Calhouns Can(n)ons

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Hey, It’s The Stealth Septic Management Plan For SLO County!
Remember some time ago the Regional Water Quality Control Board was stealthily upgrading the re-writing of its onsite rules for the whole County (You’re All Los Osos Now! Bwa-hahahah!) for all things septic. Well, there’ll be an EIR scoping workshop on the matter:

Friday, Nov 14, 20087 1-4 pm.
RWQCB Hearing Room
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
SLO, (near airport.)

Any questions, call Sorrel Marks @ 549-3695 or email at smarks@waterboards.ca.gov or view a draf t stealth report at www.waterboards.ca.gov/

If you don’t comment now, you’ll be stuck with whatever the Board decides to vote in and you’ll permanently lose any say in the matter. Remember what happened to Los Osos. If you live in this country and you’re on septic systems, you’d better pay attention. This one’s for YOU!

Ah, I See My Previous Posting Got Somebody All Riled Up.

It’s like Pavlov. Ron rings the bell and, kavoom! Out of the box. But I’m serious. Let’s have the bankruptcy judge and or the CSD’s bankruptcy lawyer or the CSD’s regular attorney or the new CSD Board Majority (Joe, Maria, Marshall) write a formal letter to the state AG, good ol’ Jerry Brown, and ask for a ruling IN WRITING as to the legality of using SRF monies for playground amenities & such like if they’re next to a sewer plant. Or whether , if those “amenities” weren’t kosher but they were run through anway by somebody even though it wasn’t kosher so maybe somebody needs to check into the matter to see who did what and where and how it all happened? Otherwise, every darned community in the state will start applying for SRF monies to build tot lots and playing fields located next to THEIR sewerplant upgrades. Plus, formally getting a legal ruling in writing from the AG would scotch ol’ Ron Crawford for sure, wouldn’t it? And that’s sure to make some folks happy.

And Now, Something Amazing

This from the October 13 New Yorker, an article Thomas Mallon, that discusses all things Linconish, and, among other things, the Lincoln Memorial. It notes that, “In 1909, the Reverend L.H. Magee, the pastor of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Springfield, Illinois, voiced his disgust at the exclusion of blacks from the town’s centennial dinner, but imagined that by the time of the bicentennial, in 2009, racial prejudice would be “relegated to the dark days of ‘Salem witchcraft.’” Next year’s Lincoln commemorations in Washington will include the reopening of Ford’s Theatre, restored for performances for the second time since 1898, when it’s interior collapse, killing twenty-two people. Congress will convene in a joint session on February 12,th, and on May 30th the still new President will rededicate the Lincoln Memorial. . . . "

While the Reverend L.H. Magee was only half right about Salem witchcraft being relegated anywhere (alas) , even he couldn’t possibly have imagined just who would be officiating at that bicentennial rededication of Lincoln’s memorial. Pretty amazing.

20 comments:

Richard LeGros said...: Ann,

Regarding the use of SRF money for park amenities.

The use of the SRF funds for park amenities in normally not permitted UNLESS the installation of such amenities is required by the PERMITTING AGENCY (in this case the CCC).

When the CCLO argued before the CCC that the Tri-W project only included the land for a park without any amenities, the CCC AGREED with them. The CCC made the inclusion of the park amenities part of the Coastal Development Permit. The CSD was obligated, in order to get the permit, to install the park amenities.

At that point the SWRCB allowed the use of SRF loan money for the park amenities, as the amenities were now part of the Coastal Development permit issued by the CCC.

To sue the State over this issue would not prevail. Also, you can thank Julie, Lisa, Chuck, Steve and John for the additional expense sandbagged onto the Tri-W project on this issue. They got what they wanted....only to argue later that they felt it unfair that the PZ rate payers had to pay for the park! The moral here...be careful what you wish for.

-R; 8:52 AM, November 11, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: ann thinks we should, "ask for a ruling IN WRITING as to the legality of using SRF monies for playground amenities & such…"

Ann, should this accompany the lawsuit as to the legalities of using SRF monies to pay crony lawyers?; 11:05 AM, November 11, 2008
Churadogs said...: ah, yes, dat old bait and switchy. Gosh, hope Ron checks in. Think he's already covered what the CC was told about the amenities being a strongly held community value, even though there was absolutly no evidence of that at all, anywhere, except for a NO vote on a minisucle tax for recreation services. Poor Ron thinks the CC was deceived. Near as I can tell, Steve Monowitz, the staff of the CC, was in the dark about that strongly held community values & etc. Hmmmm, interesting.; 3:38 PM, November 11, 2008
Unknown said...: ....deceived...????

You mean like the way the community was "deceived" by the CSD and the phoney agreement with the PZLDF...????

None of the CSD5 apparently hads any Values, community, nor moral, simply their own egos...!!!; 3:51 PM, November 11, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ann and Ron,

'Bait & Switchy' or 'Highly Held Community Values' are not legal terms; or do they mean anything to the courts. Just beause there are those that 'feel' that something was 'B&S' that a 'HHCV' did or didnot existe does not mean that illegal acts occured.

Please understand that, as the lead governmental agency on the WWTF, the CSD had every legal right (based upon whatever information they beleived) to establish a 'HHCV' to formulate a 'SOC'(Statement of Overriding Concerns) through which to shape a project EIR. Heck, the County is doing the same thing today; except their project criteria is different.

As I wrote before, once the Final EIR was approved (which included the 'SOC'), it became codified. The FEIR cannot be voided or undone; and any chance to challenge the EIR passed long ago. You may do a supplimental EIR to the FEIR or a new EIR, but you cannot void an approved FEIR.

To attempt to sue the State you would have to void the FEIR; which is impossible.

I hope this explains why a lawsuit aganst the State based upon:

1. Asserting illegal actions by the CSD because you believe the CCC believed the Tri-W project was 'B&S' (which the CCC did not as they issued the CDP)

or

2. Asserting the LOCSD's actions were illegal because they acted upon a 'HHCV' (which you question)resulting in a 'SOC' incorporated into the FEIR.......

......would fail legally.

Nuff said about this issue.

Anyway, keep those ideas coming. Hopefully one will result in a doable way to return money Los Osos.

-R; 4:36 PM, November 11, 2008
Churadogs said...: I suppose the question is, is it legal to base a SOC on information you know to be false, because you have no data to back it up, you just made it up as a part of an advertising/campaign strategy. Like, make up a lie, assert it on the formal SOC paperwork, present this to the CC, for example, as "fact," keep a straight face and if they believe it as fact -- because you've asserted that what you're telling them is true and factual and accurate, they rule one way, only to find out later that the "fact" wasn't a fact at all? You mean, like that?; 6:40 AM, November 12, 2008
Ron said...: Ann wrote:

"Poor Ron thinks the CC was deceived."

And the reason I think that, is because former Coastal Commission staffer, Steve Monowitz, told me that.

Ann:

"Near as I can tell, Steve Monowitz, the staff of the CC, was in the dark about that strongly held community values & etc. Hmmmm, interesting."

Monowitz should be the first person deposed.

Jerry Brown's office needs to subpoena him, put him under oath at a simple deposition, and ask him this question:

"Do you feel that you were lied to by the Los Osos CSD regarding the rationale for the siting of the Tri-W project?"

Monowitz, under oath, will answer that question, "Yes."

Not only would he answer, "Yes," but, knowing Steve, it's my guess that he'd be happy to do that deposition.

And once Monowitz answered, "Yes," to that question, well, then, it's on.

Everything "bait and switchy" would immediately be exposed after that.

MEMO TO JERRY BROWN: One person, one deposition, one question. C'mon, buddy! How hard can that be? I'm handing it to you on a silver platter.

Monowitz was lied to by LOCSD officials, and those lies cost California taxpayers millions, upon millions, upon millions of dollars, and led to years of continued pollution to the State's water supply. You'd think the "Attorney General" of California might be a little interested in that... guess not.

Ann wrote:

"I suppose the question is, is it legal to base a SOC on information you know to be false, because you have no data to back it up"

No. That's not legal.

I wrote all about how the old SOC is also illegal, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-ought-to-be-law-part-ii-oh-wait.html; 8:11 AM, November 12, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Ron,

I believe there was a strongly held community value for recreation opportunities in Los Osos. You believe otherwise. The LOCSD told the CCC what they believed and if the CCC staff needed proof (and I'm not sure that any proof would be necessary except for the sewer foes who were throwing everything at the wall in an attempt to see what sticks) yet didn't ask for proof, it is not deception.

Ron, your refusal to even consider the question of costs is far more deceptive than the LOCSD saying "hey, we think people in town want more parks".

Ron, your actions, along with those of the folks who pushed for the recall have cost California taxpayers far more than what you are complaining about. The actions of the recall group have delayed the project longer than anything you are complaining about here. If you're gonna live in grass house, you shouldn't stow thrones!; 9:06 AM, November 12, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ann,

Regarding the SOC:
Park space is only one of MANY concerns of the SOC. If you read the FEIR: Part II – pages 11-14, there are seven (7) specific issues (concerns) which became the primary goals incorporated into the SOC; which became the guiding document which shaped the Tri-W Project. Those concerns are/were:

Improvement of Ground Water quality.
Maintaining water resources by returning treated waste water to the basin.
LOCAL control of the Ground Water Resources.
LOCAL control of growth and development issues by control of water issues.
Protection of existing estuaries.
Reduction of Salt Water Intrusion into the lower aquifer.
Park space.

As I wrote earlier, the SOC and FEIR are now codified and cannot be challenged or voided.

To today take issue (and file a lawsuit about ) the basis on which these concerns (including park space) were determined is not relevant as the CSD had every legal right to use whatever data they saw fit in forming the SOC. A lawsuit over the data basis they used to determine the park space aspect would not survive in court; and probably be demurred immediately.

-R; 9:58 AM, November 12, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Shark,

You state to Ron: "...the folks who pushed for the recall have cost California taxpayers far more than what you are complaining about.."

Shark, who REALLY cost the California taxpayers?

Answer: THE STATE WATER BOARD FOR LOANING OUT THE $6.5 MILLION KNOWING THAT THE RECALLED CSD HAD NO 218 VOTE AND THEREFORE THEY HAD NO DEDICATED SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR REPAYMENT. IF THEY HAD NOT LOANED OUT MONEY ILLEGALLY THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE ALL THIS DEBT!!!!!! (AND RICHARD, STAN AND GORDON COULDN'T HAVE STARTED ANY PROJECT); 10:15 AM, November 12, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Richard,

Were you fooled by Blakeslee too?!?; 10:16 AM, November 12, 2008
Ron said...: Richard wrote:

"At that point the SWRCB allowed the use of SRF loan money for the park amenities, as the amenities were now part of the Coastal Development permit issued by the CCC."

Richard, it's surprising how ill-informed you are, and if that's what Seitz believes, then he's wrong too, just like Darrin Polhemus was wrong when he told me the exact same thing in 2005.

I'm right, because the SRF Policy tells me I'm right.

It reads:

"Eligible:

e. Mitigation measures (except for land) mandated by State and/or Federal agencies;"

Notice how that doesn't say:

"Mitigation measures (except for land) that are listed in the project's development permit..."

No. Instead, it goes further, and much more specific:

"Mitigation measures (except for land) mandated by State and/or Federal agencies;"

And I can show, clearly, obviously, how it is impossible for the picnic area in the Tri-W sewer plant to be considered "mitigation," because it was "mandated" by the Coastal Commission... impossible.

According to that same development permit, Richard and Co. (a.k.a: the 2004 LOCSD Board) agreed to "reincorporate" the multi-million dollar park in 2004, after they were caught in their little "bait and switchy" scam.

So, obviously, how can the park be "mandated by State and/or Federal agencies," if Richard's Board "agreed to reincorporate" the millions, upon millions of dollars worth of park crap?

If they "agreed to reincorporate," obviously, they could have agreed NOT to reincorporate.

That makes it impossible for the CC to have "mandated" it. Im-freaking-possible.

I'm right. They State (and Richard, of course) is wrong. It's a slam dunk case.

And, the only reason that silly park ended up as a condition of approval in the permit to begin with, was BECAUSE of "bait and switchy."

But, to be absolutely, positively, 100-percent sure, that ridiculous park in the Tri-W sewer plant was NEVER, ever "mandated" by the Coastal Commission, just ask Steve Monowitz, like I did.

I mean, think about it. Do you really think the CC "mandated" a picnic area in a sewer plant? (You have no idea, Richard, how much it pisses them off when you guys say stupid things like that.)

Trust me, the SRF Policy and I are right. And Richard, and Seitz, and Polhemus, and Evoy are wrong.

And, because I'm right, Los Osos is about to save more than $6 million dollars, thank you very much.

This is about to get awesome...(er)!

Richard wrote:

"Park space is only one of MANY concerns of the SOC."

Wow... Rich, you really gotta tighten up your act, my brutha.

You're wrong again.

Straight from my piece:

"In their Statement of Overriding Considerations, the LOCSD concluded:

'An in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations because:

- It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served: and

- It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos;'

And that's it... the reasons stop there. Just those two are listed. And that's all it took to toss the entire environmental review process for the Los Osos wastewater project out the window -- a process that showed that sites downwind and out of town were "environmentally preferred," and, turns out, are much, much, much cheaper.

And, as I also show in my piece, how that "lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility" take is hilarious.

Back then, according to CSD figures, it cost about $3 million for the extra pipe to take everything out of town, and, according to recent county figures, it cost about $30 million to accommodate a sewer plant in the middle of town.... spend a dollar to save a dime.

Hilarious.; 10:44 AM, November 12, 2008
Ron said...: One mo' thing, because, I noticed that Richard said something else stupid:

"A lawsuit over the data basis they used to determine the park space aspect would not survive in court; and probably be demurred immediately."

Now, I know how fond Taxpayers Watch is of their lawsuits, but, Richard, not everything has to result in a hair-trigger lawsuit.

So, calm down, take a breath, and listen for a change:

There will be no lawsuit. Here's why:

If Jerry Brown were to simply go to Darrin Polhemus and Barbara Evoy, and ask them whether the State should immediately settle my challenge out of court, or should the State take it all the way to court, I'm as certain as I can be, that Polhemus's and Evoy's response will be the same: "For the love of God, settle this thing out of court as quickly, and as quietly as you possibly can!"

Think about it. Put yourself in their shoes, it's fun:

In 2005, you made the decision to fund an elaborate, multi-million dollar park for Los Osos, while other communities, like Mariposa, couldn't get a dime of SRF money for their badly needed, amphitheater-less, sewer plants.

What option would YOU take if YOU were Darrin Polhemus or Barbara Evoy?

Would you want to go to court and discuss all of that... in detail, or would you want it to go away as quickly, and as quietly, as possible?

The way I see it, about three well-placed phone calls, from a well-informed Sam Blakeslee should do the trick.

$6 mil saved. Easy enough.; 11:13 AM, November 12, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1:21 PM, November 12, 2008
Unknown said...: ...maybe osos change will share with Ron.... meds that is....; 1:50 PM, November 12, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Hi All,

NEWS OF THE DAY

The Federal Court has upheld the CSD's Summmary Judgment Motion against the CSD's insurance carrier.

This means that the insurance carrier must pay ALL legal defense costs (but not indemnifications costs when awarded) of the CSD5 as they respond to the TW lawsuit.

The ruling also means that the LOCSD will no longer have to pay for the CSD5's legal defense out of district funds (reserves); and that the district will be reimbursed the legal expenses it has paid to date regarding the TW lawsuit.

This is good news for Los Osos taxpayers, the LOCSD and TW as district funds will no longer be used by the CSD5's legal costs.

If you wish for a copy of the ruling, please email me at archRBL@aol.com

-R; 3:24 PM, November 12, 2008
Churadogs said...: So, if, for example, TPW loses it's case against the CSD5, does it have to pay the court costs, i.e. reimburse the insurance co's expenses, or does TPW get a free pass on this one, i.e. doesn't have to pay a penny, win or lose?; 8:17 AM, November 13, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ann,

If TW loses, it MIGHT be required to pay COURT COSTS. The DEFENSE COSTS are borne by the CSD5 / the insurance company.

Court costs would be around $5000.

Please realize that if TW wins, vice-versa regarding costs. There is not a 'free pass' for either the plaintiffs or the defendants.

-R

PS: Do you want a copy of the Federal Court ruling?; 9:33 AM, November 13, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: So win or (more likely) lose on the PZLDF case the CSD pays.; 12:02 PM, November 13, 2008
Churadogs said...: Richard, re the ruling. Sure. Send it along to the email above.(at the top of blogsite heading)Greg will forward it to me. Thanks.; 3:33 PM, November 13, 2008

Pages

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

20 comments: