time off work so we don't lose the benefit of service should they want to work a cash allowance for safety shoes, a number of other smaller items. the cost of the contract, which is primarily driven by the wages is about 1.2 million in the first fiscal year and about 1.3 million in the second fiscal year. with regard to local 250a, which has two units, one that represents our transit operators and a small one that represents the fair inspectors. as you know we're still in talks with them. there was some mediation this week and for a moment it seemed like we were making progress but at this moment it doesn't seem like we're making progress. i did share a letter yesterday,

just really trying to outline what the path to resolution is, reminding them of the charter provisions and deadlines because the way the charter reads, we need to make any agreements that we have public for 15 days before you can consider them and since the agreements expire on june 30, that means we'd have to make them public by june 15 at the latest in order for you to be able to vote on them and prevention a lapse in the contract, which is what would happen if you don't approve a contract by june 30. so what we are doing today is we are disclosing the agreements that -- which is basically where we left all with both of those units. for local 250a in terms of the transit operators, it's the agreement that was reached as a result of the mediation process

that's outline nd the charter. its agreement was reached back on may 8. at that time i believe the schedule was that the union was going to bring it to a vote and then be ready to come to arbitration on may 20. as it turned out the vote itself didn't happen until may 30 and subsequently the vote was resounding vote down of the agreement that came out of the mediation process. the union has not be willing to enter into arbitration as the charter requires so what is before you today is the agreement that came out of that mediated process. so just to be really clear, what we're sunshining today, this isn't what we had proposed, it wasn't our started proposal, it wasn't what we went into mediation with. this is what came out of the mediated process so it has some things that we had proposed, has some things the union

proposed and some things that present a compromise between those. so just wanted to be really clear, this is in our proposal, this is what came out, the charter mandated mediated process. so what was in there, what was in that recommendation from the mediator that the two parties agreed to is also a two year term, it's also a 3% base wage increase on the first year starting on july 1. for the second year it's an increase on july 1 of the second year between 2.25 and 3.25 based on cpi, based on inflation. it does include the retirement pension swab that we talked about at some length on june 3. and just to remind you, every other -- pretty much every other union and employee in the city, pays the employee's share

of their pension contribution and the city pays the rest. right now the full employee share is 7.5%. right now the city's contribution is in the 20-something -- 22 or 23% range. we still have a very significant contribution that we make to employee mentions, but the employees for pretty much every other union in the city pay 7.5%. most of them got to that place through the same process that's on the table today where we actually offset their cost, at least in part, of their contribution with the wage increase. that's what we had proposed in this contract, that they would pick up their 7.5% employee share in exchange for a 5.05% wage increase. the reason those numbers are different is that we propose that as being cost neutral to

the agency so when you take the cost of our paying the 7.5% and add that all up, convert to wages, because on top of wages we have to pay certain other costs such as fica and other insurance, the math works out, at this point in time, to a 5.05% wage increase. importantly, that wage increase is what the pension is based upon or the wage increase on top of the wage is what the we're providing offsetting salary to them, but basically increasing their pension at 5% so if you look at the page, plus the pension benefit, it's -- i believe it's a pretty significant benefit. the agreement also recommended

moving them also into the city health plan, which was something that the union actually had desired that same 93/93/83. with regard to part-time operators it increases the daily limit from five to seven hours. and also allows for the serving of suspensions by reduced pay as opposed to taking time off. the cost is $3.8 million in the first year and $5 million in the second year. that's the agreement that we are sunshining today, recognizing of course that the union membership has voted it down at this point and the union has not been willing to to into arbitration on this, but this is the result of the mediated settlement process so it would seem to me this is the

most reasonable agreement to put forth so at least we have an opportunity -- or you have an opportunity to approve something before the end of the fiscal year. in terms of the fair inspectors, which is obviously a much smaller unit, a little different process that they came to agreement, didn't even get to impasse or mediation. they came to agreement, but subsequently, the agreement was unanimously voted down by the membership and likewise, there's been no willingness to enter into mediation on this. the terms are the same, same terms, same wage, same retirement swap, same health plan. more or less the same deal. the cost in the first fiscal year is $200,000 and there's a slight savings of $78,000 in the second fiscal year.

that's what we're making publically available today. i've been urging the union to return through the collective bargaining process that the city uses for every other union and we still remain hopeful that we'll be able to get there with them. we do have the agreements, we'll be making these agreements public on our website as required by law that we have copies of them here and they'll be up on our website by the end of the day. that's pretty much where we stand. we have reserved sunday, which would be the last possible day to make public the sunshine, any agreement. so if we're able to make any progress with the transport workers union between today and sunday we would -- and have a revised agreement that we can

sunshine and make possible, that's what we would do on sunday. i think that covers it. be happy to answer any questions. >> no action is required by the board. this is simply a public meeting to sunshine -- >> right, the charter requires that we make these available to the public in a public meeting. >> members of the board? members of the public care to address the board? good morning. >> good morning, erik williams, president for the transport union. respectfully, he's misstating the facts of what happened in negotiations between transport workers union and the agency. for one, you were not even there. for two, if you talk to your team in terms of what they brought to the table it was total unfairness. and if you look at the process between the impasse resolution

procedure 88 and 049 and prop g, you ask me is it fair and we go to negotiation under these terms. let's be clear here. we want to go back to the table. you guys are refusing trying to push us into a lopsided arbitration process. we're asking to go back to the tab. table. your team misstated the facts on the pension. our team crunched the numbers. that's what happened. we came back. so add ininjury to insult to tell them this is a fair and decent package in terms of this pension where the numbers are not correct? really? i'm not going to do it. our team is not going to do it. and every individual that is driving a bus right now, despite that you think we are incompetent and we don't

understand numbers is insulting. it's insulting. so let's clarify that. so secondly, in response to your letter -- i have a response for your letter, for you. i have a response for the board so they can look over on which we propose to you on tuesday through the mediator in which you did not even respond on how to get something before this board and the board of supervisors by your date within the charter. you did not respond so we have that here. let's make it clear, we're not opposed to going to arbitration. we will go there. are you willing to sign off on language that's saying the arbitrator can't use all in arbitration? >> [inaudible]. >> are you willing to do that? we proposed to mr. riffkin and his negotiating team, a package that would get us to a resolve until later on. have you read that?

have you presented that to the board? that's the question. >> this is your time to talk to us. >> i have a copy for you anyway. >> thank you so much. but let's be clear here again. you know, i want to go back and say it's all false tails out here. we have mr. riffkin talking on sunday morning news talking about how he wants to be fair out here. you telling us we're negotiating. your team just sat there for over two months waiting for us to go to arbitration, waiting for us to get to impasse so you can give it to this lopsided process within prop g to say well, that was bad, but just think if you go to arbitration it's going to be worse.

that's what we were dealt with in negotiations. you telling me oh, take it to your membership as well. not going to happen. >> thank you. we look forward to reading your letter. thank you. anyone else wish to address the board this morning? seeing none, anything else to come before the board? i guess that's it. anything else? >> i guess what i'll just say is that we have entered this negotiation in good faith, we have conducted it the way we have and the city has with every other labor organization so we absolutely believe that the operator should be fairly and well compensated. i believe what we proposed was consistent with that, what the mediator ultimately recommended even more so. in terms of the round rules for

arbitration, we have agreed there's an element of prop g that creates a higher burden for the arbitrator that is currently under appeal. we have agreed in writing not to invoke that higher standard for this process so i'm glad to hear, again, that the union is ready to go into arbitration as the charter requires. and to the extent that anything up to this point in the process was not understood or was not correct, the arbitration is the venue to get those matters resolved. >> was there arbitration scheduled at this point? >> there is a date, which is june 24, i believe, that the arbitrator that i believe that everybody is available for.

i don't believe is necessarily a full commitment for folks to actually go into arbitration on that date, but there's a date place holder, i guess you could say. >> if for some reason that doesn't happen by july 1, the current contract is in effect for two more years; is that correct? >> no. not exactly. if we don't have a new contract by june 30, we go into a situation that is called the dynamic status quo, which leaves some of the basic terms of the current agreement in place, so the current wage, the current retirement benefits, the current healthcare benefit would just stay in place. many other provisions of the contract go away and we would just be in a position of trying to negotiate a new agreement so we'd be in an area of expired

contract, which i don't think is good for anyone. it would mean no increases, no movement into the new healthcare benefit, no additional at 5% additional retirement benefit. none of that would come into play. >> how long can that go on? >> there's no time limit associated with that. >> [inaudible] this goes on infinitely? >> until we can get to an agreement. >> members of the board. >> one question. the -- i know the mention swap has come up before in discussion and i do understand it is -- it can be a confusing thing to understand. if the way we're viewing the math versus is way the union is viewing the math, at what point does that get clarified? does that get clarified by the arbitrator or --

>> i believe we brought the city's compensation manager into the process so he could present all the numbers and calculations. i understand the union brought their accountant in and so my understanding was that both sides were able to present and understand each other's point of view on that. i think that there does seem to be a difference of opinion on what the net wage impact from the swap alone would be, so i believe all the information was shared and i believe that's all documented in the record of the negotiation, but i also believe that we're looking at both the wage impact and the long term retirement benefit. when you look at those together that's where we have difference of opinion about how good a package this is or not. 5% increase on top of your retirement benefit is pretty significant so it's not just

the impact of the wage swap only. you look at the wage swap plus the retirement benefit, that's why i believe every other unit in the city has agreed to do this. >> i know you do hear from accountants that accounting is an art, not a science. but in this situation the numbers are the numbers, but the difference is what they believe versus -- >> what complicates the issue. there's a lot of different factors, such as how many different deductions you have on your w 2 form. you're right, there's absolutely for interpretation, but we're putting forward something, or what came out of the mediated negotiation, which was a higher er wage than what

we proposed, is what we think is a good and fair compensation package for the operators, otherwise i wouldn't be providing it here today as a recommendation. >> members of the board, questions or comments? my understanding is there's no need for a meeting on sunday unless there's an arbitration today or tomorrow. >> unless we come to some other agreement. >> the mta and union? >> correct. i guess i'm still holding out hope. 48 hours we might be able to -- >> i would say on behalf -- for myself -- it's just so important this service be out this. i ride it all the time. it's just vital. for some people it's an inconvenience if the bus doesn't show up, for others

it's very critical. i hope we can get this resolved as soon as possible and keep as open mind as possible and i hope the union does as well. meeting is adjourned. >> hi, i'm corn field and welcome to doing building san francisco, we are doing a special series, called stay safe, how you can stay in your

home safely and comfortable, and we know that an earthquake is coming and there are things that you can do to reduce the effects of the earthquake on your home. let's take a look at that. >> here at the spur urban center on mission street in san francisco talking about staying in your home after an earthquake. i have guests today, pat buscavich and his dog, harvey and david, and both structural engineers and we want to talk about things that you might do before an earthquake to your home to make it more likely that your home will be ha bitable after an earthquake, what should we do? both structural and maybe even important non-structural things. >> you hear about how to prepare an earthquake kit and brace your book shelves and water tank and that is important. what you have to be careful is make sure that you are not going the easy things to make

yourself feel better. if you have a bad structure, a bad building, then you need to be looking at that and everything that you do to keep your collectables in place is small and compared. if you have taken care of your structure, then there is a lot of stuff that you can do in your house that is non-structural and your chimney and water tank. >> let's talk about what the structural things might be. >> and he is exactly right. you don't want to make the deck chairs safe on the titanic, it is going down, you are going down, you have to make sure that your house is safe. there are basic things that you need to do including bracing the water heater, not just because of fire hazard but because of the water source and the damage, but basic things are installing anchor bolts, and adding plywood and strapping your beams to column and posts to footings and foundations are really easy things to do and most contractors can do the building department is set up to approve this work, and these are things

that every home owner should do, and it is a little harder because you have to get a building permit and hire a contractor. but you want to be able to after a big earthquake to climb in bed that night and pull the covers up and say i don't have to worry about going to a government shelter. >> that is the main focus that it is great to have an earthquake kit to be able to bug out for 72 hours. here is a better idea, stay in your own home and in order to do that you have to be make sure that your structure is okay. if you have a house, the easy things to do with the wood construction is feasible. if you have a renter or you live in a concrete building, you need to talk to the building own , and make sure they have done their due diligence and find out what the deficiencies are. >> when i have looked at damaged buildings,vy seen that a little bit of investment in time and money and structural work provides great dividends. >> especially if it is the wood

frame, typical house that you can do the things that i was talking about, the anchor and the plywood in the first garage area, you know if you refinanced in the last three years, get some of that savings and it is a really good investment. and the other thing that i try to tell people, earthquake insurance is not the solution to the shelter in place, if there is a big earthquake and your building is damaged, you are not in your house, you may be somewhere else, if you work in the city, it is going to be really hard to commute from sonoma, you want to do what is necessary so that your house is retrofitted and a couple of years of earthquake premium could get you to a level that you could be in the house after a significant earthquake and it may have damage and there is still a shelter in place where you are at home and you are not worried for the government taking care of you and you are living in a place where you can go to work and you want to have your wood frame house is really easy to get to that level. on top of the wood frame house, i mean every wood frame house in the west half of the city

have a water tank and the water tank fall over because they are gas fired and start fires. and that is something that you could do for yourself, and for your neighbors and for the whole city is make sure that your water tank is braced. >> if you look at the studies that are predicting on fires, we are going to have a lot of fires and for every water tank that is braced there is a potential of one less fire that the fire department is going to have to fight and we don't want to have any more fires than we need to. so bracing the water heater is the first thing that you want to do. >> and so easy, and you go on-line and you google, earthquake, water and heater and you google the sites where you can find the details and you can put them out there on the hardware store and you can hire a small contract tore do that for you. that is a couple of hundred bucks, the best investment. if you are in other types of building it is complicated. if you are in a high-rise building you just can't anchor your building down because there are no anchor bolts, but at that point, the tenant

should be asking questions of the owner's and the managers about earthquake preparedness >> and don't take the easy answer, oh, our building is safe it was designed to code. that is not the right answer, ask the tough questions and see if you can get a report that has been given to you. >> what is the right question? will i be able to stay in my home after the expected earthquake? is that a good question to ask? >> yeah, you may be more specific if you talk to the owner, if it is not a recent building, if it is ten or 20 years old see if they had an inspection done and there you will have a written before that will tell you all about the structure. >> thanks, pat. >> thanks, harvey. and thanks david for joining us and thank you for joining us on >> good afternoon. welcome to the board of supervisors land

use i'm scott wiener the chairman of the committee to my right supervisor kim and the vice chair and to my left to supervisor cowen our clerk is a andrea i want to thank sfgovtv for brooeftd today's 0 hearing particularly charles and jennifer lowe i want to note we have an overflow room in the north lake core so if you're in the north light quarter and want to make public comment fill out a card and we'll call public comment at the appropriate time for each item. madam clerk, any announcements? yes please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk the items

today will be on june 14th. thank you very much. madam clerk call item one >> it's an ordinance to into so what on a agreement with panic embarrass and electric and laura mitch is here. >> good afternoon supervisor wiener and supervisor cowen and thank you for hearing that i want to acknowledging commissioner mazzucco i manage the group at the puc this enters into a long term agreement with pg&e for the north beach library it authorizes the pg&e inform enter other agreements without prior board approval it allows

the agreement to start generating electricity for all solar projects connected to the grid it is to insure the proximately can remain connected to the grid. the puc hats several projects and the board of supervisors has approved each of the intersection agreements we currently have 13 connect agreement and stimulate 9 to 12 additional projects in the next 3 years the terms of the interaction their retained in granting the authorization will streamline the process for the city's labor projects the puc recommended the board of supervisors approving approve

this to enter into the north beach library interconnection agreement and similar agreements in the future. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. colleagues questions or comments? i wanted to say this is a good step forward we finally got the north beach library open and good to debiting get it some power with that, i'll open this up for public comment any public comment on that item? item one seeing none, public comment is closed. and colleagues could i have a motion to forward this to the full board with positive we'll take that without objection.. madam clerk call item 2 >> it's the ordinance amending the general plan of the recreation open space element. >> okay. so i'm going to call up john ram our director of