supervisor mar: ok, just wanted to know that. >> i appreciate the construction jobs part. the eir stated much higher numbers. the project is promoted as a huge new job creator. i think the eir was saying that the number of new jobs would be about 4,000 new ones. now it sounds like you're saying there's about 1600 new jobs. i am just wondering why there is that discrepancy. that is pretty large discrepancy. >> supervisor, i will try to answer. as you have probably seen with a lot of eir's, one of the difficulties with the way ceqa makes us do eir's is a nexus grossly overestimates impacts. my understanding is that the eir looked at the potential of a lot more new jobs, but the actual

numbers that the cpmc are saying are real numbers are the numbers on the powerpoint. i think you have probably seen previously that eir's will study buildings that are much taller than the actual proposal the comes down to you. that is because then eir takes so long and has to be started so far before-or project is finalized, so they overcompensate and are very conservative. >> but there is such a big difference between 4,170 new fte's or jobs versus 1600. that is quite a difference. >> yes, i do not have the specifics on that. someone from cpmc may address that or i can go back to planning staff and tried to get more specifics for you on what the discrepancy is. in general, there often is a discrepancy with eir's with projects when they finally come along. supervisor mar: i appreciate all

the data, and that of the 40 permitted jobs per year for five years, i am understanding how that plays a role in your roll number of permitted jobs. but it seems like there needs to be strong will commitment for the other areas, administrative and engineering, an entry-level jobs as well. it is a good starting point for the 40 new jobs, but it sounds like that is not enough. i am wondering what your thoughts on that are. >> as i said, i think that, you know, certainly in this economy in this being such a big project, there is a need. but, you know, i think how that would all work, where we would sit, probably some more nuanced data. because, as i said, it is does not the purview that i walked in. so there would need to be, you

know, probably some of the partnerships that are not sort of in my purview now. most of the work that we do is really focused on the river kind of -- especially around health care. that does not mean that i do not hear what folks are saying. i have been hearing them through the whole process. i think there has to be further discussion around how that would work. you know, with the current recruitment processes are for folks that are more highly skilled. they do not necessarily come through any of the systems that i have. to some degree, we have had, you know, since the economy as kind of struggled to get back on its feet, we had the -- have other partnerships with kaiser and a number of other health-care providers. we still pretty much focus on that. i have applied for different federal grants for other search of higher skilled or dislocated

or incumbent workers, which is where you would find a lot more of the highly professional folks. we just received a grant for this site technology, but i do not have a resource for health care. the resourced that i do have has redesignated sort of on a certain end of the continuum. that is not to say that there is a need or that folks to know what to be involved, it is does not what we have been set up for. >> i know one of your upcoming slides is about strengthening the partnership with the city's sector academies and the $2 million for committee work force services from cpmc to the city should be helpful. i know that the lenna -- lennar and candlestick point and others were as close to $8.5 million. $2 million thousandsounds import

i am wondering, a kind of, how you look at the $2 million for the work force services? >> the cpmc, it is a little different. i mean, the $8.5 million -- of the good part about all this money, whether it is through lennar for these moneys is that it is flexible. most of the resources i get dictate what i have to do with it and it can only be applied to a certain population or for a certain skill set. when you get federal money, it comes with a lot of restrictions, which most of the money i receive is federally funded. whenever i get flexible dollars, it allows us to be a little bit more creative and plug holes. i think if you look at what that is, because i think there are at least three or four of these type of community benefit

agreements that fund different parts of the city, different areas. there could always be additional dollars. and we appreciate everything that we get. i think the way we would start to use these dollars is to enhance what we did around our health care academy and may be broadened out what we were able to offer. because we pay everything for these students to get through these programs in terms of the tuition or whatever support services. the additional dollars would allow us to maybe do some pilots and experiment with incumbent worker populations. these are things i cannot do right now because of restrictions. supervisor mar: the example of the community benefits agreements for hunters point, candlestick point, lenna, and the $8.5 million for work-force development and different agreements being enforced is really important. even in forcing the permanent

jobs percentages, i know it was said that there is some liquidated damages remedies if they do not comply. it sounds like the community benefits agreement for lennar holds them accountable. i hope that as we continue this discussion, you could talk about enforcement as well. and even the continued mitchen of the community benefits agreement as an approach to this development. -- mentioned of the community benefits agreement. >> the first source chapter 83 enforcement requirements apply. it is monitored out of our office, and it calls for liquidated damages if we do not get the referrals when job openings come for the targeted opportunities. and we do have the ability to impose that through chapter 83. it is already part of the language and part of what we do

now. we would continue that process on this project. in terms of the entry-level jobs, if we do not hit our 40 per year dole, we are able to roll those over to the next year. cpmc is a partner on our health care academy of which we have all the providers working with us to ensure that our classes get placed. on monday, i will have a class of 70 students that i will need to find placement slots for. cpmc will work with us to ensure, you know, ideally, 40 of those slots we can place from cpmc. we run about two classes per year. based on funding, sometimes we're able that add more. that is kind of how it is broken out for our purposes. a little bit about the academyies.

we graduate -- we have two cycles a year. roughly 150 to 125 students a year. the average wages are a little less. the $2 million would help augment a portion of this. we procure the grants to community based organizations, both for construction and health care. and the community-based organizations helping provide a number of support services to our students, as well as placement opportunities. we provide both clinical and clerical training and coordinate sort of the notification and referrals to the students. for the academy, it is a very similar model. we have been going a lot longer on the construction side. i think our health care academy is like two and half years old.

our city build academy is 5 1/2 years old. we have had a lot more experience and a lot more cycles coming through. as i said, we just graduated a class on friday. and the 50% goal for an apprentice, which is what all these students are, will be helpful in getting them placed in the end a program to help folks achieve to journeymen is also important. the last slide is in reference to the lbe goals. negotiated 14% of all the contracts should be awarded to lbe's. this includes both contractors and subcontractors. this is measured by the total cost of all contractors. i have not been as involved in this particular portion, and i think moving forward this would be administered through probably the general services agency,

which to my understanding is taking over the functions of lbe certification. so that oversight and certification would happen out of that office, not my office. i wanted to touch on that. supervisor mar: could someone from city staff talk about how that 14% number was arrived at? >> i actually do not have that information, but i will get it for u.s. soon as possible. hopefully before the end of the hearing. supervisor mar: great. we have been discussing this as a city for years, and we all want to see lbe's do very well. i would love that information. >> any other questions? supervisor cohen: i am curious to know, i know rondell is taking a lot of heat for our work force questions, but she implements our desires in many ways.

we need to begin to put forth a lot of our questions when it comes to work force job development to really ascertain their level of commitment and to ensure that they are hearing in receiving our concerns. is there an opportunity for that? supervisor mar: i know we have several stacks of cards for public comment. this is going to extend for several hours, but my hope is that there can be a good dialogue after public comment. but i really appreciate the great work and that the new opportunities for the health care academy especially. thank you for the great work. >> thank you. supervisor cohen: so the project sponsors are coming up? otherwise i will have to direct my questions to director simmons. supervisor mar: i am wondering if the project sponsor could respond to supervisor cohen's

questions now. >> that would be you, cpmc. >> i am not exactly sure what the questions are. in my be better if you ask them and we have a chance to put together a response. if i know the answer immediately, i would be happy to answer it. supervisor cohen: one of the things you're hearing from president chiu and supervisor mar, we're looking at the good faith hiring. a study was done last year that indicated that it does not meet its mark. we are looking for some of verbal commitment that puts you on the record that you're committed and you understand our concerns when it comes to local hire and developing sector academy partnerships. >> we absolutely do.

in fact, we're very proud of our track record of having san franciscans working. currently, 45% of everyone that works at cpmc lives in the city. another 12% of just over our southern border, either in daly city or south san francisco. we're very committed. it is our advantage to have employees working in san francisco. another have been a lot of questions about some of the more skilled employees. and we employ many people with substantial job skills. respiratory therapist, physical therapists, registered nurses, physicians. our priority there goes to education, experience, and qualification. not geography, but we still manage to do very well in terms of having a substantial portion of our workforce living within just a few miles of our hospital. supervisor cohen: it was stated earlier about the previous

develop projects, like the hunters point and development, we worked with project sponsors to give hiring preferences to residents of the adjacent neighborhoods who are impacted by the development. in this case, the project is spread over the entire city, so this model may not make sense. however, your proposed plan to rebuild st. luke's is contained within the southeastern part of the city, which has a tremendous work force employment needs. i would like for you to consider implementing a district of zipd code preference for these districts. is that something you would be able to consider? >> i will consider, but i do not know enough about the details. supervisor cohen: sure. i think director simmons might be able to add a little comment

to this. i do not know -- >> supervisor, in these lights presented, i did reference the for our program, we have focused on some of the zip codes referenced. that is sort of the way our health care academy works in terms of our partnerships. so for the positions that we have worked with cpmc on the entry level slide, we have not sort of called it out by zip code, but there is a recruitment that focuses on many a of thezip codes that you referenced for

those entry-level. i cannot speak to the higher skills. supervisor cohen: stick with me, both of you. one of the things i know we have had some conversations on, and we have spoken about pathways to careers. one thing that i am is acutely attuned into is a lot of times when talking about construction jobs, it is very male-dominated and focused. i want to make sure we carve out opportunities for careers for women. they may not be explicitly discussed for the purpose of this project. there have been ideas about enterprising opportunities. with your team, i discussed about somehow creating an opportunity to carve out a portion of your laundry services, creating something that isn't surprising that we can create locally in san francisco.

maybe you can add some context to this point of this model based out of ohio. >> i think you are referring to models were you have had either social enterprises models, which are basically nonprofits that create small-business around a certain particular sector. sometimes it is landscaping. there has been some small laundry services created a around hospitals. there are some examples of that. i have been in discussion with some folks at cpmc around opportunities that are non- health care related, and i think we will continue those discussions and try to figure out if there is some synergy and where it may be applicable on things that are not so much health care related.

it may be catering, maintenance, laundry, where we might be able to find other opportunities. when we set out doing this, we have a framework we were operating on that was focused on 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.