Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20240713

[roll call] we have a quorum. Thank you. We please call the next item. Item number two, chairs report. I mentioned this, we have been getting our study of congestion management and pricing in downtown San Francisco. We are starting our conversation with stakeholders. This thursday, the policy Advisory Committee for the study holds its first meeting and the meeting is open to the public and will take place between 68 30 p. M. At the offices located at 1455 Market Street on the 22nd floor. For more information you can visit the Transportation Authority website. I would like to thank staff who have visited Treasure Island at various times this year. To meet and do outreach to residents and stakeholders. They did a great presentation. As always, i encourage my colleagues to visit the island and get a feel for how it is being transformed. That is the end of my cherry part. Is there any Public Comments on the report . Seeing then. We please call the next item. Item three, executive directors report. Thank you. I just wanted to build upon earlier reference i made regarding caltrans and director visit to Treasure Island that was the Transportation Authority. I will read it again, it was an honor to be the new caltrans directors first stop in the. We met together with commissioner Linda Richardson as well as district 4 staff to provide an overview of all of the different sustainability features of the new development and all of the work that is happening on the island with transportation choices. We have been partnering successfully with caltrans and our contractors to deliver them on time and on budget. I am very grateful for their partnership. To eric cordoba as well. In addition we talked about things like trying to launch a clean ferry service. We are super excited. We know the residents are keen to see the transit improvements up front in program. The water emergency transfer to a ration of Authority Leader who operates the ferry system they have agreed to apply for sb1 and funds of the summer, excuse me this winter and we hope to hear back by summer if that is successful. We will keep you posted. That would be a compliment to the ac transit buses as well as the on island and shuttles that we are also planning to develop over the coming years. We want to thank eric young, our Communications Director and rachel hiatt for all of the work they have been doing in terms of the outreach they mentioned over the summer. We did a lot of oneonone interviews with residential and commercial tenant stakeholders. We appreciated their kennett input and feedback. We feel like we have been able to incorporate them in our recommendations on the agenda today. Which is the first of many steps we will be taking over the next few months to reach a final conclusion to our policy work around the telling program. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments on the executive directors report . Is there any Public Comments on the report . Good morning, directors, commissioners rather. My name is jeff klein i am a 20 year resident on Treasure Island. I had a couple of questions for the director. You mentioned 200 million of federal money is involved in the Treasure Island project. I am wondering, i know Environmental Justice report was done for the ramps project. I am wondering if you have done a study or assessment for the Treasure Island congestion pricing and told . I have a copy of the u. S. D. O. T. Environmental review checklist. This was under the fast act, 2016. 60 million a year, in particular the technology deployment, the new Congestion Management Technology Deployment and San Francisco managed to get a nice chunk of that, almost. On this checklist, its a short checklist, number five is social and economic impacts, uniform assistance. Uniform relocation act. Will the proposed project potentially result in the displacement of persons or businesses . Yes or no . And, number six is the Environmental Justice executive order 12898. Will he project potentially result in a disproportionally high and Adverse Human Health or environmental effects on minority or low income populations. I am wondering if you have done your Due Diligence on the Treasure Island Environmental Justice. Thank you. Anyone else here for Public Comment . Public comment is closed. Mr. Klein. We are . Reporter aware of the requirements under the and have done so in prior stages for the capital side on the Mobility Management Program that work remains to be done. It is part of the National Environmental Protection Agency requirements and review. We will be doing that once we have a better sense of what the policy configuration would be so we can complete our analysis. Thank you. We please read the Consent Agenda . Items never7, comprise of the adjacent Consent Agenda. These items are considered routine. Staff is not planning to present on these items. If a member objects, and the of the consent items can be removed and considered separately. Any questions or comments on the Consent Agenda . Any Public Comment . Public comment is closed. Can i have a motion on a second . In motion by commissioner ronen, seconded by commissioner viewer. Do we need a. [roll call] we have final approval. Please call the next item. Item seven, approve a total exemption for this is an action item. I believe we have a presentation . No, we are not. Did you want to say anything about the recommendation . Summarize it. Okay. Good morning. Rachel hiatt assistant deputy for planning. Based on the outreach that we heard throughout last fall, throughout this year, we prioritized looking at provisions to support current residence and we looked at several options including exempting current residence from the toll. Based on the demand forecast and the Financial Analysis that we did. We have identified what it would take, only a modest effect on travel demand patterns and the additional revenue needed to provide this exemption. It would depend on what the eventual toll level is but it would range from about 8. 6 up to 24point 4 million over the course of the buildout over a 1520 year timeframe. Based on that finding, we do recommend a policy to exempt to current residence from the toll. We would need to identify specific implementation tools and definitions as part of the toll system business rules which will be brought back to the timma board in the spring. We will also bring back a complete funding recommendation along with the rest of the toll policies in the next six months through a course of several policy actions that would address the remaining policy issues that are undecided. We know we need to identify recommendations to support workers and to support future low income households on the island, and the rest of the toll policies themselves. Hours of operation rate. We will bring all of these things back to you. The action before you today is the policy to exempt the current residence. That includes revisiting of this at the midpoint of development or 4,000 units. Im happy to answer any questions. Think you Deputy Director hiatt. I want to thank you for your extra ordinary work on this. You did give a very informative presentation with the subcommittee. Thank you everybody that was involved with the extensive outreach to residents and for listening to them and what you forward. I think it is very important that current residence no that this is not something that is going to fall on them, particularly at a time when we are still building out adequate transportation infrastructure. Most of the residents of Treasure Island are low and middle income. Many rely on cars because we had, at this point that the is not adequate. We will have an opportunity at the midway point of the development to assess this policy and look at it at that. , the services on the transportation infrastructure that is on the island. I would underscore that we decided we were going to have a revisiting of this, not a sunset this is not automatically going to go away in terms of the exemption. There are decisions that need to be made with regards to businesses, future, low resident and comes on island. This is a very important step that we are taking. It does have some revenue consequences. The board of supervisors will need to look at how we are able to meet the demand and needs of transportation on the island and funded appropriately without relying on tolls initially on the current residence. I want to thank commissioners. Far find walton who sit on the subcommittee for their strong support in coming up with this policy. I do see commissioner walton has questions or comments in then i will open it up for Public Comment. Thank you. I was going to save thing you just said to make sure it was on record. I do want to say thank you to direct chang and the entire staff or listening to concerns. Thank you, vice chair walton. With that. Are there any other questions or comments from colleagues . Lets open this up for Public Comment. Jeff klein again, 20 year resident on Treasure Island. I think the board for hearing my comments. I want to thank supervisor haney and the staff are responding to residents concerns with this resolution and thanks to all who helped to move it forward. While this exemption for existing residents provides wealth and relief, does not address the potential disproportionate and adverse impacts of the toll project on present and future tenants. The logical solution is to return to the original 2,006 Transportation Plan where the developers propose that the toll would apply only to residents of the ti project. It was passed in the California Legislature in 2,008 to allow for creation of a Transportation Agency with authority to implement and manage the congestion toll among other things. The intent of the author of 8981 that the toll would apply to residents of the ti project. Not to existing residents through other drivers. Similarly the Treasure Island project Environmental Impact report to the board of supervisors in tran11. Specifying the visitors would not be charged, that is on page 45. Sometime between tran11 and 2014 when timma was created the toll was radically expanded to apply to all drivers going to and from Treasure Island yet timma staff did not tell any of us residence until 2015 while most commercial tenants do not hear about the toll until late 2018. I urge the board to resolve what would be a huge problem for businesses by returning to the original plan to toll new residents of the project. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you. Good morning. My name is steve stallone. I am from Treasure Island wines and the Treasure Island organizing committee. There was talk about it not just being decided at the midway. Of 4,000 units being built, but also in that consideration we would be looking at where we were, as far as the alternative transit being part of what was going on on the island. The idea being that we really need to have viable alternative transit systems before we start moving into having the tolls. I dont see that reflected here. I am wondering if that was decided to leave that out or what . Anybody else for Public Comment . I will respond to that when we done done. Hello. My name is carol harvey. Im an investigative reporter. Ive been reporting on Treasure Island for the last six years. Treasure island, i understand you have an exemption for the residence. On an island that has one access point to toll businesses, or anyone on Treasure Island is unacceptable. These businesses, vendors, will not go to their businesses if they are having to pay tolls. The businesses have employees who cannot pay tolls. These businesses will not be able to get employees to work for them. The businesses should not have to pay tolls to have people work for them. This whole idea for businesses is simply unworkable, unsustainable, and it needs to be dropped completely in my humble opinion. Treasure island as he have a supermarket. They need these businesses. They need them to stay there, and they need them to be continued there. I urge you not to toll businesses. Because one of my research on this, i cannot see any reason why the developer whose idea it was to redevelop the island, cant pay for these tolls . The residents wont even be able to use the infrastructure they are going to build if the toll the residence. They wont be there by the time this new infrastructure is built. Thank you very much for hearing me out on this. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Public comment is now closed. The question raised about what exactly we are proving in terms of action whether it explicitly includes that when there is revisiting that we will look at the Public Transportation infrastructure in the services . That is certainly my understanding of the language. I know some things still need to be figured out with the business rules on such. I just want to reiterate that was certainly our understanding and our expectation of what the languages that we will approve. Director hyatt . Yes, rachel hyatt. I want to confirm there are a number of points actually in the Development Project where we are required to evaluate, or will be required to evaluate the performance of the program. The first is set out in ab981. That is no later than three years after the commencement of tolling. We are called to evaluate its performance overall including Transit Service levels. What we are achieving an report that to the California State Legislature as well. I do agree and want to confirm the midpoint evaluation will include evaluation to Transit Service that is being provided. I want to reiterate in this action we are taking today we still need to have a conversation about businesses, employees. We arent making a decision on those things today. I appreciate the comment about our continued need to focus on that and understand the realities and the challenges, the equity issues that our businesses face. That will be a conversation we are going to have to have here in terms of a decision that is made. With that. Can i have a motion on a second to approve item seven . Motion by commissioner walton, seconded by commissioner brown. Can we take that same house same call . All right. Will you please call the next item. Item eight, introduction of new items. This is an information item. Any new items . Seeing then. Is there any Public Comment on this . Public comment is closed. Will you please call the next item . Item nine, general Public Comment. General Public Comment . Good morning again. On november 8, 2018 i sent a letter to supervisor kim on the subject of errors and omissions of the 2016 Treasure Island mobility Management Study for the third project and copied the supervisors and executive director. I pointed out that the study failed to mention that 53 poverty rate of Treasure Island residents and instead claims only one third of households although income. They use their wrong standard when they should have used hud housing a fort ability numbers based they used the federal poverty level. Thats wrong standard. If you used it the right standard that would result in 80 of households being qualified as lower income. The city wrongly claimed that Treasure Island driver spend more on transportation than average San Francisco drivers. Claiming 9,000 versus 7,000 a year ignoring the fact that median San Francisco households have more than twice as much income. The correct expense numbers are roughly 7,000 a year for Treasure Island households and 11,000 a year for San Francisco households. These are numbers three years ago. This is a 2016 study. Census data show that the population is with a 53 poverty rate. The study did not cover justice for low income and minority communities which requires federal agencies to consider Environmental Justice in all programs, policies and activities. Director chang did answer that question that the Environmental Justice report will be done. I look forward to seeing it, and reading it when it is available. I hope that is soon. I would just like to correct the record on the flawed study from 2016 as the basis for Going Forward with this congestion program. We need to go back and correct the record on that study and get the numbers right. You completely misrepresented the characteristics of this community. Thank you. Thank you. Any Public Comment . Public comment is closed. We please call the next item . Item ten adjournment. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Good morning. [inau San Francisco department of nau Emergency Management and we are excited to be here today for this event. Today is bark at the park. We have a saying the first time we exchange a Business Card shouldnt be during a emergency [inaudible] San Francisco fleet week is sth only freet week in the nation that combines the [inaudible] with Disaster Response training. We have military, Public Service and community suvs dogs here to demonstrate their capabilities. Rescue demonstration, bomb detection. We also have community suvs dogs here from can 9 compan jn [inaudible] have come back from over seas [inaudible] you will see a wide range of activities. This is seth and he is [inaudible] into my person my name is nob naib this is my military working dog fredy, she is a search dog and that means he has the capability to work on and off the least to locate [inaudible] he will be doing basic obedience. We have [inaudible] moving around, going around going around [inaudible] you have to center have the dog that says i smell it but where is it now . [inaudible] boarder protection agriculture special ist and work out of San Francisco International Airport with my dog floid. Floid is a 6 year old beagle trained to [inaudible] Inbound International flights. Today boid floid will do a demonstration what he does at a airport so well have [inaudible] see if he can find them in the busyness [inaudible] floid is what we call a [inaudible] response dog so while we search passengers arriving floid will sniff bags and sit on a bag if he thinks they have fruit in the bag. Floid as been on [inaudible] the department of emergency managet and Public Safety and police and Fire Department work consistently with the [inaudible] military partner tooz respond to a emergency. [inaudible] go to sf 72. Org. You will find basic guides to good morning, everyone. Welcome to the thursday, november 21st meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. Im gordon mar and joined by Committee Member valley brown. Aaron peskin is unable to join us today. Thank you to this committees clerk, john carroll. I would like to thank john smith for staffing this meeting. Mr. Clerk, any announcements . Yes, thank you mr. Chair. Please ensure youve silenced cell phones and your completed speakerrer cards to be included as a part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the december 10t december 10th board of supervisors board of agenda. Item agenda number one is an ordinance amending the health code to maintain and operate at full capacity an adult residential facility with no fewer than 41 beds and amending the administrative code to establish the working group to advise the board of supervisors and the mayor regarding resident care, training, workplace conditions and staffing at the arf at 887 patrro. Thank you. This item is before us following substantive amendments at last weeks meeting and i want to note that the legislative aid for supervisor ronan is here should we have any questions on this item. Before we go to Public Comment, supervisor brown, do you have any comments . No. Any members who would like to testify on this item . Seeing none, point comment is closed. And can we send this item to the full bider positive recommendation without objection . Yes. And so mr. Clerk, please calls items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 . A resolution approving a mills act for a contract between assessmently a. S. A. D. O. W. S. K. I. , the owner of 2251 webster and a resolution improving a contract of 1401 howard llc and agenda item 4 is a resolution approving an act to property contract of gustov lign divisiogist and a py contract with the Swedish Society of 2861 Market Street and number 6 is a resolution approving a mills act contract between adell fung, Brent Goldman and 2735 fullson street, llc and the city and county of San Francisco. All agreements made pursuant to code 71 and authorized planning director to execute and record the historical property contracts. Well hear something from the Planning Commission on these items but we have a number of folks available to answer any questions that arise, including principal planner, elizabeth gordon, preservation planner, stephanie cicneros, the chief of real property, michael gine and applicants from the properties on howard, patomic and fullson streets in items 3, 4, 5 and 6. The Property Owner of webster street reflected in item two is out of town and was unable to attend today and now i would like to welcome michelle tailor, preservation planner with the Planning Department to present on these items. Miss taylor. Thank you. I will present a general overview and frida present on eh contract. There is local governments to enter to contracts with private owners with qualified Historic Properties and this to agreement provides property of tax reductions to owners of those historic prompts who can then allocate the savings toward a maintenance and restoration plan. It is the only local program that creates a financial incentive for proper maintenance of the citys architectural landmarks and from delaying largescale projects when put off can cause damage to the buildings. Put every local landmark building, as well as those listed on the state or National Register of Historical Places is eligible to apply for the mills act program. The department currently holds 37 active mills act contracts with the largest number in the debose historic district. Buildings under contract include singlefamily homes, multifamily buildings and large scale commercial buildings. Staff has reviewed each of the five applications and Department Staff conducting preapproval inspections working with applicants to revise rehabilitation and restoration Maintenance Plans as necessary. Staff also are reviewed all asks on the merits of five priority considerations. The five priority considerations are a necessity, distinctiveness, recently designated city landmarks, investment and legacy business and im happy to answer any questions about these priority considerations or any other review process. Ththis was built in the italianbuilt style in circa 1800 and applicant completed some rehabilitation scopes for the building including dryrot repair and painting with an estimated cost of 12,650. The proposed Rehabilitation Plan includes inkind window replacement, interior plaster and repair caus caused by exterr leak and roof repair and replacement and painting. Rehabilitation work is estimated to cost 113,000 over ten years. And the proposed Maintenance Plan included annual inspection of the wood siding, windows and roof and Maintenance Work is estimated to cost 2,880 annually the Property Owner will receive an estimated property tax savings of 14,184 and this is a 66. 37 reduction from factorbased year value. This was currently valued over 5 million and was demonstrated that the granting would assist in what otherwise might be in damage of alterations. There is final approval for the federal Historic Preservation tax incentive in 2018. The proposed Maintenance Plan includes inspection of interior stucco, roof, doors and it will maintain character to find features identified in the registration nomination registration, such as plaster details and woodwork. Maintenance work is estimated to cost 31,000 per year. The Property Owner will receive an estimated property tax savings of 66,974 at 331. 2 reduction from factorbased year value. 64 pace patomic street is a contributing building to article 0, debose Park District and a twostory overgarage singlefamily dwelling built in 1899. Theres restoration of front stairs, front door and garage door replacement and the rehabilitation work is estimated a 360,000 over ten years and the proposed Maintenance Plan including annual inspection of roof, gutters, downspout and trim and Maintenance Work estimated 4,000 annually. The Property Owner will receive an estimated prompt tax savings of 22,679 or a 76. 47 reduction from factorbased year value. 2168 Market Street is a threestory wood frame commercial building constructed in 107 by master architect august nordon in the arts and crafts style. This swedish american hall is marked 267. In 2015, the applicant performed a fullbuilding rehabilitation including seismic strengthening and the proposed Rehabilitation Plan includes repair and restoration work to the exterior front and replacement of a nonhistoric door with a new compatible and accessible door at the main entrance, replacing a noncompatible entrance and restoring bricks at the front facade. Rehabilitation work is estimated to cost 95,000 over ten years. The proposed Maintenance Plan includes any necessary repairs to the front facade windows, interior wood elements and roof on a recognize regular basis ans estimated 7 500 annually. The Property Owner is away they will not receive a savings but would like to move forward. Its 2731 to 2735, a threestory woodframe three unit residential building . Article 10, individual landmark number 276 and the subject property was designed in a bozart style by architect james frafrancis dunn. Its contracted at over 3 million and a Structure Report was submitted to demonstrate the granting assumption would assist in the preservation of the property that might otherwise be in danger demolition. It underwent a full rehabilitation by a previous owner including full repainting of all elevations, facade restoration, structural strengthening and reroofing. The proposed Rehabilitation Plan includes dryrot repair of wood elements at the base of the building, restoration of windows and to repaint the exterior, replace roof flashing and full reroof the building. Estimated to cost 305,000. 305,000 over ten years. The proposed Maintenance Plan includes annual inspection of gutters and downspouts, windows, front facade and roof. Maintenance estimated to cost 5,048 annually and the estimated property tax savings is 35,495. A 49. 46 reduction from factorbased year value. This concludes my presentation. Planning staff is here to answer any questions. Also, michael gine from the Recorders Office is here to speak on property tax valuations. Property owners are here to speaanswer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, miss taylor. Actually, were there any other presenters or the other folks are here to answer questions . They are available to present, i think, and each one wanted to speaker. Speak. So we should have the representatives from each of the applicants. Ok. Maybe i could call them up or would you like to help . Sure. Since sally isnt here, we can hear, i believe, sarah for 1401 Howard Street is here. Good morning. Im sarah work and i represent the st. Josephs art society. Its a Cultural Organization dedicated to sporting the arts in our community. St. Josephs art society is compromised of two separate organizations, the art society which is for profit and foundation which is the nonprofit. Both organizations are committed to supporting artists and allowing them to flourish in their careers. We support many 501s in our space and we offer free daily tours to the public. We applied to the mills act because our walls are large and tall, 332 feet, but we take up a small footprint and plan to used funds that we can use longtem for the church. Thank you for your consideration. I have the speaker cards, so adele fang. Good morning, supervisors, im adele fing and im one of the proud coowners of 2731 to 2135 fulsome street. We wanted to announce our appreciate our home, the city and mills act. When we all moved in last year, we started putting aside for typical maintenance items with it wasnt until we started talking to the historic form and alicia turnbaugh that it appeared on our form. They are going to address the wood deterioration and curbed window rehabilitation of the street facing rounded bay, an aged roof including the dome turett around the bay and an overlooked patch growing vegetation due to site drainage. The property tax savings from the contract will help to offset the cost of the repairs and maintenance for a home and we are grateful that San Francisco offers an opportunity for homeowners like us to receive such a financial blessing. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Is marty benson or ted olsen here representing 2816 Market Street. My name is ted olsen and im president of the Swedish Society of San Francisco incorporated in 1875 in california, builders and owners of the swedish american hall, San Francisco landmark number 267 located at 2168 Market Street. On behalf of our board and members, i thank supervisor mandelman for sponsoring our nomination and to the staffs of the Planning Department and Assessors Office for supporting or application for mills act nomination. At the time of the 1906 earthquake, my paternallal earthquake, editor of our local swedish newspaper, was secretary of the society at their scandinavia anhall, across from the main to library. The earthquake demolished that city hall and our hall. They hired a master architect august eugene and similarly, marty benson, on our board, with me today, a former afrasier is s the grandson of the contractor, who together with his son and several others built the hall in a year. Other members of our board have similarly distinguished heritages in the society, the board and the hall and i say this because the entire board has restored and renovated the hall and all of us are committed to maintaining and funding this Historic Building to preserve there is center for the scandinavia cultures to provide a contemporary night spot, restaurant and the citys saloon. We provide occasional Historic Sites for the city and we would support your nomination and im here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you so much. And then, next id like to call gustov ligqist. Im here together with my wife and im the owner of 6 63 patomic street. We didnt realize what dire shape this was in. Its in poor shape. This, however, comes at a financial burden for hour family, the costs that we are prepared to take but any tax saves from a mills act contract, it would help to offset these, of course. Regardless of how this goes, i would like to say thank you to michelle and her colleagues have been wonderful to work with during this process and without their help, i dont know how we would have gotten this far. So really appreciate that and thank you very much. Thank you. We could go to Public Comment and are there any members that would like to speak on any of these items . Public comment right now is for items 26 and those being the mills act items that are presently called and there is not a general Public Comment period at any Committee Meetings of the board of supervisors. The next opportunity for general Public Comment is at a fullboard meeting and the full board of supervisors is a special meeting this afternoon but not in this committee. But we will take Public Comments on items 26 right now. Is there anyone that would like to speak on items 26 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. And i would like to move we excuse supervisor peskin from this. And can we move these items to the full board with positive recommendation without objection . Great. Mr. Clerk, please call item number 7. Agenda item number 7 is a resolution approving an agreement with a nonprofit othet Owners Association known as the civic to code 36151 for board approval on june 30, 2024. I would like to welcome the Senior Program manager for the economic and work Park Development and hell present on this item. Good morning. Im the Program Manager from the Office Economic and workforce development. Im part of the team overseeing the cbd program. This is a Program Authorizing the renewed and Civic Community district. On july 23rd, 201 2013, the boad of supervisors revised the civic center and they must enter into a Management Agreement with the Owners Association of this district. The document is a template use ford all cbds in the city and adjusted for each cbd. The following language has been added, administrative code 12g prohibits Assessment Fund or any other funds to participate in, support or attempt to influence a Political Campaign for any candidate or ballot measure and campaigning government code 1. 126 which was amended to state board membered of a city contractor may not contribute to any of the elected officials that are acquired to approve the contract, the board of supervisors or mayors, City Attorney or candidates for those offices or committees controlled by such candidates, officials for a 12month period. The 12month period begins once the contract is approved adding language to administrative code 12l which relates to the Public Access to meeting for nonprofit organizations and should be noted that the Community Benefit districts largely abide by these ordinances. The general benefit district for the civic center, cbd is 4. 80 . If approved by the full board, this will get Assessment Funds to the cbd in early january, and we will develop 3. 6 million in the fiscal year. Thank you, mr. Corgus. Anany members of the public that would like to speak on this . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. And can we move this forward to the full board with positive recommendation without objection . Great. Thank you. And mr. Clerk, please call items 8 and 9 together. Agenda item 8 is a resolution approving a memorandum of understanding between the city and county of San Francisco Housing Authority regarding the reorganization of the Housing Authority, ratifying and approving a loan, not to exceed 20 million to the San Francisco Housing Authority and any action taken in connection with such loan, granting General Authority to the mayor and the Mayors Office of housing and community development, to take actions necessary to implement the resolution as defined within it. Agenda item number 9 is a hearing to review the performance audit of the citys assumption of the housing authorities essential function, prepared for the board of supervisors by the budget and legislative analyst. First up, i would like to welcome mr. Campbell from the legislative office to perform on the San Francisco Housing Authority transition. Miss campbell. Good morning. I have a brief presentation on our audit of the citys assumption of the San Francisco Housing Authoritys essential function, but also, ill speak to the resolution before you approving the mou between the city and the Housing Authority and retroactively approving the 20 million loan from the Mayors Office of housing to the Housing Authority. So, our audit scope is to sort of look at the impact of the reported financial shortfall of the Housing Authority in 2018 and do a prospective analysis of the citys assumption of the Housing Authoritys functions and just sort of context the Housing Authority, the two major roles are the oversight of Public Housing and of housing vouchers. Theyre about 12,000 vouchers and half are tenant based in which tenants can use the vouchervouchers to rent in the e market or ones which pay for an actual housing unit. So in context of when the audit started, prior to the audit motion, the Housing Authority reported that up to 30 million shortfall in their Housing Voucher Program and a number of contributing factors that we lay out but one was, in fact, problems in the problems made by the Housing Authority themselves. To the shortfall, there was up to 10 million in funding to become available from hud and another loan from the citys Housing Trust fund up to 20 million and that loan, again, is part of the resolution retroactively approving that loan. So, in march, the hud sent a letter of default to the Housing Authority, basically saying that the Housing Authority was in substantial default in both Public Housing and Housing Voucher Programs. The options available at that time, then, were either for the Housing Authority to be placed into federal receivership or for the city to assume the essential functions of the Housing Authority and then for those functions to be contracted out to third parties. And there was a preliminary mou between the city and Housing Authority in april of this year and then, what was submitted to the board of supervisors in july is the mou before you now. How, there were changes between that july date and what youre seeing today and well talk about those. So we identified three major risk areas in this audit. One was the risk of an ongoing shortfall in the Housing Voucher Program and theres a structural deficit in hud Funding Program so each Housing Authority, because of this subshort fall, especially in a place like San Francisco where theorizing quickly. Theyre rising quickly. They indicated there would be sufficient funding to cover this but this is a future ongoing risk. With the second area of risk was the seventh package in the mou before you and it provides for the city to collaborate on a severance package for the edges who wilemployees who will be ted as they are contracted out and the city takes oversight. We estimated that based on 194 employees in may, and about more than 40 of those who were lookterm employed, the cost of the package could be up to 5 million and now in our discussions at that time with the Housing Authority, our understanding was there potentially were sufficient reserves to pay this, but it was not absolutely clear. So that is definitely a risk area. The third risk area is a pension liability, which at the time of the audit was and the retiring Health Benefits estimated at 61 million. Again the projection showed through 2023 that there would be sufficient payment in each year to pay down that liability to about 40 million