Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:09:04 -0800
Subject: RE: Sewer Collapse
To: Ben_Leung@ci.sf.ca.us, jory bell <email@example.com>
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.
At 03:05 PM 1/22/2002, Ben_Leung@ci.sf.ca.us wrote:
In response to your questions:
We should be able to finish the work that you listed as longas we can resume
The reimbursement process can start as soon as we receivethe documentation
needed. Davidhas been given instructions on the documentation needed.
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.
assist with additional grants/funding if possible.
From: jory bell <firstname.lastname@example.org> at ~ctl-internet-po
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 1:22 PM
To: Leung, Ben
Cc: David Erickson <email@example.com> at~CTL-INTERNET-PO; Francisco
Da Costa <firstname.lastname@example.org> at ~CTL-INTERNET-PO
Subject: Sewer Collapse
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
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
- 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
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.)