Cambrian letters to the editor, July 6, 2017

Eucalyptus removal project revised

Balance is often a difficult state to achieve. Californians have an ongoing search for symmetry in their relationship with blue gum eucalyptus and its aesthetic, habitat and environmental properties.

Recently, the Friends of the Fiscalini Ranch Preserve, in conjunction with the Cambria Community Services District Ranch Manager, initiated a project to remove eucalyptus on a 1.9-acre area on the 437 acre Fiscalini Ranch Preserve. After an extensive debate and in an effort to carefully balance the competing concerns referred to above, the FFRP board voted to modify the original plan to remove all the eucalyptus in this plot and instead will retain the trees larger than 18 inches in diameter.

Saplings and small trees, along with accumulated tree debris and invasive plants, will be removed in an effort to improve native forest health and aid in potential fire suppression. Removal of this debris will help limit the expansion of the eucalyptus grove and allow native plants to reclaim the margins of the area.

Friends of the Fiscalini Ranch Preserve appreciates your continued support of the Ranch. Please contact us with any questions or concerns you have at ffrpcambria@sbcglobal.net

Birthday surprises is Cambria at its best

Last week we tootled our way down to Cambria Cafe (Bill loves their chili rellenos) to meet two of our kids from Atascadero for lunch to celebrate Bill’s birthday. Much to our surprise, and pleasure, four of our cousins from Florida came as well, since they were visiting out here. We were having a really nice time laughing and visiting.

Another lady diner commented to Bill that she hoped he had a nice birthday as she was leaving. And then, a few minutes later, she returned with a young lady from the French Corner Bakery carrying a cake. Her comment was that Cambria Cafe didn’t serve desserts, and a birthday party with no cake was not good. She wished Bill a Happy Birthday, and left, with many thanks.

Our Florida cousins were quite impressed, to say the least, and the lemon cake was delicious. Many thanks to her, whoever she is! Cambria at its best.

Why is there just one doctor in Cambria?

If Shirley Bianchi missed the “historic” economic boom of the ’80’s then she has only herself to blame.

As I recall, when she occupied a county Board of Supervisors seat, she was pretty much anti-everything when it remotely smelled pro-growth and business.

Currently, she sits on the Cambria Healthcare District Board.

A question to her would be: Why is there only one medical doctor in Cambria — soon to retire, I might add — when there used to be three or four?

Could it be because of the Affordable Care Act? High taxes, high cost of living, nosebleed liability insurance, a need for tort reform?

Perhaps your focus should be here and now instead of looking back and wondering why.

Darn it! If only that county board seat that represents this area wasn’t already filled by a liberal Democrat, you could run for it again, like the governor has done time and again.

Motivation behind water plant is growth

Thanks to Allan MacKinnon for raising the financials on this project. At the end of your letter, you ask for the purpose of the Sustainable Water Facility vs. the Emergency Water Supply project. The answer should be self-evident: growth. The SWF has one purpose, and that is to secure a basis for lifting a building moratorium in Cambria. It is not to provide water to Cambria, a point which you show adequately in your letter’s analysis of the cost vs. presumed benefit of the SWF.

Cambrians never approved a major growth initiative and, if the true major impacts of such an adventure were known, Cambrians would not approve this kind of growth. Over and over again, developers who want the benefits of building in communities such as ours find a way to get their infrastructure paid for by the existing homeowners and then take their profits and leave, once their damage is done.

Once again, Allan, make no mistake about the purpose of the SWF, it’s to justify growth. Problem is, it won’t work because, after the growth, we’ll still have to deal with water shortages, but then we won’t have the benefit of a small enough population to get by with conservation — like we just did.

Which facts are in evidence on UWMP?

Responding to Allan MacKinnon’s Viewpoint, Greg Sanders said, “…you have assumed facts not in evidence” (June 28, 2017). Then he cited the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) 2015, adopted by the CCSD Board of Directors in December 2016.

I asked the board at that December meeting about assumptions in the UWMP.

1. Which of the production and demand assumptions made in the UWMP are binding policy and procedures implicit in and integral to the “Water Conservation Programs” mentioned in the Resolution 44-2016 — binding by virtue of the Board of Directors approving the 2015 UWMP?

2. If certain production and demand assumptions made in the UWMP are not so binding, which ones are binding and which ones are not?

What instruction was the board in fact giving to the general manager in the resolution they adopted?

I am still waiting for an answer. Which UWMP assumptions bind policy and procedures? Which facts did the directors use to approve the assumptions?

MacKinnon’s questions about the costs of the water plant have not received answers either.

Which facts are in evidence?

This story was originally published July 4, 2017 at 6:07 PM with the headline "Cambrian letters to the editor, July 6, 2017."