unless it is necessary. commissioner sugaya: thank you. i think you just argued against yourself, because of the program is so successful, then why create a new one? if there is a lower threshold of actual money at 100,000 or whatever it is now, it will go a lot further. lastly, i think the whole nexus that has been used to justify affordable housing programs for such things as offices and other construction is that it affects a lot of people, not just employees that are coming to the office building where who work an office building. therefore, it should be open to all san francisco residents and not as workers. thank you. chairmapresident fong? : any questions with related to enforcement? at some point, when we get to it, i would like to offer an amendment to that. just simply to include the reporting to the planning commission. it would not be necessary to have our approval, just an informational item. i would just like to make sure that it is there. commissioner antoni
parent organization and a nonprofit. commissioner sugaya: an extension of that is the legal question of legalsute the legal question of whether sutter is the holding to this agreement or not. i am a from the city attorney s office. there is a legal entity that owns the property. sutter west doing business as cpmc. the provisions you are concerned about relate to all cpmc s activities within san francisco. when we deal with the financial issues, we always look at all of their numbers as it relates to all of their activities in the city of san francisco. commissioner sugaya: i understand that. so you re confident that whoever signs this, it is going to be all the provisions will have to be respected by sutter health? yes, correct. commissioner sugaya: thank you. commissioner borden: i want to follow up on the prop q process. maybe director garcia can explain what that is. anytime a hospital facility changes or moves or reduces or closes service, they must provide publ
program typically, so that is what you are basing recycling figures on? that was based upon looking at the program from inception to the time the voters approved the bond issue to create a program and looking at the statistics. clearly we will go into the market at a time for the housing prices are particularly low. they are not at their peak. there will be an ability for the homeowner, as well as for the fund to share in some level of appreciation. our conservative estimate on the appreciation is 3% per year. commissioner sugaya: are there demographics or statistic on which you base creating a program different? are cpmc s that much different in nature than the general public that we need a special program instead of folding it into the existing one? part of it is the ability to do the recycling of the particular fund. i would like to just caution that it is a limit in terms of the $200,000. you saw the slide earlier that is of limited to 45 percent signed. 45%. our