Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
February 19, 2004
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM in the District conference room.
Alvin Edwards, Chair – Division 1
Larry Foy, Vice Chair – Division 5
Judi Lehman – Division 2
Kristi Markey – Division 3
Michelle Knight – Division 4
David Pendergrass – Mayoral Representative
David Potter – Monterey County Board of Supervisors
General Manager present: Fran Farina
District Counsel present: David C. Laredo
The assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Edwards announced that during Oral Communications he would receive public comment on agenda item 15, Consider Adoption of a Resolution Declaring the District’s Intent to Prepare a Groundwater Management Plan for the Seaside Groundwater Basin and Adopting a Statement of Public Participation. The item was continued to the March 15, 2004 public hearing at the request of parties involved in California-American Water Company v. City of Seaside et al., Monterey Superior Court Case No.M66343.
The following comments were directed to the Board during Oral Communications. (1) Robert Greenwood, representing the Carmel Valley Association, requested that Consent Calendar Item 4 be pulled for separate consideration. He spoke in support of the proposed resolution. (2) Nancy Isakson requested that the District send a letter to the County of Monterey correcting misstatements that appear in the Monterey County General Plan EIR concerning the District. (3) Tex Irwin, representing the Monterey Peninsula Airport District (MPAD), asked the District to prepare an analysis of mitigation program measures that: (a) could be discontinued once a water supply project is on line that will alleviate over-pumping of the Carmel River, and (b) those that should continue. (4) Sean Flavin, a homeowner in the City of Monterey, recounted his recent effort to contact Cal-Am regarding a water leak. He asked how he should have handled the situation in order to elicit a timely response from Cal-Am. (5) Bob McKenzie requested that Consent Calendar item No. 4 be pulled for separate consideration. (6) David Dilworth, representing Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment (HOPE), referred to a letter he submitted to the District on February 19, 2004 (on file at the District office) regarding the Del Monte Forest Preservation and Development Plan EIR. According to Mr. Dilworth, if Pebble Beach Company sells 140 acre-feet of water to fund improvements to the Pebble Beach Reclamation Project, pumping in the Carmel River will increase by 100 acre-feet in drier than normal years. (7) Ron Chesshire, a resident of the City of Monterey, expressed support for the Board of Directors in their efforts to develop a water solution.
On a motion by Director Knight and second by Director Pendergrass, Consent Calendar items 4, 6 and 8 were deferred for separate consideration and the remaining items were adopted. The motion was approved unanimously on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent.
On a motion by Director Markey and second by Director Edwards, page 8 of the minutes was amended on line 13 by removing the word “noted” and replacing it with the word “disputes.” The motion was approved unanimously on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent.
On a motion by Director Markey and second by Director Edwards, this item was deferred to the Administrative Committee to assess the issue and make a recommendation to the full Board. This was deferred to the April 2004 Board meeting as an Action item. The motion was adopted on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent. Larry Hampson, Water Resources Engineer, gave a presentation on the District’s Mitigation Program. The presentation is on file at the District office.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) Ron Chesshire described the Sleepy Hollow Rearing Facility as a “catch and hold” facility. He urged the Board to move forward on steelhead mitigation through construction of a true rearing facility with the cooperation of state and federal agencies. (2) Clive Sanders, Administrator of the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, spoke in support of the resolution. (3) Nancy Isakson suggested that the mitigation program could be downsized because it was developed in response to Cal-Am’s former Carmel River pumping limit, which was higher than the current 11,285 AF of water that can be pumped from the Carmel River due to SWRCB Order 95-10. (4) Bob McKenzie urged the Board to either oppose adoption of the resolution, or defer consideration of this item until budgetary implications of the mitigation program proposal have been assessed. (5) John Fischer, a resident of Pacific Grove, observed that this item should not have been listed on the Consent Calendar. He asked District staff to state how many Carmel River steelhead had migrated to the ocean. (6) John Dalessio, a member of the Carmel River Advisory Committee, stated that some community members would be pleased that the resolution was submitted after the November 2003 election.
Director Pendergrass offered a motion that was seconded by Director Knight, to adopt the staff recommendation that the Technical Advisory Committee submit a proposed methodology in 90 days at the May 27, 2004 Special Board meeting. No public comment was directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item.
Director Markey proposed an amendment to specify that at the May 27, 2004 Special Board meeting, the Technical Advisory Committee shall present its recommendation or a progress report on the status of deliberations. Director Pendergrass accepted the amendment. The amended motion was adopted on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent.
During the public comment period on this item, Tex Irwin, MPAD, stated that the Airport District’s original water needs assessment was based on anticipated buildout at the airport using the District’s commercial water use factors.
On a motion by Director Markey and second by Director Knight, the appointments were ratified on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent. No public comment was directed to the Board on this item.
An outline of Mr. Leonard’s presentation is on file at the District office. The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) David Dilworth suggested that one way Cal-Am could reduce water losses is to respond quickly to leaks by installing a local telephone line dedicated to receiving reports of leaks. (2) Patricia Bernardi stated that Cal-Am’s 7 percent leakage rate is good, when compared to the average 15 percent leakage rate of water distribution systems across the United States. (3) Bob McKenzie stated that Cal-Am has never met the goal of reducing its leakage rate to 7 percent, and that the rate has increased over the years to 13 and 14 percent. According to Mr. McKenzie, the leakage rate is significant because local water consumption is one-fourth of the national average.
General Manager Farina reported that all staff notes associated with the Board meeting agenda were loaded onto the District’s web site. She noted that the District’s web site is under reconstruction. She also reported that the Seaside Basin Pilot Injection Project was operational and that injection should continue for several weeks based on the current rainfall levels.
District Counsel David Laredo reported that the Board of Directors met in closed session from 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM. They discussed matters listed on the agenda. District Counsel provided status reports to the Board. No reportable action was taken.
Director Pendergrass reported that he met with the mayors of cities within the District. They conducted a round-table discussion on agenda item 14, concerning SB149. Mr. Pendergrass stated that he was not a signatory to the February 19, 2004 letter from the mayors to the Board regarding SB149 (on file at the District office). Director Knight stated that she participated in a conference call regarding SB149. Mr. Foy reported that he spoke with Mark Stilwell regarding the status of draft Ordinance No. 109. In addition he received numerous telephone calls from constituents regarding water credit reassignments. He advised callers to contact the District office with questions about that issue.
Chair Edwards announced that public comment on this item would be received, then the public hearing would be closed and the item continued to the March 15, 2004 Board meeting. At that time, public comment on the item would be received only during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. There were no objections raised by the Directors to Chair Edwards’ announcement. Following the public comment period and Board discussion, Chair Edwards stated that he would refer this item to the Rules and Regulations Review Committee. No objections were raised by the Directors.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item. (1) Robert Greenwood, representing the Carmel Valley Association, urged the Board to amend Ordinance No. 99 by requiring that ex parte communications be published in the Board packet. (2) Pat Bernardi, a resident of Carmel Valley, recommended that ex parte communications be announced at the Board meetings. In regard to SB149, Ms. Bernardi chastised any Directors that might be working to dissolve the District. (3) Alexander Henson, former Director, spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 112. (4) Nancy Isakson spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 112. (5) John Dalessio, President of the Carmel Valley Association, expressed opposition to Ordinance No. 112. (6) David Dilworth spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 112. (7) Bob McKenzie asked why the Directors are subject to ex parte communication rules, when no other water district in the state of California adheres to similar regulations.
Director Edwards offered a motion to table action on SB149. Director Knight seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item. (1) Dan Albert, Mayor of the City of Monterey, read a letter dated February 19, 2004 from mayors of cities within the District (on file at the District office). He requested that the Board refrain from voting for or against SB149 until the bill is amended. (2) Beverly Bean, League of Women Voters, read a letter dated February 19, 2004, that is on file at the District office. She urged the Board to oppose reintroduction of SB149. (3) Robert Greenwood, Carmel Valley Association, stated that any revival of SB149 would be unfortunate. (4) Alexander Henson, former Director, spoke in opposition to SB149. He suggested that the Board place two measures before the voters: (a) present a project that will provide a finite amount of water; and (b) present a project that provides enough water to meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 95-10. The project that received the highest number of votes would be constructed. (5) Paula Lotz, representing the Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club, spoke in opposition to previous versions of SB149. (6) Sean Flavin, a resident of Monterey, spoke in opposition to SB149 because it would give the State of California authority to make a decision on the best water supply project for the Monterey Peninsula. He maintained that the District should make decisions regarding a local water supply project. (7) Nancy Isakson expressed agreement with comments made by Dan Albert. (8) Tex Irwin expressed agreement with comments made by Dan Albert and Alexander Henson. (9) John Dalessio recommended that the Board refuse to support SB149 or any alternate legislation offered by Senator McPherson that gives the State of California authority to develop a local water supply project. (10) Virginia Collister stated that the Board should be receptive to Senator McPherson’s legislation or any other proposal that would give the residents in the District as much consideration as the Carmel River steelhead. She requested that the District purchase microphones for use in the conference room. (11) Sheryl McKenzie expressed support for SB149 if it could be modified to reconstitute the District into an agency that supports the local planning agencies. She said that it would be premature for the Board to take a position on SB149 at this time. (12) Theresa Martinez, Field Representative to Senator Bruce McPherson, read a letter from the Senator dated February 19, 2004 (on file at the District office). The letter stated that Senator McPherson had submitted a placeholder bill to replace SB149 that expresses the Legislature’s intent “to assist local efforts to improve the water supply on the Monterey Peninsula.” (14) Bob McKenzie stated that SB149 was drafted at the request of mayors within the District after 26 years of no progress on development of a water supply. He urged the Board to work with Senator McPherson. (15) Patricia Bernardi, a resident of Carmel Valley, reminded the assembly that the District presented to the voters proposals for construction of a dam on the Carmel River and a seawater desalination project in Sand City, but only the cities of Seaside and Sand City expressed support for either of those projects. She was skeptical of claims that SB149 could solve the water supply problem, when local city councils could not agree to support two local water supply projects. (16) David Dilworth stated that the District should take no position on SB149 at this time. He suggested that Senator McPherson might delay action on proposed legislation until the District’s recruitment for a General Manager is completed. (17) John Fischer suggested that Senator McPherson and Assemblyman John Laird should focus on identifying a water purveyor that would commit to construction of a desalination plant.
The meeting was recessed at 9:50 PM and reconvened at 10:05 PM.
Chair Edwards announced early in the meeting that the item was continued to the March 15, 2004 Board meeting at the request of parties involved in California-American Water Company v. City of Seaside et al., Monterey Superior Court Case No. M66343.
Chair Edwards continued this item to the March 15, 2004 Board meeting.
Director Edwards made a motion that was seconded by Director Pendergrass to adopt the staff recommendation presented as items 1 through 5 and a through f in the staff note.
Director Foy moved to amend the motion as follows: (1) item 5.c – replace the words “one-year extension date” with the words “two-year extension date”; and (2) item 5.d – specify that the lot must be in ownership for 24 months. Directors Edwards and Pendergrass accepted the amendment.
Director Lehman made a motion that item 5.d be amended to state that the lot must be in ownership for three years. There was no second to her motion.
The amended motion was adopted on a vote of 4 to 2. Directors Edwards, Foy, Knight and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion. Directors Lehman and Markey were opposed. Director Potter was absent.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) Mitzi Dallas advised the Board that she submitted an application for reassignment of water credits in August 2003. The permit had not yet been issued due to the District’s decision to halt processing of those applications. (2) Virginia Collister referred to a letter she submitted dated February 12, 2004 (on file at the District office). She requested that the Board grant her a variance from the District rules so she can reassign water credits from 1 lot to 2 contiguous lots in order to render them marketable. She asked the Board to tell her what County ordinance specified that she is the only person who can build on her contiguous lots. (3) Robert Carver, an architect representing himself on one project and a client on another project. He advised the Board that establishing a one-year expiration date for water credits will invite growth. There should be no expiration date on water credits. He stated that reassigning water credit from 1 house to 2 houses will not increase water use. (4) Christine Gianascol Kemp representing two applicants. She requested that the Koppert project be considered in process. She stated that a one-year expiration period for water credits is too short. Ms. Gianascol suggested that in order to qualify for water credit reassignment the property should be owned for 36 months. However, she stated that the time limit is unnecessary. (5) David Dilworth proposed that water credit reassignments should only be allowed if water is reassigned from one use to another identical use, such as from one existing residence to another. Also, the District should retain a percentage of the water credit available for reassignment.
Director Markey proposed a motion that was seconded by Director Foy, to approve the staff recommendation listed as items 1 through 5 in the staff note. In addition, amend line 1 of item 2 to read “Applicants who added a second bathroom two years prior to Ordinance No. 98…” The motion was approved unanimously on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent.
Director Knight offered an amendment to the motion to add an “in process clause” as of the date that official notification went out to the jurisdictions that the Ordinance No. 98 process had changed. Director Markey did not accept the amendment.
Director Knight proposed a motion to amend the main motion to add a provision for people in process as of the October date of official notification that the Ordinance 98 process had changed. Director Foy seconded the amending motion.
Director Lehman proposed an amendment to the motion that applications deemed “in process” should be asked to exhaust an offset prior to granting a permit for an Ordinance No. 98 bathroom. Directors Knight and Foy accepted the amendment. The amended motion was adopted on a vote of 5 – 1. Directors Edwards, Foy, Lehman, Knight and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion. Director Markey was opposed. Director Potter was absent.
The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) Jerry Case, an architect with two applications pending, asked the Board to recognize that his project was in process in July 2003 when he received architectural review, so the water permit should be based on rules in effect at that time. (2) Jay Arbor, representing Carver and Schicketanz Architects, designed a project based on rules in effect at that time, but when the application was submitted the District’s rules had changed. He requested that his application be processed under rules in effect when the project was designed. (3) Darla Bava, owner of the project referred to by Jerry Case. She requested that her project be considered in progress. (4) Patricia Bernardi, a resident of Carmel Valley, asked for clarification of scenario No. 4 described by staff during the presentation on this item (on file at the District office). (5) David Dilworth expressed support for recommendations 1, 4 and 5. He suggested that recommendation 2 should specify a date, and that punctuation in recommendation 3 could be improved. (6) Karen Monahan stated that water use on a property would be the same whether an existing bathroom is designated as the master bathroom, or the new Ordinance No. 98 bathroom is designated as the master bathroom.
There was no discussion of the Informational Items/Staff Reports.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 PM.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. Consider Adoption of Minutes of the January 29, 2004 Board Meeting.
2. Authorize Expenditure of Conservation Contingency Funds to Hire Temporary Office Assistant for Water Demand Division
3. Ratify Emergency Expenditure of Funds Approved by General Manager for Data Recovery
4. Consider Adoption of Resolution for Continuation of the District’s Mitigation Program
5. Receive Semi-Annual Groundwater Quality Monitoring Report
6. Consider Approval of Timeline for Jurisdictions to Submit Methodology for Estimating Future Water Needs
7. Adopt Resolution Supporting a Statewide Ballot Initiative to Require Voter Approval before State Government may Take Local Funds
8. Ratify Appointments to Public Outreach/Communications and Rules and Regulations Review Committees
9. Consider Adoption of the Treasurer’s Report for December 2003
10. Steven Leonard, General Manager of California-American Water Company, will Report on the Rate of Unaccounted for Water Distribution System Losses
GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
11. Report on 5:30 PM Closed Session
12. Board Comments and Referrals
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112 – Rescinding Rules Requiring Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications and Repealing Penalties and Remedies for Non-Disclosure
14. Discuss Senate Bill 149 or Related Legislation Affecting MPWMD
15. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Declaring the District’s Intent to Prepare a Groundwater Management Plan for the Seaside Groundwater Basin and Adopting a Statement of Public Participation
16. Discussion of Near Term Water Supply Concepts, Including Reclamation
17. Provide Direction on Development of Water Credit Reassignment Rules
18. Discuss Implementation of Ordinance No. 98, Second Bathroom Ordinance, and Provide Direction to Staff on Preparation of an Ordinance
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/STAFF REPORTS
19. Letters Received
20. Committee Reports
21. Strategic Planning Initiatives Progress Report
22. Monthly Water Supply Project Status Report
23. Carmel River Fishery Report
24. Water Conservation Program Report
25. Water Use Credit Transfer Status Report
26. Monthly Allocation Report
27. Monthly Cal-Am Sales Report
28. Monthly Cal-Am Production Report
29. Production Report – CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project
30. Semi-Annual Financial Report on the CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project
31. Monthly Water Supply Status Report
_____________________________ Fran Farina, Secretary to the Board