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 assistance program, it is $5.8 million at the beginning of the construction period. 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