sdef def bus bus. an -- welcome to members of ocii and the public. madam secretary, please call the first item. >> thank you. first order of business is item one, roll call. commission members please respond when i call your name. [roll call taken] >> all members of the commission are present. the next order of business is item two, announcements. next regularly scheduled meeting held on february 6, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. at city hall room 416. b, announcement of prohibition of sound producing electronic devices during the meeting. please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. adviced the chair may order removal from the meeting of any persons responsible for ringing of or use of a cell phone, pager or other similar sound producing electronic devices. c, announcement of time allotment for public comments. advised a member of the public has up to three minutes to make pertinent public comments unless the commission adopts a shorter period on any item. strongly recommended members of the public fill out a speaker card and submit the completed card to the secretary. next order of business, item three. report on actions taken at a previous closed session meeting, if any. no reportable actions. item four, matters of unfinished business. no matters of unfinished business. next order of business, five, consent and regular agenda items. first consent agenda, 5a, approval of minutes. december 5, 2017. madam chair. >> any speaker cards for this item? >> no, madam chair, there are no speaker cards. >> since there is no request to speak on the item, i will close public comments. i will now turn to my commission members for comments or questions. do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> moved by commissioner bustos, seconded by commissioner singh. please call the roll call. >> commission members announce your call when i call your name. [roll call vote] >> vote is four aye. >> thank you, please call the next item. >> motion carries. yes. please call the next item. >> next order of business, regular agenda, 5b. election of chair and vice chair. discussion and action. madam chair. >> fellow commissioners, we have before us election of chair and vice chair. first elect the chair. nominations for chair? >> madam, i would like to nominate marily mondejar as chair. >> thank you. commissioner bustos. >> i second that. commissioner singh, any other nominations? i accept the nomination of chair. thank you. are there any members of the public who would like to make comment on the nomination for chair? ok. hearing none, public comment is closed. any opposition? or abstentian? hearing none, madam secretary, please call the roll for chair. >> commission members announce your vote what i call your name. [roll call vote] >> madam chair, four ayes. >> elected chair of the commission is myself, marily mondejar. now elect the vice chair. do i have any nominations for vice chair? >> i move bustos. >> ok. nomination for miguel bustos as vice chair. >> i second. >> commissioner rosales seconds the nomination. any other nomination for vice chair? hearing none, the nomination for vice chair is closed. any members of the public who would like to comment on the nomination for vice chair? hearing none, the public comment is closed. any opposition or abstentian? [roll call vote] >> madam chair, four aye. >> elected vice chair of the commission. >> congratulations. >> thank you, commissioner singh. vice chair bustos. thank you, everyone. madam secretary, next item. >> next order of business, agenda item 5c, workshop on the recognized obligation payment schedule for july 1, 2018, through june 30, 2019, discussion, madam deputy director. >> thank you, madam secretary. commissioners, it is that time of year again when we take the steps necessary to submit a recognized obligation payment schedule to the california department of finance. we will be seeking oversight board approval later this month but we would like to give you an overview of what we anticipate our spending to be for fiscal year 18-19, and so deputy director for finance administration will provide you with a presentation that will involve the staff you see before you today. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is prima horreder, the deputy director for finance and administration, and we are here to talk about the rops for 18-19. since we only do it once a year, it's a good opportunity to go over the origin and the general schedule and what the funding sources are. required successor have an obligation schedule, and layman's language, a list of obligations we need to make and funding source for the fiscal year 18-19. signed by the governor in the fall of 2016 made some changing, rather than than biannual, now annual. we do have the opportunity to amend it one time a year, that opportunity comes in the fall. commit the amendment on october 2nd. and what that does, because of the schedule we are starting now a month or two in advance of the budget cycle, so as other departments refine their budgets and keep us informed of those changes and how those will impact service, anything that changes -- the largest outside envelope what the budget could be, as we move closer and closer to the budget, we use information from other city departments to hone it down a little tighter and then any, those changes are then later reflected in a rops amendment that is submitted to the department of finance on october 2nd. so, the schedule where we have been so far is on january 8th, we held a workshop with the oversight board where we did not get any substantive comments, so we are presenting to you today the same rops we presented to the oversight board. we'll take your feedback today, incorporate it into the rops and then we'll submit the rops to the oversight board for action on january 22nd, and then pending oversight board approval, we'll submit it to the d.o.f. on february 1st. so, the organization of the rops, it's a long, long list of lines that starts with our administrative and agency-wide obligations moves on to our nonhousing obligations by project area, then the housing obligations by project area, rincon south beach, south beach harbor and bonds by project area. end of the rops we add on new items. so as new items get added on to the bottom, because of the foremat of the document, we are not able to renumber them, so they don't get integrated into the original structure. new items added on as they come up. the funding sources are bond proceeds, that will be the funding source to the far left of the document, it's the first funding source and that includes both bonds that have already been approved and any bonds we and -- anticipate in the next year. and either on reserve, balances, due diligence reserve balances, which we have none. other is developer payments and grants, our primary source of other is developer payments which are developer reimbursements on their behalf and we have a small number of grants. and property tax that we use to fund any of our enforceable d.o.f. enforceable approved obligation and rttpf addmin is the amount of property tax we are allowed to use by law to administer the agency. so, as you recall, the amount of property tax that we are able to use to fund the agency is limited by law to 3% of the prior year's nonadman distribution, less the savings from two years prior, identified in a prior period adjustment. so, what that really means kind of in layman's terms, every year we look at the amount of rops, the amount of property tax we requested and then line by line at the amount of property tax we expended and then look at any differences. those differences we hold on to rather than returning to the city, and they are debited off our next rttpf request. the thinking being, if you are requesting, say, $10 million and you have $3 million in hand, then you only need 7 million additional to get you back to the ten that you need. so, and then it's 3% of that amount that we can use for administration. so it's a very strictly regulated amount and to stay within it we really have to be good stewards of the property tax dollar. and we can go into greater detail how we will use it in 18-19. so as you can see from the presentation, the primary source of funding for our 508.1 million rops is bond proceeds and that makes a lot of sense. because our biggest expenditure in infrastructure reimbursements, which are funded by bond proceeds and affordable housing loans, also funded by bond proceeds. the second largest revenue source is nonadmin, but significantly lower than bond proceeds. and that number has been declining over time which you will see later in the presentation, and the primary are after affordable housing and infrastructure reimbursement, the second biggest expense is debt service, so again, it makes a lot of sense rttpf admin the greatest second source. moving on to expenditure in greater detail, you can see that our largest expense is affordable housing loans, in 18-19, that is really exciting, means a lot of affordable housing going up in our three major project areas. you can also see, if you look at the bottom right of the pie chart, there is a yellow pie and a purple pie, which indicate, which together are our total debt service. the yellowy green pie slice is infrastructure debt and the purple slice is housing debt. if you put those two slices together, it's our total debt. and the reason that i want to call that out is because the purple wedge represents the amount of debt service that we use to pay our housing bonds, and so if you, and because we issue those bonds to generate proceeds to spend on affordable housing loans, i think that as an affordable housing expenditure. so, if you want to know the total amount of our budget that we are spending on affordable housing, it's the 39% that's being directly expended in loans and the 12% that is being spent on housing debt. so, that puts us above 50%, which i think is really exciting. i don't think any other agency in the city can say they spend more than 50% of the budget on generating affordable housing. to me that's a significant number. now go into greater detail on each of the project areas and to talk about the work done in shipyard candlestick point, we have tamsin. >> thank you, senior project manager for hunter, shipyard and candlestick point. mostly in terms of the shipyard and candlestick, the inner agency cooperation agreement memorandums of understanding with the other departments, so staff time really spent by department of public works, p.u.c., etc., in reviewing the development programs on the shipyard, in terms of the actual permits for infrastructure that constructed. to dig deeper, we are looking at completing on opening the public parks in shipyard phase one, and that's our disposition and development agreement with lenar as opposed to shipyard phase two, d.d.a. with five points. so, moving on to phase two in candlestick, planning and building infrastructure on the second phase of the shipyard, as well as building and planning and completing infrastructure on candlestick, which is exciting. most of the work is there to support the rebuilding of alice griffith. we are also going to be approving the vertical development designs on shipyard phase one as well as on candlestick point, continuing to ex pend those federal grants that we have, and we have an obligation to seek outside funding to plant and support the development and investment that our master developers have, this is an instance of that. it's a federal grant with the e.d.a. and we are required to contribute a local match, that's the project's only pull from rttpf. and of course we will implement and monitor both phases community benefits agreements. so, as i said, almost everything that we do in terms of the work program of me and my team is developer reimbursed, so those come from other funds, so that's the 21 million that you see here, and again, the rttpf nonadmin is the local match for the federal grant we have. this does not include the projects contribution toward affordable housing, jeff white will cover in his portion of the presentation. i'm available for questions, but i'll pass it off to mark to review mission bay program. >> good afternoon, project manager for mission bay. major expense that's incurring from the rops lines is reimbursing fossil m.b. for the work they are doing mission bay, that's the master developer. the work they will do predominant predominantly, 18-19, they'll finish up that work. one sliver on king street that they'll be wrapping up and done with all streets in mission bay north and south. also doing mission bay, bayfront park, 5.5 acre park that will be just to the east of the arena. and then along the channel there is three different parts, p2, p3, and p8, that will be the majority of the expenditures happening in 18-19. also will be implementing the art program, some developers choose to fee out rather than building public art on their own open space, so more than likely building that on the bayfront park, one more developer may fee out, so maybe a couple different art pieces. and finally, obtaining professional services, harrison associates is the one who reviews all the work that fossil m.b. does and approves it, as well as administrative expenses to cover staff costs. and -- how it breaks out, work for the bond proceeds going to do all the infrastructure work with the sliver for the admin and the other funds, which is the arts programs and the harrison associates. here and available for questions at the end, but now shane hartz. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is shane hart, project manager for transbay. you can see from the slide we have a very busy year planned in transbay. we will begin the construction of the folsom street improvement project, anticipate completing and bidding out underramp park, provide community outreach and complete the design of transbay park. anticipate construction of blocks 5, 8 and 9, and following up to the construction reimburse certain developers for streetscape work. we plan to negotiate the block four dda and complete design. you can see from this slide that the bulk of the transbay funding is bonds, and then if you see the other category, that's primarily developer reimbursements, and then park fees that we get from developers. with that, i'm going to introduce elizabeth, and she'll come up and talk about affordable housing. >> good afternoon, commissioner. senior development specialist. this pie chart shows a snapshot of affordable housing uses of funds. contributes to the mayor's goal of 10,000 affordable units by 2020. the $126 million you see in the shipyard and candlestick point are primarily construction for 10a and 11a, and mission bay, primary use for south 6 west. and this shows the primary source for affordable housing as mentioned earlier is bond proceeds. these slides show fund el requested in the rops fiscal year 18-19. you can see the funding moves forward 542 units in the shipyard and candlestick point. and 377 units in mission bay. transbay, 247 units, but don't forget also that we have four projects that are well underway in construction in transbay. this slide gives you a visual to see by project area, the status of our affordable housing program. we completed our obligations in project areas other than our three primary major development projects, and in mission bay, the larger amount of blue reflects that we have completed our housing obligations and all of mission bay north and two projects in mission bay south, and you can see that we are just kind of getting started in the shipyard and candlestick point. and with that, i'll turn it over to hildy to discuss asset management. >> good afternoon, commissioner. development services manager. and the development services manager, or the division is responsible for providing technical services to the major project areas. in addition, work program includes managing the obligations in all the other major or non, i won't call them non-major, the other project areas that you see here. and in terms of the coming year, we'll be focussing on continuing the implementation of the long range property management plan for properties and enforceable obligations in the project areas you see here. a major focus in the 17-18 year is the transfer of y.b.g. to the city. we anticipate the transfer prior to june 30th. we are asking in the 18-19 rops for authority for one-time transfer of funds related to the gardens for lease revenues and one-time developer payments that we'll be passing on to the cities, since they are restricted for use in the gardens. so, the rops authority you see in 18-19 is all post transfer activity. also in the 18-19 year, we'll be continuing to work on the property management plan for the transfer of leases in south beach harbor, and i will invite brie back up to update you on that. thank you. >> so, the south beach harbor has two primary funding sources. the first revenues generated from the leasing of the berths themselves, and those have always been used to fund operation of the harbor, payments, lease payments on six leases in the port property, and long-term construction loan that was given to us by cal boating. that loan has $6.4 million in principal still owing and the final year 2036-37. also a smaller funding source which is pledged property tax that's generated from the property tax interest on the leases themselves. and in the, prior to this year, those payments were always used to pay payments on an outstanding bond. that bond made its last payment last december and so those funds are now reflected in the rops under the south beach harbor line. so, in our conversations with the port, we have identified that one of the key issues that we need to pass to fully transfer the property to the port is the cal boating loan, and we are looking at a number of ways to accelerate payment on that loan so that we can potentially pay it off and do a prepayment and then transfer the loan, and once the loan is paid off, we would fully transfer south beach harbor to the port. as we continue to explore those options, we will keep the commission up to date. and our last senior staff member here to present is raymond lee. he will talk to you about some of the achievements of contract compliance. >> good afternoon. our work activity certainly for fiscal year 17-18 is to support each of the program managers for each of the project areas. but what i would like to talk about are the accomplishments for the fiscal year 16-17, and where we go from here in terms of future reports. for the past fiscal year, $1.1 billion has been awarded by developers for affordable housing, market rates, inclusionary housing, and commercial activities. roughly 74% of 10 million of that went to small businesses in the professional service category, and approximately 297 million, or roughly 27% of that, went for construction for small businesses. with respect to construction work force, we do oversee the local work force hiring. approximately 10,000 workers have had a hand and these are unique individuals, have had a hand in our projects. over 2.4 million hours for the past fiscal period. of that approximately 1600 individuals are san francisco residents who have performed over half a million hours on our projects constituting approximately 22%. i will be coming back to the commission in about a month's time to provide six-month recap for this current fiscal year. and with that said, i'll pass it back over to brie. >> so, at the beginning of the presentation i talked about the legal limits to the dollar amounts that we can spend to fund our operation. and in 18-19, those calculations amount to $4.7 million. so, what that means is that anything above $4.7 million that we need to operate the agency we need to operate an alternative funding source. as you can see from the pie chart in front of you, our total operating budget is 16.9 million. and only 4.7 million is covered by rttpf admin. remainder is covered by other, which is 5.7 million, and nonadmin, 6.2 million, and rttpf nonadmin, property tax expended in the property areas or affordable housing obligation. so, you can see that the largest source is other, and rttpf nonadmin. to me what that means is we are spending -- the vast majority of our operating costs are directly related to implementing the redevelopment plan and achieving the goals outlined in those plans, because other is again developer reimbursements, so reimbursing us for costs expended directly on developer projects, and rttpf nonadmin is expended for building infrastructure in transbay, moving forward affordable housing projects, for issuing bonds to fund those, to fund affordable housing loans and to fund infrastructure reimbursements, so these are all dollars expended directly and furtherance of our mission. so, to dive into the operating budget in a little bit greater detail, like most entities and particularly in city government, the vast majority of our operating budget funds are labor costs. we anticipate spending $9 million in salaries and benefits in the upcoming fiscal year and that will be for 50 full-time staff, 47 of whom are o.c.i.i. staff and three of whom are staff contracted from the department of, the city's department of administrative services but work full-time at o.c.i.i. in addition, we have two part-time staff who have a very specific skillset and therefore are only work part-time. and in addition, both are retired, so they fall under slightly different rules than our full-time staff. in addition, we'll spend $2.3 million on city departments, enact the m.o.u.s to purchase services from our city partners. so if a plan is reviewed by planning or if we have a contract that's reviewed by city attorney or our participation in the city's accounting system, s.f.p. and administration and internal controllers, billed back to o.c.i.i. $1.6 million in nonlabor costs, other to obtain specialized services like the fiscal audit or nonlabor costs like the rent or our worker's comp insurance, costs that are for the general administration of the agency and are not related to one specific project. so, together those three costs, labor, costs obtained from the city and nonlabor, total $12.9 million. in addition, two long-term liabilities we have to fund. one is the pension liability, our pension liability is what it would take to fully pay the retirement benefits for all current and future o.c.i.i. employees up to the end of the amortization date. so, this year we'll be paying $1.3 million towards that cost, which means that we are on track to be fully funded by the end of the amortization period, which means that we, we are projected to be able to pay all of the retirement costs that we have promised to pay. and our retirement health care liability is $2.7 million. that's a combination of paying our share of current retirees' health care costs, as well as all future -- the future liability of all current and future o.c.i.i. employees. so, this is called our oped liability, $2.7 million next fiscal year and what's exciting about this, for the second year in a row we'll be fully funding our long-term liability, means we are projected to be able to cover all of our health care costs for all current and future o.c.i.i. employees, and there are not that many entities that work towards 100% coverage of that liability into the future. so, i think that is something that really speaks to the agency's financial health. so, at this point, we have done such a deep dive, a nice opportunity to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, one thing that i find useful to do in the bigger picture, to look at the differences between the prior year and the current year. as you can see, between last year and this year, we'll be spending 71 million more dollars in bond proceeds and as you'll recall, we issued in 17-18, we issued three bonds at the beginning of the year, 2017, a, b, and c, affordable housing bonds and infrastructure bond in transbay. the issuance of the bonds was intended to fund infrastructure in transbay and affordable housing in the shipyard and in mission bay, and so you can see the expenditure of this proceed is reflected here. as you can see, there's no change in our reserve funding. we don't have any dollars on reserve, so we have no expenditure from the sources. from other, our expenditure is going down $38 million and that's primarily due to the fact that the $20 million in cash proceeds budgeted in this current year, so that's a major drop towards next year, and then you can see in rttpf, nonadmin, sorry, difference, spending $42 million less, and that's being driven by three things. the first is that in the three bond issuances we had earlier in the year, we were really projecting a much higher level of debt service than actually resulted. that means that the market responded really well to our bonds and we are paying much less interest than we had actually anticipated. so, that's a major savings to the agency, and in addition, we just issued 2017 d and e, refunding bonds that really reduce the cost of our debt service. so, together those two things mean that our use of property tax to fund our nonadministrative costs has really gone down, means we have more capacity to issue more future bonds and we have more to pass on to the taxing entities. in, between 17-18 and 18-19, you can see some changes in our overall usages. the biggest draw -- the biggest drop, i think, you can see, is the third one down, again debt service, our debt service is going down by $40 million this year because of the drivers i just mentioned, and our affordable housing expenditure up by 109 million, and because we are entering into, we anticipate entering into a number of new affordable housing loans in the coming year. and that will be c.p.11a, mission block 6 west and c.p.10a and upwards of $50 million loans so you can really see that we are moving the needle in terms of putting affordable housing dollars out on the street. so, again, just because property taxes, the thing that kind of, you know, everyone is always the most interested in, our primary use of debt service of nonadmin is debt service. you can see the very large blue pie wedge and the second biggest use is pledged tax increment. as a reminder, increment that's generated either in mission bay north, mission bay south, or the state owned parcels in transbay, very small amount in south beach harbor and this year it's very exciting to report, we just got the first property tax distribution from the controller in january, and we have over $150,000 generated in pledge property tax income in shipyard 1. so that means there is starting to be some there, and it's an indication that redevelopment works. we have worked really hard to put development out in that area and it's now generating property tax which is showing up on the rolls and generating revenue for future development, which is what redevelopment is supposed to do, so that's really exciting. and so our next steps are to hear your commentary and feedback, integrate that into the rops, and then go back for oversight board approval on january 22nd, and then submit an improved rops before february 1st. and if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> are there any speaker cards, madam secretary? >> no, madam chair, there are no speaker cards. >> i will close public comments since there are no speaker cards. any questions from my fellow commissioners? or comments? >> i have a question. how much -- total we owe? >> our debts, current debt service portfolio is almost $1 billion. >> uh-huh. >> what was that number? >> almost $1 billion. >> 1 billion. >> how much over? >> it's almost one. it's between 900 million and a billion. >> how are we going to pay that? >> we pay that on an annual basis with our debt service costs. prior to issuing the bonds, we go through a really detailed process where we underwrite the bonds and we only issue what we know we can fund with our current level of property tax increment, and issue our debt with 1.2 times coverage, so 120% of the dollars that we need to pay our debt service into the future. >> are we ever going to pay off? >> well, we -- we will. but each time we issue new debt, because we issue and usually 30-year, we have usually a 30-year term, each time we issue the latest dollar amount, the last debt service payment is kind of current year plus 30 years. so we won't know the final date we pay everything off until we have issued our last bond, made our last affordable housing loan, made our last developer reimbursement. it's really a long-term process where we issue debt, pay it off, issue debt, pay it off, and it's really kind of long-term financial planning. >> ok. >> thank you, commissioner singh. any other questions? >> i had a question on, can't find it here, but the city m.o.u.s. i think it was two something, 2.3 million. >> 2.6, i think. >> 2.6. i'm not sure that i saw anywhere but i didn't read all the attachments with great detail a list of those city agencies, it would be nice to know who our city partners, i mean, obviously the city attorney, the real estate planning, those kinds of jump up. >> usually in the budget we provide, the rops is kind of like an outer limit document. so we don't tend to provide that level of detail at this stage. but we are, as a matter of fact, the moment i submit the rops we'll be starting the budget process, so we'll be before you in april and then at that point i usually go through a detailed list of what all the city department m.o.u.s are. >> ok. my issue is, not issue, but interest is not just knowing who the city partners are, but whether we have sufficient funds allocated for service by them. i'm always of the view that it's better to anticipate a greater need and obviously if you are under budget that's great, but the reverse is an issue, right? you think you only need a certain level of service and something unforeseeable happens and we go to city partners. i know there is flexibility in the budgets so we can address that. i would be interested in assuming 2.6 million is in everyone's mind sufficient. >> so, we work very closely with our city partners. i'm in contact with all their budget c.f.o.s and we talk about who the number is for the current level of service, if any service needs are increased, and then the three years that i've been here, we have never, we have neither exceeded our budget nor been short of funds. so amounts have been, you know, adequate to meet our needs. i think one nuance is certainly you never want to have insufficient expenditure, that creates constraints on the work program. neither do you want to overbudget, because that actually creates problems for our city partners. so, for example, if we wanted to say you know, we want to increase our city attorney budget by $500,000 just in case, the city attorney then they recognize that revenue as budgeted revenue, and then they would calibrate expenses up to that amount. so if they ex pend and don't recover, that creates a year-end close problem so really the goal is to thread the needle and ask for, like being goldilocks. you want to ask for just too much but not too much and find the happy medium. and that's what we are always working for. so far for the last three years we have hit it. >> ok, great. and the only other thing that popped out, and i know the answer, but it's always good to ask, is the reference to the western addition. >> yes. as you know, it's not an approved enforceable obligation so we are not allowed to enter into any new financial obligations in that area. we continue to have a couple properties in that project area which in the d.o.f. approved long-term management property plan are designated to be transferred to the city. and our development services manager can speak a little bit more to how that process is going. >> thank you. so, in the western addition, as well as some other project areas, we have remnant parcels of property we still own and are in the process of disposing of pursuant to the property management plan. we also have developer obligations in those project areas as well, some o.p.a.s, participation agreements, development agreements, there may not be funds involved but if the developer asked for a certificate of compliance or other provisions in those agreements, we need to spend staff time to project manage those obligations. so, we are in the process of closing those out, but we are not creating new obligations in those areas. does that answer -- >> yes, and i guess the question is, more precisely, what is the remaining asset/assets that we own? >> in the western addition specifically. it's the fillmore heritage center, handed off property management to the city but in the process of handing over the asset. and the other is a remnant parcel called the ellis street driveway, directly next to the fillmore heritage center. serves as the driveway to that shopping center. and in the p.m.p. that is slated for disposition as a fair market sale, so that is also on the work list for 18-19. >> ok. >> any other comments? commissioner bustos. >> just one clarification for mr. lee. yes. slide 22. i know this, but i just want to make sure i get this. so, on the bullet, for small business enterprises, 74% for professional services is 10 million. that's 10 million in fees, right? >> that is correct, yes. >> just making sure the math -- ok. >> and i have one clarification. of brie. 47 staff and three contracted. what are -- can you expand on that? >> sure. so, if you go back in the way back time machine and remember dissolution and at one point the city, we thought we were going to be a city department, and then we were not a city department, and so three former o.c.i.i. employees joined the department of administrative services staff and, but they continued to perform their same duties and do the same work that they did prior to dissolution at o.c.i.i. so they are city employees but perform 100% of their scope of work out of o.c.i.i. >> so we pay for their -- >> a.d.m. sends us a quarterly bill for the cost of their salaries and benefits, which we then reimburse the city. >> and so that arrangement is contracting, ok. thank you. well, thank you for your very detailed presentation. so, now we are going to call the next item. next order of business, item six, public comment on nonagenda items. madam chair. >> do with he have -- >> we have no speaker cards. >> close that public comment portion and let's call the next item, please. >> next order of business is item seven, report of the chair. >> i have no report. >> and the next order of business, item eight, report of the executive director, a, 50 jerrold and 555 innes avenue, hunters point shipyard blocks 53 and 54, 16 inclusionary below market rate, below 80% area median income. item b, 848 fairfax avenue hunters point, phase iia, marketing out comes project report, 107 unit multi-family hope s.f. development, and 26 are new affordable un its, and 80 public housing replacement units, all affordable at 45% area median income. bayview hunters point. >> two items, i'll present those. as you may recall, we have an m.o.u. with the mayor's office of housing and community development that provides us with a number of services, including assisting o.c.i.i. with implementation of the marketing phase for affordable units in the project, and the m.o.u. provides o.c.d. will write a marketing outcomes report after each project has completed the full lease up with the highlights of how that marketing went, and so there are two projects for which you have marketing outcomes reports in your packets. the first is for block 53 and 54, which is phase one of the hunters shipyard project. together those two blocks total 159 for sale units developed by lenar. of those 159 units, 16 are below market rate inclusionary units. and that project after completing its marketing received 85 applications for the 16 b.m.r. units and 16 successful home buyers, five through the rent burdened and assisted housing preference, and the remaining 11 were from the live in san francisco preference. there were two certificate of preference holders who did apply, unfortunately, neither was successful in purchasing a home, one of the c.o.p. holders was over the income maximum for this particular project, and the second i believe was not able to secure a mortgage for a unit. moving on to the second marketing outcomes report for hunter's view, iia, hope s.f. project. 107 units, 80 of those units were public housing replacement units serving the households of hunter's view who are there, so those were filled by the san francisco housing authority. but there were 26 new affordable units created in the project, 45% of median income affordable. 1,946 applicants for those 26 new affordable units. and some of the highlights of that marketing were that eight of the applicants were c.o.p. holders. three of those were successful and are now living at hunters view, and there are more details about the highlights of the marketing and the different case studies that are provided as well in the report. but if you have any questions, pam sims from our housing department is here to answer any questions that you might have. that concludes the director's report. >> are there any speaker cards? >> no speaker cards, madam chair. >> we are closing public comments. any comments, questions from fellow commissioners? on this matter? >> thank you for working so hard on this. >> these are great reports. >> yeah. >> very easy to follow. the testimonials are great. they are great. they add, they add the humanity to the numbers. nice. >> i'm happy that a lot -- a few of the c.o.p. holders are getting a house, or getting their units. so, thank you. >> coming back home. >> sorry? >> several are coming back, yes, and that's great news. so we will now call the next item. >> next order of business, nine, commissioners questions and matters. madam chair. >> are there any questions? from commissioners? >> no, i just want to, if we could just, when we close our meeting, close in memory of mayor lee, i have shared with nadia that maybe we should at some point in the near future look at naming our affordable housing initiative after mayor lee, affordable housing was such a big deal for him and we contribute to a large part of that. so, maybe sort of formalizing it at some point in the future would be nice. >> thank you, very well noted. any other questions? comments? from commissioners? >> i just, you know, i wholly agree, certainly. i am very saddened by his passing. the last conversation i had with him one-on-one was in july over lunch. i think the only lunch i had with him in at least two years and housing, housing, housing was 90% of the conversation. and so it's -- i think it's very appropriate, commissioner bustos. >> yeah, i -- i agree. my last conversation was really about him not being able to attend the formal opening of the bill sorro community center because he made a promise he would attend every ground breaking and every opening. and i didn't quite give him a bad time, but thought why are you not making it, and that was my last conversation with him about that. certainly he will be very well missed and i personally miss him, i think he was a very great supporter of affordable housing, as commissioner rosales said, housing, the conversation focusses on that. i agree, we will close in his honor. ok. so, yes. >> very well work done for the last year. let's give a hand. >> i agree. >> thank you. >> thank you. madam secretary, please call the next item. >> next order of business, item ten, closed session. there are no closed session items. the next order of business is item 11, adjournment. madam chair. >> yes. and we would adjourn in honor of mayor lee, a friend to many of us, and a friend to affordable housing initiatives. motion to close? >> i move. >> moved by commissioner bustos, seconded by commissioner singh. we will now adjourn the meeting. >> thank you. >> thank you.