Friday, August 21, 2009

Call My Lawyer and Then Head For The Fences?

The following email was sent to me by Al Barrow/Los Osos Legal Defense Fund. Posted with permission.

Dear Coastal Commissioners:

SLO County promised in the 218 tax vote that funded the Los Osos Sewer project:

"In the current project selection strategy, the STEP and gravity alternatives would compete through the construction bidding phase using a competitive bid, design/build, and/or build/own/operate/transfer process. "

That was signed by the Assessment Engineer and PW Director Paavo Ogren.
But they have removed the lower impact collection system, which was adjudged in their two year fine screening process as a "viable alternative" out off the Design/Build project delivery method. Now only the most impactive project on coastal resources remains. Gravity deep trenching in liquefaction conditions is what the SLO County has chosen as their only project. A loss of 300,000 gpd of drinking water through leakage into the collection system. Gravity is many millions of dollars more cost, a cost that the lower income half of the population cannot afford, $3000.00 a year.or 8 times average cost.

In order to put STEP/STEG or vacuum collection, which are far more protective of coastal resources, we ask that you direct the SLO County to do so immediately. Something that the SLO Country planning commission did not do in their recent findings.

We also believe, in order to protect our community and environment, we must have legal counsel so we have engaged the Law offices of Jesse LB.Hill to see that the Local Coastal Plan, The Coastal Act and the supporting laws in the CZLUO are respected and that the environment is once again is not sacrificed.

We would hope that the SLO County would be sensitive to our concerns as we have submitted them, but that has not been the case in most issues of concern. As we prepare for the coming BOS and Coastal commission we ask all parties to reconsider the impact of removing a more protective and affordable collection technology.

Our position is that SLO County violated the 218 process by promising a Design/Build process that included STEP/STEG, then after the vote removing it, damaging the ratepayers with exorbitantly higher wastewater fees, charges and capital costs, when a more compliant technology is at lower costs and impacts that is also quicker to already pre-designed in the LOCSD Ripley Report 2006.

SLO County admits there will be design changes required for their purportedly "shovel ready" collection system whose slopes are to shallow for solids to move through the collection pipes as the design flows are much lower than the original Montgomery Watson Harza design plans called for.

In order to avert "the train wreck" at the Coastal Commission Hearings we seek relief in the form of direction from your staff who have sent two directional letters to SLO County to date.

We also request by FOIA all communications whether phone memos, emails and letters relating to the LOWWP Coastal Development permit application.

Thank You,.Al Barrow

Los Osos Legal Defense Fund
P.O Box 6931
Los Osos CA 93412 805 534-0800 Thank you for your support.


Alon Perlman said...

Now, this one is fence running worthy. In fact, hop into the nearest barrel and brace yourself.
but don't expand all your energy pushing the sides yet. there is still some time to final appeal deadline.

In the foyer, with a tightly bound sheef of documents.
Is it a CEQA Challange? A Coastal zone Permit Appeal?
In the process of the permitting there are certain points where things can happen, this is one of them.
It appears that whatever book you are reading, someone is always adding chapters.

Watershed Mark said...


Churadogs said...

Now, let's add another one. In the 1,300 pages of evidence recently submitted to County Council for review, is there anything that could be used as a legal "hook" to derail the design-build process, derail the Process in general and stop the sewer from going ahead? One of the reasons for keeping the process as clean as a whistle is to ensure there would be no "hooks." There's a reason the principle of "Caesar's Wife" is critical to any public process. It's smart business.

Watershed Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watershed Mark said...

For sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette: Pompeia

When your "customer" cannot take their business elsewhere you can charge him whatever you want for any kind of service you like.

People get the kind of government they deserve.

Alon Perlman said...

Cesar's wife?
Lot's wife?
Would you belive Vaspasian's wife?

- Money and politics -
In 73/74 he (Vaspasian) restored the office of censor, which he held himself and thereby controlled the senate. His autarchy was strengthened. Aside from the control of the population, the finances of state represented a major problem to Vespasian. The treasury, depleted by the civil war, needed filling desperately, forcing Vespasian to raise and and introduce new taxes (e.g. taxing public lavatories, prompting the famous quote: "pecunia non olet" (Money doesn’t stink)), causing derision and criticism.