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
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
- 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
Why Buildout Reduction?
Also known as Cambria/Lodge Hill Restoration Program
http://www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov/sccbb/0709bb/0709Board14G_Cambria_Restoration_Program.pdf
As of September 20, 2007, the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County had “acquired and permanently protected 142 individual parcels in the project area, which represents close to 20 percent of the targeted area… The specific areas targeted for protection contain 775 parcels.”
Contrary to the explanation for the buildout reduction plan, (mitigating the growth inducing element of allowing a desalination plant), the explanation for the purchase of lots under the Lodge Hill Restoration Program is for: “acquisition, for purposes of open space, resource protection, and purlic access or restoration of real property . . . identified in Exhibit 2.” i.e
Special Areas l & 2. (See exhibit 2, map of priority lots)
As I read this Project description (File No. 07-079-1) it seems the Land Conservancy will purchase the property using funds put in escrow by the CCSD. It seems their intent is to purchase all of the priority lots (the buildable lots) and retire the lots from ever being developed. This seems to fly in the face of the tortured logic used to explain the Buildout Reduction Plan, i.e. “retire some of the lots, and we’ll let you build a desal and then you will be able to build on some of the lots.”
But – if the lots are being purchased – there will be no further development in Lodge Hill. Where will those people on the water wait list build if their lots are in the Restoration area as described above. Will a desal plant, which is the carrot being held out to these people through a “Buildout Reduction Plan” help people in Special Area 2 (Lodge Hill).
Additionally, under the Buildout Reduction Plan, the Land Conservancy gets to sell three (3) build now meters outside of the water wait list. What is the equity of that? Is this fair to those on the water wait list? Is it fair to the rate payers of CCSD for this $1,000,000 for these “build nows” be used to buy lots, which will be retired and the CCSD will be responsible for the upkeep of the lots, and loss of property tax?
Yes, it is a good question: Why Buildout Reduction?
Charlotte Darehshori
The CCSD BRP is not only about SPA1. It’s focused on reducing the ultimate buildout potential of the entire area within CCSD’s boundaries. I count approximately 55 high and medium priority lots on the Exhibit 2 map. The BRP aims to eliminate the potential of building on 3,662 lots.
The SPA1 lots that hold CCSD waitlist positions are the easy ones. Knowing that CCSD will not give a meter in this area will encourage these owners to acquire another lot outside SPA1 and transfer the waitlist position to it, and thereby agree to retire the SPA1 lot. But property owners will be less likely to assume this expense unless they believe they will get a water meter on their replacement lot.
The SPA plan and the BRP are actually elegantly complimentary. Carrying out the BRP will make it possible to increase the water supply without risking unacceptable growth. Increasing the water supply will allow those transferring out of the SPA to build on another lot in a less environmentally sensitive location instead of being stuck in limbo forever in the SPA. Yes, all this will increase demand for quality buildable lots outside the SPA, but market forces will work that out. Some may ultimately decide that building in Cambria is not for them, and they can sell their TDC’s to somebody else.
I agree that no, it is not fair to create new build now meters and sell them outside the wait list. I think the money should be raised another way and meters should only go according to wait list priority. I really appreciate your expression of concern for what’s fair to those of us on the water wait list. Given this concern, do you think that in order to keep CCSD (the community) from having to own and maintain vacant lots that don’t generate taxes that private owners should have to keep them, maintain them, and pay taxes on them indefinitely? Are you suggesting that if CCSD were to sell water meters that the income should instead go to subsidize operating costs in order to save the community money, thus eliminating the BRP, thereby eliminating the possibility of a new water supply and staying in permanent moratorium? Do you think you can maintain a moratorium legally all the while selling water meters at a price that is grossly inflated as a direct result of that very moratorium?
If you keep up the moratorium long enough, you will ensure the loss of property tax because eventually people will insist on the re-assessment of their useless lots until the day that the community finally comes together to find a solution.