Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 12:14:00 -0800

From: Ben_Leung@ci.sf.ca.us

Subject: RE: Response to Ben Leung at SF Muni from David regarding E

To: David Erickson <zabudam@pacbell.net>

Cc: Manfred_Wong@ci.sf.ca.us, Robert_Bryan@ci.sf.ca.us,

Tom_Ammiano@ci.sf.ca.us, Sophie_Maxwell@ci.sf.ca.us,

Matt_Gonzalez@ci.sf.ca.us, Leland_Yee@ci.sf.ca.us, Greg_Asay@ci.sf.ca.us,

Gavin_Newsom@ci.sf.ca.us, Chris_Daly@ci.sf.ca.us, Bill_Lee@ci.sf.ca.us,

Aaron_Peskin@ci.sf.ca.us, zabudam@pacbell.net,

Herbert Dang <hdang@puc.sf.ca.us>, Jonathan Loiacono <jloiacon@puc.sf.ca.us>,

Patrick Meezan <meezan@msn.com>, Victor Yuen <yentyn@hotmail.com>,

Marla_Jurosek@ci.sf.ca.us, Dennis_Tsai@ci.sf.ca.us, Maggie_Lynch@ci.sf.ca.us,

Vince_Harris@ci.sf.ca.us

David,

Thank you for resending the file. I was able to open it this time. We will

review this with the contractor and hope to respond by 2/15.

In my past communication with you and other community members, I have always

stated:

1. Muni sincerely regrets the damage that occurred to the Muwekma Ohlone Park

and would ensure that it is restore properly, by working with you and your

community members...and the Port since it is the Port's property. (While we

cannot restore the intangibles associated with the years of community work done

at the Park and the possible impact to the habitat, we will do what we can to

restore the Park. Base on my discussions with the contractor and our field

Resident Engineer, Victor Yuen, they informed me that the contractor has been

cooperative in working with you and providing the support that you need in

saving some of the plants. I have asked Victor to improve our communication with

you as to the status update on the project.)

2. Before the Contractor resumes work, we will have the necessary work plan and

contingency plan in-place to avoid another discharge of treated effluent into

the Creek. (We are close to completing these plans.)

3. As per my 1/8 email to you, our 1/18/02 meeting (documented by Francisco Da

Costa in his 1/18 email and your tape recording)and my 1/22 email to one of your

community members, Jory Bell, the cause of the leak is to be determined, but in

the meantime, the contractor assumes the liability for the damages since it is

their means and methods in construction which led to the leak. It would not be

in the best interest of the tax payers if the City pays for damages due to

negligence or fault of others. Muni will help facilitate a settlement and

resolution of the damage and restoration work.

4. In the 1/18/02 meeting, I stated that the contractor will need to compensate

expenses incurred associated with the damage to the Park and for the restoration

work if SLUG is to perform this work (but the contractor may want to perform the

restoration if SLUG's cost is too high). In response to your request for grant

matching, I stated that the contractor would not want to incur unnecessary

additional cost, but Muni would look at the possibility of funding some of the

Park work as part of BCDC mitigation requirements. (Update: We may be able to

fund some amount, but not the $75K that you requested. However, the Port will

need to approve any restoration work as they are the property owner. Also, the

PUC has requested that any agreement between the Port and the community

regarding the Park should include provisions which permit the PUC to do

maintenance work in the future, work which may require excavation to access

their pipe.)

Hopefully I have addressed your concerns. If you have any questions, please feel

free to contact me or Victor Yuen.

Ben