ITEM:††††††††††† ACTION ITEMS

 

17.†††††† WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT

 

††††††††††† B-1††††† CONSIDER FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER'S DECISION TO DENY A WATER USE CREDIT FOR AN OUTDOOR SPA PURSUANT TO MPWMD RESOLUTION 2001-09 -- GREGORY HANLON, 672 VAN BUREN CIRCLE, MONTEREY

 

††††††††††† B-2††††† PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON PROCESSING SIMILAR REQUESTS FOR WATER CREDITS

 

Meeting Date:†††††††††† December 15, 2003††††††††††††††† Budgeted: N/A

Program/Line Item No.: N/A

Staff Contact:             Stephanie Pintar††††††††††††††††††††Cost Estimate: No cost anticipated

 

General Counsel Approval:N/A†††††

Committee Recommendation: N/A

CEQA Compliance: N/A


SUMMARY: At the November 24, 2003 Board meeting, the Board agreed to grant Mr. Hanlonís appeal of a staff decision denying water credit for removal of an outdoor spa.Findings of Approval were not available for consideration at that meeting.Based on the action taken by Board at the November 24, 2003 meeting, staff has prepared the attached Findings of Approval (Exhibit 17-B-1 (A)). If adopted, the Findings of Approval will constitute the decision of the Board in this matter.For the benefit of the new Board members, a copy of the staff report from the November 24, 2003 meeting and the associated exhibits is attached as Exhibit 17-B-1(B).As the motion for approval of the Hanlon appeal did not contain a finding that made Mr. Hanlonís situation unique to him, other than a mention of the date of the water permit, staff is requesting further direction from the Board on the perceived new policy.

 

Due to the precedent setting nature of the Hanlon appeal, staff believes an amendment to District Rule 25.5, Water Use Credits, to allow a select group of permit-holders to obtain water credits, is necessary.The Boardís recommendation of November 24, 2003, would allow water credits for removal of outdoor water fixtures, multiple utility sinks and multiple showerheads when the jurisdiction and the District have evidence that a water permit was obtained and a connection charge paid for the fixture(s).Water credits would not be granted when any of the following situations occurred:

1.                  No connection charge was paid, but removal of another water fixture was required to offset an outdoor water fixture/multiple utility sink/multiple showerhead.

2.                  No connection charge was paid, but ultra low water consumption appliances were installed to offset an outdoor water fixture/multiple utility sink/multiple showerhead.As the ultra low water consumption appliance credit was used to permit the outdoor water fixture/multiple utility sink/multiple showerhead, credit is no longer available for the retrofitted appliances.

3.                  No connection charge was paid to the District, but the applicant paid the jurisdiction for water from a public water allocation to add an outdoor water fixture/multiple utility sink/multiple showerhead.

4.                  No connection charge was paid, but the jurisdictionís public water allocation was debited to add an outdoor water fixture/multiple utility sink/multiple showerhead.

 

RECOMMENDATION:†† Staff recommends the Board reconsider granting this appeal.At the minimum, the Board should consider the consequences approval of the appeal would have on other pending and completed projects.Since July 19, 2001, District staff has neither permitted nor granted credits for outdoor water fixtures, multiple utility sinks or multiple showerheads.

 

If the Board approves the Findings of Approval for the Hanlon appeal, staff should be directed to include the proposed modification to Rule 25.5 in draft Ordinance No. 111 before second reading and consideration of adoption.It should be noted that legal counsel might determine that this modification requires a new first reading of the ordinance.Therefore, depending on legal counselís determination, staff anticipates it will take two to four months to implement the modification.Staff should also be provided with direction on how staff should respond to similar applications pending the change in Rule 25.5.One option would be to direct staff to withhold processing Mr. Hanlonís and similar credit requests until after the adoption of modifications to Rule 25.5.

 

Staff should also be directed on how to address previously denied credit requests that may qualify for credit after this action and how to notify other potential credit holders.

 

 

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2003\2003boardpacket\20031215\ActionItems\17b1\item17b1.doc