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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.