There are essentially three classes of Cambria property owners: those who have homes on their property, those who own property that is included on the “Waiting List” for future water connections, and those who own undeveloped property not on the CCSD Wait List. There are property owners in the latter two classes who are interested in building homes on that property to live in. As a result of the CCSD Board’s determination that Cambria’s existing water demand equals or exceeds the dependable supply and declaration of a “water emergency”, owners with undeveloped property are not able to build here.
The CCSD currently serves water to 3,926 developed properties and sewer to 3,816 properties¹. There are approximately 666 single family residential properties on the CCSD’s waiting list.² There are 35 multi-family residential properties on the list. The waiting list was “closed” in 1990, when the County adopted a Growth Management Ordinance. According to the research in the Buildout Reduction Report and the data on lot mergers to date, a conservative estimate is that there will be 1,502 potentially buildable, legally zoned residential lots that would be left over inside the CCSD service area when the CCSD has said they would stop issuing connections (4,650 residential). If the undeveloped lots in Special Projects Areas 1 and 2 are included, the number goes up to 2,418. It is unknown how many property owners that own legal lots will be excluded from building.
The CCSD does not have authority over Land Use, that is the responsibility of the County and the California Coastal Commission. But its the CCSD that has essentially controlled development by not issuing “Intent to Serve” letters. This seemed like the CCSD was acting outside its authority with no objections from the County or the Coastal Commission. I am in favor of local control over community planning, but since we are not incorporated, the County is responsible for land use planning and permitting (authorized by the Coastal Commission’s approval of the Local Coastal Plan in December 2007).
To get a better understanding of the situation, in February, I sent an email to the County with some questions about growth in Cambria and a “county waiting list” I had heard about. Jim Hofschoer of SLO County Planning provided some useful information.
The CCSD is under a declared “water emergency”, which allows them broad powers to prevent new building, etc. from worsening the water availability. The County has not adopted an building moratorium, instead letting the CCSD implement the appropriate measures.
To give the CCSD control over who builds and when, we developed the following regulation in the North Coast Plan:
” 8. Cambria Community Services District Review. Prior to application acceptance, land use and building permit applications shall include a written verification of water and sewer service from the Cambria Community Services District. A water and sewer service
condition compliance letter from the Cambria Community Services District shall be provided to the Department of Planning and Building prior to final building inspection.” (NCAP p 7-31)On October 23, 1990 (Ordinance No. 2477) San Luis Obispo County adopted a Growth Management Ordinance (GMO), Title 26 of the San Luis Obispo County Code. Subsequently, an allocation waiting list for the community of Cambria was initiated in accordance with the GMO. Customers fill out an allocation request form and pay an application fee to get on the allocation waiting list. The list is prioritized by the date and time the customer applies for an allocation (i.e., #1 on the waiting list is the “oldest” request on file).
Prior to the adoption of the Growth Management Ordinance, the Cambria Community Services District (CCSD) kept a list of customers that wanted to build residences in Cambria. This list is solely managed and administered through CCSD, not the County Planning and Building Department. After the GMO was adopted the “next” customer that wanted to get on the CCSD waiting list was directed to the County to get on the allocation waiting list per the newly adopted GMO. The County’s allocation waiting list does not include those customers on the CCSD list. All of the customers on the CCSD list submitted an application to CCSD prior to the first customer that applied to get on the County’s allocation waiting list. Once the CCSD list is exhausted then the next customer in line would be #1 on the County allocation waiting list.
Currently the County has 343 single family allocations, and 9 Multi-Family and residential unit ownership project allocations (49
dwelling units) on a Cambria allocation waiting list.Based upon guidance provided to date by the Board of Supervisors (adopted ordinances), the Cambria allocation waiting list is valid and will remain so until such time as the Board of Supervisors directs planning staff otherwise.
On May 23, 2006 the Board of Supervisors adopted changes to the GMO (Ordinance No. 3091) that became effective on July 1, 2006. The Cambria growth rate has been set at 0% for the period from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009 and the County Planning and Building Department cannot accept general allocation applications during this period. The Department can only accept allocation applications with a building permit submittal that are accompanied by an intent-to-serve letter from the Cambria Community Services District for replacements, transfers and grandfathered water meters.
Next Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors’ agenda includes an amendment to the GMO mentioned above that would extend the 0% growth rate through June 30, 2012. This ordinance is additional support for our current No Growth atmosphere. And yet another blow to those who would like to build a home here.
I don’t support unchecked growth, but neither do the County or the Coastal Commission. Prior to 2006, the County had a policy of allocating 1% of the total current dwelling units in Cambria as permits for new dwellings. Since June 2006 they have allocated 0%. Once the CCSD resumes issuing Intent to Serve letters, the County plans to set growth at 1%. The rest of the county (with a couple exceptions that are at 1%) is at 2.3%. Runaway growth just isn’t possible. And if the County suddenly does an about face on its policies, I find it highly unlikely that the Coastal Commission would allow uncontrolled growth.
I think we would have to be crazy to think those property owners are just going to hand over their property for a pittance or continue to have patience indefinitely, waiting for the day when we’ve declared the water emergency over. It almost seems like the CCSD is doing what it can to make it more attractive to sell than to wait.
Here’s some food for thought: if the 1% growth was resumed in 2012, in 10 years (2019) there will be 4277 dwellings (if that many people apply for building permits.) It will be 2027 before permit number 4,650 is issued. In 2027, we’ll be gearing up for the fifth presidential election since Obama’s election last year, Nicole Kidman will be 60 and kids born today will be halfway through high school. That’s not forever, but it is an awfully long time before anyone NOT on the list could even apply to build. It would be 25 years before the buildout number the county estimates (6,130) would be reached.
¹”Parcel Count Information for Proposed Rate Increase” CCSD, April 30, 2009
²”Peliminary Draft of the Buildout Reduction Program” CCSD, October 2005
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=951d60d5-327f-4c75-9f5a-7c6576e25dd6)
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
Cambria has too much talk about growth with too little careful thinking about growth might mean. Does growth mean
* increased customers for water and sewer services?
* increased property tax revenue due to new or expanded improvement on a parcel?
* increased protection of natural resources?
* more children for the schools?
* increased work for the Sheriff?
* many more volunteers for non-profits?
* more utility service for those outside the urban line?
* increased pot holes that grow more widespread?
* increased economic interpretation of property rights?
* increase in ocean pollution?
* increase in fire risk?
* increase in business zoning?
That’s just the start of topics needing serious discussion. All I hear now is stereotypes growing louder and nastier, hurled in all directions. I shudder to think of plans for Cambria’s future fertilized with that.
Cambria grew steadily for a century, and it has not grown for a less than decade. Growth is a much more natural state. It brings about numerous issues good and bad, and they get figured out. If people come together and are considerate of one-another’s concerns the issues get worked out pretty well. If one faction seizes power and won’t deal with another group, then someone gets screwed.
That’s not unique to Cambria. Small towns all around the world have dealt with these kinds of issues forever. Thinking like Cambria has to re-invent the wheel is myopic and navel-gazing.
There are established laws and procedures in place that have been implemented around the state of California to deal with all the issues we face, and for some reason Cambria and the County of SLO have not yet availed themselves of these tools. I think it’s largely just being stuck in the last century. It’s also a lot of finger-pointing, with County blaming CCSD, and CCSD blaming County. Things are near coming to a head, and I believe we have some leadership in place now in both agencies that wants to get off the dime. That leadership deserves support. We need focus on the possibilities, not on the obstacles. All this focus on the obstacles is just a way to keep from doing anything.
By the way, if the County GMO has the growth rate at 0% and plans to extend that rate for another 3 years, I don’t know what you call that other than a moratorium. There is in fact a County moratorium.
Deryl,
I agree that we must begin to focus on solutions for Cambria. I also believe that without an understanding of the facts and, to some extent, the politics of the last 15 years, Cambrians won’t be able to stand up and work together to solve this ever-extending issue. You have been closely involved and interested for many years. There is a majority of Cambrians who have not. Frankly, I’m tired of the finger-pointing, too and have believed for a long time that Cambria is silly to think we must re-invent the wheel. Our leaders must begin to build an atmosphere of community, cooperation and participation. They must engage Cambrians in a genuine way and continue to educate the community about what the future of Cambria can be and what we can be doing to get there. Over the next several weeks, I will be continuing to post Cambria’s more recent history as part of my own journey to figuring out how we got here – because here is really not that great, in my opinion. I’ll also be posting analyses and opinions from others familiar with our issues and, more importantly, examples of how other communities are responding to their own obstacles. And while I do have my own opinions about this mess, my goal is to avoid hyperbole, political spin and close-mindedness. I hope if I stray too far from “objective” toward stubborn grandstanding, someone will call me on it. The last thing we need is to get bogged down into the distractions of bickering and minutiae. We don’t all agree on everything, but we do probably agree on some of the most important things. Let’s start there.
Thank you Amanda for your rationale analysis. Pretty right on. I do have to respond to a couple of John Hofschroer’s comments though: “To give the CCSD control over who builds and when…” Because of the Code 350 moratorium, CCSD does control the “when”. But the “who” was cast in stone a long time ago in the form of the CCSD water wait list. Below is an excerpt from the GMO. I have added my comments in [brackets], and I have emphasized certain passages by changing to ALL CAPS. I have omitted the recent growth rate updates for brevity.
Communities with existing waiting lists [as of 1990].
The following communities have waiting lists for development. THOSE WAITING LISTS ARE ADMINISTERED BY THE SPECIFIED COMMUNITY SERVICE PROVIDER(S) AND THE ISSUANCE OF ALLOCATIONS BY THE COUNTY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL
WAITING LISTS, as specified below.
(1) Cambria. The Cambria Community Services District (CCSD) has an existing waiting list for water service permits. The CCSD is allocating resources in compliance with its own resource management policies and ordinances, so as to be compatible with the Resource Management System of the County General Plan and to carry out the county’s purposes, goals and objectives. In recognition of the management policies in place, the allocation of dwelling units in Cambria shall be conducted as follows:
(a) Allocation limit. The annual number of new dwelling units to be allocated shall not exceed 2.3% [subsequently reduced to 1% then 0%] of the total number of dwelling units within the community services district boundary within the Urban Reserve Line as designated in the County General Plan. THE DWELLING UNITS TO BE ALLOCATED SHALL BE TAKEN FROM THOSE APPLICANTS NEXT IN LINE ON THE COMMUNITY WAITING LIST. The number of allocated units may be reduced if the resources are not available to support the maximum number of potential allocations, as described below. Any dwelling unit allocations not utilized by Cambria shall become available for countywide allocation in accordance with the provisions of this title.
(b) Freezing of existing waiting lists. In order to eventually eliminate the need for an individual community waiting list for services, THE CCSD LIST THAT EXISTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1990, SHALL BE FROZEN FOR PURPOSES OF ADMINISTERING THIS TITLE. THE COUNTY SHALL OBTAIN A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE WAITING LIST AND ALL FUTURE ALLOCATIONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY SHALL COME FROM THE CERTIFIED LIST. ANY APPLICANT WISHING TO APPLY FOR A DWELLING UNIT ALLOCATION THAT IS NOT ON THE CERTIFIED LIST SHALL APPLY TO THE COUNTY FOR PLACEMENT ON THE COUNTY’S WAITING LIST FOR REQUESTS FOR ALLOCATION. However, per section (a) (i) above, no new allocation requests other than those accompanied by an intent–to–serve letter from the Cambria Community Services District for transferred meters and 8 grandfathered Allocations for new residences in Cambria each fiscal year in the period from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009. AT THE POINT IN THE FUTURE WHEN THE EXISTING COMMUNITY WAITING LIST IS EXHAUSTED, ALL FUTURE REQUESTS FOR NEW DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE ADDED TO THE COUNTY’S WAITING LIST ON A FIRST–COME–FIRST–SERVED BASIS AND ALL ALLOCATIONS FOR NEW DWELLING UNITS IN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY SHALL BE MADE FROM THE COUNTY WAITING LIST.
I think this is pretty clear that the “who” is the list that was frozen and certified copy provided to County back in 1990. If any property not on that list got a permit, it seems clear it as in violation of this ordinance. Of course CCSD has its own ordinances for how the list will be managed, sales and transfers for example.
And as I noted before, there is most definitely a County adopted moratorium, in the form of a 0% max allowable growth rate.
In the past there have been untruths that proliferated and were widely accepted as fact, and they have been a large part of the obstacles to solving the long term problem. Some examples:
The County’s LCP used to state a huge figure as Cambria’s potential buildout. I think it was over 11,000. The number was based on an unrealistic assumption of how dense Cambria could become, ignoring several constraints such as terrain and existing tract maps that could not be changed. The most recent previous CCSD board showed great leadership in doing its own survey and challenging the County’s figure. The County still has not completely brought its potential buildout limit in line with reality, but CCSD knows the numbers now and has the survey data to prove it. It is those numbers that are relied on in the Buildout Reduction Plan.
Rumors and accusations have been passed around that there is some big developer that wants to “pave over” Cambria. There is no such thing, Cambria’s vacant lots are virtually all owned by individuals just like you.
There have been suggestions that Cambria could become another Orange County. But Orange Co became what it is because it’s next to Los Angeles, meaning lots of jobs. There is no economic engine in SLO Co that would ever support that kind of growth. Nor is there the political or social atmosphere to allow it to happen.
Only when people learn the facts and stop listening to hysterical bogeyman stories will they be able to come together and find a solution that works and is fair for everyone involved.
The BRP committee has the facts and members are putting a lot of time into understanding them. Let them do their job and support their conclusions. Those who attack their conclusions just want to continue the problem.
Another widely believed myth around Cambria is that there is no legal right to build. The thinking then goes that if there is no right to build, then if Cambrian residents just band together to oppose growth and anything that would support it, then they can keep Cambria just like it is forever.
If people believe that they can avoid growth forever, then there is no reason to expend any time or energy thinking or planning for what growth might mean, like Elizabeth’s list above.
I do like her question – Does growth mean more volunteers for non-profits? I know that I would like to be spending my time on something more productive than this fight trying to prepare Cambria for the inevitable.
All I ask is to be allowed to build a modest little house on property I bought that will be a lot like the house you live in. Is that really too much to ask? How can you deny that? Don’t you have a heart? How can you be so selfish as to think you have the right to lock down that town and keep it all to yourselves without paying for it? It’s really astonishing.
A bit of of Cambria development history:
It is quite interesting to hear the figure head of UNLOC explain to everyone who the “who is” in regards to the wait lists of the CCSD.
It sounds like a special class of lot owners who treat the water and sewer lists like it was some form of commodity trading at the Chicago Exchange.
The fact of the matter is that they are no different than me! I am the “who”. A Cambria land owner on the laughable County list for a future building allocation, that is actionable someday when the policies and procedures of the CCSD issue a water “commitment” to the wait list holder in the form of an Intent to Serve letter. The CCSD will someday have to join us “lifer’s” on the County’s list, once this 350 M…….m is lifted. I dare say the county has never uttered the dreaded “M” word yet! Implemented it yes, said it ….no!
Time to dispell the myth of the list(s). (Sewer and Water) and importantly, in that order.
The list for sewer was created in 1986 under S-86 which was adopted to place landowners in line for a “sewer” connection when the 125 annual allocations were first exceeded in the mid 80′s. The Coastal Commission extended and adopted the original EPA condition under Coastal Development Permit No. 428-10, issued to the CCSD in 1981. It is in force and effect today…! This is a very important condition of record in that it is the same sewer list in which the Improvement District landowners are allowed to obtain their special benefit for being assessed for the Heath Lane treatment works.
Neither the CCSD or the COUNTY can deny the special benefit that accrued to “all the lot owners” who paid for the sewer and water system upgrades in the 1970′s
The CCSD tied the sewer list to the water list in April, 1986 and as Deryl Robinson pointed out, closed access to the list in 1990 to conform with the County Growth Management Ordinance (CCSD Ordinance 14-90 as amended).
Someone forgot to ask the remaining lot owner’s if they wanted to give up their property “right” to access their benefit to hookup to the sewer, at the same time, the Coastal Commission didn’t approve the change or amendment of CDP No. 428-10. So that means, that somewhere between 1990 and today, LAFCO approved the detachment of the rest of us or is that why Title 26 of the county is not part of the Local Coastal Plan..???? Sounds like a good story for 60 Minutes or Dateline.
The CCSD does not think that the lot owners in Cambria that are not on the CCSD wait lists, are entitled to an answer if they can be provided services for sewer and water functions from this District. You ask the General Manager or the Board this question and they run like the dickens and have that “deer in the headlike” look on their faces. Maybe the rest of us landowners really don’t exist here in Cambria, other than to pay taxes, healthcare fees, ambulance fees, school assessment bond payments, road assessments, and of course my yearly right of passage…..the dreaded weed abatement.
But of course, the good news is that from 1976 to 1993, we non-existent lot owners (not on the list) paid water and sewer availability charges until someone at the CCSD woke up one day and said uh oh….. They can’t get on this list! We better not charge them for that fee that maintains their sewer treatment plant as required by the improvement district contracts and agreements. Did I say must be charged, because they have a special benefit to connect to the sewer treatment plant. Oh yeah, that is a requirement under the law…….! So, as a landowner within the boundaries of the improvement districts (Nos 1 and 2), I am required to pay my fair share to maintain my public treatment works facility on Heath Lane. I still do not know how the County and the CCSD decided that I was not required to do that, and to take away my right to sewer.
I still to this day do not know how the existing wait list holders can be offered a water and sewer committment from the CCSD at least three times in the 90′s and still stay on the list, while us lifer’s on the County allocation list, see allocation, after allocation , after allocation, expire and go to everyone else outside the CCSD boundary. Tis a puzzlement or is it really a 401K in sheep’s clothing.
I will leave you today’s with the famous words of Sarah Christie of the Planning Commission.
“How did he get here, he doesn’t have a will serve letter form the CCSD. Why did you elevate this thing up here to us……!
Well Mr. Berge, you can always buy someone else’s right to water and sewer by buying another lot from someone on the list or that has a meter. A few years ago, you could buy one for I think around $17,000.00 dollars, not sure now.”"
I thought this was America, and I already have a property right to sewer, and I have a right to water from the state. More on this later,
Thought of the day…………Why do I have to retire a lot when I buy the lot’s right to water and sewer committment from the CCSD. The CCSD says I have to do what!!!! I have to retire the lot which is a legal lot, not part of a new subdivision. Sounds like a taking to me. Oh, I’m not suppose to know that. I’m just a lowly County wait list holder who likes to pay taxes, fees, and weed abatement.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, the news of the lawsuit’s demise has been greatly exaggerated.
As you may know, the appellate brief was filed this past week, and the CCSD has until June 11, 2009 to file a response.
I believe that Cambria residents should understand the central issues of the appeal, so they can understand the importance of the district’s response.
The CCSD failed to respond to a referral from the County whether the CCSD would provide water, sewer or fire services to the Berge property. By remaining mute the CCSD caused the land use permit to be denied. Berge subsequently requested a variance hearing to allow the CSSD to consider whether a variance should be approved that could limit the potential liability for not answering the referral, and for not providing evidence that the Berge property is eligible for these services. Again, the CCSD was mute.
Clearly, the agencies have worked in concert to prevent a “final determination” from being made. Presumably, they find comfort that without an answer to the variance, Berge is not ripe for adjudication because he does not have the final determination the case law requires to proceed with a “taking” case.
The CCSD evidently finds comfort in water law cases (primarily Gilbert) that say that a compensable claim for inverse condemnation cannot be maintained when the issue involves insufficient water to provide a water connection. This case does not involve a water connection and case precedent does not provide a shield large enough to blanket federally protected due process rights. Very simply, when the state requires a minor use permit in the coastal zone, and the permit exhibits do not require a water commitment or connection, an applicant has a right to obtain a response from the CCSD that informs him whether he had a right to service, even if that right to service is conditioned upon a new water source. When no response is obtained, and the permit must be denied unless a response is received, the CCSD has painted property owners into a corner.
District members have a right to know whether the CCSD will continue to carry the Coastal Commissions water, or whether it is time to admit the Coastal Commission is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. If the CCSD is hostage to a permit condition to build the desalination plant, and cannot provide evidence that service will be provided without collapsing the mandated build out reduction program, then its time to inform the court what’s behind the refusal to inform property owners if they will be served or not. To continue the ludicrous position that property owners have no right to sewer service when those rights came from assessment and bonding proceedings in accordance with the California Constitution increases the likelihood that the court will find the CCSD primarily responsible for the infringement of development and property rights. With a finding of responsibility comes liability.
The same reasoning applies to fire services. How can properties not be eligible for fire services? Fire services assessments are on your property tax bill, and they can only pass Prop 218 scrutiny if a special benefit (the right to enjoy fire protection) accrues to the taxed parcel. Does the CCSD intend to argue that water law affects our right to fire services too? Read the water code starting with Section 350. You will not find authority to affect sewer and fire rights.
It seems unlikely that the CCSD can effectively argue that the affected property owners never had a right to receive any of these services from the CCSD. State law requires connection to sewer when it fronts in the street, so there are a number of proofs that demonstrate that our properties have a right and obligation to use the sewer facilities.
In my view it is time for the CCSD to admit that the state is behind the scheme to cap growth. While the voters may not want growth, I do not think they would knowingly approve regulations that remove the right to develop from neighboring land owners, particularly if they will end up holding the bag for the cost of this scheme.
In sum, will the CCSD increase its share of responsibility by continuing the charade that disguise its true motives? Will it continue to argue that water law (the right to prohibit water connections) provides the discretion to ignore the land use authority tasked to protect the permit processing rights of the fee paying applicant?
The court will have no problem reading the approved water master plan which incorporates the build out reduction plan as a growth capping scheme designed to mitigate the growth inducing impacts of the desalination plant. Those not on the wait list are the intended victims of the capping scheme. It is already in the public record for all to read. Why dig a deeper hole by willfully deceiving the court as to the true reasons behind remaining mute.
It is time to admit that the gorilla calls the shots. Perhaps it is not too late to deflect some of the responsibility and liability to where it belongs.
The “who”, according to the GMO is the certified frozen list. I didn’t write the law, but I invested in it because I can read it and it’s pretty clear. It uses the word “shall” four times in one paragraph. It doesn’t leave any room for judgment. This is the same language that has been there since the beginning.
By my reading, so far the county does not have any way to grant a permit allocation to anyone except an applicant from that list. If they were to modify the ordinance now so they could do that, they would have a whole new set of problems.