SFHA_Commission Book_082511-Final

1 | P a g e

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Rev. Amos Brown, President

Mirian Saez, Vice President

Micah Allen, Commissioner

Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt, Commissioner

Ahsha Safai, Commissioner

Mathew Schwartz, Commissioner

Dorothy Smith, Commissioner

BOARD AGENDA

August 25, 2011

4:00 pm

Board of Commissioners Room

440 Turk Street

San Francisco Ca. 94102

(415) 715-3280

Henry A. Alvarez III

Executive Director

.The Mission of the S

“The Mission of the San Francisco Housing Authority is to deliver safe and decent

housing for low income households and integrate economic opportunity for

residents.”

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents MEETING NOTICE .................................................................................................................................. 3

PUBLIC COMMENTS………………………………………..……………………………………………6

SECRETARY'S REPORT………………………………………………………………………………… 7

TENANT REPRESENTATIVE REPORT: ................................................................................................ 17

REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA: ........................................................................................................... 18

COMMISSIONER’S COMMENT ............................................................................................................. 54

CLOSED SESSION .................................................................................................................................... 72

ADJOURNMENT....................................................................................................................................... 73

3 | P a g e

EDW I N M. L E E , MA Y O R

SA N F R A N C I S C O HO U S I N G AU T H O R I T Y RE V . AM O S C BR OW N , PR E S I D E N T


Mirian Saez, Vice President

Micah Allen, Commissioner

Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt, Commissioner Ahsha Safai, Commissioner

Matthew Schwartz, Commissioner

Dorothy Smith, Commissioner

Henry A. Alvarez III, Executive Director

440 TURK STREET

SAN FRANCISCO, California 94102 www.sfha.org

MEETING NOTICE

Thursday, August 25, 2011·4:00 p.m.

1. The San Francisco Housing Authority holds its regular meetings at 440 Turk Street, San Francisco, California 94102.

2. Disability Access: The legislative chamber at 440 Turk Street is accessible to persons using wheelchairs and others with disabilities.

Assistive listening devices are available upon request. Agendas are available in large print. Materials in alternative formats and/or

American Sign Language interpreters will be made available upon request. Please make your request for alternative format or other accommodations to the Office of the Ombudsman and Communication (415) 715-3232 (V); (415) 715-3280 (“TTDY”) by 4:00 p.m.

on the Friday before the Board meeting.

3. The closest accessible BART station is Civic Center, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines serving this location are:

#47 Van Ness, #49 Van Ness, #71 Haight/Noriega, #5 Fulton, #21 Hayes, 36 Parnassus, #7 Haight, the F Line to Market and Van

Ness and any line serving the Metro Stations at Van Ness and Market and at Civic Center. For more information about MUNI accessible services, call 415-673-6142. There is accessible parking across the street from City Hall at Civic Center Garage as well as

across the street from the Federal Building on Larkin.

4. Agenda, minutes and attachments are available at www.sfha.org as well as the San Francisco Housing Authority Administrative

Office located at 1815 Egbert Avenue, San Francisco, California 94124. If any materials related to an item on this agenda have been

distributed to the San Francisco Housing Authority Board of Commission after distribution of the agenda packet, those materials are available for public inspection during normal office hours at the San Francisco Housing Authority at 1815 Egbert Street San Francisco

CA 94124

5. In order to assist the San Francisco Housing Authority’s efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to

various chemical based products. Please help the San Francisco Housing Authority accommodate these individuals.

6. The use of electronic sound-producing devices at/during public meetings is prohibited. Please be advised that the meeting President

may remove any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices

from the meeting room. The presiding officer may remove from the meeting room anyone who is: disorderly or insolent toward any Commissioner(s); boisterous or violent; disobedient of any lawful order of the presiding officer.

7. Requests for public comment may be heard on items not on the agenda as well as after staff presentation on any Regular Agenda Item. Speakers at Board meetings are requested, but not required, to identify themselves and fill out cards placed on the table at the entrance

door. When the Board considers legislation, which has not been considered by a committee, testimony is welcome during the Public

Comment portion f the meeting. Testimony is not permitted when an opportunity has been given at a committee hearing for testimony on an item. The public may address the Board for up to two minutes or four minutes for speakers who require an interpreter, or unless

otherwise approved by the Board of Commissioners. The President, or the Board, may limit the total testimony to 30 minutes. The

Board may not take action on a new proposal, which is not on the agenda.

http://www.sfha.org/

http://www.sfha.org/

4 | P a g e

AGENDA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. Call to order and roll call The Board of Commissioners may hold a close meeting pursuant to California Government Code

for consultation concerning attorney-client matters, real estate, litigation, personnel and security

matters. The board reserves the right to enter into closed meeting at any time during the course of

the meeting

2. Approval of agenda

3. Public comments on items not on the agenda: limited minutes

Note: This portion of the agenda is not intended for debate or discussion with the Commission or staff.

Please simply state your business or the matter you wish the Commission or 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 Commissions’

attention, please contact the Executive Office of the San Francisco Housing Authority at [email protected].

4. Secretary’s Report

a. Report on actions related to public comment

5. Tenant representative report:

a. City Wide Council - senior/disabled (“CCSD”)

b. Public Housing Tenants Association (“PHTA”)

6. Regular Business: Public comment will be taken after staff presentation on each agenda item. Speakers

are encouraged to complete a comment card. Speakers will be limited to two minutes or four minutes for

speakers who require an interpreter.

a. Consent Items

1. Minutes:

Minutes of a Regular Board meeting held on August 11, 2011

b. Action items

1. [Informational Presentation: Status of the Integrated Pest Control pilot

project at the Sunnydale Housing Development.] Presented by Roger

Crawford, Special Assistant to the Executive Director, Executive Office

Public Comment

mailto:[email protected]

5 | P a g e

2. [Informational Presentation: Project Based Voucher Conversion vs. Capital

Fund Financing at Four Properties] Presented by : Barbara Smith,

Administrator, Housing Development and Modernization

Public Comment

3. [Resolution to submit applications to the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (“HUD”) for removal of obsolete units and special use units

from the Public and Indian Housing Information Center (“PIC”)] Presented

by Dominica Henderson, Program Manager, Housing Development and

Modernization

Public Comment

4. [Results of Operations for Period Ending July 31, 2011] Presented by Roger

Crawford, Special Assistant to Executive Director, Executive Office

Public Comment

5. [Status of the Corrective Action Plans required by the Department of

Housing and Urban Development Ending July 31, 2011] Presented by Pamela

Palpallatoc, Management Analyst, Housing Choice Voucher Program

Public Comment

7. Commissioner’s comment

8. Possible closed session

A possible closed session is scheduled in accordance with Government Code Section (GCS)

54950, in sequence

Closed session pursuant to GCS 54956.9 to receive advice from legal council on

matters pertaining to jurisdictional-wide resident council.

Public Comment

9. Adjournment

6 | P a g e

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON

ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: LIMITED MINUTES

Note: This portion of the agenda is not intended for debate or discussion with the

Commission or staff. Please simply state your business or the matter you wish the

Commission or 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 Commissions’ attention, please

contact the Executive Office of the San Francisco Housing Authority at [email protected].


7 | P a g e

SECRETARY’S REPORT

8 | P a g e

EDW I N M. L E E , MA Y O R

SA N F R A N C I S C O HO U S I N G AU T H O R I T Y RE V . AM O S C BR OW N , PR E S I D E N T


Date: Thursday, August 18, 2011

To: Board of Commissioners

From: Henry A. Alvarez III, Executive Director

Re: Responses to Public Comment at Commission Meeting on August 11, 2011

Commenters (Ace Washington and Randall Evans) requested information on the status of the

“Ella Hill Hutch Community Center.”

Staff Response:

The Ella Hill Hutch Community Center, located at 1050 Mc Allister Street, is owned and

operated by the City and County of San Francisco’s (CCSF) Department of Real Estate

Services, 25 Van Ness Avenue Suite 400, San Francisco, California, 94102; 415-554-9860.

All inquiries should be directed to the CCSF Department of Real Estate.

Commenters (Richard Durham and Terry Bagby) commented regarding their difficulties with

resident Abdul Kadir. Additionally, the commenters indicated that Mr. Kadir has a key to an

access door. Mr. Durham also commented that he needed weather stripping on his entrance

door.

Staff Response:

Staff has recommended the residents use the services of a third party mediator (staff is in

process of identifying a mutually acceptable mediating service). Additionally, staff

addressed the issue of the weather stripping on August 18, 2011. In response to the

commenters’ concern(s) about the key to the access door: staff reports this is a result of a

settlement of discrimination and reasonable accommodation complaint reached with Mr.

Kadir, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, (HUD) and the

San Francisco Housing Authority, (SFHA) more than years ago. Staff is locating the

settlement documents in order to review the settlement details, and will take any

appropriate action needed.

9 | P a g e

Commenter (Elizabeth Jones) indicated she would like financial assistance with her summer

youth program.

Staff Response:

Staff will assist Ms. Jones in applying for DCYF, CBDG, and, or other appropriate funding

sources to assist in financing her summer youth program.

Commenter (H. Torres) requested his heater, toilet, and painting be addressed in his unit, and

that his guest not be required to sign in with their government identification being logged.

Staff Response:

His heater was fix this past Tuesday.

The painting of his unit is scheduled for Monday next week. His toilet I will have to get an answer from Barbara when it can be replace .

Mr. Torres’ heater was fixed on Tuesday, August 16, 2011. Mr. Torres and Authority staff

are communicating to schedule a date for Mr. Torres’ unit to be painted and toilet

replaced. Additionally, the sign-in sheet will be adjusted and staff will be trained not to

include logging of individuals’ government identification. However, residents in general

are concerned about safety and security, and as such, staff believes it is pertinent for all

guests to sign in and out when entering and exiting the building. The new log sheets will

include the visitor’s name, destination, date and time in and out.

Commenter, (Karen Huggins) requested information concerning the status of the Public

Housing Tenant Association.(PHTA).

Staff Response:

The Authority is responding to a complaint filed with the United States Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as to whether or not the PHTA is compliant with

24 CFR. The Authority’s initial review indicates that it is not. As such, the Authority is

scheduling a meeting with the presidents of the individual property Resident Councils, to

discuss the PHTA in accordance with 24 CFR 964.105 and 964.115 in sequence to

commence on August 23, 2011.

Commenter (Catalina Cabello) requested a transfer from her current residence at Alice Griffith

Housing Development to Holly Courts Housing Development.

Staff Response:

Staff met with Ms. Cabella to resolve her concerns. She stated that she no longer wanted to

live at Alice Griffith and wanted to move to Holly Courts. Staff informed her that they will

10 | P a g e

offer her a unit at Holly Courts as soon as one becomes available. She stated she was willing

to wait for the next available two bedroom unit.

11 | P a g e

12 | P a g e

13 | P a g e

Overall Assessment - Fail

Summary:

The San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) failed its Stop Loss application for

Year 2 for Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4; therefore for Year 3, we review only those areas.

Our review finds that the agency has not implemented the changes necessary to

pass these criteria for Year 3. The major reasons for this assessment are reported

below.

Criteria 1- Project Based Budget and Accounting – Fail

Operating statements for the period ending 9-30-10 lack explanation for

material negative variances. Further, no corrective action plan is

presented. For example, project-wide Total rental Income for September is

$1,533,079 per Budget but only $389,098 per Actual. Collection Losses

reflects a material (much greater than 10%) negative variance, which is not

explained. Additionally, of the 29 projects reporting financial activity,

including balance sheet values, none of these projects report a cash balance,

raising considerable concerns about the solvency of the projects.

Management Fee Expense is $ 78 Per Unit Month (PUM) of Unit Months

Leased (UML), which is $ 13 PUM higher than the $ 65.07 amount for San

Francisco per the 2010 table of Fees. This represents management fees in

excess of reasonable by almost $ 900,000.

The SFHA charged projects asset management fees when the projects had

reported no Excess Cash at prior year-end. Asset Management Fees charged

among all projects is $ 519,421, up from $ 418,320 at prior tiscal year end

(FYE). The aggregate excess cashdeficiency of $ (10,228,1 17) at prior fiscal

year end raises considerable questions about the allowability of this asset

management fee. Hence, certain projects that paid an asset management fee

were further examined, to determine what, if any, level of excess cash was

available at prior FYE. Several instances were noted of Projects rep0l1ing an

14 | P a g e

asset management tee expense in 2010, while no excess cash was available at

prior FYE. Some of these Projects are presented as:

966

2010 Asset management Fee: $26,662

2009 Excess Cash: $(483, 646)

967

2010 Asset Management Fee: $84, 282

2009 Excess Cash: $ (1,539,418)

970

2010 Asset management Fee: $32, 792

2009 Excess Cash: $ (320, 464)

972

2010 Asset management Fee: $5, 317

2009 Excess Cash: $ (989, 040)

986

2010 Asset management Fee: $ 25, 275

2009 Excess Cash: $ (888, 666)

Criteria 2-Project Based Management Fail

As of November 30, 2010, the SFHA had not succeeded in establishing a

maintenance Generalist position (see previous year’s assessment). In

accordance with David Vargas letter to SFHA of October 14, 2010, one of

the primary reasons for the failure to achieve Stop Loss in Year 2 was the

fact that the SFHA had not established a maintenance generalist position,

which has still not been corrected.

15 | P a g e

The SFHA does not appear to have an effective program to ensure

proper rent collections. The Year to Dated (YTD) 09-30-10 rental

collection losses was 367% above the budgeted amouont (all projects), and

no explanation is presented for this material negative variance.

In addition to the above items, it is unclear from the materials submitted

whether the centralized management services, particularly in the area of

maintenance, are in the best interests of the projects, considering cost,

responsiveness, etc.

Criteria 3-Central Office Cost Center (COCC) – Fail

COCC asset management fee revenue materially disagrees with the

charges reported by the projects. The 2010 Financial Data Schedule

(FDS) – Unaudited was reviewed to assess th efinancial condition of the

COCC. As presented in Criteria 1, above, the COCC is operating upon fees

that are questionable, and material downward adjustments are likely. For

instance, it is apparent that Management Fees are excessively charged to

projects (reference FDS-unaudited ay 9-30-10), in the amount of almost

$900K (see Criteria 1 above). The final amounts are more determinable

upon receipt of an audited FDS for FYE 9-30-10. Additionally, as much as

$519,000 in Asset Management Fees or some material portion thereof, is

likely to be disallowed as well. This would represent $ 1.4 Million less in

revenues to the COCC. Review of the COCC Income statement reflects

only $89, 760 in Asset Managemetn Fees. Since this amount materially

disagrees (i.e. understates) the aggregated project level asset management

fee expense, the COCC income statement and/or project income statements

and the reliance upon them is questionable. So, it is unclear to where the

entire $ 519,421 expensed amount is paid, if not the COCC. These

discrepancies exist among the Projects, and COCC Income Statements at 9-

30-10, per FDS-unaudited. Further, the combined Project(s) reported Asset

Management Fees is no supportable by the associated project level excess

Cash at prior FYE.

Criteria 4 – Centralized Services – Fail

The lack of a maintenance generalist position prohibits the SFHA to

arrange services in the best interest of the projects (see above).

16 | P a g e

The SFHA continues to maintain salary allocations for certain

centralized services, e.g., legal counsel that require timesheet support

and cannot be allocated.

17 | P a g e

TENANT REPRESENTATIVE REPORT:

a. City Wide Council - Senior/Disabled (“CCSD”)

b. Public Housing Tenants Association (“PHTA”)

18 | P a g e

REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA: Public comment will be taken after staff presentation on each agenda item. Speakers are

encouraged to complete a comment card. Speakers will be limited to two minutes or four

minutes for speakers who require an interpreter.

a. Consent Items

1. Minutes:

Minutes of a Regular Board meeting held on August 11, 2011

b. Action items

1. [Informational Presentation: Status of the Integrated Pest Control pilot

project at the Sunnydale Housing Development.] Presented by Roger

Crawford, Special Assistant to the Executive Director, Executive Office

Public Comment

2. [Informational Presentation: Project Based Voucher Conversion vs. Capital

Fund Financing at Four Properties] Presented by : Barbara Smith,

Administrator, Housing Development and Modernization

Public Comment

3. [Resolution to submit applications to the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (“HUD”) for removal of obsolete units and special use units

from the Public and Indian Housing Information Center (“PIC”)]]Presented

by Dominica Henderson, Program Manager, Housing Development and

Modernization

Public Comment

4. [Results of Operations for Period Ending July 31, 2011] Presented by Roger

Crawford, Special Assistant to Executive Director, Executive Office

Public Comment

19 | P a g e

5. [Status of the Corrective Action Plans required by the Department of

Housing and Urban Development Ending July 31, 2011] Presented by Pamela

Palpallatoc, Management Analyst, Housing Choice Voucher Program

Public Comment


8. Possible closed session

A possible closed session is scheduled in accordance with Government Code

Section 54950, in sequence.

Public Comment

20 | P a g e

OF F I C E O F T H E O M B U D S M A N A N D C O M M U N I C A T I O N S EDW I N M. L E E , MA Y O R

SA N F R A N C I S C O HO U S I N G A U T H O R I T Y RE V . AM O S C BR OW N , CH A I R M A N

Board of Commissioners of the San Francisco Housing Authority

Meeting Minutes: August 11, 2011

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. Call to order and roll call

Commissioners Present at Roll Call Absent Late Arrival Time Arrived

President: Rev. Amos C. Brown x

Vice President: Mirian Saez x

Dr. Veronica Hunnicutt x

Ahsha Safai x

Matthew Schwartz x

Dorothy Smith x

Micah Allen x

2. Approval of agenda

Commissioner Schwartz moved that public comment be heard after the staff presentation of an

item.

Motion: Hunnicutt

Second: Saez

Vote: All Approved

3. Public comments on items not on the agenda: limited minutes

Note: This portion of the agenda is not intended for debate or discussion with the Commission or staff.

Please simply state your business or the matter you wish the Commission or 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 Commissions’

attention, please contact the Executive Office of the San Francisco Housing Authority at [email protected].

Public Comment:

Terry Bagby, resident of Clemintina Towers, communicates his concerns with resident Abdul Kadir.

Jim Salinas, representative of the Carpenter’s union encourages the Authority to continue paying carpenters

living wages.


21 | P a g e

Elizabeth Jones, coordinator of the West Side courts youth arts camp, read a letter stating how successful

her program was and requested funding for next year.

Karen Huggins, President of Holly Courts resident council, thanked the Authority for the temporary locks,

and the change in security guard companies, at Holly Courts. Ms. Huggins provided a copy of an e-mail

from Officer Ryan Hart discussing various issues between Holly Courts and Alemany. Ms. Huggins

requested an update on the PHTA and whether they ever submitted the documents requested of them by the

Authority.

Randall Evans requested an update on Ella Hill Hutch.

Charles Durham, ClementinaTowers resident, stated his concern with neighbor Mr. Abdul Kadir. Mr.

Durham requested weather stripping and improved communications with the property manager at the site.

Catalina Cabello, Alice Griffith resident, would like to be transferred to Holly Courts.

Ace Washington, requested information on Ella Hill Hutch.

Abdul Kadir, Clementina Towers resident, submitted a statement to the Commission and stated that he is

not violent.

4. Tenant representative report:

a. City Wide Council - senior/disabled (“CCSD”)

Ms. Ramey discussed there are 22 senior disabled building and only 15 of them have social workers.

Ms. Ramey requested that funding be expedited to put social workers at all sites.

b. Public comments on item #9 Regular Business: Limited to 2 minutes

Note: The public will have the opportunity to comment on new business prior to any action taken by

the San Francisco Board of Commissioners (“Board”) pursuant to the San Francisco Housing

Authority (“SFHA”) rules governing public testimony adopted 2/23/95 as resolution no. 4423.

5. Regular Business

a. Consent Items

1. Approval of the board of Commissioners of the San Francisco Housing Authority meeting

Minutes for:

i. July 7, 28, 2011; June 9, 23, 2011; May 12, 26, 2011; April 14, 28, 2011; March 10, 24, 2011;

February 24, 2011; January 27, 2011

Commissioner Schwartz requested the July 28, 2011 Minutes be moved from Consent to

Motion: Hunnicutt

Second: Allen

Vote: Unanimous

b. Action items

1. July 28, 2011 Minute Approval

22 | P a g e

Commissioner Schwartz requested an amendment to the July 28, 2011 minutes to change the

last sentence under section 7, Commissioner’s Report to: “Commissioner Schwartz requests

that staff be prepared to report to the commission any actions taken in response to public

comment.”

Motion: Hunnicutt

Second: Allen

Vote: Unanimous

2. [Informational Presentation: Status of the San Francisco Housing Authority's 2011

Summer Activities Program] Presented by: Rose Dennis, Management Analyst, Executive

Office

Commissioner Allen recused himself.

Public Comment:

Randall Evans commended all the programs and encouraged more programs to get funding

from within the community.

2. [Resolution authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a one year memorandum of

Understanding between the San Francisco Housing Authority and the San Francisco

Police Department for supplemental law enforcement services in an amount not to

exceed $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2010-2011] Presented by: James Ferry, Security

Coordinator, Office of General Counsel

.

Public Comment:

Randal Evans encouraged more collaboration with the community and SFPD.

Moved: Hunnicutt

Second: Saez

Vote: All Approved

3. [Resolution authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with BBJ

Electric Inc. for standby generator replacement at cal 1-18(10), Woodside Gardens

housing development in an amount not to exceed $168,753] Presented by: Simon Chu,

Project Manager, Housing Development & Modernization.

Public Comment:

Woodside resident, stated that there is no heat in the building and that he would like his

guests not to sign in when they enter the building.

Moved: Saez

Second: Hunnicutt

Vote: All Approved

23 | P a g e

4. [Results of Operations for Period Ending June 30, 2011] Presented by Roger Crawford,

Special Assistant to the Director, Executive Office

Public comment

None

Moved: Saez

Second: Schwartz

Vote: All Approved


Commissioner Saez asked where Public Housing Managers were during the Commission

meeting. The Secretary stated that they were in the Commission Room or outside communicating

with residents. Commissioner Saez encouraged the Authority staff resolves the issues as

complaints are known.

Commissioner Saez acknowledged Ms. Dominica Henderson, who given a NAHRO award for

her work with HOPESF.

Mrs. Henderson spoke about the conference and announced that the SFHA received A 2011

National award of excellence for resident services due to the HOPE SF leadership academy. This

is the first award that the Authority had received. Ms. Henderson recognized that Commissioner

Smith is a graduate of the academy as well.

Commissioner Allen asked who would be the custodian of the plaque.

Mr. Alvarez answered that Ms. Henderson would be the custodian of the plaque and the

Authority would receive a copy.

Commissioner Schwartz thanked staff for communicating that Commissioner Hsu had passed

away and stated that it was a privilege working with her. Commissioner Schwartz requested a

moment of silence for Commissioner Hsu.

Rev. Amos Brown echoed Commissioner Schwartz’s sentiments and adjourned the meeting in

her memory.

Moved: Hunnicutt

Second: Schwartz

Vote: All Approved

7. Adjournment

Adjourned by consensus at 17:25 hours.

24 | P a g e

AGENDA

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Informational: Public Housing

Agenda Title: Status of Integrated Pest Management

Presented By: Roger Crawford, (Special Assistant to the Executive); Kendra Crawford

(Property Manager Sunnydale Development); Cynthia Knowles (CCSF

Department of the Environment

SUMMARY:

Project History

With initial support from Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, San Francisco Asthma Task Force

members first approached SF Housing Authority management in April 2009 to explore building

the Housing Authority’s capacity to provide integrated pest management (IPM), a practice which

cooperatively involves tenants, property management, maintenance and contracted pest control

operators in limiting pest access and harborage to minimize use of pesticides. By May 2010,

Housing Authority management chose the Sunnydale site for an IPM pilot project, and the Task

Force arranged for the Northeast Integrated Pest Management Center, a US HUD-funded

consultant, to provide training to the site’s property management and maintenance staff. The San

Francisco Department of the Environment (SFE) has provided the leadership for this Task Force

project, and leveraged additional US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) funding to support this

project by creating the San Francisco Healthy Homes Project (HHP), with the overall goal of

improving indoor air quality, reducing toxics exposure and instituting safer and more effective

pest management programs in public housing in the Southeast sector – all benefiting residents

with asthma.

Attachments: None

Copies of any attached documents are available at the clerk’s desk

[Continued on Page 2]

DEPARTMENTS REQUESTED ACTION:

None

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION:

None

Agenda Item No.___________

Date:_____________________

25 | P a g e

Integrated Pest Management

August 25, 2011

Page 2

Asthma is a significant public health problem, especially among the poor. According to 2009

CDC statistics, 7.7% of adults and 9.6% of children have asthma, with the highest prevalence

among poor children (13.5%), black, non-Hispanic children (17.0%), and poor adults (10.6%).

San Francisco’s low-income residents at Alice Griffith Public Housing report a similar burden of

asthma: Of those participating in an initial home assessment, one in four individuals reported an

asthma diagnosis. Many factors can contribute to asthma, including mold, dust, pests (such as

cockroaches or mice), and certain cleaning products and pesticides. Field research at Alice

Griffith also indicated that a large number of families have pest and mold problems (44% had

cockroach problems, 37% had mold, and 18% had rodents). Many also live in homes with

structural damage that contributes to infestations, and depend on hazardous consumer products

that do not address the root causes of the problems. Since 2007, SFE has been working to

educate public housing residents in the City’s Southeastern neighborhoods about pest prevention,

safer pest control methods, and cleaning without the use of toxic cleaning products.

The success of pest management depends on multiple factors, many of which are outside of

residents’ control. The most environmentally sensitive, cost-effective, and safe approach to pest

management is Integrated Pest Management, which relies primarily on preventive measures and

good sanitation, and uses pesticides only as a last resort. The City of San Francisco enacted an

IPM Ordinance in 1996 requiring IPM on all City property, and limiting pesticide use to products

designated on the City’s Reduced-Risk Pesticide List. As a result, City properties have

eliminated the use of the most hazardous products, and reduced overall pesticide use by 80%.

Until recently, the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) did not have an IPM program,

resulting in the potential for unnecessary exposure to toxic products and ineffective suppression

of the pests. The HHP is working closely with SFHA to identify policies and interventions that

will reduce residents’ exposure to both pests and pesticides. SFE is helping fund a pilot IPM

project in Sunnydale, employing one of the nation’s leading pest control firms to assemble IPM

plans, implement pest proofing in housing units, and use other least-toxic methods. When

pesticides are used, they are restricted to products that have been previously screened by SFE,

and sprays have been completely eliminated. This project will soon be extended to the Bayview

Hunters Point neighborhood with over $150,000 in support through a multi-year grant from the

CDC. Community input will be gathered through public meetings, focus groups, surveys,

workshops, and trainings on IPM and safer cleaning, and buildings will be inspected so that pest

problems can be pinpointed and IPM plans assembled. Finally, the CDC grant is also funding

the creation of an authoritative set of pest prevention guidelines, which lists specific design

features that can be employed during the design or retrofit of buildings.

26 | P a g e


August 25, 2011

Page 3

A national panel of experts is already assisting in the development of these guidelines, which

will inform future construction/reconstruction of public housing in the City and elsewhere.

Activities to Date:

SFE surveyed pest control and cleaning products available in neighborhood stores and

found many ingredients documented as asthma-causing chemicals or respiratory irritants.

SFE surveyed Alice Griffith residents to evaluate pest problems and use of hazardous

products.

Director Alvarez committed to working with SFE and its Asthma Task Force partners to

pilot IPM at Sunnydale Public Housing Development.

The Northeast Integrated Pest Management Center and its partners trained approximately

six SFHA staff in basic IPM implementation.

SFE provided contract language for SFHA to hire a Pest Control Operator with expertise

in IPM.

The Asthma Task Force and the Sunnydale property manager organized two Safer Pest

Control Informational Fairs in November, 2010 & July, 2011, distributed Safer Cleaning

and Pest Control kits, and educated residents on cleaning pest-prone areas.

SFE paid for an IPM pest control firm, Pestec, to conduct walk-throughs of several

buildings at Sunnydale (approximately 38 units).

Pestec completed pest inspections, assessments and provided least toxic treatments in 14

of 18 Velasco units and provided recommendations for pest-proofing and improved

housekeeping.

SFE trained two IPM Promoters from its Environment Now program to educate residents

about IPM and their role in the IPM pilot. (One IPM Promoter is a Sunnydale resident).

IPM Promoters visited all occupied units participating in the pilot on three occasions;

IPM Promoters scheduled to reach out to two additional buildings at Sunnydale.

SFE encumbered $11,700 to help pay Pestec, aid in IPM implementation at Sunnydale,

and initiate an IPM green job training program for public housing residents.

SFE convened a national expert committee to work on pest prevention design.

Future Goals:

Pestec will return to all 14 units to carry out pest-proofing, based on initial assessment.

Create a formal IPM housekeeping program for pilot buildings that emphasizes a

residents’ role in keeping pest-prone areas clean and free of clutter. (Requires additional

funding.)

Expand Sunnydale Pilot Project to the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood, starting

with Alice Griffith Public Housing.

27 | P a g e


August 25, 2011

Page 4

Work with HOPE SF to incorporate pest prevention design guidelines for new

construction.

Help SFHA adopt and implement an IPM policy for all of its sites and hire contractors

who are only practicing IPM.

Create a green jobs initiative – with on-the-job training through Pestec- to train public

housing residents to implement IPM.

28 | P a g e

AGENDA

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Information- Housing Development & Modernization _

Agenda Title: Project Based Voucher Subsidies vs. Capital Fund Financing at Four Properties

Presented By: Barbara Smith, Housing Development & Modernization Manager____________

Since the last Commission update, plans and cost estimates for the proposed rehabilitation work are being

developed, the HUD disposition application is being prepared, a letter requesting HUD waivers has been

drafted and meetings have been held with residents and advocates. Evaluation of the scopes of work,

financing requirements and HUD processing for two strategies, Capital Fund Financing Program with

Tax Credits (CFFP) or Project Based Vouchers with Tax Credits (PBV), is straightforward. Resident

consultation and securing letters of support required for the disposition application is more challenging.

Residents are being given the attached briefing that has been translated into Chinese, Russian and

Spanish. Minutes of the meetings are posted on SFHA’s website. Following an overview of CFFP and

PBV, the two financing strategies under consideration, residents are asked to give us their questions,

concerns and suggestions. Most residents at Rosa Parks and Citywide Council have supported SFHA

looking for alternative sources of funding and some were very interested in Project Based Vouchers with

an option for residents to request Tenant Based Vouchers after 12 months of occupancy. Most wanted

assurances that:

rent and utility payments would be the same,

existing benefits and tenant protections would not change,

resident participation funds and laundry proceeds would continue to go to resident councils, and

the properties will continue to serve low income households (they are not just being sold for

money).

Attachments: I. Project Based Voucher Conversion vs. Capital Fund Financing

Copies of any attached documents are available at the clerk’s desk



None


None

Agenda Item No.___________

Date:_____________________

29 | P a g e

Housing Development & Modernization

August 25, 2011

Page 2

Most residents at Ping Yuen and Ping Yuen North, expressed some of the same concerns but in addition,

they do not like the idea of disposition, tax credit partnerships, conversion to project based vouchers and

new unknown tenants moving into the properties. They are most concerned about the over-housed

residents being displaced. Ninety-eight of 234 Ping Yuen households and 55 of 194 Ping Yuen North

households are over-housed. Staff assured residents that they will not have to relocate during the

rehabilitation and no one will be displaced because they are currently over-housed. HUD has previously

approved PBV for the right sized households and Tenant Vouchers for over-housed. The over-housed

residents would not have to move but when and if they do move, the unit would receive a PBV for a right

sized household. The financing projections are based on this assumption where only the right sized units

receive the full PBV subsidy. The other units with Tenant Vouchers would receive subsidy based on

household size not unit size.

Additional meetings are scheduled to talk with residents about their concerns. Staff are also working with

the Housing Rights Committee, Bay Area Legal Aid, Asian Law Caucus, Chinatown CDC and the

Housing Law Project to make sure the financings meet the needs of residents and that residents develop a

greater level of comfort with the process.

ACCOMPLISHED TO DATE

HUD Disposition Application (the application is based on PBV Subsidies with Tax Credits but with some

modifications the application could be adapted to CFFP financing with Tax Credits or split into separate

applications if the financing strategies are different)

Environmental reviews for the four properties were completed and signed by the Mayor’s Office

of Housing (Responsible Entity) in July. They have been submitted to the HUD Field Office for

final approval.

Appraisals for the four properties were completed – August 18, 2011

Justification for Section 18 Disposition to allow conversion to PBV/Tax Credits has been drafted

– the change from public housing to Project Based Vouchers with Tax Credits at four properties

is in the best interests of residents and SFHA, consistent with goals of SFHA, consistent with U.S.

Housing Act of 1937, and will enable SFHA to address the developments’ substantial capital

needs and bolster their viability as low-income housing for many years………….

Resident Consultation Meetings (see minutes posted on SFHA Website)

July 18, 2011 Citywide Council – Senior/Disabled Board

July 20, 2011 Rosa Parks and Clementina Towers Resident Meetings

August 3, 2011 Rosa Parks Residents

August 5, 2011 Ping Yuen and Ping Yuen North Board (PYRIA)

August 12, 2011 Ping Yuen and Ping Yuen North Residents

August 15, 2011 Citywide Council Senior/Disabled General Meeting

August 24, 2011 Meetings scheduled at Rosa Parks and Clementina Towers

September 2, 2011 Meeting scheduled with Ping Yuen & Ping Yuen North residents

30 | P a g e


August 25, 2011

Page 3

Drafting Board Resolution that supports and approves the “inventory removal action”. Since this

resolution must be dated after the date of the last resident meeting and after letters of support

from local governmental officials, staff is not expecting to submit this to the Commission until

the second meeting in September.

Completing On-Line Application Forms

HUD Waiver Requests – HUD waivers are only required for the Project Based Voucher strategy. The

waivers would provide a means of allowing SFHA to address situations of current public housing

residents who are over-housed or paying public housing flat rents without undermining financing for the

capital improvements. The request for HUD waivers has been drafted and is ready to be submitted when

the Disposition Application is submitted.

Assembling the Team – Bond Counsel, Underwriter, Investment Banker, Financial Advisor and Special

Project Based Voucher Consultant have been procured. Procurement of tax credit investor or investors

will go forward when SFHA has settled on the appropriate strategy for each property. A Tax Credit

Investor Request For Proposals has been drafted. Addition of developer partners may be considered and

will also depend on the financing strategies, scope of work and ability of SFHA to provide guarantees for

tax credit financing.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY – Estimated potential funding

Funding

Clementina

Ping Yuen

Ping Yuen

North

Rosa Parks

Total

CFFP/EPC &Tax

Credits

$11,262,357

$5,200,316

$3,141,139

$4,242,412

$23,846,224

PBV Subsidies

&Tax Credits

$21,929,968

$13,706,316

$11,511,615

$11,903,012

$59,050,911

PBV Subsidies

W/O Tax Credits

$15,000,000

$9,300,000

$8,600,000

$9,000,000

$41,900,000

NEXT STEPS

CFFP with EPC

Complete initial resident consultation process to develop support for CFFP and/or PBV – 9/11

Determine which properties are best candidates for CFFP with EPC or PBV – 9/11

Submit HUD Disposition application for CFFP tax credit partnership (HUD review 60-90 days) –

9/11

Apply to CDLAC for bond allocation and TCAC for tax credit allocation – 9/11 or 2/12

Solicit Tax Credit Investor – 9/11

31 | P a g e


August 25, 2011

Page 4

Develop proforma with Cap Fund bond structure for debt financing and negotiate tax credit

partnership for equity – 10/11

Submit HUD request for CFFP approval (HUD review 60 days) – 10/11

Submit Mixed Finance Proposal to HUD (HUD review 60 days) – 10/11

Complete construction documents and procure contractors – 9/11 to 12/11

Close and start rehabilitation work – 12/11 or 2/12

PBV

Complete initial resident consultation process to develop support for CFFP and/or PBV – 9/11

Determine which properties are best candidates for CFFP with EPC or PBV – 9/11

Submit HUD Disposition applications (HUD review 60-90 days) – 9/11

Submit HUD waiver request (HUD review 30-60 days) – 10/11

Submit Request for Tenant Protection Vouchers after Disposition Application approval (HUD

review 30 days) – 11/11 or 12/11.

Complete construction documents and procure contractors 11/11 to 2/12

Solicit developer partner if determined to be advantageous to the project – 1/12

Solicit Tax Credit Investor – 1/12

Solicit Lender or bond structure for debt financing – 1/12

Apply to CDLAC for bond allocation and TCAC for tax credit allocation – 2/12

Negotiate partnership and financing structure and close - 1/12 to 3/12

32 | P a g e

ATTACHMENT I

Project Based Voucher Conversion vs. Capital Fund Financing

33 | P a g e

34 | P a g e

35 | P a g e

36 | P a g e

37 | P a g e

38 | P a g e

39 | P a g e

40 | P a g e

41 | P a g e

42 | P a g e

43 | P a g e

44 | P a g e

AGENDA


Agenda Category: Action- Housing Development & Modernization Department_____________

Agenda Title: Resolution to submit applications to the Department of Housing and

Urban Development (“HUD”) for removal of obsolete units and special

use units from the Public and Indian Housing Information Center (“PIC”)

Presented By: Dominica Henderson, Program Manager, Housing Development &

Modernization

Barbara T. Smith, Administrator, Housing Development & Modernization

Summary:

Under asset management, the San Francisco Housing Authority (“SFHA”) must meet certain criteria for

each Asset Management Project (“AMP”), in accordance with recently adopted goals established for

portfolio management and vacancy reduction by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (“HUD”). In order to provide as many families as possible with “decent, safe, and sanitary

housing”, HUD instructed the SFHA to maximize the number of units available in public housing by

leasing up all available units at each AMP and removing uninhabitable or special use units from the

inventory. In line with this latter goal, the Authority will seek approval for demolition and/or disposition

of the units to remove uninhabitable units (i.e. mothball) and non-residential special use units (i.e. service

provider) from the inventory at the Hunters View and Potrero Annex sites.

Demolition of these uninhabitable units is critical because HUD currently provides operating subsidy for

a limited number of vacancies. All of the mothball units are considered ineligible vacancies under the

new HUD rules. Each AMP is allowed 3 percent vacancy rate, including a limited number of “allowable”

vacancies, without financial penalty. With occupancy at 97% or above, HUD provides operating subsidy

at 100% for the entire AMP. Potrero Annex and Hunters View have 137 and 162 units respectively. At

Potrero Annex, eight units were identified as uninhabitable; at Hunters View 11 units were identified, and

all are proposed for demolition to help achieve the 97% occupancy level. This is necessary in order for

the SFHA to continue to receive the maximum annual subsidy for each AMP and to maintain positive

scores during the annual Real Estate Assessment Center (“REAC”) inspections.


Attachment(s): I. Resolution

A copy of any attached documents are available at the clerk’s desk.


Staff recommends adoption of this Resolution.


Agenda Item No. _____

Date: ____________

45 | P a g e

Demolition and Disposition Applications

August 25, 2011

Page 2

Demolition:

A demolition application is the only mechanism that HUD provides for public housing authorities to

remove “mothball” units, or chronically uninhabitable units, from its inventory. There will be minimal

physical demolition of the units as most of them have been cleared out, all window openings have been

infilled to match adjacent wall construction, and all doors have been replaced with locked steel security

doors. Most of the units are ground level and will be completely sealed. One building at Hunters View

has been gutted for about ten years, and staff may proceed with demolition of this building, in order to

eliminate the potential for nuisance, to promote safety, and to minimize the costs associated with securing

it.

Disposition:

The SFHA also will seek to dispose of some units to its non-profit instrumentality/affiliate. There are at

least 12 special use units that serve two childcare facilities and a food pantry at Potrero Annex that are

proposed for disposition. Hunters View has at least four special use units. These units count against the

total cap, as the limit is two percent Authority-wide or about 125 units for the entire public housing

portfolio. Disposition will allow the Authority to maintain control of the properties without having the

non-residential use units counting against limitations imposed by HUD's "special use" unit regulations.

The Authority’s instrumentality will execute a term agreement with the current occupants, which will

allow the units to maintain the same use. Additionally, the dispositions will allow planning for future

HOPE SF revitalization to continue without interruption.

46 | P a g e

ATTACHMENT I

Resolution

47 | P a g e

RESOLUTION NO._______________

DATE ADOPTED: _______________

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT

INVENTORY REMOVAL APPLICATIONS FOR CA001000974, HUNTERS VIEW AND

CA001000971, POTRERO ANNEX

WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) informed the

San Francisco Housing Authority (“Authority”) that it needed to submit an Inventory Removal

Application to demolish and/or dispose of dilapidated and out of use units at CA001000974,

Hunters View and CA001000971, Potrero Annex; and

WHEREAS, the Authority followed provisions of 24 CFR Part 58 in order to ensure compliance

with the National Environmental Policy Act; and

WHERAS, the Authority must comply with certain provisions of Section 18 of the Housing Act

of 1937 as amended by Section 121 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 in

the demolition and/or disposition of any of its properties and obtain HUD approval prior to

demolition and disposition; and

WHEREAS, the Authority must meet and comply with the policies, procedures and

requirements prescribed by HUD for conducting demolition and disposition activities of public

housing units, including requirements set forth in 24 CFR 970; and

WHEREAS, as part of the Application, the Authority must provide for the replacement of the

public housing units and for the relocation of tenants in accordance with the requirements of 24

CFR Sections 970.19 and 970.21; and

WHEREAS, the Authority plans to submit the demolition application in order to remove vacant

and uninhabitable units from the inventory list as maintained in the PIH Information Center

(“PIC”); and

(continued on next page)

48 | P a g e

WHEREAS, the Authority plans to submit the disposition application in order to dispose of non-

residential, special use units to its non-profit affiliate or instrumentality in order to continue to

provide the same services as currently exist.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

THAT:

1. The Executive Director of the Authority is authorized to submit inventory removal

applications for units at CA001000974, Hunters View and CA001000971, Potrero

Annex.

2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.

APPROVED AS TO FORM REVIEWED BY:

AND LEGALITY:

________________________ ________________________

Tim Larsen, General Counsel Rev. Amos Brown, President

49 | P a g e

AGENDA


Agenda Category: Report: Executive Office

Agenda Title: Results of Operations for Period Ending July 31, 2011.

Presented By: Roger Crawford, Special Assistant to the Executive Director.

SUMMARY:

The results of operations for the ten months ending July 31, 2011 (Exhibit A):

Public Housing $ 370,589

Hope VI 592,404

Housing Choice Vouchers (243,897)

Local Programs 96,968

Central Office Cost Center 190,174

Total $ 1,006,238

The results of overall operations reflect a positive surplus of $1,006,238. This is a result of the $2.230

million in proceeds the Housing Authority received from the sale of a parking lot at the JFK housing

development.

Attachments: Exhibits

Copies of any attached documents are available at the clerk’s desk.


None Requested


I concur with the requested action

Agenda Item No. ______

Date: ______________

50 | P a g e

Results of Operations for Period Ending July 31, 2011.

August 25, 2011

Page 2

The Housing Choice Voucher Program has a deficit of $243,897, which results from a reduction in the

Administrative Fees the Housing Authority receives from HUD. Staff intends to make the appropriate

adjustments to balance this item by year’s end. Currently, the HCV program is at 98% occupancy.

51 | P a g e

ATTACHMENT I

Exhibit A-Operating Budget vs. Actual

52 | P a g e

53 | P a g e

54 | P a g e

55 | P a g e

56 | P a g e

57 | P a g e

58 | P a g e

59 | P a g e

AGENDA


Agenda Category: Report - Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Department

Agenda Title: Housing Choice Voucher Department Monthly Corrective Action Plans Update

Presented By: Pamela Palpallatoc, Management Analyst, HCV Department; Nicole McCray-

Dickerson, Acting Director, HCV Department

SUMMARY:

Updates on the Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Department corrective action plans

for the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP),

and Rental Integrity Monitoring (RIM), include the following [see attached Voucher Monthly Systems

report with voucher count and utilization percentages]:


Attachments:

Exhibit A - Voucher Monthly Systems Report for July 2011;

Exhibit B - HAP Utilization Report;

Exhibit C - Master CAP Deadline Chart.

A copy of any attached documents are available at the clerk’s desk.


None.


Agenda Item No. _____

Date: __________

Monthly CAP Update

August 25, 2011

Page 2

July 2011

The PIC reporting rate for July was 97%, compared to 97% in June.

The number of re-examinations completed in July was 823. The number of re-examinations

backlogged in July was 221. The total number of backlogged re-examinations at the end of July was 623

or 0.08%.

The number of inspections completed in July was 952. The total number of backlogged

inspections backlogged at the end of July was 562 or 7%.

The HCV program utilization (lease-up) in July was 96.2% by unit, and 99.9% by Housing

Assistance Payment (HAP) expenses.

The VASH utilization in July was 71.3%.

Other Department Updates

VASH: HCV Department managers met with the HUD field office and Veteran’s Affairs on

August 18, 2011 to reconcile lease-up by unit reports. A follow-up meeting will take place on September

1, 2011.

Quality Control: The Nelrod Company will return for the fourth and final quarter of tenant file

reviews on October 3, 2011.

COMMISSIONER’S COMMENT

POSSIBLE CLOSED SESSION

A possible closed session is scheduled in accordance with Government Code

Section 54950, in sequence.

Closed session pursuant to GCS 54956.9 to receive advice from legal council on

matters pertaining to jurisdictional-wide resident council.

ADJOURNMENT

Documents

SFHA_Commission Book_082511-Final