In a Tribune viewpoint penned by SLO County Supervisor Bruce Gibson on Jan. 25, Gibson had a mixed reaction to the California Coastal Commission’s overriding 7-5 vote to dismiss staff recommendation, calling their vote “disappointing and encouraging.” Those mixed messages require some translation to get at the root meaning of his Viewpoint comments:
Gibson wrote: “Perhaps [the Coastal Commission] felt that a project of this scope and significance must have some substantial issue unresolved, even as we provided considerable evidence to the contrary. In the end, they sought more details on a few specific topics: wetland determinations, mitigation for habitat impacts, implementation of water conservation and agricultural reuse and temporary construction staging details.”
Translation: “We were right — and our project has been tested for every assertion — but the Coastal Commission wanted us to elaborate on some details that we clearly talked about already.”
“Significantly, the commission showed no interest in further deliberation on collection or treatment technology choices and did not direct their staff to analyze those topics for the future hearing. That decision is significant, and we conclude that the debates on STEP vs. gravity, conventional vs. pond treatment systems, treatment plant siting and disposal options have been settled.”
Translation: “Our County staff and consultants, who prefer building conventional gravity systems over the alternatives — and decided before AB2701 was even signed into law to pursue gravity collection as part of their original project scope evaluations — conclude that the debate is settled. Now scram!”
“If the commission diverts its attention to those issues already settled, it could cause insurmountable delay and continue the risk of dire consequences for this community and its environment. If the commission works with us in a timely fashion and acts on the specified issues, this project will be on the threshold of a successful completion.”
Translation: “The Commission already raised some issues and I already mentioned that we provided considerable evidence that shows no substantial issue. They’re causing the delay, but if they work with us with some expediency, fine.”
“We’re encouraged by the strong support of numerous agencies, organizations and the vast majority of Los Osos residents. We’re focused and determined to finish this effort…”
Translation: “Everyone is on our side. If the Commission isn’t going to clean house, we will.”
The County is encouraged by the “strong support” of numerous agencies, but if the County’s arrogance toward the Coastal Commission serves as any indication of how they conduct business with local and state agencies, Gibson’s claim of “strong support” would be questionable at best. Gibson’s assertion of “vast majority” support is unfounded. The 218 was an assessment vote for a sewer, not a customer satisfaction survey. The Opinion Studies community survey sampled 34% of the entire community of Los Osos. That survey never asked, “Do you support the County?”
The arrogance is misplaced.
On January 14, the County failed to deliver the perfect “assertion”-proof project. As a consequence, many Los Osos residents are angry and people are starting to see that the County is incapable of serving the needs of Los Osos. Though the de novo hearing will assess details that are minor in scope compared to the larger issues at hand, the vote to proceed with the hearing should serve as a reprimand to Mr. Gibson to leave his high horse and accept the project’s deficiencies. Failure to acknowledge the substantial issues — out of unregulated, unrelenting arrogance — will put the County at an impasse with the Commission that will cause extensive harm to the community.
Curb your arrogance, Mr. Gibson. Stand down.
– Aaron Ochs
