About Cambria

Fun from the resources page of AboutCambria: various sites where you can calculate the effect your choices make on the world we live in. We can make a difference. How? As you measure the impacts of your water use, meal choices, changing your bulbs to CFLs, your paper choice, and the emissions of your transportation choices you’ll discover how a little goes a long way.

• Water Footprint The water footprint of an individual is defined as the total amount of freshwater that is used to produce the goods and services consumed by the individual as a result of its own consumption pattern and country of residence.
• Ecological Footprint This Ecological Footprint Quiz estimates how much productive land and water you need to support what you use and what you discard. After answering 15 easy questions you’ll be able to compare your Ecological Footprint to what other people use and to what is available on this planet.
• Energy-Saving Bulbs Calculate the potential savings of switching to Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs from incandescent.
  
• Paper Choice Environmental Impact Calculator By choosing the right paper, you can save wood, water, and energy, and cut pollution and solid waste. The Paper Calculator shows the environmental impacts of different papers across their full lifecycle.
• Your Carbon Footprint Pollution from cars and making electricity is a major cause of global warming. Take a personal pollution inventory and see how you can help.
• The Office Footprint Calculator considers your energy use, waste stream, and purchasing patterns to measure both the Global Acres required to support your activities and the CO₂ emissions that result. The use of exact figures is encouraged, but the option to input averages is provided.

The subject of this second installment of “Cambria U” is a citizen’s guide to land use planning as it is practiced in California. Its purpose is to explain, in general terms, how local communities regulate land use and to define some commonly used planning terms. Links to additional information throughout this post will take you to more in depth information.

Cities and counties “plan” in order to identify important community issues (such as new growth, housing needs, and environmental protection), project future demand for services (such as sewer, water, roads, etc.), anticipate potential problems (such as overloaded sewer facilities or crowded roads), and establish goals and policies for directing and managing growth. Local governments use a variety of tools in the planning process including the general plan, specific plans, zoning, and the subdivision ordinance. State law establishes a framework for local planning procedures, but cities and counties adopt their own unique responses to the issues they face.

STATE LAW AND LOCAL PLANNING

State law is the foundation for local planning in California. The California Government Code (Sections 65000 et seq.) contains many of the laws pertaining to the regulation of land uses by local governments including: the general plan requirement, specific plans, subdivisions, and zoning.

However, the State is seldom involved in local land use and development decisions; these have been delegated to the city councils and boards of supervisors of the individual cities and counties. Local decisionmakers adopt their own sets of land use policies and regulations based upon the state laws.

Plan and Ordinances

State law requires that each incorporated county and city adopt “a comprehensive, long-term general plan for [its] physical development.” This general plan is the official city or county policy regarding the location of housing, business, industry, roads, parks, and other land uses, protection of the public from noise and other environmental hazards, and conservation of natural resources. The legislative body of each city (the city council) and each county (the board of supervisors) adopts zoning, subdivision and other ordinances to regulate land uses and to carry out the policies of its general plan.

There is no requirement that adjoining cities or cities and counties have identical, or even similar, plans and ordinances. Cities and counties are distinct and independent political units. Each city, through its council and each county, through its supervisors, adopts its own general plan and development regulations. In turn, each of these governments is responsible for the planning decisions made within its jurisdiction.

Hearing Bodies

In San Luis Obispo County the board of supervisors has appointed planning commissions to assist them with planning matters, and created advisory councils to represent specific areas. For issues that affect Cambria and/or San Simeon, the North Coast Advisory Council (NCAC) and the Planning Commission consider general plan and specific plan amendments, zone changes, and major subdivisions. The NCAC is advisory in nature, providing feedback to the county and District 2 Supervisor. The Planning commission has the power to approve proposals, subject to appeal to the council or board of supervisors. These hearing bodies, however, do not have final say on matters of policy such as zone changes and general or specific plan amendments.

Hearings

State law requires that local governments hold public hearings prior to most planning actions. At the hearing, the council, board, or advisory commission will explain the proposal, consider it in light of local regulations and environmental effects, and listen to testimony from interested parties. The council, board, or commission will vote on the proposal at the conclusion of the hearing.

Depending upon each jurisdiction’s local ordinance, public hearings are not always required for minor land subdivisions, architectural or design review or ordinance interpretations. The method of advertising hearings may vary. At a minimum, counties and cities must publish notice of general plan adoption and amendment in the newspaper. Notice of a proposed general plan amendment affecting allowable land uses, zone change, conditional use permit, variance, and subdivision tract is published in the newspaper and mailed to nearby property owners. In addition, the NCAC publishes agendas on their website before their meetings on every third Wednesday (except December) and approved minutes. The Planning Commission agendas and video of their meetings, as well as meeting minutes are available on the county website.

THE GENERAL PLAN

The Blueprint

The local general plan can be described as the county’s “blueprint” for future development. It represents the community’s view of its future; a constitution made up of the goals and policies upon which the board of supervisors and planning commission will base their land use decisions. To illustrate its importance, all subdivisions, public works projects, and zoning decisions must be consistent with the general plan. If inconsistent, they must not be approved.

Long-range Emphasis

The general plan is not the same as zoning. Although both designate how land may be developed, they do so in different ways. The general plan and its diagrams have a long-term outlook, identifying the types of development that will be allowed, the spatial relationships among land uses, and the general pattern of future development. Zoning regulates present development through specific standards such as lot size, building setback, and a list of allowable uses. In counties, the land uses shown on the general plan diagrams will usually be reflected in the local zoning maps as well. Development must not only meet the specific requirements of the zoning ordinance, but also the broader policies set forth in the local general plan.

Contents

State law requires that every general plan must contain the following components or “elements”: Land Use, Conservation, Noise Element Transportation Plan-1979 , Open Space, Safety Element – [12317KB]and Housing Element 7-20-04 – (Government Code Sections 65300 et seq.). In addition, state law allows for the adoption of additional or optional elements of a general plan. These elements may address any other subjects that, in the judgement of the legislative body, relate to the physical development of the county. The County of San Luis Obispo has adopted seven optional elements: Parks and Recreation Element – [3276KB], Historic and Esthetic, Energy Element , Off-shore Energy, Economic Element -and Ag Open Space Element -.

Most general plans consist of: (1) a written text discussing the community’s goals, objectives, policies, and programs for the distribution of land use; and, (2) one or more diagrams or maps illustrating the general location of existing and future land uses. Figure 1 is an example of a general plan diagram.

State law requires that local governments make copies of their plans available to the public for reference. Copies can be sold to the public for the cost of reproduction. See San Luis Obispo’s various documents that make up the general plan using this link.

Approving the Plan

The process of adopting or amending a general plan requires public participation. Cities and counties must hold public hearings for such proposals. Advance notice of the place and time of the hearing must be published in the newspaper or posted in the vicinity of the site proposed for change. Prior to approval, hearings will be held by the North Coast Advisory Council and the planning commission. The general plan must be adopted by resolution by the legislative body of each city or county, and in the case of Cambria/San Simeon, California Coastal Commission must also approve the plan.
Community and Specific Plans

“Area plans” and “specific plans” is used in San Luis Obispo County to plan the future of a particular area at a finer level of detail than that provided by the general plan. A community plan is a portion of the local general plan focusing on the issues pertinent to a particular area or community within the city or county. It supplements the policies of the general plan. San Luis Obispo County’s area and specific plans include:

Adelaida Inland Area Plan – [1603KB]

El Pomar Estrella Inland Area Plan – [8463KB]

Estero Area Plan – [5010KB]

Huasna-Lopez Inland Area Plan – [257KB]

Las Pilitas Inland Area Plan – [992KB]

Los Padres Inland Area Plan – [185KB]

Nacimiento Inland Area Plan – [2396KB]

North Coast Area Plan – [4007KB]

Salinas River Inland Area Plan – [12754KB]

San Luis Bay Coastal Area Plan – [2695KB]

San Luis Bay Inland Area Plan – [2272KB]

San Luis Obispo Inland Area Plan – [9553KB]

Shandon-Carrizo Inland Area Plan – [1078KB]

South County Coastal Area Plan – [833KB]

South County Inland Area Plan – [1894KB

Specific plans describe allowable land uses, identify open space, and detail the availability of facilities and financing for a portion of the community. Specific plans must be consistent with the local general plan. A specific plan implements but is not technically a part of the general plan. In some jurisdictions, specific plans take the place of zoning. Zoning, subdivision, and public works decisions must be consistent with any applicable specific plan.

Coastal Plan Policies - [1553KB]

Coastal Plan Policies-Summary -

Coastal Zone Framework Element – [1300KB]

Coastal Zone Framework Element Table O Handout – [236KB]

Report on General Plan for SLO

The General Plan Progress report for Fiscal Year 2005-06 reviews the activities that took place to implement the County General Plan, which is sometimes referred to as the “blueprint” for growth and development in San Luis Obispo County. It describes major new planning activities, general plan and ordinance amendments, public contact and assistance, permit and subdivision activity, and residential and non-residential development. Read the report here:

General Plan Progress, 2005-2006

To all who celebrate it – Merry Christmas!

A parable for the holiday:

An elder Cherokee Native American was teaching his grandchildren about life.

He said to them…

“A fight is going on inside me… it is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One wolf represents fear, anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority and ego. The other stands for joy, peace, love, hope, sharing, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, friendship, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith. This same fight is going on inside you and every other person, too.”

They thought about this for a minute, and then one child asked his grandfather…“Which wolf will win?”

The old Cherokee simply replied… “The one you feed.”

‘Nuff said.

This is the first of what I hope will be an ongoing series I’m calling Cambria U. The goal of each Cambria U entry is to provide resources for understanding a different element affecting Cambria’s present and future. Today: a Basic Primer in California Water Law.

In all my adventures in the wide virtual world I’ve discovered many wonderful resources. I lucked into a document prepared by the state to explain the basics of water law for new LAFCo commissioners. If you’ve ever tried to slog through the myriad laws and regulation agencies, you’ll appreciate this relatively easy to read 18 page document. I highlighted some parts as I read it. You can download that version below. If you prefer an unmarked version, you will likely be able to find an unmarked copy online just by googling the title: Water Rights: Supply Issues for Local Agency Formation Commissions .

Of course, this could be a bit simplistic if you already have a grasp of the complex web of legalities governing water. Either way, have a Merry Christmas and see you in the New Year.

Some Cambrians seem resigned to a reality in which trying to control growth is hopeless, anyone who sues for a water meter will get one, and the eventual paving over of Cambria is inevitable. And who wouldn’t start to feel a bit hopeless about it? Is it possible they feel so defeated that we should give up on the BRP and allow a home to be built on every lot? Perhaps they are not resigned or hopeless, perhaps they are terrified of the changes that could come with building (at most) 35 homes a year.* If we populate those homes with the average number of residents in a Cambria home (1.66) we could gain 58 new residents – possibly – if those averages, lifted from the CCSD Urban Water Management Plan, *** are accurate and hold steady.

Why so worried? Between 1988 and 1998, the county permitted an average of 55 homes each year. ** Without the moratorium, the County could have issued up to 230 building permits for new construction between 2001 and today (557 people). In the Coastal Commission’s review of the SLO County LCP, they claimed the County had estimated in 2001 that Cambria was only 1/3 built-out – the County gave numbers of 11,701 dwellings and population around 26,347. Obviously, times have changed. The Board of Supervisors adopted a 1% growth cap between 2000 and 2006 and 0% cap from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009. The new North Coast Area Plan for Cambria and San Simeon (nearly 18 years in the making) is about to cross the finish line.

But long-range planning for our community is still being spoon-fed to us by County and State (an alphabet soup of agencies). Cambrians are still not allowed to control where we can build, what limitations and standards we must build with, or enforce those standards when plans and the reality of a project do not match. We don’t even have a say when it comes to property owned by all of us (by way of conservation easements and owned by the CCSD). The County and State seem to be happy to twiddle their thumbs while the CCSD tries to solve the inadequate water supply on their own, chiming in only to announce we can’t do it that way. Until 2006, six years into the moratorium, the Board Of Supervisors finally changed their 1% growth cap for Cambria to 0%. The Coastal Commission, while publicly stating they are working with CCSD to resolve the problems it has with the proposed desal plant, continues to take actions that leave us feeling thwarted at every turn.

The Water Master Plan is the best description we have for how our community will provide services in the future. It may contain erroneous assumptions and just plain bad planning policies, but until the Board of Directors craft and adopt a better policy, it’s all we have to show we’ve been doing our homework and can handle our own community decisions when the County or state “alphabet soup”ers question our actions. The Build-Out Reduction Plan is part of that larger endeavor to ensure demand matches supply. Failing to support it means going back to the drawing board and years of work (and money) down the proverbial drain.

The BRP was created partly to protect against unreasonable growth (regardless of the additional water production of a desal plant) and partly to address the genuine concerns some Cambrians have expressed about being unable to preserve the unique character of our small town in the face of rapid and unsustainable development. These opponents of growth and the BRP seem to be saying: “The BRP isn’t good enough. The town is fine as it is. Forget any new water source. The most important thing is to stave off growth and the only reliable way to do that is to simply not have water.” Except the CCSD is concerned about not having enough water for fires and to reliably serve the customers they have right now. And except a property owner has a right to do something with their property, and a water district has a duty to serve sooner or later. And except the County and the Coastal Commission are looking to us to find a solution. Eventually Cambria could have permanent water rationing, or litigation forcing government purchase of the vacant lots, or lot owners who will find a way around CCSD to build regardless of a moratorium Or all three. Then you could end up with what seems to be a recurring nightmare for some Cambrians: a paved over, overbuilt community with no water for yourselves, no local control and unrestrained, uncontrollable, guerrilla development.

One way to stop the possible chaos is to stay on track with the plan we’ve got and to start implementing the BRP. Or begin immediately in drafting a new master plan for Cambria and implementing more severe conservation measures to buy a little more time. The stakes are high. Starting over again is foolhardy and flushing money (and the tank is much larger than 1.6g) Instead of new studies, how about a public bid for a new independent auditor (or a university program or cadre of students, or the Pacific Institute, or any number of organizations whose focus is water resources) to review all the studies and documentation that lead to the desal conclusion and the attendant growth mitigations. To ensure we get the analysis we need (not just the results we think we want), and the analysis can be used as a tool for planning, I suggest the following guidelines:

1. A person/firm well-versed (or regular contact with experts) in at least 9 of these 12 areas of expertise California Law, Civic Engagement, Government Best Practices, Land Use and Conservation easements, Water Law, Property Rights, Eminent domain, Desalination, CSDs, , new planning paradigms for communities and the effects of climate change, Interagency and Joint Powers .

2. A person or agency who has not worked for the CCSD.

3. A person/firm who will gather information from a multitude of sources, not just rely on the documents and information provided by the current CCSD board and staff.

4. A person/firm who values collaborative solutions to proscriptive ones, the greater good, and creating win-win situations.

5. A person/firm who values the importance of beginning with no assumptions, reserving judgment until all available information has been examined, and addressing the positive and negative outcomes for each alternative vision of the future without a “water shortage”.

6. A person/firm who is an excellent communicator, listening and talking, reading and writing and above all, clear explanation of the issues (past and present).

These requirements reduce the number of qualified applicants to only a very few. These few are likely either very pricey and very busy or unknown (but not likely to stay that way) because he/she is just starting out. That doesn’t mean the right person/firm isn’t out there. What do you think?

*This number is based on the Board of Supervisors changing the growth cap back to 1% from the current 0% and a current count of connections at the BRP number of 3596.

**CCC California Coastal Commission Review of the San Luis Obispo Couny LCP in 2001

*** page 1-8

If you are interested in a detailed analysis of selected long-term water supply alternatives, the FINAL DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES posted on the CCSD website contains the information used by the CCSD to guide its decisions regarding a reliable long-term solution to the water shortage in Cambria. Section 8 in particular looks at selected alternatives in detail. Read the document here.

Boy, if someone would like to tackle this and write a brief summary of the alternatives or maybe post essential excerpts with helpful commentary? Really, It’s up to you. Any way to make it less cumbersome to get through. Whether you write one post or a series, your contribution would be welcomed!

The document is long and detailed – which means reading it can be time-consuming.

Please leave a comment here for additional information. Or send Amanda an email.

93428

Gregg Sanders has stated we have no other choice – but desal.

Please Read Section 8 Detailed Evaluation of Selected Alternatives, of Task 4, of the Water Master Plan found on CCSD web site.

In this section an Overview of Potential Water Supply Alternatives eight (8) alternatives, including desal are evaluated according to seven criteria. Statements in the report, the level of detail, the time when the evaluation was performed, and the scope and age of previous studies upon which this evaluation was based clearly intimate this decision was not made on a “level playing field.”

There is a lot of technical info, but buried in this report are the following:

1. The names of possible potential water supplies
2. The list of required permits
3. A cost analysis for each project
4. Projected time, including construction, permitting and agreements with the total time estimated from start to finish to bring the project
on line.

Its weighty stuff, but please wade through it. After getting through Section 8, give your brain a rest and then read all of TASK 4. You will find it all very enlightning. You can also decide if Mr. Sanders is right with his statement, “we have no choice but desal.”

93428

Anyone interested can view the video of the California Coastal Commission’s hearing of the reconsideration of the desalination denial. Visit here then fast forward to about 50 minutes into the hearing, which is where the items start. At the beginning of the two Cambria items, a staff member indicates that the CCSD has requested 90 days during which they can work with staff to come up with a project that could get approved. He told the commissioners that regardless of the vote that day, staff would continue to work with CCSD, if that was what they wanted.

The fist issue discussed is approval of the revised findings. The purpose of this item is narrow and only commissioners on the prevailing side (ie those who voted to deny the project) are allowed to vote on it. It is a revision of the CCC staff report to ensure it reflects the findings and basis of the decision made at the September 6, 2007 meeting of the Coastal Commission. It’s purpose is not to argue whether or not those findings are in error in general, only whether they accurately reflect the action the commissioners took in September. Said another way: the approval of revised findings would mean the commissioners agree that the report reflects what they used in determining their decision. You can view the revised findings (which were approved) and the original staff report on the Coastal Commission’s website.

The second item relating to the CCSD’s desalination project was a request for reconsideration. This item is procedural and has a narrow purpose: to allow the commissioners to determine they did not have all relevant and available information upon which to make their decision. If that was the case, the CCSD would be granted a new hearing. The burden of showing that there is new evidence or information rests on the CCSD. To start at this point: fast forward to about 1 hour and a half into the hearing. To read the staff report on this item, click here. This reconsideration was denied after nearly 45 minutes of public comment both supporting and against the reconsideration.

To view Art Montandon’s rebuttal to comments raised, fast forward to 2 hour 10 minutes. Summarizing his comments: He asked that the powerpoint Bob offered in the comments on the revised finding be included in the record. Then asked to withdraw the request for continuance, since it was for both items and the first had already been denied. He stated it was their position that the Brown Act had not been violated (as alleged by Landwatch, the request for reconsideration was submitted on Sept 19, before the board could have met to vote on the request). Montandon stated that staff had the authority to submit the request without getting board approval first.

Tom (CCC staff member) recommended to the district that they could resubmit their proposal in March, possibly with some modifications with direction from the commission staff. Executive Director Peter Douglas pointed out that with Snowy Plover nesting season beginning soon, the CCSD could take the time to review the siting of the desal plant and work with commission staff. He also stated that he thinks “desalination probably is part of the water future for Cambria”.

Deliberation of the Commissioners begins at about 2 hours 16 minutes – beginning with Supervisor/Commissioner Achadjian making a motion to withdraw this request without prejudice. Mr. Douglas told Achadjian the applicant would have to request the withdrawal. No action on that motion was made. Additional comment and discussion included praise for the choice of technology and recommendations from several commissioners that CCSD use the time to provide information about alternate sites, information the commission could use to ensure the current location is the best location available, not just the most convenient or only one studied. After additional discussion the request for reconsideration was unanimously denied. (Commissioner Burke abstained)

Then Commissioner Achadjian made a motion for a waiver of the time limit for the CCSD for re-application. His brief comments can be watched starting at about 2 hours 41 minutes. Ultimately, he withdrew his motion and the Commission was finished with Cambria Business

Knowledge brings responsibility.

(1) June 30, 2006, “Note 12, The District in the past fiscal year incurred significant losses in the Enterprise Funds (Water and Wastewater). The Water Fund realized a deficit change in net assets of $135,749 and the Wastewater Fund $454,183. If the District continues to incur these deficits it will be unable to meet their ongoing obligations.
(2) February 22, 2007, Mid year Budget Review: “ The CCSD is not meeting the debt coverage ratio required on the bond debt issue for the Wastewater Department.”
(3) February 22, 2007, Reserves: It is projected that $886,507.00 from Reserves will be needed to balance the 2006/2007 Operating Budget from January 1-June 30, 2007.” The Reserve Balance at its highest point was $16.5 million. As of August 31, 2007, the reserve account held $4,827,953.
(4) November 19, 2007, Agenda No. V.A. 6 Reserve Balance $4,141,494.00
(5) For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006, the following expenses accounted for the growing deficit: Pine Knolls Tank Project, Build Out Reduction Program, Desalinization Project, Meter Replacement Program, and Water Master Plan EIR, the Bluff Trail, Santa Rosa Creek Riparian Bank and tennis courts. (page 4, Auditor’s Report from Basic Financial Statements.) Page 14, from audited financials, June 30, 2006: “Labor costs, including benefits, account for approximately 50% of the CCSD’s Costs
(6) Page 40, Annual Pension Cost,

6/04 $203,701
6/05 $318,003
6/06 $513,579
This increase in the Pension Cost is extremely troubling.
(7) The miracle of compounding and savings are well known, the downside of deficit spending and compounding costs of benefits can lead to the District’s Bankruptcy.
Given the balance of $4,141,494 in the reserve account, and the deficits accruing each month, we have only a few months to avert bankruptcy, and it can’t just be done with a rate increase but will require cuts in operating expenses. Everything will have to be on the table, both labor costs, including benefits and all the projects set forth in item (5).
It seems this would be a time for pro-growth agendas and anti-growth agendas be put aside and we concentrate on the financial survival of the district.

The Build-Out Reduction Plan is not an easy way out, but it is a solution to some of the concerns about Cambria and its growth. Absolutely there will be great difficulties carrying out the plan. And it will be expensive. But the basic premise of the plan is that the cost is split between existing ratepayers and the few lot owners who would be allowed to get a meter and build. I admit I cannot recall the ratio and don’t have time to look it up right now. Suffice it to say that the applicants pay an outsized share. I think the connection fee is about $65,000. We have also offered to form a Mello-Roos District of the vacant lots only that would charge us a special property tax assessment to help pay for whatever infrastructure impact there is, be it desal or whatever.

If you throw the plan out, how do you plan to deal with the vacant lots? Ignoring it won’t make the problem go away. What you’re left with is the existing ratepayers pay 100% of the cost of retiring ALL the lots, instead of all the lots minus the ones allowed to build. You like that bill better?

By telling the 666 CCSD waitlist applicants to go away, you are killing the proverbial goose that could lay the golden egg. We’re the only ones willing to spend the money you need. You are also throwing millions in property value down the drain.

I never advocated including lot retirement costs in a water bill. It seems misplaced. There should be an assessment district with a special property tax assessment. That way, theoretically, renters don’t have to pay it.

But hotel guests absolutely should pay a portion, and I am sure they would not complain about a room surcharge for such a cause.

As to the lot counts, I have painstakingly counted myself off of the parcel maps, and I have gone over the numbers with both John Hofshrorer at SLO and the engineers at RBF who used far more sophisticated tools than John did to arrive at their numbers. RBF is correct, and SLO is wrong. Simply put, John took the gross acreage within the Urban Reserve Line and divided it by an average lot size of slightly above 3,500 sf (a standard double lot) to arrive at his buildout figure. That means to achieve it you would have to level EVERY house in Cambria, record a new tract map for the whole place (ignoring terrain), and build all new again. It cannot happen, and the water would never be there even if it was possible.

UnLOC has maintained a “no lawsuit” position since CCSD has been indicating the desire to solve the problem and they have admitted they owe us water. We are not involved in any of the suits being threatened by individuals, but we are aware of them. They, along with the ratepayers refusal to fund the district adequately, present the potential of CCSD going bankrupt and power reverting to the county. That is the last thing you want, as it removes any chance of local influence over growth.