Planning complaints
Contents |
Planning: Where is Pagoda Demolition permit? 7/26/2013
- From: WongAIA@aol.com
- To: Kevin.Guy@sfgov.org, christine.haw@sfgov.org
- Sent: 7/26/2013 2:42:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
- Subj: Re: NEW COMPLAINT: Pagoda Theater Demolition Permit No. 201302190452
- Please forward to all enforcing parties.
- TO: Planning Department Permits and Code Enforcement
- MH Construction has started work without a Demolition Permit. When
- asked, workers say the Permit is at the office. No posting or public
- notification is on the Pagoda Building. No mailings have occurred to
- properties within 300 feet. No description of where to review permit
- application, engineering drawings, construction procedures, how to
- file Complaints and how to Appeal Permit. Please stop this work and
- assure compliance with all pertinent laws.
- Regards, Howard Wong, AIA
- In a message dated 7/22/2013 5:57:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, WongAIA@aol.com writes:
- COPY TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Note Demolition should be officially posted on the Pagoda Building. Also, official mailings should go to owners within 300 feet of Pagoda---allowing citizens to review and file complaints/ appeals.
Planning: New complaint against Pagoda Demolition permit 7/26/2013
- NEW COMPLAINT AGAINST PAGODA DEMOLITION PERMIT
- NEW LIABILITY INFORMATION REVEALED
- PLEASE FORWARD TO THOSE ON PAGODA THEATER PROJECT (Central Subway)
- July 22, 2013
- TO: Department of Building Inspection
- FROM: Concerned merchants and neighbors in North Beach
- PAGODA THEATER DEMOLITION, 1731 POWELL STREET
- Property Address: 1731 Powell Street, Block/ Lot: 0101/ 004
- Demolition Permit No.: 201302190452
- Filed 02/19/2013 (with unsigned/ unstamped drawings)
- The Department of Building Inspection is obligated to prevent illegal construction and legal liability for citizens and the City. The Pagoda Theater Demolition violates legal requirements:
- 1. Demolition work has started without Permit. Three people have observed construction inside the Pagoda building---behind the plywood barrier. Penalties need to be levied.
- 2. In fact, the submitted Demolition Drawings were not even signed or stamped by a professional engineer. DBI should not have accepted these drawings at all.
- 3. These were preliminary drawings, which the Engineer deemed "Not for Construction". Moreover, the Engineer required additional soil test borings and geotechnical reports. But after repeated Public Records Requests, no geotechnical report has been revealed.
- 4. After repeated requests, SFMTA has not shown engineering drawings and hazardous-materials plans to concerned neighbors---particularly with nearby outdoor dining and open storefronts at restaurants/ businesses/ residences. Surrounding owners have seen the independent Engineer's analysis, showing structural risk to surrounding buildings. During demolition, falling debris and structural loads will impact unstable soils---made vulnerable with hidden cavities, underground streams and high water tables.
- 5. Public Notification is required when the Demolition Permit is approved. A large poster, describing the approved Demolition Permit, should be prominently displayed on the building---for the required posting timeframe. Mailed notifications to properties within 300 feet of the Pagoda are required.
- 6. Neighbors have the right to review the approved Demolition Permit and file official Complaints/ Appeals---within the lawful timeframes.
- 7. Affected businesses have not been accurately informed. A series of false demolition dates have been promulgated by SFMTA personnel. In one meeting, the contractor shocked a restaurateur by saying that adjacent businesses would have to close during demolition of upper floors. Adjacent businesses can ill afford loss of income. The City and SFMTA continue to conceal information from affected business/ property owners. The City and SFMTA have provided no engineering drawings or any review of demolition logistics.
- 8. Demolition can not proceed without approved plans for subsequent work. There is no need for demolishing a sound structure---when subsequent work is problematic. In fact, SFMTA confirms that the project will be cancelled in the event of cost overruns (SEE BELOW).
- 9. Prior to demolition work, DBI approvals must be procured for both the TBMs (Tunnel Boring Machines) Retrieval Box Project and the Condominium Project. Demolition of the Pagoda Theater should not be granted since the feasibility of the entire project is still in flux. Demolition should not be allowed unless all permits for the entire project are secured.
- 10. DBI needs to go "By-the-Book" for this controversial project. Otherwise, DBI bears unnecessary legal liability for economic damages to businesses and fragile structures---particularly when SFMTA documents prove the demolition as totally unnecessary.
- PAGODA PROJECT IS NOW PROVEN TO BE TOTALLY UNNECESARY
- The Pagoda Project has been misrepresented to the SFMTA Board, DBI and citizens. The project is totally unnecessary because TBMs (Tunnel Boring Machines) can be buried underground---under Columbus Avenue or in Chinatown. See SFMTA's own confirmation below.
- In the SFMTA's Risk Mitigation Report No. 46, Page 19 of 46, see "Risk Mitigation Status", "Risk Reference: 208":
- "March 2013: 2. If resolution of costs associated with the Pagoda option is not achieved, the TBMs will be buried to maintain budget requirements."
- /northbeach/docs/sfmta/RiskManagement/June2013-No46-RiskManagement.pdf
- 1. By burying TBMs, SFMTA saves $9-$13 million (TBM salvage value is only $4.4 million).
- 2. By not digging the empty tunnels from Chinatown to North Beach, SFMTA saves $80 million.
- 3. With projected cost overruns of $400 million, the Central Subway needs to cut costs.
- UNSTABLE GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
- Demolition work exerts structural loads onto the ground---by heavy equipment, debris and dynamic impact of falling material. At the Pagoda, the ground is unstable---with saturated sandy soils, hidden cavities, underground streams and a high water table.. An independent Geotechnical Engineer warns of likely soil subsidence and damage to buildings within a one block radius.
- INDEPENDENT GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS: "Karp Report 1, 2 and 3".
- /northbeach/PagodaSiteProblems.html
- LIABILITY
- SFMTA has insufficient testing and engineering to protect the City, DBI, design professionals and contractors from liability; and surrounding businesses/ properties from damage.
- * City agencies, design professionals and contractors involved with site preparation and initial work for compensation grouting would be party to future lawsuits.
- * Because Contractors' Fee Proposals (BIHJV and ARUP) exclude specific work items and warn of indeterminate circumstances, liability risks are sweeping for any problems that arise---including delays to the future condominium project.
- LIABILITY CONCEALED
- An independent Geotechnical Engineer warns of soil subsidence and damage to buildings as far as a one block radius. The City and SFMTA are unfairly shifting risks and legal liability onto the City, design professionals and contractors. Surrounding businesses and property owners have not been fully informed about engineering and construction impacts. The City and SFMTA have continued to conceal information from affected business/ property owners. The City and SFMTA have provided no engineering drawings or any review of demolition logistics.
- The Demolition Contract includes some initial work for compensation grouting, which is a risky procedure for this site. By concealing engineering and structural issues, SFMTA is shifting undue liability to the City, design professionals and contractors; and potential business/ property losses to surrounding owners.
- Demolition causes loading impacts on saturated sandy soils with underground streams, high water table and subsurface cavities---risking soil subsidence and damage to surrounding structures.
- The Demolition Permit Drawings should not be submitted or approved until known dangers to surrounding buildings are fully analyzed---concealed by the Project Sponsor. Also, existing soil and geotechnical conditions have been misrepresented.
- SFMTA has insufficient testing and engineering to avoid liability and property damage.
- * The rushed application for the Demolition Permit, without an Engineer's signature or stamp, demonstrates SFMTA's imposition of risk onto the City, design professionals and contractors.
- * The Project Sponsor acknowledges that surrounding buildings are old, fragile and vulnerable---with shallow footings and brick foundations (See Barnard Impregilo Healy JV/ ARUP Report).
- * No structural assessment of surrounding buildings has been done.
- * In particular, the Pagoda Theater abuts (possibly tied to) a 1907 historic warehouse building.
- * In past construction at the Pagoda Theater, a high water table and underground stream were found---leading to additional work and huge cost overruns.
- * Over the years, neighbors attest that rushing underground water could be heard at this site.
- * The saturated ground below the Pagoda is highly susceptible to soil subsidence.
- * According to the Project Sponsor's own engineers, additional soil test borings are necessarybut no new geotechnical report has been disclosed (even after repeated Public Records Requests).
- * The Demolition Work includes preparation work for Compensation Grouting---to address soil subsidence and potential danger to surrounding buildings. But no new geotechnical report has been done to prove that Compensation Grouting will be sufficient or adequate.
- * In the ARUP Report, 3.1.3, Page 5: "The schematic demolition plans are intended only to start the permitting process and shall not be used for any other purpose."
- * The BIHJV/ ARUP Report has cost exclusions, including new test borings, geotechnical analysis, additional building mitigations, hazardous materials and changes in site conditions.
- * Independent Geotechnical Reports, by Lawrence Karp P.E., indicate highly unstable soil conditions and the ineffectiveness of compensation grouting in protecting adjacent buildings.
- MISCELLANEOUS:
- * The 2008 Historic Resource Evaluation for the Pagoda Theater was for an Alteration, not a Demolition. http://ec2-50-17-237-182.compute-1.amazonaws.com/docs/Decision_Documents/CatEx/CaseNo/2007.1117.pdf
- * The BIHJV/ ARUP Fee Proposal demonstrates that the Pagoda Project is going overbudget, requiring new SFMTA Board approvals and possible changes in work scope. From the 3-1-13 cost estimate by BIHJV/ ARUP, the Pagoda Theater Project's cost has increased from $9.15 million to $13.7 million---and may increase further. Any construction requires new SFMTA Board review and approvals.
- * Demolition of the Pagoda Theater should not be granted since the feasibility of the entire project is still in flux. Demolition should not be allowed unless all permits for the entire project are secured. The whole project includes large site excavation and construction of a large concrete box---into saturated sandy soils and a high underground water table. SFMTA may demolish the Pagoda and then cancel the construction.
- All parties involved with the Pagoda construction project acknowledge the rushed schedule. But in short-circuiting legally-mandated processes, the Pagoda Project imposes unnecessary risks on the City, DBI, design professional, contractors, merchants, property owners and the Pagoda's Owner. By concealing the fact that TBMs can be buried or extracted in Chinatown, saving $80 million, the SFMTA unnecessarily incurs legal liability that borders on criminality.
- Regards, Howard Wong, AIA
- Phone: (415)-982-5055
- /northbeach/
- www.SaveMuni.com
- http://savesfmuni.wordpress.com/author/zrants/