ITEM:		PUBLIC HEARINGS
15.	CONSIDER SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 118 REFINING THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PERMIT PROCESS, SETTING FEES, AND AUTHORIZING ENFORCEMENT
Meeting Date:			December 13, 2004	Budgeted:	N/A
From:			David A. Berger,	Program/	N/A
			General Manager	Line Item No.:
Prepared By:			Henrietta Stern	Cost Estimate:	N/A
General Counsel Approval: Yes.
Committee Recommendation: No action on second reading
CEQA Compliance: Exempt per CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3), 15273 and 15321.

SUMMARY: The Board will consider the second reading and adoption of MPWMD Ordinance No. 118 (Exhibit 15-A), which would refine the water distribution system (WDS) permit process, set fees and authorize enforcement of specific WDS rules and regulations. Ordinance No. 118 is considered to be a “housecleaning” ordinance that helps clarify the existing WDS permit process, and describes what is expected of applicants and staff. Ordinance No. 118 is the first of two ordinance concepts (“Ordinance No. XX and YY”) that were approved by the Board at its meeting of August 16, 2004. The first reading of Ordinance No. 118 was approved by the Board at its November 15, 2004 meeting, with direction to consider text refinements suggested during public comment. Please refer to the November 15, 2004 board packet (Item 11) for a more detailed review of Ordinance No. 118. Changes between the first and second reading are highlighted in the “Discussion” section below.

At the November 15, 2004 meeting, staff advised the Board that the second reading of Ordinance No. 118 may include a revised definition of the term “existing” if deemed appropriate by District Counsel. After a review of the Rules & Regulations, Counsel recommended that revised definitions should be part of Ordinance No. YY (yet to be numbered), slated for review in January 2005, and should not be part of the second reading for Ordinance No. 118.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board take the following actions:

1. Approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 118 as shown in Exhibit 15-A, with the effective date of January 12, 2005.

2. Direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the Monterey County Clerk in order to comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At its November 15, 2004 meeting, the Board adopted CEQA Findings associated with a draft Notice of Exemption.

3. Direct staff to develop Implementation Guidelines for Ordinance No. 118 prior to the January 12, 2005 effective date. A summary of the elements of the Implementation Guidelines is attached as Exhibit 15-B.

BACKGROUND: At its August 16, 2004 meeting, the Board directed staff and counsel to develop two ordinances (then referred to as “Ordinance No. XX and YY”) for future consideration. Two ordinances were recommended because substantive changes to the permit process take more time, and could hold up the housekeeping changes that are needed as soon as possible. The first ordinance (“Ordinance XX”) is now called Ordinance No. 118. Its purpose is to address housekeeping/consistency issues that are needed regardless of changes to the WDS permit process. Refer to the November 15, 2004 packet (Item 11) for more detailed discussion of ordinance components.

DISCUSSION: At the November 15, 2004 meeting, the Board directed that staff assess the appropriateness of three suggestions for text refinements that David Dilworth made during public comment. These suggestions are addressed in the following paragraphs:

Ø Section Four, Rule 21-A-9: Define “qualified individual or firm.” Based on language in a similar Monterey County ordinance and recent certification standards by the State of California, staff concurs that the words “qualified individual or firm” should be defined. A new third sentence is added to read, “Qualified consultants shall include a certified hydrogeologist, a registered geologist with a specialty in hydrogeology, a certified engineering geologist with a specialty in hydrogeology, or a registered civil engineer with a specialty in hydrogeology; these specialists must be registered in or certified by the State of California.”

Ø Section Four, Rule 21-C-1: Define “system capacity” and describe how it is quantified. The term “system capacity” (often called the annual production limit) is already defined in MPWMD Rule 11, Definitions. In addition, Rule 40, as amended by Ordinance No. 105, addresses how to quantify the system capacity in detail. Thus, staff does not believe any changes are needed.

Ø Section Five, Rule 22-D-2: Set “maximum” rather than “average daily” connection limit. Staff concurs that use of “average daily” connections does not make sense for a connection limit. Item (iii) is changed to read, “the maximum number of connections in the system.”

EXHIBITS

15-A Text of Ordinance No. 118, Second Reading version dated December 1, 2004

15-B Summary of Implementation Guidelines for Ordinance No. 118

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2004\2004boardpacket\20041213\PublicHearings\15\item15.doc