HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-18; City Council; MinutesMINUTES
MEETING OF :
DATE OF MEETING:
TIME OF MEETING:
PLACE OF MEETING:
CITY COUNCIL (Special Meeting)
Wednesday, June 18,2003
11:OO a.m.
Room 173A/B
Faraday Administration Offices, 1635 Faraday, Carlsbad, CA
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Lewis called the Meeting to order at 1 1 :05 a.m.
ROLL CALL was taken by the City Clerk, as follows:
Present:
Absent: None
Mayor Lewis, Mayor Pro Tem Finnila, Council Members Kulchin, Hall and Packard
Agenda Items:
1. Council Reports on regional roles and assignments, as necessary.
The Mayor asked to defer this item and moved to discuss Items 4 and 5. Council concurred.
4. Discussion of street racing ordinances: ex., San Diego Municipal Code.
5. Discussion of house party social host) ordinances; ex.. San Diego Municipal Code. Oceanside, and Powav.
Council Member Packard gave an overview of these items. Deputy City Attorney McMahon spoke regarding similar
ordinances that have been adopted in Poway and San Diego. Police Chief Hawks spoke in support of an ordinance
regarding street racing. Council concurred to move forward in the review of the street-racing ordinance asking the
Attorney’s Office to return with this item at a future Council Meeting. Council concurred not to review the house
party (social host) ordinance at this time.
Mayor Lewis asked that Council Member Hall and Mayor Pro Tem Finnila serve on an ad hoc subcommittee
regarding the Community Activities Fund and bring their recommendations back to Council. Mayor Lewis stated
that when the subcommittee returns to Council with recommendations the Community requests from the 2003-2004
budget could be discussed.
2. Discussion of short-term and long-term budgetary priorities and policies including Proposition C
spending options for capital oroiects.
Council concurred to discuss the swim complex first. The Council agreed to include a 12 lane instructional pool, a
competitive pool (which can also be used for training), a therapy pool, a children’s pool, waterslide and a “lazy
river” in the complex. Council selected Aquatic Complex Option 10A (this design is onfile with the Department of
Recreation Administration (760) 434-2824). Council requested that staff return with an agenda bill covering scope,
design and schedule for the complex.
Council began a discussion of open space acquisition which included: the timing of the HMP final approval, view
corridors, the possibility of forming a citizen committee, open space maintenance costs including potential
partnershipdfunds that could mitigate maintenance costs, and the complexities of monitoring and maintaining open
space.
June 18,2003 Special Council Meeting Page 2
Council concurred that staff should generate a report regarding the acquisition of open space. City Manager Ray
Patchett stated that he would direct staff to work on an open space acquisition report and that it would include details
regarding habitat maintenance. Mr. Patchett stated that he would also direct staff to report on the Safety Training
Center.
Mayor Lewis asked staff to review the progress on Cannon Road (Reach 4). Director of Public Works Lloyd Hubbs
and City Engineer Glenn Pruim reported that the environmental report and funding of are the project’s two top
priorities at this time.
Mayor Lewis stated he would like information regarding a toll road for this portion (Reach 4) of Cannon.
Mr. Hubbs stated that the Wildlife and Fish and Game agencies have reviewed the right-of-way shown on the map of
the Habitat Management Plan and Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Finnila gave a SANDAG overview of north county road plans. She stated that not all cities have
submitted their numbers.
Mayor Lewis called a recess at 11:56 a.m.
Mayor Lewis reconvened the meeting at 12: 15 with all Council Members present.
Diane Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk Way, Oceanside, discussed foundation partnerships and acquisition of open space.
Ms. Nygaard stated that this is the right time to purchase parcels of land to dedicate to open space. Ms. Nygaard
stated that endangered species need conservation of land for their preservation. Ms. Nygaard also said that, Cannon
Road Reach 4 is low on the region’s priority list.
Shelly Hayes Caron spoke about the preservation of the Buena Vista Creek and falls. She stated that the falls are
disturbed by the activity of Oceanside’s mining reclamation. She urged Council to acquire, protect and restore this
land. She described the land as a cultural asset. She added that these waterways collect sediment and protect Buena
Vista Lagoon.
Mayor Pro Tem Finnila asked Ms. Caron to speak with the McMillan development company.
3. Discussion of uroduction. distribution and deliverv of water and water related services bv public or
private entities and other related water issues. (All materials distributed at the meeting, regarding this item,
are on file in the Ofice of the City Clerk, (760) 434-2808.)
Administrative Services Director Jim Elliott gave an overview of the desalination project and a status on the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County Water Authority. Mr. Elliott outlined that during the study
session Council would be 1) viewing the presentation made to North County and City of San Diego water board
representatives. (Donnell), 2) reviewing Council’s Desalination Negotiating Principles regarding land use
(Holzmiller), water quality (Greaney), water reliability (Hubbs), pipeline alignment (Pruim); and 3) asked to consider
giving direction to proceed with a Precise Development Plan (PDP) on the Cabrillo site, and to complete
negotiations with SDG&E on the remainder of the property.
At 1:18 p.m. the Mayor called a recess. At 1:25 p.m. the Mayor reconvened the meeting with all four Council
Members present.
Council concurred to proceed with a PDP on the Cabrillo site, and to complete negotiations with SDG&E on the
remainder of the property.
June 18,2003 Special Council Meeting Page 3
Item 6: Discussion of Council efficiency and effectiveness includinp impact of regional assignments with regard to'
contact with other Council members. decision and policymaking. serving the community and effective methods of
feedback, Item 7: City Manager review of goal and maior proiect tracking report and update discussion of Council
goal setting process and discussion of capacitv and effectiveness in the deliverv of Citv processes and services, and
Item 8: Discussion of feedback, communications or correspondence on issues of communitv concern, including
directions to the City Manager or Citv Attomev, as appropriate, for the scheduling of items for future agendas,
workshops or study sessions.
These items were not discussed.
9. Public Comment:
Kasey Cinciarelli, 2727 Lyons Court, spoke about her concerns regarding the price of desalination water. She
suggested that computer modeling might help this effort.
Mayor Lewis explained that many of Ms. Cinciarelli's concerns should be addressed by the County Water Agency.
The Special meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
c
Council Workshop
Desalination Project
June 18,2003
Suggested Discussion Outline
1. Optional - Presentation made to North County and City of San Diego water
board representatives (This 30 to 45 minute presentation was given to two groups of Water
Authority board members on May 21,2003 one day prior to the board’s decision to proceed with the hiring of the EIR consultant for the desalination project)
2. Staff presentation overview - Review of Council’s Desalination Negotiating
Principles - June 18,2003 (See Exhibit A):
a. Land Use - EIR status, Specific Plan (Michael Holrmiller, Scott Donnell)
b. Water - Quality, Reliability, Pipeline Alignment (Lloyd Hubbs, Glenn Pruim,
Bob Greaney)
c. Economic issues (Jim Elliott)
d. Overview of MOU negotiation process and status (Ron Ball, Jim Elliott, Lloyd
Hubbs)
3. Recommended action:
a. Discussion of the current status of negotiations and the approach taken by
staff with regard to the Council’s principles
b. Reconsideration of the June 1 1,2002 direction on the Specific Plan
update: Staff is asking that the Council reconsider the processing
approach adopted in June 2002 @e.: the requirement for the preparation of
a specific plan amendment as part of the desalination project), and the
substitution of Council direction to proceed with a PDP on the Cabrillo
site, and to complete negotiations with SDG&E on the remainder property.
(See Exhibit B)
r
e
e
e
e
0
b
0
0
\ 1
PRINCIPLES FOR DESALINATION NEGOTIATIONS JUNE 11,2002 Exhibit A
Redevelop Encina Power Plant to maximize its best public and private uses.
Maximize beach and lagoon access for the public.
Maximize open space and recreational opportunities for the public.
Improved water reliability and quality in both normal and drought periods at CWA
water rates.
Desalination facility protected from power market cost fluctuations.
Accrue a positive economic benefrt from the increased industrial development of
the coastal corridor.
The Redevelopment Agency shall cooperate with any other public agency
proposing a desalination project within its boundary so that any possible loss in
anticipated tax increment is reduced or eliminated.
The projects of the Redevelopment Agency shall not be prejudiced or
compromised as a consequence of a desalination project.
A desalination project shall provide water reliability so that the annual base need,
not including recycled water, is met which shall be subject to local control and
appropriation and remainder amounts shall be subject to drought allocation rules
as established by the County Water Authority and applied equally to all other
member agencies.
AB 16,924
October 8, 2002
AB# 16,790
MTG. 6-11-*2
DEPT. PLN ShL
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council DIRECT staff to continue to require a comprehensive AmendmentlUpdate of
Specific Plan 144 in conjunction with the processing of any application on the Encina Power Plant
site. If the Council determines that an alternative processing approach is warranted, the City
Attorney should be directed to return with a Council resolution formalizing the alternative approach.
TITLE:
ENCINA POWER PLANT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS - PROPOSED DESALINATION FAClLlN
CITY AlTY.
CITYMGR %?
ITEM EXPLANATION:
An application has been submitted for a proposed desalination plant on the Encina Power Plant
property. The Encina Power Plant is part of a larger 650-acre Specific Plan, SP 144. which also includes Agua Hedionda Lagoon and a number of properties surrounding the Lagoon owned by
Cabrillo Power and Sempra Energy (SDG&E). In 1998, the City Council passed a Resolution of
Intention (Resolution No. 98-145 attached) to have staff do a land use study for the Specific Plan
area. The Specific Plan is very old. There are many unresolved issues associated with the Specific
Plan properties including zoning designations which do not match the General Plan, out-dated plans
that do not show existing structures and improvements, Local Coastal Plan requirements that have
not been addressed and numerous other issues. The purpose of the land use study was to address
these issues but also to establish a future vision for the area. Two major objectives which the city
Nanted to address in formulating this vision was 1) to secure public ownership of the south shore of the lagoon east of 1-5 in order to enhance public access and use of this open space area and 2) to
ansider the possibility of demolishing the existing power plant and constructing a smaller one
:hereby freeing-up some additional beach front property for public use.
Initiation of the land use study was subsequently put on hold when the Power Plant was sold by
3DG&E to Cabrillo Power. It was the city's intent to work with the new owner to update the Specific
Dlan and include consideration of replacing the existing Power Plant with a newer, smaller and more
lisually pfeasing plant. The city attempted to negotiate a M.O.U. with the new owner which would
nclude a process to study the existing and future land use but the M.O.U. never materialized and jiscussions have ceased.
n July of 2000, the City Council approved the Redevelopment Plan for the South Carlsbad Coastal
qedevelopment Project. The Encina Power Plant site is located within the boundaries of the
Tedevelopment Project. Two of the stated goals of the Plan were:
a Facilitating the redevelopment of the Encina power generating facility to a smaller, more efficient power generating plant
a Developing new beach and coastal recreational opportunities.
3ased upon the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and the Council's Resolution of Intention in 1998, it has been staffs consistent position that no new improvements or facifities will be allowed at
he Encina Power Plant and no application for new facilities will be processed on the site until the mtire Specific Plan 144 is amended and the matters described above are addressed.
n December 2001, the Planning Department was requested to provide a letter to Poseidon
3esources Corporation which, in part, would identify processing requirements for a proposal to Dcate a desalination facility at the Encina Power Plant. A copy of the letter is attached. The issue of
he Specific Plan update is included in the letter (top of Page 2).
3
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16# 790
A formal application for the desalination plant has now been submitted and the issue of requiring an
update of the Specific Plan in conjunction with the processing of the application has been raised.
Interested parties associated with the proposed desalination plant have indicated to staff that the
project must be processed in a very expedient manner and they are concerned that updating the
Specific Plan will not allow them to meet the required timeframes. Therefore, staff is returning to the
City Council at this time to secure direction regarding this matter.
Staff believes that the most effective way to address the goals and formulate a vision for the Specific
Plan area as previously identified by the City Council, is to continue to require the processing of a
Specific Plan ArnendmentlUpdate with any application which proposes new facilities or
improvements on the Encina Power Plant site. However, there are alternative processing schemes
which could be considered by the Council. Staff has identified four processing approaches, which
are described below.
Alternative 1 - ApplicantIProperty owner - initiated Comprehensive Specific Plan Amendment/
Update. This alternative would require the applicant for any proposed project, such as the
desalination plant, to prepare an update of the Specific Plan with the authorization of the property owners (Cabrillo Power and Sempra Energy). The city would then be a reviewer of the Plan
prepared by the applicant which is normally the process which is followed. This alternative would
require the cooperation and resource commitment by the property owners.
Alternative 2 - City-initiated Comprehensive Specific Plan AmendmentlUpdate. This alternative was
the one originally being pursued by the city in 1998 because of lack of cooperation and effort by the
property owner but was not initiated because the power plant was sold to a new owner. This
alternative does not require authorization from the property owners. The Specific Plan Amendment would be prepared by staff which would require additional staff time commitment. The property
owners could provide some resistance to cooperating with the staff preparation.
Alternative 3 - Minor Specific Plan Amendment - Defer Comprehensive Update. This alternative would defer a comprehensive amendmenuupdate of the Specific Plan until a later time. The existing
Plan would merely be amended to identify any new improvements or facilities if approved by the city
such as the desalination plant. The Site, however, would still be retained as part of the larger
Specific Plan. The consideration of the previously identified city goals and formulation of a vision for
the entire Specific Plan area would also be deferred.
Alternative 4 - Delete Specific Plan on Power Plant/Desalination Facility Site and Replace with
Precise Development Plan. This alternative is the one preferred by the owner of the power plant and
the applicant for the desalination facility. The zoning of the power plant site (PU) requires a Precise
Development Plan (PDP) for any new facilities approved on the site. As previously stated, an application for a PDP has already been formally submitted. This alternative would delete the power
plant site from the Specific Plan and replace it with the PDP. The city would then just be reviewing
the acceptability of the desalination plant on the property. A future update of the Specific Plan
including city goals and vision formulation would then just involve the other properties in the Plan
primarily owned by Sempra Energy.
The best case processing times for Alternatives I and 2 are 24 months and for Alternatives 3 and 4
18 months. These are best case processing times in that they assume the project is given a high priority, is adequately resourced and all parties cooperate to a high level. Also, the times do not
include Coastal Commission processing. The Coastal Commission has coastal permit authority over
the Encina Power Plant site and will eventually have final approval authority.
Y
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16,790
Staff is presently operating under the Alternative 1 processing approach described above. If the Council desires to operate under an alternative approach, staff should be so directed and the City
Attorney should return with a resolution formalizing the alternative approach.
Regardless of the approach that is utilized in processing the application for the proposed
desalination facility, staff has drafted some key principles to be used in reviewing the application and
negotiating the facility. These principles are based on previous Council actions and discussions
regarding these items. A summary of the principles are attached as Exhibit 4.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
It has been determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared to analyze the
environmental effects of developing a desalination facility at the Encina Power Plant. Carlsbad will
be the lead agency for conducting the environmental review.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None associated with this adion. Processing of the proposed desalination facility and associated
Specific Plan Amendment will require staff time and resources. Fees for processing and the
preparation of an EIR will be paid by the applicant.
EXHIBITS:
1. SP 144 Boundary Map
2.
3.
4. Principles for Desalination Negotiations.
Resolution of Intention No. 98-145
Letter to Poseidon Resources Corporation, dated December 6,2001
5
Status Repofl
LAND USE
CON S I DE RAT1 ON S
Proposed Desalination Facility at
the Encina Power Station
City Processing Position*
# Entire specific plan update with
desalination plant proposal
+ Major goal: enhance public access and
use
I 1 #Alternative processing approach will
require formal Council resolution
$2 *Per 6/11/02 Council direction
1
Land Use Considerations
# EIR * Understanding with CWA * EIR Scope & Status * Pump stations and pipelines
# Precise Development Plan
SDG&E discussions
6/18/03 3
AREA OF ENCINA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 144)
2
ENCINA POWER STATION
3
€-
%lib 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD - COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
MOU - ECONOMIC ISSUES
1. Policy - Project should accrue a positive economic benefit for the City and
Redevelopment area:
a. The CWA has indicated that as long as the project is considered a “private
project” it will be subject to the normal property taxes and assessments
applied to any private property.
b. The current MOU language does not address the economic concerns of the
city beyond the normal taxation policies of the County Assessor.
2. Policy - Any possible loss of tax increment revenue is reduced or eliminated:
a. The CWA has been unwilling to propose filling an ongoing gap in tax
revenue for the City or Redevelopment Agency.
b. The CWA is willing to do public improvement, within reason, within the
area affected by the project. The sample EIR mitigation projects are an
attempt to address some of these concerns. Other opportunities may
appear as the ER progresses.
3. Policy - Redevelopment projects shall not be prejudiced or compromised by the
desalination project.
a. The biggest concern continues to be the effect the desalination plant will
have on Cabrillo’s willingness to move the power plant eastward on the
existing site. The investment in the desalination plant appears to reduce
the possibility that a new, smaller, more efficient plant will be created in
the near future. This decreases the probability of additional revenues for
the Redevelopment Agency.
CITY OF CARLSBAD-COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
MOU WATER RELIABILITY FEATURES
CMWD HAS RIGHT TO ACQUIRE UP TO 1 1,200-ACRE FEET PER YEAR , (1 OMGD)
OTHER MEMBER AGENCIES.
PRICE OF WATER WILL CREDIT MWD REBATE AND OTHER GRANTS
LOANS AND RATE SUBSIDIES.
CMWD WILL RECEIVE RENT PAYMENTS FOR THE USE OF MAERKLE
RESERVOIR THE AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED. RENT CAN BE USED
TO BUY DOWN THE WATER RATE OR AS OTHERWISE DETERMINED
BY CMWD BOARD.
CMWD PURCHASED WATER WILL BE DESIGNATED A LOCAL SOURCE
FOR PURPOSES OF DROUGHT ALLOCATION. THIS WILL RESULT IN
AN INCREASE OF WATER ALLOCATED TO CMWD IN A DROUGHT OF
30% OF THE DESAL WATER PURCHASED UNDER THE WATER SUPPLY
CONTRACT.
RELIABILITY IN A 25% CUT BACK WOULD BE REDUCED TO 10%.
DROUGHT ALLOCATION WOULD ALSO CONFIRM 30% CREDIT FOR
RECYCLED WATER
PRICE OF WATER TO BE NEGOTIATED-MAY EXCEED COST OF WATER
0
0
0
ASSUMING CMWD PURCASED THE FULL 11,200-ACRE FEET
0
Technical Memorandum: System Evaluations
2. Evaluation Criteria
Project evaluation criteria are grouped into four summary level
criteria, or goals, as follows:
1) Minimize Overall Project Cost
2) Minimize Adverse Social and Environmental Effects
3) Maximize System Implementability / Minimize Project Schedule
4) Maximize Operational Effectiveness and System Reliability
The summary level criteria represent broad policy-level goals of the
project. The summary criteria are weighted, with the final weights
assigned by the SDCWA Board.
Each summary level criteria is in turn made up of several subcategory
criteria. Subcategory criteria are assigned maximum point scores, with
point allocations totaling 100 points per summary level category. The
subcategory criteria and their summary level groupings are shown
below in Table 1:
Table 1: Evaluation Criteria, with Sample Maximum Point Scores
Maximize System
I SUBCATEGORY CRITERIA
OPERATIONAL
Maximize Operational
Effectiveness and
System Reliability
Weight: I 15%
Desalinated Water Conveyance Facilities Alignment Study DRAFT June 9,2003 2 f3OYLEiPmg
.
I
I I I
Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant
An Oppottunity to Enhance the Region
3DL
City of Carlsbad
6/17/2003
. U Carlsbad Desalination Project
Update 1
June 2000 Poseidon approached the Carlsbad City Council with the proposal to build a 25 mgd desalination plant.
Poseidon asked for a resolution of support from the Council, and authorization to proceed with feasibility studies
July 2001 - Poseidon presented a feasibility
study to the City proposing a 50 mgd plant at the Encina power plant
6/17/2003
Desalination Plant 1
Cads bad DesaI ination Project
rn July 2001- June 2002 - Water Authority a Update develops a serious interest in the project and
proceeds with negotiations with Cabrillo/Poseidon and the City of Carlsbad for
the development of the project
rn Negotiations between the Authority and City, and Authority and Cabrillo/Poseidon continue as
of May 2003
But there is more to the story:
6/17/2003
u Desalination Project
Background: A Carlsbad 1 Perspective
rn Planning Issues:
w Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director
w Scott Donnell - Assodate Planner
Water Issues:
Lloyd Hubbs - Public Works Director
Bob Greaney - Deputy Public Works Director
w Jim Elliott - Administrative Services Director
rn Memorandum of Understanding Status
6/17/2003
Desalination Plant 2
I
I I I U
Carlsbad Seawater
Desalination Plant
Planning Issues
Scott Donnell / Michael Holzmiller
6/17/2003
.
0 bj ect ive 1 71 Enhanced public access to coastal . resources
Carlsbad's beaches are a regional draw
The desalination project can help complete a
missing link
6:
6/17/2003
Desal in at ion Plant 3
Setting
6/17/2003
Setting t
6/17/2003
Desalination Plant 4
'17/2003
6/17/2003
Desalination Plant 5
6/17/2003
6/17/2003
Desalination Plant 6
-
dfensa I/Ag ua H ed io nd a . . . Opportunities a
~ Access /Trails I
6/17/2003
Centra I/Ag u a H ed ion da . . .Enhancement Efforts
Specific and Coastal Plans
Discussions with SDG&E
Sale of the Power Plant
Redevelopment Plan
rn Desalination Plant
Lagoon
6/17/2003
Desalination Plant 7
CWA and City Discussions L tl Fo
La
rn
land use
6/17/2003
d
May 22 CWA Board Meeting
Board consideration of EIR contract
H No City/CWA agreement in place
H Carlsbad will send letter advising no
action on contract without agreement
H Carlsbad maintains lead agency position
without agreement
a CF
6/17/2003
Desalination Plant 8
The City’s belief
Carlsbad’s coastal resources, like
w The desalination plant is:
desalinated water, are a regional issue
rn An excellent enhancement opportunity
rn A potential final opportunity
coastal enhancements
City should retain authority to determine
6/17/2003
I
I 3 I .
Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant
Water Issues
Bob Greaney / Lloyd Hubbs
6/17/2003
Desalination Plant 9
c Seawater Desalination Project
. Issues . Maerkle Reservoir
= Constructed in Early 1960's.
= 600 Acre Foot Capacity. . Improvements and Upgrade in 1990's. - Lined and Covered. . Pumping Facilities and Chloramination
. Additional 10 MG Storage Added.
[
a
Facilities Constructed.
6/17/2003
er Desalination Project
= Maerkle Reservdir (Cont'd.)
= Operational Storage. . 10 Day Emergency Storage.
Forebay Prior To Pumping to Tap Pipeline.
Intermediate Pumping Elevation.
= OVA'S Capacity Requirements.
= Status of CMWD's 10 Day Storage Capacity. . Facility's Value to MA.
9 Carlsbad Uses:
= CWA Proposed Uses
Maerkle Reservoir Issues
6/17/2003
Desalination Plant 10
6/17/2003
9
Desalination Plant 11
. u Seawater Desalination Project
= Water Quality
Effect on Various Customers; Residential,
Commercial and Industrial.
Consistent Quality - Desal, Imported or Mix.
Water Reliability
Quantity of Imported Vs. Desal During a Non-
Emergency.
Does Value of CMWD’s Facilities Equate to Local
If So, What Is the Allocation of Supplies?
Quantity of Imported Vs. Desal During Drought.
a
Supply?
6/17/2003
Carlsbad Seawater
Desal ination Plant
Memorandum of Understanding
Jim Elliott
6/17/2003
Desalination Plant 12
I n
U Memorandum of h Understanding
rn Purpose:
Recognize the legitimate concerns of both
parties, and provide a framework for a future
agreement
with regard to the project and the provision
of water to the CMWD service area
rn Define the role of each entity in the future
I 6/17/2003
U Memorandum of h Understanding
rn Authority:
Address regional long-term water needs
rn Protect Authority's power to undertake important water projects free from local controls
rn Acquire rights to use important water assets owned and operated by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District
rn Minimize costs while maximizing the amount of water contributed to the region's supply I 6/17/2003
Desalination Plant 13
. Memorandum of
1 Understanding 1 CMWD/City-
rn Resolve regional issues such as access, public use of
coastal assets in areas surrounding the project
rn Ensure proper use of local water system assets
rn Protect the district's ability to supply water in both
normal periods and in times of water shortages (10
Enhance water reliability for Carlsbad customers in exchange for the use of CMWD assets
rn Ensure that appropriate economic concerns are addressed
day supply)
6/17/2003
U Memorandum of
Understanding
Authority and Carlsbad teams continue to meet to craft this document (last meetina - May 19)
Discussion is continuing on:
Scope of the EIR
Use of Maerkle Reservoir
Water Reliability
Authority / Member agency relationship
-6
6/17/2003
Desalination Plant 14
U Memorandum of
Understanding : Carlsbad Concerns 1
m Scope of the EIR
m Use of Maerkle Reservoir
At this time this is a private project, and must be treated as such.
rn Protection of 10 day storage capacity
Ability to manage water system demands
rn Use of local assets should translate into additional water reliability for local residents
rn Authority's willingness to recognize the concerns of member agencies
Project should pay appropriate taxes during the period of private ownership
w Water Reliability
Authority / Member agency relationship
Private ownership of assets
6/17/2003
U Memorandum of
Understanding 1 1 w Next Steps: = Authority and Carlsbad work to complete MOU negotiations.
Next proposed meeting is between Ken Weinberg, Dan
Goal is to create an MOU that would be accepted by Authority Board and Carlsbad City Council / CMWD Board
Defer action on hiring an EIR consultant until after MOU issues have been resolved
Hentschke, Ron Ball, Jim Elliott
6/17/2003.
Desalination Plant 15