From: 	Jennifer Thompson
To:	David Margolis-Pineo;  Helen Donaldson
CC:	David Senus;  William Clark
Date: 	11/12/2014 8:38 AM
Subject: 	Re: Fwd: Seaport Lofts - Monitoring Information

To me, this satisfies the condition included in the approval.  And, by signing off on this, I don't take us to be saying one way or the other whether the efforts taken by the applicant will be sufficient, nor do I take it to mean that we're accepting any responsibility.  The condition simply requires them to specify what they intend to do.  Should that ultimately prove insufficient, it will be the developer, not the City who would be liable.

>>> Helen Donaldson 11/10/2014 2:13 PM >>>
Yes.  Ultimately, we're just trying to make sure they're being good neighbors here.  Jen, do you have thoughts about this?

>>> David Margolis-Pineo 11/10/2014 1:58 PM >>>
Nell,
 
The approach stated below seems reasonable to me, but I'm really not familiar with this kind of work.  My only concern is not putting the City in a liable position.  
 
The wall can be monitored for movement but if it suddenly fails, the applicant must still be liable.  I don't want to ok something that shifts the liability to the City.

>>> Helen Donaldson 11/6/2014 2:07 PM >>>
David/Jen, 
 
Regarding the abutters' foundations at 101-121 Newbury Street, the Seaport Lofts.  
 
Any thoughts?
 
Nell