Tuesday, May 22, 2012

"Coastal Commission Enforcement Case Number V-3-07-034," or. . .

... How 20 Property Owners in Los Osos Just Made a $25,000 Donation to the Failed, 2005, "Defeat the Recall" Campaign

"It is not necessary to bury the truth. It is sufficient merely to delay it until nobody cares."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

It's official, and it's bad, like, the worst thing that's ever happened to SLO County, bad.

A SewerWatch investigation reveals that when three Los Osos CSD Directors facing a recall election in 2005, made the decision, just days before their recall election, to begin "mass grading" at the highly controversial "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area" (ESHA) "Tri-W" site in downtown Los Osos, to pave the way for their now-failed, "mid-town" sewer plant/"picnic area," they did not -- repeat: did NOT -- have the regulatory green light to proceed with construction, a "clear violation," according to the California Coastal Commission, which means, through a simple process of elimination, that the only explanation remaining on WHY they made that illegal decision -- a decision that wasted millions of public California dollars and completely destroyed 11 acres of "all-ESHA" in SLO County -- is due to some bizarre, failed, illegal political strategy, and, now, today, about 20 property owners in Los Osos are paying $25,000 each to clean up that failed, illegal political strategy... from seven years ago, and both SLO County government, and the Coastal Commission now consider that remedy an "appropriate resolution," to that "clear violation."

Here's how:

The year was 2005, and three Directors of the Los Osos CSD, Richard LeGros, Stan Gustafson, and Gordon Hensley, were facing a recall election with an election date that they set themselves, for September 27, 2005.

The reason they were facing that recall election, is because many of the town's voters were beyond-upset that the three spent the previous five years, and some $25 million of the community's money, developing a sewer system for Los Osos that included -- and I'm not making this up -- an industrial sewer plant/"picnic area" to be constructed smack-dab in the middle of Los Osos, just three blocks upwind of downtown, and, in 2005, those angry voters had collected enough signatures to trigger a recall election that would remove Hensley, LeGros, and Gustafson from office, and elect directors that did NOT want an industrial sewer plant in the middle of their beautiful coastal town.

However, just eight working days before that September 27 recall election, the 3-member Board majority that was facing recall -- Hensley, LeGros, and Gustafson -- made the decision to begin "mass grading" at the mid-town sewer plant site, known as the "Tri-W site," even though they knew that if they were recalled, the entire Tri-W project would be stopped by the post-recall Board, which is exactly what happened... the three were recalled from office on September 27, 2005, and the "post-recall" Board immediately halted work on the Tri-W project, and five years later, the Coastal Commission voted to make that stoppage permanent, when the Commission approved, in June 2010, a SLO County-developed sewer system, that puts the treatment facility outside of town, downwind.

Additionally, the "entire" 11-acre Tri-W site, in 2005, was considered official "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area," and contained sensitive coastal dune scrub dune habitat, with, according to a Coastal Commission ecologist, "high habitat and ecosystem value."

At the time, and even up to today, the reason the three recalled directors gave for making the decision to begin "mass grading" at the "all-ESHA" site, just days before their recall election, was because they said that "30 years of sewer delay is long enough," and therefore wanted to act as soon as possible to curb the alleged water pollution that is coming from the town's septic systems -- an over-the-top disastrous, and, as it turns out, illegal, decision.

Just 11 days after the start of "mass grading" at the "all-ESHA" Tri-W site -- grading that cost millions of California dollars to conduct -- the recall was successful, Hensley, LeGros, and Gustafson were immediately removed from office, and replaced with three directors that were... and I can't believe I even have to report this... against a downtown, industrial sewer plant/"picnic area." The new, post-recall Board, was now 5-0 in favor of stopping the mid-town project, which is exactly what they did. (Two sitting Directors, Julie Tacker and Lisa Schicker, were also opposed to the nonsensical mid-town location.)

However (and here's the bombshell), Coastal Commission staff recently directed me to a 2010 Coastal Commission staff report, and, according to that document, the pre-recall LOCSD Board, just days before their recall election, did not even have the regulatory green-light to proceed with construction on the "all-ESHA" Tri-W site, and therefore, illegally jumped the gun on the decision to begin "mass grading" at the "all-ESHA" Tri-W site.

Specifically, according to Commission staff, the 2005 pre-recall LOCSD Board majority failed to fulfill "the terms and conditions" of their Coastal Development Permit (CDP) "prior to construction," when they failed to "satisfy" a "condition of approval" to create a "program" that set $10,000 aside every year for "maintenance and restoration" for something called the Broderson site.

Protecting the undeveloped Broderson site was "mitigation" the Commission placed on the LOCSD in 2004, because the District was proposing to rip up a "large parcel" of "all-ESHA" for their mid-town sewer plant.

The June, 2010 staff report reads:

"... per the terms and conditions of the (now-failed Tri-W sewer project) CDP, all of Broderson was to be granted, along with a program to contribute $10,000 per year for its maintenance and restoration, prior to construction of the (Tri-W sewer) project. (bolding mine.)

The document continues:

"... this prior CDP requirement was never satisfied, even though construction commenced and the ("all-ESHA") Tri-W site was graded by LOCSD in 2005 (just a few days before the recall election). Both the Commission and the County have been tracking the matter as a violation for several years... there was clearly a violation (by the 2005 LOCSD) of the terms and conditions of CDP A-3-SLO-03-113."

In other words, based on that wording, Hensley, LeGros, and Gustafson, developed, behind-the-scenes, some bizarre political strategy to illegally rip up the ESHA at the Tri-W site, using funds from the State of California, in hopes of "defeating the recall," and staying in office.

[I mean, c'mon, if they didn't even have the green light to begin construction -- and, according to the CCC, they didn't -- then what would have been the reason to illegally jump the gun, and start construction... just days from their own recall election? Ignorance of the "terms and conditions" of their CDP? Not likely. According to the local environmental "organization," SLO Coastkeeper, "Mr. (Gordon) Hensley has extensive experience in permit compliance issues."

So, if anyone would have known that he was "violating" the "terms and conditions" of his Coastal Development PERMIT, it would have been LOCSD Director, Gordon Hensley, because, according to SLO Coastkeeper, Hensley "has extensive experience in PERMIT compliance issues," which means he can't even go to the "I didn't know," card. (And, "thank you," to SLO Coastkeeper for providing me with such an excellent, relevant quote on my story involving Gordon Hensley.)

And that leaves only one reason why Hensley illegally jumped the gun on his CDP: Illegal political strategy.

For context, it's my guess -- just a guess, but a reasoned one -- their thinking went along these lines: "If we start construction BEFORE the recall election, even though our CDP says we can't, it'll show the electorate that there's no turning back now, and so there will be no reason to recall us, or even vote. Excellent strategy! Let's do it!"]



Other notable quotes from the, June 2010, staff report include:

"As summarized earlier, the LOCSD initiated its wastewater project in 2005, including by completely grading the Tri-W site, which the Commission had previously determined to be entirely ESHA."

and;

"The protection of Broderson was... a critical piece of the mitigation package that allowed the Commission to approve the use of the Midtown (Tri-W) site, which itself consisted largely of coastal dune scrub as well as other sensitive habitats, for a public service facility (sewer plant) in the first place. This was accomplished not through the public works override ordinance but through a rezoning of the Midtown site... The Broderson mitigation proposal was central to the Commission's finding under the Coastal Act that allowing a public facility in the ESHA at Tri-W was, on balance, the most protective of coastal resources."

and;

"However, while the 80-acre (Broderson) site was acquired by LOCSD, it was never granted to an appropriate agency or conservation organization as required, and LOCSD has never allocated the $10,000 per year for maintenance and restoration of the site as required. As a result, this prior CDP requirement was never satisfied, even though construction commenced and the Tri-W site was graded by LOCSD in 2005. Both the Commission and the County have been tracking the matter as a violation for several years. [bolding mine.]

and;

"... there was clearly a violation (just days before the recall election) of the terms and conditions of the (Tri-W) CDP...

and;

"... the entire Broderson mitigation package was required before the (Tri-W) project could proceed... "

and;

"... after abandonment of the LOCSD project, all that is left is the required mitigation at Broderson, and a degraded ESHA area at Tri-W. In other words, the area degraded at Tri-W was only allowed as part of a complete project that resulted in a
wastewater treatment plant and related facilities there."

and;

"The Mid-Town (Tri-W) site continues to suffer from the grading for the abandoned wastewater treatment plant. "

and;

"These lands (the Broderson and Tri-W sites) are the subject of an ongoing violation, and the responsibility for addressing such violations runs with the land. If the land is conveyed to the County, then it is the County's responsibility as landowner to resolve the violations, even if the prior owner was the violator."

and;

"There is little doubt that: (a) a violation of the Coastal Act and the LCP exists; (b) (the pre-recall Board majority) LOCSD is responsible for the violation; and (c) resolution of that violation involves resolving impacts associated with LOCSD (illegal) grading of the Tri-W site."

and;

"Coastal Commission enforcement case number V-3-07-034."

And, finally, "the Tri-W site can and should be mitigated due to having been graded in 2005."

And it's that quote -- that "the Tri-W site can and should be mitigated due to having been graded in 2005" -- that makes this story so interesting today, because that's exactly what the Coastal Commission required.

"Appropriate Resolution"

As part of their "mitigation package" for the County's proposed sewer system for Los Osos (beginning in 2007, State legislation [AB 2701] handed control over the project from the Los Osos CSD, to the County of San Luis Obispo), the Coastal Commission, also in June 2010, required that the County "restore" the "degraded ESHA area at Tri-W."

And, as it turns out, and, not-so-surprisingly, that "restoration" ain't cheap.

Right now, as I type this, County officials overseeing the sewer project are currently paying more than $500,000 dollars for restoring the "degraded ESHA area at Tri-W" -- ESHA that was illegally ripped up (on California's dime... LOTS of dimes) in 2005 by the pre-recall LOCSD Board majority, in the first place, solely as some failed political strategy, obviously, and the source of funds the County is currently using to pay for that over half million dollar "restoration," is coming from the property owners in Los Osos, that paid their entire $25,000 sewer assessment in advance.

A few months back, I posted a blog piece at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2011/04/hey-pre-paid-los-osos-sewer-assessment.html

... where I first showed how the pre-paid assessment folks in Los Osos were only paying for the Tri-W restoration, and how not a penny of their $25,000 "sewer assessment" was going towards anything "sewer"-ish. Not one foot of pipe. Not one bolt. Nothing... just cleaning up the mess at Tri-W.

However, what I didn't know at the time I published my piece, is that the Coastal Commission was calling the "mass grading" at the "all-ESHA" Tri-W site, illegal -- a "clear violation," of the "terms and conditions" of the development permit, and, "little doubt," the pre-recall Board majority LOCSD "is responsible for the violation."

So, look at this scenario, in 2012. It's over-the-top interesting/horrible:

Today, some 20 pre-paid assessment property owners in Los Osos, are paying their entire $25,000 assessment solely to clean up the failed political strategy of the pre-recall LOCSD Board majority -- a strategy that cost Californians untold millions of dollars, and destroyed a "large parcel" of "all-ESHA" in SLO County.

(It also turns out, that (and not-so-surprisingly) illegally ripping up a "large parcel" of "all-ESHA" ain't cheap, either. Apparently, it costs a lot of California money to illegally rip up ESHA... solely for a failed political strategy.)

Almost unbelievably, this story gets worse... MUCH worse.

In their June 2010 staff report, Commission staff writes, "The Commission has been pursuing this (illegal Tri-W grading) case as a violation, but has been awaiting the completion of the (County's sewer development) decision process to determine appropriate resolution, since the Tri-W site was a potential treatment plant site for the LOWWP."

In response to that quote, I recently emailed Dan Carl, of the Coastal Commission staff, and who "approved" that 2010 staff report:

    Hello Dan,

    ... as you know, the County did not select "the Tri-W site as a potential treatment plant site for the LOWWP," so, I guess that's where we're at now, this part: "determine appropriate resolution" to the "active enforcement efforts."

    And, as I show, that "violation" is (present tense) super-egregious -- a colossal environmental and financial disaster (using public money), solely due to some bizarre, failed political strategy involving the pre-recall LOCSD Board majority.

    So, considering the County did not select "the Tri-W site as a potential treatment plant site for the LOWWP (in 2009) [Not even close. The Tri-W project didn't even come close to making the County's short-list of "viable project alternatives"), which means it's now time to "determine appropriate resolution," for "Coastal Commission enforcement case number V-3-07-034," what does your office now consider "appropriate resolution" for that "violation?"


Carl's response?

"Hi Ron,

The County's LOWWP as approved by the Commission through CDP Application A-3-SLO-09-055/069 resolves the enforcement case. Please see pages 37-44 of the Commission's findings for A-3-SLO-09-055/069 on this point. Hope that helps….

Dan"

It does help.

Allow me to translate: What's Carl's saying there, in that mess of numbers, dashes, and slashes, is that, as long as the Tri-W site gets restored -- and it's in the process of being restored by the County, at a cost of about a half million -- then, the staff of the California Coastal Commission considers that to be "appropriate resolution" to the "clear violation" of the pre-recall LOCSD Board majority illegally ripping up a "large parcel" of "all-ESHA" in 2005... using, and completely wasting, millions of dollars of California money in the process... just days before their recall election... leaving a gigantic, "suffering," dirt pit in the middle of town for the past seven years, that the pre-paid sewer assessment property owners now have to pay to clean up.

In other words, more than 20 pre-paid assessment folks in Los Osos, are now making a $25,000 donation to the pre-recall Board majority's failed political strategy in 2005.

Also keep in mind, that, because all of those assessments are now going solely to cleaning up the Tri-W mess, and not a penny to anything sewer-ish, the actual sewer project will now be about a half million dollars more expensive for all of the other property owners.

Could it get any worse? Oh, hell yeah.

Remember this quote? "Both the Commission and the County have been tracking the matter as a violation for several years..."

BOTH the Coastal Commission, AND SLO County government, are not only aware that the pre-recall LOCSD Board illegally jumped the gun on their CDP, and illegally ripped up a huge chunk of ESHA using California's money, but, SLO County officials, apparently, are taking the exact same route as the Coastal Commission when it comes to "appropriate resolution" for "Coastal Commission enforcement case number V-3-07-034," and that route is, simply let the pre-paid sewer assessment property owners foot the bill for the 2005 Los Osos CSD Board majority's illegal, failed political strategy, and then just "move forward."

For this story, I emailed both Supervisors Bruce Gibson, whose District includes Los Osos, and Jim Patterson, who is facing a tough re-election campaign this June.

I outlined the terrible circumstances surrounding that "clear violation" -- which, I'm assuming they've known about for "several years," but, that entire time, didn't lift a finger for any accountability on the matter -- and asked them, "Which path do you two support: The County moving beyond the "tracking for several years" stage, and into the enforcement/prosecution stage for that 'clear violation," or simply forget about that deliberately created, illegal disaster, and just "move forward?"

Neither one of them replied, of course.

Allow me to translate that: By not supplying one word of response to this intensely important story, Jim Patterson, like the Coastal Commission, and Supervisor Gibson, is also fine with letting the pre-paid sewer assessment property owners in Los Osos pay their entire $25,000 assessment for the pre-recall LOCSD Board majority's disastrous, illegal failed political strategy, and, apparently, doesn't care that that same Board majority deliberately and illegally jumped the gun on their permit, and illegally ripped up -- just days before their recall election, and wasting millions of public, California dollars in the process -- a "large parcel" of "all-ESHA," solely as part of some bizarre, illegal, failed political strategy.

Not a shred of accountability for the 2005 LOCSD Board majority for committing the "clear violation," just let the pre-paid assessment property owners pay to clean up the mess, and then just "move forward."

That's Supervisor Patterson's position, just like Supervisor Gibson's position.

[It must be noted here, that, Los Osos resident, Pandora Nash-Karner, "chaired" a citizens group in Los Osos, in 2005, called, Save the Dream, that wrote, "Our goal is to support the LOCSD's (Tri-W) Wastewater Project and to DEFEAT the Recall of Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley & Richard LeGros."

Nash-Karner was also one of the five initial Los Osos CSD Directors, along with Gustafson and Hensley, starting in 1999, where they first began development of the now-failed (in June, 2010) Tri-W "project."

And, of course, Nash-Karner is a financial donor to Supervisor Gibson's campaigns, where, in turn, he appoints Nash-Karner as an official SLO County Parks Commissioner, which makes her a client of County Counsel, Warren Jensen, and affords her inside access to top County officials, like Patterson.

In fact, Supervisor Patterson attended, and spoke at, a Parks Commission meeting last year to honor Nash-Karner's 20 years (under the past three 2nd District Supervisors) on the SLO County Parks Commission.]

Finally, for balance, I also recently emailed Gordon Hensley, asking him for his response to how both the County and the Coastal Commission are calling his decision to rip up the "all-ESHA" Tri-W site, just days before his recall election, a "clear violation" of the "terms and conditions" of his CDP."

Hensley's response?

"Judging by past experience with you (SewerWatch), SLO Coastkeeper (Gordon Hensley's one-man "organization") is of the opinion that your inquiry is not merely information seeking in nature as you suggest, but is part of an ongoing campaign to disrupt our work.

As we have indicated in the past, it is the understanding of our organization that you do not actually work for a journal, newspaper, or other legitimate media and therefore I see no point in assisting you in your continuing vendetta."

He then doubled back, and fired off this email:

"When you have completed your 'story' please forward a copy to slo coastkeeper [sic] attorney Kate Neiswender," and then he gave me Neiswender's email address.

That was his response to the Coastal Commission writing, "There is little doubt that: (a) a violation of the Coastal Act and the LCP exists; (b) (the pre-recall Board majority) LOCSD is responsible for the violation; and (c) resolution of that violation involves resolving impacts associated with LOCSD (illegal) grading of the Tri-W site."

Incidentally, I also emailed Neiswender, using the email address that Hensley supplied, asking her for comment, but she never replied, either.

Clearly, what happened in 2005, with the Los Osos CSD knowingly jumping the gun on their CDP, and ripping up, at an enormous cost to California taxpayers, the "all-ESHA" Tri-W site, simply as some illegal, failed political strategy, is one of the worst things that has ever happened to SLO County, period.

And the "appropriate resolution" for that terrible, deliberately created, illegal, environmental and financial disaster?

According to Supervisors Patterson and Gibson, and the California Coastal Commission, simply let the pre-paid assessment property owners in Los Osos pay their entire $25,000 assessment to clean it up, then just "move forward."

Welcome to San Luis Obispo County government.

###

32 Comments:

  • I hate to say I told you so, but... HAHAHAHA! I have always said that the decision to delay the recall election was a sorry assed political trick.
    But no, you didn't want to hear that one.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 5:35 PM, May 22, 2012  

  • This story illustrates perfectly, Simon Leys observation: "The main concern and industryof bureaucrats is not to rectify their mistakes, but to conceal them."

    Then send the bill to the homeowners. Yep. It's Chinatown.

    By Blogger Churadogs, at 6:30 AM, May 23, 2012  

  • Mike writes:

    "I have always said that the decision to delay the recall election was a sorry assed political trick.
    But no, you didn't want to hear that one.
    "

    It's not that I didn't want to hear it, it's that I just couldn't run with it, because we didn't have a primary source that showed that.

    But, now, I have that GREAT June 2010, CCC staff report, and I can practically run a marathon with THAT bad boy.

    I mean:

    "There is little doubt that: (a) a violation of the Coastal Act and the LCP exists; (b) (the pre-recall Board majority) LOCSD is responsible for the violation; and (c) resolution of that violation involves resolving impacts associated with LOCSD (illegal) grading of the Tri-W site."

    Aaaaahahaha!, and Ouch! How great is that?

    Chura writes:

    "This story illustrates perfectly, Simon Leys observation: "The main concern and industryof bureaucrats is not to rectify their mistakes, but to conceal them."

    And conceal them long enough until "nobody cares," just ask Bonaparte.

    Uh, guys? Mission accomplished.

    And, it's always at this point in my stories where I get to say to the pre-recall types: "You're Welcome!"

    And the reason I get to say that, is because, now that I got to this amazing story first, that means that all of the other worse-than-nothing local media will have to pretend it doesn't exist, which means it won't get a lick of traction, and will just fade away.

    So, again, Stan, Richard, Gordo, and Pandora? You're welcome... again.

    By Blogger Ron, at 9:30 AM, May 23, 2012  

  • To quote Ron, "they did not -- repeat: did NOT -- have the regulatory green light to proceed with construction"

    Page 12 of the 2010 CDP application that YOU Ron link to, I cite: (I am bolding the significant parts)

    "In 1998 a local ballot measure formed the Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD) and LOCSD pursued a new CDP for a conventional wastewater collection and treatment project with a plant that would have been sited in the middle of town along Los Osos Valley Road across from Ravenna Avenue (known as the “Tri-W” or “Midtown” site). In August 2002, the Commission approved an LCP amendment to allow a wastewater treatment and associated facilities as allowable uses on the Tri-W site.12 In 2003, the County approved a CDP for the project and the County’s action was appealed to the Commission. The Commission took jurisdiction over the CDP and ultimately approved the project with conditions in 2004.13 In 2005, project construction commenced on the Tri-W site. In the fall of 2005, however, voters recalled a majority of the LOCSD board members in a special election and the new board immediately suspended construction on the wastewater project. The CDP subsequently expired, and to this date the Tri-W site remains the subject of active enforcement efforts at both the Commission and County levels.14"

    So if the Coastal Commission itself had jurisdiction, how can you claim that the CSD Board at the time did not have the regulatory "green light?" If the CDP expired at the hands of the Lisa Board - the key word being EXPIRED - just what exactly are you talking about? You don't make any sense. Again.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 4:11 PM, May 23, 2012  

  • You are all right and all wrong, as usual. Except for you Mike, you are ALL right. In fact I’ve said it myself, but you said it first. I wasn’t in the picture. And the flip side of that coin? “No tree fall before recall”, …no that wasn’t me. Who came up with that one? Joey? Linde?

    Thank you for publishing the aerial photograph, Ron. Do you know the date it was taken? 1 ½ years ago?

    In the Legal eyes of the Coastal Commission there has only been one CSD, continuous since the beginning of time. We know that functionally there have been several. The environmental financial burden of the project entire is great, and will apply eventually to all prohibition zone owners and possibly “dwellers”. The Mitigation specific to the TW component, was increased when two Coastal commissioners wrote an appeal to the coastal commission that created a second round of coastal commission project appeals. Subsequently additional wording on specific TW mitigation was added.

    The current condition of the T-W or “Midtown property” is due to a combination of “The initial grading condition” and a “lack of subsequent grading mitigation”, There was an initial regarding by order of the CSD in approx 2006, To some degree a window existed when the CSD could had regarded the property a second time (or technically third, I saw George Milanes work the area subsequent to the initial regarding). That “Window” was closed when Coastkeepers submitted a letter CCing or possibly directed to the coastal commission pointing out that the initial regarding failed to follow required noticing to the CC and a coastal permit and needed a snail study.
    I understand that you, Ron may have a copy of that letter available.

    There was a period subsequent to AB2701 when the status of the property was in limbo as the County had not formally accepted the project. In fact there was uncertainty as to whether the CSD could or could not sell the property. As a member of LOCAC and as a private individual I made mention of this Limbo state, and the need for grading, and many meetings of LOCAC CSD and the County. The only member of the community other than myself to make regular mention of these issues was Linde Owen and a distant third would be Julie Tacker, by then a private citizen.

    When the Palisades project was described by the county at LOCAC, I predicted that it would bring “Waters with great force onto the property” I predicted that sands from TW would be carried off the property and be deposited on what was then private land (And technically still is) adjacent, above the mobile home park and Sweet Springs, reserve. The county due to engineering opinion also moved the terminus of the outflow several hundred yards further on west. It had previously been planned to enter TW on the Palisades LOVR Corner.

    This all came true due to late season 3-4 25 year storm events, that overloaded the capacity of the existing TW “Pond” and deepened the Channel running parallel to LOVR, making it the primarychanel rather than the new terminus (which became the Busstop for a while)
    The only intervention that actually happened, was when Fred Dellagatta requested that the county do something about the undercutting of LOVR immediately west and adjacent and draining parallel to the west fence. Initially markers were placed that warned drivers who may had pulled off to the soft sholder, fof the presence of an open ditch. Later sandbags and tarping that delayed the undercutting was applied

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 11:49 PM, May 23, 2012  

  • To continue with the 2004 CDP and its conditions:

    W11b California Coastal Commission Staff Report of 7/29/04 (hearing date 8/11/04) on Page 29 of the APPROVED CDP states, "e. An ongoing maintenance and observation program will be a component of the HCP. The LOCSD will contribute $10,000 per year towards maintenance and restoration of the Broderson mitigation site," (this was "Condition 68" started on page 28).

    Page 32, Condition 76 of the same document states, "Prior to providing wastewater treatment service to undeveloped parcels (their bolding, not mine), the LOCSD in coordination with… (many agencies)…shall prepare and implement a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)…"

    There is a lot more stated in this document, but NOWHERE does it state that the HCP must be finished to begin the project, only a DRAFT.

    The timeframe for preparation and implementation of the HCP established in the EIR Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to the approved CDP in Exhibit 4. Go to page 174 of the 402 page document. Mitigation BIO-16 states: "Prepare HCP prior to Coastal Development Permit application." "Implement HCP following approval by USFWS and CDFG."

    The draft HCP had problems that were worked out between the LOCSD and the CCC after the April 15, 2004 hearing.

    So really, where is your support to your assertion that the $10,000 maintenance plan had to be in place prior to starting the project according to the 2004 documents? It had to be in place prior to undeveloped properties getting service!

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 3:16 AM, May 24, 2012  

  • As Alon correctly points out above, "In the Legal eyes of the Coastal Commission there has only been one CSD, continuous since the beginning of time." Therefore, the Lisa board is responsible for not following through on that $10,000 maintenance plan as the CDP was viable and alive until 36 months after it was issued (but consequently not renewed).

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 3:25 AM, May 24, 2012  

  • Good morning and greetings. I greatly regret grossly erring in regards to “regraded” being written “regarded”, followed by “regarding” again substituting for a subsequent “regrading”.
    Good gosh, golly, sorry.
    Google apparently not guilty, Microsoft gets away too. Both guileless in fact, by gem and begorrah.
    Must had been an after effect of the preceding Solar eclipse proceeding prograde, (or perhaps it was retrograde).
    In;
    “the CSD could had regarded the property a second time (or technically third, I saw George Milanes work the area subsequent to the initial regarding).”

    Now regarding research; was there not a bond, an insurance, a surety, if you will for the restoration of the property (TW). And did that insurance not lapse because it was not paid.

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 9:20 AM, May 24, 2012  

  • 'toons writes:

    "... how can you claim that the CSD Board at the time did not have the regulatory "green light?"

    Seriously?

    So, you didn't read that gigantic laundry list of Coastal Commission quotes that I pulled straight from that June 2010 document?

    Uh... like this one:

    "... per the terms and conditions of the (now-failed Tri-W sewer project) CDP, all of Broderson was to be granted, along with a program to contribute $10,000 per year for its maintenance and restoration, prior to construction of the (Tri-W sewer) project."

    ... and this one:

    "... this prior CDP requirement was never satisfied, even though construction commenced and the ("all-ESHA") Tri-W site was graded by LOCSD in 2005 (just a few days before the recall election). Both the Commission and the County have been tracking the matter as a violation for several years... there was clearly a violation (by the 2005 LOCSD) of the terms and conditions of CDP A-3-SLO-03-113."

    ... and the many, many others just like it?

    'toons, do me a favor. READ my stories BEFORE you comment on them.

    Alon writes:

    "Now regarding research; was there not a bond, an insurance, a surety, if you will for the restoration of the property (TW)."

    Yep, and, in context with my main post here, it's very, very interesting.

    Recommended Google search: sewerwatch surety

    What happened with that bond, is very similar to what the County is doing with the illegal ripping up of the "all-ESHA" at the Tri-W site -- just "move forward" and let the property owners pick up the tab for the illegal ESHA destruction by the pre-recall Board majority.

    Just like I write, "Welcome to SLO County government."

    Alon also writes:

    "Thank you for publishing the aerial photograph, Ron"

    I LOVE that picture. It's so sad, and telling: The illegally "degraded ESHA," "suffering," dirt pit, with a "deep gully" that "seriously impacts the habitats."

    Which reminds me: Three words now come to mind every time I look at that picture:

    "DEEP" "GULLY" "PARTY!"

    I mean, am I right people, or am I right?

    How fun would that be?!

    We all show up at the "deep gully" with an ice chest full of beer, some barbecues, beach chairs, Frisbees, instruments, and get our freak on for a day.

    It looks so sandy, and soft. PERFECT for a party!

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:09 AM, May 24, 2012  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:10 PM, May 24, 2012  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:16 PM, May 24, 2012  

  • Ron, I do read your stories, and that is exactly what they are - stories: and they are FICTION. Whatever the CCC says in 2010 is one thing, but you must go back to the ORIGINAL 2004 document that the old board was bound by. Go ahead, show me where it says in that document that the HCP needed to be finalized before work began. You can't go by what is said in 2010 about events in 2005 which were bound by a 2004 CDP!

    AND, most importantly, it was the RESPONSIBILITY of the Lisa board to establish that fund and repair Tri-W. That is what they took on by changing course away from Tri-W.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:17 PM, May 24, 2012  

  • A highly confused 'toons writes:

    "You can't go by what is said in 2010 about events in 2005 which were bound by a 2004 CDP!"

    Huh?

    Uh, 'toons you have me confused with the California Coastal Commission.

    You DO realize that I didn't write things like this:

    "... the entire Broderson mitigation package was required before the (Tri-W) project could proceed... "

    ... right?

    If you have a problem with that wording -- and apparently you do -- you need to take your incoherent whining to the Coastal Commission, not to me. I didn't write that. I simply reported that the Coastal Commission wrote that.

    But, why so defensive, anyway? Look, you guys win. The worse-than-nothing local media will never write a word on this amazing, local story, and, clearly, Pandora has the entire Board of Supervisors in her back pocket, so the Supes, obviously, won't lift a finger for any accountability on her, and her friends' illegal political strategy, that wasted millions of dollars of California's money, and completely destroyed a "large parcel" of "all-ESHA" in SLO County, and, instead, just let the property owners in Los Osos pick up the tab for that failed, illegal political strategy, and then just "move forward."

    Win, win, win for you guys.

    So why the incessant, incoherent whining? It doesn't make any sense. You've won.

    By Blogger Ron, at 9:35 AM, May 25, 2012  

  • Again Ron, it is so tiresome to keep repeating myself, but READ the approved 2004 CDP. That is ALL that the old board could go by, not something written in 2010!

    Had the Lisa board cleaned up the mess they knowingly acquired by stopping the project, the 2010 sentences by the CCC would not exist. Had the Lisa board terminated contractor's contracts according to the agreements in place, THEY would have cleaned up the mess. But no, they didn't. It is so odd that THAT great story is completely ignored by a supposed "journalist."

    But it is pointless to go after the CCC's wording now; we did get a sewer chosen, permitted, funded, designed and in progress.

    The winning is bittersweet because of all the collateral damage, you know, the CDOs, the bankruptcy, the degradation of the aquifers and of course, the huge cost.

    Do you really think that the majority of people were hot to move it out of town in 2001? No, they weren't; that came later, many lawsuits and lies later, not funded by any majority either. A sewer that cost $84.6 million in 2001, cost $154 million in 2005. And it only was lost by 20 votes.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 2:09 AM, May 26, 2012  

  • 'toons writes:

    "The winning is bittersweet..."

    Winning?

    What in the world did you "win?"

    I mean, the County showed -- from 2007 - 2010 -- the Tri-W disaster to be the EXACT embarrassment/disaster that I first exposed it to be in my 2004 New Times cover story, and then the entire Tri-W mess just flamed out, highly embarrassingly, six years after I first showed it should.

    That's a HUGE, GIGANTIC, AWESOME win for me, of course, but how is the highly embarrassing, miserable failure of the Tri-W disaster a "win" for you guys?

    The only way that makes sense is in the deliberately upside-down world of "behavior based marketing" -- where a miserable, disastrous, highly embarrassing failure is considered a "win."

    You guys are hilarious.

    By the way, I argue the statute of limitations on the illegal Tri-W disaster didn't start ticking until June 2010, when the CCC, just like SLO County, ALSO didn't even come close to selecting that embarrassment.

    The Tri-W disaster was appealed all the way to the CCC, in June 2010, which means they COULD have selected it, but, when they didn't (of course), and THAT's when it became official: The Tri-W disaster was illegal to begin with, and the only reason the CCC approved it, is because they were lied to by the LOCSD.

    So, even though those lies started in 2000, the statute of limitations, I argue, didn't start ticking until June, 2010, so there's still about two years left on that SOL, which should be plenty of time for me to (finally) get this wrapped up.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:00 AM, May 26, 2012  

  • No winners. As in all wars, only the Carrion Crow wins to crow and carry-on.
    An aside; what was the final action on the post appeal appeal (by LOSG) for the current and only project before the CCC?

    Actually I already predicted the final action, so there is no need for reality to catch up. I mean; has the CCC staff scheduled a vote?
    In terms of effect, I think you will be SOOL on the SOL, but you will have a story.

    This below made more sense coming in directly after Toonces comment;
    Actually 19, I thought.
    And if you consider that a third of the population will not vote even if a gun is held to their head, and a third will vote only if, then it is possible that the remainder may include a subset of people who may actually choose by undergoing a process without an externally predictable predetermined outcome. A process known as “free will” (FW). (Written imperfectly in the present/future tense, for this applies also to current conditions).
    So what if 10 people switched their votes? And even if by influence of BBM rather than FW.
    Including the one who flipped the coin, abdicating control, but also severing the direct effect of Mass Marketing, Peer Pressure and Rational Consideration. Thus, subjecting the fate of Los Osos to the slap and tickle dance between the greedy clutches of gravity and the vagaries of angular momentum (momentarily only, as a body in motion must no longer remain in motion, least it violate a law regarding two bodies and their occupation of a space).
    Twenty, oddly the same number approx., as assessment prepayers. But now the loan is "In", the initial spending pot is bigger and the funds are not individually "colorable"*.

    *Reference to Dan Bleschey.

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 11:19 AM, May 26, 2012  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:54 PM, May 26, 2012  

  • Ron says today, "Winning?" and "What in the world did you 'win?'"

    But yesterday he said "Win, win, win for you guys." and "So why the incessant, incoherent whining? It doesn't make any sense. You've won."

    Huh?

    Ron, since you don't live here, the COST of something clearly does not affect you at all. You seem to forget that people were willing to have a pond of semi-refined sewer products right on the Tri-W spot, yet somehow, a hidden plant with odor scrubbing on THAT VERY SAME SPOT morphed into a horror beyond words.

    As it was explained to me by a popular blog lady, it was the COST of the concrete plant that was the deal breaker. So now it is out of town, as wanted by the Lisa board at many millions more. Ask the fixed income folks how they like the $189 million price tag.

    You are complete misunderstanding how the Coastal Commission works, Tri-W was NOT illegal.

    But go ahead, send yourself warm whiffs of glee up your skirt for referring to your diatribe of "behavior based marketing." Just remember, the other "team," in turning people away from the mid-town site, accomplished that by very same technique.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:56 PM, May 26, 2012  

  • Alon, the Coastal Commission will opine on the LOSG revocation request in June. I wrote about it here:

    http://losewersaga.blogspot.com/

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 2:06 PM, May 26, 2012  

  • YIN:

    'toons writes:

    "You are complete misunderstanding how the Coastal Commission works, Tri-W was NOT illegal."

    YANG:

    Coastal Commission writes:

    ""There is little doubt that: (a) a violation of the Coastal Act and the LCP exists; (b) (the pre-recall Board majority) LOCSD is responsible for the violation; and (c) resolution of that violation involves resolving impacts associated with LOCSD (illegal) grading of the Tri-W site."

    See? You guys are funny. Genuinely funny.

    Uh, 'toons? If only "15 people read these blogs," as you wrote over at Ann's, why did you start one?

    [Man, I WISH I could comment over on Ann's blog. For whatever reason (I'm guessing 'hacked') my comments won't stick there. So, you guys are free to tee off on me over there, anonymously, and there's not a thing I can do to respond... well, other than respond here.

    But, IF I could post a comment there, I would have YIN/YANGED that letter to the editor, with one of my favorite Pandora quotes, that I first (of course) exposed:

    "Joyce Albright found out today that the Tribune will be allowing a section, once per week, on the sewer issue. Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."

    But, Pandora actually had that one wrong. I've shown both the Trib and New Times how Pandora runs deliberate "behavior based marketing" scams on them, and they STILL give her credibility.

    THAT's how good she is.

    Which brings me right to a very interesting point that Alon writes about, above:

    "... even if by influence of (behavior based marketing) rather than (free will)."

    One of the things that impresses me the most about Pandora, and her "behavior based marketing," is that she'll have people THINKING that their decisions are based on their own free will, when, as she knows, their decisions are actually based on her sneaky BBM... just ask the 87-percent of Los Osos voters she tricked into voting for the LOCSD in 1998, and the over 4,000 Los Ososans she got to vote for her, where she then immediately killed the County's "ready to go," $70 million project, in favor of her disastrous, DOA, also-now-miserably-failed, "better, cheaper, faster" disaster.

    Friggin' brilliant.

    THAT's how good she is.

    By Blogger Ron, at 9:49 AM, May 28, 2012  

  • Ron, you edited what the Coastal Commission said. What they ACTUALLY said was,

    "There is little doubt that: (a) a violation of the Coastal Act and the LCP exists; (b) LOCSD is responsible for the violation; and (c) resolution of that violation involves resolving impacts associated with LOCSD grading of the Tri-W site."

    The old board did not get to complete their project. Had they completed their project, this violation would not exist. In STOPPING the project, the LISA BOARD took on the RESPONSIBILITY to restore the site to ESHA and they FAILED to do so, creating the violation. THEREFORE the CURRENT project MUST DO THE RESTORATION. The old board graded the site to prepare for THEIR project and had EVERY PERMISSION TO DO SO!

    As Alon so aptly pointed out, the LOCSD is just ONE BIG, CONTINUOUS ENTITY. The CCC doesn't give special permission to ANY particular board to flaunt the rules, which is what the Lisa board did!

    The old board did not have to have their HCP completed until they were going to hook up vacant lot owners! Read the document Ron!

    I can start a blog if I want to, I am not advertising on it or making any money on it. If no one or fifteen readers want to read it, fine.

    Please note, that prior to Pandora's involvement, the populace already DIDN'T like the County project.

    It's amusing how once your arguments have no leg to stand on, you always fall back onto ragging on Pandora. People are going to think that YOU THINK she is wizard-like or something, you have built up her powers so.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 10:54 AM, May 28, 2012  

  • You guys still going?
    Sorry to hear you are having trouble visiting Calhouns, Ron. Could it be because you may be logged in and a Blogger dashboard thing?
    Actually I set to thinking toons, and a poem that has forces batteling for sewer supremacy- belongs right here.
    The two Captca code words are "Egovene the"


    (Think "Sewer Gods")

    SunGod's claimed to water; I am Creator of life.

    The sun is sizzling, britches busting big and out there, and water is sublimed silvery ice without big brother, yet water sends cells humming strumming songs along a surfing lifeline.

    So who withholds without the other, tell who wins the "Lifegiver" title? Gaze up to sky, the sun above with cracked lens under, without water the glistened eye shall be as crushed glass pale powder.

    The void, the void rules all, in presence abdicated. It is not a hunger, so it can’t be sated, and yet without it sun’s sure to collapse in singularity. As Yin chase Yang, two drops of water spin down in totality.

    The void cares not for crowns, contests or princely fables, so crown each other Gods if you are able.

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 11:36 AM, May 28, 2012  

  • Well put Alon. You are the peacemaker here. Great poem and thank you for posting it!

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 12:19 PM, May 28, 2012  

  • The disrespect of Ron Crawford's blog and Ron himself is downright stupid. When did he allow his site to be turned into poetry corner? Dumb dumb dumb.

    By Blogger SLOTowner, at 1:21 PM, May 28, 2012  

  • Alon writes:

    "Sorry to hear you are having trouble visiting Calhouns, Ron. Could it be because you may be logged in and a Blogger dashboard thing?"

    Ann and I have tried everything. I even tried to log in anonymously and comment, and it still won't work. I just can't leave a comment over there, and, it's been that way for about a year now.

    (So, there's another "win" for you guys, 'toons. You guys get to tee off on me, anonymously, on Ann's blog, and I can't respond, at all. Pandora's "Dream" come true. Touché.)

    SLOTowner writes:

    "When did he allow his site to be turned into poetry corner? Dumb dumb dumb.

    "Allow" is kind of a strong word, there.

    Hey, it's the comments section, what can I say. As long as it's not blatant "behavior based marketing" (and I give the Sewertoons committee WAAAAY too much leniency on that one [but when I touch one of their "comments," you should hear them whine. Oh my lord, it's so over-the-top whiny, that it's also funny]), I pretty much let anything go.

    By the way, with election day approaching, I did want to point out that BOTH Supervisor Patterson, AND Hill, were BOTH aware, for "several years," that the pre-recall LOCSD illegally jumped the gun on their CDP, and illegally ripped up the "all-ESHA" at the Tri-W site, using millions of dollars of California's money, just days before the recall election, solely as some bizarre, failed, illegal political strategy, and BOTH Supervisor Patterson AND Hill are fine with just letting the property owners in Los Osos pick up the tab for Bruce Gibson's friends' illegal, crazy-disastrous, failed political strategy.

    I voted for Patterson four years ago, and was on the fence this year, but seeing how THAT's his position... well, that's just unacceptably horrible, sooooo... Debbie Arnold for Supervisor!

    And, Adam Hill's on the same page as Gibson, and Patterson. They've all known about the "clear violation" for "several years," and never lifted a finger to do anything, while at the same time, going hardcore enforcement on DeVaul, even though what Gibson's friends did to the Tri-W site, was about a bazillion times worse than anything DeVaul ever did.

    Ed Waage's supprters might want to point voters in his District to my blog, and this comment, before Tuesday.

    By Blogger Ron, at 9:52 AM, May 29, 2012  

  • By all means. Wagge and Arnold supporters will be glad of your endorsement I'm sure. Here is a URL to a series of 9 videos of MORE supporters for them both (although they can only lend their name value, not actual votes, as they all live in Los Osos).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYcF_aHlMog&feature=relmfu

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 2:54 PM, May 30, 2012  

  • "Whaaaat.....? Mmmmmm nice "science" reporting.
    sewertoons 23 hours ago


    That's mature.

    By Blogger SLOTowner, at 3:27 PM, May 30, 2012  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 2:50 PM, June 01, 2012  

  • More "science" - NOT!! LOSG will be so disappointed with the Staff Report!

    Read what the Coastal Commission has to say about the revocation of the CURRENT project's CDP here for the June 15 hearing:

    http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2012/6/F15a-6-2012.pdf

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 2:53 PM, June 01, 2012  

  • If you were so confident that the CCC was going to rule this way, why did you threaten and stalk LOSG members, Lynette? You're a sick and twisted lady.

    By Blogger SLOTowner, at 11:17 PM, June 01, 2012  

  • ALSO, the staff report didn't weigh on "science." Only intent. The LOSG didn't show County intent to mislead. You're such a liar.

    By Blogger SLOTowner, at 11:28 PM, June 01, 2012  

  • By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 10:41 AM, June 02, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home