to draw from. it just does not sit in my purview. that is how this got negotiate, just from the work that i do. supervisor mar: i know you're going to get to future slides. but it looks like the existing jobs, 6200 jobs will be maintained, and there's about a 25% increase in new jobs, and we're talking about the permitted jobs. what percentage would you estimate are those entry-level of the new jobs that are created? >> if you let me continue, we will get to it. supervisor mar: ok. >> i am going to focus on construction first, because that is the way it is laid out. once again, our first source policy -- this is a privately funded project, and there's an estimated 1500 construction jobs that will be created. this is a labor agreement attached to it. the agreement calls for about

30% of construction trade hours with the project overall. and for each contract, we try to achieve those goals by trade. that does mirror some of the language we have in local hire. it is currently a 25% on our local hire. just to give you a little bit of comparison, because a number of you guys have asked me about local hire and if it applies. supervisor chiu: do have a copy of the pla? >> it is an agreement between cpmc and their contractors and unions, so i have not been privy to the pla. it is their agreement, not our agreement. it is not like the agreements we have with puc or anything like that. >> which i appreciate. i know it is referenced. i dig it would be helpful for us

of ricketts see a copy of that. >> i have not been provided a copy, and we can talk to cpmc and see if it is possible to see a copy. but no city staff has seen the copy of that. >> ok. i think that would be helpful, or i would ask our friends in the trades if we may see that. i do not know what the agreement is around that, but i think that would be helpful. thank you. >> in addition to the trades- related positions, we also have agreement that 50% of the sort of the new entry-level admin and engineering positions, you know, are part of this agreement. we started a construction admin program, which is where this is applicable for us. we probably average about two classes a year and turn out about 60 students the could

partake in that opportunity, and we have already started working with cpmc on that. the new apprenticeship positions, 50% of our city build graduates will have access to those positions, and then we will work in partnership with cpmc on the additional 50%. meaning that if they are not able to achieve those through their means, then we will be ready. we probably have two city build classes a year. we just graduated a class last friday with 50 students wi. the more students to graduate, the more students we're able to put in place. the other key components to the construction is that there is a commitment by cpmc to create and administer a program to ensure that students actually can journey out based on the trade, which is important. that is equivalent to essentially folks being able to

a journey out in their craft, and in this world, that is really sort of the gold you strive for from a construction component, so it is really a retention program that would be new for us. we do not really have a commitment like this on any other project. the other part of this is the city collaboration with the contractors. they will be required, as all contractors that are subjected to first source, to alert and let us know. we have a system in place on the opportunities. failure to do so, they will be in what we call our first source of violation. there are liquidated damages attached to the first source policy that this project is subjected to, that liquidated damages apply to the contractors. in terms of how we define the san francisco residence, it is very much like what we have in

our local hire policy, and the project will have the requirement of demonstrating residency in san francisco, which is really -- what it means is that you need to meet the threshold of voter registration in order for us to consider you a san francisco resident. and that policy would apply it. it is also part of our local hire policy. hopefully this will begin to answer some of the questions that you all have on the entry- level or in-use portion of this. as i mentioned earlier, there are 6200 jobs overall. there are roughly about 122 entry-level jobs annually, according to cpmc's information. 100 of those positions exist, and 100 will become available due to attrition, promotion, retirements, things of that

nature, and then another 22 will be for newly created positions as the hospital is built. the definition, as we said, requires two years or less of the post-secondary education. these are some of the examples that we used to kind of come up with that definition or sort of attached what my program trains or what we thought people could get some employment in. as i said before, we did not necessarily focus on management positions, hire skilled health care positions. that really was not the focus at the time of negotiating this. there has been and continues to be discussions around the sort of non-health care as entry level positions, such as some of the admin and food-service kind of positions. we continue to have those

discussions. but most of the focuses on more of an entry level pool, and that has more to do with the work that my office and those which is more a round that type of skill set, more so than anything else. at least from our perspective. of that 122 pool, there is a commitment of 40 per minute entry level jobs over a five- year time span. they roll over if we do not meet that goal, but i think we can. that is about a third of the positions that i have data on. we will have our mou agreements on all of this. the partnership includes a cbo consortium that i use on just about everything we do in this work, and there has been some

commitment to target residents, and i heard this from the board of supervisors, where we have potentially higher levels of unemployment. so you can see what committee focuses we have identified so far based on that criteria. supervisor mar: i have a filling others will have questions about this topic, but in the previous slide cammisa this project, with the rebuild, you'll have about 7700 jobs over the next 10 years. of that, about 40 jobs a year -- goods actually, there is 1500 new jobs that gets created. the data have been given, there are 6200 jobs that exist across all cpmc. of those, about 100 of those jobs sort of the exist, because there is a sort of retention and creation, two separate buckets.

the 100 is sort of existing positions were there will be turnover. however that turnover occurs, retirement, people leave, promotions. then there is another roughly, with the definition i have, you know, 22 sort of entry level that meet that goal, so that gives you 122 that i am going to approach. not the whole 6200 pool of jobs that exist, nor does it cover the whole 1500 pool, because that is much broader. if you go back to look at the original side of how many management positions, how many rn positions, and all that, that encompasses sort of the whole entire bucket. that is not the pool that my work is totally focused on. there is a number of those position left outside of my

purview. most of the more highly skilled positions, we did not focus on. anything, i would say, that is rn, md, ma, ba level was not my focus on this. i think that is where some of the confusion lies. as i said, that is not how i am set up in terms of, you know, the money that i receiver any of that. it is much more for folks that are sort of lower skilled and just kind of getting into the game. that is really where that comes from. supervisor mar: and i completely appreciate that. what i am wondering is, for permanent jobs moving forward, it seems that there are only about 40 jobs per year under your purview, what you're focused on, that are guaranteed to be local hire, san franciscan jobs. >> correct. supervisor mar: i think, is it

fair to say that those 40 jobs a year over five years, 200 jobs, less than 5% of the total jobs better under the da slated to go to san francisco residence, knowing that there may be other jobs that may go to san francisco residence, but as far as what is in this agreement, that we can really count on? if there are others who want to answer that question -- i just want to understand. >> keep in mind, 45% of their work force already exist in san francisco. you kind of ha to back that number out. when you kind of get into the nuances, you know, then that 55% that is non-san francisco residents, right, were there may be some attrition or things of that nature, then cpmc may want to come up and address that. i would assume they go through

their own protocols of hire. but as it relates to the dda, what i focus on is a very narrowly defined portion of the pool of jobs available based on that criteria. supervisor mar: and i completely appreciate that. >> that is all that i am comfortable answering, because that has been my purview. supervisor mar: i know you had a previous slide on page 34 saying 40% of current employees are san francisco residents. >> right, i think for an additional breakdown of that, i think cpmc would be better to answer that. supervisor mar: i think if the da stated overall levels would be closer to that, do not think we would have a problem here. >> is there someone who would like to address -- can you say the question again? supervisor mar: it seems in the

da, obviously, this is a project touted for the large number of jobs that will go to, hopefully, san franciscans. right now, 45% of cpmc employees are san francisco residents. but the only thing in this da that is committed are the 40 jobs a year that you would be working with. beyond that, there really are no commitments to san francisco residence. >> on the in-use, yeah. 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