Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
The meeting was called to order at 7 PM in the District Conference Room.
Board members present:
Alexander Henson, Chair – Division 5
Judi Lehman, Vice Chair – Division 2
Molly Erickson – Division 3 (Arrived at 7:10 PM)
Kris Lindstrom – Division 4
David Pendergrass – Mayoral Representative
Board members absent:
Alvin Edwards – Division 1
David Potter – Monterey County Board of Supervisors
District Counsel present: David C. Laredo
Staff members present:
Ernesto A. Avila, General Manager
Rick Dickhaut, Administrative Services Manager/Chief Financial Officer
Joseph Oliver, Water Resources Manager
Darby Fuerst, Senior Hydrologist
Andy Bell, Planning & Engineering Manager/District Engineer
Stephanie Pintar, Water Demand Manager
Henrietta Stern, Project Manager/Public Information Representative
David Dettman, Senior Fisheries Biologist
Arlene Tavani, Executive Assistant
The assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
The following comments were received during the Oral Communications session. (1) Barbara Bass Evans, representing Save Our Water Front Committee, submitted a letter dated January 30, 2003 that is on file at the District office. Ms. Evans requested that the District revisit the water permit issued for a project at 270 and 284 Cannery Row, and answer a series of questions regarding the water permit. She stated that official documents filed in Monterey County Superior Court allege that there are legal questions surrounding ownership of the water allocation associated with the project. (2) Robert Greenwood, representing the Carmel Valley Association, spoke to item 3, Receive Status Report on Consultant Support Services for Water Distribution System Permit Processing Associated with Ordinance No. 105. He asked that District staff explain why it is necessary to hire a consultant to provide advise on implementation of Ordinance No. 105. (3) Nancy Isakson, spoke to item 5, Ratify Committee Assignments for Calendar Year 2003. She asked for a description of the terms “standing” and “ad-hoc” committees. (4) David Dilworth requested that District Counsel provide the legal justification for the determination that water sales records for individual customers within the California-American Water Distribution System (Cal-Am) are confidential. Mr. Dilworth asked that if the sales records are determined to be a matter of public record, that the names of the 200 highest water users within the Cal-Am system be disclosed. (5) Bob Scott submitted a letter dated January 11, 2003 from George Fusco (on file at the District office), stating that in 1997 a bidet was installed in a residence at 3109 Hermitage Road in Pebble Beach. Mr. Scott stated that when he purchased the property, he believed that all fixtures were in compliance. He asked the District to take responsibility for the situation and grant him credit for the bidet that a previous owner had installed without a water permit. (6) Lou Haddad, resident of Monterey, requested a response from the District to a letter he previously submitted that was dated December 13, 2002. He noted that the letter outlined a plan that would considerably reduce the Carmel River overdraft identified in State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order 95-10. The plan would require a small 2,000 acre-foot desalination plant that could be augmented if a greater yield is required. (7) Deborah Mickelson submitted two letters dated January 30, 2003 that are on file at the District office. She raised concerns about the potential for degradation of the groundwater system on the former Fort Ord military reservation due to proposed construction of stormwater retention ponds. She also questioned the sustainability of three existing potable water wells that serve the former Fort Ord area.
On a motion by Director Pendergrass and second by Director Erickson, the Board approved the Consent Calendar items, except for items 3 and 5 that were pulled for separate consideration. The motion was adopted on a vote of 5 - 0. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman, Lindstrom and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards and Potter were absent.
On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lindstrom, the Board received the Status Report. The motion was adopted on a vote of 4 – 1. Directors Henson, Erickson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Director Pendergrass voted in opposition to the motion. Directors Edwards and Potter were absent.
On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lehman, this item was deferred to the February 27, 2003 Board meeting. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman, Lindstrom and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards and Potter were absent.
General Manager Avila advised the Board that the District was not required to prepare a response to the report.
Mr. Avila stated that the February 7, 2003 presentation before the Fort Ord Reuse Authority had been postponed and might not occur until late in February 2003.
General Manager Avila advised the Board that on January 22, 2003, the District received a temporary urgency permit from the SWRCB for the Seaside Basin Test Injection Well Project. Since then, only a small amount of water had been injected due to a decline in Carmel River flows below minimum levels established by the SWRCB.
District Counsel Laredo stated that status reports were provided to the Board but no action was taken on any of the items listed on the agenda.
Mr. Laredo reported that a proposed decision on the application has been issued that: (a) does not allow expenses related to development of the San Clemente Retrofit Project and Carmel River Dam Project to be rate based but required that funds be placed in a suspense account; and (b) disallows any recovery from the rate payers for expenses to establish Cal-Am’s Mid-West call center. It is expected that the Public Utilities Commission will render a decision on the case in February 2003.
Director Erickson requested that staff move ahead on two Strategic Planning Initiatives: Revise the Water Permit Process and Increase Innovative and Effective Conservation Practices. Director Erickson noted that the Monterey County Herald had raised an issue regarding public access to documents under the Public Records Act. She asked if the issue had been resolved. General Manager Avila stated that the documents had been made available to the public, as requested.
The public hearing was continued to February 27, 2003 at the request of the applicant. No public comment was directed to the Board on this item.
A motion was proposed by Director Lindstrom and seconded by Director Lehman to approve the first reading version of Ordinance No. 106, and to authorize staff to file a Notice of Exemption upon adoption of the second reading version of the ordinance. He clarified the motion to state that Section 15061B3 of the Public Resources Code applies and that the ordinance is not a project under CEQA.
On a motion by Director Lindstrom and second by Director Lehman, an amendment was proposed to Rule 60, section A.1, that would delete the words “There is no charge for the first hour of telephone, email or in-person” and replace that portion of the sentence with the words “for the first hour of consultation.” The ordinance and amendment were approved on a vote of 4 – 1. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Director Pendergrass voted in opposition to the motion. Directors Edwards and Potter were absent. No public comment was directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item.
On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lindstrom, this item was deferred to the February 27, 2003 Board meeting. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 – 0. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman, Lindstrom and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards and Potter were absent.
At 8:10 PM the meeting was recessed. The meeting was reconvened at 8:20 PM.
Action on Carmel River Flow Threshold Report
Director Pendergrass made a motion that was seconded by Director Henson, to circulate the document to agencies for their comment in February, and present the report for receipt by the Board at the March 27, 2003 Strategic Planning Session. Director Pendergrass later withdrew his motion.
Director Erickson proposed a motion that was seconded by Director Lindstrom, to continue discussion of the draft study to the February 27, 2003 Board meeting. In the interim, the consultant should meet with staff and review comments made by the public and directors at the meeting, and any comments that are received in writing. The consultant should amend the report to include a comparison of flows recommended by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the consultant and discuss the implications and contrasts. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 – 0. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman, Lindstrom and Pendergrass voted in support of the motion. Directors Edwards and Potter were absent.
following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment
period on this item. (1) David
Dilworth described the report as “possibly the most harmful environmental
document the District will ever deal with.”
He urged the Board to reject the report, because it proposed “trivial”
Carmel River flow thresholds. Mr.
Dilworth proposed that a new, unbiased consultant be selected to prepare the
report. (2) Tex Irwin
questioned the adequacy of the red-legged frog flow analysis. He stated that the report should be
improved, if it is to provide a basis for an environmental impact
report. (3) Steve Leonard,
Cal-Am, requested a copy of the report.
He noted that other experts at Cal-Am would also review the
report. (4) Mark Beique, a
resident of Monterey, requested that charts in the report depict historic
conditions on the river before and after the dams were built, in order to
show if the proposed flows could be met.
He stated that the most important consideration should be flow needs
for the Carmel River steelhead. (5)
Roy Thomas, Carmel River Steelhead Association, stated that steelhead
would be harmed if the flow regimen suggested in the study were strictly
followed. According to Mr. Thomas, the
river conditions are much more complex than presented in the report.
Action on Potential Next Steps
Director Henson proposed a motion that was seconded by Director Lehman, directing staff to present at the February 27, 2003 Board meeting a work plan for completion of a project level EIR prior to an authorizing vote. The EIR would analyze a maximum-size local desalination plant and a small aquifer storage and recovery plant. The motion was approved on a vote of 4 – 1. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Director Pendergrass voted in opposition to the motion. Directors Edwards and Potter were absent.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) John Fischer, resident of Pacific Grove, inquired as to what action or discussion was scheduled to occur at the March 27, 2003 Board workshop that was listed on the project timeline. He expressed concerns about the timeline. (2) Robert Greenwood, Carmel Valley Association, stated that the timetables for completion of Options 1 and 2 outlined in the staff report are unduly optimistic. According to Mr. Greenwood, Cal-Am cannot select a preferred project until an EIR is prepared that compares Plan A and Plan B. He asked what authority would decide between a District sponsored project and Plan B. (3) Mark Beique, resident of Monterey, proposed that a study of all water supply options be prepared. He requested an “apples to apples” comparison of “what you are proposing.” (4) David Dilworth requested a program level analysis of all alternatives. Upon review of that analysis, projects that are shown to be infeasible or inappropriate could be eliminated from consideration
Director Lindstrom proposed a motion that was seconded by Director Erickson, to bring this item back to the Board on February 27, 2003, with a proposal for divesting the District of any involvement in fish rescuing and rearing activities. District staff should provide an analysis of the options, such as turning these responsibilities over to Cal-Am, or a state or federal resource agency. In addition, the Board should receive a recommendation on the preferred alternative for retrofitting the water intake system at the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 – 0. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman, Lindstrom and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards and Potter were absent.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) David Dilworth stated that the report did not discuss the effectiveness of removing sediment from the water column, nor effectiveness of the overall project in saving fish. He disagreed with the District’s estimate of survival rates for fish held at the rearing facility. (2) Roy Thomas, Carmel River Steelhead Association, urged the District to work to improve project performance and suggested that Cal-Am should contribute towards the success of the project. He recommended that both surface and groundwater diversions be utilized at the rearing facility.
During the Board discussion on this item, Steve Leonard, Cal-Am, stated that the ratepayers would fund operation of the Sleepy Hollow Facility, whether the District or Cal-Am is ultimately responsible for the project. He stated that Cal-Am’s legal counsel does not believe that SWRCB Order 95-10 requires the water company to operate the Sleepy Hollow Facility. He is not aware of any support within Cal-Am to operate the facility. Mr. Leonard stated he would advise the Department of Division of Safety of Dams that the District would like to participate in meetings regarding San Clemente Dam remediation.
Director Erickson made a motion that was seconded by Director Lehman that the meeting continue past 11:15 PM in order to consider item 21. The motion failed on a vote of 3 to 2. Directors Henson, Pendergrass and Lindstrom voted against the motion. Directors Lehman and Erickson voted in favor of the motion. No further action was taken on this item.
No action was taken on this item.
There was no discussion of these items.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at 11:20 PM.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:35 PM.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. Consider Approval of Minutes from the Regular Board Meeting of December 16, 2002
2. Consider Authorization to Purchase Replacement Vehicles
3. Receive Status Report on Consultant Support Services for Water Distribution System Permit Processing Associated with Ordinance No. 105
4. Receive 2001-2002 Annual Mitigation Program Report
5. Ratify Committee Assignments for Calendar Year 2003
6. Consider Ratification of Standard Format for Temporary Water Permit Deed Restriction
7. Receive Independent Auditor’s Report for Fiscal Year 2001-2002
8. Annual Update on Investment Policy
9. Consider Adoption of Treasurer’s Report for November 2002
GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
10. Discuss 2002 Grand Jury Report
11. Discuss Presentation Prepared for February 7, 2003 Meeting with Fort Ord Reuse Authority Board of Directors
12. Review Status of Temporary Urgency Permit for the Seaside Basin Test Injection Well Project
13. Report on Closed Session of December 16, 2002, 6 PM Session
14. Report on California-American Water Company Application 02-04-022 to the Public Utilities Commission for Authority to Increase Rates for Service for 2003, 2004 and 2005
15. Board Comments and Referrals
16. Consider Request by John Mandurrago to Transfer Water Credit from the Former Spinning Wheel Restaurant, Monte Verde and Ocean, Carmel, APN 010-201-014, to the City of Carmel
17. Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 106 – Revising the Permit Processing Fees for Water Distribution System Applications
18. Consider Adoption of Mid-Year Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget Adjustment
19. Receive Update on the Draft Carmel River Flow Threshold Report and Potential Next Steps Regarding the Water Supply Strategic Initiative
19. Receive Update on the Draft Carmel River Flow Threshold Report and Potential Next Steps Regarding the Water Supply Strategic Initiative
20. Receive Report on Status of Contract for Construction of Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility Intake Retrofit Project
21. Consider Establishing Interest Group for Seaside Ground Water Basin Management Ordinances and Concur with Representation Agreement of Sub-Consultant
22. Consider Processing a Request by Pebble Beach Community Services District (PBCSD) to Designate PBCSD Property as a Benefited Property to the CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/STAFF REPORTS
23. Letters Received
24. Committee Reports
25. Strategic Planning Initiatives Progress Report
26. Quarterly Water Supply Project Status Report
27. Quarterly Public Information Program Report
28. Carmel River Fishery Report
29. Quarterly Irrigation Program and Riparian Projects Report
30. Quarterly Carmel River Erosion Protection and Restoration Report
31. Water Conservation Program Report
32. Water Use Credit Transfer Report
33. Monthly Allocation Report
34. Monthly Cal-Am Sales Report
35. Monthly Cal-Am Production Report
36. Production Report – CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project
37. Monthly Water Supply Status Report
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
38. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Significant Exposure to Litigation Exists Pursuant to Subdivision (b) (3) (D) of Gov. Code Section 54956.9 (One Case)
39. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Gov. Code Section 54956.9)
A. Cities of Seaside, Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove and Sand City v MPWMD. Case No. M59441, Monterey County Superior Court
Fran Farina, Secretary to the Board