Guess Who's At The Back Door...With A CDO And A Gun?

The following email came yesterday. Since the deadline’s April 8, don’t know if there’ll be much chance for public meetings and information. And if Roger Briggs will be overseeing this new plan, poor SLO County. The folks down in Nipomo who have been sneering at Los Osos and the plight of the Los Osos 45 will soon find their laughter stuck in their throat. Will we have lots of PZ’s scattered around the county? Dozens of Los Osos 45’s? Ah, there’s something positively karmic about this, I must say.

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board - NEW - Onsite Regulations:
CCW-PZLDF will provide a briefing meeting Monday March 24th 7:00 at Washington Mutual Bank, Los Osos.

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/index.htm

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/Permits/Index.htm

Please send out to your colleagues to begin reading through the Basin Plan Revisions to onsite. PUBLIC COMMENT DEADLINE IS APRIL 8TH....NO LIST SERVE NOTICE!

While the Basin Plan update for onsite is important for the ability of the RWQCB to protect the waters of the state, it is vital this rogue board follows the law is not allowed to further abuse its regulatory powers. The basin plan revisions concerning onsite systems are long overdue.

However, all efforts from the community and the District to work cooperatively with Water Board Staff have been forwarded countless times, and were rejected. The Citizens for Clean Water-PZLDF has worked toward offering acceptable language for Basin Plan resolutions and updates, as well as work-plans and assistance in updating and strengthen the onsite regulations in lieu of the adverse punishment.(ACL fines the CDO's and settlement CAO's). These efforts for public participation in actual water quality protection and improvements were rejected in order to make a "poster Children" examples of the community of Los Osos.The timing of the revisions and our citizen lawsuit challenging the individual enforcement and constitutional protections make this sudden update very suspect.

The effort to put in place new resolutions that would supersede 83-12 and cover for the lack of a "illegal" resolution, which was used to justify enforcement in Los Osos under 83-13 is obvious to those watching Los Osos. These actions promulgate power to use the same enforcement tactics against individuals, to create a revenue stream in three counties--and must be challenged.

The RWB3 revisions to onsite are especially onerous to individual property owners throughout the entire region. The water board seeks to expand their discretionary power in every resolution. However, the entire tri county region 3 ought to be really wary and against some of these provisions. They are actually acting as the final authority on land planning.

Just one example is the 5 unit parcel developments will require a community system, and no granny units will be allowed without adding another acre.WDR are either implemented or waived, but if there isn't a system to hook up to, and you are on septic, it may become an automatic PZ--no CEQA, no economics, or scientific findings are required, the findings states enough already has been done and the impacts minimal!!!!

This is the same tactic that got Los Osos in the noose, but even more dangerous.Please send this out to the other communities in region 3 and the State organizations.The RWQCB backdoor version of the defunct AB885 is anti-property rights, anti-affordability, (eliminates affordable housing in rural areas), forcloses on environmentally sound green solutions, and steps way beyond the scope of water protection to land planning---this is another power grab for an out of control board that has no oversight.

Citizens for Clean Water http://www.pzldf.org/

Guess Who’s At The Back Door, Part II

Hmm, more mice? (From a recent email)

Subject: ALERT - Coastal Protection is Under Attack - Please act now

COASTAL PROTECTION IS UNDER ATTACK: SB 1295 - Ducheny - would rob the public and the Coastal Commission of the ability to appeal local development permits SB 1295 would eliminate the ability of the Coastal Commission to appeal permits. The ability of Coastal Commissioners to appeal local permits is one of the most critical oversight aspects of the Coastal Act. To eliminate this function would tear out one of the fundamental pillars of the Coastal Act. While appeals from members of the public are important, citizens and non-profit groups simply do not have the resources or the ability to monitor every single one of the hundreds of local permits issued throughout the coastal zone and appeal the significant ones within a very short 10-day time frame and become involved so that they have standing to appeal.

It would require that members of the public monitor all permits issued in every coastal city and county, comment on them to obtain standing to appeal and then have the background and knowledge to know if they raised a significant coastal issue based on the Coastal Act, Commission precedent and court decisions.

As a result most development permits would go un-noticed by members of the public. If this bill passes, many important local permits dealing with issues relating to public access, wetlands, water quality or habitat will go unnoticed or un-addressed at the local level. Commission staff must receive notice of these actions and under the present law, can appeal them by having 2 Commissioners sign on to an appeal. Once appealed, the public has an opportunity to address issues of concern to them.

If Commissioners were unable to appeal these projects, dozens of projects every year would fall through the cracks. If the appeal ability of commissioners is removed, these developments will go forward, un-noticed, until the development presents itself and its impacts. At that point it will be too late.

Environmental groups are stretched thin already and cannot afford to allow this bill to pass. It is supported by those who are opposed to any oversight by the commission of local decisions and would eliminate an important component of coastal protection and one of the reasons Proposition 20, the Coastal Initiative, was passed.

Please take the time to write to Senator Steinberg, Chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee and fax it to him. Tell him you oppose the bill and send a copy to Senator Ducheny.

Below is a sample letter. However, it is always best if you put this in your own words.

Senator Darrell Steinberg, Chair Senate Natural Resource Committee: 916-323-2263 (fax)
Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny: 916-327-3522(fax)

SAMPLE LETTERS BELOW

Dear Senator Steinberg:I am writing to express my strong opposition to SB 1295. This bill will severely limit the public's ability to track and be able to appeal development projects that may have both individual and cumulative averse impacts on coastal resources. The current process allows the professional staff of the commission, which receives notice of all approved projects, to review these projects for their possible adverse impact. It is not possible for the public to monitor and be aware of every proposed project. In addition, the public does not receive adequate notification of these projects and in order to have standing to appeal they must be "involved" in them prior to the final decision. This is simply not feasible. On the other hand the Commission gets notified of all of local actions, staff reviews them and flags the problematic ones. Then they notify two Commissioners, as required by the Coastal Act, who may agree to bring the appeal before the entire Commission for consideration. Because the Commission cannot force locals to update their LCPs, or force them to comply with its policies, the appeal process is literally the ONLY oversight the Commission has over local coastal development permits. In the 33 years since the Coastal Act was approved there has never been one case where it can be shown that the commission abused this authority.This bill directly undermines the intent of Proposition 20, approved by the voters, and the Coastal Act, which was to have state oversight of development along the coast. It is nothing more than a frontal attack on Coastal Protection and should be denied.

Dear Senator Darrell Steinberg and Members of the Senate Natural Resources Committee,

I am writing to strongly oppose Senate Bill 1295 and to urge you to consider the effects that this bill would have on our valuable California coastal resources. The Coastal Act is central to protecting the quality of California's world-famous coastal environment, which supports our state's economic engine including tourism, agriculture, fisheries, and recreation. Every year millions of Californians visit the ocean for work, education, and play. We depend on the California Coastal Commission to protect these resources by allowing the Commission to appeal local development permits that do not comply with the Coastal Act or that might threaten our coast – and in fact, we consider this to be one of the most important roles of the Coastal Commission. It is unreasonable to expect private citizens to bear the burden of monitoring compliance with the Coastal Act for the length of California's coastline in order to file appeals on inappropriately designed or located projects that threaten the sustainability of our coastal environment and economy. The extraordinary pressures on the coastal environment, and its sensitivity, means we need and value this role for the Coastal Commission. SB 1295, prohibiting the Coastal Commission from doing its job, will result in proliferation of many inappropriate development projects that threaten our coastal resources and beloved coastal places.Please reconsider, and vote no on SB 1295.