Harvey and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

Well, yesterday's Regional Water Control Board mini-hearing didn't go too well for staff CAO, Harvey Packard.  Agenda #14 was supposedly about asking the Board to remove the useless, stupid, horrible, pointless, no good CDOs from The Los Osos 45.  And, as the truth of the matter slowly spilled out, it turns out that it was several new Board members who had asked for an update and status review on the matter.  But instead of making that clear in an official, formal, complete notification to all the 45, Harvey was forced to fess up that he didn't do that.  Instead, he just sorta blew the whole thing off and instead casually asked CDO-holder, Bill Moylan, if he (Bill) could contact some of his fellow 45ers and see if they'd like to send in comments. 

It soon became clear that for Harvey, this Board request was just like, Oh, Whatever. And his lackadaisical approach left the Moylans with the clear idea that the whole thing was Harvey's idea.  Even his final staff report made no mention as to the source of this agenda item.  So it was a shock when he came back with his lame, ludicrous reasons for disapproving what clearly appeared to be his own request in order to keep the CDO's in place.

Naturally, once Harvey's muddling of this issue unwound at the hearing, I do not think the Board was amused. But, wait, it got worse.  Supervisor Bruce Gibson showed up to again request that the CDOs be removed and noted that if the Board was worried about compliance, the County has an ordinance in place that mandates --  with both civil and potentially criminal penalties  -- that homeowners hook up when the sewer goes on line.

Then Harvey was asked by a new Board member, whether he was familiar with the ordinance.  No, apparently Harvey had to admit he was unaware of its existence.  Then, to make matters worse, the new Board asked Harvey what other regulatory/legal/procedural methods were available to him (and/or the Board) to ensure compliance.  And CAO Harvey hemmed and hawed and had to admit he wasn't sure, possibly something could be done by the Attorney General, maybe, or he didn't know.  

All of which made clear what/who the problem with the RWQCB has always been:  A Board and staff  too often unprepared, uncaring, sloppy, incompetent, indifferent, heedless of consequences, or in the  words of  former staff member, Matt Thompson, uttered at Roger Brigg' insane Mad Hatter Tea Party Trial and Torquemada's Auto de Fe Extravaganza, that I guess we didn't think things through . . . .

(And, to be fair, a staff  often undertrained, overworked, understaffed,  and a Board burdened with enough technical reading material to digest and rule on that would choke an elephant. And, I need add,  "rule on" complex issues too often outside their area of expertise. Since these same people have the power and ability to ruin lives and injure communities, the disconnect between competence and overburden is a chronic, systemic problem and what can make regulators, without a good system of checks and balances, so dangerous.)      

Well the upshot of all this was that  Dr. Monica Hunter (who is now free to participate fully since the reason for her recusal as a Los Osos resident has been removed), sternly schooled Harvey for how he was to proceed when this issue again comes before the Board in September:  He is to formally, officially notify ALL the CDO recipients with full information notifying them of the hearing. None of this slipshod, whatever.  

So, no, not a good day for Harvey.  BUT, I think it may well have been a very good day for The Los Osos 45.  The new Board members were clearly uneasy about those CDOs, saw no point in them, expressed discomfort about the sheer unfairness of them.  (Former Chairman Young, who deserved to have a paper bag put on his head while this item was being discussed, wisely kept his mouth shut. He's smart enough to know you can't defend the indefensible, and the looney Mad Hatter Trial over which he presided had jumped the shark so far there was no hope of ever recovering.)

And so the consensus of the Board was to try to set up two-step hearings on the same September day.  The first item would be an informational hearing as to exactly what enforcement mechanisms are available to the Board.  (The Board is fearful that if they free the 45 that somehow they'll be helpless to do anything to anybody in the PZ ever again.  It's an example of a Board that still hasn't thought things through.) Then the second agenda item will be an action item: Discussion, public testimony, then a vote on whether or not to stop this nonsense and free The Los Osos 45.

Meantime, the Board will write a MOU to the 45 excusing their August requirement of tank pumping, a burden that pointlessly blows $600+ out of their budgets,  a  burden only The 45, out of the whole community, have to bear.

So, good news?  For the community, maybe.  As Supervisor Gibson noted, in making the case for stopping this insanity, the inherent unfairness  of the continued Board refusal to remove those CDOs is still an impediment to finally bringing the community together.

Indeed.  And that's because the CDOs remain a painful symbolic reminder of the basic injustice meted out to those 45 citizens who were stupidly, unfairly, pointlessly, sadistically hung out to dry. And left there to swing in the wind for years while everyone else in the community went on their merry way.

 

Aw, Harvey, You're Not Even Trying Any More

The Regional Water Quality Control Board will be holding hearings May 22 & 23 in SLOTown and Agenda 14 will be consideration of Whatever Shall We Do About The Los Osos 45. Staff chief, Harvey Packard, doesn't even pretend to make sense in justifying his recommendation that the CDOs be kept in place.  He claims (with no evidence) that the sewer might not be built ( Harvey,  Seriously?) and that somebody out there in the community might refuse to hook up to the sewer when it's completed and so he thinks The 45 must be held hostage just in case that should happen because apparently he can't think of a way to deal with that possibility.  Oh, Dude!  Seriously? 

Harvey, your previous Mad Hatter Tea Party "Trial" Board was an embarrassment and this ridiculous recommendation is not helping your new board --  or yourself -- at all. 


Harvey's concluding opus followed by my letter to the Board:  

Current Status

There are currently 33 orders in effect. The orders require hookup when the community system becomes available and the interim actions noted above.

During public comment and staff updates at meetings over the years, the Central Coast Water Board has received requests from order holders and other interested parties that the Central Item No. 14 -3- May 22-23, 2014

Coast Water Board rescind the orders. It is within the Central Coast Water Board’s discretion to do so at a properly noticed public meeting.

Central Coast Water Board enforcement staff recommends leaving the individual enforcement orders in place for the following reasons:

1. The County has not yet completed the community system, and while we are confident that it will, this outcome is not guaranteed.

2. The main requirement of the orders, hooking up to the sewer when it becomes available, cannot yet be complied with. This requirement should stay in place until the system is available.

3. Even when the system is available, there may be dischargers in the prohibition zone who are reluctant or refuse to hook up. Leaving these orders in place maintains a disincentive for order recipients to continue violating the prohibition after construction of the sewer system.

Staff has received numerous comments on this subject. Most encourage the Central Coast Water Board to rescind the orders. Reasons include the County’s progress toward completing the community system, the cost of more frequent septic-tank pumping, the unfairness of only holding a small number of dischargers responsible, and the continued stigma of the orders. The comments are provided with this report.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Example Cease and Desist Order

2. Example Cleanup and Abatement Order

3. Comments

My Reply   May 9, 2014

Dear Mr. Packard and RWQCB Board Members: 

Regarding the upcoming CDO hearings for The Los Osos 45, your staff recommendation states you oppose rescinding the CDOs because you believe (with no evidence proffered) that a few of these people may be "reluctant or refuse to hook up" when the sewer is completed.  So you are recommending that the RWQCB declare everyone of the 45 guilty before the fact and so continue to hold every one of them hostage on the basis of that unsupported belief? 

Mr. Packard,  I have an alternate suggestion for your Board.  As then-chairman Young made clear from the dais during the CDO's Mad Hatter Tea Party "trial," since the CDO's were only being used as a coercive part of the Board's illegal electioneering attempt, and since that assessment vote is long over, rescinding the CDOs will help bring to a  close that absolutely embarrassing chapter in your Board's history, and help repair the RWQCB's credibility as it moves forward under new leadership. 

And, once the sewer plant is built and IF you find out there actually are a few people who refuse to hook up, there's a simple solution:  Put a CDO on the homeowners for an action that can be supported with actual evidence, not some kind of before-the-fact "belief." 

Please include a copy of this email to the Board as part of the public comment on this matter.

Thank you.

Dear Mr. Packard

Below is a letter by CDO Recipient R3-200601041, Bev Moylan, to Harvey Packard and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.  Harvey, one of the staff architects who helped create the cruel and ridiculous disaster that was the RWQCB's  "Mad Hattter Tea Party and Torquemada's CDO Auto de Fe Show Trial" that prosecuted The Los Osos 45. There are new members on the Board now, including a new Chairman, and I can only hope that some of  the more absurd aspects of this appalling regulatory abuse and comic-opera farce so clearly outlined here will prove to be a revelation to them.  A revelation and a unique opportunity to finally do the right thing here and, by removing these CDO's, help in some small measure to repair the damage done by the Board to itself, to this community and to these 45. 

There is never a wrong time to do the right thing.  And now is that time.

    

Dear Mr. Packard,

     Attached is my response to the invitation you extended seeking contributions from the community for your consideration in making your May Water Board presentation concerning the status of the Los Osos CDO’s.

     Please note that I have Cc:'d members of the Water Board in my correspondence and must rely on the good graces of Mr. Michael Thomas to forward it to them, as email contact information for the Water Board is unavailable. I have copied this email to the SLO County Board of Supervisors and the LOCSD, who may have an interest in the discussion. The CDO recipients, interested party, and community members listed at the end of my letter to you have been Bcc:’d in the email in the event that some of them may not appreciate having their personal contact information displayed in the public record.

     Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the discussion of how to approach the "Los Osos 45” CDO’s, given the events of the past eight years.

     I urge you to reach out to the community as soon as possible, considering your March 31 deadline, using the considerable means at the water Board’s disposal to encourage participation from a broad spectrum of respondents. To rely on our contacts is to have extremely limited community outreach as you will see from the Cc: list at the end of my attachment.

     For your convenience a hard copy will follow this email.

Sincerely,

Beverley De Witt-Moylan,  CDO#R3-2006-1041

Bev's Letter to Harvey:

CDO #R3-2006-1041

1516 17th Street

Los Osos, CA 93402

March 13, 2014

Mr. Harvey Packard, Enforcement Coordinator

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401-7906

Dear Mr. Packard,   

     Recently you wrote my husband, William Moylan, about your plan to approach the CCRWQCB at their May 2014 meeting to make a recommendation on the 2006/2007 “Los Osos 45” CDO’s. Your message invited participation from him and from the community. (“If you or anyone else interested in the situation would like to provide input toward my recommendation, please provide that information to me by March 31.”) My husband told you in a recent email that our contacts in the community are limited, making it impossible for him to communicate your intentions community-wide or even CDO-wide. Given your deadline, I hope that you will contact the community without further delay, especially CDO recipients, to solicit their ideas.

      As a CDO recipient I appreciate this opportunity to contribute my thoughts to your Board presentation. I heartily support a proposal that the Water Board consider removing the punitive and costly “Los Osos 45” CDO’s. Thank you in advance for acknowledging receipt of this message and for your prompt response to my comments.

     Below are points for the Board’s consideration to support removal of the 2006/2007 Los Osos Cease and Desist Orders. 

 1) Limiting Los Osos CDO prosecutions to 45 out of approximately 4500 Prohibition Zone families:

     As you are aware, Mr. Packard, Water Board records demonstrate that my husband and I have consistently complied with the terms of our CDO. Since 2006 we have paid for three pumping cycles. Before the Los Osos sewer is scheduled to go on line, another cycle will be due. Newer Water Board members should understand that the thousands of dollars spent to comply with CDO requirements since 2006 represent an expense exclusive to the 45 targeted CDO families.

     Newer Water Board members may have the same difficulty we did comprehending the clean-water rationale behind choosing just 45 families out of approximately 4500 to clean the waters of Los Osos. Newer Board members may be aware that the Water Board began those 45 CDO prosecutions in January 2006 and imposed no further CDO’s in Los Osos after the successful sewer assessment vote in 2007. They may appreciate why some believe that the aim of the CDO prosecutions in Los Osos was, in fact, a YES vote on that 218 sewer assessment. Whatever the original intent, the small number of CDO enforcement orders has been as effective as no enforcement orders at all in cleaning the groundwater basin in Los Osos.

2) Random enforcement:

     Newer Board members need to know that the term, “random enforcement” was only loosely applied to the 2006/2007 Los Osos CDO prosecution. Some commercial properties use significantly more water than any single family home and are more likely to degrade groundwater quality. Yet no commercial property in Los Osos became a target for a proposed CDO in that enforcement action. At the same time, home businesses were not exempted.

     The proposed CDO required all defendants to disclose to the Water Board in early 2006 the names of all residents on their property or face heavy daily fines. Because of that requirement, the Prosecution Team and the Board knew that some households, like ours, were comprised of just one or two people, many of us not at home during the day. While some small households were being prosecuted at random for polluting the groundwater, other homes housing large groups and families escaped enforcement. One neighbor on our block operated a daycare. A house across the street from us had four adults in residence, two of them stay-at-home, along with four young children. A college rental on our block housed up to ten people per night. At their frequent parties many more used that septic system. Another neighboring home was the off-and-on residence of up to six adults. Except for a now long-vacant house across the street from ours, no other property on our block but our two-person household has a CDO with its frequent pumping requirement.

    Newer Water Board members surely understand that distance to groundwater can play a role in water quality. In the random CDO prosecutions, however, distance to groundwater was not considered, because site-specific evidence was irrelevant in choosing CDO targets. Homes sited much too far above groundwater for seepage to occur received the same CDO enforcement with the same pumping schedule as those much closer to groundwater.

     The unscientific selection of random targets for individual CDO enforcement provides only accidental opportunities for water quality improvement. Random CDO prosecution to address basin-wide water quality makes no environmental sense.

3) The conduct of the prosecution:

     Instead of utilizing a more moderate community-wide mechanism to achieve a potentially reasonable clean-water outcome, the Prosecution Team went directly for extremely limited random application of the high-impact Cease and Desist Order with its inherent threats of up to $5000/day fines and the possibility of referral to the California Attorney General for criminal prosecution should the sewer project stall. This tactic was the clean water solution the 2006/2007 Water Board visited on 45 law-abiding, taxpaying families to address water quality in Los Osos in 2006/2007. Those orders and those conditions persist to this day. As newer Water Board members may imagine, daily exposure to this toxic influence for more than eight years has resulted in personal consequences to health, relationships, family life, work, and school. Any hint of a potential sewer project delay affects us, but our CDO has no measurable effect on water quality in Los Osos.

     The Prosecution Team’s approach to evidence was to introduce no site-specific data beyond a Prohibition Zone address. The 2006/2007 Water Board did not require nor consider site-specific evidence in rendering its CDO judgments. Whether a household was two feet or a hundred feet above groundwater, whether a single person working outside the home or a large group used a septic system, whether a septic system was malfunctioning and seeping into groundwater or was functioning perfectly, all were irrelevant to the 2006/2007 charges of groundwater pollution.

     To make an informed decision in response to your proposal, Mr. Packard, newer Water Board members need to grasp that the 2006/2007 Water Board and staff made no attempt to find pollution and fix it. Imposition of CDO’s was the sole goal, and the record demonstrates that a Prohibition Zone address was the sole requirement for successful prosecution of the proposed CDO’s. In considering the CDO’s today, newer Water Board members will note that without site-specific pollution evidence and site-specific remediation plans the Los Osos CDO’s do not serve the purpose for which CDO’s were intended.

     Newer Board members are likely unaware that after issuing proposed CDO’s in January 2006 the Water Board encouraged defendants to work together to prepare their defenses from stacks of disorganized documents located in a back room on site and sometimes on the CCRWQCB web site. You no doubt remember, Mr. Packard, and can apprise the newer Board members of how, with the careful appearance of proper procedure, the 2006/2007 Water Board led defendants to believe that they had a fair chance to avoid a CDO judgment with a well-researched defense.

     As Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Young, and you are well aware, Mr. Packard, but newer Board members may not be, defendants discovered that whether they appeared at their hearings with a solid defense supported by expert testimony, whether they failed to appear and took a judgment by default, or whether they simply did not respond in any way to the proposed CDO notice, all defendants received the same judgment. It became clear when the individual hearings began, and the Water Board issued blanket CDO’s, that no defense could trump a Prohibition Zone address. With no evidence beyond a map of defendants’ homes the prosecution team prevailed with 100% success. To meet a Water Board enforcement objective in Los Osos, 45 families were found guilty of living in the Prohibition Zone.

4) Frequent pumping requirement of the “Los Osos 45” CDO’s despite expert testimony to the contrary:

     Frequent septic tank pumping has not only an ongoing financial impact, but also a negative effect on proper functioning of the septic system. Newer Board members may not know that in 2006 septic experts testified at the CDO hearings that frequent pumping impairs proper operation of septic systems. Newer Board members should be advised that at the time the CDO’s were imposed, Water Board staff member, Matt Thompson, testified that no Water Board member, nor Water Board staff, had any formal training in the structure and function of septic systems. Faced with expert testimony, credentials, references, and recommendations from septic systems experts on the hazards of frequent septic tank pumping, staff nonetheless recommended and the Water Board imposed CDO’s with an every-three-year pumping requirement.

     Each time we have had our tank pumped as required, Al from Al’s Septic has told us that our tank did not need pumping, adding that some tanks work well for 30 years without pumping. Nonetheless, we have to follow the CDO requirement to show evidence of compliance by having our tank pumped and submitting receipts every three years.

     Dr. Daniel Wickham, who gave expert testimony at the CDO hearings said that it can take up to two years for a tank to recover its bacteria levels and begin to work efficiently again after being pumped. An every-three-year pumping schedule seems to be the wrong way to approach septic tank efficiency. Removing the CDO with its frequent pumping requirement would return our septic system to a healthy balance and more efficient functioning until we hook up to the sewer when the project is complete.

5) No apparent compliance oversight:

     In considering removal of the “Los Osos 45” CDO’s the current Water Board should also note that CDO compliance has been inconsistent, with effectively no oversight to address non-compliance with the required pumping schedule. Indeed, I have no knowledge of any penalties incurred by, or any Water Board interest expressed in, CDO recipients who have allowed their pumping requirement to lapse.

     Given the apparent lack of attention to CDO oversight, my husband and I became curious about non-compliance as a way to avoid an unnecessary financial drain with the added benefit to our septic tank of not pumping. We wrote the Water Board to find out its position on non-compliance with the CDO pumping requirement. Instead of simply answering our question, however, Water Board attorney, Ms. Helen Arens, construed our letter as an attempt to negotiate our CDO. She failed to address the Water Board’s policy or position on Los Osos CDO compliance oversight. In the absence of information on the oversight policy for the “Los Osos 45” CDO’s we came to believe that none exists.  With no apparent mechanism being utilized to oversee compliance it might be difficult for newer Water Board members to appreciate the relevance of our individual CDO’s to the quality of groundwater in Los Osos today. Having cost California taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute, the 2006/2007 CDO’s now appear to be all but obsolete.

6) The process currently in place for CDO removal in Los Osos:

     Newer Board members may find it intriguing that the Water Board already has a procedure in place for removing the CDO’s in Los Osos. They might be surprised to learn that upon sale of a targeted property the new homeowner starts fresh with nothing more than the pro forma NOV sent to all other non-CDO properties in town. In addition, the former homeowner walks away from the property completely free of any enforcement encumbrance. In short, when CDO-targeted property sells, the CDO vanishes.

     When targeted families sell their homes, buyers move in CDO-free. This system demonstrates clearly how little the Water Board values our CDO’s as effective mechanisms for establishing and maintaining clean groundwater in Los Osos. You and I, Mr. Packard, both know of targeted families, some of them quite elderly in their late 80’s and early 90’s, who felt forced to sell their Los Osos homes to escape the stress of living with a CDO. Newer Board members may be motivated to consider ways to remove our CDO’s that do not force families out of their homes.

7) Present impact of CDO’s in Los Osos:

     Los Osos residents I have talked to in recent years are shocked to discover that the CDO’s remain in place and that we are still paying regularly to pump our tanks. Most believed that the CDO’s were removed long ago following the 2007 passage of the 218 sewer assessment. They had their suspicions about the reason for the CDO’s in 2006 and thought their YES vote gave the Water Board what it wanted (see comments by Mr. Young as Board Chair in 2005 and 2006 regarding voting in Los Osos and the enforcement actions there). In addition, many of those not targeted for CDO’s have been completely unaware of them with no idea what a CDO is. Many who moved here in subsequent years have had no exposure to that tragic chapter in Los Osos history, especially since the popular press has not covered the “Los Osos 45” in recent memory. The only impact of CDO’s in Los Osos today is the longterm financial burden on and the implicit threats to the targeted families. The Los Osos CDO’s long ago outlived their true purpose by many years and many thousands of dollars.

     Mr. Young, Mr. Jeffries, and you, Mr. Packard, were parties to, and can likely find justification in your own minds for all the aforementioned. My hope, however, is that based on the fresh perspective you intend to provide, the 2014 Water Board will agree that it is time to remove the 2006/2007 Los Osos CDO’s.

     In addition to asking the Water Board to remove the Los Osos CDO’s, I request that you make two more proposals on behalf of the Los Osos 45.

1) Apology:

     Many in the community believe that the Water Board owes the “Los Osos 45” an apology. Newer Water Board members may be able to appreciate the pointless harm caused to 45 Los Osos families through the random CDO prosecutions of 2006/2007, and more than eight years of enforcement. Video and written records serve as stark reminders of what ordinary Los Osos families faced for months as CDO defendants, and for years thereafter, in a prosecution that ultimately produced no discernible benefit to the waters of the state of California.

      Uncomfortable as it may be for some to hear, the CDO prosecutions in 2006/2007 and their aftermath have caused irretrievable losses of life, health, peace of mind, family bonds, homes, income, and time. A written apology is the least the Water Board can offer each family targeted for a year of prosecution and for over seven years of enforcement with persistent threats of daily fines, referral to the California Attorney General for criminal prosecution, and loss of property should the sewer project encounter any unexpected delay.

2) Reparations:

     My second request is that those of us who have submitted receipts in compliance with the terms of our CDO’s shall receive compensation for all money spent on what amounts to unjust fines for the pumping requirement that none but the “Los Osos 45” have had to fulfill. Newer members of the Board will no doubt comprehend the unfairness of this onerous, unscientifically applied obligation placed on randomly selected families, a number known to be much too small to be of any statistical significance in addressing the condition of the groundwater in Los Osos. Yet, as a member of the Prosecution Team at the time, Mr. Packard, you are aware that addressing impaired groundwater quality was the pretext for the CDO prosecutions, which stopped after successful passage in 2007 of the 218 sewer assessment in Los Osos. No matter what newer Board members may believe to have been the true purpose of our CDO’s, they cannot fail to see the obvious. Imposing CDO’s on a random selection of 45 families in Los Osos, and enforcing those 45 orders for over eight years could never accomplish a basin-wide clean water objective.

      It is my hope that your presentation, Mr. Packard, will allow newer Board members to see the logic of removing the CDO’s and the appropriateness of redress. Reparations are a way to address in Los Osos what is ultimately irreparable. By offering an apology and compensation, the Board has an opportunity to reverse a questionable strategy used eight years ago with consequences that reverberate to this day. The actions of the 2006/2007 Water Board forever changed the lives of 45 Los Osos families. The 2014 Water Board has an opportunity finally to compensate them by removing their CDO’s, along with refunding their pumping costs, and extending an apology, allowing a long-overdue healing process to begin at last.

     For further background on the prosecution of the “Los Osos 45”newer Water Board members could search the archives and links at www.calhounscannon.blogspot.com and  www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com.

     Thank you, Mr. Packard, for this opportunity to contribute to your May 2014 Water Board presentation. For your convenience I will send you a hard copy of this message with copies to members of the Water Board, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, the Los Osos CSD, and other community members with an interest in this process and for whom I have contact information. I hope you will use the abundant resources at the CCRWQCB to advise the Los Osos community of your intentions so that “anyone else interested in the situation” might have an opportunity to contribute their thoughts.

Sincerely,

Beverley De Witt-Moylan,

CDO#R3-2006-1041

Cc:

Dr. Jean-Pierre Wolff, Chair CCRWQCB; Dr. Monica Hunter, Vice Chair; Bruce Delgado, Board Member; Russell Jeffries, Board Member; Michael Johnston, Board Member

Michael Jordan, Board Member; Jeffrey Young, Board Member; Michael Thomas, Assistant Executive Officer; Bruce Gibson, Chair, SLOBOS; Debbie Arnold, Board Member; Adam Hill, Board Member; Frank Mecham, Board Member; Caren Ray, Board Member; Los Osos CSD

Free The Los Osos 45

I received the following email & thread between The Moylans (One of The Los Osos 45) and RWQCB's Harvey Packard.  The email is self-explanatory.  Though it may seem like ancient history, there are 45 of your fellow Los Ososians who are still under the gun from Roger Briggs' "Mad Pumping Scheme" and the appalling and pointless "Mad Hatter Tea Party and Torquemada's Auto de Fe" show "Trial" that followed. The world moved on but these 45 got stuck with Mr. Briggs', Mr. Packard's and Mr. Young's massive Folly.

Is it possible that Mr. Packard is finally having second thoughts about his role in this excruciating, hideously embarrassing fiasco? Especially since Mr. Young is no longer Chairman and, mirable dictu, there's some new, competent, better-informed, knowledgeable,Board members who, hopefully, will bring to this Board a desperately needed new perspective. And this Board can finally make this right? Let's hope so.  Mr. Moylan has listed Mr. Packard's email if you wish to give him input on this matter. I have lots of input I could give Mr. Packard, but for now, I'll allow Ms. Moylan's cogent comments (to be posted shortly) speak to the point. But, for now, there's the question:  Should The Los Osos 45 finally be set free?    

Dear Friends,

Below is an email string between Bill Moylan and Harvey Packard of the Water Board Enforcement Division that you may find worth reading (up from the bottom). You will see that Mr. Packard mentions asking members of the community to comment on the CDO’s currently being enforced on 45 families in Los Osos. He is considering asking to have them removed. He expected Bill to get the word out. Bill told him that we don’t know enough people, and that he needs to communicate with the community, himself, using the Water Board’s considerable resources. But he has not done that yet, and so we are forwarding the message string below to help at least a few community members to communicate thoughts on retaining or removing the “Los Osos 45” CDO’s. 

Mr. Packard is looking for community input on a topic that means a lot to those of us with CDO’s in our lives for the past eight years.

Bill and I hope you’ll take some time to send Harvey Packard a message to say what you think the CDO’s are accomplishing, and whether or not they should remain in force or be removed from the 45 properties and all the people they have affected since 2006. His email address is hpackard@waterboards.ca.gov. Your neighbors with CDO’s appreciate your taking the time to speak up briefly to express your opinion on whether the “Los Osos 45” CDO's should be removed.

Please feel free to pass this message along. Anyone who needs to be reminded of the CDO prosecutions can go to www.waterboards.ca.gov and search los osos CDO’s, los osos enforcement actions 2006, or other colorful and imaginative possibilities. There you will find transcripts of the April 28, 2006/December 15, 2006/January 22, 2007 enforcement hearings, among other intriguing documents.

Thank you for taking a look below and for taking the time to communicate with Mr. Packard, if you are so inclined.

Best,

Bev 

From: Subject: Re: Los Osos CDO's

Date: February 24, 2014 7:38:37 PM PST

To: "Packard, Harvey@Waterboards" <Harvey.Packard@waterboards.ca.gov>

Dear Mr. Packard,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my message and for your invitation to provide input for your May proposal to the Water Board.

To let interested parties know about your proposal, however, requires information I do not have. But your agency does have it.. 

As the compliance officer for the CCRWQCB, you are the appropriate party to encourage input for your May 2014 CDO proposal by contacting all individual enforcement recipients and by making a timely public announcement.

  Sincerely,

  William Moylan

On Feb 24, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Packard, Harvey@Waterboards wrote:

Mr. Moylan,

I agree that it is my job to make a recommendation to the Water Board about the CDOs, and I plan on doing so in a written report to the board for the May 2014 meeting.  The board will not take any action at the meeting, but could provide direction to staff.

If you or anyone else interested in the situation would like to provide input toward my recommendation, please provide that information to me by March 31.

Thanks,

Harvey C. Packard, PE

Section Manager and Enforcement Coordinator

Central Coast Water Board

895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101

San Luis Obispo, CA  93401

(805) 542-4639

(805) 543-0397 fax

From: william]
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:08 PM
To: Packard, Harvey@Waterboards
Subject: Fwd: Los Osos CDO's

 Dear Mr. Packard,

I sent you an e-mail on February 10, 2014 (12 days ago) saying that my wife and I believed that it was your responsibility to submit a proposal to the Water Board to remove the Cease and Desist Orders that were issued to 45 households in Los Osos in 2006 and early 2007.  I still have not received a response from you. I believe that you have had ample time to respond to my e-mail.  I request that you send me a response regarding my first e-mail within the next five days. Below is a copy of that first e-mail.

Sincerely,

William Moylan

Begin forwarded message:

From: william < Subject: Los Osos CDO's

Date: February 10, 2014 8:42:54 PM PST

To: hpackard@waterboards.ca.gov

Dear Mr. Packard,

 Recently you spoke to me at the CCRWQCB office suggesting that my wife and I join forces with other CDO families to ask the Water Board “to remove” the Cease and Desist Orders they imposed on us in 2006 and 2007.

 It is my understanding that the original individual enforcement proposal came from CCRWQCB staff. You were on staff at the time of those hearings that resulted in a 100% successful prosecution rate.

 After carefully considering your suggestion, I concluded that the party who proposed individual enforcement is the appropriate party to request its removal.  As CCRWQCB Enforcement Coordinator and Advisor to the Board you are in the proper position to ask the Board to remove the individual Cease and Desist Orders that resulted from the prosecution of the “Los Osos 45.”

 I request that you submit that proposal as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

 William Moylan

Is That A Bonus In Your Pocket

. . . or are you just glad to see me?

O.K. admit it.  This story's just plain goofy, one of those Chinese Water Torture stories that dribble out bit by bit.  First, Jamie Irons, the new Morro Bay City Council has a meeting then doesn't have a meeting, then wants to fire their top two CEOs, then it doesn't fire anybody and gives no reason why they're being fired or not fired.  Then hundreds of outraged citizens show up with firebrands, making ugly crowd noises and demanding to know what's going on, so the City Council says, Sorry, it's a personnel matter, we can't tell you even though we're not saying anybody's done anything to be fired for, maybe, maybe not, who knows?  Then the Mayor says, "Oh, nevermind.  Instead of firing, we'll go hire an outside lawyer to find out what we just did or didn't do and what we should do now, not that we're saying we're going to do anything in the first place, or something, maybe.

So, the Tribune readers mull over that enlightening report and a few days later, up pops a follow up story claiming that "several legal experts" (i.e. Tom Newton, executive director of the California Newspaper Publishers Association) have opined that the previous Morro Bay Mayor Yates and his City Council violated the Brown Act when they failed to give proper public notice of their intention to increase their two CEO's severance pay six weeks before before leaving office.  And then forgot to report out that compensation. 

Then, on the same front page, another follow up story:  The Morro Bay City Council voted to cough up $12,500 for an outside attorney to sort through this mess to find out a couple of things:  Since the "secret" severance packages were (apparently) done in violation of the Brown act, are they invalid?  And, if they are, can the new Mayor Irons go ahead and fire the two CEO's using their old at-will contracts?  Thereby saving the city some $300,000-plus in excess compensation?

Well, stay tuned.  In the meantime, some citizens have started a recall petition.  Morro Bay Politics.  A Recall.  Oh, dear. 

Oh, and you just knew THAT was gonna happen . . .

The Tribune reports that the County code enforcement folks were heading out to drought-parched Paso Robles to investigate dozens of illegal water use violation complaints. When the BOS voted on Aug 27 to forbid any new vines, that meant unless the vintner/farmer/rancher actually had his vines/trees in the ground, they were out of luck. Then they weasled  on  "vested rights," which allowed some wiggle room for growers who had paid-for vines in transit, for example. 

And when there's wiggle room there's sure to be growers willing to wiggle right over the line, then head to court.  And so it begins:  Owens Valley, redux.  Will we hear shotguns in the night?  Cut water lines? Sabotage?  Hey, they don't call it a Water War for nothing.  And when livelihoods and homes are at stake . . .  Let's hope the formation of a water district and some sort of water rationing kicks in soon.  Meantime, pray for rain.

Water, Water Everywhere!  Let's Dump It Into the Bay

Over at Cal Coast News ( http://calcoastnews.com/2013/09/los-osos-sewer-contractor-dumping-millions-gallons-water-morro-bay/  ), Josh Friedman picks up the story of the Los Osos sewer contractors being awash in polluted ground-water bubbling up whilst they're laying pipe for the new sewer.  Oh, what to do with the stuff?  Well, their contract calls for them to dispose of it on land, if possible, and they're certainly doing that daily, with water trucks trolling the streets spraying everywhere.  But there's just too much of the stuff and the county plans apparently didn't include running a pipe, for example, up to the Broderson disposal site so the water could percolate back into the ground and do that before digging began in earnest.

Oh, what to do?  Well, there's Morro Bay right there, and Morro Bay's made up of water, and polluted groundwater is, well, it's water, so what's the problem?  Let's just dump it in the Bay!  Who's to object?

The Regional Water Quality Control Board, you might reply?  Oh, no.  That Board wasted no time and expended enormous amounts of money and time prosecuting 45 happless homeowners (The Los Osos 45) for polluting the groundwater with their septic tanks,but when it comes to dumping gazillions of gallons of polluted groundwater into the Bay?  Meh.  Not a problem.

The contractor was supposed to exhaust all alternative ground-dispersal options before bay discharge, but there's no evidence that that has been done.  And no evidence that the Water Board plans to enforce that requirement.  Besides sending the contract a mild little letter of suggestions.  No Mad Hatter trials for them!  After all, it's only an issue of water quality, nothing the Regional Water Quality Control Board need concern itself with. Ditto for the BOS.  More "Meh."

Well, with all things RWQCB,  BOS and Sewer, it's all a matter of geese and ganders, isn't it?

You're Welcome

Over at http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/ Ron Crawford's posted another chapter in the ongoing Epic Sewer Wars saga, titled, "Coastal Commission Enforcement Case Number V-3-07-034," or "How 20 Property Owners in Los Osos Just Made a $25,000 Donation to the Failed, 2005, "Defeat the Recall" Campaign."

Ah, reminds me of the classic quote: The main concern and industry of bureaucrats is not to rectify their mistakes, but to conceal them.  Simon Leys.  No doubt about it.  We live in . . . Chinatown, Jake.  Chinatown.

Chinatown, Decoded

The main concern and industry of bureaucrats is not to rectify their mistakes, but to conceal them.
                                                                                       Simon Leys 

    For one of the best explanations of just how and why the Los Osos Sewer Disaster became the Great Los Osos Sewer Disaster, Ron Crawford has put it all together for you in an easily readable form at http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com     Let's hope Colin Rigley from New Times or Karen Velie over at Cal Coast News take a gander.  For sheer wasted public money, this puts Paso Robles' recent bungles and pay-outs to shame. And it's a hell of a story, but it has always been a very complicated one, which is why our media and so much of the public has turned away.  Well, no longer.  Here's the Reader's Digest Condensed version.  Simple. Clear.
     But ultimately sad.  There will be no accountability here.  The citizens in the PZ will be left to pay the bill, with 45 of them still branded as criminals and their homes under threat. Read it and weep. Your government at work here in . . . Chinatown.

Sustainability Group's Report and Link

     I received a copy of the Sustainability Group’s request for permit revocation that was presented to the Coastal Commission.  A previous posting that simply referenced Ron Crawford’s recent posting on a sewerish issue brought out the sewer crazies in this comment section.  This document is for the sane people who might wonder just what’s in the document.  (I note the cover letter’s notation that the Tribune apparently never bothered to read the document or even call for clarification before writing their story so it’s likely there’s a whole lot of people who have no clue what was sent to the Coastal Commissioners.) There’s also a link to the complete document giving fuller information as to why SG is asking for the Commission to take a second look.

     This document will  a) be totally dismissed, or b) cause some further modifications or improvements to be made, or c) result in the permit being pulled.  A few years down the line, the document will be proven to be a) a huge waste of time and effort or b) a chilling blueprint outlining a train wreck.  

     But, I’m posting it here so anyone interested in following all this can at least read what was actually written and the reasons behind the request, instead of just making stuff up or flying into hysteria then making stuff up. The history that focuses on Resolution 83-13 is most interesting.  I’ve long held that that Resolution was and is the fatal flaw in this entire enterprise. Because it went for the cheap/fast/easy “low lying fruit,” it was both too little and too much and kept missing the fundamental issue:  A Water Basin.

     History will decide whether all of this will play out as planned.  Or not.  Either way, the SG’s effort is part of the Process that is the Coastal Commission’s responsibility to review before moving forward.

     A warning to some of you Sewer Crazies.  I’ve left the open comment on this blog so it’s easier for sane people to participate in a discussion without fear of harassment.  But if you start in on your ridiculous neener-neenering, I’ll start dumping you right and left.  This document has plenty of interesting factual information in it to discuss and plenty of rational opinion to discuss.  It doesn’t contain ad hominem attacks and so doesn’t require that in return.  So, mind your manners, children. 

THE REPORT

Hi Everyone,

Just wanted to update you on what the Los Osos Sustainability Group (LOSG) has been working on for the last 5 months. After going through over 1,000 documents (over 10,000 pages), a comprehensive story developed that  explains  how the current project developed over the last 30-years, and how this project  could have disastrous adverse consequences on the Los Osos area, including the water basin and vital sensitive habitat. We feel the evidence presented strongly shows this project will do more harm than good. I am hoping you will take the time to read the following, and if you agree with it, take the time to write the Coastal Commission, and let them know of your worries and concerns.

As you may of read in the Tribune, LOSG submitted a "Request for revocation of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the Los Osos Wastewater Project (LOWWP)" on February 20, 2012. There have been many comments regarding the request, but frankly, few have read the request, so many of the comments we feel are unfounded. The Tribune did not even read the request before printing the article, nor did they contact anyone from LOSG for comment or questions. We hope that you will read it, and then any comments you have about the request, positive or negative, at least will be from an informed position.

The full request can be viewed here: http://www.csclososo.com/?page_id=412

Email addresses of Coastal Commission members are attached.

I am including the cover letter for the request below, which gives an overview of the request (this can also be downloaded from the web site, along with the full request, and an outline).

Honorable Commissioners:
Attached is our Request for Revocation of the Los Osos Wastewater Project (LOWWP) Coastal Development Permit (CDP). This cover letter provides an overview of the issues covered by the Request, including why we are submitting the Request and why the Commission should revoke the LOWWP permit. Basically, the information we present shows the LOWWP could have disastrous adverse consequences on the Los Osos area, including the water basin and vital sensitive habitat, and agencies intentionally provided inaccurate, erroneous, and incomplete information that failed to disclose these impacts. Additionally, the evidence we provide shows agencies substantially exaggerated the benefits of the project and failed to disclose that a much less harmful, feasible alternative is available. As you know, the Los Osos Basin is a threatened resource, on which many vital systems rely. Water and wastewater decisions must be based on the best possible accurate and complete information.
Basis for revocation request and why we must submit it
The LOSG received the email from Mr. Carl on January 23, 2012, stating the criteria we must meet for a successful revocation request. We are sure our request meets that criteria and the Commission will see that 1) the County and CCRWQCB withheld information or intentionally provided inaccurate or erroneous information prior to June 2010, 2) the information was crucial to decision making and could have led to denial of the project or changed conditions, and 3) the LOSG has done due diligence as citizens to get the information to the Commission as soon as possible given the complexity of issues, size of the record, intentional withholding of information, and necessity for the issue to be addressed comprehensively. (Also see LOSG letter to the Coastal Commission dated January 26, 2012, pp. 10 & 11 and Section IV.E of the Request for Revocation for further evidence of due diligence.)
A comprehensive picture of issues, in the case of Los Osos, is necessary to show why a large body of evidence on the record supporting the project no longer constitutes substantial evidence. A complete presentation of issues is also needed to show how and why very serious potential adverse impacts remain unmitigated, why the project could do more harm than good (and cannot not be conditioned to protect resources), and why a management alternative is the least harmful feasible alternative. Finally, a comprehensive picture is needed to show why a process driven by Resolution 83-–-13 is inherently flawed and has led to a project that will harm resources.

We are sure the Commission will see that the issues are too important not to address. This project could have extremely serious adverse consequences on the Los Osos Valley Water Basin, the sole source of water for the area already threatened by an extremely urgent seawater intrusion problem. It could have severe adverse impacts on very high value sensitive habitat, including Morro Bay National Estuary and Los Osos Creek endangered steelhead habitat. It could also have severe adverse consequences on the lives of many people now and in the future, on air quality, and climate change. The Commission approved the project on the basis that it is “critically necessary” to protect these resources, based on County and CCRWQCB official statements and documents. However, the information we present shows that information is not accurate, and the project could severely harm those resources.
As citizens in possession of this information, we have no choice but to present it as soon as possible in the effort to prevent severe harm to resources. If agencies cannot show with specific evidence that septic systems are a significant source of pollution of the estuary and pose a significant threat to health and safety, that the project will stop that pollution and threat and is essential for basin sustainability, and that the severe potential adverse impacts we identify are mitigated with specific, measureable, enforceable-–--–-and feasible measures-–--–-then the permit should be revoked. This is what the County and CCRWQCB information claims, yet it is not supported by the information we located in the record. The decision to allow this project to go forward must be based on facts and an unbiased analysis of facts using the most relevant, complete, and accurate information available. This project has the potential to destroy a water basin, vital habitat, and a community. The decision to allow this project to go forward cannot be based on popular opinion, political expediency, or on information that might otherwise fail to meet Coastal Commission standards for accurate and complete information or CEQA standards for substantial evidence.
The information the County and CCRWQCB provided to the Commission claims that septic systems are causing significant harm to resources and the LOWWP will stop that harm, it is needed for basin sustainability, and it is least harmful feasible alternative. The information we provide shows that County officials knew the following prior to approval of the project on June 11, 2010.

·       Septic systems are not significantly polluting the estuary or related habitat, and the project will not provide a significant benefit to these resources.

·       The project provides no significant benefits to the basin and is not needed for basin sustainability.

·       The project has severe unmitigated potential adverse impacts on key resources: 1) the Los Osos groundwater basin, 2) very high value environmentally sensitive habitat (ESHA), 3) human health and safety, and 4) air quality (GHGs), for which feasible mitigation is unlikely.

Some of the most serious unmitigated potential impacts not disclosed include the following:

·       Severe impacts from earthquakes due to liquefaction under homes downhill from the Broderson disposal site that could result in loss of life, major property damage, and long-–-term shut down of the wastewater system.

·       Substantial adverse impacts to the upper aquifer (significant drops in water levels, seawater intrusion, reduced beneficial use, and adverse impacts to protected aquatic habitat), resulting from two issues: a delay of 2 to 14 years or more between the time septic system return flows stop recharging the upper aquifer (dispersed vertical recharge) and the time Broderson leach fields (centralized lateral recharge) restore water levels and replace flows (assuming Broderson disposal is feasible and works as planned). This impact is substantially increased by the adverse cumulative effects of major shifts in pumping to the upper aquifer, which water purveyors are currently planning to address the urgent seawater intrusion problem.

·       Substantial adverse impacts to all aquifers and habitat from conservation and recycled water programs that provide little if any mitigation. The CDP provides for a conservation and recycled water program to back up to Broderson disposal and add a margin of safety. However, agencies overstated the mitigation potential of both of these measures and failed to disclose adverse impacts. By June 2010, a considerable amount of conservation had already occurred in Los Osos greatly reducing or eliminating the potential for conservation to mitigate for the project. Also, agencies knew the recycled water program would not offset pumping of the lower aquifer significantly (so would not significantly mitigate for seawater intrusion), and they knew the high salt content the water could destroy soils and aquifers, also resulting in underuse of the program and/or the need for additional mitigation and facilities. The SWRCB has required a “feasibility study” for the recycled water program. However, a “study” after the fact does not mitigate for impacts or ensure feasibility. The CDP includes the recycled water program as a main mitigation measure for seawater intrusion and habitat, yet it has undisclosed, unmitigated potential adverse impacts on the basin, habitat, farmland, and farming aquifers.

·       Substantial unmitigated adverse impacts, including indirect and cumulative impacts, on the lower aquifer that could make the extremely urgent seawater intrusion problem worse. Purveyors have not come to an agreement on how to manage the basin to stop seawater intrusion and will not likely come to an agreement or make necessary investments to shift pumping to the upper aquifer realizing that the project will have major impacts on the basin. For example, they know the project has significant unmitigated impacts on the upper aquifer, and they know recycled water will be high in salts. They will not commit resources to the recycled water program or shifts in pumping to the upper aquifer if these measures put investments at risk (although experts agree urgent major shifts in pumping to the upper aquifer are needed to address seawater intrusion). The project also has unmitigated socio-–-economic impacts on these resources. The project will delay or prevent necessary water management measures, future mitigations, and major system repairs (e.g., due to earthquakes) because these essential measures will not be affordable to rate payers.

              • Substantial unmitigated impacts on Los Osos Creek, endangered steelhead habitat, resulting from a reduction in groundwater flows that could reduce flows in the creek and  increase contaminant levels by reducing the size and viability of buffering wetlands (e.g., Willow Creek Drainage). The project includes extensive mitigation for a possible minor drop in water levels in the creek as a pipe is installed over the creek, but ignores this much more serious impact.
These are some of the unmitigated impacts that we identify and explain in our Request for Revocation. The information we provide shows that County and CCRWQCB withheld information necessary for the Commission to recognize that the project has severe unmitigated impacts, provides no significant benefits on the estuary and basin, and will do more harm than good. The evidence we provide also shows these agencies withheld information showing a less-–-harmful, feasible alternative exists. A comprehensive management program, similar to the plan in effect for the San Lorenzo River Watershed will do everything officials claim this project will do, and much more, at a fraction of the cost. The CCRWQCB also has jurisdiction over the San Lorenzo Watershed.
Why information provided by the CCRWCB should be considered in this request
Although the County is the CDP applicant and lead agency under CEQA, your decision to grant the permit, according to the CDP Staff Report of May 27, 2010, is based on the finding that State and Regional Water Boards are requiring the Los Osos project. Further, the Commission relied, to a large extent, on information provided to you by the CCRWQCB for findings that resulted in the approval of the project. Much of that information is inaccurate, erroneous, or incomplete. Although the Commission’s authority is limited when reviewing a treatment works, the Commission does have the right and responsibility to expect and ensure the information provided to you by agencies is accurate and complete, in order to make the best decision possible. It has become clear to us, based on the evidence we provide, that, while the CCRWQCB and SWRCB are requiring the project, the agencies are not committed to project mitigation or basin sustainability.

Why Resolution 83-–-13 must not drive decision making and should be rescinded

Resolution 83-–-13 is driving the implementation of a centralized wastewater project for the prohibition zone of Los Osos, but Resolution 83-–-13 is not based on substantial evidence in the record. Most of the key findings supporting Resolution 83-–-13 have been refuted or no longer apply. CEQA precludes inclusion of inaccurate information as substantial evidence. So long as the effort to solve the water quality and supply issues in Los Osos begin and end with Resolution 83-–-13, Los Osos resources will be at risk. We’ve provided a discussion of Resolution 83-–-13 in our request so the Commission, including why and how Resolution 83-–-13 has resulted in a flawed environmental review process and project that will harm resources.
Los Osos should not be subjected to a project and process controlled by an obsolete regulation. Resolution 83-–-13 was implemented in 1983 under very different conditions, and current science contradicts most of its findings. In 1983, seawater intrusion was not a concern and decision makers believed they could resort to imported water if a centralized wastewater project caused seawater intrusion or buildout proved unsustainable. The realities of the 21st Century are much different— evidence supports that the carrying capacity of the basin has been reached and additional building is unsustainable. Thus, a centralized project—conceived and designed to allow buildout—should not be implemented. It will only increase growth pressures at the same time it causes a major disruption to a water basin already under stress from accelerating seawater intrusion moving through the large lower aquifers-–--–-9/10ths of total basin capacity—at 700 feet per year. Los Osos should not be held captive to decisions made in the 20th Century, which threaten resource substantially in the 21st Century. Therefore we are asking you to use your authority to have Resolution 83-–-13 rescinded.
How this project drives unsustainable growth
As our members of the LOSG have pointed out in the past, this project drives unsustainable growth by being so expensive that property owners and public officials will support more growth just to have the costs reduced. This is one way the County is promoting more growth. Recently, we’ve heard the County is preparing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and applying for a “Sustainable Community” grant for a “study” of sustainable water supplies. This “study” will undoubtedly find that there is enough water in the basin for build out. To support this finding, the study will undoubtedly provide “proof” in the form of a hydrological study that relies on modeling. In the 1980s and 1990s, rather than limit growth, the County relied on revised models, which “proved” the basin could sustain more growth—and 20 years later we have a critical seawater intrusion problem. It is time to stop this cycle of resource overuse in Los Osos. We do not have the luxury in the 21st Century to sponsor growth at the expense of resources, nor do we have the luxury to install a $190 million wastewater project whose only verifiable benefit is to allow building, both of which set Los Osos on a course toward disaster.
How the Request for Revocation is organized
Our request for revocation entitled Request for Revocation of the LOWWP CDP is divided into for parts:
Part I: “Agencies intentionally provided the Commission inaccurate and incomplete information that would have required additional or different conditions or denial of the permit.” [Violation of Coastal Commission Administrative Regulation 14 CCR § 13105 (a)]
Part II. The project’s adverse impacts and risks far outweigh its benefits.
Part III. “Property owners adversely affected by the project were not notified and given a chance to comment.” [Violation of Coastal Commission Administrative Regulation 14 CCR § 13105 (b)]
Part IV. “The Commission failed to comply with the Coastal Act and CEQA due to inaccurate, erroneous, or incomplete information. (The CCRWQCB and SWRCB also violated CEQA.)
(Please also see “Outline of Request” and previous related letters/emails attached or on disc.)
If our Request for Revocation is denied, we ask that the Commission provide specific reasons and the specific evidence (documents) used as the basis for the decision. Again, we regret any inaccuracies or inconsistencies in our request. We have done the best we can to cover the issues within a timeframe that avoids harm to resources. If Commissioners or Commission Staff notice errors or inconsistencies, we request that they are pointed out. We will clarify or correct them.
We thank for your consideration of these important issues.