Affordable Housing
Development From
Vision to Delivery
Presentation to the Town of Yountville
September 15, 2026
Jocelyn Lin
Chief Real Estate Development Officer
Burbank Housing
Introduction
Building Affordable Housing
• Ove r view o f developmen t p ro cess
• Challenges spe ci fi c to a f fo rdable p ro je c ts
• Impo r tan ce o f lo cal pa r tne rships
2 Affordable Housing Project Life Cycle
• Site Selection
• Financing
• Construction
• Operations
3 Project Timeline
4 Site Selection
Due Diligence
Feasibili ty
En ti tlemen ts
Financing
Ci ty and Coun ty
S ta te
Tax C redi ts
Construction
Si te Wo rk
Structures
Inspe c tions
Operations
Lease Up
Managemen t
Complian ce
1-2 years 2-4 years 18 months 55+ years
Project Timeline – Most Common Hurdles
5 Site
Selection
D u e D ili g e n c e
Fe a s i b ili t y
E n t i t l em en t s
Financing
C i t y a n d C o u n t y
S a t e
Ta x C r e d i t s
Construction
Si t e Wo r k
S t r u c t u r es
I n s p e c t io n s
Operations
L e a s e U p
M a n a g em e n t
C om p li a n c e
The financing phase is where projects often get stalled:
• limited local (City/County) sources
• competitive state (HCD) funding programs
• competitive tax credit (TCAC) allocations
Funding cycles are generally 1-2 times per year
High construction costs – materials, labor, insurance
Other hurdles:
• Entitlements involving
neighbor opposition
• PG&E delays during
construction
• Stabilization and lease-up of
permanent supportive
housing
Local Support is Key
Local funding and public land
provide competitive
advantages when applying
for state funding and tax
credits
Site Selection
6 Site Selection
Due Diligence
• Property Survey
Preliminary Title Report
Appraisal
• Environmental Conditions
Phase I report
Biological survey
Geotech report
• Land Use and Zoning
Zoning / General Plan
Permitted Use
CEQA
Feasibility
7 Entitlements
• Zoning / General Plan
• Use Permit
• CEQA
• Design Review
• Bonus Density
Availability of streamlining
bills such as SB 35, SB 4, etc.
• Yield Study
Unit Count
Unit Mix
• Preliminary Pro Forma
Development Budget
Sources & Uses
Cashflow projections
• Financing Sources
Low- Income Housing Tax Credits
California HCD Programs
Local City/County Funds
Philanthropic Sources
Site Control - Documents
8 During the due diligence phase
• Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA)
Used for all pro jects , whether ground leased or purchased During the funding applica tion phase
• Option Agreement
Ground Lease
Purchase & Sale Agreemen t
At construction financing closing
• Ground Lease or Purchase & Sale Agreement
Ground Lease vs. Purchase & Sale (Overview)
9 Ground Lease Agreement Purchase & Sale Agreement
Fee Simple Ownership Retained Fee Simple Ownership Transferred Landlord Owns Land and Tenant Owns Improvements Buyer Owns Land and All Improvements Restrictions on Use of Land No Restrictions on Use of Land* Lease Term of 55 to 99 years No Expiration Date
One-Time Capitalized Lease Payment Purchase Price
Carryback Loan or Cash at Closing Carryback Loan or Cash at Closing *Restrictions to use land solely for affordable housing are accomplished through regulatory agreements and the recordation of affordability covenants.
Ground Lease v. Purchase & Sale (on Public Land)
10 Ground Lease Agreement Purchase & Sale Agreement
City is Lessor City is Seller
City owns underlying land with reversion rights City retains no ownership DDA or Ground Lease to enforce terms of development Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) City receives one-time upfront capitalized lease payment OR City receives full payment of sales price OR City takes back a note (carryback loan*) OR City takes back a note (carryback loan*) OR City donates the lease (nominal $1) City donates the land (nominal $1) City records Regulatory Agreement (55+ years) City records regulatory agreement (55+ years) City can enforce requirements through Ground Lease AND
Regulatory Agreement (and City loan agreements, if any) City can only enforce requirements through
Regulatory Agreement (and City loan
agreements, if any)
*The carryback loan is typically structured a soft loan (no mandatory payments) Financing
Affordable Housing Development From Vision to Delivery 11 Sources & Uses
Development Budget
• Land Cost
• Hard Costs
Cons truction
Site work
• Soft Costs
Archi tect
Engineering
Insurance
Financing
Legal
Permanent Sources
12 • Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
• California HCD Programs
• City and County
• Philanthropic
• Permanent Loan (Mortgage)
Income Limits
13 Ty p i ca l s o u rc e s o f a f f o rd a b l e h o u s i n g s u p p o r t h o u s e h o l d s e a r n i n g 3 0 % t o 8 0 % o f A re a M e d i a n I n c o m e ( A M I ) NAPA COUNTY Household Size
1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person
Area 80% AMI $98,720 $112,800 $126,960 $141,040
Median 60% AMI $74,040 $84,600 $95,220 $105,780
Income 50% AMI $61,700 $70,500 $79,350 $88,150
(AMI) 30% AMI $37,020 $42,300 $47,610 $52,890
Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee – 2026 Income Limits Rent Limits
14 M a x i m u m R e n t s b a s e d o n A M I a n d U n i t S i ze NAPA COUNTY Unit Size
Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom
Area 80% AMI $2,468 $2,644 $3,174 $3,668
Median 60% AMI $1,851 $1,983 $2,380 $2,751
Income 50% AMI $1,542 $1,652 $1,983 $2,292
(AMI) 30% AMI $925 $991 $1,190 $1,375
Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee – 2026 Rent Limits How Affordable Housing is Different from Market Rate Housing 15 • Affordable rents limit the amount
of net operating income → less
availability to support a mortgage
• Affordable housing operating
budgets include higher costs for
resident services and regulatory
compliance
• Affordable housing is dependent
on soft sources (state and local
funding) to fill the gap
How the Gap is Filled
16 Case Study – Affordable Housing Project in Napa
17 Tax Credit Equity represents only 50% of the capital stack. The other 50% is filled with gap sources from City, County, State, and Private Philanthropy.
Case Study – Affordable Housing Project in Napa
18 Heritage House & Valle Verde Apartments – One Project, Two Buildings (90 Total Units) 3700 and 3710 Valle Verde Drive
Napa, California
Project Timeline:
2018 Schematic design
2019 State NPLH funding awarded
2020 Entitlements / EIR completed
City/County funds awarded
2021 Land donated by Gasser
State Serna funding awarded
Tax Credits awarded
2022 Construction Start
2024 Construction Completed
7 years from start to finish!
Case Study – Affordable Housing Project in Napa
19 Heritage House – 66 units (studi o and 1-BR)
Rehabili tati on of a vacant former assisted living facility 40 units of permane nt supportive housing
13 units of farmworke r housi ng
12 units of general affordable housing
1 manage r unit
Valle Verde Apartm en ts – 24 units (1BR, 2BR, and 3BR) New construc ti on adjacent to Heritage House
14 units of farmworke r housi ng
4 units of permane nt supportive housi ng
5 units of general affordab le housing
1 manage r unit
Construction
20XX 20
Construction Phase
21 • Selection of General Contractor
• Building permit
• Construction period of 18 months depending on size and scale • Federal and state prevailing wages
• Additional requirements for accessibility and energy efficiency • Monthly construction draws
• Certificates of occupancy
Operations
22 Property Management
23 • Lease-Up
In come eligibili ty, se t -asides , ta rge t ma rke ting fo r lo cal p re fe rence • Income Verification
Annual ce r ti fi ca tion
• Rental Subsidies
Se c tion 8 P ro je c t Based Vou che rs , Housing Choi ce Vou che rs • Maintenance
On-si te , wo rk o rde rs
• Compliance
CTCAC , HCD
Asset Management
24 Asset managers oversee property portfolio
• Ensures that funding requirements, including rent restrictions and income verification are met.
Unit and AMI mix is established at the time funding applications are awarded. No changes can be made unless approved by lender. • Prepares reports for tax credit investors
• Manages reserve accounts and determine capital needs
• Evaluates opportunities for refinancing
Partnerships
Presentation title 20XX 25
What does an Affordable Housing Partner Look Like?
26 • Co-Developers (non-profits, affordable developers) Pa r t o f owne rship s t ru c tu re ( co-G en e ral Pa r tne r ) P rovides cons t ru c tion and ope ra ting gua ran ties • Land donors (cities, non-profits, private landowners) Value o f dona ted land
• Ground lessors (cities, counties, non-profits, private landowners) Up f ron t capi tali zed lease paymen t p rovided as ca r r yba c k loan Ca r r yba c k loan s t ru c tu red as de fe r red , residual re ceip ts loan • Soft lenders (state, cities, counties)
Residual re ceip ts loan
Fo rgivable loan
• Grantors (cities, counties, non-profits, private individuals) Finan cial dona tions
Thank you
27