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
Last 5 posts by Amanda Rice
- Gail Robinette Chosen to Complete DeMicco's Term as CCSD Director on Unanimous Vote
- California Coastal Commission Unanimously Denied Army Corps Desal Tests
- Cambria CSD Agenda for November 27, 2011 Meeting Includes Water Conservation & New Tank Project
- Sunken Oil Tanker Off Cambria's Coastline Will Be Checked Again Soon
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 7 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.”
Charlotte Darehshori
Pingback: Master Plan? | About Cambria