tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post3846674349856135893..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-80774930812161364872008-01-03T14:04:00.000-08:002008-01-03T14:04:00.000-08:00Maria! Great to hear from you! And thanks for the ...Maria! Great to hear from you!<BR/> And thanks for the information, especially:<BR/>"An EIR is a legal document, and must be certified. So to accuse that it was an illegal document is untrue. Now, if you would like to overturn the SOC, this would need to be done in a court of law but the window for that has passed. "<BR/><BR/> That SOC was rescinded, wasn't it?<BR/> Of course I agree that these comments have been an exercise in futility, nothing is going to change whether or not some aspect of previous CSD actions were illegal or just plain dumb.<BR/> <BR/> But hey, what else can we mull over, its the slow season.<BR/> I hope Obama kicks butt!Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-52257026257686841362008-01-03T12:41:00.000-08:002008-01-03T12:41:00.000-08:00I would like to clarify that it is page 11 of part...I would like to clarify that it is page 11 of part II:<BR/>Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Consideration & Mitigation Monitoring Program<BR/><BR/>prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality ActMaria M. Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08762951573531711213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-49645802379012150842008-01-03T12:32:00.000-08:002008-01-03T12:32:00.000-08:00I haven't chimed in here in a long time but I woul...I haven't chimed in here in a long time but I would like to respectfully point out that the tot lot and the park were not the only mitigations on the project that provided the reasoning behind the SOC. <BR/><BR/>You can find more information in the FEIR certified on March 1,2001 and the statement is section V and begins on page 11. <BR/><BR/>Section VI begins the description of potential environmental effects which are not considered significant and whether or not mitigations were required and if so, what they were. <BR/><BR/>An EIR is a legal document, and must be certified. So to accuse that it was an illegal document is untrue. Now, if you would like to overturn the SOC, this would need to be done in a court of law but the window for that has passed. <BR/><BR/>I would encourage anyone who is truly interested, sit down with the FEIR and begin to understand the process that the CEQA review provides. <BR/><BR/>We can sit in judgment but the reality is, until you read it through and understand how all the pieces fit together, then you are left with a puzzle that is incomplete. I would suggest that there are several people here who don't have a completed puzzle and are focusing on their completed corner and are possibly oblivious that all the edges haven't been done and there are holes in the middle. <BR/><BR/>CEQA is complex and requires multiple inputs from multiple sources because no one could ever be "the expert". This is one of the reasons why I like the CEQA process, it is inclusive and can only be met with input from multiple sources - again, there is no opportunity for ONE person to be the expert. The only time it does require the signature of one person is in a court of law and the judge sends it on its merry way as solid or an uncompleted puzzle. <BR/><BR/>Happy New Year and Happy Iowa Caucus Day!<BR/>MariaMaria M. Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08762951573531711213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-60125176534287273372008-01-03T11:29:00.000-08:002008-01-03T11:29:00.000-08:00For your enjoyment: CEQA excerpt.§ 21081. Necessar...For your enjoyment: CEQA excerpt.<BR/>§ 21081. Necessary findings where environmental impact <BR/>report identifies effects <BR/>Pursuant to the policy stated in Sections 21002 and 21002.1, <BR/>no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an <BR/>environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one <BR/>or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if <BR/>the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following <BR/>occur: <BR/>(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings <BR/>with respect to each significant effect: <BR/>(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated <BR/>into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on <BR/>the environment. <BR/>(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility <BR/>and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and <BR/>should be, adopted by that other agency. <BR/>(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other <BR/>considerations, including considerations for the provision of <BR/>employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible <BR/>the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the <BR/>environmental impact report. <BR/>(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a <BR/>finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency <BR/>finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, <BR/>technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the <BR/>significant effects on the environment. <BR/><BR/>§ 21081.5. Feasibility of mitigation measures or project <BR/>alternatives; basis for findings <BR/>In making the findings required by paragraph (3) of <BR/>subdivision (a) of Section 21081, the public agency shall base its <BR/>findings on substantial evidence in the record. <BR/><BR/> I read it as the SOC was allowed but it was questionable unless that substantial evidence is provided.<BR/> And just saying folks want a tot lot and park won't cut the mustard.Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-28947691407261509562008-01-03T10:31:00.000-08:002008-01-03T10:31:00.000-08:00Ron,I'm confused. Richard says that it was his le...Ron,<BR/><BR/>I'm confused. Richard says that it was his legal right to sign a SOC for the district he was elected to represent. You tell us the SOC was illegal and fake. Where to you get off using such inflammatory language? The SOC wasn't illegal ... or if it was in any way, you've never told us how it was illegal. The SOC was also not fake or faked in any way. That <B>you</B> think there wasn't sufficient justification to approve the CDP doesn't mean the community didn't feel as the SOC indicated.<BR/><BR/>Ron, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.<BR/><BR/>Your desire to justify your "take" has muddled your ability to think clearly.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-75788558674758011832008-01-03T10:02:00.000-08:002008-01-03T10:02:00.000-08:00Ann wrote:"So what -- if any -- is the penalty for...Ann wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"So what -- if any -- is the penalty for signing off on an unsupported SOC? Hand slap? "</I><BR/><BR/>Yep. Pretty much. In the Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County case, the penalty was that the certification of the EIR was "vacated." So, that's what would happen. The EIR for the Tri-W project would be "vacated," as it should be. Not much of a punishment if you ask me, considering the huge amount of damage, both financially and socially, an unsupported SOC can create.<BR/><BR/><I>"If Taxpayers' Watch is seriously interested in guarding tax payers money, why don't THEY file suit against the previous Board for sigming off on that unsupported SOC? "</I><BR/><BR/>Excellent question. You know what gets me? Gordon Hensley, self-proclaimed "environmentalist" and "CoastKeeper," was one of the directors that overrode the ENTIRE environmental review process with an illegal, fake SOC. Something tells me our "coast" isn't being "kept" by one Mr. Hensley.<BR/><BR/><I>"Private Citizens have to hire an attorney and go into court?"</I><BR/><BR/>Again, yep. And that's what sucks. Like I wrote above, a fake SOC will stand unless it is challenged in court. That's why I like my 2nd law idea so much... simply require agencies to attach the "substantial evidence" to the SOC at the time of its adoption. That way everyone could simply look at the documentation, and determine whether the SOC is supported.<BR/><BR/>Had the 2001 LOCSD been required to do that, 1) they would have been immediately laughed out of office, and 2) Los Osos would have had an out-of-town treatment facility years ago.<BR/><BR/>Such a simple change, and it will have a "ginormous" (to borrow one of Ann's great words) impact on how projects are built in California.<BR/><BR/>Mark wrote that I wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"It seems to me that "public scoping for the Los Osos Wastewater project’s Environmental Impact Report" is about 90-percent redundant?"</I><BR/><BR/>What a great point. Just don't override the old EIR for no reason whatsoever, and it should be about 90-percent useable. Shouldn't it?<BR/><BR/>Richard wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"As a then elected board, the CSD board in 2001 had the legal right to craft an SOC..."</I><BR/><BR/>Yea, they sure did. However, what they didn't have a legal right to do is just make up, fabricate, a simple three page, completely unsupported Statement of Overriding Considerations that instantly negated the entire environmental review process. THAT's illegal, according to Section 21081.5 of CEQA. Good law.<BR/><BR/>Now, Richard, if you can tell me, specifically, about the "substantial evidence in the record" that supports the SOC, believe me, I'm all ears.<BR/><BR/>Regards, <I>SewerWatch</I>Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14156410299483542733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-4317568807220055352008-01-03T09:14:00.000-08:002008-01-03T09:14:00.000-08:00Ann and Ron,As a then elected board, the CSD board...Ann and Ron,<BR/><BR/>As a then elected board, the CSD board in 2001 had the legal right to craft an SOC stating what they believed to be of issue in Los Osos that would form a basis to shape the WWTP.<BR/><BR/>I repeat...they had the legal right.<BR/><BR/>Just becuase you disagree with their decision(s) and the resulting SOC does not make it (or the process) illegal. No court would agree with you that the CEQA process was violated when the CSD composed and adopted the SOC.<BR/><BR/>The SOC is a tool (and a valid part of the CEQA PROCESS itself)which community governments use to inject into the CEQA process community issues and values that need addressing when pursuing public works. <BR/><BR/>Regards, Richard LeGrosRichard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-41674950342431561462008-01-03T07:19:00.000-08:002008-01-03T07:19:00.000-08:00Those who govern, having much business on their ha...Those who govern, having much business on their hands, do not generally like to take the trouble of considering and carrying into execution new projects. The best public measures are therefore seldom adopted from previous wisdom, but forced by the occasion. <BR/>Benjamin Franklin<BR/><BR/>So after years of no results-where is the outrage?<BR/>Are the citizens who will ultimately pay the way- unaccountable too?<BR/>If they continue that course of action they will pay for that as well.<BR/><BR/>Ron wrote:<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that "public scoping for the Los Osos Wastewater project’s Environmental Impact Report" is about 90-percent redundant?<BR/><BR/>If that's not accurate, please tell me how I'm wrong. Unlike most, I love hearing that, because I learn from it.<BR/><BR/>Thank you,<BR/>Ron <BR/>- - - <BR/><BR/>Hutchinson's response to that excellent question that could potentially save months, if not years of expensive, redundant environmental analysis?<BR/><BR/>" ."<BR/><BR/>###<BR/><BR/>Great work Citizen Ron!<BR/>I hope Santa brought you those fireproof gloves for Christmas.<BR/><BR/>The RECLAMATOR Solution just like septic tanks require no EIR...<BR/><BR/><BR/> Sewertoons said... <BR/><BR/>Just let the man do the process Ron. If the record does not reflect what you say he will find it. Nice of you to be so very concerned over OUR sewer project though, thanks. You on septic?<BR/><BR/>12:25 PM, December 11, 2007<BR/><BR/>The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away. <BR/>Ronald ReaganMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-83140527868676277222008-01-03T06:51:00.000-08:002008-01-03T06:51:00.000-08:00Ron sez:"The reason I find that violation of State...Ron sez:"The reason I find that violation of State environmental law so awesome is because not only did it shred the community fabric Los Osos into iddy-biddy pieces, but it also cost California taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million over the past seven years."<BR/><BR/>So what -- if any -- is the penalty for signing off on an unsupported SOC? Hand slap? Oops, My bad? Private Citizens have to hire an attorney and go into court? If Taxpayers' Watch is seriously interested in guarding tax payers money, why don't THEY file suit against the previous Board for sigming off on that unsupported SOC? Right now the lawsuit filed seems to be about $600,000. You point out that the SOC fiasco cost $100 million. That's sort of like guarding a mouse hole while behind you the barn door's are open, all the horses have run away and the farmhouse has burned down while you were watching the mousehole. Makes no sense. Unless the point isn't taxpayer watching-out-for, but simply Medean revenge?Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-20974335406115684612008-01-03T06:20:00.000-08:002008-01-03T06:20:00.000-08:00Inlet sez:"why does Ann only focus on one aspect o...Inlet sez:"why does Ann only focus on one aspect of the lawuit and not the other,"<BR/><BR/>. . . Un, because the County Roundup I'm commenting on had to do with the TPW lawsuit against individual CSD members specifically citing the settlement monies, or as the lawsuit put's it, "sham settlement monies. . ." That's what I was commening on.<BR/><BR/>At tonight's CSD meeting, maybe I'll get more 'splanations which I can then comment on in a later posting. <BR/><BR/>The commentor calling himself Richard LeGros is making an assumption that what the post-recall CSD board members did in settling this case was "illegal." (Wierdly, he cites the Grand Jury finding that the settlment was "questionable." I guess "questionable" now becomes "illegal?") He then makes an assumption that HIS Board majority did nothing "illegal," (gee, not even "questionable?") and apparently thinks the SOC they signed off on was "legal." Yet, so far, Legal and Illegal remain to be seen. If somebody filed suit regarding that unsupported SOC, what would be found on "discovery?" and what or how would a judge or jury rule on the matter? For example, do board members have to swear, under penalty of perjury, for example, that the SOC they're are certifing is actually true before they certify it? <BR/><BR/>Richard's not a lawyer, neither am I, but there's a question to ask. Clearly Ron's asking it.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-69778786720076277702008-01-02T19:45:00.000-08:002008-01-02T19:45:00.000-08:00Mike Green said... -"the letter and intent of that...Mike Green said... <BR/><BR/>-"the letter and intent of that law"<BR/><BR/>...Now your are talking!<BR/><BR/>My ears are turning red...<BR/><BR/>We occasionally stumble over the truth but most of us pick ourselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. <BR/>Winston ChurchillMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-81301688299347845192008-01-02T19:42:00.000-08:002008-01-02T19:42:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-55288899074826350392008-01-02T18:57:00.000-08:002008-01-02T18:57:00.000-08:00Sharkey bubbled:"without even having a public comm...Sharkey bubbled:<BR/>"without even having a public comment period as required by law and as they promised us during their campaigns."<BR/><BR/> Brown act violation, thats it.<BR/><BR/> Well I'm sure that had the recall board followed the letter and intent of that law things would have turned out hunky dory with no bankruptcy and a WWTF already built.<BR/> You have got to be kidding, if that is the basis of your angst you need a little readjust.<BR/> I'll bet on the "stupid" answer which I will apply equally to all the CSDs.Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-25448447799045448412008-01-02T17:51:00.000-08:002008-01-02T17:51:00.000-08:00The real and very interesting question ... the one...The real and very interesting question ... the one that Ron doesn't raise at all ... is whether there is any significant difference between McClendon's Wal*Mart suit and the ones of CCLO and CASE, the suits settled by the recall board based on the advice of McClendon and Blesky.<BR/><BR/>I would also point out that both BWS and Wildan, who seem to have been the primary beneficiaries of the massive out-flow of monies from the LOCSD accounts, were the companies advising the board during the time that they were enriched.<BR/><BR/>This all ties into Richard's question ... why does Ann only focus on one aspect of the lawuit and not the other, the missing $1.5M that was scheduled to pay for <B>our fire protection</B> and <B> our bond payment</B> and how this money disappeared without proper board action?<BR/><BR/>I would think that any muckraker of issues Los Osos (read: Ann and Ron) would concern themselves greatly with the question of how the recall board was able to lose $1.5M ($1000 per resident of our fair town) without even having a public comment period as required by law and as they promised us during their campaigns.<BR/><BR/>In any case, the recall board was either stupid or dirty beyond belief. It is not yet clear which is the case.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-88710496170804058702008-01-02T11:24:00.000-08:002008-01-02T11:24:00.000-08:00Doggone it Ron! I was all set to have a good-natur...Doggone it Ron!<BR/> I was all set to have a good-natured poke at Richard being the poster child for there ought to be a law, when you come out and ruin my thunder.<BR/><BR/> Shoot, now I'll have to pick on Mark for entertainment.<BR/> Not nearly as satisfying.Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-18873611109011185142008-01-02T10:37:00.000-08:002008-01-02T10:37:00.000-08:00Richard wrote:"BECAUSE THE OLD BOARD DID NOT VIOLA...Richard wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"BECAUSE THE OLD BOARD DID NOT VIOLATE ANY LAW."</I><BR/><BR/>[Insert buzzer noise here]<BR/><BR/>Sure you guys did. A lot of them. However, my personal favorite these days is when the "old board" violated <A HREF="http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/stat/chap2_6.html#21081" REL="nofollow">Section 21081.5</A> of CEQA by adopting an unsupported Statement of Overriding Considerations (I recently reported on that <A HREF="http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-ought-to-be-law-part-ii-oh-wait.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>).<BR/><BR/>The reason I find that violation of State environmental law so awesome is because not only did it shred the community fabric Los Osos into iddy-biddy pieces, but it also cost California taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million over the past seven years.<BR/><BR/>Now THAT's how you violate a law. Awesome job! (You know what I find so hilarious about the "old board' now calling themselves "Taxpayers Watch," other than the fact that they stole my idea... <I>SewerWatch</I> / Taxpayer Watch... nice originality, guys), is the thick, thick irony. It's akin to naming the "Patriot Act" the "Patriot Act," when the "Patriot Act" is one of the most unpatriotic laws I've ever seen. Similarly ironic, is that a citizens group named Taxpayer Watch doesn't seem to care a hoot about blowing through gobs of taxpayer money. Great! Orwell would have loved it.)<BR/><BR/>In fact, when I win the "What Oughta be a Law" contest (a contest I'm going to win as a direct result of YOUR actions, Richard), I'm going to also recommend to Assemblyman Blakeslee, as long as I have his ear, that one other tiny little law be changed, and it's this:<BR/><BR/>When a government agency pops out a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), the "substantial evidence" that supports the SOC MUST be attached to the document at the time of its adoption.<BR/><BR/>As it stands today, a weasily government agency, like the 1998 - 2005 LOCSD, can pop out a baseless SOC, and unless it is challenged in court, that baseless SOC will stand, like it did in Los Osos and caused massive, very expensive problems for over seven years, and counting.<BR/><BR/>Had my 2nd law idea been on the books in 2001, the LOCSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations could not have been adopted because there is absolutely no "substantial evidence" whatsoever that supports it, and Los Osos would have had an out-of-town treatment facility long ago.<BR/><BR/>And -- and I realize that this will be hard for you to grasp Los Osos -- but when I get these two laws changed; 1) Prohibit weasily officials that are facing recall from setting their own recall election date, and 2) require that the "substantial evidence" that supports a SOC MUST be attached to the document at the time of its adoption -- the entire Los Osos experience will have been worth it, because those two, tiny, little changes to State law will save countless billions of California taxpayer dollars over the upcoming decades, and countless California communities will NOT be ripped apart due to those horrible laws.<BR/><BR/>Imagine that? California will be a MUCH stronger Democracy DUE to Los Osos... talk about a silver lining. <BR/><BR/>Great news for the new year!Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14156410299483542733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-65268301754559623192008-01-02T08:18:00.000-08:002008-01-02T08:18:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Richard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.com