entry-level health care. over the course of this, there has been more willingness and fought to see where we might find some synergy within the structures cpmc have. --though. supervisor cohen: thank you. that is an important fact. often we are too focused on entry-level. these people are going to mature and develop into a career. i want to make sure if cpmc were to become the city's largest employer, we're training people to take not just entry-level positions but will be able to mature down the pathway to a permanent positions. thank you. you have been a good listener. supervisor mar: i appreciate you

being so spontaneous. >> i appreciate the fact that cpmc has 45% of your employees being from san francisco. can you talk about why it would be difficult putting in a number close to that in the da so that we can alleviate community concerns? >> we have will look into what the trends have been. how far back, 150 years? supervisor mar: let's take the last five or 10 years. i suspect their clothes -- that close to half of your employees have been from san francisco. >> i suspect that is true for more than 100 years. supervisor mar: if that has been the case for more than 100 years, is there a way to put a

commitment like that into the da? >> are we have to think about that. our primary responsibility is to base hiring on qualifications. many of our classifications are unusual and require a substantial skills. putting that commitment in, especially with the damages provision, it is probably not something we could do. >> i would like to continue the conversation. i rewould hate to think san francisco employs would have less qualifications than people across the bay. >> people from the department of health face similar issues. even the city and county have issues with where our employees live. >> i am getting at it there has been the historic trend and san francisco has been able to provide well qualified workers for permanent jobs the past 100 years, it strikes me there is

little downside to just putting them into the agreement so we all feel comfortable about where this is going. one of the challenges a number of us have had around the agreement is in the wake of local hiring, a few years ago, we all supported a policy to move beyond the good faith understandings of what would happen to really begin in -- inking in local hiring requirements. it is important to all of us the jobs created short-term and long-term with regards to the next 100 years of your operations that we are seeing our qualified folks put to work. right now, it does not seem as if we are there yet. >> i appreciate the sentiment. we have every intention to continue to hire sentences in -- san franciscans, but i would be

reluctant to have our practices requiring us to hire someone who lives here over someone who is an were qualified. it is a difficult decision to make when you are running the hospital taking care of very sick people. >> i completely understand. i am saying is the historic data shows one thing, i feel certain we will continue to produce qualified folks. i just wanted to state that. >> your comment that the project itself is a committee benefit, i do agree we need to modernize and create seismically safe hospitals. i do acknowledge that. it is our job as supervisors to maximize the community benefits to our neighborhoods. it came up before. when rhonda simmons was presenting numbers, the projection of 4000 permanent jobs, it is now 1600 as the

estimate of permanent jobs. the 40 jobs per year for five years seemed very small as a commitment. i am wondering why there cannot be a stronger commitment for hiring people from our neighborhoods through the work force academies. >> the emphasis was on entry- level jobs and trainees who graduated from the work force academies. that is the city's responsibility for providing those graduates. >> we referenced the previous community benefit agreement as an $8 million commitment. given the size and scope of this project, i appreciate the $2 million that goes to the city. it seems small compared to the commitment compared to the agreement in baby-hunters. . i am wondering why it is not hire. >> -- in bay view-hunters point.

i am wondering why it is not higher. >> we're making substantial other commitments in health care and housing. we're making substantial commitments in other services that no other developer in the history of the city or country has made. >> thank you. supervisor cohen has a question. supervisor cohen: the obligation to use good faith efforts to hire residents is only for five years. i am concerned the commitment is only half of the term of the agreement. can you explain why? >> i would turn to the city staff to overlap with the terms of the actual building of the hospital. it is something we can discuss. supervisor cohen: city staff, maybe you can explain to me why the terms of the development agreement is for 10 years and we have a commitment for five.

>> the best way to explain that is the basic term of the development agreement is 10 years. that covers the period which approvals are vested. if they do not begin building, it lapses over 10 years. if you look through the da, the commitments are not tied to 10 years. that is the underlying link of the document. some of the medical commitments go longer than 10 years. some of the other commitments are one time only. there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the commitments on a particular subject and the length of the document. the 10 years was to cover the land-use approvals. supervisor mar: thank you. i think we have finished with our questions. president chiu: with regards to the hunters point project we

were all intimately involved with, there was a community benefits agreement which helped to bring the business communities, labor committee, and other community organizations together to work through something that the broader community could support. i know you work for several mayors who have talked to that as a model of how we can move forward with these large development projects. explain to us why that was not part of this agreement. i think that would have gone on long way in helping to build a broader community support on this project. >> i think the easiest way to explain our route is we wanted to make sure and talk to all the stakeholders along the way and develop a set of community benefits which were enforceable within the development agreement. we did not see the need for a

separate document. it is also not clear given the kinds of commitments in the da, particularly broad health care commitments that are two groups of people -- that are too broad groups of people, we did not see a good way to find specific entities that would sign an outside agreement. it did not seem necessary as long as we had a solid and enforceable commitments that the city could and will enforce to make sure all the obligations are in there. it did not seem to be necessary to get everything the city needed here. >> it is not seem to be necessary because? the community is wondering if every single actor within city government will enforce this the next 10 years. i have no idea if i will be sitting here a year from now. you do not know if you will be sitting where you are in good faith, we could negotiate this. over the next 10 or 20 years,

not having a clear understanding of who could enforce these obligations has been disconcerting. >> to respond to that, i would break that in to two issues. we have designed the obligations to be easy and transparent to monitor. it will not be hard to see whether the obligations are being met. many of them are cash and come up front. we know whether we've got that or not. in terms of the ongoing obligations, those are mostly health care. those are designed to be fairly obvious if they are not being met. their presentations required every year to the health commission and planning commission. to say it will not be hard to follow the process of these commitments. in terms of enforcing them, it is true the city would enforce

these like many other agreements we make. many development agreements we have to enforce. my understanding is that ultimately the board of supervisors is the body that can enforce these agreements. i want to turn to the city attorney if i have that wrong. that has been our advice. at the end of the day, it is impossible for me to say the agreement within force itself. there does have to be action taken. it seems like a violation would be so obvious it would be hard for the city not to enforce it. >> if i knew i would be here for the next 20 years, that would be one thing. we're being asked to make a decision that will set standards and impact the entire city over the next 20. that is part of what we're trying to figure out. the issue of whether we could find parties that would be privy to an agreement, i would be happy to work with your office. cpmc is entering into least one

or more agreements with neighborhood associations. if that is happening, it might make sense to consider a broader way of doing this. i would certainly add to supervisor mar's comment. part of what we're trying to do is build the broadest community support for the product we believe will have significant impact on the city in the future. i would love to help figure out how we can get there. >> thank you. i have a request that we take a five minute short break. then we will come to public comment. we will lose the koran in a moment. i will say five minutes. we will reset the meeting for 5 minutes and come back. >> i have to run off to other meetings. i do expect to be back to other hearings. i want to thank all the members

of the public for all the work we're doing together to move this forward. >> we will recess for five minutes.

supervisor mar: welcome back, everyone. the meeting will come to order.

if i could have everyone's attention, the meeting will come to order. supervisor cohen, may we resume. we have call items one through 13. i will start calling the names of the 100 or so cards. if your name is called and you are in the overflow room, please come back into the room. each speaker will be limited to two minutes. at 30 seconds, there is a light rain. there is a louder one when your time is up. the focus is on jobs. i am asking the speakers to keep the focus on this topic of the hearing. we will your transportation, health care, and other topics at a future date. -- we will hear transportation, health care, and other topics at a future date. if people could line up on the right side of the room, that would help. it does not have to be in the right order. if your name is called, please

line up. the first speaker is married -- mary. lisa, eddie, john, charles, miriam fields, james tracey, giselle, alex, angie brown. the main microphone is the one to the right. >> my name is mary michaluchi. i have worked at st. luke's for 40 years. we recently had a town hall meeting. usually we sit there like bumps on a log. this one was different. we pointedly asked him where the jobs were for us. we have transferred rights?

would we be going up there? he said, i do not know. he said that to engineers, housekeepers, clerical help, nurses. someone finally asked, if you do not know, who does know? he said, i am the ceo. we said, you should know. one thing he made clear is the california nurses association will not be up at the cathedral. that is all of st. luke's campus and california campus. we will not be up there. as far as where st. luke's is that now, we are in a precarious position. i say it would be easy to close us. we're missing vital services. the two we have are in danger of being closed. there is talk about that. we do not have much of a census or physician base. we have been downsized.

i think cpmc will take almost acutely ill patients. when that will changes when the new hospital is built and they are able to be filled up with important, presgious, paying patients. the amount of patience left at st. luke's will be much greater than just 80 beds. one thing that has crossed my mind is if there is a specialty at st. luke's, we might have a chance of long-term survival. a 20-year commitment -- [tone!] we're closing in on seven years of that. supervisor mar: thank you. please come forward if your name has been called. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to that these important issues. my name is james tracy.

i want to clear up two misunderstandings and quote chuck dee. don't believe the hype. we want our brothers and sisters in the trades to go back to work on this project. we want you to go back to work on a socially just project that lifts all our boats, including the nurses. we're certainly not pro- earthquake as some of you may have heard. do not believe the hype. we are for increased local hire from the communities impacted by the projects. one of the classifications of jobs left out of the conversation were janitors, maintenance workers, front desk clerks. there is already capacity and

training programs for these things. we're not talking about gigantic new grants to accommodate local hire. we need to expand our imaginations and capacity. this is something we could do better on for all classifications. for workers rights issues, for the hospital, for the city of san francisco to say workers like nurses and engineers that work for years earnings seniority rights serving the people of san francisco do not get this because of an executive decision, that is not right. i do not think any member of the san francisco political family would support the actions of governor scott walker in wisconsin. if it ain't right there, it

ain't right here. supervisor mar: thank you. >> i work the night shift at st. luke's. i worked last night. this is hard on me. i am here to represent not only the night shift but also the patients. we have known some money. we've grown close to them. we get the ones that have no insurance. they are homeless. if one of them were to be admitted in the fall, we would have to spray the room to keep a small way. we love them. we have taken care of them. just recently, there was a study that came out.

no disrespect to the people here. we all got our degrees. i respect all of you. i am so grateful cpmc picked up st. luke's to give us a job for another five years, but the truth is the survey's made on all the professions, the ones that came out telling the truth were the nurses. i implore you to listen to the nurses. if you were to use your brains, everything they have shown you looks beautiful. [tone!] please look with your heart and listen with your heart to all the proposals because there are a lot of contradictions. i hear st. luke's. i do not feel secure in my 30- year job. they have not even given us a contract. we have been tolerating everything they give us.

i love my job. i love being a nurse. i loved my white uniform but i gave it up. job security is the one that we need. [applause] supervisor mar: thank you. >> i am with the building trades and construction council. we lost a few at the break. i would ask those in the trades to stand up and be recognized. i thank them for attending. it is rare i can stand up here and be invited to talk about jobs. usually they tell us it is not appropriate to talk about jobs in whatever context we're in at the moment. the representation of our agreement with the prime contractor for california pacific medical center is correct. we have agreed to 30% goals for journey level workers -- overall and 50% for apprentices.

the apprentice number is vital. journey level requirements are going to be challenged in the next couple of years as private sector work wraps up. the real opportunity is going to be at the apprentice level. as supervisor mar may remember, i sent him a map of local higher. one of the points was taken only have so many apprentices relative to journeymen. they are not a cheap workforce. they are there for training. they have to be paired with an adequate number of journeyman to learn what they are supposed to do. to increase apprentice opportunities, you have to increase the volume of work. this hospital definitely increases the volume of work for san francisco. [tone!] i will point out if you try to resized the hospitals relative to each other, you set about three years if not forever

because they are so far along and a very intricate design. so much money and time would be lost in that effort that it would kill the project and jobs. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. mr. roselli. >> i am the president of the national association of health care workers. for more than a decade, cpmc has been by far the worst hospital in clear -- employer in the city. sector across northern california is by far -- sutter across northern california is by far the worst employer. over 500 complex -- contracts, fewer than 20 strikes out of 500 contracts settled. virtually all those 20 strikes have been with t