Former SLO County Public Works Director, Noel King, Apparently Brilliant

TO: Paavo Ogren, SLO County Public Works Director
DATE: 7/13/10

Hello Paavo,

I'm researching a story involving Los Osos, and I have a few questions regarding a "site restoration bond" that, apparently, the SLO County Public Works Department required the Los Osos CSD to obtain prior to the District's decision to begin construction at the environmentally sensitive Tri-W site in 2005.

Apparently, in August 2005, the county was saying to the LOCSD something like, "Look, if you're really going to start ripping up all of that ESHA, just one month before an election that could permanently stop that 'project,' then we're going to require that you have a contingency plan ready to fund the restoration of that environmentally sensitive habitat, in the event that the recall election is successful."

According to a May 10, 2006 letter from former LOCSD Director, Lisa Schicker, to the Construction Management Association of America, and reprinted on Ann Calhoun's excellent blog, at this link:

http://calhounscannon.blogspot.com/2006/05/whose-ethics-following-is-formal.html

"The mandatory San Luis Obispo County (SLO) grading permit required that the District obtain a site restoration bond prior to the commencement of any and all grading activities. SLO County Public Works required the bond due to the pending recall election and pending voter initiative that could have halted work at the treatment plant site. Because of the County’s bond requirement, the District Board authorized staff to obtain the required grading bond specifically from “Insco Dico”. However, when Insco Dico refused to issue the bond (due to MWH’s failure to disclose the project risks and significant environmental impacts), MWH colluded with Monterey Mechanical, the treatment plant contractor, to arrange an alternate bond that not only covered the restoration of portions of the treatment plant site but also the restoration of the pipeline contractor’s sites."

If I'm not mistaken, the Coastal Commission is now requiring the restoration of the Tri-W site (due to the unnecessary, and premature start of construction in 2005) as part of the County's recently obtained development permit for your project.

So, here are my questions:

- How does a "site restoration bond" work? Can your department now dust off that 2005 bond, and use it to fund the restoration of the environmentally sensitive Tri-W site?

- If so, does your department have a ballpark figure on how much that restoration work will cost?

- It appears that requiring that bond was very "heads-up" thinking by the SLO County Public Works Department in 2005. If you could give me a few sentences on that subject, I'd appreciate it (and I bet, former Public Works Director, Noel King, would appreciate it, as well. Wow, he was SO right.)

As always, much thanks,
Ron

P.S. When I write about how the 2005 LOCSD Board began construction on the failed-Tri-W sewer "project" just one month before a recall election that, eventually stopped that project in its tracks, I always like to point out that, according to State election law, the people that are facing a recall election, especially if they make up the board majority, get to schedule the date of their own recall election.

In 2005, after listening to overwhelming public input to schedule the recall election at the earliest possible date, the three LOCSD Directors (board majority) ignored all of that public input, and, instead, scheduled their own recall election at one of the latest possible dates, and that bought them the extra month they needed to needlessly begin destruction of the environmentally sensitive Tri-W site.

A few years back, for a story I was researching, I was on the phone with SLO County Clerk-Recorder, Julie Rodewald, and I asked her, if it had been her decision to make, would she have scheduled that recall election at one of the earliest possible dates, or one of the latest? She told me that she would have scheduled it at one of the earliest possible dates.

Which means, if California election law stated that a county's top election official is required to set a recall election date -- instead of those that are facing the recall -- the Tri-W site would have never been touched in 2005, and that "site restoration bond" would have never been needed.

I first exposed all of that -- in 2006 -- at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/09/californias-recall-elections-code.html

A very, very interesting story, I must admit.

P.P.S. I've published this e-mail on my blog:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[28 weeks down... 24 to go.]