FINAL MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
May 20, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM in the Monterey City Council Chambers.
Directors Present:
Kris Lindstrom, Chair - Division 4
Alexander "Zan" Henson, Vice Chair - Division 5
Alvin Edwards - Division 1
Judi Lehman - Division 2
Molly Erickson - Division 3
David Pendergrass - Mayoral Representative
David Potter - Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Directors Absent: None
District Staff Present:
Ernesto A. Avila - General Manager
Rick Dickhaut - Chief Financial Officer
Stephanie Pintar - Water Demand Manager
Joseph Oliver - Water Resources Manager
Andy Bell - Planning and Engineering Manager
Henrietta Stern - Project Manager
Darby Fuerst - Senior Hydrologist
Arlene Tavani - Executive Assistant
District Counsel Present: David C. Laredo
I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The following comments were presented to the Board during Oral Communications. (1) District Counsel Laredo proposed that the Closed Session agenda be amended to include a new item, Currier v MPWMD, case number M59299. Chair Lindstrom agreed to amend the Closed Session agenda. (2) Edwin Lee, representing Water For Us, referenced a letter he wrote to the District dated May 20, 2002. The letter is on file at the District office. He alleged that a letter dated May 21, 2001 from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to the District was full of errors. He stated that the District should not be influenced by the "bad science" presented in the letter. (3) David Dilworth, representing Helping Our Peninsula's Environment (HOPE), requested that agenda item IV.E be pulled for discussion. He also urged the Board to consider revisions to the Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan as a topic for a future meeting. (4) John Fischer, resident of Pacific Grove, advised the Board that income received from the sale of water from the CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project is almost equal to the cost of producing the reclaimed water. He asked the Board to consider that fact during future deliberations on participation with financing the Phase II improvements to the reclamation project. (5) Roy Thomas, a member of the Carmel River Advisory Committee (CRSA), stated that District staff should be able to authorize repairs on a failed pump at the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing facility immediately, instead of waiting until the Board of Directors can meet to approve funds for the repair. He also requested that the District's fish rescue operations be conducted on weekends so that the CRSA can assist with those efforts. Mr. Thomas suggested that the District should apply for a water right to utilize excess water from the Salinas River.
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Edwards, the Consent Calendar was approved unanimously, except for items A and E that were pulled for separate consideration.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
On a motion by Director Edwards and second by Director Erickson, the item was approved with a correction to the minutes of April 25, 2002. On page 15 of the Board packet, the last sentence of paragraph one, replace the words "New Los Padres Dam Project" with the phrase "New San Clemente Dam Project." The motion was approved on a vote of 7 - 0.
Approved
Approved
Approved
Director Erickson offered a motion that was seconded by Director Edwards, that the report be transmitted to Monterra Ranch with a letter stating that the report did not meet the requirements of Condition 15 of the Conditions of Approval adopted by the Board on February 26, 1990 (and subsequent revisions) and agreed to by representatives for the Monterra Ranch Water Distribution System. The letter should request data required in Condition 15; clarify whether the golf course is constrained by existing subdivision restrictions that require drought tolerant landscaping; confirm that the District has received the report alluded to earlier; and include an explanation of the annual well reporting numbers shown on Attachment 3 to the February 20, 2002 submittal. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 - 2. Directors Erickson, Lehman, Lindstrom, Hansen and Potter voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards and Pendergrass voted against the motion.
During the public comment period on this item, David Dilworth stated that the report submitted by Monterra Ranch is incomplete, which indicates that ranch management is hiding information from the public. He requested that the information should be disclosed to the public immediately.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Approved
Darby Fuerst described changes that were made to the Monthly Water Supply Status Report, per direction of the Board.
Stephanie Pintar reported on actual water use at the facility compared to the amount of water the facility was projected to use when water permits were issued. An outline of Ms. Pintar's report is on file at the District office. She noted that one condition of a permit to expand the facility is that all toilets must be retrofitted to 1.6 gallon per flush units. Mr. Avila reported that the expansion will also include installation of waterless urinals.
During the public comment period on this item, Lou Haddad urged the Board to develop a new process for issuance of water permits for commercial projects that will accurately determine the amount of water a project will use. He noted that under the current system, once a permit is issued there is no limit to the amount of water a project can use.
Stephanie Pintar reported on suggestions for changes to the commercial water use credit system. An outline of Ms. Pintar's report is on file at the District office. Mr. Avila stated that it will take 12 months to complete work on the strategic planning initiative that includes addressing changes to the water permit process and commercial water use factors.
Director Henson made a motion that staff should develop modifications to the existing program to factor in actual water consumption in order to determine the water right for the proposed new use for that property. No action was taken on the motion.
Ms. Erickson suggested that the stakeholders group be expanded to include ( but not be limited to) representatives from residential, scientific and environmental groups such as the Carmel Valley Property Owners Association, Save Our Carmel River and the Sierra Club. In addition the stakeholders group should have regularly scheduled meetings. Director Edwards requested that meetings of the stakeholders group be published in the newspaper so that members of the various stakeholder groups and the public can attend. Director Erickson requested that the Water Demand Committee take up the question of how to address a situation regarding special circumstances permits where water use for assisted living facilities is now 20 percent higher than originally anticipated when the project was permitted. Should the jurisdiction be responsible for increased water use in projects that were based on lower water projections? In addition, she asked staff to clarify the question of how to handle requests for water use credit when the original building has not been abandoned. She would also like information on the fair and consistent application of water use factors. The Board took no action regarding these requests.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) David Dilworth, representing HOPE, urged the Board to measure water use in gallons, not fixture units. He proposed that an unused water credit be diminished progressively over a 10-year period, for example, the total could be reduced by 10 percent each year. Mr. Dilworth advised the Board that he was invited to attend the stakeholders meeting, but he did not attend because an agenda was not provided to him prior to the meeting. (2) John Fischer, resident of Pacific Grove, suggested that District staff refer to the "PUC mailing list" for names of persons that represent environmental interests who might be interested in serving on a committee to revise commercial water use credit procedures. (3) Alan Samuels noted that in some cases special circumstances permits were issued for projects based on commercial water use factors, and later it was shown that the water use factors employed by the District were too low. He asked if the District had considered adjusting the amount of water the jurisdiction has allocated to those projects to reflect increased water use estimates. He expressed concern about water use at residential care facilities that have received, or are in the process of obtaining special circumstances permits based on inaccurate water use factors.
V. PRESENTATIONS
3. Commercial Water Use Factors
3. Commercial Water Use Factors
General Manager Avila described a draft calendar that lists dates Board action is required on District Strategic Planning Initiatives.
4. Present Major Policy Calendar
Arlene Tavani presented a list of potential meeting room sites. The Board directed that beginning on July 15, 2002 the monthly meetings be conducted at the Seaside City Council Chambers.
During the public comment period on this item, David Dilworth suggested that the Carmel Womens' Club and the Pacific Grove Community Center would also be appropriate meeting places.
5. Report on Availability of Meeting Room Space
District Counsel Laredo reported that District staff gave a brief presentation to the Board. No action was taken on any of the agenda items.
Director Erickson stated that the Board had previously directed staff to develop a means to work with the CRSA on fish rescues. She requested that the issue be brought before the Board committee that was originally charged to deal with that issue. Director Edwards asked if funds were included in the budget to allow for staffing at the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility on the weekends. He also reminded the Board that the Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan must be reviewed in one year's time.
C. Directors' Reports
1. Board Comments and Referrals
Motion No. 1 - A motion was offered by Director Edwards to approve the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. The motion was seconded by Director Pendergrass.
Motion No. 2 -- A substitute motion was offered by Director Erickson to uphold the recommendation of the Water Demand Committee to grant the appeal and deny water credits for two large bathtubs. There was no second to the motion.
Motion No. 1 was approved on a vote of 4 - 3. Directors Edwards, Henson, Pendergrass, and Potter voted in favor of the motion. Directors Erickson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted against the motion.
The following persons directed comments to the Board during the public hearing on this item. (1) Tod Bessire, representing the appellants Ken and Sharene Virnig, urged the Board to uphold the appeal. He explained that the appellant recognizes that the fixtures were installed legally. The appellant maintains that the fixtures are showers, not custom designed large bathtubs as determined by District staff. He noted that the fixtures are not fitted with an overflow device which is required for a bathtub. Mr. Bessire distributed a letter and attachments to the Board dated May 16, 2002 in support of the appellants position. The letter is on file at the District office. (2) John Bridges, representing the applicant Murray Smith, requested that the Board support the staff recommendation and deny the appeal. He acknowledged that when the tubs were constructed in 1950 an overflow drain was not included but the fixtures do meet the criteria for an oversized bathtub. According to Mr. Bridges, the District's water credit rules are intended to allow replacement of like fixtures with like fixtures, which is in agreement with the Smith's application. (3) Lou Haddad urged the Board to discontinue the fixture-unit method of calculating residential water use and replace it with a more accurate method for estimating potential water use. (4) David Dilworth recommended that the District begin to estimate water use based on gallons of water used as opposed to fixture-unit counts.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chair Lindstrom requested that Directors and members of the public provide their comments on the draft budget to the General Manager prior to the June 17, 2002 meeting. Staff was directed to address the concerns raised by the Board and public at the June 17, 2002 public hearing.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item. (1) Edwin Lee, representing Water for Us, asked if the $700,000 originally set aside for the EIR on the Carmel River Dam Project was still contained in the budget. He urged the Board to pursue development of the "cheapest" water supply project, the Carmel River Dam. He said that the District may need to bring a lawsuit against the NMFS for "punishing this community." (2) John Fischer, resident of Pacific Grove, spoke in support of a graphics technician position that would create PERT charts to clearly identify the critical paths for completion of the water supply project EIR/EIS. (3) Fran Farina, representing Save Our Carmel River (SOCR), advised the Board that the draft budget did not include funds for preparation of an update to the Water Allocation Program EIR. She warned that SOCR would wage a legal challenge against the District if the Board were to allocate water in any way, including the transfer of water credit, without first conducting an update of the Water Allocation Program EIR. Ms. Farina expressed support for the proposed graphics technician position. She noted that computer graphics skills are needed to prepare materials that could be used to educate the public on Seaside Basin issues. Ms. Farina spoke in support of raising Board member compensation levels. She asked that the staff report specify if Directors would be compensated for Board, committee, or sub-committee meetings. (4) David Dilworth, representing HOPE, voiced his objection to the budget because no funds were set aside for an update on the Allocation Program EIR. He raised several suggestions: (a) do not raise Directors' compensation; (b) lease a photocopier instead of purchasing one; (c) allocate funds to conduct an election in November 2002; and (d) program 1.5 titled Long-Term Water Supply should be titled "95-10 Compliance." He acknowledged the need for a graphics technician position, but suggested that District staff could be trained to carry out that function instead of creating a new staff position. (5) Mark Beique noted that the Revenue Received section on page 123 of the Board packet should be expanded in scope similar to the Summary of Project Expenses on page 137. He asked if the District had an agreement with Cal-Am to fund any of the $610,000 budgeted for work on Plan B. (6) Lou Haddad proposed several suggestions: (a) reduce the user fee; (b) remove the purchase of four vehicles from the budget; (c) indicate whether the District proposes to increase or decrease connection fees; (d) clarify which index the "2.1 cost of living increase" was based on. Mr. Haddad questioned the need to create a new Engineering Tech-Graphics position because the District already has engineers on staff.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Consider Draft Fiscal Year 2002-2003 MPWMD Budget
On a motion by Director Edwards and second by Director Henson, the public hearing was continued to the June 17, 2002 Board meeting.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Director Henson proposed a motion that was seconded by Director Edwards to close the public hearing and continue the item to June 6, 2002 at 8 AM in the District Conference Room. The motion was approved unanimously.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item. (1) George Ferguson, retired President of Sterling Fluid Products Company, a manufacturer of pumps for various uses including desalination plants. Mr. Ferguson read a statement dated May 17, 2002 that is on file at the District office. Mr. Ferguson stated that construction of a dam is much more cost effective than a desalination plant. He described a dam as the only viable solution, and said that the Board has a responsibility to the electorate to study the Carmel River Dam Project as well as Plan B. (2) Edwin Lee, representing Water for Us, advised the Board to inform the public that the District is committed to Plan B. According to Mr. Lee, an aquifer storage and recovery project will cost twice as much as a dam. (3) Mark Beique, resident of Monterey and member of Water for Us, read a letter dated May 20, 2002 that is on file at the District office. He urged the Board to conduct a project level analysis of the Carmel River Dam Project. As an alternative, he proposed that the Board withhold further consideration of the EIR process until the Plan B report is released. (4) Robert Greenwood, representing the Carmel Valley Property Owners Association, read a letter dated May 20, 2002 that is on file at the District office. The letter expressed dissatisfaction with the District's description of the Plan B alternative. He stated that Cal-Am production under Plan B should be limited to 17,000 acre-feet for comparison with Plan A. (5) John Fischer, resident of Pacific Grove, asked how the District would proceed if the Plan B report were not released by the end of June. He asked how the District's project schedule would be affected if a regional desalination project were proposed in Plan B. (6) David Dilworth, representing HOPE expressed agreement with remarks made by Robert Greenwood. Mr. Dilworth proposed that an "accountability" alternative should be studied in the EIR/EIS in which the top 250 water wasters would be publicly identified, then possibly a large portion of that water would be conserved. He asked that the District obtain a legal opinion as to whether or not Cal-Am consumption records are a public record or protected from disclosure. Mr. Dilworth suggested that the project description should be focused on meeting the requirements of SWRCB Order 95-10 and the Endangered Species Act flow requirements. (7) Fran Farina, representing SOCR, proposed that the production goal be set at 14,106 acre-feet, which was Cal-Am production prior to establishment of Order 95-10. She advocated that the drought protection performance level be set at 20% reductions 2% of the time. Ms. Farina expressed support for a project level analysis of both the Carmel River Dam and desalination. She stated that the No-Project Alternative should be set at 7,376 acre-feet and the baseline should be 11,285 acre-feet. (8) Lou Haddad proposed that the Board concentrate on development of Plan C, instead of the Carmel River Dam Project. (9) John Sokolich urged the Board to develop a dam that will satisfy the residents. He stated that something must be done within the next five years. (10) "Ron Chesshire, Monterey County. Well, you are not listening. You never will listen, will you, because you have already made your minds up. Your ignorance is only outstripped by your arrogance. And I don't regret a minute not having to sit up there with a few of you. I hope that's insulting. That's right. 17,641's not gonna get it. That's where we were at. 19,000's not gonna get it. 1,300 acre-feet legalized lots of record, you'll allocate that to the legalized lots of record. You haven't paid any attention at all to the 3,500 acre-feet that the community wants. You have ignored all the letters from the jurisdictions. You haven't even taken into consideration that we need a long-term solution, and that maybe you should be looking 30 to 50 years out. But you'll continue to play your games, and wonder why you get sued by the cities. You'll wonder why the cities have elections against you. Just keep it up a while longer, you won't be up there. You'll be out with me, having a good time. Sitting back, watching what's going on. So you'll continue to play politics and I guess that's really what its all about. But a long-term plan, which is what this community called for, not just a temporary fix. You will have people spend hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe you'll just get them to spend one hundred million at first. And then in a year or two they will find out that didn't get them anywhere except where they were at. And they're going to have to spend another hundred million to even put the next toilet in this area. That's O.K. It's going to make lots of environmental attorneys a lot of money suing the public, the people that are trying to get ahead here. So, I'm just going to sit back and watch and enjoy. And I'm going to wait by the hole, just like a Cheshire cat. Stick your heads out, I'm going to bite your head off."
VII. ACTION ITEMS
A. Identify Draft Project Descriptions and Alternatives for MPWMD Water Supply Project EIR/EIS
VII. ACTION ITEMS
A. Identify Draft Project Descriptions and Alternatives for MPWMD Water Supply Project EIR/EIS
VII. ACTION ITEMS
A. Identify Draft Project Descriptions and Alternatives for MPWMD Water Supply Project EIR/EIS
On a motion by Director Edwards and second by Director Henson, the remainder of the agenda items were continued to the June 17, 2002 Board meeting.
Continued to the June 17, 2002 Board meeting.
B. Present Time Line and Plan for Development of Ordinance Regarding Seaside Groundwater Basin Management
Continued to the June 17, 2002 Board meeting.
C. Receive Water Supply Forecast for Period of May 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003
Continued to the June 17, 2002 Board meeting.
D. Consider Authorization of Funds for Legal Services with De Lay & Laredo for Fiscal Year 2002-2003
The Board did not discuss these items.
The meeting was adjourned to closed session at approximately 11:00 PM. Item B.6 was added per the request of District Counsel, and by the authority of the Board Chair that evening.
VIII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/STAFF REPORTS
IX. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel (Gov. Code Section 54956.9)
1. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Petition Requesting changes to SWRCB Water Rights Permit Nos. 7130B and 20808-Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
2. California-American Water Company Application No. 02-04-022 to the Public utilities Commission for Authority to Increase Rates for Service for 2003, 2004 and 2005
B. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Gov. Code Section 54956.9)
1. City of Seaside v. MPWMD (Case No. _____)
2. Protest to Petition Requesting Changes to SWRCB Water Rights Application No. 30067-Roy Kaufman (Cañada Woods, Cañada Woods North and Cañada Woods East)
3. Protest to Petition Requesting Changes to SWRCB Water Rights Application No. 30068-Leonard and Emily Williams Trust (Cañada Woods, Cañada Woods North and Cañada Woods East)
4. Security National Guarantee, Inc. v. MPWMD, California Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate District Case No. H023772
5. Security National Guarantee, Inc. v. MPWMD, Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M51797
6. Mary Currier, Chris Currier and Roy and Jeanelle Kaminske v MPWMD, Case No. M59299. Monterey County Superior Court
C. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov. Code Section 54957)
1. Agency Designated Representative: Ernesto A. Avila
Employee Organization: Laborers' International Union of North American, AFL-CIO, (LIUNA/UPEC) Local 270
D. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov. Code Section 54957)
1. General Manager
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:30 PM.
X. ADJOURNMENT
___________________________________
Ernesto A. Avila, General Manager
U:\Arlene\wp\yr2002\Brd Mtngs\minutes\FINAL0520.wpd