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.

###