One Move From Checkmate

Los Osos CSD, you owe your old pal SewerWatch a favor, and I want to cash it in.

The State never saw it coming, and now they are one move away from being checkmated.

You've got them.

Here's the favor I'm asking: In your reply to the State's decision yesterday, do this:

First, agree to their ridiculous, democracy-ignoring proposal, then say something like:

"Fine. Unlike democracy-loving people everywhere that would very much enjoy telling you to jam that ridiculous, democracy-ignoring proposal up your backside, we, the CSD Board, agree to your ridiculous, democracy-ignoring proposal, and we will proceed with the current project if it means we get to keep our funding, because, without that funding, as you Soviet leftovers are very well aware of, we are dead in the water, so we obviously can't "do whatever we want," and you know that.

But now that we've agreed to accept your proposal that any random Dictator would find brilliant, we want to request one simple project change.

According to SRF policy, the "loan applicant" (in this case, us) can request a change in the project, and that change can be granted by the State Water Resources Control Board if they "concur."

Our one project change? We want to take out the $2.3 million park.

Checkmate.

The State does not have a response to that.

If the CSD were to say in their response to the State's decision:

"We cannot in good conscience build a multi-million dollar park with taxpayer's money, while communities like Mariposa County have a "$0" in their "Amount Committed" category in the State Revolving Fund loan program, therefore we request from the SWRCB permission to free up the $2.3 million from our loan that was going to fund the park we never wanted in the first place, and give it to Mariposa County for their $2.9 million, park-less sewer facility."

... it would be check-friggin-mate. A response like that would finally bring the park issue front and center where it belongs, and it would put the State on the defensive immediately.

What would the Water Board do? Not grant the request? They would get shredded by every newspaper from here to Sacramento (well, of course, except the Trib... there's actually an interesting update involving the Trib. They recently hired former New Times reporter Abraham Hyatt. That is a good thing. Abraham worked at New Times when they published my cover story Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown in September, 2004. I have spoke with him on a few occasions, and I know he has a nice grasp on the story. Perhaps now we'll see more from the Trib than just the he-said-she-said coverage from their turnstile reporters of the past.)

If the CSD is really, really lucky, the Water Board will say, "O.k. Fine. Build the plant at Tri-W without the damn park."

And that would be that... tip over the King, dust off the hands and call it a day. Because, as I have been writing about for over a year now, without the park in the project, there is no rationale whatsoever to build the facility at Tri-W. Obviously, the Water Board does not know that, and that's where the CSD has them.

According to the California Coastal Commission, "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 California Coastal Commission never said, "other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives of reduced pumping costs."

The California Coastal Commission never said, "other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives of restricting the size of the sewer plant therefore limiting growth in the area."

And the California Coastal Commission never said, "other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that civil engineers couldn't figure out how to run a pipe across a creek."

And, as we all know now, no one can answer the question on why the park is in the plan to begin with. (Uhhhg... that one hurts.)

Without realizing it, the Water Board yesterday said, "Although there is no rationale at all to build the facility at Tri-W, you will build it there anyway."

The Water Board would have nowhere to go on the park removal request. It would be checkmate. If they denied the request to remove the park from the project, they would be saying, "We don't care if there is raw sewage running down the streets of Mariposa County, we said we would fund an elaborate, multi-million park in Los Osos with taxpayer's money that is supposed to go to cleaning water, and that's exactly what we intend to do."

If they granted the request to remove the park, and still demanded that the plant be built at Tri-W, they would be saying, "Look, we don't care if there's no rationale to site the facility in the middle of beautiful Los Osos, you will build it there."

That would be a difficult decision to explain... to say the least.

I hear the CSD has until next Wednesday to respond to the State's proposal. How long does it take to print out this post?

C' mon CSD. Be bold and do your ol' buddy a favor.

###

"SewerWatch Strategy" at Water Board Meeting Could End This Sordid Affair Once and For All

If I was a Los Osos CSD Board member, and I was heading to Sacramento tomorrow to ask the State Water Board to keep the sewer funding a-comin', I'm pretty sure I could end this sordid affair once and for all with a little something I like to call, "The SewerWatch Strategy."

Here's what I would do at that meeting:

I would show up with a County Supervisor from Mariposa County and their public works director in tow.

Then I would step up to the podium and say something like:

"Honorable Board, we will move forward with the current wastewater project if it means we get to keep our funding. And to give you an idea of just how committed the new CSD Board is to clean water, we are willing to build two, two, wastewater treatment facilities in California without adding a penny to our current SRF loan.

Here's how:

We request from the Water Board, permission to forfeit the $2.3 million dollars worth of park amenities contained in the previous CSD's project, you know, that amphitheater, tot lot, dog park, play fields, and all of that other nonsensical stuff that is inexplicably included at the site of the current sewer plant -- amenities that the community never wanted in the first place but that you guys are about to fund with taxpayer money -- and instead, give that $2.3 million to the great County of Mariposa -- a county that has 80-percent of its residents under the state median income level -- so they can fund their badly needed wastewater treatment facility -- a "Priority A" project, just like Los Osos, that the County of Mariposa has repeatedly requested SRF money for, but, to date, has a gigantic goose egg in its "amount committed" category.

Of course, we understand that once we give up that portion of our funding, we will no longer be able to pay for the elaborate, multi-million dollar park that the community never wanted in the first place at the site of our sewer plant, and that means we won't be able to include it in the current project, which, of course, means that the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities" will no longer be part of the project, which, in turn, of course, means that there's no longer any rationale to site the facility at the "centrally located" Tri-W site since, according to the California Coastal Commission, "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)

So, we'll just keep the same project as the previous board -- the one you are willing to fund -- except, since there's no longer the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities" in the plan, and the only reason the Coastal Commission allowed construction at Tri-W was because of that "project objective," well, we'll just make a couple of "design changes" to the current plan (something the previous board did all the time) and simply, quickly and casually relocate the facility out of town, because, now, without the park in the plan, as we all know now, there's no reason to build it at Tri-W.

Honorable Board, look at everything that would accomplish. We get to keep our funding because we are moving forward with the same project that the loan is designed for (albeit with a few "design changes"), the Los Osos Community Services District FINALLY appeases the California Coastal Commission by not building our sewer plant on Environmentally Sensitive Habitat for no reason other than the multi-million dollar park that we never wanted in the first place, you guys get to adhere to your SRF Policy by not having to fund an elaborate, multi-million dollar park that Los Osos never wanted in the first place, the spirit of Measure B is honored by moving the facility out of town, and two wastewater facilities, one for Los Osos, and one for Mariposa County get funded by our one SRF loan."

That argument would leave the Water Board with absolutely nowhere to go.

What would they say?

"No, no, no Los Osos. Look, we don't care if the policy that governs the distribution of the SRF loan so wisely says that "decorative items" are not eligible for SRF money, and we also don't care if the Democratic process has made it illegal to build a sewer plant at Tri-W, and we don't care if there's absolutely no rationale at all to build an industrial sewer plant in the middle of your beautiful town, and obviously, we also don't care if Mariposa County is spilling raw sewage down their streets. We said we were going to fund that damn amphitheater (that your community never wanted in the first place) at your sewer plant, and, by God, that is exactly what we intend to do; along with the tot lot, community gardens, "decorative" wave wall, walking paths, play fields, dog park, public restrooms, public parking lot, and, of course, all of that REALLY, REALLY expensive stuff to accommodate the downtown "sewer-park," like the cost of burying the facility because it's "centrally located," and the massive on-going expense of the extreme "odor scrubbing" because it's "centrally located," and the extensive mitigation required because it's "centrally located" on ESHA, and the... ahhh, you get the point."

The Sacrament Bee, with the slightest nose for news, would turn the Water Board into the laughing stock of Sacramento for a decision like that. As it is, the Water Board's still gonna have a lot of 'splainin' to do on why they plan on funding an elaborate, multi-million dollar park in Los Osos with state and federal taxpayer's money -- a park that the previous CSD Board unanimously voted to add to the project on June 17, 2004 -- when other communities like Mariposa County don't get a dime for their park-less, bare bones, reality-based wastewater treatment facilities.

###

P.S.: Garrison Keillor, on his Writer's Almanac show this morning on KCBX, recited the following poem. I found it very appropriate for the situation in Los Osos:

PUTTING IN A WINDOW
by John Brantingham

Carpentry has a rhythm that should never
be violated. You need to move slowly,
methodically, never trying to finish early,
never even hoping that you'd be done sooner.
It's best if you work without thought of the
end. If hurried, you end up with crooked
door joints and drafty rooms. Do not work
after you are annoyed just so the job
will be done more quickly. Stop when you
begin to curse at the wood. Putting in
a window should be a joy. You should love
the new header and the sound of
your electric screwdriver as it secures
the new beams. The only good carpenter
is the one who knows that's he's not good.
He's afraid that he'll ruin the whole house,
and he works slowly. It's the same as
cooking or driving. The good cook
knows humility, and his souffle never falls
because he is terrified that it will fall
the whole time he's cooking. The good driver
knows that he might plow into a mother
walking her three year old, and so watches
for them carefully. The good carpenter
knows that his beams might be weak, and a misstep
might ruin the place he loves. In the end,
you find your own pace, and you lose time.
When you started, the sun was high and now
that you're finished, it's dark. Tomorrow, you
might put in a door. The next day,
you'll start on your new deck.

SewerWatch Responds to This Morning's Trib Story

Some choice takes, SewerWatch style, on the Trib story this morning:

From the Trib:
Onlookers have been mystified at how the charge to stop polluting the federally protected Morro Bay estuary has devolved into an antagonistic debacle spanning three decades -- with no end in sight.

From SewerWatch:
Dear onlookers: Mystery solved.

From the Trib:
(The CSD) also plans to have its facility contractor, Monterey Mechanical, resume work at the Tri-W site near the middle of town.

However, that company will not do anything related to the treatment building itself, a modern, $49 million structure complete with an on-site dog park and a decorative wave wall.

From SewerWatch:
Along with the dog park and "decorative wave wall," (and the Trib should know this, but, unfortunately for quality journalism, does not) there are a couple of other odd things included at the site of the "modern, $49 million" sewer plant, like an amphitheater, tot lot, community gardens, play field, walking paths, public restrooms, public parking lot. You know, all that expensive stuff that Los Osos never wanted in the first place and is dictating the downtown location and is adding tens of millions of dollars to the project and that has ripped the town apart. Yea, those things.

From the Trib:
"They (the State Water Board) knew how much controversy existed, so why did they let the money out 20 days before the election?" (Lisa Shicker) asked. "Why did they do that?"

From SewerWatch:
Excellent question Lisa. Here's my answer: Because they are directly responsible for letting this mess fester to this point, and they can't bury their past mistakes fast enough.

From the Trib:
When asked if it was irresponsible to fund the sewer project right before a heated recall election, (Rukeyser) skirted the question.

"We've been absolutely prudent with the state's money, and like I said, we followed the law and we expect everyone else to follow the law," he said.

From SewerWatch:
Oh, Ruksy, Ruksy, Ruksy. "Absolutely prudent with the state's money?" Are you kidding me? For God's sake, your own policy that regulates the SRF loan says that "decorative items" are not eligible for SRF funding. Yet, you are ready to fund an amphitheater, tot lot, community gardens, play field, walking paths, public restrooms, public parking lot, dog park and yes, a "decorative" wave wall "with the state's money." I don't live in Los Osos, but I do live in this state, and, trust me Ruksy, that is not being "absolutely prudent with the state's money." In fact, if I lived in Mariposa County, where they are trying to get SRF funding for their wastewater facility, yet, to date, have not secured a dime of state money for that $3 million project, and I see that SRF money is going to pay for an elaborate, multi-million park in Los Osos, I'm friggin' pissed.

Funding a treatment facility without all of that frivolous crap that Los Osos never wanted in the first place would be "absolutely prudent with the state's money." And that is exactly what the new board wants to do.

Talk about backwards government. The only way they will fund the project is if it includes millions of dollars of park pork that Los Osos never wanted. Perfect.

###

(Addendum: Is Ruksy out of the loop or is the CSD popping out ill-advised press releases? We'll shall see at the Water Board's November 16th meeting. The CSD IS on the agenda: (Item 8)

But, as of 11/10/05, there's no staff report available on-line, even though all other items have a link to their staff report (now, there's your mystery). So, we won't know what they'll be talking about until either the staff report is posted, or Nov. 16.

Two days ago, I e-mailed Water Board staff asking for their report, but, of course, they have not replied. Ahhh... that's the State Water Board I've come to know and love. It's amazing I get any questions answered at all.)

Breaking News: State to reinstate funding when work resumes

(Note: Just got this press release from the CSD... obviously, more details to come:

November 9, 2005

State to reinstate funding when work resumes; Los Osos on State Water Board’s Nov. 16 meeting agenda

Three weeks after Los Osos district officials called
for work on the sewer project to resume, construction
is poised to restart.

The immediate work will focus on the collection and
disposal systems only, not the treatment facility. 

In a letter received by the Los Osos Community
Services District on Nov. 4, the state water board
said it’s now willing to reinstate funding as soon as
work is renewed, said Dan Bleskey, interim 
general manager.


“Although we ordered the contractors back to work
on Oct. 21, they felt that the state hadn’t given
adequate assurance of funding,” said Bleskey.
“Some of the contractors now feel that they have
that assurance or, at least, have a higher comfort
level with the state board’s intention.”

It will take a few days for the work order to take effect, he said.

“The construction crews need a couple of days to
mobilize and we need time to notify citizens in the
immediate work areas.

We’re also working with the treatment plant site
contractor to chart a course that satisfies state
requirements, respects Measure B and gives him
a detailed and clearly written work plan from the district.”

At the Tri-W property -- site of the treatment plant
that Measure B now requires to be relocated out of
town -- specific work areas are in the process of being

identified and a change-order will be issued to the
contract with Monterey Mechanical. The work
will be non-plant related, and is expected to
include run-off control and possible curb, gutter
and street improvements.

Barnard Construction, one of the pipe-collection system

contractors, will be the first to restart as soon as the
county permit requirements and other regulatory
obligations are satisfied. Whitaker Contractors, a local
firm, will return to work in phases.

In a related action, the CSD held a special meeting on
Monday to approve a resolution requested by the State
Water Resources Control Board. By adopting the
resolution, the CSD board reaffirmed its commitment to
the project and the terms of the recent state proposal. 

The resolution, like the proposal, calls for work on the
collection and disposal systems to resume immediately,
but allows a maximum two-year extension on the treatment
facility and for a concurrent review of alternative technologies.

The CSD is on the water board’s Nov. 16 meeting agenda.

Construction is expected to resume within a week.

Schedules will be publicized in local newspapers, on the
district’s website at www.losososcsd.org, on Los Osos
Charter Channel 20 and through weekly announcements
on KVEC 920 AM.

Solution Group Accountability Would Heal Los Osos

The Solution Group needs to apologize to Los Osos.

Nothing heals past failings in this country faster than accountability, and if someone from the Solution Group were to step up and simply say, "We're sorry," the healing process in Los Osos would begin immediately.

The Solution Group has already publicly admitted their failure, they just haven't publicly apologized for it. That's a big difference, and a difference that needs to be resolved.

The apology could take many forms, but it should go along these lines:

"Los Osos, we are very sorry for our actions back in 1997-98. We now realize (thanks to SewerWatch) that our futile, two-year pursuit of the Community Plan is the reason the town is so torn apart today. We screwed up, and for that we deeply and sincerely apologize, but now, you can either continue to hate us, or allow us to work this out with you."

If a former Solution Group member like Stan Gustafson, or Gordon Hensley, or Pandora Nash-Karner, or Gary Karner were to come forward and offer that apology, the brilliant town of Los Osos would come together and solve their wastewater problem, fast.

In the course of my extensive research on this story, I have come across only one person that has shown even the slightest bit of accountability for the situation in Los Osos.

That person -- of all people -- is Neil Farrell. Many in Los Osos and Morro Bay know Farrell as a long-time newspaper reporter in the area. He was working for the Sun Bulletin back in 1997 when that newspaper published a favorable series of reports on the Solution Group's Community Plan. The series lent the unviable, and ultimately disastrous, Community Plan much needed publicity and credibility. The editor of the Sun Bulletin at the time, Richard Palmer, lived in the prohibition zone in Los Osos. Also on staff, was current Tribune Opinion Page editor, and Los Osos resident, Bill Morem. The Sun Bulletin series would eventually play a significant role in the 1998 election that formed the Los Osos Community Services District and launched the ill-fated Community Plan.

Farrell recently told me that he now regrets working on that series of reports. I applaud him for that.

In 1997, I was the editor of the small Los Osos newspaper, The Bay Breeze (now The Bay News). I received the exact same press packet outlining the Community Plan from the marketing director of the Solution Group, Pandora Nash-Karner, as the Sun Bulletin, except I made the editorial decision to hold off publishing anything from that press packet until I could get the information confirmed by an outside source. Good thing. Almost everything in that packet would prove to be false, as the Questa Study exposed in the summer of 1998.

The Questa Study is a great part of this entire controversy. As readers of this site are aware, the Questa Study was a side-by-side comparison of the County's proposed project at the time and the awful Community Plan. It was ordered by the California Coastal Commission in 1998.

Aware that the Questa Study was forthcoming, I held off publishing much of the Solution Group's information on the Community Plan until I saw the study's conclusions. It was a blowout. The Questa Study showed that the County's plan was superior on every point in the study, and that the Solution Group was grossly fudging their figures -- on both cost and technical aspects.

Through the duration of the 1998 Questa Study, I contacted the president of Questa Engineering, Norm Hantzsche, several times for updates. I was the only member of the media to contact him personally. When the study was completed, due to my extensive contact with Hantzsche, I was able to scoop every media outlet on the Questa Study's findings -- a scoop that I am still very proud of today.

Unfortunately, the Karners, after spending thousands of dollars out of their own pocket and hundreds of hours on their deeply flawed Community Plan, did not share my enthusiasm for my scoop. They freaked out, and launched into full-on damage control mode. Spin cycle on high. They bashed me, The Bay Breeze, Norm Hantzsche, the Questa Study, Questa Engineering and anything else that went against them in the run-up to the November, 1998 election. Two years later, the Questa Study would prove to be highly accurate. Norm and I are still waiting for our apologies.

On the topic of the Questa Study, the following chronology has never been reported anywhere, and it will blow you away, as it does me. The snippet is from a story I sent to New Times just before the California Coastal Commission meeting last April. (New Times did not publish the story.) At that meeting, the Commission had the opportunity to revoke the CSD's Development Permit. I was arguing in the story that the Commission needed to do just that, and fix what they broke in 1998. What happened throughout 1998 in Los Osos is amazing, and applies directly to the mess today.

Before I get to my chronology, I want to start with a recent post from Los Osos writer, Ann Calhoun. It's from the comments section of her great blog.

Ann writes:

• I liken the mess we're in to the Tar Baby: Lie one begets Lie Two, which begets Lie Three, until Br'er Rabbit is stuck tight.I would put Lie One back to the Solutions Group that campaigned for a CSD on the promise of a $35 million ponding system when they had in hand the Coastal Commission Staff Report stating that best estimates put the sytem under review at $78 million, and the Solutions Group said nary a peep about that number or that report, which, was Dated October 1998 (The election was Nov. 1998) From THAT lie, everything is linked.
  

That is dead-on-accurate. "From THAT lie, everything is linked." That is why the history of this story, specifically from 1998 on, is SO important.

From my unpublished story, Fix What's Broke, sent to New Times, March, 2005:

Throughout 1998, the California Coastal Commission postponed issuing the County a Coastal Development Permit for their Los Osos wastewater project. The reasons the CCC gave for postponing the County's permit seven years ago were baseless (more on that later).

The County should have been granted a Development Permit in January, 1998, but that process was derailed by the Solution Group, a small, yet vocal, community group comprised of 16 Los Osos residents that was, at the time, proposing an alternative sewer plan that they developed called "The Community Plan." It relied on "risky," and virtually untested technology, but that didn't seem to matter to the Solution Group. They lobbied their alternative plan aggressively to Los Osos and to the California Coastal Commission. The Solution Group was persuasive, calling their plan "better, cheaper, faster" than the County's project. The Commission bit, and voted, in January of 1998, to delay the issuance of the County's permit, and ordered that an independent study be conducted that compared the viability and cost of the two projects — the Community Plan vs. the County's project -- side-by-side... just what the Solution group had been begging for from the County for months.

That County-funded study, known as the "Questa Study," was to have been completed by June of 1998, in time for the next Coastal Commission meeting, but the Solution Group, according to the engineering firm that conducted the study, Questa Engineering, failed to supply crucial information that would have shown that their project was simply not viable in Los Osos. If the Solution Group had supplied the information, Questa would have immediately spotted something called a "fatal flaw" -- the fatal flaw clause was put into the study specifically to save time. If Questa had spotted a fatal flaw in the Community Plan, the study would have wrapped up quickly, and the Coastal Commission would have likely granted the County a Development Permit at their June, 1998 meeting. There would have been no reason not to.

But the Questa Study did not wrap up quickly. Instead, the study pushed up against the Coastal Commission's June meeting, where, AGAIN, the Commission delayed issuing the County a Development Permit. The main reason for the continuance: "The failure of the consultant (Questa Engineering) to identify the technical problems with the alternative (the Community Plan) earlier in the process as a 'fatal flaw'."

Wow. Los Osos was that close, that close, to averting this disaster.

An interesting note here is that Norm Hantzsche, president of Questa Engineering, didn't even know that the Coastal Commission staff was calling him a "failure" until I told him during a recent phone interview. "You know, Norm," I said, "that is their word: 'failure'." I reiterated: "... 'the failure of the consultant to identify the technical problems with the alternative earlier in the process as a 'fatal flaw'."

"Huh," he said. "And I thought they were happy with the study."

Apparently, Hantzsche, upon learning (from me) that the Coastal Commission was essentially blaming him for the mess in Los Osos, was quickly jarred into remembering a document he just happened to have archived that addressed the "fatal flaw" issue in the summer of 1998... nearly seven years ago (just a guess; but it seems Hantzsche has had that document locked and loaded and ready to go for quite some time). Not surprisingly -- and in a great cover-your-ass moment by Hantzsche -- he quickly e-mailed me that document, and, well... what-d'-ya-know?

It turns out there was an interesting reason why Hantzsche did not spot the "fatal flaw" "earlier in the process"... just so happens that the Solution Group neglected to offer up a little bit of information, a tiny nugget of supporting data, that, if supplied, would have "immediately" led to the "fatal flaw," and ensured that the Questa Study would have lasted about 10 seconds, and allowed the Coastal Commission to issue the County its Development Permit in June, 1998.

The following is straight from the Hantzsche document (he's responding to Coastal Commission staff's questions):



• Relative to the "fatal flaw" step in our review, we had to initially accept much of the information in the two plans at face value until the completion of more detailed review; this was due to the shear volume of background material that had to be reviewed. Specifically, in regard to compliance with the Regional Board policies we proceeded under two assumptions that we later found to be unsupportable (SewerWatch Note: bolding is mine because that is an extremely important point). The two assumptions that we ultimately brought into question were: (a) the nitrogen removal performance data for AIWPS facilities; and (b) reduction of nitrogen content in wastewater from septic systems to 12.0 mg/L, based on percolation through 30 feet of sandy soils.
  

Then he says (and here's where it gets good... really good):



• The supporting data for the (Community Plan's) facility was not found in any of the literature provided by the Solution Group or through any other sources that we researched independently. Had the Solution Group indicated that there were no supporting data at the outset, we would have immediately identified this as a possible "fatal flaw" (again: bolding mine).
  


Wow, again.

Clearly, this is Hantzsche's big "Screw you!" to the Coastal Commission for pointing the finger at him for failing to identify the fatal flaw "earlier in the process." Allow me to translate what Hantzsche is telling the Coastal Commission by supplying me, in less than five minutes, with a seven-year-old document that absolves him of the sewer mess. Translation: "I didn't spot the 'fatal flaw,' you idiots, because the Solution Group withheld the information that would have allowed me to spot it. You want to point the finger at someone? Point it at the damn Solution Group!"

The Development Permit item was continued to the Commission's October meeting. However, a letter from the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, signed by former supervisor, Mike Ryan, interestingly, asked that the Commission reschedule the item to their November meeting. That meeting was held three days after the election that formed the Los Osos CSD, when the County's plan was all but dead and their Development Permit moot.

According to Coastal Commission staff member, Steve Monowitz, the 1998 Commission seemed less interested in ensuring that a viable wastewater project be developed in Los Osos, and more concerned with giving the town a shot at local control through a Community Services District. "The Commission had an interest in giving the community self-determination," Monowitz said.

The options for Los Osos at the time were clear: "Vote for the CSD and the CSD will implement The Community Plan that the Solution Group has promised, through an aggressive marketing campaign, is 'better faster, cheaper' than the County's plan," or "Don't vote for the CSD and let the County move forward with its $80-million project that the Solution Group has labeled "ruinously expensive." The CSD passed with 87-percent of the vote, riding heavily on the coattails of The Community Plan, and the ill-fated sewer project was officially underway.

The problem? The Community Plan, as you may have already guessed, was never going to work. It crashed and burned the moment it came under official scrutiny. It was loaded with many "fatal flaws," and, in the end, after a futile two-year pursuit, it never had a chance... not even close. Furthermore, the Coastal Commission, it appears, knew all along that the Community Plan was dead on arrival. Several sources were confirming this in 1998, including the Coastal Commission's own staff and the Questa Study that eventually showed that the County's project was superior on every point in the study.

Yet the 1998 Commission chose to ignore all those competent, credible professionals, and in essence, made this decision:

"Ah, what the hell? Despite what all these credible agencies, with credible, competent staffs are so convincingly telling us, we're going to ignore them and give these lovable lugs, these feisty underdogs from Los Osos, led by the Solution Group, a shot at local control, and just to make sure that we get you get started off on the right foot -- right out of the gate -- we're also going to make sure that you are saddled with a massive public works project that we already know isn't going to work."

"Let the record reflect," Monowitz said, "That was against staff's recommendation."

The decisions by the California Coastal Commission to postpone the County's Development Permit in 1998 were completely baseless (In fact, in hindsight, it seems absurd that the Questa Study was even ordered in the first place). Not only were they baseless decisions, they were also careless decisions, tens-of-millions-of-dollars decisions, neighbor-screaming-at-neighbor decisions, and terrible decisions with terrible, terrible consequences.

The California Coastal Commission needs to right its wrong and revoke the the LOCSD's Coastal Development Permit at their April 14 meeting, and give the entire community, not just a handful of citizens with questionable motives (the Solution Group), the opportunity to steer the town's sewer project.

As we all know now, the Coastal Commission did not pull the permit last April, and the previous CSD Board majority proceeded to needlessly pound multi-millions of dollars into the ground and shred the community to pieces before they were finally recalled six months later.

If Gustafson, Hensley, the Karners, and/or any former Solution Group member were to show the same accountability as former Sun Bulletin reporter, Neil Farrell (however, to a much, much greater degree), the healing process in Los Osos would begin immediately. I guarantee it.

###

(By the way, according to Farrell, the Sun Bulletin won awards from California Newspaper Publishers Association for their 1997 coverage of the Community Plan. Those awards should be revoked by the CNPA. You can contact the CNPA here.)

Please support independent journalism:

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

Come 2008, Hillary Can Turn to the Current CSD Board for Advice On Failure Mitigation

On a recent public radio talk show, two journalists were discussing Iraq. They were talking about how there is no "elegant way out" of the Iraq mess, and that the best the U.S. can hope for now is to "mitigate failure."

That is the exact same situation Los Osos is in today. There is no "elegant way out." The best the town can hope for now, due to the decisions of the previous administration, is to "mitigate failure."

The only difference, beside the obvious, is that the person that created the mess in Iraq is still in office. Come 2008, Hillary can turn to the current CSD Board for advice on failure mitigation.

###