About Cambria

Choosing a  Replacement Commissioner

This month the couple of dozen special districts in the County will vote for one of four candidates to fill the LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) seat left open upon the retirement of the Oceano CSD director at the end of December 2009. Each county in California has a LAFCo who mission it is to ensure orderly development and efficient provision of services, including annexations and applications for citihood.

The Candidates and Incumbents:

The four candidates are Ed Eby (Director, Nipomo CSD); Brian Kreowski (Commissioner, Port of San Luis Harbor District); Kristi Jenkins (Trustee, CCHD) and Muril Clift (Director, CCSD). With two possible winners, Cambria has an even chance of getting representation on LAFCo this time around. Supervisor Gibson is on the LAFCo board, but he is the only one from the north coast currently there. (other commissioners:  Duane Picanco City Member, City of Paso Robles; Richard Roberts Public Member; Katcho Achadjian, County Board Member, District 4 Supervisor; David L. Brooks Special District Member, Templeton Community Services District; Bruce Gibson County Board Member, District 2 Supervisor; Allen Settle City Member, City of San Luis Obispo, Alternate Commissioners Ed Eby, Tom Murray, James R. Patterson, Kris Vardas.

Who Elects the LAFCo Commissioner?

There are three special district boards in this area that have a vote on who will fill the special district seat: Cambria Community Services District(CCSD), Cambria Community Healthcare District(CCHD), and the Cambria Cemetery District. At this week’s CCHD meeting, a divided board decided to not vote for any of the candidates after rejecting suggestions of Eby (first) and Clift (second) both 3 to 2. The discussion began with Trustee Jenkins essentially pulling her name from consideration, explaining she felt there were at least two candidates better qualified for  the position. Trustee Fratto then nominated Eby, which Trustee Lemming seconded and both voted to approve. Trustee Bates and Jenkins voted “no” immediately and Trustee Headding voted no, after some consideration, to break the tie. Then Trustee Gates moved support of Muril Clift, which ws seconded by Trustee Jenkins. There was no hesitation from the three “no” votes and when no one else was suggested, the final action of non-action was taken.

What This Means

I am not inside the minds of the CCHD trustees, but Muril Clift’s stunt last year (packing a CCHD meeting with folks upset about the ALS equipment and other issues) seems to have left a mark on the trustees, and not in a good way. Rather than using their vote to support Cambria on LAFCo, the CCHD  seems to prefer to hold a grudge. Three of these Trustees are up for election in November 2010. Are they serving the community in a way that you support?

1. OPENING
A. Call to Order
B. Pledge of Allegiance
C. Establishment of Quorum
D. Report from Closed Session
2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the public may now address the Board on any item of interest within
the jurisdiction of the Board but not on its agenda today. In compliance with the
Brown Act, the Board cannot discuss or act on items not on the agenda. Each
speaker has up to three minutes. Speaker slips (available at the entry) should be
submitted to the District Clerk.
3. AGENDA REVIEW: ADDITIONS/DELETIONS AND PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
(Estimated Time: 5 minutes)
4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation Recognizing Pat Clarke, Senior Water Treatment Operator Retirement
B. 2010 Census Proclamation
C. Forest Committee Presentation: Free Benefits of Protecting the Cambria Monterey Pine Forest
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 January 2010
B. Approve Minutes of Board of Directors Special Meeting, February 1, 2010
(Estimated Time: 5 minutes)
8. HEARINGS AND APPEALS
A. Consider Adoption of Resolution 10-2010 Certifying Santa Rosa Creek
Beach Geotechnical Investigation Environmental Clearance Negative Declaration
(Estimated Time: 60 minutes)
9. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Receive DRAFT Audit Fiscal Year 2008-2009
B. Consider Adoption of Resolution 06-2010 Approving Mid-Year Revision to
Fiscal Year 2009/2010 CCSD Operating Budget
C. Review and Approve 2010 Board Committee/Assignments
D. Consider Adoption of Resolution 08-2010 Authorizing Matching Grant
Funds for Cambria Community Services District Fire Department’s
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFGP) for Operations and Safety
E. Consider Adoption of Resolution 09-2010 Approving the Board of Directors’ Bylaws for 2010
F. Cast Ballot for Director Muril Clift as LAFCO Special District Member
(Estimated Time: 60 minutes)

10. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may now address the Board on any item of interest within
the jurisdiction of the Board but not on its agenda today. In compliance with the
Brown Act, the Board cannot discuss or act on items not on the agenda. Each
speaker has up to three minutes. Speaker slips (available at the entry) should be
submitted to the District Clerk.
11. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Designated Representatives: General Manager
Employee Organization: IAFF Local 4635, Cambria CSD
B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to
periodic performance evaluation as required by employment contract.
Title: General Manager

93428, Cambria

February 7, 2010
Letter to Cambrians,
What are we getting for the $733,000?
The CCSD (the Army Corps of Engineers) has plans to drill up two ten sites and install several test wells at Santa Rosa Creek where it enters the ocean at Shamel Park, which is estimated to cost $733,000. This expenditure is likely to lead to a desalination plant, which will lead to further expenditures. (Estimated at over $21,000,000.) The testing will have impacts on the environment, as will the potential desalination plant. The “Proposed Negative Declaration” filed by the CCSD on January 4, 2010 (may be January 14, can’t tell from poor quality of posted document) woefully underestimates the potential and known environmental damages from the proposed test drilling.
I object to the testing, on grounds of the heart–the effects on the life, human, plant and animal. I also object on the grounds of the head, that is of the cost, when other solutions would cost less and with less negative impact.
Since the approximately 3800 residences in Cambria use about 75% of the water, the cost for the testing to each residence, if divided up would be $145.

Points of the heart

Thousands of sea birds depend upon the estuary for water, food and respite. The sand bar at the mouth of the creek creates a lagoon where many species of fish breed, which in turn feed birds, otters, wildlife and us.
Construction of test wells and a desalination plant will increase the levels of toxins on the beach, in the ocean, our air, and in our water. Toxic mercury from old mines would likely be released and becomes highly toxic when it comes in contact with oxygen. Leaks from equipment and pollution from their engines threaten our air and land.
Over the long term, should a desalinization plant be installed, a large plume of salt and at least 25 known carcinogens would be spewed out into the ocean, resulting in a dead area in the ocean and continued contamination. Sea water contains pollutants which would have to be counteracted by the process.
Reasons of the Head: Fiscal Irresponsibility of the Plan
The proposed desalination project is sized to allow for every household to use 18 units bimonthly. Our actual average per household use is about 9 units bimonthly. Why? Such excess production is costly.
CCSD hasn’t told us how much we can expect our water bills to go up. Because they will go up. A DWR estimate from 2003 on the cost of desalinated water may range between $1160 to $1,600 per acre-foot of water, much more than the current cost to pump from the creeks. Cambria uses an average of 60 acre feet per month, about 700 per year. One acre-foot is approximately 326,000 gallons, or 436 CCSD units. The average family uses about .19 acre feet per year. This translates into a cost of $58,000 to $128,000 a month for Cambria or a cost to the average household for water of between $29 and $64 per water bill.
I experienced a doubling in water bill while living in Santa Barbara in the 90s after they built a desalinisation plant. The plant is no longer in service due to high maintenance and operation costs.
Of course these figures are estimates. However, my conversations with a water engineer indicate that if anything they are underestimated, due to the cost overruns of such mammoth projects.
Fiscally Responsible Solutions
What makes the desalinization project even more problematic is that there are less costly solutions.
• 30% to 50% of water used by Cambrians could be saved by installing grey water systems in each home, at a cost of between $500 for a minimal system to an average of $4000. 1466 homes in Cambria could have the minimal grey water system installed for just the cost of the testing!
• expand the rebates program, about to run out of the measly $2000 allocated for Cambrians to install low water usage toilets.
• conduct water audits by a professional, which would including installing low-flow fixtures, establishing detailed water usage in Cambria, providing education about conservation, and maintaining an awareness throughout the community about the urgency for conservation. I would cost approximately. All residences in Cambria could be audited by hiring three auditors for three months which would cost approximately $24,000. If all residences in Cambria had up to date water friendly toilets and fixtures, we could save 40% or more of our water usage, without changing any of our habits!
• Look into developing ponds or storage tanks up Santa Rosa Creek. (Dr. Jim Brownell conducted such a study, available in the Cambria Library, largely ignored!)
• Install an updated wastewater recycling system. A local plumber estimated that the current system uses over 50% more water than an updated, ecologically superior system would require.
• Improving the sewage treatment plant to provide recycled wastewater (also known as reclaimed, tertiary standard, California Title 22, (‘purple pipe’) could save 2 to 3 units per month for each household.
In conclusion there are too many reasons, both of the heart and the head to go ahead with the costly text drilling at our precious Shamel Park or with the plan for building a desalinization plant with so many better solutions available.
Do not let fear or greed rule the day.
Sincerely,
Valerie Bentz
Cambria resident since 2000

As the desalination project starts moving forward again with the test wells, the Cambria Community Services District Board and staff refer to the Water Master Plan – a series of studies and documents that have been approved over the last decade and a half. The new CCSD website isn’t as easy to navigate as the previous one, so finding some of this information can be trying or near impossible. If you want to make an informed decision or better understand what the Board is basing their decisions on, add these documents to your reading list.
(I welcome any suggested additions to this list. Just send me an email amanda at aboutcambria dot com or in comments below.)

A collection of several documents in one download.

The least you should know (warning: Large File)

Cambria Urban Water Management Plan (December 2005)
2005 Urban Water Management Plan (Download)

Baseline Water Supply and Demand Analysis (2000, also known as the Kennedy-Jenks report. Current surcharge ordinance and drought “stages” are in this document.)
Water Master Plan Task 2 Baseline Water Supply Analysis (Download)

Assessment of Long-Term Water Supply Alternatives (2002. Also known as Task 4 of the Water Master Plan. Includes data used to compare various alternative sources and the basis on which they were evaluated.)
Assessment of Long Term Water Needs and Alternatives (Download)

Buildout Reduction Report (prepared by consultant and approved by CCSD Board in 2005)
Buildout reduction report (download)

Water Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (2007)
EIR WMP Download

Also an interesting read: the appeal on the Pine Knolls tanks project (June 2005)
CCC Staff Report Pine Knolls Tanks Appeal