ITEM:		PUBLIC HEARINGS
6.	CONSIDER APPEAL OF DISTRICT STAFF’S DECISION THAT RULE 24-G--SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, DO NOT APPLY TO STORAGE PRO SELF STORAGE FACILITY (MIRABITO), APNS: 169-131-002 & 003
Meeting Date:			August 15, 2005	Budgeted:	N/A
From:			David A. Berger,	Program/	N/A
			General Manager	Line Item No.:
Prepared By:			Stephanie Pintar	Cost Estimate:	N/A
General Counsel Review: Yes
Committee Recommendation: N/A
CEQA Compliance: N/A

SUMMARY: Mr. Steve Mirabito is appealing a decision of the General Manager denying a finding of “special circumstances” as allowed by District Rule 24-G for a 62,900 square-feet self-storage facility in Carmel Valley (Storage Pro Self Storage Facility). Mr. Mirabito’s appeal application is shown at Exhibit 6-A. The District’s April 8, 2005 denial of special circumstances is shown at Exhibit 6-B.

Mr. Mirabito contends that the proposed self-storage facility should be given special circumstances because “the District’s demand figure for storage facilities is outdated and based on high flow fixtures and non-drought tolerant landscaping.” Mr. Mirabito has submitted information related to other self-storage facilities for the District’s consideration. The information submitted to date (attached to the application shown at Exhibit 6-A) does not provide sufficient historical use or other hard documentation to substantiate the use of an alternative water demand factor.

District Rule 24-G allows the General Manager to make an adjustment to the connection charge (and corresponding water demand calculation) “based upon projected use figures, which are clearly more accurate and reliable (based upon historical use or other hard documentation) than the regional average methodology used to substantiate the fixture unit or projected water use category methods. Calculation of any charge shall be made by use of regional averages should any reasonable question arise with respect to the projected use figures for a particular expansion/extension permit or amended permit.” Determinations of the General Manager pursuant to this subdivision may be appealed to the Board.

The Mirabito self-storage project was preliminarily reviewed by District staff in 1999, and again in March 2000, at the request of Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department. In 2000, staff responded to an Initial Study and verified the water use factors that would be used to determine the credit and demand associated with the proposed change in use from a potter’s studio and single-family dwelling to a self-storage facility and caretaker’s unit. In correspondence to Monterey County Supervising Planner, Jeff Main, dated March 3, 2000, (Exhibit 6-C), District staff emphasized the (current) water use factors that would be applied to the self-storage facility project when it was reviewed by the District. The letter refers to two alterative water demand estimates proposed by Mr. Roger Fry of Camp, Dresser & McKee. One proposal was dated October 24, 1999, and was presented on CDM letterhead, and the second was dated March 1, 2000, and was not on CDM letterhead. At that time, District staff stated: “Please note that Mr. Fry’s analysis did not utilize the District’s procedures for calculating existing water demand and projecting future water demand on the property.” The District’s response continues with a discussion on the District’s method for calculating commercial water demand for the proposed self-storage facility project.

More recently, on September 23, 2005, District staff commented on the Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department proposed Vesting Tentative Map (PLN 020280) for the Mirabito project. The project is essentially the same project that was preliminary reviewed in 1999 and 2000. Based on the description of the project, District staff notified the County that the proposed project would fall entirely under the District’s standard water factor for self-storage.

RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has not provided projected use figures which are clearly more accurate and reliable (based upon historical use or other hard documentation) than the regional average methodology used to substantiate the fixture unit or projected use category methods. Therefore, staff recommends the Board deny this appeal and adopt the Findings of Denial shown as Exhibit 6-D. District Rule 24-G states that the “calculation of any charge shall be made by use of regional averages should any reasonable question arise with respect to the projected use figures for a particular expansion/extension permit or amended permit.” As there is a factor for self-storage facilities, and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that his project significantly differs from the “self-storage” category, the District’s self-storage factor should be applied to this application. The District’s self-storage factor should be applied to this application per Rule 24. Allowing a water permit to be issued at a lower quantity than the District’s factor for self-storage facilities without hard documentation supporting a modification would be contrary to District Rule 23.

On August 5, 2005, the applicant’s attorney, Derinda Messenger, informed staff that additional information related to other self-storage facilities may be forthcoming. District staff informed Ms. Messenger that new information submitted after August 5, 2005 will not be reviewed prior to the public hearing. Staff recommends the Board should not consider any new information insofar as this is an appeal, and if such new data is deemed relevant, the Board at most should consider referring the matter back to staff. 

BACKGROUND: Water permits for nonresidential water uses are based on a theoretical water demand capacity. The water demand capacity is usually determined by using regional average water use records from other similar or identical uses that are broken down into water use per square-foot or other measurements. In situations where the proposed project is unique, or where there is limited information about the water used by the proposed project, staff may request information from the project proponent, including water use records for other businesses of the same type from other areas and/or professional water use analyses. This information is then verified by staff to determine the appropriate water demand and the appropriate connection charge for a project.

Special circumstances exist if a project does not fall within a commercial water use category listed on Table II of Rule 24, and if there is no accurate and reliable method to project water use for that site. Table II, Commercial Water Use Factors, in District Rule 24 lists the water use factor for self-storage as a Group III use. Staff prepared an evaluation of local self-storage facilities in the early 1990's. There were five sample facilities used in the commercial survey of self-storage facilities in this area. Staff does not believe there has been sufficient water use information for other self-storage facilities from the applicant to adjust the water factor at this time.

Updating the commercial water use factors was part of the Strategic Initiative approved by the Board in 2002 to “Revise the Water Permit Processes.” In 2003, the Water Demand Committee recommended that staff pursue other components of the initiative, including the database upgrade, before the water use factors are updated. Staff was directed to improve the data management systems and prepare a policies and procedures manual. Updating the commercial water use records was listed as third priority, based on a number of potential difficulties in achieving the goal.

Mr. Mirabito is asking the Board to adjust the current factor and allow a water permit to be issued at a lower quantity than the District’s factor for self-storage facilities, based on one-year historic water use for a similar facility. District staff reviewed the proposed water demand analysis provided by CDM. The report reviewed a portion of the water demand of one other self-storage facility in Northern California and referred to other facilities. The CDM report did not provide historic water use for more than one year, or for more than one facility; nor did it consider the exterior (irrigation) use of the facility that was reviewed.

EXHIBITS

6-A Appeal Request

6-B District’s April 8, 2005 Denial of Special Circumstances

6-C March 3, 2000 Letter to Supervising Planner, Jeff Main

6-D Findings of Denial

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2005\2005boardpackets\20050815\PublicHrgs\06\item6.doc