3... 2... 1... Buh-Bye Tri-W

Let me see if I have this sequence of events straight:

Last Tuesday, August 7, at the County Board of Supervisors meeting, every single county official, from every staff member on up to all the Supervisors, essentially say, "Look, we don't want anything to do with that embarrassing, unpopular, probably illegal, expensive, mid-town Tri-W sewer plant mess."

And then on Wednesday, August 8, the very next day, an official county report is released that shows that the Tri-W project is an embarrassing, unpopular, definitely illegal, expensive, mid-town sewer plant mess.

What an amazing coincidence.

If you haven't seen it, the county's Technical Advisory Committee has released their Pro/Con Analysis (pdf file / 509k) for viable sewer options in Los Osos, and it's just flat-out embarrassing for the Tri-W project, and it was released ONE DAY after county supervisors, following their staff's recommendation, ruled to NOT extend the Tri-W coastal development permit (CDP) -- a permit that had over $24 million thrown at it by the previous LOCSD Boards -- even though to request the extension would have been relatively easy to do, and wouldn't have cost taxpayers a thing, other than a little staff time.

Just a guess, but something tells this reporter that county supervisors caught wind of the TAC's pro/con report long before their meeting on Tuesday.

[Interesting note: In his cover letter, TAC chairperson, Bill Garfinkel, writes, "The final report will be online by Wednesday (August 8)." However, the date on the report's cover is August 6, 2007. The day before the Supervisors' meeting.]

First things first...

When the Tri-W CDP expires at 11:59:59 p.m., August 11th (tonight), as it will due to the non-actions of county supervisors last Tuesday, then at 12:00:01 a.m., August 12th, the Tri-W project -- a project that has ripped the community fabric of Los Osos apart over the past six years -- needs to immediately be removed from consideration as a possible location for a sewer plant in Los Osos. Why? According to official documents, it is illegal to build a sewer plant at that location.

Here's how:

In the Pro/Con Analysis, one of the many, many "cons" for the Tri-W site is:

"ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"

That single "con" makes it illegal to build a sewer plant at the Tri-W site, because in the Tri-W CDP -- the permit that supervisors just let die on the vine last Tuesday -- it reads:

"(Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance) Section 23.08.288d allows public facilities within ESHA only where there is no other feasible location." (page 42)

I'm going to repeat that. It gets a little tricky here, and I want to make this as clear as possible, because this is a very important point.

Again, according to the staff of the California Coastal Commission:

"CZLUO Section 23.08.288d allows public facilities within ESHA only where there is no other feasible location."

So, do you see what's happening there? One government agency, the Coastal Commission, is saying that, according to state law, a sewer plant (a.k.a: public facility) can't be built where there's ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area), and another government agency -- the County of San Luis Obispo -- is saying that the Tri-W site is nothing but ESHA, "sensitive dune habitat." Apparently, the only thing needed now to make it illegal to build a sewer plant at the Tri-W location is another "feasible location" for the plant.

So, is there one?

According to the TAC, there are THREE, and not one of them contains an ounce of "sensitive dune habitat" or ESHA, according to the report, and they are ALL out of town, downwind, can accommodate a facility that will be much cheaper to build and operate, will use much less energy, and they are all much, much cheaper lots than Tri-W.

Time to run down the "Why Tri-W is Illegal" check list:

Tri-W on ESHA? Check.

Other feasible locations that don't include ESHA? Check.

Illegal to build a sewer plant on ESHA when there are other non-ESHA sites available? Checkmate!

Buh-bye, Tri-W. Been nice knowin' ya.

Now, what in the hell happened? How did an illegal project get permitted? I know the answer to that question, but the District Attorney's office needs to know the answer to that question, and I don't think they do. Investigation time, methinks, and strengthening my argument for an official investigation into what happened with the Tri-W project, is all of the other embarrassing information found in the pro/con analysis regarding that ridiculous "bait and switchy" project.

For example:

"(Tri-W's) downtown location (near library, church, community center) and the high density residential area require that the most expensive treatment technology, site improvements and odor controls be employed."

and;

"It has high construction costs..." ($55 million. The next highest treatment facility option is estimated at $19 million.)

and;

"Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

"Small acreage and location in downtown center of towns (sic) require most expensive treatment"

and;

"higher costs overall"

and;

"Limited flexibility for future expansion, upgrades, or alternative energy"

and;

"Source of community divisiveness"

and;

"All sites are tributary to the Morro Bay National Estuary and pose a potential risk in the event of failure. Tri-W poses a higher risk..."

and;

"NOTE: It was the unanimous opinion of the (National Water Research Institute) that an out of town site is better due to problematic issues with the downtown site."

and;

"ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"

Highly embarrassing. No wonder every single county official couldn't distance themselves fast enough from the Tri-W mess last Tuesday.

Paavo Ogren, of the public works department, and director of the TAC, said, "We (the county) didn't develop the (Tri-W) project." Ouch!

Even one of its few "pros" isn't a pro at all. Pro: "The advantages of the Tri-W site are that it is central to the collection system."

Their reasoning for calling that a "pro" is that it saves money because everything doesn't need to be pumped out of town, and that saves energy. But that's a ridiculous argument, because, according to their own numbers, building the treatment facility in town adds over $30 million to the cost to make it "urban compatible."

According to past LOCSD documents, the cost of the energy to pump everything about a mile or so out of town is about $30,000 a year.

Where's my calculator? Let's see here... $30 million divided by $30,000... yep... that's what I thought. That $30 million bucks worth of "urban compatibility" would pay for 1,000 years of the extra pumping costs.

The TAC even admits that Tri-W has "higher costs overall." So, why do they say things like this: Pro: "Lower cost for collection piping to treatment center"? Nice logic, guys.

It makes no sense, and it looks like they were just trying to show something, anything as a reason why the site was originally selected by the 2001 LOCSD in the first place, when the hard truth is, there was/is no rationale whatsoever behind the Tri-W siting, as the pro/con analysis clearly shows.

So, that's that. Tri-W's D-O-N-E. Someone put a fork in it, please.

It's a very good thing that the project was stopped when it was in 2005, shortly after the recall election, or else the situation would have grown about a thousand times worse than it is today, as that whole "illegal" thing, along with a bunch of other "fatal flaws," would have become crystal clear about half-way through construction.

The county's Technical Advisory Committee meets on Monday, August 13, and one of the agenda items is:

"Presentation of sample projects by County Project Team..."

I have to wonder, what is Tri-W's presentation going to be like?...

"Yea, well, sure the project is illegal, and waaaaay more expensive than the others, and it's got all kinds of environmental issues, and the community hates it, but, hey, it does include a picnic area, tot lot, and amphitheater in the sewer plant."

Hmmm, now that I put it that way, I have to wonder if it will get a presentation at all. What's the point? It's not going to work.

###