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
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.
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.Yesterday the CCSD posted a progress report on the Build-out Reduction Program plan, specifically the lot merger part of the program. In May 2007, the CCSD implemented the Voluntary Merger Program as part of the Buildout Reduction Program (BRP). Merging a lot means legally encompassing it with an adjacent lot or parcel, thus eliminating it from consideration as an individual legal entity. This program has been extremely successful with 280 out of the BRP goal of 394 buildable lots now merged. Click on Lot Merger Summary for all the details.
While this is definitely good news , a review of the Buildout Reduction Report reveals
a total of 1,360 lots that are part of groups of lots that are in common adjacent ownership (CAO). If they assumed that ALL of these CAO groups merged into single lots, a total of 986 vacant lots would be merged. Based on an analysis of the various CAO ownership scenarios that exist (e.g., single vacant lots that are attached to built lots, vacant lot groups that have “odd” numbers of lots such that at they are unlikely to be divisible into more than one legal building site, etc.), the consultants have conservatively projected that 394 voluntary mergers would occur (i.e., 40% of the theoretical maximum of 986 lots).
According to the Buildout Reduction Report:
The Buildout Reduction Program seeks to retire or merge enough potential building sites so that there is a near match between those who are authorized to build under the cap of 4,650 existing and new residential water connections, and the number of suitable building sites. This will happen over a projected 22 years.
I’m still working out what this all means for the cost of the BRP and the future of Cambria development. Look for more on this soon. Until then, you can visit the CCSD’s website to download the Reports and information about the BRP. Below are some of the numbers:
Lots to remain undeveloped 3,357
Lots already retired 289
Lots owned by conservation entities (but not retired) 36
Surplus lots owned by County 30
Lots in Special Project Area 1 579
Lots in Special Project Area 2 337
Orphaned lots 255
Total Non-buildable lots 1,526
Remaining residential lots to be retired and/or merged 1,831Total lots to be retired, merged or acquired 1,831
Retirements contingent on transfer of commercial EDUs 16
Voluntary/Program retirements 542
Mergers of vacant lots with existing built lots 394
Remaining lots to be acquired 879
More valuable than a gallon of gas? Say YES! with a small donation today.
Last fall, a movement developed to stop the first rate and Cambrians for a Fiscally Responsible CCSD began studying the finances of the District. Part of that first increase proposal was a plan to pay for part of the buildout reduction program by tacking a fee onto the water bills. The problem is that the State Constitution says “Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the amount required to provide the property related service.” And “Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.” (Article 13D)
The second time around, the CCSD proudly advertised (in a full page Cambrian ad on page 2) that there was no BRP fee included. Which was a good thing, since it would be illegal. During meetings and workshops last spring, the Board told us the BRP would not be paid for out of rates.
It was brought to my attention by Jerry McKinnon that the expenditure report for September included a payment to RBF Consulting for $5,000 that tagged “WD/Professional Services-BRP Study 7/1-7/31/08″ (CCSD Expenditure Report for Month ending September 30, 2008). Unless money in the water department funds arrived there from a source other than the rates revenues, this would seem to indicate the BRP is being funded from our rates.
Further investigation revealed that since March 2008, CCSD has paid RBF Consulting for professional services related to the BRP at least $25,840.00 and at least another $12,000.00 going back to March 2007. Every one of these was charged to the water department and so paid for with rates revenue.
I will be asking the CCSD about this at their next meeting (which is scheduled for Monday November 17 12:30pm) and via email to the GM and directors. Perhaps I will get an answer. Stay tuned here for more….
The subject of this second installment of “Cambria U” is a citizen’s guide to land use planning as it is practiced in California. Its purpose is to explain, in general terms, how local communities regulate land use and to define some commonly used planning terms. Links to additional information throughout this post will take you to more in depth information.
Cities and counties “plan” in order to identify important community issues (such as new growth, housing needs, and environmental protection), project future demand for services (such as sewer, water, roads, etc.), anticipate potential problems (such as overloaded sewer facilities or crowded roads), and establish goals and policies for directing and managing growth. Local governments use a variety of tools in the planning process including the general plan, specific plans, zoning, and the subdivision ordinance. State law establishes a framework for local planning procedures, but cities and counties adopt their own unique responses to the issues they face.
STATE LAW AND LOCAL PLANNING
State law is the foundation for local planning in California. The California Government Code (Sections 65000 et seq.) contains many of the laws pertaining to the regulation of land uses by local governments including: the general plan requirement, specific plans, subdivisions, and zoning.
However, the State is seldom involved in local land use and development decisions; these have been delegated to the city councils and boards of supervisors of the individual cities and counties. Local decisionmakers adopt their own sets of land use policies and regulations based upon the state laws.
Plan and Ordinances
State law requires that each incorporated county and city adopt “a comprehensive, long-term general plan for [its] physical development.” This general plan is the official city or county policy regarding the location of housing, business, industry, roads, parks, and other land uses, protection of the public from noise and other environmental hazards, and conservation of natural resources. The legislative body of each city (the city council) and each county (the board of supervisors) adopts zoning, subdivision and other ordinances to regulate land uses and to carry out the policies of its general plan.
There is no requirement that adjoining cities or cities and counties have identical, or even similar, plans and ordinances. Cities and counties are distinct and independent political units. Each city, through its council and each county, through its supervisors, adopts its own general plan and development regulations. In turn, each of these governments is responsible for the planning decisions made within its jurisdiction.
Hearing Bodies
In San Luis Obispo County the board of supervisors has appointed planning commissions to assist them with planning matters, and created advisory councils to represent specific areas. For issues that affect Cambria and/or San Simeon, the North Coast Advisory Council (NCAC) and the Planning Commission consider general plan and specific plan amendments, zone changes, and major subdivisions. The NCAC is advisory in nature, providing feedback to the county and District 2 Supervisor. The Planning commission has the power to approve proposals, subject to appeal to the council or board of supervisors. These hearing bodies, however, do not have final say on matters of policy such as zone changes and general or specific plan amendments.
Hearings
State law requires that local governments hold public hearings prior to most planning actions. At the hearing, the council, board, or advisory commission will explain the proposal, consider it in light of local regulations and environmental effects, and listen to testimony from interested parties. The council, board, or commission will vote on the proposal at the conclusion of the hearing.
Depending upon each jurisdiction’s local ordinance, public hearings are not always required for minor land subdivisions, architectural or design review or ordinance interpretations. The method of advertising hearings may vary. At a minimum, counties and cities must publish notice of general plan adoption and amendment in the newspaper. Notice of a proposed general plan amendment affecting allowable land uses, zone change, conditional use permit, variance, and subdivision tract is published in the newspaper and mailed to nearby property owners. In addition, the NCAC publishes agendas on their website before their meetings on every third Wednesday (except December) and approved minutes. The Planning Commission agendas and video of their meetings, as well as meeting minutes are available on the county website.
THE GENERAL PLAN
The Blueprint
The local general plan can be described as the county’s “blueprint” for future development. It represents the community’s view of its future; a constitution made up of the goals and policies upon which the board of supervisors and planning commission will base their land use decisions. To illustrate its importance, all subdivisions, public works projects, and zoning decisions must be consistent with the general plan. If inconsistent, they must not be approved.
Long-range Emphasis
The general plan is not the same as zoning. Although both designate how land may be developed, they do so in different ways. The general plan and its diagrams have a long-term outlook, identifying the types of development that will be allowed, the spatial relationships among land uses, and the general pattern of future development. Zoning regulates present development through specific standards such as lot size, building setback, and a list of allowable uses. In counties, the land uses shown on the general plan diagrams will usually be reflected in the local zoning maps as well. Development must not only meet the specific requirements of the zoning ordinance, but also the broader policies set forth in the local general plan.
Contents
State law requires that every general plan must contain the following components or “elements”: Land Use, Conservation, 
Noise Element Transportation Plan-1979 , Open Space, Safety Element – [12317KB]and Housing Element 7-20-04 – (Government Code Sections 65300 et seq.). In addition, state law allows for the adoption of additional or optional elements of a general plan. These elements may address any other subjects that, in the judgement of the legislative body, relate to the physical development of the county. The County of San Luis Obispo has adopted seven optional elements: Parks and Recreation Element – [3276KB], Historic and Esthetic, Energy Element , Off-shore Energy, Economic Element -and Ag Open Space Element -.
Most general plans consist of: (1) a written text discussing the community’s goals, objectives, policies, and programs for the distribution of land use; and, (2) one or more diagrams or maps illustrating the general location of existing and future land uses. Figure 1 is an example of a general plan diagram.
State law requires that local governments make copies of their plans available to the public for reference. Copies can be sold to the public for the cost of reproduction. See San Luis Obispo’s various documents that make up the general plan using this link.
Approving the Plan
The process of adopting or amending a general plan requires public participation. Cities and counties must hold public hearings for such proposals. Advance notice of the place and time of the hearing must be published in the newspaper or posted in the vicinity of the site proposed for change. Prior to approval, hearings will be held by the North Coast Advisory Council and the planning commission. The general plan must be adopted by resolution by the legislative body of each city or county, and in the case of Cambria/San Simeon, California Coastal Commission must also approve the plan.
Community and Specific Plans
“Area plans” and “specific plans” is used in San Luis Obispo County to plan the future of a particular area at a finer level of detail than that provided by the general plan. A community plan is a portion of the local general plan focusing on the issues pertinent to a particular area or community within the city or county. It supplements the policies of the general plan. San Luis Obispo County’s area and specific plans include:
| Adelaida Inland Area Plan – [1603KB]
|
|
| El Pomar Estrella Inland Area Plan – [8463KB]
|
|
| Estero Area Plan – [5010KB]
|
|
| Huasna-Lopez Inland Area Plan – [257KB]
|
|
| Las Pilitas Inland Area Plan – [992KB]
|
|
| Los Padres Inland Area Plan – [185KB]
|
|
| Nacimiento Inland Area Plan – [2396KB]
|
|
| North Coast Area Plan – [4007KB]
|
|
| Salinas River Inland Area Plan – [12754KB]
|
|
| San Luis Bay Coastal Area Plan – [2695KB]
|
|
| San Luis Bay Inland Area Plan – [2272KB]
|
|
| San Luis Obispo Inland Area Plan – [9553KB]
|
|
| Shandon-Carrizo Inland Area Plan – [1078KB]
|
|
| South County Coastal Area Plan – [833KB]
|
|
| South County Inland Area Plan – [1894KB |
Specific plans describe allowable land uses, identify open space, and detail the availability of facilities and financing for a portion of the community. Specific plans must be consistent with the local general plan. A specific plan implements but is not technically a part of the general plan. In some jurisdictions, specific plans take the place of zoning. Zoning, subdivision, and public works decisions must be consistent with any applicable specific plan.
Coastal Plan Policies - [1553KB]
Coastal Plan Policies-Summary -
|
|
|
| Coastal Zone Framework Element – [1300KB]
|
|
| Coastal Zone Framework Element Table O Handout – [236KB] |
The General Plan Progress report for Fiscal Year 2005-06 reviews the activities that took place to implement the County General Plan, which is sometimes referred to as the “blueprint” for growth and development in San Luis Obispo County. It describes major new planning activities, general plan and ordinance amendments, public contact and assistance, permit and subdivision activity, and residential and non-residential development. Read the report here:
Some Cambrians seem resigned to a reality in which trying to control growth is hopeless, anyone who sues for a water meter will get one, and the eventual paving over of Cambria is inevitable. And who wouldn’t start to feel a bit hopeless about it? Is it possible they feel so defeated that we should give up on the BRP and allow a home to be built on every lot? Perhaps they are not resigned or hopeless, perhaps they are terrified of the changes that could come with building (at most) 35 homes a year.* If we populate those homes with the average number of residents in a Cambria home (1.66) we could gain 58 new residents – possibly – if those averages, lifted from the CCSD Urban Water Management Plan, *** are accurate and hold steady.
Why so worried? Between 1988 and 1998, the county permitted an average of 55 homes each year. ** Without the moratorium, the County could have issued up to 230 building permits for new construction between 2001 and today (557 people). In the Coastal Commission’s review of the SLO County LCP, they claimed the County had estimated in 2001 that Cambria was only 1/3 built-out – the County gave numbers of 11,701 dwellings and population around 26,347. Obviously, times have changed. The Board of Supervisors adopted a 1% growth cap between 2000 and 2006 and 0% cap from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009. The new North Coast Area Plan for Cambria and San Simeon (nearly 18 years in the making) is about to cross the finish line.
But long-range planning for our community is still being spoon-fed to us by County and State (an alphabet soup of agencies). Cambrians are still not allowed to control where we can build, what limitations and standards we must build with, or enforce those standards when plans and the reality of a project do not match. We don’t even have a say when it comes to property owned by all of us (by way of conservation easements and owned by the CCSD). The County and State seem to be happy to twiddle their thumbs while the CCSD tries to solve the inadequate water supply on their own, chiming in only to announce we can’t do it that way. Until 2006, six years into the moratorium, the Board Of Supervisors finally changed their 1% growth cap for Cambria to 0%. The Coastal Commission, while publicly stating they are working with CCSD to resolve the problems it has with the proposed desal plant, continues to take actions that leave us feeling thwarted at every turn.
The Water Master Plan is the best description we have for how our community will provide services in the future. It may contain erroneous assumptions and just plain bad planning policies, but until the Board of Directors craft and adopt a better policy, it’s all we have to show we’ve been doing our homework and can handle our own community decisions when the County or state “alphabet soup”ers question our actions. The Build-Out Reduction Plan is part of that larger endeavor to ensure demand matches supply. Failing to support it means going back to the drawing board and years of work (and money) down the proverbial drain.
The BRP was created partly to protect against unreasonable growth (regardless of the additional water production of a desal plant) and partly to address the genuine concerns some Cambrians have expressed about being unable to preserve the unique character of our small town in the face of rapid and unsustainable development. These opponents of growth and the BRP seem to be saying: “The BRP isn’t good enough. The town is fine as it is. Forget any new water source. The most important thing is to stave off growth and the only reliable way to do that is to simply not have water.” Except the CCSD is concerned about not having enough water for fires and to reliably serve the customers they have right now. And except a property owner has a right to do something with their property, and a water district has a duty to serve sooner or later. And except the County and the Coastal Commission are looking to us to find a solution. Eventually Cambria could have permanent water rationing, or litigation forcing government purchase of the vacant lots, or lot owners who will find a way around CCSD to build regardless of a moratorium Or all three. Then you could end up with what seems to be a recurring nightmare for some Cambrians: a paved over, overbuilt community with no water for yourselves, no local control and unrestrained, uncontrollable, guerrilla development.
One way to stop the possible chaos is to stay on track with the plan we’ve got and to start implementing the BRP. Or begin immediately in drafting a new master plan for
1. A person/firm well-versed (or regular contact with experts) in at least 9 of these 12 areas of expertise California Law, Civic Engagement, Government Best Practices, Land Use and Conservation easements, Water Law, Property Rights, Eminent domain, Desalination, CSDs, , new planning paradigms for communities and the effects of climate change, Interagency and Joint Powers .
2. A person or agency who has not worked for the CCSD.
3. A person/firm who will gather information from a multitude of sources, not just rely on the documents and information provided by the current CCSD board and staff.
4. A person/firm who values collaborative solutions to proscriptive ones, the greater good, and creating win-win situations.
5. A person/firm who values the importance of beginning with no assumptions, reserving judgment until all available information has been examined, and addressing the positive and negative outcomes for each alternative vision of the future without a “water shortage”.
6. A person/firm who is an excellent communicator, listening and talking, reading and writing and above all, clear explanation of the issues (past and present).
These requirements reduce the number of qualified applicants to only a very few. These few are likely either very pricey and very busy or unknown (but not likely to stay that way) because he/she is just starting out. That doesn’t mean the right person/firm isn’t out there. What do you think?
*This number is based on the Board of Supervisors changing the growth cap back to 1% from the current 0% and a current count of connections at the BRP number of 3596.
**CCC California Coastal Commission Review of the San Luis Obispo Couny LCP in 2001
*** page 1-8
