Bolinas Community Public Utility District
A Special Meeting Of
The Board Of Directors
April 27, 2011 270 Elm Road,
Bolinas
MINUTES
1. Call to Order
10.02 a.m.
2. Roll
Directors Amoroso, Bender, Siedman and Smith present; director Bender appeared
by telephone. Director Kimball absent. Director Siedman presiding.
3. Resolution 598: Adopts A Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact For The Proposed Mesa Park Ballfield Irrigation Project.
Staff reported that the Initial Study for the Mesa Park Ballfield Irrigation
Project was out for public comment from March 22, 2011 – April 21, 2011.
The State Clearinghouse notified the BCPUD on April 22, 2011 that no comments
were received and the district accordingly scheduled this special meeting
to adopt a negative declaration of environmental impact based on the Initial
Study. On April 26, 2011, the district received comments from the California
Department of Fish & Game concerning Section 1.4 of the Initial Study
(biological resources). As such, assuming the Board agrees to address
the comments (even though issued after the close of the comment period),
it must decide whether to address the comments and re-circulate the Initial
Study in is entirety, in which case it cannot adopt a negative declaration
at this meeting, or to adopt the negative declaration with respect to all
aspects of the Initial Study except Section 1.4 and then re-circulate only
Section 1.4 when the comments from the Department of Fish & Game have
been addressed. With respect to addressing the comments from the Department
of Fish & Game, staff recommended that Mesa Park President Geoff Geupel,
a professional biologist, contact the person who authorized the letter to
discuss acceptable options.
Discussion ensued with Board members expressing support for the staff recommendation
to ask Geoff Geupel to contact the Department of Fish & Game.
Questions were raised about the timing implications for the project in light
of the time needed to respond to the comments and re-circulate all or a portion
of the Initial Study; staff said an extension of time from the state
to complete the project will be necessary. Staff already inquired
with the granting agency about this and was told many grantee agencies are
in a similar position and instructed the district to wait until the Fall
to submit a request for an extension of time.
Director Amoroso noted that Bob Cart also commented on Section 1.9 of the
Initial Study (hydrology and water quality) during a BCPUD meeting and, in
response to his comments the Board agreed to enter into a license agreement
with Mesa Park to limit the amount of water to be drawn from the well.
Director Amoroso said this commitment should be reflected in the resolution
and/or Initial Study. Discussion ensued and staff noted that Rob Gailey’s
report (referenced in Section 1.9 of the Initial Study) and its conclusion
of no impact to groundwater resources is based on an estimated draw of 14,800
gallons per day by Mesa Park. Director Amoroso suggested that
the resolution perhaps also should be contingent upon Mesa Park paying all
amounts due to the BCPUD.
Director Siedman suggested that the Board focus for now on the substance
of the resolution, rather than the moneys owed to the BCPUD by Mesa Park.
Director Amoroso inquired whether director Siedman intended to vote on the
resolution and Director Siedman said that he did. Director Amoroso
said he believes current BCPUD resolutions require a six month period of
time following a BCPUD director leaving his or her position on another board
with business before the BCPUD before that BCPUD director can vote on matters
affecting the other board. Director Siedman said that he does not believe
he has any conflict of interest or duty and that he intends to vote on the
resolution. Director Amoroso requested that the minutes reflect his
comments about the six month “waiting period”.
Staff suggested that the draft Resolution 598 be revised
to include a new “whereas” clause to reference Mr. Cart’s verbal comments
on Section 1.9 and the Board’s commitment to enter into a license agreement
with Mesa Park to limit the draw from the well to the amounts stated in Mr.
Gailey’s report. Director Bender moved to so amend the resolution.
Director Amoroso objected that this motion did not address the Initial Study.
K. Bender/D. Smith three in favor, director Amoroso opposed,
director Kimball absent to
revise Resolution 598 to include a new “whereas” to reference Mr. Cart’s
verbal comments on Section 1.9 of the Initial Study and the BCPUD’s commitment
to enter into a license agreement with Mesa Park to limit the draw from the
well to the amounts stated in Mr. Gailey’s report.
Director Amoroso said that he opposed the motion because
this language is not included in the Initial Study and because the BCPUD
has not been paid the amounts due it by Mesa Park. Staff suggested
that the district add a sentence to Section 1.9 of the Initial Study to reflect
the district’s commitment to enter into a license agreement with Mesa Park
to limit the draw from the well to the amount estimated in the Gailey report.
Staff said this would not a material change to the Initial Study since Mr.
Gailey’s report, which an integral part of the Initial Study, expressly conditions
his opinion of no impact to groundwater resources on a specific amount of
water (i.e. 14,800 gallons per day) estimated to be drawn from the well by
Mesa Park. Discussion ensued with Board members offering slight revisions
to staff’s proposed language.
K. Bender/D. Smith four in favor, director Kimball absent
to revise Section 1.9 of the Initial Study to add a sentence at the end of
this section to state that the district will enter into a license agreement
with Mesa Park to restrict the amount of water drawn from the well to the
amounts estimated in Mr. Gailey’s report and finding that this is not a material
change to the Initial Study.
Director Amoroso said that in light of this vote, he will
withdraw his concern about the lack of payment by Mesa Park and vote in favor
of the revised resolution, if the Board would like to revote on its earlier
motion.
K. Bender/D. Smith four in favor, director Kimball absent
to revise Resolution 598 to include a new “whereas” to reference Mr.
Cart’s verbal comments on Section 1.9 of the Initial Study and the BCPUD’s
commitment to enter into a license agreement with Mesa Park to limit the
draw from the well to the amounts stated in Mr. Gailey’s report.
Director Siedman noted that this vote therefore negates the prior vote of
the Board on the same motion.
4. Community Expression
None.
5. Adjournment
11:40 a.m.