Three
blocks upwind of downtown
The anatomy of a civics train wreck in Los Osos
BY RON CRAWFORD
PHOTOS BY CHRISTOPHER GARDER
Sip Bloody Marys at most
bars, and you're likely to overhear chatter about sports, easy women,
and self-absorption. Sip Bloody Marys at the Merrimaker, and you overhear
something entirely apart from the usual bar rants.
Baywood Park's favorite (and only) watering hole
has an astute clientele, and nosy patrons can easily eavesdrop and overhear
some interesting statements - statements like: "Putting a sewer in the
middle of town is about the stupidest (sound of pool balls breaking)-ing
thing I've ever heard."
And you know what? The nicely plump, apparently
foul-mouthed middle-aged woman sitting three stools down seems to have
a fairly accurate take. Especially if your definition of "stupid"
is the way the Los Osos Community Services District goes about their business.
Stupid? You decide:
The Los Osos Community Services District, through
lack of foresight and careless, misleading tactics, is now in the awkward
position of forcing a costly park down the throats of the town's taxpayers
the same taxpayers that have already said through the ballot box that
they don't want to pay for a park. Even worse (much worse), the park that
Los Osos doesn't want to pay for is dictating the highly controversial
central location of the proposed $100 million sewer - three blocks upwind
of downtown.
But wait, there's more. The park that Los Osos doesn't
want to pay for, and is dictating the central location the community
doesn't want, is also dictating the type of sewer - a more expensive type
than would be needed without the park. All of this is according
to my new favorite book, "The Los Osos Community Services District Wastewater
Facilities Report."
Where to we begin? Let's start with what's actually
in the facilities report - the fun cloak and dagger/conspiracy-theory
stuff comes later in the form of what's not in the report.
It's clear from reading the facilities report that
other potential sites that could have accommodated the sewer project on
the outskirts of town never had a chance. The situation reminds me of
the questions some clever reporters were asking George Bush just before
he invaded Iraq: "Do you see any scenario that would prevent our invasion?"
Saddam Hussein himself could have been filmed personally destroying weapons
of mass destruction while surrounded by U.N. inspectors, and the U.S.
was still rolling into Iraq, no matter what.
Similarly, it seems that, from the outset, the centrally
located "Tri-W" site was the site of choice because it was close to town
and could accommodate a park. The sewer was going there no matter what.
Any doubts? Consider these statements lifted straight
from the facilities report:
"The size and location of the other sites did not
provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The sites on the
outskirts of town could not deliver a community use area that was readily
accessible to the majority of residents in the manner that a central location
such as Resource Park could."
And:
"Although the Turri site would have less potential
environmental impacts, its distance from the center of town precluded
it from providing a community amenity in the form of a public use area."
And:
"[The Andre site] is 1.5 miles from the edge of
the community and would not be able to provide the community with a readily
accessible recreational area On a non-cost basis this site was viewed
as less favorable than the Resource Park site."
And:
"Following is a description of the benefits of the
project: creates a Community Amenity and Visual Resource the wastewater
treatment facility will be constructed and landscaped to maximize active
and passive recreational space in the center of the community. Not only
will this provide aesthetic benefits, but it will also provide park space
for local schools and community groups near the existing community center."
And:
"It is essential that any proposed wastewater project
within the community of Los Osos reflect these strongly held community
values."
One of these "strongly held community values":
"Creating a wastewater treatment facility that is
a visual and recreational asset to the community ."
The size and location of the other sites did
not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity? Are you
kidding me? With that logic, why even consider other potential sites at
all?
Just from these quick passages, it appears that
the park element of the plan is clearly dictating the location. It would
be nice to actually prove that the park is dictating the location,
but, unfortunately, the information required for that is missing from
the facilities report and no one knows where it is! (Los Osos, you might
want to listen up, here.)
Other than being pigeonholed as the only suitable
site due to its "central location" for the park, the controversial Tri-W
site was also chosen because it topped a list of seven potential sites
following an evaluation of all the sites. That's why the CSD Board voted
for it. It came out No. 1. Makes sense, right?
But when the criteria used to rank the sites is
examined, there's substantial weight given to (euphemism-alert here) something
called "Community Acceptance," and a large portion of that criteria is
"open space, enhancement, access" and "aesthetic factors." Specifically,
the five criteria used to rank the potentials site and their weight were:
Cost (56), Resource Sustainability (33), Regulatory
(31), Community Acceptance (25), and Future Flexibility (1). When these
numbers are plugged into a model (developed by a subcommittee of a subcommittee,
incidentally), a ranking is produced with the sites with the highest scores
in descending order. In this case, Tri-W was No. 1. At least that's what
I remember it being from that faithful CSD Board meeting four years ago.
Unfortunately, I'm forced to rely on my memory because
(here's the good conspiracy-theory part) both the model used to calculate
the criteria and the list of site rankings, two critical components
that led to Tri-W's selection, are missing from the goddamn facilities
report!
When asked about the missing information, Los Osos
CSD general manager Bruce Buel waves his hands a few times over the document
and says that I will have to contact the engineering firm overseeing the
project to get the information.
Wrong, Bruce.
I called the engineering firm, Montgomery Watson,
and spoke with project engineer Steve Hyland. He doesn't have the information
either. When he points to the rankings of the sewer type, which actually
is found in the facilities report, I have to tell him that those
rankings are for the type, not site.
Hyland pauses, then gets off this gem:
"Huh? You're right."
Listen Hyland, I know I'm right. I do not need to
be told that I'm right, what I do need to be told, however, is
that you are right. I am calling you and asking the questions,
remember? I'm not the one who needs to be right in this situation.
You need to be right.
Anyway, he finally concedes that the facilities
report was created "before I started on it" and he passes me on to - get
this - another fucking engineer that doesn't even work at the same
company.
One desperate, futile, final call to the other "engineer"
(quotes intentional), and that's where the trail ends, because, apparently,
he doesn't return phone calls. But why should he? He was able to bail
out of this mess early in the process, and in all likelihood, has no intentions
of revisiting it.
In the meantime, I defy anyone in Los Osos (anyone!
please!) to find that information. Because then, and only then, could
we redo the model that originally ranked the site locations - the rankings
that made Tri-W No. 1 - but this time get rid of that ridiculous (by all
credible accounts) park element, divide that criteria's points proportional
to the other criteria, and then simply spit out the rankings again.
Does Tri-W (again, Los Osos, you might want to listen
up here) still come out No. 1? If it doesn't, then the park that Los Osos
doesn't want to pay for is dictating the location they don't want, and
the more expensive type of sewer, according to the facilities report.
("Although the hybrid alternative is not the least costly, it provides
a balance between reasonable cost and delivery of a public amenity in
the form of accessible park space.")
One has to ask here, where does this drive for a
"drop-dead gorgeous" park come from? What's the source of these "strongly
held community values"? Who came up with these horrible euphemisms (I'm
looking in your direction Pandora Nash-Karner. After all, you were a member
of the "Vision Team"; a member, if not leader, of the "Solution Group";
the No. 1 vote-getter in the inaugural CSD Board; a longtime and current
member of the County Park Commission; and someone who throws highly documentable
phrases like these around liberally)?
Brace yourself for yet another rash of euphemisms.
According to the facilities report, the "Vision Statement" authored by
the apparently self-important "Vision Team" is the primary source that
documents this so-called "strongly held community value" of including
a park in the wastewater project.
The problem is that the "Vision Statement" dates
back to 1995, and, by all appearances, it looks like some of those "community
values" may have lost a bit of their worth over the years. In 1997, for
example, Los Osos voters had a chance to pass Measure E-97 that would
have added $10 a year (a year!) to property taxes to be used for recreational
purposes in Los Osos. That measure failed. Now, I may not posses the "out-of-the-box
thinking" skills that the CSD Board seems so proud of, but that sounds
like a "strongly held community value" to me. Yet Measure E-97 doesn't
show up in the facilities report at all. The "Vision Team" seemingly suffered
from "Vision Loss" after 1995.
Furthermore, according to the facilities report,
although there were dozens of public CSD Board meetings involving the
sewer, there were only two public "workshops" that led to the development
of the critical, and missing, decision model that ultimately led to the
No. 1 Tri-W ranking.
Because those workshops were held by a subcommittee
of a subcommittee, it's probably safe to assume that they were sparsely
attended. But why even have two workshops? It was "clear" following the
very first "workshop" of a subcommittee of a subcommittee that the Tri-W
location was where this albatross was going to rest. Again, straight from
the facilities report in italics: "The clearest result of the first
workshop was that the Resource Park (euphemism for the central location
that includes Tri-W) site was the preferred site because of its size
and central location." And that was that.
Couple the Vision Statement with Measure E-97, and
it seems fair to say that Los Osos may want a park, they just don't want
to pay for a park. That is a very important distinction in this entire
discussion.
I'm telling ya, "The Los Osos Wastewater Facilities
Project" really is a hoot. You should give it a read sometime.
It was my favorite book this summer, other than that one I got off the
Bookmobile that talked about "Ridding My Dog of Separation Anxiety." Excellent
advice.
So, what makes a normally dry and boring "Wastewater
Facilities Project Report" such a good read? Bundled among all of
the other glaring omissions and misleading euphemisms (worth the read
right there), there's yet another great unsolved mystery. On the cover
of the report is a fairly standard architectural drawing of how the project
will lay out. On this nice drawing there are all kinds of things like
"dog park" and "amphitheater" scattered about the
nuts and bolts of a fairly standard sewer project. I know what you're
thinking, 'cause I thought the same thing too: "An amphitheater in
a sewer project? What the hell?" But I swear, it's there. Right on
the cover for all to see.
Along with the "dog park" and "amphitheater," there
are a few other things "proudly" displayed on the cover; things like "play
fields" and "picnic area" and "parking" and "water garden" and "demonstration
garden" and "bridge" and "multi-use path" and "arbor walkway" and you
get the point.
The cover certainly makes the project appear "drop
dead gorgeous."
(I want to pause on that phrase for a moment: "drop
dead gorgeous" is yet another one of the many misleading euphemisms that
show up throughout the facilities report and is the only rotten leftover
from the terribly ill-conceived Solution Plan, an alternative sewer idea
that flamed out in spectacular fashion the moment it came under official
scrutiny in 2000 [New Times cover story "Problems with the Solution,"
July 6, 2000].
Unfortunately for Los Osos taxpayers, the zeal for
a "drop dead gorgeous" park didn't crash and burn with the rest of that
dim plan. Instead, it was passed on to the next generation of sewer debacles
in Los Osos. With the ruins of their "Solution" now smoldering at their
feet, the CSD had a decision to make. How could they salvage at least
some of the "better, faster, cheaper" project they promised voters and
still develop a viable, and state-mandated sewer? With "faster" and "cheaper"
in ashes with the rest of the awful Solution Plan (euphemism), the CSD
had to turn to the much more subjective "better" in a loose attempt to
cling to at least some of their sewer promises.
The Los Osos CSD, I'm sure, is also keenly aware
that there are more than a few people who believe the only reason the
Los Osos CSD was passed by voters in the first place (it failed in two
previous elections) was because they were promised a "better, faster,
cheaper" sewer to what the county was proposing. No "cheaper," "faster"
and "better" well, draw your own conclusion.
One more good conspiracy-theory item: If the "drop
dead gorgeous" element of the project wasn't dictating the location and
type of the sewer, there's a fairly good chance that the final resolution
would have been - some quick jargon here - an SBR sewer type at the so-called
Pismo location.
Why is that important? It is the exact project the
county was proposing for over a decade, when the estimated cost of the
project was some $30 million less. The county's plan was shelved after
the CSD was formed under less-than-clear circumstances, and county taxpayers
picked up the roughly $5 million bill that came from the preliminary planning
and, by all reasonable accounts, frivolous expensive extra testing that
was demanded by Los Osos residents of the original county project.
In hindsight, ol' county supervisor Harry Ovitt
was right. He consistently voted against funding additional studies
to determine if Los Osos actually needed a sewer - which it desperately
does. Yet, in the end, Ovitt's constituency still helped pay for the Solution
Group's blunders, along with the rest of the county's taxpayers. The Solution
Group, it seems, owes SLO County taxpayers a $5 million apology and
Los Osos taxpayers a $30 million apology. Think they'll be forthcoming
anytime soon? That's one expensive park that Los Osos doesn't want to
pay for.
Too bad the estimated cost summary of the project
can't back up the cover's promise of a "drop dead gorgeous" facility.
The cost estimates of the amenities are nowhere to be seen in the report.
When I asked Buel if he could point out the estimated costs of the amenities
featured on the cover, again he simply waved his hand over the page and
said I'd have to contact the engineering firm. The last time I witnessed
this much hand waving was the '04 Rose Bowl Parade.
What Hyland at Montgomery Watson had to say about
the missing costs estimates for the park amenities is stunning:
"I wasn't under the impression that the amenities
were ever going to be included in the project."
I'm not kidding. That's what he said. Even with
the park amenities all over the cover of the facilities report even
with the park element dictating both the location and the type
of sewer, apparently, it was never going to be included after all.
The "strongly held community value" of a park was
all a big fantasy; a pipe dream, I guess? Or did they realize, a little
too late, that the amenities were going to add to an already massive price
tag, now edging toward $100 million, and decided to back away from that
expensive little afterthought? Because that is exactly what happened.
Remarkably, the CSD, following the publication of the facilities
report, removed the park amenities from the project entirely. In fact,
it wasn't until just last month that the Coastal Commission forced the
CSD to reinstall the amenities, calling the CSD's tactics, "A little bait-and-switchy."
That is a great quote.
As of Sept. 2 there are now numbers associated with
the cost of the amenities, according to Buel. The cost? $300,000 for material
and hundreds of thousands more for construction and continued maintenance.
All in a community that, just a few short years before the publication
of the facilities report, voted not to pay $10 a year for
public recreation. Incidentally, the State Revolving Fund that's going
to be used to help pay for this mess doesn't cover park facilities.
In all fairness, let's not just lay the "stupid"
label at the CSD's feet. Sure, it's the elected officials in this seaside
hamlet that green-light one ill-conceived idea after another, but I'm
not sure we can rule out stupidity on the part of the opponents to this
project. For years, they have been too inept to formulate a plan to stop
it. But that may be a bit harsh. They can hardly be blamed for letting
this project fester for years with few, if any, substantial victories.
Their lack of a viable plan of attack is understandable considering the
glaring omissions of critical information in the facilities report, and
those hideous, misleading euphemisms that are peppered throughout the
document.
So, here's what I'd do if I wanted to get the sewer
moved: I would go before a judge, tell him the community was misled (again
remember the highly misleading Solution Plan?), show him that the park
amenities were not included in the assessment vote that passed in 2001,
but you are now stuck paying for them. Then break out Measure E-97, which
shows that the community doesn't want to be taxed for a park. Now, I'm
no fucking tax attorney, but it seems any judge - Democrat or Republican,
man or woman, black, white, or other - would cancel what has to be an
illegal assessment district and call for a revote. And there's your opening.
Los Osos: If you want a park, then plan, fund, and build a park, as they
did so gracefully with the dog park in El Chorro Regional Park, but you
need a sewer.
It would be interesting, also, to see how the Regional
Water Quality Control Board would react if the above scenario were to
play out. The state-controlled regulatory agency has, for years, threatened
to fine Los Osos $10,000 a day if there were delays in constructing the
sewer, but CSD officials continually whine that all delays are beyond
their control, and the RWQCB has generously agreed, over and over again.
However the misleading "bait-and-switch" tactics by the CSD Board, this
time, has nothing to do with outside influences. This time the responsibility
stops right at the doorstep of the CSD office. This time the RWQCB may
not be so generous.
So, what are the lessons of this civics train wreck?
Perhaps it lies in information communities could glean from this terrible
saga on how not to develop policy. Perhaps it's the old adage about keeping
an eye on elected officials. Whatever it is, there are many, many lessons
here.
One last, important, bottom-line point: The Los
Osos CSD came into office riding one more awful euphemism, "out-of-the-box
thinking."
Memo to the Los Osos CSD Board: If the "Wastewater
Facilities Report" is any indication of this "out-of-the-box
thinking," I strongly recommend that you climb back in that box as
quickly as possible, and firmly tape it shut.
Ron Crawford is a freelance journalist residing
in rural San Luis Obispo County. He has covered the Los Osos Sewer story
since 1991. He can be reached through his web site: slocreek.com
|