ITEM:		PUBLIC HEARING
13.	CONSIDER REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM DISTRICT RULE 23-B-2-a REQUIRING A SEPARATE WATER METER FOR EACH WATER USER AT 10 VISTA LADERA, CARMEL VALLEY (APN 187-111-027) –APPLICANT: ELAINE RANKIN
Meeting Date:			August 15, 2011		Budgeted:	N/A
From:				Darby Fuerst,	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: Mrs. Elaine Rankin is requesting a variance from District Rule 23 (Variance Application attached as Exhibit 13-A and Rule 23 (with relevant text highlighted) attached as Exhibit 13-B). Rule 23 requires a separate water meter for each Water User. The Rankins constructed a caretaker unit at their home at 10 Vista Ladera, Carmel Valley, in 1994 (MPWMD Water Permit No. 14059 shown as Exhibit 13-C). The unit includes a full Bathroom and Kitchen Sink and required a separate water meter. The Rankins did not install a water meter for the caretaker unit, instead connecting the Dwelling Unit to the existing California American Water service Connection. Mrs. Rankin is requesting a variance to the metering requirement at this time due to the hardship she would endure if she had to install a new water line and meter to supply water to the caretaker unit.

DISCUSSION: MPWMD was contacted by Monterey County earlier this year when Mrs. Rankin applied for a building permit to allow the caretaker unit to be rented as a second unit. MPWMD had not been contacted to conduct a final inspection prior to that contact and was unaware that a meter had not been installed pursuant to MPWMD Water Permit 14059. During discussions with Mrs. Rankin, it became apparent that her property was non-compliant with the Water Permit conditions and that compliance would be required before the County would act on her application.

As a first step in complying with the District’s requirements, Mrs. Rankin obtained a quote from John Ford Construction to install the water line, booster pump system and backflow needed to separately plumb the caretaker unit. The Rankin property is located more than 1,100 feet up a private road (Vista Ladera) in Carmel Valley. Water meters for Vista Ladera residents are located on La Rancheria (a road lower down the hill), and the Rankin residences are located along a steep hillside and require a booster pump and pressure tank to deliver water. The quote from John Ford Construction (attached in Exhibit A) was $65,000. The location of this property in relation to the water main appears to meet the definition of Special Circumstances as being an unusual, uncommon, peculiar, unique or rare situation that requires Board consideration.

District Rule 90 (Exhibit 13-D) enables the Board to exercise its discretion by granting a variance in select circumstances. Rule 90 provides, in part,

“The Board may, after holding a public hearing, in specific cases, grant a variance from any provision of the standards incorporated into these Rules and Regulations whenever it finds: (a) that Special Circumstances exist in a particular case, and (b) that practical difficulties or Undue Hardship would result from the strict interpretation and enforcement of any such standard, and (c) that the granting of such a variance would not tend to defeat the purposes of these Rules and Regulations.”

District Rule 11 provides further definition to some of the terms used in Rule 90, including “Special Circumstances” which is defined to mean “unusual, uncommon, peculiar, unique or rare situations that require Board consideration” and “Undue Hardship” which means “a condition that exists when compliance with a rule, regulation or condition poses significant difficulty when considered in light of unique circumstances related to the application.”

Rule 90 allows the Board to place conditions upon the grant of any variance. Also, after hearing the variance, the Board has discretion in unusual matters to reduce and rebate in full or in part the $250.00 fee set by Rule 60. The Board must adopt findings to support any determination it makes on this variance request.

Mrs. Rankin is requesting a variance from the separate metering requirement based on the Undue Hardship the cost of metering her caretaker unit would cause her. In addition to the fact that her home is located some distance from the location of the water meter, Mrs. Rankin is 84 years old and living on a fixed income and needs to rent the unit to generate enough income to stay in the home she and her late husband built in 1975. Mrs. Rankin’s request is to have the requirement for a second water meter for her property waived due to the extreme expense of metering and delivering the water to the one-bathroom caretaker unit located above the garage of her home. She has agreed to install an in-line meter to monitor water usage in the caretaker unit, if necessary.

Factors against granting the variance are that many other applications are subject to this same criteria, as District Rule 23-B-2-a specifically states: “All new water use permitted by the District shall install a separate water meter to each User.”  By granting a variance, the Board could essentially nullify the separate meter standard that it has previously set for caretaker units.  A similar rule was in place at the time the Rankin’s Water Permit was issued in 1994.  Importantly, the Board will need to find that waiving the separate water meter requirement does not tend to defeat the purposes of the MPWMD Rules and Regulations if a variance is granted.

Separate metering by the Water Distribution System enables a water User to be responsible for their water use. During times of rationing, separate meters allow MPWMD to enforce water rationing through flow restrictors and through fees for excessive use. In-line water meters do not provide for this same monitoring, as in-line water meters are not read by the Owner of a Water Distribution System and installing a flow restrictor in a service with an in-line meter will affect all water Users on the service. Metering of individual Dwelling Units by the Water Distribution System (including caretaker units) has been enforced since 1985.

RECOMMENDATION: The Board should determine if a variance to the metering requirement should be granted, and adopt findings in support of that action. Staff has prepared draft Findings of Approval (Exhibit 13-E) and Findings of Denial (Exhibit 13-F) for consideration by the Board.

EXHIBITS

13-A Application for Variance

13-B MPWMD Rule 23

13-C MPWMD Water Permit 14059

13-D MPWMD Rule 90

13-E Draft Findings of Approval

13-F Draft Findings of Denial

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2011\20110815\PubHrng\13\item13.docx