?? …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned!

Gregg Berge

Uhh, okay, I’ll get right on it…

Elizabeth Bettenhausen, Ph.D.
345 Plymouth Street
Cambria, CA 93428

5 January 2010

Colonel Thomas H. Magness, Commander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District
P.O. Box 532711
Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325
PublicAffairs.SPL@usace.army.mil

Dear Colonel Magness:

Your briefing at the Dec. 14, 2009, meeting of the Board of Directors of the Cambria Community Services District (CCSD) provided some crucial information on the next steps in the Project Cooperation Agreement between the Army Corps of Engineers and the CCSD on the proposed desalination plant. For that I thank you.

You pointed out the Obama administration’s “Proposed Principles and Standards” for water and related resources implementation studies. You repeatedly claimed that the Army Corps of Engineers would “demonstrate an appropriate balance in what we do” to fulfill the expectations of the principles and standards to balance economic and environmental benefits of particular projects. You said this balance is a change from the previous stance of the Corps.

You also made clear that the Army Corps of Engineers has “a sense of urgency” to spend $2.5 million here in Cambria, because this would make it more likely that the Congress would allocate more ARRA funds to the Corps in FY2011 for the Cambria Community Services District’s (CCSD) proposed desalination plant.

In light of your comments, I was surprised when the CCSD’s district engineer reported, shortly after you left the meeting, that the Army Corps of Engineers had already decided to seek a categorical exemption for the geotechnical and hydrological study on San Simeon State Park Beach here in Cambria. Thus, no environmental assessment would be done to evaluate this study’s impact. You may indeed believe that money from the ARRA is more important that environmental analysis of beach studies. If so, you should have said that, instead of sounding so devoted to environmental principles too. Your comments at the CCSD meeting on Dec. 14, 2009, provided an excellent example of duplicity.

Today the CCSD Board of Directors held a special meeting to consider a resolution to approve “the geotechnical and hydrogeologic study at the Santa Rosa Creek Beach” and to file a “notice of exemption” with San Luis Obispo County “in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.” However, after public testimony, the Directors voted to instruct the staff to bring an initial study proposal under CEQA to the next meeting of the Board of Directors.

The Coastal Consistency Determination by the Army Corps of Engineers was attached to the Resolution material in today’s agenda. We were told that the Army Corps of Engineers wanted the special meeting in order not to delay consideration of their Determination by the California Coastal Commission. I am attaching my initial analysis of the Determination, which I presented to the Board. I ran out of time preparing for this unexpected meeting and so note that, were I to make my analysis more comprehensive, I would be happy to send that to you too.

Sincerely,

cc: CCSD Board of Directors
The Honorable Lois Capps
other interested persons