Question for Gustafson, Hensley, and Nash-Karner

Here's a question SewerWatch just sent to LOCSD spokesperson Michael Drake:

I was wondering how CSD President Stan Gustafson and Vice-President Gordon Hensley, along with Pandora Nash-Karner, can justify not waiting just four weeks before destroying Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas after they wasted nearly two years of everyone's time and added several years to the area's ground water pollution when they were pursuing the deeply flawed Community Plan?

If Drake doesn't answer it by tomorrow, I'll answer it myself, like I did below (that was a lot of fun!).

[Update: Why no self-answer yet? See my first post.

Finally! Some Straight Answers

I finally figured out how to get straight answers out of the Los Osos Community Services District.

Answer my own questions.

That appears to be my only option, because Michael Drake, Public Information Officer for the CSD has told SewerWatch, "I have no intention of engaging in an on-going debate about the project."

Perfect.

So, now, in a moment of journalism bliss, I get to answer my questions the way I would if I were the Los Osos CSD Public Information Officer.

Me asking question: In a recent report, the Los Osos Community Services District said that the park amenities in the project, now estimated at $2.3 million, were "added by CCC." Yet a document to the California Coastal Commission dated June 28, 2004, says, "the (CSD) Board on June 17, 2004 agreed to add the picnic area, tot lot, amphitheater, and community garden." Considering the June 28, 2004 document to the Coastal Commission, how does the CSD justify saying the amenities were "added by the CCC?"

Me as LOCSD PIO: Well, that's a good question. You see, we're getting the cash-strapped State of California to loan us a ton of cash to pay for this colossally expensive project, but that loan clearly, and wisely, stipulates that "decorative items" are not eligible for funding. But if we can convince the State (and we have, by the way) that the $2.3 million-and-climbing park was added by the Coastal Commission, then the park is considered "mitigation" and therefore eligible for State funding. It may not be the most ethical or legal way of going about our business, but it's pretty smart, if you think about.

So, you can see how important it is that we say that the park was added by the Coastal Commission, because if we actually had to pay for it... well, we'd piss off a lot of people in town since they have already voted that they do not want to be taxed for an expensive park anywhere in Los Osos, let alone at the site of a sewer plant. However, they'll still end up getting stuck with the bill when we repay the loan... if we repay the loan.

Me asking question: In a May 27, 2004 letter to the LOCSD, the California Coastal Commission says: "We noted that the Andre site was the environmentally preferred site in the project EIR and asked for more information why it was not selected." Why wasn't the Andre site on the outskirts of town selected?

Me as LOCSD PIO: Yea, we get asked that question a lot, and we have all kinds of different answers, but the truth is, Andre was just too far out of town for the park. What good's a park in a "sewer-park" if you can't get to it? Right?

That's why we said, "[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," in our project report.

In fact, that's why we "rejected" all of the potential sites on the outskirts of town. We also wrote about that in our project report when we said, "The sites on the outskirts of town could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents..."

Me asking question: How does the CSD support the 1995 Vision Statement as the source for the "strongly held community value" that the sewer plant also double as a "recreational asset" considering Measures E-97, D-97 and the Los Osos Community Services District Wastewater Survey that showed almost zero support for the idea of including a park at the site of the sewer plant?

Me as LOCSD PIO: Excellent question. We support the terribly outdated Vision Statement as the source for the "strongly held community value" that the sewer plant also double as a "recreational asset" because it's the only document around that even remotely shows that that "community value" actually exists, which, as we all know now, does not and, reasonably, never has. (I mean, come on, a park in a sewer plant? What were they thinking?) And, because the first CSD Board -- that included curiously strong parks advocate, Pandora Nash-Karner -- really, really, really wanted a park at the site of the sewer plant, and then have that park dictate the downtown sewer plant location, well, we had to point to something to explain that odd and very expensive decision, and so the Vision Statement it was. By the way, Pandora also helped author that outdated and fluffy document.

Me: Finally, some excellent answers. Thank you!

Me as LOCSD PIO: Thank you.

###

SewerWatch Challenges Funding for Los Osos Wastewater Project

SewerWatch is challenging the funding eligibility of certain portions of the Los Osos Community Services District sewer project.

The heart of the eligibility challenge is that the amphitheater included in the project is a "decorative item" and not eligible for State funding.

The amphitheater is part of an estimated $2.3 million park that is included in the sewer project and is being funded by the State Revolving Fund, a State sponsored fund that gives loans to California communities for wastewater treatment issues. According to the LOCSD, the State Revolving Fund (SRF) will be financing "100 percent" of the project.

However, according to the the policy that guides the SRF loan, "decorative items" like "art work, sculptures, reflective ponds, fountains, etc." are not eligible for funding.

An official with the State Water Resources Control Board, the agency that oversees the loan, has told SewerWatch that the park amenities are being considered "mitigation" and not "decorative items" by the State because the park was mandated by the California Coastal Commission, and therefore eligible for SRF funding.

However, a Coastal Commission spokesperson told SewerWatch that the park amenities were never required by the Commission.

"The California Coastal Commission does not believe that is an accurate portrayal of the history of the project," said Coastal Commission spokesperson, Steve Monowitz.

Monowitz was referring to the numerous instances where the LOCSD and other project proponents imply that the idea for the multi-million dollar park in the plan (that is also dictating the central location of the sewer plant) came from the Coastal Commission.

For example, according to a recent report from the Los Osos Community Services District, and submitted to State officials, the amenities were "added by CCC."

Another example comes from a newsletter from project proponents that says, "The California Coastal Commission required Public Amenities be added to the wastewater site."

Yet, early documents from the LOCSD clearly show that the initial CSD Board determined that it was "essential" that the wastewater treatment facility also double as a "recreational asset," and developed a "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities."

Furthermore, on June 17, 2004, the LOCSD Board unanimously voted to "reincorporate" the multi-million dollar park amenities into the project. The CSD had earlier removed most of the amenities from the project as a "cost saving measure."

"It galls me when they say we required the amenities," Monowitz said.

SewerWatch has sent the SWRCB Division of Financial Assistance several e-mails over the last week regarding the park eligibility issue. An official for the Division recently replied, saying that the person "knowledgeable" about the SRF Policy "is out of the office until Friday or early next week."

The Los Osos Community Services District is expected to draw on the first portion of their SRF loan next week.

SewerWatch will publish updates on this developing story when they become available.

###

Creating Obstacles

There are all kinds of things that I'd love to address in the "Viewpoint" in today's Tribune, but I want to focus on just one horrendous line:

"The (LOCSD) board has followed through in spite of numerous obstacles it did not create."

That's a joke, right?

The board has followed through in spite of numerous obstacles it did not create?

You guys are kidding, right?

"Numerous obstacles it did not create!!?"

Please tell me you're kidding.

Bob, Joe, Vivian and Don, (four people to write one editorial?), since it doesn't appear that you've been following the events in Los Osos over the last six years, allow me to let you in on a little secret -- the LOCSD Board created almost ALL of the obstacles.

Good God, are you guys living in the same fantasy land that Pandora Nash-Karner is?

Follow me on this:

• Did the initial LOCSD Board/Solution Group create an obstacle by luring their community into supporting a "better, cheaper, faster" sewer system, the Community Plan, that would save "$30 million," through a less-than-accurate, and scrupulously questionable marketing campaign conducted by Pandora Nash-Karner?
  
  Yes!
  
  
• Did the LOCSD Board create an obstacle by pursuing the deeply flawed Community Plan for nearly two years after every relevant regulatory agency told the Board it wasn't going to work in Los Osos?
  
  Yes!
  
  
• Did the LOCSD Board create an obstacle by finally abandoning the deeply flawed Community Plan for the same reasons that those regulatory agencies told the Board two years earlier?
  
  Yes!
  
  
• After wasting two years of everyone's time and money, including the California Coastal Commission, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, the County of San Luis Obispo, and the fine folks of Los Osos, chasing that terrible plan, did the LOCSD Board create an obstacle in the form of a now-very-pressing urgency to move forward with any viable project because of the two years wasted pursuing that terribly ill-conceived plan?
  
  Yes! (That one actually looms large in this whole mess.)
  
  
• Did the LOCSD Board create an obstacle by baselessly identifying a "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities" in the new much, much more expensive plan?
  
  Yes!
  
  
• Did the LOCSD Board create an obstacle by ignoring the will of Los Osos voters and including a multi-million dollar park in the project?
  
  Yes!
  
  
• Did the LOCSD Board create an obstacle by having that multi-million dollar park dictate the downtown location?
  
  Yes!
  
  
• Did the LOCSD Board create an obstacle by including multi-millions of dollars of extra odor, visual, and environmental mitigation in the project because of the downtown location to accommodate the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities?"
  
  Yes!
  
  
• Did the LOCSD Board create an obstacle by not selecting the "environmentally preferable" site on the outskirts of town, a site that, according to the LOCSD, would have saved Los Osos multi-millions of dollars, because that site was just too far away to accomplish the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities" -- amenities that the community didn't want in the first place?
  
  Ohhhhh... yea! Big time!
  

"The board has followed through in spite of numerous obstacles it did not create?"

That must be a joke, 'cause I'm laughin'.

I have a question. If the LOCSD Board is so righteous, so squeaky clean, so friggin' perfect, then why did California Coastal Commissioner Dave Potter call the Los Osos CSD Board "a little bait-and-switchy?"

Obstacles. Obstacles. Obstacles.

Bob, Joe, Vivian and Don, the current Board has about 38 days left in their obstacle creating ways.

###

LOCSD Hangs Their New Public Information Officer Out to Dry

by Ron Crawford
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

I feel sorry for Michael Drake, the new Public Information Officer for the Los Osos Community Services District.

He came into his new position just a few weeks ago with an optimistic message for Los Osos and the local media: "I will not spin," he said.

But the problem is, his new employer already has him, completely unwittingly, spinning hard and heavy and often. New face in the LOCSD office. Same spin.

Poor guy. That is very embarrassing, and I truly feel sorry for Drake. It's not his fault.

In the two times I have interviewed him, the spin was so extensive and utterly sourceless, that I gleaned absolutely no new information from those interviews and subsequent e-mails. But I can't blame him for that. He's too new to the game. No, the problem lies with the staff of the Los Osos Community Services District and a consultant that they kinda-sorta work with in a
hazy-shaky-questionable sort of way. They were the ones responsible for getting Drake up to speed on the story, and they failed miserably in that endeavor.

How do I know?

When I asked Drake in a recent phone interview, "What's the source of the 'strongly held community value' that any sewer project in Los Osos must also include "a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community," Drake carelessly pointed to the fluffy and outdated Vision Statement, created by just a handful of Los Osos residents in 1995, including curiously strong parks advocate, Pandora Nash-Karner.

As readers of this blog are well aware, that is an embarrassingly indefensible answer to my question.

"Every community has a vision statement," he said, adding, "That vision statement calls for 'visual and recreational assets for the community.'”

Ouch.

That reply is so wrong on so many levels, and I blame it all on his coaches. There's no way Drake could have mangled that question that badly, all by himself, after just two weeks in the game.

As readers of this blog also know, the "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant in Los Osos must also double as a "centrally located" "recreational asset," understandably, simply does not exist, and never has. (That notion is actually kind of funny when you think about it. I mean come on? What community "strongly" says, "Our very expensive sewer project must also contain a multi-million dollar park that our community can not afford?" That's intrinsically ridiculous.)

And there's tangible evidence everywhere that shows that that "community value" never existed, but the people that have Drake's ear neglected to brief him on that evidence -- evidence like Measures E-97, D-97, and the LOCSD's own $28,000 public opinion study that showed almost non-existent support for the idea of including a multi-million dollar park in the sewer project -- a park that is dictating the plant's downtown location and adding multi-millions of dollars to the project.

If they had, he would have known better than to point to the Vision Statement as the source for that "strongly held community value."

That was embarrassing.

Another embarrassing moment for Drake came when I asked him why a site on the outskirts of town known as the "Andre" site was not selected as the location for the sewer plant. He said, "because the extra energy cost needed to pump (the sewage to the Andre site) would be very expensive." That is an argument that project proponents have been erroneously using for years, so it's kind of odd, to say the least, that Drake would go to that invalid argument so quickly.

Apparently, the LOCSD forgot to show Drake a few of their documents that instantly dismiss that argument. Like the documents that show that the cost added to the project to pump sewage about two miles out of town for the next 20 years is around $400,000, yet the cost to maintain the park over that same amount of time is estimated at $3 million, on top of the estimated $2.3 million needed for the park amenities themselves, like an amphitheater, on top of the multi-millions of dollars needed to cover the cost of the extensive environmental, visual and odor mitigation required due to the sewer-park's downtown location.

In other words, by removing the park from the project -- and thus the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities" that should never have existed in the first place and led to the selection of the "centrally located" Tri-W site -- the cost savings would pay for about 200 years of additional energy costs required to pump the sewage out of town.

Drake was also unaware of the document that says that all of the other potential sites out of town were "rejected" by the initial LOCSD Board because they did not meet the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities."

Drake was unaware of any of those documents, despite the fact that he told me he was aware of SewerWatch. (Quick memo to Drake: As far as I know, all of the links on this site work. Please use them.)

Before I continue, I want to point out once more -- because I feel this is an important point -- the criticism in this article is not directed at Drake and his terrible answers to my questions, but at his handlers for their apparent intentional withholding of critical information from their newly hired PIO.

I want to make that clear because, unbelievably, another very embarrassing moment for Drake popped up in the course of our brief conversations.

After I informed him of the above-mentioned documents, Drake then fell back on one of the project proponents' worse takes -- a take they have been using for years, well before Drake's arrival, so, obviously, they coached him to rehash it.

"The Andre site is not feasible," Drake said.

Brace yourself for embarrassing moment #3.

When I told him that a senior staff member at the California Coastal Commission told me the day before our conversation, that the Andre site was not only feasible, but that the LOCSD "misled" the Commission on the feasibility of the Andre site, Drake replied, "That's news to me."

Really? No friggin' kiddin'? Let me guess... LOCSD General Manager, Bruce Buel and kinda-sorta-in-a-shaky-sort-of-way consultant, Pandora Nash-Karner just happened to neglect to tell you that little bit of information when they were briefing you on the story? Hmmmm?

Of course it's news to you, Mike. Just like Measures E-97 and D-97 were news to you. Just like the LOCSD's own public opinion study that showed almost zero support for the idea of including a multi-million dollar park in a $150-million sewer project was news to you. Just like the cost comparison conducted by the LOCSD that showed multi-millions of dollars could have been saved by relocating the plant out of town was news to you. And, just like the quote in the Facilities Report that says, "The sites on the outskirts of town, could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents," was news to you.

Kind of funny, don't you think, Mike, how all that information just happened to slip the minds of Buel and Nash-Karner when you arrived? You know what's not news to those of us close to this story? That's just business as usual for the LOCSD.

Drake, you very publicly pledged "no spin," and then your bosses, unbeknownst to you, tossed you directly into the spin cycle and hung you out to dry.

How's that taste?

###

Please support independent journalism:

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