Planning Commission Backs Supervisors’ Gravity Sewer – as Expected

The County is applying for a land-use permit to build the sewer treatment facility at the out of town Tonini property site, presently zoned for agricultural use.

Had the Planning Commission (PC) voted to advise the inclusion of STEP back into the County’s plans, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) no doubt would have overturned it on appeal. The PC is a recommending body subordinate to the BOS, which previously voted 4 to 1 to eliminate the STEP system and only short-list gravity system contractors for the County’s design/build phase.   

The hearings provided a few awkward moments as the Commission sought to define its role in what amounted to the County seeking a permit from the County, with Public Works the “applicant” and Planning a sister board. Chairwoman Sarah Christie had to ask Counsel if the BOS had overridden the Commission’s authority, since the County had already selected the gravity system as the sole system for the LOWWP.

The gravity-versus-STEP discussion, however moot, seemed to occupy a disproportionate amount of meeting time relative to Planning’s authority to affect the decision of the BOS.     

The lone dissenting opinion in favor of STEP was delivered by PC Chairwoman Sarah Christie, who said: “It seems to me a given that we are going to continue to have nitrate pollution into the bay with a gravity system. It seems like we’re all accepting that that’s indeed the fact, and now we’re just talking about how to deal with it, and that troubles me.

“I’m not going to carry the day (with STEP),” Christie concluded, after listening to fellow board members, “but I do think it is very unfortunate that the Board of Supervisors has chosen, at the recommendation of staff unfortunately, to eliminate this (option) from consideration, because I think  there are some legitimate benefits to STEP, and we’re not in a position now really to nail down what those benefits are, but I think there could have been some significant costs savings to the community that would have illuminated (that savings) if we’d been able to move forward.

“I also think that there are significant environmental benefits, not just with the effluent itself, but the laying of the pipe and various other components of the project. So I’m sad we’re not going to able to get that information,” Christie lamented, “but it appears that we aren’t. This is one of those times where we have to make a decision and move on, and it appears there is a majority of votes for a gravity system.”

Critics of the PC insisted that the discussion of collection systems was unnecessary. Given that the Board of Supervisors previously deliberated on similar policy issues, critics argued that debating collection systems delayed talks of approving the County’s request for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP).   

During the two days of public hearings, the Commission heard testimony from Public Works Director Paavo Ogren, Project Engineer John Waddell and Department Administrator John Diodati, RWQCB’s John Le Carlo, and Dana Ripley, author of the Ripley Pacific team’s district-commissioned 2006 “Plan Update” and an outside consultant to STEP contractor W.M. Lyles. In public comment the Commission heard expert opinion from Cal Poly soil scientist and Architecture Engineering lecturer Larry Raio and others.

The PC also voted unanimously for tertiary treatment over secondary treatment.

Hearings on the project are continued to May 28 with the discussion turning to pipe technology, plant location and type, disposal, storage options, conservation, and other vital issues involved in the permitting process for the LOWWP.

For the latest information, check the updated agenda on Planning’s Website at: www.slocounty.ca.gov/planning.htm.