MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA & MINUTES June 28, 2012

Mprwa Agenda 06 28 12
AGENDA PACKET REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
June 28, 2012

Draft Minutes Mprwa June 28, 2012

DRAFT MINUTES

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
June 28, 2012

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING CONCERNING WORKSHOP AGENDA AND OTHER MATTERS (06/29/12) & ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S SCOPING MEMO AND RULING (06/28/12)

ABSTRACT: ALJ’s RULING (Filing Date June 29, 2012) concerning Workshop Agenda and other matters and SCOPING RULING (Filing Date June 28, 2012) setting forth the scope and schedule of the proceeding is presented. RULING and SCOPING RULING documents are embedded. Importantly, The “ruling proposes in Attachment A an agenda and invites comments regarding the Workshop scheduled for July 26-27, 2012. It also instructs California-American Water Company to prepare and file a cumulative rate impact table by July 20, 2012, and confirms the granting of party status in response to motions.” The Scoping Memo states in part: The scope of the proceeding shall be confined to resolving the following questions:

Is the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project a  reasonable and prudent means of securing replacement water for  the Monterey District of Cal-Am, and would the granting of the  application be in the public interest?

Feasible alternatives to the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project will be considered in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) track of the proceeding and by the Commission. This proceeding is for the purpose of determining whether the applied-for project should be approved; it is not a general forum for entertaining water supply options unrelated to the application of a Commission-regulated utility.  Local public agencies and other entities are  and have been free to conduct such fora, to pursue water supply alternatives on their own or in concert and to influence Cal-Am’s shaping of its project application.  Cal-Am’s application is now before us and the December 2016 Cease and Desist deadline approaches. 

Alj's Ruling Concerning Workshop Agenda and Other Matters
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING CONCERNING WORKSHOP AGENDA AND OTHER MATTERS

Description: Administrative Law Judge's Ruling concerning Workshop Agenda and other matters. Confirms granting of motions for party status by the Planning and Conservation League, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Latino Water Use Coalition, Monterey Peninsula Latino Seaside Merchants Association, Comunidad en Accion and the Monterey County Farm Bureau. Comments by parties regarding Workshop Agenda are invited and should be filed by 7/12/2012. California-American Water Company shall prepare and file by 7/20/2012 a table displaying the cumulative impact on the average residential customer bill in the Monterey District.

ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S SCOPING MEMO AND RULING 06-28-12

ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER’S SCOPING MEMO AND RULING

Description: Assigned Commissioner's Scoping Memo and Ruling. The scope and schedule of this proceeding are as set forth. The final categorization of this proceeding is ratesetting and hearings will be required. This ruling on category may be appealed, as provided in Rule 7.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Administrative Law Judge Gary Weatherford is designated the Presiding Officer. Ex parte communications are subject to the reporting requirements and other restrictions of 8.3(c). The deadline for filing a notice of intent to claim compensation in this proceeding is July 6, 2012.

ADDENDUM:

For now, alternative water proposals won't get a PUC hearing

Alternative proposals won't be part of first hearing

By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 06/29/2012

Eight Noteworthy 3 July 2012 Council Agenda Items

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL

Public Workshop: Reusable Bag Task Force Report (5:30-6:30 p.m.)

Monday, July 2, 2012 4:30 p.m.

Council Chambers

East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

ABSTRACT: Eight Noteworthy 3 July 2012 City Council Agenda Items, namely Announcements from Closed Session, Announcement from City Administrator, a Resolution designating Scenic Road a one-way street from Santa Lucia Avenue to Martin Way, a Resolution extending the Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) for represented LIUNA/UPEC Local 792 employees and the Police Officers Association, Consideration of: 1) The first reading of an Ordinance imposing a transactions and use tax (sales tax) to be administered by the State Board of Equalization and 2) Consideration of a Resolution giving notice of a special Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting a proposal to temporarily increase the transactions and use (sales) tax rate 1% for a period of 10 years; finding and declaring an emergency exists that requires the voters to approve a transactions and use tax before the next Municipal Election; and requesting Monterey County provide for consolidation of this proposed sales tax increase election with the November 6, 2012 election and a Resolution authorizing the issuance of Pension Obligation Bonds to refinance the outstanding side fund obligations of the City to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and authorizing institution of judicial validation proceedings and Public Meeting establishing the Carmel Hospitality Improvement District and of a ban on the distribution of single-use plastic bags by retail establishments, are presented. Agenda Item Summaries, Staff Reports, et. cetera, are embedded.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

4:30 p.m., Open Session

City Hall

East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

Live & Archived Video Streaming

II. Roll Call

V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

A. Announcements from Closed Session.

1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation - Government Code Section 54957. Title: City Attorney

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

3. Flanders RDEIR available and 45-day review period

VII. Consent Calendar

These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.

H. Consideration of a Resolution designating Scenic Road a one-way street from Santa Lucia Avenue to Martin Way.

Resolution Designating Scenic Road a One-way Street

I. Consideration of a Resolution extending the Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) for represented LIUNA/UPEC Local 792 employees and the Police Officers Association.

Resolution Extending the MOU

VII. Orders of Council

A. Consideration of:

1) The first reading of an Ordinance imposing a transactions and use tax (sales tax) to be administered by the State Board of Equalization and

2) Consideration of a Resolution giving notice of a special Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting a proposal to temporarily increase the transactions and use (sales) tax rate 1% for a period of 10 years; finding and declaring an emergency exists that requires the voters to approve a transactions and use tax before the next Municipal Election; and requesting Monterey County provide for consolidation of this proposed sales tax increase election with the November 6, 2012 election.

Sales Tax Increase

B. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the issuance of Pension Obligation Bonds to refinance the outstanding side fund obligations of the City to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and authorizing institution of judicial validation proceedings.

Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Pension Bonds

C. Public Meeting establishing the Carmel Hospitality Improvement District:

1) Consideration of Resolution declaring the City’s intention to establish the Carmel Hospitality Improvement District (HID) and

2) The first reading of an Ordinance establishing the Carmel Hospitality Improvement District.

Carmel Hospitality Improvement District

D. Consideration of a ban on the distribution of single-use plastic bags by retail establishments:

1) A Resolution adopting an Initial Study (IS)/Negative Declaration (ND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Single-Use Plastic& Carryout Bag Ordinance and

2) The second reading of an Ordinance amending the Carmel Municipal Code to ban the distribution of single-use plastic bags from retail establishments within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Ban on the Distribution of Single-use Plastic Bags

MONTEREY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Consider adoption of an ordinance amending section 12.16.010 of the Monterey County Code to establish Scenic Road as a one-way highway from the Carmel-By-the-Sea City limit to the intersection with Carmelo Street in the unincorporated area of the County of Monterey

ABSTRACT: The Monterey County Board of Supervisors was scheduled to Consider adoption of an ordinance amending section 12.16.010 of the Monterey County Code to establish Scenic Road as a one-way highway from the Carmel-By-the-Sea City limit, located 360 feet west of the intersection with Martin Way, to the intersection with Carmelo Street in the unincorporated area of the County of Monterey and repealing a paragraph of section 12.16.010 that designated a portion of Scenic Road as a one-way highway only on July 4 annually today. SUMMARY/DISCUSSION: On June 12, 2012, the Board introduced, waived the reading, and set today's date and time to consider adoption of the ordinance for a one-way highway on a portion of Scenic Road. The County has received multiple public requests for one-way traffic on Scenic Road for public safety because of pedestrian traffic and erosion to the hillside that supports the roadway. On January 25, 2012, a well attended public meeting was held and the proposal to change to one direction was nearly unanimous. A Coastal Administrative Permit to allow the installation of traffic controls to change the relevant portion of Scenic Road to one-way traffic was approved by the County on March 14, 2012. Attachments are embedded.

Monterey County

Monterey County Government Center

Board Chamber

168 W. Alisal St. 1st Floor

Salinas, CA 93901

Meeting Agenda - Final-revised

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Board of Supervisors

Chair Dave Potter - District 5

Vice-Chair Fernando Armenta - District 1

Supervisor Louis R. Calcagno - District 2

Supervisor Simón Salinas - District 3

Supervisor Jane Parker - District 4

Board of Supervisors Meeting Agenda - Final-revised June 26, 2012

10:30 AM - Reconvene

Roll Call

Scheduled Matters

18. Consider adoption of an ordinance amending section 12.16.010 of the Monterey County Code to establish Scenic Road as a one-way highway from the Carmel-By-the-Sea City limit, located 360 feet west of the intersection with Martin Way, to the intersection with Carmelo Street in the unincorporated area of the County of Monterey and repealing a paragraph of section 12.16.010 that designated a portion of Scenic Road as a one-way highway only on July 4 annually.

12:00 PM Recess to Lunch

Ordinance

ORDINANCE

Location Map 6 26 2012

LOCATION MAP

Proposed One-Way Map Scenic Road

PROPOSED ONE-WAY MAP

ADDENDUM: Videos of Board of Supervisors Meetings

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE CITY COUNCIL: STATUS REPORT by Paul Hart, Esq., Counsel for Nader Agha and Moss Landing Commercial Park, LLC (MLCP) RE: Formation Agreement Between City and MLCP

ABSTRACT: STATUS REPORT by Paul Hart, Esq., Counsel for Nader Agha and Moss Landing Commercial Park, LLC (MLCP) RE: Formation Agreement Between City and MLCP is embedded. Importantly, the STATUS REPORT responds to the City Manager’s Arguments Against Entering Formation Agreement and states, as follows:

The City Manager's Agenda Report presents seven arguments against entering the Formation Agreement. Unfortunately, each of the arguments are flawed, for one or more of the following reasons:

1. The arguments are outside the proper scope of this meeting. The Council has already approved the agreement, subject only to the Indemnification Provision language of paragraph 15.

2. The arguments attempt to re-hash arguments that have already been considered and rejected by The Council.

3. The arguments are based upon inaccurate facts;

4. The arguments are legally and procedurally inaccurate;

5. The arguments improperly present "Opinions" as facts;

Mr. Hart concludes: “For all the reasons cited previously by The Council, the pursuit of publically controlled water for the Citizens of Pacific Grove and avoiding the exorbitantly high cost of water from the Cal Am project is in the best interest of the City. Moreover, the City can take this next step without risk of any kind and without any out-of-pocket cost.”

Agha-Hart Ltr to PG City Council Dated 6-20-12

JOHNSON, MONCRIEF & HART

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

STATUS REPORT

DATE: June 20, 2012

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Paul Hart, Esq., Counsel for Nader Agha and Moss Landing Commercial Park, LLC (MLCP)

MEETING DATE: June 20, 2012

RE: Formation Agreement Between City and MLCP

‘MINUTES’ for Four Noteworthy 5 June 2012 City Council Agenda Items

"MINUTES"

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

City Hall

East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

Archived Video Streaming

II. Roll Call

PRESENT: Council Members Beach, Hazdovac, Hillyard, Talmage and Mayor Burnett

ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT (partial list): Jason Stilwell, City Administrator

Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk

Don Freeman, City Attorney

V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

A. Announcements from Closed Session.

1. Property Negotiations – Gov’t. Code Section 54956.8, Real Property negotiations between City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Christine Sandin regarding the Sunset Cultural Center.

2. Public Employee Appointment -- Govt. Code Section 54957.  Title: City Treasurer. City Council will meet to consider the appointment of a City Treasurer.

3. Potential Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(b) -Conference with legal counsel regarding potential litigation – one (1) matter.

4. Labor Negotiations  – Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the  Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, City Administrator Stilwell, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the two bargaining units.

Regarding the aforementioned closed session items, City Attorney Don Freeman announced that the there were no announcements from closed session.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

3. Receive update report on the Del Mar Master Plan.

Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager presented the update report.  The Plan was adopted in 2009, the City received a grant for implementation of Plan earlier in the year and walkway along San Antonio Avenue and boardwalk and viewing platform. Also, her reviewed Carmel stonewall, dg path retaining wall (grant from donor to place Carmel stone façade on retaining wall), boardwalk and 10’ x 15’ viewing platform  Conroy stated that bids anticipated next mouth or two with completion anticipated by Fall.

IX. Ordinances

1. Consideration of the first reading of an Ordinance amending the Carmel Municipal Code to ban the distribution of single-use plastic bags from retail establishments within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea or, in the alternate, to defer action and direct staff to work with the business community.

Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager presented a power point presentation. 

Single Use Plastic Bags

• Carmel is renowned for its environmental resources
• Carmel Bag is considered an ASBS
• Plastic bags contribute to litter, pollution problems and impact wildlife
• 60% - 80% of marine debris is comprised of plastic

Draft Ordinance – Planning Commission Review

·        Prohibit the user of single-use plastic bags

·        Encouraged the use of reusable bags; and

·        Required a fee for the distribution of recycled content paper bags

·        Required business to keep records of fee charged but businesses would retain fee

Business Community Comments

• Generally supportive of ban on plastic
• Generally not supportive of the charge for paper

-         Concerned with negative impressions of customers

-         Out of town visitors not likely to have reusable bags

-         Record keeping burden in businesses/enforcement burden on City

• Suggested possibility of a voluntary compliance program

Planning Commission Recommendation

• The Council should consider developing a voluntary program

Council Review

• Option 1: Consider an ordinance
• Option 2: Consider a voluntary compliance program

Response to Comments

Save the Plastic Bag Coalition

• Recommended amending the definition of reusable bags
• Staff concurs and recommends the following definition:

“A “reusable bag” is defined as a bag made of cloth or other machine washable fabric that has handles, or a durable plastic bag with handles that is at least 2.25 mils thick and is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse.”

California Grocers Association

• Recommends including a fee on paper for the following reasons:

-Ban on plastic only does not promote reusable bags

-Ban on plastic does not result in environmental gains

-Burdensome on retailers

• Staff does not concur

-         Elimination of plastic bags reduces pollution and impacts on wildlife and visual quality of the City

-         Retailer expressed concern with fee on paper

Option 2 – Voluntary Approach

Direct staff to work with the business community on a voluntary compliance program

• Avoids the need for enforcement
• No environmental review required

Questions

• Which option does the Council support?
• If Carmel supports Option 1 (ordinance)
• Is the Initial Study/Negative Declaration appropriate?
• Should the ordinance be revised to include a requirement for recycles content, paper bags?
• Are other changes needed?

Mayor Burnett opened the meeting to public comment.

Barbara Livingston stated that the Board of Directors of the Carmel Residents Association strongly recommends adoption of the Ordinance banning single-use plastic bags for retail shops for three reasons.  One, only 15% of all plastic is recycled.  Two, plastic bag do not decompose. And three, plastic bags are injurious to the health and safety of marine wildlife and plastic enter the food chain for human consumption.

Barbara Brooks suggested the Ordinance should do more than only banning plastic bags to encourage use of reusable bags because no environmental gain by just banning plastic bags. 

Maggie Eaton presented a show-and-tell of reusable shopping bags and endorsed the Ordinance banning plastic bags.

Helena Rey, Eco Patrol, commented on “toxic” doggie bags (mutt mitts), “natural bag,” “bio bag” and Eco Patrol bag (pending patent). 

Mary Ann Lloyd supported a ban on single-use plastic bags.  The State of Hawaii, the City of Los Angeles, cities in Alameda and Marin Counties and cities of Watsonville and Monterey banned the plastic bag. 

Christine stated a possible method of encouraging business to use reusable bans is by branding the bags.

Susan Spiegel, Sustainable Carmel, supported the revised Ordinance and expressed concern about marine wildlife ingesting plastic. 

A man urged more than a voluntary program necessary and advocated for addition of recycled content for paper bags in Ordinance.  

Monta Potter, Carmel Chamber of Commerce, stated her support for the ban and stated  businesses did not support a 10 cent charge on paper bags. 

Domique Bittner, Envirnmental Club, Carmel High School, stated her support of the Ordinance along with other high school students.

Geoff Shester, Oceana, (organization dedicated to ocean protection) stated support for Ordinance and the existence of an “overwhelming wave of support” throughout California for these Ordinances  (Status Map by Cityand County).  Additionally, he stated that the National Marine Fisheries Service has declared waters off Carmel to be critical habitat for the endangered Pacific leatherback sea turtle, and a third of dead leatherback sea turtles have plastic ingested internally.

Joe, Waste Management, expressed support for the Ordinance.

Vicky Pierce, Pacific Grove, supported a mandatory ban and emphasized the environment and business interests.

A woman, Surfrider, expressed support for the plastic bag ban and charge on paper bags. She mentioned other cities with a charge on paper bags, including Monterey, City of Santa Cruz and County of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, San Jose, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, Sunnyvale for “regional consistency.” 

Loran, Save Our Shores, from Santa Cruz, presented a petition signed by 370 individuals in support of the revised Ordinance, but she encouraged a charge for paper bags at a later date and an incentive program for reusable bags.

John stated the issue is the fee for paper bags and expressed support for a fee for "consistency."

A woman, Sustainable Carmel, Team Ocean, kayak naturalist, Monterey Bay National Sanctuary, encouraged a plastic bag ban. 

Mayor Burnett closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member Hillyard expressed support for Ordinance. 

Council Member Hazdovac expressed support for voluntary ban or ordinance as written. 

Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve Ordinance as written, seconded by Council Member HILLYARD and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BEACH; HAZDOVAC; HILLYARD, TALMAGE & BURNETT

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

Council Member Beach stated aim is to encourage the use of reusable bags and consider recycle content and voluntary only with sunset clause. 

Mayor Burnett stated Sustainable Carmel and Chamber will work towards a program to reduce single-use plastic bags.

Council Member Talmage expressed issues concerning “Carmel Bag” branding for marketing, record keeping and recycled content.

Mayor Burnett stated that the next city council meeting agenda will have an agenda item for Sustainable Carmel and the Chamber to present a report of progress made including a timeline for moving forward on the paper bag issue. 

Related News Article:

Council adopts ban on plastic bags

-         No mandatory charge for paper bags, MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, June 8, 2012

XI. Orders of Council

2. Receive presentation from the Monterey Water Management District and provide direction on the Proposition 218 process and water supply sources.

Bob Brower introduced David Stoldt, General Manager, Monterey Water Management District. who presented a power point presentation.

What’s MPWMD Done in 30 Years?

Things we had to do by legal mandate…

• Carmel River mitigation due to Cal-Am pumping – the result of two CEQA rulings, State Order 95-10 and the ASR operating permit

Things we do that nobody likes…

• Conservation
• Permitting
• But I t has saved the Peninsula another 3,000 – 4,000 AF water project

What’s the Plan?

Cal-Am’s Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

Filed April 23, 2012

Desalination (5,500 AF)

Aquifier Storage and Recovery (1,300 AF)

Groundwater Replenishment (3,500 AF)

Component 3 – Groundwater Replenishment

• 3,500 AF
• Complete by 2016
• Public component
• 3-Party MOU (MRWPCA, MPWMD, Cal-Am)

-Water Purchase Agreement

-Storage and Recovery Agreement

-Wholesale Water Sales Agreement

-District 50% pay-as-you-go funding march

-District to provide long-term financing

-MOU is contingent upon district’s new funding source

Component 2 - ASR

·        Double ASR Capacity

·        Complete by 2016

·        Public and Private Components

·        Work jointly with Cal-Am

·        Additional MPWMD Capital Costs Next 2-3 Years

·        District will continue to develop future ASR opportunities

Component 1- Desal

• 5,500 AF
• Completion date depends onKey Issues:

-Requirement and timeline for a new CEQA process or not

-Additional technical assessment and scoping of project alternatives

-Ease in permitting

-Water rights

-Cost of financing and operations

-Litigation risk

·        Is it a Public Path or a Private Path?

·        Can MPWMD assist with lower cost financing with or without state revolving fund loans?

Old Use Fee

• User Fee collected since 1983
• Related to the delivery of water
• CPUC has interrupted collection mechanism (Cal-Am bill)
• Was budgeted as $3.7 million last 3 years
• Started new collection mechanism last October
• Shift in focus to Water Supply in January

MPWMD Water Supply Funding Needs

FY 2013 and FY 2014:

GWR: $1,036,000; $1,459,200

ASR: $1,325,756;  $862,370

Desal or Table 13 Rights: $250,000; $200,000

ASR Expansion: $150,000; $500,000

Staff, Supplies, Services-Water: $1,200,000; $1,200,000

Total: $3,961,756; $4,231,570

Water Supply & Budget

• Water Supply Projects are additive to existing budget
• Reduce District expenditures on other activities where possible without disrupting legal mandates
• Seek to have Cal-Am directly pay a greater share of mitigation costs (at least $1.6 million/year)
• Doing so allows 100% of new revenue source to be used on new water supply costs

Water Demand in Region

Rate design allocates revenue requirement in the same manner

Calculation of Annual Fee

Annual Water Use Fee =Meter Fee based on meter Size + [Water Usage Fee Per Unit x # of Units]

Categories:

• 5 Single Family Residential
• 1 Multifamily
• 45 Commercial

Annual Total Fee Examples

Key Feature of Ordinance

• Fee is limited to water supply
• Annual review that fee is still required for the purpose it was established
• Sunset provision

Annual Water Use Fee Collection Mechanism

• Need Stable & Secure mechanism
• Will Allow Public Financing
• Attention to Cost and Rate of collection

Alternative Collection Costs

Assessor’s Office vs. 3^rd party vs. In-House

Advocated Assessors’ Office

Proposition 218 Process

• Not a tax – a fee for water service
• For the benefit of existing customers
• By law, a vote is not required
• Following the Prop 218 process dutifully – will prevail legal challenge
• Exact same process as CAWD, MRWPCA, MCWD, others throughout CA.

Key Dates

April 16 –

District Board adopted Rate Study

First reading of proposed Rate Ordinance

Board approved Prop 218 Hearing Notice

Board approved prop 218 “Rules of the Road”

Board reviewed alternative collection methods

April 27 –

 Mail Prop 218 Hearing Notices

June 12 –

Prop 218 protests calculated

Board holds Prop 218 Hearing

Second reading of proposed Rate ordinance (adopt)

Approve Resolution for collection method

Approve CEQA waiver

Adopt annual budget

Council Member Hillyard stated that he could not support MPWMD anymore.

Mayor Burnett opened the meeting to public comment.

A woman protested the use of Prop 218 for water fee and advocated for a public vote and passage by 2/3 voters. 

Carrie Thies, Carmel Innkeepers Association, asked the Council to support fee and MPWMD. 

Skip Lloyd stated that he has great respect for the MPWMD.  As Chair of the CRA Environmental Committee, he stated strong support for ASR and GWR projects and the fee under Prop 218 and urges Council to support likewise. 

Mayor Burnett closed the meeting to public comment.

Mayor Burnett stated that the Water Authority JPA voted to support the ASR and GWR projects. 

Council Member Talmage stated the fee is complicated and confusing and used by the MPWMD and there is a critical need for a new water source and positive leadership.  He stated there is a need for ASR and GWR online by 2016, whereas the desalination project will not be available by the cease and desist order deadline. 

Council Member Hazdovac asked the difference between a fee and a tax.  In response, David Stoldt stated taxes are for entities that provide benefits for everyone equally whereas use related to a particular service a rate or fee. 

Council Member Hillyard expressed support for ASR and GWR and objected to sending letter to members of the public. 

Mayor Burnett stated that the only way to go forward is if financing is available and this is the only financing at this point.  And he therefore expressed support for ASR and GWR projects and advocated sending letter to PCA, MPWMD and Cal-Am. 

Council Member Hazdovac stated that this is the only solution at this point.

Council Member Beach stated that time is of the essence. 

Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve letter and authorize the mayor to mail letter to PCA, MPWMD and Cal-Am, seconded by HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BEACH; HAZDOVAC; HILLYARD, TALMAGE & BURNETT

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA & MINUTES June 18, 2012

ABSTRACT:  TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA & MINUTES June 18, 2012, including Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Request for Proposals Comparison of Cost Estimates for the Desalination Projects and Evaluation of Schedule and Alternative Financing Options

Tac Agenda 06 18 12 Packet Rfp

AGENDA

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) & RFP June 18, 2012

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA May 23, 2012

Tac Agenda.05 23 12

AGENDA

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA May 23, 2012

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA May 21, 2012

Tac Agenda 05 21 12

AGENDA

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) May 21, 2012

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA & MINUTES May 7, 2012

TAC Agenda 05-07-12

AGENDA

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) May 7, 2012

TAC Minutes 05 07 12

MINUTES (DRAFT)

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE – REGULAR MEETING

Monday, May 7, 2012

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA & MINUTES April 16, 2012

Tac Agenda 4 16 12

AGENDA

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) April 16, 2012

TAC Minutes 04 16 12.pdf

MINUTES (DRAFT)

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) April 16, 2012

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA April 11, 2012

Tac Agenda 4 11 12

AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC), April 11, 2012

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY AGENDA April 9, 2012

Tac Agenda 4 09 12

AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC), April 9, 2012

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES June 14, 2012

Mprwa Agenda and Misc 06 14 12

AGENDA

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING June 14, 2012

Mprwa Draft Regular Meeting Minutes 06-14-12

DRAFT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

June 14, 2012

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES May 31, 2012

Mprwa Agenda 05 31 12

AGENDA

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING May 31, 2012

Mprwa Regular Meeting Minutes 05-31-2012

MINUTES 

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING May 31, 2012

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES May 10, 2012

Mprwa Agenda 05 10 12

AGENDA

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

REGULAR MEETING May 10, 2012

Mprwa Regular Meeting Minutes 05-10-2012

MINUTES

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING May 10, 2012

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA & MINUTES April 23, 2012

Mprwa Agenda 04 23 12

AGENDA

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) MEETING April 23, 2012

MPRWA Minutes 04 23 12

MINUTES (DRAFT)

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING April 23, 2012

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA April 12, 2012

Mprwa Agenda 4 12 12

AGENDA

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) April 12, 2012

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA March 2, 2012

Mprwa Agenda 03 02 12

AGENDA

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) March 2, 2012

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Request for Proposals: Comparison of Cost Estimates for the Desalination Projects and Evaluation of Schedule and Alternative Financing Options

ABSTRACT: The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Request for Proposals: Comparison of Cost Estimates for the Desalination Projects and Evaluation of Schedule and Alternative Financing Options is embedded.  Proposals are due to the Authority in the City of Pacific Grove’s Offices by 5:00 P.M. on July 6, 2012.  The Contractor will be retained to provide an independent, unbiased, third-party assessment of the three proposed desalination projects, namely California American Water Company's Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, DeepWater Desal, LLC and Peoples’ Moss Landing Desal.  There are six specific items as to project scope, including Initial Scoping and Constraints Analysis, Comparison of Cost Estimates for the Three Desalination Projects, Identify and Isolate Project Differences, Evaluation of Schedule, Evaluation of Financing Options and Workshop/Presentation.  Importantly, the selection of CONTRACTOR and subsequent contract award will be based on criteria including, but not limited to, the following:

· Qualifications and experience;

· Understanding of project goals;

· Proposed methodology to fulfill the intent of this RFP;

· Ability and capacity to fulfill the intent of this RFP;

· Reasonable budget, work schedule, and timeline.

Tac Agenda 6 18 12 and Mprwa Rfp

Monterey Peninsula Regional WaterAuthority Request for Proposals

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE CITY COUNCIL 20 June 2012 Meeting Agenda Item: UNFINISHED BUSINESS Agreement initiating a relationship with Nader Agha and Moss Landing Commercial Park, LLC (MLCP) to develop a desalinated water project able to meet the needs of Pacific Grove and the Monterey Peninsula

Corrections
The Monterey County Herald, 06/25/2012
The continuation of consideration of an agreement between the city of Pacific Grove and water-project developer Nader Agha wasn't the subject of a hearing or council vote last week as reported in a Saturday story in The Herald. The item was pulled off the council's Wednesday agenda by Mayor Carmelita Garcia and delayed until July 18.

UPDATE & RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:

Despite critical report, P.G. still open to desalpartnership with Agha

But city manager says risks outweigh benefits, LARRY PARSONS, Herald Staff Writer, 06/22/2012

Despite a highly critical report by City Manager Thomas Frutchey that concluded that the risks outweigh the potential benefits, the council voted 5-2 this week to keep the proposed preliminary partnership alive - on yet-unsigned paper.
"The matter has been continued to July 18,"...

An attorney for Agha also took issue with the negative recommendation by Frutchey.

"Unfortunately each of (his) arguments is flawed," said attorney Paul Hart in a 10-page memo countering Frutchey's seven-page analysis.

ABSTRACT: The City of Pacific Grove City Council is scheduled to hold a regular meeting on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 6:00 P.M. in Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 Forest Avenue to consider Consent Agenda Item No. 14A UNFINISHED BUSINESS Agreement initiating a relationship with Nader Agha and Moss Landing Commercial Park, LLC. (MLCP) to develop a desalinated water project able to meet the needs of Pacific Grove and the Monterey Peninsula. The AGENDA REPORT, prepared by Thomas Frutchey, City Manager, includes a RECOMMENDATION:

1.  Receive an update on the agreement to initiate and provide funding to establish a public/private partner relationship between Nader Agha/Moss Landing Commercial Park, LLC and the City of Pacific Grove.

2.  Decline taking action on the agreement at this time.  (If Council disagrees, it has the ability to take one or more alternative actions, including approving the agreement.)

CONCLUSION: “I cannot recommend that the City become a partner in this project; the downside risks far outweigh the possible benefits that cannot be achieved by other means.  It is my professional opinion that the City’s goals can be better achieved and our citizens better served by not proceeding with this agreement at this time, but instead, continuing as a full participating partner in the Water JPA.”

Selected excerpts from the AGENDA REPORT are presented and the AGENDA REPORT, including City Manager Thomas Frutchey's Report, FORMATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AND MOSS LANDING COMMERCIAL PARK, LLC. (June 1, 2012), George Schroeder's and Nader Agha's Letter to Monterey Mayor Chuck Della Sala Re: Technical Advisory Committee of the Water Authority (June 5, 2012) and Nader Agha's Monterey County Herald Letter to the Editor (June 12, 2012), City of Pacific Grove Prehearing Conference Statement, Public Utilities Commission (June 4, 2012) and Schedule Proposed by California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in Pre-Hearing Conference (PHC) (JUne 6, 2012), is embedded.  Parenthetically, Schroeder and Agha state in their letter to Monterey Mayor Della Sala that "we decided that we would withdraw our proposal from the consideration of the TAC, and did tell them that at the June 4th meeting, and further told them that we would work only directly with the Water Authority or other committee it has.  We request that our proposal be examined by the Water Authority along with Deepwater in the further detailed analysis the Water Authority is planning to undertake."

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

6:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

14 UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. Agreement initiating a relationship with Nader Agha and Moss Landing Commercial Park, LLC. (MLCP) to develop a desalinated water project able to meet the needs of Pacific Grove and the Monterey Peninsula  PG 273

Reference:  Thomas Frutchey, City Manager

1.  Receive an update on the agreement to initiate and provide funding to establish a public/private partner relationship between Nader Agha/Moss Landing Commercial Park, LLC and the City of Pacific Grove.

2.  Decline taking action on the agreement at this time.  (If Council disagrees, it has the ability to take one or more alternative actions, including approving the agreement.)

 RECOMMENDATION of Thomas Frutchey, City Manager:

1.  Receive an update on the agreement to initiate and provide funding to establish a public/private partner relationship between Nader Agha/Moss Landing Commercial Park, LLC and the City of Pacific Grove.

2.  Decline taking action on the agreement at this time.  (If Council disagrees, it has the ability to take one or more alternative actions, including approving the agreement.)

Importantly, in City Manager Thomas Frutchey’s AGENDA REPORT, he states:

Peering into the future is always uncertain, but the City’s involvement in the People’s Project would appear to have a low likelihood of positive benefit, and a high risk that the costs would exceed the benefits, for the following seven reasons:

1. The CPUC and other regulatory agencies are not likely to approve Mr. Agha’s project (or either of the other two projects) as currently conceived.

2. Cal-Am’s application before the CPUC does not to provide a proper means by which CalAm will be authorized to buy water from the People’s Project to convey to ratepayers.

3. Mr. Agha and the City have markedly different goals, and the proposed partnership is ill suited to assist either party in reaching its goals.

4. Given that a public partner does not appear necessary, the City has nothing of value to offer Mr. Agha, but does impose significant restrictions on his freedom to act.

5. This project is way beyond the City’s capabilities, and would impose unacceptable opportunity costs on the other responsibilities and opportunities we have in the coming years.

6. There are significant financial and legal risks of the City’s involvement in this project.

7. The resources Mr. Agha is willing and able to commit are not likely to be sufficient to see this project through to completion.  Thus, Mr. Agha will likely need at least one other partner, which will complicate an already challenged relationship even further.

CONCLUSION

The Council subcommittee has consistently championed this project and the partnership.  As City Manager, however, my perspective, and the factors that I must consider, are inherently different...

...However, as City Manager, I cannot recommend that the City become a partner in this project; the downside risks far outweigh the possible benefits that cannot be achieved by other means.  It is my professional opinion that the City’s goals can be better achieved and our citizens better served by not proceeding with this agreement at this time, but instead, continuing as a full participating partner in the Water JPA.

Pacific Grove AGENDA REPORT 14A June 20 2012 OCR Document

Consent Agenda Item No. 14A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

AGENDA REPORT

FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY: Recirculated Draft ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the SALE OF FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY REVISED ALTERNATIVES SECTION & Notice of Availability for the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) for the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property

ABSTRACT:  The Recirculated Draft ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the SALE OF FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY REVISED ALTERNATIVES SECTION, June 2012 and Notice of Availability for the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) for the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property are embedded.  The Proposed Project consists of the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property, a 1.252-acre parcel together with all improvements. The project site is considered parkland and is zoned P-2 (Improved Parkland). Refer to Figure 1-1 for depiction of the Proposed Project and existing parcel boundary. The grounds of the Flanders Mansion Property have historically been used by the public for passive recreational activities and the property provides a number of park benefits. Surrounding the property is an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) zoned P-1. This area plus the project site are all part of the City’s largest park, the Mission Trail Nature Preserve. The building on the property (the Flanders Mansion) is recognized as a historic resource and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Project proposes the sale of the Flanders Mansion parcel zoned P-2. The Mission Trail Nature Preserve area zoned P-1 is to be retained as public parkland, including the Lester Rowntree Arboretum. And The Proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts in the following categories, as described in this RDEIR: aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, and transportation/traffic3. All impacts associated with the Proposed Project can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigations identified in this RDEIR, with the exception of impacts related to (1) land use and planning and (2) parks and recreation. The following significant, unavoidable impacts were identified for the sale of Flanders Mansion:

 Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would conflict with certain goals, objectives, and policies identified in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan related to parkland, including G5-6, O5-21, P5-46, and P5-107,4 and

 Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would result in the loss [of] locally significant parkland that is considered an integral component of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve.  This would represent a permanent loss of publicly owned parkland. Since this loss of parkland is locally significant, this is considered a significant unavoidable impact that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

 “The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea requests that reviewers limit their comments to only those portion that are being recirculated, consistent with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(f)(2).  Written comments on the 2012 RDEIR will be accepted from Thursday, 14 June 2012 through Monday, 30 July 2012.”

Submit Written Comments to: 

Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

P.O. Drawer G

Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.  93921

e-mail: sconroy@ci.carmel.ca.us

Rdeir Revised Alternatives Section 6 12 2012

Recirculated Draft ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the SALE OF FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY

REVISED ALTERNATIVES SECTION

SCH #: 2005011108

June 2012

RDEIR Sale of Flanders Mansion OCR Document 2012

Notice of Availability for the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) for the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property, 14 June 2012

ADDENDUM:

The California Environmental Quality Act

Title 14. California Code of Regulations

Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the

California Environmental Quality Act

Article7. EIR Process

15088.5. Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification

(f) The lead agency shall evaluate and respond to comments as provided in Section 15088.Recirculating an EIR can result in the lead agency receiving more than one set of comments from reviewers. The following are two ways in which the lead agency may identify the set of comments to which it will respond. This dual approach avoids confusion over whether the lead agency must respond to comments which are duplicates or which are no longer pertinent due to revisions to the EIR. In no case shall the lead agency fail to respond to pertinent comments on significant environmental issues.

(2) When the EIR is revised only in part and the lead agency is recirculating only the revised chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency may request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised chapters or portions of the recirculated EIR. The lead agency need only respond to (i) comments received during the initial circulation period that relate to chapters or portions of the document that were not revised and recirculated, and (ii) comments received during the recirculation period that relate to the chapters or portions of the earlier EIR that were revised and recirculated. The lead agency's request that reviewers limit the scope of their comments shall be included either within the text of the revised EIR or by an attachment to the revised EIR.