Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Question for Candidate Ochylski, Plus an Update on My Question for Sarah Christie

TO: Marshall Ochylski, Candidate for 2nd District SLO County Supervisor
DATE: 4/14/10

Hello Mr. Ochylski,

I'm researching a story on the 2nd District Supervisor race, and I thought of a very important question that voters will need to know the answer to... before the election.

If you're elected, will current 2nd District Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, be your appointment to the Parks Commission?

And, please, a 'yes' or 'no' answer is required here.

Incidentally, in the comments section of a story published on, Nash-Karner posted that she is supporting Supervisor Gibson.

I'd provide a link to that story (and comment), but removed the entire piece from their blog (after it was published), for reasons unknown.

Thank you for your time,

- - -

Update: Last week, I asked former SLO County Planning Commissioner, and current "Legislative Liaison" for the California Coastal Commission, Sarah Christie, why the CCC, in 2004, approved the "infeasible," $200 million Tri-W park-project-that-contained-a-sewer-system.

Here are her (non)answers:

"My best suggestion is for you to read the CCC staff report for the project in 2004 to get the legal rationale for the approval."

To which I replied:

"As for the 2004 staff report, I actually have read that, but what I'm looking for today, in light of all the embarrassing information that's come out about the Tri-W park project over the past four years, is a 2010 answer from a CCC spokesperson.

In other words, in 2010, it really looks like the CCC made an enormous mistake in 2004 by approving the Tri-W project, and now I'm trying to get a CCC spokesperson to explain to me, and all of Californians, what happened.

Why did the Coastal Commission approve such a deeply, deeply flawed project?

That approval led to six-years-and-counting of delay, and millions of wasted dollars, AND made the lives of 46 property owners (CDO recipients) hell."

She replied:

"If you are looking for a comment from a CCC spokesperson, I would have to say that the Commission relied on the analysis and recommendation contained in the 2004 staff report. If new information has come to light in the ensuing years, and/or in the context of the current proposal, that is information that was not available or was not presented to the Commission in 2004."

Then, I replied:

"Here's the HUGE problem with your take:

The "new information that has come to light" existed in 2004. It WAS "available." But the CCC, for, I must admit, extremely suspicious reasons, failed to see that mountain of information -- information that showed that the Tri-W project was merely a park project disguised as a sewer project, and therefore, a deeply, deeply flawed wastewater project, of course.

But the Coastal Commission, in 2004, failed to see that obvious situation.


Like I wrote earlier, my book is going to require an answer -- a 2010 answer -- to that question, so, if you can't answer it, could you please direct me to a CCC spokesperson that can."

And that was that. She never responded again.

So, right now, there's STILL no official answer to my over-the-top important question:

Why did the Coastal Commission approve the Tri-W disaster in 2004?

Although, I do know the answer to that question, of course.

The answer to my question is found in the following quote that I recently dug out of official transcripts when the Coastal Commission was discussing the Tri-W development permit in 2004:

"I admit that I probably didn't look at the specific language of the LCP, the way I should have."
-- California Coastal Commission member, Sara Wan, August 11, 2004

So, the reason the Coastal Commission approved the Tri-W disaster in 2004, is because Sara Wan is lazy.

HAD she bothered to read the "specific language of the Local Coastal Plan," like I did, she would have discovered that she was actually approving an illegal, $200 million park project, disguised as a sewer project... like I did.

Then, she could have informed her fellow uninformed Commissioners on that fact, and the Tri-W disaster would have never been approved, and what just happened with the County's $7-plus million/4 year analysis -- a sewer system with a treatment facility out of town -- would have happened starting in 2004, and everything that's happened since then -- AB 2701, the Los Osos recall election, four-years-and-$7-plus-million worth of county analysis, the LOCSD bankruptcy, the premature start of construction at the Tri-W site in 2005 that destroyed all of that "environmentally sensitive habitat," and, of course, the Water Quality Control Board enforcement actions (CDOs) on the 46 individual property owners -- would have never happened... had Sara Wan not been lazy.


[15 weeks down... 37 to go.]


  • The acronym CDO has become anachronistic and hardly gets anyone's attention these days. Almost everyone who even knew about the 46 families singled out for CDO enforcement believes that the CDO era is over. So Sarah Christie can't be faulted if she is unmoved by that reference to be helpful.

    In fact, the CDO and CAO requirements are still in place.

    Those with enforcement orders issued in December 2006 have just completed their second septic tank pumping requirement in three years. Those with orders issued in May 2007 are due to pump again in August 2010. Anyone who believes that CDO and CAO holders are no different from NOV recipients is clearly unaware of our financial burden, let alone the fact that our homes continue to be threatened by condemnation proceedings beginning on January 1, 2011 in the event the water board decides that the county is making insufficient progress toward development of a waste water treatment facility.

    Mr. Packard has stated in writing that there are no plans to suspend enforcement of those enforcement orders, despite the water board attorney's statements to the effect that 1. CDOs would become inactive upon sale of our homes and 2. the water board has no plans to re-enforce on a new owner.

    Mr. Packard has also stated that it was his recommendation to the water board that enforcement be extended to the entire Prohibition Zone, but that it was the water board's choice to restrict enforcement to the original randomly selected 46 families.

    I hope that Ms. Christie finds this information instructive.

    By Blogger Bev. De Witt-Moylan, at 6:11 AM, April 18, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home