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.

###