OCII staff present MOU draft with Mayor’s housing office to implement retained housing obligations

OCII staff on Feb. 18 presented a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) intended to implement the successor agency’s retained housing obligations in major project areas including Hunters Point Shipyard, Candlestick Point, Mission Bay and Transbay, plus replacement housing tied to “Senate Bill 2,113.” The presentation emphasized coordination steps, a project pipeline and initial budget assumptions, and the workshop produced questions from commissioners and sustained public comment urging stronger protections for communities historically affected by redevelopment.

Sally Orth, Deputy Director presenting the item, framed the MOU as a formalization of practices OCII and MOHCD have been using since dissolution work began: “This workshop is, really a precursor to our budget discussions and really confirms, a, existing practice that we have had for the past 2 years,” Orth said. She told the commission the active project pipeline includes nearly 4,000 units, the agency is working on about 19 projects now, and OCII’s staff estimate of total funding OCII will provide to those pipeline projects is roughly $280,000,000. Orth said staff estimate “we have about $87,000,000 in current and projected balances by the end of the fiscal year” to apply to the pipeline.

The draft MOU lays out a division of responsibilities: OCII remains lead on overall project management and fiscal ownership of OCII-held funds, while MOHCD would provide day‑to‑day fiscal processing (draws, loan payments), construction management where OCII lacks in‑house capacity, marketing and lease‑up monitoring, and administration of preference programs. Orth described the practical mechanics: MOHCD would participate from project inception through RFP and developer selection, loan underwriting and project closeout, and agreed‑upon forms of reporting to track unit counts, affordability levels and funding deployed.

Commissioners pressed for more detail on several fronts. They requested an explicit attachment or exhibit that lists and cites governing program documents — particularly for the certificate of preference program — so the Commission and public have ready reference to expiration dates and other limits embedded in the underlying program regulations. On that subject, staff said the certificate of preference includes an expiration provision and that an extension to 2016 is already written into the program documents; they committed to returning with clear references and the relevant program documents attached to the MOU package for the commission’s review.

Commissioners also sought a clearer breakout of the MOU budget and scope. Orth said the preliminary estimate of MOHCD staffing and services that OCII would pay is in the $500,000–$600,000 per year range and that staff would return with a refined, itemized financing and staffing analysis as part of the budget work sessions. MOHCD staff present at the workshop — Theresa Ianga, Benjamin McCloskey and Maria Benjamin — described roles their teams would play if the MOU is authorized: construction-management oversight, loan disbursement and fiscal tracking, and marketing/outreach and homeownership/Below Market Rate program administration, respectively.

Public comment from residents and community advocates focused on long‑standing redevelopment harms and asked the commission to protect beneficiaries of prior programs. Oscar James, a native Hunters Point resident, asked the commission to “extend that certificate of preference to the grandkids,” and urged OCII to preserve preference protections. Community speaker Ace Washington criticized past redevelopment outcomes and said he intends to pursue legal remedies if the community’s concerns are not addressed.

The workshop is not an action item. Staff said they will incorporate the commission’s feedback, attach or cite controlling program documents where appropriate, and return with a finalized MOU and more granular budget assumptions for the commission’s authorization at a future meeting.