Page 1

EDW IN M. LEE, MAYOR REV. AMOS C BROW N, CHAIRMAN

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY

MINUTES SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY Community Partners Annual Plan 2012 Meeting April 17, 2012

SCHEDULED: 3:00-4:00 p.m. at 1290 Fillmore Street, San Francisco, CA 94115 Community Partners Present: Sam Bratt Kaye Griffin Dee Schexnayder Dan Bornowski Sara Shortt Meliah Schultzman Phillip Morgan Doug Lybeck Dan Bowersox Victoria Tedder Ace Washington

Organization Represented: Aging and Disability Resource Center Tenant/Independent Organization HOPE/Mayor Homeless Prenatal Housing Rights Committee National Housing Law Project Bay Area Legal Aid Friends of the Urban Forrest Homeless Prenatal Program Independent Living Resource Center Community Activist

Welcome Introductions Suggested Preferences handed out. Sara Shortt requested that an e-mail be sent with the suggested preferences. Linda Martin-Mason agreed. Phillip Morgan asked whether the preferences will apply to both the Housing Choice Voucher Program and the Conventional Public Housing Program. Mrs. Martin-Mason responded in the affirmative. Mr. Bratt suggested that those persons paying over 50% of their income in rent be a preference. Ms. Shortt asked if the plan is that both programs would have the same preferences. Mrs. Martin-Mason responded in the affirmative. 1815 EGBERT AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94124 TELEPHONE: (415) 715-3951 TTY: 415.467.6754 WWW .SFHA.ORG


Ms. Shortt asked if the Housing Authority was hosting a meeting on the preferences on May 8? Mrs. Martin-Mason responded in the affirmative and explained the timeframe and process in obtaining the local preferences. Ms. Shortt asked if the current preferences would be grandfathered in if not selected again to be a preference. Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that the preferences not re-selected would not maintain their preference status. Mr. Morgan asked what the process would be if there was no preference. Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that it would be based on the date and time of application but due to California Law, Veterans and those individuals displaced by a government action would maintain a preference. Mr. Morgan asked if the preferences approved would be allotted to both programs. Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that Housing Authority is interested in having a single preference scheme. Ms. Shortt shared that written comments regarding this issue would be provided to the Housing Authority. Mr. Morgan asked if the person would lose their place on the waitlist if their preference is no longer available. Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that the individual would be placed back on the waitlist according to their date and time of application. It was clarified that the “no preference” included in the suggested preference sheet that was handed out was a suggestion and the suggestion would place individuals on the waitlist according to date and time. Ms. Shortt asked when public comments are due. Mrs. Martin-Mason responded May 18th. Further, Mrs. Martin-Mason announced that all notices have been sent out for the public meetings to be held on May 31, 2012 at the Westbay Conference Center. Mr. Morgan asked if the final plan will be presented then and what was the difference between the Public Hearing and the Public Meeting. A discussion ensued regarding the dates of the Public Hearing and the Public Meeting. Kaye Griffin suggested that the Housing Authority adopt a specific definition of “Homelessness.” Mr. Bratt asked if the suggested preferences that were handed out are in a particular order. 2


Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that the preferences on the list handed out are in no particular order. Mrs. Martin-Mason explained that the language provided is proposed and any questions regarding the policy will be noted and responded to within a timely manner. Mrs. Martin-Mason explained how the Resident Advisory Board was selected for both programs. Ms. Shortt asked how the Housing Authority decided on the number “30” for the Housing Choice RAB. Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that in the past the Housing Choice Voucher Program has hosted approximately 10 individuals. The number 30 was similar to that of the Public Housing RAB, which is why that number was selected. A discussion ensued as to whether Chapter 12 should be discussed at the current meeting or saved for the next meeting due to the recent posting. It was agreed that the chapter would be discussed today and at the next meeting for those who hadn’t read the chapter. Questions asked during the meeting: Chapter 12: Meliah Schultzman commented that the prior policy was preferred because the procedure was more transparent. Further, since the proposed policy requires that an emergency transfer be approved by the Executive Director or his designee, Ms. Schultzman asked how the emergency transfer procedure would be handled and whether there would be a transfer coordinator. Ms. Schultzman commented that the requirement of a “documented threat of attack” language is too narrow and prefers the current language stating that a transfer can be provided where “life or safety is threatened.” Ms. Schultzman requested that verification not be exclusive to the District Attorney’s Office or Police Department but that other organizations, such as those that provide assistance to victims of Domestic Violence, be included as well. Ms. Schultzman stated that her concerns would be submitted in writing. Mr. Morgan stated that some of the agencies listed as examples have been reluctant to provide letters for their clients. Victoria Tedder requested that the transfers remain separated by three categories, Emergency, Priority and Standard. Ms. Shortt requested that the “Good Cause” language continue to be included in the policy because it is consistent with Federal Law. Further, Ms. Shortt requested that the definition of “Good Cause” remain in the policy. (Example provided: If you deny two units without good cause, etc…) Mr. Morgan asked if the Housing Choice Voucher Program’s waitlist will be opened. 3


Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that it was scheduled to be opened this year but the date has not been confirmed. Ms. Shortt asked how the Community Partners can weigh in on the waitlist process. Ms. McCray-Dickerson stated that certain buildings have narrow requirements that the Housing Authority’s waitlisted individuals no longer meet the qualifications for eligibility The Housing Authority is taking this into consideration when discussing opening the waitlist. Ms. Shortt disagrees with the section that bills the resident for resident caused damages. Mr. Morgan asked if the Housing Authority will pay for the cost of the move if the Housing Authority caused the damage. Ms. Shortt requested that a timeline be included in the policy to know where applicants are in the process, i.e. assigning a number to the resident so that they know where they are on the list; requiring the Housing Authority to have a timeline, etc. Further, Ms. Shortt commented that the proposed plan is too broad. Ms. Shortt asked who the transfer policy would be submitted to and where the initial request would be made? Chapter 13: Mr. Morgan asked if the tenants have access to the EIV print out? Mr. Morgan expressed concern over the probative value of police reports being used without any corroborating evidence. Mr. Morgan stressed that the police report alone is insufficient because the person has only been arrested, not convicted, and the standard should be a preponderance of the evidence. (Reference to Chapter 3.) Ms. Shortt commented that language pertaining to criminal activity off the premises by a guest should not be included in the policy because it is too broad. (Chapter 13-3b: (Drug Crime on or off the Premises) Mr. Morgan asked if there will be any coordination between the ACOP and Admin Plan? Mrs. Martin-Mason responded that the Housing Authority would like the two plans to be consistent. Ms. Shortt commented that the “immediate vicinity” and “covered person” definition is too broad. (Chapter 13-3b: (Drug Crime on or off the Premises)). Ms. Tedder commented that that the section adversely affects tenants who have aids/helpers and need them to assist them but are not capable of tracking their activities.

4


Ms. Shortt stated that she wants to confirm that everything stated in this section is consistent with the lease; and that some of the language regarding reasons that tenants can be evicted is too broad and suggested more examples be provided. Further, Ms. Shortt suggested a split between those material violations vs. non-material violations. (Section 13-3b) Ms. Shortt shared her concerns pertaining to the “family absence” from the unit section. Ms. Shortt suggested that the state and local landlord tenant law be stated. Further, regarding the final sentence-the word “immediately” should be removed from the Section. (Section 13-3c) Mr. Morgan requested that a “Notice Provision” be added to the Section and further, that the Housing Authority would have to follow the statutory procedure pertaining to abandoning a unit. Further, Mr. Morgan expressed concern over the time frame required for notice to the Housing Authority because there are instances where individuals are sent to the hospital or nursing homes and don’t have anybody to alert the Housing Authority. Ace Washington asked if the Housing Authority still owns the Senior Buildings. Mrs. Martin-Mason answered in the affirmative. Meeting Adjourned.

5

SFHA-CP_Minutes_041712  

Minutes of April 17, 2012, Community Partners Meeting

Advertisement