Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:09:04 -0800

From: jory@org.org

Subject: RE: Sewer Collapse

X-Sender: jory@org.org

To: Ben_Leung@ci.sf.ca.us, jory bell <jory@oqo.com>

 

ben,

 

with all due respect, judging from your response to myinitial query (and the process it suggests you believe is reasonable), and yourinteraction with dave the last few days - i do not believe MUNI is seriousabout taking responsibility for the destruction of the muwekme ohlone pocketpark and for making right the damage that has ben done (to the extentpossible.)

 

if MUNI is in fact serious, then i would suggest that youneed to reassess how you are going to approach this entire process.

 

i personally will be taking a look at what other avenues(board of supervisors - both current and looking to the next election, legaloptions, escalating press coverage, mayor's office, etc.) might be pursued inorder to affect a change of attitude (and more importantly) response goingforward.

 

while it is quite possible that our efforts will turn out tobe quixotic when compared to the size and power of a bureaucracy such as MUNI,i have some hope that the general frustration that islais creek area businessesand residents are feeling in response to a seemingly structural disregard forlocal efforts/input/needs in planning and development (especially as opposed toother traditionally more affluent and politically active areas of the city)will result in a surprisingly vociferous response and thus real headache for anumber of city agencies that (such as MUNI) that fail to accommodate thecommunity that they purport to serve.

 

it is quite possible that you are personally interested inrestoring the park, but i am afraid that the actions taken by MUNI haven'treally done anything to dispel the sense of a faceless, uncaring and ultimatelyunresponsive pseudo-corporate development agency with little regard for itsimpact on the quality of life of sf residents.

 

::jory

 

At 03:05 PM 1/22/2002, Ben_Leung@ci.sf.ca.us wrote:

Jory,

 

In response to your questions:

 

A.  ImmediateSteps

We should be able to finish the work that you listed as longas we can resume

work quickly.

The reimbursement process can start as soon as we receivethe documentation

needed.  Davidhas been given instructions on the documentation needed.

B.  MatchingGrants

The contractor is presently responsible for reimbursing thedamage incurred.  If

the contractor is to perform some restoration work with thecommunity completing

the rest via a monetary reimbursement from the contractor,then that dollar

amount needs to be determined.  SLUG was tasked with providing a rough estimate

of the cost to complete the work.

In addition to the cost to complete the work, Muni and thePort would look at

assisting with grant application or funding for the MuwekmaOhlone park.  Muni

is currently looking into this and will take us a few weeksto determine

feasibility.  Icannot make promises, but we will take a SERIOUS look.

C.  Misc. Issues

1.  We may beable to complete the earthwork, irrigation and fencing by end of

Feb, but will depend on when we resume work and of course,Mother Nature.

2.  Thereimbursement structure has been emailed to David.  Reimbursement should

be requested through the contractor at this time.

3.  The totalreimbursement amount is based on expenses incurred and cost to

complete the work. As I stated in the 1/18 meeting, the contractor may want to

do as much as the work as possible, including therestoration work as this may

be the most cost effective to him.  If SLUG is to do the work, then an

acceptable cost must be mutually agreed between thecontractor and SLUG (and

cummunity?). Muni will be involved in these discussion and will facilitate a

quick settlement as much as possible.  As stated before, Muni and the Portwill

assist with additional grants/funding if possible.

 

Ben

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: jory bell <jory@oqo.com> at ~ctl-internet-po

Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 1:22 PM

To: Leung, Ben

Cc: David Erickson <zabudam@pacbell.net> at~CTL-INTERNET-PO; Francisco

Da Costa <frandacosta@att.net> at ~CTL-INTERNET-PO

Subject: Sewer Collapse

 

 

ben,

 

i wanted to follow up our meeting this past friday and seeif i could get a

handle on the restoration process.

 

it seemed like the immediate steps were fairlystraightforward:

1. finish up the dirlling et al

2. replace soil per agreement between your engineer anddavid erickson

3. replace irrigation hoses

4. repair/replace fence

5. reimburse volunteers and david for labor and materialsused thus far

(with invoice going to muni and muni dealing with thesubcontractor's

culpability.

 

my understanding was that these steps can be completed bythe end of february.

 

after that i am less clear on the process and schedule.

 

david erickson (in consultation with several of the parksupporters and

granting agencies) has proposed that the remainder of thepark restoration

be in the form of matching funds(s) for the two outstandingmuekma ohlone

grants.

- 5 Star Challenge Grant-from EPA and National Fisheries andWildlife,

amount is $10,000, schedule is July 5, 2001 to July 5, 2002,conditions are

habitat restoration and enhancement.

 

- CDBG ( Cities Development Block Grant) from the SF Mayor'sOffice ,

amount is $65,000, schedule- needs to be completed by June30, 2002,

purpose is generally, for habitat restoration andenhancement.

 

as i understand it, the utility of the this grant matchingstructure includes:

1. allows portrayal of MUNI as a partner in the park (andcommunity)

instead of just a begrudging fixer of an environmentaldisaster

2. allows us to assure the granting agencies that thevirtual razing of the

park by MUNI (or its contractors) will not keep us fromgaining the

relevant matching funds required by each of the grants

3. will give us a better story for extending the terms ofthe grants which

are at risk due to the razing of the park and the ongoingdelay caused by

the incomplete soil stabilization and drilling project.

 

while this method is preferred by david erickson and theother injured or

involved parties, i believe there are a number of structuresthat could be

used to attain the same goals. so while i wanted to lay outthe proposal as

i understood it - i also wanted to get your feedback on howthis would work

for MUNI given the overall goals embodied therein.

 

moreover, i would like to get an idea as to:

1. schedule for the park restoration

2. possible structure(s) of any MUNI payment for therestoration process

3. proposal as to how to arrive at the total amount to bepaid by MUNI (or

its contractors)

 

one thing that i worry could happen - based partially onsome of your

comments at the friday meeting - was that the parkcustodians would be in

the position of negotiating with the out of state contractorabout the

details of the restoration and associated payments.

 

this seems like an unacceptable process.

 

i feel it is important that MUNI take effectiveresponsibility (as you have

indicated has happened) for the sewer collapse, and dealwith the

subcontractors' liability as a separate issue.

 

in terms of the amount of money involved in the restoration,a useful

starting point for a realistic assessment of the cost is the$60K

represented by the USDA- URP (Urban Resources Partnership)Master Planning

Grant which was completed in October 2001 (the work of whichis essentially

eradicated by the sewer collapse) plus someassessment/valuation of the 8

years of labor and donated plants/materials that wereeliminated by MUNI

(or its contractor) and must now be replaced.

 

this provides the conservative basis for the matching grantscenario (which

totals $75K of MUNI restoration funding.)

 

::jory