MPWMD RULES AND REGS REVIEW COMMITTEE--APR 5, 2005--EXHIBIT 3F--STAFF REPORT AND MIN FROM JAN 20, 2004 WATER DEMAND COMMITTEE MEETING

EXHIBIT 3-F

WATER DEMAND COMMITTEE

MEETING DATE: JANUARY 20, 2004

ACTION ITEM 2-D: REVIEW PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 98, SECOND BATHROOM ORDINANCE, AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION(S) TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS

SUMMARY: Ordinance No. 98 (Exhibit D-1) allows the addition of a second bathroom to an existing one bathroom single-family dwelling without debiting the jurisdiction’s water allocation. The ordinance was adopted on April 16, 2001 to respond to modern quality-of-life standards that recognize that a second bathroom in a home is primarily for convenience and would not add significant water use. Ordinance No. 98 is scheduled for its annual review by the Board in February 2004 to determine whether or not amendment or revocation is warranted. Although the ordinance contains an annual review provision, this will be the first review in the three years since adoption.

On June 24, 2003, the Water Demand Committee reviewed both the provisions of the ordinance and a number of issues identified by staff related to administration of Ordinance No. 98 (Exhibit D-2). The Water Demand Committee provided guidance to staff on several interpretive issues that could be addressed administratively (Exhibit D-3). The Committee delayed final review of the ordinance until water consumption records for program participants could be obtained from Cal-Am. The Ordinance No. 98 discussion was scheduled to continue on September 23, 2003, but the item was postponed due to time constraints.

The Water Demand Committee should review the general provisions of Ordinance No. 98 and the administrative issues identified in the Discussion Section below. As the Board will be determining whether or not amendment or revocation of the ordinance is warranted at the February meeting, the Water Demand Committee should formulate recommendations for Board consideration on February 19, 2004.

DISCUSSION: Ordinance No. 98 issues that were presented to the Water Demand Committee on June 24, 2003. A detailed summary of each issue is followed by the action taken by the former Water Demand Committee on June 24, 2003 (shown as “FORMER COMMITTEE ACTION”). Recommendations from the new Water Demand Committee are critical to presenting this item to the Board at the February 19, 2003 Board meeting, and staff has suggested action for the new Water Demand Committee to consider at the end of the issue discussion. Staff’s current recommendation is shown as “CURRENT RECOMMENDATION”. Issues 3 and 4 relate to the December 15, 2003, action item on Ordinance No. 98 bathrooms that was discussed by the Board at Director Pendergrass’ request.

1. ISSUE: Persons taking advantage of Ordinance No. 98 are also able to take advantage of conservation incentives (i.e., low-flow dishwashers, washing machines, instant-access hot water systems and 1-gallon per flush low flush toilets) or other on-site credit from removing fixtures such as utility sinks and swimming pools to install additional bathrooms. Staff is questioning whether the addition of more than two bathrooms (one with Ordinance No. 98 and additional ones using other credits) might defeat the original intent of the ordinance and the CEQA finding that supported the ordinance. The CEQA finding stated: “The addition of a second bath responds to modern quality-of-life standards in California that recognize that a second bathroom to an existing residence with only one bathroom is primarily for the purpose of convenience (e.g., to accommodate the privacy concerns of parents with growing children or busy working couples) and would not add significant water use.”

FORMER COMMMITTEE ACTION: Persons taking advantage of Ordinance No. 98 to add a bathroom should be limited to two bathrooms. A deed restriction should enforce the two-bathroom limitation provision. If a person desires to add multiple bathrooms, they would not meet the criteria for the “free” Ordinance No. 98 second bathroom. Board action by ordinance is necessary to bring about this policy interpretation.

CURRENT RECOMMENDATION: The Committee should consider its position on this issue.

2. ISSUE: Prior to Ordinance No. 98, some applicants added a second bathroom by replacing the existing toilet with a half-gallon-per-flush model and by installing a half-gallon-per-flush toilet in the new bathroom, in addition to installing all the conservation incentives available, such as low-flow dishwashers and washing machines. Some property owners who installed a half-gallon-per-flush toilet in a second bathroom would like to upgrade the toilets to 1.6 gallon-per-flush as allowed by Ordinance No. 98.

FORMER COMMITTEE ACTION: Postpone discussion on this issue until the results of the half-gallon toilet survey have been received.

CURRENT RECOMMENDATION: The results of the half-gallon toilet satisfaction survey are included in the January 20, 2004 staff report on draft Ordinance No. 111 (Item 2-C). Staff would recommend the committee consider recommending allowing toilet upgrades to 1.6 gallons-per-flush if the property meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 98 (e.g. there are no more than two bathrooms).

3. ISSUE: Can the Ordinance No. 98 bathroom be designated as the Master Bathroom? Ordinance No. 98 allows a second bathroom that contains a toilet, a single tub, or a single tub/shower, or a single shower, and one or two washbasins. Ordinance No. 80 amended the fixture unit count for Master Bathrooms, and allows a large tub and a single-stall shower to be installed in a Master Bathroom for three fixture units, rather than four or five fixture units if the fixtures are calculated separately. As the water fixtures allowed by Ordinance No. 98 are in a sense “invisible” (e.g. there is no credit for any of these fixtures), it stands to reason that the master bathroom tub/shower discount cannot apply to an Ordinance No. 98 bathroom. The ordinance states: “No on-site, off-site or transfer of credit shall be granted for the removal or retrofit of any fixture added pursuant to this second bathroom accounting protocol.”

FORMER COMMITTEE ACTION: The following administrative processing directions were received from the former Water Demand Committee and transmitted to the Water Demand Division staff in the memo attached as Exhibit D-3:

A. Ordinance No. 98 bathrooms cannot be designated as the Master Bathroom.

CURRENT RECOMMENDATION: The Committee should consider its position on this issue. A person presently has the option of installing a separate tub and shower in an Ordinance No. 98 bathroom, but the applicant must offset the entire fixture unit value of the new fixture. Board action by ordinance would be necessary to bring about a change in the accounting of Ordinance No. 98 fixtures to allow the Master Bathroom discount.

4. ISSUE: Ordinance No. 98 allows a second bathroom that contains a toilet, a single tub, or a single tub/shower, or a single shower, and one or two washbasins. The staff report for the first reading of Ordinance No. 98 stated that the ordinance allows the addition of a second sink in the bathroom addition, if the bathroom addition is considered the master bathroom. However, the ordinance itself does not reflect the requirement that the Ordinance No. 98 bathroom be designated as the Master Bathroom to have two sinks.

This issue is significant because connection charge accounting is different for a Master Bathroom. District Rule 24 allows a second washbasin to be added for free in the Master Bathroom (defined in Rule 11 as usually being located adjacent to the master bedroom). However, a home can have no more than one bathroom that is designated as the Master Bathroom.

A. Ordinance No. 98 bathrooms cannot be designated as the Master Bathroom;

B. The Ordinance No. 98 bathroom can have two sinks, but connection charges must be paid for the second sink.

CURRENT RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the applicant have the option of designating the Ordinance No. 98 bathroom as the Master Bathroom to avoid paying the connection charge for the second washbasin. However, the applicant would be required to fully offset, through either conservation incentives or water authorization from a jurisdiction, any water fixtures not specifically allowed in that bathroom by Ordinance No. 98 (e.g. a toilet, a single tub, or a single tub/shower, or a single shower, and one or two washbasins).

5. ISSUE: The ordinance is to be reviewed annually, along with its associated water use. However, no water consumption data had been compiled by the District as of the June 24, 2003 Water Demand Committee meeting, and water consumption records must be obtained from Cal-Am.

FORMER COMMITTEE ACTION: None taken. After discussions with Cal-Am staff, District staff submitted a formal request for consumption data from Cal-Am on August 25, 2003. Included in the request were copies of the individual deed restrictions giving the District access to water records.

CURRENT RECOMMENDATION: Water records were obtained from Cal-Am in October 2003. After inputting the information into a spreadsheet, staff determined that no definite conclusions could be drawn with the limited data as too little time had passed since the permit was issued. Evaluation of the pre- and post-permit water consumption will be of value several years after the second bathroom is added. Staff estimates that it will take until 2005 (two years) to begin to see a statistical value in the consumption records. It is also important to note that there are access problems that prohibit the District from obtaining Cal-Am consumption information when the customer’s name differs from the name on the District’s authorization to obtain water records.

Based on the limited post-project consumption data available for users of Ordinance No. 98, staff does not recommend including the consumption information in the 2004 annual review. Most of the records available show only one or two years post-project; not enough time has passed to adequately evaluate the consumption trend. Staff should be directed to annually collect and review the consumption data and to bring the data to the Board when the information becomes useful.

Staff should also be directed to work with Cal-Am to resolve the access issues. At this time, although the District has deed restrictions on the property that run with the land authorizing access to all water consumption records for a specified period of time, Cal-Am will not provide the records if the account is in a different name from the name on the deed restriction. Similarly, Cal-Am will not provide historic information if the account was in a different name. This has resulted in data gaps that make it difficult to sufficiently analyze consumption trends.

6. ISSUE: Ordinance No. 98 is being used to add second bathrooms to houses that were previously considered “multi-family” according to the Rules and Regulations. This is being accomplished by lot line adjustments and subdivisions, and by demolitions of multiple units on a property prior to application under Ordinance No. 98. The ordinance states: “Special fixture unit accounting shall apply to any expansion application that proposes to add a second bathroom to an existing single-family dwelling unit on a single-family residential site that, prior to the application, has only one bathroom.”

FORMER COMMITTEE ACTION: Ordinance No. 98 should only apply to single-family dwellings on single-family residential sites that met that definition as of the effective date of the ordinance, not the date of the application. Board action by ordinance is necessary to bring about this clarification.

CURRENT RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that an amendment be made to the Rule 24 to clarify the rule by specifying that the provisions of Ordinance No. 98 should only apply to single-family dwellings on single-family residential sites that met that definition as of the effective date of the ordinance.

7. ISSUE: Ordinance No. 98 bathrooms are being added in both attached and detached guest/auxiliary units. The special fixture unit accounting allowed by Ordinance No. 98 applies to any expansion application that proposes to add a second bathroom to an existing single-family dwelling unit on a single-family residential site that prior to the application has only one bathroom. The ordinance is ambiguous as to whether the Ordinance No. 98 bathroom must be located within the existing dwelling unit.

FORMER COMMITTEE ACTION: The former committee discussed modifying the language to clarify that the Ordinance No. 98 bathroom should not be used for a second unit of any kind. The second bathroom should be installed in the primary habitable space and should not be available for secondary uses. The committee directed that this discussion continue at a future meeting when the full committee was present.

CURRENT RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the committee support the position of the former Water Demand Committee as the ordinance was intended to respond to modern quality-of-life standards that recognize that a second bathroom in a home is primarily for convenience and would not add significant water use. Allowing the Ordinance No. 98 bathroom to be added to a portion of the property that is not within the primary habitable space has the potential of the bathroom being used in a secondary living unit. The possibility of creating secondary living units was not considered in the CEQA review of Ordinance No. 98. Board action by ordinance is necessary to bring about this clarification.

U:\staff\word\committees\RulesRegsReview\2005\20050405\03\item3_exh3f.doc