Short List of Substantial Issues
Posted on 20. Jan, 2010 by Aaron in Los Osos
Here are three of the most substantial issues that were raised by the commissioners of the California Coastal Commission regarding the Los Osos wastewater project permit (in no particular order). They will be the limited focus of the Commission’s de novo hearing in April:
1. “Double dipping” at the Broderson site. The Broderson site used 72 acres as mitigation of impacts for the original site (Tri-W) and plan in 2004, but there are nine acres that impact environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). This ESHA is reserved for conservation of the Morro manzanita, Monterey spineflower, Blochman leaf daisy, Morro shoulderband snail, Morro Bay kangaroo rat and the monarch butterfly. County staff did not set aside land for mitigation of that ESHA since the County intends to use all of the 72 acres for the wastewater project. Failure to address the “double dipping” will result in enforcement. Even if it were to go to enforcement, by the time the County completes work on the Broderson site, there will be no acreage left to mitigate ESHA. Additionally, if the language was left unmodified, the burden to mitigate the ESHA would fall on nearby property owners.
2. Questionable application of wetland delineation. Wetland delineation is defined as a determination of the landward extent of a wetland. The County’s EIR analyzed the wetlands strictly as jurisdictional wetlands (in accordance to Section 404 of the Clean Water act) but the County did not specify whether some of the wetlands sampled were wetlands as defined by the Coastal Act (as specified in 14 CCR §13577). The Coastal Act applies a one parameter definition for delineating wetlands. Only one of the three criteria needs to be met for soil, vegetation and hydrology to determine wetland conditions. It’s possible that the County data is compliant with the Coastal Act’s standards, but if it’s not, it’s also possible that the County underestimated the number and extent of wetlands on the Giacomazzi site, which would indicate the project could not avoid facility development on wetlands.
3. No implementation of specific water conservation plan. The County did not specify how and when their water conservation plan would be implemented. Since there are no specifics to follow, there is no feasible way to bring enforcement action. In his October 18, 2009 appeal to the County, Keith Wimer of the Los Osos Sustainability Group (LOSG) recommended a basin-wide management plan to be implemented within one year of the project approval in order to aggressively combat saltwater intrusion. Wimer also suggested that the plan include the goal to stop at least 900 acre-feet of water per year (AFY) of pumping from the lower aquifer within two years. However, County staff recommended the motion to deny all appeals, including Wimer’s, which had a prepared remedy for what would later become a substantial issue.
The January 14th California Coastal Commission hearing was all about the County of San Luis Obispo not going far enough to ensure that the project would preserve environmentally sensitive habit and wetlands. It is truly remarkable that a project of such magnitude would have several “fill in the blanks” that would cause significant delay. Since nobody else in Los Osos has had the ability to delay the wastewater project based on three critical flaws that could have been remedied previously within their jurisdiction, by process of elimination, do we now know who the real obstructionists are?
– Aaron Ochs
10 Responses to “Short List of Substantial Issues”
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
sewertoons
20. Jan, 2010
Maybe you’d like to comment on this article about San Diego and the Coastal Commission, since you seem to support their decision for Los Osos:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/oct/08/wastewater-plant-gets-exemption/?metro
Here are a few quotes:
“In a striking change of direction, the California Coastal Commission yesterday voted 8-4 to give San Diego its third exemption from pollution standards set by the federal Clean Water Act.”
“Just two months ago, commissioners voted overwhelmingly to deny the five-year waiver from secondary treatment levels at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant.”
“This time, San Diego didn’t offer any substantive changes to its waiver application. There was speculation that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who supported another exemption, had pressed the commission to override itself.”
“The politics in the last 60 days changed the vote because there was absolutely no new information,” said Mark Gold, president of Heal the Bay, an environmental group in Santa Monica that opposed the waiver.
Aaron
20. Jan, 2010
In your opinion, what parallels can be drawn when comparing the Los Osos wastewater project to the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant?
sewertoons
20. Jan, 2010
Commissioners can be swayed by outside forces.
What conclusion did you draw?
Aaron
21. Jan, 2010
There’s not much to gather from the article that you posted, but I don’t see specific parallels.
activisthero
05. Feb, 2010
The San Diego issue has very little in common with the Los Osos issue. That the Coastal Commission can be ’swayed by outside forces’ is misleading. In the case of the Point Loma WWTP and the renewal of their 301h sewage waiver, the only Commissioners ’swayed by outside forces’ were those who were appointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger. He sent Mike Crissman down to the meeting in Oceanside to make sure the Arnold appointees changed their vote to ‘waiver-yes’. One of those was Katcho, who happens to be running for assembly and sorely needs the support of the waiver-nator. The only other yes votes came from Esther Sanchez, appointed by Karen Bass just recently (the democrats have some history with the SD waiver- Davis forced a second vote too, some years back at the Weston Hotel in LA. At the time, Orange County had just lost their waiver, and the Commission was emboldened. Then Davis ordered a re-vote, just as Arnold has done), and one vore by Steve Kram, who is one of those alternates they send in when they want dirty deeds done dirt cheap.
But the Commission made the right call on Los osos. If for no other reason than the Broderson debacle. Thats ESHA, thats a potential mudslide threat to over 100 homes, thats area C where the lower aquifer can be contaminated by endocrine disrupters and who knows what all, and its upstream from the Morro Estuary State Marine reserve, and hell to pay if sewage ran off there or daylights to the SMR!!
No, the idea that a failing septic tank leach field in Los Osos would have any comparison to the 170-330 million gallons a day (50 Billion gallons a year!!!!!!!) of primary only treated sewage being dumped directly into the ocean at Point Loma in San Diego is comical- I read it and almost fell out of my tree! :O)
http://www.earthsourcemedia.com
sewertoons
21. Jan, 2010
Do you think that a third exemption is a good idea?
Aaron
23. Jan, 2010
I don’t know enough about the situation to give a thoughtful answer.
Julie
07. Feb, 2010
Lynette, welcome to the real world. Landuse is politcal. Whether the CCC takes up the issues relative to what they really are verses what they are presented as being, are not necessarily the same thing. The County having Andi Culbertson on their side was a big loser. The “Enviro-Commissioners” are not swayed by this woman, her involvement triggered resistance. Big mistake!
The projet has many hoops to hop and hurdles to jump ove before it is a reality.
Letters from the “surf” community will backfire, they should have been told Surfrider was in opostion to the project as is, they weren’t and felt “important” by writing letters of support for a project that was flawed on its face…too bad the egg is now on thiers.
You drawing comparisons to San Diego show how very niave you are.
Wake up dear Lynette, the train has left the station. The recent letter from Dan Carl to Mark Hutchinson puts the hearing off for many months. This NOT an easy fix.
Julie
07. Feb, 2010
Aaron, why are the dates comments are made out of order?
Aaron
07. Feb, 2010
Notice how some posts are indented. Those are specific replies to the original replies — so they’re not out of order.