Los Osos/Coastal Commission Analysis (Jan. 14)
Posted on 15. Jan, 2010 by Aaron in Los Osos
The California Coastal Commission voted 7-5 in favor of having an additional hearing over substantial issues that were raised in the appeals. While anonymous supporters of the County and alleged supporters of Taxpayers Watch have launched an irate barrage of insults directed at the majority of those who voted against the motion to find no substantial issue, others have raised the question: how could the County not take into account these substantial issues? There wasn’t just one substantial issue; not one, not two, not three… There were several substantial issues. The sheer amount of significant issues raised leads some to wonder about the overall competence of County staff.
San Luis Obispo County Public Works Director Paavo Ogren told David Sneed of The Tribune on Thursday the concerns the commission had were “relatively minor,” but the concerns raised were substantial enough to delay the project — beyond the County’s ideal deadline for stimulus funds — in order to move forward with majority approval. As “relatively minor” as these concerns may be — ranging from improper wetlands delineation to not having specific plans pertaining to implementing a water conservation plan — yesterday’s decision by the CCC clearly rebuked Gibson’s smug interpretation of the issues as “assertions.”
As a blow to County opposition, the CCC did not raise substantial issue regarding the lack of feasible site, collection and treatment system alternatives for Los Osos. The upcoming denovo hearing on the Los Osos wastewater project will not revisit those issues. Unless an objectively persuasive lawsuit about alternatives is brought to the foreground, STEP/STEG is dead.
With any expansive public works project that’s been in the making for 30 years, people need to realize that the devil is in the details. There’s so many details and concerns to account for that delay is inevitable but absolutely necessary in order to prevent substantial problems from occurring once the project is online. In reality, the delay for the Los Osos wastewater project stems from County staff for not taking into account the minor things, which is now leading to longer delays. And if people continue to berate — albeit irrationally for the most part — appellants and public comment speakers for raising issue with the project, the project will be delayed even longer.
Spare us the nonsense and let’s focus on the denovo hearing.
– Aaron Ochs
EDIT (12:44 AM): Richard LeGros has posted an announcement, clarifying Taxpayers Watch’s position:
“Taxpayers Watch does not have, or does it promote, ANY official position regarding the County’s waste water project. In fact, Taxpayers Watch remains neutral regarding the appeals pending before the CCC; and is neutral regarding upcoming deNovo hearing too.”
Changes were made to the article in respect to the issued statement.
17 Responses to “Los Osos/Coastal Commission Analysis (Jan. 14)”
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
- julie: Bruce announced at LOCAC last Thursday that the PW...
- Liza Klump: Again Richie, you make a total A$$ of yourself! Y...
- Richard LeGros: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...a...
- Aaron: Sounds like an opinion from a "self-anointed, pres...
- Michael: Did you see what some of the folks on CC have been...
News From The ROCK
- Design-Build-Collapse
- Centurion Gibson Calls for ‘Ramming Speed!’ to Accelerate Los Osos Sewer
- 'Torn Fabric'
- Tom Murphy Busted in Arizona
- Ogren’s MWH Gravity Bias Costing Los Osos Tens of Millions
- Gibson Under-Estimating Sewer Bills to Win Los Osos Votes
- State Funding Agencies Freeze Payments to MWH in New Orleans
RBL
16. Jan, 2010
Aaron,
Taxpayers Watch does not have, or does it promote, ANY official position regarding the County’s waste water project. In fact, Taxpayers Watch remains neutral regarding the appeals pending before the CCC; and is neutral regarding upcoming deNovo hearing too.
Your posting that the Taxpayers Watch organization has strategize some sort of smear campaign set upon insulting County Project appellants is not true.
To be clear, there are diverse opinions amongst Taxpayers Watch members on both sides of the issues. However, its diverse membership does, as any citizen may, exercise their constitutional rights to voice their individual opinions as they prefer; and free from Taxpayer Watch interference.
A suggestion: the accuracy of your postings would improve if you took the time to query a reliable source of information close to the organization you are commenting about before publishing.
Aaron
16. Jan, 2010
Thank you for the suggestion. I’ll modify the part of the article in question to be more specific and less broad.
RBL
16. Jan, 2010
Aaron,
Your posting of ‘While anonymous supporters of the County and alleged supporters of Taxpayers Watch have launched an irate barrage of insults directed at the majority of those who voted against the motion to find no substantial issue, ‘ doesnot address the issue; and only serves to sensationalize and incite.
First, all the supporters of the positon to not find substantial issue are named in the many letters of support sent to the CCC (hence how are they anonymous?)
Second, what insults are you refering to?
Are there specific acts,other than supporting a finding of no substantial issue, that insults those who suport the oppsite view? Or does the mere supporting of not finding substantial issue insulting unto itself?
In fact, could the demonized portrait of Mr. Berden, who is only exercising his constitutional right to question government, that you posted as the masthead to this blog string not be considered insulting?
For that matter, what does anythng you have posted regarding the your perceptions of the actions of any of the particapants addressing the issue have to do with the issue itself? After all, the core and relevent issue is about the CCC determnation only; and what that determination means to the project.
Aaron
16. Jan, 2010
View the new article that responds to some of the comments — that I was referring to earlier — here.
We have different views. I have my perception of the issue and you have your perception of what my perception is. When the dust settles, that will be the opportunity to fill in the blanks and address misconceptions.
sewertoons
16. Jan, 2010
It might be good to once again review the ex-parte communications of those who voted to find substantial issue. Those lobbying the commissioners did not in advance know the result of the vote, but finding ANY so-called “flaw” in the County’s process which might open this up for a De Novo so their pet change could be addressed again would be hammered home. Repeat the word FLAW often enough and you can gain ground.
I’m more interested in your position Aaron. You are hammering the County for losing a couple of details in an admittedly enormous project, but remain SILENT on the far more glaring issue – cheap money, which by this CCC decision has left the seniors, fixed-income and lower income folks that you profess to champion, plus now more middle-income folks, in serious jeopardy. Don’t you believe in the USDA money and stimulus funds? Why isn’t this important to you anymore?
Aaron
16. Jan, 2010
The stimulus funds was originally addressed here.
sewertoons
16. Jan, 2010
I don’t see how that answers my question. We are living in the here and now. There will be NO De Novo for STEP or ponds, we are moving ahead with what we have in front of us with some minor adjustments as you have stated. If the money to be had is living in a particular time frame, how is scolding the County for alleged mistakes relevant? How is possibly LOSING that money going to help low income people to pay the bill? Why don’t you tell us how you feel about that? Or if that is too personal, what shall we do to move this process forward quickly in your opinion.
Aaron
16. Jan, 2010
Here’s the simple answer: it doesn’t help the low income people — and that’s one of the reasons why I’m disappointed with the County for not having the foresight to remedy these issues. Unfortunately, we’re caught in a catch-22. The County presented the timetable for getting stimulus funds under the presumption that everything was going to go their way. Maybe the County should have given an ear to the appellants the first time around — and that could have mitigated the substantial issues found on Thursday.
sewertoons
16. Jan, 2010
It doesn’t help the low-income people AND a lot of other-income people as well. In fact it helps none but the wealthy who won’t be choosing between whether to eat or to move, although they won’t be happy either.
The County did hear the appellants the first time around, they just didn’t agree with them and in fact, had we gone with some of their requests, we would be back to Square One testing under septic tanks to see whether or not we actually pollute.
Maybe if the County had found a way to not let the Planning Commission drone on for MONTHS, with endless testimony from non-experts, we wouldn’t be in this pickle at all. Spending $5 million up front on conservation was not an acceptable idea to many as where will that money be coming from? US of course! They will need to ramp up the charges we pay at first to higher than they intended and would need to charge us more quickly too. How does that help the lower income person scrambling to try to figure out how to continue living here? The testing on the yearly-tilled farmland to see if there are wetlands was done just fine by the County. So Dixon couldn’t be there to give the CCC’s blessing – so what. They are splitting semantics on Broderson. Mitigation is 1:1 on Willow Creek – but of course Keith and other such “experts” disagree. The water purveyors are going to let the returning water – what – run into the streets? – get real, it is their livelihood – they won’t, as they know they would never pass a bond to import water or pay for desal.
If we are not back on the CCC agenda next month an unconscionable cruelty will have been placed onto the people of Los Osos. And I will be protesting that. How about you?
Aaron
16. Jan, 2010
From what I’ve heard (don’t quote me on this), the denovo hearing will be in April. The CCC will probably not revisit this issue for a while.
As far as protests go, I’m not going to get in the way. I’m content just letting the process move forward.
sewertoons
17. Jan, 2010
So you don’t want that stimulus money?
What about the ones who made the appeals that triggered the delay? Do you know if they care if we get that money or not?
Wouldn’t writing respectful letters to commissioners and staff perhaps help – if not to get us onto the agenda quicker, but at least to make you feel like you DID something to try to help?
Aaron
17. Jan, 2010
Personally, I would like any money that we can get, but I wouldn’t use that as an issue that justifies shortcuts that produce a project that’s not up to par with the CCC’s standards and policies.
sewertoons
18. Jan, 2010
Why don’t we say alleged shortcuts. Crying about people losing their homes for years now seems to vanish when the rubber meets the road.
You have to ask yourself, if STEP been chosen and there been the same jeopardy for losing this cheap money, would you suddenly want every single facet to this thing nailed down in advance? Would you be questioning tests for wetlands on tilled farmland because you just wanted your guy, Dixon, who may or may not be available, to test some more?
Interesting how those same standards applied to the last project have been so ridiculed, don’t you think?
Aaron
18. Jan, 2010
It doesn’t matter what kind of project it is. If you’re going to take a project to the Coastal Commission, you better have every single facet nailed down in advance — but look what happened here. Gibson said the project was “tested” for every assertion made by the appellants, but the CCC ruled that clearly not all “assertions” were tested and clearly some of the “assertions” passed the substantial issue test.
sewertoons
18. Jan, 2010
There is no way to have every facet nailed down. To support that idea, 5 commissioners WERE satisfied. It is opinion, and opinions can be swayed.
Aaron
18. Jan, 2010
Those five commissioners said that they support the staff recommendation because the 30 years of pollution was more of an overriding factor than the fact that there were substantial issues. For example, listen to Mary K. Shallenberger’s speech when she announced her support of the motion.
sewertoons
18. Jan, 2010
It all boils down to the outcome. If we lose the money due to nitpicking I am NOT OK with that. That is just foolishness that really will impact more people than even you first opined here on this blog.
When does perfecting the project cross the line into obstructing water clean-up?