From sanluisobispo.com today :
Five people want to sit on Cambria services district board
Five applications were received to join the Cambria Community Services District Board of Directors when Don Villeneuve’s resignation takes effect.
Valerie Bentz, Muril Clift, Clive Finchamp, Stephen Kniffen and James Ragan submitted applications by the Feb. 21 deadline.
Read the rest of the article at SanLuisObispo.com
Monday is interview day for the would-be CCSD Board Members. The CCSD posted a meeting agenda for a special meeting to be held on Monday March 3 at 5:30pm at the Tamson Drive offices, Suite 204. Get the agenda here. March 3 meeting agenda.
The Tribune published an article with more details about the five candidates yesterday. Below are a few of the details from the newspaper article. Click here to read the whole article.
Five applicants to serve on the Cambria Community Services District board of directors can make five-minute presentations to the board and public at a special meeting Monday. Valerie Bentz, Muril Clift, Clive Finchamp, Stephen Kniffen and James Ragan submitted applications by the Feb. 21 deadline.
Bentz, who has a doctorate in sociology, is a professor at Fielding Graduate University.
Clift, a State Farm Insurance agent, is president of the Lions Club of Cambria and serves on the North Coast Advisory Council.
Finchamp, who has been a teacher and real estate appraiser, has served on the North Coast Advisory Council.
Kniffen works for the Sea Chest restaurant, serves on the Cambria Grammar School Site Council and was on the services district’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space Commission.
Ragan, former owner of a firm specializing in conflict resolution, managed a decade-long effort to gain broad public support for a $2.1 billion reservoir project in Southern California and has served on the county grand jury.
(Out-going Director) Villeneuve’s successor is expected to be chosen at the board’s regular meeting at 12:30 p. m. Thursday March 6 at the Veterans Memorial Building, 1000 Main St.
AboutCambria.com has a new look – designed to make navigating easier, so you can find information more easily, whether you are looking for something specific or just browsing. Across the top, there are tabs to take you directly to the newest posts, resources, the links page and the policies and guidelines page.
In addition to the tabs, the sidebar on the right has a number of clickable links: Check them out below. or to the right 
Cambria’s local radio station, KTEA-FM (103.5), continues to show what an asset to the community it is. “What’s Happening” with host Leeanne can be heard weekdays at 8am, 11am and 4pm. Recently, the show has featured an interview with CCSD Board president Joan Cobin and CCSD General Manager Tammy Rudock as well as an interview with CFRC member Frank DeMicco. If you didn’t catch those interviews when they originally aired, not to worry. Station owner Jim Kampschroer has added the recordings to the KTEA website for download. To download Parts 1 and 2 of the CCSD interview or the interview with Frank DeMicco, visit www.ktea-fm.com
Many thanks to Jim, Leeanne and KTEA-FM (103.5) for making this recording available for download! Upcoming interview: John Lamb, current chair of the North Coast Advisory Council.
Visit KTEA-FM and listen often!
3,416 single family meters register 67% of the potable water in Cambria each year.
189,200 ccf x 748 = 141,521,600 gallons1
141,521,600 divided by 3416 = 41,429 gallons = average use per year
130 multi-family meters register 4% of the potable water in Cambria each year.
11,200 ccf x 748 = 8,377,600 gallons
8,377,600 divided by 130 = 64,443 gallons = average use per year
231 vacation rental meters register 5% of the potable water in Cambria each year.
14,000 ccf x 748 gallons = 10,472,000 gallons
10,472,000 divided by 231 = 45,333 gallons = average use per year
173 commercial2 meters register 10% of the potable water in Cambria each year.
28,800 ccf x 748= 21,542,400 gallons
21,542,400 divided by 173 = 124,523 gallons = average use per year
48 motels and bed & breakfasts meters register 14% of the potable water in Cambria each year.
39,200 ccf x 748 gallons= 29,321,600 gallons
29,321,600 divided by 48 = 610,867 gallons = average use per year
1ccf = 100 cubic feet = 1 billing unit = 748 gallons 2 excluding motels and bed/breakfasts; including non-profit & public org. The base numbers were provided to Black and Veatch by CCSD; see pages 5 and 23 of Development of a Long-Term Financial Management plan Water and Wastewater Utilities for Cambria percent Community Services District.
Here’s how to figure it out:
Write down the number of units your last CCSD water bill states were used in those two months–for example, 7 units.
Multiply that by 748 (that’s how many gallons are in a unit):
7 x 748 = 5236 gallons.
Divide that by 61 days in two months:
5236 divided by 61 = 85.8 gallons per day.
Divide that by the number of people in the household-for example, 3 people:
86 divided by 3 = 28.6 gallons for each person every day.
The Cambrians for a Fiscally Responsible CCSD will meet at Moonstone Beach Bar and Grill this upcoming Wednesday starting at 9am.
CFRC wants to include your voice too. All Cambrians are invited to come to the meeting. Elizabeth will be meeting moderator. She has written and emailed a draft agenda for the meeting. (Thank you, Elizabeth.) If you would like to get a copy of the agenda or other meeting materials, please contact amanda @927 rice.com with your request. Or call 4191 for more information.
The February 6 meeting at Rabobank was standing room only for nearly the entire two hours. Overall feedback seems to indicate the group is on target. In a letter to The Cambrian this week, Rosalie Overturf wrote:
“Kudos for Public Input
My husband and I, as newcomers to Cambria, are slowly becoming more involved in public affairs. It was a pleasure to attend a local meeting on Feb. 6 of townspeople who are concerned with possible water rate increases and other issues concerning the Cambria Community
Services District.
I was pleased to see such a large, well-organized and well-informed group of residents who take an interest in their community.
The quality of the presentations as professional and unemotional and should lead to good solutions for problems. Thank you for including information regarding the CCSD in The Cambrian.
Rosalie Overturf
Thanks, Rosalie. This is the kind of confidence we wish all Cambrians felt comfortable using when talking about the CCSD Board and staff. One step at a time.
Do you have a comment or feedback (positive or not, preferably constructive) about the Feb. 6 meeting? AboutCambria.com would love to hear from you – and want to share your comments and feedback with all the readers.
[93428]
From the Los Angeles Times today: An article about the Los Angeles Department of Power and Water putting a contract out to bid just after a rate hike. This story shows how enlightened and backward we can be all at the same time.
One critic questions why the utility, a week after authorizing new rate hikes, is willing to spend up to $50,000 to teach employees how to breast-feed.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power came under fire Thursday for paying specialists to show new and expectant mothers at the utility how to properly breast-feed their children.
The plan to issue another DWP-funded “lactation services” contract drew howls from taxpayer advocate Walter Moore, who pointed out that the utility’s five-member board voted just last week for a package of new water and electrical rate hikes.
…………….
The newly hired DWP general manager, H. David Nahai, said he has no intention of abandoning the contract.
“It’s enlightened. It’s humanitarian. And it boosts productivity,” he said.
Still, DWP board President Nick Patsaouras said he wouldn’t vote for the contract if he had the opportunity, regardless of how low the bid was. Because it is expected to cost about $50,000, the decision is up to Nahai, who has discretion over any contract under $150,000.
“I don’t believe in these things,” Patsaouras said. “If you are a private company, you can spend your money as you want. But when it comes to taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money, you have to be more careful.”
Read the entire article from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.
I think I may apply for that job….16 hours weekly at $50,000? Sweet gig!
Here’s an excerpt from the broker listing for the new El Colibri Hotel:
Amber Hotel Company is pleased to announce a price reduction on one of its exclusive listings in Cambria, California. Property highlights are as follows:
That’s over $394,000/room, which would require an average daily rate of well over $200/night year round to make any economic sense as an investment. This makes it look like hoteliers in Cambria may not be hurting so bad after all. |
Water and Wastewater News , billed as “the international news resource for industrial & municipal water professionals” has some downright useful information for anyone who relies on a utility for water. Case in point: An article from September 11, 2007 written by L.K. Williams- “How To Pay By EPA, Agency Program Helps Communities Figure It Out.”
(Excerpts below. Read the full article HERE. )
Do you know about rate setting or cost recovery? What about that hot topic asset management? For water/wastewater utilities and the communities that support them, the money is critical but knowing how to manage that money may be more sustaining in the long run.
That’s the idea behind the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Finance Program, which is supported by an advisory board and a network of nine university- based centers (Environmental Finance Centers or EFCs). The EFCs provide training and other services to state and local governments and small businesses. The program is funded by EPA and other public and private money.
…………………..
In 1999, the Broome County Health Department determined that 41 percent of Windsor’s septic systems were failing. Wastewater was seeping above the ground surface, causing odor problems and potential health hazards. The department recommended the town invest in a public sewer system. Town efforts to pass a resolution on the matter failed twice.
In 2003, the town supervisor suggested contacting EFC; he had attended one of their workshops. Center staff helped with public education, community empowerment, process facilitation, and convened a group of technical assistance providers to work collaboratively. The group included the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development, Rural Community Assistance Partnership Solutions, N.Y. Rural Water Association, and the Environmental Facilities Corp.
The group held a series of public information, focus group, and public education meetings during 2004 and 2005. By explaining, with the appropriate amount of detail, the wastewater process, placing the cost in perspective, and describing the breakdown of every dollar contributed to the project, residents began to understand the underlying cost components of a wastewater system. At the next resolution vote for the public sewer project, the community passed the measure.
…………………………………..
(Jean) Holloway said two of the most important things that officials need to know are that:
1) It is important to let technical personnel have input on the financial end because they know the costs of manpower, electricity, and chemicals they need to stay in compliance. Arbitrary cuts to the budget can put a utility out of compliance.
2) Elected officials need to be aware of how much liability they have for running a utility system. Operators may go to jail, but officials also may have some personal liability, such as negligence.
Read the rest of the article here
…………………………..
Check the EPA program out for yourself: www.epa.gov/efinpage.
Evading the Codes
Finished plans for the Main Street Enhancement Project went before the supervisors for approval in 2002. Those plans had no indication of pedestrian lighting in them. The two documents being approved were the Mitigated Negative Declaration (environmental review) which stated no new lighting would be a part of this project and the Coastal Development Permit application which included the concept of pedestrian lighting. The county claims that since the concept of lighting was mentioned in the Coastal Development Permit application, and since that document was approved by the Supervisors, they had the right to design and install lighting as they saw fit. The problem: The lighting element of the project evaded the public’s right to appeal and evaded environmental review. The local code requires applications to have certain drawings and plan descriptions to be deemed complete. The following summary is the result of a lawsuit brought against the county by D.O.V.E. — an organization dedicated to finding out how 39 “pedestrian lights” were installed in less than seven-tenths of a mile on Cambria’s rural Main Street. The following is what we discovered over a year of research and by bringing suit:
1. Land Use code states clearly that only finished plans (drawn) can be approved in a Coastal Development Permit (CDP).
2. After the Planning Commission has approved a CDP for a project, the public has 14 days to review the finished plans and appeal any problems to the Board of Supervisors. In Cambria’s case, there were no finished plans which included the lighting. The only grievance process available after those 14 days was to lobby the supervisors for a new vote or to bring suit. The public came to local meetings which included our supervisor, but the supervisor wanted the lights — so the only road was a suit. It took a year because public access to public documents is a slow process limited by county lawyers who stall and censor the files. It was only in the discovery phase of our suit that we were allowed to see all the files we had requested over a year’s time.
3. Right now there are CDP’s going before the supervisors which contain concepts for future project elements with no plans drawn or with only a broad brush conceptual drawing and no complete project description.
4. In the lawsuit, the county claimed they (as developer) had the right to develop any concept mentioned in the Coastal Development Permit once it had been approved by the supervisors and the appeal period was over. In effect, the concept could evolve into finished plans with no environmental reviews required by the Local Coastal Program and no appeal process available to the public as required by code. The lawsuit alleged that, as the project developer, the County constructed the street light project illegally without a coastal development permit for the lights, in violation of the laws that prohibit development to occur without a coastal development permit.
5. We have a Local Coastal Program that has gone through an approval process by the Coastal Commission. After an LCP has been finally approved, the Commission’s coastal permitting (Coastal Development Permits) authority over most new development is transferred to the local government (county), which applies the requirements of the LCP in reviewing proposed new developments. The Commission retains permanent coastal permit jurisdiction over development proposed on tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands, and the Commission also acts on appeals from certain local government coastal permit decisions. An example of this is the public trust land that is being pushed towards housing private enterprise cell towers. The Commission retains the jurisdictional rights over that land.
6. Our judge did not necessarily agree with the county’s stance above (#4), but declared we were too late in our lawsuit. However, the approved Main Street Enhancement Project had no lighting plans for the public to review — no reason to appeal because of the protection of the Local Coastal Program codes which state only finished plans can be approved. No reason on the part of the public to fear that the lighting wouldn’t go through required reviews with a subsequent appeal process available when they were finally drawn as per the requirements of the Local Coastal Program.
6. The county was able to circumvent an environmental impact report on the lighting element by claiming the lights were approved in the CDP, also claiming that lights were deemed to be of insignificant concern in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, therefore, not a pollutant and in no need of review. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states there would be NO lights introduced in this project, that’s why they would be of no significance. The TEA grant (federal funds) the county received required an environmental report, but even though funds were scheduled for this report, no report exists in the files, so where did the budgeted funds go?
7. The County is required, just like any other developer, to adhere to the Local Coastal Program when it applies for a Coastal Development Permit. The Local Coastal Program has required each town to define itself in a Design Plan to ensure no developer can change the feel or nature of each town. Our design plan specifically calls Main Street a “special community” because of its proximity to the creek, riparian hunting grounds, breeding grounds and wetlands. The county defines our street as urban and has designed accordingly with no deference to our rural definition of ourselves in the Cambria Design Plan — a clear breech of the Local Coastal Program.
8. Someone needs to read all the Coastal Development Permits that are being considered by the supervisors to catch the concepts (among other things) and appeal them. I think the North Coast Advisory Council (NCAC) is the appropriate body to do this labor — with the help of the community doing research. All projects being considered in our area need to go before this body, but the NCAC would have to demand that because the county only gives the NCAC what the county wants it to review — the county calls it discretionary power. Because of the evasions of the Local Coastal Program, the NCAC, in my opinion, needs to be well-versed in the codes and requirements of that program in order to advise the supervisor wisely.
9. The lawsuit brought by Defend Our Village Environment (D.O.V.E.) against the county had to do with discovering how the county is pushing projects on Cambria which are out of scale with our rural town and our budget and are in violation of local codes, state statutes, including the Coastal Act and the California Environment Act, and the Local Coastal Program. An example is the county demanding the CCSD come up with the 2 million dollars it will take to move utilities so the county can fix the Leffingwell bridge on Moonstone Beach Drive. They have a grant to perform their part — why didn’t they include Cambria in their request for money? The county should be working with our CCSD to fix the water runoff pipe which goes down Bridge Street to the collapsed part of the pipe where the old CCSD building was. The county claims they have no record of putting that pipe in so they have no responsibility for it. Who does, then? The research needs to be done so we can fix our infrastructure. The “rodeo grounds” is being processed to become an “active” sports facility — when the poll taken by the CCSD clearly came out in favor of passive sports. At a CCSD meeting we found out that the county has given the CCSD $500,000 toward the purchase of the ranch only if the rodeo grounds are developed into active sports fields (I’m requesting the contract to find out the truth of it). If we develop passive sports areas, the CCSD has to give the money back to the county. All of this maneuvering goes on and on and on. It can only be addressed if the public agencies stick to the rules instead of ignoring them for their own projects. The point of D.O.V.E.’s lawsuit was not to “get our way” or the product of “poor losers” as we were described in court, but to find out how the county operates, as well as protect ourselves from inappropriate development as we go through these times. We need to keep the county accountable and we can only do that by keeping tabs on the processing of all projects. Just because the county gets a grant should not mean we have to weather some project that makes no sense for our small, coastal town. Our Local Coastal Program supports us — we just need to know it better and stand up for it and ourselves.
Local Coastal Programs
Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) are basic planning tools used by local governments to guide development in the coastal zone, in partnership with the Coastal Commission. LCPs contain the ground rules for future development and protection of coastal resources in the 74 coastal cities and counties. The LCPs specify appropriate location, type, and scale of new or changed uses of land and water. Each LCP includes a land use plan and measures to implement the plan (such as zoning ordinances). Prepared by local government, these programs govern decisions that determine the short- and long-term conservation and use of coastal resources. While each LCP reflects unique characteristics of individual local coastal communities, regional and statewide interests and concerns must also be addressed in conformity with Coastal Act goals and policies. Following adoption by a city council or county board of supervisors, an LCP is submitted to the Coastal Commission for review for consistency with Coastal Act requirements.
Many of the 74 coastal counties and cities have elected to divide their coastal zone jurisdictions into separate geographic segments, resulting in some 126 separate LCPs. As of 2002, approximately 70 percent of the LCP segments have been certified, representing close to 90 percent of the geographic area of the coastal zone, and local governments are issuing coastal permits in these areas. To determine the status of the LCP in any given geographic area, contact the appropriate district office of the Coastal Commission.
After an LCP has been finally approved, the Commission’s coastal permitting authority over most new development is transferred to the local government, which applies the requirements of the LCP in reviewing proposed new developments. The Commission retains permanent coastal permit jurisdiction over development proposed on tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands, and the Commission also acts on appeals from certain local government coastal permit decisions. The Commission reviews and approves any amendments to previously certified Local Coastal Programs.
More on the SLO North Coast Local Coastal Program documents tomorrow.
Contributed by Lauren Younger.
