before, and that peace will be taken care of by another portion of the payment that cpmc makes to the mayor's office on housing. supervisor wiener: if you look at this number, it is not exactly rolling in it by san francisco standards. buying a home is still challenging in the city. i am wondering what the rationale is. >> well, so, the basis for the affordable rental program or the goal is to fill the exclusionary requirements substantially that the city has on the books. the rental piece of the inclusionary program currently target households in roughly the 55% income category, which is actually lower income. traditionally, the mayor's office on housing will use inclusionary fees that are paid to it to provide housing for low and very low income, so we are trying to mimic as closely as possible the existing program as it is implemented, at least on the mayor's side. supervisor wiener: ok, i appreciate that. i think downpayment assistance is important. i am not in any way against that, but we see a substantial amount rents and are not able to buy, so i would love for us to give some thought to the possibility of helping moderate- income renters who are in a position to buy but still need help, so i just wanted to sort of put that out there, and i appreciate it. this is all very encouraging, so i appreciate the work. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. president chiu: supervisor mar? supervisor mar: could i ask you to quantify how much is from the community coalition numbers? which i believe initially, they were urging $186 million to the affordable trust fund based on the van ness special use district, so that is $160 million for affordable housing, and it seems like the 20 sr road -- sro's, could you just tell us a little bit about the numbers of little bit more and how far apart the proposals will be from what the community coalition is requesting? >> because we are in negotiation with cpmc it is difficult with me, in fact, i am not in a position to disclose in a huge amount of detail the precise numbers and modernization. i will say however that the underlying premise for the unit goal was based upon a square foot calculation. actually, let me backup a little bit and give a little more background. number one, the van ness special use district requires a roughly 3 to 1 residential sort of production versus commercial production. based on a sort of detailed process that the community advocates engaged them with the mayor's office and the mayor's office on housing and the planning department, we landed on roughly a 1.37 $6 million square foot residential obligation. if you essentially take 20% of the square footage not for circulation, which is roughly stated in the area, that brings it down to about 1.1 million square feet. if you averaged two units per 1000 square feet, that is about 1100 units, and the inclusionary obligation would go between 165 to 220 units, so our target, unit production goal, was based upon that peace. and that is what we are negotiating for. >> so just to try to conclude quickly, and we will then be available for all of your general questions, referring to transportation in the development agreement, the development of the new cathedral hill hospital is expected to impact munis service because of increased traffic as well as additional passengers riding near me. we are working on a four-point program to address that issue. the first is that cpmc will make a payment to the city to cover capital costs for a portion of both the van ness and geary, so they would be helping to build the platforms and other things that occur at that corner. second, cpmc would charge a parking surcharge at the cathedral hill surcharges for every exit, and that will bring in additional money for the muni and discouraged it for those that have other options. number three, as you know, there is the transit impact development aid to help offset the impact of new development. nonprofit hospitals, the development agreement would have cpmc making a payment in lieu of the fee, which would essentially be the same kind of money if they were legally subject, if the project were legally subject to the fee, and finally, cpmc will fund mta for improved bicycle access to and between its campuses. very quickly also, the development agreement would have cpmc paying for -- president chiu: could i ask about the van ness and the geary, has gone on to anticipate the transportation needs, given the construction that will come up? that seems like a pretty significant construction? >> are you referring to the actual construction prove president chiu: -- construction? caught -- president chiu: the construction. >> i can have samali been to that. did you want to prove -- did you want to? >> they are working with the staff to make sure that they can minimize the construction costs. we are aware of that issue, so we are working on that. president chiu: so you do not have the answers? >> no, we do not have a clear answer, but i can get back to you. there could potentially. >> suggest moving onto street scape and pedestrian improvements, starting with the cathedral hill-tenderloin area, as you can see on this line, we are working with cpmc to have them pay for a large amount of pedestrian street lighting and approximately 25 blocks in the tenderloin. the conversion of ellis and edy streets to two way, which is a safety improvements from the tender and moist. there are some particularly dangerous intersections. -- which is a safety improvement for the tenderloin. there are some particularly dangerous intersections. it would have to go through the whole process, but the idea is about cpmc would help the startup costs if it were established. moving on to the davis campus area, just a quick list of some basic improvements that cpmc is being asked to make their. there is some pedestrian and landscape improvements which tree islands, additional trees, it improved fencing in lighting around the campus perimeter. and then lastly, at st. louis, a similar type of improvement. an upgrade of the park, which is a temporary park that has been established, upgraded lighting and fencing. potential lighting on portions of several streets run around st. luke's, and pedestrian safety and streetscape improvements around several of the streets right around st. luke's. getting to the health services system, there has been concern raised about premiums from the city. these may be going up due to the cost of the public benefits package been requested by the city. we are aware of this concern and are currently discussing with cpmc ways to assure that this does not occur. and then lastly, just our next steps procedurally, once we reach a full agreement on the development agreement with cpmc, a draft development agreement will be circulated to the public for a period of a couple of weeks, and then there is the process of the planning commission, the certification of the eir and roger approval at the planning commission and the hearings for possible action at the land use committee of the board, and then finally, the first and second reading here at the full board. that concludes our presentation. mr. president, with your permission, i would propose that we take questions from the staffs of the we are all able to answer. president chiu: ok, colleagues, any questions to city staff? supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: just to the recent presenter, i have questions about the street scape and safety improvements in the surrounding area. does this preclude that on the cathedral hill-tenderloin area, based on what is identified here, is there nothing moving westward towards japan town? -- japantown? >> this is bounded by franklin, van ness, but to date, we have received most of the requests for pedestrian and safety improvements from neighborhoods to the east of van ness, so we have focused on that. >> -- supervisor mirkarimi: ok, i have let it be known that as this relates to it, with japan town, there is a large and growing number of seniors, a number of senior complexes in the area, and it is hard to negotiate the streets, including at franklin, in the surrounding areas, and i am surprised that that would actually be missing in this area, and with you and your experience with japan town, you know that. >> thank you. we will take a note of that and see what we can do. president chiu: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you, president chiu. my questions are going to be around work force to the moment, and one of the things i heard was that we would have something that resembled the first source program, which gave me some concern, because the first source program traditionally has been one that is based on good faith efforts, and actual mandates to hire locally, so i just wanted some clarity on that to make sure that we are talking about a requirement about hiring locally or to reach these percentages that were in the presentation. and i guess that before ms. simmons. >> so this is a private project, and as i did said it -- as i did say, it does not have the language in that legislation, but it does have pieces to it. the residency requirement, and the liquidated damages are actually included in this, so there are liquidated damages. bubbles are a little different. it is by trade and not by overall project. that is a similarity, but it is not purely local. our local mandatory higher law. it is kind of a bit of a hybrid, you know, it has goals for journeymen in this, a 30% threshold for journeymen and apprentices, so it is a bit of a hybrid model. supervisor avalos: it is not a good fit because there are actual requirements, you say? >> the pla is an agreement between the unions and the cpmc. this is our m.o. you. it is between it really the contractor's, you know, and cp mc, so the burden is on the contractors, so you still have that dynamic. supervisor avalos: right, which is similar to our local hire ordinance, but the requirement on the contractors if they do not reach this, then they have liquidated damages. >> then they have the liquidated damages, and that is called out in our document. >> and what are the main trades that we expect? do we have those numbers broken out in terms of how much it will be? >> by trade? i do not have that. it is a hospital project, generally, you are going to start out with your neighbors in europe -- with your laborers and your carpenters, and then you move into the trades, so you will see a spectrum of trades. i do not have the exact numbers by trades, but i can get those to you. supervisor avalos: that is on the construction side. in terms of work force development and training, especially what we're talking about, percentages from the get- go, 30% apprentices, 30% journeymen, and also the apprenticeships to journeyman level, what do we have on the city side providing support? are there additional resources that are being provided for city billed to help with that? >> yes. so i referenced at the end, and there will be a $2 million pot connected to this project that will do just that, that will add additional services. supervisor avalos: is this a one-time? >> yes. it is a one-time item. this will ensure there is greater retention if folks can journey out. that would be the goal on the construction side. i think the other thing is with this project, we have been able to leverage, i mentioned the engineering and the intern, the professional services side, we worked a lot with the developer and the contractor to beef up our construction management program and ensure that by the time we hit this, we have enough folks who are not necessarily going to the trade side, but we have actually started a construction management, and some of the contractors have really got involved already on both the and the use and that construction management to ensure that we had internships set up for those folks. supervisor avalos: 7 $2 million, or i am concerned if that is enough, and that being divided up, is that just going to city built, or is that going to other community-based organizations? >> it is up to us. there is electability. it has not been designated. it is for the work force system as a whole. it is not dedicated all two city built. it is sort of at our discretion with how we want to use that. i think what i want to look at is where we have in the work force, sometimes training has dollars that are available, maybe in health care and not in construction or vice versa, so we needed the dollars to support this service is the most is probably how we would look at it, but we are not at that level, so there is plenty of time for a room for input on that. >> -- supervisor avalos: yes, i think the local work force, and bringing on a certain number of apprentices, i wonder if that will be sufficient, that kind of allocation, $2 million. in my mind, whether that is sufficient or not. the other question, on permanent, on and use jobs, -- end-use jobs, for the first five years, how is that being done? i imagine there are service jobs, some entry-level help desk your jobs. it seems we have a great deal of resources in san francisco, especially when you look at city college and the academy. that seems really low, especially with the great need we have for work force debarment in the adjacent neighborhood. is there a way to boost those numbers? >> the way we did find entry- level, i started out with, was with a two-year degree or less, you know, so if you look at the hiring practices of cpmc over time, they had 700 new employees by that definition that i gave, only around 65 to 70 matt that definition, so if you took it just from that hard sort of number ratio, and we were to be in that time frame, and we got 40 of those 65, you know, then we would be over 60%. it is the definition and how we defined it. i think for the training programs that are run through oewd and our shop, most of the folks that come through, we actually have a graduation this thursday. most of the training that i am karate is much more short-term. it is not necessarily a ba degree. it is folks trying to get in the system. that is how we got to that. that is the way we worked into that. of those 700 jobs, that number, the 65 to 70 meant that definition of entry level. we did not go through like a hard analysis to look at the remaining, because typically in the hospital, those are different kinds of credentials and degrees. that is another conversation. supervisor avalos: do you feel a need to have a requirement on the remainder? the proportion of the other jobs outside of that that would benefit? >> you know, i think we would probably need to go back. i do not have that with me in terms of of those numbers how many are san francisco residence or how many are of that pool that the pilot -- hired for that fall into that category. -- hired for that who fall into that category. cpmc, the other hospitals that we work, including kaiser, you know, even our own hospitals, for entry level, which is what my focus has tended to be on, that is a realistic number, because a lot of the other kinds of jobs, you know, that might fall into the entry-level category, a lot of that work sometimes my precontracted out if it is not health care related. supervisor avalos: and do we have any leverage on those service contracts to apply the local hire requirements? >> um -- supervisor avalos: it seems that that would be a large area to grow our work force in san francisco. >> it could be. those contracts tend to >> bid could be something that could be explored. supervisor avalos: can we explore that? >> we could. supervisor avalos: you mentioned project labor agreement, can that be made public? >> the project labor agreement is not between the city. and that gen -- i imagine cpmc and the unions could make that public. it was not negotiated with the city, per se. it was their agreement. supervisor avalos: lastly, we mentioned looking at the work force by trade and we expected to have on the project -- >> the numbers by trade? i can give you that. >> passed a follow-up question? -- may i ask a follow-up question? president chiu: yes. >> why did you choose a number as opposed to a proportion? it seems like a tough number because we are calculating or forecasting. >> in doing this a lot, it could go either way. you could have done 40 or a percentage and came out a little less. we just looked at the numbers and it seemed like doing for the end of being able to roll it over was the better way to go. you could've put a percentage and, i don't know, came out with the data differently. we feel a lot with percentages, sometimes it doesn't give you a bigger number. it just kind of depends. for the purposes of how we got here, looking at the past, the 40 seemed to get us further by the definition that we were using. >> you may have mentioned this, why five years? why just five years? how was that calculated? >> i think we were looking at the end of the -- i am forgetting. >> i think you're referring to the fact that the construction time for the hospital was five years from start to finish. >> we just looked at the life of the construction, and not the ongoing operations side. most of the agreements that we negotiate are built around the life of the construction, so that was pretty much of the way that we used -- and the way that we looked at this one as well. supervisor avalos: that seems different from what i thought. >> of the 40 is the end-use. it was calculated over the period of time of the project. the buildout of the project. supervisor avalos: you said the 40 was part of construction jobs. >> the 40 jobs were over five years -- we negotiated the where there were 40 in-use of jobs over a five-year period. that a separate anything to do with construction. that is all based on the 30% -- it is too different deals, two different ways we negotiated. does that make sense? i am not sure if that answers your question, supervisor kim. that is pretty much of the standard way we have done it. we have done the another example, you know, probably one of the other projects that has been similar arrau this is the bloomingdale's project that was negotiated at a very similar way. it went through the life of the project. the lowes agreement that we had was for the life of the project. what happens, even though it is negotiated that way, once you get in there with the employer, they call us back for reemployment as the jobs turnover. once you have kind of gotten that relationship, in my tenure, i have not had any problem with those employers coming back to us when the positions turnover. now we have a system that is pretty much automatic. that is true with the lowe's project, the bloomingdale's site. it comes out that way anyway that they call us back for reemployment services. we have a reputation in a system, and they use it. president chiu: supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank the staff members for their presentation and i wanted to ask a few questions on the issue of health care. and if i could, through the chair, if i could address my questions to the director of the public health. i would like to begin by thanking barbara garcia and her staff that have been working for quite some time on this matter, and i appreciate the willingness to keep us informed of their progress had to make sure that our concerns are taken into account. i want to again, thank you for that and think the staff for all the work that has got into this. we passed the health care services master plan legislation that, for the first legislation that, for the first time, requires that we as a city