1. home and garden

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Joaquin Torres, President
Jaci Fong, Vice President
Phil Arnold, Commissioner
Leroy Lindo, Commissioner
Patricia Thomas, Commissioner
Ted Yamasaki, Commissioner
BOARD AGENDA
Thursday, December 18, 2014
4:00 pm
Department of Public Health
101 Grove Street, Room 300
San Francisco, California 94102
(415) 715-3954
Barbara T. Smith
Acting Executive Director
“The Mission of the San Francisco Housing Authority is to deliver safe and decent
housing for low income households and integrate economic opportunity for
1
residents.”
SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY
JOAQUIN TORRES, PRESIDENT
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Joaquin Torres, President
Jaci Fong, Vice President
Phil Arnold, Commissioner
Leroy Lindo, Commissioner
Patricia Thomas, Commissioner
Ted Yamasaki, Commissioner
Barbara T. Smith, Acting Executive Director
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
101 Grove Street, Room 300
San Francisco, California 94102
NOTE: DIFFERENT LOCATION
www.sfha.org
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE
Thursday, December 18, 2014·4:00 p.m.
1. The San Francisco Housing Authority (“Authority”) holds its meetings in City Hall room 408, San Francisco, California 94102. However, this
special meeting will be held at the Department of Public Health, 101 Grove Street, Room 300, San Francisco, California 94102
2. Disability Access: Room 300 is wheelchair accessible. The closest accessible BART Station is Civic Center, three blocks from City Hall.
Accessible MUNI lines serving this location are: #42 Downtown Loop, the #71 Haight/Noriega, the F Line to Market and Van Ness, and the
Metro stations at Van Ness and Market and at Civic Center. For more information about MUNI accessible services, call (415) 923-6142.
3. Disability Accommodations: To request assistive listening devices, real time captioning, sign language interpreters, readers, large print
agendas or other accommodations, please contact the Commission Clerk at (415) 715-3232 or [email protected] at least 72 hours in advance of
the hearing to help ensure availability.
4. There is accessible parking at the following locations: two (2) designated blue curb spaces on the southwest corner of McAllister Street at Van
Ness Avenue; the Performing Arts Garage (entrance on Grove Street between Franklin and Gough Streets), and at Civic Center Plaza Garage.
5. Agenda, minutes and attachments are available at www.sfha.org as well as the Authority’s 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 Commissioners (“Board”) after distribution of the agenda packet, those materials are available for public
inspection during normal business hours at the Authority’s Administrative Offices.
6. In order to assist the 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 Authority accommodate these individuals.
7. 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.
8.
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 policy, which has not been considered by a committee, testimony is welcome during the Public Comment portion of
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. The President, or the Board, may limit the total testimony to 30 minutes. A speaker may not yield his or her time to another speaker.
Board procedures do not allow for dialogue between the Board and the public. The Board may not take action on a new proposal, which is not
on the agenda.
2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------AGENDA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Call to order
2. Roll call
3. Approval of Minutes:
a. Special Meeting: November 20, 2014
4. General Communications
5. President’s Report
6. General Public Comment: 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 San Francisco Housing Authority at
[email protected].
7. Executive Director’s Report






Update on Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program
Elevator Report
Monthly SFHA Operations Report
Update on Public Housing Agency Recovery & Sustainability Agreement and Action Plan
(PHARS)
Pest Management Report
2015 On-site Development Meeting(s)
(1) Public Comment(s)
8. Tenant Representative Report:
a.
b.
City Wide Council - Senior/Disabled (CCSD)
Public Housing Tenants Association (PHTA)
(1) Public Comment(s)
3
9. Committee Reports
a.
b.
Development and Finance Committee
Resident Services, Operations and Personnel Committee
(1) Public Comment(s)
10. Consent Calendar Agenda: Public comment will be taken after staff presentation as a whole on
all Agenda Items. 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) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A TWO YEAR CONTRACT WITH FW
ASSOCIATES, INC. AND EDESIGNC ELECTRIC TO PROVIDE
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES ON AN ASNEEDED, TASK ASSIGNMENT BASIS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN A
TOTAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $150,000]
Presented by: Solomon Gebala, Chief Procurement Officer
(2) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO INDIVIDUAL TWO (2) YEAR
TASK ORDER BASED CONTRACTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH RENNE,
SLOAN, HOLTZMAN, SAKAI, L.L.P., HAWKINS, DELAFIELD & WOOD,
L.L.P., EDISON, MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON, L.L.P. , GOLDFARB &
LIPMAN, L.L.P. AND CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP FOR VARIOUS LEGAL
SERVICES FOR A COLLECTIVE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $1,500,000
ANNUALLY ($3,000,000 FOR THE INITIAL 2 YEAR CONTRACT PERIOD)
WITH THE OPTION FOR THREE (3), ONE (1) YEAR RENEWALS]
Presented by: Solomon Gebala, Chief Procurement Officer
Public Comment(s) on all Consent Calendar Items
4
11. Regular Agenda: Public comment will be taken after staff presentation as a whole on all Agenda
Items. 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. Action Items
(1) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO (1) A GROUND LEASE
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (THE “AUTHORITY”) AND
ALICE GRIFFITH PHASE 1, L.P. (THE "PHASE 1 LESSEE"), (2) A GROUND
LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE AUTHORITY AND ALICE
GRIFFITH PHASE 2, L.P. (THE "PHASE 2 LESSEE"), AND (3) OTHER
DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATED BY SUCH GROUND LEASES FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIRST TWO PHASES OF
THE ALICE GRIFFITH REPLACEMENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS]
Presented by: Alicia Sisca, Director of Housing Modernization and Development
a. Public Comment(s)
(2) [RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RELOCATION PLAN FOR THE ALICE
GRIFFITH PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT (CA 00101804; AMP CA001000954)
IN CONNECTION WITH THE ALICE GRIFFITH REPLACEMENT
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS]
Presented by: Alicia Sisca, Director of Housing Modernization and Development
Public Comment(s)
(3) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (“HUD”) THE AMENDMENT TO
THE AUTHORITY'S 2014 ANNUAL PLAN, FIVE-YEAR PLAN AND
CAPITAL GRANT FUND AS MANDATED BY SECTION 511 OF THE
QUALITY HOUSING AND WORK RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1998]
Presented by: Linda Martin-Mason, Director of Government Affairs and Policy
a. Public Comment(s)
12. Commissioner’s Comment and Report
13. Adjournment
5
MINUTES
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
November 20, 2014
SCHEDULED: 4:00PM, Department of Public Health, 101 Grove St., Room 300, San Francisco,
California, 94102
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Joaquin Torres, President
Jaci Fong, Vice President
Phil Arnold, Commissioner
Leroy Lindo, Commissioner
COMMISSIONERS EXCUSED:
Patricia Thomas, Commissioner
Ted Yamasaki, Commissioner
Item 1:
Meeting called to order
President Torres called the meeting to order at 4:15 PM
Item 3:
Approval of minutes:
a. Regular meeting: November 6, 2014
Public Comment

Motion:
First:
John Kelly; requested that his comment following the Executive Director’s report be
amended to reflect his concern that the introduction of more drug-addicted and
mentally ill homeless to the Authority’s housing developments could potentially
increase on-site issues and on-site crime. He requested that his comment following
the Tenant Representative’s Reports be amended to reflect that he was not satisfied
with the Commission’s management of the elevator repair issues. Mr. Kelly
requested that his public comment following the Committee Reports be amended to
reflect that he had requested the Authority implement a rule in the Tenant Lease
Agreement preventing public housing residents from owning guns.
Commissioner Arnold motion to approve, including amendments from
Mr. John Kelly, pending confirmation with the audio recording
Commissioner Yamasaki
Second:
Vote:
Ayes:
Commissioners Arnold, Torres, Lindo and Fong
Nays:
None
Motion passed
Item 4:
General Communications
Acting Executive Director Barbara Smith stated that the San Francisco Housing
Authority (the Authority) had submitted the majority of the 90 action items in the
6
PHARS agreement to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) requesting deadline extensions. She explained that this was due to several items
requiring more research. Ms. Smith presented a letter to the Commission from HUD and
reported that HUD had approved the Authority’s request for the deadline extensions. She
stated that HUD had also requested that the Authority submit their software
implementation plan and projection plan for future Public Housing Assessment System
(PHAS) scores, as well a report on staff’s progress with audit tracking.
Ms. Smith presented a second letter to the Commission stating that HUD had approved
the Authority’s replacement housing factor funds. She explained that the Authority would
use the money to renovate vacant housing units and to assist homeless and involuntarily
displaced families.
Ms. Smith reported that another gun buy-back was being held on December 13, 2014 at
the United Playaz located at 1038 Howard Street in San Francisco.
Item 5:
President’s Report
Commissioner Torres stated that he was pleased to have held the Resident Services,
Operations and Personnel (RSOP) Committee Meeting on November 18, 2014 on-site at
Robert B. Pitts. He stated that he looked forward to holding more on-site Commission
meetings in the future.
Commissioner Torres stated that he looked forward to hearing the Lease Enforcement:
Safety and Security Report which was part of the Executive Director’s report.
Item 6:
General Public Comment


Item 7:
Terry Bagby; expressed concern about rumors that the City Wide Council
Senior/Disabled president Beverly Saba had embezzled tenant funds.
John Kelly; expressed concern about the Authority’s Annual Plan amendment
process and requested that the Authority provide a summary of the substantive
amendments to the Authority’s Annual plan. He stated that Linda Martin-Mason,
Director of Government Affairs and Policy, had indicated that a summary would be
available the following week.
Executive Director’s Report
A. Update on Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program
Presented by: Alicia Sisca, Director of Housing Development and Modernization
Commissioner Lindo asked what kind of workshops the residents from Cluster IV
housing were being offered by the Community Housing Partnership (CHP). Helen
Hale from the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD)
stated that the workshops had been about advocacy and community development.
She stated that she did not know what other workshops had been offered and that she
would provide the Commission with the information at a future date.
Commissioner Arnold asked why there had been few changes in capital planning
during the previous month. He asked if this indicated that capital improvement plans
7
had been completed. Ms. Sisca stated that all capital improvement plans were in
progress. She explained that there had been few changes to the overall plans and that
the development teams had already been hired. Ms. Sisca stated that the development
teams were in the process of refining the plan.
Commissioner Arnold asked if the scopes of work for the Rental Assistance
Demonstration (RAD) properties had been finalized, or if they were still works in
progress. Ms. Sisca stated that the scopes of work were still being refined and
reviewed.
Commissioner Arnold asked if the residents living at the properties were aware of the
pending renovations and the effect it would have on their living situations. Ms. Sisca
stated that staff was not yet able to determine the exact units that would be impacted
by the renovations, and that staff was currently working on this information. Ms.
Smith stated that renovation needs of all properties had already been identified, and
that staff was reviewing all proposed changes to ensure that all changes stayed within
budget. She explained that the final changes had not yet been decided.
Commissioner Arnold asked if the budget for the renovations was flexible. Ms. Sisca
stated that it was flexible, but that the developers had been asked to reduce costs due
to being over budget. Commissioner Arnold asked who was in charge of establishing
the budget for each developer. Ms. Sisca stated the MOHCD was working with the
budget. Commissioner Arnold requested the Commission receive a summary report
on the finances for all proposed housing renovations in the near future. Ms. Sisca
stated that she would provide this information for the Commission. Velma Navarro,
Deputy Executive Director/Chief Operating Officer, stated that the Authority was
still in negotiations with HUD and MOHCD regarding funding for the project. She
explained that the negotiations had to be completed before a final budget amount
could be provided to the Commission.
Commissioner Arnold asked if the service coordinators that the Authority had hired
to work with residents were providing the same services to all housing developments.
Ms. Sisca stated that they were. Ms. Hale stated that the Northern California
Presbyterian Homes & Services (NCPHS) service coordinators had been working
with residents to learn about the program changes residents wished to see. She stated
that NCPHS was offering services to residents to help them with finances and rent
repayment plans. Ms. Hale explained that staff’s goal was to ensure that all residents
would be in up to date repayment agreements before their housing was transferred to
the RAD program.
Commissioner Torres asked if any pest control issues had been brought up during the
resident meetings in the Western Addition clusters. Ms. Hale responded that the pest
control issue had been raised at Westside Courts and that staff had reached out to the
San Francisco Department of the Environment (SF Environment) to help address
those concerns. Commissioner Torres requested that staff provide a status update on
pest control concerns at the housing developments. Ms. Smith explained that staff
had requested a status update from the SF Environment regarding pest control efforts
at West Side Courts, and stated that staff would present the update to the Commission
at the next meeting.
Commissioner Arnold requested that staff present the RAD report in a more
comprehensive way that detailed the progress being made and the issues being dealt
8
with at each cluster. Ms. Sisca stated that staff would do this.
B. Elevator Report
Presented by: Andrew Passell, Project Manager
Mr. Passell provided a summary of elevator repairs and confirmed that the repairs at
990 Pacific had been completed.
C. Monthly Update: Public Housing Agency and Recovery & Sustainability Agreement
and Action Plan (PHARS)
Presented by: Deputy Executive Director/Chief Operating Officer, Velma Navarro.
Commissioner Lindo asked if the residents were removing the smoke and carbon
monoxide (CO2) detectors after the maintenance mechanics were installing them.
Twima Earley, Director of Public Housing, stated that some residents were removing
smoke and CO2 detectors, immediately after being installed. She stated that residents
were charged a fee for removing detectors. Commissioner Lindo asked what other
penalties could result from detector removal. Ms. Earley explained that any resident
who continuously removed smoke and CO2 detectors from their units were
considered to be violating their lease and could potentially be served with a 30-day
notice.
Commissioner Arnold asked if a tenant who is not current on rent is allowed to
transition into the RAD program. Velma Navarro, Deputy Executive Director/Chief
Operating Officer, stated that tenants living in housing that was slated to be
transferred to RAD would be transferred regardless of whether or not they were
behind on rent. She explained that once the transition was made, all residents would
be considered Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) or Section 8 tenants, rather than
public housing tenants. Ms. Navarro stated that HCV tenants who were behind on
rent would be at risk of losing their voucher. She indicated that staff was working to
ensure that all tenants who were behind in rent would enter into repayment
agreements before transferring to RAD.
Commissioner Arnold asked why there were vacancies in the RAD Phase II
properties. Ms. Navarro explained that the vacancies were being kept open for the
purpose of relocating residents within the same RAD Phase I building if the unit
should need repair. Further, several of the RAD Phase I tenants may need to relocate
to RAD Phase II properties. She stated that the vacant units could be leased, if
necessary. Commissioner Arnold noted that RAD Phase I properties consisted
primarily of Senior/Disabled tenants, while RAD Phase II properties were mostly
family buildings. He asked if the Senoir/Disabled tenants of RAD Phase I would be
placed in the family buildings of RAD Phase II. Ms. Navarro responded that the
Authority had hired a relocation consultant to assist staff with addressing relocation
concerns, and that information regarding the relocation consultant would be
presented later in the evening.
D. Lease Enforcement: Safety and Security Report
Presented by: Linda Martin-Mason, Director of Government Affairs and Policy
9
Ms. Martin-Mason explained that several measures had been taken to ensure that
Authority policies were being more strictly enforced: additional training for security
and for residents, installing new cameras at different developments, etc. She stated
that filling vacant units quickly was also important because vacant units became
susceptible to crime and to squatters. Ms. Martin-Mason indicated that the Authority
had hired two new attorneys to assist with lease enforcement. Commissioner Lindo
asked if information about the Authority’s vacant units was being provided to the San
Francisco Police Department (SFPD). Ms. Martin-Mason responded in the
affirmative.
Ms. Martin-Mason explained that the Authority did not permit dogs on site at the
developments and that warning notices would be sent out to tenants who were
keeping dogs in their units. Commissioner Torres asked what the consequences for a
resident would be if they did not follow the warning notice. Ms. Martin-Mason stated
that the resident would be served with a 30-day notice and be required to get rid of
the dog or to submit documentation to prove that it was a service animal.
Commissioner Torres asked if the Authority provided any information to the tenants
regarding outside services where the animal could be transferred. Ms. Martin-Mason
stated that animal control was mentioned in the warning notice, and that additional
information could be included.
E. Rent Collection Measures Update
Presented by: Linda Martin-Mason, Director of Government Affairs and Policy
Commissioner Torres asked if a resident could be evicted for having outstanding rent
payments if his unit still had work orders that remained open. Ms. Martin-Mason
responded that emergency and urgent work orders had to be closed prior to any exparte requests for eviction were made to the court.
Commissioner Lindo expressed concern about the six million dollars of outstanding
rent owed to the Authority by delinquent tenants. Ms. Martin-Mason stated that the
many residents at HOPE SF sites believe that they would not be evicted for nonpayment of rent. Commissioner Lindo asked why the Authority was not allowed to
evict Hunter’s View tenants. Ms. Smith stated that the Authority’s inability to evict
tenants at Hunter’s View made it extremely difficult to urge residents to pay rent. She
explained that HOPE SF had implemented several positive incentives (such as
providing gift cards to tenants who paid their rent for three months in a row), but had
urged the Authority not to evict HOPE SF tenants.
Commissioner Fong asked if staff was keeping track of unit repair issues that did not
fall into the “work order” category. Ms. Smith explained that there had been broken
doors at 666 Ellis that fell into the “capital improvement” category rather than a work
order category, and that the Authority had to hire outside vendors to take care of the
10
problem. She stated that staff was working on tracking this second type of repair item
using the Authority’s new software system. Ms. Smith explained that repair issues
that occurred in a tenant’s apartment were considered work orders, while repair
issues that occurred with the building (front door, elevator repair, etc.) were
considered capital projects. Commissioner Fong asked if repairs in a tenant’s unit
could ever be considered capital improvements. Ms. Smith stated that the Authority
would offer the tenant a different unit in the event that a unit repair issue was deemed
a capital improvement.
F. Annual Plan Amendment Process 2014
Presented by: Linda Martin-Mason, Director of Government Affairs and Policy
Ms. Martin-Mason stated that the notice for the amendment to the 2014 annual plan
had been posted November 1, 2014 and was advertised in the San Francisco
Chronicle along with other local newspapers. Ms. Martin stated that there was a 45day window which allowed the public to comment on the plan, and that the 45 day
public comment period would close on December 16, 2014. Ms. Martin-Mason stated
that the proposed amendment to the annual plan would be presented to the
Commission for final approval on December 18, 2014. She indicated that staff was
working on a summary of substantive changes that would be presented to the RAD
groups and the public sometime between November 1 and December 18.
Public Comment

Item 8:
John Kelly; expressed concern that Ms. Navarro had announced the opening of
the Senior/Disabled waitlist on January 13, 2014. He stated that the Authority’s
choice to give homeless applicants first preference on the waitlist would
supplant Senior and Disabled applicants who had been on the waitlist for years.
Mr. Kelly requested that his letter regarding the elevator repair situation, which
he had sent the Commission by email, be made part of the record. He expressed
concern that the amount of money spent to repair the elevators at Clementina
Towers was lower than the amount being spent to repair the elevators in other
buildings.
Informational Item
A. Alice Griffith Relocation Plan
Presented by: Alicia Sisca, Director of Housing Modernization and Development
Chad Wakefield, Project Manager for Overland, Pacific, and Cutler (OPC), stated that his
firm assisted organizations with relocation planning. Mr. Wakefield stated that the
relocation for Alice Griffith was being funded with money from the Lennar Development
Company as required by the City and County of San Francisco. He stated that the
relocation plan had been posted on November 10, 2014, and allowed for a 30-day public
comment period. Mr. Wakefield stated that staff met twice a month with the relocation
working group to discuss the plan, and that Alice Griffith residents were allowed to
attend the meeting to ask questions about the relocation. He explained that a draft copy of
the plan was available in English and Spanish for interested parties and residents to
11
review. Mr. Wakefield explained that OPC was required to respond to all comments that
were submitted during the 30-day period. He stated that staff would bring the relocation
plan before the Commission on December 18, 2014 for final approval.
Public Comment

Item 9:
None
Tenant Representative Report
A. City Wide Council – Senior/Disabled (“CCSD”)
B. Public Housing Tenants Associate (“PHTA”)
Both representatives were excused from the meeting.
Public Comment

Item 10:
John Kelly; expressed concern that the Authority’s annual plan did not address the
issue of domestic violence in the housing developments. He submitted a letter to the
Commission regarding his concerns. Mr. Kelly stated that the Authority’s annual
plan was not in compliance with HUD’s regulations regarding domestic violence.
Committee Report
A. Development and Finance Committee (D&F)
Commissioner Arnold stated that the Development and Finance (D&F) committee had
met on November 12, 2014. He reported that four of the items during the meeting were
recommended for the consent calendar and that two were recommended for the Regular
Agenda.
B. Resident Services, Operations and Personnel Committee (RSOP)
Commissioner Lindo stated that the Resident Services, Operations and Personnel
(RSOP) Committee Meeting had been held on November 18, 2014 at Robert B. Pitts. He
reported that several officers from the SFPD had reported on the increase in car breakins throughout the City of San Francisco. Commissioner Lindo stated that the SFPD
officers recommended that the public keep their cars clear of valuables. He reported that
two SFPD officers from the Plaza East housing development hade spoken about the
challenges that they faced on the job. Commissioner Lindo indicated that the officers
had explained that only a small percentage of residents at the developments were
causing problems, and that the majority of residents were good people. He stated that the
SFPD officers were very pleased with the quality of the Watchtower Cameras provided
by the Authority. Commissioner Lindo also reported that maintenance workers were
facing numerous obstacles related to the buildings at Sunnydale being old. He expressed
concern that residents were continuously removing smoke and CO2 detectors that were
being installed for the safety of the residents. Commissioner Lindo commended Linda
Martin-Mason and staff for their continued attempts to make sure residents were
keeping up to date on rent.
12
Public Comment

None
Ms. Smith asked to be excused from the meeting because her presence was required at
another Authority related meeting and requested that Linda Martin-Mason take her
place.
Commissioner Torres requested that Ms. Navarro comment on the Section 8
Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) that had been presented at the RSOP
meeting on November 18, 2014. Ms. Navarro stated SEMAP rated the efficiency of the
Authority’s Section 8 program operations based on a 30-point system. She explained
that the Authority had not received a good SEMAP score, and that staff was working to
ensure that the score would be improved in 2015.
Item 11:
Consent Calendar Agenda: Public comment will be taken after staff presentation as a
whole on all Agenda Items. 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) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL
OF A PARCEL MAP APPLICATION TO THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO CREATE (I)
THREE SEPARATE PARCELS AT 430 AND 440 TURK STREET, SAN
FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA (THE "PROPERTY"); A RESIDENTIAL
PARCEL, A COMMERCIAL PARCEL, AND A LAND PARCEL; AND
(II) CERTAIN EASEMENTS AND LICENSES FOR PARKING AND
UTILITIES RELATED TO SUCH PARCELS: IN CONNECTION WITH
THE RENOVATION AND REHABILITATION OF THE PROPERTY AT
CLUSTER 4 (TENDERLOIN AND SOUTH OF MARKET CLUSTER)
UNDER THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION
(RAD) PROGRAM
(2) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENSE OF
ANNUAL MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT FOR YEAR
ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2015 IN THE AMOUNT OF $93,015]
Commissioner Torres requested that Jennifer Peloso, Acting Commission Clerk,
ask for public comment at the end of all consent items. Dianne Jackson Mclean
of Goldfarb & Lipman stated that the Commission could allow for public
comment to be taken after each consent item was read but that this decision was
ultimately at the discretion of the President of the Commission. Commissioner
Torres stated that public comment would be taken at the end of all consent
items.
13
(3) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO INCREASE THE DOLLAR VALUE OF
THE CONTRACTS WITH SOUTHWEST HAZARD CONTROL, INC.
(CONTRACT #13-0008) AND QUALITY ASBESTOS CONTROL, INC.
(CONTRACT #13-0009) BY $10,000 EACH FOR THE ONGOING NEED
FOR ABATEMENT OF LEAD BASED PAINT FOR A TOTAL
CONTRACT VALUE WITH A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $35,000
EACH THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2015]
(4) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT THE SECTION EIGHT
MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM CERTIFICATION TO THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR END 2014]
(5) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT THE SECTION EIGHT
MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM CERTIFICATION TO THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR END 2014]
Public Comment

None
Motion:
First:
Commissioner Arnold motioned for approval of the
entire consent calendar
Commissioner Fong
Second:
Vote:
Ayes:
Commissioners Arnold, Torres, Lindo and Fong
Nays:
None
Motion passed
Item 12:
Regular agenda: Public comment will be taken after staff presentation as a whole on all
Agenda Items. 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. Action Items
(1) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONSULTING CONTRACT
WITH
FORD
&
BONILLA
TO
PERFORM
AN
OVERALL
COMMUNICATIONS ASSESSMENT, DEVELOP COMMUNICATION AND
RESIDENT ENGAGEMENT PLANS, ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANS, ACT AS THE POINT OF CONTACT
FOR EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS AND ASSIST IN RE-IMAGING
THE AUTHORITY FOR A ONE (1) YEAR CONTRACT WITH THE OPTION
14
OF UP TO FOUR, ONE (1) YEAR RENEWALS WITH A CONTRACT VALUE
NOT-TO-EXCEED $ 151,840 ANNUALLY]
Presented by: Velma Navarro, Deputy Executive Director/Chief Operating Officer
Rolando Bonilla and Perla Rodriguez of Ford & Bonilla explained that their public
relations firm would assist the Authority with resident communications, public image,
and media presence. Ms. Rodriguez stated that Ford & Bonilla’s goal would be to
improve the Authority’s relationship with residents and with the public.
Commissioner Arnold asked if Ms. Rodriguez would be the main point of contact for
the Authority. Ms. Rodriguez stated that she would be, and that the Authority would
also benefit from the expertise of other members of the Ford & Bonilla team.
Commissioner Torres asked Ms. Rodriguez how she assessed the current public
perception of the Authority. Ms. Rodriguez stated that the coverage of the Authority
had not been very positive. She stated that the Authority required a stronger voice and
more proactive effort to engage the media. Ms. Rodriguez stated that the Authority had
many positive accomplishments that could be brought to the public’s attention, and that
the Authority’s residents could be made more aware of the positive changes that the
Authority had implemented. Commissioner Torres asked if the Authority’s media
issues were unusual. Mr. Bonilla stated that the Authority’s media issues were typical
of most government organizations that focused on work rather than on public image.
Ms. Rodriguez stated that Ford & Bonilla intended to hire residents to be “Content
Ambassadors” and provide a resident’s prospective on Authority activities.
Commissioner Torres stated that he looked forward to working with Ford & Bonilla
Public Comment
 Randall Glock; spoke in support of the resolution
Motion:
First:
Commissioner Fong
Second:
Commissioner Arnold
Vote:
Ayes:
Commissioners Arnold, Torres, Lindo and Fong
Nays:
None
Motion passed
(2) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONSULTING CONTRACT
WITH IFH SOLUTIONS, INC. TO SERVE AS A DEDICATED SOFTWARE
CONVERSION PROJECT MANAGER PROVIDING OVERSIGHT AND
CONVERSION MANAGEMENT OVER THE AUTHORITY’S SOFTWARE
15
CONVERSION FROM GILSON SOFTWARE TO EMPHASYS SOFTWARE
FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR WITH, CERTAIN OPTIONS TO EXTEND
UNTIL PROJECT COMPLETION, IN A CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT-TOEXCEED $300,000]
Presented by: Velma Navarro, Deputy Executive Director/Chief Operating Officer
Ms. Navarro stated that the Authority needed a project manager to oversee the
Authority’s data conversion from Gilson Software to Emphasys Software. She
explained that the project manager would oversee the process to ensure that all data
was transferred accurately and in a timely manner.
Jessica Porter of Innovative Financial Housing (IFH) Solutions Inc. stated that she
would act as the Authority’s project manager. She stated that IFH Solutions Inc. had
extensive experience working with HUD and with public housing agencies. Ms. Porter
stated that IFH would create a steering committee to oversee the entire process and
ensure that all data was transferred accurately and on time, and that the project
remained within budget.
Commissioner Arnold asked if IFH had any experience working with Emphasys
Software. Ms. Porter stated that she had worked with Emphasys at other housing
authorities.
Public Comment

None
Motion:
First:
Commissioner Arnold
Second:
Commissioner Fong
Vote:
Ayes:
Commissioners Arnold, Torres, Lindo and Fong
Nays:
None
Motion passed
(3) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A TWO (2) YEAR
CONTRACT WITH NAN MCKAY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TO
PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO RENTAL
ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION RELOCATION, WITH THREE (3),
ONE (1) YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $300,000]
Presented by: Velma Navarro, Deputy Executive Director/Chief Operating Officer
16
Ms. Navarro stated that the Authority needed a RAD relocation consultant to work with
developers and MOHCD to ensure that the Authority was consistent and transparent in
the relocation operations. She explained that the consultant would also maintain
communication with residents and ensure that the Authority complied with all HUD
regulations during the relocation process.
Carrol Vaughn, Vice President of Nan McKay & Associates, stated that Nan McKay
had extensive experience working with public housing agencies. She stated that each
relocation plan would be tailored to fit each site and that a resident communication plan
would be developed for each project.
Commissioner Arnold asked if Nan McKay would have the authority to enforce
process uniformity. Ms. Vaughn stated that her position involved overseeing the
processes and that the Authority maintained the power to make adjustments to the
relocation plan.
Commissioner Torres asked if the Authority was coordinating with MOHCD on the
relocation plan. Ms. Navarro stated that the Authority was coordinating with MOHCD.
Commissioner Torres asked if the developers were aware that the Authority was
moving forward with the relocation process. Ms. Navarro stated that they were.
Public Comment

None
Motion:
First:
Commissioner Lindo
Second:
Commissioner Arnold
Vote:
Ayes:
Commissioners Arnold, Torres, Lindo and Fong
Nays:
None
Motion passed
(4) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO INCREASE CONTRACT #11-039 AS
REVISED BY MODIFICATIONS #1, #2, AND #3 WITH THE LAW
OFFICES OF GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLP BY $87,192 FOR
CONTINUED LEGAL NEEDS RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT AND
GENERAL COUNSEL FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF
$1,136,143]
Presented by: Solomon Gebala, Chief Procurement Officer
Mr. Gebala stated that the total dollar figure for the “not-to-exceed” was incorrect, and
should be increased by $5000.
17
Commissioner Fong asked for the total procurement of the contract. Mr. Gebala stated
that the total procurement amount for the contract had been accumulated over a four
year period.
Commissioner Arnold asked for a dollar amount estimate of the total contract,
including the $5,000. Mr. Gebala stated that the total dollar amount was approximately
$1, 141,143.
Public Comment

None
Motion:
First:
Commissioner Arnold motion to approve, with
amendments to the total dollar amount.
Commissioner Fong
Second:
Vote:
Ayes:
Commissioners Arnold, Torres, Lindo and Fong
Nays:
None
Motion passed
(5) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO INCREASE CONTRACT #13-0005
REVISED BY MODIFICATIONS #1, #2, AND #3 WITH THE LAW
OFFICES OF CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP BY $22,252 FOR
CONTINUED HUMAN RESOURCES LEGAL NEEDS FOR A NOT TO
EXCEED AMOUNT OF $305,153]
Presented by: Solomon Gebala, Chief Procurement Officer
Mr. Gebala stated that the contracts with Cornerstone Law Group needed to be
extended because the original amount stated in the original contract had not covered all
legal advice expenses. He explained that additional RAD related legal advice had been
needed. Mr. Gebala explained that the contract increase was being transferred from a
different legal budget and was therefore not exceeding the overall budget.
Public Comment

None
18
Motion:
First:
Commissioner Lindo
Second:
Commissioner Arnold
Vote:
Ayes:
Commissioners Arnold, Torres, Lindo and Fong
Nays:
None
Motion passed
(6) [RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO INCREASE THE VALUE FOR THE
CONTRACTS WITH ANNETTIE MACHUCA & ASSOCIATES (CONTRACT
#14-0025 A) AND CASTERLINE ASSOCIATES P.C. (CONTRACT #14-0025 B)
BY $423,000 FOR WORK RELATED TO THE TASK ORDER BASED
ASSIGNMENTS FOR ANALYSIS OF PROGRAM SYSTEMS AND DATA
RECONCILIATION AND TO PROVIDE TECHINCAL ASSISTANCE FOR
PUBLIC HOUSING AND HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAMS FOR
A COLLECTIVE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $623,830]
Presented by: Velma Navarro, Deputy Executive Director/Chief Operating Officer
Ms. Navarro stated that Annettie Machuca & Associates (AM&A) and Casterline
Associates had been assisting the Authority with data clean-up and reconciliation. She
explained that the data clean-up had been more problematic than originally anticipated,
and that the Authority needed to extend the AM&A and Casterline contracts to ensure
that the data clean-up could be completed. Ms. Navarro stated that this would allow
that authority to complete a clean audit and an accurate data conversion to the new
software system.
Commissioner Fong asked if the amount of the contract was being increased by
$423,000. Ms. Navarro stated that it was. She stated that the Authority had the funds
for the work. Commissioner Fong asked if the contract increase was allowed. Mr.
Gebala explained that the original contract allowed for the project to be extended until
completion, and was not limited to a dollar amount.
Public Comment

None
Motion:
First:
Commissioner Arnold
Second:
Commissioner Fong
Vote:
Ayes:
Commissioners Arnold, Torres, Lindo and Fong
Nays:
None
Motion passed
19
Item 13:
Commissioner’s Comment and Report
Commissioner Torres stated that the housing authority in Los Angeles was participating
in participatory budgeting and requested that the Authority look into the process involved
in that type of budgeting structure.
Item 14:
Adjournment
Commissioner Torres adjourned the meeting at 7:30 PM
20
Memorandum
To:
SFHA Staff and Commissioners
From: Lydia Ely, Senior Project Manager, MOHCD and MOHCD staff
Re:
General Update, RAD Implementation
Date:
December 11, 2014
This memorandum provides a general update on the implementation activities of MOHCD staff and the
eight cluster developers for the RAD projects. Please see additional report materials, attached, for more
detail on the progress of each project; implementation of Services Connectors at the sites; and resident
meeting attendance at Phase I and Phase II resident meetings.
Schedule. Recent implementation discussions with HUD have been productive. Information from the
discussions will allow us to move forward more aggressively toward implementation and update the
RAD conversion schedule in January. The current schedule shows a Phase I closing (e.g., conversion date
and construction start date) of August-September 2015, but the schedule is subject to change due to
delays. Phase II will launch in January 2015, with closing estimated to take place in summer 2016.
Design and Construction. As evidenced by the detailed materials attached, all developer teams are on
track to deliver 50% Construction Documents to MOHCD and SFHA in January 2015. Review and
discussion of any revision to construction scopes and prices will take up to two weeks. MOHCD has
coordinated a central process for Planning Department review (comprising Historic Preservation, CEQA,
and design review tasks) which has been productive. All projects have undergone initial review by
Planning and most groups have completed pre-application meetings with the Department of Building
Inspection.
Working Groups. Four working groups have convened to address implementation issues (Lease & House
Rules, Recertification, Relocation and Services) and have enjoyed robust participation from developer
staff, SFHA, and MOHCD. Additional groups will kick off in early 2015 and will address Waitlist and
Referral processes among other issues.
Funding. MOHCD is preparing to make predevelopment loans to the developer teams for the Phase II
projects and may increase Phase I predevelopment loan amounts in light of additional project scopes.
Relocation. Nan McKay Associates, procured by SFHA to complete a RAD portfolio-wide Relocation Plan,
met with developer teams in the Relocation Working Group in early December. The consultant will work
closely with the RAD developers to issue a final plan by April 2015.
Attachment I: Monthly RAD Report Matrix – all 15 projects
Attachment II: Services Funding Update
21
Attachment III: Tally of Attendees at RAD Phase II meetings to date
Attachment IV: RAD FAQs – Part I and II
22
ATTACHMENT I
Monthly RAD Report Matrix – all 15 projects
23
12/11/2014
Cluster 1 - Chinatown
Cluster 2 Western Addition
1
227 Bay
PHASE I PROPERTIES
990 Pacific
Robert B. Pitts
DEVELOPER / TEAM
Chinatown CDC
Related /
Tabernacle
CAPITAL PLANNING
Status of Scope of
Work, PCA, PML and
other reports, cost
estimates and
capital cost issues.
50% CD (Construction Document)
design and cost estimating are
underway. 227 Bay: Plan to submit
CDs, Cost Estimate, and PCA update
1/5/15. SFFD will require smoke
screens at all elevator floors except
the ground floor. SF PUC will require
electrical upgrades to standards
similar to PG&E for both Bay and
Pacific (replace breakers). Scope
includes Windows Power sliding
door at entry. New roof. Paint
exterior. Garage path of travel to
lobby, new laundry room,
community space, kitchens, HVAC.
Railing modifications. Addition of
Prop. Management space. Units:
some kitchens, baths and flooring,
depending upon condition. 990
Pacific: Will submit CDs, Cost
Estimate and the PCA Update on
1/29/15. New scope: SFFD will
require smoke screens at all elevator
floors except the ground floor; SF
PUC will require electrical upgrades
to standards similar to PG&E. May
need to replace the breakers.
Existing concrete ramping is likely to
be damaged due to seismic retrofit,
so we will need to replace concrete.
Other scope includes significant
seismic upgrades including exterior
shear. Significant entry reconfiguration at Pacific to address
acessibility and property
management, security. Replacement
of windows, repair roof and decks,
separate ramp at Mason street entry.
Kitchens, HVAC, fire life-safety,
security. Full off-site relocation.
No change in Scope of
Work. 50% CD
(Construction
Document) design and
cost estimating currently
underway; will be
submitted by 1/29/15.
Scope includes window
replacement and new
security grills. New
siding and trim, paint
exterior, new roof. Site
accessibility
improvements to
connect new accessible
units to common
amenities. New freestanding laundry facility.
Play spaces. 11 fully
accessible apartments
with concrete landing
and path of travel at
exterior grouped on one
portion of site. New
trash enclosures with
roofs. Other pest control
measures to improve
living conditions. Interior
replacements or repairs
depending upon
condition of kitchens,
baths, flooring. Security
improvements with gates
at site entry, and new
fence enclosed patios.
Cluster 3 Western
Addition 2
939 Eddy
951 Eddy
TNDC / CHP
No change in Scope of
Work. 50% CD
(Construction
Document) design and
cost estimating
currently underway,to
be submitted 1/29/15.
939 Eddy: Scope
includes Siding
replacement on rear and
courtyards (not front),
roofing, replacement of
exterior path of travel
and lift at rear
courtyard. Seismic
strengthining, concrete
footings in basement,
elevator modernization,
sprinklers, kitchens,
accessibility, property
management spaces in
basement .
951 Eddy: Scope
includes accessibility
upgrades, replacement
of original wood single
pane windows with
energy efficient units on
courtyard side only.
Electrical upgrades,
flooring. HVAC
improvements.
Cluster 4 - Tenderloin
SOMA
430 Turk
666 Ellis
TNDC / CHP
No change in Scope of Work.
50% CD (Construction
Document) design and cost
estimating underway. 430 Turk
Street: Finalization of PCA by
Dominion is now anticipated by
late January. The structural
engineer has completed a
Dynamic Computer Analysis of
the building’s structural system
which has greatly informed the
structural design. The written
report is expected in December.
50% Construction Documents
and estimate will be submitted
by the end of January. Scope
includes accessibility
modifications at first floor and
5% of units. First floor
reconfiguration for Residential
versus Comml. space parcel
mapping. Some upgraded
kitchens, elevator
modernization, fire and life
safety. Voluntary seismic
upgrades. Window replacement.
666 Ellis: 50% CD will be submit
on January 16, 2014. Scope
includes window replacement,
roof replacement, site work to
provide accessible path of travel
at entry. HVAC, electrical
upgrades, sprinklers, elevator
modernization. Units: some
kitchens, baths and flooring
depending upon condition.
Cluster 5 Bernal Heights
Holly Courts
Bernal / BRIDGE
No change in Scope of
Work. 50% CD
(Construction Document)
design and cost
estimating underway.
HC Team responded to
latest comments on
December 2nd;
meanwhile, proceeding
with CDs. Scoping/Jetting
of sewers to take place
12/11/14. Proposed
scope includes façade
improvements to address
accessibility. Roofing.
Removal and
replacement of all
interior perimeter wall
materials to remediate
condensation / moisture
problems and
replacement of kitchens.
Entry Door widening for
accessible units. Path of
travel to Community
amenities. Baths and
flooring replacement
depending upon
condition, painting of
interiors. Landscaping
improvements. Security
gates and systems to
improve site safety.
Cluster 6 Mission/Castro
25 Sanchez
462 Duboce
255 Woodside
Cluster 7 - California
Corridor
Cluster 8 Southeast
1880 Pine
345 Arguello
491 31st Ave
Hunters Point
East and West
MEDA / BRIDGE
Mercy / JSCo
JSCo, Related,
Ridgepoint,
SFHDC
No change in Scope of
Work. 50% CD
(Construction Document)
design and cost estimating
to be submitted for all
projects 1/29/15. 462
Duboce: Scope includes
façade changes on Herman
St. for services and
management space in an
existing courtyard.
Voluntary seismic
upgrades. Elevator
modernization, accessibility
upgrades, electrical,
improved security features.
Units: Some kitchens, baths
and flooring, depending
upon condition.
25 Sanchez: Scope
includes window
replacement. voluntary
seismic upgrades, entry
ramp and door and added
garage entry door
reconfigurations for
accessibility. Units: Some
kitchens, baths and
flooring, depending upon
condition. Life-safety,
security, elevator, roofing
255 Woodside: Scope
includes window and roof
replacement, elevator
modernization, fire safety,
laundry improvements.
Units: Some kitchens, baths
and flooring, depending
upon condition.
No change in Scope of Work.
50% CD (Construction
Document) design and cost
estimating to be submitted
1/16/15. 1880 Pine: Proposed
scope includes voluntary
seismic upgrades, elevator
repair, fire alarms, electrical
upgrades. Units: some
kitchens, baths and flooring
depending upon condition.
345 Arguello: Proposed scope
includes window replacement
balcony railing modifications
for Code, voluntary seismic
strengthening, façade repairs,
stucco replacement on West,
exterior painting, New roof,
fire protection, accessibility,
electrical and HVAC upgrades.
Units: some kitchens, baths
and flooring depending upon
condition.
31st Avenue: Proposed scope
includes window replacement,
storefront replacement at
entry and community room.
Repair decking, add wire mesh
to railings for Code, repair
exterior trim and paint
exterior, roofing. Accessibility
of units and common spaces,
HVAC, fire safety and electrical
upgrades. Units: some
kitchens, baths and flooring
depending upon condition.
No change in Scope of
Work. 50% CD
(Construction Document)
design and cost
estimating to be
provided 1/1/15.
Proposed scope includes
accessibility
modifications at facades
for ramp and entry doors.
New windows, new roofs,
paint exterior, replace
exterior façade materials.
Site work handrails and
stairs, ramps. New
kitchens and rehab of
most bathrooms planned
due to age and condition
of units. No central
Laundry space and steep
topography of site
suggest in-unit
washer/dryer should be
considered.
Conducted onsite
investigative testing of
electrical, plumbing,
windows, and stair
towers.
24
12/11/2014
Cluster 1 - Chinatown
Cluster 2 Western
Addition 1
227 Bay
PHASE I PROPERTIES
990 Pacific
Robert B. Pitts
DEVELOPER / TEAM
Chinatown CDC
Related /
Tabernacle
NCPHS does not provide services to
the Chinatown Cluster (unlike a
number of other Senior and Disabled
properties). CCDC received final
approval of the First Amendment to
its Predevelopment Loan from
MOHCD, which includes funds for
Service Connection. CCDC has
completed its Work Plan for this
scope and is working with staff to get
services off the ground.
An MOU with Family
Service Agency has been
negotiated for the
service connector. We
circulated a job
description, collected
resumes, and
interviewed three
candidates. None was
the right fit so we will
update the job
description and
recirculate it. The Tenant
Council prefers a Pitts
resident to be
considered for the
position rather than have
a Council rep participate
in selection process
(doing both would
present a conflict). That
person will be
considered as the search
process continues into
2015. Scope of work
amendment in final
negotiation process with
MOHCD
SERVICE
CONNECTION
(In addition to
NCPHS Reports,
submitted
separately)
Cluster 3 Western
Addition 2
939 Eddy
951 Eddy
TNDC / CHP
Please refer to quarterly
NCPHS report.
Cluster 4 Tenderloin SOMA
430 Turk
666 Ellis
TNDC / CHP
TNDC will be reviewing a
proposed service plan just
submitted by NCPHS which is
expected to be finalized this
month and presented to
MOHCD. Current work by
NCPHS is availbale in quarterly
reports y NCPHS.
Cluster 5 Bernal Heights
Holly Courts
Bernal / BRIDGE
Scope of work
amendment completed
with MOHCD. Urban
Services Y contract to
begin in January 2015.
They are in final part of
the hiring process.
Cluster 6 Mission/Castro
25 Sanchez
462 Duboce
255 Woodside
Cluster 7 California Corridor
Cluster 8 Southeast
1880 Pine
345 Arguello
491 31st Ave
Hunters Point
East and West
MEDA / BRIDGE
Mercy / JSCo
JSCo, Related,
Ridgepoint,
SFHDC
Please refer to NCPHS
quarterly report.
Community Building
activities began in earnest
in October as referenced in
Tenant Engagement
section.
RSM was introduced to
property managers in October
to commence service
engagement interviews and
activities. Managers have
been asked to refer tenants asneeded and flyers were
posted. 1) 28 residents
contacted RSM at 1880 Pine
during past month to discuss
topics, including: insurance
open enrollment, IHSS
referrals, on lok referrals, bed
bugs, rental assistance, etc. 2)
See above. 3) Successful
strategy is hiring Resident
Services Coordinator and her
visiting the property regularly,
as well as getting to know the
property site staff, tenants and
tenant council members. 4) No
MOU yet exists that formally
allows service coordinator to
interact with tenants or to
share information w/building
staff.
SFHDC in final
negotiation with MOHCD
to develop scope of work
for additional services in
connection with loan
amendment
1760 Bush - 10/22 at 1:30pm,
12/5 at 1:30pm; Kennedy
Twrs. 10/22 at 11:30am; 12/4
at 1pm; 2698 California 11/3
at 2:00PM, 14/4 at 3pm
Westbrook Apts. 12/8
and 12/22 both at 3pm
RAD Meetings for Phase II projects are almost complete as required for the RAD applications for these Phase II Portfolio properties.
PHASE II RAD
MEETINGS
Ping Yuen - 11/5 at 12:00PM, 12/10
at 10:30am; Ping Yuen North 11/5 at
2:00PM, 12/10 at 12pm
Westside Cts.- 11/3 at
4:30PM, 12/4 at 6pm
1750 McAllister - 10/21
at 10:00AM, 11/21 at
pm; Rosa Parks - July 14
at 11am, 12/17 at 3pm
320-330 Clementina 10/27 at
2:00PM, 12/18 at 1:30pm
Alemany - 11/17 and
12/2, both at 5:00 PM
3850 18th St. 10/27 at
2:00PM, 12/16 at 12pm;
Mission Dolores 10/27 at
11:30am, 12/9 at 2pm
25
ATTACHMENT II
Services Funding Update
26
RAD Transition Services Funding $500,000 Update
as of November 10, 2014
1. 5 Service Coordinator (SC) positions - Phase 1 positions: 3 family sites and 2 senior sites (who don’t
have NCPHS). SC supports efforts to engage residents with RAD developers, to support health and
wellness activities, and to develop community building activities to reduce isolation and create
better cohesion on site. SC is also responsible for supporting families in arrears with SFHA (assisting
the process to get them in good standing with SFHA). This work involves outreach and assistance to
families to encourage them to move forward with getting into repayment plans. It may also include
helping them to understand their ledgers, getting paper work together, and providing support in
meetings with the SFHA. They will also encourage connection to legal advocacy if appropriate.
5 x $60,000 = $300,000
A. MOHCD Service Coordinator Contracting Plan – Predevelopment loan amendment documents
for the $60,000 in process with 5 clusters. Helen Hale supervising and supporting service work.
a. Cluster 1 - 227 Bay and 990 Pacific
i. CCDC staff on board and engaging at sites
ii. Services scope of work amendment and budget approved
b. Cluster 2 – Robert B. Pitts
i. Family Service Agency is subcontracted service partner.
ii. Hiring process underway. Job announcement must be reposted for more quality and
local applicants
iii. Services scope of work and budget in final negotiation with MOHCD.
c. Cluster 5 – Holly Courts
i. Urban Services YMCA is subcontracted service partner.
ii. Interview and hiring in process.
iii. Services scope of work and budget approved.
d. Cluster 7 – 1880 Pine and 345 Arguello
i. Mercy staff on board and engaged at sites
ii. Services scope of work and budget in final negotiation with MOHCD
e. Cluster 8 – Hunters Point A East and West
i. SFHDC staff on board and engaging at site.
ii. Services scope of work and budget in final negotiation with MOHCD
Cluster Summary Information:
1) Scope of work amendments includes the following types of activities and participant targets:
a) Outreach activities – 100% of residents
b) Community building activities (social; health and wellness) – 50 - 75% of residents
c) Workshops – 25% of residents
d) Needs assessments – 100% of residents will be assessed
e) Service Connection / Repayment Support – as identified from SFHA
f) Information and Referral – 25% of residents
2) MOU to be negotiated with SFHA for the services space for all 5 clusters. SFHA has offered
space options which are in review with developer/ services teams.
3) Training to be provided to all Phase 1 services staff regarding repayment process y SFHA,
MOHCD, HRC and BALA.
27
2. Legal Advocacy – New staff positions to support RAD residents who have disputed rent balances with
understanding their rights and support with legal procedures if necessary. 2 x $62,500 = $125,000
•
•
MOHCD Legal Advocacy Contracting Plan – MOHCD has completed contract negotiation(s) with
the Housing Rights Committee for $62,500 and Bay Area Legal Aid for $62,500 with a start date
of 11/1/2014. HRC and BALA are in the hiring process for their positions with a proposed start
date January 1.
Please note MOHCD also identified $150,000 from the Housing Trust Fund which was
reallocated from Eviction Defense Collaborative to HRC and BALA for additional funding in this
area due to the potential for a large number of residents needing this support. Their contracts
therefore increase by following amounts: HRC - $50,000 and BALA - $100,000. MOHCD has also
executed contracts for these additional funds with the same timeline as the above bullet.
3. Outreach and Community Education – New staff position provides outreach and education to Phase
1 residents to increase their knowledge and understanding about RAD through workshops,
community meetings, and one on one support. HRC will also provide expertise with regards to
leases, house rules, and governance with special emphasis on understanding resident rights and
protections. 1 x $75,000
•
MOHCD Outreach and Community Education Contracting Plan – MOHCD has completed
contract negotiation with Housing Rights Committee for $75,000 with a start date of 11/1/2014.
HRC will transfer over the current RAD outreach staff to this contract on January 1.
Tenant Engagement for Phase 2 RAD Community meetings
MOHCD in support of SFHA launched the RAD introduction/ orientation meetings to Phase 2 properties
in October 2014. The first meeting is a RAD informational overview and has been completed for all 14
properties. The second meeting repeats the RAD overview (although more briefly) and introduces the
developer team and the planning process for their building. All second meetings will be completed by
the end of December 2014. Every unit received notice of these meetings as well as postings throughout
their buildings/ property. Noticing was done by SFHA for meeting #1 and by Developers, SFHA, and
Services staff for meeting #2. See attached document for meeting dates and participant attendance.
Lastly each meeting included distribution of RAD FAQs in 4 languages (attached) and the agenda allowed
time for Q & A.
28
ATTACHMENT III
Tally of Attendees at RAD Phase II meetings to date
29
PHASE I SITES
Address
Date of
Meeting
Type of
Meeting
Units in
building
Number of
Attendees
%
Meetings
Scheduled
Chinatown
227 Bay
990 Pacific
990 Pacific
50
11/12
12/8
seismic and
relocation
updates to
residents
12/11
92
59
64%
92
48
52%
203
35
17%
1/12
Western Addition 1
Robert B. Pitts
11/22
celebration &
updates
Western Addition 2
939 Eddy
951 Eddy
36
24
12/19
both sites
Tenderloin/SOMA
666 Ellis
430 Turk
11/14
tenant update
100
89
20
118
18
4
20%
12/19
Bernal Heights
Holly Courts
11/11
12/8
tenant update
Resident Council
19%
1/1
6%
12/17
both sites
9%
12/18
Mission/Castro
25 Sanchez
462 Duboce
11/19
coffee hour
90
42
8
255 Woodside
11/20
coffee hour
110
10
California Corridor
1880 Pine
345 Arguello
491 31st
113
69
69
12/17
12/19
12/11
Southeast
Hunters Pt. E/W
11/12
tenant update
213
42
20%
12/10
30
PHASE II SITES
DEVELOPER
CLUSTER
# of Units
Meeting
dates
Attendees
Date
Chinatown
CCDC
CCDC
Ping Yuen
234
Ping Yuen North
200
11/5
32
12/10
45
11/5
45
12/10
54
11/3
25
12/4
16
10/21
30
11/21
22
7/14
26
Western Addition 1
Related
Westside Courts
136
Tabernacle
Western Addition 2
CHP
TNDC
1750 McAllister
97
Rosa Parks
198
Bethel AME
12/17
Tenderloin/SOMA
TNDC
350 Ellis
96
10/21
31
276
11/20
10/27
26
320&330 Clementina
Glide
TNDC
75
12/18
Bernal Heights
Bernal
Alemany
158
Bridge
11/17
17
12/2
17
10/27
30
Mission/Castro
MEDA
3850 18th St.
107
Bridge
MEDA
12/16
Mission Dolores
92
Bridge
10/27
22
12/9
28
10/22
42
12/5
16
10/22
48
12/4
32
11/3
19
12/4
15
12/8
7
California Corridor
Mercy
1760 Bush
108
JSCo
Mercy
Kennedy Towers
98
JSCo
Mercy
2698 California St.
40
JSCo
Southeast
JSCo
Related
Westbrook Apts.
226
12/22
31
SFHDC
Ridge Pt.
32
ATTACHMENT IV
RAD FAQs – Part I and II
33
PART I
34
35
36
37
38
PART II
39
40
41
42
43
SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND MODERNIZATION
1815 EGBERT AVENUE , ROOM 300 • SAN FRANCISCO, CA • 94124
(415) 715-3210 • TTY (415) 467-6754 • Fax (415) 715-3201
MEMORANDUM
To:
Housing Commission
From:
Andrew Passell, Project Manager
Date:
December 18, 2014
Subject:
Executive Director’s Report: Elevator repair/ modernization status
1. REPAIR AND MODERNIZATION OF ELEVATORS
Repair Schedule
Door Operators Pump Unit Roller Guides Clean Hoist way Controller Bases
1760 Bush
Complete
990 Pacific
Complete
1750 McAllister Complete
666 Ellis
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
TBD
12/1-12/5
Complete
Complete
Complete
12/8-
Repair Status
 1760 Bush Street –All repairs completed one week ahead of schedule.
 990 Pacific Avenue – both cars are running – All repairs completed two weeks ahead of schedule.
Car #1 was out Friday, December 5, 2014 –Tuesday, December 9, 2014 with a bad disconnect
fuse.
 1750 McAllister - The new parts (controller relay base plates) were installed November 23, 2014.
The repair task of cleaning the hoistway was completed the week of December 1, 2014 –
December 5, 2014. There is a problem with installing the new roller guides because the retainer
clips were welded in place.
44
Elevator Update
December 18, 2014
Page 2 of 3
 666 Ellis Street – Parts arrived on November 5, 2014. Both cars were restored to service on
Friday, November 7, 2014. Car #2 was down between November 14, 2014 – November 26, 2014
with a seized bearing in the motor. Both cars were running the week of December 1, 2014 –
December 5, 2014. Additional controller relay bases for car #1 will be replaced over the two
weeks starting December 8, 2014, requiring intermittent shutdowns.
Modernization Schedule
BID 1
BUILDING
SF MOD
APPROV
AL
BID
OPENIN
G1
BID 2
BID
OPENI
NG 2
AWARD
CONTRAC
T
SHOP
DWGS
START
ON SITE
FINISH
Clementina
Rosa Parks
(1251 Turk)
Ping Yuen
North
(838 Pacific)
10/16/15
6/30/14
7/21/14
7/24/14
8/6/14
9/11/14
10/13/14
12/1/14
(3/20/15)
1880 Pine
6/15/15
430 Turk
Modernization Status
 As noted at the November 20, 2014 Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco’s
Board of Commissioners meeting, Contract Modification #1 has been signed by Ascent and the
Authority. The change is to keep the existing geared machines at four sites because they are in
good condition, readily serviceable and have considerable service life left. The contract amount
was modified according to the deductive alternates as follows:
A3.
B3.
D3.
E2.
Total
320 /330 Clementina -$100,000
1251 Turk
-$150,000
1880 Pine
-$60,000
838 Pacific
-$150,000
-$460,000
Original Contract Sum:
Amendment No. 1
New Contract Sum, Not To Exceed
$5,036,000.00
- 460,000.00
$4,576,000.00
45
Elevator Update
December 18, 2014
Page 3 of 3
 The Contractor delivered the Shop drawings for 838 Pacific (Ping Yuen North) on December 1,
2014 and 320/330 Clementina on December 5, 2014. The drawings were forwarded to the
architect and elevator consultant for review. The other sites will follow, with the advantage of
being able to address any review comments received from the elevator consultant on the first set
of shop drawings. The work at each site is similar to the others, so the shop drawings for the
subsequent sites should not have any delay.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
STAFF REPORT
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Agenda Category:
Consent Item - Housing Development & Modernization Department
Agenda Title:
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A TWO YEAR CONTRACT WITH FW
ASSOCIATES, INC. AND EDESIGNC ELECTRIC TO PROVIDE
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES ON AN ASNEEDED, TASK ASSIGNMENT BASIS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN
A TOTAL AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $150,000
Presented By:
Solomon Gebala - Chief Procurement Officer
BACKGROUND
This Resolution will authorize the Acting Executive Director to enter into two contracts with the
highest-ranking electrical engineer consultant firms on an as-needed, task assignment basis for
the next two years. This contract will provide the San Francisco Housing Authority (Authority)
with electrical consultant services for planned renovations and electrical upgrades from 2015
Capital Fund programs for operational fiscal years 2015 and 2016.
The Authority operates buildings that may contain electrical systems that may require upgrades
such as lighting, fire alarms, elevators, switch gears and emergency generators. Periodic
electrical drawings are required to ensure proper scope is followed with renovation and
maintenance activities. The Authority does not have this specialized staff in-house to provide
investigation, supervision and evaluation of existing electrical conditions, or to prepare bid
documents for electrical work. These new contracts will provide continuation of this specialized
guidance to assist the Authority with electrical consultation and life safety code compliance,
specification and supervision.
Attachments: Resolution
A copy of any attached documents is available at the clerk’s desk.
DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends adoption/ratification of this resolution/contract
ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION:
I concur with staff recommendation
Consent Item No. 1
Date: December 18, 2014
116
Electrical Engineering Consultant
December 18, 2014
Page 2 of 7
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this contract is to provide the Authority with a competent professional electrical
consultant on a standby basis to assist with planned renovations, assessing damage and
maintaining efficient and safe buildings.
The task assignment services may include:
1. Provide field testing and investigations, assessments, analysis, and written reports;
2. Develop recommendations and cost estimates to provide up-grades to any conditions revealed at
existing elevators, distribution systems, fire alarms, lighting, including any new requirements
for accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973;
3. Prepare comprehensive construction documents for public bidding within an agreed estimated
construction cost for building modernization or up-grades;
4. Assist with clarifications during the public bid phase, contract award phase, and preconstruction phase;
5. Assist Authority’s staff in planning and conducting resident briefings, in notifying residents of
electrical problems, modernization or up-grade plans, and relocation or alternative service
proposals covering the duration of the construction phase;
6. Assist the Authority's staff during the construction phase by providing construction
administration support services such as review of electrical submittals, review of proposed
contract changes, performing periodic site inspections, and conducting a final survey to
determine if the work performed was in accordance with the project plans and specifications;
and
7. Assist the Authority’s staff in the preparation and review of electrical efficiency proposals and
agreements, classes, operating and maintenance manuals, and general management procedures.
PROCUREMENT
The procurement process for the action covered by this Resolution meets the procurement
standards of 24 CFR 85.36 “Procurement”, HUD Handbook 7460.8 REV 2, “Procurement
Handbook for Public Housing Agencies and Indian Housing Authorities”, the San Francisco
Housing Authority Procurement Policy and Procurement Procedures Manual, the State of
California and local laws. The completed procurement process has been reviewed and approved
by HUD.
The Authority and all public agencies in California are required by State and Federal law to
117
Electrical Engineering Consultant
December 18, 2014
Page 3 of 7
select engineering consultants on the basis of qualifications in the form of a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ).
SOLICITATION PROCESS
Pre-approval of the RFQ document and process was obtained from Authority management prior
to advertisement. The Housing Development and Modernization Department (HD/MOD)
developed this specific RFQ document based on the Authority’s master procurement documents
prepared by the Procurement and Contracts Department. The Procurement Department reviewed
and approved the documents prior to the start of the RFQ process and bidding.
Solicitation 14-620-RFQ-0027 was issued on September 16, 2014. Announcement of the RFQ
was made to the City and County of San Francisco ('City") Outreach Services and was put on the
web sites for the Authority, the City, and the Small Business Administrations. The notice of the
RFQ was published in the Daily Pacific Builder, Bay View, World Journal, Sun Reporter, Small
Business Exchange, and posted on eboard.com. Announcements were faxed or emailed directly
to about 31 prospective professional electrical consulting firms including 12 firms from San
Francisco Human Rights Commission.
Five (5) Statements of Qualifications were received on the October 9, 2014 due date:
 1. FW ASSOCIATES, INC.
 2. EDESIGNC INC.
 3. SALAS O’BRIEN
 4. ACIES
 5. EDGE ELECTRIC
Qualification Statements are summarized:
1. FW ASSOCIATES, INC. is a small minority San Francisco firm and was established in
1981. FW Associates, Inc. is a Local Business Enterprise (DBE) and is a Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE). FW Associates, Inc. has (7) electrical engineers, (2) project
managers, (9) computer design technicians, and (2) administrative workers.
2. EDesignC Inc. is a small minority and woman San Francisco firm and was established in
2008. EDesignC Inc. has (4) electrical engineers, (1) project manager and (2) mechanical
engineers.
3. Salas O’Brien is a large San Jose firm established in 1979. Salas O’Brien has (9)
electrical engineers, (19) mechanical engineers, (11) computer design technicians, (2)
architects, (7) construction managers and (16) administrative workers.
118
Electrical Engineering Consultant
December 18, 2014
Page 4 of 7
4. Acies Engineering is a mid-sized San Francisco firm established in 1999. Acies
Engineering has (7) electrical engineers, (2) project managers, (9) computer design
technicians, and (3) administrative workers.
5. Edge Electric Consulting Inc. is a small minority Oakland firm and was established in
2013. Edge Electric Consulting Inc. has (2) electrical engineers, (3) project managers and
(2) computer design technicians.
EVALUATION PROCESS
In conformance with the Authority’s Procurement Procedures Manual, the evaluation panel
individually reviewed the written Statements of Qualifications. At the same time, staff checked the
references provided by each firm and provided the results to the evaluation panel members. Then, the
evaluation panel invited the four responding firms for oral interviews. After the interviews, the
evaluation panel prepared a final evaluation and scoring to select the firm with the highest-ranked
qualifications.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Listed below are the evaluation criteria and their relative weight. Described in italics are the
reasons for the different criteria. The evaluation criteria are based on the Authority’s standards
for Request for Qualifications questions and weighing contained in the Authority’s Procurement
Procedures Manual. The Director of Contract/Procurement Division approved the criteria and
weighting given to each.
119
Electrical Engineering Consultant
December 18, 2014
Page 5 of 7
NO.
A
CRITERIA & REASON
Criterion: Qualifications.
WEIGHT
20 points
This allows evaluation of the firm’s technical expertise as measured by the quantity and
type of work performed by the firm and its years in business.
B
Criterion: Staff Qualifications.
20 points
This provides insight into the quality of the staff as measured by their professional
degrees, licenses and experience with the type of work required by this contract. The
local staff size and their credentials is a quantitative measure of their knowledge, and
are indicative of their ability to respond quickly with qualified staff.
C
Criterion: Understanding of the project.
40 points
D
This demonstrates the firm’s familiarity with elevator issues most frequently
encountered with urban public housing in both family housing and mid-rise
buildings. A firm with this experience is most capable of providing economical,
efficient solutions to by the Housing Authority.
Criterion: Approach to Project.
15 points
This item allows us to determine that the selected firm not only has office technical
skills but also possesses sufficient field experience to effectively deal with field
problems and contractor issues.
E
Criterion: Affirmative Action.
This allows evaluation of the firm’s commitment to MBE/WBE and resident hiring
participation.
Total
5 points
100
points
120
Electrical Engineering Consultant
December 18, 2014
Page 6 of 7
The following is the combined scoring results of the written proposals and oral interviews:
FIRM
WRITTEN
INTERVIEW
TOTAL
RANK
FW Associates
283
296
579
1
EDesignC Inc.
280
280
560
2
Salas O’Brien
246
277
523
3
Acies Engineering
243
274
517
4
Edge Electric
196
N/A
N/A
N/A
EVALUATION PANEL CONCLUSIONS
By their scoring and ranking, the Evaluation Panel determined that FW Associates and
EDesignC are the top-rated firms. FW Associates and EDesignC have prior experience with
housing developments, public agencies and institutions. The reference checks on these firms for
past similar electrical work were good.
FW Associates and EDesignC have a good understanding of all disciplines and have current
electrical engineering licenses. The firms' principals indicated a continued willingness to work
with the Authority and promised a high level product. An understanding of the type of work that
would be required was presented, acknowledged and discussed in detail.
EVALUATION PANEL MEMBERS
Chairperson: Project Manager and Architect for HD/MOD Department. Chairperson was
selected for expertise in public housing design, construction, procurement and previous electrical
consultant management.
Member: Construction Inspector for HD/MOD Department. Member was selected for expertise
in electrical maintenance.
Member: Project Manager and Architect for HD/MOD Department. Member was selected for
expertise in public housing design, construction and procurement.
121
Electrical Engineering Consultant
December 18, 2014
Page 7 of 7
PRESENT SITUATION
We presently have projects that require electrical changes from rehabilitation and modernization
activities. Electrical consultant projects may include: fire alarm upgrades, electrical alterations,
new generators, boiler replacements, lighting upgrades and investigations.
The current electrical engineer contract has expired and a new electrical consultant on standby
as-needed basis is required to provide immediate response to design meetings and emergency
electrical upgrade and repair situations.
ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES
If this contract is approved the anticipated outcomes are:





The Authority will receive a consultant able to investigate and evaluate electrical problems,
provide recommendations to HD/MOD, assist in drafting and specifications for building
renovations and provide cost estimates.
The Authority will obtain comprehensive construction documents for public bidding within an
agreed not-to-exceed estimated fee.
The Authority will receive professional guidance on changes to California Code Title 24,
Federal, State and City Codes, and Regulations.
The Authority will obtain expertise for prioritizing the modernization, up-grades and
maintenance needs to ensure safety, Code and HUD compliance.
Residents will have opportunity for training and employment.
WHO BENEFITS
Residents benefit from having appropriate and immediate electrical responses in the event of
power outage, fire alarm, energy efficiency and lighting issues. The Authority benefits from
reduced liability exposure, limited tenant relocation and property loss, and improved ability to
respond quickly to an emergency situation.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS
Funding for these planned contracts are immediately available from 2014 Capital Fund Program.
The Authority and all public agencies in California are required by State and Federal law to
select engineering consultants on the basis of qualifications in the form of a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ). After the most-qualified firms were selected, the hourly billing rates were
negotiated. For each separate task assignment, hours and reimbursable expenses will be further
reviewed and negotiated accordingly to coincide with similar past electrical work.
The service term for these two-year contracts will be for the Authority’s operational fiscal years
2015 and 2016.
122
Electrical Engineering Consultant
December 18, 2014
Page 7 of 7
RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT
FW Associates and EDesignC have agreed to hire public housing residents to meet or exceed the
25% requirement established by Commission Resolution No. 4967 for non-construction
contracts that exceed $50,000.
MBE/WBE STATUS
FW Associates and EDesignC are small local Business Enterprises and have provided an
Affirmative Action Acknowledgement form that meets the requirements of Executive Order
11246.
123
ATTACHMENT I
Resolution
124
RESOLUTION NO.: 0096-14
DATE ADOPTED: December 18, 2014
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
ENTER INTO A TWO YEAR CONTRACT WITH FW ASSOCIATES, INC. AND EDESIGNC
ELECTRIC TO PROVIDE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES ON AN
AS-NEEDED, TASK ASSIGNMENT BASIS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN A TOTAL
AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $150,000
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco (Authority)
requires a consultant who can provide electrical consultant services on an as-needed, task
assignment basis; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has no current electrical consultant contract; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has programmed capital work funded with the FY 2015 and FY 2016
Capital Fund Programs which will require electrical consultant services; and
WHEREAS, FW Associates and EDesignC have been selected through the Request for
Qualifications (Solicitation 14-620-RFQ-0027)process as the most qualified firms for this work;
and
WHEREAS, funding is available within the FY 2014 Capital Fund Program budget; and
WHEREAS, the procurement process for this contract meets the procurement standards of 24
CFR 85.36 “Procurement”, HUD Handbook 7460.8 REV 2 “Procurement Handbook for Public
Housing Agencies and Indian Housing Authorities”, the San Francisco Housing Authority
Procurement Policy and Procurement Procedures Manual , the State of California and local laws,
and has been reviewed and approved by HUD.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
125
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 above recitals are true and correct, and together with the staff report, form the basis for
the Board of Commissioners' actions as set forth in this Resolution.
2. The two two-year contracts with FW Associates, Inc. and Design C for Electrical Consultant
Services on an as-needed, task assignment basis for all developments in a total amount notto-exceed of $75,000 each for a total amount not-to-exceed $150,000, are hereby approved,
and the Acting Executive Director is authorized to enter into such contracts.
3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
REVIEWED BY:
________________________________
Dianne Jackson McLean, Esq.
Goldfarb & Lipman LLP,
Special Legal Counsel
____________________________________
Barbara T. Smith, Acting Executive Director
Date:_______________________________
Date:________________________________
126
CONSULTANT SERVICES
BILLING RATES
Each task assignment is negotiated on a fixed price basis. When a consulting task is identified,
the written Scope of Work description may be sent to both FW Associates and EDesignC. The
firm offering the best value to the Authority will be authorized to proceed with the work for a
fixed sum. The task assignment will be awarded based on a lump sum agreement for the task;
different hourly billing rates between the two firms will not be a factor.
The Authority negotiated the following hourly billing rates, which include wages, overhead,
profit, and expenses for actual hours worked. The rates are comparable to the rates the Authority
has paid in the past for hazardous materials consultant services.
PPosition
FW Associates
Hourly Rate
EDesignC
Hourly Rate
Principal
$150
$175
Senior Engineer
$145
$160
Engineer
$135
$140
Project Manager
$125
$125
CAD/Designer
$85
$110
Clerical
$75
$75
127
STAFF REPORT
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Agenda Category:
Agenda Title:
Presented By:
Consent Item – Procurement
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TO ENTER INTO INDIVIDUAL TWO (2) YEAR TASK ORDER BASED
CONTRACTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH RENNE, SLOAN,
HOLTZMAN, SAKAI, L.L.P., HAWKINS, DELAFIELD & WOOD, L.L.P.,
EDISON, MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON, L.L.P. , GOLDFARB &
LIPMAN, L.L.P. AND CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP FOR VARIOUS
LEGAL SERVICES FOR A COLLECTIVE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT
OF $1,500,000 ANNUALLY ($3,000,000 FOR THE INITIAL 2 YEAR
CONTRACT PERIOD) WITH THE OPTION FOR THREE (3), ONE (1)
YEAR RENEWALS
Solomon Gebala – Chief Procurement Officer
SUMMARY:
The Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco (Authority) requires the use of legal
counsel in order to conduct its daily business. The Authority is in a period of recovery and transformation
which creates many challenging business actions that must be addressed, while also conducting day-today operations. As a result, there are many complex and specialized areas of law related to our daily
operations which require outside legal services. The Authority has a small staff of internal legal counsel
that primarily deals with lease enforcement.
The areas of legal expertise which require specialized outside counsel include::







Attachments:
Employment Law
Labor Negotiations
Development, Real Estate, Construction Law
Public Sector, Federal Housing, Tax Credit Law
General Litigation, Tort, Contract Law
Insurance Coverage
General Counsel
Other
Resolution
A copy of any attached documents is available at the clerk’s desk.
DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends adoption/ratification of this resolution/contract
ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION:
I concur with staff recommendation
Consent Item No. 2
Date: December 18, 2014
128
Legal Service Contract(s)
December 18, 2014
Page 2 of 3
The Authority conducted a procurement for legal services pursuant to the procurement standards of 24
CFR 85.36 “Procurement”, HUD Handbook 7460.8 REV 2, “Procurement Handbook for Public Housing
Authority”, the Authority's Procurement Policy and Procurement Procedures Manual, State of California
and local laws. The request for proposal (RFP) was designed specifically to allow the Authority the
ability to award multiple task order contracts to multiple firms which would allow the Authority the
flexibility to assign work to the best qualified firm for specific areas of expertise while also allowing it to
competitively tender the work between the firms as required.
The procurement produced proposals from seven firms; however, one proposal was received after the
deadline and was returned unopened to the firm as being disqualified/non-responsive. Four of the six
offerors are currently contracted with the Authority and two are new to the Authority. A three (3) person
committee comprised of Authority staff reviewed, evaluated and ranked the proposals, identifying the
firms that were most qualified to meet the needs of the Authority. The committee then conducted an oral
interview with the firm(s) it deemed necessary to better understand the culture of the firm, its delivery
method, approach and most importantly, the staff proposed to serve the Authority. Upon completion of
the oral interview process, the committee determined that its legal needs could be covered by five (5) of
the firms that were selected based on a combination of factors. The factors considered include but are
not limited to industry knowledge, pricing, project management and approach, experience and knowledge
of key personnel.
129
Legal Service Contract(s)
December 18, 2014
Page 3 of 3
Staff recommends that task order contracts (with rates ranging from $125-$400/hour) be awarded to the
following firms in the areas of practice identified.
Cornerstone
Law Group
Edison,
McDowell,
Hetherington, LLP
Goldfarb & Hawkins,
Renne, Sloan,
Lipman, LLP Delafield & Holtzman,
Wood, LLP
Sakai, LLP
X
X
Employment
X
Law
Labor
X
Negotiations
Development,
Real Estate &
X
X
Construction
Law
Public
Sector,
Federal Housing
& Tax Credit
X
X
Law
Civil
Enforcement
(Unlawful
Detainer)*
General
Litigation, Tort
X
X
& Contract Law
Insurance
X
X
Coverage
General Counsel
X
X
X
Other
X
*RFP did not yield proposals for this category. Work will be assigned to Authority’s in-house legal staff.
130
RESOLUTION NO.: 0097-14
DATE ADOPTED: December 18, 2014
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO
INDIVIDUAL TWO (2) YEAR TASK ORDER BASED CONTRACTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES
WITH RENNE, SLOAN, HOLTZMAN, SAKAI, L.L.P., HAWKINS, DELAFIELD & WOOD,
L.L.P., EDISON, MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON, L.L.P. , GOLDFARB & LIPMAN, L.L.P.
AND CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP FOR VARIOUS LEGAL SERVICES FOR A
COLLECTIVE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $1,500,000 ANNUALLY ($3,000,000 FOR THE
INITIAL 2 YEAR CONTRACT PERIOD) WITH THE OPTION FOR THREE (3), ONE (1)
YEAR RENEWALS
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco (Authority) utilizes the
services of legal counsel to minimize its exposure to risks; and
WHEREAS, the demand for legal services continues to prevail; and
WHEREAS, the Authority conducted a procurement pursuant to 24 CFR 85.36; and
WHEREAS, the Authority evaluated, ranked and determined the law firms of Renne, Sloan, Holtzman,
Sakai, L.L.P., Hawkins, Delafield & Wood, L.L.P., Edison, McDowell & Hetherington, L.L.P., Goldfarb
& Lipman, L.L. P. and Cornerstone Law Group to be the best to represent its interests; and
WHEREAS, budgeted funding for these legal services is to be provided from multiple funding sources,
including capital funds and COCC funds;
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 above recitals are true and correct, and together with the staff report, form the basis for the Board
of Commissioners' actions as set forth in this Resolution.
2. Two (2) year task order based contracts be let with the law firms of Renne, Sloan, Holtzman, Sakai,
L.L.P., Hawkins, Delafield & Wood, L.L.P., Edison, McDowell & Hetherington, L.L.P., Goldfarb &
Lipman, L.L. P. and Cornerstone Law Group for a collective amount not-to-exceed $1,500,000
annually ($3,000,000 for the initial two (2) year contract) with the option for three (3), one (1) year
renewals.
3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGALITY:
REVIEWED BY:
________________________________
Dianne Jackson McLean,
Goldfarb & Lipman LLP,
Special Legal Counsel
____________________________________
Barbara T. Smith, Acting Executive Director
Date:_______________________________
Date:________________________________
131
STAFF REPORT
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Agenda Category:
Action Item – Housing Development and Modernization Department
Agenda Title:
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO (1) A GROUND LEASE
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (THE “AUTHORITY”)
AND ALICE GRIFFITH PHASE 1, L.P. (THE "PHASE 1 LESSEE"), (2) A
GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
AUTHORITY AND ALICE GRIFFITH PHASE 2, L.P. (THE "PHASE 2
LESSEE"), AND (3) OTHER DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATED BY
SUCH GROUND LEASES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIRST TWO PHASES OF THE ALICE
GRIFFITH REPLACEMENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
Presented By:
Alicia Sisca, Director, Housing Development and Modernization Department
See Attachment “I” to the Commission Book
132
STAFF REPORT
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Agenda Category:
Action Item – Housing Development and Modernization Department
Agenda Title:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RELOCATION PLAN FOR THE
ALICE GRIFFITH PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT (CA 00101804; AMP
CA001000954) IN CONNECTION WITH THE ALICE GRIFFITH
REPLACEMENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
Presented By:
Alicia Sisca, Director, Housing Development and Modernization Department
SUMMARY:
The matter that is being presented to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City
and County of San Francisco (the "Authority" or "Board") is the review and approval of the Relocation
Plan prepared for the Alice Griffith Public Housing Project. Both federal law and state law require
relocation planning for projects which will result in displacement. In addition, California law requires the
approval of a relocation plan prior to engaging in any displacement activities.
Several presentations have been made to the Board which described the proposed Alice Griffith
Replacement Housing Projects (as defined below). As indicated during those presentations, the existing
Alice Griffith Public Housing Project, which consists of 256 public housing units, will be demolished,
after the replacements housing units are constructed. Affiliate entities of McCormack Baron Salazar
(MBS) will enter into certain ground leases with the Authority to develop and construct five hundred and
four (504) new affordable units, two hundred and fifty six (256) of which will be public housing
replacement units (the "Alice Griffith Replacement Housing Projects" or "Project").
[Continued on Page 2]
Attachment I: Resolution
Attachment II: Relocation Plan
Attachment III: Relocation Plan Summary and Public Comments on Relocation Plan
A copy of any attached documents is available at the clerk’s desk.
DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends adoption of this Resolution
ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION:
I concur with staff recommendation
Action Item No. 2
Date: December 18, 2014
133
Alice Griffith Relocation Plan
December 18, 2014
Page 2 of 4
The Alice Griffith Replacement Housing Projects are being financed by multiple private and public
funding sources, and will receive assistance from the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD") under its Choice Neighborhood Initiative ("CNI") program and the Rental
Assistance Demonstration ("RAD") program.
In connection with the Project, the Authority is required to adopt a relocation plan. An informational
presentation on the proposed Relocation Plan for the Alice Griffith Public Housing Development (the
"Relocation Plan") was made to the Board on November 20, 2014, by staff and Overland Pacific &
Cutler, Inc. ("OPC"), the consultant hired by MBS to prepare the relocation plan on the Authority's
behalf.
As mentioned in the previous presentations, the existing Alice Griffith tenants will not be required to
move until the newly constructed replacement housing is available. The goal is that existing tenants will
move directly from the existing public housing units into the new units.
BACKGROUND:
Relocation Plan.
The Relocation Plan is a document that identifies, anticipates and outlines the potential for displacement
of residences caused by development activity and sets forth a strategy and methods to minimize such
displacement.
In California, the goals of a relocation plan and the relocation planning guidelines are:
(1)
To ensure that uniform, fair and equitable treatment is afforded persons displaced from their
homes, businesses or farms as a result of the actions of a public entity in order that such persons
shall not suffer disproportionate injury as a result of action taken for the benefit of the public as a
whole; and
(2)
In the acquisition of real property by a public entity, to ensure consistent and fair treatment for
owners of real property to be acquired, to encourage and expedite acquisition by agreement with
owners of such property in order to avoid litigation and relieve congestion in courts, and to
promote confidence in public land acquisition; and
(3)
For the benefit of displaced persons, to ensure that such persons receive fair and equitable
treatment and do not suffer disproportionate injuries as the result of programs designed for the
benefit of the public as a whole.
The Relocation Plan must comply with both federal and state law. The adoption of the Relocation Plan is
required by the California Relocation Law (California Government Code Section 7260 et seq. (the
CRAL"), and the California Relocation Assistance and real Property Acquisition Guidelines, Title 15,
CCR, Section 6000 et seq. (the "Guidelines") (collectively, the "California Relocation Law".
Disposition of public housing projects is subject to the provisions of Section 18 of the U.S. Housing Act
of 1937, and implementation regulations found at 24 CFR Part 970) (collectively, "Section 18"), and is
134
Alice Griffith Relocation Plan
December 18, 2014
Page 3 of 4
not subject to the Uniform Relocation Act (46 U.S.C. §4600 et seq.), and its implementation regulations
(49 CFR Part 24)(collectively, "URA"). However, the RAD program is subject to the URA. Pursuant to
both the federal and state laws, relocation planning is required to minimize displacement to residents. A
Relocation Plan is not required under the RAD program, but strongly encouraged.
Relocation Plan Approval Process.
Pursuant to California law, the proposed Relocation Plan must be available for review and
comments at least thirty (30) days prior to the Board's approval. In this regards, OPC prepared a
draft Relocation Plan and circulated it on behalf of the Authority on November 10, 2014. The
public comment period was from November 10, 2014 – December 9, 2014.
1. Community Participation.
The plan was made available to all 218 existing residents at the Alice Griffith Opportunity
Center and the Alice Griffith Property Management Office. The plan was also available at
www.sfha.org and www.sfmoh.org. A letter informing each household of the plan's availability
and location was mailed on three separate occasions prior to and during the comment period. A
summary of the relocation plan was mailed to all 218 existing residents. One household
requested and received a copy of the plan.
Representatives from Authority, MBS, Urban Strategies, OPC and residents also participated in
the Relocation Working Group, and provided comments on the plan. Primary non-resident
representatives at meetings were Toni Autry (SFHA), Maricela Flores (MBS), Isaac Dozier
(Urban Strategies) and Chad Wakefield (OPC). Maxine Paulson, Iesha Matthews, and Yvonne
Green were the residents who volunteered for leadership positions. Other residents attended
meetings as they were available. Alice Griffith Tenant Association representatives were also
frequently in attendance. Meetings were open to any residents or organizations.
OPC received a total of forty-eight (48) comments. (See Attachment). Responses to the
comments were made and revisions to the Relocation Plan were made, when appropriate.
2. Existing Residents Right of Return- Relocation Services
Existing residents of the Alice Griffith Public Housing Project will have the right to move into
the Alice Griffith Replacement Housings Units, provided they are in good standing. An existing
resident for the purpose of California relocation law is a resident at the site, on the date that the
Authority entered into the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with MBS. That date was
October 14, 2010. The date is generally referred to as the "initiation of negotiations" date, which
means the first date that a public agency entered into an agreement with another party which
would result in displacement. "Good standing" generally means that the tenants have not been
135
Alice Griffith Relocation Plan
December 18, 2014
Page 4 of 4
evicted. No rescreening of existing residents will be required. Existing residents who choose
not to move into the Alice Griffith Replacement Housing Projects will be provided with
relocation assistance services to alternative housing.
Staff recommends approval of the Relocation Plan.
136
ATTACHMENT I
Resolution
137
RESOLUTION NO.: 0099-14
DATE ADOPTED: December 18, 2014
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RELOCATION PLAN FOR THE ALICE GRIFFITH
PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT (CA 00101804; AMP CA001000954) IN CONNECTION WITH
THE ALICE GRIFFITH REPLACEMENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco (the "Authority")
is a public housing authority formed pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section
34200 et seq., and governed by certain regulations promulgated by the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"); and
WHEREAS, the Authority is the owner of the two hundred fifty six (256) residential units at the
Alice Griffith public housing development (the "Existing Alice Griffith Development"),
located at 207 Cameron Way in San Francisco, California, on real property owned by the
Authority (the "Existing Alice Griffith Site"); and
WHEREAS, the Authority desires to improve the Existing Alice Griffith Site and the living
conditions for the residents living at the Existing Alice Griffith Development and the
surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2010, HUD approved the Authority's request for a noncompetitive
procurement in accordance with 24 CFR 85.36(d)(4)(i)(A) and (B), thereby allowing the
Authority to contract with CP Development CP., LP (the "Master Developer") for the purpose
of completing the demolition, disposition, and redevelopment of the Existing Alice Griffith
Development; and
WHEREAS, the Master Developer and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of
the City and County of San Francisco, a public body, corporate and politic (now the Office of
Community Investment and Infrastructure) (the "Agency" or "OCII"), are parties to that certain
Disposition and Development Agreement (Candlestick Point and Phase 2 of the Hunters Point
Shipyard) dated for reference purposes as of June 3, 2010 (as amended and supplemented from
time to time, collectively, the "Agency DDA") for the redevelopment of the Existing Alice
Griffith Site and certain other real property adjacent to and surrounding the Existing Alice
Griffith Site (collectively, as more particularly described in the Agency DDA, the "Agency DDA
Property" ); and
WHEREAS, the Authority, Master Developer, and McCormack Baron Salazar, Inc., a Missouri
corporation ("MBS"), have entered into that certain Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement
dated as of October 14, 2010, as amended (the "ENRA"), providing, among other things, the
138
Master Developer and MBS the exclusive right to negotiate with the Authority for the potential
redevelopment of the Existing Alice Griffith Site in accordance with the requirements of the
Agency DDA . Master Developer and MBS have assigned all of their respective rights and
interests under the ENRA to Double Rock Ventures, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
("Alice Griffith Developer"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the ENRA, the Authority, the Master Developer, OCII, and the Alice
Griffith Developer entered into a master development agreement (the "MDA") to provide for the
development of two hundred and fifty-six (256) public housing replacement units, and an
additional two hundred and forty-eight (248) affordable rental units on portions of the Existing
Alice Griffith Site and portions of the Agency DDA Property (the "Alice Griffith Replacement
Housing Projects"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Relocation Law (California Government Code Section
7260 et seq. and the California Relocation Assistance and real Property Acquisition Guidelines,
Title 15, CCR, Section 6000 et seq.), the Authority is required to approve a relocation plan when
there will be a substantial number of residents/businesses displaced by a public agency's
activities; and
WHEREAS, HUD strongly encourages the adopting of a relocation plan under the Rental
Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program when a substantial numbers of residents will be
displaced as a result of the Authority's activities; and
WHEREAS, HUD has approved the demolition of the Existing Alice Griffith Development as
part of the Alice Griffith Replacement Housing Projects; and the Existing Alice Griffith
Development will be demolished in phases, after the construction and development of the Alice
Griffith Replacements Housing Projects. The existing Alice Griffith residents will have the right
to move into the Alice Griffith Replacements Housing Projects; and
WHEREAS, a draft Relocation Plan for the Alice Griffith Public Housing Project (the
"Relocation Plan") was made available to the public for comments from November 10, 2014
until December 9, 2014; the Authority has reviewed and considered all of the comments
received, and have included such comments in the Relocation Plan. The Relocation Plan has
been revised, where appropriate, in response to the comments received; and
WHEREAS, the Relocation Plan provides for the relocation services to be provided to the
existing residents of the Existing Alice Griffith Development, including moving services and the
right to move into the Alice Griffith Replacement Housing Projects upon completion; and
WHEREAS, the Authority desires to adopt and approve the Relocation Plan.
139
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 above recitals are true and correct, and together with the Staff Report, form the basis
for the Board of Commissioners' actions as set forth in this Resolution.
2.
The Relocation Plan is hereby approved, and the Acting Executive Director, or her
designee, is authorized to submit the Relocation Plan to HUD and/or any other
government agency with jurisdiction over its approval.
3.
This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGALITY:
REVIEWED BY:
________________________________
Dianne Jackson McLean,
Goldfarb & Lipman LLP,
Special Legal Counsel
____________________________________
Barbara T. Smith, Acting Executive Director
Date:_______________________________
Date:________________________________
140
ATTACHMENT II
Relocation Plan
(See Attachment II to Commission Book)
141
ATTACHMENT III
Relocation Plan Summary and
Public Comments on Relocation Plan
142
Alice Griffith Relocation Plan Summary
Requirements for a Relocation Program: The redevelopment of Alice Griffith (the project) is being
assisted by federal funding sources including HUD’s Choice Neighborhood Initiative (CNI) and Rental
Assistance Demonstration programs. The project is also receiving assistance from the Office of
Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII). The federal funds require that the San Francisco
Housing Authority (SFHA) provide a relocation program including relocation planning and assistance in
accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act (URA). The OCII and SFHA’s status as public agencies in the
State of California require SFHA to provide a relocation program in accordance with the State of
California Relocation Assistance Law and Guidelines.
SFHA Relocation Program Requirements: SFHA’s primary program obligations under the URA and
California law include the following –
1. Preparation of a Relocation Plan.
2. Provision of Advisory Services to assist residents prepare for and execute their relocation.
3. Provision of Written Relocation Notices including a Notice of Eligibility (NOE) and 90 Day Notice
to Vacate.
4. Referrals to Comparable, Decent, Safe and Sanitary (DS&S) housing.
5. Moving Assistance to Replacement Housing.
6. Where necessary, Relocation Rental Assistance for a period of 42 months.
7. The opportunity to Appeal Relocation Decisions.
Purpose of the Relocation Plan: Provide the SFHA with a relocation program management document to
assist them in implementing the required relocation program. Communicate relocation rights, benefits
and eligibility criteria of the required relocation program to the residents at Alice Griffith.
Required Relocation Plan Review Period: Under California Law the relocation plan must be made
available to the residents and other interested parties for a period of 30 days for their review. After the
comment period has ended, comments received will be responded to and included in the final plan. The
final plan will be presented to the SFHA Commission on December 18, 2014 for their approval.
The plan is available at www.sfmohcd.org and www.sfha.org and at the Alice Griffith Opportunity
Center and Property Management Office.
Persons reviewing the plan have the opportunity to submit written NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 9, 2014
comments to the plan to –
Chad Wakefield
OPC
7901 Oakport St, Ste 4800
Oakland, CA 94621
[email protected]
143
Alice Griffith Relocation Plan Summary Continued…..
Replacement Housing Options: Residents have the following options 1. New unit built by MBS (256 replacement units being built to replace Alice Griffith units).
–
Alice Griffith residents in good standing will have the 1st priority.
–
Alice Griffith residents will have to income qualify to receive rental subsidy, however, no
Alice Griffith resident in Good Standing can be denied a unit for reasons related to criminal
or credit issues.
2. Other unit available on the market. Households earning 80% or less of area median income (adjusted
for household size) will be eligible to receive Section 8 assistance, which can be used at a participating
unit in a location they choose.
–
Residents who choose to move to other housing may qualify for relocation rent
differential payment. Residents will need to meet with SFHA staff to determine how
much assistance they may be eligible to receive.
3. Transfer to other Public Housing may be possible.
–
Residents must meet with SFHA to discuss this option.
Moving Assistance Options: Residents have the following options.
1. SFHA will make the services of a professional moving company available to move each household
and provide packing and unpacking services where needed. Movers will provide packing material.
• Reimbursement will be provided for eligible cost associated with the move including utility
transfer fees such as electricity, gas, telephone, cable ect.
2. Residents who wish to do a self-move would receive a fixed move payment based upon the number
of moveable rooms in their unit.
•
This payment is intended to cover all cost of move including any labor, material, equipment or
transfer fees for utilities required for the move.
NOTE: Housing and Moving assistance is provided to the household not to individual members.
144
Alice Griffith Relocation Plan Summary Continued…..
Relocation and Replacement Housing Eligibility Requirements: In order to be eligible for relocation
assistance and replacement housing, the following eligibility requirements are applicable.
1. Must be a tenant in good standing as of the date HUD approves the demolition and disposition
application.
–
Must be documented on the lease
–
All persons in the unit are considered a single household; relocation assistance is based
on the entire household (people in the unit) and not provided on an individual per
member basis.
–
Cannot have been evicted or in the process of an eviction (served with a summons for an
eviction hearing)
2. Must not relocate prior to the issuance of the NOE, which will be issued after the Initiation Date
as explained above.
3. Persons who vacate prior to receiving an NOE are not eligible to receive relocation assistance
and will lose their priority for a replacement housing unit.
4. Persons who have been evicted or are in the process of eviction are not eligible for the
replacement housing priority.
5. Persons who have been evicted will not be eligible for relocation assistance.
Who to Contact for Help:
1. With the relocation assistance: SFHA staff will assist households with the relocation process.
– Please contact Toni Autry, HOPE SF Project Manager, at (415)715-3215 for more information
regarding relocation.
2. With questions about the relocation plan contact Chad Wakefield, Project Manager at (510) 7606071 or [email protected].
145
Alice Griffith Relocation Plan Summary Continued…..
Preliminary Relocation Schedule (Subject to Change):
•
•
•
•
Release of Relocation Plan for 30 Day Comment Period
–
Nov. 10, 2014
–
Plan will be posted at the Alice Griffith Opportunity Center, Property Management
Office and at sf-mohcd.gov and sfha.org.
30 Day Relocation Plan Comment Period
–
Households will be mailed a plan availability letter on or around Nov. 6 2014 providing
instructions on how to provide written comments to the plan.
–
Comment Period Last from Nov. 10, 2014 to Dec. 9, 2014.
–
All written comments due to OPC Dec. 9. Comments can be mailed or emailed.
Relocation Plan Approval
–
SFHA Commission Hearing Dec. 18, 2014.
–
All households will receive a notification of the hearing date, time and location and will
have the opportunity to speak.
Earliest Possible Relocations to Senior Housing
–
•
Earliest Possible 90 Day Notice Issued
–
•
Q1 2015 (Sep.-Dec.)
June 2015.
Relocation Counseling and Advisory Services to Start
–
Households eligible for Senior Housing - March 2015.
–
Other Households – Approximately 90 Days prior to release of 90 Day Notices for other
relocation phases.
–
Note: SFHA staff available now to answer questions as well.
146
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
Com
ment
Topic
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
1
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Design
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Unit
Floor
Plan
and
Featur
es
Does the
relocation
plan inform
the
community
which units
are getting a
washer and a
dryer?
2
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Design
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Parkin
g
Space
Assign
ment
Requir
ement
s
Will you need
a driver’s
license to
have a
parking spot?
Are car
plates, and
car
registration
enough to get
a parking
space?
Comment
Draft
Response to
Comment
Replacement
housing
features are
not discussed
to the level of
detail per the
comment.
Typical unit
floor plans can
be viewed at
the Alice
Griffith
Opportunity
Center.
Unit leasing,
occupancy,
and house rule
requirements
including
parking space
assignments
will be
explained to
the occupant
prior to lease
signing. This
information will
be provided to
the property
management
company for
the
replacement
housing
developments.
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
The
purpose of
the
Relocation
Plan is to
provide
Residents
with all
information
necessary
to make an
informed
choice
about
relocation
options
during the
redevelopm
ent of the
Alice Griffith
public
housing
community
and
surrounding
neighborho
od. The
Plan
provides
details on
the
relocation
process
and
identifies
the
responsibilit
ies of SFHA
and the
developme
nt team.
The plan
informs
tenants of
147
their rights
and
benefits
and
provides
estimated
timelines for
implementa
tion of
relocation.
The plan
explains the
difference
between
temporary
and
permanent
relocation
and
provides
examples of
the notices
and other
forms that
will be used
to complete
the
relocation
process.
The Plan
also
stipulates
the right to
return
provisions.
Replaceme
nt housing
features,
designs and
amenities
are not part
of the
Relocation
Plan. We
encourage
Residents
and other
interested
stakeholder
s to view
148
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
Com
ment
Topic
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
4
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Design
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Unit
Floor
Plan
and
Featur
es
Will kitchen
be separate
from living
room? Will
stove have an
air duct?
5
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Design
Studie
s
Includ
ed in
Reloc
ation
Are
health/environ
ment studies
going to be
included in
the relocation
plan?
Comment
Draft
Response to
Comment
design
concepts
and sample
floor plans
at the Alice
Griffith
Opportunity
Center and
welcome
comments
at
upcoming
and
ongoing
design
charrettes.
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
Replacement
housing
features are
not discussed
to the level of
detail per the
comment.
Typical unit
floor plans can
be viewed at
the Alice
Griffith
Opportunity
Center.
No health or
environmental
studies are
required to be
part of the
relocation
plan. No such
studies are
included in the
relocation
plan.
149
8
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Design
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Featur
es and
Ameni
ties
The relocation
plan should
speak about
security
features of
the new
location. Will
the new
location have
an area to
practice
gardening at
the ground
level? Will
the ground
floor levels
have a front
yard, and a
back yard.
10
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Design
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Featur
es and
Ameni
ties
Will the new
units have
windows that
open or slide
to let breeze
in?
Relocation
plan is not
required or
intended to
discuss this
level of detail
of the
replacement
housing
features and
amenities. This
level of detail
is not
discussed to
the level of
detail per the
comment.
Typical unit
floor plans can
be viewed at
the Alice
Griffith
Opportunity
Center.
Relocation
plan is not
required or
intended to
discuss this
level of detail
of the
replacement
housing
features and
amenities. This
level of detail
is not
discussed to
the level of
detail per the
comment.
Typical unit
floor plans can
be viewed at
the Alice
Griffith
Opportunity
Center.
150
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
Com
ment
Topic
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
11
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Design
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Featur
es and
Ameni
ties
Smoking
detectors
should not be
removable.
12
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Design
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Featur
es and
Ameni
ties
Requesting
no carpet due
to allergic
reaction to
dust.
Presently this
household
has
tile/linoleum
floors.
14
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Design
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Will building
have a
doorman?
Comment
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
Draft
Response to
Comment
Smoke
detectors will
be installed
and
maintained in
accordance
with applicable
codes.
Relocation
plan not
required to
discuss issues
related to
smoke
detectors.
Relocation
plan is not
required or
intended to
discuss this
level of detail
of the
replacement
housing
features and
amenities. This
level of detail
is not
discussed to
the level of
detail per the
comment.
Typical unit
floor plans can
be viewed at
the Alice
Griffith
Opportunity
Center.
Replacement
housing will
not have a
doorman.
151
Staffin
g
15
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
11/13/201
4
Date
Received
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Method of
Communication
Design
Type of
Comment
Locati
on of
Site
Ameni
ties
Com
ment
Topic
It would be
great if
Opportunity
center was
located at the
main entrance
of one of the
new buildings.
This location
would offer
extra sense of
security at no
cost to the
community.
At another
main entrance
to a different
building the
San
Francisco
Police
Department
Substation
should be
placed, to
offer a sense
of security to
the
community.
The location
of these
organization,
should be
included in
the relocation
plan.
Comment
Comment
noted.
Relocation
plan is not
required to
provide this
level of details.
Specific
location of
amenities and
services will be
provided at a
later date once
more design
plans are
finalized.
Draft
Response to
Comment
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
152
16
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Design
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Securi
ty
Featur
es
Any security
features will
be discussed
in the
relocation
plan?
17
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Design
Retail
and
Other
Comm
ercial
Servic
es to
Be
Locate
d in
the
Neigh
borho
od
Foods Co,
Target,
Walgreens
should be the
stores that
open up at
the retail
centers,
because they
are badly
needed.
Relocation
plan is not
required or
intended to
discuss this
level of detail
of the
replacement
housing
features and
amenities. This
level of detail
is not
discussed to
the level of
detail per the
comment.
Typical unit
floor plans can
be viewed at
the Alice
Griffith
Opportunity
Center.
The master
developer is
presently in
discussions
with retail and
commercial
development
partners. This
comment will
be made
available to
them.
Households
are
encouraged to
attend monthly
community
meetings to
hear
presentations
from the
master
developer
including retail
and
commercial
153
services that
may locate in
the area.
26
12/9/2014
Written
Design
Servic
e
Space
at
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Where is the
Designated
Office Space
for the Alice
Griffith
Resident
Council? We
don’t see it in
this draft.
Location of
space for
services will be
address in
future design
plans.
25
12/8/2014
Written
General
Letter in
support of the
project
Thank you for
the comment.
Okay
9
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Manageme
nt
Gener
al
Projec
t
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Staffin
g
No one
speaks
Spanish at
the
management
office today.
Will the new
location have
at least one
Spanish
speaking non
volunteer,
employee?
Spanish
speaking
personnel will
be available to
assist persons
whose primary
language is
Spanish.
Okay
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
Com
ment
Topic
Comment
Draft
Response to
Comment
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
154
18
12/4/2014
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Relocation
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Eligibil
ity
If a person
moves for
emergency or
security
reasons away
from AG
temporarily,
are they
eligible to
return to the
new unit?
If they have a
voucher they
will go to a
lottery process
managed by
McCormack
Baron Reagan
Management
Services,
Inc. Or they
can give up
their voucher,
and use their
right to return
and take the
project based
replacement
unit. This is as
long as the
household has
not temporarily
moved for
emergency or
security
reasons before
receiving their
notice of
eligibility.
Tenants are
cautioned
not to move
for any
reason prior
to receipt of
the Notice
of Eligibility
for
Relocation
Assistance
and the 90
Day Notice
to Vacate.
Families will
have a right
to return to
the project
based
assisted
unit.
Tenant
based
vouchers
cannot be
used in a
project
based
voucher
unit
because it
would
create
duplicate
subsidy.
There will
be some
units in the
new project
that will not
have
project
based
subsidy.
Tenants
who want to
return to
those units
with a
tenant
155
19
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
12/4/2014
Date
Received
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Method of
Communication
Relocation
Type of
Comment
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Eligibil
ity
Notific
ation
Com
ment
Topic
What would
be the date
tenants who
have
temporarily
moved away
for
emergency or
security
reasons, need
to notify
SFHA that
they would be
coming
back?
Comment
An information
letter will be
sent to the
households
notifying about
this update
from SFHA.
Draft
Response to
Comment
based
voucher will
have the
opportunity
to
participate
in a lottery
for a unit.
[Toni Autry:
The lottery
process
should be
detailed
and
confirmed
by MBR
(Property
Mgmt.
Group for
the Alice
Griffith
Replaceme
nt Housing
Project) To date, a
lottery
process has
not been
outlined. ]
Okay
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
156
20
11/26/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Relocation
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Option
s
Resident
wants to
move away
from San
Francisco
altogether. Is
this possible
and what
assistance
would be
provided?
Households
will have the
option to
accept a
Section 8
Housing
Choice
Voucher and
port (transfer)
to another
housing
authority that
has a Section
8 program
including other
parts of
California and
the country.
The advisory
services to be
provided by
the SFHA,
moving options
available to the
resident and
the limitation of
moving
services
beyond 50
miles from the
property
(SFHA only
obligated to
pay cost of up
to 50 miles,
remainder cost
to be paid by
household)
were
discussed with
the household.
Details
regarding
advisory
services,
replacement
housing and
moving options
can be found
in Sections E, I
One of
many
relocation
options will
be to
request a
Housing
Choice
Voucher.
Vouchers
can be
used any
place in the
country. If
you choose
this option
for your
relocation,
SFHA staff
will contact
the Housing
Authority in
the are
where you
want to
move and
make
arrangemen
ts for your
voucher to
transfer to
that area;
this is
called
portability.
Relocation
benefits
may be
reduced
when
moving
more than
50 miles
outside of
San
Francisco.
More
information
about
relocation
157
and K of the
plan.
22
12/5/2014
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Relocation
Reloc
ation
Option
s
When do I
have
to
decide
and
inform what
options I will
select
for
relocation?
It's
recommended
that the SFHA
meet with
households
approximately
six months prior
to their move to
explain the
relocation
options to the
households and
assist them in
making the best
decision. Each
household will
receive a notice
of eligibility and
at 90 days’
notice to vacate.
The household
would need to
make their final
decisions within
the 90 day
benefits is
provided in
the
Relocation
Plan,
Sections E,
I and
K.[Toni
Autry:
It should be
included
that
Vouchers
will be a
comparable
housing
option if
available at this time
we have not
been
awarded
Tenant
Protection
Vouchers
for Alice
Griffith
Residents]
SFHA staff
will start
meeting
with
Residents
about six
months
prior to the
start of
relocation
to explain
more about
the various
options
available.
Tenants will
need to
make a final
decision
and select a
relocation
option when
158
notice period.
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
24
12/1/2014
Written
27
12/9/2014
Written
Com
ment
Topic
Comment
Relocation
Reloc
ation/
Move
Phasin
g
Please see
written
comment
located later
in Appendix J.
Relocation
Reloc
ation
Work
Group
Who are the
relocation
committee
members?
Names.
Draft
Response to
Comment
they receive
the 90 day
notice to
vacate.
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
Okay
Relocation
phasing is
discussed in
Section P of
this plan.
Replacement
housing units
will be
available prior
to permanent
displacement
from Alice
Griffith.
The work
Okay
group was
comprised of
representative
s from SFHA,
MBS, Urban
Strategies,
OPC and
residents.
Primary nonresident
representative
s at meetings
were Toni
Autry (SFHA),
Maricela
Flores (MBS),
Isaac Dozier
(Urban
Strategies) and
Chad
Wakefield
159
28
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Reloc
ation
Definiti
ons
What does
permanent
relocation
mean?
(OPC). Maxine
Pauson, Iesha
Matthews, and
Yvonne Green
were the
residents who
volunteered for
leadership
positions.
Other
residents
attended
meetings as
they were
available.
Meetings were
open to any
residents or
organization to
attend. AGTA
representative
s were also
frequently in
attendance.
Permanent
relocation in
the context of
this relocation
plan means
the action of
current, eligible
residents at
Alice Griffith
permanently
relocating from
Alice Griffith to
replacement
housing. This
will be required
due to the
redevelopment
of the property.
Permanent
relocation is
relocation for
a period of
more than
twelve
months or
relocation of
families that
will not
return to the
project
because an
appropriate
unit will not
be available.
Permanent
relocation is
also called
"displaceme
nt" and
provides
tenants with
different
rights and
benefits.
This
information
is discussed
160
in more
detail in
Section G of
the
Relocation
Plan.
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
29
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Reloc
ation
Definiti
ons
What does
relocation
from Alice
Griffith to a
non-age
restricted
family
housing
mean?
30
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Displa
cemen
tGener
al
Who will be
displaced
under the
Uniform
Relocation
Act?
Com
ment
Topic
Comment
Draft
Response to
Comment
Occupancy at
senior housing
is restricted to
persons 62
years of age or
older.
Occupancy at
family housing
is not age
restricted.
Eligible
residents who
are required to
move from
Alice Griffith as
a result of the
redevelopment
of the site are
considered to
be displaced
persons and
would be
eligible to
receive
relocation
assistance in
accordance (or
under) the
Uniform
Relocation Act
(URA).
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
Okay
Displaced
residents
will be
those
residents
who are not
able to
return to the
project..
"Displacem
ent"
provides
tenants with
different
benefits
and rights.
More
information
is in Section
G of the
Relocation
Plan.
161
31
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Reloc
ation
Plan
Availa
bility
Do you have
a count of
household
members who
reviewed the
Relocation
Plan draft
during the 30
day review
period?
32
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Tenan
t
Protec
tion
Vouch
ers
How many
residents are
under the
Tenant
Protection
Voucher?
The relocation
plan was made
available to all
218
households at
the Alice
Griffith
Opportunity
Center and the
Alice Griffith
Property
Management
Office. The
plan was
available at
www.sfha.org
and
www.sfmoh.or
g. A letter
informing each
household of
the plan's
availability and
location was
mailed on
three separate
occasions prior
to and during
the comment
period. A
summary of
the relocation
plan was
mailed to all
218
households.
One
household
requested a
copy of the
plan and that
request was
honored.
SFHA expects
to have 218
Tenant
Protection
Vouchers
available.
Okay
Okay
162
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
33
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Com
ment
Topic
Temp
orary
Reloc
ation
Comment
Where will it
be in writing,
that a
household
that should
need to
temporarily
relocate to
another
property will
return to Alice
Griffith.
Draft
Response to
Comment
No temporary
relocation to
properties
other than
Alice Griffith is
expected at
this time.
Temporary
relocations
would only be
necessary
should a
permanent
replacement
housing unit
not be ready
for the
household at
the new
replacement
housing
projects at the
time the
household
would need to
vacate their
Alice Griffith
unit for
demolition or
for health and
safety
purposes.
Should a
resident be
temporarily
relocated they
would receive
a Notice of
Eligibility
(NOE)
informing of
their rights and
benefits for
permanent
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
No
temporary
relocation is
anticipated
at Alice
Griffith at
this time.
However, if
during the
redevelopm
ent
process, a
tenant
needs to be
moved for
health or
safety
reasons or
to enable
demolition
and a new
replacemen
t unit is not
ready or
available,
the tenant
may be
required to
temporarily
relocate.
Tenants will
be notified
30 day prior
to the need
to
temporarily
relocate.
163
relocation to
permanent
replacement
housing and
they would
receive a
memorandum
of
understanding
for temporary
relocation.
34
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Resid
ent
Scree
ning
Proce
ss
Will residents
have the
opportunity to
be a part of
the screening
pro-cess?
35
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Reloc
ation
Phasin
g
What does
relocation
phasing
mean?
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
Com
ment
Topic
Comment
This item will
be discussed
further as
management
plans are
developed for
the new
communities.
Relocation
phasing in the
context of this
plan means
that moves
from Alice
Griffith will
occur in
multiple
groupings or
phases as
opposed to all
residents
being moved
during one
period of time.
Draft
Response to
Comment
Okay
Okay
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
164
37
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Eligibil
ity for
Reloc
ation
Assist
ance
Under
URA
Please spell
out when
someone
"otherwise
ineligible"
under the
URA.
38
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Establi
shmen
t of
Reloc
ation
Eligibil
ity
Paragraph
does not
clearly explain
the difference
in determining
the different
Initiation of
Negotiation
(ION) Dates.
Plan does not
identify
number of
households
who are
ineligible for
relocation
assistance.
Final plan will
include other
applicable
circumstances
as identified in
24.2 (9) (ii)
including
persons who
have taken
occupancy
with the
purpose of
receiving
assistance
under the
URA. NOTE:
other
circumstances
under this part
of the URA
have been
stated on the
page this
comment is
directed.
On page 26 of
the draft plan,
it is stated in
the second
paragraph that
the ION date is
October 14,
2010. This
date marks the
initial federal
participation in
the project.
This paragraph
will be
expanded to
state why this
date is used.
All households
in occupancy
90 days prior
to this date are
eligible.
Residents who
moved in after
this date who
Section D
of the
Relocation
Plan
identifies
circumstanc
es in which
a tenant
may be
ineligible for
relocation
benefits. A
Notice of
Ineligibility
of
Relocation
Benefits will
be issued to
any tenant
that falls in
these
categories.
Okay
165
did not sign a
move in notice
are also
eligible under
the URA.
There is no
expectation
that as of the
date the plan
was written
there are
households
that are
ineligible for
relocation
assistance
based on
move in date.
SFHA will
conduct
eligibility
interviews to
determine final
eligibility prior
to issuing a
notice of
eligibility.
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
39
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Definiti
on of
Good
Standi
ng
41
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Temp
orary
Reloc
ation
Com
ment
Topic
Comment
Section D on
eligibility and
also the
Glossary
should
include
definition of
"Good
Standing".
Temporary
relocation
discussion on
page 35
should clarify
that a
temporary
relocation
Draft
Response to
Comment
Thank you for
the comment.
Final
Relocation
Plan will be
revised as
commenter
has
recommended.
Comment
noted. This
point will be
appropriately
expanded as
recommended.
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
Okay
Okay
166
42
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Temp
orary
Reloc
ation
43
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Servic
e of
Notice
of
Eligibil
ity
greater than
12 months will
not result in a
residents
eligibility to
move to
revitalized
housing.
If temporary
housing is
necessary,
will every
effort be
made to
relocate in
same
neighborhood
?
We
encourage
the revision of
the Plan to
require that
the NOE be
provided to
service of the
90-Day
Notice.
In cases where Okay
a temporary
relocation may
be necessary,
it is expected
that the
household
would be
relocated to
another
habitable unit
at Alice Griffith.
Should this not
be possible
then efforts to
locate
temporary
housing as
close to Alice
Griffith as
possible will be
made. Final
Plan will
include such a
statement
where needed.
Comment noted. Every effort
Please note that will be
there is
made to
requirement for
consolidate
a RAD
the multiple
Relocation
notices
Notice and a
required
Relocation
under the
Informational
RAD
Statement,
Program
which provide a
great deal of
and URA in
information to
so far as
the household to possible.
familiarize them
However,
with the
since this is
relocation
not a
program
167
including
specific rights
and benefits.
These will be
served prior to
the 90 Day
Notice to
Vacate. Efforts
to provide the
NOE prior to the
90 Day Notice
will be made.
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
44
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Com
ment
Topic
Servic
e of 30
Day
Notice
regulatory
requirement
, we do not
propose to
include this
as a
requirement
under the
Relocation
Plan.
Comments
from Cindi
Draft
Herrera
Comment
Response to
SFHA
Comment
Relocation
Consultant
The plan
Comment
All notices
needs to
noted. Plan will will include
clarify when a be clarified that notification
30-day notice a 30 Day
of tenants
is or is not
Notice will only rights for a
appropriate.
be necessary
reasonable
We request
should a
accommod
that language household still ation.
be added that be in
the 90 Day
occupancy 30
and 30 Day
days prior to
inform tenants the expiration
of their right
date provided
for a
in the 90 Day
reasonable
Notice. The
accommodati noticing
on.
requirement is
a minimum of
90 days
advance
notice; a 30
Day Notice is
used on an as
needed basis.
Request to
include
reasonable
accommodatio
n language in
these notices
will be taken
into
consideration.
168
45
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Appea
l Form
We
encourage
the drafters of
the Plan to
consider a
Relocation
Assistance
Appeal Form
that can be
provided
along with the
NOE.
Comment
Okay
noted. The
appeal form
will be included
in Appendix E
of the Final
Relocation
Plan and
identified in the
text of the
Final Plan.
46
12/9/2014
Written
Relocation
Notice
s in
Langu
ages
Other
Than
Englis
h
We request
the Plan be
revised to
clearly state
all written
notices will be
provided to
households in
their preferred
language.
Comment
noted. Plan will
be revised as
requested
under Noticing
Requirements
on 39 of Draft
Relocation
Plan and
within Section
H (Program
Assurances
and
Standards).
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
Com
ment
Topic
Comment
Draft
Response to
Comment
Okay
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
169
3
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Reoccupancy
Occup
ancy
and
Incom
e
Certifi
cation
Daughter is
mentally
disabled.
Would she be
considered an
adult and
need to give
30% of her ski
income to
SFHA?
Replacement
housing for Alice
Griffith will not
be managed by
SFHA. Rents
would be paid to
the
management
company for the
replacement
housing. All
adult members
of the household
would be subject
to applicable
income
certification
requirements.
All adult
member's
income would
be considered in
determining
income eligibility
for a unit where
such certification
is required.
6
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Reoccupancy
Utility
Paym
ents at
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
What new
bills are the
families going
to be
responsible
for at the new
location?
At the housing
units being
developed to
replace the
Alice Griffith
units the
household
would be
responsible for
establishing
their own
electric, gas,
telephone,
cable and
internet
services
The new
community
will have
different
types of
units.
Tenant rent
in the units
that will
have a
Project
Based
Voucher
subsidy will
be
calculated
based on
the same
federal
formula that
is used now
for the
public
housing
units.
Income of
all
household
members is
considered
when
calculating
the tenant
rent.
There may
be different
utilities for
different
replacemen
t housing
component
s of the
redevelopm
ent project.
An
allowance
will be
provided to
tenants for
any
170
7
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
13
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Reoccupancy
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
11/13/201
4
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Reoccupancy
Utility
Meters
at
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Each family
should have
their own
water meter.
accounts.
Water and
trash services
would be
included in the
rent.
Households
would receive
a utility
allowance for
electric and
gas services.
Other forms of
replacement
housing may
have different
services
account
establishment
requirements
and different
services may
be covered by
the utility
allowance the
household
may be eligible
to receive.
Replacement
housing units
for Alice
Griffith are
planned to be
individually
metered.
Com
ment
Topic
Comment
Draft
Response to
Comment
Unit
Assign
ment
and
Availa
bility
of
"Flat
Request a
ground floor,
flat plan.
Daughter
faints
occasionally
due to mental
disability/cond
Unit availability
will be
discussed with
the
replacement
housing
management
company.
essential
utilities that
they have
to pay
(electric,
gas, water,
sewer).
This
allowance
reduces the
amount of
rent the
tenant
pays.
Allowances
are not
provided for
nonessential
utilities
such as
cable or
satellite
television or
telephone
services.
Any utility
that the
tenants pay
will have an
individual
meter for
only their
apartment.
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
Preferences
for units will
be
discussed
at the time
of reoccupancy
with the
171
Unit"
ition.
Manageme
nt
Company.
21
12/3/2014
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Reoccupancy
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Option
s
Senior
resident living
with
nonsenior family
members
inquired
if
they would be
able to move
into a 1BR
non-senior
unit in family
housing?
Senior not
moving to
replacement
housing with
the remainder
of the family
would need to
apply for the
site based wait
list at senior
housing and
the remainder
of the family
would be
eligible to
move to an
appropriate
sized unit at
the family
project. Senior
would not be
able to have
their own 1BR
at family
housing.
Okay
23
12/5/2014
Verbal Transcribed by
OPC
Reoccupancy
Repla
cemen
t
Housi
ng
Do I have to
move next to
the
same
people I live
next to now?
Residents
should make
any requests
regarding
housing
location and
placement
within the
replacement
housing
developments
to the
replacement
housing
management
company at
the appropriate
time during the
lease up
period.
Okay
172
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
36
12/9/2014
Written
Reoccupancy
Com
ment
Topic
Housi
ng
Needs
Asses
sment
Comment
The standard
used to
determine
replacement
housing
needs after
the
conversion
should not
deviate from
ACOP
occupancy
standard.
Comments
from Cindi
Draft
Herrera
Response to
SFHA
Comment
Relocation
Consultant
The
The
replacement
Admissions
housing being
and
developed for
Continued
the project is
Occupancy
done on a one Policy
for one
(ACOP) is a
replacement
document
basis based on that applies
the actual units only to
at Alice Griffith. Public
There is ample Housing.
replacement
The newly
housing being
developed
developed to
replacemen
satisfy the
t housing
needs the
units will
residents to be not be
displaced from Public
Alice Griffith.
Housing
The criteria to
units and
search for
therefore,
additional units the ACOP
located and
will not be
available at the applicable.
time of the
Occupancy
plans
Standards
preparation
will be
was based on
based on
the actual unit
the
sizes in
regulatory
occupancy at
provisions
Alice Griffith.
of the
The occupancy applicable
requirements
subsidy
for tenants to
program as
occupy will be
set forth in
based on the
the
appropriate
manageme
173
programmatic
occupancy
standard for
the unit the
household
seeks
occupancy in
which, which
may include
Section 8,
RAD, and
other housing
subsidy
programs.
Comment
No. (Order
Presented
in Plan)
Date
Received
Method of
Communication
Type of
Comment
Com
ment
Topic
Comment
Draft
Response to
Comment
nt plan(s)
approved
by the
correspondi
ng
regulatory
agencies.
Comments
from Cindi
Herrera
SFHA
Relocation
Consultant
174
40
12/9/2014
Written
Reoccupancy
Incom
e
Certifi
cation
Clarify when a
Alice Griffith
tenant is
subject to
income
certification
and impact of
this project on
over income
residents.
Final plan will
include
language
pertaining to
needs for
income
certification.
Primarily this
will be required
to determine
households
eligibility for a
Low Income
Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC)
unit.
Households
who may be
over income
for a LIHTC
program or
other financing
programs
cannot be
required to
permanently
relocate in
accordance
with the RAD
requirements.
No household
will be
determined to
be ineligible for
one of the
replacement
housing units
based on their
income level,
however, they
may not be
eligible to
receive rental
subsidy under
certain
program
including
LIHTC and
Section 8.
Final Plan will
All
residents
will be
subject to
income
certification.
The type of
income
certification
will be
determined
based on
the
applicable
subsidy
program for
which they
qualify. No
family will
be ineligible
to return
based on
income.
Higher
income
tenants
may not
receive a
housing
subsidy and
may be
required to
pay the full
rent
applicable
to the unit.
More
detailed
language
will be
added to
the
Relocation
Plan to
provide
clarification
on this
issue.
175
include
language to
make this point
clear where
appropriate.
176
STAFF REPORT
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Agenda Category:
Action Item-Government Affairs and Policy
Agenda Title:
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (“HUD”) THE AMENDMENT
TO THE AUTHORITY'S 2014 ANNUAL PLAN, FIVE-YEAR PLAN AND
CAPITAL GRANT FUND AS MANDATED BY SECTION 511 OF THE
QUALITY HOUSING AND WORK RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1998
Presented By:
Linda Martin-Mason, Director of Government Affairs and Policy
SUMMARY:
The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 mandates that all public housing authorities
submit an annual plan 75 days before the end of their fiscal year. The fiscal year of the San Francisco
Housing Authority (“Authority”) ended on September 30, 2014. The Authority’s Public Housing Annual
Plan (“PHA”) is a road map on how it proposes to do business beginning October 1, 2014. In October of
2014, the Department of Housing and Urban Development approved the 2014 Annual Plan.
A Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) approved Annual Plan will provide the
vehicle for the San Francisco Housing Authority to do the following:
1.) Manage the Housing Choice Voucher Program and Public Housing Wait Lists;
2.) Provide guidance to Authority employees in enforcing lease requirements and other HUD regulations;
3.) Allocate the Capital Fund Program funds to make health and safety improvements to the public
housing sites; and
4.) Allocate funding for supplemental services.
Attachments: I. Substantive Proposals contained in Attachment “III” to this Commission Book
II. Resolution
A copy of any attached documents are available at the clerk’s desk.
DEPARTMENTS REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends adoption of this resolution.
ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION:
I concur with staff’s recommendation.
Action Item No. : 3
Date: December 18, 2014
177
PHA Annual Plan Amendment
December 18, 2014
Page 2 of 2
ANALYSIS:
Upon submission of the 2014 Annual Plan, the Authority immediately began reviewing the plan with a
focus on how the plan coincides with the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program. The Directors of
Public Housing Operations, Client Placement and the Housing Choice Voucher Program took a “hands on
approach” and made changes to the Annual Plan and its attachments including, the Admissions and
Continued Occupancy Policy and the Housing Choice Voucher Program, as needed.
Authority staff members have met with residents, participants, community partners, and city agencies in
an effort to explain the Authority’s proposed changes to the existing Annual Plan. HUD regulations
require that public housing agencies form resident advisory boards and hold one Public Hearing. The
Authority held meetings with the Resident Advisory Board (“RAB”) as well as the community partners to
request changes and submit changes for discussion.
The Proposed Plan was posted and available in-person on November 1, 2014. The 45 day public
comment period ended on December 16, 2014. During the 45 day public comment period, the Authority
hosted a total of 8 meetings. The process culminates in the December 18, 2014 Board of Commissioners
meeting for the Authority where approval for these changes is/will be requested for subsequent submittal
to HUD.
These efforts have moved the Authority closer to producing an Annual Plan that will provide the
Authority with the requisite tools and policies to continue to implement the Asset Management business
model that HUD requires all housing authorities to use and to ensure a smooth transition into the Rental
Assistance Demonstration Program.
178
ATTACHMENT I
See Attachment “III” to this Commission Book
179
ATTACHMENT II
Resolution
180
RESOLUTION NO.: 0100-14
ADOPTED: December 18, 2014
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TO SUBMIT TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(“HUD”) THE AMENDMENT TO THE AUTHORITY'S 2014 ANNUAL PLAN, FIVE-YEAR
PLAN AND CAPITAL GRANT FUND AS MANDATED BY SECTION 511 OF THE QUALITY
HOUSING AND WORK RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1998
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) adopted the
Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA) of 1998; and
WHEREAS, Section 511 of the QHWRA mandates that a public housing authority must submit
an Annual Plan seventy-five days before the end of its fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the City and County of San Francisco (Authority)
recognizes the need to comply with the QHWRA mandate; and
WHEREAS, the Authority received approval from HUD for the 2014 Annual Plan submittal;
and
WHEREAS, the Authority required further changes be made to the Annual Plan in order for
successful transition into the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program; and
WHEREAS, the Authority held meetings with the Resident Advisory Board of the Public
Housing Operations and Housing Choice Voucher Program;
WHEREAS, a public meeting was held on December 12, 2014.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
181
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 above recitals are true and correct, and together with the staff report, form the basis for
the Board' actions as set forth in this Resolution;
2. The Amendment to the 2014 Annual Plan and Capital Fund Program, as attached to the staff
report, is hereby approved and the Acting Executive Director is authorized to submit the
2014-15 Annual Plan and Capital Fund Program to HUD as required under the QHWRA; and
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGALITY:
REVIEWED BY:
________________________________
Dianne Jackson McLean,
Goldfarb & Lipman LLP,
Special Legal Counsel
____________________________________
Barbara T. Smith, Acting Executive Director
Date:_______________________________
Date:________________________________
182
Adjournment
183