FINAL MINUTES

Special Meeting

Board of Directors

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

April 2, 2003

The meeting was called to order at 7 PM in the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Conference Room. 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 Dave Potter – Monterey County Board of Supervisors Board members absent: None 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) Tex Irwin, expressed his concern why the no-growth desal plant will get built first (2) David Dilworth, Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment (HOPE), expressed concern about Consent Item 1. Consider Adoption of Response to 2002 Monterey County Grand Jury Report. He requested the last line of the letter be removed because it seems to encourage efforts toward fluoridation. (3) Lou Haddad, Monterey resident, commented that the response to the Grand Jury is right on target. He suggested the last line of the first paragraph on page 3 be edited to replace public financing with private financing. Items 1 and 2 were pulled for separate consideration. On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Edwards, the Consent Calendar was approved on a 5 – 1 vote. Director Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter was not present for the vote. Approved. Motion No. 1-- On a motion by Director Lindstrom and second by Director Potter, the last sentence be removed from the letter to the Grand Jury on fluoridation of drinking water in Monterey County. Director Lindstrom later withdrew his motion. Motion No. 2 – Director Lehman proposed an amendment to Motion No. 1 to have the letter only consist of, “Water purveyors in municipalities would be better able to implement fluoridation in drinking water and enforce monitoring and payment.” Director Lindstrom seconded the motion. Director Henson suggested that a vote be taken as to whether the letter on fluoride be sent or not. If the motion fails then the language of the letter will be discussed. Motion No. 3 -- On a motion by Director Edwards and second by Director Lindstrom, to not send a letter concerning fluoride. The motion was approved on a 5 – 2 vote. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lindstrom and Potter voted in favor of the motion. Directors Lehman and Pendergrass voted against the motion. On a motion by Director Lehman and second by Director Lindstrom, the response letter to the Grand Jury Report will include edits to page 1, last paragraph, replace 2001 with 2002, and on page 2, first paragraph, last sentence, replace public financing with private financing. The letter will then be sent as submitted. The motion was approved on a 4 – 3 vote. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards, Pendergrass and Potter voted against the motion. On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Edwards, to approve ratification of the contract with Fran Farina. The motion was approved on a 5 – 1 vote. Director Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter abstained from the vote. Approved. Director Henson reported that public comment was received and closed at the March 27, 2003 meeting. Staff developed and distributed a Board Action Checklist on the water supply initiative-policy options and scope of work. This item was deferred to the April 2, 2003 in order to have the full Board present. Each item was discussed and voted on by the Board. Item 1B -- Issue 1 Propose MPWMD water supply project and have a vote? Approved On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lehman, to approve authorization of a vote for financing of this project. The motion was approved on a 5 – 1 vote. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Director Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter was not present for the vote. Item 1B – Issue 2 Which of three Cal-Am production increments should be evaluated at a project level of detail? Approved. On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lehman to use the existing 15,285. The motion was approved on a 4 – 2 vote. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards and Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter was not present for the vote. Item 1B – Issue 3 What should be the production goal for the MPWMD proposed project? Approved. On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lehman, to be 8,409 acre-feet per year (AFY). The motion was approved on a 4 – 2 vote. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards and Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter was not present for the vote. Item 1B – Issue 4 Which agency should be CEQA lead for Cal-Am Coastal Water Project (CWP)? Approved On a motion by Director Lindstrom and second by Director Erickson, for MPWMD to be the CEQA lead agency. The motion was approved on a 4 – 2 vote. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards and Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter was not present for the vote. If MPWMD is lead for CWP, what is the choice for EIR? On a motion by Director Edwards and second by Director Potter, to have one consolidated EIR. The motion failed on a 3 – 4 vote. Directors Edwards, Pendergrass and Potter voted in favor of the motion. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted against the motion. On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lehman, to have two separate EIRs. The motion passed on a 4 – 3 vote. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards, Pendergrass and Potter voted against the motion. Item 1B – Issue 5 How should MPWMD address Cal-Am dam application? Approved. Motion No. 1 -- On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Edwards, to ask Cal-Am to rescind/put on hold their application. Motion No. 2 – Director Edwards proposed an amendment to Motion No. 1, for Cal-Am to rescind its application and to give Cal-Am 90 days to rescind its application. If no response is received, a public hearing will be scheduled for a future Board meeting. Motion No. 3 – On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Edwards, to send a letter to Cal-Am asking them to rescind their application for the dam. Cal-Am will have 90 days to respond. If no affirmative response is received, the MPWMD will hold a hearing on the application. The motion passed on a 6 – 1 vote. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman, Lindstrom and Potter voted in favor of the motion. Director Pendergrass voted against the motion. 1C – Issue 1 Which alternative(s) should be evaluated at the project level of detail? Approved. On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lindstrom, for Alternative 3: 8,400 AF Sand City desal only. The motion passed on a 4 –3 vote. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards, Pendergrass and Potter voted against the motion. 1C – Issue 2 Which JSA Optional Tasks should be performed? Motion No. 1 -- On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lehman, that optional task 2-C be performed - project level Sand City desal. Motion No. 2 -- On a motion by Director Lindstrom and second by Director Erickson, that the MPWMD request a peer review of the CDM Report. Motion No. 3 – Director Erickson proposed an amendment to Motion No. 2 to include an expenditure of up to $30,000 and two months time for review. Director Henson clarified the motion on the floor -- the District request peer review and expenditure of up to $30,000 and two months time for review of the Sand City Desalination Plant and its related facilities and the ability to expand. The motion was later withdrawn due to legal counsel’s concern that the motion to authorize an alternate vendor other than Jones and Stokes on the project in discussion was not presented as an Action Item on the agenda for the April 2, 2003 meeting which would be a Brown Act violation. 1C – Issue 2 Task 2-D: HDD well engineering studies Approved. Motion No. 1 -- On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lindstrom, that the Board adopt the direction that it intends to have HDD well engineering studies with an engineer. The motion was approved on a 4 – 3 vote. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards, Pendergrass and Potter voted against the motion. Motion No. 2 – On a motion by Director Lindstrom and second by Director Erickson, for the District to proceed with the 2-D task: HDD well engineering studies including the Geophysical and Geotechnical investigation and numeric modeling. Motion No. 3 – Director Erickson proposed an amendment to Motion No. 2, to include a timeline and goals listing and that the District negotiate directly with CDM. The motion was approved on a 4 – 3 vote. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted for the motion. Directors Edwards, Pendergrass and Potter voted against the motion. 1C – Issue 3 Fund more study on brine discharge at MRWPCA outfall? Approved. On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lindstrom, to fund more study on brine discharge at MRWPCA outfall and to consider this item in May 2003. The motion was approved on a 5 – 2 vote. Directors Edwards, Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Directors Pendergrass and Potter voted against the motion. 1C – Issue 4 Should JSA contract be amended? On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lindstrom, the motion was approved on a 4 –3 vote. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted for the motion. Directors Edwards, Pendergrass and Potter voted against the motion. What other consultant help should be considered for info to include in EIR or Engineers Report for vote? This item was deferred to a future meeting. On a motion by Director Erickson and second by Director Lehman, the first reading of Ordinance No. 108 with the CEQA finding that it is exempt from CEQA because of its clarification on rules and procedures. The motion was approved on a 4 – 2 vote. Directors Erickson, Henson, Lehman and Lindstrom voted in favor of the motion. Directors Edwards and Pendergrass voted against the motion. Director Potter was not present. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 PM.

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Consider Adoption of Response to 2002 Monterey County Grand Jury Report 2. Consider Ratification of Contract with Fran Farina ACTION ITEMS 3. Discuss Action to Be Taken on Water Supply Project Initiative A. Consider Reception of Phase 1 Engineering Study Report on Local Water Supply B. Discuss Options for Water Supply Project C. Consider Scope of Work for Phase II Environmental Impact Report PUBLIC HEARING 4. Consider First Reading of Ordinance No. 108 – An Ordinance of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Amending Rule 28.B to Clarify the Discretionary Review of Water Credit Transfer Applications by Board of Directors ADJOURNMENT

____________________________________

Fran Farina, Secretary to the Board

U:\Sara\word\Yr2003\Minutes\Board\final0402.doc