The Mangling of a Sewer Project

Six Years of Unimaginably Poor
Decision Making by the LOCSD

by Ron Crawford
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

No matter how the sewer issue finally plays out, one thing is for sure, the Los Osos Community Services District's clumsy handling of the project over the past six years will become legend in civics circles. To be honest, I already hear the snickering and snide remarks from knowledgeable government officials when I interview them on this subject.

But their reaction is understandable. Since the day the CSD took over the sewer project from the County, they have steered it straight into the wall, with a grand display of unimaginably poor decision making. They couldn't have handled the project worse.

To be accurate, because the majority of the first CSD Board was comprised of members of the Solution Group -- a 16-member community group that formed in 1997 to develop an ill-fated alternative sewer plan in Los Osos -- the sewer blundering actually began long before the establishment of the Los Osos Community Services District in November, 1998.

No, Solution Group... you do not get off that easy.

In 1997-98, through an aggressive and scrupulously questionable marketing campaign developed by Pandora Nash-Karner, marketing director for the Solution Group and eventual number one vote-getter in the first CSD Board election, Los Osos voters were lured into believing that the "Community Plan" -- the name of the Solution Group's alternative sewer project -- was "better, cheaper, faster" than the county's project. Due to the slick and less-than-accurate marketing campaign, 87-percent of Los Osos voters buy in to the Solution Group hype and, in November 1998, overwhelmingly establish a Community Services District to take over the sewer project from the County and implement the Community Plan. Two previous attempts to establish a CSD in Los Osos failed.

However, little known at the time (and even to this day, surprisingly) was that the Community Plan relied on "risky" and virtually untested technology, and was simply not going to work in Los Osos. To complicate matters for the LOCSD and the Solution Group, several credible water quality professionals and studies confirmed that fact months before the 1998 election that established the CSD on a "better, cheaper, faster" platform. Members of the Solution Group, including Nash-Karner, worked closely with those water quality professionals throughout 1998 and were intimately familiar with the information.

For example, in the summer of 1998, an independent study known as the the Questa Study compared the Community Plan with the County's project. The study noted, among other things:

• "It would be very risky and inappropriate to utilize the proposed (Community Plan's technology) for the Los Osos project - especially given the limited resources of the community."
  
  
• "The County Plan provides far more assurance of the ability to correct the existing groundwater nitrate problem than is offered under the Community Plan."
  

Another credible example that demonstrates how unviable the Community Plan was, before the 1998 election, comes from California Coastal Commission staff member, Steve Monowitz. Monowitz, throughout 1998, crushes the Solution Group's project with prophetic accuracy in several reports including his department's own comparison of the Community Plan and the County's plan. Observations found in Monowitz's reports include:

• "Pursuit of the Solution Group alternative also has the potential to result in significant delays to the implementation of a wastewater treatment project for the Los Osos area."
  
  
• "(The Questa Study) also identified practical problems with the Solution Group treatment method that called into question the technical feasibility of this alternative."
  
  
• "This analysis identified numerous project costs that had not been included in the Solution Group’s original estimations."
  
  
• "The Solution Group Alternative poses greater economic risks."
  
  
• "As currently proposed, the Solution Group alternative is inferior to the County project..."
  

Yet, despite a mountain of credible evidence that showed, months before the election that formed the CSD, the Community Plan -- a plan that relied on a "risky" series of ponds as a treatment process -- was not going to work in Los Osos, Nash-Karner, as marketing director for the Solution Group, in the run-up to the election, continued to aggressively publicize the deeply flawed plan as "better, cheaper, faster" with a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75."

According to the LOCSD, the future monthly sewer payment is now estimated at over $200.

The Solution Group marketing strategy included newsletters, bumper stickers, public presentations, numerous press releases, advertisements, posters, slogans like "Do-Doing it Right", "YES", and "Better, Cheaper, Faster", t-shirts, and more. The Solution Group would spend "hundreds of hours" and some $30,000 of their own money developing the unviable plan. Nash-Karner's husband, Gary Karner, who was also a prominent member of the Solution Group and is a landscape architect, called the local talk radio program, The Dave Congalton Show, last year, and admitted, on the air, that his wife placed a $700,000 bid to the LOCSD for public relation services after her first and only term on the CSD Board. She did not get the contract, according to Karner. At a recent LOCSD Board meeting, Nash-Karner said that her husband took a year off his job as a Cal Poly professor to work on the Solution Group's plan.

A credible source close to the story told SewerWatch recently that San Luis Obispo County staff, in mid-1998, prepared a long list of flaws in the Community Plan that were not being addressed by the Solution Group -- flaws that would have killed the project, according to the source. "This was stuff any developer would have to deal with," the source said. "(Former County Supervisor) Bud Laurent hand delivered that list to the Karner's, but they just sat on it."

Laurent, a long-time acquaintance of the Karners, told SewerWatch he doesn't recall the incident.

The CSD was established with 87-percent of the vote in November, 1998.

On March 4, 1999, the first CSD Board, comprised of three Solution Group members, Nash-Karner and current board members and recall targets, Gordon Hensley and Stan Gustafson, and two other like-minded members, unanimously voted to abandoned the County's viable, and nearly approved, project, and pursue the Community Plan, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence that clearly showed the plan was not viable in Los Osos.

Shortly after the CSD's decision to pursue the Community Plan, Executive Director of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Roger Briggs, said the figures used by the LOCSD to compare the cost of its sewer project with the county’s project were "incorrect and very misleading." He added, "the County's project remains the most feasible and timely project." The RWQCB had also been extremely critical of the Community Plan before the election.

After nearly two years of delays and costs associated with pursuing the ill-fated and deeply flawed Community Plan, the CSD was forced to abandoned the project due to, among many other reasons, the lack of evidence that it would actually work. Both the Questa Study and Monowitz would prove to be amazingly accurate in their analysis of the Community Plan.

Information on the demise of the "Community Plan" is not forthcoming from the CSD.

On their web site, the LOCSD says:

• "The following year (after the election in 1998 that formed the CSD), the LOCSD assumed responsibility for designing a wastewater treatment facility and the county plan was abandoned.  After exhaustive technical study, consultation with engineers, health experts, regulators, residents and numerous public hearings the LOCSD chose a wastewater treatment facility believed to be the best option for the community."
  

That is not accurate.

According to reports submitted by the LOCSD in 1999, the deeply flawed and ill-fated Community Plan was originally selected as the sewer project of choice on March 4, 1999, just two months after the formation of the CSD.

Quietly, in late 2000, the CSD Board finally turned to a viable, yet more costly, sewage treatment technology, similar to what the County had proposed four years earlier.

However, when deciding where to build the dramatically redesigned treatment facility, the CSD Board, in yet another display of head-shakingly bad decision making, seemingly inexplicably identified a "strongly held community value" that the site of the sewer plant also double as a centrally located "recreational asset."

According to the LOCSD, “The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The (other potential sewer plant) sites on the outskirts of town, could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents." (Note: That quote is from the Facilities Report for the sewer project. The CSD does not have a .pdf file of the report for me to link to.)

All other potential sites on the outskirts of town were "rejected" on the basis that they did not accomplish the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities."

The park element of the plan locked in the centrally located Tri-W location, and, due to its central location, multi-millions of dollars have to be added to the project for extra environmental, odor, and visual mitigation, on top of the cost of the multi-million dollar park amenities and their operation and maintenance.

Proponents of the current $151-million project contend that the "primary benefit" of locating the facility at the centrally located Tri-W site is that its central location will reduce energy costs associated with collecting the sewage. However, according to a CSD memo, the extra energy cost required to pump the sewage out of town would add only about $400,000 to the cost over the next twenty years. The estimated cost to maintain the park over the next 20 years is $3 million, on top of the park amenities themselves, now estimated at $2.3 million.

The five original CSD Board members were Rosemary Bowker, Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley, Pandora Nash-Karner and Sylvia Smith. Nash-Karner, Gustafson and Hensley, as well as former CSD Board members Frank Freiler and Bob Semonsen were members of the Solution Group, according to a Solution Group newsletter.

Gustafson and Hensley remain on the board today. They are facing a recall election in September.

- - - -

The LOCSD's Blundering Sewer Timeline
SewerWatch Style!

• 1997-98: The Solution Group, a 16-member community group established in 1997 to develop a deeply flawed alternative sewer project for Los Osos -- launches an aggressive, and scrupulously questionable marketing campaign for their alternative sewer plan. The Solution Group plan, known as the "Community Plan," is based on "risky" technology that the Solution Group insists is "better, cheaper, faster," will "save $30 million," and be "drop dead gorgeous," when compared to the County's proposed (and nearly approved), project, despite ample information from several credible sources that corroborate the fact that the Community Plan is simply not going to work in Los Osos. Members of the Solution Group are intimately familiar with the information, yet their marketing director, Pandora Nash-Karner, continues to aggressively sell the deeply flawed plan to Los Osos as "better, cheaper, faster."
  
  
• November, 1998: The Los Osos Community Services District, on a platform of "better, cheaper, faster" is established with 87-percent of the vote. The initial board consists of three Solution Group members, including number one vote-getter, and Solution Group marketing director, Pandora Nash-Karner. (Two prior attempts to form a CSD in Los Osos failed.)
  
  
• 1999-2000: The initial CSD Board, on March 4, 1999, unanimously votes to abandoned the County's viable sewer project and pursue the deeply flawed Community Plan, despite a large contingent of credible water quality professionals corroborating the fact that the plan is not going to work in Los Osos.
  
  After nearly two years of delays and associated costs pursuing the Community Plan, the CSD realizes that the plan is not going to work in Los Osos and is forced to shelve the ill-conceived project for many of the same reasons that were mentioned years earlier by credible water quality professionals.
  
  
• 2000-01: The CSD finally (and quietly) turns to a technically viable project, similar to what the county was proposing four years earlier, but, seemingly inexplicably, the board also decides to include a multi-million dollar park in the project, despite almost non-existent community support to include a costly park in a very costly sewer project. The board, for no apparent reason, identifies a "project objective" that the site of the sewer plant also double as a "recreational asset" and contain "centrally located community amenities." The decision locks in the centrally located Tri-W site. All other potential sites on the outskirts of town are "rejected" on the basis that they do not accomplish the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities."
  
  
• 2002-2004: The LOCSD pulls the park out of the plan almost entirely as a "cost saving measure."
  
  
• 2004: The California Coastal Commission tells the LOCSD that they can not move forward with the project without the amenities in the plan because the park facilities "factored into the previous decision to allow the treatment facility to be located on (the Tri-W) site, since other alternatives were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."
  
  
• The Los CSD conducts a cost comparison study to see if there is "economic incentive" to relocate the sewer plant out of town. The analysis concludes: "There does not appear to be any economic incentive to relocate the WWTF from the Tri-W site to the Andre site." However, the comparison does not account for the now $2.3 million park included in the sewer project, or the estimated $3 million in operation and maintenance of the park for the next 20 years. If it had, it would have shown that multi-millions of dollars could have been saved by moving the facility out of town. The cost comparison study was completed almost at the exact time that the LOCSD votes to "reincorporate" the multi-million dollar park.
  
  
• 2004: Coastal Commissioner Dave Potter calls the Los Osos CSD's tactics "a little bait-and-switchy."
  
  
• The CSD votes to "reincorporate" the now $2.3 million park, despite the fact that Los Osos voters have already voted that they do not want to be taxed $10 a year for public recreation in Los Osos.
  
  
• Two "move the sewer" candidates, Lisa Shicker and Julie Tacker, are elected to the CSD Board by a wide margin.
  
  
• Today: Due to the central location of the Tri-W site to accommodate the park, multi-millions of dollars have to be added to the project for extra environmental, visual and odor mitigation. That cost is on top of the estimated $5.3 million needed for the park and its maintenance.
  
  The nearly two year delay resulting from the futile pursuit of the deeply flawed and ill-fated Community Plan adds millions of dollars to the cost of the project, and, very importantly, due to mounting time constraints, blows Los Osos' only chance of proposing an alternative to the current $151-million project.
  
  More delays result, understandably, from irate Los Osos citizens angry over the very real possibility of $100-a-month sewer bills, and the false promise of the Solution Group's "better, cheaper, faster" sewer system.
  

At the time of the 1998 election that formed the Los Osos Community Services District, the monthly sewer bill for the county's project was estimated at about $60 - $75. Future monthly sewer bills in Los Osos are now estimated at over $200.

###

Please support independent journalism:

Checks to:
Ron Crawford
P.O. Box 120
Santa Margarita, CA
93453

Park Amenities Now at $2.3 Million

My favorite part about the most recent LOCSD cost estimates for the park at the sewer plant (posted below), besides, of course, the fact that a play field costs damn near $1 million, and a "Dog Park" is well over a half million dollars (who knew?), is that "Eucalyptus Benches" are $3,000 each. Now that's a nice bench. I wonder, will those benches be made from the same eucalyptus trees that need to be cut down to accommodate them?

And something else just occurred to me -- a Los Osos taxpayer that shot down Measure E-97 would have to pay that failed measure's tax for 300 years just to cover one "Eucalyptus Bench." Hmmm...

Wow... $2.3 million just for the park amenities, and that doesn't even include their operation and maintenance, estimated by local park professionals at another $3 million over the next 20 years.

Amazing. Just amazing.

This story gets better by the day.

Much more to come.

'til next time...

SewerWatch Exclusive

Los Osos CSD Memo Shows
Treatment Facility Relocation
Could Have Saved As Much As
$6.2 Million, and, Likely, More

by Ron Crawford
www.SewerWatch.blogspot.com
7/8/05

The Los Osos Community Services District could have saved as much as $6.2 million, and, likely, much more, if a wastewater treatment facility currently proposed to be built near the center of town would have been moved to a site outside of town last June, according to a LOCSD memo recently acquired by SewerWatch.

Furthermore, according to the June 2004 memo, had the CSD board acted on the memo at the time of its writing, the contentious $151-million project could be near completion today without the controversial downtown (Tri-W) location in the plan and at a potential savings of multi-millions of dollars.

However, according to CSD figures and other sources, faced with the decision, at almost the exact date of the memo, to relocate the facility away from the controversial downtown location at a savings of as much as $6.2 million (not adjusted for inflation), or "reincorporate" a set of costly park amenities that are adding millions of dollars to the project, the CSD chose to reincorporate the park -- a decision that locked in the downtown location.

According to the CSD and the California Coastal Commission, other site alternatives to Tri-W were dismissed by the CSD because the "location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity," and "other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."

The memo, MWH Memo comparing costs of TriW with Andre, details a cost comparison between locating the treatment facility at the Tri-W site and a "hypothetical property equivalent to the Andre site" about two miles east of Los Osos, off Los Osos Valley Road.

The memo concludes, "There does not appear to be any economic incentive to relocate the WWTF from the Tri-W site to the Andre site."

However, that conclusion came when the project's amenities only included a dog park and a play field at an estimated cost of $160,000, according to the memo. Yet, in July 2004, the CSD voted to reincorporate several other park amenities into the plan including a 15-space public parking lot and drop off area, an amphitheater, community gardens, restroom, tot-lot, and picnic areas. The cost of those amenities, recently estimated by a CSD engineer at $2.1 million, was not included in the memo's cost comparison.

Moreover, according to local park maintenance professionals contacted by SewerWatch, the operation and maintenance (O & M) of the park facilities could add another $3 million (again, not adjusted for inflation) to the project over the next 20 years -- the time frame for O & M costs in the memo. [Note: SewerWatch relied on sources outside of the LOCSD for an annual O & M cost estimate for the amenities because the CSD has yet to declare its own estimate.]

According to the memo, "The cost comparison shows that under the best case scenario, the relocation of the WWTF to the Andre site may save approximately $1,100,000, but under the worst case scenario may add approximately $4,300,000."

But when that cost comparison is updated to reflect the $2.1 million cost of the additional public amenities, and the estimated $150,000 annual cost for 20 years ($3 million) for the operation and maintenance of those amenities (not adjusted for inflation), the best case scenario for relocating the facility is at least $6.2 million in savings, and the worse case scenario of relocating the facility adjusts to a savings of at least $800,000, according to CSD figures and other sources. Additionally, the development permit for the project says the amenities must be maintained "in perpetuity."

More questions about the reasons for siting the wastewater treatment facility at Tri-W arise in the memo. For example, according to the memo, the combined total annual energy cost added to the project to pump effluent two miles out of town is about $20,000 or $400,000 over 20 years. But, according to a project proponent's web site (savethedream.info), the number one "primary benefit of the Tri-W (downtown) site" is, "It is centrally located and therefore minimizes pumping requirements and thus minimizes energy cost." The cost of the amenities is estimated at $2.1 million, according to the LOCSD.

Interestingly, the memo also shows that if the decision were made today to move the facility, potentially multi-millions of dollars could still be saved, despite cost escalation associated with the delays, and the delay added to the completion of the project would be "2-3 years." However, that time frame is reduced when unresolved issues of the current project are considered, like a September recall vote and lack of permits for heavy equipment staging areas, just two of many examples.

According to sources close to the project, delays associated with the unresolved issues could add several months, if not more, to the current project's completion date. Therefore any added construction delays due to the relocation of the treatment facility could be reduced further, to potentially under two years, according to CSD figures and other sources.

Community Value?

To complicate matters for the Los Osos Community Services Distrcit, information on why there is a park in the project to begin with is not forthcoming. When asked in a recent e-mail from SewerWatch what the rationale was for keeping the park in the sewer project following several costly design changes, CSD Vice-President, and project supporter, Gordon Hensley replied, "Frankly I do not have an answer - but I think you are correct, that IS the core issue."

Although information on the rationale for including a park in the project is seemingly non-existent, strong and ample evidence exists that Los Osos taxpayers, during the design stage of the sewer project, did not desire a park anywhere in Los Osos, let alone at a wastewater treatment site.

For example, in 1997, Los Osos voters defeated two ballot measures that would have added public recreation programs and facilities in Los Osos. One of those failed measures, E-97, would have added $10 a year to a single-family's yearly property tax for "recreational services." The other, D-97, would have added $40 a year for a public swimming pool. News reports at the time say the measures failed because of voter fear over the high cost of the sewer project.

More evidence of the lack of community support for a park at the treatment facility comes from a LOCSD public opinion study commissioned in 2001 to gage support for the project. The $28,000 study titled, Los Osos Community Services District Wastewater Survey, asked a sample of Los Osos property owners several questions about the project. The first question in the study was:

What is the most important issue that you would like to see local governments in the Los Osos area do something about?

From a list of answers, respondents answered:
Open space/park protections -- 1%
Wastewater treatment/septic tanks -- 64%

Another question from that same study asks:

No matter which way you might be leaning on the wastewater treatment vote, of the statements I just read which one stands out as the best reason why someone should vote FOR this measure?

From a list of answers, respondents answered:
Will create park -- 7%

However, despite extremely weak community support for the park in the project, the initial CSD Board, seemingly inexplicably, identified a "strongly held community value" that the wastewater treatment facility also be a "recreational asset," and made the decision that "centrally located community amenities" be a "project objective."

Quotes from the project's report regarding alternative treatment facility sites include:

• “The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The sites on the outskirts of town, could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents..."
  
  
• “(The Andre site) is 1.5 miles from the edge of the community and would not be able to provide the community with a readily accessible recreational area..."

One year after the publication of the CSD opinion survey that showed little support for the inclusion of a park in the plan, a July 24, 2002 California Coastal Commission staff report says, "The Los Osos CSD has evaluated numerous project alternatives and determined that construction of a treatment facility and public park on the Tri-W site would best meet the project's and the community's needs." (pg. 1)

Another California Coastal Commission staff report dated, July 29, 2004, says, "... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities." (pg. 89)

On June 21, SewerWatch sent CSD General Manager, Bruce Buel an e-mail containing the following two questions:

1) What would be the rationale for siting the facility at Tri-W if the "project objective" of "centrally located amenities" was not in the project?

2) Why are "centrally located amenities" a "project objective?"

Buel has yet to reply.

MWH Memo comparing costs of TriW with Andre was drafted in response to a California Coastal Commission request to the CSD to "provide a more detailed analysis of the feasibility of locating the treatment plant at the Andre site." According to a May 27, 2004, letter to the CSD, the Coastal Commission requested the analysis because the project's Environmental Impact Report identified the Andre site as "the environmentally preferred site" and the Commission was seeking more information on "why it wasn't selected."

A ground breaking "ceremony" was held at the Tri-W site yesterday.

###

[10/2/09: Quick note: Now that I'm linking back to these stories, I want to clarify something... On some of the posts here at SewerWatch, especially back in the 2005 days, you'll see (below) how it says "0 comments" in the comments section.

That's not because no one was readingSewerWatch back then. In fact, it's just the opposite.

The reason some of these posts have "0 comments," is because, on rare occasions, I would intentionally turn off the ability to leave comments, and this story is one of them.

You see, a HUGE part of SewerWatch is showing that Los Osos AND regulators were tricked by something called "behavior based marketing," and part of that marketing strategy involves USING the media as "tools."

So, back in 2005, during the run-up to the LOCSD recall election, SewerWatch was so widely read that the people that practice "behavior based marketing" were USING me as one of their "tools," and would leave blatantly misleading, and deliberately confusing comments, and it was awful. I was giving the "behavior based marketers" a venue to operate.

Put yourself in my shoes... here I was exposing the fact that the reason there's such a gigantic train wreck in Los Osos is because the town, AND state regulators, are all victims of a "behavior based marketing" campaign, yet, here I was allowing that exact "behavior based marketing" to occur on my own blog. Me, being used as a "tool," and I just couldn't allow that.

So, when it got down to crunch time, like the lead-up to an election, I'd shut down the comments section entirely. No one could leave a comment.

Can you blame me?]

Sooooo Screwed Up

On her great blog, Los Osos writer, Ann Calhoun asks, "How in hell did such a project get sooooo screwed up in the first place? "

Ann, I know the answer to that question. And, now that I think about it, I may be the ONLY person that knows the answer to that question.

How did it get so screwed up in the first place? I can sum it up with one line:
"Out-of-the-box thinking"

As some Los Osos residents might remember, when the CSD was formed under less-than-clear circumstances, the initial CSD Board was very proud of itself, and was sure that other communities would look to Los Osos as a "model" on how to develop public policy through "out-of-the-box thinking." Mission partially accomplished. Other communities ARE looking at Los Osos, alright, but to see how NOT to develop public policy, and, something tells me, other communities will be looking at Los Osos' examples for decades to come.

Without a doubt, the LOCSD's interpretation of "out-of-the-box thinking" is why the project is "sooooo screwed up." Without a friggin' doubt. Follow me on this, you'll enjoy the ride:

I want to focus on one amazingly excellent example of the LOCSD's "out-of-the-box thinking" that has led directly to today's mess.

In the document that details this ridiculous project, the Facilities Report, there's a set of five criteria that was used to prioritize site alternatives. Four of the five criteria were reasonable. They were things like "Cost" and "Regulatory." But it's that fifth one that I have a HUGE problem with. It's called "Community Acceptance," and it was the initial CSD board's "out-of-the-box thinking" that created that critical siting criteria. The "Community Acceptance" criteria essentially says that any sewer project in Los Osos is going to have to reflect the "strongly held community value" of including a park in a sewer plant. The problem is, that "strongly held community value" is completely unsubstantiated. And to worsen the problem, the "Community Acceptance" criteria made Tri-W #1 in the site rankings. (At least that's what I remember from a meeting about five years ago. I have to rely on memory because, as I reported last September -- both the site rankings and the method used to spit out the numbers, are missing from the Facilities Report and no one knows where they are! That just blows me away -- something as important as the site rankings is suspiciously missing from such an important document. And I still want to, just out of curiosity, redo the "model," but this time leave the deeply flawed "Community Acceptance" criteria out of the equation. Does Tri-W still come out number one? I've got $20 that says it doesn't. Then what? "Oooops?")

When I was researching Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, I asked LOCSD General Manager, Bruce Buel if a version of the siting model was conducted with the "Community Acceptance" criteria removed from the equation. He said, "No."

Now that I am looking at that phrase -- "Community Acceptance" -- it reminds me of something else that has always bothered me about that particular wording: It's a gigantic, misleading euphemism!

"Community Acceptance?" Which "community" is it referring to? Certainly not Los Osos in 2000, because THAT community had recently voted not to be taxed $10 a year for public recreation. THAT community was so worried about massive sewer bills showing up in their mailboxes, that they weren't in any mood to shell out another dime of tax money for parks anywhere in Los Osos... LET ALONE IN A SEWER PLANT! That's why Measures E-97 and D-97 FAILED, remember? The first CSD Board, apparently, forgot.

I have two questions: 1) Why was "Community Acceptance" a siting criteria in the first place? And 2) Why wasn't it titled something more accurate, like "Parks and Recreation?" I can't even venture a guess to that first question (but I WILL get that question answered. I promise... just give me a little more time), but allow me to take a stab at answering that second question: Because Los Osos taxpayers had just voted that they did not want to be taxed for parks and recreation. So, if "Community Acceptance" had been titled "Parks and Recreation," it would have been easily spotted and immediately removed, therefore leaving no rational for the "project objective" of "centrally located amenities" at the "centrally located" Tri-W site. But if you call it "Community Acceptance," then it's all smiley-smiley, nicey-nice. Who doesn't want "community acceptance?" Then, the end-around is complete. Circumvention of taxpayer's will accomplished. The cost of the park is now tucked into your sewer project. And the consequences of that park, in that project, have been disastrous!

Another thing that bothers me about calling that criteria "Community Acceptance" is the perfect use of doublespeak. How did that meeting go? "O.K. Here's what we'll do... let's call the criteria that contains stuff that the community does not accept, community acceptance." Perfect. If at first you don't succeed at the ballot box, then hide the cost of your park in your sewer project. I would love to know who, specifically, a name, came up with those two words: "Community Acceptance?" Those two words are infuriating and insulting.

So, there's your answer, Ann. The LOCSD's "out-of-the-box thinking" led to the "project objective" of "centrally located amenities." And those amenities (a.k.a park) led to the "centrally located" Tri-W site, and, because of its central location, tens of millions of dollars of visual, environmental and odor mitigation has to be added to the project. ALL of that cost is on the park -- a park that Los Osos has already voted it does not want to be taxed for. That, is how the project got "sooooo screwed up in the first place."

According to, Trever Cartwright's book In the Box Thinking, "Out-of-the-box thinking is now a thing of the past." After watching the LOCSD's act for the past six years, I understand why.

- - - - -

(Incidentally, at the last CSD meeting, it was revealed that the cost of the amenities is now over $2 million, on top of the tens of millions of dollars needed to accommodate them.)

Don't forget to click on the "donate" button on the right... thanks.

'til next time