>> who knows how to handle earthquakes. >> it would be talking about the base isolation actually this building is on a base isolation system it's isolated from the ground from an elastic a moveable base. >> so it stabilizes things a little bit better. >> right the building is that. >> now we looked at that but decided to go something else? it that right? >> yes and if you want to ask the developer again, we don't have the final plans in speck so

it's hard for us to discuss this. we'll also assume worse case until we get the specifics there's more movement and we have the vibration monitoring plan so if differential settlement through that >> can you have a representative address that or we could continue on? continue on. so in the report it states that after the consultant puc the system was being eliminated from the plans the assistant requested an analysis showing

the impact of the seismic analysis. about the analysis that was done those methods and assumptions are not appropriate because the building b will be subjected to strong shaking and that includes stiff floor slabs and are you familiar with this issue in >> i respect there portion of the report and i didn't. i'm familiar with the issue. i think that's one of the reasons we're asking for more sophisticated analysis in how the building would reaction in an earth quack >> my understanding was the

developer decided not to use the more expensive materials to save money. is it fair to say that this is why you decided not to make the building more safer and i think it's absolutely pertinent in part because your decision not to use the base isolation system is not going to lead to the city in an earthquake >> if you'd like to come up and say that on the microphone.

it's hard to hear you. >> simon at san francisco waterfront partners. >> erick engineer. >> what i said mr. president, was that the question was asked by the person who perpetrated the report and would the design without base isolation imexpose a greater risk open the system. >> i'd like to again erick wong. i'd like to state that with base isolation or without base isolation on a standard 6

believe it the standard - the question is what does base isolation do stem from understanding of how forces are taken down from the superfluous structure above down into the soil. and it was our conclusion that the amount of force and with or without the base isolation system has negative impact with the force onto the soil and the adjacent >> okay. i'm trying to understand that. conventional ways is you build a fix base and it means under the building it's constructed to have a little bit of flexibility

so in shaking the building can absorb the shaking >> so the sub structure the 3 story parking abandonment is a fixed sub structure the base isolation is at the ground that's why the comment was not relevant in this conversation. >> so you're saying the base isolation stabilizes what is above the ground. >> they're both stable. >> right but the isolation - >> it will reduce the

accelerations that travel up into the building above and so it makes it more stable? >> that's what i want to understand and i understand base isolation systems cost more. >> there are savings that the base service stations allows for yes base isolation system but because the building is less above. >> when the building doesn't come down. >> the cost is a wash. >> i appreciate that. and while you here can you answer is a couple questions around liability. again, we're hoping nothing happens but if there's an earth

quack are you willing to assume the liability during that construction and afterwards? >> first of all, mr. president, the area of the building is going to be a public park that will be owned by the port of san francisco so nobody's going to be building anything else on it it will be a public walkway. as far as liability not unlike any building in the city that's built next to a sewer pipe the liability the ongoing liability is limited to developer and

subsequent owners there will be owners who will belong to a homeowners association and they'll have insurance so the liability will stay with the city. >> so in other words your liability will be limited to the construction but once you've sold the buildings you get to walk away. >> well, the homeowners association has the port of san francisco it will be maintained by the homeowners association sea any activity of the homeowners association in the maintenance of the above ground area the homeowners association

would be liable and if an earth quack happens today and the pipe is damaged the private club that 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 theye 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 to section 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 proximit m

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, weave 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 youw