|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors approved $24.3 million for six affordable housing developers in the county on Tuesday.
The funding, which is from the county’s Affordable Housing Fund, will contribute to the development of 459 new housing units. This includes 24 units for unhoused people, 76 for people with intellectual disabilities, 39 for senior farmworkers, 24 for public employees and 193 units for families who need two or three bedrooms, the county’s Department of Housing Director Raymond Hodges shared at the Board meeting.
The money is from the county’s 14th round of its Affordable Housing Fund, a resource created in 2013 by the Board of Supervisors to develop and preserve affordable housing. Since 2013, the fund has contributed $368.8 million toward 72 affordable projects with a total of 5,122 units, according to a county dashboard. Of these units, 3,100 have been completed and occupied and 790 are under construction. An additional 1,190 are in “pre-development,” meaning AHF has committed funds to the project.
The $24.3 million approved on Tuesday will be allocated to six projects.
About $6.5 million will go toward 555 Kelly Ave. in Half Moon Bay, a 40-unit development intended for senior farmworkers. A 158-unit in South San Francisco – 1051 Mission Affordable – was awarded $3.5 million. In Redwood City, $9.3 million was approved toward the Rise City Apartments, which recently received an additional $8 million from the city. A 95-unit in San Carlos at 626 Walnut St. received $3 million. A 70-unit development in North Fair Oaks at 3051 Edison Way will receive $1.5 million. Finally, Habitat For Humanity of Greater San Francisco will receive $300,000 for the development of two affordable homes on Ladera Community Church’s property in Portola Valley.
Once a year the county issues a Notice of Funding Availability, which is an announcement that financial assistance is open by application. The county received 10 applications for this round, and county staff recommended six projects for funding that were subsequently approved by the Board.
A range of criteria are used to evaluate the applicants, but some characteristics are weighed especially heavily, Hodges said. The country prefers to stretch its dollars as far as it can, so applicants that can compete successfully for other financing sources will get more points in staff’s scoring criteria. The timeframe to construction is another important factor; plans that can move ahead more quickly with construction will be scored higher. Finally, the county has identified certain demographics it wishes to serve: low-income families, seniors, unhoused people, veterans, farmworkers, people with disabilities and former foster care youth.
There are hundreds of housing trust funds across the country like AHF. However, the county’s fund is distinctive since it provides ongoing, consistent funds annually – at least $20 million each year over the last decade, Hodges said. Measure K, a half-cent countywide sales tax that has existed since 2012 and was formerly called Measure A, has contributed around $200 million to the AHF. Money from the American Rescue Plan Act – federal dollars for pandemic recovery that has now mostly dried up – was another significant contributor to AHF. Other funds like county impact fees make up a relatively small portion of the fund.
This year, Measure K funds comprised almost all the funding award, with $19 million coming from Measure K funds from fiscal year 2026-2027 and an additional $5.2 million coming from funds allocated in previous AHF rounds that were returned to the department of housing. An additional $100,000 will come from county impact fees.
“We can really line up a pipeline and manage that and move the best projects forward every year,” said Hodges, adding that other housing trusts that rely on bond financing may not be an ongoing source of funding.
A local funding source like the AHF is also important because it can help developers leverage additional financing from other sources. Hodges told the Board that every Measure K dollar invested in AHF leverages an additional $16 from other sources.
“The state wants to know that the county and city are supportive of the project,” Hodges said in an interview.
Occasionally, projects that have been awarded AHF funds aren’t able to move ahead with construction at all. Sometimes a developer will not use all of the money awarded through AHF. In these cases, AHF is reinvested into other projects, Hodges said.
While AHF has contributed to the development of thousands of units in the county since its inception, some projects can languish for years in pre-development purgatory – even with AHF funds earmarked toward the development. AHF funds generally don’t cover the full cost of the development, and acquiring additional financing for the project is an initial hurdle developers must clear.
“We’re usually one of [the first], if not the first, source into the project, so they’ll probably need four or five other pieces of financing to get all the money together,” Hodges said.
Another issue is how state funding is allocated. The state favors funding for developments in “high resource areas” – places with schools, access to a robust job market and close to infrastructure like supermarkets and public transit. A development at 493 Eastmoor Ave. in Daly City has languished for years despite receiving repeated rounds of AHF commitments each year from 2019 to 2022 and in 2024, for a total commitment of $25 million.
Hodges said the Eastmoor development has struggled to obtain funding because it was labeled by the state as “moderately” resourced. This classification system in San Mateo County frustrates Hodges.
“There’s not a square inch of land in San Mateo County that shouldn’t be considered a high-resource area,” Hodges said.
When projects like 493 Eastmoor take a while to move ahead, AHF can appear to balloon in size. In the 2024-2025 Measure K audit – the most recent year for which data is available – the affordable housing fund was budgeted over $77 million, but only $10 million was spent during that year. (AHF is called “Affordable Housing 3.0 and 4.0” in the audit document, which Hodges said is likely an old label from previous audit spreadsheets).
That difference between the budgeted amount and the lower spending number is generally because the property is still in pre-development, Hodges said. Even though the money looks like it’s just sitting there, Hodges said, it’s very “active.”
“It’s doing a lot,” he said. “Our developers use that as the initial money, and then they’re out shopping the projects and competing for other sources of funding. So it’s actually really useful and powerful money that is really active.”
