The Coastal Commission / SewerWatch Compromise

SewerWatch has struck a deal with the staff of the California Coastal Commission.

It goes like this: I have agreed to shelve my request that the Tri-W development permit be revoked now -- as in today -- and pursue it only if there is "an official determination by the CSD or a future successor to build the treatment plant at Tri-W," and, in return, Steve Monowitz, a senior staff member with the Commission, told me that if the Tri-W project does come back, I will be granted a hearing on my revocation request.

"You deserve a hearing," Monowitz told me in a recent phone interview. "It looks like there may, indeed, have been some misrepresentation."

The only bump in the road to my guaranteed hearing is a technicality. Commission regulations state:

"Any person who did not have the opportunity to fully participate in the original permit proceeding by reason of the permit applicant's intentional inclusion of inaccurate information (bolding mine) or failure to provide adequate public notice as specified in Section 13105 may request revocation of a permit ...".

"The permit applicant's intentional inclusion of inaccurate information?" Are you kidding me?

As I wrote to Monowitz, "I'll be able to get around that for many, many, many, many documented reasons."

He then added, "If you do have standing (meaning, I can show "intentional inclusion of inaccurate information," which I can, all over the place), and there is an official determination by the CSD or a future successor to build the treatment plant at Tri-W, your revocation request will be reported to the Coastal Commission at the next available hearing."

My extremely tight argument for pursuing my extremely tight argument for revoking the Tri-W permit now -- even though it's a long shot that it will ever be needed in its current form anyway -- is that it is still in play. There is still a very vocal, and active group of "about 50 community members" in Los Osos that is fighting to get the defunct project back, and that continues to divide the community, and that continues to make it harder to clean water faster, at a location that actually has rationale behind its siting. So, I argue that if the permit was revoked now, and the no-rationale-behind-siting Tri-W location was officially off the table, Los Osos, for the most part, wouldn't have a choice but to row in the same direction, thus, cleaner-water-faster.

Sound argument, eh?

However, I agreed to the compromise because there's a very good chance that the current development permit is already irrelevant, and I didn't want to put Monowitz through the considerable amount of work it would require to handle the request. And, no one, and I mean no one, is more sympathetic towards Monowitz on that issue than I am.

I find astonishing the amount of Monowitz's time that was wasted by the Solution Group/early Los Osos CSD. When I read through some of the volumes of documents that he has had to produce due to the careless and sloppy actions of the the Solution Group/early Los Osos CSD (I'll even lump in the loose and unnecessarily lengthy, revocation request that came from the Los Osos Technical Task Force in 2004, here), I feel so bad for him. I just sit there and shake my head as I read through that stuff... what a waste! (If I was Monowitz, I'd be pissed.) So, the last thing I want him to do is spend more time on Los Osos when it's a long shot that it will even be necessary.

But, with my concession not to pursue the revocation now, my argument that forcing Los Osos to row in the same direction will lead to cleaner-water-faster, gets kicked to the side of the road. So, in an attempt to keep that excellent argument in play, I offer the following two memos:

Memo to Taxpayer's Watch: First, stop stealing my ideas (SewerWatch -- Taxpayer's Watch... nice originality, guys), second, if you insist on continuing to waste everyone's time, and energy, and money by desperately and relentlessly fighting for Tri-W, you should probably know something right now -- if that ridiculous $160 million-park-project that you refer to as a "sewer project," ever comes back on the radar screen, I will instantly take Monowitz up on that hearing, and I will hit that no-rationale-behind-siting mess deeeeeep into the upper deck, on the very first pitch of the new game, and all of your efforts -- the call for fines, the entire dissolution process, your silly "letter writing campaigns," everything -- will be rattling around in the cheap seats after the very first pitch of the new game.

Memo to Pandora Nash-Karner: Do you really want that to happen? Do you, as a former CSD Director and current member of the County Parks Commission, appointed by Shirley Bianchi in early 1999, really want me to show up in front of the California Coastal Commission, with a highly informed attorney in tow, and lay out exactly how a certain nonsensical "strongly held community value" got into an early version of the Vision Statement -- a document that not only has your name attached to it, but your husband's as well -- and then lay out how that "community value" was in the Vision Statement just long enough for it to get into the Final Project Report, and then lay out the consequences of that alleged "community value?"

Do you want that, Pandora?

Do you really want me to get into the details on why Coastal Commissioner, Dave Potter, called your little scheme "bait-and-switchy," while he's sitting 15 feet in front of me. That may not go so good for you, P. -- as a former CSD Director and current member of the County Parks Commission.

Do you really want me to get into the details on how the proposed treatment facility location for your first terrible project, the ponding system -- the project that got you elected and the CSD formed -- just happened to be the exact same treatment facility location as your second terrible project, the Tri-W "sewer-park" -- a project that required 10-times less land?

Do you really want me to breakdown for the Coastal Commission, in detail, how the siting criteria listed in the Final Project Report is a meaningless mess?

Do you really want me to demonstrate how I have "standing," and then get in front of the Coastal Commission and lay all the above out, Pandora? Does Stan want that? Does Gordon want that? Does Bruce want that? Does Montgomery, Watson, Harza want that? If so, keep fighting.

Because, I guarantee you, in the slim chance that the Tri-W plan ever comes back, that is exactly what is going to happen.

P., you and your friends at Taxpayer's Watch need to think about what you're currently doing very carefully, because, the instant, and I mean nanosecond, that the Tri-W site officially comes back, if it comes back, I will take Steve up on that hearing, and everything that should have come out from 2001 - 2004, will come out.

I also want you to keep something else in mind -- and I want you to follow this very closely -- when I asked Monowitz how he feels about State officials' decision to use the State Revolving Fund -- a public fund that is supposed to be used only for water quality issues in California -- to pay for the $2.3 million worth of park amenities proposed in your ridiculous ex-project, he laughed, and then said, "no comment."

At the hearing, if needed, he'll comment on that, Pandora, current County Parks Commissioner, and he has already told me that he is none too happy with the fact that you have repeatedly said (and that I can document), "the Coastal Commission required the amenities." And he also said, "It looks like there may, indeed, have been some misrepresentation."

Wow. I would enjoy, very much, discussing all of the above, in sourced-out detail, with the California Coastal Commission, and their brilliant staff... in a very public setting... with lots of media types around.

My end of the bargain is to put my revocation request on the back-burner until, and if, Tri-W becomes relevant again.

The Commission's staff end of the bargain is to give me a hearing when, and if, Tri-W becomes relevant again.

Your choice, guys.

###