MINUTES

Board of Directors

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District



February 22, 2001

7 PM Session





The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM in the Monterey City Council Chambers.



Board members present:

David Potter, Chair - Representing Monterey County Board of Supervisors

Alvin Edwards, Vice Chair -- Division 1

Ron Chesshire, Division 2

Molly Erickson, Division 3

Kris Lindstrom, Division 4

David Pendergrass, Mayoral Representative



Board members absent:

Zan Henson, Division 5



Staff members present:

Darby Fuerst, General Manager

Stephanie Pintar, Water Demand Manager

Henrietta Stern, Project Mgr./Public Information Rep.

Sara Ramos, Sr. Office Specialist



District Counsel present: David Laredo



The assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.



The following comments were received during Oral Communication. (1) Fran Farina, requested that the General Manager give a brief report from the afternoon session. Ms. Farina also stated that she has specifically requested to be noticed of the Pebble Beach Reclamation project sub-committee and asked for a report either from the General Manager or a member of the committee informing the public as to what transpired at that particular meeting. (2) Jim Hughes, Water For Us, commended the Board for not publishing the entire ordinance text in the newspaper. Mr. Hughes stated he hopes to see the continuation of the following reports as listed under Informational Items on the Board agendas; 1) Strategic Plan update, 2) Water Supply Projects, 3) Carmel River Fishery report, 4) Production Report - CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project, and 5) monthly Water Supply Status Report. (3) Patriciat Bernardi, a resident of Carmel Valley, voiced a complaint regarding the A & N study and how poorly the report was presented. Ms. Bernardi stated she hopes these complaints are passed on to the consultant. (4) Lloyd Lowrey, representing Security National Guaranty, Inc. asked the Board or District Counsel to clarify or reiterate the process on how items can be continued to a future Board meeting and how that ties in to the District's procedural rules. (5) John Fisher, a resident of Pacific Grove, stated he hopes item IV. G -- Consider Amendment of Board Meeting Rules 16, 17 and 18 from the Consent Calendar be passed. He stated that he has never received answers to questions he has asked of the Board during and after oral communication. (6) David Dilworth, representing himself, asked for a report from the afternoon session regarding the status of the consent calendar items. Mr. Dilworth also stated his criticisms on the analysis of the toilet retrofit study presented in the A & N study.



Item IV. D. was deferred to the 7 PM session immediately following Oral Communications for Board discussion. The Board deferred this item to the March 17, 2001 meeting. No action was taken.



The following comments were received on this item. (1) Lloyd Lowrey, representing the applicant Security National Guaranty, Inc., stated that the applicant objects to the proposed findings and objects to the Board adoption of the proposed findings for the reasons stated in a letter dated and submitted to the Board on February 22, 2001. (2) David Dilworth, Responsible Consumers of the Monterey Peninsula, stated the set of findings is comprehensive, well written and bullet proof. Mr. Dilworth said he hopes the findings of all projects in the future have this level of excellence.



Director Potter stated it is in his authority as Chair to determine how the Board of Directors will conduct the public hearing items. He expressed the importance of full participation by the Board. Action by the Board on public hearing items a, b and c will be deferred to the March 19, 2001 Board meeting. Public comment will be received.



The following comments were received during the public hearing on this item. (1) Patricia Bernardi, resident of Carmel Valley and a member of Save Our Carmel River, stated her support of Ordinance No. 96. Ms. Bernardi referred to the recommendations listed on pages 158 and 159 of the February 22, 2001 Board packet. She stated her objections to the changes that were made and that the language of final approval of the subdivision should be removed and the date of the Ordinance adoption should be inserted. (2) Robert Greenwood, Carmel Valley Property Owners, stated their support of Ordinance No. 96. He urged that the most important aspect is to include wells withing 1,000 feet of the Carmel Valley aquifer. Such wells do impact the aquifer especially during drought periods. (3) Nancy Isaakson, referred to page 159 of the Board packet and stated she appreciates staff's recommendation regarding the applications in process. However, she expressed concern with inconsistency in language and asked for clarification with regards to well applications. (4) Judy Midgley, Director, Governmental Affairs, Monterey County Association of Realtors, read a letter from Dale Handley, President, Monterey County Association of Realtors (MCAR). The letter stated MCAR's opposition to Ordinance No. 96 stating it is not necessary and is not warranted. MCAR requested the Board not approve Ordinance No. 96. (5) Bob McKenzie, Government Affairs Director of the Monterey County Hospitality Association and the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, stated that both of these organizations oppose the adoption of Ordinance No. 96. Mr. McKenzie urged the Board to begin the process of Ordinance No. 96 from scratch. The process has been very confusing. (6) Fran Farina, Save Our Carmel River, stated that the organization supports the principle of the enactment of Ordinance 96. Save Our Carmel River agrees with the District findings and shares the District's concern about cumulative impacts. The organization disagrees with the revised definition of single connection systems as suggested by attorney John Bridges and believes the Carmel River watershed as a whole be included under this Ordinance. (7) John Dolasio, representing the Sierra Club - Ventana Chapter , stated the Sierra Club supports this Ordinance with the exception of the single connection system amendment. The club sees no reason to provide a parcel with a single well on it with special privileges when it is subdivided. (8) Marc Beique, a resident of Monterey, referred to page 160 of the Board packet. Mr. Beique stated that Monterey County has a great, new GIS tool and it would be nice if the District could work cooperatively with other tax payers supported agencies to bring clarity to our lives in the way of data. Mr. Beique stated he continues to not support Ordinance No. 96, No. 97 and No. 100 and urged the Board to vote against these ordinances. (9) David Dilworth, Responsible Consumers for the Monterey Peninsula (RCMP), stated this is a watershed issue and that the Board should return to the original ordinance language and cover the entire watershed. Also, RCMP supports the proposal but is uncomfortable with the theme of the change as it is stated in the negative. It was requested that the Board consider changing the wording to reflect the positive.









No action taken. Item XI. B. will be deferred to the March 19, 2001 Board meeting.



The following comments were received during the public hearing on this item. (1) Robert Greenwood, Carmel Valley Property Owners, stated this ordinance is essentially the District's Rule 28 and urged adoption of this urgency ordinance. (2) John Fisher, a resident of Pacific Grove, asked for a definition and the difference between a water entitlement and a water credit so that the public can understand completely. He also asked where does the water go, and to what jurisdiction. This information should be presented to the public at an early stage for complete understanding. (3) Judy Midgley, Monterey County Association of Realtors, stated the local governmental relations committee objects to Ordinance No. 97 due to price fixing or limiting the price at which water credits are transferred. Further, the amount of commercial industrial water that is being transferred is relatively minor and cost or price of such water should be at the discretion of the individual jurisdiction. By restricting the price that can be charged for water credits, the District may be eliminating potential water saving program and projects. The Board was asked to focus on the goal of bringing a safe, sufficient, stable and secure water supply to the community and to vote against Ordinance No. 97. (4) Bob McKenzie, Government Affairs Director of the Monterey County Hospitality Association and the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, stated the governmental affairs committee of both of these organizations opposes Ordinance No. 97 due to price restrictions on the water transfers. Mr. McKenzie stated that when there is no water for legal lots, that water service has a value. The District will not eliminate the value of water service by restricting the transferers receiving the money , instead it will be shifting the ability to realize the value to the transferee. He reminded the District that a dollar value exists because there is no water. (5) Patricia Bernardi, a resident of Carmel Valley, stated she opposes transfers of any kind. This is a resource issue. It is the job of the District to take care of the resource. Ms. Bernardi stated that she does not see how Pebble Beach can be exempted because they have an entitlement. They have not yet met their goal of achieving 800 acre feet of reclaimed water. If the Board adopts Ordinance No. 97, then it makes sense to have the lowest possible figure to pay. (6) David Dilworth, Responsible Consumers for the Monterey Peninsula, stated RCMP opposes all transfers and reminded the Board that there is no water. The Board was asked to explain the difference between water entitlements and water credits. If the Pebble Beach project is exempt from this, they would like to make sure that it gets included so no more paper water is given out when we have a physical water problem. (7) Tex Irwin, Monterey Peninsula Airport, stated that at the last PAC/TAC meeting the issue that arose was the dollar amount set per acre foot. There was a concern from some of the jurisdictions that it would prohibit water conservation efforts by setting a dollar amount and that wording in Ordinance No. 97 should reflect cost associated with the water.



No action taken. Item XI. C. will be deferred to the March 19, 2001 Board meeting.



The following comments were received during the public hearing on this item. (1) Robert Greenwood, Carmel Valley Property Owners, stated the organization continues to support Ordinance No. 100. The question of whether or not past transfers have saved the required 15% of water has not been answered. He suggested the Board wait until they know the answer before considering anymore applications. (2) Fran Farina, Save Our Carmel River, stated her concerns about water credit transfers. If Cal-Am does not have the right to use the water then why do other people have the right to use and transfer it. Ms. Farina stated that there is no limitation that this District imposes on a person who donates or a person who receives. There is no penalty. (3) Judy Midgley, Monterey County Association of Realtors, stated the local governmental relations committee continues to oppose the moratorium on water credit transfers and urges the Board to reject Ordinance No. 100. The amount of commercial industrial water being transferred is a small amount and how and to whom that water is reallocated or transferred should be left to the discretion of the jurisdictions. The organization also opposes the added restriction that restricts the price of any transferred water to no more than the District's connection charges for water.

The Board did not discuss Information Items/Staff Reports.



















































The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 PM.























U:\Sara\wp\2001\brdmtgs\feb\min0222_7pm.wpd



VIII. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL













































IX. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE



X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS





































X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS



































IV. CONSENT CALENDAR

XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 96 - An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Revising the Definition and Regulation of Water Distribution Systems



















































































XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 96 - An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Revising the Definition and Regulation of Water Distribution Systems

XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

XII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/STAFF REPORTS

XII. ADJOURNMENT



















_________________________________________

Darby W. Fuerst, Secretary to the Board