Gettin' All Proactive -- in SewerWatch

This new Los Osos CSD Board, I'll tell ya, with their transparency, sticking to campaign promises, willingness to listen and defend their community, even though many in that community are attempting to get rid of them, and their innovative ideas like incorporating instant run-off voting into Measure B so that a treatment facility site is guaranteed to be selected, somewhere.

They bore the hell out of me.

Boy, do I miss that old Board, with their lying to the Coastal Commission, jerking around the Water Board, spies at CSD meetings, "out of the box thinking," expensive, "drop dead gorgeous" sewer-parks, "behavior based marketing strategies," and "compelling language" (actually, those last two are still in play). Now that's the kind of stuff that holds my interest.

So, since, to the great detriment of my story, it appears that the days of fantasyland-based thinking are over at the ol' Los Osos Community Services District in this foul year of our Lord, 2006 (to paraphrase the late Dr. Thompson), I've decided the best way to hold my interest is by gettin' all proactive...

Here are a few things:

Beside my request for a Grand Jury investigation, SewerWatch is also seeking one simple change in the State Revolving Fund Policy. The fund is used solely to loan communities money for various wastewater projects in the State.

Here's the e-mail I sent to Darrin Polhemus, of the Water Board's Division of Financial Assistance (I first sent it two days ago. I re-sent today, and received an "Out of office" reply from Polhemus. I did not get that reply after my first e-mail.)

Hello Darrin,

A few quick questions please:

In the State Revolving Fund Policy, it says, "... the Division will offer assistance at the option of the prospective applicant. The assistance available will include guidance for (1) identifying project alternatives, (2) selecting the cost-effective alternative, (3) preparing the Project Report, the Revenue Program, and the Environmental Document. The Division will also offer assistance to aid applicants in assuring that they have the ability to administer and manage the construction of the proposed project."

Is that assistance free?

and

Why is that assistance optional? Shouldn't that assistance be mandatory? Kind of like, "If you're going to use SRF money for your project, then SRF staff is going to select your project. If you don't want us to select your project, that's fine, but you're just going to have to find other sources of funding."

That seems to make a lot of sense. That way, State and Federal taxpayers won't get stuck funding expensive, "drop dead gorgeous," sewer-parks.

What would it take to make that assistance mandatory? Perhaps for something like any project over a certain amount, say $5 - $10 million, or whatever.

Here's what I have in mind: Keep the exact paragraph from above in the policy, but then add something like this right after it:

"For any project requiring over $10 million from the SRF, the Division will assist the prospective applicant on (1) identifying project alternatives, (2) selecting the cost-effective alternative, (3) preparing the Project Report, the Revenue Program, and the Environmental Document. The Division will also offer assistance to aid applicants in assuring that they have the ability to administer and manage the construction of the proposed project."

If the SRF policy would have said that in 1999, then the train wreck known as Los Osos never happens. That one, simple change in the policy would prevent a "Los Osos" from happening again in another community... perhaps even Los Osos! With that one change, when (if?) Los Osos comes back for a SRF loan, the State would finally have a say in the matter, and you would discover that Tri-W was not "the cost-effective alternative." State engineers would easily and quickly identify the reality-based project that should have been selected in the first place, and this would all get settled, once and for all time.

Thanks,
Ron

One more little thing, SewerWatch has also notified the Coastal Commission that their regulations demand that the Tri-W development permit be revoked. It appears they really don't have a choice in the matter, in fact, if you think about it, according to their own their regulations, they should be the agency requesting the revocation.

I recently sent Coastal Commission staff member, Steve Monowitz, two e-mails (he has yet to reply):

Sent on 2/23/06:

Hello Steve,

You know, I've been looking at some of the Coastal Commission regulations for permit revocation, and it occurred to me, that the Commission, according to their own regulations, really doesn't have a choice but to revoke the development permit for the Tri-W project.

According to Section 13105 of the Coastal Commission's Regulations, the grounds for revocation are:

a) Intentional inclusion of inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information in connection with a coastal development permit application, where the commission finds that accurate and complete information would have caused the commission to require additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an application:

That is exactly what happened with Los Osos.

If the District had supplied the Commission with "accurate and complete information," the Commission would have had no choice but to "deny an application."

Follow me on this... when they were applying for the permit, the LOCSD told the Commission that the "community desired" public amenities in their treatment facility, yet, according to you, the Commission was "not aware" of the CSD's own critical information that showed the exact opposite community desire existed. And, as you know, the public amenities that the "community desired" were the only reason for the Tri-W siting.

Remember, "other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."

If the District would have supplied the Commission with their own public opinion survey that showed little support for the amenities, and, especially, the results of Measures E-97 and D-97, there's just simply no way the Commission would have allowed Tri-W. There would have been no reason to. The "complete information would have caused the commission to... deny an application."

Of course. That's obvious. There would have been no other option. Other sites were much cheaper, "technically feasible," and less environmentally sensitive.

It also occurred to me that the District supplied the Commission with "inaccurate information" when, in their project report, they said the Vision Statement was the source of the "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant in Los Osos must also double as a "centrally located" "recreational asset." I've read their Vision Statement several times, and I can't find that "community value" anywhere.

Obviously, if the Commission had known that the "strongly held community value" never existed in the first place -- in fact, just the opposite existed -- there would have been no reason for Tri-W at all, and the application would have been denied. The facility would have been moved. It's kind of a no-brainer, if you think about it.

Steve, it's obvious what happened, the evidence is not only overwhelming (don't even get me started on "bait-and-switchy"), it's everywhere -- the LOCSD deliberately misled the Coastal Commission on very important things that led directly to the Commission's approval of their development permit.

That development permit needs to be revoked, for the sake of the Commission's own regulations.

How does the ball on a revocation get rolling? Can you just take it from here, or do I need to fill out a form or something? I'd rather not make too much a fuss about this, but revocation does seem like the right, nay, the only thing to do.

Thanks,
Ron

And then SewerWatch sent this e-mail on 2/24/06:

Hello Steve,

I'm having a hard time getting all the official regulations on permit revocation from the CC web site, so I'm not quite sure how to go about the process.

Here are some of my questions:

Do I supply you with the withheld evidence or is that something you and your staff handles?

Do I need to do anything more than send you the e-mail below?

Also, what kind of time frame are we looking at before the revocation request goes before the Commission?

Now that the Commission staff is aware of this matter, shouldn't you guys be the agency requesting the revocation? According to the regulations I was able to find, it seems like you guys don't have much of a choice in the matter. California Coastal Commission regulations demand that the Tri-W development permit be pulled. You guys were duped on the only reason to site the facility there... that's a big no-no, according to CC regulations.

Would Commissioners have allowed Tri-W if they would have known that there was only a "lukewarm community value by a few people in Los Osos" that the sewer plant also double as a "centrally located" "recreational asset?" Of course not. There would have been no reason to.

Remember? "... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities," and alternative sites were much cheaper, "technically feasible," and less environmentally sensitive.

As it stands today, there is absolutely no rationale whatsoever behind the Tri-W siting. None. Period. The Coastal Commission can't allow that, can they?

Why do I need to pursue this? This sounds like something Coastal Commission staff should handle, and fast.

Thanks,
Ron

Of course, SewerWatch will report on both Polhemus' and Monowitz's response, if they respond.

###

What's My Opinion? -- A Poem in the Verse of SewerWatch

(Quick note: Over at Ann Calhoun's great blog, we kinda-sorta got into a discussion on what is opinion and what is not. So, I got all smart-assy and started saying things like, "It's not my opinion that (insert fact here)." And that gave me the idea for the following post.... errrr... poem. Enjoy!)

- - - - - -

What's my opinion?

It's my opinion that one must follow a very specific chain of events that began in 1997 to fully understand how Los Osos got to where it is today.

It's not my opinion that, in 1997, Pandora Nash-Karner was the marketing director of the Solution Group.

It's not my opinion that Nash-Karner produced a professional looking newsletter in 1998 promoting a sewer project (aka: the Community Plan) that she, her husband, Gary Karner, and some friends (aka: the Solution Group) whipped up over cocktails in a living room in 1997.

It's not my opinion that Nash-Karner thoroughly broadcasted that newsletter all over Los Osos throughout 1998, along with a bunch of other shaky marketing material.

It's not my opinion that in that newsletter it said, "maximum monthly payment $38.75."

It's not my opinion that in that newsletter it also showed an elaborate diagram of the Community Plan at Tri-W.

It's not my opinion that, in 1998, the Solution Group, along with soon-to-be-supervisor, Shirley Bianchi, begged the Board of Supervisors to fund an independent, side-by-side comparison between the Solution Group's "Community Plan," and the county's proposed sewer project.

It's not my opinion that they got the funding for that study on a 4-1 vote, with the dissenter being supervisor, Harry Ovitt, because he was sick of the county funding frivolous studies in Los Osos, and he knew his constituents in the north county would likely end up paying for those frivolous studies, along with the rest of the county's taxpayers.

It's not my opinion that Ovitt ended up being 100-percent right.

It's not my opinion that that study, known as the Questa Study, said:
"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."

and

"The County Plan provides far more assurance of the ability to correct the existing groundwater nitrate problem than is offered under the Community Plan."

It's not my opinion that, upon hearing the results, the Solution Group instantly began bashing the Questa Study that they begged for.

It's not my opinion that Gary Karner, in a 2005 editorial in the Bay News, said the Questa Study took place in 1999, when, in reality, it took place in the summer of 1998, five months before the election that formed the CSD and made the Solution Group's marketing director, Nash-Karner, the number one vote-getter on the initial Board. That's not my opinion.

It's not my opinion that two previous attempts to form a CSD in Los Osos failed.

It's also not my opinion that on March 4, 1999, just two months after the official start of the LOCSD, the initial Board voted unanimously to dump the county's viable project and began their futile, two-year chase of the Community Plan.

It's not my opinion that local water board director, Roger Briggs, said at the time that the figures used by the early CSD to compare the cost of the Community Plan with the county’s project were "incorrect and very misleading." He added, "the County's project remains the most feasible and timely project."

It's not my opinion that in 1998, before the election, Coastal Commission staff member, Steve Monowitz said, "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."

It's not my opinion that the initial CSD Board, after they finally shelved the Community Plan in late 2000 for many of the same reasons mentioned in the Questa Study, didn't go back to their community and say, "What should we do now?"

It's not my opinion that the Tribune did not do one fucking story on the incredibly newsworthy demise of the Community Plan in 2000, even though I wrote a New Times cover story at the time that showed the Community Plan was going down the toilet. (Nice follow-up, Trib.)

It's not my opinion that long-time editorial page editor at the Trib, and prohibition zone resident, Bill Morem, has had a long-time relationship with Nash-Karner.

It's not my opinion that local radio talk show host, Dave Congalton, during a 2005 broadcast, called Nash-Karner a "wonderful person." (Which she may be, I do not know, because I do not know her.)

It's not my opinion that Congalton revealed on that same broadcast that he nicknamed the Community Plan, "Pandoraland."

It's not my opinion that Nash-Karner, on her web site for her marketing business, refers to the media as "tools."

"We provide expertise in corporate identity packages, branding, and logo development; in advertising; in marketing research; and in public information programs. We use a wide range of tools, including advertising campaigns, newsletters, annual reports, meetings, focus groups, special events, direct mailings, and the media. Through the power of behavior-based marketing strategies, award-winning graphic design, compelling language, and sometimes a touch of the outrageous, we create communication that is out of the ordinary, attention-grabbing, and highly effective."

It is my opinion that I find phrases like "behavior-based marketing strategies" disgusting.

It is my opinion that Nash-Karner's "behavior-based marketing strategies," "compelling language," and "tools," are the reasons that the community fabric in Los Osos is so totally shredded apart today. That is my opinion.

It's not my opinion that Nash-Karner handled the marketing for "Save the Dream," a well funded citizens' group established in 2005 in a bizarre attempt to keep the project at Tri-W.

It's not my opinion that Nash-Karner produced a newsletter for STD that said, "The California Coastal Commission required Public Amenities be added to the wastewater site."

It's not my opinion that Coastal Commission staff member, Steve Monowitz, told SewerWatch shortly after the publication of that newsletter, "It galls me when they say we required the amenities."

It's not my opinion that Nash-Karner is the current chairperson of the County Parks Commission.

It's not my opinion that Coastal Commissioner, Dave Potter, called the Los Osos CSD "bait-and-switchy" in 2004 because the District had been telling him for years that there was a "strongly held community value" to include a multi-million dollar park in the sewer plant and then have that park dictate the expensive, environmentally sensitive, downtown, Tri-W location, yet, when the District showed up in 2004 to get their development permit, the park was no longer in the plan because they didn't have any money to pay for it, and because that "community value," obviously, never existed in the first place.

It's not my opinion that Coastal Commissioner, Dave Potter, was understandably pissed off. (O.K., maybe that one is a little opinionated.)

It's not my opinion that Measures D-97 and E-97, two 1997 ballot measures that would have added a minuscule tax on property owners for public recreation stuff in Los Osos, failed. That's not my opinion.

It's not my opinion that news reports show Nash-Karner lobbied hard for both measures.

It's not my opinion that the District paid $28,000 to a marketing firm in 2001 for a public opinion survey to see how Los Osos residents felt about the CSD's second project (the ill-fated Community Plan was their first).

It's not my opinion that in that study it says:

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%

It's not my opinion that one year after that study was published, a Coastal Commission document reads: "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."

It's not my opinion that Monowitz wrote in 2004, "other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."

It's not my opinion that Monowitz told me just last week, that the CSD never told him about Measures E-97 and D-97 and the results of their own 2001 Public Opinion survey that showed almost zero support for those "community amenities."

It's not my opinion that Monowitz never replied to my next e-mail when I asked him if he still would have recommended in 2002 that the Commission adopt the Local Coastal Plan Amendment that made the Tri-W site possible if he had been aware of that evidence.

It's not my opinion that the multi-million dollar park Los Osos didn't want to pay for in the first place just happened to lock in the same location that the Solution Group told voters in 1998 was going to be the location of the ill-fated Community Plan, with a "maximum monthly payment $38.75" -- a project that required much, much more land than the second project.

It's not my opinion that until the 2004 election that put current directors Lisa Schicker and Julie Tacker into office, former Solution Group members made up five of the first eight directors on the CSD Board, including recently recalled directors Gordon Hensley and Stan Gustafson. That's not my opinion.

It is my opinion that if this country were to take a tenth of its military budget for a year and use it to develop low-cost, viable, solar powered cars, then we wouldn't need half of our military forever.

That's my opinion.

###

Aren't Blogs Great?

I posted the following in the comments section at Ann Calhoun's great blog, and I liked it, so I'm reprinting it here (I'll link up the documents later... little busy right now:

- - - -

Ann... nicely done, as always.

However, you left out one of my favorite lines from the project report. This one just blows me away:

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...

As I so accurately wrote in Three Blocks (a year and a half ago, by the way)... with logic like that, why consider other potential sites all? In fact, when you think about it, with logic like that, considering any other potential out-of-town sites would be a complete waste! If the early CSD's overriding "project objective" was "centrally located community amenities," then why were out-of-town sites looked at at all? Talk about a waste of time and money!

There's another great, great, great line from the project report:

"The clearest result of the first workshop was that the Resource Park (Tri-W) site was the preferred site because of its size and central location."

And that was that.

How many times were Los Ososans told that there were "hundreds" of public meetings regarding the Tri-W site selection? Yet, according to the project report, Tri-Dub was locked in after the first "workshop." Ouch!

I have a question, because I'm having a hard time understanding it: How can you people in Los Osos stand all of these lies? They're everywhere! Lie, lie, lie, lie ,lie.

When radio talkshow host, Dave Congalton, called the anti Tri-W folks "angry children" last year, I thought that was very unfair. They were angry adults, and understandably so.

Also, Ann, you did mention the failed ballot measures that showed Los Osos taxpayers didn't want to pay for public recreation anywhere in Los Osos, let alone a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant, but you forgot my favorite piece of evidence that shows that the early CSD "lied through their teeth" (to quote my friend) to the Coastal Commission (the friggin' Coastal Commission) during the lengthy and expensive 2001-02 LCP Amendment process that made the Tri-W site possible.

That great evidence is the CSD's own 2001, $28,000 public opinion survey that showed almost zero support, obviously and reasonably, for the idea of including a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant and then have that park dictate a very expensive, highly controversial, environmentally sensitive downtown location.

The early CSD Board had that study in their hand (along with those failed ballot measures that some on the board worked on in 1997) at the same time they were telling the Coastal Commission that their was a "strongly held community value" to include a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant and then have that park dictate a very expensive, highly controversial, environmentally sensitive downtown location.

They said that because it was the only way they could keep Tri-W in their second plan. Without that "community value," the Coastal Commission would have never approved, or even needed LCP Amendment 3-01 for the second plan. There would have been no reason for it. Out of town sites were cheaper, and less environmentally sensitive. It's a no-brainer.

(By the way, yesterday, I sent sent Coastal Commission staff member, Steve Monowitz, an e-mail asking him if CC staff would have still recommended a "Yes" vote on the LCP Amendment that made Tri-W possible if they had been shown that evidence above. He has yet to reply. In an earlier e-mail he told SewerWatch that he was "not aware" of the strong evidence that showed the exact opposite "community value" from what the District was telling the Commission in 2001-02.)

The early CSD lied to the Coastal Commission to keep Tri-W in the plan because they realized that if they could somehow keep Tri-W in the plan, they could just confuse everyone by saying their first plan -- the plan that got them elected and the CSD formed in the first place in 1998 -- was somehow still on the table and that it simply "morphed" into their second plan, and everything else was just a "design change."

When in actuality, the plan that got them elected and the CSD formed in the first place was doomed before the 1998 election, but they wasted two years chasing it anyway. There was absolutely no rationale whatsoever to keep the facility at Tri-W in their second plan. None.

They lied to the Coastal Commission from 2000-02 in a desperate attempt to keep it there, and it worked, and then that lie promptly ripped your beautiful community apart.

The question now is, why did they do that?

Is my rationale for a Grand Jury investigation becoming any clearer?

###

Grand Jury Investigation Update

For the ones of people that care, here's an update on my call for a Grand Jury investigation into the LOCSD from 1999-2005:

Last week I received a letter from the GJ saying that they received my Citizen's Complaint Form. The letter goes on to say that "the Grand Jury's review of this matter does not mean that we will conduct a full investigation into your complaint, and that I "may not receive any further communication from the Grand Jury."

Which is too bad, because I already want to add a recent e-mail from Coastal Commission staff member, Steve Monowitz, to my complaint.

In that e-mail, I asked Monowitz two questions:

1) Was the the Coastal Commission ever told by the LOCSD about their own $28,000, 2001 Public Opinion Survey that showed almost zero support for the idea of including a public park at the site of the sewer plant?

2) Was the CC ever told by the LOCSD about Measures E-97 and D-97, both failed, that showed that Los Osos taxpayers didn't want to pay for public recreation anywhere in Los Osos, let alone a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant?

His response was:

"The answer to both questions is not that I am aware of."

Therefore, around 2000-01, the District deliberately misled the Coastal Commission by withholding critical information from the Commission regarding the rationale behind the Tri-W siting, at the same time that the District was telling the Commission that there was a "strongly held community value" to include a multi-million dollar park in the sewer plant and then have that park dictate the Tri-W location. According to Monowitz, the District also told the Commission before the Coastal Plan amendment that allowed a sewer plant at Tri-W, that the park amenities were "essential components" of the project.

The Grand Jury letter concludes, "the grand jury cannot communicate the results of investigations to you personally. Reports are available to the public when published, generally at the conclusion of the Grand Jury's term in June."

I'll post updates as they become available.

###