sits and i top it right now the city can blame them but like now the city infrastructure theenter city is responsible for the infrastructure. so i did ask a question before around - don't worry simon they're not coming for you >> and asked a question. >> your investment i'm wondering in you could tell you you mentioned you had liability and i assume that california stares has a responsible. >> the shareholders is a private entity and got you.

and i had a couple other questions but since you're here i noticed in the report if you'd like to leafy, go back to the puc >> so are you familiar with the fact that there are portions of washington site that are classified as wastes sites? >> you mean the development site? for it was noted that the ground asportation the exist site as california hazard wastes based on the soil samples and they're high they're highly poison news and

an unplanned rupture could release foul smells and it remains a protrude liability that. >> i seem if somebody is classified as hazard wastes that should have been i don't have any knowledge of that. >> shouldn't it have been in the addendum? >> i assume there's a measure for that but i'm not sure. >> we'll have an opportunity to ask planning. if we could gone to section 6 in

the washington design if i can read into the record the level of urban certainty is = validate below and i assume i gathered from our commitment there's additional studies to be done >> correct those are caveat and we don't have sub surface information. the site conditions may be different then anticipated. so again even in our construction projects we have those concerns and can have votes we'll encounter different

situations as this project move forward >> were there plans that you didn't receive? >> if you could go to the next section so let me just read the 8 washington team has yet to submit review that are sixth and they include conflicts with maintenance repairs and examinations of those facilities the increased risk to the puc because of the close proximity and the strain in the ground

imposed. this was requested any your engineers to the developer i'm wondering if the developer has any information why this information was not forget coming to the city? >> if you want to step up to the microphone. >> i believe the draft your reading from is 22. the whole matter has not yet been concluded i'll say this is a study that's been going on for misinforming - going on for

sometime. we have our engineers who designed the system but mr. president, this report is something that's not yet concluded. if you probably read on we need to do some modeling. the puc will require of us some seismic engineering commuter modeling. there's a lot of details left to do. normally with any building the process of designing the sub structure foundations is done by the contractor they're here. after the contract is awarded.

the general contractor then selects a subcontractor the subcontractors selects an engineer to design the shoring system. we were asked to accelerate that process >> so you start before the final permit? >> the "x" vacation contractor retains the services of an engineer who prepares the items you're talking about. and it's done in every building in the city. we were asked to accelerate that at our expense so this entire design we agreed to do out of

respect for the puc and wanting to make sure we're or in the same page. that hadn't been done. we're still in conversations with the puc. we haven't seen the agreement yet but in that particularly course our engineers and the pucs engineers will be agreeing on the safest method to do this >> so you're saying you're not able to do the final analysis until the permit is done? we're in the process of doing that >> it strikes me as a little

bit backwards it seems that a third of our pipes that dumps 20 millions gallons everyday i believe you are saying we won't know that until the permit is done, i.e., the city can't say no. >> you were asking in the hearing mr. kelly head of the penal code was asked to convert to the commission when the consensus was being reached. >> i wasn't at the puc hearing but again, i guess my point is your essential saying you're not going to be done until the

permit? >> let me say it again, we're going to conclude this study before the puc agreements are fully adopted before they to go the board of supervisors for principle of law long before we are asking for a permit. >> got you when is that? >> it's a process with the puc a couple months 3 months. >> so june, july around august? >> yes. >> thank you. i have is a couple other questions >> maybe the engineer for the puc. i do have a >> turn on my microphone here.

>> know there are things you can't really make up and it's fully hard to make this up but it's amazing to see this happening. the two words i want to say but i'll say two different set of words holly cow. this is quite quite something. to the first question i have for you is have we ever had any major construction project that has happened so close to such a large sewer pipe before? >> we've had many internal to the puc major facilities enter seconding and implicated analysis required.

this is actually, the technical details on that particular project their relatively simply like consultants involved. we don't typically handle this expertise in the house it doesn't happen everyday in other words >> have we had any major sewer pipe burst in the past? >> well, we saw the pictures of the sinkholes. we're actually working on the project right now to address, you know, a break in this particular force main we're talking about. we're realigning the pipes and running a redundant line. >> what was the largest pipe we had break?

>> the pressures that we operate are a lot less than the waterside but we've had failures in our 66 inch force main that runs to the south land. >> one of the pictures showed a pipe how long did it take the quickest to fix the pipes person talking about earlier? >> are we talking about the single holes in. >> was the figure 4 hours which pipe was that? >> again those are water mains they could be 4, 8, 12 size within four hours we can fix those. >> is there a difference

between those water pipes. >> yes, their gravity fed so you can imagination the pipe is not fully filled it's just what's within the pipe at the time. that's what i'm saying in sewer pipes we can dam them and go around the place where the pipe was broken >> so this is 36 inches? >> and how does this compare to the pipe that took hours to fix? >> tyler's 8 to 12 inches. >> so this is a few times larger? >> it's not a linear scale to fix this pipe to water mains and so earlier, you said that this pipe carries about 20 miles of

gallons of sewer so that's 24 hours that's about 3 hundred and 33 thousand an hour? >> it varies not guilty and day during the night it's low through but higher in the daytime. >> but during the day it could carry more than a million gladdens of waste her hour? >> that's correct. >> so let's say it took four hours to fix something like this we're talking about more than 4 million gallons of waste?

>> hopefully within the first hour or less our crews have responded and placed into a way to pass around the pipes and then pump around the damaged area so we might have a little leakage in the streets but hopefully, we'll be quick. >> what is quickly? >> i say quickly because you're a lawyer and i'm not so, i say quickly. >> no, i appreciate that i think that's funny. so one of the things i'm trying to understand is that why are we talking about this months after this project went through the

approval? i mean, i would imagine as a general rule you're talking about something as sensitive as this pipe you need in your report $0.31 it's not a redundant pipe you noted in our report that do you have something to say as to why we're here months after the approval happened? part of this say we have been working with the developer and a long period of time is before july 2012. we're looking at our protecting our infrastructure and pilot our mission which is to verify the water and public power.

we work with developers when they're ready to work with us. so we - this developer came in about two years ago do we have a complete answer at this time? no, but we're a lot closer. we put into safeguards whether it's the lot 337 or the developer like mission bay we worked with for years great addressing the same kind of issues where are you encroaching against argue infrastructure and again, we have the same kind of seismic shaking issues. >> so on the board of supervisors were you in

discussions with the developer at that time? >> giving me the timeframe? >> did you have discussion with any members of the board of supervisors at the time? and i don't recall. >> did it recall the puc to have a discussion with the board of supervisors? >> at this point it was going through the planning process and we were incriminating on their documents and making sure our concerns wore going to be addressed i think you were dealing with it at that time. >> were you aware at that time, and did it occur to anyone at the puc that perhaps as the

board of supervisors is deliberating we should let the city know we were there. >> again, it was the sequa process that was being addressed. >> so you told the planning department and you thought they would tell you or what? >> we're trying to be part of the city family and the city was in the lead on it. >> well, i do think when people talk about the city family is the board of supervisors included in the city family? and yes. >> don't you think we should have been told about this issue? >> yes. >> and do you know if that happened? and do you think that the puc should have said manage to the board of supervisors?

>> yes, we know a lot more today then we did 18 months of 24 months ago. >> do you think the planning department should have said something to the board of supervisors? >> i know they're here. >> and i'll turn it over i have a couple of - >> oh, supervisors and take the question first of all. when the board of supervisors was deliberating on this issue was the planning aware of this? >> i don't believe we were aware of this issue until the ordinance was delivered to us

for environmental review and the ordinance is originally dated 1219, 2012 so and there was a letter from simon to i believe - it was around november 29, 2012. >> so the puc doesn't inform planning of this issue before that time. >> we were not aware of the north forest main being there. >> now two questions if you had been aware you think that information would have will be relevant inform the board of supervisors information? >> yes. >> so the question is how is it that we have a major project that complicates one of the most

important sewer pipes in this city and the planning department doesn't know about it as the board is deliberating on whether or not to approve the project. >> my understanding and what i wrote in the addendum is further surveys made the easements clear and that with her doing the eir we weren't, you know, aware of the proximity of the building that might encroach on the easements. >> they never told you? >> paul with the planning department staff. at the time that thought eir was coming to the board for a

finaltion and certification it talked about the north shore force main project by at that time the distance was soon to be a little greater i don't have the exact number but it was a greater distance of separation between the building footprints and that was our knowledge at the time of the eir and that information was in the final eir that was subsequent to the eir that we were made be sure that the building would be built closer to the north shore force main theen what the eir stated and we perpetrated the addendum and analyzed that. and who made you aware of that at that point?

>> what the it puc? >> i believe it was through the consultant team we were working with. you know, i'd have to reconstruct it i i mention the developer in talking with the puc then began royal this had some sequa implications >> do you think the puc told you earlier to how close it was going to be built. >> when you said we we had a certain number in our mind i don't know if we were informed if there was a gap in time when they realized the change in

proximity. >> i think we can go owning i'll defer to president chiu for the supervisor of the district. there's a little bit of fingerpointing going on from one department to another the sad thing is the board certainly didn't know the severity of the issue >> it was my understanding that the planning department was not aware of the contents of this report i was told the date of the report was issued two days before the date of everyer. >> planning department. the addendum has a date on the cover of february 20th it was signed by bill and it was

distributed on february 26th. each cover memo had the date of february 2, '67 when it was delivered to the board and the rest of the mailing list. sarah jones started getting phone call and overwhelms from justin true and - let me see when the puc hearing was on or about march 11th the day before the puc hearing. 60's us -- >> by the way, i work with her. >> we asked what she was referring to and on the evening

of march 11th he finally e-mailed this to us. >> i'm sorry what evening? march 11th >> i'm sorry what's the document in our hand? >> the document that i had was a document that was finalized. >> february 22nd. in other words this document was put out when you were about to do the addendum >> it looks like it came out about 4 days before i issued it. >> here's my fundamental question our your environmental addendum report says there's no new information that shows that the modified project would cause

environmental impacts that weren't already impacted do you have a different opinion today? >> not necessarily we have references before the engineering report were here this is the type of information that were done before the review the d b i is the agency that handles this sort of thing. we do have detailed jerry we don't have any engineering expertise and so because you didn't have engineering expertise you don't have to put or consider this information >> reevaluate our environmental

impact report? >> this report would have been documented in our addendum if we had had it. >> because you don't have the expertise on staff to understand it. >> no, because this is the thing that is part of the design details we don't know what the engineering is going to be. the report is rementd other >> why did you push out the eir addendum when i did given this report was suggesting there was additional studies to be done. >> we didn't know this report was being