September 23, 2003

I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

The meeting was called to order at 8:20 AM in the District Conference Room.

Committee members present: Zan Henson, Molly Erickson, Judi Lehman

Committee members absent: None

Staff members present: Fran Farina, General Manager

Stephanie Pintar, Water Demand Manager

Gabriella Ayala, Conservation Representative II

Arlene Tavani, Executive Assistant

2. ACTION ITEMS

a. Receive Report from Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. on Water Conservation Efforts at the Presidio of Monterey

Bill Davis of Planning & Management Consultants, Ltd. made a presentation to the committee that is on file at the District office. Following the presentation, Ms. Pintar advised the committee that water credit for retrofit of the SOMAT disposal system should be listed as 8.468 acre-feet per acre (afa), not 10.35 afa as stated in the written staff report.

The committee requested that the item be brought back for further consideration at the October Water Demand Committee meeting. Staff was directed to revise the estimate of water savings for the SOMAT disposal system based on current water use of 2.5 gallons-per-minute (gpm), instead of 2 gpm as was originally estimated. In addition, staff should obtain the actual historic water use records for the Presidio, and compare them to water use estimates that were provided by the applicant.

During the discussion, it was suggested that staff provide estimates of water savings that have been realized by other entities that have retrofitted urinals with waterless urinals. Another suggestion was to recalculate the amount of water credit to be granted for installation of the waterless urinals by reducing the suggested amount of 9.063 afa by 10, 20 or 30 percent. It was also suggested that any miscalculation of the amount of water saved by installation of the waterless urinals would be balanced by the reduction in outdoor water use that has been achieved by the Presidio.

b. Provide Direction on Processing Requests for Reassignment of Water Credits to Adjacent Properties on One Site

The committee recommended that water credits be transferred across parcel or lot lines only to contiguous lots that contain a habitable dwelling. Water credits should not be transferred in order to construct a new dwelling. The jurisdiction’s definition of habitable dwelling should be utilized. The District’s definition of habitable dwelling should also be considered. If the two definitions do not agree, staff will bring the issue to the Board for review. The committee recommended that staff cease from processing any water credit transfer applications that do not meet this criteria. In addition, District staff must determine what type of rule change this new direction required. If development of a resolution or ordinance were necessary, staff would proceed with presenting the issue to the committee or the Board. A concern was raised about the many hours expended by staff to process water credit transfers. One proposal to address this issue was to increase the fee for processing water credit transfers. Director Lehman left the meeting at 9:50 AM during discussion of this item.

The following comments were directed to the committee during the public comment period on this item. (1) Keith Domnick read a letter dated September 23, 2003 that is on file at the District office. He stated that he has followed all the District’s regulations in order to obtain a water credit transfer and requested that staff be directed to immediately proceed with completion of his application. (2) Tim Allen requested that applicants who are in the process of completing all requirements for a water credit transfer should be exempt from any change in the rules. (3) McKenzie Patterson stated that applicants for a water credit transfer must obtain one permit for the property that contains water credits, and another permit for the receiving property. He proposed that due to the length of time it takes to complete the water transfer process, if an applicant has obtained one of the permits the project should be exempt from the new rule. (4) Christine Gianascol Kemp urged the committee not to change the water credit transfer policy. She also recommended that water credit transfer applications should be processed for projects that: (a) include contiguous lots with a common ownership; (b) have completed the county permit process; (c) have water release forms; (d) and a documented water credit. (5) George Bremmer expressed agreement with comments made by previous speakers. He proposed that in order to reduce the District’s permit processing costs, the applicant should be required to prepare the deed restriction forms for District Counsel’s review. (6) Virginia Collister expressed support for comments made by previous speakers. She stated that due to the District’s ever-changing rules, she has been unable to sell two contiguous lots her family owns in the City of Carmel. (7) George Probasco asked the committee to clarify its concern about the transfer of water credits across continuous properties. Was there a concern that the process was too time consuming for staff, or was there another issue that had not been voiced? (8) McKenzie Patterson presented a letter that analyzed typical water use of 0.5 Microphor toilets. The document is on file at the District office. He stated that many water credit transfers were predicated on the installation of 0.5 flush toilets, and that the Board made a mistake when it moved to discontinue the use of those toilets.

c. Review Ordinance No. 111, Amending MPWMD Rules and Regulations to Clarify Definitions for Water Distribution Systems Reliant Upon Desalination Processes

This item was continued to a future committee meeting.

d. Review Provisions of Ordinance No. 98, Second Bathroom Ordinance, and Consider Recommendation(s) to Board of Directors

Summary of June 24 Action

Administrative Actions Taken

Discuss Parameters for Location of Second Bathroom

This item was continued to a future committee meeting.

e. Provide Direction on Baseline Conservation Requirements Amendments

This item was continued to a future committee meeting.

3. STATUS REPORTS

There was no discussion of these items.

4. APPROVE MINUTES

There was no discussion of this item.

5. OTHER ITEMS

a. Set Meeting Dates for Future Water Demand Committee Meetings

Two meetings were scheduled: October 10, 2003 at 8:15 AM and October 15, 2003 at 8:15 AM.

6. DIRECTOR COMMENTS

There were no comments from the Directors.

7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

a. Review Baseline Conservation Ordinance

b. Review and Recommend Modifications to Regulation 6 – Fees

c. Formulate Policy on Timing of Documentation of Water Use Credits

d. Consider Revisions to Monthly Water Allocation Program Report to Monitor Water Distribution Systems

e. Review Ordinance No. 110, Amendments to Table 1, Residential Fixture Unit Count

There was no discussion of these items.

8. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:20 AM.

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2003\2003boardpacket\20031020\InfoItems\4\item4_exh4c.doc