FINAL MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District
|
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM in the Seaside City Council Chambers. Board members present: Kris Lindstrom, Chair – Division 4 Alexander Henson, Vice Chair – Division 5 Alvin Edwards – Division 1 Judi Lehman – Division 2 Molly Erickson – Division 5 David Pendergrass – Mayoral Representative David Potter – Monterey County Board of Supervisors (arrived at approximately 7:15 PM) Board members absent: None District staff present: Ernesto A. Avila – General Manager Rick Dickhaut – Chief Financial Officer Cynthia Schmidlin – Human Resources Specialist Henrietta Stern – Project Manager Darby Fuerst – Senior Hydrologist Joe Oliver – Water Resources Manager Larry Hampson – Water Resources Engineer Arlene Tavani – Executive Assistant District Counsel present: David C. Laredo The assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The following comments were directed to the Board during Oral Communications. (1) Roy Thomas, Carmel River Steelhead Association (CRSA), asked that the Board reconsider the level of commitment it has towards maintenance of the Sleepy Hollow Facility. If a greater commitment to the facility is not made, the District should transfer the responsibility for operation and maintenance of the Sleepy Hollow Facility to the California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) or the Monterey Bay Salmon Trout Project. (2) Edwin Lee, Water for Us, urged the Board to conduct an advisory vote to determine if the public supports Plan B or a dam on the Carmel River. On a motion by Director Pendergrass and second by Director Lehman, the Consent Calendar was unanimously approved, except for item 4, Consider Approval of Standard Format for Temporary Water Permit Deed Restriction that was pulled for separate consideration. The motion was approved on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent. Approved. Approved. Approved. Director Erickson offered a motion that was seconded by Director Henson to authorize an ad hoc committee (comprised of Directors Erickson and Lehman) charged to revise and finalize the deed restriction so that it can be filed on behalf of the applicant without delay. The deed restriction will be presented to the full Board for ratification at the December 16, 2002 meeting. The motion was adopted on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent. Approved General Manager Avila introduced Larry Hampson, the District’s Water Resources Engineer. Mr. Hampson presented a report on installation of large wood habitat at the deDampierre Restoration site. The project was completed on October 31, 2002. A copy of the presentation is on file at the District office. District Counsel Laredo reported on the closed session of October 21, 2002. (The agenda for November 18, 2002 was in error. No Closed Session was held on September 21, 2002.) He stated that the Board discussed items related to existing litigation, anticipated litigation and labor negotiations as listed on the agenda but no action was taken. Mr. Laredo reported that at the October 21, 2002 meeting, he was directed to provide an opinion as to whether or not directors had violated the Brown Act when they signed the ballot argument in favor of Measure B that was published in the voter guide for the November 5, 2002 election. According to Mr. Laredo, four directors signed the ballot arguments, but there is no evidence that a majority of the Board met to draft or sign the document. He concluded that the ballot arguments were an expression of free speech, which is protected by the Brown Act. Mr. Laredo reported that at the October 21, 2002 meeting, he was directed to review several email messages sent by staff and a consultant of the District, and also copied to members of the Board. Upon review of the email, Mr. Laredo found that some of the messages were addressed to four or more directors. He proposed that three steps be taken: (1) copies of the email messages be provided to all Directors; (2) the email messages be made available to the public; and (3) protocols be developed in order to avoid a recurrence of this situation. Chair Lindstrom reported that the Closed Session was not conducted on November 14, 2002. In response to an inquiry from Director Edwards, General Manager Avila stated that the weekly letter to the Board would include a progress report on the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility and the number of fish held there. General Manager Avila noted that the District’s fall newsletter would be mailed upon authorization by the Board Chair. Director Henson proposed a
motion to adopt the Negative Declaration on Ordinance No. 105. Director Erickson seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 6 – 1. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson,
Lehman, Lindstrom and Potter voted in favor of the motion. Director Pendergrass voted in opposition to
the motion. Director Henson proposed a
motion to adopt the first reading version of Ordinance No. 105. Director Erickson seconded the motion. Director Potter offered an amendment to the motion. He proposed that when Ordinance No. 105 is considered for second reading, a summary of the financial implications of this ordinance be presented including the permit processing fee structure. Directors Henson and Erickson both agreed to the amendment. 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 in opposition to the motion. The following comments were directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item. (1) Edwin Lee asked if the proposed ordinance would expand the Water Management District boundaries. (2) Clive Sanders, Carmel River Steelhead Association, stated that the proposed ordinance should assert jurisdiction over property owners with multiple wells, such as Rancho San Carlos. He expressed concern about the effects of water production on creeks within the Carmel River watershed. (3) Diana Ingersoll, Director of Public Works for the City of Seaside, referred to a letter from the City dated November 8, 2002 that is on file at the District office. Ms. Ingersoll maintained that the negative declaration does not address how the ordinance will affect the planning goals of the jurisdictions. In addition, she stated that Addendum No. 1 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the MPWMD and the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency dated February 17, 1993 grants authority for regulation of water delivery systems to the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. (4) Aaron Johnson, speaking on behalf of Clint and Margaret Eastwood and Roger and Basil Mills in matters related to the Cañada Woods Treatment Company. Mr. Johnson read a letter dated November 18, 2002 from Derinda Messenger that is on file at the District office, requesting that provisions of proposed Ordinance No. 105 regarding reclamation systems be deleted. (5) David Dilworth, Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment (HOPE), suggested that the scope of the ordinance be expanded to include the entire District, specifically wells drilled within 1,000 feet of another property. He expressed concern about the number of new wells being drilled in the Pebble Beach area without regard to the effects of increased water production. (6) Nancy Isakson suggested that the District review the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding between the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the MPWMD, and the Pajaro Valley Water Agency. She stated that coordination is needed between the three agencies regarding overlapping jurisdiction in the former Fort Ord area. (7) Mark Beique, a resident of Monterey, asked the Board to quantify the capacity of the upland aquifer. He also asked if there was any justification for adoption of Ordinance No. 105, in the absence of State Water Resources Control Board Order 95-10. (8) Robert Greenwood, Carmel Valley Association, read a letter dated November 18, 2002 to the MPWMD Board expressing support for Ordinance No. 105. The letter is on file at the District office. (9) Fran Farina, Save Our Carmel River, expressed support for Ordinance No. 105. Ms. Farina voiced concern about the potential for increased water production in the Carmel Valley upland areas due to construction of large single-family homes with associated irrigated acreage that would be served by wells in the upland area. Director Edwards proposed a motion to increase the delegated authority of the General Manager to enter into contracts up to a limit of $20,000 in emergency situations. In addition, he proposed approval of Resolution 2002-08 Amending the Scope of the General Manager’s Delegated Authority to Contract, and Establishing the Process by Which Such Contracts are Let to Bid. Director Edwards also proposed the following amendments to Resolution 2002-08: (1) the title should be amended to read “……and Establishing the Process by Which such “Emergency” Contracts are Let to Bid;” (2) in the first paragraph of the ordinance after the words “or cause loss of private or public property” the following words shall be added “or a threat to public trust resources;” and (3) add the words “in an emergency” to the end of section No. 1, Scope of Delegated Contracting Authority. The motion was approved unanimously on a vote of 7 – 0. The following comments were received during the public comment period on this item. (1) David Dilworth suggested that the General Manager’s authority to contract in emergency situations should be reduced to $10,000. He asked the Board to respond to his concern that no limit was specified as to the number of emergency contracts the General Manager could approve per emergency event. (2) Roy Thomas, CRSA, asked that the definition of emergency be amended to specifically mention the Carmel River steelhead. According to Mr. Thomas, steelhead can only be guaranteed protection in an emergency if they are mentioned in the definition. Director Henson offered a motion to authorize an expenditure of up to $15,000, and direct staff to develop a scope of work for presentation to the Board on December 16, 2002 that would outline preparation of a preliminary assessment or sensitivity analysis of the estimated expenditure this District could make for the purchase of the California-American Water Company distribution system. For example, could the purchase be made within the reasonable rate structure that presently exists for Cal-Am, or within 150% of the current rates? Director Lehman seconded the motion. Director Henson offered a
modified motion to require District staff to develop a scope of work for
preparation of a preliminary study as described above. The cost to complete the preliminary study
should not exceed $15,000. The scope
of work will be presented to the Board for consideration at the December 16,
2002 meeting. 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 in opposition to the motion. The following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item. (1) Edwin Lee stated that the Board should not waste time or money on this proposal. He suggested that the money should be spent on conducting an advisory election to determine the community’s preference for Plan B or a dam on the Carmel River. (2) Robert Greenwood, speaking on his own behalf, requested that before spending funds on this proposal, the Board should conduct a full and public discussion on any benefits or advantages that might accrue to the public if the District purchased Cal-Am. (3) Mark Beique, resident of Monterey, stated that the District should complete the EIR on Plan A. He asked what purpose would be served by the District acquiring Cal-Am facilities. He advised the Board that a review of Cal-Am’s annual report should provide an estimate of the value of local water distribution facilities. (4) Steve Leonard, California-American Water Company, expressed opposition to any effort by the District to acquire Cal-Am facilities. Mr. Leonard stated that Cal-Am has no intention of selling the Monterey Division or being taken over without due process. According to Mr. Leonard, the proposed study would confirm that Cal-Am customers are satisfied with the water company’s performance, but dissatisfied with the shortage of water and the high water conservation rates. He urged the District to focus its efforts on development of a reliable water source. (5) David Dilworth, Responsible Consumers of the Monterey Peninsula, spoke in support of the proposed study as a means to determine what can be done to ensure delivery of legal, potable water to the community. (6) John Fischer, resident of Pacific Grove, noted that water has become a valuable commodity that is bought and sold across the nation for a profit. He stated that water rates would increase because the cost to solve the water problem will be very high. (7) Bob McKenzie encouraged the Board to vote against this proposal. According to Mr. McKenzie, voters decided by a margin of 2 – 1 that the District is doing a poor job of carrying out its mission. He stated that the District would also do a poor job of shouldering Cal-Am’s responsibilities. (8) Helmut Kirsch, resident of Carmel, expressed support for the study as a means to begin the process of establishing a municipal water district to serve the Monterey Peninsula. There was no discussion of these items. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at 9:50 P.M. The Closed Session was adjourned at approximately 11 PM. |
|
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALLPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORAL
COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Consider Approval of Minutes from the Regular Board Meeting of October 21, 2002 2.
Consider Approval of Funds for Production of
2002 MPWMD Annual Report 3.
Consider Approval of First Quarter Investment
Report 4. Consider Approval of Standard Format for Temporary Water Permit Deed Restriction 5. Consider Adoption of Treasurer’s Report for September 2002 GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 6. Update on Large Wood Habitat Installation at deDampierre Restoration Site on Carmel River ATTORNEY’S REPORT 7. Report on Closed Session of September 21, 2002 8. Report on Brown Act Issues Relating to Ballot Statement 9. Report on Brown Act Issues Relating to Email DIRECTORS’ REPORTS 10. Report from Chair Lindstrom on Closed Session of November 14, 2002 11. Board Comments and Referrals PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Consider Adoption of First Reading of Ordinance No. 105 – Revising the Definition and Regulation of Water Distribution Systems ACTION ITEMS 13. Consider Delegation of Authority to the General Manager and Process to Approve Expenditures for Emergencies 14. Receive Report re Eminent Domain Proposal re California-American Water Company INFORMATIONAL ITEMS/STAFF REPORTS 15. Letters Received 16. Committee Reports 17. Strategic Planning Initiatives Progress Report 18. Water Supply Project Progress Report 19. Carmel River Fishery Report 20. Water Conservation Program Report 21. Water use Credit Transfer Status Report 22. Monthly Allocation Report 23. Monthly Cal-Am Sales Report 24. Monthly Cal-Am Production Report 25. Production Report – CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project 26. Monthly Water Supply Status Report ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION 27.
Conference
with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Significant Exposure to
Litigation Exists Pursuant to Subdivision (b) (3) (D) of Gov. Code Section
54956.9 (One Case) ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION28. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov. Code Section 54957) A. Agency
Designated Representatives: Ernesto
A. Avila, Rick Dickhaut,
Cynthia Schmidlin Employee Organization: Laborers’
International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, (LIUNA/UPEC) Local 270 B. Agency
Designated Representative: Ernesto
A. Avila Unrepresented Employees: Confidential Staff Unit 29.
Conference
with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Gov. Code Section 54956.9) A. California-American Water Company Application No. 02-04- 022 to the Public Utilities Commission for Authority to Increase Rates for Service for 2003, 2004 and 2005 B. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Petition
Requesting Changes to SWRCB Water Rights Permit Nos. 7130B and 20808 –
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District C. Mary
Currier, Chris Currier and
Roy and Jeanelle Kaminske v MPWMD, Case No. M59299, Monterey County Superior Court D.
Cities of Seaside, Carmel, Del
Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove and Sand City v MPWMD, Case No. M59441, Monterey County
Superior Court ADJOURNMENT |
_______________________________
Ernesto A. Avila, Secretary to the Board
U:\Arlene\word\2002\boardmeetings\minutes\minutes\FINAL1118.doc