8 Washington: Who's Gonna Pay for Rivers of Sewage?

Problems beneath the city?
The notions of luxury condos and torrents of raw sewage do not exactly jibe. Nor does the idea of the residents of those condos -- and the city -- being on the hook for said fetid rivers.

But that was the picture painted by Supervisor David Chiu today during a provocative hearing regarding the 8 Washington condo tower's proposed construction just a yard from a sewer line pumping 20 million gallons of waste daily.  That effluent is generated by 375,000 city residents and represents about a quarter of the city's sewage. You do not want that coming out of the pipe.

Chiu -- an outspoken opponent of the development -- alleged that he and his colleagues on the board were willfully kept in the dark about engineering concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed structure to the century-old sewage line. This, he says, was the case even as the supes were deliberating -- and ultimately approving -- the project.

"I do not have faith in the departments involved there has been an adequate investigation here," Chiu said. "I think there was information that people knew that should have been disclosed. I have e-mails and letters to show that. Staffers were either told or decided to keep that information to themselves at great risk to the public. I have a problem with that." 

In leading the hearing, Chiu's soft-spoken but aggressively worded questions resembled those of the prosecutor he once was.

Querying Public Utilities Commission Deputy General Manager Michael Carlin, Chiu asked who would be liable for the breach of a sewage tunnel carrying 20 million gallons of rancid material a day (Chiu repeatedly emphasized this vast quantity of "human waste" and the specter of it flowing down the Embarcadero).

"If the developer built the project as-is and sold all 134 condos, wouldn't the owners pick up some, if not all of the liability?" Chiu asked. Carlin seemed to agree with this, leading Chiu to muse "So the [developer] can make a half a billion dollars and walk away?"

Spotting developer Simon Snellgrove in the audience, Chiu directed his questions into the crowd, referring to Snellgrove as "Mr. Developer." The board president noted he hoped to query "Mr. Developer" about "your [construction] decision which will lead to additional risks to the city in the event of an earthquake."

When Snellgrove submitted to Chiu's grilling, the supe asked him "are you willing to assume liability [for the sewage line] during an earthquake? Certainly during construction, but afterward?"

Snellgrove noted that once the units were sold, the liability would no longer be his. "So," Chiu asked slowly, "You get to walk away?" The developer took umbrage with this. "I don't walk away," he countered. The condo owners would be part of a homeowners' association, which would be insured, and liability would fall upon them.

At this point, the voices of noisy protesters in the hallway unrelated to the hearing streamed into the room. Chiu, in a moment of levity, said "Don't worry, Simon. They're not coming for you."

But Chiu was.

He went on to note he feels "very sorry" for the future condo owners who may be left holding a multi-million dollar bag if the sewage line ruptures -- and doubted that this was a "deep enough pocket" to stave off the possibility of the city picking up the tab. Speaking of deep pockets, Chiu noted that the state teachers' pension fund has invested $42 million (so far) in the 8 Washington project -- and wondered if they would be financially liable as well. He speculated that a further hearing -- or hearings -- may be necessary, in which representatives of the pension fund could be asked where they'd come up with the money if such a scenario came to pass.

Chiu and his colleagues couldn't hide their irritation that engineering concerns about the 8 Washington project didn't reach their ears until months after they'd voted on the project. And, based on the edge in city officials' voices as they answered accusatory questions, the irritation was mutual.

A sequel seems inevitable. Nothing goes with rivers of sewage like oceans of bile.  

My Voice Nation Help

Little disappointed to see the SFweekly take up the cause for the Telegraph hill dwellers.

We live in a very dense environment. Can you tell me where exactly in SF downtown, there is any building NOT a "yard" away from sewer pipes, or electrical, or any public works equipment?

This is just another trumped up impossibility by those who prefer to enclose SF in amber so that it never changes, and consequently preserves their private views. Maybe Mr Eskanazi would prefer to work for the SFBG: a paper that regularly takes up the pet causes of San Francisco's most irritating NIMBYs

sebraleaves topcommenter

If this is "business as usual" there is a problem with the system. Why spend $105,000 for an independent study that is ignored by those who ordered it and not shared with anyone else?

mrericsir topcommenter

How stupid.  Nobody even mentions the sewage being generated by the dozen or so other big projects going up.  But thanks to the rich assholes on both sides of this fight, we have their cronies on the BoS making a big deal out of nothing.  

I want everyone in this fight to lose.  How about instead of building condos, we build a 500 foot wall to completely block the views of the whiners?


Are you kidding me? The sewage line serves 375,000 people, the PUC is responsible for the upkeep, maintenance, etc and you want to pin the costs on 134 condo owners? Does Simon Snellgrove NOT have to pay connection fees or any other costs associated to connect to the system just like any of the other 375,000 users? In another article they were trying to say that the carbon footprint of the condo owners would be too great because they can afford to fly all over the world and would most likely not be at the condo much. Give me a break. SOMEONE needs to be accountable for doing "crappy" job of managing this and it's not the condo owners that don't exist yet.


I just want to congratulate on the excellent pop cultural accompaniment going on here. Carry on.


IBGYBG rules the day.


IBGYBG rules the day.


@mrericsir You need to read a bit more carefully, sir. The issue isn't sewage generated by the residents. It's a building being constructed a yard or two from a major sewage pipe that's a century old. 





Of course the PUC is responsible. And the most responsible thing to do is to ensure the integrity of the sewer line, even if that means disapproving construction right next to it (or changing it so that it's farther away, doesn't go as deep, etc).

I'm not opposed to the project, (ok, maybe some aspects), but it would be stupid of the city to approve it if it meant putting a significantly greater burden on the PUC.


@joe.eskenazi @mrericsir I think the point is that nearly any building constructed in the heart of the City would be constructed near some vital piece of public infrastructure like a "century old" sewage pipe.  These sort of projects are done all the time, and things get built and life goes on.  People who just don't like the project, instead of addressing the projects on its merits, are now trumping up this issue and acting as if somehow this is more complex or risky than  landing humans on Mars or building a nuclear storage facility near a highly populated area.  Malarkey.  In dense older cities, new development is constantly being built on top of stuff, including old sewage pipes.  Yes, you need to plan and be careful with the design and during construction, but this is neither something truly difficult to deal with nor a cause for major concern. 

Now Trending

From the Vault


©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.