The Public Record — Joint Meeting for the Rules and Open Government Committee and Committee of the Whole, August 28, 2024

RULES COMMITTEE: 8/28/2024
Item: B.1
File ID: ROGC 24-670
TO: Honorable Mayor & FROM: Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Council City Clerk
SUBJECT: The Public Record DATE: August 28, 2024
August 15 – August 22, 2024

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

1. Letter from Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Clara (Dylen Wen), dated August 16, 2024, regarding: Measure A (2016 Housing Bond) Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Second Quarter Report.

2. Letter from The County of Santa Clara, dated August 16, 2024, regarding: County of Santa Clara Housing Element Update: Revised Draft Now Available.

3. Letter from James M. Lloyd, dated August 21, 2024, regarding: CalHDF letter re 1016-1030 Lincoln Avenue Project.

____________________________
Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Clerk
TJT/tt
Public Record: 1

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Second Quarter Report for FY 2023-24 MGO Advisory Page 2 of 24
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 3 Message to the Board of Supervisors...................................................................................... 3 Period in Review...................................................................................................................... 6 Bonds Authorized vs. Committed and Expended..................................................................... 6 Bond Proceeds........................................................................................................................ 7 Quarterly Activity ..................................................................................................................... 7 Progress to Date...................................................................................................................... 8 DETAILED PROGRAM RESULTS............................................................................................12 Housing Bond Trends and Highlights.....................................................................................12 A. Housing Bond Sources and Uses......................................................................................13 B. Status and Progress Towards Housing Bond Goals..........................................................14 C. Observations and Assessments ........................................................................................18 D. Fiscal Year 2023 – 2024 Quarter 2 Updates .....................................................................21 Appendix 1 - BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................23 Purpose of the Measure A Affordable Housing Bond Program ..............................................23 Purpose of the Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee ..................................................23 Oversight Committee Meetings and Report ...........................................................................23 Performance Dashboards......................................................................................................23 Appendix 2 – Glossary of Technical Terms ...............................................................................24 Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Second Quarter Report for FY 2023-24 MGO Advisory Page 3 of 24

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 second quarter of FY 2023-24, from October 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023.

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 (Board) the following key takeaways regarding the Program, as of December 31, 2023.

1. While missing the rapid rehousing (RRH) goal, the Program is on track to meet its overall goal of financing or constructing 4,800 units with $825 million of designated program funds. The Program should now focus on ensuring the timely construction and completion of the 4,800-unit goal. While local jurisdictions are rapidly approving housing projects, the lack of gap financing from the State and competitive tax credit rounds is creating a bottleneck of projects that are fully entitled but are not able to secure the balance of their financing.

For instance, eight projects with approved Housing Bond funds are waiting for the results of a requested combined total of $180,795,893 from the State of California’s Multifamily Finance Super NOFA.

2. The Program used funds to purchase properties and re-purpose County-owned properties. However, there doesn’t appear to be a plan. While this has been a good strategy, it has not resulted in more units on a faster timeline.

The County staff should share more details with the Oversight Committee related to the specific plans for the remaining properties noted in Attachment E. The details should include at a minimum a timeline and efforts taken to demonstrate progress.

3. While the Program will not reach the RRH goal of 1,600 units, the Program may achieve the overall goal of 4,800 units of affordable housing. The Program was able to develop units above and beyond the goal for very low income (VLI) housing.

Area to Watch
The strategy of purchasing property and re-purposing County-owned property to use for future development of affordable housing is expected to result in new affordable units in the range of 600 to 700. The Committee is seriously concerned about whether these goals are achievable.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Second Quarter Report for FY 2023-24 MGO Advisory Page 4 of 24
 Not all properties have a committed developer, as noted in Attachment E.  No funds have been set aside in the event projects need additional financial support.  No defined timeframe for when the properties in Attachment E will be developed.  Leveraging non-County funds allows the County to fund more units, but also results in a longer timeline for the delivery of units since developers need time to apply for additional funding.

Status of Prior Recommendations
The following is an update on the status of recommendations the Committee made to the Board in prior reports.

1. Recommendation: 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.

The Committee understands OSH is preparing options for the Board to consider.

Status: On December 7, 2023, OSH presented the status to the Oversight Committee.

During the discussion, members of the Oversight Committee provided feedback on the draft scope of work. OSH is working with Destination Home to serve as the lead in selecting a vendor in the preparation of the case study based on the updated scope of work discussed with the Oversight Committee. Destination Home is currently working with a potential vendor on their proposal for the work, including confirming the scope of work, cost, and expected timeline. See attachment 2 for the redlined scope of work.

2. Recommendation: The Committee should be informed prior to any material shift in the allocation of bond proceeds that would impede the delivery of the original goal of 4,800 VLI and ELI housing units.

Status: This recommendation is from the third quarter of FY 2022-23 report, which was submitted to the Board of Supervisors during the first quarter of FY 2023-24. A status will be provided in the next quarterly report.

3. Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors should recognize the Program’s RRH unit goal will not be met.

Status: The Board of Supervisors has not taken any action to address the Program’s RRH unit goal.

Additional Information
As of December 31, 2023, the Program had committed in total $857.56 million for 5,023 “combined” total goal units (for more information see Table 1). 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 Housing Projects Leveraging Ratio continued to be more than 4:1, or more than $4 of non-Measure A funds invested for every one dollar of Measure A funding.

1. The Program’s delivery of affordable housing units is slower than expected. The increasing construction costs, labor shortages, inflation, and complexity of securing financing and insurance causes the Program’s development and renovation projects to take longer to complete and to cost more than initially anticipated. For more information see Chart 1 on page 18.

2. The Program will not reach the RRH goal of 1,600 units. The Program had 321 units remaining to finance to meet its goal of 4,800 units as of December 31, 2023. Only 645 units or 40.31 percent of the 1,600-unit RRH goal have been approved by the Board of Supervisors.

3. 17 Multifamily Rental Affordable and Supportive Housing, two Mixed Income Housing, and one Homeownership Production projects are still working to secure financing. 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. For the First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Program, (Empower Homebuyers), the number of applications that make it beyond pre-screening (i.e., intake applications) to the successful funding of a new loan (i.e., closed) has continued to be very low.

As a result, funding has been re-programmed.

5. The geographic distribution of the Program’s projects is uneven. The Program’s current 60 development, renovation, mixed income rental, and homeownership production projects,16 properties, and 4 partnership projects are located within nine cities in the County1 ; 52 of the
81 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.

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 are located in the nine cities of Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Second Quarter Report for FY 2023-24 MGO Advisory Page 6 of 24
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 2023-24, October 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023.

Bonds Authorized vs. Committed and Expended
Exhibit 1 below compares the Measure A affordable housing bonds authorized to the Program's commitment and spending of the bonds proceeds as of December 31, 2023. The left bar shows the total of the $950 million in affordable housing bonds authorized, of which $600 million has been issued. The right bar depicts the $857.56 million the Program has committed for affordable housing projects, which is split into three categories: expended, not expended, and available to commit.

As of December 31, 2023, the Program had spent $581.89 million. For Multifamily Rental Affordable and Supportive Housing (4,800-unit goal), the Program had financed approximately

15.58 percent of total housing costs for 56 housing projects, at an average per unit cost of approximately $116,340 and 93.31 percent (4,479 units) of its goal of 4,800 affordable housing units.

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.

Exhibit 1
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 Second Quarter Report for FY 2023-24 MGO Advisory Page 7 of 24
Bond Proceeds
During the second quarter of FY 2023-24, the Program’s bond activity was as follows:

Quarterly Activity
During the second quarter of FY 2023-24, the Program had the following activity:
• Six development projects were added to the Program;
• One project completed construction (Blossom Valley Senior Apartments); • One project started construction (Parkmoor Community Apartments); and • Fifteen projects continued construction.

During the second quarter of FY 2023-24, the Program spent $25.13 million as described in the exhibit below.

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

Balance of Bond Proceeds
at September 30, 2023 $ 45,289,114
Interest Earnings 2,927,906
Other revenues 17,803,905
Change in accounts payable 1,703,515
Other expense (150)
Spending during the quarter (25,128,725)
Net decrease in bond proceeds (2,693,549)
Balance of Bond Proceeds
at December 31, 2023 $ 42,595,565

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s Second Quarter Report for FY 2023-24 MGO Advisory Page 10 of 24
Projected Delivery of Units
Housing 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.

Exhibits 4a through 4c show for each of the Program’s project types the cumulative number of units estimated to be delivered in each calendar year from 2019 through 2027. Exhibit 4a below shows for Multifamily Rental Affordable and Supportive Housing, 4,036 goal units are estimated to be delivered by calendar year end of 2027, as of December 31, 2023.

Exhibit 4a
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 Second Quarter Report for FY 2023-24 MGO Advisory Page 11 of 24
Exhibit 4b below shows for Mixed Income Housing, 203 units are estimated to be delivered by calendar year end of 2027, as of December 31, 2023.

Exhibit 4b
Source: Data provided by the Office of Supportive Housing.

Exhibit 4c below shows for Homeownership Production, 18 units are estimated to be delivered by calendar year end of 2027, as of December 31, 2023.

Exhibit 4c
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 2023-24 MGO Advisory Page 12 of 24

DETAILED PROGRAM RESULTS
The quarterly report highlights trends, successes, and challenges related to implementation of the 2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond (Housing Bond) for the reporting period.

Administration through the Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) is the lead department responsible for implementation of the Housing Bond in partnership with the 15 incorporated cities throughout the County.

The primary function of this report is to communicate how different programs are contributing towards the housing goals established by the Board of Supervisors (Board) in 2017. The Housing Bond Implementation Plan includes rental housing and for sale housing in four program categories: Homeownership Programs, Homeownership Production, Mixed Income Rental Housing Production, and Multifamily Rental Affordable and Supportive Housing Production.

Additionally, this report provides supplementary information related to the Administration’s strategy to meet the Housing Bond goals by 2026.

Housing Bond Trends and Highlights
Current overarching trends which impact the County’s financing and development of affordable and supportive housing include:
• The inability to receive tax credits and obtain additional soft financing continues to be the primary reason that projects are not able to move more quickly.

Generally speaking, only 50% of all bay area projects that apply for tax credits are awarded the first time they apply.
• Administration has learned from the development community that insurance during construction is becoming increasingly expensive. Similarly, insurance premiums for completed projects are increasing and that could have an impact on the financial health of projects in the long-term.
• The County has successfully been able to leverage 2,297 Section 8 Project Based Vouchers for Housing Bond funded projects. The Santa Clara County Housing Authority is working on their voucher allocation strategy, but additional advocacy is needed at the federal level to increase funding available to support more vouchers

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2023-24 MGO Advisory Page 18 of 24
C. Observations and Assessments
Project Financing Trends Over Time
Since the implementation of the Housing Bond, the total development cost to produce new affordable and supportive housing units has steadily increased. This increase is primarily due to rising interest rates and labor and material costs. Despite this challenge, the County has managed to keep its contribution relatively constant. As a result, increasing pressure is being placed on our local affordable housing developers to leverage other local and State funds at an increasing rate. Chart 1 shows the County’s average commitments of Housing Bond and other funds for projects approved under the County’s Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) compared to the projects’ average total development costs by year. The commitments and total development costs are compared at the time of project approval by the Board.

Chart 1: Housing Bond Commitments vs. Estimated Cost
Source: Office of Supportive Housing.

Project Delivery Trends Over Time
The County continues to make progress towards the “goal units” in the Multifamily Rental Affordable and Supportive Housing project category. A few Housing Bond funded projects initially started operations in 2019, with a steady and consistent increase in completed projects and units in operations, which is projected to continue through 2025. Table 4 on the following page summarizes the actual and projected completions for the “goal units”. Table 4a below shows the number of actual “goal units” completed by year. Tables 4b and 4c show projected completions for projects that have received Board approval but have not completed construction.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2023-24 MGO Advisory Page 20 of 24
The charts below and on the following page indicate that the County is on track to meet the 4,800 Multifamily Rental Affordable and Supportive Housing Unit goal in aggregate, while highlighting the need for additional rapid rehousing units.

Chart 2: Board-Approved “Goal Unit” Completions by Year (Line Graph) Source: Office of Supportive Housing.

D. Fiscal Year 2023 – 2024 Quarter 2 Updates
During the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2023 OSH focused issuing the first two loans in partnership with the City of Morgan Hill through the BMR Partnership Program, a commitment of funds for six new multifamily rental affordable and supportive housing developments, the construction financing closing for three multifamily rental housing affordable and supportive projects, as well the completion of two multifamily rental affordable and supportive housing projects.
• Homeownership Program Updates
o Five new loans were issued through the Empower Homebuyers SCC program this quarter.
o The first two loans were issued through the BMR Partnership Program this quarter, in partnership with the City of Morgan Hill.
• Affordable Home Production Updates
o 4th and Reed has secured all financing and environmental remediation is underway. o Jackson Avenue Townhomes is fully entitled and is working on its building permits. o E. Santa Clara Street development continued community outreach and submitted their entitlement application. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) completed a nine-month predevelopment collaboration with Charities Housing and determined that 100% affordable, owner-occupied housing is feasible at the VTA Branham Station TOD site.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2023-24 MGO Advisory Page 22 of 24
• Mixed Income Rental Housing Updates
o 231 Grant Avenue development in Palo Alto is under construction. o Gateway Tower has experienced significant delays. The project has the required land use approvals but is experiencing difficulty in obtaining the necessary financing. • Multifamily Rental Affordable and Supportive Housing
o Six developments received a Commitment of Housing Bond Funds:
 525 N Capitol, 1020 Terra Bella, El Camino Real Multifamily Project, 96 El Camino Real Family Apartments, Santa Teresa Multifamily, and Kooser Apartments received a commitment of funds.
o Received Additional Soft Financing:
 Eight projects with approved Housing Bond funds are waiting for the results of a requested combined total of $180,795,893 from the State of California’s Multifamily Finance Super NOFA.
 Seven projects with approved Housing Bond funds and two VTA partnership projects submitted a combined total request of $240,400,000 from the City of San Jose’s New Construction NOFA.
o Received an allocation of Tax Credits:
 N/A
o Started Construction:
 Parkmoor Community Apartments, Alvarado Park Senior, and Ira D. Hall Square (formerly known as Sonora Court) started construction.
o Completed Construction:
 The Meridian (formerly known as Sunnyvale Block 15) and Blossom Valley Senior Apartments completed construction and started their lease up process. o Converted to Permanent Financing:
 Mesa Terrace and Page Street Studios converted to permanent financing.

Citizens’ Oversight Committee
County of Santa Clara Measure A 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Program Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for FY 2023-24 MGO Advisory Page 23 of 24
Appendix 1 - BACKGROUND
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. The Program does not fund affordable housing projects per se, but uses the bond proceeds as leverage to attract developers to finance and build affordable housing.

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.

Oversight Committee Meetings and Report
During this reporting period, the Oversight Committee met on December 7, 2023, and one report package was submitted and approved by the Committee containing: the Independent Advisor’s First Quarter Report for Fiscal Year 2023-24. 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 2023-24 MGO Advisory Page 24 of 24
Appendix 2 – Glossary of Technical Terms
• Construction Completion – Construction completion refers to a project being issued a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy by the local building department. • County-Led – The County has a variety of County-controlled and County-owned properties, some of which are suitable for residential development. The County has established a process to give the community an opportunity to work in partnership with the County to develop these sites with affordable housing, which is referred to as the “CountyLed” development program. • Notice of Funding Availability – The County released the over-the-counter Supportive Housing Development Fund Notice of Funding Availability in 2017 to offer affordable housing developers an opportunity to apply for Housing Bond and other OSH funding sources which can be used to develop affordable housing. • Predevelopment Financing – Predevelopment financing is the critical piece of early funding that developers need to get a project from acquisition or site control to the start of construction. During this time, affordable housing developers must cover a wide variety of expenses such as architectural and engineering fees, acquisition costs, and third-party consultants, before the majority of project’s funding sources are committed. • Rapid Rehousing (RRH) - RRH is a type of housing assistance which helps individuals and families quickly exit homelessness by providing housing navigation, rental assistance, and supportive services. The County has had a scattered-site RRH program since 2015, in which programs help participants quickly identify and secure housing units in the community, while providing supportive services such as case management, connection to benefits, employment services, and more. In RRH programs, residents stay in their housing units and take over the full lease rent when their participation in the program ends.

Residents participate in the County’s scattered-site RRH programs for up to two years.

In 2017, the County began a new pilot program to work with our local affordable housing developers to include site-based RRH within their proposed developments. These units are physically the same as other affordable housing units and the County provides supportive services and a rental subsidy to the tenants for up to two years. This differs from permanent supportive housing units funded by the County, which are commonly paired with supportive services and Project Based Vouchers (PBVs) on an ongoing basis.

After the RRH subsidy ends, the unit then transitions to an affordable unit at 30% AMI. • Soft Financing – A type of funding provided by federal, state and local government programs for the development of affordable housing. Soft loans or soft loan financing typically offer terms more generous or lenient than the market, such as low interest rates, provisions for subordination to primary financing, provisions for due on sale or refinancing, extended periods when only interest or service charges are due, extended repayment periods, and loans which are payable, if at all, out of net cash flow (sometimes referred to as "residual receipts").

ATTACHMENT E

COUNTY-OWNED AND PARTNERSHIP PROJECT STATUS

HOUSING BOND
Project
No. Project Name Housing Bond
Funds
Total County
Funds
Other
Sources
Estimated
Total
Units
Project Status Upcoming Milestones OSH Property
Acquisition Date
County-Acquired, Developer Not Selected
1 1870 / 1888 Senter
Road, San Jose $ 28,040,000 $ 28,040,000 TBD TBD
The County is drafting a Request for
Offers with expected issuance in March
2024.

Aug-21
2 Almaden & Willow Glen
Way, San Jose $ 10,013,000 $ 10,013,000 TBD TBD
The County is drafting a Request for
Offers with expected issuance in March
2024.

Oct-20
3 10 Kirk, San Jose $ 14,540,000 $ 14,540,000 TBD TBD
The County is working to stabilize the
property and address immediate
physical needs.

Nov-23
County-Acquired from Roads and Airport Department – Less than .75 Acres 4 Clayton Avenue,
San Jose $ 591,000 $ 591,000 TBD ±1 Oct-20
5 120 Ferrari Avenue, San
Jose $ 741,000 $ 741,000 TBD 1 Oct-20
6 Atlanta & Hull,
San Jose $ 1,301,000 $ 1,301,000 TBD ±2 Oct-20
7 62, 92, 98, & 110 Ferrari
Avenue,
San Jose
$ 3,044,000 $ 3,044,000 TBD 4
[ ] Developer Selection
[ ] Entitlements
[ ] Soft Financing
[ ] All Financing
[ ] Under Construction
[X] In Operations
Annual tenant certifications.

Oct-20
County-Acquired, Developer Working on Entitlements1
8 Cupertino Housing $ 7,082,069 $ 7,082,069 TBD 257
Eden Housing has been selected as the
developer. Eden has started community
engagement.

Jun-21
9 2001 The Alameda, San
Jose $ 14,902,500 $ 14,902,500 TBD
The African American Cultural Center
has developed the preliminary design of
the project and is seeking a
development partner.

Aug-21
10 2250 El Camino Real,
Santa Clara $ 9,000,000 $ 9,000,000 TBD
Charities Housing is developing the
preliminary design of the project. Mar-20
11 East Santa Clara,
San Jose $ 19,500,000 $ 19,500,000 TBD 214
Eden Housing and The Core Companies
have completed initial community
engagement and have submitted for
land use approval.

May-19
12 3071 & 3075 Driftwood
and 1390 Winchester,
San Jose
$ 7,469,800 $ 7,469,800 TBD 101
Charities Housing has submitted for land
use approval. Dec-21
Valley Transportation Authority, Transit Oriented Development Partnerships 13 Branham Station –
Branham Lane @
Narvaez, San Jose
±$2,565,000
reserved through
MOU
±$2,565,000
reserved through
MOU
TBD 45
[X] Developer Selection
[ ] Entitlements
[ ] Soft Financing
[ ] All Financing
[ ] Under Construction
[ ] In Operation
The VTA has selected Charities Housing
as the developer of Branham Station for
a potential 100% affordable
homeownership development. Charities
is in the process of developing its project
design and financing plan.
14 Capitol LRT Station –
Southeast Capitol
Expressway, San Jose
±$11,571,000
reserved through
MOU
±$11,571,000
reserved through
MOU
TBD 203
The VTA has selected Midpen Housing as
the developer. Midpen is in the process
of developing the project design.
15 Winchester Station –
2400 Winchester
Boulevard, Campbell
±$5,130,000
reserved through
MOU
±$5,130,000
reserved through
MOU
TBD 90
The VTA has selected Related California
and PATH Ventures as the codevelopers. The project team is in the process of developing plans to submit
for land use approval.
16 Berryessa Station –
Mabury Road and
Berryessa Station Way,
San Jose
±$11,115,000
reserved through
MOU
±$11,115,000
reserved through
MOU
TBD 195
The VTA has selected Affirmed Housing as
the developer. Affirmed has submitted for
land use approval for the proposed project.

Total: $ 146,605,369 $ 146,605,369 TBD 1,345
[ ] Developer Selection
[ ] Entitlements
[ ] Soft Financing
[ ] All Financing
[ ] Under Construction
[ ] In Operation
[X] Developer Selection
[ ] Entitlements
[ ] Soft Financing
[ ] All Financing
[ ] Under Construction
[ ] In Operation
The County is in negotiations with a
developer. The Board of Supervisors is
expected to consider a recommendation
from Staff on May 7, 2024
1 Other County-acquired sites previously included have now secured all financing and are now tracked with other Housing Bond funded developments.

MOU Executed on
11/17/20
[X] Developer Selection
[ ] Entitlements
[ ] Soft Financing
[ ] All Financing
[ ] Under Construction
[ ] In Operation
[ ] Developer Selection
[ ] Entitlements
[ ] Soft Financing
[ ] All Financing
[ ] Under Construction
[ ] In Operation
Office of Supportive Housing
Housing and Community Development March 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
# Project Category City Location
Estimated
Date of
Occupancy Project Name
Goal
Units
Non-Goal
Units
Total
Units
Estimated Total
Development Cost
Program
Committed
Funding Other Funding
Estimated Total
Cost Per Unit
Program's
Estimated Cost
Per Unit
Program's
Committed
Funding per Est.

Total Cost
Total Program
Funds Expended
Remaining
Program Funds
Committed
Measure A
Leveraging
Ratio
Housing
Projects
Leveraging
Ratio
5 Supportive Housing San Jose 04/2024 San Jose Auzerias 107 23 130 92,062,481 13,200,000 78,862,481 708,173 101,538 14.34% 13,200,000 - 5.97 4.83 6 Supportive Housing Santa Clara 04/2024 Kifer Senior Apartments 79 1 80 59,016,497 7,400,000 51,616,497 737,706 92,500 12.54% 7,400,000 - 6.98 6.98 7 Supportive Housing San Jose 04/2024 Pavilion Inn 21 1 22 32,087,550 1,000,000 31,087,550 1,458,525 45,455 3.12% - 1,000,000 31.09 31.09 8 Supportive Housing San Jose 08/2024 Mariposa Place 79 1 80 51,687,253 9,300,000 42,387,253 646,091 116,250 17.99% 9,300,000 - 4.56 4.56 9 Supportive Housing Morgan Hill 09/2024 Royal Oak Village 72 1 73 49,438,333 8,363,000 41,075,333 $ 677,237 114,562 16.92% 6,096,246 2,266,754 4.91 4.91 10 Supportive Housing San Jose 09/2024 Bellarmino Place 105 11 116 96,736,665 5,750,000 90,986,665 833,937 49,569 5.94% 3,826,412 1,923,588 15.82 14.36 11 Supportive Housing San Jose 11/2024 Roosevelt Park 60 20 80 69,658,643 14,400,000 55,258,643 870,733 180,000 20.67% 14,400,000 - 3.84 2.67 12 Supportive Housing San Jose 03/2025 Alum Rock Multifamily 59 1 60 47,804,774 11,600,000 36,204,774 796,746 193,333 24.27% 11,358,168 241,832 3.12 3.12 13 Supportive Housing San Jose 08/2025 Madrone Place 102 52 154 139,383,616 29,720,215 109,663,401 905,088 192,988 21.32% 15,385,881 14,334,334 3.69 2.13 14 Supportive Housing San Jose 10/2025 Tamien Station TOD 67 68 135 100,867,325 25,000,000 75,867,325 747,165 185,185 24.79% 12,211,205 12,788,795 3.03 1.02 15 Supportive Housing San Jose 10/2025 The Charles 97 2 99 78,729,074 12,480,000 66,249,074 795,243 126,061 15.85% 6,689,754 5,790,246 5.31 5.31 16 Mixed Income Palo Alto 10/2025 231 Grant Avenue 109 1 110 94,676,979 6,000,000 88,676,979 860,700 54,545 6.34% - 6,000,000 14.78 14.78 17 Supportive Housing Mountain View 11/2025 La Avenida Apartments 89 11 100 78,077,678 19,000,000 59,077,678 780,777 190,000 24.33% 15,010,000 3,990,000 3.11 2.73 18 Supportive Housing Mountain View 01/2026 The Crestview 48 1 49 39,455,959 8,000,000 31,455,959 805,224 142,857 17.74% 5,669,307 2,330,693 3.93 3.93 19 Supportive Housing San Jose 02/2026 Parkmoor/ The Hub 64 17 81 78,442,868 18,000,000 60,442,868 968,430 222,222 22.95% 1,470,021 16,529,979 3.36 2.53 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 1,158 211 1,369 $ 1,108,125,695 $ 189,213,215 $ 918,912,480 $ 809,442 138,213 17.08% $ 122,016,994 $ 67,196,221

SANTA CLARA COUNTY MEASURE A

IN CONSTRUCTION HOUSING PROJECTS
ATTACHMENT 1
# Project Category City Location
Estimated
Date of
Occupancy Project Name
Goal
Units
Non-Goal
Units
Total
Units
Estimated Total
Development Cost
Program
Committed
Funding Other Funding
Estimated Total
Cost Per Unit
Program's
Estimated Cost
Per Unit
Program's
Committed
Funding per Est.

Total Cost
Total Program
Funds Expended
Remaining
Program Funds
Committed
Measure A
Leveraging
Ratio
Housing
Projects
Leveraging
Ratio
1 Homeownership
Proudction* San Jose 08/2024 4th and Reed 4 - 4 $ 2,977,773 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,977,773 $ 744,443 $ 250,000 33.58% $ - $ 1,000,000 1.98 1.98 2 Supportive Housing San Jose 09/2025 Alvarado Park 71 19 90 69,611,725 6,400,000 63,211,725 773,464 71,111 9.19% - 6,400,000 9.88 7.68 3 Supportive Housing Mountain View 03/2026 Lot 12 80 40 120 115,683,548 9,750,000 105,933,548 964,030 81,250 8.43% - 9,750,000 10.86 6.98 4 Supportive Housing Mountain View 03/2026 Montecito 84 1 85 88,473,636 18,000,000 70,473,636 1,040,866 211,765 20.35% 10,268,500 7,731,500 3.92 3.92 5 Homeownership
Proudction* San Jose 03/2026 Jackson Avenue Townhomes 14 - 14 13,306,518 4,000,000 9,306,518 950,466 285,714 30.06% - 4,000,000 2.33 2.33 6 Supportive Housing San Jose 05/2026 797 S. Almaden 82 17 99 104,007,942 1,000,000 103,007,942 1,050,585 10,101 0.96% - 1,000,000 103.01 86.02 7 Supportive Housing San Jose 07/2026 Hawthorn Senior
Apartments 101 2 103 76,107,250 15,550,000 60,557,250 738,905 150,971 20.43% - 15,550,000 3.89 3.89 8 Supportive Housing Los Altos 07/2026 330 Distel Circle 57 33 90 93,484,256 8,726,082 84,758,174 1,038,714 96,956 9.33% 8,095,235 630,847 9.71 5.94 9 Mixed Income San Jose 07/2026 Gateway Tower 80 - 80 20,000,000 20,000,000 - not included 250,000 not included - 20,000,000 - - 10 Supportive Housing San Jose 08/2026 Casa de Novo - - TBD 13,300,000 4,366,667 8,933,333 TBD TBD 32.83% 4,366,667 - 2.05 - 11 Supportive Housing Santa Clara 09/2026 Clara Gardens 66 54 120 107,458,604 14,040,000 93,418,604 895,488 117,000 13.07% 4,775,750 9,264,250 6.65 3.24 12 Supportive Housing Santa Clara 10/2026 Civic Center Multifamily 106 2 108 107,716,198 12,100,000 95,616,198 997,372 112,037 11.23% 12,100,000 - 7.90 7.90 13 Supportive Housing San Jose 11/2026 Algarve Apartments 90 1 91 64,635,282 11,500,000 53,135,282 710,278 126,374 17.79% 5,995,000 5,505,000 4.62 4.62 14 Supportive Housing San Jose 12/2026 Gateway Tower 165 135 300 243,010,412 33,000,000 210,010,412 810,035 110,000 13.58% 18,170,000 14,830,000 6.36 4.11 15 Supportive Housing Morgan Hill 12/2026 The Magnolias 61 5 66 64,368,522 13,200,000 51,168,522 975,281 200,000 20.51% - 13,200,000 3.88 3.58 16 Supportive Housing Sunnyvale 02/2027 Orchard Gardens 82 11 93 107,210,734 13,850,000 93,360,734 1,152,804 148,925 12.92% 402,500 13,447,500 6.74 5.97 17 Supportive Housing Sunnyvale 03/2027 Sonora Court 131 45 176 144,652,410 2,200,000 142,452,410 821,889 12,500 1.52% - 2,200,000 64.75 48.50 18 Supportive Housing Milpitas 01/2028 The Mil on Main 140 80 220 187,764,517 19,300,000 168,464,517 853,475 87,727 10.28% - 19,300,000 8.73 5.22 19 Supportive Housing San Jose 12/2023 525 N Capitol 86 74 160 121,507,580 4,000,000 117,507,580 759422.375 $ 25,000 3.29% - $ 4,000,000 29.38 15.53 20 Supportive Housing Mountain View 12/2023 1020 Terra Bella 67 41 108 107,437,479 10,500,000 96,937,479 994791.4722 $ 97,222 9.77% - $ 10,500,000 9.23 5.47 21 Supportive Housing Palo Alto 12/2023 El Camino Real Multifamily Project 127 2 129 121,440,498 13,000,000 108,440,498 941399.2093 $ 100,775 10.70% - $ 13,000,000 8.34 8.34 22 Supportive Housing Mountain View 12/2023 96 El Camino Real Family Apartments 40 39 79 82,939,667 4,600,000 78,339,667 1049869.203 $ 58,228 5.55% - $ 4,600,000 17.03 8.24 23 Supportive Housing San Jose 12/2023 Santa Teresa Multifamily 48 1 49 43,566,076 4,000,000 39,566,076 889103.5918 $ 81,633 9.18% - $ 4,000,000 9.89 9.89 24 Supportive Housing San Jose 12/2023 Kooser Apartments 110 81 191 163,117,001 - 163,117,001 854015.712 $ - 0.00% - $ - - - TOTAL PRE-DEVELOPMENT 1,892 683 2,575 $ 2,263,777,628 $ 244,082,749 $ 2,019,694,879 $ 20,006,696 $ 2,685,289 3 $ 64,173,652 $ 179,909,097

SANTA CLARA COUNTY MEASURE A

PRE-DEVELOPMENT HOUSING PROJECTS
ATTACHMENT 1
# Project Category City Location
Estimated
Date of
Occupancy Project Name
Goal
Units
Non-Goal
Units
Total
Units
Estimated Total
Development Cost
Program
Committed
Funding Other Funding
Estimated Total
Cost Per Unit
Program's
Estimated Cost
Per Unit
Program's
Committed
Funding per Est.

Total Cost
Total Program
Funds Expended
Remaining
Program Funds
Committed
Measure A
Leveraging
Ratio
Housing
Projects
Leveraging
Ratio
1 Supportive Housing San Jose 02/2024
Blossom Valley Senior
Apartments (fmrly Blossom
Hill Housing)
145 2 147 $ 79,676,906 $ 19,100,000 $ 60,576,906 $ 542,020 $ 129,932 23.97% $ 19,100,000 $ - 3.17 3.17 2 Supportive Housing Santa Clara 12/2023 Agrihood Senior Apartments 108 57 165 $ 83,273,350 $ 23,550,000 $ 59,723,350 $ 504,687 $ 142,727 28.28% $ 23,550,000 $ - 2.54 1.34 3 Supportive Housing San Jose 11/2023 Vitalia 43 36 79 64,054,314 15,800,000 48,254,314 810,814 200,000 24.67% 15,800,000 - 3.05 1.26 4 Supportive Housing Milpitas 11/2023 Sango Court 93 9 102 72,488,258 16,000,000 56,488,258 710,669 156,863 22.07% 16,000,000 - 3.53 3.17 5 Supportive Housing San Jose 11/2023 Immanuel-Sobrato 106 2 108 73,548,992 16,654,646 56,894,346 681,009 154,210 22.64% 15,459,999 1,194,647 3.42 3.42 6 Supportive Housing San Jose 08/2023 Villas at 4th St. 93 1 94 46,811,323 7,500,000 39,311,323 497,993 79,787 16.02% 7,500,000 - 5.24 5.24 7 Supportive Housing San Jose 04/2023 Page Street Apartments 81 1 82 55,178,667 14,000,000 41,178,667 672,911 170,732 25.37% 14,000,000 - 2.94 2.94 8 Supportive Housing San Jose 04/2023 Mesa Terrace 40 6 46 33,741,318 2,600,000 31,141,318 733,507 56,522 7.71% 2,600,000 - 11.98 10.53 9 Supportive Housing San Jose 03/2023 Vela Apartments 69 18 87 61,433,464 15,650,000 45,783,464 706,132 179,885 25.47% 9,791,833 5,858,167 2.93 2.18 10 Supportive Housing San Jose 11/2022 Markham II 50 102 152 26,593,698 7,200,000 19,393,698 174,959 47,368 27.07% 3,800,000 3,400,000 2.69 2.69 11 Supportive Housing Milpitas 09/2022 Hillview Court 132 2 134 80,300,000 30,177,689 50,122,311 599,254 225,207 37.58% 42,314,057 (12,136,368) 1.66 1.66 12 Supportive Housing San Jose 08/2022 Iamesi Village 134 1 135 69,418,863 10,327,100 59,091,763 514,214 76,497 14.88% 10,327,101 (1) 5.72 5.72 13 Supportive Housing Santa Clara 03/2022 Calabazas Apartments 130 15 145 104,480,486 29,000,000 75,480,486 720,555 200,000 27.76% 29,000,000 - 2.60 2.25 14 Supportive Housing San Jose 01/2022 Quetzal Gardens 47 24 71 63,630,448 9,830,000 53,800,448 896,203 138,451 15.45% 9,830,000 - 5.47 3.35 15 Supportive Housing San Jose 01/2022 Curtner Studios 111 68 179 14,995,679 14,950,000 45,679 83,775 83,520 99.70% 13,036,104 1,913,896 0.00 0.00 16 Supportive Housing San Jose 07/2021 Leigh Avenue Senior Apartments 63 1 64 50,348,927 13,500,000 36,848,927 786,702 210,938 26.81% 13,500,000 - 2.73 2.73 17 Supportive Housing San Jose 03/2021 Markham I 50 103 153 26,809,742 7,000,000 19,809,742 175,227 45,752 26.11% 5,700,000 1,300,000 2.83 2.83 18 Supportive Housing Gilroy 07/2020 Gateway Senior
Apartments 44 31 75 34,972,249 7,500,000 27,472,249 466,297 100,000 21.45% 7,500,000 - 3.66 1.77 19 Supportive Housing Morgan Hill 01/2020 Crossings on Monterey 31 8 39 26,056,436 5,800,000 20,256,436 668,114 148,718 22.26% 5,800,000 - 3.49 2.66 20 Supportive Housing San Jose 10/2019 Villas on the Park 83 1 84 41,955,319 7,200,000 34,755,319 499,468 85,714 17.16% 7,199,999 1 4.83 4.83 21 Supportive Housing Cupertino 06/2019 The Veranda 18 1 19 11,937,416 1,000,000 10,937,416 628,285 52,632 8.38% 1,000,000 - 10.94 10.94 TOTAL COMPLETED 1,671 489 2,160 $ 1,121,705,855 $ 274,339,435 $ 847,366,420 $ 12,072,793 $ 2,685,453 24.46% $ 272,809,092 $ 1,530,342 TOTAL PROGRAM HOUSING PROJECTS 4,721 1,383 6,104 $ 4,493,609,178 $ 707,635,399 $ 3,785,973,779 $ 736,175 $ 115,930 15.75% $ 458,999,738 $ 248,635,659 5.35 3.61 *Homeownership Production also includes $13M for E Santa Clara which is under property acquisitions as there are units determined yet **Supportive Housing also includes $6.5M for E Santa Clara which is under property acquisitions as there are units determined yet

SANTA CLARA COUNTY MEASURE A

COMPLETED HOUSING PROJECTS
DRAFT: Scope of Work for Independent Evalua�on of the
2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond
Background
Des�na�on: Home, in partnership with the Office of Suppor�ve Housing, is seeking an experienced consultant to evaluate the impact of the 2016 Measure A Affordable Housing Bond (Housing Bond) and the Suppor�ve Housing & Innova�on Fund (SHIF) on the produc� of suppor�ve and extremely low income housing in Santa Clara County. A goal of the Ho ng Bond is to build 4,800 deeply affordable units set-aside as permanent suppor�ve ho sing, rapid rehousing and for extremely low- and very low-income households over 10 ars. To date, the County has been extremely successful with this work, building or reh lita�ng 5,100 apartments (XXXX toward the specific goals outlined in the Housing B d) in 50 developments in 10 ci�es. While this is a significant accomplishment, th s s�ll an overwhelming need for housing in the community, with over 9,000 people l g on th streets.

This Request for Proposals (RFP) will result in both qualita�ve nd quan�ta�ve evalu on of the Housing Bond and SHIF, including successes, challenges, and e s bility of the mod r future suppor�ve and affordable housing funding. The evalua� will aim nswer the following ques�ons:

1. What are the principal obstacles to developing affordable usi g? a. To what extent financing/fund g avai lity an obst e to developing affordable housing?
b. To what extent is the en onmental rev w process an stacle to developing affordable housing?
c. To what extent is the en�t ent ocess an obstacl to developing affordable housing?

2. What lessons hav n l d throug e implementa�on of the Housing Bond and SHIF that can i m future pol making to pport affordable housing development? The goals of the eval �on are as follows:
• Collect historical, eline and rece data to model the volume of Extremely Low Income (ELI) and per nent sup �ve housing produc�on in Santa Clara County, looking at several differ fu ng scenarios
• Collect and analyze longitud nal data to measure the impact of new funding sources on the produc�on of ELI and suppor�ve housing in Santa Clara County • Document and develop case studies and collect qualita�ve data that documents the structure of both funding sources, best prac�ces, and lessons learned that may also provide a roadmap for replica�on
DRAFT

&2817< 2) 6$17$ &/$5$
+286,1* %21' 352-(&76 )81'6

)XQGV RI WKH &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD

)RU WKH <HDU (QGHG -XQH
Table of Contents
Page
,QGHSHQGHQW $XGLWRU¶V 5HSRUW )LQDQFLDO 6WDWHPHQWV

&RPELQLQJ %DODQFH 6KHHW &RPELQLQJ 6WDWHPHQW RI 5HYHQXHV ([SHQGLWXUHV DQG &KDQJHV LQ )XQG %DODQFHV 1RWHV WR WKH )LQDQFLDO 6WDWHPHQWV 2WKHU 5HSRUWV
,QGHSHQGHQW $XGLWRU¶V 5HSRUW RQ ,QWHUQDO &RQWURO 2YHU )LQDQFLQJ 5HSRUWLQJ DQG RQ &RPSOLDQFH DQG 2WKHU 0DWWHUV %DVHG RQ DQ $XGLW RI )LQDQFLDO 6WDWHPHQWV 3HUIRUPHG LQ $FFRUGDQFH :LWK Government Auditing Standards ,QGHSHQGHQW $FFRXQWDQW¶V 5HSRUW RQ &RPSOLDQFH ZLWK 0HDVXUH $ +RXVLQJ %RQG

6SHFLDO 5HYHQXH 'HEW 6HUYLFH &DSLWDO 3URMHFWV 7RWDO
$VVHWV

&DVK DQG LQYHVWPHQWV

5HFHLYDEOHV

,QWHUHVW
/HDVH
/RDQV

'XH IURP RWKHU IXQGV
7RWDO DVVHWV

/LDELOLWLHV 'HIHUUHG ,QIORZV RI
5HVRXUFHV DQG )XQG %DODQFHV

/LDELOLWLHV

$FFRXQWV SD\DEOH

'XH WR RWKHU IXQGV
7RWDO OLDELOLWLHV

'HIHUUHG LQIORZV RI UHVRXUFHV

8QDYDLODEOH UHYHQXH

/HDVH
7RWDO GHIHUUHG LQIORZV RI UHVRXUFHV )XQG EDODQFHV

5HVWULFWHG

8QDVVLJQHG

7RWDO IXQG EDODQFHV

GHILFLW

7RWDO OLDELOLWLHV GHIHUUHG LQIORZV RI
UHVRXUFHV DQG IXQG EDODQFHV

&RPELQLQJ %DODQFH 6KHHW

,Q WKRXVDQGV

+286,1* %21' 352-(&76 )81'6
&2817< 2) 6$17$ &/$5$
-XQH

)XQGV RI WKH &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD

6HH DFFRPSDQ\LQJ QRWHV WR WKH ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV

6SHFLDO 5HYHQXH 'HEW 6HUYLFH &DSLWDO 3URMHFWV 7RWDO
5HYHQXHV

3URSHUW\ WD[HV

,QWHUHVW DQG LQYHVWPHQW LQFRPH
,QWHUJRYHUQPHQWDO
&KDUJHV IRU VHUYLFHV
2WKHU
7RWDO UHYHQXHV

([SHQGLWXUHV

&XUUHQW SXEOLF DVVLVWDQFH

+RXVLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW 3URMHFWV

6DQJR &RXUW

,DPHVL 9LOODJH

3DJH 6WUHHW $SDUWPHQWV
9HOD $SDUWPHQWV

5RRVHYHOW 3DUN
,PPDQXHO6REUDWR $SDUWPHQWV
9LWDOLD $SDUWPHQWV
.LIHU 6HQLRU $SDUWPHQWV
/D $YHQLGD $SDUWPHQWV
$OXP 5RFN 0XOWLIDPLO\
0DGURQH 3ODFH
7DPLHQ 6WDWLRQ 72'
7KH &KDUOHV
5R\DO 2DN 9LOODJH
%HOODHPLQR 3ODFH
'LVWHO &LUFOH

3DUNPRRU 7KH +XE
&ODUD *DUGHQV
&LYLF &HQWHU 0XOWLIDPLO\
0RQWHFLWR

+RXVLQJ 5HQRYDWLRQ 3URMHFWV

0DUNKDP ,,
+LOOYLHZ &RXUW

7KH &UHVWYLHZ
3DUWQHUVKLS SURMHFWV
)LUVW WLPH KRPHEX\HU ORDQ SURJUDP
3URMHFW DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQG RWKHUV
&DSLWDO RXWOD\ SURSHUW\ DFTXLVLWLRQV

.LUN $YHQXH
'HEW VHUYLFH

3ULQFLSDO UHWLUHPHQW

,QWHUHVW DQG ILVFDO FKDUJHV
7RWDO H[SHQGLWXUHV

([FHVV
GHILFLHQF\

RI UHYHQXHV
RYHU
XQGHU
H[SHQGLWXUHV

2WKHU ILQDQFLQJ VRXUFHV
XVHV

7UDQVIHUV LQ

7UDQVIHUV RXW

7UDQVIHUV LQ IURP RWKHU &RXQW\ IXQGV
7RWDO RWKHU ILQDQFLQJ VRXUFHV
XVHV

&KDQJH LQ IXQG EDODQFHV

)XQG EDODQFHV

GHILFLW
EHJLQQLQJ RI \HDU

)XQG EDODQFHV

GHILFLW
HQG RI \HDU

&2817< 2) 6$17$ &/$5$

)XQGV RI WKH &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD

&RPELQLQJ 6WDWHPHQW RI 5HYHQXHV ([SHQGLWXUHV DQG &KDQJHV LQ )XQG %DODQFHV )RU WKH <HDU (QGHG -XQH
+286,1* %21' 352-(&76 )81'6

,Q WKRXVDQGV

6HH DFFRPSDQ\LQJ QRWHV WR WKH ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV

&2817< 2) 6$17$ &/$5$
+286,1* %21' 352-(&76 )81'6

)XQGV RI WKH &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD

1RWHV WR WKH )LQDQFLDO 6WDWHPHQWV
)RU WKH <HDU (QGHG -XQH

127( ± %$&.*5281'
2Q 1RYHPEHU WKH &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD
&RXQW\
YRWHUV DSSURYHG 0HDVXUH $ WKH $IIRUGDEOH
+RXVLQJ %RQG 0HDVXUH DXWKRUL]LQJ WKH LVVXDQFH RI
PLOOLRQ RI JHQHUDO REOLJDWLRQ ERQGV WR IXQG WKH
DFTXLVLWLRQ RU LPSURYHPHQW RI UHDO SURSHUW\ LQ RUGHU WR SURYLGH DIIRUGDEOH ORFDO KRXVLQJ IRU YXOQHUDEOH SRSXODWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ YHWHUDQV VHQLRUV WKH GLVDEOHG ORZ DQG PRGHUDWH LQFRPH LQGLYLGXDOV RU IDPLOLHV IRVWHU \RXWK YLFWLPV RI DEXVH WKH KRPHOHVV DQG LQGLYLGXDOV VXIIHULQJ IURP PHQWDO KHDOWK RU VXEVWDQFH DEXVH LOOQHVVHV ZKLFK KRXVLQJ PD\ LQFOXGH VXSSRUWLYH PHQWDO KHDOWK DQG VXEVWDQFH DEXVH VHUYLFHV 7KH WDEOH EHORZ VHWV IRUWK WKH DPRXQW RI KRXVLQJ ERQGV DXWKRUL]HG DQG LVVXHG SXUVXDQW WR 0HDVXUH $

DPRXQW LQ WKRXVDQGV

$PRXQW 'DWH
9RWHU DXWKRUL]DWLRQ
1RYHPEHU
%RQGV LVVXHG

6HULHV $ *HQHUDO 2EOLJDWLRQ %RQGV 1RYHPEHU
6HULHV % *HQHUDO 2EOLJDWLRQ %RQGV -XO\ 7RWDO ERQGV LVVXHG
$XWKRUL]HG EXW XQLVVXHG

127( ± 6800$5< 2) 6,*1,),&$17 $&&2817,1* 32/,&,(6
Basis of Presentation
7KH +RXVLQJ %RQG 3URMHFWV )XQGV
)XQGV
KDYH EHHQ DFFRXQWHG IRU LQ D VSHFLDO UHYHQXH IXQG D GHEW VHUYLFH IXQG DQG D FDSLWDO SURMHFWV IXQG ZKLFK DUH JRYHUQPHQWDO IXQG W\SHV DQG DUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH &RXQW\¶V EDVLF ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV DV QRQPDMRU JRYHUQPHQWDO IXQGV 6SHFLDO UHYHQXH IXQGV DUH XVHG WR

DFFRXQW IRU SURFHHGV RI VSHFLILF UHYHQXHV

RWKHU WKDQ IRU FDSLWDO SURMHFWV
WKDW DUH OHJDOO\ UHVWULFWHG WR EH
H[SHQGHG IRU VSHFLILHG SXUSRVHV 'HEW VHUYLFH IXQGV DUH XVHG WR DFFRXQW IRU DQG UHSRUW ILQDQFLDO UHVRXUFHV

HJ SURSHUW\ YDORUHP SURSHUW\ WD[HV
WKDW DUH UHVWULFWHG FRPPLWWHG RU DVVLJQHG WR H[SHQGLWXUH IRU SULQFLSDO DQG LQWHUHVW &DSLWDO SURMHFWV IXQGV DUH XVHG WR DFFRXQW IRU ILQDQFLDO UHVRXUFHV HJ ERQG

SURFHHGV
WKDW DUH UHVWULFWHG FRPPLWWHG RU DVVLJQHG WR H[SHQGLWXUHV IRU FDSLWDO RXWOD\V DQG DFWLYLWLHV 7KH DFFRPSDQ\LQJ ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV SUHVHQW RQO\ WKH ILQDQFLDO SRVLWLRQ DQG WKH FKDQJHV LQ ILQDQFLDO SRVLWLRQ RI WKH )XQGV DQG GR QRW SXUSRUW WR DQG GR QRW SUHVHQW IDLUO\ WKH &RXQW\¶V ILQDQFLDO SRVLWLRQ DV RI -XQH WKH FKDQJHV LQ LWV ILQDQFLDO SRVLWLRQ RU ZKHUH DSSOLFDEOH LWV FDVK IORZV IRU WKH \HDU WKHQ HQGHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK DFFRXQWLQJ SULQFLSOHV JHQHUDOO\ DFFHSWHG LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV RI $PHULFD Basis of Accounting
7KH )XQGV¶ DFWLYLWLHV DUH UHSRUWHG XVLQJ WKH FXUUHQW ILQDQFLDO UHVRXUFHV PHDVXUHPHQW IRFXV DQG WKH PRGLILHG DFFUXDO EDVLV RI DFFRXQWLQJ 8QGHU WKLV EDVLV RI DFFRXQWLQJ UHYHQXHV DUH UHFRJQL]HG ZKHQ ³VXVFHSWLEOH WR DFFUXDO´
LH ZKHQ WKH\ EHFRPH ERWK PHDVXUDEOH DQG DYDLODEOH
³0HDVXUDEOH´ PHDQV WKH
DPRXQW RI WKH WUDQVDFWLRQ FDQ EH GHWHUPLQHG DQG ³DYDLODEOH´ PHDQV WKDW UHYHQXHV DUH FROOHFWLEOH ZLWKLQ WKH FXUUHQW SHULRG RU VRRQ HQRXJK WKHUHDIWHU WR EH XVHG WR SD\ OLDELOLWLHV RI WKH FXUUHQW SHULRG 3URSHUW\ WD[ &2817< 2) 6$17$ &/$5$
+286,1* %21' 352-(&76 )81'6

)XQGV RI WKH &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD

1RWHV WR WKH )LQDQFLDO 6WDWHPHQWV
&RQWLQXHG

)RU WKH <HDU (QGHG -XQH

127( ± 6800$5< 2) 6,*1,),&$17 $&&2817,1* 32/,&,(6
&RQWLQXHG

UHYHQXHV DUH UHFRJQL]HG LQ WKH FXUUHQW \HDU LI WKH\ DUH FROOHFWHG ZLWKLQ GD\V RI \HDUHQG )RU DOO RWKHU UHYHQXHV WKH )XQGV FRQVLGHU UHYHQXHV WR EH DYDLODEOH LI WKH\ DUH FROOHFWHG ZLWKLQ GD\V RI WKH HQG RI WKH FXUUHQW ILVFDO SHULRG 5HYHQXHV QRW FRQVLGHUHG DYDLODEOH DUH UHFRUGHG DV GHIHUUHG LQIORZV RI UHVRXUFHV ([SHQGLWXUHV DUH JHQHUDOO\ UHFRUGHG ZKHQ D OLDELOLW\ LV LQFXUUHG DV XQGHU DFFUXDO EDVLV RI DFFRXQWLQJ Property Tax Levy, Collection, and Maximum Rate
7KH 6WDWH RI &DOLIRUQLD¶V
6WDWH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ $UWLFOH ;,,, $ SURYLGHV WKDW WKH FRPELQHG PD[LPXP DPRXQW RI DQ\ DG YDORUHP SURSHUW\ WD[ UDWH RQ UHDO SURSHUW\ VKDOO QRW H[FHHG RI WKH IXOO FDVK YDOXH RI VXFK SURSHUW\ 7KLV OLPLWDWLRQ VKDOO QRW DSSO\ WR DG YDORUHP WD[HV RU VSHFLDO DVVHVVPHQWV WR SD\ WKH LQWHUHVW DQG UHGHPSWLRQ FKDUJHV RQ LQGHEWHGQHVV 6XFK LQGHEWHGQHVV VKDOO KDYH YRWHU DSSURYDO XQOHVV LQFXUUHG SULRU WR -XQH
$VVHVVHG YDOXH LV FDOFXODWHG DW RI PDUNHW YDOXH DV GHILQHG E\ $UWLFOH ;,,, $ DQG PD\ EH LQFUHDVHG QR PRUH WKDQ SHU \HDU XQOHVV WKH SURSHUW\ LV VROG RU WUDQVIHUUHG :KHQHYHU WKHUH DUH FKDQJHV LQ RZQHUVKLS FRPSOHWHG FRQVWUXFWLRQ RU GHPROLWLRQ SURSHUWLHV DUH VXEMHFW WR VXSSOHPHQWDO DVVHVVPHQW EDVHG RQ WKH FKDQJH LQ DVVHVVHG YDOXDWLRQ 6XSSOHPHQWDO WD[HV DUH OHYLHG RQ WKH YDOXH FKDQJH DQG SURUDWHG IRU WKH EDODQFH RI WKH WD[ \HDU 7KH 6WDWH /HJLVODWXUH WKURXJK $VVHPEO\ %LOO RI

DQG VXEVHTXHQW OHJLVODWLRQ GHILQHG WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ IRU GLVWULEXWLQJ WKH WD[ OHY\ DQG FROOHFWLRQV DPRQJ WKH &RXQW\ FLWLHV VFKRROV DQG RWKHU ORFDO MXULVGLFWLRQV VXFK DV GLVWULFWV SURYLGLQJ ZDWHU ILUH DQG OLEUDU\ VHUYLFHV
7KH &RXQW\ DVVHVVHV SURSHUW\ YDOXHV DQG OHYLHV ELOOV DQG FROOHFWV WKH UHODWHG WD[HV DV IROORZV

6HFXUHG 8QVHFXUHG
/LHQ GDWHV«««««« -DQXDU\ -DQXDU\
/HY\ GDWHV«««««« 2FWREHU -XO\
'XH GDWHV«««««« RQ 1RYHPEHU 8SRQ UHFHLSW RI ELOOLQJ RQ )HEUXDU\
'HOLQTXHQW DIWHU«««« 'HFHPEHU
IRU 1RYHPEHU
$XJXVW
$SULO
IRU )HEUXDU\

$QQXDOO\ WKH &RXQW\¶V %RDUG RI 6XSHUYLVRUV VHWV WKH UDWHV WR EH DSSOLHG WR WKH WD[ UROO IRU WKH EHQHILW RI ORFDO WD[LQJ MXULVGLFWLRQV DV SURYLGHG E\ WKH 6WDWH FRGH 7KHVH WD[HV DUH VHFXUHG E\ OLHQV RQ WKH SURSHUW\ EHLQJ WD[HG 7D[HV VHFXUHG E\ ODQG DQG LPSURYHPHQWV DUH OHYLHG RQ WKH 6HFXUHG 7D[ 5ROO ZKLOH WKRVH WD[HV VHFXUHG E\ SHUVRQDO SURSHUW\ DUH OHYLHG RQ WKH 8QVHFXUHG 7D[ 5ROO Leases
7KH &RXQW\ HQWHUHG LQWR YDULRXV OHDVH DJUHHPHQWV DV HLWKHU D OHVVRU RU OHVVHH $V D OHVVHH WKH &RXQW\ LV UHTXLUHG WR UHFRJQL]H D OHDVH UHFHLYDEOH DQG D GHIHUUHG LQIORZ RI UHVRXUFHV $V D OHVVHH WKH &RXQW\ LV UHTXLUHG WR UHFRJQL]H D OHDVH OLDELOLW\ DQG DQ LQWDQJLEOH ULJKWWRXVH OHDVH DVVHW 7KH &RXQW\ GHILQHV OHDVHV DV EDODQFHV ZLWK DQ LQLWLDO YDOXH RI PRUH WKDQ )RU WKH \HDU HQGHG -XQH WKH )XQGV UHSRUWHG RQH OHDVH DV OHVVRU ZLWK OHDVH UHYHQXH DQG OHDVH LQWHUHVW UHYHQXH RI DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\
&2817< 2) 6$17$ &/$5$
+286,1* %21' 352-(&76 )81'6

)XQGV RI WKH &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD

1RWHV WR WKH )LQDQFLDO 6WDWHPHQWV
&RQWLQXHG

)RU WKH <HDU (QGHG -XQH

127( ± 6800$5< 2) 6,*1,),&$17 $&&2817,1* 32/,&,(6
&RQWLQXHG

Loans Receivables
)RU WKH SXUSRVH RI WKH ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV JRYHUQPHQWDO H[SHQGLWXUHV UHODWLQJ WR ORQJWHUP ORDQ UHFHLYDEOHV DUH FKDUJHG WR RSHUDWLRQV XSRQ IXQGLQJ DQG WKH ORDQV DUH UHFRUGHG QHW RI DQ HVWLPDWHG DOORZDQFH IRU SRWHQWLDOO\ XQFROOHFWLEOH ORDQV ZLWK DQ RIIVHW ZLWK GHIHUUHG LQIORZV RI UHVRXUFHV DFFRXQW 7KH EDODQFH RI WKH UHFHLYDEOH LQFOXGHV ORDQV WKDW PD\ EH IRUJLYHQ LI FHUWDLQ WHUPV DQG FRQGLWLRQV RI WKH ORDQV DUH PHW
Fund Balance
8QGHU *$6% 6WDWHPHQW 1R Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions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
$W -XQH WKH VSHFLDO UHYHQXH IXQG KDV D GHILFLW IXQG EDODQFH RI PLOOLRQ 7KH GHILFLW LV GXH SULPDULO\ WR H[SHQGLWXUHV LQFXUUHG EXW QRW UHLPEXUVHG E\ WKH FDSLWDO SURMHFWV IXQG 7KH GHILFLW LV H[SHFWHG WR UHGXFH LQ WKH IROORZLQJ \HDU WKURXJK WUDQVIHUV RI ERQG SURFHHGV IURP WKH FDSLWDO SURMHFWV IXQG Use of Estimates
7KH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV LQ FRQIRUPLW\ ZLWK JHQHUDOO\ DFFHSWHG DFFRXQWLQJ SULQFLSOHV

UHTXLUHV PDQDJHPHQW WR PDNH FHUWDLQ HVWLPDWHV DQG DVVXPSWLRQV WKDW DIIHFW WKH UHSRUWHG DPRXQWV DQG GLVFORVXUHV $FFRUGLQJO\ DFWXDO UHVXOWV PD\ GLIIHU IURP WKRVH HVWLPDWHV 127( ± &$6+ $1' ,19(670(176 +(/' %< &2817< 75($685(5
&DVK DQG LQYHVWPHQWV UHSUHVHQW WKH )XQGV¶ VKDUH RI WKH &RXQW\ 7UHDVXUHU¶V SRRO $OO RI WKH )XQGV¶ FDVK DQG LQYHVWPHQWV DUH GHSRVLWHG LQ WKH &RXQW\ 7UHDVXUHU¶V SRRO ,QYHVWPHQWV LQ WKH SRRO DUH PDGH LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH &RXQW\¶V LQYHVWPHQW SROLF\ DV DSSURYHG E\ WKH %RDUG RI 6XSHUYLVRUV $OVR WKH &RXQW\ KDV DQ LQYHVWPHQW FRPPLWWHH ZKLFK SHUIRUPV UHJXODWRU\ RYHUVLJKW IRU LWV SRRO ,QYHVWPHQWV DUH VWDWHG DW IDLU YDOXH +RZHYHU WKH YDOXH RI WKH SRRO VKDUHV LQ WKH &RXQW\ 7UHDVXUHU¶V SRRO WKDW PD\ EH ZLWKGUDZQ LV GHWHUPLQHG RQ DQ DPRUWL]HG FRVW EDVLV ZKLFK LV GLIIHUHQW IURP WKH IDLU YDOXH RI WKH )XQGV¶ SRVLWLRQ LQ WKH SRRO ,QWHUHVW HDUQHG IURP WLPH GHSRVLWV DQG LQYHVWPHQWV LV DOORFDWHG TXDUWHUO\ WR WKH )XQGV EDVHG RQ WKHLU DYHUDJH GDLO\ FDVK EDODQFHV $W -XQH WKH &RXQW\ 7UHDVXUHU¶V SRRO KDV D ZHLJKWHG DYHUDJH WR PDWXULW\ RI GD\V DQG LV XQUDWHG 7KH )XQGV¶ LQYHVWPHQWV LQ WKH &RXQW\ 7UHDVXUHU¶V SRRO DUH H[HPSW IURP IDLU YDOXH KLHUDUFK\ GLVFORVXUH 'HWDLOHG LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH &RXQW\ 7UHDVXUHU¶V SRRO FDQ EH IRXQG LQ WKH &RXQW\¶V EDVLF ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV WKDW FDQ EH REWDLQHG IURP WKH &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD 'LUHFWRU RI )LQDQFH :HVW +HGGLQJ 6WUHHW 6DQ -RVp &DOLIRUQLD
&2817< 2) 6$17$ &/$5$
+286,1* %21' 352-(&76 )81'6

)XQGV RI WKH &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD

1RWHV WR WKH )LQDQFLDO 6WDWHPHQWV
&RQWLQXHG

)RU WKH <HDU (QGHG -XQH

127( ± ,17(5)81' 75$16$&7,216
$W -XQH WKH LQWHUIXQG EDODQFHV RI PLOOLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH VSHFLDO UHYHQXH IXQG DQG WKH FDSLWDO SURMHFWV IXQG UHSUHVHQW FXUUHQW ERUURZLQJV IRU ZRUNLQJ FDSLWDO H[SHFWHG WR EH UHSDLG GXULQJ WKH IROORZLQJ \HDU
)RU WKH \HDU HQGHG -XQH WKH FDSLWDO SURMHFWV IXQG DOVR WUDQVIHUUHG PLOOLRQ RI ERQG
SURFHHGV WR WKH VSHFLDO UHYHQXH IXQG IRU KRXVLQJ SURMHFWV 127( ± 75$16)(5 )520 27+(5 &2817< )81'6
)RU WKH \HDU HQGHG -XQH WKH VSHFLDO UHYHQXH IXQG UHFHLYHG D WUDQVIHU IURP RWKHU FRXQW\ IXQGV RI PLOOLRQ IRU WKH UHLPEXUVHPHQW RI SURSHUW\ DFTXLVLWLRQ FRVWV 127( ± '(%7 6(59,&(
2Q 1RYHPEHU
WKH &RXQW\ LVVXHG WKH 6HULHV $ +RXVLQJ *HQHUDO 2EOLJDWLRQ %RQGV
6HULHV $ *2 %RQGV
LQ WKH DPRXQW RI PLOOLRQ 7KH ERQGV EHDU IL[HG LQWHUHVW UDWHV UDQJLQJ IURP WR ZKLFK DUH SD\DEOH VHPLDQQXDOO\ FRPPHQFLQJ )HEUXDU\ DQG KDYH D ILQDO PDWXULW\ RI $XJXVW $W -XQH WKH RXWVWDQGLQJ SULQFLSDO RI WKH 6HULHV $ *2 %RQGV ZDV
PLOOLRQ
2Q -XO\ WKH &RXQW\ LVVXHG WKH 6HULHV % *2 %RQGV LQ WKH DPRXQW RI PLOOLRQ 7KH ERQGV EHDU IL[HG LQWHUHVW UDWHV UDQJLQJ IURP WR ZKLFK DUH SD\DEOH VHPLDQQXDOO\ FRPPHQFLQJ )HEUXDU\ DQG KDYH D ILQDO PDWXULW\ RI $XJXVW $W -XQH WKH RXWVWDQGLQJ SULQFLSDO RI WKH 6HULHV % *2 %RQGV ZDV PLOOLRQ $QQXDO GHEW VHUYLFH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH ERQGV DUH DV IROORZV

DPRXQW LQ WKRXVDQGV

<HDU (QGLQJ -XQH
3ULQFLSDO ,QWHUHVW 3ULQFLSDO ,QWHUHVW 7RWDO

7RWDO

6HULHV $ *2 %RQGV 6HULHV % *2 %RQGV
7KH GHEW VHUYLFH IXQG DFFRXQWV IRU WKH UHTXLUHG SULQFLSDO DQG LQWHUHVW SD\PHQWV RI WKH &RXQW\¶V 0HDVXUH $ KRXVLQJ JHQHUDO REOLJDWLRQ ERQGV 5HYHQXH VRXUFHV FRQVLVW RI LQWHUHVW HDUQLQJV DQG SURSHUW\ WD[ UHYHQXH FROOHFWHG WR VHUYLFH GHEW 'HWDLOHG LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH 6HULHV $ *2 %RQGV DQG 6HULHV % *2 %RQGV FDQ EH IRXQG LQ WKH &RXQW\¶V EDVLF ILQDQFLDO VWDWHPHQWV &2817< 2) 6$17$ &/$5$
+286,1* %21' 352-(&76 )81'6

)XQGV RI WKH &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD

1RWHV WR WKH )LQDQFLDO 6WDWHPHQWV
&RQWLQXHG

)RU WKH <HDU (QGHG -XQH

127( ± 352-(&76
7KH PDMRU SURMHFWV IXQGHG E\ WKH )XQGV GXULQJ WKH \HDU HQGHG -XQH DQG &RXQW\ FRPPLWPHQWV DV RI WKH -XQH ZHUH DV IROORZV

DPRXQW LQ WKRXVDQGV

&XPXODWLYH ([SHQGLWXUHV &XPXODWLYH &RXQW\ 5HPDLQLQJ &RXQW\ ([SHQGLWXUHV DV RI IRU WKH \HDU HQGHG ([SHQGLWXUHV DV RI &RPPLWPHQWV DV RI &RPPLWPHQWV DV RI 3URMHFW 1DPH -XQH -XQH -XQH -XQH -XQH 6XSSRUWLYH +RXVLQJ +RXVLQJ
7UXVW 6LOLFRQ 9DOOH\

+RXVLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW 3URMHFWV

*DWHZD\ 6HQLRU $SDUWPHQWV
&URVVLQJV RQ 0RQWHUH\
/HLJK $YHQXH 6HQLRU $SDUWPHQWV 9LOODV RQ WKH 3DUN
7KH 9HUDQGD
4XHW]DO *DUGHQV

6DQJR &RXUW

,DPHVL 9LOODJH

&DODED]DV

3DJH 6WUHHW $SDUWPHQWV
$JULKRRG 6HQLRU $SDUWPHQWV
0DULSRVD 3OD]D

%ORVVRP +LOO +RXVLQJ

9HOD $SDUWPHQWV

5RRVHYHOW 3DUN
$X]HULDV $SDUWPHQWV
*DOOXS 0HVD
9LOODV DW WK 6WUHHW
,PPDQXHO6REUDWR $SDUWPHQWV
9LWDOLD $SDUWPHQWV
.LIHU 6HQLRU $SDUWPHQWV
/D $YHQLGD $SDUWPHQWV

$OJDUYH $SDUWPHQWV

*DWHZD\ 7RZHU
$OXP 5RFN 0XOWLIDPLO\
0DGURQH 3ODFH

7DPLHQ 6WDWLRQ 72'
7KH &KDUOHV
5R\DO 2DN 9LOODJH

2UFKDUG *DUGHQV
%HOODHPLQR 3ODFH

+DZWKRUQ 6HQLRU $SDUWPHQWV
/RW

$OYDUDGR 3DUN
7KH 0DJQROLDV
6RQRUD &RXUW
7KH 0LO RQ 0DLQ

'LVWHO &LUFOH

3DUNPRRU 7KH +XE
&ODUD *DUGHQV

6 $OPDGHQ
&LYLF &HQWHU 0XOWLIDPLO\
0RQWHFLWR

&RQWLQXHG

&2817< 2) 6$17$ &/$5$
+286,1* %21' 352-(&76 )81'6

)XQGV RI WKH &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD

1RWHV WR WKH )LQDQFLDO 6WDWHPHQWV
&RQWLQXHG

)RU WKH <HDU (QGHG -XQH

127( ± 352-(&76
&RQWLQXHG

0DUNKDP ,
0DUNKDP ,,
&XUWQHU 6WXGLRV

+LOOYLHZ &RXUW

+LOOYLHZ &RXUW %ULGJH /RDQ

&DVD GH 1RYR
7KH &UHVWYLHZ
3DYLOLRQ ,QQ
0L[HG ,QFRPH 5HQWDO 3URMHFWV

*DWHZD\ 7RZHU
-DFNVRQ $YHQXH 7RZQKRPHV
*UDQW $YHQXH
+RPHRZQHUVKLS 3URGXFWLRQ 3URMHFWV

WK DQG 5HHG
3URSHUW\ $FTXLVLWLRQV

:HVWHUQ 0RWHO

$OPDGHQ 5RDG

7KH $ODPHGD

6HQWHU 5RDG

(O &DPLQR 5HDO

(DVW 6DQWD &ODUD 6WUHHW 6LWH

.LUN $YHQXH
2WKHUV

3DUWQHUVKLS SURMHFWV
)LUVW 7LPH +RPHEX\HU /RDQ 3URJUDP 7RWDO

7KLV SDJH LV LQWHQWLRQDOO\ EODQN
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

County of Santa Clara Housing Element Update: Revised Draft Now Available Planning
Fri 8/16/2024 3:43 PM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important County of Santa Clara Housing Element Update
Dear Stakeholder,
You are invited to review the revised County of Santa Clara 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, which is available on the County webpage dedicated to this project. These revisions are in response to preliminary comments provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development on August 7 during the course of their ongoing review of the draft submitted in June. The County will formally submit these edits to the State in seven days.

Comments regarding this revised draft are invited from all interested parties and may be addressed to this email account or to the physical address below:

County of Santa Clara Planning Office
Attention: Michael Meehan, Principal Planner
County Government Center
Thank you for your continued engagement in the County’s Housing Element. 8/22/24, 9:30 AM Mail - City Clerk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/id/AAQkAGJiNDY2NWI3LTY1ODktNDczNy1iYjdkLWZlNWFjYmFmNmQ3ZQAQAPX4ZjX… 1/1 Public Record: 2
8/22/24, 9 37 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook FW: CalHDF letter re 1016-1030 Lincoln Avenue Project
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Wed 8/21/2024 3:53 PM
To:Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> ® 1 attachments (223 KB)
1016 1030 Lincoln Avenue Project HAA Letter.pdf;
From: James Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, August 21,
To: The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; Districtl <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; Districts <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; CAO Main <[email protected]>; Webmaster Manager <[email protected]> Subject: CalHDF letter re 1016-1030 Lincoln Avenue Project [External Email]
You don't often get email frot Leam whY. this is imP.ortant Dear San Jose Planning Department and City Council,
Please see attached a letter from the California Housing Defense Fund ("CalHDF") regarding the entitlements process for the proposed 22-unit residential building at 1016-1030 Lincoln Avenue.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/ AAQkADhh Yzk3NTk1 L TBmZDAtN Dc4Yi1 h N2Q0L TZjNmZjNTk5MT.. 1 /1 Public Record: 3
Aug 21, 2024
City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
By Email: ; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Re: 1016-1030 Lincoln Avenue Project
Dear San José Planning Department and City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its duty to abide by the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) when evaluating the proposed 22-unit residential building at 1016-1030 Lincoln Avenue.

The HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5) requires approval of certain affordable housing projects that are submitted during periods of local housing element noncompliance. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(5).) Critically, the HAA requires approval of these “builder’s remedy” projects regardless of compliance with local general plan and zoning standards, unless a local government can make required findings for denial listed in Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)(2)-(4).

The Lincoln Avenue Project is Exempt from General Plan Standards Based on correspondence between the project applicant and the city, it is our understanding that the dispute over this project does not concern any applicable findings under subdivisions (2) through (4), or the application of the builder’s remedy to the project submitted. Instead, the city’s position maintains that certain general plan standards can be applied to the projects, because statute references inconsistency with the “general plan land use designation” rather than referencing all general plan policies and standards. This reading of the statute completely misunderstands the HAA, and would subject San Jose to legal liability if applied to individual projects.

Contrary to the City’s position, Subdivision (d) of the HAA grants the only authority to deny housing developments for “very low, low-, or moderate-income households” and emergency shelters. If authority to deny is not listed in (d)(1) through (5), a local government cannot deny the project. Therefore, the narrow reading of (d)(5) advocated by the City would not mean that the City retains additional authority to apply certain general plan standards, and deny projects if these standards are not met. Instead, it would mean that the City cannot apply any general plan standards aside from land use designation to any qualifying projects, regardless of housing element compliance. Subdivision (d)(5) is the sole authority for a city to deny a qualifying project for general plan or zoning compliance, if its language does not include non-land use general plan standards, the City cannot deny projects based on noncompliance with these standards.

CalHDF takes no position at this time on the correct reading of subdivision (d)(5), but no possible interpretation grants the city the ability to apply general plan standards to builder’s remedy projects. These standards are therefore inapplicable to the project at issue here, and we would caution the City against taking a different approach.

The Project Qualifies as Exempt from CEQA
The application of the Builder’s Remedy to the project removed the City’s discretion to both disapprove the project and apply otherwise applicable development standards to the project.

Further the development site is one that would qualify for the Class 32 Infill Exemption to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15332. The proposed project therefore qualifies as exempt from CEQA under the infill exemption and as a project subject to only ministerial approval.

First, the project is clearly eligible for the Class 32 Infill Exemption. Based on San Jose’s letter to the applicant dated June 26th, the city’s main contention that the Infill Exemption does not apply to this project is based on the applicability of certain general plan standards. As outlined above, these standards are not applicable to Builder’s Remedy projects such as this one. For the purposes of determining whether a CEQA exemption applies to a project, a local standard is not “applicable” if it is preempted by state housing laws. (See Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 1329.) While there are other criteria that the project must meet to qualify for a Class 32 infill exemption, these criteria appear to be satisfied. Given that the City’s sole contention justifying the inapplicability of the infill exemption is based on an erroneous reading of the statute governing builder’s remedy projects, we ask that the City reverse its prior determination and grant a CEQA exemption to the project. 2 of 4
Setting aside the application of the infill exemption, the project also qualifies as exempt from CEQA as a project only subject to ministerial review. Development applications are considered ministerial if they “are essentially automatic based on whether certain fixed standards and objective measurements have been met.” (Calvert v. County of Yuba (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 613, 623.) Here, the fixed standards that would allow for disapproval of the project are contained in Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d), subdivisions (2) through (4), because subdivisions (1) and (5) are rendered inapplicable due to the city’s housing element noncompliance. All of these criteria impose objective, fixed standards for the permitting decision. The City has identified no objective health or safety standards with which the project fails to comply, no violation of state or federal law that would conflict with approval, and the land is not zoned for agriculture or resource preservation. The City’s discretion in deciding on this permit application is therefore ministerial, and the project to accordingly by exempt from CEQA.

AB 1633 Requires that the City Determine the Project to be Exempt from CEQA Based on the above analysis, there is substantial evidence in the record that the project here is eligible for both the infill CEQA exemption and to be exempt from CEQA as a project subject to only ministerial review. Further, the applicant has provided notice of such evidence as of May 24th, 2024. In addition, the project meets all other requirements outlined in Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(6)(D). Therefore, a failure by the city at this stage would be an “abuse of discretion” under Section 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(D)(ii)(I), and a disapproval of the qualifying housing development project. Because the City has no legal basis for such a denial, maintaining the current legal stance would subject the City to legal liability under the Housing Accountability Act. (In addition to HAA liability, recent caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)) As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: it will reduce pressure on existing housing stock and lower rents; it will enhance the City’s tax base; and it will bring new customers to local businesses. It is especially important to meeting our state’s climate goals, as it will provide valuable housing near employment and educational centers. It is especially concerning to see this legal stance coming from this particular City. San Jose has been working to position itself as a leader in housing growth through the promotion of higher density development. The project at issue here would unquestionably further this goal. The fact that the project seeks to take advantage of state laws designed to override local restrictions and permitting processes should not be held against it. The City should reverse its prior stance, uphold the requirements of state law, and grant a CEQA exemption to the project. While no single housing development can solve all these problems, this project is a 3 of 4

Joint Meeting for the Rules and Open Government Committee and Committee of the WholeAugust 28, 2024

Joint Meeting for the Rules and Open Government Committee and Committee of the Whole
August 28, 2024