If you missed the forum on water alternatives on March 16, 2010, you can now view it here on aboutcambria.com (in four parts). Use this link or the link in the header menu. If you were there, watch it again! Thanks to Steve Figler for the video.
93428, cambria
Water is the hub of Cambria issues. Essential for living things, possessing qualities unique to itself, water is a critical part of the complex systems all over the planet. Tonight’s event will be at Rabobank from 6-8pm. It is billed as an educational and informational evening for Cambrians that will cover a number of topics related to alternative water sources. With so much to know about the complexity of water management (assuring a reliable supply) and education in short supply, this may become the first of many such events. Tonight’s agenda includes talks from experts on clean water & conservation, greywater systems, storage ponds, and water supply. See the flyer below.
See you there!
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.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
The agenda packet for this week’s CCSD meeting is available on the Cambria CSD website. It has a lot of interesting information about district business, so I thought I’d include it here. This is directly from the published agenda on the CCSD website.
Last month, staff met with the former Executive Committee (President Sanders and Vice President Chaldecott) as directed by the Board of Directors concerning the existing policy for allowing waiver of a customer’s late fee if their account is in good standing (no late payments within the preceding 12 months). The discussion among Directors concerned potentially changing policy to require a 24-month good payment history, rather than 12 months.
The existing 12-month payment history requirement has worked effectively these past several years when dealing with customers who, for whatever reason, did not timely pay their bill.
While it is true that there are only six payments within a customer’s 12-month payment history, it is acknowledged that it is reasonable that a payment oversight or error could be made by a customer. A 12-month review of a customer’s account by staff is simple and quick, and customers who have received a waiver appreciate the relief. Moreover, the policy has been even more resourceful during these past couple of years for customers dealing with the economic downturn. The CCSD has more customers on payment plans ever as a result of the poor economy and lost jobs (approximately 30 billing accounts),
but staff is following Board direction and working within existing policies to assist customers in need as best possible.
Therefore, the Executive Committee and staff determined that the 12-month good payment history requirement is reasonable and should not be changed at this time.
Attached is the quarterly summary report for the CCSD’s Voluntary Lot Merger Program covering activity for April 2007-December 2009, which, unfortunately, again reflects no change in lot merger activity. The program has gone six (6) months with no lot merger activity, and we believe that is because of the increased SLO County costs for the merger process. However, per the Board’s direction and Resolution 62-2009 on December 14, 2009, the program funding
authorization for lot mergers was increased from $200 to $800 per customer, which is a renewed incentive for a property owner. Staff included the attached Voluntary Lot Merger Program flyer with the November/December 2009 utility bills reminding customers, and the same flyer will be mailed to vacant lot owners within the next few weeks.
A $33,000 increase in program revenues was recognized in December 2009 resulting from the EDU conversion and Agreement between the CCSD and Granville Homes, Inc., per Resolution 53-2009 dated October 22, 2009.
A total of 352 lots have been reduced at a cost of $19,987. The BRP (Buildout Reduction Program) goal for reduction by voluntary lot merger was 394 lots, and the program reached 89% of that goal in just two years. As reported to the Board on October 22, 2009, the BRP Citizens Finance Committee revisited its goal for lot mergers and recommended increasing it (from 40%) to 60% of the 986 “theoretical” lots identified for potential merger by the CCSD’s consultant working with the committee during its original program work, for a new total goal of
592 lots. The next quarterly report will reflect the program’s revised goal of 592 lots.
Attached is a breakdown of litigation costs expended by the CCSD in the four active cases against the CCSD. Remember, these expenditures are limited to research of available electronic records back to 2002. Also, these are TOTAL litigation expenses, not just fiscal year expenditures. The cases are abbreviated and costs rounded as follows:
· Berge–$44,000 (up $12,000 from $32,000 in 10/1/09 GM report);
· Lindsey—$37,000 (up $11,000 from $26,000 in 10/1/09 GM report);
· Warren (Landfill)—$6,000 (up $2,000 from $4,000 in 10/1/09 GM report); and
· Landwatch (Hawley)–$35,000 (up $13,000 from $22,000 in 10/1/09 GM report).
A judgment from the Second District Court of Appeals is expected any day now. While Mr. Berge has busied himself contacting other public agencies around SLO County and other jurisdictions that he has been successful in his appeal against the CCSD, the court’s judgment outlining its determination has not been released. Mr. Berge has sued the CCSD five (5) times within the past decade, and the CCSD has been victorious each time.
The writ proceeding in SLO Superior Court is scheduled for a continued case management conference on May 10, 2010. The adversary proceeding against CCSD by Joseph and Mary Lindsey in US Bankruptcy Court is scheduled for initial status conference on January 26, 2010.
SDRMA has expended $96,000 in defense costs for the Warren (Landfill) case. The Warren v. CCSD case has been settled and the settlement documents have been finalized among all parties. A continued case management conference is scheduled in SLO Superior Court on February 11, 2010, within which it is expected the settlement will be approved by the court.
The SDRMA will make its $5,000 settlement payment on behalf of the CCSD once all signatures are obtained on the settlement and release documents.
A settlement offer by Mrs. Cynthia Hawley of Landwatch was rejected by the CCSD because it was merely a repeat of the claims made in their lawsuit. The case is set for case management conference on January 25, 2010, in SLO Superior Court. The case has been reassigned to Judge Martin Tangeman.
The CCSD was successful recently in Small Claims Court with a couple of cases filed by Barbara Owen and Dianne Kennedy against the CCSD for water damages resulting from a fire hydrant located at Wilton and Latham that was damaged on 4/20/09 by a “hit and run” driver. The court determined the CCSD is not responsible for any damages as a result of the incident.
Furthermore, the CCSD and SDRMA settled another fire hydrant matter (at Berwick and Wales on 5/31/08) before pursuing in Small Claims Court, wherein the CCSD received insurance company payments from the responsible parties for the vehicle accident damages (replacement hydrant, staff time, and materials) totaling $2,700.
*For matters in Small Claims Court, attorney appearances are not authorized; therefore, the CCSD General Manager represents the CCSD in court.
The attached spreadsheet updates the District Counsel legal services/litigation expenses paid during the first half of the FY 2009/2010 (July 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009). To summarize from my October 1, 2009, report to the Board:
§ I manage the District Counsel contract, and review and approve all invoices for District Counsel legal services/litigation expenses.
§ The contractual monthly retainer that the CCSD pays to Carmel & Naccasha for District Counsel legal services is $6,600 for 40 hours. This is offset after actual monthly services are rendered and tallied, with excess fees paid if more is due or credit balance forwarded in their next billing if there is a balance due the CCSD.
§ I work very close with the Carmel & Naccasha attorneys on the litigation matters, and I am aware that they are extremely conscientious with their services and expenditures rendered on behalf of the CCSD. The CCSD is not the only public agency they represent during these lean economic times.
§ District Counsel legal/litigation expenses are budgeted within the “Professional Services” line item in each CCSD department.
§ FY 2009/2010 budget projections for litigation services are our “best estimates,” based upon experience from the litigation team and management.
§ Current litigation expenses are for defending actions filed against the CCSD.
The attached spreadsheet shows the FY 2009/2010 budget versus actual Costs broken down by CCSD department for “District Counsel” legal services and “Litigation” services. The analysis also reflects the YTD timing expired (July-December 2009), or 50% of the fiscal year, and the relationship between the invoiced amounts paid compared with the approved budget.
The actual “District Counsel” expenditures for general legal services for the first half of the fiscal year total $43,465, which represents 54.5% of the budgeted total of $79,800. While a bit higher than the expected 50% FY time expiration, staff believes it to be manageable within the budget projection.
Actual expenditures for District Counsel “Litigation” services total $36,627, which represents 73.3% of the budgeted total of $50,000. This is obviously higher than our “best estimate” budget projection for the FY time expired, however, one case is settled (Warren v. CCSD), and another has gone through trial and appeal, and awaiting judgment (Berge v. CCSD). Minimal services are expected to be rendered as a result of litigation closure on these matters. CCSD litigation services for the remainder of the fiscal year will primarily center on trial
preparation for the two remaining actions against the CCSD—Lindsey v. CCSD and Landwatch (Hawley) v. CCSD. With a total budget balance of $13,000 for District Counsel litigation services, staff recommends a mid-year increase of $15,000 to cover for the remainder of FY 2009/2010. The Lindsey and Landwatch lawsuits center around water related issues, item. A mid-year review of the FY 2009/2010 will occur in an agenda item today.
Per the Board’s Resolution 58-2009 and direction on December 14, 2009, the SCADA Settlement and Release Agreement has been fully executed and satisfied. The settlement check was delivered to Cybernet and the CCSD simultaneously received the related project documents/reports and system programming passwords/wiring diagrams.
The December monthly report from the CCSD federal advocate is attached.
Mission Country Disposal’s annual cleanup days for 2010 are as follows:
Spring Cleanup is scheduled for April 26-30, 2010; and Fall Cleanup is scheduled for September 27-October 1, 2010.
During this time, extra recycling, green waste, and garbage is allowed on a customer’s regular pickup day. Larger items such as appliances, mattresses, and furniture require advance arrangements are made with Mission Country for pickup and a nominal fee.
CCSD administrative offices and utility field operations will be closed on Monday, February 15, 2010, in observance of Presidents’ Day. Service interruptions and emergencies may be reported by calling our 24-hour answering service at 927-6223.
The PROS (Parks, Recreation and Open Space) Commission met at 10:00 a.m., on Tuesday, January 5, 2010. The Commission’s next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 2, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., at the Cambria Vets Hall (Dining Room).
The corresponding changes necessary to the Fiscalini Ranch Preserve Management Plan will be delayed until next month’s regular meeting, as a result of workload prioritization.
From: Elizabeth Bettenhausen, Ph.D
To: the Board of Directors of the Cambria Community Services District
Re: Resolution 01-2010 on the Agenda of the Special Meeting, January 5, 2010
The Resolution before you today claims that you will have considered, “all evidence, including public testimony,” before finding “that it is in the best interests of the community to proceed with” the geotechnical and hydrogeologic study at Santa Rosa Creek Beach. I submit my comments to you in writing, request their inclusion in the public record, and hope you will now take the time to listen to them before you make your decision.
The claim is made that this “information gathering” study will not “result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.” (CEQA, Title 14, 15306. Information Collection). I raise several questions in this regard.
Question 1. How long will this study take? The CCSD District Engineer in the Agenda Discussion today writes, “A maximum of three monitoring wells (6-8 inches in diameter each) will be installed for periodic groundwater sampling and monitoring over a two-year maximum time period.”
However, the “Coastal Consistency Determination” by the Army Corps of Engineers states, “Each monitoring well may need to remain for up to one year after installation” (3.1.7).
Which claim is accurate?
If a well of 100 ft. is left in the beach and activated over two years, instead of one year, will this be more likely to result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource? By what studies and criteria is this judgment made?
Indeed, if at the end of the one or two years it is discovered that removal of the whole test well is not possible, what will be the effects of this permanent disturbance of the beach and its environs? “If the complete removal of test wells is impracticable, the monitoring wells will be removed by drilling out to the maximum depth practicable. Well bores will be filled with bentonite-cement slurry from the bottom of the well bore to 5 feet below the lowest beach scour elevation, and native sand used to fill the remainder of the well. The surface will be sealed….”(3.1.) With what studies and criteria has this judgment about effects on San Simeon State Park Beach been made?
Question 2 If initially 7-11 coring sample wells are drilled, and then three test wells are installed, along with six monitoring wells, along with pumps and generators, and this testing equipment stays in the beach for one to two years, how is the conclusion reached that no development is being placed on and in the beach? Invisible on site (unless storms or earthquakes change the conditions) does not mean unreal.
Question 3 The Coastal Consistency Determination states, “The objective of this initial investigation is to help define the paleochannel extension offshore from the Santa Rosa Creek beach to characterize the subsurface materials and hydrology.” (3.0.)
However, 3.1 states, “The site investigation will occur onshore along the beach, entirely above (landward of) the mean higher high water line.”
If “[t]he objective of this initial investigation is to help define the paleochannel extension offshore from the Santa Rosa Creek beach,” how does drilling only above “the mean higher high water line” accomplish this? (emphasis added). What criteria will be used to judge the information gathered in this respect?
Question 4 The Coastal Consistency Determination states, “The proposed exploration locations may be subject to minor relocation (i.e., within a 50-foot radius) during the course of the field investigation based on geologic conditions or site conditions. These conditions include the depth to bedrock or nature of the sediments, tide, storm events, wave run-up, then-current beach topography, or presence of any other impediment.”
How and why was the decision made to construe “the depth to bedrock or nature of the sediments, tide, storm events, wave run-up, then-current beach topography” as “impediments” to the planned research rather than as constitutive elements of the environment? How are these so-called impediments factored into the computer modeling mentioned in the objectives? The bedrock, sediments, tides, storm events, wave run-up, beach topography and much more constitute the beach environment. To determine whether a study poses “a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource” by first defining these elements as impediments violates scientific methodology.
Question 5 Neither the CCSD agenda discussion nor the ACE Coastal Consistency Determination consider the possibility that the beach itself under its surface merits any environmental concern. Out of sight, out of mind characterizes this analysis. (Of course, some core sampling and test wells will be minded.)
They apparently do not consider the beach as a whole an environmental resource. In this they are fearfully behind the times. I cite only two studies here. Sylvia Earle, oceanographer, has served as Chief Scientist of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, been named a Living Legend by the Library of Congress, and is the 2009 recipient of the TED prize, and recipient of more than 100 national and international honors for her work over the past half century.
In The World Is Blue: How Our Fate and the Ocean’s Are One, Dr. Earle writes, “The bottom line answer to the question about why biodiversity matters is fairly simple: The rest of the living world can get along without us, but we can’t get along without them” (National Geographic, 2009; p.129).
In his book, Sand: The Never-Ending Story, the geologist, Michael Welland, writes about biodiversity and the beach, “Inevitably, the community of organisms growing on or living in sand has its own name: psammon.” The members of the community are “wondrous. Most of us don’t know they exist, but we should be grateful for them. Without meiofauna, the sands of our beaches and lakeshores would be stinking, toxic places, with organic debris rotting unconsumed and dangerous bacteria rampant. The microscopic creatures of the meiofauna feed off this debris: they keep our beaches clean.” (University of California Press, 2009; p. 63).
While J. Oakden’s work is quoted in 4.3 on marine environment, the only comment made about the impact of 10 wells on visible and microscopic life on and in the sand is this sentence: “Impacts to native wildlife and vegetation would be less than significant.” No supporting evidence is given, no relevant studies cited, no argument made. The assertion sits there bare as can be. Those designing the study did not take into account the immense complexity of life within the sand and human dependence on it.
Neither do they consider the possibility that the drilling of 7 to 11 wells across the beach might disrupt the natural behavior of the beach as a whole, i.e., in relation to what surrounds and engages it on all sides.
Question 6
The Coastal Consistency Determination presupposes the autonomous separation of the study area from each and every element around it. Santa Rose Creek and the beach apparently have nothing to do with each other. “The proposed study would have no effect on the creek and, therefore, would have no effect on these species” (4.3). However, no information is given to show what is meant by “Preliminary hydraulic modeling” that will be used to “confirm that the lagoon will be outside the cone of influence of the test well.” Is this hydraulic modeling based on actual data or only on mathematical models?
The assumption seems to be that the beach and creek can be mathematically and therefore actually separated from each other. This is epistemologically and environmentally dangerous.
The same kind of assumption is made about the Pacific Ocean and San Simeon State Beach. I quote only two of their examples. “Federal threatened southern sea otters may occur in the ocean offshore of the study site but would not be present on the study site itself. Noise and activities on the upper beach would not disturb sea otters offshore. Impacts of the proposed study to sea otters would be insignificant” (4.3). How do they know this? In addition, they write, “Study activities would occur above the mean high tide line and would not impact Essential Fish Habitat” (4.4). Making such assertions without giving any data to support them makes their claim for a Categorical Exclusion cursory.
Conclusion
Science and engineering seem to have little to do with each other in this proposed study. I cannot summarize the argument here, but I point you to The Corps and the Shore by Orrin H. Pilkey and Katherine L. Dixon, geologist and research associate at Duke University when they wrote the book. In Chapter 3, “Beaches by the Numbers,” they show the inadequacy of the mathematical models used by the Army Corps of Engineers to control beaches around the United States. The entire book documents this. In this chapter they name and discuss “[s]ome of the specific and fatal weaknesses of mathematical models used by coastal engineers”: isolation of natural processes, representation of complex nature with artificial simplicity, failure to consider inherent uncertainties of natural processes, failure to consider chaos theory, and failure to recognize variety in nature. Reading this book, I frequently said to myself, “Yes! This is exactly what’s happening here in Cambria.”
After reading the ACE’s Coastal Consistency Determination, I now walk through Shamel Park to Moonstone Beach and think, What will be the effect on the park of a Morooka/PS-600 track mounted sonic drill rig, weighing 37,700 pounds and 41 feet long, taking a 90 degree turn downhill from Windsor Boulevard, driving over the sandy, potted parking lot lined by old cypress and fence and small groundcover garden toward the ocean, making another 90 degree turn on to the service road between the younger cypress and another fence, driving past the only playground for children in town (apart from the schools), and making another 90 degree turn on to the cement ramp to the beach? What exactly will the effects of multiple trips be? And what will happen to the beach?
At the end of her book, Sylvia Earle writes, “I wish you would use all means at your disposal—Films! Expeditions! The Web! New submarines!—to create a campaign to ignite public support for a global network of Marine Protected Area, hope spots enough to save and restore the ocean, the blue heart of the planet” (p.263). The list of Protected Marine Sites that then follows includes the Cambria State Marine Conservation Area.
The “Coastal Consistency Determination/ Geotechnical and Hydrogeologic Investigation/ Cambria, CA” provided by the Army Corps of Engineers never even mentions The Cambria State Marine Conservation Area.
* * *
At its November 10, 2009 meeting, the Arroyo Grande City Council enacted an interim moratorium on new water meters. After 45 days, the council will hear from staff more about the issues and expect to extend the moratorium at least 6 months. According to staff reports, Arroyo Grande citizens used 99% of their total water entitlement in 2008 and the aquifer is threatened with seawater intrusion. They’ve instituted mandatory conservation and are talking to other communities to ensure they have contingencies in place if they run out of water.
The AG moratorium is not the same as Cambria’s. The moratorium instituted by the Cambria Community Services District relies on Water Code section 350 of California law. Arroyo Grande’s moratorium is based on an entirely different law (section 65858), which allows for an immediate moratorium on new building. Specifically, the law states a city can adopt
an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time. That urgency measure shall require a four-fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. The interim ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may extend the interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently extend the interim ordinance for one year. Any extension shall also require a four-fifths vote for adoption. Not more than two extensions may be adopted.
This is a finite moratorium with a defined and limited length meant to address development that conflicts with the plans for the community. The City of Arroyo Grande has authority over land use and building permits as well as development of a general plan, specific plans and zoning. Cambria’s land use authority, with authority over development, general and specific plans is the County Government.
Fortunately for Arroyo Grande, it is in the process of updating their housing element and the conservation element of their general plans. Otherwise they might be subject to a moratorium of unknown and undefined length, like Cambria.
A press release from the AG city manager is included below.
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.Due to issues related to Arroyo Grande’s water supply, at the November 10, 2009 meeting, the Arroyo Grande City Council unanimously adopted an Interim Urgency Ordinance establishing a 45-day moratorium on the approval of development projects. The City is in the process of updating the Conservation Element of its General Plan. The moratorium will enable the City to address water supply issues and tasks necessary to complete the update.
The purpose of the moratorium is to provide the City the time necessary to:
• Develop a short-term plan to address potential seawater intrusion in the groundwater supply;
• Develop updated long-term water supply and demand projections taking into account projects that have submitted applications and those already approved and not yet constructed;
• Establish requirements on new development to mitigate water usage;
• Make decisions regarding future water supply alternatives;
• Incorporate comprehensive water supply strategies into the Conservation Element; and
• Obtain public input regarding these decisions.
The City anticipates the need to extend the moratorium for a period of up to six months in order to complete these tasks.
The City’s water supply has been an ongoing serious concern and issue. Mandatory conservation measures and a comprehensive incentive program have been in place since 2008 when the City utilized 99% of its water supply. While conservation efforts have been effective, concerns remain regarding the City’s ability to meet future water demand with existing resources. These concerns have been heightened recently by groundwater test results that indicate the potential for seawater intrusion. If left unchecked, seawater intrusion could threaten the region’s groundwater supply, which provides over a third of the City’s overall water supply.
The moratorium applies to all new development project applications that will require a new water service connection. Projects that have already received approvals or those with applications that have been accepted for processing and deemed complete are exempt. Projects that will utilize an existing water meeting are also not impacted by the moratorium. During the moratorium period, other project applications will be accepted and processed, but not approved.
According to City Manager Steven Adams, “The groundwater test results are very preliminary. We encourage everyone to avoid overreacting, but we also must take the situation seriously. The moratorium enables the City to effectively develop water supply strategies without having to respond to a moving target with regard to additional demand. We expect it to be completed in a
timely manner. However, there are no easy solutions. Whether we can rely solely on conservation efforts or rate adjustments become necessary to fund water supply projects, residents will be impacted and need to be involved in this issue. Whether or not the test results are confirmed, the seawater intrusion findings highlight how vulnerable our water supply is given the lack of adequate excess resources that are available to the City.”
The agenda for next Monday’s Cambria CSD Board meeting is now available online. Below are highlights of the agenda. The main item looks to be the Fiscalini Ranch Preserve EIR. The closed session agenda includes the performance evaluation of the general manager (plus 3 legal matters). Download the full agenda packet from the CCSD’s website. More to come….
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
Receive Presentation by CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry & Fire
Protection) on Emergency Medical Services and Fire Protection Services
REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Consider Adoption of Resolution 50-2009 Approving Certification of Fiscalini Ranch Preserve Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR);
Consider Adoption of Resolution 54-2009 Approving the Revised Community Park Plan; Authorize General Manager to Sign and File Notice
of Determination; and Consider Adoption of Resolution 56-2009 Approving a Contract Change Order for Morro Group SWCA
B. Consider Adoption of 2010 CCSD Regular Board Meeting Schedule
A new site popped up recently that may be of interest to you. The content on it SHOULD be of interest to you. UnclogCambria.com tells the story of Cambria development from the point of view of lot owners not on the CCSD wait list. An appeal was set for last Thursday (10/28) and no matter how the judges rule on the appeal, the case is still far from over.
UnclogCambria.com includes all the case filings in a battle that may not end well for the CCSD and will continue to cost Cambrians money that would be better spent elsewhere. If you can wade through some of the more slanted and obnoxious statements about the Coastal Commission, the Cambria Community Services District and the sometimes immature tone, it is an interesting read that will provide some background on the other side of the “preserve our village” coin.
My recommendation: click over to the site and read the couple of brief pages (Home and Case Background) with an open mind and the understanding that there are always more ways to see things than the one we may prefer. The best way to protect ourselves and a vision of Cambria we can support is to get informed, stay involved and keep the conversation going. This will not go away just because it is being ignored.
At the Cambria Community Services District October 22, 2009 meeting, Ron Crummit gave an update on the Buildout Reduction Committee’s progress. Listen to it by downloading the mp3 below. (Full audio of the meeting is available at www.slo-span.org)
93428 Cambria
Wit the Fiscalini Ranch Preserve EIR on Thursday’s agenda, there is very little extra time to rad more. Bu this relevant report on the accomplishments of Park and Rec over the last four years and the goals going forward could add another dimension to the discussion of the Ranch this week.
Prepared as a report to the Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo county and on the consent agenda for next week’s BOS meeting, the report lists current priorities and goals as well as itemizing the work the Parks Commission has been involved with.
If you have a moment, you can read the report here.
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.
