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

Last 5 posts by Amanda Rice