Governance Committee for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project |
||
California American Water Monterey County Board of Supervisors Monterey Peninsula Regional
Water Authority Monterey Peninsula Water Management District |
||
DRAFT
MINUTES
Special
Meeting Governance
Committee for
the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project May 17, 2013 |
||
Call to Order: |
The meeting was
called to order at 1:05 pm in the conference room of the Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District offices. |
|
|
|
|
Members Present: |
Chuck Della
Sala (alternate to Jason Burnett), representing Monterey Peninsula Regional
Water Authority (JPA) Robert S.
Brower, Sr., Vice Chair, representing Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District (Water District) Robert MacLean,
representing California American Water (Cal Am) |
|
|
|
|
Members Absent: |
David Potter,
representing Monterey County Board of Supervisors Jason Burnett,
Chair, representing Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (JPA) |
|
|
|
|
Pledge of Allegiance: |
The assembly
recited the Pledge of Allegiance. |
|
|
|
|
Public Comments: |
No comments
directed to the Committee. |
|
|
|
|
Agenda Items |
|
|
The Chair
received public comment on each agenda item. |
||
|
||
1. |
Develop Draft Criteria for Groundwater
Replenishment Project Recommendation for June 12, 2013 California Public
Utilities Commission Workshop |
|
|
On a motion by
Della Sala and second of Brower, draft criteria submitted at the meeting were
approved unanimously on a vote of 2 – 0 by Della Sala and Brower. Potter was absent. No comments from the public were directed
to the committee during the public comment period on this item. |
|
|
|
|
2. |
Receive Presentation by Cal-Poly
Architectural Design Team on
Preliminary Concepts and Provide Feedback and Direction for Further
Development |
|
|
There was
consensus that the teams should have additional time for further development
of the design concepts, and present them at the June 13, 2013 meeting. |
|
|
The meeting
opened with a brief presentation from James Doerfler, Professor of Architecture
at California State Polytechnic University at San Luis Obispo, Director of
the Master’s Program/Head of the Architecture Department. Thomas Shorey provided information on
weather/temperature/wind conditions at the desalination facility site. The first design group to present was
Team H2O: John Donley, Joanne Ha, Daire Heneghan and Thomas Shorey. This
design takes advantage of optimal solar orientation, and passive ventilation.
In addition, a gravity feed system would move water into the facility and
through the pre-treatment and RO process. It features a rooftop public education area
that includes large skylights to offer a view down onto the desalination
operations. The following comments were received on
the Team H2O design. (a) Show height
and location of trees surrounding facility site, so the public can see that
view impacts will not be an issue. (b) Determine cost of paperwork for LEED
Certification, if that is a goal. (c) Consider that it may be necessary to
heat the buildings in the summer. (d) Incorporate
sound attenuation into ceiling and walls. (e) Consider enlarging the building
to accommodate future expansion of the facility. This could be more cost/time effective than
constructing new buildings in the future.
(f) Allow sufficient space around equipment for repair work. (g)
Assess the long-term durability of plastic siding that is proposed for the
building exterior. (h) Determine if the desalination facility site is in the
yellow tsunami zone. (i) A representative
from Monterey County Planning Department should be present at the June 13,
2013 committee meeting since this project will be under the purview of
Monterey County. The second design group to present was
Team Patchwork: Derek Holloway, Danton Spina, Smita Naik, Kevin Pitzer. This proposal is a single-story building
design, LEED like, planned with minimal impact to the site, maximum
utilization of permeable pavements, and installation of water catchment
ponds. There is an effort to provide views
of the outside throughout the buildings.
The design includes three courtyards and a rooftop garden/public
education area. The following comments were received on
the Team Patchwork design. (a) Asked
for explanation of how the one-story design is more cost effective than the Team
H2O design. (b) Requested a comparison of the cost for the proposed design
that includes space for expansion, and the cost to expand in the future. (c) Is there enough wind in the area to
produce power for the facility? (d) Where will the high-voltage substation be
placed? (e) Ensure the buildings are large enough to allow movement and
repair of equipment. (f) Consider the
presence of shore birds at the site.
(g) Will photocells on the roof impede air traffic? (h) Investigate use of permeable pavement
that is good quality and long lasting. (i) Insure that the roof is set at the
correct angle to reduce the view of solar panels from the ground. (j) Address
the exhaust and generator noise inside the building. (k) Include ample space
in the buildings for sand filters. (l)
The roof could be very expensive because of the weight of the garden/public
education area. (m) Be aware that the brine ponds will usually be empty, and
the backwash ponds will be full. (n) The concept of rooftop educational areas
is a good one, but people may be discouraged from exploring those areas due
to cold temperatures in Marina. (o)
Cost is the determining factor in the design choice; however, superior design
may justify additional cost. |
|
|
||
3. |
Discussion of Items to be Placed on
Future Agendas |
|
|
No new items suggested. |
|
|
|
|
4. |
Adjournment |
|
|
The meeting
adjourned at 3:30 pm. |
|
U:\Arlene\word\2013\GovernanceCommittee\Minutes\draft20130517.docx