EXHIBIT 15-A
MONTEREY
PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
TO PREPARE AN EIR ON THE
TERMINATION OF MPWMD WATER CREDIT TRANSFER PROGRAM
Version 4, May 14, 2003
The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD or District) is soliciting Requests for Proposals (RFP) from qualified firms to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the termination of the MPWMD Water Credit Transfer Program (WCTP). The purpose of the EIR is to: (1) evaluate the environmental impacts of terminating the current WCTP as defined in Rule 28-B of the MPWMD Rules and Regulations; and (2) address questions raised by litigants who challenged MPWMD Ordinance No. 102 that rescinded the WCTP. Please see the “Background” section for more information.
The WCTP presently allows transfers of commercial Water Use Credits from an existing commercial use to either an expanding commercial use in the same jurisdiction, or to a jurisdiction’s water allocation. Once a Water Use Credit is transferred into a jurisdiction’s allocation, the water is available for use at the jurisdiction’s discretion and can be used for residential and non-residential uses, new connections and remodels. All transfers require the authorization of the jurisdiction and the District. The property owner must agree to transfer the credit and agree to a deed restriction on the property. Deed restrictions are recorded to ensure that water credits removed from a site could not be reused at that site in the future.
Water
Use Credits are presently calculated according to District Rule 25.5, which
allows a documented Water Use Credit for permanent and quantifiable reductions
in water use. The District retains 15
percent of the water savings associated with Water Use Credits documented under
this Rule. Examples include permanent
changes in use from one type of commercial use to another less intensive water
use, and various retrofits including retrofitting cooling towers to reuse
make-up water and replacing water-cooled refrigeration systems with air cooled
systems.
As described below, Ordinances No. 107 and 108 are under consideration in May 2003 to reinstate the WCTP until environmental review of the effects of terminating the program can be completed. Based on documentation to date, the efficacy of the current WCTP is questionable, and the Board is concerned that WCTP water savings goals have not been accomplished, thereby exacerbating current environmental damage to local water resources.
Proposed Project and Alternatives: The EIR will conduct a project-level evaluation of the proposed project to repeal Rule 28-B and terminate the WCTP. Three alternatives will be evaluated at a lesser level of detail, including (1) enact amended water credit transfer program as described in Ordinance No. 101; (2) further modify a program based on Ordinance No. 101; and (3) reinstate the existing water credit transfer program as defined in MPWMD Rule 28-B (No Project alternative). These are described in more detail in Attachment 1.
Background on MPWMD: The Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District is a California special district created by
the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Act, Statutes of 1977, Chapter
527, to provide regional water supply planning within a 170 square mile area
consisting primarily of the Monterey Peninsula and Carmel Valley,
California. The District is located
approximately 120 miles south of San Francisco and 335 miles north of Los
Angeles. Within the District’s
boundaries are the incorporated cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks,
Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside, in addition to portions of
Unincorporated Monterey County, including Pebble Beach and Carmel Valley.
The District is empowered to manage and
regulate the use, reuse, reclamation, conservation, storage, distribution,
treatment, and disposal of water and wastewater within its jurisdiction. The mission of the District is to manage,
augment and protect water resources for the benefit of the community and the
environment. The District regulates all
water distribution systems within its boundaries, most notably
California-American Water Company (Cal-Am), which serves about 95% of the
residents and businesses within the District.
The District is governed by a seven-member
board of directors, five elected at large and two appointed. The Board appoints
the General Manager, who oversees a staff of 27 full-time employees. Revenues to carry out the District’s tasks
are derived primarily from property taxes, user fees, and connection
charges. The District has a current
annual budget of approximately $5.5 million.
Background on Water Credit Transfer Program: Despite extensive successful conservation efforts, water supply for new construction and remodeling projects on the Monterey Peninsula is extremely limited for a variety of environmental, regulatory and technical reasons. The WCTP began in 1993 as a means to facilitate commercial expansion within the community while also supporting the District’s conservation goal. Environmental review on the WCTP ordinance was not carried out at that time. As described below, a series of MPWMD ordinances refined the program to its current state as described in MPWMD Rule 28-B (Attachment 2).
In December 1993, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 71 to allow transfers
of commercial water credits from an existing commercial use to an expanding
commercial use in the same jurisdiction.
In September 1995, the Board approved Ordinance No. 79, which modified
the transfer rule to allow commercial credits to transfer into a jurisdiction’s
allocation for use at the jurisdiction’s discretion.
In January 2000, the MPWMD
Board considered modifying the water credit transfer program to include
residential uses. At the time, the key
issue was whether current District rules, which allowed the transfer of
commercial water credits to a commercial site, but prohibited the transfer of
residential water credits to another residential site, should be amended. No action was taken.
At the February 2000
meeting, the Board directed staff to prepare a report on whether or not water
demand has been reduced as a result of the existing water credit programs. The preliminary report was presented on March
20, 2000, and indicated that the anticipated water savings from the program
were not occurring. The Board directed
staff to continue its research and report back in 90 days.
District staff began an
extensive data collection process in March 2000. The 90-day goal was immediately thwarted
because the needed Cal-Am customer data was not available as it is proprietary
and confidential information owned by Cal-Am.
Cal-Am agreed to release the data to MPWMD for limited purposes once a
non-disclosure agreement was signed on June 7, 2000. Given the complex nature and extended time
frame to complete the water savings report, a series of actions were taken as
described in the following paragraphs.
District Ordinance No. 95
was adopted on June 19, 2000 to allow only commercial-to-commercial water
credit transfers of “like kind” to occur during a 90-day moratorium on water
credit transfers. During the 90-day
period, the effectiveness of the water credit program was to be reviewed. The proposed ordinance was effective for 90
days and was extended for a second 90-day period on September 18, 2000 to give
staff time to have a third party review the findings from its water credit
analysis. The ordinance expired on
December 18, 2000, after consideration of a third extension of the ordinance
was continued by lack of a quorum at the December 11, 2000 meeting.
Ordinance No. 100, a 90-day
ordinance suspending the authority of the Water Management District to receive
any water credit transfer applications under District Rule 28 B that are not
for “like-to-like” (identical) commercial-to-commercial or
industrial-to-industrial expansions of an existing use, was adopted on March
19, 2001 (and expired on June 18, 2001).
Also in March 2001, the MPWMD Board addressed concerns about
financial abuses of the WCTP by passing Ordinance No. 97, which restricts the
amount of money or other consideration that can be given in exchange for a
water credit transfer.
The third party analysis of the water savings on commercial
sites and sites receiving water from credit transfers was completed on June 1,
2001 and provided to the Board. The
report was inconclusive as to whether the program was achieving its goals. On June 18, 2001, the District Board
suspended receipt of water credit transfer applications for 60 days (August 17,
2001). District staff was directed to
consider modifications to the water credit transfer process that would
incorporate additional safeguards to prevent an increase of water use beyond
the original projection at the receiving site, and safeguards that would ensure
that accurate estimates of historical water use at the donor site are
developed.
At the August 20, 2001
meeting, District staff presented a number of policy questions to the Board
with the intent to craft a new Ordinance No. 101 based on the consensus of the
Board feedback. The policy questions
included:
·
What kind of water use credit transfers should
be allowed?
·
Should transfers be limited to specific types of
properties?
·
How should water use credits for transfer be
calculated?
·
What percentage of the saved water should be retained
by the District as permanent conservation savings?
·
Should the use at the donor and receiving sites
be monitored?
·
Should each owner of property transferring
and/or receiving a water use credit be required to consent to monitoring and
public disclosure of their water use data?
·
Are there other questions that need to be
addressed in a modified credit transfer rule?
The
District’s Technical Advisory Committee and Policy Advisory Committee reviewed
the conceptual Ordinance No. 101 in July and August 2001. The committee agreed with the concept of the
ordinance, but recommended a 25% conservation set-aside rather than 35% as
stated in the ordinance. The Board
adopted the second reading of Ordinance No. 101 (Attachment 3) in November 2001,
but it was brought back for reconsideration in December 2001 as allowed under
District rules. The ordinance was not
approved by the Board in December 2001 and is not currently in effect.
MPWMD Ordinance No. 102, adopted in February 2002, rescinded Rule 28-B and the WCTP as a whole after determining that the program had not resulted in anticipated water savings that originally motivated the program. Six cities filed suit against the District in May 2002 challenging the rescission of the program on CEQA grounds (Attachment 4). The parties have asked the Court to defer ruling on the case to see if resolution of the issues is possible.
On March 17, 2003, the MPWMD Board approved the first reading of Ordinance No, 107, which rescinds Ordinance No. 102, thereby restoring the WCTP as defined in Rule 28-B prior to Ordinance No. 101. On April 2, 2003, the Board approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 108, which clarifies that approval of a water credit transfer application is a discretionary act by the Board, and such action requires CEQA review. On May 19, 2003, the MPWMD Board is considering the second reading and adoption of both Ordinances No. 107 and 108; if adopted, both become effective on June 18, 2003. Finding No. 5 of Ordinance No. 107 states that it is the Board’s intention to prepare an EIR to address concerns that have been raised about the program.
The consultant will prepare a focused EIR on the termination of the
WCTP and review three alternatives. The
primary environmental impact issues concern water supply/resources and land
use/economic impacts leading to physical changes to the environment (e.g.,
urban blight). The District will prepare
a description of the proposed project (terminate program) and alternatives. CEQA does not require an Initial Study if it
is determined by the lead agency that an EIR will be prepared. Thus, the major consultant tasks are as
follows:
Task 1- Prepare EIR Notice of Preparation and
hold scoping meetings
Task 2- Prepare Scoping Report including the
recommended DEIR format and approach Task 3- Compile background information
from MPWMD staff and other sources
Task 4- Prepare analysis of physical impacts
associated with economic effects
Task 5- Prepare administrative draft EIR for
internal review
Task 6- Prepare Draft EIR and hold public
hearing to receive oral comments
Task 7- Prepare summary of
comments along with a work plan and approach for Final EIR, based on the comments received
Task 8- Prepare administrative Final EIR for
internal review
Task 9- Prepare Final EIR and CEQA
certification Findings
Task 10- Participate in meetings and phone
consultations
Please see Attachment 1
for a detailed review of the issues the EIR should address, and potential
activities that would be carried out under Tasks 1-10 above.
As referenced in Tasks 1-9 above, specific deliverables the consultant should prepare include:
Notice of Preparation for EIR
Scoping Report, including the recommended
DEIR format and approach
Analysis of physical impacts associated with
economic effects
Administrative DEIR
Draft EIR
DEIR Comment Summary Report, including a work
plan and approach for the Final EIR
Administrative Final EIR
Final EIR
CEQA Certification Findings
The text must be compatible with the District’s Microsoft Word
software.
The District has estimated
roughly $100,000-125,000 for preparation of the EIR on the WCTP, including all
labor and direct costs. The MPWMD Board
wishes to certify a cost–effective “no frills” document that is legally
adequate.
Time is of the essence. The District’s goal is for the Final EIR to be certified in six to nine months from the start date, if possible. Please comment on the feasibility of this goal, the effort needed to achieve this goal, and potential changes you would make to the scope of work to achieve this goal.
Please Provide Information
and Responses to Each of the Following Questions
A. Describe the qualifications of your firm as well as the members of your staff who will be assigned to this project. Provide names and resumes of assigned staff members.
B. Describe your experience assisting public agencies in preparation of EIRs that deal with complex water or planning issues in a litigious setting; you may be working with attorneys as well as staff for the District.
C. Describe your knowledge and familiarity of water resource issues on the Monterey Peninsula or in another area that faces similar challenges.
D. Provide a minimum of three references, including at least one government agency, including the name of a contact person and the telephone number.
A. List all office locations for your firm.
B. Indicate which location(s) will conduct the specified work.
C. Describe your office facilities with emphasis on computer hardware and software regularly used (e.g., word processing, document scanning, etc.). Your system must be able to send and receive Microsoft Word documents as e-mail attachments.
A. Please provide a table, figure or graphic that provides a time line for Tasks 1-10 in Section III and/or the deliverables specified in Section IV. “Day 1” of the time line is issuance of a Notice to Proceed based on a signed contract. Use of weeks as the time unit is suggested. It is recognized that time lines associated with Tasks 7-9 cannot be accurately estimated at this time as they depend on comments on the Draft EIR. You may wish to estimate the time line to the Final EIR based on your experience. Identify your rationale for the cost estimates for Tasks 7-9.
B. Provide a cost estimate for services to be provided, including your assumptions about the number of hours worked, the staff assigned and the rates charged. In a table format, please identify the cost estimates for each of Tasks 1-10 in Section III above. The District will be responsible for direct costs such as arranging meeting rooms, notices and outreach for public hearings associated with the EIR. Assume that your firm will produce 15 copies of the administrative draft documents and 100 copies of both the Draft and Final EIR, along with electronic versions of each document (on CD and files in a format to enable placement on the District’s website). It is recognized that cost estimates associated with Tasks 7-9 cannot be accurately estimated at this time as they depend on comments on the Draft EIR. You may wish to use a percentage of the costs for the Draft EIR based on your experience. Identify your rationale for the costs for Tasks 7-9.
C. Explain what would cause extra costs to be incurred.
D. Describe your billing policies and procedures.
E. Provide a sample copy of your consulting contract. Attachment 5 is the MPWMD standard contract language for a project of this nature; modifications may be made for certain sections depending on the circumstances.
F. What expectations do you have regarding District support to enable you to successfully accomplish the project? Describe the assumptions that would be included in the contract document as part of the scope of work.
C. Please describe any legal challenges or litigation over the past ten years regarding work product by your firm or your subcontractors for which your firm was directly responsible. Describe the outcome and any other relevant information with sufficient detail for us to understand it. For example, if your firm wrote a report or a CEQA document for a public agency and subsequent litigation challenged the adequacy of your work product, tell us about it. (You may exclude billing disputes).
D. Have any permit violations been lodged against your firm under (a) the Endangered Species Act or (b) by any permitting agency associated with the implementation of a mitigation/monitoring plan for which you were responsible?
Ten (10) complete copies of each proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope clearly marked as “Personal and Confidential”, and labeled as “PROPOSAL TO PREPARE EIR ON TERMINATION OF MPWMD WATER CREDIT TRANSFER PROGRAM.” Proposals must be addressed to:
Henrietta Stern, Project Manager
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
5 Harris Court, Building G
Post Office Box 85
Monterey, California 93942
The original proposal must be signed by the proposing consultant, if a sole proprietor, or by one or more authorized officials of a proposing consultant that is a business entity. Proposals may be filed in person or by mail, but must in any case be received in the District office no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, June 20, 2003.
The District will rely upon the following criteria during the evaluation and selection process:
§ Acceptable documented history of providing needed services to similar organizations.
§ Quality of responses to this Request for Proposal (RFP).
§ Total projected cost of consulting services.
§ Qualifications and experience of the consulting firm’s staff.
§ Timeliness and quality of responses to clarification questions.
§ Freedom from business conflicts.
§ Availability of the firm to carry out scope of work in a timely manner.
The District reserves the right to reject all proposals, to request additional information concerning any proposals for purposes of clarification, to accept or negotiate any modification to any proposal following the deadline for receipt of all proposals, and to waive any irregularities if such would serve the best interest of the District.
Please direct all questions concerning this Request for Proposals to Henrietta Stern, Project Manager at (831) 658-5621 or via e-mail at henri@mpwmd.dst.ca.us .
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2003\2003boardpacket\20030519\ActionItems\15\item15_exh15a.doc
H.
Stern, DRAFT 4, 5/14/03, 8 pp