that this body have with respect to then ceqa findings? >> i would defer back to the city attorney on what, if any findings the board may need to make in regards to ceqa. the review that is before the board is the local coastal permit and consistency with the local coastal plan. vice president fung: i believe we also need to look for consistency with the priority policies, don't we? >> if you are to rule to uphold the permit, you should also find consistency with the policies. >vice president fung: correct. the -- i have another question but why don't you go ahead? commissioner hurtado: there was the hearing draft. the draft dated may 17. it says under no. 6 public comment, the department has received no comment regarding the coastal zone permit application. could you elaborate on that? was there nothing received by the commission on that particular aspect? >> i believe that most of the comments -- the bulk of the comments were related to the environmental review and were submitted as part of the environmental review. it is my assumption t

city planning is the largest one. >> much of it is ceqa-related. supervisor chu: the mayor's office cdbg as an increase of $400,000. that looks like a new one. then there is another allocation of almost $1 million, $984,000 in working order recovery from something called community development. >> both of those are redevelopment-related. supervisor chu: ok, so both of those are redevelopment-related rec and park is going up by $400,000. >> yes, that is litigation related. historically, rec and park has been an active user of our services and have been very, very supportive, and i think we have had supplementals from them in the past. but this is to more accurately reflect the budgetary process and what our needs have historically been and what we think we have coming down the pike, but this is a litigation- related. supervisor chu: ok. this might be a follow-up question to the department after words. for many of your work orders, i see that there's some increases in some drops in work orders announced, some related to ceqa or some looking at the bud

vice president fung: the eir's used to have discussions per ceqa. i did not see that in this eir. >> the er has a section on biological resources. i do not recall which section of the are there is but there is a discussion of the project evaluated against the pri -- criteria that are required under ceqa. there is certain significant criteria that ceqa requires that we consider and looked at the impact on biological resources. vice president fung: natural resources, i said. >> could you clarify what you feel is missing? vice president fung: the cigar have any conservation -- and does ceqa have a conservation checklist? >> it has 18 topic areas that you have to look at and assess the impact of the project. there are certain elements of our city. the general plan that address resource conservation but ceqa requires us to look at the impact of a project as proposed, identify what impacts are significant, and if they are significant, identify ways to reduce those impacts or provide alternatives to the project. vice president fung: in your initial study a

you have to have a certain amount of planning to get into ceqa. then there will be a little bit of sign work afterwards. that is an up-front issue we will have to deal with. we agree and we want to see it happen sooner. it is such an important part of phase one. it is important that the funding be included as phase one so we have an opportunity to throw everything at it to get this to happen as quickly as possible. dan, i am not sure that he mentioned, we will be improving the existing digesters so people in neighborhoods to have been nearly so long will have a nominal improvements and impacts from the existing digesters. we agree that we want to deliver this faster and make it happen faster. >> we all had the same reaction. great, we shaved 18 months off. that is still forever. the schedule looks like we will have see " review and schedule and design work which takes about five years. construction takes five more years. does that mean they get no benefits for those five years or are their incremental benefits? >> there will be incremental. i will

a lot of what they're doing now with ceqa is new to them. mitigation as -- is not the norm of what they're used to dealing with. >> and as we look at ways to accommodate and safety concerns, that action gives us ways to go about doing that. commissioners, any other thoughts or comments? >> the next item up is the quarterly budget report, which is a little anticlimactic because it is the quarter ending last june. >> a very brief report today. there aren't -- four sides in your packet. this is a budgetary scorecard, much like we discussed earlier with the audit score card, and where we're seeing green lights and yellow lights and red lights. the key items are on page two on the overhead. water use and sales were up just slightly. we had precipitation just 65% of normal. that led to fourth quarter sales that was much drier than expected. that translated into good news financially, a bit better news than what we have assumed in the previous quarterly report. that translated as well into slightly better revenues in the chief reserves and build up

an historic resources as defined by ceqa. until such time as this commission approves the replacement building, they may not act on the demolition permit that is before the commission. no need to remind you that the intent to disapprove was as a result of two hearings, actually. one from a number of years ago and more recently, the hearing where even though the new architect presented a building with a different suit, the mapping and height and bulk was still unacceptable to a number of commissioners. forward with your intent to disapprove. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> i represent the california and nevada conference of the united methodist church. the owners of 1601 larkin. many of the remarks are more directed towards the zoning administrator down the planning commission. i have to stand up here and save them because i cannot directly direct the zoning commissioner. the zoning commissioner has the power to issue a demolition permit. we have filed a lawsuit demanding that the city issue as a demolition permit. t

we are presently working with staff on efforts to prepare the environment and ceqa information as secretly as possible. -- as efficiently as possible. we're looking to get these priorities on line as quickly as possible and we will continue to expedite the schedule and those things needed for decision making. this would also include considering alternative delivery methods to further shortened schedules. an interesting schedule -- and interesting benefit of shortening the schedule is that we do have savings involved in this, due to the shorting of the schedule and the escalation that it has on the overall program. what we find is that the overall program is now just under $2 billion for the biosolid digester facilities. and the impact to the average monthly bill in the year 23-2032 would be $20 a month. that would gradually increase over time and to reach $33 in the year 2032. >> just to make sure i have my math right, that $33 is on top of a base of $76, is that right? >> to my recollection is that it is currently $76. we're going to 274 wie 2032 and this is $33 of that. >> $33 represents

i do not know who has to reply with what ceqa requirements. that is an interesting point. i would hope that within the staff that the groups are involved and what ever we need to do and what ever reports need to be generated or monitored that it can be done to the commission in the future. i'm also wondering if pg&e will vacate their existing building if their new pipelines are being taken out of the old? and i'm assuming that they will cover all of the puc costs related to this relocation. >> mr. harrington? >> all of the different parts of the puc are involved with city planning, because city planning has to be happy with the final review on that. in many cases, i believe they want to have the old pipeline left in place. what you do when a pipeline is still underground there, we're working on reimbursement of costs. >> and if they are leaving the zero pipeline -- leaving the old pipeline, to the extent that their costs later on, they're working that out, right? >> yes. >> ok, thank you. >> the report of the bosky general manager, mr. johnson. >> i will keep my remarks br

been made available to the board in the event that you move in this direction and it talks about the ceqa issues and the local coastal program and the priority policies. if you're interested in basing your decision on these factual findings, we can read it into the record. you can vote on that. vice president fung: i think that would be appropriate. president hwang: having reviewed the testimony, the board of appeals -- denies the appeal. protesting the issuance of a coastal zone permit to the recreation and park to provide for the renovation of the beach chalet facility for the following reasons. the board has had available for review and consideration the environmental impact report and/or -- all correspondence and documents related to the review for the renovation of the athletic field, the project. this is available for public inspection at the border appeals office at 1615 mission street and is made part of the record by this reference herein. the board based on substantial evidence in light of the record including information presented at this hearing finds there have been no projec

if you look down to the lower part of the slide, we will look at completing our planning and ceqa work for our treatment process improvement, to be able to look at our citywide green program, where we have to get through our water assessments and conduct additional assessment on our planning to determine what those projects will be. the slide that dan just went through it ended up being about $273 million of green infrastructure that would be built throughout the city. this list lays out the first chunk. we are not talking about changing the program. we are talking about implementing it in pieces. if we were to roll out what that looks like on the score sheet, phase one would have treatment plants at $2.2 billion. and $354 million collection system and $125 million for program management. i want you to focus on the next slide which is our whole schedule laid out in a very small graphic. it gives you an idea. we are talking about the whole program and slicing its interfaces. phase one would predominantly be about six years to complete with the exception of the digester project. the dige