A motion was offered by Director Erickson and seconded by Director Lehman to defer this item to the May 20, 2002 Board meeting. The motion was approved unanimously on a vote of 7 - 0.

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Consider Appeal of Staff Decision Regarding Documentation of Water Fixtures at 3105 Seventeen Mile Drive, Pebble Beach - Ken and Sharene Virnig

No action was taken. Based on a report received from Tony Anchundo, Monterey County Registrar of Voters dated April 12, 2002, an insufficient number of signatures was received to compel any action by the Board.

The following comments were directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item. (1) Patricia Bernardi, a resident of Carmel Valley, stated that the fact that the number of signatures collected was not sufficient to force an election on Ordinance No. 102, reflects community support for the District's adoption of Ordinance No. 102. (2) Kathy Eckerson, Chair of the Board of the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, urged the Board not to dismiss the petition drive. She listed examples of ways the public is voicing its opposition to the District's policies. (3) Tex Irwin advised that it is his understanding that the cost to conduct an election is based on printing and mailing charges that vary with the number of voters in the election area. (4) David Dilworth suggested that if another petition drive is undertaken, the Board should allow more time for the collection of signatures and accept a lower number of signatures from organizers of the petition. (5) Robert Greenwood, representing the Carmel Valley Property Owners Association, expressed support for Ordinance No. 102 in a letter dated April 15, 2002 that is on file at the District office. (6) Lou Haddad, a resident of Monterey, proposed that the Board voluntarily place a measure on the ballot to determine whether Ordinance No. 102 should remain in effect. In addition, he proposed that all costs for the ballot measure should be paid for by sponsors of the petition drive. (7) Sandra Smith read a statement on behalf of the Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club that expressed opposition to Board authorization of a ballot measure on the reestablishment of water-use credit transfers. (8) Bob McKenzie stated that the number of signatures gathered represented a victory for petition drive sponsors. He reminded the audience that when Ordinance No. 97 was adopted, the sale price of transferred water was limited. (9) Darryl Kenyon, a resident of Monterey, thanked Kathy Eckerson for her extraordinary effort in conducting the petition drive. (10) Larry Foy, Vice President of the Monterey County Hospitality Association, urged the Board to rescind Ordinance No. 102 and allow the community to move forward towards the goal of increasing the water supply. (11) Keith Maki stated that the Board's policies are forcing people who cannot afford to live here to move out of the area.

B. Receive Petitions Calling for Reconsideration of Ordinance No. 102 and Determine Whether a Vote is Required

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

B. Receive Petitions Calling for Reconsideration of Ordinance No. 102 and Determine Whether a Vote is Required

Motion No. 1 A motion was offered by Director Erickson and seconded by Director Henson that a process be implemented immediately that would: (1) give Directors authority to call up matters for policy review by the Board; (2) the request for policy review would be made to the General Manager within the 14-day appeal period; (3) no fee would be charged to the requesting Director for the policy review; (4) the requesting Director would participate in the Board review. In addition, staff should: (a) do some of the research that TAC/PAC suggested, (b) confirm the appeal process instituted by the City of Monterey; (c) confirm with the City of Monterey if any abuses of the system have occurred and if the current policy is satisfactory; (d) clarify the calculation of fees so they are clearly defined: (e) clarify the amount of water being appealed, is it based on site capacity, structure capacity or specific capacity such as a ULF dishwasher; (f) develop a procedure that would ensure public notification of appealable issues such as posting a list on the District's web site, mailing out the Friday letter to the Board to anyone who requests it, or sending email notification of appealable items to anyone who requests it. This supplemental information should be provided to the Board when it is convenient for staff. No action was taken on the motion.

Motion No. 2 Director Potter offered an amendment to the motion that a full and accurate description of the City of Monterey's appeal process be brought back to the Board within 30 days. There was no second to his amendment.

Motion No. 3 A motion was offered by Director Erickson and seconded by Director Henson that a policy be immediately implemented that would designate as reimbursable any fee paid by a Director to appeal a decision. In addition, staff should bring to the Board within 30 days an ordinance based on the City of Monterey's appeal policy, as outlined by Director Erickson in Motion No. 1, items 1 through 4. Any tenants of Monterey's appeal policy not addressed in Director Erickson's description should be described in a staff note, but not incorporated into the ordinance. Also, as time allows. Staff should proceed with an investigation of items a through f outlined in Motion No. 1. No action was taken on the motion.

Motion No. 4 A motion was offered by Director Erickson and seconded by Director Henson to consider her proposals outlined in Motion No. 3 as separate motions, specifically: (1) to designate as reimbursable any appeal fees paid by Directors, and (2) an ordinance should be brought to the Board within 30 days outlining an appeal process based on Motion No. 1. No action was taken on the motion.

Motion No. 5 A motion was offered by Director Erickson and seconded by Director Henson that effective immediately, any Director who calls up a matter for appeal would pay the fee, but that fee would be considered fully reimbursable. The motion was approved on a vote of 4 to 3. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards, Pendergrass and Potter voted against the motion.

Motion No. 6 A motion was offered by Director Erickson and seconded by Director Henson that an ordinance be developed as outlined in Motion No. 1, items 1 through 4 and that the ordinance be considered by the Board at the May 20, 2002 meeting. In addition, that staff advise the Policy and Technical Advisory Committee members that the District's goal in reviewing this matter is to carry out the public's business in a fair and equitable manner. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 to 2. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman, Lindstrom and Potter voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards and Pendergrass voted against the motion.

Motion No. 7 A motion was offered by Director Henson and seconded by Director Edwards to direct the General Manager to bring to the Board at the May 20, 2002 meeting a proposal on how to provide immediate notice to the public of appealable decisions. The motion was approved unanimously on a vote of 7 - 0.

The following comments were directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item. (1) David Dilworth, representing Helping Our Peninsula's Environment (HOPE), read a letter dated February 28, 2002 that is on file at the District office. Mr. Dilworth suggested that appeal fees be waived for Directors and also for individuals and organizations working to protect the public interest. (2) Tex Irwin, representing the Monterey Peninsula Airport District on the Policy Advisory Committee, provided additional details about the Policy and Technical Advisory Committee discussion of the appeal fee issue. (3) Edwin Lee asked for a response to the question he asked that evening during item III, Oral Communications (refer to minutes if item III). (4) Patricia Bernardi, a resident of Carmel Valley, suggested that an appeal fee should be charged, but that it should be reimbursed if the appeal is upheld.

C. Consideration of Appeal Fees

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

C. Consideration of Appeal Fees

VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS

C. Consideration of Appeal Fees

A motion was proposed by Director Edwards and seconded by Director Potter that a study session be scheduled to receive public input on the issues under discussion. The motion failed on a vote of 4 to 3. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted against the motion. Directors Edwards, Pendergrass and Potter voted in favor of the motion.

A motion was offered by Director Henson and seconded by Director Potter that the Board adopt the staff recommended range of drought protection: (low) reflect voluntary and mandatory rationing which actually occurred in the 1987-1991 drought period, not to exceed a 20% reduction; to (high) meet 100% of community water demand in the project service area 100% of the time, that is, no mandatory conservation or rationing at any time. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 - 2. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman, Lindstrom and Potter voted in favor of the motion. Directors Pendergrass and Edwards voted against the motion.

A motion was offered by Director Henson and seconded by Director Lehman that the Board adopt a Cal-Am production level of 17,600 AFY from all sources within the Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System for computer modeling purposes for the long-term project scenario. The motion was adopted on a vote of 5 - 2. Directors Edwards, Henson, Lehman, Pendergrass and Potter voted in favor of the motion. Directors Lindstrom and Erickson voted against the motion.

A motion was offered by Director Lehman and seconded by Director Erickson that a public workshop be scheduled to provide accurate information to the public on issues pertinent to the EIR/EIS. No action was taken on the motion.

During the public comment period on this item, the following comments were directed to the Board. (1) Larry Foy, a resident of Carmel, urged the Board to adopt a Cal-Am production level of 17,600 acre-feet. (2) Edwin Lee requested that the Board continue with development of a project-level EIR on the Carmel River Dam Project. (3) Robert Greenwood, representing the Carmel Valley Property Owners Association, read a letter dated April 15, 2002 that is on file at the District office. He spoke in support of completion of a project-level EIR on the proposed Carmel River Dam Project. (4) John Fischer stated that a project description cannot be defined at this time because the Plan B report has not been completed. According to Mr. Fischer, an "apples-to-apples" comparison cannot be developed without a definition of the Plan B components. (5) Nancy Isakson asked the Board to continue this item to a public workshop in May 2002. She disagreed with a proposal to require a 20% reduction in water use during periods of drought. (6) Sheryl McKenzie, Government Affairs Director for the Monterey County Association of Realtors, expressed agreement with comments made by Robert Greenwood. She advised that the public deserves completion of a project-level EIR on a 17,600 acre-foot project. (7) Fran Farina, representing SOCR, reminded the Board that the PUC was charged to prepare the Plan B report so that if the Carmel River Dam Project (Plan A) were not approved, a non-dam alternative (Plan B) could be implemented. She noted that during deliberations on development of the Plan B scope, it was agreed that the ultimate goal was an "apples to apples" comparison of Plans A and B. (8) Patricia Bernardi, representing SOCR, disagreed with the idea that water use could be reduced by 20 percent during periods of rationing and that the water saved could then be applied to development on lots of record. (9) David Dilworth, charged that there was inadequate public notice of the Board's intent to make a decision that evening on the project goal, and he requested that the issue be placed on a future Board meeting agenda. Mr. Dilworth submitted a white paper entitled "Droughts and Our Monterey Peninsula" that is on file at the District office. (10) Michael Waxer agreed that the Board should conduct a study session on the issues under discussion that evening, particularly the issue of drought protection. (11) Robert McKenzie stated that a decision had been made in the past to study Plan B (meet requirements of Order 95-10) and Plan B+ (additional water for lots-of-record). He asked if this Board would follow through with that decision.

VII. ACTION ITEMS

A. Consider Concurrence with Baseline Assumptions on EIR/EIS for the MPWMD Water Supply Project

VII. ACTION ITEMS

A. Consider Concurrence with Baseline Assumptions on EIR/EIS for the MPWMD Water Supply Project

On a motion by Chair Lindstrom, this item was continued to the May 20, 2002 Board meeting.

B. Discuss Approach to FY 2002-2003 MPWMD Budget

The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at approximately 11:15 PM.

IX. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

A. Conference with Legal Counsel (Gov. Code Section 5456.9)

1 Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Petition Requesting Changes to SWRCB Water Rights Permit Nos. 7130B and 20808-Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

IX. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

B. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Gov. Code Section 54956.9)

1. City of Seaside v. MPWMD (Case No. _____)

• Protest to Petition Requesting Changes to SWRCB Water Rights Application No. 30067-Roy Kaufman (Cañada Woods, Cañada Woods North and Cañada Woods East)
• Protest to Petition Requesting Changes to SWRCB Water Rights Application No. 30068-Leonard and Emily Williams Trust (Cañada Woods, Cañada Woods North and Cañada Woods East)
• Security National Guarantee, Inc. v. MPWMD, California Court of Appeal, 6^th Appellate District Case No. H023772

• Security National Guarantee, Inc. v. MPWMD, Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M51797

C. Conference With Labor Negotiators (Gov. Code Section 54957)

1. Agency Designated Representative: Ernesto A. Avila

Employee Organization: Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, (LIUNA/UPEC) Local 270

D. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov. Code Section 54957)

1. General Manager

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:30 PM.

X. ADJOURNMENT