About Cambria

On May 13, the CCSD will hold a rates and budget workshop where it will present its proposal for 2008-10 rates. Looking for background information to help you prepare? AboutCambria.com has a number of useful documents in our library. You can download and read

• the proposal presented by the Cambrians for a Fiscally Responsible CCSD,
• the Black and Veatch Long-Term Financial Plan,
• the August 23, 2007 presentation to the Board by Black and Veatch,
• the letter sent out last September to all ratepayers explaining that rate increase,
• the 2005-06 audit report,
• the draft 2006-2007 audit report,
• the 2006-2007 operating budget,
• and several months of expenditure reports.

Also available, for comparison, is the Templeton Community Services District’s 2007-2008 budget. Several other documents describe how rates are often figured by other water utilities and through the California Public Utilities Commission and best management practices for water utilities and other special districts.

If you don’t have 20 hours to spend reading, not to worry. The Cambrians for a Fiscally Responsible CCSD put a lot of time into sorting out much of the tangle of finances. To get more information send an email to cfrc @ aboutcambria.com . I will forward your questions to the group so someone can respond. Or you can attend the next CFRC meeting at Rabobank on May 7, 6-8pm.

At the April 24, 2008 CCSD Board meeting, a preliminary timeline was discussed for upcoming CCSD Budgets and Utility Rates meetings. Following is the confirmed schedule of meetings as well as dates for other key milestones related to budgets and rates. The budget meetings will include both Operation and Capital Improvement Projects. All the meetings below will be held at the Veterans’ Memorial Building.

5:30 pm, Tuesday, May 13

• Special Meeting/Workshop – Budgets/Rates Proposals

12:30 pm, Thursday, May 22

• Regular Meeting – Budget Hearing and adoption of budgets per resolutions. Direction to staff to proceed with Rates Proposal

Tuesday, May 27

• Mailing – Rates Proposal notices mailed to customers (45 days before hearing)

5:30 pm, Monday, July 14

• Special Meeting – Rates Hearing (Prop 218); Adopt Rates Ordinance

12:30 pm, Thursday, July 24

• Regular Meeting – Second read for Rates Ordinance (Consent item)

Monday, August 25

• Effective date of Rates Ordinance

Monday, September 1

• Rates implementation date (September/October billing period)

For questions related to the above, please contact District Clerk, Kathy Choate at 805-927-6235 or email to kchoate @ cambriacsd.org.

The shortest meeting in months, and three posts at AboutCambria.com. Hmm…

This last installment about the April CCCD Meeting focuses on two of the public comments from Jerry McKinnon and Michael Stoddard.

Jerry McKinnon raised the issue of the CCSD’s responsibility for the upkeep of the Veteran’s Hall. A brief history The building was originally purchased by the Lions in the early 50′s and moved from Camp San Luis to its current location on property donated by the Fiscalini Family. Later, the Lion’s donated the building to the County, with the stipulation it be designated a Veteran’s Memorial Hall. Then the CCSD bought it from the County in 1978 for $1.

Jerry urged the Board to improve transparency and fiscal responsibility by establishing policy creating a distinct budget category for the Vets Hall. The Vets Hall is not only an essential, frequently used community resource, it is a memorial to the men from this area who died in service to this country. To neglect this building would seem to show a lack of respect for not just those men, but the rest of the veterans of this area and, in fact, the entire community.

The CCSD isn’t neglecting maintenance entirely. A bid has been awarded to put a new roof on the building. But much more needs to be done to ensure this building is a shining centerpiece of our community and not run-down evidence of skewed community priorities. He asked the District to prove once and for all that it ISN’T a Veterans Memorial, as they have continued to claim. If they cannot show it ISN’T a memorial, they must start to take better care of the building that is a Memorial to the Veterans of this community.

Michael Stoddard, representing the group Cambrians for a Fiscally Responsible CCSD, presented a rates proposal to the Board that the group had unanimously approved the previous week. The proposal is available in the AboutCambria.com Library for download. The basic suggestions listed below.

General Conditions

• New Rates Dedicated to Water & Wastewater Enterprise
• Operating, Maintenance and Defined Capital Projects
• Include No Costs or Expenses Related to Build Out Reduction Plan
• No Water & Wastewater Enterprise Funds Transferred to General Fund
• New Rates Frozen for a Minimum of 2 Years
• Hiring Freeze Including Contract Workers
• Current Rates Tiered Structure Maintained
• April 16, 2008 Public Meeting of the CFRC

Proposal Overview

• Standby/Availability Charges are Shown/Considered Revenue
  
• + 4% Previously Negotiated Contractual MOU Recognized
• Allows for Defined CIPs Bonded Debt Service
  • Rodeo Grounds Pumping Station Replacement
  • Stuart Street Tank
• Allows for Reserves:
  • Water Capital Outlay: $75,000
  • Water Contingency/Depreciation: $100,000
  • Wastewater Contingency/Depreciation: $150,000

When Michael finished the presentation, Director Sanders asked the same questions he has asked after each of the CFRC’s presentations: what was the vote count and who, specifically, voted. The CFRC publicly announces its meetings and anyone can attend and vote or abstain. As a group, the CFRC has not ever quite understood why Director Sanders has been so insistent that the group “name names”. Seems it would be more helpful to the community if he addressed the content of the group’s suggestions. The CFRC doesn’t expect that their proposals would be THE final rate increase – their access to information is less complete than the CCSD staff. The asset the CFRC brings to the table is ears tuned to Cambrians’ needs and concerns tempered by a moderate understanding of the District’s current situation and plans.

Director Cobin again raised the issue that she was elected by a majority and the CFRC doesn’t have that kind of endorsement. In 2004, 2255 people selected her name as one of three. Indeed, many still support her and the decisions she makes. But 2266 Cambria ratepayers disagreed with her when they protested the rates proposal in the fall. The burden of credulity is not only in our laps.

It was out of concern for the CCSD’s financial situation that the group has spent so much time working up a proposal.Since the beginning the CFRC has asked to work WITH the CCSD Board and Staff – not to do their work FOR them. To dismiss the group’s suggestions because they are not validated through a vote of the majority of Cambrians would mean that anyone’s suggestion would be dismissed. And since a majority of the community refused the proposal of the CCSD, it seems that having more input from the community could ensure success for the needed rate hike.

If you are reading this and voted at the April 16 meeting, I suggest you add your name here as comment. I think everyone who volunteered many hours of time and energy to come up with this reasonable proposal should be recognized (and thanked). The full proposal is available in the AboutCambria.com’s library. If you have questions about the group’s proposal or how they arrived at their conclusions, send an email to CFRC@ aboutcambria.com and I will forward it to the CFRC rates committee members to answer.

All in all, even though very little will change as a result of the meeting, it was a victory as measured by the information exchanged and discussed. I left the meeting feeling a bit better about the future of the community and frustrated that the average Cambrian’s opinion is so casually dismissed unless sought out by the CCSD Board or staff. So it goes. (Apologies to Mr. Vonnegut)

As promised, here is part 2 of my writings on the CCSD’s meeting yesterday. This article’s focus is the consideration to Adopt Cambria Community Wildland Fire Protection Urgency Ordinance 01-2008 and declaring the urgency thereof. ((Download a Cal Fire map of Natural Fire Hazards)

Direct Funke-Bilu showed his commitment to the community and integrity as he introduced the Ordinance that he and the members of the Forest Committee had worked on for at least a year through numerous revisions and many public comments. He began with apologies to all the people involved in creating the ordinance as he explained that he had to say he was wrong to approve the ordinance and he didn’t think the board should approve it either. He continued, as nearly the entire room sat quietly surprised, to tell everyone how he had talked to many people over the past week, between the last meeting of the forest committee and this meeting, including CCSD and Cal Fire firefighters neighbors and friends and he had come to the conclusion that this was not the right ordinance or the right way to handle the process. Director Funke-Bilu made it crystal clear that he believes the safety of Cambrians and protection against fires is critical. But since the firefighters he spoke to didn’t think the ordinance was a good idea and there was so much opposition from many residents, he could only conclude he had been incorrect in trying to have this ordinance approved. Director Funke-Bilu took the time to talk to the professionals and others, took all the information and used it to make a difficult decision.

Once he had finished, he asked the District’s Legal Council Art Montandon to speak to his opinion of the ordinance. Montandon told the Board that he had debated whether he should stay up all night and power through the draft so it would be ready for the Board to approve yesterday. His final decision was that he couldn’t review it thoroughly enough to be confident it would stand up to a challenge in court. A prudent course of action, especially considering the dubiousness of the “urgency” aspect of this ordinance. As I wrote a few posts ago, by declaring the ordinance to be urgent, the CCSD would be able to avoid the public notice and hearing requirements that would normally apply.

Director Clift spoke up and said that if he were to suggest any change in the current ordinance, it would be very useful if it was clear which parts were identical to the state law and which parts were more restrictive and unique for Cambria’s unique setting. Excellent point, Director. That would certainly help everyone understand more easily which parts of the ordinance were mandated by the state (and which couldn’t be changed) and what the CCSD had added (which would be suject to public comment and revision). And since it should be intelligible to the “average Cambrian”, it would be great if it was written in something more like English, not legalese.

Then Director Sanders (also on the Forest Committee) tried to make the case for passing the ordinance by reminding us of the imminent threat to public safety. Director Funke-Bilu stuck to his guns and continued to insist approving the ordinance would be a bad idea. Director Sanders then suggested that the Board adopt the contents of the ordinance as Board Policy in the interim and have staff study the jurisdictional conflicts between CCSD and Cal Fire. The urgency, according to Ms. Rudock, is that the County’s deadline for adding fees for lots the District clears is July 18. Director Sanders’ proposed another option: that they adopt the ordinance, even temporarily, and whatever flaws could be worked out later. This prompted Director Funke-Bilu to ask if Director Sanders was saying that he would approved an ordinance that might be wrong. Director Sanders’ answer was vague – that it was better to make sure the community was protected than that the ordinance was flawless. Without Montandon’s support and with Director Funke-Bilu standing firm against it, President Cobin suggested they hear public comment on the item while the Directors thought about the pros and cons. Most of the comments were similar to what people said at last year’s meeting on the subject. If this topic interests you and you weren’t able to attend the meeting, check it out on channel 21 or at www.slo-span.org. The discussion was interesting and even though the final decision was a non-decision, my opinion is that our community was well-served. The ordinance that’s been on the books for 30 years and applies only to vacant lots is the rule for this year’s fire season.

Ordinance or not, fire is a danger to any community in a forested area. Smart, responsible homeowners should consider voluntarily creating a defensible space, using their discretion, and perhaps, some guidelines provided by the District or Greenspace in some sort of “How To” pamphlet that outlines some tips. It may be that education takes us further toward our goal than any ordinance. I have confidence in my neighbors and don’t think we need a law defining every act and a punishment for every “incorrect” behavior. Actually, it would be nice if, just once, a law was passed that actually rewarded people for compliance instead of punishing for non-compliance. A gold foil star isn’t much to ask, I don’t think.

In Part 3 of “Good CCSD Meeting is Possible”: the public comment portion of the afternoon, including:

• Jerry McKinnon on the Vet’s Hall
• Michael Stoddard of CFRC presenting its rates proposal to the Board and answering some questions.

News from the Front : Status Quo is the way to go.

Todays’ CCSD meeting was relatively short: the Board adjourned at to Closed Session at 4:00. The agenda had only three main items, plus the Manager’s Report and the Consent Agenda items. Quite a bit gets said during a three and a half hour meeting, and if you’re lucky, you are able to get something done. To summarize the action taken by the Board today: They accepted the auditor’s report for 2006-2007; determined that the Standby/Availability Charges would continue permitted by Statute; and determined that Cambria would be subject to the same Defensible Space clearance laws as the last 30 years. In other words, 3.5 hours to keep the Status Quo.

But don’t let that fool you. It was far from a waste of time. The discussions at this meeting made some very important clarifications and moved the Board toward an attitude of greater public participation and transparency. Why do I think this?

Is Cambria Protected from Runaway Construction Costs?

Director Funke-Bilu asked that the resolution authorizing reimbursement agreement with SLO County be pulled from the consent agenda for discussion. I, for one, was glad he did so, because discussing the issue was an important step toward transparency and clarity. He wanted to be sure that the CCSD’s portion of the funding was limited and the District would not be liable for ballooning construction costs. District Engineer Bob Greshen worked hard on the District’s behalf to reduce the cost of the relocation. Quick recap: The County is the lead agency, working with CalTrans and money from a grant to retrofit the bridge at Leffingwell Park on Moonstone Beach Drive. The CCSD uses the underside of the bridge to pipe water from the San Simeon wells to Cambria. The replacement of the bridge would require the CCSD to temporarily relocate the supply pipes during construction and then move them back, once the bridgework was finished – at a cost of possibly almost $1,000,000. This is where Greshen’s work helped us so much. To avoid the District having to put the pipe relocation out to bid and working around the County’s schedule to make sure the pipe was moved at the right time and the crews weren’t in each other’s way, the pipe relocation will be part of the County’s bid for the work on the bridge, and the District will pay 12% of the cost of that portion of the project to the County. So the agreement with the County means they are adding the pipe relocation to their project, and the District will only have to pay for part it.

Director Funke-Bilu concern was that the agreement didn’t seem to provide for an upper limit for the District’s out-of-pocket cost on the project and the absence of any discussion of the grant and the 88% of the cost it would cover. The matter was not resolved, and timing is critical because there is grant money involved. I’m glad Director Funke-Bilu is looking out for the community’s pocketbook, I just hope it won’t mean we’re out on our own again with the pipe relocation.

An Audit of the Audit = Revision

Next up was the auditor to present their findings regarding fiscal year 2006-07. And this time it was Director Clift’s turn to speak up for the community. He raised the issue of over $2.6 million being shown as a loan from the general fund to the Water Enterprise Fund. The funds had come from the General Fund to cover deficits in the Water Enterprise and the costs of the Pine Knolls tanks. Director Sanders spoke up and indicated that some, if not all of the Board members understood it wasn’t really a loan, that they didn’t really intend that the Water Enterprise Fund would be paying the money back to the General Fund. It’s one of the things the Board has done fairly regularly although Director Sanders wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t official policy of the Board and he would prefer if they didn’t have to do that. The auditor was clearly surprised at this information and said that the audit report would have to be changed to reflect that.

I called Director Clift this evening, to make sure I understood it correctly. He said he raised the issue because he was concerned that if it were considered a loan, it put the Water Enterprise Fund even further in the hole, which could trigger even higher rates to raise funds to pay it back. The board briefly discussed the reality that they had been using general fund money to keep the Water enterprise afloat and that having a policy about how money is identified when it moves from one fund to another should be addressed. They directed that the auditor change the report to reflect the $2.6 million as an interfund transfer, instead of a loan. This doesn’t change the the actual balances or other information. It just more accurately shows that the board didn’t intend that the water enterprise fund would pay the money back into the general fund.

Director Clift is clearly taking his responsibility to this community seriously. He had read the audit and asked one very important question that illuminated the absence of policy regarding interfund transfers and loans and the use of general funds for capitol projects and to cover deficits in the Enterprise funds. Now the Board needs to address that issue, so we can be assured that the community’s money is appropriately managed.

In Good CCSD Meetings are Possible Part 2:

The Cambria Wildland Fire Protection Act : Direct Funke-Bilu shows commitment to the community and integrity in withdrawing his support for the ordinance.

The CFRC presents its rates proposal to the Board and answers some questions.

(NOTE: Read about what happened at the meeting in the two posts after this one.)

Rushing an Ordinance Through

The CCSD has scheduled approval of an ordinance tomorrow. Each and every property owner in Cambria will have to follow the ordinance and will be subject to its penalties. In my opinion, the spirit of the law is being trampled and this ordinance is being rushed through on a chariot of “Fire!”. Yes, this ordinance has floated around and been discussed and edited and discussed some more for more than a year and a great deal of work has gone into producing it and getting it to the Board with almost impossible time constraints.

Good Public Support and Participation

The CCSD seems to have forgotten that the key to public support and participation is an informed constituency. Not only is it a good idea, it is required that the District provide the information (in the newspaper and at least two places in town). Under the Government Code, the CCSD is obligated to publish notice and at least a summary of the ordinance before the meeting at which the ordinance is passed. In a Cambrian article last week, Kathe Tanner wrote that if the Forest committee approves the ordinance at its April 17 meeting, the CCSD would likely approve the ordinance at the regular meeting this week. As a topic, it was also included as a “tentative agenda” in the meeting announcement section of the paper. I posted a draft of the ordinance earlier today, but whether the notification requirements were met by the article in last week’s paper and whatever has been posted at the Vet’s Hall is another matter. This is an important ordinance and the effort that has gone into creating a good set of guidelines that may reduce our risk of damaging fires is appreciated. But for the public to be supportive and participate, they must have the information far enough in advance to form an opinion or comment that will be useful in some real way. Even ten years of work by scores of people at dozens of meetings cannot be a substitute for ample and clear summary or the full text of the ordinance being available to the public . Every person who owns property in Cambria will be expected to abide by the rules of the ordinance.

Democracy is participatory…intermittently (or the Yo-Yo effect)

I can empathize with the CCSD Board and staff. As a member of the North Coast Advisory Council for 2 years, I have been at meetings with 95% of the chairs empty and have had Cambrians approach me with “Why didn’t anyone tell us this would be going on?” To which I regularly reply, “Yes, we discussed this and it was on the agenda in the newspaper and the NCAC website. Please come to the meetings.” Unfortunately, low participation tends to be the norm. And finding a solution to this eternal frustration could trigger lasting world peace. I can only imagine the frustration borne of 7 years of involvement as a Board member and hearing similar sentiments. It’s no-win, though, to blame people for not paying closer attention earlier in the process. Instead their participation should be welcomed. The response to their negative, no-change-is-good-change comments should be to ensure everyone understands the problem and proposed solution and ask them to suggest a feasible alternative solution.

“Stress is an ignorant state. It believes that everything is an emergency. Nothing is that important.” -Natalie Goldberg

The CCSD seems to be ducking in the back door, complete with trench coat, shades and a wig. To get around the noticing requirements, the board will be considering this ordinance as an urgency issue – and they will be asked to explain what the urgency is. Gov’t Code §25123 “(d) Those for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, which shall contain a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency, and shall be passed by a four-fifths vote of the board of supervisors.” (included by reference in § 61000 – Community Services District law).

While the danger of a major fire is real, the urgency of the situation is less than first glance might indicate. The current abatement ordinance for vacant lots could continue to help get them cleared. And anyone genuinely concerned about the safety of their home can maintain their property to the standards of the ordinance without passage of same. Not everyone needs a law or ordinance to be carved into the tablet before they will conform to it. If the ordinance in some way rewarded those who complied, perhaps it would be more urgent. Instead, this ordinance punishes those who fail to follow it – either through fines or a charred foundation.

“Poor planning on your part does not necessarily constitute an emergency on my part.”

This is not a new tactic for the CCSD. A similar “Emergency” and threat of fire were the reasons provided on the emergency building permit for the Pine Knolls Tanks Projects. In the Coastal Commission’s statement on the project, Coastal Commission staff questioned the validity of the emergency permit because it had been known for years that fire storage in Cambria was inadequate and thus this inadequacy was not “sudden or
unexpected” as required for use of the emergency permit process. Further inquiry into the state of the
existing tanks revealed that they were not actually damaged by the 2003 earthquake but also that they
did not meet current standards for seismic bracing so if there was another earthquake, they might fail.
Commission staff advised that this information was not a valid basis for granting an emergency permit
and requested that the district withdraw their request for an emergency permit and continue processing
the regular permit for the project. The district refused to withdraw the emergency permit and
Commission staff started proceedings to obtain an Executive Director’s Cease and Desist Order against
the district and the county, as the issuing agency, to stop any development under the emergency permit.
(Notice Prior to Issuance of Executive Director Cease and Desist Order, Number ED-04-CD-02,
October 21, 2004, see Exhibit H). Upon receipt of the notice, the County rescinded the emergency permit (Letter from Victor Holanda, Planning Director to Sarah Christie, dated October 22, 2004, Please see Exhibit I). Of course, there was a bit more kicking and screaming before the CCSD finally completed the regular permitting process and the Coastal Commission report is an interesting read. Using a sort of shady way to get around the public’s participation once could be inexperience or error or bad advice. Two, okay, we’ll let this one slide. I’m worried that thumbing their nose at the laws they find inconvenient is becoming a habit.

Pay the standby fees, then keep standing by

Also on the agenda tomorrow is a Public Hearing to Consider Fixing of Water and Wastewater Standby or Availability Charges. The agenda does not elaborate on what “fixing” it will mean.

Gov’t Code §54984.3. The governing body of the local agency shall adopt a resolution to initiate proceedings to fix a standby charge. The resolution shall contain all of the following

(a) A statement that the report of a qualified engineer is on file with the agency and that a standby charge is proposed based upon the report. The report shall include all of the following:

(1) A description of the charge and the method by which it will be imposed.

(2) A compilation of the amount of the charge proposed for each parcel subject to the charge.

(3) A statement of the methodology and rationale followed in determining the degree of benefit conferred by the service for which the charge is made.

(4) The other factors listed in Section 54984.2.

(b) A description of the lands upon which the charge is to be imposed. Assessor parcel numbers shall constitute sufficient description for this purpose.

(c) The amount of the charge for each of the lands so described.

(d) The date, time, and place upon which the governing body will hold a public protest hearing regarding the imposition of the charge, and notice that the governing body will hear and consider all objections or protests, if any, to the proposed charges.

54984.4. (a) The local agency shall comply with the notice, protest, and hearing procedures in Section 53753.

(b) In the absence of a majority protest, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 53753, the governing body of the local agency may determine to fix the charge.

54984.7. If the procedures set forth in this chapter at the time a charge was established were followed, the governing body may, by resolution, continue a charge pursuant to Section 54984.2 in successive years at the same rate. If new, increased, or extended assessments are proposed, the governing body shall comply with the notice, protest, and hearing procedures in Section 53753.

54984.8. After the making of a final determination pursuant to Sections 54984.4 and 54984.7, the local agency shall cause the charge to be collected at the same time, and in the same manner, as is available to it under applicable law.

Were the property owners who will be affected by this hearing properly noticed? Or is this yet another example of working the system against the spirit of the law and principles of democracy?

“If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” – Will Rogers

I am looking forward to seeing how the Board president handles the agenda items tomorrow. Change may be slow in coming, but I haven’t given up. I remain optimistic that active, informed public participation with a Board willing to be respectful and cooperative will allow this community to find realistic solutions to the realities of living in this beautiful town. And I believe we are ALL on the SAME side: we all want the best Cambria possible.

Tomorrow’s CCSD meeting agenda looks benign at first glance. Some regular consent agenda items, a resolution authorizing payment to the county for the Leffingwell Bridge Project, committee assignments and such.

The meat of the meeting

• audit presentation from Moss, Levy & Hartzheim,
• consideration of a new fire ordinance to Adopt Cambria Community Wildland Fire Protection Urgency Ordinance 01-2008 and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, and
• public hearing to change the water standby rates.

For more on the budget and financial audits, visit the CCSD’s website.

Add your comment on the fire ordinance or audit here and attend the meeting at the Vet’s Hall tomorrow at 12:30pm

The Cambrians for Fiscally Responsible CCSD have presented their expectations about a rate increase to Tammy Rudock and the CCSD Board of Directors. This action follows a unanimous vote to support a proposal by Michael Stoddard that was based on elements in previous proposals, information provided by the Master Plan committee, and discussions at Rates committee and the whole group over the last few months. Below are links to the proposal offered as well as the minutes of the April 16, 2008 meeting.

My hat is off to these folks. The time and energy that has brought us to this point has been unbelievable. The CFRC is scheduled to meet again on May 7, at the Rabobank from 6-8 PM.

April 16, 2008 CFRC Meeting Minutes

23 people attended (5 new people)

Jerry McKinnon opened meeting.

First item for discussion:

Alternate Rates Proposal presented by Michael Stoddard, in addition to other 3 proposals presented at the April 2, 2008 Rabobank meeting

Motion: Jeff Hellman To go forward with a vote to approve a proposal.

Passed unanimously

Motion: Jeff Hellman Accept proposal 4 to be presented to CCSD

Passed Unanimously

Motion: John MacKinnon Present the proposal to Tammy and the directors immediately.

Passed Unanimously

Discussion of how to spread the word about the proposal and action decided upon.

(The four page rates proposal is now available in the AboutCambria.com library.)

Second Discussion Item

Preliminary discussion of two oversight committee proposals – one by Gary Talley and one by Cynthia Hawley. Written proposals briefly discussed.

Not enough interest in forming a committee, so the issues is continued and further discussions will clarify.

Adjourn

I recently provided my five single-spaced pages of comments on the Water Master Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. Ten minutes before the deadline. I have a couple more pages, but no more time. So the Water Supply and the CCSD’s proposed plan to solve the declared 350 shortage are still on my mind. Then I ran across the following couple of paragraphs on the Western City Magazine website :

Despite the fact that water supplies are undeniably constrained (and even oversubscribed, in some cases) and climate change is likely to constrain them even more, there is more than enough water to go around — and that includes enough water to maintain the environmental and biological integrity of our rivers, streams, estuaries and wetlands.

In November 2004, the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) published An Investment Strategy for California Water. This publication (available online at www.pcl.org) concluded that new demands for water associated with California’s projected growth could not only be met, but could be met economically and without damaging California’s environment. The following year, the state Department of Water Resources essentially confirmed PCL’s findings in The California Water Plan Update 2005, Bulletin 160-05.

So now I ask:

If I can’t get a second opinion on the state of the water supply shortage in Cambria, can I at least get a first opinion on the qualifications and background of our current source of information? Or a list of references I could contact? Surely if they have been awarded a contract, the CCSD would have this information.

The next CCSD meeting is April 24 at 12:30 at the Vets Hall. See you there!

Increasingly, cities are finding themselves stuck between a rock – developers – and a hard place – citizens who demand an end to seemingly endless growth and expansion. Local government is caught in the middle, working to respond to the needs of the community. The City of Monrovia recently devised an innovative solution to this divisive problem, in a way that engaged the community and built support in a positive way. In July, Monrovia’s residents voted overwhelmingly to tax themselves to buy the last remaining open space in the adjacent foothills and hold it in trust as a wilderness preserve. The tax was supported in every precinct in the city.

Monrovia is a diverse town of nearly 40,000 that lies on the southern slope of the San Gabriel Mountains, along the northern edge of the San Gabriel Valley. Although just 20 miles from downtown Los Angeles, the community has retained its small-town charm, nestled snugly in the surrounding foothills. For years, Monrovia has been one of the last development opportunities in the Foothill Corridor. Residential building has encroached on, but not yet dominated, the still-wild lands on the community’s northern border. Multi-million-dollar homes cover the hillsides of communities on both sides of Monrovia.

Residents got a taste of what loomed ahead when one large development was built in the early 1980s, but during the recession years of the early and mid ’90s, development was stagnant. Now, on the heels of an expanding economy, pressure for more and more residential development is growing. However, unlike the 1980s, Monrovia is now experiencing a concurrent demand from vocal residents to preserve and maintain open space.

The Need to Preserve Natural Habitat

About 1,000 acres of undeveloped land along the hillsides separate Monrovia’s residential neighborhoods from the Angeles National Forest above them. About 400 of those acres are owned by the city and have long been set aside as park and hiking areas. The remaining 600 acres are in private hands, and open to development. These hillsides include the last remaining riparian woodlands along the entire Valley-to-Valley corridor of the San Gabriel range. The hillsides are rich with vegetation and wildlife, including deer, mountain lions and bears. Sampson, a bear that gained notoriety for making himself at home in local residents’ hot tubs and swimming pools, drew national attention several years ago and came to symbolize the impact that urbanization and development are having on the last remaining areas of wilderness.

In recent years, as the economy and housing market were renewed, so too was the fear that developers were about to exploit that last wilderness. This concern fueled an intense desire among Monrovians to preserve those environmentally sensitive lands. The same fear is fueling similar desires in other communities experiencing similar challenges.

Responding to a Vocal Community

Frankly, the concern took city officials by surprise. During the preceding 10 years, the city had convened more than 50 meetings of residents and developers, consultants and neighborhood groups, and had put together some pretty tough development standards for those hillsides. It was particularly pleasing that this Hillside Advisory Committee, which included such diverse interests as developers, and environmentalists, had reached a consensus with which they could all live.

The committee-created standards became the foundation of a specific plan, which was required before development of remaining open land could take place. When the specific plan hit the planning commission and its public hearings, however, the process bogged down. In hearing after hearing, residents showed up – as many as 400 at a time – to protest any level of new development in the hills, citing environmental destruction, displacement of animal life, aquifer damage, fire hazards, a drain on city resources, increased traffic on residential streets and similar concerns. They asked the planning commission and, ultimately the city council, to “just say no” to any new development on the open lands.

The Importance of Listening And Straight Talk

But simply saying “no” is not a legal option. Landowners are entitled to reasonably develop their properties, and cities that impose unreasonable limits on that right face costly “taking” lawsuits that could leave them either having to allow development or having to buy the land and pay huge damages. It’s not easy to explain this to 400 angry residents in a heated public hearing who want no more development — period.

The local planning commission did an extraordinary job, patiently listening to residents and working through the issues with them. Instead of unproductive confrontation, residents felt they were being listened to and that they were participating in a solution.

The planning commission, working closely with the city staff and city attorney, came up with a new plan — far less dense than the earlier consensus plan, but still too much for the residents to accept. The revised specific plan went to the city council, with residents still demanding no more growth. Staff cautioned that any further cuts in density would jeopardize the city’s legal position and result in lawsuits.

Read the rest of this article on the League of California Cities’ website.

by Donald R. Hopper

Originally Published in the September, 2000 Issue of Western City magazine