Governance Committee for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
California American Water Ÿ Monterey County Board of Supervisors Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Ÿ Monterey Peninsula Water Management District EXHIBIT 1-A
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:\staff\MPWSPGovernanceCmte\20130619\item_1_Exh_A.docx