Pages

Monday, August 13, 2007

More Reminders:

This just in:

The Final Fine Screening Report is now able. You can order a copy of the Final Fine Screening Report from the Public Works Department. You will be charged for the cost of printing, which is approximately $25, and for postage. Contact our department receptionist at (805) 781-5252 to order a copy. Reference copies are also available for public review and/or copying at the Public Works Department in SLO and at the Los Osos Library and Los Osos CSD. And, of course, on the project website at www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP.htm.

37 comments:

Mike Green said...

To all the members of the TAC and the personnel of the county associated with the Los Osos wastewater project,

Thank You.

4crapkiller said...

To Mike Green:

Were these people ever briefed about AB 2701?

Churadogs said...

Crap sez:"To Mike Green:

Were these people ever briefed about AB 2701?"

The TAC website, I believe, had an email address so you could send in Questions. Did you ever send that question in and get an answer directly from the TAC? Or attend a meeting and ask during the Question period? Would the TAC itself know better than Mike Green as to whether or not they'd been briefed on the matter?

BOS will be hearing the TAC report today from 2 pm. - 5 p.m. Will likely take public comment as well. Hope you all can either attend and/or watch on TV. One thing was totally clear at last night's TAC presentation: No matter how they configured the various components, Tri W ran dead last, i.e. was most expensive, even with worst and best case numbers, high contingency add-ons & etc. The question the community now has to ask themselves is . . . . Why? What happened here?

TCG said...

To me, the technologies are going to be relatively close cost-wise, with the step-steg being somewhat cheaper overall, per month. When the community survey comes out, everyone needs to think really hard in advising the Board of Supervisors of their preferences as to whether they want to put up with the hassles of a step system (effect on yards, ongoing tank maintenance,etc) or whether it would be worth it to them to not have that hassle and just be able to flush and forget about it (like the rest of the Country, with a few exceptions).

There is a lot to be said for not having septic tanks any longer, but I will make that decision in about a year when we have more refined cost estimates.

Sewertoons said...

Inquiring minds who want to know more about step should consult the 389-page report going before the Supes today.

The juicy step parts are Appendix A -pgs 367-371, Appendix B - pgs 372-379 and Appendix C - pgs 380-381. For everyone to vote for step, this should be required reading.

Sewertoons said...

Ann says:
"Tri W ran dead last, i.e. was most expensive." and "Why?"

Tri-W was trying to fulfill the role of water manager without purveyor participation (read - costs more money to do this). The project was trying to avoid even more litigation by NOT having an out-of-town site (they had battled a bunch of suits from the no-sewer folks), they were following the TSO by the RWQCB (that thing the County is dealing with now - you know, threats of fines like $900/mo.) That's what happened.

This time the County has more clout and is getting far more information on the project out to the residents. THAT is where we need to put our attention now. THAT is what is relevant now.

Steve said...

sewertoons wrote... "Tri-W was trying to fulfill the role of water manager without purveyor participation..."

What does that mean... pelase explain.

"The project was trying to avoid even more litigation by NOT having an out-of-town site... "

That's crap... there is no way there could have ever been more litigation than was caused by the mid-town location.

The sooner it was moved out of town, the sooner the mid-town suits ended... and although the out of town suits would have started... WORST CASE, it would have been EQUAL, not more than what happened.

Mike said...

and now Steve, the "Out-of-Town, NIMBY" suits are getting lined up. I sure don't want a stinkin' pond near the cemetery. How about we put it in YOUR backyard? Get used to port-a-potties folks, the game will continue!

Shark Inlet said...

Another question for our crack sleuth Ron ...

Does the TAC final screening report discuss the costs associated with recharge of our aquifer for each of the four sample projects presented as alternatives to TriW? Are we comparing TriW which promised some aquifer recharge to a hypothetical plan which doesn't have this characteristic?

Inquiring minds want to know. Are these cheaper alternatives to TriW going to do the same job ... or are they cheaper because they don't do as much?

Let us know, Ron ... give us page numbers in the report so that we know you're not just making something up ... like some suspect you've invented a relationship with Steve Monowitz where you can report his thoughts and feelings without providing quotes.

Mike Green said...

Well the pro-con and final TAC reports make some fine reading. Too bad we didn't have that a long time ago....
I especially liked the"cons" for the Giacomezzi(sp) parcel.
Oh, and Ron, while I have always agreed with you about why TriW shouldn't have been permitted in the first place I wouldn't stick a fork in yet, There is one possibility that would "get er done" there.
The county is now free to rebid it.
if the survey is close and the new bids come in WAYYYY cheaper well....
It always struck me as ludicrous that the bidding for TriW was so far off. Anyway, I don't care too much which system gets done, as long as the water gods are appeased.
Anyone taking bets on the final decision? maybe we should start a pool?

Mike Green said...

pool, get it, community values?

Mike said...

Will there be a pool park too?

Shark Inlet said...

Mike Green,

I don't think we should start a pool. The LOCSD will take the pool fund and the funds will end up paying some creditor in the bankruptcy and then no one will win.

Seriously, at this stage, I would bet on Giacomazzi/STEP as the ultimate project and the start of construction as Aug 27, 2010. I'm in for $20, a round for seven (you, me, Ron, Joe Sparks, Maria, Richard and the guest of your choice) at the Merrimaker or two home-baked peach or apple pies (depending on the season).

Mike Green said...

Done and Done! I want Ann Calhoun as my guest!
What about Jon Arcuni?
I'll bake local olalieberry if you please! (providing a good harvest, this year is meagre)

Shark Inlet said...

Good choices, Mike Green! How could I overlook either Jon or Ann! I must have been inhaling paint fumes or something.

Ron said...

Anonymous commentor wrote:

"Another question for our crack sleuth Ron ...

Does the TAC final screening report discuss the costs associated with recharge of our aquifer for each of the four sample projects presented as alternatives to TriW? Are we comparing TriW which promised some aquifer recharge to a hypothetical plan which doesn't have this characteristic?

Inquiring minds want to know. Are these cheaper alternatives to TriW going to do the same job ... or are they cheaper because they don't do as much?

Let us know, Ron"


How would I know that? For the umpteenth millionth time, I'm not a wastewater engineer. Why don't you ask Paavo that question.

"like some suspect you've invented a relationship with Steve Monowitz where you can report his thoughts and feelings without providing quotes."

You're such an a-hole. I've quoted him left and right, like when he told me, "It galls me when they (translated: Nash-Karner and the 2005 LOCSD) say we required the amenities," after I showed him the Save the Dream newsletter and the official CSD document that said the amenities were added by the Coastal Commission. Oh, that pissed him off. I knew it would. That's why I sent him those graphics... and it did, understandably.

Mike Green wrote:

"I especially liked the"cons" for the Giacomezzi(sp) parcel."

That's hilarious. In one of the "con" areas for the Giacomazzi site, it doesn't list one con, and in the other, one of the cons is its distance from Broderson... what a reach!

Shark:

"Seriously, at this stage, I would bet on Giacomazzi/STEP as the ultimate project"

You mean EXACTLY what Ripley concluded, meaning the entire TAC process was nothing more than a waste of two years and $2 million, just so the minority Tri-W contingent could continue to drag their wheelless wagon through the thick mud? Is there any end to the amount of money they can waste?

By the way, Shark, I did you a favor, I took a screen shot of the part of the pro/con report that shows Tri-W as ESHA . I cropped the graphic down a bit in order to make it as simple as possible... you know, so even you can understand it.

Take a peek.

In the report, no other potential site has ESHA as a "con."

I was kind of disappointed at that meeting yesterday. I thought they were going to give a presentation on the pros and cons of Tri-W. They didn't, and that bummed me out, because THAT I gotta see.

I can't wait to see them explain how Tri-W's central location is a "pro" because it will save about $3 million in extra pipe and pumping costs, even though it takes more than $30 million in "urban compatibility" to build the sewer plant in a central location.

Like I said, that I GOTTA see. That's going to be awesome.

By the way, did you hear Corollo yesterday when he said something along the lines of, "Sure, Tri-W is waaaaaay more expensive than the other options, but in fairness, it also includes community amenities."

Yep, just like like I've said all along, that's a $30-plus million dollar park in the Tri-W project, that Nash-Karner tried to blame on Monowitz.

Ron said...

Something occurred to me after I linked to the "Tri-W is ESHA" graphic from the pro/con report. You're going to have to open that link in a "new window," because these pop-up windows don't allow for horizontal scrolling, and the part that says "ESHA" is on the right side of the graphic.

In case you don't know, to open something in a new window, on a Mac, click and hold on the link, and then, when it gives you the menu, scroll to "open in new window." On PCs, I believe it's something called "right click" on the link, and then go to "open in new window.".

Your computer tip of the day, from your friends at SewerWatch.

Ron said...

Wait a sec... what's this horizontal scrolling bar I see now? Huh, you think I'd have noticed that by now... anyway... that computer tip is still a good tip for other reasons.

buh-bye

Mike Green said...

My guess is STEP/Giocammazi/partial biolac for some tertiary recharge for Broderson and facultative ponds for winter storage and possible ag exchange.

Two Ollalaberry pies and a round at the Merrimaker!

Mike said...

and a $30,000,000 community park at Tri-W!

Ron said...

Quick clarification, and it's an important one:

I wrote that Monowitz's quote was:

""It galls me when they (translated: Nash-Karner and the 2005 LOCSD) say we required the amenities."

The actual quote is:

""It galls me when they (translated: Nash-Karner and the 2005 LOCSD) say we added the amenities"

That's a key distinction, because they did require the amenities... FOR TRI-W ONLY, because the amenities were the ONLY reason they signed-off on the project in 2001.

So, the Commission told the LOCSD in 2004, after said CSD yanked the only reason to site the project in the middle of town OUT of the project, that they couldn't move forward with the Tri-W without the amenities in the plan, however the District could have switched sites right then and there, and should have, but instead voted to "reincorporate" the amenities, and that instantly added more than $30 million to the project. That's that whole "bait and switchy" thing that only Steve and I are clear on.

But to be absolutely clear, the $30-plus million park was NEVER added by Monowitz, or anyone else at the Coastal Commission, for that matter. Nope. That was purely the initial LOCSD Board of Directors' idea, a board which, coincidentally, also included long-time SLO County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, the same person that, when everything went south (translated: Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown/ SewerWatch), tried to blame the park on Monowitz. Nice.

Back to "work."

Mike said...

If it were only as simple to have changed sites as you would have us believe. Pure BS and you know it!

Area51 said...

I think the pool should also include an over/under on the number of lawsuits coming down the pike in the future. I'm already sharpening my pencil in research over my legal rights pertaining to having my property ripped up, electrical panels and alarms installed, and being forced to sign an easement to unfettered access to my property. And Clark Valley people are itching to heard as well.

Mike Green said...

A51, If you want to waste your money trying to force the county into a decision that they don't want to make, knock yourself out.
You already have easements for gas or electricity and the Clark valley folks are smarter than you think, when it comes to funding lost causes.
Don't waste your time with litigation, get out and talk the majority of residents into voting the way you want in the survey!
What WAS that definition of insanity?

Area51 said...

Mike, you are correct sir. And I also would have an easement on the pipe on my property for a gravity sewer. But you suerly can't equate the intrusion and potential for harm to my property from a huge alarmed septic tank with those. At least I can't.

And I surely have no intention, nor funds, to litigate. But I think the anti-Tri W/anti-sewer brigade has done pretty darn well for themselves with the threat of litigation and dissemination of gravity hysteria. I'm just educating myself and investigating all my options. And of course I'll be taking with my friends and neighbors. Let's just hope the 218 passes so there's something, anything, to talk about.

Mike Green said...

A51, Well put.

Shark Inlet said...

So Ron,

If you're not a wastewater engineer, how can you tell us that these other potential plans and sites are better than TriW? By the way, Paavo is an accountant and not an engineer either but he could probably tell us the answer ... sounds like he has a solid grasp of the issue that you don't have. It doesn't take an engineering degree or training. It takes an ability to read the report carefully. This raises a good question ...


On whether you've quoted Monowitz ... you've quoted him on issues other than the issue of whether whether he agrees with you that TriW is illegal or whether there is no possibility that TriW would be approved in the future. Even if he is frustrated that the CCC staff opinion was mischaracterized by political campaigners doesn't mean that we should jump to the conclusion you wanted us to jump to. Again, if you get a quote that justifies your conclusions, please let us know.

About you graphic Ron ... thanks but I had already read that. The question at hand (perhaps you misunderstood the question) is whether the TriW site really is currently ESHA or whether it simply was ESHA. Again, I would think that if a biologist were to go and assess the site today, the biologist would determine that it is no more ESHA than the Branin site. If bulldozing a site doesn't have any impact on whether it is ESHA, neither should a few years of AG use.

On the question of whether Steve Monowitz was rightfully indignant that some said that the CCC required extra park amenities ... it is fair to say that the LOCSD and CCC staff had agreed to reduce the amount of park amenities before CCLO complained ... and then ... once the LOCSD added those (earlier removed) amenities back in, the approval of TriW sailed thru. I think it fair to say that the CCC required those amenities for TriW approval. Monowitz and you can quibble over the fine print, but the general person out there would say that the CCC required the amenities for approval.

Churadogs said...

Area 51 sez:"Mike, you are correct sir. And I also would have an easement on the pipe on my property for a gravity sewer. But you suerly can't equate the intrusion and potential for harm to my property from a huge alarmed septic tank with those. At least I can't."

Do you have in mind that a STEP system would mean there would be a HUGE septic tank sitting in front of your yard with one of those GINORMOUS red metal firehouse firebells attached to it, the kind that when it went off would wake the dead and shatter glass within 1,500 feet, all with ENORMOUS electrical cables snaking from the top of the HUGE tank down into a partially open window of your house, all hooked up to a 2,500 HP submersible motor that when turned on sounded like a 747 engine revving up, the vibrations of which would cause your house to subside and sink into the sandy soil?

Near as I can tell from the Ripley report, that's not what the Step system involves. Have you been looking at some other STEP system? Maybe one that features a really, realllllly HUGE cowbell attached?

Area51 said...

I'm sure glad the anti-TriW/anti-sewer brigade didn't spread disaster scenarios about gravity collection systems. Speakng of cowbells, won't a gravity collection system render all inhabitants within a 20 mile radius sterile? Or rot their insides? Or cause spots on the sun? Or cause the soil to shift releasing monster worms to wreak havoc on Los Osos?

C'mon. The anti-Tri W/anti-sewer people always said about gravity if you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig. Another larger, presurrized septic tank in my front yard is still a larger, preassurized septic tank in my front yard. Stop trying to put lipstick on it.

Shark Inlet said...

But Area51 ... if you put lipstick on the pig, doesn't it make it easier to kiss?

I'll agree with you that gravity seems less of a problem from a homeowner's point of view but if it costs more and if the easements can be worked out, wouldn't it be worth it? If it costs ... say $5k more to put in the new, fancy tank than to decommission the old one and connect to a gravity sewer ... but the lower cost of installing STEP versus gravity (say a $20M savings where your share is about $4k) and lower monthly treatment payments should help tip the balance.

Area51 said...

My savings $4,000? Sorry Shark, but I'd say no, it wouldn't be worth it.

My house is an investment I've saved most my life to obtain. An extra $4,000 would be money well spent to protect that investment.

I have no emotional or financial stake in the "roads" around Los Osos. Tear 'em up all you want. Leave my house alone.

Shark Inlet said...

Area51,

I understand your point of view.

Whether the County prefers STEP or gravity right now is undecided, so I trust you'll do the wise thing and vote "yes" on the 218. Later is when we can quibble over the benefits and drawbacks of various options.

Area51 said...

Absolutely, without a doubt Shark. While I speculate, educate myself and opine, what I don't do is put the cart before the horse. The 218 must pass, or we all are literally and figuratively up shit's creek. That is why the obstructionist actions of those like McPherson are so damned irritating to me.

4crapkiller said...

If the county wants to install their septic tank in their easement and compensate me for the inability to expand my living space or for the loss of driveway etc. space, fine.

If they want to pay for the electricity to run the pump to pressurize the lines, fine.

If they want to pump the tank on their nickel fine.

Where will they find enough contractors to install 4700 septic tanks and replace the damage done to my property. The job will take at least 5 days to do. That comes to 25,500 days of work. If 10 contractors were put on the job, it would come to 2550 days. Now everyone knows there a 365 days in a year. Figure it would take roughly five years with ten contractors just to get the septic tanks in. Ten years with five contractors, etc. What would it be for six, seven, eight, or nine days?

In any case just the trenching and decommissioning of existing septic tanks and laying of gravity lines would take 3 days.

There is a lot more to this than what one sees.

Mike Green said...

Looks like a stunning opportunity to become a rich contractor,
What do I need to buy? a backhoe? and a dump truck?
I saw one at the fair, it listed for 40k, I have a buddy that is a H.E. operator, maybe we'll start a partnership......
IPO? any takers?
Discounts to stockholders of course.

Area51 said...

An IPO to avoid a CDO? Discounts to stockholders??!!!

Count me in!!!!

Any chance of a charitable equivilent? How 'bout "Backhoes for Humanity"

I think you're on to something Mr. Green

Mike Green said...

Sure, but please be VERY VERY careful about how you spell that nonprofit ( I will apply for directorship of course) Don't want any embarrassing Imus moment here!