EXHIBIT 17-B

DRAFT

FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE FROM MPWMD RULE 20-C-3 BY KINGMEN, INC (FRED KING): APN 103-121-002

Adopted by the MPWMD Board on March __, 2004

All evidence is on file and available for inspection at the MPWMD office, located at 5 Harris Court, Building G, Monterey (Ryan Ranch)

Finding 1:	Kingmen, Inc. (represented by Fred King) has properly submitted a request for a variance as defined by MPWMD Rule 90.
Evidence:	Application for variance from MPWMD Rule 20-C-3 and payment of fees received February 9, 2004; application and payment of fees for permit to create a water distribution system (WDS) received February 5, 2004.
Finding 2:	Rule 20-C-3 was created by MPWMD Ordinance No. 105, which became effective on January 15, 2003. Rule 20-C-3 sets deadline dates in 2003 by which: (a) a Monterey County well construction permit must be obtained; and (b) a well must be made active, registered, metered and inspected by District staff. If these deadlines are met, and the application is for a single-parcel connection system within a defined geographic boundary, the applicant is exempted from the need to obtain a permit to create a WDS.
Evidence:	MPWMD Rules and Regulations, revised November 2003.
Finding 3:	Rule 90, Variance, states that the Board may grant a variance from any provision of the standards incorporated into District Rules and regulations whenever it finds: (a) that special circumstances exist in a particular case; and (b) that practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship would result from the strict interpretation and enforcement of any such standard; and (c) granting of a variance would not tend to defeat the purposes of the Rules and Regulations.
Evidence:	MPWMD Rules and Regulations, revised November 2003.
Finding 4:	The applicant meets the Rule 20-C-3 criterion that the affected property is one legal parcel.
Evidence:	Application materials for APN 103-121-002, including grant deed for property.
Finding 5:	The applicant meets the Rule 20-C-3 well location criterion as the subject parcel lies outside of the mapped area 1,000 feet from the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer or 1,000 feet from Tularcitos, Hitchcock Canyon, Garzas, Robinson Canyon or Potrero Creeks, and is within the Carmel River Basin.
Evidence:	District maps showing location of APN 103-121-002; and boundaries of alluvial aquifer, 1,000-foot regulatory area and Carmel River Basin.
Finding 6:	The applicant meets the Rule 20-C-3 deadline for receiving a Monterey County well permit before January 15, 2003.
Evidence:	Monterey County Health Department well construction permit #02-080 issued on May 20, 2002.
Finding 7:	The applicant did not meet the Rule 20-C-3 deadline to make the well active, register the well with MPWMD, meter the well, have the well inspected by MPWMD, and receive an approved MPWMD Water Meter Installation Inspection form issued on or before June 30, 2003.
Evidence:	MPWMD well registration and reporting files.
Finding 8:	The applicant could have fully met the requirements of Rule 20-C-3 were it not for the effect of ongoing litigation, which has since been resolved. These legal proceedings prevented the applicant from complying with the June 30, 2003 time limit as required by Rule 20-C-3. These events can be viewed as “special circumstances.”
Evidence:	Applicant’s “Chronology of Events” dated February 18, 2004. Supporting documentation for each event, including Monterey County permit applications and approved permits, certified copies of legal documents, photographs of well drilling activities on the property, and correspondence with the Monterey County Planning Department regarding permits for construction of a home on the property. Monterey County Superior Court ruling (Case No. M61991, Consolidated Master Case) dated October 17, 2003, with litigation history, which dismisses all actions against the applicant.
Finding 9:	The applicant obtained a County well construction permit in May 2002, and began well construction in November 2002. In a normal situation, there would have been adequate time to complete, register, meter and inspect the well by June 30, 2003.
Evidence:	Copies of Monterey County well construction permit #02-080 issued May 20, 2002; photographs of well construction in November 2002; Superior Court temporary injunction to stop road and well construction dated November 18, 2002. Staff experience based on MPWMD well registration and reporting files, as reflected in 6-month time line in MPWMD Rule 20-C-3.
Finding 10:	The original Monterey County well construction permit expired in May 2003, and was extended until July 2003. Another permit was obtained in October 2003, after litigation was resolved. This date exceeded the January 15, 2003 deadline in Rule 20-C-3.
Evidence:	Copies of Monterey County well construction permit #02-080 dated May 20, 2002; 60-day extension to July 20, 2003 in MCHD letter dated May 7, 2003 (E. Karis); new well construction permit #03-02223 issued October 2, 2003.
Finding 11:	The applicant pursued other Monterey County permits to build a home on the subject property in a diligent manner. Consideration by the County Planning Department was tabled in May 2003 due to lack of a well, pumping test results and inspection of the well by the Health Department.
Evidence:	“Chronology of Events” dated February 18, 2004 submitted by applicant. Supporting documentation showing correspondence with and action by Monterey County Planning & Building Inspection, and Health Departments (e.g., letter from Michael McCormick dated May 2, 2003).
Finding 12:	The applicant asserts financial hardship due to litigation which prevented his meeting the requirements of Rule 20-C-3. The applicant also notes that the delay has had a negative effect on his ability to build a home on the property, and has caused additional expense related to his outstanding construction. He notes that a WDS permit would require a fee of $2,450 and would take an additional 2-4 months to process. This time and cost would compound the applicant’s financial hardship.
Evidence:	Application materials dated February 9, 2004 and letter from applicant dated February 11, 2004. MPWMD Rule 60. State of California Permit Streamlining Act.
Finding 13:	Granting a variance to Rule 20-C-3 would not tend to defeat the purposes of the MPWMD Rules and Regulations because the rule is associated with a restricted “window in time” that passed in June 2003, and applied to a limited number of property owners who were in progress with wells in December 2002, when MPWMD Ordinance No. 105 was adopted. District staff is unaware of any other applicant who could take advantage of a variance of this type.
Evidence:	MPWMD Rule 20-C-3; MPWMD well registration and reporting files.

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2004\2004boardpacket\20040315\PublicHearings\17\item17_exh17b.doc

March 10, 2004 at 4:15 PM