EXHIBIT 9-G

 

 

FINDINGS OF DENIAL

 

CONSIDER APPEAL OF GENERAL MANAGER'S DECISION TO DENY A WATER CREDIT FOR EXTERIOR USE – PATRICK & KATHRYN CRAIG, 802 17 MILE DRIVE, PACIFIC GROVE (APN 006-611-035)

 

September 18, 2006

 

 

1.      FINDING:  Patrick D. Craig and Kathryn A. Craig have appealed the General Manager’s decision to deny a water credit for exterior use for one parcel of 802 17 Mile Drive, Pacific Grove (Assessor’s Parcel Number 006-611-035). 

 

EVIDENCE: Application for Appeal attached as Exhibit 9-A.

 

2.      FINDING: District Rule 25.5-C (adopted May 17, 2004), describes the process for obtaining a water credit for exterior use on vacant lots and requires a site owner to submit clear and convincing evidence of historical landscaping and irrigation that was installed and consistently maintained since March 11, 1985. 

 

EVIDENCE: District Rule 25.5-C is attached as Exhibit 9-B.

 

3.      FINDING: The site owner failed to submit clear and convincing evidence of historical landscaping and irrigation that was installed and consistently maintained since March 11, 1985.

 

      EVIDENCE: Examples of acceptable evidence are dated photographs, official documents, permits or correspondence of the Jurisdiction, receipts or invoices for gardening services or purchases related to Landscaping and maintaining Landscaping on the Site.  No comparable evidence was submitted in support of the requested water credit.  Information submitted by Ms. Byrne in the letter dated April 22, 2006 (Exhibit 9-C) and staff observation as reported in the inspection report and photographs shown as Exhibit 9-E.

 

4.      FINDING: The applicant contends that the Rule 25.5-C documentation requirements are unreasonable as it is evident that both parcels have been used as one site. 

 

      EVIDENCE: Application for Appeal attached as Exhibit 9-A.

 

5.      FINDING: The applicant has provided evidence that the two parcels have been one site as defined in Rule 11 (Definitions) since prior to the District’s current permit requirements (Ordinance No. 21).  However, the fact that the two parcels make up one site has no relevance related to the landscaping requirement.

      EVIDENCE: District Rule 25.5-C (Exhibit 9-B) which states: “The District shall not exact a separate calculation for exterior water usage on a vacant lot or lot containing an uninhabitable structure when the owner of the Site has submitted clear and convincing evidence of landscaping and irrigation that was installed by and has been consistently maintained since March 11, 1985.”

 

6.      FINDING: Based on the information submitted by Ms. Byrne in a letter dated April 22, 2006 (Exhibit 9-C), the District denied credit for exterior water usage on the vacant parcel (Exhibit 9-D).

 

      EVIDENCE: Exhibit 9-C and Exhibit 9-D.

 

7.      FINDING: District staff performed an initial inspection on February 28, 2006 to document water fixtures in the residence.  A follow-up inspection was conducted on May 11, 2006 to document the appearance of the vacant parcel.  During the second inspection, staff observed significant changes to the landscaping compared to the photos submitted to the District in April 2006.  There were new palm trees and plants, drip lines were photographed on the newly planted trees, and a single hose bib was documented in the middle of the vacant parcel. 

 

            EVIDENCE: Inspection report and photographs shown as Exhibit 9-E. 

 

8.      FINDING: The District received additional information from Ms. Byrne on July 14, 2006.  The additional information included (1) a letter dated June 25, 2006 from the former property owner to the District, (2) a letter dated July 14, 2006 from Mr. Bruce Obbink of 835 Seventeen Mile Drive, Pacific Grove to the District, and (3) a revised Disclosure Statement (Ex Parte Communication).  The cover letter and attachments are shown as Exhibit 9-F. 

 

EVIDENCE:  Written statements based on personal knowledge do not provide historical evidence.  These letters were written for the purpose of this appeal and do not establish clear and convincing evidence of historical landscaping and irrigation. 

 

9.      FINDING: Approval of a water credit for exterior use for the vacant lot without clear and convincing evidence of historical exterior water usage on APN 006-611-035 would be contrary to District Rule 25-5-C.

 

                EVIDENCE: District Rules and Regulations and MPWMD Ordinance No. 115.

 

10.  FINDING: The appeal is denied due to the lack of clear and convincing evidence of historical exterior water usage on APN 006-611-035. 

 

      EVIDENCE: The above stated facts.

 

 

 

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2006\2006boardpackets\20060918\PubHrgs\09\item9_exb9g .doc