Ten Noteworthy 2 November 2015 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Ten Noteworthy 2 November 2015 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Items, namely CLOSED SESSION, ANNOUNCEMENTS, PUBLIC APPEARANCES, CONSENT CALENDAR including Monthly Reports for the Month of September, Authorize the Purchase of Recyclable Materials and Yard Waste Trimming Carts, Receive a report on the North Dunes and Del Mar Dunes Habitat Restoration Plan, subsequent revisions to that plan, and prior Commission and Council actions with regards to the North Dunes and Del Mar Dunes., Consideration of a Resolution Declaring City's Intent to Establish the Carmel Hospitality Improvement District, Consideration of a Resolution calling the April 12, 2016, General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing a Mayor for a term of two (2) years and two members of the City Council for a term of four years each and requesting that the Monterey County Registrar of Voters (ROV) conduct the election; and authorizing the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with the Registrar of Voters to conduct the election, Adoption of a Resolution approving the transfer of $855,000 from the Measure D fund balance for street paving and sidewalk projects and Authorization of staff to send a letter to TAMC seeking approval for directing monies to the Carpenter Street repaving project and Receive community input on a new agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the Sea and the Sunset Cultural Center, are presented. Council Reports and supporting materials are embedded as document copies.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET

SPECIAL MEETING

Monday, November 2, 2015

CLOSED SESSION 4:30 P.M.

OPEN SESSION 5:30 P.M.

Special Meeting Agenda 11-02-15

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, November 2, 2015

CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CLOSED SESSION

1. Conference With Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9: 3 cases

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)
Name of Case: Jennifer Da Silva, Plaintiff v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M132929

3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)
Name of Case: Chilone Payton, Plaintiff v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charge No. 485-2014-00453

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Announcements will be made by the Mayor and Council Members, City Administrator, and/or City Attorney.

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded.

CONSENT CALENDAR

All items on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council unless otherwise requested by an individual Council Member or the public for special consideration. Otherwise the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by majority voice vote.

8. Monthly Reports for the Month of September (p.25)
a. Contracts executed within the City Administrator’s Signing Authority
b. Community Planning and Building Department Reports
c. Police, Fire, Ambulance and Beach Reports
d. Public Records Act Request Logs – City Clerk and Police
e. Forester’s Report
f. City Treasurer’s Report

Monthly Reports 11-02-15

9. AB 1034 Authorize the Purchase of Recyclable Materials and Yard Waste Trimming Carts.

Purchase of Recyclable Materials and Yard Waste Trimming Carts 11-02-15

12. AB 1037 Receive a report on the North Dunes and Del Mar Dunes Habitat Restoration Plan, subsequent revisions to that plan, and prior Commission and Council actions with regards to the North Dunes and Del Mar Dunes.

Report on the North Dunes and Del Mar Dunes Habitat Restoration Plan11!02!15

14. AB 1039 Consideration of a Resolution Declaring City's Intent to Establish the Carmel Hospitality Improvement District.

Carmel Hospitality Improvement District 11-02-15

15. AB 1040 Consideration of a Resolution calling the April 12, 2016, General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing a Mayor for a term of two (2) years and two members of the City Council for a term of four years each and requesting that the Monterey County Registrar of Voters (ROV) conduct the election; and authorizing the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with the Registrar of Voters to conduct the election.

General Municipal Election 11-02-15

21. AB 1046 Adoption of a Resolution approving the transfer of $855,000 from the Measure D fund balance for street paving and sidewalk projects and Authorization of staff to send a letter to TAMC seeking approval for directing monies to the Carpenter Street repaving project.

Street Paving and Sidewalk Projects 11-02-15

ORDERS

Orders of Council are agenda items that require City Council discussion, debate and/or direction.

23. AB 1048 Receive community input on a new agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the Sea and the Sunset Cultural Center.

New Agreement Between the City & SCC 11-02-15

Receive community input on a new agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the Sea and the Sunset Cultural Center.

Seven Noteworthy 3 November 2015 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Seven Noteworthy 3 November 2015 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Items, namely ANNOUNCEMENTS, PUBLIC APPEARANCES, Beach Fires Pilot Program Options, First reading of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea declaring beach fires a public nuisance, First reading of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea adding a section to Title 8 - Health and Safety of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code relating to smoking in the commercial and other zoning districts, public lands, and rights-of-way within said districts, Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Use Permit (UP 15-261) application for the establishment of a specialty food store (Carmel Chocolate Factory) at a property located in the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District and Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the reissuance of Design Review, Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit applications for the redevelopment of the Carmel Sands hotel located in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District, are presented. Agenda Bills and supporting materials are embedded as document copies

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET

REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

4:30 P.M

Regular Meeting Agenda 11-03-15

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, November 3, 2015

CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Announcements will be made by the Mayor and Council Members, City Administrator, and/or City Attorney.

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded.

ORDERS

Orders of Council are agenda items that require City Council discussion, debate and/or direction.
4. AB 1050 Beach Fires Pilot Program Options.

Beach Fires Pilot Program Options 11-03-15

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public Hearings consist of Zoning amendments, General Plan amendments, appeals of Commission decisions and other State-mandated items. If the Public Hearing is an appeal, appellants are allowed a total of 10 minutes to speak on their own behalf after the staff report and at the close of public comment in order to have an opportunity to rebut public comments. Other speakers will be allowed three minutes.

5. AB 1051 First reading of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea declaring beach fires a public nuisance.

Beach Fires a Public Nuisance 11-03-15

6. AB 1052 First reading of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea adding a section to Title 8 - Health and Safety of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code relating to smoking in the commercial and other zoning districts, public lands, and rights-of-way within said districts.

Smoking 11-03-15

7. AB 1053 Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Use Permit (UP 15-261) application for the establishment of a specialty food store (Carmel Chocolate Factory) at a property located in the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District.

Carmel Chocolate Factory Appeal 11-03-15

8. AB 1054 Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the reissuance of Design Review, Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit applications for the redevelopment of the Carmel Sands hotel located in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District (New planning application case numbers: DR 14-36 and UP 14-20).

Carmel Sands Hotel 11-03-15

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the reissuance of Design Review, Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit applications for the redevelopment of the Carmel Sands hotel located in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District (New planning application case numbers: DR 14-36 and UP 14-20).

CITY COUNCIL: Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of October 5, 2015 & Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6, 2015

MINUTES October 5, 6, 201511-02-15

CITY COUNCIL
Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of October 5, 2015
Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6 , 2015

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS document copy is embedded. Summary Water Plus has filed a motion to dismiss this Application (A.) 12-04-019. This ruling denies the motion to dismiss because: (1) the motion does not state the law supporting the motion and the ruling requested; (2) the papers filed by the parties disclose, on their face, that triable issues of material fact remain; and (3) even construing the facts in the manner most favorable to Water Plus, Water Plus would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Discussion Water Plus has not shown that it is entitled to the ruling it seeks. Among other things, a motion “must concisely state the...law supporting the motion.” Rule 11.1(d). That provision was not followed as the Motion does not state any supporting law...Water Plus has not met its burden, so the Motion must be denied. First, it is clear from the papers filed by the parties that there remain disputed issues of material fact in this proceeding...Second, even if the parties' filings did not on their face disclose the existence of remaining triable facts, Water Plus would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law… IT IS RULED that for the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

Alj's Ruling Denying Motion to Dismiss 10-29-15

Filing Date 10-29-15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

CITY OF CARMEL-­BY-­THE-­SEA ORDINANCE NO. 2015-­005 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING BEACH FIRES ON CARMEL BEACH FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, AND ALL NATIONAL OR STATE HOLIDAYS & Carmel Beach 24-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/22/15 to 10/08/15), Carmel Beach 8-Hr Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15), Carmel Beach 1-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15)

ABSTRACT: CITY OF CARMEL-­BY-­THE-­SEA ORDINANCE NO. 2015-­005 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING BEACH FIRES ON CARMEL BEACH FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, AND ALL NATIONAL OR STATE HOLIDAYS and Carmel Beach 24-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/22/15 to 10/08/15), Carmel Beach 8-Hr Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15), Carmel Beach 1-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15) documents copies are embedded.

Ordinance No. 2015-005 Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Beach Fires on Carmel Beach 08-06-15

CITY OF CARMEL-­BY-­THE-­SEA
ORDINANCE NO. 2015-­005
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING BEACH FIRES ON CARMEL BEACH FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, AND ALL NATIONAL OR STATE HOLIDAYS
August 6, 2015
NOTE: RE: Specialists with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) have collected data on air quality at a residential property on Scenic Road in Carmel-­by-­the-Sea. 13th Avenue monitoring station
NOTE: Forest and Beach Commissioner Kathy Bang, a proponent of the Carmel Beach Fire Ban, owns a residential property on Scenic Road.

Carmel Beach 24-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5-22-15 to 10-08-15)

Carmel Beach 24-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/22/15 to 10/08/15)
SOURCE: Richard Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO)
Monterey Bay Unified Pollution Control District

Carmel Beach 8-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5-21-15 to 10-08-15)

Carmel Beach 8-Hr Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15)

SOURCE: Richard Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO)
Monterey Bay Unified Pollution Control District

Carmel Beach 1-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5-21-15 to 10-08-15)

Carmel Beach 1-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15)
SOURCE: Richard Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO)

Monterey Bay Unified Pollution Control District

QUESTIONS:

1. Using the reasonable person standard, does the air quality data represented in Carmel Beach 1-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15), Carmel Beach 8-Hr Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15) and Carmel Beach 24-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/22/15 to 10/08/15) support an Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Beach Fires on Carmel Beach Friday through Sunday and all National or State Holidays?

2. Has the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea demonstrated that the wood smoke from the City’s beach fires is directly responsible for a public health problem?

3. A definition of “public nuisance” is “an act, condition, or thing that is illegal because it interferes with the rights of the public generally.” Do Carmel Beach fires constitute a “public nuisance?”

4, Has the City demonstrated that Carmel beach fires “cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public; or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public; or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property?”
(MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
RULE 402 – NUISANCES (Adopted 9-1-1968) (Revised 3-22-2000 and 8-21-2002))

5. Is ORDINANCE NO. 2015-­005 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING BEACH FIRES ON CARMEL BEACH FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, AND ALL NATIONAL OR STATE HOLIDAYS, adopted August 6, 2015, consistent with the CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT (2015)?
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
DIVISION 20
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT  (2015)

6. Are science and data driving public policy or are politics and a political agenda driving the interpretation of the science and data?

REFERENCE:
Nuisance and the Beach: How Much Control Should a State Exercise Over Beach Fire Rings?
Paul J. Weinberg, ZONING AND PLANNING LAW REPORT, FEBRUARY 2014 | Vol. 37 | No. 2

Attachment 1: Carmel Beach 1-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15), 8-Hr Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15) & 24-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/22/15 to 10/08/15), AGENDA ITEM NO. 18: RECEIVE A REPORT AND HOLD A DISCUSSION ON THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA’S BEACH FIRES, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) BOARD OF DIRECTORS, October 21, 2015

ABSTRACT: Attachment 1: Carmel Beach 1-Hr. Ave PM2.5 ((5/21/15 to 10/08/15), 8-Hr Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15) and 24-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/22/15 to 10/08/15), AGENDA ITEM NO. 18: RECEIVE A REPORT AND HOLD A DISCUSSION ON THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA’S BEACH FIRES, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), BOARD OF DIRECTORS, October 21, 2015, is featured. The MPUAPCD October 21, 2015 Agenda and Attachment 1, AGENDA ITEM 18, document copy is embedded.

Mbuapcd Board of Directors Agenda & Agenda Item 18 Attachment 1 10-21-2015 Linked

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MEETING AGENDA & Attachment 1, AGENDA ITEM NO. 18: RECEIVE A REPORT AND HOLD A DISCUSSION ON THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA’S BEACH FIRES

October 21, 2015

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District

The District’s Vision Statement:

All individuals in the MBUAPCD jurisdiction will live, work and play in a clean air environment. Individual and communities are encouraged to make choices in their daily lives that promote clean air quality.

The District’s Mission Statement:
The mission of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District is to Protect Public and Environmental Health while balancing Economic and Air Quality Considerations.

The District is responsible for air monitoring, permitting, enforcement, long-range air quality planning, regulatory development, education and public information activities related to air pollution, as required by the California Clean Air Act and Amendments (HSC Section 40910 et seq.) and the Federal Clean Air Act and Amendments (42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq.).

California Health and Safety Code Sections 39002, et seq. and 40000, et seq. require local districts to be the primary enforcement mechanism for air pollution control. Districts must have rules and regulations for the implementation and enforcement for the attainment and maintenance of federal and state ambient air standards.

Board of Directors Meeting Agendas 

Final Report: Technical Feasibility of Subsurface Intake Designs for the Proposed Poseidon Water Desalination Facility at Huntington Beach, California, Authored by the Independent Scientific Technical Advisory Panel Under the Auspices of the California Coastal Commission and Poseidon Resources (Surfside) LLC, Convened and Facilitated by CONCUR, Inc., October 9, 2014

ABSTRACT: The Final Report: Technical Feasibility of Subsurface Intake Designs for the Proposed Poseidon Water Desalination Facility at Huntington Beach, California, Authored by the Independent Scientific Technical Advisory Panel Under the Auspices of the California Coastal Commission and Poseidon Resources (Surfside) LLC, Convened and Facilitated by CONCUR, Inc., October 9, 2014, document copy is embedded. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Phase 2 section, Chapter VI, is reproduced. Importantly, “Only the seabed infiltration gallery and the beach gallery survived the fatal flaw analysis and both are deemed to be technically feasible at this site.” “The ISTAP evaluated nine types of subsurface intakes for technical feasibility at the Huntington Beach site. The subsurface feasibility options included: (1) vertical wells completed in the shallow aquifer above the Talbert aquifer, (2) vertical deep wells completed within the Talbert aquifer, (3) vertical wells open to both the shallow and Talbert aquifer, (4) radial collector wells tapping the shallow aquifer, (5) slant wells tapping the Talbert aquifer, (6) seabed infiltration gallery (SIG), (7) beach gallery (surf zone infiltration gallery), (8) horizontal directional drilled wells, and (9) a water tunnel.” “It is the collective opinion of the ISTAP that each of the other seven subsurface intake options for the desired hydraulic capacity range (100-127 MGD) had at least one technical fatal flaw that eliminated it from further technical consideration.”
Note: Final Report Becomes Part of the Public Record

REFERENCES:

POSEIDON WATER

Huntington Beach Project

Public hearings needed about desal science, MONTEREY HERALD

— Kristina Baer, Monterey

POSTED: 10/26/15

Experiment a costly waste for Cal Am ratepayers, MONTEREY HERALD

— Roland Martin, Carmel

POSTED: 10/24/15

ISTAP Final Phase 1 Report 10-9-14

Final Report: Technical Feasibility of Subsurface Intake Designs for theProposed Poseidon Water Desalination Facility at Huntington Beach, California

Authored by the Independent Scientific Technical Advisory Panel

Under the Auspices of the California Coastal Commission and Poseidon Resources (Surfside) LLC

Convened and Facilitated by CONCUR, Inc.

October 9, 2014

Chapter VI. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Phase 2

The ISTAP evaluated nine types of subsurface intakes for technical feasibility at the Huntington Beach site. The subsurface feasibility options included: (1) vertical wells completed in the shallow aquifer above the Talbert aquifer, (2) vertical deep wells completed within the Talbert aquifer, (3) vertical wells open to both the shallow and Talbert aquifer, (4) radial collector wells tapping the shallow aquifer, (5) slant wells tapping the Talbert aquifer, (6) seabed infiltration gallery (SIG), (7) beach gallery (surf zone infiltration gallery), (8) horizontal directional drilled wells, and (9) a water tunnel.

The hydraulic design capacity for these subsurface intake types ranged from 127 MGD for the combined requirement of the proposed SWRO plant and RO concentrate discharge dilution, and 100 MGD, if the concentrate discharge dilution was unneeded (diffuser system used to reduce environmental impacts from the concentrate discharge).

The ISTAP used a standard definition of technical feasibility as defined in the California Coastal

Act and carefully evaluated fatal flaws of each subsurface intake type considered for application at the proposed Huntington Beach site. Only the seabed infiltration gallery and the beach gallery survived the fatal flaw analysis and both are deemed to be technically feasible at this site. The design of both types of galleries is well understood, but construction challenges would be expected for both due to their subsea/subtidal construction. The surf zone (beach) gallery, in particular, was judged to have some potentially difficult constructability challenges (and thus a lesser degree of technical feasibility) related to construction in the high-energy surf zone. The ISTAP does not consider the existing scale of use of any particular subsurface intake compared to the capacity requirement at Huntington Beach to be a fatal flaw for technical feasibility (e.g. the only existing seabed infiltration gallery has an hydraulic capacity of 27 MGD versus the 100 MGD proposed at the Huntington Beach site, and no large scale implementation of the beach gallery has been constructed and operated to date).

It is the collective opinion of the ISTAP that each of the other seven subsurface intake options for the desired hydraulic capacity range (100-127 MGD) had at least one technical fatal flaw that eliminated it from further technical consideration. The shallow vertical wells would create unacceptable water level drawdowns landward of the shoreline and could impact wetlands and cause movement of potential contaminants seaward. The deep vertical wells would have a significant impact on the Talbert aquifer that would interfere with the management of the salinity barrier and the management of the interior freshwater basin. The combined shallow and deep-water wells would adversely impact both the shallow aquifer and Talbert aquifer, and in addition, would produce waters with differing inorganic chemistry, which would adversely affect SWRO plant operation. Radial collector wells constructed into the shallow aquifer would have to be located very close to the surf zone which would make them susceptible to damage during storms and would be impacted by the projected sea level rise. Slant wells tapping the Talbert aquifer would interfere with the management of the salinity barrier and the management of the freshwater basin, and further, would likely have geochemical issues with the water produced from the aquifer (e.g., oxidation states of mixing waters). The recently-collected offshore hydraulic conductively data shows that the use of HDD wells is technically questionable and the largest capacity system in Spain is currently not operating at its original design capacity. The water tunnel constructed in the unlithified sediment at Huntington Beach would have overwhelming constructability issues.

The ISTAP recommends in Phase 2, further consideration be given solely to seabed infiltration galleries (SIG) and beach gallery intake systems. For clarification, the ISTAP believes that the remaining subsurface intake system deemed to be technically feasible could meet the seawater extraction goals of either 100 or 127 MGD.

It is important to stress that the ISTAP interpreted its Phase 1 charge relative to the Terms of Reference to be the evaluation of the technical feasibility of subsurface intake technology linked to a proposal. Consistent with that approach, the Phase 1 Panel considered nine technologies keyed to a potential project in the range 100 to 127 mgd. The Panel did address the broad issue of downward scalability where they saw relevance, but did not consider a full or parsed range of scale options for any of the nine technologies as this task exceeded the agreed upon scope defined in the TOR. Scalability issues could be addressed in subsequent assessments of other feasibility factors at the mutual agreement of the conveners.

Further, it was not the charge of the Phase 1 ISTAP to evaluate the economic considerations of using a subsurface intake versus a conventional open-ocean intake in this phase. The ISTAP recommends that the Phase 2 Panel give considerable analysis to the constructability of the seabed infiltration and beach gallery intake systems, because this greatly affects the economic viability of their potential use. However, the ISTAP recommends that in the Phase 2 evaluation of the subsurface intake options that a detailed lifecycle cost analysis should be provided to the succeeding committee. This lifecycle cost analysis should contain at least four scenarios, including: (1) the lifecycle cost using the appropriate operating period duration obtaining the 127 MGD of feed water from a conventional open-ocean intake without considering the cost of potential environmental impacts of impingement and entrainment, (2) the lifecycle cost using the appropriate duration of an operating period obtaining the 127 MGD of feed water from a conventional open-ocean intake and considering the cost of potential environmental impacts of impingement and entrainment, (3) the lifecycle cost using the appropriate duration of an operating period obtaining the 127 MGD of feed water from a seabed gallery intake system (or beach gallery intake system) using the same pretreatment design as used in treating open-ocean seawater, and (4) the lifecycle cost using the appropriate duration of an operating period obtaining the 127 MGD of feed water from a seabed gallery intake system (or beach gallery intake system) using a reduced degree of pretreatment, such as mixed media filtration followed by cartridge filters.

In each of these scenarios, the ISTAP recommends that the selected design hydraulic capacity match both the minimum and maximum flow rates consistent with the desired production rate of a 50 MGD desalination facility using the SWRO technology. The definition of an “appropriate” operating period should follow accepted industry standards for such lifecycle cost analyses. Typically, a period of 30 years is used, but given concerns on the potential for sea level rise impacts, analysis over a longer operating period (e.g. 50 years) may be desirable. In addition, the ISTAP questions the need for the use of seawater to dilute the concentrate discharge given the well-known use of diffuser outfalls to meet ocean discharge requirements.

The ISTAP also recommends that “Technical Feasibility” should continue to be defined by generally recognized factors as documented in the California Coastal Act of 1976. (Section 30108 of the California Public Resources Code)

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO WATER PLUS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO WATER PLUS’ MOTION TO DISMISS document copy is embedded. CONCLUSION The Commission should disregard Water Plus’ unfounded accusations and deny its motion to dismiss California American Water’s Application 12-04-019.

Cal-Am's Response to Water Plus’ Motion to Dismiss 10-09-15

Filing Date 10-09-15
CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO WATER PLUS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 E-MAIL RULING REGARDING THE FILING OF PROPOSED SCHEDULES BY OCTOBER 20, 2015

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the E-MAIL RULING REGARDING THE FILING OF PROPOSED SCHEDULES BY OCTOBER 20, 2015 document copy is embedded. IT IS RULED that parties shall file and serve proposed schedules by October 20, 2015 that address completing the records for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 by the April to May 2016 timeframe. The proposals shall clearly and specifically state schedule dates and what additional evidence, if any, is needed in further evidentiary hearings, and why that additional evidence is necessary.

E-mail Ruling Regarding the Filing of Proposed Schedules by Oct 20, 2015

Filing Date 10-13-15
E-MAIL RULING REGARDING THE FILING OF PROPOSED SCHEDULES BY OCTOBER 20, 2015

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 E-MAIL RULING SUSPENDING CURRENT PHASE 2 SCHEDULE

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the E-MAIL RULING SUSPENDING CURRENT PHASE 2 SCHEDULE document copy is embedded. IT IS RULED that the current Phase 2 schedule is suspended. Note: Phase 2 (Groundwater Replacement Project)

E-mail Ruling Suspending Current Phase 2 Schedule 10-13-15

Filing Date 10-13-15
E-MAIL RULING SUSPENDING CURRENT PHASE 2 SCHEDULE

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION OF WATER PLUS TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION OF WATER PLUS TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING document copy is embedded. Importantly, The Commission should not be distracted by Cal-Am’s failure to support its attack on the Motion with any specific response to the statistical analysis that is presented by Water Plus. The Commission and its staff must evaluate the Motion on its merits. To the extent that the Commission believes Cal-Am has made deceptive or misleading statements that could constitute a violation of the Commission’s rules, or justify the sanction of dismissal, the Commission should undertake the appropriate investigation of any such potential violation.

Mcwd's Response to Motion of Waterplus to Dismiss the Proceeding

Filing Date 10-16-15
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION OF WATER PLUS TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 SEPARATE COMMENTS OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT ON PROPOSED SCHEDULING

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the SEPARATE COMMENTS OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT ON PROPOSED SCHEDULING document copy is embedded.

Separate Comments of Marina Coast Water District on Proposed Scheduling

Filing Date 10-20-15
SEPARATE COMMENTS OF MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT ON PROPOSED SCHEDULING

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 JOINT PROPOSAL TO COMPLETE RECORD FOR PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the JOINT PROPOSAL TO COMPLETE RECORD FOR PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 document copy is embedded. CONCLUSION The Joint Parties request that the Commission hold Phase 1 and Phase 2 evidentiary hearings subject to the issues and proposed schedules set forth herein.
Table 1. Proposed Schedules for Phase 1 and Phase 2

Date	Phase 1	Phase 2
December 15,2015	Supplemental testimony with updated costs concerning the desalination project
January 22,2016	Supplemental testimony on demand and supply, brine discharge and return water	Testimony on Phase 2
January and February	Phase 1 settlement discussions	Phase 2 settlement discussions
March 22,2016	Concurrrent rebuttal testimony	Concurrent rebuttal testimony
April 14- 15.2016	Evidentiary hearings for Phase 2 and on Phase 1 updates	Evidentiary hearings for Phase 2 and on Phase 1 updates
May 2016	Continued Phase 1 settlement discussions	Continued Phase 2 settlement dìscussions until May 15; Opening Brief on Phase 2
May 2016		Reply Brief on Phase 2 (2 weeks Following opening brief
July 2016		Target for Phase 2 Proposed Decision*
TBD	CPUC's issuance of combined Draft EIR/EIS
TBD	Comments on Combined DEIR/DEIS
15 days after close of DEIR/DEIS Comment Period	Opening Legal and Policy Brief
30 days after close of DEIWDEIS Comment Period	Reply Legal and Policy Brief

*The unopposed Joint Motion to Modify the Phase 2 Schedule and Comments on Cost Updates, filed October 8, 2015, supports the issuance of a decision on Phase 2 issues prior to the issuance of a decision resolving Phase 1 issues, so long as certain conditions are met.

Joint Proposal to Complete Record for Phase 1 and Phase 2

Filing Date 10-20-15
JOINT PROPOSAL TO COMPLETE RECORD FOR PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2

Division of Occupational Safety and Health Complaint No. 1025533 Alleges Conditions at Police Department/Public Works Department Workplace Which May be a Violation of the Safety Orders, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations

ABSTRACT: In a letter from Noemi Herrera. Safety Engineer, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Fremont District Office, dated October 13, 2015, to Doug Schmitz, City Administrator (Employer), Herrera states that “The Division of Occupational Safety and Health has received a complaint {Complaint No. 1025533) alleging the following condition(s) at your workplace at 2nd location: Torres & 4th, Carmel By The Sea, which may be a violation of the Safety Orders found in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations:
Code Section(s) and Alleged Condition(s):
1. When it rains the roofs of the Police Station and Public Works Department leak. Also, the basement of the Communications Department floods. Buckets are used to collect the water. This condition has existed for 5 years and has not been corrected. As a result, there may be mold growth and there may be areas where mold on surfaces was painted over. See T8CCR Section 3362
2. Electrical hazards. Electrical equipment such as circuit breakers and outlet plugs are not protected from water leaks. The location is at the exit from the Police Station into the Public Works garage. When it rains, water runs down the wall where the electrical equipment is located. See T8CCR Section 2510.5
Furthermore, the letter states“you are required to investigate the alleged condition(s) and notify this office in writing no later than fourteen {14) calendar days after receipt of this letter whether the alleged condition(s) exist and, if so, specify the corrective action(s) you have taken and the estimated date when the corrections will be completed.”
California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 3362 and Section 2510.5 are reproduced. A document copy of the letter is embedded.

Code Section(s) and Alleged Condition(s):

1. When it rains the roofs of the Police Station and Public Works Department leak. Also, the basement of the Communications Department floods. Buckets are used to collect the water. This condition has existed for 5 years and has not been corrected. As a result, there may be mold growth and there may be areas where mold on surfaces was painted over. See T8CCR Section 3362

Subchapter 7. General Industry Safety Orders
Group 2. Safe Practices and Personal Protection
Article 9. Sanitation

§3362. General Requirements.

(a) To the extent that the nature of the work allows, workplaces, storerooms, personal service rooms and passageways shall be kept clean, orderly and in a sanitary condition. The interiors, exteriors and environs of buildings that contribute to a hazard to which these orders apply shall be cleaned and maintained in such conditions as will not give rise to harmful exposure, as defined in Section 5140.

(b) Cleaning and sweeping shall be done in such a manner as to minimize the contamination of the air and, insofar as is practicable, shall be performed at such time and in such a manner that will avoid harmful exposures as defined in Section 5140.

(c) To facilitate cleaning, every floor, workroom, personal service room and passageway shall be kept free from protruding nails, splinters, loose boards and unnecessary holes and openings.

(d) All putrescible waste or refuse shall be stored in a receptacle so constructed that it does not leak and may be conveniently and thoroughly cleaned. Such a receptacle shall be maintained in a sanitary condition and shall be equipped with a tight fitting cover if it cannot be maintained in a sanitary condition without one. (This provision does not prohibit the use of receptacles which are designed to permit the maintenance of a sanitary condition without regard to the above requirements.)

(e) All sweepings, putrescible wastes, refuse and garbage shall be removed in such a manner as to avoid creating a nuisance and shall be removed as often as necessary to avoid creating a menace to health through the development of unsanitary conditions.

(f) Every enclosed workplace and personal service room shall be equipped and maintained, insofar as is practicable, to prevent the entrance or harborage of insects, rodents or other vermin. An effective program of extermination and control shall be instituted whenever their presence is detected.

(g) When exterior water intrusion, leakage from interior water sources, or other uncontrolled accumulation of water occurs, the intrusion, leakage or accumulation shall be corrected because of the potential for these conditions to cause the growth of mold.

NOTE Authority cited: Section 142.3, Labor Code. Reference: Section 142.3, Labor Code

2. Electrical hazards. Electrical equipment such as circuit breakers and outlet plugs are not protected from water leaks. The location is at the exit from the Police Station into the Public Works garage. When it rains, water runs down the wall where the elect rical equipment is located. See T8CCR Section 2510.5

Subchapter 5. Electrical Safety Orders
Group 1. Low-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders
Article 51. Lighting Fixtures, Lampholders, Lamps and Receptacles

§2510.5. Wet and Damp Locations.

Fixtures installed in wet or damp locations shall be approved for the purpose and shall be so constructed or installed that water cannot enter or accumulate in wireways, lampholders, or other electrical parts.

(a) A receptacle installed in a wet or damp location shall be suitable for the location.

(b) A receptacle installed outdoors in a location protected from the weather or in other damp locations shall have an enclosure for the receptacle that is weatherproof when the receptacle is covered (attachment plug cap not inserted and receptacle covers closed).

NOTE: A receptacle is considered to be in a location protected from the weather when it is located under roofed open porches, canopies, marquees, or the like and where it will not be subjected to a beating rain or water runoff.

(c) A receptacle installed in a wet location where the product intended to be plugged into it is not attended while in use (for example, sprinkler system controllers, landscape lighting, and holiday lights) shall have an enclosure that is weatherproof with the attachment plug cap inserted or removed.

(d) A receptacle installed in a wet location where the product intended to be plugged into it will be attended while in use (for example, portable tools) shall have an enclosure that is weatherproof when the attachment plug cap is removed.

Note: Authority cited: Section 142.3, Labor Code. Reference: Section 142.3, Labor Code.

Cal-OSHA Letter {Complaint No. 1025533) 10-13-15

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Fremont District Office
39141 Civic Center Drive, Suite 310
Fremont, CA 94538
Tel. # (510) 794-2521 Fax # (510) 794-3889
October 13, 2015
Attn: Doug Schmitz, City Administrator
City of Carmel-by-the Sea
P.O. Box CC
Carmel-By- The- Sea, CA 93921
Noemi Herrera
Safety Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Annual Health National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particles to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) and retaining the 24-hour fine particle standard of 35 μg/m3, 2012

ABSTRACT:  EPA Revises the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution December 14, 2012 - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took important steps to protect the health of Americans from particle pollution by strengthening the annual health National Ambient Air Quality Standard for fine particles (PM2.5) to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The agency also retained the existing standards for coarse particle pollution (PM10).

·    Final Rule (PDF) (203pp, 4.1 MB) - Federal Register - January 15, 2013

·    Press release

·    Overview Fact Sheet (PDF) (3pp, 301k)

·    Fact Sheet: Health (PDF) (3pp, 318k)

·    Fact Sheet: Standards and Air Quality Index (PDF) (5pp, 380k)

·    Fact Sheet: Implementing the Standards (PDF) (4pp, 287k)

·    Regulatory Impact Analysis (PDF) (474pp, 10.2 MB)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Final rule.

SUMMARY: Based on its review of the air quality criteria and the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM), the EPA is making revisions to the suite of standards for PM to provide requisite protection of public health and welfare and to make corresponding revisions to the data handling conventions for PM and to the ambient air monitoring, reporting, and network design requirements. The EPA also is making revisions to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting program with respect to the NAAQS revisions.

With regard to primary (health-based) standards for fine particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in diameter, PM2.5), the EPA is revising the annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) so as to provide increased protection against health effects associated with long- and short-term exposures (including premature mortality, increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits, and development of chronic respiratory disease), and to retain the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 mg/m3. The EPA is revising the Air Quality Index (AQI) for PM2.5 to be consistent with the revised primary PM2.5 standards. With regard to the primary standard for particles generally less than or equal to 10 mm in diameter (PM10), the EPA is retaining the current 24-hour PM10 standard to continue to provide protection against effects associated with short-term exposure to thoracic coarse particles (i.e., PM10-2.5). With regard to the secondary (welfare-based) PM standards, the EPA is generally retaining the current suite of secondary standards (i.e., 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards and a 24-hour PM10 standard). Non-visibility welfare effects are addressed by this suite of secondary standards, and PM-related visibility impairment is addressed by the secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

DATES: The final rule is effective on March 18, 2013.

Pages From Extension of Beach Fires Moratorium Urgency Ordinance 09-01-15

MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT DATA
6/21 to 7/31/2015

Air Quality Guide PM 2015

Air Quality Guide for Particle Pollution

Pollutant: PM2.5 – Particulate < 2.5 microns (24 hr. avg)

Air Quality Index	Concentration (ug/m3)	AQI Category
0-50	0.0-12.0	GOOD
51-100	12.1 – 35.4	MODERATE
101-150	35.5 – 55.4	UNHEALTHY FOR SENSITIVE GROUPS
151-200	55.5 – 150.4	UNHEALTHY
201-300	150.5 – 250.4	VERY UNHEALTHY
301-500	250.5 – 500.4	HAZARDOUS

REFERENCES:

AQI Calculator: AQI to Concentration
AQI Calculator: Concentration to AQI

DATA ANALYSIS CARMEL BEACH PM2.5

6/21 to 7/31/2015

Carmel Beach 24-Hr Ave PM2.5

AQI CATEGORY	NUMBER OF HOURS
GOOD	883
MODERATE	101
UNHEALTHY FOR SENSITIVE GROUPS	0
UNHEALTHY	0
VERY UNHEALTHY	0
HAZARDOUS	0

TOTAL HOURS 984
Carmel Beach 1-Hour Average PM2.5

AQI CATEGORY	NUMBER OF HOURS
GOOD	965
MODERATE	13
UNHEALTHY FOR SENSITIVE GROUPS	6
UNHEALTHY	0
VERY UNHEALTHY	0
HAZARDOUS	0

TOTAL HOURS 984

Air Quality Rating	Air Quality Index (AQI)	PM2.5 1-hour Average (µg/m3)	PM2.5 24-hour Average (µg/m3)
GOOD	0 - 50	0.0 - 40.4	0.0 - 12.0
MODERATE	51 - 100	40.5 - 80.4	12.1 - 35.4
UNHEALTHY FOR SENSITIVE GROUPS	101 - 150	80.5 - 175.4	35.5 - 55.4
UNHEALTHY	151 - 200	175.5 - 300.4	55.5 - 150.4
VERY UNHEALTHY	201 - 300	300.5 - 500.4	150.5 - 250.4
HAZARDOUS	>300	>500.5	>250.5