thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i want to thank supervisors cannkim and olague. this is something that is critical to our committee and we will be clipping -- keeping a close eye on that. in hijacked -- and i traffic areas, we separate the pedestrian signals from the left turns because we know that most interest take place when carssii are turning left and pedestrians are walking at the thank you. supervisor mar: next speaker. >> good afternoon. my family has had our business in this district since 1948. i have been involved in the planning district for the last

several years. this has had an extraordinary planning process from a great group of people. a lot of private projects have been on hold since 2006. when you allow them to go forward, and will provide new open space, affordable housing on side, a lot of things that are less clear. i urge you to move this without further delay. supervisor mar: thank you. >> we have been supportive of the terminal project from its very inception. at all levels. from what i am hearing, it may be needed to reiterate that

support here. supervisor mar: it looks like this is the last speaker. >> i am against it because heavy traffic, what is going to happen? all of the buses -- instead of doing this, fix the buses. this is a waste of money. this is our future. what about the next future of the children? child care, we do not needed anymore. children are children. enough is enough. the money should go to affordable housing, thank you. supervisor mar: i see no other speakers. we're going to close public comment. we have a comment from supervisor kim. i do wante

appreciative of the years of work that went into this district plan, long before i was on the board of supervisors. )whacking is planned is incrediy < generate -- i think this plan is incredibly important. xi would ask my colleagues for your support today at land use and i want to recognize all the members of the public who came out to support this plan. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor kim. colleagues,k> before us. can we approve them up with a positive recommendation without objection? thank you.

thank you, everyone. could you please call item 5317? >> items 5-17 our legislative package related to the cpmc including ordinances and resolution commending the planning codes, zoning map, general plan, changing the official sidewalk with, and improving a straight encroachment, planned transfer agreement and development agreement. >> colleagues, this is the fourth and final hearing land use committee hearing on the cpmc project. i wanted toqñqáthank the project sponsor and all the community folks and others who have come ouwu5háhe past three hearings on this item at committee. there has been a lot of passion and inside and we have learned a lot to the process. i want to say that we are learning about what kind of help

care system we want in san francisco and also how a project of this -- health care system we want in it san francisco. how a project impacts of vulnerable communities in the area. we are scheduled to discuss housing, traffic, and neighborhood impacts. .vduring the past two weçoí focused on healthq we have reached some of its of an impasse on the future of st. luke's hospital. i think it is important to emphasize there are other issues we hold very strong concerns about. we have not received an adequate response from the project sponsor for more transparency on the financial information from them:kn7 sponsor and the revised numbers on the improved workforce hiring.

i know that was asked at the first hearing. and when we heard that -- only 40 jobs per your. we are still waiting for more information. there has been no indication that the project sponsor is changing their approach to negotiations, especially transparency and dialogue with community stakeholders. today's hearing covers a number of topics. we will see substantial differences between different community requests and what is being offered by -- in the development agreements. i hope we hear informaíh frm the city staff and perhaps the project sponsor that is more reliable than what has come before us. i am doing my best to be optimistic and remain hopeful that we are continuing to have a good negotiation in good faith with the project sponsor and the city to reach a project that is

a true win-win for our neighborhoods and jobs as well. i would like to ask if there are any other opening comments from my colleagues. i would like to say that we have a number of city departments speakers. economic and workforce development. and then the mayor's office of housing. >> thank you, supervisors. our topics for this hearing our housing portions ofita9 the development agreement and the portions concerning transportation@nd+u. with your permission, we will begin on the housing. when he is done, we will shift over to planning and mta staff on the transportation. if you want to take housing questions right after the housing presentation or wait until we're all done, we can do it either way. supervisor mar: thank you. mr. lee?

>> thank you very much. [inaudible] good afternoon. [inaudible] supervisor mar: 10 against the microphone on? the date academy gets the microphone on it? >> -- can we get the microphone on? >> we entered into the negotiations on the development agreement with some key principles. one was that we ensure that the city received full value for any

residential units lost within we ensured an appropriate contribution by cpmc towards the affordable housing. we respected the policy intent of the van ness special use district. in terms of the replacement housing obligations, as proposed, there will be the demolition of both rent- controlled units that will be displaced by both the adjacent buildings to the main cpmc campus. cpmc is proposing to provide $2.6 million to replace the 20 residential hotel units. this was determined by the department of real-estate with

the assistance of the mayor's office. cpmc will also provide approximately 1.5 million to replace five rent-controlled units demolished by the campus. that was based upon staff work at both the department of planning and the mayor's office. these fees would be played no later -- paid no later than the date of development. this was not part of;@k9ñ the development agreement itself, some of these units were occup ied. cpmc negotiatedpjéñ to provide r relocation benefits to the tenants of these units that are anticipated to be demolished. if the city had been working on these projects, we would follow but uniform relocation act and

these units will be subject to those roles and provided relocation benefits and assistance for a period of 42 months. our understanding is that the relocation payments work the equivalent of 120 months of rental subsidy and the residents received up to six months' free rent prior to relocation and all of the households have been successfully relocated at this point. in determining the affordable housing fee for this particular development, we looked at the jobs housing linkage program and the g van ness sud. this is a medical institution and is exempted, but we looked at but the additional square footage applying the code. we calculated a hypothetical

jobs-housing linkage fee of $2.7 million. supervisor mar: a number of affordable housing advocates have brought this up. where in the planning code in section 413.3 or elsewhere is there the exemption of medical office buildings? exempted. nf$ >> your question is where medical office buildings are exempt from the fee? supervisor mar: as we calculate this figure, i understand the special u.s. district requirement, i need to know exactly where it is that medical is exempted from the planning code. >> under the jobs-housing

linkage section of the planning code, the cpmc medical office building would be considered an institutional use as part of a medical center. it is a different section of the planning code. institutional uses are excluded. >> where is that specifically? >> let me look really quickly. supervisor mar: thank you. >> we also looked at the affordable housing requirements. clearly, cpmc is not building new residential units, but if we applied the required residential requirement based upon the proposed new commercial, it would require approximately 1.4 million square feet of the inclusion their requirement

based upon our estimate of what the unit size would be was approximately 220 units, which would represent the appropriate amount, a 15%. or $73 million. the affordable housing provisions are reflective of our desire to meet that 220-unit obligation. the affordable housing fee is divided into two major pieces. approximately half of it, 29 million, would be provided to moh to find what we're calling traditional affordable housing development for which we would

find nonprofit community-based developers to seek outside funding and would build approximately 145 units. the actual number of units would vary based upon our outside leveraging. our estimates are on the conservative side, 145 units. the other portion of -- would go for a new down>g-b) assistance loan program. the mayor's office of housing currently manages the downpayment assistance program. this money wouldú special program for cpmc employees earning up to 100% the median income. that is a number that is lower than our current program, which cmp[mis 120%. supervisor cohen: i have a question about the first-time homeowners downpayment

assistance program. i was under the impression there were $0 in this fund. >> we are rapidly running out of funds. the initial program was $15 million. that was funded on older housing bond efforts. we recently dropped our subsidy amount from $100,000 as the maximum to 70. we're trying to meter out the down payment assistance that we can provide. this is a revolving fund and some of the downpayment assistance comes back to us in the form of the original amount. we are rapidly coming to the end of the program because demand

for new loans exceeds our repayment. that fund and replenish or double the existing $15 million downpayment assistance loan program over the first five years of a housing trust fund. the demand for this resource has exceeded -- supervisor cohen: what you're presenting is that should the housing trust fund measure pass, it would replenish by at least $15 million to the fund to and it is through this find that new recruited nurses and doctors and employees of cpmc will be able to draw down on this money? >> there

fonts. the current find -- fund is not restricted to any particular employer. the fund we're talking about is restricted to employees of cpmc. one is not restricted by occupation at all. and one is. the other is the general downpayment assistance loan program goes up to 120% the median income. anybody up to 120% the median income is eligible to get a down payment assistance program. in this particular program, the income limits have been reduced from 120 down to 100% of median income toó-sm make it more affordable to the lower-paid employees of cpmc. it is not a program intended to assist their doctors or even their nurses. because they make over 100% of

median income. it is designed, in part, to assist the orderlies, the janitorial staff, the other people working behind the scenes to be able to afford to live in san francisco. one of the reasons why we accepted this proposal from cpmc, it reduces the jobs- housing imbalance the city has. there are people commuting into the city. this would allow their employees to be in the city. it reduces the impact of coming across the bridge are coming up the freeway. this is a different program from the housing trust fund program. it is a different program from our current program. supervisor cohen: how much money are you allocating it? >> this program would be $29

million. it is over an extended period of time. and also, the size of the downpayment assistance is greater. it is 200,000 versus the 100,000 in our standard program. because we have a lower income level that are typical program, this would allow us to serve low-income employees of cpmc. the knicks thing about this downpayment assistance program -- the neat thing about this downpayment assistance program, when these loans are repaid, they will go into our rental assistance pool. ñómmas the home buyers either sl or move on and repaid the city, they will be paid the loan -- repay the loan, we will put it

back into our rental assistance loan pool. supervisor cohen: this fund of money, it is part of the agreement for the rebuilding of this particular project, correct? if there was no rebuild projects, we would not even be discussing the $29 million? >> absolutely. there is the $29 million for the affordable housing. this additional $29 million for the down payment assistance program. ieñ -- the initial

cpmc contribution towards affordable housing, if you total, a $58 million. that is in addition to the replacement housing fees key will be paying for &s÷ñ the ren- controlled units. supervisor cohen: has there been any thought to put to helping san franciscans currently this money? as opposed to someone coming in from the outside? cpmc has done some testimony on the number of san franciscans they have actually hired. they have projected where they will go. >> the program, asqíe q describ, clearly is targeted for any of

their employees. is they would become san francisco residents. we're only providing this assistance if you are going to become a san francisco resident. that would reduce the spillover or the additional affect of converting a non-san franciscan is that you would reduce household committing. supervisor cohen:&d have so many people who live here that cannot afford to buy housing. i'm trying to figure out if other san franciscans -- last week, we werer÷ru at a church service in the bayview. the information i gave him about the first-time home buyer

assistance program, what i was told by members in your department, there is no money available. where i am concerned is that there are fewer dollars available for the people currentlymhs living here, but e is an ample amount available for potential people. this is maybe the one shining lights in this whole development deal that one might be able to consider it favorably. it pales in comparison to all of the other things that are horrible. >> in terms of our assistance to potential future homeowners, we will try to stretch out limited funds that we have left. we hope that the board will look favorably on the housing trust fund legislation, which comes to the board tomorrow.

supervisor cohen: that is a whole other battle. >> that will be a source for creating downpayment assistance into the future. that is a source that we will not have to rely on a particular development to go forward or not to go forward, that will be a consistent source and we can plan in terms of looking out into the future, in terms of how we develop affordable housing, as opposed to hoping a project goes forward or does not go forward. pinning our hopes on something that is speculative as opposed to something that is certain.

this particular aspect of the development agreement -- if the development goes forward -- is a way of creating additional homeownership opportunities. it is a way of replenishing our rental assistance pool down the road. i do not see these as competing measures. supervisor cohen: please continue with your presentation. >>&ñi/ñ it will provide $35 miln over a period of time for rental assistance program. we feel that we can create an additional 175 units through the repayments of the down payment

plus the shared appreciation. supervisor mar: what is the present value of that $35 million? >> we have not calculated the value of that, but we can get that information. supervisor mar: we're talking about $35 million. >> we estimated and eight-year time horizon. i cannot remember the actual interest rate we used to look at the repayments. that is a number i will get back to your office as quickly as possible. supervisor mar: that would be great.

it is certainly far less than $35 million. i'm surprised this number has not been calculated yet. >> we feel that is providing a benefit to san francisco residence. to the extent that we can create future residence at of the other cpmc employees, that is a benefit to san francisco. we will get you that number. supervisor mar: 55% of cpmc employees that work in the san francisco do not live in it san francisco. is that the number? >> i am not sure what the number is. supervisor mar: i think we heard tç presentation that

45% of cpmc san francisco employees actually live in the city. >> i think that is correct, supervisor. supervisor mar: i want to get a sense of what the value of this is to san francisco residence. >> -- residents. of 4.3 on the effective date, and other substantial payment at the beginning of construction, and the interest would be charged based upon our current fee deferral interest rates. we feel this will produce approximately 145 affordable rental units. in terms of the downpayment in terms of the downpayment assistance program, it is $5.8