Part One in a Series

San Luis Obispo County has no polar bears stranded on mini icebergs, no melting glaciers, no sinking island nations, no dissolving coral reefs – all effects caused by the growing  instability of our climate. This doesn’t mean San Luis Obispo County will escape the effects of climate change. Although most of the more drastic effects are being seen and felt at the poles and the equator, environmental changes in the more temperate zones of the planet are becoming more noticeable.

Last Wednesday I attended an very intriguing workshop hosted by the Local Government Commission (LGC) in San Luis Obispo: SLO Climate Change Adaptation Workshop. LGC partnered with the National Center for Conservation Science & Policy (NCCSP) and Susanne Moser Research & Consulting in collaboration with the City and County of San Luis Obispo to develop and implement climate change adaptation strategies for the region through a grant from the Kresge Foundation. The strategies will help local leaders, decision-makers, and governments prepare for the impacts of climate change in a way that provides benefits across multiple sectors and systems. Our goal is to develop strategies that cohesively consider economics, health, culture, social needs, infrastructure, ecosystem services, and natural resources.

Last week’s daylong event included presentations on the effects and potential needs for adaptation to changes in San Luis Obispo County and breakout sessions where participants discussed the priorities for our county as we plan for the future.  An abbreviated list of some of those in attendance:

David Church, Executive Officer, SLO LAFCO

Judy Corbett, Executive Director, Local Government Commission

Adam Hill, SLO County Supervisor

Ellen Carroll, Environmental Coordinator, SLO County Planning

Larry Allen, Air Pollution Control Officer, APCD

Ron De Carli, Executive Director, SLOCOG

Joy Fitzhugh, Legislative Analyst, SLO Farm Bureau

Marni Koopman, Ph.D., Climate Change Scientist, National Center for Conservation Science and Policy

Andrew Christie, Chapter Director, Sierra Club

Jan Marx, Council Member, SLO City Council

Chuck Stevenson, AICP, Long Range Planning for SLO County

Ray Weymann, Retired Astronomer

Michael Winn, Chair, WRAC and board member of Nipomo CSD

Paavo Ogren, Director, SLO County Public Works

Don Maruska, Strategy & Fisheries Policy Advisor, SLOSEA

Jerry Bunin, Government Affairs Director, Home Builders Association Central Coast

Maggie Macro, Initiating Team, Transition Paso Robles (one of about half a dozen Transitions members who were there)

Among the many others were residents of a number of communities and green business/energy folks. I was encouraged to see so many staff from many local non profit organizations and government agencies like SWAP, SLO County Housing Trust Fund, Caltrans, Creston Area Advisory Body, Los Osos CSD, Economic Vitality Corporation, ECOSLO, Central Coast Salmon Enhancement, Cal Poly, Cuesta, CA fish and Game, and planners from the cities of Atascadero, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles and Morro Bay.

The morning presentations set the stage and helped build a shared foundation of information about changes that are predicted for this county and what adaptations might be required. Starting with the Importance of Adaptation, a look at adaptation and the connection to City and County mitigation work, SLO Climate Change Projections, Climate Change Impacts on SLO Socioeconomic Systems and a review of the Top Socioeconomic Issues and Strategies.

Briefly, the top 10 concerns for species and ecosystems under climate change:

1. Water withdrawals from groundwater basins and rivers are an urgent issue, regardless of climate change, but will become much more
   severe of a challenge under climate change. Workshop participants identified monitoring and regulation of water withdrawals as necessary. Changes in pricing, types of crops, and residual dry matter from land use practices were all recommended. Water conservation measures are urgently needed to reduce competition for water and retain supplies for protected species and important natural processes.
2. Connectivity of fish and wildlife habitat is vital under climate change, yet development is quickly reducing opportunities for connectivity. Longterm region-wide planning is non-existent. Planning for connectivity will require communication and collaboration across land ownership boundaries, incentives for climate change easements on private property, regional analysis of potential buffers and corridors, regional scale climate change consideration in all development decisions, and a better understanding of how and where species will move.
3. Sedimentation in rivers, streams, and estuaries is problematic and likely to get worse with more fires, increased storm intensity, and continued land use practices that lead to erosion. Sedimentation will have negative impacts on riparian and water delivery systems, both of which are already stressed by general drought and overdraft. Land use controls, incentives, newly developed best practices, and prescribed fire were all recommended to reduce sedimentation. Monitoring and adaptive management should be implemented to keep sedimentation rates within historical bounds, if possible.
4. Loss of riparian, wetland, and marsh ecosystems greatly reduces the resilience of the landscape to climate change. These ecosystems are disproportionately important as breeding grounds for fish and wildlife, habitat for rare species, flood abatement that protects nearby infrastructure, water filtration, water infiltration to groundwater storage, and oases during drought. These ecosystems should be protected, restored, and created across the County ASAP.
5. Sea level rise is a huge concern due to its potential to impact marine and terrestrial ecosystems, coastal development, tourism, recreation, and agriculture. Rather than armoring the coast, the coastline should be allowed to be dynamic in state. One suggested approach was rolling easements. Relocating some developments would be necessary, thereby allowing the sandy beaches, dunes, rocky intertidal zone, estuaries, and bluffs to shift over time but still persist. Persistence of these features is vital to tourism, fish and wildlife populations, local fisheries, recreational opportunities, public safety, and quality-of-life for residents. A statewide or regional policy will need to be developed specific to sea level rise and coastal armoring.
6. Loss of oak woodlands from increased fire, drought, and invasive species is of great concern. Reducing current stressors to oak woodlands, such as overgrazing and frequent fire, may allow this important vegetation type to be more resilient to climate change. Educating private landowners about climate change projections and best management practices in oak woodlands, as well as providing them with incentives to retain healthy oak woodlands on their property, would help. Propagating more drought tolerant varieties of oak may also be an option.
7. Many important strongholds for threatened and endangered species are not protected and are not included in critical habitat designations. Critical habitat needs to be revisited and revised to include these areas as well as buffers for climate change range shifts. Some species are already in perilous condition and climate change is likely to cause extinction. It will be important to identify which species can be managed for persistence and which ones are too costly to maintain. Revisiting critical habitat will assist in this determination.
8. Planning should be carried out on a watershed scale, with all major land use players brought to the table, including ranchers, agricultural producers, county planners, the Forest Service, BLM, USFWS, conservation organizations, and others. Planning is currently done in a piecemeal fashion, and regulation is insufficient and unenforced. Planning for development, agriculture, natural ecosystems, and other interests needs to be done collaboratively and through a long-term, climate change lense. Enforcing current laws and regulations (CWA, ESA, local regulations) that affect land and water management is an important first step towards increasing the resilience of species and ecosystems to climate change.
9. Monitoring of species and ecosystems needs to be increased to detect trends early on and adjust management quickly in an adaptive  management approach. Careful planning and thought will need to go into designing monitoring strategies. A central clearinghouse that makes data available from all monitoring and surveying efforts, would be especially useful and could lead to more informed, timely, and sophisticated management efforts.
10. Keeping options open and taking advantage of opportunities. San Luis Obispo County has more options than other areas. Much of the coastline is undeveloped, thereby making marsh and wetland migration possible. Climate change may make marginal farmland available for conversion to coastal wetlands or native grasslands. Topographic complexity provides climate change refuges for species across the County as they shift to new areas. Many areas are currently available for providing buffers and connectivity for natural ecosystems (primarily on private land), but these areas could be lost to development if new policies and approaches are not quickly instituted with climate change in mind.

Upcoming posts will summarize the presentations (and have the MP3s available for download) and the results of the afternoon discussions on priorities. Most of the research is in documents available on the Local Government Commission website.

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?

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.

North Coast Advisory Council meets the Aug. 19, 2009 at 6:30 Rabobank. Cambria Community Services District on Aug. 20 at 12:30 Veterans Hall. Highlights of agendas for both are included below. Also this week: Allied Arts meets Thursday to discuss possible move from the Old Schoolhouse (next to the Library) to the Old Grammar School (across from CCSD offices on Main). The public are invited to attend to share their thoughts. That meeting will be at 7pm in the auditorium of the Old Grammar School.

NCAC Agenda Highlights

• Discuss solutions for Cambria Trolley funding cuts. (With RTA rep Aimee Wyatt)
• Comments on project at 1043 Main Street (new building at Main and Cambria Drive)
• Discussion and possible action regarding recent  PG&E removed pines and oaks.

Full Agenda at NCAC website.

CCSD Agenda Highlights

CONSENT AGENDA

• Consider Adoption of Resolution 38-2009 Naming the Cambria Dog Park in Honor of Joyce and John Heller
• Consider Adoption of Resolution 39-2009 Rescheduling the September 24, 2009, Regular Board Meeting to October 1, 2009

HEARINGS AND APPEALS

• Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution 36-2009 Authorizing Fire Suppression Benefit Assessment, With No Consumer Price Index (CPI) Adjustment for FY 2009-2010
• Consider Introduction of Ordinance 02-2009 Electing to Have Delinquent Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Service Charges Collected on Tax Roll
• Conduct Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2009/2010, and Adopt Resolution 35-2009 Establishing the Appropriation Limit for the CCSD

REGULAR BUSINESS

• Discuss DRAFT CCSD Proposition 1A Contingency Plan
• Consider Request by North Coast Ocean Rescue (NCOR) Team for Insurance Coverage Under the CCSD Liability Policy for its Annual “Pier to Point Fun Paddle and Ocean Race” Fundraiser

Full Agenda at CCSD website

A Noisy Few Weeks.

For almost two weeks, the usual quiet of Cambria was replaced by a near constant hum of chainsaws and the louder droning of chippers grinding up Cambria’s tree branches. PG&E’s contracted tree trimmers were out in force here on Lodge Hill. They cut down two large pines in my front yard and an even bigger one across the street was removed. Cluttered on nearly every lot and in many front yards all over Cambria you can see the large rounds that were left behind. My yard was also littered with smaller branches and a couple of nests, creating the perfect fuel forgetting a fire going.

Before the cutting

After The Cutting

On Ardath Drive

A PG&E arborist was in the neighborhood this last winter, evaluating all the trees near the power lines. About 6 weeks later, another PG&E rep brought by a notice that two of our trees would be cut down because they were diseased and threatening the power lines.  This is the third major mature tree removed by PG&E since we moved in. All of them were unhealthy or dying and threatened the power lines.

Stump in foreground from 2002 tree removal. Others along left side removed in 2009.

The first tree PG&E took down was in November 2002. The last 30 or so feet fell the wrong way as they tried to take it down, pulling down 3 power poles, closing Ardath for over a day and cutting power to about 1/3 of Cambrian homes. That one was left right where it fell, occupying the entire front yard until we could afford to have someone cut and haul away the carcass. The tree company never came back or contacted us after the accident.

The remains of the two trees cut down this year now litter my side yard and have reduced the amount of yard space my dogs have by over half. Removing these remains are not part of what PG&E does, apparently. The reliability of our electricity infrastructure has been improved, but fuel for a fire in Cambria has just grown exponentially.

Fuel for Fire

Fuel for fire

The Big(ger) Picture

Recent letters to the Cambrian and an article in the New Times reflect the concern of community members have about destruction of our precious Monterey Pine forest.  One of the first things I learned as a member of the North Coast Advisory Council was Cambrians feel strongly about protecting our trees. Tree removal is an issue of San Luis Obispo County authority. Here in Cambria, no tree over 8” in diameter at 4’ from the ground may be removed or killed unless a permit is first issued.   A permit can only be issued if the tree meets certain criteria. To comply with County ordinances designed to protect existing trees and other coastal vegetation from indiscriminate or unnecessary removal consistent with local coastal plan policies and pursuant to Section 30251 of the Coastal Act which requires protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, you and I have to get a permit from the County and pay a fee of at least $123 (plus $123 for hazardous tree determination.) We are also expected to replace “any tree removed to accommodate new development or because it is a safety hazard shall be replaced, in a location on the site and with a species common to the community…” (County Ord.  23.05.064)

The PG&E Power

The New Times article by Colin Rigley (Aug 6-13 edition) stated the tree cutting by PG&E was exempt from permitting by the County. After reading the related  Coastal Land Use Ordinance (CZLUO), it’s not clear why PG&E is exempt. And because PG&E didn’t get tree removal permits, (at $123 per tree) they are also exempt from the tree replacement requirement.   Read the Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance specific to tree removal standards.

In addition to the CZLUO, the County’s  North Coast Area Plan (NCAP) provides even more specific standards for tree removal and replacement. The Planning Area Standards for Cambria states: “Any Monterey pine trees that are six inches or more in diameter 4.5 feet above ground removed shall be replaced at a 4:1 ratio. Any oak trees that are four inches or more in diameter 4.5 feet above ground removed shall be replaced at a 6:1 ratio.” (NCAP page 7-23, Revised August 2008)

Cambria’s Living Pine Forest

Whether or not PG&E should be exempt from County fees and permitting, or forgiven for leaving behind thousands of feet of wood on properties all over town (during fire season), we should not ignore the intent of the policies and ordinances that help re-populate our forest. Most of the tall trees that surround us began after the extensive clear cutting Cambria suffered about a hundred years ago and have reached the end of their natural lives. There will be fewer and fewer that are healthy and thriving, especially considering the ongoing drought conditions.

Greenspace, The Cambria Landtrust has a nursery of trees, ready for planting, to fill in where the old trees have died or been removed.  If you had any trees removed by PG&E, or even if you didn’t, help revitalize our forest by planting a replacement tree. The volunteers at Greenspace can help find a place to plant the tree, whether on your property or elsewhere. If you plant it yourself, remember to plant it away from places where it might threaten the power lines!

93428

Beginning August  17, day-use parking fees will increase by $2 to $5, and camping fees will increase by $10 – $21 a night. Camping reservations made prior to that date will be honored at the lower price.

Annual Passes will go back on sale immediately at the existing price of $125. In future months,  additional fee and pass increases are possible as State Parks assesses how the partnership program stretches the reduced budget funding to help keep parks open.

A list of specific parks affected is expected to be available next week and I will post any updated information as soon as it is available.

It should be noted that these increases do not raise park revenues enough to cover all the costs. Doing that would require steep increases that would price people out of their public park system. These increases are another tool in the efforts being taken by California State Parks to keep more parks open during this time of budget cuts and employee furloughs.

The department continues to seek support from cities, counties, corporations and nonprofit organizations who may want to sponsor or operate particular parks to help keep them open. Further, park managers have been reducing services and modifying their operations by closing portions of parks and reducing operating hours.

“We have loyal visitors who truly love our parks,” said State Parks Director Ruth Coleman. “We will do our best to maximize the use of additional funds so that parks continue to be available for public enjoyment.”

The map below shows all the State Parks our region.

San Luis Obispo has eleven State Parks.  State Parks in the county of ‘San Luis Obispo‘

Cayucos (State Beach)	San Luis Obispo
Estero Bluffs (State Park)	San Luis Obispo
Harmony Headlands (State Park)	San Luis Obispo
Hearst San Simeon (State Park)	San Luis Obispo
Hearst San Simeon (State Historical Monument)	San Luis Obispo
Los Osos Oaks (State Natural Reserve)	San Luis Obispo
Montaña de Oro (State Park)	San Luis Obispo
Morro Bay (State Park)	San Luis Obispo
Morro Strand (State Beach)	San Luis Obispo
Oceano Dunes (State Vehicular Recreation Area)	San Luis Obispo
Pismo (State Beach)	San Luis Obispo

Learn more about California State Parks on their official website.

Order an annual pass online for $125 any business day before 3pm and it’ll be in tomorrow’s mail.

UPDATE:

Updated fees for parks in SLO County:

Hearst San Simeon State Historical Monument

Hearst Experience Tour (combo) Child Child Entry Guided Tour / Walk $12.00
Hearst Daily Tour Adult Adult Entry Guided Tour / Walk $24.00
Hearst Daily Tour Child Child Entry Guided Tour / Walk $12.00
Hearst Experience Tour (combo) Adult Adult Entry Guided Tour / Walk $24.00
Hearst Evening Tour Adult Adult Entry Guided Tour / Walk $30.00
Hearst Evening Tours Child Child Entry Guided Tour / Walk $15.00

Morro Bay State Park

Morro Bay – Museum of Natural History Child Entry Museum / Park Entry $0.00
Morro Bay – Museum of Natural History Adult Entry Museum / Park Entry $2.00

Oceano Dunes State Vehicle Recreation Area

Oceano Dunes Paid Vehicle Undeveloped Parking $5.00

Pismo State Beach

Pismo Paid Vehicle Developed Parking $10.00

Download the full list of fees for all state parks.

A recent  article on CalCoastNews.com examines how much the San Luis Ambulance company charges for transports. It’s quite a thorough article, including explanations of how ambulance services determine what they charge, comparisons between SLO and other counties, and noting that Cambria’s residents are served by the Cambria Community Healthcare District and are subject to different charges than the rest of the county.
Read the article here.

Community Energy and Cooperation

Cambria is a charming village. Most of us who live here recognize Cambria’s qualities make it an attractive draw for people looking for a slice of paradise.  We value the forest and the secluded nature here.  Greenspace and other land trusts do us all a great service by purchasing undeveloped properties and ensuring they will remain undeveloped. The purchase and preservation of the land now called the Fiscalini Ranch Preserve is an overwhelming example of how Cambria can work together and get help from others. To meet the matching funds requirement of the American Land Conservancy,  we pulled together money from special events, individual donations, funds from the County’s parks and recreation development funds (about $250,000) and a dedication of a significant amount of land by Mid-State Bank.  It was a feat that eliminated 783 possible housing units.
Nearly ten years later, the critical parts played by Mid-State Bank, the County, the Preserve’s previous owners and even the magnitude of the financial burden shouldered by the American Land Conservancy all seem marginalized. It couldn’t have been accomplished without collaboration and cooperation. To thrive, we need leaders, partners and supporters from our local community, but also from the larger communities of the County, the State, the Nation and the planet.
This seems to be a lesson not learned. One of the best things about living in a small town a sense of mutual respect for others and personal responsibility that comes from nearly everyone knowing everyone else. There are no anonymous actions, since no one is a stranger. But the flip side of this heightened sense of accountability and community can be a heightened distrust of “the other” and of change. We can become urgently protective of our community, shutting out others in ways that damage precisely what we mean to protect.

How the CCSD is Protecting Our Village Atmosphere

One of the primary responsibilities of the  Cambria Community Services District is to ensure a reliable water source.  One of the side effects of the District’s policies in recent years has been to slow our growth to a near standstill. The CCSD board declared a code 350 water emergency on November 15, 2001, citing the fear that there may not be enough water to provide for fire protection and generous water use by current customers. This declaration grants the district broad powers to enact ordinances regarding water use and to declare a moratorium on new water connections until the situation is resolved. The Board set a cap of 4,650 water connections in July 2003 to address the concerns that a reliable source of water would cause an explosion in population. In November 2006, a District-sponsored measure to limit the urban services line passed with a large margin. Since its passage, any requests for water provided to development outside the current area served by CCSD must be approved by the voters of Cambria.

How the County is Protecting Our Village Atmosphere

There seems to be a lingering impression that protecting our village atmosphere isn’t a priority for the County. The County is the authority for land use policies, ordinances and permitting in Cambria and the rest of unincorporated San Luis Obispo County. They are legally responsible for creating and implementing policies to guide long-range community planning. The CCSD has a responsibility to manage the water resources and ensure a reliable supply for the population within the service area. The two responsibilities (land use and water) are inextricably linked, yet reside with two different independent agencies with elected Boards of directors.
This is understandable, since the 1988 North Coast Area Plan (NCAP) set the residential absorption capacity  of Cambria at 17,471 and a 2000 update of the NCAP (never adopted or certified by the Coastal Commission) noted 11,701 Single Family Residences at total build-out for Cambria.  Add this to the fact that just over half of all the homes in Cambria by 2000 had been built since 1980, and its easier to understand why there seemed no end to the growth explosion. ¹ The reality is that the current NCAP, adopted by the Board of Supervisors and certified by the Coastal Commission in November 2007  states that “if the Plan is never updated, the theoretical build-out is 6,130″ residences.

County and CCSD Facing the Same Direction

Since the declaration of the water code 350 emergency and moratorium, the County has incorporated additional control of growth into the policies and ordinances that apply to development in Cambria. Specifically, in 2002 the Board of Supervisors amended the Growth Management Ordinance (which is part of the LCP and must be approved by the Coastal Commission) to limit the number of new dwelling units to 1%  of the current number of houses each fiscal year.   Then in 2006, they amended it again to reduce the number of permits for new dwellings to 0% through June 2009. In May 2009, they extended the 0% allocation through June 2012.

The County has legislated Cambria some breathing room, almost 3 more years to get our additional water  project permitted and underway before it will consider issuing permits for new residences. Perhaps this is an opportunity for the CCSD Board to re-evaluate the water code 350 declaration, moratorium and its buildout cap. These policies (the Water Master Plan) is affecting more than just those with undeveloped property, on the list or not. The moratorium is likely at least partly responsible for the sharp increase in home values during the first few years of the century as well as for the softer blow Cambria’s home values took recently.

Cambria Will Grow Slowly and Stay Small

As the moratorium continues to drag on, defending the policy choices the CCSD has made will get more difficult (and expensive.) There is a tipping point beyond which control of Cambria and its size will be completely out of our hands. We have had a tenuous grasp on it anyway, since it is the County (and to no small extent, the Coastal Commission) who makes policy and decisions regarding land use and planning.

I think the issue of containing unbridled and unsustainable growth is a red herring. The work of earlier CCSD Boards definitely made its point to the County and are reflected in its policies and ordinances. Efforts like the acquisition of the Fiscalini Ranch (which retired 783 potential units) and lot mergers (352 lots reduced as of June 2009), retirements and conservation easements  are also making a real difference total number of homes that will eventually be built here.

It is now time for the District to step out of the way (or duck) and let go of its need to control  land use. If the County goes forward as expected (changing course isn’t one of government’s strong points), up to 39 permits will be issued between July 2012 – June 2013 to applicants with letters of intent to serve from the CCSD. If all permits allocated are used every year, it will be 2029 before the last wait list position gets their permit. Of course, the permitting process is a bit more complex, but current County ordinances will limit the pace of new growth. Making changes to those ordinances is a lengthy and expensive process and all amendments must be certified by the Coastal Commission before going into effect.

¹[1,206 homes were built in Cambria between 1980 and 1989  and another 815 between 1990 and March of 2000. There were 197 single family units and 4 multi-family units produced between 2001 and June 30, 2008. Today, there are 3,936 housing units in Cambria. Housing data sources: 2006 North Coast Area Plan 2006 Draft, County Housing Element Draft 2009 and US Census data. ]

The fundamental vulnerability of Cambria could turn out to be our leaders’ determination to control growth. In the long run it may make no difference WHY they are pushing to limit the number of connections (because the Coastal Commission has told Cambria it must mitigate for potentially destructive growth induced by a desal plant. All our eyes have been on desalination and assuring extremely high reliability for our water supply. This focus on desal has kept us from seeing our soft spot clearly. Our Achilles heel may turn out to be something  we rarely talk about in polite company: wastewater service.

If I learned anything during last summer’s too close to call rate increase, it’s that water and sewer are separate services provided by the CCSD. Each has their own department and bank account. The most recent rate increase for water and sewer was explicit in keeping the two separate. A protest could be against an increase in water, sewer or both. The first two Prop 218  protests didn’t acknowledge these are two distinct services. Not recognizing there are distinct enterprises is an easy mistake to make, since you get one bill from one district (CCSD) and its kind of all pipes and liquid and mostly taken for granted. Water and wastewater seem inseparable – except for about 100 Cambrians, if a Cambrian has water service, they also have wastewater service.

Here is why this distinction could make all the difference: the wastewater treatment plant isn’t at capacity – not even close, really. While we may not have enough water for additional homes, we can’t really claim we don’t have the capacity or that pipes are not fronting virtually every property in Cambria (with the exception of Liemert). The sewer infrastructure and wastewater treatment plant improvements were paid for with bond and property taxes. In the USA, anyone who pays for a benefit with their taxes must be provided that benefit. There are many lot owners that have paid a share of the funds used for the wastewater treatment. They may be entitled to the benefit.

The problem lays in the fact that CCSD has been using the “we’ve got no water” explanation to deny access and connection to the wastewater system. Since obtaining a will-serve letter is a requirement for requesting a building permit from the County, no one can get a building permit. The second problem is that the CCSD won’t answer the question as to whether or not they will provide sewer service to a property.

One property owner who is not on the CCSD waitlist has spent a lot of time and money trying to get the permits and variances needed to build his home. A recent letter to the Board of Supervisors speaks to the complexity of the issue, but also to the simplicity of it. When sewer service pipelines front a property, that property is required to hook into it (and not have a septic tank or other solution).  The planning area standards require water and wastewater service be provided by the CCSD.  The letter asks if this standard prevents the use of any other water supply (trucked in, for example.)

Read the full letter from Unclog Cambria here.

Building projects at the following Cambria addresses are on the agenda for this Friday 9 a. m.

2246 Windsor Blvd.;

6855 Kathryn Drive, about 1,500 feet north of Cambria Pines Road;

2760 Trenton Ave.;

1755 Newhall Ave.

Hearing held as the County Government Center, room 200, 1055 Monterey St., San Luis Obispo. 781-5600. www.sloplanning.org or northcoastadvisorycouncil.org for more information.