Restore, Baby, Restore!
TO: Paavo Ogren, Director of Public Works, SLO County, CA
DATE: 7/28/10
Hello Paavo,
Excellent news!
I found a huge hole in County Counsel's rationale for NOT using that 2005 "Surety Bond," that should now be cashed in by the County ASAP, so it can pay for the restoration of the Tri-W site, located in the middle of Los Osos.
In a 7/23/10 e-mail to me, County Counsel, Warren Jensen, wrote, "It is our understanding that work ceased in about September 2005 and that there were no "hazardous conditions" on the site within 60 days of cessation of work. Therefore, the bond does not provide coverage because the bond only guarantees performance of the underlying agreement, which has a time-limited requirement."
That's the hole, and it's a huge hole.
Here's why:
County Counsel's own words are, "a time-limited requirement," however, look how loose he is with his time-frame: "work ceased in about September 2005."
"About September 2005?"... in a "a time-limited requirement?"
It appears that County Counsel's rationale for not using that bond to immediately restore the Tri-W site, is deeply flawed because his time-line isn't even close to being tight enough.
The date on the Surety Bond is September 15, 2005. "Mass excavation" at the site began "the very next day." Worked ceased on September 28, 2005, the day after the successful recall election.
That means that there was eleven days of "mass excavation," at the Tri-W site, involving big earth-moving equipment, that left a nearly 11-acre dirt pit in the middle of Los Osos -- a pit, that was created during those 11 days of "mass excavation," and deemed so hazardous, that a chain link fence must encircle the deep, dangerous, "erosive" pit, that was created in the days BEFORE the "cessation of work."
I mean, have you been out to Los Osos in the last five years? There's a gigantic dirt pit in the middle of town, surrounded by a chain link fence.
That can now be restored, at no cost (including "reasonable attorney's fees") to the county, OR the citizens of Los Osos.
It seems like all you would have to do is recommend to the Board of Supervisors, that they, "elect to do the same" -- that is, what the 2005 post-recall board did not do after "60 days after cessation of work" -- restore the Tri-W site -- so, now, according to the bond, the county can "elect to do the same."
Excellent news, eh?!
As you are aware, the Coastal Commission made the restoration of the Tri-W site a condition of approval in their permit for the county's current Los Osos wastewater project.
So, look at this great opportunity you now have with that bond: Even before the county officially "adopts" the Los Osos project, your department could take the initiative NOW, and meet a BIG condition of approval in your permit, even before you are obligated to.
Also, think about how happy that would make the Coastal Commission -- that your department, with the approval of County Supervisors, actually took the initiative to restore the Tri-W site, even though the county wasn't yet technically forced to comply with that condition of approval, but because, as the Coastal Commission recognizes, it is the right thing to do for the citizens of Los Osos, SLO County, and California.
So, it looks like it'd just take a simple staff recommendation to the Board of Supervisors from your department to use that bond... now that we know that the "hazardous" conditions at the Tri-W site occurred "within 60 days of cessation of work," clearly.
I'm looking forward to your response.
As always, much thanks,
Ron
P.S. I've posted this e-mail on my blog:
sewerwatch.blogspot.com
###
[30 weeks down... 22 to go.]
DATE: 7/28/10
Hello Paavo,
Excellent news!
I found a huge hole in County Counsel's rationale for NOT using that 2005 "Surety Bond," that should now be cashed in by the County ASAP, so it can pay for the restoration of the Tri-W site, located in the middle of Los Osos.
In a 7/23/10 e-mail to me, County Counsel, Warren Jensen, wrote, "It is our understanding that work ceased in about September 2005 and that there were no "hazardous conditions" on the site within 60 days of cessation of work. Therefore, the bond does not provide coverage because the bond only guarantees performance of the underlying agreement, which has a time-limited requirement."
That's the hole, and it's a huge hole.
Here's why:
County Counsel's own words are, "a time-limited requirement," however, look how loose he is with his time-frame: "work ceased in about September 2005."
"About September 2005?"... in a "a time-limited requirement?"
It appears that County Counsel's rationale for not using that bond to immediately restore the Tri-W site, is deeply flawed because his time-line isn't even close to being tight enough.
The date on the Surety Bond is September 15, 2005. "Mass excavation" at the site began "the very next day." Worked ceased on September 28, 2005, the day after the successful recall election.
That means that there was eleven days of "mass excavation," at the Tri-W site, involving big earth-moving equipment, that left a nearly 11-acre dirt pit in the middle of Los Osos -- a pit, that was created during those 11 days of "mass excavation," and deemed so hazardous, that a chain link fence must encircle the deep, dangerous, "erosive" pit, that was created in the days BEFORE the "cessation of work."
I mean, have you been out to Los Osos in the last five years? There's a gigantic dirt pit in the middle of town, surrounded by a chain link fence.
That can now be restored, at no cost (including "reasonable attorney's fees") to the county, OR the citizens of Los Osos.
It seems like all you would have to do is recommend to the Board of Supervisors, that they, "elect to do the same" -- that is, what the 2005 post-recall board did not do after "60 days after cessation of work" -- restore the Tri-W site -- so, now, according to the bond, the county can "elect to do the same."
Excellent news, eh?!
As you are aware, the Coastal Commission made the restoration of the Tri-W site a condition of approval in their permit for the county's current Los Osos wastewater project.
So, look at this great opportunity you now have with that bond: Even before the county officially "adopts" the Los Osos project, your department could take the initiative NOW, and meet a BIG condition of approval in your permit, even before you are obligated to.
Also, think about how happy that would make the Coastal Commission -- that your department, with the approval of County Supervisors, actually took the initiative to restore the Tri-W site, even though the county wasn't yet technically forced to comply with that condition of approval, but because, as the Coastal Commission recognizes, it is the right thing to do for the citizens of Los Osos, SLO County, and California.
So, it looks like it'd just take a simple staff recommendation to the Board of Supervisors from your department to use that bond... now that we know that the "hazardous" conditions at the Tri-W site occurred "within 60 days of cessation of work," clearly.
I'm looking forward to your response.
As always, much thanks,
Ron
P.S. I've posted this e-mail on my blog:
sewerwatch.blogspot.com
###
[30 weeks down... 22 to go.]
posted by Ron at
1:15 PM
18 Comments:
ron, I see that you didn't reply to my post on your prior entry. Too tough?
Maybe this is easier. You must have proof of the hazardous conditions - that YOU claim are hazardous. Weren't they behind a fence? Aren't all work areas behind fences? Work stopped and the fence stayed. If there was an injury, you might have a case. Was there an injury? Are you holding back on us? Do you think that the County has a list of documented injuries incurred on the site or photos on file that they don't want to tell us about? Who gets to determine the hazardous condition? You? The gulching on the site occurred later after the 60 days. And still, even now, it is behind that fence.
Really, why didn't Julie and Lisa insist on restoring Tri-W with this bond money? They were all about ESHA and the environment, right? Maybe they tried. Did you ask them?
Who pays to fight the insurance company - you? Los Osos' citizens? The County?
By
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 10:17 PM, July 28, 2010
Sewertoons, why are you so against having the site restoration covered by that bond? Are you hoping that we will have to pay for it? We have guarantees from company's that they can build us a sewage system way cheaper than what is being proposed and it just falls on deaf ears. There is a bond that will restore the Tri-W site and you are arguing that it doesn't need it. Are you crazy?
Sincerely, M
By
M, at 6:40 AM, July 29, 2010
M asked:
"Sewertoons, why are you so against having the site restoration covered by that bond?... There is a bond that will restore the Tri-W site and you are arguing that it doesn't need it. Are you crazy?"
Isn't that hilarious? There's NO WAY the Tri-W honks will allow that bond to be cashed, so now, they have to fight, with every behavior-based-marketing trick in the book, to NOT have the Tri-W site restored at no cost to the County or to Los Osos.
Absolutely beautiful... for the sake of my story, of course.
'tooncie chimed:
"Who pays to fight the insurance company - you? Los Osos' citizens? The County?"
Well, if you could read (and you should really look into getting that remedied) you would have noticed that:
1) The "fight" wouldn't be with the insurance company, it would be with Monterey Mechanical, they are the ones that recklessly and foolishly put up the collateral for that bond.
And 2), here's the fun part: Who pays to fight Monterey Mechanical on this? Monterey Mechanical would pay to fight Monterey Mechanical on this.
According to the bond, Monterey Mechanical is on the hook for ALL of the County's "reasonable attorney's fees" when it comes to successfully cashing in that bond, that is, if they even choose to fight it, which, I have no idea what they would argue. It's all so clear cut -- the brilliant rationale that led County officials to require that brilliant bond in the first place, all played out perfectly.
"Really, why didn't Julie and Lisa insist on restoring Tri-W with this bond money?"
I have no idea, nor do I care. It's completely irrelevant.
What IS relevant, is that the District had 60 days to do it, and didn't do it, ever since then, it's been in the County's court.
Like I wrote, "excellent news." Pandora's friends at Monterey Mechanical will be cleaning up the mess they made five years ago.
Awesome!
You're welcome.
By
Ron, at 10:27 AM, July 29, 2010
M also wrote:
"We have guarantees from company's that they can build us a sewage system way cheaper than what is being proposed and it just falls on deaf ears."
That's ANOTHER very interesting thing about the Tri-W honks.
If you think it through, there's NO WAY the Tri-W honks will let the cheapest sewer option be built.
It is imperative to them, that the cost be MORE than their Tri-W disaster. In fact, the more expensive, the better for them.
Think about it... if the County were to pursue a project that is substantially cheaper than the Tri-W embarrassment, that means that the recall election stopped the Tri-W disaster, moved the sewer plant out of town, AND saved a fortune, and there's just NO WAY the tiny handful of people that were responsible for the Tri-W disaster will let that last one happen, too.
It is VERY MUCH in the best interest of the people that were responsible for the Tri-W disaster to make sure that the County's project is as expensive as possible, as well as NOT cashing in that bond to pay for the Tri-W restoration.
So, it's a VERY good thing for the tiny handful of people that were responsible for the Tri-W disaster, that the #1 person responsible for that embarrassment, is Supervisor Gibson's Parks Commissioner, and also the same person that hired Paavo Ogren in 1999 as the LOCSD interim GM.
Both of those are VERY fortunate for the Tri-W honks. Otherwise, the County would be pursuing a project that would be tens of millions of dollars cheaper than the Tri-W disaster, and cashing in that bond, that would use their friend's money to pay for the site restoration.
So, there ya are... Celebrate Los Osos!
By
Ron, at 11:35 AM, July 29, 2010
I just thought of something better:
I wrote:
"So, it's a VERY good thing for the tiny handful of people that were responsible for the Tri-W disaster, that the #1 person responsible for that embarrassment, is Supervisor Gibson's Parks Commissioner, and also the same person that hired Paavo Ogren in 1999 as the LOCSD interim GM.
Both of those are VERY fortunate for the Tri-W honks."
Better:
So, it's a VERY good thing for the tiny handful of people that were responsible for the Tri-W disaster, that the #1 person responsible for that embarrassment, is Supervisor Gibson's Parks Commissioner, Warren Jensen's current client (unlike the People of Los Osos), and also the same person that hired Paavo Ogren in 1999 as the LOCSD interim GM, and therefore is responsible for launching his career.
All three of those are VERY fortunate for the Tri-W honks.
Much better.
How 'bout that arrangement, eh?:
The #1 person responsible for the Tri-W embarrassment, is also the same person that is responsible for launching the career of the person now in charge of the Los Osos sewer project, AND, is also a county Parks Commissioner, appointed by the District Supervisor, which grants the #1 person responsible for the Tri-W embarrassment protection of County Counsel.
If you ask me, that arrangement has been the #1 problem over the past four years in the county's project development process, and it's cost everyone a fortune in unnecessary BS associated with the Tri-W embarrassment/disaster, and, almost certainly led to a MUCH more expensive sewer project than needed.
By
Ron, at 1:17 PM, July 29, 2010
Sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette wrote:
Aren't all work areas behind fences?
No.
By
Watershed Mark, at 7:36 PM, July 29, 2010
M, I am not in the least bit against getting the restoration paid for -- I'm just objecting to ron's lack of research on its viability and his absurd ego to promote something that isn't going to fly. And sadly, as thoughtful an idea that it is, it isn't going to! The Lisa Board stopped the project. Then they didn't feel that the site was dangerous enough to cash in the bond. Don't you think Monterey Mechanical would bring up those points?
ron, who would "cash in" the bond if County Counsel says there is no case? I mean you say the County insisted on putting up the bond in the first place - why wouldn't they promote it now if it was possible? Wouldn't they like to lower the costs to their project?
The "Tri-W people" as you put it have no interest in making the project more expensive and no thought toward stopping the County from pursuing the bond. If they were so all powerful - why is it that Tri-W was not promoted by the County and the WWTF is out of town?
By
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 10:56 AM, July 30, 2010
toons wrote:
"ron, who would "cash in" the bond if County Counsel says there is no case?"
You're about to find out.
"The "Tri-W people" as you put it..."
Actually, I put it: "Tri-W honks"
By
Ron, at 11:32 AM, July 30, 2010
Sewertoons, do you think the Lisa Board as you call them would have been allowed to restore Tri-W? Me thinks not. If the site is not dangerous why is the fence still up? Why did Gordon threaten to sue if they took it down?
Sincerely, M
By
M, at 1:25 PM, July 30, 2010
The fence: If you own a piece of property and someone is injured, you are responsible even if they were trespassing - but even more so if there is no fence and no signage. The CSD needed to cover its a**, so to speak.
The Lisa Board was allowed to mess with the site up until they decided to NOT renew the permit that they had to build on it from the CC. That means the 2 years from when the permit was issued to until it lapsed and was not renewed. Past that date there needs to be a very expensive Habitat Conservation Plan in place to allow disturbance on that land, or any land in LO - like water yards, tank property , etc..
That plan was to be part of the old project, just as it is part of this new project. The Water Department Manager attempted to do some grading on the site and was quickly shut down by Fish & Wildlife. Gordon is the Coastkeeper for this area and he must, like they, be concerned with snails and other wildlife on the site. (We are going against the law with every native weed and snail we squish on our property as well, FYA.)
By
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 4:18 PM, July 30, 2010
Hopefully a better wordsmith than myself can counter your last post. There are so many ways you are contradicting yourself that I can't put it into words. By the way, how does one gain the exalted position of Coastkeeper? Wouldn't one try to keep a sewer plant from being built near one? A plant that in a catastrophy could very possibly leak into a bay that of course is part of the Coast?
Sincerely, M
By
M, at 6:19 PM, July 30, 2010
Sewertoons said...
The fence: If you own a piece of property and someone is injured, you are responsible even if they were trespassing - but even more so if there is no fence and no signage. The CSD needed to cover its a**, so to speak.
The Lisa Board was allowed to mess with the site up until they decided to NOT renew the permit that they had to build on it from the CC. That means the 2 years from when the permit was issued to until it lapsed and was not renewed. Past that date there needs to be a very expensive Habitat Conservation Plan in place to allow disturbance on that land, or any land in LO - like water yards, tank property , etc..
That plan was to be part of the old project, just as it is part of this new project. The Water Department Manager attempted to do some grading on the site and was quickly shut down by Fish & Wildlife. Gordon is the Coastkeeper for this area and he must, like they, be concerned with snails and other wildlife on the site. (We are going against the law with every native weed and snail we squish on our property as well, FYA.)
4:18 PM, July 30, 2010
By
Watershed Mark, at 9:32 PM, July 30, 2010
I thought I would preserve Sorry I forgot his last name Lynette's post in case she sobered up and decided to delete it.
M,
I think her post demostrates her stupidity, beautifully and needs no further comment. I especially enjoyed "The fence:"
Bwahahahahaha
By
Watershed Mark, at 9:35 PM, July 30, 2010
Demonstrates...pesky spell check.
By
Watershed Mark, at 9:37 PM, July 30, 2010
M, what don't you understand?
Check out these websites:
http://www.cacoastkeeper.org/
http://www.waterkeeper.org/
By
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 12:31 AM, July 31, 2010
Could someone translate the two previous posts? Thank you.
Sincerely, M
By
M, at 6:35 AM, August 03, 2010
M wrote:
"Could someone translate the two previous posts?"
The first:
"No matter does any matter, believes itself, do not let others' a few words, strikes down you"
and;
"The knowledge may teach, the wisdom is not actually good. Each person must become him"
See? Those Chinese spam comments are some of the best comments left here. They could qualify for Ann's "Sunday Poems."
"Thank you."
You're welcome.
'toons wrote:
"http://www.cacoastkeeper.org/"
Ah, yes. Good ol' Gordo, and his little SLO Coastkeeper scam.
How 'bout that irony, huh? The guy largely responsible for the Tri-W disaster, that reduced the once-environmentally sensitive Tri-W site into a gigantic, hazardous, erosive dirt pit in the middle of Los Osos, is his own one-man environmental "organization" scam -- the self-proclaimed "SLO CoastKeeper."
Really, Gordo? That's how you "Keep" the "Coast" -- by ripping up ESHA to build a embarrassing mid-town sewer-park, so the town's residents can "picnic" in your disaster, even though they don't want to "picnic" in their sewer plant... obviously.
Nice job "CoastKeeper."
Yeah... I wrote about his little one-man "SLO CoastKeeper" scam at this link:
http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2008/09/i-want-to-be-like-gordon-hensley-in.html
Hilarious!
By
Ron, at 8:44 AM, August 03, 2010
ron, EVERY inch of of property in this town is classified as "sensitive ESHA." You have your opinion on Tri-W and I have mine, so what to either of them either as the plant is going in at Giacomazzi --and we are going gravity so even more sensitive ESHA around town is not torn up.
By
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 3:01 PM, August 03, 2010
Post a Comment
<< Home