Them before also some money. Right. I actually dont have that data in front of me. Jeff, would you be able to speak to that . Hi, im jeff white, Housing Program manager. So the loan so far, we have to this project is 2. 5 million for the predevelopment. And other projects that we funded in the past have already transferred to Mayors 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 dont 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 lowincome veteran c. O. P. Holders who hadnt 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 . Thats 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 thats group 4. Yes. Chair m. Mondejar okay, thats good. Because you are reaching out really to a wider pool. Yeah. Chair m. Mondejar and giving them the opportunity but its 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 doesnt mean there arent 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 dont. I apologize. Good afternoon, leon, there are approximately 700 homeless vets on the byname 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 dont 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 im 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, thats why i brought it up, because it seemed to be kind of a very low threshold. And unless theres 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 arent relegated to an s. R. O. When they really need more quality housing. Just to be clear, it sounds like theres 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 veterancentric development that we have in the pipeline . Currently in the pipeline, well no. M. O. H. C. We got predevelopment 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 2bedroom replacement units for those households, as well. And the 1bedroom units at mission bay could serve couples. Chair m. Mondejar you have 62 units for veterans and theres over 700 on your list. Yes. But not all of them need supportive housing, maam. I think its an important distinction when talking about permanent supportive housing. From the services perspective, its a more expensive intervention, housing intervention. But its very costeffective 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 onsite staff to secure their housing. We have been doing that, as my friend sam mentioned on the presidio since 2000. Theres 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 leaseup. So these are not veterans, these are more the general population, right . Right. Chair m. Mondejar and these are the 2, 3 bedroom units . Theres 1s 2s and 3s 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 theres a veteran who is not needing supportive housing, head of household, they could qualify in this category . Yes. They wouldnt 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 its 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 eyes. Chair ayes. 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 dont 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 im 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 dont 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. Its very frustrating. We have tried to have these discussions and they went silent. This is the first ive 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 havent. 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 hadnt 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 dont know. If we could get a copy to the general public would be helpful. I dont 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 its rather inappropriate for lennar to do these lastminute shenanigans, this is what they are known for at the shipyard, delay, stall, hope the problem goes away but we arent 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 dont 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. Its now available over there on the table. My name is eric vander pool, im 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 its 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. Its unfortunate we have had to bring this issue to you to, to spend time here instead of having informal resolution or discussion. Even now theres 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. Theres 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 its 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 havent gotten until now. Thank you. Chair m. Mondejar thank you. Anthony booth . Hi im anthony booth, im 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 havent 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 didnt 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 thats not going to be a park, its going to be a fivestory building. So, we started questioning, what about the renderings, all the renderings we have seen have a park. I spoke to tamison, tamison said theres no reason the