irish beach water district meeting packet september 12, … meeting packet 9_12_2015.pdfirish beach...

1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Irish Beach Water District

Meeting Packet

September 12, 2015

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2

NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE

IRISH BEACH WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

REX DUNNING FIREHOUSE, 15401 FOREST VIEW ROAD, MANCHESTER, CA 95459 SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2015, AT 10:00 A.M.

DIRECTOR POLING WILL

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: BE ATTENDING BY PHONE FROM

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1726 STANLEY DOLLAR DR. # 2B

3. COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE: WALNUT CREEK, CA 94595

4. PUBLIC INPUT:

5. REPORTS:

A. TREASURER: (MURRAY) B. WATER/STORAGE FACILITIES/CONVEYANCE LOSS: (ACKER) C. SAFETY COMMITTEE: (ACKER) D. LEGAL COUNSEL: (EMRICK) E. DIRECTORS.

6. OLD BUSINESS:

A. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION AND PUBLIC INPUT: PROPOSED LAFCO DETACHMENT OF DERUITER PROPERTY FROM THE DISTRICT; PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2015- ___ , MODIFYING RESOLUTION 2013-1, CONTINGENT ON PROPERTY REMAINING IN THE DISTRICT, TO REMOVE SOME LIMITATIONS, BASED ON HYDROLOGIC STUDY: (EMRICK/HARLEY).

B. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION: CROSS CONNECTION PROGRAM REVIEW: (ACKER/HARLEY) C. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION: WATER BUDGET FOR THE IRISH BEACH WATER DISTRICT – FISCAL YEAR 2015-

2016 – PROPOSED BUDGET: (MURRAY) 7. NEW BUSINESS:

A. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION: IBIC PRESENTATION REGARDING POMO LAKE RESTORATION PROJECT AND IMPACTS ON IBWD’S LICENSE #10564: (ROBARDS/WOLFE)

B. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE DRAFT FOR REVIEW: (WILLIAMSON, LAFCO) 8. EXECUTIVE (CLOSED) SESSION:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION: SUBDIVISION (A) OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9: WILLIAM H. MOORES ET AL. V. IRISH BEACH WATER DISTRICT, MENDOCINO SUPERIOR COURT NO. SC-UK-CV-G-09-0054665-000.

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED/POTENTIAL LITIGATION: SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OR (3) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9: (1 POTENTIAL CASE).

C. PER GOVERNMENT CODE §54957(b) (1): TO CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, AND EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE.

RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AND REPORT. ADJOURNMENT

ASSISTANCE WILL BE PROVIDED TO HANDICAPPED PERSONS WHO REQUIRE IT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING. PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS §54950-54963. PUBLIC RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE PER CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT GOVT. CODE §6250-6276.48, UNLESS THEY ARE EXEMPT UNDER PUBLIC RECORDS

3

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

July 11, 2015

4

IRISH BEACH WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MINUTES – DRAFT

July 11, 2015

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:President Harley called the Regular Meeting to order at 10:08 A.M. on

Saturday, July 11, 2015, in the Rex Dunning Firehouse, 15401 Forest View Road at 10:05 AM. Directors in attendance were: President Harley, Secretary Drolet, Director McCormick, and Director/Treasurer Murray. Vice-President Poling attended by phone from 1726 Stanley Dollar Dr., #2B, Walnut Creek, CA 94595. Also present were Charles Acker, District Operations Manager, Dewey Rogers, Water Technician, Secretary/Clerk, Connie Sackman, and District’s Legal Counsel, Matthew Emrick.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion was made by Director Drolet to approve the MeetingMinutes for May 16, 2015, Director Murray seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Director Harley, aye; Director Drolet, aye; Director McCormick, aye; Director Murray, aye; and Director Poling,aye. Motion carried. 3. COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE: No communications or correspondence to report. 4. PUBLIC INPUT: No input at this time. 5. REPORTS: A. TREASURER’S REPORT: Treasurer Murray reports the following: At the next meeting the new budget will be gone over in more detail with a budget to actual for the current year. The Water District is in a good financial position, with no unexpected occurrences, and expect the year to be in a positive financial position. There is a new state policy of allowing three sick leave days annually. As all of the District’s employees are part-time, they are entitled to one-quarter of their time for sick leave. This new state policy will be budgeted for approximately $861 for next year. Typical checks issued and nothing significant to report. Motion was made by Director McCormick to accept the Treasurer’s report as submitted and to approve the check register. Director Harley seconded the motion. Roll call to vote: Director McCormick, aye; Director Drolet, aye; Director Harley, aye; Director Murray, aye, and Director Poling, abstained. Motion carried.

B. WATER/STORAGE FACILITIES/CONVEYANCE LOSS: District Operations Manager, Charles Acker gave the following report: On May 28, 2015, at approximately 6:00 PM, Mr. Acker received a phone call from Water Technician, Dewey Rogers, that a major leak occurred because of a utility truck running over two meter boxes. The repair was accomplished within two days without further complications. Further protection for the meters will be provided by installing a posted warning sign. There is a problem with a product and waiting to hear back from the company regarding the shelf life, temperature storage, and any chemical issues. The bid for new fencing installation was $8,500. Due to the high bid for installing, a decision was made to do the installing in-house. Two new fencing gates have been purchased and installation will be accomplished soon. A quote has been obtained for repainting the firehouse, office and treatment buildings, and doing minor repairs. An occurrence happened during digging for a water main and touched onto a 12,000 volt power cable (which happened to not be an active one). Example of why proper excavating equipment is important for safety concerns. Nine state reports involving drinking water, consumer confidence, water rights, water usage and water diverted have all been completed.

C. SAFETY COMMITTEE: Charles Acker, District Operations Manager, reported the following: Mr. Acker met with a consultant from York Insurance Company regarding the employee, Dewey Rogers’,

5

injury accident. The consultant did a review of the District’s safety policy, and provided recommendations and some templates to facilitate updating the safety policy. Of major concern is bringing the ladders on tanks up to code, but when tanks were replaced they came with up-to-code ladders. The consultant will provide a list of items needed for safety compliance, including an oxygen sniffing device.

D. LEGAL COUNSEL: Attorney Emrick provided the following: The well completion reports from Water Resources will now become public record, which allows the District to have access to these reports. A State ruling has been issued declaring that for now the State cannot curtail property owners‘ water rights without a public hearing. In regards to the District vs. Williams Moores, a trial date has been set for Phase 3 for January 3, 2016. By December 2015, a determination will be made as to which actions go to the court and which go to a jury.

E. DIRECTORS: Nothing to mention.

6. OLD BUSINESS:

A. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION: FIREHOUSE LEASE UPDATE TO REDWOOD COAST FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (RCFPD): (HARLEY). Director Harley reports that the lease has been signed and no further action is required.

B. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION AND PUBLIC INPUT: PROPOSED LAFCO DETACHMENT OF DERUITER PROPERTY FROM THE DISTRICT; UPDATES ON IMPACTS TO THE DISTRICT; PROPOSED DEED RESTRICTION LANGUAGE RELATING TO WATER USE ON DERUITER PROPERTY: (EMRICK/HARLEY). Regarding:Coastal building permit and detachment of property from the district. This property is known as the 60-acre DeRuiter property, which is the northwest parcel in the Nichols Ranch, starting from Highway One and continuing to Irish Gulch. Attorney Emrick provided the following: As background information Mr. DeRuiter wants to detach from the District to avoid restrictions on water usage. Mr. DeRuiter’s misconception was that they were not entitled to water by just being part of the District, which led them to believe that the District was trying to deprive their property of water with restrictions on the well. Attorney Emrick explained to Mr. DeRuiter and his attorney that the mere presence of Mr. DeRuiter’s property within the District means he is entitled to water within the District. Now that Mr. DeRuiter has a clearer understanding of his rights by staying in the District, this has caused a shift in considering staying in the District. A benefit to the District with Mr. DeRuiter staying in the District is getting a credit under the rules of the State board. After licensing Mr. DeRuiter’s well, the District would be able to add Mr. DeRuiter’s water usage to the District’s total for licensing. A hydrologist report was done for the District to determine the impact of pumping from the well on the DeRuiter property on Irish Gulch. The hydrologist’s report stated that the elevation differences between Irish Gulch and the depth to the well, as well as other statistics, concluded that what is pumped will not have an impact on the District. This hydrologists report provided enough information to avoid doing a $10,000 study. The LAFCO hearing is set for August 2015, for detachment to be approved. The District submitted comments to LAFCO saying that the DeRuiter well should be monitored even if Mr. DeRuiter is allowed to be outside the District. President Harley and Attorney Emrick have had phone conversations since that time indicating, by Mr. DeRuiter’s attorney, that Mr. DeRuiter will probably stay in the District. Attorney Emrick recommends lifting the restriction, as far as pumping, but keep the monitoring restrictions in place. The Board agreed to lift the pumping restrictions and ask Counsel to prepare a resolution for the next meeting which would include a monitoring provision. Director McCormick made a motion to vote to oppose the de-annexation of the DeRuiter property, and have Operations Manager Acker directed to attend the LAFCO hearing to carry that position, submit a cover letter with the hydrologist report, and not change that position without further authorization from the IBWD Board. Director Poling seconded the motion. Roll call to vote: Director Harley, aye; Director

6

Drolet, aye; Director McCormick, aye; Director Murray, aye, and Director Poling, aye. Motion carried. In closing, Attorney Emrick commented that LAFCO believes the properties within the District cannot have any agricultural purposes, but the District does have many properties that are timber preserves, and agricultural; and the California water code allows the District to provide water for these properties. Our water permit does not state this, but it could, and can provide ground water for whatever purposes are required. Attorney Emrick will provide more information to LAFCO in that regard.

C. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION: ADOPTION OF STATE MANDATED EMERGENCY WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS – RESOLUTION TO RESTRICT OUTDOOR WATERING TO TWO DAYS A WEEK: (ACKER/MCCORMICK/DROLET). PresidentHarley and Attorney Emrickcomposed a water conservationresolution and submitted to the board the following draft resolution: Outdoor watering for property owners in Irish Beach will be specified as two days per week, and amended by the Board to be specified as Sunday and Wednesday, with no outdoor watering between 10:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Potted plants and vegetable gardens are exempt. Hardship cases will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the operations manager for exemptions. There will be a $100 penalty per day for not adhering to the resolution. Homeowners are required to notify their renters of this resolution. The next water bill will provide a notice regarding this resolution and the District’s website will provide a link to the state’s information on conserving water usage. Director Drolet makes a motion to accept the resolution as amended as follows: Now therefore it will be resolved that the Irish Beach Water District will comply with the state-wide mandate by limiting outdoor watering to two days per week, as the resolution specifies. Seconded by Harley. Roll call to vote: Director Harley, aye; Director Drolet, aye; Director McCormick, aye; Director Murray, aye, and Director Poling, nay. Motion carried. Director Murray brought up the subject of selling water and its impact on reduction of water usage. Operations Manager Acker suggests selling water at a 25% reduction compared to 2013 or limit to one load per day. President Harley directs Operations Manager Acker to change the existing wording of the resolution/agreement of 2015-2016 in that regard and have it signed.

D. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION: ADOPTION OF DISTRICT ASSETS FOR 2014-2015 FISCAL YEAR AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION REVISING AND UPDATING ASSET LISTINGS AND ASSESSMENT FEES: (MURRAY). Treasurer Murraywould like the Board to vote on approval of Resolution 2015-3, which is setting the assessment parcel rates for 2015-2016, but in the year 2014- 2015. The parcel rates increased by 3% per parcel or approximately an additional $6.62. This increase complies with Proposition 218 voted in that put this increase into effect.President Harley made a motion to update Resolution 2015-3 for asset listings assessment fees and operating reserves for inflation and operating maintenance activities. Seconded by Director Drolet. Roll call to vote: Director McCormick, aye; Director Murray, aye; Director Drolet aye; Director Harley, aye, and Director Poling, aye. Motion carries. The next is Actual Listings of Fixed Assets. Attachment 2, System Wide Capital Improvements. At this time the District’s priority for this fund is mainly repair and replacing our District’s water lines. Funds available are $106,000. Will be further discussed in the portion of Fixed Asset Purchase. The Board directs Operations Manager Acker to consider repair and replacement of water lines a priority. The next listing is for Greater than 40, which is another funding source for another item on the agenda for cross connections and those funds are $152,000. System Wide, Greater than 40, and a listing of Less than 40 (which is not part of the assessment fee). Next is our alternate water development, which was Mallo Pass and that is $200,041.00.We have nothing budgeted in next year’s projects, unless the District moves forward with connecting the Tank 2 well, which is estimated at $8,000. For the Less than 40 assets listing, the District has no reserve. Treasurer Murray recommends transferring some funds to that account.

E. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION: CROSS CONNECTION PROGRAM REVIEW: (ACKER/HARLEY). Operations Manager Acker comments that Rio Russell, District licensed technician employee and an independent contractor in cross connection wrote a draft policy for the

7

District to consider for approval of a resolution for cross connection with the State’s regulations requirements. President Harley inquired as to what would constitute the need for a property to have a cross connection or be considered a hazard and what does the state require. Operations Manager Acker commented that the requirement is to do a survey of the District’s homeowners’ properties to determine which properties would require a back-flow preventer. The properties that would require a back-flow preventer would be those with a water meter lower in elevation than the house or any elevation with a watering system that is higher than the meter that could potentially flow back into the system. The survey would consist of the District identifying those properties that have this potential hazard and install back-flow preventer for those properties, which would fulfill the legal obligation for cross connections. Operations Manager Acker further commented: Construction of new homes will automatically be required to have a back-flow preventer installed. All cross connection devices carry an annual inspection by a licensed inspector. The proposal for a cross connection resolution will be further addressed by Operations Manager Acker and the proposal will be available at the next meeting.

7. NEW BUSINESS:

A. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION: PROPOSED WATER BUDGET FOR IRISH BEACH WATER DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016: (MURRAY). TreasurerMurray reports the following: The proposed budget is the same as last year with updates to salary related changes. The first page shows 2014-2015 current year and the 2015-2016 proposed, and the difference, which shows little change. On water usage, there is a $0.02 increase from $0.49 to $0.51 per 100 gallons of water usage. Treasurer Murray will make suggestions/recommendations regarding the 25% water usage reduction. President Harley commented that the District does not have personnel/employee policies for cost-of- living raises, incremental raises, or merit raises. This will be further discussed in this meeting’s Executive (Closed) Session. In the next meeting Treasurer Murray will provide current year-to-date for Legal Counsel budget and a detailed budget to actual. Treasurer Murray recommends the District’s Board propose to bring this budget back in September for further discussion and approval. President Harley stated that the budget will be brought back and acted on at the next meeting. Anyone with budget questions may contact Director Murray in the meantime.

B. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FIXED ASSET PURCHASE AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH RIBOLI AND SONS FOR MAINTENANCE WORK: (ACKER/MURRAY). Operations Manager Acker and Water Technician Rogers have brought a contract before the Board for approval from Roboli and Sons Company. Roboli has worked for the District in the past. This contract includes preparation for painting and restoration where there is wood damage, repair defects around doorways, pressure wash, and re-nailing. This would restore and give a fresh look to the three buildings, consisting of the small office, treatment plant, small tank, and the main building housing the fire truck. Director Poling made a motion to accept this contract with Roboli and Sons Company. Seconded by Director Drolet. Roll call to vote: Director Poling, aye; Director Harley, aye; Director Drolet, aye; Director McCormick, aye; Director Murray, aye. Motion carried. Operations Manager Acker made the following comments: It was not necessary to get multiple bids, as this contract is under the bid threshold for maintenance type work. This protocol for bid thresholds and guidance for authorizing contract work should be written into the District’s policies.

Director Murray and Operations Manager Acker request approval for the purchase of a vacuum excavator. The vacuum excavator prevents damage to utility lines when working on water lines and is a requirement by Underground Service Alert (USA). The vacuum excavator would greatly expedite water lines repair and replacement for the leakage concerns, is a safety measure for employees working near power lines, and a potential cost savings in preventing penalty charges for damage to power lines. Attorney Emrick suggests purchasing the vacuum excavator outright instead of sharing the purchase, which would cancel the need for the expenditure of an attorney to draw up an MOU agreement between

8

owners of the vacuum excavator. Also the vacuum excavator could be leased to other water districts and a lease agreement could be accomplished in-house with less legal fees involved. Attorney Emrick comments that this shows the state board we are addressing the water leakage in a timely manner. Director Murray comments that the purchase could come out of the System Wide Budget of $106,000. The purchase would be part of repair and replacement. Director McCormick made a motion to approve the purchase of the vacuum excavator for the District at the purchase price of approximately $24,000, from the System Wide Budget fund, with the potential to lease the vacuum excavator to Elk and other water districts. Seconded by Director Harley. Roll call to vote: Director Drolet, aye; Director Harley, aye; Director McCormick, aye; Director Murray, aye, and Director Poling, aye. Motion carried. Operations Manager Acker commented that he will let Elk’s water district know about leasing the vacuum excavator to them. A lease committee will go through the process of creating a lease for the vacuum excavator, and can be done in-house under the legal expenses budget.

Director Harley closed the public session at 12:18 PM for the Executive (Closed) Session.

8. EXECUTIVE (CLOSED) SESSION. No reportable items.

RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AND REPORT.

President Harley reconvened the General Session of the IBWD and stated that there were no reportable actions to report regarding existing litigation.

ADJOURNMENT: Director Drolet moved to adjourn the meeting. Director Harley seconded. Roll call to vote: Director McCormick, aye; Director Murray, aye; Director Drolet aye; Director Harley, aye, and Director Poling, aye. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 12:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________________ Don Harley, President Prepared by Connie Sackman Attest: ______________________________________ Leon Drolet, Secretary of the Board

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

9

COMMUNICATIONS & CORRESPONDENCE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

10

PUBLIC INPUT

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11

Treasurer

Water/Storage Facilities/Conveyance/Loss

Safety Committee

Legal Counsel

Directors

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

12

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Treasurer’s Report:

Cash Statement, Current Checks Issued

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

13

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Water/Storage Facilities/Conveyance Loss

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

14

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SAFETY COMMITTEE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

15

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LEGAL COUNSEL

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

16

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

OLD BUSINESS 6 A

PROPOSED LAFCO DETACHMENT OF DERUITER PROPERTY FROM THE DISTRICT, PROPOSED RESOLUTION 2015- ___, MODIFYING RESOLUTION 2013-1, CONTINGENT ON PROPERTY REMAINING IN THE DISTRICT

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

17

RESOLUTION NO. 2015-____

RESOLUTION MODIFYING RESOLUTION 2013-1

WHEREAS, the Irish Beach Water District adopted Resolution 2000-7 restricting the drilling of private wells within the District’s boundaries and that resolution is still in effect; and,

WHEREAS, the District approved an exemption to Resolution 2000-7 allowing the construction of a well on Mendocino County Assessor’s Parcel No. 132-210-44-00 (“Well”) by Resolution 2013-1; and,

WHEREAS, Resolution 2013-1 placed certain pumping limitations on the Well and restricted pumping for domestic use purposes only; and,

WHEREAS, the District has commissioned a groundwater/hydrologic study of the Well and pumping from that Well in relation to Parcel No. 132-210-44-00 to determine potential impacts on groundwater and surface water uses in the District (“Study”) and whereas that Study indicated that such impacts were likely remote based upon the limited scope of that Study and the fact that the Well has not been actively used as of the date of that Study;

NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT: the District has determined to modify resolution 2013-1 as follows:

1. The limitation on the Well restricting pumping to 300 gallons per day (GPD) is removed based on the results of the hydrologic report.

2. Nothing in this Resolution or in Resolution 2013-1 shall be construed as preventing Mendocino County Assessor’s Parcel No. 132-210-44-00 from connecting to the District’s water conveyance system at the landowner’s sole expense pursuant to the District’s requirements and regulations provided there is a demonstrated need for such water beyond the water provided for by the Well.

3. The District’s General Manager may permit a well-monitoring protocol other than metering if allowed by applicable law. Any such monitoring shall be sufficient for the District to credit any groundwater pumping to the District’s water use from Irish Gulch Creek. Any such alternative monitoring protocol must comply with the requirements of law and recognized methodologies of water measurement.

4. The limitation on groundwater from the Well being used for domestic purposes only is removed; however, any such use of groundwater shall be in compliance with the

18

uses allowed within a California Water District, Water Code sections 300 et seq., with the principles of reasonable and beneficial use; and with State and County law.

5. All other conditions of Resolution 2013-1 apply and the District reserves all rights it has under the law including but not limited to all rights to protect its drinking water supply, water resources and water quality to the fullest extent allowed by law.

ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Irish Beach Water District at a regular meeting held on September 12, 2015 by the following vote:

Ayes: ________________________________________________________

Noes: ________________________________________________________

Abstain: ______________________________________________________

Absent: _______________________________________________________

Dated:___________________________________

Approved: ________________________________

President Don Harley

Attest: ___________________________________

Secretary of the Board

Leon Drolet

19

RESOLUTION NO. 2013-1

RESOLUTION ALLOWING EXEMPTION FROM DISTRICT'S WELL DRILLING MORATORIUM (RESOLUTION 2000-7) SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

WHEREAS, the Irish Beach Water District adopted Resolution :WOO-7 placing a temporary moratorium on drilling wells within the District's boundaries that Moratorium is still in effect; and,

WIIEREAS, the District is presently preparing a new Resolution that will address drilling wells within the District boundaries {hat threaten the District s water supply; and.

WHEREAS, the proposed new Well Resolution will allow the drilling of wells within the District's boundaries subject to certain conditions including but not limited to allowing limited Well development for domestic use within areas not presently served by District facilities; and.

WHEREAS, Margaret Ballou owns Mendocino County Assessor's Parcel (\0. 132-210-44-00, within the District located in an area commonly known as Nichols Ranch: and.

WIHEREAS, the District does not presently haw water distribution facilities to serve Parcell\o.132- 210-44-00 and does not anticipate the construction any such facilities within the foreseeable future: and.

WHEREAS, Margaret Ballou desires to construct a domestic well for [he purpose of supplying water to Parcel No, 132-210-44-00 until such time as the District may have facilities serving water to the Parcel No. 132-210-44-00; and,

WHEREAS, the District does not have any present Agreement to provide water to Parcel No. 132-210- 44-00 other than as part of the normal development of the District's water system; and,

WHEREAS, studies conducted by the District indicates that a well on Parcel No. 132-210-44-00 would not impact the District's existing wells hut could potentially impact subsurface flow. to Irish Gulch Creek: '

NOW THEREFORE LET IT HL RLSOL V[D THAT: the District has determined that an exemption from the District's Well Resolution is warranted for Parcel 1\.0.132-210-44-00 subject to the following conditions:

I. Only a single domestic Well shall be drilled ,In Parcel No. 132-210-4-l-()O.

') Pumping shall be limited to 300 gallon-, per day tor domestic purposes only. If more water is needed, the owner of Parcel No. 132-210-44-00 shall: 1) notify the District in writing setting forth the reason (s) why more than 300 gallons per day is needed for the Parcet't consistent with the principles of reasonable and beneficial use in Water Code sections 100 and 300 et seq.); and provide the District with a hydrologic study conducted by a properly licensed engineering firm showing conclusively that the additional pumping will not adversely impact underflow or subsurface flow to Irish Gulch. The District shall have the right to reject any such hydrologic study based on review by the District'smanager and engineering consultants.

21

Tim D. Bray, Hydrogeologist PO Box 873, Albion CA 95410

(707) 937-4422

July 9, 2015

Mr. Charles Acker Irish Beach Water District via email Subject: DeRuiter well evaluation Dear Mr. Acker:

This letter presents my findings regarding the potential effects of withdrawals from a well on the DeRuiter property. Based on information provided by you at our meeting on June 10, 2015, and subsequently by e-mail, you are concerned about the possibility of abstraction from the De Ruiter well affecting surface water flow rates at the Irish Beach Water District (IBWD) intake in Irish Gulch, and wish to obtain an independent evaluation of the hydrogeological setting in order to formulate a policy response.

A specific question the District would like answered is: Should IBWD require a hydrology study (as prescribed in the Mendocino County coastal groundwater ordinance, i.e., a pump test) as a condition of approval for a proposed development on the property? The answer to this question may be facilitated if the safe yield of the DeRuiter well can be estimated. Safe yield generally represents the maximum amount that a well can produce without causing adverse consequences.

Hydrologic Setting The DeRuiter well is situated on a coastal terrace just south of the confluence of Irish Creek with an unnamed tributary (Figure 1). Groundwater in this environment is recharged by infiltrating rainfall during winter and spring (principally November through April).

The water table in similar geologic environments along the Mendocino coast is typically less than 50 feet below the ground surface, except along the highest ridges, and therefore the groundwater contours generally reflect the surface topography. Groundwater discharges through seeps and springs along the lower elevations into perennial and intermittent streams. Stream flows in late summer or early fall (before winter rains) are sustained entirely by groundwater discharge.

Groundwater also moves through the subsurface to the west-southwest under a regional gradient, discharging as seepage along the coastal bluffs. No groundwater data are available to calculate this gradient or the potential flow rates beneath the DeRuiter property.

Irish Creek and the unnamed tributary reportedly flow year-round. IBWD makes periodic measurements of the flow rate in Irish Creek at two locations (Table 1).

Ground elevation at the DeRuiter well is approximately 340 feet, and the bottom of Irish Gulch directly to the north is approximately 180 feet. The horizontal distance from the well to the nearest reach of Irish Creek is approximately 450 feet.

22

Water level in the DeRuiter well was reported on the driller's Well Completion Report as 40 feet below grade (approximately 300 feet above mean sea level). No subsequent measurements are available. This level indicates a very steep hydraulic gradient from the terrace to the stream, approximately 0.3 feet per foot. Typical hydraulic gradients in permeable aquifer materials are less than 0.1 feet/ft; very steep gradients generally indicate low-permeability materials are present.

Groundwater Recharge rates To evaluate the potential safe yield of a well, it is first necessary to estimate the groundwater recharge rate. This represents the long-term average amount of water added to the aquifer each year.

Daily rainfall records have been kept by IBWD from December 2008 (Table 2). The average annual rainfall over the 6-year period of records was 47.8 inches. Data for a weather station at Point Arena1

• Dry-season flows in Irish Creek are entirely from groundwater discharge

for the period 1948 - 1988 indicated a long-term average of 40.9 inches per year. For the purpose of this analysis, a value of 41 inches per year is assumed to represent long-term average rainfall.

Average annual recharge rate to groundwater can be roughly estimated from dry-season flow rates in Irish Creek, using the following assumptions:

• Measured flow rates represent the total groundwater discharge within the watershed

• Groundwater recharge and discharge are in long-term equilibrium

Four such measurements have been recorded. Dividing the stream flow rate by the catchment area gives the average recharge rate for the entire watershed (Table 3). Using the USGS Mallo Pass Creek 7.5 minute topographic map, I calculated the Irish Creek catchment area upstream from the lower diversion point to be roughly 1.8x107 ft2 . The recorded dry-season flow rates range from 4% to 7% of the total rainfall for the previous 12 months within this catchment area, and 5% to 9% of the average annual rainfall.

Actual groundwater recharge is probably higher than these values, because (1) evaporation and plant uptake along the streambed reduce the surface flow, and (2) groundwater also migrates through the subsurface to discharge along the coastal bluffs. A single recorded flow rate during the wet season (January 2014) may provide an indication of the upper limit for recharge rate. This measurement was taken during an unusually dry winter (only 3 inches of rain were recorded in the previous 3 months). Evaporation and plant uptake are at minimum levels in January, therefore, this measurement may be a closer indication of actual groundwater flow.

For the purpose of this analysis, the average recharge rate to groundwater is conservatively estimated to be between 2.1 and 3.7 inches per year, representing roughly 5% to 9% of the average annual incident rainfall.

1 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?capoin+nca, retrieved 7/8/2015

23

Safe Yield estimation One way to evaluate the potential impact of groundwater withdrawal is to estimate the "safe yield" of a well. For this analysis, safe yield is defined as the quantity that can be withdrawn without causing a significant reduction in stream flow in Irish Creek at the IBWD diversion.

A single measurement at the time of drilling indicates groundwater in the DeRuiter well is approximately 120 feet higher in elevation than the stream bed of Irish Creek approximately 450 feet to the north, so there is a very large hydraulic gradient to overcome before Irish Creek would be affected. The well is reportedly 220 feet deep, however, so it is at least theoretically possible that pumping could lower the water table below the stream bed, thereby inducing infiltration and reducing the downstream flow rate. For this to occur, the well's radius of influence (or cone of depression) would have to exceed the distance from the well to the stream.

In general, a well's radius of influence extends outward over time2

• Long-term average rainfall rates may be greater than assumed for this analysis

until it captures a recharge source equal to the pumping rate, at which point a steady-state condition is established.

The DeRuiter well is situated on a coastal terrace approximately 450 feet from Irish Gulch. At recharge rates of 2.1 to 3.7 inches per year, a circle with radius 450 feet receives approximately 2,280 to 4,000 gallons per day of groundwater recharge. This may be taken as a rough approximation of the minimum safe yield, as this amount is replaced, on average, by rainfall within the well's radius of influence. Groundwater levels beyond this radius would likely be affected only slightly, if at all, by long-term abstraction at this rate, and stream flow in Irish Creek would not be affected to a measurable extent.

Conservative assumptions regarding rainfall rates, infiltration, and aquifer hydraulics were employed for this estimation, so it is unlikely that the safe yield will be less than the calculated value. Actual safe yield may be greater than calculated because:

• The well may be drawing water from a part of the aquifer that is not directly connected to the stream bed

• Aquifer storage was not considered

• Aquifer transmissivity may limit the well's area of influence

Consideration of these factors would require additional study. In particular, aquifer storage and transmissivity estimation would require performing a hydraulic stress test (pump test) using the existing well and at least one observation well.

Conclusions Using conservative assumptions, it appears that the DeRuiter well could be safely operated3

2 The time required to achieve steady-state conditions cannot be estimated without knowing the aquifer hydraulic parameters. It may be years or decades.

at a steady-state withdrawal rate betwen 2,280 and 4,000 gallons per day, indefinitely, without materially affecting stream flows in Irish Creek.

24

This analysis only considers the long-term, steady-state condition. In the short term, aquifer hydraulics (storage and transmissivity) will affect the rate of drawdown and growth of a cone of depression around the well. Storage is particularly important, as the large gradient between the well and the stream implies a large volume of water that can be withdrawn from storage before the stream is affected. Transmissivity may limit the amount of water that can be produced from the well. These parameters are only important, however, if an estimation of nonequilibrium conditions is desired.

Tim D. Bray

Professional Geologist #5180 Certified Hydrogeologist #212

3 "Safely" in this context means no adverse consequences to IBWD. The well itself may or may not sustain these pumping rates without damage; no analysis of well yield has been performed.

Table 1

Irish Gulch Stream Measurements

Date Location Flow Rate

9/3/2010 Upper Diversion 16 GPM

9/3/2010 Lower Diversion 75 GPM

9/3/2010 Treatment Plant Flow 25 GPM










Source: IBWD staff

Table 2

Annual Rainfall Totals

Year Total (inches)

2009 29.88

2010 65.35

2011 46.75

2012 66.5

2013 13.05

2014 65.05

27

Average 47.76

Source: IBWD staff

Note: Annual totals by calendar year Catchment area 1.80E+07 ft2

Table 3

Estimated Annual Groundwater Recharge Rates, Irish Gulch Watershed

Date of Flow Rate Measurement

Rainfall total, previous 12 months (inches)

Rainfall total (ft3)

Lower Diversion flow (gpm) Flow (ft3/yr)

Recharge fraction

Recharge fraction, annual average

9/3/2010 48.93 7.3E+07 75 5.3E+06 7% 9%

10/5/2012 50.45 7.6E+07 45 3.2E+06 4% 5%

1/21/2014 13.75 2.1E+07 40 2.8E+06 14% 5%

9/16/2014 35.9 5.4E+07 40 2.8E+06 5% 5%

28

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OLD BUSINESS 6 B

CROSS CONNECTION PROGRAM REVIEW

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

30

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OLD BUSINESS 6 C WATER BUDGET FOR THE IRISH BEACH WATER

DISTRICT FISCALYEAR 2015-2016 PROPOSED BUDGET

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

38

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NEW BUSINESS 7 A

IBIC PRESENTATION REGARDING POMO LAKE RESTORATION PROJECT AND IMPACTS ON IBWD’S LICENSE #10564

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

39

IBIC Presentation Regarding Pomo Lake Restoration Project for Discussion Includes: 1. Restoration efforts that IBIC is commencing for the lake and parks and their potentialimpacts on the Water District. 2. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Water Rights License forDiversion of Water for Pomo Lake (10564). 3. The past documented and future interests of users other than IBIC in Pomo Lake water: • IBWD Interests in diversion of water from Pomo Lake (permit 20443, rescinded), opportunityto install a water intake • RCFPD use of water for fire protection (LAFCO). 4. Request of IBWD assistance for IBICs procurement of new Redwood Picnic Tables and Park Benchesfrom Parlin Fork Conservation Camp for the Pomo Lake and surrounding areas.

40

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NEW BUSINESS 7 B

Irish Beach Water District Sphere of Influence Update Mendocino

LAFCo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

41

MENDOCINO Local Agency Formation Commission

Ukiah Valley Conference Center ◊ 200 South School Street, Suite F ◊ Ukiah, California 95482

IRISH BEACH WATER DISTRICT

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE

Prepared in accordance with Government Code §56425

Admin Draft Update

For District Review

June 2015

43

This page has been left intentionally blank for photocopying

IRISH BEACH WATER DISTRICT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE MENDOCINO LAFCO

44

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 6

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ....................................................................................................................... 6 Authority and Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 6 Regulatory Responsibilities ................................................................................................................................ 6 Planning Responsibilities ....................................................................................................................................

6OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 REVIEW PERIOD .......................................................................................................................................................... 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 8

OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 APPROACH ................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Primary Service Area and Study Areas ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9

DETERMINATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 9

OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

CURRENT AGENCY OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 9 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................................. 9SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ................................................................................................................................................ 10 CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION ......................................................................................................................... 10

Population and Growth ........................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Projected Growth and Development ........................................................................................................................................................................... 10

CAPACITY AND SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................... 12 RELEVANT PLANNING FACTORS ..................................................................................................................................... 13

County of Mendocino General Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Coastal Element: Mallo Pass Creek to Iversen Road Planning Area (Irish Beach / Manchester / Point Arena) 14 Relevant Special Districts ........................................................................................................................................................................... 14

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................................... 15

PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................................................. 15 SELECTION ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 EVALUATION FACTORS ................................................................................................................................................ 15

ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................................... 16

PRIMARY SERVICE AREA .............................................................................................................................................. 16 STUDY AREA 1 .......................................................................................................................................................... 17

Present and Planned Land Use .......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services .......................................................................................................................................................................... 17


45

Present Capacity of Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services .......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Social and Economic Communities of Interest ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Present and Probable Need for Water, Sewer, or Fire Protection Services for Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ................................................................................................................................................ 18

STUDY AREA 2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 18 Present and Planned Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 19 Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services ...................................................................... 19 Present Capacity of Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services .................................................................... 19 Social and Economic Communities of Interest .............................................................................................. 19 Present and Probable Need for Water, Sewer, or Fire Protection Services for Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ................................................................................................................................................. 20SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS .......................................................................................................... 20

RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 20

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 20


46

INTRODUCTION

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Authority and Objectives

Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCos) were established in 1963 as political subdivisions of the State of California and are currently responsible for providing regional growth management services under Government Code (GC) §56000 et seq., the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH).LAFCos are located in all 58 counties in California and are delegated regulatory and planning powers to coordinate and oversee the logical formation and development of local governmental agencies and their municipal service areas. Towards this end, LAFCo is commonly referred to as the Legislature’s “watchdog” for local governance issues. Underlying LAFCo’s regulatory and planning power is to fulfill specific objectives outlined by the California Legislature under GC §56301, which states:

“Among the purposes of the commission are discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, efficiently providing governmental services, and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances. One of the objects of the commission is to make studies and to obtain and furnish information which will contribute to the logical and reasonable development of local agencies in each county and to shape the development of local agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of each county and its communities.”

Regulatory Responsibilities

LAFCo’s principal regulatory responsibility involves approving or disapproving all jurisdictional changes involving the establishment, expansion, and reorganization of cities and special districts within their jurisdictions. The CKH defines “special district” to mean any State agency formed pursuant to general law or special act for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. All special districts in California are subject to LAFCo with the following exceptions: school districts; community college districts; assessment districts; improvement districts; community facilities districts; and air pollution control districts.

LAFCo is also provided broad discretion to condition jurisdictional changes as long as they do not directly regulate land use, property development, or subdivision requirements. LAFCo generally exercises their regulatory authority in response to applications submitted by local agencies, landowners, or registered voters. Recent amendments to CKH, however, now empower and encourage LAFCo to initiate on their own jurisdictional changes to form, merge, and dissolve special districts consistent with current and future community needs. The following table provides a complete list of LAFCo’s regulatory authority as of January 1, 2013.


47

Planning Responsibilities

LAFCo informs their regulatory actions through two central and interrelated planning responsibilities: (a) making sphere of influence (SOI) determinations and (b) preparing municipal service reviews (MSRs). Sphere determinations have been a central planning function of LAFCo since 1971 and effectively serve as the Legislature’s version of “urban growth boundaries” with regard to delineating the appropriate interface between urban and nonurban uses. MSRs, in contrast, are a relatively new planning responsibility enacted in 2001 as part of CKH and are intended to inform, among other activities, sphere determinations. The Legislature mandates, notably, all sphere changes be accompanied by preceding MSRs to help ensure LAFCo is effectively aligning governmental services with current and anticipated community needs.

Sphere Determinations LAFCo establishes, amends, and updates spheres for all cities and special districts to designate the territory it independently believes represents the appropriate and probable future service area and jurisdictional boundary of the affected agency. Importantly, all jurisdictional changes, such as annexations and detachments, must be consistent with the spheres of the affected local agencies with limited exceptions.

LAFCo must review and update each local agency’s sphere every five years. In making a sphere determination, LAFCo is required to prepare written statements addressing five specific planning factors listed under GC §56425. These mandatory factors range from evaluating current and future land uses to the existence of pertinent communities of interest between an agency under Out of District Service and geographic areas to which its jurisdiction might be extended. The intent of the written statements is to address the core principles underlying the sensible development of each local agency consistent with the anticipated needs of the affected community; the five mandated planning factors are listed and addressed in the Analysis section.

OBJ E C T I VE S The objective of this update is to evaluate Irish Beach County Water District’s (Irish Beach CWD/District) SOI. The designated SOI represents a plan for the Irish Beach CWD boundary and service area that, in the Commission’s independent judgment, will facilitate sensible and timely District development consistent with Legislature objectives as expressed in the CKH Act. Specific goals under this legislation include discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands, and providing for the efficient extension of local government services. Sphere Determinations will be made to address each mandated planning factor as outlined in the CKH Act.

Mendocino LAFCo’s “Policy Determinations” are currently under revision and will provide general prescription in fulfilling its legislative objectives paired with responding appropriately to local conditions and circumstances. The Policy Determinations highlight the Commission’s commitment to avoid the premature conversion of important agricultural or open-space lands for urban uses through a series of restrictive allowances. This includes a broad determination to exclude all agricultural or open-space lands from city and district spheres of influence with limited exceptions. Mendocino LAFCo’s Policy Determinations will be considered within the analysis of this document. Information from the 2013,


48

County-wide Mendocino LAFCO Municipal Service Review is incorporated herein to aid in the SOI update.

REV I E W PE R IO D State law requires LAFCo to review and update each local agency’s sphere every five years. Accordingly, it has been Commission practice to update each local agency’s sphere in a manner emphasizing a probable five year annexation or outside service area plan; actual boundary change approvals, however, are subject to separate analysis with particular emphasis on determining whether the timing of the proposed action is appropriate. This analysis is consistent with this practice.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW This update is prepared as part of a CKH Act mandated (GC §56076) process. As stated in that section, “In order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local government agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities, LAFCo shall develop and determine the SOI of each local governmental agency within the county.” A “SOI” under the CKH Act (GC §56076) definition is “…. a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local (government) agency.”

Decisions on annexations, detachments and other boundary or organizational changes must be consistent with the SOI boundary and determinations. The adopted SOI is used by LAFCo as a policy guide in its consideration of boundary change proposals affecting each city and special district in Mendocino County. Other agencies and individuals use adopted SOI to better understand the services provided by each local agency and the geographic area in which those services will be available. Clear public understanding of the planned geographic availability of urban services is crucial to the preservation of agricultural land and discouraging urban sprawl – policy objectives that are held in common by LAFCo, Mendocino County, and the Irish Beach County Water District (CWD).

The following update will assess and recommend establishment of an appropriate Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the Irish Beach CWD. The objective is to establish Irish Beach CWD’s SOI relative to current legislative directives, local policies, and agency preferences in justifying whether to (a) change or (b) maintain the designation. The update draws on information from the MSR, which includes the evaluation of availability, adequacy, and capacity of services provided by Irish Beach CWD.


49

AP P R O A C H When updating the SOI, the Commission considers and adopts written determinations:

Sphere Determinations: Mandatory Written Statements

1. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space.

2. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area.

3. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services the agency provides or is authorized to provide.

4. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines they are relevant to the agency.

5. If the city or district provides water, sewer, or fire, the present and probable need for those services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere.

Primary Service Area and Study Areas

The Primary Service Area of this update is the IBWD, and its SOI. There are two Study Areas considered within this update, Study Area 1 lies within the District boundary, and Study Area 2 lies adjacent to the District Boundary to the north, and within the SOI (See Figure X).

Study Area 1 encompasses nine parcels of coastal rangeland to the south of the Irish Beach subdivision and Irish Gulch; one parcel within this Study Area, APN 132-210-44, is petitioning for detachment from the District.

Study Area 2 contains two parcels (APN 131-110-04 and 131-110-36) on the coast to the north of the Irish Beach subdivision which, for the purposes of this update, will be known as the “Inn Site” or the Moore Annexation. These parcels are currently within the District’s SOI, and are proposed for annexation into the District.

This update will focus on the two Study Areas to make the required SOI determinations.

DETERMINATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Commission amend the IBWD SOI to include….

Determinations to be added once they are finalized.


50

OVERVIEW

CURRENT AGENCY OPERATIONS The IBWD is located approximately four miles north of Manchester, and south of Elk, on Mendocino’s south coast in the unincorporated area of southwestern Mendocino County. The District includes 1,294 acres (2.02 square miles) and originally served the subdivision known as Irish Beach, which consists of approximately 460 parcels, of which 200 (43%) are developed. The Irish Beach subdivision primarily consists of second homes.

The District provides water services; including water supply, treatment and distribution; and private and community septic system monitoring and maintenance to landowners within Irish Beach. The District informally shares operating resources with the neighboring district to the north (Elk County Water District), which streamlines communication and monitoring efforts.

BACKGROUND The IBWD is an independent special district established on April 14, 1967 for the primary purpose of providing water to the community of Irish Beach on the southern coast of the County of Mendocino. In 1980, under Health and Safety Code Section 6955 et seq., the District added a wastewater disposal zone to its purview and provides oversight of existing and future private and community septic systems.

The District was originally formed in 1967 and consisted of 220 acres (LAFCo Resolution No. 672). In 1972, the Moore’s annexation added 400 acres to the District (LAFCo Resolution No. 72-7).

A second Moore’s Annexation added an additional 720 acres to the District (LAFCo Resolution No. 75-14). The last completed boundary change was the Arnold detachment, which removed 112.23 acres from the District in December 1988 (LAFCo Resolution No. 88-9). (Figure 1).

One boundary change has been proposed, which would involve annexing the ‘Inn Site’ (APN 131110-04 and 36) to the District. The new owner of a 60-acre parcel (APN 132-210-44) has filed for detachment of this parcel from the District. No other boundary changes are pending or proposed at this time.

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Excepting the “Inn Site” added in 1994, the SOI is otherwise coterminous with the District’s boundaries. The District’s SOI was last updated in 1994 to include the “Inn Site” (APN 131-110-04 and 131-110-36) consisting of approximately 17 acres to the north of the District boundary. In 2009, an application was made to LAFCo to annex the parcel into the District. However, under LAFCo policy, the annexation could not move forward until completion of the District MSR. A county-wide Mendocino water and wastewater MSR was completed, and subsequently adopted by Mendocino LAFCo in 2014. The District is obligated to serve the ‘Inn Site’ through a contractual agreement with the property owner. No other ‘will-serve’ letters are currently in force.


51

CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION Population and Growth

The District was established to serve the unincorporated community of Irish Beach. An estimated population of 65 resides in Irish Beach year-round, which increases by 250 seasonal residents at various times of the year. The closest communities are Manchester and Point Arena to the south, approximately four and eight miles distance respectively, and Elk and Mendocino to the north, approximately 9 and 25 miles respectively.

The 2010 Census for zip code 95459 consists of 67.1 square miles and includes the communities of Manchester and Irish Beach. Population within the zip code was tabulated at 504 in the 2010 Census, with an average population concentration of eight persons per square mile. Manchester, approximately four miles south of Irish Beach, is a census designated place (CDP) located within Census Tract 011102 in Mendocino County and has a population of 195. Although rural residential properties are scattered throughout the zip code area, Irish Beach is the only other planned community in the area. Between the Census years 2000 and 2010, the area experienced a decrease in population of 81 people, from 585 to 501, a loss of approximately 14 percent of the population.

Projected Growth and Development

The District anticipates little growth in population within the next few years; however, no formal population projections have been made by the District. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the unincorporated population of Mendocino County will grow by a little more than 4 percent in the next 20 years, from 87,924 in 2010 to 91,498 in 2020 and 95,158 in 2030.

Given Irish Beach’s relatively isolated location and limited development potential, it’s unlikely to experience significant population increases in the next few decades. In the application for formation of the District in the late 1960s, a buildout population of 1,200 was estimated. However, the area has

53

experienced little growth with only 200 of the 460 parcels currently developed. Additionally, the occupancy rate has been reduced substantially since the 1960s, which further reduces the projected buildout population. While the District has undergone a number of annexations since its formation, little to no development has occurred within those areas.

CAPACITY AND SERVICE The District provides water services and monitoring and maintenance of post-development private and community septic systems for property owners with their boundaries. The District requires septic system inspections every five years.

The District has five water storage facilities, a pipeline network, hydrant system, and a water treatment plant. The District has approximately 7.6 miles of pipeline, ranging from 6 to 2 inches in diameter. Over 83 percent of the District’s distribution and transmission system is more than 30 years old. Much of this system has an estimated useful life of 40 years. To address aging infrastructure needs, a Proposition 218 Assessment was passed by District voters in early the 2000s. The assessment funds are kept in a special reserve account specifically for capital improvements including but not limited to replacement of pipelines, pumps, valves, tanks, hydrants, and connections.

The IBWD has four developed sources of water, and one additional partially developed well source: 1) the upper diversion on Irish Gulch (SWRCB Permit No. 15580); 2) the lower diversion on Irish Gulch (SWRCB Permit No. 20443); 3) the well (Well 9) located east of the main subdivision; 4) the new well (Well 5) located 500 feet southeast of Well 9. The additional partially developed well (Well 2) is located east of Tank 2, and was developed with the property owner’s permission. It has an estimated production capacity is 10 gallons per minute. This well has been drilled, cased and tested, but has not yet been connected to the system or had utilities connected to it due to outstanding litigation with the District.Well 9 production volume has diminished in the past few years. One of the District’s water sources, Upper Irish Gulch, currently goes intermittently dry during the summer which diminishes in capacity in the fall, especially during drought conditions. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for an extension of time for SWRCB Permit No. 15580 concluded that there will be insufficient water in Irish Gulch for the District, even if the entire stream flow is utilized. Use of the upper diversion was limited to winter and spring and direction given to use the lower diversion point during the summer months. The District supplements its Irish Gulch water diversions with two wells. All three wells (including Well 2) and the two diversions together have an estimated production capacity of 76 gallons per minute or 109,440 gallons per day.

The District held a permit for stream diversion from Mallo Pass Creek (Permit No. 16622) to ensure adequate water supply for future undeveloped portions of the development. The District was unable to complete the project due to slower than expected development, and on March 11, 2009 the State Water Resources Control Board revoked the permit, finding that the water was not being put to ‘beneficial use.’ In November of 2008, the Board of Directors adopted a resolution officially abandoning the Mallo Pass Creek project and transferred assessment monies from that project to the new Alternative Water Development Fund.

The District has property and a trust fund to develop an additional water source and treatment plant when required. The District maintains that the current water system capacity is adequately sized for existing development with some room for growth.

54

RELEVANT PLANNING FACTORS County of Mendocino General Plan

General Plan Water Supply and Sewer (Wastewater Treatment) Services Policies:

Policy DE-186: Coordinate community water and sewer services with General Plan land use densities and intensities.

Policy DE-187: The County supports efficient and adequate public water and sewer services through combined service agencies, shared facilities, or other inter-agency agreements. Action Item DE-187.1: Work aggressively with water and sewer service providers to overcome current and projected system and supply deficiencies necessary to serve planned community growth. Action Item DE-187.2: Support funding applications to improve and expand water and sewer service capabilities in areas planned for future growth or to resolve existing deficiencies. Action Item DE-187.3: Work with communities and public water and sewer service entities to monitor, manage and/or maintain community-wide or decentralized water or sewer systems.

Policy DE-188: Encourage water and sewer service providers to incorporate water conservation, reclamation,

and reuse. oEncourage the development and use of innovative systems and technologies that

promote water conservation, reclamation, and reuse. oEncourage the development of systems

that capture and use methane emissions from their operation. oEncourage the development

and use of innovative systems and technologies for the treatment of wastewater.

Policy DE-189: Oppose extension of water or sewer services to rural non-community areas when such extensions are inconsistent with land use and resource objectives of the General Plan, except where the extension is needed to address a clear public health hazard.

Policy DE-190: Development of residential, commercial, or industrial uses shall be supported by water supply and wastewater treatment systems adequate to serve the long-term needs of the intended density, intensity, and use.

Policy DE-191: Land use plans and development shall minimize impacts to the quality or quantity of drinking water supplies.

Coastal Element: Mallo Pass Creek to Iversen Road Planning Area (Irish Beach / Manchester / Point Arena)

Since 1965 the developers of Irish Beach Subdivision, just south of Mallo Pass Creek, have recorded 341 lots, typically about 15,000 square feet. Parcels allowing construction of another 58 units have been approved by the Coastal Commission in 1980. Other approvals by the County would allow the addition of 692 units, raising the possible total to 1,091. About 100 homes have been completed.

Irish Beach County Water District serves the subdivision and a septic system maintenance district recently has been formed. The Coastal Element places limitations on future development for Irish Beach.

Even when fully developed, Irish Beach is unlikely to support more than second homes and vacation rentals. The market in Manchester, Point Arena or the supermarket in Gualala will attract residents' major shopping trips. Irish Beach does need sites for a rental office, a community meeting room, and storage for fire equipment. A

55

view restaurant and inn or motel, could become viable projects as population grows. A site west of the highway adjoining the subdivision on the north would be ideal for visitor serving uses. The community center could be there or on a more centrally located open space parcel east of the highway. Development of commercial space should not be required as a permit condition at this time.

Minor modifications to the subdivision map and street system are needed to reduce the number of lots that have vehicular access only from Highway 1 and to connect all lots east of Highway 1 without requiring use of the highway.

The existing Caltrans viewpoint at Mallo Pass Creek provides a model for development elsewhere. The South Coast CAC has indicated that physical access to the nearby cove should not be permitted, as it would disturb the resident sea lions.

Relevant Special Districts

The IBWD is located remotely in reference to other special districts along the Mendocino coastline. The District informally shares operating resources with the Elk County Water District, approximately 8.7 miles to the north, which streamlines communication and monitoring efforts.

Within District boundaries and Study Area 1, the Redwood Coast Fire Protection District (RCFPD) provides fire protection services. The boundary of RCFPD is coterminous with the northern edge of IBWD boundaries. Study Area 2, the proposed annexation, currently lies outside of RCFPD boundaries and inside the Elk Community Service District, who also provides fire protection services.

DISCUSSION

PURPOSE This update and its analysis focuses on the Commission’s core policy interest to consider the District’s existing prescribed role in providing public water services to the Irish Beach subdivision. This involves considering the community’s need for IBWD’s services relative to the District’s ability to provide these services consistent with the Commission’s interests.

SELECTION The Primary Service Area of this update is the IBWD, and its SOI. There are two Study Areas considered within this update, Study Area 1 lies within the District boundary, and Study Area 2 lies adjacent to the District Boundary, within the SOI (Figure 1). The update will identify and evaluate areas warranting consideration for inclusion or exclusion in the IBWD’s SOI.

Study Area 1 encompasses nine parcels of coastal rangeland to the south of the Irish Beach subdivision and Irish Gulch; one parcel within this Study Area, APN 132-210-44, is petitioning for detachment from the District.

56

Study Area 2 contains two parcels (APN 131-110-04 and 131-110-36) on the coast to the north of the Irish Beach subdivision which, for the purposes of this update, will be known as the “Inn Site” or the Moore Annexation. These parcels are currently within the District’s SOI, and are proposed for annexation into the District.

EVALUATION FACTORS The SOI evaluation is organized to focus on addressing the five factors the Commission is required to consider anytime it makes a sphere determination under CKH, as addressed within the introduction. Policies specific to Mendocino LAFCo are also considered along with determinations, mentioned above,in administering the CKH Act in Mendocino County. This includes considering the merits of the SOI, or any changes, relative to the Commission’s seven interrelated policies, as summarized below, with respect to determining the appropriate SOI.

1. Territory that is currently receiving services from a local agency shall be considered for inclusion within that agency’s sphere. Territory that is projected to need services within the next 5-10 years may be considered for inclusion within an agency’s sphere, depending on a number of factors required to be reviewed by LAFCo. Additional territory may be considered for inclusion if information is available that will enable the Commission to make determinations as required by Section 56425.

2. Territory will not be considered for inclusion within a District’s SOI unless the area is included within the city’s general plan land use or annexation element.

3. A special district that provides services, which ultimately will be provided by another agency (e.g. mergers, consolidations) will be assigned a zero sphere.

4. When more than one agency can serve an area, agency service capabilities, costs for providing services, input from the affected community, and LAFCo’s policies will be factors in determining a sphere boundary.

5. If additional information is necessary to determine a sphere boundary a partial sphere may be approved and a special Study Area may be designated.

6. A local agency may be assigned a coterminous sphere with its existing boundaries if:

• There is no anticipated need for the agency’s services outside its existing boundaries. • There is insufficient information to support inclusion of areas outside the agency’s boundaries in a SOI.

• The agency does not have the service capacity, access to resources (e.g. water rights) or financial ability to serve an area outside its boundaries.

• The agency’s boundaries are contiguous with the boundaries of other agencies providing similar services.

• The agency’s boundaries are contiguous with the SOI boundaries previously assigned to another agency providing similar services.

• The agency requests that their SOI be coterminous with their boundaries.

57

7. If territory within the proposed sphere boundary of a local agency does not need all of the services of the agency, a service specific SOI may be designated.

ANALYSIS

PRIMARY SERVICE AREA The Primary Service Area of this update is the IBWD and its SOI. There are two Study Areas considered within this update, Study Areas 1 lies within the District boundary, and Study Area 2 lies adjacent to the District Boundary, within the SOI (See Figure X).

Irish Beach subdivision is located within the District boundary, but is not considered as a separate Study Area, as no changes are proposed for this area. The subdivision consists of approximately 460 parcels, of which 200 (43%) are developed. The Irish Beach subdivision primarily contains second homes.

The area upland and to the east from the Irish Beach Subdivision, within the District boundary, currently serves as timber production and is the area where the District places its infrastructure. No changes are proposed for this area. This area is primarily forest lands, with two parcels designated range land to the south. Forestlands are retained and suited for growing and harvesting timber, most of the parcels within this area are within a Timber Preserve Zone. Rangelands are retained and suited for grazing and forage for livestock and some timber producing areas.

All external lands immediately adjacent to IBWD’s jurisdictional boundary are designated for nonurban uses under the County General Plan as Forest Land and Range Land, and subject to the referenced 160 acre minimum lot density.

STUDY AREA 1 Study Area 1 encompasses nine parcels of coastal rangeland to the south of the Irish Beach subdivision and Irish Gulch. One parcel within this Study Area, APN 132-210-44, is petitioning for detachment from the District.

Present and Planned Land Use

The IBWD operates entirely under the land use authority of the County. Study Area 1 has a land use designation of range land. Rangelands are retained and suited for grazing and forage for livestock and some timber producing areas. Minimum new parcel size for range land designations is 160 acres. There are two residences located within the Study Area, located on APN 132-210-43.

Study Area 1 Parcel Inf o

APN Numbers Land Use Combining Zoning 132-210-33 Range Land --

132-210-37 Range Land --

132-210-38 Range Land --

58

132-210-39 Range Land --

132-210-40 Range Land --

132-210-41 Range Land --

132-210-42 Range Land --

132-210-43 Range Land --

132-210-44 Range Land Flood Plain

Determination 1: Study Area 1 is comprised of rangeland. There are two residences located within the Study Area, located on APN 132-210-43. Under LAFCo’s broad determination to exclude all agricultural or open-space lands from city and district spheres of influence, it is appropriate to exclude this area from IBWD’s SOI. The exception to this exclusion may be the parcel containing two residences, if they require water services from the District.

Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services

Study Area 1, though it is located within the District boundary, does not receive services from the IBWD. Study Area 1 receives fire protection services from Redwood Coast Fire Protection District and does not receive wastewater services. Given the land use designations and development of the area as discussed above, there does not appear to be a present need for water services. Future need is unlikely unless land-use designations change.

Determination 2: Study Area 1 does not currently receive services from IBWD. Future need is undetermined based on development and land-use designations.

Present Capacity of Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services

Study Area 1, though it is located within the District boundary, does not receive services from the IBWD. Given the land use designations and development of the area as discussed above, there is not a present need for water services. Future need is unlikely unless land-use designations change.

Determination 3: Study Area 1 does not currently receive services from IBWD and therefore the adequacy of public services is not applicable.

Social and Economic Communities of Interest

The Irish Beach subdivision serves as a social and economic community of interest for the IBWD and SOI area. While the area consists of residential development exclusively, it serves a second home and vacation community for the area. Study Area 1 is considered a part of the Irish Beach Community. It is within the IBWD current SOI boundaries and the District’s Primary Service Area.

The District provides water service where residential development exists within the subdivision. Irish Beach is remotely located on the rugged Mendocino Coast, 4.3 miles north of Manchester, 8.3 miles north of Point Arena, and 8.7 miles south of Elk.

Determination 4: Study Area 1 is considered a part of the Irish Beach Community. It is within the IBWD current SOI boundaries and the District’s Primary Service Area.

Present and Probable Need for Water, Sewer, or Fire Protection Services for Disadvantaged

59

Unincorporated Communities

LAFCo is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this SOI review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. A disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) is defined as any area with 12 or more registered voters where the median household income is less than 80 percent of the statewide median household income. Within a DUC, three basic services are evaluated: water supply, sewage disposal, and structural fire protection. The IBWD provides one of these services—water, and is not responsible for the other two basic services.

The District was established to serve the unincorporated community of Irish Beach, a subdivision with an estimated year-round population of 65 residents. The population increases by 250 seasonal residents at various times of the year (county-wide Mendocino water and wastewater MSR 2014).

The community of Irish Beach makes up a majority of the IBWD. However Irish Beach is not a ‘census designated place’ (CDP), therefore the median household income amount is not available. Because Irish Beach is primarily a ‘second home’ residential area with higher value homes, it is not expected that the community qualifies as a DUC.

Determination 5: It is not expected that the Irish Beach community qualifies as a DUC. There are no other communities within close proximity.

STUDY AREA 2 Study Area 2 contains two parcels (APN 131-110-04 and 131-110-36) on the coast to the north of the Irish Beach subdivision which, for the purposes of this update, will be known as the “Inn Site” or the Moore Annexation. These parcels are currently within the District’s SOI, and are proposed for annexation into the District.

Present and Planned Land Use

Though the area is not within District boundaries, it within the District’s current SOI. The IBWD operates entirely under the land use authority of the County. Present land use for Study Area 2 is range land. Rangelands are retained and suited for grazing and forage for livestock and some timber producing areas. Minimum new parcel size for range land designations is 160 acres. The owner APN 131-110-04 is in the process of working with the County of Mendocino to allow the special land use designation of Visitor Accommodation and Services of *2C for and inn, hotel, or motel.

LAFCo has a broad determination to exclude all agricultural or open-space lands from city and district spheres of influence, but there are limited exceptions. Since a parcel within the Area is in the process of acquiring special land use designations for Visitor Accommodation and Services of *2C, it is possible that the parcel may become eligible for under an exception.

Determination 6: Present land use for Study Area 2 is range land. A parcel within the Area is in the process of applying for a conditional use permit. This process may make the parcel eligible for SOI inclusion.

Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services

Study Area 2 does not currently receive services from the IBWD. The District is, however, obligated to serve the “Inn Site” through a contractual agreement with the property owner. Study Area 2 receives fire protection from the Elk Community Services District.

60

Determination 7: The Districts contractual agreement to serve the “Inn Site” represents a probable need for public facilities and services.

Present Capacity of Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services

Study Area 2 does not currently receive services from the IBWD. The District is, however, obligated to serve the “Inn Site” through a contractual agreement with the property owner. The District maintains that the current water system capacity is adequately sized for existing development with some room for growth. Additionally, the District address aging infrastructure need through a special reserve account set aside to fund improvements

Determination 8: Based on District reports that the current water system capacity is adequately sized for existing development and some growth, the District likely has capacity to serve present and near-future needs of the area for the 5 year planning horizon of this update.

Social and Economic Communities of Interest

The Irish Beach subdivision serves as a social and economic community of interest for the IBWD and SOI area. While the area consists of residential development exclusively, it serves as a second home and vacation community for the area. The present SOI area (Study Area 2) for the IBWD is linked to the District’s social and economic communities of interest. The Sphere area would rely on the District for customers and employees if development occurs. The District provides water service where residential development exists within the subdivision. Study Area 2 is within IBWD’s SOI and adjacent to the District’s Primary Service Area.

Study Area 2 receives services from the Elk Community Service District and therefore has direct ties to Elk community despite several miles of separation. Elk, and the other surrounding communities, though not directly adjacent to Irish Beach, could provide linkages for social and cultural community interests.

Determination 9: Study Area 2 is within IBWD’s SOI and adjacent to the District’s Primary Service Area. It receives fire protection services from the Elk Community Service District. Study Area 1 has community linkages with both the Irish Beach community and the Elk community.

Present and Probable Need for Water, Sewer, or Fire Protection Services for Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities See Study Area 1 discussion.

Determination 10: It is not expected that the community qualifies as a DUC. There are no other communities within close proximity.

SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS

Determination 1: Determinations will be added once they are finalized.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Both Study Areas would remain in the SOI.

61

References

-Mendocino County Coastal Element: Chapter 4 - Land Use Plan: Descriptions and Policies for Thirteen Planning Areas: _____

Mendocino County General Plan: Coastal Element. Adopted by Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. November 5, 1985 (Revised -- March 28, 1988, February 13, 1989, January 22, 1990, July 9, 1990, March 11, 1991)

Mendocino County General Plan: Coastal Element. Chapter 4- Land Use Plan: Descriptions and Policies for Thirteen Planning Areas: 4.9 Dark Gulch to Navarro River Planning Area. Albion Planning Area. Adopted by Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. November 5,

1985 (Revised -- March 28, 1988, February 13, 1989, January 22, 1990, July 9, 1990, March

11, 1991).

MSR, 2014. “Mendocino Local Agency Formation Commission, Final Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review: Caspar South Water District, Elk County Water District, Gualala Community Services District, Irish Beach Water District, Laytonville County Water District, Pacific Reefs Water District, Round Valley County Water District, Westport County Water District. October 2014.”. Prepared by: Kateri Harrison, SWALE, Inc.; Uma Hinman, Uma Hinman Consulting. Final approval October 6, 2014.

62

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXECUTIVE (CLOSED) SESSION

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION: SUBDIVISION (A) OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9:

WILLIAM H. MOORES ET AL. V. IRISH BEACH WATER DISTRICT, MENDOCINO SUPERIOR COURT NO. SC-UK-CV-G-09-0054665-000.

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED/POTENTIAL LITIGATION: SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OR (3) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9 (1 POTENTIAL CASE.

C. PER GOVERNMENT CODE §54957(b) (1): TO CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, AND EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE.

irish beach water district meeting packet september 12, … meeting packet 9_12_2015.pdfirish beach...

Documents