Housing Authority Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

of August 27th, 2026. The time is 4.04 p.m. Item two is roll call of commissioners. President Doug Shoemaker. Here. Vice President Cynthia Alvarez. Present. Commissioner Lou Anikin. Present. Commissioner Juan Carlos Cancino. Present. Commissioner Fala Futa-Satili. Present. And Commissioner Sharon Lai.

Present.

Thank you. Item three is the acknowledgement of the Ramatush Ohlone community.

Thank you. The Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, or forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

Thank you. Item four is the President's report.

I have no report at this time.

Item five is general public comments. Noting the portion of this agenda is not intended for debate or discussion with the commissioner's staff. Please simply state your business or the matter you wish the commissioner's staff to be aware of. It is not appropriate for commissioners to engage in a debate or respond on issues not properly set in a publicly noticed meeting agenda. If you have questions or would like to bring a matter to the commission's attention, please send your communication via email to sfhapubliccomment at sfha.org. We have a speaker card for Angel Rittenberg. You have two minutes for general public comment with a beep at 30 seconds and then a beep at the end if you have a lot of time.

Hi, commissioners. Well, I just wanted to make you aware of a couple things. I had to do notes because these things always make me kind of nervous. So what I would like to do is talk a little bit about my experience with resident councils of advisors. On May 14, our tenant association posted a notice. I was treasurer of the association. The president at the time posted a notice for nominations in 14 days and elections 28 days after that, which, as you may know, violate the 30-day rule for each meeting that HUD has. We kind of went back and forth over texting. We ended up in court. Judge Judy, season four, episode 26. The election went ahead. I was elected treasurer. On the notice that was given for the election results, I was also dismissed as treasurer. And another resident was appointed, which is fine. I'm not here to relitigate anything either. The things about what went on during that time was the board was never notified about what was going on with the president making all of these things happen. What happened with the Judge Judy case, it did get dismissed. I have proof of that. We then ended up in superior court here over a restraining order because all I'm doing is trying to hold my... Tenant Association Counsel accountable for an election. We ended up in Superior Court for a restraining order hearing. It took a year. It got dismissed. I have records to indicate that. I'm sorry, but I think the time is up.

So I have all the documents. It would be great if you could hand those over to Bennett, and then we would have a chance to take a look at them. It would be much appreciated.

And the only thing I'm really asking this body to do is basically let us know what the relationship with RCA and the Housing Commission is, because a representative for RCA gets up here pretty much monthly and talks about all the work that goes on. And there are some questionable activities. There's still a lot of contact going in my building against me.

OK, thank you for the comment. Much appreciated. We'll take a look at what you've submitted.

Thank you. And I appreciate your time, and I'm sorry for going over. No, no, no problem.

Thank you.

Any additional general public comments?

Well, hello, commissioners. Wow, all these new faces. My name is Ace Washington. I'm the Fillmore Corridor Ambassador. I've been a community activist here at City Hall for over 25, 30 years. I deal with public San Francisco public housing for a number of years. I go back to David Gilmore. I go all the way back to, let's see, what mayor was at the time. It was Art Agnews. Frank Jordan came to be the mayor, and I helped him in his campaign to become mayor. So I'm just really trying to give you a little history, because that's what I'm here today. Through all my public comments, I'm going to give you a little history about San Francisco Housing Development Corporation. I mean, Housing Authority. So this is unrehearsed. And I think I have several chances to do it at all the public comments. I'm going to have different things to speak about, particularly about the appointment of your new director. And I'm going to talk about city politics and the mayor and what the hell he's doing. WITH CITY CHARTERS AND WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW WHERE WE HAVE Your director is going to be your director. It was the acting director, and he was the acting director over at the mayor's office. And then OEWD. So there's a lot of things that community reform that we're going to have to change because OEWD don't have no commissioners. Mayor's office, community, whatever, they don't have no commissioners. So everybody can just run free. We're going to have to change that. So anyway, I have a few more minutes to talk, and I'll be back. I'll be back.

General public comment?

Hey, how y'all doing? My name William Helm. I've been here a few times already. I don't know if some of y'all are familiar with my story, but it just goes to, I guess, I don't even know what to call it right now, as far as my voucher being terminated and everything. And like I said last time, I just never received it. And so the young lady, she not here today, that gave me the little card last week or last month, told me to reach out. I want to thank her. I want to thank the person that answered the phone. But man, it's just unsettling. And it's depressing. But it also had me just start thinking, what are the basic rights of a person that got a voucher? So I know a lot of y'all probably got cars or whatever. You could go on the DMV. You ain't even got to go right there. You could go to a yellow box. Or you could go online and see how much my registration is. You could go online on SFMTA and see how many tickets you owe. You could go online. Or you could get alerts from PG&E like, hey, you got 48 hours to pay. But it's just so strange that for your housing not to even have something to where the participants have something to be able to go in and see, OK, what documents do I need to have? Oh, it's an appointment on this day? OK, let me go ahead and do that. We don't have none of that. We're literally dependent on a draconian system. In 2026, we live in like 1976, saying I'm going to mail something out to you. That's ridiculous. And then guess what? Like my case, if I don't get it, you know, something happened with my mail, guess what? Hey, you know what? You didn't respond. You didn't. I'm like, wait, hold on. You guys are specialists. I mean, where's the looking out for the people that's part of the program? And I'm just a person that's affected by it. So it's so funny. I actually started working with some young kids, and I was just like, hey, what can we do? I want y'all to help me try to come up with a system. Mr. Helm, I appreciate the comments.

And it sounds like you are in touch with Kendra

Yeah, but I'm just doing my public comment.

And I appreciate it, but your time is up.

Yeah, it's all good.

But like I was just saying, just at the end of it, I'm just working with some young kids right now. We're trying to come up with a system where people are able to see where they're at with their sales within any program, actually this program, the voucher program. Appreciate your comments. Thank you.

Further public comment?

We do have general public comment online. Great. Joyce, if you'd like to unmute yourself, you'll have two minutes.

Hello, could you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, perfect. Good evening, commissioners, housing authorities, city and county. My name, of course, is Joy Shulio-Sua, a San Francisco Housing Authority participant and District 10 resident. Today, I'm Making it aware that the board is being asked to approve major decisions involving the Housing Authority budget, executive leadership, and staff restructuring. And this is in the millions, about 1.1 millions, for an outside consulting contract and projects-based vouchers for Treasure Island. My one question is, before approving these decisions, will the board publicly provide the complete financial records, performance reports, selections, criteria, community impact data, and measurable benefits showing how each decisions will directly improve housing services for the San Francisco low income residents, especially residents waiting for reasonable accommodations? recertifications, repairs, and housing assistance that exists today. If you will not answer the question publicly today upon comments, I did read the agenda. I am requesting that my question be entered into an official record and that the housing authority provide written item by item response to the public. we should not be asked to trust broad agenda language that most of my community don't understand while supporting facts cost community outcomes remain unclear and i thank you guys again commissioners my community is suffering as far as their living conditions and as far as everything that I have mentioned. So I understand that, you know, the agenda, I totally understand, but I'm one of the residents who are at ground zero, and I do live, breathe, and see these conditions. Thank you.

No additional general public comment?

Thanks, Ben. And as you said, I think probably earlier, You traditionally say we don't respond directly to individual public comments. So while the individual who called in is looking for a specific response, we don't do that in our public comments. We just take the perspective that's being offered and take it under advisement. And then if somebody wants a public comment on a specific item, those are the ones that we respond to. OK.

Item six is the tenant representative reports. Anyone from CCSD or PHTA in person or online that would like to give a report out to the board? Not seeing any, then there is public comment for the tenant representative report. Any public comment about the tenant representative report?

And I'd just like to say before you step up again, Ace, that we're looking for comments on this agenda item. So we're not going to be hearing about other things.

Well, I'm going to speak according to what I'm going to speak about is the Tenants Association. And I have history to talk about. So I know the talk agenda. I've been doing this for 20 years. So I know how to ride the commissions.

OK. Great to hear it.

So anyway. I'm just surprised that the Attendance Association isn't here, because I was going to speak it upon them, because to go back in history with those members, I go back 20 years when they first started off, 20 years ago. Those same members that's been representing the Attendance Association, and they're not here today. I was going to speak highly of them, but I'm going to speak my mind. Where the hell are they? I mean, I'm not saying that in general. And I'm not here to criticize, just to analyze. So I was going to speak highly of them. We go way, way back with David Gilmour. That association that they should be here, but I don't know why they're not. But they play a major role in what's going on in public housing, the tenants and everything. And I'm just appalled that they're not here with no kind of report, particularly on today when they're going to be appointing your director and they've got budget things going on. So I don't know, are they taking care of their responsibilities? The last time I was here, they was talking about how many boards they're on in the Bayview and this and that and that. But this particular, they need their attention, the tenants. All over the city need their attendance. Up there in Bayview, Fillmore, Hunters, everywhere. I'm just appalled that they're not here. But I go back over 20 years. I shared some tears with the residents up in Hunters Point. I toured with Gavin Newsom back in the days. I toured in video. He used my videos to get funds. So I'm going to speak a little bit on history. I'll be right back. I'm coming back.

Additional public comment for item number six. Closing public comment. And item seven is the acting executive director's report. Item seven is the budget presentation that will be presented by Roy Lobo.

And maybe then it... Just give a little opening preview. So we'll be coming back to you in September for approval of our operating budget before the end of the federal fiscal year. So we have a special scheduled commission hearing on September 30. But we wanted to have time before that decision date to preview and kind of highlight some both issues that affect our operating budget, but more specifically speak to some of the broader structural issues happening at the federal level. So this is an informational item. There's no action, but it sets the context for a subsequent action item at our next commission hearing. So I just wanted to give that little preview. Thank you. Roy, take it away.

Thank you, Dan. And good afternoon, Commissioners. And as Dan said, this is really a presentation just for information purpose only. We're not going to ask for approvals. We're not going to ask for signatures on this budget. This is just to give you an overview of where we think the current federal funding is for the Housing Authority and for the federal program. OK? Basically, and as Dan said, we will return next month with hopefully hard facts and hard numbers to go over the measures that have been passed by the federal government. And then at that point, we will require a formal presentation that will require approval and signatures. Next slide, please. Next slide.

Next slide.

Sorry. Keep going. Keep going. Right there. Thank you. I think this just gives you an overview of the people we serve. These are the number of participants and households. Really, I want to draw your attention to what's in the center, which is 86% of the households we serve, roughly greater than 14,000, fall in the extremely low income category. And that the average income, household income, for those 14,000 households is about $17.5K. And then at the bottom, you see how the participants are broken out between children, seniors, and veterans. Again, just as a reminder, we get three forms of revenue streams. We get the housing assistance payments, and this fund is used to help pay for the monthly rental income for tenants, and the money goes to the landlords. The administration fees and subsidies help the agency run the individual programs that we have at the authority. And then the capital fund grants is basically the funding that we get to modernize public housing, specifically Plaza East and then the headquarters at 1815 Egbert. Next slide. So this is going to go down, and we'll cover the federal funding where it stands right now. So every year, Congress has to pass a series of appropriation bills, and the president has to sign them to avoid a government shutdown. Since the likelihood of that getting done this year by September 30 is slim, both each chamber of Congress, the House and the Senate, put forth their own version of a continuing resolution. And just to give you a quick understanding of what a continuing resolution is, is just a stop gap for a stated period of time that will extend the funding at the prior fiscal year levels. And that stated period of time for the House is it will extend it till December 4. That stated period of time for the Senate will extend the CR measure till December 11. However, the continuing resolution has to be a unified measure between both the House and the Senate. Now, the House doesn't return back to Congress until August 31. So they have to negotiate between the House and the Senate, come up with a unified continuing resolution, pass that, and then that would avoid a government shutdown. Let me pause there to see if there's any questions. And so then, if you take a look at these continuing resolutions, the big discrepancies between the House bill, which really has no changes to either the policy or the dollar amounts, but the Senate does. The Senate has put forth three policy changes. that will directly affect the housing authority. And so one, it will require HUD to use unobligated funding to cover the shortfall. They currently have a balance of about $400 million to cover the shortfall across agencies across the United States. Two is they delay implementation of this OMB rule. And what that really does is it delays the implementation of the administration putting in new terms and conditions to grants that have already been given to public housing agencies. And then the third one, which is really important to us, is it requires HUD to issue tenant protection vouchers for EHV households. Why that is important is because if we get tenant protection vouchers for EHV, we can actually use that for funding in subsequent years. So when I do a renewal funding, those vouchers will be included in there. Difference between that and a shortfall funding, we don't get the renewal in subsequent years. So that's key.

So really in short, these are all positive policy changes compared to the House bill for us.

Well, the House bill has no changes to it. The House bill.

Correct. But we like these.

We absolutely do. I mean, these are all very positive for us. The fact of using the shortfall funding to cover that, the fact of using TPB, and to really delay, if not completely cancel, these OMB rules. Sorry about that. And actually, if you go to the next slide, as we're speaking about EHV, okay all right so then and then what this all gives you is just what that so what we've done is we've taken a look at the house bill we've taken a look at the senate bill just like last year we thought the senate bill was the most likely to to pass and that's in fact what did happen right the senate bill did pass so we take a look at this year's senate continuing resolution and put that into play and as you can see here we've projected what the hap revenue and the hap expenses will be in under the senate's continuing resolution measure which then gives us 3.3 million projected reserve in calendar year 2027. And this is on the EHV reserve. Just to keep it at a high level, currently we have 790 households. And 390 of those, we will actually be able to transition from EHV to HCV in calendar year 2026. And you see how that spread out across the months. In the EHV program, we are currently projecting a $3.6 million shortfall. We have requested for HUD to cover that shortfall, and we have received confirmation from HUD that we will get funding in early September for the October and November payments.

Just to be really clear on this, it's not that the housing authority is entering into shortfall, but that's a term that's used to describe our application for additional EHV funds to allow us to fund the program through the end of the year.

Through December 22.

Through the end of the calendar year.

Thank you. And then the very last slide, again, just taking that Senate's continuing resolution measure and just putting it through each program. And as you can see, like Dan talked about, we think the Senate's version is very favorable. And it will, for the most part, give us a balanced budget across each program. the only uh small uh shortfall you'll see is in public housing and that's really related to the 1.5 million that we have to pay on the pension withdrawal liability because of the uh rift we put in put put put out in 2022. any questions i'm done looks favorable for now. Yeah, and it's certainly favorable if the Senate's bill passes.

Just going back to the HAP projections quickly, are there any additional context you can provide for us on what is the authority strategy around maintaining a reserve as a best practice versus risk for clawbacks or anything like that? Could you provide a little bit more?

Yeah. So if you take a look at that $3.3 million reserve we have, it's a very small portion of the $460 million. So that's about 2% or over 2%. HUD usually gives you anywhere between 2% and 4% before they do any clawback. We think this is a good portion of a reserve to keep at 3.3% just in case to cover any increases in rent that we may foresee coming up during the year. And it's easy to keep that. And then as we get towards the end of the year, we can actually increase maybe the number of VHV households we transfer over. But I don't want to limit that to a zero, because if I go into a shortfall funding, that'll be a bigger crisis.

Sounds smart. Thank you.

Do you want to add anything, Mohamedou?

Good afternoon, Commissioner. I think Roy covered it all. During the calendar year 2026 budget approval, Actually, HUD used a 4% protection based on the budget. So as long as you can go over the 4% in terms of reserve, that's sort of protected from offsetting. So we are making sure we below that. So in 2026, we have some reserve, and that's going to help us even next year avoid going back in shortfall. Thank you.

Any other questions from you any other questions?

Yes So and I think it's a little bit related to what you were just sharing so what is the scenario we would be most concerned about coming to fruition and What do you anticipate would be some of the decisions we would have to make?

Well, it depends on which bill passes or what the final numbers are currently as we stand right now. We don't foresee, at least certainly from the conversations we've had with NARO and their seminars that they've put on, I don't know where the shutdown will be. I think the housing house resolution measure, if you take a look at what's not included in here, there was a president's bill that was put forward for funding that. That was actually a 2% increase compared to what the House put forth. So the House has just completely decimated that program and that funding. So we see very little chance of the House bill being passed or even the continuing resolution being passed in its current state. For that reason, we think the Senate's bill, and that's what we've included in our projections, we did the same last year. And it turned out the Senate's version did pass.

OK. Just to add, so basically, both stopgap CR are going to end December. So this is really, the key is going to be the election, basically, in November, the midterm election. Depending on who controls the House, that's where we probably will see an impact on the budget. So right now, it's just temporary, but we won't know really until after the election.

All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Lobo. So seeing as this is an informational item, this was really just a preview for us to make sure that we and the public understand where we are today.

Correct. Very much so. And then we'll come back next month.

We've got our questions. And we look forward to hearing more as the year unfolds. Great. Thank you very much. OK.

Thank you.

Item 7B is the Acting Executive Director of General Communications. Thank you. I have four quick questions.

Four quick items, relatively quick items. First, just speaking up on the EHV information that Roy presented, again, we're on track to issue our 390 EHVs, and we're pending information on the tenant protection voucher allocations. Again, I always want to assert we have reached our in agreement with Homelessness and supportive housing for bridge funding. So we have those funds available to provide bridge funding as we're waiting for these other budget clarifications to come through. So no one is at risk of losing their voucher. And we're executing our plan that we've presented here before. So I just always like to assert that for the record and for you all. Secondly, I wanted to call out some exciting work that is underway at the Housing Authority around process improvements and our project-based voucher program. As I came into this role, there were a number of assertions from our nonprofit affordable housing developers of challenges in receiving and navigating the project-based voucher program, delays in payment, inspection issues. And a lot of those, I think, were related to lack of clarity of process, poor communication. One of the things that we did immediately was stop trying to assign blame, but try and look at where those snags in the process are. And so we've been on a process improvement program, which has included recently a survey of 100 members of our nonprofit community, those who are really working on the asset management and property management side. Where are the snags? Where are the challenges? So we're going through those responses. We'll be doing one-on-one interviews and small group interviews to try and tease out more information. And then we're going to be developing a matrix of process improvements that we'll come back and present to you likely in the second quarter of next year. Again, this is just an informational item. I've been really excited to see this work move forward. I think it's going to be a we're already seeing some of the improvements just by bringing attention to it. And again, I want to appreciate the Housing Authority staff for really stepping into this work. It's really exciting. It's going to be work that will fall under the aegis of our new housing authority deputy for operations, Lydia Ely. So as I think I mentioned last time, we are fortunate in having authorization to hire a new deputy under MOCD, so a deputy that will continue to report to me. and someone who can ensure that there's greater attention to the day-to-day operations of the Housing Authority, given the pulls on my time in my role as the Director of the Mayor's Office of Housing. So this is super exciting. It was quite a broad search. We had 44 applications. We interviewed four people. And Lydia, who is known and I would say loved, I will use that term, by our affordable housing community and certainly by most CD staff. And I'm just pleased as punch that she'll be coming on in this new role. And so she'll effectively be a deputy executive director for the housing authority. So she'll be sitting, when I'm unavailable, she'll be sitting at this dais serving in this role. And we'll be starting a recruitment for her replacement as the housing director or housing deputy on the MOCD side. So I might be reaching out for suggestions for applicants for that role. But that recruitment will be starting at the very beginning of September. So very excited for that news. Two final announcements. One is our Commissioner Marianne Pikes, we learned a couple of weeks ago that her term had actually expired. And the holdover period, there's a minimal amount of time somebody can still serve in the role. And that holdover period had also expired. So the reason she is not here today is that her term has expired. We want to really recognize her and appreciate her work over the years, which has been fantastic. And we will invite her back at a future commission hearing to do something more formal in recognition of her amazing work. But I didn't want this commission hearing to go by without calling out why she's not at the podium today and really appreciating her work. Finally, as you may have read in the news yesterday, there was a settlement agreement reached between the city attorney's office and the ownership entities of Alice Griffith. And those are the affiliates of the Cormac Baron Salazar. And so last commission hearing and in previous commission hearings, we've heard from residents of Alice Griffith of conditions at the site. One of our commissioners lives at Alice Griffith. So I'm pleased to be able to announce that after a months-long negotiation and frankly threat of litigation, a settlement agreement and stipulated injunction has been announced and released as of yesterday. It's a public document. If you'd like to see the details of it, you can find a link to that document on the city attorney's website if you look at the press release that was issued yesterday. I'm going to give a high-level summary of what it says. As a caveat, I'm not an attorney, so technical questions I'll defer to others. And neither the housing authority nor MOCD are a party to the agreement or the injunction. So while it impacts the work that we do, we're not parties to the agreement. And the agreement comes out of violations as documented by the building department. So the client for the city attorney's office was Department of Building Inspection. And as part of the settlement, a payment is also made to the PUC for outstanding water and sewer bills, and I think other bills that they owe the PUC. So in short, it's a three-part settlement agreement that totals $9 million, $3 million in penalties associated with the resolution of the notices of violation at the building department, $3 million to pay outstanding bills and liens to the PUC, and $3 million of investment into the property itself to address really emergency or urgent repair needs. It's not a total rehab, it's not a complete revitalization, but it's really to address specific needs around elevator repair, around bringing units that have been offline online so that we can have folks living in them, and a series of other repair needs that are articulated in the settlement agreement. In addition to that $9 million, and outside the settlement agreement, we are fortunate in having $2 million of additional resources through the budget process that was approved by the board to upgrade the playground equipment and surrounding play areas at the podium levels in the buildings so that there'll be a really nice amenity for the residents and families who live there. to add to the emergency repairs that are being made through the investment through the settlement agreement. The final piece I'll mention, and it's in the press release as you'll read it, is the $3 million that's in the settlement agreement is a responsibility by the ownership entity, MBS, will be facilitated through a $2.5 million loan from OCD. So in order to expedite the investment, we're making a loan to the property that will then be paid back through revenue from the property back to MoCD in order to expedite that repair. So MoCD will have a role both in channeling the $2 million of playground and playscape improvements as well as two and a half of the $3 million of the settlement agreement funds directed toward the property. Maybe I'll stop there and see if there are any questions about that.

This is a very big deal. We've been talking about this at a lot of meetings, come up a lot. So questions about the settlement or anything else Director Adams has raised?

Thank you. I'm curious, do we sort of, how far does the $3 million take us toward sort of the identified sort of emergency repair needs?

I'll read you the list of what it's, and it's articulated in the settlement agreement itself. And so it's rehabbing 50 currently uninhabitable units to bring them online. security access control upgrades, pest control, elevator repairs, garbage room upgrades, security camera enhancements, hot water and mechanical system improvements, and then other urgent, there's some funds that allow for discretionary use at the property with MOCD's approval. So that's the list of repairs and really intended to address kind of the acute needs at the property. Our overall attention, and I'm glad you asked this question, this is not everything. I mean, it's a great step. It's an important investment. I'm very pleased to be able to marry this with additional $2 million for playground improvements, playscape improvements. And it's part of a broader commitment that I have made, that the administration has made, and that the city is making to really addressing the issues out at the site. I feel like we're making really good progress on cross-departmental coordination, around public safety issues, around some parking enforcement issues, and working with OCII to really try and expedite to the fullest extent possible the next phases of development that are going to bring amenities and infrastructure to the site and reduce the isolation. So again, this is part of a larger effort, an important step, but the story doesn't end here by any means. Thank you.

Commissioners, I'm just going to go down the line and see who else has.

Just a lot of gratitude and hope. So just wanted to acknowledge all that for all that's apparently been going on for quite some time and not losing track of what are the priorities. So thank you.

Thank you for that comment. Sure.

I don't know. I'm just happy that they have that consideration for Alice Griffin because the residents being bombarded with a lot of stuff out there. So just thank you.

Thank you. What's your line?

agree that this is a very exciting and positive direction. Relieved that something is finally being done about the habitability issues. I know one of the things that have been frustrating for this body, including staff, is really our limited role with the asset management and oversight of Alice Griffiths, since we're not the owners, we don't really have any rights. Just curious, as part of the settlement negotiation and the commitment of funding, the loan that we're providing, or your office is providing, your other office is providing, does that allow your office to have additional oversight or auditing rights or anything of that nature that can give the public and this body more assurance that we can hold them accountable?

That's a great question. I think the short answer is yes. We'll enter into a loan agreement with very clear timelines for implementation. Our construction management team will be overseeing the implementation and ensuring that the scopes of work are carried out. However, that loan agreement doesn't change the underlying structure of the ownership at the site. And we do collectively have leverage and enforcement capacity. The challenge we have is that it's primarily through a very high bar of calling a default on either the obligations under a loan agreement or your regulatory restrictions, which is a very high standard for a lending institution like MoCD or the ground lessor, as is the housing authority. And so when it doesn't provide us with powers over day-to-day management of the property. And that's the tough part of it. That's not to say that we aren't involved. I mean, I do want to continue to emphasize that most ED staff are meeting with property management and services on a weekly basis to ensure that that coordination is ongoing. And I would add that the intent of this effort, this investment, as well as subsequent oversight and engagement of the property, is to put it on financial footing such that it can be sustainable. It was a property that was financially viable prior to the pandemic. We need to bring units online so the subsidy can flow and the people get housed and then there's cash flow to both repay the investment that MoCD is making as well as just keep up with the bills and the like. So in that space we are very active in trying to create a financially stable entity, and there's going to be more work to be done. So it's a little bit of a both and. We'll have some additional oversight and eyes on the property through this investment. But the underlying ownership structure and our regulatory role does not shift dramatically.

Thank you. Director Adams, you had mentioned these notices of violation. And so we've talked about before that Neither the Housing Authority nor the Mayor's Office of Housing does unit inspections. That's really something that, or generally doesn't do unit inspections. Do I have that right?

So the unit inspections do happen as part of the Section 8 subsidy. The Section 8. Sorry, my apologies. And those are going on actually right now, and there's a certain portion that needs to happen on an annual basis. And those are conducted through our project-based voucher contract, or CVR, and those are to ensure that basic habitability. Smoke alarm works, refrigerator. And it's through that inspection process that units are either passed or can fall into abatement if the issues aren't cured in a timely way. Abatement is a problem because you can't pay a subsidy on a unit that's in abatement. So that's where the cycle of investment and repair is really critical.

So I'm just trying to make sure we're all on the same page, and then that people in the audience thinking about this from a resident perspective or an advocacy perspective all understand what's happening next. The Department of Building Inspection had a series of notices of violation. And those are being addressed or have been cured or are in the process of being addressed? That's right.

Many of them, I think at the last count, 31 of 43 had already been addressed. And the pending ones will be part of the scope of work that will be funded through this investment. So there are some larger NOVs that will require this investment in order to address. But that is part of the settlement agreement. The owners must address the notices of violation. If they do not, they are in violation of the settlement agreement and its stipulated injunction.

OK. And again, just because we've been over this a few times, I just want to make sure we're all kind of on the same page. So we've got 12 outstanding notices of violation that are part of a settlement agreement that is under the jurisdiction of the city attorney and the Department of Building Inspection. Those are the parties that are going to be watching over that.

Yes, and because MOCD is involved, MOCD will have a role to play in overseeing those scopes of work. So the ultimate enforcement agencies are exactly those that you described. The city attorney to ensure compliance with the settlement agreement and the building department to actually issue those cures of notices of violation. But we will be, MOCD will be involved in overseeing the scopes of work.

And again, I feel like sometimes this is maybe a necessary thing to say, but for folks that aren't aware, the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development and the Housing Authority worked through an MOU together. So while you're saying MOCD, it's really this combined MOU that enables us to work together towards these loans, which MOCD is implementing as part of its MOU with the Housing Authority.

I think that's right. I think that's a fair characterization. And it actually will lead into some of the subsequent agenda items today as we talk about the kind of form of integration, some updates to the bylaws. I mean, one of the great things about serving in a dual role as the MOCD director and the housing authority director is that I can be in rooms like this and speak fluidly and fluently across both agencies' obligations without it being like, well, they're not doing this or we're not doing that. And so I can understand. I appreciate the questions to provide clarity. While I think sometimes the roles can get a little murky because I'm the same person, I can sometimes have my MOCD hat on or sometimes have my Housing Authority hat on, in practice, I think it's really helpful to be able to you know, have the left hand and right hand working together, and I think this is an example of that integration work working well.

Okay, that's great. I say this just because not everyone in the audience is aware of why we made the decision as a city to combine the Housing Authority and the Mayor's Office of Housing Community Development together, which is in fact a practice that many high-performing housing authorities in cities around the state, San Diego, Fresno, and many others have embarked on, And it does enable us to do some things that we weren't able to do before. And so I think in our last meeting, there was a lot of frustration, understandable, with not only the lack of response that people were experiencing from us in terms of expecting the housing authority commissioners to be able to answer and provide direction on this, but also in terms of what's actually occurring at Alice Griffith. And so hopefully what we're getting out of today's meeting is really just a clear understanding like this has been in the works. A settlement is now underway. A lot of repair work is underway. More is coming. And at the same time, the subcontractor to the housing authority the vendor, is going through those unit inspections as part of the annual Section 8 review of each unit, and that is the other way in which we exercise control beyond a default.

That's correct. Okay. Yes.

Just so that's, and we don't, as commissioners, hear individual cases on an individual unit inspection because we're a policy-setting body.

That's correct.

But you at the staff level, and in particular our new Deputy Executive Director Lydia Ely will be hearing those things and will be dealing with those things at the staff level as those things come back. And just, again, I'm not a HUD expert in this regard, but when Alice Griffith or any other development fails to produce acceptable scores, then there's a whole other series of remedies that come into place for that. And as you said, it leads to disinvestment. But they have an incentive that hopefully you and we will be working together to make sure that they continue to reinvest in Alice Griffith and keep moving in the positive direction that we want. So we don't just have the default. We have these series of other steps. You're working with them on the loan, and staff are working with them on these unit inspections and then whatever remedies are needed on that regard. Is that right?

That's right. I think that's a well stated. And just to underscore one reference you made around incentives, our incentives are really aligned. What we've had until now is a framework to allow for action. And now we have a framework to allow for action. And there will be more action needed over time. So I want to set expectations about what we can do in the immediate term.

um just to affirm that our incentives align and we're we're we're we're going to pay attention to this property and we're going to get it on the right track okay all right um i'm not i'm sorry if i'm being incredibly basic about this but there's been so much attention appropriately so from residents coming down to this commission meeting which takes a lot of effort to spend time to come down here and talk about this stuff and i want to make sure that as folks are coming for a public comment they are aware of sort of how their next steps might work where the remedies exist, and so on and so forth. So we're going to take public comment next, but I don't want to bypass the other part of what you just said, which is that we are now going to have that much more capacity and expertise through the appointment of Lydia Ely as the Deputy Executive Director or the Chief Operating Officer? What is her official title?

LESLIE TCHEYANSKI- Her official title is Deputy for Housing Authority Operations, Deputy Director for Housing Authority Operations. And she will serve as the Deputy Executive Director.

JONATHAN ZITTRAIN- And I'll just say, I think it's an excellent appointment. I've known Lydia for many years. I think for those of you that don't know The capacity and expertise that she's going to bring to the housing authority is phenomenal. And I think we should all be incredibly grateful that she's willing to take this on, and that I think we should expect to see great things coming from this appointment. So I appreciate Ms. Ely's willingness to do this, and I thank you for the great decision making in making that appointment. And with that, Mr. Hodgson, I think we'll take public comment.

Public comment for item number seven.

You did a good job, Shoemaker, of trying to soften things up, particularly with me. But I'm not going to be swayed by what you're saying. I came here to say what I had to say about the San Francisco Housing Authority. None of you commissioners know nothing about me. My name is Ace, damn it, and I'm on the case.

I am the Fillmore Corridor Ambassador, OK?

Human Rights Commission. gave me awards for what I'm doing. Like I want this commission to do. They came and invited me to tell the history of what I know about housing authority. None of y'all was around. Nobody. Y'all don't even know what these tenants went through. From way back in 1987, now to 2026. And this shit is still going on. I was here the last meeting when you had all these tenants came up complaining about over there. I was appalled. Y'all looked at these tenants like, oh, what are we supposed to do? So all of a sudden, and don't get mad because I'm criticizing you, man. You can sit there and listen to me. It's my time to talk. Damn it. This commission is in violation of taking care of these tenants. The Tennis Association is in violation of taking care of their business. Damn it. I was there 30 years ago. You can sit there and roll your eyes all you want. They'll just give me more things to say, Mr. Shoemaker. And you know what I'm saying is true. Now... This conflict of interest is that this man being that is going to be your executive director here and executive director over there with housing. What the hell y'all doing? Conflict of interest. Talking about, oh, San Diego's doing it. Right here, we got specific problems in San Francisco. And if this mayor can't get qualified people to take care of a situation, you got to use one man to do three different jobs. Well, we got a problem here in San Francisco.

Thank you for your time, Ms. Trippett.

Well, my time ain't over yet, is it? Two minutes? Yes. Okay, I'll be back again. I'll be back every time I got public comment and I got something to say. You can't shut us up. Me up, that's for sure.

Hi. How's everyone?

So I want to make a comment.

First of all, I'd like to thank Deshawn and Kendra for their work that they had been doing prior to our new executive director. When I first met them at the Housing Authority, it was in shambles. And I would come and sit in the, I worked for a housing agency, and I would come and sit in the lobby and watch what was going on. watch how the clerks interacted with the program participants. And in conversations with Kendra and Deshaun, it is a whole different place now. And that's their work. I'm sad that I didn't bring the names of the people that were working the desk. Because whenever I had a good experience, which has been forever now, I write their names down. And I say, I'm going to go to the housing authority meetings. And I haven't been able to come for the last couple of meetings. But so I did want to give their props. They've done some hard work. And there has been some changes. So that part. Now what almost brings me to tears is the fact, and I may be wrong, but the fact over the oversight committee. Now how is the left hand going to oversight the right hand? And that hasn't been working all this time. Those people have been living in those conditions for way too long. And if it wasn't for the community stepping out, nobody would have come out there. And to me, it spells corruption. The people that have been doing this the whole time and you guys are going to choose to oversight what's going on, choose an independent person. Choose an independent person that's going to really look at what's going on and who's doing what. So that's my ask. And thank you for your service.

Thank you.

If there's no additional public comment in the room, we have Joyce online.

There's one more in the back. Sorry.

Good evening, everybody. I come on a different perspective.

Do you mind just stating your name for the record?

Oh, Monique Wisham.

Thank you.

So I came to say I'm a Section 8 recipient. And I applied for an apartment at Park Merced. It's really competitive for people that's on Section 8 to get an apartment there because they have specials. They run a special for certain people for three days. But when it comes to us, we're not qualified for those specials. And I feel that's unfair. I can bring my application in and apply that day, that special is. But when that third day is over, I don't get it because I have to wait for Section 8 to process my paperwork. And I have mentioned that to them, too, because I feel that we're being left out as others. We're human just like everybody else. We just don't have the jobs. In reality, it's best for them to hire us because you get paid when people lose their jobs. And then another thing is the parking there. It's horrible because of the payment they want you to pay. You're also paying rent to live there, and then you have to pay $350 to park. Or if you have a stall and you have a driving stall, that's $200 plus your rent that you have to pay. And that's each month. And I think that's unfair for people who are low income and don't have it like that. We can't afford it. But so it's like, we need to try to do something about that. I think it's very unfair. It's like we're being I had a stroke. Forgive me. We've been discriminated. I feel discriminated.

In regard to Park Merced specifically? Park Merced.

And there's a few other spots, but that right now is my thing. Because I applied, but now they told me the rent, my voucher fit the rent. But now it went up. So now my voucher don't fit the rent. You know what I'm saying? I don't think that's fair to everybody. It's like they're taking advantage of Section 8. So the Section 8 people have to pay more because they got it like that. That's not fair.

Thank you for coming down and explaining the situation. Maybe through the director we could just look into what the situation with Section 8 voucher holders is for us at Park Merced and look into that?

And I have one more other thing, because like I said, I have a stroke. And I've been hauling on trying to get this place. And last time I did it, they pushed me away because of the amount. So I go back again, and I got a bigger place I have a live in. So now they raised the, at first when I went to see it, it was cool. The price was fine. So now that I get it, now it went up like $100. Matter of fact, it said $5,600. But when I got it, it was $5,000. Then it went to $5,100. So I don't know what kind of games they plan, but I really think it needs to be something to be looked at.

Great. Thanks.

All right.

Thank you. OK. Any additional public comment on the executive director's report?

We do have someone online. If there's no additional public comment in the room. Joyce, if you'd like to unmute yourself.

Hello. This is, well, this is her daughter. We're both watching from home. And so I had my own public comment. My name's Pelasani. And it's two questions. One was about the EHV participants. And so I think he's not, I don't know if he's still there or if he was done. But my first question about the EHV participants is that it was mentioned on the chart that there's 390 that are going to be transitioned to a housing choice voucher. And so I wanted to, I was curious as how that was communicated to current participants and how they were also chosen to Was it like randomly selected or if more information will come out about that? And out of the 400 who aren't being given a housing choice voucher, is the goal to transition all of them to that eventually with like budgeting hopefully and things? Or is it just the tenant protection voucher so that they're just protected for the time being? So that was my first question. question, comment. And then the second part was about the $9 million settlement. And so I wanted to clarify that based on the terms, $3 million is just to pay for fines. And then $3 million is to pay for pay to SFPUC and then the required $3 million is for the repairs at Alice Griffith currently, and then just a separate 2 million for a playground. My question to that, I think it was mentioned that the money is going to be used for 50 uninhabitable units. And I wanted to know who's determining that. I'm a former resident in Alice Griffith. And I think that that is a bigger question. And I think the director mentioned like there's going to be some conversations had about that. I just wanted to be sure that those 50 units weren't already chosen or, you know, and if they were, how was that process gone about and selected? Because in any case, even the units that I'd say are deemed habitable by housing authority are definitely not for any person, child, not even my dog should be living there. And so that was just something that I wanted to bring up. And also why there was no mention of John Stewart, although they're not the owner of the building, they were, they are being paid to manage the building. And now that they're going to be committed to the units on treasure island what is the thought process with that i mean i don't i don't really know more about that but living under john stuart's never been easy at any of the properties that i lived at and so that was just my concern is like now we're committing another property to them and how is that going to affect the people the same exact way i feel like with alice beer fifth but yeah i'm gonna keep it hopefully short enough but i'm gonna let my mom do her comment

OK, well, we're going to stop right there with that comment and answer those questions. And then we'll take the next public comment. So the two questions that I heard were, one is, the last piece on Alice Griffith was sort of, how were the 50 units selected? Have they already been selected? And was that description of the settlement agreement generally correct?

The description of the settlement agreement was generally correct. And the units, the habitability issues are really intended to address units that need to be brought online in order to move them out of abatement and into occupancy. So I don't have details on the selection of those. That wasn't described in the settlement agreement, and I don't have that information.

OK. And are those occupied units or unoccupied?

I'm just reading from the settlement agreement.

OK. OK. So because the settlement agreement is really between the Department of Building Inspection, the city attorney, and the owner.

That's correct. OK. That's right.

OK. And more information on that, you said, is posted on the city attorney website where people can click on the actual settlement agreement.

They can read the settlement agreement exactly.

OK. OK. The housing authority does not have the answer to the question that was asked.

Correct. Relative to the selection of and which of those units they actually are.

OK. All right. And then the first question, I believe, was related to the emergency housing vouchers.

Yes. The selection of the 390 vouchers that are allocated to be offered today, we have communicated that information to all the emergency housing vouchers in a general way, and then individual voucher holders will receive communication as their voucher is switching from an EHV to a HCB, Housing Choice Voucher. The selection of the tenants to receive these vouchers is based on time that they entered the program. So that is the selection process until October 1st. at which point our admin plan will go into effect. And our admin plan sets a prioritization for voucher recipients based on certain criteria. Disabled status, seniors, vulnerability, I don't have the list in front of us, but those were established through the admin plan process that was reviewed here and discussed at length with advocates. So first, we can't use that selection criteria until the admin plan passes or is established, and so until October 1st, it's by order of entry into the program, and then it will be according to a set of prioritizations. Yes, it is our hope and intention to transfer, as I've mentioned before, the entirety of the EHV portfolio to Housing Choice Vouchers. And like was the comment in the comments, the speed and funding sources to do that will depend on outstanding budget questions as we just discussed and reviewed. Okay. But, again, we are using our bridge funding to do that. cover the gap.

SPEAKER 1- OK. And Bennett, I'm under the impression that Joyce has a second speaker on the phone. Yes.

SPEAKER 2- Yeah, Joyce, you just have to unmute yourself again for that second public comment.

Okay, hi. Now it's Joyce. Obviously, you guys can see I'm a lifelong resident here in District 10. And I'm going to speak directly about Alice Griffith because calling it a win for the residents on paper as a victory while the residents are still suffering is not a win for the community. Yesterday, not yesterday, hold on, give me a second. I wrote my note here, okay? So, a new building, financial agreements, public announcements, all of this stuff, they call it a win. While the real issue started when they started building these units. These units, each units, as we look at public records, were almost 700,000. okay and for these residents our residents our community to suffer like this for so long it's just so sad that we can sit there as commissioners and one of our commissioners who lives in these conditions walk in these conditions conditions for so many years and um through all these times um like it's not a win for them And I know because I do a lot of advocacy with the community, which some of the community thought, oh, we're getting the money. The money's coming directly to them because they had suffered until they are told on ground zero that, no, this money is for exactly what you guys are explaining tonight. It's for just the $3 million is for the conditions that have been occurring and situations and how they were living. So what have Alice Griffin residents actually received? Who received it? That's what they're asking. Where are the documents, the results? Because these units, I mean, alone commissioners, you guys know what it costs. Until these residents see it, like in a... in a hole and feel like they're safe and everything that you guys are proposing for them, it's not really a win for Alice Griffin, you know, because it's not like yesterday that it complained about all this and all of this was happening. It just seems to me we had, you know, a street city day and a lot of the District 10, you know, candidates came out and so did Scott and he was up front Was very surprised and was told on Sunday that, hey, you know, you're talking about building more housing in our community. But what about the condition that they were talking about? You know what they're living in? And then Wednesday we get this. Wow. We got to win. We got the five million. So that's that's pretty, you know what? Hello.

We can hear you. Yes.

Okay. Yeah, that's pretty much not a win, you know, for the community, for Alice Griffith, you know, and I'm stating that to say that, you know, there needs to be some real measurements and real results. And like I'm mentioning now that we're from this community. We have seven, eight generations in this community. And if these public comments and the public is not being heard from ground zero, then it's not really a win for them because the conditions there right now and how they're living is really not where somebody like other than commissioner that city which you guys right now live in in these conditions it really isn't a win for for the community thank you no additional public comment for item number seven

Item number eight is the regular business consent items with two consent items. Item 8A is the commission regular meeting minutes of July 23, 2026. And item 8B, the resolution appointing Daniel Adams as the executive director of the housing authority of the city and county of San Francisco. Would commissioners like to pull either one of these items for further discussion? If not, we can ask for public comments on item 8A for the, or 8, I should say, for the consent items.

Yes.

It's both things. The minutes and the appointment of Dan Adams. Well, let me just stress for y'all records. You may sit up here and look at me funny. Because of Ace Washington's advocacy, when y'all was on 440 Turk Street years ago, I'm the one that advocated here at City Hall to have y'all transferred to have your meetings here. That's just how far I go back. That's just a keynote, OK? Now, the other thing that I want to keep it. We're not talking about his appointment? Yes, you may. Oh, OK. So I'm glad that you appoint him as permanent. He deserves it. And so I guess they're going to appoint you over there to be permanent too. OEWD needs a commission to oversee them. They don't have it. his office that's over there, they need a commission to oversee them too. So I'm trying to say what the mayor puts his charter things together, I hope that he put commissioners over them. OEWD and the mayor's office because it just seems like it's a conflict of interest and things that I don't know what the mayor is doing. Maybe it might be good for the city and county, but for the residents and those community activists down here, we're going to have to flip-flop it and have community reform just like you have a charter reform. We're going to have community reform. I've got 30 seconds there. Okay. Let me just go on. I wanted to 17 minutes, seconds. You know, I better wait till the next time. So anyway, I'll wait till the next time. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Washington. Next public comment.

So hi, I'm back. So what I want to say this time is I want to ask you commissioners to not take offense to people that come up and advocate. Advocate for other people's lives. Advocate for their lives. Advocate for people to be able to live correctly, right? You know, just a great few tears. Just listen, right? And that was another reason why I stood up when they said a commission. A lot of people don't know that they can come here to the housing authority and talk about their issues. And that's one of the things that I have been stressing, and I'm going to say that to the executive director and the new deputy director, is that a community engagement person, and not just to talk to the community, to talk to the landlords also, because the landlords don't know what's going on. If there was somebody that would explain the process, and especially since these two wonderful people that I mentioned have made that process work a lot better, we wouldn't have a Howard shortage because people would understand, landlords would understand how Section 8 works. And with Section 8 working, then more people can be housed. So again, please don't. I worry about myself sometimes, because I'm very qualified to do some things in housing. But because I speak out, and I'm not too much like my buddy here, but I try to be polite. But when I speak out, it's like, OK, you won't be getting this opportunity. Right? So again, please, the people that are Alice Griffith and all the other places, when they come here, they're in dire straits. Right? And so just hear them. OK? Thank you.

Additional public comment for item 8? OK. Is there a motion for approval on the consent agenda? And a second?

Second.

Thank you. Roll call vote. Commissioner Cancino? Aye. Commissioner Kim? Yes. Commissioner Satili?

Aye.

Commissioner Lai?

Aye.

Vice President Alvarez? Aye. President Shoemaker? Aye. So moved. Thank you. Item nine, regular business action items. 9A is the resolution approving the amendment of the bylaws of the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco and rules and procedures of the Board of Commissioners of the Authority to restructure the executive staff, update meeting procedures, and move monthly meeting to third Thursday. And this will be presented by our Executive Director, Daniel Adams.

Thank you, Bennett. Again, this is just a very brief summary. I'm sure you've seen the staff report. This is what I consider primarily cleanup language to the bylaws in order that they really align with what we've been working on over a period of years and what we're accelerating now, the integration of the housing authority. with the Mayor's Office of Housing. Again, always will be two separate entities, but really trying to ensure that the functions are coordinated and aligned and that there's clarity over in this currently for my appointment and the mayoral appointment power for my position and the role of the commission in approving that appointment. A few other things to call out. Bennett just mentioned switching to the third Thursday, if you're open to it, every year around Thanksgiving and Christmas. Turns out the fourth Thursday is kind of a problematic time. So we're suggesting the third Thursday instead. also has a nice alliterative quality to it. Also, I want to call out that we're eliminating any standing committee for the past I don't know how long we've had to every month cancel the Development and Finance Committee. And so we're eliminating any and all standing committees. This does not preclude establishing committees. This board of commissioners can establish committees to take on certain functions. And that may be something we'd want to consider in the future. But at least for now, we don't have to send a monthly cancellation notice. And it also changes the titles of our leadership from president and vice president to chair and vice chair to align more with practice and with state law. And I'll just pause there to see if anybody has any questions. about these suggested updates.

If there's no comments from commissioners, we could open for public comment. Item 9A. Not seeing any?

Yes, yes, yes. Okay.

Yep, go ahead.

I'm just saddened that the commissioners don't have nothing to say. I mean...

Please step to the microphone if you'd like to make public comment.

I'm getting ready to get up there, man. Come on now. Don't do that to Mr. Shoemaker. I need to go back to making some shoes. Come on, man. Don't do that to me. I'm a pro just like you are. And I'm going to come over to the mic.

Mr. Watson, it appeared that you were speaking for your blog post.

No, I was getting the camera together. So anyway, so let me proceed. Now, what I'm here to also tell you, commissioners, you have about six developments in my Western edition. You've got Rosa Parks. You've got Plaza East, Hayes Valley North and South, Westside. And all of those projects have been funded by the RAD or whatever the case might be. So when I came here last week, I said, I need a report from you all to let me know how these developments are going. And I haven't got no response back. So I'm going to give it to you in writing this time. I want a report. on the rad projects, all the six projects in the Western Edition. See, I ain't got time to go over into the Bayview right now. I'm concentrating in the Western Edition. And I'm getting ready to do the State of the Fillmore. And it's going to be involving all the projects that's in the Western Edition, including y'all six, housing. So anyway, I just wanted to show y'all the records here. I was with Ed Lee when he was mayor in 2011. I was back there when David Gilmour was being scolded by me. I was videotaping when he said there was no affirmative action, and that was back in 2005. So I just wanted to let you all see my name is Ace, and I'm not just a guy that just jumped from space. I've been here throughout my life, and I'm 72 years old. I maybe don't look like it, but I've been around in City Hall for a number of years. I call it, you call it city hall. I call it silly hall. Because I've been through so much history. I've been through eight mayors. Eight. Do you know how long ago that is? So I'm not up here trying to blow my horn. I'm just trying to give you all some information that you can invite me back to give you some real history of public housing. What was happening here. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Washington.

Additional comments for item 9A? Not seeing any, we can ask for a motion for approval.

So moved.

And a second? Second. Thank you. We'll call vote. Commissioner Cancino? Aye. Commissioner Kim? Aye. Commissioner Satili? Aye. Commissioner Lai? Aye. Vice President Alvarez? Aye. Vice Chair Shoemaker? Aye. Thank you.

And Mr. Hodgson, I just realized that after our item seven, we just didn't take a moment to congratulate Mr. Adams on his appointment as the permanent executive director. And that was an oversight. So I think we should take a moment to do that. So we want to thank Mr. Adams for his stellar service. And thank you for taking the job on a permanent basis. Thank you.

Item 9B, resolution approving and authorizing the acting executive director of the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco to enter into amendment number one to contract number 23-0002 to increase the contract amount between the authority and TCAM asset management for an additional $446,700 for a total not to exceed amount of $1,106,000. thousand seven hundred dollars and to exceed the contract term for an additional two years for a total of five years for asset management consulting services with TCAM asset management we have Karina Suarez the procurement analyst for the authority and we also have Martha Tai online who has some presentations from TCAM as well

Good afternoon, commissioners. Karina Suarez, procurement analyst. The authority is asking to enter into Amendment 1 with TCAM Asset Management for the continuance of their asset management consulting services for the authority. We originally entered into a contract with TCAM Asset Management on September 23, 2023, for a three-year contract with the possibility to extend the term for an additional two years. The authority requires asset management consulting services for its projects. These services include a variety of asset management assignments. including but not limited to its converted rental assistant demonstration program RAD sites, HOPE 6 sites, HOPE SF properties, and other possible tasks. One of the main tasks for this continued contract will be to ensure project compliance to the City and County of San Francisco annual monitoring report AMR standards. We have been using TCAM Asset Management for the past three years, and it has helped the authority keep track and informed on payments by the project and has helped an organization of AMR reviews. The authority staff recommends for the commission to approve an extension of the contract for two more years, for a total of five years, an increase of the contract amount by $446,700 for an increase not to exceed amount for $1,106,700. And the contract would provide for the continued asset management services. We do have Martha Tide, the Director of Consulting and Transaction Support from TCAM Asset Management that will also explain further regarding the asset management consulting services their company has provided for the authority in the past three years.

Martha, we're ready for you if you just want to mute yourself.

Sure. Okay. Yes. Hi, I'm Martha. I'm just curious because this is my first commission meeting. Do you guys generally do the video as well? I just, I can't see sort of what you guys see and what would be most helpful.

So we have your slide deck up, Martha. If you can see that on your Zoom, that's what is available to the commissioners.

Okay. So I don't need to do the video then. It sounds like the video is not going to Like, showing my face is not something that you guys are going to have access to.

I see what you're saying. I don't know if that's necessary. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Very good. Okay. So, first of all, thank you, commissioners, for inviting me to talk a little bit about what we do. My name is Martha Tai. And as Karina had mentioned, I do run the, I lead the consulting and transaction support business at MRI Asset Management, formerly known as TCAM. And today I'm just gonna take a little bit of time to talk about the services we've been providing for SFHA actually since 2017. I'm gonna try and make this very short because I know that the evening has, or for me, I'm in Boston, it is rather late. So, okay. Moving on. Okay, so the scope of what we do, we basically provide asset management consulting services, and that mainly involves two deliverables. The majority of what we do is performing the asset management or, sorry, the AMR reviews, which basically stand for asset management annual monitoring reports. And we do this on behalf of most CD. We've been working with them since the 28 rad sites were converted. And as I understand, this was an agreement that the housing authority. Entered into with most CD, because most CD generally. reviews all of the AMRs, but adding an additional 28 was just very burdensome. So it was decided that this portion of the portfolio would be sort of bid out to see if there are consultants that could take on the work. And that is what we've been doing. So, we started out with 28 sites, and with the 2024 contract renewal, we've added the portfolio to now what is 43 sites. We believe that that number may increase with the current cycle, which is the 2025 cycle. In addition, the second deliverable is a quarterly report on the six HOPE VI properties. Moving on. So, as I had mentioned, the bulk of what we do is really looking at and reviewing the AMRs on behalf of MoCD. After we finish our cycle, after we finish our portfolio, we actually prepare a summary portfolio report. that looks at the year's residual receipt distributions, any policy changes that were implemented, and any lessons learned. So this is a slide from the 2024 report, and actually most of the slides going forward are going to be excerpts of that report. As you can see, in 2024, we prepared residual receipt invoices on behalf of SFHA in the amount of $2.12 million. And this was generated from 16 out of the 43 properties that we've reviewed. On the right, you can see that over time, we have invoiced on behalf of SFHA $34 million over 34 million from the properties. What is interesting is, and maybe you guys have noticed that the most CD amount is substantially less. And the reason for that is because these properties don't all have most CD loans on them, whereas the vast majority have substantial SFHA loans attached to them. So I'm going to pause here, see if there are any questions. Or should I go on?

I think you can continue. We'll just, I'll let you know if there are questions from the group.

Okay. Wonderful. Okay. And so, um, one of the things that I do want to mention about our reviews is that it has evolved over time. Um, so it's really been, we've really tried to be responsive to most of these needs and most CD. the nature of most CD is constantly trying to streamline to make things more efficient. And so over the years, our review has been very focused And I would say now extremely focused on looking over the residual receipt calculations and making sure that the calculations are correct and we prepare the invoices. So that is the majority of the data that you're going to see today. We are asset managers. And so one of the things we love to do is look at the data. And what you see here is a three-year trend of the residual receipts that have been generated. We like to sort of talk a little bit in our reports about sort of what happened, you know, compared to the prior year and what have you. But really what I think is very telling about this um chart this bar chart is the the amount of residual receipts that most cd has been receiving over time and this really speaks to the portfolio stabilization policy that was implemented in 2023. So essentially under the policy, MOCD agreed to take a smaller distribution of the residual receipts owed and let that sit with the sponsors so that the sponsors could then use those funds to offset operating deficits at other properties of the sponsor properties in the San Francisco portfolio. So you can see that that green sort of piece of the pie or the bar has really decreased over time relative to SFHA and the sponsor. I think it's also important to note that SFHA's calculations have not changed. So the policy had no effect on what SFHA was collecting. Moving on. So this is another slice of the data. I wanted to share this because what this shows is how the cash flow is basically concentrated across the properties. You see that, for example, Holly Quartz is clearly the highest performer in the portfolio. And then at the other end, you see the properties that are sort of barely breaking even. What is interesting, actually, is that there are about 10 properties that we have touched that aren't on this graph at all. And that's because they haven't generated any residual receipts for the AMRs that we have reviewed. Moving on. Another thing we like to do is look at operating metrics because we think that that provides additional context for the portfolio. And so we just pointed out two metrics that we think is of interest for SFHA given the hats that you guys wear on these properties. So what we see is in 2023, that you saw a decrease in the NOI. And that actually was very much in line with what we were seeing across the industry and across the country. So we were not surprised about that. What was, I think, encouraging is that on the HAP end of things, that overall it looked like there was the annual HAP increase that occurred. And I think that really is sort of a strong indicator, performance indicator of SFHA and sort of their ability to implement these increases. Because I know just from my experience working with housing authorities, that can be a very complicated process. So yeah, so we wanted to sort of share this kind of comparison. Okay, moving on. Okay. And this, I'm going to pivot to our second deliverable. So this essentially is the HOPE six quarterly report that we generate on a quarterly basis. This basically is a way to do regular check-ins with the Six Hope Six properties and highlight activities on a sort of regular quarterly basis. The first page provides a summary of key financial metrics. based on final audits of the most recent three years. And then what we do is we graph the revenue, NOI, and reserves. These were three metrics that, in working with SFHA staff, appeared to be of interest. And then on the second page, we have a description of the property, and then quarterly updates particularly around any inspections, capital events, and physical improvements that have occurred. So we will reach out to the sponsors and just ask them, the people on the ground, and say, oh, what's happened? And we will put that in. Together, we think these reports really offer a quick way to monitor the financial and physical condition of each property throughout the year. Moving on. So this pretty much concludes sort of my very brief presentation. I hope it kind of gives you a sense of the scope of what we do and how we use the information we collect. Thank you for inviting me to come and talk a little bit, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Through the vice chair, if I may.

Yes, any questions from...

If I might just ask a couple questions. Thank you so much for the presentation. My three questions. One is I noticed the contract is a three-year, and maybe this is a semantics thing, but it may be substantive as well. So I noticed that it seemed like the initial contract was for three years with two one-year contracts. Renewals. Options, yeah, to renew. Two options to renew. Correct. Were they one-year options to renew that we decided to do two together consecutively?

Correct, yes.

So that leads to my next question in terms of I understand and appreciate the work that has been done and the deliverables. It would be helpful to hear a little bit more about the performance. and sort of how did it go through the last, the initial three-year term. I see that a lot of the reports, and this is maybe, perhaps may not sort of as well, but the report seemed to stop in 2024, yet the contract is 23 to 26. OK. And so if these are two year terms that we do at the same time, are we giving up as part of this sort of the ability to actually review annually this contract and just automatically doing a two year consecutive renewals? Could you talk a little bit more about sort of the thought process behind that?

Thank you, Commissioner, for the question. So yeah, we decided to combine the remaining two options because we've been pretty satisfied by the contractor performance. We've been using them since 2017. And there's actually, the number she was showing was 24. There's always like a year sort of gap. because they really have to use the audited financial. So right now, basically, they all have to start reviewing the 2025 financial. So there's always a one-year gap. But basically, this is going to allow us to review 2025, 2026. But basically, this is one of the joint efforts we've been doing with MOCD. They're using a tool that was developed by MOCD. So we do meet with them pretty often to go over the tool. We have access to the tool. And the HOB 6 reporting is provided quarterly to my team. So they've been really helpful in terms of allowing, especially, to meet the asset management requirement. Because through HUD, we have loans, basically, on all these sites. And we are required to do some asset management review for the red side and HOP 6 and HOP SF. So this allows us to meet that requirement.

And then could you talk a little bit more about the performance metrics? I understand there's a little bit in here about that. And I see that the presentation was on deliverables. Could you talk a little bit more connecting that to the performance metrics that are tied to the initial three-year term, if you have them, or sort of report back?

We don't have it. It's a little different from the metrics we have for CVR and PM, because they do daily management. This is more like a contractor where we make sure they do. The deliverable for us is make sure they provide those quarterly reports. And they do the due diligence through the AMR and do the invoicing on our behalf. So in those terms, they've been meeting all the requirements.

Thank you very much.

OK.

Can I just also mention that we do provide the annual summary of each year. So that is available too for review if people want to see sort of what the numbers look like and what we looked at.

And that's one thing we can offer to the board. We can come back next year after they complete the 25 review and we can share the summary report. Other questions, comments? Yeah.

So, I mean, I found all of this data really interesting. And I'm just wondering, what are the action items that come out of this? Do you have, and I don't know if it lives with MOCD and their asset management team or with the housing authority, just are there expectations of performance by property? And then do you have kind of your watch list for the funding that's coming back to SFHA and How do the properties, how have they performed vis-a-vis what was budgeted in general?

It is used, especially I think Martha mentioned the policy that was implemented by MOCD right after the COVID era. That's where we started noticing most of these sites were actually going to red. So that's where MOCD implemented a policy allowing them to keep most of their zero receipt. We could not out of that policy because for SFAJ, these loans are all under HUD regulation. So we have to basically requires HUD approval to make any change on those terms. And half of these loans are really Section 18, so they're really restricted. Even for us, all the funding, residual payment we receive are just in the account where basically we can't even use it until HUD allows us to approve the use of those funds. So for us, we've been using this to monitor the health of the site. And there's some data we receive in terms of vacancy on this site, in terms of the inspection results. So we can validate some of the data we have in-house and see what the site is seeing. So that will help us improve some of our process.

The only thing I'd add to that is I think I would be really interested in working with you, Commissioner Alvarez, analytics around our portfolio and how we're staying up to date on performance at a macro level. This is, since my return to MoCD and coming out of the pandemic, the portfolio has really suffered. And as was presented in the presentation, a loss of operating income is a nationwide challenge these days. On the MoCD side, we are really trying to engage and prioritize our evaluation. I mean, half of our portfolio is running in the red. So portfolio management, asset management is increasingly a critical issue for us. Today's action item is to approve an extension for an existing asset management contract. I think their performance has been really good, and I encourage approval of that. But I think you're right to bring up questions that we can engage in over time about How do we take this information and these reports? And I'm happy to include some global strategies because this portfolio overlaps with MoCD's portfolio. And these are really pressing concerns. And I think we've got to, you know, one of our challenges, we have a very small asset management team. And so on the MoCD side, we have a great contractor on this side. But it's something that we're really looking at is how we how we strengthen those muscles on the asset management side so we're getting more real tight information and can make policy shifts to adjust. Final thing is I do want to, it came up in the presentation, I want to really appreciate Lydia Ely and Jackie So who's the asset manager at MOCD for establishing a set of portfolio stabilization policies that allowed developers, owners to be more flexible with their residual receipts in order to mitigate the negative impacts of increased insurance costs, staff turnover, rent arrears. That's really plaguing our industry. So we've seen some of that positive impact in the report today. And it's not enough, but we're really focused on it.

Great. So we'll look forward to agendizing, at some point, a conversation about asset management, perhaps with our new deputy.

Just quick. I'm newer to this body, so just curious about MRI's local presence and what is the team's role when it comes to site inspections?

Should I talk? Mamadi, why don't you take that?

Yes. The role on inspection, they don't have any role in inspection. It's more on the financial review as a management side. Inspection is all done in-house by Southwest Coastal Housing Authority.

So in the sort of quarterly report where it would summarize site conditions and site inspections, that's reliant on...

That are provided by the owner, basically. They will rely on the data. Based on self-reporting? Yeah.

OK, interesting. OK, great. Second, the request for an informational presentation in the coming months. I think through the chair, I think in particular, I'd be very curious around performance, as mentioned, maybe digging a little bit into the properties that don't see a residual receipt and see if what is the current strategy, just like maybe broad strokes of the levers that are available, that would be very interesting.

Thank you. Great. So we'll work with staff to try and figure out what kind of presentation would make the most sense. And it sounds like we have some interest in sort of both understanding the financial picture, but also we continue to be a little bit confused about the difference between fiscal asset management and financial asset management at the commission level. And I say that, like, including me, just in terms of, like, how is the difference done so that we can understand sort of our oversight role as it relates to physical conditions on the ground. I think that's the thing that we're all trying to get our hands on a little bit.

And just to clarify, you said fiscal versus physical.

Fiscal and physical. Fiscal and physical. This is very clear on the fiscal side, and I think Commissioner Lai's question is similar to mine, which is just trying to figure out How does that relate to physical inspection and physical oversight?

Yeah. Happy to provide that.

OK. Any other questions or comments on the contract? Seeing none, do we take public comment now?

Yes, sir. Public comment.

Item 9B.

None in the room? You have someone online? OK. Joyce, if you'd like to unmute yourself.

Okay. Yes. Could you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay. Commissioners. Sorry. That's my granddaughter commissioners. I am asking for a clear explanation of. Why the San Francisco housing authority is paying an outside company to perform asset management work. That may be handled by qualified employees and residents here in San Francisco. So before approving an additional amount of money to TCAM's contract for another 1.1 million, what as commissioners doing to analyze or the housing authority conduct to determine that this work could not be performed internally or by qualified local firms? I just need an explanation what TCAM has delivered so far, how its performance, what measures, where their local hiring requirements apply, and how this contract has directly improved conditions for Housing Authority residents. If more than one million of public housing money is leaving our community, The commissioners owe residents a clear, just a clear explanation of why, where the money is going and why are, you know, where are these services and how is it being, you know, allocated to the community. Thank you.

Okay. Any additional public comment?

Not seeing any. Is there a motion for approval?

Yeah. Any comment from staff or commissioners related to this? No? Did you want to make a comment?

No, I did not. I was going to.

Okay, great. I'll just note that asset management work like this is highly specialized work, and one of the things that we as a city decided to do when we went through the massive changes at the Housing Authority was to significantly reduced the amount of work that we were doing in-house by the Housing Authority because we found that it was not being done effectively. And so the TCAM contract, like many others, has been outsourced to qualified vendors, and I think that we are seeing the benefits of that result. I think that's what staff is telling us here. I recognize the frustration in the comment from the speaker, but I think it is part of a broader strategy. a very, very low-performing housing authority for the 25 years that I was around the housing authority. And we have just now become a high-performing housing authority for the first time, I think, ever, which is, I think, one indication of the effectiveness of some of these changes. So with that, if we could call the vote.

If we could just do a motion one more time. Is there a motion to approve?

So moved.

Thank you. And a second. Thank you. Roll call vote. Commissioner Cancino? Aye. Commissioner Kim? Aye. Commissioner Satili?

Aye.

Commissioner Lai? Aye. Vice Chair Alvarez? Aye. Chair Shoemaker? Aye. So moved. Final action item is Item 9C. This is the resolution approving and authorizing the Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco to enter into a commitment letter with the John Stewart Company and Catholic Charities Catholic Youth Organization of the Archdiocese of San Francisco for Treasure Island Parcel 1C4.3 for a total not to exceed 61 project-based vouchers. We have Kendra Crawford, our housing operations director, as well as Cindy Evans from MOCD, as well, with some slides for this item.

And Bennett, I'm going to make two opening comments before I turn it over to my colleague Kendra Crawford, who will set up A brief presentation from Cindy Evans, setting some context for this request. I did want to point out two items. One is this request is emblematic of a bureaucratic and regulatory challenge that we have using vouchers, in that when we have existing voucher contracts, that we want to move to a new building and rehouse the same people into that new building, which is the intention here, and Cindy will present on it, we can't just transfer those contracts. It's impossible to just move a voucher contract. And to a layperson or somebody transported from another planet, this wouldn't make any sense. We have a population that is being served by vouchers. We want to move them into a brand new building so they'll be better housed. And we want to use that same subsidy for that same population. You would think you could transfer the vouchers. You can't do it. What you have to do is cancel one contract and issue a concurrent contract and then offer folks the opportunity to move into those new units. In general, if you have a contract of X number of units and you create a contract of the same number of units and everybody moves into those new units, it has no net impact on our budget. It's cost neutral. But in the canceling of the contract, the existing voucher holders have the option to pour it out or take basically a tenant protection voucher and move wherever they want. We're experiencing this same challenge on a number of fronts. At our Hope SF sites, it's the same process, where we're building new buildings and we're offering We're taking vouchers and want to move them into a building. But people have the option to move out. There was a recent project at 1035NS to rehouse veterans. Same process. We're seeing very low poured out. So in general. everybody, or at least most people, 90% and plus, choose to move into the new property. And so when everybody does, it has no net impact to our finances. But when a small portion of folks do, it does mean that we have a dual obligation to support the vouchers that are ported out, as well as the replacement vouchers in the new building. So I just want to spend a little time talking about that phenomenon. We don't know exactly how much incremental financial impact this voucher authorization might pose for the housing authority. But in our experience, it's de minimis. And what we're trying to do is move a voucher contract from one place, buildings that are going to be demolished as part of the overall redevelopment, to a brand new building where people are going to live full and happy lives. The last point I'll make is that there's a little bit of a discrepancy that was called out in the staff report. We learned late that it looks like there are about 60 vouchers that are being canceled and terminated. And we're asking for up to 61 vouchers in this new property. That's what the developers have been underwriting. We'll figure out where that discrepancy lies before final underwriting. It's, again, a very small amount. I'm hopeful that we can move forward with the up to figure just to allow the process to move forward. But there's a little bit of discrepancy between those two numbers. And with that, I'll turn it over to Kendra.

Thank you. So this is a request to provide a written commitment letter for 61 project-based units for a Treasure Island project. I have my colleague here, Cindy Evans, who will provide a presentation for you on the project. And then I'll come back for any questions you have on the staff report.

Good early evening, President Shoemaker, Cynthia Alvarez. Good to see you. Commissioner Kim, Commissioner Cassino, Commissioner, I don't know your name, Satele, I'm going to say, and Commissioner Lai. I'm Cindy Heavens. I'm a senior project manager with the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. Hello, Diane. It's also good to see you, too.

A lot of other people on the show.

I don't know them. I can see you guys. So I'm here with also Treasure Island Development Authority's development consultant, Natalie Bonowit, who many of you know as well. And Don Lusty and Jennifer Wood are here representing the John Stewart Company. The John Stewart Company is the lead developer on the project. They're working with Catholic charity CYO on this new development, Treasure Island. if you don't mind. So Treasure Island parcel IC 4.3, which we just call IC 4.3 for short, is the fourth affordable housing development plan to begin on Treasure Island. It is the second affordable housing to begin in stage two of phase one of the Treasure Island revitalization plan. And in addition to that, in addition to the not to exceed 61 project-based units requested today, there will be 30 units set aside for legacy households, which represent 20% of the building, and 59 new units, including the manager's unit, which represents 39% of the building. Next slide. IC 4.3 will contain 150 units and six-story building. When completed, it will have a mix of studios, ones, twos, threes, and fours, with the project-based vouchers planned for two, threes, and four bedrooms. Specifically, we are requesting 43 two-bedrooms, 16 three-bedrooms, and two four-bedrooms, which to be supported by the project-based vouchers. And that is an actual transfer, as what except Director Adams was speaking about. That's the existing property and what we're transferring over. IC 4.3 will have plenty of amenities, including an on-site child care operated by Chathlet Carities, who is the service provider. And there will be resident services, community room, two open-air courtyards, two elevators, and 23 parking spaces. Next slide. So the existing project-based units are, as shown on the map, are in that location that needs to be demolished so that Treasure Island Development Authority can clear out that area for new development. Next slide. And the existing project-based vouchers have the opportunity to move to IC 4.3, which is shown on the map. And we are very excited about this. Next slide. And parcel IC 4.3. will be completed in stage two. And there are two other affordable developments in stage two. And as mentioned, it's a redevelopment project. And so there are some completed affordable housing in phase one, one of which is Maseo May and Starview Court, which were completed in stage one. And on the Starview Court, SFHA does have a HAP contract for 13 units already. So you guys have done somewhat similar work. And also completed in stage one are two market rate rentals that were completed, Hawkins and Isle House, and one ownership development at 490 Avenue of the Palms. Next slide. So Treasure Island, as I have mentioned, is a revitalization plan of the entire island. And we're asking you, basically myself and the whole team, to participate in this revitalization. Once completed, there will be 800 units, of which 27.2 will be affordable, up to 500 hotel units, 450 square feet of rental and historic reuse, 1,000 square foot of office, 300 open spaces, which A few of them are completed, so if you haven't gone to Treasure Island recently, I encourage you to do so. New utilities, geotechnical improvements, and sea level rise adaptations.

Next slide.

Last one. So if the project-based vouchers are approved today, Jon Stewart and Catholic Charities will apply for SIDLAC Round 3 application, which is due soon, September 7, 2026. If awarded tax credit and bonds, construction will start on June 27 with the SFHA-requested tenant protection voucher survey to be completed three months later, which we're looking at September 2027. John Stewart and Catholic Charities have already communicated to their general contractor that they are required to have mock-up units six months prior to the temporary certificate of occupancy. So they have that in motion. The TCO is expected to occur in May 2029. And we would like to thank you for your consideration of this resolution. I, along with John Stewart, Jennifer, Don, and Natalie, are here to answer questions. Natalie, on behalf of TIDA, would like to make a few remarks just to thank you. And then that will conclude our presentation.

Hello, commissioners. It's really great to be here. Thank you so much for hearing this item. My name is Natalie Bonowit, as Cindy said. Thank you. I'm here as the affordable housing development consultant for both TIDA and One Treasure Island. And I want to say how much we appreciate the collaboration and partnership. A project of this magnitude cannot help cannot be done without the assistance of many, many city partners. We know this is a heavy lift, and we are extraordinarily grateful to our partners, the Housing Authority, and Mo, and obviously the project sponsors. Most importantly, the reason this is such an important project, 60% of the units are replacement units. And we are, once again, super grateful for your partnership.

I just want to make one correction. These are tenant-based vouchers. These are not tenant protection vouchers. So just one distinction in that. Any questions about the staff report or this request?

Go ahead, Commissioner.

Very exciting. I used to sit on TIDA for a number of years. As I recall, I think the master plan was approved in 2011. And if memory serves me correct, I believe this is the site that was supposed to be Mercy and Catholic Charities, or was that a different site?

That's a different site. It's very close by.

OK. Well, needless to say, this is a long time coming. So really glad that this is moving forward. Just curious, and obviously having security and financial commitment from the vouchers will make the project more competitive for tax credits and bonds. So good to hear that. Just curious, I think this is assumed, but I didn't hear it clarified. What is JSCO's role in property management for the site?

Don Stewart Company will be the manager in addition to the developer. Obviously, they're right here, but I just thought I would cut to the chase.

OK, great. And then perhaps a reminder from staff, just to educate me and others who might be curious, in the situation where we are just transferring the vouchers, maybe perhaps describe or summarize for us what is our oversight of the property management quality, quality control. It may not be any different than any other voucher programs out there, but if you could just remind us of what authority we have.

Our oversight would be specific to the voucher units and ensuring that those are maintained in a habitable fashion. They'll have to correspond to the same kind of inspections that are happening that we described at Alice Griffith or any of our voucher supported units across the portfolio. MOCD as the primary funder, then GAAP funder will be the asset management entity for the property. And so as we've talked about before, the ownership entity will be primarily responsible for the day-to-day operations of the building with their property manager. I think MOCD will own the underlying, no, the Treasure Island.

I was going to say the same, which is that TIDA has the ground lease, and there are performance obligations as part of that. And also, all those units are under the rubric of One Treasure Island, and there's an additional MOU for accountability for on-island collaboration and management and expectations.

Thank you for that clarification.

Wonderful. And just One Treasure Island is the nonprofit on the island that provides a lot of on-island services.

And it's through the base reuse agreement that the opportunities became available. And me personally, 25 years ago, I applied for the original Section 8 contract that we are now talking about transferring, even though it's not transferring. And so this is truly an evolution of a long-term plan, and it's an important milestone.

Thank you. Commissioner, any other questions? No? Seeing none. I, for one, am really hoping IC4.3 remains the permanent name. It's just so really great. I can really relate to it.

It has a ring to it, doesn't it?

It does. I just like, yeah, I live in the future. at IC 4.3. OK. Are we going to public comment now?

For item 9C.

Please identify yourself by your four digit.

Yeah. Item 9C, public comment. Not seeing any. Is there a motion for approval?

Motion to approve.

Are you hoping to stay here for the night?

All night. Make a motion. Second.

OK. Satili, first motion. Kim, second motion. Roll call vote. Commissioner Cancino? Aye. Commissioner Kim? Aye. Commissioner Satili? Aye. Commissioner Lai? Aye. Vice Chair Alvarez? Aye. Chair Shoemaker?

Aye. So moved. OK. And on that, we are done. Motion to whatever. What is that motion?

Motion to go to bed.

Motion to go to bed.

Motion is enough.

Time is 6.11. Thank you. Adjourned. Thank you so much.

That was a lot. Thank you.