Coastal Commission denies permits for homes proposed in Cambria
In a unanimous decision Friday afternoon, the California Coastal Commission denied the coastal development permits for two homes proposed in Cambria.
The commission’s decision was based on the reports its staff had prepared before the hearing, which stated that the small, unincorporated coastal community simply does not have a reliable or sustainable source of drinking water for the two new homes.
The commission denied the permits for the homes — proposed by Al Hadian and Ralph Bookout — despite both homes having water connections installed since early 2001, meaning the owners have potable water on their properties and have been paying bimonthly service bills. Such water connection means the property owners had rights to build their homes, their attorney, Ty Green said.
“We are disappointed but not surprised by the Commission’s decision not to protect our vested property rights,” Green said in a statement to The Tribune. “We will get together in the next week or so and decide our next step.”
The permits for the two Cambria homes will likely not be the last the Coastal Commission is faced with. On Thursday, the Cambria Community Services District (CSD) approved a will-serve letter for a home that neighbors the two denied permits by the Coastal Commission Friday.
The Cambria CSD Board of Directors said during its Thursday meeting that their hands were tied and they were legally obligated to allow the will-serve letter — despite the community’s apparent water woes.
The CSD’s attorney, Timothy Carmel, made this point very clear to the board members Thursday.
“The district has a contractual obligation to approve this request,” Carmel said. “If the district does not honor its obligation, it will be sued for breach of contract.”
“When the district loses that lawsuit, which it almost certainly will,” he continued, “it would then have to pay interim damages for the time the property owners were prevented from developing, would be compelled by the court to provide them with water service anyway and would have to pay attorneys’ fees and costs.”
This issue in Cambria comes down to two elements: Historical contractual obligations to serve existing customers water, and the apparent lack of water available to the community.
On the former, the CSD argues that its contractual obligations trump any water situation the community is in.
On the latter, the Coastal Commission argues that the evident lack of water trumps any obligation to serve water. Plus, the Coastal Commission does not appear to be under the same contractual constraints as the CSD in this situation.
“The commission has an independent requirement under the LCP (local coastal program) to evaluate whether or not projects are served by a sustainable water source,” said Dan Carl, the Coastal Commission’s district director for the Central Coast, during Friday’s meeting. “It’s our recommendation based on the evidence we’ve evaluated that there isn’t a sustainable water source that can serve these projects. In such a case, the LCP requires denial that, to us, is incontrovertible.”
The commission’s decision may set a precedent for the community as it shows that most new development proposed in the water-strapped town is unacceptable by the Coastal Commission.
