was inadvertence that the finding was not included. he also advised us that based on staff reports, the board routinely finds it is not practical. as you know, the port, in the situations, where it is not practical to competitively bid. the port explains that they have maintained this lease on a noncompetitive basis because it has been a good tenant. they feel it has been an excellent tenant. we would typically recommend that any lease renewal be

however, if the board agrees, if there's justification that you

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