the team is fully committed to achieving o.c.i.i.'s goal of 50% during the construction phase. the development team and general contractor nibby brothers are pursuing 2-3 scopes of work that may be completed by san francisco s.b.e.'s your approval today will allow foreclose -- for close of construction financing. the team will prepare early outreach plan and begin to work through marketing. should be complete and ready for occupancy in fall 2019. i do want to take a minute to just introduce a couple members of the development team who are here today. if you would stand when i call your name. from c.c.d.c. reverend norman fong. also from c.c.d.c. whitney jones.

kim pijoda and denise choi and from swords to plowshares leon winston, tina dirienzo, and maisha gardiner, from l.m.s. architects, greg novikoff and from nivi brothers bob nivi and aksel boren. >> chair m. mondejar: welcome, everyone. >> and that concludes the staff presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this project. thank you very much. >> chair m. mondejar: before questions, do we have any speaker cards? >> yes, madam chair. i have three speaker cards. derek sanders?

>> good afternoon o.c.i.i. this is new to me. so bear with me. >> chair m. mondejar: good afternoon. >> i'm derek sanders. i'm an employee of swords for plowshares but first, i'm a homeless veteran. so with the help of swords to plowshares and the commission, so to speak of no vet left behind by ed lee, thank you. thank you. this is all new to me. i just appreciate the fact that i'm here, speaking for the organization i work for and the veterans of san francisco. it's a hard life to get here but i made it. so, i don't know what else to say besides the fact that we need the housing for the veterans here in san francisco.

whatever you can do to pass this bill, this $20 million, o my god, that's a lot of money, but it helps. it really does help. you know, i'm not one to follow format so forgive me, but i'm doing the best i can to let you know that we veterans need every bit of the incentive that is coming in. i'm derek, and i'm a proud member of swords plowshares and a veteran. thank you. >> thank you for your service. [applause] >> samuel bibbins. >> good afternoon, folks. my name is samuel bibbins, a

long time resident of san francisco, since 1964. and i worked in the city for a good number of years and then eventually due to circumstances and also an injury, i had to retire early. i lived in the city for a number of years afterwards and then i decided to move back to louisiana in about 2005. and that's my home. i was born and raised there. and then, of course, unfortunately for me, 2005 katrina came and wiped the city and area out that i was going to move to so i boogieed on back to san francisco, which i wanted to come back and live. i came back as homeless. i applied for housing through swords for plowshares. i was three years homeless waiting to get a place to live. i sort of couch surfed and went

back and forth to different locations in the country to live with my family and in 2005 i was called to get a place in the presidio. i never wanted to leave san francisco. if there's called being in love with the city i'm in love with the city but the city has changed so much over the last number of years because of gentrification and all the other things that have come about, it's almost impossible now for someone who doesn't have sufficient funds to be able to survive. thank organizations like swords who made it possible for people like me to still live in the city they love and still have quality of life and circumstance that gives us dignity and a right to be here. so i am hoping that you will approve this project because not only for just the homeless people but the low-rent people

who still, i think once our community goes only a place for the wealthy it's no longer considered a city but a playground for the rich. i want to thank swords and the city of san francisco trying to maintain in spite of all the circumstances. so thank you for allowing me to share. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you. [applause] >> ace washington. >> i'm here, first of all, supporting the program. so let's get that out of the way above everything so people won't say ace what are you here speaking about. i'm supporting. particularly, the last two speakers, which i share some of their -- happen to be black like they are. i happen to be homeless like they are. i happen to be run parallel experiences with this agency like they did, but way back, way back, 20-30 years.

and i can truly say, and i will keep saying so you don't say ace, stay on track. i'm supporting that. i'm also here, i don't plan to be here to keep on listening to all this, because it upsets me in my head because i've seen this happen over and over, same names different games, of the promises. the promises. now it's o.c.i.i. he said. seems like o.c.i.i. still tell lies. i'm not up here to sugar coat anything today. but i'm here to speak parallel on the issue. you all never done it but i've come up here and speak different agencies they push a button back there, a panic button, have the sheriff come up here, ace off track. ace trying to disrupt the meeting. in my life and time, y'all, i'm 63, i've seen meetings disrupted by community activists. i mean disrupted.

but i'm an old vet. i guess i'm standing up here saying there's not that many of us around, but i support the project. the two speakers who just spoke they need housing, a lot of us need housing. i'm here to speak on these millionaire billionaire developers who have come into this city by the bay. you got to hear what i got to say, it ain't what you all saying, the history, if you tell the history, if you all tell it we won't be able to smell it. in my community you have to smell it to believe it. i'm not here to lecture you but breaking the boredom to speak to every issue to keep it parallel and you all know doggone well what i'm here about, you know what i'm here to speak about. it's all in the papers, it's all in the news. i ain't looking like mr. magoo but bottom line, y'all,

somebody will have to be accountable for all of this. let me just say in closing, all these developments, all these presentations, what if? what if? that's only a two-letter word. but it's so long. i've been around, people like mary rogers and them when the redevelopment started and relocation, they sued and stopped it. and what if? what if something like that happened again? stop all the projects until governor brown come see what's going on in the city by the bay. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you. >> i have no more speaker cards, madam chair. >> chair m. mondejar: hearing no further requests to speak on this item, i will close public comment. so now i turn to my fellow commissioners for comments and questions. >> i just want to say i support this project. i think it's long overdue. i like the fact that it has housing for veterans and it's

looking to serve families. so i think this is a good project to move forward. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you, commissioner bustos. commissioner rosales? >> yes, thank you. i, of course, agree. and i'm happy to say that we are approving, likely approving this on the eve of veterans day, which i think is very appropriate. which happens to be my daughter's birthday so we celebrate it every year. but i had a couple of questions. forgive me if i've asked them before. i like data, as we know. on slide 17, we are talking about the preferences on the veterans side. i'm interested in knowing, of course the preferences as are delineated there, they are self-explanatory but do we actually have a number in our

mind we are targeting, for instance for the certificate of preference? category for veterans? >> you know, it's tough on that because h.s.h. is still pulling together data in their coordinated entry system. that number changes and the population on that list changes everyday. so to crosscheck that list then against the list that o.c.d. maintains certificate holders is a moving target. i can't say we have a specific number in mind or that we have been able to put data to that but the intent and plan is we will continue to coordinate as we get closer to project occupancy and lease up to see what that looks like, including veterans administration, swords, department of homelessness and supportive housing working closely to figure out where we can house certificate of preference holders that are also formerly

homeless veterans. >> i was going to add, perhaps a survey just completed might help us in informing that decision. i don't know how many preference holders there are, but if there are fewer preference holders than units available it would be great if they could all be housed. i like the idea, in terms of how the preferences work beyond certificate of preference category, the longevity, or length of time that a veteran has been homeless, i think that speaks to, i'm assuming homeless generally, not necessarily in san francisco, right? >> right. >> it seems to me in the high need category. >> exactly. that's something that h.s.h. is working to refine and has been refining through the roll out of the coordinated entry system and that's sort of the beauty of the coordinated entry system, they can really understand the history of folks

they are trying to work with. prioritize folks by those most in need and who will benefit most from permanent supportive housing. >> i have to say the income category 23,000 or something, that's crazy to me. i guess if you are formerly homeless, that's maybe typical but it's just crazy that we would be targeting that low. i mean there's got to be a lot of need in that area in the veteran category. that was just an observation. the other question i had was on, another favorite topic, the s.b.e. program, slide 23, i have to commend the team. i look at the list of folks that are getting work and i'm

recognizing some names but there's a lot of names i'm seeing, i think for the first time so that says there's good work being done in the outreach to the small business community, so i want to commend the team on that, so my question is, and perhaps this is a question for the general contractor and developer on what are the joint venture opportunities. we want to build capacity in the small business community to compete for our contracts and i'm encouraged to hear there's 2-3 distinct scopes being identified. is that close to reality or is this exploratory? can someone answer that? >> i will turn that question over to nibbi or ken from c.c.d.c. >> good afternoon. so some of the joint venture opportunities we are looking

at, nibbi concrete -- >> chair m. mondejar: you want to identify yourself. >> sorry, i'm aksel borne with nibbi brothers. so one of the opportunities is a joint venture with michael banes and nibbi concrete, it's something we have done in the past. another one is broadway and bacon. bacon is a local company they are doing a joint venture with and have done business together before as well. and the other one is pacific allied fire. so those are the three that we reached out for. >> chair m. mondejar: great, thank you. >> hi, commissioners, i just want to add that we haven't signed the construction contract and subcontracts yet. those are joint ventures we are working on but have not been finalized. >> chair m. mondejar: would you like to identify? >> sorry, i'm kim with c.d.c.

>> chair m. mondejar: commissioner singh? >> we actually, general community has done lots of projects for us. so they are a good developer. only my question is how much loan they have with so far. do you loan, because we loan them before also some money. >> right. i actually don't have that data in front of me. jeff, would you be able to speak to that? >> hi, i'm jeff white, housing program manager. so the loan so far, we have to this project is $2.5 million for the pre-development. and other projects that we funded in the past have already transferred to mayor's office of housing and community development. >> and the other question i have, do you have the list we will get these units?

>> not yet. let me turn that back over to kim. >> no, we don't have a list yet of potential residents. we will, the develop. -- development team will put together an early outreach plan shortly after they begin construction. and we will start to reach out to potential residents and do mailings and hold workshops for rental readiness and we will develop a list of potential residents much closer to actual occupancy. >> the other thing is the parking. 0.44. two units will get one parking. >> right. >> do you know whose going to get that? >> that will be based on a lottery system. we, again, based on prefontaine experience from swords in the city we expect little or minimal demand or interest from folks occupying the veterans interest.

we have 0.44 for the family units and again, that will be based on a lottery system. >> thank you. >> chair m. mondejar: i have a clarification. page 17. the preferences. i just need clarification. the first is the formerly homeless veteran c.o.p. holders? >> right. >> chair m. mondejar: and then the formerly homeless veterans who are not c.o.p. holders, is next in priority. and then you have very low income veteran c.o.p. holders, so they get a second chance, because they belong to number one, right? >> not necessarily. so a very low income veteran c.o.p. holder is meant to address the possibility there are no formerly homeless veterans left who need to be housed. so if nobody met that qualification of meeting the definition of having been homeless we would then move onto low-income veteran c.o.p.

holders who hadn't experienced homelessness. >> chair m. mondejar: but they belong to the c.o.p. holders list? >> yes. >> chair m. mondejar: the very low income are not c.o.p. holders? >> that's right. >> chair m. mondejar: so you will develop, i guess, two additional lists, number 2 and number 4? >> right. so the formerly homeless veterans are all, would be referred through the department of homelessness and supportive housings list through the coordinated housing list. if at some point they had nobody left to refer who had been formerly homeless or experienced homelessness, then we would move out or reach out to a much broader audience and yes, develop a list of very low income veterans not c.o.p. holders nor experienced homelessness. >> chair m. mondejar: so that's group 4. >> yes. >> chair m. mondejar: okay, that's good. because you are reaching out really to a wider pool. >> yeah. >> chair m. mondejar: and giving them the opportunity but

it's all based on lottery. >> right. and to be honest, i i wish i could say there was a brighter outlook and we would get to level 4, but i think for the foreseeable future, folks will be coming in categories 1 and 2. where you know, we will have that influx of veterans and hopefully we can eventually, the city can get to working zero but that doesn't mean there aren't new veterans who are ending up on the streets who need to be placed into units. but the idea is hopefully we catch them quickly and get them housed as fast as possible. >> chair m. mondejar: do you have a number of how many formerly homeless veterans there are? >> i don't. i apologize. >> good afternoon, leon, there are approximately 700 homeless vets on the by-name list in san

francisco. and of those about 100 that are considered priority due to length of time homelessness or vulnerability, which means -- >> chair m. mondejar: they could be top of the list? >> pardon? >> chair m. mondejar: they go to the top of the list. >> i don't want to blindside staff here but i would like to address your comment regarding affordability, or the 30%. i would like -- swords plowshares would like to see some latitude in that. for example, a veteran 100% service connected disabled, which we have quite a few, quite a few end up homeless. their income is about 40% of a.m.i. so that restriction, unless we can get individual waivers is going to keep some of the most vulnerable on the street. so i fully understand dedicating housing to extremely low income but there is a segment of the homeless

population this could really be a disservice to, so i just wanted to put that on the record. >> chair m. mondejar: and how are you addressing that? or are we able to address that? >> we have other properties, [inaudible] c.d. when we want to bring in a veteran over the income limit for the property, we have to go through a process of getting an individual waiver. however, those have all been for transitional settings, not for permanent. so i'm not sure if that waiver process would hold up in this instance or if there should be something beyond that, that codifies it. >> chair m. mondejar: working with m.o.c.d. on this? >> not quite. >> chair m. mondejar: not quite? okay. well thank you for raising that. do you have a comment? >> i was going to say, that's why i brought it up, because it seemed to be kind of a very low threshold. and unless there's a lot of need at that threshold, it seems to be a bit low.

>> there is a lot of need at that threshold. but there are those exceptions. and they may be 80% service connected disabled. and often these are visible or invisible wounds of war. so we just need a mechanism so we are able to serve them in this housing as well so they aren't relegated to an s.r.o. when they really need more quality housing. >> just to be clear, it sounds like there's more need than the units essentially targeted for veterans in this particular development in san francisco, it sounds like? >> oh, yes. >> is this the only veteran-centric development that we have in the pipeline? >> currently in the pipeline, well no. m.o.h.c. we got pre-development funding, apartments on treasure island, that will be close to

100% veteran building. replacement housing for veterans living on treasure island on an interim basis for many years now and 44 new units for currently homeless veterans. >> and these are individuals being thought about in this households headed by veterans. >> we have some on tries -- treasure island we have some veteran households. so that project will have 1 and 2-bedroom replacement units for those households, as well. and the 1-bedroom units at mission bay could serve couples. >> chair m. mondejar: you have 62 units for veterans and there's over 700 on your list. >> yes. but not all of them need supportive housing, ma'am. i think it's an important distinction when talking about permanent supportive housing.

from the services perspective, it's a more expensive intervention, housing intervention. but it's very cost-effective because it keeps these individuals housed, where in the regular rental market they have a very difficult time, they may not pay their rent on time, they may have behavioral health issues so they really need the support of on-site staff to secure their housing. we have been doing that, as my friend sam mentioned on the presidio since 2000. there's another we did through m.o.h.c.d. 25 units that opened in 2012. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you for all you do for our veterans. they really do deserve this help. one more question. the family units. this is for the marketing and lease-up. so these are not veterans, these are more the general population, right? >> right. >> chair m. mondejar: and these

are the 2, 3 bedroom units? >> there's 1's 2's and 3's in the family units. >> chair m. mondejar: okay, so -- and these are separate from the veteran units that we have. >> yes. >> chair m. mondejar: okay. i just needed to clarify that. but if there's a veteran who is not needing supportive housing, head of household, they could qualify in this category? >> yes. they wouldn't be in any way prohibited for occupying the family units they could follow the normal application process and enter the lottery for -- >> chair m. mondejar: it's open to all c.o.p. holders and then the next 2, 3, 4 categories? >> yes, exactly. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you. any other questions from my fellow commissioners? okay, hearing none. a motion, moved by commissioner bustos, seconded by

commissioner singh. madam secretary, roll call. >> commissioner rosales? >> yes. >> commissioner singh? >> yes. >> vice chair bustos. >> yes. >> madam chair mondejar. >> chair m. mondejar: yes. >> madam chair, the vote is four eye's. >> chair -- aye's. >> chair m. mondejar: motion carries, thank you. very much needed. >> next is agenda item 5f discussion of the hunters point shipyard phase 1 developers correspondence, september 28th, 2017. responding to public comment regarding request for proposals for affordable housing on blocks 52 and 54, discussion. madam director? >> thank you. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you, everyone for being here. >> thank you. commissioners, this item is before you because in meeting in september when the commission took action to

approve the distribution of request for proposals for blocks 52 and 54, in hunters point shipyard project area, the public had made some comments regarding affordable housing and the r.f.p. and as a result the commissioner has requested a letter from lennar clarifying the inquiry or discussion heard. and since then lennar has submitted two letters. one was dated september 28th, 2017. and just yesterday we received another letter dated november 6th, 2017. and we have been informed that, bob smiley, the attorney from law offices of robert smiley and associates will be speaking on this item. i don't know if commissioner rosales, if you had any opening remarks you want today give or

should we just have him respond to the question that the commission had posed to lennar? thank you. >> members of the commission, my name is robert smylie with robert smylie associates for lennar homes. we have worked on this project for many years, okay, and we enjoy a good working relationship with o.c.i.i. the current issue, at this particular point in time, i specifically advised lennar not to attend, okay. and therefore i am making the appearance. the issue here, which we are going to allow the homeowners obviously to express the

concerns that they have is not the forum in which we intend to pursue this issue, okay. however, lennar is prepared to meet with the homeowners, okay, and address their concerns and issues that they have raised. we have provided, as you pointed out, information with regard to the disclosures. and things of that nature. and we look to hopefully come to a mutually agreeable resolution of issues and concerns. and i'm here to address any other issues that you may have. thank you. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you. thank you, mr. smylie. do we have, madam secretary, do we have any speaker cards? >> yes, madam chair, there are

seven speaker cards. the first is jason fried. >> jason fried, san francisco shipyard homeowner. first off a little disappointd in what was presented i don't think he answered any questions you had in the past. i get it he is their lawyer and he is telling them not to address. this is what we have been dealing with, stonewall, stonewall, stonewall from them. it's very frustrating. we have tried to have these discussions and they went silent. this is the first i've heard from them in quite some time they are willing to have a discussion about what was discussed with us, but they have yet to actually reach out and tell us, but they are telling you now. but they haven't. you really need to hold them accountable. they are going to want to make changes to the shipyard. they have already presented to

the c.a.c. some of what these suggested changes are. i would tell you this, do not agree to do anything until they come and present everything to you, not through a lawyer, but present and talk to you about the full details of what it is. i get their lawyers may not want to do it but you have the power and authority to hold them accountable for it and that is important. we need you and we need your help to do that. because up until today we hadn't actually heard it. i would like to see the letter they wrote they submitted yesterday. awfully convenient, submit something in time for you to get a copy but not for it to be out to the general public so we have a chance to read it ahead of time and perhaps address issues in that letter, i have no clue what is in that letter, i wish i could say it is accurate or inaccurate, i honestly don't know. if we could get a copy to the general public would be helpful. i don't blame your staff, as a former executive officer to a commission i understand things come in last minute and you are doing what you can, and your staff is doing what they can

but it's rather inappropriate for lennar to do these last-minute shenanigans, this is what they are known for at the shipyard, delay, stall, hope the problem goes away but we aren't going away. we will continue to come back and want to talk about these issues. we want to see a vibrant shipyard but what lennar is forcing me to do is go to the media and bad mouth them. i don't want to slow this down because i would like to see lennar gone, because my life will get better but if they force me to do something like this i will go to the media and slow down their sales and do what i need to do and get them to address and be an active citizen, so please reagendize this item and tell them to come back and talk to you, not through a lawyer, they have to come for approvals at some point so they will have to answer these questions, if you force them to. hold their feet to the fire. thank you. >> eric van der pool?

>> chair m. mondejar: may i just say, there are copies of the letter that we received, the commission received yesterday. it's now available over there on the table. >> my name is eric vander pool, i'm a proud resident of the san francisco shipyard. i came here today expecting to hear lennar explain a few things. i expected lennar to explain why instead of celebrating the fact the shipyard would include numerous apartment buildings dedicated to affordable housing it chose to literally erase them from their advertising and lie about their existence to potential home buyers. why lennar developed a systematic marketing plan that didn't include these buildings but instead show where they were going to be built were going to be parks.

why they developed a sales strategy to tell home buyers and real estate agents these areas would be parks. it didn't come from rogue members of their sales staff. every single member of the sales staff at the time we bought our homes made these lies. the only way this could happen is if the lies started at the top. lennar needs to em plain why they felt the need to do this. why would it do something so irresponsible. lennar needs to explain why it kept these actions from the o.c.i.i. most importantly lennar needs to explain how it's going to correct this issue, which is entirely of its own making, to the satisfaction of the residents to whom lennar lied, to the satisfaction of the community in which lennar is building this development and satisfaction of o.c.i.i. and to each of you as o.c.i.i. commissioners. they have known about this issue for months and have not reached out to us in any way

shape or form. it's unfortunate we have had to bring this issue to you to, to spend time here instead of having informal resolution or discussion. even now there's no concrete action plan, just a statement by their attorney who suggested lennar not appear but that he appear instead, that they are amenable to meeting. there's no concrete action or offer, just that statement. they should have come here with a proposed resolution, and instead are providing nothing but stonewalling. lennar must admit the mistakes it's made. it needs to come up with a plan to guaranty it will not make such lies in the future and it needs to correct the lies its made in the past. it needs to share that plan with residents, community members and you, so that we can hold lennar accountable. today must be a turning point. you as the lead agency in charge of the redevelopment of this area must hold lennar accountable. you must make sure lennar and

five point are transparent and forthright in everything they do. the only way a development of this size will succeed is if we all work together to ensure its success and that includes and should start with honesty, forthrightness and transparency from lennar and five point. something we haven't gotten until now. thank you. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you. >> anthony booth? >> hi i'm anthony booth, i'm a resident of the shipyard as well. i will just echo some things said by the last two speakers and really implore you to do something about the situation we are dealing with out there. my husband and i haven't made it to a meeting yet. but i wanted to come up and tell a little about our story. we purchased a unit out there which is actually right on the lot that we are talking about.

we purchased that unit because we are starting to the foster to adopt program. we wanted a unit to build our family with, and we were told by our agent repeatedly, over and over that lot would be a park. a park we thought we would take our kids to, our dog to, that we thought we could enjoy and we waited and we waited and we waited for the park and it didn't happen. and we continue to wait. and i asked representatives over and over, not just our representative who told us over and over it would be a park. i asked the director of construction. and he informed me about, in may, yes the park was coming. it was turning over to the city. the city said it needed to be designated green space and we would have our park soon. then comes, a month later was when we found out oh no that's not going to be a park, it's going to be a five-story building. so, we started questioning, what about the renderings, all the renderings we have seen have a park.

i spoke to tamison, tamison said there's no reason they should have had a rendering with a park. yet every rendering had a park. every rendering in their sales center had a park. i guess the extreme disappointment i have today is we came here with such high hopes we were going to have some answers about why that's not going to be a park. why all of our dreams of this first purchase in san francisco will be crushed because we will have no light, no sun, no air through our windows, we are right on this huge building. we are losing everything we thought we were getting with this first purchase in san francisco and now to hear their lawyer come and say we have never threatened litigation. we have never threatened litigation. all we have wanted was answers. we had a meeting with ryan hock. ryan hock is with lennar. we asked him and he basically said well our representatives aren't there any more, the ones who sold you aren't there any more so i can't go and talk to

them. then we never heard from him again. so for him to stand here and say we want to meet with the residents and discuss this when we have been trying to meet with them i can't tell you how long, to get some answers is a complete and utter lie. i will just leave you with those points today and please beg you to get them to tell you some answers. disappointment would be an under statement. so thank you very much for this time. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you. madam secretary, can you call three at a time? >> rick defrancisco, ace washington, david springer. >> thank you, i'm rick defrancesco. i want to work with you guys.

you have vision for our entire city. i heard mr. bustos saying you don't want this in your backyard, we aren't that way. i moved here because it was an integrated community. i don't want segregated communities, sorry to call you out on that but that's the reason i really wanted this community to work but i really feel we could all work together and i would appreciate it if we could all sit down, work together and figure out a way of solving this issue. that would be the best thing for me. so please think about that at least we could work together and not go through lawyers, not go through a back way of doing this but do it out front and see what we are talking about. i do want this not in our backyard but front yard, i want everybody to live together. i want this to be built. definitely everything to be built. but we need more housing. so we need to solve this on top of what we are doing, we need more housing but we need it for everyone. thank you.

i really appreciate it. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you. >> shannon? >> hi, shannon headrick, this is my third time here, i'm at a loss. i don't know who to turn to to straighten this out. we started talking to lennar, ryan hock was the person we were working through. not only did he deny what he said over the phone about what the options were he sent a email clarifying his stance. we reached out since then, we haven't heard from him. we started meeting with the o.c.i.i. team they walked through what the plans were, that have been since 2003. we shared with you guys, the art work that we had. we shared with you the percentage of folks on the hilltop that were verbally told it was going to be a park and no one pointed to appendix document that references the lot number that was over 1,000 pages of which eric clarified not all of us consistently

received it. very disappointed today to get yet another ambiguous answer that doesn't clarify where we are at. what i would love from all of you is guidance. where do i go? who do i talk to? how do i make my voice heard to impact this? i honestly don't know. i'm paying an additional tax for hunters point to build out the infrastructure because the city has disregarded and neglected the area. i'm struggling with that investment i'm making because i don't feel i'm being heard. i don't feel like our concerns are being addressed or considered. so if you could, at the end, when you close the discussions, please tell me who do i reach out to? i would like to avoid having to go the legal route. that doesn't seem like a good way to go. i really want to partner with the city and make this effective but i need some help, i don't know where to turn. thank you. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you. >> ace washington?

>> [off mic] [laughter] >> good afternoon, my name is david springer, i'm a homeowner at the shipyard, i love living there. a couple points is, i want to be very, very clear. this is not about affordable or the kind of housing. this is about lennar lying to us, sending us a lawyer, i appreciate the discomfort of your position, but where is lennar in this? where are they stepping up to the plate and talking about the lies that they spun us? the letter in here says threat of litigation, we have never threatened litigation, as far as i know. here is what i would like to see. i would like to see a delay in this project until we get a resolution from lennar. we need 18 months for that. and let's get this resolution figured out.

figure out a park there would be awesome. not only did they sell us all on that but it's more urban green space, you know, beyond anybody else, how fantastic it is to have urban green space. we also know we are in a housing crisis, so let's solve both of these issues, i think we can do it. so that's really what i would like to see is a delay of 18 months until we can resolve this thing with lennar. a couple other points, i read the original charter of o.c.i.i. from 1997 amended in 2010. it talked about low-density housing up there and an 80-unit building five stories high is not low density. i have questions about that too. and it would be great to hear some answers, you know the charter also says we want to celebrate that area and the views and things like that. a five-story building in front of people's windows is not

celebrating people's views. so that's really my point. i would love to see this delayed until we have a resolution with lennar. about this park. that's it, thank you. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you. >> ace washington. >> i don't know what to say. but i do know one thing. i'm in support of this group right here. by the way i will introduce myself to them, my name is ace, and i can get on your case. now, the bottom line is, we are talking about the players in order for me to get on a case i need to know the theme, scheme and team. already i know the theme, and i know your scheme and i know the team, i'm a perfect candidate to work for them.

listen, tell koffie i'm going to call him today, on behalf of him all. koffie knows me quite well. but i'm so happy that i see a process where you all stand at attention to what they are saying. and they got their lawyer here too? my god -- no, that's koffie's lawyer. but these people here come with paper. so that was my problem all these years. have surgery in my head come to this commission, 20 years, three minutes integrals, all i have to do is put it in writing. i told you if i put something in writing it will say sincerely ace on the case but the next line will say severely because i'm going to file a lawsuit, but i will get on their team and ask how they do that and ask for a delay.

that's only a few homeowners. what about a damn community you have abrupt destroyed? i don't know what to say right now. i am so happy for them coming up here telling you all how disruptive. and they didn't spend money. i hear a first-time homeowner had to go through this b.s. and they have been trying to reach out to you. listen, y'all, i've been trying to reach out to these people and people before me for 50 years. we shared some tears about the urban renewal. some people call it negro removal. i see people try to get in you still don't want to treat them right but you got their money already. total violation.

[bell] today ace on the case. this is totally violating them, my name is ace, i'm on the case, i hope you are getting record of this. whhoo-ey. i hope governor brown knows what you are doing. that's the only way you are operating right now because you should be dismantled. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you. >> no more speaker cards, madam chair. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you, madam secretary. no more requests to speak on this item, so i will close the public comment. i will turn to my fellow commissioners for questions and comments.

>> this is not an action item, right? >> chair m. mondejar: this is a discussion, not an action item. >> well, since i'm the one that made the motion and it was carried by the commission to have this item here, i have to say a couple things. i've said before, and i will state for the record, i am an attorney. i respect the attorney-client relationship. i respect the notion that one party represented by counsel is not present on advice of counsel. and i also appreciate that if two sides are going to have disagreement, dispute, the forum of a commission meeting is not the appropriate forum. so in my view, there's a time and a place for resolution. and i don't see this being either the time or the place or the manner.

as one commissioner, we have a partner, lennar is our partner. if there's a complaint gaenslen e against lennar, i have heard it loud and clear three times i can say i appreciate the representation of lennar even though the principles of lennar aren't here, but they are represented. and to me, that's progress. what i heard through some of the comments was we've been ignored. but now there appears to be an opening we don't really have confidence in that opening but there's a bit of an opening. since i also believe in the good faith of parties, i would suggest that we take mr. smylie's representation and expect to hear, as a body, that in fact there's been a meeting, in fact it's being held and i'm willing to defer to lennar, if

my fellow commissioners would agree on that approach. and see how that process moves forward. i mean, we are the last stop. i don't see anybody here making a motion to delay the project. it's already been approved. in fact, i made that motion, if you might remember two commission meetings ago, and i was shot down in the first time in five years i've been shot down. so i'm not going to make that one again. so those are my comments. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you, commissioner rosales. any other comments from my fellow commissioners? so i echo what commissioner rosales said that, we appreciate the homeowners reaching out to our commission. and we heard you, loud and clear. and we made a discussion happen. in the last couple of meetings. we have representation from lennar.

although, not the person you all would like to have at this meeting. but it seems to me this is an opportunity for the homeowners who have issues with lennar and lennar to have a discussion. and we, this is, you know, this is a discussion between lennar and the homeowners. lennar is a partner of the commission. and we hear you, loud and clear, and we want you to have a resolution and we have tried our best to have a discussion openly at the commission, that's why we agendized it. and i think the next step now is to try to get a discussion, an open discussion. and see what could come up with that and hopefully a mutually agreeable resolution could happen. and i would like to get updated. i would like this commission to get updated so that we don't

have this, not that we don't want you to come back but we don't want these issues to come up again, that is not because it's not resolved. so that's my statement. and we tried our best to have you be here, and to agendize your concerns. and i know it's not satisfactory to all of you. but we are here to help you further, if nothing comes about. and my request, as one commissioner, in this body to have a meeting scheduled. and that, you know, something would come up because i understand from the homeowners there has not been a meeting or a discussion at all. and i think it's an opening here, having you here, attorney smylie, but i really would like to encourage you to have some

form of discussion and to hear the homeowners, they are your customers, so i think it's important they be heard and that somehow a good resolution would come up that is satisfactory to both parties. so thank you for being here. thank you, mr. smylie for being here and hopefully, i do look forward to mutually agreeable resolution. and to hear good news. thank you. okay, so madam secretary, please call the next item. >> the next item is item 6, public comment on non-agenda items. madam chair. >> chair m. mondejar: do you have speaker cards? >> yes, i have ace washington. >> you all might want to relax and see how i do this. [laughter] ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, this is totally unacceptable what this agency is doing to the western edition.

there's nowhere mentioning about the funding in the western edition, i received the letter you all received april 14th from governor brown saying you get out the western edition. i don't think he knows what's going down in san francisco. he has not a clue. you look at me like i'm mr. magoo. right now you are in total violation. i just witnessed how a group of residents is just coming together, putting something in writing i've been coming up here for years. through all the tears. it shows that ace, you are doing something wrong. you got to pivot, you got to put it in writing. want me to put something in writing that says sincerely ace, but severely, i'm planning on stopping something, the merits speaking legal, or just on the merits and then there were further investigation to see there were total violations.

total negligence. i would like to pass this for you all to pass, i know you all read it friday. it's on the paper here, can you put this on the screen, please? and then pass one out to the commissioners. i'm not going to show you "the chronicle". but the same old song in the fillmore. you all know, i have come out here and i almost had a commitment from this commission before most of you all were here from president morales, where you said you were getting ready to come to the western edition and explain the problems and that was way before you got the letter. you were getting ready to come, stated like we are getting ready and you got a letter popped up from downstairs from london breed that says hold up. he says hold up, that's my district. you all bough down and say ace, but london is calling. she say she want to take over. from july 16th, we heard many

lies. and then they had the r.f.p. over to o.a.w.d. you are playing football with us. i can't say everything, but i'm requesting and demanding that our agency come out to the community and tell us what the hell is going on in our community. have us nowhere mentioning, only on paper. we got to do something. listen, i have a report that will be unheard of on the internet. it's going to clearly say what the hell are you doing here in the city by the bay? where everybody thinks everything is okay. but they are going to hear what i got to say, so i'm respectfully requesting and i will put it in writing that you come to the community and at least explain what the hell is going on. thank you very much. my name is ace, i'm on the case.

>> no more speaker cards, madam chair. >> chair m. mondejar: hearing no further requests to speak on this item, i will close public comment. madam secretary, please call the next item. >> next is item 7, report of the chair, madam chair? >> chair m. mondejar: i have no report. >> the next order of business is item 8, report of the executive director. madam director? >> i have none. >> the next order of business is item 9, commissioners' questions and matters. madam chair? >> chair m. mondejar: yes. question from commissioner singh? >> i think ace washington has a good idea. we should have some community meetings. go over there to our project areas. >> chair m. mondejar: noted. looks like mr. washington is very happy. >> [off mic]

my kids, grand kids and great grand kids. >> chair m. mondejar: thank you. any other questions or matters from the commissioners? >> i think we have a standing request -- >> chair m. mondejar: going on a couple years, i think. okay. madam