About 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

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
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 December 2009
B. Approve Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting, December 14, 2009 and January 5, 2010
(Estimated Time: 15 minutes)
8. HEARINGS AND APPEALS
A. Consider Adoption of Resolution 07-2010 Approving Management Recommendations to Resolve Impasse in Labor Negotiations Between the CCSD and Cambria Firefighters/IAFF (International Association of Firefighters) Local 4635, and Establishing Terms and Conditions of  Employment for the IAFF Members; Consider Adoption of Resolution 08- 2010 Reporting the Payment of Member Contributions to the California
Public Employees’ Retirement System; and Consider Adoption of Resolution 09-2010 for Employer Pick-Up – IRC 414(H)(2)
(Estimated Time: 30 minutes)
9. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Receive DRAFT Audit Fiscal Year 2008-2009
B. Consider Adoption of Resolution 02-2010 Approving Mid-Year Revision to Fiscal Year 2009/2010 CCSD Operating Budget
C. Consider Adoption of Resolution 03-2010 Approving Van Scoyoc Associates Professional Services Agreement

D. Consider Adoption of Resolution 04-2010 Ratifying Confidential Non-Exempt Positions and Side Letter No. 2 to Amended Payment and
Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Employees
E. Consider Adoption of Resolution 05-2010 Approving Appointment of Parks and Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Commissioners and Resolution 06-2010 Approving Appointment of Ex Officio Members
F. Consider Request for Nominations for LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) Special District Member
G. Review and Approve 2010 Board Committee Assignments
(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. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to periodic performance evaluation as required by employment contract.
Title: General Manager

More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.

The on again-off again plans to move the operations and ambulances of the Cambria Community Healthcare District (CCHD) to the Cambria Community Services District Fire Station on Burton Drive are off once again. Trustee Lemming reported that the August 31 meeting of the  ad-hoc co-location committee has started off well, but gradually turned sour. The ad-hoc committee is made up of CCSD Directors Clift and Sanders, CCHD Trustees Lemming and Headding and the head administrators of both districts, Tammy Rudock and Don Melendy. Fire Chief Miller also attended the committee meeting.

The CCHD trustees also heard from Administrator Melendy on the plans during a later part of the meeting. According to Melendy, there were a number of problems with the proposed plan, among them:

• insufficient private space at the fire station for CCHD crews needing “safety naps” so they can be sharp and awake when it counts
• disagreement over issues of sharing employees and chain of command
• an overall sense that the CCSD was unwilling to meet the Healthcare District halfway or be flexible
• the CCSD wanted the move to happen by this October 1

In the end, what seemed to influence the Trustees’ decision to reject the plan was that it would not even address the main reason they re-started talks about the co-location: better (or at least equal) service to the community and conditions for staff and money saved from sharing overhead costs and staff resources.  Administrator Melendy pointed out that the move as the current plan suggested would be a net loss for the CCHD, since they would be incurring costs for the move itself.

The Trustees aren’t ruling out co-location and Trustee Bates went as far as to say it was “inevitable” that  would happen someday. But all four Trustees agreed (Kristi Jenkins was absent), not with this plan.

The CCHD also discussed progress on getting an ALS (Advanced Life Support) unit put back onto the Fire Engine. More on that discussion in Wednesday night’s post.

More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.

There are an infinite number of reasons people don’t pursue the facts necessary to make an informed decisions. Some of the reasons are even reasonably valid. (Of course, readers of this site value the access to information needed to make good decisions.) In reality, a majority of folks rely mostly on what they hear from their friends and neighbors, filtered through the their own life experiences.  Sometimes, people add what they learn on paper and online.  It often boils down to sound bites and choosing a side based on what your friends have chosen.

Here are some facts: In 2000 Kennedy-Jenks provided a report that has been the basis for the declaration of the Water Code 350 Emergency and the decision to pursue desalination. The report was part of developing a water master plan and included analysis of water use demand. It reported the average residential connection used about 9 units per billing cycle. They calculated a composite connection use of about 12 units, a number often given as “standard” use.  This “composite connection” was calculated

using the “mean annual” unit demand patterns, and assuming residential connections and commercial connections of 3,586 and 210, respectively, (i.e. their December 1999 values), the estimated residential, commercial, and total annual water demand are 578, 201, and 779 acre-feet, respectively. Dividing these values by the assumed number of connections produces annual residential and commercial unit water demand estimates of 0.161 and 0.959 acre-feet per connection, respectively.

In a recent study (Mayer et al, 1999), the indoor water requirements of 12 utilities were evaluated. One of the locations was Lompoc, California. The results of the evaluation are presented in Table 4-1. The mean daily per capita indoor water for the 12 locations was 69.3 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The comparable use for Lompoc was 65.8 gpcd*, slightly less than the average. The indoor water uses are almost exclusively for human consumption and sanitation.

For comparison, the typical average annual water demand, both indoor and outdoor, for District customers is approximately 75 gpcd. Because a Dry Season water demand reduction of approximately 20 percent would be necessary to reach the indoor water use estimates, the declaration of a water shortage emergency for health and safety reasons would only be necessary for Stage 3.

*gpcd = gallons per capita per day

Translating gpcd into what you would see on your CCSD bill (which covers 2 months).  A CCSD billing unit is one hundred (100) cubic feet of water or 748 gallons.

65.8 gpcd = 5.4 units pcbm (per capita bi-monthly)

65.8 gpcd = 5.7 units pcbm (per capita bi-monthly)

75 gpcd = 6.1 units pcbm (per capita bi-monthly)

50 gpcd  = 4.1 units pcbm (per capita bi-monthly)

More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.

The presentation of the Cambria Community Healthcare District’s proposed budget for 2009-2010 was fairly thorough and made it clear that the Board is going to have to step up to the plate and  make some difficult choices to balance their budget. With nearly 87% of all their revenue needed to cover their personnel costs,  there isn’t much they can do other than review their employee compensation agreements. The staff have agreed to a freeze in the step increases that are part of the current MOU (aka contract) for one year. The dedication and loyalty they have shown in agreeing to the freeze is to be applauded. Unfortunately, a freeze for one year is not going to solve the problem. And the problem is just going to grow exponentially as we go forward if the board doesn’t address the issue now.

No one likes to be the bad guy who cuts salaries or even eliminates entire positions. We must give our expectations a reality check and get our spending under control. We are a town of about 6,000. It would be nice to have it all, but let’s get real about how much we can really afford before our quality of life is damaged beyond repair and our community dies of thirst and starvation. (Although we’d be able to say that at least no one lost their job or retirement benefits.)

In February, the editor of EcoWorld.com posted a relatively clear and comprehensible article about how to “properly assess worker’s compensation.” Personnel costs account for a large portion of all expenditures for almost every kind of company or agency that exists. As budgeting concerns dominate conversations of Boards of local governments all over California and the compensation liabilities come into clearer focus, the public needs to get educated  about how their money is being spent and whether that spending is appropriate. In Cambria, we are facing rate increases of 9.75% on water and 15% on wastewater – mostly just to keep up with the costs of employing the 32 staff of the CCSD.

Now, I’m the last person to stand up and say: hey, those folks don’t deserve that pay or the benefits! I think all employees should be provided reasonable health coverage and some sort of retirement/pension benefit (once they’ve been around long enough.) But I also think the days of over for the commonly cited rationale of “recruiting and retaining qualified people”   public sector jobs.  Especially as the economic downturn shows no signs of loosening its grip, jobs in the public sector are many times more attractive than the more volatile private sector.

I recommend you take a look at this article. And offer your two cents. I’m not a genius, but the reasoning and equations seem sound enough.

From the article:

…the way retirement pensions and health benefits affect real compensation in the public sector, normalized for all benefits, is quite dramatic. During the years public sector employees work, the funding requirements of their future benefits need to be paid. While ongoing funding allows interest to be earned, the real return of these funds is not likely to exceed 5% per year, if that. Despite a run of excellent returns in recent years, fueled by unsustainable debt fueled economic “growth,” in general funds large enough to service pensions for millions of workers cannot experience real growth greater than the rate of overall economic growth for the economy at large. A good global fund should not be expected to grow faster than the sustainable rate of global economic growth, which has never exceeded 4% historically (ref. Humanity’s Prosperous Destiny); this is a realistic if not optimistic real rate of return, adjusted for inflation. Let’s also assume a public employee works for 30 years, retires at age 55, lives to be 75, and started their career earning a salary paying one-half as much as what they earned by the end of their career, with the increases spread evenly through their 30 year working life. Assume these are merit increases since we are dealing with real dollars, and similarly, since we are using real dollars, assume no cost of living adjustments during retirement. All of these assumptions, please note, will lower the amount of funding required each year. Assume they are state workers, meaning they “only” get 2.0% per year applied to their retirement calculation.

The math is somewhat complex, but here is the result: At a return of 4% per year, a state worker will have to have an additional 19% of their salary contributed to their pension fund each year they work in order for the fund to accumulate enough to pay them their defined pension until they reach the age of 75. During the years they work, they will also have to have annual contributions made for their future health benefits - to say these amounts would be at least 2.0% more of their salary, which is about what medicare requires, would be a generous understatement, since public employees often receive supplemental health coverage for the period prior to age 62 when medicare eligibility begins, and they often receive coverage to supplement medicare as part of their retirement. For a state employee making $65K per year, this 21% of salary set-aside for their future health care and pension must be paid each year, and this is part of their compensation. Just as an aside, a city or county worker who gets a 2.7% per year pension plan, earning $65K per year at retirement, with a fund earning a realistic 4% per year, would require 27% (including the understated 2% for future health benefits) on top of their salary put into a retirement fund each year. Those in public safety who earn a 3.0% pension package, under these assumptions, would require 31% of their salary to be paid each year to adequately fund their retirement benefits.

It doesn’t end there. Public employees don’t work as many hours each year. Instead of 10 holidays, usually they get at least 15. Instead of 10 days of vacation, over their career, on average, if you include “personal days” as well as vacation time, public employees get at least 30 paid days off annually, 50% more than private sector workers. This is not to mention the “9/80? program where they get to work 9 days every two weeks instead of the normal 10 days, so long as they work an extra hour per day – hmmm, lunch at the desk and a few minutes early to arrive and a few minutes late to leave – sounds like a typical salaried job in the private sector, but never mind.

Where does this put us? If an executive in the private sector making $65K per year is going to actually make, best case, $94K per year, with an overhead of 45%, what is the overhead, and true compensation for a public employee?

Using the state worker as an example, you will take $65K, add 21% for funding future retirement benefits, add $12K for health benefits (apples and apples here – in reality health benefits are on average much better for public sector workers), normalize for 30 paid days off per year instead of 20, and you get an adjusted compensation of $102K per year, or an overhead of 58%.

It is important to note that a private sector workers overhead component of their total direct compensation of 45% is the absolute high end, whereas the overhead for a state worker in this example of 58% is the low end.

Read the article here.

PensionTsunami.com lives up to its name – providing an unreal tidal wave of links to news stories and articles that provide an overview of the multiple pension crises that are about to drown America’s taxpayers.

More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.

Provided here for public information is the Landwatch San Luis Obispo County position on the Hearst Corp Request for lot line adjustment. LandWatch appealed this request in writing.
It is thoughtfully researched, written and based on the Law.
Landwatch San Luis Obispo County is a non-profit organization working to promote sound land use legislation and resource protection in San Luis Obispo County FOR THE PEOPLE.

ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
BY LANDWATCH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

The proposed lot line adjustment requires a general plan amendment because it
changes the use of land in proposed parcel 1 by creating 24.35 acres of
commercial retail land use and 69.25 acres of recreation land use.

Government Code section 65850 authorizes a city or county to regulate land use by
adoption of an ordinance. Changes in land use are a legislative decision and can be made
only through an amendment of the zoning ordinance. City of Sausalito v. County of
Marin (1970) 12 Cal.App. 3d 550, 564.

The proposed lot line adjustment is more than an adjustment of lines – it includes
changes in the use of the land by creating 24.35 acres of commercial retail land use and
69.25 acres of recreational land use in the Old San Simeon Village area of proposed
parcel 1. Page 1-21 of the February 2, 2009 staff report states that while the Hearst
Conservation Plan allows a 110-unit motel and associated infrastructure at Old San
Simeon Village (which includes the shoreline of San Simeon Cove), the land use
designations of the current Local Coastal Program do not allow a motel at that location
and that the proposed hotel or motel could not be developed without an LCP amendment.

This statement is misleading at best. At page 1-3 the staff report makes it clear that the
current action – the lot line adjustment – will change land uses to accommodate
development of a motel or hotel by increasing the existing .17 acre Parcel 1 commercial
retail area to over 93 acres of Commercial Retail and recreational land use categories
both of which, according to Table O, accommodate motels, hotels, bed and breakfasts,
bars and restaurants, and retail sales of food and beverages as a principal permitted uses.
If this lot line adjustment is allowed, the necessary land use designation changes will
already be accomplished without the required LCP amendment and no later general plan
amendment will be needed.

The applicant also relies on the pretext of moving a commercial retail land use
designation from one area of the Hearst Ranch to another as if the impacts of commercial
retail and recreation land use categories and the urban development allowed in those
categories would be the same no matter where it was located.

A lot line adjustment cannot be used to change land use designations.

The changes in land use require the legislative amendment of the Coastal Zone Land Use
Ordinance accompanied by analyses of consistency with the Local Coastal Plan and
public notice, opportunity to comment and public hearings for general plan amendments.
The County should deny the lot line adjustments as they are proposed and require the
applicant to properly apply for an LCP amendment to make the proposed land use
changes.

1
The application submitted by Hearst Holdings was significantly incomplete in that
the question “[W]hat will the property be used for after division” was not
answered.

In its Land Division Application, the applicant left a blank after the question “[W]hat will
the property by used for after division.” The failure to provide specific information about
what the applicant intends to do with the property after the lot lines are adjusted and after
over 93 acres of commercial retail and recreational land uses have been created has
translated into multiple violations of the Coastal Act, and the San Luis Obispo County
Local Coastal Program. Even though the June 17, 2008 letter from Hearst representative
Roger Lyon to Airlin Singewald indicated that potential future uses include those allowed
under the newly sited 93 acres of commercial retail and recreation land use designations,
no specific uses were identified in the County’s staff report and no analyses of those uses.

Land Use Ordinance section 23.02.022 requires the planning director to determine
whether a land use permit application is complete and, when the application is
incomplete, to notify the applicant by letter the parts of the application that are
incomplete. Instead of properly requiring the critical information of “what the property
will be used for after division”, the County accepted and processed the incomplete
application as if the blank space on the page meant that the planned uses don’t exist.

The Subdivision Review Board failed to analyze whether the whole project as
contemplated by the applicant and as facilitated by the lot line adjustment and
land use changes is consistent with the Local Coastal Program.

As a result of the applicants failure to disclose on its application what the land would be
used for after the lot line adjustments, analysis of the conformance of the project with the
LCP was treated by the Subdivision Review Board as if the lot line adjustment and land
use changes affect only the paper they are mapped on, as if they are not connected to any
planned development or land uses that would be facilitated by the lot adjustments and
unlawfully changed land use designations.

The staff report’s analyses of the projects consistency with Coastal Plan Policies support
a finding of consistency with each policy on the ground that “the proposed lot line
adjustment would not result in new development on the project site.”

Because it is assumed that the lot line adjustment and adjunct land use changes will not
result in any new development, no analyses of the conformance of the whole project as
contemplated are provided. This assumption prevails throughout the staff report analyses
even though a June 17, 2008 letter from Hearst Holdings representative Roger Lyon
states explicitly that the applicant intends to develop the land as allowed by the new
commercial retail and recreation land use categories.

The application submitted by Hearst Holdings was incomplete with the result that
the public and decision makers were denied information required for an informed
decision making process.

2
Real Property Division Section 21.02.030 requires specific information that must be
included in an application for a lot line adjustment. This section requires the applicant to
locate, indentify and draw to scale all existing structures, wells, septic tanks, driveways
and other improvements located on the original parcels. These structures were not
located, identified or drawn to scale on a map.

The application must provide the locations, purpose and width of all existing and
proposed easements. While the June 17, 2008 letter from Roger Lyon to Project Manager
Airlin Singewald suggests that the County view descriptions of the entire Hearst Ranch
Conservation Easement at named internet sites, what is called for is a mapping and
discussion of the easements that affect the land involved in the lot line adjustments and
land use changes and no such map and discussion was provided.

The North Coast Area Plan was last updated in 1988 and it is impossible to make a
finding of consistency with an antiquated General Plan.

The North Coast Area Plan is over 20 years old and contains no current baseline resource
data on which findings of consistency with resource protection requirements can be
made. This antiquated Area Plan is inadequate and ineffective. The Courts have held
that it is impossible to find a project to be consistent with an outdated and inadequate
general plan and the lot line adjustment should thus be denied until the North Coast Area
Plan is updated to contain, among other things, current baseline resource and
environmental data.

The proposed lot line adjustment and changes in land use designation are
inconsistent with the North Coast Area Plan.

Even if the North Coast Area Plan is considered to be adequate, the proposed lot line
adjustment and changes in land use designation are not consistent with that current plan.
For example, and among other inconsistencies, the North Coast Area Plan (page 32) calls
for approximately three acres of development while the lot line adjustment and land use
changes create 93 acres of commercial retail and recreational development. The NCAP
calls for the total development within that area to include the Sabastian Store due to its
historical significance and for renovation of existing historic structures to “develop the
overall character of a historic village.” The uses described for Old San Simeon do not
include a hotel but a hostile or camp ground.

In addition, page 1-2 of the February 2, 2009 Subdivision Review Board staff report
states that while the lot line adjustment is consistent with the private conservation
easement placed on the Hearst Ranch, the 100 unit hotel and associated infrastructure
allowed by the easement is not allowed within the Local Coastal Program Land Use
Element. The staff report makes it clear that a general plan amendment would be
required to allow the hotel development. This statement recognizes the need for a
general plan amendment for approval of land use changes and shows that the land use
changes involving the creation of 93 acres of new commercial residential and recreation
land use designations have been approved unlawfully as an adjunct of the lot line
adjustments.
3
The application submitted by Hearst Holdings was incomplete with the result that
the public and decision makers were denied information required for an informed
decision making process.

Real Property Division Section 21.02.030 requires specific information that must be
included in an application for a lot line adjustment. This section requires the applicant to
locate, indentify and draw to scale all existing structures, wells, septic tanks, driveways
and other improvements located on the original parcels. These structures were not
located, identified or drawn to scale on a map.

The application must provide the locations, purpose and width of all existing and
proposed easements. While the June 17, 2008 letter from Roger Lyon to Project Manager
Airlin Singewald suggests that the County view descriptions of the entire Hearst Ranch
Conservation Easement at named internet sites, what is called for is a mapping and
discussion of the easements that affect the land involved in the lot line adjustments and
land use changes and no such map and discussion was provided.

The application submitted contained incorrect information.

In response to the General Application Form requirement to “[D]escribe current uses,
existing structures, and other improvements and vegetation on the property” the applicant
states the single word “vacant”. The land involved in the proposed lot line adjustment
and unlawful land use changes is not vacant. As described in the North Coast Area Plan
at page 4-8, and known by people who love San Simeon Cove and Point, the site of Old
San Simeon Village has multiple historic buildings including the Sebastian Store and
historic buildings associated with the development of Hearst Castle including historic
ware houses, a school house, and homes designed by Julie Morgan. The Sebastian Store
and the Post Office currently provide services to visitors and local residents.

This failure to describe uses, structures, improvements and vegetation served to limit the
discussion and analysis of the project’s consistency with the Local Coastal Program.

The project is in a sensitive resource area and the application did not include the
information required by Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance (CZLUO) section
23.07.164 and sensitive resource areas were not analyzed.

Section 23.07.164 of the CZLUO requires the application to include “a description of
measures proposed to protect the resource identified by the Land Use Element (Part II)
area plan.” Even though the project is in a sensitive resource area, no measures are
proposed within the application to protect identified resources. This is linked to the
segmenting of the lot line adjustment and land use changes from the development they
will facilitate and to the fiction that the project will not result in new development.
Discussion of the project’s consistency with environmentally sensitive habitats concludes
that the project is consistent with this policy “because it would not facilitate new
development.” No authentic analyses supported by evidence in the record were provided
4
to show whether the project is consistent with requirements for protection of sensitive
resource areas.

The Subdivision Review Board did not analyze whether the project conforms to
mandatory standards.

Public Resources Code section 30604(b) states that a coastal development permit shall be
issued where the issuing agency or the coastal commission on appeal finds that the
proposed development conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program.

Section 21.02.030(d) of the San Luis Obispo County Real Property Division sets forth the
standard for approval of a lot line adjustment as follows:

The county shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or
not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the general
plan, local coastal program, and zoning and building ordinances.

While ultimate findings of conformance with County ordinances and the Local Coastal
Plan were made, the findings were not based on analyses of evidence in the record.

In addition, according to the Planning Area Standards for the North Coast Area Plan,
standards are mandatory requirements that must be satisfied for a new land use permit to
be approved. Page 7-4. The County failed to analyze whether the proposed lot line
adjustment and land use changes conform to applicable mandatory standards including
but not limited to the following.

Areawide standard number 5 for North Coast rural areas requires land division
applications in areas visible from the public road must identify potential building site
envelopes. These building sites shall be in developable locations least visible from the
public road. The application submitted by Hearst Holdings did not identify potential
building site envelopes and conformance to this standard was not analyzed. In fact, as
mentioned in this appeal, the applicant did not even disclose what the property will be
used for after the lot line adjustment as required by the permit application.

Areawide standard number 9 is specific to the Hearst Ranch and requires Hearst Ranch
development proposals to include provisions for organized services with the most critical
identified as water supply, sewage disposal, and solid waste disposal. Even though the
lot line adjustment includes land use changes including designation of 93 acres of
commercial retail and recreation land uses, no provision for these critical services was
provided by the applicant or analyzed for conformance by staff.

Combining designation standard for sensitive resource areas number 9 requires
recreational uses to be situated to minimize adverse imipacts on marine resources. Even
though the lot line adjustment included the creation of 69 acres of recreation land use at
Old San Simeon Village, the specific site of that land use was not identified and no
analysis was provided to show that the siting of the recreational land use does not impact
the nearby marine resources.
5
6

Agriculture standard number 1 is specific to the Hearst Ranch and requires the following.

Any land division proposed in the agricultural portions of Hearst Ranch shall
satisfy the following criteria:
a. The division shall constitute an individually viable agricultural unit, or
b. The division shall improve the viability of adjacent holdings or serve a
necessary public service where it can be demonstrated that the division will not
otherwise significantly reduce the agricultural viability.

Commercial standards discussed on pages 7-8 and 7-9 of the Planning Area Standards for
the North Coast Area Plan limit the uses of the area within the proposed lot line
adjustment and describe phases within which development is to occur.

No analyses of whether the proposed lot line adjustment and land use changes conform to
the above mandatory standards is provided in the staff report. Consequently, the findings
that the lot line adjustment and land use changes conform to the general plan and North
Coast Area Plan are not supported by evidence in the record.

Based on the above, LandWatch San Luis Obispo County requests that the Board of
Supervisors uphold this appeal and deny the proposed lot line adjustment and coastal
development permit and recognize as void the unauthorized approval of land use changes
within the project area.

ADDENDUM TO
ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT COAL 07-0070
BY LANDWATCH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

What follows is an addendum to the appeal submitted earlier today. The hard copy original of
this addendum will be mailed to the County Planning Department.

The proposed lot line adjustment requires a general plan amendment because it changes
the use of land in proposed parcel 1 by creating over 7 new acres of commercial retail
land use.

Government Code section 65850 authorizes a city or county to regulate land use by adoption of
an ordinance. Changes in land use are a legislative decision and can be made only through an
amendment of the zoning ordinance. City of Sausalito v. County of Marin (1970) 12 Cal.App. 3d
550, 564.

The proposed lot line adjustment is more than an adjustment of lines – it includes changes in
land use designations, more commonly known as zoning. The commercial retail land use
designation for the Hearst Ranch west of the highway at San Simeon Point and Cove in the
North Coast Area Plan is established as 17 acres. The proposed lot line adjustment adds over 7
new acres of commercial retail land use designation to this area.

A lot line adjustment cannot be used to change land use designations.

Changes in land use require the legislative amendment of the Local Coastal Program
accompanied by proper consistency analyses, public notice, opportunity to comment, and public
hearings for a general plan amendment. The County should deny the lot line adjustments because
they contain a buried change in land use.

This post was submitted by anne.

This Thursday, John MacKinnon, Jerry McKinnon and Amanda Rice will be meeting with any other interested Cambrians to discuss ongoing community concerns and issues raised at the recent CCSD meeting. A new rates proposal is on the horizon and the audit for 2007-2008 has been released. The agenda will primarily focus on the financial issues, especially as they relate to our pocketbooks. This meeting will also get us back in the swing of things and help get us organized and ready to ensure the new rates proposed are reasonable and the Prop 218 process rules are clear and fairly applied.

3pm, Moonstone Beach Bar and Grill. Thursday, February 26, 2009.

From a brief document from the Arlington Forum with some useful tips and help for leaders wanting to encourage genuine involvement in the decisions and direction of their communities:

When citizens talk about what works in terms of civic engagement, they focus less on formal structures and processes and more on actual experiences—how individuals work together and treat each other, regardless of the setting.
This means that successful civic engagement is not like carefully following a recipe. In fact, a formulaic process can ring hollow to those who participate, making people feel as though they were just “window dressing.” What transforms “going through the motions” into the kind of civic
engagement that builds relationships and strengthens communities is careful and sustained attention to three touchstones: civic conversation,
“inreach,” and civic governance.

Civic Conversation—broad-based discussions among diverse groups and institutions that reach the core of
community values, direction, and well-being.

Inreach—organizations reaching inside to build and strengthen civic relationships among those who are working within and with those organizations. Civic Governance—initiative and responsibility for community problems, actions, and solutions shared by a wide range of citizens.
Civic engagement at its best nurtures civic conversation, pays attention to inreach, and leads toward civic governance.

Civic Governance—initiative and responsibility for community problems, actions, and solutions shared by a wide range of citizens.
Civic engagement at its best nurtures civic conversation, pays attention to inreach, and leads toward civic governance.

Download the full document here.

Wow! I am so impressed with the job Linn’s Restaurant and Catering did last night at our annual “Cambria Couples Christmas Dinner and Dance.” These young men, Aaron Linn, Derek Child and Brian Clark, came dressed all in black. They arrived early, helped us set up, then unloaded and began preparing the dinner well before any of our members or guests arrived. They cooked, served and quietly went about their business. They delivered the hor d’oeuvres and the dinners quickly and professionally. They uncorked the wine and kept our wine and water glasses filled. The entire evening they were attentive, courteous and friendly. And the food was delicious! Afterwards they sent us home and cleaned up, which was more than any of us expected. It was like fine dining at a five star restaurant, but at the Joslyn Center.

I heard nothing but compliments and thank you’s from the people who attended. If the attitude and work ethic of these young men is typical of the generation coming up, then the future of Cambria is in good hands indeed.

I’d also like to thank Shirley and Tom Christian and Zella and Carl Reed for the invitations, table set up, nametags and the other work they did. I especially want to thank Steve Gryte, who handled the reservations, contracts, bought the wine and kept us in the black!

Our band, led by Brett Mitchell, played lively tunes that allowed us to dance off the calories we ingested. Brett and his band complimented the wonderful meals we enjoyed all year, playing dance music attune with the theme of the evening.

Finally, I would like to thank Peggy Christianson and Steve Gryte, who ably taught our ballroom dance lessons this year. They were assisted by our next year’s president, Brian Griffin and his lovely wife Dale. All these people made my job this past year very easy.

Sincerely,

Michael Nielson, Outgoing President
Cambria Couples Dance Club

This post was submitted by mnielson.

Every meeting of the CCSD has an agenda and a packet of information for the board related to that agenda. State law (commonly called the “Brown Act”) requires the district to publish the agenda at least 72 hours before the meeting. A recent change requires that the Board Packet be available to the public at the same time the Board of Directors receives it. Frequently, the agenda a Board Packet come out at the same time, though the packet is sometimes available only the evening before the meeting.
The CCSD has been good about posting the agenda and packet on their website (except in September this year). An agenda should be posted at the Vets Hall before noon on Monday during the week of the meeting, if they meet Thursday. The packet is delivered to the directors and should be available at the district office for inspection during regular office hours.
Each month, an expenditure report of about a dozen pages is part of the packet. The Board approves the expenditures, usually as part of the consent agenda. Although this report sheds some light on where the money goes and what the district is working on, it isn’t the easiest of things to wrap your head around and definitely won’t really show any kind of patterns in spending. It also doesn’t include a balance sheet. It is only the outgoing funds that are shown. After browsing through these reports over the last year and a half and listening to what others have noticed, I started to put the data into a format that made more sense to me. I wanted to understand more clearly where the money was being spent. It’s been a challenge for this English teacher, but a fun one. Below are the sheets for fiscal year 2007-2008. They include only some expenditures – the ones that interested me for some reason or other. I invite you to look through the numbers and totals for projects like the Pine Knolls replacement tanks, and the desalination plant and payments made to particular service providers live Innovative Solutions and RBF Consulting. If you find an error or have a comment, I welcome your comment here or in an email to amanda at Aboutcambria dot com.