Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-17; Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee Committee Ad Hoc; MinutesApproved: 1/6/09 AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION MITIGATION FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE CORRECTED MEETING MINUTES November 17, 2008 ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER Chairperson, Eric Larson called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Committee Members Present: Irv Rosten - Retired, Julie Baker-Planning Commission Representative, Richard Erhardt-Chairperson of the Beach Preservation Committee, Eric Larson-Chairperson/Executive Director of the San Diego County Farm Bureau, Ken Alfrey-Board Member of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation and Hope Wrisley-Community Leader. Absent: Jackie Stone, Committee Member Staff Members Present: Kevin Pointer, Associate Planner ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF JUNE 6, 2007 MINUTES Motion: Motion made by Committee-member Wrisley and seconded by Mr. Erhardt to accept the Minutes of the meeting of September 7, 2008. By consensus, the minutes were approved as submitted. ITEM 3: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ON PROJECTS RECEIVING RECENT AGRICULTURAL CONVERSION MITIGATION FUND DISBURSEMENT Associate Planner, Kevin Pointer, presented an update regarding the disbursement of funds. He reported that the Buena Vista Lagoon Boardwalk project has signed a Letter of Agreement with the City. The Foundation came forward to the City and requested that portions of encumbered funding awarded be disbursed. The City Council had originally encumbered $164,000, for the boardwalk project and city staff recently distributed $58,000 (at the end of October) to the grantees so they could move forward with design and permitting. The thirteen projects that had been awarded include four that have received complete funding, six that have received partial funding, and 3 projects that have not yet received and funding at all. As of last week, the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation has signed a Letter of Agreement with the City. They are now requesting $58,500 for the Discovery Center improvements at the end of Canon Road and Faraday where the Discovery Center is currently located. That money has not yet been disbursed and the applicant is currently proceeding through the administration process. Both staff and the applicant anticipate disbursement in the near future. Chairperson Larson asked the committee if they had any questions regarding Item #3. Receiving no response, he proceeded to Item #4. ITEM 4: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ON AWARDED GRANT AGP 06-10 (CARLSBAD BEACH NOURISHMENT) Associate Planner Kevin Pointer stated that the Committee made a recommendation to allocate funding for a Carlsbad Beach Nourishment project, utilizing the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fund. The City Council did not act in complete alignment with the Committee’s recommendation, rather, they chose to allocate portions of that funding to a region wide beach nourishment project administered by SANDAG. He also pointed out that there was a Staff representative from the Engineering Department present to give a summary on that project. Mr. Pointer proceeded to introduce Associate Engineer, Steve Jantz representing the City’s Engineering Department. Mr. Jantz stated that he understands that the Committee is interesting in knowing if the SANDAG project is in line with the same project that the Carlsbad Beach Preservation Committee submitted for the Ag Mitigation funding. He then asked if that is, in fact, the question and if so, he would be happy to respond. Chairperson Larson stated that Mr. Jantz’s understanding is correct. He informed Mr. Jantz that the Committee’s concern is that they have a very strict obligation to make sure these funds complete certain projects in Carlsbad, and they’ve spent considerable time making certain, and talking about what affects Carlsbad. He further stated that the Committee wants to know exactly how the funds will be expended to benefit Carlsbad. Mr. Jantz presented a short history as follows: When the Carlsbad Beach Preservation Committee was putting together this project application, it was envisioned as a “stand-alone” project. The Beach Preservation Committee then decided they wanted to implement a project similar to the Carlsbad component of the 2001 Regional Sand Project. The funding opportunity came forward and the Beach Preservation Committee then submitted an application for an agricultural mitigation grant. About the same time, SANDAG staff and the SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Committee had started to talk about the next regional beach sand project. They were then about 6 months behind what the Carlsbad Beach Committee had applied for. When the Ag Mitigation Committee recommended funding for a Carlsbad-beach-only project, it was fine. However, 6 months behind that recommendation came the SANDAG project. SANDAG is looking to put together a regional project. They had to do preliminary planning and engineering in order to regenerate the 2001 project and hire a consultant to come forward to do the preliminary engineering and preliminary environmental assessment. When the Beach Preservation Committee went before the Council to get authorization for partial funding (at that time $34,500), it was recommended that since this was going to move to a regional project, that SANDAG be added to the application for the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation funding. On November 6, 2007, when the Carlsbad City Council approved that Memorandum of Understanding with SANDAG, they also added SANDAG to the application for the agricultural conversion mitigation grant that the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Committee is currently discussing. It became more than a city-wide ONLY project, it became a region wide project and the Council, through a Resolution, added SANDAG as a regional partner, to the application that the Committee is requesting information on. SANDAG is moving forward with the regional project, which among other things, implements the same local features as the Carlsbad-beach-only project. By joining with SANDAG it is perceived that Carlsbad could receive the same amount of sand but at a lower cost. It is expected that the preliminary reviews are supposed to be completed sometime in January, 2009 and then SANDAG is going to move forward to the next phase of that project with will be the EIR, the permitting, and then the design. They are expecting to start the project sometime in the first quarter of 2009. City Staff is currently reviewing a memorandum of understanding to move to the next level. Staff will be presenting an Agenda Bill to Council to move forward with the next phase. Staff’s recommendation is to use the Agricultural Mitigation Funding as the City’s share to that regional project. In general, it is the exact same project and will put sand on Carlsbad’s beaches as well as the other beaches in the San Diego Region. Responding to a question from Committee-member Rosten, Mr. Jantz replied that nothing more has been added, with regard to the way the project was described in the application for the Ag Mitigation. It’s still the same quantity of sand and same two locations, so nothing has been added above and beyond what was in the original application. We put in the same quantity that was in 2001 and currently, that same proposal is what is going through SANDAG. Mr. Sandquist stated he is actively involved on the staff working group through the SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Committee and there has been no new addition to the Carlsbad part in any of the monthly meetings. The position, now, is to use the Ag Mitigation funds as Carlsbad’s share to the region shoreline project but again, within the Carlsbad boundaries it’s the same project that was originally applied for. Chairperson Larson pointed out that the City’s paid $74,500 thus far and asked Mr. Jantz exactly what the City’s share will be for the regional sand project, or is there going to be some savings to the City by going into this group project, in which case there would be more money for the Committee to allocate to another project. Mr. Jantz replied that there is a real possibility that the City’s share could well be less than has been allocated. He pointed out that the $74,500 is the current pro-rated share to that 1/2 million dollar contract to do the preliminary engineering and preliminary environmental review. The next phase of the project is estimated to be about $500,000. The Beach Preservation Committee had applied for 1.5 million dollars so there is a potential that there will be some money leftover that could be applied to other projects as they come before the Committee. He pointed out that San Diego is the biggest player in the project but are struggling financially and the Shoreline Committee is not sure, at this time, if San Diego is going to be a partner in actually putting sand on the beach or not. He further pointed out that Del Mar, being a very small city, may have a difficult time acquiring part of the money for the sand project. Mr. Jantz suggested that the Committee should continue to have the same allocation of funds and allow Carlsbad to determine if it wants to spend more to get sand on the beach if one or two of the cities fall out of the mix. If they all join in, Carlsbad’s share will be .5 million dollars, The Beach Preservation Committee would come back to the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Committee and let them know there is now leftover funds that can be applied to other projects. He recommended that because things are still too uncertain, it is best to keep that allocation as it is and as we get more information in the next year or so, he can come back and update the Committee and if there are funds, he would urge they be put to other more appropriate projects. Chairperson Larson asked the Committee if they had any additional questions of staff, hearing none, he proceeded to Item 5. ITEM 5: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ON AWARDED GRANT AGP 06-12 (BATIQUITOS LAGOON MONITORING/MANAGEMENT PLAN Mr. Pointer reported that on February 19, 2008, the City Council approved one specific grant award with special circumstances and conditions associated with it. That project is the Batiquitos Lagoon Monitoring/Management Plan. The City Council, provisionally encumbered approximately $780,000 form the Ag Mitigation fund with authorization that City Staff may disperse approximately $75,000 of that money to fund permitting, data collecting and reporting as well as minor maintenance at the lagoon site. There were specific conditions including that for the remainder amount of money spent, the Ag Committee would need to consider allocating the remaining funds up to $780,000 and then take that recommendation forward to the City Council within a nine month period of the original February 19th approval date. As of this date, we are at that 9-month period since Council’s action and it was anticipated that during the past nine month period, a series of objectives would be met. Before stating the above mentioned objectives, Mr. Pointer reviewed background pertaining to the Lagoon project as follows: In the mid nineties, a Port of Los Angeles development project was constructed and was required to mitigate impacts through other marine enhancement on the California coastline area. Approximately $60,000,000 was spent by the Port of Los Angeles for the improvement and enhancement of the Batiquitos Lagoon. There were many monitoring reports and studies that would have taken place from the implementation date to the present. The life of those studies would be a ten year monitoring report that would then be provided to the City so the City would understand the health of the lagoon after the implementation of the project ten years later. It was anticipated that from the February date, at which point the applicant/grantee was awarded funds for additional monitoring at that site, but the City would receive the ten year report that was required as a result of the Port of Los Angeles project. It was also understood that at that point, the City would be able to use both these studies to have conversation with the California Department of Fish and Game, to understand who is responsible and who is actually capable of completing a lot of the regular maintenance at the lagoon. The City has not yet received that 10 year report. However the report is expected to be received sometime in the beginning of 2009. Staff expects to receive draft reports, with comments, by the end of January. Without that, we are unable to assess the current health of the lagoon and subsequently, not able to have conversations with the California Department of Fish and Game regarding the health of the lagoon and their maintenance responsibilities and capabilities. With that, City Staff suggests that the Committee take no action at this point. We do not have the necessary information from that 10 year report from the Port of Los Angeles and from our consultants to recommend that the remainder funding for this grant project either be re-programmed or disbursed to the applicant. DISCUSSION: Committee-member Baker asked just how late the report is, since it is now past the mid 2000's. Mr. Pointer stated he didn’t know exactly how late the report is, but that the City (in 1996) engaged into an agreement with multiple agencies regarding the mitigation that was intended to take place to enhance Batiquitos Lagoon. He estimated that the report is no more than a year off track. The agreement was signed in 1996 and then the actual enhancement at the lagoon took some period of time for dredging work after that. The timeline for the 10 year report began after dredge work was complete. The project applicant for the monitoring plan is in the audience and might be able to answer additional questions, particularly regarding the actual grant the Committee recommended for approval. It is uncertain, however, exactly when the Port of Los Angles study will be completed and how off track they really are. It has been recently reported, however, that the report is tentatively scheduled to be complete sometime in January 2009. Responding to questions from Committee-member Rosten, Fred Sandquist from the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation stated that as a part of the original project a trust fund was set up and generates approximately $240,000 to $250,000 per year, which is used for on-going maintenance and other activities at the lagoon. He further stated that it is his understanding that the Port of Los Angeles has contributed more money that goes toward the trust fund for maintenance. He also stated that the Committee’s grant for this project allowed them to go ahead and augment the original study with a supplemental study, costing approximately $20,000. The report on that study should was expected to come by the end of December, 2008, but seems to have been delayed. Mr. Sandquist suggested that he return to the Committee with the report, as soon as it is received. He added that the supplemental study may be added to the original study rather than including it as an addendum. Committee-member Rosten asked if the Foundation has enough money to open the sand filled mouth of the lagoon to protect the homes at the lower edge of the lagoon. Mr. Sandquist replied that the mouth of the lagoon is actually in pretty good shape and dredging, from a hydrologic perspective, is much more complicated than one might envision. The current problem is there is a sand deposit just to the east, in the basin, that is thought to be building. However, until they get an exact measurement, they don‘t know what the extent of it is. On the other hand, after some other studies at Encinitas and San Marcos creeks, it was found that instead of the water being slightly brackish, it has much more salt than previously thought. The level of salt in the water indicates there is quite a bit of tidal flushing as far away as the La Costa Resort and Spa. The residents of that La Costa area have reported they can actually see the changes in the tides so there is some action at the east end of the lagoon. However, the Foundation is not exactly sure, until the study is complete, what the tidal effect. It is better that previously thought but there is still sand deposition. Committee-member Rosten stated that he has made contact with Flood Control, on many occasions and for many years, telling them they have to open the mouth of the lagoon. They replied that they were too busy. Committee-member Rosten then urged Mr. Sandquist to speak to the flood control people and resolve the problem of the impending danger to the residences closest to the water if the mouth of the lagoon isn’t opened in the near future. Mr. Sandquist stated that they are working with Fish and Game and recently were informed that Fish and Game is currently in the process of obtaining the permit to do another dredge, hopefully in 2009. ITEM 6: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ON AWARDED GRANT AGP 06-16 (LA POSADA FARMWORKER HOUSING Mr. Pointer stated that City Council originally encumbered $2,000,000 from the Ag Conversion Mitigation Fund with a stipulation or condition on that project. The stipulation was that $108,000 (of the encumbered $2,000,000) would be authorized for release to allow for some original permitting and project design work. Funding for that project has not yet been disbursed. At the September 2, 2008 meeting, the applicant’s representatives indicated they would be able to return to the Committee within about a two month period, with a revised project proposal, considering that the originally encumbered $2,000,000 would not be sufficient to cover operational costs for that project. We have not yet received a revised project proposal from the applicant. However, the project applicant is present to address the Committee, today, on the actual status of that project and whether or not it is currently feasible to implement the project as proposed, or any type of revision or alternative to that project. Sister RayMonda Duvall, representing Catholic Charities, the applicant, stated that when they appeared at the last meeting (Sept. 2, 2008) they felt they could bring forward design plans and scale back what they had originally planned. In the meantime, funding at the state level has been drastically cut and consequently felt that an investment in plans were not appropriate and they again searched for funding, as it appears they will receive no further funding from the state, for operations, for quite some time. Further, the City of Carlsbad annually contributes $5,000 to our operation which they are most grateful for, but it doesn’t help them meet the ongoing costs of operations. It has been determined they cannot engage in a new project when they are so uncertain of funding for operations. Building is not the problem since they can scale back the plans and still have a very nice facility. The problem is having the money to operate it. Sister RayMonda pointed out that they had submitted three items of consideration to the Committee for their consideration and they are as follows: 1) not to return the currently encumbered $2,000,000 to the funds awaiting distribution, but to preserve this Farmworker housing money, whether it be for Catholic Charities or another entity, but maintain that fund for its purpose; 2) investigate how the funds could be used to full benefit (construction plus operation)--If the Committee would ask Staff to investigate the legislation and find out if any of that money could be used for operations, then Catholic Charities would recommend that a cap be placed on the construction and also set up a plan of what could be drawn in what time frame for operations; 3) Catholic Charities are not asking for a blank check or asking the Committee to “pick up the tab” for La Posada, but are saying the $2,000,000 could be put to good use in construction and service operations. Committee-member Baker asked Sister RayMonda to reiterate what is financially expected of the Farmworkers who will be using this housing. Sister RayMonda replied that the Farmworkers will contribute to the cost of housing, which includes staffing and day to day operations. Committee-member Baker then asked how much of a short fall is between the amount of “rent” charged and what is really needed for the entire operation. In response, Sister RayMonda stated the rent would be very minimal and would never come close to covering all the costs. Committee-member Baker expressed her concern as to what will happen if there is a time when there are no funds to operate the housing project. Sister RayMonda replied that she feels that the funds would be budgeted, resulting in Catholic Charities being able to stretch out the money for several years. She added that there is no other spot, in Carlsbad, where a shelter could be provided and they see the facility evolve as the community evolves. Right now they need housing for Farmworkers & migrant workers and there’s no way to tell what they will need in the years to come. It is a foregone conclusion that they will certainly need something. They will need to have a site that can accommodate families or women and their children, etc. The design will be such that it will always be useful. Hopefully by that time, advocates will have been successful in reinstating the emergency housing portion of the state funding and the state will step up and say “we need to contribute to the emergency shelters and food programs that come from FEMA.” Perhaps those funds will be increased and Catholic Charities’ portion of it would be increased also. Committee-member Rosten asked if there are any growers that are contributing to the Farmworker housing and if not, have any of them been approached for contributions or would that be out of line. Sister RayMonda replied in the negative and added that approaching the growers would not be out of line but doubted they would cover the amount of operation costs that will be generated. Originally they had planned to require a “verification of employment” and then a request to the grower for a contribution based on the number of their workers that would be housed there at the facility. Sister RayMonda again urged the Committee not to throw the money “back into the pot’ and if they are not pleased with Catholic Charities because it hasn’t brought in a project that the Committee move on quickly. In terms of projects, she further urged the Committee to look for someone else that can provide Farmworker housing. DISCUSSION: Chairperson Larson began the discussion by pointing out that they have two things they need to concentrate on. 1) Is the Committee willing to just sit back on this project and see what happens? 2) Possibly give an opportunity to someone else to come in under the $2,000,000 that is set aside and give us another project proposal or see if things change (as was suggested) and see if the state’s funding situation changes which is unlikely. In response to Committee-member Wrisley’s inquiry, Chairperson Larson responded that he isn’t sure if they decided (as a Committee) or if this was a part of the charges given them by the City Council, that the Committee could not spend any money on programs or operational costs and that everything this Committee allocates has to be on capital projects. He further stated he doesn’t think the Committee has that leeway. Committee-member Rosten stated that of Catholic Charities is not in a position to go forward with their project, he doesn’t want to see that $2,000,000 stuck away and not get used. He went on to say he thinks that money should be allocated to a project that can complete a project where it is needed. Chairperson Larson reminded everyone that, historically, there was a citizen’s group in Carlsbad that brought the concept of Farmworkers housing forward and then solicited Catholic Charities as the applicant for them with the idea of working together on the project. He added that if the Committee did decide to leave the $2,000,000 (not project specific allocated), it’s quite possible that the citizen’s group may re-energize themselves and look for a way to do that themselves. As a Committee however, he stated that they don’t really know how that would work out. (Committee-member Wrisley made a statement and Mr. Rosten joined in but I was not able to make any sense out of the whole conversation) Chairperson Larson stated that from a farming perspective, these farmers are all on leased land and they don’t necessarily know how long they are going to be able to farm those lands. Expecting them to make a capital contribution to a Farmworkers project is difficult, at best. As a side note, Chairperson Larson pointed out cumulative costs. For example, if a farmer does get involved and helps sponsor Farmworker housing, he also has to provide additional benefit to all his other employees, as well. Neil Turner addressed the Committee on Agenda Item #6 and indicated that the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fund may not be utilized for homeless housing. He also questioned how the fund is divided. He questioned how Farmworkers would be transported from the La Posada project to the fields. He also indicated that the La Posada project would result in housing for illegal aliens and so it would consist of aiding and abetting. Chairperson Larson responded that all Farmworkers would be required to submit a proper I-9 form. Tom Maddox indicated that it is a mandate that the fund would not support programming. He indicated that the City of Lancaster is purchasing foreclosed homes and suggested that the Farmworker housing steering group could utilize Agricultural Conversion Mitigation funds for this or similarly creative purposes. He indicated that there might be alternates and possibly other locations that could accommodate various/smaller Farmworker housing projects. Committee-member Roston asked Sister RayMonda what she would like the Committee to do about the fact that Catholic Charities would be unable to construct the project because they cannot provide for operational costs. Sister RayMonda responded that she would like inquiries be made as to the possibility of the grant monies being used for both construction and operational uses in their project. Chairperson Larson suggested that staff return to the Committee and present information on whether Agricultural Conversion Mitigation monies could be use to fund maintenance programs such as operational funds for the La Posada Farmworker housing project. Committee-member Julie Baker indicated that the La Posada site was carefully thought out and was skeptical that Catholic Charities would be able to find other sites. Chairperson Larson also indicated that he believed the Committee should be willing to accept and consider an amended proposal submitted by Catholic Charities if they are able to redesign the project to be feasible. By consensus, the Committee determined that they would not take action on the item, but that the Committee would be willing to accept a modified proposal on the La Posada project. By consensus, the Committee also directed staff to return with information on the Committee’s charge pertaining to whether the Committee could utilize Agricultural Conversion Mitigation monies to fund operational costs such as those discussed in reference to the La Posada Farmworker Housing project. ITEM 7: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ON PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING TIME LIMITS ON DISBURSEMENT OF APPROVED GRANT AWARDS Committee-member Rosten indicated that he would like to see time-limits placed on projects. Committee-member Wrisley indicated that time-limits should be project specific. Committee-member Alfrey indicated that perhaps deadlines should be set before going out for solicitation. Committee-member Baker indicated that she felt time limits would be appropriate. Committee-member Wrisley indicated that she believed that there were only two projects that have not signed agreements with the City—the Agua Hedionda Discovery Center Improvements project and the La Posada Farmworker Housing project. Mr. Pointer clarified that there are in fact two projects with grantees that do not have signed letters of agreement with the City. Those projects are the La Posada Farmworker Housing project and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Trails Enhancement Project. Committee-member Baker commented that she would be supportive of establishing time lines for projects so that there would be potential to allocate money from the fund to other projects if funds weren’t being spent. Mr. Pointer asked the Committee for clarification and commented that staff would be supportive if the Committee chose to establish time lines for the two projects for which there are no letters of agreement signed by the mayor. He commented that the grant awards for these projects were approved subject to the signing of these letters of agreement. Therefore, if the Committee chose, they could recommend that the City Council reprogram the encumbered funding for these grant awards. He also indicated that staff would not necessarily support establishing time limits on projects that have signed agreements with the City because funding for some of these projects has already been disbursed. He also indicated that the Committee could also choose to establish time limits for future projects that the Committee would like to recommend be awarded. He stated that staff would be supportive of such time limits but that they should be considered for individual projects as those projects are reviewed and recommended on an individual basis for Council award. By consensus, the Committee decided to not take action to establish time limits, but indicated that they would like to see continual status updates on projects at future Committee meetings. The Committee also determined that they would want to see updates from applicants at the following Committee meeting after one year of the grant award being approved by Council. Staff could indicate to the grantee that the grantee could be notified that they would need to present their progress to the Committee and/or risk having their funding retracted. ITEM 8: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ON AVAILABLE FUNDING AND POTENTIAL GRANT SOLICITATIONS Mr. Pointer presented information to the Committee that there is approximately $701,936 of unencumbered funding within the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation fund that the Committee would be able to make recommendations on if they were to engage in another round of grant solicitations. He noted that this figure remains an accurate approximation since it was reported to the Committee at the September 2, 2008 Committee meeting because there has not been additional grant awards approved and there have been no significant deposits into the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation fund because there have been no conversions of coastal agricultural land to urban uses. Mr. Pointer reminded the Committee that the money within the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation fund is generated when coastal agricultural lands are developed. Developers are required to pay into the fund at a rate of $10,000 per acre. The Committee then makes recommendations to the City Council to allocate that funding toward projects that would mitigate the conversion of coastal agricultural property. He indicated that staff would be available as a resource to administer the grant process if the Committee chose to engage in a grant solicitation, review and recommendation process. Committee-member Wrisley suggested that the Committee should not rush forward with looking at other projects for which they can spend the money on. Chairperson Larson indicated that the Committee’s life is almost up and suggested that the Committee move forward with considering grants. Committee-member Wrisley then asked staff what the expiration date would be for the Committee. Mr. Pointer responded that the Committee was formed for a limited period and that the life of the Committee would terminate in early August 2009. The process for extending the Committee’s life would be to request that Council take such an action at which point the Council could consider whether to do so. Committee-member Rosten asked how people know the funding is available. Chairperson Larson indicated that in the past, the City placed ads in newspapers and sent out notices to people who might want to propose projects for the funding. Committee-member Alfrey indicated that the grant process takes quite a bit of time and that he thought it would be a good time to get started on looking at other projects. By consensus, the Committee decided to solicit grant proposals to consider projects for which the Committee may recommend City Council encumbrance of the Agricultural Conversion Mitigation fund. The Committee directed staff to return with a proposed strategy and time line to implement a grant solicitation, consideration and award process similar to that utilized during the original grant solicitation process. ITEM 9: PUBLIC COMMENT Nikki Weaver, a representative of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation addressed the Committee and stated that the Foundation is involved in a long process of making arrangements with a multitude of stakeholders which is required prior to project implementation of the awarded Trails Enhancement Project. She indicated that the Foundation is very actively pursuing project implementation. She also indicated that Eric Munoz originally discussed with the Committee that this project would take a considerable amount of time because of the various stakeholders involved. Ms. Weaver encouraged staff to research past discussions regarding the Foundation’s statements that the project would require a considerable time period before implementation would be possible. Kasey Cinciarelli indicated that during the last grant process, City staff did not require Certified Financial Statements from all grant applicants, even though the grant application indicated that one would be required. She noted that this requirement was not enforced. She noted that there were many interested parties that that would have submitted grant applications; however, they did not do so because they were under the impression that the City would have required a Financial Statement that many organizations could not afford to pay for. She encouraged staff to abide by the process during another grant review period. She also indicated that she was happy that the Committee would be opening up for grant solicitations because it was good for land acquisition projects. ITEM 10: Potential Future Meeting Dates The Committee determined by consensus that they would meet again on Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 1pm. ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Larson adjourned the meeting at 2:32 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Carol A. Cruise, Minutes Clerk