year. supervisor avalos: thank you. we will open this item up for public comment. >> supervisors, you're talking about an area, as a gentleman from the san francisco fire department stated, is under the jurisdiction of the united states navy. in the year 2000, there was a raging fire there.

i hope the fire department has spoken to someone in the chain of command and they know what i'm talking about. the gentleman has not alluded to this. what you supervisors and the public at home should know is that when it comes to radiological elements, and that was one of the concerns in the year 2000, the san francisco fire department technically is tendered to address this. the gentleman stated that there were only 20 runs. i would like the gentleman to provide all the reports. i can categorically state that there were more than 20 runs. if we had those runs, how many

were linked to bfires? what we had was a high proportion of methane gas. i would like to explain that 1 tons of methane gas = 22 tons of carbon dioxide. explain what empirical data you have about ready logical elements, and why is it that our police department has moved away from the shipyard, but this city, the supervisors continued to encourage our firefighters to go into the cesspool? thank you very much supervisor avalos: thank you. any other member of the public like to speak? we'll take that without objection to the full board with

the recommendation. mr. young, if you could call item no. 5, please. >> item number five. resolution approving the memorandum of agreement with the national park service for the comprehensive management of yosemite national park watersheds that supply water to the san francisco regional water system pursuant to charter section 9.118. >> thank you for hearing this item. this is a five-year agreement with the national parks works for yosemite national park watersheds. as you're well aware, about 85% of the water we deliver to the people here. we are not required to filter the water supply because of the high quality of water that comes off the national park watershed.

an important component is the ongoing protection services provided by the parks services. the aggressors as a mechanism for source water protection -- the agreement as a mechanism -- the agreement serves as a mechanism for source water protection. we're working with the park service to improve the ecosystem that is affected by the sfpuc systems, and it also provides security. it is essential to the delivery of water that comes from the park. we're very proud of this. this is one of those really good things that we do. we have a very strong relationship with them. i would point out that we're in an agreement with the budget analyst recommendation on the side and to limit the amount of slightly less than $30 million, and we ask for your continued

support on this. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. mr. rose. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, we have asked, of course, for documentation on the amount needed and the department provided us with a budget that was totaled on page 3 of our reports and table one. it is about $2.5 million less than the not to exceed amount of $30 million. those costs will be funded from water fees paid by puc water customers. the estimated expenditures o

represents an increase of about a 40.6% increase when you look at the actual expenditures made under the existing agreements. there are actually two agreements. the department explains that is due to an escalation of approximately 5% per year over a five-year period of the agreement, as well as increased security requirements related to the dam. we recommend that you amend the resolution, to reduce the requested not to exceed amount by $2.5 million, and that you approve the recommendation as amended. supervisor avalos: thank you, mr. rose. a quick question. the work will be carried out by the national park service. do we have any puc staff that

are working in the watershed region? >> yes, we do have a lot of staff at work in the watershed region. they identified margarey problek service can respond to. supervisor avalos: thank you. we can open this item up for public comment. >> i would like to inform the public at home that the water belongs to the first people. when the act was passed, rich folks from san francisco dammed it, and we enjoy this water. it is kind of paradoxical that

we give money to the national parks service and to other entities to safeguard the watershed, but we do not take pains to conserve water. in fact, you supervisors, when you go to the restrooms, you flash good water -- flush good water with aout any conservation in sight. this is from the money that we pay for the water, the 4.2 million customers. let us be prudent, first to understand at least all this water from the first people. secondly, we failed to conserve water all these years. thirdly, to respect the first people. in the future, water will be

like gold. it is not only right that we spend money, security for security purposes, paying over $100,000 to do what i would say superficial work, but more to conserve this water. it is all tied together. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you. any other member of the public would like to comment on item number five? we will close public comment. ok. we'll accept the budget analyst 's recommendation and move forward without objection. item number six, please. >> item number six. resolution approving and authorizing an agreement to exchange interests in real property to obtain an exclusive, subsurface easement from the midpeninsula regional

open space district in exchange for a non-exclusive open space easement over real property owned by the city and county of san francisco, for the purpose of constructing the san francisco public utilities commission water system improvement program-funded project cuw36801, bay division pipeline reliability upgrade - bay tunnel; adopting environment. supervisor avalos: welcome. >> before you today is an exchange of easement between the city and midpeninsula regional open space district. this is an exchange of roughly 3 acres of easements, both to and from the city for different purposes. for the city, it is for the reliability of grade process --

upgrade process. i have a screen showing both areas of easement, both to the city and from the city indicating the general area of this. in exchange for that the subsurface easement, the city would grant a non exclusive open space easement to the district to protect scenic and ecological aspects of the land. we believe, as does the midpeninsula district, an even exchanges in the best interest of both parties, and therefore has structured this without payment from one party to the other. it will also go toward the continued preservation of open space at the ravenswood open space preserve, which is shown on the map. we have the general plan referral in your package, the district's review, public

notice, and their approval at their meeting. this would be the final step in a process in order to consummate these two easement agreements. i'm happy to answer any questions. we also have a representative from the puc. supervisor avalos: environmental findings? can you summarize that briefly? >> yes, i believe the reference here is made to the review adopted by the board in september 2009. that is outlined on pages three and four of the enabling resolution in front of you today.

supervisor avalos: ok. we can go ahead and move on to public comments. thank you. seeing none, we will close public comment. we will move aside and forward without objection with the recommendation. item seven, please. >>item number seven. ordinance amending ordinance no. 191-10 annual salary ordinance fy2010-2011 to reflect the addition of three positions. one class 5638 environmental assistant, one class 5640 environmental specialist, one class 5644 environmental manager in the department of the environment. supervisor avalos: thank you. >> we have taken a look at the

projected grant finding and would like to amend this as a request now, cutting out 5638, and reducing one. supervisor avalos: do you agree with that recommendation? >> absolutely. supervisor avalos: ok. arose, anything else to add? >> the department concurs with two positions. as our report states, they plan to delte two temporary positions. we believe the board should be given formal documentation about that. those are our formal recommendations on page 7 of the report to first of all amend, and approved two instead of three positions, and amend the

start date, as has been stated, and then to get the formal memorandum as to when the two temporary positions will be deleted. supervisor avalos: thank you, mr. rose. supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: are you going to eliminate those positions? >> absolutely, and we will send you a memo. supervisor elsbernd: instead of eight memo, where's the ordinance? >> mr. chairman, it tempo can wo it with a -- >> even in instances where a department may not have temporary salaries, they may develop a requisition for temporary salaries. there is not a way of adjusting the annual salary ordinance.

>> i think, and i could stand corrected, that if you wanted to formalize this in the legislation, you could put some language in the legislation tussauds state that you want notification of the deletion of these positions. supervisor avalos: can we make approval conditional upon receipt of said notification? >> you can make it conditional. we can work with the department of human resources to make sure that the positions have been transitioned to these positions or deleted. we have a current people's system where we can verify that the positions are no longer funded.

supervisor avalos: [unintelligible] as far as the new positions are selected, candidates already? >> we have not. it is quite likely that temporary positions will interview for the full time positions. supervisor elsbernd: ok, cheryl. you can give us language that accomplishes what we are trying to get after here? great. public comment on that? supervisor avalos: public comment on this item? seeing no one coming forward, we will close public comment. we will keep this open for more

time and we will go on to the next item. supervisor elsbernd: i think we can just give them direction to do it. supervisor avalos: ok, subject to that language being inserted when it arrives at the board of supervisors. moving forward with full recommendation. supervisor elsbernd: as amended. supervisor elsbernd: as amended. supervisor avalos: can we take a supervisor avalos: please call item no. 8. >> item #8, resolution authorizing the mayor to cast petitions in the affirmative for formation of the proposed civic center community benefit district, to sign on behalf of the city and county of san francisco as the owner of certain parcels of real property that would be subject to

assessment in the proposed property and business improvement district to be named the civic center community benefit district. supervisor mirkarimisupervisor . >> good morning. per your request at the september 29 meeting, we are pleased to provide you with an update on the status of the petition phase. since september 15, the committee has collected petitions representing 21.4% of the weighted support in the area. these petitions represent 30% of the support in the privately held in state held of buildings. the entire district includes city properties in the budget. if you look only at the

privately owned and state-owned buildings, we have collected petitions of support of 30%. the committee is continuing to collect petitions. once they have reached 30%, they could introduce the board of supervisors resolution of intend. at this point, they are not there yet. i have included, in light of day back at, a list of all of these petitions that have been received. it is a broad cross-section of the privately held buildings in the district. we have support from arts organizations, san francisco jobs, the ballet, the conservatory of music, supporting with properties from restaurants.

[lists restaurants] there are residential properties in support. mercy of what housing, hardenea. this committee was created by a committee of pop -- private and public owners, so there is a broad cross-section of support so far. we have received responses in support from all over the district, district -- different sections. some of the properties are owned by entities that have different layers of decision making processes. obviously those take longer than others to respond, the spending on the decision making structure. decisions received in opposition are also listed in the packet.

3.55% petitions opposed to the district so far. in terms of city departments under the board of supervisor jurisdiction, several have been briefed, taking a position to date. the library commission has improved in the -- and encouraged supervisors to participate in the district. city hall advisory has approved within the district. as well as the recreation and parks commission, they would like to participate, understanding and is to the supervisors to make the final decision. we are visiting the war memorial for the trustees and other city and county enterprise departments. there is also a presentation

that the mta parking authority board next week as well. the intent is to let all the property owners and city departments way in. supervisor avalos: with city departments and commissions that are proving the signing of these petitions, is there an actual legal requirement? can you summarize what it is for us to approve an get authorization for the mayor to sign a petition? >> the parcels under the board of supervisors jurisdiction, attached to the resolution for your consideration, those parcels, supervisors would have to appoint a person, be it the mayor or the director of property, for example, to sign the petitions either in favor or against.

the supervisors potentially -- the recommendation of the attorney's office was to have the board of supervisors on the petition, since they must pass the resolution for or against it. in my answering your question? -- m by answering your question? -- am i answering your question? they are also listed, i believe, attached to the resolution. those are enterprise departments. mta, puc, war memorial board. supervisor avalos: asian art has already signed don? >> they have signed the petition. supervisor avalos: whatem