Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances financing approvals for 88 Broadway and 735 Davis housing projects amid questions about past loan practices
Summary
The committee forwarded approvals for bond and loan financing for two adjacent affordable housing projects (88 Broadway, 125 units; 735 Davis, 73 units) while several supervisors pressed MOHCD on historical loan approvals and whether city policy had bypassed Board review as required by Charter §9.118.
The Finance Committee forwarded to the full Board a package of actions to authorize conduit bond issuances and MOHCD loans to finance two adjacent affordable housing developments: 88 Broadway (approximately 125 mixed‑use units) and 735 Davis (about 73 senior units). Faith Kirkpatrick (senior project manager, Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, MOHCD) said both projects are joint ventures between Bridge Housing and the John Stewart Company and seek long-term low‑interest MOHCD loans to subsidize construction and long-term affordability.
Kirkpatrick summarized project programs and amenities, and noted MOHCD does not pledge city funds for repayment of conduit bonds. The Budget and Legislative Analyst reviewed the financing structure and sources and recommended approval.
Supervisor Aaron Peskin pressed MOHCD and the City Attorney on a broader policy issue: he asked how many past MOHCD gap loans had not been brought to the Board as required under section 9.118 of the City Charter. MOHCD and the City Attorney said the city is reviewing decades of practice and that new guidance directs certain loans to come before the Board; MOHCD said it will look back through records and provide a count but requested at least 30 days to compile historical data.
Peskin also urged transparency about loan forgiveness practices and whether loans to for‑profit developers are treated the same as loans to nonprofits. MOHCD explained financial considerations tied to low‑income housing tax credits and the reasons the agency structures support as loans (rather than grants) to maximize leveraged non‑city funds. The committee approved the project financing to keep the projects on a tight financing schedule but supervisors requested additional data on prior loans, forgiven amounts and which supervisors MOHCD had consulted about proposed legislative changes to delegate certain authorities.
Project sponsors said approving today is critical to close financing and begin construction in April; MOHCD warned a delay could push construction start to August or September and imperil received tax credit allocations and other financing.
