Sunday, August 12, 2007


The PZLDF case will be heard Tuesday, August 22 in Dept 2 of the SLO courthouse on Monterey St starting at 9 a.m. (The various demurrers & etc. were filed a few days ago) The judge will be asked to rule on a variety of procedural and legal issues regarding the “hows” and “whats” of the CDO’s and CAO’s. The outcome of the hearing will affect the entire community, one way or the other.

For those of you supporting your friends and neighbors of The Los Osos 45 who have filed the case, PZLDF will be holding a fund-raising take-away BBQ chicken dinner August 19, from 3 – 6 pm at the Los Osos Community Center. Donations are $10. Tickets will likely be on sale at the Farmer’s Market Monday.

TAC meeting: A meeting of the Los Osos Wastewater Project Technical Advisory Committeewill be held on Monday, August 13, 2007 from 7:00pm - 9:30pm in the SouthBay Community Center at 2180 Palisades Avenue, Los Osos. The meetingagenda is attached. This information can also be viewed on the Projectwebsite at meeting is scheduled to be broadcasted, live, on Charter Cable channel20 in Los Osos.

BOS MEETING: Tuesday August 14, 2pm Board of Supervisors chambers, SLOTown:


Consider the presentation of Project Screening Analysis by the project team.

Consider the presentation of the Project Pro/Con Analysis by the project Technical Advisory Committee.

Consider the presentation of future work efforts.

Approve Exhibit A - Project Selection Strategies. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL.)

Staff Report - Large File - 388 pages

Sewerwatch Posting: Uh-oh, Ron Crawford over at has posted a new piece. I can hear his little Happy Feet Dance from here as well as the susurrus rush of unhappy feet of the various “commentors” who will rush from this blogsite to his to start furiously sniping at him and one another over whatever he’s got posted there, as well as lobbing some nasty snark-bombs onto this site just for the heck of it.

Them Sewer Jihadis. Gotta love ‘em. Proof positive that grade school never ended.


Area51 said...

Let me be the first to lob a snark-bomb. Ann, I hope you put Santa Margerita Ron at the top of your grade school list. His piece is trash. It says nothing new, and serves only once again to attempt to rile people up and fan the flames of hostility in this already terribly divided community. Crawford indeed has the maturity level of a third grader.

Hey Crawford, if Tri-W does in fact go buh bye, does that mean you go with it? We have very real decisions to make in Los Osos about our financial futures. The last thing we need is your out-of-town, third-grade antics clouding the issues for some (uninformed) people. And maybe finally leaving the far away (for you) sewer issue will allow you to work on some of your personal issues, like your Pandora fixation/obsession.

Go agitate in your own home town.

Churadogs said...

Sigh. As I said. Grade school. Thanks for proving my point.

As for me, I hope Ron's gonna keep his very sharp eye out on The Process from this point forward. A VERY,VERY sharp eye. This Process is now going to enter a very dangerous stretch of terrain wherein it can be pushed off the rails very easily by hidden agendas, behind the scenes manipulation, whispers in ears in Sacramento, thumbs on the scale, an out of control Roger Briggs sabotaging the 218 vote, soooo many, many points where this thing can still be lost. That's why I want Ron's sharp eyes and everyone else sharp eyes on the Process, including your own. And it doesn't particularly require snark bombs to do it either.

Shark Inlet said...



If Ron really has a very sharp eye and if he really is more than a grade school bully .... why doesn't he seem to bother reading and replying to my very very sharp questions which prove his take is ... ummmmm ... wrong.

Some recent questions he hasn't bothered to answer (maybe because he doesn't know the answer, maybe because he does know the answer but it isn't convenient to his goals) include:

1 - is TriW currently ESHA? If not, Ron's chief argument against the County choosing TriW would seem to be founded on a fiction.

2 - Why does Ron think that one land use law ("CZLUO Section 23.08.288d allows public facilities within ESHA only where there is no other feasible location") trump all other land-use laws with which it might conflict? Or ... rephrased ... how does Ron define "feasible location"?

3 - Considering the fact that the CCC already ignored this law once when they approved TriW the first time, don't you think that if the County had a solid reason for choosing TriW over Giacomazzi (for example, the law which says that AG land cannot be developed unless there is no other feasible location), the CCC would approve TriW again? Rephrased ... what makes Ron, an entirely non-technical person, the arbiter of what is feasible and what is not?

4 - Why has he not given us any quotes from Steve Monowitz to show us that Steve is so pissed off at the Solutions Group LOCSD board that he'll make sure that TriW is torpedoed no matter what?


I will probably get around to replying to Ron's rather biased take on things soon, but his lack of interest in discourse so far doesn't make me want to bother too much anymore. Maybe he would get fewer grade school comments if he stopped acting like the smart-ass teacher who thinks he understands a whole lot more than he really does.

4crapkiller said...

To all:

I think Ron's sharp eyes are obscured by thick ego lenses.

And speak for yourself, ANN, as to grade school. I have yet to see any serious consideration of anything related to sewer in YOUR "grade school" opinions. Nothing but an attempt to be cute.

Well it has worked for YOU. You started out with 0 comments way back in 2005 and just recently you got 126 comments. Too bad you do not have advertising and get paid for hits on your blog. Everyone else is defunct on these newsmission blogs.

Guess what, when you run out of sewer, you will be back to obscurity, just like Tom Hutchins in Vietnam. But the way things look right now, with all the undecided and yet not filed legal matters, you may get a few more years out of this.

Ron said...

Anonymous commentor wrote:

"my very very sharp questions which prove his take is ... ummmmm ... wrong."

And then Einstein wrote:

"1 - is TriW currently ESHA? If not, Ron's chief argument against the County choosing TriW would seem to be founded on a fiction."

Anon, HELLLLOOOO!!! Anyone home? According to the county's own pro/con report, released on August 6, 2007, Tri-W is STILL ESHA. In fact, the only time ESHA comes up in the report is in association with Tri-W.

And then I scrolled through the rest of your post.

If I were you Anon, I would get VERY familiar with that report before you post another word. It makes you look terrible. It proves that YOU are.... ummmmm.... wrong. I can't tell you how embarrassing it is for your side. Why do you think every person associated with the county's process can't distance themselves fast enough from Tri-W? It's an embarrassing, "bait and switchy" mess, just like I've been showing for the past three years.

Just trying to help.

Area 51 wrote:

"Hey Crawford, if Tri-W does in fact go buh bye, does that mean you go with it?"

Pretty much, until my book comes out.

Ann wrote:

"I hope Ron's gonna keep his very sharp eye out on The Process from this point forward."

I'll continue to follow it, but unless behavior based marketing creeps back in to the process, you probably won't hear much from me. Of course, the behavior based marketing folks absolutely refuse to go away, so, unfortunately, I'll likely be back.

Shark Inlet said...


Yes, the TAC report says that TriW is ESHA (not, as you say, "still ESHA" ... the same report says that the site is "graded" ... what does such grading do to environmentally sensitive habitat?). What I am wondering is whether the ESHAness is something that has been verified. If all aspects of a site which make it environmentally sensitive habitat are essentially changed by bulldozing them it would make sense to do a double-checky, don't you think?

To suggest otherwise makes you look a little silly. I should be faulted for a lack of clarity in my question at most.

Steve said...

ESHA is an Environmentally Sensative Habitat Area... it is not endangered species. It is an AREA that either does, has or HAS THE POTENTIAL to support endangered species.

You cannot get around the ESHA regulations just by bulldozing the land. If you could, then people would scrape all life off of their land... pay a little fine and then claim it no longer is ESHA.

Try that and see what happens...

What will end up happening is, you will have to restore the land... and allow the endangered species to return. Whether they return or not, it is still ESHA.

You dont need a red legged frog, or silver lupine to have ESHA... Coastal Dune Habitat is preserved because the red legged frog and silver lupine can live there if they choose to.

I am sure there is some wildlife that has returned to Tri-W... if there isnt, it has the potential to return. Either way, it is still ESHA.

Nice try sharky... but your argument is weak... and you will have a hard time convincing anyone that Tri-W is not ESHA... it would be kind of like, oh, I dont know... trying to claim the Tri-W sewer was underground.

How did that work out for you?

Mike said...

How about a nice commercial or residential development on that site?

There never was anything special about that property, in fact it was a trash and rusty car dumping ground going back at least 60 years that I'm personally aware of. My brothers and I used to play all over that sand pile. The ESHA tag is as bogus as you can get.

The property does have developmental value, and will not be allowed to become a refuge for some mythical endangered species. Ask Jeff Edwards what his plans are for that site!

Shark Inlet said...

Okay Steve,

TriW was low-grade ESHA because it was possibly capable of having sensitive species on it and because it possibly could in the future it must remain ESHA. Let me ask you then, why are the other properties in questions (Cemetery, Branin and Giacomazzi) not determined to be ESHA via similar logic?

I'm not the expert on ESHA ... but in this case it would seem that all the plants and critters which were once there have been bulldozed and only weeks remain.

In any case, as you've suggested the ESHAness of the property would preclude TriW, wouldn't it also preclude the use of the property for any other use?

Just curious...

Steve said...

Sharky, I just want to be clear... are you conceding that Tri-W is ESHA?

It sounds like you are, but as you said you are not an ESHA expert... I wouldnt want to put words in your mouth.

Im not asking for an "expert opinion" just your opinion.

Steve said...

By the way... Tri-W was covered in silver lupine before it was bulldozed... and I'm pretty sure you can spot some returning to the site now. If you care to look.

Hopefully some dreamer doesn't go blast it with some round-up.

Mike said...

Steve, Tri-W never was, never will be a ESHA. If a waste water treatment facility is not built there, you can be there will be some other development. Plans have been circulated through the County Planning Department many times and it just a matter of time before it will be developed. Would you rather see a waste water treatment facility serving the needs of the community and possibly a park or are you encouraging the commercial development that is standing in the wings waiting to see which way this all blows.

Steve said...

"Would you rather see a waste water treatment facility serving the needs of the community and possibly a park or are you encouraging the commercial development that is standing in the wings waiting to see which way this all blows."

Have you ever heard the saying "there are no dumb questions"?

Well, there are.

That's the stupidest question I've ever heard.

Of course I would prefer to have anything there other than a sewer plant... duh!!

Well, with the exception of maybe a pig farm.

The problem with your questions is that the straw man that you set up... a commercial development... and then try to villify... can't ever be villified as bad as a sewer plant.

Now if you were to suggest that there were plans for a nuclear waste reprocessing plant bouncing around the county planning department... well then you'd have something.

But go ahead and keep comparing some nasty, dirty Baskin Robbins, and Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf to your beautiful Park & Sewer...

4crapkiller said...

I am really sorry, but I am hungry. I say kill em and grill em. People come first!If they are no good, the hell with them. Besides, there are thousands of square miles for the critters to go to. Even ANN is smart enough to let them go.

How do Basenjis taste, lots of them have been eaten by Africans for thousands of years? Basenji on a spit? Forget about it!

4crapkiller said...

But then, a lot of Africans have been eaten by Basenjis in packs.

Love them doggies!

Shark Inlet said...


I have no idea about whether the site was ESHA or still is ESHA. It would seem that ESHA is a biological and legal definition and I am in no position to comment as I am neither a biologist or a lawyer.

However ... if it were all about "common sense" I would think that it would be ESHA only if bulldozing it would destroy the essential characteristic that makes it ESHA. I'm not just saying that to be a smart ass ... I really think that if bulldozing a place doesn't make it less "environmentally sensitive" it wasn't that much at all to begin with.


While I would rather a park at TriW or even leave it undeveloped forever than a strip mall or some condos, I think I would rather focus on what is the best, cheapest and soonest solution for our community. I'm not 100% convinced that the County's evaluations of various potential sites is fair (comparing the TriW bids which were over engineering estimates to engineering estimates of other sites doesn't seem right to me), but if the County is in the ballpark about the prices and if the problems (lawsuits, delays, etc.) are comparable for all possible sites, TriW won't necessarily be cheaper or all that sooner than other sites ... sites which will cause far less community strife.

Mike said...

Shark, I hold the utmost respect for your opinions and reasoning.

As we have all found, there is no "best, cheapest and soonest" solution and certainly no simple answer to which site which will cause far less community strife. All solutions will have risk, cost and will not make everyone happy.

Although no one will be happy, the County is in the drivers seat and will ultimately make the final site decision. I support the County effort as I supported the formation of a CSD and the decisions of our elected Directors. At least I support a CSD until the recall and the vileness of the campaign leading up to it. Those who say the old Board could have waited before starting the project, could also have waited until the next election or better yet, could have changed the leadership in the prior election. They didn't, they just built an emotional charge and as we watched, the wheels came off and the community became polarized and I doubt we will ever see an end to the community strife.

The Tri-W site became some symbol of good vs evil with the definitions fitting both sides equally. I'm not sure anyone really remembers the Tri-W site before it was graded, but it was just an unremarkable plot which many developers wanted to build homes and/or shops. Tri-W was never unique, just another vacant parcel of land waiting development.

The CSD purchsed that vacant land with a vision of supporting the long needed sewer. The County could have just as easily selected that same parcel some 30 years ago, but after years of foot dragging by the County, our community organized a CSD and proceeded.

You know all this and have remained the voice of reason we all listen to. Please keep up the logic and common sense.

Steve said...

Sharky said... "I have no idea about whether the site was ESHA or still is ESHA. It would seem that ESHA is a biological and legal definition and I am in no position to comment as I am neither a biologist or a lawyer."

You are so full of it...

The Solution Group CSD knew it was ESHA... why else do we need to mitigate with the Broderson property? Why the need for a HABITAT Conservation Plan?

The County is NOW claiming it is ESHA.

And your comment about not being a lawyer... can you name ONE lawyer that has taken a case to court, or even filed a motion claiming Tri-W is NOT ESHA?

or a Biologist... Lisa Schicker is a biologist... she works for the state and is considered an expert in this very field. Or do you only believe biologists that support your positions?

What more do you need??

You try and act "middle of the road" and "reasonable" in your opinions and positions, but they are so slanted and biased, its just appalling to listen to you try and mask it.

It's disgusting.

Sewertoons said...

steve said:
"Lisa Schicker is a biologist... she works for the state and is considered an expert in this very field"

By whom?

Common sense isn't necessarily handed out with a diploma. Cal Trans isn't the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

Steve said...

By whom? The State of California.

The use her expertise on every project they assign her to.

It's funny, she's good enough for the State, but not for little ol' Los Osos?

Again, I ask... what do you want?

Oh, that's right... you want puppets you can manipulate... someone that will build you a park in the middle of town next to a sewer plant... and not ask any questions as to why.

Ron said...

I wrote:

"Then Einstein wrote..."

That's waaaaay too cliche. Since I was reaching for someone famous for their reasoning skills, I wish I would have said something like, "And then Nietzsche wrote..."

Speaking of my man, Friedrich, he once said, "All truly great thoughts are conceived by walking."

I conceived of SewerWatch while hiking.

Steve wrote:

"Well, with the exception of maybe a pig farm."

Ahhh... I loved Alex. He was great. To tell you the truth, I drove by that section of LOVR the other day -- the section with the Home Depot complex -- and considering what they built there, I would MUCH prefer Alex's pig farm at that location.

Shark wrote:

"I'm not 100% convinced that the County's evaluations of various potential sites is fair..."

Oh, that is classic behavior based marketing. If something, anything, doesn't break your way, then all of a sudden it's not "fair." Whine, whine, whine. That reminds me of 1998 Norm at Questa Engineering showed that the Solution Group's plan was never going to work, and they instantly labled him "unfair." He was 100% right.

Boy, you're just not going to give up, are you?

Even the Trib finally got something right:

"Tri-W had the highest cost estimates in each scenario."

By the way, Nietzsche, Tri-W is STILL ESHA. It's dune habitat. The other three sites are not dune habitat.

You're not going to win this. It's over. But I'm sure you'll just keep plowing along, making things up, despite stacks of official information that's not coming from an anonymous commentor.

You might want to take a hint from your buddy R. LeGros, who ran the comments section above 100 just before the pro/con report was released, and hasn't been seen since... after its release. He's smart.

Just trying to help.

Mike said...

Sorry Steve, Lisa is NOT at the top of anyone at CalTrans operations, in fact she is not considered an expert in anything except milking the system with her continual time off. She's lucky to be with the State, she couldn't hold a job with a private landscape firm!

Shark Inlet said...


Are you saying that you think it is fair to compare engineering estimates to bids on the job instead of doing the obvious ... comparing engineering estimates to engineering estimates? If so, I would like to hear an explanation of why you consider this fair. After all, there was good reason to think that the bids were running high because of "community values".

In any case, I appreciate your letting us know that TriW is still ESHA. How do you know this? Did the County hire a biologist to verify that the site is exactly the same (from the point of environmentally sensitive habitat) as it was back in 2004? Has the County made a determination that TriW can never be developed for any reason? If so, I'll concede the point rather quickly. If the County and CCC will allow development of any kind at that site it would seem that your argument is more based in legal distinctions without any humanly perceptible difference.

My question about the other sites is this ... why are they not considered dune habitat? Is it because they've been recently used as AG sites? Is it because their soils are inherently non-sand? I would suggest that if you let those sites like undisturbed for five years and left TriW undisturbed for two years, both would look the same and from an ecological point of view, both would fill the same niche. If I am wrong on this matter, I hope that you will explain why.

I guess some of your confusion might be from your assumption that I am arguing about the definition instead of wondering about the definition of ESHA. Again, if someone could offer up a definition of what is and what is not ESHA it would be helpful.

I'll apologize for your confusion but again I'll suggest that you might want to look in thee mirror before making comments about the possible biases of others. Your own comments about the TAC and their process would appear to be of the "whine, whine, whine" variety but then when they offered us something you could use to your advantage you started milking it. If you're a gonna call the kettle black ...

Churadogs said...

Crap sez:"4crapkiller said...
But then, a lot of Africans have been eaten by Basenjis in packs.

Love them doggies!

10:54 PM, August 13, 2007 "

Totally incorrect, totally Not true. Basenjis have been prized hunting companions since prehistoric times. Perhaps you're confused and thinking of the so-called "wild dogs" of Africa? An entirely different critter altogether? Confusing basenjis with the "wild dogs" is like confusing a tabby cat with a leopard. Hmmmmm. . . .

4crapkiller said...

After watching the public comment at the BOS meeting, it is absolutely clear to me that the opposition to any sewer has been fueled by cost to individuals.

Tri-W was opposed for this. "Center of town" was and is a smoke screen. Now the opposition has widened to "ANY" sewer, ANYPLACE, under the aspect of "affordable".

4crapkiller said...

To Chortle dogs:

It is unclear whether the Basenjis developed from domesticated wolves in Europe that were brought to Africa in prehistoric times or that they developed from the "African Wild dogs" that are severely endangered today.

In any case, they were developed by tribes to the south of the Sahara living in the same range that the African Wild Dogs lived.

I was wrong. No African has ever been eaten by a pack of wild Basenjis. However they have been eaten by African Wild Dogs, most likely the ancestor of Basenjis.

I am not aware of any DNA testing to show a relationship.

It seems that the domestic cat came from Africa also.

When one looks at a wolf and then a Beagle it is hard to conceive that the wolf was the ancestor.

Possibly the same thing with a leopard and a tabby cat.

Shark Inlet said...


Your comment on the central reason for opposition should be well taken.

I've contended for some time now that many voted for the recall because of the "$100/month" promise instead of because of the "move the sewer" promise. If there is a perception (rightly deserved, by the way) that TriW is really expensive, the argument to move the location might very well be motivated out of a hope that another location will be less expensive.

It would seem that the TAC report should be viewed as a partial affirmation of Ron's criticism of the Solutions Group and LOCSD board actions between 1997 and 2001.

While I still disagree with Ron's contention that the only reason TriW was chosen and that his contention that people in Los Osos don't want a park attached to their sewer and his asinine contention that moving the sewer will save us money, his argument that TriW was more expensive than other sites would seem partially borne out by the TAC report. There are a few wrinkles here somewhere, but it is clear that other sites would have at least been pretty comparable, cost-wise, back in 2001.

The sad thing here is that while the Giacomazzi site may be cheaper than TriW, we had the Solutions Group board making choices way back in 1997-2001 that sort of boxed the board into a corner and raised our costs. The recall board also made the choice to take on tons-o-debt which, if we can't make it disappear entirely, will cause our bills (between debt and sewer) to be higher than whatever TriW was going to cost. (And if you're gonna say that "we might get grants" you've got to admit that the pre-recall LOCSD board "might have gotten grants" ... to do otherwise would be to reveal bias.)

So, we've had two boards in a row who have made choices which have raised our costs.


Mike said...

Shark, It would be helpful to hear the reasoning "why" Tri-W was chosen from members of the Board who had to make that decision. I know it wasn't out of some desire to split the community or to make some personal financial gain. But folks like Ron and Ann have made such an emotional stink over the selection, that the original decisions seem to have been run over. I know the old Board members did not just pick the Tri-W site without some critera and some constraints. It wasn't nearly as simple some would have us believe.

Shark Inlet said...


I agree.

However, I think that once the likely total bill hit $100/month, the key criterion for site selection should have been the lowest total bill.

I appreciate that TriW also attempted to address aquifer recharge and providing park space, but it might be the case that sometime between 1998 and 2001 the Solutions Group should have been more open to other sites. Perhaps we ought to fault the County (yet again) because the LOCSD was not given enough money to start off with to achieve thorough enough reviews of all reasonable sites and technologies, but the LOCSD board told us that TriW was best. When it was fancy ponding, perhaps it was "best" because it was really cool and had a really big park with lots of great stuff (9.8 miles of walking trails, etc.).

Nope, I don't for a minute think that Ron's is right when he says that the park was the ONLY reason for choosing TriW ... but I have to wonder whether the Solutions Group LOCSD board's criteria didn't perfectly match the (average) community criteria.