Seeing none, item three, approval with possible modification of the minutes of the september 18th, 2017, meeting. Our esteemed leader is under the weather today, i will be attempting to run parliamentary procedure on this meeting. Does anybody have any comments on the minutes . Is there a motion . I move approval of the minutes. I second. Any Public Comment . Its a team effort to keep this meeting going. Seeing no Public Comment, are we all in favor . Aye. Item four, presentation from the Mayors Office of housing regarding the 2015 Affordable Housing bond and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. We are pleased to be before you to give you an update on the 2015 housing bond. As you recall, the housing bond was separated into four housing categories. Its some cases very self descriptive, we wanted to serve vulnerable populations for whom Housing Resources are too scares and middle income households. So were serving those middle income residents of San Francisco as well as veterans, seniors and low income working families. We had really great demand for the down payment assistance loan, fully subscribed. We are making Good Progress on the other categories of expenditures. Our First Development is underway. Were thrilled about that. This is a development to transform Public Housing that has been in the works since about 2007. So it was a great milestone to actually Start Construction on the First Development. At sunnydale its a little farther behind but expect to break ground in january 2018. For low income new construction housing, each one is well underway for predevelopment. We want to talk about reallocating some of the funds we had originally identified to go to two developments which hit Development Issues that are going to delay them and because we want to spend the bonds as quickly as possible, were going to just shift the development to which the funds will go. We want to allow people to stay in San Francisco who otherwise might have to move away. As i mentioned, our down payment assistance and future programs are going really well. For middle income new construction, the production side, we have two developments were thrilled about, also teacher housing at 43rd and irving and a component of the 88 Broadway Development which will be for a reserve for middle income households, in addition to other units there for low income households and Senior Housing at 88 broadway. So the reallocation, at 4840 mission as you may have read about in the bond report we submitted, an opportunity came up with the parcel next door and there was a chance by partnering with that to increase the amount of Affordable Housing, and increase the amount of housing overall and provide the neighborhood with a brand new or renovated safeway. So we thought that it was an opportunity that would confer enough benefits that we were willing to slightly delay that development to create a broader more beneficial development. We would like to move the funds that were allocated to 4840 mission over to 88 broadway, which is well on track to Start Construction and already receiving bonds for the middle Income Housing proponent. It will be the same just going to a Different Development that wont delay the bond funds. 250 laguna is going slower than we hoped. It has to complete an eir at the site. Thats a Senior Housing development if you recall. We have another Senior Development scheduled to start in the First Quarter of 2018. We want to use the bond funds for Senior Housing at that site. In addition, because of the demand for the down Payment Assistance Loan Program funds, which far exceeded supply, we are considering moving the funds that were previously scheduled for new Unit Production to down payment assistance loan funding. The production costs for middle Income Housing are quite high on a per unit basis because theres no federal or state funds with which we can leverage our money. The city essentially has to pay the full freight of the cost of those, beside some mortgage that the funds cant produce. So its very difficult to finance and more Cost Effective, were seeing now in this highcost environment, to use the funds for down payment assistance loans for which there is great understand. Well be back to you as we continue the analysis of that change. And with that, i would like to unless you have questions you want to ask now, i would like to turn over the mike to my colleague to talk about the seismic program, repurposing another bond that we have the ability to use in a broader way. We want to talk about this first, right . Yeah. I have a couple of questions. On page 4, the low Income Housing slide, the money that was allocated to laguna and 4840 mission . And previously i think that money had been committed or encumbered with a developer. Youre going to take the money away from the developers and give it to the new projects, how does it work . Thank you for that. We have issued loans, were not taking that away. Theyre moving forward with the predevelopment work. Its the gap funding, the large infusion of 21 million for each of the sites that well be allocating to the new projects. The money encumbered for the developments will stay in place. Its great use of the bond funds, the predevelopment is well underway. Its the Construction Funding were going to move. So maybe next time you have an overall budget, maybe you can show that transfer so its kind of clear. Sure. Its hard to follow in this. I agree. And there is a better table in the bond report. Okay. We just got that this morning. Its laid out there well, but were happy to no, that might do it for sure. And the next page, the middle Income Housing. You have small sites but i didnt see any budget for small sites in middle Income Housing, should that be under low income . Yes. That was a mistake. We just noticed that. Small sites is in the low income category. The reason we accidentally put it into middle income is unlike the other low income developments that cap occupancy at households earning just 60 , the Small Sites Program can go up to 120 of median income, it serves a much broader purpose and can serve many more households. The buildings that nonprofit partners have bought tend to serve low income people. But thank you, thats a correction. And one more question that could be in the bond report, but taking the money from 4840 mission and 250 laguna and putting it in 88 broadway, will that keep the number of units generated equal, less than or more than what had previously been identified . The projection for 2840 and 250 laguna was 264 units. The number of units well serve just for seniors at 88 broadway is 96 and im sorry. Seniors at shockwell, theres 96 units and 104 family units at 88 broadway. The number is going down slightly. Thank you. Kate, i have two questions. The first, the mechanics of the reallocation, Brenda Kwee Mcnulty and i are liaisons im for the municipal railways and street repairs, they at the last meeting with them in september said they had to do reallocation for something that seemed less extensive than what youre doing and they had to go to the board of supervisors to get approval. Did you have to go to the board of supervisors for this . No. We submitted essentially a request to reallocate to the Controllers Office, because the use of the funds is exactly the same from one development to the other, controller advised us we did not have to go to board of supervisors because what we anticipated doing, were still doing, just changing the name. I guess i should have this conversation with them, they seem to just thinking reallocating money from one project to the next, one bus line to the next, they needed to go back to the board of sups. Maybe they could save themselves some trouble i have concerns about this. It is a significant change. What governance does the bond write in for that and i mean, what is in our per view is what voters are expecting. Benjamin would love to speak to it. Deputy director for finance for Mayors Office of Community Development. Whether or not the board needs to approve a change depends on what the board approved the first time around and what level of specification they approved the first time around. Im not familiar with the mga bonds but in our case, the board approved allocations just in the buckets of Public Housing, low Income Housing, middle Income Housing. They didnt identify specific projects in their board resolution and since were staying within those buckets, theres nothing really for the bored to change in the resolution itself. Im not sure, perhaps the mta resolution had more specificity. I think one is what did they say and the other is understanding of the voters, what has been communicated to our community. I dont want to say they dont have to because it wasnt written down that way. I want to be as transparent as we can. I think its important to make these important decisions, im not against using the funds in the most efficient way possible, i just want to make sure that, again, our responsibility is what is intended with the funds and what voters expect from the funds. I think that may be a distinction, im not familiar with what the voters approved in the mta bonds but in the housing bonds, there were no specific projects identified. And perhaps in the mta decision there was something different. I will check on the mta. Its probable that its budget control at the project level that was the issue and there are rules governing the allocation after the board of supervisors has approved the appropriation ordinance. Ill check on that. Good morning from the Controllers Office, just to offer some clarification for what has been presented for the housing bond, a change in the plan Going Forward for future issuances of the bond, the voters have authorized the funds to be sent on certain categories and theyre just fine tuning the plan Going Forward. The mta is a slightly different situation that miss stevenson said its a previous taking them off the table completely, were making a significant change about millions of dollars for voter improved funding. Regardless of what the mta is doing, i want there to be governance and transparency with this. People know about this bond whatever we talked about what they voted for, being supplemented, so i think for me, i want governance and i want to make sure the governance in these decisions is made and transparent. That was what triggered the mta, they had to go for new ordinance to reappropriate the money. That answers my question as well as it will be today. For kate, i think it was last year your office provided us a report, i thought i had it with me, i have a different one. But in it, you described the qualifications for, what, the low Income Housing program. And it had a pretty detailed description of how what ill call residency requirements, for how long you would have had to have been in the system in order to qualify for that program. And i guess it was about this time last year, maybe more like september or october last year, i went back and forth with someone from the chronicle about something i said based on a quote from your report and they came back to me and said we checked with jeff at the office of the department of housing and Supportive Housing and said no, a quote from the report was incorrect. Ill try to find the report and get back to you with it and see if i can get the requirements were resolved. Even after i read what the office said and your office said, i didnt understand what the requirements were. This is for the homeless set aside we do in most of our buildings. Its not for the 80 of the low working income residents who reside in our buildings. The Eligibility Criteria specifically for the homeless households in our buildings, we got from homelessness and Supportive Housing. I know theyre moving to a coordinated entree system now. Thats part of a change. Its possible that there was stale data we had from their office because theyre now in coordinated entree. Well be happy to get you exactly the Eligibility Criteria for homeless households. If i could get your contact information, ill forward you the email change that went back and forth and that should make it easier for you to understand what im telling you now. That would be great. Theres no reason to doubt what youre saying and its possible there was some miss information based upon a change in criteria going to a new coordinated entree, but basically we work with Supportive Housing and homelessness and they dictate for the low subsidy units and we defer to their criteria. Okay. Ill forward you the stuff and get it resolved. If i may, kate, thank you for the information. I have a couple questions on the movement of the money from 4048 mission into 50 laguna to the other site. I understand its a no change in use and notice the scope of ballot measure. What i would like to ask about the 4840 mission and 250 laguna honda location, the predevelopment money has been allocated in is being used. What moved was the Construction Funding. Where does that leave the two projects Going Forward, 4840 mission and 250 laguna. Are there dollars lecft inside the bond, if not i understand there may be a collaboration with an adjacent Property Owner that provides additional below market rate or affordable units as a result of that collaboration, but how does the hole created by the movement of the Construction Funds get filled and thats my question. We have other sources of funds, we have inclusion fees and Housing Trust fund monies. Were not at all putting the Construction Funding for those two developments at risk. We have just reallocated funds. Theres no gap for them. But we want to get the bond funds spent quickly, thats why we wanted to shift to developments of the same time, the same eligible uses that could use the funds as fast as they can. Thank you. We can move on to the other section. For my colleagues i wanted to note for the sheet with the up coming bond issuances, this is intended to go out to another bond issuance for 82 million in march april. In our role as making sure we feel the funds are being spent in accordance with the bond. Good morning. Im adam cray, i have been tasked with running point on the 2016 housing bond issuance as well. So i would like to provide background here in terms of the issuance authority and funding terms for the bond. Going the wrong way there. Here we go. Proposition a in 1992 started the program, set aside 150 million for Affordable Housing loan program with funds from the underlying loans to be loaned at 2 3 of the Interest Rate cost and a loan at 1 above the city structure cost. The Seismic Safety Program was implemented by the administrative code chapter 66 and 66a at the time and described the conditions for participation in the seismic safety loan program, including application, closing procedures and a like. Fast forward to 2016, the voters voted to enact proposition c that allows seismic safety loans to finance the cost, acquire, convert at risk buildings to affordable permanent housing. And as of this year there are approximately 105 million in the Affordable Housing loan program left and 150 million in the market Rate Loan Program left to spend for these purposes. In terms of potential uses for the proposition c funding, the first is a direct financing model where we would underwrite longterm acquisition or rehabilitation for projects and then dispurse to buyers. And working with a bridge lender to provide short term financing later taken out with bond proceeds. Following an initial execution of the models, we would pull the outstanding loan and issue securities to pay off the underlying loans and a purchase model similar to the pooling model but it would be whole loans purchased. In terms of the progress toward issuance and lending under the program. We have assembled the Transaction Team and began meetings and selected bond council, jones hall here in the city. We have conducted meetings with the City Attorney office and Controllers Office already. We have resolved many outstanding issues with structure for the program. Some of the legal and administrative include prop c funds and Obligation Bond proceeds, timing of issuances. We