A letter to the Supes, II

Over on her blog, Ann Calhoun posted her letter to SLO County Supervisors regarding tomorrow's hearing on the Santa Margarita Ranch development. Here's mine:

- - -

Dear Supervisors,

I'm writing you concerning Item C-8 on tomorrow's agenda, and, specifically, the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" found in the EIR submitted by Santa Margarita Ranch, LLC for their proposed development.

After reporting on the Los Osos situation over the past eight years, not only am I familiar with "Statements of Overriding Considerations," but also with the disastrous fallout that can result if a SOC isn't 100-percent, absolutely, positively tight.

As I first reported in 2007 (at the link below), in 1992, SIERRA CLUB v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY concluded, "Nonetheless, the Legislature has required that substantial evidence support CEQA findings... Accordingly, we find that a statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence contained in 'the final EIR and/or other information in the record.' " [bolding mine]

Now, I have to admit (and apologize), I haven't read the SOC in the Santa Margarita Ranch matter, mainly, because it seems to be part of an 18 megabyte file on the county's web site, and, living in a rural part of the county, I'm stuck with dial-up service for now, so, it'll take me forever to download, which means, unfortunately, I currently don't know what the specific reasons are for adopting the SOC, but if just one of them isn't "supported by substantial evidence contained in the final EIR and/or other information in the record" -- just one -- then that SOC will likely be challenged in court, and if SIERRA CLUB v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY is any indication, and it is, that challenge will be successful, and easy.

So, here's my question: Are we sure -- absolutely positive -- that ALL of the information in the SOC submitted by Santa Margarita Ranch, LLC is "supported by substantial evidence contained in the final EIR and/or other information in the record"?

If not, approval of that SOC by your board could potentially turn Santa Margarita into a Los Osos.

Therefore, (if that's the case) the highly prudent course of action for your Board to take on this matter, would be to continue this item, until we are all absolutely positive that ALL of the information in the SOC is "supported by substantial evidence contained in the final EIR and/or other information in the record."

Thank you,


P.S.: If you're interested in reading about the Los Osos CSD's bogus Statement of Overriding Considerations from 2001, and the disastrous fallout that resulted from it over the following seven years-and-counting, I reported on it at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-ought-to-be-law-part-ii-oh-wait.html

###

Fundraiser Benefits Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter for the Homeless

[Note: The e-mail said, "Please pass this on to all your friends...," so, here ya go:]

The Third Annual Needs 'N Wishes Fundraiser for our County's E.O.C. Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter for the Homeless.

Saturday, December 13, 2008
Open House from 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM
at The South Bay Community Center
(behind the skate park)
2180 Palisades Avenue, Los Osos 

After The Los Osos/Baywood Park Christmas Parade

Santa, hot cocoa and cookies. Shop at Santa’s Toy Store for hundreds of toys, Santa’s Second Hand Store and Mrs. Claus’s Baked Goods. Buy gift certificates, artwork, hundreds of silent auction, raffle & live auction items.
Live entertainment all day. School choirs, dancers & caroling starting at 1:00 p.m. 
No admission, just the Holiday Spirit!
Bring your collected change to help us fill the big jugs.
Tell all your friends to join you to help the homeless!

We have matching funds. Please make checks payable to:
"Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter" and mail to:
P.O. Box 6721, Los Osos, Ca 93412  

For more information, please call 528-5800.

###

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

"Folks, I know that there's a lot of history here. No one on this Board is stupid about that."
-- Jeff Young, Chairperson, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, referring to the Los Osos wastewater project, 4/28/2006


[Note: Yesterday (12/3/08), I sent the following e-mail to Harvey Packard, Enforcement Coordinator for the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. He's yet to reply (although, in Packard's defense, he is relatively good at replying to e-mail, and my question in that e-mail probably shouldn't call for a quick, hasty response), but I wanted to post my letter now because the RWQCB is conducting meetings in SLO today and tomorrow. Los Osos isn't on the agenda, but "Public Forum" is, and, maybe, just maybe, a public comment type might get some ideas from my e-mail, and have some questions for the Board that test Mr. Young's knowledge on the history of the project -- a subject that he is allegedly not "stupid" on.]

- - -

Hello Mr. Packard,

I'm working on a story that shows how all of the official data coming out of the County these days regarding its development process for a Los Osos sewer system, shows the Tri-W project (that was, as you know, stopped following the LOCSD recall election in 2005) to be the exact technological embarrassment that I've reported it to be for over four years now, beginning with my second New Times cover story on this subject, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, published in September, 2004.

For example, in one of their reports, the National Water Research Institute wrote, "Given the number of problematic issues with the downtown site (Tri-W), it is the unanimous opinion of the Panel that an out-of-town site(s) is a better alternative."

And in a report published by SLO County officials, it reads:

"(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;

"(Tri-W allows for) Limited flexibility for future expansion, upgrades, or alternative energy"

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;

"(Con: The Tri-W site is) ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"

Furthermore, during a recent phone interview, when I asked SLO County environmental specialist, Mark Hutchinson, to put himself in the shoes of the people responsible for developing the Tri-W project, he laughed... out loud.

These days, of course, the mid-town Tri-W site doesn't even make the County's short list for potential sewer plant locations for Los Osos.

So, clearly, considering the enormous amount of data coming out of the County these days that shows that the now-defunct Tri-W project was a colossal embarrassment, recalling the officials that were responsible for developing the Tri-W project was the exact right thing to do in 2005, and stopping that gravely ill-conceived project was also the exact right thing to do, according to, well, every professional that wasn't part of Tri-W's development.

So, here's my question in late 2008:

Since Los Osos voters clearly did the right thing by recalling the elected officials that were responsible for the Tri-W project, and electing officials that immediately pulled the plug on that embarrassment (for lack of a better word), why did the RWQCB enact enforcement action against the people of Los Osos immediately following the recall, when the people of Los Osos did the exact right thing by recalling the Tri-W developers and electing people that would stop the Tri-W embarrassment?

Are the enforcement actions in Los Osos a result of stopping the Tri-W project (which was, clearly, the right thing to do), or are the enforcement actions a result of the LOCSD wasting fours years when they decided to play "bait and switchy" with the California Coastal Commission from 2000 - 2004? (You DO know why the Coastal Commission called the LOCSD "bait and switchy" in 2004, right?)

That's what I'm not clear on these days.

It's really starting to look like the RWQCB is punishing the people of Los Osos for doing the job that the RWQCB failed to do, when your office failed to stop the technologically embarrassing Tri-W project through enforcement actions in 2004, which would have been a highly justifiable action to take considering the Coastal Commission labeled the 2001 - 2004 LOCSD's handling of the project "bait and switchy."

So, what are the enforcement actions for? I don't understand.

How does your office respond to that?

Thank you in advance for your prompt reply.

Ron

###