The Los Angeles City Council recessed to a special meeting to consider a request from the Community Redevelopment Agency to refund multifamily housing revenue bonds for the Metropolitan Apartments project (not to exceed $28,400,000). CRA staff and representatives of the project's developer, Forest City Enterprises, described financing constraints after the project's existing letter of credit approached termination and asked the council to approve bond documents that would allow a corporate guarantee and extend the bond maturity to 2025.

CRA staff and Forest City said the project is underperforming relative to expectations and that refinancing through a corporate guarantee would preserve the project's viability. Forest City proposed an arrangement under which the affordable-housing covenant would continue for the term of the bonds and for five years after bond retirement (which would extend an affordability commitment to about 2030 if the bonds run to maturity). Councilmembers, notably Jackie Goldberg, pressed for a fixed 30-year affordable-housing covenant that would survive early redemptions unless forced by a change in federal tax law.

CRA staff warned that insisting on a 30-year fixed covenant could prompt the developer to decline the bond refunding and instead refinance by other means, which the CRA said could leave it with a subordinated-loan loss it estimated at roughly $15 million. Councilmembers debated that fiscal risk against the city's policy goal of longer-term affordability. After extended discussion and multiple motions, the council voted to continue the item for further negotiation and directed staff to return on Tuesday, Oct. 10; the clerk recorded the continuance vote as 11 ayes.

Discussion focused on three discrete points: the bond amount ($28.4 million), CRA exposure on its subordinated loan (approximately $15.5 million as stated on the record), and the competing models for the affordable-housing covenant (fixed 30 years vs. bond-term plus five years). No final approval of the refunding occurred at this session; the council continued the matter to allow additional negotiations and drafting work between CRA, the developer and council offices.