it is 9:33 am. item one, rollcall. [roll call] >> thank you. item two, opportunity for the public to comment on any matters within the committee shall touch a jurisdiction that are not on the agenda -- the committee's jurisdiction that are not on the agenda,. >> item three, approval with possible modification of the minutes of the august 13th, 2018, meeting.

>> seeing none, item four. presentation from public works about -- i'm sorry. okay. i'll double. i'll double. -- i'll double check, all double check. >> aye. >> item four, presentation from public works about the 2011 in a row road repaving and street safety bond program and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation.

hold on. i'm sorry. it is not on yet. hold on. sorry. >> hello? good morning, chairman and members of committee. on the public manager with public works. i believe you have been listening to john thomas provide updates for many years on this bond, and moving forward, i will be providing the updates. i'm here to present updates for

the 2011 road repaving and street safety bond. this front page, the first slide here, on the left is something you have already seen. it is the overview of the original approved budget in 2011 , broken down by the different groups. we have the street repaving and reconstruction, $149 million and a bike pedestrian safety. traffic signal and street improvements, 20 million, sidewalk accessibility and sidewalks, 14 million and sidewalk accessibility improvements. to the right, we have updated photos of some streetscape projects currently in construction and one that has recently reached substantial completion. the first on the top left is that california will just california at laurel village streetscape. and the top right is the -- the bottom right is the chinatown living alley.

i will talk about highlights and accomplishments. public works has 48 completed street resurfacing contracts and four currently in construction. this update was as of september. since then, we have one of our projects that has reached substantial completion. on the presentation package shows we have taped 1,380 blocks out of the 1,423 blocks for the goal. to present day, a more updated number, we have paved 1,406 blocks. we are approaching our goal pretty quickly. and the chinatown living alley project has reached substantial completion in july of 2018. some of the upcoming milestones we have our -- we have a few streetscape projects that are nearing completion this month. there is also the poke complete

street project in the california laurel streetscape are anticipated to reach substantial this month. we have a remaining streetscape project that we anticipate advertising at the end of the month. as a reminder of the streets, it was a total of $250 million over three sales which includes interest. the third and final sale was $43.4 million -- i'm sorry, april 2016. as you all know, one of the challenges we have been facing in recent times is the financial reporting due to our sfpd implementation. we do have updates today. they are not 100% confident or 100% accurate, but we are moving towards that. we have data to look at now and we are currently looking at a lot of the cleanup.

the street repaving and reconstruction, as i mentioned, now it would be three projects under construction. the webster project project has reached substantial. and we anticipate completing the rest of the paving by summer of 2019. for our streetscape project, we can highlight the spot for the chinatown alley project that reached substantial and we have a few of these upcoming milestones. the streetscape projects will be anticipated to be completed in november. the curb ramp program and the sidewalk program, this light has not changed. my understanding that for quite some time now, it has reached substantial and 100% completion

for some time. we kind of keep this here as a show. for our roadway structure program, we do have 100% of the appropriate funds expended or encumbered and we have completed 39 out of our 40 projects. we have one remaining project, the richmond project that we use the bond funds for design and we are looking for construction funds which we have recently identified. we will be moving forward with the construction of this project and we anticipate completion in summer of 2020. traffic signals, we have these broken up into three different categories. from the last update, we were about 97 or 90% complete. since then, we completed all the work so everything is 100%. that is something we can highlight and celebrate.

this last slide is a snapshot of our most recent updated financial information. it has a broken down by the different programs such as the curb ramps, resurfacing structures, streetscape, traffic signals and we have the original budget appropriations and we have different columns for the expenditures and balances. for the most part, we have expended over 90% of the total budget for our bond. we have a couple of programs that are remaining. one being the street resurfacing program and the other one is the streetscape bike and pedestrian program. though sit at 96% and 87%. and we anticipate expending all of the resurfacing funds by 2019

and the streetscape funds by 2020. are there any questions we. >> thank you. do you have any questions or comments? >> a couple comments and questions. i would like to congratulate you on your staff on the management and the implementation of these bond funds. i think as we are at the end of this bond expenditure, almost at the end of this bond expenditure , i think that the data and the projects completed reflective what was represented to the voters. it falls squarely inside the language of the bombs. and i mentioned in the past and in other ways, i know we have a full calendar, but i think it's important to point out or i would be remiss if i didn't point out that you exceeded the goals in almost every category.

you have either hit them, or exceeded the goal, even when the goals were revised because of additional -- like for street repaving, s.f. hope dollars that were not anticipated in an increase in the projected goal. that was satisfied also. when the goals walked up the, you are able to hit and reach those goals. in events that the goal wasn't to exceeded calculus certainly have each projected goal in each of these categories. and the remaining projects that are yet to be completed are all on-time and on budget, as i understand it based on our last conversations and based on the report. i wanted to recognize you and the staff at d.p.w. for executing these contracts professionally, and accomplishing everything that

the voters were promised when they voted for the bond. so thank you. >> any other comments? >> i have a question. i'm not going to take up your time, edmund, or the committee's , but i was hoping to get a point of contact for further detail about the transit signal priority program. tsp. would it be you or should it be somebody else? >> i can get the context to you. >> i will provide the context. >> i would appreciate that. >> sure. >> i'm not trying to get anything out of the voice of the committee, but we have a full agenda and i'm not speaking too well anyways pick whatever i learned, i'll be happy to report back in the next meeting. thank you. >> any other comment from the committee?

any public comment on the presentation? seeing then, let's move on. thank you. >> item five, presentation from the sfmta about the 2014 transportation and road improvement general obligation bond and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. >> good morning. sorry about that. it looks like i have to stretch over here to be able to reach -- is this working?

okay. can you hear me? good morning. i'm monique webster with sfmta and i'm here today to give you an update on the transportation road improvement general obligation bond. as a reminder, this bond was approved by the voters in 2014 and provides $500 million -- is there a problem? can you hear me? >> can everyone here? -- can everyone hear her? >> how is that? better? okay. [laughter] >> let's see. this will be better. my assistant will help me with this today.

this is collaboration between m.t.a. and public works. which we do a lot of. thank you, julia. i will start all over again. i'm monique webster and i am with the sfmta. i am the senior manager of capital finance. we also have a number of program managers throughout the divisions that manage the programs that are under this bond and -- let's see. we have a thin bench today because of the holiday, but i can try to answer any questions that you have on the projects themselves. as background, the bond was approved by the voters in 2014 and provides $500 million towards investing in transit reliability and safer streets. so far, a little bit under half of the bond funds have been issued and the first issuance was in 2015 followed by a much lighter bond issuance earlier this year for $173 million. there is also a supplemental appropriation that was done last year which redirected a little bit of the portion of the

funding from the first issuance to other projects that were -- we had to move money away from spot just projects that were spending slower than anticipated and were moved to use faster moving that had been anticipating funds from the second issuance. these next two slides show all of the projects, and their schedules to date, and the amount of general obligation bond funds that they have. to date, the bond is wanting over 40 projects across eight different investment categories. the largest funded category in terms of newer projects and dollar amounts -- and these projects are aimed at improving the reliability increasing travel times. there are $72 million in bond funds that have been allocated in this category to date. the second area of highest bond funding at this point is the

facilities projects. they are four projects that are founded of note on those projects. the bus maintenance facility had a ribbon cutting earlier this year and is substantially complete. there is also the metro east light rail vehicle facility where the bond funds help us with the project to build five additional tracks in the facility that allow us to store the expanded light rail vehicle fleets that we are current -- currently purchasing. that has also been completed. in addition to the sfmta projects, the bond also finds projects led by public works that are -- the better market street project and bite caltrain for the positive train control system and the electrification project. and also to bart to pay for a portion of the market street canopy. those are the canopies over the station entrances. a couple of them have opened recently at civic centre and at powell station.

on the pedestrian and street side, the bond funds are advancing a number of projects that focus on the dangerous intersections and corridors in the city. many of these projects are coordinated with the moving forward projects so they provides pedestrian and street safety enhancements, along with the moving forward project to ensure that we are being efficient in the delivery of these programs. most of these projects are concentrated on our high injury network as well. thank you, julia. expenditures, as of the end of september, and again these are preliminary numbers. as you have been hearing from some of the others, we have been having issues with s.f.p. not all the charges were in at this point in time but these are the latest numbers that we have. expenditures totalled $78 million as at the end of september which is about a third of the under $240 million in available funds.

another $23 million was uncovered to. we have a couple of categories where there are no expenditures yet or very little in expenditures. those are projects and programs being funded out of the second issuance. some of them are funded under multiple categories of the expenditures are taking place under some of the other categories before they move into these categories. okay. in terms of risks and challenges , these are ones we have discussed in the past with this committee. we thought it would be worthwhile bringing them forward again today. they are the amount of building an infrastructure construction going on citywide which is driving up cost and it can sometimes add to the contracting process and the timing of the contracting process and fewer

bidders are out there. we are seeing that in particular on some of the signals projects. large multi- agencies projects. we have a number of these projects which are coordinated with sewer, water and also with paving and coordination on those projects is going well but it does open up the window for additional delays to these projects because they are so complex. another one of the lessons we learned that we talked about a lot last year was that for some of our moving forward projects. we had underestimated the amount of time it would take to public outreach and engagement on these projects. i'm happy to report that we've done a really significant revamp of that whole process in our agency and we are really proud of it. we are now starting our outreach much earlier. we require all projects to go through a full public engagement plan, and we have a tremendous amount of training that is also happening within our agency for staff and have a very clear expectation on public engagement

with that, we have a whole bunch of slides at the back that i won't go through but in the interest of time, they do provide highlights and all of our projects. it's a lot of really nice pictures. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mrs. webster. >> it you can take off. >> we will get a liaison report. >> we met with the m.t.a. staff on the 20th of september in anticipation of our meeting that got cancelled in october, and then again on the 7th of november with monique and her staff. we learned what you have heard

today in addition to that, we learned -- what would you call it, monique, your project management software that have been so problematic is now working adequately. we were glad to hear that because i know that that's a source of possible exposure to delete claims from the contractors who that system is designed to help get paid. that was good news. overall, we got a good report mean that the second bond which was so much larger than the first has been issued and so much money has already been spent and that progress is commensurate with the amount of money that they are spending, which is always a good sign. i have had some follow up with some m.t.a. staffers vis-à-vis the need for a supplemental appropriations and it was, i think, tim and i will have a

hard time pronouncing his last name. he had sent me some detailed information on the efforts that you guys had been making to try and make that system easier to implement. they have found, m.t.a. staff has found it is difficult in writing a bond to anticipate how much money will be spent on what and when. when they actually get to implementing the programs that they find that there may be expeditious -- it may be expeditious to shift money between different subcategories, and at this point, onto the current system, it takes the approval of the board of supervisors to make such a shift and i do not see any upside to the process being that administratively intensive. it should take so much staff

time, as much staff time as it would have to take to prepare a presentation to the board of supervisors and can only make that presentation when the appropriate committee of the board of supervisors is going to meet. on behalf of us, i hope on behalf of us, i would like to continue to work with the city, whatever agency the city government -- and it is also part of the controller post process office to streamline the process. and subsequent meetings, i will report back to the committee and to the public at large, who can now watch this on television. which has to be a thrill for everyone of us. that is as much as i would want to say. since the second meeting we had on the 7th of november, brenda attended and whatever she has to add to what i said is the time to do it because my voice is

just about gone. >> no, it was a very positive meeting. we were updated pretty much on what you will be presenting here in the public meeting and i'm glad that mr larkin shared with us his efforts to try and do something to speed up this process, this lengthy process that he talked about. i will open up to comments by other committee members in regards to this presentation. i just have one question or comment. i know and i may have covered this when we met, is that it looks like, with the second issuance -- it took about three and a half years for us to get to the second issue us and dove issuance and we are not quite halfway as far as dollars expended. we are close to their and i know that the progression of these projects are not linear.

based on your best estimate as you do your planning, can you give us an estimate of how long it might take to see the end of the bond spends quad is another three and a half years, or 3-4? again, this is just a guesstimate on your part. >> thank you. our projections are still holding to the original target of expending off bond funds to the entire amount of bond funds by the end of 2022. >> thank you. let me open up to public comment on this presentation. you had a comment? >> i want to take stevenson from the controllers to respond to mr larkin about the supplemental. the requirements are in the

budget and fiscal provisions of the admin code. they are standard and to my knowledge of this is a little bit dated. julia dawson or others may be able to correct me but a change of less than 15% is straightforward in most cases, and the controls can be set at different levels so when you design your original appropriation for the bond, you can hopefully obviate most of the reprocessing by the board of supervisors by purposely sizing the project and program allocations. just to say that, so you are aware and there are significant changes. i think the board approval of the supplemental is an important part of the overall transparency on the bond. that is the thinking behind it but we can certainly look at the original bond allocations to try and make it easiest to manage. >> i understand the need for oversight because that's why there is a go door to go back to

begin with. there was some misuse of bond funds for previous bonds, where things were supposed to have been used for but they flat out did get used for. but i think that there has to be some middle ground between the way we are now and the way we were then. i would never want staff to change the appropriation without at least informing the board of supervisors, but i can't imagine that in every case the board of supervisors wants or needs to review and approve it. they have to defer to staff at some point. if you can't trust the staff to do things that are fundamental to their mission, then we have a problem much deeper than the one that we are trying to correct right now. anyway, i would look to see if there is a way of finding some reporting -- providing reporting

to the board in lieu of asking for their approval. in other words, something where they could look at it and if they had any questions, they could object. but if they think it is all right, they could pass the approval without going through all the staff intensive work that is currently required. i will follow-up with you. >> if i might, with all due respect to commissioner larkin, and we frequently agree on many things, i have a different review on this as it relates to -- you trust staff and you trust them on the front part of the bond to make the appropriate allocation so that when it's represented to the voters, it is -- it doesn't have to be dead on the money. there is a window there. there is a percentage in which they can move and they have discretion on.

so without question, you have to trust your staff and you do it on the front and. if there are things that are unforeseen and they do come up, i think the board of supervisors subcommittees have regular scheduled meetings every 1212 weeks, very commonly. so you just go in front of them and they go up or down on it. that is my view. having said that, it also would require an admin change, which they can only do. it would be passing an ordinance which would amend the administrative code. i'm not 100% certain on the board of supervisors having exclusive ability to amend the admin code. may be another body can do it, but i don't recall. >> i don't mean to overcomplicate this, but just to

say that if it was felt that there was too much burden being taken to do supplemental appropriations and move money around, one of the ways to control that is when you do the original allocations is to appropriately sized the projects or the programs are the level at which the control is exercised so you can avoid that as much as possible. we are happy to take a look at the m.t.a. bond and make sure that those things are done appropriately so the lease burden is presented. i'm just saying both issues are going on. >> let me follow up and clarify a little bit. monique, correct me if i misrepresent what the situation is but what you are looking to do in moving funds around is not necessarily to make a permanent change in the allocation, but just if one set of projects is moving more quickly than another set from a different subcategory , you just want to temporarily move funds around and make it up later on, rather than delay one set of programs because they are outpacing the

anticipated cash outflow for any given category. you just temporarily take money from another category and give it back later on. is that's not right? >> that was the case with the supplemental that was approved last year. there were funds moved from the moving forward category to the facilities program. in order to move the amount from category to category, we did have to go through supplemental appropriation. i want to be clear that at this point in time, we don't see a need for that -- for any substance that -- subsequent supplemental appropriation. >> i will not make any phone calls today then. >> it was something that happens that was in the last 20 years. we don't anticipate it happening again. >> i am glad to hear that. i was troubled by that and i think what was at their

government audit and oversight committee at one point last year had some complaints about how quickly you were dispensing and implementing some projects. and some contracts. i think this was one of the things that was holding up the process. it was worth noting and worth following up on it. but i appreciate what kevin has said too. >> no other comments? as i noted, are there any other public comments on the presentation? >> good morning. my name is jury. if i understand the problem that was defined correctly, there was a timing program but not of problems with the total funding for these individual projects. so as a c.p.a., i don't

understand why you would have to move money between projects when really, what you need to do is move money between time frames. so it sounds like, procedurally, we don't understand the problem and the current solution is more cumbersome than it needs to be. thank you. >> any additional public comments? seeing none, let's move onto the next agenda item. >> item six is presentation from the recreation and parks department about the following bonds and possible action by the committee in response to such presentation. a, the 20 -- the 2,000 neighborhood park bond, 20 -- 2,000? park bond, and the tweet -- of the 2012 clean and sale -- safe park bonds.

>> great. good morning, committee members. my name is tosa. i am the director of capital planning for the recreational parks department. with me today is andrea, the finance chief and also david from the port. this will be a joint presentation. i will try to be as distinct as possible. just looking back a bit, all of our 2008 bond projects are complete. all 12 neighborhood parks are complete and open to the public. there some minor expenditures on our citywide programs that are ongoing now and that will be complete shortly. next. this slide shows you where we

are at today. this is a period of immense activity for us in 2019 and 2020 as we move towards the second phase of our bond projects. we are in the implementation phase of these projects. with the opening of the recreation centre in march, seven of the 14 voter approved neighborhood park projects are now open to the public. the schedule for the remaining park projects listed on this slide all remaining shows all remaining projects are now in construction or going through the bidding and award phase. sixty-five% of funds allocated for the neighborhood parks program have either been spent or encumbered. this is a slide to show you the

program highlights. six projects from our program are either starting construction or will be in construction in the spring of this year. we completed a very, very successful community vision process early this year, which was adopted by the recreation and parks commission. there are some projects that came out of that. they are going to be going into implementation later this year. we continue to make progress in our community projects. they will get tennis projects as one of those and a car barn which is in construction as i speak. it is slated to be completed in may of 2019. and the water conservation program, we have completed alamo

square, alto plaza and the recreation center. and on this program, we would have been to achieve tremendous amounts -- we will be able to achieve tremendous amounts of water savings of up to 50% on average on all of these projects the last project will be coming out of the water conservation project. it will start in the spring of 2019. next. this is just recent milestones for us. the first picture you see here is the playground which is slated to be completed in december of this year and open to the public. this is coming out of our let's play program. this is a program that is to address a lot of our old playgrounds in the city.

potrero rec center is also in construction as i speak. that is slated to be completed in february. willie wong, which is in chinatown, started construction in september of this year also. as i i do updates, the next steps at the end of this program , we would have completed renovations to all of our recreation and park swimming pools. that is a tremendous amount of achievement for us. we would have completed renovations for all but six rec centres in the portfolio. we are embarking on a new life cycle assessment of our portfolio right now, which is -- we are doing assessments of up

to 54 million square feet of assets assessments throughout the portfolio. that work is slated to be complete by the end of this year we continue to be at capacity. i will now turn it over to david to finish the presentation. >> thank you. on with the ports, planning and environment division to provide an update about the 2008 and 2012 bond for the 2008 bond, we constructed our second to last project and opened it in august, which was a partnership with the arts commission on the arts enrichment program. we had the bayview gateway art which is photographed here on the left, completed with a grand

opening in august. with the exception of the funds from the 2008 bonds that are going to a park at pier 70, our 2008 bonds are spent. moving to the 2012 bond bonds, we have everything underway. the port commission awarded it the last commission meeting the contract to complete the park and we are moving forward with the other park -- other parts and they are projects. that essentially is where we are at today. the next time that we are in front of you, we should have fully expanded the two and eight bond, the other park projects which are being funded by the 2008 and 2012 bonds which is about a 13 month project. we anticipate -- we anticipate that being open to the public and ready to use in january of 2020. and with that, i am available for any questions. thank you.

>> thank you, presenters. mr thomason, do you have any comments? >> i am the liaison for the bonds and i met with them on september 20th to go over the current status of the bonds. we spent over an hour together going into more detail. a couple of things i wanted to highlight, number 1 is, as was presented today, the 2,000 bond is completed. it is done. that is great news. the 2008 is very close to being done and the 2012 bonds are on track, and it's really amazing the project -- the progress that has been made. especially as was noted before, the work being done on some of the more complicated projects such as the swimming pool areas is very complicated work and

those are big changes to those facilities in san francisco. in terms of how recreation and parks has been handling the bonds, i want to highlight the fact that the problems with the s.f.p. have been overcome. there still might be lingering issues but it seems like in terms of reporting, recreation and parks has been able to take care of that which is great news and then, a couple of other items, one was in past meetings, it was presented that there was difficulties lining up contractors because of the nature of working san francisco and the demand for that type of work. it sounds like those issues have been overcome by the department department too in terms of being able to build relationships and plan ahead so that they are not

having the same problems finding the contractors. the same goes for the staffing problems that are happening. staffing has been taking care of this and it sounds like they are not having the staffing shortage they had before he. all and all, i want to give a hats off to the work that has been done. if you ever go towards the facility is, i have young children. i am in the facilities all the time throughout the city. the work that has been done is really incredible. i wanted to say i really look forward to hearing about the planning that will happen before the next bond, because as was presented today, the 2012 bond is wrapping up. these projects are going to their final phases, and there should be planning happening soon for the next round. i am very interested to hear about how that happens. >> thank you. any other comments from this committee? >> yeah,. thank you for that report to.

that was great to hear. i also am excited about the assessment process that you guys are starting and it sounds like you are doing it very thoroughly at one point, $6 million. i'm sure that is a kind of planning that this body likes to see before bonds go to the voters because if they don't have that kind of planning, it is very hard to govern. we sort of see that in the process of getting things done. and to address the contractors and the staffing issue, i hope those are all top of mind during the assessment process. >> yes. >> i do have a question or a comment. i was leafing through the quarterly report that shows this project status. each of them in qualitative and quantitative, which is very helpful for the pictures. each of the cart -- parks, the

pictures, the commentary, and the brief counting -- accounting of the funds. as i read on, it appears that only this treatment had been given to specific parks. meaning, whatever specific park we have a playground. however, when we go to the citywide parks parks program and we talk about forestry, replacing trees, i don't really see that type of an update or reporting. all i see would be a description of what needs to be done and the plan of doing that without actually reporting what is holding us back in more specific -- specificity. we need to decide how many number of trees we really need to replace and manage. can you comment on why that aspect of the bond programs are

not receiving the same level of detailed attention as specific parks and neighborhoods? >> thank you for the question. it is a very good one. a couple of things. one, in terms of priority, the actual bond language itself places priority in the neighborhood parks projects. as i indicated in the past to, we had issues on capacity and resources to be able to implement projects. we have brought staff on board and we continue to make progress on that. we have made a tremendous amount of progress on the neighborhood parks and we are now shifting those efforts to the citywide his. we have made a lot of effort on the let's play program. we made efforts on the community opportunity fund programs. i know the first few have lagged behind. we now have a project manager who is dedicating about 20% of

his time in implementing that work in the coming years. >> thank you. obviously that is what we suspected. one suggestion is that as you make your next quarterly report, it may be helpful in executive summary to give some specific mentioning of how you are carrying out these priorities. or some updated -- i think what you are showing in quarterly reports on the citywide parks, especially golden gate park, requirements haven't been updated for quite a while. that would be helpful. >> we will do that. thank you. >> thank you. any public comments on this presentation? seeing none, let's go onto the next agenda item. >> item seven is presentation from the mayor touch office of housing and community development about the 2015 affordable housing bond and

possible action by the committee in response to such presentation >> good morning. my name is benjamin. deputy director for finance and administration at the mayor's office of housing and community development. i also have with me today my colleagues mara and jonah. in addition to the 2015 general obligation bond for affordable housing, we also have an update on a 2016 bond which has not yet been issued to, but we wanted to spend some time giving you an overview of that, because if the general obligation bond for affordable housing is different than things that you normally see, the 2161 is even more strange. to go over the 2015 bond, just

to refresh your memory, the bond is categorized into profit large buckets of spending. public housing, low income housing, low income housing serving the mission district, and middle income housing. this allows us to serve a broad swath of san franciscans. with regards to the first issuance of the bond, over 94% of the first issuance funds are encumbered, and 76% has been spent. we anticipate the first bond issuance will be 93% expanded by the end of this calendar year, and fully expended by sometime mid to late 2019. the second bond issuance for $143 million was completed in may of 2018. when we next appear before you, we will provide an update on spending for that second issuance, but we are moving ahead with spending those funds as well.

the bar chart and to the table that you see before you illustrates our spending on the first issuance. we haven't had as many issues with s.f.p. as other departments have had. so this is accurate as of september 30th, 2018. you can see that we are moving along in spending in a timely manner. i wanted to address, on the next slide, one of the main things that we heard from the committee the last time we were here, which was that it was confusing to the committee how we were counting progress and units. the slide that you see before you is very slightly updated from what is in your pocket. we noticed, by not including -- the version in your pocket did not include predevelopment units for middle income doubt and middle income tnd.

i have added those 84 and that 45 in the first column. in doing so, makes the totals on the percentages accurate at the bottom. we are doing something that we haven't done before, which is doing a lot of reporting to you as far as units and progress of units and thinking about how to count a unit as produced when it's given, for example, infrastructure money in sunnydale and potrero. how do we tie that investment to the production of a unit? we have been doing a lot of thinking about that and thinking about how to present our progress. this is the best summary table that we have for you today. each of the program areas and investments are broken out in the rose and then we have accounts of units that are in

predevelopment phase, under design, site preparation, that kind of thing. how many units are currently in construction, and then how many are completed? as we progressed through to completion, we will be seeing those numbers move from left to right in the table. i. i will mention that we will be seeing, as we get towards completion of spending, it takes a little bit longer even after that for a unit to be fully completed and occupied. we will have a little bit of lag between finalization of spending and actual occupancy of the units, but that's understandable and to be expected. as far as the second issuance is concerned, as i said, we have already begun spending, and we anticipate that the second

issuance will be fully expended towards the end of 2020. that's a presentation on the 2015 geo bond. may be i will go ahead and introduce my colleague, jonah, who will go through the 2016 bond and explain that to you and then we can take questions on both. >> thank you, benjamin, and thank you, members. as was discussed a little bit earlier, this is a little bit different from some of our previous issuances, and we thought that the best way to go about discussing the topic was the first -- to first get some history, and then to talk about how the new reallocated funds will be used, look at a typical -- prototypical project that might receive some of the financing, and then a quick

overview of the next steps. first in terms of history, in 1992, prop eight was passed. it was a 350 million-dollar bonds to fund seismic safety retrofits. unfortunately, it was underutilized as the program was initially designed. we only issued about $90 million of the $350 million that was authorized. and that was really the rationale for the ballot measure in 2016. prop c. which was passed by an overwhelming majority of 76%. proxy essentially authorized -- prop c. essentially reauthorize the reallocating of funds from prop 80, specifically allowing for the acquisition, preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing to convert it to affordable housing, permanently.

as i said, the remaining $260 million was repurposed and the language in prop c. specifically allowed for the acquisition and improvement and rehabilitation of at-risk multiunit residential buildings and the conversion of such buildings to permanent affordable housing. i just want to note that the remaining funds can still be used for seismic safety retrofits as well. so what is eligible for the re just -- redistribution of these funds? and the preservation of affordable housing, small sites. sites with less than 25 units, as well as larger multifamily sights and mixed use residential , as well as s.r.o.s are all eligible uses. what is not eligible is new construction or acquisition without any rehabilitation.

on the slide before you now, the 4830 mission street project and the excelsior, this is a great example of the type of projects that are likely to receive the financing through the repurposed funds. this was a 21 unit site with 21 residential units and six commercial units serving low income households in the excelsior. it was acquired by meta in july of 2018, with the intention to rehabilitate and preserve it as affordable housing. the expected financing through prop c. is anticipated to occur in the spring of 2019 with a loan amount of approximately nine and a half million dollars. one of the things that's great about this loan is that this long-term and low-cost funding through prop c. will not only serve to protect the existing

residents, to prevent displacement, but it also can reduce the subsidy needs that an o.c.d. has to put into the project through its associated small sights program funding. [please stand by]

. >> mr. hughes? >> thank you. thank you, madam chair. i have a couple of questions. so this was bond dollars that were passed as a result of proposition a in '92 for $350 million. only 90 million of the 350 are utilized by people because we don't know, but that's what it was, 90 million was utilized.

that money then sat for at least 15 years or longer. >> longer. >> prop c now in 2016 changes the use and eligibility to use those funds. my question is, so -- and then, i'll get to the other presentation after i have another question after that, but for the prop c bond dollars, my question is for the preservation of low-income housing -- so preservation in the physical sense -- in other words, we're going to rehab this building, correct? >> it's preservation both in the physical sense in terms that there would be rehabilitation and in the regulatory sense in that it is preserving units that are at risk of being converted

to market-rate housing or opting out of their existing regulatory restriction. >> and that's a condition of eligibility of accepting the funds or receiving the funds? >> correct. >> yeah. okay. very important. and then -- and i know it's in the bond measure. it was broken out -- oh, i'm sorry. that's the other bond measure. so this will be an interesting sort of bellwether as it relates to utilization to see how it rolls out in the out years. looking forward to it. >> sure. hopefully, the person who was standing here in 1992 was not promising a robust pipeline of 30 projects.