FINAL MINUTES
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District
|
The
meeting was called to order at 7 PM in the Seaside City Council
Chambers. At the Direction of Chair
Henson, the assembly observed a moment of silence in honor of former
Director, Sam Karas who died in February 2003. Board
members present: Zan
Henson, Chair – Division 5 Judi
Lehman, Vice Chair – Division 2 Alvin
Edwards – Division 1 Molly
Erickson – Division 3 Kris
Lindstrom – Division 4 David
Pendergrass – Mayoral Representative Board
members absent: Dave
Potter – Monterey County Board of Supervisors 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) Ron Chesshire
stated that the District is trying to control growth through water management
policies. He expressed his hope that
the Board would continue to work towards a solution to the water supply
problem. (2) Robert Greenwood,
representing the Carmel Valley Association, spoke to item 4, Receive
District-Wide Annual Water Distribution System Production Summary. He asked for clarification as to why
unaccounted for system losses were so high for the Monterra Ranch desalination
plant, and the California-American, Ryan Ranch, and Hidden Hills water
distribution systems. (3) John
Fischer advised the Board that nine seawater desalination plants were
being considered for construction along the California coast between Santa
Cruz and Cambria. (4) David
Dilworth stated that anytime Monterey Peninsula voters have had the
opportunity to vote on a growth inducing issue, the measure has failed at the
polls. He advised the Board of
Directors that the public does favor the policies they have enacted. (5) Lou Haddad, resident of the City
of Monterey, requested a written response to his December 13, 2002
letter that was addressed to the Board of Directors. (6) Roy Thomas, Carmel River
Steelhead Association, spoke to item 6, Approve Expenditure of Mitigation
Funds to Purchase, Transport and Place Gravel below Los Padres and San
Clemente Dams. He suggested that
gravel which has collected behind the Los Padres and San Clemente dams could
be utilized for the project instead of purchasing spawning gravel. On
a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Edwards, the Consent
Calendar was unanimously approved by the Board, except for items 4, 5 and 6
that were pulled for separate consideration.
The motion was approved on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent. Approved. Approved. Approved. On
a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lindstrom, the report
was received on a vote of 6 – 0.
Director Potter was absent. On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lindstrom, the report was received by the Board with a request that additional analysis be provided on the following: (a) the increase in groundwater withdrawals and surface water diversions for Cal-Am and non Cal-Am production; (b) the increase in non-Cal-Am production from Carmel Valley; and (c) a discussion of issues that surround the statement that non Cal-Am production within the resource system was 3,216 acre-feet or 6 percent more than the non Cal-Am production limit set by Ordinance No. 87. What is the consequence of going over that limit? What has been the average over the past 8 years? What issues arise with the increase in non Cal-Am production? In addition, she requested a year-to-year comparison for the charts shown on pages 30 and 31 of the Board packet, and that the chart on page 35 include water year 2001. The additional information should be available by March or April 2003. If it cannot be prepared by that date, then a status report should be provided to the Board. The motion was approved on a vote of 6 – 0. Director Potter was absent. On a motion by Director Edwards and second by Director Erickson, the Board authorized the expenditure of $29,112 to continue maintenance of the spawning habitat restoration project below Los Padres and San Clemente Dams. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 – 1. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion. Director Lindstrom voted in opposition to the motion. Director Potter was absent. Approved. The
General Manager did not present a report to the Board. District
Counsel Laredo reported that at the January 30, 2003 Closed Session, the
Board discussed Case No. M59441 (City of Seaside et al. v MPWMD) and two
unspecified matters of anticipated litigation. Direction was provided to District Counsel
but no reportable action was taken.
Mr. Laredo reported that at the February 27, 2003, 5:30 PM session he
briefed the Board on Case No. M59441 (City of Seaside et al. v MPWMD) and two
unspecified matters of anticipated litigation. The Board provided direction to District
Counsel but no reportable action was taken.
In addition, the General Manager’s performance evaluation was
discussed, but no action was taken. Director Edwards inquired as to the status of the Seaside
Pilot Injection Recovery Project. Joe
Oliver, Water Resources Manager, reported that insufficient river flow has
prevented initiation of the project.
Future rainstorms may increase river flow to levels that will allow
injection testing. Director Erickson
requested a copy of the request for proposals related to revisions to the
water permit process and a status report on progress to date on the Revise
the Water Permit Process and Increase Innovative and Effective Conservation
Practices strategic planning initiatives.
Motion No. 1 -- Chair
Henson proposed a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 107 and direct staff to
return to the Board on March 27, 2003 with the following items. (A) A scope of work for a focused EIR on
the environmental impacts of a water credit transfer program, and the
environmental impacts of not having a water credit transfer system. The focused EIR shall analyze the program
goals to determine whether the program is capable of meeting those goals. Included within the goals should be the
provision, pending the completion of a water supply augmentation project, for
water for community projects particularly affordable and workforce housing. This will be a program level analysis,
except that any applications for water credit transfers received prior to the
completion of the draft EIR shall be included in the EIR analysis as to the
specific effects of that proposed transfer.
Applications received after that date shall tier off the final
EIR. (B) All applications for water
credit transfers received shall be accepted and processed utilizing this
EIR. All applications for water credit
transfer approval will be considered by the Board for determination after
this EIR is adopted and certified by this Board. (C)
A sole source proposed contract, reviewed by the Board’s
Administrative Committee, with an EIR
preparer with a completion of the final EIR no later than September 30,
2003. Director Lindstrom seconded the
motion. Director Henson later withdrew
his motion. Motion No. 2 -- Director
Edwards offered a motion to defer Motion No. 1 to the March 17, 2003 Board
meeting, following the February 28, 2003 court hearing on Seaside et al. v
MPWMD. Director Erickson seconded the
motion. The motion failed on a vote of
3 – 3. Directors Edwards, Erickson
and Lehman voted in favor of the motion.
Directors Henson, Lindstrom and Pendergrass voted against the motion. Motion No. 3-- Director
Erickson proposed an amendment to Motion No. 1 to delete the words “of not
having a water credit transfer program” and replace with the words “of
eliminating the water credit transfer program. Director Erickson also proposed the
addition of Finding No. 5 to Ordinance No. 107: “This ordinance resolves the
cities litigation with the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
regarding environmental review of the water credit transfer ban. Reinstatement of the transfer credit rules
is a short-term interim measure until an EIR on the transfer program can be
certified. Two detailed studies exist
that concluded that water credit transfers resulted in system-wide increased
water usage following the transfers then prior to the transfers. Further, this Board is very concerned that
the transfer credit program harms the environment, has been subject to
abuses, and violates State Water Resources Control Board Order 95-10. It is the Board’s intention that the EIR be
completed as quickly and accurately as possible, and that the water credit
transfer program will be amended promptly thereafter to address concerns
about negative environmental impacts and public fairness.” Director Lindstrom seconded the motion. No action was taken on this motion. Director Henson requested that the Board
resolve the issue regarding CEQA compliance, prior to voting on a motion
regarding Ordinance No. 107. Motion No. 4 -- Director
Erickson proposed a motion that Ordinance No. 107 is a project under CEQA and
that an EIR should be prepared prior to adoption of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Director
Lehman. The motion failed on a vote
of 4 to 2. Directors Edwards,
Henson, Lindstrom and Pendergrass voted against the motion. Directors Erickson and Lehman voted in
favor of the motion. Director Potter
was absent. Motion No. 5 -- Chair Henson offered a motion to adopt a Notice of Exemption for Ordinance No. 107, based of an exemption under CEQA related to resolving litigation and according to section 15270 of the California Code of Regulations. Director Lindstrom seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 3 – 3. Directors Edwards, Erickson and Pendergrass voted against the motion. Directors Lehman, Lindstrom and Henson voted in favor of the motion. Director Potter was absent. Motion No. 6 – Chair
Henson made a motion that the Board consider adoption of Ordinance No. 107 at
the March 17, 2003 Board meeting. In
addition, on March 17, 2003 District staff
will bring forward items A, B and C from Motion No. 1 for Board
consideration. Chair Henson also
incorporated into his motion the amendments offered by Director Erickson in
Motion No. 3. The motion was seconded
by Director Erickson. The motion was
adopted on a vote of 5 – 1. Directors
Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the
motion. Director Pendergrass voted
against the motion. Director Potter
was absent. The following comments were directed to the Board
during the public hearing on this item.
After receiving all public comment, Chair Henson closed the public
hearing on the first reading of Ordinance No. 107. (1) Richard Avila, building
contractor, stated that when Ordinance No. 102 was adopted, he was left with 14 water credits that
could not be utilized. Mr. Avila felt that those water credits were stolen
from him. He asked that the water
credit transfer program be reinstated. (2) Mark Beique, a resident of Monterey,
proposed that if water credit transfers were to be allowed by adoption of
Ordinance No. 107, limits should be
placed on the price of water to be transferred He asked why the transfer of residential
water credits was excluded from the ordinance. (3) Patrick Dwyer, Senior Community
Development Director for the County of Monterey, submitted a letter dated
February 27, 2003 from James Nakashima, Executive Director of the Housing
Authority of Monterey County that is on file at the District office. He requested that the Board consider
setting aside a percentage of transferred water credit for use in affordable
housing projects. (4) Sidney
Woodrow, resident of Carmel, proposed that a new water credit transfer
program be developed which would require that when water is transferred to
the jurisdiction, it should not be intended for a specific project. Instead, the jurisdiction should decide how
to allocate that water after the transfer occurs. (5) Robert Greenwood, Carmel Valley
Association, expressed opposition to water credit transfers. He stated that enactment of Ordinance No.
102 did not require CEQA review. He
urged the Board to prepare an initial study on the increase in water use that
could occur if Ordinance No. 107 is adopted.
(6) David Dilworth, representing Helping Our Peninsula’s
Environment (HOPE), urged the Board to prepare an EIR on the adoption of
Ordinance No. 107. He suggested that
the Board rescind Ordinance No.102, instead of adopting Ordinance No.
107. Mr. Dilworth was concerned that
Ordinance No. 107 might contain language that was not part of the original
Rule 28 that allowed the transfer of water credits. Director Erickson offered a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 106. Director Lindstrom seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 to 1. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Director Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter was absent. During
the public comment period on this item, David Dilworth suggested that the
cost to the applicant might be reduced if District staff more accurately
estimate the number of hours needed to process these permits. Director Lindstrom offered a motion to adopt the Mid-Year Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget adjustment. Director Lehman seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 6 – 0. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman, Lindstrom and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion. Director Potter was absent. No
comment was directed to the Board during the public hearing on this item. Director
Henson offered a motion that was seconded by Director Erickson to defer this
item, and resolve it as part of the discussions regarding modifications to
the financing and operations agreements for Phase II improvements to the
CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project.
The motion was approved on a vote of 5 – 1. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman
and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion.
Director Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter was absent. The
following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment
period on this item. (1) Richard
Andrews, General Manager of the Pebble Beach Community Services District
(PBCSD), noted that the PBCSD provides services to all properties designated
as benefited in the reclamation project agreements, including fire
protection, emergency medical response, and operation of the reclamation
project distribution system. He
remarked it would have been best for this lot to be designated as a benefited
property at the time the reclamation project agreements were developed. In response to a question from Chair
Henson, Mr. Andrews stated that if approval of the request were delayed, it
would cause a delay in completion of improvements to the PBCSD
facilities. (2) David Dilworth,
representing HOPE, submitted a letter dated February 27, 2003 that is on file
at the District office. He requested
that the Board deny the PBCSD request, and that any request for use of water
from the PBCSD/CAWD entitlement be subject to CEQA review. (3) Mark Beique suggested that the
PBCSD request be handled in a manner similar to a water credit transfer. The District could set aside 15 percent of
the transferred water. He stated that
all parties should be treated equally.
(4) Mike Niccum reminded the Board that an environmental
assessment of the CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project was completed n
1991. According to Mr. Niccum, this
request could be granted under the District’s water credit transfer
regulations. (5) Tex Irwin
encouraged the Board to approve the request because the proposed project
would provide a public benefit, and is not intended to encourage growth. Director
Edwards made a motion that was seconded by Director Lehman to approve items 1
through 6 of the staff recommendation that include proceeding with the
Interim Retrofit Project; adoption of a Notice of Exemption; and
authorization to execute a contract amendment with John F. Otto, Inc. for an
amount not-to-exceed $145,000 for a total contract amount not-to-exceed
$243,000. The motion was adopted on a
vote of 5 to 1. Directors Edwards,
Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Pendergrass voted in favor of the motion. Director Lindstrom voted against the
motion. Director Potter was absent. The
following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment
period on this item. (1) Charles
Kemp, Operations Manager for the California-American Water Company,
expressed support for the proposed Interim Retrofit Project because it was
cost effective and could be implemented quickly. (2) Roy Thomas, CRSA, encouraged the
Board to approve funding for operation of the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing
Facility, and urged the Board to expect satisfactory results from staff
charged to implement the project. He
noted that if the Board did not approve funding for operation of the
facility, the CRSA was committed to ensure that someone would. (3) Joyce
Ambrosius, NOAA Fisheries, stated that the agency believes that operation
of the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility is critical to survival of
the steelhead. The agency supports a
permanent solution to the situation at the facility. But until that occurs, the agency will
support the Interim Retrofit Project.
(4) Kevin Urquhart, California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG), expressed support for the Interim Retrofit Project because it would
provide mitigations required by SWRCB Order 95-10 and the District’s
Allocation Program EIR. He noted that
CDFG would assemble a team of experts to review operations at the facility
and determine what improvements could be implemented. The CDFG will also review engineering
designs for the retrofit project alternatives. Mr. Urquhart later clarified his statements
by noting that his comments were directed to Options 1 and 2 outlined in the
staff report. (5) Robert Zampatti,
CRSA, urged the Board to approve funding for the Interim Retrofit
Project. (6) Clive Sanders,
CRSA, expressed agreement with comments made by other speakers. He offered the assistance of CRSA members
with operation of the Interim Retrofit Project, i.e. when a District staff
member is sick and backup is needed. (7)
Frank Emerson, representing the Fishing Alliance of California, expressed
support for any fish rearing project that could be implemented this
year. He was concerned that the
District would consider the discontinuance of funding for fish rearing
facilities and described that as a dereliction of duty. (8) David Dilworth expressed his
concern that the Interim Retrofit Project would require construction of a
divider wall in the river. He
suggested that as an alternative, a temporary diversion channel could be
constructed. (9) Geoff Malloway,
Central Coast Fly Fishing, expressed support for the Interim Retrofit
Project. (10) Mark Beique
asked if John F. Otto, Inc. was determined to be the lowest bidder as a
result of the public contract process.
General Manager Avila responded that this contract was awarded on a
sole-source basis due to the urgency of this matter. (11) John Fischer thanked all
persons involved in developing a solution to the sedimentation problem at the
Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility. Director Henson made a motion that the revised draft report be circulated for review and comment for 60 days. At the close of the 60-day period, all comments received will be presented to the Board of Directors. At that time, the Board will determine if further action is required. The motion was approved on a vote of 5 – 1. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Director Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter was absent. The
following comments were directed to the Board during the public comment
period on this item. (1) Robert
Greenwood stated that the consultants who prepared the report have
established a record for documenting facts that were previously
established. (2) David Dilworth stated
that the report does not begin to describe the gravity of existing conditions
on the Carmel River. According to Mr.
Dilworth, the report was prepared in order to minimize river flows, not to
establish thresholds. He urged the
Board to call a stop to all work on the report, and to retain a different
consultant. He asked the Board to
refuse to accept the report because it had not received adequate public
review. (3) Roy Thomas, CRSA,
stated that flow thresholds described in the report are insufficient for
attraction and migration of the steelhead.
Mr. Thomas noted that he recently observed 85 steelhead that could not
migrate due to low river flows. Those
flows were higher than the threshold recommended in the report. (4) Joyce Ambrosius, NOAA Fisheries,
stated that she had not read the report.
She advised the Board that any water supply project would need to meet
flow requirements required by the Endangered Species Act. (5) Kevin Urquhart stated that this
would be the first time that a report prepared by the District had not
received inter-agency review prior to finalization. He noted that there is no legal requirement
for the CDFG to review the report. He
requested that the CDFG be allowed to review the report. Mr. Urquhart stated that 10,750 acre-feet
is an illegal diversion, and therefore could not be used as a baseline. (6) Robert Zampatti, CRSA, requested
a description of the term “threshold report.” There
was no discussion of the Informational Items/Staff Reports The
meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 PM. |
|
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALLPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEORAL
COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT
CALENDAR 1.
Consider Approval of Minutes from the Regular
Board Meeting of January 30 and Special Board Meeting of February 11, 2003 2.
Ratify Committee Assignments for Calendar Year
2003 3.
Receive Semi-Annual Groundwater Quality Monitoring
Report 4.
Receive District-Wide Annual Water Distribution
System Production Summary 5.
Receive District-Wide Annual Water Production
Summary Report for Water Year 2002 6.
Approve Expenditure of Mitigation Funds to
Purchase, Transport and Place Gravel Below Los Padres and San Clemente Dams 7.
Consider Adoption of Treasurer’s Report for June
and December 2002 GENERAL
MANAGER’S REPORT ATTORNEY’S
REPORT 8. Report on Closed Sessions of January 30, 2003 and February 27, 2003, 5:30 PM DIRECTORS’
REPORTS 9. Board Comments and Referrals PUBLIC
HEARINGS 10. Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 107 – Rescinding Ordinance No. 102 and Reinstating Rule 28, Water use Credit Transfers – and Discussion of Process and Substance Relating to Subsequent Ordinances Concerning Water Use Credit Transfers 11. Consider Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 106 – Revising Fees for Water Distribution System and Other Permit Applications 12. Consider Adoption of Mid-Year Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget Adjustment ACTION ITEMS 13. Consider Processing a Request by Pebble Beach Community Services District (PBCSD) to Designate PBCSD Property as a Benefited Property to the CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater Reclamation Project 14. Receive Report on Alternatives for Future Operation of Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility and Consider Approval of a Plan and Contract Amendment for Retrofitting the Water Intake System at the Facility 15. Review Revised Draft Carmel River Flow Threshold Report INFORMATIONAL
ITEMS/STAFF REPORTS 16.
Letters Received 17.
Committee Reports 18.
Strategic Planning Initiatives Progress Report 19.
Monthly Water Supply Project Status Report 20.
Carmel River Fishery Report 21.
Water Conservation Program Report 22.
Water Use Credit Transfer Status Report 23.
Monthly Allocation Report 24.
Monthly Cal-Am Sales Report 25.
Monthly Cal-Am Production Report 26.
Production Report – CAWD/PBCSD Wastewater
Reclamation Project 27.
Semi-Annual Financial Report on CAWD/PBCSD
Wastewater Reclamation Project 28.
Report on Second Quarter Financial Activity for
Fiscal Year 2002-2003 29.
Monthly Water Supply Status Report ADJOURNMENT |
____________________________________
Fran
Farina, Secretary to the Board
U:\Arlene\word\2003\Board
Meetings\Minutes\final0227.doc