The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM in the Monterey City Council Chambers.

Board members present:

David Potter - Chair, Representing Monterey County Board of Supervisors

Alvin Edwards - Vice Chair, Division 1

Ron Chesshire - Division 2

Molly Erickson - Division 3

Kris Lindstrom - Division 4

Alexander "Zan" Henson - Division 5

David Pendergrass - Mayoral Representative

Board members absent: None

Staff present:

Darby Fuerst, General Manager

Ray Millard, Administrative Services Manager

Andrew Bell, Planning & Engineering Mgr./Dist. Engineer

Stephanie Pintar, Water Demand Manager

Henrietta Stern, Project Manager/Public Information Rep.

Joe Oliver, Water Resources Manager

Arlene Tavani, Administrative Assistant

District Counsel present: David C. Laredo

I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

The assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The following comments were presented to the Board during Oral Communications. (1) Edwin Lee, a citizen of Carmel, described the District as "the major impediment" to Cal-Am moving ahead on a solution to the water problem. He proposed that the Board conduct an election between the Plan B alternative and the Carmel River Dam alternative one month after Board certification of the EIR on those projects. Or, the Board could set an election on dissolution of the District. (2) Robert Greenwood, read a letter dated March 19, 2001 that is on file at the District office. The letter expressed dissatisfaction with expenditures proposed in Consent Calendar items F, I and K. He urged the Board to handle public finances as carefully as they would their own personal finances. (3)Nancy Isakson asked if Board subcommittee meetings should be noticed or open to the public, since they were not subject to the Brown Act. (4) Diana Ingersoll, Public Works Director for the City of Seaside, spoke on Consent Calendar item D. She stated that the City of Seaside could not accept the District's finding that the Seaside Basin is in overdraft because no report or study documents the existence of an overdraft. Ms. Ingersoll advised that the City would challenge any such finding in the future, based on the absence of a report documenting the existence of an overdraft. (5) Lloyd Lowrey, attorney with Noland, Hamerly, Etienne and Hoss, representing Security National Guarantee (SNG), requested that Consent Item D be pulled for separate consideration by the Board. He noted that SNG objects to the findings presented in item D for the reasons stated in a letter dated February 22, 2001 that was submitted to the Board at the February 22, 2001 meeting. (6) Fran Farina, representing Save Our Carmel River (SOCR), spoke on item VI.F. She requested that the District send her a letter describing what geographic areas in the District had experienced water production increases above 1999 levels. In addition, she asked that similar information be published in the Final MPWMD 2000 Annual Report. (7) David Dilworth, representing Responsible Consumers of the Monterey Peninsula, advised that staff reports to the Board were written with a definite pro-dam, pro-growth and pro-development bias. He urged the Board to consider the opposite view when deliberating issues, and recognize the District's responsibility to protect the environment. Mr. Dilworth offered to provide the Board with specific examples of biased staff reports.

III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

On a motion by Director Pendergrass and second by Director Henson, the Board pulled items C, D, E, G, I and K for separate consideration, and approved the remaining Consent Calendar items. The motion was approved unanimously.

IV. CONSENT CALENDAR

Approved.

A. Approve Minutes from the Regular Board meeting of February 22, 2001

Approved.

B. Ratification of Agreements

On a motion by Director Henson and second by Director Edwards, the committee assignments were unanimously ratified as noted: (1) deleted the Water Summit and Local Liaison committees; (2) appointed Directors Edwards, Chesshire and Lindstrom to the Administrative Committee and named Director Henson as an alternate.

During the public comment period on this item, David Dilworth requested that the item be deferred to the April 16, 2001 Board meeting.

C. Consider Ratification of Committee Appointments for Calendar Year 2001

A motion by Director Edwards and second by Director Pendergrass to form a Board subcommittee to review the findings failed on a vote of 4 to 3. Directors Chesshire, Pendergrass and Edwards voted in favor of the motion.

A motion by Director Henson and second by Director Erickson to adopt the findings as presented was approved on a vote of 4 to 3. Directors Chesshire, Pendergrass and Edwards voted against the motion.

The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) Lloyd Lowrey, representing the applicant, noted that his comments were outlined in a February 22, 2001 letter that was previously distributed to the Board. He expressed objection to adoption of the findings. (2) Ralph Rubio expressed support for Director Edwards proposal and requested that the Board defer adoption of the findings.

IV. CONSENT CALENDAR

D. Consider Approval of Findings of Denial of Application to Create Monterey Bay Shores Water Distribution System

A motion by Director Edwards and second by Director Henson to approve the Water Augmentation Plan as presented was approved on a vote of 4 - 2. Directors Erickson and Lindstrom voted against the motion.

During the public comment period on this item David Dilworth, representing Responsible Consumers of the Monterey Peninsula, urged the Board to remove the following wording from item No. 7 on the list of Water Augmentation Plan Objectives "pursue relaxation of one-for-one offset requirement to facilitate incremental water augmentation projects."

E. Consider Adoption of Water Augmentation Plan Objectives for Calendar Year 2001

Approved.

F. Consider Approval of Contract with Johnson and Associates to Conduct Survey to Evaluate Customer Service and Response Time in the Water Demand Division

On a motion by Director Pendergrass and second by Director Edwards, the Board unanimously authorized the expenditure of funds for Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc.

The following comments were received during the public comment period on this item. (1) David Dilworth, representing Responsible Consumers of the Monterey Peninsula, asked if the Monterey County Elections Department or some other entity should pay the costs associated with the districting process. (2) Patricia Bernardi spoke in support of the contract with Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc.

G. Consider Authorization of Funds for Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. to Provide Districting Services

Approved.

IV. CONSENT CALENDAR

H. Consider Authorization of Funds for Preparation of Revised Carmel River Riparian Corridor Brochure

A motion by Director Lindstrom and second by Director Edwards to defer the item for consideration in an open session that evening following adjournment of the Closed Session was approved unanimously by the Board.

On a motion by Director Henson and second by Director Edwards, the Board agreed unanimously to not authorize funds for special counsel.

I. Consider Authorization of Funds for Special Counsel to Prepare General Manager Contract

Approved.

J. Authorize Staff to Hire Hayashi and Wayland Accountancy Firm to Conduct Annual Audits for Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, 2003

On a motion by Director Edwards and second by Director Henson, the Board agreed unanimously to defer this item to a future Board meeting.

The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) Patricia Bernardi, resident of Carmel Valley, urged the Board to investigate other, less costly methods of placing information on the web site. (2) Edwin Lee expressed surprise at the high cost to place monthly Board packets on the web site and said the task could be accomplished for a lower costs. He asked the Board to continue publishing staff notes on the web site. (3) David Dilworth, representing Responsible Consumers of the Monterey Peninsula, estimated that the cost to produce and distribute 100 hard copies of the Board packet would be much less than posting the Board packet to the District's web site each month. (4) Brent Michael, a computer scientist, stated that it would cost about $300 to purchase the software that could convert word processed documents to HTML or PDF files for the web site.

K. Consider Authorization of Funds to Publish Board Packet on the District's Website

Approved.

L. Receive Semi-Annual Groundwater Quality Report

Approved.

M. Treasurer's Report for the Month of February 2001

Injection/Recover Project -- General Manager Fuerst reported that construction of the full-scale injection/recovery well in the former Fort Ord area was completed. In April, full-scale injection testing would begin at that site. Approximately 30 to 40 acre-feet of water had been injected this year at the pilot-scale well site in Seaside. Cal-Am Compliance with Order 95-10 -- Community water production within the Cal-Am system was approximately 600 acre-feet, or ten percent below the year-to-date at month end target. Fishery Report -- Between October 2000 and March 19, 2001, 561 adult steelhead had migrated over the fish ladder at San Clemente Dam. That is the second highest number of fish that have been counted since 1995.

V. PRESENTATIONS

A. General Manager's Report

1. Update on Strategic Plan

District Counsel Laredo did not present a report.

Director Chesshire referred to a draft letter dated March 20, 2001 to Art Baggett of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The letter had been written by the General Manager at the request of the Board. Director Chesshire expressed his hope that the Board would approve the letter for submission to the SWRCB.

Director Potter reported that no action was taken by the Board at the February 26, 2001 Closed Session.

B. Attorney's Report

C. Directors' Reports

1. Board Comments and Referrals

2. Report on Closed Session of February 26, 2001

Motion 1 A motion was made by Director Erickson and seconded by Director Henson to approve Ordinance No. 96 with the following changes: (a) incorporate into the ordinance the components of Part 1 - Consider Draft-7 Recommended by Staff outlined on pages 130 and 131 of the staff note; (b) include the CVPOA language refinement referenced in section R4 on page 133 of the staff note; (c) incorporate into the ordinance recommendations R5, R6, and R7 outlined under Part 3 - Recommendations on page 134 of the staff note.

Director Chesshire moved that the first motion should be amended to state that the ordinance would be adopted after the SWRCB has submitted a response to the draft March 20, 2001 letter referenced earlier in the meeting. There was no second to the motion.

The original motion was approved on a vote of 4 to 3. Directors Chesshire, Pendergrass and Edwards voted against the motion.

Motion 2 A motion was made by Director Chesshire and seconded by Director Pendergrass that the March 20, 2001 letter to the SWRCB be modified to include action taken by the Board on Ordinance No. 96, and that the letter be mailed. The motion was approved unanimously.

Motion 3 A motion was made by Director Erickson and seconded by Director Henson to amend the ordinance as follows: (a) page 143, section entitled Controversy, line eight, delete the words "For scenarios (1) and (2) above,"; (b) page 143, section entitled "Multiple-Connection System," line one should read "A multiple connection system is a water distribution system providing two or more;" (c) page 144, definition of "single-connection system" should be amended to state "A single connection system refers to a water distribution system providing one;" (d) page 153, Section D.1, line one, should read "When the Board;" (e) page 154, item K, line one should read "applicant shall receive District approval prior to intensifying or expanding the approved;" (f) page 156, rule 54 C.3 should read "Any well that has been issued a well construction permit from the Monterey County Health Department on or before November 30, 2000;" (g) page 156, rule 54 D.6, delete the word "new," in addition, the word "completed" should be defined in Section 3; (h) page 157, section 57B.1, the word "installed" should be consistent with the word "completed" in section 54D.6. The motion was amended to state that on page 154, item K should state "applicant shall receive a permit prior to intensifying or expanding an approved water distribution system." The motion was approved on a vote of 4 to 3. Directors Chesshire, Pendergrass and Edwards voted against the motion.

Motion 4 A motion was made by Director Potter and seconded by Director Chesshire to adopt R2 and R3 listed on pages 131 and 132 under Part 2 - Consider Further Text Refinements to Draft-7 for Final Text. The motion was approved on a vote of 4 to 3. Directors Lindstrom, Erickson and Pendergrass voted against the motion

Motion 5 A motion was made by Director Chesshire and seconded by Director Edwards to approve Ordinance No 96 with the inclusion of: (a) R2 and R3, listed on pages 131 and 132 of the staff note and (b) all other motions that preceded this one. The motion was adopted on a vote of 6 to 1. Director Pendergrass voted against the motion.

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 96 - An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Revising the Definition and Regulation of Water Distribution Systems

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 96 - An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Revising the Definition and Regulation of Water Distribution Systems

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 96 - An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Revising the Definition and Regulation of Water Distribution Systems

Motion 1 A motion was made by Director Edwards and seconded by Director Henson to approve staff recommendation No. 1 stating that the ordinance is not a project under CEQA. The motion was approved unanimously.

Motion 2 A motion was made by Director Henson and seconded by Director Erickson to approve the urgency ordinance. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 to 2. Directors Chesshire and Edwards voted against the motion.

B. Consider Adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 97 - An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Amending Water Credit Transfer Rules

Motion 1 A motion was made by Director Henson and seconded by Director Erickson to approve Ordinance No. 100.

Director Edwards moved to amend the motion to state that in the next 90 days a new ordinance on water credit transfers be brought before the Board that would include: (a) an increase in conservation savings from 15% to 30%; (b) a review and evaluation of water use records every 4 years; and (c) penalties for property owners whose water use exceeds the permitted amount. There was no second to the motion.

The original motion was approved on a vote of 5 to 2. Directors Chesshire and Pendergrass voted against the motion

C. Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 100 - An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Temporarily Suspending Receipt of Applications for Water Credit Transfers

Motion 1 A motion was made by Director Edwards and seconded by Director Chesshire to adopt Ordinance No. 98. No action was taken on the motion.

Motion 2 On a motion by Director Lindstrom and second by Director Edwards, the Negative Declaration was approved by the Board on a vote of 6 to 1. Director Erickson was opposed.

Motion 3 On a motion by Director Henson and second by Director Lindstrom, the Board approved a change to the ordinance that would require those who install a bathroom according to Ordinance No 98, to sign a waiver authorizing water use records both prior to and following installation of the bathroom to be made public. The motion was approved unanimously.

Motion 4 Director Henson made a motion that was seconded by Director Lindstrom to establish a sunset date of three years for the ordinance.

Director Edwards moved to amend the motion and establish a five year sunset date. The motion was seconded by Director Pendergrass. However the maker of the motion did not accept the amendment.

The motion failed on a vote of 4 to 3. Directors Lindstrom, Henson and Erickson voted in favor of the motion.

Motion 5 Director Henson made a motion that was seconded by Director Edwards, to establish an annual review of the ordinance and associated water use, and to establish a sunset date of five years for the ordinance.

Director Potter moved to amend the motion and Director Edwards seconded, to delete the sunset date and establish a complete review within five years. Director Henson accepted the amendment. The motion was approved unanimously.

Motion 6 A motion was made by Director Edwards and seconded by Director Chesshire to adopt the ordinance with amendments that were approved that evening. The motion was approved on a vote of 6 to 1. Director Erickson voted against the motion.

The following comments were received during the public hearing on this item. (1) Greg Handley, a resident of Monterey, spoke in support of the proposed rule to allow the addition of a second bathroom in a residence. (2) Robert Greenwood, representing the Carmel Valley Property Owners Association, read a statement dated March 19, 2001 that is on file at the District office. He spoke in opposition to the ordinance because under certain circumstances the addition of a second bathroom would increase water use in a residence. (3) Jerry Smith, Mayor of the City of Seaside, reminded the Board that the City had previously submitted a letter of support for adoption of Ordinance No 98. He stated that the ordinance would enable property owners to bring substandard homes into compliance with modern conservation standards, by requiring that low-flow fixtures be installed when a second bathroom is added to a residence. Mr. Smith observed that the ordinance would result in water savings and improve the quality of life for persons that add an additional bathroom to their homes. (4) Bill Curry, a resident of Seaside, noted that the Board would make a positive contribution to the community be approving Ordinance No. 98. (5) Ryan Wilson, a resident of Seaside, explained that his family of five lives in a two bedroom house with one bathroom. He would like to improve the quality of life for his family by adding a second bathroom to his home. (6) Darcy Carol, a resident of Seaside, owns a three bedroom, two bathroom house. She would like to add another bathroom onto the house. Ms. Carol stated that more families would move to Seaside if the quality of life were improved by allowing the addition of a second bathroom in one bathroom homes. (7) Judy MacClelland, representing the City of Pacific Grove, expressed support for the ordinance on behalf of the Pacific Grove City Council. She urged the Board to adopt Ordinance No. 98. (8) Katherine Miller, a resident of Seaside, stated that Ordinance No. 98 would greatly improve the quality of life on the Monterey Peninsula and reduce water use because old homes would be retrofitted with low-flow fixtures. (9) Mark Lord, a long-term resident of Monterey County, expressed support for the ordinance. He urged the Board to write an ordinance that was fair to honest homeowners, yet also discouraged abuse by dishonest persons. (10) Bob McKenzie suggested that the Board should restore to the jurisdictions all water debited from their allocations for the addition of second bathrooms. In addition, fees paid for the fixture units should be refunded. (11) Michael Waxer heartily endorsed Ordinance No. 98. He discouraged the Board from monitoring the water use of persons that add a second bathroom under this ordinance. Mr. Waxer explained that water use in a household fluctuates depending on the age of children in the household. Water use will peak when children are teenagers and then decline later, regardless of the number of bathrooms in a house. Mr. Waxer described Ordinance No. 98 as a common sense ordinance that was long overdue. (12) Fran Farina, representing Save Our Carmel River (SOCR), described the ordinance as "smoke and mirrors" legislation. She stated that there is an absence of substantial evidence to support adoption of the ordinance. Ms. Farina disagreed with: (a) finding No. 4 that compares the water use of two lavatories in a master bath, to the addition of an entire bathroom; (b) finding No. 5 because the District has no evidence to prove that adding water fixtures does not significantly cause additional water demand; and (c) amendment to Rule 24C because it is inconsistent to collect a connection charge that represents water demand and then not debit an allocation. (13) Darryl Choates, representing the City of Seaside on the District's Policy Advisory Committee, explained that after thoroughly reviewing Ordinance No. 98, the committee supported it unanimously. He urged the Board to adopt the ordinance. (14) Ralph Rubio, Seaside City Councilman, expressed support for the ordinance. According to Mr. Rubio, the community has been saving water at an astonishing rate and the time has come for the Board to do something positive for the community, like allowing the addition of a second bathroom. (15) Chris Evans, a property owner in Pacific Grove and a business owner in Seaside, spoke in support of the ordinance. He noted that current rules are so restrictive that property owners are compelled to be law breakers in order to install an additional bathroom. (16) Lou Haddad, resident of the City of Monterey, stated that Ordinance No. 98 was a "giant step in the right direction." He stated that it would be "an exercise in futility" to monitor the amount of water consumed after the second bathroom was installed. Mr. Haddad suggested that a homeowner should receive a reduction on the permit fee for the addition of the second bathroom, if credit were given for retrofitting the entire house. (17) Patricia Bernardi, a resident of Carmel Valley and member of SOCR, described the proposed rule as a "feel good ordinance" that has a capacity for "good and evil." She urged the Board to spend more time researching the effects of the ordinance. Ms. Bernardi proposed that anyone who adds a bathroom under this ordinance should agree to make their Cal-Am records available to the District for review on a continuous basis. She urged the Board to include a sunset clause in the ordinance. (18) Roberta Brunet explained that Ordinance No. 98 could be very important, especially for disabled and elderly people that need another bathroom for use by a care giver. (19) Sheryl McKenzie, Government Affairs Director for the Monterey County Association of Realtors, read a letter dated March 19, 2000 that is on file at the District office. Ms. McKenzie enthusiastically endorsed Ordinance No. 98 and described it as a "reasonable policy change."

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

D. Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 98 - An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Amending Residential Water Fixture Unit Values

1. Consider Adoption of Negative Declaration

2. Consider Adoption of First Reading Version of Ordinance No. 98

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

D. Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 98 - An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Amending Residential Water Fixture Unit Values

1. Consider Adoption of Negative Declaration

2. Consider Adoption of First Reading Version of Ordinance No. 98

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

D. Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 98 - An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Amending Residential Water Fixture Unit Values

1. Consider Adoption of Negative Declaration

2. Consider Adoption of First Reading Version of Ordinance No. 98

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

D. Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 98 - An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Amending Residential Water Fixture Unit Values

1. Consider Adoption of Negative Declaration

2. Consider Adoption of First Reading Version of Ordinance No. 98

No action was taken on this item. It was deferred to the April 16, 2001 meeting.

E. Consider Adoption of April - June 2001 Water Supply Strategy and Budget

No action was taken on this item. It was deferred to the April 16, 2001 meeting.

F. Receive Public Comment on Draft MPWMD 2000 Annual Report and Approve Funding for Production and Distribution of Report

No Action Items were presented for Board consideration.

VII. ACTION ITEMS

There was no discussion of the Informational Items/Staff Reports.

VIII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/STAFF REPORTS

A. Letters Received

B. Committee Reports

C. Strategic Plan Update

D. Water Supply Projects

E. Carmel River Fishery Report

F. Carmel River Erosion Protection and Restoration Project

G. Irrigation Program and Riparian Projects Report

H. Water Conservation Program Report

I. Public Information Program

J. Monthly Cal-Am Sales Report

K. Monthly Cal-Am Production Report

L. Monthly Allocation Report

M. Financial Report - CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project

N. Production Report - CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project

O. March 2001 Water Supply Status Report

The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at approximately 10:30 PM.

IX. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

A. Personnel Session

1. Employee Evaluation Regarding Performance of General Counsel

2. General Manager Recruitment

B. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation

1. Security National Guarantee, Inc., vs. MPWMD - Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M51797

The meeting reconvened at 10:55 PM.

District Counsel reported that during the Closed Session, the Board provided direction to Counsel but no specific action was taken. The Closed Session was continued to March 21, 2001 at 4 PM in the District offices to discuss recruitment for the General Manager position.

The Board took action on item IV.I, that had been deferred earlier in the meeting. Please refer to the minutes of item IV.I.

The meeting was adjourned at 11 PM.

X. ADJOURNMENT