MEMORANDUM
April 3, 2026
To: City Manager Matthew Chidester and Community Development Director Leslie Lacko Fr: Elaine Palacios, Kelly Hollywood and Ramie Dare, Mercy Housing CA Re: 555 Kelly Financing Plan
Per the ENA, we are providing the Financing Plan for 555 Kelly, which consists of the following:
• Financing Plan Narrative (in this memo)
• Development Sources and Uses
• 15 year operating proforma
Development Sources Narrative
The development sources for 555 Kelly are per the attached chart and are as follows:
- San Mateo County ARPA $1,141,234
- Becker State Earmark of $2,000,000
- Eshoo Federal Earmark of $1,800,000 for Community Resource Center - State HCD Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG) of $2,756,304 - State HCD Joe Serna Farmworker Housing Program funding of $13,350,000 - Seeking approximately $6.5 million from County Affordable Housing Fund in 2026 - Seeking 9% tax credits in Q1 2027
To date, Mercy and ALAS have already secured a significant amount of competitive state and federal funding awards. This includes $1.14 million in federal pandemic recovery funds (ARPA) through San Mateo County, $2 million from the State through Senator Becker, and $1.8 million in federal funding secured by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo specifically for building out the Community Resource Center portion of the project. The ARPA funds have been expended and the State funds secured by Senator Becker will be administered by the City through a Funding Agreement between the City and Mercy Housing California. The federal earmark will go directly to ALAS, who has been working with staff at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on satisfying the requirements for the release of funds. One of the last remaining stepsis to obtain NEPA clearance, which is an environmental review. A NEPA consultant has been retained and is ready to coordinate with the City to finalize the submission to HUD.
Once received, the federal funds will be used solely for the construction of the Community Resource Center. As the funds are a Congressional earmark, they will not affect the 555 Kelly residential occupancy requirements.
405
The California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) has awarded significant funding to 555 Kelly. In 2023, the State awarded $2.76 million through its Infill Infrastructure Grant program, which will be used for site work, utilities and reconfiguration of the Ted Adcock Community Center parking lot. Last year, HCD awarded over $13.3 million through the Joe Serna Farmworker Housing Program. This is a highly competitive program focused on housing low income agricultural workers, and receiving this award reflects strong alignment with state priorities and a high level of readiness of 555 Kelly.
This year, we will apply to the San Mateo County Department of Housing for approximately $6.5 million of funds that will be made available in the upcoming Affordable Housing Fund Round 13.0.
The application is anticipated to be due in June and any County award is anticipated to be made in August or September. With a County funding commitment, we will be competitive for the final source required to complete the development funding stack: federal 9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and state tax credits. We will apply for a tax credit allocation in the first application round of 2027 and expect an award three months later. At the time of award (or before) we will select a tax credit investor who will use the tax credits and in exchange, provide equity proceeds to pay for the development. Construction will start approximately 6 months after that.
In total, this approach reflects a “leveraging” strategy: the City’s land lease for 555 Kelly is leveraging significant county, state and federal funding to build and operate the 40 units of the 555 Kelly affordable housing that is part of the City’s housing plan. The City will not need to contribute any City funding to build the 555 Kelly affordable housing, Community Resource Center or TACC parking lot improvements.
Development Uses Narrative
The Development Uses (Costs) fall into these primary categories:
Demolition, TACC Parking Reconfiguration and Infrastructure HCD awarded the IIG funds for the site demolition, reconfiguring the parking, and providing utility infrastructure and a portion of the new building cost. The existing single-family home on the property along with the drive isle and parking lot at the TACC will be demolished. Following demolition, new underground utility services including water and sewer will be installed and the parking lot at the TACC will be reconfigured and repaved.
New Building Construction
The budget reflects the most recent cost estimate provided by a general contractor for the 75% construction documents (CDs) for the construction of the new building according to the design approved by the Architecture Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The new building will consist of 40 apartments, property management offices, 18 space parking garage and bicycle parking, outdoor courtyard with garden, resident community room, and trash room.
It will also include a ground floor community resource center that will house support services for 406
the senior farmworker households living at 555 Kelly, as well as provide multi-purpose space for use by the wider public.
Architecture, Engineering, Construction Supervision
This budget reflects the cost for these professional services to design, engineer and supervise the new construction and the site and infrastructure improvements described above.
Local Permits and Utility Fees
This line item includes the city’s fees for planning and building permits, and utility fees charged for the construction and installation of new utilities to serve the 555 Kelly development.
Financing Costs, Construction Interest, Insurance, Lender Fees, Reserves, Other The majority of the tax credit proceeds are disbursed when the construction of the new development has been completed. A construction loan from a bank is used to pay for construction and then is paid off with the tax credit proceeds after construction is completed.
The bank costs to provide this loan include loan fees and monthly construction interest which are included in this budget line item. This line item also includes the premium for construction period builder’s risk insurance that isrequired by the bank and tax credit investor. The tax credit investor, HCD and County will require operating and other reserves to be established and included in the development budget. Miscellaneous other costs such as cost certification audit required by the tax credit investor are also included. This line item includes the industry standard of $2,500,000 to cover the cost of Mercy Housing California providing the financial guaranties required by the bank construction lender and tax credit investor, and the project management costs for the 6 years of predevelopment and construction.
Furnishings, Marketing and Lease Up
This line item includes the cost to furnish and equip the outdoor space, community room, and property management offices. It also includes the staffing and expenses related to the marketing and leasing of the 39 apartments in accordance with the city mandated preferences for local senior farmworkers outlined in the ground lease.
Operating Proforma Narrative
The 555 Kelly property will consist of this rental unit mix: 3 studio, 34 one bedroom and 3 two bedrooms for a total of 40 apartments. One of the two-bedroom units will be the on-site manager’s apartment, 29 units will be affordable to senior farmworker households at or below 50% of Area Median Income (AMI), and 10 units will be affordable to senior farmworker households at or below 30% AMI.
407
Affordable housing developments that utilize public funding are required to charge rents no greater than yearly rates published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC).
These published rents for 2025 San Mateo County are:
AMI Income Level Studio 1-bedroom 2-bedroom
50% $1,692 $1,813 $2,393
30% $1,015 $1,088 $1,305
To increase the affordability for senior farmworkers, we are working with the San Mateo County Department of Housing (DOH) on an operating subsidy that would allow the senior households to pay less than the rents in the above chart. Our goal is to obtain sufficient operating subsidy to allow the senior farmworker households to pay approximately $350 per month for rent and utilities if their income was such that deeper affordability was needed. A Utility Allowance is calculated by San Mateo County for each unit based on bedroom count and those amounts are listed on the upper right corner of the “555 Kelly Unit Mix and Rent” page. The difference between $350 per unit per month and the Utility Allowance is considered rent paid by the tenant household and is included on the “555 Kelly Operating Proforma” page as Residential Income.
The DOH would cover the difference between the tenant payment and the cost to operate the property. This DOH operating subsidy is shown on the 15-year Operating Proforma as “County Operating Subsidy”. Benefits of the DOH operating subsidy to the residents include the ability to pay rents that are truly affordable relative to their income, leading to greater housing stability for the senior farmworkers. The operating subsidy would allow residents to pay lower rents while ensuring the property operating expenses are covered, and the property remains financially stable and well-managed. The Unit Mix and Rent page and the 15-year proforma page reflect a County Operating Subsidy for all 39 units.
The County Operating Subsidy combined with the tenant rent payments, called Residential Income on the 15-year proforma, would be sufficient to cover the operating costs. Operating costs include all ongoing expenses necessary to manage and sustain the property, including staffing (property management, maintenance, janitorial), utilities, insurance, and routine property operations. These costs also encompass required financial obligations such as replacement reserves for future capital needs, mandatory debt service to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), and asset management fees to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, as well as resident services typical for senior housing communities.
408
555 Kelly Financing Plan
Development Sources
CA Serna Farmworker Housing Program $ 13,350,000 Secured State Earmark: Senator Josh Becker $ 2,000,000 Secured
CA Infrastructure Infill Grant $ 2,756,304 Secured
San Mateo County ARPA $ 1,141,234 Secured
San Mateo County AHF $ 6,563,763 Application in 2026
Federal Earmark: Anna Eshoo $ 1,800,000 Secured
Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program $ 14,021,364 Application in 2026-2027 Total Sources $ 41,632,665
Development Uses (Costs)
Demolition, TACC Parking Reconfiguration and Infrastructure Required for Project $ 2,756,304
New Building Construction $ 27,407,963
Architecture, Engineering, Construction Supervision $ 2,017,665 Local Permit and Utility Fees $ 1,730,431
Financing Costs: Construction Interest and Insurance, Lender Fees, Reserves, Other $ 7,345,302
Furnishings, Marketing and Lease Up $ 375,000
$ 41,632,665
409
Studio Utility Allowance 76 $
555 Kelly Unit Mix and Rents One BR Utility Allowance 92 $ Two BR Utility Allowance 167 $
40 units total comprised of 1 manager unit (no income) and 39 units subsidized by County Operating Subsidy (COS) This proforma assumes all 39 households pay only $350 per month in rent and utilities and County Operating Subsidy covers the cost to operate the property Monthly Rents # Units # with COS
Monthly
tenant rent
payment
# Households with
Max Income of 30%
AMI
# Households
with Max
Income at 50%
AMI Manager Unit
Studios 3 3 274 $ 2 1
One Bedroom 34 34 258 $ 7 27
Two Bedroom 2 2 183 $ 1
Two Bedroom Manager Unit 1 0 1
Total 40 39 9 29 1
AMI is Area Median Income
The AMI represent the maximum annual household income for households to qualify to move in Annual Rental Income Total # with COS
Annual tenant
payments
Studios 3 3 9,864 $
One Bedroom 34 34 105,264 $
Two Bedroom 2 2 4,392 $
Two Bedroom Manager Unit 1 0 - $
Total 40 39 $ 119,520
See next page for 15 year operating proforma
410
555 Kelly Operating Proforma Standards Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Residential Income 2% 119,520 $ 121,910 $ 124,349 $ 126,836 $ 129,372 $ 131,960 $ 134,599 $ 137,291 $ 140,037 $ 142,837 $ 145,694 $ 148,608 $ 151,580 $ 154,612 $ 157,704 $ County Operating Subsidy 656,146 $ 677,977 $ 700,606 $ 724,062 $ 748,374 $ 773,573 $ 799,691 $ 826,761 $ 854,816 $ 883,893 $ 914,027 $ 945,257 $ 977,621 $ 1,011,160 $ 1,045,917 $ Less Vacancy 5% (5,976) $ (6,096) $ (6,217) $ (6,342) $ (6,469) $ (6,598) $ (6,730) $ (6,865) $ (7,002) $ (7,142) $ (7,285) $ (7,430) $ (7,579) $ (7,731) $ (7,885) $ Gross Effective Income 769,690 $ 793,792 $ 818,737 $ 844,555 $ 871,277 $ 898,935 $ 927,560 $ 957,187 $ 987,851 $ 1,019,588 $ 1,052,437 $ 1,086,434 $ 1,121,622 $ 1,158,041 $ 1,195,735 $ Less Total Operating Expenses 3.5% (650,460) $ (673,226) $ (696,789) $ (721,177) $ (746,418) $ (772,542) $ (799,581) $ (827,567) $ (856,532) $ (886,510) $ (917,538) $ (949,652) $ (982,890) $ (1,017,291) $ (1,052,896) $ Less Replacement Reserve (required) (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ Less State of CA Debt Service (required) (61,070) $ (61,070) $ (61,070) $ (61,070) $ (61,070) $ (61,070) $ (61,070) $ (61,070) $ (61,070) $ (61,070) $ (61,070) $ (61,070) $ (61,070) $ (61,070) $ (61,070) $ Less Asset Management Fees to General and
Limited Partners 3.5% (38,160) $ (39,496) $ (40,878) $ (42,309) $ (43,789) $ (45,322) $ (46,908) $ (48,550) $ (50,249) $ (52,008) $ (53,828) $ (55,712) $ (57,662) $ (59,681) $ (61,769) $ Remaining Cash Flow $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 dated: April 3, 2026
411
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD
555 Kelly
Updated 12/2014
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
555 KELLY
This Property Management Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of _________ 2026 by and between Mercy Housing California 110, L.P., a California Limited Partnership (“Owner”), having an address of 1256 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, and [MERCY HOUSING MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC, a Nebraska not-for-profit corporation (“Agent”) having an address of 1256 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.
The property to be managed by the Agent under this Agreement is a housing development consisting of land, building(s), and other improvements described below:
Name: 555 Kelly
Address: 555 Kelly Avenue, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Number of Units: 39
W I T N E S S E T H:
In consideration of the terms, conditions, and covenants hereinafter set forth, Owner and Agent hereby mutually agree as follows:
1. Appointment and Acceptance. Owner appoints Agent as exclusive agent for the management of the housing development consisting of the land, buildings and other improvements located at 555 Kelly Avenue, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 and commonly known as 555 Kelly (the “Project”), and Agent accepts the appointment, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Agent represents that it is experienced in professional management of property of the character and occupancy of the Project, and Agent agrees to manage the Project in accordance with the highest professional standards for such property.
2. Basic Information. Upon the mutual execution of this Agreement, Owner shall furnish Agent with a complete set of general plans and specifications for the Project and copies of all guarantees and warranties pertinent to construction and fixtures and equipment of the Project.
With the aid of this information and inspection by competent personnel, Agent shall thoroughly familiarize itself with the character, location, construction, layout, plan and operation of the Project, and especially the electrical, heating, plumbing, and ventilating system, and all other mechanical equipment in the Project.
3. Leasing. Agent shall offer for rent and shall rent the dwelling units in the Project in accordance with a rent schedule and leasing guidelines established and approved in writing by Owner. Incident thereto, the following provisions shall apply:
DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 412
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD Agreement
555 Kelly
Updated 12/2014 2
(a) Agent shall show dwelling units for rent in the Project to all prospective tenants.
(b) Agent shall take and process applications for rentals, including prospective tenant interviews and credit checks. If an application is rejected, Agent shall promptly give to the applicant a proper written notice stating the reason for rejection. (c) Agent shall, subject to prior written approval by Owner of any deviation from Owner’s approved rent schedule, execute in Agent’s name, identified thereon as agent for Owner, any lease in which Owner has agreed to let and a tenant has agreed to accept the dwelling unit of the Project (each, a “Lease”).
(d) Owner shall direct Agent in management of commercial space. . (e) Agent shall collect, deposit, and disburse security deposits, if required, in accordance with the terms of each Lease. The amount of the security deposit will be determined by MHM as Agent. Security deposits shall be held by Agent in a trust account, separate from all other accounts and funds. Such account shall be in the name of the Agent, also identifying the Project, and designated of record as “Security Deposit Account.” Interest on security deposits shall be paid according to law or regulatory agreement, if applicable.
(f) Agent shall maintain a current list of acceptable prospective tenants and undertake all arrangements necessary and incidental to the acceptance of rental applications and the execution of Leases. Agent shall exercise its best efforts (including, but not limited to, placement of advertising, interview of prospective tenants, assistance in completion of rental applications and execution of Leases, processing of documents and credit and employment verifications, and explanation of the program. ), to effect the leasing of dwelling units, renewal of Leases, and, in accordance with the terms of the Lease, subleasing of dwelling units in the Project.
(g) Agent shall perform such other acts and deeds requested by Owner as are reasonable, necessary, and proper in the discharge of Agent’s rental duties under this Agreement.
(h) Agent shall prorate the first month’s rent collected from a tenant under a Lease (each, a “Tenant”) should the Lease term commence on any other day than the first day of the month.
(i) Agent shall participate in the inspection of the dwelling unit identified in the Lease together with the Tenant prior to move-in and upon move-out, and shall record in writing any previous damage to the unit and any damage occurring during the Tenant’s occupancy. Should the tenant not be available following reasonable attempts to schedule a move-out inspection, Agent shall perform the inspection without the tenant and record same information.
DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 413
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD Agreement
555 Kelly
Updated 12/2014 3
(j) Agent shall, unless otherwise agreed by Owner and Agent in writing, (i) comply with the leasing guidelines established by Mercy Housing Management Group, and (ii) use for each Lease the form of lease agreement appropriate for each property. (k) Agent shall cause a representative of Agent to confer with Owner and to attend meetings with Owner at any reasonable time or times requested by Owner. (l) If the Project is of pre-1978 construction then the Agent must provide each prospective tenant a copy of the Government Printing Office published informational pamphlet entitled Lead-Based Paint: Protect Your Family and a copy of the Lead Hazard Evaluation report on the building prepared by the Owner’s environmental consultant.
4. Affordability Restrictions. Agent shall comply with the affordability restrictions and requirements concerning leasing and related matters described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
5. Collection of Rents, Etc. Agent shall collect when due, directly or through an on-site manager, all rents, charges, and other amounts receivable on Owner’s account in connection with the management and operation of the Project. Such receipts shall be held in an account in Agent’s name and designated of record in an account name identifying the Project and approved by Owner in writing, at such financial institution as Owner may specify from time to time in writing (the “Operating Account”), and shall be held separate from all other accounts and funds.
6. Enforcement of Leases. Agent shall secure full compliance by each Tenant with the terms of such Tenant’s Lease. Voluntary compliance shall be emphasized and Agent shall make referrals to community agencies in cases of financial hardship or other circumstances deemed appropriate by Agent. . Nevertheless, Agent may, and shall if requested by Owner, lawfully terminate any tenancy when, in Agent’s reasonable judgment, sufficient cause for such termination occurs under the terms of the Tenant’s Lease, including, but not limited to, nonpayment of rent. For this purpose, Agent is authorized to consult with legal counsel selected by the Agent and approved by Owner and bring actions for eviction and execute notices to vacate and judicial pleadings incident to such actions. Unless otherwise instructed by Owner, Agent shall provide monthly reporting of all eviction procedures. . Reasonable attorneys’ fees and other necessary costs incurred in connection with such actions, as determined by Owner, shall be paid out of the Operating Account as a Project expense. Agent shall properly assess and collect from each Tenant or forfeit from the security deposit the cost of repairing any damages to the dwelling unit arising during the Tenant’s occupancy.
7. Maintenance and Repairs. Agent shall cause the Project to be maintained in a decent, safe, and sanitary condition and in a rentable and tenantable state of repair, all in accordance with applicable law, and Agent otherwise shall maintain the Project at all times in a condition acceptable to Owner, including, but not limited to, performance of cleaning, painting, decorating, plumbing, carpentry, grounds care, and such other maintenance and repair work as may be necessary. Incident thereto, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) Attention shall be given to preventive maintenance, and to the greatest extent feasible, the services of regular maintenance personnel shall be used.
DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 414
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD Agreement
555 Kelly
Updated 12/2014 4
(b) Where deemed necessary by Agent, Agent shall contract with qualified independent contractors for the maintenance and repair of major mechanical systems, and for the performance of extraordinary repairs beyond the capability of regular maintenance personnel provided that such contract is within budgeted guidelines approved by Owner.
Prior to commencement of any work, Agent shall obtain appropriate written evidence that the contractor’s insurance meets Owner’s vendor’s insurance requirements. Agent shall be responsible to obtain certificates evidencing renewal of each contractor’s insurance upon its expiration.
(c) Agent shall systematically and promptly receive and investigate all service requests from Tenants, take such action thereon as may be justified, and keep records of the same. Emergency requests shall be received and serviced on a 24-hour basis. Reports of significant damage shall be reported to Owner within 24 hours or Owner shall have the right to receive copies of all service requests and the reports of action taken thereon. (d) Agent shall use best efforts to take such action as may be necessary to comply with any and all orders or requirements of federal, state, county, or municipal authorities having jurisdiction over the Project.
(e) Subject to the provisions of Section 14 hereof, Agent is authorized to purchase all materials, equipment, tools, appliances, supplies, and services necessary for proper maintenance or repair of the Project, the cost of which shall be paid out of the Operating Account.
(f) Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions, the prior approval of Owner shall be required for any expenditure exceeding $5,000.00 in any one instance for labor, materials, or otherwise, in connection with the maintenance and repair of the Project, except for emergency repairs involving manifest danger to persons or property, or required to avoid suspension of any necessary service to the Project. (Budgeted routine expenses including utilities exceeding $5,000.00 will not require prior approval) In the event of significant emergency repairs, Agent shall notify Owner of the fact promptly, and in no event later than 24 (or the next business day) hours from the occurrence of the event. (g) Within 24 hours (or the next business day) of any incident or loss, Agent shall furnish Owner with a full report as to all accidents, fires, claims and potential claims for damages relating to the Project, and will cooperate with Owner’s insurers in connection therewith. Agent shall have no authority to take any actions (such as admitting or stating opinions of liability) which might or would operate to bind Owner or bar Owner, including its partners, from obtaining any protection afforded by any policies of insurance it may hold or which operate to prejudice the defense of any legal proceeding involving Owner or the Project, or which might otherwise prevent Owner from protecting itself against any such claims, demands, or legal proceedings. Owner shall have the sole and exclusive right to conduct, and Agent shall fully cooperate with Owner in, the defense of any such claims, demands or legal proceedings.
DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 415
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD Agreement
555 Kelly
Updated 12/2014 5
8. Utilities and Services. Agent shall make arrangements for water, electricity, gas, sewage, and trash disposal, vermin extermination, decorating, laundry facilities, and telephone service in connection with the Project.
9. Personnel. Agent shall use it’s best efforts to have sufficient personnel physically present at the Project for the full and efficient performance of its duties under this Agreement, including physical presence of responsible persons at such times as may be requested by Owner.
The compensation (including fringe benefits) of the on-site staff will be within Agent’s reasonable discretion considering market rates for the type of personnel employed, provided minimum wage standards are met. Owner will reimburse Agent for compensation (including fringe benefits) payable to Agent’s on-site personnel, and for all local, state and Federal taxes and assessments (including but not limited to Social Security taxes, unemployment insurance and workers compensation insurance) incident to the employment of such personnel. Such reimbursements will be made out of the Operating Account Project expenses.
10. Operating Account. Disbursements from the Operating Account shall be governed by the following:
From the funds collected and held by Agent in the Operating Account pursuant to Section 5 hereof, and subject to Owner’s approved operating budget, Agent shall make the following disbursements promptly when payable, in the following order of priority: salaries and any other compensation due and payable to the employees referred to in Section 9 hereof, together with related payroll taxes; (i) the Management Fee in accordance with Section 20;
(ii) real estate taxes and assessments, and fire and other hazard insurance premiums (including any required monthly escrow payments therefore), utilities, interest on all mortgages from time to time encumbering the Project and all promissory notes secured thereby (collectively, “Mortgages”), amortization of the principal of the Mortgages, fees, and establishment and maintenance of all reserve funds;
(iii) the cost of insurance maintained by Owner in accordance with Section 17(b);
(iv) the cost of enforcement of Leases in accordance with Section 6; (v) the cost of maintenance and repairs pursuant to Section 7; (vi) the cost of all records and reporting pursuant to Section 12; (vii) the cost of insurance maintained by Owner in accordance with Section 17(b);
(viii) other payments due and payable by Owner as Project expenses incurred pursuant to Owner’s approved operating budget and in accordance with this Agreement; and
DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 416
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD Agreement
555 Kelly
Updated 12/2014 6
(ix) distributions to or at the written direction of Owner. (b) In the event that the balance in the Operating Account is at any time insufficient to pay disbursements due and payable under Subsection 10(a) hereof, Agent shall promptly inform Owner of the fact and Owner shall remit to Agent sufficient funds to cover the deficiency within three (3) business days. In no event shall Agent be required to use its own funds to pay such disbursements.
11. Operating Budget. Agent shall prepare a recommended annual operating budget for the Project for each fiscal year during the term of this Agreement, and shall submit the same to Owner in accordance with the approved annual budget calendar. Agent shall perform a full property inspection report, including all units, prior to the start of the budget process. The annual operating budget shall include recommended rent increases with respect to Lease renewals and new Leases. In preparing each proposed annual operating budget, Agent shall use its best efforts to take account for anticipated increases in real estate taxes, utility charges and other operating costs. Proposed annual operating budgets for the Project shall be subject to approval by Owner.
Owner shall promptly inform Agent of any changes incorporated in the approved operating budget the Project and Agent shall make no expenditures in excess of the amounts set forth in such approved operating budget category without the prior written approval of Owner, except as permitted pursuant to Section 7(f) hereof for emergency repairs involving manifest danger to persons or property, or required to avoid suspension of any services to the Project.
12. Records and Reports. Agent shall have the following responsibilities with respect to records and reports:
(a) Within thirty (30) days after the mutual execution of this Agreement, Agent shall ascertain the general condition of the Project, including, but not limited to, the taking of an inventory of all furniture, equipment, tools, and supplies. (b) Agent shall establish and maintain a comprehensive system of records, books, and accounts, including computerized systems, in a manner reasonably satisfactory to Owner. Following reasonable notification all records, books, and accounts may be subject to examination during normal hours by any authorized representative of Owner. (c) Agent shall prepare a monthly report, in a form reasonably satisfactory to Owner. Agent shall promptly furnish such additional information (including monthly occupancy reports) as may be requested from time to time by Owner with respect to the renting and financial, physical or operational condition of the Project. (d) Owner shall prepare, execute, and file all forms, reports, and returns required by law in connection with the employment of personnel, unemployment insurance, workman’s compensation insurance, disability benefits, Social Security, and other similar insurance, and all other benefits or taxes now in effect or hereafter imposed. (e) Agent shall establish tenant files containing copies of leases, certification forms, notices, and other documentation required by regulatory agencies, if and to the extent applicable.
DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 417
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD Agreement
555 Kelly
Updated 12/2014 7
(f) Except as may otherwise be expressly provided in this Agreement, all bookkeeping, data processing services, and management overhead expenses shall be paid out of the Operating Account as an expense of the Project.
13. Crime Insurance. Owner shall furnish and maintain, at its own expense for the duration of this Agreement and any extensions thereof, plus thirty (30) days after the expiration or termination thereof, a commercial crime insurance policy or fidelity bond in an amount not less than two (2) months gross potential rent or $500,000. Such crime insurance policy shall cover losses discovered by Owner within two (2) years after the occurrence of such losses. The certificate of insurance shall state that Agent is an additional insured, and shall be given at least thirty (30) days’ prior written notice of cancellation. The cost of such coverage may be paid out of the Operating Account as an expense of the Project.
14. Bids, Discounts, and Rebates. Agent shall obtain contracts, materials, supplies, utilities, and services on the most advantageous terms to the Project, and unless otherwise approved by Owner shall solicit a minimum of three (3) competitive bids on all contracts or purchases exceeding $2,500.00 for those items which can be obtained from more than one source.
Agent shall credit to Owner all discounts, rebates, or commissions obtainable with respect to purchase, service contracts, and all other transactions on Owner’s behalf.
15. Liability of Agent. Except as expressly provided to the contrary herein, the obligations and duties of Agent under this Agreement shall be performed as agent of Owner, but Agent, shall be liable for its breaches of this Agreement; provided, however, that the Agent shall not be responsible for incurring any expenditures in excess of existing or reasonably projected available funds from the Project or funds supplied by Owner. All expenses incurred by Agent in accordance with its obligations and duties under this Agreement and consistent with Owner’s approved operating budget shall be for the account of and on behalf of Owner.
16. Indemnification.
(a) Owner agrees to defend, indemnify, and save harmless Agent from all losses, costs, damages, liability and expenses, including without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising directly or indirectly out of any (i) matter related to the Project, the conduct of the business of Owner, or any reasonable action taken by Agent expressly within the scope of its duties or authority under this Agreement; or (ii) bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property, and such claims and suits arise, or are alleged to arise, in whole or in part out of any grossly negligent act or omission of or the willful misconduct of Owner, its officers, employees, or agents. Owner agrees to include Agent as an additional insured in Owner’s general liability policy. Owner shall provide Agent with a certificate of insurance evidencing such liability insurance and providing not less than ten (10) days’ notice to Agent prior to cancellation. (b) Agent agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold Owner harmless from and against any and all claims, investigations, and suits, or from actions or failures to act of Agent, with respect to any alleged or actual violation of state or federal labor or other laws pertaining to employees, it being expressly agreed and understood that as between Owner and Agent, all persons employed in connection with the Project are employees of Agent, DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 418
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD Agreement
555 Kelly
Updated 12/2014 8
not Owner. Additionally, Agent agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold Owner harmless from and against any and all losses, costs, damages, liability and expenses, including without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising from any breach of this Agreement by Agent, any negligent act or omission of Agent and any intentional tort, criminal activity, reckless and other willful misconduct, and any other act or omission by Agent, its agents or employees, outside the scope of the agency relationship created by this Agreement.
17. Insurance.
(a) Agent shall at all times work with Ownership to ensure that its employees are insured for statutory workers’ compensation and other employee benefits required by all applicable laws and shall maintain, and provide Owner with certificates evidencing, the following coverage:
(i) General liability in the amount of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence, $2,000,000.00 annual aggregate;
(ii) Professional liability in the amount of $500,000.00 per occurrence; (iii) Workers compensation as referenced above, with employer’s liability of $500,000.00;
(iv) Automobile insurance covering Agent’s owned or leased vehicles; and
(v) Personal property insurance written on a replacement cost basis, in an amount sufficient to cover Agent’s personal property items.
The cost of all insurance required under this Section 17(a) shall be at the sole cost and expense of Owner.
(b) Owner shall maintain comprehensive commercial liability insurance and property fire damage/legal liability insurance covering the Project. The cost of all insurance required under this Section 17(b) shall be paid out of the Operating Account.
18. Limitation of Liability. Agent agrees that it will not seek recourse against the individual partners, shareholders, directors, officers, employees or agents of Owner or any of their personal assets for satisfaction of any liability with respect to this Agreement.
19. Compensation.
(a) As compensation for all of Agent’s ongoing property leasing, management, and related services under this Agreement, Agent shall receive a monthly management fee in an amount equal to Seventy dollars ($70.00) per unit in the Project per month (the “Management Fee”), to be paid out of the Operating Account as an expense of the Project.
DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 419
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD Agreement
555 Kelly
Updated 12/2014 9
Such fee shall be payable on or before the tenth (10th) day of the month following the month in which the services were rendered.
(b) Agent agrees to the following conditions governing amount and timing of payment of the Management Fee under this Agreement:
(i) The monthly Management Fee shall be deemed earned in its entirety and accrued as an expense to the Project. Owner shall be responsible for the payment of any deferred Management Fees upon the termination of this Agreement. (ii) “Operating Expenses” means all cash expended, reserved, or required for debts or expenses (including all required or advisable deposits into required reserves), interest, and principal payments on indebtedness, capital expenditures, replacements, expansion, or other reasonable requirements of Owner’s business (excluding cash expended from capital contributions or for capital transactions) related to the Project.
(iii) “Operating Income” means all cash received from operations of Owner in the ordinary course of business (excluding capital contributions and net proceeds of capital transactions) related to the Project. (c) In lieu of compensation defined in section (a) above, as compensation for providing marketing and property set up services for new construction or acquisition rehabilitation properties Owner shall compensate Agent in an amount equal to ($450.00) per unit Agent reserves the right to bill 50% of the stated fee upon successful occupancy of 50% of the project, with the remaining fee to be billed upon meeting lease up requirements.
20. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, Agent shall use it’s best efforts to comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
21. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be in effect for the period commencing as of the date hereof and ending on the first (1st) anniversary of the date hereof, and shall be automatically extended for one (1) year periods thereafter, subject to the following conditions:
(a) Either Owner or Agent may elect not to extend this Agreement by notifying the other party at least sixty (60) calendar days in advance of the last day of the initial period hereunder or any annual extension period thereafter. (b) This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of Owner and Agent.
(c) In the event Agent fails to perform any of its duties hereunder or to comply with any of the provisions hereof and the failure of which has a material adverse effect on the Project, Owner shall notify Agent in writing and Agent shall have thirty (30) days DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 420
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD Agreement
555 Kelly
Updated 12/2014 10
thereafter within which to cure such default to the reasonable satisfaction of Owner, and if such default cannot be cured within such thirty (30) day period, Agent shall have such additional time as may be necessary to cure the same provided that Agent demonstrates to the continuing satisfaction of Owner that it is diligently pursuing all necessary actions to cure such default and that the same will be cured within a reasonable time without damage or expense to Owner.
(d) In the event a petition in bankruptcy is filed by or against Owner or Agent, or in the event Owner or Agent makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors or takes advantage of any insolvency act, Owner or Agent may terminate this Agreement without notice to the other.
(e) In the event of a sale of the Project by Owner, a material condemnation involving the Project or a total casualty involving the Project, Owner may elect to terminate this Agreement by notifying Agent upon not less than thirty (30) days notice. (f) Within fifteen (15) days after the termination of this Agreement, Agent shall close all accounts and pay the balances or assign all certificates of deposit regarding the Project to Owner. Within fifteen (15) days after the termination of this Agreement, Agent shall (i) deliver to Owner all plans and surveys of the Project in its possession and all books and records concerning the Project; and (ii) submit to Owner all reports required under Section 12 hereof to the date of such termination, and Agent and Owner shall account to each other with respect to all matters outstanding as of the date of termination.
22. Notices. All notices or other communications required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered either personally or by U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested, which shall be deemed delivered upon personal delivery or two (2) business days after mailing, to the parties at the addresses set forth in the initial paragraph of this Agreement. In the event of a change in the mailing addresses, any addressee whose address changes hereby agrees to give notice of a new or forwarding address within seven (7) days of the effective date of said change to the other addressee, whereupon subsequent notices shall be addressed to such new or forwarding address.
23. Increased Risk. Agent shall give Owner written notice if any facts of which Agent is aware evidence an increase in the risk of casualty loss or a claim of liability in connection with the Project or its operation. Such notice shall be given as soon as Agent has knowledge of such facts.
24. Audit Right. Owner shall have the right, within seven (7) days written notice to Agent, to audit all files and accounts pertaining to the Project at Agent’s principal office during normal business hours.
25. Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Owner and Agent, and no amendment or modification thereof shall be valid or enforceable except by supplemental agreement in writing, executed by the parties hereto or the party to be bound thereby.
DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 421
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD Agreement
555 Kelly
Updated 12/2014 11
26. Enforceability. The invalidity of any clause, part, or provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Owner’s remedies under this Agreement are cumulative, and the exercise of one remedy shall not be deemed an election of remedies nor foreclose the exercise of Owner’s other remedies. No waiver by Owner of any breach of this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach. Owner or Agent may apply to any court, state or federal, for specific performance of this Agreement, for an injunction against any violation of this Agreement, or for such other relief as may be appropriate, since the injury arising from a default under any of the terms of this Agreement would be irreparable and the amount of damage would be difficult to ascertain.
27. Governing Law. The law of the state in which the Project is located shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement.
28. Captions. The captions used in this Agreement are inserted only as a matter of convenience and for reference and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or the intent of this Agreement.
29. Execution of Counterparts. For the convenience of the parties, this Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall constitute a complete original of this Agreement, which may be introduced in evidence or used for any other purpose without the production of any other counterparts.
30. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and constitute a binding obligation upon Owner and Agent and their respective successors and assigns; provided, however, that Agent shall not assign this Agreement, or any of its duties hereunder, without the prior written consent of Owner.
DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 422
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD Agreement
555 Kelly
Updated 12/2014 12
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 423
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD Agreement
555 Kelly
Updated 12/2014 13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner and Agent have executed this Agreement as the date first above written.
OWNER:
Mercy Housing California 110, L.P.,
a California Limited Partnership
By:
Name: Melissa Clayton
Title: Vice President
Attest:
______________________________
Title:
[SEAL]
AGENT:
[MERCY HOUSING MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC, a Nebraska not-for-profit
corporation PROPERTY MANAGER]
By:
Name: Jacquie Hoffman
Title: Vice President
Attest:
_______________________________
Title:
[SEAL]
DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 424
Mercy Housing Management Group
Non-HUD Agreement
555 Kelly
Updated12/2014 A-1
EXHIBIT A
AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTIONS
[Tax Credit Requirements. Agent acknowledges that Owner is required to use best efforts to lease one hundred percent (100%) of the units in the Project (the “Credit Units”) to tenants whose income and rent levels qualify such apartments for inclusion in determining federal low-income housing tax credits (the “Credits”) for the Project. Owner shall furnish Agent with written descriptions of such requirements as they relate to Agent’s leasing and management duties hereunder. Incident thereto, the following provisions shall apply for all Credit Units:
(a) Agent shall, prior to approving each rental application and prior to allowing prospective tenant to take occupancy, (i) require prospective tenant to complete, execute, and deliver all forms required in connection with the Credits (which forms shall be provided by Owner to Agent), and (ii) shall perform such other verifications of such tenant’s non-employment income as are necessary or appropriate, in order to provide necessary certification and verification of the amount of such tenant’s annual family income, family size, and any other information reasonably requested by Owner in writing in connection with the Credits. Agent shall require tenants to certify in writing as to such matters on an annual basis, prior to such time as the information is required for tax reporting purposes for the Credits. Owner shall give Agent advance written notice of such requirements. Agent shall, prior to leasing Credit Units, determine tenant income eligibility for purposes of the Credits pursuant to applicable laws, using such forms as Owner shall furnish to Agent from time to time. Without Owner’s express prior written consent, Agent shall not enter into any Lease on behalf of Owner to a tenant who fails to meet the income eligibility requirements for the Credits. Agent shall deliver copies of all reporting surrounding Leases, certifications, and verifications for the Credit Units to Owner as requested
(b) Owner shall from time to time furnish Agent with a written schedule of maximum rents for the apartments, depending on family size for purposes of the Credits.
Without Owner’s express prior written consent, Agent shall not enter into any Lease on behalf of Owner at a rental amount exceeding the applicable maximum. (c) Agent shall maintain and preserve all written records of tenant family income and size, and any other information reasonably requested by Owner in writing in connection with the Credits, throughout the term of the Agreement, and shall turn all such records over to Owner upon the termination or expiration of the Agreement. (d) If requested by Owner in writing, Agent shall prepare reports of low-income leasing and occupancy in form suitable for submission in connection with the Credits.] DRAFTThis document is a DRAFT template and does not yet reflect final, City-approved restrictions. 425
DRAFT: April 21, 2026
Mercy Housing California
555 Kelly Residential Services Plan
Services Overview:
555 Kelly will provide thirty nine (39) high-quality affordable rental units for current or Senior Agricultural Workers, plus one (1) unrestricted manager’s unit. The property will also feature a new Community Resource Center (CRC), co-located on the ground floor, serving as a hub for health, wellness, and social services for senior farmworker residents, along with a multipurpose community space. The Resource Center will be operated by Ayudando Latinos A Soñar (ALAS), and the senior apartments will be owned and operated by Mercy Housing California (MHC) and Mercy Housing Management Group (MHMG).
MHC and ALAS will be coordinating residential services and community building activities for 555 Kelly.
Mercy Housing will be the lead service provider (LSP), and partner with ALAS to ensure that all residents of 555 Kelly have access to culturally appropriate services and programming that help individuals improve their economic, health, and social wellbeing. The coordination of services will be done through multi-disciplinary team meetings between ALAS and MHC to ensure that duplication is avoided, and residents are able to receive the broadest scope of services and programming offered.
Senior Program Model:
Mercy Housing will hire and supervise a Resident Services Coordinator who will provide a minimum of 24 hours per week of dedicated services to the residents and ensure that MHC’s senior program model is implemented. MHC’s senior program model focuses on four areas: Health & Wellness, Housing Stabilization, Education, and Community Engagement.
Health & Wellness
Mercy Housing will provide service coordination, linkages and referrals to all 39 households, offering the following direct services: basic health & needs assessments, ADL (Activities of Daily Living) support & screening, physical activities, and wellbeing checks. In partnership with MHC, ALAS, will offer the following services in the Community Resource Center for all residents. ALAS will offer access to food; mental and physical health services on site and will refer off site as needed. The Farmworker Liaison Caseworker team will have private offices for confidential meetings with clients.
Onsite Resident Services: Health & Wellness Assessments, Health Screening Services, ADL Screenings, Fitness Classes, Health and Wellness Education workshops Housing Stabilization
In order to achieve housing stability, MHC will work closely with residents and property management, to ensure the following services are provided: eviction prevention coaching, housing inspection support and lease education. In partnership with ALAS, MHC will coordinate with ALAS on any available outreach programs and services that provide rental assistance for residents, where keeping people housed is the priority.
Onsite Services: Lease Education, Housing Support Plan, Linkages to subsidized or discounted Utility Programs
Education
Either provided directly, or through staff at the Community Resource Center, MHC will offer the following services: financial stability seminars, financial benefit acquisition, employment and job readiness support, and technology literacy.
Onsite Services: Financial Stability Seminars in budgeting and/or fraud prevention 426
DRAFT: April 21, 2026
Mercy Housing California
555 Kelly Residential Services Plan
Community Engagement
In order to enhance social connections and build community among residents, the following activities will be provided for residents: Ongoing weekly community projects & events, volunteer opportunities, voter registration, leadership programming, community safety initiatives, family reconciliation, and technology literacy. The Community Resource Center will also host community lunch and dinner events where meals will be prepared in the community kitchen and served in the multi-purpose area.
Onsite Services: Holiday Celebrations, Social Activities, Volunteer Club, Disaster Preparedness Workshops
Residential Services Plan:
Services and programming will be provided free of charge. Resident services will be paid through the developments residential operating budget.
MHC’s service delivery will begin prior to residents moving in, by offering support and being present during resident interviews, showing units, and participating in lease signings. After move-in, MHC will focus on the following service objectives:
• 100% of residents will be screened using the following assessment tools: 1) HUDs ADL/IADL 2) Health & Wellness Interview 3) Individual Service Plan (ISP). These screening tools will be offered within 90 days of move in. The ISP will emphasize residents’ goals and action plans regarding stabilizing housing, benefits, as well as improving health, economic and social well-being.
Ongoing support provided as needed to meet ISP goals.
• 100 % of residents who may be experiencing housing instability due to incidents, lease violations and/or non-payment of rent will be offered support services at least once for each known incident as documented by staff in their incident reports and encounter records. • 85% of residents who engage services to remedy incidences reported and/or lease violations will establish a written plan (Housing Support Plan, HSP) to resolve the current and prevent future violations of tenancy agreements that could lead to eviction as measured by the incident reports with completed written resolution sections.
• 100% of all residents should receive outreach efforts at a minimum of every 30 days.
Staffing:
Onsite Staffing Programming & Service
MHC Resident Services
Coordinator
24 hours per week
Coordination with Mercy Housing Management Group (MHMG):
At time of move-in, the services team, together with property management will ensure a warm handoff, which includes welcoming the resident to the community, introducing staff, and explaining individual roles to the resident. This is an opportunity to set up subsequent meetings with residents to ensure that they understand the lease, sign relevant releases of information, and have the team address any immediate needs. This will also be an important time to introduce the residents to the ALAS Mercy Housing partnership and make residents aware of the services that will be provided through ALAS at the Community Resource Center and MHC.
The services team recognizes that communication and collaboration is essential to housing stability.
Collaboration will take the form of weekly meetings to address concerns as they arise with the goal of intervening early and problem-solving issues that may affect housing stability. 427
DRAFT: April 21, 2026
Mercy Housing California
555 Kelly Residential Services Plan
Mercy Housing utilizes a housing success tool that includes offering residents the option in participating in a Housing Support Plan (HSP). The HSP is individualized, resident driven, 100% voluntary and collaborative. The resident, property manager, and services team work together to develop and implement a plan of action that aims to achieve housing stability and avoid eviction.
In addition to weekly meetings where housing concerns are discussed, the services and property management team will meet frequently to address any operational needs. Collaborative meetings allow for reinforcement of delineation of responsibilities, review of protocols, and ongoing planning to ensure the needs of individual residents are balanced with the safety and security of the property. An important component to such meetings will be discussion of critical tenant issues and eviction prevention strategies. Staff meetings will be an important space in which to strategize about how to increase tenant utilization of services. Program management and agency directors will meet monthly to resolve program issues, reinforce collaborations and ensure contract compliance.
Community Resource Center:
A Community Resource Center of approximately 2,600 square feet will be on the ground floor of 555 Kelly, with an entrance directly from Kelly Avenue. Previously planned as a Farmworker Resource Center, this space will serve two functions:
• Delivery of health, wellness and other social services required by the 555 Kelly senior farmworker residents to be provided by ALAS, community agencies and the County. • A multipurpose community space to be used by the wider public for meetings and activities.
The Community Resource Center will be designed with offices and spaces for resident services, and for more open flexible spaces for programming and activities to be organized in support of residents. The operational program also includes a multi-purpose community space to be made available, at the sole discretion of City, for general public meetings and activities for 16 hours per work week. Prior to occupying the center, Developer and City Manager will collaborate in good faith to determine appropriate activities and scheduling to ensure compatibility between City’s, Developer’s and ALAS’s proposed use of the space. They will also determine an appropriate reservation system (such as the City’s Recreation and Parks system), and establish an affordable user fee structure for the community users. The City and Mercy Housing will continue to refine the details to provide an affordable community serving space in this location.
The Community Resource Center space will be leased to ALAS by Mercy Housing, the owner of the 555 Kelly development. ALAS will be one of the key service providers for the senior farmworker residents of 555 Kelly. The Community Resource Center will be relying on a federal funding appropriation to ALAS that former Congresswoman Anna Eshoo secured specifically to complete the buildout of a Farmworker Resource Center. ALAS has agreed to use this federal funding to build the Community Resource Center, and the City and Mercy Housing will not need to seek additional funding from other parties. The lease rate will consist of a pro rata share of building operations and maintenance costs and a nominal rent given the use of the Community Resource Center for resident services and to provide affordable accessible multi- purpose space for community use. The proposed conditions of the lease will be outlined in a seperate Lease Letter of Intent (LOI) a preliminary, non-binding document that outlines the key business terms of a proposed lease before the parties commit to a full, legally binding lease agreement. This LOI is a way for the landlord, Mercy Housing, and tenant, ALAS, to confirm that they are aligned on major deal points before investing time and legal costs into drafting the full lease. 428
DRAFT: April 21, 2026
Mercy Housing California
555 Kelly Residential Services Plan
The Community Resource Center at 555 Kelly requires approximately $2.2 million in capital funding from a combination of federal earmarks, philanthropy, and other sources to complete buildout on the ground floor. Initial funding commitments include a $500,000 grant from The Sobrato Foundation over two years, along with the federal appropriations secured through Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and support from additional philanthropic partners including the Sobrato Family Foundation and the Kataly Foundation. Ongoing funding will be required to support the Center operations and programming; however, there is no anticipated request for City funding for these costs, as ALAS will continue to pursue and secure external funding sources to sustain the Community Resource Center.
Program Overview - Community Resource Center (CRC):
• Purpose: Address the specific needs of all resident and farmworkers by providing access toessential resources, support for well-being, and community-building opportunities.
• Goals:
o Enhance quality of life for all residents, farmworkers and their families. o Provide health, wellness, education, and legal support services. o Create a welcoming and culturally sensitive environment. o Foster a sense of community and empowerment among farmworkers.
The Community Resource Center (CRC) will serve as a hub for health, wellness, and social services for senior farmworker residents, along with a multipurpose community space.. Designed to support aging in place, the CRC will house case managers/promotores, San Mateo County health counselors, and other service providers delivering coordinated, culturally competent care tailored to the specific needs of both senior and working farmworkers. Many individuals in this community face significant barriers—including limited English proficiency, lack of transportation, and unmet service needs—which the CRC directly addresses by co-locating essential services such as mental health care, education, crisis response, health referrals, and cultural programming in one accessible location.
Purpose-built to accommodate programming, counseling, and group activities, the CRC eliminates fragmented service access while fostering community through food, art, and social engagement in residents’ primary language and cultural context. This integrated approach ensures consistent, equitable support and creates a welcoming environment that strengthens connection, improves health and wellness outcomes, and enhances overall quality of life for both onsite residents and the broader farmworker and coastal community.
Grounded in community-identified needs and ALAS’s and MHC service model, the CRC strengthens partnerships with organizations such as Coastside Hope and Puente de la Costa Sur, formalizing collaboration and expanding the reach and quality of services. By integrating providers into a single, coordinated setting, the CRC fosters community connection, cultural engagement, and skill-building opportunities while enhancing overall service delivery and long-term outcomes for the farmworker community.
The CRC is designed with key functional spaces to support high-quality service delivery and community engagement, including a dedicated kitchen for meal programs and cultural events, a multipurpose room for programming and partnerships, and private offices to ensure confidentiality and professionalism in service provision. In addition to the CRC, a separate private residential community room on the second floor of the building will serve 555 Kelly’s senior tenants by 429
DRAFT: April 21, 2026
Mercy Housing California
555 Kelly Residential Services Plan
providing space for services and a place for residents to gather and support their daily lives. This dedicated space meets the funding and regulatory requirements for on-site services. Together, these components create a comprehensive, well-equipped environment that supports the health, wellness, and long-term stability of the farmworker community and residents.
Designed to meet both immediate and long-term needs, the CRC is a fully realized and necessary component of the 555 Kelly development, improving quality of life, reducing isolation, and advancing the overall health and resilience of the farmworker and senior community. Addressing social isolation and loneliness is essential for ensuring the housing stability and health of senior farmworkers and the Coastside community, as these issues are closely linked to poor health outcomes such as cognitive decline, heart disease, and a weakened immune system.
The local residents served throughout the year by the CRC will be carefully coordinated with other nearby programming and events ensuring that the community’s resources are utilized efficiently and without undue disruption to the surrounding area.
CRC Services Offered:
• Health Services: Basic medical check-ups, mental health counseling, referrals to local health clinics.
• Educational Programs: English language classes, financial literacy, workforce development workshops.
• Legal Aid: Immigration assistance, worker rights, and labor law education. • Social Services: Assistance with housing applications, food security resources, and childcare.
• Recreational Activities: Cultural events, community gatherings, and wellness activities like yoga or fitness
CRC Staffing:
The Community Resource Center (CRC) will be staffed by a multidisciplinary team providing both on-site and field-based support to senior farmworker households. Key roles include a full-time Center Manager overseeing daily operations and coordination of services and partnerships; a fulltime Social Worker/Case Manager delivering direct services such as assessments, outreach, and referrals; and a full-time Licensed Mental Health Clinician providing mental health services and supervising interns. A full-time Farmworker Promotore will focus on wellness and community engagement, while part-time Community Legal Aid staff will offer immigration and labor law support. Volunteers will supplement services through classes, events, and resource distribution.
The CRC will operate primarily on weekdays from 8 AM to 7 PM, with limited weekend hours for special events, avoiding Saturday mornings due to the Farmer’s Market. Programming will include consistent daily services along with occasional evening activities focused on meals, wellness, and group engagement. Larger events and regular weekend programming will be limited on-site; instead, they will be accommodated at the alternate Cultural Arts Center. CRC staff will be available onsite to coordinate access for community programming for 16 hours per work week, in accordance with a City-established reservation system for public use. 430
LETTER OF INTENT
This DRAFT Letter of Intent is for the purpose of securing preliminary understanding between Landlord and Tenants below, and to serve as the preliminary basis for a written lease (“Lease”) that will contain additional material terms, conditions, and provisions not yet negotiated or agreed upon by the parties for the premises known as 555 Kelly Avenue, Half Moon Bay, CA 94109. The initial proposed terms and conditions of the Lease are as follows:
Date: April 15, 2026 DRAFT
Landlord: Mercy Commercial California, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“Landlord”)
Landlord’s Address:
(send notices to):
1256 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Attention: Commercial Asset Manager
Send Rent Payments to: Commercial Property Manager
Mercy Housing Management Group
1256 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94102
We encourage all Tenants to sign up for online
payments via our Commercial Café.
Tenant(s): Ayudando Latinos A Soñar (ALAS)
507 Purissima Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94109
Building: The building consists of ground floor retail and five stories of residential use located on the land commonly known as 555 Kelly Avenue, Half Moon Bay, CA
94109.
Premises: 555 Kelly Avenue
Specific Address/Suite for Premises TBD
Premises
Interior Area:
2,658 square feet
Total Commercial
Net Rentable Area:
2,658 square feet
Tenant’s Pro-rata Share of
Commercial Net
Rentable Area:
100.00%
2,658 square feet
Building Area: 49,559 square feet
Premises Pro-rata Share
of Building Area:
5.36%
431
LETTER OF INTENT
Common Area: 1. Sidewalks in front of the Premises
2. MPOE Room
Tenant Improvement
Allowance:
Tenant has secured $1.8 million in federal funds through Congresswoman Anna Eshoo for construction of tenant
improvements at Premises
Use: Community Resource Center to be operated by Tenant with two uses:
Delivery of health, wellness and other social services
required by the 555 Kelly senior farmworker residents
to be provided by ALAS, community agencies and the
County.
A multipurpose community space to be used by the
wider public for meetings and activities.
Conditions of Use: 1. Tenant to provide access to the wider public for meetings and activities for sixteen (16) hours per
week (Monday through Friday). Tenant and
Landlord will coordinate with City’s Recreation
Department on the operational program, applicable
reservation and fee structure, and guidelines for use
of the Premises by the general public.
2. Tenant shall make the commercial space available
for inspections upon 24-hour notice from site staff
in preparation for maintenance and inspections.
3. Tenant shall make the commercial space available
for inspection by regulatory agencies, lenders and
investors as appropriate.
4. Tenant shall conduct its business and otherwise
utilize the Premises, and use reasonable efforts to
control its agents, employees, invitees, contractors
and visitors, in such a manner as not to create any
nuisance, or unreasonably interfere with annoy or
disturb the quiet enjoyment of any other tenant or
Landlord.
Prohibitions of Use: Vehicle or equipment maintenance, bulk storage of loose material, sale of liquor, cigarettes, or any other use unreasonably disturbing to residents is expressly
prohibited.
432
LETTER OF INTENT
Additional restrictions will be specified in the lease.
Lease can be ended depending on abiding by rules.
Hours of Operation: Generally 8:00am-7:00pm with different hours for special events and limited weekend hours. Must
comply with local jurisdiction requirements for
residential neighborhoods. Tenant shall have 24-hour
access to the Premises seven (7) days a week.
Initial Term: The Term commencing on the Term Commencement Date and ending on the Lease Termination Date
subjective to any Options to Renew, noted below.
Term Commencement Date: Estimated at Construction Start Date of Tenant Improvements or date of possession when the Premises
is delivered to Tenant, which shall be captured by both parties signing a Certification of Commencement Date.
Lease Termination Date: Twenty (20) calendar years after the certified Commencement Date.
Renewal Option: Two (2) Optional Period(s) of five (5) years each, as long as Tenant is in good standing and not in Default at the end of the Initial Term.
Base Rent: $1 per year.
Prepaid Rent: One month’s Base Rent, to be paid at Lease signing.
Rent Commencement Date: Rent shall commence on the same date as the Term Commencement Date.
Rent Structure: Triple Net (NNN), with Tenant paying its own utilities, janitorial, repairs, maintenance, trash removal, wi-fi, and other operating expenses related to the use of the
Premises, as further specified in the Lease.
Tenant shall also pay to Landlord its “Common Area
Maintenance” (CAM) charge, and Pro-Rata Share of its
Real Estate Tax and Landlord’s Insurance payments.
Utilities: a. Electrical: Electrical service will be individually metered. Tenant is responsible for setting up its own
electrical account and paying those expenses in a
timely manner.
b. Gas: No gas service available to Premises.
433
LETTER OF INTENT
c. Water/Sewer: Water service will be individually
metered. Tenant is responsible for setting up its own
water account and paying those expenses in a
timely way.
d. Trash: Tenant is required to procure and pay for its own trash removal service. There is a trash room
located in the tenant space.
e. HVAC: Landlord has installed heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning system (“HVAC”) and
connected that system to Tenants Electric Service.
Common Area
Maintenance Charges:
Landlord to provide and pay for the Building’s
“Building Common Operating Expenses”, and Tenant
will reimburse Landlord. These expenses are not
included in the Base Rent. These expenses shall include but not be limited to the following: maintenance of the fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (testing and
monitoring); cleaning, maintenance and repair of the
Trash Room; hydro-jetting of the sewer laterals; backflow testing of the water lines; maintenance, repair and replacement of the sidewalk; electrical service for
exterior lighting; water and sewer service for
landscaping and cleaning the trash room as well as
power-washing the sidewalks; and commercial
property management fees. Landlord reconciles
operating expenses approximately every three years.
Trash Removal: Tenant’s trash room located in the Premises will be for the storage of their trash and recycling. Tenant is
responsible for arranging an account with the City and
paying the City directly for Tenant’s trash disposal
service. Tenant is responsible for the cleaning and
maintenance of bins provided for their business. Any
broken or leaking bins must be replaced
immediately. Coffee grounds should be composted
correctly and not allowed down any drains. Tenant
must exercise due diligence as spills and food and
beverage spills and stains occur. All refuse must be
securely bagged to avoid spillage once bins are set out for pick-up.
Tenant’s Maintenance: Tenant will make all necessary repairs and replacements to the interior walls, window glass,
window casements and moldings, doors, interior floor
coverings, hardware, furnishings, fixtures, equipment,
electrical and lighting systems, plumbing and plumbing
fixtures, ducts, pipes, and wiring conduits within the
434
LETTER OF INTENT
Premises, except to the extent that Tenant will not be
responsible for any defects in Landlord’s Work.
Tenant will maintain and keep in a clean and orderly
manner the Outside Area in front of their Premises on a daily basis. All coffee or food stains to sidewalks in
front of the Premises must be removed on a daily basis, and Tenant should coordinate with site staff’s schedule to power-wash the sidewalk. If the property is in a
drought zone and is mandated to reduce the use of
water, Tenant must work with site staff to determine
alternative methods for removal of coffee stains and
food debris. Tenant is responsible for the maintenance
of the exterior windows, casements, and moldings
specific to the Premises including removal of graffiti
and replacement of broken glass.
Landlord Maintenance: Landlord will maintain and repair, as needed, the exterior grounds, the Building foundation and structural elements, ceiling, floor slab, exterior walls and roof, and the portion of the basic electrical, plumbing, sewer and mechanical hook-ups that are exterior to the
Premises.
Real Estate Taxes: Tenant will pay its pro-rata share of all Real Estate Taxes and Assessments levied on the Premises based
on its Pro-rata Share of the Commercial Area. This
Tax Charge is a stand-alone charge and is not included
in the Base Rent or the CAM Charge. Tenant will
submit annual application to the assessor for welfare
tax exemption, if applicable.
Landlord’s
Property Insurance: Tenant will pay a portion of the Landlord’s Property Insurance based on its Pro-rata Share of the Building.
This Insurance Charge is a stand-alone charge and is
not included in the Base Rent or the CAM Charge. In
the event that an insurance claim is filed, both Landlord and Tenant shall have its own insurance. Tenant’s prorata share of Landlord’s insurance does not waive Tenant’s obligation to carry the required coverage for
its own Insurance, as listed below, nor does it imply
Landlord’s policy will cover any of Tenant’s damages
in any insurance event.
Tenant’s Insurance: Tenant shall carry the following insurance:
a. General liability insurance naming Landlord and
affiliates as additional insured, with a single
occurrence limit of $1 million, general aggregate $2
million;
b. Property insurance on all Tenant’s property in the
435
LETTER OF INTENT
Premises;
c. Workers compensation insurance on all
employees;
d. Business interruption insurance equal to 100% of
Rent for no less than twelve (12) months;
e. Umbrella insurance in the amount of $2,000,000.
f. Build-out insurance (“Builders Risk”) for the
entire period covering any Build-out or Alterations.
Alterations: Tenant shall make no Alterations that affect the Property’s plumbing, mechanical, electrical systems,
foundation or façade, or the Property’s Residential
Area or any Commercial Area outside the Premises,
without Landlord’s prior written approval, which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. In all
cases, Tenant shall make no Alterations greater than
$2,000 in each instance without Landlord’s prior
written approval, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Tenant shall construct its
Alterations after securing all building permits required by the City building department.
Signage/Facade: Tenant shall have the right to install signage at its sole cost and expense to the Premises’ exterior, under the
condition that such signage must comply with the
Property’s Master signage program and is approved by
Landlord, and the City Planning Department. Tenant
shall be responsible for cleaning and maintaining any
signage including awnings.
AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
TENANT
Ayundando Latinos A Sonar,
a California nonprofit public benefit
corporation
By: ______________________________
Name:
Title: CEO
Date: _____________
LANDLORD
Mercy Commercial California,
a California nonprofit public benefit corporation
By: ______________________________
Name:
Title: Vice President
Date: ______________
436
LETTER OF INTENT
437
438
439
555 Kelly Ave Executive Summary
Independent Analysis by Rick Hernandez, Planning Commissioner, City of Half Moon Bay Summary
This memo provides a practical, on-the-ground assessment of the City of Half Moon Bay’s effort to deliver affordable housing within the framework established by State policy, as it relates to the 555 Kelly Avenue project and conformance with the City’s Housing Element. The City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan policies are strongly aligned with State housing goals and override legacy zoning constraints. The City is actively working to meet its obligations, including planning for approximately 1,000 units over the next 13 years and updating its implementation plan and zoning. The purpose of this brief is to create a framework for determining whether projects are ultimately financeable and deliverable, including cost, legal certainty, readiness, and permitting timelines. It is intended to provide context on how these factors are playing out in this project and to outline a path forward that supports housing production while ensuring that public resources are used effectively and with a higher probability of success.
Background
California is in a widely acknowledged housing crisis. In response, the State has taken an increasingly aggressive approach to increase housing production, including streamlining approvals and enforcing compliance through the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The City of Half Moon Bay has aligned with this direction. Previous City Councils have supported the development of affordable housing, including housing for farm workers and other essential members of the workforce. Under State requirements, the City must plan for approximately 480 housing units in the current cycle and another 600 in the next. That is roughly 1,000 homes over the next 13 years or a 20% increase in Half Moon Bay’s total housing stock. This is not discretionary. The question is how to deliver housing in a way that is competitive, financeable, and achievable within the constraints of our LCLUP and the Coastal Act.
Affordable housing is publicly funded through a competitive process. Projects that are too costly, too risky, or subject to challenge do not get funded. Projects that are not funded do not get built.
Affordable housing is typically financed through a layered capital stack that combines federal tax credits, state housing funds, local contributions, and private investment. The primary source is the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, which provides tax credits to investors in exchange for equity in the project. These credits are allocated through a competitive process and are the cornerstone of most affordable housing developments. Projects are also supported by a combination of state programs, local subsidies, and, in some cases, federal grants. Each of these sources has its own requirements related to cost, readiness, and long-term compliance.
Because funding is limited, projects are evaluated based on cost efficiency, certainty of 440
execution, and risk. Projects that are fully entitled, clearly compliant, and ready to move forward are more competitive.
If a project has unresolved legal questions, unclear assumptions, or an incomplete financing plan, it becomes less attractive to funding partners and less likely to receive an allocation. In this system, certainty and cost discipline are what determine which projects move forward. Projects that generate sustained public controversy, or include public statements from members of the co-applicant team that draw scrutiny, may face additional challenges in attracting funding and partners. There is also a broader policy question being raised by residents. Many are asking whether it is the responsibility of a small coastal city, with limited financial capacity, to directly subsidize and carry the risk of complex affordable housing developments. This project must be evaluated within that context.
Cost and Competitiveness
The applicant has testified that 555 Kelly will cost approximately 1.4 million dollars per unit. By comparison, local projects, including Creekside, 880 Stone Pine, and 940 Main Street, are closer to 800,000 dollars per unit, inclusive of land costs. This difference is material. The 555 Kelly project includes 40 homes. At 800,000 dollars per unit, the same level of investment could produce approximately 70 homes. In a constrained funding environment, cost efficiency directly affects competitiveness and the likelihood of receiving funding.
Entitlement Basis, Transit, and Legal Risk
The project was approved using State Density Bonus law, including provisions that allow increased height, reduced setbacks, reduced parking requirements, and higher density. A key assumption underlying that approval was the existence of a qualifying major transit stop. Since 555 Kelly Ave was approved, the City completed a legal analysis and made the finding that the conditions for a major transit stop do not exist in Half Moon Bay. There is also evidence that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has conducted a similar analysis and come to the same conclusion. If a qualifying transit stop does not exist, the assumptions supporting the project’s height, density, and parking reductions are called into question. This may affect the legal footing of the project and it certainly affects its competitiveness for public funding.
In addition, residents of this project, including farm workers, will need to travel to jobs that are not located within immediate proximity. Without reliable transit or sufficient on-site parking, that becomes more difficult. These factors introduce both legal and practical risk.
Infrastructure and Traffic Constraints
The traffic analysis indicates that the intersection at Kelly Avenue and the access point to Shoreline Station is barely operating above acceptable standards and requires improvement.
The addition of approximately 40 housing units, representing an estimated 85 to 100 residents 441
and associated vehicles, will increase demand on an already constrained intersection and parking environment. When the Coastal Development Permit was approved, the Planning Commission directed city staff to independently address issues of circulation and safety as this project moves forward. This is a practical concern raised consistently by members of the community. Infrastructure limitations, if not addressed, can affect both project feasibility and long-term livability.
Funding and Readiness
After multiple extensions, there is still no clear evidence of sufficient tax credit allocations, a closed capital stack, a defined construction timeline, or a completed operating budget. Projects that are not fully capitalized and ready to proceed are less competitive for funding. At the same time, the City is being asked to enter into a 99-year ground lease for 99 dollars. If the project is not funded, the land is tied up, the units are not delivered, and the City remains accountable under state law to meet its housing obligations. The existing residence at 555 Kelly will remain uninhabited until construction begins and demolition is permitted. In its current condition, it continues to deteriorate and contributes to neighborhood blight.
Role of Private Investment and Incentives
In addition to publicly funded projects, the City should recognize the role of private investment and targeted incentives in delivering housing. The City has already seen this work in practice.
Through a combination of policy and private investment, housing has been delivered incrementally, including three ADUs and four below market rate homes, without relying entirely on competitive public funding programs. The City also has strong policies that prioritize workforce housing for farm workers, teachers, first responders, and other essential members of the community. Encouraging mixed-use and mixed-income development in the commercial downtown may provide a more efficient and scalable path to delivering housing. This approach allows the City to leverage private capital, deliver housing more quickly, integrate below market rate units into broader development, and reduce reliance on limited public funding sources.
Concentrating development in areas where zoning and infrastructure already support higher density helps preserve the scenic and coastal character of Half Moon Bay while meeting long-term housing obligations.
Permitting Timeline and Delivery Constraints
The length of the permitting and entitlement process remains a major constraint on housing delivery. It can take up to 10 years for a multi-unit housing project to move from concept to completion in Half Moon Bay. At that pace, the City will not meet its obligation to plan for and deliver approximately 1,000 units over the next 13 years. If the City is serious about meeting its housing goals, the entitlement and permitting process must be reduced significantly. A reasonable target is to reduce the entitlement and permitting phase to approximately 10 to 12 months for qualifying housing projects. Shortening timelines does not reduce standards. It 442
increases certainty and improves the likelihood that projects can secure funding and move forward. This has been accomplished in many communities, including Palo Alto.
Project Support and Appropriate Accountability
If the City chooses to proceed with 555 Kelly, it should take a constructive role in helping the project reach financial close. The City should provide what is reasonably necessary for the applicant to secure funding, including timely coordination, clear direction, and predictable decision-making. At the same time, the City should avoid imposing unnecessary requirements that could delay or complicate the project’s ability to compete for funding.
However, support must be paired with appropriate accountability. Given the scale of the public commitment, the City must ensure that the project demonstrates a credible path to funding, that key milestones are clearly defined, that progress is measurable and transparent, and that the City retains the ability to transfer the project to another qualified applicant if those milestones are not met. The current draft lease agreement lacks this level of accountability.
Conclusion
The issue is not whether to build affordable housing. The City has already made that commitment. The issue is how to deliver housing in a way that is competitive, financeable, and achievable. If the project cannot demonstrate a clear path to funding, proceeding without conditions increases the risk of delay, not delivery. If those conditions cannot be met, then the City should be willing to acknowledge that this project, as currently structured, may not be the right vehicle to meet its housing obligations. If however, the applicant can demonstrate a clear path forward with measurable and enforceable milestones, we should lean in.
The City should act accordingly.
443
Law Offices of
GUBB & BARSHAY LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1110 Telephone: (415) 781-6600 San Francisco, California 94104
485.254/707531
April 28, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Denise Bazzano
Burke, Williams & Sorenson, LLP
Interim City Attorney
City of Half Moon Bay
[email protected]
Re: Government Code Section 37380 and Section 37364
Dear Ms. Bazzano,
This firm represents Mercy Housing in its efforts to develop affordable housing on Cityowned property at 535 Kelly and 555 Kelly in the City of Half Moon Bay, California (the “Project”). In response to questions from the City Council and members of the public, we have previously objected to the suggestion that the approval of the long-term ground lease in connection with the Project is subject to California Government Code Section 37380, which requires (among other things) that certain long-term leases of City property must be approved by an ordinance that is subject to voter referendum. We understand the City disagrees with our position and intends to approve the proposed lease (subject, of course, to receipt of the requisite votes from City Council) pursuant to Section 37380. The purpose of this letter is to lodge our formal objection to the City’s determination that approval of the proposed Lease is subject to Section 37380, and to object to the notion that the lease, if approved, will be subject to referendum on account of its having been approved pursuant to Section 37380.
As we have previously discussed, Mercy Housing contends the City is authorized by Government Code Section 37364 to approve the lease in support of affordable housing without regard to Section 37380, and to approve the lease “under whatever terms and conditions the city deems best suited to the provision of such housing,” including for a term of 99 years. See Section 37364(1). In fact, under Section 37364, the City is authorized to convey the subject property to Mercy in fee for nominal consideration, should it determine to do so. In our experience, cities around the State of California have relied on Section 37364 as the statutory authority for approving long-term ground leases for affordable housing.
We respectfully object to the City’s determination that Section 37380 applies to the approval of the proposed lease in connection with the Project, and reserve all rights with respect to any potential future referendum effort.
Very truly yours,
Charles J. Higley
Gubb & Barshay LLP
444
From: Nancy
To: Maggie Rodriguez
Subject: Support for 555 Kelly Senior Farmworker Housing Project Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 1:41:15 PM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi
I urge the City of Half Moon Bay to move forward with the 555 Kelly Senior Farmworker Housing Project.
Housing is desperately needed for low-income seniors.
Thank you
Nancy Krop
Palo Alto, CA
445
446
From: Matthew Chidester
To: Maggie Rodriguez; Denise S. Bazzano
Subject: Fwd: 555 Kelly - pls forward to City Council as public comment Date: Monday, April 27, 2026 7:00:27 AM
Begin forwarded message:
Date: April 27, 2026 at 12:25:00 AM PDT
To: Matthew Chidester <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 555 Kelly - pls forward to City Council as public comment [CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Matt –
I am not a tax attorney, but I can read the plain meaning of text.
The guidance referenced initially is from 2007, so one might ask if it is still relevant. With just a wee bit of digging, I find a 2025 reference to the same language, so I suspect it is still active.
https://www.mnhousing.gov/get/mhfa 1042363
See page 50.
You, and Council, and counsel, should know that I had a discussion about this very issue with a director at Mercy in spring of 2024 IIRC. I raised the issue of occupational targets vs Federal LIHTC funding, and got a very nonanswer. From the language used, the woman I spoke with clearly knew it was a problem, but hoped to see it fly under the radar.
Or, when Federal funding fails, they will go whine to the County and beg for $13.5 mm – which they know right now is that their strategy will be. That is dishonest at best, and legally challengeable at worst. Were I on Council or staff, I would want to be miles away from shenanigans like that. 447
Please forward this to Council, Planning, staff, and make it part of the public record.
Thank you,
Dave Schorr
HMB
From: Matthew Chidester <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2026 3:58 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 555 Kelly - pls forward to City Council as public comment Thanks Dave. I have forwarded to Maggie (City Clerk) and Denise (City Attorney). Maggie will record in the records as a public comment and will forward to the entire Council.
Date: Friday, April 24, 2026 at 8:20 PM
To: Matthew Chidester <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 555 Kelly - pls forward to City Council as public comment [CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please add:
The IRS’ Guide for Completing Form 8823 (page 12-1), issued in January 2007, expanded the category of prohibited practices under the general public use rule to add occupational targeting. The Guide states, “Residential rental units either designated for a single occupational group, or through a preference for an occupational group, also violate the general public use requirements.”
That’s pretty darned clear. This project as proposed is simply not in compliance for purposes of LIHTC funding.
>
448
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 8:09 PM
To: 'Matthew Chidester' <[email protected]>
Subject: 555 Kelly - pls forward to City Council as public comment Pls confirm this has been sent onwards to Council as public comment.
The 555 Kelly plan continues to be fictional and aspirational in nature.
Just last year, construction costs were estimated in the $45-48mm range IIRC. The public squawked, for good reason. Now, to make things magically line up with theoretical funding sources, we see a figure of $41.6 mm. That is horse hockey. I seriously doubt that construction costs have DECREASED since 2024-2025. Show me current construction estimates, in writing, to document decreased costs from prior estimates. Without that, it is irresponsible and dishonest for the City to knowingly sign off on a fictional set of documents. It may even be legally actionable.
Funding sources listed include:
SMCo AHF of $6.5mm to be applied for. Mercy was denied funding in June 2024 by the County, why would it be any different now? This is aspirational, not fact, the money is not in hand.
Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit of $14mm to be applied for in the 2026-2027 fiscal year. Couple of problems here -
This is aspirational, not fact, the money is not in hand.
The LIHTC funding is extremely competitive, funding is far from assured
General Public Use Requirement: LIHTC projects cannot discriminate and must be open to the general public, meaning they cannot restrict occupancy based on membership in a specific social organization or employment by a specific employer. I would assume this stipulation extends to a specific industry/category, such as farmworker. Why not caregivers, or house cleaners, or restaurant workers, who also work very hard, doing important work, and need a place to live? This is arbitrary.
The rules on current location of applicants is also in play here, any location “preferences” (not requirements) must comply with additional sets of rules. If it is only a preference, there is no guarantee this project would serve the population intended and promised.
449
All of this is to say that even proposing using Federal funds for a farmworker housing project can likely be challenged legally.
This is a boondoggle, a windfall for Mercy and it’s chosen contractors. There are better ways to spend tax dollars to house people in need. Stop the train, I wanna get off.
Dave Schorr
Half Moon Bay
450
451
452
453
From: Maggie Rodriguez
Bcc: HMB City Council
Subject: Fwd: Public comment for April 28 council meeting Date: Monday, April 27, 2026 12:52:40 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: >
Date: April 27, 2026 at 12:41:28 PM PDT
To: Maggie Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comment for April 28 council meeting
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] [CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the esteemed City Council Members of Half Moon Bay,
Thank you for this opportunity to write a few words in favor of the building project at 555 Kelly. You have all heard from both sides of this project more times now than many of us can count, and there are always more voices in support of the project than those who oppose it. Change is hard, growth is hard. But that doesn’t mean either is wrong. More than one thing can be true. 555 Kelly is a beautiful building, with fitting architectural designs, and will provide a place to call home to 89 farmworkers who have worked for years in the shadows of Half Moon Bay. It is time to do the right thing for these folks. I urge you to accept that nothing is perfect and see to supporting this housing solution for the community.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lilli Rey
ALAS
President, Board of Directors
454
455
456
DEBBIE RUDDOCK QUESTIONS: (GL= Ground Lease, AH= AHPDA) RESPONSE:
The Preliminary Project Budget (attachment 5 to AH) shows total project costs of $43,950,000 +/- with only $20 million +/- committed. What’s the status of the other $23 million? The Developer will apply for County San Mateo Affordable Housing Funds in May 2026. After securing County funds, the Developer will apply to Low Income Housing Tax Credits in early 2027.
The AH and GL have numerous provisions addressing a construction loan, and then a possible take-out loan, with extensive mortgagee protections and rights.What’s the status of a construction loan (how much/what lenders/any loan commitment “locked in”)? Is $25-28 million for the construction loan? Is that realistic? A bank construction loan of approximately $13 million will be used to pay for construction and then is paid off with the tax credit proceeds after construction is completed.
This loan amount is realisitic and there are a pool of banks willing to provide this construction loan.
What’s the story with the possible take-out loan? The construction loan will be paid off by tax credit equity proceeds.
Will this project likely always have a secured long-term loan and debt service? The current financing plan doesn’t show it, and there is no info what, when, terms, etc.
There is no amortizing mortgage planned. The long term
loans in the financing plan are from the State's Housing and Community Development Dept (HCD) Serna Farmworker
program and San Mateo County Affordable Housing Fund.
HCD requires a minimum annual debt service that is
included in the operating proforma.
Was the City aware that there might be long-term institutional secured debt on its property? The capital stack is largely composed of public “soft” loans (County, and State funds) and LIHTC Equity. These are are structured to support the deep affordability of the
development. These public loans are secured by the
property (or leasehold interest, since the City owns the land), but are not traditonal institutional hard debt.
What is the status of obtaining affordable tax credit allocations and credit investors for the needed balance? What happens if it’s not available? What’s the competition look like in CA? Application for the low income housing tax credit allocation is planned for early 2027. Mercy Housing is working with an expert financing consultant to maximize the
competitiveness of this application. There are at least two application rounds per year so if the initial application is unsuccessful, then a second application can be submitted in 2027.
Which funds are committed and which are in hand of the various funding sources? All sources are committed with the exception of applications to be submitted for County funds and an
allocation of low income housing tax credits. A construction loan commitment will be secured when the LIHTC are
awarded.
Attachment A to AH. Where is the first-year operating budget, where are the cash flow projections, or other operating financials? Although they are conditions precedent to GL effectiveness (AH Section 7.2), why are there no operating or cash flow projections, especially given Mercy’s extensive experience with affordable housing projects?
Please see the Financing Plan that contains a narrative, development sources and uses, and a 15 year operating
proforma.
Does the project pencil out on an annual operating basis? And for how long without rent increases or other financial support?
The projected annual income is sufficient to cover the
annual operating expenses. Mercy Housing is talking to the County Dept of Housing about a County operating subsidy that would cover the operating expenses and allow the
senior farmworker households to pay an very affordable
rent.
What are the anticipated rents, vacancy rates, operating expenses, debt service, capital needs and reserves, etc.? Is there enough head room for long-term well-maintained operations? The rents are based on the levels published by the State and will be affordable to households at 30% and 50% of
Area Median Income per the City's COA and proposed
Regulatory Agreement. The Developer is talking to the
County about a County operating subsidy that would allow the households to pay a lower amount for rent and the
County would cover the operating costs. Please refer to the Financing Plan which includes a 15 year operating
proforma with the Residential Income, vacancy factor,
operating expenses, reserves, and HCD debt service.
GL Section 8.1.3 (a) says the head of household must be a senior, 55+, and a current or retired agricultural worker living in HMB or SMC and selected based on the preference program (GL Section 8.5). Previously the word used was farmworker. How do you define an agricultural worker? Does it include field workers? Nursery workers? People who drive trucks transporting goods used in nurseries? Farm fields? Mechanics? Revisions to GL and AHPDA includes definition of
Agricultural Worker: "Agricultural Employment”means
employed in the cultivation and tillage of the soil; the production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of any
agricultural or horticultural commodities; the raising of livestock, bees, furbearing animals, or poultry; dairying, forestry, and lumbering operations; and any work on a farm as incident to or in conjunction with such farming
operations, including the delivery and preparation of
commodities for market or storage. Agricultural
Employment also includes work done by any person who
works on or off the farm in the processing of any
agricultural commodity until it is shipped for distribution, whether or not such person is encompassed within the
definition specified in subdivision (b) of Section 1140.4 of the Labor Code.
457
What is the definition of retired -- from all working or just agricultural work? Living in HMB or SMC but working in outside areas?
Definitions in GL and AHPDA updated to be aligned with
the Serna Farmworker Grant program. "
" The preferences program
in GL have also been updated to include these definitions.
Contrary to Section 8.1.3(a)l, Section 8.5 of preferences say a “senior current or retired agricultural worker who lives or works in … So current seniors working in HMB, the Coastside, or SMCo, but living in Solano, Gilroy, Fresno, Santa Cruz, etc. qualify?
Yes, This is a live or work preference based on the order detailed in 8.5 of th GL.
Definitions in GL and AHPDA have been updated.
What does “living in” mean currently? How long – a month, a week. “Residing in” is typically used for legal purposes and might be a more appropriate standard.
The terms have been revised to change "living in" to
"residing in". Definitions in GL and AHPDA have been
updated.
Section 8.5 says the tenant qualifications/preferences are subject to federal or state law standards or project funding sources. What are these, how might they differ from the standards in the GL, and will the project possibly not be able to restrict tenants to HMB or SMCo residency? Could the agricultural worker standard be removed at some point in the future?
The "...subject to federal or state law standards or project funding sources" is included to ensure that the property can be in compliance with current laws and requirements that govern the property over time. Currently we are not aware of any differences between the City documents and these laws/requirements. In order for the geographic
Preferences outlined in Section 8.5 of the Ground Lease to be implemented, the City will need to adopt a geographic preference policy separate from the 555 Kelly documents.
The Serna Farmworker funding requires all units (except for the manager's unit) to be occupied by an Agricultural
Worker as it is defined in the AHPDA and Ground Lease.
What is AH Section 11 about? It allows rent increases after 55 years if necessary to satisfy a residual analysis test as determined by Mercy or its investors. The city council should review the residual analysis test as it is assumed Mercy with all of its experience has it on hand.It says: “as determined by prior to property closing.
Why isn’t this item (with more clarification) in the GL? I think we should see this up front.
Section 11 allows for rents to be increased after year 55 only if necessary to be able to demonstrate that certain debt can be paid off. This is called the residual analysis test. This analysis is typically done by the tax credit investor a few months prior to construction start.
How is the rent calculated? Based on income of the qualifying senior or retiree or all of the people residing in a unit.
Income is calculated based on all household members in
addition to the Head of Household
The agreements need to clarify that “subtenants” to Mercy as “Tenant” may not enter into subleases themselves.
Section 17.1.1 of the GL includes the following language:
Each Resident Sublease (or addendum thereto) and the
Resource Center Sublease shall also contain a provision, satisfactory to Landlord, prohibiting each subtenant from sub-subleasing its space.
There are no specified provisions in either the AH or GL outlining what this 2,600 SF space can be used for, limits on occupancy/visitors, night events, parking issues, community services scope (i.e. political events, fund raisers, non-HMB resident users, weddings and parties, legislative lobbying, sub leases, and ALAS staffing levels providing non-resident services, etc.).
These documents have been updated to incorporate a
process in which the City, Developer and Subtenant will work together on these issues.
AH Section 7.2 (n) says a proposed program for community-servicing space “will be submitted prior to the GL effective date for the “Director’s reasonable approval”. I think the City Council and public should know before the AH and GL documents proceed. Mercy committed with the adoption of the ENA amended 01/2025 to provide a draft sublease within 45 days of council adoption in January 2025, as well as a draft sublease for any other service providers. Provide it as required.
The program of the community serving space are more
fully described in the Preliminary Service Plan, and draft Letter of Intent between Mercy and ALAS.
The AH (Section 7.2(n) says the community-serving space can be used by the general public for “at least” 16 weekday hours per week”, but GL Section 17.2 says “up to” 16 hours per week weekdays”. Which one is it? Section 17.2 of the GL and section 7.2(n) of the AHPDA
were revised to specify that the City is authorized to use the Community Serving space for no less than 16 hours per Work Week. That section also specifies that Prior to
occupancy, Developer and City Manager shall collaborate in good faith to determine appropriate activities and
scheduling to ensure compatability between City's, Mercy Housing and ALAS's proposed use of the space.
Both the AH and GL give the “Director” final approval and decision-making authority over extensive matters, for example, construction issues, financing terms, project budgets, management agreements, mortgage/loan issues, building alterations, insurance requirements, agreement modifications). This is particularly relevant for all the critical City approvals and document reviews before the GL closing and its effectiveness (See AH Section
7.3). The AH says the “Director” is the Community Development Director (CDD).
The reference to the Community Development Director has been removed and replaced in various provisions of the
agreements with the City Manager.
This authority and scope of decision making may be beyond the skill set/job description of the CDD, with the exception of some authorizations relating to construction and permitting issues, and needs to be more limited allowing the City Council to review/approve designated matters in consultation with the City Attorney, special counsel, and the CM.
The reference to the Community Development Director has been removed and replaced in various provisions of the
agreements with the City Manager.
The insurance, mortgagee protection terms, post-foreclosure provisions and other loan related terms are very extensive and complex and should be reviewed carefully before any GL executions by the City, preferably by special real estate counsel. For example, the insurance policies discuss no acceptable deductible amounts, specific exclusions, riders and endorsements, increased coverages and coverage amounts over the 99-year term, and other potential insurance needs such as earthquake and Employer Relations.
From a mortgage protection standpoint, there are many issues to consider such as (a) the City’s limited (or no control) over foreclosure transferees and their role in ongoing project management; (b) excess insurance coverage to address construction replacement obligations by mortgagees and first and last 5-year replacement provisions if insurance is unavailable; (c) mortgagee required consents to any Government Code Section 37380 changes after periodic lease reviews; (d) mortgagee vs. City loss payee provisions; (e) City approval rights over non-tenant subleases, approval of all mortgage agreements, certain corporate management /ownership changes in Mercy tenancy, etc.
We have included mortgagee protection provisions that are consistent with industry standards and those typically
included in affordable housing documents. Future lenders will review the documents to confirm that these provisions are included and that they are acceptable to the lender.
Any future foreclosure proceeding would be handled
pursuant to applicable statutes.
Agricultural Worker means an individual who derives, or prior to retirement or disability derived, a substantial portion of his/her income from Agricultural Employment.
Section 9.2 (B) does require Employers Liability Insurance in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for all damages arising from each accident or occupational disease.
458
I’ve never heard of first 5-year replacement provision. I understand last 5-year. First 5-year is unacceptable. The Ground Lease indicates that Mercy does not have to restore damage to the Project in the last 5 years of the lease term. There does not seem to be any comparable
language applicable to the first 5 years of the term.
Mercy and City need to consider City review of mortgage loan documents or loan structures. For example, multiple secured loans, excess debt, non-institutional lenders. The City’s obligation to take all “actions and fully cooperate” with Mercy’s right to grant mortgages assuming no cost to City, but what about other City interests, and bundling/cross collateralization of property, etc.
Mercy must provide City with evidence of funding
commitments that are acceptable to City as a condition
precedent to ground leasing the property from City.
Financing that Mercy obtains for the Project will not
encumber the City's fee interest in the property. Instead, Mercy may only encumber its leasehold interest and its
interest in the improvements on the land.
What are the “Covenant” documents in GL Section 16.9(B) that can be recorded against the City’s fee interest and be binding on the City for 99 years? Please identify these and provide.
These covenants are affordability covenants required of each financing source for the Project. These are similiar to the City's Regulatory Agreement and each evidence the
obligation to operate the Project as an affordable housing project.
Section 10.9(b) of the AH addresses the requirement for paying prevailing wages on the project if state law requires it. Irrespective of the law, Will Mercy agree that prevailing wages will be paid regardless of any state, federal, or funding source requirement? Could Mercy enter into a project labor agreement? The AHPDA has been updated to require payment of
prevailing wages for construction. The HCD Serna program also requires payment of prevailing wages. A Project Labor Agreement is not required.
AH Section 17.16 provides that the Agreement terminates upon TOC issuance except for indemnification obligations and other provisions that are specifically stated to survive termination. However, several AH sections just say they continue throughout the GL term (e.g. Section 10.5(d), or they contain rights, obligations, or provisions that clearly apply during the entire lease term, but without any end date. What controls?
Section 17. 15 of the AHPDA has been revised to address termination of the AHPDA in the following manner:This
Agreement shall automatically terminate upon recordation of the Memorandum of Ground Lease, which is the date
upon which the Ground Lease commences. Such
termination shall not terminate any indemnification
obligations set forth in this Agreement, whether or not their survival is expressly stated, or any other provisions in this Agreement which are expressly stated in this
Agreement to survive termination of this Agreement
Both the AH and GL have terms and conditions that overlap or address virtually the same issues but have slightly different (or sometime inconsistent) language. IF the AH basically terminates at TOC, why does it contain extensive post-TOC terms and conditions (i.e. insurance, affordability standards, loss payee status, mortgage issues). See for example under AH Section 10.5(C) and GL Section 9.3 the City is the loss payee under a builder’s risk insurance loss but under the mortgage Section 13.4 it says the lender is the loss payee. What controls? The AHPDA and GL will run sequentially. The AHPDA
controls initially and once all conditions precedent set out in the AHPDA are met by Mercy, the GL will become
effective and control during the term of the GL. The AHPDA applies during the predevelopment period, while the GL
applies post-construction and during operation of the
Project. These periods of time present different risks and as a result, the provisions are not identical, but designed to protect against the specific risks during each period of activity. The City is identified as the Loss Payee for certain policies (Builder's Risk and Property, Business Interruption and Boiler and Machinery). However, section 13.4 would
control and require that any insurance proceeds payable from any policy of insurance (other than liability insurance) be paid and applied to each mortgagee and that each
policy name the Mortgagee as an additional insured or loss payee, as appropriate, if required by such Mortgagees.
These provisions can be harmonized in that the City would be identified as the Loss Payee unless, there is a
Mortgagee and that Mortgagee desires to be identified as the loss payee.
Typos/drops – GL Section 16.9 (C)(1) ends with just “Ground”. GL Section 16.9 (C)(4) should not be “Agreement” but rather “Ground Lease”. GL9.2(C) the “Work” is undefined and clear. There are several other instances.
Revisions to GL section 16.9(C)(1) and 16.9 (C)(4) were made. "Work" is defined.
It appears Mercy Housing is operating under the assumption that this project is covered solely by the requirements of Government Code Section 37364, relating to an agency’s authorities regarding BMR projects and that Government Code Section 37380 relating to public agency lease, periodic review, referendum, and bidding terms does not apply.As a reminder, Section 37380 subsection (B)(1) requires that there be periodic review by the City of the then “current market conditions” of any ground lease over 55 years. The current draft GL contains no specified periodic review time periods, review provisions, and lease sections.
Subsection (B)(2) subjects any ordinance approving a GL over 55 years to a referendum. If 37380 applies, the conditions precedent in Section 7.2 of the AH should include a condition that says “the GL is not effective if its approval is subject to any pending referendum (City of citizen-initiated) or other legal challenge until and unless such referendum or legal challenge is conclusively resolved such that the GL is or can be legally approved and effective”.
Based on statutory interpretation maxims, any specific
requirements of other laws that are inconsistent or conflict with section 37364 would not apply. This would mean that the term limits and bidding requirements would not apply but other provisions in section 37380 that do not conflict with section 37364 may still be applied.
A provision(s) needs to be added to the AH and GL describing how Mercy as Tenant will respond to HSA/ICE enforcement on the property both inside and outside the facilities. The provision(s) should expressly protect the City, its staff, and councilmembers from any legal and cost exposure associated with enforcement of federal immigration laws, regulations, and administrative directives. A blanket provision pledging to uphold “federal law” is necessary but insufficient, thus the request for specific language.
This provision has been added to the AHPDA (17.15) and GL (section 22.28) as requested.
459
Subsection (b) (4) of 37380 requires competitive bidding for any GL over 55 years. When the City issued its RFQ for this proposed affordable housing project where all bidders are advised (in writing or orally) that the City would consider a 99 year GL, rent at $1 per year with no increases, a 2600 SF community service center at $0 rent available for non-resident “community” events, and other such terms so that all bidders understood the “deal” when they decided to bid or not?
See response to question 35 with regard to Government
Code section 37380. When the City issued the RFQ on
February 15, 2022, the RFQ contained the City's objectives for the Property and the parking lot at the Ted Adcock
Community center. The RFQ indicated that the City desired to facilitate affordable housing at the project location site and was "willing to consider a range of affordable housing types, target populations, and project configurations." The RFQ also indicates that maximizing the number of
affordable housing units is a City priority. In other words, the RFQ provided some of the objectives of the project but left it to developers submitting the proposals to provide the vision for the project.
The agreement says Mercy will not accept federal Section 8 housing choice vouchers or other federal funds as a source of funding, apparently for the 99-year term of the lease. Why not? While we cannot discriminate against individuals who have Section 8 vouchers and apply for a unit, we are currently not planning to pursue federal funds.
See response to question 33.
The City's Insurance Representative are the experts
regarding insurance coverages and maximums for property and commercial coverage. The insurance requirements
were reviewed by the City's Insurance Representative and found to be sufficient.
please identify all of the proposed encumbrances/covenants to City’s fee title.
What is the purpose of the AH in contrast to the Ground Lease (GL)? Since it terminates at TOC, why does it contain anything other than escrow instructions? Seems like there is a lot of needless overlap with GL.
In the insurance discussion, similar to the discussion of GL, there is no mention of earthquake insurance, employer insurance (re harassment and such), deductibles, wildfire exclusions, etc. Why not? Re: insurance: 99 years is a long time to not require review of insurance and rates. Shouldn’t there be language requiring periodic review?
Section 9.6 (C) authorizes the "City Manager to increase, reduce or otherwise modify Tenant's insurance requirements in case it is determined that such increase, reduction or modification is warranted by changes in construction costs, inflationary changs after the Effective Date, or otherwise, and is consistent with commercial practices." Additionally, the proposed ordinance would include a requirement for the City Manager to conduct a periodic review of the Ground Lease terms.
What happens if there is severe damage to the building and it is not feasible technically or financially to repair or rebuild it?
Section 13.1.1. states that in case of damage to or destruction of the Property or the Improvement by fire or other cause, Tenant , if and to the extent insurance proceeds are available shall restore the damaged property to the condition prior to the damage or destruction. However, pursuant to section 13.1.3, if insurance proceeds are insufficient to restore the property or improvements, then subject to the rights of the Mortgagees, either Tenant or Landlord shall have the right to terminate the Ground Lease.
Tenant's restoration obligations and procedures for restoration ar in sections 13.2 and 13.3.
What if the county can’t provide you any or insufficient rent subsidies? We have provided the County with an estimate of the funds required for 15 years of operating subsidy and the County has confirmed it is within their budget.
Why is there mention of 55 years in the AH? The term of the GL and the affordability period is 99 years.
However, in the Reguatory Agreement the affordability
requirement runs for 55 years because, in order to meet the "true debt" text administered by lenders, Mercy needs the flexibility to increase the level of affordabiltiy after year 55 if necessary in order to obtain financing for the project. The Project would remain affordable but the level of affordabiltiy may be increase if necessary.
The agreement requires the signing of covenants on the City’s fee interest in favor of HCD. Why would the City allow this language and for this to happen?
HCD requires that a regulatory agreement or a covenant be recorded against the proprty to evidence that this is an affordable project. This requirement is imposed by HCD on every project to which it provides funds. This is similiar to City's regulatory agreement that will be recorded on title. Government Code section 37364(d) also requires that "Dwelling units produced for persons and families of low or moderate income under this section shall be restricted by regulatory agreement to remain continually affordable to those persons and families for the longest feasible time, but not less than 30 years, pursuant to a method prescribed by the city." Where is the periodic review of the operating budget The operating budget will be provided in the annual report that Developer will submit to City.
Regulatory agreement: why does it need to be recorded as an encumbrance to the City’s fee title? Recording this document as an encumbrance on title to the City's fee interest ensures that the covenant runs with the land and causes the project to be an affordable housing project for the duration of the covenant. The recording of the covenant gives notices of the affordable obligations to the world.
These would include any regulatory agreements required by each funding source for the Project.
What is the proposed term of the affordability restrictions: 55 years or for 99 years? 99 years, but at 55 years the level of affordability may be increased, as described above.
Schedule of performance: where is removal of the existing structures on the property? The demolition of the existing structures would occur during the Construction Period.
p. 31 Prior Agreements/Amendments. How can the AH be the entire agreement between the City and Mercy when it expires at TOC? The GL would be attached, but does the GL expire with the AH at TOC? As described above, the AHPDA and the GL run sequentially.
First the AHPDA controls and then the GL.
Which of the set asides will Mercy select to qualify for LIHTC in its application to the CTCAC? Non-profit? Rural? Senior? Farmworker?
Rural set aside.
The CTCAC requires among other items a full market study prepared or updated within 180 days of the application filing deadline by an independent third party having no identity of interest with the development partners or any other member of the development team. Please provide a copy to the city before consideration of the AH.
Mercy Housing is providing to the City Manager the market study that was commissioned last year
460
PAUL NAGENGAST QUESTIONS:(GL= Ground Lease, AH= AHPDA) RESPONSE:
Does the meeting tonight (3/18/2026) and previous meetings ‘count’ toward a maximum meeting amount the City Council can have regarding Project or in tonights case the agreement approvals? This is similar to the Governors’ Office interjecting during the Planning Commission deliberations meetings regarding 555 Kelly Ave (Max of 4). PC was being accused of delaying approval and cannot have more than a certain number of meetings for approval.
The five hearing meeting requirement in Government Code section 65905.5 applies to housing development projects prior to entitlements and not to the consideration of a real estate transaction or other policy decision. We are not limited to a certain number of meetings to decide on this proposed action.
Can you explain the relationship between the ENA, AHPDA and GL and any other agreements necessary? The ENA is an agreement between the City and Mercy that shows that we're negotiating in good-faith towards a common purpose.
It does not bind the City to approving the lease but it helps to ensure resources aren't wasted on a process that isn't agreed to by both parties, and Mercy can use the ENA as evidence to funders of their ongoing work towards this project. The ENA would become unnecessary and expire upon the execution of the AHPDA. The AHPDA controls the relationship between the City and Mercy during the pre-development period and establishes conditions precedent that must be met by Mercy in order for Mercy to be allowed to enter into a long-term Lease for the property with the City. The AHPDA would expire upon the recording of the Memorandum of the Ground Lease. The GL regulates the property once improvements are completed until the end of the term and relationship between the City and Mercy as it relates to the project.
Would the approval by City Council of any of these agreements ENA, AHPDA, GL and any future agreement be considered a legislative action subject to petitioning for a citizen voting ballot referendum? The approval of the GL and AHPDA would likely be considered a legislative action because the approval of the GL and AHPDA involve, for the first time, a policy determination by the Council to allow construction and development of affordable housing on the City’s property. Legislative actions are generally subject to referenda.
Can you highlight the sections of the Agreements the City Council should focus on as the landlord of the property typical of a landlord and tenant relationship? I wish the Agenda Report had provided to the community and City Council some guidance of the sections of the agreements that providing protections for the City as the landlord.
The Staff Report will include an explanation of the provisions in the GL that provide protections to the City as the landlord.
Did Mercy provide draft copies of both agreements to City Attorney or City? Yes. They were based on agreements between Mercy and the County on a recent similar project in North Fair Oaks. Who reviewed the agreements on behalf of the City? Both the previous and current city attorneys, PLAN JPA, the City Manager, Community Development Director, and Administrative Services Director/Risk Manager.
Do you have tracked changes to the agreements and by whom (City and Mercy)? For example were the changes provided by:a. City Council AdHoc Committee? B. City staff? C. City Attorney or Shute or Burke or both? D. Mercy responses to City requested changes?
The presentation on March 18, 2026 included slides that summarized the more significant changes between the original version of the GL and AHPDA provided by Mercy and the version of the agreements presented to the Council on March 18, 2026 and included in the agenda package. The agenda package for April 28, 2026 will include redlined changes to show the revisions between March 18, 2026 and April 28, 2026.
Government Code section 37364 v. 3780 (Various) Based on statutory interpretation maxims, any specific requirements of other laws that are inconsistent or conflict with section 37364 would not apply. This would mean that the term limits and bidding requirements would not apply but other provisions in section 37380 that do not conflict with section 37364 may still be applied.
On Attachments 3 of the GL and 5 of the AHPDA the Preliminary Project Budget indicates approximately $20M funding secured. What is the status of the $23M yet to be secured? And is the ability to secure funding a one-time request or are there multiple budget years to request for funding if initial request for funding is not successful?
There are two remaining sources to be secured. The Developer will apply for San Mateo County Affordable Housing Funds in May 2026. After securing those funds, the Developer will apply for an allocation of low income housing tax credits in early 2027. The County application is once a year. The tax credit application is 2-3 times a year. What exactly does ‘secured’ funding mean? Does secured funding come with conditions or timeline for Project approval? If conditions are part of any funding, are they reflected in the Preliminary Financing Plan, and can you provide those conditions?
"Secured" means that the funding source has made an award and commitment to provide the funding to the 555 Kelly project. The key conditions include: provide affordable rents to low income senior farmworker households; construct to high quality standards and pay prevailing wage; fund reserves to allow the property to have funds for future replacement needs. There are other detailed conditions that are consistent with the conditions on the City AHDPA and Ground Lease.
Can Mercy provide a more detailed Preliminary Financing Budget Plan? From my experience with Development Agreements, Subdivision and Builder Agreements there will be necessary construction loans, take out loans and/or debt service loans to be shown in the financing plan with associated interest to be paid.
The Developer has prepared an updated Financing Plan.
461
Is there a Project Operating Budget available now? In Section 6.3 AHPDA it is mentioned Mercy to provide a First Year Operating Budget. I would request a 5-year operating budget to indicate costs and revenue. In addition, in an operating budget, I was trying to determine how annual costs will be determined and detailed.
For example, during the Project approval reviews, I believe this Project indicated it was in an earthquake liquefaction zone which as a landlord, I would want the City protected by requiring adequate earthquake insurance. In addition, subsequent to the Project approval, updated Fire Hazard maps became available and Fire Insurance may affect annual Project costs. Furthermore, I heard at March 18 CC meeting, Mercy indicated it may be necessary for rent subsidies to be provided in the future from an unknown source at this time. I would want an operating budget to indicate when and how rent subsidies would be necessary if revenue was insufficient for an operating year. I am requesting a 5-year operating budget.
The Developer has prepared a Financing Plan that includes a 15 year operating proforma. The operating budget includes
insurance premium for coverage required by the City, State and tax credit investor.
Definitions: a. Senior
b. Agricultural Worker
c. Farmworker
d. Living in
e. Lives in
f. For c. and d. above the word Resides as defined would be better word in legal document in place of ‘Living in’ or Lives in g. Spouse
h. Head of Household
i. Retired
j. Resident
k. Work week
l. Weekend
Definitions in the GL and AHPDA have been updated to add definition of Agricultural Employment and Agricultural Worker as well as Head of Household, Sublease, Work and Work Week, among others. "Living in" was replaced with "Resides in".
The Agreements mention tenants are subject to Fed, State or other requirements based on funding sources.
Are there known funding sources that would not restrict tenants at 555 Kelly to being Half Moon Bay or San Mateo County residents, the period of time a tenant is a HMB/SMC resident, an agricultural worker, farmworker, senior or any other type of tenant than what is being promoted as a Retired or Senior City of Half Moon Bay Farmworker? Are Agreements language sufficient for future funding sources that may not be known at this time but necessary sometime in 55-, 65-or 99-year period? The "...subject to federal or state law standards or project funding sources" is included to ensure that the property can be in compliance with current laws and requirements that govern the property over time. Currently we are not aware of any
differences between the City documents and these
laws/requirements. In order for the geographic Preferences outlined in Section 8.5 of the Ground Lease to be implemented, the City will need to adopt a geographic preference policy separate from the 555 Kelly documents. The Serna Farmworker funding requires all units (except for the manager's unit) to be occupied by an Agricultural Worker as it is defined in the AHPDA and Ground Lease.
Going back to my earlier question regarding an operating budget with detailed cost breakdowns, is the City Attorney comfortable or clearly understand the very very complex sections of the various insurance, mortgage and loans Section or Articles? It would be beneficial to explain to the City Council and community in very simple language what does happen in the event of a fire, flood, earthquake or other catastrophic coverages and we as the City and owner of the property know the consequences good or bad. I am trying to understand as simple as possible with the necessary legal language in the Agreements for a 99 year lease, how are the agreements protecting or providing a course of action for the City, good or bad, as owner of the land, to avoid or how we navigate possible bankruptcies, foreclosure transfers or other possible tenant courses of action from unfortunate tenant circumstances.
As indicated at the meeting on March 18th, the City Attorney's Office defers to the City's Insurance Representative as they are the experts regarding insurance coverages and maximums for property and commercial coverage. The insurance requirements were reviewed by the City's Insurance Representative and found to be sufficient. There will be a discussion in the Staff Report for April 28, 2026 regarding the various provisions in the GL that provide protections to the City as the Landlord.
The Ground Lease in Article 17 Subleasing discusses in 17.1 subleases from Mercy to residents are defined as Resident Leases. Do the Agreements provide which Sections or Articles in Agreements forbid or make illegal or not allow under penalty of resident removal any further subleasing by Resident Leasor of a residential unit or the Community Serving Space. It has been very clear by community members to not allow subleasing of units by the tenants of a unit. Since Mercy is the tenant of a building on City land, and their ability to rent units to residents is termed Subleasing, the Agreements need to be clear that no further 2nd or other subleases by the tenants of a Residential Lease or the Community Resource Center Lease can occur.
Section 17.1.1 of the GL was revised to include specific language to require that the Resident Sublease and Resource Center Sublease include a provision, satisfactory to the City, that prohibits each subtenant from sub-subleasing its space.
The Agreements discuss Community Serving Space in Section 7.2 of AHPDA of City use for up to 16 hours per week on weekdays, and shall include at least 16 weekday hours per week as detailed in 17.2 of the GL. Those are two (2) different periods of time of 16 hours or greater than 16 hours. I am trying to understand if these sections in the Agreements are similar to an agreement between the Half Moon Bay Library and the City. What type of use would be available for the City during the week up to 16 hours? I am trying to decide how 16 hours was decided to be the number of hours available for City use. It is also necessary to define weekday and week since many Fridays are now considered weekend days and not week days.
Section 17.2 of the GL and section 7.2(n) of the AHPDA were revised to specify that the City is authorized to use the Community Serving space for no less than 16 hours per Work Week. That section also specifies that Prior to occupancy, Developer and City Manager shall collaborate in good faith to determine appropriate activities and scheduling to ensure compatability between City's, Mercy Housing and ALAS's
proposed use of the space.
Is there a Sublease Agreement available between Mercy (tenant) and ALAS for use of the Community Serving Space for the City to review now to determine if there should be parking considerations specifically stated in the Agreements for the types of uses at the Community Serving Space. I understand ALAS will be providing services to the residential units of the building, but ALAS has also stated publicly they will be providing additional services to the needs of the community.
The Developer has provided a draft Letter of Intent (LOI) which outlines key terms for the Sub Lease.
As the landlord, the City should know and coordinate potential Uses by ALAS other than serving the residents of 555 Kelly and times of day during the weekday or weekend. For example, will there be weddings and receptions on weekends or weekdays? Will there be County wide informative evening or weekend meetings, seminars or other meetings? Will there be large scale use of kitchen and on-site eating of meals during the week or weekends to include others than residents of the Project? Will there be parking needs required due to use of the Community Serving Space differing from the residential use? The Developer has provided a draft Letter of Intent (LOI) which outlines key terms for the Sub Lease and a draft Residental Service Plan. These documents have been updated to
incorporate a process in which the City, Developer and Subtenant will work together on the uses and schedule.
As landlord of the Property, and trying to structure a 99-year lease agreement, I believe the Agreements should address how to ensure the safe use of the Community Serving Space for participants, the surrounding neighborhood, community and the ingress and egress of Community Serving Space events by vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians on the roadways of Half Moon Bay.
The City, Developer and Subtenant will work together on this. the City is currently engaged in several studies to make traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements to the area
surrounding the development.
462
I could not find (if detailed in Agreements, please provide the applicable Sections or Articles), in the Agreements any discussion of additional vehicles allowed to be parked by co-residents or non-residents as part of each residential unit parking allotment. Due to lack of any parking analysis as indicated in 10. above for the Community Serving Space, the Agreements should address the number of vehicles each unit can park on site or in immediate parking area near Shoreline Station and Ted Adcock Community Center (immediate area) in accordance with the parking requirements of 555 Kelly. Any number of vehicles greater than each unit allotted should find available parking outside of the aforementioned immediate area.
The Community Resource Center has two purposes: To provide services to the 555 Kelly senior farmworker households and to provide a multi purpose space that can be used for community activities and programs 16 hrs per Work Week. The latter will be programmed by the City. The City, Developer and Subtenant will coordinate on uses and schedule per the AHPDA and Ground Lease. The service providers for residents will park at the ALAS parking lot at their Purissima location or on the street. The multi purpose space uses will be determined by the City and can park on the street.
The residents will participate in a lottery for the spaces on-site, and afterhours parking permits for surrounding parking lots. The Rules and Regs can provide education on where vehicles can and cannot be parked, similar to what the County did at Stone Pine Cove.
The Agenda Report did provide some information regarding proposed or existing engineering studies to study possible improvements to aid in the ability to safely walk or ride bicycles from the Project to the beach westerly along Kelly Avenue or access the Safeway shopping center northerly from Kelly Avenue along Highway 1 to the entrance at Highway 92. But I believe that there are safety concerns to be addressed now for any proposed use of City infrastructure for pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the Project to the beach or the major shopping center. Mercy and the community needs to remember there was a recent reminder of a bicycle fatality at Kelly Avenue near the entrance to the Ted Adcock Community Center (TACC) with the display of a ghost bike (white painted bicycle) near the TACC entrance. If the Agreements would specifically address these safety concerns for pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the Project through the intersection of Highway 1 and Kelly Avenue to the beach and shopping center, Mercy would need to agree to complete safety improvements prior to designated milestones such as Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. If Mercy would make these improvements, applicable Sections or Articles of the agreements would need to be modified to include the timing of completion (milestones) of the construction of these improvements.
The parking lot improvements and new driveway access are covered by the State infrastructurte grant. The City is leading other efforts to improve traffic, safety, and circulation in the broader area, including around Cunha and downtown, Kelly improvements from Main to the beach and 1 intersection.
Caltrans is doing some improvements as part of the highway 1 shopp project including improvements at the iKelly/1 intersection and bike lanes along 1.
The Agreements should be consistent with the designation of a Director to make decisions on behalf of the City. The AHPDA indicates the Director is the Community Development Director. I believe there are decisions that should be made by the City Council, and at minimum should be made by someone under direct control of the City Council, such as the City Manager. The Director should be the City Manager and when needed the City Manager should recommend decisions to be made by the City Council.
The reference to the Community Development Director has been removed and replaced in various provisions of the agreements with the City Manager.
Upon review, there appears to be a discrepancy between the date the RFQ was published on the City’s webpage (February 15, 2022) and the date cited in the agreement (February 25, 2022). This inconsistency raises questions about the timeline and the integrity of the procurement process. Clarification is requested as to why these dates differ, and whether this affects the validity or enforceability of the agreement It was February 15, 2022 as per the webpage and actual RFQ document. This typographical error has been corrected in the GL and AHPDA
The RFQ document originally stated that the maximum building height would be up to four stories. However, the current project scope reflects a five-story building. This change represents a substantial modification from what was initially advertised, potentially altering the nature and impact of the development as advertised. I would like to know how this material change was properly disclosed to the public and whether it should have triggered further review or adjustment to the City’s procurement process for this project.
The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) contained the City's objectives for the Property and the parking lot at the Ted Adcock Community center. The objectives explicity stated that the City would consider a range of affordable housing types and project configurations and that the City's priority was maximizing the number of affordable housing units. It included development parameters, instructions governing submittals and the
requirements for eligible consideration and general evaluation criteria. The RFQ provided certain development standards but did not mandate any height requirements and in fact notes that the development standards applied to the housing project would depend on the development approach. The purpose of an RFQ is not to advertise a project, rather it is used to vet potential vendors or developers. The Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the developer was voted on by City Council during a public meeting and after a public hearing. The Coastal Development Permit (CDP) that was issued for the project mandates the height maximums for the project. The CDP was also reviewed in a public Planning Commission meeting with a public hearing and was approved by a vote of the Planning Commission. There is no question of improper public disclosure about the size and scope of the project.
Information posted on the City’s webpage states: “The City received one submittal from a two-agency team comprised of Mercy Housing and Ayudando Latinos A Soñar (ALAS).” However, the agreement does not include ALAS as a joint developer in its recitals, nor does it state ALAS as a developer in the agreement itself. Why is ALAS omitted from the recitals and should the recitals clarify why it is appropriate for the City to have selected Mercy Housing, given that their response (May 23, 2022) to the RFQ was based on a four-story proposal but not the current five-story project? What is the rationale as to the City determined Mercy Housing as the best entity to build a five-story building and the reasons the City believed no other entity could have provided a superior project for a five-story building? ALAS was not proposed as the housing developer and therefore the GL and the AHPDA are with Mercy. ALAS will be the operator of the community serving space. See response to question 27 regarding development standards in the RFQ. The City selected Mercy based on the submitted proposal and their qualifications as a developer.
Under state and local procurement laws, material changes to project scope—such as an increase in building height—may require the City to re-advertise the request for proposals. This ensures that all interested parties have a fair opportunity to full and open competition. I respectfully request a legal review to determine whether the City’s actions were compliant with relevant statutes and regulations, and whether the failure to re-advertise constitutes a procedural violation.
The RFQ and proposal process was a competitive process which has been completed and the parties have entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. There are no indications that the process was contrary to any applicable legal requirements.
These discrepancies and changes raise concerns about whether the City is acting in violation of procurement regulations or favoring one entity over others. Ensuring a fair and open process is critical to maintaining public trust and upholding the principles of competitive bidding.
See response to question 29.
463
Given that the RFQ initially specified as a maximum building height of four stories, but the current project scope now includes a five-story building, and considering the financial plan relies on ARPA funding, will the use of federal funds comply with the requirements set forth in 2 C.F.R. Part 200? Furthermore, does this substantial change in building height from what was originally advertised necessitate a new round of competitive bidding to ensure fairness and adherence to procurement regulations? Given that several years have passed since the COVID-19 pandemic, I request clarification as to whether the use of ARPA funds is appropriate as part of the current project financing plan and whether it is allowable as “certain affordable housing” Coronavirus State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: 2022 Overview of the Final Rule . Would the project’s use of these funds be compliant with federal requirements, and does it meet the intended purposes outlined by ARPA and SLFRF? Please provide a detailed explanation regarding the eligibility and compliance of using ARPA funds at this stage in the project.
The AHPDA defines the “Property” as City‑owned real property located at 535 and 555 Kelly Avenue, totaling approximately 16,395 square feet, while the Ground Lease definition of the “Property” is limited to 555 Kelly Avenue only.
Both documents define “Adjusted AMI,” but the AHPDA allows for post‑Year‑55 rent adjustments subject to City approval, while the Ground Lease frames affordability as a continuing covenant tied to HUD and TCAC requirements. Could this create ambiguity regarding whether future rent increases contemplated by the AHPDA are automatically permitted under the Ground Lease, or whether they would require amendment or approval under the Regulatory Agreement? Additionally, could rent‑setting errors in the future create enforcement or compliance risk for the City?
Although the technical definition of Hazardous Materials is very similar in both documents, the allocation of responsibility is distributed across multiple provisions. Given that environmental claims can represent significant long‑term financial exposure in ground lease arrangements, I respectfully ask whether Mercy Housing or its operator could later assert that the City retained responsibility for Hazardous Materials or waste conditions that existed prior to property closing.
Both the AHPDA and the Ground Lease reference the Regulatory Agreement as the long‑term enforcement mechanism for affordability and income restrictions. Is there an established hierarchy among these three documents for purposes of interpretation and enforcement? In a dispute scenario, could the Developer or operator argue that conflicting obligations exist among the three instruments? Which obligations—particularly indemnities, reimbursement duties, and reporting requirements—survive issuance of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO), early termination, or a potential foreclosure scenario. Clear understanding of post‑TCO responsibility is important to assessing long‑term public risk.
To what extent was the Commission—and the public—relying on an interpretation [of "major transit stop" that may not align with the intent of State law? What was the legal basis for the interpretation? Was this interpretation formally vetted or endorsed by HCD? Does the City believe it remains consistent with State law today?
Are we holding this project to same standard of livability and accesss that we would expect for other residents?
Do MTC or ABAG identify Half Moon Bay as having a major transit stop or transit-rich corridor? If not, how does the City reconcile its project-specific interpretation with regional transportation planning? I have asked subsequent to March 18, 2026 meeting and City Council has asked when extending Exclusive Negotiations Agreement a detailed 5- year operating budget but it seems only narratives are provided for April 28 meeting.
See response to questions 27 and 29.
These funds were provided to the City for this project via a grant from the County, and met the terms of the use of ARPA. This was confirmed through an audit.
Updated in the GL.
Every year, HUD and TCAC publish the rents that can be charged for extremely low income and low income households. The Developer is required by the low income housing tax credit program and the State to use these rents. The Developer's property management, asset management and compliance departments comply with these published rents.
Section 5.2 of the AHPDA and 6.3 of the GL specify that Mercy acknowledges and agrees that Tenant is leasing the Property "as is" with no warranties, express or implied. Additionally, section 5.5 of the AHPDA provides that, as of the property closing, the City has no oblication to undertake any action to address or respond to Hazardous Materials present on the Property regardless of when the Hazardous Materials first occured or when they were discovered.
The AHPDA and the Ground Lease run sequentially. Initially, the AHPDA is the controlling document. The AHPDA controls the relationship between the City and Mercy during the pre-development period and establishes conditions precedent that must be met by Mercy in order for Mercy to be allowed to enter into a long-term Lease for the property with the City. Once the Memorandum of Ground Lease is recorded, then the AHPDA terminates and the Ground Lease becomes effective. The Regulatory Agreement is a document that is recorded against the property, and causes the affordability covenants to encumber the Project. Because the documents are for different purposes and will apply for different periods of time, a hierarchy among the three documents would not be appropriate.
For the GL, all of the terms survive issuance of TCO except the requirement for Builders Risk coverage which expires upon issuance of a TCO. Section 16. 9(C)(4) (preparation of new lease by Mortgagee in the case of termination due to bankruptcy or foreclosure or otherwise), section 6.3 (general release) and section 5.9 (indemnification) survive termination. For the AHPDA, the agrement automatically terminates upon the recordation of the Memorandum of Ground Lease. The indemnity requirements, section 10.9 (b)(iii) (prevailing wage requirement), section 10.12 (satisfying liens on the Property) survive termination.
The explanation of the interpretation of the term "major transit stop" was included in the Staff report dated June 26, 2024, as it was one of the basis for the Moore appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Coastal Development Permit. The Council ultimately denied the appeals and upheld the determination of the Planning Commission. HCD did not issue any written opinion on the specific interpretation of "major transit stop" as it related to the 555 Kelly project however, HCD has issued two Letters of Support and Technical Assistance for the 555 Kelly Avenue Project (Dated May 10, 2024 and April 9, 2026). The CDP was approved based on the applicable law and was found to be consistent with local and State law at the time it was approved. The Planning Commission and the City Council determined that as conditioned, the development project was consistent with the Coastal Act, the Local Coastal Program (including Local Coastal Land Use Plan policies), State Density Bonus Law, the Half Moon Bay General Plan, and the zoning code.
See response to Question 38.
See response to Question 38.
There is a 15 year budget table attached to the narrative, not sure if you saw that and didn’t feel it was sufficient or detailed enough. Please let us know if there is something more you would like to see. 464
I have also asked for what type of use other than directly related to serving the tenants of the building is proposed by ALAS for the Resource Center, and all I see is a draft Letter of Intent with essentially these requirements for unlimited use: "Tenant shall conduct its business and otherwise utilize the Premises, and use reasonable efforts to control its agents, employees, invitees, contractors and visitors, in such a manner as not to create any nuisance, or unreasonably interfere with annoy or disturb the quiet enjoyment of any other tenant or Landlord." "Generally, 8:00am-7:00pm with different hours for special events and limited weekend hours. Must comply with local jurisdiction requirements for residential neighborhoods. Tenant shall have 24-hour access to the Premises..." Hopefully I can find additional information for some requirement related to a use permit.
The Use section of the LOI states: ” Community Resource Center to be operated by Tenant with two uses: Delivery of health, wellness and other social services required by the 555 Kelly senior farmworker residents to be provided by ALAS, community agencies and the County. “ Under Prohibitions of Use, it reads "Vehicle or equipment maintenance, bulk storage of loose material, sale of liquor, cigarettes, or any other use unreasonably disturbing to residents is expressly prohibited.” also, Section 17.2 of the Ground Lease reads: "The operational program consists of providing ongoing supportive services and programming to enrich resident well-being and quality of life,...The operational program shall consist of providing health, wellness and other social services to residential tenants of the Project in accordance with requirements of City and Project funders... Prior to occupancy of the Project, Developer and City Manager shall collaborate in good faith to determine appropriate activities and scheduling to ensure compatibility between City’s, Developer’s and ALAS’s proposed use of the space. ALAS (and any successor) shall comply with all terms, conditions and operational requirements of the applicable Sublease, as approved by the City Manager. The operational program may be amended from time to time, as requested by the operator and approved in writing by City Manager. In the event that ALAS’s subtenancy with Tenant is terminated, Tenant shall replace ALAS with an operator that provides services to the residents, consistent with the approved program described above. Tenant shall submit the proposed replacement community serving space subtenant and its proposed operational program to City Manager for review and approval.”
City staff needs to explain what these rent subsidies provided by SMC are and are not. If Mercy is proposing a new subsidy program to the SMC Board of Supervisors, it will need to be submitted and approved by Board.
Otherwise, rent subsidies are not a guaranteed approved item as shown in this 15 year performa budget.
SMC does not know if any or all tenants will be eligible for a rent subsidy in any given year. SMC cannot approve rent subsides until each tenant has applied for a subsidy and SMC acknowledges the tenant is eligible for the subsidy. It is my understanding undocumented tenants will not qualify for subsidies (the City Council has been told undocumented residents could apply as tenants to 555 Kelly).
Mercy actually received a Letter of Intent from the County Department of Housing today, for a 15 year term. You are correct that it cannot be guaranteed until the Board of Supervisors takes action, which will not happen until after the City has provided all of it’s approvals and the project can move forward. In my experience, the Board typically approved the recomended projects from the Department of Housing, as long as the funds are available and being used for the purpose the funds were originally allocated for. Their biggest concern would be that a project had the approvals needed to move forward. That doesn’t guarantee anything, but the consequence of the subsidy not being approved would not be that the project is no longer financially feasible, but that rents would need to be increased (but remain under the state limits) in order to maintain feasibility. The purpose of this rental subsidy is not for feasibility, but to reduce the rents lower than the state limits for each income level, to help each household maintain more financial independence. The subsidy would not require special application or eligibility from each tenant, other than their eligibility to rent at cetain affordability levels at 555 Kelly. The rental subsidy would be applied to the operating costs each year, and then rents would be reduced across the board.
465
Main Office - Department of Housing
264 Harbor Blvd., Building A, Belmont, CA 94002-4017
Housing & Community Development (HCD)
Tel: (650) 802-5050
Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo (HACSM)
Tel: (650) 802-3300
Board of Supervisors:
Jackie Speier
Noelia Corzo
Ray Mueller
Lisa Gauthier
David Canepa
Director:
Raymond Hodges
Department of Housing (DOH) website: www.smchousing.org • E-mail: [email protected] April 24, 2026
Ramie Dare
Mercy Housing California
1256 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Subject: County Housing Voucher Program
Project Name: 555 Kelly Affordable Housing Development (Half Moon Bay) Dear Ramie Dare,
The County of San Mateo’s Department of Housing (“Department”) has received Mercy Housing’s request for rental subsidy funding from the County’s Housing Voucher Program (“CHVP”) for the 555 Kelly Property (“Property”). The Department supports Mercy Housing’s efforts to increase housing affordability for low-income senior farmworkers, ensuring that residents pay rents affordable relative to their income.
The Department is preliminarily supportive of Mercy Housing’s request for funding. Any award would be contingent on final approval from the County’s Board of Supervisors (“Board”) and the terms and conditions included in the final CHVP agreement (“Agreement”). The Property must receive all required development agreement approvals from the City of Half Moon Bay prior to the Department making a recommendation to the Board.
The preliminary terms of the rental subsidy funding are as follows:
1. The initial term of the Agreement will be for 15 years, subject to biennial appropriations.
2. A fixed per unit monthly subsidy will be made available to the Property at the estimated amounts listed below.
3. The first year of rental assistance is estimated to be a maximum of $682,536 and will escalate at two percent (2%) each year.
Unit Type Number of
Units
Fixed Per Unit Monthly
Subsidy Amount
Year 1 Subsidy Total
Studio 3 $1,354 $48,744
1 Bedroom 34 $1,451 $592,008
2 Bedroom 2 $1,741 $41,784
TOTAL 39 units $682,536 (Year 1 rental assistance)
Docusign Envelope ID: F3FB0DC8-05E4-8B38-80BA-93EC7BACE84E 466
Thank you for your efforts to provide stable housing for the low-income senior farmworker population.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Raymond Hodges
Director
Docusign Envelope ID: F3FB0DC8-05E4-8B38-80BA-93EC7BACE84E 467
MARKET FEASIBLITY ANALYSIS
555 KELLY
CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, CA
APRIL 2025
468
MARKET FEASIBLITY ANALYSIS
FOR
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF
555 KELLY,
A 40-UNIT LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROJECT
LOCATED IN THE
CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 2025
PREPARED FOR:
MS. KELLY HOLLYWOOD
MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA
1256 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
Prepared By
NEWPORT REALTY ADVISORS LLC
1699 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94109
(415) 835-6060 Phone
469
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: COVER LETTER
SECTION 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SECTION 3: NARRATIVE REPORT
I. SUBJECT PROPERTY OVERVIEW ………………………………………….………... 1
Proposed Site Development Plan…...…. ……...…………………….…….…….….… 1 Proposed Amenities………. …………...……………………..…….…….…….…….. 2 Area Overview………………………………………………………………………… 3
EXHIBIT I-1: Regional Map of Subject Property………………………………. 3 Half Moon Bay Overview…………………………………………….…….…….…... 5
Location Analysis and Site Description…………………..…………………………... 5 Proximity to Services………………………………………………………………….. 5
EXHIBIT I-2A: Map of Location Amenities Near the Subject Site ….………… 6 EXHIBIT I-2B: Map of Location Amenities……………………...……….……. 7 II. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY.…………………………... 8 EXHIBIT II-1: Map of Primary Market Area…………....………………………. 8 EXHIBIT II-2: Population and Households Growth Trends.…………………….. 9 EXHIBIT II-3: Household Income Distribution……………………….………… 10 EXHIBIT II-4: Population Age Distribution…………….……….………………. 11 EXHIBIT II-5: HUD Income Limits & Maximum Rent Levels……….………… 11 EXHIBIT II-6: Distribution of Senior Household Income…………….………… 12 Crime Rates……….…….…………………………….………………….……….…... 12
EXHIBIT II-7: Crime Statistics………………………………..……….………… 13 Building Trends…...…….…………………………….………………….……….…... 13
EXHIBIT II-7: Building Permits…..…………………………..……….………… 13 Economic Overview……….…….…………………………….………………….…... 14
EXHIBIT II-8: Total Employment By Industry Sector (MSA)…….....…………. 14 EXHIBIT II-9: Total Employment By Industry Sector (City)……...……..……... 15 San Mateo County Agriculture Employment Summary………………….……….…... 15 PMA Farmworkers Demand Analysis, Wages, and Locations……….….……….…... 17 III. COMPETITIVE MARKET OVERVIEW……………………………………………... 18 Competitive Market-Rate Rental Analysis…………………………...……………….. 19 Farmworkers Housing Overview………..…………………………...……………….. 20 Competitive LIHTC Rental Analysis………………...………………...………….….. 20 Occupancy, Waiting List, Concessions and Turnover Analysis……..……………….. 23 Unit Composition and Sizes…………………………………………………………... 24
Rental Structure Analysis…………………………………………………….……….. 24
Planned and Proposed Projects…………..……………………………………………. 25 IV. DEMAND ANALYSIS………………………………………………………….. ……….. 26
EXHIBIT IV-1: Estimated Annual Demand Potential at Subject Property…...… 26 Absorption Analysis……………………………………………………….……….…. 27
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENATIONS…………………………………….……. 27
SECTION 4: APPENDIX
EXHIBIT III-1: Survey of Selected Market Rate and Senior LIHTC Projects EXHIBIT III-2: Map of Subject Site and Comparable Projects 470
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
SECTION 5: TCAC/CDLAC REQUIRED FORMS
Pictures of Subject Site
Pictures of the Subject Site’s Neighborhood
Pictures of Comparable Market-Rate and LIHTC Projects
Pictures of Market-Rate Projects (Outside of the mile radius) & Surrounding Land Uses Rent Comparability Matrix (Studio, 1B, and 2B Market-Rate) Rent Comparability Matrix (Studio, 1B, and 2B, 3B, 4B and 5B LIHTC) Bibliographical List
Demographic Reports
Secondary Market Area (SMA)
Primary Market Area (PMA)
Subject Property Site Plan, Floor Plans and Renderings
Identity of Interest
Utility Allowance Schedule -
Attachment 21 H- Default – Foreclosures – Negative Points Market Study Experience in PMA
Market Study Index
Resume
471
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
SECTION 1:
COVER LETTER
472
1699 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94109 - Phone: (415) 835-6060 April 4, 2025
Ms. Kelly Hollywood
MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA
1256 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Subject: Market Feasibility Analysis for the Proposed Development of 555 Kelly, a 40-Unit Senior (55+) and Farmworkers Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Project Located in Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California.
Dear Ms. Hollywood:
Pursuant to our conversation, Newport Realty Advisors has completed the analysis relative to the above subject. The accompanying NARRATIVE REPORT summarizes our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
The primary objective of this assignment was to survey and evaluate the rental housing market in the subject property’s competitive market area (CMA) to determine the market potential of a senior and farmworkers LIHTC development in Half Moon Bay, California. The proposed development will offer a total of 39 LIHTC units, including three studio units, 34 1B/1b units, and two 2B/1b units, and one 2B unit will be designated as a non-revenue unit for the on-site manager.
The subject’s 39 LIHTC units will be at 30% to 50% of the area median income (AMI) for San Mateo County, California.
The objectives of this assignment were accomplished by 1) assessing the location of the subject site; 2) determining the primary market area; 3) conducting detailed surveys of comparable market-rate and LIHTC projects; 4) comparing current rents to adjusted market-rate rents; 5) conducting an economic and demographic overview of the PMA and SMA market; 6) analyzing the farmworkers housing market; 7) researching planned and proposed LIHTC and market-rate projects; 8) conducting a statistical demand analysis for LIHTC and market-rate units; and 9) completing all TCAC/CDLAC forms.
Newport Realty Advisors LLC has 20 years’ multifamily experience and has completed 5+ full LIHTC market studies and site inspections in the PMA. Furthermore, the site visit for this assignment was conducted on March 25, 2025. This statement is to certify that Newport Realty Advisors LLC has no direct or indirect financial relationship with any of the Project Team Members associated with the proposed development of 555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, California.
All information contained in this study is believed to be accurate, reliable, and timely and based on the professional opinion of Newport Realty Advisors LLC. We have no reason to question the accuracy of the data compiled in this report; however, we are unable to guarantee its contents.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles Castro
NEWPORT REALTY ADVISORS LLC
473
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
SECTION 2:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
474
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Name: 555 Kelly
Location: 555 Kelly Avenue, Half Moon Bay, CA 94109
Census Tract #: 6137.02
Construction Type: New Construction
Product Type: Five-Story Building with podium-level parking Buildings: One Building
Parking: 18 Podium-Levels Parking Spaces (0.45 spaces per unit) Total Units: 39 LIHTC Units (plus one manager’s unit)
Target Market: LIHTC Senior (55+) and Households Employed as Farmworkers.
Architect: Van Meter Williams Pollack - (415) 974-5352.
Timing: The subject development is fully approved and building permits are anticipated to be pulled prior to construction anticipated to commence in January 2027, and the development should be completed in 18 months or by July 2028, with leasing completed by the Third Quarter 2026.
Proposed Product Program
1/ Maximum allowable HUD/TCAC rents.
2/ Value Ratio (rent per square foot) based on “net” rents.
Note: Subject’s sizes are a weighted average. Excludes 2B manager unit.
Subject Property and Site Description
The proposed development will offer studio, 1B and 2B units that are targeted to seniors (55+) that are currently employed as farmworkers in the agriculture industry. The subject’s senior LIHTC units will be targeted at 30% and 50% AMI levels.
The subject development is proposed to offer a single, five-story building, with podium-level parking with an elevator servicing all floors. The “L” shaped building will contain 18 podiumlevel parking spaces (0.45 space per unit) in the rear of the building with approximately 2,400 square feet of community space to be occupied by Ayudando Latinos A Soñar (ALAS) (Helping Latinos to Dream in English) along Kelly Avenue. The ground level will also contain an entry lobby, bike storage, management offices, and mechanical, trash, and storage space. The second floor will contain a large terrace, a laundry room, and a 1,225 square foot community room, with 10 residential units. The third and fourth floors will contain 11 units per floor and the fifth floor will contain 8 residential units.
Each unit in the subject development will comprise a full kitchen, including a refrigerator, an oven/range with ventilating hood, a sink, garbage disposal, and ample counter space and cabinet storage. Each unit will include a hall/coat closet, heat, and window blinds. Common area amenities include a laundry room, bike storage room, a community room, a large terrace with picnic area, and 18 podium-level parking spaces. The sponsor will partner with ALAS to provide comprehensive Support Services for the subject’s residents.
Avg. HUD Max. Proposed Subject's Rent
Unit Median Unit Rents Gross Utility Net Per
Type Income Units Mix Size (Gross) 1/ Gross Rents Allow. Rents SF 2/ Studio 30.0% 2 5% 411 $1,028 $1,028 $96 $932 $2.27
Studio 50.0% 1 3% 411 $1,713 $1,713 $96 $1,617 $3.93
1B/1b 30.0% 7 18% 545 $1,101 $1,101 $116 $985 $1.81
1B/1b 50.0% 27 69% 545 $1,836 $1,836 $116 $1,720 $3.16
2B/1b 30.0% 1 3% 955 $1,322 $1,322 $157 $1,165 $1.22
2B/1b 50.0% 1 3% 955 $2,203 $2,203 $157 $2,046 $2.14
Weighted Avg. 39 100% 556 $1,656 $1,656 $117 $1,539 $2.77 555 Kelly - Recommended Product Program
475
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
2 The subject site is located at 555 Kelly Avenue in the City of Half Moon Bay, on the northside of Kelly Avenue, between Church Street to the east and Pacific Coast Highway to the west. The subject site is approximately 2.5 blocks west of downtown Half Moon Bay, which offers shops and restaurants. Main Street is a two-lane, moderately traveled street providing the subject site with excellent access and visibility.
The subject property offers good local public transportation. The subject site is within proximity to a market (0.20 miles), grocery store (0.32 miles), pharmacy (0.30 miles), senior center (0.51 miles), medical facility (0.51 miles), park (0.26) and public transportation (100 feet).
Market Area and Map
The PMA includes the Cities of Half Moon Bay and Pacifica, and the unincorporated areas of El Granada, Moss Beach, and Montara. The PMA is bounded by the Half Moon Bay city border/Half Moon Bay Road (92) to the south, Pacific Ocean to the west, Pacifica city border to the north and Highway 280 to the east. Although the PMA extends approximately 18 miles from north to south, the area is sparsely populated and the represents a conservatively defined area as the subject property is anticipated to attract senior tenants throughout the PMA, given its desirable coastal location, nearby agricultural employment, and new product offering. SMA includes a larger area and is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, San Mateo County border to the north, Highway 101 to the east and Highway 84 to the south.
Map of Secondary and Primary Market Area
Note: Map of PMA bordered in black; SMA bordered in red.
Market Feasibility Summary
Our analysis indicates that there is a strong need for LIHTC senior farmworkers rental units in the local marketplace. This assumption is based on favorable supply/demand fundamentals, specifically the strong demand for LIHTC units in the PMA as evidenced by the near 100.0% senior LIHTC occupancy levels (applications in-process for all vacant units); 778+ household waiting list from the senior LIHTC projects; the 300+ waiting list at the only farmworkers property, Moonridge Apartments, in the county; the lack of new senior LIHTC projects proposed in the PMA; the statistics from the ALAS survey indicating the need for farmworkers housing for residents 55+; and finally, the subject property’s Half Moon Bay coastal location and new product offering.
476
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
3 Market Strengths and Weaknesses
The subject property’s main strengths are its strong product offering, and coastal Half Moon Bay location in a market that has a shortage of affordable housing. There are no major weaknesses or risks associated with the proposed subject’s development. No modifications or changes are recommended for the subject’s development.
Proposed Affordable Projects
According to Half Moon Bay planning officials, there are no approved large (50 unit+) senior market-rate multifamily projects proposed in the city. According to TCAC and CDLAC, there are no senior or farmworkers projects that have been awarded LIHTC; however, there is proposed general occupancy LIHTC development, of which, 18 of 71 units will be allocated for farmworkers. One farmworkers project that has been awarded Joe Serna Jr. credits. The development, located at 880 Stone Pine Road, 0.75 miles to the northeast, will offer 47 manufactured homes in 1B, 2B and 3B floorplans. The development recently started construction and is anticipated to be completed by early 2026. The property will also offer 117 surface parking spaces. The property is not age-restricted and open to all farmworkers who qualify.
Comparables
Per TCAC requirements, market-rate comparables are required to be within one mile of the subject site. The nearest independent-living senior market-rate project is located roughly 12.0+ miles from the subject site, and given the distances the nearest general occupancy market-rate comparables were surveyed. Most land uses within one mile of the subject site are single family homes and the few multi-family projects in the area are generally smaller buildings (less than 5 units) or “mom and pop” managed buildings where property market-data is difficult to attain.
Two individual rental units were identified in for-sale townhome and condominium complexes, but no multifamily building were identified within a one-mile radius of the subject site that had signage indicating market-rate apartments for rent or from on-line searches, such as www.Apartments.com, www.Zillow.com or www.Trulia.com. After an extensive search two 1B rental units and one studio unit were identified within the one-mile required area and the nearest rental units for each unit type were also surveyed. There is a low supply of multifamily rental units along the Half Moon Bay and nearby coastline and the nearest comps are located
0.60 to 6.2 miles from the subject site. Finally, the three nearest senior LIHTC properties with similar unit types to the proposed subject development were also surveyed and are located 8.78 to 16.6 miles from the subject site.
According to TCAC/CDLAC/HCD, there are no Joe Serna Jr. financed farmworkers properties in San Mateo County and the nearest are in Santa Cruz County, specifically in the City of Watsonville, approximately 60 miles to the south. Other Joe Serna Jr and USDA farmworkers property are in Gilroy and Salinas, roughly 65-75 miles to the southeast. One senior property (62+), Los Abuelitos Senior Apartment, offers 25 1B units for retired farmworkers, located in Salinas. The nearest farmworkers property is Moonridge Apartments, located in Half Moon Bay approximately 3.0 miles to the south of the subject site. The LIHTC property offers 160 units in 2B, 3B and 4B units for general occupancy units (not age-restricted), of which 80 units have been allocated for farmworkers under an HCD financing layer.
According to the State of California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) there are three existing senior LIHTC projects located in Half Moon Bay; however, all offer PBV subsidies and aren’t good comps for the purposes of this analysis. The three properties offer 1B units and one contains eight 2B units. In general, San Mateo County lack senior LIHTC properties and only three of these offer studio units and were surveyed for this analysis. The three nearest senior LIHTC comps for each unit types were also surveyed. 477
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
4 Market-Rate Comparables PROJECT NAME/ YEAR PRODUCT
LOCATION/DISTANCE BUILT NO VACANT TYPE SIZE RENTAL RANGE $/SQ. FT. TYPE AMENITIES 1 653 GROVE STREET 1960s 1 1 1B/1b 600 $2,300 - $2,300 $3.83 - $3.83 Two-Story Carport and laundry room. 653 Grove Street #C Walk-Up Half Moon Bay, CA Configuration
0.60 miles to the south
2 515 TERRACE AVENUE 2024 1 1 1B/1b 657 $2,995 - $2,995 $4.56 - $4.56 Single-Story In-unit washer/dryer. 515 Terrace Avenue #B ADU Half Moon Bay, CA
0.65 miles to the west 3 1018 GOLDEN GATE 2021 1 1 Studio 330 $2,550 - $2,550 $7.73 - $7.73 Single-Story 1018 Golden Gate Avernue #A ADU In-unit washer/dryer.
Half Moon Bay, CA
0.95 miles to the NW
4 390 REDONDO ROAD 2025 1 1 2B/1b 995 $4,000 - $4,000 $4.02 - $4.02 Single-Story In-unit washer/dryer and surface parking. 390 Redondo Road #B ADU Half Moon Bay, CA
1.64 miles to the south
5 214 WASHINGTON BLVD 1998 1 1 Studio 425 $2,900 - $2,900 $6.82 - $6.82 2nd Story Laundry room. 214 Washington Boulevard #A ADU
Half Moon Bay, CA
2.07 miles to the north
6 477 3RD AVENUE 2022 1 1 Studio 525 $2,995 - $2,995 $5.70 - $5.70 Single-Story In-unit washer/dryer and surface parking. 477 3rd Avenue ADU Half Moon Bay, CA
2.55 miles to the NW
7 195 AVENUE CABRILLO 2018 1 1 2B/2b 1,000 $4,000 - $4,000 $4.00 - $4.00 Three-Story In-unit washer/dryer and covered, podium parking. 195 Avenue Cabrillo #9 Elevator-Served El Granada, CA Building
3.18 miles to the NW
8 MAVERICK APARTMENTS 2017 10 0 2B/2b 1,082 $3,835 - $3,900 $3.54 - $3.60 Three-Story In-unit washer/dryer and covered, podium parking. 101 Avenue Portola 2 0 3B/2b 1,330 $4,095 - $4,295 $3.08 - $3.23 "Walk-Up" Half Moon Bay, CA 12 0 1,123 $3,878 - $3,966 $3.45 - $3.53 Configuration
3.4 miles to the NW
9 279 VIRGINIA AVENUE 1975 1 1 1B/1b 400 $2,500 - $2,500 $6.25 - $6.25 Two-Story None 279 Virginia Avenue Duplex Moss Beach, CA Configuration
6.21 miles to the NW
UNIT CHARACTERISTICS MONTHLY RENT
LIHTC Comparables PROJECT NAME/ BUILT/ PRODUCT TURNOVER RATE/CONCESSIONS LOCATION/ OCC./ NO VACANT TYPE SIZE RENTAL RANGE $/SQ. FT. TYPE COMMENTS/ 10 SAN MATEO ROTARY FLORITAS 2005 5 0 1B/1b @ 30% 500 $610 - $610 $1.22 - $1.22 Three-Story Subterranean and/or podium-level parking, 99 27th Avenue 100.0% 5 0 1B/1b @ 35% 500 $725 - $725 $1.45 - $1.45 "Elevator-Served" a community room, exercise room, picnic area, San Mateo, CA 4 0 1B/1b @ 40% 500 $805 - $805 $1.61 - $1.61 Configuration and laundry room. 8.78 miles to the NW 4 0 1B/1b @ 45% 500 $920 - $920 $1.84 - $1.84 20 0 1B/1b @ 50% 500 $1,200 - $1,200 $2.40 - $2.40
9 0 2B/1b @ 50% 675 $1,800 - $1,800 $2.67 - $2.67
Weighted Avg. 47 0 534 $1,144 - $1,144 $2.14 - $2.14
11 OCEAN VIEW SENIOR APTS 1973 10 0 1B/1b @ 30% 525 $1,016 - $1,016 $1.94 - $1.94 Three-Story Podium-level parking and laundry room. 555 Crespi Drive Rehab - 2016 49 2 1B/1b @ 60% 525 $2,034 - $2,034 $3.87 - $3.87 "Elevator-Served" Pacifica, CA 94044 87.0% 10 7 1B/1b @ 80% 525 $2,712 - $2,712 $5.17 - $5.17 Configuration
10.1 miles to the NE Weighted Avg 69 9 525 $1,985 - $1,985 $3.78 - $3.78 12 METRO CENTER SENIOR 1995 8 0 1B/1b @ 40% 600 $1,250 - $1,250 $2.08 - $2.08 Five-Story Podium-level parking, community room, 100 Village Lane Rehab - 2013 25 0 1B/1b @ 50% 600 $1,525 - $1,525 $2.54 - $2.54 "Elevator-Served" laundry room.
Foster City, CA 100.0% 4 0 1B/1b @ 60% 600 $1,700 - $1,700 $2.83 - $2.83 Configuration
10.8 miles to the NE 8 0 2B/1b @ 40% 873 $1,550 - $1,550 $1.78 - $1.78 10 0 2B/1b @ 50% 873 $1,800 - $1,800 $2.06 - $2.06
4 0 2B/1b @ 60% 873 $2,100 - $2,100 $2.41 - $2.41
Weighted Avg. 59 0 702 $1,589 - $1,589 $2.26 - $2.26
13 ARROYO GREEN APTS 2021 2 0 Studio @ 50% 362 $1,542 - $1,542 $4.26 - $4.26 Seven-Story Podium-level parking, exercise room, 707 Bradford Street 91.7% 9 1 1B/1b @ 50% 362 $1,747 - $1,747 $4.83 - $4.83 "Elevator-Served" laundry room, computer room.
Redwood City, CA Weighted Avg 12 1 1B/1b @ 60% 563 $2,114 - $2,114 $3.75 - $3.75 Configuration
11.3 miles to the east 23 2 467 $1,921 - $1,921 $4.11 - $4.11
UNIT CHARACTERISTICS MONTHLY RENT
PROJECT NAME/ BUILT/ PRODUCT TURNOVER RATE/CONCESSIONS LOCATION/ OCC./ NO VACANT TYPE SIZE RENTAL RANGE $/SQ. FT. TYPE COMMENTS/ 14 VILLAGE AT THE CROSSING 2007 21 0 1B/1b @ 30% 619 $1,259 - $1,259 $2.03 - $2.03 Four-Story In-unit washer/dryer, podium-level parking, 1101 National Avenue 100.0% 8 0 1B/1b @ 50% 619 $1,679 - $1,679 $2.71 - $2.71 "Elevator-Served" spa, and exercise room. San Bruno, CA 149 0 1B/1b @ 60% 619 $2,028 - $2,028 $3.28 - $3.28 Configuration
11.8 miles to the north 8 0 2B/1b @ 30% 847 $1,160 - $1,160 $1.37 - $1.37 4 0 2B/1b @ 50% 847 $1,999 - $1,999 $2.36 - $2.36
38 0 2B/1b @ 60% 847 $2,419 - $2,419 $2.86 - $2.86
Weighted Avg 228 0 669 $1,979 - $1,979 $2.96 - $2.96
15 ROTARY PLAZA 1970 10 0 Studio @ 50% 380 $775 - $775 $2.04 - $2.04 Four-Story Surface parking and carports, community room, 433 Alida Way Rehab - 2015 20 0 Studio @ 60% 380 $775 - $775 $2.04 - $2.04 "Walk-Up" exercise room, and laundry room. South San Francisco, CA 100.0% 4 0 1B/1b @ 50% 600 $975 - $975 $1.63 - $1.63 Configuration
12.6 miles to the NW 10 0 1B/1b @ 60% 600 $975 - $975 $1.63 - $1.63 Weighted Avg. 44 0 450 $839 - $839 $1.86 - $1.86
16 BRUNSWICK STREET APTS 2020 21 2 Studio @ 50% 422 $1,550 - $1,550 $3.67 - $3.67 Six-Story Podium-level parking, community room, 4619 Brunswick Street 97.5% 183 3 Studio @ 60% 422 $1,550 - $1,550 $3.67 - $3.67 "Interior- exercise room, and laundry room.
Daly City, CA Weighted Avg. 204 5 422 $1,550 - $1,550 $3.67 - $3.67 Hallway" 16.6 miles to the north Configuration
UNIT CHARACTERISTICS MONTHLY RENT
478
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
5 Conclusions
The subject property’s 39 LIHTC units would need to achieve a market capture of roughly
12.7% of the PMA’s first year demand (308 households) to successfully achieve stabilization (95% occupancy). The projected capture is achievable given the near 100.0% occupancy rate (applications in-process for all vacant units) at existing senior LIHTC projects; the lack of proposed senior LIHTC projects in the PMA; the current waiting list at existing senior LIHTC projects (778+ households); the waiting list (300+) at the only farmworkers property in the county; and the relatively small size of PMA.
The projected monthly absorption rate of approximately 25 units per month. The absorption rate is based on the overall size of the market, projected future household growth, current/demand levels, and waiting lists at existing senior LIHTC projects and farmworkers property. In general, our projected absorption rate is relatively conservative based on the lack of affordable housing in the PMA. Overall, the projected absorption rate at the subject property translates to a minimum lease-up period of approximately 1.5 months.
Demand for each of the unit types is projected to be strong for the subject property within the PMA. Demand for studio units at 30% and 50% AMI will be 10 and 23 households; 1B units at 30% and 50% will be 14 and 17 households; and demand for 2B’s at 30% and 50% will be 133 and 69 households.
Finally, all demographic and economic data in the PMA and greater SMA, along with the current supply (existing rental comparables and proposed projects) indicate that demand for senior and farmworkers LIHTC units will continue to be strong in the mid- to long-term. 479
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
SECTION 3:
NARRATIVE REPORT
480
I. SUBJECT PROPERTY OVERVIEW
The objective of this analysis was to conduct a market feasibility analysis for Mercy Housing, (the project sponsor) who is proposing the development of 555 Kelly, a 40-unit senior (55+) Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project located in the City of Half Moon Bay, within the State of California. The subject development will offer a total of 40 units, including one 2B unit for the on-site manager. The proposed development will offer studio, 1B and 2B units that are targeted to seniors (55+) that are currently employed as farmworkers in the agriculture industry.
The subject’s senior LIHTC units will be targeted at 30% and 50% AMI levels.
The subject development will be financed using a variety of soft money, including 9% competitive tax credits, Infill Infrastructure Grant financing, a San Mateo County ARPA Funds administered by the City of Half Moon Bay and a conventional construction loan. The sponsor will be applying for a Joe Serna Jr. loan and an Affordable Housing Fund loan.
Proposed Site Development Plan
The subject development is proposed to offer a single, five-story building, with podium-level parking with an elevator servicing all floors. The “L” shaped building will contain 18 podiumlevel parking spaces (0.45 space per unit) in the rear of the building with approximately 2,400 square feet of community space to be occupied by Ayudando Latinos A Soñar (ALAS) (Helping Latinos to Dream in English) along Kelly Avenue. The ground level will also contain an entry lobby, bike storage, management offices, and mechanical, trash, and storage space. The second floor will contain a large terrace, a laundry room, and a 1,225 square foot community room, with 10 residential units. The third and fourth floors will contain 11 units per floor and the fifth floor will contain 8 residential units.
The subject site is currently used as a parking lot and there is also a residential cottage on the site. The subject site is a rectangular-shaped parcel situated along Kelly Avenue. The subject site consists of 0.38 acres or roughly 16,395 square feet, for an overall density of 105 units per acre.
The subject site is currently zoned Commercial Downtown (C-D), Public Service (P-S), but will be rezoned as P-S with Workforce Housing Overlay (WHO) with an applicable density bonus.
The subject development is fully approved and building permits are anticipated to be pulled prior to construction anticipated to commence in January 2027, and the development should be completed in 18 months or by July 2028, with leasing completed by the Third Quarter 2026.
The subject’s units are at the maximum allowable TCAC/HUD rent levels at 30% and 50% AMI’s. the subject’s proposed rents meet TCAC’s 10% (below market-rate rent) minimum requirement (see Rent Comparability Matrix in Appendix) as the subject’s studio to 2B rents at 50% AMI (highest levels) are 34% to 41% below adjusted market-rate rents. 481
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
2 The proposed unit mix, income levels and rents are summarized below. 1/ Maximum allowable HUD/TCAC rents.
2/ Value Ratio (rent per square foot) based on “net” rents.
Note: The subject’s unit sizes represent a weighted average. Excludes one 2B manager units.
The weighted average unit size for the studios are 411 square feet, 1B’s are 545 square feet, and 2B’s are 955 square feet. The proposed net rents exclude utility allowances of $96 for the studio units, $116 for 1B’s, and $157 for 2B’s, which will be used to cover electric expenses (cooking, lighting, and heat). The sponsor will be responsible for all other utilities, such as hot water, sewer, trash, and common area expenses. In summary, the proposed rental rates for the subject property are achievable, given current market conditions and the proposed product type and unit features.
Proposed Amenities
In general, the subject property will offer a superior level of unit features and common area amenities relative to market-rate comparables, as these properties are generally older, inferior properties. The subject development will offer more-or-less comparable unit features and common area amenities to the existing senior LIHTC projects in the local marketplace. Each unit in the subject development will comprise a full kitchen, including a refrigerator, an oven/range with ventilating hood, a sink, garbage disposal, and ample counter space and cabinet storage.
Each unit will include a hall/coat closet, heat, and window blinds. Common area amenities include a laundry room, bike storage room, a community room, a large terrace with picnic area, and 18 podium-level parking spaces. The sponsor will partner with ALAS to provide comprehensive Support Services for the subject’s residents. The type of services will be determined at a future date. For a summary of proposed unit features and amenities at the subject property, please refer to Rental Comparability Matrix in the Appendix.
Area Overview
San Mateo County, officially the County of San Mateo, is a county located in the San Francisco Bay Area, the nine counties bordering San Francisco Bay. San Mateo County covers most of the San Francisco Peninsula and the San Francisco International Airport is located at the northern end of the county, and Silicon Valley begins at the southern end. The county's built-up areas are mostly suburban with some areas being urban and are home to several corporate offices, such as Oracle and Electronic Arts.
San Mateo County encompasses 15 municipalities with the five largest cities based on 2018 population include: Daly City (101,000+), City of San Mateo (98,000+), Redwood City Avg. HUD Max. Proposed Subject's Rent
Unit Median Unit Rents Gross Utility Net Per
Type Income Units Mix Size (Gross) 1/ Gross Rents Allow. Rents SF 2/ Studio 30.0% 2 5% 411 $1,028 $1,028 $96 $932 $2.27
Studio 50.0% 1 3% 411 $1,713 $1,713 $96 $1,617 $3.93
1B/1b 30.0% 7 18% 545 $1,101 $1,101 $116 $985 $1.81
1B/1b 50.0% 27 69% 545 $1,836 $1,836 $116 $1,720 $3.16
2B/1b 30.0% 1 3% 955 $1,322 $1,322 $157 $1,165 $1.22
2B/1b 50.0% 1 3% 955 $2,203 $2,203 $157 $2,046 $2.14
Weighted Avg. 39 100% 556 $1,656 $1,656 $117 $1,539 $2.77 555 Kelly - Recommended Product Program
482
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
3 (78,000+), City of South Francisco (64,000+) and City of San Bruno (42,000+). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 741 square miles (1,920 km2), of which 448 square miles (1,160 km2) is land and 293 square miles (760 km2) (40%) is water. San Mateo County is the third-smallest county in California by land area. A number of bayside watercourses drain the eastern part of the county including San Bruno Creek and Colma Creek. The northern and northeast parts of the county are heavily densely populated with largely urban and suburban areas, with many of its cities as edge-cities for the Bay Area, while the west central parts of the county are less heavy densely populated with more rural environment and coastal beaches areas.
San Mateo County comprises many bedroom communities and is also home to some of the nation’s largest technology companies. A July 2013 Wall Street Journal article identified the Facebook initial public offering (IPO) as the cause of a change in the U.S.' national economic statistics, as Menlo Park, San Mateo County, the corporate headquarters, became the top wageearning county in the country after the fourth quarter of 2012. The article revealed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the average weekly wage in the county was US$3,240, which is 107% higher than the previous year. San Mateo County hosts the headquarters of Oracle Corporation, Visa Inc, Sony Interactive Entertainment, Electronic Arts, YouTube, Genentech, and Gilead Sciences, as well as a hub of venture capital firms in Menlo Park and several other technology related companies. The growth of the technology sector has impacted housing in the county and has led to dramatic housing appreciation for the past decade.
Exhibit I-1
Regional Map of Subject Property
In March 2020, San Mateo County implemented a shelter-in-place (SIP) due to COVID-19. The impacts of COVID-19 in more urban areas or near urban areas were dramatic as many communities experienced rental decreases resulting from households vacating urban areas and 483
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
4 migrating to less urban, coastal, and inland areas; however, the county has rebounded and market-rate rental rents have nearly returned from pre-pandemic levels.
Half Moon Bay Overview
Half Moon Bay is a rural coastal city with a population of roughly 11,454 in 2023 (U.S. Census).
The City and the surrounding unincorporated area are generally known as the “Coastside”, which includes the area of Montara to the north and Pescadero to the south. Half Moon Bay is located approximately 25 miles south of San Francisco, 10 miles west of San Mateo, and 45 miles north of Santa Cruz. Neighboring towns in unincorporated San Mateo County include Montara, Moss Beach, and El Granada to the north and Purissima, San Gregorio, and Pescadero to the south.
Primary access to Half Moon Bay is via State Route 1 (the Cabrillo Highway) from the north and south and State Route 92 from the east. The Coastside is nestled between the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Pacific Ocean. Because of the perceived geographic isolation, the area has not changed dramatically over the years. However, with Highway 92 cutting across the mountains to the Peninsula and Highway 1 running north and south the Coastside is very accessible to the entire Bay Area, although the area still has many rural characteristics.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Half Moon Bay has a total area of 6.5 square miles, of which, 6.5 square miles is land and 0.04 square miles (0.31%) is water. Half Moon Bay is situated on a bay of the same name. Major local industries include agriculture (houseplants, floriculture, Christmas trees, pumpkins, artichokes), fishing, and tourism. Half Moon Bay is the only incorporated City on the Coastside served by a City Council. The remaining communities of Montara, Moss Beach, Princeton-by-the-Sea, El Granada, Miramar, San Gregorio, Pescadero, and La Honda are unincorporated areas of San Mateo County governed by the County Board of Supervisors. Under a disincorporation plan, Half Moon Bay would revert to an unincorporated area within San Mateo County. Tax revenues would flow to the county, which would remain responsible for police and road maintenance.
Half Moon Bay is also known as a tourist destination within the Bay Area and boasts numerous Bed and Breakfasts, several motels, and some world-renowned hotels. Local activities include two award winning golf courses and a driving range, sport fishing, whale watching, horseback riding on the beach, and the historic Main Street with unique shops. The City hosts its Art and Pumpkin Festival on Main Street downtown in October and the Ritz-Carlton hotel chain operates a hotel located along the City's southern coast and is surrounded by Half Moon Bay Golf Links.
At the north edge of Half Moon Bay is the famous big wave surf area, Mavericks, off Pillar Point, where pro surfers challenge waves over 50 feet. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, located just north of Half Moon Bay past the small airport, is a natural refuge for plants and animals adapted to live at the edge of the ocean. Other tourist activities include whale-watching tours or sport fishing and escorted horse trail rides along the bluffs. Half Moon Bay and the surrounding area is also home to several state parks and beaches.
Half Moon Bay offers a small economic and employment base consisting mostly of service and retail jobs fueled by tourism. The largest industry is agriculture specializing in floriculture, seconded by tourism, then commercial fishing. Residential development and tourism development cater to the executive lifestyle. Outside of Half Moon Bay’s small employment base, the largest nearby employment hubs are in downtown Foster City (10 miles to the east), Redwood City (10 miles to the southeast) and City of San Mateo (8 miles to the northeast).
These outside employment hubs are within commuting distance to the subject site. In summary, 484
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
5 Half Moon Bay offers both a rural and small-town environment, proximity to services and recreation and a beautiful coastal setting ideal for senior affordable living.
Location Analysis and Site Description
The subject site is located at 555 Kelly Avenue in the City of Half Moon Bay, on the northside of Kelly Avenue, between Church Street to the east and Pacific Coast Highway to the west. Main Street, roughly 2.5 blocks to the west, is the central commercial district in the City, which extends from Spruce Street in the south to Highway 92 in the north. The subject site is approximately 2.5 blocks west of downtown Half Moon Bay, which offers shops and restaurants.
Main Street is a two-lane, moderately traveled street providing the subject site with excellent access and visibility. The location of the subject site will provide residents with convenient access to services located within proximity or accessible through use of public transportation and private van/shuttle options.
The subject site offers a strong “marketing window” within Half Moon Bay and is in the densest part of the city near various services, shops, and amenities. The subject’s pedestrian entrance will be off Kelly Avenue, while vehicular access will be located off a side street (alley) on the west side of the subject property. The subject site offers good local transportation access, although as previously stated Half Moon Bay does not offer immediate access to major freeways. The subject site is located 0.25 miles south of Highway 92, which provides direct access to the Junipero Serra (280 Freeway), located approximately 6.0 miles to the east of the Main Street and Highway 92 intersection. Immediate surrounding uses near the subject site include: The Boys and Girls Club and closed Cunha Elementary School located across-the-street from the subject site; a one-story building (unknown use) and church to the east; Shoreline Station, city owned facility and building to the west; and The Ted Adcock Community Center to the north.
The subject property will be targeted to residents within the local marketplace that have been “priced-out” of the rental and “for-sale” market. According to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), there were no studio or 1B condominium units in Half Moon Bay sold in the last seven months; however, there were six 2B condominium sales with prices ranging from $625,000 to $962,000 $825,000. Assuming a 20% down payment and subsequent expenses such as property taxes, none of the potential residents at the subject property would qualify for home ownership in the local area. The subject development will provide an affordable option for residents in the local marketplace.
Proximity to Services
The location of the subject property is conducive to affordable rental units as evidenced by its proximity to services. The subject site is within proximity to stores, public transportation, a park, a senior center, and medical facility, as shown on the map on the following page (Exhibit I-2A and I-2B) and described below: • Retail Services: The nearest market is called Cunha Country Store (#1), located at 448 Main Street, approximately 0.20 miles east of the subject site. The market offers meat, with a butcher counter, staples, and a product selection. The nearest full size grocery store are New Leaf Community Market (#2) located at 150 San Mateo Road, approximately 0.32 miles to the north. Half Moon Bay Pharmacy (#3) is located at 40 Stone Pine Road, roughly 0.30 miles to the northeast.
485
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
6 • Senior Center: The nearest senior center is Senior Coastsiders (#4) located at 920 Main Street, approximately 0.51 miles to the south. The center offers numerous programs and activities for seniors, and provides local van transportation. • Parks: John L. Carter Memorial Park (#5) is located just south of Stone Pine Road and Main Street, 0.26 miles to the northeast and offers hiking trails and a stream. • Library: Half Moon Bay Library (#6) located at 620 Correas Street, approximately 0.23 miles southeast of the subject site. • Medical Facility: Coastside Adult Day Health Center (#7) is located at 925 Main Street, approximately 0.51 miles south of the subject site. The health center offers numerous health services. The nearest medical clinic is Seton Medical Center Coastside in Moss Beach (not shown on the map), located approximately 6.2 miles to the northwest. • Transportation: A public transportation bus stop is located off Kelly Street across-thestreet from the subject site. San Mateo County Transit District Bus Service (SamTrans) offers a bus stop (#8) (less than 100 feet) and provides Route #18 that provides convenient access from Moss Beach in the north to Moonridge Apartments in Half Moon Bay in the south.
Exhibit I-2A
Map of Location Amenities Near the Subject Site
Note: Small ring represents 0.25 (¼) mile radius and large ring represents a 0.50 (½) mile ring. 486
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
7 Exhibit I-2B
Map of Location Amenities
Note: Small ring represents 0.25 (¼) mile radius and large ring represents a 0.50 (½) mile ring. 487
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
8 II. SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
Demographic trends for the Primary Market Area (PMA) and Secondary Market Area were analyzed for this assignment and are summarized below (refer to Exhibits II-2 to II-5). The PMA represents the area where most potential tenants currently reside (70%-80%) and includes in the City of Half Moon Bay and surrounding coastal areas. Specifically, the PMA includes the Cities of Half Moon Bay and Pacifica, and the unincorporated areas of El Granada, Moss Beach, and Montara. The PMA is bounded by the Half Moon Bay city border/Half Moon Bay Road (92) to the south, Pacific Ocean to the west, Pacifica city border to the north and Highway 280 to the east. Although the PMA extends approximately 18 miles from north to south, the area is sparsely populated and the represents a conservatively defined area as the subject property is anticipated to attract senior tenants throughout the PMA, given its desirable coastal location, nearby agricultural employment, and new product offering. SMA includes a larger area and is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, San Mateo County border to the north, Highway 101 to the east and Highway 84 to the south. A detailed map of the PMA and SMA is provided below.
Exhibit II-1
Map of Primary Market Area
Note: SMA bordered with a red line and the PMA bordered in black.
General Demographic Sub-Section
• According to Claritas estimates, the SMA had a total population of over 408,526 in 2025 and is projected to decrease to 406,973 in 2028, an annual decrease of -0.08%. Households in the SMA are projected to also decrease from 141,898 in 2025 to 140,822 in 2030, an average annual decrease of -0.15% (Exhibit II-2). • The PMA is projected to experience comparable population decreases. The PMA’s population is projected to decrease from 103,728 in 2025 to 102,707 persons in 2030, an annual decrease of -0.20%. Households in the PMA are projected to decrease from 36,261 in 2025 to 35,799 in 2030, an average annual increase of -0.26% (Exhibit II-2). The 488
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
9 population and household decreases are attributed to population shifts from the pandemic and in no way should negatively impact the subject development. The future subject development residents are most likely all living in substandard housing and there is a significant need to senior farmworkers housing in the PMA.
Secondary Market Area (SMA)
2010
Census
2020
Census
2025
Estimate
2030
Projection
Population 402,136 427,578 408,526 406,975
Average Annual Change N/A 2,544 -3,810 -310
Average Annual % Change N/A 0.60% -0.93% -0.08%
Households 142,909 149,633 141,898 140,822
Average Annual Change N/A 672 -1,547 -215
Average Annual % Change N/A 0.45% -1.09% -0.15%
Average Household Size N/A N/A 2.84 N/A
Occupied Housing Units
% Owner Occupied N/A N/A 57% N/A
% Renter Occupied N/A N/A 43% N/A
Population by Race 402,136 427,578 408,526 406,975
White 36.9% N/A 31.3% 27.8%
Black 2.2% N/A 1.7% 1.7%
Asian/Pacific Islander 33.4% N/A 41.2% 41.7%
Other 4.0% N/A 25.8% 6.0%
Totals N/A N/A 100.0% N/A
Total Hispanic Distribution 1/ 76.5% N/A 23.6% N/A
Primary Market Area
2010
Census
2020
Census
2025
Estimate
2030
Projection
Population 104,692 109,551 103,728 102,707
Average Annual Change N/A 486 -1,165 -204
Average Annual % Change N/A 0.44% -1.12% -0.20%
Households 36,943 38,562 36,261 35,799
Average Annual Change N/A 162 -460 -92
Average Annual % Change N/A 0.42% -1.27% -0.26%
Average Household Size N/A N/A 2.83 N/A
Occupied Housing Units
% Owner Occupied N/A N/A 69.0% N/A
% Renter Occupied N/A N/A 31.0% N/A
Population by Race 104,692 109,551 103,728 102,707
White N/A N/A 40.0% N/A
Black N/A N/A 1.7% N/A
Asian/Pacific Islander N/A N/A 35.8% N/A
Other N/A N/A 22.6% N/A
Totals N/A N/A 100.0% N/A
Total Hispanic Distribution 1/ N/A N/A 19.6% N/A
Population & Household Growth Trends
Secondary Market Area & Primary Market Area: 2000– 2030 Exhibit II-2
1/ Hispanic population defined as an ethnic group rather than race, so included in total distribution; separate Hispanic % of total included.
Note: Please refer to Exhibit II-1 for map of SMA and PMA. 489
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
10 • The average household size in the SMA was 2.84 people in 2025, compared to the PMA’s household size of 2.83 in the same year. Renters in the SMA occupied 43% of housing units in 2025, while 31% of all housing units in the PMA were occupied by renters. It should be noted that average household sizes for renter households were unavailable from major demographic research firms.
SMA
# % of Total
UNDER $14,999 6,598 4.7%
$15,000 - $24,999 4,768 3.4%
$25,000 - $34,999 4,952 3.5%
$35,000-$49,999 8,329 5.9%
$50,000-$74,999 13,424 9.5%
$75,000-$99,999 13,267 9.4%
$100,000-$125,000 11,891 8.4%
$125,000-$150,000 11,096 7.8%
$150,000-$200,000 18,092 12.8%
$200,000+ 49,466 34.9%
Total Households 141,898 100.0%
Median Household Income $142,092
PMA # % of Total
UNDER $14,999 1,479 4.1%
$15,000 - $24,999 1,044 2.9%
$25,000 - $34,999 1,062 2.9%
$35,000-$49,999 1,857 5.1%
$50,000-$74,999 3,336 9.2%
$75,000-$99,999 3,166 8.7%
$100,000-$125,000 2,966 8.2%
$125,000-$150,000 2,778 7.7%
$150,000-$200,000 4,939 13.6%
$200,000+ 13,631 37.6%
Total Households 36,261 100.0%
Median Household Income $154,014
Note: Income distributions were unavailable for households under $15,000. Source: Claritas.
Exhibit II-3
Household Income Distribution
Secondary Market Area & Primary Market Area: 2025
2025 Estimate
2025 Estimate
• The SMA’s median income in 2025 was $142,092 and is $154,014 in the PMA (Exhibit II3). The PMA’s median household income level is a bit higher than the SMA. Finally, it should be noted that 2030 income estimates were used rather than 2028 (year units will be completed), since data for 2028 was unavailable from major research firms such as Claritas.
• The median age in the SMA was 43.2 in 2025, compared to 45.4 in the PMA (Exhibit II-4).
Approximately 37.3% of the population in the PMA is 55+ 2025, which is projected to the age bracket of many residents at the subject property.
490
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
11 Exhibit II-4
Population Age Distribution
Secondary Market Area and Primary Market Area: 2025
SMA # % of Total
0-17 72,432 17.7%
18-24 30,027 7.4%
25-34 52,128 12.8%
35-54 114,346 28.0%
55-64 54,865 13.4%
65+ 84,769 20.8%
Total Population 408,526 100.0%
Median Age 43.2
PMA # % of Total
0-17 17,862 17.2%
18-24 7,230 7.0%
25-34 11,431 11.0%
35-54 28,567 27.5%
55-64 14,719 14.2%
65+ 23,909 23.1%
Total Population 103,728 100.0%
Median Age 45.4
Source: Claritas; Compiled by Newport Realty Advisors LLC. 2025 Estimate
2025 Estimate
Household Qualifier (% of Median)
Size 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 80% 100%
1 Person $27,420 $41,130 $54,840 $68,550 $82,260 $109,680 $137,100 2 Person $31,340 $47,010 $62,680 $78,350 $94,020 $125,360 $156,700 3 Person $35,260 $52,890 $70,520 $88,150 $105,780 $141,040 $176,300 4 Person $39,160 $58,740 $78,320 $97,900 $117,480 $156,640 $195,800 5 Person $42,300 $63,450 $84,600 $105,750 $126,900 $169,200 $211,500 6 Person $45,440 $68,160 $90,880 $113,600 $136,320 $181,760 $227,200 Household Maximum Rents (1)
Size 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 80% 100%
Studio $685 $1,028 $1,370 $1,713 $2,056 $2,741 $3,426
1 Bedroom $734 $1,102 $1,469 $1,836 $2,202 $2,938 $3,672 2 Bedroom $881 $1,322 $1,762 $2,203 $2,644 $3,525 $4,406 3 Bedroom $1,018 $1,527 $2,036 $2,545 $3,054 $4,073 $5,090 Exhibit II-5
San Mateo County 2024
HUD Income Limits & Maximum Rent Levels
Note: Maximum rents include utility allowances. Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee 491
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
12 Senior Demographic Sub-Section
• Despite moderate population declines in both the SMA and PMA, the senior segment is projected to experience some growth over the next five years. The SMA had over 38,788 senior households (65-84 age bracket) in 2025 and is projected to increase to 42,126 senior households in 2030, for an annual increase of 1.58% (Exhibit II-5). Senior households (65- 84 years) in the PMA are projected to grow from 11,601 in 20 to 12,462 in 2030, for an annual increase of 1.38%. • In 2025, approximately 23% of senior households in the PMA earn under $50,000. These levels represent the income bands for most tenants that will reside at the subject property. • In the PMA, seniors (65+) represented 69% of renter households versus 231% that were owner occupied (Exhibit II-5). It should be noted that average household size for renter households were unavailable from major research firms such as Claritas and CACI. 2000 Estimate 2025 Estimate 2030 Projection
SMA Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total Under $14,999 N/A N/A 2,749 7.1% 2,668 6.3%
$15,000 - $24,999 N/A N/A 2,050 5.3% 1,953 4.6%
$25,000 - $34,999 N/A N/A 1,924 5.0% 1,962 4.7%
$35,000 - $49,999 N/A N/A 3,335 8.6% 3,210 7.6%
$50,000 - $74,999 N/A N/A 5,539 14.3% 5,661 13.4%
$75,000-$99,999 N/A N/A 4,522 11.7% 4,746 11.3%
$100,000+ N/A N/A 18,669 48.1% 21,926 52.0%
Total Households (65-84) N/A N/A 38,788 100.0% 42,126 100.0% Average Annual Change N/A N/A 668
Average Annual Change N/A N/A 1.58%
2000 Estimate 2025 Estimate 2030 Projection
PMA Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total Under $14,999 N/A N/A 829 7.1% 794 6.4%
$15,000 - $24,999 N/A N/A 489 4.2% 463 3.7%
$25,000 - $34,999 N/A N/A 425 3.7% 430 3.5%
$35,000 - $49,999 N/A N/A 948 8.2% 807 6.5%
$50,000 - $74,999 N/A N/A 1,764 15.2% 1,722 13.8%
$75,000-$99,999 N/A N/A 1,302 11.2% 1,370 11.0%
$100,000+ N/A N/A 5,844 50.4% 6,876 55.2%
Total Households (65-84) N/A N/A 11,601 100.0% 12,462 100.0% Average Annual Change N/A N/A 172
Average Annual Change N/A N/A 1.38%
Occupied Housing Units 2025 (Senior PMA) Renter Occupied 31.0% Owner Occupied 69.0%
EXHIBIT II-6
DISTRIBUTION OF SENIOR (65-84) HOUSEHOLD INCOME
SMA AND PMA: 2025-2030
Crime Rates
According to the FBI Uniform Crime report for California in 2023 (latest year available), the violent and property crime rate is substantially lower than Half Moon Bay (see Exhibit II-7).
For some unknown reason, the FBI hasn’t released crime statistics for Half Moon Bay for the last few years, so the FBI state averages were compared to Half Moon Bay using another source (Neighborhood Scout). According to the 2023 report, Half Moon Bay experienced crime rates 492
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
13 well below the state for both violent and property crime. In no way should the city’s current crime statistics diminish the need for affordable units at the subject property.
EXHIBIT II-7
CRIME California City of Half Moon Bay
Violent Crimes 512.00 192.07
(Murder, rape, robbery & assault)
Property Crimes 2,277.33 777.02
(Burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson)
Source: Half Moon Bay based on Neighborhood Scout; San Mateo data based on 2021 FBI Uniform Crime Report. 2023
CALIFORNIA VERSUS HALF MOON BAY
CRIME STATISTICS
Number of Crimes Per 100,000 Population
Building Trends
According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, San Mateo County has experienced solid building permit activity the last two years after the start of the pandemic as permit issuances have exceeded 1,700 in both 2021 and 2022, after a decade low of 677 issuances in 2020. From 2014 until 2019, permits exceeded 1,000 with permits exceeding 2,000 in both 2016 and 2017. Most permits issued in the county over the past six years have been for multifamily uses and have averaged 70% of all permits. The county has issued over 1,000 permits annually in the last few years. Permit activity is anticipated to be strong for the next few years, but below the levels of 2021 and 2022. As expected, issuances in Half Moon Bay have been low given the city’s small size. The most permits were issued in 2002, 2014, and 2017, and the city averaged only 10 permits annually the last five years. Permit issuances are anticipated to be low unless larger affordable multifamily projects, like the subject development, move forward (see Exhibit II-8 on below). San Mateo County PERMITS 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Single-Family Permits 875 699 831 613 481 442 579 310 259 224 241 315 347 384 473 473 384 308 360 345 513 427 389 527 % of Totals 50% 46% 61% 52% 65% 50% 75% 37% 57% 77% 33% 36% 36% 26% 39% 23% 19% 27% 25% 51% 29% 19% 37% 52% Multi-Family Permits 1/ 871 827 524 575 254 439 194 526 197 68 487 549 619 1,092 752 1,553 1,632 823 1,077 332 1,286 1,765 671 492 % of Totals 50% 54% 39% 48% 35% 50% 25% 63% 43% 23% 67% 64% 64% 74% 61% 77% 81% 73% 75% 49% 71% 81% 63% 48% TOTALS 1,746 1,526 1,355 1,188 735 881 773 836 456 292 728 864 966 1,476 1,225 2,026 2,016 1,131 1,437 677 1,799 2,192 1,060 1,019 Half Moon Bay PERMITS 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Single-Family Permits 47 55 43 11 8 18 20 16 6 6 9 12 13 13 17 16 18 10 6 15 3 8 2 5 % of Totals 77% 45% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 89% 100% 75% 100% 100% 18% 15% 38% 32% 24% 100% 75% 100% 38% 73% 25% 100% Multi-Family Permits 1/ 14 66 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 59 71 28 34 56 0 2 0 5 3 6 0 % of Totals 23% 55% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 25% 0% 0% 82% 85% 62% 68% 76% 0% 25% 0% 63% 27% 75% 0% TOTALS 61 121 48 11 8 18 20 18 6 8 9 12 72 84 45 50 74 10 8 15 8 11 8 5 1/ Represents the actual nunmber of housing units permitted. Source: US Bureau of the Census EXHIBIT II-8 BUILDING PERMITS
SAN MATEO COUNTY AND HALF MOON BAY
2001 TO 2024
493
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
14 Economic Overview • Non-agricultural employment in the San Francisco Metropolitan District (MD), which includes San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties, experienced robust growth until the COVID-19 pandemic shut down the economy in mid-March 2020. Historical job losses from 2001-2004 are the result of an economic downturn from the high-tech industry and national recession. The MD had been hit during the national recession in 2001 to 2004 and lost over 132,000 jobs in these four years after gaining 133,000 jobs in 1997 to 2000 (Exhibit II-9). In 2007, 21,200 jobs were added (the highest increase in six years), and another 11,200 jobs were added in 008. The MD lost 50,000 jobs in 2009 and 2010; however, since 2011 employment has been very strong in the MD until March 2020 and added 41,400 jobs in 2016, 24,100 jobs in 2017, 32,500 jobs in 2018, and 40,600 jobs in 2019. Due to COVID-19, the MD lost 104,000 jobs in 2020, but rebounded with 17,500 job gains in 2021, 79,000 job gains in 2022, but lost 16,000 job gains in 2023 and lost another 6,100 in 2024. EXHIBIT II-9 TOTAL NON-AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY SECTORS
SAN FRANCISCO MD
2003 TO 2024 Sector 2023-24 % of %
INDUSTRY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2024 Total CHANGE TOTAL 846,200 839,200 848,900 868,600 889,800 901,000 858,900 851,100 873,400 914,800 948,900 990,600 1,039,000 1,080,400 1,104,500 1,137,000 1,184,900 1,081,000 1,092,500 1,181,300 1,165,100 1,159,000 100% -0.5% ANNUAL CHANGE -32,600 -7,000 9,700 19,700 21,200 11,200 -42,100 -7,800 22,300 41,400 34,100 41,700 48,400 41,400 24,100 32,500 47,900 -103,900 11,500 88,800 -16,200 -6,100 - ANNUAL % CHANGE -3.7% -0.8% 1.2% 2.3% 2.4% 1.3% -4.7% -0.9% 2.6% 4.7% 3.7% 4.4% 4.9% 4.0% 2.2% 2.9% 4.2% -8.8% 1.1% 8.1% -1.4% -0.5% - UNEMPLOY. RATE 6.4% 5.4% 4.6% 3.9% 4.0% 5.1% 8.8% 8.9% 7.9% 6.7% 5.4% 4.4% 3.6% 3.2% 2.9% 2.3% 2.2% 7.6% 4.9% 2.5% 3.2% 3.6% - Natural Resources/Mining 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 200 200 100 100 100 0.0% 0.0% Construction 37,000 35,800 35,100 36,600 38,400 37,300 29,400 26,900 27,400 29,100 30,500 32,600 36,000 38,600 39,800 42,400 44,400 42,600 41,100 40,900 40,900 39,500 3.5% -3.4% Manufacturing 42,100 41,400 40,100 41,100 41,400 40,000 36,100 35,000 34,400 34,100 34,900 35,900 36,400 38,200 39,400 39,000 41,100 37,800 37,200 38,900 35,700 34,500 3.3% -3.4% Trade, Transportation &
Utilities 139,600 138,100 137,700 137,700 137,700 136,100 127,700 124,900 125,700 129,900 134,500 138,200 142,600 147,600 151,300 154,200 155,200 135,900 135,000 136,100 131,300 132,800 11.5% 1.1% Information 43,400 40,600 38,200 37,200 37,500 39,000 38,000 37,300 40,900 46,600 49,800 55,200 63,200 70,300 76,600 85,400 97,500 105,300 112,200 125,300 117,600 107,500 10.6% -8.6% FIRE 1/ 81,900 79,300 79,300 79,900 80,200 78,300 71,500 69,200 68,600 70,000 72,100 74,000 77,300 80,400 80,900 83,200 86,000 83,100 83,000 87,700 81,800 80,800 7.4% -1.2% Services 2/ 385,300 388,100 400,000 415,700 432,600 447,400 435,500 436,400 455,900 485,600 508,100 533,900 558,900 577,500 586,500 601,300 629,000 547,500 554,500 616,100 618,700 622,300 52.2% 0.6% GOVERNMENT 116,900 115,900 118,300 120,300 122,000 122,900 120,700 121,300 120,400 119,500 118,900 120,700 124,400 127,700 129,900 131,400 131,500 128,600 129,200 136,200 139,000 141,500 11.5% 1.8% 1/ Includes Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. 2/ Includes Professional and Business Services, Educational and Health Services, Leisure and Hospitality and other Services. Source: State of California Employment Development Department; compiled by Newport Realty Advisors LLC. • In December 2024 (most recent month), the San Francisco MD total labor force was 988,800 with an unemployment rate at 3.4%, compared to a statewide average of 5.2% for the same month. Amid the declining job market in the mid 2000’s, the annual average unemployment rate in the MD has increased from 4.0% in 2006 to 8.7% in 2010, the highest levels in decades until unemployment rates in 2020. The unemployment decreases are attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic as unemployment rate increased from approximately 2.2% in February 2020 to 12.5% in April 2020, while the unemployment rate has steadily dropped in 2021 and 2022. The average unemployment rate was 7.5% in 2020 and declined to 4.9% in year-end 2021 and then 2.3% in 2022 and increasing to 3.2% in 2023. Prior to the pandemic, MD unemployment rate had decreased to 2.2% at year-end 2019, the lowest average unemployment rate since 2000, so economists believe the economy has rebounded from the COVID-19 pandemic. • For the 1st Quarter 2024, the average annual wage within the MSA for all industries was $113,464, while major agricultural industry wages include: Agricultural Inspectors $71,761; Farmworkers, Laborers, Crop, Nursery workers $45,800; and Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch, and Animal workers $50,130. The range of annual wages for all industries versus agriculture illustrates the discrepancy of income levels. 494
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
15 • In February 2025, the unemployment rate for San Mateo County was 3.7%, while Half Moon Bay was 2.0% for the same month. Half Moon Bay has a small employment base, and its monthly labor force was 6,000 (or 1.4%) of San Mateo County total of 418,700.
EXHIBIT II-10
TOTAL LABOR FORCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (2010-2023)
HALF MOON BAY
INDUSTRY 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 TOTAL LABOR FORCE 1/ 6,300 6,400 6,600 6,800 4,100 7,300 7,500 7,600 7,500 7,600 6,800 6,500 6,800 6,800 ANNUAL CHANGE N/A 100 200 200 -2,700 3,200 200 100 -100 100 -800 -300 300 0 ANNUAL % CHANGE N/A 1.6% 3.1% 3.0% -39.7% 78.0% 2.7% 1.3% -1.3% 1.3% -10.5% -4.4% 4.6% 0.0% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE 8.4% 7.5% 6.4% 5.2% 4.2% 3.4% 2.7% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% 2.3% 2.2% 1.2% 1.4% Note: State of California EDD. • Half Moon Bay’s labor force has slightly decreased over the past 13 years from 6,300 in 2010 to 6,000 in 2023, although the labor force increased to 7,600 in 2019 (pre-pandemic).
Half Moon Bay’s unemployment rate has remained consistent to the overall MSA levels over the past five years. For example, Half Moon Bay’s unemployment rate has ranged from 1.7% to 2.7% from 2016 to 2023 (Exhibit II-10). • According to Half Moon Bay’s 2023 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, the top employers in Half Moon Bay are Ritz Carlton, New Leaf Market, Safeway, Rocket Farms, Cabrillo Unified School District, and Seton Medical Center Coastside. • The MD suffered from the great recession that occurred from 2008 to 2011 and rebounded in dramatic fashion into a diverse San Francisco and Bay Area economy that fosters the emerging industries of the 21st century (technology, biotech, alternative energy, green industries, etc.) may protect the Bay Area from future market downturns. The shutdown of the economy from COVID-19 in 2020 produced significant employment losses, although this was less pronounced from a duration perspective, relative to the great recession; however, this downturn is unique, and economists differ on the overall impact of COVID19. From a housing perspective, the downturn reduced construction of high-end residential units in San Francisco and downward pressure on market-rate rental rates. Given that San Francisco and San Mateo County housing experienced dramatic increases in for-sale and market-rate rents from 2012 to 2020, a decline is welcome by affordable housing advocates and demand for affordable (income-restricted) rental units is anticipated to remain relatively strong in the foreseeable future.
San Mateo County Agriculture Employment Summary • According to the County of San Mateo 2023 Agricultural Report (most recent report), the total estimated gross value of San Mateo County agricultural product in 2023 was $98.9 million, a 7.2% increase from 2022. (It should be noted that the 2024 report will not be released until July or August 2025). This figure does not account for inputs such as labor, packaging, transportation, and other production costs. Steady sales over 2022 indicate the county’s agricultural industry has recovered after the pandemic year of 2020 that adverse resulted in a 28% loss in gross value.
• Numerous factors influence agricultural production, many of which are outside the control of a farmer. Winter storms of 2022-23 brought the water we had all begged for after several years of continuous drought, but not without a cost. While most crops were not planted in 495
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
16 the ground during the heaviest of the winter storms, many farms’ operational infrastructures were severely damaged in the early part of the year. • Across all commodity groups, vegetable production value saw the largest growth with a 30% increase in 2023. This is mainly attributed to the miscellaneous vegetables category, which includes commodities such as herbs, kale, mushrooms, etc. that are not specifically named. • San Mateo County is recognized as one of the leading counties in California for floral and nursery crops. In fact, nearly 56% of the county’s agricultural product in 2023 came from indoor and outdoor grown flowers, plotted plants, cut flowers, and bedding plants. By comparison, vegetable crops, such as artichokes, beans, brussels sprouts, leaks, peas, pumpkins, and indoor grown crops (herbs, kale, squash, and lettuce, etc.) accounted for roughly 27% of agricultural products in 2023. Rounding out agricultural products include livestock (6.6%), and forest products (8.5%). • San Mateo County’s agricultural land registered with the California Department of Food and Agriculture as organic product was an estimated 496 acres total an estimated gross product value of $12.3 million in 2023. The county has 21 registered organic producers, steadily decreasing from the peak of 34 in 2017, a downward trend seen both in our county and statewide. The declines may be attributed to several factors at the local level, including the pandemic, fires, water shortages, and alternative certifications for ecologically balanced farming practices.
San Mateo County 2023 Crop Production
Crop 2023 Value ($M) 2011 Crop Ranking
Floral & Nursery Crops $55.2 1
Vegetables $26.8 2
Livestock $6.6 3
Forest Products $3.7 4
Fruit and Nut Crops $3.5 5
Field Crops $1.8 5
Livestock Products & Apiary $1.3 6
Total: $98.9
Source: San Mateo County Dept. of Agricultural/Weights & Measures. • It is projected that crop production and the need for farm labor to assist in that production is likely to remain stable over the next five years. Mechanized production posed the only potential risk to continued demand for farm labor; however, the technologies to improve efficiencies take years to develop and new farming advances in the local labor force will most likely not occur in the next 5-10 years.
• Agriculture employment in San Mateo County MSA has been constant over the past 13 years. In 2010, the county had 1,700 agriculture jobs, roughly 0.53% of the entire county labor force. Agriculture employment also has declined to 1,500+ jobs over the past 13 years in 2023. The total county agricultural employment base is small; however, most of the jobs are centered around Half Moon Bay and the surrounding areas. • According to EDD data for San Francisco and San Mateo County MD Q1 2024, the median hourly wage for farming, fishing and forestry occupations was $24.50, up from $18.70 in 496
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
17 Q1 2022. The median hour wage for farmworkers and laborers, crops, nurseries, and greenhouse employees is $22.03, although it’s to be excepted that virtually all crop and laborers’ farmworkers earn less. (See Exhibit II-11). Local wages will be discussed later based on surveys of local Half Moon Bay, farmworkers.
EXHIBIT II-11
TOTAL FARM EMPLOYMENT BY TYPE
SAN FRANCISCO MD 1/
Q1 2024
SOC
Code Occupational Title
25th
Percentile
Hourly
Wage
Median
Hourly
Wage
75th
Percentile
Hourly
Wage
45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 750 100% $19.92 $24.50 $26.59 45-1011
First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers 100 13% $24.62 $33.97 $44.90
45-2011 Agricultural Inspectors 30 4% $21.91 $29.46 $42.43 45-2092 Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse 500 67% $19.44 $22.03 $23.38 45-2093 Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch, and Aquacultural Animals 120 16% $21.10 $24.10 $26.88 1/ Incluldes San Francisco and San Mateo County, but most of these jobs are located within San Mateo County.
Source: State of California Employment Development Department; compiled by Newport Realty Advisors LLC. 1st Qtr
Employment
Estimates
Primary Market Area (Half Moon Bay) Farmworkers Demand Analysis, Wages, and Locations • In general, the Farmworkers Primary Market Area includes Half Moon Bay and extends a few miles inland along Highway 92, where several farms and nurseries are located. San Mateo County has approximately 27,000 acres of farm production and the majority is situated within the Primary Market. According to the San Mateo County of Agriculture, there are approximately 75 farms in the county and nearly 40% of all total farms and 45% of all nurseries in the county are in Half Moon Bay or just outside of city limits. • As with farm acreage, it is difficult to quantify the number of farm workers in the local PMA area. As stated earlier, there are 1,500 total agricultural workers in San Mateo County (2023) and it is difficult to estimate what percentage of these jobs are in the PMA. Given the number of farms and nurseries in the Half Moon Bay area, versus the rest of the county, many of the 1,500 agricultural jobs are expected to be in the PMA. • ALAS, a non-profit organization, that provides various types of assistance to the Latino community in and around Half Moon Bay currently provides services to nearly 500 farmworkers in the local PMA. Alas currently works with agricultural workers at 34 farms in Half Moon Bay and the surrounding area. ALAS conducted surveys in 2024 and of the 335 farmworkers that responded, 91% live/work on a farm in Half Moon Bay, El Granada, Moss Beach and Pescadero area, 3% live elsewhere in San Mateo County, 5% live throughout the county, and the remaining 1% live outside the Bay Area. • In terms of commuting patterns, another survey with 349 respondents who work/live within a 10-mile radius of Half Moon Bay indicated that 28% live on a farm where they work; 12% live within 3 miles, 10% live within 1.5 to 2 miles, 9% live within five miles, 8% live within 4 miles, 5% live within 1 mile and 4% live within 6 miles. In total, 76% live within five miles of where they work.
497
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
18 • According to the San Mateo County Agricultural Workforce Housing Needs Assessment Report in 2016, approximately 70% of farmworkers live on farms in most likely substandard housing conditions, with the report also concluding there is an unmet need for between 1,020 and 1,140 housing units. • Another survey conducted by ALAS, with all 492 responding, indicated that 40% of farmworkers are 40 to 59 years, 23% are 26 to 39 years, 18% are 60+, 12% are 16 to 25 years and 5% for missing age info. Another survey indicated that roughly 30% of farmworkers are 55 or older. • An ALAS income survey with 278 respondents indicated that 73% earned $10,757 to $25,499, 22% earned $25,500 to $40,245, and 4% earned less than $10,756. Assuming a 50-week employment year at 40 hours per week the hourly rate ranges from $5.00 to $20.00. A 2-person and 4-person household at 30% AMI levels would be income-qualified earning less than $47,010 and $58,740, respectively, and assuming the range of incomes from the surveyed most farmworkers would fall within this AMI target. If there were two full-time earners in a 4-person household, some would be ineligible at 30%, but would fall within the 50% AMI levels, ranging from $58.740 to $93,200, depending on the household size. • As previously mentioned, most of the farms/nurseries are in the immediate Half Moon Bay area. These farms/nurseries are a partial list of the major agricultural employers located within three miles of the subject site with an estimate of size (acres) per the San Mateo Department of Agriculture. The list includes Giusti (430 acres), Rocket Farms (250 acres), Repetto’s (102 acres), Cozzolino’s (31 acres), Figone (27 acres), Rudy’s Greenhouse (15 acres), and Bongards (13 acres).
In summary, the employment data and ALAS surveys indicate there is an overwhelming need for affordable senior farmworkers housing in the Half Moon Bay area. The 40 units proposed at the subject development is only a fraction of farmworkers housing needed in the local area as exemplified for the following reasons:
• Most of the agricultural jobs in the county are in the local Half Moon Bay and surrounding area, and the largest farm, Rocket Farms, and 40% to 45% of all farms and nurseries in the county are in Half Moon Bay. Although the exact number of farmworkers in the Half Moon Bay is difficult to calculate, if there are 1,500 agricultural jobs in the county, it can be conservatively estimated that at least 50%, or 750, are in the immediate Half Moon Bay area. The ALAS surveys also indicated that 76% of farmworkers live within five miles of Half Moon Bay, and as such, there is a significant need for farmworkers housing. Finally, the ALAS survey indicated that 20%+ of all farmworkers in their database are 55+ years+. • There is an undersupply of both farmworkers and senior housing in the immediate area.
Moonridge Apartments, a 160-unit LIHTC property, with 80 units targeted to farmworkers, is 97.5% occupied (applications in-process for both vacant units) and has a waiting list of 300+ households. The nearby senior LIHTC properties (non-farmworkers), including Coastal Senior Housing and Half Moon Village are fully leased. The ALAS surveys also indicated that 28% of farmworkers in their database live at farms and the place of residence is unknown for 47% (from the 2022 survey). It can be assumed that the housing on existing farms is substandard, and there’s a high probability that the 47% that were unwilling to 498
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
19 respond to their current place of residence either don’t have a physical address or are living in overcrowded housing conditions.
III. COMPETITIVE MARKET OVERVIEW
To assess rental conditions in the marketplace, Newport Realty Advisors LLC conducted detailed surveys of market-rate rental projects in the competitive market area (CMA), the area in which the comparable projects are located that will compete with the subject property. Per TCAC requirements, market-rate comparables are required to be within one mile of the subject site. The nearest independent-living senior market-rate project is located roughly 12.0+ miles from the subject site, and given the distances the nearest general occupancy market-rate comparables were surveyed.
Most land uses within one mile of the subject site are single family homes and the few multifamily projects in the area are generally smaller buildings (less than 5 units) or “mom and pop” managed buildings where property market-data is difficult to attain. Three individual rental units were identified at small multifamily buildings or ADU’s at single-family homes, but no multifamily building were identified within a one-mile radius of the subject site that had signage indicating market-rate apartments for rent or from on-line searches, such as www.Apartments.com, or www.Zillow.com. After an extensive search two 1B rental units and one studio unit were identified within the one-mile required area and the nearest rental units for each unit type were also surveyed. There is a low supply of multifamily rental units along the Half Moon Bay and nearby coastline and the nearest comps are located 0.60 to 6.2 miles from the subject site. Finally, the three nearest senior LIHTC properties with similar unit types to the proposed subject development were also surveyed and are located 8.78 to 16.6 miles from the subject site (For detailed information, maps and pictures of comparable market properties please refer to Exhibit III-1, III-2, and the Appendix of the report).
Competitive Market-Rate Rental Housing Analysis
Most residential land uses in Half Moon Bay are single-family homes and the area lacks multifamily rental units. Half Moon Bay is also a popular second-home destination market and rental units are rare. After an extensive on-line search for studio, 1B and 2B rental units in Half Moon Bay, only three properties were identified within the TCAC required one-mile area. Two of these units are separate ADU’s at single-family homes and the other one is in a 16-unit multifamily building. The remaining units surveyed were the nearest studio, 1B and 2B rental units identified relative to the subject site. Given the lack of nearby rental units, it was necessary to survey units outside a typical competitive market area, but no other option was available. The surveyed units were identified as the majority were currently vacant and are actively marketed “for-rent”. It is possible that other smaller multifamily rental buildings are in the Half Moon Bay area, but none of these buildings had signage or are not listed from on-line sources and weren’t identified.
The comparables are as follows: 653 Grove Street #C (comparable #1), located 0.60 miles to the south; 515 Terrace Street #B (comp #2), located approximately 0.65 miles to the west; 1018 Golden Gate (comparable #3), located 0.95 miles to the northwest; 390 Redondo (comp #4), located approximately 1.64 miles to the south; 214 Washington Boulevard (comp #5), located approximately 2.07 miles to the south; 477 3rd Avenue (comp #6), located approximately 2.55 miles to the northwest; 195 Avenue Cabrillo (comp #7), located approximately 3.18 miles to the 499
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
20 northwest; Maverick Apartments (comp #8), located approximately 3.40 miles to the northwest;; and 279 Virginia Avenue (comp #9), located 6.21 miles to the northwest.
In total, nine comparables were surveyed for this analysis, three units for each unit type (Exhibit III-1). The units surveyed were all vacant excluding 12 units in a small multifamily building, Maverick Apartments (comp #8), which was found on-line even though the property had no vacancies. From a location perspective, the two 1B units and one studio are located within the required one-mile area offer relatively comparable location to the subject site. The remaining comparables are in more a “rural” setting that lacks nearby services amenities and are considered an inferior location unless a resident prefers to live in quiet or even isolated area.
The condition of most of the comparables are inferior to the proposed subject’s new product offering, excluding the recently constructed comps. On average, the comparables were built in 2013, 15 years old. The comps that were recently built and offer a superior product type, include 515 Terrace Avenue, 1018 Golden Gate, 390 Redondo, 477 3rd Street, and Maverick Apartments.
The proposed subject property will offer a superior product the remaining comparable units.
The studio comps are either in-law or ADU units in single-family homes or in a duplex. The studio unit sizes range from 330 to 525 square feet and are priced from $2,550 to $2,995. Two 1B comps are also in ADU’s and another one is in a 16-unit building. The 1B unit sizes range from 400 to 657 square feet and are priced from $2,300 to $2,995. The 2B comps are also either in-law units in single-family homes or in a duplex. One of the 2B units is an ADU, while the two others are in smaller multifamily buildings (nine to 12 units). The 2B unit sizes range from 995 to 1,082 square feet and are priced from $3,835 to $4,000. (For a map of the comparable projects and pictures of the adjacent parcels for comps outside the 1.0-mile area, please refer to Exhibit III-2 in the Appendix.)
Farmworkers Housing Overview
According to TCAC/CDLAC/HCD, the nearest farmworkers property in San Mateo County, is Moonridge Apartments, located at 2001 Miramontes Point Road, in Half Moon Bay approximately 3.0 miles to the south of the subject site. The property’s farmworkers component was financed under HCD’s Farmworker Housing Grant Program. The nearest Joe Serna Jr. properties are in Santa Cruz County, specifically in the City of Watsonville, approximately 60 miles to the south. Other Joe Serna Jr and USDA farmworkers property are in Gilroy and Salinas, roughly 65-75 miles to the southeast. One senior property (62+), Los Abuelitos Senior Apartment, offers 25 1B units for retired farmworkers, located in Salinas. None of the farmworkers in the local area would commute those distances, so the property is not comparable.
Moonridge Apartments offers 160 units in 2B, 3B and 4B units for general occupancy units (not age-restricted), of which 80 units have been allocated for farmworkers. The property was built in 2001 and offers units at 30% to 50% AMI levels with no PBV subsidies. The 80 farmworkers units have two vacancies, 97.5% occupied, but have applications in process for both units, and averages two units of turnover per year. The general occupancy property is 100% occupied. The 80 farmworkers component has a waiting list of 300+ and the waiting list was generated after being open for six weeks in July 2024, but the waiting list has been closed since that time. The extensive waiting list further indicates the need for farmworkers housing. Lastly, approximately 40 residents in the ALAS database reside at Moonridge Apartments. The low vacancies, extensive waiting list, and low turnover exemplifies the need for additional farmworkers housing in the local CMA.
500
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
21 Competitive Market Area Senior LIHTC Analysis
According to the State of California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) there are three existing senior LIHTC projects located in Half Moon Bay; however, all offer PBV subsidies and aren’t good comps for the purposes of this analysis. The three properties offer 1B units and one contains eight 2B units. In general, San Mateo County lack senior LIHTC properties and only three of these offer studio units and were surveyed for this analysis. The three nearest senior LIHTC comps for each unit type were also surveyed. One senior affordable property, Pacific Oaks Senior Apartments, in Pacifica, offers all its units under County bond (non-LIHTC) program at 80% AMI, so the property was deemed not comparable.
Given the lack of senior LIHTC projects in the local marketplace, the LIHTC senior subsidized properties in Half Moon Bay were summarized below. The properties’ high occupancy and waiting lists further illustrate the need for affordable senior housing in the marketplace.
Project Name: Half Moon Bay Village II
Address: 9 Bloom Lane, and 801 Arnold Way, Half Moon Bay, CA Distance: 0.70 miles to the south
Product Type: Three-Story Product Type
Year Built: 2015
Rental Type: LIHTC (62+)
Rental Program: All units offer a PBV subsidy.
Total Units: 114 LIHTC plus a manager’s unit.
Unit Size: 107 – 1B units (630 square feet); 7 – 2B units (826 square feet) Turnover: One per month or 11% annually
Occupancy: 100.0%
Waiting List: Maintained off-site from the Housing Authority.
Project Name: Coastside Senior Housing
Address: 925 Main Street, Half Moon Bay, CA
Distance: 0.75 miles to the south
Product Type: Three-Story Product Type
Year Built: 2014
Rental Type: LIHTC (62+)
Rental Program: All units offer a PBV subsidy.
Total Units: 39 LIHTC plus a manager’s unit.
Unit Size: 39 – 1B units (541 square feet)
Turnover: 1 per year or 2% annually
Occupancy: 100.0%
Waiting List: Maintained off-site from the Housing Authority.
The comparable senior LIHTC projects that were surveyed for this analysis are summarized below.
San Mateo Rotary Floritas (comparable #10) is in the City of San Mateo roughly 8.7 miles to the northeast of the subject site. The property is the nearest non-subsidized senior LIHTC property relative to the subject site. The project offers a superior (more suburban/less rural) location to the subject site, although some senior residents may prefer a more rural/coastal location. San Mateo Rotary Floritas (62+) was built in 2005 and offers 47 senior LIHTC units in 1B and 2B floor 501
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
22 plans at 30% to 50% AMI levels. Rents are below maximum allowable HUD/TCAC rents. The property is 100.0% occupied and has a waiting list of 218+ households. Turnover averages 1 per year to 2% annually. San Mateo Rotary Floritas offers a three-story “elevator-served” product with approximately 39 podium-level parking spaces (0.82 spaces per unit ratio). In summary, the proposed subject property will offer a superior product type, relative to San Mateo Rotary Floritas (built in 2005).
Ocean View Senior Apartments (comparable #11) is in the City of Pacifica, 10.1 miles to the north, situated in a coastal area, similar to the subject site. In general, the property offers a comparable location, relative to the subject site. Ocean View Senior (62+) was built in 1973, but rehabilitated in 2016, and offers 99 senior LIHTC 1B units, of which 30 units offer a PBV subsidy. The 69 non-subsidized units are at 30% to 80% AMI levels with rents near the maximum allowable HUD/TCAC rents. The property is 87.0% occupied, with two applications in-process for the nine vacant units. According to the on-site manager, the property is short-staff and the manager has been unable to lease the units based on limited time availability, but that is anticipated to change as they are planning on hiring additional help. There is a short waiting list at the property, but the amount is unknown. Turnover averages 3 per year to 3% annually. Ocean View Senior offers a three-story “elevator-served” product with podium-level parking spaces. (The exact number of spaces is unknown). In summary, the subject property will offer a superior product type, relative to Ocean View Senior Apartments (built in 1973 and rehabbed in 2016).
Metro Center Senior (comparable #12) is in a somewhat urban setting in the central business district in Foster City, located approximately 10.1 miles to the northeast. In general, the property offers a superior location (more urban/less rural), although some senior residents may prefer a more rural/coastal location. Metro Center Senior (62+) was built in 1994 and offers 59 senior LIHTC units in 1B and 2B floor plans at 40% to 60% AMI levels. Rents are below maximum allowable HUD/TCAC rents. The property is 100.0% occupied and has a waiting list of 200+ households. Turnover averages 2 per year to 3% annually. Metro Center Senior offers a fourstory “elevator-served” product with 21 podium-level parking spaces (0.35 spaces per unit). In summary, the subject property will offer a superior product type, relative to Metro Center Senior (built in 1994).
Arroyo Green Apartments (comparable #13) is in Redwood City, 11.3 miles to the north, offering a superior location to the subject site. Arroyo Green (62+) was built in 2021 and offers a total of 117 senior units, of which 94 units offer a PBV subsidy. The 23 non-subsidized units are studio and 1B units are at 50% to 60% AMI levels with rents at maximum allowable HUD/TCAC rents. The property is 91.3% occupied, with applications in-process for both vacant units. The property has a waiting list of 50+ households. Turnover averages 3 per year to 2.5% annually. Arroyo Green offers a seven-story “elevator-served” product with 83 podium-level parking spaces (0.70 spaces per unit). In summary, the subject property will offer a relatively comparable product type to Arroyo Green Apartments built in 2021.
Village at the Crossing (comparable #14) is in the City of San Bruno, located approximately 11.8 miles to the north. In general, the property offers a superior location (more urban/less rural), although some senior residents may prefer a more rural/coastal location. Village at the Crossing (62+) was built in 2007 and offers 228 senior LIHTC units in 1B and 2B floor plans at 30% to 60% AMI levels. Rents are at maximum allowable HUD/TCAC rents. The property is 100% occupied and has a waiting list of 110 households. Turnover averages 1 month to 5% annually.
Village at the Crossing offers a four-story “elevator-served” product with podium-level parking 502
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
23 spaces (number unknown). In summary, the subject property will offer a superior product type, relative to Village at the Crossing (built in 2007).
Rotary Village (comparable #15) is in the City of South San Francisco, 12.6 miles to the north.
In general, the property offers a superior location (more urban/less rural), although some senior residents may prefer a more rural/coastal location. Rotary Village (62+) was built in 1970, but rehabilitated in 2015, and offers 179 senior LIHTC studio and 1B units, of which, approximately 75% or 135 units offer a PBV subsidy. The estimated 44 non-subsidized units are at 50% and 60% AMI levels with rents are well maximum allowable HUD/TCAC rents. The property is 100% occupied and has a waiting list of 200+ households. Turnover averages 10 per year to 6% annually. Rotary Village offers a three-story “elevator-served” product with open surface and carport parking spaces. In summary, the subject property will offer a superior product type, relative to Rotary Village (built in 1970 and rehabbed in 2015).
Brunswick Street Apartments (comparable #16) is in Daly City, located approximately 16.6 miles to the north. In general, the property offers a superior location (more urban/less rural), although some senior residents may prefer a more rural/coastal location. Brunswick Street Apartments (55+) was built in 2020 and offers 204 senior LIHTC studio units with rents below maximum levels at 50% to 60% AMI levels. The property is 97.5% occupied, with applications in-process for the five vacant units. The property does not maintain a waiting list. Turnover averages 10 per year to 5% annually. Brunswick Street Apartments offers a six-story “elevatorserved” product with 65 podium-level parking spaces (0.31 spaces per unit). In summary, the subject property will offer a comparable product type, relative to Brunswick Street Apartments (built in 2020).
Occupancy, Waiting List, Concessions and Turnover Analysis Based on the lack of larger market-rate apartment complexes in the CMA, it was not possible to generate an accurate occupancy rate for the CMA. Additionally, secondary research publications do not track smaller apartment projects in the City of Half Moon Bay, so an overall occupancy rate for the City was unavailable. Based on the 18 units surveyed for this assignment, the overall occupancy rate was 75.0% (5 out of 20 vacant units); however, it should be noted that only vacant units were advertised and listed “for-rent”. Given the lack of apartments in the local area it can be assumed that the rental vacancy level in Half Moon Bay is quite low.
Occupancy is strong for senior LIHTC projects. The occupancy rate for the senior LIHTC units is 97.6% (16 vacancies out of 697 units); however, there are applications in-process for 12 of the 19 vacant units. The units with no applications are all at Ocean View Senior Apartments.
According to the on-site agent, there have staff storage issues and on-site managers hasn’t had the resources and time to lease the units. Furthermore, the senior LIHTC projects had a combined waiting list of 778+ households. In addition, the only property in the entire county offering housing to farmworkers, Moonridge Apartments in Half Moon Bay has a waiting list of 300+ households and that list was generated during a three-week period in July 2024. Finally, according to the San Mateo Housing Authority, there are over 6,000 households on the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list and over 4,200 vouchers are in-use.
None of the market-rate projects offer move-in concessions. Turnover was unavailable for the market-rate units, but CMA has very low levels of turnover for senior LIHTC rental units. The senior LIHTC projects have a 3.7% average annual turnover rate ranging from a low of 2% at 503
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
24 San Mateo rotary Floritas to a high of 6% at Rotary Plaza. The extremely low turnover is the result of the lack of affordable senior units in the area and bode well for future leasing at the subject development.
Unit Composition and Sizes
A comparison of the subject property’s unit sizes to market-rate and LIHTC projects is summarized below. The subject property units are roughly 1% to 11% smaller than market-rate units are equivalent, however, the 1B’s and 2B’s are 1% and 6% smaller, and the 2B’s are 14% larger than respective LIHTC units, while the subject’s 1B units are 6% smaller. The subject’s units have been determined to be more than adequate for the local marketplace. Refer to the appendix of this report for the floor plans of the subject’s units. 1/ Based on the weighted average unit size of market-rate rental units (Exhibit III-1). 2/ Based on LIHTC projects in the CMA (Exhibit III-1).
3/ Positive (+) % indicates that subject is larger than competing units; negative (-) % indicates the subject is smaller.
Rental Structure Analysis
Current “net” (net of utility allowances) rents for the subject property were compared against market-rate rents, as shown in the table below. With adjustments, the subject’s “net” rents for studio, 1B, and 2B units at all the AMI’s are 34% to 41% below market rents.
Unit Income Net Existing
Type Limits Rents Rents 1/ $ %
Studio 30% $932 $2,437 ($1,505) -62%
Studio 50% $1,617 $2,437 ($820) -34%
1B/1b 30% $985 $2,656 ($1,671) -63%
1B/1b 50% $1,720 $2,625 ($905) -34%
2B/1b 30% $1,165 $3,485 ($2,320) -67%
2B/1b 50% $2,046 $3,485 ($1,439) -41%
Rent Differences 2/
Subject Property Proposed "Net" Rents vs. Weighted Average Market Rents 1/ Represents the weighted average (adjusted) market-rate rents for 1B, 2B and 3B units (Exhibit III-1). 2/ (+) % indicate that subject is above market/LIHTC rents; negative (-) % indicates that subject rents are lower.
Using TCAC’s Rent Comparability Matrix (located in the Appendix), the subject’s studio unit rents at 50% AMI levels (highest rents) are 34% below the adjusted market-rate studio units, while the subject’s studio rents on a price per square foot basis are 35% below market-rate studio unit price per square foot rents. The subject’s 1B unit rents at 50% AMI levels (highest rents) are 35% below the adjusted market-rate 1B units, while the subject’s 1B rents on a price per square foot basis are 34% below market-rate 1B unit price per square foot rents. Finally, the subject’s 2B unit rents at 50% AMI levels (highest rents) are 41% below the adjusted marketUnit Subject Market Difference 3/ Difference 3/ Size Property (sf) Rate (sf) 1/ LIHTC 2/
Studio 411 427 -4% 416 -1%
1B/1b 545 552 -1% 577 -6%
2B/1b 955 1,068 -11% 835 14%
Unit Size Comparison
504
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
25 rate 2B units, while the subject’s 2B rents on a price per square foot basis are 37% below market-rate 2B unit price per square foot rents.
Rental adjustments for the subject property were made in the Rent Comparability Matrix in the Appendix ranging from 87% to 113% for studio units, 91% to 113% for 1B units, and 83% to 95% for the 2B units. One of the studio comps, 214 Washington, exceeded TCAC’s 110% maximum level, but the property did not offer a kitchen, and it was necessary to adjust the rents.
One of the 1B comps, 279 Virginia, was built in 1975 and is in poor condition and yet to be rehabilitated and is only 400 square feet. Both comps that exceeded the 110% maximum were adjusted to 113%. In general, the adjustments for comparable properties were mainly for the lack of common area amenities and unit features offered at some of the market-rate comps. The largest dollar amount for adjustments was $150 for in-unit washer and dryer appliances offered at some of the market-rate properties. Under normal conditions, a 10% or higher difference between market-rate and LIHTC rents is considered favorable for the success of LIHTC projects.
The difference between the subject rents and market-rate rents bode well for the subject property.
The adjustment assumptions in the matrix were based on typical market conditions in the greater PMA. Finally, if the subject property were not income-restricted its Derived Market Rent is estimated to be $2,400 or $5.82 per square foot for the studio unit (411 square feet), $2,750 or $5.05 per square foot for the 1B unit (545 square feet), and $3,300 or $3.46 per square foot for the 2B unit (955 square feet),
Planned and Proposed Projects
According to Half Moon Bay planning officials, there are no approved large (50 unit+) senior market-rate multifamily projects proposed in the city. According to TCAC and CDLAC, there are no proposed senior developments, but one farmworkers project that has been awarded Joe Serna Jr. credits. The development, located at 880 Stone Pine Road, 0.75 miles to the northeast, will offer 47 manufactured homes in 1B, 2B and 3B floorplans. The development recently started construction and is anticipated to be completed by early 2026. The property will also offer 117 surface parking spaces. The property is not age-restricted and open to all farmworkers who qualify.
Another general occupancy LIHTC development, of which, 18 of 71 units will be allocated for farmworkers. The development, Cypress Point, is in Moss Beach, approximately 7.0 miles to the northwest of the subject site. Cypress Point has been awarded LIHTC’s and has also received funding from the county. The development is slated to offer 71 units in 1B, 2B and 3B floorplans in a two-story product type with 142 parking spaces with rents ranging from 30% to 60% AMI’s.
Construction is anticipated to commence in mid-2025 and will be completed in mid-2026. Given the lack of farmworkers housing in the local PMA and the difference in target populations, neither of the proposed farmworkers projects will be competitive to the proposed subject development.
505
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
26 IV. DEMAND ANALYSIS
Newport Realty Advisors has prepared a statistical demand forecast based on current/projected household growth and income qualified residents to assess the overall depth of demand in the PMA (Exhibit IV-1). The model qualifies new household population and potential turnover population by such factors as age, household, income level and propensity to rent. Qualified new households were added to the likely turnover of qualified existing households for the total annual demand potential and the subject property’s potential market penetration.
The model indicates that there is enough demand to justify the development of 555 Kelly. The subject property’s 39 LIHTC units would need to achieve a market capture of roughly 12.7% of the PMA’s first year demand (308 households) to successfully achieve stabilization (95% occupancy). The projected capture is achievable given the near 100.0% occupancy rate Unit Type: Total S @ 30% S @ 50% 1B @ 30% 1B @ 50% 2B @ 30% 2B @ 50% Qualified Income Range 1/ $27.960- $27.960- $49,510- $29,550- $52,000- $37,000- $78,350- $97,900 $29,550 $52,000 $40,000 $78,350 $39,000 $97,900 Estimated Household Size (up to) 1-Person 1-Person 2-Person 2-Person 4-Person 4-Person Max. % of Income used for Rent (Qualification Ratio) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%
SOURCES OF DEMAND
New Household Growth, 2025-2030
Total Annual New Households Within PMA (65+) 173 173 173 173 173 173 173 x Income and Age Qualified Households 2/ 23.5% 0.8% 1.8% 4.6% 14.0% 1.1% 1.3% = Income and Age Qualified Households 41 1 3 8 24 2 2
x % Renter 3/ 31.0% 31.0% 31.0% 31.0% 31.0% 31.0% 31.0% = Income Qualified Renters 13 0 1 2 8 1 1
= Annual Qualified Demand From New HH Growth 13 0 1 2 8 1 1 Renter Turnover
Total 2025 Households (65-84) 11,601 11,601 11,601 11,601 11,601 11,601 11,601 x Income and Age Qualified Households 3/ 23.5% 0.8% 1.8% 4.6% 14.0% 1.1% 1.3% = Income and Age Qualified Households 2,720 87 203 528 1,624 128 151 x % Renter 3/ 31.0% 31.0% 31.0% 31.0% 31.0% 31.0% 31.0% = Income Qualified Renters 843 27 63 164 503 40 47
x Annual Turnover 4/ 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% = Qualified Turnover Households 295 9 22 57 176 14 16
= Annual Qualified Demand From Renter Turnover 295 9 22 57 176 14 16 Total Estimated Annual Demand Potential 308 10 23 60 184 14 17 x % Demand from Outside Primary Market Area 5/ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% = Total Annual Demand in PMA 308 10 23 60 184 14 17 = SubTotal Annual Demand in PMA 308 10 23 60 184 14 17 = Total Demand 308 10 23 60 184 14 17
Total Number of Units at the Subject 39 2 1 7 27 1 1
= Subject's Market Capture 12.7% 20.3% 4.4% 11.7% 14.7% 6.9% 5.9% 1/ Income levels based on HUD maximum for respective household/income levels (Exhibit II-6). Assumes household will use up to 35% of income for rent.
2/ Claritas household income based on 2023 PMA for ages 65+ from Exhibit II-5. 3/ Percentage of senior renters (65+) in PMA from Census 2023 (Exhibit II-5). 4/ Represents average turnover in a typical unconstrained market. 5/ Estimate of demand coming outside PMA, based on the relative small size of the PMA.
Exhibit IV-1
Estimated Annual Demand Potential at Subject Property
506
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
27 (applications in-process for nearly vacant units) at existing senior LIHTC projects; the lack of proposed senior LIHTC projects in the PMA; the current waiting list at existing senior LIHTC projects (778+ households); the waiting list (300+) at the only farmworkers property in the county; and the relatively small size of PMA. Finally, the penetration rate for the PMA is above 100% (subject 39 units + 697 existing LIHTC units divided by 308); however, it should be noted that all the senior LIHTC properties are located outside of the CMA as the local CMA does not offer any non-subsidized senior LIHTC units. The penetration rate is also deceiving given the number of senior LIHTC properties that were surveyed for this analysis. A more accurate indication of housing demand is current waiting lists at both existing senior LIHTC properties and the only farmworkers property, Moonridge Apartments, in the CMA.
Absorption Analysis – LIHTC Units
The projected absorption for the subject property, based on an overall monthly absorption rate of is determined to be approximately 25 units per month. The absorption rate is based on the overall size of the market, projected future household growth, current/demand levels, and waiting lists at existing senior LIHTC projects and farmworkers property. In general, our projected absorption rate is relatively conservative based on the lack of affordable housing in the PMA. Overall, the projected absorption rate at the subject property translates to a minimum lease-up period of approximately 1.5 months.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our analysis indicates that there is a strong need for LIHTC senior farmworkers rental units in the local marketplace. This assumption is based on favorable supply/demand fundamentals, specifically the strong demand for LIHTC units in the PMA as evidenced by the near 100.0% senior LIHTC occupancy levels (applications in-process for nearly all vacant units); 778+ household waiting list from the senior LIHTC projects; the 300+ waiting list at the only farmworkers property, Moonridge Apartments, in the county; the lack of new senior LIHTC projects proposed in the PMA; the statistics from the ALAS survey indicating the need for farmworkers housing for residents 55+; and finally, the subject property’s Half Moon Bay coastal location and new product offering.
Additionally, the subject property will offer unit features that are more than adequate for the local marketplace. Under typical conditions, a 10.0% or higher difference between market-rate and LIHTC rents is favorable for the success of LIHTC projects. The proposed subject’s recommended rents for studio to 2B units’ position it 34% to 41% below the adjusted comparable market rents for the subject’s units at the highest 50% AMI level, based on the Rent Comparability Matrix in the Appendix.
All information contained in this study is believed to be accurate, reliable, and timely. Newport Realty Advisors LLC has no reason to question the accuracy of the data compiled in this report; however, we are unable to guarantee its contents.
507
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
SECTION 4:
APPENDIX
508
EXHIBIT III-1
SURVEY OF SELECTED MARKET RATE AND LOW-INCOME TAX CREDIT PROJECTS
COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
MARCH 2025
PROJECT NAME/ YEAR PRODUCT
LOCATION/CONTACT BUILT NO VACANT TYPE SIZE RENTAL RANGE $/SQ. FT. TYPE COMMENTS/LOCATION Market-Rate Comparables
1 653 GROVE STREET 1960s 1 1 1B/1b 600 $2,300 - $2,300 $3.83 - $3.83 Two-Story Unit located in a fourplex and is party of a 16-unit 653 Grove Street #C Walk-Up building. Property offers tuck-under carport parking Half Moon Bay, CA Configuration and the unit contains mostly original fixtures and (650) 298-7766; Mira kitchen cabinets. Unit size estimated. The property is located 0.60 miles to the south of the subject site. 2 515 TERRACE AVENUE 2024 1 1 1B/1b 657 $2,995 - $2,995 $4.56 - $4.56 Single-Story ADU unit in the rear of a single-family home. No 515 Terrace Avenue #B ADU parking offered. Brand new construction. The Half Moon Bay, CA property is located 0.65 miles to the west. (415) 358-7178; Jason
3 1018 GOLDEN GATE 2021 1 1 Studio 330 $2,550 - $2,550 $7.73 - $7.73 Single-Story ADU unit in the rear of a single-family home. No 1018 Golden Gate Avernue #A ADU parking offered. Newer construction. The Half Moon Bay, CA property is located 0.95 miles to the northwest. (631) 889-9210
4 390 REDONDO ROAD 2025 1 1 2B/1b 995 $4,000 - $4,000 $4.02 - $4.02 Single-Story ADU unit in the rear of a single-family home. No 390 Redondo Road #B ADU parking offered. Brand new construction. The Half Moon Bay, CA property is located 1.64 miles to the south. (916) 909-1731; Adrienne
5 214 WASHINGTON BLVD 1998 1 1 Studio 425 $2,900 - $2,900 $6.82 - $6.82 2nd Story Second story of a single-family home converted 214 Washington Boulevard #A ADU to an ADU unit. No kitchen or parking with private Half Moon Bay, CA entrance. The property is located 2.07 miles to the (310) 879-5295; Lester north of the subject site.
6 477 3RD AVENUE 2022 1 1 Studio 525 $2,995 - $2,995 $5.70 - $5.70 Single-Story ADU unit of a single-family home. Open surface 477 3rd Avenue ADU parking offered. The property is located 2.55 miles Half Moon Bay, CA to the northwest of the subject site. (213) 319-6354; Rita
7 195 AVENUE CABRILLO 2018 1 1 2B/2b 1,000 $4,000 - $4,000 $4.00 - $4.00 Three-Story Nine-unit multifamily building with podium level 195 Avenue Cabrillo #9 Elevator-Served parking. Property is located 3.18 miles to the northEl Granada, CA Building west of the subject site. (650) 643-4851; Katrina
8 MAVERICK APARTMENTS 2017 10 0 2B/2b 1,082 $3,835 - $3,900 $3.54 - $3.60 Three-Story 12-unit apartment complex. The 2B units range 101 Avenue Portola 2 0 3B/2b 1,330 $4,095 - $4,295 $3.08 - $3.23 "Walk-Up" in size from 983 to 1,089 SF. The last unit rented Half Moon Bay, CA 12 0 1,123 $3,878 - $3,966 $3.45 - $3.53 Configuration was 1,082 SF within the last month. Podium (650) 740-3455; Camille level covered parking offered. The property is located 3.40 miles to the northwest of the subject
site.
UNIT CHARACTERISTICS MONTHLY RENT
EXHIBIT III-1
SURVEY OF SELECTED MARKET RATE AND LOW-INCOME TAX CREDIT PROJECTS
COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
PROJECT NAME/ PRODUCT
LOCATION/CONTACT NO VACANT TYPE SIZE RENTAL RANGE $/SQ. FT. TYPE COMMENTS/LOCATION Market-Rate Comparables (Continued)
9 279 VIRGINIA AVENUE 1975 1 1 1B/1b 400 $2,500 - $2,500 $6.25 - $6.25 Two-Story ADU unit built above the garage in a two-story 279 Virginia Avenue Duplex home. Unit has a separate entrance. No parking Moss Beach, CA Configuration offered. The property locatedd 6.21 miles to the (650) 420-1147; Andrea northwest of the subject site.
Market-Rate Projects- Studio 3 3 15% 427 $2,815 - $2,815 $6.60 - $6.60 1B 3 3 15% 552 $2,598 - $2,598 $4.70 - $4.70
2B 12 2 60% 1,068 $3,863 - $3,917 $3.62 $3.67
3B 2 0 10% 1,330 $4,095 - $4,295 $3.08 $3.23
Weighted Averages 75.0% 20 5 100% 788 $3,130 $3,162 $3.97 $4.01
PROJECT NAME/ BUILT/ PRODUCT TURNOVER RATE/CONCESSIONS
LOCATION/ OCC./ NO VACANT TYPE SIZE RENTAL RANGE $/SQ. FT. TYPE COMMENTS/ Senior LIHTC Comparable Projects
10 SAN MATEO ROTARY FLORITAS 2005 5 0 1B/1b @ 30% 500 $610 - $610 $1.22 - $1.22 Three-Story Turnover averages 1/year or 2% annually. 99 27th Avenue 100.0% 5 0 1B/1b @ 35% 500 $725 - $725 $1.45 - $1.45 "Elevator-Served" Property for seniors 62+. Rents are intentionally San Mateo, CA 4 0 1B/1b @ 40% 500 $805 - $805 $1.61 - $1.61 Configuration below maximum HUD/TCAC rents levels. 650-286-1146; Jabbar 4 0 1B/1b @ 45% 500 $920 - $920 $1.84 - $1.84 Units are on "floating" system whereby current 20 0 1B/1b @ 50% 500 $1,200 - $1,200 $2.40 - $2.40 tenants, if eligible, can move into lower AMI 9 0 2B/1b @ 50% 675 $1,800 - $1,800 $2.67 - $2.67 units if they are vacated and new tenants will Weighted Avg. 47 0 534 $1,144 - $1,144 $2.14 - $2.14 come in a higher AMI levels. The property has a waiting list of 218 households. The property is
located 8.78 mile to the NW of the subject site.
11 OCEAN VIEW SENIOR APTS 1973 10 0 1B/1b @ 30% 525 $1,016 - $1,016 $1.94 - $1.94 Three-Story Turnover averages 3/year or 3% annually. Property 555 Crespi Drive Rehab - 2016 49 2 1B/1b @ 60% 525 $2,034 - $2,034 $3.87 - $3.87 "Elevator-Served" (62+) offers 99 LIHTC units, with 30 PBV's. The Pacifica, CA 94044 87.0% 10 7 1B/1b @ 80% 525 $2,712 - $2,712 $5.17 - $5.17 Configuration 69 non-subsidized units are near max. rent levels. 650-359-2114; Wendy Weighted Avg 69 9 525 $1,985 - $1,985 $3.78 - $3.78 Applications in-process for 2 of the vacant units.
Property has a waiting list, but office is short staff
so manager hasn't had the time to lease the units.
Property is located 10.1 miles to the NE.
12 METRO CENTER SENIOR 1995 8 0 1B/1b @ 40% 600 $1,250 - $1,250 $2.08 - $2.08 Five-Story Turnover averages 2/year or 3% annually. 100 Village Lane Rehab - 2013 25 0 1B/1b @ 50% 600 $1,525 - $1,525 $2.54 - $2.54 "Elevator-Served" Senior (62+) LIHTC property. Rents below HUD/ Foster City, CA 100.0% 4 0 1B/1b @ 60% 600 $1,700 - $1,700 $2.83 - $2.83 Configuration TCAC maximum allowable rent levels. Property 650-349-9959; Lenaya 8 0 2B/1b @ 40% 873 $1,550 - $1,550 $1.78 - $1.78 has a waiting list of 200+ households. Property 10 0 2B/1b @ 50% 873 $1,800 - $1,800 $2.06 - $2.06 is located 10.8 miles to the northeast of the 4 0 2B/1b @ 60% 873 $2,100 - $2,100 $2.41 - $2.41 subject site.
Weighted Avg. 59 0 702 $1,589 - $1,589 $2.26 - $2.26
13 ARROYO GREEN APTS 2021 2 0 Studio @ 50% 362 $1,542 - $1,542 $4.26 - $4.26 Seven-Story Turnover averages 3/year or 3% annually. Property 707 Bradford Street 91.3% 9 1 1B/1b @ 50% 362 $1,747 - $1,747 $4.83 - $4.83 "Elevator-Served" (62+) has 117 LIHTC units, with 94 units offering Redwood City, CA 12 1 1B/1b @ 60% 563 $2,114 - $2,114 $3.75 - $3.75 Configuration PBV's for VASH or homeless residents. Rents for 650-509-5020; Myra Weighted Avg 23 2 467 $1,921 - $1,921 $4.11 - $4.11 23 units are at max. HUD/TCAC rents. Applications in process for both vacant units. Unit mix for 1B
units estimated. Property has a waiting list of
50+ HH's. The property is located 11.3 miles
to the east of the subject site.
UNIT CHARACTERISTICS MONTHLY RENT
UNIT CHARACTERISTICS MONTHLY RENT
EXHIBIT III-1
SURVEY OF SELECTED MARKET RATE AND LOW-INCOME TAX CREDIT PROJECTS
COMPETITIVE MARKET AREA
PROJECT NAME/ BUILT/ PRODUCT TURNOVER RATE/CONCESSIONS
LOCATION/ OCC./ NO VACANT TYPE SIZE RENTAL RANGE $/SQ. FT. TYPE COMMENTS/ Senior LIHTC Comparable Projects (Continued)
14 VILLAGE AT THE CROSSING 2007 21 0 1B/1b @ 30% 619 $1,259 - $1,259 $2.03 - $2.03 Four-Story Turnover averages 1/month or 5% annually. 1101 National Avenue 100.0% 8 0 1B/1b @ 50% 619 $1,679 - $1,679 $2.71 - $2.71 "Elevator-Served" Senior (62+) LIHTC property. Rents at HUD/ San Bruno, CA 149 0 1B/1b @ 60% 619 $2,028 - $2,028 $3.28 - $3.28 Configuration TCAC maximum allowable rent levels. Property 650-588-8036; Tina 8 0 2B/1b @ 30% 847 $1,160 - $1,160 $1.37 - $1.37 has a 110+ waiting list and is located 11.8 miles 4 0 2B/1b @ 50% 847 $1,999 - $1,999 $2.36 - $2.36 north of the subject site. 38 0 2B/1b @ 60% 847 $2,419 - $2,419 $2.86 - $2.86
Weighted Avg 228 0 669 $1,979 - $1,979 $2.96 - $2.96
15 ROTARY PLAZA 1970 10 0 Studio @ 50% 380 $775 - $775 $2.04 - $2.04 Four-Story Turnover averages 10/year or 6% annually. 433 Alida Way Rehab - 2015 20 0 Studio @ 60% 380 $775 - $775 $2.04 - $2.04 "Walk-Up" Property (62+) offers 179 LIHTC units, with South San Francisco, CA 100.0% 4 0 1B/1b @ 50% 600 $975 - $975 $1.63 - $1.63 Configuration roughly 75% of units offering a PBV subsidy & 650-871-5323; Debra/Ricky 10 0 1B/1b @ 60% 600 $975 - $975 $1.63 - $1.63 25% of units tenants responsible for LIHTC rents Weighted Avg. 44 0 450 $839 - $839 $1.86 - $1.86 well below maximum allowable LIHTC rents.
The on-site agent was unsure of the exact
unit mix so it was estimated. Exhibit only shows
an estimate of the non-subsidized LIHTC units.
Property has a waiting list of 200+ HH and is
located 12.6 miles to the NW of the subject site.
16 BRUNSWICK STREET APTS 2020 21 2 Studio @ 50% 422 $1,550 - $1,550 $3.67 - $3.67 Six-Story Turnover averages 10/year or 5% annually. 4619 Brunswick Street 97.5% 183 3 Studio @ 60% 422 $1,550 - $1,550 $3.67 - $3.67 "Interior- Property (55+) with rents near maximum allowDaly City, CA Weighted Avg. 204 5 422 $1,550 - $1,550 $3.67 - $3.67 Hallway" able rent for untis at 50%, but below max. rents 650-731-4139; Tina Configuration for units at 60%. Applications are in-process for all vacant units. The properties does not have a
` waiting list. The property is located 16.6 miles
to the north of the subject site.
Senior LIHTC Projects- Studio 236 5 35% 416 $1,451 - $1,451 $3.49 - $3.49 1B 357 11 53% 577 $1,754 - $1,754 $3.04 - $3.04
2B 81 0 12% 835 $2,027 - $2,027 $2.43 - $2.43
Weighted Average 97.6% 674 16 100% 552 $1,681 $1,681 $3.05 $3.05
PROJECT NAME/ PRODUCT UNIT FEATURES/
LOCATION/ NO VACANT TYPE SIZE GROSS UTILITIES NET $/SQ. FT. TYPE COMMENTS Subject Property
555 KELLY 2028 2 0 Studio @ 30% 411 $1,028 $96 $932 $2.27 Five-Story Construction to start in January 2027 and is 555 Kelly Avenue 1 0 Studio @ 50% 411 $1,713 $96 $1,617 $3.93 "Elevator-Served" excepted to be completed in 18 months or by Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 7 0 1B/1b @ 30% 545 $1,101 $116 $985 $1.81 Configuration June 2028. 27 0 1B/1b @ 50% 545 $1,836 $116 $1,720 $3.16
1 0 2B/1b @ 30% 955 $1,322 $157 $1,165 $1.22
1 0 2B/1b @ 50% 955 $2,203 $157 $2,046 $2.14
Weighted Average 39 0 556 $1,656 $117 $1,539 $2.77
Note: One 2B unit allocated as a non-revenue manager's unit (not shown above).
Source: Information based on interviews with leasing agents and compiled by Newport Realty Advisors LLC.
UNIT CHARACTERISTICS MONTHLY RENT
UNIT CHARACTERISTICS MONTHLY RENT
Exhibit III-2
Map of Subject Site and Comparable Properties (w 1.0 mile ring) 512
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
SECTION 5:
TCAC REQUIRED FORMS
513
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
PICTURES OF SUBJECT SITE
Pictures of the Subject Site’s Neighborhood
Pictures of Comparable Market-Rate and LIHTC Projects
Pictures of Nearby Land Uses for Market-Rate Comps Located Outside Required 1.0-Mile Ring 514
PICTURES OF SUBJECT SITE
Picture in front of the subject site along Kelly Avenue facing a northern direction.
Picture in front of the subject site at Kelly Avenue facing a northeast direction. 515
PICTURES OF SUBJECT SITE
Picture in front of the subject site along Kelly Avenue facing a northern direction.
Picture from the middle of the subject site at Kelly Avenue facing a northeast direction. 516
PICTURES OF SUBJECT SITE’S NEIGHBORHOOD
Picture in front of the subject site along Kelly Avenue facing a western direction.
Picture in front of the subject site along Kelly Avenue facing an eastern direction. 517
PICTURES OF MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES
Comparable #1 – 653 Grove Street, #C, Half Moon Bay
Comparable #2 – 515 Terrace Avenue, #B, Half Moon Bay
518
PICTURES OF MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES
Comparable #3 – 1018 Golden Gate #B, Half Moon Bay
Comparable #4 – 390 Redondo Road, #B, Half Moon Bay
519
PICTURES OF MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES
Comparable #5 – 214 Washington Boulevard, #A, Half Moon Bay Comparable #6 – 477 3rd Avenue, Half Moon Bay
520
PICTURES OF MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES
Comparable #7 – 195 Avenue Cabrillo, El Granada
Comparable #8 – Maverick Apartments, Half Moon Bay
521
PICTURES OF MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES
Comparable #9 – 279 Virginia Avenue, Moss Beach
PICTURES OF SENIOR LIHTC COMPARABLES
Comparable #10 – San Mateo rotary Floritas 522
PICTURES OF LIHTC COMPARABLES
Comparable #11 – Ocean View Senior Apartments
Comparable #12 – Metro Center Senior
523
PICTURES OF LIHTC COMPARABLES
Comparable #13 – Arroyo Green Apartments
Comparable #14 – Village at the Crossing
524
PICTURES OF LIHTC COMPARABLES
Comparable #15 – Rotary Plaza
Comparable #16 – Brunswick Street Apartments
525
PICTURES OF SURROUNDING LAND USES FOR MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES OUTSIDE 1.0 MILE MARKET AREA
Comparable #4 – 390 Redondo Road, #B Half Moon Bay; Pictures around the site. 526
PICTURES OF SURROUNDING LAND USES FOR MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES OUTSIDE 1.0 MILE MARKET AREA
Comparable #5 – 214 Washington, Half Moon Bay; Pictures around the site. 527
PICTURES OF SURROUNDING LAND USES FOR MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES OUTSIDE 1.0 MILE MARKET AREA
Comparable #5 – 214 Washington, Half Moon Bay; Pictures around the site. 528
PICTURES OF SURROUNDING LAND USES FOR MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES OUTSIDE 1.0 MILE MARKET AREA
Comparable #6 – 477 3rd Street, Half Moon Bay; Pictures around the site. 529
PICTURES OF SURROUNDING LAND USES FOR MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES OUTSIDE 1.0 MILE MARKET AREA
Comparable #6 – 477 3rd Street, Half Moon Bay; Pictures around the site. 530
PICTURES OF SURROUNDING LAND USES FOR MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES OUTSIDE 1.0 MILE MARKET AREA
Comparable #7 – 195 Avenue Cabrillo, El Granada; Pictures around the site. 531
PICTURES OF SURROUNDING LAND USES FOR MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES OUTSIDE 1.0 MILE MARKET AREA
Comparable #7 – 195 Avenue Cabrillo, El Granada; Pictures around the site. 532
PICTURES OF SURROUNDING LAND USES FOR MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES OUTSIDE 1.0 MILE MARKET AREA
Comparable #8 – Maverick Apartments, Half Moon Bay; Pictures around the site. 533
PICTURES OF SURROUNDING LAND USES FOR MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES OUTSIDE 1.0 MILE MARKET AREA
Comparable #8 – Maverick Apartments, Half Moon Bay; Pictures around the site. 534
PICTURES OF SURROUNDING LAND USES FOR MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES OUTSIDE 1.0 MILE MARKET AREA
Comparable #9 – 279 Virginia Avenue, Moss Beach; Pictures around the site. 535
PICTURES OF SURROUNDING LAND USES FOR MARKET-RATE COMPARABLES OUTSIDE 1.0 MILE MARKET AREA
Comparable #9 – 279 Virginia Avenue, Moss Beach; Pictures around the site. 536
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
RENT COMPARABILITY MATRIX
Market-Rate Property Comparables (Studio, 1B, and 2B units) LIHTC Property Comparables (Studio, 1B, and 2B units)
537
Studio Rent Comparability Matrix
Enter Data in Blue or Blank Fields
555 Kelly
Date of Market Study:
555 Kelly
4-Apr-25 Half Moon Bay
Prepared By: N/A
Newport Realty Advisors Use Subject's
Highest Rent
Totals &
Weighted
Analysis Using Highest Rents for Subject Characteristic Char Adj Char Adj Char Adj Averages Differential ("M"arket, "L"ow Income) L M M M
Distance in Miles from Subject 0.95 2.07 2.55
Number of Units 1 1 1 3
Vacancy Rate N/A N/A N/A
Waiting List ("Y"es or "N"o) N N N
Turnover Rate N/A N/A N/A
Unit Size in SF 411 330 425 450 401.6667
Aggregate Size in SF 330 425 450 1,205
Base Rent $1,617 $2,550 $2,900 $1,850 $2,433 -33.55%
Aggregate Rent $2,550 $2,900 $1,850 $7,300
Value Ratio ($/SF) $3.93 $7.73 $6.82 $4.11 $6.06 -35.06% # of stories 5-Story 1 2 1
Elevator ("Y"es or "N"o) Y N N $10 $10
# of Bedrooms Studio Studio Studio Studio
# of Bathrooms 1 1 1 1
Unit Size Adjustment 1/ 411 $61 -$11 -$29
Rent Concessions
Age (built or last renovated) 2028 2021 1988 $250 2022
Utilities Paid by Tenant
Electricity X X X X
Heat ("G"as or "E"lectric) E G G G
Hot Water (G or E) E E E E
Cooking (G or E) E G G E
TV ("C"able or "S"atellite) C C C C
Water X -$25
Sewer
Trash
Unit Amenities
Central Heat/Cool Heat Heat Heat Heat
Blinds X X X X
Carpet Laminate Wood -$25 Plnak Wood -$25
Ceiling Fan
Skylight
Storage Closet
Coat Closet X X X X
Walk-In Closet X -$25
Fireplace X -$30 X -$30
Patio/Balcony X -$50 X -$50 X -$50
Appliances 5/
Refrigerator X X X X
Stove/Oven X X $50 X
Dishwasher X -$50 X -$50
Garbage Disposal X X $15 X
Microwave X -$15 X -$15
Washer/Dryer X -$150 X -$150
Washer/Dryer Hook-ups
Parking/Transportation 2/
Surface Parking X -$25
Carport
Underground Parking
Detached Garage
Attached Garage
Tuck-under Garage X $75 $75 $75
Parking Garage
1018 Golden Gate 214 Washington
4/
477 3rd Avenue
1018 Golden Gate
#A
214 Washington
Blvd #A
477 3rd Ave
Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay Pacifica
650-298-7766 310-879-5295 650-238-7411
CTCAC and CDLAC
Market Rate Comps Page 1 of 2 Updated 2/19/10
538
Studio Rent Comparability Matrix
Enter Data in Blue or Blank Fields
555 Kelly
Date of Market Study:
555 Kelly
4-Apr-25 Half Moon Bay
Prepared By: N/A
Newport Realty Advisors Use Subject's
Highest Rent
Totals &
Weighted
Analysis Using Highest Rents for Subject Characteristic Char Adj Char Adj Char Adj Averages Differential 1018 Golden Gate 214 Washington
4/
477 3rd Avenue
1018 Golden Gate
#A
214 Washington
Blvd #A
477 3rd Ave
Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay Pacifica
650-298-7766 310-879-5295 650-238-7411
Project Amenities
Clubhouse/Community Room X $25 $25 $25
Swimming Pool
Spa/Jacuzzi
Exercise Room
Picnic Area X $20 $20 $20
Tot Lot/Playground
Tennis Court
Basketball Court
Volleyball Court
On Site Manager X $20 $20 $20
Laundry Room X X
Computer Room
Business Center
Car Wash Area
Security
Gated 3/ X X X X
Courtesy Patrol
Surveillance Camera X
Adjusted Rent $1,617 $2,431 $3,280 $1,601 $2,437 -33.65% Aggregate Adjusted Rent $2,431 $3,280 $1,601 $7,311
Adjusted Value Ratio ($/SF) $3.93 $7.37 $7.72 $3.56 $6.07 -35.15% *Adjusted Rent/Base Rent 95% 113% 87%
1/ Unit adjustment assumes a $0.75/SF change for unit sizes larger or smaller than the subject's unit size. 2/ Subject will offer 18 podium-level parking spaces (0.45 spaces/unit). Partial adjustment as not every unit will offer parking. 3/ Assumes secured entry.
4/ 214 Washington does not have a kitchen, only a cooktop and small refrigerator, so adjustment made in the "age" column. *Comps that exceed 10% (110%) above the adjusted rent/base rent must be thorougly justified and explained.
CTCAC and CDLAC
Market Rate Comps Page 2 of 2 Updated 2/19/10
539
1B Rent Comparability Matrix
Enter Data in Blue or Blank Fields
555 Kelly
Date of Market Study:
555 Kelly
4-Apr-25 Half Moon Bay
Prepared By: N/A
Newport Realty Advisors Use Subject's
Highest Rent
Totals &
Weighted
Analysis Using Highest Rents for Subject Characteristic Char Adj Char Adj Char Adj Averages Differential ("M"arket, "L"ow Income) L M M M
Distance in Miles from Subject 0.60 0.65 6.21
Number of Units 1 1 1 3
Vacancy Rate N/A N/A N/A
Waiting List ("Y"es or "N"o) N N N
Turnover Rate N/A N/A N/A
Unit Size in SF 545 600 657 400 552.3333
Aggregate Size in SF 600 657 400 1,657
Base Rent $1,720 $2,300 $2,995 $2,500 $2,598 -33.80%
Aggregate Rent $2,300 $2,995 $2,500 $7,795
Value Ratio ($/SF) $3.16 $3.83 $4.56 $6.25 $4.70 -32.91% # of stories 5-Story 2 1 2
Elevator ("Y"es or "N"o) Y N $10 N N $10
# of Bedrooms 1 1 1 1
# of Bathrooms 1 1 1 1
Unit Size Adjustment 1/ 545 -$41 -$84 $109
Rent Concessions
Age (built or last renovated) 2028 1965 $75 2024 1976 $25 Utilities Paid by Tenant
Electricity X X X $25
Heat ("G"as or "E"lectric) E E E $20
Hot Water (G or E) E E E $20
Cooking (G or E) E G E $15
TV ("C"able or "S"atellite) C C C C
Water X -$25
Sewer
Trash
Unit Amenities
Central Heat/Cool Heat Heat Heat Heat
Blinds X X X X
Carpet Laminate Tile/Vinyl Wood -$25 Wood -$25
Ceiling Fan
Skylight
Storage Closet
Coat Closet X X X X
Walk-In Closet X -$25
Fireplace
Patio/Balcony X -$50
Appliances 5/
Refrigerator X X X X
Stove/Oven X X X X
Dishwasher X -$50
Garbage Disposal X X X X
Microwave X -$15 X -$15
Washer/Dryer X -$150
Washer/Dryer Hook-ups
Parking/Transportation 2/
Surface Parking
Carport X -$50
Underground Parking
Detached Garage
Attached Garage
Tuck-under Garage X $75 $75 $75
Parking Garage
653 Grove Street 515 Terrace
Avenue
279 Virginia Ave
653 Grove Street
#C
515 Terrace
Avenue #B
279 Virginia Ave
Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay Moss Beach
650-298-7766 415-358-7178 650-420-1147
CTCAC and CDLAC
Market Rate Comps Page 1 of 2 Updated 2/19/10
540
1B Rent Comparability Matrix
Enter Data in Blue or Blank Fields
555 Kelly
Date of Market Study:
555 Kelly
4-Apr-25 Half Moon Bay
Prepared By: N/A
Newport Realty Advisors Use Subject's
Highest Rent
Totals &
Weighted
Analysis Using Highest Rents for Subject Characteristic Char Adj Char Adj Char Adj Averages Differential 653 Grove Street 515 Terrace
Avenue
279 Virginia Ave
653 Grove Street
#C
515 Terrace
Avenue #B
279 Virginia Ave
Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay Moss Beach
650-298-7766 415-358-7178 650-420-1147
Project Amenities
Clubhouse/Community Room X $25 $25 $25
Swimming Pool
Spa/Jacuzzi
Exercise Room
Picnic Area X $20 $20 $20
Tot Lot/Playground
Tennis Court
Basketball Court
Volleyball Court
On Site Manager X $20 $20 $20
Laundry Room X X X
Computer Room
Business Center
Car Wash Area
Security
Gated 3/ X X X X
Courtesy Patrol
Surveillance Camera X
Adjusted Rent $1,720 $2,434 $2,711 $2,824 $2,656 -35.25% Aggregate Adjusted Rent $2,434 $2,711 $2,824 $7,969
Adjusted Value Ratio ($/SF) $3.16 $4.06 $4.13 $7.06 $4.81 -34.37% *Adjusted Rent/Base Rent 106% 91% 113%
1/ Unit adjustment assumes a $0.75/SF change for unit sizes larger or smaller than the subject's unit size. 2/ Subject will offer 18 podium-level parking spaces (0.45 spaces/unit). Partial adjustment as not every unit will offer parking. 3/ Assumes secured entry.
*Comps that exceed 10% (110%) above the adjusted rent/base rent must be thorougly justified and explained.
CTCAC and CDLAC
Market Rate Comps Page 2 of 2 Updated 2/19/10
541
2B Rent Comparability Matrix
Enter Data in Blue or Blank Fields
555 Kelly
Date of Market Study:
555 Kelly
4-Apr-25 Half Moon Bay
Prepared By: N/A
Newport Realty Advisors Use Subject's
Highest Rent
Totals &
Weighted
Analysis Using Highest Rents for Subject Characteristic Char Adj Char Adj Char Adj Averages Differential ("M"arket, "L"ow Income) L M M M
Distance in Miles from Subject 1.64 3.18 3.40
Number of Units 1 1 1 3
Vacancy Rate N/A N/A N/A
Waiting List ("Y"es or "N"o) N N N
Turnover Rate N/A N/A N/A
Unit Size in SF 955 995 1000 1082 1025.667
Aggregate Size in SF 995 1000 1082 3,077
Base Rent $2,046 $4,000 $4,000 $3,835 $3,945 -48.14%
Aggregate Rent $4,000 $4,000 $3,835 $11,835
Value Ratio ($/SF) $2.14 $4.02 $4.00 $3.54 $3.85 -44.30% # of stories 5-Story 1 2 3
Elevator ("Y"es or "N"o) Y N Y N $10
# of Bedrooms 2 2 2 2
# of Bathrooms 1 1 2 -$150.00 2 -$150.00
Unit Size Adjustment 1/ 955 -$30 -$34 -$95
Rent Concessions
Age (built or last renovated) 2028 2025 2018 $25 2017 $10 Utilities Paid by Tenant
Electricity X X X X
Heat ("G"as or "E"lectric) E G G G
Hot Water (G or E) E G G G
Cooking (G or E) E G G G
TV ("C"able or "S"atellite) C C C C
Water X -$25 X -$25
Sewer X -$10
Trash
Unit Amenities
Central Heat/Cool Heat Heat/AC Heat Heat
Blinds X X X X
Carpet Laminate Wood -$25 X/Wood -$25 Wood -$25
Ceiling Fan
Skylight
Storage Closet
Coat Closet X X X X
Walk-In Closet X -$25 X -$25
Fireplace
Patio/Balcony X -$50 X -$50 X -$50
Appliances 5/
Refrigerator X X X X
Stove/Oven X X X X
Dishwasher X -$50 X -$50 X -$50
Garbage Disposal X X X X
Microwave X -$15 X -$15
Washer/Dryer X -$150 X -$150 X -$150
Washer/Dryer Hook-ups
Parking/Transportation 2/
Surface Parking X
Carport
Underground Parking
Detached Garage
Attached Garage
Tuck-under Garage X $75 X -$125 X -$125
Parking Garage
390 Redondo Road 195 Avenue Cabrillo Maverick
Apartments
390 Redondo Road
#B
195 Avenue Cabrillo 101 Avenue Portola
Half Moon Bay El Granada Half Moon Bay
916-909-1731 650-643-4851 650-955-2534
CTCAC and CDLAC
Market Rate Comps Page 1 of 2 Updated 2/19/10
542
2B Rent Comparability Matrix
Enter Data in Blue or Blank Fields
555 Kelly
Date of Market Study:
555 Kelly
4-Apr-25 Half Moon Bay
Prepared By: N/A
Newport Realty Advisors Use Subject's
Highest Rent
Totals &
Weighted
Analysis Using Highest Rents for Subject Characteristic Char Adj Char Adj Char Adj Averages Differential 390 Redondo Road 195 Avenue Cabrillo Maverick
Apartments
390 Redondo Road
#B
195 Avenue Cabrillo 101 Avenue Portola
Half Moon Bay El Granada Half Moon Bay
916-909-1731 650-643-4851 650-955-2534
Project Amenities
Clubhouse/Community Room X $25 $25 $25
Swimming Pool
Spa/Jacuzzi
Exercise Room
Picnic Area X $20 $20 X
Tot Lot/Playground
Tennis Court
Basketball Court
Volleyball Court
On Site Manager X $20 $20 $20
Laundry Room X
Computer Room
Business Center
Car Wash Area
Security
Gated 3/ X X X X
Courtesy Patrol
Surveillance Camera X
Adjusted Rent $2,046 $3,795 $3,471 $3,190 $3,485 -41.30% Aggregate Adjusted Rent $3,795 $3,471 $3,190 $10,456
Adjusted Value Ratio ($/SF) $2.14 $3.81 $3.47 $2.95 $3.40 -36.95% *Adjusted Rent/Base Rent 95% 87% 83%
1/ Unit adjustment assumes a $0.75/SF change for unit sizes larger or smaller than the subject's unit size. 2/ Subject will offer 18 podium-level parking spaces (0.45 spaces/unit). Partial adjustment as not every unit will offer parking. 3/ Assumes secured entry.
*Comps that exceed 10% (110%) above the adjusted rent/base rent must be thorougly justified and explained.
CTCAC and CDLAC
Market Rate Comps Page 2 of 2 Updated 2/19/10
543
Studio Rent Comparability Matrix
Enter Data in Blue or Blank Fields
555 Kelly
Date of Market Study:
555 Kelly Ave
4-Apr-25 Half Moon Bay
Prepared By: N/A
Newport Realty Advisors Use Subject's Highest
Rent
Totals &
Weighted
Characteristic Char Adj Char Adj Char Adj Averages Differential ("M"arket, "L"ow Income) L L L L
Distance in Miles from Subject 11.30 12.60 16.60
Number of Units 2 20 183 205
Vacancy Rate 9% 2% 3%
Waiting List ("Y"es or "N"o) Y Y N
Turnover Rate 3% 6% 5%
Unit Size in SF 411 362 380 422 417.3171
Aggregate Size in SF 724 7600 77226 85,550
Base Rent 1/ $1,617 $1,542 $775 $1,550 $1,474 9.68%
Aggregate Rent $3,084 $15,500 $283,650 $302,234
Value Ratio ($/SF) $3.93 $4.26 $2.04 $3.67 $3.53 11.36% # of stories 5 7 4 6
Elevator ("Y"es or "N"o) Y Y Y Y
# of Bedrooms S S S S
# of Bathrooms 1 1 1 1
Unit Size Adjustment 411
Rent Concessions
Age (built or last renovated) 2028 2021 2015 2020
Utilities Paid by Tenant
Electricity X X X
Heat ("G"as or "E"lectric) E E E
Hot Water (G or E)
Cooking (G or E) E E E
TV ("C"able or "S"atellite) C C C
Water
Sewer
Trash
Unit Amenities
Central Heat/Cool Heat Heat/AC Heat Heat
Blinds X X X X
Carpet Laminate Plank X Plank
Ceiling Fan X X
Skylight
Storage Closet
Coat Closet X X X X
Walk-In Closet
Fireplace
Patio/Balcony X
Appliances
Refrigerator X X X X
Stove/Oven X X X X
Dishwasher
Garbage Disposal X X X
Microwave
Washer/Dryer
Washer/Dryer Hook-ups
Parking/Transportation 2/
Surface Parking X
Carport X
Underground Parking
Detached Garage
Attached Garage
Tuck-under Garage X X X
Parking Garage
Arroyo Green Rotary Plaza Brunswick Street
Apts
707 Bradford
Street
433 Alida Way 461 Brunswick St
Redwood City South San Fran. Daly City
650-509-5020 650-871-5323 650-731-4139
CTCAC and CDLAC
Low Income Comps
544
Studio Rent Comparability Matrix
Date of Market Study:
555 Kelly Ave
4-Apr-25 Half Moon Bay
Prepared By: N/A
Newport Realty Advisors Use Subject's Highest
Rent
Totals &
Weighted
Characteristic Char Adj Char Adj Char Adj Averages Differential 707 Bradford
Street
433 Alida Way 461 Brunswick St
Redwood City South San Fran. Daly City
650-509-5020 650-871-5323 650-731-4139
Project Amenities
Clubhouse/Community Room X X X X
Swimming Pool
Spa/Jacuzzi
Exercise Room X X X
Picnic Area X
Tot Lot/Playground
Tennis Court
Basketball Court
Volleyball Court
On Site Manager X X X X
Laundry Room X X X X
Computer Room X
Business Center
Car Wash Area
Security
Gated X X X X
Courtesy Patrol
Surveillance Camera X
Adjusted Rent $1,617 $1,542 $775 $1,550 $1,474 9.68%
Aggregate Adjusted Rent $3,084 $15,500 ####### $302,234 Adjusted Value Ratio ($/SF) $3.93 $4.26 $2.04 $3.67 $3.53 11.36% Adjusted Rent/Base Rent 100% 100% 100%
1/ The units at Arroyo Green have a PBV subsidy, so the rents quoted here are an average out-of-pocket amount. 2/ Subject will offer 18 podium-level parking spaces (0.45 spaces/unit).
CTCAC and CDLAC
Low Income Comps
545
1B Rent Comparability Matrix
Enter Data in Blue or Blank Fields
555 Kelly
Date of Market Study:
555 Kelly
Avenue
4-Apr-25 Half Moon Bay
Prepared By: N/A
Newport Realty Advisors Use Subject's
Highest Rent
Totals &
Weighted
Characteristic Char Adj Char Adj Char Adj Averages Differential ("M"arket, "L"ow Income) L L L L
Distance in Miles from Subject 8.78 10.10 10.80
Number of Units 20 49 4 73
Vacancy Rate 0% 10% 0%
Waiting List ("Y"es or "N"o) Y Y N
Turnover Rate 2% 3% 3%
Unit Size in SF 545 500 525 600 522.2603
Aggregate Size in SF 10000 25725 2400 38,125
Base Rent $1,720 $1,200 $2,712 $1,700 $2,242 -23.29%
Aggregate Rent $24,000 $132,888 $6,800 $163,688
Value Ratio ($/SF) $3.16 $2.40 $5.17 $2.83 $4.29 -26.49% # of stories 5 3 3 5
Elevator ("Y"es or "N"o) Y Y Y Y
# of Bedrooms 1 1 1 1
# of Bathrooms 1 1 1 1
Unit Size Adjustment 545
Rent Concessions
Age (built or last renovated) 2028 2005 2016 2013
Utilities Paid by Tenant
Electricity X X X X
Heat ("G"as or "E"lectric) E E E E
Hot Water (G or E)
Cooking (G or E) E E G E
TV ("C"able or "S"atellite) C C C C
Water
Sewer
Trash
Unit Amenities
Central Heat/Cool Heat X Heat/AC X
Blinds X X X X
Carpet Laminate X X X
Ceiling Fan X X
Skylight
Storage Closet
Coat Closet X X X X
Walk-In Closet X
Fireplace
Patio/Balcony X X X
Appliances
Refrigerator X X X X
Stove/Oven X X X X
Dishwasher
Garbage Disposal X X X X
Microwave
Washer/Dryer
Washer/Dryer Hook-ups
Parking/Transportation 1/
Surface Parking
Carport
Underground Parking X
Detached Garage
Attached Garage
Tuck-under Garage X X X
Parking Garage
San Mateo Pacifica Foster City
650-286-1146 650-359-2114 650-349-9959
San Mateo Rotary
Floritas
Ocean View
Senior
Metro Center
Senior
99 27th Avenue 555 Crespi Drive 100 Village Lane
CTCAC and CDLAC
Low Income Comps
546
1B Rent Comparability Matrix
Date of Market Study:
555 Kelly
Avenue
4-Apr-25 Half Moon Bay
Prepared By: N/A
Newport Realty Advisors Use Subject's
Highest Rent
Totals &
Weighted
Characteristic Char Adj Char Adj Char Adj Averages Differential San Mateo Pacifica Foster City
650-286-1146 650-359-2114 650-349-9959
99 27th Avenue 555 Crespi Drive 100 Village Lane
Project Amenities
Clubhouse/Community Room X X X X
Swimming Pool
Spa/Jacuzzi
Exercise Room X
Picnic Area X X
Tot Lot/Playground
Tennis Court
Basketball Court
Volleyball Court
On Site Manager X X X X
Laundry Room X X X X
Computer Room
Business Center
Car Wash Area
Security
Gated X X X X
Courtesy Patrol
Surveillance Camera X
Adjusted Rent $1,720 $1,200 $2,712 $1,700 $2,242 -23.29% Aggregate Adjusted Rent $24,000 $132,888 $6,800 $163,688 Adjusted Value Ratio ($/SF) $3.16 $2.40 $5.17 $2.83 $4.29 -26.49% Adjusted Rent/Base Rent 100% 100% 100%
1/ Subject will offer 18 podium-level parking spaces (0.45 spaces/unit).
CTCAC and CDLAC
Low Income Comps
547
2B Rent Comparability Matrix
Enter Data in Blue or Blank Fields
555 Kelly
Date of Market Study:
555 Kelly Avenue
4-Apr-25 Half Moon Bay
Prepared By: N/A
Newport Realty Advisors Use Subject's Highest
Rent
Totals &
Weighted
Characteristic Char Adj Char Adj Char Adj Averages Differential ("M"arket, "L"ow Income) L L L L
Distance in Miles from Subject 8.78 10.80 11.80
Number of Units 9 4 38 51
Vacancy Rate 0% 0% 0%
Waiting List ("Y"es or "N"o) Y Y N
Turnover Rate 2% 3% 5%
Unit Size in SF 955 675 873 847 818.6863
Aggregate Size in SF 6075 3492 32186 41,753
Base Rent $2,046 $1,800 $2,100 $2,419 $2,285 -10.45%
Aggregate Rent $16,200 $8,400 $91,922 $116,522
Value Ratio ($/SF) $2.14 $2.67 $2.41 $2.86 $2.79 -23.23% # of stories 5 3 5 4
Elevator ("Y"es or "N"o) Y Y Y Y
# of Bedrooms 2 2 2 2
# of Bathrooms 1 1 1 1
Unit Size Adjustment 955
Rent Concessions
Age (built or last renovated) 2028 2005 2013 2007
Utilities Paid by Tenant
Electricity X X X X
Heat ("G"as or "E"lectric) E E E E
Hot Water (G or E)
Cooking (G or E) E E E E
TV ("C"able or "S"atellite) C C C C
Water
Sewer
Trash
Unit Amenities
Central Heat/Cool Heat X X X
Blinds X X X X
Carpet Laminate X X Vinyl
Ceiling Fan X X
Skylight
Storage Closet
Coat Closet X X X X
Walk-In Closet X
Fireplace
Patio/Balcony X X
Appliances
Refrigerator X X X X
Stove/Oven X X X X
Dishwasher X
Garbage Disposal X X X X
Microwave
Washer/Dryer X
Washer/Dryer Hook-ups
Parking/Transportation 1/
Surface Parking
Carport
Underground Parking X
Detached Garage
Attached Garage
Tuck-under Garage X X X
Parking Garage
San Mateo Foster City San Bruno
650-286-1146 650-349-9959 6502-588-8036
San Mateo Rotary
Floritas
Metro Center
Senior
Village at the
Crossing
99 27th Avenue 100 Village Lane 1101 National
Avenue
CTCAC and CDLAC
Low Income Comps
548
2B Rent Comparability Matrix
Date of Market Study:
555 Kelly Avenue
4-Apr-25 Half Moon Bay
Prepared By: N/A
Newport Realty Advisors Use Subject's Highest
Rent
Totals &
Weighted
Characteristic Char Adj Char Adj Char Adj Averages Differential San Mateo Foster City San Bruno
650-286-1146 650-349-9959 6502-588-8036
99 27th Avenue 100 Village Lane 1101 National
Avenue
Project Amenities
Clubhouse/Community Room X X X X
Swimming Pool
Spa/Jacuzzi X
Exercise Room X X
Picnic Area X X
Tot Lot/Playground
Tennis Court
Basketball Court
Volleyball Court
On Site Manager X X X X
Laundry Room X X X
Computer Room
Business Center X
Car Wash Area
Security
Gated X X X X
Courtesy Patrol
Surveillance Camera X
Adjusted Rent $2,046 $1,800 $2,100 $2,419 $2,285 -10.45% Aggregate Adjusted Rent $16,200 $8,400 $91,922 $116,522 Adjusted Value Ratio ($/SF) $2.14 $2.67 $2.41 $2.86 $2.79 -23.23% Adjusted Rent/Base Rent 100% 100% 100%
1/ Subject will offer 18 podium-level parking spaces (0.45 spaces/unit).
CTCAC and CDLAC
Low Income Comps
549
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST
Nielsen– Demographic Source and Employment Data
U.S. Census Data
San Mateo County Department of Agricultural
City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department
Employment Development Department (EDD) – Employment Data FBI Uniform Report – Crime Statistics
550
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
DEMOGRAPHIC REPORTS
Secondary Market Area (SMA)
551
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Summary
Trade Area:HMBSMA
Population
2010 Census 402,136
2020 Census 427,578
2025 Estimate 408,526
2030 Projection 406,975
Population Growth
Percent Change: 2010 to 2020 6.33
Percent Change: 2020 to 2025 -4.46
Percent Change: 2025 to 2030 -0.38
Households
2010 Census 142,909
2020 Census 149,633
2025 Estimate 141,898
2030 Projection 140,822
Household Growth
Percent Change: 2010 to 2020 4.71
Percent Change: 2020 to 2025 -5.17
Percent Change: 2025 to 2030 -0.76
Family Households
2010 Census 98,138
2020 Census 104,357
2025 Estimate 98,864
2030 Projection 98,025
Family Household Growth
Percent Change: 2010 to 2020 6.34
Percent Change: 2020 to 2025 -5.26
Percent Change: 2025 to 2030 -0.85
Benchmark: HMB SMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 552
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Population & Race
Trade Area:HMBSMA Total Population:408,526 | TotalHouseholds:141,898 Count %
2025 Est. Population by Single-Classification Race
White Alone 128,207 31.38
Black/African American Alone 6,874 1.68
American Indian/Alaskan Native Alone 3,307 0.81
Asian Alone 164,458 40.26
Native Hawaiian/PacificIslander Alone 4,087 1.00
Some Other Race Alone 53,039 12.98
Two or More Races 48,554 11.88
2025 Est. Population by Hispanic or Latino Origin
Hispanic/Latino 96,492 23.62
NotHispanic or Latino 312,033 76.38
Mexican Origin 47,888 49.63
Puerto Rican Origin 2,733 2.83
Cuban Origin 903 0.94
AllOther Hispanic or Latino 44,968 46.60
2025 Est. Pop by Race, Asian Alone, by Category
Chinese, except Taiwanese 67,333 40.94
Filipino 60,655 36.88
Japanese 4,085 2.48
Asian Indian 9,430 5.73
Korean 3,402 2.07
Vietnamese 3,542 2.15
Cambodian 646 0.39
Hmong 733 0.45
Laotian 71 0.04
Thai 658 0.40
AllOther Asian Races Including 2+ Category 13,903 8.45
2025 Est. Pop Age 5+ by Language Spoken At Home
Speak Only English atHome 209,316 53.75
Speak Asian/PacificIsl. Lang. atHome 97,507 25.04
Speak Indo-European Language atHome 22,855 5.87
Speak Spanish atHome 55,298 14.20
Speak Other Language atHome 1,569 0.40
2025 Est. Hisp. or Latino Pop by Single-Class. Race
White Alone 13,194 13.67
Black/African American Alone 533 0.55
American Indian/Alaskan Native Alone 2,724 2.82
Asian Alone 1,702 1.76
Native Hawaiian/PacificIslander Alone 232 0.24
Some Other Race Alone 49,744 51.55
Two or More Races 28,363 29.39
2025 Population by Ancestry
Arab 4,695 1.15
Czech 747 0.18
Danish 832 0.20
Dutch 1,679 0.41
English 16,556 4.05
French (Excluding Basque) 4,154 1.02
French Canadian 513 0.13
German 18,639 4.56
Greek 2,856 0.70
Hungarian 1,245 0.30
Irish 21,857 5.35
Italian 18,135 4.44
Lithuanian 235 0.06
Norwegian 3,127 0.77
Polish 3,523 0.86
Portuguese 2,673 0.65
Russian 4,000 0.98
Scotch-Irish 1,668 0.41
Scottish 3,096 0.76
Slovak 269 0.07
Subsaharan African 787 0.19
Swedish 2,677 0.66
Swiss 849 0.21
Ukrainian 1,543 0.38
United States or American 12,265 3.00
Welsh 1,242 0.30
WestIndian (Excluding Hispanic groups) 627 0.15
Other Ancestry 217,440 53.23
Ancestry Unclassified 60,597 14.83
Benchmark: HMB SMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 553
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Population & Race
Trade Area:HMBSMA Total Population:408,526 | TotalHouseholds:141,898 Count %
2025 Est. Population by Sex
Male 202,906 49.67
Female 205,620 50.33
2025 Est. Population by Age
Age 0 - 4 19,108 4.68
Age 5 - 9 19,961 4.89
Age 10 - 14 20,638 5.05
Age 15 - 17 12,711 3.11
Age 18 - 20 12,813 3.14
Age 21 - 24 17,194 4.21
Age 25 - 34 52,107 12.76
Age 35 - 44 60,230 14.74
Age 45 - 54 54,121 13.25
Age 55 - 64 54,859 13.43
Age 65 - 74 46,873 11.47
Age 75 - 84 26,485 6.48
Age 85 and over 11,424 2.80
Age 16 and over 344,589 84.35
Age 18 and over 336,107 82.27
Age 21 and over 323,293 79.14
Age 65 and over 84,782 20.75
Median Age -- 43.23
Average Age -- 43.28
2025 Est. Pop Age 15+ by Marital Status
Total, Never Married 124,769 35.77
Male, Never Married 67,970 19.49
Female, Never Married 56,798 16.28
Married, Spouse Present 156,070 44.74
Married, Spouse Absent 21,661 6.21
Widowed 18,819 5.39
Male, Widowed 3,833 1.10
Female, Widowed 14,985 4.30
Divorced 27,499 7.88
Male, Divorced 10,828 3.10
Female, Divorced 16,670 4.78
2025 Est. Male Population by Age
Male: Age 0 - 4 9,740 4.80
Male: Age 5 - 9 10,188 5.02
Male: Age 10 - 14 10,641 5.24
Male: Age 15 - 17 6,558 3.23
Male: Age 18 - 20 6,612 3.26
Male: Age 21 - 24 8,882 4.38
Male: Age 25 - 34 27,264 13.44
Male: Age 35 - 44 31,040 15.30
Male: Age 45 - 54 27,327 13.47
Male: Age 55 - 64 27,034 13.32
Male: Age 65 - 74 22,130 10.91
Male: Age 75 - 84 11,439 5.64
Male: Age 85 and over 4,053 2.00
Median Age, Male -- 41.91
Average Age, Male -- 42.13
2025 Est. Female Population by Age
Female: Age 0 - 4 9,368 4.56
Female: Age 5 - 9 9,774 4.75
Female: Age 10 - 14 9,997 4.86
Female: Age 15 - 17 6,153 2.99
Female: Age 18 - 20 6,201 3.02
Female: Age 21 - 24 8,312 4.04
Female: Age 25 - 34 24,844 12.08
Female: Age 35 - 44 29,190 14.20
Female: Age 45 - 54 26,794 13.03
Female: Age 55 - 64 27,825 13.53
Female: Age 65 - 74 24,743 12.03
Female: Age 75 - 84 15,046 7.32
Female: Age 85 and over 7,371 3.58
Median Age, Female -- 44.64
Average Age, Female -- 44.40
Benchmark: HMB SMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 554
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Housing & Households
Trade Area:HMBSMA Total Population:408,526 | TotalHouseholds:141,898 Count %
2025 Est. Households by Household Type
TotalHouseholds 141,898 100.00
Family Households 98,864 69.67
Other Households 43,034 --
2025 Est. Group Quarters Population
2025 Est. Group Quarters Population 3,766 0.92
2025 HHs By Ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino
2025 HHs By Ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino 26,627 18.77
2025 Est. Households by Type and Presence of Own Children Married Couple 72,747 51.27
With Own Kids < 18 28,139 19.83
WithoutOwn Kids < 18 44,608 31.44
Cohabiting Couple 9,974 7.03
With Own Kids < 18 2,438 1.72
WithoutOwn Kids < 18 7,536 5.31
Female Householder, No Spouse or Partner Present 34,701 24.45 Living Alone 19,622 13.83
With Own Kids < 18 3,367 2.37
WithoutOwn Kids < 18 9,458 6.67
With Only Nonrelatives 2,254 1.59
Male Householder, No Spouse or Partner Present 24,477 17.25 Living Alone 15,598 10.99
With Own Kids < 18 1,649 1.16
WithoutOwn Kids < 18 4,504 3.17
With Only Nonrelatives 2,726 1.92
With Own Kids < 18 35,592 25.08
WithoutOwn Kids < 18 106,306 74.92
2025 Est. Households by Household Size
1-Person Household 29,269 20.63
2-Person Household 43,417 30.60
3-Person Household 24,763 17.45
4-Person Household 23,841 16.80
5-Person Household 11,014 7.76
6-Person Household 4,509 3.18
7-or-more-person 5,085 3.58
2025 Est. Average Household Size -- 2.85
2025 Est. Households by Number of Vehicles
No Vehicles 9,925 6.99
1 Vehicle 45,073 31.76
2 Vehicles 52,066 36.69
3 Vehicles 23,113 16.29
4 Vehicles 8,258 5.82
5 or more Vehicles 3,462 2.44
2025 Est. Average Number of Vehicles -- 1.92
2025 Occupied Housing Units by Tenure
Housing Units, Owner-Occupied 80,652 56.84
Housing Units, Renter-Occupied 61,246 43.16
2025 Owner Occ. HUs: Avg. Length of Residence
2025Owner Occ. HUs: Avg. Length of Residence -- 21.15
2025 Renter Occ. HUs: Avg. Length of Residence
2025 Renter Occ. HUs: Avg. Length of Residence -- 8.67
2025 Est. Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Value
Value Less Than $20,000 797 0.99
Value $20,000 - $39,999 165 0.20
Value $40,000 - $59,999 104 0.13
Value $60,000 - $79,999 173 0.21
Value $80,000 - $99,999 208 0.26
Value $100,000 - $149,999 648 0.80
Value $150,000 - $199,999 324 0.40
Value $200,000 - $299,999 534 0.66
Value $300,000 - $399,999 583 0.72
Value $400,000 - $499,999 601 0.74
Value $500,000 - $749,999 5,396 6.69
Value $750,000 - $999,999 10,950 13.58
Value $1,000,000 - $1,499,999 26,617 33.00
Value $1,500,000 - $1,999,999 14,000 17.36
Value $2,000,000 or more 19,552 24.24
2025 Est. Median AllOwner-Occupied Housing Value -- 1,360,176.64 Benchmark: HMB SMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 555
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Housing & Households
Trade Area:HMBSMA Total Population:408,526 | TotalHouseholds:141,898 Count %
2025 Est. Housing Units by Units in Structure
1 UnitDetached 85,521 55.80
1 Unit Attached 12,667 8.27
2 Units 3,717 2.42
3 to 4 Units 7,286 4.75
5 to 19 Units 16,778 10.95
20 to 49 Units 9,565 6.24
50 or More Units 15,884 10.36
Mobile Home or Trailer 1,696 1.11
Boat, RV, Van, etc. 143 0.09
2025 Est. Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Built 2020 or Later 1,089 0.71
Built 2010 to 2019 6,303 4.11
Built 2000 to 2009 8,810 5.75
Built 1990 to 1999 8,619 5.62
Built 1980 to 1989 13,815 9.01
Built 1970 to 1979 25,885 16.89
Built 1960 to 1969 24,921 16.26
Built 1950 to 1959 33,894 22.12
Built 1940 to 1949 14,852 9.69
Built 1939 or Earlier 15,069 9.83
2025 Housing Units by Year Structure Built
2025 Est. Median Year Structure Built -- 1,964.95
Benchmark: HMB SMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 556
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Affluence & Education Trade Area:HMBSMA Total Population:408,526 | TotalHouseholds:141,898 Count %
2025 Est. Pop Age 25+ by Edu. Attainment
Less than 9th Grade 18,139 5.93
Some High School, No Diploma 11,267 3.68
High SchoolGraduate (or GED) 52,171 17.04
Some College, No Degree 51,586 16.85
Associate's Degree 23,792 7.77
Bachelor's Degree 89,641 29.29
Master's Degree 38,557 12.60
ProfessionalDegree 11,975 3.91
Doctorate Degree 8,972 2.93
2025 Est. Pop Age 25+ by Edu. Attain., Hisp./Lat.
Less than High SchoolDiploma 14,682 23.07
High SchoolGraduate 16,180 25.42
Some College or Associate's Degree 16,748 26.31
Bachelor's Degree or Higher 16,036 25.20
2025 Est. Households by HH Income
Income < $15,000 6,603 4.65
Income $15,000 - $24,999 4,770 3.36
Income $25,000 - $34,999 4,954 3.49
Income $35,000 - $49,999 8,326 5.87
Income $50,000 - $74,999 13,424 9.46
Income $75,000 - $99,999 13,262 9.35
Income $100,000 - $124,999 11,895 8.38
Income $125,000 - $149,999 11,100 7.82
Income $150,000 - $199,999 18,096 12.75
Income $200,000 - $249,999 10,781 7.60
Income $250,000 - $499,999 17,147 12.08
Income $500,000+ 21,540 15.18
2025 Est. Average Household Income -- 205,357.00
2025 Est. Median Household Income -- 142,092.17
2025 Median HH Inc. by Single-Class. Race or Eth.
White Alone -- 143,431.89
Black or African American Alone -- 84,772.63
American Indian and Alaskan Native Alone -- 109,548.15
Asian Alone -- 188,843.12
Native Hawaiian and Other PacificIslander Alone -- 136,990.07 Some Other Race Alone -- 101,894.38
Two or More Races -- 124,984.03
Hispanic or Latino -- 106,371.17
NotHispanic or Latino -- 181,149.18
2025 Est. Families by Poverty Status
Families at or Above Poverty 94,749 95.84
Families at or Above Poverty with children 38,743 39.19 Families Below Poverty 4,115 4.16
Families Below Poverty, with children 2,095 2.12
Benchmark: HMB SMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 557
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Employment & Occupation Trade Area:HMBSMA Total Population:408,526 | TotalHouseholds:141,898 Count %
2025 Est. Employed Civilian Population 16+ by Occupation Classification White Collar 151,558 68.06
Blue Collar 33,948 15.25
Service and Farming 37,168 16.69
2025 Est. Workers Age 16+ by Travel Time to Work
Less than 15 Minutes 39,459 21.67
15 - 29 Minutes 64,668 35.51
30 - 44 Minutes 46,643 25.61
45 - 59 Minutes 15,988 8.78
60 or more Minutes 15,351 8.43
2025 Est. Avg Travel Time to Work in Minutes -- 30.00
2025 Est. Workers Age 16+ by Transp. to Work
2025 Est. Workers Age 16+ by Transp. to Work 217,319 100.00 Drove Alone 126,356 58.14
Carpooled 21,986 10.12
Public Transport 16,693 7.68
Walked 5,499 2.53
Bicycle 1,426 0.66
Other Means 3,709 1.71
Worked atHome 41,650 19.16
2025 Est. Civ. Employed Pop 16+ by Class of Worker
2025 Est. Civ. Employed Pop 16+ by Class of Worker 222,674 100.00 For-Profit Private Workers 151,740 68.14
Non-Profit Private Workers 17,442 7.83
LocalGovernment Workers 18,194 8.17
State Government Workers 6,801 3.05
FederalGovernment Workers 5,695 2.56
Self-Employed Workers 22,485 10.10
Unpaid Family Workers 315 0.14
2025 Est. Civ. Employed Pop 16+ by Occupation
Architecture/Engineering 5,820 2.61
Arts/Design/Entertainment/Sports/Media 5,952 2.67
Building/Grounds Cleaning/Maintenance 8,188 3.68
Business/FinancialOperations 16,377 7.36
Community/Social Services 2,773 1.25
Computer/Mathematical 14,868 6.68
Construction/Extraction 8,834 3.97
Education/Training/Library 10,657 4.79
Farming/Fishing/Forestry 1,062 0.48
Food Preparation/Serving Related 10,891 4.89
Healthcare Practitioner/Technician 15,515 6.97
Healthcare Support 6,581 2.96
Installation/Maintenance/Repair 4,933 2.21
Legal 3,188 1.43
Life/Physical/Social Science 5,966 2.68
Management 29,296 13.16
Office/Administrative Support 23,017 10.34
Production 5,342 2.40
Protective Services 4,325 1.94
Sales/Related 18,129 8.14
Personal Care/Service 6,121 2.75
Transportation/MaterialMoving 14,840 6.66
2025 Est. Pop Age 16+ by Employment Status
In Armed Forces 256 0.07
Civilian - Employed 219,941 63.83
Civilian - Unemployed 8,432 2.45
Notin Labor Force 115,960 33.65
Benchmark: HMB SMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 558
Pop-Facts® Senior Life Demographics | Summary
Trade Area:HMBSMA
Population
2010 Census 402,136
2020 Census 427,578
2025 Estimate 408,526
2030 Projection 406,975
Population Change (%)
Growth 2010 - 2020 6.33
Growth 2020 - 2025 -4.46
Growth 2025 - 2030 -0.38
Benchmark: HMB SMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 559
Pop-Facts® Senior Life Demographics | Population & Race Trade Area:HMBSMA
2010 2020 2025 2030
Census % Census % Estimate % Projection %
Total Population
Total Population 402,136 100.00 427,578 100.00 408,526 100.00 406,975 100.00 Age 45 - 54 62,753 15.61 56,657 13.25 54,121 13.25 55,702 13.69 Age 55 - 64 52,353 13.02 57,329 13.41 54,859 13.43 53,377 13.12 Age 65 - 74 29,102 7.24 43,210 10.11 46,873 11.47 49,386 12.13 Age 75 - 84 18,722 4.66 21,792 5.10 26,485 6.48 31,997 7.86 Age 85 and over 8,999 2.24 10,144 2.37 11,424 2.80 12,428 3.05 Age 65 and over 56,822 14.13 75,146 17.57 84,782 20.75 93,811 23.05 Population by Single - Classification Race
White Alone 191,231 47.55 147,115 34.41 128,207 31.38 114,999 28.26 Age 65 and over 36,093 18.87 36,187 24.60 37,141 28.97 37,255 32.40 Black/African American Alone 9,613 2.39 7,498 1.75 6,874 1.68 6,587 1.62 Age 65 and over 1,545 16.07 1,629 21.73 1,802 26.21 1,923 29.19 American Indian/Alaskan Native Alone 1,890 0.47 3,511 0.82 3,307 0.81 3,266 0.80 Age 65 and over 147 7.78 327 9.31 369 11.16 407 12.46
Asian Alone 131,374 32.67 159,663 37.34 164,458 40.26 176,157 43.28 Age 65 and over 15,467 11.77 26,396 16.53 32,945 20.03 39,869 22.63 Native Hawaiian/PacificIslander Alone 4,871 1.21 4,437 1.04 4,087 1.00 3,915 0.96 Age 65 and over 425 8.72 630 14.20 720 17.62 769 19.64
Some Other Race Alone 41,118 10.22 54,584 12.77 53,039 12.98 53,534 13.15 Age 65 and over 1,933 4.70 4,531 8.30 5,361 10.11 6,218 11.62 Two or More Races 22,039 5.48 50,770 11.87 48,554 11.88 48,517 11.92 Age 65 and over 1,204 5.46 5,446 10.73 6,444 13.27 7,370 15.19 Population by Hispanic or Latino
Hispanic/Latino 94,734 23.56 99,863 23.36 96,492 23.62 96,939 23.82 Age 65 and over 7,128 7.52 10,249 10.26 12,147 12.59 13,951 14.39 NotHispanic/Latino 307,401 76.44 327,715 76.64 312,033 76.38 310,035 76.18 Total Population, Male
Total Population, Male 196,793 48.94 210,412 49.21 202,906 49.67 201,908 49.61 Male: Age 45 - 54 30,618 15.56 27,733 13.18 27,327 13.47 27,991 13.86 Male: Age 55 - 64 25,169 12.79 27,426 13.03 27,034 13.32 26,516 13.13 Male: Age 65 - 74 13,051 6.63 20,030 9.52 22,130 10.91 23,426 11.60 Male: Age 75 - 84 7,715 3.92 9,189 4.37 11,439 5.64 13,975 6.92 Male: Age 85 and over 2,988 1.52 3,657 1.74 4,053 2.00 4,500 2.23 Male: Age 65 and over 23,754 12.07 32,877 15.63 37,621 18.54 41,901 20.75 Total Population, Female
Total Population, Female 205,343 51.06 217,165 50.79 205,620 50.33 205,066 50.39 Female: Age 45 - 54 32,135 15.65 28,924 13.32 26,794 13.03 27,711 13.51 Female: Age 55 - 64 27,184 13.24 29,903 13.77 27,825 13.53 26,862 13.10 Female: Age 65 - 74 16,051 7.82 23,180 10.67 24,743 12.03 25,960 12.66 Female: Age 75 - 84 11,007 5.36 12,602 5.80 15,046 7.32 18,022 8.79 Female: Age 85 and over 6,011 2.93 6,487 2.99 7,371 3.58 7,928 3.87 Female: Age 65 and over 33,068 16.10 42,269 19.46 47,161 22.94 51,910 25.31 Benchmark: HMB SMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 560
Pop-Facts® Senior Life Demographics | Household Income
Trade Area:HMBSMA
2025 2030
Estimate % Projection %
Householder Age 45 - 54
Householder Age 45 - 54 25,602 18.04 25,765 18.30
Income Less than $15,000 572 2.23 483 1.88
Income $15,000 - $24,999 416 1.63 347 1.35
Income $25,000 - $34,999 523 2.04 459 1.78
Income $35,000 - $49,999 801 3.13 643 2.50
Income $50,000 - $74,999 1,716 6.70 1,507 5.85
Income $75,000 - $99,999 1,975 7.71 1,745 6.77
Income $100,000 - $124,999 2,024 7.91 1,844 7.16
Income $125,000 - $149,999 2,227 8.70 2,034 7.89
Income $150,000 - $199,999 3,979 15.54 3,836 14.89
Income $200,000 or more 11,369 44.41 12,867 49.94
Median Household Income -- 195,001.61 -- 199,949.44
Householder Age 55 - 64
Householder Age 55 - 64 26,830 18.91 25,566 18.16
Income Less than $15,000 1,009 3.76 811 3.17
Income $15,000 - $24,999 689 2.57 545 2.13
Income $25,000 - $34,999 776 2.89 637 2.49
Income $35,000 - $49,999 1,108 4.13 858 3.36
Income $50,000 - $74,999 2,107 7.85 1,780 6.96
Income $75,000 - $99,999 2,241 8.35 1,913 7.48
Income $100,000 - $124,999 2,145 8.00 1,862 7.28
Income $125,000 - $149,999 2,164 8.07 1,908 7.46
Income $150,000 - $199,999 3,732 13.91 3,456 13.52
Income $200,000 or more 10,860 40.48 11,796 46.14
Median Household Income -- 189,036.41 -- 196,130.62
Householder Age 65 - 74
Householder Age 65 - 74 24,221 17.07 24,932 17.70
Income Less than $15,000 1,472 6.08 1,327 5.32
Income $15,000 - $24,999 1,006 4.15 877 3.52
Income $25,000 - $34,999 996 4.11 922 3.70
Income $35,000 - $49,999 1,851 7.64 1,673 6.71
Income $50,000 - $74,999 3,334 13.77 3,193 12.81
Income $75,000 - $99,999 2,913 12.03 2,883 11.56
Income $100,000 - $124,999 2,537 10.47 2,523 10.12
Income $125,000 - $149,999 2,335 9.64 2,349 9.42
Income $150,000 - $199,999 2,696 11.13 2,875 11.53
Income $200,000 or more 5,081 20.98 6,310 25.31
Median Household Income -- 105,053.19 -- 115,476.56
Householder Age 75 - 84
Householder Age 75 - 84 14,566 10.27 17,193 12.21
Income Less than $15,000 1,277 8.77 1,341 7.80
Income $15,000 - $24,999 1,044 7.17 1,076 6.26
Income $25,000 - $34,999 928 6.37 1,040 6.05
Income $35,000 - $49,999 1,484 10.19 1,537 8.94
Income $50,000 - $74,999 2,205 15.14 2,468 14.36
Income $75,000 - $99,999 1,609 11.05 1,863 10.84
Income $100,000 - $124,999 1,254 8.61 1,467 8.53
Income $125,000 - $149,999 1,072 7.36 1,260 7.33
Income $150,000 - $199,999 1,207 8.29 1,514 8.81
Income $200,000 or more 2,487 17.07 3,628 21.10
Median Household Income -- 79,755.53 -- 89,445.66
Householder Age 85 and over
Householder Age 85 and over 6,540 4.61 6,945 4.93
Income Less than $15,000 899 13.75 877 12.63
Income $15,000 - $24,999 743 11.36 716 10.31
Income $25,000 - $34,999 555 8.49 551 7.93
Income $35,000 - $49,999 742 11.35 708 10.19
Income $50,000 - $74,999 885 13.53 902 12.99
Income $75,000 - $99,999 598 9.14 635 9.14
Income $100,000 - $124,999 417 6.38 445 6.41
Income $125,000 - $149,999 369 5.64 404 5.82
Income $150,000 - $199,999 415 6.35 484 6.97
Income $200,000 or more 917 14.02 1,226 17.65
Median Household Income -- 58,184.59 -- 66,313.98
Benchmark: HMB SMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 561
Pop-Facts® Senior Life Demographics | Housing & Households Trade Area:HMBSMA
2025 2030
Estimate % Projection %
Households by Household Income
TotalHouseholds 141,898 100.00 140,822 100.00
Income Less Than $15,000 6,603 4.65 5,968 4.24
Income $15,000 - $24,999 4,770 3.36 4,191 2.98
Income $25,000 - $34,999 4,954 3.49 4,516 3.21
Income $35,000 - $49,999 8,326 5.87 7,183 5.10
Income $50,000 - $74,999 13,424 9.46 12,349 8.77
Income $75,000 - $99,999 13,262 9.35 12,196 8.66
Income $100,000 - $124,999 11,895 8.38 11,120 7.90
Income $125,000 - $149,999 11,100 7.82 10,431 7.41
Income $150,000 - $199,999 18,096 12.75 17,496 12.42
Income $200,000 - $249,999 10,781 7.60 12,310 8.74
Income $250,000 - $499,999 17,147 12.08 18,664 13.25
Income $500,000 or more 21,540 15.18 24,399 17.33
Average Household Income -- 205,357.00 -- 220,920.00
Median Household Income -- 142,092.17 -- 156,283.39
Age 55+ Median Household Income -- 113,872.85 -- 124,544.55 Age 65+ Median Household Income -- 90,216.90 -- 99,733.95 Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Value
Value Less Than $20,000 797 0.99 775 0.97
Value $20,000 - $39,999 165 0.20 154 0.19
Value $40,000 - $59,999 104 0.13 93 0.12
Value $60,000 - $79,999 173 0.21 141 0.18
Value $80,000 - $99,999 208 0.26 222 0.28
Value $100,000 - $149,999 648 0.80 632 0.79
Value $150,000 - $199,999 324 0.40 305 0.38
Value $200,000 - $299,999 534 0.66 498 0.62
Value $300,000 - $399,999 583 0.72 550 0.69
Value $400,000 - $499,999 601 0.74 570 0.71
Value $500,000 - $749,999 5,396 6.69 4,950 6.21
Value $750,000 - $999,999 10,950 13.58 10,085 12.64
Value $1,000,000 - $1,499,999 26,617 33.00 25,224 31.62 Value $1,500,000 - $1,999,999 14,000 17.36 14,578 18.27 Value $2,000,000+ 19,552 24.24 20,990 26.31
Median AllOwner-Occupied Housing Unit Value -- 1,360,176.64 -- 1,405,676.13 Group Quarters by Population Type
Group Quarters Population 3,766 0.92 3,807 0.94
Correctional Facilities 281 7.46 291 7.64
Nursing Homes 1,002 26.61 1,010 26.53
Other Facilities 42 1.11 42 1.10
Juvenile Facilities 26 0.69 26 0.68
College Dormitories 26 0.69 27 0.71
Military Quarters 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other NoninstitutionalQuarters 2,388 63.41 2,410 63.30
Occupied Housing Units by Tenure
Owner-Occupied 80,652 56.84 79,769 56.65
Renter-Occupied 61,246 43.16 61,053 43.35
Benchmark: HMB SMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 562
Pop-Facts® Senior Life Demographics | Housing & Households Trade Area:HMBSMA
2020 2025 2030
Census % Estimate % Projection %
Households by Tenure by Age of Householder
TotalHouseholds 149,633 100.00 141,898 100.00 140,822 100.00 Owner-Occupied 85,388 57.06 80,652 56.84 79,769 56.65
Householder Age 55 - 64 20,032 13.39 17,893 22.18 16,567 20.77 Householder Age 65 - 74 17,532 11.72 17,873 22.16 18,150 22.75 Householder Age 75 - 84 9,746 6.51 11,143 13.82 12,984 16.28 Householder Age 85 and over 4,473 2.99 4,627 5.74 4,865 6.10 Renter-Occupied 64,245 42.94 61,246 43.16 61,053 43.35
Householder Age 55 - 64 9,253 6.18 8,937 14.59 8,999 14.74 Householder Age 65 - 74 5,743 3.84 6,348 10.37 6,781 11.11 Householder Age 75 - 84 2,700 1.80 3,423 5.59 4,209 6.89 Householder Age 85 and over 1,517 1.01 1,912 3.12 2,080 3.41 Benchmark: HMB SMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 563
Pop-Facts® Senior Life Demographics | Map
Trade Area:HMBSMA
Benchmark: HMB SMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) ©2006-2025 TomTom
564
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
DEMOGRAPHIC REPORTS
Primary Market Area (PMA)
565
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Summary
Trade Area:HMBPMA
Population
2010 Census 104,692
2020 Census 109,551
2025 Estimate 103,728
2030 Projection 102,707
Population Growth
Percent Change: 2010 to 2020 4.64
Percent Change: 2020 to 2025 -5.32
Percent Change: 2025 to 2030 -0.98
Households
2010 Census 36,943
2020 Census 38,562
2025 Estimate 36,261
2030 Projection 35,799
Household Growth
Percent Change: 2010 to 2020 4.38
Percent Change: 2020 to 2025 -5.97
Percent Change: 2025 to 2030 -1.27
Family Households
2010 Census 26,474
2020 Census 27,751
2025 Estimate 26,080
2030 Projection 25,729
Family Household Growth
Percent Change: 2010 to 2020 4.82
Percent Change: 2020 to 2025 -6.02
Percent Change: 2025 to 2030 -1.35
Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 566
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Population & Race
Trade Area:HMBPMA Total Population:103,728 | TotalHouseholds:36,261 Count %
2025 Est. Population by Single-Classification Race
White Alone 41,478 39.99
Black/African American Alone 1,725 1.66
American Indian/Alaskan Native Alone 662 0.64
Asian Alone 36,290 34.99
Native Hawaiian/PacificIslander Alone 801 0.77
Some Other Race Alone 9,319 8.98
Two or More Races 13,452 12.97
2025 Est. Population by Hispanic or Latino Origin
Hispanic/Latino 20,306 19.58
NotHispanic or Latino 83,422 80.42
Mexican Origin 11,255 55.43
Puerto Rican Origin 845 4.16
Cuban Origin 350 1.72
AllOther Hispanic or Latino 7,856 38.69
2025 Est. Pop by Race, Asian Alone, by Category
Chinese, except Taiwanese 13,113 36.13
Filipino 16,406 45.21
Japanese 1,053 2.90
Asian Indian 1,014 2.79
Korean 832 2.29
Vietnamese 932 2.57
Cambodian 66 0.18
Hmong 48 0.13
Laotian 0 0.00
Thai 195 0.54
AllOther Asian Races Including 2+ Category 2,632 7.25
2025 Est. Pop Age 5+ by Language Spoken At Home
Speak Only English atHome 63,776 64.44
Speak Asian/PacificIsl. Lang. atHome 20,201 20.41
Speak Indo-European Language atHome 3,691 3.73
Speak Spanish atHome 10,360 10.47
Speak Other Language atHome 467 0.47
2025 Est. Hisp. or Latino Pop by Single-Class. Race
White Alone 3,440 16.94
Black/African American Alone 120 0.59
American Indian/Alaskan Native Alone 484 2.38
Asian Alone 447 2.20
Native Hawaiian/PacificIslander Alone 53 0.26
Some Other Race Alone 8,471 41.72
Two or More Races 7,291 35.91
2025 Population by Ancestry
Arab 881 0.85
Czech 386 0.37
Danish 353 0.34
Dutch 613 0.59
English 5,934 5.72
French (Excluding Basque) 1,282 1.24
French Canadian 140 0.14
German 6,584 6.35
Greek 579 0.56
Hungarian 452 0.44
Irish 6,863 6.62
Italian 4,911 4.74
Lithuanian 71 0.07
Norwegian 1,266 1.22
Polish 930 0.90
Portuguese 1,183 1.14
Russian 958 0.92
Scotch-Irish 623 0.60
Scottish 798 0.77
Slovak 108 0.10
Subsaharan African 107 0.10
Swedish 845 0.81
Swiss 223 0.21
Ukrainian 529 0.51
United States or American 3,426 3.30
Welsh 440 0.42
WestIndian (Excluding Hispanic groups) 139 0.13
Other Ancestry 47,920 46.20
Ancestry Unclassified 15,185 14.64
Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 567
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Population & Race
Trade Area:HMBPMA Total Population:103,728 | TotalHouseholds:36,261 Count %
2025 Est. Population by Sex
Male 51,189 49.35
Female 52,539 50.65
2025 Est. Population by Age
Age 0 - 4 4,759 4.59
Age 5 - 9 4,981 4.80
Age 10 - 14 5,071 4.89
Age 15 - 17 3,055 2.94
Age 18 - 20 3,083 2.97
Age 21 - 24 4,148 4.00
Age 25 - 34 11,435 11.02
Age 35 - 44 14,749 14.22
Age 45 - 54 13,818 13.32
Age 55 - 64 14,721 14.19
Age 65 - 74 13,950 13.45
Age 75 - 84 7,492 7.22
Age 85 and over 2,466 2.38
Age 16 and over 87,904 84.75
Age 18 and over 85,863 82.78
Age 21 and over 82,780 79.81
Age 65 and over 23,908 23.05
Median Age -- 45.41
Average Age -- 44.52
2025 Est. Pop Age 15+ by Marital Status
Total, Never Married 29,443 33.11
Male, Never Married 16,146 18.16
Female, Never Married 13,297 14.95
Married, Spouse Present 41,634 46.82
Married, Spouse Absent 5,889 6.62
Widowed 4,819 5.42
Male, Widowed 1,040 1.17
Female, Widowed 3,779 4.25
Divorced 7,132 8.02
Male, Divorced 2,690 3.02
Female, Divorced 4,442 5.00
2025 Est. Male Population by Age
Male: Age 0 - 4 2,425 4.74
Male: Age 5 - 9 2,496 4.88
Male: Age 10 - 14 2,586 5.05
Male: Age 15 - 17 1,566 3.06
Male: Age 18 - 20 1,591 3.11
Male: Age 21 - 24 2,156 4.21
Male: Age 25 - 34 5,956 11.63
Male: Age 35 - 44 7,559 14.77
Male: Age 45 - 54 6,955 13.59
Male: Age 55 - 64 7,127 13.92
Male: Age 65 - 74 6,543 12.78
Male: Age 75 - 84 3,301 6.45
Male: Age 85 and over 928 1.81
Median Age, Male -- 44.02
Average Age, Male -- 43.46
2025 Est. Female Population by Age
Female: Age 0 - 4 2,334 4.44
Female: Age 5 - 9 2,485 4.73
Female: Age 10 - 14 2,485 4.73
Female: Age 15 - 17 1,489 2.83
Female: Age 18 - 20 1,492 2.84
Female: Age 21 - 24 1,992 3.79
Female: Age 25 - 34 5,479 10.43
Female: Age 35 - 44 7,190 13.69
Female: Age 45 - 54 6,864 13.06
Female: Age 55 - 64 7,594 14.45
Female: Age 65 - 74 7,407 14.10
Female: Age 75 - 84 4,192 7.98
Female: Age 85 and over 1,538 2.93
Median Age, Female -- 46.93
Average Age, Female -- 45.55
Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 568
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Housing & Households
Trade Area:HMBPMA Total Population:103,728 | TotalHouseholds:36,261 Count %
2025 Est. Households by Household Type
TotalHouseholds 36,261 100.00
Family Households 26,080 71.92
Other Households 10,181 --
2025 Est. Group Quarters Population
2025 Est. Group Quarters Population 947 0.91
2025 HHs By Ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino
2025 HHs By Ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino 5,405 14.91
2025 Est. Households by Type and Presence of Own Children Married Couple 20,050 55.29
With Own Kids < 18 6,789 18.72
WithoutOwn Kids < 18 13,261 36.57
Cohabiting Couple 2,319 6.39
With Own Kids < 18 454 1.25
WithoutOwn Kids < 18 1,865 5.14
Female Householder, No Spouse or Partner Present 8,364 23.07 Living Alone 4,841 13.35
With Own Kids < 18 673 1.86
WithoutOwn Kids < 18 2,347 6.47
With Only Nonrelatives 502 1.38
Male Householder, No Spouse or Partner Present 5,527 15.24 Living Alone 3,369 9.29
With Own Kids < 18 534 1.47
WithoutOwn Kids < 18 1,096 3.02
With Only Nonrelatives 529 1.46
With Own Kids < 18 8,451 23.31
WithoutOwn Kids < 18 27,810 76.69
2025 Est. Households by Household Size
1-Person Household 6,860 18.92
2-Person Household 11,869 32.73
3-Person Household 6,575 18.13
4-Person Household 5,866 16.18
5-Person Household 2,781 7.67
6-Person Household 1,194 3.29
7-or-more-person 1,117 3.08
2025 Est. Average Household Size -- 2.83
2025 Est. Households by Number of Vehicles
No Vehicles 1,446 3.99
1 Vehicle 9,711 26.78
2 Vehicles 14,250 39.30
3 Vehicles 7,156 19.73
4 Vehicles 2,382 6.57
5 or more Vehicles 1,315 3.63
2025 Est. Average Number of Vehicles -- 2.12
2025 Occupied Housing Units by Tenure
Housing Units, Owner-Occupied 24,861 68.56
Housing Units, Renter-Occupied 11,400 31.44
2025 Owner Occ. HUs: Avg. Length of Residence
2025Owner Occ. HUs: Avg. Length of Residence -- 21.81
2025 Renter Occ. HUs: Avg. Length of Residence
2025 Renter Occ. HUs: Avg. Length of Residence -- 8.60
2025 Est. Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Value
Value Less Than $20,000 357 1.44
Value $20,000 - $39,999 72 0.29
Value $40,000 - $59,999 9 0.04
Value $60,000 - $79,999 3 0.01
Value $80,000 - $99,999 43 0.17
Value $100,000 - $149,999 175 0.70
Value $150,000 - $199,999 123 0.49
Value $200,000 - $299,999 151 0.61
Value $300,000 - $399,999 236 0.95
Value $400,000 - $499,999 201 0.81
Value $500,000 - $749,999 1,685 6.78
Value $750,000 - $999,999 3,255 13.09
Value $1,000,000 - $1,499,999 10,549 42.43
Value $1,500,000 - $1,999,999 5,124 20.61
Value $2,000,000 or more 2,878 11.58
2025 Est. Median AllOwner-Occupied Housing Value -- 1,285,492.41 Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 569
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Housing & Households
Trade Area:HMBPMA Total Population:103,728 | TotalHouseholds:36,261 Count %
2025 Est. Housing Units by Units in Structure
1 UnitDetached 26,908 69.04
1 Unit Attached 2,877 7.38
2 Units 536 1.38
3 to 4 Units 1,266 3.25
5 to 19 Units 2,554 6.55
20 to 49 Units 1,427 3.66
50 or More Units 2,719 6.98
Mobile Home or Trailer 688 1.76
Boat, RV, Van, etc. 0 0.00
2025 Est. Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Built 2020 or Later 111 0.28
Built 2010 to 2019 739 1.90
Built 2000 to 2009 2,613 6.70
Built 1990 to 1999 2,254 5.78
Built 1980 to 1989 4,415 11.33
Built 1970 to 1979 10,145 26.03
Built 1960 to 1969 8,472 21.74
Built 1950 to 1959 7,675 19.69
Built 1940 to 1949 1,263 3.24
Built 1939 or Earlier 1,286 3.30
2025 Housing Units by Year Structure Built
2025 Est. Median Year Structure Built -- 1,970.77
Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 570
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Affluence & Education Trade Area:HMBPMA Total Population:103,728 | TotalHouseholds:36,261 Count %
2025 Est. Pop Age 25+ by Edu. Attainment
Less than 9th Grade 3,034 3.86
Some High School, No Diploma 2,341 2.98
High SchoolGraduate (or GED) 13,229 16.82
Some College, No Degree 14,300 18.19
Associate's Degree 7,122 9.06
Bachelor's Degree 24,116 30.67
Master's Degree 9,268 11.79
ProfessionalDegree 3,228 4.11
Doctorate Degree 1,996 2.54
2025 Est. Pop Age 25+ by Edu. Attain., Hisp./Lat.
Less than High SchoolDiploma 2,558 19.49
High SchoolGraduate 3,348 25.51
Some College or Associate's Degree 3,215 24.50
Bachelor's Degree or Higher 4,002 30.50
2025 Est. Households by HH Income
Income < $15,000 1,480 4.08
Income $15,000 - $24,999 1,044 2.88
Income $25,000 - $34,999 1,062 2.93
Income $35,000 - $49,999 1,858 5.12
Income $50,000 - $74,999 3,334 9.20
Income $75,000 - $99,999 3,167 8.73
Income $100,000 - $124,999 2,967 8.18
Income $125,000 - $149,999 2,779 7.66
Income $150,000 - $199,999 4,940 13.62
Income $200,000 - $249,999 3,045 8.40
Income $250,000 - $499,999 4,728 13.04
Income $500,000+ 5,856 16.15
2025 Est. Average Household Income -- 215,675.00
2025 Est. Median Household Income -- 154,014.94
2025 Median HH Inc. by Single-Class. Race or Eth.
White Alone -- 183,463.14
Black or African American Alone -- 91,049.40
American Indian and Alaskan Native Alone -- 122,797.40
Asian Alone -- 191,289.85
Native Hawaiian and Other PacificIslander Alone -- 188,847.32 Some Other Race Alone -- 116,994.79
Two or More Races -- 182,416.36
Hispanic or Latino -- 127,506.64
NotHispanic or Latino -- 186,685.22
2025 Est. Families by Poverty Status
Families at or Above Poverty 24,990 95.82
Families at or Above Poverty with children 9,332 35.78
Families Below Poverty 1,090 4.18
Families Below Poverty, with children 417 1.60
Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 571
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Employment & Occupation Trade Area:HMBPMA Total Population:103,728 | TotalHouseholds:36,261 Count %
2025 Est. Employed Civilian Population 16+ by Occupation Classification White Collar 39,717 71.06
Blue Collar 7,675 13.73
Service and Farming 8,504 15.21
2025 Est. Workers Age 16+ by Travel Time to Work
Less than 15 Minutes 9,147 20.26
15 - 29 Minutes 15,488 34.31
30 - 44 Minutes 12,386 27.43
45 - 59 Minutes 4,543 10.06
60 or more Minutes 3,583 7.94
2025 Est. Avg Travel Time to Work in Minutes -- 31.00
2025 Est. Workers Age 16+ by Transp. to Work
2025 Est. Workers Age 16+ by Transp. to Work 54,382 100.00 Drove Alone 33,693 61.96
Carpooled 4,925 9.06
Public Transport 2,807 5.16
Walked 933 1.72
Bicycle 268 0.49
Other Means 829 1.52
Worked atHome 10,926 20.09
2025 Est. Civ. Employed Pop 16+ by Class of Worker
2025 Est. Civ. Employed Pop 16+ by Class of Worker 55,895 100.00 For-Profit Private Workers 35,915 64.25
Non-Profit Private Workers 4,316 7.72
LocalGovernment Workers 5,606 10.03
State Government Workers 1,977 3.54
FederalGovernment Workers 1,689 3.02
Self-Employed Workers 6,377 11.41
Unpaid Family Workers 15 0.03
2025 Est. Civ. Employed Pop 16+ by Occupation
Architecture/Engineering 1,616 2.89
Arts/Design/Entertainment/Sports/Media 1,915 3.43
Building/Grounds Cleaning/Maintenance 1,653 2.96
Business/FinancialOperations 4,008 7.17
Community/Social Services 858 1.53
Computer/Mathematical 2,869 5.13
Construction/Extraction 1,896 3.39
Education/Training/Library 3,634 6.50
Farming/Fishing/Forestry 315 0.56
Food Preparation/Serving Related 2,286 4.09
Healthcare Practitioner/Technician 4,290 7.67
Healthcare Support 1,511 2.70
Installation/Maintenance/Repair 1,141 2.04
Legal 903 1.62
Life/Physical/Social Science 1,516 2.71
Management 7,663 13.71
Office/Administrative Support 6,172 11.04
Production 1,269 2.27
Protective Services 1,184 2.12
Sales/Related 4,275 7.65
Personal Care/Service 1,556 2.78
Transportation/MaterialMoving 3,369 6.03
2025 Est. Pop Age 16+ by Employment Status
In Armed Forces 33 0.04
Civilian - Employed 55,051 62.63
Civilian - Unemployed 1,720 1.96
Notin Labor Force 31,100 35.38
Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 572
Pop-Facts® Demographic Snapshot | Map
Trade Area:HMBPMA Total Population:103,728 | TotalHouseholds:36,261 Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) ©2006-2025 TomTom
573
Pop-Facts® Senior Life Demographics | Summary
Trade Area:HMBPMA
Population
2010 Census 104,692
2020 Census 109,551
2025 Estimate 103,728
2030 Projection 102,707
Population Change (%)
Growth 2010 - 2020 4.64
Growth 2020 - 2025 -5.32
Growth 2025 - 2030 -0.98
Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 574
Pop-Facts® Senior Life Demographics | Population & Race Trade Area:HMBPMA
2010 2020 2025 2030
Census % Census % Estimate % Projection %
Total Population
Total Population 104,692 100.00 109,551 100.00 103,728 100.00 102,707 100.00 Age 45 - 54 17,281 16.51 14,601 13.33 13,818 13.32 14,213 13.84 Age 55 - 64 15,809 15.10 15,993 14.60 14,721 14.19 13,952 13.58 Age 65 - 74 8,050 7.69 13,130 11.98 13,950 13.45 14,408 14.03 Age 75 - 84 4,138 3.95 6,013 5.49 7,492 7.22 9,012 8.78 Age 85 and over 1,620 1.55 2,141 1.95 2,466 2.38 2,795 2.72 Age 65 and over 13,809 13.19 21,284 19.43 23,908 23.05 26,215 25.52 Population by Single - Classification Race
White Alone 54,961 52.50 46,309 42.27 41,478 39.99 38,479 37.47 Age 65 and over 8,815 16.04 11,507 24.85 12,292 29.64 12,762 33.17 Black/African American Alone 2,542 2.43 1,900 1.73 1,725 1.66 1,657 1.61 Age 65 and over 414 16.29 463 24.37 505 29.27 536 32.35 American Indian/Alaskan Native Alone 497 0.47 715 0.65 662 0.64 648 0.63 Age 65 and over 37 7.45 79 11.05 83 12.54 89 13.73
Asian Alone 32,679 31.21 36,233 33.07 36,290 34.99 38,070 37.07 Age 65 and over 3,795 11.61 6,718 18.54 8,063 22.22 9,380 24.64 Native Hawaiian/PacificIslander Alone 1,022 0.98 870 0.79 801 0.77 765 0.74 Age 65 and over 98 9.59 127 14.60 149 18.60 155 20.26
Some Other Race Alone 7,006 6.69 9,558 8.72 9,319 8.98 9,504 9.25 Age 65 and over 345 4.92 865 9.05 1,007 10.81 1,192 12.54 Two or More Races 5,985 5.72 13,967 12.75 13,452 12.97 13,585 13.23 Age 65 and over 296 4.95 1,526 10.93 1,808 13.44 2,101 15.47 Population by Hispanic or Latino
Hispanic/Latino 18,570 17.74 20,992 19.16 20,306 19.58 20,555 20.01 Age 65 and over 1,466 7.89 2,306 10.98 2,687 13.23 3,106 15.11 NotHispanic/Latino 86,123 82.26 88,559 80.84 83,422 80.42 82,152 79.99 Total Population, Male
Total Population, Male 51,243 48.95 53,557 48.89 51,189 49.35 50,634 49.30 Male: Age 45 - 54 8,320 16.24 7,147 13.35 6,955 13.59 7,140 14.10 Male: Age 55 - 64 7,632 14.89 7,472 13.95 7,127 13.92 6,872 13.57 Male: Age 65 - 74 3,672 7.17 6,090 11.37 6,543 12.78 6,727 13.29 Male: Age 75 - 84 1,753 3.42 2,620 4.89 3,301 6.45 3,982 7.86 Male: Age 85 and over 546 1.06 813 1.52 928 1.81 1,067 2.11 Male: Age 65 and over 5,972 11.65 9,523 17.78 10,772 21.04 11,776 23.26 Total Population, Female
Total Population, Female 53,449 51.05 55,993 51.11 52,539 50.65 52,073 50.70 Female: Age 45 - 54 8,961 16.77 7,454 13.31 6,864 13.06 7,074 13.59 Female: Age 55 - 64 8,178 15.30 8,522 15.22 7,594 14.45 7,080 13.60 Female: Age 65 - 74 4,378 8.19 7,040 12.57 7,407 14.10 7,681 14.75 Female: Age 75 - 84 2,385 4.46 3,393 6.06 4,192 7.98 5,030 9.66 Female: Age 85 and over 1,075 2.01 1,328 2.37 1,538 2.93 1,729 3.32 Female: Age 65 and over 7,837 14.66 11,761 21.00 13,136 25.00 14,439 27.73 Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 575
Pop-Facts® Senior Life Demographics | Household Income
Trade Area:HMBPMA
2025 2030
Estimate % Projection %
Householder Age 45 - 54
Householder Age 45 - 54 6,429 17.73 6,461 18.05
Income Less than $15,000 80 1.24 63 0.97
Income $15,000 - $24,999 77 1.20 61 0.94
Income $25,000 - $34,999 148 2.30 120 1.86
Income $35,000 - $49,999 145 2.25 138 2.14
Income $50,000 - $74,999 325 5.05 252 3.90
Income $75,000 - $99,999 419 6.52 359 5.56
Income $100,000 - $124,999 447 6.95 387 5.99
Income $125,000 - $149,999 591 9.19 537 8.31
Income $150,000 - $199,999 1,119 17.41 1,041 16.11
Income $200,000 or more 3,078 47.88 3,503 54.22
Median Household Income -- 198,425.59 -- 200,000.08
Householder Age 55 - 64
Householder Age 55 - 64 7,300 20.13 6,766 18.90
Income Less than $15,000 167 2.29 116 1.72
Income $15,000 - $24,999 144 1.97 119 1.76
Income $25,000 - $34,999 228 3.12 184 2.72
Income $35,000 - $49,999 210 2.88 175 2.59
Income $50,000 - $74,999 458 6.27 338 5.00
Income $75,000 - $99,999 535 7.33 442 6.53
Income $100,000 - $124,999 509 6.97 418 6.18
Income $125,000 - $149,999 657 9.00 567 8.38
Income $150,000 - $199,999 1,143 15.66 1,009 14.91
Income $200,000 or more 3,248 44.49 3,399 50.24
Median Household Income -- 195,135.85 -- 200,000.01
Householder Age 65 - 74
Householder Age 65 - 74 7,388 20.38 7,497 20.94
Income Less than $15,000 472 6.39 414 5.52
Income $15,000 - $24,999 242 3.28 213 2.84
Income $25,000 - $34,999 218 2.95 202 2.69
Income $35,000 - $49,999 512 6.93 398 5.31
Income $50,000 - $74,999 1,072 14.51 976 13.02
Income $75,000 - $99,999 849 11.49 841 11.22
Income $100,000 - $124,999 852 11.53 826 11.02
Income $125,000 - $149,999 520 7.04 540 7.20
Income $150,000 - $199,999 874 11.83 906 12.09
Income $200,000 or more 1,778 24.07 2,181 29.09
Median Household Income -- 109,203.47 -- 120,877.43
Householder Age 75 - 84
Householder Age 75 - 84 4,212 11.62 4,966 13.87
Income Less than $15,000 357 8.48 380 7.65
Income $15,000 - $24,999 247 5.86 250 5.03
Income $25,000 - $34,999 207 4.92 228 4.59
Income $35,000 - $49,999 436 10.35 409 8.24
Income $50,000 - $74,999 692 16.43 746 15.02
Income $75,000 - $99,999 453 10.76 529 10.65
Income $100,000 - $124,999 413 9.80 478 9.63
Income $125,000 - $149,999 231 5.48 290 5.84
Income $150,000 - $199,999 383 9.09 480 9.67
Income $200,000 or more 793 18.83 1,175 23.66
Median Household Income -- 83,263.11 -- 96,948.66
Householder Age 85 and over
Householder Age 85 and over 1,398 3.85 1,564 4.37
Income Less than $15,000 185 13.23 189 12.08
Income $15,000 - $24,999 157 11.23 158 10.10
Income $25,000 - $34,999 93 6.65 101 6.46
Income $35,000 - $49,999 150 10.73 143 9.14
Income $50,000 - $74,999 221 15.81 226 14.45
Income $75,000 - $99,999 124 8.87 139 8.89
Income $100,000 - $124,999 104 7.44 118 7.54
Income $125,000 - $149,999 54 3.86 68 4.35
Income $150,000 - $199,999 103 7.37 122 7.80
Income $200,000 or more 206 14.73 301 19.25
Median Household Income -- 61,886.84 -- 70,642.15
Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 576
Pop-Facts® Senior Life Demographics | Housing & Households Trade Area:HMBPMA
2025 2030
Estimate % Projection %
Households by Household Income
TotalHouseholds 36,261 100.00 35,799 100.00
Income Less Than $15,000 1,480 4.08 1,330 3.71
Income $15,000 - $24,999 1,044 2.88 936 2.62
Income $25,000 - $34,999 1,062 2.93 958 2.68
Income $35,000 - $49,999 1,858 5.12 1,578 4.41
Income $50,000 - $74,999 3,334 9.20 2,975 8.31
Income $75,000 - $99,999 3,167 8.73 2,924 8.17
Income $100,000 - $124,999 2,967 8.18 2,735 7.64
Income $125,000 - $149,999 2,779 7.66 2,581 7.21
Income $150,000 - $199,999 4,940 13.62 4,649 12.99
Income $200,000 - $249,999 3,045 8.40 3,402 9.50
Income $250,000 - $499,999 4,728 13.04 5,122 14.31
Income $500,000 or more 5,856 16.15 6,610 18.46
Average Household Income -- 215,675.00 -- 231,863.00
Median Household Income -- 154,014.94 -- 169,077.16
Age 55+ Median Household Income -- 122,706.05 -- 135,383.10 Age 65+ Median Household Income -- 96,498.86 -- 107,806.71 Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Value
Value Less Than $20,000 357 1.44 336 1.37
Value $20,000 - $39,999 72 0.29 74 0.30
Value $40,000 - $59,999 9 0.04 11 0.04
Value $60,000 - $79,999 3 0.01 7 0.03
Value $80,000 - $99,999 43 0.17 41 0.17
Value $100,000 - $149,999 175 0.70 160 0.65
Value $150,000 - $199,999 123 0.49 114 0.47
Value $200,000 - $299,999 151 0.61 149 0.61
Value $300,000 - $399,999 236 0.95 215 0.88
Value $400,000 - $499,999 201 0.81 198 0.81
Value $500,000 - $749,999 1,685 6.78 1,576 6.44
Value $750,000 - $999,999 3,255 13.09 3,024 12.35
Value $1,000,000 - $1,499,999 10,549 42.43 9,696 39.59
Value $1,500,000 - $1,999,999 5,124 20.61 5,323 21.74
Value $2,000,000+ 2,878 11.58 3,563 14.55
Median AllOwner-Occupied Housing Unit Value -- 1,285,492.41 -- 1,321,603.56 Group Quarters by Population Type
Group Quarters Population 947 0.91 961 0.94
Correctional Facilities 281 29.67 291 30.28
Nursing Homes 173 18.27 175 18.21
Other Facilities 30 3.17 30 3.12
Juvenile Facilities 0 0.00 0 0.00
College Dormitories 0 0.00 0 0.00
Military Quarters 0 0.00 0 0.00
Other NoninstitutionalQuarters 463 48.89 465 48.39
Occupied Housing Units by Tenure
Owner-Occupied 24,861 68.56 24,488 68.40
Renter-Occupied 11,400 31.44 11,311 31.60
Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 577
Pop-Facts® Senior Life Demographics | Housing & Households Trade Area:HMBPMA
2020 2025 2030
Census % Estimate % Projection %
Households by Tenure by Age of Householder
TotalHouseholds 38,562 100.00 36,261 100.00 35,799 100.00 Owner-Occupied 26,481 68.67 24,861 68.56 24,488 68.40
Householder Age 55 - 64 6,399 16.59 5,549 22.32 5,049 20.62 Householder Age 65 - 74 5,990 15.53 6,060 24.38 6,099 24.91 Householder Age 75 - 84 2,978 7.72 3,473 13.97 4,064 16.60 Householder Age 85 and over 996 2.58 1,072 4.31 1,184 4.83 Renter-Occupied 12,082 31.33 11,400 31.44 11,311 31.60
Householder Age 55 - 64 1,867 4.84 1,751 15.36 1,718 15.19 Householder Age 65 - 74 1,240 3.22 1,328 11.65 1,398 12.36 Householder Age 75 - 84 578 1.50 738 6.47 902 7.97
Householder Age 85 and over 242 0.63 326 2.86 380 3.36
Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) 578
Pop-Facts® Senior Life Demographics | Map
Trade Area:HMBPMA
Benchmark: HMB PMA © 2025 Claritas, LLC. All rights reserved. Source: ©Claritas, LLC 2025. (https://claritas.easpotlight.com/Spotlight/About/3/2025) ©2006-2025 TomTom
579
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
SUBJECT PROPERTY SITE PLAN, FLOOR PLANS/LAYOUT
AND RENDERINGS
580
17'-0" 28'-0" 16'-6" 29'-6" 7'-0" 21'-7" 5'-7" 125'-2"
17'-0" 28'-0" 16'-6" 29'-6" 7'-0" 21'-7" 5'-7" 125'-2" MAILBOX CUBBIES
3.7%
18'-0" 3.7%
581
582
583
584
585
586
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
IDENTITY OF INTEREST
587
IDENTITY of INTEREST STATEMENT
Newport Realty Advisors LLC
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA
This statement is to certify that Newport Realty Advisors has no direct or indirect financial relationship with any of the Project Team Members associated with the proposed development of 555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, CA.
Furthermore, the site visit for this assignment was conducted on March 25, 2025.
By: Newport Realty Advisors LLC
By: Charles Castro
Title: Principal
Date: April 4, 2025
588
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
UTILITY ALLOWANCE SCHEDULE
589
Fuel Type 0 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 5 BR
Natural Gas
(Includes Climate Credit)
$26.00 $32.00 $37.00 $41.00 $45.00 $50.00
Bottle Gas
Electric $26.00 $31.00 $39.00 $48.00 $56.00 $66.00
Electric Heat Pump N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas $7.00 $7.00 $11.00 $13.00 $18.00 $20.00
Bottle Gas
Electric $11.00 $13.00 $18.00 $24.00 $30.00 $35.00
(Includes Climate Credit) $34.00 $42.00 $62.00 $85.00 $109.00 $132.00 Air Conditioning $5.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $13.00 $15.00 Natural Gas $13.00 $15.00 $22.00 $31.00 $37.00 $44.00
Bottle Gas
Electric $25.00 $30.00 $38.00 $46.00 $54.00 $63.00
Fuel Oil
(avg) $76.00 $78.00 $101.00 $130.00 $162.00 $195.00
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
(avg) $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00
Range/Microwave $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 $11.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $12.00
Allowance
Water Heating
Range/Microwave
Refrigerator
Total
Number of Bedrooms
Water
Sewer
Trash Collection
Other
Unit Address
Actual Family Allowances-May be used by the family to compute allowance while Utility/Service/Appliance searching for a unit.
Head of Household Name
Heating
Cooking
Other Electric
Air Conditioning
Utility of Service
Other specify:
Other specify:
Heating
Cooking
Water Heating
Utility Allowance Schedule
See Public Reporting and Instructions on back.
OMB Approval No. 2577-0169
(exp. 04/30/2026)
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Locality/PHA Housing Authority of the
County of San Mateo
Unit Type: Multi-Family
(Apartment/Condo/Duplex)
Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
The following allowances are used to determine the total cost of tenant-furnished utilities and appliances.
Other Electric
Refrigerator
Water
Sewer
Trash Collection
adapted from form HUD-52667
(04/2023)
05/01/2025
590
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
ATTACHMEN 21H – FORECLOSURES – NEGATIVE POINTS
591
1699 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94109 Phone: (415) 835-6060 555 Kelly
No Default or Foreclosures Statements for Sponsor
The undersigned hereby affirms that there have not been any circumstances that would require negative points to be assessed to the application by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.
The undersigned hereby affirms that Mercy Housing or Newport Realty Advisors LLC have not defaulted or suffered foreclosure on any loan, mortgage, or similar legal instrument.
Newport Realty Advisors LLC
By: Charlie Castro
Its: Principal
Date: April 4, 2025
592
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
MARKET STUDY MATRIX
593
State of California
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee &
California Debt Limit Allocation Committee
Market Study Index
Market Analysts must provide a checklist referencing all components of their market study. This checklist is intended to assist readers on the location and content of issues relevant to the evaluation and analysis of market studies. The page number of each component referenced is noted in the right column. In cases where the item is not relevant, the author has indicated "N/A" or not applicable. Where a conflict with or variation from client standards or client requirements exist, the author has indicated a "V" (variation) with a comment explaining the conflict. More detailed notations or explanations are also acceptable.
Page
Number(s)
Executive Summary
1. Precise statement of key conclusions 2
2. Market strengths and weaknesses impacting project 3
3. Recommendations and/or modification to project discussion 3
4. Discussion of subject property's impact on existing housing 3-4
5. Absorption projection with issues impacting performance 5
6. Discussion of risks or other mitigating circumstances impacting project 2-3 Project Description
7. Number of bedrooms and baths proposed, income limitation, proposed rents and utility allowances 1-2
8. Utilities (and utility sources) included in rent 2
9. Occupancy type and target population description 1-2
10. Project design description 1-2
11. Description of service amenities 2
12. Date of construction/preliminary completion 1
13. If rehabilitation or demolition of occupied housing, existing unit breakdown and rents N/A
14. Reference of status or date of architectural plans and name of architect 1 Exe Summ.
15. Copy of floor plans and elevations Appendix
Delineation of Market Area
16. Primary Market Area and Secondary Market Area description 8
17. Scaled for distance map of the suggested market area 8
18. Site amenities description and map 5-7
19. Description of site characteristics 3-5
20. Photographs of site and neighborhood Appendix
21. Visibility and accessibility evaluation 5
22. Crime statistics 12-13
Market Area Economy
23. Employment by industry 14-17
24. Major employers 15
25. Historical unemployment rate 14-16
26. Five-year employment growth 14-16
594
Market Study Index for TCAC & CDLAC Market Study Guidelines Page 2 of 2 2/12/10
27. Employment Trends 14-16
28. Typical wages by occupation 17
29. Discussion of commuting patterns of area workers 5
Population, Household and Income Trends
30. Population and household estimates and projections 9
31. Households by tenure 9
32. Distribution of income 10
Demand Estimate
33. Evaluation of proposed rent levels 24
34. Existing household demand 24
35. New household demand 24
36. Commuter demand N/A - none
assumed
37. Calculation and analysis of Capture Rate 26-27
38. Calculation and analysis of Penetration Rate 26-27
39. Identification of risks 26-27
40. Conclusion of Demand analysis 26-27
Absorption Rate
41. Definition and Justification 27
42. Estimated time to reach occupancy and percentage of units 27 Competitive Rental Market
43. Derivation of achievable market rent and Market Advantage 24-25
44. Derivation of achievable Restricted Rent 24-25
45. List and contact information of all considered properties III-1
46. Profiles and narrative of comparable properties III-1, pp 16-20
47. Map of comparable properties III-2
48. Comparable property photos Appendix
49. Comparison of subject property to comparable properties 18-23
50. Existing rental housing evaluation 18-23
51. Rent comparability matrices Appendix
52. Market Vacancy Rates 23
53. Availability of Housing Choice Vouchers 23
54. Identification of waiting lists 23
55. Explanation of adjustments 25
56. Description of overall rental market including share of market-rate and affordable properties 18-23
57. List of existing a LIHTC properties 20-23
58. Discussion of future changes in housing stock including homeownership 6-7
59. Tax credit and other planned or under construction rental communities in market area 25
Other Requirements
60. Market Study Index Appendix
61. Date of field work / preparation date of report Appendix
62. Resume Appendix
63. Utility allowance schedule Appendix
64. Floor plans and elevations Appendix
65. Demographic reports used Appendix
66. Bibliographical list of the data sources used Appendix 595
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
MARKET STUDY EXPERIENCE IN THE PMA
596
1699 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94109 - Phone: (415) 835-6060
MARKET STUDY EXPERIENCE IN PMA
According to TCAC’s 2010 Market Study Guidelines, per Appendices IX, 4. a) (i) “The number of market studies the Market Analyst has prepared in which this project would have been included in that previously prepared market study PMA; Newport Realty Advisors has completed 10+ full LIHTC market studies in the PMA. (ii) “The number of times, approximately, the Market Analyst has done a physical inspection in which this project would have been included in that previously prepared market study PMA;
Newport Realty Advisors has completed 5+ physical inspections in the PMA for previously completed LIHTC market studies.
Newport Realty Advisors LLC
By: Charlie Castro
Its: Principal
Date: April 4, 2025
597
555 Kelly, Half Moon Bay, CA April 4, 2025
RESUME
598
Company Resumes
Charles A. Castro
As the founding principal of NEWPORT REALTY ADVISORS LLC, Mr. Castro oversees all consulting activities of the firm. He has nearly 20 years of professional real estate market, economic and financial consulting experience and has conducted analyses on all types of multifamily housing, including low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) and market-rate properties. Over the past 20 years, Newport Realty Advisors LLC has conducted nearly 400 affordable (income-restricted) and market-rate studies throughout California.
Prior to founding NEWPORT REALTY ADVISORS LLC in late 1996, Mr. Castro worked as a Consultant for The Meyers Group, a real estate consulting firm. He was responsible for conducting analyses on a wide variety of residential product types, including: Single-Family Residential, For-Sale Condominiums, Rental Apartments, Urban Infill Projects, Condominium Conversions and Master-Planned Communities. Specific studies conducted at The Meyers Group included: Market Feasibility and Opportunity Analysis, Absorption Studies, Disposition Strategies, Residential Pricing Analysis, Residual Land Value Analysis, and Portfolio and Land Acquisition Analysis.
Prior to The Meyers Group, Mr. Castro worked as an Associate with Robert Charles Lesser & Co., a nationally recognized real estate consulting and advisory firm. In this capacity, he was responsible for advising public and private sector clients on the technical and strategic aspects of real estate, including:
Market and Financial Feasibility; Investment, Acquisition and Valuation Analysis; and Land-Use policy issues. He completed analysis on a number of product types including Office, Retail, Industrial, Rental Apartments and Residential Projects. Specific studies conducted at Robert Charles Lesser & Co. included:
Market and Financial Feasibility Analysis, Land-Use Feasibility and Planning Analysis, Evaluation Strategies for Underutilized Land, and Pre-Acquisition (Investment) Due Diligence Analysis.
Mr. Castro commenced his real estate career as an Analyst with Keyser Marston & Associates, a real estate consulting firm based in San Diego, California. Keyser Marston & Associates specialized in providing consulting services to public sector clients throughout California on redevelopment, land planning and affordable housing issues. As an Analyst, Mr. Castro was responsible for the due diligence, specifically market and economic feasibility analysis on proposed affordable (income-restricted) and market-rate housing projects.
Mr. Castro completed his undergraduate studies in Marketing and Finance from California State University at Chico, and has completed a number of courses in the “Real Estate Development and Investment Program” at the U.C. Irvine Extended Education Center. In addition, he is a member of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), and author of various articles published in 1998 and 1999. 599
From: Matthew Chidester
To: Maggie Rodriguez; Bazzano, Denise S.
Cc: Leslie Lacko
Subject: Fw: 555 Kelly Financing Plan
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 4:11:32 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
555KellyFinancingPlan_UnitMix_Opex_April2026_V2.pdf
FYI, not sure how we should share this as well.
From: Kelly Hollywood <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 1:23 PM
To: Matthew Chidester <[email protected]>; Bazzano, Denise S. <[email protected]>; Maxwell, Lisa N. <[email protected]>; Leslie Lacko <[email protected]>
Cc: Emma Wynkoop <[email protected]>; Amy Bayley <[email protected]>; Elaine Palacios <[email protected]>; Ramie Dare <[email protected]>; Evan Gross <[email protected]>; CJ Higley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 555 Kelly Financing Plan
[CAUTION]: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon Matthew,
Please see the consolidated financing plan for 555 Kelly. It includes the following:
Financing Plan Narrative
Unit Mix, Rents, and 15-Year Operating Pro Forma
Year 1 Detailed Operating Budget
The Year 1 detailed operating budget has been prepared by Mercy Housing Management Group specifically for 555 Kelly. It reflects expected day-to-day costs to operate the building, including staffing, maintenance, utilities, and resident services. This Year 1 budget serves as the foundation for the 15-year cash flow projection. Future expenses are projected using a standard 3.5% annual escalation to account for inflation and cost increases over time. This allows us to estimate how the property will perform financially and ensures it remains sustainable. The budget is reviewed and refined at key development milestones and compared against similar properties in our portfolio. Mercy 600
takes into account building size, location, and resident population, along with other factors to ensure it remains realistic and responsive to site-specific needs.
Thank you,
Kelly Hollywood (she/her/hers)
Mercy Housing California
1256 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94102
415.355.7116
From: Ramie Dare
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2026 8:04 PM
To: Matthew Chidester; Leslie Lacko
Cc: Bazzano, Denise S.; Maxwell, Lisa N.; Elaine Palacios; Kelly Hollywood; Emma Wynkoop; Amy Bayley; Evan A. Gross ([email protected]); CJ Higley Subject: Re: 555 Kelly Financing Plan
Matthew and Leslie,
Please find attached two pdfs that comprise our Financing Plan for 555 Kelly:
Financing Plan Narrative
Unit Mix/Rents and 15 year operating proforma
We appreciate any feedback or questions/comments you may have on this Plan. Thank you! Ramie Dare
(she/her/hers)
DIRECTOR | Real Estate Development
415.355.7118 Direct
Mercy Housing California
1256 Market Street| San Francisco, CA 94102
t|415.355.7118 | mercyhousing.org/california
601