ITEM:		ACTION ITEM
14.	PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING WATER PERMITS AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Meeting Date:			October 15, 2012	Budgeted:	N/A
From:			David J. Stoldt	Program/		N/A
			General Manager	Line Item No.:
Prepared By:			Stephanie Pintar	Cost Estimate:	N/A
General Counsel Review: N/A
Committee Recommendation: Referred to Board by Water Demand Committee. TAC reviewed October 9, 2012.
CEQA Compliance: Initial Study.

SUMMARY: Public schools must improve and expand their facilities to meet student demand at unpredictable times, often without involvement of the local Jurisdiction and Water District. Although District rules require a Water Permit before a building permit is issued, the schools generally do not go through the local building departments (they permit through the State Architect). Because of this, they miss the local building department review for the Water Permit and receive building approvals without a Water Permit. Although MPWMD has contacted the State Architect about this problem in the past, several projects in the past few years have been constructed without District permits. Staff has been working with these school districts to identify ways to correct the situation.

For the school district’s to obtain Water Permits for the projects that were built without permits, there is a requirement to either offset the new demand or obtain water from the Jurisdiction’s Allocation. The problem is that water is not available in the Jurisdiction’s Allocation to cover the expansion needs, which leaves the school needing to retrofit to offset the projected demand. In at least one case (Carmel River School), the school has installed all of the most water efficient fixtures available, but still does not have sufficient credit to offset the capacity of the new projects.

DISCUSSION: In an effort to identify potential solutions to the permitting dilemma, superintendents of the school districts, facilities managers, and District staff met several times to discuss alternative permitting concepts. The concepts resulting from these meetings were discussed with the District’s Water Demand Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).

1. Single Site School District. Allow a School District to be considered as a single Site (within the MPWMD), therefore allowing offsets from different facilities. The Monterey Peninsula Unified School District has facilities in Seaside, Monterey and Del Rey Oaks. Carmel Unified and Pacific Grove Unified have facilities that are all located within a single Jurisdiction. This scenario would allow a school district’s Water Use Credit to be moved between facilities.

2. Authorize Water Use Credits for replacement of established turf sports fields with synthetic turf. Current District rules do not allow a Water Use Credit for removal of Landscaping unless the Landscaping was specifically identified, quantified, and permitted by the District.

3. Require implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Once BMP’s have been achieved at all facilities and for all irrigated areas, and there are no other feasible water saving measures available, a public school district should receive Water Permit waivers (i.e. exemptions) for all necessary future expansion/improvements.

4. Municipal Site Water Credit. Water Use Credits generated by retrofits undertaken on a Public Site used by a school district could be transferred for use on a public school district Site. This process is currently available via Rule 28, Water Use Credit Transfers. However, it is necessary to undertake costly California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review prior to the Board considering a transfer. It would also require the Jurisdiction’s participation and authorization to transfer the credit.

The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) discussed this item on October 9, 2012. The TAC recommended the Board consider the four options presented in the staff report.

RECOMMENDATION: The Board should discuss the proposed school permitting concepts and provide direction to staff. Options 1 through 3 identified in this staff report will require implementation by ordinance.

IMPACTS ON STAFF/RESOURCES: No significant impacts on staff/resources.

EXHIBIT

None

U:\staff\Boardpacket\2012\20121015\ActionItem\14\item14.docx