About Cambria

Water and growth have been welded together for years in Cambria. It’s been so long since we knew any other way. The issues are complex and the details begin to fade after so many years, if they ever even knew them. Almost 60% of us  have lived in our current home for under 10 years.  (neighborcity.com) Only 45% of us have lived in town more than 5 years. (clrsearch.com) Armed with these facts, it may be easier to understand why there is some confusion and misinformation. Time to begin to dispel the myths and offer facts so we can make informed choices. With nearly 68% of us earning a higher degree, I am confident that information and discussion can only be an asset.  So to that end, AboutCambria.com will be going back to basics. A refresher for some, an introduction to others and eye-opening for all, the next few weeks will be all About Cambria.
A building history of Cambria:

• Cambria adds up to 125 new homes annually through the 1980s. (The 125 max is a condition of the Wastewater Treatment Plant.)
• County implements a Growth Management Plan  that allocates building permits for new homes at a rate of 2.3% annually. CCSD closes the “water wait list” that was begun to keep track of  requests for service beyond the 125 limit
• Determination: Not enough water for all potential homes. (over 11,000 in 1988 County Plan)
• Work on getting additional water
• Desalination chosen, plant designed and permitted (c. 1996)
• Pro-desal Board voted out of office  (Nov. 1996)
• Determination: Not enough water for all potential homes
• County amends Growth Management Plan  in Cambria that allocates building permits for new homes at a rate of 1% annually (1998)
• Declare emergency (water code 350)  Stops issuing “letters of intent to serve”(late 2001)
• County amends Growth Management Plan  in Cambria that allocates building permits for new homes at a rate of 0% annually (2003-2012)
• Work on getting additional water
• Choose to get water from desal

And Cambria’s building future:

• Desal plant built
• New homes built
• Cambria runs out of buildable lots

Democracy is a participatory, ongoing  project. David Suzuki, scientist and envronmental activist recently said he thinks the greatest threat to the health of our planet is citizen complaisency. His line of reasoing went like this: When “ordinary” citizens aren’t involved, aren’t pressuring the policy makers to make sustainable policies they leave room for the special interest groups and the agenda’s they are pushing. , whose interest isn’t in the well-being of all, but in pushing their own narrow agenda. Nurturing a thriving and sustainable community is  a collaborative adventure between the people, the elected leaders and staff of the government agencies. Most public meetings are not very well attended. When the general public is in attendance, its usually because the board is considering a controversial decision or will impact people financially. There are a small number of very vocal, opinionated folks who always seem to be kicking up dust.
Whether you agree or disagree with their positions, means and the ends they are going for, there are advantages and disadvantages to their involvement.  Those who are not involved fall into 3 basic categories: those who justify/rationalize their complaisant or passive attitudes toward participation in government; those who were involved, but gave up trying to engage in the process in a meaningful way because of  frustration or emotional beatings; and those who are uninformed and/or unaware and so don’t participate.

If you’re reading this, you probably are already involved and keeping current with the issues I write about.  The next time the CCSD comes up in conversation, do us all a favor and ask your companion whether or not they’ve seen or heard of this website. If they haven’t, steer them to the site  for updated information and discussion.  (along with www.cambriacsd.org).In fact, send a link to at least 2 Cambrians on your email list with a link to an article you find interesting. Or copy and paste one of the links below into an email.

• Historical Water Use in Cambria

• May 2009 Update of MTBE threat to Santa Rosa Creek

• Cambria Healthcare District Employees agree to Salary Freezes

• Read about our Desal Project in an Industry Journal

Cambria has a very vocal anti-growth clique. They are a small group of folks with friends in high places. Cambria also has people who enjoy living in a small town, but  recognize that plans to stop anyone from building forever is unrealistic. These folks seem to feel less compelled to be involved or are too busy working to earn what it takes to pay the bills here to get involved.

Water and growth have been welded together for years in Cambria. It’s been so long since we knew any other way. The issues are complex and the details begin to fade after so many years, if they ever even knew them. Almost 60% of us  have lived in our current home for under 10 years.  (neighborcity.com) Only 45% of us have lived in town more than 5 years. (clrsearch.com) Armed with these facts, it may be easier to understand why there is some confusion and misinformation. Time to begin to dispel the myths and offer facts so we can make informed choices. With nearly 68% of us earning a higher degree, I am confident that information and discussion can only be an asset.  So to that end, AboutCambria.com will be going back to basics. A refresher for some, an introduction to others and eye-opening for all, the next few weeks will be all About Cambria.

Cambria Water Supply

An evaluation of our water resource capacity (water supply)  provided the data the Board used to determine we do not have enough water to provide a reliable supply to even the current residents and businesses (Water Master Plan Task 3).  This was not the first study of our water and is unlikely to be the last. But it did trigger the Board to declare a water emergency and a moratorium on new connections. In order to ensure a very high standard of reliability, the CCSD Board decided a desalination plant must be built.  When I first started following the activity of the CCSD and the County of San Luis Obispo, I assumed that anti-growth and anti-desal were essentially one position. As the stereotypes have faded and I’ve gotten a better understanding of the situation, it’s clear that growth and desalination are two sides of the same coin – distinct and not always a matched set.

Like most of you, I value our village atmosphere. The continuing  stress on our shared resources doesn’t contribute to a vibrant and healthy community. But I’m not convinced that locking the gates and stopping all new construction here is realistic.  This does not make me the enemy of our town.  I am in favor of having a living, thriving, open town committed to a set of sustainable, rational policies that will create a model community, one that other want to emulate,  instead of an example of what to avoid.

It seems like no growth advocates have rather effectively controlled the Cambrian narrative and future planning for at least a decade.  Their story of Cambria includes an ominous horde of  developers cast in the role of villains intent on destroying our  village atmosphere and way of life.  In that world, without the limits on the water supply, Cambria would go from a town of 4,000 to a city of 11,000 overnight.  Even if a growth rate this large was possible from a construction angle, the County’s ordinances, regulations, planning policies and permitting procedures are designed to keep the rate of growth reasonable. Under the current 20 year plan for the North Coast, it  will be 2056 before we reach the 6,130 dwellings the County estimates as absolute buildout. The story no growth-ers tell paints them as the heroes and any Cambrian who doesn’t abhor growth as  not caring about our town or its future. That’s a little like saying that if I’m not anti-abortion, I’m pro-abortion.  Of course, as with all stereotypes, the reality is much more nuanced and there isn’t really a hero and a villain, and the opposite of no growth is not pro sprawl.

One other thing to keep in mind: just because there are no new homes being built doesn’t mean there aren’t new people moving here. They too must be educated and provided the information to be a member of the community. Playing catch-up while you try to acclimate and make new friends isn’t easy. But whether you just finished unpacking boxes or are recognized by everyone in town making errand in town take at least 3 times longer than anywhere else, refreshing your memory about Cambria and Development no longer means reading study after study or attending lengthy meetings. All you have to do is check out AboutCambria.com And if you spot an inaccuracy or error, please contact me. We’ve all got enough rumors and misinformation clouding our ability to decide.

Despite the fact that water supplies are undeniably constrained 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 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.

More recently, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute has argued what we have is a water management problem, not a water shortage problem. If we were to manage our water use more efficiently, our limited resource could provide for more people. It means we need to change the “me” paradigm into a “we” paradigm. We need to make some fundamental changes in our behavior and our assumptions.

Here’s two important questions for everyone: How much are you and your 4,000 neighbors willing to pay for water without restriction? The current plan approved by the Board Is the plan to limit the number of connections a defensible  policy? Before you respond, just think about this: 4,650 customer are using water without restriction, but every other  lot owner inside the CCSD’s service area is out of luck because they aren’t on a list that was closed in 1990 and ceased producing new connections in 2001. You and I can waste all the water we can pay for while hundreds of others are denied service. Please help me see how this isn’t going to present a problem.

In a press release today, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued the City of Pleasanton (about 30 minutes south of Walnut Creek and 30 minutes north of San Jose)

to remove its “draconian and illegal” limit on new housing, a significant cause of traffic congestion, air pollution and urban sprawl in the East Bay and Tri-Valley area.

Before you dismiss this out of hand as being utterly unrelated to Cambria’s current situation, just glance over the points made in bold type in orange below.

“Pleasanton’s draconian and illegal limit on new housing forces people to commute long distances, adding to the bumper-to-bumper traffic along 580 and 680 and increasing dangerous air pollution,” Brown said. “It’s time for Pleasanton to balance its housing and its jobs and take full advantage of its underutilized land and proximity to BART.”

Brown today filed a motion to intervene in Alameda County Superior Court that would force Pleasanton to lift its housing cap. The suit was initially filed by the nonprofit group Public Advocates on October 17, 2006.

In 1996, Pleasanton adopted Measure GG, which imposed a strict, permanent cap of 29,000 total housing units within the city. At the time, Pleasanton had 21,180 homes, apartments and condominiums. The cap, therefore, allowed fewer than 8,000 new housing units to be built within city limits, regardless of demand or state law requirements.

The City is now on the verge of adopting a General Plan update, which calls for the creation of 45,000 additional jobs by 2025, while retaining the 29,000 limit on housing. This, Brown contends, violates state law, which requires every California city to provide sufficient housing to accommodate its fair share of regional needs.
The State requires Pleasanton to provide 3,277 additional housing units between 2007 and 2014. The cap, however, allows for only 2,000 more to be built – and that does not account for additional housing which will likely be required after 2014.

In the past 10 years, job growth in Pleasanton has nearly doubled — from 31,683 to more than 58,000. Yet, the number of new housing units has not kept pace with demand. This is despite the fact that there is ample land for development, including property adjacent to the Pleasanton BART station. Unless the city lifts its housing cap, this and other land near transit will most likely not be utilized for housing.

As a result of the cap, many workers have been unable to find affordable housing within Pleasanton. A 2005 Association of Bay Area Governments study found that 79 percent of Pleasanton’s 58,000 employees lived outside Pleasanton, and their commutes can take two hours per day or more.

Brown’s suit demands that Pleasanton’s housing cap be repealed – so that jobs and housing can increase in proportion with each other.

In his suit, Brown contends that:

- Pleasanton is violating state law by enforcing a housing cap that prevents the City from accommodating its fair share of the regional housing need, as required by state housing element law (Gov. Code §65583.).

- Pleasanton’s housing cap violates the state constitution, which prohibits cities from adopting ordinances that conflict with state law.

- Pleasanton’s general plan is internally inconsistent, in violation of California Government Code Section 65300.5. The City’s existing land use element contains the housing cap limit of 29,000 housing units, while its housing element recognizes that the cap must be addressed because it prevents the City from meeting its fair share of regional housing needs.

If Pleasanton continues to enforce its housing cap, the consequences for the region include:

- Increased traffic congestion and longer commute times. Interstate 580 has some of the longest commute times in the region, with evening eastbound commuters delayed 7,410 hours and morning westbound commuters delayed 5,120 hours in 2007.

- Urban sprawl. Communities outside of Pleasanton will continue to lose farmland and open space to accommodate Pleasanton’s workers. These communities will have to build more schools, fire and police stations to keep up with anticipated growth.

- Increased greenhouse gas emissions. More people will be commuting for longer periods and over greater distances. Pleasanton’s CO2 output was 1.388 million tons in 2008. When the City is projected to reach 105,000 jobs in 2025, it is estimated its CO2 output will increase to 1.940 million tons. The increase is the equivalent of adding 120,000 cars to the road every year.

- Increased dependence on foreign oil.

Transportation is the largest contributor to California’s greenhouse gas emissions. The California Air Resources Board estimates that transportation is currently responsible for 38 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Transportation accounts for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area.

Brown has reached several agreements and settlements with local governments and businesses across California to help them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Some of his actions include:

- A landmark settlement with San Bernardino County which established a greenhouse gas reduction plan that identifies sources of emissions and sets reduction targets.

- An agreement with Stockton requiring it to identify and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, permit construction of thousands of new residential units within its current city limits, develop a rapid transit bus system and require all new buildings to be energy efficient.

- An agreement with ConocoPhillips that offsets greenhouse gases attributable to an oil refinery expansion in Contra Costa County.

An agreement with the Port of Los Angeles that identifies and reduces greenhouse gas emissions generated from port operations.

Click here to read Brown’s suit against the City of Pleasanton.

Transparency is our friend, if we know where to look.  Luckily for you, I happen to have a few excellent resources up my sleeve. This year, for the first time, senators and representatives must disclose their earmark requests for budget appropriations every year. Representative Capps’ site notes that she has requested $2 Million for the Fiscal year 2009-10 (Federal Fiscal year begins in October.) Of course, we can’t count that money yet. There are quite a few more hoops we must jump through. I have a request in to Rep. Capps to ask her a few questions about her earmark for Cambria. I will post additional information as I have  it. If you know a shortcut to speaking with Mrs. Capps, (short of hiring a lobbyist), please contact me. amanda at aboutcambria.com

The employees of the Cambria Community Healthcare District agreed to amending their MOU (aka contract) in recognition of the struggling economy and possible decrease in property tax revenues that fund the district. About 85% of the total expenses of the district go toward personnel costs. ($1,148,310.00 of a total $1,358,269.00) Even though their MOU runs through 2011, every employee agreed to forgo the step increase and cost of living increases the MOU calls for. The change also means a freeze on a planned change in the PERS (retirement) contribution to be paid by the district.

I don’t know whether the salaries are in line with market rates, but the staff and Administrator Melendy are to be commended for taking steps to respond to a fiscal crisis in the District. The MOU will be reviewed again next year to determine if the step increases will be put back into place or if the freeze will have to continue.

Kudos to the CCHD staff, management and Board for doing the right thing for the community – even when they didn’t have to.

The Board of Trustees also approved the letter of understanding between the CCHD and CCSD for co-location that will be considered at tomorrow’s CCSD meeting. I wrote  about that issue Monday. Read the letter here.

Cambria’s ambulances may move to the Fire Station, according to the letter included in the agenda packet for Thursday’s CCSD meeting.Below is the text of that letter. The Healthcare District (CCHD) will be discussing this at their meeting tomorrow night (June 23, 2009, 6:30 pm, Rabobank).

Dear Members of the Board of Trustees and Members of the Board of Directors:
As you are aware, the Cambria Community Healthcare District (“CCHD”) Board of Trustees and the Cambria Community Services District (“CCSD”) Board of Directors have an ongoing joint Co-Location Committee (“Committee”) that has been investigating emergency service operational and financial efficiencies that may accrue from closer cooperation between the two agencies. Several months ago, meetings of the committee were suspended because of financial concerns over the prospect of having to expand the existing CCSD fire station to accommodate co-location of the CCHD emergency medical service crews.
The committee believes that some form of consolidation of CCHD emergency medical service operations and the CCSD fire department is in the best interests of the community. As pointed out in the report of the Emergency Medical Services Citizens Committee, there are a number of operational and financial benefits that can be realized from a cooperative service delivery effort by the two agencies. Within the past few months the committee, in consultation with the CCHD Administrator and CCSD General
Manager, developed a set of ideas that will, if approved by the CCHD Board of Trustees and the CCSD Board of Directors, result in initiation of the process of co-locating the CCHD personnel and equipment at the CCSD fire station and completion of negotiations and documentation of a long term cooperative agreement.
Before proceeding further, the committee has requested that the Board of Trustees of the CCHD and the Board of Directors of the CCSD endorse the following recommendations and authorize the committee to:
1. Continue to work on the details of an arrangement whereby the highest level of  operational efficiencies and cost savings are achieved through co-location and shared staffing of the two agencies.

2. Oversee the co-location plan and schedule of the CCHD emergency medical service operations at the CCSD fire station, and present the proposal to respective Boards for approval by August 31, 2009.
3. Develop recommendations for a joint powers agreement or other legally permissible arrangement for shared location, operations, staffing and funding.
4. Develop standard operating procedures for operations.
5. Negotiate recommendations for shared property operations and costs.
This Letter Agreement will be placed on the June 23, 2009 agenda of the CCHD Board of Trustees and the June 25, 2009 agenda of the CCSD for consideration. If approved by the respective Boards, please have the President of the CCHD Board of Trustees and the President of the CCSD Board of Directors sign in the spaces provided below. Once this Letter Agreement has been approved and executed, the committee, in conjunction with the staff of the two entities, will move forward expeditiously to bring all final recommendations and supporting agreements to the two Boards for consideration.

According to the agenda for next week’s CCSD meeting, the district will consider a contract with Van Scoyoc Associates Inc. The District was advised to hire a lobbying firm to assure money is appropriated and budgeted for the desalination project. The Army Corps of Engineers is now the lead agency on the project, instead of the CCSD.  The current system in Washington DC isn’t exactly the ideal of the democratic process, but we must work within the system as best we can. Personally, I find the current system distasteful and ridiculously uneven, but that doesn’t mean I think hiring a lobbyist is a bad idea, in theory. It’s probably necessary if we are to secure any federal funds for a desal plant. Of course, whether we should be spending this much on lobbying in pursuit of funding for desal is a different question entirely.

Unlike many of the firms and companies with which the district enters into contracts, the profiles of lobbying firms are well-documented, publicly available and easy to find online.  A quick trip to OpenSecrets.org reveals a great deal more about Van Scoyoc Associates Inc. than the firm’s own site. Some of the highlights:

Only three lobbying firms have made more money than Van Scoyoc Associates Inc. between 1998 and 2009. Van Scoyoc Associates brought in $210,248,000 over that ten year period, almost $55 million more than the number five firm. They were the number 2 firm in 2006 and number 3 in 2007 and 2008.

Van Scoyoc Associates also ranks high in the “revolving door” category. When American voters discard elected officials—and their staffs—lobbying firms and interest groups are quick to snap up the unemployed. Lobbying firms—which often charge steep fees from their deep-pocketed clients—can offer former government employees salaries far greater than those proffered by Uncle Sam, as well as continued influence on Capitol Hill. In return, firms get lobbyists who already have established connections in the federal government and whose résumés can act as a powerful draw for potential clients. The lobbying firms shown here have the greatest track record of hiring former government employees. There are 50 lobbyists listed for 2009 at Van Scoyoc Associates, over half meet the “revolving door” criteria. One of these revolving door lobbyists (Marda Robillard) even contributed to Lois Capp’s campaign in 2008.

For a very complete picture of who this firm has lobbied and who they have lobbied for, visit OpenSecrets.org. If you find more that we should know about this firm as we consider entering into a contract with them, add it here as comment. Or, better yet, come to the CCSD meeting next Thursday and raise the issue and your concerns.

ADDED 8:20am: The CCSD is already listed (with active hyperlink) on the Van Scoyoc Associates website.

This morning the central coast shook itself awake at 5:33am with a 4.6 magnitude earthquake. Apparently, it hit the snooze button, because an aftershock (magnitude 2.1) was recorded at 5:43am. According to the USGS Earthquake information site, we’re still shimmying a bit with low magnitude quakes centered near Lake Nacimiento. The Tsunami Warning Center has posted that the quake will not cause a tsunami. Visit the USGS site for all the data and map details.

The agenda for the regular June meeting of the Cambria Community Servies District has been published.  Items of interest – especially for anyone interested in district spending and budgeting – consideration of the 2009-10 proposed budget. Although the rate increase will go into place (starting July 1), the budget is still under consideration. Also of interest: Co-Location of fire and ambulance.

1. OPENING
A. Call to Order
B. Pledge of Allegiance
C. Establishment of Quorum
D. Report from Closed Session
2. PUBLIC COMMENT (Total Time Limited to 15 minutes)
Members of the public wishing to address the Board on any non-actionable item not listed on the agenda (items 1 – 6) and within the jurisdiction of the Cambria CSD may do so when recognized by the President. Public comments during this and other portions of the agenda will be limited to 3 minutes per person.
3. AGENDA REVIEW: ADDITIONS/DELETIONS AND PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
(Estimated Time: 5 minutes)
4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
Friends of the Library Presentation
5. SPECIAL REPORTS
A. SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT REPORT

(Estimated Time: 5 minutes)
6. MANAGER’S AND BOARD REPORTS
A. MANAGER’S REPORT
(Estimated Time: 10 minutes)
B. MEMBER AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
(Estimated Time: 10 minutes)
7. CONSENT AGENDA
All matters on the consent calendar are to be approved by one motion. If Directors wish to discuss a consent item other than simple clarifying questions, a request for removal may be made. Such items are pulled for separate discussion and action after the consent calendar as a whole is acted upon.
A. Approve Expenditures for Month of May 2009
B. Approve Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting, May 28 and June 15, 2009
C. Consider Adoption of Resolution 27-2009 Approving Van Scoyoc Associates Professional Services Agreement
D. Consider Adoption of Resolution 29-2009 Approving Amended 2009 Board of Directors’ Bylaws
(Estimated Time: 15 minutes)
8. HEARINGS AND APPEALS
A. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution 23-2009 Authorizing a Fire Suppression Benefit Assessment Consumer Price Index (CPI)
Adjustment in the Amount of 5% for FY 2009-2010
B. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution 26-2009 Approving the CCSD Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2009/2010
(Estimated Time: 30 minutes)
9. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Consider Introduction of Ordinance 01-2009 Repealing and Replacing CCSD Code Section 3.04.020

B. Consider Approval of Letter Agreement Outlining Recommendations for Co-Location of Cambria Community Healthcare District Resources at the CCSD Fire Station
(Estimated Time: 60 minutes)

More details when they are available. Meeting will be at 12:30 Thursday June 25, 2009 at the Veterans Memorial Hall on Main Street.