A Letter To The Supes
I sent the following to the Board of Supervisors. On Tuesday, they'll be voting on whether to delay certifying the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC )on the Santa Margarita Ranch development project or whether to lock it in as is forever.
I find it really interesting that this project, if the SOC is certified, will be described as "essential" for the "public good." Let's see, some really nice high end homes, a golf course, a dude ranch, and B&B, craft studios and galleries and shops are considered "essential?" Really? That's not a word that comes to mind. "Nice," maybe, but "essential?" No. To me "essential" is sewage treatment, clean water, safe bridges, roads, secure water sources, hospitals, schools, public parks, and such like. But golf courses? High end beautiful homes for those who can afford them? A dude ranch? Naw.
Well, Tuesday afternoon will tell.
Dear Sirs,
I would urge you to delay a final vote on the Santa Margarita Ranch project. Once some of the more serious, still contentious points are finally settled, the project will be nice but hardly “essential” for the “public good.” And that SOC that had better be right or else you run the risk of turning Santa Margarita into another Los Osos.
As you recall, the SOC for the Los Osos Wastewater Project (which was later rescinded as being false or incorrect or not accurately supported) contained at least one demonstrably false statement – there was no “strongly held community value” requiring a sewer plant be put in the middle of town. The Coastal Commission had a chance to set that right but, in the name of expediency, failed to do so – remember Chairman Potter and his “bait and switch” comment, which should have resulted in red flags being tossed down on that play immediately.
A delay at that point could have determined how correct that SOC really was, but the CC couldn’t be bothered. They just wanted the thing off their plate. The result was a disaster for this community and an expensive mess for the county.
Please don’t let Santa Margarita become the next Los Osos with a papered-over incorrect or incomplete SOC. There are serious issues to be still be finessed and resolved by the next Board. I would urge you to let the new Board weigh in with their concerns. After all, they’re the ones who will have to live with any problems for a long, long time. The Santa Margarita development is one of those things that is too important not to get right since there can be no do over if you get it wrong.
Sincerely,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Ann wrote:
"And that SOC that had better be right or else you run the risk of turning Santa Margarita into another Los Osos."
It'll be interesting to see if the local chapter of the Sierra Club fails Santa Margarita like they failed Los Osos, when they fell asleep on that bogus SOC that the LOCSD popped out in 2001, and that allowed all of that ESHA at Tri-W to eventually be ripped apart for no reason whatsoever, along with the town.
I wrote all about that at this link:
http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-ought-to-be-law-part-ii-oh-wait.html
Excellent story.
Me, Peeje, The Pearl, and Poachman -- all on the exact same page. Beautiful.
Ann got me motivated:
A letter to the Supes, II
Thee are several issues to be considered regarding the development as proposed. One important one that I have not seen addressed by opponents of the project is this: If the project is approved, the developers will provide supplemental water to the area (Nacimiento) and annex to the CSA water system. They will make several water system improvements that are currently needed by the community and construct an intertie to provide a back-up system for the town.
If the ag cluster is not approved, the property owners will develop and maintain a full ag operation and pump the heck out of the ground water in the area, as would be their right. The town would then see serious ramifications in their marginal water supply.
Again, I understand that there are many issues regarding this project, but I would like to see some opponents to the Ranch at least acknowledge and address this key matter.
First word in previous post is "there" not "thee."
A pipeline is not the magic answer to water shortages, but rather a “pipeline to nothing.”
"The water supply is becoming less certain," state water resources Director Lester Snow said. (LA Times, Dec 16)
The great water grab is over.
We need to balance our water here at home-Reduce, Reuse, & Recycle
No new development should be allowed until we, as a community, fully address this issue.
The Nacimiento Water project is as certain as a surface water supply gets, and it is in our County, and managed by our County. It's volume is not dependent on the snow pack, like the State Water Project is.
Back to Santa Margarita Ranch, my understanding is that the Ranch is willing to annex to the CSA and make a redundent water supply, Nacimiento, available as back-up for the town in a future time of need. This is important to the town, since it's sole source of water, groundwater, is questionable and has been a serious problem in past drought years.
If the Ranch project is not approved, they will pump large quantities of water for Ag uses, the only uses that would be available to them, and this will likely have a negative effect on the Town's supply.
Again, this is a potentially serious consequence of denying the development that should be addressed--not ignored.
LO.Carrying Capacity (a new name for Jooooeeeyyy???) apparently is against ANY developement/growth anywhere in SLO County...
This would seem akin to not allowing any more people to live in SLO County... We have too many now to provide water and sewers for, isn't that what LoCC is trying to say...???
Then just who is going to tell a young couple that before they can conceive a baby, that they will have to be on a waiting list until someone dies or leaves SLO County... and God forbid any company create a few new jobs and bring in some workers from outside the County... maybe CalTrans will transfer a few out to make room, or Cal Poly could limit enrollment to 10,000, or the Men's Colony could be moved to Bakersfield...
I'm sure WaterSpout Mark has the perfect solution though... if not, he'll still bury this discussion in meaningless monolog and techno-babble followed by even more meaningless quotes...
TCG, you bring up a critical issue for the whole county/state/country: Water rights and laws a presently organized often conflict with best use/allocation issues and we often end up with the crazy scene in that "oil man" movie(can't think of the name) with Daniel Day Lewis screaming, "I drink your milkshake!" If Santa Margarita Ranch drinks up all of Santa Margarita(the town)'s water , what then? Should we now begin to separate out groundwater and (imported) lake (rain)water and snow water into urban vs ag?
One of the reasons I had hoped the BOS would delay on this (paper reports they've postponed any vote 'till Friday, with no reasonb given as to why Friday would be better than Tuesday or next year)is there seems to be a lot of seriously unresolved issues that should be settled before any SOC is signed, especially since the SOC seems to require a pretty steep level of "public good," which then requires definition: WHAT public? WHAT good?
Ann wrote:
"especially since the SOC seems to require a pretty steep level of "public good," which then requires definition: WHAT public? WHAT good?"
You know what the Santa Margarita Ranch development process is starting to look like to me? That the developers behind that project went to school on the Tri-W project.
It's the one thing that I (and Ann) feared most about the zero amount of accountability that occurred with the Tri-W mess -- if the LOCSD can pop out a made-up SOC, and get away with it, like they did, then why can't other developers?
The EXACT same thing is happening with the Ranch as did with Tri-W: The environmental review process didn't go their way, so the developers of those projects both went to the SOC card to have the entire environmental review process tossed out the window, so they could proceed with their projects.
It's REALLY starting to look like the developers behind the Ranch are using (using) their vague "public good" take, in the exact same manner that the 2001 LOCSD used their baseless "strongly held community value" take.
What sad, sad lessons the 1998 - 2005 Los Osos CSD has taught the development community:
-- The environmental review process didn't break your way? No problem. Just make up a 3-page SOC in an afternoon, and, whammo, that environmental review process is now meaningless.
-- Regulators unconvinced with your project. No problem? Just lie to them about some vague "public good," or "strongly held community value" notions, and, because they (along with the local media) are lazy, they'll buy it. They're not going to check to see if that crap's real.
Hey, and if you DO get caught, big whoop. As the Tri-W mess taught the development community, you can lie to regulators, and produce false documents, AND get caught doing it, and, even though those lies and fake documents cost California taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars, and ripped apart a bunch of environmentally sensitive stuff (along with the community fabric of a town), you'll never be held accountable, so just do it. Why not?
The Tri-W developers taught the Santa Margarita Ranch developers well.
I can't wait to see how SLO County develops in the future now that we have the Tri-W precedent on the books.
Buh-bye paradise.
It seems that Mike has nothing relevant to say once more, so he resorts to calling anyone who doesn't share his twisted view of ANYTHING, Joey. Mike, when will you grow up and realize there are people, unlike you, who have a brain and understanding of things other than your gossip, name calling, insults, stupid statements and misunderstanding of anything real? I would venture to say, by looking back at your past comments ......NEVER!!!!
Sorry franc... I live and pay taxes here... Do you...???
Do you even know Joey...??? I certainly do have a lenghty personal past and present with him... He is not the saint you apparently believe him to be...He is quite the opposite...!!!
Please do not presume to know what I am about, you just might be in error...
HaHaHa....LMAO...See you are still using your PI disguise and those helpful on-line spy services.... but as usual, you merely pooped in your panties... Try zeroing in on the area within the PZ...
Guess again you jerk... I'm amazed you can find your way home as drunk as you have been since the new CSD majority took charge...
...and keep taking those meds... Remember, as always... Quick and Final...
You don't live within the PZ, "Mike."
Prove that you are.
Ann wrote:
"oil man" movie(can't think of the name) with Daniel Day Lewis screaming, "I drink your milkshake!"
"There will be blood"
OsosChange,
Perhaps you should prove that you live in the PZ. After all, if Mike's residence is that important, it would be appropriate for you to give your name and address so that we can verify ...
Frankly, I don't think one's residence matters one bit on these issue but what should matter is the logic behind one's opinion. That being said, OsosChange, your fussing at Mike about who he is and where he lives is ... um ... pretty hollow ... without you being willing to reveal your name and address.
Osos Change, I've deleted your comment giving addresss and phone number. That's a no-no. Dont' do it again. If people wish to remain "anonymous" you're free to speculate as to their names, but no addresses. People, people, get a grip and please grow up.
Mark sez:"oil man" movie(can't think of the name) with Daniel Day Lewis screaming, "I drink your milkshake!"
"There will be blood""
Thank you, couldnt' for the life of me remember the name. But what the Day-Lewis character did to his rival's oil fields can be done with water. Stick a long straw into the general aquifer and suck it all up. None left for anybody else, hahahah. That's the present law, which is often a tangled mess and even if you go to court, like "Bleak House," you could be before the bar for GENERATIONS.
that's certainly something all of California needs to now pay attention to.
In California, courts have held that appropriation water rights may be limited under the public trust doctrine, a common law principle recognized by some courts, which holds that the public has access rights upon navigable waters and that navigable waters are held in trust for the use of the people. The public trust doctrine was invoked by the California Supreme Court in a case restricting the amount of water Los Angeles could divert from tributaries of Mono Lake. The case was filed by the Audubon Society and the Mono Lake Committee.
Post a Comment