I.  Welcome and Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm.
Committee members present: Gary Kobara (Chair), Glenda Guiton, Will Deschenes, Vicki Cardoza
Agency/Organization representatives:; Vicki Janssen/Katcho’s office; Craig Piper/SLO Co. Airports; Vern Dahl/OCSD; Mark Barnett/NRCS; Jeff Werst and Nola Engelskirger/SLO Co. Public Works; Steph Wald/CCSE Linda Chipping/CSLRCD
Community members:  Norm Getty, Charlie Lackie, Hugh Gilson, Pat Gilson, Gail Lightfood, Ed Moss

II.  Announcements
 (A)  Jeff Werst distributed his email correspondence with NOAA for the addition of a Quantitative Precipitation Forecast  (QPF) at Lopez Lake.  There is potential for a future site near Nipomo View Hill, which would be on private property.

III.  Corrections to draft minutes as follows:
 September 19, 2006:  Page 1: Linda Chipping was not present at the meeting.  Page 2, Section V. (a) Risk Management Charge-update 3rd paragraph; “first we were told there would be a $135,000/year…” should be $135,550; and “Now the county is saying the charge should be $315,000” should be $316,000.
 October 17, 2006:  Page 1, Section IV. Precipitation forecasting, end of first paragraph, “…forcasting stations in Cambria and Santa Margarita, the Oceano airport and Nipomo Mesa and old town.” Should be “forcasting station in Cambria and Santa Margarita.  The County has radio precipitation gages at the Lopez Recreaton area, Oceano airport, Nipomo Mesa and old town.”

IV.  Advisory Committee Vacancy
Two applications for the vacancy were received by Public Works, Norm Getty and Gail Lightfoot.  After some discussion, Nola Engelskirger said she would write the letter to the Board of Supervisors, forwarding both names.  She will let everyone know when the item is going before the Board so that people can send their comments/recommendations to the Board.  Gail Lightfoot indicated that she may consider withdrawing her application.

V.  Arroyo Grande Creek flood channel maintenance
Nola distributed an aerial photograph which identified the areas cleared for the season:  (1) Both sides of Los Berros Creek from Valley Road east to the zone boundary. (2)  On Arroyo Grande Creek, the north levee from So. Halcyon Road to near the wastewater treatment plant and the south levee from Highway 1 to approximately 13th Street area.  Priorities set were to clear where not done in the past few years.  The short duration of the Coastal Zone permit (waiver not in force until October 12th) and the limited CCC crew availability due to call aways for fires did not allow for clearing the entire channel.  Public Works was able to assign a CMC crew to do work in the coastal zone.  Due to dry weather, DFG extended work from October 31st thru the week of November 3rd.

It was noted that the Coastal Zone permit has been subject to delays in the past, and that in the future, application for the permit should begin much earlier.  Also, a CCC internal mixup contributed to their unavailability; a meeting with them should be arranged soon to clarify their work and priorities for future work.  A motion was passed to write a letter to the County expressing the Advisory Committee’s concern about the work on the flood channel that did not get done.

The draft maintenance agreement just needs some fine tuning and Nola expects it to be ready in the next few weeks.  It was requested that a copy be forwarded to members of the Advisory Committee and Task Force.

The question was raised about trees growing in the center of the channel, and possiboe relocation to the levees.  It was pointed out that regulatory agencies would prefer to see new tree cover developed along the berm before removing what is in the channel.  It was suggested that moving trees may be less cost effective than planting from nursery stock.

VI.  Memorandum of Understanding among AG Creek stake holders.  The Coastal San Luis RCD signed the agreement at their last meeting.

VII.  Open Forum
A recommendation was made to consider a change to the Committee By-Laws, similar to language used by other advisory committees.  If a Board member misses four meetings in a row, then they could be replaced.  This would help to keep members engaged in the business of the district.

Norm Getty distributed a draft letter to Ms. Deb Hossli, the county Risk Manager regarding the capping of claims to smooth rates, which results in a disproportionate percent of reduction.  1/1A should not be paying for having the fund underfunded for years.  It was also noted that although the county treated the flood as 1 claim event, risk management treated it as five claims, which would reduce its capped claim.  A motion passed to have the 1/1A Advisory Committee send the letter to request that the FCZ 1/1A flood event be reclassified and treated as one claim with the claim cap of $150,000.

VIII.  Next meeting date – Set for January 16, 2007 at 3:00 p.m., OCSD Conference Room

IX.  Meeting adjourned.

Zone 1/1A website:  http://www.coastalrcd.org/Zone1-1A.html or go to http://www.coastalrcd.org/    and follow links to Zone 1/1A.
CSLRCD:  Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
RWQCB:  Regional Water Quality Control Board
NRCS:  Natural Resources Conservation Service
 

I.  Welcome and Introductions
 The meeting was called to order at 3:05 pm.
 Committee members present: Gary Kobara (chair), Glenda Guiton, Stan Ikeda, Will Deschenes, Vickie Cardoza, John Taylor
 Agency representatives present:  Julie Thomas and Linda Chipping/CSLRCD, Stephnie Wald/CCSE, Vern Dahl/OCSD, Tony Ferrara/City of AG, Jeff Werst and Nola Engelskirgir/SLO County PW, Mark Barnett/NRCS.
 Community members:  Norm Getty (Zone 1/1A Task Force), Charlie Lackie, Bob Gold

II.  Announcements.
John Taylor resignation from Advisory Committee.  Advisory Committee member John Taylor submitted a letter of resignation to Gary Kobara (attached).  Gary read the letter to the committee.  Nola will submit the letter to the Board of Supervisors with a request to post the vacancy on the Advisory Committee, as provided in the Bylaws.  Norm expressed interest in applying for the position.
Martin Pehl leaving SLO.  Julie announced that she had received an email from Martin Pehl (SLO County Airports and member of the Z 1/1A Task Force) informing her that Martin would be leaving SLO and moving to Napa – Martin’s last day with SLO County would be Oct 20.

III.  Review and approval of minutes.
 The Advisory Committee tabled approval of the August and September minutes to the next meeting.

IV. Precipitation forecasting – possibilities for AG watershed.
Jeff Werst is investigating the possibility of adding precipitation monitoring stations in the Arroyo Grande watershed, possibly Lopez dam and Los Berros Creek, that could be linked to the National Weather Service (NWS) Quantitative Precipitation Forecast (QPF) system to allow the NWS to provide precipitation forecasting for the watershed.  The NWS system can provide up to 7 days forecasting.  The NWS has indicated willingness in participating.  In order to go forward, radio gages (automated precipitation gages) need to be installed, and a formal request to the NWS needs to be provided that includes the rationale for why the forecasting is needed; in the case of AG watershed, it would be to assist in forecasting flows in the flood control channel.  Once the gages are installed, calibration is needed for the NWS model.  Currently NWS has forecasting stations in Cambria and Santa Margarita.  The County has radio precipitation gages at the Lopez Recreation area, Oceano airport, Nipomo Mesa and Nipomo old town.  Anyone can look up NWS predictions on the web.
The cost for the precipitation gage is about $6,000 in capital costs for a self-contained unit.
Jeff said that Lopez dam area is all set and ready to go; it already has a precipitation gage and radio station.  Los Berros would need to have a station installed.
To access existing SLO County data on rainfall, including for Lopez dam, go to www.slocountywater.org and click on weather data link.
There was discussion about plans to add a streamgage at 22nd Street to help calibrate watershed models.  22nd Street is considered better for measuring big flows.  Mark said that Highway 1 bridge would be better for measuring low flows.  Jeff and Mark are going to discuss this further after the meeting.
It was suggested that someone from Zone 1/1A speak to the head of Zone 3 about money for gages.  Vern said that Zone 3 will be upgrading 2 existing stream gages and installing 2 more.  Norm asked what it would take to get a stream gage installed on Los Berros creek?
The recommendation was presented for Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee vote:

“Zone 1/1A supports the idea of establishing precipitation and stream gages in Arroyo Grande Creek and Los Berros Creek watersheds, and incorporating one or more sites in each watershed into the National Weather Service QPF system.”

 The motion was passed unanimously by the committee.

V. AG Creek flood channel maintenance.

a.  2006 vegetation management in flood channel.  Julie reported on CCCs and CMC crews vegetation management work in the Zone 1/1A flood control channel.  She reported that the Coastal Commission at their October meeting had approved a Coastal Development Permit waiver allowing vegetation work to go forward in the original jurisdiction coastal zone.   She said that due to CCCs crews being called away for fire duty and pre-existing project obligations, work was somewhat behind schedule.  If needed, she plans on requesting an extension from the CDFG to allow work to continue after the October 31 deadline.  Julie also distributed copies the CSLRCD budget for vegetation management project services for Fall 2006 (attached).
b.  RCD/County draft annual maintenance agreement – status.  Julie reported that RCD representatives had met with the County to discuss the draft RCD/County contract, which was in the process of review by County Counsel.
c.  Long-term maintenance plan – possible strategy for development.  There was discussion about how Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee or Task Force representatives could best be integrated into the development of the long-term management plan. Norm emphasized the importance of including Task Force representatives in meetings between the County and the RCD for discussions about the long-term management plan.

VI.   Memorandum of Understanding between AG Creek watershed stakeholders – update.
 Tony Ferrara reported that the MOU had three signatures at this point:  Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee, the City of Arroyo Grande, and the Sanitation District.  He said that the Oceano Community Services District counsel is talking with the AG counsel about some concerns with the wording of the MOU.  Tony said that the basic language of the MOU is set, and that any caveats on the part of individual parties will have to go into the individual “task” paragraphs.
 Tony said that this is a hard time for getting things done in municipalities because of elections, so the MOU is not the highest priority for many at this time.  Tony wants a meeting with County counsel, AG counsel and RCD to take the next steps.  Another needed step is to get back to the agencies, e.g., the USFWS, and have people hand carry the master signature page to agencies for signatures.  So we need to set up appointments for getting those signatures.
 Julie said that the RCD Board of Directors would be voting on signing the MOU at their upcoming meeting on October 20.

IX. Open Forum.
 Steph announced that CCSE had completed a fisheries assessment last week.  The assessment took 5 days at a total of 8 sites along mainstem AG creek.
 Also, CCSE will be having their annual fundraising dinner event on November 4.
 Norm reported that he has an appointment to meet with Katcho on November 3 to discuss the risk management charge for Zone 1/1A.

X.   Next meeting date.
 Set for Tuesday, November 28, 3:00 p.m. at OCSD

XI.   Meeting adjourned.

Zone 1/1A website:  http://www.coastalrcd.org/Zone1-1A.html or go to http://www.coastalrcd.org/    and follow links to Zone 1/1A.
CCSE:  Central Coast Salmon Enhancement    County PW: County Public Works
CSLRCD:  Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
NRCS:  Natural Resources Conservation Service
 

I.  Welcome and Introductions
 The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm.
 Committee members present: Gary Kobara (chair), Glenda Guiton, Stan Ikeda, John Taylor, Will Deschenes, Vickie Cardoza
 Agency representatives present:  Julie Thomas/CSLRCD, Stephnie Wald/CCSE, Vern Dahl/OCSD, Tony Ferrara/City of AG, Paavo Ogren and Jeff Werst/SLO County PW, Tom Zehnder/South County Sanitation Dist.
 Community members:  Norm Getty (Zone 1/1A Task Force), Charlie Lackie, Hugh Gilson, Bob Gold

II.  Announcements.
 Bob Gold introduced himself as a member of St John’s Church, which is in Zone 1/1A, and he volunteered to take minutes for the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee meetings.

III.  Review and approval of minutes.
 The Advisory Committee approved the minutes for May, June and July.  (August minutes were not yet ready for review.)

IV.  Memorandum of Understanding between all watershed stakeholders

a.  Review of AG Creek Watershed MOU (Sept 11, 2006).   Paavo and Jeff handed out sheet with feedback from County PW on MOU.  He said that the Water Resources Advisory Committee discussed the overall process at their last meeting, and Paavo and Linda provided updates. The County also has a few suggested language changes/corrections.  Paavo said that SLO provided the AG city counsel a copy of the Santa Clara Basin MOU to use as a possible template; Paavo suggested it would be good to do a comparison/contrast with the AG Creek MOU.  Paavo said the County is 100% in concurrence with the approach of working together on AG watershed issues, and supports the MOU approach.
Vern said that the OCSD is trying to figure out how to legally join in the MOU; some of the wording is problematic.
Tony distributed a 9/19 version of the MOU.  He said that the two key players are the County and the RCD, and that the group needs to get positioned for funding to implement watershed projects.  He said that the MOU has already been “sanitized” by 3 attorneys (there was then some discussion about which County attorneys had been involved).  Tony would like to join in a meeting with County counsel.  He doesn’t want the MOU to lock people in beyond what they’re capable of doing.  The general language in the current version of the MOU is fairly well-established; there’s no much “wiggle-room”.  But we need to make sure that the task-specific paragraphs are comfortable to the individual signatories.  He has gotten much feedback but not from all the parties; the draft MOU hasn’t made the complete circuit yet.  Tony will try to have AG City atty Tim Carmel sit in on a meeting with the County as well.  Tony said he had come to the Zone 1/1A meeting today with the expectation of signing the “gold copy” of the MOU, but that the MOU could be put on hold until it’s further reviewed by the County.
 

b.  Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee participation in MOU

In response to Julie’s question regarding whether the Zone 1/1A Adv. Comm. bylaws would allow the Advisory Committee to sign the MOU, Paavo said he believes the Advisory Committee can sign, since the tasks identified for the Adv. Comm. in the MOU are compatible with the Z 1/1A purpose.
Tony said the AG City County is going to sign the current version of the MOU – it is on the consent agenda for September 26.  The Sanitation District is going to consider the MOU on September 20.
Jeff asked if there was any downside to signing the MOU before the 1959 NRCS/County/RCD contract language changes are finalized, and the maintenance agreement between the County and RCD is done?  Paavo replied that he thinks that “the sooner we can get the final MOU wording completed and signed, the better.”
Gary said that this is a way to have major players in the watershed help with problems that affect Zone 1/1A.
Tony said that the MOU is an attempt to bring together stakeholders in the watershed to mitigate problems.  And post-Prop 218, it recognizes that many problems within Zone 1/1A actually originate outside Zone 1/1A.  He said that the language is not scripted to make monetary or policy commitments by Zone 1/1A.
There was further discussion about whether the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee can be a signatory.  Both Tony and Paavo believed so.  Paavo said that the fine points could be discussed with attorneys, but the Advisory Committee could vote on support of the MOU.  Tony said that the language for the County and RCD is fairly specific because it is work-oriented, but the language for Zone 1/1A and Zone 3 is pretty general, nothing that takes them beyond the normal scope of what they would do anyway.
Gary asked the Advisory Committee members if they had any comments or questions about the MOU.  He provided general background for those committee members who had not been to the most recent Adv. Comm. meetings.  He said that the Prop 218 funds could be seen as match funds for some potential grants to do additional work.  He said that the purpose of this document is to get everyone working together, the whole watershed.
John Taylor asked what the MOU would do, in addition to getting the stakeholders acknowledging their participation?
Tony said that the RCD had prepared a draft spreadsheet of all the projects that have been identified to date in the watershed by the Alternatives Study, the Watershed Management Plan, and the Lopez Dam HCP, that could help AG Creek and reduce flood risk (copy of spreadsheet  was distributed).  He said the parties in the MOU are “joining this club to help figure out the solution.”  The City of AG is working with RCD and others to start figuring out funding mechanisms to pay for the projects.  The timeline shown on the spreadsheet is just an estimate, to be used as the basis for an action plan.
Paavo said that in the coming year the next round of Prop 50 IRWM grants would be opening up.  Last year the County’s application specifically included flood control as 1 of 5 main elements.  He said the MOU would help in the County’s next IRWM application, that it’s the type of thing the state is looking for, and will help in getting funding, making the County’s application more competitive.
John said he was concerned about keeping the focus on the flood control channel.  Tony said that will still happen, that as much would be done as possible with Prop 218 funds.  But to address watershed-wide problems that affect Zone 1/1A, the MOU brought together “a formidable group of stakeholders who are all in this together”, and that gets the attention of funding and regulatory agencies.
Paavo said that the MOU was not necessary for figuring out the channel maintenance plan, but it was part of a ‘multi-pronged” approach.  The MOU needed to move along simultaneously with the channel maintenance plan.
Norm said that part of what’s driving some of the agencies interested in the MOU is that at a federal level this is a lot of emphasis on “hazard mitigation.”
Paavo said that state agencies are looking for local coalitions.  The new model for addressing problems is that for anything controversial there needs to be consensus among local parties.
John said he was concerned that with so many stakeholders involved, the focus would be spread out, with everyone focusing on their pet project.
Tony said that he believed working together (via the MOU) would create a better situation than before.  The participants would be part of a prioritization process for projects and will be coordinating with each other.  And it’s more powerful if agencies are part of the process and signatories; they will be helping us.
Advisory Committee Vote on MOU:  Gary asked whether the Advisory Committee wanted him to sign the MOU on behalf of Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee?  Will made a motion to have Gary sign, and Stan seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

V.  Zone 1/1A Budget for 2006-07 (item b was discussed before item a)
b.  Budget and channel maintenance priorities.  Jeff presented a 2006-07 budget analysis handout.  Tony proposed getting more specific about item #4 “Reserves, Contingency, Long-term Solutions, Emergency Planning”.  There was discussion that this item would allow accumulation of financial reserves for big projects, once permits were obtained.
 Jeff reported that money had been borrowed from the general fund to pay to start work on vegetation maintenance this summer before December property taxes are collected.
 He said the this budget is Public Work’s best estimate of costs, and that Nola has details of background of numbers.
 a.  Risk Management Charge – update.  Norm reported that he received an email from the County that the risk management charge for Zone 1/1A should be $315,000 according to the County’s formula.  He said he will continue to work on this.  The bottom line from his analysis so far is that the charge to Zone 1/1A is grossly disproportionate compared with charges to other groups in the County.
 Tony said that Norm and Jeff should tell the County that there are locals who will want a detailed public hearing before the Board of Supervisors about the risk management charge if this continues.
 Gary provided background for those who didn’t know about the risk management charge:
- first we were told there would be a $135,550/year charge for the next several years, but that the charges would be “paid over time” to allow more funds to do channel maintenance.
- “We asked why the charge was so high, and Norm is checking into it.
- Now the County is saying the charge should be $316,000.

Jeff said that his understanding is that the amount of money needed for risk management for Zone 1/1A would be $135/year until 2010, and that $60,000/year would be borrowed from Zone 9 flood control district to cover a portion of Zone 1/1A’s charge.
Tony said that the bottomline message to send back to the County is that if the County persists in this risk management rationale, we will want a public hearing.
Norm is going to follow-up.

VI.  2006 Vegetation management in flood channel – status of current work and application to do work in Coastal Zone.  Julie reported that the CCCs had begun work in the channel on August 14 and were working above the 22nd street bridge.  Crews were small this year, due to conflicting projects, and being called away for fire duty.  The application to the Coastal Commission to do work in the Coastal Zone is pending, and should be heard at the Coastal Commission’s October 11th hearing.

VII.  Long term channel maintenance plan.  Julie reported that the RCD had provided the County with a draft annual services contract for maintenance of the AG Creek flood control channel, and that the County was reviewing the draft.  Julie also discussed the draft chart of AG Watershed projects.

IX. Open Forum.  No comments.

X.   Next meeting date.
 Set for Tuesday, October 17, 3:00 p.m. at OCSD

XI.   Meeting adjourned.

Zone 1/1A website:  http://www.coastalrcd.org/Zone1-1A.html or go to http://www.coastalrcd.org/    and follow links to Zone 1/1A.
CCSE:  Central Coast Salmon Enhancement    County PW: County Public Works
CSLRCD:  Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
NRCS:  Natural Resources Conservation Service
 

I.  Welcome and Introductions
 The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm.
 Committee members present: Gary Kobara (chair), Glenda Guiton, Stan Ikeda
 Agency representatives present:  Julie Thomas and Linda Chipping/CSLRCD, Stephnie Wald/CCSE, Vern Dahl/OCSD, Tony Ferrara/City of AG, Nola Engelskirger and Jeff Werst/SLO County PW, Mark Barnett/NRCS, Tom Zehnder/South County Sanitation Dist, Martin Pehl/SLO County Airport.
 Community members:  Norm Getty (Zone 1/1A Task Force), Charlie Lackie

II.  Announcements.
 Creek Day:  Steph Wald announced that there will be a county-wide Creek Clean-up Day on Saturday, September 30, coordinated with all municipalities in the County, and invited people to participate and offered posters and handouts for distribution.
 Zone 1/1A aerial photos:  Julie Thomas showed high resolution aerial photos with topographic contour lines superimposed that had been created by Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology as part of Alternatives Study contract.

III.  Review and approval of minutes.
 Lacking a quorum, this item was tabled to the next meeting.

IV.  Memorandum of Understanding between all watershed stakeholders

a.  Update on MOU.   Tony Ferrara circulated a final draft MOU dated 8/18.  In response to a question about who would be the central coordinating entity, Tony said that perhaps all the MOU parties would be keepers of the agreement.  Tony said that an AG City Council member had commented that the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee is an avenue, or voice, for all of the Zone 1/1A property owners.  Also, on August 16, the Sanitation District Board had voted to approve the San District’s participation in the MOU, and Barbara Mann signed for the San Dist.  The MOU was going back to the AG City Council for final signature; it already has the tentative approval of the City Council.
Tony has heard from some state and federal regulatory agencies, such as the RWQCB and UFWS, that they are interested in being part of the MOU.  Tony expressed mixed feelings about this; as is, he felt the MOU is “non-threatening”.  He asked the Advisory Committee and others attending how to bring the regulatory agencies aboard on the MOU without threatening its current context of voluntary participation. Norm asked why the agencies wanted to be involved?  Mark Barnett pointed out that it could be a great opportunity to educate them and vice versa and have dialog.  Steph echoed Mark’s comments.  She pointed out that most agency people don’t live in the AG area, so participating in the MOU would help them become better acquainted with the area and informed about its issues.  She suggested there may be a way to word the MOU so the agencies’ roles aren’t regulatory, but participatory.  Linda said this could be a way to encourage agency participation in developing solutions, and that it might help with grant funding.
Tony said one option would be to write in the agency name, and leave it to them to craft their own “task” paragraphs.  This could help give them ownership in the AG watershed, and make it more likely that the local community would get a “heads up” about funding opportunities.
Tony asked that any suggested changes be funneled to him, and that he would be the keeper of the “master copy.”
Mark Barnett said that if regulatory agencies were included, we want to be sure that they don’t have “veto power” over group consensus.  Tony said that the language of the MOU was crafted so that people wouldn’t see it as binding or threatening, “I don’t want to get into the spectre of liability.  This is a first cut, and I like the idea of revisiting the MOU in a year.  We can keep ‘what iffing’ to the point that no one signs off.”
Mark B. pointed out that it’s important that agencies be asked to be involved; that it would not be good to say “no” if they have asked to participate.
Tony asked if the consensus of the group was to include the RWQCB and USFWS; there was general assent.  After discussion, the suggestion was made to include Zone 1/1A and Zone 3 Advisory Committees specifically, in addition to SLO County and the SLO County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.  Julie asked whether the Advisory Committees could sign the MOU?  Tony said he’d look into it.
Jeff Werst suggested that it might be best to suggest tasks for the regulatory agencies.  Tony said the MOU doesn’t have to include many specifics, those can be developed afterwards.

b.  Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee participation in MOU.  There was a little more discussion about how the Zone 1/1A Adv. Comm. Bylaws might guide/affect/constrain the ability of the Advisory Committee to sign on to the MOU.

V.  Zone 1/1A Budget for 2006-07.
 Jeff Werst distributed proposed language for revisions to the 1959 County-NRCS maintenance agreement for the flood control.  Regarding the proposed administrative services agreement between the RCD and the County for maintenance of the AG Creek flood control channel, Jeff said that Public Works director Noel King’s goal is to have the 1959 contract revision and the RCD/County maintenance agreement to the Board of Supervisors for their December meeting.  So we want to get specific tasks for RCD/County agreement hammered out in early November.  He would like to have a recommendation for approval from Zone 1/1A in the October meeting.
 Mark B. said that the NRCS/Margy Linquist need to be involved in discussions of the 1959 contract revisions.  Linda said that the NRCS had planned to have new language proposals by August 15.
 Jeff said that he would be the point person for amended language for the County.  The County is determining which County Counsel will be reviewing/approving the language.
 Nola reported that on Tuesday August 15, the Bd of Supervisors had authorized sole-sourcing this year’s vegetation maintenance work in the channel to the California Conservation Corps crews, and the BoS authorized the Public Works Director to sign the contract.   In order to finance work this summer, before the Prop 218 assessments had been collected (due in December), the County would make a “dry period loan”, with funds borrowed from the general fund.
 Nola presented a draft long-term budget plan for the AG channel, based on phased implementation of Alternative 3A, that had been prepared by the RCD.  Julie pointed out that some of the costs hadn’t been included, and that this was intended as a draft and needed further discussion with the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee and Task Force.
 Some points covered in discussion of budget:
• Possible charges for upgrades to flap gates in Los Berros and Sand Canyon; Jeff and Nola toured these with their maintenance department.  There’s now improved flap gate technology.
• Nola said that budget was only estimated costs; if work isn’t done, there won’t be a charge.
• There was discussion about the need to know the details about overhead and indirect costs in budget, and questions about why “general administration” and “coordination with Advisory Committee” aren’t paid for out of countywide overhead.
• Tony pointed out that there’s no room in this budget for fluff, that it needs to be bare bones.

VI.  Development of long term channel maintenance plan.  This item was not addressed due to lack of time.

IX. Open Forum.

X.   Next meeting date.
 Set for Tuesday, September 19, 3:00 p.m. at OCSD

XI.   Meeting adjourned.

Zone 1/1A website:  http://www.coastalrcd.org/Zone1-1A.html or go to http://www.coastalrcd.org/    and follow links to Zone 1/1A.
CCSE:  Central Coast Salmon Enhancement    County PW: County Public Works
CSLRCD:  Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
NRCS:  Natural Resources Conservation Service
 

I.  Welcome and Introductions
 The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm.
 Committee members present: Gary Kobara (Chair), Glenda Guiton, Will Deschenes.  Agency/Organization representatives: Martin Pehl/SLO Co. Airports; Vern Dahl/OCSD; Mark Barnett and Susan Litteral/NRCS; Nola Engelskirger and Jeff Werst/SLO Co. Public Works; Linda Chipping and Julie Thomas/CSLRCD; Tony Ferrara/Mayor, City of AG.  Community members:  Norm Getty.

II.  Announcements.
 a.  Jeff Werst introduced himself and Nola – they are with a newly formed hydraulic planning unit in the Public Utilities Division of County Public Works.  Jeff’s supervisor is Dean Benedix.  Jeff will be the Zone 1/1A first point of contact at County PW from now on (instead of Mark Sullivan).  Next week Jeff and Nola are meeting with Paavo Ogren and Mark Hutchinson to discuss Zone 1/1A goals and priorities.  Jeff said that Paavo would like an ad hoc subcommittee from Zone 1/1A to discuss short- and long-term goals, cost estimates, and who would be responsible for what, what the roles will be.  There was some discussion of a possibility of an in-County loan to do work this summer, and the need to have vegetation management work done as soon as possible.  Norm expressed concerns that channel maintenance work be done this year, after all the work that went into the Prop 218 election.  It was mentioned that Zone 9 pays the City of San Luis Obispo to manage SLO Creek, and that agreement could serve as a model for the CSLRCD to potentially manage the Zone 1/1A flood control channel.
 b.  Susan Litteral reported that the Halcyon Bridge redesign is moving forward, and suggested that we should make sure that the new bridge is not built below the levee height for Alternative 3C (Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology “AG Creek Erosion, Sedimentation and Flooding Alternatives Study”), so that if funds become available to implement Alternative 3C, it won’t be necessary to replace an another bridge.  Norm asked how we should check on this, and Jeff said he would look into it.  Julie T. suggested that, once we have the info, that the Advisory Comm. could write a letter to the County expressing concern that the design be compatible with Alt 3C.  Jeff said that Dale Ramey is the project management for South County roads projects.  Susan said that if fill is done properly, it could work with the Alternative 5C flood easement option.  Nola will look into the status of the plans.

III.  Review and approval of minutes.
 Lacking a quorum, this item was tabled to the next meeting.

IV.  Report on Board of Supervisors June 27 meeting items re Zone 1/1A.
 Gary Kobara reported that, at the June 27 Board of Supervisor meeting, the Board accepted the results of the Prop 218 election, with the measure passing, and the Board rescinded their 2003 resolution to relinquish management of the Zone 1/1A flood control channel to the State Department of Water Resources.
 

V.  Update on Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between all watershed stakeholders.
 and
VII.  Discussion of future management of Zone 1/1A flood control channel – possible roles of County, RCD, Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee, and others.
(By group consensus, item V. was discussed in conjunction with item VII, following discussion of item VI.)
 Tony distributed a draft MOU, crafted by the Arroyo Grande City Attorney and a City Planner, in association with the RCD, CCSE and NRCS.  He said the MOU provides a framework for discussion of the roles of various entities.
 Tony emphasized that this is a draft, and the roles are suggestions only.  Everyone should take it home and look at it, go to their respective Boards or organizations, and come back with preferred language/tasks.  He suggested that groups perhaps have their legal counsel look at the MOU.  The end of the process would be an agreement by the principle players of what Item V “Tasks” should look like.   Tony clarified that this is for activities above and beyond the activities funded by the $350,000 Zone 1/1A Prop 218 assessment, in recognition that what happens upstream affects Zone 1/1A.
 Linda suggested a Task Force meeting to discuss the MOU, and then that a meeting be scheduled, perhaps with the assistance of Supervisor Katcho, with all the players listed in the MOU, to discuss in detail.  Tony said that he would talk about the MOU with Katcho next week.
 Will asked whether we were expecting these people to volunteer?  Tony said that we expect/hope they will do what we have done, e.g., raise awareness, and/or put policies in place like the City of AG has done.  The parties should understand that no revenue for MOU activities will come from Zone 1/1A budget, because the MOU activities will be outside the Prop 218 area of benefit.  It’s up to the Zone 1/1A group to explain to the proposed MOU participants exactly what is needed/desired.
 Tony said there is a monthly mayor’s meeting, and at that meeting he could talk to the mayors of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach.  Vern will talk with the OCSD.  The Sanitation District can cover the MOU at their meeting; the San. Dist. Lawyers already have a copy of the MOU and will do a staff report.
 Linda suggested we do a spreadsheet/matrix of tasks to be accomplished by the MOU, and link them to the participating entities.
 In discussion about how to coordinate MOU activities, Gary said he wasn’t sure that Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee was the place to oversee the MOU.  Tony said that the Zone 1/1A Task Force could just be a place to get the process started.
 Linda said she would email everyone on the Task Force in the next few days to set up a meeting at which they could outline a plan of action for the MOU.
 Tony said that the biggest clarification to be made is still who’s going to implement the Zone 1/1A work plan.
 Linda pointed out that there is a bond measure for flood-prevention projects in the upcoming November statewide election.  If Zone 1/1A has a proposal ready, on the day the bond measure passes (if it does), then we can get on the list for funding, for watershed-wide projects and components of Alternative 5C, including the levee raise, bridge raises, and flood easements.  She said that the County and the RCD should work together on this proposal/plan for the bond measure money.
 

VI.  Zone 1/1A Budget for 2006-07.
 Norm said that the Zone 1/1A Task Force had an agreement with the County to cap the annual risk management charge at $70,000 per year, per a call on _________ (date???) from Supervisor Katcho Achadjian to David Edge while Katcho was meeting with Gary, Norm, Tony, Glenda and Vard Ikeda.  Norm said that the County still hasn’t shown us a formula/policy that leads it to determine that the annual risk management charge for Zone 1/1A should be $135,000.  Norm plans to fill out a form to request details from the County on a $250,000 expenditure shown on the budget sheet from _________(year??).   Following discussion, Norm agreed to act as a representative of the Zone 1/1A Task Force and reconnect with Katcho and County Staff to discuss the risk management formula and other budget issues.
 Gary noted that, in calculating the risk management charge for Zone 1/1A, the number of claims against the County resulting from the 2001 flood are figured into the formula – the more claims there are, the higher the risk management charge.  For the risk management formula, he said that the County counted each claim individually, for a total of  5 (??) claims.  However, in paying the insurance deductible for the 2001 claims, the County lumped all the claims together and considered them as one claim, so it only had to pay the per-claim insurance deductible once.  It didn’t seem right to lump the claims together for purpose of paying the deductible, and then consider them individually for the purpose of assessing costs to Zone 1/1A.
 There was discussion of the County of increasing risk management charges because of an event, and how that leads to inequitable charges.  For example, there is no itemized risk management charge to Zone 3 (Lopez Dam).  Norm said that the County people he’s spoken to about the risk management charge say it’s not based on potential risk, but on history of claims.  However, all other Zones pay the risk management charge out of a line item amount called “County overhead.”  And the Zone 3 line item for that amount is about $70,000.  Zone 1/1A, much smaller than Zone 3, is paying $11,000 for County overhead, plus the risk management charge.  Why?
 Gary said that part of what seems wrong about Zone 1/1A paying such a high risk management charge to the County because of the 2001 flood claims is that “we feel it was the County’s fault that we got flooded in the first place.”

IX. Open Forum.
 Julie asked whether the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee wanted the CSLRCD to oversee the vegetation maintenance in the channel, like last year.  She said that the CCCs crews were available.  A Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission would be necessary to work in the Coastal Zone.  The consensus of those present was that the CSLRCD should go ahead with the vegetation maintenance for this year, and Julie agreed to move forward.

X.   Next meeting date.
 Set for Thursday, August 17, 3:00 p.m. at OCSD

XI.   Meeting adjourned.

Zone 1/1A website:  http://www.coastalrcd.org/Zone1-1A.html or go to http://www.coastalrcd.org/    and follow links to Zone 1/1A.
CCSE:  Central Coast Salmon Enhancement
CSLRCD:  Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
DWR:  California Department of Water Resources
NRCS:  Natural Resources Conservation Service
 

I.  Welcome and Introductions
 The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm.
 Committee members present: Gary Kobara (Chair), Glenda Guiton.  Agency/Organization representatives: Martin Pehl/SLO Co. Airports; Vern Dahl/OCSD; Mark Barnett/NRCS; Mark Sullivan and John Diodati/SLO Co. Public Works; Tom Zehnder/Sanitation District; Julie Thomas/CSLRCD; Stephnie Wald/CCSE; Vern Dahl/OCSD; Tony Ferrara/Mayor, City of AG.
Community members:  Norm Getty, Charlie Lackie, Hugh Gilson, Gail Lightfoot

II.  Announcements.
 None.

III.  Review and approval of minutes.
 Lacking a quorum, this item was tabled to the next meeting.

IV.  Report on Results of Proposition 218 Election
 Gary Kobara reported that the County Recorder tallied the votes on June 8, and reported that the Proposition 218 measure passed with “yes” votes on 89% of the returned ballots.  John Diodati reported that the Department of Public Works would recommend to the Board of Supervisors, at their June 27 meeting, that they rescind relinquishment of the flood channel to DWR, and authorize the County to proceed with collecting the assessments.
 

V.  Update on Memorandum of Understanding between all watershed stakeholders.
 Tony Ferrara reported that now that the Prop 218 measure has passed, we need to look at who’s going to step forward and take what particular actions in the watershed.  He said that the City of Arroyo Grande is working on a template for a Memorandum of Understanding.  Tony has met with City staff, and they will produce a boilerplate with examples of the types of contributions or actions that the various players can make, and then people can come in and do what they’re comfortable doing.  Among the items still to being worked on:  the relative roles of the County and the CSLRCD in coordinating flood management activities in the channel; the City of AG’s stream protection project; looking at grants and projects to address upper watershed issues that contributed to flooding in the lower watershed.
 Tony said they did not have a timeframe for the MOU yet, but he expected to have a draft by the next Zone 1/1A meeting.  The MOU may include a place for people/entities to offer to contribute or take action at their level of comfort.  The MOU will show the spirit and content, and may help relieve the liability falling upon any one entity.  They haven’t addressed yet how to carry this to the private sector, or how to involve volunteerism by private citizens; still need to figure that out.

VI. Zone 1/1A Budget for 2006-07.
 Gary said that of the $350,000 assessment, the County had allocated $135,000 to insurance/liability costs (per budget analysis sheet dated April 19, 2006).  Norm investigated this proposed budget item, wrote letters, and found that the Zone 1/1A share was very high relative to that of other County districts.  Katcho worked with County staff and came up with an agreement that there would be no risk management charge deducted from the new $350,000 assessments, but there would still be some charge to old assessments.
 Mark Overduin asked if there is a Zone 1/1A balance sheet breaking down the old debt and how the proposed charges would pay that?
 Mark Sullivan passed out a revised Zone 1/1A (attached, dated 6/15/06), and said that County staff had determined that they still needed to apply Risk Management’s county-wide method for allocating costs.  However, these charges could be drawn from the original (pre-Prop 218) assessments and the Zone 1/1A share of general County property tax money, and the charges could be paid over time, so that revenues from the 2006 Prop 218 election are not used for risk management.
 Tony asked who laid out the “use of funds” categories and amounts in the 6/15/06 proposed budget.  Mark S. said various people in Public Works and County Administration.  Tony asked how the County can come up with these numbers when they don’t know what the County’s role will be.  Mark S. said that the budget is a plan, and the County has to create a plan for all special districts, but it can be modified; the normal administrative costs had been set out as if this were the plan.
 Julie T. commented that the CSLRCD will be meeting with the County after July 7 to figure out the relative roles of the County and the CSLRCD.
 Mark S. said that the first income from the Prop 218 election would be generated by the December 10 property tax bills.  In order to do channel work before that, it will be necessary to cover the “cash flow” problem with some kind of in-county loan or fund transfer.
 Tony said that it would be good to have flexibility built into the budget so that particular items could be figured out on a project-by-project basis.
 Mark S. mentioned that there may be a transition from him being the County liaison to Zone 1/1A to it being someone in the utilities and engineering branch of Public Work.
 Mark Barnett asked about the formula for determining charges for risk management, and Mark S. said that the formula had been given to Gary and Norm Getty.  He said that generally there’s a 7 year recovery period after an insurance claim, and Zone 1/1A is now 4 years into that recovery period.  So after 3 more years, Zone 1/1A won’t have the high risk management cost.
 Tony asked that Mark S. take back to the County the message that Zone 1/1A understands why they needed to develop a draft budget, but that we are not comfortable with the rationale.
 Mark B. said that we know that environmental laws made channel maintenance hard, but Zone 1/1A didn’t make those laws, so the financial burden of costs resulting from those laws should be distributed more widely.
 Tony suggested that after people got back from various summer vacations, that Zone 1/1A and the CSLRCD meet with the County to reach agreement as to roles.  Until then, it’s not possible to plug in budget numbers with any accuracy.
 Gary thanked Tony and Tom Z., as representatives of the South SLO Sanitation District, for their letter to the Board of Supervisors.

VII. Discussion of future management of Zone 1/1A flood control channel – possible roles of County, RCD, Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee, others.
 This topic had been included in the earlier discussion to some extent.  Steph asked what had been determined about the NRCS role and contract and the number of years they were committed to staying involved in Zone 1/1A and conducting inspections – this was in reference to discussion at earlier meetings about the fact that the NRCS generally regards 50 years as the life of a project.  Julie said she’d check with the NRCS to see where this stood.
 Steph also mentioned that, in regard to private party involvement in the MOU, developers might be interested in using Zone 1/1A related projects, or upper watershed projects, as mitigation.
 Gail L. would like to see property owners, if they are able, contribute voluntarily to Zone 1/1A, if they could be assured that their contributions would all be spent on channel maintenance.
 Tony said it would be good to see if it would be possible to set up a “maintenance fund” that could take in contributions.
 Gail said she would like to see neighbors invested in a broader, watershed-wide solution as well.
 Mark S. said that the County will accept contributions, if they are approved by the Bd of Supervisors (usually as a consent agenda item).  There are no administrative costs charged against such contributions.  This money is segregated and accounted for separately.
 Tony suggested that perhaps Gail could collect the money, and chair another Zone 1/1A subcommittee, if she would like.

VIII. Status of grant proposal for implementation of watershed projects recommended in the Alternatives Study.
 Julie reported that the CSLRCD had submitted the final application for the SWRCB Consolidated Grant on June 9.  The application had initially included 4 projects, 2 of which were high priority projects in the Alternatives Study.  However, one of the projects was dropped out of this application, since it involved land acquisition for floodplain restoration, and the interest and cooperation of the landowner was not yet assured; the project may still be pursued at a later date if the landowner’s interest is confirmed.  Included in the grant application was the Tally Ho Creek sedimentation prevention/stream restoration project, which was a priority project in the Alternatives Study.  Also included in the grant application was a proposal for funding to install a stream gage and water quality monitoring station at Highway One Bridge, which would help in assessing effectiveness of future flood control channel management measures for improving capacity; currently, without being able to measure flow in the flood channel, everyone is having to guess how much difference it makes to thin channel vegetation, etc.  With a gage, it will be possible to know how much cfs was conveyed.  The third project in the grant application involves floodplain restoration/sediment detention on Meadow Creek above James Way, in order to improve creek habitat and reduce sedimentation of Pismo Lake.

IX. Open Forum.
 Steph announced that CCSE is co-sponsoring a roads school in July, in which practices were talk for road-building without contributing to erosion and stream sedimentation.

X.   Next meeting date.
 Set for July 17th, 3:00 p.m. at OCSD

XI.   Meeting adjourned.

Zone 1/1A website:  http://www.coastalrcd.org/Zone1-1A.html or go to http://www.coastalrcd.org/    and follow links to Zone 1/1A.
CCSE:  Central Coast Salmon Enhancement
CSLRCD:  Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
DWR:  California Department of Water Resources
NRCS:  Natural Resources Conservation Service
 

 Click here for attachments to June 2006 minutes
 
 
 

I.  Welcome and Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 pm.
Committee members present: Gary Kobara (Chair), Glenda Guiton, Will Deschenes, Vicki Cardoza.
Agency/Organization representatives: Martin Pehl/SLO Co. Airports; Vern Dahl/OCSD; Mark Barnett/NRCS; Mark Sullivan/SLO Co. Public Works; Tom Zehnder/Sanitation District; Julie Thomas/CSLRCD; Linda Chipping/CSLRCD.
Community members:  Norm Getty, Charlie Lackie, Hugh Gilson.

II.  Announcements –  Update by Mark Barnett and Julie Thomas on the Arroyo Grande Stormwater Runoff Working Group.  City of Arroyo Grande is working on city ordinances to address runoff into the creek; among the options being considered are (1) creek set-back and (2) limitation on runoff to creek.  The CSLRCD is assisting city staff to develop standards for the storm event that future development should design for.  The City of Arroyo Grande will be holding a public forum on May 31 to discuss the stream protection policies being considered; the forum is hosted by Central Coast Salmon Enhancement.

III.  A motion and second to approve five sets of minutes: February 9, 2006; Special Meeting February 14, 2006; March 2, 2006; March 23, 2006 and April 20, 2006.  The motion passed.

IV.  Proposition 218 Election
Gary reported that at the May 2nd Board of Supervisor’s hearing regarding the Feb 28th Resolution 2 and the 1959 Agreement, the financing language was discussed, and Katcho had directed staff that there should be a change.  That will occur when Public Works has received comment from NRCS and the RCD on the amendment language.

The Outreach and Education group has not heard of any negative publicity about the election.  1/1A residents will attend the So. County Sanitation District meeting on Wed., May 17th for their agendized consideration and vote on the new assessment.  Mark Sullivan reported that only 3 properties have contacted Public Works for reconsideration of the new assessment levy; 2 for question of whether the property should be in the assessed zone, and 1 for review of the split of the property agriculture % and the open space % factor.  Mark also distributed a Draft Flood Zone 1/1A Assessment Election Flow Chart for the June 6th Board hearing.  He requested review and input.  The election results will be certified at the June 13th meeting, but results should be available as soon as the Clerk-Recorder has finished the count.

V.  Zone 1/1A Budget 2006/07
A letter was sent to Supervisor Achadjian regarding the $135,550 Risk Management line item amount on the proposed budget.  Mark Sullivan is working on getting information from Risk Management.  Until their response is received, the issue cannot be adequately addressed.  Mark will get the information to Norm Getty as soon as he receives it, and Norm will disseminate to 1/1A Adv Comm and Task Force.  Norm praised Mark for his rapid response to the letter but expressed disappointment that it is taking Risk Management so long to respond.  Mark suggested that the Budget Hearings, beginning June 19th, was the place to bring up insurance policy questions.

VI.  Creek Walk, April 29, 2006 – Gary, Norm, Glenda, Steph and Julie had approximately 7 community members participate.  Norm reported that the information provided and the walk of the creek was very helpful.  Lots of changes in the creek this past rainy season, and the improved flow due to vegetation thinning is considered responsible for the dynamic state of the creek.

VII.  Grant Proposals Status for Alternatives Study projects
Julie reported that she has met and talked with various people about the 3 projects and has received information from John Dvorsky to help her put the final proposal together, due June 9th.  The need to prioritize projects was brought up, and reference was made to Tony Ferrara’s recommendation to wait until the election was passed, after which a meeting of all the jurisdictions for the MOU process would be started.  That would be an appropriate venue to set project priorities and who would be responsible.

VIII.  Next meeting date – Set for June 15th, 3:00 p.m. at OCSD

IX.  Meeting adjourned.

Zone 1/1A website:  http://www.coastalrcd.org/Zone1-1A.html or go to http://www.coastalrcd.org/    and follow links to Zone 1/1A.
CCSE:  Central Coast Salmon Enhancement
CSLRCD:  Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
RWQCB:  Regional Water Quality Control Board
NRCS:  Natural Resources Conservation Service
 
 
 

I.  Welcome and Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 pm.
Committee members present: Gary Kobara (Chair), Glenda Guiton,
Agency/Organization representatives:; Martin Pehl/SLO Co. Airports; Vern Dahl/OCSD; Mark Barnett/NRCS; Mark Sullivan/SLO Co. Public Works; Julie Thomas/CSLRCD Linda Chipping/CSLRCD; Martin Pehl/SLO County Airports; Mark Sullivan/County Public Works
Community members:  Norm Getty, Regina Rocha, Charlie Lackie, Hugh Gilson

II.  Announcements – None were made.

III.  Review and approval of Minutes for February 9, 2006; Special Meeting February 14, 2006; March 2, 2006 and March 23, 2006 tabled due to a lack of a quorum.

IV.  Proposition 218 Election
Mark Sullivan reported that ballots had been mailed out and due back by June 6, 2006.  A total of 1400 ballots were mailed out, which includes multiple property owners of 1 parcel and property owners in the Zone that will receive a $0 increase.  Approximately 250 had been returned to date.

Gary has talked to agriculturalists.  All had received the Outreach packet and thought it was good and helpful.  Norm has met with Cienega Sea Breeze, who will take the vote to their membership on April 26th.  He is intending to meet with Rancho del Royal owners.  Pastor Randy has communicated that their Church board has consensus to approve.  Glenda and Regina have visited the businesses in the Zone and done follow-up with out of town owners.  Gail Lightfoot has extended an invitation for someone to talk about it on her public access TV program.  Creek Walk is scheduled for April 29th.  General feeling is that contacting owners has been very effective and there is probably no need to have a public meeting.  Very few Outreach mailers have been returned.

Question arose regarding the airport vote.  General Services will receive that ballot.  Unclear if General Services or the Board of Supervisors will cast the vote.  Norm Getty will contact Katcho for clarification.

V.  Zone 1/1A Budget 2006/07 (Refer to Income/Expense sheet distributed by Mark Sullivan.)
Gary Kobara, Norm Getty, Julie Thomas met with Mark Sullivan and Will Clemens on April 19th to discuss budget items.  General Admin expense is for accounting and tax functions.  Engineering and environmental expense is for professional time to obtain permits and engineering required, based on what was used last year.  If line item amount is not fully expended, money would go into the following year’s reserves.

The Risk Management insurance amount is 38% of the $350,000 to be raised by Prop 218.  Norm received information from the county Risk Manager, Deb Hosli, about this high cost.  Recent analysis showed that the County, which self-insures, was lacking in coverage and has moved to increase its funding.  Past history shows the average payout was $5700-5900 per claim.  Currently, per claim payout is approximately $9000.  1/1A still doesn’t know how the $135,000 for its risk management line item was arrived at.  Discussion emphasized that more money needs to be directed to maintenance, which is the most effective way to reduce liability. Only Zone 1/1A, the Country Club and Roads have an identified risk management amount.  Norm will draft a letter on behalf of 1/1A to Public Works/Mark Sullivan to get information on the process and the policy.  It will be necessary to demonstrate a compelling reason to the Board of Supervisors to change policy.

VI.  Grant Proposals Status for Alternatives Study projects
Julie reported that the Prop 40 Consolidated Grant preliminary proposal submitted in March has been invited back for full proposal submittal.  It includes a flood plain project on Los Berros Creek, Talley Ho streambank repair, and an Arroyo Grande wetland restoration on Meadow Creek.  Additional matching funds may be available from the Coastal Conservancy and the City of Arroyo Grande.  Letters of Support will be needed, and she will be contacting people as she needs assistance in gathering facts and material.  It was suggested that Pastor Randy be contacted about congregation members that may have grant writing skills who could assist.

VII.  Open Forum
Linda Chipping reported on the meeting of Public Works, NRCS and the RCD on April 6th to begin the negotiations for amending the 1959 Operation and Maintenance Agreement.  It was primarily a fact finding meeting in which Public Works and NRCS discussed the requested revisions and the reasoning behind the needed changes.  The RCD pointed out that the language in the amendment which cites that financing maintenance “…shall be funded solely from property taxes allocated…” did not take into account grants and other sources of funding, and requested a language change.

Mark Sullivan reminded the group that the Board of Supervisors would be discussing the Resolution #2 about the Agreement amendment on May 2nd.

VIII.  Next meeting date – Set for May 15th, 3:00 p.m. at OCSD

IX.  Meeting adjourned.

(click to return to meeting list at top)

I. Welcome and Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 3:10 pm.  Committee members present: Gary Kobara (Chair), Glenda Guiton, John Taylor, Stan Ikeda.  Agency/Organization representatives:  Julie Thomas/CSLRCD; Tom Zehnder/Wallace Assoc.; Martin Pehl/County Airports; Mark Barnett/NRCS; Steph Wald, CCSE; John Diodati/SLO County Public Works; Vern Dahl/OCSD.  Community members: Norm Getty, Charlie Lackey.

II. Announcements
No announcements.

III. Review and approval of minutes
Review and approval of minutes for December 19 and January 23 minutes. No comments or changes notes. Glenda/Stan moved/seconded to approve. Approved.

IV. Proposition 218 ballot election
 1.  Update on annexations, final assessment speadsheet and Prop 218 election timeline, including March 28 Bd of Supervisors item on Prop 218.

 John Diodati reported the following:

 On 3/21 the annexation hearing was held, with 32 parcels added to the zone. One property owner spoke in protest. Public Works staff will visit that site with surveyors to assess the engineer’s report regarding that parcel. If this parcel is not included in the annexation, it was indicated that funds would come from other sources to make up for the amount not collected from the parcel owner, rather than increase other people’s assessments.

 On 3/28 (consent agenda item) the BoS will call for the 218 election, accept the final engineering report, accept the ballot package, accept the assessment amounts per parcel, direct the county clerk to orchestrate the election, and ask for budget adjustment of $21,600 from the Zone reserves account into a line item. The ballots will go out 45 days before June 6th, by early April. There will be notification to the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee as to when the ballots go out.

 It was asked how the Board will vote regarding county-owned parcels. John indicated that Public Works is still in the process of determining when that would happen and that it appears the Board will be voting collectively on the issue. It was asked if Zone members need to be present on 3/28. There was a discussion on a need to show support. Norm, Glenda and Julie plan to be there.

 2. Outreach and Education Team Report.

Outreach and Education Report—Norm reported the following:
• Press release for April 29th Creek Walk has been circulated to media outlets.
• FAQ has been distributed.
• County has determined that everyone should receive a ballot, even if their assessment is zero (and therefore their vote would be zero). In the mailing from the Zone 1/1A Outreach team, these parcel owners will receive a second sheet with their FAQ to explain that they’re receiving a ballot to ensure that all parcel owners are informed equally. Suggestion to say that a new assessment area is forming instead of new assessment district. Tiger Tail area residents that are NOT in the assessment area will still get ballots as they are in the original zone. They were determined to be outside the zone of benefit according to the engineer’s report due to elevation.
• Regina is coordinating the schedule of neighborhood meetings.
• Mobile home park owners are continuing to be contacted.
• Invitation to do presentation on local TV channel is in the works.
• Gary will be talking to farmers and landowners.

V. Zone 1/1A Budget for 2006-07
 John reported that staff is just getting started on the 06-07 budgets for Special Districts. He said we should call Mark or John to meet with Public Works SOON to discuss with PW accountants. Budget hearings are coming up in June again for the county.

VI. Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology phased implementation plan for channel management – completed.
 Julie provided an update on the Implementation Plan and Biotic Assessment. Both are on the website and she is working on getting hard copies.

VII. Set date for next meeting.
 The next meeting was set for Thursday, April 20 at 3:00 pm at the OCSD.

VIII. Open forum.
 A question was asked regarding what assurances are in place so that assessment funds would be used for their intended purposes and that the agreed-upon maintenance work would be conducted. Norm indicated that the Zone Advisory Committee would need to stay involved. The view was also expressed that there is a need to challenge why Zone 1/1A is getting charged for insurance, and also for a website that was supposed to be created a few years ago for $30-40K that no one knew about. Mark Burnett suggested that an MOU with specific tasks might be used for assurances and that the project manager role the county currently plays could be changed.

 Julie and Gary gave a recap of a meeting held during the previous week between County staff, Steph, Julie, Gary and two RWQCB staff regarding Regional Water Quality Control Board Guadalupe Oil Spill Settlement funds, and the potential to access those funds for upper watershed projects, such as those discussed in the Alternatives Study and in the AG Creek Watershed Management Plan. Linkages to the funds were discussed.  Mark said that water quality monitoring should be a priority, including info on total suspended solids, nutrient loading, flow and water quality and quantity.

 Concerns were discussed about the potential effect on Charlie’s property if the UPRR bridge is raised, as a temporary “shoe-fly” railroad would need to be built on Charlie’s property.  Information is needed about how “temporary” the spur would be, and what compensation might be available for Charlie.

IX. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 pm.
*****
 
 

I. Welcome and Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 pm.  Committee members present: Gary Kobara (Chair), Glenda Guiton, Stan Ikeda, Will Deschenes, Mark Overduin.   Agency/Organization representatives:  Julie Thomas/CSLRCD; Mark Barnett/NRCS;  Susan Litteral/NRCS; Martin Pehl/SLO County Airports; John Diodati/SLO County Public Works; Mark Sullivan/SLO County Public Works; Mitch Cooney/OCSD. Community members: Hugh Gilson, Norm Getty, Vard Ikeda, Regina Rocha, Robert and Bertha Boyce

II. Announcements
No announcements.

III. Review and approval of minutes
Julie distributed draft December and January minutes for review, and approval at next meeting.

IV. Proposition 218 ballot election

a. Review of February 28 Board of Supervisors meeting.  Gary reported that the Board of Supervisors approved the annexation of properties – Resolution #1.  Resolution #2 was staff recommendations and findings, including an amendment to the NRCS/County agreement.  The Bd of Supes approved Res. #2, with the stipulation to revisit it in 60 days, at the May 2 hearing, to give the Task Force and Staff time to work out some problematic areas.
 Julie said the Supervisors complimented Staff and the Task Force on how well they’ve worked on this project.
 Gary said that the Task Force members (Linda, Gary, Tony) met with all of the Supervisors individually before the Feb 28 meeting, and the Supervisors said they had gotten good feedback from staff and felt that things were going well.  The only concerns they expressed were liability, and who will manage the work on the flood control channel.  That still needs to be figured out.  Gary summarized Tony’s comments to the Board of Supes at the Feb 28 meeting as expressing concerns about Resolution #2, and that more time was needed to review it.
 Norm commented that there were issues with Resolution #2 that needed to be looked at, and just needed time to review and work on together as we’ve done with everything else up to this point.

b. Update on any changes to draft assessment schedule and timeline since February 9 Advisory Committee meeting.  Mark Sullivan reported that the number of parcels annexed at the February 28 Bd of Supervisors meeting was 32.  He said that March 21 will be the public hearing.  The County is sending out individual notices to those whose properties are being annexed, and are posting a notice in the newspaper.
 Mark said that on March 21, as a consent agenda item, the Bd of Supes will call for the Prop 218 election.  Included will be a resolution calling for the election and a notice of the public hearing on June 6.  The County Clerk will probably count the ballots on June 7.  The March 21 meeting will be an opportunity to protest annexation.  Part of the action on March 21 will be adopting the draft engineers report and making it final.  Individuals will have options to contest the report at the June 6 meeting (or during any public comment period at a Bd of Supervisors meeting).  People can change their vote at the June 6 meeting as well.
 Mark said the final Assessment Engineer’s report has not yet been accepted.  The final report will be available at two libraries, at the OCSD, and on the County website, probably by the 2nd week in March.
 There was some discussion about the assessment amount proposed for Bejo seeds, in terms of the percentage assessed as ag vs commercial.
 Mark asked that any comments on the proposed packet to the Board being given to him by March 9.
c. Outreach and Education Team report.
 Regina said that a mailing is planned to all voters in the Prop 218 election.  The mailing will consist of a flier and a “frequently asked questions” sheet.  The Outreach team plans to time the mailing so people receive it shortly before they get their ballot.  One more mailing is planned for after people receive their ballots.
 Educational creek walks with Steph Wald are planned for March 25 and April 29.  They will be about 2 hrs each.
 Gary is coordinating outreach to the ag community, Norm is handling the mobile home parks, Regina is overseeing outreach to the business and commercial property owners, and Megan Bochum plans to have small discussion groups in residential neighborhoods.
 Gary said that it is very important that we get people educated.
 Julie mentioned that a bi-lingual resident offered to translate key information for Spanish-speaking residents/owners.
 There has been discussion of having different mailings for residents vs. owners.
 Mark Sullivan said that it was important to remember that no public funds can be used to campaign for or against the Proposition 218 ballot.

d. Proposed revision to the February 9 Advisory Committee recommendation in support of Alternative 3A.
 Julie said there had been some discussion after the February 14 resolution was passed, recommending some changes to support going for the best protection possible.  She presented a draft, showing proposed changes in red.  Susan said that these changes make clear that the Advisory Committee wants to go for the best/better flood protection, that it doesn’t want to be locked into just the protection offered by Alternative 3A.
 Hugh asked whether assessments might be lowered if additional funds were found from another source?
 Gary replied that he has been told that there’s a cap on how big the reserves can be.
 Susan said that because this is technically an underfunded project, the likelihood of reducing the assessments is low.
 Norm said that County Staff had clarified that this process authorizes the Board of Supervisors to assess up to the specified amount ($350,000).  Each year there’s an annual review of the budget process (that we want Zone 1/1A to be involved in).  So if there’s a windfall, it’s possible that assessments could be reduced.  That would be decided by a vote of the Board of Supervisors on the annual budget.
 There was discussion about the future role of the City of Arroyo Grande and the Memorandum of Understanding, and progress on those fronts.
 Regina expressed concern about banking assessment revenues, rather than using the money for implementation.  It was mentioned that the Advisory Committee can stay involved in the future with the County budget process to help determine how Zone 1/1A money is allocated.
 There was discussion about environmental permitting for Zone 1/1A channel maintenance projects.
 It was mentioned that it is important to be cautious and accurate in what we represent can be done with Prop 218 assessments, and that it will take years to do even basic stuff, like implementing Alternative 3A.
 Stan made a motion to approve the revised Recommendation, Mark Overduin seconded, and the motion passed.

Recommendation of  the Flood Control Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee
in Support of Proposed Proposition 218 Ballot
(Revised - Passed by vote of Adv. Comm. March 2, 2006)

The Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee hereby reaffirms its support of holding a Proposition 218 election in 2006 in order to maintain local control of the Arroyo Grande Creek flood control channel, and to raise funds to implement projects to improve flood protection.   The Advisory Committee supports the following:
1. A total annual assessment not to exceed $350,000, with an annual increases to cover inflation, as needed, not to exceed 3% per year.
2. Establishment of assessment district boundaries for the zone of special benefit under the Proposition 218 ballot, as determined by the assessment engineer.  In addition, the Advisory Committee recommends annexation of those properties outside the current Zone 1/1A boundary that are identified by the assessment engineer as receiving special benefit as a result of the proposed flood channel maintenance to be performed with the assessments collected under the Prop 218 ballot.
As stated in its resolution dated December 19, 2005, the Advisory Committee supports using the assessment fees to implement flood management measures providing a level of flood protection at least equivalent, and preferably  superior, to that described in Alternative 3A of the “Arroyo Grande Creek Erosion, Sedimentation and Flooding Alternatives Study” by Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology.  In any given year, maintenance funds should either be spent for improving the channel’s capacity, or saved for future implementation of a designated capacity-improving project

e. Consideration of request to CSLRCD to take over management of Zone 1/1A flood control channel following successful outcome of the Prop 218 election
 Julie discussed the possibility that the CSLRCD might take over, probably by contracting with County, some of the management of the Zone 1/1A flood control channel.  Gary said that he has discussed this possibility with Linda.  He said that the County would prefer that another special district be set up to run Zone 1/1A, but some members of the Task Force don’t feel that is necessary, and setting up a special district means having more administrative costs.  He said that Zone 1/1A would be the watchdog and advise the RCD and be sure that what they are asking gets done.
 There was discussion about the need to determine a chain of command on management of channel, on what is going to be done, and how.
 Julie said that if the CSLRCD takes on any management tasks, the actual contract would be with the county, but that it would be helpful to have a letter from the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee supporting the concept of the RCD taking on channel management.
 Mark Overduin pointed out that the Advisory Committee currently has no decision-making power, only advisory.
 There was discussion of how to give the Advisory Committee’s role, and how to have influence in channel management decisions.
 Norm said that the Advisory Committee could express its interest in having the CSLRCD take on management of the channel, but keep it loosely worded.

 Motion:  “The Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee recommends further investigation on the part of the CSLRCD towards developing a management agreement on behalf of Zone 1/1A as it relates to managing the flood control channel.”

 Glenda asked how billing would work if the CSLRCD managed the work on the flood channel.  Susan explained that with the Zone 9 flood district, the City does the maintenance and bills the County.  That could be a good precedent for how things could work with Zone 1/1A.

V. Set date for next meeting.
 The next Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee meeting was set for Thursday, March 23, 3-5 pm at the OCSD.

VI. Open forum.
 There was discussion about the possibility of having a Community Town Hall for the Zone 1/1A Prop 218 ballot at the end of May, possibly Thursday, May 25 at 6:00 pm.

VII. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 pm.
*****

CSLRCD = Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service
CCSE = Central Coast Salmon Enhancement
Zone 1/1A website:  http://www.coastalrcd.org/Zone1-1A.html or go to http://www.coastalrcd.org/
and follow links to Zone 1/1A.

I. Welcome and Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 2:05 pm.  Committee members present: Gary Kobara (Chair), Glenda Guiton, Will Deschenes, Stan Ikeda, John Taylor, Mark Overduin (arrived after vote).   Agency/Organization representatives:  Julie Thomas/CSLRCD; Vern Dahl/OCSD; Mark Sullivan/SLO County Public Works.

II.   Consideration of Recommendation in Support of Proposed Proposition 218 Ballot
Glenda moved to adopt the Resolution (attached), and Will seconded the motion.  All “ayes,” no “no’s”.  The Recommendation passed.
 

IV. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned by 2:30 pm.
*****

The Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee hereby reaffirms its support of holding a Proposition 218 election in 2006 in order to maintain local control of the Arroyo Grande Creek flood control channel, and to raise funds to implement projects to improve flood protection.   The Advisory Committee supports the following:
1. A total annual assessment not to exceed $350,000, with an annual increases to cover inflation, as needed, not to exceed 3% per year.
2. Establishment of assessment district boundaries for the zone of special benefit under the Proposition 218 ballot, as determined by the assessment engineer.  In addition, the Advisory Committee recommends annexation of those properties outside the current Zone 1/1A boundary that are identified by the assessment engineer as receiving special benefit as a result of the proposed flood channel maintenance to be performed with the assessments collected under the Prop 218 ballot.
As stated in its resolution dated December 19, 2005, the Advisory Committee supports using the assessment fees to implement flood management measures providing a level of flood protection equivalent to that described in Alternative 3A of the “Arroyo Grande Creek Erosion, Sedimentation and Flooding Alternatives Study” by Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology.
 
 

I. Welcome and Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 pm.  Committee members present: Gary Kobara (Chair), Glenda Guiton,Vicki Cardoza.   Agency/Organization representatives:  Julie Thomas/CSLRCD; Linda Chipping/CSLRCD;  Martin Pehl/SLO County Airports; Vern Dahl/OCSD; Mark Sullivan/SLO County Public Works; Paavo Ogren/SLO County Public Works; Rob Livick/Cannon Associates; Tom Zehnder/Wallace Assoc.; Cynthia Neff/The Tribune; April Charleton/Times Press Recorder Community members: Norm Getty, Bob and Bertha Boyce, Charles Amail, Marjorie Gilliam,

II. Announcements
No announcements.

III. Review and approval of minutes
Continued to next meeting.

IV. Proposed Proposition 218 ballot measure

a. Assessment engineer report for proposed Prop 218 ballot measure: methodology and results.
 Rob Livick of Cannon Associates reported that the assessment engineer report was not yet finalized.  Cannon Assoc. has been hired by the County to prepare the Assessment Engineers Report for the Prop 218 election.  The purpose of the report is to distribute the cost to those who will benefit from the work to be done.  Rob said that Cannon started their analysis with the Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology (SHG) HEC-RAS models, which were based on very high quality topographic mapping.  Alternative 3A from the SHG “Arroyo Grande Creek Erosion, Sedimentation and Flooding Alternatives Study” (2006) was used to estimate the “area of benefit,” which is basically the 20-year storm.  The assessment area under Prop 218 needs to be very defensible, and the 20-year boundary for maintenance to be done under Alternative 3A was chosen.
 With the County Assessor parcel database, Cannon Assoc. determined which parcels were inside the 20-year boundary, and would receive benefit.  Vacant lots receive no benefit, so they would be assessed at zero dollars.
 Rob said there are 367 parcels in the assessment area, and about 100 receive $0 assessment/benefit.
 Cannon Assoc. looked at different land use factors, using the California Water Code weighting system for assessment.  Agricultural property had a multiplier of 1 up to 5 acres, and acres above 5, the multiplier is 1/10.  The residential multiplier is 5, because the property has more value.  Commercial/industrial property has a multiplier of 10.
 If property is zoned commercial, but has agricultural use, it is assessed at the agricultural rate.  The assessed value is based on use, not zoning, though Cannon Assoc. has not visited every property.
 As properties convert from one use to another in the future, assessments will need to be adjusted.
 The inflation rate for assessments will have a maximum of 3% per year.
 The assessment engineer sets the maximum assessment per year; the Board of Supervisors can change that amount.
 Based on Cannon Associates’ calculations thus far, a residential property will have an assessment of $333.32/year.
 The map being prepared by Cannon Assoc. does not show the Department of Water Resources proposed assessment district boundary, should relinquishment go forward.
 For assessing the County airport in Oceano, Cannon Assoc. used a different method than DWR.  More County property is considered as having commercial value under Cannon’s assessment, but the total assessment amount is lower, because the annual budget of $350K/year under the Prop 218 ballot is less than the DWR annual budget.
 Question: what about the effect of people using public roads in the assessment area?
 Rob replied that in addition to special benefit received from the projects implemented with the Prop 218 assessments, there is also general benefit, which is being considered 10%, and is being paid out of other county revenues from existing revenues and property assessments.  That 10% will be refined as Cannon finalized their report with closer analysis of the area covered by roads, etc.
 In the Los Berros Creek flood channel area, most homes that are in Zone 1/1A will not be part of the new Prop 218 assessment area.
 Marjorie Gilliam expressed a concern about fairness in the assessment.  Norm said that this is a first step, that other efforts are in process to address the contribution of development in the upper watershed to flood risk, and that in the long run, things will much fairer than before.  Norm said that the methods being used for determining the assessment area are much more accurate, and hence fairer, than before.
 Linda made the clarification that the Prop 218 will be an assessment increase, but that the Zone 1/1A assessments already in place will continue.
 Rob Livick agreed with Linda’s statement.  He said that the original Zone 1/1A assessments will be part of the funding source for general benefit.
 It was pointed out that the number of parcels included in the Prop 218 assessment area is decreased considerably from that included in the Zone 1/1A and DWR assessment areas.
 Mark Sullivan said that only 38 parcels that are currently outside the Zone 1/1A area will need to be annexed into the Prop 218 assessment area.
 Paavo said that the Cannon Assoc. report is still a draft.  At the February 28 Board of Supervisors hearing, when the Board considers annexing the additional parcels, the Board will give direction about which approach to use in determining the assessment method/weights for the County airport, which in turn might change the assessment amounts for the other parcels.  Also, some changes may occur in the assessment hearings.  Any change to the assessment of the County airport would be the single factor with the greatest potential to impact other assessment rates.  The big question is whether to assess the runway as ag land or as commercial/industrial.
 Paavo said it would be helpful to have a recommendation from the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee on using the 20-year flood zone line for the Prop 218 assessment district, and about having the Prop 218 assessment amount being $350,000/year.

b. Timeline for upcoming action.
 Mark Sullivan reviewed the timeline for accomplishing all the required election tasks.  The first process is annexation of the 38 parcels (number might change).  This will be on the Bd of Supervisors 2/28 agenda.  There will be a public hearing set for 3/21, with a notice in the newspaper.  There will also be a mailing, just to those parcels being annexed.
 The second process will be voting on the ballots.  At the 3/21 hearing, the final Engineers Report will be approved, the hearing date will be set for counting the ballots, and dates will be set for mailing the notice and ballots to all who will be effected by the Prop 218 election.
 June 6 will be the public hearing for the Prop 218 vote.  At that hearing, voters can withdraw or change their votes.  If the Prop 218 measure receives a yes vote on 50% + $1.00 of the ballots, it passes.  Ballots are weighted according to the assessment amount.  Only returned ballots are counted.  Mark read from the Code exactly what gets sent to voters.
 The final election results will be declared on June 13.
 If a given property has more than 1 owner, the County Clerk will determine what proportion of votes goes to each owner.
 The public hearings will all be held at the SLO Government Center.
 Paavo pointed out that voters are not voting on the assessment amount per se, rather it’s more like they are voting on the assessment formula.  So if the land use changes, the assessment amount may change.
 Question: for County-owned property, how will the Board of Supervisors (Flood Control District) decide to vote?  Mark S. replied that there will probably be a resolution on each property at the June 6 hearing.
 Mark S. said that the relinquishment of the channel to DWR was already authorized by the Board, but delayed 1 year in response to the petition submitted on June 14, 2005.  On July 1, 2006, the responsibility for the channel was scheduled to go to the state, so the Board of Supervisors will need to pass a resolution changing the transfer, hopefully at the June 13 meeting.
 There was some discussion of the potential assessment costs under DWR.
 Gary acknowledged County Public Works for doing a great job on getting the information together and helping make the Prop 218 election happen.
 Paavo pointed out that the total revenues for the Zone 1/1A flood control channel will actually be about $420,000, including the general benefit revenues.  He believed that County staff could say to the Bd of Supervisors that this amount will be sufficient to go forward with channel maintenance.  Paavo said that the RCD and NRCS have done a great job to bring everyone together within the existing time constraints; having them help has been invaluable.

c. Outreach and education team report.
 Gary said that the outreach team was working on strategies to get all the Prop 218 voters informed in order to get the measure passed.

V. Debris jam clearing.
 Julie Thomas reported that the CCCs were almost done clearing the big debris jam in AG Creek above the confluence with Los Berros Creek.  They should be done either today or tomorrow.   Gary said that it’s good to know that if there’s a tree jam this time of year, that it’s possible to get it cleaned up.

VI. Set date for next meeting.
 Since there was no quorum at today’s meeting, Gary said that the Adv. Comm. couldn’t vote on the items that Paavo needs.  Paavo said that the Board package needs to be finalized by, at the latest, Wednesday evening (2/15).  He said that it’s not required that the Adv. Comm. make an official recommendation, but it would be helpful.
 A special Adv. Comm. meeting was set for 2:00 pm, Tuesday, 2/14, at the OCSD, with only 1 item on the agenda – resolutions on the Prop 218 election, per Paavo’s request.  Julie agreed to draft the resolutions.
 The next regular Advisory Committee meeting was set for Thursday, March 2, at 3:00 pm.

Open forum.
 There was general discussion about the upcoming February 28 Board of Supervisors meeting.

VII. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned by 5:00 pm.
*****

CSLRCD = Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service
CCSE = Central Coast Salmon Enhancement
Zone 1/1A website:  http://www.coastalrcd.org/Zone1-1A.html or go to http://www.coastalrcd.org/
and follow links to Zone 1/1A.
 

I. Welcome and Introductions
The meeting was called to order at 3:10 pm.  Committee members present: Gary Kobara (Chair), Glenda Guiton, Stan Ikeda, Vicki Cardoza.   Agency/Organization representatives: Steph Wald/CCSE; Julie Thomas/CSLRCD; Martin Pehl/SLO County Airports; Vern Dahl/OCSD; Mark Barnett/NRCS; Susan Litteral/NRCS; Linda Chipping/CSLRCD; Mark Sullivan/SLO County Public Works; Rob Strong/City of AG.  Community members: Hugh Gilson, Norm Getty, Regina Rocha, Charlie Lackie; Sharlotte Wilson.

II. Announcements
Vicki Cardoza announced that her work schedule is changing, so she wouldn’t be able to come to any Monday meetings until May.
 Steph Wald announced that CCSE has moved their office.  The new office is on the corner of Truville & 13th Street.  It has a conference room.

III. Review and approval of minutes
Copies of the Dec. 19 “Resolution of Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee in Support of Alternative 3A” were distributed.  Minutes were not ready for review.

IV. Erosion, Sedimentation and Flooding Alternatives Study: completion and distribution of final report.  Julie reported that the final report was done.  They are awaiting the Initial Study Biological Section, which will address biological impacts of Alternative 3C.  This will cover all the potential impacts of Alternative 3A, plus the additional impacts if funds are found to raise the railroad bridge to implement Alt 3C in the future.
 Regarding possible funding for Alternative 3C, Julie said that there had been some discussion in a meeting last week between Task Force members and County Public Works that it might be possible to do a small amount of internal borrowing from the County for Zone 1/1A projects, but County staff hasn’t researched that yet.  An advantage of borrowing enough money upfront to implement projects that provide greater flood protection early on is that it might lead to a decrease in insurance premiums, which are anticipated to be a significant portion of the Zone 1/1A budget for at least the first several years.
 Julie reported that John Dvorsky has developed a cost estimate of $12,280 for Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology to put together a plan showing the best way to implement Alternative 3A over several years with an annual budget of $350,000 and an annual budget of $420,000.  There was enough money left in the Alternatives Study budget to cover this, and developing the implementation plan fulfills a portion of Task 5 in the Scope of the Work for the Alternatives Study.  According to Task 5.1, “based on the results of the modeling, a concise process will be described to implement the most cost-effective actions with phasing proposed based on expected future funding.”  However, SHG was not able to include this in their final report, because the “expected future funding,” i.e., the expected annual assessment from the Prop 218 election, had not been decided upon by the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee or Task Force before SHG’s final report was due.  The Task Force at their last meeting had discussed having SHG develop the implementation plan, and felt it would be valuable to have a report from SHG showing that Alternative 3A could indeed be implemented with the expected annual income from the Prop 218 election, to show that it was feasible to provide significantly improved flood protection with assessments of $350,000/year.  Julie asked if the Advisory Committee supported the use of funds remaining in the budget for SHG to do an Alt 3A implementation plan.
 All four members of the Advisory Committee who were present voted in favor of the following:  “The Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee approves the use of funds remaining in the Alternatives Study budget for Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology to develop a plan to implement Alternative 3A within the expected assessment of $350,000 per year, and also $420,000 year (if possible additional funds from other County sources are included).”
 Mark Sullivan commented that the portion of County property taxes that is contributed to Zone 1/1A varies from year to year, depending on a number of factors, including insurance costs.

V. Task Force update

A.   Status of Cannon Associates assessment engineer draft report.  Mark Sullivan reported that the County had received Cannon’s report late Friday afternoon.  Public Works’ engineers were in the process of reviewing it.  They should have it available for the Task Force to review by Tuesday night (January 24).
B.  Timeline for upcoming action on Prop 218 election.  Mark Sullivan presented a draft timeline.  He said it was based on the following assumptions:  Zone 1/1A was the entity that would be holding the elections, and that annexations would be required, and must be done before the election.  He said that County counsel is reviewing the timeline.  According to the timeline, on February 28 there would be an item on the Board of Supervisors agenda calling for annexations.  Then 3-4 weeks would be required to complete this process, so the ballots would probably be mailed toward the end of March.
C. Outreach and education effort for Prop 218 election.  Regina said the Outreach effort can really begin once the assessment engineer’s report is available.  Susan said that the County’s draft timeline gives the Zone 1/1A Outreach group more time to do “P.R.”  Vicki volunteered to help with mailings.
D.  Structure of future governance of the district.  Linda said that one of the options would be for the County to collect the assessments, and for the time being for the RCD to help with implementation; if the RCD fails, another similarly quality organization like the OCSD to manage implementation of channel maintenance activities.  Linda said she will verify that the RCD Bd of Directors is still willing to be responsible for managing channel maintenance.
E.  Zone 1/1A recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for the annual budget.  Gary asked Mark Sullivan if the County could come to the next meeting to discuss the budget/allotment for the coming 2006-2007 year.  Mark S. said that the budget process is finalized in June for special districts.  He said he could find out the preliminary plans and let the Advisory Committee know.  The County staff may not start focusing on this until late February/early March.  Gary said it would be good to have the information.

VI. Set date for next meeting
To accommodate the changed work schedule for Advisory Committee member Vicki Cardoza, the next Advisory Committee meeting was scheduled a Thursday, rather than a Monday.  The next Advisory Committee meeting was set for Thursday, February 9, 2006, 3-5 pm.
 

VII. Open Forum (Comments / Questions)
 Glenda said that the County is leasing 500 acres in the OHV area.  The State wants to buy that property.  She wondered if the sale is made whether that money could be allocated to work on Arroyo Grande Creek?
 Vern said that real estate negotiations end up being discussed in closed door session, and the supervisors can’t tell us about what was discussed.
 There were a number of questions to Rob Strong about work the City of Arroyo Grande is doing or planning to help diminish negative impacts of development upstream on the flood control channel.  He summarized the creekwide study being conducted by the City to determine recommended policies on setbacks, sediment control, erosion control, both within the City and in the City/County boundary area.  He said that City may require that developments include on-site retention ponds, biofilters, and BMPs, including for the planned development along Fair Oaks.  He said the stream study should be ready from staff in February/March.  The CSLRCD, NRCS and CCSE are helping review the study findings and recommendations.  Then the study goes to the Planning Staff and City Council.  He hopes the results will be available before the vote on Proposition 218 election.  Currently the City requires a 25-foot setback from the “top of bank”, but they are working on a better definition of “top of bank”.  The Fair Oaks project is well in excess of 25-foot setback.  The City may also require “no disturbance” within 25 feet of top of bank, and filtration within storm drains.  The City of Arroyo Grande is very interested in getting a Memorandum of Understanding with the County to protect the County’s domain near the creek.
 

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