Monday, June 29, 2009

SewerWatch Exclusive: Planning Commission "Moves the Sewer"

The wandering treatment facility for the Los Osos wastewater project appears to have finally found a home.

This afternoon, the SLO County Planning Commission voted to construct the facility at a location known as the Giacomazzi site, just east of town near the Los Osos cemetery, according to sources.

The decision goes against the county's Public Works Department's recommendation to build the facility at a site known as the "Tonini Ranch" -- a 400-plus acre site further east of town.

Opponents to the Tonini site argued that it was outside of the water basin for Los Osos, and the water used in the treatment process wouldn't be returned to the town's aquifers -- its only source of water -- and would exacerbate a sea water intrusion problem in the aquifers.

Planning Commissioners agreed.

In 1998, county engineers originally proposed to build the project at a site near the Los Osos middle school, but that "ready to go" project was halted when the town voted to form a Community Services District so a small group of Los Osos residents known as the Solution Group could build an alternative project, labeled as "better, cheaper, faster" by its citizen-developers.

The treatment facility for that project -- with an advertised "maximum monthly payment of $38.75" -- was proposed to be built at a mid-town location known as the Tri-W site, however, that project failed in August, 2000.

The LOCSD, then turned to a vastly different project that wasn't going to be "better, cheaper, faster," and wasn't going to have a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75," however, Solution Group-turned-LOCSD officials failed to give voters another say in the matter, and the LOCSD retained the mid-town site for their second attempt at a sewer project -- this time with an industrial sewer plant in the middle of town.

That extremely unpopular decision (a recent community wide survey showed that only 9-percent of Los Osos Prohibition Zone residents favored the Tri-W site for a sewer plant) led to the recall, in September, 2005, of the three remaining LOCSD Directors that were responsible for spending some $25 million developing the mid-town projects (plural).

After the recall election, State legislation gave control of the project to SLO County officials, and their development process led them to the Tonini Ranch site.

However, just this afternoon, Planning Commissioners went against that recommendation, and supported the Giacomazzi site.

"Another victory," said former LOCSD Director, Julie Tacker, in a phone interview.

Tacker was one of five District Directors that agreed to stop the wildly unpopular Tri-W project following the recall election.

Tacker was also a vocal opponent of the County's recommendation to build the facility at the Tonini site, due to the fact that it was outside of the Los Osos water basin.

The final say on the project's location will be by the County Board of Supervisors, if the Board ultimately agrees to implement the project.

However, they are expected to adopt the Planning Commission's findings, again, if they agree to implement the project.

That decision has yet to be made.

In their report to the Planning Commission for today's meeting, Public Works officials wrote, "The (SLO County Los Osos wastewater) Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town (Tri-W) and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan, believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by the Board to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."

They added, "the Tri-W project was the LOCSD's project, not the County's project."

###

8 Comments:

  • believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by the Board to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."

    Thanks for posting this report. Could you explain further what the above quote is attempting to say?
    Thanks.

    By Blogger Commentary, at 5:32 PM, June 29, 2009  

  • I beleive the above quote would have no meaning if the Board of Supervisors had already voted to accept the project.
    As for a due diligance resolution explaining why project implementation is not persued? not good thing in my mind. I'm thinking it's like a golden parachute, only golden isnt the first color that came to mind.
    Oh Ron how long did it take you to get this up. this is fast About an hour window?

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 6:58 PM, June 29, 2009  

  • Ron,

    The Planning Commission is, frankly, out of control.

    The Commissioners are rank amatuers attempting to politically craft a project's components against the advice of the County's professional consultants and staff. Whatever the Commissiners do will ony result in additional delay as the process works it way up to the CCC. At the CCC, the State will have much to say concerning the County's inadequate proposal (Heck, I doubt the County gets the mess their in yet either).

    Time meanwhile is being squandered and Los Osos moves ever closer to losing it sole water supply AND paying a much higher WWTP cost.
    ***********

    You posted an amazing claim:
    "The LOCSD, then turned to a vastly different project that wasn't going to be "better, cheaper, faster," and wasn't going to have a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75," however, Solution Group-turned-LOCSD officials failed to give voters another say in the matter, and the LOCSD retained the mid-town site for their second attempt at a sewer project -- this time with an industrial sewer plant in the middle of town."

    First, claim that the LOCSD did not give the voters a decision concerning the use of the Tri-W site as a WWTF location.

    This is not true.

    In 2001 the Los Osos property owners had an Prop 218 election by which they were asked to allow the LOCSD to sell Assessment Bonds totaling $24,500,000 for a WWTP; and in the election the voters information packet were documents that clearly defined the WWTP as per the DEIR CLEARLY SHOWING THE USE OF THE TRI-W PROPERTY (ALONG WITH COMCEPTUAL TREATMENT PLANT LAYOUT ON THAT PROPERTY).

    That election had a 67% response rate with property owners passing the assessment by an 82% majority.

    The property owners therefore given the POWER to APPROVAE the LOCSD's use the Tri-W property as THE location of the WWTF.

    Second, there is no doubt that the Solution Group was an earnest and able activists group that sold the comunity on the idea of a project that, as I have stated many times before, they were not able to make good on. There is no doubt that prior to the formation of the CSD that outside waste water professionals had shown there were flaws in the plan; but you try explaining that to fired-up activists....they believe what they want; and trying to persuad them is like herding cats.
    However I do have to say one thing about the Solution Group folks that served on the LOCSD board; they were, when the time came that their plan was obviously not going to work or receive funding, they were PRAGMATISTS that crafted a plan that DID work, was accepted by the property owners via the 218 vote, satisfied the RWQCB's requirements, the SWRCB's issues of funding, the CCC, the EPA, the Council of Native American, ETC; and obtained all permits and had a project under construction.

    Now I now you just love to blame all Los Osos ills on Pandora and the Solution Group. Do as you please as such stuff means nothing in the current state of affairs.

    -R

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 9:40 AM, June 30, 2009  

  • Commentary wrote:

    "Could you explain further what the above quote is attempting to say?

    Love to!

    What this quote:

    "believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by the Board to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."

    ... is attempting to say, is that if Pandora is able to "Jedi-mind trick" the California Coastal Commission/SLO County Board of Supervisors AGAIN, into signing off on the Tri-W embarrassment, then there's NO WAY IN HELL that smart county officials, like Mark Hutchinson and John Waddell, are going to put THEIR professional reputations on the line for the 1998 - 2005 LOCSD's colossal embarrassment.

    THAT's what county officials are attempting to say with that quote.

    I mean, can you blame 'em? The ONLY rationale to build the sewer plant in the middle of town was so the town-folk could easily get to the park in the Tri-W project, yet no one wanted a park in their sewer plant to begin with... OBVIOUSLY!

    And that is the EXACT subject of my five-year-old New Times cover story.

    There's no denying it: The County of SLO just spent three years and $7 million proving my five-year-old story 100-percent right, and I f-ing love it!

    Alon wrote:

    "Oh Ron how long did it take you to get this up. this is fast About an hour window?"

    Yep, and to steal another Seinfeld character's line, Elaine Bennis: "I'm gooooooood!"

    Rick wrote:

    "The Planning Commission is, frankly, out of control."

    Oh, that's rich. You and your buddies waste seven years and $25 million (and tear the town apart in the process) attempting to build a sewer plant in the middle of town just so the town-folk could easily get to the little park in the Tri-W sewer plant, yet no one wanted a park, with a "tot lot" and "picnic area," in their sewer plant to begin with, and it's the Planning Commission that's, "frankly, out of control."

    Earth to Richard...

    Ricky also wrote:

    "In 2001 the Los Osos property owners had an Prop 218 election by which they were asked to allow the LOCSD to sell Assessment Bonds..."

    And, of course, Pandora, as LOCSD vice-president, lied to the community about that assessment vote, and, also, of course, she used the community's money to lie to them, as usual.

    I first reported on that amazing story at this link:

    http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/03/los-osos-you-paid-for-it-you-should.html

    and then followed up that amazing story, with this amazing story:

    http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/04/language-in-2001-public-opinion-survey.html

    Interesting little note: The same person responsible for that excellent "obviously biased" quote in that story, Robyn Letters, was the same person that conducted the recent community-wide survey, that included that weird wording involving STEP-STEG, and I've always found that to be very interesting.

    By Blogger Ron, at 11:37 AM, June 30, 2009  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 10:28 AM, July 01, 2009  

  • As for Richard's saying the community had a "choice" on the morphed TriW bond sale vote, uh, no, they were TOLD in no uncertain terms, that there were no options, that this was the only game in town, that an out of town site would be waaaaayyyy more expensive, can't cross a creek with a pipe, can't be done, that the RWQCB would fine them, that they HAD to do this, & etc. So to portray the community as being fully supporting of the Tri-W project, hardly.

    As for Richard's claim that the planning commission is out of control? That's rich. And claiming that the staff of experts know best? Uh, Richard, you're forgetting that the County decided UP FRONT this community would have gravity even BEFORE the TAC got started. That's not "expertise," that an a priori Done Deal. The planning commission is doing what the TAC and the staff should have done in the first place: question the premise and the numbers.

    I, for one, am delighted that a major question asked by the Sustainability Group is being seriously looked at: Water NOT used is water that does NOT have to be treated and "disposed." The conservation element should have been on the table as far back as 1983, resoltuion 83-12, formation of a spetic maintenence district as a serious mechanism to act when the water severity level kept climbing from II to III while the county sat there with their fingers up their noses. The PC's notion of spending wastewater $ up front to install maximum low-flow/conservation measure UP FRONT is the best Idea I've heard for years and I say hurray for them.

    Now, pay attention because intense lobbying is now underway, the secret emails and organized letters to the editor, etc. to undo what the PC is proposing. Head's up, there's some major players here who are still locked into this a priori, MWH, done deal project and they'll move heaven and earth to do what they have to do go get what they want.

    Oh, and technically, the PC didn't officially "vote" on moving the project, it was a "straw" poll of an, for now, agreement, that this option is (for now) valid and is on the table until they can get better disposal numbers from staff. (Problem all along, the "water" numbers are so fungible, or often wrong, as Richard Margetson keeps reminding PC and Staff and BOS again and again and again, to no effect since the same wrong numbers never get corrected and keep popping up again and again. . . . sigh.

    Am still waiting for the planning commissioners to ask why vacuum was shoved off the table before it was even allowed on the table.

    By Blogger Churadogs, at 8:24 AM, July 04, 2009  

  • Ann wrote:

    "As for Richard's saying the community had a "choice" on the morphed TriW bond sale vote, uh, no, they were TOLD in no uncertain terms, that there were no options, that this was the only game in town, that an out of town site would be waaaaayyyy more expensive, can't cross a creek with a pipe, can't be done, that the RWQCB would fine them, that they HAD to do this, & etc. So to portray the community as being fully supporting of the Tri-W project, hardly."

    Also -- and this is very, very important -- because the failure of "better, cheaper, faster" was SOOOOO "quiet," at the time of the bond election, almost EVERYONE thought they were still voting for "better, cheaper, faster" at a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75."

    Had property owners KNOWN that a vote for that assessment ACTUALLY meant shelling out $25 million to design a wildly unpopular, industrial "sewer-park" in the middle of town, with a monthly payment of $200, how do you think that 2001 assessment vote would have turned out?

    By the way, one of my favorite personal sewer stories comes from former Coastal Commission permit supervisor, Steve Monowitz, when I was on the phone with him in 2005.

    Out of the blue, he brings up how I used the word "quietly" in one of my 2005 posts to describe the transition from "better, cheaper, faster" to "wildly unpopular, industrial "sewer-park" in the middle of town."

    That's when he told me, "You know, I really agree with how you described that transition: 'quietly.' "

    That fact -- that extremely quiet transition from "better, cheaper, faster" at "38.75/month" to "wildly unpopular, industrial "sewer-park" in the middle of town" at $200/month -- is very, VERY important to this entire train wreck.

    Ann wrote:

    "As for Richard's claim that the planning commission is out of control? That's rich."

    Tell me if you start to notice a trend here:

    - County staff recently embarrasses the Tri-W project (and its developers, i.e. Richdora) AGAIN by calling it "infeasible," and Richdora calls county staff "baloney."

    - The planning commission doesn't even give Tri-W a sniff, and Richdora calls county staff "out of control."

    - The vast majority of Los Osos doesn't want an industrial sewer plant in the middle of their beautiful coastal town, and they're labeled "anti-sewer obstructionists," by the Richdora types.

    Ann wrote:

    "Now, pay attention because intense lobbying is now underway, the secret emails and organized letters to the editor..."

    You mean, ANOTHER "serious letter writing campaign"?

    "... they'll move heaven and earth to do what they have to do go get what they want."

    Welcome to RichdoraLand.

    "Oh, and technically, the PC didn't officially "vote" on moving the project, it was a "straw" poll..."

    Good point.

    By Blogger Ron, at 11:21 AM, July 04, 2009  

  • Ooops..

    "- The planning commission doesn't even give Tri-W a sniff, and Richdora calls county staff "out of control."

    - The planning commission doesn't even give Tri-W a sniff, and Richdora calls the planning commission "out of control."

    By Blogger Ron, at 11:25 AM, July 04, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home