To paraphrase Ann Calhoun paraphrasing Ricky Ricardo, "2001 Los Osos Community Services District? Joooooo gotta lotta 'splainin' to dooooooo..."
"Everything old is new againEverything under the sun"
-- Barenaked Ladies
It's all comes full circle, doesn't it? Things I reported on three years ago, are all of a sudden completely relevant today.
In 2004, I wrote a cover story for New Times, titled, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown (readers of this blog may have seen me refer to that story once or twice).
In that piece, I showed, using documents straight from the Los Osos Community Services District, that the only reason a mid-town parcel known as the Tri-W site was selected for the location of the town's sewer plant in 2001, was so the community could easily access the small public park found in the project. And, to make matters worse, I also showed how there was no reason whatsoever to include a public park in the Los Osos sewer plant in the first place.
These days, now that the county has control over the project, and it's their turn to mull over where to build the sewer plant, I find myself thinking about Three Blocks a lot, because the official documents that are coming out now from the county are in stark contrast to the official LOCSD documents that I cite in that story.
For example, the following is an excerpt from Three Bocks (keep in mind, I wrote this three years ago), and notice where the quotes are coming from. I lifted them straight from the official Tri-W project report, that the LOCSD created... using Los Osos taxpayer money.
I mean, look at these quotes. What the f--k? In the context of 2007, they just leave me shaking my head:
From Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown:
- - -
- ... it seems, that, from the outset, the centrally located "Tri-W" site was the site of choice because it was close to town and could accommodate a park. The sewer was going there... no matter what.
Any doubts? Consider these statements lifted straight from the facilities report:
“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 in the manner that a central location such as Resource Park (Tri-W) could.”
and;
“Although the Turri site would have less potential environmental impacts, its distance from the center of town precluded it from providing a community amenity in the form of a public use area.”
and;
“(The Andre site) is 1.5 miles from the edge of the community and would not be able to provide the community with a readily accessible recreational area... On a non-cost basis this site was viewed as less favorable than the Resource Park site.”
and;
“Following is a description of the benefits of the project...:
• Creates a Community Amenity and Visual Resource
... the wastewater treatment facility will be constructed and landscaped to maximize active and passive recreational space in the center of the community. Not only will this provide aesthetic benefits, but it will also provide park space for local schools and community groups near the existing community center.”
and;
“It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect these strongly held community values.”
One of those "strongly held community values":
“Creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community...”
“The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity?” Are you kidding me? With that logic, why even consider other potential sites at all?
- - -
Damn, that's good stuff.
What a great question: If the size and location of the other out-of-town sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity, then why even study those sites at all? What a complete waste of time and money.
But it's that "strongly held community value" take that just kills me. And that is STRAIGHT from the Tri-W project report.
It's absurd. It's saying that the community of Los Osos "strongly" wants a centrally located park in their sewer plant, so it can double as a "visual and recreational asset to the community," even if it means that the community has to pay an extra $35 million to make the centrally located sewer plant "urban compatible."
That is absolutely ridiculous on the face of it, but to make things worse -- much, much worse -- there isn't a shred of evidence that supports that extraordinary claim, obviously. (I wish I had a way of showing that, but it's very hard to show something that doesn't exist. However, every piece of evidence that would show a "community value" -- like election results and public opinion polls -- shows that the exact opposite community value existed in 2001, of course.)
About six months after the publication of Three Blocks, I was on the phone with Steve Monowitz, chief-staff-guy from the California Coastal Commission, and I asked him what his office pointed to as their source of the so-called "strongly held community value."
He said, "Like what?"
And I said, "Steve, at this stage of the game, I'll take anything."
He conceded that he couldn't point to a source, and then added, "It was inappropriate of me to rely on Solution Group members to determine community values for Los Osos."
Los Osos, that quote is at the core of your train wreck.
[Note: I also asked him if the CSD had notified him about the evidence that showed that the "strongly held community value" probably did NOT exist -- evidence like the 1997 election results that showed Los Osos, while staring down a gigantic sewer assessment, was in no mood to start shelling out millions of dollars for public recreation. Monowitz said, "No."]
The Solution Group was a citizen-based group that in 1998 proposed a "better, cheaper, faster" sewer alternative to what the county was proposing at the time. Their project was advertised at "a maximum monthly payment of $38.75," and would include a series of passive, relatively inexpensive, "drop dead gorgeous" ponds that offered "future recreational opportunities," but did not include a public park, to be built at the Tri-W location. That project was the overwhelming tipping-factor in the election that formed the LOCSD in 1998 with 87-percent of the vote -- yet, two years later, it would fail in dramatic, but very, very quiet fashion.
The project report I quote in Three Blocks was for the LOCSD's second project -- a not-so-drop-dead-gorgeous, MUCH-more-than-38-bucks-a-month, industrial sewer plant, and the only reason -- the ONLY rationale -- that the 2001 Los Osos CSD supplied for siting their second project at the Tri-W location -- the same site as their first project, the project that got them elected -- was, you guessed it... the "strongly held community value" for “creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community...”
Now, let's consider some of the official documents that the county is releasing these days.
Nowhere, not in one single document, does it mention a "strongly held community value" for "creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."
In fact, the only document I've seen where the amenities issue is discussed comes from the county's project director, Paavo Ogren, when he recently wrote, "... the objectives that tilted the scale in favor of this site (Tri-W) may no longer have the weight they were given when the site was originally selected. In other words, “amenities”, like community parks, will not obscure the goals of providing the most efficient and cost effective solution to wastewater and groundwater problems."
(By the way, Ogren got that wrong. "The objectives that tilted the scale in favor of Tri-W" NEVER had the weight they were given when the site was originally selected, as Monowitz now knows.)
Think about what happened there for a sec. It's so interesting.
For more than four years, the LOCSD told regulators that Los Osos voters would not accept any sewer plant that didn't also double as a centrally located recreational asset, yet, now that the county has control of the project, that critical, critical criterion isn't mentioned anywhere, and no one from Los Osos is saying a word in protest.
Where are all the people that "strongly" held that value? Why aren't they showing up at Supervisor meetings these days demanding that the county select Tri-W because it's the only site that can also double as a "centrally located" "recreational asset?"
What in the hell happened to Los Ososans between 2001 and 2007? Why are they SO different today?
Or, could it be that the 2001 LOCSD knew all along that there never was a "strongly held community value," and just manufactured that excuse in order to give them a reason to retain their second project at Tri-W in an effort to obfuscate the fact that their first project, the one that got them elected and the LOCSD formed in the first place, had failed?
It's sure starting to look that way.
However, it wasn't just the Los Osos CSD that was saying things like, “The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity."
Oh, no. They had company in that concept. The California Coastal Commission.
In the now-expired Tri-W Coastal Development Permit, issued by the Commission in 2004, it reads:
"... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the 2001 Los Osos CSD Board of Directors) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."
Yep. That's exactly what it says. Page 89. Look it up yourself.
Can you believe that?
No?
Fair enough. I don't blame ya. I admit, it is hard to believe, so here's the screen shot of the page in the CDP that says that:
You have that right, dear reader. Every single other sewer plant location was rejected because they could not accomplish some nonsensical, completely unsubstantiated, project objective for centrally located community amenities.
That's the most ridiculous, stupidest, official government thing I've ever seen, and that's saying something.
Plus, and this is great, do you see the word "reincorporate" in that paragraph? That's huge.
The reason that word is in there is because when the 2001 LOCSD was trying to force their second project into Tri-W so no one, at least the local media, would notice that their first project had failed, they not only told the Commission about the "strongly held community value" for the park-in-a-sewer-plant, they also showed them a site plan that included the park amenities that the community was allegedly "strongly" demanding.
Here it is... this is the exact graphic that the LOCSD showed the Coastal Commission in 2001:
See all that stuff in there? That's things like an amphitheater, tot lot, picnic area, all kinds of gardens, a bridge, and a bunch of other expensive park amenities.
But, get this, after the Los Osos CSD convinced the Commission to sign-off on the Tri-W site (that's what that "LCP Amendment 3-01" document is all about in the graphic above... it was a BIG deal) due solely to the "strongly held community value" for all those park amenities shown in the site plan, the District immediately removed almost the entire park element from the project.
Let's stop and recap for a moment... because it's amazing what happened: In 2001, the Los Osos CSD got the California Coastal Commission to sign-off on the Tri-W site due solely to the park that the community allegedly "strongly" valued, and then immediately ripped the park out of the plan because they didn't have any money to pay for it.
Amazing.
THEN -- and here's where it all went south -- when they returned to the Commission, three years later, to get their CDP, they showed up with THIS site plan:
I realize the graphic is small, but if you look closely, all of that stuff that was in the previous graphic, like an amphitheater, tot lot, picnic area, all kinds of gardens, a bridge, and a bunch of other expensive park amenities, has gone-a-missin'!
Imagine the Coastal Commission's surprise in 2004 when they looked at that graphic.
They were not happy, understandably.
One Commissioner, Dave Potter, even went so far as to call the LOCSD "bait and switchy" for the District's scheme to get the Commission to sign-off on the Tri-W site in 2001 due to the so-called "strongly held community value" for all the amenities, only to have that same District immediately strip the amenities from the plan.
And that's where the word "reincorporate" comes into play. The Commission wasn't about to let a sneaky little CSD move forward with a major public works project at the environmentally sensitive Tri-W location, when the only rationale behind the project's siting was gutted from the plan immediately after gaining their approval, three years earlier.
The Coastal Commission told the LOCSD that they couldn't move forward with the Tri-W project without the amenities in the plan (an odd decision, to say the least. They should have just denied the permit right then and there. It would have been completely understandable).
As readers of this blog know, the Los Osos CSD voted to unanimously "reincorporate" the amenities in June of 2004, just like the CDP says.
Their other option? Select another site... out of town, something the Coastal Commission wanted all along, because the out-of-town sites were shown to be "environmentally preferable," according to the project's Environmental Impact Report.
According to recent county documents, the cost to keep the sewer plant at an in-town location, as opposed to an out-of-town location, is more than $35 million due to all of the extra technology required to accommodate a mid-town site.
Wow. Now we have a figure. The "strongly held community value" cost more than $35 million.
O.k... so, in summary, here's what we're looking at:
In 2001, the LOCSD wrote in the Tri-W project report:
"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..."
And, in 2004, the California Coastal Commission wrote:
..."other alternatives were rejected (by the 2001 LOCSD Board of Directors) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities..."
I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Clearly, the park was the ONLY reason Tri-W was selected for the District's second project. TWO different official documents, one from the Coastal Commission, and one from the LOCSD itself, confirm that fact.
And, if you think it through, considering the situation today, it's the ONLY thing that makes sense.
According to recent county documents, the Tri-W site is the most expensive site in the area for a sewer plant... by far, it is saddled with a host of environmental problems, including the fact that it's Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, according to county documents, and it's "divisive" to the community.
So, with a resumé like that, why-oh-why was it selected in the first... errrrrr... second place?
There's only one plausible answer left standing: The "strongly held community value" for a centrally located park in the sewer plant.
So, where's the "strongly held community value?"
What in the hell happened?
To paraphrase Ann Calhoun paraphrasing Ricky Ricardo, "2001 Los Osos Community Services District? Joooooo gotta lotta 'splainin' to dooooooo."
###
If you want to read a fun companion piece to this story, click here. In that post, I show how "bait and switchy" actually paid off for the LOCSD because it ensured that State taxpayers would fund the millions of dollars worth of amenities shown in the 2001 site plan, because State officials erroneously considered the park "mitigation," "mandated" by the Coastal Commission, and made the decision to fund the amenities with State funds.
If it wasn't for "bait and switchy," State taxpayers would not have been stuck with that bill. What a slap to the face of every California taxpayer. We can all thank the staff of the State Water Resources Control Board's Division of Financial Assistance for that one, simply because they were too lazy (or incompetent) to pick up a phone and call Steve Monowitz, and ask him if the Coastal Commission "mandated" the park as some type of "mitigation."
By the way, the answer to that question is, "No."
What a joke. Bureaucracy at its finest.
- - -
Don't forget to support independent journalism. Those donations really help motivate me to stay on this story.... details are on the right towards the top of this blog. Muchos gracias!
posted by Ron at
6:53 PM
|
24 comments
