of of the board there was actually a lengthy discussion and again, it reiterated the fact it would comply with the codes. the project was approved and after that time we move forward forward with some kind of entitlement easement. and it also found that the issue study was correct in relying on the codes and the puc conditioned it's approval of the conditions to be completely satisfied and they were protected so because of all that there was no adverse impact. and puc worked internally and

continues until this day >> thanks. >> hi i'm the geotechnical engineer on the promise so i'd like to comment on the a come report. as was stated earlier those studies are done after the issue planning has been that completed. so the report and our studies actually were done a lot earlier then was into done in the process so we're ahead of time. the details that were raise in the report are part of the normal process and each one of the issues are going to be addressed in the final design and where the checks and

balances come into effect are after the risks and issues have been addressed so that's the checks and balances in this process >> again thank you. >> hello, i'm mark and i'm with k hill contractors with the building projects once it's approved. a couple of thing is safety or monitoring we as the general contractors are extremely concerned about safety and have drafts in working with the pucs

and, you know, just confirming everything that the previous speaker said. we've been work with the developer, you know, you've got some topnotch geotech shoring designer we are even taken the step we've got some top level insurance contractors that look at if and this is been going on for quite some. and also it seemed like it's very pointed questions about hiding material and for the most part we've been very open about it the materials and that >> thank you.

any other comments from the public? >> just a couple of follow-up questions i've been thinking about the testimony we've heard today and there's risks that could cause ruptures that we're told could dump 20 million gallons of human wastes on the our streets doesn't that risk you should consider. >> generally no, that was something that would be handled in the engineering of the project. >> i appreciate the answer. how about part of the exciting site has been labeled hazard

waste >> that's in the report and when our roache cubic miles then it would be covered by the department of public health would be supervising that. >> so we have another department to fold into this. >> i'd like to ask a question to i understand there were two or more city attorneys here and ask some questions there a surrogate around short term liability if something were to happen and i'm not sure who would have been to answer it. perhaps you. do you think it is possible for an agreement between the city

that would be able to hold the developer fully liable can that be drafted? >> city attorney's office and the pucs general council i didn't hear the question directly so the question is is it possible to have an agreement to impose liability i think under this instance the state codes impose liable on a participant that is constructing and excavating below 9 feet so there's a statutory liability imposed but with that

encroachment policy that's before the boards that the utility commission passed on subject to being an conceptual agreement between the developer and contractor and is common law negligence to use the building code atkins - >> i agree with you that's the goal by you heard earlier in the hearing it's quite libel that

the be liability would history to the homeowners after the sale of units and i feel very sorry for those building owners and worry that's not a deep in such pocket if anything were to handle to this type of liability what would the city be on the hook for if this happened? that you with respect to the homeowners association is that the pipe will resign under the paperwork and it will retain the responsibility of homeowners and the only thing that could happen at that time, is i'm assuming the building is going to knock the box off it's foundation. >> that's the assumption but according to the report that the puc go is reporting it's not

being built in a way to shift that could knock the sewer to the point of damaging it. >> we need to do a seismic report done so that's our structural engineers b will be doing. but that the liability after construction is going to be related to any activities that happen on the surface so puc has continual monitoring people who do - it's a significant

liability and infrastructure that's why in the agreement there's all those limitations for approval if anybody is acting on top of the box >> i differ with our krashgs or characterization of the box after construction the completed believe may also effect the seismic and the soil and water maybe poisoned and there maybe increased liability to the puc since the completed believe is in pretty close proximity it

could knock out the sewer main and it could result in sludge 20 million gallons of waste on the streets of san francisco. >> not that it's not possible to build a building next to the box. >> how many years this project been going on? it's been looked at close to a dictate. engineer studied the result and i'll say as a comment >> i'm not an engineer i'm telling you my basis for the utility agreement the commission could protect it's decreases any

partatg the process and it's technically not my position to address and if it's not calory we'll be observing the port and puc to make sure we're minimizing the attractiveness the city and i will be talking to the city attorneyors to make sure that the city assets will be fully protected by any unnatural activity that ruptures that facility. that we take every precaution to make sure our sewer assets are protected >> before we precede i'm closing public comment. >> supervisor.

>> i wanted to ask a couple follow-up questions i want to know about the fact there wasn't the kind of communications you wanted to see but who at the puc was aware of the existence of this report? >> there were numerous people i can provided you with a list. >> so within puc management for instance. >> the assistant general manager would have been apprised of the report but the engineers working on it were aware of the report. >> do you discuss the report

with other management at the puc? >> yes, we had a discussion ou the report again, it's an internal report to help us how we should work with proposed construction projects that might be in close proximity to our - >> in that discussion that did you recall whether or not you were going to share that with planning? >> i don't recall. >> so you may have? >> i don't recall. >> the report was shared with planning until, you know, a later time. did you share with the report - yeah. even if did i share the report with anyone outside the puc? >> no, just the city attorney's

office. >> okay. outside the puc?he report with besides the city attorney's office obviously >> you can read in the report the consultant was advising us to get additional information from the developer to continue their analysis. >> but no one else in the city families. >> just a few comments i want to thank all of you for coming here and our trades that came to

make comments and as and as someone who's been a champion cludz the safety respond bond that i carried a few years ago g ago. and this is pleasurable or partially why i'm concerned we need to support underground water and sewer systems because we have series vulnerabilities. i am disrespected and i think that others are concerned about the fact that this project changed from; right when we all considered it last year to come within 3 and a half feet of the

water main and i'm concerned for workers who will be in the proximity of those areas and during those construction could suffer from injuries. and this is to not necessarily view those as risks i have to stay if that is standard practice i'm highly concerned and i think it's important that city staff take this to heart and sharing those discussions with each to see how we can might those things. and i'm likely to call for a second round of this hearing is

person who perpetrated the report is not here the puc engineer who appeared to have colleagues that told certain thing is not here. i'm interested in hearing about the teachers retirement fund do is to be drawn upon if there's any issues here. i do look forward to continue >> i'd like to call this to the call of the chair. >> motion approved people's 3 and i want to make final comments. this highlights the city's overall need even if preparing our cities sewer line.

i was briefed to replace our city structure over a one hundred years old. with that any other items madam clerk? >> no other items. >> with that meeting is adjourned