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 pled. >> i'm sorry you said days before points addendum was signed there was no implication? >> this report has a date of february 22nd. it was signed on february 25th and it was issued on february 26th. your aid made me aware of it on march 11th. even though it was sent to your office >> on march 11th. >> your made made us aware of this on the 11. >> so no one on the puc made you aware of this addendum?

>> that's correct. >> you mentioned d d i. what's d d i's role here >> someone else might have to explain this to you but it's my impression that once the building permit is issued then there are subsequent pseudonyms and drawings are are submit structural engineering. >> so you're saying it's d d i's fault? >> the is he what process is at the front end and for any project this project or any other project at the time we're doing our sequa analysis we have april geotechnical information that will tell us whether or not the project can be built safely

and what kinds of requirement so we can do so we can be certain that the building can be built based on preliminary analysis but that's based on preliminary geotechnical information. where the final engineering or 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 wen e developer is push

to get a agreement by the deadline and we're trying to assess the impacts >> i'm wondering do you know what short term 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