Maria Kelly: Los Osos Water Witch Bitches Again
Posted on 04. Sep, 2009 by Aaron in Los Osos
Appearing as the last speaker of BOS Los Osos public comment, CSD director Maria Kelly seemed anxious, but defiant.
“I’m happy to be here and I’m happy to be here in support of the County — and I’m happy to be in support of County staff. I’ve been a broken record on that they’ve been extremely professional, helpful, diligent and very responsive to the community,” said Kelly.
Would it have resonated more if she dressed up in a high school cheerleader outfit and brought pom-poms to the podium?
Says Kelly: “I’m here today — as I always am – talking about maintaining our focus, maintaining our focus towards a resolution. It’s like the wheel with the spokes to the center where the center is the resolution. [I] learned it in philosophy classes. Some people are still running around outside of the wheel [...] The distractions are being repackaged for 30 years. These distractions are getting repackaged. They get a new name, they get a new spokesperson but the issues continue to be the same whether it’s seawater intrusion 30 years ago or seawater intrusion today. There’s a repackaging and a deja vu — and you go back and you speak to residents that were there 30 years ago, tracking this. It’s so frustrating.”
In philosophy class, they teach what is called a red herring, which is defined as “any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue.”
Ironically, Ms. Kelly, you talk about focusing on the center of the wheel, the resolution, while spending most of your time talking about those who are running around outside of the wheel, “repackaging distractions.” In light of dismissing those who are talking about seawater intrusion now, Ms. Kelly, it seems you did a little repackaging of your own, except that your organization — comprised of partisan hacks who have never publicly shown interest in water conservation — never once mentioned seawater intrusion on your site. The WH2O’s mission reads, “Our focus is water.” Ms. Kelly, if your focus was really on water, why would dismiss those who also have water as their focus?
Ms. Kelly, if you’ve kept in contact with those who have been tracking seawater intrusion for 30 years, how come they never released a water conservation plan for the current County project? How come those people never rallied behind — or contributed to — the conservation plan presented by the Los Osos Sustainability Group? How come you never released a water conservation plan? You are unfit to criticize due to these unanswered questions.
Kelly on taking another job to pay for the sewer: “I already had to take one job due to budget cuts at Cal Poly. I’m willing to take another. I love Los Osos that much. I’m willing to do what I have to do to keep my family there and raise my children.”
Today, it was reported that the national unemployment hit 9.7% as 216,000 jobs were lost. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in July that the California unemployment rate is now at 12.1%. Especially during a time when California is facing a massive budget crisis — one that is historically unprecedented — there are signs that the unemployment rate will rise significantly in the coming months. As the sewer saga rolls on, chances of people finding a job that can support their families become more and more slim. Not everyone is going to find that second job — even if they love Los Osos and even if they want to keep their families there and raise their children. These people love Los Osos, but they’ll have to leave — while you it’s easy for you to find another job.
How selfish.
Consider yourself one of the lucky ones. Thanks to ambiguous campaign pledges like, “Let’s focus on solvency” and, “Let’s focus on water,” you won the support of a majority vote to become a member of the Los Osos Community Services District. Your husband, Shaun Kelly, works at Cal Poly (CAFES-BioRes & Ag Engineering) as an instructional AY with an average salary of at least $35,040 a year. Meanwhile, the rest of the middle class — many of those are already facing severe financial burdens from loss of employment, increasing utility rates and inflation — are stuck with paying the blank check that you’ve unequivocally supported. How much will the middle class have to pay for the sewer? How much will the middle class have to pay before they have to pack their bags and U-Haul their way out of town? $250 a month? $300? $400?
You’ve never answered those questions. You’ve never cared to or you would have. For an uncaring, self-appointed sewer messiah, you’re paid rather well.
According to your supporters, you are the beacon of light. To everyone else, your views are downright cold and belligerent. You say, “Let’s maintain the focus” — keep the wheel going while aiming for the resolution at its center — and then you stray from that focus by stating you’re “frustrated” by those who have different views than your own. If you didn’t speak at all on Tuesday, you would have helped the board maintain their focus. You’d be sparing them — and the listening audience — three minutes of complete nonsense.
Madam, you’re too predictable. Week after week, you’ve approached the podium to compliment the board and County staff while single-handedly berating those who you ought to be representing as a board director of the LOCSD. You are a clear and present danger to the concept of unity — and you have proved, once again, to be an ally of divisiveness.
– Aaron Ochs
107 Responses to “Maria Kelly: Los Osos Water Witch Bitches Again”
Leave a Reply
- Maria Kelly: Los Osos Water Witch Bitches Again
- Los Osos Animosity
- Los Osos: Getting Stronger When Focused
- Pitiful Criticism of Schicker in New Times
- Friday Round-Up: Back to 2005
- Robert: Aaron is right on the money. Los Osos is getting s...
- susan: Type your comment here......
- Julie: Excellent points Aaron. The Trib just wants to se...
- Liza Klump: I don't think LAPD, Ventura PD or even Simi PD wou...
- David Duggan: 54950. The people of this State do not yield their...
News From The ROCK
- 'Reclamator' Man Sues Everybody
- COASTAL COMMISSION HAS MORE ‘SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES’ WITH SEWER PROJECT THAN COUNTY ADMITS
- County’s Omissions, Gaps and Lies Force Coastal Commission Hearing on Unresolved Sewer Issues
- COUNTY’S SEWER PROJECT TIMELINE DELAYED MONTHS
- ARE YOU HAVING SEWER PROBLEMS???
- ‘PROHIBITION ZONE’ FEVER GRIPS MALIBU
- The Freestyle Magic of Tokyo Joe’s Sushi
Lynette
04. Sep, 2009
Aaron, it is really clear here that you don’t want a sewer. Reaching this low to make that point only makes you look petty. The drama of 16 year olds doesn’t really cut it here on this topic. Are you a parent? Do you have kids? Do you support yourself?
Aaron
04. Sep, 2009
Lynette, it is really clear here that you didn’t read my article. You looked at the title, but not at the content. I never stated whether or not I wanted a sewer. That is wholly irrelevant. My opinions of parenting have nothing to do with the article. That is wholly irrelevant — so where are you going with this?
I feel sorry for you. You feel that people not being able to pay for a sewer — due to a variety of financial burdens — is petty. You feel that seawater intrusion — and the people talking about it as it’s an unarguably critical issue in Los Osos — is petty. Have you no shame, Mrs. Tornatzky?
Lynette
04. Sep, 2009
What I said was that your character assassination of Maria was petty. That’s all.
Watershed Mark
04. Sep, 2009
Sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette Tornatzky, why do you lie?
Julie
04. Sep, 2009
Maria Kelly has no idea what she’s talking relative to the LOWWP about in most situations, when she goes to the podium and says things like… “where do I start”, that should be a ‘clue-to-self’, DON’T.
‘If you don’t know what to say, don’t say anything at all,’ didn’t all of our mother’s teach us that? Apparently, they don’t teach that in Portland, OR.
Thirty years ago, when Maria was just 12 years old, in Portland, OR, listening to the Bee Gee’s and watching the Hardy Boys on TV, seawater intrusion was detected in Los Osos at the westerly edge of the sandspit, well over a mile away from where it can be found today, some 30 years later. Very “Distracting” isn’t it?
Has anyone else noticed Ms. Kelly’s use of the BIG words “process, policy and focus”, it’s as if she knows no others. Those words are filler words. They are meaningless without action. What has she done? Nothing! She’s all talk…with nothing really said. She agrees, just to agree. Supports just to support. Then blasts away at shadows, like she did about Ripley at the PC. Ripley is well respected by the PC, that was the wrong body to have been vitriolic too.
Ms. Kelly is oblivious to the history of past sewer project/s. Take, for example, the August 6, LOCSD meeting where the idea of “Harvest Well’s” was being sent to the Water Advisory Committee, Ms. Kelly is the chair of that committee, she can put anything she wants on that committee’s agenda, instead she chose to embarrass herself putting the item on the Board agenda. Claims of an “Interagency” and/or “Intergovernmental” (both words are used in the same paragraph, in the staff report) Agreement to be had with the County to develop said wells as part of the current project.
I did the Pubic Records Act request’s from both the County and the LOCSD, NO SUCH AGREEMENT was requested, by anyone in either agency. An hour and a half of wasted Board, Seitz, AGP, Public, time…a costly mistake.
The current project is well on it’s way through the development stage, there’s no way the County is considering adding on “Harvest Well’s” at this point. And from their letter dated August 6, 2009, it appears they will NEVER be interested in the liability of “Harvest Wells”.
By the way, “Harvest Well” is not a real word. “Harvest Well” is a term created by Pandora (back in the day) for dewatering the upper aquifer when it became too full from forcing too much water in at Broderson, the “bountiful harvest” would take place, just before the water surfaced/daylighted blowing a hole in someone’s living room down gradient in Cuesta by the Sea, on its way to the Morro Bay National Estuary.
This excess water originally was intended to be discharged into the National Estuary, until the Coastal Commission learned of that plan and the LOCSD pulled back from that approach in 2004 and redirected this “abundant supply” back to the plant, to be run through a series of pipes and pumps, expending energy and wasting resources (including MONEY, hello!) embarrassing Rube Goldberg (he was a clever engineer, for those of you who don’t know who he was…Maria) This practice was to take place for a few (maybe 8 years) as the upper aquifer would begin to “cleanse” itself from the “highly treated effluent” from the high energy Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) plant. This water would then be so clean we could blend it with the 8,000 year old pristine water from the lower aquifer in a 2:1 ration (turns out it’s more like 10:1 ratio) to SERVE the public.
Lovely, diluted sewage, served up like Crystal Springs.
Ms. Kelly thought she was talking about “dewatering wells” and “upper aquifer” water to be used on the school playgrounds.
There never was an agreement with the school district for use of that water, and that project was under construction. We still don’t know if the school district is a player, they don’t have to be, they are exempt from much of County Planning rules. They are a “lead agency” unto themselves and can pretty much do what they want.
Ms. Kelly speaks so authoritatively, she sounds like she may have said something important, too date, I’ve heard nothing that impresses me.
Oh and by the way Lynette, this is not character assignation, this purely observation of someone who has no problem making an Ass of herself.
Lynette
05. Sep, 2009
You do have a firm grip on the meaning of costly mistakes, Julie. And I wouldn’t throw the word “ass” around if I were you. (It’s just not nice!)
Did you have a chipping day at your place? What’s with the chips all over the road?
Say, how’s the settlement going in the TW case? Been quiet on that front lately.
Lisa Klump
05. Sep, 2009
Aaron, as usual, is doing a splendid job on his reporting “THE FACTS”. I have another probing question for Aaron to check out: What is Maria getting in return for her praise of the County, Gibson, Ogren, etc.? Will her big pay off come when the big pipe gravity system comes to town? Perhaps she is already “benefiting” in other ways….
Julie
05. Sep, 2009
Lynette, my chips are none of your business.
My settlement is none of your business.
My ass is none of your business.
Thinker
05. Sep, 2009
Whoa Lisa…..
I hope you are not really accusing Ms. Kelly of accepting bribes as a ‘payoff’ for her support of the County’s building a sewer project!?
Where is the real evidience to support such a wild speculation? Why is it you immediately jump to such a conclusion, especially as no evidence exists to back up your claim?
Making such an accusation just because you have a ‘hunch’ is vile behavior. It is vile as you are unjustly casting dispersions upon other people without basis. You should be ashamed!
Lisa Klump
05. Sep, 2009
To “Thinker”, Have you ever heard the phrase “DON”T ASSUME”? Perhaps You know more about Kelly’s “benefits” than the rest of us, please clue us in…
Thinker
05. Sep, 2009
Whoa Lisa….
You were very, very clear in your accusation about Ms. Kelly; hence nothing to ‘assume’ regarding your post.
Your sorry retort to my daring to question your allegation was your voicing an absolutely untrue and completely unsubstanciated ASSUMPTION that I am somehow privy to special knowledge that you and others do not have; specifically that there I know there are ‘benefits’ to Ms. Kelly for supporting the County. Tsk! Tsk! dearie…how about sticking to your own issue by showing proof of your claim instead of vilely throwing mud around?
Lynette
05. Sep, 2009
Your chips are my business because they are all over a public road.
The settlement is my business as I, among 14,700 others who live in Los Osos, have been affected and will continue to be affected by your decisions which created the lawsuit.
Your ass? Sorry, you must have misunderstood, I was referring to your use of the word. Your take on my intent though is …interesting.
Roger
05. Sep, 2009
Maria needs to get that big stick out of her ass.
Lisa Klump
06. Sep, 2009
Roger, that stick seems to be growing!
Roger
06. Sep, 2009
I keep reading this article and it reminds me how this town is so divided. It makes me SICK.
mtnbikir
06. Sep, 2009
you folks should really just go build your sewer. why live in such a spectacular place when you risk choking on each others fecal matter? sorry to be so blunt, but you really do not live in some slum in red china or afghanistan for goodness sakes. oh, and someone take the stick out of whom knows where.. hope it floats when removed.
Julie
07. Sep, 2009
The chips are spread on what is commonly referred to as a “Paper Road” this is not a “County Road” as you claim. The chips nicely keep the dust down and our neighbors are happy that we’ve spread them on their side of their road too. So again, none of your business.
The Taxpayers Watch settlement is in negotiation, it is confidential, if and until it becomes final it will remain confidential. Again, none of your business.
As for the use of the word “ass” I was referring to Ms. Kelly.
While I have made mistakes, I’m not an elected official, I don’t make shit up as I go along, I do my homework and present information straight. Thus, I’m not an ass.
Watershed Mark
07. Sep, 2009
The septic tanks are legally permitted by the the USEPA/CCRWQCB/SLOCO mountain biker.
So is free speech- including pictures.
Lynette
07. Sep, 2009
Where did I say it was a County road? There is no “No Trespassing” sign on it, people walk on it, cars drive on it. You don’t own it, do you? It is open to the public.
As to your neighbors approving your spreading of the chips, maybe they are the same neighbors that signed on to the Cabrillo chipping day?
As an elected official you have made stuff up – like the neighbors names YOU, NOT THEY, put on the chipping list, so you could get more of your stuff chipped and not have to pay.
I’m not sure if your defense of not being an ass applied to that situation.
Lynette
07. Sep, 2009
You sound disingenuous Roger. If you don’t like the town being divided, why talk trash?
Lisa Klump
07. Sep, 2009
Aaron & Ed, More than just Maria has spouted the phrase, “Just TRUST the County”. I’ve heard McPherson use that same phrase. She has NOT done the Community any favors either! What say you?
Aaron
07. Sep, 2009
It boils down to four categories: what is said, what isn’t said, what should be said and what shouldn’t be said.
Maria and Gail’s speeches are filed under the “what shouldn’t be said” category. “I support the County!” We heard it before. After saying it once or twice, having a button on your t-shirt expressing support would suffice. When those two started to repeat the cheers, the question — that came to my mind — was, “What public benefit comes from making these statements?”
Then when the support becomes a proxy or a preamble for mocking or minimizing the efforts of those with dissenting views, then there’s no public benefit. Maria says, “There are people outside the wheel who are repackaging distractions” in one corner and then Gail is saying (months earlier), “Do not let anyone ‘hijack’ the design-build process.” Their views have an eerie similarity that we can’t ignore. “We support the process, but don’t let the naysayers distract you from doing what you do.” We live in a democracy. Disagreement and conflicting views plays a vital role in democracy, but neither of these people seem to grasp this very simple concept.
If both Maria and Gail let the process ripen and mature naturally without social engineering, we would have likely seen a different outcome that more people could accept. If both Maria and Gail focused on providing constructive criticism, then there would be no reason to criticize.
Lynette
07. Sep, 2009
Aaron, how you can compare Maria and Gail is bizarre and a really big stretch.
Gail tried to break up the PZ which would cause the collapse of the County project. How does that support the process? She stood with Lisa on the accusations against Paavo (although she has been strangely absent of late). Had that been true, the entire process would be messed up and delayed.
By contrast, Maria has supported the County process all along. I have never once heard Gail say, “I trust the County.” If I missed where she said that, please point out where.
Please reference the number of times Maria has said “I support the County process.” Then reference the number of times Linde, Al, Piper, etc, have said the County process is flawed. 20 or more to 1 probably, but no criticism of them appear with your name attached. Can I let them know that you feel, “After saying it once or twice, having a button on your t-shirt expressing support would suffice.” Or does this only apply to Maria?
You apparently did not hear Maria. There is no one outside the wheel, (we are ALL ON the wheel) but some have chosen no “spoke” to move to the center of the wheel which represents the truth. There are many ways to get there – the spokes being the analogy. People on the edge of the wheel would rather not look for the truth, therefore remain on the edge. She is not minimizing peoples views, that is a fiction you have created to generate controversy.
Watershed Mark
07. Sep, 2009
Sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette,
Why do you lie?
Why was vacuum never studied in a $7M study of “alternatives?”
If STEP/STEG was ejected the before design build moved to RFQ due to cost, how much money will be saved by using the flawed shallow angle gravity design in Paavo’s no bid engineer’s study?
Why do you lie?
Watershed Mark
07. Sep, 2009
Why should anyone support a processthat is incomplete and therefore flawed?
Watershed Mark
07. Sep, 2009
Why would they?
Aaron
07. Sep, 2009
Lynette,
Fiction? It’s Maria’s own words. I know she’s your friend and you support her unconditionally, but the truth is that she alienates people. When she mentions “distractions” and people “repackaging distractions,” she’s clearly minimizing the importance and the validity of those people’s opinions.
I hope that you open your eyes someday.
Watershed Mark
07. Sep, 2009
Why would Maria need a friend who lies?
sam spade
07. Sep, 2009
Why am I not surprised at all the venom against Maria Kelly here ? I guess it’s because nastiness attracts nastiness. Good start, Ochs.
By the way, I knew Julie’s mother for many years, and she would be very disappointed by what her daughter turned into. Sad.
Roger
07. Sep, 2009
What nastiness? Aaron’s comments and article weren’t nasty. Maria is the nasty one.
Watershed Mark
08. Sep, 2009
With a handle like Sam Spade I am surprised you don’t understand that anything sharp cuts both deep and both ways. Of course it wouldn’t be the first time an anonymous blogger felt comfortable positioning him or herself above the fray while contributing to it. Welcome Sammy to world of debate. Bring facts to support your opinions or stay of the porch with the little dogs.
Can you tell us why vacuum was never included in Paavo’s no bid engineer’s $7M study of alternatives?
Do you know why Lynette lies?
Is asking questions nasty Sam Spade?
Watershed Mark
08. Sep, 2009
Why would Paavo eject STEP/STEG from the design build process?
Why would Maria Kelly want a friend who lies while that person blogs in favor of Paavo’s incomplete and flawed progress?
Julie
08. Sep, 2009
Lynette,
I would love to take this opportunity to share with you the story of “Chipping Gate” from those who were involved, not the press and haters who look for anything “Jeff and Julie.”
I told our neighbor to the west of us on Rodman Dr. that the Chipping Day event was coming, he removed a large amount of saplings and branches from the Eucalyptus grove to the west of him. This is the property often mentioned in the Emergency Service Committee as the high fire hazard Eucalyptus grove that needs addressing in the Fire Protection Plan. As a former ESC member, I’m sure you remember it.
I was given a list of neighbors he thought he was protecting by removing the debris. I assumed, in hind sight I shouldn’t have, that all neighbors had been contacted. It didn’t even occur to me to check it out. I provided the list to Ann Kudart when I volunteered the morning of November 17, 2007, setting up the coffee and donuts at the operation on Fairchild Way about 8AM. That was my only involvement in the list of names, typed and delivered.
The property in question did/does not belong to Jeff Edwards, have you taken a drive by it? Recently more trees were removed, protecting the neighboring homes from potential falling debris and/or fire. It looks really good and meets Cal Fire approval.
There never were Eucalyptus on the property Jeff and I lived on, feel free to confirm that with Richard LeGros, he designed the house that was built there that we unfortunately lost to foreclosure.
Some of the debris that could not be chipped the day of Chipping Day was chipped some 3 days later by the LOCSD crew and a bill was accidentally sent to Jeff. It was re-addressed to and paid by the neighbor involved.
The rest was chipped by a local tree service that was also paid by the neighbor.
I really wasn’t involved, I was 9 months pregnant, there wasn’t much I could do. Baby Jack was delivered only 10 days later by cesarean section after my blood pressure spiked putting both our lives were at risk. I did receive flowers from the LOCSD office, a very nice boquet, authorized by Schempf and paid for by all of us taxpayers. I’ve never felt right about that, but did appreciate the thought.
The Sona Patel “story” ran 2 months later, without ever haven spoken to our neighbor.
The story she told highlighted Jeff blowing his top at the crew, while not my style and certainly not with my consent, Jeff swore at them after they pulled off the job while newly hired John Schempf stood there and told them to stay and work a bit longer. Jeff really thought they could do more if he helped them, which he did and got a nasty case of poison oak from it.
Yeah, so I didn’t check the list, I admitted that from the get-go, I know Jeff spoke to LeGros, he knew what was happening, it was his wedding day and he asked that they not run chippers during his backyard party…which we made sure of.
If anyone was hurt by the incident, I apologized. What more could I do? What more should I do? It wasn’t our debris it was our next door neighbor who took on the project and foot the bill.
If you have a suggestion of how I could have handled it better, I’d be interested. But, without all the facts, you are only jousting at windmills.
If this incident made me appear to be an ass, then so be it. If you believe all you read in the Tribune, well, you’re not an ass you just aren’t all that smart to put any faith in that publication…You especially, are involved enough to know that the Tribune doesn’t report whole truths and often miss major pieces of most stories. That story was merely to make a mockery of me, I never responded, it wasn’t worth it. Thanks for the opportunity.
Lisa Klump
08. Sep, 2009
Aaron, as usual you were “right on” concerning your explaination regarding the similarities with Maria & McPherson using their old & very boring mantra of “Trust the County”. What has the County EVER done for Los Osos that we should “trust them”? Recall the giant fiasco over the “medians” they installed on Santa Ysabel & the huge amount of money that was wasted on that little “project”??? The configuration is so “off” that it’s difficult to impossible for emergency vehicles to turn around on that street. The street is WAY too narrow for medians of that size. What the Hell was the County thinking? The answer is, “they WEREN’T!!!
Watershed Mark
08. Sep, 2009
As someone who lies, sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette isn’t interested in facts or truth as they both just get in the way of her and her associate’s agenda.
The County has been feeling “unaccountable” and that is no longer the case. Wait and see.
Watershed Mark
08. Sep, 2009
Accounting change is coming…
Julie
08. Sep, 2009
Sam Spade,
Just what do you think I’ve “turned into”?
My mother was and is still proud of me, we were very close and no matter how many years you knew her you obviously didn’t know her well. She would want me to be happy, which I am, that was the most important thing she wanted for all her children.
Can you say you’re happy?
Julie
08. Sep, 2009
Oh mtnbikir, your kind has said things like that for years. We do not have sewage running in our streets like the places you mention. We have a water problem. Wastewater is the largest renewable resource toward solving the water problem, and for $165 million it had better solve the problem. The most recent plan put before the community lacked an adequate disposal plan, as did the plan before it, and the plan before that. Moving the sewer has always been about the water. Stop reading the Tribune, the worst source of news in the County. That paper actually endorsed those projects…throwing water into the wind. Nice information for you to base your opinions one. Pick up the 2005 Sea Water Intrsusion study, now that’s a real eye opener!
Lisa Klump
08. Sep, 2009
Julie,
I have never been able to understand the “rational” behind people like “mtnbikir” & the rest of his ilk. I have NEVER seen sewage running down our streets like many of the “dreamers” have claimed. It has NEVER happened.
Lisa Klump
08. Sep, 2009
Watershed Mark,
I would also like to know why “vacuum” has NOT been considered by the County. Clearly, it’s the best option & the most affordable in my opinion. Since the homeowners in the PZ are paying the bill (NOT the COUNTY), why can’t we have what we want???
Julie
08. Sep, 2009
Hey Lisa Klump,
Limited raw sewage has spilled from a few septic systems that were inundated by stormwater, this is a kin to what will happen to the gravity collection system. Manholes are open and all too often are built below grade. The drainage in this community is substandard, when streets flood, the runoff pours into yards which then can no longer can absorb effluent. When that system gets used, “up come a bubbl’n crude.” It’s not that many systems that it happens to. I’ve seen 8th, 7th and 6th at El Moro, 13th & Nipomo, 16th & Paso, be problem areas. It’s not pretty, but the blame is not to be levied on the community it’s to be levied on the County who allowed development without improvements to streets, drainage ways and allowed homes be built in low lying areas. The people of this community have never advocated for filth, they have lobbied for a system that makes sense. Somehow, those who have been elected into power make a complete left turn once in power and the practicle project has yet to be realized. The closest we’ve been is the one the Planning Commission has presented, unfortunetly, the LOCSD Board that I was on in 2006 presented very near the same thing. AB2701 has been a waste of $7 million and 3 years, just to get right back where we were with Ripley. I was and still am opposed to AB2701, I was the only Director who opposed it all the way to the State Capitol. A lot of good it did, well, it did, Frank Acilio and I got the bill amended to give the County the authority to go beyond the WWP to address the water issues. It’s the County who has chosen the very narrow scope, mistakenly, for $165 million the project had better address all water issues. Sea water Intrusion 1st! Sewage 2nd.
On another note, did anyone else hear Bruce Gibson claim before the BOS that “Los Osos has some of the best roads in the County”? It was about 3 weeks ago, they were on the censent item related to the Grand Jury report on roads. What roads does he drive on when in Los Osos? The patches and pait are stronger than the asphalt.
Lisa Klump
08. Sep, 2009
Hi “Jules”,
You make perfect sense! I was always against AB2701. I thought it was very poorly written & completely flawed. Sam Blakeslee did NOT do us any favors. Keep goin’ girl!
Watershed Mark
08. Sep, 2009
Greetings Ms. Lisa Klump,
SLOCO is in line to receive/make a project management fee/commission on the Los Osos Septic Tank Discharge Elimination Project- LOSTDEP. The larger project the larger the fee/commission, which in my opinion is a conflict of interest on the part of those who would vote for it. There is no incentive to contain costs.
Lynette
09. Sep, 2009
Julie,
Nice story, but it seemed to contain a lot of extraneous information. Let’s stick to the main points.
You claim, “I was given a list of neighbors he (called out as Brent Richards in the Trib story) thought he was protecting by removing the debris.”
The story quotes Jeff as saying about Richards, (when asked why Richards didn’t spearhead the effort to contact neighbors or the district), “Edwards said: ‘He’s from out of the area. He doesn’t know people around here.’” So WHO DID spearhead the neighbors’ “collective effort” that article refers to?
The article says YOU “had organized a neighborhood cleanup at the upscale Cabrillo Estates neighborhood.” You are quoted, “Jeff and I coordinated an effort with our neighbors to have some piles picked up,” Tacker told The Tribune.” Not true? It also says, “The day of the event, Nov. 17, Tacker gave (the District) a list of neighbors who Tacker said participated in the community cleanup in Cabrillo Estates. She submitted a list of seven other residents, each of whom she assigned a pile of green waste. The list included Edwards and Tacker.”
So you are saying that Richards gave you that OTHER list of names? The guy from out of the area? The guy who doesn’t know people from around here? Or was Jeff misquoted?
You say YOU told Richards that Chipping day was coming, yet, as a Director very familiar with Chipping Days and minutiae on every aspect of Los Osos anything, you failed to tell him how it was conducted? So HE gave YOU the list of people he didn’t know which you submitted to the CSD without checking? Interesting.
You say, “The story she told highlighted Jeff blowing his top at the crew,” yet out of a 1,386 word story, the Edwards part was at the end and was only 148 words.
You say, “If anyone was hurt by the incident, I apologized. What more could I do? What more should I do?”
Did you contact the Trib? They printed two corrections to that story. Did you write a letter to the Editors with your side? No, you say, “That story was merely to make a mockery of me, I never responded, it wasn’t worth it.”
Also interesting. Thank you for your version of the story.
Watershed Mark
09. Sep, 2009
Counting words at 1:30 am…toil, toil, witches boil… or something like that.
No wonder Maria and sorry I forgot his last name Lynette are friends…
sam spade
09. Sep, 2009
So, Julie, you ditched your family for that sleazeball Edwards, defaulted on the SRF loan, and bankrupted the CSD, but it’s all okay because you’re “happy” ? Wow – what do you see when you look in the mirror ?
Watershed Mark
09. Sep, 2009
sam spade says:
September 7, 2009 Why am I not surprised at all the venom against Maria Kelly here ? I guess it’s because nastiness attracts nastiness. Good start, Ochs.
Why so nasty spade? Why don’t have the courage to use your real name? Who or what are you afraid of?
The SRF loan was not legally supported by a 218 vote to repay it.
David Duggan
09. Sep, 2009
This was clearly an attack on the peoples right to participate in the process. The wheel analogy belays the fact that the outside of the wheel is where the rubber meets the road. You might say the business end of the wheel. We all know that if your wheel has thin tread and is flat the performance is greatly diminished. That is why (by law) the Brown Act demands that government makes the time for the public to participate. This guarantees the sovereignty of the people to control their governmental institution. This is clearly a repackaging of an attempt to limit the peoples rights.
Julie
09. Sep, 2009
Lynette,
Thanks for the play by play on the Sona Patel story, I didn’t save a copy. As I said, I was given a list of names whose homes were protected by the clean up effort, to be honest I don’t know how the list was generated. I typed it and gave it to the LOCSD because they had a grant they wanted to assign piles to, otherwise they don’t usually collect names. I did contact the Trib to ask for corrections, they printed the two relavent to the billing. Try getting a correction or retraction sometime, they work as hard as they can not to do either.
As for “coordinating” and “collective efforts”, as I remember it, I called Ann Kudart to have the piles picked up, told her what I knew to be a neighborhood effort and that there were multiple piles. I guess you can call that “spearheading”?
This is what I know for sure:
Jeff worked with Mr. Richards on what debris was to go and helped load the chipper with the LOCSD guys. Jeff arranged for chips to go next door to LeGros (to save time verses driving the truck all the way back down the hill), that property owner was on the list and refused to speak with the Trib.
Cal Fire was consulted.
Richard LeGros was contacted.
The man in the “castle” (I don’t know his name off hand) was contacted, on the other side of the grove.
Mr. Richards coordinated with the property owner and paid time and materials to the LOCSD for anything that wasn’t an ordinary service of Chipping Day.
Lynette, Chipping Day is a free service, generally it’s paid for by each of us in our trash bill, this particular Chipping Day had a grant from Cal Fire. The intent of the grant was to assist with fuel reduction.
I don’t know what you refer to as an attempt by Jeff to get out of paying (in your previuos post), paying for what? None of it was our debris and there is no charge if it had been our debris.
I can defend myself from your questions but, why? The event accomplished what it was suposed to; fuel reduction in Cabrillo, my involvement was minimal, the press made a big stink and you want to do the same. Subject closed.
Julie
09. Sep, 2009
Dear Sam Spade,
You don’t know what you’re talking about with regard to my family.
For the record, the LOCSD Board suspended work under the terms of the contract with the SRF on the Tri-W project. The SRF breached the loan contract by rescinding the loan, thus bakruptcy was iminent.
Lisa Klump
09. Sep, 2009
To “Sam Spade”,
You are really a disgusting ‘person’ (and I use the word loosely), What has Julie ever done to YOU for you to attack her in such an outrageous way? I don’t want to bring myself DOWN to YOUR level, but YOU are a scum bag. There is no reason to bad mouth Julie. If you have mean things to say to her, at least do it in private. (assuming YOU have the cajones to do so)
Lynette
09. Sep, 2009
Julie, my previous post said nothing about Jeff and paying, so I don’t know what you mean.
Again, thanks for the story.
Remember Bruce Buel? He sent a letter to Darren Polhemus asking what would happen if the project changed into a different one. The reply back came a few days before the recall. The letter CLEARLY STATED that the SRF loan was PROJECT SPECIFIC. You wanted a DIFFERENT PROJECT. You and Lisa BOTH knew this information. So why the loan was pulled should be no mystery to you.
You wonder why people appear to be against you? Maybe it had something to do with disregarding warnings from various agencies to NOT do something and then going ahead and doing them anyway and being “surprised” at the outcome.- the disastrous outcome for which you take no responsibility. Maybe it is that?
Watershed Mark
10. Sep, 2009
Sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette, Why do you lie?
Julie
10. Sep, 2009
Lynette, your September 7, 2009 at 11:19 am post did mention having to pay.
As for the SRF loan, I am not mistified by the loan being pulled, I am perplexed by the process, there’s that word again, there really wasn’t one. The loan was yanked without a hearing in court, which now is part of what is stayed in Bankruptcy.
All we did was “suspend work” we had that ability under the terms of the loan, we also had the ability to amend the project under the terms of the loan. Which we would have liked to do, but never had the chance.
The political dominos are what fell, thus the mess we’re in today.
The recall was going to take place no matter what, only one Board member need be recalled, the decision to suspend work was prudent, we didn’t know (no one did) where the contractors were, how much pipe had been laid, what the full extent of the project had been undertaken, any new Board majority would have done the same. Rob Miller was sent out to learn where all the pipe had been laid and report back. That’s how we learned there was only 3000 ft. in the ground verses miles of street torn up. What a waste of resources on the part of the previous Board. Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!
Julie
10. Sep, 2009
Lisa Klump,
Thank you for coming to my defense against Sam Spade. It is clear that while Sam claims to have known my mother, many people did, he would not have been close to her.
My mother had the uncanny ability to place no judgement on people, she wouldn’t be judging me or Jeff Edwards, like Sam is.
She was and will always be my hero. She knew I wasn’t as happy as I could be when she died. She longed for me to be my own woman and not let other’s opinion’s of me be my guide.
As I approach the age she was when she got sick, I have shed the idea that I need people to like me. There are much more important things in life.
While none of Sam’s business, the best thing I ever did for my family was make the decissions I did. Like many families, these decissions were painful, all have survived and with a blessing from God, baby Jack, has brought us all closer together.
My only regret is that people like Sam Spade think my life is their business, it’s not, never has been and never will be.
By the way, my mother would have lovbed Jeff Edwards, he’s very much like my dad. Funny how that worked out.
Thanks again, Julie
Lynette
10. Sep, 2009
Julie,
You are right – my Sept 7 post did allude to pay, (but I meant BOTH of you, not JUST Jeff, I didn’t call him out specifically).
To begin:
You didn’t get the process. But you GOT that the loan would be pulled. Why did you expect a hearing in court to pull that loan? You had broken the agreement of the loan. Going to court would be LATER to sort it out. Meanwhile, they are not going to keep funding you when no one is working.
At what point did you realize you were liable for the contracts signed with the contractors? Even if no street was unzipped you still had to pay the contractors! And how were they suddenly going to start building a STEP project? Did they have the sort of equipment needed? Were they even contractors that did that sort of work?
So there you are with no money. How did you expect to keep the District running without that SRF money?
Under the terms of the loan, which was project specific, you could AMEND a project, that is true. But amend it to what? What did you really have? Unless Ripley was behind the scenes telling you you could develop an alternate plan – what did you think you were really going to be able to do? Ripley wasn’t even hired at that point and wouldn’t be for months. In any case, yours was an entirely different project, one which left out a DESIGN and which had no method of disposal, only ag exchange/in-lieu. As we have seen from the PC, this isn’t even feasible at this time and ag exchange will do almost nothing to halt seawater intrusion.
Seawater Intrusion: So you morphed from “No Sewer” to “$100/mo Out-of-Town” to “We need to halt seawater intrusion?”
You might have noticed the huge ACCELERATION of seawater intrusion from 2005 (when the board you were on stopped the project) to the present, as presented by the LO Sustainability Group? How do you feel about that? George Milanés had to wait 18 MONTHS to work on ANY of the planned water infrastructure projects that would have saved some of our water. Never mind that your Board almost lost the IBank loan altogether which funded those projects. NOW you are all about stopping seawater intrusion?
But let’s get back on topic. You minimize that 3,000 feet of pipe in the ground. However, I’ll just cite some information out of the financial audit report for the year ending on June 30, 2008 (which covers July 1, 2007 until June 30, 2008). I’ll cite information on page 26, under “Government activities, Construction-in-progress.” There you will see the figure $22,067,856. Now go to page 27 under the heading “Governmental activities.”
“The Construction in Progress in governmental activities represents the total construction expended on a wastewater treatment system that was stopped in November 2005 by a new board elected at that time.”
The old project was FIVE YEARS in development. That is what that old project and those pipes are worth according to the audit. The streets being torn up are a really a non-issue when referencing the total cost of what stopping the project has meant.
Speaking of which, why did your board continue to spend money for the development of a wastewater project after AB2701 passed? The State had given wastewater authority to the County – codified by the California State Legislature – that is a LAW. You had NO authority to spend money on that! And where did that money come from? The missed bond payment? Reserves?
Guess who is paying for these poor decisions – the people of Los Osos. The bond payment on the old project – we still have years to go on that. The repayment of that missing bond reserve – eight years to pay that. The bankruptcy? Who knows what and for how long. ALL THAT –AND — a NEW project!
You have a great deal of responsibility for the mess we are in today. Don’t keep trying to pass the blame onto the old board or the State.
Julie
11. Sep, 2009
Lynette,
You still haven’t answered PAY for what?
With regard to the SUSPENDED WORK, that’s all we did. From that point, the SRF violated the contract. We were allowed to SUSPEND WORK for 90 days, they were obligated to pay invoices, which they failed to do. The details you mention would have been very different if we were allowed to proceed under that suspention.
Once again, thanks for the history.
Julie
11. Sep, 2009
Oh, by the way, you say I morphed from “no sewer, to Move the Sewer, to Halt Seawater Intrusion”. My septic system works fine, I’ve always been a fan of septic tanks — free treatement, what’s wrong with that, pro STEP is not No Sewer. Move the Sewer was about much more than location, look at the CCLO appeals, they were far more in depth than just location. As for SWI, salt has been dedected at the Palisades well since before 2005, thus the District reduced pumping.
I’m happy to say I’ve learned what’s important over the years, call it morphing if you want. I’m proud tho have clarified the real message; SWI 1st, pollution 2nd.. This community has had its priorities out of order for the last 30 years.
Roger
11. Sep, 2009
Yeah, like the morphing from CSA9 to Solutions Group to Save the Dream to Taxpayers Watch. Same people.
David Duggan
11. Sep, 2009
In Maria Kelly’s defense I welcome her point of view even if I don’t agree with it. As a LOCSD Director she has no wastewater authority as far as this project is concern and therefore she doesn’t represent her constituency in this matter unless the LOCSD board appoints her to do so. But as an individual, resident or not she has the right to participate.That being said she is also a public figure, and being so she is open to criticism and the like even to the point of absurdity, speculation and satire. As I browse this blog I see no responses to any of the remarks made about her. I applaud her restraint.
Lynette
11. Sep, 2009
Hello again Julie. I’d like to preface my comments with some information copied from this document:
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 – 0088
WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDING FOR THE LOS OSOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
(DISTRICT); WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROJECT
(PROJECT); STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) LOAN PROJECT NO. C-06-4014-110
This is the part I would like to cite:
4. The District’s action to suspend work and intent to relocate the wastewater treatment
plant site had prompted Division of Financial Assistance (Division) staff to issue a Notice
to Withhold disbursements of SRF funds to the District in a letter dated October 18,
2005;
5. Division staff has reason to believe that the District’s action is in breach or has threatened
breach of the SRF loan agreement by substantially changing the scope of the approved
Project;
6. On November 16, 2005, the State Water Board adopted Resolution No. 2005-0083 to
continue withholding disbursement requests of SRF funds until the Division receives:
a. Official notification of resumption of work by November 23, 2005, on all three
construction contracts, for construction of a wastewater treatment plant at the Tri-W site,
in compliance with previous approvals; or
b. Official notification by the District no later than close of business on November 23,
2005, that the District accepts the phased approach put forth by Assemblyman Blakeslee
(Attachment A) requiring:
(1) Immediate groundwater remediation,
(2) Immediate filing of opposition to Measure B with the appellate court,
(3) Secure immediately a bond to cover the amounts reimbursed from the SRF
prior to passage of a Proposition 218 assessment vote, and
(4) Measure B repeal vote; and
7. The District declined to accept the State Water Board’s conditions in Resolution No.
2005-0083 by letter of November 23, 2005 and District Resolution No. 2005-49.
sam spade
11. Sep, 2009
Wow, Lynette, facts instead of ’spin’. Nice job !
Lynette
11. Sep, 2009
How you can believe changing a project from gravity/MBR/Tri-W to STEP/ponds?/out-of-town is not a MAJOR change and a concern to the Water Board is just amazing in its blindness to reality.
I’d also like to add that if the board you were on had cut off the contracts correctly, the CSD wouldn’t have owed a dime in arbitration, the contractors would have owed us.
I’m glad that YOUR septic tank works fine. But I would think that you might have noticed the house directly across from your house, a poorly maintained, very small house, that had to put in a NEW septic tank this past week. How much did that cost those people? In our neighborhood 6 or 7 homes had to put in new tanks and leach fields in the past 2 years. How much did that cost them? You might ask those people how they feel about the project delay. Maybe they should they take on a second job to pay for tank/leach field replacements that will soon be valueless as they wait for the sewer to arrive?
Septic tanks are one thing, leach fields are quite another. How is your leach field is performing? Got a lysimeter underneath it? Do you believe in magic sand? That the density of 8-12 houses per acre has no effect on leach field performance? How are all those homes in high groundwater with leach PITS helping the situation?
Please don’t start in on septic tank management programs as being any answer, they don’t gauge leach field/pit performance. Just because crud isn’t backing up into your house doesn’t guarantee that it is working.
Your personal perception of “free treatment” has cost this community dearly. $22 million, give or take so far, PLUS $165 million for the new version of a WWTF.
Claiming the community – not you of course! – has had its priorities out of order for 30 years gives us a very clear idea on how you think. Do you realize the insult you have just delivered to the community? The PZ community that has CDO’s and NOV’s placed on every house thanks to the mismanagement of your board? Blame everyone but yourself is a very consistent theme with you. It is always the fault of the State, the Water Board, the County, TW.
If you have been so at the forefront of stemming salt water intrusion, maybe you can list the water issue POLICIES you authored/voted to enact while on the board? Short list isn’t it? Meanwhile a million gallons of dirty water is entering the upper aquifer daily. The aquifer we are going to have to use to still have water to drink.
The CCLO appeals have been debunked. Clarifying your real message? Delay, delay, delay.
Julie
13. Sep, 2009
Lynette,
Are you stalking me? You seem to be watching what’s going on at or around my home. It’s a little creepy.
Thanks for more history.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between pro STEP and No Sewer, I am pro STEP.
As for water policies, you are correct, the Board’s I was on (three seperate make up’s) didn’t accomplish much in the way of implimentation. All three Board’s did carry out the I-Bank work, which was valuable, but for the mess at the South Bay well…Help me ask for a full report, I’m not hearing the detail I want out of the current Board.
As for water conservation, I have stepped up, I stood on the corner at Farmer’s Market with the District gear for the first year after the recall, handing out information and showerheads. I coordinated the September 2006 “Water Night” with Rob Miller, Ron Munds (no charge to the District) from SLO City to go over the Urban Water Managmeent Plan and possibilities for conservation. The night also included Spencer Harris to present the Upper Aquifer Charachterization Study. Later, started 528-FLOW and I have replaced over 100 toilets in this community.
As for delay, I want a project that deals with water, pollution is secondary…It took 9 years to put in the El Moro bike path, 30 years to put in 45 miles of sewer pipe seems on par.
Lynette
13. Sep, 2009
Hey Julie, on water issues you left out the part where YOUR board of “move-the-sewers” had Mr. Milanés waiting 18 months to continue work on the water-saving IBank projects that he had started, and almost lost him that low interest loan which would have completely STOPPED those water saving projects!
Looks like you intend to continue fighting the State against getting a WWTF in Los Osos. “Pollution is secondary” is only in YOUR mind, not the RWQCB’s mind. They want to see a plant BUILT. They cannot mandate building a sewer on salt water intrusion – it has to be built because of POLLUTION. You apparently agree we are polluting as the upper aquifer has trace elements of man made pollution that you say is not to be used for drinking, never mind those pesky nitrates.
Your wishful thinking – 30 years to put in sewer pipe? A bike path didn’t have a powerful water pollution regulation agency breathing down its neck, did it? Or did you forget about the CDO’s and NOV’s? Think the RWQCB will forget about us just because the County has the project?
I see the information from Spencer Harris’s presentation stuck though, as you are NOT in support of using upper aquifer water for water use now or in the future – but you don’t seem to see the disconnect in your thinking that CLEANING UP that same upper aquifer water to make it useable again WITHOUT blending would be an enormous BENEFIT to Los Osos and the SUSTAINABILITY of our water supply.
STEP is not possible, the Supes are smart enough to see the legal hassle that would present, plus its total infeasibility on some streets, so you might want to give that idea up. Gorby isn’t going to happen either. So, my question to you is, with those two items out of the sewer picture, will you and Jeff sue if the plant goes in at Giacomazzi or Tonini with a gravity system? Or do you finally realize that getting something done — not fast obviously – it has been 30 years — is the best thing to protect our water supply instead of tying up the process with litigation?
Lynette
13. Sep, 2009
I think your comment that I am stalking you is bizarre. I only made a comment once – many posts ago – because I tripped on the bark you spread onto the roadway walking past your house. Lots of people walk across that road, I might not have been the only person who tripped. Try thinking beyond your nose.
I see a theme here. You don’t seem to notice how your behavior affects other people, whether it is chips to trip on, or stopping – with no plan of your own – a fully permitted and funded project that leave us all now to pay for two projects.
How fast we forget our history – Jeff started 528-FLOW, not you. He later signed it over to you. Also, you stopped the Water Advisory Committee’s toilet retrofit ordinance. Was that because it might have a negative impact on your retrofit business? You should have recused yourself from that decision.
Speaking of recusing yourself – like you finally had to do during property negotiations on the mid-town property that Jeff was attempting to buy – you finally had to spill that you were “working” for Jeff. You claimed you were “hired” September 1st to CYA on your CSD property negotiations in August! That escapade cost the District $11,000 in legal fees so Mrs. Biggs could write a paper on the process.
Did you read the Trib today? The article regarding the Clean Water Act? Front page. It is YOU who have the process backwards. Clean water FIRST.
Julie
13. Sep, 2009
The road belongs to this property, until the County takes over maintaining it, that’s the law. You are welcome to cross it. You also spoke about the neighbors septic issues, are you watching them too?
In 2006 I recused myself from discssions in Closed Session with regard to the Corr property (which Jeff was involved in, the District was suing him in an eminent domain action for the WWP). Tri-w negotiations with Jeff were well over when I went to work for myself, contracting for Jeff’s projects. Biggs didn’t have to weigh in at all, that was her call for the protection of the Board.
528-FLOW is mine, Jeff works as a sales manager. How it evolved is no secret.
I don’t know how I stopped the WAC’s toilet retrofit ordinance, give me some history here, dates actions, remember I was only one vote. There are plenty of high flow toilets to go around, be my guest change some. You’ll be shocked to find 6 gallon per flush out there.
I can be pro STEP if I want, whether it happens or not remains to be seen, you’ll see that the JHEdwards appeal does not raise that issue, I don’t need to fight for it, others will, many are, even your friends at the Bear Valley Alliance want STEP. The County promised a fair shake, they broke their promise. Process, process, process…hum, where’s Maria on that one?
Gorby wasn’t co-equally anylized, that’s merely what we are asking for. I like Giacomazzi, the post recall board had an option on it in 2006. I’m pissed that we spent all this time and money ending up right where the Blakeslee compromise left us off. (3+ years ago)…I supported that (no STEP alternatve) if you recall.
The water board finally does get it, have you been in attendance the last several meetings? I didn’t see you in SLO last week, or Avila in July, or in SLO last May for that matter. Have you read their May 15 letter to the County? They want more from the sewer than nitrate removal…for $165 million, so should you. They want conservation, sea water intrusion mitigation and those pesky nitrates cleaned up. They want a project that returns water to the basin and do not support the Tonini project for that reason.
Cleansing the upper aquifer or blending down nitrates doesn’t scare me, nitrates are natural. It’s the real shit in the water that does…formaldahyde, hormones, shampoo, chemotherapy, meth labs, real poisin, bottoms up! THe new report doesn’t even mention the quality report done in 2006.
You say Milanes was waiting around for 18 mos, what was he doing all that time? He reported to the Board month after month that he was very busy and couldn’t survive without his over-manned crew. Maybe he was busy landscaping his yard with LOCSD equipment for those months?
The bike path had the very powerful US Fish & Wildlife Service breathing down its neck…endangered spieces protection is likely the most expensive mitigation component of the project, snails, frogs, birds, lizards, butterflies, guess what they’re breathing down the WWP neck too. Strapping on costly restoration at Broderson, just to have it “ripped” up every 5 years, only to invite the species back to be taken again and again…protected and paid for with sewer dollars. Now that is part of our appeal.
Lisa Klump
13. Sep, 2009
Geez Louise, Lynette! You’ve obviously got WAY too much time on your hands. Do you RAG on Lou as much as you do on Julie? No wonder old Lou’s been acting a little, shall we say, STRANGE lately! Get a hobby and/or a life.
David Duggan
14. Sep, 2009
Geez Louise, MS. Klump, that’s my line. Lynette and Julie seem to be jousting just fine. The tilting of the debate lance in this forum is par for the course. True both parties seem to be a bit long winded but I believe their divergent view points deserve to see the light of day as any other. So Lynette and Julie, keep on keeping on.
David Duggan
Lynette
14. Sep, 2009
Thank you Dave!
Lynette
14. Sep, 2009
Julie, if you don’t care if people trip, possibly fall, on the chips you have scattered, then take my words as protective advice. If you are liable for the road, you are liable for accidents that you might cause.
I drive 15th Street frequently, as do many, many others. It was a little hard to miss a bright, white, round plastic tank the size of a VW bug in that otherwise bare yard.
You didn’t answer my question. Do you plan to sue if the Supes don’t do what you want?
Julie
15. Sep, 2009
Lynette,
There will be no lawsuits until after the Coastal Commission hears the project, that process must be taken in order to exhaust all administrative remedies before anyone CAN sue.
Whether it is me or someone else, doesn’t matter, it’s likely if the project doesn’t get smarter and greener.
Lynette
15. Sep, 2009
Julie, maybe you can explain how your board did not READ the SRF loan contract where it clearly stated that in order to stop a project you needed to ask the State to do so. When their verification came back, at THAT point you could suspend work and retool. No wonder the Water Board sued the CSD – you DIDN’T DO THAT. Why?
Julie
15. Sep, 2009
Ever heard of a little thing called Measure B? What would you do if you had been elected at the same time a new law had been passed? Ignore it? No matter, if a new Board majority had come in the right thing to do would be to suspend work until the entire Board knew where the project stood. Which is what we did.
I was on the Board before the recall, even I didn’t know how much of the project had been completed or how much money had been spent. The last “regular” Board meeting we’d had was the first week of September. The last time we met a Special Board meeting held on September 12, was my last meeting with Stan, Richard and Gordon, 8:00am (Lisa could not attend) at Sea Pines, a real pleasant experience, were you there? Actuall, it was quite moving, the crowd broke out in song, God Bless America. That meeting was to approve an insurance bond that Bruce Buel (remember him?) put his house up as security for the project. Ethical? No. Smart? Defintely not! Lucky for him I “torpedoed” that bond and it was never enacted, otherwise he still might have his house laying on the line for the project.
Ever want to answer that question about what Jeff and I were suposed to “pay” for?
Lynette
15. Sep, 2009
Measure B did not prevent you from asking the State for that suspension, in fact it would be the REASON that you would go to them to ASK for that suspension. You had to uphold that contract even though you did not approve of it because YOU were on the LOCSD Board. Sorry, that excuse just doesn’t fly.
There is a very interesting difference between what Bruce Buel was willing to do and what you did. He was willing to put his house on the line to save the project and the community million of dollars. You say you “had” to stop the project, but were unwilling to read – or understand – the legal requirements of the contract to back out of it the correct way, thereby COSTING the community millions of dollars. BIG difference.
You say,
“I didn’t know how much of the project had been completed or how much money had been spent”
Well, you were there after the recall. The prudent thing to do would have been to FIND OUT before going off half-cocked and wrecking things.
You had a second chance during the Blakeslee Compromise. But you blew that one too.
Thinker
15. Sep, 2009
Julie,
While Measure B may have become ‘law’, there is no doubt that the Measure’s very constitutionality was in question prior to the recall election. While you say you had a responsibility to encoforce the law, you also had the responsibility to make damn sure that the law was legal to begin with before basing LOCSD policy upon it. Also, there is no law that says you cannot take time after the passage of such a measure to determine its legality. You seem to forget that the very issue of the measure’s legality would have been heard in the Appeal court in October of 2005. The LOCSD would have been completely correct to take a few weeks to let the Appeals Court to adjudicate it. Insrtead, your board just plowed ahead without any input from staff, attornies, the regulators, etc. How was the public protected by your actions?
You state that you have to obey the law as an elected official. That is absoolutely correct. Then why did you act to to obey the law? The SRF loan contract was very clear that no stoppage or suspended could occur without prior official permission of the SWRCB. The Contracts with the Contractors were very specific on how work stoppages would to occur; and how the contractors were to be reimbursed for the stoppage time too. None of that was considered prior to your board disasterus decision to stop woprk on October 3, 2005.
Do not forget there were many other laws your board had to obey too….such as the cleanup and abatement orders of the RWQCB, the Clean Water Act, etc. Thosw laws were not obeyed by your board either.
No, Lynette is correct. Your excuse that the public made you do it through Measure B does not fly; and quite frankly just an excuse to avoid yor responsibility for your boards decisons.
Lynette
15. Sep, 2009
Thank you Thinker for your reply.
It was painful tonight to sit in the audience at the Emergency Services Committee meeting and hear that the Fire Department’s strategic planning process is about to begin this year. Another tough year where there won’t be the funds to repair the concrete pad at the station (delayed for several years now) or replace the drafty windows (ditto). The CSD has finally climbed out of the pit enough from the bankruptcy to finally replace the aged Fire Chief’s vehicle (overdue) and throw some money into the sinking fund, but it still has a long, long way to go to recapture the hundreds of thousands in Fire Reserves that disappeared from the Fire Department in 2006.
The folly of stopping the project has resonated through every area under the CSD’s purview. It is amazing to me that there is no apology for having caused this community-wide economic fallout – that personal justification is the answer to these issues.
Julie
16. Sep, 2009
Measure B was the law, like it or not, that is why we did what we did and whether or not it would “fly” is now for the courts to decide. Thanks Thinker for chiming in, it is my understanding that our staff WAS in constant contact with the SRF folks. They didn’t like what we did, we expected they wouldn’t, but we looked at it and still do as a natural disaster … so to speak. Here’s a hypathetical…Let’s say Monterey Mechanical had unearthed an ancient Chumash civilization on the Tri-W site, work would have been suspended and the treatement site relocated to avoid the impacts. In this case, the natural disater was the voters, passing Measure B, which we believed in and even if we didn’t it only took the recall of one Board member to change course.
Again, suspending work was the prudent thing to do. SRF knew what and why we did what we did, the SWRC Board didn’t like it the politics were played and the chips have fallen where they lay today.
Do I like it? No. Would I change it, some things yes, some things no. It was me who begged we let Wildan/Bleskey go only a few months after Dan was assigned to the LOCSD, I was alone. I went to the COunty and asked for someone from them on contract, I was told no one could be spared. I was also told by Noel King that we should just dump the wastewater in the ocean and import Naci water…no thanks Noel. Later, I begged we let Anna Jane go, earlier as opposed to later, I was almost alone (Joe supported me) and again, it was only Joe and me who supported letting Schempf go (I knew only a month or so after he arrived that he was going to ride the gravy train and do nothing…which he did).
The district has been screwed, but it takes 3 to tango (to get screwed) and I was often the desenting vote (on all three Board make-ups I was on).
If the Tri-W project were so great, why doesn’t the County want to touch it? The disposal scheme is a liability (as per Paavo). It never made sense to me (I’m just a homemaker like Lynette)…pumping the water around and around hiding it in the plant. Yeah, that’s why we suspended work, to save us all the nightmare of playing hide the water.
The fire department is fine Lynette, you should have met Bruce Pickens. You should have been in the house when he tried to pass the first fire tax…”people are going to die” if we don’t charge them nearly double what the ultimate firetax ended up being. Talk about moral in the sewer…you should have been here.
Lynette
16. Sep, 2009
Julie,
As clean as you try to wash this picture for us, your board did NOT abide by the CONTRACT for the SRF loan. That was a LEGAL document before Measure B existed. Disregarding the terms of the SRF contract was the first step that got the ball rolling to the financial disaster that we are in now. How is it that you did not understand this? There was not any defensible reason to not have gone to the public, explained the SRF contract and then promptly contacted the state with the compelling and reasonable request for work stoppage, Measure B. Trying to justify what you did using the Chumash example is trying to compare apples to oranges. Let’s just say it would not have mattered if the State didn’t like what you were doing. Doing it, while playing by THEIR RULES, would have left them with a defensible reason of their own to ALLOW you to AMEND the project. In short, you shot yourself in the foot.
Funny, I don’t recall any IGM negotiation discussions on the closed session agenda. Was it even agendized? Are you telling us with that with no board direction, you took it upon yourself to go to the County to beg for a contract person? Do you have any idea how wrong that is? Do you not understand what it is to be PART OF A BOARD?
Are you saying that you alone had the brilliance to see how bad Bleskey was, while Lisa, John, Chuck and Steve sat their like idiots never noticing? HARSH!
The RWQCB did not allow the approved Tri-W project to dump the wastewater into the ocean – how does that fit into this discussion – or are you just trying to deflect attention away from the issue here by throwing in how you disliked Noel’s alleged “advice,” or Anajane’s work? These are things that happened AFTERWARDS! Not relevant except you seem to need to defend yourself by throwing in extra stuff.
A “nightmare of playing hide the water?” NIGHTMARE? The what the water was doing was fine for the population we have, just not fine for build out. Will there even be a build out? Who know? It is a lot less likely now that we have done NOTHING for years to clean up and protect our water supply.
The Fire Department would be a lot “finer” right now if that half million it had IN ITS RESERVES had not been SPENT while your board was in charge. How can you sit in those Emergency Services meetings and not be concerned with the delays and endangerment that Mr. Margetson has spoken about on numerous occasions? Who cares what it was like under Pickens? $500,000 in reserves VANISHED under your watch!
YOU made Tri-W the political mess that it is today and don’t play dense, of course that is why the County doesn’t want to touch it. It was an approved, permitted project under construction! But YOU and your group MESSED THAT UP SO GOOD the County is afraid of it. That has left us with two locations, either of which will mean lawsuits and MORE DELAYS, thereby damaging our water supply further than it already has been.
You were on the tour of the various WWTF sites that was given for the Planning Commission. I guess you did not hear Ann Wyatt when she spoke to another commissioner at the Tri-W location – “Why can’t we just put it here – is it political?” And of course the answer was yes. Even though Tri-W now makes the most sense time-wise, money-wise, land-wise and water-wise – keeping the water right here in town – (we could easily send a pipe out to the farmers), oh no – you have ruined that chance for us to get something in the ground before it is to late.
Maybe you will get your perfect plant (no wait – you want Gorby!) – anyway, some will be happy, I’m sure. Too bad at that late date the horse has long left the barn in search of water elsewhere.
Julie
17. Sep, 2009
Let’s start where you end. The “perfect plant” location, no matter where … is outside of town. $25 million saved right off the top, no wave walls, play structures, lawn mowing, “parklike” BS, this figure is/was agreed on by the SRF reps and by Paavo. Again, all we ask for Gorby is a fair analysis. Did you hear Mark Hutchinson say the disposal scheme would last “about 10 minutes” while standing at Tri-W, on that tour?
Thanks for the credit, “the County’s afraid of it”, too bad the LOCSD wasn’t afraid of me and “my group”, maybe they wouldn’t have used our money to attempt to retain their seats by pounding every dollar they could into the ground in an attempt to convince voters that it was a “done deal.” That arrogance is what cost them their seats.
I was just as surprised as anyone that the fire reserves were gone and fought for information to share with the committee. You may recall when I went over Annajane’s head, straight to the bank, to get balances she wouldn’t share. Pickens just spent $500K on things that were sold as surplus for pennies on the dollar.
Lynette, the wastewater was to be sent to the bay after it was “harvested”, the RWQCB didn’t give a permit because the LOCSD “withdrew” their application for one when the Coastal Commission caught wind of their intent. The back up plan, hiding the water in the plant was just plain stupid! You say it was “fine until buildout”, not so! Recycling the water throught plant where it would just pick up more salts to be deposited at Broderson where the disposal needs to be clean is worse than what we’re doing right now.
I can’t answer if there will be a buildout or not, that is one of the JHEdwards appeal contentions.
“HARSH” on Steve, Lisa and Chuck, so be it. I was adamant that we needed a new GM and still lost my arguement. I sought help from the County without direction to see if it was even possible. No need to agendize. I didn’t need the Board to let me investigate possibilities. I still enjoy investigations, like following up on Maria’s “Harvest Well” disaster, maybe you can tell me who asked for an “Interagency Agreement” with regard to that item, I haven’t found the paper trail to support it.
Lastly, you call my comparison of a Chumash village and Measure B “apples and oranges”. Maybe so, I call it an example of a possible scenario that would have allowed “cover” to move the sewer. As if we needed it? Every governmental body we went to prior to the recall said “change your Board” and were perplexed as to why we would be building a sewer in the middle of our town.
You and I aren’t accomplishing anything in this dialogue. I’m inclided to move on to bettter uses of my time. Thanks for debate.
Thinker
17. Sep, 2009
Julie,
Measure B was not a ‘natural disaster’. Natural disasters are events that happen without any human intervention. Think earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes.
Measure B was a man-made measure written by an attorney (Julia Biggs) to purposely do one thing; to derail and kill the Tri-W Project while making it impossible to site ANY waste water treatment facility within the boundaries of the LOCSD. Measure B, at its’ core, is a ‘no sewer’ option. Your own board opined in open session that Measure B made the siting of a treatment facility within the District impossible; hence the Measure immediately became a problem for the district.
While the Measure touts that no facility will be sited near homes, what the measure really promotes is that the facility could not be built near OUR homes; instead the facility would be sited at the expense of others by building the treatment site by somebody else’s homes ‘out of town’. In other word, exporting our crap to an area where the residents are disfranchised; i.e. outside the LOCSD boundaries, hence unable to vote on LOCSD siting issues at all. That, Julie, is a social justice issue. What I also question (and find hypocritical) is that many who supported Measure B then now find no problem with the County’s current plan to locate the facility by the homes of others outside the district.
As to your ‘hypothetical’, it is incomplete (meaning that the logic does not follow). If such an archeological find was uncovered, there were established protocols (as described in the Approved Coastal Development Permit, as agreed upon by the California Native American Heritage Commission and our local Chumash Council) as to how to suspend the work adjacent to the find while a decision was made in regards to the find itself. The work suspension would be only local to the site while work continued on other aspects of the project elsewhere. The entire project need not be stopped, just work around the site in question. The LOCSD need have stopped the ENTIRE project in order to modify a part of it (the siting of the Treatment Facility).
In regards to your claim that the Staff was in contact with the State, where is the documentation of the LOCSD’s correspondence in which the LOCSD staff or Board asked the State for permission to suspend the project?
In regards to your position to seek dismissal of Wildan/Blesky, did you not seek out Wildan/Blesky to begin with prior to the 2005 election? It is fact that you whole-heartedly seconded the motion (made by director Senet) at the October 1, 2005 LOCSD open session to hire Wildan Blesky. Why the change of heart? Later, why the change of heart about Schempf?
Regarding the County’s position about Tri-W. I see you acknowledge that the disposal of treated waste water disposal scheme as adopted by the Tri-W project did ‘not make sense’ to you. That is an honest statement. However, it is fact that the very disposal scheme you speak of was thoroughly reviewed and approved by the CCC and the County. It was completely understood by the CCC and the County that the disposal system was viable, with only the question of disposal at full build out as an quantitative unknown. That unknown would have been studied and resolved over the life of the project.
You suggest that the County sees the Tri-W’s disposal system as flawed, which it does not. If the County did see the disposal system as unworkable, they would not have approved the LOCSD’s application to build it to begin with. To wit, the County cannot say on one hand the system was viable and on the other say it is not.
Julie
17. Sep, 2009
Thinker,
Read the County’s memo to the Planning Commission (July). The Tri-W disposal scheme is a “liability” and the current conditions of approval for the project specifically preclude “Havest Wells”.
By the way, when the County BOS approved the Tri-W LOWWP in 2003 they were under the impression that the bay was the outfall. It was changed when the CCC looked at the project in 2004. The CCC further condtitioned the project to find places for the “Harvest Water” prior to buildout.
Wildan is a well known/respected firm, I got recommendatons from those I respected including Rob Miller. Bleskey was the wrong fit for the District and was only intended to be interim…In my opinion he was in his position longer than I would have liked. Schempf was the last man standing when the 2007 Board was looking to hire…the “change of heart” came with performance — there was none.
Do a public records act request for documentation between Bleskey and the state, I’m sure you’ll find plenty. Ask for phone records, I know there were many phone calls.
Measure B is what it is. Ag land is zoned appropriately, a WWP is an allowable use. If you have to start amending the General Plan to force fit a sewer plant, than something is/was seriously wrong. Believe me, I wish the project had been changed at the 2002 LCP amendment stage.
As for moving the sewer plant around the Tri-W site to avoid a hypothetical Chumash Village, no can do, that siting was specific to the engineering, there wasn’t an inch to move, the whole site was about managing stormwater and the limited depth to groundwater kept the plant from being “Buried” as advertised. Read comments by Louis Gibson in the 2001 EIR. Look at the site today, it is and has always been a drainage ditch.
Furthermore, we can thank the County for the additional stormwater being routed there by the Palisades signal project, further devaluing the site.
As a matter of fact, the LOCSD over paid for that site in the first place, it’s a drainage nightmare, receiving 365 acres of watershed. Good one Marshall, great job for your clients $3,010,025 (or so). On that note, what happened to the appraisal the new Board was getting a few months back?
Again, I’m spending too much time on this.
If you or Lynette want to have coffee sometime, let me know, we can chat about days gone by.
Thinker
17. Sep, 2009
Julie,
Long ago I read the memo you refer to. The ‘liability’ that the County has with the disposal system of the Tri-W Project has nothing to do with the systems technical viability; rather with the fact that the County, as they are not a water purveyor in Los Osos, legally prevents them from implementing that disposal system at all. Regardless of how the County viewed the ‘outfall’ back in the 2001-2002, in the end the County, the RWQCB , and the CCC all completely understood how the disposal system would work, found it feasible and most importantly of all worthy of funding by the State SRF loan. Also, the project was completely reviewed prior to final design by an independent group of waste water experts hired (through the RFP process) to perform ‘value engineering’ services. That review too found the disposal system to be completely workable.
There is no doubt that Wildan is a reputable firm. However, the confusion for many of your readers is how Wildan/Blesky got involved at all. More to the point, why do you see Blesky as a ‘bad fit’; and how the board resolved that ‘fit’ when they realized their dissatisfaction with Blesky?
As for using zoning changes to allow a project to go forward, such changes to zoning are used all the time by government, especially when critical public works are involved. As such, zoning changes are not a big deal when public health and safety are primary concerns; which is the case here.
Regarding the storm water issue on Tri-W; the plan actually resolved very serious potential flooding issues that had been not resolved for years by the County. As for the County’s current work, the storm water loading is no different now than then. All the County work being doing today is FINALLY resolving the serious public safety issue of stopping the storm water from surface cross-crossing/flooding LOVR four times between the Shell Gas Station and the Tri-W site. I commend the County for finally resolving this dangerous situation.
As I do not have any opinions regarding the extent that the Tri-W treatment facilities were ‘buried’, I have no observations for you there.
Thank you for your offer for a face-to-face chat. I respectfully decline.
Julie
17. Sep, 2009
“Thinker”,
We simply disagree.
Zoning changes are a BIG deal. The LOWWP took two years longer because of the need to change prime commercial/office professional real estate into industrial wasteland. Giving up a commercial base was ill advised, the WWP would not pay any taxes to the County for use within the community (as a nice mixed use project would).
The memo I mentioned on disposal was written only 2 months ago, Planning Commission 2009. The Tri-W disposal scheme is a non starter for the County. The idea of “harvest wells” as part of this project was further refutted in their memo addressed to the LOCSD when Maria got the hairbrain idea to put it on the agenda. August 2009.
“Independent group of waste water experts?” Who? When? Are you talking about the “value engineering” done by Boyle Engineering, 2003? Not really “wastewater experts”, really just engineers, surrounded by Wallace Group and MWH in that 2 day workshop (costing $80,000). Again, done before the abandonment of the pipe to the bay and the return of harvest water to the plant. Boyle “value engineered” the project up by $5 million, adding the MBR.
Just because something is feasible doesn’t make it the best use of resources…a more recent example — the Tonini project. Where do you stand on that? How about Lynette? Do you support sprayfields outside the basin?
I’m all for the Palisades signal, just not at the cost of devaluing Tri-W. The County should be paying for or purchasing an easement for their stormwater.
Bleskey is an engineer, LOCSD needs an administrator. Unfortuntely the “fix” at the time was Annajane, which again, I was alone (but for Joe) that that was not a good fit either.
As for ‘buried’ being an observation? Help me out here, when the 2001 Facilties Plan said the facility would be “underground,” “below grade”, “roof tops only,” (23 times) and the final project was 17 ft. out of the ground on the South side and 40 ft. on the North, how can you not have an observation? When Stan Gustafson claimed the project would be eligible for Homeland Security funds because it was “buried”, it’s not difficult to ‘observe’ “bait and switchy” on the community.
Too bad on the offer to do coffee, I bet we have more in common than not.
Lynette
17. Sep, 2009
Julie says:
“Zoning changes are a BIG deal. The LOWWP took two years longer because of the need to change prime commercial/office professional real estate into industrial wasteland”
And it lost another 2 years on lawsuits. Or were these things concurrent? Those were lawsuits that YOU were a part of, at least four of them and you lost them all.
And now we are 7 years or more away from doing anything about fixing the water situation if we start the clock at 2005. Do you see that there might be a point of no return here? Fiddling around to get this mythical perfect plant out of town may be too little, because it is too late.
I see you still need to dis Maria – for one idea that YOU branded as “hairbrain.” You are making it out to be this big thing – it was just an idea. There was the possibility of a deal with the County to agree together on a disposal plan. It didn’t work out – so what? You make me think that you believe dissing her makes you somehow look good. It doesn’t, not even a little bit.
As to whining about the cost of the Tri-W amenities, let me remind you, you insisted putting them BACK IN, after the Old Board took them out! Did you conveniently forget that? And BTW, the plant was 14′ tall facing LOVR, not 17′.
You didn’t quote all of Mark Hutchinson’s and John Waddell’s letter. You left off the part where AB2701 did NOT transfer water purveying authority to the County. So what would the County legally do with “harvest water?” THEY ARE NOT WATER PURVEYORS! That is why the County can’t implement that project as it is. Was it an ideal disposal system – no. Would it work and was it APPROVED – YES.
Julie -we are losing more than the sprayfield amount from the basin NOW as the overfilled upper aquifer seeps into the bay! It would have been nice to spread the infrastructure cost to all water customers but apparently you want to stick just the PZ with the entire amount.
Julie on her white horse – going to the bank for information on the reserves. A nice picture. Except the part where now you blame Chief Pickens for the missing money! Hmmm. I don’t recall that coming out at the Emergency Services Committee meeting. New information, that?
Actually, the truth is somewhat different. All audits until the 2006 audit were clean. You were over-budget by 1.4 MILLION dollars in 2006! You and the rest of the board approved the monthly expenditures. You had the data at the time. Did you just not care? The money that you spent was not given line items anywhere in the approved budget. Want to comment on that?
You criticize Marshall for making money for his clients on the sale of Tri-W – you to say nothing about your boyfriend Jeff Edwards making $210,000 FOR HIMSELF off the sale of Broderson! Did you forget about that?
Thinker
18. Sep, 2009
Julie,
I cannot disagree with your statement that the multitude of lawsuits filed over Tri-W added years to getting the project to construction. You ought to know this as you were involved in filing most of them. However, to say that the myriad of lawsuits suggest that the Tri-W project was bad is somewhat, ahem, self-aggrandizing and self-serving.
As to your pronouncement that the Tri-W disposal system would not work, your take on the meaning of the memos is simply incorrect. But as you are resolute on this, I see no need for us to discuss this further. What would be the point? We ‘simply disagree’.
Boyle Engineering is a highly reputable firm; yet you dismiss them as somehow unworthy and their work flawed. Your statement amazes me as on what facts do you make that statement? More to the point, how are you, a lady of limited education and absolutely no professional background in engineering, make this pronouncement while expecting to be taken seriously? I do not mean to be impertinent, but unless you can provide irrefutable evidence that the value engineering they provided was not viable (or damaging), then I have no choice but to take your statement as (again) self-aggrandizing and self-serving.
I also question your pronouncement that the current improvements being made to LOVR will devalue Tri-W. If anything, such improvements will ADD VALUE. We all know that the County had created a situation that directed storm water runoff onto the Tri-W site. The added improvements will alleviate many of the problems at the cost of the County; and relieve that need for the District or a potential buyer to pay for those improvements when the property is developed or restored.
Previously I asked for clarification on why Blesky was not a ‘good fit’ for the LOCSD; I did not ask what the ‘fix’ was. Again, why was Blesky not a good fit? As you and your board were somehow dissatisfied with him (even though he did everything you asked of him), why the duress?
Again, I have nothing to add regarding the ‘buried’ structures at Tri-W. If I did, I would gladly respond.
Lynette
18. Sep, 2009
Julie, I am quoting you here:
“The LOWWP took two years longer because of the need to change prime commercial/office professional real estate into industrial wasteland. Giving up a commercial base was ill advised, the WWP would not pay any taxes to the County for use within the community (as a nice mixed use project would).”
You seem to say then that changing prime AG land into an “industrial wasteland” is OK.
Before your current quote though – YOUR argument was against destroying the ESHA on Tri-W for a WWTF. So then to continue that thought, you must mean that it is OK to destroy ESHA for commercial-mixed use?
Hmmmmm. I recall that Jeff was looking for a place to build his Sandhill project. I recall that you worked for Jeff while he was attempting to BUY Tri-W so HE could DEVELOP it! So you REALLY seem to be saying that if Tri-W is to have another land use designation, that it must be one that will make money for you and Jeff! And that it was OK to send Los Osos into default on a $134 million dollar loan, deprive the community from relief of the onus of CDO’s and NOV’s by NOT building a WWTF, and to put the cost of a $40 million bankruptcy onto us so you and Jeffie could build your nest egg!
As to the property taxes coming back – we are not a city, the taxes go not to Los Osos but to the County. As to whether or not a portion of them would come back – well – who knows.
Nice job Julie. Thanks.
David Duggan
19. Sep, 2009
It’s my understanding that the Mid-Town site retained it’s original land use designation of CR, Commercial Retail and OP, Office Professional so that if it is not used as a WWTF it still has it’s original designation with out any further amendments to the LCP. Dual use designation? At least that’s the way it reads to me.
Julie
19. Sep, 2009
Wow, Lynette, do you lay awake at night dreaming stuff up? If I were you I wouldn’t call Jeff Edwards “Jeffie”, I don’t.
You obviously have no clue about land use, the history of Tri-W or what I stand for.
First of all, let’s get this straight, as I said before, I did not work for Jeff when he made his offers on Tri-W and Broderson. I supported the sale of Tri-W to anyone that was interested (except the County Public Works Dept.), to sell it to a private party would have stripped it of its Public Facilities zoning overlay and no one would be able to build a sewer plant there. End of story.
Here’s a little history, before Pandora and friends, Tri-W was going to be a shopping center. The three Williams brothers (“Tri-W”) owned it and intended to hold a monoploy on grocerey stores in Los Osos, they/their kids still own the Vons and post office center’s. They even went so far as to sue the RWQCB (unsuccessfully) when Ralphs/Lucky was allowed to build.
My arguements for loss of ESHA with regard to the sewer plant going on Tri-W are still valid, too bad it’s all gone and you and I paid to have it removed and mitigated for (costing millions), there’s really nothing to fight for now is there? Currently, Tri-W is fair game; mixeduse development, park, aquatic center, movie theater, enlarged library, church or new Fire Station, all are possiblities and allowable uses with the underliying zoning, but only if there’s water to support them, of course.
Jeff was interested in Tri-W as an expansion of his ideas at Sunnyside, remember, nothing could be built there until there was sewer and water. His first pick for a site would be to redevelop Sunnyside School, it has great possibilities for all the uses the community would like and has asked for. Read numerous surveys over the years of what people are interested in for their community. Sandhill Village offered all of them. Even your friend Pandora supported Jeff’s ideas at Sunnyside. No one else has offered those services to the community, sure Jeff would have made a profit, but that is certianly NOT his driving motivation. Jeff likes to work and likes to accomplish things.
A mixeduse project would include Smart Growth principals; live, work, and socailaize within your urban core. Certianly NOT hanging out at a sewer plant.
At the 2003 CDP appeal stage of the Tri-W project I was able to sit down with each Supervisor (except Shirely Bianchi) to talk about the pending appeal. I had a very nice conversation with Peg Pinard, she was the then Supervisor who sat in Adam Hill’s seat. She explained to me how she was the only Supervisor who voted against the zoning change for Tri-W in 2002 because of the lost potential for the community. Jobs, revenue, revitilization, these dollars invested within the community are what benefits a community that is alive. She also explained that she was worried that if we changed that zoning and lost that potential that Los Osos could never become a city, even if it wanted too, there just wouldn’t be tax revenues available. I personally do not support cityhood, not because I’m happy with the County, I just don’t see us governing ourselves well — ever.
Our landuse forefathers laid out the zoning of our community with some forethought into what a community is. The light industrial is located on Los Olivos Ave., behind the shopping center, out of sight of the urban uses. As a matter of fact, the largest building in Los Osos sits there with hardly a notice, the MCI structure is nearly twice the size of the Tri-W sewer plant, appropriately placed, no one really notices it.
This does not mean I think Ag land is any less valuable, it has ongoing value producing food, the real estate market determines its value. Ag land is less costly and just as the County proposes, visual mitigation measures can be taken to “hide” the fact that there is a sewer plant under that facade. But it costs money to do that too, FYI “barnlike” structures do not cost nearly what “Wave Walls” cost. Attempting to bury the plant was exteremly costly too. You say the south side of the Tri-W structure was 14′ not 17′, I’d have to look it up, my point is NEITHER is BURIED like we (“we” means the public, the Coastal Commission, the SWRCB, all of us) were promised, now was it?
Most communities don’t try to hide their sewer plants with costly architecture, take a look at most the sewage treatment plants around us, look at CMC and Pismo, if they are concrete and steel, that’s what you see, if they are trying to hide them, they grow a row of inexpensive, recycled water using, trees around them. If they are ponds, they are actually hard to see at all, the low profile makes them hard to find. Again, ag zoning is an allowable use for wastewater treatment (not my idea, it’s planning law).
I am at a loss as to why you think Jeff’s interest in Tri-W would have triggered any of what you suggest, i.e. “Los Osos into default on a $134 million dollar loan, deprive the community from relief of the onus of CDO’s and NOV’s by NOT building a WWTF, and to put the cost of a $40 million bankruptcy”.
Those things had already happened or were happening, Jeff had nothing to do with them.
Now, let’s go back to your and Thinker’s previous post’s:
With regard to the County and the Tri-W disposal scheme, here’s the quote from their recent memo to the Planning Commission.
“The (SLO County Los Osos wastewater) Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town (Tri-W) and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan, believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best
solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by
the Board to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project
implementation.”
SLO County Project team, June 29, 2009
And the link to the document:
http://slocounty.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=3&event_id=56&meta_id=145290
This paragraph means Tri-W is dead.
Let’s also speak to lawsuits, while I was a supporter of some lawsuits (certianly not all) I was never a plaintiff.
As for “dissing Maria”, isn’t the title of this blog “Maria Kelly: Los Osos Water Witch Bitches Again”? It seems prudent to bring the conversation back around to her. Her “idea” was unnecessary, she could have taken the item to the Water Advisory Committee anytime…not the Board, not on TV, not to be beaaten to a pulp by the public, I was embarrassed for her. Lynette says, “There was the possibility of a deal with the County to agree together on a disposal plan.” Show me where this possiblity exisited. I can’t find it. I would be very interested in seeing it.
Lynette speaks to the cost of infrustructure being shared by the entire community, while I support the concept, the reality is we have been delt a hand we must play it. Of the 13% of water users outside the PZ, only 6% use community water service, the other 7% are on private wells. Are we going to continue to spend funds/time looking for a legal hook before we actually place the infrustructure? Are you suggesting that those 6% use more water than those inside the PZ and are obligated to pay more than their fair share to mitigation seawater intrusion? The bulk of them are Golden State customers, they will be sharing in whatever infrustructure costs GSWC pays for. The PZ is the largest user of water in the basin, we must pay to offset our impacts. Do I like it? No. Do I think any of it is fair? No. Do I have a solution? No. The best we can hope for is to reduce the cost ot the project overall and get the most out of project that we can, as to not incur costs of subsequent projects. Getting the WWP out of town is a start.
By the way, I was not critisizing Marshall, that was a compliment. Jeff, on the other hand, made $140,000 (not $210,000, where do you get your figures?) from his commission in representing the Suydam Family in the sale of Broderson. Broderson was slated to have 93 homes on it, it’s 80 acres and was purchased for $4,650,000, compare that to Tri-W, 11 acres, at $3,010,025 — just saying Marshall did a really good job getting the most for his clients, even though it is a drainage hole. Acre for acre, Marshall did very well. Tri-W wouldn’t sell for that today, by the way where is that appraisal the LOCSD Board approved in January? Today, it’s like every other vacant lot in town, screwed. No sewer, no water, no habitat resolution (the HCP is 5 years away, admitted by Trevor Keith, County Planning staffer), I bet it’ll be 10 years or more after the LOWWP is online before someone could build on it.
Thinker asked about Bleskey again, an engineer in an administrator’s position is not a good fit. Mr. Bleseky did more than the Board ask, that’s part of how we spent money on things that were not line items in the budget Lynette. I was never happy with the reports. The data was not good. From 2006-2008 the finanical reports were hard to comprehend.
As for me riding in on a white horse, na, just trying to get to the bottom of some things. Phil Veneris had asked for those fund balances over and over again and couldn’t get them via Annajane, so I did.
And as for Pickens, Chief Pickens was a spend-a-holic, he convinced his Board that he “needed” stuff. The District ended up losing a lot of money selling his purchases at a reduced surplus prices. The truck that Oceano bought was a great example of $.50 on the dollar. The District wasted a bunch of money chasing a fire tax that was unnecessary.
Pickens behavior got us into a big mess with Lynn Cornbaum, I didn’t hear any Taxpayers Watch member screaming bloody murder when the District settled her claim.
Thinker, the County’s “improvements” are adding water to the Tri-W site, this devalues the property and we are the County taxpayers paying for it, coming and going.
Yes, I am a “lady of limited education,” what has that got to do with anything? I can read a resume and “independant wastewater expert” is not Boyle Engineering as you claim. I was very disappointed that their “oversight” actually increased the cost of the project. They were suposed to find ways to get better value and reduce the cost.
I think I’ve answered all I am going to. You can dream up more questions if you want. I’ve spent too much time responding. Thanks for the oportunity to set you straight. It really doesn’t matter what I’ve said here, you’ll believe what you want…and no matter what I say, you’ll never be satisfied.
Thinker
20. Sep, 2009
Julie,
Thank you for your last post. May I offer a few observations?
Regarding your post’s comments about your preferred potential development options for the Tri-W site, you indicated you mote or less agreed with the comment made by then supervisor Peg Pinard; to wit:
“….. She explained to me how she was the only Supervisor who voted against the zoning change for Tri-W in 2002 because of the lost potential for the community. Jobs, revenue, revitalization, these dollars invested within the community are what benefits a community that is alive. She also explained that she was worried that if we changed that zoning and lost that potential that Los Osos could never become a city, even if it wanted too, there just wouldn’t be tax revenues available……”
Her comment rings true. Such developments do provide all those societal benefits.
But Ms. Pinard, and you, left unsaid THE KEY ISSUE.
Without Los Osos building a waste water system, Los Osos will not see any of the ‘potential benefits’ she/you tout at all!
No jobs.
No revenue
No tax base
Nothing!
If Los Osos is to realize those benefits (or for that matter Jeff’s implementation of his personal development vision either), Los Osos must FIRST build the infrastructure to allow such development to occur.
If you truly wanted these’ benefits’, you should have supported the construction of Tri-W as it would allow Los Osos to realize said’ benefits’ ASAP. As it now stands, and as you too opine, such infrastructure will not be available for at least 10 more years! I hope you realize that your actions as a LOCSD board member to stop Tri-W you guaranteed this time delay to the community towards realizing its potential.
Regarding what you believe to be frivolous and expensive features of the Tri-W project. There is no doubt that those features added cost. You argue that building elsewhere would have saved money due to jettisoning Tri-W features. You toss out the potential cost savings as 25 million dollars. While I question your estimate, I will accept your numbers for arguments sake. In a perfect world were all things are equal and where time does not cost money, your statement rings true. However, those cost savings would have only have been realized IF the LOCSD has selected other locations to begin with back in 2000; and 24 million in public revenues spent to develop a WWTP had not been expended to begin with! In the decision to ‘move the sewer’, you failed to take into account that the money that had been already spent more than offset any ‘savings’ you wished to realize. Your ‘savings’ only potentially existed before the adoption of the DEIR; after that, the savings slowly evaporated; and by 2005 were those savings were impossible to realize at all.
You are surely asking (fairly too) why the LOCSD developed the project they did if there were such potential cost savings. For that answer you need look no further than the 2000 project DEIR; which was completely in sync with the community’s publicly reviewed and adopted LOCAC land use Vision Statement (By the way, LOCAC is/are our ‘land use forefathers’!). The Vision Statement’s core issues were later incorporated into the publicly reviewed and adopted Statement of Overriding Concerns that shaped the WWTP. In short, the community had adopted guidelines for development as out lined in the Vision Statement; which the LOCSD abided to! The LOCSD thereafter established WWTP policy in response to the land use policies as adopted by our land use forefathers! So Julie, do you agree with the LOCAC Vision Statement? If you do not, your statements are not in agreement with the land use policies established by our ‘land use forefathers’.
Regarding your understanding of the County Memos.
The memos make it clear that the issue of building Tri-W is a political hot-button issue that, because of ‘social infeasibility’ (read acceptance), building Tri-W is problematic. This is not a technical issue. In short, the Tri-W treatment facility will technically work as designed; a fact that was acknowledged when the State and the County reviewed and approved the CDP in 2005.
As for the disposal plan, I again point out that the very plan that Staff calls infeasible is due to the fact that the County is legally barred from implementing the disposal plan as the County is not a water purveyor in Los Osos; again, the infeasibility is not due to technical issues. In short, the disposal plans will technically work as designed; a fact that was acknowledged when the State and the County reviewed and approved the CDP in 2005.
Thank you for the honesty to acknowledge that you were involved in many of the lawsuits then pending against the LOCSD. While you claim that you were never ‘a plaintiff’, please accept my skepticism. You were, after, the president of the CCLO; and as such involved in the formulation of the lawsuits prior to your resignation from the CCLO. The CCLO lawsuits did not spontaneously appear fully formed, but took weeks of preparation. You resigned from the CCLO 2 days prior to the filing of the lawsuits. I take it you want me to believe that those lawsuits were drawn up during the 48 hours after you resigned.
Regarding to your contention that the County’s improvement will devalue Tri-W; you are welcome to your opinion. I will stand by mine. Nothing more there to say.
Regarding Mr. Blesky:
I am confused here.
Which ‘reports’ are you referring to as there were many of them? What data was ‘not good’ as to distress you? I do not seem to remember you are any other board member expressing concern about the financials at the LOCSD meetings. Then again, my memory is not always solid as it used to be.
I wish to apologize for my ‘lady of limited education’ quip. You understandably took offense.
The point I wish to make is that raw intelligence is not enough in decision-making. What is also needed is comprehension. I do not doubt your intelligence. However, what is lacking (arguably) in your decisions is the understanding of the fine nuances of the problems before us; and your failure (arguably) to understand (let alone accept responsibility for) the ramifications of the decisions you and your board made to the Community of Los Osos.
Again, thank you for taking time to respond. I agree that responmding does eat up time; but is it not time well spent?
Lynette
20. Sep, 2009
Thinker articulates beautifully what was needed to be said.
I only add questions as to the future. What are you going to do – support the County, or once again fight, thereby delaying help for and damaging further, the lower aquifer. Lawsuits cause delays as you know from personal experience. Don’t deny your culpability in the delay. You were well aware of what you were doing. And you were well aware that you had no plan, yet that is what you sold the community – a plan.
You and you fellow directors poisoned the community on Tri-W. That land was intended for a sewer from the very begining of the CSD and overwhelmingly supported by the community. You and your friends made it a toxic political hot potato.
How much more do you want to add to our costs. As it is with Giacomazzi, we have to mitigate that land 1:1. So in addition to paying for Tri-W, Broderson, (some of us are still paying on our property taxes for that and the design) and now Giacomazzi – we will need to buy even more land. Will you add delay to up the costs even further?
There will be a portion of Tri-W not used for a pump station. As a treatment plant site, we have paid for it. As a land remainder, what will it be worth to the CSD to sell offset the huge bankruptcy costs, costs YOU bear a responsibility for?
I remind you again, YOU were part of the group that insisted that the park amenities be put back in to the Tri-W project. You upped the costs, then trashed the project.
I guess I’ll never be satisfied until you explain how you can have done what you did, yet feel no remorse or any need to apologize to the community for taking away their best chance at saving the lower aquifer, for putting an angry Water Board onto our backs and for saddling us with paying for your bankruptcy.
What are you going to do to help now? Or will you stand in our way once again?
Julie
20. Sep, 2009
For a woman with “limited education,” I at least do my homework.
LOCAC is a relative newcomer to the history of Los Osos landuse. LOCAC’s vision statement is dated 1995. The General Plan was certified in 1988. The zoning on the Tri-W site was put in place long before that by our landuse forefathers at the County, the Board of Supervisors, upon recommendations of the County Planning Department. (That was when Al Switzer owned Tri-W along with all of Morro Shores and Morro Palisades (200 acres above Highland Dr. now in public ownership)).
LOCAC never had the 2002 LCP amendement on their agenda to change the Tri-W zoning to Public Facilities, never heard that WWP in any fashion, ever. Not until this current LOCAC has their been interest from LOCAC to agendize and participate in the permitting process of the LOWWP.
While I like what the LOCAC Vision Statement says, it’s idealistic, flowery and nice — it’s not realistic. And now, as someone who works side by side with someone who has been a landuse professional in the Los Osos landuse climate for 25 years, I am evermore certian how unrealistic it is.
The passage within the statement to treat our wastewater downtown was agreeable because to do so was “sold” as costing less. Once the project morphed from passive ponds to the industrial facility it became any agreement with the “Vision” of a WWTF downtown was bunk. Have you notice that that passage has been removed?
I got my out of town figures of $25 million from the State Revolving Fund engineer. Shave off wave walls, $60,000 worth of boulders in the retention basins, $7,000 drinking fountains, parking lots, bikepaths and playstructures, poof! The project IS cheaper.
If the community wants to pay for those amenities, there’s a process for that, it’s called a tax. Let’s see them tax themselves accordingly. Pass a Special Tax to cover the cost of such things, don’t burden the PZ with the cost to construct and maintain in prepetuity.
While my actions may have been hastey in your opinion, they came on the tails of real haste, a Board that used your and my money to force fit a project that was no longer acceptable into our community. The longerterm effects of that project would have taken the economic away from the community forever, not just some 10 years out.
Curious, do you think Jeff Edwards would be my partner if he thought I’d done the wrong thing with regard to halting the project? I don’t think we could have gotten past that on our first date, had that been the case.
The nuances of a WWTF in the middle of tonw for 50+ years were never analyized, upon my own investigation, I learned the sigma alone would have hurt the community indefinetly.
CCLO was the plaintiff, like I said, I supported SOME of the lawsuits, but I was never the plaintiff. The timing of my resignation had little to do with how the lawsuit was developed. You sound very much like Stan in your comments on the lawsuit, almost verbatim what he said about my involvment at the time. If I learned something that I tought would help CCLO Move the Sewer I shared it. Public Records are just that, anyone can read them and have access to them. I was a junkie for anything that had to do with the project and shared even the most trivial information to anyone who would listen…here I am spewing to you.
I took my displeasure with Bleskey issues to the Board President, she didn’t agree or if she did she didn’t do what I thought we should do about it. The reports were actually few. That was the problem, I longed for more information. As an example, it took weeks to get my mail out of him and all the GM’s after him. I have to say, I liked Bruce’s style on producing the mail, as each envelope came to the office, it was opened and copied and put into all our in boxes. Bruce would actually answer questions I had, (not that I liked the answers) the others were never as forthcoming. I’m happy for the District that Mitch is there, he at least has a clue. My prayers go out to Bruce and Susan, I’m sorry he’s suffering with cancer, I wouldn’t wish that on anyone or their family.
Thinker
20. Sep, 2009
Julie,
I am perplexed.
On what basis do you proclaim that the LOCAC Vision Statement is not ‘realistic’? I do not see how you can so casually jettison over 5 years of hard work by LOCAC; involving thousands of manhours; work that was conducted in full view, and with the partipation of, the public; and which resulted in a community plan that was readily adopted by the Community to guide it’s future growth. Your statement is not justifable by opinion alone. Can you educate me here as why you are correct?
Regarding your claim of 25 million in ’savings’.
Again, the savings are nothing but ‘pie in the sky’ until actual bids come in and construction completed; and in light of what I previously posted the ’savings’ were not attainable by 2005 either.
You declare the cost savings were given by a ‘State SRF Engineer’ (Polhemis?), hence you wholly rely on the State’s claim of potential cost; and suggest those potential savings as valid, believeable and not to be questioned due to the information source.
I am perplexed (again) as to the confidence in the ’savings’ for on one hand you have vigoursly criticized and defamed the State (your information source) in all WWTP matters; yet on the other hand you hold the State up as a paragon of reliable cost information to be trusted unquestinably. If you have such confidence as to rely upon the potential ’savings’ given to you by the State (Polhemis), then why did you not accept with equal confidence the contents of the State’s letter telling YOU speciically, and in no uncertain terms, that Stopping the project would result in hugh financial damages to Los Osos?
On one issue your are absolutely correct…there is a process to ask the community if they wanted ‘those amenities’….and it was called the HOMEOWNER ASSESSMENT VOTE of 2001 by which the homeowners contracturally agreed to assess (TAX) themselves for a waste water project and treatment plant on Tri-W with all ‘those amenites’. Again, how can you be so dicitorial (and incorrect) to say that such a process did not occur?
In regards to Blesky, you say that your concerns were discussed with your board president (Lisa). I am confused…Did she agree with you or not?…….or just not perform as you wished?
Actually, how could she ‘perform’ without Board discussions and a majority vote establishing policy on how to deal with Belsky’s alledged overspending? As there is no public record of such discussions having been held in open session, am I correct to assume that your board never held such discussions? This was a fiscal issue, not a personel issue, hence it had to be discussed for dicussion in open session.
In reference to the LOCSD budget, was Blesky not following the Budget? Did he not report to you with monthly fiancial statements outlining the district’s adherson to the approved budget? I am further confused that you state that reports were few and far inbetween; but without that information how could your board make any informed finacial decisions at all? As decisions were made none-the-less, in hindsight is it possible that those decisions were not based on financial fact?
Lynette
21. Sep, 2009
Julie, how could you be president of CCLO and not participate in the upcoming lawsuit – or those lawsuits prior – to your resignation? That just doesn’t make any sense.
Julie
21. Sep, 2009
Lynette,
As I said “If I learned something that I thought would help CCLO Move the Sewer I shared it. Public Records are just that, anyone can read them and have access to them. I was a junkie for anything that had to do with the project and shared even the most trivial information to anyone who would listen.” Call what I did “participation” if you want, I was not the plaintiff. Most of my work was getting funds donated to pay for the attorney’s, once I resigned and was on the Board, my “participation” was to share Public information that CCLO could have gotten themselves.
The only apology I have for the community is that I am sorry I couldn’t stop the old Board/project sooner. Try as I did, I was unable to prevent them from going to construction.
Like also said in my earlier comments, lawsuits filed against the current project are likely (if I were a betting girl, I’d put my money on the purveyors filing suit first). The project as it is today is something I could live with, but it is my intention to participate and push to make it better. What I bring to the project is intended to make it better. Feel free to read my comments on the DEIR many of which are incorporated in the JHEdwards appeal, you’ll see what I ask for its very clear not over the top stuff.
Thinker,
The LOCAC Vision Statement, may have taken a lot of time to dream up but it is a dream. From the extension of South Bay Blvd. (through the greenbelt properties) to no additional street lights (9th and 10th St.’s only) to undergrounding utilities, all out of this world ideas. We’re getting a traffic light at Palisades right now, you were just bragging how beneficial that improvement along with the drainage was to the community and that it is paid for by the County. Well, let me tell you, the County isn’t going to pay for a pool, a theater, and can barely accomplish the library expansion. The County isn’t going to underground utilities, the citizens aren’t either, the citizens don’t even change out their own toilets, why in the world would they spend their hard earned money on something so frivolous. The old Board did the analysis; it would cost $1 million per mile to underground the utilities do you think that is feasible? I think it’s a dream. $45 million to this community could go a lot further than that.
You called me “dictatorial” with regard to the Special Tax for park/amenities and you claim that the 2001 assessment was a mandate via that assessment, you are mistaken. The 2001 assessment was explicitly intended to pay for land purchase, design, environmental and permitting of the project. The amenities were NOT funded until the CCC conditioned the project to incorporate them…it was the LOCSD that begged the Coastal Commission for the condition as to get them funded via the SRF because they would need a 218 assessment vote to fund them otherwise. Ron Crawford can tell you how likely such an assessment vote would go, probably the same way the Measure E-97 went.
As far as your continuing to ask about Bleskey, I have said all I’m going to, I was not happy with him, Annajane nor John Schempf as administrators.
Let’s go over to Ann’s blog and talk about the appeals.
Thinker
21. Sep, 2009
Julie,
Regarding the Assessment Vote and the park amenities:
The LOCSD did not ‘beg the CCC’ for the park amenities.
However,
YOU, the CCLO (a.k.a the LOTTF) DID beg the CCC to force the LOCSD to install the park amenities as part of the CDP permit when YOU appealed the WWTP.
At the CCC hearing, the LOCSD argued not to have to install the amenities as part of the CDP. Why? Because the LOCSD argued that the amenities should be paid for (correctly) by the entire community; and in doing so use other sources of money (such as grants). The LOCSD did not want to place the total park costs exclusively upon the PZ property owners.
The CCC agreed with you Julie…they made the amenities part of the project’s CDP. The very second the CCC made the park amenities a requirement of the project CDP, the State SRF Loan program had NO CHOICE but to provide funds for the then-CDP requirement to install the amenities. Why. Simply because the State’s WWTP, as to be developed by the LOCSD, could not be built without paying and installing those park amenities!
In short, your very actions guaranteed that the WWTP park costs would be place only upon the PZ property owner.
And today you complain? You criticize (and blame) the LOCSD for having to put the amenity costs onto the PZ home owner on one hand when on the other hand YOUR actions forced the LOCSD to add those costs to begin wit?. You cannot have it both ways, Julie.
That seems to be your style. Force an issue so it adds cost to the WWTP, then complain about the cost as unfair; and a reason not to build a WWTP at all.
Well lady, your ‘crap’ does stink.
I will go even further.
I will be blunt.
If you reread your posts Julie, everything seems to revolve around YOU; and only YOU; and when the result does not turn out the way YOU wanted (such as your disastrous results of your behavior on the LOCSD), you blame OTHERS
YOU want this to happen, so do as I (Julie) say;
YOU think the State (THEY) is/are wrong:
YOU think the Vision Statement is unrealistic; but YOUR vision better!
YOU warned of this; but THEY failed to heed:
I want this there because I (Julie) said so
THEY made YOU fail.
Blesky did it! He spent the money even though I, Julie, knew about it.
Lisa and the others (THEY) did not do as I said.
The old board caused the problems…I, Julie, warned them!
YOU< YOU< YOU< YOU< YOU<YOU
Julie, who made you queen of the Los Osos dunghill as to command others so dictatorially? Ever hear of the rule of law where those elected to office are not allowed to make rules up as they go in order to avoid the law they are sworn to uphold? I guess not, for you sure a heck think you are above such trivial matters as the law.
Your uninformed, uneducated, fuzzy-thinking, boorish behavior; coupled with your absolutely brazen public wantonness conducted with complete disregard for the welfare of your family and children; and topped off with your completely undemocratic, back-room dealing, bullying, back-stabbing and self-serving behavior has cost Los Osos tens of millions of dollars….and the WW problems still remains.
Well Julie, there are 14,598 other souls in Los Osos; and most of them have a huge bone to pick with you.
Even those that once supported you now see you as nothing but trouble. Many of your supporters avoid you like the plague for they see you have used then; then tossed them aside as they no longer serve your purpose.
I ought to know…I am one of them.
Lynette
21. Sep, 2009
Julie says:
” Call what I did ‘participation’ if you want, I was not the plaintiff.”
No of course not – you were not the plaintiff – like Gail, you had someone else do the dirty work, take the fall, and you go on your merry way thinking you have no responsibility for the outcome.
As Thinker said,
“Many of your supporters avoid you like the plague for they see you have used them; then tossed them aside as they no longer serve your purpose.”
Aaron
21. Sep, 2009
I’ve sat back reading this exchange for the past couple of days. It’s been a great (but sometimes painful) read. I think the discourse has taken a nasty turn.
Lynette asked about Julie’s personal involvement with the “Chipping Day” incident and Thinker went after Julie for her personal involvement on the CSD — so of course her answers would revolve around her. The conversation became a personal interrogation that questioned her integrity. Now the recent posts have become just downright antagonistic.
Both Thinker and Lynette have expressed the “ME, ME, ME” outlook themselves on several occasions. I learned to understand that everyone is seeking credit for something, but dwelling on the “I” in someone’s opinions is totally beside the point. It is.
Lynette
21. Sep, 2009
Aaron, don’t forget, we get castigated for saying, “I represent the opinions of others, (even though we do)” so it is just safer to say, “me.”
Aaron
21. Sep, 2009
You know what’s safer? Not saying any of those things. There, problem solved.
Thinker
21. Sep, 2009
Aaron,
There is one little difference between ME and JULIE…..I am not the one in complete in denial of what has happened.
I accept that I made a HUGE mistake in believing and voting for Julie and her crew.
I accept the reality that I really screwed up by believing her rhetoric that she cared about Los Osos, and my situation in particular.
I accept the reality that the ‘plan’ she promoted never existed even though she swore to me it did…and would be so much cheaper too!
I accept that I now will probably have to sell my home for I cannot afford the cost of paying for the LOCSD bankruptcy she promised would never happen, pay for the fines that she promised would not be levied, and a WWTP that will now be far, far more expensive than Tri-W ever would have been.
I accept that I was a complete idiot!
Meanwhile….
Julie just plain lied.
Julie does not understand her lies.
Julie does not understand that she lied at all!
Julie does not understand the damage to other souls caused by her lies.
Julie does not understand or takes any responsibility for her disgraceful behavior at all; and only takes’ responsibility’ when doing so is to her advantage or feeds to her humongous vanity.
Now Aaron, if you want to continue with sanctimonious little comments tsk-tsking me for expressing my righteous anger at a woman who has harmed me and my community through her pathological and sociopathic behavior, then goodie for you.
Your unsolicited advice is not welcome; and is frankly very immature.
Do not bother me again. If you do, expect no response. I have other children to attend to.
Lisa Klump
21. Sep, 2009
I don’t think Los Osos should EVER have created the CSD. We’re too small, cannot afford all the salaries, benefits, etc. Things should have remained CSA-9. Los Osos does not have the infrastructure to support a CSD. That’s where Pandie was very shrewed…She got the County off the hook & now the citizens of Los Osos have to foot the bill for all the mistakes made by the County. I would love to see the CSD just go away. I realize the County is corrupt, but so is the CSD.
Lynette
21. Sep, 2009
But I’m not having a problem. I’m OK with saying “me.” I may not be the only “me” with the same take on these issues however. Let the readers decide.
Lynette
21. Sep, 2009
So then Lisa Klump – were you with Taxpayers’ Watch when they tried to dissolve the CSD?
Thinker
21. Sep, 2009
Lynette,
I am not having a problem either. Me!; and proud of it!
Lynette
22. Sep, 2009
Don’t know how to “high 5″ in pixels Thinker, but I’ll send a mental one!
David Duggan
01. Oct, 2009
De me me me, De I I I
Don’t think me unkind
Words are hard to find
The only cheques I’ve left unsigned
From the banks of chaos in my mind
And when their eloquence escapes me
Their logic ties me up and rapes me
De me me me, De I I I
Is all I want to say to you
De me me me, De I I I
Their innocence will pull me through
De me me me, De I I I
Is all I want to say to you
De me me me, De I I I
They’re meaningless and all thats true
Poets, priests and poiticians
Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for your submission
And no ones jamming their transmission
‘cos when their eloquence escapes you
Their logic ties you up and rapes you
De me me me, De I I I
Is all I want to say to you
De me me me, De I I I
Their innocence will pull me through
De me me me, De I I I
Is all I want to say to you
De me me me, De I I I
They’re meaningless and all that’s true.