less than one inch. let me read further. those utensils are substantial from damage from cracking in the concrete instructors due tow strains or induced foundations that can be caused by washington construction. furthermore, cracking in the structures may - that will - i hope you read this report. i urge you to - i don't think we're under any great time pressure i have a duty to investigate. we have many months between now and then. i want to say that 31.6 of the code does require notice.

>> for being here. is there any other public comment? >> good afternoon brother please come forward. >> i'm with the sheet metals union. i ask you to approve the ordinance that's before you today and move forward with this project >> thank you for being here today. any other public comment? >> seeing none? it's closed. >> mr. president, i just have a couple of questions to come out of the public comment. the first is to have some response about the notices that were raised and some discussion

of the report and how it relates to the action we're taking today. >> surfacing second remember the notice requests. with respect to the addendum it's my understanding that the planning department issued that on february 22nd and that was there i had heard they were providing copies of the andgend >> commissioners planning department staff. we actually sent copies of the agenda both by e-mail and by mail on february 26th. that detail does not mean h that

i did not see the report until late yesterday afternoon. everyone that commented on the draft eir and who's comments were included in the portion and to those individuals the planning commission was sent a copy of the agenda both the commissioners that were sitting at the time that they served the error. and the supervisors were sent a copy of the agenda. you were sent a copy of the addendum and other officials cligd jo - included public work

people (naming names). at the department of building inspection and another agency for the redevelopment agency. so that's the addendum >> so there's no posting of the addendum on the website. >> yes. it was posted from the planning department. that's something we've been doing lately and so this hearing was noticed according to the remits and typical p uc notice

for its hearings on the website of the library and posted at the door with respect to when you received the material. i know they received the error and it was sent out from your secretary in advance of the meeting the error first and the addendum when it was initiated. the board of supervisors has the sole authority to approve the transition of any city he real estate. because you have a sewer box in the city is your relating subject to those conditions you get these all the times that your okay. with whatever is

done with the agreement but but i'll be honest i don't know what the real estate notifications is - there's no easements that are effected by the ordinance and commissioner if you had other things you want to mention >> all of that for me boils down to one question whether there's a defect in that. >> i don't think so. >> which is close to a no. >> oh, no. okay >> we ask a notice if it's different from the notice of addendum. one of the things that this

commission is being asked to say change the findings and that's substantial. if any public addition is making a decision where you first have to adopt findings about the decision that you're making. and >> i don't know of any ail notice requirement. in our experience with p u c projects we adopt the projects when we take a subsequent action. the notice for that is the notice for the commission meeting the findings are

embedded in our resolution which is posted in the library. and there's to my knowledge there's no additional requirement for the department to notify so i don't see with the commission acts i don't see that they didn't follow their protocols. >> the other question is what does this have to do with the action we need to take today? >> we've been working with the developer and the port to look at what options that their presenting so we make sure that we protect our infrastructure and so some of the scenarios that they brought forward, you

know, we were addressing some of the concerns and so it's sort of a catch-22. they don't design exactly what they want it's sort of still unknown. we've been in conversations how we would like to protect our infrastructure and i think those dialogs whether continue especially, when we have a better understanding when they know what they're going to design. that's why we're doing this utility agreement. so we want to make sure we are protecting our infrastructure. >> and let me just heap e repeat my understanding of what

you just said. and that is that the report brings up issues that utility questions >> when their scheme is modified we'll have the same consultant look at that so we minimize the impact to our facility. you have a followup on that and it has to do with the timing and the consequences of not taking care of this today. it seems to me that we might not

have the same concerns that there might be some, you know, real potential issues with our sewer systems underneath the development >> i guess the more detailed design will be when the developer gets the project signed up with the city. >> we won't have a pc recommendation to the commission to recommend. the developer has no intent to keep working on the design if we

don't - >> it seems like the developer if we could get some clear direction. that - >> i believe it is a partial motivation but you've raised a lot of incertainties out there but if there's no action today their no working with the easements on the port today. we - the developer has no control over some of the property and the issues with the infrastructures so they're not going to continue with the design and f you bring up the agenda in december. >> so just to try to make it

clear the port has asked us to provide input. so a lot of clarity hadn't been around the designed we're trying to make sure we protect our infrastructure so we wanted to talk about how we do that so we're trying to you know, i think the if the project is a go or no go it's not in our hands. we just want to marry that if so is our infrastructure is protected >> so with respect to the report because i think shedding some of the light on those concerns specifically with

respect to the disadvantages of the counter plan and that's at this point in time. the seismic activities really touches the nerve in everybody in terms of our assets. can you comment a little bit on the size actively? >> i'm with the wastewater management. regarding the seismic and otherwise. we've come to a point we can agree to disagree, however, we'll be moved forward with it

and we'll be back to you down the road >> so it's safe to say if the commission determines they have sufficient information and moves this resolution forward we'll be engaging the same people on the same issues at a different point in the process? >>right. >> when we regadget on this we will have the product and agreements that have taken place. when we revisit this we will be better informed and i understand what we're being asked to do is we're asked to negotiate a series of issues to resolve

that. >> are we contemplating any changes regarding the noting issues or did we put that to rest? >> members assuming that your - you adopt this resolution what you're doing in the resolution is relating to the board that the board include in its approval of the sites plan and the movement of those easements a requirement that that easements didn't move unless your agreement that the developer is executed so what you're really doing because all of this is really before the board is saying to the board yes, we want that as a condition of your approval of that major

agreement and i board have to go back to the commission once you get more construction detail for your project and work through those engineering issues. so your protected and then they would negotiate that work out the agreement about what these monitoring and construction foundations design would be and then that would be heard here. once that happens then the project will go in for a building permit then that issue comes by the way, back to you. if you don't make the troemgs

the board then it's i'm not sure what the board will do with the ordinance because it is presumed that you have asked them to make their approval subject to your agreement. what happens if you don't go before the board? we'll have to see what the board wants to do >> i wasn't planning to but seeing as i was asked. i think that was very helpful. and that i think again, what's being put in front of the of us is okay. that we need to protect our assets and that's a

process we need to encourage and support. >> with that being said i'd like to move the item. >> the item has been moved is there a second? is there any further discussion in >> all in favor. the motion carries next item madam secretary >> item 9 approve motivation between the united states forest service regarding 22 acres and increasing the agreement by 21 thousand and 22. commissioners deputy general manager again. for this item we're increasing the crack with the united states

forest. i'd like to answer any questions >> it's been moved and seconded. all in favor please - thank you david. is there any public comment on this item? thank you very much for being here sorry about that >> sorry being late. i'm ann i'm a resident of san francisco i'm also the vice president of friends. i have a simple question is where are the 25 acres where we're on the map and where are the 25 acres? >> of the 25 that we're buying

is actually still bmw being identified by the u.s. forest districts. it's in the stanislaus national forest. we can get to appraised. we'd be glad to come back and tell you what w where it is >> is there any other public comment on this item? so all in favor? the motion carries next item >> item 10 approve an increase in the contact in the amount of - >> mr. president, i'm with the infrastructure. you have before you a contract

and the request is for you to determine the declaration and approve the contract amount. a total of $32 million an increase to that and in general to fund the increase it will come from the wastewater pg&e - the patient from the bay to the seawall into that area.

it posed a lot of wear on the system and - given it's critical support to our total sewer system we start a project along the alignment down diagram and spear streets. unfortunately, the amount of utilities there was not a lot of room. we did get a cleared alignment but we did conflict with pg&e but also underground issues. given the necessary work pg&e has agreed to pay us a lot of money. and also from old construction

and fill it is the recommendation that we change the misdemeanor lodge to just a second the pipe under the ground. jacking is more expensive but it helps us avoid the other pg but significantly we'd be coming to the end of the property and if we did not jack that area it would not be good for that area. while it propose a higher costs it get us around two significant

impact. >> yes thank you i was trying to get my map to work and i couldn't. it looked the calendar that the pg&e was 2.7 million that the mta rerouting costs i think were 3.9 and i couldn't come up with the rest of it. the pg e was 1 had the $6 million >> the redisbursed part was for rerouting because of the amount of space we'll need to put in the jacking system they'll need

to put in 6 new overhead poles and their expensive. so that is where the -- a lot of the money goes to designing and the implementation of the design system. the cost that is associated with the jacking make ups the portion of the $15 million >> okay. and 2.1 and this is - 6 it's not 9 million this is a more expensive technical. >> yes. the jacking is like micro tunneling so it is a very expensive he methodology and

it's used only when the cover type of technology didn't work. >> aside what are we avoiding? >> again part of it as we've gone through and pot how old we've found underground streets and other structures that were back in the days actually before preworld days as you know everybody from east street was from unengineered portions and we're finding trenches. >> thank you that's helpful. i had originally when i was

reading through it it appeared that this was a part of the pg&e issue. >> i have a quick question with respect to the second authorized from the bottom there's a reference to our staff. our staff to promote and provided support related support to pg&e can you describe the work and the type of support that our staff provides or correct me if i'm saying that wrong >> the second from the last this is would be the work to redesign that portion of the project to avoid that e g and e

utility. our staff needs to sign off on the u contract drawings which will be issued to the contractor and pg&e will reimburse us >> i'm comfortable with what i've got this far is there any more commissioner comments? >> i'd like to call for public comment. >> david just two areas of certain first with regard to the review. i think there is a new section did i mention that i appreciate that. i'm hoping that will include the dates of the