1. CONSIDER FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 96 -- AN ORDINANCE OFTHE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REVISING THE DEFINITION AND REGULATION OF WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS 

   ---


 

Meeting Date: November 20, 2000  Staff Contact: Henrietta Stern  General Counsel Approval: N/A   Committee Recommendation: N/A  CEQA Compliance: Negative Declaration adopted in August 2000

Budgeted: No  Program/Line Item No.: N/A  Cost Estimate: depends on action

 

RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommendations from the October 26, 2000 board meeting remain, including:

• Approve Draft-4 of the ordinance [with minor changes shown below];
• Decide on variation to use regarding water rights and regulation of single-connection water distribution systems ;
• Concur that the Conceptual Outline for Implementation Guidelines should be finalized if ordinance is adopted;
• Concur that definitions adequately clarify terms, including the word "controversy";
• Approve changes to permit fee structure (Rules 60 and 63);
• Confirm clarifications to existing Rules 54 and 57.

• Delete reference to "controversy" when processing the permit, or alternatively, ensure that concerns are based on factual evidence when raising a controversy (affects Section 3, Definitions, and Section 6, Action on Application).

 
• Consider compromise where Carmel Valley wells within 1,000 feet of the alluvial aquifer boundary or a tributary of the Carmel River be regulated; those greater than 1,000 feet would be exempt from Ordinance No. 96.

 
• Section 8 of ordinance should be removed, and this type of "housekeeping" should be contained in a separate ordinance that is needed regardless of the fate of Ordinance No. 96. Section 9, Fees, could similarly be addressed in the same separate "housekeeping" ordinance.

 
• Ordinance No. 96 should automatically sunset when California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) complies with State Water Resources Control Board Order WR 95-10.

BACKGROUND: Various drafts of Ordinance No. 96 have been considered at four noticed public hearings since April 2000. A Negative Declaration was adopted in August 2000. Please see the October 26, 2000 board information package for more information.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: None.

PRIOR BOARD ACTION: The Board has provided input on four previous occasions, but has taken no action to approve or deny Ordinance No. 96 to date.

IMPACT ON STAFF/RESOURCES: As described in the August 21 and October 26, 2000 information packages, staff believes it can manage the additional workload associated with Ordinance No. 96 so long as the single-connection system regulation is confined to the Carmel Valley alluvial aquifer and Seaside coastal areas. If the Carmel Valley upland areas are included (Variation D), another 10 to 50 applications per year would be generated. Additional staff or contract workers would be needed to process the total number of applications if Variation D is selected, and possibly if the compromise suggested by the Carmel Valley Property owners Association (1,000 feet from aquifer boundary or tributary) is selected.