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

"MINUTES"

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

City Hall

East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

Archived Video Streaming

II. Roll Call

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

ABSENT: None

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

Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk

Don Freeman, City Attorney

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

A. Announcements from Closed Session.

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

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

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

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

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

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

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

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

IX. Ordinances

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

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

Single Use Plastic Bags

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

Draft Ordinance – Planning Commission Review

·        Prohibit the user of single-use plastic bags

·        Encouraged the use of reusable bags; and

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

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

Business Community Comments

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

-         Concerned with negative impressions of customers

-         Out of town visitors not likely to have reusable bags

-         Record keeping burden in businesses/enforcement burden on City

• Suggested possibility of a voluntary compliance program

Planning Commission Recommendation

• The Council should consider developing a voluntary program

Council Review

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

Response to Comments

Save the Plastic Bag Coalition

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

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

California Grocers Association

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

-Ban on plastic only does not promote reusable bags

-Ban on plastic does not result in environmental gains

-Burdensome on retailers

• Staff does not concur

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

-         Retailer expressed concern with fee on paper

Option 2 – Voluntary Approach

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

• Avoids the need for enforcement
• No environmental review required

Questions

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

Mayor Burnett opened the meeting to public comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe, Waste Management, expressed support for the Ordinance.

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

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

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

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

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

Mayor Burnett closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member Hillyard expressed support for Ordinance. 

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

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

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

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

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

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

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

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

Related News Article:

Council adopts ban on plastic bags

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

XI. Orders of Council

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

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

What’s MPWMD Done in 30 Years?

Things we had to do by legal mandate…

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

Things we do that nobody likes…

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

What’s the Plan?

Cal-Am’s Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

Filed April 23, 2012

Desalination (5,500 AF)

Aquifier Storage and Recovery (1,300 AF)

Groundwater Replenishment (3,500 AF)

Component 3 – Groundwater Replenishment

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

-Water Purchase Agreement

-Storage and Recovery Agreement

-Wholesale Water Sales Agreement

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

-District to provide long-term financing

-MOU is contingent upon district’s new funding source

Component 2 - ASR

·        Double ASR Capacity

·        Complete by 2016

·        Public and Private Components

·        Work jointly with Cal-Am

·        Additional MPWMD Capital Costs Next 2-3 Years

·        District will continue to develop future ASR opportunities

Component 1- Desal

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

-Requirement and timeline for a new CEQA process or not

-Additional technical assessment and scoping of project alternatives

-Ease in permitting

-Water rights

-Cost of financing and operations

-Litigation risk

·        Is it a Public Path or a Private Path?

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

Old Use Fee

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

MPWMD Water Supply Funding Needs

FY 2013 and FY 2014:

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

ASR: $1,325,756;  $862,370

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

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

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

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

Water Supply & Budget

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

Water Demand in Region

Rate design allocates revenue requirement in the same manner

Calculation of Annual Fee

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

Categories:

• 5 Single Family Residential
• 1 Multifamily
• 45 Commercial

Annual Total Fee Examples

Key Feature of Ordinance

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

Annual Water Use Fee Collection Mechanism

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

Alternative Collection Costs

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

Advocated Assessors’ Office

Proposition 218 Process

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

Key Dates

April 16 –

District Board adopted Rate Study

First reading of proposed Rate Ordinance

Board approved Prop 218 Hearing Notice

Board approved prop 218 “Rules of the Road”

Board reviewed alternative collection methods

April 27 –

 Mail Prop 218 Hearing Notices

June 12 –

Prop 218 protests calculated

Board holds Prop 218 Hearing

Second reading of proposed Rate ordinance (adopt)

Approve Resolution for collection method

Approve CEQA waiver

Adopt annual budget

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

Mayor Burnett opened the meeting to public comment.

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

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

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

Mayor Burnett closed the meeting to public comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council Member Beach stated that time is of the essence. 

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

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

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE