MONTEREYPENINSULA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Ordinance 98

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 wich, 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?
f) 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 §15064.5?
b) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §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 waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
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 areintermixed 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 stormwater 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 orother 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?
a) 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) Conflicts 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. MPWMD Rule 24 was created by Ordinance No. 8 in January 1981. Various sections have been created or amended by numerous ordinances over the past 20 years. Ordinance 98 amends MPWMD Rule 24-C, which was last amended by Ordinance No. 80 in November 1995. The basic MPWMD Water Allocation Program was assessed in an EIR certified in November 1990 and reaffirmed in mid-1993 as part of Ordinance No. 70. Supporting documentation (Board agenda packages) are on file at the District office or archives.  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. Allocation-related ordinances are reliant on the MPWMD Water Allocation Program EIR certified in 1990 and reaffirmed in 1993. 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).

See next page for discussion of checklist items.

DISCUSSION OF CHECKLIST ITEMS:

Proposed Ordinance No. 98 would revise, amend and republish existing provisions set forth in MPWMD Rule 24-C, "Residential Expansions," to allow the addition of a second bathroom in an existing residence with only one bathroom without debiting the jurisdiction's water allocation amount. In essence, the ordinance responds to modern quality-of-life standards in California that recognize that the addition of a second bath to an existing residence with only one bathroom is primarily for the purpose of convenience (e.g., to accommodate the privacy concerns of parents with growing children or a busy working couple).

"No Impact" Discussion

For nearly all checklist items, the Initial Study conclusion is that Ordinance No. 98 would have "No Impact." Adoption of Ordinance 98 itself has no impact on the environment as the ordinance affects how water fixture units are accounted for in each jurisdiction; in essence it is a "micro-management" accounting tool. The ordinance does not affect or change the existing "macro-management" accounting of and restrictions on water production by California-American Water Company (Cal-Am). For example Ordinance 98 would not change the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) limit on Cal-Am annual production from the Carmel River Basin; the Water District's limit on Cal-Am production from the Seaside Basin; the District's limit on total Cal-Am production through the Water Allocation Program, nor the individual allocations of water to jurisdictions from the Paralta Well (Ordinance No. 70). The District's Expanded Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan is in place to ensure Cal-Am production does not exceed these limits. Also, because the ordinance applies only to limited expansion of existing residential structures, there would be no impacts associated with new construction on undeveloped land.
[Evidence: Text of Ordinance No. 98; SWRCB Order WR 95-10, July 1995; MPWMD Water Allocation Program and certified EIR, November 1990; MPWMD Ordinance No 70 and supporting CEQA Findings, 1993. Ordinance No. 92, Expanded Conservation and standby Rationing Program, 1999]
 

More importantly, Ordinance 98 does not result in approval for second bathroom additions; that decision must be made by the land use planning jurisdiction through the planning and building permit processes. These land use processes require CEQA review by the jurisdiction, taking into account all the potential effects of entire project proposal, not just how the water fixtures are tabulated. For each project facilitated by this ordinance, the jurisdiction serves as the "gate-keeper" and must perform CEQA review for each project before it may issue a discretionary permit.
[Evidence: MPWMD Enabling Legislation; MPWMD Rules and Regulations, CEQA and CEQA Guidelines.]

It is highly questionable that an ordinance that facilitates the convenience of a second bathroom in an existing residence will result in any measurable effect to the environment, and that a "No Impact" determination is a reasonable conclusion for Ordinance No. 98. The driving force for creation of the ordinance was numerous communications by the public describing the inconvenience and hardship suffered by local families due to existing District rules that stymie the ability to receive a permit to add a second bathroom to an existing home, and questioning the scientific validity of existing assumptions.
[Evidence: Minutes of MPWMD Board meetings, 1998-2000; anecdotal evidence by Board members; letters to the Editor in local papers 1998-2000.]
 

"Less Than Significant Impact" Discussion

The following environmental parameters were checked as "Less Than Significant Impact" rather than "No Impact":

Section IV, Biological Resources, parts a, b and d;

Section VIII, Hydrology, parts b and c;

Section XV, Utilities, part d;

Section XVII, Mandatory Findings of Significance, parts a and b.
 

The "Less than Significant" determination was made for the above parameters in recognition that for some homes, it is possible that the addition of a second bathroom could facilitate a larger number of people in the home (and thus greater water use in that home) that would not occur if only one bathroom was allowed in the home. The indirect effect of the greater water use in these homes could affect certain biological and hydrologic resources, as well as the water service provider.

To date, the District has found no evidence to support a determination that Ordinance No. 98 would result in a measurable impact to the environment, or a "substantial" change (a term used in the checklist questions) resulting in a significant adverse impact. In contrast, a determination of "Less than Significant Impact" is appropriate due to the combined effect of the following facts:

(a) The existing number of people in a home and their personal habits determine the amount of water used, not the number of bathroom fixtures. Personal habits are most affected by awareness, education, and the impact of water rates to the residential water bill. Existing MPWMD and Cal-Am conservation programs have successfully addressed these primary factors for the past three years, resulting in compliance with Carmel River Basin water diversion limits described in State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order WR 95-10. [Evidence: Common sense and generally acknowledged information, based on water use studies performed by water agencies throughout California (e.g., MWD, ACWA, DWR); Cal-Am water production data reported to SWRCB for WY 1998, 1999 and 2000.]

(b) It would be premature, arbitrary and speculative to determine that Ordinance 98 would necessarily lead to a significant increase in water use due to the addition of a bathroom to a home. Water use by future occupants of a home could be smaller or greater than the existing use, depending primarily on the number of people who will live in the home (which could be smaller or greater than the existing situation), whether they are full-time or part-time residents, and their personal habits, rather than the number of bathroom fixtures in the home. Real estate data and trends as reported in local newspapers (and anecdotal evidence by Realtors) describe how many local homes on the Peninsula once occupied full-time by families are bought as second "weekend" homes by wealthy Silicon Valley residents, changing the character of neighborhoods and communities due to "absentee" neighbors. The local "housing crisis" caused by the regional economic impact of Silicon Valley is well-documented, with rapidly escalating prices of homes (compared to local salaries) preventing local familie++s from buying a larger home. Instead, local families must remodel existing homes to accommodate their families' housing needs.
[Evidence: Common sense and generally acknowledged information, based on numerous variations that exist and are possible in individual housing transactions; housing-related articles in Monterey County Herald, Carmel Pine Cone and Monterey County Post, 1999-2000.]
 

(c) MPWMD's Ordinance No. 92 (Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Program), in combination with Cal-Am's extensive public awareness campaign and changed water rate structure inherent in Stage 3 of the Conservation Program, has successfully resulted in compliance with State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order WR 95-10 for the past three water years (WY 1998, 1999 and 2000). Ordinance 92 features several water waste prohibitions along with a census for each residential Cal-Am customer. The water rate structure approved by the California Public Utilities Commission for the program is based on specific water use quantities related to the number of persons in a home, and provides strong disincentives for water waste. The successful census-based structure of the Conservation Program would not be adversely affected by Ordinance 98, which allows a second bathroom to be enjoyed by the occupants of an existing residence.
[Evidence: Cal-Am production data for WY 1998, 1999, 2000 reported to SWRCB; MPWMD Ordinance No. 92; CPUC approval of increasing block rate structure for Cal-Am conservation program to comply with SWRCB Order WR 95-10.]
 

(d) The ordinance does not affect or change the existing restrictions on water production by Cal-Am nor the MPWMD Water Allocation Program. For example, Ordinance 98 would not change the SWRCB limit on Cal-Am annual production from the Carmel River Basin; the District's limit on total Cal-Am production (Allocation Program limit), nor the individual allocations of water to jurisdictions from the Paralta Well (Ordinance No. 70). The mitigation measures contained in the Water Allocation Program EIR and implemented through the District's comprehensive Mitigation Program would not be adversely effected by Ordinance 98.
[Evidence: Text of Ordinance No. 98; SWRCB Order WR 95-10, July 1995; MPWMD Water Allocation Program and certified EIR, November 1990; MPWMD Ordinance No 70 and supporting CEQA Findings, 1993.]
 

(e) Ordinance 98 does not conflict with the SWRCB Order nor the SWRCB's interpretation of the Order as it relates to accounting for water credits and other aspects of the MPWMD "water fixture methodology." In meetings between SWRCB staff and at special public forums, Harry Schueller, Chief of the Division of Water Rights, has stated that the SWRCB is not interested in regulating individual bathroom fixtures in people's homes.
[Evidence: Notes from MPWMD meeting with SWRCB management staff on January 5, 2000 in Sacramento; statements by SWRCB officials at public forum on May 30, 2000.]
 

Conclusions

Based on this Initial Study, the Board believes that adoption of Ordinance 98 would have no actual or potential significant adverse environmental impacts. Furthermore, the Board determines that there is an absence of substantial evidence from which a fair argument can be made that adoption of Ordinance 98 has actual or potential significant adverse environmental consequences. The Board 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. (CEQA Guidelines §15063(b)(2).) For these reasons, the Board intends to adopt a negative declaration regarding adoption of Ordinance 98.
 

Ordinance 98, 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) MPWMD Ordinances, particularly Ordinance No. 92, (c) Board agenda information supporting first and second reading of ordinances ("Board packets"), newspaper clipping file, Cal-Am water production data, CPUC rate information. Initial Study conclusions are also based on District staff professional assessments, knowledge and experiences. 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.

\ord98cklistb.wpd
revised December 11, 2000 for Ordinance No 98; reviewed by DF and DCL

Back to Ordinance 98 Page