Tuesday, December 18, 2007

More Evidence Shows That Additional Analysis of the Tri-W Project is a Waste

County staff needs to dig a little deeper. They're not getting to the nut.

In the staff report for the Los Osos item on today's Board of Supervisors meeting, it discusses why one of the many "protests" to the recent 218 vote isn't a valid protest. This particular protest argues that the mid-town-sewer-plant Tri-W project is still considered a "viable project alternative" by county officials, and that somehow tainted the 218 process. The report counters the protest with this:

"Since the Tri-W project has proven to be a viable project objective by receiving permits, funding and broke ground, it would be inappropriate to remove it from consideration prior to the environmental review process."

However, what they are missing there -- and this is great... because it's key -- is that every single one of those permits that they mention, was based on a "project objective for centrally located community amenities," as I've reported on, repeatedly, over the past three years.

The perfect example of that comes from the staff of the California Coastal Commission, where, in the Tri-W Coastal Development Permit (CDP), it reads:

"... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the LOCSD) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."

On June 21, 2005, I sent then-CSD General Manager, Bruce Buel, an e-mail containing these two questions:

1) What would be the rationale for siting the treatment facility at Tri-W if the "project objective" of "centrally located amenities" was not in the project?

2) Why are "centrally located amenities" a "project objective?"

Buel never replied, of course.

So, look what's happening now, today... this is great: The only way Tri-W was "proven to be a viable project," and therefore retain all of its permits in the first place, was because of the initial Los Osos CSD's "project objective for centrally located community amenities."

However, county officials, in recent documents, have already said they will not develop that same project objective (and, I find it shocking that a county official actually has to say something like: "Na... we will not be including a picnic area and an amphitheater in our sewer plant." Wow, it's come to that, huh?) However, without that project objective, every single Tri-W permit -- its EIR certification, its CDP -- instantly becomes baseless.

So, when county staff now writes, "Since the Tri-W project has proven to be a viable project objective by receiving permits, funding and broke ground, it would be inappropriate to remove it from consideration prior to the environmental review process," that statement is also baseless.

Without the "project objective for centrally located community amenities," the Tri-W project was NEVER proven to be a viable project, and the county ain't developin' a "project objective for centrally located community amenities," which means the county is throwing money and time at a project that, sans a "project objective for centrally located community amenities," was never shown to be permitable.

In the aforementioned staff report, it reads:

"... each project -- including Tri-W -- will have numerous reviews..."

I wonder what the ballpark cost estimate is for the "numerous reviews" that will take place in 2008 for a "project objective for centrally located community amenities"-less Tri-W project?

Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

I'd ask county officials that question, but I already know they'll never answer it.


Current LOCSD Director, Lisa Schicker, recently wrote a "Viewpoint" where she also argues (with very good arguments... they sound familiar ; - ) that more analysis of the Tri-W project is a complete waste. It's posted on Ann Calhoun's great blog: here.


  • Ron,

    It seems clear that the County engineering and legal staff disagree with you on this issue. Perhaps if you give them some reason to ding TriW rather than simply bitching that they haven't yet done so it would be a more productive way of benefiting your cause.

    Clearly there is no document from the CCC that says anything like "TriW will not get a permit" any more than there is a document that says Giacomazzi will get a permit. The County is simply recognizing that there is not, as of yet, any ironclad reason for killing off any of the few sites they've considered.

    As for the Pismo and Turri sites which are sometimes brought up by TriW foes ("why isn't Pismo still on the table when TriW is?") ... there are significant documentable impediments to a project at these sites. The lack of a willing seller for a site would put it out of the running when there are viable sites which have willing sellers or are already owned for a project.

    You can shout "TriW is fatally flawed", "TriW is illegal" and "bait and switchy" all you want ... the previous TriW permit has expired. The County will need to go thru a permitting process with the CCC again and I believe it is the County, not you and not Lisa who gets to determine whether they believe the CCC will blackball TriW for some perceived slights of the past.

    Again, if the CCC staff wants to come out and say "TriW will not get a permit", the issue would be over. That they've not yet done so would suggest either that they don't feel pissed off about TriW as you've told us or that they would need to see the justification for the TriW site over other possible sites before they'll sign off on a WWTF at that site.

    In fact, it would be unprofessional for the CCC staff to make such a statement before seeing the County justification ... just like it is unprofessional for you to make the claim that TriW is illegal without first seeing the justification.

    That being said, I have to wonder about the reasons for your strong dislike for a WWTF at TriW and for Pandora. Either there is something you're not telling us about your motivation here or you are just a sloppy thinker ... or both.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 3:01 PM, December 19, 2007  

  • Good news creepy anonymous posters... since you're the only comment here, I actually read one of your... whatever it is that you guys do.

    "I have to wonder about the reasons for your strong dislike for a WWTF at TriW and for Pandora."

    I've said this before -- and I love this take (and that's the only reason I'm responding to your horrible takes) -- as usual, you guys have it all wrong. I ABSOLUTELY LOVE the Tri-W project and Pandora Nash-Karner, because they make for one of the best stories I've ever seen, let alone reported on... extensively, ad had that story all to myself. They are awesome. I mean that. They are awesome for giving me this story, and I can't thank her enough.

    I reported on all of that at this link:


    But, if I do have a dislike for Nash-Karner on some level, it's on a human level, not on a journalism level. I mean... for God's sake... she organized a strategy to have her fellow citizens -- many of them old and frail -- to be fined.

    Hey, I'm human -- guilty as charged -- and because I'm human, and a decent one at that, I find that strategy disgusting, and you, creepy, anonymous posters, should find it disgusting, too.

    The fact that you don't, tells me all I need to know about your human decency, and your disgusting motives (Damn, if I could figure out a way to block your IP address -- just your's, creepy Shark Inlet people -- I'd do it in a second. All you guys do is try to harm to Los Osos, in any way you can, and Ann and I are partially responsible for letting you do it on our blogs. You guys disgust me. And because you guys disgust me so very much, when Tri-W is finally dumped, I'm gong to go waaaay out of my way to report, in every detail I can find, on why $30-million was wasted, and a community completely ripped part, for a project that the county dumped after just a few months of analysis -- analysis that embarrasses you guys every single time.

    And I love that, I just wish that the analysis was on your dime, and not the taxpayers'. Nothing would make me happier than to see YOU GUYS shell out the cash for the "numerous reviews" for the embarrassing Tri-W project. That way, you'd be paying big bucks to officially embarrass yourselves. Oh, that'd be awesome!

    However, I'm not too sure you guys could afford it:

    Sent: Thursday, December 20
    Subject: RE: Taxpayers Watch inquiry

    "Taxpayers Watch has paid $16,247.50 to date. They still owe $11,500."

    Paul Hood

    Executive Officer


    Let's see... that $11.5K is due in June. TW is reported to be paying $1k/month on that ridiculous and embarrassing (see what I mean? That's awesome!) debt... doesn't sound like you guys are going to make it.

    And that sucks, because Taxpayer's Watch should be paying for Tri-W's "numerous reviews." You guys were responsible for developing that embarrassment, and now you continue to pursue it with every fiber in your tiny little souls. You should be paying for its continued wasteful analysis, not the taxpayers.

    By Blogger Ron, at 1:35 PM, December 21, 2007  

  • Ron,

    The sad thing is that your comments are, as usual, nearly completely off topic.

    The only portion of your comment that is close to on-topic is your suggestion that folks who support TriW should pay for the TriW reviews. Along those lines, I think that anyone opposed to TriW ought to pay for any of my costs associated with stopping TriW.

    I'll make you a deal ... I'll pay for a TriW review if you and your buddies pay the rest of the bill for your misguided follies.

    Seriously ... I find it odd that you're concerned about the cost of additional reviews of TriW but you've not ever ever ever expressed any concern about other costs ... for example, the cost of paying Julie Biggs for pro-bono work for a lawsuit she had already lost.

    When you write of ridiculous and embarrassing debt it would seem that yet again you are focused on the minutiae rather than the big picture ... when you act as if $12k is huge but ignore the $40M elephant in the room it amuses me.

    That being said, your personal attacks are pretty tiresome. Grow up.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 10:51 PM, December 21, 2007  

  • Ron, please empty your email box. Sent you some email replies to your emails and they keep bouncing back, DAEMON-wise, saying your box is full. Thanks.

    By Blogger Churadogs, at 7:45 AM, January 15, 2008  

  • Your mailbox is full again. The DAEMON's are loose.

    By Blogger Churadogs, at 6:54 AM, January 19, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home