Junk Bonds: The Twice-a-Year Fleecing of Los Osos. . . Until the Year 2034

See that little graphic on the left? The one that reads "Taxing Agency?" Well, in the history of San Luis Obispo County, California, that little graphic, strangely, is one of... no... is THE best story, ever. Period.

What it is, is a screen shot I took of a twice-a-year tax bill that property owners in The PZ (by the way, I've come to love that acronym to describe the "Prohibition Zone" in Los Osos. The PZ. It sounds kind of cool, like, The OC, for Orange County, or, The IE, for the Inland Empire. The PZ, dawg!), pay, and, what that graphic also shows is exactly why my Homies in The PZ are being fleeced twice a year, and, according to SLO County officials, will continue to be fleeced twice a year... for the next 20 years.

Here's how:

I want to start with this handy, and kinda fun/kinda creepy (in a privacy sort of way), little tool that the SLO County Tax Collector's office makes available on its web site, found at this link:

http://services.slocountytax.org/Entry.aspx

And, what you can do at that interesting link is type in the name of any SLO County property owner, and, if you click through a few times, you'll eventually see the "View Bill" button. Click on that button, and presto, you can view any SLO County property owner's tax bill, right from the comfort of... wherever, these days.

Now, if you enter the name of a property owner in The PZ into the Tax Collector's kinda-creepy web tool, you'll see this line on their tax bill:

"LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225.52"

See? That line is the exact line that shows up in that graphic above.

That line also happens to show up on nearly every property tax bill in The PZ, and ONLY in The PZ. Over 4,000 of them: "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225.52"

Here are a few choice examples I picked out:

Bill Morem, longtime Tribune editor, is a property owner in The PZ. Type the name "Morem" into the Tax Collector's little property tax look-up thingee, click around a bit, and BANG!: "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225.52" (Morem's one of my favorites in this story. I mean, he IS an editor at the Tribune, and it's me -- little ol' SewerWatch -- breaking the story... to him, that he's being fleeced twice a year. Great.)

Joyce Albright, a MAJOR supporter of the now-failed "mid-town" sewer plant/"picnic area," is a property owner in The PZ. Type the name "Albright" into the Tax Collector's little property tax look-up thingee, click around a bit, and BANG!: "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225.52"

One more fun example, and this one's a beautiful touch of poetic justice: Karner. The Karners -- the couple most responsible FOR "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225.52" (for another) 20 years -- are on the hook for nearly a $1,000 bucks year... for taxes... for a disastrous sewer non-project project, that THEY originally tossed together in their living room.

A "Socially Infeasible" "Strongly Held Community Value"

To get a feel for what a colossal disaster "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" was/is, the following is just some of what three years (2007 - 2009), and $10 million dollars worth of careful SLO County analysis says about the former Tri-W "project" -- a "project" that the 1999 - 2005 Los Osos CSD spent (read: wasted) some six years and $25 million developing, and that called for a sewer plant/"picnic area" in the middle of Los Osos, and now, is a distant memory, that will never exist.

According to the County's Pro/Con Analysis:

- "(The LOCSD's Tri-W project's) downtown location (near library, church, community center) and the high density residential area require that the most expensive treatment technology, site improvements and odor controls be employed."

and;

- "It (The Tri-W sewer plant) has high construction costs..." ($55 million. The next highest treatment facility option is estimated at $19 million.)

and;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

- "Small acreage and location in downtown center of towns (sic) require most expensive treatment"

and;

- "higher costs overall"

and;

- "Limited flexibility for future expansion, upgrades, or alternative energy"

and;

- "Source of community divisiveness"

and;

- "All sites are tributary to the Morro Bay National Estuary and pose a potential risk in the event of failure. Tri-W poses a higher risk..."

and;

- "NOTE: It was the unanimous opinion of the (National Water Research Institute) that an out of town site is better due to problematic issues with the downtown site."

Furthermore, according to the March 2009, "Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey," conducted by county officials, "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location (as their preference for the treatment facility)."

Additionally, in a June 2009 memo to the California Coastal Commission, the SLO County "Project team," writes, "The Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town (Tri-W project) and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan [bolding mine], 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 (of Supervisors) to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."

I have a question here: If building a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos is so "socially infeasible" (I mean, of course), then why the fuck was seven years and some bazillion public dollars wasted on attempting to build one there in the first place?

Journalistically speaking, the answer to that question is excellent.

As I first exposed in my 2004 New Times cover story, and re-reported about a zillion times here on SewerWatch, the SOLE reason the 1999 - 2001 LOCSD wasted seven years and a bazillion public dollars on some crazy downtown "picnic area"/sewer plant, that thousand of PZers will be paying for over the next two decades, is, wait for it... (and, I realize it SOUNDS like I'm making this up, but I'm not): A "strongly held community value" that ANY sewer project for Los Osos MUST include a sewer plant that ALSO doubles as a "centrally located recreational asset," and, therefore MUST "meet the project objective of centrally located community amenities."

How... great... is...that!

On one hand, there's the 1999 - 2001 LOCSD wasting nearly seven years and a bazillion public dollars on some crazy downtown "picnic area"/sewer plant solely due to some bizarre, and completely unsubstantiated (of course) "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant for Los Osos must be constructed in the middle of town, just so the residents could more easily access the "picnic area" IN their sewer plant (hilarious, and, unbelievably, true), and then, on the other hand, nearly a decade later, we have SLO County officials calling the LOCSD's mystery "strongly held community value," "socially infeasible." (The amount of genuine humor that is found in this story -- a story about a public works project gone horribly, horribly wrong -- is amazing. And the really funny thing is, my Peeps in the PZ will be paying for that "socially infeasible" fake "strongly held community value" until the year 2034.)

Los Osos CSD account, Amphi Haber, recently told me in a phone interview, that over 4,000 PZ property owners are currently paying that $200-something annual assessment, for a public works disaster, and they are paying it twice a year on their property tax bill.

Over 4,000 PZ property owners, twice a year, until the year 2034.

"$1.1 million a year," Haber said, for "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT," that will NEVER exist.

"Yes. The property owners of (the) Los Osos (Prohibition Zone) are paying for a public works project that will never exist," Art Bacon, SLO County Tax Collector, and a PZ property owner himself, recently told me in a phone interview.

"Those were 30 year issuance bonds," Bacon added.

He explained that not only has a version of this line -- "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225.52" -- appeared on PZ property owners' tax bill since 2004, it will continue to appear on that property owner's tax bill for the next 20 years, and, according to Haber, that money is used to pay back the bonds that the early Los Osos CSD originally sold, to fund their now-failed, highly embarrassing, "mid-town"/"picnic area"/sewer plant disaster, that will never exist, and, according to state water officials, at a "a million gallons a day" for seven years, led directly to more water pollution than the Exxon Valdez and BP Gulf oil spills... combined, thousands of times over.

That line -- "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225.52" -- stems from an assessment vote in Los Osos back in the early part of 2001. The vote was successful, the assessment passed, and that's where "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" first got locked into a PZ property owner's tax bill.

And it's that money, from that assessment, that is [present tense] funding the now-miserably-failed Tri-W sewer non-project -- a DOA-non-project that will never exist -- that the 1999 - 2000 LOCSD wasted seven years, and some $25 million of Los Osos' money pursuing (and that figure doesn't even account for the tens of millions of dollars that the various County, State, and Federal government agencies ALSO wasted tending to the LOCSD's Tri-W disaster.)

No doubt about it: The moment that assessment vote passed, in early 2001, that was that: "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" was instantly locked into a PZ property owners' tax bill... for the next 30 fucking years.

"Summer 2000"

I recently sent an attorney this email:

- - -
Is this fraud?:

A local, elected government official, is also a professional marketer.

In her role as an elected official, she, using her professional marketing skills, writes and produces (using public funds) an official newsletter from that government agency, that she then mails to every property owner in her District.

In that newsletter, she gushes about how "on schedule" a huge public works project, that the District is proposing, is.

However, a few years later, subsequent investigation reveals that at the time the elected official produced that newsletter, the project that she's raving about in her newsletter had ALREADY FAILED, and her own government agency documents show she KNEW it had already failed when she produced that newsletter.

In other words, the elected official used the town's public money to produce a newsletter that lied to "every" property owner in the town, about a huge public works project, and those lies played a major role in tricking the town's voters into passing the assessment -- an assessment that they are STILL paying today (and will be paying for the next 20 years) for a public works project that never even came close to working, and, in fact, had already failed at the time of that newsletter.

A knowingly false newsletter, produced by an elected official, solely to dupe property owners into voting for a tax assessment, leads to the passing of that assessment, but the public works project that the assessment was funding, had ALREADY FAILED at the time of that newsletter.

Is that fraud?

Thank you in advance for your answer!
- - -

That attorney replied, "Yes, that is fraud."

Here's why I sent that attorney that email: I can now show, using just two official documents, how that 2001 "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment vote was based on nothing but fraud -- deliberate fraud, directly from the 1999 - 2001 Los Osos CSD. It just couldn't be any clearer.

The first of the two documents is the little known, yet surprisingly excellent (at least in the context of this story), "Los Osos Community Services District Alternatives Report for Wastewater Treatment," dated July 25, 2000.

On page 3, it reads:

"On June 20, 2000 the first workshop was held with the (LOCSD) Wastewater Subcommittee... The clearest result of the first workshop was that Resource Park (the 11-acre Tri-W site) was found to be the best site (for the LOCSD's mid-town wastewater treatment plant)."

That one line goes straight to the heart of why nearly every PZ property owner is being fleeced every time they cut a check for their property tax bill.

What that line shows is that by "June 20, 2000," the "drop dead gorgeous," "70-acre aquatic park/sewer plant, also planned for the mid-town site in Los Osos, that was heavily hyped by Nash-Karner from 1998 - 2000, with a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75," and was the "basis for forming the LOCSD" in the first place, AND solely responsible for killing the County's then-"ready to go" sewer project (an extremely important, yet, often overlooked, point in the entire history of the Los Osos sewer mess), had failed by June 20, 2000.

I mean, clearly, that one alleged workshop (a CRITICAL "workshop" that the LOCSD, these days, can't even document occurred. I recently sent a Public Records Act request to the Los Osos CSD, for all the documents associated with that one workshop, and, District Administrative Secretary, Ann Kudart, sent me this, "I can find no documentation responsive to your request."), already screams "FRAUD!," and I'm just getting started.

It was that ONE intensely important "workshop" -- a "workshop" that apparently never even took place -- where the LOCSD first locked in the 11-acre Tri-W site for their SECOND project, with absolutely ZERO public input. That date was, uh, allegedly "June 20, 2000," according to a District document, which means that the LOCSD's FIRST sewer disaster -- the fake "70-acre aquatic park" that was used by a small handful of community members to originally form the Los Osos CSD in the first place, in 1998... just so they could cash in, had already failed by "June 20, 2000".

Document #2, in the realm of SewerWatch, where a major theme here is how easily the public (and government officials, for that matter) can be duped into doing really stupid things, is great!

It's the District's first Bear Pride newsletter, from "Summer 2000," and it's that kind of "behavior based marketing" bullshit, that goes straigt to the heart of what SewerWatch is all about.

That so-called "news"letter [read: taxpayer funded propaganda] was written and produced by then-LOCSD vice-president, and professional marketer, Pandora Nash-Karner, and was mailed to "every property owner and resident" in Los Osos.

"I did design and produce (for FREE) the first two Bear Pride newsletters," Nash-Karner writes in an email obtained by SewerWatch.

In her very first LOCSD "news"letter, Nash-Karner does something that, after being saturated with it for the past 13 years, most Los Ososans are now VERY familiar with -- she uses her "behavior based marketing" to lie to every resident in Los Osos... using their public money, of course.

In that "news"letter, she's STILL hyping her long-dead "drop dead gorgeous" "70-acre aquatic park/sewer plant as "on schedule" ("The proposed project is on schedule." [page 2]) -- the same "project" that Nash-Karner, and her husband, Gary Karner, tossed together in their living room, in 1997, and then heavily sold to the citizens of Los Osos throughout 1998, and, according to Karner, was "the basis for forming the LOCSD" -- AFTER her own document shows that that disaster of a non-project had ALREADY failed... BEFORE she popped out that lie-filled "news"letter raving about how "on schedule" her already-failed disaster was.

By the way, that June 20, 2000 "workshop," that, apparently, never even happened, was a "workshop" of the LOCSD's "Wastewater subcommittee." Now, go to the last page on that "Summer 2000" "news"letter. It reads: "LOCSD Wastewater Standing Committee Members: Chair, Pandora Nash-Karner, LOCSD Vice-President."

The "date" on Nash-Karner's "news"letter is "Summer 2000" (already past "June 20, 2000") however, according to sources, the actual publication date is late July, 2000... a full month AFTER "June 20, 2000."

Incidentally -- and, because this point involves Your's Truly, and in a very cool way -- I'm sooooo flattered here: My first New Times cover story, that exposed how Nash-Karner's "70- acre aquatic park," "better, cheaper, faster" disaster was on the verge of failing, and then it failed, was published on July 6, 2000.

Without even knowing this, I know this: Due to the timing of that cover story, without question, the FIRST Los Osos CSD Bear Pride "news"letter, was a direct reaction to my New Times piece. In other words, I'm solely responsible for launching the Los Osos CSD's official "news"letters. How... cool... is... that?

In fact, if you really want to have some fun with the sequence-of-events here, the week following the publication of Problems With the Solution, New Times published a rebuttal to my story from... well, do I really need to say?

That rebuttal would prove to be nothing but lies. Every word, except maybe, "and," and "the." (and, thank you in advance, Rachel Maddow, for allowing me to steal your great joke.)

[Journalism lesson alert! It's at this point in the story where I like to show the important journalism lesson in play here -- the lesson of: "The disastrous consequences of giving 'fair and balanced' to the agenda-driven," journalism lesson.

I mean, look what happened there. Journalistically speaking, it's very interesting: My 100-percent accurate cover story is published, then Nash-Karner, of course, comes rolling in the very next week, with a 100-percent lie-filled response. New Times simply goes to the, "Hey, fair and balanced," card, publishes Nash-Karner's lie-filled response, and that was that. All local media, including, strangely, New Times, failed to perform the slightest bit of follow up to my intensely newsworthy story (and, hey, why should they? After all, the vice-president of the LOCSD is saying how "inaccurate" my 100-percent accurate story was, so, "I guess the freelance kid got it wrong, move along," right?) and the story just faded away, and it was right there, in the Summer of 2000, immediately following the complete failure of the Karners' disastrous DOA "70-acre aquatic park" scam, when the worse-than-nothing local so-called "media" completely went to sleep on this over-the-top newsworthy story, is when the Tri-W fraud began -- a fraud that the PZers are still paying for today, and will continue to pay for, for the next 20 years.

One more important, and very interesting, quote in Nash-Karner's response to my cover story makes the already foul stench of fraud associated with that 2001 assessment vote, overwhelming.

In her response, published on July 14, 2000, Nash-Karner is STILL selling her known-to-her-to-be-DEAD "aquatic park," despite the fact that her own Wastewater Subcommittee's documents show that that project failed entirely, at least one month earlier, during some alleged, 1-day, undocumented, behind closed doors, so-called "workshop," on June 20, 2000, that Nash-Karner allegedly "Chaired."

Flat-out lying -- right to the faces of the editors at New Times (which included Steve Moss at the time), to their readers, and, of course, and most importantly, to the people of Los Osos, again.

Giving "Fair and Balanced" to the agenda driven. A colossal journalism fuck-up.... just ask The PZ property owners that will be paying for that fuck-up... until the year 2034.]

So, to summarize, and to be perfectly clear here, the question of fraud involving the LOCSD 2001 assessment vote, boils down to this: Why would then-LOCSD vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner, pop out a newsletter in late July 2000, where she raves about how "on schedule" her "70-acre" mid-town "aquatic park" is, where she also writes about how "an assessment vote will need to be passed" to fund her "on schedule" "project," when her own Wastewater Subcommittee documents show her DOA non-project had already failed a full month BEFORE that "news"letter.

There's only one answer to that question, and my Home-Boy, the above-mentioned attorney, nailed it: "Yes. That is fraud."

Fraud, designed to deliberately deceive Los Osos property owners into voting for the Tri-W scam assessment, and it worked.

There is simply no other explanation: Beginning in "Summer 2000," Nash-Karner used the people of Los Osos' money to lie to them, about really, REEEEELLY important things, in a deliberate effort to trick the property owners of The PZ into voting for an assessment for a fake project, that she already knew had failed, just so she could then cash in on that assessment money, and... it... worked!

"$50,000 Fixed Fee"

Just when you thought this wild story couldn't get any better... dear readers, I now present to you my bonus document: Pandora Nash-Karner's amazing, December 18, 2000, "Proposal for Consulting Services in connection with LOCSD Wastewater project."

The list of things that are SO wrong with that fascinating document is huge, but I do want to highlight a few quotes:

In her crazy "proposal," for a "$50,000 fixed fee" (of course), Nash-Karner's plan for an "information campaign on behalf of the Los Osos Community Services District" called for such marketing techniques as, "on-going proactive contact with members of the media who can cover the wastewater project," and, "the identification of opinion leaders," and, "a multi-tiered strategy for a Public Information Program that will effectively educate the community as a whole," and, "... customized strategies may include a full range of tools... such as... columns (in the local newspapers)."

1... 2... 3. Boom. Done. Three documents. Clear fraud.

And, that's why I find a certain type of PZer so fascinating these days: The PZ property owner from, oh, let's just L.A., that moved to Los Osos, in, oh, let's say in 2008, and is now paying that "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225.52" Tri-W scam assessment, every year, year after year, for the next 20 years -- for an over-the-top disastrous public works project/scam... that will never exist -- and, due to Nash-Karner's "tools" in ALL of the local media, those property owners, today, have NO IDEA why they are even paying that assessment, including Nash-Karner's long-time "tool," the above-referenced, Trib editor, Bill Morem. Hilarious.

Think about that, it's very interesting: Unless those new-comer property owners somehow stumbled onto SewerWatch and read up, they have no clue to the meaning of such critical phrases as, "bait and switchy," "better, cheaper, faster," "SWA Group," "Questa Study," just on and on, and what that means is that those property owners are being fleeced $220-something a year, and don't even know it.

Over 4,000 properties. Some $1.1 million per year... for a public works disaster/fraud, that will never exist.

Almost unimaginably... gets worse.

I recently phoned both the SLO County Auditor, Jim Erb, and the SLO County Tax Collector, Art Bacon, and asked them both the same question:

"What happens in California if a (30 year) property tax assessment passes, but, ten years later, it turns out that the assessment was based on nothing but fraud, and the project that the assessment was/is (funding), will never exist, BECAUSE the assessment was based on nothing but fraud? What happens to the assessment?"

They both had the exact same answer, "I don't know. I've never heard of anything like that before."

Erb also wrote in an email, "The assessment you are referring to is to repay Bonds that were issued by the LOCSD and were also approved by the voters of Los Osos. The money was borrowed and is being paid back, investors have in good faith purchased the bonds."

He added, "I do not know of a way to cancel the bonds other than to pay them off. If you believe there was fraud, intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage an individual, you should contact local law enforcement, the District Attorney, or even the Grand Jury may be able to help. That is exactly what I would do."

To which I replied:

- - - Hello Jim,

Thank you VERY much for your response, and, I realize that you would have no way of knowing this, but your response is actually funny.

The funny part is this:

"... you should contact local law enforcement, the District Attorney, or even the Grand Jury may be able to help."

That's funny, because I HAVE contacted ALL of those agencies about this amazing story -- over and over and over again, for the past 8 years (and even published numerous stories ABOUT me contacting them) -- and they ALL flat-out refuse to lift a finger on this tragic/amazing story -- a story that involves a blatant fraud that, to this day, is ripping off Los Osos property owners to the tune of $1.1 million/year, and will continue to fraud them out of over $1 million/year, until the year 2034.

Here's the HUGE, #1 problem in play here: The person that is directly responsible for the fraud is actually one of your SLO County government colleagues, former LOCSD Director, and current SLO County Parks Commissioner (appointed by Supervisor Bruce Gibson), Pandora Nash-Karner.

And, of course, Pandora is also close friends with the SLO County DA's office, and has close friends in the SLO County Sheriff's office [former SLO County "Under Sheriff," and former Los Osos resident, Martin Basti, comes to mind.]

To make matters much, MUCH worse, the Counsel for the SLO County Grand Jury is the County Counsel's office, the exact same Counsel for the SLO County Parks Commission, which means Pandora is a client of the same Counsel that also has the SLO County Grand Jury, the SLO County Board of Supervisors, AND the SLO County Sheriff's office as clients.

And that's the exact reason why I recently ended up on the phone with you and Mr. Bacon: to see if there was some OTHER process -- OTHER than the heavily conflicted SLO County Sheriff's office, Grand Jury, and/or DA's office -- to help Los Osos property owners from getting ripped off from a blatant fraud every time they cut a check for their property tax bill. But, apparently, according to you, there isn't.

Soooo, I guess that's that, huh? There's nothing that the SLO County Auditor, or SLO County Tax Collector can do... uh, either?

Very interesting. Well, at least I can now report that your offices know about the fraud.

Anyhoot.... Thank you again for the information. I really do appreciate you taking the time to do that. I'll now try to find a different route to get the property owners of Los Osos some badly needed justice.

Thanks again,
Ron
- - -

Finally, Haber (remember her? Los Osos CSD accountant), told me that the $1.1 million collected from property taxes in The PZ each year (because of line "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225.52," and that goes to repay those bonds from 2001 -- boy, that brings a WHOLE new meaning to the phrase "junk" bonds, yes?) is deposited to US Bank. There's a branch in Los Osos.

Haber also supplied me the name of the US Bank representative, Stephen Rivero, that oversees those particular bonds -- bonds, remember, that were originally sold to pay for a fraud of a project, that will never exist.

So, I took a reporting long shot, and emailed Rivero:

"Hello Mr. Rivero,

I'm researching a story on Los Osos, CA, and I was referred to you by the Los Osos CSD's accountant, Amparo Haber, involving a quick question I have about the bonds the LOCSD sold back in the early 2000s to fund their (now failed) wastewater treatment project.

Ms. Haber recently told me that about $1.1 million/year of Los Osos property owners' money is going to pay the balance on those bonds (until the year 2034), and I was wondering if you, or, perhaps, someone else in your office, could please supply with me the list of investors that purchased those bonds?

A pdf file would be great!

If you have any questions, please just ask.

Thank you in advance,
Ron
- - -

Not surprisingly, my long shot did not pay off. Rivero did not respond to my email.

But how great would that be to this story? The names of the investors that are cashing in -- to the tune of $1.1 million/year -- for a fraud of a public works project, that will never exist.

Now watch -- the dramatic ending: With this post, I've now shown, using nothing but primary source documents, how the property owners in The PZ, including an editor at the Trib, AND the SLO County Tax Collector, himself, are being fleeced every time they cut a check for their property taxes, and will continue to be fleeced for the next 20 years, by funding a "fraud" of a non-project that will never exist, and nothing -- absolutely nothing -- will happen.

The worse-than-nothing local (so-called) "media" won't lift a finger to report on this stunning story, the heavily conflicted SLO County agencies won't lift a finger to help the property owners of the Prohibition Zone, and the heavily conflicted local politicians won't lift a finger to seek a shred of justice for the fleeced... in The PZ, dawg.

###

[Originally posted on the blog, SewerWatch -- sewerwatch.blogspot.com -- 5/1/13]

I Need A "Client" -- Who Wants Their "$3,500" Bucks Back?

No time for formalities!

If you paid even a nickel of assessment into the Tri-W sewer "project" scam, download the pdf file at this link, NOW, print it out, quickly fill it out, and drop it off at the Los Osos CSD office by the end of the workday on Wednesday, October 24, and -- I guarantee it -- you will have the most fun you've ever had with local government, and it won't cost you a penny! This... will... be... GREAT!... on so many levels.

What that document is, is an official "claim" letter that I created where it outlines why Los Osos property owners that paid ANY money towards the now-failed, Tri-W non-project, should NOW get that money back, because you were deliberately deceived by the early Los Osos CSD regarding the Tri-W scam, and now you deserve to get your money back.

So, my strategy to 1) FINALLY get a great ending to my book, and 2) get the victims of the Tri-W scam a tiny, tiny shred of justice, is to shell out a $50 filing fee to get my argument into a small claims court, but, according to Small Claims Court procedure, a "claim" from the plaintiff must first be "rejected" by the government agency that's getting sued, and that's where a Los Osos property owner that was scammed by the Tri-W assessment comes in: I need at least one of you (and hundreds would be hilarious) to fill out that "claim," and get it to the LOCSD office, pronto.

Susan Morrow, the LOCSD General Manager, recently told me that if this claim is submitted to the District office by Wednesday, October 24, that it would be included in the LOCSD Board's November 1 meeting agenda, and the "rejection" would happen THAT quickly -- one week... at an official meeting!

At that meeting, the District Board will (certainly) "reject" that claim, and then we can take it straight to Small Claims Court, pay a $50 filing fee (that I'll gladly pay for one "client") and argue, in Small Claims Court, using my mountain of primary source documents, that Los Osos property owners were victims of a scam, obviously.

We'll argue this: That the Tri-W "project" was nothing more than a cover-up for the fact that the "better, cheaper, faster" Solution Group scam -- the "drop dead gorgeous" ponding project slated for the middle of town, that was "the basis" for forming the LOCSD in the first place, in November 1998, and that never worked (as predicted) two years later, had failed, and, instead of the elected officials that heavily hyped "better, cheaper, faster" going back to the community in 2000, and saying something like, "Hey, 'better, cheaper, faster' isn't going to work, what should we do now?," those same elected officials, instead, made the decision to start lying to the people of Los Osos, the California Coastal Commission, the State Water Boards, and the County of San Luis Obispo, about the cost, viability, and rationale on why their SECOND "project" -- the vastly different Tri-W "project" (when compared to their original "better, cheaper, faster" scam) -- had to ALSO be built with a sewer plant smack-dab in the middle of town.

Due to my extensive reporting on this amazing story over the years, I have a gigantic stack of primary source documents that, WAAAAAAAY beyond a reasonable doubt, shows that's exactly what happened, and now, after the Coastal Commission's June 11, 2010 decision, where they did NOT select the Tri-W disaster, six years after they originally approved it, THAT's when it FINALLY became official that the Tri-W scam was just that... a scam, and now, considering that, according to sources, the Statute of Limitations for "fraud" on a civil case is "three years," there's plenty of time left on the SOL clock to file a "claim" with Small Claims Court, arguing that you -- a Los Osos property owner that paid money into the Tri-W assessment -- should now get your money back, considering that, it turns out, the Tri-W assessment was based on nothing but lies -- a scam.

I'll be posting the evidence for this fun, and excellent argument here on SewerWatch soon, but first things first: At least one property owner (and, again, hundreds would be hilarious) that was a victim of the Tri-W scam needs to download this document, print it out, fill it out, and then drop it off at the LOCSD office by the end of the day on Wednesday.

Everything you need to file your "claim" is contained in that document, however, if you'd like to change some of the wording around, here's a Microsoft Word file of the same document, so if you have Word, you can edit the "claim" form yourself, and then submit it.

And if the District sends it back to you because they say you didn't cross some "t," or dot some "i," then we'll just go ahead and consider THAT letter the "rejection" letter, and that will allow us to go to Small Claims Court.

A perfect example of someone that I have in mind for this strategy is Stephen Marsden, where, at this link:

http://www.ksby.com/news/good-question-what-happened-to-los-osos-sewer-assessment-/

... Mr. Marsden asks KSBY's, John Reger,  "A few years ago, I paid $3,500 into a fund for a new sewer. What happened to that money?"

EXCELLENT question. Terrible answer by Reger.

The real answer to Mr. Marsden's great question is: He was lied to by the LOCSD regarding that assessment, and BECAUSE of those lies, that non-project never worked, and he was completely scammed out of his $3,500 bucks, and now, following the CCC's June 11, 2010 decision, Mr. Marsden, as well as all of the other property owners that paid into the Tri-W sewer assessment scam, should get their money back, plus interest, of course.

Mr. Marsden would be a PERFECT candidate for my little strategy here. He could download my form, fill it out, drop it off at the LOCSD office, have it "rejected" by the District, then he could take my super-tight evidence (that I'll supply here, for FREE, over the next few weeks) to the Small Claims Court, and, for just a tiny $50 filing fee, make one helluva an argument on why he should get his "$3,500" back: because he was scammed, clearly.

And one of the best things (among many) about the Small Claims Court process: They don't allow attorneys! AND, they allow a "plaintiff" to subpoena a "witness," and that person HAS to show up!

Oh, Paaaaavooooo.

But, first things first, if you're a Los Osos property owner that paid anything towards the Tri-W assessment scam, get that "claim" notice to the LOCSD office before Wednesday night, and, according to Morrow, it'll be officially included on November's agenda, where, of course, they'll be forced to "reject" it. Then it's straight to Small Claims Court.

How cool is that?

This... is... going... to... be... FUN!

###

SLO County Sheriff's Department: Fake "Los Osos Community Pool Association" a "Civil Matter"

"Your donation, as well as the donations of many others, has not yet been spent but will be used to build the community pool in Los Osos."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, "President," "Los Osos Community Pool Association," August 31, 2001

"Results of search for 'LOS OSOS COMMUNITY POOL ASSOCIATION' returned no entity records. Record not found."
-- The California Secretary of State's web site, after conducting a business search on "Los Osos Community Pool Association"

Hey, Los Osos? How's that "community pool" treating you this summer? Must be nice, huh?

Wait. What's that? There is no "Community Pool" in Los Osos?

I don't understand. How can that be? After all, from the early 1990s through the early 2000s, "more than $150,000 in donations" was collected by something called the "Los Osos Community Pool Association" (even though the Secretary of State has "no record" of that "non-profit" "organization" ever existing).

And, in 2001, according to "Los Osos Community Pool Association," "President," Pandora Nash-Karner , those funds were going to "be used to build the community pool in Los Osos."

So, where's the "Los Osos Community Pool" in 2012?

Ah, I think I found it.

According to the Morro Bay Community Pool Foundation web site:

"The Los Osos Community Pool Association commissioned an Aquatics Needs Assessment Survey which was completed on May 29, 2010. They ("The Los Osos Community Pool Association") wanted to know if the community wanted a pool to be built in Los Osos or Morro Bay. As it turns out the results of the Study showed that the majority of respondents wanted the community pool to be built in Morro Bay."

So, there's your "community pool," Los Osos, that Los Osos residents donated "more than $150,000" to build. It's now planned for Morro Bay.

That's right, a decade after "Los Osos Community Pool Association," "President," Nash-Karner, told a donor that his "generous gift" "will be used to build the community pool in Los Osos," the "Los Osos Community Pool Association" (which, apparently, isn't even real), "commissions" a study, in 2010, that concludes, "As it turns out the results of the Study showed that the majority of respondents wanted the community pool to be built in Morro Bay."

And that's that.

So, now, in 2012, after collecting "more than $150,000 in donations" that were to "be used to build the community pool in Los Osos," there's no community pool in Los Osos, there's no longer a "Los Osos Community Pool Association" (which, by all indications, never legally existed in the first place), and even worse, all of those donations, apparently, are all but gone.

According to Barry VanderKelen, executive director at the SLO County Community Foundation, "The Los Osos Community Pool Endowment Fund," listed on the SLO County Community Foundation's web site, has "between $10,000 - $15,000 in it."

And, when I recently emailed Nash-Karner, asking her, "What happened to all of the Los Osos pool donations, are they in another account?," she never replied.

And that situation -- that, in 2012, there's no longer a "Los Osos Community Pool Association," and no Los Osos Community Pool, and no more plans on the table to even build one, and the money's, apparently, all but gone -- understandably, has some of those people that donated for a "Los Osos community pool" claiming "fraud," and, these days, they want their money back.

Take, Los Osos resident, Cinthea Coleman, for example.

According to Coleman, in 1993 (1993!), her father, Robert Stark, donated $12,000 to something called "The South Bay Community Pool Association," which, according to official records, actually DID exist, before it was "suspended" by the State of California -- "All of South Bay Community Pool Association's powers, rights and privileges in the State of California have been suspended" -- where, SBCPA "President, Pandora Nash-Karner," then, simply changed the name to "Los Osos Community Pool Association," and stayed in business.

And today, considering there's no pool in Los Osos, and no longer even any plans to build one, Coleman, understandably, wants her father's "generous gift" back.

In a recent email to SewerWatch, Coleman writes:

"Yes, I believe she ("Los Osos Community Pool Association," "President," Pandora Nash-Karner) is perpetrating Fraud on multiple levels and needs to return my Father's $12,000.00 donation to a FEDERALLY-tax exempt organization. I have Power of Attorney for this matter and the money can go to me, personally, or my non profit."

So, after SLO County Sheriff, Ian Parkinson, recently wrote to me in an email, "If you have a victim (of the "Los Osos Community Pool Association") then they can be referred to us and we would investigate," I referred Coleman to the SLO County Sheriff's department.

However, after filing a complaint with the SLO County Sheriff department earlier this month, where Coleman supplied the department with the details of her case, including a copy of the above-referenced, August 2001, letter from Nash-Karner, that was written on "Los Osos Community Pool Association" letterhead, when there is "no record" that the "Los Osos Community Pool Association" ever legally existed, and where Nash-Karner writes, "Your donation, as well as the donations of many others, has not yet been spent but will be used to build the community pool in Los Osos," and, "we are currently proceeding with plans to build the pool in Los Osos," and, "Your generous gift... is now irrevocable," AND, where I also supplied the SLO County Sheriff department with primary source information on:

-- How "The Los Osos Community Pool Endowment Fund," listed on the SLO County Community Foundation's web site, has between "$10,000 - $15,000" in it

and;

-- How "more than $150,000" in donations was collected for a "Los Osos community pool"

and;

-- How "All of South Bay Community Pool Association's powers, rights and privileges in the State of California have been suspended"

and;

-- How the "Los Osos Community Pool Association" has "no record" on the Secretary of State's web site

and;

-- How, 17 years after the now-"suspended" South Bay Community Pool Association was formed in 1993, something called the "Los Osos Community Pool Association" commissioned a study, in 2010, that concluded, "As it turns out... the majority of respondents wanted the community pool to be built in Morro Bay"

and;

-- How today, there's no Los Osos pool, no longer a "Los Osos Community Pool Association" (which never legally existed in the first place) no longer any plans to build a pool in Los Osos, and that the "The Los Osos Community Pool Endowment Fund" has less than $15,000 in it, after "more than $150,000" was donated to build a pool in Los Osos

and;

-- How Sheriff Parkinson, wrote, "If you have a victim then they can be referred to us and we would investigate," and then I referred to his department a "victim"

... the SLO County Sheriff Department, after receiving all of that information, recently told SewerWatch that they will not be investigating the fake Los Osos Community Pool Association, or Coleman's claim of "fraud."

"I believe this a civil matter, and not a criminal matter," Jason Nefores, Commander of the North Coast Sheriff station in Los Osos, told SewerWatch in a recent phone interview.

I then asked Nefores if his office phoned the Secretary of State's office to inquire why "all of South Bay Community Pool Association's powers, rights and privileges in the State of California have been suspended?"

He said, "no."

When asked if his department would investigate a case where someone was going door-to-door in Los Osos, and asking for donations for a "non-profit" organization that didn't legally exist, Commander Nefores said, "Yes, but that's apples to oranges."

I then asked him if his department went to the Secretary of State's web site, and conducted a search for the "Los Osos Community Pool Association," and he said, "To what end?"

I said, "Well, it'll show you 'no record' that the 'Los Osos Community Pool Association' ever legally existed, and, therefore, my hypothetical ('door-to-door/fake non-profit' scam), and the Los Osos Community Pool Association, is actually closer to apples to apples."

He reiterated, "I see this as a civil matter."

To complicate matters, Nash-Karner is also a current SLO County Parks Commissioner, appointed by County Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, where her official County position also makes her a client of chief County Counsel, Warren Jensen, who is also chief Counsel for the SLO County Sheriff's department.

"They (Warren Jensen's County Counsel office) do serve as counsel for the Sheriff's Office," Parkinson wrote to SewerWatch.

On her 2007 application for her Parks Commission position, Commissioner Nash-Karner writes:

"Re-established the South Bay Swimming Pool Association non-profit corporation to build a community pool"

and;

"Successfully lobbied MCI for a $50,000 grant for the South Bay Swimming Pool Association"

and (and this is verbatim);

"South Bay Community Pool Association (AKA Los Osos Pool Assoc), President, 1999 - "

In the official Minutes of the SLO County Parks Commission meeting on, February 24, 2011, it reads:

"Commissioner Nash-Karner spoke on efforts by the Coastal Estero Bay Area Aquatic and Recreation Center (formerly Los Osos Pool)... "

So, try to follow this: According to SLO County Parks Commissioner, Nash-Karner, "The Coastal Estero Bay Area Aquatic and Recreation Center," was formerly, "The Los Osos Community Pool Association," which wasn't even real, but where Nash-Karner described herself as "President," which was formerly, "The South Bay Community Pool Association," where Nash-Karner is also listed as "President," which was real, before it was "suspended" by the State of California in the early 2000s, for reasons the Secretary of State's office would not provide to this reporter.

And, of course, if you Google:

"Coastal Estero Bay Area Aquatic and Recreation Center"

... you get nothing, other than the Minutes I link to above.

Nash-Karner is also a marketing professional, where she practices, what she refers to as, "behavior-based marketing."

According to her business web site:

"We provide expertise in... public information programs. We use a wide range of tools, including advertising campaigns, newsletters, annual reports, meetings, focus groups, special events, direct mailings, and the media. Through the power of behavior-based marketing strategies, award-winning graphic design, compelling language, and sometimes a touch of the outrageous, we create communication that is out of the ordinary, attention-grabbing, and highly effective."

Past SewerWatch investigations have shown that Nash-Karner, in 2004/05, also formed her own Political Action Committee -- "Save the Dream, Pandora Nash-Karner, Chair" -- where she collected over $100,000 in donations, and then used some of those donations to hire and pay her own marketing business, Pandora & Co.

That story is at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/11/plugged-holes-lead-to-closed-loops.html

Additionally, Nash-Karner, and her husband, Gary Karner, starting in 1997, developed, in their living room, an "alternative" sewer project to the county's then-"ready to go" sewer project for Los Osos.

Throughout 1998, she would heavily market her "project" in Los Osos as "better, cheaper, faster" than the County's then-"ready to go" project, despite the fact that the Karners would later confess to knowing that their "project" was "blown out of the water" in early 1998, and was never going to work.

Nash-Karner's "behavior-based marketing strategy" worked on Los Osos voters, and her known-to her-to-be-DOA non-project was the "basis" for forming the Los Osos Community Services District in November 1998, and electing Nash-Karner as one of the initial Directors, where she, and her fellow Board members, immediately voted to kill the county's "ready to go" sewer project, and begin pursuit of her known-to-be-DOA, "better, cheaper, faster", non-project.

Almost immediately after that decision, official LOCSD documents associated with the Karners' non-project began to contain the business name, SWA Group, where, according to his bio, Gary Karner "was in private practice with The SWA Group, Planners and Landscape Architects, with an international practice and eight offices nationally, as a Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager of the firm. He specialized in project management and risk management with SWA for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA to consult on risk management."

Two years later, in 2000, the Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" non-project failed, as predicted, and directly led to the next 12-years-and-counting of sewer delay in Los Osos, and wasted untold millions of the State of California's money, and resources.

That story is outlined at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/exclusive-sewerwatch-investigation-how.html

Although the SLO County Sheriff's Department views Commissioner Nash-Karner's fake "Los Osos Community Pool Association" as a "civil matter," Commander Nefores told SewerWatch that his office did refer the "matter" to the SLO County District Attorney's office, Economic Crime Unit, where, according to its web site, "Complaints are forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement or regulatory agency that has jurisdiction."

The "appropriate law enforcement or regulatory agency that has jurisdiction" in Coleman's case, is the SLO County Sheriff Department.

Phone calls to the SLO County District Attorney's office were not returned as of press time.

###

"Coastal Commission Enforcement Case Number V-3-07-034," or. . .

... How 20 Property Owners in Los Osos Just Made a $25,000 Donation to the Failed, 2005, "Defeat the Recall" Campaign

"It is not necessary to bury the truth. It is sufficient merely to delay it until nobody cares."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

It's official, and it's bad, like, the worst thing that's ever happened to SLO County, bad.

A SewerWatch investigation reveals that when three Los Osos CSD Directors facing a recall election in 2005, made the decision, just days before their recall election, to begin "mass grading" at the highly controversial "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area" (ESHA) "Tri-W" site in downtown Los Osos, to pave the way for their now-failed, "mid-town" sewer plant/"picnic area," they did not -- repeat: did NOT -- have the regulatory green light to proceed with construction, a "clear violation," according to the California Coastal Commission, which means, through a simple process of elimination, that the only explanation remaining on WHY they made that illegal decision -- a decision that wasted millions of public California dollars and completely destroyed 11 acres of "all-ESHA" in SLO County -- is due to some bizarre, failed, illegal political strategy, and, now, today, about 20 property owners in Los Osos are paying $25,000 each to clean up that failed, illegal political strategy... from seven years ago, and both SLO County government, and the Coastal Commission now consider that remedy an "appropriate resolution," to that "clear violation."

Here's how:

The year was 2005, and three Directors of the Los Osos CSD, Richard LeGros, Stan Gustafson, and Gordon Hensley, were facing a recall election with an election date that they set themselves, for September 27, 2005.

The reason they were facing that recall election, is because many of the town's voters were beyond-upset that the three spent the previous five years, and some $25 million of the community's money, developing a sewer system for Los Osos that included -- and I'm not making this up -- an industrial sewer plant/"picnic area" to be constructed smack-dab in the middle of Los Osos, just three blocks upwind of downtown, and, in 2005, those angry voters had collected enough signatures to trigger a recall election that would remove Hensley, LeGros, and Gustafson from office, and elect directors that did NOT want an industrial sewer plant in the middle of their beautiful coastal town.

However, just eight working days before that September 27 recall election, the 3-member Board majority that was facing recall -- Hensley, LeGros, and Gustafson -- made the decision to begin "mass grading" at the mid-town sewer plant site, known as the "Tri-W site," even though they knew that if they were recalled, the entire Tri-W project would be stopped by the post-recall Board, which is exactly what happened... the three were recalled from office on September 27, 2005, and the "post-recall" Board immediately halted work on the Tri-W project, and five years later, the Coastal Commission voted to make that stoppage permanent, when the Commission approved, in June 2010, a SLO County-developed sewer system, that puts the treatment facility outside of town, downwind.

Additionally, the "entire" 11-acre Tri-W site, in 2005, was considered official "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area," and contained sensitive coastal dune scrub dune habitat, with, according to a Coastal Commission ecologist, "high habitat and ecosystem value."

At the time, and even up to today, the reason the three recalled directors gave for making the decision to begin "mass grading" at the "all-ESHA" site, just days before their recall election, was because they said that "30 years of sewer delay is long enough," and therefore wanted to act as soon as possible to curb the alleged water pollution that is coming from the town's septic systems -- an over-the-top disastrous, and, as it turns out, illegal, decision.

Just 11 days after the start of "mass grading" at the "all-ESHA" Tri-W site -- grading that cost millions of California dollars to conduct -- the recall was successful, Hensley, LeGros, and Gustafson were immediately removed from office, and replaced with three directors that were... and I can't believe I even have to report this... against a downtown, industrial sewer plant/"picnic area." The new, post-recall Board, was now 5-0 in favor of stopping the mid-town project, which is exactly what they did. (Two sitting Directors, Julie Tacker and Lisa Schicker, were also opposed to the nonsensical mid-town location.)

However (and here's the bombshell), Coastal Commission staff recently directed me to a 2010 Coastal Commission staff report, and, according to that document, the pre-recall LOCSD Board, just days before their recall election, did not even have the regulatory green-light to proceed with construction on the "all-ESHA" Tri-W site, and therefore, illegally jumped the gun on the decision to begin "mass grading" at the "all-ESHA" Tri-W site.

Specifically, according to Commission staff, the 2005 pre-recall LOCSD Board majority failed to fulfill "the terms and conditions" of their Coastal Development Permit (CDP) "prior to construction," when they failed to "satisfy" a "condition of approval" to create a "program" that set $10,000 aside every year for "maintenance and restoration" for something called the Broderson site.

Protecting the undeveloped Broderson site was "mitigation" the Commission placed on the LOCSD in 2004, because the District was proposing to rip up a "large parcel" of "all-ESHA" for their mid-town sewer plant.

The June, 2010 staff report reads:

"... per the terms and conditions of the (now-failed Tri-W sewer project) CDP, all of Broderson was to be granted, along with a program to contribute $10,000 per year for its maintenance and restoration, prior to construction of the (Tri-W sewer) project. (bolding mine.)

The document continues:

"... this prior CDP requirement was never satisfied, even though construction commenced and the ("all-ESHA") Tri-W site was graded by LOCSD in 2005 (just a few days before the recall election). Both the Commission and the County have been tracking the matter as a violation for several years... there was clearly a violation (by the 2005 LOCSD) of the terms and conditions of CDP A-3-SLO-03-113."

In other words, based on that wording, Hensley, LeGros, and Gustafson, developed, behind-the-scenes, some bizarre political strategy to illegally rip up the ESHA at the Tri-W site, using funds from the State of California, in hopes of "defeating the recall," and staying in office.

[I mean, c'mon, if they didn't even have the green light to begin construction -- and, according to the CCC, they didn't -- then what would have been the reason to illegally jump the gun, and start construction... just days from their own recall election? Ignorance of the "terms and conditions" of their CDP? Not likely. According to the local environmental "organization," SLO Coastkeeper, "Mr. (Gordon) Hensley has extensive experience in permit compliance issues."

So, if anyone would have known that he was "violating" the "terms and conditions" of his Coastal Development PERMIT, it would have been LOCSD Director, Gordon Hensley, because, according to SLO Coastkeeper, Hensley "has extensive experience in PERMIT compliance issues," which means he can't even go to the "I didn't know," card. (And, "thank you," to SLO Coastkeeper for providing me with such an excellent, relevant quote on my story involving Gordon Hensley.)

And that leaves only one reason why Hensley illegally jumped the gun on his CDP: Illegal political strategy.

For context, it's my guess -- just a guess, but a reasoned one -- their thinking went along these lines: "If we start construction BEFORE the recall election, even though our CDP says we can't, it'll show the electorate that there's no turning back now, and so there will be no reason to recall us, or even vote. Excellent strategy! Let's do it!"]



Other notable quotes from the, June 2010, staff report include:

"As summarized earlier, the LOCSD initiated its wastewater project in 2005, including by completely grading the Tri-W site, which the Commission had previously determined to be entirely ESHA."

and;

"The protection of Broderson was... a critical piece of the mitigation package that allowed the Commission to approve the use of the Midtown (Tri-W) site, which itself consisted largely of coastal dune scrub as well as other sensitive habitats, for a public service facility (sewer plant) in the first place. This was accomplished not through the public works override ordinance but through a rezoning of the Midtown site... The Broderson mitigation proposal was central to the Commission's finding under the Coastal Act that allowing a public facility in the ESHA at Tri-W was, on balance, the most protective of coastal resources."

and;

"However, while the 80-acre (Broderson) site was acquired by LOCSD, it was never granted to an appropriate agency or conservation organization as required, and LOCSD has never allocated the $10,000 per year for maintenance and restoration of the site as required. As a result, this prior CDP requirement was never satisfied, even though construction commenced and the Tri-W site was graded by LOCSD in 2005. Both the Commission and the County have been tracking the matter as a violation for several years. [bolding mine.]

and;

"... there was clearly a violation (just days before the recall election) of the terms and conditions of the (Tri-W) CDP...

and;

"... the entire Broderson mitigation package was required before the (Tri-W) project could proceed... "

and;

"... after abandonment of the LOCSD project, all that is left is the required mitigation at Broderson, and a degraded ESHA area at Tri-W. In other words, the area degraded at Tri-W was only allowed as part of a complete project that resulted in a
wastewater treatment plant and related facilities there."

and;

"The Mid-Town (Tri-W) site continues to suffer from the grading for the abandoned wastewater treatment plant. "

and;

"These lands (the Broderson and Tri-W sites) are the subject of an ongoing violation, and the responsibility for addressing such violations runs with the land. If the land is conveyed to the County, then it is the County's responsibility as landowner to resolve the violations, even if the prior owner was the violator."

and;

"There is little doubt that: (a) a violation of the Coastal Act and the LCP exists; (b) (the pre-recall Board majority) LOCSD is responsible for the violation; and (c) resolution of that violation involves resolving impacts associated with LOCSD (illegal) grading of the Tri-W site."

and;

"Coastal Commission enforcement case number V-3-07-034."

And, finally, "the Tri-W site can and should be mitigated due to having been graded in 2005."

And it's that quote -- that "the Tri-W site can and should be mitigated due to having been graded in 2005" -- that makes this story so interesting today, because that's exactly what the Coastal Commission required.

"Appropriate Resolution"

As part of their "mitigation package" for the County's proposed sewer system for Los Osos (beginning in 2007, State legislation [AB 2701] handed control over the project from the Los Osos CSD, to the County of San Luis Obispo), the Coastal Commission, also in June 2010, required that the County "restore" the "degraded ESHA area at Tri-W."

And, as it turns out, and, not-so-surprisingly, that "restoration" ain't cheap.

Right now, as I type this, County officials overseeing the sewer project are currently paying more than $500,000 dollars for restoring the "degraded ESHA area at Tri-W" -- ESHA that was illegally ripped up (on California's dime... LOTS of dimes) in 2005 by the pre-recall LOCSD Board majority, in the first place, solely as some failed political strategy, obviously, and the source of funds the County is currently using to pay for that over half million dollar "restoration," is coming from the property owners in Los Osos, that paid their entire $25,000 sewer assessment in advance.

A few months back, I posted a blog piece at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2011/04/hey-pre-paid-los-osos-sewer-assessment.html

... where I first showed how the pre-paid assessment folks in Los Osos were only paying for the Tri-W restoration, and how not a penny of their $25,000 "sewer assessment" was going towards anything "sewer"-ish. Not one foot of pipe. Not one bolt. Nothing... just cleaning up the mess at Tri-W.

However, what I didn't know at the time I published my piece, is that the Coastal Commission was calling the "mass grading" at the "all-ESHA" Tri-W site, illegal -- a "clear violation," of the "terms and conditions" of the development permit, and, "little doubt," the pre-recall Board majority LOCSD "is responsible for the violation."

So, look at this scenario, in 2012. It's over-the-top interesting/horrible:

Today, some 20 pre-paid assessment property owners in Los Osos, are paying their entire $25,000 assessment solely to clean up the failed political strategy of the pre-recall LOCSD Board majority -- a strategy that cost Californians untold millions of dollars, and destroyed a "large parcel" of "all-ESHA" in SLO County.

(It also turns out, that (and not-so-surprisingly) illegally ripping up a "large parcel" of "all-ESHA" ain't cheap, either. Apparently, it costs a lot of California money to illegally rip up ESHA... solely for a failed political strategy.)

Almost unbelievably, this story gets worse... MUCH worse.

In their June 2010 staff report, Commission staff writes, "The Commission has been pursuing this (illegal Tri-W grading) case as a violation, but has been awaiting the completion of the (County's sewer development) decision process to determine appropriate resolution, since the Tri-W site was a potential treatment plant site for the LOWWP."

In response to that quote, I recently emailed Dan Carl, of the Coastal Commission staff, and who "approved" that 2010 staff report:

Hello Dan,

... as you know, the County did not select "the Tri-W site as a potential treatment plant site for the LOWWP," so, I guess that's where we're at now, this part: "determine appropriate resolution" to the "active enforcement efforts."

And, as I show, that "violation" is (present tense) super-egregious -- a colossal environmental and financial disaster (using public money), solely due to some bizarre, failed political strategy involving the pre-recall LOCSD Board majority.

So, considering the County did not select "the Tri-W site as a potential treatment plant site for the LOWWP (in 2009) [Not even close. The Tri-W project didn't even come close to making the County's short-list of "viable project alternatives"), which means it's now time to "determine appropriate resolution," for "Coastal Commission enforcement case number V-3-07-034," what does your office now consider "appropriate resolution" for that "violation?"

Carl's response?

"Hi Ron,

The County's LOWWP as approved by the Commission through CDP Application A-3-SLO-09-055/069 resolves the enforcement case. Please see pages 37-44 of the Commission's findings for A-3-SLO-09-055/069 on this point. Hope that helps….

Dan"

It does help.

Allow me to translate: What's Carl's saying there, in that mess of numbers, dashes, and slashes, is that, as long as the Tri-W site gets restored -- and it's in the process of being restored by the County, at a cost of about a half million -- then, the staff of the California Coastal Commission considers that to be "appropriate resolution" to the "clear violation" of the pre-recall LOCSD Board majority illegally ripping up a "large parcel" of "all-ESHA" in 2005... using, and completely wasting, millions of dollars of California money in the process... just days before their recall election... leaving a gigantic, "suffering," dirt pit in the middle of town for the past seven years, that the pre-paid sewer assessment property owners now have to pay to clean up.

In other words, more than 20 pre-paid assessment folks in Los Osos, are now making a $25,000 donation to the pre-recall Board majority's failed political strategy in 2005.

Also keep in mind, that, because all of those assessments are now going solely to cleaning up the Tri-W mess, and not a penny to anything sewer-ish, the actual sewer project will now be about a half million dollars more expensive for all of the other property owners.

Could it get any worse? Oh, hell yeah.

Remember this quote? "Both the Commission and the County have been tracking the matter as a violation for several years..."

BOTH the Coastal Commission, AND SLO County government, are not only aware that the pre-recall LOCSD Board illegally jumped the gun on their CDP, and illegally ripped up a huge chunk of ESHA using California's money, but, SLO County officials, apparently, are taking the exact same route as the Coastal Commission when it comes to "appropriate resolution" for "Coastal Commission enforcement case number V-3-07-034," and that route is, simply let the pre-paid sewer assessment property owners foot the bill for the 2005 Los Osos CSD Board majority's illegal, failed political strategy, and then just "move forward."

For this story, I emailed both Supervisors Bruce Gibson, whose District includes Los Osos, and Jim Patterson, who is facing a tough re-election campaign this June.

I outlined the terrible circumstances surrounding that "clear violation" -- which, I'm assuming they've known about for "several years," but, that entire time, didn't lift a finger for any accountability on the matter -- and asked them, "Which path do you two support: The County moving beyond the "tracking for several years" stage, and into the enforcement/prosecution stage for that 'clear violation," or simply forget about that deliberately created, illegal disaster, and just "move forward?"

Neither one of them replied, of course.

Allow me to translate that: By not supplying one word of response to this intensely important story, Jim Patterson, like the Coastal Commission, and Supervisor Gibson, is also fine with letting the pre-paid sewer assessment property owners in Los Osos pay their entire $25,000 assessment for the pre-recall LOCSD Board majority's disastrous, illegal failed political strategy, and, apparently, doesn't care that that same Board majority deliberately and illegally jumped the gun on their permit, and illegally ripped up -- just days before their recall election, and wasting millions of public, California dollars in the process -- a "large parcel" of "all-ESHA," solely as part of some bizarre, illegal, failed political strategy.

Not a shred of accountability for the 2005 LOCSD Board majority for committing the "clear violation," just let the pre-paid assessment property owners pay to clean up the mess, and then just "move forward."

That's Supervisor Patterson's position, just like Supervisor Gibson's position.

[It must be noted here, that, Los Osos resident, Pandora Nash-Karner, "chaired" a citizens group in Los Osos, in 2005, called, Save the Dream, that wrote, "Our goal is to support the LOCSD's (Tri-W) Wastewater Project and to DEFEAT the Recall of Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley & Richard LeGros."

Nash-Karner was also one of the five initial Los Osos CSD Directors, along with Gustafson and Hensley, starting in 1999, where they first began development of the now-failed (in June, 2010) Tri-W "project."

And, of course, Nash-Karner is a financial donor to Supervisor Gibson's campaigns, where, in turn, he appoints Nash-Karner as an official SLO County Parks Commissioner, which makes her a client of County Counsel, Warren Jensen, and affords her inside access to top County officials, like Patterson.

In fact, Supervisor Patterson attended, and spoke at, a Parks Commission meeting last year to honor Nash-Karner's 20 years (under the past three 2nd District Supervisors) on the SLO County Parks Commission.]

Finally, for balance, I also recently emailed Gordon Hensley, asking him for his response to how both the County and the Coastal Commission are calling his decision to rip up the "all-ESHA" Tri-W site, just days before his recall election, a "clear violation" of the "terms and conditions" of his CDP."

Hensley's response?

"Judging by past experience with you (SewerWatch), SLO Coastkeeper (Gordon Hensley's one-man "organization") is of the opinion that your inquiry is not merely information seeking in nature as you suggest, but is part of an ongoing campaign to disrupt our work.

As we have indicated in the past, it is the understanding of our organization that you do not actually work for a journal, newspaper, or other legitimate media and therefore I see no point in assisting you in your continuing vendetta."

He then doubled back, and fired off this email:

"When you have completed your 'story' please forward a copy to slo coastkeeper [sic] attorney Kate Neiswender," and then he gave me Neiswender's email address.

That was his response to the Coastal Commission writing, "There is little doubt that: (a) a violation of the Coastal Act and the LCP exists; (b) (the pre-recall Board majority) LOCSD is responsible for the violation; and (c) resolution of that violation involves resolving impacts associated with LOCSD (illegal) grading of the Tri-W site."

Incidentally, I also emailed Neiswender, using the email address that Hensley supplied, asking her for comment, but she never replied, either.

Clearly, what happened in 2005, with the Los Osos CSD knowingly jumping the gun on their CDP, and ripping up, at an enormous cost to California taxpayers, the "all-ESHA" Tri-W site, simply as some illegal, failed political strategy, is one of the worst things that has ever happened to SLO County, period.

And the "appropriate resolution" for that terrible, deliberately created, illegal, environmental and financial disaster?

According to Supervisors Patterson and Gibson, and the California Coastal Commission, simply let the pre-paid assessment property owners in Los Osos pay their entire $25,000 assessment to clean it up, then just "move forward."

Welcome to San Luis Obispo County government.

###

Los Osos Sustainability Group, You're in Luck: I Give You My "Revocation Hearing Lesson"

"The Attorney General's Office is frequently unable to represent or assist individuals regarding non-criminal complaints against state agencies because this office is required by law to represent those agencies in disputes arising out of their actions."
-- The California Attorney General's Office web site

I see that a citizens' group, The Los Osos Sustainability Group, recently filed for something called a "permit revocation hearing," with the California Coastal Commission.

Well, lucky them.

It turns out, I, personally, have excellent experience with, of all things, a permit revocation request with the California Coastal Commission, and the lessons I learned from that experience, that went from 2005 - 2007, are so valuable (not to mention, super-interesting) that I thought I'd now share those lessons with LOSG. Perhaps they can glean some insight on the process, from my experience.

My, personal (just me) and, strangely, very interesting, permit revocation experience involved the development permit for the now-failed Tri-W disaster, that the 2000 - 2005 Los Osos spent (read: wasted) more than five years and some $25 million... uh... developing?.

Here's the lesson my permit revocation experience taught me:

How Coastal Commission Revocation hearings REALLY work

... and this is great.

Bottom-line:

If you (the person [me], or group [LOSG] requesting the revocation) are right, and your arguments are air-tight (like mine were/are), you DON'T -- repeat: do NOT -- get a hearing, but, eventually, you WILL get the permit revoked.

If you are wrong, and your arguments are NOT air-tight, THAT's when the CCC grants you an official hearing, and that means you've already, automatically, failed.

In other words -- and this is just so funny -- if they grant you a hearing, you're automatically done, because, if they see, in advance that you ARE right, that means they screwed-up by approving a faulty permit in the first place, and you're not going to get a hearing.

See what I mean there? It's a little tricky to wrap the mind around, but it's hilarious, and it makes so much sense, and it's true, because that's exactly what happened to me.

I mean, to even attempt to get a revocation hearing, you have to, waaay in advance, show the CCC staff your arguments, just like LOSG recently did with their "over 10,000 pages," and if your arguments are air-tight (like mine were/are, and which I can produce on one page of super-tight, primary sources), and CCC staff sees, in their offices, that THEY were wrong in recommending the approval to begin with, do you really think that that exact same staff is now going to say, "Whooaa, hold on here. Wait a sec. Uh-oh... These guys are right! We DID f-up. Whadaya say we now schedule a gigantic public hearing, with lots of microphones and cameras, so they can now show everyone, in an extremely public fashion, just how badly we f-d up?"

Ain't... gonna... happen... ever.

So, that's what this piece is, a story of what happens when your revocation request is air-tight, like mine.

My excellent revocation hearing story starts with someone named Steve Monowitz.

Steve WAS the CCC staffer, "permit supervisor," back in 2004, that handled the disastrous Tri-W development permit between the Los Osos CSD and the CCC.

Steve was ALSO the guy that handled the first revocation hearing for another Los Osos group (Los Osos Technical Task Force) involving the Tri-W disaster, and that request, after a ton of time and official back-and-forth, failed, in a public meeting, because it wasn't very good, and the CCC staff could see that, in advance, so they granted the hearing, because CCC staff knew in advance that the request didn't hold water. (Again, see what I mean there? Makes perfect, and funny, sense, right?)

Fast-forward to about June of 2005, and Monowitz now thinks he's completely in the clear with regard to the Tri-W permit. At that point, that permit is tiny in Monowitz's rearview mirror.

And that detail is extremely interesting: From the moment the original revocation request failed, in early 2005, to the moment I ended up on the phone with Monowitz, in about June of 2005, Steve thought that the entire Tri-W permit was waaaay behind him, and had NO IDEA what a complete disaster the Tri-W permit actually was, until I informed him... on the phone... that day, in 2005.

Repeat: I... informed... him.

And, after I told him what REALLY happened with the Tri-W permit, which was basically everything I exposed in one of my New Times cover stories, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown (in 2004), Monowitz KNEW I was right. He got it, right there, on the phone, and, right there, on the phone he realized he f-d up. I could hear it in his voice. He instantly realized that he f-d up by trusting the 1999 - 2005 Los Osos CSD. (HUUUGE mistake, just ask Steve, today.)

I showed him, using nothing but the primary sources I dug up in my reporting, how he was actually lied to by Los Osos CSD officials about the only reason the CCC approved a mid-town sewer plant/"picnic area" in the first place, when District officials, told Steve, and his supervisors, that there was a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that ANY sewer plant for a community-wide system must also include an elaborate public park, and then that "sewer-park" has to be "centrally located" so the town's residents can easily access their "sewer-park," and the ONLY "centrally located" site that could accommodate a sewer plant, was the Tri-W site.

THAT's what LOCSD officials told the Coastal Commission, yet, as I first exposed, that "strongly held community value" -- the ONLY reason why an industrial sewer plant was being built, on ESHA, in the middle of a beautiful California coastal town, in the first place -- was a complete, deliberate, fabricated lie by the LOCSD to the CCC, as I showed Steve, using nothing but primary sources... and he knew I was right.

"It was inappropriate of me to rely on (Solution Group-turned-LOCSD Directors) to determine 'community values' for Los Osos," Monowitz told me, after I showed him how he, and the entire Coastal Commission, was lied to by the 1999 - 2004 LOCSD.

I also showed him that the reason they lied to him was because the Los Osos CSD HAD to cook up SOME reason to keep their second, vastly redesigned sewer plant, in the exact same location as their first proposed project (the DOA, now-failed "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, that Monowitz also handled), because if that site WASN'T used for a sewer plant -- and this is an extremely important point in the entire history of the the Los Osos sewer wars -- it would have shown that the only reason to form the Los Osos CSD in the first place, in 1998 -- the PURSUIT of the DOA, now-failed "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, also AT the Tri-W site, and which ALSO killed the County's then-"ready-to-go" project (another over-the-top important/interesting point) -- had failed, and the people behind the formation of the LOCSD just couldn't let that happen (think about it, it's very powerful motivation), so they cooked up that "strongly held community value" lie, and sold it, hard, to the Coastal Commission over a disastrous four year span... and it worked!

I also showed Steve, in 2005, almost a year after he recommended approval of the Tri-W disaster -- a recommendation based solely on that "strongly held community value" lie -- all of the primary-source documentation that I dug up, that showed that if anyone knew that that "strongly held community value" DIDN'T exist in Los Osos, it was the exact same LOCSD officials telling him that it did.

And Steve knew I was right, on all of it, because I could show him the primary-source documents, and he, like I, could just see it. It was obvious. Caught 'em. Done.

He could now see that he was lied to by the LOCSD about the only reason why the Coastal Commission approved an industrial sewer plant, with an elaborate $6 million "picnic area" built into it, sitting on ESHA, smack-dab in the middle of a beautiful California coastal town.

THAT's what I showed Steve.

He could now see that, in reality, there was no documentable reason whatsoever to build a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos... on ESHA.

A quote from Monowitz, from those phone calls in 2005, that haunts me to this day, is, after he realized I was right, and that he was lied to, I could actually hear him sigh in frustration over the phone, and then he (painfully) said, "Where were you during the permitting process?"

Great question.

I mean, my arguments DID exist at the time of the permitting process, but the problem was, unbelievably, NO ONE, not one person (other than me), knew that there was no REAL reason whatsoever to build the sewer plant in the middle of town. (And when I write, "unbelievably," there, that's about as literal of a meaning of that word as I've ever used: TRULY, unbelievable, that the ONLY person (let alone reporter) that saw the Tri-W disaster for exactly what it was, was me. Unbelievable, but that's exactly what happened... and to this day, that dynamic plays into this story, in a big way, because, now, interestingly, ALL of those people that were relentlessly fighting for years to get the Tri-W plant out of town during the permitting process, failed to see the ONE argument that would win their case: mine.

Stunning.

So look at that weird scenario that exists to this day, it's also great: Even the people that fought to kill the Tri-W disaster, from about 2001 to... well, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, in September 2004, can't really get on board with my reporting, because it's kind of embarrassing for them, as well.

What my timeline/time-stamped stories show, is that, for years, everyone that fought so hard to kill the Tri-W project, failed to see the one, simple argument that would have stopped it in its tracks, in, what? 2001?

So, THAT's the amazing context of what Steve was talking about, when, in a highly pained voice, he asked me, "Where were you during the permitting process?"

Steve could now see, from just two quick phone conversations with me, that ALL of that -- the entire previous four years of dealing with the Tri-W disaster, and the over-the-top sneaky Los Osos CSD (that Monowitz, for the previous year, believed was deep in his rearview mirror) -- ... was... for... absolutely... nothing.

ALL of the meetings (including the 2005 revocation hearing).

ALL of the correspondence.

ALL of the (massive stack) of official documents.

ALL of the wasted public time and public money.

ALL of the continued water pollution.

ALL OF THE COMPLETELY WASTED PEOPLE HOURS.

ALL of it... for... absolutely... nothing.

A lie.

So, yeah, Steve's question is a valid one: Where was I, with my excellent, air-tight arguments, during the four years of the permitting process for the Tri-W disaster?

That's when I explained to him, "Steve, I am not an activist. I'm a journalist looking for a good story," and TRUST ME, a tiny, local governmental agency, tricking the California Coastal Commission into approving a mid-town sewer plant/"picnic area," sited on environmentally sensitive habitat, by lying to the Commission about a "strongly held community value" to actually "picnic" in said "community's" sewer plant, and then how all of that led directly to a now-ten-year-and-counting, over-the-top disastrous, public works train wreck, is a GREAT story.

[Note: That's another super-interesting fact that I just can't get over, to this day. It leaves me shaking my head: Look what EVERYONE, but me, missed: The "strongly held community value" to actually want to "picnic" in a "centrally located" sewer plant.

I mean, huh?!

Had anyone -- Monowitz, LOTTF, the local Sierra Club, the worse-than-nothing local media -- had done the ONE thing that I did, and simply say, "Uh, guys? Ya know what? This "strongly held community value" to want to "picnic" in a "centrally located" sewer plant, sounds kind of weird. So, what's the source of this so-called "strongly held community value?," the Tri-W disaster would have died on the spot, right then and there.

I actually pressed Monowitz into admitting that he did not have a source to back that up, and, he knew I was right, there is none... not a shred of "substantial," documentable, evidence that shows that "community value," anywhere, of course, (but, A LOT of evidence that shows the exact opposite was/is true, of course, and that District officials were keenly aware of at the time they were telling the CCC "strongly held community value.")

So, yep, that's what blows me away, to this day: Not only was I the only person to ask the question, it was THIS question: "What's the source of this so-called 'strongly held community value' to 'picnic' in a sewer plant?"

And the moment I asked that question, and there was no official answer to it, that was that. Right there, the Tri-W "project" died, when I was researching Three Blocks, in 2004.

Had anyone asked that question -- anyone... THAT question -- in the previous four years before I asked it, the Tri-W disaster would have never happened, and, even worse, I wouldn't have landed this excellent story.

Unbelievable, but true.]

Back to the Revocation Hearing Lesson

A few months after my conversations with Monowitz, I stumbled onto the official language for what it takes to get a revocation hearing:

"Any person who did not have the opportunity to fully participate in the original permit proceeding by reason of the permit applicant's intentional inclusion of inaccurate information or failure to provide adequate public notice as specified in Section 13105 may request revocation of a permit ...".

Well, I already knew, through my reporting, that's exactly -- and I mean exactly -- what happened with the Tri-W permit-- "the applicant's intentional inclusion of inaccurate information" -- and so, as a responsible citizen (let alone reporter), I couldn't just sit there, with all I knew, and do nothing, and just sit back and watch a sewer plant get built in the middle of Los Osos, when I (and, apparently, I, alone... well, and [now] Steve... o.k., considering this was AFTER Three Blocks, there could have been more, but, remember, the peole that SHOULD have been on my side, all took a HUGE swing-and-a-miss, so now my story is very embarrassing for them, so they, also, have to pretend it doesn't exist [which is a very interesting little twist in all of this]) knew it was being built there for absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than a lie.

So I contacted Steve and told him that I wanted a revocation hearing, for the exact reasons that I discussed with him a few months earlier... where he KNEW I was already right.

And that's when he told me, "If anyone deserves a revocation hearing, it's you," referring to LOTTF's 2005 embarrassment, and knowing how tight my arguments are/were in relation.

And that's when Steve and I struck that weird, little arrangement, that I first wrote about at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/06/coastal-commission-sewerwatch.html

Our arrangement went like this:

Considering it's now 2006, and the final LOCSD Directors that were responsible for the Tri-W disaster were finally kicked out of office, of course, through a successful recall election, in September, 2005, the Tri-W permit was in limbo. No one had any idea what was going to happen. Would the project eventually go forward, or would it die out?

So Steve and I struck a deal.

I agreed to hold off on my revocation hearing request (I mean, why go through that huge process if the permit may not even be used in the future anyway, was our rationale), and Steve agreed that if the Tri-W project ever got the green light again, I would THEN get my revocation hearing.

So, look at that amazing dynamic. It's pretty much the entire point of this piece:

In 2006, Steve now knows (through me, and my reporting) that my arguments for revoking the disastrous Tri-W permit are air-tight, and what it shows is a bombshell: The LOCSD lied to the Coastal Commission about the only reason to build a sewer plant in the middle of a beautiful California coastal community, and the CCC, and its staff, including Steve, all failed to do their homework, and therefore went on to approve a nonsensical "sewer-park" disaster, and then that approval would go on to waste millions and millions of public dollars (including millions in SLO County, and California public money), and waste now-ten-years-and-counting of time, and all of that time, the water pollution continues (present tense) in Los Osos. (That's true too: To this day, the continued water pollution in Los Osos is due DIRECTLY to that "community value" lie, starting in 2001.)

And, very importantly, had the LOCSD not cooked up that "community value" lie, starting in 2000, the project would have simply reverted BACK to the county's "ready to go" project, that the LOCSD killed in March of 1999 -- that would have been the only logical thing to do -- and the entire formation of the LOCSD itself would have been for absolutely nothing, which is the exact case today, and will always be that way.

THAT's what my revocation hearing was going to show... in front of the entire Coastal Commission... and its staff... right to their faces.

Put yourself in their shoes. Would YOU grant me a hearing under those circumstances? Where I show up, and publicly embarrass you, by showing, in great, primary-source-detail, how you fell asleep on your jobs, and approved a "mid-town" on "ESHA" "sewer plant/picnic area" disaster, and you already know, in advance, that's exactly what's going to happen?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

And that's exactly why I never got that hearing.

See? I was right, and they knew I was right, therefore, it stands to reason (in a humorous, yet, logical way), that there's NO WAY I was EVER going to get a hearing to explain exactly WHY I was right.

However, here's the great ending to my experience: I DID eventually win.

Fast-forward to 2007, and SLO County officials now have control over the Los Osos sewer project, AND the Tri-W "project" is STILL being considered by SLO County officials (because, as it also stands to reason, they were being forced [all behind-the-scenes like] to consider it by the exact same people that were responsible for wasting all of that time and money on it [think about those behind-the-scenes moments, we can only imagine the panic]), but then, something very interesting happened.

It turns out, the Tri-W permit had an expiration date, something, surprisingly, I wasn't aware of until the subject came up at a SLO County Supervisors' meeting in 2007.

So look at what's happening there, in 2007, it's great: Steve Monowitz is STILL the CCC staff guy for the sewer project, but THIS time around he's working with SLO County officials, namely, public works director, Paavo Ogren.

So, here's Steve, in 2007, and he still KNOWS I'm right -- by then, he'd known that for about two years -- that the disastrous Tri-W permit is based on one thing, and one thing only -- a lie -- and now that permit is about to expire, when all it would take to extend its shelf-life would be for Ogren to file a tiny bit of paperwork to extend the expiration date.

Now, keep in mind, that permit cost the 1999-2005 Los Osos CSD about $25 million to get, over a disastrous six year span, and the only thing the county had to do to keep it alive in 2007, was fill out one simple form, yet, Monowitz recommended that they not even do that, and just let the disaster quietly expire, and Ogren, and the Supervisors, all agreed, and the Tri-W permit was officially "revoked."

I'm left to my imagination what Monowitz must have said to Ogren during their private conversations involving the expiration of the Tri-W permit:

"Uh, Paav, I'll be blunt: It turns out that Ron's right, and if you choose to pursue that disaster, he's going to get a revocation hearing, that I've already promised him, and that hearing is going to blow that disaster out of the water, in spectacular, and highly embarrassing to both of us (the CCC and SLO County), fashion. So, for the love of god, please just let it die quietly on the vine, and don't even fill out the extension paperwork, because, as Ron already knows, that permit's already dead."

Which is exactly what happened. Paavo didn't fill out the simple form, and the permit quietly died.

In other words, THAT was my revocation hearing -- the quiet expiration of the disastrous Tri-W permit, at that 2007 Supervisors meeting -- which is too bad, because the Power Point presentation I had locked-and-loaded for my REAL revocation hearing, was going to be dazzling. (Tell ya the truth, I'm kinda bummed I was deprived of that life-moment. It would have been like the ending of The Natural.)

So, LOSG, there's my Coastal Commission Permit Revocation lesson:

If your arguments are air-tight, like mine were/are, the staff of the CCC will see, in advance, that they screwed up, big time, and they WON'T grant you a hearing, but they will maneuver around, behind-the-scenes, to make their mistakes go away as quietly as possible, and you end up winning (in a weird, unsatisfying way) that way, just like I did.

If your arguments are NOT air-tight, like LOTTF's in 2005, Commission staff sees that in advance, and THAT's when the Commission grants you a hearing, and then they show you, publicly, how you failed, which means, if they grant you a hearing, you've automatically failed, so why even do the hearing? You're just getting set up to fail, publicly.

Of course, shortly after the Tri-W permit just quietly died on the vine, in 2007, Monowitz "left" the Coastal Commission, and is now a county planner in the Bay Area.

Finally, and, also of course, to date, there's yet to be one shred of accountability for the Los Osos CSD lying to the Coastal Commission about the Tri-W disaster, a lie that would go on to cost the State of California millions upon millions of dollars, and add another 10-years-and-counting of water pollution to the State's waters.

And one deposition -- one simple, quick deposition -- of Steve Monowitz, asking him about how the Los Osos CSD lied to him about the Tri-W "project," and everything involved with that to-date-covered-up, statewide disaster, would ALL come out.

One deposition of Steve Monowitz, is all it would take to make that happen, even to today (considering how relevant all of this still is).

However, as I always report these days, it's actually illegal in this case for the State Attorney General's office to conduct that one deposition, because Monowitz was a client of the State Attorney General's office back in 2005 - 07, which makes Kamala Harris' current client, the California Coastal Commission, AND its current executive director, Charles Lester, STILL on the hook for not only the Tri-W disaster, but the resulting massive delay in implementing a reality-based sewer project in Los Osos, a delay directly attributable to the Tri-W disaster, and a delay that continues to this day, more than 10 years after the Los Osos CSD first tricked Monowitz with their deliberately fake "strongly held community value."

Unbelievable... but true.

###