tax credits hinges on the demand for credits from investors and their discount rates. Typically, tax credit pricing is expressed as an amount per dollar of tax credit. Applicants must
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
SOFR Rate (%)
PAGE 17
provide their anticipated tax credit pricing in their TCAC applications to demonstrate the available tax credit investor equity for funding development costs. Numero us factors influence investor pricing, including local Community Reinvestment Act obligations, the type of investor involved, and the creditworthiness of the developer.
As depicted in Figure 17 below, federal tax cr edit pricing for San Jose Projects averaged approximately $0.91 for applications submitted in 2022, and slightly decreased to around $0.90 for projects submitted in 2023. In contrast, Other City Projects recorded an average federal tax credit pricing of $0.93 in 2022, which further decreased to $0.89 in 2023, indicating an overall decline for all projects between 2022 and 2023. State tax credit pricing for San Jose Projects followed an opposing trend, surpassing that of Other City Projects by $0.05 in 2022 but falling short of them by $0.02 in 2023.
Figure 17. Tax Credit Pricing Average by Year
Application Year San Jose Projects Other City Projects
Federal Tax Credits
2022 $0.91 $0.93
2023 $0.90 $0.89
State Tax Credits
2022 $0.87 $0.82
2023 $0.86 $0.88
Given that the amount of federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTC”) available for allocation remains constant each year, the pricing of tax credits has a direct impact on the number of units that can be financed through public funding sources. A lower tax credit price necessitates a greater infusion of state and local subsidies to bridge the funding gap.
Share of Development Costs Funded by City Subsidies and Other Sources While market-rate projects typically rely on two main funding sour ces, developer/investor equity and conventional construction/permanent debt, a ffordable housing projects necessitate multiple layers of capital to fill the gap between the supportable amount of permanent debt and tax credit investor equity and the cost to build the project.
On average, San Jose Projects utilized about six funding sources per project, with two projects requiring as many as eight funding sources. Each additional funding source typically adds potential costs due to extended timelines and/or reportin g requirements. In discussions with market participants, layering of capital was cited as causing long delays, which can add significantly to hard costs in a fast-rising construction cost environment. As projects become more complex, projects also experience higher soft costs such as increased lega l and consultant fees as well as syndication costs associated with financial consultants needed to manage multiple funding streams and partners. In addition, public funding in Calif ornia can be highly fragmented creating a need to coordinate between state, county and local funding sources.
PAGE 18
Affordable housing projects typically draw fundin g from a mix of sources, including tax credit investor equity, city funds, county funds, state funds, privately issued debt, developer equity, and other public subsidies such as project-based vouche rs and tax-exempt bonds. In the case of the San Jose Projects, the City provided a subsidy to six out of the eight projects, averaging approximately $84,000 per unit across all eight projects. This marks a $10,000 increase from the 2022 Study average.
For large family projects and special needs projects, City subsidies averaged approximately $117,000 and $115,000 per unit, respectively, significantly high er than the 2022 Study average of $83,000 for special needs projects. Comparatively, only 11 ou t of the 21 Other City Projects received a local subsidy, highlighting affordable housing developers reliance on local subsidies to fund project costs in the City. In some instances, local funding for Other City Projects was provided by the county rather than the city. For San Jose Projects that ac tually received City fu nding, the City funding amount averaged $141,000 per unit, in contrast to approximately $146,000 per unit received from local funding for projects in other cities.
Figure 18. City Subsidy Amount Per Unit
San Jose Projects
Other City
Projects
San Jose Cost
Difference
All Projects $84,500 $72,800 16%
Large Family $117,300 $102,400 15%
Special Needs $115,400 $57,000 102%
Non-Targeted $0 $41,400 --
Figure 19 below illustrates that, for all San Jose Projects, tax credit equity is the largest single source of funding for affordable housing projects, acco unting for approximately 48 percent of total development costs. Permanent debt through either a private bank or tax-exempt bonds represents the second largest source of funding, accounting for approximately 22 percent of total development costs. The next largest category of funding so urces are subsidy progra ms provided through the county and state and includes operational subsidie s such as project-based vouchers. These sources $84,500
$117,300 $115,400
$0
$72,800
$102,400
$57,000
$41,400
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
All Projects Large Family Special Needs Non-Targeted
San Jose Projects Other City Projects
PAGE 19
fund approximately 20 percent of total developmen t costs. City subsidies account for the smallest funding source, contributing approximately 10% of total development costs.
Figure 19. San Jose Projects Subsidy Amounts Per Unit by Housing Type City Funds
Tax Credit
Equity
Permanent
Debt
Other
Subsidies Total
All Projects $84,500 $385,600 $182,400 $159,200 $811,700 Large Family $117,300 $435,800 $167,700 $154,900 $875,700 Special Needs $115,400 $443,300 $125,600 $241,300 $925,600 Non-Targeted $0 $244,800 $266,800 $77,000 $588,600
The breakdown of funding sources for Other City Proj ects is similar to the breakdown for San Jose Projects, with tax credit equity, permanent debt , and local funding providing slightly higher percentages of funding, and other subsidies providing a lower percentage of funding.
$84,500 (10%) $117,300 (13%) $115,400 (12%)
$385,600 (48%)
$435,800 (50%) $443,300 (48%)
$182,400 (22%)
$167,700 (19%)
$125,600 (14%)
$159,200 (20%) $154,900 (18%)
$241,300 (26%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All Projects Large Family Special Needs
PAGE 20
Figure 20. Other City Projects Subsidy Amounts Per Unit by Housing Type City Funds Tax Credits
Permanent
Debt
Other
Subsidies Total
All Projects $72,800 $345,600 $167,700 $72,700 $658,800 Large Family $102,400 $382,800 $178,000 $63,800 $727,000 Special Needs $57,000 $371,000 $129,500 $126,200 $683,700 Non-Targeted $41,400 $281,900 $174,200 $56,200 $553,700
Affordable Housing Development Costs as Compared to Market Rate Housing Development Costs
Certain key differences between market rate hous ing and affordable housing may contribute to the difference in costs between the product types. For example, market rate units tend to be smaller, and may have higher end finishes and lower parkin g ratios. To better understand how affordable housing costs compare to market rate housing costs, this study compares its results with a separate conceptual feasibility analysis prepared by Century | Urban for five market rate residential rental and for-sale development prototypes. This concep tual feasibility analysis estimated development costs for three common residential construction types: Type V, Type III, and Type I. As most of the affordable housing projects evaluated in this study reflect Type III construction, affordable housing $72,800 (11%) $102,400 (14%) $57,000 (8%) $41,400 (7%)
$345,600 (52%)
$382,800 (53%)
$371,000 (54%) $281,900 (51%)
$167,700 (25%)
$178,000 (24%)
$129,500 (19%) $174,200 (31%)
$72,700 (11%) $63,800 (9%)
$126,200 (18%)
$56,200 (10%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All Projects Large Family Special Needs Non-Targeted
PAGE 21
development costs are compared to the estimated development costs for Type III construction in the conceptual feasibility study.
The average acquisition price for the market rate projects is based on seven transactions for new residential development in the City between 2019 and 2023. The hard costs for the market rate projects were estimated by a cost consultant. Soft costs for market rate projects are based on city fee schedules, and estimates of other soft costs such as financing, architectural and engineering, legal, etc. utilizing market-based assumptions as presente d in the conceptual feasibility analysis. Due to the difference in unit sizes between the affordable housing projects in this study and the prototypical market rate projects, development costs are compared on a per gross square foot basis as shown in Figure 21 below.
Total development costs for San Jose Projects exc eed estimated total development costs for market rate projects by approximately $85 per gross sq uare foot or approximately 14%. While estimated acquisition costs for market rate projects exc eed acquisition costs for San Jose Projects by approximately $13 per square foot, San Jose Projec ts hard costs are higher than estimated market rate project hard costs. Notably, market rate proj ects soft costs far exceed soft costs for San Jose Projects. This is in part due to significantly higher City fees for market rate projects than affordable housing projects.
Figure 21. San Jose Affordable Housing Versus Market Rate
$40 $53
$506
$417
$162
$153
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
San Jose Projects Market Rate
PAGE 22
Affordable Housing Development Cost Key Factors
The challenges and key factors that drive affordab le housing costs identified in the 2022 Study remain considerations today with the added challeng e of significantly higher interest rates than a year ago. Many of the factors influencing the high affordable housing costs found in this analysis are systemic and difficult to mitigate; however, a discussion of these key factors and, where appropriate, recommendations for how the City ma y potentially be able to alleviate them are provided below.
Prevailing Wage – Prevailing wage requirements are often cited by developers, general contractors and affordable housing policy think tanks as a caus e of higher development costs, which is more common for affordable housing projects than for ma rket rate projects. This is exacerbated by the general labor market shortage, which has driven up labor costs. Prevailing wages are set by the California Department of Industrial Relations and are usually based on rates specified in collective bargaining agreements. While the LIHTC program does not require prevailing wage in construction contracts, oftentimes other public funding sources require either federal or state prevailing wage or local project labor agreements. Prev ailing wage is often cited by ma rket participants as increasing construction costs by between 10% and 20%. Becaus e projects are typically not bid out to general contractors with and without a prevailing wage re quirement, this data point cannot be verified through a review of actual construction cost bids.
In addition to higher direct wage rates, prevailing wage often triggers additional requirements such as payroll certification that can add to costs. In terviews consistently highlighted the additional administrative requirements associated with pr evailing wage, which increase development costs and may cause some contractors to avoid taking on a prevailing wage project when demand for labor is strong.
Lower Efficiency – Affordable housing projects typically require more common area for supporting amenities. This is particularly true of permanent supportive hous ing, which requires additional support services and facilities from which to provid e these services. While the efficiency factor for market rate projects typically ranges from 75 to 80%, the efficiency factor for affordable projects generally ranges from 70 to 75%.
Higher Density Development – Due to the urgent need for affordable housing, cities seeking to address housing shortages and fulfill their Regional Housing Needs Allocation are pursuing higher density projects on available development sites. Dense residential buildings are more difficult to entitle due to neighborhood concerns. High density projects with prevailing wage and/or work rule requirements and located in high -cost areas such as the City will likely participate in multiple application rounds for LIHTC allocations leading to higher carrying costs as developers, which have acquired land, must continue to pay property taxes and maintenance costs.
Number of Funding Sources – As noted above, market rate projects generally draw on two primary funding sources, equity and conventional debt. In contrast, affordable housing projects must layer multiple funding sources to fund all project co sts. As these funding sources are generally not coordinated and funding rounds occur periodically, a project that requires multiple funding sources will likely take longer to execute, which results in higher staffing costs to pursue these funding
PAGE 23
sources. In addition, each of the funding sour ces may have its own conditions and requirements such as for open space, wage and work rules, affordability, etc., which may lead to higher costs. The market participants interviewed for this study all cited the complexity of funding affordable housing projects as a key barrier to developing affordable housing.
Coordination among local, county and state funding sources to streamline capital stack assemblage could greatly reduce the delays associated with obtaining all required de velopment funding. This could be accomplished by coordinating NOFAs and awards processes across as many key funding sources as possible. This is already being done at the State level with the HCD Super NOFA; however, with only one NOFA per year, projects that miss the application deadline or are not awarded an allocation must wait an entire year for the next round, which can increase holding costs.
Local Design, Parking and Environmental Requirements – Local subsidies often come with additional design requirements. For example, some local jurisdic tions may require parking ratios that exceed those required of market rate projec ts. The local jurisdiction may also make fulfillment of certain design requirements a condition to funding a project such as requiring more durable units.
Some cities also have requirements for open sp ace that can add to costs. Finally, some local jurisdictions are moving toward parity between market rate and affordable housing whereby design and finishes between comparable market rate and affordable housing projects are similar. Local jurisdictions can reduce costs by streamlining the entitlement and permitting processes and reducing local design, parking and environmental requirements.
Local Development Fees – Local development fees can be subst antial. For San Jose Projects, impact fees averaged $19,900 per unit. While the City alre ady provides a reduction to its Parkland Fee, the City could consider waiving or further reducing this and/or other local impact fees to reduce development costs.
Deeper Affordability – San Jose Projects provide deeper levels of affordability than projects in other cities. As noted above, 54% of all units in San Jose Projects are within ELI Buildings as compared to just 8% of units in Other City Projects. This deeper level of affordability comes at a greater cost due to the need for more rental and operating subsidies, amenity space and support services. In addition, special needs San Jose Projects have unit sizes that are significantly larger than the unit sizes of other City Projects at an average of 1,293 square feet pe r unit for San Jose Projects versus 974 square feet for Other City Projects. The combination of deeper affordability and larger unit sizes results in higher average total development costs for projects in the City of San Jose as compared to other cities.
PAGE 24
Appendix A
Appendix A: San Jose Projects
Project Project Information
Project Name Developer City Housing Type Stories Total Units Total GSF Subsidized
Units Application Date
Dry Creek Crossing Pacific Southwest Community Develo pment Corporation San Jose La rge Family 6 64 89,308 63 2/7/2023 Parkmoor Allied 1510 Parkmoor, L.P. San Jose Large Family 5 81 97,245 79 2/7/2023 2350 S. Bascom Central Valley Coalition for Affordable Housing, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Cor pSan Jose Large Family 6 123 124,738 122 3/16/2022
777 West San Carlos Community Revitalizaton and Develo pment Corporation San Jose La rge Family 6 154 118,436 153 8/9/2022 Tamien Station Affordable Tamien Affordable , L.P. San Jose Special Needs 6 135 203,694 134 8/9/2022 View at Blossom Hill JEMCOR Development Partn ers, LLC San Jose Non-Targeted 7 271 345,570 267 8/9/2022 Alum Rock Multifamily Charities Housing De velopment Corporation of Santa Clara County San Jose Special Needs 5 60 79,176 59 8/9/2022 The Charles Charities Housing Development Corporation of Santa Clara County San Jose Special Needs 7 99 97,125 97 8/9/2022 Total/Wtd. Average 69 8 7 1,155,292 974
Large Family 4 Projects 6 422 429,727 417
Special Needs 3 Projects 6 294 379,995 290
Non-Targeted 1 Projects 7 271 345,570 267
Project Project Information
Project Name Developer City Housing Type Stories
Total Units
% of Total Total GSF
Subsidized
Units % of
Total Application Date
Dry Creek Crossing Pacific Southwest Community Develo pment Corporation San Jose Large Family 6 6% 8% 6% 2/7/2023 Parkmoor Allied 1510 Parkmoor, L.P. San Jose Large Family 5 8% 8% 8% 2/7/2023 2350 S. Bascom Central Valley Coalition for Affordable Housing, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Cor pSan Jose Large Family 6 12% 11% 13% 3/16/2022
777 West San Carlos Community Revitalizaton and Develo pment Corporation San Jose Large Family 6 16% 10% 16% 8/9/2022 Tamien Station Affordable Tamien Affordab le, L.P. San Jose Special Needs 6 14% 18% 14% 8/9/2022 View at Blossom Hill JEMCOR Development Pa rtners, LLC San Jose Non-Targeted 7 27% 30% 27% 8/9/2022 Alum Rock Multifamily Charities Housing Development Corporation of Santa Clara County San Jose Special Needs 5 6% 7% 6% 8/9/2022 The Charles Charities Housing Development Corporation of Santa Clara County San Jose Special Needs 7 10% 8% 10% 8/9/2022 Total/Wtd. Average 6 100% 100% 100%
Total/Wtd. Avg. by Housing Type
Appendix A: San Jose Projects
Project
Project Name
Dry Creek Crossing
Parkmoor
2350 S. Bascom
777 West San Carlos
Tamien Station Affordable
View at Blossom Hill
Alum Rock Multifamily
The Charles
Total/Wtd. Avera
ge
Large Family
Special Needs
Non-Targeted
Project
Project Name
Dry Creek Crossing
Parkmoor
2350 S. Bascom
777 West San Carlos
Tamien Station Affordable
View at Blossom Hill
Alum Rock Multifamily
The Charles
Total/Wtd. Avera
ge
Total/Wtd. Avg. by Housing Type
Unit Mix (Total) Project Development Costs (per Unit)
ELI (<=30%
AMI)
VLI (<=50%
AMI)
LI (<=80%
AMI)
Acquisition
Costs
Residential
Hard Costs
Construction
Cost
Contingency A&E
Permits/Thir
d-Party Costs
Financing
Costs Reserves
Developer
Fees
Soft Cost
Contingency
Total Develo-
pment Cost
18 21 24 $83,594 $617,656 $31,000 $20,156 $33,020 $82,377 $6,088 $113,448 $8,715 $996,054 40 24 15 $4,053 $661,313 $46,556 $30,247 $43,005 $120,694 $9,027 $44,444 $6,453 $965,792 25 8 89 $69,837 $454,451 $32,520 $12,114 $26,306 $53,637 $7,246 $79,675 $6,911 $742,698 102 16 35 $72,727 $605,646 $42,373 $14,286 $52,248 $49,475 $9,892 $34,286 $3,504 $884,436 67 0 67 $22,500 $656,101 $30,724 $29,958 $45,860 $86,703 $10,877 $54,074 $4,945 $941,743 27 27 213 $39,852 $352,961 $17,143 $10,509 $34,640 $57,926 $5,439 $66,752 $3,402 $588,625 30 29 0 $11,749 $634,178 $31,896 $32,058 $60,168 $103,072 $5,189 $83,333 $5,233 $966,876 49 48 0 $12,875 $594,824 $30,498 $33,453 $44,277 $104,218 $5,172 $50,505 $2,774 $878,595 47 21 8 7 $41,829 $530,322 $30,402 $19,815 $40,983 $74,133 $7,39 7 $62,138 $4,709 $811,730 55 16 45 $60,351 $574,084 $38,579 $17,607 $39,996 $69,348 $8,378 $61,471 $5,853 $875,667 53 22 31 $17,065 $630,993 $30,887 $31,563 $48,247 $95,942 $7,795 $58,844 $4,273 $925,608 27 27 213 $39,852 $352,961 $17,143 $10,509 $34,640 $57,926 $5,439 $66,752 $3,402 $588,625 Unit Mix (Percent) Project Development Costs (per Unit % of Total) ELI (<=30%
AMI)
VLI (<=50%
AMI)
LI (<=80%
AMI)
Acquisition
Costs Hard Costs
Construction
Cost
Contingency A&E
Permits/Thir
d-Party Costs
Financing
Costs Reserves
Developer
Fees
Soft Cost
Contingency
Total
Development
Cost
29% 33% 38% 8% 62% 3% 2% 3% 8% 1% 11% 1% 100%
51% 30% 19% 0% 68% 5% 3% 4% 12% 1% 5% 1% 100%
20% 7% 73% 9% 61% 4% 2% 4% 7% 1% 11% 1% 100%
67% 10% 23% 8% 68% 5% 2% 6% 6% 1% 4% 0% 100%
50% 0% 50% 2% 70% 3% 3% 5% 9% 1% 6% 1% 100%
10% 10% 80% 7% 60% 3% 2% 6% 10% 1% 11% 1% 100%
51% 49% 0% 1% 66% 3% 3% 6% 11% 1% 9% 1% 100%
51% 49% 0% 1% 68% 3% 4% 5% 12% 1% 6% 0% 100%
37% 18% 45% 5% 65% 4% 2% 5% 9% 1% 8% 1% 100%
Appendix A: San Jose Projects
Project
Project Name
Dry Creek Crossing
Parkmoor
2350 S. Bascom
777 West San Carlos
Tamien Station Affordable
View at Blossom Hill
Alum Rock Multifamily
The Charles
Total/Wtd. Avera
ge
Large Family
Special Needs
Non-Targeted
Project
Project Name
Dry Creek Crossing
Parkmoor
2350 S. Bascom
777 West San Carlos
Tamien Station Affordable
View at Blossom Hill
Alum Rock Multifamily
The Charles
Total/Wtd. Avera
ge
Total/Wtd. Avg. by Housing Type
Impact Fees Tax Credit Factor Operating Expenses
Impact Fees
Impact
Fee/Unit Federal State
Admin.
Expenses
Property
Mgmt. Fees Payroll
Repairs and
Maintenance Utilities Insurance
Real Estate
Taxes
Resident
Services Other OpEx
Replacement
Reserve
$773,713 $12,089 $0.87 $0.86 $631 $975 $3,359 $1,555 $886 $344 $0 $200 $0 $250 $1,585,346 $19,572 $0.92 N/A $5,082 $900 $4,244 $1,904 $1,525 $1,481 $56 $1,600 $247 $500 $1,612,537 $13,110 $0.88 $0.84 $231 $643 $1,085 $1,993 $1,419 $450 $168 $163 $198 $250 $3,062,251 $19,885 $0.86 $0.87 $376 $880 $1,639 $2,757 $2,133 $307 $0 $682 $974 $350 $2,363,247 $17,506 $0.92 N/A $2,764 $780 $3,369 $1,835 $1,104 $471 $16 $492 $1,337 $500 $8,130,000 $30,000 $0.92 N/A $300 $473 $1,794 $1,174 $1,500 $650 $40 $74 $0 $250 $779,624 $12,994 $0.98 $0.88 $670 $720 $2,588 $2,232 $1,099 $500 $67 $575 $339 $300 $1,350,000 $13,636 $0.99 $0.88 $722 $720 $2,250 $2,065 $1,093 $500 $40 $575 $607 $300 $3,597,320 $19,916 $0.91 $0.86 $1,119 $70 7 $2,293 $1,852 $1,431 $571 $4 7 $451 $461 $328 $2,009,145 $16,668 $0.88 $0.86 $1,276 $829 $2,238 $2,189 $1,619 $580 $60 $634 $461 $334 $1,698,863 $15,282 $0.95 $0.88 $1,649 $748 $2,833 $1,993 $1,099 $487 $35 $537 $888 $392 $8,130,000 $30,000 $0.92 N/A $300 $473 $1,794 $1,174 $1,500 $650 $40 $74 $0 $250 Impact Fees % Cost Operating Expenses (% of Total)
% of TDC % Soft Costs
Admin.
Expenses
Property
Mgmt. Fees Payroll
Repairs and
Maintenance Utilities Insurance
Real Estate
Taxes
Resident
Services Other OpEx
Replacement
Reserve
1% 5% 8% 12% 41% 19% 11% 4% 0% 2% 0% 3%
2% 8% 29% 5% 24% 11% 9% 8% 0% 9% 1% 3%
2% 7% 3% 10% 16% 30% 21% 7% 3% 2% 3% 4%
2% 12% 4% 9% 16% 27% 21% 3% 0% 7% 10% 3%
2% 8% 22% 6% 27% 14% 9% 4% 0% 4% 11% 4%
5% 17% 5% 8% 29% 19% 24% 10% 1% 1% 0% 4%
1% 4% 7% 8% 28% 25% 12% 6% 1% 6% 4% 3%
2% 6% 8% 8% 25% 23% 12% 6% 0% 6% 7% 3%
3% 10% 9% 8% 25% 21% 17% 7% 1% 4% 4% 4%
Intentionally Left
Blank
Appendix A: San Jose Projects
Project
Project Name
Dry Creek Crossing
Parkmoor
2350 S. Bascom
777 West San Carlos
Tamien Station Affordable
View at Blossom Hill
Alum Rock Multifamily
The Charles
Total/Wtd. Avera
ge
Large Family
Special Needs
Non-Targeted
Project
Project Name
Dry Creek Crossing
Parkmoor
2350 S. Bascom
777 West San Carlos
Tamien Station Affordable
View at Blossom Hill
Alum Rock Multifamily
The Charles
Total/Wtd. Avera
ge
Total/Wtd. Avg. by Housing Type
Funding Sources (Total $ Amount)
Total Annual
OpEx
Total
Expenses
Excluding
Services
Senior
Permanent
Loans Tax Credits
Deferred
Developer Fee GP Capital City Funding
County
Funding State Funding Other Funding Total Sources
$8,200 $8,000 $9,168,829 $35,167,965 $4,760,650 $0 $14,650,000 $0 $0 $0 $63,747,444 $17,539 $15,939 $6,014,868 $34,432,551 $1,100,000 $0 $15,730,075 $20,000,000 $0 $951,688 $78,229,182 $6,600 $6,437 $40,500,000 $44,011,816 $0 $6,840,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $91,351,816 $10,099 $9,417 $15,100,000 $70,282,543 $0 $1,700,000 $19,125,000 $29,720,215 $0 $275,449 $136,203,207 $12,668 $12,176 $7,670,000 $55,823,286 $400,000 $4,700,000 $16,750,000 $25,000,000 $16,000,000 $791,960 $127,135,246 $6,255 $6,181 $72,300,000 $66,342,106 $17,789,425 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,085,854 $159,517,385 $9,089 $8,514 $10,532,000 $28,030,045 $1,026,835 $1,723,165 $7,500,000 $8,600,000 $0 $600,538 $58,012,583 $8,872 $8,297 $18,718,451 $46,480,534 $1,867,694 $632,406 $9,675,885 $9,280,000 $0 $325,944 $86,980,914 $9,262 $8,811 $31,909,530 $53,774,044 $5,587,870 $1,928,691 $8,942,400 $11,151,604 $2,188,450 $1,145,884 $116,628,473 $10,219 $9,585 $19,859,975 $50,418,842 $933,132 $2,614,028 $12,220,346 $14,684,628 $0 $283,189 $101,014,141 $10,659 $10,122 $11,974,478 $47,005,167 $1,022,149 $2,722,783 $12,480,145 $16,359,592 $7,346,939 $595,971 $99,507,223 $6,255 $6,181 $72,300,000 $66,342,106 $17,789,425 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,085,854 $159,517,385 Funding Sources (% of Total)
Total Annual
OpEx
Total
Expenses
Excluding
Services
Permanent
Loan Tax Credits
Deferred
Developer Fee GP Capital City Funding
County
Funding State Funding Other Funding Total Sources
100% 98% 14% 55% 7% 0% 23% 0% 0% 0% 100%
100% 91% 8% 44% 1% 0% 20% 26% 0% 1% 100%
100% 98% 44% 48% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
100% 93% 11% 52% 0% 1% 14% 22% 0% 0% 100%
100% 96% 6% 44% 0% 4% 13% 20% 13% 1% 100%
100% 99% 45% 42% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 100%
100% 94% 18% 48% 2% 3% 13% 15% 0% 1% 100%
100% 94% 22% 53% 2% 1% 11% 11% 0% 0% 100%
100% 0% 25% 47% 4% 2% 9% 10% 2% 1% 100%
Appendix A: Other City Projects
Project Project Information Unit Mix (Total)
Project Name Developer City County Housing Type Stories Total Units Total GSF Subsidized
Units Application Date
ELI (<=30%
AMI)
VLI (<=50%
AMI)
LI (<=80%
AMI)
80 Saratoga Avenue Apartments Central Valle y Coalition for Affordable Housing, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corp Santa Clara Santa Clara Lar ge Family 6 200 234,638 198 2/7/2023 20 20 158 Warner Center I Warner Center I, L.P. Los An geles Los An geles Lar ge Family 7 173 221,128 171 2/7/2023 37 0 134 Woodlake Family Apartments 23036 Ventura, LP Los Angeles Los An geles Lar ge Family 8 100 128,440 99 2/7/2023 25 0 74 Grandview Apartments Abode Communities Los An geles Los An geles S pecial Needs 6 100 110,259 99 2/7/2023 65 26 8 Metro @ Florence Metflo, L.P. Alhambra Los An geles S pecial Needs 7 160 177,600 158 2/7/2023 77 0 81 Osgood Apartments South Central Valle y Coalition for Affordable Housing, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corp Fremont Alameda Lar ge Family 6 100 94,807 99 3/16/2022 10 10 79 Miramar Development Wakeland Housin g Development Corporation Los An geles Los An geles Non-Tar geted 7 137 103,501 136 3/16/2022 20 20 96 La Vista Residential Eden Housin g, Inc., a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Ha yward Alameda Lar ge Family 5 176 159,672 174 3/16/2022 18 35 121 Mainline North Apartments Mainline North 701, L.P. Santa Clara Santa Clara Non-Tar geted 8 151 119,796 150 3/16/2022 16 58 76 West Carson 800 W Carson, L.P Alhambra Los An geles Lar ge Family 6 230 336,319 228 3/16/2022 23 46 159 Serra Apartments PacH Anton South Holdin gs, LLC Fremont Alameda Non-Tar geted 6 179 233,210 177 3/16/2022 18 71 88 515 Pioneer Drive Linc Housin g Corporation Glendale Los An geles Non-Tar geted 5 340 462,754 337 3/16/2022 34 82 221 710 Broadway 710 Broadway Development Co., LLC Santa Monica Los An geles Non-Tar geted 8 57 54,498 57 3/16/2022 6 6 45 Residency at Empire I Residenc y at Empire, LP Burbank Los An geles S pecial Needs 7 148 127,287 145 3/16/2022 66 17 62 Hunters Point Shipyard Block 52 and 54 HPSY 52-54, LP San Francisco San Francisco Large Family 5 112 135,398 110 8/9/2022 13 97 0 730 Stanyan 730 Stan yan Associates, LP San Francisco San Francisco Lar ge Family 8 160 134,952 159 8/9/2022 56 57 46 Hunters Point Shipyard Block 56 Hunters Point Block 56, L.P. San Francisco San Francisco Non-Tar geted 5 73 92,650 72 8/9/2022 8 64 0 2111 Firestone 2111 Firestone, LP Alhambra Los An geles S pecial Needs 6 85 46,910 83 8/9/2022 42 41 0 Sunnydale HOPE SF Block 3A Sunn ydale Block 3A Housing Partners, L.P. San Francisco San Francisco Non-Tar geted 5 80 75,730 79 8/9/2022 17 62 0 Hunters View Phase 3 HV Partners 3, LP San Francisco San Francisco Lar ge Family 5 118 179,588 117 8/9/2022 53 44 20 Mariposa on Second Alhambra Second Street LP Alhambra Los An geles S pecial Needs 7 50 66,882 49 8/9/2022 25 24 0 Total/Wtd. Average 6 2,929 3,296,019 2,89 7 32 41 95
Total/Wtd. Average by County
Santa Clara 2 Pro jects 7 351 354,434 348 18 36 123
Los Angeles 11 Pro jects 6 1,580 1,835,578 1,562 39 32 115 Alameda 3 Pro jects 6 455 487,689 450 16 44 99
San Francisco 5 Pro jects 6 543 618,318 537 34 64 18
Project Project Information Unit Mix (Percent)
Project Name Developer City Housing Type Stories
Total Units
% of Total Total GSF
Subsidized
Units % of
Total Application Date
ELI (<=30%
AMI)
VLI (<=50%
AMI)
LI (<=80%
AMI)
80 Saratoga Avenue Apartments Central Valle y Coalition for Affordable Housing, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corp Santa Clara Lar ge Family 6 7% 7% 7% 2/7/2023 10% 10% 80% Warner Center I Warner Center I, L.P. Los An geles Lar ge Family 7 6% 7% 6% 2/7/2023 22% 0% 78% Woodlake Family Apartments 23036 Ventura, LP Los Angeles Lar ge Family 8 3% 4% 3% 2/7/2023 25% 0% 75% Grandview Apartments Abode Communities Los An geles S pecial Needs 6 3% 3% 3% 2/7/2023 66% 26% 8% Metro @ Florence Metflo, L.P. Alhambra S pecial Needs 7 5% 5% 5% 2/7/2023 49% 0% 51% Osgood Apartments South Central Valle y Coalition for Affordable Housing, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corp Fremont Lar ge Family 6 3% 3% 3% 3/16/2022 10% 10% 80% Miramar Development Wakeland Housin g Development Corporation Los An geles Non-Tar geted 7 5% 3% 5% 3/16/2022 15% 15% 71% La Vista Residential Eden Housin g, Inc., a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Ha yward Lar ge Family 5 6% 5% 6% 3/16/2022 10% 20% 70% Mainline North Apartments Mainline North 701, L.P. Santa Clara Non-Tar geted 8 5% 4% 5% 3/16/2022 11% 39% 51% West Carson 800 W Carson, L.P Alhambra Lar ge Family 6 8% 10% 8% 3/16/2022 10% 20% 70% Serra Apartments PacH Anton South Holdin gs, LLC Fremont Non-Tar geted 6 6% 7% 6% 3/16/2022 10% 40% 50% 515 Pioneer Drive Linc Housin g Corporation Glendale Non-Tar geted 5 12% 14% 12% 3/16/2022 10% 24% 66% 710 Broadway 710 Broadway Development Co., LLC Santa Monica Non-Tar geted 8 2% 2% 2% 3/16/2022 11% 11% 79% Residency at Empire I Residenc y at Empire, LP Burbank S pecial Needs 7 5% 4% 5% 3/16/2022 46% 12% 43% Hunters Point Shipyard Block 52 and 54 HPSY 52-54, LP San Francisco Lar ge Family 5 4% 4% 4% 8/9/2022 12% 88% 0% 730 Stanyan 730 Stan yan Associates, LP San Francisco Lar ge Family 8 5% 4% 5% 8/9/2022 35% 36% 29% Hunters Point Shipyard Block 56 Hunters Point Block 56, L.P. San Francisco Non-Tar geted 5 2% 3% 2% 8/9/2022 11% 89% 0% 2111 Firestone 2111 Firestone, LP Alhambra S pecial Needs 6 3% 1% 3% 8/9/2022 51% 49% 0% Sunnydale HOPE SF Block 3A Sunn ydale Block 3A Housing Partners, L.P. San Francisco Non-Tar geted 5 3% 2% 3% 8/9/2022 22% 78% 0% Hunters View Phase 3 HV Partners 3, LP San Francisco Lar ge Family 5 4% 5% 4% 8/9/2022 45% 38% 17% Mariposa on Second Alhambra Second Street LP Alhambra S pecial Needs 7 2% 2% 2% 8/9/2022 51% 49% 0% Total/Wtd. Average 6 100% 100% 100% 22% 27% 51%
Appendix A: Other City Projects
Project
Project Name
80 Saratoga Avenue Apartments
Warner Center I
Woodlake Famil
y Apartments
Grandview Apartments
Metro @ Florence
Os
good Apartments South
Miramar Development
La Vista Residential
Mainline North A
partments
West Carson
Serra A
partments
515 Pioneer Drive
710 Broadwa
y
Residency at Empire I
Hunters Point Shipyard Block 52 and 54
730 Stanyan
Hunters Point Shipyard Block 56
2111 Firestone
Sunn
ydale HOPE SF Block 3A
Hunters View Phase 3
Mari
posa on Second
Total/Wtd. Average
Total/Wtd. Average by County
Santa Clara
Los Angeles
Alameda
San Francisco
Project
Project Name
80 Sarato
ga Avenue Apartments
Warner Center I
Woodlake Famil
y Apartments
Grandview Apartments
Metro @ Florence
Os
good Apartments South
Miramar Development
La Vista Residential
Mainline North A
partments
West Carson
Serra A
partments
515 Pioneer Drive
710 Broadwa
y
Residency at Empire I
Hunters Point Shipyard Block 52 and 54
730 Stanyan
Hunters Point Shipyard Block 56
2111 Firestone
Sunn
ydale HOPE SF Block 3A
Hunters View Phase 3
Mari
posa on Second
Total/Wtd. Average
Project Development Costs (per Unit) Impact Fees Tax Credit Factor Acquisition
Costs
Residential
Hard Costs
Construction
Cost
Contingency A&E
Permits/Thir
d-Party Costs
Financing
Costs Reserves
Developer
Fees
Soft Cost
Contingency
Total Develo-
pment Cost Impact Fees
Impact
Fee/Unit Federal State
$81,342 $460,846 $23,500 $7,450 $41,102 $55,056 $8,798 $60,000 $4,750 $742,843 $6,721,667 $33,608 $0.84 $0.84 $62,863 $313,925 $15,692 $14,823 $29,703 $70,415 $4,178 $63,459 $6,069 $581,129 $1,417,686 $8,195 $0.92 $0.90 $75,500 $427,933 $31,345 $17,516 $22,768 $75,630 $5,920 $86,034 $4,650 $747,296 $800,000 $8,000 $0.94 $0.90 $78,330 $442,213 $44,543 $26,487 $58,037 $126,686 $11,282 $25,000 $5,509 $818,088 $368,341 $3,683 $0.92 $0.90 $52,950 $348,511 $17,503 $12,586 $30,437 $75,213 $5,975 $46,875 $6,056 $596,107 $1,341,344 $8,383 $0.88 $0.88 $43,210 $396,397 $40,000 $9,900 $42,310 $35,261 $6,658 $78,344 $5,000 $657,079 $3,269,603 $32,696 $0.84 $0.82 $0 $343,073 $17,118 $20,674 $18,753 $36,038 $3,234 $64,151 $3,467 $506,507 $0 $0 $0.95 $0.85 $29,512 $340,453 $22,727 $6,818 $32,677 $29,759 $7,059 $67,541 $4,261 $540,808 $3,406,677 $19,356 $0.84 $0.82 $7,580 $280,284 $21,548 $20,614 $62,072 $45,984 $4,403 $23,179 $1,636 $467,298 $5,625,120 $37,252 $0.92 N/A $84,217 $275,000 $13,750 $10,759 $23,740 $39,568 $3,894 $35,217 $2,609 $488,755 $2,132,000 $9,270 $0.93 $0.90 $40,725 $284,884 $14,159 $8,444 $44,651 $48,777 $4,248 $52,849 $1,310 $500,046 $5,609,951 $31,341 $0.98 $0.80 $45,319 $269,606 $14,048 $8,647 $18,238 $27,747 $3,367 $50,307 $2,371 $439,649 $2,724,312 $8,013 $0.96 $0.85 $0 $350,825 $17,541 $28,683 $54,832 $45,590 $1,842 $17,544 $6,563 $523,419 $1,265,477 $22,201 $1.00 N/A $95,946 $391,645 $21,115 $15,743 $39,081 $116,148 $4,054 $115,410 $5,405 $804,547 $687,500 $4,645 $0.97 $0.73 $0 $839,338 $42,165 $36,196 $36,120 $75,959 $3,750 $19,744 $8,263 $1,061,536 $0 $0 $0.92 N/A $8,601 $707,986 $52,864 $26,128 $18,983 $82,767 $7,467 $19,435 $6,508 $930,740 $0 $0 $0.98 N/A $890 $743,044 $32,723 $30,946 $30,102 $52,622 $13,507 $30,137 $9,643 $943,615 $445,853 $6,108 $0.93 N/A $10,619 $306,114 $29,711 $17,591 $23,562 $37,384 $11,531 $50,938 $6,471 $493,921 $616,250 $7,250 $0.87 $0.72 $5,624 $777,653 $39,465 $29,613 $24,093 $88,580 $22,401 $74,638 $6,299 $1,068,364 $0 $0 $0.96 N/A $2,513 $868,519 $43,426 $32,739 $16,258 $90,103 $14,975 $30,733 $4,904 $1,104,170 $849,240 $7,197 $0.95 N/A $48,709 $404,303 $32,589 $25,318 $19,977 $43,638 $3,998 $76,000 $4,732 $659,265 $350,000 $7,000 $0.87 $0.79 $42,148 $421,464 $25,26 7 $16,723 $31,726 $58,664 $6,494 $51,753 $4,545 $658,783 $2,217,241 $12,848 $0.92 $0.84 $49,609 $383,168 $22,660 $13,113 $50,123 $51,153 $6,907 $44,160 $3,410 $624,304 $6,249,933 $35,176 $0.87 $0.84 $55,093 $331,138 $20,043 $15,159 $27,994 $58,903 $4,916 $56,826 $4,352 $574,425 $1,415,885 $7,407 $0.93 $0.85 $36,934 $330,887 $23,153 $8,135 $39,505 $38,450 $5,865 $64,135 $3,262 $550,326 $4,243,333 $27,003 $0.89 $0.81 $4,029 $784,941 $43,924 $30,802 $24,173 $79,761 $11,344 $31,526 $6,912 $1,017,413 $244,489 $2,385 $0.95 N/A Project Development Costs (per Unit % of Total) Impact Fees % Cost Acquisition
Costs Hard Costs
Construction
Cost
Contingency A&E
Permits/Thir
d-Party Costs
Financing
Costs Reserves
Developer
Fees
Soft Cost
Contingency
Total
Development
Cost % of TDC % Soft Costs
11% 62% 3% 1% 6% 7% 1% 8% 1% 100% 5% 19%
11% 54% 3% 3% 5% 12% 1% 11% 1% 100% 1% 4%
10% 57% 4% 2% 3% 10% 1% 12% 1% 100% 1% 4%
10% 54% 5% 3% 7% 15% 1% 3% 1% 100% 0% 1%
9% 58% 3% 2% 5% 13% 1% 8% 1% 100% 1% 5%
7% 60% 6% 2% 6% 5% 1% 12% 1% 100% 5% 18%
0% 68% 3% 4% 4% 7% 1% 13% 1% 100% 0% 0%
5% 63% 4% 1% 6% 6% 1% 12% 1% 100% 4% 13%
2% 60% 5% 4% 13% 10% 1% 5% 0% 100% 8% 24%
17% 56% 3% 2% 5% 8% 1% 7% 1% 100% 2% 8%
8% 57% 3% 2% 9% 10% 1% 11% 0% 100% 6% 20%
10% 61% 3% 2% 4% 6% 1% 11% 1% 100% 2% 7%
0% 67% 3% 5% 10% 9% 0% 3% 1% 100% 4% 14%
12% 49% 3% 2% 5% 14% 1% 14% 1% 100% 1% 2%
0% 79% 4% 3% 3% 7% 0% 2% 1% 100% 0% 0%
1% 76% 6% 3% 2% 9% 1% 2% 1% 100% 0% 0%
0% 79% 3% 3% 3% 6% 1% 3% 1% 100% 1% 4%
2% 62% 6% 4% 5% 8% 2% 10% 1% 100% 1% 5%
1% 73% 4% 3% 2% 8% 2% 7% 1% 100% 0% 0%
0% 79% 4% 3% 1% 8% 1% 3% 0% 100% 1% 4%
7% 61% 5% 4% 3% 7% 1% 12% 1% 100% 1% 4%
7% 62% 4% 3% 5% 9% 1% 9% 1% 100% 2% 8%
Intentionally Left
Blank
Appendix A: Other City Projects
Project
Project Name
80 Saratoga Avenue Apartments
Warner Center I
Woodlake Famil
y Apartments
Grandview Apartments
Metro @ Florence
Os
good Apartments South
Miramar Development
La Vista Residential
Mainline North A
partments
West Carson
Serra A
partments
515 Pioneer Drive
710 Broadwa
y
Residency at Empire I
Hunters Point Shipyard Block 52 and 54
730 Stanyan
Hunters Point Shipyard Block 56
2111 Firestone
Sunn
ydale HOPE SF Block 3A
Hunters View Phase 3
Mari
posa on Second
Total/Wtd. Average
Total/Wtd. Average by County
Santa Clara
Los Angeles
Alameda
San Francisco
Project
Project Name
80 Sarato
ga Avenue Apartments
Warner Center I
Woodlake Famil
y Apartments
Grandview Apartments
Metro @ Florence
Os
good Apartments South
Miramar Development
La Vista Residential
Mainline North A
partments
West Carson
Serra A
partments
515 Pioneer Drive
710 Broadwa
y
Residency at Empire I
Hunters Point Shipyard Block 52 and 54
730 Stanyan
Hunters Point Shipyard Block 56
2111 Firestone
Sunn
ydale HOPE SF Block 3A
Hunters View Phase 3
Mari
posa on Second
Total/Wtd. Average
Operating Expenses
Admin.
Expenses
Property
Mgmt. Fees Payroll
Repairs and
Maintenance Utilities Insurance
Real Estate
Taxes
Resident
Services Other OpEx
Replacement
Reserve
Total Annual
OpEx
Total
Expenses
Excluding
Services
$157 $710 $981 $1,963 $1,560 $450 $169 $100 $162 $250 $6,500 $6,400 $439 $774 $1,991 $923 $950 $380 $87 $156 $759 $250 $6,709 $6,552 $700 $741 $1,500 $1,030 $1,000 $300 $50 $315 $0 $300 $5,935 $5,620 $1,810 $713 $2,937 $1,265 $1,650 $790 $51 $796 $213 $500 $10,724 $9,928 $1,770 $840 $2,038 $1,703 $1,207 $500 $113 $724 $214 $300 $9,408 $8,684 $243 $781 $908 $2,159 $1,660 $450 $143 $160 $167 $250 $6,920 $6,760 $353 $825 $1,891 $1,035 $1,412 $1,870 $109 $73 $128 $250 $7,946 $7,873 $182 $840 $1,712 $2,403 $1,446 $450 $117 $229 $215 $250 $7,844 $7,615 $480 $773 $1,834 $688 $1,591 $350 $0 $167 $502 $300 $6,684 $6,517 $474 $684 $1,581 $1,106 $980 $450 $65 $126 $4 $250 $5,719 $5,594 $400 $561 $1,774 $1,420 $1,400 $216 $0 $84 $230 $250 $6,334 $6,250 $580 $720 $1,492 $2,300 $900 $260 $160 $588 $237 $300 $7,538 $6,949 $160 $180 $3,429 $777 $661 $1,250 $0 $614 $147 $250 $7,468 $6,854 $728 $660 $1,402 $984 $1,223 $274 $176 $270 $142 $250 $6,109 $5,839 $1,384 $684 $2,859 $2,016 $1,875 $1,116 $71 $670 $676 $500 $11,851 $11,182 $2,242 $780 $3,731 $2,155 $2,435 $1,326 $38 $863 $217 $500 $14,287 $13,424 $698 $1,101 $5,376 $1,787 $1,918 $1,918 $0 $1,086 $708 $450 $15,042 $13,956 $532 $720 $2,550 $844 $1,571 $0 $18 $1,059 $528 $500 $8,321 $7,263 $2,437 $912 $4,111 $2,096 $1,961 $1,875 $38 $1,537 $688 $500 $16,154 $14,617 $2,396 $741 $3,702 $2,080 $2,451 $661 $10 $676 $1,191 $600 $14,508 $13,832 $986 $720 $2,176 $1,778 $940 $540 $170 $1,104 $300 $375 $9,089 $7,985 $83
7 $738 $2,12 7 $1,603 $1,419 $632 $85 $452 $320 $330 $8,543 $8,090 $296 $737 $1,348 $1,414 $1,573 $407 $96 $129 $308 $272 $6,579 $6,450 $744 $718 $1,881 $1,386 $1,105 $533 $103 $451 $237 $302 $7,462 $7,011 $281 $717 $1,560 $1,963 $1,475 $358 $77 $157 $210 $250 $7,047 $6,890 $1,920 $814 $3,822 $2,052 $2,184 $1,299 $34 $912 $659 $515 $14,209 $13,297 Operating Expenses (% of Total)
Admin.
Expenses
Property
Mgmt. Fees Payroll
Repairs and
Maintenance Utilities Insurance
Real Estate
Taxes
Resident
Services Other OpEx
Re
placement
Reserve
Total Annual
OpEx
Total
Expenses
Excluding
Services
2% 11% 15% 30% 24% 7% 3% 2% 2% 4% 100% 98%
7% 12% 30% 14% 14% 6% 1% 2% 11% 4% 100% 98%
12% 12% 25% 17% 17% 5% 1% 5% 0% 5% 100% 95%
17% 7% 27% 12% 15% 7% 0% 7% 2% 5% 100% 93%
19% 9% 22% 18% 13% 5% 1% 8% 2% 3% 100% 92%
4% 11% 13% 31% 24% 7% 2% 2% 2% 4% 100% 98%
4% 10% 24% 13% 18% 24% 1% 1% 2% 3% 100% 99%
2% 11% 22% 31% 18% 6% 1% 3% 3% 3% 100% 97%
7% 12% 27% 10% 24% 5% 0% 2% 8% 4% 100% 98%
8% 12% 28% 19% 17% 8% 1% 2% 0% 4% 100% 98%
6% 9% 28% 22% 22% 3% 0% 1% 4% 4% 100% 99%
8% 10% 20% 31% 12% 3% 2% 8% 3% 4% 100% 92%
2% 2% 46% 10% 9% 17% 0% 8% 2% 3% 100% 92%
12% 11% 23% 16% 20% 4% 3% 4% 2% 4% 100% 96%
12% 6% 24% 17% 16% 9% 1% 6% 6% 4% 100% 94%
16% 5% 26% 15% 17% 9% 0% 6% 2% 3% 100% 94%
5% 7% 36% 12% 13% 13% 0% 7% 5% 3% 100% 93%
6% 9% 31% 10% 19% 0% 0% 13% 6% 6% 100% 87%
15% 6% 25% 13% 12% 12% 0% 10% 4% 3% 100% 90%
17% 5% 26% 14% 17% 5% 0% 5% 8% 4% 100% 95%
11% 8% 24% 20% 10% 6% 2% 12% 3% 4% 100% 88%
9% 9% 25% 20% 17% 7% 1% 5% 4% 4% 100% 0%
Appendix A: Other City Projects
Project
Project Name
80 Saratoga Avenue Apartments
Warner Center I
Woodlake Famil
y Apartments
Grandview Apartments
Metro @ Florence
Os
good Apartments South
Miramar Development
La Vista Residential
Mainline North A
partments
West Carson
Serra A
partments
515 Pioneer Drive
710 Broadwa
y
Residency at Empire I
Hunters Point Shipyard Block 52 and 54
730 Stanyan
Hunters Point Shipyard Block 56
2111 Firestone
Sunn
ydale HOPE SF Block 3A
Hunters View Phase 3
Mari
posa on Second
Total/Wtd. Average
Total/Wtd. Average by County
Santa Clara
Los Angeles
Alameda
San Francisco
Project
Project Name
80 Sarato
ga Avenue Apartments
Warner Center I
Woodlake Famil
y Apartments
Grandview Apartments
Metro @ Florence
Os
good Apartments South
Miramar Development
La Vista Residential
Mainline North A
partments
West Carson
Serra A
partments
515 Pioneer Drive
710 Broadwa
y
Residency at Empire I
Hunters Point Shipyard Block 52 and 54
730 Stanyan
Hunters Point Shipyard Block 56
2111 Firestone
Sunn
ydale HOPE SF Block 3A
Hunters View Phase 3
Mari
posa on Second
Total/Wtd. Average
Funding Sources (Total $ Amount)
Senior
Permanent
Loans Tax Credits
Deferred
Developer Fee GP Capital City Funding
County
Funding State Funding Other Funding Total Sources
$56,500,000 $84,568,639 $7,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $148,568,639 $29,628,364 $62,753,088 $8,153,790 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,535,242 $17,250,000 $49,997,384 $7,482,216 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74,729,600 $8,929,200 $38,814,240 $300,000 $0 $12,000,000 $2,450,000 $19,315,390 $0 $81,808,830 $20,362,157 $55,778,407 $5,000,000 $0 $0 $7,000,000 $6,640,000 $595,000 $95,375,564 $25,000,000 $29,373,508 $5,334,401 $0 $6,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $65,707,909 $13,374,981 $50,467,723 $5,548,714 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69,391,418 $32,500,000 $49,815,028 $7,867,186 $0 $0 $0 $5,000,000 $0 $95,182,214 $28,635,000 $31,363,913 $0 $0 $6,000,000 $0 $3,000,000 $1,563,050 $70,561,963 $47,288,000 $61,025,628 $4,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $112,413,628 $32,570,000 $41,724,919 $6,665,717 $0 $0 $0 $8,000,000 $547,622 $89,508,258 $34,931,674 $77,344,600 $4,725,095 $5,079,442 $22,400,000 $0 $5,000,000 $0 $149,480,811 $15,421,067 $14,413,794 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,834,861
$32,000,000 $71,291,737 $13,481,270 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,300,000 $119,073,007 $4,651,116 $54,920,404 $191,367 $0 $59,129,155 $0 $0 $0 $118,892,041 $4,541,000 $72,082,412 $600,000 $0 $37,117,320 $8,583,241 $23,790,157 $2,204,291 $148,918,421 $35,253,013 $31,883,017 $0 $100 $0 $0 $0 $1,747,762 $68,883,893 $5,738,078 $18,564,847 $480,526 $1,829,735 $0 $6,120,000 $9,250,000 $100 $41,983,286 $17,002,000 $39,502,589 $3,771,000 $100 $13,676,150 $0 $10,850,000 $667,258 $85,469,097 $26,261,150 $59,568,921 $1,300,000 $0 $37,961,860 $0 $3,000,000 $2,200,100 $130,292,031 $3,265,469 $16,982,401 $739,323 $1,295,954 $5,830,000 $3,850,000 $0 $1,000,100 $32,963,247 $27,247,119 $54,876,521 $4,627,966 $664,852 $9,815,066 $1,178,224 $4,531,790 $550,674 $103,492,212 $44,512,493 $61,679,996 $4,273,504 $0 $2,581,197 $0 $1,290,598 $672,423 $115,010,211 $26,489,218 $56,777,863 $5,298,464 $1,232,491 $5,764,241 $1,315,000 $3,468,474 $307,350 $100,653,100 $30,879,187 $42,139,684 $6,837,864 $0 $1,318,681 $0 $5,081,319 $215,438 $86,472,173 $15,248,491 $55,618,916 $1,054,352 $28 $33,397,473 $2,529,132 $9,260,451 $1,460,894 $118,569,738 Funding Sources (% of Total)
Permanent
Loan Tax Credits
Deferred
Developer Fee GP Capital City Funding
County
Funding State Funding Other Funding Total Sources
38% 57% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
29% 62% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
23% 67% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
11% 47% 0% 0% 15% 3% 24% 0% 100%
21% 58% 5% 0% 0% 7% 7% 1% 100%
38% 45% 8% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 100%
19% 73% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
34% 52% 8% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 100%
41% 44% 0% 0% 9% 0% 4% 2% 100%
42% 54% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
36% 47% 7% 0% 0% 0% 9% 1% 100%
23% 52% 3% 3% 15% 0% 3% 0% 100%
52% 48% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
27% 60% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 100%
4% 46% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 100%
3% 48% 0% 0% 25% 6% 16% 1% 100%
51% 46% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 100%
14% 44% 1% 4% 0% 15% 22% 0% 100%
20% 46% 4% 0% 16% 0% 13% 1% 100%
20% 46% 1% 0% 29% 0% 2% 2% 100%
10% 52% 2% 4% 18% 12% 0% 3% 100%
27% 53% 5% 1% 8% 1% 5% 1% 100%