the question, because i am not quite sure what i am trying to say. you said that cpmc, you had the comment that cpmc was a nonprofit and at the margin it would generally go back into improving the hospital. however, cpmc's profits, as we were told previously in the initiation, actually go to southern health. and it was my understanding then that cpmc asked for some type of rock or however you want to characterize it. such is not necessarily true that -- so it is not necessarily true that cpmc has control over its own profit margins. is that correct? >> i am not a financial expert, but i would say that in terms of that, you could replace cpmc with sutter which is the

parent organization and a nonprofit. commissioner sugaya: an extension of that is the legal question of legalsute -- the legal question of whether sutter is the holding to this agreement or not. >> i am a from the city attorney's office. there is a legal entity that owns the property. sutter west doing business as cpmc. the provisions you are concerned about relate to all cpmc's activities within san francisco. when we deal with the financial issues, we always look at all of their numbers as it relates to all of their activities in the city of san francisco. commissioner sugaya: i understand that. so you're confident that whoever signs this, it is going to be -- all the provisions will have to be respected by sutter health?

>> yes, correct. commissioner sugaya: thank you. commissioner borden: i want to follow up on the prop q process. maybe director garcia can explain what that is. >> anytime a hospital facility changes or moves or reduces or closes service, they must provide public notice to the health commission, and the health commission holds a hearing on the proposed change. and i think that happens at least 30 days in advance of the potential change. commissioner borden: does the commission had the ability to stop the change? you hold a hearing. what happens? >> more of a public forum for the change. commissioner borden: there is no -- >> there is no ability for the health commission. the hospitals are overseen at the state level and not the local level. commissioner fong:

commissioners, any questions related to the topic of workforce? commissioner antonini: i had questions for rhonda simmons on the work force issue. more than a question, just a clarification of my understanding of the situation. correct me if i am wrong, but there are now 6200 jobs in the system, and those are going to be retained. but we're projecting of those 6200, about 600 to 700 per year will change because of attrition. of those 600 to 700 per year, about 100 could be considered entry-level, and the entry level qualifier is no more than a two-year education -- >> i believe that is correct, yes. commissioner antonini: ok, good.

of this group, we are saying that no less than 40 will have to be san francisco residents. and i think coming from situations such as the health care cut -- academy or the community benefits organizations. >> correct. the 40 that i am focus on of that 100 is mostly in entry- level health care. so there might be other kinds of areas of, not so much health care, but entry level that is not captured, but we would still work with cpmc to capture as many additional entry level as we could. it is just the focus is really on entry-level health care to really move that, because that is a growing sector here, a booming sector. commissioner antonini: we also have another 1500 new jobs projected to be created, permanent jobs, over 10 years, of which we are saying 222 will

be entry level under the previous qualifier or about 22 per year. that is above and beyond the ones we talked about in the attrition situation. >> correct. yes. commissioner antonini: ok, good. the other thing i want to point out. when you look in this whole thing, being in the health-care field myself, even in the entry level, a number of these positions might be someone like a technician who would have had a couple of years of training. so it is not as if you can, you know, it is harder to hire. you have to have some training. what i am is suggesting in this might be a possibility, first of all, we have said at least 40. there could be more. second of all, there might be situations where someone who does not have the training necessary could receive the training and be given preferential treatment for hiring a year or two years from then, when the training is complete.

>> that is the idea. we have already started the work with cpmc. our health care academy is already up and going. we're in our fourth cycle. we will graduate a group of this june. so, yes, to the degree that that group of folks that is not so skilled can get into this opportunity and others, that is the goal here. we also work with a number of other local hospitals in this way, but this one is particularly unique in this agreement. commissioner antonini: thank you, and i understand what you are saying. i would presume that as a move forward into years two, three, four, and five, one would believe that as we start this pattern of perhaps training people for employment in the future, that we would be able to increase the number hopefully above the 40 out of 100. >> i mean, that would be the goal. that would certainly be my goal. thank you. commissioner antonini: thank you. commissioner moore: while you're there, would you clarify for me,

with these 40 people, is it over five years or 40 -- or 40 per year over five years? >> 40 per year over five years, for a total of 200. commissioner moore: ok, thank you. >> commissioners, any questions related to the topic of housing? commissioner borden: i just wanted to be clear on one program. you said when the money is paid back because of the natural attrition and people pay off the loans, with that money go back to the general program for all of san francisco, not just into a program for cpmc employees? >> the repayment would go into a general fund at the mayor's office, and we would invest that in rental housing. the transaction is broken up into two affordable housing

components. one for the traditional affordable housing, primarily rental housing, and then the cpmc downpayment assistance program. when somebody sells their unit and we received our principal plus a share of appreciation, we'll take those proceeds and put them back into the traditional affordable housing pot. commissioner sugaya: yes, on the program again, it says that the 14 cpmc is pattered -- the one for cpmc is patterned from the existing program. what is the difference? >> the major difference is the amount of downpayment assistance. currently, the office a downpayment assistance program, we have limited the down payment to $70,000 but this has a much higher limit, up to $200,000.

the current program recycles. it goes back into the same downpayment assistance pool. these are proceeds from a house and bought a few years back. they recycle for the purposes of down payment. again, the cpmc down payment repayments will go back to assist affordable rental housing. >> the special district requires at least 220 units. the in lieu fee is about $73 million. and that resulted from a calculation of multiplying 220 times approximately $334,000. >> yes, the value for a two- bedroom unit. commissioner sugaya: ok. if we took the 73 million in

your average subsidy is summer between $200,000 and $250,000 -- >> 365 units. >> we gave you sort of a range of how many units we would use. from 260 to -- let's see, to 320 permanent units. yes, we would have slightly more units given the specific dollar amount, but the poll was based upon meeting the 220 bmr units, and we are exceeding those 220

bmr units. >> to gridley add something. the dollars a334,000 per unit fee is allocated with the gap between the cost of production and the resell cost of a bmr unit.the bmr program is for residents at the 90% level. at that level, there is actually very little -- in most cases, no other subsidy available in order to produce that unit. if we were producing units at that level, all $334,000 would have to be used to do one unit. however, we're taking that payment and producing units for 60% ami below, and the recycle money would be for access to a

significantly higher level of subsidy, meaning that we could leverage the money on a two to one basis. we're watching the money back into the 60% ami program and below, so we are in a better position to be able to produce more units. commissioner moore: if i understand you correctly, you'll be running both programs, correct? >> yes, we will. we will be administering the current program we have and administering this new cpmc program, plus clearly administering the traditional affordable housing subsidy program. commissioner moore: managing the two different programs, i am concerned about what it says about public policy. it is a program that is treating people and working with people.

i am concerned that it leaves certain questions open. i just wanted to put that on the record, that i am concerned about this. >> we have a variety of programs that get developed over time. as some of the commissioners know, i was formerly with the redeveloper of digits to be the we had a separate program called the limited equity program. we're blunting those programs together. each program, and even programs in the mayor's office of housing, they change over time. programs are created for specific purposes. our staff is pretty capable of identifying those programs and getting them to the right people in the right manner. it will not be a difficult for us to handle these programs. they will be treated the same,

regardless of the source of funding and regardless of the particular program. commissioner sugaya: with -- commissioner moore: with you being in charge, i believe that. but it is a stretch. redevelopment tax in the public interest, and this looks more like a private deal -- redevelopment acts in the public interest, and this looks more like a private deal. commissioner antonini: thank you. i thought the response for the two questions was very important about the buying power that is increased by this program. and, of course, we have always been concerned during my 10 years on the planning commission of that group of people who cannot afford housing, that middle income group that is leaving san francisco. anyway, what was really interesting, if i am interpreting this correctly, is the normal buying power, $357,000, which only allows a

person to access 15% of the properties in san francisco, has been raised to $402,000 and most recently to $460,000 because of the present program. in this program, because the amount is higher, i think we are raised up to $557,000 of buying power, which will allow access to 39% of the units available, which i think is -- i hope i am reading that correct, because that sounds like a very beneficial program. >> you have read that absolutely correct. clearly, the program is not intended to be able to buy every single unit in san francisco, but at that level, there is a large portion of san francisco that is a very affordable to those first-time home buyers. commissioner antonini: what is most important that i interpreted is your impact of employees in that area. most ideally, they would live close to the hospitals where they're going to work. probably, looking at the cost of

housing in that area, that is probably unrealistic figure that could for a residence there. as you say, this recycles back, and we will be able to generate up to 320 units of permanently affordable housing. >> again, the whole question of the traditional affordable rental housing is open to everybody, and it serves -- it will ultimately serve a lower- income group gets 60% median envelope. as the money recycle some of the other part of the money coming back is the ability to leverage the money with other resources, because we typically leveraged 2-1 outside resources to build the affordable housing. >commissioner antonini: and

eight-year turnover on the program typically, so that is what you are basing recycling figures on? >> that was based upon looking at the program from inception to the time the voters approved the bond issue to create a program and looking at the statistics. clearly we will go into the market at a time for the housing prices are particularly low. they are not at their peak. there will be an ability for the homeowner, as well as for the fund to share in some level of appreciation. our conservative estimate on the appreciation is 3% per year. commissioner sugaya: are there demographics or statistic on

which you base creating a program different? are cpmc's that much different in nature than the general public that we need a special program instead of folding it into the existing one? >> part of it is the ability to do the recycling of the particular fund. i would like to just caution that -- it is a limit in terms of the $200,000. you saw the slide earlier that is of limited to 45 percent signed. -- 45%. our history in terms of the larger program has been that people have been able to find housing and except a downpayment assistance loan that is less than the maximum. in terms of negotiations, there

were concerns about making sure the program would work, and as you had concerns about whether the program would work, the cpmc people had concerns about whether it would work from said it wanted to err on the high side in the sugar program would serve employees. it is the maximum number in terms of the downpayment assistance. it is not required to be at that level. it is at a lower level, then we will serve even more people and more households than the initial 145. so there is no fixed obligation to spend it at that level, unless it is necessary. commissioner sugaya: thank you. i think you just argued against yourself, because of the program

is so successful, then why create a new one? if there is a lower threshold of actual money at 100,000 or whatever it is now, it will go a lot further. lastly, i think the whole nexus that has been used to justify affordable housing programs for such things as offices and other construction is that it affects a lot of people, not just employees that are coming to the office building where who work an office building. therefore, it should be open to all san francisco residents and not as workers. thank you. chairmapresident fong? : any questions with related to enforcement? >> at some point, when we get to

it, i would like to offer an amendment to that. >>just simply to include the reporting to the planning commission. it would not be necessary to have our approval, just an informational item. i would just like to make sure that it is there. commissioner antonini: i am not sure if we will have a section that deals with the development agreement itself. >> if you have a question for staff, now might be the time. >> i really appreciate receiving an answer to my question regarding a comparison between stanford university medical center agreement with that that is the development proposed for

california pacific medical center, and i do not know if mr. rich can comment on this or if anyone could just answer if i am reading this correctly. the answer to my question was extremely good in detailel. even though the stanford project involved more square feet, it it appears the total contribution proposed in the development agreement with cpmc of 149 million. this is really instructive. we're looking at housing and health care. they're looking more at transportation funding for employees giving them caltran

passes to get to work. hours are much more heavily towards the things i brought up. if i am interpreting this correctly. i do not know if your knowledge of any other types of comparisons. >> you have given an accurate comparison of the tables we gave you. >> i think that is a really greareally important, and i hopt will be discussed in greater length this afternoon. >> any questions for staff related to project description? approvals? man? none? we have a very full day in march that a public comment cards. we will hear from the project sponsor now. we will take a short track after break after that and into

public comment acrobat. -- after that. ." >> good afternoon. it is good to see you again. this is the seventh time we have been here before you. 's we appreciate you have the opportunity current -- to consider, and hopefully approve this project which has unprecedented benefits for san francisco. this is not a typical the bill wouldn't project, a program to modernize the key health care delivery systems with the ultimate goals of saving lives and improving health. the project will rebuild and modernize the hospitals at st. luke's and dvds. -- davis. it will integrate four separate

campuses into a modern health care system with community hospitals that are widely accessible. it will respond to a state seismic mandate by doubling the number earthquake state beds here in the city. we will deliver unprecedented community benefits for our great city, and those benefits have been achieved through extensive input and years of hard work with the planning commission, health commission, and the city family, many of whom are sitting here today. the project will inject $2.5 billion into the local economy and keep our trades working, as well as retaining and growing permanent well-paying jobs in the city's largest economic sector, health care. we will partner with dph in community clinics to serve a third of the patients come about 10,000 patients, who joined the

plan as a result of health care reform, and provide critical capacity with the community partners to care for the poor -- to care for the patients. we are where this plan has its critics. after 10 years of planning and community engagement, we know a perfect plan is simply not possible. we believe this is the best possible plan, one that balances the needs of health care delivery with those of the neighbors and community. that is why today you will hear very strong support for our rebuild plan from many different sectors of san francisco. commissioners, i respectfully urge your support for this rebuild project that will improve health care throughout san francisco. i will next be followed by david king from the smith group, and dr. ted kirsch, chief of staff at the st. luke's campus. >> if i could have a projector.

mr. president and members of the commission, i believe you have a paper copy -- that is fine. i believe you of a copy of the presentation in front of you. each of the building is technologically sophisticated. designed to support a specific health care program, and this will complement the existing neighborhoods. they challenge our team. it is multiple firms. challenge the team to meet a couple of fundamental goals. first and foremost, to reduce the cost of health care and improve the quality of health care through the new facilities by providing programs that really position institution for the 21st century. these are designed unsustainably. every building will seek lead certification.

they are skilled and articulate it to fit into the neighborhood. they provide new and exciting landscaping and will be built to quality throughout. the first is an unchanged proposal from the building and site development use sulphurs in 2007. the building fundamental or urban design gesture is to enhance public access to an existing campus by linking street-level activities through the campus in new and accessible concourses. the building is composed of two different elements. there is a wood facade and various windows. there is the continuous glass street level concourse that provides the view. the upper building is set back

and turn that 90 degrees to the street. that bridges into the core of the hospital campus, so the past is available to the public and this building through the building and up the hill and into the original campus. there is a small corner card and that really accentuate the available lobby concourse entry. the upper floors are set back and virtually not visible in this particular vantage point. at vanass and gary, cmpc proposes to build a new hospital. the hospital is founded by a gary franklin medical office building by cedar and hold. we work very closely with planning staff to understand and to apply the principles outlined in the better street plan. those guidelines