Saturday, May 31, 2014

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration For the California American Water Slant Test Well Project & Appendices A-E (May 2014)

ABSTRACT: The “Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration For the California American Water Slant Test Well Project” and Appendices A-E, May 2014, prepared for the City of Marina and prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants documents are embedded. “The City of Marina oversaw preparation of an Initial Study (IS) for the project in October 2013 (SWCA 2013). The IS indicated that the proposed project had the potential to result in significant adverse effects on the environment, but that any such effects could be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level through project design modifications and development and implementation of feasible mitigation. Pursuant to the terms of a 1986 Settlement Agreement between the City of Marina and the Sierra Club, the IS was provided to the Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club for their review and recommendation as to the appropriate environmental document required for environmental compliance under CEQA. On November 1, 2014, the California Environmental Law Project (attorney for the Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club) responded by stating, “…the Sierra Club has no objection to the City preparing a mitigated negative declaration in connection with California American Water’s application for a test well in connection with its proposed desal[ination] facility.”
“Based on the analysis provided in the IS, the findings of additional environmental analysis conducted and technical studies prepared in response to early agency consultation, and concurrence from the Sierra Club per the requirements of the 1986 Settlement Agreement, the City of Marina has prepared a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Cal Am Slant Test Well Project for public circulation and review. The Draft IS/MND will be circulated for public review during a 30-day public comment period pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105. Prior to approving a proposed project, the City must consider the draft environmental documentation, together with any public comments received during the public review period.”
Moreover, according to reporting in The Monterey County Herald, “The study assessed the potential impact of a test slant well and four monitoring wells on the Cemex site in north Marina where desal plant source water would be pumped from beneath the ocean floor. The test wells are designed to operate for up to two years and gather technical data on the potential hydrogeologic and water quality effects of the proposed pumping for the desal plant. The data would not, however, be included in the project's environmental impact report, which is due to be released early next year.” Additionally, “The city's planning commission is scheduled to consider the permit application on July 10, and an expected state Coastal Commission review could occur by October, theoretically allowing the test wells to be drilled the following month."  Importantly, “The test wells are separate from a series of bore holes used to collect information for a hydrogeological working group, whose findings will be used to determine the suitability of the proposed Cemex desal plant source water intake site.”
RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Monterey desal: Environmental study released on proposed slant wells
By Jim Johnson, The Monterey County Herald, 05/31/2014

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration For the California American Water Slant Test Well Project
May 2014
Prepared For: City of Marina
Prepared By: SWCA Environmental Consultants
APPENDICES A-E
APPENDIX A: SIERRA CLUB RESPONSE LETTER
APPENDIX B: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BACKGROUND INFORMATION
APPENDIX C: CULTURAL RESOURCES BACKGROUND INFORMATION
APPENDIX D: GEOLOGY AND SOILS BACKGROUND INFORMATION
APPENDIX E: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY BACKGROUND INFORMATION

NOTE: The review period for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration begins May 19, 2014 through June 17, 2014.

Friday, May 30, 2014

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Nine Noteworthy 3 June 2014 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT:  Nine Noteworthy 3 June 2014 City Council Agenda Items, namely Announcements from Closed Session, Announcements from City Administrator, Summary of Workshop, Receive Monthly Reports, Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City Administrator to Adopt an Amendment to an Existing Contract with the City of Monterey for Continued Contract Building Safety Services, Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City Administrator to Enter into an Agreement with Harris and Associates for Construction Management Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $70,000, Consideration of a request from the Forest Theater Guild to use the Vista Lobos Parking Lot for the 2014 Films in the Forest Series and approve a reduction in fees for three parking spaces on Torres Street to provide disabled parking and unloading, Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City Administrator to Execute a Franchise Agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Green Waste Recovery for Solid Waste, Recycling and Organics Collection Services for the term of July 1, 2015- June 30, 2030 and Receive Report and Provide Direction on Fire True-Up Analysis, are presented. Supporting materials, including Council Reports, are embedded.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Regular Meeting
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
4:30 p.m., Open Session

City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues


II. Roll Call

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

A. Announcements from Closed Session.
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-LABOR NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to 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 terms and conditions of employment for all represented and unrepresented employees.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.
• Summary of Monday's City Council Workshop on key initiatives.
• Forest Theater status.
• Flanders update.
• Forecast Agenda.
Agenda Forecast 06-03-14.pdf

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.

a. Summary of Workshop
Receive and file summary of Forest Theatre workshop 06-03-14.pdf

e. Receive Monthly Reports.
Receive Monthly Reports 06-03-14.pdf

g. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City Administrator to Adopt an Amendment to an Existing Contract with the City of Monterey for Continued Contract Building Safety Services.
City of Monterey for Continued Contract Building Safety Services 06-03-14.pdf

j. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City Administrator to Enter into an Agreement with Harris and Associates for Construction Management Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $70,000.
Agreement with Harris and Associates for Construction Management Services 06-03-14.pdf

l. Consideration of a request from the Forest Theater Guild to use the Vista Lobos Parking Lot for the 2014 Films in the Forest Series and approve a reduction in fees for three parking spaces on Torres Street to provide disabled parking and unloading.
2014 Films in the Forest Series 06-03-14.pdf

VIII. Orders of Council

A. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the City Administrator to Execute a Franchise Agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Green Waste Recovery for Solid Waste, Recycling and Organics Collection Services for the term of July 1, 2015- June 30, 2030.
Execute Franchise Agreement Between the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea and Green Waste Recovery 06-03-14

C. Receive Report and Provide Direction on Fire True-Up Analysis.

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL: Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop, June 2, 2014

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL

Tour, Closed Session and
Public Workshop

Monday, June 2, 2014, 2014-4:00 p.m.,
with workshop to follow at 5:30 p.m.

Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between
Ocean and Seventh Avenues

ABSTRACT: On Monday, June 2, 2014, the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council is scheduled to conduct a Tour and Closed Session beginning at 4:00 P.M. and a Public Workshop at 5:30 P.M. Subject: Update on Key Initiatives. The Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop Agenda document is embedded.
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop
Monday, June 2, 2014

MINUTES, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING, May 6, 2014

MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
May 6, 2014

MINUTES, SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, May 6, 2014

MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
May 6, 2014

Sunday, May 25, 2014

In Evaluating Representative Sam Farr’s ‘No On Measure O’ Endorsement, Some Facts to Take Into Consideration

·         Carmel Mayor Jason Burnett established the precedent of interjecting Representative Sam Farr into Carmel-by-the-Sea politics in 2010 when U. S. Representative Sam Farr, a Democrat, endorsed city council challenger Jason Burnett for city council; Farr’s endorsement “arose from a longtime friendship,” according to Burnett. Previously, Carmel city council elections had been “nonpartisan” and apolitical.
Source: Contributions, endorsements alter city politics, By MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, February 19, 2010

·         Mayor Jason Burnett wrote a letter to Vinz Koller, Chair, Monterey County Democratic Central Committee urging the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee to support “No on O.” The Monterey County Democratic Central Committee subsequently adopted a “NEUTRAL” stance.
MONTEREY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY
JUNE 2014 OFFICIAL VOTER GUIDE

·         Top 20 Contributors, 2013-2014
Representative Sam Farr
17 Burnett Ecoenergy $2,600 (Burnett Ecoenergy now Clean Fund LLC)
Source: Center for Responsive Politics

·        American Water Works
American Water (NYSE: AWK) is a public utility company operating in the United States and Canada. It was founded in 1886 as the American Water Works & Guarantee Company. In 1947 it was reorganized as American Water Works Company, Inc. The company was a subsidiary of the German-based RWE Group from 2001 to 2008, but the company was divested on April 23, 2008 in an IPO on the NYSE.

Campaign Finance $594,427 Given
Sam Farr (D-CA) $1,500

Sam Farr (D-CA) $4,000

·      " In Felton, south of San Francisco, RWE became embroiled in a battle with a group called FLOW, or Friends of Locally Owned Water. American Water secured ownership of Felton's water system in January 2002 when it bought the water holdings of a Connecticut company that had long controlled the asset. Eight months later, American Water, in the process of being acquired by RWE, asked the California Public Utilities Commission for approval to raise rates in Felton by 74% over three years. It noted that rates hadn't been raised since 1998 and cited the cost of infrastructure repairs."

"Seeing its operations under attack, RWE became embroiled in Santa Cruz County politics. Mark Stone, a county supervisor, says officials from American Water's local subsidiary told him they would torpedo his election bid in 2004 if he supported a public takeover. A spokesman for the local unit says no threat was issued but acknowledges the company sent mailings to people urging them to avoid candidates who would raise taxes to fund a takeover by the government."
Source: Dry Hole
Under Fire, Germany's RWE Plans to Exit U.S. Market; Global Ambitions Thwarted
By Mike Esterl 
Updated June 26, 2006

·    California State Senator “Bill Monning, who helped author public financing legislation to lower the cost of Cal Am’s proposed desal plant by as much as $90 million, will not be taking a stance on Measure O,” according to spokesman Bruce Van Allen. 
He feels it’s up to the local voters to decide on Measure O,” Van Allen said.
Source: Farr says ‘No on O’ By KELLY NIX, The Carmel Pine Cone, May 23, 2014

·    Representative Sam Farr, who “seldom weighs in on local water issues,” according to reporting in The Carmel Pine Cone, did not take a position on Measure W in 2005. 
Source: Farr says ‘No on O’ By KELLY NIX, The Carmel Pine Cone, May 23, 2014

“In July 2005, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) board approved a ballot question – Measure W – for the November ballot. Measure W asked voters to approve a feasibility study for a public takeover of California American Water’s system. Coming on the heels of hostile takeovers of smaller California American Water systems in Montara and Felton, the threat to this 40,000-connection system was serious indeed.
Source: bna communications
  
Accordingly, with regard to Representative Sam Farr’s “No on Measure O” endorsement in The Monterey County Herald (05/20/2014), because there is the appearance that Farr’s endorsement was influenced by his “longtime friendship” with Carmel Mayor Jason Burnett, reasonable people can conclude that Farr’s endorsement was not primarily the result of an objective examination and analysis of the merits of Measure O.

ADDENDUM:
Ron Cohen: Measure O will end the Cal Am-ity once and for all
Ron Cohen Guest commentary, 05/24/2014

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 SETTLING PARTIES’ JOINT COMMENTS ON RULING REQUESTING COMMENTS ON SURCHARGE OPTIONS AND PROPOSALS

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, 019 SETTLING PARTIES’ JOINT COMMENTS ON RULING REQUESTING COMMENTS ON SURCHARGE OPTIONS AND PROPOSALS document is embedded. CONCLUSION The Joint Commenting Parties do not support the surcharge proposals created by DWA. Those proposals do not protect ratepayers if this project fail to move forward, would fund a project that the Commission has not yet approved and that lacks a CPCN, (in violation of D.06-12-040), do not limit the funds that can be added to Surcharge 1, and upset the balance of the parties’ interests and the public’s interest. The proposals also appear to reflect an erroneous understanding of the Settlement Agreement’s capital structure. Accordingly, the Joint Commenting Parties respectfully request rejection of the surcharge proposals and reconsideration of their Joint Motion on Surcharges, which reflects the approach to surcharges that they have agreed upon that will move this project foward.
Filing Date 05-12-14
SETTLING PARTIES’ JOINT COMMENTS ON RULING REQUESTING COMMENTS ON SURCHARGE OPTIONS AND PROPOSALS

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 COMMENTS BY WATER PLUS

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, COMMENTS BY WATER PLUS document is embedded. Comments and Conclusion Water Plus supports the surcharge options and proposals made by the Division of Water and Audits.
Filing Date 5-12-14

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

COMMENTARY Mayor Jason Burnett’s Support of “NO ON O’ A Betrayal of Ordinance No. 96

Establishing Ordinance

THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is hereby determined to be primarily, a residential City wherein business and commerce have in the past, are now, and are proposed to be in the future subordinated to its residential character; and that said determination is made having in mind the history and the development of said city, its growth and the causes thereof; and also its geographical and topographical aspects, together with its near proximity to the cities of Pacific Grove and Monterey and the businesses, industries, trades,  callings and professions in existence and permissible therein.

Adopted by Ordinance No. 96 passed on this 5th day of June 1929.

In supporting “NO ON O,” Mayor Jason Burnett is betraying the letter and the spirit of Ordinance No. 96, the Establishing Ordinance of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

WaterPlus President Ron Weitzman’s insightful analysis of why mayors, including Carmel Mayor Jason Burnett, “have chosen to support their business constituents instead of their residential ones” regarding Measure O:

“Different from Cal Am's residential customers, its business customers are well organized into groups like the Monterey County Association of Realtors and the Monterey County Hospitality Association. These commercial groups have made a pact with Cal Am: They would support its water-supply project if it would persuade the Public Utilities Commission to eliminate tiered rates based on usage for commercial customers. Both sides have kept their part of the bargain. Though good for them, it is far from good for Cal Am's unorganized residential customers, who are now substantially subsidizing commercial and other customers. That is what a graph in a filing by the Office of Ratepayer Advocates of the PUC (March 28, 2014, p. 2-22, pertaining to Application 13-07-002) clearly shows. The only recourse residential customers have is to support Measure O.”

“In doing so, they would be going against the mayors they elected. That is because the mayors have chosen to support their business constituents instead of their residential ones. The mayors are rightfully concerned about the economic well-being of their cities. So, politically, we residents are on our own, not only without political power behind us, but even with it against us. All the television ads and mailers featuring the mayors and financially supported by Cal Am amply testify to that.”


Source: Residential ratepayers will bear brunt of fine if O fails
By Ron Weitzman Guest commentary, 05/17/2014

In support of Ron Weitzman’s analysis and cited by him from the OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ORA Analysis and Recommendations on OPERATING REVENUES, RATE DESIGN and SPECIAL REQUESTS: 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 24, 25 of California American Water Company Application 13-07-002, March 28, 2014, as follows:

2012 Revenue/Consumption vs. 2015 Revenue/Consumption
ORA concluded from this analysis that although Cal Am’s testimony states rates are designed so that the proportion of revenue from each class approximates the proportion of consumption in the class,121 the proportionality seems to be diverging, rather than converging, between present and proposed rate designs. In the majority of Districts, Residential customers will be contributing more revenue proportional to the quantity of water consumed.

…it is clear that a greater proportion of total revenues relative to total consumption will be collected from the residential customer class for all Districts in 2015. This also means that the Residential customers are subsidizing other water customer classes. A dramatic example of this is shown in the chart below is of the revenue versus consumption proportionality in Monterey in 2015, where clearly the Residential customers are responsible for a greater percentage of the total revenues not proportional to the amount of water they consume at 115%. This does not validate Cal Am’s testimony that rates are designed so that the proportion of revenue from each class approximates the proportion of consumption in the class.

In closing, Cal Am’s “pact” with commercial groups, the fact that residential water customers are subsidizing all other water customers and because that fact “does not validate Cal Am’s testimony that rates are designed so that the proportion of revenue from each class approximates the proportion of consumption in the class” mean that residents should recognize that the Peninsula mayors, including Carmel Mayor Jason Burnett, are not acting in the best interest of residential ratepayers. Ergo, Carmel-by-the-Sea residential ratepayers/ voters should vote Yes on Measure O.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AGENDA & MINUTES May 23, 2014

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT 
AGENDA PACKET
May 23, 2014

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE May 22, 2014


CANCELLATION NOTICE, REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
May 22, 2014

Monday, May 19, 2014

America's Best Small Towns to Visit, SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE

SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE features “America's Best Small Towns to Visit” 2012, 2013 and 2014. SMITHSONIAN “worked with the geographical information systems company Esri, which analyzed tons of data to find towns or cities of fewer than 15,000 residents where cultural opportunities abound, at least on a per capita basis” in 2014.


1. Chautauqua, NY
2. Healdsburg, CA
3. Williamsburg, VA
4. Steamboat Springs, CO
5. Woods Hole, MA
6. Marietta, OH
7. Beaufort, SC
8. Sedona, AZ
9. Nebraska City, NE
10. Lanesboro, MN
11. Spring Green, WI
12. Havre de Grace, MD
13. Columbia, PA
14. Mount Dora, FL
15. Ketchum, ID
16. Montpelier, VT
17. Harrodsburg, KY
18. Silver City, NM
19. Decorah, IA
20. The Dalles, OR

The 20 Best Small Towns to Visit in 2013, SMITHSONIAN “sought a statistical answer to this question by asking the geographic information company Esri to search its databases for small towns and cities—this time, with populations of less than 15,000—that have exceptional concentrations of museums, art galleries, orchestras, theaters, historic sites and other cultural blessings.”


1. Gettysburg, PA
2. Cleveland, MS
3. St. Augustine, FL
4. Baraboo, WI
5. Astoria, OR
6. Petoskey, MI
7. Fairfield, IA
8. Los Alamos, NM
9. Sitka, AK
10. Provincetown, MA
11. Galena, IL
12. Sausalito, CA
13. Hanover, NH
14. Oberlin, OH
15. Jackson, WY
16. Lexington, VA
17. Abilene, KS
18. Lihue, HI
19. Fredericksburg, TX
20. Glenwood Springs, CO

The 20 Best Small Towns in America of 2012, SMITHSONIAN “asked the geographic information systems company Esri to search its data bases for high concentrations of museums, historic sites, botanic gardens, resident orchestras, art galleries and other cultural assets common to big cities. But we focused on towns with populations less than 25,000, so travelers could experience what might be called enlightened good times in an unhurried, charming setting.”


1. Great Barrington, MA Big-city smart meets New England natural in an art-rich mountain setting.
2. Taos, NM Modern art, ancient history and counter culture in the luminous high desert.
3. Red Bank, NJ Willie Nelson sings and Basie swings in a riverfront town graced by Victoriana.
4. Mill Valley, CA A Bay Area enclave that put mellow on the map keeps its funky vibe.
5. Gig Harbor, WA Take numerous art galleries. Add sailboats and local wines. Stir. Enjoy.
6. Durango, CO All aboard for mountain fun, plus classical tunes and—gasp—vaudeville.
7. Butler, PA An old-time rural hub as down-to-earth as its most famous product—the Jeep
8. Marfa, TX With mock couture, edgy movies and ironic motels, it’s no cow town.
9. Naples, FL World-class music, design to die for and palm trees
10. Staunton, VA A Shenandoah mix of Confederate relics and Elizabethan theater.
11. Brattleboro, VT
12. Princeton, NJ
13. Brunswick, ME
14. Siloam Springs, AR
15. Menomonie, WI
16. Key West, FL
17. Laguna Beach, CA
18. Ashland, OR
19. Beckley City, WV
20. Oxford, MS 

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea touts “Travel+Leisure magazine recently recognized Carmel-by-the-Sea as one of the most romantic cities in the world - ahead of Florence, Italy and just behind Paris and Venice. In 2013, Conde Nast Traveler readers ranked Carmel as their 6th favorite city in the United States” on the City’s website. Alas, residents and visitors of the City would be better served by city government if the city council and city administration emulated Smithsonian Magazine’s “Best Small Towns to Visit.” Accordingly, if the city council and city administrator were less concerned about budget presentation awards and financial balance sheets and more concerned with the maintenance, upkeep and accessibility of all of Carmel-by-the-Sea's historical, cultural and environmental assets, then perhaps Carmel-by-the-Sea would deserve to be on Smithsonian Magazine’s list of the “Best Small Towns to Visit.”

Only Recourse for Residential Water Customers Is To Support Measure O: Residential Water Customers Are Subsidizing Other Water Customer Classes

ABSTRACT: In the Guest Commentary, “Residential ratepayers will bear brunt of fine if O fails,” by Ron Weitzman, WaterPlus President, (05/17/2014), in The Monterey County Herald, Weitzman explains reasons why residential water customers/voters should support Measure O, including the following relevant, highlight excerpts:
“Different from Cal Am's residential customers, its business customers are well organized into groups like the Monterey County Association of Realtors and the Monterey County Hospitality Association. These commercial groups have made a pact with Cal Am: They would support its water-supply project if it would persuade the Public Utilities Commission to eliminate tiered rates based on usage for commercial customers. Both sides have kept their part of the bargain. Though good for them, it is far from good for Cal Am's unorganized residential customers, who are now substantially subsidizing commercial and other customers. That is what a graph in a filing by the Office of Ratepayer Advocates of the PUC (March 28, 2014, p. 2-22, pertaining to Application 13-07-002) clearly shows. The only recourse residential customers have is to support Measure O.”
“In doing so, they would be going against the mayors they elected. That is because the mayors have chosen to support their business constituents instead of their residential ones. The mayors are rightfully concerned about the economic well-being of their cities. So, politically, we residents are on our own, not only without political power behind us, but even with it against us. All the television ads and mailers featuring the mayors and financially supported by Cal Am amply testify to that.”
“The state would impose the fine on Cal Am, but Cal Am, following its customary practice, would seek authorization from the PUC to recover the cost of the fine from ratepayers. If Cal Am succeeded with the PUC, residential ratepayers would bear the brunt of the fine because, as shown in the ORA graph, we are substantially subsidizing other local water users. We could assure Cal Am would succeed with the PUC at our expense if we voted no on Measure O because then we would be voting in unison with the mayors and the business community in favor of Cal Am's project and so would deserve the fine when the project fails to meet the state deadline. To prevent Cal Am from recovering the cost of the fine from us, we residential ratepayers should vote yes on Measure O.”

The aforementioned graph entitled Figure 1-A: Revenue vs. Consumption shows residential customers subsidizing other water customer classes in Monterey based on 2012 Recorded %Revenue/%Consumption and 2015 Forecasted %Revenue/%Consumption. The OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION “ORA Analysis and Recommendations on OPERATING REVENUES, RATE DESIGN and SPECIAL REQUESTS: 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 24, 25 of California American Water Company Application 13-07-002” PUBLIC VERSION, March 28, 2014 document is embedded. Information regarding 2012 Revenue/Consumption vs. 2015 Revenue/Consumption is reproduced from pages 2-20 and 2-21 and Figure 1-A: Revenue vs. Consumption page 2-22 is embedded.

OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ORA Analysis and Recommendations on OPERATING REVENUES, RATE DESIGN and
SPECIAL REQUESTS: 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 24, 25 of California American Water Company
Application 13-07-002
PUBLIC VERSION
San Francisco, California
March 28, 2014

ii) 2012 Revenue/Consumption vs. 2015 Revenue/Consumption

ORA concluded from this analysis that although Cal Am’s testimony states rates are designed so that the proportion of revenue from each class approximates the proportion of consumption in the class,121 the proportionality seems to be diverging, rather than converging, between present and proposed rate designs. In the majority of Districts, Residential customers will be contributing more revenue proportional to the quantity of water consumed.

The following chart shows the percentage of total revenues generated by the residential class in each District and how the percentage revenues is proportional to the percentage of total consumption by the residential class in each District in Year 2012 and Year 2015. As a general example, if a Residential customer class in a District generates 25% of the total revenue for that District and, as a class, consumes, 25% of the total consumption in that District, this is reflected in the table as 100%, or direct proportionality. From the chart, it is clear that a greater proportion of total revenues relative to total consumption will be collected from the residential customer class for all Districts in 2015. This also means that the Residential customers are subsidizing other water customer classes. A dramatic example of this is shown in the chart below is of the revenue versus consumption proportionality in Monterey in 2015, where clearly the Residential customers are responsible for a greater percentage of the total revenues not proportional to the amount of water they consume at 115%. This does not validate Cal Am’s testimony that rates are designed so that the proportion of revenue from each class approximates the proportion of consumption in the class.

Figure 1-A: Revenue vs. Consumption (2-22)

Source: OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
ORA Analysis and Recommendations on OPERATING REVENUES, RATE DESIGN and SPECIAL REQUESTS: 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 24, 25 of California American Water Company Application 13-07-002
PUBLIC VERSION
San Francisco, California
March 28, 2014

REFERENCES:
A1307002 – Proceeding
Filed By: California-American Water Company
Filing Date: July 1, 2013
Category: Ratesetting
Current Status: ACTIVE
Description: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Authorization to Increase its Revenues for Water Service by $18,473,900 or 9.55% in the year 2015, by $8,264,700 or 3.90% in the year 2016, and by $6,654,700 or 3.02% in the year 2017.

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Friends of Locally Owned Water (FLOW) Felton Residents Produce Documentary Addressing Effort To Take Over Their Water System from Cal-Am, Defend Public Buyout & Urge Voters to Vote ‘Yes on Measure O’

ABSTRACT:  Felton residents Nancy Gerdt, Jim Mosher, Barbara Sprenger, Glenn Lyons, Alexis Krostue, Ken Meshke, John Fasolas, Michele Mosher and Donna Young Fasolas address “What made Felton residents decide to go public? Tell us about your experience with the Public Utilities Commission. What was the campaign like? What was Cal-Am’s campaign like? How did you pay for the purchase of Cal-Am? How did the vote come out? Are you saving money under public ownership? Knowing what you know today, would you vote for public ownership? What do you think of the ad featuring a Felton resident? Do you have any advice for Monterey residents?


The Truth About Felton
Published on May 14, 2014

Felton residents talk about their experiences taking over their water system from Cal-Am and dispel the lies of the commercial put out by the YES on O opposition. This documentary examines the effort starting with why they did it to how its success reduced total rates (buyout plus water charges combined), now and forever.

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Felton enters Measure O debate after own Cal Am buyout
TV ad against takeover, YouTube video in support compete for attention
By Jim Johnson
Excerpt Highlights:
Within days, a group of Felton activists from the Friends of Locally Owned Water (FLOW) who helped engineer the takeover fired back, conducting a Yes on Measure O-backed press conference and making a video defending the buyout and accusing Hollenbeck and the ad of misleading the public by suggesting things are worse under public ownership. They argued that Felton rates are still lower today than they were under Cal Am when the system was sold in 2008, that the $14,000 on property owners' bills amount to about $39 per month over 30 years, and that public accountability had made all the effort well worth it. They urged Monterey voters to pursue public ownership.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

21st Annual Carmel Art Festival 2014 Award Winners: Jennifer Hill Award, People’s Choice, Artist’s Choice, 1st Place, 2nd Place, 3rd Place, Best of Oil or Acrylic, Best Watercolorist, Best Pastel, Best Local, Mayor’s Choice, Awards of Excellence & Honorable Mention


Carmel downtown” (Oil)
Jennifer Hill Award


Carmel Moonrise” (Oil)
People’s Choice

Lu Yu
Bluefish Cove” (Oil)
Artist’s Choice

Back of the Wharf” (Oil)
1st Place

Fortress in Flight” (Oil)
2nd Place

Beach Day” (Oil)
3rd Place


China Cove Spring” (Oil)
Best of Oil or Acrylic

At Mission’s Fountain” (Watercolor)
Best Watercolorist

Evening Quiet” (Pastel)
Best Pastel

Mission Roses at Dusk” (Oil)
Best Local

Pt. Lobos Surf” (Watercolor)
Mayor’s Choice

Monterey Moonrise” (Oil)
PleinAir
The Premier Outdoor & Studio Art Magazine
Award of Excellence

Beach Houses at Pacific Grove” (Oil)
PleinAirCollector.com
Award of Excellence

China Cove” (Oil)
Fine Art Connoisseur
Award of Excellence

HONORABLE MENTION

Beach Day @ Lover’s Pt.” (Oil)
Honorable Mention

Fires on Carmel Beach” (Oil)
Honorable Mention

Hello, Bonjour, Buenas Dias” (Oil)
Honorable Mention

Colorful Coast” (Oil)
Honorable Mention

Welcome To Rocky Point” (Oil)
Honorable Mention

Monastery View from Whaler’s Cove” (Pastel)
Honorable Mention

Pt. Lobos” (Oil)
Honorable Mention

Paris CafĂ©” (Watercolor)
Honorable Mention

Pescadero Point” (Oil)
Honorable Mention

Xiao Yu
Light and Shadow” (Oil)
Honorable Mention

Friday, May 16, 2014

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE May 19, 2014

CORRECTION: Monday, May 19, 2014

CANCELLATION NOTICE, REGULAR MEETING
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
May 19, 2014

Board of Directors, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Regular Meeting Agenda, May 19, 2014, Featuring Agenda Items CONSENT CALENDAR 6. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT TO FORM THE MONEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE and GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 13. UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT OF WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS

ABSTRACT:  The Board of Directors, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Regular Meeting Agenda, Monday, May 19, 2014 is embedded.  Agenda Items CONSENT CALENDAR 6. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT TO FORM THE MONEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE and GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 13. UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT OF WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS are featured.
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
******************
Monday, May 19, 2014, 7:00 pm

Conference Room, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

5 Harris Court, Building G, Monterey, CA



ITEM:
CONSENT CALENDAR

6.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT TO FORM THE MONEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

Meeting Date:
May 19, 2014
Budgeted: 
Yes

From:
David J. Stoldt
Program/
N/A

General Manager
Line Item No.:    

Prepared By:
David J. Stoldt
Cost Estimate:


General Counsel Approval:  N/A
Committee Recommendation:  The Administrative Committee considered this item on May 12, 2014 and recommended approval.
CEQA Compliance:  N/A

SUMMARY:  The revision under consideration was requested by the Governance Committee at its meeting of April 16, 2014. The Governance Committee also requested that the Water Authority and/or the Water Management District undertake the preparation and advertisement of an RFP and Scope of Work for a VE Consultant, and to make a recommendation for selection following a review of proposals received. Since time was of the essence, the Water Authority accepted the task, and the RFP has now been sent out to potential consultants.

The Governance Committee will make the final selection and the Water Authority will then award and administer the contract.

RECOMMENDATION:  The General Manager recommends that the Administrative Committee recommend the Board of Directors approve the amendment.

EXHIBIT
6-A      Proposed Amendment                               

RE: GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
13.

ITEM:
GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT

13.
UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT OF WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS

Meeting Date:
May 19, 2014
Budgeted: 
N/A

From:
David J. Stoldt
Program/
N/A

General Manager
Line Item No.:     N/A

Prepared By:
David J. Stoldt
Cost Estimate:
N/A

General Counsel Approval:  N/A
Committee Recommendation:  N/A
CEQA Compliance:  N/A

DISCUSSION:

SWRCB:  The District General Manager, General Counsel, Water Demand Manager, and District Engineer met with enforcement staff of the State Water Resources Control Board, Cal-Am, the Regional Water Authority, Sierra Club, attorney for water rights holders, and the Pebble Beach Company (Parties to the lawsuit over the Cease and Desist Order (CDO)) and held initial discussions about the process for petitioning for a modification of the CDO under section 1832 of the California Water Code.  A confidential proposed set of terms and conditions for an extension of the CDO was prepared and forwarded to the SWRCB the third week of April.

Desalination Facility (A.12-04-019):  Legislation was for the Water Rate Relief Bonds (SB 936) was unanimously passed by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on April 2nd and the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee on April 29th.

Pure Water Monterey - Groundwater Replenishment Project (GWR):  District staff has been meeting with MRWPCA staff and consultants every other Friday, tracking project progress. CEQA work and source water feasibility studies continue to proceed.

District staff have been working jointly with MRWPCA staff to develop business terms and conditions for source water agreements. 

The District received three statements of qualifications for the study of externalities related to the Pure Water Monterey project – See agenda item 19.

The draft Water Purchase Agreement is being researched and expected to be summarized in a term sheet shortly after source water terms and conditions are agreed upon.

A preliminary budget for GWR has been recommended and is included in this meeting agenda under item 20.

Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR):  The District is in negotiation with the City of Seaside over the future easement for the Santa Margarita site.

Alternative Desalination Project:  On April 17th the General Manager met with Grant Gordon the Chief Operating Officer of DeepWater Desal.  The General Manager will provide an oral update at the May 19 Board meeting.

Local Water Projects:  The District is continuing to fund a portion of the City of Pacific Grove project, the Airport District project, and has entered into discussions with the Pebble Beach Company for an alternative supply for Del Monte Golf Course and with the Fairgrounds concerning the use of non-potable supplies for bathroom use.

MPWSP Governance Committee:  The Governance Committee has assigned the role of procuring a value engineering consultant to the public agencies.  Consent Calendar item 6 relates to such action.  The District is jointly working with the Water Authority to secure a Value Engineer for the desalination project.  The District Engineer participated in a review and selection panel on May 15th.

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority:  The General Manager presented an update on the DeepWater Desal project to the Authority at its May 8th meeting.

Other:  The General Manager participated in a Water Forum sponsored by the City of Marina on April 29th, was a panelist on the State Water Bond topic for the local California League of Cities meeting May 12th, and has been participating in a new group titled the Del Monte Forest Partners in Water Strategies to help identify additional supplies to the Reclamation Project.

The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) conference was hosted in Monterey.  The District and MRWPCA hosted a tour of the GWR pilot plant followed by a reception at the Wharf Marketplace.

EXHIBITS

None