How SLO County Government's Laziness Sends Senior Citizens to the Hospital
TO: Nancy Orton, Environmental Specialist, SLO County Dept. of Planning and Building
SUBJECT: Los Osos Sewer Story Questions, please
DATE: 12/29/09
Hello Nancy,
I'm researching a story, and I recently came across a 2004 document that lists your name as someone that was involved with the SLO County planning process in 2003 for the Los Osos CSD's proposed "Tri-W" wastewater project.
And, considering that County Supervisors recently approved a "preferred project" for Los Osos, and the old Tri-W project didn't even come close to making their short-list of preferred projects, I now have some questions regarding that 2003 process -- questions that are now very timely, and important.
As I'm sure you're aware, CEQA states, "If the (environmental) impacts (of a project) are not mitigated to a level below significance, and (in this case, the LOCSD) wishes to approve the project, it would also be necessary to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations indicating that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects."
CEQA also states that "a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by substantial evidence contained in the final EIR and/or other information in the record."
Here's my question:
What "substantial evidence in the record" did the SLO County Planning Department use in 2003 to support the Los Osos CSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations for their proposed Tri-W sewer project?
The reason I ask, is because, as I first reported in 2006, at this link:
http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/08/loopiest-of-loopholes-recently.html
... in the Statement of Overriding Considerations for their Tri-W project, the LOCSD concluded:
- - -
"An in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations because:
- It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served: and
- It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos;"
- - -
And that's it... the reasons stop there. Just those two reasons are listed on why the mid-town Tri-W site was "chosen over other (environmentally preferred) locations."
However, here's the huge problem I've found involving the LOCSD's two reasons on why they chose to override the environmental review process to accommodate their Tri-W sewer plant -- a process that showed that out-of-town sites were "environmentally preferred": I can't find one shred of "substantial evidence contained in the record" that supports either one of those claims, and, according to CEQA, if just one "assertion" in an SOC is "substantively infirm," then the certification of the entire EIR must be "vacated."
As I originally reported in New Times, in 2004, the EIR for the Tri-W project states:
"It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect (the) strongly held community value (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."
and;
"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 (the Tri-W site) could."
Then, there's this quote from the staff of the Coastal Commission, found in the Tri-W project's development permit;
“... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the 2000 LOCSD Board) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities.”
Nancy, I've looked everywhere for the "substantial evidence in the record" that shows that "strongly held community value (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community" -- an alleged "strongly held community value" that was solely responsible for the District's "project objective for centrally located community amenities” for their sewer project -- and I can't find any. None.
So, currently, I have a big hole in my story: What did SLO County officials use in 2003 as "substantial evidence in the record" to support the LOCSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations' assertion that there's a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos for "the treatment plant site... (to) provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos."
Could you please point me to those documents?
What evidence did SLO County use in 2003 to support the LOCSD's assertion that there's a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that any sewer plant must also include a multi-million dollar community park, and then must also be "centrally located" so residents can easily to get to their "sewer-park?"
The only "official" document-like thing I can find that the 1999 - 2005 Los Osos CSD used as "evidence" for that "strongly held community value," is something called the "Los Osos Vision Statement," from 1994.
However, that document, is, frankly, nothing. It was loosely based on some completely non-scientific "visioning" from the early 1990s, organized by a tiny group of Los Osos residents, and it's simply not "substantial"... because it's nothing. Absolutely nothing "substantial" can be derived from that document.
To make matters worse, I went so far as to obtain the original 1993 documents that were used in the unscientific "visioning," and, not surprisingly, a version of this question:
"Do you want ANY sewer plant proposed for the community of Los Osos to be built in the middle of town so it can also double as a conveniently located "recreational asset," with a multi-million dollar public park that includes a picnic area?"
... isn't even asked... of course.
In other words, this quote from the Los Osos Vision Statement:
"It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect (the) strongly held community value (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."
... materialized out of nowhere.
There is nothing that supports that quote, yet, that absolutely baseless quote, coupled with this quote from the Tri-W EIR:
"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 (the Tri-W site) could."
... and this quote from the staff of the Coastal Commission in the 2004 Tri-W development Permit:
“... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the 2000 LOCSD Board) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities.”
... means that, unless someone in SLO County government can, today, point to the "substantial evidence in the record" that was used by the County in 2003 to support the alleged "strongly held community value" that ANY sewer plant in Los Osos must also double as a "centrally located recreational asset," I'm going to report that SLO County officials got lazy in 2003, and didn't bother to "substantiate" the LOCSD's fabricated Statement of Overriding Considerations, and therefore, SLO County officials approved an illegal project in 2003... because they got lazy... and that led to massive delays in developing a community-wide wastewater system for Los Osos.
Primary sources appear to show, that, had SLO County officials done their job in 2003, and actually demanded "substantial evidence in the record" to support the LOCSD's baseless Statement of Overriding Considerations, like I did, the Tri-W project would have collapsed in 2003, and a process to develop a project similar to the one recently approved by County Supervisors in 2009 -- with a treatment facility located outside of town -- would have started in 2003.
And, as you're also probably aware, the local Water Board levied ongoing enforcement actions ("Cease and Desist Orders") in 2006 against 45 randomly selected property owners in Los Osos (many of them seniors) as a result of the delays in constructing a sewer system for the community.
I want to show you a couple of quotes (out of many) that have come across my desk from some of those 45 property owners:
"Faced with the CDO's causing condemnation of our home and causing us to have to vacate our home - well, it's more than anyone should have to live with."
and;
"(This prosecution) is there when we help our children with their homework and when we play with our pets. It is there when we talk to our grandchildren on the phone. It is there when we spend time with friends, attend church, or work in our gardens."
and;
"(This prosecution) sends us to the hospital for emergency treatment for high blood pressure, heart conditions, and stress."
Another piece of non-evidence that the early LOCSD Board likes to point to to support their made-up contention that there's a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that any sewer plant for the community must also include a multi-million dollar community park, and, therefore, must also be "centrally located" so residents can easily to get to their "strongly" valued "sewer-park," is the election results that formed the Los Osos Community Services District in the first place, in November 1998.
As you may know, in 1998, 87-percent of the town's voters established a CSD in Los Osos so the community could pursue a "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project that was being proposed at the time by a small group of citizens (some of those citizens were also part of the same small group of people behind the Los Osos Vision Statement).
The proposed "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project was also planned for the mid-town Tri-W site, just like the District's second attempt at a sewer project, but their original "better, cheaper, faster" project was vastly different than the project approved by SLO County officials in 2003.
The first Tri-W project proposed by the initial CSD Board in 1999, was heavily advertised (before the election) as having a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75," with a "drop dead gorgeous" series of large ponds on "50 - 70 acres" at the Tri-W site, but, and this is very, very important, that ill-fated project never included a public park.
In other words, the 1998 Los Osos CSD election results had absolutely nothing to do with a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that ANY sewer plant for the community must also include a multi-million dollar community park, and be centrally located so residents can easily get to the park... in their sewer plant... that they allegedly "strongly value."
The early Los Osos CSD Board blurred (apparently, intentionally, and to regulators) a "strongly held community value" for a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75," into a "strongly held community value (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."
Nancy, stunningly, it gets worse.
The only other reason listed by the Los Osos CSD in their SOC on why an "in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other (environmentally preferably) locations," was, "It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served."
That claim is ALSO completely unsubstantiated.
According to recent County analysis, the Tri-W site has "higher costs overall" at an estimated "$55 million." The next costliest treatment facility option was estimated by County officials at $19 million.
Additionally, according to County analysis, "(Tri-W's) downtown location... require(s) that the most expensive treatment technology, site improvements and odor controls be employed."
So, naturally, I'm confused: One of only two reasons the mid-town Tri-W site was selected by the LOCSD was because "it results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility," yet, according to recent County analysis, the central location added more than $30 million to the "overall" costs of the facility... because of its central location?
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. (And, what strikes me about that take, is how obvious it is that it doesn't make sense.)
So, again, what "substantial evidence in the record" did County officials, such as yourself, use in 2003 to support the District's SOC's assertion that the Tri-W project had the "lowest cost" overall?
According to my extensive research, there isn't any.
And, according to CEQA, if just ONE of the "assertions" listed in a Statement of Overriding Considerations is shown to be "substantively infirm," then the certification for the entire EIR must be "vacated."
The LOCSD supplied only two reasons for "overriding" the environmental review process and selecting "an in-town site over other (environmentally preferred) locations," and, both of them are completely "substantively infirm."
Which means, it sure looks like SLO County officials (and I mean ALL SLO County officials -- from County staff, to the Planning Commission, to the Board of Supervisors) got lazy in 2003, and didn't bother to substantiate, using "evidence found in the record," the Los Osos CSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations, and, therefore, approved an illegal project, according to CEQA law, in 2003.
And, unless someone in County government can show me the "substantial evidence in the record" that the County used in 2003 to support the District's made-up SOC, that is exactly how I'm going to fill that gaping hole in my story -- by reporting that the past seven years (and counting) worth of Los Osos sewer project delays, stem from lazy SLO County officials, and, because those officials got lazy in 2003, innocent Los Osos property owners were singled out for enforcement actions by the local Water Board in 2006, and the stress associated with those enforcement actions sent completely innocent senior citizens to the hospital.
So, with that in mind, please, this is kind of important here: Can SLO County officials, today, produce the "substantial evidence in the record" that they used in 2003 to support the Los Osos CSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations?
Do you have those documents?
Thank you very much for your time,
Ron
P.S. I've reprinted this e-mail on my blog, SewerWatch.
###
SUBJECT: Los Osos Sewer Story Questions, please
DATE: 12/29/09
Hello Nancy,
I'm researching a story, and I recently came across a 2004 document that lists your name as someone that was involved with the SLO County planning process in 2003 for the Los Osos CSD's proposed "Tri-W" wastewater project.
And, considering that County Supervisors recently approved a "preferred project" for Los Osos, and the old Tri-W project didn't even come close to making their short-list of preferred projects, I now have some questions regarding that 2003 process -- questions that are now very timely, and important.
As I'm sure you're aware, CEQA states, "If the (environmental) impacts (of a project) are not mitigated to a level below significance, and (in this case, the LOCSD) wishes to approve the project, it would also be necessary to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations indicating that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects."
CEQA also states that "a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by substantial evidence contained in the final EIR and/or other information in the record."
Here's my question:
What "substantial evidence in the record" did the SLO County Planning Department use in 2003 to support the Los Osos CSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations for their proposed Tri-W sewer project?
The reason I ask, is because, as I first reported in 2006, at this link:
http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/08/loopiest-of-loopholes-recently.html
... in the Statement of Overriding Considerations for their Tri-W project, the LOCSD concluded:
- - -
"An in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations because:
- It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served: and
- It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos;"
- - -
And that's it... the reasons stop there. Just those two reasons are listed on why the mid-town Tri-W site was "chosen over other (environmentally preferred) locations."
However, here's the huge problem I've found involving the LOCSD's two reasons on why they chose to override the environmental review process to accommodate their Tri-W sewer plant -- a process that showed that out-of-town sites were "environmentally preferred": I can't find one shred of "substantial evidence contained in the record" that supports either one of those claims, and, according to CEQA, if just one "assertion" in an SOC is "substantively infirm," then the certification of the entire EIR must be "vacated."
As I originally reported in New Times, in 2004, the EIR for the Tri-W project states:
"It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect (the) strongly held community value (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."
and;
"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 (the Tri-W site) could."
Then, there's this quote from the staff of the Coastal Commission, found in the Tri-W project's development permit;
“... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the 2000 LOCSD Board) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities.”
Nancy, I've looked everywhere for the "substantial evidence in the record" that shows that "strongly held community value (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community" -- an alleged "strongly held community value" that was solely responsible for the District's "project objective for centrally located community amenities” for their sewer project -- and I can't find any. None.
So, currently, I have a big hole in my story: What did SLO County officials use in 2003 as "substantial evidence in the record" to support the LOCSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations' assertion that there's a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos for "the treatment plant site... (to) provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos."
Could you please point me to those documents?
What evidence did SLO County use in 2003 to support the LOCSD's assertion that there's a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that any sewer plant must also include a multi-million dollar community park, and then must also be "centrally located" so residents can easily to get to their "sewer-park?"
The only "official" document-like thing I can find that the 1999 - 2005 Los Osos CSD used as "evidence" for that "strongly held community value," is something called the "Los Osos Vision Statement," from 1994.
However, that document, is, frankly, nothing. It was loosely based on some completely non-scientific "visioning" from the early 1990s, organized by a tiny group of Los Osos residents, and it's simply not "substantial"... because it's nothing. Absolutely nothing "substantial" can be derived from that document.
To make matters worse, I went so far as to obtain the original 1993 documents that were used in the unscientific "visioning," and, not surprisingly, a version of this question:
"Do you want ANY sewer plant proposed for the community of Los Osos to be built in the middle of town so it can also double as a conveniently located "recreational asset," with a multi-million dollar public park that includes a picnic area?"
... isn't even asked... of course.
In other words, this quote from the Los Osos Vision Statement:
"It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect (the) strongly held community value (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."
... materialized out of nowhere.
There is nothing that supports that quote, yet, that absolutely baseless quote, coupled with this quote from the Tri-W EIR:
"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 (the Tri-W site) could."
... and this quote from the staff of the Coastal Commission in the 2004 Tri-W development Permit:
“... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the 2000 LOCSD Board) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities.”
... means that, unless someone in SLO County government can, today, point to the "substantial evidence in the record" that was used by the County in 2003 to support the alleged "strongly held community value" that ANY sewer plant in Los Osos must also double as a "centrally located recreational asset," I'm going to report that SLO County officials got lazy in 2003, and didn't bother to "substantiate" the LOCSD's fabricated Statement of Overriding Considerations, and therefore, SLO County officials approved an illegal project in 2003... because they got lazy... and that led to massive delays in developing a community-wide wastewater system for Los Osos.
Primary sources appear to show, that, had SLO County officials done their job in 2003, and actually demanded "substantial evidence in the record" to support the LOCSD's baseless Statement of Overriding Considerations, like I did, the Tri-W project would have collapsed in 2003, and a process to develop a project similar to the one recently approved by County Supervisors in 2009 -- with a treatment facility located outside of town -- would have started in 2003.
And, as you're also probably aware, the local Water Board levied ongoing enforcement actions ("Cease and Desist Orders") in 2006 against 45 randomly selected property owners in Los Osos (many of them seniors) as a result of the delays in constructing a sewer system for the community.
I want to show you a couple of quotes (out of many) that have come across my desk from some of those 45 property owners:
"Faced with the CDO's causing condemnation of our home and causing us to have to vacate our home - well, it's more than anyone should have to live with."
and;
"(This prosecution) is there when we help our children with their homework and when we play with our pets. It is there when we talk to our grandchildren on the phone. It is there when we spend time with friends, attend church, or work in our gardens."
and;
"(This prosecution) sends us to the hospital for emergency treatment for high blood pressure, heart conditions, and stress."
Another piece of non-evidence that the early LOCSD Board likes to point to to support their made-up contention that there's a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that any sewer plant for the community must also include a multi-million dollar community park, and, therefore, must also be "centrally located" so residents can easily to get to their "strongly" valued "sewer-park," is the election results that formed the Los Osos Community Services District in the first place, in November 1998.
As you may know, in 1998, 87-percent of the town's voters established a CSD in Los Osos so the community could pursue a "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project that was being proposed at the time by a small group of citizens (some of those citizens were also part of the same small group of people behind the Los Osos Vision Statement).
The proposed "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project was also planned for the mid-town Tri-W site, just like the District's second attempt at a sewer project, but their original "better, cheaper, faster" project was vastly different than the project approved by SLO County officials in 2003.
The first Tri-W project proposed by the initial CSD Board in 1999, was heavily advertised (before the election) as having a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75," with a "drop dead gorgeous" series of large ponds on "50 - 70 acres" at the Tri-W site, but, and this is very, very important, that ill-fated project never included a public park.
In other words, the 1998 Los Osos CSD election results had absolutely nothing to do with a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that ANY sewer plant for the community must also include a multi-million dollar community park, and be centrally located so residents can easily get to the park... in their sewer plant... that they allegedly "strongly value."
The early Los Osos CSD Board blurred (apparently, intentionally, and to regulators) a "strongly held community value" for a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75," into a "strongly held community value (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."
Nancy, stunningly, it gets worse.
The only other reason listed by the Los Osos CSD in their SOC on why an "in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other (environmentally preferably) locations," was, "It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served."
That claim is ALSO completely unsubstantiated.
According to recent County analysis, the Tri-W site has "higher costs overall" at an estimated "$55 million." The next costliest treatment facility option was estimated by County officials at $19 million.
Additionally, according to County analysis, "(Tri-W's) downtown location... require(s) that the most expensive treatment technology, site improvements and odor controls be employed."
So, naturally, I'm confused: One of only two reasons the mid-town Tri-W site was selected by the LOCSD was because "it results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility," yet, according to recent County analysis, the central location added more than $30 million to the "overall" costs of the facility... because of its central location?
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. (And, what strikes me about that take, is how obvious it is that it doesn't make sense.)
So, again, what "substantial evidence in the record" did County officials, such as yourself, use in 2003 to support the District's SOC's assertion that the Tri-W project had the "lowest cost" overall?
According to my extensive research, there isn't any.
And, according to CEQA, if just ONE of the "assertions" listed in a Statement of Overriding Considerations is shown to be "substantively infirm," then the certification for the entire EIR must be "vacated."
The LOCSD supplied only two reasons for "overriding" the environmental review process and selecting "an in-town site over other (environmentally preferred) locations," and, both of them are completely "substantively infirm."
Which means, it sure looks like SLO County officials (and I mean ALL SLO County officials -- from County staff, to the Planning Commission, to the Board of Supervisors) got lazy in 2003, and didn't bother to substantiate, using "evidence found in the record," the Los Osos CSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations, and, therefore, approved an illegal project, according to CEQA law, in 2003.
And, unless someone in County government can show me the "substantial evidence in the record" that the County used in 2003 to support the District's made-up SOC, that is exactly how I'm going to fill that gaping hole in my story -- by reporting that the past seven years (and counting) worth of Los Osos sewer project delays, stem from lazy SLO County officials, and, because those officials got lazy in 2003, innocent Los Osos property owners were singled out for enforcement actions by the local Water Board in 2006, and the stress associated with those enforcement actions sent completely innocent senior citizens to the hospital.
So, with that in mind, please, this is kind of important here: Can SLO County officials, today, produce the "substantial evidence in the record" that they used in 2003 to support the Los Osos CSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations?
Do you have those documents?
Thank you very much for your time,
Ron
P.S. I've reprinted this e-mail on my blog, SewerWatch.
###
posted by Ron at
10:41 AM
|
3 comments
