interest will be charged from the for subsequent payments and payments will be on an annual basis thereafter. up to $29 million. the next couple of slides talk about the details, the maximum loan amount is $200 million because there is no payment required on the down payment assistance program. we are anticipating approximately 145 loans.

the affordable rental units, what we anticipate the initial borrowers plus the repayments of those 175, this creates 262, 320 permit only affordable units in excess of what would be required. the last slide is to show the timing of the payments, the fee plus the affordable housing units which the mayor's office of housing would allocate to the affordable housing developers. the initial downpayment

assistance and the repayment of those funds in the future, and weeds is estimated in year eight and continuing. together, that provides for the creation of in excess of 220 usable units. that answers my presentation. >> -- supervis an estimate presented in april, but is there an estimate applied to this project? to mitigate the 550 bed hospital and its new work force, it do you have an estimate that came out in april -- came out in

april? >> it was based upon the job linkage formula, so this one clearly produces a greater affordable housing obligation. supervisor mar:óé presented the formula in april, but it seems like it should be higher based on the job housing linkage. >> are you asking about calculating the jobs housing linkage number? i don't have it right in the front of me but i can look it up and give it to you. >> that would be helpful. getting back to the calculation of the special use district -- my understanding is we passed a

resolution in september of 2010 that required as a city any new development projects shouted substantially fill the i think from the numbers of the inclusion rehousing0g -- i just need to know how you come to the conclusion about how that fills the housing goals of the city? >> the 220 units is 15% of the overall units within the -- 20% -- thank you. it providesfyzx for the requise

minimum affordable housing requirement under the sud, therefore we feel the 220 it basedcjñ upon what we calculates the numbers of units we could ultimately produce with the contribution both affordable rental initially and three the repayments from the downpayment assistance, we could produce at least 220 affordable units. >> -- supervisor mar: it just sounds as woefully inadequate. i know that even the housing element, 60% is at least affordable. i wonder if you have any sense of whether it just keeping the bare minimum given the impact of

lower income people who may be part of the workforce from the development, could you address that? >> the administration clearly supports the development of affordable housing. i won't go back to the housing trust fund. the administration does not deal -- it is a collective responsibility. it should not be the burden of any one project to solve all problems the city may face as it relates to affordable housing. we think all projects should contribute and our recommendation to the board on the contribution -- we clearly need more affordable housing. the housing trust fund is the administration's answer to your question about do we need more

affordable housing in the answer is clearly we do, but we don't feel this particular project should bear the burden for all the projects and even by itself, it would not be sufficient to solve or build the affordable housing we are anticipating. >> -- supervisor]t the transit development zones or about 30% of the housing is going to be affordable. even the draft environmental impact report estimated the project would create about 1490 or 1500 new housing units ñi1fbetween the 2006 and 2030. i'm wonderinglc what percentagf households lower income proper -- a lower income could afford that property? >> i cannot give a specific

percentage. the goal of the mayor's office has been to focus on the group of individuals that 16% of median income or below. that is the group that can least afford it in san francisco and we are looking at half the proceeds going toward improving that particular population. ultimately, the balance of their repayments will go toward serving that population, so we're trying to serve those who are least equipped to acquire housing in the private market. >> thank you. >> if we to get back into the details of your previous questions -- that is section

413.3 which delineates which land use types are subject to the linkage requirement. it is not exclusively called out -- the reason it's not the same as a medical office is as the medical center, the office component is considered an institutional use and that is outlined in section 217. medical offices are come together subject to a master plan. there's a clear distinction between medical office and other office. >> 413.3 -- does that exempt hospitals or medical centers? >> it doesn't explicitly exempt medical centers or offices but it delineates what is eligible and that hospitals and medical

centers are not included. >> but it does not specifically exempts them,/%3v but your interpretation is is exempted because it's an institution that is not designated as in the list of need to pay into the jobs housing linkages? >> the zoning administrator has jtmade that. >> it is not specifically exempted. >> i would say he would say that is clearly the intent and it is further called out in the fee table further down'0!bg "into sn 13 -- institutional uses are called out as a $0 per square foot wear as regular offices called out with a $19 per square foot feet. institutional use is there if you look at the entirety of the planning code section it all brings you to that conclusion. >> --

the is sending administrators opinion? if you could provide that for us -- it's not explicitly exempted your interpretation is that is the zoning administrators perspective -- if you could provide that -- supervisor campos: i would like to have read the analysis to understand how the decision was made. >> x housing linkage, the calculation in the nexus daddy used to ÷"w=zgenerate the linkage -- mel uses were evaluated and roughly evaluated at approximately $17 per net new square foot rate so that is the number we used. if you look in section 413,

medical uses are not included in the table. the numbers that were in the most recent study were directed lead -- or directly pulled into the code, not medical uses, and i was a policy decision made at that time. supervisor mar: thank you very much predella afford to the document. mr. rich? >> if you are ready to move on to the transportation fees, we will move on unless therec other questions on housing. supervisor mar: please continue. iñi appreciate their hair from e

mta and others as well. >> like we have done on the other subject areas, we want to start by indicating what underlies our thinking as we go through developing the agreement. we always want to be basing our requests on them in the things we negotiate for on principles and policies, so you see what underlies those. there was the realization -- i will say that our presentation will cover all three campuses, but in recognition most of the impacts on the majority of the development, cathedral hill will focus mostly but not exclusively on cathedral hill. it is at the corner of to bus driver transit lines, recognizing we need to accommodate all modes of

transportation in a balanced manner, like we want to do on any major redevelopment project. that we've understand we have more so than other projects, a variety of types of trips because we are dealing with employees,xse that may have regr hours or visit the hospital not so regular hours and dealing with emergencies in patients coming in and out. we want to minimize the effect that no matter which way you cut it, there are a lot of new cars. we want to minimize the effect of those new cars on the transportation network and work to enhance the existing transportation management demand programs. you will hear about those and what we did with these principles in the presentation following. just to give you an overview, we are going to go in to a bit of technical detail because we think it's important for you to hear how these things are

arrived at. circulation issues around cathedral hill and the methodology to assess the impacts in the environmental impact report and we will describe the various modes you see in front of you. we will talk all about parking and give an update on the bus rapid transit status and how that interacts with this project and go over the transportation demand management program that is being developed through this process and talk in the end about strategiesus3q÷ through ta for making improvements to the situation. with that, i will have victoria start. >> thank you i'm from the planning department staff. i'm going to focus on the circulation of the cathedral

hill campus and we're going to focus on this campus because this brand-new development, we've heard lots of concern about transportation issues. it is important to go over the access the facility of this side can affect the transportation network and immediately surrounding this site. what you see here is three buildings and in between the two buildings is van ness ave. below that is geary boulevard east west. then there is pulp street and on the left is franklin street and on their rights is pulp street. the red arrows represent vehicular access into the site and the blue arrow's represent pedestrian accident. let me focus ong:s0l the hospitd walk you through how we think the circulation is going to work

here. access into the parking garage will be provided from erie st. only. it will + 6-to exit, you will make a t on to post street's and right only because post disease found only in this particular segment. the reason i stress this is the project was originally proposed to have an address on to gary boulevard, so we propose you exit the parking garage the staff felt that created a number of conflicts with pedestrians. that is a heavily traveled the transit line, 38 and in order to reduce some of the friction between the parking lot exit. the physical building itself of emergencies.

i mean like a major earthquake. that was thexp,thought behind tt design. loading facilities are located in hospital and will be accessed off franklin street. folks will be exiting the department on post but the emergency vehicles will also access the department on post. the important thing is it does have a cut out for the shuttle that will be serving patrons and also employees that will be taking them between the various hospital facilities our campuses and regional destinations. that is on the near side of posts and van ness. let me move to the medical office building you see here on the right. access into that underground parking garage is very much the same. you will be able to enter off of

gary and exit off a small street called cedar street between van ness and pulp. you can then make a left. part of the planning department review of the circulation plan, we are asking cedar street be made it to way west of the entrance. not everyone is exiting is suddenly making a right in going temple street. we would like to direct traffic onto van ness. supervisor mar: is that wide enough for two lanes of traffic? >> that's an excellent observation that the right of way is just wide enough to eat at -- just wide enough to do that.

we will be doing some improvements and reducing or eliminating some parking at the corner and installing able to ensure proper1u[ visibility of ladder -- of bicycles. there are some passenger drop- off various on van ness avenue, but i want to highlight the primary activity for passenger drop-off is located inside the parking crash itself, and that is designed to get cars off the street. there is a specific place for people to drop folks off and either go down into the underground garage or than exit the garage on the way to their next destination. you see the line between the office building in hospital. that is an underground pedestrian tunnel connecting the

medical office building and hospital. the other final thing i want to highlight is the location of the muni bus stop. gcn]s38 stops but blocked and to reduce some of the interaction between cars entering the brush -- entering the garage, it is proposed to be moved to this the van ness. that's a proper location and we will insist -- we will install a place for the best to pull up to that. , the existing bus stop on the near side of franklin will be shifted to the far side and that will allow us the right of way to create a right turn pocket. franklin is a major arterial and its bidmq volume, so we want to get the cars into the pocket.

also an important component of the circulation system. withn thing -- the environmental impact report analyzed to variants to the circulation. one of them proposed is a right in and write out. the other variant is keeping cedar one way as it remains today but in order to do that, we would have to allow exit onto gary street for the reasons i've articulated earlier so that we don't dump all of the traffic on to upholstery. it's important to highlight these variables because it was analyzed that a full level of detail and i will come back to that point still hold that thought. i want to give a brief overview

of the methodology and preface the discussion with this methodology and a transportation impact on the long-range development plan was not applied to this project, but it's a universal methodology used for all land use the bell and projects in the city and we apply it in all our transportation studies. first and foremost, we figure out theomçmz generation -- how y trips will it generate? it's a number of trips on:8g6ñ e daily and during peak hours and i want to stress that includes not just vehicles but transit trips, taxi trips and all of those methods. after we figure out how many person trips there are, we figure out how people are getting to where they're going, whether they're using a car or taking the bus or what's happening. then we assess where they are going to and where they're coming from and once we know that, we assigned a strips to

the network. overall, staff invested a substantial amount time into making sure the methodology for analysis of the project was robust. we wanted to give you the best picture of what happens to our transportation network in the near te and other hospitals are constructed. in 2030, the planning horizon year or what we call our cumulative condition. so let me drill down more and tell you how many trips you can expect to see from the cathedral hill campus. this shows the other campuses also but i'm going to focus on cathedral hill. on a daily basis, we can expect cathedral help to generate 20,000 net new person trips.

there is a reminder at the bottom of this slide what person trips add up to. during the peak hours, it expected to be 1400 person trips. you may ask what does that really mean? we wanted to put up a comparison slide to give you some context in relation to some of the other projects you recently seen or under construction. they are somewhat similar in their location, on a major transit corridor. the first one is the 2001 market at the lawrence, a whole foods project which generates 12,000 daily person trips. you have the cathedral hill campus which generates about 20, flawhich you heard about earlie

then hunters point shipyard, a massive land use plan generates 65,000 plus. as you know, at this site, there is the cathedral hill closed right now. we'll look at the net new change in trips on the transportation network and that's why when i refer to personal trips, we say that new. we backed out and doing the analysis on the trips at the time the environmental review analysis began, but i want to highlight;

we are 8000 + vehicular trips. during peak hours, we are u)ips. you can see how they stack up. we put the peak hour because of the are of most ingestion and it's the hour we do most of our analysis. cathedral hill comes in at about 600 net new. hunters point plan is 2000 plus. supervisor mar: you are estimating only 40% of the daily trips people will be driving to a hospital or medical needs only 40% are going to be driving? >> that is correct.

supervisor chiu: how did you get to that? i think every other set of studies seems to indicate differently. >> we used a combination of different things. the transportation analysis guidelines through the van ness specialties district has split a based on earlier surveys the city did. -- a mode split of based on a earlier surveys the city did. supervisor chiu: there was anecdotal interviews than 11 years ago to get that data. -- when did you get your data?

>> the surveys were conducted in 2001. supervisor chiu: so that was 11 years ago. there are not any real statistics related to that date at -- the data? >> i'm not sure -- do you know the nature of those services? >> the surveys done on employees were typical employee travel surveys. they ask you where you come from and what kind of mode you came. they are not personal surveys. we can get you what they entail. supervisor chiu: i would love to -- out of free to get back to us. if i could just point out how to insert it might seem