Fillin' Holes (and Makin' Quotas)

TO: Dan Carl, District Manager, California Coastal Commission Central Coast office
SUBJECT: Holes in My Los Osos Story
DATE: January 14, 2010

Hello Dan,

I'm researching a story that involves the Los Osos wastewater project, and I was hoping you could help me fill some holes in my story.

I recently came across a CCC staff report that reads, in part:

"Background (of the Los Osos wastewater project): ... the Commission conducted four public hearings on the project between 1997 and 1998. The Commission continued action on the County project at least in part to provide the community with an opportunity to pursue alternatives. A November 1998 local ballot measure formed the Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD). At that time, the project favored by the elected district members was a ponding system at the downtown Tri-W site (now referred to as the Mid-town site) located at Ravenna Avenue and Los Osos Valley Road. The ponding system was later rejected."

According to my research, that's not entirely accurate, and it's a very, very critical point.

The "ponding system at the downtown Tri-W site," that was "favored by the elected district members," in 1998, wasn't so much "rejected," as much as it just flat-out failed. As you might know, that project was actually pursued by the newly elected Los Osos CSD for nearly two years... and then it failed.

You can get a feel of what I'm talking about in that same staff report I mention above. It's in the timeline.

For example, the report states:

"A November 1998 local ballot measure formed the Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD). At that time, the project favored by the elected district members was a ponding system..."

and, then it states:

"On March 1, 2001, the LOCSD certified a Final EIR for an alternative project involving a conventional treatment system at the Tri-W site."

The ponding system failed in... well, no one really knows when it failed. That critical point is actually STILL shrouded in mystery. I authored a cover story for SLO County's weekly newspaper back in mid-2000 that showed how the ponding project was on the verge of failing, and about a month after my story was published, I learned at a LOCSD meeting, from a very quick, and very quiet announcement, that the ponding project had failed, just like I reported it would. However, I have since uncovered other documents that show that the District stopped pursuing the ponding project as early as the fall of 1999, yet deliberately misled the public (and the media) that they had actually switched to "an alternative project involving a conventional treatment system at the Tri-W site."

For example, my story, Problems with the Solution, was published in June 2000. In that story, former LOCSD vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner, says, "We’re confident that this (ponding system) is the most appropriate and most environmentally friendly plan. And we will be able to build it faster (than the county could have)."

About a month after that story was published -- around the fall of 2000 -- I learned at a District meeting that the ponding project had officially failed -- after nearly two years of development.

So, check this out, it's great... look at what your staff report states:

"On March 1, 2001, the LOCSD certified a Final EIR for an alternative project involving a conventional treatment system at the Tri-W site."

March 1, 2001?

I don't understand.

According to Nash-Karner, the LOCSD was "confident" that their ponding project was "the most appropriate and most environmentally friendly plan" in the summer of 2000.

So, according to the Coastal Commission's "Background," the 2000 - 01 Los Osos CSD was able to develop a Final EIR, in just a few months after the ponding project failed? A FEIR for "an alternative project involving a conventional treatment system," that included an entirely different treatment facility AND collection system than the ponding project?

Doesn't that sound a little hasty to you? It always has to me.

For example, the County, for its current project, spent over three years to do the exact same thing, following the failure of the District's SECOND project, the hastily developed "alternative project involving a conventional treatment system at the Tri-W site," in 2005.

So, the LOCSD was able to do in as little as six months -- late 2000 to early 2001 -- what took the County over three years to do: develop a Final EIR for an alternative sewer project in Los Osos?

That doesn't sound right. Your "Background" timeline on your official documents doesn't seem to make sense.

Could you please help me fill that hole in my story? What happened there? Did the 2001 LOCSD really accomplish a FEIR for their "conventional," "alternative" project in just a few months? If so, how did they do it?

Dan, it gets worse.

Not only did that ponding project fail (again, it wasn't "rejected"), its failure was predicted. And, not only was its failure predicted, it was predicted by the staff of the California Coastal Commission, BEFORE "the November 1998 local ballot measure (that) formed the Los Osos Community Services District."

As I first exposed, an October 1998, Costal Commission document that analyzed the LOCSD's ponding system, reads:

"The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards have emphasized that approval of the County project, rather than further pursuit of the (ponding system) alternative, is the preferable alternative in terms of water quality protection."

and;

"Pursuit of the (ponding system) alternative also has the potential to result in significant delays to the implementation of a wastewater treatment project for the Los Osos area."

So, here are some of the holes in my story that I'm trying to fill:

-- How does the Coastal Commission explain how the LOCSD was able to accomplish a FEIR for their second, "conventional" project in just a few months?

-- Please explain how the delays associated with the project aren't the fault of the 1998 Commission, considering they ruled against staff's recommendation, and kept delaying meetings throughout 1998 "to provide the community with an opportunity to pursue alternatives," when the 1998 Commission was provided with a huge stack of excellent evidence, long before November of 1998, that showed that the "alternative" wasn't going to work?

Also, can your office please supply me with the "substantial evidence in the record" (according to CEQA) that the CCC used to support the "Statement of Overriding Consideration" found in the FEIR for the Tri-W project?

And, finally, if it's not too much trouble, in future staff reports, could you please change the "Background" information on this subject, from:

"The ponding system was later rejected."

to;

"After nearly two years of development, the ponding system failed in late 2000 (as predicted by Commission staff in October 1998)."

That's much, MUCH more accurate.

Thank you for your time,
Ron

###

[Two weeks down... 50 to go.]