Nice Work If You Can Get It . . .
Ah, sweet! Little Tribune “CountyRoundup” notice: “The former general manager of the Los Osos Community Serviced District may head to Nipomo. Bruce Buel, who was placed on administrative leave by the Los Osos district’s board in October, would work as an assistant to Nipomo’s general manager, Michael LeBrun.”
The pay for the new job? $84,000, plus benefits. This on top of the $94,000 a-year paycheck he’s still getting from his original CSD contract.
Sweet! And who said this train wreck was a disaster?
Not known is whether Nipomo will wait to hear from the local District Attorney. He’s trying to figure out how it came to pass that Bruce signed a contract with the engineering firm, Watson Montgomery Harza, on behalf of the CSD before he had even been hired and before the CSD Board even voted to approve the money. Ah, well, it's just one of those little Los Ososian puzzles that litter our little town that remain to be solved.
Over at http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/, Ron Crawford has posted his complaint to the local Grand Jury. In it, he “alleges that the initial CSD Board of Directors, subsequent Directors up to 2005, and staff members, deliberately misled, from 2000-2005, the County of San Luis Obispo, the California Coastal Commission and the Regional Water Quality Control Board that a ’strongly held community value’ exists in Los Osos that any wastewater treatment facility must also double as a ‘centrally located’’ recreational asset.’
“Evidence shows that the initial CSD Board manufactured that ‘strongly held community value, in an attempt to coerce regulators into approving the ‘centrally located’ Tri-W site as the location of their second proposed wastewater treatment facility/public park, even though evidence shows there was no rationale to site the second faciity at Tri-W.”
Well, good luck to him. I hope the Grand Jury does look into this matter since that’s one of the great puzzles to this whole train wreck -- Just why the old board clung so ferociously to the that Tri-W site when it was clear to many there simply was no point to it once the Ponds of Avalon bit the dust.
If the Grand Jury is supposed to “investigate local government agencies and official to form a view as to whether they are acting properly,” then The Hideous Sewer Project is just ripe for a look-see.
Of course, whatever reports they end up writing usually get tossed in the trash can by the very people they’re reporting on – “Oh, thanks soooo much for this scathing report on my appalling incompetence and malfeasance. I’ll cherish it . . . right here in this round file with the old MacDonald wrappers and cigarette butts.”
So, while this would be a worthy project, I won't exactly hold my breath. Not in this county, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Churadogs said...
"Am I correct that the laws governing ESHA say that if another patch of land is environmentally better... it MUST -- not "may" -- MUST be chosen... Why didn't that send red flags up?"
Correct Ann, but not only did the old CSD concoct the "strongly held community value" like Ron is pointing out, but they lied to the Coastal Commission about feasble alternative locations.
The Coastal Commission said, in accordance with the Coastal Act and CEQA regulations, that the ONLY way they would allow the destruction of ESHA would be if it was the only alternative. So the CSD had to lie about Andre being infeasable or the Coastal Commission would have never allowed Tri-W. This is probably the most important point that come out of the Coastal Commission hearings.
Unfortunately the Coastal Commission didn't have the backbone to stand behind that when they had the chance to. Regardless of all the commissioner's comments about being misled and lied to by the old CSD, they were just tired of the Los Osos sewer and tried to put it to bed... too bad. Once again they became part of the problem instead of part of the solution. See you soon Coastal Commission.
As for Shark Inlet... where did he get his info from?? I've seen some wild stuff from him, but this takes the cake. What a complete mistatement of the truth. Starting to sound like Pandora...
Shark Inlet said...
"Because all of Los Osos is ESHA in the same way that TriW is"
Not true... there are non-ESHA areas of Los Osos, and there are more pristine ESHA areas than Tri-W... like the Broderson site. When you over simplify you lose credibility.
"the Andre site (or any "out of town" site) is Ag land, there are conflicting mandates."
Andre is non-prime ag land and in no way can be compared to most of the other land in the Los Osos Valley. To mislead people into thinking Andre is not feasable due to it being Ag land is truly mistating the facts and more of the same of what we got from the old CSD.
"The least damaging site that doesn't reduce Ag land is what must be selected."
ESHA over non-prime ag land... who are you kidding.
"The coastal commission staff agreed that TriW was better than Andre."
NOT TRUE... are you dillusional?? Did you even watch the hearings??
The policies and procedure that are in place to guide a community to a proper decision depend on truth and full disclosre of the facts. People like Shark Inlet are very dangerous. And if we dont flush out the lies very aggressively this time around, they will again taint the process.
To Play Devils Advocate here, this project is both very complex AND very simple. But it always needed accurate information for the people to make the correct decisions. Instead, what we've been too often given is spin, partial information, incorrect information, missing information, etc. so it's no wonder it's all a muddle in peoples' minds. Plus, whe words used or not used tend to get us into trouble as well. As I pointed out, you can't say anything bout this issue without trailing miles of footnotes and addenda. One simple example will suffice: "The Andre Property." What it should have been refered to from day one was either so-called Andre Property, or out-of-town-somewhere-near-the-so-called-Andre-Property and so forth. Reason? Because at least ONE parcel was later found out to be unusable because of PG&E easments. That was refered to as The Andre Property and then rightly claimed it was unbuildable WITHOUT also mentioning that there were OTHER parcels out there that might be usable. So the words used were used to conceal reality, not clarify or reveal. Always a problem.
Good point Ann.
To anonymous, let me just say that you also make a good point ... that we can sometimes get sloppy with our words and such oversimplification (often for the sake of clarity) may mislead.
That is not my intention.
Besides that I am troubled that anyone in Los Osos would call me dangerous because of my opinions. While I disagree with Ann about a whole lot of stuff on this issue and while I think many of her opinion bits are misleading I think that a healthy discussion about the issues will help people make up their own minds.
As to you specific points ... TriW is not "prime ESHA" in the same way that Andre or "Andre II" (as Ron calls it) is not prime Ag land. TriW (before the recent grading work) had nearly entirely non-native species plant species on it. If it was ESHA for critters it wasn't because of the plants and presumably it could now be restored to some state even better than what it was before the grading. Native plants could be planted. Native=better.
All around Los Osos the plots of land large enough to accomodate the size plant we were discussing are either Ag or ESHA. (If you claim otherwise, you've got to identify the site.)
In this case we've got to choose what is least bad. Putting a plant on a plot of land that the County had already zoned for housing (or retail, I forget) isn't all that different from the point of view of losing the "ESHA" land. Similarly, putting a plant on "Andre II" isn't all that bad.
The coastal commission staf report (see Ron's sewerwatch website ... he's got a PDF of the document there somewhere) agreed with the decision to go TriW. They saw no compelling reason to choose "Andre II" (then the "best" alternative site) over TriW.
Please get back to me with any errors you see in what I've written here. If I make any that can be verified, I would like to quickly correct them.
Re the coastal commission's cosing Adre II whatever that actually meant)over Tri W. Uh, the Coastal Commission asked for and never got a real side-by side evaluation of both sites and never asked why they didn't get it. So, claiming that they did their job won't fly. They didn't. They wanted this puppy off their table so just accepted zip and shoved it off.
As for picking Tri-W over "Andre" they were, as Ron pointed out, told that the intown site was needed because of an "overwhelming community value" of having a park in the middle of town so the sewer plant had to stay in the middle of town so a park could be built next to it. They never questioned whether that was a real claim or a bunch of hooey. And if I understand the ESHA rules, if there is another site than CAN be used, it MUST be used,not may or well, it's a personal choice sorta deal . . If the Coastal Commission had understood that the community really didn't give a hooey about having a park next to their sewer plant and a REAL side-by-side comparison of sites would have shown that the costs were either minimal or within hailing distance, then their vote would have been far different.
Regarding ESHA, the banded dune snail loves veldt grass, so even if the place is "degraded" with invasives, it's still considered prime habitat for endangered critters. There were also endangered plants & etc. something pointed out on the CSD prepared videotapes with Bruce & others yakking away at each site. So, just because a site looks cruddy doesn't, apparently, remove it from the ESHA regulations. And it's the regulations that dictate the various mitigations and footprint of whatever is put there. Even though the Tri W was first designated for housing, etc. it still would have come under ESHA regulations no matter what was put there.
As for some commentor calling you "dangerous." Feh, hyperbole. Part of some of the sophmoric Neener Neener Neener stuff that carries away folks who log on to blather at one another here.
Ann,
Perhaps you should jump over to sewerwatch for a moment and read the reply I gave to Ron. I cited CCC documents that show that CCC staff argreed with the LOCSD staff and board that TriW was preferable to "Andre" for environmental reasons.
Their key argument in 2002, 2004 and 2005 (they argued this all three times the issue of TriW vs Andre came up) is that even if there might be some benefits of Andre versus TriW these benefits are likely small, Andre might not even be feasible and additional delay from studying the situation to death is worse than continuing at TriW.
The key issue in ESHA is not whether the site looks cruddy but whether it is in good, moderate or degraded condition. As I've suggested, TriW may have been the only reasonable in-town site from the point of view of many many considerations.
You're arguing only two of them, ESHA and community value because you think that those points are on your side. As we've recently discussed, any oversimplification may be misleading. If you can show that there is a likelihood that another site is better than TriW in all considerations, you've won the case. However, no one here (or anywhere that I know of) who advocates the "move the sewer" position has pointed out a site that clearly meets all project goals better than TriW. Even if we remove the park as a goal, it seems to me from reading CCC, RWQCB and SWRCB documents that they all still viewed TriW as the best site.
If you would be so kind as to show us your favorite site and explain how it is better than TriW, we could have a great discussion. Even if you want to go back in time like Ron does, I still think the CCC documents are pretty clear. Ignoring the money (which is a huge issue for me) and the park (which I don't care about but Ron does) the further pollution caused by delaying the construction is a mistake.
Fuhget about it Shark. We must have the truth. Only when we have the truth, can we make the right decision. It doesn't matter if the truth takes 13 years to get. We must have the truth. It doesn't matter if the aquifer gets totally saline, so much as we have the truth. We must delve into the depths of the brains of ex-CSD people to know what they were thinking - only then will we be fulfilled.
Just a friday for a little facetiousness.
To Inlet. So far as I know, there never was a real, serious evaluation of the "out of town" site. The only reference to it in the de-novo document is a few sentences that are guestimates. Steve Monowitz emailed me that the reason there was no serious side-by-side comparisons (even thought he CC specifically asked for that) was that the CC staff "ran out of time." That's an incredible statement on a project as complex and serious as this one. The CSD could have done a serious evaluation but never did. I have to believe that it was a case of hidden agenda (wanted the in-town park, & using the locked in limited size of the plant to control growth -- Semonson's statement -- and so forth.) So they never were serious about considering other sites. Interestingly, they were also never serious about allowing a vote on any other site, either, as in, prepare detailed side-by-side costs and then put it to a Prop 218 type vote. They were asked to do that again and again and absolutely refused.
Ann,
There were preliminary feasibility studies (the kind the current board has proposed doing) on many possible sites.
You are referring to the 2004 point in time with your de novo document comment. The CSD had already tackled the possible out of town sites pre-2002. They had given enough information to the CCC that the CCC had concluded (by 2002) that the out of town site possibility wouldn't necessarily be better but that the delay would cause considerable pollution.
Hell, even if it was a hidden agenda and the previous board was lying up the wing-wang, by the time we got to 2004, TriW and soon was far better than out of town and the associated delay and additional costs. The CCC staff felt that back in 2002 the case for TriW was clear.
If you think it was an error for the previous board to not do a side-by-side comparrison of costs and other issues, you must certainly feel angry with this board's unstated intention to not allow us information on how much better TriW would have been (or could still be) than any out of town site.
After all, if your reason to vote against TriW is that we were not given all the information, you must be awfully damn pissed that this new board is going to keep us from the same information.
Please verify.
I'm missing something here, about the new board "keeping" information about Tri W from the public? Information about Tri W is A GIVEN, all there in the value engineering reports, bid conttracts, etc. Except for the deferred costs and guestimates about O&M&R costs, Tri W is right there in the cost sheets in the CDS office ready to compare with whatever other plans are costed out. So, I don't understand this idea that Tri W is kept from the public? I'm missing something here.
What I am afraid this board will do is to thoroughly study all other choices (because "Measure B prohibits TriW") and once Measure B is struck down, we'll get a report showing which is the "best" option and that the "best" option won't be TriW because TriW was excluded from consideration. Then, when people ask "hey, wasn't TriW a quicker and cheaper option?" the board will say that it didn't meet some key project objectives which the other locations would meet (and this would only be the case if they choose not to study how TriW could be adapted) and now we need to "move forward" and "the past is PAST" and it would take too much time to redesign TriW.
No, it seems that this board is laying the groundwork in many ways to "move the sewer no matter how much it costs."
You, yourself told us when the WilDan contract was awarded where they were going to study all the sites and technologies (you know, the one where nothing happened that we know about), that TriW would be compared to all the other sites and we would know that it was more expensive.
That didn't happen.
The more time that passes, the more all of these projects will cost (due to inflation) and less the advantage TriW has over the others. Don't get me wrong, it will still have some real advantages, but the cost differential will shrink.
Essentially, this board could include TriW in the RFP for only a few bucks more. The only reason to not include TriW is a false presumption that TriW is somehow illegal or that it was "rejected" by the community.
Holy Moley. Your description of what you think the new board will do vis a vis Tri-W sounds EXACTLY like the process the OLD board used to exclude any out of town sites, i.e. the out of town sites were excluded because they didn't meet the "strongly held community value," and now you fear that TriW will be excluded because they were "rejected" by the community & etc. Apparently you had no problem with that process when the old board used that method, but do have a problem with the same process now? Again, I'm missing something.
The old board did a thorough review of all possible sites over a two year period where public comment was invited. That we ended up with TriW because the engineers and accountants determined it was the best and least expensive of the various options is something you seem reluctant to believe.
What evidence do you have that would convince me that TriW was somehow unfairly favored over other sites?
At least I noted that the RFP voted on last Thursday specifically excluded TriW from consideration and that Lisa told us that TriW was off the table. This board has made their bias quite clear.
The out of town site was repeately rejected because it didn't have the strongly held communhity values of centrally located amenities. That requirement was weighted in the initial studies (weighted by the original CSD) and constantly kept cropping up all the way along in the reviews. The Coastal Commission requested but never got a detailed side by side comparison of the in-town and out of town. In the de-novo report, the CC staff inserted a couple of lines noting that the out of town site would likely be a million less or 5 -6 million more.
That price difference was always availble yet was never presented to the voters. What prevailed with the CSD is that heavily weighted "strongly held community value," a strongly held value the community never had an opportunity to vote on.
As for Tri-W being off the table, I have to presume it's off the table because The People voted to take it off the table via Measure B.
That's the difference I see between the two Boards. One never allowed a (vote)choice, the other is following the requirements of a citizen initiative that actually was voted on, an initiative that eliminates Tri W along with other sties that don't meet Measure B's criteria.
Now, if the citzens want to put Tri-W back on the ballot, they need to pass another initiative that specifcally modifies the old Measure B, thus allowing Tri-W back on the list.
So, why don't they do that? Inlet,you could lead the charge to get such an initiative going since you clearly feel that the citzens should be allowed to vote on any and all selected systems with no a priory restrictions. Seems like that would be an excellent use of your time. I bet you'd get 1,000 signatures in no time and the matter could be put on the ballot within the legal time frame and voted on.
Ann, please explain how Measure B precludes consideration of Tri-W for the old plant, or for any new plant at the site.
After you explain that, please explain what sites would be valid under what law and jurisdictions and constraints(county, coastal, etc.), and explain why they are valid sites.
For the sake of argument, I'll contend that TriW would still have been favored, even without a park.
Closer to the center of town means fewer miles of pipe means less money for putting in the collection system. Furthermore, the further the WWTF is from Broderson (the best disposal site) the more expensive for the same reason.
The de-novo report indicated that before considering delays and increased costs because of delays and increased pollution because of delays "Andre" would likely be more expensive. If we incorporate inflation and pollution into the equation, the CCC approval of TriW and regular rejection of your claim (made by CCLO some three times) makes perfect sense.
Did people really vote TriW off the Table by Measure B? Really? I would argue that if the aspect of the Measure that would seem to suggest TriW would be off limits may, in fact, not be legally binding a month from now. Furthermore, considering Measure B blended two (or more) issues into one proposal, we don't know that, in fact, a majority of voters actually wanted TriW off the table. I know of a few who didn't mind TriW, per se but thought it would be a good idea to allow citizens to vote.
If you asked people today whether they want TriW on the table or not ... what would they say? I would suggest that the majority would want to allow TriW if the could save money. (Heck, Lisa told us this herself ... that she didn't mind TriW if the cost was lower.)
No, citizens don't need to have another inefficient, timely and possibly confusing measure on the ballot. We simply need to allow the courts to clarify which aspects, if any, of Measure B are binding. I've been advocating this since the election. This board has refused to seek such clarification, not because they are forbidden from doing so by the measure but because they find it convenient that Measure B appears to preclude a TriW WWTF.
Nope, this board is plain and simple biased against TriW, even if it is the least expensive and even if it would provide the best way of reducing nitrates and reducing groundwater intrusion. Why? I can't tell you why they would be afraid both of science and the will of the people. Makes no sense to me ... unless, of course, they simply care more rubbing the previous board's nose in the mess that has been created than in solving the problem.
Let me harp on one idea yet again. Had this board, back in October, been willing to get the legal issues of Measure B resolved as quickly as possible, the SWRCB and RWQCB would have been far more likely to work with us. Instead, this board choose to take a confrontational approach with both the state and regional people because they claimed that Measure B prevented TriW. What if a judge rules in two months time that Measure B doesn't forbid TriW. This board will have pissed away our loan, incured fines and refused to compare other possible sites to TriW, all in the name of "well, we thought it was binding." To me it seems pretty dumb to make plans for the future that don't allow for flexibility to deal with easily forseen possibilities.
Post a Comment