Once again the CCSD provides “disinformation” to the general public when the general manager states: that “I (Berge) have busied myself contacting other SLO public agencies that we have been successful in our appeal”. This is not true. We have stated that we are sure that the appeal will provide clarity to the current case law that Judge Crandall used in his original decision on the current matter before the appellate court.

That issue is whether we are “potential customers” for district water and sewer services or we are “not potential customers” when the determination is required as part of the land use permitting process.

It is crystal clear that a land use permit must be denied if a applicant cannot provide written verification of water and/or sewer service from the local community service provider or provide an alternative source such as a well or septic (individual private disposal system). My minor use permit was “denied” by the County of San Luis Obispo and Judge Crandall ruled that I was a “potential user”.

The court did not take into consideration the LCP update which occurred after my denial in September 2007, and before the adoption of the CCSD final Program EIR for the desalination project in August, 2008, which caps water and/or sewer connections at 4650.

At all times during the permitting process, both before the LCP update and after, the CCSD General Manager and the CCSD Board of Directors have refused to provide written verification of water and sewer service as mandated in the “planning area standard” of the Local Coastal Program. This written verification is required under the permitting process in order for the Planning Director or the Planning Commission to make the detemination that there is adequate water and sewer capacity to serve the “proposed development” as required under Section 23.04.430 of the Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance and Public Works Policy #1 of the Coastal Plan and Policies document of the certified LCP.

The “only” response from the CCSD was from the district counsel in an opinion letter that stated that I (we) do not have a district wait list position, are not on the district wait list, therefore we are not “eligible” to obtain water and sewer services from the district (CCSD). With this opinion letter, the County denied the Minor Use Permit (MUP). It is important to note that the CCSD also refused to hold a mandatory public hearing on a variance request on our six properties. It is our understanding that the District Court of Appeals is going to “weigh in” on the need under the law for the variance hearing to be held as part of the upcoming ruling.

In all the prior cases, I had tried to obtain a will serve(intent to serve) letter as conditioned in a prior conditional certificate of compliance and the court had ruled that I was just a “potential user” and that the “County’s list” dovetailed the district’s own wait list. The CCSD, county, and the coastal commission have acknowledged that Ordinance 2-2000 of the CCSD has established that only those on the district wait list (CCSD list) can obtain an allocation for water and sewer service from the district. Those on the county’s list do not meet the CCSD criteria to be served. If this is the case, and the 4650 cap is in place, then only the “existing customers”, the 666 CCSD wait list holders, and a arbitrary 84 “extra meters” for the land conservancies to sell are to be served. The rest of use land owners are “not potential customers” of the CCSD, and the county wait list holders are left for dead.

The county in a written letter of response acknowledged that they “closed” the county list in 2007 “because” if provided confusion and the expectation of water and sewer service from the district, which the county cannot provide.

I feel sorry for the poor vacant land owners in Los Osos who were specially assessed by the Los Osos Community Services District as part of the 17.5 Million dollar bond proceeding in 2003-2004 and who are now not being denied their benefit right to sewer under the County of San Luis Obispo’s proposed sewer treatment plant project. They, the vacant land owners must continue to pay there current assessments without service when the plant is built, and their right to connect to sewer is conditioned upon a future water master plan, habitat conservation plan, etc…(Condition #86) even though sewer and water front their properties. THIS SOUNDS LIKE CAMBRIA ALL OVER AGAIN! Groundhog day lives again in Los Osos. Clearly this is another Coastal Commission agenda to limit development in the coastal zone by way of water.

As for UnClog Cambria, we can verify that the CCSD has once again failed to provide written verification of water and sewer service for those UnClog property owners wanting to process a coastal development permit. The district’s reply once again is that those owners are not “eligible” to receive services from the district. This is most important in that the newly updated LCP requires the county “deny” the completeness of an application (Gov. Code 65943) for a coastal development permit (land use permit) or construction permit (building permit) without the CCSD written verification of sewer and water service. (North Coast Area Plan community wide planning area standard CW-8). The CCSD also once again refused to hold a variance hearing.

This is where the line is being drawn in the sand at the appellate court in that approval of the land use permit is mandatory under the Coastal Act prior to submittal for a building permit.

If the land use permit is denied, then the taking case is “ripe” for a court to determine if the subject property has been taken by inverse condemnation, but only after a variance request is acted upon by the local agency to correct the possible taking action.

Gee, I wonder why the CCSD does not want to hold a variance hearing. Tis a puzzlement!

Stay tuned!

Gregg Berge