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).
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.
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.
Posts
72 comments:
Read it. Understood it. Nothing to it.
"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."
If there are any inaccuracies or inconsistencies worth merit then they will be addressed. Any inaccuracies or inconsistencies that have been tossed in to either delay or stop the sewer, should be brought to light and chastised.
See, the problem with this is that the lead people in the LOSG have stated publicly and on more than one occasion, that a sewer is not needed and then a caveat of, it's barely needed. Take a look at Part II - The project's adverse impacts and risks far outweigh it's benefits. The train at the end of that line of track is an empty community because there will be no water and everyone will be forced to leave because we are living on a superfund, toxic land dump. Oh wait, LOSG and you don't believe in that science.
The problem with saying that all along people were concerned about the basin - irony is, in 1983, there really weren't enough houses to be that concerned about the basin but indicators pointed out that density would be a problem.
The train wreck from where many of us stand and watch is that the objections are a moving target. In 2005 it was move it; 1998 it was move it and we don't like what you want to build; in late 80's/early 90's - we flat out don't need it and the theme through it all - We don't want to pay for it!
Dragging 83-13 from one regulatory agency to a land use agency for re-evaluation in 2012 is absurd and out of process. The dig is that there wasn't sea water intrusion in the lower basin 20 years ago, it was in the upper basin because of the over pumping. 83-13 pointed out that it may be best to stop using that water due to poo in it - so purveyors dug deeper. The simple resolution to all of this is if LOSG is ok with drinking the upper aquifer without any treatment, and publicly state that, then do it! Turn off the lower wells and go back on the sole sourcing the nitrates on the top of the basin! I double dare you and if you won't tell the people publicly why you won'. M
odeling is the best tool that is out there right now and the LOSG is using no tools other than speculation and making the community look like a bunch of tools.
Love the line: Unsustainable growth....what growth? The growth happened in the 80's and that could have driven the cost down if we were going to pay 1980's prices. This is actually more annoying than I thought it was going to be but happy to read it. I didn't realize that protecting the environment was a "luxury" that we can't afford. In my opinion, we can't afford not to care about our resources and environment. Doublespeak police have been notified.
To Anonymous at 8:32 AM:
Paragraph 3 - Misleading statement. The LOSG has also promoted STEP/STEG collection, but has stated that the most affordable treatment would be from the wellhead combined with efficient septic management. They don't have a definitive stance of sewer preference.
Paragraph 4 - True. Despite indicators that density would be a problem, the County of San Luis Obispo permitted septic tanks shortly after the issue was discussed in 1983.
Paragraph 6 - Misleading. Resolution 83-13 didn't "point out that it may be best to stop using that water due to poo in it." A mandate or a resolution is not proof. It is a directive, and that directive is based on the assertion that nitrates are polluting the groundwater, not necessarily "poo."
Nitrates come from other sources that are not just human. Nitrates is a natural element of the ecosystem, including animal waste, algae production and chaparral vegetation.
Paragraph 8 - Unsustainable growth would be the byproduct of the sewer combined with additional factors. Growth is not happening now because of the moratorium, but there's no forecast for post-construction growth after 2014.
To Anon 10:15
Paragraph 3 - Misleading statement. The LOSG has also promoted STEP/STEG collection, but has stated that the most affordable treatment would be from the wellhead combined with efficient septic management. They don't have a definitive stance of sewer preference.-
Keith W. has stated publicly he is not in support of a sewer. STEP/STEG is not the most affordable to maintain for the property owner - costs over time are greater; can't do wellhead treatment without a waste water project. There has to be recycled water going into the ground before well head treatment can be permitted; again, can't do septic management when lot size is so small - complete infeasible.
Yes there are other causes of nitrate but the groundwater testing shows human contact with the groundwater - now in A,B,C and quite possibly D. Not just nitrates but caffeine, pharmaceuticals and household products. That's science and has been reported to the LOSG on multiple occasions and they have yet to respond to why or how it got there and what should be done about it. They also refuse to adequately address the impacts of the same products that seep into the estuary, which has also been proven. Not just with the Kitt study. I would like them to provide a plan for protecting the estuary from continuing seepage and the lack of oxygen in the estuary that is choking out the natural habitat. I would like to know their plan on the sustainability of the estuary and water supply and provide a conclusive model of their plan to protect those resources.
Yes, there is a forecast for post construction growth and it's in the Planning Department documents. There is the yet to be adopted Estero plan which caps growth and so does the Urban Reserve line, LCP and General Plan and protection of Ag Land. Also, the county uses resources as it's guideline for development and proving supply needs to be established before development can happen. LO is on the infill plan only. If LOSG and others bothered to read those planning documents then the fear of unsustainable growth could be addressed.
Frankly, looking back at what the county did post 83-13 and with very little growth since the late 80's, why keep looking backwards. New day and 30 years later. Nitrates are an indicator, not the single polluter and humans do contribute to the increase in nitrates due to food waste and toilet waste. Twisting the semantics of the intention of the mandate has cost an awful lot of time and an awful lot of money. I would like to know from the LOSG what their response is to the 3rd street well being taken offline awhile back due to ecoli and what they suspect that that ecoli is due to. Once we have these answers and many more to the many other questions I have for them, then they can comfortably stand before the CCC and the community with their irrefutable evidence and make their claims.
Until then, it's a high jack.
I'd like to call on the Sustainability Group to publicly state what their intentions are if/when (my guess is when)their request for permit revocation is dismissed by the Coastal Commission.
Anon at 11:43 AM:
Paragraph 2 - Misleading. According to minutes from BOS meetings in 2009 and 2010, Keith Wimer expressed support for STEP/STEG. Only last year did he say that a sewer was not necessary for Los Osos. He did, in fact, sign the "Stop the Sewer" petition, but has not ruled out STEP/STEG.
Second, according to TAC documents, STEP/STEG have varying costs for each homeowner, but there's no documentation to suggest "costs over time" are greater. That's an unsupported blanket statement.
Third, the LOCSD once had a septic management plan that was specifically deemed as "feasible" according to Rob Miller, former District Engineer. According to Miller, lot size issues could be mitigated. There's also a difference of opinion with septic management plans and there are different kinds of septic management. Again, blanket statement.
Paragraph 3 - Needs clarification. The current project is configured to remove nitrates, not human contaminants. With the sewer, there will still be caffeine, pharmaceuticals and household products in the water, which require removal. Also, wells in A, B, C and D are open and there's a possibility that human contact may not be synonymous with septic pollution.
Paragraph 4 - Misunderstanding. As Los Osos resident Frank Ausilio pointed out, there is no cap on growth. According to Planning Department documents, there is excess build-out projections that ratepayers would be paying for. But it's true that the LOSG has not addressed the documents specifically.
Paragraph 5 - Looking backwards has been counterproductive for Los Osos, true, but at the same time, the defining guidelines are outdated. 83-13 is nearly 30 years old. For a resolution to carry the necessity to guide a $190 million project forward, it needs to be updated -- semantic-twisting is unnecessary.
Also, the 3rd st. well being taken offline due to positive results of Total Coliform, not exclusively e. coli. Also, e. coli is a coliform species found in the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals, not exclusively human contamination. 20 years ago, wells near horse farms had excessively high e. coli coliform levels.
Some good points mixed in there, but a lot of assumptions are made.
What is closer to that well, horses or humans?
The main points brought out by another poster, another story was that the people voted for the 218 to pay for this, they chose gravity. Why a group thinks neither of those actions matter is really arrogant in my opinion.
The cap on growth is our lack of water to support it.
Who has taken Rob Miller's job?
State law prevents well-head clean-up without cleaning up the source of the pollution. Partial sewering was tried in 1999 and it didn't fly with the Water Board. Why would they have any inclination to re-write rules for Los Osos after 2 sewers have been stopped? Can LOSG respond to this?
Lynette,
Paragraph 2 - Half-true. Homeowners did vote for the 218 to pay for the sewer, but people who owned multiple properties voted ("stacking the deck") and County properties also voted.
Second, 34% of residents chose gravity collection based on a prejudicial survey question that three of five supervisors agreed was "biased" toward gravity.
The question was, "Two different collection systems are being considered: 'hybrid' gravity system and a STEP/STEG system. The Project team has found both options to be technically viable for Los Osos. A Project peer review by the National Water Research Institute also found the two systems are ‘functionally equivalent.’ However, the Draft EIR has determined that a gravity system has slightly less environmental impacts than STEP/STEG. A gravity system will also be less disruptive to individual properties and have less initial out of pocket costs for property owners, because it does not require the installation of new septic tanks in front yards, nor upgrading of your electrical panels. A STEP/STEG system might result in a lower overall project cost for property owners and residents but that is uncertain, especially considering the time required to design a new collection system and that further delays could jeopardize grant funding. Which system do you prefer?"
Out of the 34% return rate, 69% percent said they would "definitely" or "probably" prefer gravity. Statistically, 23.46% of homeowners voiced support for gravity collection. Hardly a majority. This is a talking point that has been repeatedly debunked.
Third, the LOCSD once had a septic management plan that was specifically deemed as "feasible" according to Rob Miller, former District Engineer. According to Miller, lot size issues could be mitigated.
Please point us to the document with Rob Miller's statement.
Paragraph 2 - The County had few properties to vote and so what if people had multiple properties. That is the method used to assess properties. Those with multiple properties may have voted no too.
Did anyone sue the County over the survey? NO. The uncertainty of what YOUR SPECIFIC COST would be, plus having the mess in your yard, rather than the street was what killed STEP. Slice and dice the numbers how you will, this is how it was decided. I didn't use the word majority.
"This is a talking point that has been repeatedly debunked."
By whom? 34% of homeowners took the time to vote. Almost 70% of those chose gravity. You invalidate this because only 34% felt it important enough to vote? Do you invalidate all elections or votes based on the apathy factor? That makes absolutely no sense.
85% of homeowners voted to assess themselves for a sewer. I'm sure you'll be able to invalidate that result as well?
Lynette,
1. There is no document. This was his opinion stated at a meeting in April 2005.
2. People with multiple properties voted overwhelmingly to assess themselves for the sewer, including County property.
3. Around the time the final community survey was released, County Project Team decided to eliminate STEP/STEG from the total cost comparison stage. The total cost would have most likely provided estimates for homeowners in the same way as County provided estimates for homeowners hooking up to a gravity sewer.
Also, you said something else that was false. You mentioned "the uncertainty of what YOUR SPECIFIC COST would be, plus having the mess in your yard, rather than the street was what killed STEP." That is an exaggeration akin to "Liar Liar Pants on Fire."
32% voted for gravity collection because of "minimal construction disturbance" and 27% for "easier on-site maintenance." There was neither a "uncertainty of specific cost" option nor a "least mess in your front yard" option in the survey. "Minimal construction disturbance" can refer to two things: (1) minimal disturbance in the street or (2) minimal disturbance for the homeowner.
The numbers aren't "sliced and diced."
Also, you stated "the people" chose gravity. A statistical majority is inferred from a statement, so your statements are still false.
Billy Dunne,
"You invalidate this because only 34% felt it important enough to vote?"
Misleading semantics. It's not that 34% felt the survey was "important enough" to vote. It was the fact that 34% of the entire town voted. That is statistically not a majority, whether or not people found the survey "important enough" to vote.
"Do you invalidate all elections or votes based on the apathy factor? That makes absolutely no sense."
True, except that the community survey was neither an election nor a ballot vote because it is a survey. In an election, the apathy factor doesn't change or invalidate the results. In an optional survey, that doesn't matter.
"How the Request for Revocation is organized
Our request for revocation entitled Request for Revocation of the LOWWP CDP is divided into for parts:"
I would suggest FOR is not FOUR. It would seem that if the Sustainability Group wanted to be taken seriously, they might have tried at least proof reading the cover letter.
As minor as that seems, the Sustainability Group apparently expects some sort of decision based on the strength of their text. If the "report" contains as many flaws as we have already seen pointed out, then the entire report becomes suspect as just another attempt to delay/stop any sewer in Los Osos. The apparent 5 months put into the request will probably be seen to have been wasted and duplicative effort. The Coastal Commission will in all likelihood, have another chuckle and round file it with no further comment needed. Keep in mind that the Commission has no requirement to even read that "Report", much less to provide direction to correct the errors and inconsistencies'. There is no requirement to even respond . The Sustainability Group is NOT a legal entity representing the community.
Go ahead; make your arguments for revocation to the CCC.
If the arguments have merit, the revocation will be issued.
If your arguments fail to persuade, and the revocation request denied, then please, please PLEASE end your efforts fighting the County's plan then and there to let the community move on.
Anon 5:22,
1. Unless you can point us to a meeting where this was said on camera, or provide a document signed by Rob, I would call this hearsay by an anonymous blogger.
2. The method used for our assessment is typical. Your distain for this method is noted, but how does that change anything?
3. Perhaps I did not make my statement clear enough. How would you cost out "averages" for a replacement walkway or wall? "Averages" on replacement landscaping or to expand an electrical box, or the cost to make legal the jury rigged wiring many residences have? Digging a 12 inch trench is a little easier to quantify. This trench cost cost would also be compared to the amount of destruction to a yard excavation of approx. 12 feet x 8 feet, plus the loss of usability of the land over the tank. Also, there were costs to the project that were never defined as to the number of double tanks needed to go under driveways on the many 25 foot lots. Property owners would be thinking of these things regardless of what the survey asked.
The survey determined the collection system. Neither of our opinions matters.
Lynette,
1. Fine.
2. It doesn't. Showing facts is not "disdain."
3. When STEP/STEG was installed in our cities and towns, Orenco calculated homeowner costs using a series of scenarios. Sometimes they would work with the city or town to absorb the costs. In other cases, homeowners were able to receive funding from grants to help pay for property costs.
"The survey determined the collection system."
False. The County determined the collection system in a vote on April 7, 2009 based on Public Works staff recommendation. One could argue that the decision was made before then by then-Public Works Director Noel King back in late 2006.
Despite three of the supervisors expressing concerns about the biased survey question, they unanimously voted for gravity collection. Survey results are not automatic mandates.
My opinions may not matter, but the facts are facts. People on the blogs tend to write emotionally about this issue, but the LOWWP is too complex to leave many of these opinions unchecked.
Flush and forget it. Doesn't get any simpler than that. For 30+ years we have made this waay too complex. Thanks to the few who won't quit fighting for their personal pet project(s), LO will have one of the most expensive sewers in the USA. We're tired of the stalling, just let the County build it as they now see fit!
What do you mean "will"? It's already the most expensive sewer per capita in the USA.
Anon 7:47,
2. What is your point then? A legal process brought about a legal result. A fact.
3. Work with the city or town to absorb the costs? What specifically does that mean? What grants would those be? I guess Orenco didn't convince enough people with their presentation. Seems vague to me anyway. It might be fine for people already convinced they wanted STEP though. You can't guarantee a grant up front and base doing a project on that. There just wasn't enough substance to make a good case. I think their giant cut-away tank scared a lot of people off too.
So you think that the Supes would have voted against the survey results? Their concerns were not weighty enough to cause them to vote NO. The Noel King argument wore out a long time ago.
If you enjoy hashing over old opinions, fine. But other than acting as a balm for disappointed STEP supporters, why should these opinions matter right now? There will be no second chance for STEP
Lynette,
Don't have a point per se. Just correcting your assertions as there are many.
Specifically, Orenco sometimes works with the local wastewater authority to help homeowners with the costs. It's not unprecedented. And grants are just one option out of several that STEP/STEG manufacturers present.
"So you think that the Supes would have voted against the survey results?"
Strange question. The April 7, 2009 staff report for the Los Osos wastewater project update had as part of its recommended actions: "Accept the monthly project update from County staff." The BOS wasn't voting for or against the survey results. The survey was simply part of the update.
"The Noel King argument wore out a long time ago."
That's not an argument. That's a statement of fact. In the initial project scope evaluations (2006), Gail Wilcox sent memos that included only gravity collection as the County's system of choice. Noel King reiterated the County's preference before the board around the same time.
"If you enjoy hashing over old opinions, fine."
No opinions have been stated. Just presenting the facts. Take it or leave it.
"But other than acting as a balm for disappointed STEP supporters, why should these opinions matter right now?"
Never said they did "matter."
Lynette, you are known for making a series of misleading comments about the sewer. Granted, some things you say are accurate, but most of your comments in this thread is inaccurate. It's fairly indicative of your statements about the sewer overall.
I should emphasize here that chances of the LOSG being successful in their revocation appeal is low. There's no reason to distort the record and exaggerate to help boost your case. You're getting what you want. Are you not satisfied?
To all who commented. Take a good look at what's been written here. Nothing has changed on the blog from my previous sewerish posting with all it's ridiculous, snotty-potty silly commentors behaving badly. Yet, take a look. All you Anonymice, the same Anonymice as before, were able to have an intelligent, sane, polite, fact-based discussion on the information posted. See? You actually DO have the capacity to behave yourselves. Congratulations.
Let's keep up the good work.
Anon 10:57 PM,
"There's no reason to distort the record and exaggerate to help boost your case."
Thanks to LOSG, I don't know if I am getting what I want, and actually, as you may recall, I was a supporter of Tri-W, so I hope that I am getting my second choice.
You keep asserting that I am inaccurate, yet you put out a statement about the chances of LOSG not being successful, which you cannot back up. As I have stated before, no one knows. I hope that you are right, but find this exercise at the 11th hour to be ill-considered.
BOS, April 7, 2009 F-1
This is the time set for an Update on the Los Osos Wastewater Treatment Project: a) Accept the monthly project update from County staff; b) Receive public comment on issues related to the Los Osos Wastewater Project; and c) Approve an amendment to the agreement for Engineering Consulting Services with Carollo Engineers of Walnut Creek in the amount of $100,000. (12:26 PM)
Staff Report
Correspondence
Chairperson Gibson: opens the floor to public comment.
Supervisor Mecham: outlines his reasons for not supporting the motion.
Thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Chairperson Bruce S. Gibson, seconded by Supervisor Adam Hill, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors: Chairperson Bruce S. Gibson, Adam Hill, K.H. 'Katcho' Achadjian, James R. Patterson,
NOES:
Supervisor: Frank Mecham
ABSENT:
None
The Board accepts the monthly project update from County Staff; receives public comment on issues related to the Los Osos Wastewater Project; and approves an Amendment to an Agreement for Engineering Consulting Services with Carollo Engineers of Walnut Creek, California for an additional amount of $100,000 and directs the Chairperson to execute the amended agreement.
So you see, there is an acceptance of the survey as it caused the BOS to spend $100,000 on Corollo to, "complete the collection system technical specifications for the design-build RFP, which is the project component with the best ability to utilize stimulus funding at this time."
Fine, Orenco works with local wastewater authorities. That is a very general statement. My point was this didn't resonate enough to the citizens push for STEP in sufficient numbers.
"Never said they did 'matter.'" So.... why bring them up then?
"That's not an argument. That's a statement of fact. In the initial project scope evaluations (2006), Gail Wilcox sent memos that included only gravity collection as the County's system of choice. Noel King reiterated the County's preference before the board around the same time." And that was in essence taken back when STEP was evaluated. Noel
King did not force the collection to be gravity.
It is your assertion that I make misleading points about the sewer. I disagree.
You actually DO have the capacity to behave yourselves. Congratulations. Let's keep up the good work.
It has more to do with you than them. It helps when you weed out the death threats and harassment from those who make false assumptions about who's blogging here and who's doing what to whom.
You actually DO have the capacity to manage behaviors. Congratulations. Keep up the good work.
Lynette,
"You keep asserting that I am inaccurate, yet you put out a statement about the chances of LOSG not being successful, which you cannot back up."
Actually, it can be backed up. Criteria for a revocation is based on two things: (1) information presented to the CCC is inaccurate or false and (2) there is evidence to show the presenters of that information knowingly deceived the commission. Read the LOSG statement again. "Intent" is not discussed in their presentation.
About the survey...
Traditionally, you've made a number of assertions about the survey results and the weight of those results as they pertain to the BOS' decision-making.
For example, nowhere in what you copied and pasted from the April 7, 2009 minutes specifically shows "there is an acceptance of the survey as it caused the BOS to spend $100,000 on Corollo." All the board did was vote to approve the monthly project update, which included the survey.
Earlier, you made the statement, "The survey determined the collection system" when that was false. Several factors determined the collection system. Based on how other towns and cities designed and operated sewer systems, it would be considered unorthodox to rely heavily on a community survey -- that has no foundation of expertise -- more than wastewater engineers.
You also mentioned that people responding to the survey "killed STEP" because of "the uncertainty of what their specific cost would be, plus having the mess in your yard, rather than the street." There was no option in the survey to reflect that sentiment.
Those are three examples of misleading statements that you've made. STEP/STEG is likely not coming back, but it's important to get the facts straight anyway whether you believe the facts "matter" to you or not.
Anon 12:25,
Are you and I talking about the same thing? Here is a quote from you, "I should emphasize here that chances of the LOSG being successful in their revocation appeal is low." How do you know? Has CCC opined this? Dan Carl said in the Trib that, "There is a possibility that the request could cause construction to be delayed, depending on how long it takes to settle the matter." But that is all that I can find coming from the Coastal Commission to the public. Where are you getting your information to make that assumption?
I have a copy of a letter dated January 26, 2012, in which LOSG states in paragraph 3, "Because accurate and complete information could have resulted in denial of the project or additional project conditions, because the information was intentionally withheld, and because property owners affected by this project were not notified (and their input could have resulted in denial of the project or different conditions)-we are requesting revocation of the Coastal Development Permit for the LOWWP pursuant to Coastal Commission Administrative Regulation 14 CCR § 13105 (a & b). Could that be the intent that you didn't know about?
"Traditionally?" Let's keep the conversation to what we can point to one another saying on this blog.
The survey gave direction to the BOS to spend $100,000 in a particular way. If the town had indicated a preference for STEP, we wouldn't be getting a gravity system. The "expertise" part would have been done by engineers. Don't you recall the peer review saying either collection system was feasible?
I gave my opinion on what I thought killed STEP. Sorry if I did not make that clear. There did not have to be those words in the survey, I thought that people would be thinking those thoughts when assessing whether STEP would be good for their particular circumstance. I believe uncertainty of personal costs was a factor in killing STEP.
I too believe it is important to get the facts straight, which is why I use so many quotes.
Lynette,
In the same Tribune article, it reads the following:
“We have no reason to believe that inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information was provided to the commission,” said Tim McNulty of the County Counsel’s Office. “We are absolutely certain that there was no intent on anyone’s part to provide that type of information. Under these circumstances, a project delaying suspension is quite improbable.”
According to statements you've made here and elsewhere, you have expressed confidence that the County plan was more or less impenetrable -- and that County staff did not intentionally provide false or inaccurate information. So why the concern?
The January 26, 2012 letter does mention "intentional withholding" of information, but just because they say it doesn't necessarily mean they can show it. According to lawsuits and complaints filed by sewer opponents, critics have been unable to show intent despite saying that they can.
It would be surprising if County staff would incriminate themselves by visibly conspiring to cook the numbers let alone communicate their deceptive intentions using County e-mail addresses. The only evidence LOSG could provide to satisfy "intent" would be e-mails. It's doubtful that the County would give up those e-mails that easily to the opposition.
You're still misunderstanding the importance of the survey. The survey was one of several factors of consideration, but by standing in the shoes of the BOS to speculate how much the survey affected their vote, that's just speculation and nothing more. Also, assuming what people are thinking does not constitute fact.
The survey has been used as a tool for propaganda on Los Osos-based web sites. It's being talked about because the community survey was the first thorough survey to analyze community consensus. However, the town remains firmly divided so no viewpoint is prevailing overwhelmingly over another.
Thank goodness that the Sustainability Group does NOT represent Los Osos property owners as a legal entity.
The majority of the community is tired of the same few folks doing everything to cause any delay of halt to any sewer.
It would be refreshing to have the CC require these folks to put up a few million dollars out of their own pockets to fund CC research into the charges.
Anon3:10. They may be divided but it's not a 50/50 split. No matter how you look at the numbers the overwhelming majority want a sewer-period. The LOSG request flies in the face of what the community wants. What has surfaced is that that overwhelming majority cares very little about the technology. Some people do and most do not which is evidenced by the survey results and the support of the prop 218. In straw pole discussions, this holds true as well. The other piece is that the petition to stop the sewer, which cites LOSG information, is not garnering a majority from within the community with a total of 278 votes, some from around the country, does show an overwhelming lack of support to stop the sewer.
Your framing of the arguments and the semantics which you are choosing to use is statistically incorrect.
Your statement that: "However, the town remains firmly divided so no viewpoint is prevailing overwhelmingly over another.", is actually incorrect. It is not simply divided, it's being held hostage by a few who do not want a sewer and are providing erroneous and incorrect information to decision making bodies in attempts to sway/stall/delay progress.
No matter how you then look at it, their propaganda has more potential for personal liability and property damage than a sewer. Their proposal is unsustainable.
Your perception of what is important about the survey and how you are analyzing it has little if any comparison to how Lynette is looking at it so to assert her misunderstanding of the importance is irrelevant.
You cannot build a sewer by consensus. Too much at stake and is irresponsible. You can't have an artist pulling together some numbers and equations regarding engineering without actually understanding engineering. Just like it's irresponsible to have a gambler stand up at the BOS week after week arguing equations and analysis when he clearly doesn't understand that it isn't actuarial work, it's analysis with formulas that don't always balance to the decimal point.
Please let the engineers design the sewers and systems and step aside for the sake and well being of the community that overwhelmingly wants a sewer.
I agree that the LOSG should pay for the time vs the tax payers. It's like stupid people that do stupid things and then get billed by the people that rescue them. Instead, we have to pay, again and again and again.
Anon at 3:20 PM,
"The majority of the community is tired of the same few folks doing everything to cause any delay of halt to any sewer."
False. Anyone speaking for the "majority" is being intellectually dishonest. Please stop trying to conflate the "majority" with your personal views. There are enough politicians in this country who do that already.
3:55 PM:
"Your statement that: 'However, the town remains firmly divided so no viewpoint is prevailing overwhelmingly over another' is actually incorrect. It is not simply divided, it's being held hostage by a few who do not want a sewer and are providing erroneous and incorrect information to decision making bodies in attempts to sway/stall/delay progress."
Misleading. The statement "[The town] is being held hostage by a few who do not want a sewer..." is nothing more than an emotional opinion about the sewer. The town is not being "held hostage."
The LOSG appealed to the Coastal Commission and is asking for a revocation. If their case is successful, then the project would be delayed and "being held hostage" would be more appropriate under those circumstances.
"Your framing of the arguments and the semantics which you are choosing to use is statistically incorrect."
OK, explain...
"No matter how you then look at it, their propaganda has more potential for personal liability and property damage than a sewer. Their proposal is unsustainable."
Explain. That's just a claim.
"Your perception of what is important about the survey and how you are analyzing it has little if any comparison to how Lynette is looking at it so to assert her misunderstanding of the importance is irrelevant."
Irrelevant to who? If misleading statements are made, there needs to be corrections. Who's dictating relevance?
Anyway, you didn't explain how the statements I presented were "statistically incorrect." Your arguments show exasperation, but little of it is factual.
This is a fun exchange. There are quite a few people in Los Osos who think the LOSG revocation push is some sign of the apocalypse, but I haven't seen people really dissecting the content. I've heard, "We're tired of it. It's been going on for 30 years, so let's just build it already!" The repetition of that statement is nauseating, and it's absurd because it precludes people from talking about the sewer at all. Very restrictive.
Diane, the LOSG content was discussed 2 years ago at the Planning Commission, the BOS, and the Coastal Commission. Maybe you missed it?
Anon 3:10 PM,
Early on when this story broke I made one statement that the County plan was more or less impenetrable. I have made many statements since then to the contrary. You might have noticed that I changed my mind? In any case, my main concern is the delay the revocation proceedings could cause, endangering our financing. Bruce Gibson spoke to this issue at the last Coastal Commission meeting.
You are speculating on whether or not LOSG can prove that the County intentionally withheld information. What happened with other lawsuits is not relevant here. County staff has been accused on numerous occasions for all sorts of deeds (surely you have not forgotten the Lisa Schicker allegations have you!?) Your opinion on what County staff would or would not do is irrelevant here and does not constitute fact. Your assertion that e-mails are the only evidence that LOSG could have is a guess on your part.
You can twist the numbers on the survey any way you choose. It will not change the fact that gravity came out on top. Had STEP come out on top, we'd be digging up our yards. That the town is firmly divided is based on what…? No matter, the YES vote on the 218 speaks with the loudest voice.
Lynette,
"In any case, my main concern is the delay the revocation proceedings could cause, endangering our financing."
As stated several times before, the revocation hearing and proceedings would not cause delays. The actual revocation will.
"You are speculating on whether or not LOSG can prove that the County intentionally withheld information. What happened with other lawsuits is not relevant here. County staff has been accused on numerous occasions for all sorts of deeds (surely you have not forgotten the Lisa Schicker allegations have you!?) Your opinion on what County staff would or would not do is irrelevant here and does not constitute fact. Your assertion that e-mails are the only evidence that LOSG could have is a guess on your part."
You dismiss my point and then reiterate it later in that paragraph. County staff has been accused of misdeeds in lawsuits and complaints, but intent could never be proven. That's fact. The assertion that e-mails are the only evidence that LOSG has? Yes, that's opinion.
Survey numbers were not "twisted." It's just facts. The documents were cited. It's all there. The conversation about the survey is based on comments you've previously made, which were misleading and requires retraction. There was no intention to persuade you to rethink STEP/STEG. It's about credibility.
The town is firmly divided on several principles except for the consensus that a sewer is needed for Los Osos. As you're aware, people continue to speak at the BOS about various issues: the state of the ISJ and groundwater (Gewynn Taylor), reconsideration of STEP/STEG (Linde Owen), problems with earthquakes and liquefaction (Al Barrow), concerns of corruption (Ben DiFatta) and project affordability (Julie Tacker).
Though only a few people speak at the BOS meetings, they're able to illuminate the various issues that people are divided about. It's not as black as white as to limit the divisiveness to whether people want a sewer or not. Clearly, there's more to this debate than meets the eye. People should be more open-minded about the other facets of debate. That's my opinion.
Anon 9:04 PM,
"The conversation about the survey is based on comments you've previously made." Where can we find these comments?
"As stated several times before, the revocation hearing and proceedings would not cause delays. The actual revocation will." Who made that statement?
Dan Carl (the Commission's Central Coast district manager) said in the Trib that, "There is a possibility that the request could cause construction to be delayed, depending on how long it takes to settle the matter."
Why is "intent could never be proven" in the past an assurance that it could also never be proven in the future?
"The town is firmly divided on several principles." Can you point to anything concrete, a survey perhaps - and not anecdotal musings, to back yourself up?
I'm unclear as to the importance of a "debate." The sewer has been decided, any debating if there is to be any, takes place at the level of the Coastal Commission. The fact that this johnny-come-lately group has the disdain for the through and lengthy process that got us here is what is worth discussing.
Lynette,
Since mid-2009, you have made many comments about the survey. I suggest you do a Google search and type in "sewertoons community survey."
I'm aware of what Dan Carl said. Revocations are considered rare. When the revocation hearing and proceeding commences, it generally doesn't last longer than a month. If staff recommends a denial of revocation request, then the commission tends to vote it down the same day of the hearing.
"Why is 'intent could never be proven' in the past an assurance that it could also never be proven in the future?"
Never mentioned "assurance." It's probability. It's informed speculation. If the LOSG had the "smoking gun" that showed intent to deceive the CCC, they would have likely trumped their evidence in the press and generate a groundswell of community support. That hasn't happened. Think strategy.
"Can you point to anything concrete, a survey perhaps - and not anecdotal musings, to back yourself up?"
Look around you. There are so many viewpoints about the sewer. The only proven and unifying consensus is that Los Osos needs a sewer. The division lies in how one would go about it. The evidence is a lot more substantive than merely anecdotal, and to dismiss it as such is to deny reality.
"I'm unclear as to the importance of a 'debate.'"
Even though Roe v. Wade was decided almost 40 years ago, our country is still debating women's reproductive rights. Even though "Obamacare" passed two years ago, people are still debating about health care reform.
Who are we to measure the importance or the worthiness to engage in certain debates? The Los Osos sewer is currently at $189 million and it could get higher. The project is riding on the backs of 5,000 homeowners -- and many of them will struggle financially to pay for it. Think about the sewer as a risky, long-term investment. People are entitled to know benefits and risks of their investment, so a debate should always be open.
There have been many "johnny-come-lately" acronym groups that have weighed in. What makes LOSG any different than Taxpayers Watch, Save the Dream or the Solutions Group? Disdain has been shown in their core principles. What makes LOSG the boogeyman?
Anony sez:" You actually DO have the capacity to behave yourselves. Congratulations. Let's keep up the good work.
It has more to do with you than them. It helps when you weed out the death threats and harassment from those who make false assumptions about who's blogging here and who's doing what to whom.
You actually DO have the capacity to manage behaviors. Congratulations. Keep up the good work."
Incorrect, Anonny. In the past -- repeatedly -- I've warned and dumped, warned and dumped, to absolutely no effect. You Sewer Crazies (and you know who you are) simply kept doing the same stupid stuff, while declaring it was all my fault that you were behaving badly. As you can see above, these sick Anonyice actually DO have the capacity to behave themselves, for a few minutes, at least. However, I'm waiting for the first guy/gal to lose control of himself and go nasty even on this posting or any future postings. Just a matter of time.
Fact: Each commentor on this site is wholly responsible for his/her comments. Nobody else.
While looking for a link to Sewertoons beloved survey, which I could not find, I did come across the County's affordability report. It seems Los Osos is well below the projected monthly bill. Why bother with the report one wonders.
As I remember, and i'll admit my memory is going south, but the survey had a steering wheel that was turned completly in the gravity direction. I did reply in the returned survey that it implied 'convince us not to use gravity'. Without enough imformation about alternatives, that would have been impossible.
I am ready for whatever sewer comes, but forgive me for always holding a grudge with all of the many agencies and people that foisted this upon us with no concern for our well being.
Sincerly, M
Hang in there Lynette. You have many of the community fully with you. We are indeed tired of the loathsome tactics of the few who did not get their personal project or nonproject. They are very sick individuals.
Since my longer posts keep getting removed for exceeding the maximum character limit, I'll post in parts.
Lynette,
You come across as unclear. "Groundswell" refers to mobilizing the community first prior to actually doing something. For instance, thousands of signatures were collected to initiate the 2005 recall.
I did correct you several times in this thread already. You've made a number of misleading statements, and they were corrected with facts from documentation.
Well, that didn't last long.
The materials presented to the CCC are about as polished and refined as probably ever presented by a small towns self formed citizen committee.
And why not. You have Mary F. with extensive writing for various Central Coast Environmental groups and organisations. You have Keith W. with an eccelent eye for detail and experience as local community elected leader. And you have PhD Larry Raio.
So let's cut to the chase.
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) likely
b) Actually if the “Basin” is the issue, maybe a good thing. But will they read those minutia.
Not really clear if the second A) B)
a) a huge waste of time and effort or
b) a chilling blueprint outlining a train wreck.
To be b) this document would have to be shorter.
Oops borrowed computer gotta run will stay Alonimous only this time
Oh great 10 minutes announced.
So if the second ab are derived from C. Project pulled
then we need another Sub-C.
Basin saved
Gottarun again they are turning of the lights
Speaking of which.
TheeCCC's criteria to turn the lights back on are narrow
Alonimous Bosch
Anonymous sez:"Well, that didn't last long."
Ah, yes, well, for those of you who read the latest comments before I did, you'll see, it's just as I predicted. The Immatures returned. They really can't help themselves. They're like Pavlov's dogs or like little children. They have absolutely no self-mastery, no self-control.
And Annymouse also sez:"The materials presented to the CCC are about as polished and refined as probably ever presented by a small towns self formed citizen committee."
Indeed, and those informed citizens' comments on this blog have been most welcome. Sane, thoughtful, ADULT. What a contrast. (If you're just joining us, to get a full gander at The Immatures at work, go to the previous sewerish post and read their usual fence-fighting tactics.)
You may have noticed that some comments by The Immatures have been dumped, but some reasonably straightforward comments have also been dumped. In case you regulars have forgotten (or for you Newbies who may have not known) this site is an OCHS-FREE ZONE. Say the word and the rubber duckie comes down from the ceiling and your comment gets dumped. Buh-bye. (Yes, I know, like you, I often recognize that particular, familiar "voice" in various "Anonnymouse" postings, so what does that tell you about the kind of person who would engage in that kind of childish nonsense? Right.)
Anon 9:04 PM,
Thank you. I do appreciate the support.
Anon 11:15 and 11:23 PM,
Your original statement using that "groundswell" word is as follows:
"If the LOSG had the 'smoking gun' that showed intent to deceive the CCC, they would have likely trumped their evidence in the press and generate a groundswell of community support."
Now you state, "'Groundswell' refers to mobilizing the community first prior to actually doing something."
Did you mean to use the word "generated" in that first quote? Did you mean to say that they would have generated the groundswell, then the press would have picked up on it?
I did the best that I could with your ambiguity.
If you are satisfied with your corrections, that is what counts, isn't it?
Alonimous, all I see with the first b or c and the second b is more $$$.
Could there be a second shoe?
Ann,
Do you support Tornatsky? Is it OK with you that she hijacks your blog like it's her own, acts as guest host and publicizes false and misleading information under your logo? I know just a handful blog on your site anymore because of her squatting, but still the community would LOVE to know where you stand on serving as the local halfway house for the community's liars, abusers and deathwishers... Are these types your best friends these days? Inquiring minds want to know...
Thank you that informative link .
It seems that moocho, perhaps unfair, monkey-business may have occurred, orchestrated by both State & our own County officials to sell their short-sighted LOWWP plan to the now known rather gullible CCC group.
Only time & maybe a big injection of common sense will tell whether it came across to them as a reality wake-up call or ignore the facts/documentation as just another ill-conceived Hail Mary effort to derail.
I am at a loss to understand the fuzzy-logic of arrogantly betting a couple of hundred million dollars, that we have to borrow, on a thirty-year gamble that we will surely loose.
Most would agree that the groundwater nitrate levels may not even drop in 30 years, which is probably the life of the project.
Many opponents point to the ultra high cost of the County-chosen project, however in the real-world the initial purchase price of an item is just the tip of the iceberg.
The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) over the life of the Item is an extremely more important factor to consider & sometimes exceeds the original purchase cost.
TCO includes the cost of maintenance, additional hidden costs, upgrades, staff to operate, vast array of equipment & back-up necessary for
maintenance, ever-increasing power bills, etc.
Anyone writing a book on this subject should thank the group for sequencing the events revealing the alleged web of deceit that seemingly gambols back & forth like a crazed stag zigzagging through the woods.
"21st Century Nitrate Paranoia" would probably sum it all up as a title.
Ooops .... I meant "surely lose" not "looooooooose".
Ann, you bring up a pivital point when you say, "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."
What can the CCC actually DO about that resolution, the resolution that PZLDF has been fighting (unsuccessfully) for years? Would it mount a lawsuit or even write an opinion? It would probably take an attorney to opine here with any opinion that would fall into the realm of the possible, but I would like to know what the thinking/rationale/hopes of the general public would be around this question. I recall at one point CSC was asking for $80,000 to mount a lawsuit, but I don't recall what it was about.
OMG! Lynette won't SHUT UP, and she keeps repeating herself... I have to wonder HOW much TIME she really spents outdoors, or is she too busy “countering the lies” on a blog that NO ONE READS??? Give me a break. We're tired of this CRIMINAL...
"WE" are interested in the points Sewertoons brings up. Apparently she has touched the fears of those who have seen their interests thrown out of various courts. "WE" believe the Coastal Commission will rule against this latest attempt to stop the sewer. The only criminals are those who continue these frivolus attempts. Nothing in this blog will sway the Costal commission!
Remember, the project is the County's and the Coastal Commission has ruled in favor of every permit requested by the County. The sewer is coming!
Oh SHUT UP, Judith.
"WE" touched your fears? Certainly couldn't have been your mind, nothing to touch in there.
Just get ready for the streets to be torn up and some big pipes stuck in. You'll love it. Just make sure you pay your share. Not like when you sued the State and got the CSD to pay your share.
Yikes! I was just over on the CSC website and in the first paragraph on one of the pages, the word "help" was highlighted like it was a link to, well, some sort of help!
This is what I got on a separate page that popped up:
"SURVEY
Sunday, March 18, 2012
You have been selected from the California area to take part in this 30-second national survey.
Upon completion you will have the opportunity to claim a $1000 Walmart® Gift Card, an Apple® iPad2, or an iPhone 4S®.
Simply click START NOW to begin the 30-second survey and claim your gift!"
Now that's some pretty bizarre advertising! What was all THAT about? Does this make advertising money for the site?
SHUT up Lynette. There is no "advertising" on the site. You keep "making things up." You have a track record of LYING about the smallest things. You are part of the "good old boy" network in this County... doing all the "dirty work." You are probably having a "good time" with Gibson too.
LMAO You really are quite afraid of those you don't agree with!
Face it, STEP is not going to happen, neither will Los Osos escape un-sewered. Big pipe Gravity and try all the attempts, but nothing you can do about it.
OK, I'm on the "revocation request" page of CSC and am reading this sentence,
"If agencies cannot show with specific evidence that septic systems are a significant source of pollution of the estuary..."
and the words "septic systems" are highlighted. Silly me, I click on it and another page shoots up, the header saying,
"http://www.freshweddings.com/results2.aspx?keywords=septic+systems"
There are 4 ads, Fresno Septic Tank Repair by Big Bore Drilling, one by Valley Pump and Jetting, one on septic system solutions for small business, and one on tanks, cisterns & troughs.
Is it just me or is the combination of "freshweddings.com" and septic systems just a bit odd. That's not to say it isn't hilarious, but really, what if the Coastal Commission staff went onto the page to check something out....well, laughter might not be the desired response from those guys...
Looked at the CSC site source code. If any ads were placed, it would be found in the code itself, especially pop-up ads. "Septic systems" isn't highlighted either. Checked out the site in Chrome, Firefox, IE and Safari.
Do you have anything better to talk about, Lynette?
If you don't like what I write Anon 9:35 PM, why do you read, then waste your time and pixels criticizing it? It makes no sense.
Maybe you shouldn't bother to brag about your knowledge (or lack thereof) regarding source code either. First of all, if you have cookies turned off, you won't see anything. I have cookies turned on. I happen to be using Firefox at the moment.
Off the regular, vanilla source code you should have noticed this: (I'm adding some extras to disable this code.)
These CSC pages are dynamic pages. What you get with cookies on is not in the page code, but is info held on the server.
If you are able to right click, you will see the choices of "Page Source" or "Page Info." Pick "Page Info." Then pick the "Security" tab. Look at "Privacy & History."
Since I allow cookies, the answer to the question, "Is the website storing information (cookies) on my computer?" is Yes. (I have 6.) Hence the oddities that I have written about tonight.
Oh well, blogspot scrubbed that code that I copied and pasted... but you get my drift...right?
Toonsky sez:
Ann, you bring up a pivital point when you say, "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."
One small example of how badly flawed 83-13 was. It declared nitrates from septic tanks to be the issue, THEN promptly issued permits to allow 1,100-some NEW homes/septic tanks to be built? WTF??? And thus,thereby opened the door to endless challenge and confusion, misinformation, and paranoia. I believe I also said 83-13 was both too much and not enough. When the history of this whole sad enterprise is written (And Ron Crawford has already put together quite a documented trail of breadcrumbs already) I think 83-13 will be Exhibit A.
You do realize Ann that when the permits were issued they also thought that a sewer would be built within a reasonable amount of time, say 1987ish +/-. The county wanted to issue permits, RWQCB said- not until you build a sewer; county said, oh we will; community said, no you won't!; RWCB said - no more permits!; so on and so forth. Personally, when people are so stuck on 83-13 and don't take into consideration everything else that was going on present and past, including Clean Water Act money, just gets annoying. In the late 70s and early 80's there was sea water intrusion in the upper aquifer due to over pumping...funny thing, now it's 2012 and sea water intrusion in the lower aquifer due to over pumping, too many nitrates in the upper to use due to septic tanks and not horse farms, and people are still rambling on about 83-13. One would think that people in this community get stuck in one place and really can't move on. I swear, Gwynne Taylor looks ridiculous harping on and on about sea water intrusion and she clearly doesn't get that the sea water intrusion from 30 years ago is actually different. It's ok, though because the supervisors know that she doesn't know what she is talking about and they just nod and say thanks.
Attacking an old woman must make you feel special. Before you went after a four-year-old boy. Maybe we should make it a JUDITH REILLY-FREE zone in Los Osos. All it takes is a call to Atascadero State.
The CCC acknowledges that the county has the project. To take it away from them, (Frustrating as it may be, affordability is not a criterion, in this stage of process) by specific CCC criteria, the high bar would need to be overcome.
Though not listed as a criteria, an “Alternative” would need to exist, to mitigate the consequences to members of the CCC voting body, of a stoppage, now. Not necessarily permitted, just more substantially implementable than anything seen so far in presentations to CCC.
That is a sticky wicket right there.
Basin management in real sense was removed and acknowledged to have been removed (Supervisor B. G.) because of cost.
BTW Gwynne (SP) Taylor has attended just about every WRAC meeting. And is a smart cookie to boot.
Go ahead, make the call.
What's stopping you? Oh, you have no facts, just something you wish were true, but haven't done any real research, so it pure wishful hopeing on your part.
You really need to get a life, maybe check yourself into ASH for a little attitude adjustment and reality check.
I'm not Judith, but maybe one of these days I'll introduce myself to you. Your fixation on Judith shows how closed minded you really are. There are many more folks in this community than your very small circle of friend, perhaps you don't know all on which you seem to base your one sided opinions.
That sure sounds like a rational sewer obstructionist who has go around the bend. and emphasizes why we'll remain anonymous.
BTW, YOU have just made a public threat!
Anonymous making threats to anonymous. That's not the words of a "rational sewer obstructionist." That's just being an idiot.
You know, I understand that this is a blog that a few people read, but the words and actions of the people here showcase what's wrong with Los Osos. When people outside the county see people behaving this way, they're dismissive of an issue that affects homeowners that don't wage silly wars on a blog.
When Ann Calhoun thinks she's doing a service by showing everyone the evil "anonymouse" sewer lurkers, she's actually not. What she's doing is making Los Osos look bad. There's no logical reason to enable these people. Just eliminate the Anonymous posting, dump the comments, and be a responsible adult, Ann.
If this keeps up, the law might step in and manage the blog for you.
Somebody give the monkey a banana...
Anon Sez:"Anonymous making threats to anonymous. That's not the words of a "rational sewer obstructionist." That's just being an idiot."
Ah, yes, Actually, that applies to a great many of you Sewer Obsessives.
And now for another oddity: What would you call someone who lurks on this blog, obsessively checks the comments and then comments himself and re-comments on other comments, gets all ramped up and crazed at the comments, then announces -- loudly -- that Nobody Reads This Blog Anyway!!
So, how would you describe the kind of person who lurks and follows and obsessively comments on a blog . . . that nobody reads?
Is it any wonder people outside of Los Osos (and many inside) hoot with laughter reading the blog comments on this blog that nobody reads?
But it was soooo refreshing to finally hear from some actual sane anonnymice who showed up after I posted the CC appeal.
As for Anonnymice's 3:39 comment above about eliminating anonnymice posting, Naw. Been there, done that and all we ended up with was Fake Names, sometimes lots of fake names, likely all belonging to one or two people & etc. Which I would gleefully spank, dump, warn, dump, spank again. The only option to that was to eliminate all comment, which would be counter productive since blog comment is part of the blog experience.
Oh, that's right, I forgot. This is a blog that nobody reads.
Post a Comment