August 21, 2003

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 4:20 PM in the District conference room

Committee members present: Molly Erickson

Alexander Henson

Committee members absent: Judi Lehman

Staff members present: Fran Farina, Acting General Manager

Stephanie Pintar, Water Demand Manager

Deborah Martin, Conservation Technician

Henrietta Stern, Project Manager

Arlene Tavani, Executive Assistant

2. STATUS REPORTS

A. Strategic Initiatives Report

Ms. Pintar reported that she was working with the District’s Chief Technology Officer on converting records in the Water Demand Division to an assessors’ parcel number based filing system, and uploading all the information to the District’s database. Ms. Pintar and her staff would prefer that the database be converted to an MS Windows based system so that the public can view information on-line. Programming for this effort will be outsourced. A request for qualifications and scope of work will be developed.

B. Update on Microphor Toilet Satisfaction Survey

District staff was directed to mail a letter or postcard to the persons who responded to the survey, thanking them for responding and inviting them to request notification of any meetings in which the Board will discuss this topic.

The committee discussed the results of the survey. The majority of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the toilets. Survey respondents also indicated that the units might not save water as expected because repeated flushes are required to clear the bowl. The committee expressed concern that the District was encouraging the use of, and in some cases requiring the use of a poorly functioning toilet that may not always meet water conservation requirements.

3. ACTION ITEMS

A. Provide Direction on Continuing Water Credit Incentives for 2-liter (1/2 gallon) Microphor Microflush Toilets

The committee agreed to recommend to the Board of Directors at the August 28, 2003 meeting that the requirement to install the 2-liter flush toilets be rescinded. As water credit based on the 2-liter toilet had been designated purely by administrative action, direction of the Chair can terminate it immediately. The water credit has never been authorized by a Board action. Therefore, no Board action is required to eliminate the credit. Chair Henson directed District staff to immediately discontinue accepting applications for residential and commercial projects that require installation of the 2-liter flush Microphor toilets, because among other things they repeatedly required multiple flushing. The toilets could be installed if an application has been deemed complete by the District and has been approved by the jurisdiction. These applicants should be notified that their application will be processed, but the District no longer recommends installation of the 2-liter toilets due to the results of the survey. Installation of the toilets will not be allowed in future projects. District staff was directed to send notification of the new policy to the jurisdictions, the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Builders Exchange and permit applicants that propose installation of the 2-liter flush Microphor. In addition, the information should be posted to the District’s web site. The notice should also specify that the 1-gallon flush toilet can be installed, but that the District has not yet tested the technology. If a property owner has installed the 2-liter flush Microphor, (deed restriction required), the owner can retrofit to a higher water use toilet, but must offset the increase in fixture units elsewhere in the building. The deed restriction will then be lifted.

B. Consider Approval of Contract for Water Demand Division Policies and Procedures Manual

The committee reviewed the information presented by District staff and recommended changes. The committee agreed to recommend to the Board of Directors that the contract for preparation of the Policies and Procedures Manual be awarded to Land Systems Group.

C. Consider Contract with Consultant to Prepare EIR on Termination of Water Credit Transfer Program

The committee members expressed concerns about the proposal submitted by Research Design Technology. They suggested that staff continue to find ways to reduce the cost for preparation of the EIR. The committee members agreed that they were not prepared to make a recommendation to the Board.

D. Discuss Response on Monterra Ranch 2001 and 2002 Annual Reports

Director Erickson briefly explained that water use at the Monterra Ranch and Pasadera developments is higher than was estimated in EIRs prepared for the projects. The concern is that water allocated to the developments will be exhausted before build-out is achieved. Acting General Manager Farina has scheduled meetings with Monterey County staff to discuss this situation.

E. Provide Direction on Continuing Allowance of Water Credit Incentives for 1.0 Gallon-per-Flush Toilets While Manufacturing Production Delays Continue

Ms. Pintar explained that the 1.0 gallon-per-flush unit is now available, and one will be installed at the District office. The committee agreed that the use of 1.0 gallon-per-flush toilets should be allowed, but that staff should inform applicants that the District cannot recommend their use because it has not tested the units.

F. Discuss Administrative Draft Vacant Legal Lot Study Phase II: Vacant Lots on Improved Parcels

Director Erickson expressed concerns about the report. She suggested several improvements, which are listed here, and agreed to submit additional comments in writing. (1) A list of what the report does not include should be provided. For instance, it should be clear that the report does not consider underutilized lots, and that the report does not analyze lots developed or created since 1997. (2) The report should clearly state that the District would never use it to establish an allocation for the lots that are included in the study. The jurisdictions allocate water to lots of record, not the District. (3) Why are only 3 vacant lots identified in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea? (4) Why are 145 lots within the City of Sand City shown on page 26 of the report not included in the total? (5) Why on page 26 of the report is there a mention of 148 multi-family units on 142 lots?

4. OTHER ITEMS

A. Set Meeting Dates for Future Water Demand Committee Meetings

The meeting was scheduled for September 23, 2003 at 8:15 AM.

5. DIRECTOR COMMENTS

There was no discussion under this item.

6. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS -- No discussion occurred on the following items.

A. Review Ordinance No. 109, Expanded Rebate Program

B. Review Ordinance No. 110, Amendments to Table 1, Residential Fixture Unit count

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

i. Summary of June 24 Action

ii. Administrative Actions Taken

iii. Discuss Parameters for Location of 2^nd Bathroom

D. Provide Direction on Baseline Conservation Requirements Amendments

E. Receive Report from Presidio of Monterey on Water Savings Associated with Waterless Urinals

F. Review and Recommend Modifications to Regulation 6 – Fees

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

H. Consider Revisions to Monthly Water Allocation program Report to Monitor Water Distribution Systems

7. ADJOURNMENT

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2003\2003boardpacket\20031117\InfoItems_Reports\9\item9_exh9e.doc