MPWMD BOARD MEETING--JULY 18, 2005--EXHIBIT 15A--INITIAL STUDY/PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the entire action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, Earlier Analyses, may be cross-referenced).

1. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. The significance threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant

6. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier Analysis used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analyses.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

7. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted, should be cited in the discussion.

8. This checklist has been adapted from the form in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended effective October 26, 1998 (from website).

9. Information sources cited in the checklist and the references used in support of this evaluation are listed in attachments to this document.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES *(See attachments for discussion and information sources)*	Potentially Significant Impact	Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated	Less Than Significant Impact	No Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?				▆
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?				▆
c) Create adverse light or glare effects?				▆
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project :
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?				▆
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?				▆
c) Involve other charges in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?				▆
Note: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland.
III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?				▆
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?				▆
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?				▆
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?				▆
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?				▆
Note: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?				▆
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?				▆
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?				▆
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?				▆
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?				▆
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?				▆
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5?				▆
b) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5?				▆
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?				▆
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?				▆
VI. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:				▆
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquidt-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.				▆
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?				▆
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?				▆
iv) Landslides?				▆
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil?				▆
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?				▆
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?				▆
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?		.		▆
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?				▆
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?				▆
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?				▆
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?				▆
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?				▆
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?				▆
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?				▆
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?				▆
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?				▆
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?			▆	
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?				▆
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site?				▆
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?				▆
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?				▆
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?				▆
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?				▆
i) Expose people or structures to a property to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?				▆
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?				▆
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?				▆
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?				▆
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?				▆
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state?				▆
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?				▆
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?				▆
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?				▆
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?				▆
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?				▆
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?				▆
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?				▆
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?				▆
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?				▆
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?				▆
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in:
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:				▆
i) Fire Protection?				▆
ii) Police Protection?				▆
iii) Schools?				▆
iv) Parks?				▆
v) Other public facilities?				▆
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?				▆
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?				▆
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?				▆
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways?				▆
c) Result in a change to air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?				▆
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?				▆
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?				▆
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?				▆
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?				▆
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?				▆
b) Require or result in construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?			▆	
c) Require or result in construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?				▆
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?			▆	
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has an adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?				▆
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?				▆
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?				▆
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?				▆
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)			▆	
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?				▆
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration [State CEQA guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Ordinance No. 96, which expanded and revised MPWMD Rules and Regulations governing Water Distribution Systems (WDS), was adopted by the MPWMD Board on March 19, 2001, based on a Negative Declaration adopted on August 21, 2000. A Notice of Determination was filed for Ordinance No. 96 on March 27, 2001. Ordinance No. 105 further refined the MPWMD Rules and Regulations governing WDS. It was adopted by the MPWMD Board on December 16, 2002 based on a Negative Declaration adopted on November 18, 2002. Ordinance No. 106 amending the WDS permit fee structure was adopted on February 27, 2003, and a CEQA Notice of Exemption was filed on March 7, 2003. Ordinance No. 118 clarifying procedures, fees, non-compliance and enforcement was adopted on December 13, 2004, and a CEQA Notice of Exemption was filed on December 17, 2004. These documents and supporting information (Board agenda packages) are on file at the District office or archives. Ordinance No. 122 further refines the changes made by Ordinance Nos. 96, 105, 106, and 118, and does not substantively change the previous CEQA determinations.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of, and adequately analyzed in, an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards. Also, state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. All of the impact issues were assessed in the August 2000 and November 2002 Negative Declarations for Ordinance Nos. 96 and 105, respectively. Ordinance No. 122 further refines the changes made by Ordinance Nos. 96, 105, 106 and 118, and does not substantively change the previous CEQA determinations.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are checked as "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Not applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

(See attachments for discussion and information sources)

Potentially Significant Impact

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:

a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?



▆

b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?



▆

c) Create adverse light or glare effects?



▆

II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project :

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?



▆

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?



▆

c) Involve other charges in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?



▆

Note: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland.

III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?



▆

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?



▆

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?



▆

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?



▆

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?



▆

Note: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?



▆

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?



▆

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?



▆

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?



▆

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?



▆

e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?



▆

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:

a) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5?



▆

b) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5?



▆

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?



▆

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?



▆

VI. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS. Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:



▆

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquidt-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.



▆

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?



▆

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?



▆

iv) Landslides?



▆

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil?



▆

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?



▆

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?



▆

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?



.



▆

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?



▆

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?



▆

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?



▆

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?



▆

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?



▆

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?



▆

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?



▆

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?



▆

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?



▆

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?



▆



c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?



▆

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site?



▆

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?



▆

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?



▆

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?



▆

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?



▆

i) Expose people or structures to a property to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?



▆

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?



▆

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?



▆

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?



▆

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?



▆

X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state?



▆

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?



▆

XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?



▆

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?



▆

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?



▆

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?



▆

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?



▆

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?



▆

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:

a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?



▆

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?



▆

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?



▆

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in:

a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:



▆

i) Fire Protection?



▆

ii) Police Protection?



▆

iii) Schools?



▆

iv) Parks?



▆

v) Other public facilities?



▆

XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?



▆

b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?



▆

XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:

a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?



▆

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways?



▆

c) Result in a change to air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?



▆

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?



▆

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?



▆

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?



▆

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?



▆

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?



▆

b) Require or result in construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?



▆



c) Require or result in construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?



▆

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?



▆



e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has an adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?



▆

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?



▆

g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?



▆

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?



▆

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)



▆



c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?



▆

XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration [State CEQA guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.

a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.

Ordinance No. 96, which expanded and revised MPWMD Rules and Regulations governing Water Distribution Systems (WDS), was adopted by the MPWMD Board on March 19, 2001, based on a Negative Declaration adopted on August 21, 2000. A Notice of Determination was filed for Ordinance No. 96 on March 27, 2001. Ordinance No. 105 further refined the MPWMD Rules and Regulations governing WDS. It was adopted by the MPWMD Board on December 16, 2002 based on a Negative Declaration adopted on November 18, 2002. Ordinance No. 106 amending the WDS permit fee structure was adopted on February 27, 2003, and a CEQA Notice of Exemption was filed on March 7, 2003. Ordinance No. 118 clarifying procedures, fees, non-compliance and enforcement was adopted on December 13, 2004, and a CEQA Notice of Exemption was filed on December 17, 2004. These documents and supporting information (Board agenda packages) are on file at the District office or archives. Ordinance No. 122 further refines the changes made by Ordinance Nos. 96, 105, 106, and 118, and does not substantively change the previous CEQA determinations.

b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of, and adequately analyzed in, an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards. Also, state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

All of the impact issues were assessed in the August 2000 and November 2002 Negative Declarations for Ordinance Nos. 96 and 105, respectively. Ordinance No. 122 further refines the changes made by Ordinance Nos. 96, 105, 106 and 118, and does not substantively change the previous CEQA determinations.

c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are checked as "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

Not applicable.

DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST ITEMS:

Adoption of Ordinance No. 122 itself has no impact on the environment. However, to the extent that Ordinance No. 122 would refine regulations that govern practices that may facilitate new construction and potential new water use, adoption of Ordinance No. 122 may be considered to have a beneficial, neutral or less than significant environmental effect, as described below. Until the ordinance is applied to a specific application for a water distribution system, and the facts of that individual application are evaluated in a separate CEQA review process, attempting to determine whether there would be adverse impacts is premature and speculative. Adoption of Ordinance No. 122 is independent from CEQA review conclusions and permitting processes of land use authorities (cities, Monterey County) or other resource agencies that may also regulate a proposed project. The MPWMD authority is focused solely on approval of a water system, not the approval of a development project.

“No Impact” was checked for all Initial Study checklist categories except for four specific items listed below. A “Less Than Significant Impact” was identified for these checklist questions for the proposed change to create a new “Level 1/Ministerial Permit” category. Please refer to the “Level 1/Ministerial Permit” discussion on pages 18, 19 and 20 of this analysis for more information.

Ø VIII(b) – Hydrology; groundwater supplies

Ø XVI(b) – Utilities; construct new water systems

Ø XVI(d) – Utilities; sufficient water supplies

Ø XVII(b) – Mandatory Findings; cumulative effects.

The following text describes how Ordinance No. 122 would change current MPWMD Rules and Regulations, and why the “No Impact” or “Less Than Significant” impact designations were chosen.

General Overview. MPWMD Rules and Regulations that govern Water Distribution Systems (WDS) have been evolving since 2001 as the District responds to the changing needs of the community and the environment. Four ordinances have amended WDS regulations in the past four years (Ordinance Nos. 96, 105, 106 and 118). Based on the District’s experience implementing Ordinance Nos. 96, 105 and 106, modifications were deemed appropriate to facilitate efficient permit processing while continuing to protect the environment. Most recently, in August 2004, the District Board began discussing modifications to the MPWMD Rules and Regulations to achieve these goals. District staff was directed to prepare two ordinances -- Ordinance No. 118, approved in December 2004, and Ordinance No. 122, to be considered for first reading on July 18, 2005.

[Evidence: Staff reports and minutes for MPWMD Board meetings of August 16, November 15 and December 13, 2004; staff reports and minutes for Rules and Regulations Review Committee meetings of June 22, August 2 and October 27, 2004; and April 5 and May 3, 2005.]

Ordinance No. 122, along with an accompanying “Table 22-A,” is provided as Attachment 3. It is part of the continuing refinement of MPWMD Rules and Regulations. Thus, the discussions provided in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration adopted by the MPWMD Board on August 21, 2000 for Ordinance No. 96, and adopted on November 18, 2002 for Ordinance No. 105, are relevant to the proposed Ordinance No. 122, and are hereby incorporated by reference.

[Evidence: Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 96 adopted by the MPWMD Board on August 21, 2000; Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 105 adopted on November 18, 2002.]

Currently, a WDS is either exempt from MPWMD regulation or it is processed pursuant to MPWMD Rules and Regulations (primarily Rules 11, 20, 21, 22, 40 and 60), including CEQA review and a public hearing, either before the Board or a staff hearing officer. Ordinance No. 122 would change this protocol to add a “pre-application review” step, where MPWMD staff would determine whether or not a water system proposal is exempt from requiring a WDS permit, then would determine whether the application should be processed in one of four “permit review levels.”

Rule 22-A would be completely replaced by substantive new text that describes the pre-application review, determination of five potential outcomes (Exempt, or Levels 1 through 4); and the permit processing protocol for each type of permit. The four levels reflect increasing potential to impact the water resources system due to size, complexity, potential water use, location within the Cal-Am service area, or proximity to defined Sensitive Environmental Receptors (SER) and/or other existing wells. The ordinance refers to a matrix (“Table 22-A”) to guide the selection of the proper level. In brief, the five possible outcomes for a WDS application are:

Ø Exempt - Meets criteria to not need an MPWMD WDS permit. MPWMD ministerial action exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15268.

Ø Level 1/Ministerial Permit - Minimal potential impact; MPWMD permit issued, but does not set system limits. MPWMD ministerial action exempt from CEQA based on required compliance with several specific criteria, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268.

Ø Level 2/Administrative Permit - Modest potential impact; full compliance with existing rules, but no public hearing. MPWMD discretionary action subject to CEQA review at staff level.

Ø Level 3/Hearing Officer Review - Moderate potential impact; public hearing at staff level. MPWMD discretionary action subject to CEQA review at staff level.

Ø Level 4/MPWMD Board Hearing - Highest potential impact; public hearing by Board. MPWMD discretionary action subject to CEQA review by staff for Board adoption.

Similar to the current situation, all non-exempt WDS applications under Ordinance No. 122 would be subject to CEQA, including CEQA statutory and categorical exemptions as defined in the CEQA Guidelines. Ordinance No. 122 specifically describes how permits shall be processed in compliance with CEQA.

[Evidence: MPWMD Rules and Regulations in effect as of June 2005; text of proposed Ordinance No. 122 (version 4), to be considered on July 18, 2005; May 16, 2005 Board packet materials, Item 12, Review Concept Ordinance No. 122]

Add and Refine Definitions. Ordinance No. 122 would amend MPWMD Rule 11 to add several new definitions of terms used in the WDS application review process. These include:

Ø “Abandoned Well”

Ø “Amend a Water Distribution System”

Ø “Inactive Well”

Ø “Level 1 – Ministerial Permit ”

Ø “Level 2 - Administrative Permit”

Ø “Level 3 - Hearing Officer Review”

Ø “Level 4 – MPWMD Board Hearing”

Ø “Permit Review Level”

Ø “Sensitive Environmental Receptor (SER)”

Ø “Well Source and Pumping Impact Assessments”

The following existing definitions would be amended to be more clear and respond to questions that have arisen in processing previous permit applications:

Ø “Active Well”

Ø “Completion of a WDS”

Ø “Completion of a Well”

Ø “Create a Water Distribution System”

Ø “Reactivate a Well”

Ø “Replace a Well”

Ø “Well”

These changes are for clarity and would not have an effect on the environment.

[Evidence: MPWMD Rules and Regulations in effect as of June 2005; text of proposed Ordinance No. 122 (version 4), to be considered on July 18, 2005]

MPWMD Permit Exemptions. Currently, pursuant to MPWMD Rule 20, all WDS must obtain a written permit from the District unless they meet the criteria to be exempt (Rule 20-C). Ordinance No. 122 would change exemption criteria (current Rules 20-C-2 and 20-C-4, renumbered as 20-C-3 and 20-C-5) to be more restrictive. For example, current regulations allow an exemption for a single-parcel system based solely on location outside of the Carmel River Basin and /or the Seaside Groundwater Basin Coastal Subareas. Ordinance No. 122 would require a system to be outside of the Carmel River Basin, the entire Seaside Groundwater Basin, the California American Water (Cal-Am) service area, and meet three other criteria in order to be considered as exempt. A second example is that Ordinance No. 122 would define terms and clarify that an exemption for an abandoned well would not be granted; it would also set a 10-year limit on exemptions for replacement of inactive wells. Currently, terms are not defined, the rules lack clarity about abandoned wells, and there is no time limit for inactive wells. The result of the Ordinance No. 122 changes is that more water systems within District boundaries would be subject to individual CEQA review and regulation by MPWMD than under the current situation. This may be considered as environmentally beneficial.

[Evidence: MPWMD Rules and Regulations in effect as of June 2005; text of proposed Ordinance No. 122 (version 4), to be considered on July 18, 2005]

Level 1/Ministerial Permit. Currently, a WDS is either exempt from MPWMD regulation or it is processed in compliance with the protocol described in the MPWMD Rules and Regulations, including individual CEQA review and a public hearing. There is presently no “Level 1/Ministerial Permit” as proposed by Ordinance No. 122. A Level 1/Ministerial Permit would entail issuance of a new type of ministerial permit, based on specific criteria described in Rule 22-A-2 as amended by Ordinance No. 122. Qualifying Level 1 applications would meet the criteria for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Guidelines Section 15268. The specific criteria for a Level 1/Ministerial Permit follow:

A system meets all of the following criteria: (a) well site is located in Carmel Valley Upland area as shown in maps provided in the Implementation Guidelines; (b) property is comprised of one or two parcels totaling less than 2.5 acres; (c) property is not within the Cal-Am service area as shown in maps provided in the Implementation Guidelines, or is not served by Cal-Am as a remote meter; (d) well site is located more than 1,000 feet from any Sensitive Environmental Receptor as defined in Rule 11; and (e) well site is located more than 1,000 feet from any existing well that is registered with the District and/or included in the District well database at the time of the application. See also the attached Table 22-A.

Systems that meet the above criteria for a Level 1/Ministerial Permit are issued a simplified permit that does not include water production or connection limits. District staff also does not make individual findings of approval for the application. This change would result in a less than significant impact to the environment for checklist items VIII(b), XVI(b), XVI(d) and XVII(b) because the Level 1 criteria have already considered environmental consequences consistent with existing Rules 22-B (required Findings), and 22-C (minimum standards of approval) and known environmental information. Using the nine required Findings listed in existing Rule 22-B as a guide, an application meeting all Level 1 criteria would have the following characteristics:

1. Unnecessary duplication of water service would be highly unlikely as the property must be outside the Cal-Am service area and at least 1,000 feet from any other registered water well.

2. Importation or exportation to/from the District would be highly unlikely as the property must be less than 2.5 acres and occur within a physical zone within the Carmel Valley Upland area but more than 1,000 feet from the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer. There are limited situations that are able to meet these three criteria.

3. Significant environmental effects would not be expected to occur due to the requirement for the water facility to be 1,000 feet from the nearest Sensitive Environmental Receptor (SER) and/or existing well. This conclusion is described in more detail below.

4. Water rights are demonstrated by a deed to the property for the Carmel Valley Upland area, which is non-alluvial percolating groundwater (i.e., overlying water rights).

5. A long-term reliable supply is reasonably expected for a well that meets the minimum criteria for a valid Monterey County Health Department well permit, which is required for any well in Monterey County, and is required before MPWMD will process a permit application. Importantly, because Level 1 systems are outside of the Cal-Am service area, use of Cal-Am water (which does affect known environmental resources) cannot be tapped if there is a supply failure of the Level 1 well.

6. Significant cumulative environmental effects would not be expected to occur due to the requirement for the water facility to be 1,000 feet from the nearest Sensitive Environmental Receptor (SER) and/or existing well. This conclusion is described in more detail below.

7. By definition, the water source for a water system meeting the Level 1 criteria would be outside the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System (defined in MPWMD Rule 11) and the SWRCB jurisdiction (i.e., Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer).

8. Permit conditions for a Level 1/Ministerial Permit would require no permanent interties to other water systems. Systems meeting the Level 1 criteria would be located outside of the Cal-Am service area and 1,000 feet away from any other system, and would be somewhat isolated.

9. There would be no need for backflow protection for a system that is outside of the Cal-Am service area and 1,000 feet away from any other system.

The conclusion that an application meeting all of the five Level 1 criteria would not result in significant environmental effects or cumulative effects (Items 3 and 6 in the above list) is based on the following factors that are associated with the combined effects of the criteria:

Ø A limited amount of water use is possible given the 2.5-acre size limit and zoning restrictions that exist in the upland areas of Carmel Valley, which are the only areas where a property can meet the five Level 1 criteria.

Ø The water system (typically a water well) must be 1,000 feet away from any defined Sensitive Environmental Receptor (SER) or another existing water system. The 1,000-foot distance is adequate to protect these resources because it reflects the extent of the zone of influence of a well drilled in Carmel Valley upland formations, based on extensive hydrogeologic studies associated with the Santa Lucia Preserve EIR certified by Monterey County in 1996. District staff members were part of a peer review team for these studies, which offer the best available information.

Ø The Sensitive Environmental Receptors (SER) proposed in Ordinance No. 122 reflect the current knowledge about water-related species and habitat areas that need protection. The Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer (alluvium) is delineated due to the water rights determinations in SWRCB Order WR 95-10. The listed tributaries -- Tularcitos, Hitchcock Canyon, Garzas, Robinson Canyon and Potrero Creeks -- were selected because: (1) they reflect the majority of contributed streamflow to the Carmel River in the lower Carmel Valley; (2) portions of each stream are mapped as part of the alluvium; (3) they are regularly monitored by MPWMD staff (including stream gauges); (4) extensive baseline data currently exist; and (5) data for these tributaries are included in the District’s CVSIM computer model; and/or (6) they are known to support habitat for sensitive species such as steelhead or red-legged frogs. Other smaller, intermittent tributaries were not listed because little evidence exists in the record to support a listing. The Pacific Ocean shoreline is included to address potential seawater intrusion that potentially could be caused by a well within 1,000 feet of the mean high tide line. The SER defined in Ordinance No. 122 are based on best available scientific information. Any changed information regarding SER or the need to amend the definition of SER can be addressed through creation of and approval of a new ordinance that amends the MPWMD Rules and Regulations.

Ø There are a limited number of applications that would meet all of the Level 1 criteria due to Monterey County land use regulations and zoning, the size of the Cal-Am service area, the location of the defined Sensitive Environmental Receptors, and the location of the hundreds of wells that currently exist in Carmel Valley. For any application that meets all of the five Level 1 criteria, the County of Monterey would also address environmental concerns in its role as CEQA lead agency for any development proposal.

[Evidence: MPWMD Rules and Regulations in effect as of June 2005; text of proposed Ordinance No. 122 (version 4), to be considered on July 18, 2005, including definition of Sensitive Environmental Receptor; map of Carmel River watershed, including Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer and named tributaries; MPWMD surface water hydrologic data reports; MPWMD Mitigation Program Annual Reports; MPWMD water distribution system and well reporting annual summaries; map of Cal-Am service area; Monterey County Zoning Ordinance (Title 21); Monterey County Carmel Valley Master Plan, Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan, and Cachagua Area Plan; Monterey County Code Chapter 15.08; SWRCB Order WR 95-10 as amended by Order WR 98-04; Santa Lucia Preserve Final EIR and Addendum, 1996 and 1997 (Hydrology section, including referenced hydrogeologic and water system utility studies.]

Level 2/Administrative Permit. A Level 2 application entails an individual assessment by District staff, including CEQA review. The difference between the current protocol and that proposed by Ordinance No. 122 is that there is no public hearing for Level 2 applications. District staff must continue to fully comply with CEQA, and with the current MPWMD Rule 22-B, C and D requiring written Findings supported by evidence, minimum standards for approval, and mandatory conditions of approval. MPWMD Rules and Regulations already include the requirement to provide public notice (posting and website) about any discretionary approval by District staff; a 21-day period exists for any member of the public or the Board to file an appeal. Ordinance No. 122 adds the requirement to separately notify the Board of any staff action to approve or deny a WDS application. The procedural changes made by Ordinance No. 122 would not have an impact on the environment.

[Evidence: MPWMD Rules and Regulations in effect as of June 2005; text of proposed Ordinance No. 122 (version 4), to be considered on July 18, 2005]

Level 3/Hearing Officer Review and Level 4/MPWMD Board Hearing. The Level 3 and Level 4 application processes are very similar to the current situation. Both entail CEQA review, compliance with all current MPWMD Rules and Regulations, and noticed public hearings for a WDS

application, either before the MPWMD Board or a Staff Hearing Officer designated by the General Manager. MPWMD Rules and Regulations already include the requirement to provide public notice (posting and website) about any discretionary approval by District staff; a 21-day period exists for any member of the public or the Board to file an appeal. Ordinance No. 122 adds the requirement to separately notify the Board of any action to approve or deny a WDS application by the Staff Hearing Officer. The procedural changes made by Ordinance No. 122 would not have an impact on the environment.

[Evidence: MPWMD Rules and Regulations in effect as of June 2005; text of proposed Ordinance No. 122 (version 4), to be considered on July 18, 2005]

Conclusions

Based on this Initial Study, the MPMWD believes that adoption of Ordinance No. 122 would have no actual impacts to the environment with the exception a less than significant impact for four specific checklist questions. The ordinance focus is to further clarify WDS rules and describe a process for categorizing and evaluating each WDS application, including CEQA review, that is responsive to the need for efficient permit processing and also protects the water resource environment. The Board is aware that CEQA allows preparation of a Negative Declaration if there is no substantial evidence that the project may cause a significant effect on the environment [CEQA Guidelines §15063(b)(2)]. The MPWMD determines that there is an absence of substantial evidence from which a fair argument can be made that adoption of Ordinance No. 122 has measurable and meaningful actual or potential significant adverse environmental consequences. For these reasons, the Board intends to adopt a Negative Declaration regarding adoption of Ordinance No. 122.

Prior to completion of this Initial Study and Negative Declaration, the Board held noticed public meetings on August 16, 2004 and May 16, 2005 to receive public comment on conceptual and first draft ordinance text that addressed suggested changes to WDS regulations as implemented under existing MPWMD Rules and Regulations. The conceptual ordinance was also reviewed and approved by the District’s Rules and Regulations Review Committee at its public meetings of August 2, 2004, April 5, 2005 and May 3, 2005.

Initial Study conclusions are also based on District staff professional assessments, knowledge and experience processing WDS applications. Public testimony and informal contact with members of the public and various state and local agency representatives also contribute to and support the Initial Study conclusions.

Ordinance No. 122, as well as supporting materials and documents (with the exception of certain Monterey County documents) may be reviewed at the MPWMD offices, at the address and phone number listed on page 1. These materials include:

Ø MPWMD Rules and Regulations;

Ø MPWMD Ordinance Nos. 96, 105, 106 and 118, and proposed Ordinance No. 122;

Ø Board agenda materials supporting first and second reading of the above-referenced ordinances (“Board packets”);

Ø CEQA notices to the Monterey County Clerk for Ordinance Nos. 96, 105, 106 and 118;

Ø Maps of Cal-Am service area, Carmel River watershed and Seaside Groundwater Basin;

Ø MPWMD Mitigation Program Annual Reports;

Ø MPWMD Annual Water Distribution System Production Summaries;

Ø MPWMD Annual Well Reporting Summaries;

Ø MPWMD Surface Water Hydrologic Data Reports;

Ø Monterey County Zoning Ordinance, Title 21 (available via Monterey County)

Ø Monterey County Carmel Valley Master Plan, Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan, and Cachagua Area Plan (available via Monterey County);

Ø Monterey County Code Chapter 15.08;

Ø SWRCB Order WR 95-10 as amended by Order WR 98-04;

Ø Santa Lucia Preserve Final EIR and Addendum, 1996 and 1997 (Hydrology section, including referenced hydrogeologic and water system utility studies.

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2005\2005boardpackets\20050718\PubHrgs\15\Exh15a\item15_exh15a.doc

EXHIBIT 15-A

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION