tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post5570156463889824301..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: Move AlongNewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-49430039795946885242010-10-16T11:33:10.664-07:002010-10-16T11:33:10.664-07:00The readers. You have supporters among the people ...The readers. You have supporters among the people who held up the banner at the Supes meeting protesting against the second 218. Without it, our aquifers will wait again for any meaningful remedy to the problems.<br /><br />Just curious Ann, the LOSG wanted $5 million of project money spent up front on conservation measures. Where did Keith think that this money was going to come from - we the voters?Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-59943365258811914622010-10-16T07:54:58.753-07:002010-10-16T07:54:58.753-07:00Toonces sez:" Please don't campaign again...Toonces sez:" Please don't campaign against it."<br /><br />Who are you speaking to here?Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701649330085709021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-39053738761983808452010-10-15T18:34:13.668-07:002010-10-15T18:34:13.668-07:00Ann, maybe you can explain why the peer review sta...Ann, maybe you can explain why the peer review stated that Step or gravity were functionally equivalent. Step was not called out to be "the best technology" was it? (Those were the SALESMEN telling you that). <br /><br />You may now say - "Oh, the peer review was faulty," as I have heard others claim - so if you do, keep in mind that will paint the one in 2006 as faulty too.<br /><br />You and a small number of individuals feel that "thumbs were on the scale." Most of us who followed the project do not feel that way. And homeowner apathy follows every decision making process; deciding this sewer is not a special sort of apathy.<br /><br />Ann, who is going to pay for starting the project early?<br /><br />If we don't get the bridge loan - by passing the 2nd 218, we won't have the money to do anything at all, so please keep in mind that campaigning to stop that 218 will only bring Los Osos less water conservation. The CSD has only $30,000 a year to spend on this. That is what I mean about moving forward - passing that 2nd rates and charges 218. Please don't campaign against it.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-56423479669483476632010-10-15T07:12:16.911-07:002010-10-15T07:12:16.911-07:00Mikee sez: "So what have I 'made up"...Mikee sez: "So what have I 'made up"...???"<br /><br />O.K. Mike, here's something you just made up.Mikeee sez: "YOU personally don't want any sewer and you disagree with anyone who wants a sewer..."<br /><br />See? Made up out of whole cloth.<br /><br />and this one "Your views seem quite counter to solving the very on-going pollution of our drinking water, but seem to be just a never-ending crusade to (pick your own term) delay/obstruct/stall/halt any waste treatment for the community.."<br /><br />Au contraire, Mikee, from day one I have asked for a CLEAN process (aka as the Chinese Menue and aka The County "Process") A clean process way back would have been much, much faster than the train wreck that ensued. A clean process as promised by the county (hahahah) would also have been much faster and more transparent and wouldn't have involved the Planning Commission having to step in and spend loads of time changing everything -- that would have been resolved earlier using Paavo's "best technology" scenario (which was dumped. Ah, so many thumbs on the scale) <br /><br />So, Mikee, my views are NOT counter to solving our drinking water problems. Indeed, I still fully support the Sustainibility Plan to start retrofit/conservation TODAY, not years down the line.That program should also have been part of the "best technology" efforts of a clean process. <br /><br />So, I will ask my question again: did the County (Paavo, Bruce) keep their promises to this community? <br /><br />Toonces, there is a difference between "can" and "may." STEP can be done. But it was decided from day one that it "may not" be done in Los Osos. Even the BOS had to -- heh-heh-- admit that the community survey was spun, and, lacking real numbers, the voters were picking a system on best guestimates. Do the majority of homeowners here care that the county's promises weren't really kept? No, they do not.<br /><br />Do I care? Yes and no. My main criticism has been to the promises the county made to this community. (And to the sad fact that by focusing on "waste" and not "water" they really screwed up big time (see above re the sustainibility program & etc.) As for the results, I've long noted here that the voters wanted three things: (1)affordable sewer,(2) plant out of town, (3)a "vote" on the type of system, with real costs. They got #2 and a fudged #3. #1 was impossible from day one, but it's possible that they may end up with a sorta #1 at least as compared with Tri-W. <br /><br />As for "Time to move forward as best we can." I hear that here all the time. What makes you think we're not? Comments and criticism on a blog do not equal delayed projects.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701649330085709021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-23541988365942474232010-10-15T01:21:00.485-07:002010-10-15T01:21:00.485-07:00Ann, the Step proponents made the County go throug...Ann, the Step proponents made the County go through the paces to evaluate Step. The County hoped that they could show that it wouldn't work, and in fact they did do that. The problem was and is, you and the others refuse to understand these things. I think we all get that you don't like the results of Step not winning. Well, 49 point something percent of us didn't agree with Measure B, but we had to accept those results. Now it is your turn to accept these results. We are getting a gravity collection system - and you are getting it out of town. We all will get delayed help for the aquifers. Time to move forward as best we can.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-13734758644659594892010-10-14T18:05:18.342-07:002010-10-14T18:05:18.342-07:00Ann: so what are you willing to pay a month for se...Ann: so what are you willing to pay a month for sewer?<br /><br />Alon: good report!<br /><br />Mike: correct as usual.<br /><br />Sewertoons: Good defense to faulty reasoning.<br /><br />Me, Jon: I don't think this sewer will ever be built. California is broke, The U.S. is upside down, and everybody will have to save money to save their families! Sewer water is not bad to drink if there is nothing else, just add chlorine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-82562249724687218832010-10-14T15:13:00.725-07:002010-10-14T15:13:00.725-07:00Well Ann... instead of explaining what you think I...Well Ann... instead of explaining what you think I "make up", you simply hide behind your narrow uncompromising view... <br /><br />So what have I 'made up"...??? My name isn't on any lawsuit, yours is...!!! and that lawsuit lost along with the others filed against the lawsuit... and was I making it up that Julie left her family to shack up with Jeff Edwards...??? I'm fully behind the County's efforts to complete the sewer that was taken from the LOCSD. You on the other hand, seem to be looking under every grain of sand (both real and imaginary) to find fault in the County process... Your views seem quite counter to solving the very on-going pollution of our drinking water, but seem to be just a never-ending crusade to (pick your own term) delay/obstruct/stall/halt any waste treatment for the community... Intead of childishly wasting your time saying I'm making things up, why don't you correct me...??? You know you can't... trying looking in a mirror sometime when you look for someone who needs correcting...!!!!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-32011888355649022202010-10-14T13:42:31.272-07:002010-10-14T13:42:31.272-07:00Mikeee sez:"YOU personally don't want any...Mikeee sez:"YOU personally don't want any sewer and you disagree with anyone who wants a sewer..."<br /><br />True to form, Mike, you're making stuff up again. Like clockwork, you are. Clockwork. <br /><br />Toonces sez:"Step was over - many posters on this blog here stated that from day one of the County taking over the project."<br /><br />Indeed, true, from Noel King's day one. So why did the county go through the dog and pony show of The Process and the TAC and the Best Technology rising to the top and all the other time-wasting folderol? And Gibson babbles on about "transparency." bwahahahah.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701649330085709021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-29037617301744672232010-10-13T17:10:45.055-07:002010-10-13T17:10:45.055-07:00OK Ann. Ex-Parte chats. Who did them and why?
I ...OK Ann. Ex-Parte chats. Who did them and why? <br /><br />I guess if Step had been the collection system chosen, there would have been little need for the other folderol ex-partes used as window dressing to nudge Step back into the project. And if they were used to stand on their own as objections, it was done as ego stroking, or an absolute misunderstanding of the dire straits of our basin-- Or perhaps, a total disregard of or blindness to the difference between $4 million or $16 million to ease the cost of the project. That was the result of these ex-partes, and I hope that their authors realized the additional cost from that - along with the additional cost that their suggestions have demanded the project to bear.<br /><br />Step was over - many posters on this blog here stated that from day one of the County taking over the project. But it certainly was over by the time the SLO Planning Commission was done. And it was over, like it or not, by the preference of the survey responses. The Coastal Commission does not force a community to use one particular collection system over another, and the fact that the project's peer review stated that either system was equivalent wasn't by any means enough push to force the CC to step out of its purview to demand Step be put back in. It was absurd to bring that back as an objection to waste the time and money of so many.<br /><br />Ex-partes ARE part of the process. It was simply poor judgement to pick the topics picked on which to have those ex-partes, and easy to see the politics of those bringing the objections. They are well-known to be against the County project.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-59195697564506530202010-10-13T16:22:05.310-07:002010-10-13T16:22:05.310-07:00Delays due to stopping the last project has and wi...Delays due to stopping the last project has and will continue to degraded our aquifers. Let's just put it that way. We would have had a treatment plant that would recharge the lower aquifer and clean up the upper one (so we could use it to blend or for well-head clean-up) done by 2008. We will now wait until 2014 or 2015 to get this present project done. Do the math on the feet of salt water that we are sucking in yearly. Tell me stopping the project was a good idea based on this.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-79342721876128631352010-10-13T13:42:27.034-07:002010-10-13T13:42:27.034-07:00To lobby is to advocate with the intention of infl...To lobby is to advocate with the intention of influencing a decision made by government officials. Excusing one group for lobbying (County Public Works) and chastising another (the "obstructionists") is a double standard. The intent or purpose to lobby does not eliminate or justify the double standard.<br /><br />LOWWP delays have resulted from litigation, inaction and a breach of fiduciary duty; the elements described do <b>not</b> pertain to only one group or belief system. To state that only one "side" is responsible for delays appeals to only opinion, not facts.Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10955571563734090743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-25731689239115058342010-10-13T13:19:56.854-07:002010-10-13T13:19:56.854-07:00After reading and considering your last post Ann, ...After reading and considering your last post Ann, I really do not understand why you host this blog other than to see your thoughts in print...!!!! You certainly are the epitome of curt vindictiveness... <br /><br />It is very obvious that you disagree with sewertoons and everyone who thinks the delays to a sewer construction are way beyond the "process"... You relish in nit-picking and apparently strive to bring about any argument to delay the sewer selection...!!!! You complain that the process is not thorough enough and then cry that you are not against a sewer... horse feathers, you have cheered on every effort to halt any sewer, anywhere in Los Osos... I guess that is the only honesty pounded out of your keyboard, YOU personally don't want any sewer and you disagree with anyone who wants a sewer... <br /><br />I'm thankful, as is most of this community, that the County is proceeding inspite of your efforts... You may not be a mind reader, but like to tell those of us you disagree with what we're supposedly thinking... The sewer is coming Ann, get used to it, no matter what your good intentions might have been, the community and the County disagree with you and your endless questioning of the need, the selection, those responsible for making the real decisions and the legal process...!!! <br /><br />...and just so you won't have to hurt yourself trying to read my mind, I post this, not in anger, but in disagreement with the words you choose to answer those you disagree with... Have a nice day...!!!!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-18922439539281241352010-10-13T06:15:24.369-07:002010-10-13T06:15:24.369-07:00toonces, you clearly misunderstand the process. E...toonces, you clearly misunderstand the process. Ex parte chats, appeals, etc. are all part of the process. You sound like you think they're some unusual, bad thing. They aren't. They're built in from day one. And they're important because if you don't allow all the dance steps to be completed as intended you can end up in court with a real "delay." So, if you want this sewer plan to proceed with all due speed, don't whine about "delays" when what you're actually refering to is simply part of the total process. And don't make assumptions about things you "think" I'm thinking. you're invariably wrong. If you want to know WHY Douglas filed an appeal on issues that differed from "his" staff report, you'll have to ask him. Unlike you, I do not claim to be a mind reader.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701649330085709021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-54005506306955883862010-10-12T14:27:24.668-07:002010-10-12T14:27:24.668-07:00Or maybe you just don't like the fact that he ...Or maybe you just don't like the fact that he did not change the staff report or disallow it? No, you ask him, I'm satisfied that as head of staff, he allowed that report to be issued, and clearly you are not. <br /><br />Which brings me back to the point that substantial lobbying by certain, not all, appellants led to the delay by raising a scattershot of <i>possible</i>, but not truly significant substantial issues - none of which raised and accepted were the desired outcome of a full, De Novo hearing to allow Step back in. <br /><br />Look at the ex-parte chats with the commissioners that the appellants thought they could persuade. The answers as to why this was delayed are right there.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-61180882509148475702010-10-12T06:54:40.966-07:002010-10-12T06:54:40.966-07:00Toonces sez:"Isn't Peter Douglas in charg...Toonces sez:"Isn't Peter Douglas in charge of the staff? Why then did the staff report state "no substantial issues?""<br /><br />That's a question for Peter.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701649330085709021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-13093771603715399842010-10-11T15:06:32.646-07:002010-10-11T15:06:32.646-07:00Isn't Peter Douglas in charge of the staff? Wh...Isn't Peter Douglas in charge of the staff? Why then did the staff report state "no substantial issues?"<br /><br />As for Douglas and Tonini, the SLO Planning Commission here put a stop to that. The County would have no leg to stand on nixing Tri-W if it didn't also, for the same reasons, nix Giacomazzi. We are just lucky that the Clark Valley Road people did not sue. Or unlucky if you don't want a sewer.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-34701934381978235822010-10-11T06:57:53.998-07:002010-10-11T06:57:53.998-07:00Toonces, from day one of ALL the variants of the s...Toonces, from day one of ALL the variants of the sewer project(s), (including the formation of the CSD, The Ponds of Avalon, Tri W, today) the CC has been lobbied by people from all sides of the issue. If I read Alon's comments (above)correctly, it sounds like Peter Douglas wasn't satisfied with what the County was proposing even before the plans got to his front door, let alone any "appeals" by anybody.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701649330085709021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-53656400088957234432010-10-10T23:53:38.813-07:002010-10-10T23:53:38.813-07:00Ann says:
"And be for you start whining abou...Ann says:<br /><br />"And be for you start whining about "anti-sewer obstructionists" please remember that several Coastal Commissioners themselves filed an appeal…"<br /><br />Now were those appeals filed before or after the commissioners had been lobbied by the appellants?Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-72201058018668665142010-10-10T19:54:58.295-07:002010-10-10T19:54:58.295-07:00I've seen Graywater misunderstood and I have h...I've seen Graywater misunderstood and I have heard a lot of wrong assumptions about the stormwater flows. Hence my comments. There are plenty of correct assumptions by various people mixed in. I don't know how many people actually want to stop the Sewer versus want to Improve on it. I do know that in the outcome there may not be much difference.<br />Due to the prevalence of septic pits and the short distance to the perched aquifer below, the sands can't do their magic, as they could have done with septic fields that would had taken up much of the surface area of the small lots, or with raised septic fields. With the perched aquifer about to become a PARCHED aquifer, that distance to groundwater would increase. That may be good for outside the PZ flows, (Lowering of high groundwater levels) since out of PZ septic contributions will continue. There is dilution by rainwater or by partly processed groundwater (traveling from the southeast discharge points and being “Processed underground” mostly to pass and dilute the discharge points closer to the bay.) that is why the bay discharges are insignificant and why the groundwater is “almost good enough”, and is actually used in a small proportion (mixed). But it is now polluted (past or close to a variety of thresholds). If the soils in Los Osos were typical California clays, the pollution would had been much worse by now. (Carrying capacity?) Of course the extra building didn't help, but that has always been a moot point.<br />This does not get into the lack of a specific discharge point to pollution proof and those legalities.Alon Perlmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00155776897189144501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-88396554948088862632010-10-10T19:14:51.589-07:002010-10-10T19:14:51.589-07:00hahaha... you are correct Alon, the storm water dr...hahaha... you are correct Alon, the storm water drainage is a variable that wil be twisted and spun by the uneducated and the emotional hand wringers seeking to halt any sewer collection within LO... <br /><br />BTW, doesn't the storm water dilute all the septic discharge..??? Dilution being the solution to pollution...??? Especially with our magic sands...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-20180395275356847192010-10-10T18:44:10.615-07:002010-10-10T18:44:10.615-07:00The Coastal Commission are not the Experts on Los ...The Coastal Commission are not the Experts on Los Osos Groundwater, or Los Osos anything. Or more specifically; Sarah Wan isn't -Peter Douglass is.<br /><br />It is not clear to me if the amount of the waters of the project going into direct recharge of the aquifer decreased as a result of the De-Novo Hearing changes. <br />Certainly, and without any need for Los Osos input, Douglass was not going for Tonini, or for secondary treated at Broderson. Actually there is no public health danger from secondary versus tertiary as long as the waters pass through an adequate vadose zone and additional distance. But it was a regulatory no go and the county should had known that.<br />But it was obvious to me and some others that the CCC would not go for it and they didn’t. <br /><br />Certainly the CCC later responded to the concerns of wetland delineation and pump station footprint mitigation. Did that advance environment at a financial cost? Yes to the cost part. The key elements of CCC oversight may had been managed at the initial hearing.<br /><br />As far as I am concerned the Loss of significant project flows to actual aquifer recharge is the Baby thrown out with the bathwater here. And by that I mean that graywater will not recharge the aquifer and Conservation may have already taken place to a degree.<br /><br />Just wait till misinterpretations of how the stormwater flows become part of the “solution”, before you all start assessing how really screwed Los Osos is about to become.Alon Perlmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00155776897189144501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-24067576683661124122010-10-10T18:37:17.017-07:002010-10-10T18:37:17.017-07:00Hush M&M
Very little of it is going into the B...Hush M&M<br />Very little of it is going into the Bay, but hush, apparently there is some money available, if we pretend that it does. It is getting into the groundwater and not only nitrates' some of which can be attributed elsewhere. The Coffee and Carbamazapine have to have passed through leach pit/field a septic tank and a human in reverse order. Trace amounts will make it into the lower aquifer. Some of those septic tank effluent makes it into the bay but overall Dilution and distance traveled decrease the amount. There are monitoring stations samples taken etc... Just go out there. Use your eyes. Nose too.<br /><br />STEP has been formally dead for at least 18 months (?). Deep Gravity pipes (as in what this project is from that date on), act as underground superhighways for transport of groundwater and stormwater downslope, (Carrying any leakage with them) I mentioned it to Paavo during TAC and or later in the process, He answered that there are engineering solutions, (such as seals impervious shunts etc.. my words). It is not clear how much of that is actually going to be done “M”. The groundwater is compromised but somewhat usable. Unfortunately salt water intrusion finger to the specific production well location means there is less availability of good lower aquifer water to mix with. ( more testing more interruptions in service) <br />Word verification: CuredAlon Perlmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00155776897189144501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-72354342127137249802010-10-10T18:21:54.362-07:002010-10-10T18:21:54.362-07:00M.... just when will sweet perfek YOU stop vilifyi...M.... just when will sweet perfek YOU stop vilifying Pandora...??? <br /><br />She gives her energy to the positive aspects of creating parks for SLO County as well as LO... so what's wrong with that...??? She's not the negative out-of-towner who doesn't think LO needs a park... She may not have been the person you wanted on the CSD, but she sure as hell can't be faulted for her desire to make LO a better place with community parks... at least she didn't leave her husband and family to shack up with a bankrupt developer... As far as I can recall, Pandora's name is not on the CSD Bankruptcy filing... but 5 others names are...!!! Pandora never sued the CSD, the County or the State... Go vilify that...!!!!<br /><br />...and if you object to the use of the work shit, perhaps you should discuss Ann's use of "BatShit"...!!!!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-12233130132223278872010-10-10T17:50:49.461-07:002010-10-10T17:50:49.461-07:00guess you're right... so let's all stop th...guess you're right... so let's all stop this silly County effort... <br /><br />you win, we don't need a sewer, let's wait another 30 or 40 years...keep drinking the LO water...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-29277594195440540242010-10-10T17:30:19.382-07:002010-10-10T17:30:19.382-07:00Whatever. And that's 1,277,500,000 since you a...Whatever. And that's 1,277,500,000 since you and your cohorts stopped the County project. If you don't like all the obstructionist then move out of here. Maybe Pandora can find you a nice place to live where neighbors vilify each other.<br />Sincerely, MMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15422834300453521293noreply@blogger.com