I. Welcome and Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm.  Committee members present: Will Deschenes, Gary Kobara (Chair), John Taylor, Glenda Guiton, Stan Ikeda, Vicki Cardoza.   Agency/Organization representatives: Steph Wald/CCSE; Julie Thomas/CSLRCD; Martin Pehl/SLO County Airports; Tom Zehnder/Wallace Assoc.; Jim Hill/OCSD; Mark Barnett/NRCS; Mark Sullivan/SLO County Public Works; Vicki Janssen/SLO County.  Community members: Pat & Hugh Gilson, Norm Getty, Regina Rocha, Charlie Lackie.

II. Announcements
There were no announcements.

III. Review and approval of minutes
Minutes from the September 19 and November 14 meetings were approved (minutes were not recorded for the October 2005 meeting).

IV. Task Force update

A. Report on December 14 meeting with Sup. Katcho Achadjian and others regarding funding possibilities for AG Creek flood control, and the preferred alternative for Prop 218 election.  Gary Kobara gave a report on this item. On December 14, a meeting was held between several Zone 1/1A Task Force members, Supervisor Achadjian, and staff members for Congressman Sam Blakeslee, Representative Lois Capps, Senator Abel Maldonado, and Representative Bill Thomas to discuss potential grants and  potential from the state and federal government to implement projects to improve flood protection along AG Creek flood control channel. Alternative 3C from the recently completed report by Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology was presented as the preferred alternative for implementation with the Prop 218 election funds; however, the Prop 218 assessments would not raise sufficient funds to implement the required UPRR bridge raise and other aspects of Alternative 3C.  The Prop 218 election proposes to raise between $300K to $400K annually.  Katcho and the congressional staffers at the meeting recommended that at this point the Task Force select another set of projects or an Alternative that could be funded solely by funds raised via the Prop 218 election.  Alternative 3A appears to be the set of projects that could feasibly be funded by Prop 218 assessments alone.  While Alternative 3c would offer much greater flood protection, it would require raising the railroad bridge, which will cost over $3 million, not counting costs for other channel maintenance to be implemented under 3c.  Alternative 3A involves removing sediment from the channel, vegetation thinning, and levee smoothing (with a slight raise), and would provide protection from a 16.6 year flood. The Dec 14 group discussed the fact that, under Alternative 3A, the NRCS Operations & Maintenance Agreement goal of attaining 7500 cfs could not be reached.  The conclusion at the meeting was that there probably would be grants and other funding available through the government for implementation of flood protection and watershed projects above and beyond Alternative 3A, and that we should talk to them after the Prop 218 election about pursuing those goals.
Gary mentioned that, in October and November 2005, the County had done some levee smoothing and filled low places on the levee in between Highway 1 and 22nd Street bridges.  This work was done with part of the $150K allocated by the Board of Supervisors in June, which had also financed the vegetation thinning done September through October by the California Conservation Corps crews.
Tom Zehnder mentioned that, if funding were obtained to raise the UPRR bridge, that while the higher bridge was under construction, UPRR would build a “shoe-fly” temporary bridge on adjacent land so that trains could continue running.  He said that UPRR already owns enough land in the vicinity – they wouldn’t need to buy any more.
Steph Wald expressed concern that Alternative 3A might not be considered “enough of a fix” by County Public Works.  In response, Gary said that on December 14, some members of the Task Force also had another meeting with Public Works, CSLRCD and NRCS staff.  At that meeting, Public Works staff said that Zone 1/1A just needs to come up something workable, and they will help.  They will let the Task Force know if something needs to be done differently.
Norm said that if Zone 1/1A has funding and a work plan for channel maintenance, that alone will take pressure off the County.

B. Report on Cannon Associates assessment engineer work on delineating assessment area and determining individual assessments.
 Julie Thomas reported that she had spoken today with Rob Livick of Cannon Associates.  He said that Cannon had signed the contract with the County today for doing the assessment engineers report for the Prop 218 election.  Cannon has received the latest HEC-RAS model from Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology that SHG developed to predict flow along AG Creek for the Alternatives Study, and that Cannon will use to model flooding to determine who will benefit from channel maintenance. There is a tentative completion date of the 2nd week of January 2006 for the assessment engineer’s report.  The Board of Supervisors would probably consider the report in the first week of March 2006.

C.  Timeline for upcoming action on Prop 218 election.
Norm reported that the timeline is a draft.  It counts back from a “drop dead” date of June 7, by which time the balloting for the Prop 218 election should be complete; that is the guideline currently being used.  One objective in writing the wording for the ballot is to not have the proposition be so specific that it could be considered a “project” and thereby trigger the need to meet CEQA requirements before the election could be held.
Mark Sullivan (County Public Works) reported that among the things that need to happen for the Prop 218 election is a public hearing needs to be held before the Flood Control District Board (aka County Board of Supervisors).  There will also be a public meeting – probably held locally.  There will be at least one, kind of like a town hall meeting.  Mark said that whether or not CEQA is triggered is determined by the wording of the ballot item.  The wording will be approved by February 7 or February 14.  There may need to be annexations or de-annexations to Zone 1/1A, depending on the results of the assessment engineer’s analysis.  The County has revised the Prop 218 assessment process.  Only those who actually vote count toward determining the majority, e.g., whether 50% + 1 has been met to carry the election.  Each property owner’s vote is weighted by the dollars being assessed.  The Board of Supervisors will vote on behalf of the County Airport.  Mark Hutchinson (environmental planner for County Public Works) will help with wording for the Prop 218 ballot.  Mark Sullivan will review Alternative 3A with his staff, and with Mark Hutchinson, and determine whether they need specialized professional input in developing the wording for the ballot.
 

V. Resolution on Proposition 218 election and preferred alternative – consideration of draft resolution.
The draft resolution supporting Alternative 3A was created following the December 14 meeting discussed above.  The members of the Advisory Committee unanimously passed the resolution as amended:

VI.  Erosion, Sedimentation and Flooding Alternatives Study.

A.  Review of comment letters from regulatory agencies.  Julie Thomas reported that comment letters on the Alternatives Study had been received from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and from NOAA/NMFS.  The comments were along the lines of  what one would expect from regulatory agencies, in that the focus was on protecting the natural resources.  The letters did provide useful input on what issues needed to be addressed in greater depth, or added to the Final Alternatives Study, in order to address concerns from the agencies.  And the comments would be helpful in preparing when it came time to apply for permits from the agencies later on.
B. Status of completion of final Alternatives Study.  In order to address comments received from the Technical Advisory Team and from the regulatory agencies on the draft final Alt Study, and to do some additional analysis that had been requested by the Task Force on some of the Alternatives, Swanson H&G needed a few extra weeks to complete the final report.  With this extra work on top of upcoming Christmas holidays and vacations, it was reasonable to move the due date for the final study to the first week of January.
 

VI. Set date for next meeting
The next Advisory Committee meeting was scheduled for Monday, January 23, 2006.
 

VII. Open Forum (Comments / Questions)
There was general discussion about the upcoming Proposition 218 election.
 

VIII. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned about 5:00 pm.
 
 
 
 
 

II. Announcements
Martin announced that SLO County Regional Airports have requested via letter to Gary Kobara that the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee send a representative to the November 15, 3pm meeting of the OCSD to discuss the Airport Master Plan.  John Taylor will probably attend.  Gary going as well.  There will be 4 meetings on the Airport Master Plan.  Martin said they are looking at demand and forecasts and how to meet demand.

III. Review and approval of minutes
As a quorum was not present, this item was tabled to the December meeting.

IV. Task Force Update
a.  Report on November 8 presentation to the County Board of Supervisors.  Gary gave a recap of the update presentation by the Task Force to the County Bd.  Public Works told the Board that the progress by the Zone 1/1A group toward the Prop 218 was good.  Overall the presentation went well.  There were just a few questions from the supervisors.  Jerry and Katcho and Shirley were very complementary about how everyone is working together.
b.  Recap of October 26 Public Forum.  Everyone present had attended or seen the October 26 meeting, so a recap was not required.  Regina and others commented that it was very good.
c.  Task Force.
Possibility of separate entity to oversee the flood channel.  Gary said that, from discussions with Public Works, PW would still like to see a separate entity be established to manage the flood control channel, but that there was no time to set one up before the Prop 218 vote; maybe that can be done afterwards. Hugh commented that people in Duna Vista Mobile Home Park prefer the idea of not having a new entity.  Linda has told Public Works that the possibility is not “off the table”, but if PW wants to see it happen, they need to make a presentation as to why it is necessary. Public Works included information on the LAFCO process in the presentation to the Board on November 8.  They also included information about it in the June 28 packet, but they haven’t presented it to the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee formally, although the topic has been broached in various other meetings.
There was additional discussion about the need for the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee or other group of local representatives to be able to oversee/have input into expenditure of assessment fees and channel maintenance decisions.  The point was made that the Adv. Comm. currently has no budgetary authority.  There was discussion about whether the role of the Advisory Committee might be written into the Prop 218 language.
Assessment engineer.  Cannon Associates’ bid to do the assessment engineers report required for the Prop 218 election came in at $22,000.  The County will be paying for the report.  Linda is waiting to hear back from the County regarding whether they’ve made a final decision to contract with Cannon.  Tom Z. said that for the Prop 218 vote, we have to define the organizational structure to oversee work on the flood channel by February.
Work Plan for channel maintenance.  A revised NRCS Work Plan for the channel is at the beginning stages.  The Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology computer modeling disks (HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS) have been sent to the state NRCS office for review.

V. Erosion, Sedimentation and Flooding Alternatives Study
Julie reported on the October 27 Technical Advisory Team meeting, attended by representatives of a number of regulatory agencies (USFWS, CDFG, NOAA/NMFS, SWRCB), as well as by Task Force members and County Public Works environmental planner Mark Hutchinson.  John Dvorsky provided an overview of the Study, with more technical detail than had been presented at the October 26 Public Forum.  Comments from the attendees were noted for possible use in making revisions to the final report.  After the TAT meeting concluded and the agency people had left, the Alt Study Project Team met and discussed financing of the preferred Alternative 3c.
All comments are due on the Alt Study this week, and the final report should be completed in mid- to late-December.

VI. Report on November 8-10 Flood Fight Training
Julie reported that there were 3 days of Flood Fight Training classes held in the County from November 8-10, at which a state Department of Water Resources staff member taught the basics of use of sandbags, visquine, and rope to reinforce and protect levees.  The classes were free, and all of the classes were fully attended – November 8 and 10 classes were exclusively for California Conservation Corps members, and the November 9 class had 4 County Public Works employees, 2 members of the Oceano Fire Department, and 1 employee of County Regional Airports.  Julie has a video demonstrating the techniques.  It’s possible that this class could be offered again every couple of years, if the request is made to DWR.

VII. Set date for next meeting      Gary Kobara

The next Zone 1/1A meeting will be Monday, November 19, 3-5pm at the OCSD.

VIII. Open Forum (Comments / Questions)    Everyone
There was some Q&A regarding topics raised during the meeting.

IX. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned shortly before 5:00 pm.
 
 
 
 

I. Welcome and Introductions     Gary Kobara, Chairman
The meeting was called to order at 3:00.  Committee members present: Will Deschenes, Glenda Guiton, Stan Ikeda, Gary Kobara.   Agency/Organization representatives: Tony Ferrara/City of Arroyo Grande, Jim Hill/OCSD, Mark Barnett/NRCS; Susan Litteral/NRCS,  Julie Thomas/CSLRCD; Joy Fitzhugh/Farm Bureau, Norm Getty/Task Force, Linda Chipping/CSLRCD; Steph Wald/CCSE, and several public attendees.

II. Announcements      All
Steph Wald announced Creek Clean Up activities sponsored by Central Coast Salmon Enhancement, to be held on October 8-9 in Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach and Nipomo, and she passed out information.

III. Review and approval of August minutes   Advisory Committee
August 22, 2005 minutes were reviewed and approved, with one change.

IV &V  Flood Alternatives Study –      Tony Ferrara (City of AG)
“A Practical and Achievable Approach” and   and Task Force members
Review of Newsletter Topics

Tony Ferrara referred the audience to the September 13 Zone 1/1A Newsletter recently distributed.

Draft Flood Alternatives Study. Tony shared information on the draft Alternatives Study Project Team meeting held by the Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology consultant John Dvorsky on August 25th, where potential projects were previewed, and preliminary cost estimates and level of flood protection were discussed.  Tony said the study is our best chance game plan to develop flood protection, and that a corner had been turned and we are able to say that the DWR approach is not the best.  Supervisors Achadjian and Lenthall were provided the information and they will be getting this information to respective staff that this is the direction we will be moving in.

Prop 218 ballot and assessment district boundaries.  Public Works will assist us in getting the 218 election organized, but we will have to write the language.  The language needs to be approved by the Bd of Supervisors in February 2006, and the proposition would be voted on in June 2006.  It will probably be a mail-in vote of property owners, i.e., “assessment ballot”.  Questions from the audience were asked about the district boundary.  It was pointed out that we should go with the DWR boundary , because these are the people who will have to pay the DWR assessment if they vote against the 218 election, and to include properties in a new district when those properties were not in the DWR boundary would open the election up to failure.  The suggestion was made that information about the election be distributed to residents who are not property owners, i.e., some of the mobile home parks, so that they may lobby their park owners, since increases in property assessments can lead to increases in rents.  Tony said that some of the questions about the election and future maintenance will be answered later, after further investigation; Linda pointed out that “every elephant gets eaten one bite at a time”.
 On November 8, the Task Force will give an update to the Bd of Supervisors on progress of the work toward establishing a financial plan, a work plan, and holding a June 6 Prop 218 election.

Possible MOU between City of AG and SLO County .  Tony elaborated on the current direction for local control that is being developed by the Task Force.  It is recognized that a second 218 election would be needed to enlarge the district to include the upper watershed areas.  However, it would be a hard sell, as the further away people are from the problem (flooding), the less motivated they are to contribute.  When pointing upstream, first there’s Arroyo Grande City, and then when the City looks upstream, there’s the County.  Therefore, a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) that agreed to by several parties (County, AG city, Sanitation District, RCD, Oceano, etc) would make sense, and would improve the ability to obtain grant funds to do projects.  The MOU would enumerate the projects or actions that will provide flood control and who is responsible for them.  The MOU can be as binding or non-binding as it is structured. Tony is currently working with his city staff on a preliminary strategy for the MOU.  He is also going to be making the MOU presentation to the Sanitation District.   The MOU would include a work plan that would prioritize work that needs to be done, and how frequently.
Tony said the AG City Council is now looking at the impact of new development on the creek, and is already revising the creek setback process.
There was some discussion about a recent newspaper article about FEMA and the state Department of Water Resources.

October 26 Public Forum on draft Alternatives Study report and Town Hall meeting on Prop 218 vote .  A Public Forum on the draft report of the Alternatives Study will be held October 26th at the Arroyo Grande City Hall chambers, starting at 6:30.  The Forum will be followed by a Town Hall meeting, starting at 8:15 pm, to discuss the proposed Proposition 218 election. The City will provide for the televising of the meeting, and a flyer will be sent to residents.

Progress report on vegetation thinning in AG Creek.  Julie Thomas reported that the CCCs crews are currently doing vegetation thinning below UPRR bridge, and the goat herds are working the channel above Highway 1 bridge.  She reported that the Coastal Commission issued a waiver for the required Coastal Development Permit on September 14, so that veg thinning could be done in the Coastal Zone down to the east end of the  Sanitation Plant.  CMC crews were not used because of time constraints and they were a part of the Ca Fish & Game permit that we have.

Outreach coordinator needed. The Task Force is actively recruiting for someone to help coordinate the outreach efforts to keep local residents and property owners informed.  Steph Wald will coordinate creek walks, but the group needs someone to develop neighborhood layouts/liaisons and get grass roots structure in place.  Tony said he would develop a map of the neighborhoods so we could determine which areas already had neighborhood liaisons, and which areas weren’t covered.  Regina Rocha volunteered to help with outreach.  It was suggested that handout “kits” could be put together, which include Frequently Asked Questions sheets.

Resolution of Support for Direction of Task Force.  Linda requested that the Advisory Committee vote on a resolution of support for the direction the Task Force is taking.  The resolution language was as follows:

“The Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee approves the actions and direction of the Zone 1/1A Task Force in maintaining options for local control of the Arroyo Grande Creek flood control channel, and in holding a Proposition 218 election in June 2006 to finance flood management work.”

The resolution was passed unanimously.

IV. Set date for next meeting      Gary Kobara

The next Zone 1/1A meeting will be Monday, October 17, 3-5pm at the OCSD.  Reviewing plans for the October 26 Town Hall will be an agenda topic.

V. Open Forum (Comments / Questions)    Everyone
There was some Q&A regarding topics raised during the meeting.

VIII. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned shortly before 5:00 pm.

I. Welcome and Introductions     Gary Kobara, Chairman

The meeting convened at 3:10 p.m. and group introductions were made.

II. Announcements

There were no announcements.

III. Review and approval of minutes    Advisory Committee

The minutes from March through July were approved.

IV. Report from Zone 1/1A Task Force

A revised Task list was distributed, which included the names of team co-leaders.

Linda reported that there have been two Task Force meetings since the July 25 Advisory Committee meeting.

Local Control Options:  Tony has been meeting with Katcho and Jerry to discuss possible roles of the County and City of Arroyo Grande in addressing stormwater management above Zone 1/1A.  Still looking at whether it is necessary to create a new special district, or if existing entities can be used to handle flood management.  A possible scenario is that the County will collect assessments, and the RCD would direct flood management activities.

Financial plan – Norm reviewed Prop 218 process.  In addition, he said we need to do grant research.

Megan is currently leading the outreach/education effort.  She said that volunteers are needed as neighborhood liaisons.  CCSE is working on setting up creek walks to educate the public about AG Creek issues.  They are exploring the option of having high school students do Spanish translation of key documents related to AG Creek flood management and the upcoming Prop 218 election. She gave her email address and phone number.

Gary commented that vegetation clearing will begin soon, but it won’t be major clearing like in past, because of the need to leave shading vegetation for the creek.    Hopefully this will reduce the risk of debris jams.

Regarding the options being considered for long-term funding of channel maintenance, Gary reported that Katcho and Tony F. are working on finding alternatives to having to have second, watershed-wide Prop 218 vote, since that would be a hard sell.  A possibility being considered is to that the County and City of AG could come together in MOU.

Tony explained that the MOU would engage the City of AG and County in handling maintenance of upper channel.  The City of Arroyo Grande already has a maintenance plan, but needs to extend that and include places like Tally Ho.  He said the City and County would be working together to plan upstream management, and if they can successful develop a plan, a second Prop 218 election wouldn’t be necessary.   He believes this strategy seems more achievable than a second Prop 218.

Question - does that mean County would be accepting some maintenance responsibility?  Tony said yes, from northern boundary of AG to Lopez Dam.

V. AG Creek flood control channel: design capacity and  Susan Litteral (NRCS)
computing the level of flood protection

Susan: The 1955 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement was the original design document that qualified the AG Creek flood management project for federal 566 funds.  One of the questions that is repeatedly asked is what level of protection are we trying to restore to?  Susan looked into the original 1955 document and found design was based on max flow of  7500 cfs (cubic feet  per second) with 2% frequency (50-yr storm), which includes includes two feet of freeboard.  Since then, the watershed has changed, with development bringing much more impervious surface.  The O&M requires that the channel be maintained as built. But even if they maintain the channel as built, it will no longer offer the level of protection designed for (50-year prot), because that 7000+ cfs occurs more frequently.  So we have to work on helping people understand that we’re working to restore design capacity, but that means that during a 20-year storm, you’re going to get flooded.  This is a result of changes in upper watershed.  If work on upper watershed improvements is completed, such as sediment reduction, flood retention, etc., we might increase the level of protection possible.  But it is very important that people understand that the level of protection you can now expect from the channel as originally designed is not the 50-year or 100-year that you’ve understood in the past.

Question: So there’s more runoff from upper watershed?

Susan:  Yes, that’s why Tony and others are working at stormwater detention in the upper watershed – slow it down, don’t send it to us so fast.  Our “straw” – i.e., the channel -  is only just so big.  The hydrograph has changed due to changes in the watershed – we want to lessen the peak of the hydrograph, and spread it out over time.

VI. Proposed channel maintenance plan for   Julie Thomas (CSLRCD)
2005-06 season – progress on plan

Julie gave update on work plan  for fall 2005– County Public Works is getting bids on goats to graze in Los Berros channel, the CCCs are tentatively set to start work on September 6.  We are still waiting to hear from the Coastal Commission about whether we will be given an exemption in order to do thinning in the original jurisdiction coastal zone.  Julie is communicating with DWR staff about setting up flood fight training classes for late October or early November.  The County is identifying locations where the low spots in the levee need filling.

VII. Update on Erosion, Sedimentation, and Flood Julie Thomas
 Alternatives Study

Julie reported that much of the computer analysis of project alternatives has been completed, and that John Dvorsky would be giving the Project Team a powerpoint presentation summarizing the preliminary results on Thursday, August 25.

Question:  Will the study include estimates of amount of erosion from the new topo maps created from the aerial photos?  Answer: There will be erosion estimates, probably based mostly on stream surveys rather than topos/aerials.
 

VIII. Set date for next meeting

Next meeting set for September 19, 3-5 pm.

IX. Public comment and questions.

Question:  If one mobile home park has 100 residents, do the residents get a vote in the Prop 218 election, or just the owner/Bd of Directors?  Answer:  The property owner gets the vote, so the residents may want to lobby the property owner.

Comment: Bill Hadji reported that the New Times is interested in doing an article on Zone 1/1A.  He said the challenge will be to make the story palatable, because it’s complicated.

Question:  What will the difference be between what would happen under DWR and what would happen after the Prop 218 election?  Gary replied that DWR’s first year budget alone would be $1 million, and the second year almost $2 million.  He said we (the Zone 1/1A property owners and residents) need to decide how much they’re willing to pay for what level of protection.  The Alternatives Study is going to present the price tag for different projects and maintenance activities, and the associated levels of flood protection for each price tag. Gary said that another disadvantage of going to DWR is that we lose all voice in management.  We’re trying to get back local control and keep it in our area.

Comment:  We could use a timeline – publicize goals.

There was a question about the population of Zone 1/1A vs. entire watershed.

There was discussion about spreading out the assessment through the broader watershed.

Question:  Who will be voting on this Proposition 218? Gary answered that it will hopefully be just Zone 1/1A, that there is too great a risk that the vote will fail if a broader area votes at this point, because people not threatened with DWR assessments wouldn’t have the motivation to approve the alternative Prop 218 assessment.

Comment:  Mobile home owners need to be educated.  Idea – send out information packet.

Bill Hadji said he is working on a summary for New Times, will work with Julie, and that can potentially be used by outreach group.

The comment was made that there is no budget for pamphlets, but we can probably come up with people willing to help financially with copying and mailing.

Question:  What will we be voting on in the Prop 218 election?

Answer:  Raising assessment fees for a certain amount of flood protection.

Susan commented that she would prefer discussing providing a certain level of flow (cfs) versus level of flood protection (10-year, 50-year, etc.).  She said the main thing is to create a project plan for channel maintenance at a level the county will approve of, so that they will not vote to relinquish to DWR next summer.  She said we will choose maintenance options from the Swanson Alternatives Study, like an “a la carte menu”, that will meet federal/county O&M criteria, and then figure out how to raise that money.

Norm said that he understands the desire to have the answers now, but it’s complicated, and we’re working on finding the answers.

There was further discussion about pros and cons of Zone 1/1A prop 218 election.

Question: Who will be responsible for expenditure of funds?  Linda replied that the county could do the assessing, and then contract with some other entity to perform maintenance.  Gary said that another option is to establish an irrigation district, which would take the county out of the loop, but we would like to keep the County in it, because there are advantages to doing that.

John T. voiced a concern about keeping the County in the loop, based on their past performance.

Gary said there would be more oversight now.  If this committee is in existence, advising them, and keeping an eye on the expenditures, it will work.

Susan said that earlier, before the community was aware of the problem the way they are now,  no one would have approved additional assessments.  It took the “wake up call” of the 2001 levee breach to get people aware of the problem and how far behind maintenance was.  The County didn’t think additional fees would be approved, so they didn’t ask for a vote to approve fee hikes.

Gary:  We’ve got a groundswell here now, and we’ve got to keep it going.

Question:  How about keeping vehicles off the levee, esp. west of UPRR bridge?

Vicki Janssen said that that would be the responsibility of private property owner.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:00 p.m.

I. Welcome and Introductions      Gary Kobara, Chairman

The meeting was called to order at 3:05 by Chairman Gary Kobara.   Committee members present: Vicki Cardoza, Will Deschenes, Glenda Guiton, Stan Ikeda, Gary Kobara.  Absent:  Mark Overduin, John Taylor.  Agency/Organization representatives:  Jim Hill, OCSD; Glen Priddy, SLO co; Vicki Janssen, Supervisor’s Aide; Martin Pehl, Oceano Airport; Mark Barnett, NRCS; Julie Thomas, CSLRCD; Linda Chipping, CSLRCD; Steph Wald, CCSE.  Public attendees: Jay Jamison, David Beaman, Charlie Lackie, Megan Bochum, Cosmo D’ Aguilar, Kaye /D’ Aguilar.

II. Announcements       All

There were no announcements.

III. Review and approval of minutes     Advisory Committee

Tabled to next meeting.

IV. Report on June 23 meeting with Supervisor Achadjian  Julie Thomas (CSLRCD)

Julie Thomas reported this meeting was convened to begin information sharing for Proposition 218 vote.  Members of the Task Force and 1/1A Adv. Committee attended, and SLO county personnel Julie Rodewald, Paavo Ogren and Mark Hutchinson.  There are two types of Prop 218 votes to be considered.  (1) An Assessment ballot is a vote by mail of all property owners in the proposed assessment area, with each property owner allocated one vote for every dollar to be assessed.  The assessment passes with a 50.1% or more yes vote.  (2) A ‘Special Tax’ is the more traditional vote, in which registered voters cast their ballot at a general election, and must receive 2/3 of the vote to pass.

Also discussed was the possibility of two 218 votes; a first one to raise funds for the maintenance of the channel, and a later, second vote to broaden the district boundaries.  The participation by the Sanitation District, the need for a Work Plan revision and the relationship of 1/1A to the Zone 3 HCP were also covered.  There was a question as to whether the assessment area needs to be the current boundary or the newly defined DWR boundary area.

Glenn Priddy said that there has to be an agency to manage the funds raised by the assessment in place before the election, and that either a new agency needs to be formed or select a willing agency already in existence.  Possible new agency development might be a Levee District or Irrigation District.  Linda Chipping said the RCD is prepared to assist in any way possible to develop a new agency (act as an ‘umbrella’), but its current Board does not feel it is appropriate for them to be the ‘Directors’ of 1/1A – the directors for 1/1A should be local assessment district residents.  Jim Hill reminded the group that for the establishment of a new entity, LAFCO would be involved, and that OCSD Director Barbara Mann is currently the Chair of LAFCO.  Gary said his review of the LAFCO web site found that one of the purposes of LACO is to preserve agricultural lands by preventing encroachment of cities.  In recapping the discussion, it was noted that there were 3 key things to be done:  Set up an organization/agency; develop 218 vote for June 2006; maintain the channel in the upcoming year.

Vicki Janssen provided the committee with a copy of a proposal from Larry Paul and Associates to develop a plan of action to deal with Arroyo Grande watershed issues and information on Prop 50 California River Parkways Grant Program funding.

V. Report from Zone 1/1A Task Force    Linda Chipping (CSLRCD)

The next Task Force meeting will be Fri., Aug. 5th, 2:30 p.m. at Arroyo Grande Fire Dept.  L. Chipping noted that 1/1A Advisory Chair Gary Kobara and other Task Force members met with Paavo Ogren, Deputy Director of Public Works, on July 20th.  He has had extensive experience in working with community organizations, local control issues and 218 elections and has offered to work with us to develop our plan.  It was a productive meeting.  He became acquainted with the organizations and stakeholder involvements, motivations for being a part of this process.  There was considerable time discussing the Alternatives Study and how it’s findings would impact what would need to be done to provide flood protection.  The complexities facing 1/1A were grasped quickly.  He also had suggestions for legal assistance and offered to review/add information to the Task Force Staffing Needs outline.

VI. County Public Works’ proposed channel maintenance plan  Glen Priddy (County Public
for 2005-06 season – review plan        Works)

Glen Priddy provided a revised budget (mowing reduced to $5,000 from $15,000; Contingency increased from $17,905 to $27,905) to the one previously e-mailed to committee members, and a map indexing the type of maintenance (goats, brush trimming, levee repair, etc) and locations of work.   He said that $150,000 had been approved from the Flood Reserves budget at the 6/28/05 Supervisors’ meeting and that the $17,905 was already in the budget.  Mowing would be done in the spring along Los Berros creek for fire protection.  Survey and inspection would identify levee low spots for filling and levee made driveable.    They will try to get soil from near the levee, asking John Taylor about the use of the soil dredged and stored on his property several years ago.  The county needs to get permits.  They will look at the gates and locks to determine condition and what can be done in the budget.

Glen said that using goats makes willow cutting and clean out more efficient.  The goat work would be put out to bid.  The use of goats in the willowed areas was questioned by the group, who felt they are best utilized on grassy/weedy areas.

The RCD shared its recommendations for the proposed maintenance.  The most important work is the restoration of the freeboard, with vegetation management and low spot repairs.  Access ability is the least needed.  Julie Thomas provided information about permit needs in the coastal zone, which is deemed the highest priority for vegetation maintenance. Cross sections showing levee low points have been generated by the Alternatives Study consultants and will be provided to the county.  The RCD suggested that the county contract with the RCD to manage the vegetation maintenance, since the RCD already had the CDFG Streambed Alteration Permit that was valid through December 2006, had experience working with landowners along Arroyo Grande Creek, and that the overhead to use the RCD would be cheaper than the county’s oversight.  Glen indicated it was the county’s responsibility to do all the work.  The RCD will provide the county with all the information about permits, etc that we have.

The Committee voted to accept the proposed maintenance plan, with the conditions that the priority of work be to begin work in the coastal zone, using CCC hand crews moving east, and that goats be limited to the eastern Los Berros areas for weeds/grasses.

VII. Update on Erosion, Sedimentation, and Flood   Julie Thomas
 Alternatives Study

Julie Thomas reported that John Dvorsky had toured the watershed with 1/1A members and looked at potential sediment basin and flood retention project sites in late June.  He had provided potential flood easement site mapping and Julie had been meeting with landowners to discuss feasibility.  It is anticipated that a draft Study will be available in September and access will be available to all to review.  Public Forum and Technical Advisory Committee meetings will probably be scheduled for October.

VIII. Set date for next meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Aug 22nd at 3:00 pm.

IX. Adjourn

The meeting adjourned shortly before 5:00 pm.
 

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm.

Advisors attending:  Gary Kobara, John Taylor, Will Deschenes, Vicki Cardoza, Glenda Guiton

I.  Welcome and Introductions      Gary Kobara, Chairman
 Public Comment

Introductions of all attending were skipped due to large numbers.  During public comment, Tim Bolander discussed the use of Prop 50 funding for sediment removal, mixing sediment with compost and using that to reinforce levee.
 

II. Review and approval of minutes from February 22   Advisory Committee
 and March 4, 2005 meetings

The minutes were approved.
 

III. June 14 Board of Supervisors meeting – recap and   Gary Kobara
acknowledgements

Gary provided a recap of the June 14 Board of Supervisors meeting, at which the Board voted unanimously to delay for one year relinquishment of the Zone 1/1A Flood Control Channel to DWR; in addition, they tentatively approved $150,000 for channel maintenance this year.  Supervisor Katcho Achadjian reported that the $150,000 from flood emerg funds to be used for channel maintenance during 2005-06 was approved at budget hearings today.

In Feb 2006, the group needs to be on the calendar to ask Bd of Supervisors to allow a proposition 218 assessment onto the ballot to collect funding for channel maintenance, in order to avoid relinquishment to DWR in July 2006.  Need only 3 votes of the Bd of Supervisors for approval.

Further comments by Supervisor Achadjian:  There will be a meeting this week that include Public Works staff on Thursday pm or Friday am to share knowledge on what needs to be done, but final decision will be this group.  Most important item will be Swanson study – can speed it up?  What are priorities and how much will they cost?  Then establish letter writing effort – local, state, and federal.  The letters should describe the nature of the community of Oceano, including farmland.  Would like to send copy to OCSD, Cities of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande, and San Luis Obispo County for supporting letters, and package, go to all state and fed representatives.  See who will open doors, see what grants are available.  Can we come up with a draft over the next few days or week?  Katcho will be doing follow-up with phone calls.  Find out what more info is needed.  Once we have grant money, hopefully won’t need to use local money.  But will need Swanson study as substantiation.  Also wants a support letter from Sanitation District.  By Feb meeting, we need to have everything in place for the ballot, all of the literature for the public to read, pros and cons.

Katcho plans to invite the County Clerk to this week’s meeting to give us idea as to what we should do for the Prop 218 vote.  Ask County what studies are done that may be of help for asking for funding. He wants us to be ahead of the game.

There was further discussion about expanding the boundaries of the assessment district, proposition 218, and lobbying via letter-writing.

Gary extended appreciation to all those who participated and helped with the successful presentation to the Board of Supervisors.
 

IV. Tasks for the coming year and volunteer signup   Julie Thomas, CSLRCD

Julie introduced Susan’s list of tasks needed for the next year and skills needed to accomplish these. Susan indicated that Task Force laid out six tasks needed. That outline was transformed into task list. She indicated she participated in development of an assessment district in San Miguel and will lend her experience to this effort. She has taken tasks and broken it into six sub-groups as listed on hand out provided. She reviewed first draft to be reviewed and built upon. Julie will also email the list. Julie reviewed sign up list and categories listed. It was then circulated as a sign in sheet as well. Gary encouraged people to consider what their contribution could be even if not specifically listed on task list.
 

V. Update on work on Erosion, Sedimentation, and Flood  Julie Thomas
 Alternatives Study

Julie provided a brief review of how the study came about and offered copies of scope of work. Swanson has been reviewing potential places to recommend erosion control strategies and where they might be located given different flood scenarios. Modeling is being done to determine impact of project implementation. Then conversations with landowners will occur to determine plan of action for collection of projects to be implemented. Then TAC will weigh in to finalize palate of projects likely to be effective.

V. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 pm.

I.  Welcome and Introductions                                                          Gary Kobara, Chairman
 Public Comment

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 by Chairman Gary Kobara.   Committee members present: Will Deschenes, Glenda Guiton, Stan Ikeda, Gary Kobara.  Absent:  Vicki Cardoza, Mark Overduin, John Taylor.   Introductions were dispensed with due to a large public turnout.  The sign-in sheet was passed around; 41 people signed in, including Advisory Committee members.

An audience member indicated he is in the process of gathering signatures for the petition and is attending this meeting on time-off from his employment.  Asked if the meetings could be held in the evenings.  Another person indicated he heard the zone 1/1A problems had been going on for a couple of years.  When he saw the new potential assessment fees at the Town Hall meeting, he would have gotten involved earlier if he had known prior.  Gary responded that it was difficult to do anything until the new assessment amounts were made known just a few weeks ago.  Gary also said that the 1/1A Advisory Committee were under the impression that when the actual DWR cost was known, they would be able to stop it at any time, which has since proven to be untrue.  Another public member addressed his concerns about the channel maintenance, the money raised to do it and the DWR takeover cost.  He was under the impression that the Advisory Committee was responsible for the problems.  Others in attendance explained that the 1/1A Committee is trying to stop the process.  Steph Wald then provided some facilitating for the public comment period.  Bob Brown thanked the 1/1A group for their efforts and informed that he is moving out of the area.  :Hari Nam Elliott acknowledged CCSE for their help.  Another resident suggested adding $1-2 per car fee to those entering the state park OHV area.  Letters of support to the Board of Supervisors for a 1 year ‘time-out’ of the DWR takeover were encouraged.  Contact to Senator Maldonado’s office on his SB 826 bill was encouraged.
 

II. Review and approval of minutes

Approval of the minutes for February 22, 2005 and March 4, 2005 were tabled to next meeting.
 

III. Recap of April 28 Town Hall meeting                                            Gary Kobara

Gary gave a brief summary of the April 28 Town Hall meeting.  It was considered a lively and successful meeting with over 100 people and 2 supervisors in attendance.  Since that time, substantial amount of work has been accomplished.  A date has been set for a Board of Supervisors public hearing on June 14th.  The agenda time is not yet known.  The Task Force is working on the presentation.  It is important that the liability issue be addressed adequately for the Board of Supervisors.  An audience member asked about future lawsuit against the county if DWR takes it over.  Norm Getty suggested to the audience that it would be best to avoid lawsuit dialog and focus on getting the cooperative nature of the local citizens and groups to find a solution.  Gary shared his involvement in the 1/1A experiences with the group.  He is from a family that has farmed for several generations, and is happy in that line of work, but the problems of 1/1A threaten his livelihood and he must participate to ensure he doesn’t lose it.
 

IV. Update on activities by the Task Force                                       Linda Chipping, CSLRCD
A copy of the draft presentation outline for the June 14 Board of Supervisors vote to delay relinquishment was distributed, as drafted by the Task Force at their previous meeting.  Each subject topic and the proposed speaker was given: Introduction and Reasons for 1 year timeout request, Gary Kobara and Tony Ferrara; The Alternatives Study Solution, Susan Litteral; The Interim First Year plan for vegetation removal and permitting, Linda Chipping and Julie Thomas; Financial Strategy, Tony Ferrara, Klassje Nairne and Staff from Blakeslee’s office; Liability Concerns, Norm Getty and Keith Swanson; Economic Impacts by Tom Ikeda, Klassje Nairne, Norm Getty, Swede Johnson.
 

V. DWR Boundary Hearing upcoming June 9, 2005                       Julie Thomas, CSLRCD

The DWR Boundary Hearing is to be held June 9th, 7-9 p.m. at the South County Regional Center in Arroyo Grande.  Some properties will probably be dropped from the zone and others may be added.  The current draft assessment estimation for the 400+ residential properties in the zones is $712 for the first year.
 

VI. Update on work on Erosion, Sedimentation, and Flood              Julie Thomas, CSLRCD
 Alternatives Study

Julie Thomas updated on the schedule of work that Swanson is currently doing and presented examples of some of the projects that may be recommended by the study.  Will Deschenes suggested that since the problems of the zone originate upstream, the possibility of assessing the upper watershed should be pursued.  It was noted that the same sentiment has been expressed and supported by many at several other meetings.
 

VII. The next meeting was scheduled for June 20, 2005, and the meeting was adjourned.
 
 

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by Gary Kobara, Chairman.

Attending:
Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee members:  Gary Kobara, Will Deschenes, Stan Ikeda, John M. Taylor, Vicki Cardoza
Zone 1/1A residents:  Marjorie Gilliam, Kaye and Cosmo D’Aquila, Charlie Lackie, Lin Hill
CSLRCD:  Julie Thomas, Linda Chipping
CCSE:  Stephnie Wald, Bob Brown
NRCS:  Susan Litteral
South SLO Sanitation District:  Tom Zehnder
City of Arroyo Grande: Tony Ferrara, Jim Bergman
OCSD:  Jim Hill
SLO County Airports: Martin Pehl

I.  Welcome and Introductions                                                                              Gary Kobara, Chairman
 Public Comment

Following introductions, there was no public comment.

II. April 28 Town Hall meeting on DWR and
tax assessments: set agenda

Gary suggested that at the beginning of the April 28 Town Hall meeting we should talk about history of Zone back when the project was built to provide perspective about assessment. Gary asked which budget would be used from DWR. Julie indicated it would be helpful to review both versions provided by DWR. 550 people received April 28th flyer. Julie would check with DWR on what they will be providing in terms of budget information. Will expressed concern about what outcome of meeting could be. Julie indicated that while assessment is moving forward there are other options being explored in a parallel path. Gary indicated that there is another committee looking into the development of a separate community-based organization to maintain the flood control channel. Jim Hill suggested going through LAFCO to initiate a new district for flood control/maintenance. Tony indicated that the Task Force’s work will address the issues identified. Linda suggested assigning times to agenda items for the April 28 meeting.

Susan suggested that a brief history of the project in Powerpoint would be helpful to get folks up to speed on the history. Susan and Julie will work together to produce the power point. Steph volunteered to facilitate. Will suggested that information on impacts arising from upper watershed be included. Linda suggested adding information on the task force and the flood control study being conducted now as the exit strategy. Susan suggested using task force as an avenue for participation by additional people. Linda is concerned that the potential volatility on tax assessment indicates that perhaps changing the order of items would be useful. Tony supported that idea. Julie will revise agenda and re-circulate.

John asked whether relinquishment is a done deal. Linda indicated that no, it wasn’t. He also asked about extending Zone to include sewage plant. Tony indicated that yes, there was the potential for this and there is nothing finalized about DWR assessments. Tony indicated that an agreement with the Sanitation District is a likelihood to offset potential DWR assessment if it moves in that direction.  Marjorie brought up the notion about the legal issues raised about the proposed DWR increased rates. John advocates for the County coming back into the picture.

Julie clarified that the County would be setting up how cost is distributed, based on DWR budget coming out of Scope of Necessary Work. Glen Priddy has requested that he be included on the agenda to present a draft assessment fee table at the April 28th meeting. John moved that this group review such a draft prior to meeting. Tony indicated that Katcho would be Point of Contact for public works input related to such items. Julie reviewed what is meant by Zone of Benefit and how DWR manages flood control districts. Another possibility is to suggest that people can advocate for changing the State Water Code.

Tony supports proofing draft assessment fee table with Katcho in advance of meeting. Gary suggests indicating that funding support could be available with political support. The best hope might be to advocate not to continue relinquishment motion, according to Linda. Linda reviewed demographics of those being assessed. Susan indicated that initial rates are high due to taking care of historically delayed maintenance. She suggested that there might be a cap per year and might give time to get local projects angle off the ground. If DWR would ID 2-3 “biggest bang for the buck” projects on the list to increase capacity, without such a big hit up front in the first two years, that might be a short term acceptable plan. Agreement that draft assessment fee table presentation is not a helpful thing at this time. Julie clarified that the county would need to approach DWR about Susan’s idea to make the transition slower and more bearable to rate payers.

III. Update: Task Force                                                                                                Linda Chipping
Linda reviewed what has transpired and who attended. She indicated they drew up a mission statement and she reviewed it. Have identified five tasks, which Linda reviewed. Linda reviewed task force relationship and planning network to moving forward with solution. Tony indicated that it’s time to get underway with work related to identified tasks.  Issue of Endangered Species Act ramifications and how those play into maintenance were raised by member of the public. Gary reviewed last sediment removal history.  Questions raised on changing water code to increase assessment district geographically. Tony indicated that is being brought to elected official Sam Blakeslee. Sam visited the site and is seeking assistance for funding leverage. Flood insurance issue was raised by a member of the public.

IV. Update on  Flood Alternatives Study work and report on                                          Julie Thomas, CSLRCD
 April 11 Public Forum

Julie reviewed what transpired at the April 11 Public Forum on the Flood Alternatives Study. John Dvorsky presented several options on long term solutions/projects. About 35 people attended. Katcho reviewed why study was necessary. Work is on schedule.  Will asked about retention basin status. Julie will ask John about storm water retention basins.

V. Set next meeting and Adjourn.

Next meeting: May 23rd; Task Force date has not been set. Linda will be sending out email to ascertain date with Task Force members.   The meeting was adjourned
 
 

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

The meeting was called to order at 3:10 pm by Gary Kobara, Chairman

Attending:
Gary Kobara, Glenda Guiton, Will Deschenes  (Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee)
Charlie Lacki (landowner)
Stan Ikeda (landowner)
Penny Semrau (homeowner)
Barbara Boyer (homeowner)
Cosmo and Kaye D’Aquila (homeowners)
Tom Runels (landowner)
Hari Nam Elliott (homeowner, CCSE)
Vard Ikeda (Ikeda Bros.)
Julie Thomas, Linda Chipping (CSLRCD)
Tom Zehnder (Wallace Group/South SLO County Sanitation District)
Martin Pehl (SLO County Airport)
Tony Ferrara (City of Arroyo Grande/South County Sanitation District)
Erin O’Farrell (NRCS)
April Charlton (Times Press Recorder)
Vivian Krug (CSLRCD)
Bob Behme (Coast News)
Vicki Janssen (County Supervisor Katcho Achadjian’s office)
Ella Honeycutt (CSLRCD)
 

I. Welcome, Introductions, and Public Comment.

After the welcome by Gary Kobara and introductions, there was no public comment.  Tony Ferrara asked if the South SLO San Dist agenda item could be addressed first, as he needed to leave the meeting early, and the group agreed.

II. Review of South SLO Sanitation District Board Meeting, March 16, 2005

Tony said that the Sanitation District (SD) had needed to get legal advice about two main issues: (1) Can the SD be assessed by DWR or the County?, and (2) If so, can the SD pass those assessment costs on to its customers?  The SD’s attorneys are still investigating this.

III. Update on Erosion, Sedimentation, and Flood Alternatives Study - work in progress

Julie reported on the Technical Advisory Team meeting for the Alternatives Study that was held on March 14.  John Dvorsky presented the various projects and actions being considered for the Alternatives Study. Representatives from regulatory agencies, the county, local cities, and various environmental disciplines provided feedback on the pros and cons of each potential project.  A public forum will be held on April 11 for the general public to learn about the Alternatives Study and provide feedback.

IV. Review of DWR public meeting regarding setting up flood control maintenance area.

On March 17, DWR held a second public hearing about the relinquishment process.  Julie provided a brief recap.  The meeting covered some of the same material as the December meeting, and reviewed the Statement of Necessary Work which had been released on February 14.  Only the County Bd of Supervisors can protest the SNW within 45 days of Feb 14.  If the County does not protest, after 45 days DWR adopts the budget proposed in the SNW, and then prepares a description of the proposed maintenance area boundaries, and hold a boundary hearing.  DWR is currently on track to start maintenance activities in the channel on July 1, 2005.

V. Continued discussion of issues related to DWR taking over maintenance of Zone 1/1A flood control channel

The group discussed the question of whether the RCD, if it were to take over channel maintenance, could do it for less money than DWR.  Since the RCD would not be bound by the O&M agreement to try to maintain the trapezoidal channel, and could explore other options and apply for federal and state grants, the answer would probably be “yes”.  There was discussion about the need to address liability and funding issues.

There was some discussion of how the Sanitation Plant would function in a flood, once it gets the bypass pump.

The group talked about the need to work with state representatives to change the water code.

Ways of publicizing a community meeting about relinquishment were discussed.  Julie is going to check into having AGP videotape and broadcast the meeting, and she will look into possible locations.  People can write letters to the editor of local papers.  Penny and Barbara offered to distribute flyers.  Gary said he would speak at the 3/23 OCSD meeting.

VI. The next meeting was set for April 18, and the meeting was adjourned.
 
 

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

The meeting was called to order at 3:05 pm by Gary Kobara, Chairman

Attending:
Gary Kobara, Mark Overduin, Glenda Guiton, Will Deschenes  (Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee)
Charlie Lacki (landowner)
Stan Ikeda (landowner)
Leroy Saruwatari (Arroyo Fresh Inc.)
Robert Hayashi (Hayashi & Sons)
Tom Ikeda (Ikeda Bros.)
Julie Thomas, Linda Chipping (CSLRCD)
Tom Zehnder (Wallace Group/South SLO County Sanitation District)
Martin Pehl (SLO County Airport)
Jim Hill (OCSD)
Tony Ferrara (City of Arroyo Grande/South County Sanitation District)
Steph Wald (CCSE)
Erin O’Farrell, Susan Litteral (NRCS)
Glen Priddy (County Dept Public Works)

I.  Welcome, Introductions, and Public Comment.

Gary welcomed the group.  Attendees introduced themselves.  There was no public comment.

II. Discussion of landowner/Zone options and strategies for flood prevention maintenance.

Linda recapped the status of events with DWR.  She has heard that the Board of Supervisors has been advised to take no action in response to DWR’s Statement of Necessary Work (SNW), so by default DWR will take over flood channel maintenance.  Question: what strategies might this group want to propose to the Board of Supervisors?

Mark Overduin asked Tony Ferrara what the San District’s thinking is about their participation with the assessment fees?  Tony replied that the San Dist is still in closed session, still considering the matter.  The next San Dist meeting will be open to the public, on March 16, 6pm at the OCSD.  He encouraged people to attendance.  He said that the San District is researching the legalities of possibly having its sers participate in the cost of the flood control district via a sewer charge, and whether they are bound by what the County decides in terms of assessments.  He said the SD made preliminary contact with Noel King at the County, and the County counsel, who met with John Wallace and the SD attorney.  He said they are attempting to stop the clock on the 45-day response period to the SNW.  The preliminary response from the County is that they don’t want to do that.  Tony F. and John Wallace have an appointment with Katcho.  Also, Tony intends to meet with local congressional representatives and with Shirley Bianchi.  He said the SD is going to be rattling cages, and encouraged the group to do the same.
Tony observed that the worst storms are probably behind us for this year, so the County has some leeway in terms of liability.  John Wallace has been in touch with Abel Maldonado, so Able is trying to get the Flood Zone grandfathered into the old law governing DWR and flood control zones.  Glen Priddy noted that the new law clarified that DWR could charge for insurance costs and damage claims.

Tony is planning on talking with Rep. Sam Blakelee. He said that Sam wants to be filled in on what’s going on, that he has the ability to look for grant money, and Tony is going to see if Sam has any influence with DWR in terms of getting an extension on the 45-day period.

Tony discussed the possibility of establishing a local entity, possibly the RCD, to assume responsibility for flood control channel maintenance.  The liability issue would need to be addressed.  The RCD thus far has been successful in obtaining CDFG permits to do work in the channel, and has tremendous local support.  The vegetation removal in December obviously did some good, as the 22nd Street Bridge held its own just fine.  Tony said he respectfully disagrees with the DWR Scope: “Do we need a Rolls Royce for this creek, or can we get by with a Toyota?”  Could the maintenance be done on a progressive, year-by-year basis?  If we take that approach, the San Dist might be more receptive.  The main thing for the San District is to try to get time to work on the issue.

Tony asked Glen if he could take back to Public Works the idea that the storm threat/liability issue is over for this year, and the request to give us time to find an approach that doesn’t burden the County constituency.

Tony said he thinks there’s a solution to this problem beyond what has been considered.  DWR doesn’t want to be here and was forced into it by politics.
Jim Hill wondered if there was something that could be done to reduce the liability concern, like a “hold harmless” agreement.  He asked how a local entity doing the management would get money – via a Prop 218 vote?

Tony said that there won’t be one legal entity putting forth an assessment formula, it has to be all the stakeholders.

Susan said that there are only 700 stakeholders, which would come to $2,250 per year per property owner if divided evenly, based on the $2 million/year budget.  At $1 million/year budget, it comes to $1,125/year per stakeholder.  Re the question of whether there is any way of expanding the assessment area, one option is to go through the San District, which is harder legally. Another option is to expand the boundaries of the assessment district and form a drainage district that encompasses a watershed; this would be done via Prop 218 vote, which would be difficult to get passed.  The advantage would be that cities would be interested, because the proposition could incorporate NPDES and address those needs, which would reduce the overall cost per household.
Another disadvantage of the Prop 218 vote: it will take about 1 year to complete the Swanson study, and then a year or more to organize for a Prop 218 election.  So it will be a number of years before we have a solution.  For the County stop the process now, liability would be a big issue.  Could 700 parcels afford flood and crop insurance for 3 years until a better solution was in place?

Jim – could some local agency be deputized by DWR to implement the work, and then DWR bill for the work.

Susan – DWR has to go through a very structured process, lots of rules and regs, so doing that would probably be very problematic.

Linda – RCD Board voted a year ago that it was willing to assist Zone 1/1A as necessary.  Using the RCD to achieve the end to keep DWR away would be acceptable.

Julie – how much would liability insurance cost?

Vard – it would be a different type of insurance from what DWR has.  There is no crop insurance available for truck farming, because there aren’t enough interested participants.  He has talked to Allied Insurance, and was told that SLO county does not have flood insurance for farmers.

There was a question re flood insurance for homes.  Glen said that yes, most homes would be required to be covered if they have a mortgage.
Susan – if the north side of the levee flooded, would the County bring in FEMA?

Tony – explained the mechanism of FEMA assistance for rebuilding.

Tony wanted to come back to the possibility of the RCD taking over the role of a legal entity.  If so, the Sanitation Dist would be an enthusiastic participant with the RCD.

Glen said that the County would be agreeable with the RCD taking over management.

Tony asked Glen if, given this information about the willingness of the RCD, would the County be willing to pursue an extension before DWR takes over?

Glen – the County has consistenly said you can form your own agency, and it will be very expensive.  But no one took action under DWR came down with the numbers.  I don’t see a recommendation from the County to give an extension when for so long no one did anything.

Susan pointed out that they had lost a year and a half  because of the April 2003 withdrawal of funds for the Alternatives Study.

Glen – The clock is running on the protest time, but DWR doesn’t want to be in charge of maintenance, so they would be happy to give it back any time.

Gary – So DWR might start, but if we come up with legitimate alternatives, they’d give it back.

There was discussion of what would be required in order to DWR to give back channel management to another group.

Tom Z – Come July 1, DWR will invoice the County, then the County will assess the property owners.  The first $900K won’t come back unless it’s not spent by DWR.

Glen – we’re still needing to talk to them about whether they need insurance.  Without insurance, the cost would be much lower.

Linda – Insurance will be 22-24% of the cost at first, then 35% of the total cost later on (after 5 years?) when total costs are lower.

Glen - $400k on average is what channel sediment removal would cost.  This is the first time DWR has gotten insurance to cover impacts on a general fund budget.

Tom Z – This isn’t palatable, because the state is self-insured.

Gary – What would be involved in setting up our own maintenance district?

Linda – First set up a Bd of Directors, and come up with a budget and assessments.  Or do it via the RCD – we have the power to tax or put an assessment to vote.

Tony – We need to rally around this concept and support it.  Could have an advisory committee that advises the RCD.  Then the RCD would be empowered as county or state would be, but now we have local control.  You would probably have much more willing participation of local entities.

Julie – How do local people agree to accept the RCD?  How do the stakeholders say, “we agree to this?”

Susan – Via a Prop 218 vote.

Glen discussed why the County relinquished management to DWR to get out of liability.

Ella – Has County ever talked to NRCS about relinquishement?

Glen – The preliminaries to establish the mechanism for assuming responsibility for the flood control channel are something you can do without us (the county).  Then do the legalities of taking the County of it, and putting the RCD in.  You have to have a mechanism for raising funds.

There was further discussion of the process of bringing the RCD in to do channel maintenance, and moving the DWR out.

Tony – So if we put this in place and hammer out legalities, and we’re moving toward July.  The RCD contacts DWR to transfer responsibility back to the RCD.  To what degree is the County involved in that process?  Is the County bound to go to Zone 1/1A to get affirmation from the landowners that they agree?

Glen – Formation of a maintenance area does not extinguish Zone 1/1A, because the Zone  has debt that needs to be serviced for a while.  The County would probably have to endorse a change to the RCD, which I’m sure they would, because of Water Code (??) statute that gives County the option to take responsibility back from DWR.

 There was further discussion of costs that DWR will incur and how they will be paid, if RCD takes over the channel.  Glen said that there is still some time before this is finalized by DWR.

 Gary – If we want to set up our own Zone, what are the steps?

 Julie read some applicable passages from Water Code 12878.22.

 Tony made a recommendation that the group form a Task Force which would include the RCD and San District.  Jim Coe could make interpretation (?).  We could get this moving and get questions answered, and maybe by July we’ll have answers, and either we assume it or take it back.

 Linda – DWR wants to set up a another public meeting for March 17, after the San District March 16 meeting.

 Martin – Has anyone else in the State done this, and could we get pointers?

 Glen mentioned the LA County Flood Control District

 Linda suggested we talk to Pajaro and Monterey, and find out why they backed out of working  with DWR.

 Glen discussed why Pajaro backed out, that lots of politics were involved.  He didn’t know why Monterey backed out.

 Tony said that he knows people in DWR Flood Operations Center, that they deal with a lot of local private flood districts – we could ask them how do we get started?

 Tom Z – Levee district in the delta are much like this.  There should already be an insurance vehicle for levee districts.

 Vard – Is there a downside to using the RCD?

 Linda – The downside is that we have a small staff.  It would take some hustling, new staff; we don’t have some of those things in place.

 Vard – Does the RCD have some type of umbrella insurance?

 Linda – Insurance is a question – but we can figure something out.

 Glen – What kind of agency is the RCD? State? Federal?

 Linda – We are a state special district.

 Susan  explained the history of why RCDs were formed, as the local arm of the NRCS.  The NRCS listens to the RCD Board on where to focus, and the NRCS has financial resources.  It’s a symbiotic relationship.

 For the Task Force, the following volunteered: Linda, Tony, Tom Z, Mark, Susan, Jim Hill, Martin Pehl, Vicki Janssen.  It was suggested that John Taylor be invited, as he’s the biggest landowner.  It was noted that more landowners were needed, and we needed someone from LAFCO.  There was discussion about whether to send mail to all landowners in Zone 1/1A to let them know of current events.  The task force would look at the issue of doing a mailing.

 Susan suggested media coverage, videos to be broadcast.  Suggested community meetings in mobile home parks.  Erin suggested putting up signs.  There was additional discussion of ways to inform local people about upcoming DWR management and assessment fee increases.

 There was a question about how much assessment fees would be if the RCD were managing the channel, and Linda said they would have to be increased over current rates, but not as much as under the DWR.  Gary said that we don’t have to do all the work at once – could focus on problem areas first.

 Susan discussed the Prop 218 process.  Said that Swanson Study results may be helpful in persuading voters to vote “yes”, depending on results.

 There was a question about who pays for holding a Prop 218 vote.  Jim said that the cheapest is to have it coincide with the County general election.  Susan said the election could also be held by mail, and if you read from Prop 218, each vote is weighted by that person’s proportional share of the property.

 Steph – do we want a formal proposal from the Advisory Committee for the Zone 1/1A to move toward management by the RCD?

 Mark made the following motion: “I propose that a Task Force be formed including representatives of all stakeholders to look into utilizing the RCD to manage the flood control district before DWR assumes responsibility.”  Stan Ikeda seconded Mark’s motion.  The motion was passed unanimously.

 The Task Force membership was proposed to initially consist of Tony F., Mark O., Tom Zehnder, Jim Hill, Susan Litteral, John Taylor, Vard Ikeda, Martin Pehl, Linda Chipping, and Vicki Janssen. Tony volunteered to facilitate the Task Force.  Membership of the force can change as the need arises.

 Vicki J. mentioned that the group should consider having someone from LAFCO on the Task Force.

 One of the first tasks of the Task Force would be to look at the issue of a direct mailing to all Zone 1/1A property owners to inform them of the relinquishment process and potential assessment fee increases.

 Various modes of  spreading information about the March 17 DWR meeting were discussed.

 The topic of how much the RCD would charge for channel maintenance was raised.  Linda said that would have to go to the Zone 1/1A group.  Stan Ikeda said that the RCD’s costs “would not be as much as DWR’s?”, and Linda said that they wouldn’t be that high.  Gary said that an advantage of having the RCD managing the channel is that the work would not have to all be done at once.  They could focus on problem areas first.

 Susan discussed the prop 218 process.  She said that the Swanson results may be helpful in persuading votes, depending on their results.

 Tony said he knows people in the DWR Flood Operations Center, who deal with a lot of local, private flood districts.  He will ask them what we would need to do to get started.

 Tom Z – levee districts in the delta are much like this.  There should already be an insurance vehicle for the levee district.

 Vard – is there a downside to using the RCD?

 Linda – the downside is that we have a small staff.  It would take some hustling, new staff, and we don’t have some of those things in place.

 Vard – Does the RCD have some type of umbrella insurance?

 Linda – Insurance is a question – but we can figure something out.

 Glen – What kind of agency is the RCD? State? Federal?

 Linda – we are a state special district.

 Susan explained the history of why RCDs were formed. She said the NRCS listens to the RCD Board on where to focus and the NRCS has financial resources.  It’s a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship.

 Discussion returned to the Task Force.  The group decided that the Task Force would construct a letter for Gary’s signature, jointly with the RCD.  The letter would be sent to the representatives Tony spoke about.  The correspondence would show a united front. Tony said the correspondence would let them know now what the group wants to work toward, that “the more we can get the County on our side now, we can head off problems down the road.  If at this point the Bd of Supervisors understands we are serious about working toward a local solution, they’ll be more willing to work with us.  So we should send this information to them as well.”   In the letter the group should encourage the Board to protest the SNW in order to delay the process, explaining why.

Linda said it was very important to contact Abel Maldonado and Sam Blakeslee.

 Susan said that DWR would love to be in the role of the bad guy in helping persuade the County to delay or stop relinquishment.

 Tony suggested the group talk with other local flood control districts to learn about process, procedures and protocols.

 Steph and Julie agreed to draft a letter for the Board of Supervisors.

 Susan said that LAFCO would ultimately need to be involved in the process.

 There was some discussion of the possibility of the Board of Supervisors protesting the Statement of Necessary Work as a delaying tactic, but Glen said the County probably wouldn’t protest because then DWR would probably “bail out.”

 Tony – DWR can’t just “turn tail”, because a protest is part of the legitimate process.

 Linda said the RCD will make appointments to meet with the Board of Sups individually.  Tom requested that bullet points for contacting representatives be developed.

 Tony and Vard – the first meeting of the Task Force will involve setting priorities.

 Vard – How long will the Task Force run?  Until the RCD takes over?

 Tony – Yes.  And the Zone 1/1A Adv. Comm. would continue as advisor to RCD.

The goal was set to have the Board of Supervisors agendize a vote to protest SNW at their March 22 meeting.  Mark O. agreed to ask Katcho to do place the item on the agenda.

The next Zone 1/1A Adv. Comm. meeting was set for March 21, at 3pm.

The meeting was adjourned.
 
 

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

The meeting was called to order at 3:05 pm by Gary Kobara, Chairman

Attending:
Gary Kobara, Mark Overduin, Glenda Guiton, Vicki Cardoza  (Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee)
Charlie Lacki (landowner)
Stephanie Fiinucane (The Tribune)
Vivian Krug, Julie Thomas, Linda Chipping, Ella Honeycutt (CSLRCD)
Vicki Janssen (Supervisor Achadjian’s office)
Tom Zehnder (Wallace Group/South SLO County Sanitation District)
Martin Pehl (SLO County Airport)
Bill Bookout, Jim Hill (OCSD)
Tony Ferrara (City of Arroyo Grande/South County Sanitation District)
Dave Ekborn (Grover Beach/SCSD)
Connie O’Henley, Steph Wald (CCSE)
Erin O’Farrell, Susan Litteral (NRCS)
Noel King, Glen Priddy (County Dept Public Works)
 

I.  Welcome, Introductions, and Public Comment.

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by Gary Kobara, Chairman.  Attendees introduced themselves.

II. Review minutes from 1/10/05 meeting.

Minutes from the Jan 10 2005 meeting were accepted without change (Glenda moved, Mark seconded).

III. Support letter for CCSE Arroyo Grande Watershed Management Plan.

Steph Wald distributed copies of the Central Coast Salmon Enhancement Arroyo Grande Watershed Management Plan, and requested comments on the plan.  She explained that the plan represented the results of a stakeholder-based process where agreement was reached on recommended projects.  After the committee has had a chance to review the plan over the next few months, she would like to present a support resolution to be voted on by the Adv. Comm.  The support resolution will be part of a group of similar resolutions collected to document that the community supports the WMP.

 Mark and Gary commented that they want to spend time reviewing the report, and that they welcome this approach.

IV. Update on Flood Alternatives Study Agreement and Grant from Coastal Conservancy for Alternatives Study.

Julie Thomas reported that the contract with Swanson Hydrology and Geomorphology (SHG) to conduct the study had been signed, and that the aerial photography flights should be done as soon as weather allowed.  Also, the grant with the Coastal Conservancy had been signed, so those funds were now available.
DWR and Coastal Development Permit (CDP): there followed some discussion about whether the County would apply for an extension to the CDP.  Glen Priddy said he would work with DWR on that.  Gary commented that it is important to keep the permit alive.  Glen asked whether the Flood Alternatives Study would meet the requirements of the Coastal Commission?  Gary and Vicki replied that the CDP just required that the study be planned.  Glen said that he would check into the possibility of extending the permit.
 

V. Discussion of landowner/Zone options and strategies for flood prevention maintenance, including current DWR actions.

Glen Priddy commented that DWR’s Statement of Necessary Work (SNW) is what the Board asked for 2 years ago.  As they told us, it’s going to be expensive, but he thought the costs were realistic.  “We don’t think they are padding anything.”  He said that DWR will only charge what they actually spend.  “We’re questioning them on whether theyneed insurance since they can charge any costs back to the district.”

Susan asked about environmental mitigation costs.  Glen said that DWR’s work plan says that mitigation costs are included in the budget.  Gary asked about assessment fees and costs per acre.  Glen said that the County/Public Works hadn’t done that estimate yet, that the next step was for DWR to set district boundaries, and that DWR had indicated that the boundaries should be the same, but that that’s not definite yet.

Gary asked how much the costs would probably go up?  Noel said that currently the district brings in $18,000/year, and that the 1st year DWR budget is about 50 times that.

The point was made that probably the Sanitation District, the Airport, and maybe the railroad would be included in the assessments, which would reduce the cost to others.  Fees will also depend on “weights”; there could be some “migration of costs.”

Connie commented that the weights listed in the Water Code are recommended, but the County can use different weights if there’s justification.

Linda said that the County had 45 days to repond, and asked how long the clock had been ticking?  Is there a possibility that the Board of Supervisors might protest the budget?

Glen said they received the SNW from DWR by fax on February 14.

Noel said that only the Bd of Supervisors can protest the proposed budget, and they can only protest items in the SNW.

Jim Hill asked if, for example, that meant the Bd of Sups could protest the insurance costs, and cut 20-30% off the total bill?

Noel replied that yes, legislative amendments last year make clear that the State can charge for liability insurance.  But DWR has told us that the insurance costs in the SNW are a rough estimate, and he said the County was trying to get those estimates refined.  But if DWR overcharges this year, there will be a credit on next year’s bill.

Ella asked if what DWR’s per diem rate would be.

Noel said they didn’t have that right now.  He also said that based on Public Work’s past experience with costs for sediment removal per cubic yard, DWR’s estimates were close to those that County PW had for doing the work themselves.

Tony said that the cost for state employees to stay down here is $124/day.

Glen said that the per diem cost, in the overall scheme of things, is relatively minor.

Tony said that the County might want to push the Dept of Finance to review the insurance costs.

Noel said that Maldonado today introduce SB826, which grandfathers our county into this legislation, so previous law will be applicable to our county.

Tony commented that Sam Blakeslee is aware of the dilemma and has said he will work on behalf of the Zone.

Noel – we met with Blakeslee’s staff the week before last.

Vicki J. noted that Katcho has spoken with Blakeslee also.

Tony said the “wiggle room” is worrisome in the budget – the word “estimated”; we’d at least like a ceiling.

Glen – That’s in part because they work on a year-to-year basis, and each year’s expenditures affects the next year’s budget.

There was further discussion about the details of DWR’s SNW and budget.

  Mark asked how soon we would see an assessment proposal?

 Noel replied that it wouldn’t be for a while.  The County needed to see the final budget, and the final boundaries, and review parcels to determine who it’s appropriate to assess.  And estimate would be to start with a budget that is 45 times the current assessment, though costs will be emphasized for residential and industrial parcels.

 There was further discussionabout the possible degree of rise in fees.

 Linda asked what properties/uses might not be assessed?

 Glen said that in the Water Code, “unusable” land was not assessed.  “Unusable” is based on actual use, not zoning.  May need to split parcels, if use is part agricultural and part industrial.

 Noel: Board may want to establish a new set of weighting categories.

 Ella:  It will be the death knell of agriculture if the assessments increase from $10 to $160/acre.

 Glen:  The costs of channel maintenance are real; a way has to be found to pay for them.  How do you spread the costs around?

 Linda:  DWR has indicated in a few conversations that they do not anticipate changing the boundaries of Zone 1/1A, so it seems it would benefit the people here for you to proceed.

 Gary noted that the County was really putting farmers in a tough position.

 Noel – I appreciate that, and I appreciate the impact on homeowners.  Is it worth $600 - $800 per year for homeowners?  Environmental regs have led to increased costs, and prevailing wages increase the costs of channel maintenance.  What are the other possibilities?  If there were grant monies, they could be used as credit.  Also, there is the Alternatives Analysis – I look at the DWR maintenance area as an interim measure.  But the preferred actions under the Alternatives Analysis will be expensive, but it will let us know what other possibilities there are.  We may need to find a completely different set of solutions, rather than remove sediment, like wetlands, flood easements.

 There was a question about when the maintenance area boundaries would be established?  The answer was “probably April.”

 Gary – we have to decide by March 31 whether to go ahead, but we don’t know the costs to each parcel yet.

 Noel – the only thing we can protest now is the budget.  You need to decide if the budget is reasonable.

 Mark said that since farmers could clean out the sediment themselves very cheaply, no one is going to see the budget as reasonable.

V.A. Reviewing Zone 1/1A’s options.  Linda reviewed several options that the Adv. Comm. might consider for flood control; these were listed on a handout which was distributed (attached to minutes).  One of the options was to form a local flood control entity.

 Noel noted that this morning they had met with County Counsel.  The County intends to proceed with DWR; it’s not going to stop now in hope of something eslse, esp. since the Prop 218 process has an uncertain outcome.  Regarding option 4, the County would consider taking over if the budget were sufficient, requiring a 218 election, and the budget would be comparable to DWR’s.  Re option 6a, DWR is planning to remove sediment by the 2nd year.

 There was further discussion about issues related to the possibility for forming a locally managed “levee district”, possibly via the RCD.  Tony noted that he’d spoken with Mike Hill of CDFG, and that Mike felt the December 2004 veg thinning done by RCD using the CCCs had gone well.  Tony noted that use of local CCCs and corrections crews would reduce labor costs.

 Noel said the DWR projects used either local prison crews or CCCs for veg removal, as well as using CCCs for flood fight.  DWR is planning on contracting out for silt removal.

 Tony – the same local sources could be used for silt removal.

 Noel – that could be a question we could put to DWR – why not use local sources for silt removal?

 Glen – it might be difficult because of the type of heavy equipment required – don’t know if CCCs or fire crews have that capability.

 Noel – we will follow up with DWR on that.

V.B. Possible assessment formulas and resulting landowner fees.  Susan noted that she had worked on formation of assessment district(s) in the past, and that it is a very detailed process by an assessment engineer – a very formal process with review.  At the last few meetings everyone was asking how much the assessment fees under DWR would be. She said that the existing assessment fee formula from the 1960’s is obsolete.  The pitfalls of that system are the (1) public facilities have $0 assessment, and (2) all mobile home parks = 1 lot = lower assessment; for 20 mobile homes, the assessment could be $10.

 Susan played with the possible assessment fee numbers based on the number of lots, total acreage, and the number of Sanitation District connections, and came up with a number of assessment fee scenarios to meet DWR’s estimated budget, and she showed them to the group.  In these scenarios, if the Sanitation District only paid a nominal fee, the costs were astronomical for everyone else in Zone 1/1A.  If the SD pays a large fee, then that redistributes the costs to the upper watershed which is benefiting from flood protection, which reduces costs for the relatively few living in the Zone 1/1A.

 She noted that with a prop 218 election, assessments are related to the property’s “proportional share”.  She said that ballots are weighted in proportion to the amount of the assessment.  Since Zone 1/1A was a very small area, if a good, balanced proposition were presented to the voters, it could pass.  Susan also mentioned an alternative to a Prop 218 vote (details?)

 Jim asked how Pismo’s outfall pipe would play into the assessment?  Susan said that her concept is that the San Dist would delegate part of their costs to Pismo.

 Susan asked Tony how the San District would respond to participating in paying assessment fees?  If the San Dist had a 90% vote on a 218, would they vote yes?

 Tom Z. noted that $6.50 is currently the average monthly bill for a San Dist user.

Tony suggested that Susan send what she presented today to John Wallace, the District Counsel, and the Board of Supervisors.  He said that the San Dist was currently working on this question, but couldn’t comment yet.  He said that they would soon have a public meeting, at which they could comment on the San District’s position on paying assessment fees.

Noel – the Board of Supervisors could also use these assessment scenarios, but they would only support them if the San Dist supports it.

Susan – it all hinges on the San Dist.  Everyone flushes a toilet.  But is has to be something the San Dist finds politically palatable.

Mark – the growers ought to get together to figure out what we can live with.

There was further discussion about DWR’s budget, about the County investigating the proposed costs.  Noel said he would keep the group posted.

Jim said that” even if you get rid of half of the insurance costs and half of the sediment removal costs, that still a big bill to spread around.  Susan has done a great job with her spreadsheet showing various ways to allocate the fees in a way that can be affordable.  But I don’t think there is a way to change DWR’s budget greatly, especially if the County finds DWR’s budget is similar to past County estimates.”  He asked “what are the other alternatives?  Let it flood?  Go to LAFCO to get local control?”

Mark – I think we all agree with Noel King that the long term solution is a redefined project.

Susan  said that she is hoping the Swanson study comes up as a viable project we can implement, and we need to keep the Prop 218 option in mind.  But should we delay DWR now, if it means increasing the risk of a levee breach.
 

VI. Next meeting date and adjournment.

Linda noted that the next San District meeting was March 2, so suggest that the Adv Comm. meet on March 4.  The Committee agreed to hold the next meeting on March 4, 3pm, at Bejo Seeds.  The primary agenda item would be further discussion of DWR and relinquishment issues.

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 pm.
 
 

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

Attending:

Gary Kobara, John Taylor, Mark Overduin, Glenda Guiton, Will Deschanes, Vicki Cardoza (Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee)
Charlie Lacki (landowner)
Vivian Krug
Nina Grabiel (resident)
Jim Bergman (City of AG)
Tom Zehnder (Wallace Group/South SLO County Sanitation District)
Marjorie Gilliam (Zone 1/1A landowner)
Hari Nam Elliot (CCSH, resident)
Martin Pehl (SLO County Airport)
Antonia Maldinado (citizen)
Mary Lucey (resident)
Edie Hatton (10-year resident Zone 1/1A)
Steph Wald, Bob Brown (CCSE)
Julie Thomas, Linda Chipping (CSLRCD)
Erin O’Farrell, Susan Litteral (NRCS)

I. Welcome, Introductions, and Public Comment.

The meeting was called to order at 3:05 pm by Gary Kobara, Chairman. Attendees introduced themselves

During the public comment period, Steph Wald announced that the Central Coast Salmon Enhancement Arroyo Grande Watershed Management Plan had been completed in draft form, and that CCSE would be coming to the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee asking for their support. She said that Zone Adv. Comm. members who are also part of the AG Watershed Management Plan Steering Committee will be drafting a support letter for the Zone 1/1A Committee to vote on.

Marjorie Gilliam spoke to say she was thankful for the people associated with the Zone 1/1A Adv Committee who organized the AG creek vegetation clean-up. She said that Los Berros Creek has been flowing very well during all the recent rains.

Will asked if the county has been out to check on the levees. Vicki C. indicated that Katcho Achadjian has been out to check.
 

II. Review minutes from last meeting; request revisions/approval.

John Taylor moved to approve the minutes from the November 22, 2004 meeting without revision; Vicki Cardoza seconded the motion and the motion carried. In addition, because there hadn’t been a quorum of Board members at the Nov. 22 meeting, Vicki C. moved to approve the minutes from the October 25 meeting without revision, Mark seconded the motion, and the motion carried.

III. Update on Flood Alternatives Study Agreement, and Grant from Coastal Conservancy for Alternatives Study.

Julie reported that the County and the CSLRCD have signed the “Funding Agreement between the SLO County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the CSLRCD” for the County’s grant of $150K to conduct the AG Creek Flood Alternatives Study. The CSLRCD Board of Directors has ratified the Agreement, and the County should release the funds within the next 20 days. In addition, on December 2, 2004, the Coastal Conservancy Board approved matching funds for the Alternatives Study in the amount of $150K; and the grant agreement is in the mail to the RCD. Once that agreement is signed by the RCD, work on the Alternatives Study can begin being charged to the Coastal Conservancy Grant. Combined with a $15K grant from the Dept of Parks and Rec OHV fund, the total funds available for the study will be $315K. The contract between the CSLRCD and Swanson Hydrology and Geomorphology is still pending, being reviewed by the RCD’s County Counsel, but very soon to be completed.

Gary asked whether the County’s $150,000 could only be used for those portions of the study conducted within Zone 1/1A? Linda replied, No, that the County’s initial contract, prior to relinquishment in 2003, when the County was going to directly hire a consultant to do a study, would have limited their funds to be spent only on work within Zone 1/1A, and wouldn’t have looked at the entire watershed. The current Flood Alternatives Study is much more comprehensive, and for that reason should provide more accurate results. It will examine the entire watershed as it functions hydrologically, but flood protection focus is on Zone 1/1A.

Gary asked if Zone 1/1A has any liability for the results of the Study? Linda answered “No.”

Steph mentioned that there will continue to be the opportunity for public input at various stages as the Alternatives Study progresses.

Zone 1/1A website: Mark O. asked about the status of Zone 1/1A website. Julie indicated that all of the current agendas and minutes should be up on the website shortly, and she will be working with Cheryl Zelus on uploading subsequent information.

IV. Review and discussion of December 22 public meeting with Department of Water Resources.

Julie indicated that she had emailed draft notes from the Dec 22 meeting to the group, and would be emailing a final version that included comments/changes from DWR as soon as she received all their comments.

Among the points made during the ensuing discussion:
 

•  DWR is limited to outlining the boundaries of the maintenance area and determining the overall budget, but does not determine how fees are assessed within the maintenance area. The County can assign assessment criteria/weights, with higher weights going to areas of special benefit, and would tax to collect the needed funds. This allows the possibility of giving the Sanitation District a heavier weighting, and then the San Dist could spread the assessment out amongst all their customers via a users fee of some sort. DWR said at the Dec 22 meeting that the flood control assessment area would probably have the same boundaries as Zone 1/1A, since that is the zone of direct benefit of flood control efforts. The economic impact of DWR managing the maintenance area has yet to be determined, and informed decisions on the part the Sanitation District would play ar