construction and long-term employment, were actively looked into in the western he edition communities. and i see that there are some additional neighborhoods which, of course, is appropriate and fine, but i'm not certain how $4 million will necessarily lead to making sure that the training is provided, the support is provided to meet a 30% construction local hire as well as a 40% long-term hire of residents of these particular areas. and in particular, i'm extremely concerned about diluting the support of work force around the western addition community in particular. so, i know that this is a term sheet and we're looking at moving forward and an agreement will come back to the board,

but what i'm looking for as someone of district 5 who had received a number of commitments of the western addition, whether there would be significant job opportunities and also training for those opportunities. i need to know how this is actually going to translate to support for western addition residents. and i think that with the close proximity of what we are looking at, it only makes sense that significant outreach would be done to this particular community to cut back on the commute times to anyplace else in the city. a we see from the environmental impact report, we're impacting in particular the 19 bus line which is already a really slow bus line and goes all the way to the southeast sector. and we're looking at delays in that particular bus line. so, in terms of the environmental impacts of this particular plan is why it's so important to me that we look in

the surrounding community and they receive an opportunity to participate in this project in some capacity. so, i'd like to make sure that this is looked at and that i'm a part of the process of helping to craft this to serve the residents specifically of the western addition. the other thing that i look at in this deal is, first of all, it's an incredible deal and i think, wow, we got here and we got here a lot quicker than i thought we would ever get here and i'm really pleased and excited about this. but not necessarily pleased and excited about the people who are going to be working in this hospital long term who have yet to receive, you know, final contracts, although we have no direct authority over that particular process, i would hope that the same enthusiasm happens as a result of whatever deal they decide to make with cpmc or sutter or whomever

they're negotiating with for their long-term contract. i think it's important that they're treated with the same support and respect that i feel the city is getting as a result of this potential deal. i wanted to ask just a question around -- because there is some confusion with the term sheet of payments that i have and also the term sheet that you have listed in your slide, mr. rich. specifically, based on what we had received -- excuse me -- under the payment schedule, the major component of payment listed it out as, of course, $70 million of community benefits, payments made of 14 million annually. and then there is a list of payments that will come immediately as a result of this project. and i think i'm confused by the numbers. i'm confused not only by

reviewing this whole term sheet and looking at all these different payments, but it's not clear once this 14 million is received, how is it broken down in terms of where it's going to go as it relates to affordable housing. does this include this innovative fund that's going to the san francisco foundation? i just have -- i know this is probably -- we're not going to probably get this particular issue resolved and i'm sure that will be resolved in negotiations, but the information that's provided is not completely clear in terms of where money is coming from and where money is going to understand the real community benefits impact on the city. >> thanks, supervisor. i apologize for any lack of clarity. let me try to go through and see if it make sense. first of all, the $70 million total includes everything

except the $4.1 million for displaced units. and the parking fee and the in-kind work at st. luke's and davies. so, those are outside and they happen on their own logical schedule. the rest of everything is -- adds up to $70 million. what we negotiated similarly to the last deal, we wanted a little bit of money up front for three things. for affordable houseving which is $3 million up front. for the innovation fund and the reason that money is needed is because we've got our dph has to start getting those clinics ready to participate in the tenderloin for medi-cal. and if they don't start now, they won't be ready to take the patients that cpmc is going to help partner with them on. so, that's why we had some of that money up front. and then there are small amounts of money for the public works projects so that we can do design of whatever public works we're going to build. so, what we have is $70 million at the effective date which is hopefully the middle of this year.

we'll get that first 7. and then we have 63 left. and the way that works is as soon as cpmc has gotten past its litigation stage and any litigation is either resolved or the period that it can be filed is over, they'll start giving us 14 million a year. so, we'll get 14 million each year for four years and then we'll have 7 left in the fifth year because we have 7 that came up front. >> so, excuse me. this doesn't include the bay find charity care commitment, right? >> no, i'm sorry if that wasn't clear. that is a commitment in service, not in dollars. and that comes -- the baseline charity care commitment i believe starts -- i don't know if it starts on an effective date or -- i think it starts on an effective date if i'm not mistaken. >> and just another point of clarity, because we're talking about construction jobs where in some instances we need to get residents ready for those opportunities. and, so, why is that not included in the up front payment? >> that is a good question.

is rhonda simmons here? i don't know if she's here. i don't know if you can address that, rhonda. i think that after talking with rhonda, i think she felt like she had enough of a flow of funding right now. but i might let you -- >> hello. the conversations were more around end use than construction. so, i mean, the conversations that i were involved in had more to do with up front costs around end use. then it was construction. i think with construction in order to get people ready, to answer your question, if there were no additional dollars attached to this deal, i would just have to poe it into the budget that i already get for city bills. >> okay. that would be my answer. if there are no dollars that came directly up front, you know that i got earlier on,

that would be the way i would have to accommodate it. >> okay. >> identify on the record, rhonda simmons who heads up our city work force development. >> sorry. thank you. i would ask that be taken in consideration. and also just wanted a little bit of clarity around some of the nonprofits that were -- there were nonprofits that were listed, but they weren't specified. but have those nonprofits under which funding would be allocated -- are those -- have they been identified, the ones particularly for the safe passage program in the tenderloin in so, they would go through a competitive process? >> yeah, the money for that, 200,000 would go to the city and the city would do its usual competitive process. ~ >> okay. >> maybe just to clarify, i think one other question you had, we have not yet negotiated as the 14 million a year comes in, how to allocate it which, you know, how much goes to housing what year, how much goes to transportation. that would come after today and

you would be looking at that allocation when you see the final approvals. >> okay. and you'll take the consideration of the potential for work force -- >> yes. >> -- receiving that payment up front in consideration? >> yes. >> just really quickly, i wanted to ask about -- oh, affordable housing, i'm glad you brought that up. from my perspective, and this is just -- i mean, i don't know if i'm going to be able to use this for very long, but as a new supervisor, as someone looking from the outside of the board of supervisors, i wonder why when we develop projects of this magnitude, do you look in a payment at the affordable housing fund, why we don't look at how we create affordable housing opportunities for potentially people who are going to maybe be working in these developments who are

possibly the lowest wage earners of this and how, if we're -- the city is so fortunate to have this 36 million in affordable housing, and i think i'd like to see it impact the surrounding community as it relates to potentially existing affordable housing and supporting that. but more importantly, making sure that low wage earners of this particular project has some sort of access to affordable housing in the neighborhood. i want us to have people who work in this hospital be a part of the surrounding community and not just commuters from far parts of the city or even other cities. and, so, i'm not sure if that's possible to make that or to talk about that within the structure of the term sheet. but i just wanted to make sure that that's something that i'm really interested in seeing the city do a better job at as it relates to affordable housing in san francisco. >> that's understood. i don't think olson lee from the mayor's office of housing

is here yet. he should be here any minute -- oh, he is here. okay. i don't know if you wanted to respond now or -- i guess now i made you respond. [laughter] >> good afternoon, supervisors. olson lee from the director of the mayor's office of housing. the money is going into our low mod fund -- >> can we please turn that phone off? thank you. >> into the low mod housing fund. and clearly all the existing affordable housing in the surrounding area are eligible for access to that affordable housing fund. the workers in not only cpmc, but all employers in san francisco are eligible to participate in our down payment assistance loan program. and through the voters and through the housing trust fund, we've been able to put

basically refund the housing trust fund. you'll see that in the mayor's office budget as we come forward with our next fiscal year budget. but those employees will have access to those funds. and as we use those funds, we can make decisions in the future for -- to replenish that down payment assistance fund should the need be there. but we will be creating affordable housing in the general area. we still have some octavia parcels to develop. and, again, we will be utilizing the funds from this low mod fund as well as the larger housing trust fund for the preserving the affordable housing in the surrounding area. it's so hard for us to build affordable housing and there are people in those affordable housing. we want to ensure that whatever is affordable housing remains affordable housing. so, we share your concern about the existing affordable housing. >> thank you. and i just would add that maybe

some additional effort on prioritizing those who qualify for affordable housing who work for cpmc whether it be down payment assistance, which any of us would qualify for as san francisco residents if we meet a certain financial threshold, but taking an extra step potentially in this opportunity to really support the workers of this potential hospital in san francisco. i'd like to see potentially a little bit more effort made. and i'll just want to make a statement and then i'll allow my colleagues to move forward with this. today, we are being presented with an outline for an agreement, and this is absolutely incredible. i'm actually really excited about this because i thought that it wouldn't come to pass so quickly and i want to thank the people who labored for months and in many cases years

to get us to this point. i specifically want to thank the nurses, housing transportation and community advocates who fought for a better deal, even when everyone else was ready to relent. and specifically i want to thank rome a guy for always keeping me abreast of the developments in this project and giving me accurate information throughout the years. ~ i want to thank cpmc and executives of sutter health who have, against their own inclinations perhaps, negotiated fairly and listened to our concerns. my colleagues david chiu, david campos and mark farrell whose collaboration and commitment, in spite of their political differences, are proof that results matter more than labels and a hallmark, i hope, of how this board will do the people's business. i'm really proud of the work that you all have done on this. and lastly, i want to thank lou gerardo, the man who did the impossible. where there was gridlock and

miss trust, lou forged consensus. the man doesn't just make delicious sour dough bread. he's a mediator to rival king solomon. thank you, lou, for your hard work on this. this deal offers a variety of impressive benefits for san francisco, namely two brand-new seismically safe hospitals serving both the north and southern ends of our great city. and just to highlight a few of the benefits for district 5, the 5 million for the geary and van ness vrts, the work force development and construction jobs, hopefully to significantly benefit the residents of the western addition community. and nearly 40 million for affordable housing, which ought to benefit the district with some of the most distressed public housing development. all that said, our work is not done. we have a framework for development agreement, not a complete consensus. when i endorsed the term sheet before -- while i endorse the

term sheet before us today, i am cautiously optimistic about our progress so far. and this is clearly not our last vote on the project. i have reservations about shifting money into the mayor's office of housing without a clear plan for how the money will be used to actually create housing, particularly in the effective area. and i am convinced the work force development -- i am not convinced that the work force development adequately prioritizes western addition residents who live in the cathedral hill's backyard. i am committed to ensuring the framework's promises are solidified on the development agreement and i plan to reserve final judgment until the exact language of that agreement is available. i will be combing through this, the details to make sure the agreement measures up to the negotiators' intent and guarantees the benefits to san francisco workers, residents and patients. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. president.

i won't repeat all of the thanks and accolades to everyone who was involved, but i know we're all very appreciative of the work that went into this and really taking a deal that seemed like it was at times dead in the water which would have been just devastating for san francisco and would have sent a huge negative signal about whether we were actually capable of getting these kind of projects done in the city. the fact that it was then pulled back from the brink and that we can develop consensus is terrific, and i'm very grateful to everyone who made that happen. i am also very happy that the process overlooked in this process, davidies campus is the previous agreement in place for years ~ are still in place. davies -- it was always frankly

as district supervisor representing the district, and also a resident of the castro it's painful for me and i think our community to see davies sort of floating out there, potentially impacted by the controversy around cathedral hill and st. luke's. davies was not part of that controversy. davies is such a critical resource in the castro community for the lgbt community, for so many people, and it will be intact and it's going to be an even better facility than it is now. i'm also very happy that the streetscaping commitments made around davies and st. luke's are intact fully and that is a very positive thing. as with any consensus driven plan, i think we've heard some elements of this today. we're never going to all love everything. there are aspects of the proposal that are disappointing to me. the fact that the down payment

assistance was zeroed out, that was from the 33 million to zero, i believe. that side is disappoint tog me. that was a value choice that was made during the negotiations. i disagree with it, but that's the way negotiations go. transit fees, impact fees were reduced by 33% or 30% i think from about 20 million to 14 million. that's very disappointing to me. once again, colleagues, transit comes out at the short end in a lot of the item that come before this board and i really look forward to the day when we all get together and acknowledge that we need to prioritize spending for transit and not make it always the first thing that gets cut. i will note one thing, that at least it's good that cpmc is going to be paying transit impact development fee to tidf. if it weren't a development agreement here so that we had

the leverage to insist on these fees, cpmc would be exempt from paying tids because it is a nonproof it. and this board -- and i was on the losing end of that vote last year, kept that blanket exemption from nonprofits and tidf intact so no matter how big your profit is as a hospital, you don't have to pay it. i'm glad cpmc is paying it. it's a rate thing when you do development that has transit impacts, you should pay the fee. so, i will be supporting this today. and i again want to thank my colleagues and all the departments and cpmc lou gerardo for really making this a reality. i think it's something we can be proud of. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you, president chiu. i want to thank all the parties involved in negotiations that we got to today. i want to thank cpmc for their flexibility and coming to the table. i really want to thank my

colleague, supervisor farrell, president chiu and supervisor campos for your great work and of course lou gerardo for his magic as well. a magical ingredient for the catalyst to get to the table. i remember this time last year we had a presentation from the mayor's office saying this is the best we can get. and i think it's really important that we always challenge that. and we have so many big projects and development agreements that come before us. there is always a little more we can get to make sure we're getting the best deal we can in the city. you know, i want to thank cpmc for their flexibility in helping make this happen. there are still things i think that could be stronger moving forward that i want to express. i want to echo some of the comments that were made by supervisor breed. i think the work force development part of the -- what is before us is strong. i think it can be stronger.

i think when it comes to end use jobs that we can have something a bit stronger, a bit higher than what's being proposed. and hopefully we can get 50% for both entry level and nonentry level end use jobs. that to me makes a lot of sense especially because we're not -- ensuring that local san franciscans who live in the city have the ability to commute directly to work. it's not -- it actually meets our climate action goal as well, too, make sure we're hiring local residents at 50% level. that to me is also consistent with what we're trying to get to with local hire. we have local hire ordinance passed in 2010 to get the 50% for local residents. and the difference between that ordinance and the program we're proposing here is that the construction jobs are temporary jobs. but the end use jobs are permanent jobs. if we can have the greatest stability for that, for local residents to get hired, it will be a great boone to the entire city.

i actually see that there's a lot we can do as a city as well to really bolster our health care industry and our work force training programs to get into the health care industry. we have klieg, we have a number of nonprofit organizations, we have a lot of community clip i cans through our internships provided. clinics, city college ~ we have the opportunity to strengthen that and holess tick system to provide entry level and the ability to rise in economic status through the health care system for people in san francisco. and i'd like to see that being moved forward as we -- as the project comes to fruition. i think more money than what's being provided for, about $4 million that's being looked for for work force development, would be helpful, $$4 million, a greater amount that can come up front as was suggested as well by supervisor breed i think makes a lot of sense. i know that there is still issues to work out between cpmc

sutter and the nurses. the cma. i'd like to see that that can happen. i know that there's been great progress and negotiations that have come forward between sutter and many other bargaining units. ~ it seems like having one left out, still being worked out is a big concern and disappointment right now, and hoping that can get cleared up in the next few days. hopefully not weeks, but to me the fact that there have been such it -- there's been such great movement move forward, cpmc can come to agreement with the cma as soon as possible, it would be great to see. but overall, i'm actually very, very pleased with the movement, the progress that's been made, and i'm really -- especially thankful there was -- believed before it couldn't get any better. it has. thank you. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. i, too, have an overall level

of pleasure on the deal. i am thrilled to see such -- to see a larger st. luke's out of this project. i know it wasn't easy -- it wasn't an easy solution to arrive to. i also want to commend cpmc for doubling their commitment to work force dollars to ensure we can train san franciscans to access these jobs and opportunities. but i also want to associate myself with the comments of supervisor breed, mar, and avalos and concern about what the end use jobs are going to be. i'd love to see more work force dollars allocated to the work force pot of money and more of these work force dollars up front so that we can begin to get people trained and ready to go. also we want to encourage cpmc to continue to close the gap with cna and their negotiations with their contracts. i also want to mention one

particular item i discussed with some members on the project team, and that's the management of the 4 million in work force funding. i think there is some additional conversation that should be had where the city manager should be using these funds or managed by independent organizations such as the san francisco foundation or a combination of both. district 10, we certainly have seen both models used. and as the term sheet is incorporated into the revised development agreement, i would appreciate it if we could continue to explore the benefits as well as the challenges associated with each of these approaches by managing the work force dollars. thank you. >> thank you, colleagues. any additional comments before we go to public comment? let me just add two quick thoughts from my end. i know there have been a couple questions that have been raised around work force development and one thing i might ask ken rich to do, potentially with rhonda simmons is convene a

little group to discuss this. we've heard certainly some feedback from the community as well as from supervisors breed, cohen and others, and want to make sure that we get this right. i also want to echo the comments that some of our colleagues have made around labor piece, which is certainly separate and apart from what we have in front of us. i think we all appreciate the labor piece that has been brought with muhw and we hope in the coming days and weeks we can resolve these matters with the california nurses as well. but with that, colleagues, unless there are any additional questions, why don't we now go to public comment. the first sick cards that i have are from rachel [speaker not understood], emilie lee, calvin we will shall, gordon mar, marlene morgan, and marc aronson. mr. president, my name abdullah [speaker not understood]. i come here to say hallelujah,

thank you, god. couple years ago i [speaker not understood] come here and ask each one of you to turn i an empty hotel to be hospital to people like us. i would like to thank the former director of the health, dr. mitchal katz. not only him and the lovely lady who replace him, barbara garcia, which she is here, they work hard. i hope and i wish that [speaker not understood] behind me and mayor lee include mr. rich, work with her to bring the hospital fair quickly. i am the only one who lives in san francisco, survive with [speaker not understood] heart attack. last sunday i have [speaker not

understood] and i won't tell to everyone, i am not as strong, it is blocking. i give 28 years in my life here in this city to vie for the homeless people, to vie for the poor people who live in america. and look for the garbage to find something to eat. shame, shame to every one of us that we don't have money to finish project like that. i am very close for the hotel or the former hotel going to be the hospital. i live in [speaker not understood] and geary. that means i can walk on my feet. i don't need the [speaker not understood], i don't need the ambulance. i need doctor to help me and care with my life. i have six pace makers in my heart, four on one, two on the other side. and