Thursday, August 17, 2006

The Loopiest of Loopholes -- Recently Uncovered CSD Document Overrides the Entire Tri-W Environmental Review Process

"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud"
- Sophocles

Of all the ridiculous government regulations out there, I think I may have recently stumbled upon the most ridiculous. The loopiest of loopholes.

Currently, in California, it's perfectly o.k. for governmental agencies to go through an entire environmental review process -- months, if not years, of careful study and analysis, all in an effort to determine, as required by state law, the least environmentally harmful way to proceed on a huge public works project, like the Los Osos sewer -- and everything involved in that environmental review process can simply be tossed out the window at the end of the process if said governmental agency just doesn't happen to agree with the least environmentally harmful way to proceed.

All that agency has to do is pop out one, quick, illogical and unsubstantiated, 4-page document known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), and, poof, the extensive, expensive, and seemingly important environmental review process goes up in smoke.

Los Osos, take one guess on what happened with your community.

According to California's environmental review process, "If the (environmental) impacts (of the project) are not mitigated to a level below significance, and the (governmental agency) wishes to approve the project, it would also be necessary to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations indicating that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects."

It's that simple... just indicate a couple of "benefits," and bye-bye environmental review process. And that's exactly what the 2001 Los Osos CSD Board -- a board that really "wished to approve" the Tri-W project -- did.

So, what "benefits" did the 2001 Los Osos CSD Board claim in their Statement of Overriding Considerations that outweighed "the unavoidable adverse environmental effects" of the Tri-W project?

After a lengthy list of objectives, all but one of which could have been achieved with an out-of-town site, the SOC boils down the rationale behind the Tri-W selection to this:

    An in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations because:

    - It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served: and

    - It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos;"

And that's it... the reasons stop there. Just those two are listed. And that's all it took to toss the entire environmental review process for the Tri-W project out of the window, a process that showed that sites downwind of Los Osos were "environmentally preferred," and therefore the District was legally obligated to choose one of those sites, unless, of course, they decided to pop out a SOC... which they promptly did.

Let's quickly analyze the first "benefit":

- It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served.

That's the worst logic I have ever seen in an official government document, and it's amazing it got as far as it did. It's a textbook example of "penny wise, pound foolish" reasoning.

Simply geometry tells us that the cost of 95-percent of the collection system would have been the exact same regardless of where the facility was located. The only added expense to the collection system for a downwind, out-of-town, environmentally preferred (and required by state law, unless, of course, you pop out a SOC), and much less expensive site, according to CSD documents, would have been for a small, one-acre, centrally located pumping station at Tri-W, and the extra pipe to take the effluent a mile or two out of town to the main treatment facility. The cost of the pumping station and extra pipe was estimated by the CSD, in 2004, at $2 million.

Furthermore, according to official CSD documents, the cost of the extra electricity needed to pump everything out of town was estimated at about $20,000 a year.

All combined, the above mentioned costs don't even come close, not even close, to touching the tens of millions of dollars needed to accommodate an in-town sewer plant. The land cost alone, including the large chunk of land -- the Broderson site -- that was purchased for mitigation purposes because of the environmentally sensitive nature of Tri-W, added about $7 million to the project when compared to the cost of lots out of town -- most of which are already environmentally degraded through decades of agricultural use, and therefore would require much less environmental mitigation, if any at all.

That $7 million alone, using straight numbers, would have paid for roughly 350 years of the extra cost needed to pump the effluent two miles out of town, according to CSD estimates. The $2.3 million of SRF money slated for the "decorative" park amenities in the Tri-W project would have paid for another 115 years. Solar energy will almost certainly lower the pumping costs dramatically in just a few years.

All of that adds up to one unmistakable conclusion: One of the only two "benefits" why "an in-town site was chosen over other locations," and indicated that the benefits of the Tri-W project outweighed its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects," doesn't hold a drop of water. It makes no sense whatsoever. Deeply, deeply flawed logic.

Which means we now have this:

"- It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos;"

as the only reason why the environmental review process was completely overridden by the 2001 Los Osos Community Services District, and "an in-town site was chosen over other locations."

Clearly, according to official CSD documents, the Tri-W project was never a wastewater project that included a public park, but instead, according to the SOC, it was a public park project that included a sewer plant. Therefore, according to the brilliant State Revolving Fund Policy, since the park was dictating the location, the only portion of the project that should have been covered by public SRF money, were the wastewater facilities themselves. Not the odor scrubbing facilities needed due to the park's central location. Not the decorative and expensive "Wave Wall," and definitely not the $2.3 million worth of public park amenities planned for the site. However, the state had approved funding for all of that, in direct defiance of their own policies.

Further convoluting things for the only reason "an in-town site was chosen over other locations," is that not only is there absolutely no documentation whatsoever to support the concept that the community of Los Osos wanted their sewer plant to double as a centrally located "recreational asset" in the first place, there is an abundance of strong and credible evidence, like election results, that the community, obviously, never wanted an expensive, elaborate, public park in their sewer plant, as SewerWatch has repeatedly reported.

However, despite all of that excellent evidence, the SOC reads:

    These stated objectives underscore the community's desire [bolding mine] to balance compliance with the requirements of the RWQCB with other community goals such as... making the project affordable to all income groups and providing much-needed open space.

That statement can not be supported, period. Not through official sources. Not through polling results. And, most importantly, not through election results. In short, the community never "desired" that "balance" -- a balance, by the way, that would quickly shift from "providing much-needed open space" to providing an amphitheater, community gardens, dog park, play fields, tot lot, picnic areas, public restroom, public parking lot, etc., to the tune of several million dollars -- yet, that "balance," according to the SOC, was the only reason "an in-town site was chosen over other locations."

As for, "making the project affordable to all income groups," the Tri-W project would have been the most expensive sewer project per capita in the history of the Untied States.

Wow.

The Statement of Overriding Considerations would prove to be the one document that ensured that the 2000 LOCSD's vastly redesigned second sewer project -- a project that required exactly ten times less land for the treatment facility than their first failed project -- would not be built at a "environmentally preferred" location, as required by state law, but instead, also be located at the same location as their first flawed project, the Solution Group's "Community Plan." That project was directly responsible for establishing the CSD in 1998, and got three Solution Group members elected, including their marketing director, Pandora Nash-Karner. Nash-Karner is also a long-time, and current, SLO County Parks Commissioner.

Interestingly, the 2001 Statement of Overriding Considerations was recently, quietly and understandably, rescinded by the current CSD Board (that's how I found out about it), a move that would appear to make any future project at Tri-W illegal. Without a SOC, then there's nothing in the Final EIR to "outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects" of the Tri-W project. To build there now would be a violation of CEQA, it appears.

For me, the really serious and troubling fall-out of the LOCSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations -- even above the fact that it doesn't hold a drop of water -- is that it marks the third, third, distinct, highly documentable, invalid, yet successful attempt by the Solution Group and the early CSD Boards to use any means necessary to ensure that a wastewater facility with park amenities is built at Tri-W.

The first attempt was in 1998 and involved the Solution Group and their Community Plan -- a plan that was heavily marketed throughout Los Osos as "better, cheaper, faster," with a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75." However, at the exact same time of those marketing efforts, several water quality professionals and officials were telling the Solution Group, before the election that formed the CSD in 1998, that the Community Plan was not going to work in Los Osos.

Two years later, after the CSD formed on the back of "better, cheaper, faster," "better, cheaper, faster" didn't work... just like all those water quality professionals and officials accurately predicted.

The local media (save, me) blacked out on that crucial story, and the CSD was quietly able to move forward with Tri-W.

Invalid, yet successful attempt #1.

The second successful, yet invalid (and, likely, illegal), attempt to ensure that a wastewater facility with park amenities is built at Tri-W using any means necessary, was the Statement of Overriding Considerations in 2001.

Check out the time-line:

Just a few months after the Community Plan crashed and burned, predictably, and while the RWQCB was threatening fines in 2000, the LOCSD, led by a Solution Group majority, scrambles to throw together an environmental review process for some type of new project (at that point, the Community Plan was in ashes, and they had to come up with something. The pressure was on.)

So, beginning in late 2000, they launch into a hasty environmental review process that results in a Final Environmental Impact Report by February, 2001. That EIR clearly shows that sites downwind and out-of-town, are "environmentally preferred" because the land on the outskirts of town has been degraded through decades of agricultural use, unlike Tri-W.

At that point, the District was obligated by CEQA (state law) to chose one of those "environmentally preferred" sites.

(Note: There were several potential out-of-town sites that could have been considered, however the district only studied three due to the hastiness of the environmental review process. Interestingly, just studying those three would prove to be a complete waste of time and money considering the overriding reason for the in-town site was its central location. It makes no sense to study out-of-town sites when the overriding consideration for the preferred site is a "project objective for centrally located community amenities." Why study out-of-town sites at all? That makes no sense.)

However, if they had chosen one of those cheaper, downwind, out-of-town, and "environmentally preferred" sites, as required by state law, it would have revealed that the project that got them elected and the CSD formed, had failed. It also would have moved the plant off of Tri-W, and the park amenities would have been removed from the project.

How did they wiggle off that one? Easy. All it took was one simple, illogical, unsubstantiated, four-page document that I could've knocked out in an afternoon -- the Statement of Overriding Considerations. And that was it. That document instantly overrode the entire, albeit hasty, environmental review process, and, unfortunately for Los Osos and California taxpayers, unnecessarily kept the CSD's second, and completely different, sewer plant at Tri-W. As I've shown above, there were no logical reasons to keep the second project at Tri-W. None. It could have been moved, and state law demanded it.

The CSD jumped right through that giant loophole and was quietly able to move forward with Tri-W.

Invalid, yet successful attempt #2.

The third successful, yet invalid (and, likely, illegal) attempt to ensure that a wastewater facility with park amenities is built at Tri-W using any means necessary, was the now infamous "bait-and-switchy" move the early CSD Boards played on the California Coastal Commission from 2001 - 2004.

That's when the early CSD Boards convinced the Commission that the sewer plant had to be built at the environmentally sensitive Tri-W site because there was a "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant in Los Osos must also double as a centrally located "recreational asset," complete with an amphitheater, picnic grounds, play fields, a tot-lot, public restrooms, and a lot more.

The Commission bit at the bait, even though there is absolutely no documentation at all to support that extraordinary claim, and reluctantly signed off on the environmentally sensitive Tri-W site, but not before they had to go through an extensive and expensive process to legally allow a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos -- a process that included dramatically amending the Local Coastal Plan to reflect the extensive zoning changes required for such a project.

Two years later, in 2004, after the LOCSD went about their sneaky little business, the Commission discovered that the park that the community so "strongly" desired, and had locked in the Tri-W selection in the first place, and had led to the Commission's extensive effort to amend the LCP, had been ripped out of the plan almost entirely by District officials, because they never accounted for one dime to pay for the expensive park. Apparently, the park was just a ruse to lock in Tri-W, again, and it worked, again.

And that's when an understandably fed-up Commissioner, Dave Potter, called the lot of them, "bait and switchy." A brilliant, and pin-point-accurate observation.

The District's directors voted to "reincorporate" the $2.3 million worth of park amenities shortly thereafter, and moved forward with Tri-W.

Invalid, yet successful attempt #3.

These days, of course, the Commission is now aware that that "strongly held community value" never existed in the first place, and, understandably, they're mad... and they should be. They were tricked into amending the Local Coastal Plan in 2002 and, against all their policies, allowed development on protected Environmentally Sensitive Habitat for no reason at all.

In essence, that "strongly held community value" served the exact same purpose as the Statement of Overriding Considerations -- it was the only thing at the time that could keep on track a sewer plant with park amenities at Tri-W, and they were both invalid.

I have two questions:

1) Why do the handful of people that have guided a sewer plant with park amenities at Tri-W since 1998 -- using any means necessary -- so desperately want a sewer plant with park amenities at Tri-W?

and;

2) For God's sake, what does it take to get the Grand Jury to look into this?

###

[Don't forget to support independent journalism.]

23 Comments:

  • Hey Shark, have I proven it yet?

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:38 AM, August 18, 2006  

  • Hi Ron,

    No Ron, you haven't "proven" anything other than you disagree with the decisions made by past LOCSD Boards as those boards followed the CEQA process. Nothing earth-shattering here; nor grounds for a Grand Jury investigation.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:35 AM, August 18, 2006  

  • Ooopps!

    I forgot to sign my blog above,

    Regards, Richard LeGros

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:36 AM, August 18, 2006  

  • Ooops!
    Forgot to sign his revisionist blog comment above,
    Recalled in Political Disgrace almost a year ago for my actions while directly involved in these issues,
    Richard LeGros
    ( Now waiting for the TRiw Uber Alles Trolls to pounce with the usual predictable daily indignity, punditry, and radical spin.)
    What Balls...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:29 PM, August 18, 2006  

  • Hi Anon above,

    Why are some Anon bloggers so interested in my Balls? Well, they're mine; and you can't have em......so get your own.

    Regards, Richard LeGros

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:53 PM, August 18, 2006  

  • Anon1:29:
    Dude!!! (or dudette)....you really have a thing for balls. So check out THIS set: "Vote for us and we'll deliver a sewer for under $100.00 a pop. Right now. We're ready to go. And we won't get fined by the pussy CCRWQCB. And we certainly won't lose the SRF loan. C'mon, vote for us Los Osos, everything will be just great" A serious set of balls there, you think 1:29?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:15 PM, August 18, 2006  

  • Thanks once again for telling us the old, worn out, yet TRUE story of why we are where we are today. Los Osos was screwed, big time. Everyone knows it. Everyone. If everyone would support a new project out-of-town then we might be able to solve this thing. Everyone needs to get behind it. I lived in Arcata, Ca before settling and buying property here. They also had a huge, contentitious sewer situation up there. But THEY AGREED on a progressive, environmentally-friendly ponding system. It is very nice. Award-winning, in fact. I don't get this place. People want a sewer in the town? It is bizarre to me. Bizarre. Ron, who is the beautiful feline featured in this piece? And...my $ is in the mail. Thanks again.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:21 PM, August 18, 2006  

  • Hi Anon Above,

    Sorry you feel this way. But rest assured that this issue will soon be out of Los Osos's hands and resolved by County. Then we all may get on with our lives.

    Regards, Richard LeGros

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:18 PM, August 18, 2006  

  • I hope you are right. God forbid the County go down another horrible road. They need to present us with something we can all get behind. If they do, it will be so much easier. Thanks for your response and for your service, Richard.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:23 PM, August 18, 2006  

  • Recalled in Disgrace, reduced to talking bullshit and "balls" on a blog. Diddling with the Tri W Trolls
    So afraid that someone may yet really get at the truth...
    Great political choices AND community service deeds led him here.
    Thanks for helping wreck our town, crony.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:51 PM, August 18, 2006  

  • sigh.

    It is truly sad to waste such a great opportunity. Imagine ....

    > ... the State Water Resources Control Board's Division of Financial Assistance had approved funding for, among other things, an amphitheater, community gardens, dog park, play fields and a huge "decorative Wave Wall."

    I keep thinking how beautiful that would have been. A real jewel for the community. And best of all, the state was going to pay for a huge part of it!!! What a shame. I keep dreaming about walking around a beautiful greenspace park with my honey, a great place to meet and chat with others in the community, listening to music, theater and other presentations in the amphitheater, a place to garden and grow fresh vegetables for the supper table, a safe place for the grand-kids to play when they visit, quality doggie social time with my dog, a central place to park and enjoy a budding downtown district. Laguna Beach eat your heart out! We got our Sewer Park! Dang, we almost it had it all too. On the cheap too. Subsidized SRF funds and environmental overrides to make it all possible. What a beautiful idyllic dream. I suppose it was just too good to be true, eh? It took a perfect storm of governmental incompetence by a number of agencies and truly inspired chutzpah by our local CSD leadership to make it happen and indeed it almost happened. So close. All we had to do was embrace it. Sure, I felt a little guilty about bypassing those environmental issues and knocking down the trees - I always feel bad about chopping down trees - but look what we were going to get for it. At least this time we were going to get something good instead of just another housing development or shopping center which was able to buy off those same agencies. This time the community was getting the best of it. Los Osos was finally going to have a sewer and the sewer wars would be over. We were finally going to get the RWQRB off our asses. No more threats of fines and CDO's. All we had to do was accept a short-sighted poorly designed sewer. It probably wasn't the best long term solution for clean water and environmental security but look at all we were getting. So close, so close. We had the permits. We had the designs. Yeah, we were probably paying too much for the highly inflated building contracts but we also had the easy money to pay for em so that's a wash. We leveled Tri-W and we planted a lot of pipe so we were irrevocably committed. Nothing could stop us. Not even that bothersome recall election. Man, we were so close!

    And now we've lost the SRF loan, CDO's are imminent, probably going to be pumping our septic tanks for who knows how long, possibly still more fines, the CSD is bankrupt, and each and every one of those agencies who got duped are truly and thoroughly pissed. The contractors, legal firms (past & present) and a whole passel of others - including previous members of the LOCSD as well as other neighbors - are suing the community for many millions. The county may or may not take over and the sewer will probably eventually be built at Tri-W more out of spite than because it is the best solution. But without the park, amphitheater, community gardens, playgrounds, dog park, decorative wave wall.and the cheap money to pay for it all. Oh man, this is ugly. How the hell did we get here? We were so close.

    Let's see, there were the group A-types who so cleverly almost pulled this thing off. But even though we've lost the park and all the other goodies, and the funding, and the good-will of the governing agencies, these people still want to put the sewer at Tri-W. Even though its now going to be hugely expensive and it still has all the faults as the original Tri-W design it is, however, permitted and environmental issues have already been oh so cleverly side-stepped so it will be faster to build than any other option. Or, they've become so devotedly committed to Tri-W anything else will represent failure. There were those who just wanted a cheap sewer, any sewer, which would prop up PZ property values and end the building moratorium. Some openly declaring they plan to sell out and leave town once they can profit from such a market readjustment. There were the Move-the-Sewer'ers who simply didn't want a sewer in the middle of town. Any sewer anywhere but there. And there were those who thought Tri-W a poor design which might buy off the agency dogs but was still not a good community solution for pollution, clean water, aquifer protection, water resource management, valley build-out, and energy costs. And of course, there is always a group who simply doesn't care one way or another and can't be bothered with any of it.

    So we've spun and spun and spun around in circles, blowing gobs of money, wasting years of time (read: more gobs of money), and losing any state and county good-will we might have once claimed. Let's now add one more group to this list of players. These are the attritionists. They miss the missed opportunities. They might not have liked the Tri-W sewer, they might not have liked it at all, but they are going to miss that beautiful (and cheap) community resource. They might not have liked the Tri-W sewer but they want the sewer wars to end and a sewer, any sewer, to finally be built. They might have wished that the Tri-W design had been fairly compared to at least one other alternative to prove the claims of cheaper, better and faster. They might have wished for the over-seeing government agencies to do their job and fulfill their obligations with appropriate skill and professionalism. They might have wished for the same from our elected representatives such as county commissioners and CSD board members. But wishing has accomplished nothing and now any path to an end to this ugly war of attrition looks good. Who cares anymore? There is nothing to save or protect anymore. Just plant a sewer and be done with it. We can't deal with its future ramifications any worse than we've dealt with the sewer itself. So let's get on with it. Do whatever. And we'll deal with the future when it lands in our laps.

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 9:44 AM, August 19, 2006  

  • PS - checks in the mail.

    (I really hate that phrase but what else can I say. Other than thank you and I appreciate your journalism. Its always a good read.)

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 9:53 AM, August 19, 2006  

  • Ron asks whether he has proven anything yet.

    Don't know. It will take a while to read through what he has written. Honestly, I don't expect much because I've learned that expecting much from Ron causes disappointment.

    Ron ... let me say again that whe you can seriously discuss the financial issues you should let us know. Until then I'm going to treat your postings and comments on your postings as something I'll do after the daily Sudoku but before taking out the garbage.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 1:58 PM, August 19, 2006  

  • Ahhhh, the Ron versus Shark and Spectator and .... dance. (Forgive me if you are slighted by being left out. Pick a number and get in line.)

    Ron > Hey Shark, have I proven it yet?

    Forget about it. No Ron, you haven't proven anything to Shark or even to the rest of us. That's the wrong question to ask. Short of a highly detailed, comprehensive, line-item spreadsheet cost analysis comparing any alternative(s) to similar Tri-W data you're never gonna get an attaboy from Shark. Silly me, isn't that the kind of content the LOCSD should have provided? Any of the LOCSD panels? We're finally gettting some pretty good stuff from Richard LeGros - about 2 to 3 years too late. All the rest of the output from any of the LOCSD configurations seems to fall more into agenda targetting than factual comparative analysis. Your job isn't to fill in for these failures and this lack. You're a reporter. A muck-racker of sorts. Your job isn't to engineer a solution. Your job is to hold those who are supposed to be engineering a solution accountable. Personally, I think you've done a pretty good job. Yeah, at times your commentary seems a bit strident and repetitive. Some people think the ryhthm of a drum boring and repetitive. But sometimes in politics, especially in intransigent protracted and protected interest politics, a boring repetitive drum beat is required. One drum strike seldom changes anything. One refrain of similar rhythm seldom changes anything. But a constantly beating drum eventually draws attention to it. It would be great if you could provide what Shark and Spectator want. Hell, it would great if anybody could provide what they want. Ripley comes closests and they got paid big bucks for it. And still the issue is open to discussion and argument. Don't think that you are ever going to prove anything to their expectations.

    Shark > No Ron, you haven't "proven" anything other than you disagree with the decisions made by past LOCSD Boards as those boards followed the CEQA process. Nothing earth-shattering here; nor grounds for a Grand Jury investigation.

    Yep, that's about right. Except I believe your reporting has exposed interesting abberations in what Shark seems to think is good and due process. Curious that. Seems everybody in the world - various government agencies, other CSD boards, all the citizens of Los Osos, as well as the citizens and elected representatives of SLO county - feel deceived and are curiously mad about one or many aspects of this process. Where there is a hell of a lot of smoke there is probably at least a little fire. All we expect of you is to follow the smoke. Therein lies the rub. What is expected of a journalist? Even a freelance journalist working for a pittance? You have dug deep into some pretty interesting stuff. Deeper than any other blogger. You have exposed some pretty queer developments. I can't help but wonder what your critics expect of you. Where you live should have no bearing what-so-ever on what you report about. That is sooooo lame. People may not agree or even like what you are saying but to suggest you shouldn't be saying it is simply stupid, dumb and dumber.

    Truth is I don't know what are grounds for a Grand Jury investigation. There probably is a precise legal definition of such grounds. I can't help but think there are probable grounds for some kind of investigation here. I daresay most Grand Jury investigations are commenced ONLY AFTER some populace has become so fed up with the queer and quirky and suspicious nature of something that they force a Grand Jury investigation. Not all Grand Jury investigations end up exposing malfeasance but all Grand Jury investigations begin with such suspicions. Me, I'm serioulsy suspicious.

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 4:55 PM, August 19, 2006  

  • PG ... the last quote you attribute to me was from someon else entirely.

    As to your suggestion that Ron has dug the deepest into what's gone on ... I would suggest that while you are definitely right, he's only followed one vein of this mine and that he's followed ... by choice ... the least profitable vein.

    Once the whole story is known I believe that while Pandora will be viewed with suspicion, Julie will be viewed as a villian.

    I could be wrong in that suspicion, but I do know that when one does car repairs for a living, one at least asks permission of the owner before starting on expensive repairs ... especially ones that are not necessary.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 5:37 PM, August 19, 2006  

  • Dear Shark,
    Sorry, my mistake. You are correct, I mis-attributed you on that last one. I always make a sincere effort to quote and attribute other people as precisely as possible. I goofed on this one. I got caught in the context and missed the authors. Thanks for bringing my error to my attention. Truly.

    Now, with that said, tell me you weren't at least thinking it ;-)

    And I did suggest that Ron's focus was, how did I put it, often "a bit strident and repetitive". I have also previously suggested that Ron sometimes seems a bit preoccupied with certain people. PNK in particular. And that this intense and relentless focus sometimes gets in the way of his story. Of course, often that is THE story. And I gotta admit there seems to be a lot of story there. Whether he's choosing to follow the least profitable vein is still to be decided. I suppose that depends on how you calculate profit. Ron's style of journalism is more expose than 'just-the-facts-ma'm'. He's not a stringer for The Triv - thankfully. Which is why I find his commentary unique, insightful and entertaining. Truth is, I've learned more about the in's and out's of this sewer brouhaha from Ann, Ron and the bloggers on their blogs (which includes you and Spectator and Publicworks and Richard and a host of anon's) than I've ever learned from the more 'legitimate' reporting by The Triv. That right there probably says something about me. And about The Triv. And I'm not ashamed to say it. This is the new journalism. It requires a little more effort and a lot more discernment. But I think the returns are much greater too. If I depended on The Triv to tell me what I needed to know about the sewer wars I'd be hopelessly lost indeed.

    > Once the whole story is known I believe that while Pandora will be viewed with suspicion, Julie will be viewed as a villain.

    All shades of gray. I'm on other distribution lists so I get to peak at Julie's dirty laundry too. As well as others. Heaven knows there is more than enough suspicion and villainy to go around. I'll not even try to suggest which is just suspicious and which is more villainous. Why bother? They both suck. (Note, I think both of them are very likely perfectly fine people. I've listened to each speak and I've spoken to both. In another situation I'm sure I would enjoy both of them and find their company delightful. I look forward to that someday. Really. But within the context of these sewers wars I'd prefer to keep my distance. I don't trust either one of them to do anything but aggressively and somewhat blindly push their sewer agenda. I find Julie's take a little more transparently ugly. I find Pandora's take a little more deceitful and Machiavellian. Choose your poison.)

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 8:07 PM, August 19, 2006  

  • PG ... you've got some good insight.

    I view Pandora and Julie much the same way you do.

    However, in this case, at least those on the one side actually got something done and we could have had a WWTF for only $200/month (and as Richard points out, for probably only a bit over $100/month had Julie not delayed things by a year or two).

    Now the pricetag is well into the $300 range and if you're going to chalk up dollar amounts to various names of various players it is probably fair to give Pandora the increase from $80 (the County) to $130 (what TriW would have cost had it not been for Al and Julie) and Julie and her team gets the rest of the tab.

    Essentially the TriW plan is no where near as flawed as some would have us believe. No matter how much one might insist that the TriW plan was "illegal", there have been no legal decisions that would verify that contention ... in fact, just the opposite has been true ... every judge has sided with the legality of what the previous board had done.

    Yes ... you pick your poison and if the choices are manipulative or clueless we've got a poor set of choices. Even so, I think that taking both poisons, one after the other, is far worse than taking just one poison.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 3:00 PM, August 20, 2006  

  • An Anon said:

    "I lived in Arcata, Ca before settling and buying property here."

    I just can't help but think of the new-comers to Los Osos... say, that arrived within the past two to three years, and they're just now discovering that the previous sewer project had to be located downtown so it could also double as an amphitheater and park.

    Think about that. All I can think of is them saying, "They were going to do what? An amphitheater in our sewer plant? Are you freaking kidding me?"

    Yep, new-comers -- an elaborate park in your sewer plant, and the sewer plant had to be downtown so you could get to it. Welcome to Los Osos, folks.

    "Ron, who is the beautiful feline featured in this piece?"

    Beats me. I did a search on Google Images for the word "begging," and that was one of the first pics to show up. It made me laugh, so I swiped it.

    "And...my $ is in the mail. Thanks again."

    Muchos Gracias.

    Another Anon said:

    "I cannot believe that you have concocted an entire website out of a single little article in a backwater freebee rag several years ago...."

    I started SewerWatch when I was editing the Bay Breeze in the mid-to-late-nineties. Every two weeks for two years (I believe) I would personally contact all the people and agencies that were involved in the process and get their updates. That included CAWS, the Solution Group, the County, the RWQCB, the Coastal Commission, Questa Engineering, and more. All of that gave me a unique insight to this great story.

    "... and think you should still be cashing in on it."

    Yep... all that cash that freelance blogging on a story that affects a small community brings in. Cabrillo Estates, here I come.

    "... ignoring the fact that the Coastal Commission and other agencies involved required this park, as part of their approval."

    Three words (stop me if you've heard them before): "Bait-and-switchy"

    PG-13 said:

    "It took a perfect storm of governmental incompetence by a number of agencies and truly inspired chutzpah by our local CSD leadership to make it happen..."

    There was one more very key thing that made it happen. The local media blackout of the failure of the Community Plan. That was key. If any of the local media, and that includes New Times, had followed up on my New Times cover story, Problems With the Solution, in 2000, your community would have been outraged, and it's very likely that none of this would have happened. Without that crucial coverage, it appeared that it was business as usual at the CSD. It wasn't.

    "The county may or may not take over and the sewer will probably eventually be built at Tri-W more out of spite than because it is the best solution. But without the park..."

    I love this part of the story. They can't build there without the park, because it was the only reason Tri-Dub was selected in the first place. No park, no reason to build at Tri-Dub. They weaved a very tangled web. I wrote about all that here.

    "They might have wished for the over-seeing government agencies to do their job and fulfill their obligations with appropriate skill and professionalism."

    I believe there's a legal term for that, and I think it's something like "Breach of Fiduciary Duty." Los Osos, if you want to go on the offensive, that's something you might want to look in to.

    "PS - checks in the mail."

    Muchos Gracias.

    Shark said:

    "Ron ... let me say again that whe you can seriously discuss the financial issues..."

    Shark, let me say to you again, cost issues involving Tri-Dub are irrelevant. Would you build a mansion on a shaky foundation?

    PG-13 said:

    "Forget about it. No Ron, you haven't proven anything to Shark or even to the rest of us. That's the wrong question to ask. "

    When I posted that above, that's a little inside joke. Shark's always saying that I haven't proven that the park was the only reason for the Tri-W selection. First, I have proven that with all of my previous evidence, the committee known as Shark Inlet simply can't admit that because they know what that entails. The SOC is just another overwhelming piece of evidence that shows: No park, no Tri-Dub. Los Osos, you got screwed.

    Shark:

    "... one at least asks permission of the owner before starting on expensive repairs..."

    9-27-05

    PG-13:

    "I think both of them are very likely perfectly fine people."

    I completely agree with that. Just because I report on the ugly things that Nash-Karner has done in Los Osos over the last 10 years, doesn't mean I don't think she's a fine person.

    Heck, she generously contributes to KCBX, and KCBX gives me Amy Goodman every weekday. For that, I say, "Thank you, Pandora!"

    Greg said:

    "For those with a close-up lens on this stuff, Ron can be repetitive. But he must be, to make it clear to the casual readers just what the actual players have done and when they did it."

    I am a huge fan of focus, and staying on message. Thanks for the comment, Greg. Good to see you in SewerWatch.

    Shark:

    "No matter how much one might insist that the TriW plan was "illegal", there have been no legal decisions that would verify that contention..."

    Yet.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:47 AM, August 21, 2006  

  • *PG-13 >> The county may or may not take over and the sewer will probably eventually be built at Tri-W more out of spite than because it is the best solution. But without the park...

    Ron > I love this part of the story. They can't build there without the park, because it was the only reason Tri-Dub was selected in the first place. No park, no reason to build at Tri-Dub. They weaved a very tangled web. I wrote about all that here.

    Oh, if it was only that simple. Sadly, nothing about this sewer dance is simple. If there is one constant in this great debacle it is that absolutely nothing is ever what it seems to be. Nothing. We are all Riverdancing on quicksand. Falling down the rabbit hole - let me see if I've got this straight? Tri-W was pushed through and received coastal commision support because it needed to be a park. Being a park it was able to side-step all site environmental controls on development. With this pass Tri-W was granted SRF funds to build Tri-W. But the SRF funds were illegally allocated because such funds can't pay for parks. Still, the first SRF check arrived, was desposited, and was used to pay for lawyers and the ensuing lawsuits derived from discontinuing construction at Tri-W. Which puts the LOCSD into bankruptcy as well as fiduciary jeopardy because they spent SRF funds meant to build a park on stopping construction of the of the park. Meanwhile the RWQCB is demanding that a tertiary treatment sewer be built ASAP regardless of engineering or cost considerations. And Tri-W seems to be only permitted sewer available. And now you think just because Tri-Dub was selected because it was a park are grounds for never building a sewer at Tri-W? Which card trumps which card in this crazy deck?

    You're right, this is tangled web. And if it was up to the original players - the LOCSD, the Coastal Commision, the SRF money people and the RWQCB - it might stay tangled. And the history of Tri-W might be meaningful. But now (possibly, presumably) SLO County is on the hook. A park is the last thing SLO County wants. And the SRF people want to extricate themselves from anything reeking of park. And the RWQCB couldn't give a flying **** about any park. Uh, what do think the Coastal Commision thinks about that park? They've already given it a pass and they want it to go away. You think anybody cares a hoot about any of the previous Tri-Dub selection criteria? The county's gonna plant a sewer. The cheapest fastest sewer they can plant. Where do ya think they're gonna plant that sewer? Sorry Ron, I think you've identified loads of interesting stuff and probably enough questionable stuff to warrant a Grand Jury investigation. But the simple truth is they're gonna have a sewer built before a Grand Jury weighs in with any feedback. And that sewer's gonna be at Tri-W ONLY UNLESS the county chooses to STOP and THINK about the real issues: a systemic approach to clean water, water re-use, ag exchange, salt water intrusion, sludge, energy, etc. If the county decides to take a regional perspective and the long view they may yet choose something different than Tri-W. But their decision will not be predicated on anything remotely close to a park.

    Of course, I've been wrong a couple times before .....

    By Blogger *PG-13, at 5:19 PM, August 21, 2006  

  • Ron writes

    Shark said:

    "Ron ... let me say again that whe you can seriously discuss the financial issues..."

    Shark, let me say to you again, cost issues involving Tri-Dub are irrelevant. Would you build a mansion on a shaky foundation?


    Um ... let's go back. You say that Ripley will be cheaper. Richards shows you to be full of crap. You change the subject and say that it doesn't matter.

    Nice discussion of the financial issues that matter to our community. Again, if you are actually interested in discussing anything other than how Pandora hosed Los Osos, let us know.


    Greg said:

    "For those with a close-up lens on this stuff, Ron can be repetitive. But he must be, to make it clear to the casual readers just what the actual players have done and when they did it."

    I am a huge fan of focus, and staying on message. Thanks for the comment, Greg. Good to see you in SewerWatch.


    But Greg ... you seem to keep missing the point that Ron and Ann are on one side of the issue and absolutely refuse to look into the actions of the current players. "News" doesn't entail a detailed recount of the past to the exclusion of stories about the present.



    Shark:

    "No matter how much one might insist that the TriW plan was "illegal", there have been no legal decisions that would verify that contention..."

    Yet.


    Well, when you remember that there have been multiple court cases on the matter it would seem that 10+ losses and no wins would make one think that the project was essentially on solid legal ground. Again, you make the claim that there will be legal problems. I will believe you when it happens. (Note: I write "I" becuase you refer to me as a committee ... unless you meant a committee of one, you are mistaken.)

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 9:06 AM, August 22, 2006  

  • PG-13 said:

    "And that sewer's gonna be at Tri-W ONLY UNLESS the county chooses to STOP and THINK about the real issues..."

    I'm confident they will do that, and the reason I say that is because their professional reputations are at stake. If they build a sewer plant in the middle of a beautiful coastal town for no other reason than so the town-folk can easily get to the amphitheater and tot lot in the sewer plant, they will be the laughing stock of every civil engineer in the state. (Also, they are going to have a hell of time getting the SRF loan back for that park project.)

    A few months ago, I interviewed a State public works planner that has nothing to do with Los Osos, but he does oversee other major public works projects throughout California. He couldn't believe the Tri-W project made it as far as it did with all the park crap in it... just couldn't believe. His quote to me was something like, "It appears that project didn't receive the level of scrutiny it deserved."

    "But their decision will not be predicated on anything remotely close to a park."

    For Los Osos' sake, I sure hope not. That also means they won't/can't build at Tri-Dub. The development permit, as approved, won't allow it.

    Sharky says:

    "Um ... let's go back. You say that Ripley will be cheaper. Richards shows you to be full of crap."

    Ummm... let's go back:

    Ripley = Reputable wastewater engineering firm.

    Richard = Recalled board member that supported an expensive, illogical downtown sewer plant so it could also include an amphitheater and a place to take the kids.

    What's the better source? Gotta go with the former on that one.

    (Plus Richard badly skews his numbers by putting the cost of "bait and switchy" and an invalid SOC on Rip's plan. Totally unfair.)

    As I've said before, what's the point of discussing cost at Tri-Dub? Cheaper? More Expensive? It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. The only reason to put it there proved to be invalid. The discussion ends there.

    Shark, considering your poor carpentry skills, allow me to give you a tip: You don't build a mansion on a flimsy foundation.

    Shark:

    "Well, when you remember that there have been multiple court cases on the matter..."

    None of them on the stuff I've been reporting on.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:14 AM, August 22, 2006  

  • Here's the funny thing, Ron ... as Richard pointed out (and perhaps you didn't read) the Ripley project cost analysis was by comparing their estimated project costs in 2006 dollars to the TriW project bids. If inflation is figured into the equation, the Ripley project is more expensive. Ripley even knows this. He just chose not to include it in his presentation.

    Oh yeah, as was also pointed out, the Ripley project would need to be changed considerably to meet RWQCB standards.

    Just to prove you didn't read Richard's analysis comparing our TriW costs now to our Ripley costs now you tell us that Richard didn't toss Julie's Fiasco ($40M in debt due to the actions of this board) in the TriW costs. Nope. Richard added the costs of financing that to both projects.

    By the way, the fact that Richard has been recalled doesn't suggest that his numbers shouldn't be trusted ... just that the people who voted him out of office paid more attention to deceptive campaigning than to the facts. Hell, if Richard's take was as slanted as you suggest, even you, someone who isn't good at math, should be able to figure out an error. Nope, his analysis is as solid as you'll see from anyone at this stage.

    Ron, you are like the guy who compares the cost of a single strawberries to a single apple and concludes that strawberries are less expensive than apples. Well, in terms that matter ... by the pound ... many of us would make the choice to buy apples.

    What absolutely amazes me, Ron, is that you insist that your plan is cheaper and ... when it's shown to be more expensive ... you say that it doesn't matter anyways and that you're going to insist that we go with your plan even though it will cost more.

    Ron, some folks like strawberries more than apples, but if the community ... as a whole ... is voting for a single fruit that will be provided to everyone ... doesn't it seem sort of rude to insist we all pay more just because you, someone who doesn't even live 'round here, like strawberries more than apples?

    Ron, I want you to tell my friends and neighbors who will have to move out of town that you are gladly forcing them out of their homes because you don't want them to pay just $200/month but that you want them to pay more like $300 ... because back in 2005 that is what you were arguing that we do.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 8:48 AM, August 24, 2006  

  • Shark,

    With all due respect, I think you chose the wrong winner of whom is "full of crap" the most.

    Richard is truly the winner. Just because he threw some numbers on his Excel program, you deem him the unchallenged and true purveyor of all things financial.

    His financial "report" made about as much sense as yours did.....all "guestiments".

    Why do you have such a problem accepting the fact that he is a LOSER in every in all stages of life......well, maybe his Mommy loves him....or is he your son?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:47 PM, September 18, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home