Los Osos Sustainability Group, You're in Luck: I Give You My "Revocation Hearing Lesson"

"The Attorney General's Office is frequently unable to represent or assist individuals regarding non-criminal complaints against state agencies because this office is required by law to represent those agencies in disputes arising out of their actions."
-- The California Attorney General's Office web site

I see that a citizens' group, The Los Osos Sustainability Group, recently filed for something called a "permit revocation hearing," with the California Coastal Commission.

Well, lucky them.

It turns out, I, personally, have excellent experience with, of all things, a permit revocation request with the California Coastal Commission, and the lessons I learned from that experience, that went from 2005 - 2007, are so valuable (not to mention, super-interesting) that I thought I'd now share those lessons with LOSG. Perhaps they can glean some insight on the process, from my experience.

My, personal (just me) and, strangely, very interesting, permit revocation experience involved the development permit for the now-failed Tri-W disaster, that the 2000 - 2005 Los Osos spent (read: wasted) more than five years and some $25 million... uh... developing?.

Here's the lesson my permit revocation experience taught me:

How Coastal Commission Revocation hearings REALLY work

... and this is great.

Bottom-line:

If you (the person [me], or group [LOSG] requesting the revocation) are right, and your arguments are air-tight (like mine were/are), you DON'T -- repeat: do NOT -- get a hearing, but, eventually, you WILL get the permit revoked.

If you are wrong, and your arguments are NOT air-tight, THAT's when the CCC grants you an official hearing, and that means you've already, automatically, failed.

In other words -- and this is just so funny -- if they grant you a hearing, you're automatically done, because, if they see, in advance that you ARE right, that means they screwed-up by approving a faulty permit in the first place, and you're not going to get a hearing.

See what I mean there? It's a little tricky to wrap the mind around, but it's hilarious, and it makes so much sense, and it's true, because that's exactly what happened to me.

I mean, to even attempt to get a revocation hearing, you have to, waaay in advance, show the CCC staff your arguments, just like LOSG recently did with their "over 10,000 pages," and if your arguments are air-tight (like mine were/are, and which I can produce on one page of super-tight, primary sources), and CCC staff sees, in their offices, that THEY were wrong in recommending the approval to begin with, do you really think that that exact same staff is now going to say, "Whooaa, hold on here. Wait a sec. Uh-oh... These guys are right! We DID f-up. Whadaya say we now schedule a gigantic public hearing, with lots of microphones and cameras, so they can now show everyone, in an extremely public fashion, just how badly we f-d up?"

Ain't... gonna... happen... ever.

So, that's what this piece is, a story of what happens when your revocation request is air-tight, like mine.

My excellent revocation hearing story starts with someone named Steve Monowitz.

Steve WAS the CCC staffer, "permit supervisor," back in 2004, that handled the disastrous Tri-W development permit between the Los Osos CSD and the CCC.

Steve was ALSO the guy that handled the first revocation hearing for another Los Osos group (Los Osos Technical Task Force) involving the Tri-W disaster, and that request, after a ton of time and official back-and-forth, failed, in a public meeting, because it wasn't very good, and the CCC staff could see that, in advance, so they granted the hearing, because CCC staff knew in advance that the request didn't hold water. (Again, see what I mean there? Makes perfect, and funny, sense, right?)

Fast-forward to about June of 2005, and Monowitz now thinks he's completely in the clear with regard to the Tri-W permit. At that point, that permit is tiny in Monowitz's rearview mirror.

And that detail is extremely interesting: From the moment the original revocation request failed, in early 2005, to the moment I ended up on the phone with Monowitz, in about June of 2005, Steve thought that the entire Tri-W permit was waaaay behind him, and had NO IDEA what a complete disaster the Tri-W permit actually was, until I informed him... on the phone... that day, in 2005.

Repeat: I... informed... him.

And, after I told him what REALLY happened with the Tri-W permit, which was basically everything I exposed in one of my New Times cover stories, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown (in 2004), Monowitz KNEW I was right. He got it, right there, on the phone, and, right there, on the phone he realized he f-d up. I could hear it in his voice. He instantly realized that he f-d up by trusting the 1999 - 2005 Los Osos CSD. (HUUUGE mistake, just ask Steve, today.)

I showed him, using nothing but the primary sources I dug up in my reporting, how he was actually lied to by Los Osos CSD officials about the only reason the CCC approved a mid-town sewer plant/"picnic area" in the first place, when District officials, told Steve, and his supervisors, that there was a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that ANY sewer plant for a community-wide system must also include an elaborate public park, and then that "sewer-park" has to be "centrally located" so the town's residents can easily access their "sewer-park," and the ONLY "centrally located" site that could accommodate a sewer plant, was the Tri-W site.

THAT's what LOCSD officials told the Coastal Commission, yet, as I first exposed, that "strongly held community value" -- the ONLY reason why an industrial sewer plant was being built, on ESHA, in the middle of a beautiful California coastal town, in the first place -- was a complete, deliberate, fabricated lie by the LOCSD to the CCC, as I showed Steve, using nothing but primary sources... and he knew I was right.

"It was inappropriate of me to rely on (Solution Group-turned-LOCSD Directors) to determine 'community values' for Los Osos," Monowitz told me, after I showed him how he, and the entire Coastal Commission, was lied to by the 1999 - 2004 LOCSD.

I also showed him that the reason they lied to him was because the Los Osos CSD HAD to cook up SOME reason to keep their second, vastly redesigned sewer plant, in the exact same location as their first proposed project (the DOA, now-failed "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, that Monowitz also handled), because if that site WASN'T used for a sewer plant -- and this is an extremely important point in the entire history of the the Los Osos sewer wars -- it would have shown that the only reason to form the Los Osos CSD in the first place, in 1998 -- the PURSUIT of the DOA, now-failed "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, also AT the Tri-W site, and which ALSO killed the County's then-"ready-to-go" project (another over-the-top important/interesting point) -- had failed, and the people behind the formation of the LOCSD just couldn't let that happen (think about it, it's very powerful motivation), so they cooked up that "strongly held community value" lie, and sold it, hard, to the Coastal Commission over a disastrous four year span... and it worked!

I also showed Steve, in 2005, almost a year after he recommended approval of the Tri-W disaster -- a recommendation based solely on that "strongly held community value" lie -- all of the primary-source documentation that I dug up, that showed that if anyone knew that that "strongly held community value" DIDN'T exist in Los Osos, it was the exact same LOCSD officials telling him that it did.

And Steve knew I was right, on all of it, because I could show him the primary-source documents, and he, like I, could just see it. It was obvious. Caught 'em. Done.

He could now see that he was lied to by the LOCSD about the only reason why the Coastal Commission approved an industrial sewer plant, with an elaborate $6 million "picnic area" built into it, sitting on ESHA, smack-dab in the middle of a beautiful California coastal town.

THAT's what I showed Steve.

He could now see that, in reality, there was no documentable reason whatsoever to build a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos... on ESHA.

A quote from Monowitz, from those phone calls in 2005, that haunts me to this day, is, after he realized I was right, and that he was lied to, I could actually hear him sigh in frustration over the phone, and then he (painfully) said, "Where were you during the permitting process?"

Great question.

I mean, my arguments DID exist at the time of the permitting process, but the problem was, unbelievably, NO ONE, not one person (other than me), knew that there was no REAL reason whatsoever to build the sewer plant in the middle of town. (And when I write, "unbelievably," there, that's about as literal of a meaning of that word as I've ever used: TRULY, unbelievable, that the ONLY person (let alone reporter) that saw the Tri-W disaster for exactly what it was, was me. Unbelievable, but that's exactly what happened... and to this day, that dynamic plays into this story, in a big way, because, now, interestingly, ALL of those people that were relentlessly fighting for years to get the Tri-W plant out of town during the permitting process, failed to see the ONE argument that would win their case: mine.

Stunning.

So look at that weird scenario that exists to this day, it's also great: Even the people that fought to kill the Tri-W disaster, from about 2001 to... well, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, in September 2004, can't really get on board with my reporting, because it's kind of embarrassing for them, as well.

What my timeline/time-stamped stories show, is that, for years, everyone that fought so hard to kill the Tri-W project, failed to see the one, simple argument that would have stopped it in its tracks, in, what? 2001?

So, THAT's the amazing context of what Steve was talking about, when, in a highly pained voice, he asked me, "Where were you during the permitting process?"

Steve could now see, from just two quick phone conversations with me, that ALL of that -- the entire previous four years of dealing with the Tri-W disaster, and the over-the-top sneaky Los Osos CSD (that Monowitz, for the previous year, believed was deep in his rearview mirror) -- ... was... for... absolutely... nothing.

ALL of the meetings (including the 2005 revocation hearing).

ALL of the correspondence.

ALL of the (massive stack) of official documents.

ALL of the wasted public time and public money.

ALL of the continued water pollution.

ALL OF THE COMPLETELY WASTED PEOPLE HOURS.

ALL of it... for... absolutely... nothing.

A lie.

So, yeah, Steve's question is a valid one: Where was I, with my excellent, air-tight arguments, during the four years of the permitting process for the Tri-W disaster?

That's when I explained to him, "Steve, I am not an activist. I'm a journalist looking for a good story," and TRUST ME, a tiny, local governmental agency, tricking the California Coastal Commission into approving a mid-town sewer plant/"picnic area," sited on environmentally sensitive habitat, by lying to the Commission about a "strongly held community value" to actually "picnic" in said "community's" sewer plant, and then how all of that led directly to a now-ten-year-and-counting, over-the-top disastrous, public works train wreck, is a GREAT story.

[Note: That's another super-interesting fact that I just can't get over, to this day. It leaves me shaking my head: Look what EVERYONE, but me, missed: The "strongly held community value" to actually want to "picnic" in a "centrally located" sewer plant.

I mean, huh?!

Had anyone -- Monowitz, LOTTF, the local Sierra Club, the worse-than-nothing local media -- had done the ONE thing that I did, and simply say, "Uh, guys? Ya know what? This "strongly held community value" to want to "picnic" in a "centrally located" sewer plant, sounds kind of weird. So, what's the source of this so-called "strongly held community value?," the Tri-W disaster would have died on the spot, right then and there.

I actually pressed Monowitz into admitting that he did not have a source to back that up, and, he knew I was right, there is none... not a shred of "substantial," documentable, evidence that shows that "community value," anywhere, of course, (but, A LOT of evidence that shows the exact opposite was/is true, of course, and that District officials were keenly aware of at the time they were telling the CCC "strongly held community value.")

So, yep, that's what blows me away, to this day: Not only was I the only person to ask the question, it was THIS question: "What's the source of this so-called 'strongly held community value' to 'picnic' in a sewer plant?"

And the moment I asked that question, and there was no official answer to it, that was that. Right there, the Tri-W "project" died, when I was researching Three Blocks, in 2004.

Had anyone asked that question -- anyone... THAT question -- in the previous four years before I asked it, the Tri-W disaster would have never happened, and, even worse, I wouldn't have landed this excellent story.

Unbelievable, but true.]

Back to the Revocation Hearing Lesson

A few months after my conversations with Monowitz, I stumbled onto the official language for what it takes to get a revocation hearing:

"Any person who did not have the opportunity to fully participate in the original permit proceeding by reason of the permit applicant's intentional inclusion of inaccurate information or failure to provide adequate public notice as specified in Section 13105 may request revocation of a permit ...".

Well, I already knew, through my reporting, that's exactly -- and I mean exactly -- what happened with the Tri-W permit-- "the applicant's intentional inclusion of inaccurate information" -- and so, as a responsible citizen (let alone reporter), I couldn't just sit there, with all I knew, and do nothing, and just sit back and watch a sewer plant get built in the middle of Los Osos, when I (and, apparently, I, alone... well, and [now] Steve... o.k., considering this was AFTER Three Blocks, there could have been more, but, remember, the peole that SHOULD have been on my side, all took a HUGE swing-and-a-miss, so now my story is very embarrassing for them, so they, also, have to pretend it doesn't exist [which is a very interesting little twist in all of this]) knew it was being built there for absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than a lie.

So I contacted Steve and told him that I wanted a revocation hearing, for the exact reasons that I discussed with him a few months earlier... where he KNEW I was already right.

And that's when he told me, "If anyone deserves a revocation hearing, it's you," referring to LOTTF's 2005 embarrassment, and knowing how tight my arguments are/were in relation.

And that's when Steve and I struck that weird, little arrangement, that I first wrote about at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/06/coastal-commission-sewerwatch.html

Our arrangement went like this:

Considering it's now 2006, and the final LOCSD Directors that were responsible for the Tri-W disaster were finally kicked out of office, of course, through a successful recall election, in September, 2005, the Tri-W permit was in limbo. No one had any idea what was going to happen. Would the project eventually go forward, or would it die out?

So Steve and I struck a deal.

I agreed to hold off on my revocation hearing request (I mean, why go through that huge process if the permit may not even be used in the future anyway, was our rationale), and Steve agreed that if the Tri-W project ever got the green light again, I would THEN get my revocation hearing.

So, look at that amazing dynamic. It's pretty much the entire point of this piece:

In 2006, Steve now knows (through me, and my reporting) that my arguments for revoking the disastrous Tri-W permit are air-tight, and what it shows is a bombshell: The LOCSD lied to the Coastal Commission about the only reason to build a sewer plant in the middle of a beautiful California coastal community, and the CCC, and its staff, including Steve, all failed to do their homework, and therefore went on to approve a nonsensical "sewer-park" disaster, and then that approval would go on to waste millions and millions of public dollars (including millions in SLO County, and California public money), and waste now-ten-years-and-counting of time, and all of that time, the water pollution continues (present tense) in Los Osos. (That's true too: To this day, the continued water pollution in Los Osos is due DIRECTLY to that "community value" lie, starting in 2001.)

And, very importantly, had the LOCSD not cooked up that "community value" lie, starting in 2000, the project would have simply reverted BACK to the county's "ready to go" project, that the LOCSD killed in March of 1999 -- that would have been the only logical thing to do -- and the entire formation of the LOCSD itself would have been for absolutely nothing, which is the exact case today, and will always be that way.

THAT's what my revocation hearing was going to show... in front of the entire Coastal Commission... and its staff... right to their faces.

Put yourself in their shoes. Would YOU grant me a hearing under those circumstances? Where I show up, and publicly embarrass you, by showing, in great, primary-source-detail, how you fell asleep on your jobs, and approved a "mid-town" on "ESHA" "sewer plant/picnic area" disaster, and you already know, in advance, that's exactly what's going to happen?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

And that's exactly why I never got that hearing.

See? I was right, and they knew I was right, therefore, it stands to reason (in a humorous, yet, logical way), that there's NO WAY I was EVER going to get a hearing to explain exactly WHY I was right.

However, here's the great ending to my experience: I DID eventually win.

Fast-forward to 2007, and SLO County officials now have control over the Los Osos sewer project, AND the Tri-W "project" is STILL being considered by SLO County officials (because, as it also stands to reason, they were being forced [all behind-the-scenes like] to consider it by the exact same people that were responsible for wasting all of that time and money on it [think about those behind-the-scenes moments, we can only imagine the panic]), but then, something very interesting happened.

It turns out, the Tri-W permit had an expiration date, something, surprisingly, I wasn't aware of until the subject came up at a SLO County Supervisors' meeting in 2007.

So look at what's happening there, in 2007, it's great: Steve Monowitz is STILL the CCC staff guy for the sewer project, but THIS time around he's working with SLO County officials, namely, public works director, Paavo Ogren.

So, here's Steve, in 2007, and he still KNOWS I'm right -- by then, he'd known that for about two years -- that the disastrous Tri-W permit is based on one thing, and one thing only -- a lie -- and now that permit is about to expire, when all it would take to extend its shelf-life would be for Ogren to file a tiny bit of paperwork to extend the expiration date.

Now, keep in mind, that permit cost the 1999-2005 Los Osos CSD about $25 million to get, over a disastrous six year span, and the only thing the county had to do to keep it alive in 2007, was fill out one simple form, yet, Monowitz recommended that they not even do that, and just let the disaster quietly expire, and Ogren, and the Supervisors, all agreed, and the Tri-W permit was officially "revoked."

I'm left to my imagination what Monowitz must have said to Ogren during their private conversations involving the expiration of the Tri-W permit:

"Uh, Paav, I'll be blunt: It turns out that Ron's right, and if you choose to pursue that disaster, he's going to get a revocation hearing, that I've already promised him, and that hearing is going to blow that disaster out of the water, in spectacular, and highly embarrassing to both of us (the CCC and SLO County), fashion. So, for the love of god, please just let it die quietly on the vine, and don't even fill out the extension paperwork, because, as Ron already knows, that permit's already dead."

Which is exactly what happened. Paavo didn't fill out the simple form, and the permit quietly died.

In other words, THAT was my revocation hearing -- the quiet expiration of the disastrous Tri-W permit, at that 2007 Supervisors meeting -- which is too bad, because the Power Point presentation I had locked-and-loaded for my REAL revocation hearing, was going to be dazzling. (Tell ya the truth, I'm kinda bummed I was deprived of that life-moment. It would have been like the ending of The Natural.)

So, LOSG, there's my Coastal Commission Permit Revocation lesson:

If your arguments are air-tight, like mine were/are, the staff of the CCC will see, in advance, that they screwed up, big time, and they WON'T grant you a hearing, but they will maneuver around, behind-the-scenes, to make their mistakes go away as quietly as possible, and you end up winning (in a weird, unsatisfying way) that way, just like I did.

If your arguments are NOT air-tight, like LOTTF's in 2005, Commission staff sees that in advance, and THAT's when the Commission grants you a hearing, and then they show you, publicly, how you failed, which means, if they grant you a hearing, you've automatically failed, so why even do the hearing? You're just getting set up to fail, publicly.

Of course, shortly after the Tri-W permit just quietly died on the vine, in 2007, Monowitz "left" the Coastal Commission, and is now a county planner in the Bay Area.

Finally, and, also of course, to date, there's yet to be one shred of accountability for the Los Osos CSD lying to the Coastal Commission about the Tri-W disaster, a lie that would go on to cost the State of California millions upon millions of dollars, and add another 10-years-and-counting of water pollution to the State's waters.

And one deposition -- one simple, quick deposition -- of Steve Monowitz, asking him about how the Los Osos CSD lied to him about the Tri-W "project," and everything involved with that to-date-covered-up, statewide disaster, would ALL come out.

One deposition of Steve Monowitz, is all it would take to make that happen, even to today (considering how relevant all of this still is).

However, as I always report these days, it's actually illegal in this case for the State Attorney General's office to conduct that one deposition, because Monowitz was a client of the State Attorney General's office back in 2005 - 07, which makes Kamala Harris' current client, the California Coastal Commission, AND its current executive director, Charles Lester, STILL on the hook for not only the Tri-W disaster, but the resulting massive delay in implementing a reality-based sewer project in Los Osos, a delay directly attributable to the Tri-W disaster, and a delay that continues to this day, more than 10 years after the Los Osos CSD first tricked Monowitz with their deliberately fake "strongly held community value."

Unbelievable... but true.

###

Uh, KCBX? You call THAT "Equal Time" for Arnold?

"The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it."

["Failure trombone" sound]

Yep, that's right:

["Failure trombone" sound]

That's my lead for this piece, and if everything just worked on your computer when you clicked on that link, you just heard that hilarious "failure trombone" sound.

And that sound -- that "wha... wha... wha... whaaaaaaaa" sound -- describes, perfectly, my response to the weak attempt that KCBX tried to pass off as "Equal Time," last Saturday morning, in an effort to comply with the Federal "Equal Time" law, that radio stations in the U.S. must comply with when it comes to political candidates.

In case you missed it, the week prior, I caught local public radio KCBX host, and SLO County Parks Commissioner, Rick Mathews, using the public airwaves to promote a fundraiser for SLO County Supervisor, Jim Patterson, the same person that appointed Mathews to his official SLO County position, so, the fundraiser, is, basically, for BOTH of them.

Then, after I showed KCBX general manager, Frank Lanzone, how Mathews was using the public radio station as his, and his boss', personal campaign fundraising machine, Lanzone agreed, and told me, "The bottom line is Rick and KCBX made a mistake. We broke an FCC rule. We will announce a fundraiser for (Debbie Arnold's) campaign on one of Rick’s upcoming shows. We owe her that air time. By law," and then forced KCBX host Mathews to: 1) stop promoting the fundraiser that benefits Parks Commissioner Mathews, and 2) make up for his "mistake," by giving Patterson's opponent in the upcoming election, Debbie Arnold, "Equal Time," on his show.

But, what he did on this past Saturday's show, of course, got weird, and led to some excellent local radio: A complete, multi-level, "equal time" failure, which I have now hilariously compiled and mashed together with my "failure trombone," to create my list of "Equal Time Failure Trombone Moments" by Mathews during last Saturday's show:

"Equal Time Failure Trombone" Moment #1

Throughout his broadcast the previous week, Mathews mentioned the benefit concert -- by Inga Swearingen -- three different times -- at the beginning, the middle, and then end of his two hour show -- and, of course, not once did he mention that it was a fundraiser for the same person that appointed Mathews as a SLO County official.

To be clear, he DID, following the second mention of the fundraiser, quickly say, "By the way, this is a political fundraiser, I should mention that," but that was all.

Not once did he ever say something like, "Oh, by the way this is a political fundraiser for Jim Patterson, the same person that appoints me to official SLO County seats, where I also have all of these weird, unethical, business ties."

And that's a VERY important point for "Failure #1," because during THIS week's broadcast, only at the mid-way point did he make the Arnold announcement, and it got weird.

That's when Mathews comes on, and announces that "Due to FCC regulations," he now is forced to announce a fundraiser for Arnold.

So, for ly... errrrr... let me try that again: For ly... ERRRRRR... o.k., one more time: For being less than truthful, and saying, on air, that he DID disclose the fundraiser was for his SLO County government boss, Jim Patterson, when, in reality-land, Mathews did NOT disclose that extremely important point during last week's broadcast, Mathews gets an "Equal Time failure trombone:"

["Failure trombone" sound]

"Equal Time Failure Trombone" Moment #2

Could Mathews have made the the Arnold fundraiser announcement any more cold?

First, he starts it off by announcing, that, "Due to FCC regulations," he is forced to make the announcement, as if to say, "Unfortunately, due to some silly Federal laws, I can't just sit here, on my public radio show, and campaign solely for the same guy that appoints me to official government positions, so, I'm forced, 'by law,' to make up for my 'mistake' from last week, and grumble some sort of announcement at you regarding my boss's opponent."

(I mean, how great is that? Here's an official SLO County Parks Commissioner, announcing a fundraising event, on the air, for the candidate that's trying to get him out of office. Awwwkwarrrrd. [Finally, some good local radio.])

But, I even cry foul on the event he announced for Arnold.

It's a BBQ, with live music by local... well, I really don't know what he is... uh, inheritor of large sum of money, Paul Brown.

Now, Brown seems like a nice enough guy, but, Inga Swearingen is, like, super-talented, to the point where people will actually pay money to watch her perform.

Paul Brown? Not so much.

So, my (funny) point here is, by announcing an Inga Swearingen concert (over and over and over again) on Mathews' radio show -- a concert that people would actually want to see -- and just a single mention of a Paul Brown "concert," is FAAAAAAR from "Equal Time," in a funny sort of way.

But, on a more serious point... on this point... according to the "Equal Time" provisions:

"A station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A, must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office." [bolding mine.]

"Same audience potential?"

Uh, Rick's show is a JAZZ show. Inga is an exceptionally talented, and therefore internationally famous, JAZZ artist.

Paul Brown is a... well, a local guy that got a big inheritance that allowed him to pay to put a local band together, and their music is, um, what? Rockabilly, I guess?

In other words, almost everyone listening to Rick's show would want to go to his, and his boss', fundraising event, because they, being jazz listeners, would love to see Inga's appearance, and, trust me, almost NO ONE listening to Rick's show would want to go watch Paul Brown's appearance, because he's, well, how's this?: NOT Inga... not even close. (No offense, Paul, just makin' an important point, humorously.)

That doesn't sound like "same audience potential" to me. That sounds like an "Equal Time Failure Trombone" moment.

["Failure trombone" sound]

"Equal Time Failure Trombone" Moment #3

So, it's getting to the end of Rick's show last Saturday, and I hear the beautiful sound of Inga's voice. Mathews is playing one of her songs.

And, I instantly think, "Oh, this should be great. How's he going to around this one? Where he makes the announcement of who he just played -- Inga -- without mentioning the fundraising event for Parks Commissioner Mathews, and his boss?"

So, he gets to that point, and announces that, "We just listened to Inga Swearingen," and then he pauses -- this awkward, long pause -- and I could just tell it's killing him, that he CAN'T, forbidden to mention the fundraising concert on last Saturday's show, after mentioning it over and over and over again, the week before, and then he says something like, "You can find out more about Inga at ingaswearingen.com."

Five seconds later, I'm on ingaswearingen.com, where it lists, right at the top of "Shows," you guessed it:

"Upcoming Performances

Friday, March 23, 2012
Jim Patterson Fundraiser Concert @ The Monday Club"

He just couldn't resist, and how VERRRRRY sneaky of Mathews: "O.K., I won't announce the fundraising event for me and my boss, I'll just give out the web site of the artist performing at the event, and let the web site do the announcement."

By doing that -- giving out the web site of an artist that his audience would actually LIKE to see, and where it lists the fundrasing event for Mathews and his boss, right at the top of the "Shows" page -- it COMPLETELY wipes out that one, quick, terse, cold, bitter, NON-"same audience potential" announcement for Arnold's fundraiser, for a sum total of ZERO "Equal Time," during Mathews' show this week.

["Failure trombone" sound]

I also want to point out something very important here, and without even bothering to verify this, I know this:

Had I NOT reported last week, that Mathews is using the local radio station as his and his boss' personal campaign fundraising machine, I can GUARANTEE that he would have continued to publicize his and his boss' benefit concert this week, and Arnold's campaign wouldn't even have gotten that one, cold, bitter, awkward announcement.

["Failure trombone" sound]

If KCBX management is REALLY interested in "Equal Time," they'd take SLO County Parks Commissioner (appointed by Supervisor Patterson), Rick Mathews, off the air until AFTER the election.

Apparently, that's the only way we can be sure that he won't be doing his sneaky, illegal campaigning, that helps keep him in office, using the public, "listener supported" air waves, because what he SHOULD have done last Saturday, for REAL "Equal Time," was announce Arnold's fundraiser three different times, and then play a lot of Paul Brown's "music."

Therefore, I say:

["Failure trombone" sound]

... and what Parks Commissioner Mathews did on his show this past Saturday, does not count as "Equal Time," clearly.

And, now, I end with this great quote from Wikipedia, regarding the "Equal Time Rule:"

"The rule was created because the FCC thought the stations could easily manipulate the outcome of the elections."

A-duuhhh! Ya think?

###

KCBX General Manager, Lanzone: "We Broke an FCC Rule," "Owe" Candidate, Debbie Arnold, "Air Time"

If you have any interest in political science/local government, there will (will!) be a GREAT civics lesson this Saturday (tomorrow!) at noon, in the form of (of all things) a jazz radio program.

In my previous post, I show how I caught KCBX Host, Rick Mathews, broadcasting, on his public radio show, an advertisement for a concert that will benefit Parks Commissioner Rick Mathews (and his boss') chance at keeping his official, SLO County position.

Well, there's an excellent update to that post.

Turns out, I was right, of course, and as usual.

In a recent email to SewerWatch, Frank Lanzone, General Manager of KCBX, wrote, "We do publicize local music as part of our music programming, but in this instance (where KCBX Host Rick Mathews publicized a political fundraiser that will benefit Parks Commissioner Rick Mathews' chances at keeping his official, SLO County government position), it was inappropriate to include information regarding this concert."

Lanzone added, "The bottom line is Rick and KCBX made a mistake. We broke an FCC rule. We will announce a fundraiser for Debbie’s campaign on one of Rick’s upcoming shows. We owe her that air time. By law."

So, this could get very interesting tomorrow, for a couple of reasons.

1) That concert isn't until the 23rd, which means, will Mathews even mention it on tomorrow's show, like he did over and over and over again on last week's show?

and;

2) Will he apologize on tomorrow's show for violating FCC rules, by using the public radio airwaves to advance his own political/private business agenda?

Tune in, and find out.

KCBX, 90.1 FM, Saturday, noon.

And, just because I don't feel like retyping, and rewording all of this, what follows is my (smart-ass, of course) response to Lanzone, after, in his email, he also wrote, "(SewerWatch) is using this so his blog is more 'colorful.' I guess looking for more 'garbage' and plots to make his blog more interesting. I guess."

- - -
- - -

Hello Frank...

You write:

"The implication that Ron is making, that Rick did this to somehow thank Jim or “pay back” Jim for his appointment..."

I apologize that you got confused on that.

I'm actually not implying that, at all.

What I show in my piece, using nothing but primary sources (as usual), is that Rick is a SLO County government official, appointed to his seat by Jim Patterson, and if you go to this link:

http://slocounty.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=25&clip_id=1023

it reads:

- - -

5. San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens - Request $300,000 Grant from Public Facility Fund.

Thereafter, on motion of  Rick Mathews... the following roll call vote:
AYES: Rick Mathews...

AGENDA ITEM 5 IS APPROVED.

- - -

So, according to official SLO County documents, we have Parks Commissioner Mathews voting to approve giving the SLO Botanical Garden $300,000 of public, SLO County money, and then, if you Google "Madrone Landscapes" "Botanical Garden":

... it comes back with all kinds of results that shows a professional business tie to Rick's, Madrone Landscapes, and the SLO Botanical Garden:

["Madrone Landscapes recently concluded a three week exhibit at the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden...]

... that Commissioner Mathews voted to give $300,000 of public money.

THEN, KCBX host, Rick Mathews, goes on his show last week, and without ever disclosing that he IS a SLO County Parks Commissioner (appointed by Jim Patterson), promotes a fundraiser for Jim Patterson... for the entire two-hour show.

That's not me implying that Rick is "thanking" Supervisor Patterson "for his appointment," that's me showing that Rick is deliberately not disclosing his official government position, and then conducting political fundraising on his show for the person that appointed him to his seat, so Rick can keep his official SLO County government position, where he's also a client of (Chief County Counsel) Warren Jensen, and where he votes to hand public money over to an agency that he has professional business ties to.

That's not Rick "thanking" Jim. That's Commissioner Mathews using (in a most unethical [if not illegal] fashion) the local public radio station in an effort to keep HIS official government position, where he advances HIS business interests.

BIIIIIG difference.

That's what I show. I don't "imply" anything... except, for maybe THIS implication: If Debbie Arnold is elected (and the race is VERY close), Rick Mathews will lose his SLO County government position, and that wouldn't be so good for that Madrone Landscape/SLO Botanical Garden arrangement.

Here's another fun link:

http://slocounty.granicus.com/ViewSearchResults.php?keywords=botanical&view_id=25

... where it reads things like:

"Commissioner Mathews also spoke favorably on the Botanical Gardens concert series,"

and;

"Commissioner Mathews requests regular updates on the Botanical Gardens."

and;

"Commissioner Mathews spoke on a grant funded Fire-safe Demonstration Garden at the Botanical Garden..."

Just on and on and on.

You (Lanzone) write:

"Rick’s connection to Parks and Patterson is superfluous to all this."

That doesn't sound like the case, at all.

... But, good news!

You, and Rick, and Parks Commissioner/SLO Botanical Garden Director, Pandora Nash-Karner, won't have to worry about this story, because, due to the fact that I got to this interesting, local story first, that means that The Tribune, New Times, (local radio talk show host) Dave Congalton, and CalCoastNews.com are now forced to pretend it doesn't exist, and, therefore it won't get any traction, and nothing will ever come of it.

Which also means that Rick won't even have to do this:

"We will announce a fundraiser for Debbie’s campaign on one of Rick’s upcoming shows."

See what I mean, there? Since I got to this story first, that means the rest of the local "media" now has to completely ignore it, so, Rick can just keep using his public radio show as a way to ensure that he keeps his SLO County government position, and that "KCBX host/Parks Commissioner/SLO Botanical Garden/Madrone Landscapes" arrangement will stay intact.

Considering this is now a dead story (because now the other local media CAN'T report on it), Rick can just keep doing his political fundraising on his show, and no one will say another word.

You're welcome.

Thank you for the quotes,
Ron

- - -
- - -

Finally, just a quick question:

Considering that I can show business ties to the SLO County Botanical Garden and SLO County Parks Commissioners, Nash-Karner and Mathews, AND the fact that I can go to the official SLO County Parks Commission web site, where their meetings are archived, and type the word "botanical" into the search bar, and it returns about a bazillion results like this:

"Commissioner Nash-Karner spoke on upcoming Botanical Gardens events and thanked staff for an excellent annual retreat and their assistance with promotions for the Gardens."

and;

"Commissioner Mathews spoke on a grant funded Fire-safe Demonstration Garden at the Botanical Gardens..."

and;

"Commissioner Mathews spoke in support of the Botanical Gardens concert programs."

and;

"Commissioner Pandora Nash-Karner spoke on... the Botanical Garden’s Executive Director recruitment."

and, of course;

"5. San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens - Request $300,000 Grant from Public Facility Fund."

... how are Commissioners Nash-Karner and Mathews STILL official SLO County government, uh, officials?

I mean, it just seems so in-your-face unethical: I've exposed over and over and over again, and even submitted OFFICIAL public comment to the entire Board of Supervisors, regarding that arrangement, and not only do the Supes do absolutely nothing to remedy that highly unethical (if not illegal [and if it's not, it SHOULD be]) arrangement, they actually APPROVE things like that $300,000 of public, SLO County money for the SLO Botanical Garden, where Commissioners Nash-Karner and Mathews also have professional business ties.

Well, I guess that's the bottom-line civics lesson here: When ALL of the local media (and by "ALL," I mean three small outlets) play that silly, little game, where they have to pretend that an important story involving local government, public money, and public airwaves, doesn't exist, simply because some smart-ass blogger got to it first, that local government GETS to be in-your-face unethical.

Why not? What's stopping them?

Clearly, nothing.

###

Uh, KCBX? Does Debbie Arnold Get Equal Time?

I really want to like Rick Mathews, I really do.

I mean, he's the volunteer host of that great Saturday afternoon jazz program on KCBX, Freedom Jazz Dance, and he's a huge Stevie Wonder fan (like me), and, in full disclosure, I actually did some web work for his business, Madrone Lanscapes, about 10 years ago, and he's a REALLY nice guy.

But, frankly, he does some things that involve his media position, his position as a SLO County Parks Commissioner, and his position as a local businessman, that, ethically, just make me cringe... over and over again.

The latest happened shortly after noon today, Saturday, just about an hour ago.

He made a quick announcement at the start of his show for an upcoming concert of (the lovely and talented, and, thus, locally popular) Inga Swearingen.

But, what Rick failed to mention in his announcement -- during a broadcast that is capable of covering the entire north county -- is that Inga's concert is "a benefit concert for Jim Patterson for Supervisor," who is facing a tough re-election challenge, against Debbie Arnold. (Arnold almost won that office last time around, missed it by just a couple of hundred votes, out of more than 20,000, if memory serves, and she's REALLY close again.)

And it's THAT -- the NON-mentioning of the "benefit concert to reelect 5th District Supervisor, Jim Patterson" in association with Inga's concert, by Mathews on his radio show, that, on a media/ethical level, just makes me cringe.

You see, Mathews is ALSO an official SLO County, uh, official, where he sits on the SLO County Parks Commission, appointed by ... wait for it... 5th District Supervisor, Jim Patterson.

So, look at this huge cringe moment: KCBX Host, Rick Mathews, is broadcasting, on public radio, an advertisement for a concert that will benefit Parks Commissioner, Rick Mathews' (and his boss') chances at keeping their official, SLO County seats, which also makes them clients of County Counsel, Warren Jensen... and Mathews doesn't disclose that on his widely-broadcast radio show?

Uhg.

I wonder if Debbie Arnold has a friend that hosts a show on KCBX? You know, for that "equal time" thing.

And don't even get me started on Mathews' Madrone Landscapes/SLO County Parks Commission/SLO Botanical Garden/Pandora Nash-Karner connection.

Cringe. Cringe. Cringe. CRINGE! (I'm crampin' up here.)

But the Inga he played, sure sounded sweet.

###

SLO County Parks Commission? You're Welcome!

I'm always surprised at the amount of genuine humor that's found in things like "sewer facility reports," and "immaterial amendments" to "coastal development permits," and small, local government agencies.

SO damn funny.

The following bit of hilarity (and trust me, if you can grasp the complex set of circumstances at work here, this is really funny), is a follow-up to my previous post: American Smart-Ass, that sets up this latest batch of comedy hits.

If you haven't read that piece, you might want to do that first.

Here's the direct link:

http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2012/03/american-smart-ass.html

- - -
- - -

TO: Pandora Nash-Karner, SLO County Parks Commissioner, 2nd District
DATE: 3/6/12

Dear Parks Commissioner Nash-Karner,

I have some excellent news involving the "centrally located" "sewer-park" in Los Osos, that you originally designed for your Los Osos sewer project, when you were a Director on the Los Osos Community Services Board, from late 1998 through the end of 2000.

To help refresh your memory, I've included in this email the front cover of the Facilities Report for the project that your LOCSD Board developed:



As you can see (if you look closely), your (and your husband's, "SWA Group") official, "November 2000" layout of the Tri-W sewer plant includes numerous park amenities, such as a "tot lot," "picnic area," "amphitheater," and more.

Now, I know how important those amenities are to you, because, as I first showed in one of my New Times cover stories, archived at this link:

http://archive.newtimesslo.com/archive/2004-09-22/cover/index.html

... the Facility Report for your Board's (now-failed) Tri-W project also reads:

"The (potential sewer plant) sites on the outskirts of town could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents..."

And, then, in the Coastal Commission's 2004 (originally-approved-but-now-"expired") permit for that project, it reads:

"... other (out of town) 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."

So, in other words, according to both your own LOCSD Board's documents, and official CCC documents, the above-mentioned park amenities in the Tri-W sewer plant were so important to you, as a LOCSD Board Director, that your Board "rejected" all other potential out-of-town sewer plant sites, solely for the "project objective" of those "centrally located community amenities" -- a "readily accessible" "community use area" in a sewer facility.

Well, here's the excellent news I have for you, today.

This Thursday (March 8), at the California Coastal Commission's meeting in Chula Vista, the "deputy director" for the California Coastal Commission will be "reporting" on my official "written objection," that those exact same amenities, that your LOCSD Board originally designed into the project in 2000, and that were solely responsible for dictating the downtown sewer plant location, be reincorporated BACK into the project, through a proposed amendment to the current Development Permit, that will move a "pump station" for the current project to nearly the exact same location as the "centrally located" "sewer-park" that you designed for Los Osos in 2000.

Even better, currently, the County is in the process of "restoring" the Tri-W site, after it was "massively graded" in 2005 to make room for your "centrally located" "sewer-park", before the Tri-W project would go on to fail completely in June of 2010.

So, look at this beautiful opening here. It presents the perfect opportunity for you, as a SLO County Parks Commissioner, to finish what you started in 2000, as an elected LOCSD Director: A "centrally located" "picnic area" in a sewer facility in Los Osos.

A perfect opportunity!

I wanted to show you this before the August 8 CCC meeting, because I know how excited you must be to see my "written objection," where I insist that the $6 million worth of "park amenities," like that "picnic area," "tot lot," and amphitheater," be reincorporated BACK into the sewer project, via the currently proposed amendment, considering that it was your original idea, as an elected official in Los Osos in 2000, to include those exact same park amenities in the first place... when you were also an appointed SLO County Parks Commissioner, in 2000.

Which means, of course, that you, in your official capacity as the 2nd District Parks Commissioner, will certainly want to contact the CCC's executive director, Charles Lester, before Thursday (and I apologize for such a short notice), in strong support of my "written objection."

I'll supply his email address:

clester@coastal.ca.gov

... so you can contact him ASAP.

I thank you in advance for your, and the entire SLO County Parks Commission's support, for my "written objection," that's based entirely on your original idea.

Sincerely,
Ron

P.S.: The SLO County Parks Commission can read my entire official "written objection" at this link:

http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2012/03/american-smart-ass.html

###

American Smart-Ass

There are probably about three people on this planet that will get this joke, but, trust me, if you're top-notch SewerWatch-savvy enough to grasp the complex set of circumstances behind my email... errrrrr... official "written objection" (below), this is REEEEEEEELLY funny.

And it's real.

And it's official.

And it's hilarious!

And on March 8, 2012, at the California Coastal Commission's meeting in Chula Vista, the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission, Charles Lester -- the same person that, in 2004, as a Commission staffer, thought that picnicking with the kids in an industrial sewer plant in Los Osos was a good idea -- is going to have to officially "respond" to it.

Aaaahahahahaha!

Awww gawd, what a tangled web they weave!

- - - - -
- - - - -

TO: Daniel Robinson, Coastal Planner, California Coastal Commission
DATE: 3/1/12

Dear Mr. Robinson,

Please consider this email a "written objection" to the proposed Amendment to CDP "A-3-SLO-09-055/069," mentioned in your 2/23/12 letter to "All Interested Parties," archived at this link:

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/News%2BArchives/Coastal%2BCommission%2BMeeting%2B3-7-2012%2BStaff%2BReport.pdf

The proposed amendment concerns moving a pump station needed for the Los Osos sewer project from the Los Osos park, to across the street, near where the former, now-failed, Tri-W sewer plant had begun construction, before that construction was stopped shortly thereafter, and then that project would go on to fail completely.

In that 2/23/12 letter, it states, "The proposed amendment is consistent with the Commission's original CDP approval."

That's not accurate, and it goes straight to my objection.

The Commission's original CDP approval for the Los Osos wastewater project, occurred in August of 2004, when the Commission voted to approve CDP #A-3-SLO-03-113, the development permit for the now-failed, so-called "Tri-W project."

That original "original CDP" is archived at this link:

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/W11b-8-2004.pdf

My "written objection" to the currently proposed amendment is that it does NOT include the "site amenities" at the pump station site, that were included in the REAL "original CDP," that the CCC approved at nearly the exact same site in 2004, for the sewer plant in the now-failed, so-called Tri-W "project."

According to the original 2004 CDP, that the CCC approved:

"Special Condition 17

Fencing, landscaping and park amenities in accordance with the site plan attached as page 5 of Exhibit 2. Landscaping and park amenities (e.g. dog park, off-street parking, amphitheater, tot lot, picnic area, multi use area, community gardens, and pathways and trails shown by Exhibit 2) shall be installed or bonded for before final building inspection. If bonded for, landscaping park amenities shall be installed within 60 days after final building inspection and thereafter maintained in a viable condition in perpetuity."

(Page 16 of the pdf file)

I object to the current amendment, as proposed, and instead, insist that "Special Condition 17," that the 2004 CCC also insisted on, be added BACK into the project, via the proposed Amendment to the current CDP, A-3-SLO-09-055/069.

The reason I "insist" that Special Condition 17 from the original "original CDP" be added to the proposed amendment, is because, apparently, the California Coastal Commission considers Special Condition 17 to be extremely important for Los Osos.

Allow me to explain:

On page 89 (of 91 pages) in the original "original" CDP, CCC staff writes:

"... other alternatives (to the mid-town Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."

In other words, according to CDP A-3-SLO-03-113, the ONLY reason the sewer plant designed for the now-failed Tri-W project, was being constructed in the middle of Los Osos was due, solely, to the "park amenities" (a.k.a "centrally located community amenities), because ALL "other alternatives (to the mid-town Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."

So, if the "site amenities" in the Los Osos sewer plant were so important to the Coastal Commission back in 2004, that ALL "other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities," AND the CCC even went as far as to require Special Condition 17, that demanded that the amenities not only be "installed," but also "maintained in a viable condition in perpetuity," then why, today, in 2012, is there no mention whatsoever from the Commission of the "dog park, off-street parking, amphitheater, tot lot, picnic area, multi use area, community gardens, and pathways and trails" that the CCC required in the Tri-W project CDP, and that were solely dictating the downtown location?

The proposed Amendment to the 2nd CDP, A-3-SLO-09-055/069, appears to be the perfect opportunity to reincorporate those "park amenities" that the CCC found so important in 2004 that they required Special Condition 17 in the original "original CDP."

I also object to the proposed amendment not including Special Condition 17 from the original CDP, because, due solely to Special Condition 17, the State officials responsible for overseeing the State Revolving Fund, interpreted the "park amenities" as "project mitigation," despite the fact that SRF Policy reads, "Ineligible for (SRF funding): Decorative Items," and, therefore, made the decision to fund, "entirely," the estimated $2.3 million worth of park amenities contained in Special Condition 17, as well as the estimated $3 million in park amenities O&M over the next 20 years.

Again, if the "park amenities" in a Los Osos sewer facility are so important to the CCC, that the Commission, in 2004, actually required the amenities (Special Condition 17) -- amenities that were solely responsible for dictating the now-failed "mid-town" sewer plant location -- and, due to "Special Condition 17," nearly $6 million of SRF money was allocated to fund that public park -- then why isn't the CCC even mentioning Special Condition 17 today?

It seems like the proposed Amendment to the 2nd CDP, A-3-SLO-09-055/069, would be the perfect opportunity for the Commission to finish what they started in 2004, namely: a "centrally located" "picnic area" in a sewer facility in Los Osos.

Did the Commission forget that they required, in 2004, an elaborate public park be included in the sewer facilities at the same location as the new, proposed pump station location -- amenities that were solely dictating the now-failed downtown sewer pant location?

Well, here's a perfect chance to refresh the Commission's memory, and insist that they include those same amenities in the new sewer pump station, that they required in the Tri-W sewer plant, at nearly the same location.

I mean, why not? Considering the Commission has already required, in 2004, a "picnic area" and a "tot lot" in a sewer plant for Los Osos, then why wouldn't the Commission ALSO require those same amenities for a sewer pump station, at nearly the same location, in Los Osos. That arrangement sounds like it would be MUCH more preferable. (I know, personally, that I'd rather picnic with the kids at a sewer pump station, than in a full-blown, industrial sewer plant, like the Commission originally required in Los Osos, in 2004, with Special Condition 17.)

So, that's my "written objection" to the proposed amendment: It does NOT include Special Condition 17.

Considering that the Commission has already required "park amenities" in a downtown Los Osos sewer facility, which directly led to nearly $6 million of SRF funding for "mitigation" in the Los Osos sewer project in the form of the "dog park, off-street parking, amphitheater, tot lot, picnic area, multi use area, community gardens, and pathways and trails," and their O&M, and considering that the pump station mentioned in proposed Amendment to CDP A-3-SLO-09-055/069, will now be located in nearly the exact location as the now-failed Tri-W project sewer plant, where the Commission required things like a "tot lot" in 2004, and therefore the proposed amendment will provide an ideal opportunity to include the exact same "centrally located community amenities" that the CCC required in "Special Condition 17" from CPD #A-3-SLO-03-113, I now insist, just like the 2004 Commission, that the "park amenities" found in Special Condition 17 from A-3-SLO-03-113, be added to the proposed Amendment to CDP A-3-SLO-09-055/069.

As an "interested party," I thank you for the opportunity to provide this official "written objection," and for "reporting" it, and "the Executive Director's response to it," at the Commission's "March 8, 2012, meeting in Chula Vista," as mentioned in your 2/23/12 letter.

Sincerely,


P.S. I've published this "written objection" on my blog:
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###