August 15, 2005

1. FINDING: Mr. Mirabito is appealing a decision of District staff to deny a finding of “special circumstances” as allowed by District Rule 24-G, for a 62,900 square-feet self-storage use facility in Carmel Valley.

EVIDENCE: Application for Appeal attached as Exhibit 6-A.

2. FINDING: 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facility should be given special circumstances because “the District’s demand figure for storage facilities is outdated and based on high flow fixtures and non-drought tolerant landscaping.”

EVIDENCE: Application for Appeal attached as Exhibit 6-A.

3. FINDING: District staff denied special circumstances for the Mirabito self-storage project on April 8, 2005.

EVIDENCE: April 8, 2005 letter to Derinda Messenger, attached as Exhibit 6-B.

4. FINDING: To date, Mr. Mirabito has not provided sufficient evidence to influence the water demand factor for self-storage uses.

EVIDENCE: Application for Appeal attached as Exhibit 6-A.

5. FINDING: The General Manager may 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 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.”

EVIDENCE: District Rule 24-G.

6. FINDING: The Mirabito self-storage project was preliminary reviewed by District staff in 1999, and again in March 2000, at the request of Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department.

EVIDENCE: Correspondence on file at District office.

7. FINDING: 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.

EVIDENCE: Application for Appeal and records in the District’s files.

8. FINDING: There is a District factor for self-storage facilities, and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that his project significantly differs from the “self-storage” group.

EVIDENCE: 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.

9. FINDING: Approval of special circumstances for a self-storage facility based on the information presented in the file would tend to defeat the purposes of the District’s Rules and Regulations.

EVIDENCE: The above-stated facts.

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2005\2005boardpackets\20050815\PubHrgs\06\item6_exh6d.doc