design comes after project approval. it's not until a building is finally approved and someone knows what the final building is going to look like then it becomes the right to do the final grow technical and design reports and produce that information as part of the building permit process. the building department has the final authority and responsibility for deciding and determining what the structural requirement are the geotechnical requirements at the this site and that's part of the building process after the sequa gets involved. we had many geotechnical reports

but the final engineering is reviewed by the and approved by the building department. they don't issue permits until they look at the structural safety as well as the protection of jaint structures and infrastructures. i have a couple questions first of all, this is a sewer report and there's a discrepancy and we get a lot of things going on and so really my question is this is important information your founding the impacts of the sewer asset how do we move

forward now that we know that what is this the power - >> north forest. >> the north forest what? >> main. can be in jeopardy how do we begin to move forward i don't want to know which department knew and didn't know but just to ton or continue to move forward it's 20 minutes before 2 o'clock and i've been here since 10. my question is to mr. president, you know what else are rehe looking to get from this hearing

today? >> i did not have faith in the departments involved there's been a adequate research here i appreciate the fact that you've been here for a while and i intend to substitute might have to sit as a committee here but it's important for us to understand those risks to the public and to the agencies they have some work to do the puc the planning department, the d b i has a lot of work to do i don't want to be the district supervisor who repeals my constituents of what could be a massive sdraufr that being said

i have some follow-up questions i'm happy to deter them who know what when. i think there was information that people should have disclosed and i think there were many city staffers who know that but who were either told to keep it to themselves >> we're back on focus here. >> if i could ask a couple more questions. was there that i others type of consideration as you were

considering whether the eight washington construction could have been - where the construction could have been using the puc facilities to protect the facility? >> not that i'm aware. >> next slide p.s. this is a letter from the director to you. do you recall this letter in. and in this letter he states he's been aware there's been a discussion thank you puc whether the washington construction could be relocated. so we're hoping the sewer system protected in this letter to you it was described but you may not

recall this does this ring a bell? >> quite frankly this was the directors idea but i was not informed by any other documents that moving those facilities was going to happen. >> okay. did it ever occur to you if there was a risk to you in the report you say there's only a 3 and a half foot between the facilities and the eight washington structure that might be a smart move to move one or the other? >> quite frankly no. >> i think that rather than moving the facilities a better solution would be to move the

plant away from the sewer assets are you aware that technically it is true? >> i'm not an engineer. >> could you hit that slide again. we'll get back to the slide. this is a letter from the developer and next slide please to your department and specifically to you. and on page 3 of this document the letter from the director says yes relocations to the north is feasible. it wasn't address in the addendum to the eir >> this is not anything i considered part of the proposal

or part of the addendum. the addendum was based on the ordinance and moving - the movement of the easements or the vacation of certainty easements and on the roadway changes to washington street. and okay >> that was what the addendum was on and speculating about something that hadn't been formerly been brought to the planning department. it's not something i would have done >> so it sounds like our operating on a narrow definition of the easement and it was my understanding that the ordinance was to be on the things proposed in the ordinance. >> and if getting a letter from

the director saying we can move the project we can do this and that. >> did you bring it to the higher-ups. >> i think he retired. >> i'm not he took a vacation. >> we can't call him or ask him questions. >> the refuse officer is someone else. >> when was the addendum signed? >> february 25th. >> and this report was signed but you didn't get it until march 11th. >> do you think that this

report was something that should have been afforded to planning before the director signed the addendum. >> it would have been helpful to have a better communication yes. >> and why would that have been. >> it would have been that given us more information and been part of the record and been referred to in the addendum. >> and it wouldn't have become something that is now a secret. >> when you received the letter january 17th did you inform the director of the letter? >> i was probably cc'd on all the letters. >> i have a final couple of questions. >> let me first ask i know you have one engineer is i here.

>> no, he's out on the site resolving some of the other issues. >> he's - >> he's a very good project engineer. >> do you mind hitting the slide again. p are you familiar with this e-mail? >> actually this wouldn't involve you. it includes our boss and others and if i ask state in short this is an e-mail from november 2012 he believe we all as puc are in

agreement constructing the 4 feet away from this 1 hundred-year-old building they're saying it's okay. and to fix the box if it gets damaged we suggests repairs and again the developer is pushing to get a agreement by the deadline and we're trying to assess the impacts >> i'm wondering do you know whaterm and long-term impacts he was alluding to? again, i'm trying to interpret

another person's e-mail. so you without the possibility of parole know how the developer was pushing to get the to the puc approved >> we're trying to have confidence with the developer at this point how we would move it to the puc agenda again, it was based on the ordinance to vacant streets and create new easements. >> who was involved? >> we have a lot of people involved all i would like to get some more notes so you can't

provide me with who was involved in this? >> well, we have our folks here from our real estate group and numerous other folks working through the easement questions to the protection agreements that we would like to have in place and the city attorney's office and other staff. and also we've been working with the planning department as well as through the addendum process >> well, let me ask to any of your staff here are their any members of the staff that could answer my long-term and short term impacts? >> settling to the stress and

long term and shoirment again, the issues we're working with with the consultants right now. >> and - is. >> the force impact is two different structures could you. >> what kind of involvement? >> it came out before i - >> i can use a little bit of help again, we're going to have are to have another hearing. >> it's an agreement in principle we're going to have to work through the details. the details are important and they were pushing for a

conceptual agreement but we were pushing back. and i would say the engineering report that come out which is a draft report we didn't have all that information and we're still assessing what the impacts would be >> i have one more slide then we can go to public comment. this is an acknowledging from you to bill it's on february 20th and it states in full last week the staff incriminated on the woosh agreement and puc agrees with the addendum we ask that bill expedite his draft do you

remember this? >> yes. >> again, no environmental impact and are you on with the eir addendum came to we don't have anything to worry about here? i'm still fine with the way the addendum came out and my e-mail says we made adjustments and as far as the environmental impacts are concerned yes do we have other issues we need to address durable the construction yes, but those are different >> in this report you didn't feel it a need to send to planning? we created that four ourselves

to negotiate with the developer if this project was to be approved and the long-term books next to our infrastructure >> and did you have discussions with anyone senior to you about whether to encourage the department to put out addendums we have nothing here. >> i don't understand your question. >> in other words your decision to tell the puc were your opinions and - and there was a lot of discussion with staff within the city attorney's office that the e-mail was vetted among us it was our collective conclusion the eir

was fine as draft. >> and the controversy was the content of the e-mail and you had to tell me the planning depth of the risks. >> those risks are all ones we would have to work internally. there's the utility risks from the construction and then there's environmental risks but that document is for our use. we did have confidence with the planning department but again they're looking not long-term construction >> if there are real attractiveness this box you don't feel relevant to

the eir. >> it's purely a eir department. >> you're saying this is a puc issue and the planning department didn't need to address it? >> interesting way your freaking it actually, you know, we did make sure and this is an addendum it does talk about the construction of the project the closeness of the project to our assets and some of the measurements that would be put in place and there's a state law quoted. you can't endanger the neighbors structures >> as you do in any promise you

basically have to protect ever indemnify the adjacent property owners that were i think we can go into the issue but from my prospective this report suggests it should have been relevant to the impact report that's information we would have wanted here but things are as they or so with that supervisor campos. >> there's no actually mr. carolyn you're doing so well, i want to make sure you're giving us information. you heard earlier that you heard how she feels this report should have been given to the planning department prior to the director signing that addendum today disagree with her on thatf that.

>> did you ever tell anyone at planning the puc had spent one-hundred and 5 thousand dollars on this report? so it never occurred to you to let planning know you have spent in much money on this report? >> it's to inform us on how to commit on their document. >> were you ever instructed not to share this information? >> no, i wasn't. >> anything else anyone want to say we'll go to public comment.

>> let's move to public comment. there anyone who wishes to speak? >> oh, comment cards i didn't. >> i just want to remind everyone you have 2 minutes. >> good afternoon supervisors. appreciate our diligence in this matter we have a 75 year history of providing surveyers and others in the city i don't know whether to wear a suit or

whatever. they're maybe vois no option to this building project and they may have some concerns dealing effective with the forest north main

>> we hope the committee will let this project move forward and we love the project and the love the challenges. thank you. good afternoon michael with local 6 in san francisco. we do hundreds of projects in

this city when you look at the ditch it's 73 feet deep almost 5 acres and sewers going go across the city and across the center the san francisco and within 3 feet of those facilities. and what are the supervisors going to do to fix the hundreds of miles of sewers in this city. those pictures you showed earlier those are failures of the infrastructure that needs to be repaired and you should look at all the facilities to be up deteriorated. and rather than worrying about about the forest rain to be -

without construction our infrastructure is at that >> good afternoon. i'm here to read a statement from the attorneys. >> p there are safety issues as troebl as this is it shows that more information is needed that has not been forthcoming. her second points deals with the ballot measure. the route ballot proposed measures would limit liability

in under or adjacent to the proposed project yet the sewer facility serves one quarter of san francisco. how can liability be so limited are the citizens being played the fool by being asked to expand their liability while limiting others and under the measure who's to be liable the developer or the citizens i fear the latter and i think her fears have come true. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i'm president of the iron works they don't repair the sewers but i

refer to my brothers who have been dealing with those issues for years and i think the important thing here is i'm hoping this is not allocate attempt to delay a project that should be moving forward and i have confidence that the puc will be able to address the issues here today. i want to say that everyone knows fromrd the newspapers but the tower cranes are popping up all over the industry but that's not going to help our economy in san francisco. i'm hoping we can move forward

in a timely manner so people can recover their retirement benefits. that's my message let's move forward and make this project happen >> good afternoon supervisors tim on behalf of the action coalition. imagine our surprise that in a city of hundreds and hundreds of tall building and bearing structures and utilities we popped up one that is at such great risk such a situation here. at the very same time time the bay district is moving ahead and the central subway is going to be m