EXHIBIT 4-B

FINAL MINUTES

Water Demand Committee of the

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

June 24, 2003

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 8:15 AM in the District Conference Room.

Committee members present: Zan Henson and Judi Lehman

Committee members absent: Molly Erickson

Staff present: Acting General Manager Fran Farina

Stephanie Pintar, Water Demand Manager

Gabriella Ayala, Conservation Representative II

Arlene Tavani, Executive Assistant

2. ADOPT MAY 14, 2003 COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

The minutes were not presented for adoption, so the item was continued to a future meeting.

3. STATUS REPORTS

a. Strategic Initiatives Progress – There were no comments from the committee members.

b. District Access to California-American Water Company Consumption Records – Ms. Pintar reported that she spoke with Steve Leonard, California-American Water Company, and was advised that there were still issues to address regarding the possibility of obtaining weekly and on-line access to Cal-Am records. Ms. Farina directed that Ms. Pintar prepare a letter for Mr. Leonard outlining their discussion. Ms. Farina also noted that the staff note should be corrected on page 3 of the packet to state that the April 22, 2002 meeting actually occurred on April 22, 2003.

c. IMAX Project – Ms. Farina stated that a letter dated July 25, 2000 from the District to the applicant, stated that the water use credit of 2.26 acre-feet would not take effect until the applicant verified that the reduction in water use capacity at the site was complete and permanent. The applicant verified completion on November 19, 2001. Ms. Farina stated that a concern had been expressed that the credit could not run from the July 2000 date because there was no proof of compliance until November 19, 2001. Ms. Pintar explained that two issues are pertinent to the project: (1) use of water credit on the site, and (2) a lawsuit regarding the IMAX theater. The District is only involved with reuse of water credit on the site.

d. Marina Coast Water District’s Use of Uniform Plumbing Code in Calculation of Commercial Use Factors – There were no comments from the committee members.

e. White Oaks Plaza – Director Henson expressed his concern that current water use at the site may exceed that of the original restaurant which water credits for expansion projects at the Plaza are based on. Ms. Pintar explained that water use credit is issued based on the potential use at a site, so the potential use of the previous restaurant was calculated and then applied to new or expanded uses at the site. She stated that District staff would be tracking any future development at the site.

4. ACTION ITEMS

a. Provide Direction to Staff on RFP (Request for Proposals) for Policies and Procedures Manual – Ms. Pintar reported that the list of consultants who will receive the RFP was being prepared. The goal was to mail the RFP before July 1, 2003. The committee recommended that staff mail the RFP upon completion.

b. Review Provisions of Ordinance No. 98, Second Bathroom Ordinance and Consider Recommendation(s) to Board of Directors – Please refer to Attachment 1 for a description of Issues 1 through 7 and the associated staff recommendations.

Issue 1 – The Committee members agreed with the staff recommendation.

Issue 2 – No action was taken on this issue. It was agreed that a decision could be made when additional information is received on performance of ½ gallon flush toilets. At that time, the Committee could decide what action to take if it is determined that performance of ½ gallon flush toilets is unacceptable. One concern expressed was that replacement of 2-liter flush toilets with 1.6-gallon flush toilets would increase water use.

Issue 3 – The Committee members initially agreed with the staff recommendation. However, during the discussion of Issue 4 the Committee changed its recommendation and decided that a bathroom added under Ordinance No. 98 should not be designated as a master bathroom, and a second sink should not be allowed.

Issue 4 – The Committee agreed that Ordinance No. 98 was not intended to facilitate the installation of a “luxury” bathroom that would include a separate tub, shower and two sinks. The concept of Ordinance No. 98 was to allow the addition of a second bathroom with a toilet and sink, and tub or shower or combination unit. The Committee decided that a bathroom added under Ordinance No. 98 should not be designated as a master bathroom, so a separate shower and tub would not be allowed, neither would the installation of two sinks be permissible. Staff expressed a concern that unless a set of building plans is maintained by the District that specifies which bathroom in a house is the master bathroom, it will be difficult to maintain documentation of which bathroom in the house was added under Ordinance No. 89 and could not be used to accrue water credit for reuse in the future. Ms. Pintar advised the Committee that when the Policy and Advisory committees discussed the formulation and adoption of Ordinance No. 98, they recommended that the addition of 2 sinks be allowed. One committee member commented that the idea of a “master bath” is outmoded because affordable housing units are now being designed with 2 full bathrooms so that two persons could easily share the unit. It might be preferable to allow a specific number of fixtures in the Ordinance No. 98 bathroom, instead of identifying one bathroom as the “master bathroom.”

Issue 5 -- District staff was directed to request that Cal-Am provide the requested information. The District should then hire a temporary staff person to carry out the data processing. One committee member stated that the Board should not conduct a full review of Ordinance No. 98 until an analysis of water use associated with the ordinance has been completed. However, staff was directed to implement the changes in processing permit applications related to Ordinance No. 98 that could be handled administratively. The topic of not allowing the addition of 2 sinks in an Ordinance No. 98 bathroom must be codified by ordinance.

Issue 6 – The Committee members agreed with the staff recommendation. Staff was directed to develop an ordinance that would require application of Ordinance No. 98 to sites that met the definition as of the effective date of the ordinance, not the date of the application.

Issue 7 – Staff was directed to bring this issue back at a future meeting. Some of the comments from Committee members are as follows: (1) bathrooms added under Ordinance 98 should not be installed in secondary units on a property; (2) specify that the bathroom must be installed in the habitable space of an existing residence; (3) if it is discovered upon inspection that the bathroom was installed in a secondary unit, the applicant must find a way to permit those fixtures; and (4) require a deed restriction for Ordinance No. 98 bathrooms stating that the bathroom cannot be utilized for an auxiliary living space, such as an apartment attached to a house.

c. Provide Direction on Microphor Toilet Survey

Staff was directed to proceed with preparation and distribution of a Microphor toilet survey. A revised questionnaire was submitted at the meeting (on file at the District office).

5. OTHER ITEMS

There was no discussion of those items.

6. DIRECTOR COMMENTS

There were no additional comments from Directors.

7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

There was no discussion of future agenda items.

8. ADJOURNEMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 AM.

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2003\2003boardpacket\20031020\InfoItems\4\item4_exh4b.doc