TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA & MINUTES December 3, 2012

Mprwa Tac Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 12-03-12

AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
December 3, 2012

   Tac Mprwa Minutes 12-03-12 by   SebViz2

MINUTES

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

December 3, 2012

DESALINATION IN CALIFORNIA

ABSTRACT: For background educational and information purposes, the California Water Plan Update 2009 Chapter 9 Desalination, the California Desalination Planning Handbook and Water Desalination: Findings and Recommendations documents are embedded. Links to Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act and California Coastal Act Permitting for Seawater Desalination are provided.

Desalination Chapter 9 2009

VOLUME 2 – RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
CHAPTER 9
Desalination 2009

California Desal Handbook

California Desalination Planning Handbook

Prepared for: California Department of Water Resources

Prepared by: California State University, Sacramento, Center for Collaborative Policy

February 2008

Water Desalination Findings-Recommendations

Water Desalination
Findings and Recommendations
October 2003

Seawater Desalination and the California Coastal Act 
California Coastal Commission
March 2004

California Coastal Act Permitting for Seawater Desalination 

Tom Luster
California Coastal Commission

AG LAND TRUST v. MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, 6th Appellate District Case Number H038550

ABSTRACT: AG LAND TRUST v. MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, 6th Appellate District Case Number H038550 pending. Case Summary, Briefs and Future Scheduled Actions information is presented.

Case Summary

Trial Court Case: M105019 Court of Appeal Case: H038550 Division: Case Caption: AG Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District Case Type: CV Filing Date: 06/11/2012 Oral Argument Date/Time: Cross Referenced Cases: H036084 Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court (AG Land Trust) H038167 Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court

Briefs

AG Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District Case Number H038550 Brief Due Date Date Filed Party and Attorney Notes Appellant's appendix and opening brief filed.   11/07/2012 Defendant and Appellant: Marina Coast Water District Attorney: Mark Fogelman   22 volumes of Appendix (2 boxes)  Respondent's brief. 01/07/2013   Plaintiff and Respondent: AG Land Trust Attorney: Michael W. Stamp

Future Scheduled Actions

AG Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District Case Number H038550 Description Due Date Notes Administrative record returned to superior court. 06/05/2013 To court. 11/26/2012 Request for Judicial Notice Filed by Marina Coast Water Dist Respondent's brief. 12/07/2012 To court. 11/29/2012 Applnt's mot to expedite cal pref and o/arg Grant of extension due from court 11/26/2012 for 1st ext on Resp brief & appendix

 ADDENDUM: 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY

Case Details of GNM105019 ;  AG Land Trust vs. Marina Coast Water District

Case Number GNM105019

Case Caption AG Land Trust vs. Marina Coast Water District
Filing Date 4/5/2010
Case Type Civil (General)
Filing Type Complaint
Original Filing Date 4/5/2010

Motion Hearing 12/14/2012 9:00 A.M. Courtroom 15

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST), Supreme Court Case Number S204634

ABSTRACT: California Supreme Court, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST), Case Number S204634, Petition for Review, Answer to Petition for Review and Reply to Answer to Petition for Review documents are embedded. Disposition: Petition for review denied. And 6th Appellate District, Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court, Case Number H038167, Amicus Curiae Brief Monterey/Santa Cruz Counties Building & Construction Trades Council and Amicus Curiae Brief Armstrong Family are embedded. Disposition: Petition summarily denied by order.

California Supreme Court 

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST) 

Case Number S204634 

Disposition: Petition for review denied, 12 September 2012

S204634 Petition for Review

Petition for Review

S204634 Answer to Petition for Review

Answer to Petition for Review

S204634 Reply to Answer

Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

6th Appellate District 

Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court 

Case Number H038167 

Disposition: Petition summarily denied by order, 2 August 2012

h038167 Amicus Curiae Monterey Santa Cruz Counties Building and Construction Trades Council

Amicus Curiae Brief Monterey/Santa Cruz Counties Building & Construction Trades Council

h038167 Amicus Curiae Armstrong Family

Amicus Curiae Brief Armstrong Family

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST), California Supreme Court Case Number S192285

ABSTRACT: California Supreme Court, MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST), Case Number S192285, Petition for Review, Answer to Petition for Review and Reply to Answer to Petition for Review documents are embedded. Disposition: Petition for review denied. And 6th Appellate District, Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court (Ag Land Trust), Case Number H036084, Amicus Curiae Brief California Public Utilities Commission, Amicus Curiae Brief Cities of Monterey, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Seaside, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Del Rey Oaks and Amicus Curiae Brief Monterey County Water Resource Agency are embedded. Disposition: Petition for review denied.

California Supreme Court

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT v. S.C. (AG LAND TRUST)

Case Number S192285

Disposition: Petition for review denied, 18 May 2011

S192285 Petition for Review

Petition for Review

S192285 Answer to Petition for Review

Answer to Petition for Review

S192285 Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

6^th Appellate District

Marina Coast Water District v. Superior Court (Ag Land Trust)

Case Number H036084

Disposition:  Petition summarily denied by order, 6 April 2011

h036084 Amicus Curiae Cpuc

Amicus Curiae Brief California Public Utilities Commission

h036084 Amicus Curiae Cities

Amicus Curiae Brief Cities of Monterey, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Seaside, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Del Rey Oaks

h036084 Amicus Curiae Mcwra

Amicus Curiae Brief Monterey County Water Resource Agency

UNRESOLVED DESALINATION ISSUES: California-American Water Company Regional Desalination Project & Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

ABSTRACT: Unresolved desalination issues, particularly,
1. Groundwater rights to the pumping of feedwater for the desalination plant. Exportation of water from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin in violation of the state law (the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act, which is part of the state water code) prohibiting such exportation; and
2. Litigation challenging the Regional Desalination Project raising issues of CEQA violations, illegal and harmful appropriation of groundwater and violation of the prohibition on groundwater export from the Salinas Valley Basin. (Ag Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District and Ag Land Trust v. Monterey County Water Resources Agency)
require resolution prior to proceeding with California American Water Company’s Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, including approval of test slant wells, et cetera.
NOTE: Ag Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District and Does 1-100, Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M105019 (First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief)

Motion Hearing: 12/14/2012 9:00 A.M. Courtroom 15
EXCERPTS SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED DESALINATION ISSUES are presented and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act document is embedded.

EXCERPTS SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED DESALINATION ISSUES

Failure to adequately address groundwater rights for coastal wells to pump feedwater for the desalination plant.

Exportation of groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB) in violation of state law (the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act, which is part of the state water code) that prohibits such export.

Unanalyzed and unmitigated significant impacts of the proposed coastal wells on North County water supplies.

Uncertainty regarding the availability of desalinated water to meet regulatory requirements because of the need to retain freshwater extracted from the SVGB within the Salinas Valley.

Litigation challenging the Regional Desalination Project raising issues of CEQA violations, illegal and harmful appropriation of groundwater and violation of the prohibition on groundwater export from the Salinas Valley Basin. (Ag Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District (set for trial on September 29, 2011) and Ag Land Trust v. Monterey County Water Resources Agency)

Source: SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 6A - REGIONAL DESALINATION PROJECT, California Coastal Commission, July 21, 2011, Beverly Bean President, League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula

Ag Land Trust has repeatedly pointed out that the Regional Project did not have groundwater rights and would harm the groundwater supply in the overdrafted Salinas Basin. (See Exhibits A and B to this letter.) Despite Ag Land Trust's protests, the Public Utilities Commission, Marina Coast Water District, and Monterey County Water Resources Agency approved the Regional Project that has vertical wells on and around Ag Land Trust property. (See Exhibit C.) The EIR ignored the fact that Ag Land Trust has a well on its property, and that Ag Land Trust's groundwater rights and supply would be harmed by the Regional Project's pumping of groundwater as source water for the desalination plant.

The Coastal Commission should not be misled by the claims made by Downey Brand to RMC, starting with the claim that the project's source water "will" be 85% seawater and 15% groundwater. (Downey Brand letter, p. 1.) In fact, the EIR's Appendix Q predicted percentages of up to 40% groundwater in the source water throughout the 56-year modeled simulation period, which is two and two-thirds times greater than Downey Brand admits.

The Regional Project is proposed as a "solution" to the many years of illegal taking by Cal Am of water from the Carmel River. It makes no sense to exchange that illegal taking for even greater illegal taking of groundwater from the overdrafted Salinas Valley. 

The Coastal Commission does not have the authority to grant groundwater rights or to grant approval of any permit or project that relies on or causes the illegal taking of groundwater that belongs solely to the overlying landowners of the Salinas Valley. We urge the Commission to consult with its own water rights counsel, and to avoid the wrongful acts that project proponents are soliciting from the Commission.

Source: LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP, July 26, 2011, Subject: Regional Desalination Project Water Rights Issues; Rebuttal to Downey Brand letter of May 20, 2011 to RMC

Litigation challenging the Regional Desalination project regarding violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, groundwater rights to the pumping of feedwater for the desalination plant, and violation of the prohibition on groundwater export from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. 

Source: LandWatch

The application should be continued until (1) the PUC, Monterey County and Marina Coast Water District have approved the slant well, (2) the applicants provide proof of groundwater rights, and (3) Commission staff has provided a comprehensive analysis of the desalination project application.

6. “Slant wells are relatively new technology with few known successful uses for desalination feed water.” (FEIR, p. 7-28.)  Slant wells would not meet the objectives of the Regional Project. (FEIR, p. 7-29.)

• No operating desalination plant uses slant wells.  (FEIR, p. 3-27)

No Water Rights to Pump Groundwater, Harm to Existing Groundwater Rights, Possible Takings and Due Process Violations

The Groundwater Pumping Would Violate North County LUP Policies

Slant Wells Result in Brine with Higher Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).

Pumping Groundwater Along the Coastline Exacerbates Seawater Intrusion

The Project Would Export Groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, Which is Prohibited by Law

California law prohibits groundwater exportation from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin due to concern about the “balance between extraction and recharge” within the basin.  (Water Code App., Section 52-21 [MCWRA Act].)  The environmental documents relied upon by the applicants do not dispute that the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin is in overdraft and has been increasingly in overdraft for six decades. As shown by the steady inland progression of seawater intrusion.  (FEIR, p. 14.5-24.)  The Regional Project would pump groundwater directly from the overdrafted Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.

Pending Litigation over CEQA, Water Rights, and Exportation of Groundwater.

In 2010, Ag Land Trust sued the Marina Coast Water District and, in 2011, Ag Land Trust sued the Monterey County Water Resources Agency over their respective approvals fo the Regional Project…The lawsuits allege violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, lack of water rights for the project’s groundwater pumping, and violation of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act’s prohibition on exportation of groundwater from the Salinas Valley basin.

In 2010, the superior court overruled Marina Coast’s demurrer.  The trail court’s actions was supported unanimously by the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court unanimously refused to grant Marina Coast’s petition for review. 

Source: LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP, July 29, 2011

ADDENDUM:

Agency Act

CHAPTER 52

MONTEREY COUNTY WATERRESOURCES AGENCY ACT

EXCERPTS

Sec. 8. Objects and purposes of act. The objects and purposes of this act are to provide for the control of the flood and storm waters of the Agency and the flood and storm waters of streams that have their sources outside the Agency, but which streams and flood waters flow into the Agency, and to conserve those waters for beneficial and useful purposes by spreading, storing, retaining, and causing those waters to percolate into the soil within the Agency, or to save and conserve in any manner all or any of those waters and to protect from those flood or storm waters the public highways, life, and property in the Agency, and the watercourses and watersheds of streams flowing into the Agency, and to increase, and prevent the waste or diminution of the water supply in the Agency, including the control of groundwater extractions as required to prevent or deter the loss of usable groundwater through intrusion of seawater and the replacement of groundwater so controlled through the development and distribution of a substitute surface supply and to prohibit groundwater exportation from the Salinas River Groundwater Basin, and to obtain, retain, and reclaim drainage, storm, flood, and other waters for beneficial use within the Agency; and to provide, in the discretion of the Agency in connection with and as an incident to any works, dam, or reservoir heretofore or hereafter constructed either within or without the Agency, for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a minimum or permanent pool and facilities for swimming, boating, fishing, and recreation in or upon waters stored in any stream, reservoir, or minimum or permanent pool, and for the acquisition in any manner provided in this act and for the use by the Agency, in addition or adjacent to lands that may be used or acquired for flood control or water conservation purposes or that may be acquired for the maintenance or protection of any such works, dam, or reservoir or watersheds adjacent thereto, of lands deemed by the Supervisors of the Agency to be necessary or convenient for the installation, construction, use, and maintenance of recreational areas or facilities, including picnic grounds, playgrounds, campgrounds, home sites, boats and fishing, bathing, or other facilities for use by the public, subject to such rules and regulations and reasonable charges as may be prescribed by the Board of Supervisors of the Agency. However, no property situated in another county, shall be condemned by the Agency for recreational areas or facilities unless the Board of Supervisors of the County in which the property is situated agrees to the condemnation thereof.

 Sec. 21. Legislative findings; Salinas River groundwater basin extraction and recharge. The Legislature finds and determines that the Agency is developing a project which will establish a substantial balance between extraction and recharge within the Salinas River Groundwater Basin. For the purpose of preserving that balance, no groundwater from that basin may be exported for any use outside the basin, except that use of water from the basin on any part of Fort Ord shall not be deemed such an export. If any export of water from the basin is attempted, the Agency may obtain from the superior court, and the court shall grant, injunctive relief prohibiting

REFERENCES:

WATER NEWS
WATERPLUS
Ron Weitzman, President, WaterPlus, November 2012

California American Water Company, Coastal Water Project, Final Environmental Impact Report, 2009.

 For background purposes, links to the CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY COASTAL WATER PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report, Volumes 1-5, October 30, 2009, are embedded.  Volume 1, Volume 2 and Volume 3 consist of the revised EIR, including the full text of the Draft EIR as modified in response to comments received.  Volume 4 and Volume 5 consist of the response to comments document.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION: Application of Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Marina Coast Water District and California-American Water Co. to construct and develop test slant well to determine its suitability for use as a desalination facility source water well, at Marina Coast Water District offices at 11 Reservation Road, in Marina, Monterey County, August 2011

ABSTRACT: For background purposes, the California Coastal Commission Addendum to Staff Report E-11-019 – Test Slant Well adjacent to Monterey Bay shoreline in City of Marina (Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Marina Coast Water District, and California-American Water Company), including COMBINED STAFF REPORT, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION, August 11, 2011, and CORRESPONDENCE & EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS RE: SUBJECT: August 12, 2011 – AGENDA ITEM 6 – REGIONAL DESALINATION PROJECT documents are embedded.

 APPLICATION FILE NO.: E-11-019 (changed from previous File No. 3-11-036)

APPLICANTS: Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Marina Coast Water District, and California-American Water Company

PROJECT LOCATION: Adjacent to the Monterey Bay shoreline at the Marina Coast Water District offices, 11 Reservation Road, City of Marina.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A test slant well and associated monitoring wells to determine the feasibility of the project site as a potential long-term water source for the Monterey Regional Desalination Project.

CCC F6a-8-2011 -

Addendum to Staff Report E-11-019 – Test Slant Well adjacent to Monterey Bay shoreline in City of Marina (Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Marina Coast Water District, and California-American Water Company), including COMBINED STAFF REPORT, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION, August 11, 2011

CCC Correspondence F6a-8-2011-a1 -  

CORRESPONDENCE & EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS RE: SUBJECT: August 12, 2011 – AGENDA ITEM 6 – REGIONAL DESALINATION PROJECT

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 

AUGUST 2011 AGENDA

WATSONVILLE CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
275 MAIN STREET 
WATSONVILLE, CA 95076
(831) 588-4112

FRIDAY, AUGUST 12, 2011

1. CALL TO ORDER.

2. ROLL CALL.

3. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. Public comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda, if time permits and/or at the end of the day’s agenda.

ENERGY, OCEAN RESOURCES AND FEDERAL CONSISTENCY

6. COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS. See AGENDA CATEGORIES. Attention: Items appearing in this section of the agenda may be moved to the Consent Calendar for this area by the Executive Director when, prior to taking up the Consent Calendar, staff and the applicant are in agreement on the staff recommendation. If an item is moved to the Consent Calendar it will be processed in the same manner as other Consent Calendar items (See AGENDA CATEGORIES) except that if that item is subsequently removed from the Consent Calendar by a vote of three or more commissioners, the item will be acted upon at the meeting in the order in which it originally appears on this Meeting Notice and in the manner Coastal Permit Applications are processed. The purpose of this procedural change is to expedite the Commission's coastal development permit process.

[An addendum has been appended to and correspondence received linked from the staff report for item 6a below on August 10; additional correspondence has been added on August 12.]

a. Application No. E-11-019 (Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Marina Coast Water District, California-American Water Company, Monterey Co.) Application of Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Marina Coast Water District and California-American Water Co. to construct and develop test slant well to determine its suitability for use as a desalination facility source water well, at Marina Coast Water District offices at 11 Reservation Road, in Marina, Monterey County. (TL-SF) [TO CONTINUE]

DRAFT MINUTES of MEETING of AUGUST 10-12, 2011

 FRIDAY, AUGUST 12, 2011 pages 11 to 12

1.  CALL TO ORDER. The meeting of the California Coastal Commission was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Chair Shallenberger.

2.  ROLL CALL.  Chair Shallenberger, Vice Chair Stone, Blank, Bochco, Brennan, Kinsey, McClure, Zimmer. Non-voting: Norvell.  Sanchez arrived at 9:05 a.m.  Absent: Bloom, Burke, Mitchell.

ENERGY, OCEAN RESOURCES and FEDERAL CONSISTENCY 

6.  COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS.  

a.  Application No. E-11-019 (Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Marina Coast Water District, California-American Water Company, Monterey Co.) Staff recommended approval with conditions.

Motion & vote:  Blank moved to continue and recommended a yes vote,  seconded by Sanchez.  Chair Shallenberger ruled that the vote was unanimous in  favor of the motion.  Continued.

‘MINUTES’ for Five Noteworthy 6 November 2012 City Council Agenda Items

“MINUTES” 

CITY COUNCIL MEETING 

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 

Tuesday, November 6, 2012 

City Hall 

East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues 

Archived Video Streaming

II. Roll Call 

PRESENT: Council Members Beach, Hillyard, Talmage, Theis and Mayor Burnett
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT (partial list): Jason Stilwell, City Administrator
Molly Laughlin, Deputy 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 – Government Code Section 54956.8, Real Property negotiations  between City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Christine Sandin regarding the Sunset  Cultural Center.

2. Property Negotiations – Government Code Section 54956.8, Real Property negotiations  between City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Peterson Conway, Jr. regarding Flanders Mansion (APN 010-061-005).

City Attorney Don Freeman announced that there were no announcements from Closed Session.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

3. Special Council Meeting-Pension Obligation Bonds: November 15.

City Administrator Jason Stilwell announced that there is a Special Meeting of the City Council on November 15 at 4:30 P.M.  Pension Obligation Bonds is one of the City Council’s key projects to reduce financing costs from the Side Fund debt.  The City has obtained a valuation judgment from the Superior Court, conducted and S&P rating call and anticipates bonds to close on issuance in mid-December 2012. 

4. Receive City financial reports for FY 2012-13 First Quarter.

City Administrator Jason Stilwell announced a reformatted quarterly report covering four reporting areas, namely status of key projects, financial summary, department summary and update on capital projects.  Status of Key Project: “significant progress” on 9 of 10 projects; the 10^th project is the Forest Theater Project.  The City is actively pursuing grants for planning aspects and anticipates an upcoming Public Workshop on the Forest Theatre Renovation Project.  Financial Summary:  Overall, the City expects revenues and expenditures to meet budget targets.  Last fiscal year a $344,000 positive operating variance and $1.6 million from reserves; expects $600,000 – $700,000 from reserves this year.  Department Summary: Performance measures and actual performance. The City Administrator’s office held its first quarterly marketing and economic development coordination meeting with the City’s strategic partners with the overall goal of increasing overnight stays.  Community Planning & Building Department:  slight uptick in permits and construction work.  Public Services: progress on street paving project and bridge replacement project in upper Mission Trail Nature Preserve.  Public Safety: Chief Calhoun appointed as Public Safety Director and excellent service levels and response times.  Library: soliciting surveys in preparation of its strategic work plan update and Local History Department now open with hiring of a new librarian.  Capital Projects: of 11 projects, one complete for audio and video interface for the Police Department and all other projects ongoing. 

5. Receive status update on grant-funded projects and pending applications.

City Administrator Jason Stilwell announced there are five grant funded projects currently in progress, including $2.5 million grant for stormwater infrastructure improvements; three recently completed projects, including energy efficient retrofits of City facilities, including Del Mar improvements and Devendorf-Galante historical papers; and four grant applications pending including stormwater runoff mandates, Forest Theatre project planning and alerting system for Fire Station.

6. Outline, schedule and process for adopting City goals for FY 2013/2014.

City Administrator Jason Stilwell announced discussion of key projects and goals at December City Council meeting 2012 and anticipated approval in January 2013. 

Council Member Talmage emphasized that of the annual operating budget of about $14 million, $4 million represents grants for “quality of lifestyle.”

  

VII. Consent Calendar

F. Receive Council agenda forecast.

G. Consideration of a Resolution approving a Conflict of Interest waiver for the City Attorney regarding providing legal services for the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA).

Council Member HILLYARD moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A-G , seconded by Council Member THEIS and passed by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BEACH, TALMAGE, THEIS, HILLYARD & BURNETT

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

VIII. Orders of Council

Discussion of water supply projects and provide direction, as needed.

Mayor Burnett presented the update as the City’s representative on the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) Board.  The MPRWA received a consultant’s report on the three desal projects, including Cal-Am, DeepWater and People’s Choice, with the goal of determining which of the three projects will best serve the community.  Issues include cost per acre foot, “somewhat better” for the DeepWater and People’s Choice, but Cal-Am project expected to be online sooner.  Technical Advisory Committee and MPRWA meetings expected the week of November 11.  Another issue is scoping for the EIR, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the lead agency for environmental review and MPRWA advice is that all three projects should be considered at the project level.  Additionally, there is a scheduled CPUC Costing Workshop in mid-December and also surcharge discussion.  And the broad issue is the PUC will be making a decision by late 2013 to issue a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience for desal project go-ahead; cease and desist order deadline is December 31, 2016. 

Mayor Burnett opened the meeting to public comment.

Monte Miller asked about the legal question about the Water JPA. 

Mayor Burnett closed the meeting to public comment.

Mayor Burnett announced an “incompatibility of office” issue and therefore the County has asked for an opinion from the Attorney General.  Ergo, there is presently no County representation on Board until AG opinion issued, if issued in County’s favor.  

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY COMPLIANCE FILING ON THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT FINANCIAL MODEL

ABSTRACT: Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY COMPLIANCE FILING ON THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT FINANCIAL MODEL document, is embedded.

California-American Water Company Compliance Filing Financial Model 11-16-12

Filing Date November 16, 2012
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY COMPLIANCE FILING ON THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT FINANCIAL MODEL

THE ‘CANADIAN CAPER:’ THE REAL ‘ARGO’

UPDATE: Contradicting former Carmel Mayor Sue McCloud’s exfiltration post-escape account, Mark J. Lijek, former Foreign Service Officer and one of the “Canadian Caper six,” gives his insider’s account in his 2012 book entitled “The Houseguests: A Memoir of Canadian Courage and CIA Sorcery,” pages 205-220 (paperback edition).
To expand on the 2 November 2012 article in The Carmel Pine Cone entitled “McCloud's role in 'Argo' revealed,” a comprehensive account of the CIA’s role in the “Canadian Caper” is embedded by former CIA agenda and “exfiltration” specialist Antonio J. Mendez in “A Classic Case of Deception CIA Goes Hollywood.”

A Classic Case of Deception

A Classic Case of Deception

CIA Goes Hollywood

Antonio J. Mendez

BACKGROUND: The “Canadian Caper” refers to the rescue effort, that is, the escape of Robert Anders (Consular Officer), Mark J. Lijek (Consular Officer), Cora A. Lijek (Consular Assistant), Henry L. Schatz (Agriculture Attaché), Joseph D. Stafford (Consular Officer) and Kathleen F. Stafford (Consular Assistant) from Tehran, Iran on January 28, 1980, by the Canadian Government and the Central Intelligence Agency.  

TIMELINE:
November 4, 1979: U.S. Embassy Tehran taken. Six Americans escape.

November 10, 1979: Canadians provide refuge for six “houseguests.”

Hostage negotiations stall. CIA plans extraction. Canada provides passports.

January 28, 1980: Argo implemented. The six escape. CIA role remains secret.

September, 1997: CIA declassifies Argo.

VIDEOS:

Canadian Caper: 6 Americans escape from Iran with the help from the CIA and the Canadian (1981)

Note:  This documentary, called "Escape from Iran: The Inside Story," was filmed by Les Harris before anyone knew about the CIA's involvement in the escape plan.  When the escapees are interviewed, they do not reveal the actual back story involving the film-production company.  

Fareed Zakaria GPS The real “Argo”

Lord of Light

Errol Morris Series First Person

Fmr. Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor -- "Our Man in Tehran" INTV

ENDNOTES: 

1.  The “Canadian Caper” six departed Tehran, Iran and arrived in Zurich, Switzerland on January 28, 1980. Sheldon Krys, then executive director of the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, met them at the other side of Swiss immigration and customs. The six were taken to the residence of the US ambassador in Berne, Switzerland. Two days later, on January 30, 1980, they arrived in the United States at Dover Air Force Base, Dover, Delaware.

2. Due to the publication of a news article involving the “Canadian Caper” six and the Canadian Government by Jean Pelletier, the Washington correspondent of Montreal’s La Presse, on January 29, 1980, the six Americans returned home to the United States on January 30, 1980.

3.  “Iranian authorities had adopted a two-sheet embarkation/disembarkation form. This form was printed on carbonless paper and filled out by the traveler upon entry. The authorities retained a white sheet, and the traveler retained a yellow copy to present at the exit control point when departing. The clerk was supposed to match the two forms to verify that the traveler left before his visa expired.” Fortunately, according to the account by Antonio Mendez, “The Iranian official at the checkpoint could not have cared less. He stamped each of us out and collected the yellow forms.”

4.  Upon review of the passports, Canada’s Farsi-speaking Political Officer Roger Lucy noticed that American officials had marked the Canadian passports with the wrong Solar Hijri Calendar date thereby indicating the six Americans departing Iran prior to the six Americans arriving in Iran; Canadian officials corrected this error.  Otherwise, Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor said, “that would have been game over.”

REFERENCES: 

“AGRO” HOW HOLLYWOOK DOES HISTORY, Mark Lijek, Foreign Service Journal - October, 2012

I Was Rescued From Iran It wasn’t like the movie.

By Mark Lijek Posted Thursday, Oct. 18, 2012 

The Houseguests: A Memoir of Canadian Courage and CIA Sorcery [Kindle Edition] Mark Lijek (Author) (September 2012)

“AGRO,” Carole D. Bos, J.D., October 2012

Ken Taylor and the Canadian Caper, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Modified October 2012

'Argo': Former ambassador Ken Taylor sets the recordstraight, Sunday October 07, 2012

Argo: How the CIA and Hollywood Pulled Off the Most Audacious Rescue in History [Kindle Edition] Antonio Mendez (Author), Matt Baglio (Author) (September, 2012)

Our Man in Tehran: The Truth Behind the Secret Mission to Save Six Americans during the Iran Hostage Crisis and the Ambassador Who Worked with the CIA to Bring Them Home Robert Wright (Author) (January 2011)

The Canadian caper / Jean Pelletier & Claude Adams (1981)

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) AGENDA & MINUTES November 19, 2012

RELATED NEWS ARTICLES:
Report compares peninsula’s proposed desal projects
By Jon Chown   /   November 21, 2012  /  Monterey Bay News & Views
EXCERPT HIGHLIGHTS:
In two recent meetings — the first on Nov. 13, a meeting of the MPRWA’s Technical Advisory Committee, and the second on Nov. 14, a board meeting of the MPRWA — parties from DeepWater Desal and the People’s Project voiced their concern that the report failed to properly assess the cost of Cal Am’s project, which faces legal and environmental hurdles the other projects don’t, and the timeline for when it would be completed.

Water authority committee mum on Cal Am project fee 
The group will offer overview and pros and cons of additional charge

JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 11/19/2012

EXCERPT HIGHLIGHTS:

A regional water authority committee hashed out a proposed recommendation on a common cost model for California American Water's latest water supply project on Monday.
The suggested recommendation on the cost model will include details ranging from including Cal Am-only facilities and test wells to considering a variety of approaches involving the company's proposed surcharge, said Dave Stoldt, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District general manager and chairman of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority's technical advisory committee.
The suggested recommendation is intended to offer the water authority guidance for the state Public Utilities Commission project cost workshop Dec. 11-13 in San Francisco

MPRWA TAC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 11-19-12

AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC), MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
November 19, 2012

   Tac Mprwa Minutes 11-19-12 by   SebViz2

MINUTES, REGULAR MEETING

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC), MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

November 19, 2012

One Noteworthy 15 November 2012 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item

ABSTRACT: One Noteworthy 15 November 2012 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item, namely of a Resolution authorizing the sale of Pension Obligation Bonds to refinance outstanding side fund obligations of the City to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, approving the final form of related financing documents and approving official actions, is presented. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution authorizing the sale of Pension Obligation Bonds to refinance outstanding side fund obligations of the City to the California Public Employees' Retirement System, approving the final form of related financing documents and approving official actions. The packet, consisting of the Agenda item Summary and Attachments, including Resolution authorizing the sale of pension obligation bonds to refinance outstanding side fund obligations, approving the final form of documents, and approving official action; Preliminary official statement; Indenture of trust; and Bond purchase agreement, is embedded.
Note: Closed Session immediately following the Special Meeting
1. Property Negotiations –Government Code Section 54956.8, Real Property negotiations between City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Christine Sandin regarding the Sunset Cultural Center.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET

Special Meeting

Thursday, November 15, 2012

4:30 p.m., Open Session

City Hall

East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

Archived Video Streaming

II. Roll Call 

V. Orders of Council

A. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the sale of Pension Obligation Bonds to refinance outstanding side fund obligations of the City to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, approving the final form of related financing documents and approving official actions.

City Council Special Meeting Packet 11-15-12 OCR Document

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING PACKET
Thursday, November 15, 2012

One Noteworthy 15 November 2012 Planning Commission Agenda Item

ABSTRACT: One Noteworthy 15 November 2012 Planning Commission Agenda Item, namely Consideration of Design Review and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a public restroom located in the Park (P-2), Archaeological Significance Overlay (AS) and Beach and Riparian Overlay (BR) districts, is presented. The Staff Report’s RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Design Review and Coastal Development Permit applications with the attached findings and conditions.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. The project plans submitted for building permit review shall comply with the City's Green Building Ordinance (CMC Section 15.54) and obtain a minimum of 17 points based on the Residential Green Building Checklist.
2. A geology report in accordance with CMC Section 17.20.170.C shall be prepared prior to building permit approval.
3. A storm water drainage plan shall be prepared prior to building permit approval. The drainage and erosion plan shall include applicable Best Management Practices and retain all drainage on site through the use of semi-permeable paving materials, French drains, seepage pits, etc. Excess drainage that cannot be maintained on site, may be directed into the City's storm drain system after passing through a silt trap to reduce sediment from entering the storm drain. Drainage shall not be directed onto Carmel Beach.
The AGENDA and Staff Report document is embedded.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 

PLANNING COMMISSION 

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 

Special Meeting 

Thursday, November 15, 2012 

Tour – 1:00 p.m. 

Meeting – 1:30 p.m. 

City Hall 

East side of Monte Verde Street 

Between Ocean & Seventh Avenues

Archived Video Streaming

 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 

Commissioners: Steve Dallas
Don Goodhue
Keith Paterson
Michael LePage, Vice-chair
Janet Reimers, Chair

VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS 

1. MP 12-1
City of Carmel
SW Scenic & Santa Lucia

Consideration of Design Review and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a public restroom located in the Park (P-2), Archaeological Significance Overlay (AS) and Beach and Riparian Overlay (BR) Districts.

Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda and Staff Report 11-15-12

Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda and Staff Report 11-15-12

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES November 14, 2012

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Report compares peninsula’s proposed desal projects
By Jon Chown / November 21, 2012 / Monterey Bay News & Views
EXCERPT HIGHLIGHTS:
In two recent meetings — the first on Nov. 13, a meeting of the MPRWA’s Technical Advisory Committee, and the second on Nov. 14, a board meeting of the MPRWA — parties from DeepWater Desal and the People’s Project voiced their concern that the report failed to properly assess the cost of Cal Am’s project, which faces legal and environmental hurdles the other projects don’t, and the timeline for when it would be completed.

Mprwa Special Meeting Agenda Packet 11-14-12

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA PACKET
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
November 14, 2012

Mprwa Draft Minutes Special Meeting 11-14-12

DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) 

November 14, 2012

DESALINATION INFORMATION: ‘Seawater Desalination Costs,’ ‘An Investigation of the Marginal Cost of Seawater Desalination in California,’ ‘Desalination: A National Perspective,’ Desalination Myths and Misconceptions & Desalination for a Better World

ABSTRACT: Desalination papers, including “Seawater Desalination Costs White Paper,” September 2011; Revised January 2012, WATERREUSE ASSOCIATION (link), “An Investigation of the Marginal Cost of Seawater Desalination in California” by James Fryer, Environmental Scientist, March 18, 2010 (embedded) and "Desalination: A National Perspective" (embedded), are presented. “An Investigation of the Marginal Cost of Seawater Desalination in California” Executive Summary states: Seawater desalination for $800 to $1,000 per acre-foot? Some advocates of seawater desalination suggest marginal costs of $800 to $1,000 per acre-foot are now possible in California. However, despite a thorough investigation, this study found no evidence of seawater desalination facilities in North America producing water in that cost range. This study also found no credible evidence that new seawater desalination projects in California, given local conditions, could produce water in that cost range.  Given the best presently available technology, this investigation found realistic estimates of the marginal costs for seawater desalination in California will range from a minimum of about $2,000 to $3,000 or more per acre-foot of water produced.  International Desalination Association videos "Desalination Myths and Misconceptions" and  "Desalination for a Better World" are embedded.

Seawater Desalination Costs White Paper
September 2011; Revised January 2012
WATERREUSE ASSOCIATION

Cost of Seawater Desalination 2010

An Investigation of the Marginal Cost of Seawater Desalination in California 
by James Fryer, Environmental Scientist
March 18, 2010

Responsible vs. Irresponsible Desalination Chart

NRC Desalination Report

Desalination: A National Perspective 
Committee on Advancing Desalination Technology, National Research Council

Desalination Myths and Misconceptions

 International Desalination Association - Desalination for a Better World