the last item, as rhonda simmons mentioned, we have fresh and easy coming to san francisco with two stores. one is opening in the bay view, and one out in the richmond district. because of the size of the square footage, they are subject to first source. working with that employer, we're trying to alleviate their concerns. we will not ask them to hire unqualified individuals. whatever their qualifications are, our network of community- based organizations match residents with an employer. if you look at our successes to date, employers are truly understanding it is a great service that san francisco offers them. we want to continue the partnership with employers to increase the number of san francisco residents on non-

public work projects. with that, i would be happy to answer any questions. >> i would like to ask a couple of questions. what is the difference between first source and the public works construction ordnance? they are different creatures. there may be some overlap. i do not think a lot of people understand how these different strategies are supposed to approach different audiences and populations. >> first source is looking at all private employment and contracts for the city. construction is not the only opportunity where the system can be developed to increase the number of sentences the residents.

first source is a voluntary program, good faith. the requirement is 50% of new hires were new jobs created because of the project, the city has the right of first refusal. we get to give an employer a list of qualified residents for those jobs before they advertise those in the larger public market. if i am an employer coming to san francisco, first source is a would come to the city and say i have 200 jobs. the city has the right to help the staff those. if you give me qualified san francisco residents, if not, i will go through normal channels and recruit individuals to perform the work. first source gives the city an

opportunity to present our candidates for employment before the general public has a chance for the jobs. it is good faith. it is still up to the employer to make that decision. the chapter 6 public contracting changes made with respect to mandatory local hiring, that is for all public- works projects, just construction. it does not include public services. it is just construction. we included a mandatory staff in requirement rather than the good faith program we had in the past. those are some of the fundamental differences. the mandatory program is just for construction. private first source is for construction and in use -- end use jobs. it is designed to provide opportunities for economically disadvantaged residents. >> one of the words you

describedused in describing firt source was good faith and voluntary. it does not compel the way that mandatory local hiring does for public works construction. what would be some ways for us to strengthen first source if there is a way to strengthen it at all? >> one of the changes the board enacted in looking at the planning code and building code is that on many occasions, there were many projects that came to the city and the developed. it was after the fact noticed that construction had already started or hiring decisions were already made on private projects. we did not have a good effective system at capturing all of the

opportunities that existed. the change the board made with respect to making it a requirement before issuing a permit for construction or occupancy, there has to be signed first source agreement. that huge loophole that existed in terms of having no information was closed. now it is about managing all of those kinds of projects to ensure the city has the necessary infrastructure in place to take advantage of many more opportunities and linking that with our overall one-stop system and work force delivery system. supervisor avalos: how do you enforce something that is good faith and get requiring the contractor to interface with the city? oewd is saddled with the

responsibility of making sure that due diligence is done. quite often, it is not. >> it is due diligence and the enforcement mechanisms are not as prevalent in first source as in the mandatory program. first source does speak of liquidated damages. it is part of the overall programming contract. it is not something that has the teeth of enforcement that other ordinances on local hiring have. supervisor avalos: let's bring up contemporary examples. we just secured the rights to the america's cup. one would think that mandatory local hiring would help us ensure that the notion of the america's cup would secure in local hiring strategy. but it does not.

it is not inclusive of pork projects. is that correct? >> that is correct. the only opportunity there is the leasing agreements the city would enter into where a first source would be subject to the lease. supervisor avalos: a fallback is that mandatory local hiring does not have a statutory rees reached reached. first source is the lever to try to exact local work force hiring and training agreements. subtracting from port jurisdiction, would it make sense for us to figure out a legislative enhancement that does the same thing as public works construction but also includes some of the port for a project like america's cup?

we're talking about 1000 jobs. others say more. others say less. would that be to our advantage to try to secure that agreement to make sure that those jobs go locally? >> from owd's perspective, the idea of local jobs generated out of the america's cup was high on everyone's priority list. our interest is to continue to work with the port to figure out better mechanisms. those opportunities will be generated not just by construction. there will be opportunities across the board. we want to have a system in place to match the needs of san francisco workers with the needs of an employer to try to make that linkage as strong as we can. supervisor avalos: the teeth is not in any legislation we have

the requires that level of compliance on mandatory local hiring. >> that is correct. supervisor avalos: that is as it relates to any port project. in this case we're talking about america's cup. redevelopment is also similar to port. that is also not included in that particular law. is that correct? >> the law the city passed on the mandatory local hiring ordnance is only four contracts were let out by the city and county of san francisco. the redevelopment agency is its own body who has a similar program as our local hire program. their commission is going through the process to look at their policies and mirror of them as close as they can to the

city's policies so that employers coming to the san francisco -- there would be seamless policy between the two so there would not be any confusion. supervisor avalos: that would be good. a contract was brokered between union labor, neighborhood citizen advocates, and the city on the baby-hunters point project that was recently advanced by the board of supervisors and the mayor. other than that being brokered on the side, there is no tether that would require that level of obligation on mandatory local hiring. there is no law that covers it. correct? >> and redevelopment, there is no mandatory program.

there agency and staff are working on a process to create or mirror at the city's mandatory requirements so that projects would be subject to similar mandatory programs. supervisor avalos: very good. are there any other major departments of the city that you sort of subtract from the reach of first source or public construction that remain /non-enlisted in trying to help local hiring? >> first source impact of our departments -- impacts all of our departments. it is taking advantage of this

administration's interest in advancing local hire beyond construction and working with the leadership that naomi kelly provides in bringing all of the departments together to have a more focused plan around local hire. first source does ask all departments to have a plan on how they will implement it with respect to their department. those plans are probably as old as the legislation itself. there are many opportunities to engage all of the department's n first source and local hire to increase opportunities we may not see on our radar screen now. supervisor avalos: what about our ability to influence the private sector in their consciousness and making sure that their hiring of our people -- that they are hiring our people?

>> on the private development in san francisco where there are no public dollars, these projects that will require building permits still have to agree to first source. if we look at the success we have had on the construction side with the development of affordable housing projects in the city, we have been very successful at increasing the number of san franciscans on the project. i am hoping we can create a model where employers recognize the advantage of partnering with the city. employers are understanding of the city is providing a full- service h.r. function in terms of doing all of the upfront screening, technical training to

provide them with highly qualified candidates. the more successful they will be in wanting to use the city services. that is one of our strategy is to get the employers to come knocking on the city sto's door when they are looking to hire people. it is really employer engagement that we need to get much more involved with. supervisor avalos: what about difficult populations? there is a good faith effort to integrate like the incarcerated population. the city purport's through nonprofits and some city departments, it tries to integrate as much as they can

the training and placement. the numbers show it pales in comparison to those that actually needed. how will this procedure get at the population? >> there are multiple populations in san francisco with high barriers. formally incarcerated, oewd does a series for community- based organizations specifically geared towards helping this population. the formerly homeless is another population that is increasingly difficult to find employment opportunities for. partnering with community-based organizations and linking them up with opportunities in the job market and playing the brokerage services is where we can

provide these things in a more meaningful way than we have in the past. supervisor avalos: the trend has been predominantly through construction jobs. that is where workforce and first source has been concentrated. in the afterlife of 45 years of redevelopment and the economic downturn, the landscape has changed. it is not so much having construction jobs. the question is raised about why not move after the retail sector and another kind of business sector. we're trying to help the same populations but not diversifiey.

i want to put that out there. the city is most well known for work force on construction. it is a question about where we depart from those points in two other business sectors. -- into other business sectors. >> i think to will ask rhonda to talk about the other things we offer. >> the question around diversifying the sector and not having everything concentrated on construction. what we have been moving towards is more of a sector model. that is identifying industry, looking at the labor market to determine where the job market will be in san francisco. we have identified a couple of sectors. we identified seven before we got into the economy we're in now. one that is still vibrant is health care. you attended the health care

training. we also identified and attempted to start a green jobs academy. the idea is to try to identify industries that have promising opportunities for employment. it is looking at the market. it is a little bit of art and science to continue to try to figure out what that is. san francisco is a very difficult market for certain populations. some of them, you have identified. you have folks that are under- skilled or have english beers were literacy issues -- english barriers or literacy issues. the largest sector is health care. the largest sector with continual employment is the health care sector. we do not have much blue-collar or middle income sectors in the

city. it is very difficult for certain populations to participate. hospitality was a sector that we continue to try. the america's cup will drive that sector quite a bit. diversifying that sector with a broad range of populations is something on our mind. culinary arts is another one. we want to broaden opportunities where people can get employment now. it is driven by the market. the idea of the health care academy and the green academy and eventually hospitality and culinary arts is that people go through a set amount of training. then we are able to work with our group of cbo's to work with employers to place them. if we are not able to place them in employment, i hesitate to

want to train them. the whole point is to train them and get them into a job. we are working hard to identify different sectors so that we're not so concentrated on construction. supervisor avalos: that sets up a competitive model with unemployed union labor. you have the demand for limited construction jobs. that sets up tension on how we are advancing a new work force or one that is not as skilled into an arena that would go to those who are more skilled but out of work. >> the other thing is to broaden the definition of construction. we are looking at other

opportunities in the construction sector like administrative positions. there are a number of opportunities that first source can provide on the professional services side. we want to get more young people into engineering and surveying. all of these project manager jobs are related to construction. we need to broaden the trades out. those jobs are year round. they are not as subjected to the union tension on the trade side. we are looking at other opportunities within the construction sector to broaden the opportunities we would have. we realize we're not going to get everybody a job in construction. we realize we need to have a mix that accommodates gender issues. we worked hard on our construction sites to make sure we have women involved.

one of the motivators to broaden the sector was to make sure we had more diversity for people to participate in. we tried to identify sectors with a wide continuum of opportunities. someone could start at a lower level job and work their way up. that is one of our criteria is. it is a challenge now. that is with the economy. given where we are going and looking at opportunities in the future, it is trying to look at the project as a whole and not just one piece of it. we are trying to find every opportunity we can. >supervisor avalos: we have two major transit projects under way. actually, we have three.

if you look at the numbers we're beginning to inventory on local hiring, i would say it is paltry compared to what one would expect for projects of that scale. doyle drive is $1 billion plus. that should encompass the significant amount of hiring. there should be a minimum at least. when you mix state and federal dollars, that handcuffs us. >> it does to some degree. we have had some successes there and are working to create more. we're working with the transportation authority and caltrans to look at their rules and regulations to figure out how we can work within the context to get more local hiring. trans bay is another where we're doing the same.

these projects are great ones to start looking at expanding how we are defining construction. they have large construction management contracts attached to them. they have all lot of other opportunities. we're working to identify not only the trade side, but other ways we can help folks get some in planet. -- other ways we can help folks. the legislation moving forward, and the local hire does go all the way down to the subs. in terms of the requirements put forth looking forward at mandatory local hire, that is a big part of the legislation. in this economy, our strategy is to turn over every rock we can

to make sure we are not missing any opportunities. we have been working on a joint project between moh redevelopment overlapping jurisdictions. the most recent site is hunters view. it is subjected to the redevelopment policy. we work with them to ensure we get a certain amount of local hire. we look at the project holistically. we look at if there are opportunities in the trailer, a security opportunities, putting up the financing. everything we can so that we can provide enough opportunity. construction has its good and bad. it is not always year-round work. it is seasonal. it goes as the project goes. we need to figure out how to

broaden and diversified that. i know there is a commitment from the mayor and all of the folks working on this issue to try to see how we can expand this as much as we can. supervisor avalos: what is your staff size that helps us explain how to enforce these agreements? >> on the local hire side, city build has a team of 12 -- soon to be. 10 to 12. we just recently got more staff to help us. on any given day on the construction side, we're juggling a couple of hundred projects. we're trying to enforce the ordinances that we have on the books. on the in the u.s. siend use si3

folks working on that. we do have some tools that have helped us a lot. i would love to get to a point where we are able to put out a report that lays out where we are at collectively with all of the projects. we are not there yet. we're probably further along on the construction but not where we would want to be on the end use. we need to do more refining of that process. we do really well on some of the higher profile opportunities that we get. there are hundreds of opportunities that slip through the cracks. moving from hsa to my office has helped. using our when stop delivery system has helped on the job- seekers side.

when we did lowe's, we used a lot of the systems we had set up through the one-stop services. that helps. as an employer, we do not want you to have to run around to find a qualified person. we can help you. we are acting more as placement for these companies to assist them. that is what our role is. supervisor avalos: in terms of a whistle-blower relationship rule, you and i and others worked on reforming health things would be applied. i used to travel to work sites and asked the foreman for an inventory of the zip codes of where people live to to see if there was good faith compliance. most often, i was completely

dissatisfied with the fact that people and our area or the city were not hired. what if someone wants to blow the whistle and say they want to know if the site is hiring our people? how are we set up for that? >> if there is a particular site or area, the likelihood not office would know about it on the construction side is pretty high. i think we have a good handle on projects within that threshold value. by ordnance, we're mandated to oversee them. we know lot about the project. in terms of staffing, we do sometimes have to prioritize what we are working on. there are times when we strategizing to go where we will get the most bang for auerbac--r