CEQA GUIDELINES APPENDIX G – Prepared June 1, 2006

MPWMD ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR ORDINANCE NO. 125

PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title:		Adoption of Ordinance No. 125: “2006 Water Permit and Water Credit Clarification Ordinance of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District”
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:		Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, PO Box 85, Monterey, CA 93942-0085 [Street address: 5 Harris Court, Bldg. G, Monterey, CA 93940]
3. Contact Person and Phone:		Stephanie Pintar, 831/658-5630
4. Project Location:		District-wide, see Attachment 1, map
5. Project Sponsor's Name/Address:		MPWMD, see #2 above
6. General Plan Designation:		Varies throughout District
7. Zoning:		Varies throughout District
8. Description of Project: Proposed Ordinance No. 125 (Attachment 3) updates permit and credit-related rules to conform with adopted policies and administrative practices. This is accomplished by adding new language and definitions, by deleting obsolete and redundant text, by simplifying text to make it understandable to the public, and by focusing the subject matter of the rules. This draft ordinance also serves to fill in the gaps where practices are not supported by language in the existing rules, but where administrative memorandums, Board-approved policies not incorporated in the rules, past practice and other Board directives have supported staff’s actions and policy interpretations.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Land uses within the District range from urban and suburban residential and commercial areas to open space/wilderness. The District encompasses the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Seaside, portions of Monterey County (primarily Carmel Valley, Pebble Beach and the Highway 68 corridor), and the Monterey Peninsula Airport District (Attachment 1). Each of these jurisdictions regulates land uses within its boundaries. The District does not regulate land uses. The Monterey Peninsula is dependent on local sources of water supply, which (directly or indirectly) are dependent on local rainfall and runoff. The primary sources of supply include surface and groundwater in the Carmel River basin, and groundwater in the Seaside Basin (Attachment 2). Vegetation communities on the Monterey Peninsula include marine, estuarine, and riverine habitats; fresh emergent and saline emergent (coastal salt marsh) wetland communities; riparian communities, particularly along the Carmel River; a wetland community at the Carmel River lagoon; and upland vegetation communities such as coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, mixed hardwood forest, valley oak woodland, and annual grassland. These communities provide habitat for a diverse group of wildlife. The Carmel River supports various fish resources, including federally threatened steelhead fish and California red-legged frog.
10: Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
 Aesthetics	 Hazards and Hazardous Materials		 Public Services
 Agricultural Resources	 Hydrology and Water Quality		 Recreation
 Air Quality	 Land Use and Planning		 Transportation/Traffic
 Biological Resources	 Mineral Resources		 Utilities & Service Systems
 Cultural Resources	 Noise
 Geology/Soils	 Population and Housing		 Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared.				▇
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared.				
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required.				
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or is "potentially significant unless mitigated." An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.				
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards; and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature: Date: Printed Name: David A. Berger Title: MPWMD General Manager				

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).

5. 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.

U:\demand\CEQA Docs\Ord 125\CEQA GUIDELINES APPENDIX G.doc

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.
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.
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.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 31083.3, 21093, 21094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).

DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST ITEMS:

For all categories, “No Impact” was checked. Based on this Initial Study, the MPWMD believes that adoption of Ordinance No. 125 would have no actual or potentially significant adverse environmental impacts; in fact, the ordinance could result in beneficial effects by the reduction of existing loopholes in the current rules. Furthermore, the MPWMD determines that there is an absence of substantial evidence from which a fair argument can be made that adoption of Ordinance No. 125 has measurable and meaningful actual or potential adverse environmental consequences. The MPWMD is aware that CEQA requires preparation of a Negative Declaration if there is no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may cause a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15063(b)(2). For these reasons, the MPWMD intends to adopt a Negative Declaration regarding adoption of Ordinance No. 125.

“No Impact” Discussion

For all checklist items, the Initial Study conclusion is that Ordinance No. 125 would have “No Impact.” Adoption of Ordinance No. 125 has no impact on the environment as the ordinance modifies language in the District’s Rules and Regulations related to procedures.

The impetus for this ordinance is to facilitate completion of a Policies and Procedures Manual for the permit office at the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Before the manual can be completed, a significant number of policy interpretations, procedures, and practices must be incorporated into the rules and regulations to allow consistency in application. In addition, stand-alone policies adopted by the Board have been added. Currently, there are two staff members who have institutional knowledge of these policy interpretations, procedures, and practices. This institutional knowledge will be captured in the revised rules. Clarification and inclusion of these Board policies, policy interpretations, procedures, and practices in the rules will also facilitate the accuracy of the Water Demand Division database project. [Evidence: Minutes and staff reports from MPWMD Board meetings of April 17 and May 15, 2006 and Water Demand Committee meetings of June 14, August 2, September 1, October 11, December 8, 2005 and January 24, 2006]

The following rules have been modified by this draft ordinance:

· Rule 11, Definitions

· Rule 20, Permits Required

· Rule 21, Applications

· Rule 23, Action on Application for Permit to Expand or Extend a Water Distribution System

· Rule 24, Water Permit Process

· Rule 25, Cancellation of Permits

· Rule 25.5, Water Use Credits

· Rule 26, Rehearing

· Rule 28, Transfer

· Rule 30, Determination of Water Allocations

The proposed ordinance reorganizes and rewrites the rules to make them easier for permit applicants to understand. With this in mind, Rule 11 has had new terms added and existing terms edited for clarity. Rule 20 was revamped to address under what circumstances a water permit is required. Rule 21 now deals exclusively with the application, and Rule 23 outlines the process for reviewing an application and issuing a water permit. Rule 24 explains how water use capacity is calculated and how to determine the appropriate connection charges. Rule 25 has been clarified to state a definitive water permit expiration date. Rule 25.5 has been revised to simplify the Water Use Credit process by eliminating two application timelines and now includes the existing administrative process for documenting the credit. This rule also addresses other administrative practices and policies related to water credits. Rule 28 has been simplified and redundant language removed. Finally, Rule 30 has been modified to delete obsolete language regarding water credits.

The following list of findings summarizes the changes proposed in Ordinance No. 125:

1. The terms defined in this ordinance clarify operations of the existing permit and water credit processes and provides new terms to further improve interpretation of the rules and policies of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.

2. This ordinance adds definitions to Rule 11 associated with the water permit and water credit process and modifies other definitions to conform to the District rules, policies and practices.

3. This ordinance adds “modifications” to the list of actions that require water permits. (Rule 20-B)

4. This ordinance revises Rule 20 to clarify that water permits are required for all connections and modifications to a connection to a water distribution system and clarifies specific actions that require a water permit to conform to current water permit practices. (Rule 21-B)

5. This ordinance amends and clarifies Rule 21 by identifying documents required for a complete water permit application, including the prerequisite that environmental review completed. (Rule 21-B-1)

6. This ordinance expands upon language currently shown on Rule 24, Table I: Residential Fixture Unit Count, in reference to a water budget for landscaping when a lot size exceeds 10,000 square-feet in size. Rule 21 adds a requirement for a landscape water budget, calculation of the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA), and submittal of three copies of the landscape plan for new exterior use when the Site exceeds 10,000 square-feet, when the site is used for non-residential or mixed uses or multi-family housing. (Rule 21-B-3)

7. This ordinance clarifies in Rule 21-C that an application for amendment to a water distribution system that includes an expansion of the system beyond its prior authorized system capacity limit or its prior authorized expansion capacity limit is processed as an amendment to the permit to create/establish a water distribution system under Rule 21-A. (Rule 21-C-1)

8. This ordinance deletes Rule 21-D, Application for Appeal, and Rule 21-E, Application for Variance, as duplicative of existing Rules 70 and 90.

9. This ordinance deletes the current text of Rule 23 and replaces it with similar text focused on the process of preparing and issuing water permits.

10. This ordinance deletes all references to the former District Reserve Allocation which was repealed in February 1995 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 73.

11. This ordinance adds to Rule 23 compliance with the limitations of Regulation XV, Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan, as a prerequisite to processing and issuing a water permit. Limitations applicable to water permits must be reviewed prior to processing a water permit application. (Rule 23-A-1-b)

12. This ordinance allows an exception to the limitation discussed in Finding 11 for fire suppression systems and for installation of individual water meters for users previously served by one water meter. Individual metering of users formerly served by a master meter is encouraged by the District as a way to encourage water conservation. (Rule 23-A-1-b)

13. This ordinance requires compliance with previously issued water permits and compliance with District Rules and Regulations prior to action on an application for a new or amended water permit. (Rule 23-A-1-d)

14. This ordinance adds a provision that the General Manager shall ensure that the total quantity of water permitted for all projects, including the current application, does not exceed the production limit and/or connection limit of the water distribution system serving the project site prior to approving an application that involves an intensification of use. (Rule 23-A-1-f)

15. This ordinance specifies that without water from an allocation or water entitlement, or a water credit to offset a proposed new use, a water permit application is to be denied. (Rule 23-A-1-g)

16. This ordinance adds the Board’s requirement for recordation of deed restrictions prior to issuance of a water permit to Rule 23. (Rule 23-A-1-j)

17. This ordinance states that no fees are due for fire suppression systems or meter splits. (Rule 23-A-1-l)

18. This ordinance specifies that the construction plans reviewed as part of a water permit application will be stamped with the District’s permit approval stamp. (Rule 23-A-1-m)

19. This ordinance requires the General Manager to review a pending water permit with the applicant/agent prior to releasing the water permit. (Rule 23-A-1-n)

20. This ordinance states that an amended water permit is required if the completed project differs from the permitted project. (Rule 23-A-1-o)

21. This ordinance specifies that the District will notify the inspection contact as well as the owner of record by mailing the noncompliance notice after completion of an inspection. Notices will include a specific date for correcting any violation(s). This ordinance further states that if a correction is not made by the deadline, the District may take action to permit the noncompliance fixture(s)/uses and that such action may result in a debit to an allocation or entitlement. (Rule 23-A-1-p)

22. This ordinance directs that violation notices that could result in a debit to jurisdiction’s allocation will be copied to the jurisdiction. (Rule 23-A-1-p)

23. This ordinance provides for a refund of connection charges and/or a refund of water credit or entitlement water in the event that the completed project is less intensive than permitted. (Rule 23-A-1-p)

24. This ordinance revises the temporary water permit procedure to conform to the current permit process (i.e. Ordinance No. 60, adopted June 15, 1992). The documents required for a water temporary water permit are identified. (Rule 23-A-2-a)

25. This ordinance enacts a specific 24-month term for temporary water permits in place of a “one year” term or “the date specified on the permit”. (Rule 23-A-2-c)

26. This ordinance explains that water previously debited from a jurisdiction’s water allocation for a temporary water permit will be returned after verification that the temporary water permit/connection has been abandoned. (Rule 23-A-2-e)

27. This ordinance specifies that a conditional water permit does not allow the setting of any water meter or the start of any new or expanded water use until the conditions have been met and a water permit has been issued pursuant to Rules 21 and 23. (Rule 23-A-3-g)

28. This ordinance clarifies the timeframe for applying to extend a conditional water permit. This replaces existing vague language with a specific time window (i.e. no earlier than 90 days and no later than 45 days prior to expiration). (Rule 23-A-3-i)

29. This ordinance adds mandatory conditions of approval for water permits to Rule 23. The conditions are currently in use but not codified in the Rules and Regulations. (Rule 23-B-1)

30. This ordinance requires the project site to meet all applicable water conservation requirements of Regulations XIV and XV as a condition of a water permit. (Rule 23-B-1-a)

31. This ordinance includes Board policy requiring dual water services in the Sleepy Hollow subdivision in Carmel Valley: Cal-Am use for interior uses, and Sleepy Hollow water for exterior/fire suppression/irrigation uses. (Rule 23-B-3)

32. This ordinance deletes existing Rule 24 and replaces it with a revised and restructured Rule 24 that conforms to current practices. The rule has been refocused from calculating connection charges to forecasting a project’s future estimated annual water use capacity and then assessing the appropriate connection charge. The proposed rule summarizes the entire process for determining if there is an increase in water use capacity. (Rule 24)

33. This ordinance provides explanation on the reduction estimated water use capacity that occurs as a result of applying a water credit to the water permit application. (Rule 24-A-1-d)

34. This ordinance introduces a new term “adjusted water use capacity” to refer to the final estimated water demand and clarifies the action to be taken under different scenarios. (Rule 24-A-1-d)

35. This ordinance adds dual flush ultra-low flush toilets to the Residential Fixture Unit Count Values (Rule 24, Table 1) and to the table showing ultra-low consumption appliance credits (Rule 25.5, Table 4). Dual flush ultra-low flush toilets have been proven to save at least as much water as one-gallon ULF models and offer the user the option of a half-flush or a full flush. (Rule 24, Table 1)

36. This ordinance adds a reduced landscape factor for properties that are subject to jurisdiction- mandated and enforced native landscape requirements. This restriction shall also be enforced by District deed restriction. (Rule 24-A-5-c)

37. This ordinance clarifies that a dishwasher may be installed in a kitchen without a water permit when a dishwasher was not previously installed. This existing practice reduces water use in the kitchen, as washing dishes by hand uses more water than using a dishwasher. (Rule 24, Table 1)

38. This ordinance clarifies the special fixture unit accounting (to add a second bathroom) to state that the provision applies to single-family residential properties that have less than two bathrooms. The current rule states that it applies to homes with only one bathroom, contradicting language later in the rule that speaks to adding the missing fixtures to allow two complete bathrooms. (Rule 24-A-3)

39. This ordinance adds the Board’s requirement to record a deed restriction listing all water fixtures permitted for the property and indicating which fixtures are part of the “special fixture unit accounting” (i.e. fixtures that do not qualify for water credits upon removal) on properties that utilize the second bathroom provision. The requirement for District access to water records on properties that utilize the second bathroom provision is also added. Both procedures are consistent with language in Ordinance No. 98, adopted April 16, 2001, and Ordinance No. 114, adopted May 24, 2004. (Rule 24-A-3-j and k)

40. This ordinance eliminates a conflict in the existing Rule 24 whereby an applicant could not apply for both a master bathroom and a second bathroom in the same application. This change clarifies that the master bathroom fixture unit value (adopted with Ordinance No. 80 on November 20, 1995) cannot be applied to a second bathroom added pursuant to the second bathroom provision. (Rule 24-A-4-b)

41. This ordinance adds specific language to clarify the exterior residential and non-residential demand calculation methodology and the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) calculation. The methodology applies to new construction on residential sites that exceed 10,000 square-feet, and to non-residential, mixed use and multi-family new construction. (Rule 24-A-5 and Rule 24-B-2)

42. This ordinance characterizes the fixture unit to acre-foot conversion as one fixture unit equals 0.01 acre-foot and specifies that the use of the fixture unit conversion shall be to the third decimal place. (Rule 24-A-6)

43. Similarly, this ordinance characterizes that non-residential water use capacity shall be rounded to the third decimal place. (Rule 24-B-3)

44. This ordinance allows changes to Table 2: Non-Residential Water Use Factors, to be made by Board resolution. (Rule 24-B)

45. This ordinance explains the area used to determine changes to demand caused by tenant improvements. (Rule 24-B-1-a-(2))

46. This ordinance clarifies that the higher non-residential use category will be used when a non-residential project qualifies for more than one use category. (Rule 24-B-1-b)

47. This ordinance clarifies the process for reviewing and approving new water factors. (Rule 24-B-1-d

48. This ordinance amends Rule 24, Table 2: Non-Residential Water Use Factors, Group I, to add nail salons, fast photo processing, dental, medical and veterinary clinics in keeping with current practice. (Rule 24, Table 2)

49. This ordinance amends Rule 24, Table 2: Non-Residential Water Use Factors, Group II, to include coffee shops that are currently defined as “bakery-type” of uses. (Rule 24, Table 2)

50. This ordinance amends Rule 24, Table 2: Non-Residential Water Use Factors, Group III to add a factor for assisted living beds, a revised factor for self-storage approved by the Board on October 17, 2005, and deletes the luxury hotel/living unit factor in keeping with direction from the District Water Demand Committee. (Rule 24, Table 2)

51. This ordinance amends Rule 24, Table 2: Non-Residential Water Use Factors, to include a footnote regarding the characterization of dormitory water use as residential in nature as directed by the Board at its February 23, 2006 meeting. (Rule 24, Table 2)

52. This ordinance designates the specific area that can be considered immediately adjacent to a non-residential use. Exterior water use within this perimeter is included in the water use factor. (Rule 24, Table 2)

53. A new non-residential category (modified non-residential uses) has been added to Table 2: Nonresidential Water Factors, for properties that have been granted a water credit for installing ultra-low consumption technology. This category is for uses that establish a water credit by retrofitting and have therefore changed the capacity of the building/use. (Rule 24, Table 2)

54. This ordinance adds Table 3: Connection Charge History to annually document the change in connection charges. This facilitates calculating water permit refunds for permits issued in previous years. (Rule 24, Table 3)

55. This ordinance deletes the monetary residential retrofit credit formerly shown as Rule 24-C-3 for non-mandatory toilet replacements that occur at the time a water permit is issued. This process has been replaced by the District’s rebate program.

56. This ordinance deletes language referring to a connection charge surcharge that was eliminated with the adoption of Ordinance No. 55 on May 20, 1991.

57. This ordinance deletes language from the current Rule 24-C-3 referring to a minimum connection charge which conflicts with current practices for the calculation and connection of the connection charge.

58. This ordinance adds language to incorporate the existing practice related to allowing nonpotable water sources for exterior uses. (Rule 24-E-1-a)

59. This ordinance clarifies that non-residential projects owned by public agencies are subject to review of actual consumption over time and adjustment of debit/connection charges based on historic use. (Rule 24-E-1-c)

60. This ordinance specifies the process to debit and/or refund connection charges and water from an allocation or entitlement for projects with special circumstances. This language mirrors language later in the rule that addresses the adjustment for special circumstances with substantial uncertainty. (Rule 24-E-3)

61. This ordinance provides that the General Manager makes the determination that special circumstances with substantial uncertainty (Rule 24) exist. (Rule 24-E-4)

62. This ordinance adds conditions of approval that have been developed by the Board for approval of special circumstances with substantial uncertainty, including a requirement for a separate water meter for outdoor water uses and a requirement that the applicant enter into an indemnity agreement with the District. (Rule 24-E-6)

63. This ordinance deletes redundant and obsolete language in the Connection Charge Refunds section, formerly Rule 24-H and now Rule 24-F.

64. This ordinance incorporates a long-standing practice which is consistent with a site-specific water permit that refunds of connection charges are made to the title-holder of the property. (Rule 24-F-6)

65. This ordinance makes no changes to the section on Connection Charge Fund Accounting, previously found in Rule 24-J, now appearing in Rule 24-G.

66. This ordinance deletes references to rule numbers in the section on Permit Payment Plans. (Rule 24-H)

67. This ordinance identifies a specific expiration date for water permits (two years) and allows for reapplication if a building permit has not been issued. If a building permit has been issued, the water permit runs concurrently. (Rule 25-A)

68. This ordinance changes the authority to suspend a water permit application from the Board to the General Manager while the decision to revoke a water permit remains with the Board. (Rule 25-B and 25-C)

69. This ordinance updates language related to cancellation of water permits to include water entitlements. (Rule 25-D)

70. This ordinance specifies that valid water credits return to the site when a permit is cancelled. (Rule 25-D-2)

71. This ordinance deletes the language of Rule 25.5, Water Use Credits, in its entirety and replaces it with a revised and restructured Rule 25.5 that conforms to current practices.

72. This ordinance eliminates the advance and post-reduction application process and the 18-month application window in the former Rule 25.5-A. The two processes for credit have been particularly confusing to the public.

73. This ordinance clarifies the process for documenting a water use credit and adds clear direction for calculating a water use credit using Tables 1 and 2. This ordinance also clarifies when the use of the non-residential water use factors are not appropriate. (Rule 25.5-E-2)

74. This ordinance adds Table 4: Ultra-Low Consumption Appliance Credits, and makes the table amendable by Board Resolution. Water use credits for installation of ultra-low consumption appliances were approved by the Board upon adoption of Ordinance No. 64, adopted October 5, 1992. (Rule 25.5, Table 4)

75. This ordinance adds a process for determining water use credits for non-residential retrofits. (Rule 25.5-E-3-d)

76. This ordinance specifies when consumption records will be used to review historic non-residential use. (Rule 25.5-E-3-d)

77. This ordinance sets forth specific procedures for quantifying the abandoned capacity for water use. (Rule 25.5-E-3)

78. This ordinance adds a requirement for independent third party review if adequate water records are not available. This was recommended by the Water Demand Committee and has been utilized successfully (e.g. installation of waterless urinals and a SOMAT disposal system at the Defense Language Institute). (Rule 25.5-E-3-d)

79. This ordinance specifies that an independent third party review will be conducted before the District considers a water use credit when credit is requested prior to documented water savings. (Rule 25.5-E-3-d-(2))

80. This ordinance adds a requirement for a deed restriction when a water use credit is used to offset new water use on a water permit. The deed restriction language has been approved by the Board. (Rule 25.5-F-2)

81. This ordinance adds a list of examples of acceptable evidence to document historic exterior water use. This action is required to avoid the need for an additional increment of water, and the connection charge associated with that increment of water, on a site where previous irrigation can be documented. (Rule 25.5-H-2)

82. This ordinance clarifies the actions to be taken when disconnecting from a water distribution system. (Rule 25.5-H-3)

83. This ordinance clarifies the current permit process date (March 1, 1985) and states that uses in place at that time, or permitted after that date, may be continued if the use has not been permanently abandoned. (Rule 25.5-I)

84. This ordinance changes authority from the Board to the General Manager to approve resubmission of a denied application. (Rule 26)

85. This ordinance states that a water permit is site specific (i.e. attached to a specific parcel). (Rule 28-A-1)

86. This ordinance amends the process to transfer a water permit to another name. A water permit that is transferred to another (e.g. transfer of property ownership) will be reprinted with the new name. (Rule 28-A-2)

87. This ordinance amends Rule 28-B to eliminate redundant language. (Rule 28-B)

88. This ordinance adds a requirement for 15 percent of any transferred water use credit to be retained by the District as permanent water conservation savings. (Rule 28-B-8)

89. This ordinance deletes language in the former Rule 28-B-11 stating that the Board determines the adjusted water use capacity for a receiving site. This determination is ministerial. (Rule 28-B-10)

90. These ordinances clarifies that the General Manager shall review a water permit application utilizing transferred water credit and determine if the application meets the monetary reimbursement limitation imposed by the Board as a condition of approval. (Rule 28-B-10)

91. This ordinance clarifies what the appropriate amount of reimbursement may be for transferred water use credits. (Rule 28-B-10)

92. This ordinance adds a requirement for completion of a specific form to determine if valuable consideration has been given for a water use credit. (Rule 28-B-10)

93. This ordinance requires recordation of the conditions of the transfer to be recorded on both the originating and the receiving sites. (Rule 28-B-13)

94. This ordinance adds a requirement that an indemnification agreement is a condition of approval for a water credit transfer. (Rule 28-B-16)

95. This ordinance relocates the public open space transfer rule from Rule 24-B-2 to Rule 28-C and clarifies that public open space water credit transfers must originate from open space irrigation. (Rule 28-C)

96. This ordinance requires recordation of conditions of the transfer of public open space water credits on both the originating and receiving sites. (Rule 28-C-7)

97. This ordinance updates language related to water allocations to include water entitlements. (Rule 30-C)

98. This ordinance eliminates inactive language related to conservation savings. The language that allows water credit in excess of 15 percent savings to revert to the jurisdiction has been deleted as this process was not implemented and other processes to transfer water credits were added to the Rules. (Rule 30-C)

Conclusions

Based on this Initial Study, the Board believes that adoption of Ordinance No. 125 would have no actual or potential environmental impacts. The Board is aware that CEQA requires 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).) For these reasons, the Board intends to adopt a negative declaration regarding adoption of Ordinance No. 125.

Ordinance No. 125, as well as supporting materials and documents may be reviewed at the MPWMD offices, at the address and phone number listed above. These materials include (a) MPWMD Rules and Regulations, (b) approved Board of Directors meeting minutes of April 17, 2006 and draft meeting minutes of May 15, 2006, (c) the approved Water Demand Committee meeting minutes from June 14, August 2, September 1, October 11, and December 8, 2005 and January 23, 2006. Initial Study conclusions are also based on District staff professional assessments, knowledge and experiences. U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2006\2006boardpackets\20060622\PubHrgs\22\item22_exh22b_initialstudychecklist.doc