MP Regional Water Authority TAC Meeting

MINUTES MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Regular TAC Meeting 2:00 PM, Monday, October 15, 2012 FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Israel, Narigi, Riedl, Riley, Stoldt Members Absent: None Staff Present: Legal Counsel , Acting Executive Director, Committee Clerk CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Chair Stoldt called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS George Riley requested that replenishment of the Seaside Aquifer be added to a future agenda. Chair Stoldt directed that the item when agendized should include a formal report and draft proposal. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Stoldt opened public comments for items not on the agenda. George Riley about the October 2, 2012 Town Hall meeting discussing Cal Am bill spikes and the lowest cost desalination facility options. David Armanasco spoke about California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Notice of Preparation and that he identified a mistake on page 12 that characterizes the Deep Water Desal. Incorrectly and notified the CPUC. Doug Wilhelm questioned the limiting factors of Cal Am’s proposed base assumption for replenishment of the Seaside Aquifer at 350 acre feet per year and stated he was concerned with committing to a base assumption because year to year changes occur. Chair Stoldt responded that it is related to the capacity factor for which you can run a desalination plant. With no further requests to speak, Chair Stoldt closed public comment. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Discussion of Potential Issues/Positions on the CEQA Process in Advance of Scheduled Scoping Meetings Chair Stoldt introduced the item specifying that there are two places for public participation in the CEQA process. First, the scoping area provides the ability to give input into the range of the environmental issues to be addressed in the document. This period invites all responsible MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, October 15, 2012 agencies to try to coordinate early documentation and coordination on the scope of the document and a chance also for others to make recommendations and comments. The review and comment period after the draft EIR is released is the second public participation period. Stoldt indicated the deadline for comments to be received is November 9, 2012 with scoping meetings October 24th and 25th. These meetings are chances for the CPUC to orally present potential issues and this is an opportunity for the TAC to provide the Authority with recommended messages and or comments to present. Alternatives to address are identified in the NOP. Chair Stoldt suggested the TAC identify areas of concern that should be addressed by the Authority. Member Riley questioned the difference between a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) versus a full EIR. Chair Stoldt responded that subsequent EIRs use many of the previous supporting documents, where an initial EIR develops the initial studies and documents them. Member Riley asked what triggers NEPA requirements. TAC members came to the conclusion it is difficult to evaluate at this time. Member Riley asked if the alternatives analysis is evaluated at the project or at the program level. The TAC discussed their desire for analysis at the program level. The TAC also discussed concerns about the ability of the Cal Am project to meet the proposed 2016 deadline due to the lengthened EIR process and other factors. TAC members agreed that having multiple projects evaluated is favorable to ensure a project will meet the 2016 CPUC deadline. Also TAC discussed the possibility of recommending to the Authority the possibility of piece milling projects as a way to meet the deadline. Member Israel discussed current results from an MRWPCA analysis of wastewater flows coming from the Monterey Peninsula and the Salinas Valley. Member Riley spoke to the size of the facility concerned about the stated margin of 1,000 acre feet of water per year (af/y)of water. Chair Stoldt responded that capacity can always be reduced if it's not necessary and suggested the project be built where demand is today, or build larger and scale it back when necessary to reduce the output. Member Riedl suggested addressing the issue of outfall - how well the outfall will operate for disbursement. Chair Stoldt recommended addressing two things with the MPRWA Authority. First is project sizing and the second is any new data which might be available that can affect the analysis. He then clarified the next steps the TAC will take. The TAC decided that each member will review the Notice of Preparation and bring back comments and areas of concern and recommendations that they would like to be forwarded to the MPRW. The TAC agreed to hold a Special Meeting October 22, 2012 to collectively generate a list of recommendations to forward to the MPRWA prior to their meeting so that the MPRWA comments could be formulated before the scoping meetings on October 24 and 25th. Chair Stoldt opened the item for discussion from the public. City Manager Meurer encouraged the TAC to use extra caution and detail with the CEQA process to ensure the projects do not spend years in litigation and appeals, stating the scoping hearing are the opportunity to request the most detailed scope, including review of alternative projects at the project level and not the program level. He encouraged review of all types of wells; slant, rainy and direct and review all of them in the different geographical positions. Mr. Meurer also confirmed that projects built in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary require a permit from the Sanctuary, which requires a NEPA document. He noted the NEPA 2  MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, October 15, 2012 document needs to be done in coordination from the beginning and not as an afterthought. Mr. Meurer also encouraged the MPRWA to encourage individuals who are active and interested to be part of the process and get them to comment on the adequacy of the scope of the document to make it a community based effort. He requested the TAC pass on his recommendations to the Authority, who are waiting for TAC recommendations about what they should be saying at the Scoping Hearings. Bill Hood encouraged the TAC to request a specific level of review of the presented alternatives indicating it was not guaranteed by the NOP notice unless requested. Bridget Hoover from the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary clarified from earlier TAC questions that she has been contacted by ESA doing documentation for the PUC that the decision was made Cal Am will need to go through the NEPA process. In the short term we asked them to apply for different permits, one for the test well, apply separately, they were going to let Cal Am know that this week. With no more requests to speak Chair Stoldt closed public comment. 2. Review of Timelines, Schedule for Analysis and Reports from Consultants SPI and Kris Helm Chair Stoldt confirmed that the Consultant SPI is receiving data back from the different projects and spoke with Consultant Kris Helm and his preliminary conclusions are very similar to Mr. Meurer’s in terms of environmental review. Chair Stoldt asked both consultants to provide a draft report by the end of the month, and to a repot prior to that so that the TAC has the ability to review and comment on it before the MPRWA meeting. By consensus the TAC approved an ad-hoc committee to review and comment on the drafts to provide to the Authority. Legal Counsel directed the TAC to limit the ad hoc subcommittee to 2 individuals since the TAC is currently a 5 member board. Chair Stoldt indicated that the following items and deadlines will guide what the TAC will be reviewing in the next two meetings.  October 22, 2012 - Cal Am response due for the public participation proposals  October 24 and 25, 2012 – CPUC Public Scoping meetings  November 1, 2012 – Cal Am report due on the contingency plans  November 9, 2012 - Deadline for providing scoping comments to the CPUC  November 15, 2012 – Compliance report available from Cal AM  December 11, 2012 – Financial Workshops Stoldt opened public comment on the item. City Manager Meurer suggested having Consultant Kris Helm provide input regarding the discussed October scoping meetings in terms of the adequacy of the EIR/NEPA scope. He said it would leverage current resources and provide value in the long run. Stoldt agreed to pursue this option and seeing no request to speak closed public comment. 3. Discussion of Recent Public Participation Proposals Under Cal-Am's California Public Utilities Commission Application Chair Stoldt indicated three responses were submitted to the CPUC Public Participation proposal. He stated the first was a joint response from the Authority and Monterey County, a 3 MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, October 15, 2012 copy was included in the agenda packet, the second from the MPWMD which differed only on finance and ownership, and two filings from the City of Pacific Grove. The first was combined with the People's Project encouraging Cal Am to work jointly, and one was looking at Pacific Grove specific water projects with the intent to get the golf course of the potable water. Responses from Cal Am regarding the submitted proposals will be available on or after October 26, 2012. Member Riley spoke to Mr. Meurer’s suggestion to have a contingency plan in place and is concerned that the Authority needs to discuss this sooner rather than. Chair Stoldt agreed that a contingency plan makes sense in the case the application is mired in litigation for years; something needs to be advanced forward, at the project level and not the program level. Member Narigi suggested waiting until the November 1, 2012 deadline when Cal Am will present a contingency plan to the CPUC. Member Israel spoke to Member Riley's comments that it's important to have some type of project that can be fully or partially completed by 2016 therefore rationing will not be necessary. Member Riley requested either the MPRWA or the TAC agendize a discussion on alternative projects potentially being elevated to a legitimate review in the case that something outside the scope of the EIR fails the process. Chair Stoldt responded that the discussion has been taking place, but not with the MPRWA. The MPWMD has funding to advance a project or an alternative project but there is public concern over one agency to having a majority of the authority. Chair Stoldt opened public comment on the item. Libby Downey said Bill Monning advised if the deadline passes for the Cease and Desist order and the reduction of water is not reached, having an alternative proposal is viewed more favorably by the State than just failing to reach your deadline. She expressed concern that the MPRWA is taking too long to make decisions. She also spoke to Member Riley's comment questioning funding availability from the MPWMD. Fred Meurer disagreed with Ms. Downey’s comments indicating the MPRWA is moving on multiple fronts, collecting data in order to make proper decisions and switching tactics now it would take additional time and resources as all proposed projects have substantial hurdles. He encouraged the MPRWA to focus on the question before the Authority, to determine if the scope of the environmental documentation is sufficient regardless of which direction the Authority chooses. It needs to look at all projects and not just the Cal Am Project in the same level of project detail. Having no further requests to speak, Chair Stoldt closed public comment. Chair Stoldt said many people may benefit from attending the public meetings at the MPWMD and MRWPCA. Member Narigi recommended receiving reports from MPWMD and the reports from MRWPCA. The TAC agendized receiving an update from both the MPWMD and MRWPCA at the next TAC meeting on November 5, 2012. Member Israel and Riley questioned the possibility of discussing interim projects on the way to a final project in order to get the lowest costs. Member Narigi disagreed recommending the group stay focused on the priorities already set. He stated the purpose of this panel is to give MPRWA TAC comments from the work of the consultants, and the contingency plan, and then 4 MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, October 15, 2012 move into the financing stage. Member Riedl questioned why the letter submitted to the CPUC on October 1, 2012 was different from the letter the County of Monterey submitted. Legal Counsel redirected the discussion to comments on the agenda. With no more business to discuss, Chair Stoldt adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Lesley Milton, Clerk to the Authority TAC Chair 5