Supervisors press SF Housing Authority and contractor Eugene Berger on poor conditions at Sunnydale and Potrero HOPE SF sites

The Government Audit and Oversight Committee took testimony on operations at two HOPE SF redevelopment sites — Sunnydale and Potrero Hill — after repeated reports from residents about trash, abandoned vehicles, vacant‑unit security and delayed maintenance under contractor Eugene Berger Management Corporation (EBMC).

Supervisor Walton opened the hearing by summarizing constituent reports of excessive trash at Sunnydale and slow maintenance turnarounds at Potrero Hill and asked SFHA and EBMC for specific corrective actions. Dr. Lettaju of the San Francisco Housing Authority said HUD in 2019 mandated third‑party property management at these sites following fiscal deficiencies and described a phased transition to EBMC during which the Authority supplemented work with staff and vendors.

EBMC representatives acknowledged early staffing shortages and system problems affecting work‑order responses, and outlined steps taken: daily site walks, new hauling and landscaping contracts, vendor augmentation, and a published schedule of additional hauling at both properties. EBMC reported work‑order counts and closeout figures (e.g., Potrero about 1,259 work orders with 11 open at June 30; Sunnydale about 794 with 8 open) and said 75 cars had been towed with roughly 35 still in process.

Residents and community advocates gave repeated on‑the‑record testimony describing long‑standing problems — mold, rodent infestations, broken play equipment, piles of trash and communication failures — and said conditions had endangered health and safety. Several residents said conditions had shown some short‑term improvement since a new EBMC site lead arrived but urged faster, verifiable change and more resident hiring.

Supervisors pressed SFHA for documentation of corrective actions and contracts and pressed EBMC on staffing, whether the firm had informed the city when it could not meet performance terms, and the structure of payment (SFHA said EBMC’s contract pays on a per‑occupied‑door basis and that the contract value was roughly $3 million for three years, about $1 million per year). The committee requested that the Housing Authority provide the contract and RFP for review and asked SFHA to deliver quarterly status reports tracking EBMC’s performance and the developers’ use of on‑site resources.

The committee voted to continue the item to the call of the chair to allow follow‑up. The Housing Authority and developers accepted further oversight and the committee asked for quarterly written status updates.