Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-02 Packet - Water WorkshopCITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA WATER PERMIT WORKSHOP CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 November 2, 2006 5:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE J WATER PERMIT WORKSHOP a. Workshop on Water Permit and of Place of Use Amendments ADJOURNMENT OF WORKSHOP Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda. Dated this 30TM day of October1 2006. Gail Petersen, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM NO: 3a MEETING DATE: November 2, 2006 SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: Workshop on Water Permit and Place of Use Amendments INTRODUCTION On October 3, 2006, the City conducted a "scoping session" for an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). The EIR will evaluate the environmental impacts of the changes being sought by the City and Millview County Water District to their respective water rights permits. They are each seeking to extend the term of their respective permits, and to change the points of diversion ("POD") and places of use ("POU") authorized by those permits. The change petitions by both are pending before the Division of Water Rights of the California Water Resources Control Board ("Board"). Following the scoping session, there has been considerable public interest and concern with the proposed changes to the POU by the City. On October 18, 2006, the City RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss permit and EIR ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Citizens Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: City Council David J. Rapport, City Attorney Planning Director, City Manager, Consultants Attachment 1 -April 19, 2005 workshop materials Attachment 2- Chronology Attachment 3- Attachment 4- Attachment 5- Attachment 6- Attachment 7- Attachment 8- Attachment 9- 2005 Report of Compliance Inspection 2002 change in place of use map 2005 change in place of use map Aerial Photo Overlay Map LAFCO law excerpts Initial Study Wagner & Bonsignore's letters of 2003 and Approved: Candace Horsley, City IV~anager Agenda Summary Report Water Permit Workshop Page 2 November 2, 2006 Council extended until November 6, 2006, the deadline for public comments on the proposed scope of that EIR, and scheduled this workshop to review the history and purpose of the pending applications. In addition, at the October 18, meeting, Councilmember Baldwin several questions, which he wanted addressed at this workshop. Those questions are stated and answered in this ASR at pages 4-6. This ASR and its attachments attempt to provide the information requested by the City Council to aid in the discussion at the workshop. HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF APPLICATIONS At the April 19, 2005 City Council workshop, information was provided on the history and status of the City's water permit amendments. Attached (Attachment 1) is the ASR, memorandum from the City Attorney, and attachments referenced in the memorandum submitted for that workshop. Attached as Attachment 2 is a more abbreviated chronology prepared for this workshop by Paula Whealen of Wagner and Bonsignore. In summary, the City received a permit to appropriate 20 cfs of water from Russian River underflow on a year round basis in 1961. (See attachment 1 to Attachment 1 which is a 1991 chronology related to the City's permit.) The most recent term of the City's permit expired on December 31,2000. On November 15, 2000, the City filed its application to extend the term of the permit. In 2001, Board staff conducted compliance inspections of several Mendocino County water systems, including the City of Ukiah, Millview and Willow water systems. As a result of these inspections, the Board determined that changes were needed to the City's permit as City wells numbers 5 and 6 were not included as PODs under its permit and it was serving areas outside its approved POU. Those areas included Millview and Willow water districts to which the City was interconnected pursuant to intertie agreements. The Board staff required the City to either demonstrate that it was not serving areas outside its POU or apply to include Millview and Willow within its POU. (See Attachment B to Attachment 1, a November 9, 2001, letter from John O'Hagan, Chief of the Board's Compliance and Enforcement Unit, which states: Apparently, service of water outside the place of use is made pursuant to inter-tie agreements with Millview and Willow County Water Districts. Based on these findings, the Division requires within 30 days from the date of this letter, that the City provide evidence either contradicting the Division findings, or supporting a right to use the wells and serve property outside the place of use covered by Permit 12952. If there is no contest to the Division findings and no basis of right, the City should petition to change the points of diversion and place of use under Permit 12952 at this time. See also similar statements in the Report of Compliance Inspection prepared by Board Staff attached as Attachment 3. Agenda Summary Report Page 3 Water Permit Workshop November 2, 2006 In Attachment C to Attachment 1, the City's consultant, Paula Whealen responded by explaining that the inter-tie agreements only provided water under emergency conditions, and suggested that change in place of use petitions for all three agencies be coordinated so that the service areas of all three agencies be included in the POU for each agency's permit. John O'Hagan agreed with that proposal in a letter dated February 6, 2002, giving Wagner and Bonsignore until July 1,2002, to file petitions to change the POU for Millview, Ukiah and Willow. (See Attachment E to Attachment 1.) As explained in Attachment 1, p. 4, Millview is interconnected to Calpella County Water District and supplies water to Calpella during the summer. This water is supplied under the Mendocino County Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District ("Flood Control District") permit, but because of the physical interconnection, there is a possibility that if the City supplied Millview with water under the emergency intertie agreement during the summer, some of that water might reach the Calpella system, resulting in a violation of the City's permit. To avoid that threatened violation, the City elected to include Calpella within its POU. As pointed out in Attachment 1, p. 6, Water Code Section 1052 prohibits unauthorized diversions of water and authorizes administrative sanctions and court action for a threatened as well as an actual unauthorized diversion. Whether to include Calpella was one of the issues specifically addressed in the April 2005 workshop. (See Attachment 1, p. 6.) The City filed its petition to change the place of use on July 1,2002. (See Attachment G to Attachment 1.) The map of the proposed boundaries submitted with the application is attached as Attachment 4. The petition states as the reason for proposed change: "To accurately describe how the project operates which includes possible emergency water delivery to Millview, Willow & Calpella County Water Districts pursuant to existing and potential emergency Interconnection Agreements." (Attachment G to Attachment 1, p. 2.) The restated notice of the petition issued by the Board on December 24, 2002, restates this same purpose. (Attachment 1, p. 5, and Attachment O to Attachment 1.) At a certain point in the process, as explained in Attachment 1, Willow elected not to join in the petition to include the Ukiah, Millview and Calpella service areas in its POU. As a result, the City's petition was amended in November 2004 to exclude Willow. (See Attachment 1, p. 6.) However, the City Council considered this exclusion during the workshop in April 2005, and decided to keep Willow in its service area both to facilitate emergency service under the intertie agreement and in the event the City and Calpella should agree to the annexation into the City of areas within Willow's, but currently outside the City's, POU. In December 2005 the City amended its petition again to include Willow's place of use within the City's POU. However, between July 2002 and November 2005, Willow had revised its petition to change its POU to include some additional territory. Accordingly, the map filed in December 2005 includes that additional area. (The 2005 map is attached as Attachment 5.) That is the only difference between the 2002 and 2005 maps. The 2005 map overlain by an aerial photograph is attached as Attachment 6. This attachment is intended to make clearer what areas are included and what areas are not included in the proposed POU. Agenda Summary Report Page 4 Water Permit Workshop November 2, 2006 During this same time period, the Board strongly recommended that the City use a consolidated environmental document to analyze the environmental impacts of all of the proposed changes. (See Attachment 1, p. 1-3.) In addition, the predecessor to NOAA Fisheries filed a protest to the time extension petition, demanding an analysis of the impacts on endangered species (salmon and steelhead trout in the Russian River) of increasing the diversion from 8 cfs to 20 cfs, if the term of the City's permit were extended. The April 2005 Council workshop was specifically addressed to whether the City should proceed with an EIR, jointly funded by the City and Millview, and whether it should address all of the changes to their combined permits. The City Council approved contracts to retain Leonard Charles and Associates and Wagner and Bonsignore as consultants to jointly prepare the EIR with the City and Millview each paying one-half the cost. Leonard Charles prepared the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation which preceded the scoping session on October 3. The Initial Study notes that for various legal reasons the City could determine not to analyze the growth inducing impacts from enlarging the City's POU. (See the Initial Study attached as Attachment 7, pp. 10-11.) Nevertheless, the Initial Study states that the EIR, for informational purposes, will evaluate those impacts. (See pp. 12-13.) Moreover, Wagner and Bonsignore will include a study of the impact of increased diversions to the full 20 cfs on instream uses, other water users, and senior water rights holders. The purpose of the Notice of Preparation, Initial Study and Scoping Session are to give members of the public and other public agencies an opportunity to comment on the proposed scope of the EIR and to identify additional impacts which should be considered. ANSWERS TO COUNCILMEMBER BALDWIN'S QUESTIONS Vice Mayor Baldwin asked the following questions. Each question will be stated, followed by its answer. 1. Councilmember Baldwin recollects that the City applied to change its place of use to include Millview (and Calpella) and Willow based on a suggestion or demand by the Board. He has asked staff to provide a copy of the written communication from Board staff "requiring the boundary expansion." Answer: This information was provided during the April 2005 workshop and is restated in this ASR at page 2. 2. Have applications been made to the Board for emergency permits to supply water under the emergency intertie agreements? If so, provide copies of each application. Answer: Without including Millview and Willow in the City's POU, the City violates its permit, if it furnishes water under the Emergency Interconnection Agreement, unless it applies for and is granted a Temporary Urgency Change Order under Water Code Agenda Summary Report Water Permit Workshop Page 5 November 2, 2006 Sections 1435 et seq. Those sections would require the City to file a petition with the Board prior to furnishing water in an emergency. The City would not be authorized to furnish the water until the order is granted. An order remains in effect for 180 days. If another emergency occurred beyond that time period, the City would have to file for another order. The petition must provide sufficient information for the Board to find that an urgency condition exists, that the change can be made without injury to other lawful users of water, and that the proposed change may be made without unreasonable effect upon fish, wildlife or other instream beneficial uses. The Board is required to investigate the petition and provide a notice and hearing, if the permit is for more than 3 cfs, which the City permit is. Any interested person may file a protest. The Board has discretion to issue an order prior to a hearing, but according to Assistant Chief Jim Kassel and Senior Engineer Kathy Mrowka of the Board, who process the Temporary Urgency Change Petitions, the fastest their office has approved such a Petition is two weeks, and the average approval time is much longer than that. They also stated that the City would have to pay approximately $5,000 in petition fees ($1,000 minimum plus $.30 per acre foot for each acre-foot greater than 10 acre-feet, based on the diversion authorized by the City's permit, or a maximum of $5,150, whichever is less) for each petition. Since the compliance inspection in August 2001, the City has not provided emergency water to either Millview or Willow. Consequently, it has not applied for a Temporary Urgency Order. 3. Explain the relationship between the EIR for the permit amendment to extend the term of the City's permit and the amendment to change the place of use. Answer: As previously explained the City is required to evaluate the impacts on the environment of diverting the full 20 cfs for the application for a time extension, including the impact on instream uses and holders of senior water rights. The petition to change the place of use expands the scope of the EIR, because of the decision to consider growth inducing impacts within the expanded POU. 4. Address the implications of the expansion of Millview and Calpella places of use. Answer: The City's petition includes the area that Millview and Calpella are proposing to add to their existing place of use so that it can furnish water under the emergency intertie agreements throughout the place of use for Millview and Calpella. This avoids the necessity of later filing another round of petitions for changes to the City's POU to accommodate either district's expanded POU. Millview and Calpella are expanding their existing POUs, in part, to cover their existing operations which serve areas outside their current POUs. These changes are required to respond to the Board's August 2001 compliance inspections. Millview's General Manager stated at the scoping session that Millview elected to include in the change petition additional areas within Millview's currently approved sphere of influence. If Millview expanded its system to serve those areas in the future, water under the City's permit could be used in those areas under the emergency intertie agreement. The City Agenda Summary Report Water Permit Workshop Page 6 November 2, 2006 could not furnish water to those areas in non-emergency situations without going through hearings before LAFCO and receiving LAFCO approval. Such service would require either annexation of those areas into the City or an out of area service agreement between the City and Millview. Under Government Code Section 56133, a city or district may provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundaries only if approved by LAFCO. Moreover, LAFCO cannot approve such an agreement, unless it is within the applicant's sphere of influence, unless such service is necessary to respond to an existing or impending threat to the public health or safety of the residents of the affected territory. Such an agreement between two public agencies, such as the City and Millview, is only exempt from LAFCCO approval, where the public service to be provided is an alternative to, or substitute for, public services already being provided by an existing public service provider and where the level of service to be provided is consistent with the level of service contemplated by the existing service provider. This exemption would not apply to an agreement for water to serve new development or previously unserved areas. LAFCO policy F.3 states: "Prior to extending surplus water service to any project that will support or induce development, the city or district shall first request written approval from the commission in the affected county." (See pertinent excerpts of LAFCO law attached as Attachment 8.) 5. Address the encroachment of water (by expansion of the places of use) onto lands designated for agricultural use. Answer: Such encroachments are regulated by LAFCO, which won't approve any annexation until it has approved an updated sphere of influence for the agency seeking to annex territory. Any such sphere must promote the long-term preservation and protection of the County agricultural, resource and open space lands. 6. Address the impact on the proposed scope of the EIR of a case, El Dorado Water District v. Save the Lakes, which struck down an EIR for a water district project, because it relied on a draft General Plan. Answer: The official case name is County of Amador, et aL v. El Dorado County Water Agency et al. (CA 3rd 1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931. That case involved an EIR for two water projects, including a permit to appropriate water for those projects, to meet projected population growth in El Dorado County. The announced purpose of these projects was to appropriate for consumptive use enough water to meet the growth projected in the County's general plan. However, at the time that the EIR was certified by the lead agency, the El Dorado Water Agency, the draft general plan had not been approved. The court ruled that an EIR for water projects to meet the development proposed in a draft general plan was improper. Until the plan is adopted, the actual water needs of the county were unknown and could not be properly evaluated in the EIR. Agenda Summary Report Water Permit Workshop Page 7 November 2, 2006 Here, the project is to extend the term of the City's existing permit to provide more time to put the water to beneficial use and to amend the Millview and City water permits to bring them into compliance with actual practice, in terms of points of diversion and place of use. An adequate evaluation of these projects does not require final approval of the Ukiah Valley Area Plan. See County of El Dorado v. Department of Transportation, 133 Cal. App. 4th 1376, which distinguished El Dorado Water Agency on this same basis. The Initial Study in studying the growth inducing impacts of the project for informational purposes proposes using the growth projections in the draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan, because those are the best projections currently available, and most likely higher than the development limits which are likely to be adopted, a so-called "worst case" scenario. This analysis, however, is far different than the analysis required in El Dorado Water Agency, because the projects being evaluated in this EIR are not intended to meet those growth projections. That type of analysis will be required, if future efforts are made to extend water under the City's permit to new areas via annexation. 7. Does Wagner and Bonsignore, the City's engineering consultants on water rights matters, have a conflict of interest, because of its representing other parties to the emergency intertie agreements or other water interests. Paula Whealen states that Wagner and Bonsignore disclosed to the City Council in connection with the April 2005 workshop all of the clients they represent on the Russian River. Wagner and Bonsignore jointly prepared the petitions and maps for and at the direction of the City, Millview and Willow, but does not represent Millview and Willow beyond those joint petitions. Attachment 9 contains the disclosure and conflict letters previously submitted by Wagner and Bonsignore in 2003 and 2005. Ms Whealen says they do not represent any clients in addition to those they have previously disclosed. Affachment # ITEM NO. 2b. DATE: April 19, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING PENDING PETITIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO CITY'S WATER RIGHTS PERMIT Attached for Council's review and consideration is the City Attorney's report in memorandum form that addresses the pending petitions to amend the City's water rights permit. It also discusses the related issues and basis for staff's recommendation to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts of these amendments. The City Manager has also provided a memorandum regarding the Flood District contract and annexation policy. Accompanying the City Manager's memorandum are attachments numbered 1 through 3. Attachments A. through T. are also submitted for Council's review that supports the City Attorney's discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and Discuss Report ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Do not receive report and provide alternative direction to Staff. Citizen Advised: Requested by: Prepared by: Coordinated with: Attachments: N/A City Council David Rapport, City Attorney and Candace Horsley, City Manager Gary Weatherford, Water Attorney A. through T, and two related court cases APPROVED: Candace Horsley, Cit~q~anager Law Offices Of RAPPORT AND MARSTON An Association of Sole Practitioners 405 W Perkins Street P O Box 488 Ukiah, California 95482 e-mail drapporl@pacbell net David J Rapport LesterJ Marston Scott Johnson Mary Jane Sheppard M E M 0 R A N D U M (707) 462-6846 FAX 462-4235 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayer a~v Council members David J. Rapp~',r~ (1~' ,April 14, 2005 ~ ' Water workshop Tints memorandnm addresses thc pending petitions to amend the City's u, ater rigbts permit and the issues related to those amendments. It will firsl describe the pertinent facts and then the issues vd~ich have been raised concerning those amendments, including the basis for the stafffs recommendation to prepare an Environmental Impact Report CEIR") under thc California Environmental Policy Act C('EQA") to evaluate the environmental impacts of these amendments. FACTUAL BACKGROUNi) 1. Petition to extend term ofxvater rights permit. I'he City's permit to appropriate v, ater from Russian River underflew, which was originally approved by the State Water Resources Control Board ("Board") in ]961, was due to expire on December I, 2000. On November 15, 2000, the City filed au application to extend the permit for an additional 10 years. ~ The only timely protest to t~at application was filed by the then National Marine Fisheries Service CNMFS"), now called NOAA Fisheries, regarding the impact of the time extension on endangered sahnon and steelhead trout in the Russian River. (See below.) On January 11,2002, the Environmental Rc',iew Unit of the Board's Division of Water Rights "Division") notified tine City that the Division regarded the City's petition to extend the term of its See attached Exhibit A. Memorandum Io Ma)hr and ( nuncil members Y, ubject: Amendments to Water I,'dghts l'ermit Date: April 14, 2005 Page 2 permit as a rcauthorization to dixert an additional 14.76 cubic leer per second ("cfs"), the difference bctx~een the City's reported maximum diversion2 prior to December 1, 2000. when its permit was due to expire, and 20 clk. lhe maxinmm rate of diversion authorized by the permit) P, ased on this ,,'iow of the CitF's petition to extend thc term of lbo permit, the Division stated that the Cit.,,', as the lead agency under (EQA, lrmst assess tiao cunmiatix'e cnvironmental impacts of increasing by this amount the direct di,.ersion from the P, ussian Rixer on "scnsitive plant and animal species and their habitat .... " On February 13, 2002, NMFS wrote to the City, agreeing x,.ith the state that the petition for a time extension represented a reauthorization to appropriate additional water which could have a potentially "a&crse effcc! on federally listed anadromous species in the Russian River.'4 NMFS stated that the impact to endangered species required evaluation under CEQA and the Endangered Species Acl ("ESA") listing may require additional terms and conditions. In order to obtain clarification of the l)i,,ision's direction regarding studies needed to support a CEQA document, a meeting vxas held on February 15, 2002, at the SWRCB in Sacramento attended by Division Management Legul Counsel and Staff; and Wagner & Bonsignore, Consulting Engineers C\\ & B') (Bob Wagner and Paula Whealcn), Gary.' Weatherfbrd and Dan Taaffe outside water counsel, and DarryI Barnes, the then Public Utilities Director, and David Rapport. The Division re-stated its position that the petition tbr time extension ,.,.'as a reauthorization of thc original permit and would require preparation of an EIR. And',' Sawyer, Division Legal Counsel, emphasized this point by sa3ing that if the City prepared a ~cgative Declaration that was inadequate in lhe oyes of the SWRCB. the Board could sue the City. Subsequent to receix lng the lctter from NMi 5;. W & B staffmet with NMFS and confirmed the results of that meeting in a letter, dated June 4, 2002.s In that letter Paula Whealan confirmed clarifications of the scope of environmental review that ,aould bc required for the time extension petition as a result of the ESA. Eirst. she clarified that the maxinmm di,, ersion rate achieved by the City prior to December 1,2000, was 8 elk, not 5.4 cfs as stated in the Division's January 11 2002. letter. Second. she clarified that the environmental analysis should address impacts that may result if thc storage elevation in Lake Mcndocino changes duc to an increase in the City's divcrsi~)n rate. Finally, she established that the City is not required to include a cumulative impacts analysis on ~ The Division actually mistook an average annual rate for the maximum rate. This error ,,,.as subsequently corrected. See tbotnote 3 below. ~ See attached Exhibit D. See also attached Exhibit It, in which Paula Whealen pointed out to the Division staff that the 5.24 cfs was not a maximum dixersion but rather an average annual rate of diversion. 4 See Exhibit h s See Exhibit J. Memorandum tn Mayor and Council members Subject: Amendments to Water Rights Permit Date: April 14, 2005 Page 3 anadrnmous fishery resources in the entire main stem Russian River, because lhis ,.,,'ill be addressed as a result of the Section 7 consultation required by the ESA. On June 21,2002, NMFS responded to the letter fi'om \Vhcalan.(' In the letter NMFS agreed that it ~.,.as concerned with thc effect of additional dis ersions on I.akc Mendocino. However, it said its primary concern was with the effects of'such diversions on water temperature and water quality in the lake, if'the increased diversion in the summer could result in additional releases from the l~ke. 2. Petition to change points of diversion and place of use. On August 8, 2001, the staffof the Dis ision conducted an inspection of the City's water system to dcternfinc its overall compliance v, ith thc terms mad conditions of its per\nit.* The Dis ision noted that City Wells 5 and 6 were not included under the permit as authorized "points of'diversion." ("POI)") and that service Io Millviev, County Water District ("Mill,.iew") and Willow County W: :er District ("Willow") under Emergency Intcrconnection Agreements CEIAs") resulted in the City serving areas not included in the "allowed place of'use" ("POU") under the permit. Thc Division stated that if the City did not contest these facts, it should petition Io change the points of diversion and the allowed place of use.s On behalf of thc City, Whealan responded on January 4, 2002, that the City would petition to add \Veils 5 and 6 as additional points of diversion, but proposed coordinating the City's petition to change thc place of use with petitions which Millview and Willow were required to file as a result of similar compliance inspections.`) In response to the City's January 4, 2002, letter, the Division gave thc City until July 1,20(12, to file the petition for a change to the place of use, to alh)w for coordination w[th the petitions ti'om Millview and Willow. That letter also recommended that the City consider % single comprehensive enviromncnta] document covering changes to the'POD and POU and its petition fi)r an extension of time...,,~0 Prior to filing the petition for change in POU, the City negotiated revisions and extensions to the EIAs between tine City and Willow and the City and Millview. ~ During those negotiations LAFCO was asked whether it would be required to appro;e the agreements under a provision of See Exhibit L. See attached Exhibit B. 8 Id. at p. 2. See attached Exhibit C. ~0 See Exhibit E. See Exhibit K. Memorandum tn Ma) hr and Council members Subject: Amendments to \Valor Rights Permit Date: April 14, 2005 Page 4 thc District Reorganization Act which requires LAFCO to approve agreements to prox ide services outside the boundaries ora local government such as a tit3 or water district.~2 On May 29, 2002, the City Attorney prepared a letter opinion addressed to the LAFCO Executive Directur, stating that in his opinion LAFCO approx al ,,','as not requiredfls Copies of this opinion were furnished to Countx Counsel. LAFCO ultimately concluded that its approval was not required. In addition to the EIAs, Millview is interconnected with Calpclla County Water District ("Calpella") and furnishes it with water in the summer to help Calpella satis~' its summertime demand. The revised and extended agreement contained a definition of"urgent or emergency condition" and a prox iso that none of the City's water furnished to Millview under the agreement could be delivered b3 Millview to Calpella.14 l'he detinition of urgent or emergency condition stated: "'Urgent or emergency conditions' ... means a sudden or unexpected occurrence or combination of occurrences causing domestic water supply to be temporarily interrupted or lessened, and docs not include inadequate water rights to meet peak demand." Based on comcrsations bctx~een W & B and Division staff, it was W&B's understanding that the Division sought the petitions to change the POU for Millview. Ukiah and Willow primarily because of the physical interties between their respective water systems. Based on this understanding, the City's petition lbr a change in POU, filed July 1. 2002, included Calpella as ,,,,ell as Millview aud \x, illow, because of its physical interconnection with M illview.~5 On November 15, 2002, the Division published notice of the City's petition lo change the POD and POU under its permit. In that notice, the Division stated: "Seeking to remove the EIA complctel3 and provide a more prcdiclablc water supply, the City of Ukiah has filed a petition to expand its Place of Use to incorporate thc scrx ice areas of Millview, Willow and Calpella County Waler District's v~ithin its permit.~6 The statement about seeking to remove the FIA completely was not contained in the City's petition. \Xhen the City brought that discrepancy to the Division's attention, thc Division staff c~ffcrcd to issue a Renotice correcting that error in the noticefl? ~2 See Government Code §56133. ~ See Exhibit P. 14 See Exhibit K, at Recitals, para. 4, p. 1. ~s See Exhibit G. See also Exhibit F which accompanied thc March 13, 2002, petition to change the POD. ~6See Exhibit N, p. 7. 17 See Exhibil S. Memorandum to Mayur and (ouncil members Subject: Amendments to %'ater Rights Permit Date: April 14,201)$ Page 5 On l)eccmbcr 23. 2002, thc Division published a Re;notice oflhe Petition.~8 In the Rcnotice. the Dix ision amended the above-quoted statcme~t to read as follows: On occasion, the City supplies x~,ater to MiIlviex~ and Willow County Water Districts through Emergency Inlerconnection Agreements (EIA) which are instituted whenever an emergency situation such as fire, contamiuation or equipment fhilure occurs. Millview County Water District, in addition to its own needs, also supplies a portion of its water to Calpella County Water District. [;nfbrluuately, there are no proxisions within the City of Ukiah's v, ater rights to allow them to transk:r EIA water outside of the authorized placc of use. 'Fine City of' Ukiah has thus filed to expand its Place of Use to mcorporalc the service arcas of Millview, Willow, and Calpella County Water Districts within its permit.19 Between December 10 and 13, 2002, three protests were timely filed in rcsponse to the petitions to change the POD and p()[i, l-hey were filed by the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District ("Flood Control District"), Sonoma County Water Agency ("SCWA") and l.ec tloward.2° Subsequently, thc Flood Control District withdrev, its protest.TM Thc SC WA protest primarily sought the addition of two conditions: (1) that the Board retains jurisdiction over thc permit to change the season of diversion upon a finding concerning the availability of x,,ater and (2) that the permit is subject to prior rights.22 The }Ioward protest was directed at the statement in the November 15, 2002, notice of the Citv's petition that the City sought to remove thc EIA aud provide a more predictable water supply]5 Based on that statement, Howard argued that LAFCO would have to approve of the change. The statement ,.,,'as superceded by the Renotice, which removed that statement from the original notice to make clear that the City ~as seeking to amend the POU in the permit in order to serve Millview and Willow pursuant to the EIA; not to eliminate the EIA. This made Howard's objections moot. See Exhibit O. Exhibit O, p. 3. Sec Exhibit M. See Exhibit M-4. See Exhibit M-l. See Exhibit M-2. Memorandum to Ma)or and ( ouncil members Subject: Amendments to Water Rights l'ermit Date: April 14, 2005 Pa~e 6 On November 22, 2004, thc City filcd a request to ameud its Petition for Change itl Place of Use to exclude the Willo,a service area from line petition.~4 Willov, decided nol Io participate m the preparation of an klR. To avoid tile necessity ofprepariug an EIR, it has elected not to petition to clnange the POU under its permits to iucludc Ukialn or Millview and has requested Ukiah to exclude Willow from its petition. ~o satisl}, thc Dix ision's concern about the physical intertie and threatened unauthorized diversions. Willow will be required to propose installing a plug lo prevent water from being convcyed bctx~,een the two water syslems. The Scope of Services proposed by Leonard Charles in the agreement for his services to prepare tine E1R recognizes that the combined use area will include Calpella, Millviev, and UkialL but not Willo,a.~s In tine event of an emergeucy, Willow will be required to file a petition for a temporary urgency change to its place of use under Water Code Section 1435, v, hich the Division staffmust approve befbrc Willow temporaril.; removes tine plug fi'om the intcrconnectiun. It would be required to replace thc plug upon expiration of thc temporary approval. ISSUES 1. Should Calpella be included in the petition 1o change tile POU? Based ou thc physical interconnection bctwccn all lbur watcr systems, Calpella has been included in tine City's petition to expand its POU, since tire petition ':,'as originally filed in July 2002. Based on the August 8, 2002, inspection report, its experience, and Water Code Section 1052. W & B believes that it is prudent to include Calpella in the City's petition. In its compliance report on Millvicw, the Division required Millxiew to add Calpclla to its placc of usc. Water Code Section 1052 prohibits unauthorized diversions of water and authorizes administrative sanctions and court action for a threatened as well as an actual unauthorized dix crsiou. In W & B's past experience, the Division has treated a physical iuterconnection of water systems as a threatened diversion. In i'ts Report of Compliance Inspection, the Divisiou focuses on tine physical inter-tics between the City, on the one hand, and \Villow and Millview, on the other.~(' W & B maintains that because of the physical intertie between Millview and Calpella, it is prudent to include the Calpella service area in the City's POU to axoid any possibility that the City could he found in actual or tlnreatened x iolation of its permit in tile exent some of'its water were determined to have been delivered to See Exhibit Q. See Exhibit See Exhibit R, p. 4. Memorandum to Mayor and Cuuncil members Subject: Amendments to Water Rights Permit Date: April 14, 2005 Page 7 Calpclla. This could lnappcn at any time that Millview ,,',as deli,, cring water to Calpella. when an emergency rcquMng service from the City occurred. It is also true, however, that the EIA bctv,'cen tile City and Millview prohibits such deliveries aud it is unlikely that tile Git,`' ,``.ill c,`cr annex tcrritor5 within Calpella's service area. Based on the adxicc ffmn \V & B. staff continues to recommend including Calpella in thc petition. 2. Should the City, jointl3 with Millview, prepare an Ell{ to evaluate the enviromnental impacts of the petitions to extend the permit term and to change the POD and POU? CEQA requires one of two types of enviroumental review ora prcticct: (1) a negative declaration, ,,','here the project as mitigated ,`,.,ill not have an), adverse environmental impact or (2) an EIR, here a project could haxe impacts whicb cannot be mitigated to the level of insignificance. An EIR is preferred under CEQA over a negative declaration, and any doubts as to which should be prepared arc resolved in Ihxor of preparing an EIR.27 For that reason, tbe coorts defer to a decision to prepare au E1R but not to a decisiunto prepare a negative declaration. As a cousequcnce, a law suit challenging an gig is easier to defend lhan a lax`.' suit challenging a negative declaration. lftbe administrative record coutains substantial evidence on the basis of which a "thir argument" can be made that the project may base an unmitigated adverse eh`. ironmeutal impact, a court is required to set aside the ncgatixe declaration.:a A negative dcclaratiou will be overturned, if the record contains any substantial evidence that an adverse impact may occnr, even if other substantial evidence in the record would support thc conclusion that no adverse impacts will occur. Ao EIR, on lhe other hand, is presumed valid and tire existence of substantial evidence in tbe record will sustain an EIR, even if other substantial evidence in the record would support an opposite conclusion. All tine City has to show is a reasonable, good thith effort at compliance. Thc petition to extend the permit term must be treated as a reauthorization to increase the rate of diversion by 12 cfs, from 8 cfs to 20 cfs. That evaluation must consider the impact on the releases from Lake Mendocino and the impact of the changed releases on water temperature and water quality in the Lake. Endangered species are involved. Sierra Club v Count5' pfSon~ma (1992) 6 Cal. App.4th 1307, 1316-1317. ~'Xo Oil. /nc' v. CiO, oJ Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 75; Friends O/ "B" Stree! v Cio' lfayv~ard(lst Dist. 1980) 106 Ca]. App. 3d 988, 1000-1003. Memorandum to ,Mayor and Council members Subject: Amendments to Veater Rights Permit I)atc: April 14, 2005 Page 8 In addition, tile petition to cha~ge t[2e POi7 ,,viii authorize tile City under its water rights permit to use its water anywhere in the expanded usc area. even though the EIAs currently limit that use 1o emergcncJes, as defined in the agrcemcnts. Because CEQA compliance is required betbre the l)ivision can approvc the Cits's petitions, the enviromnental review must consider the potential environmental ilqcq~act of making City x,.ater available without the emergency restriction in that expanded area. Gi,,en the scope of the environmental review required for both petitions and the willingness of Millview to pay half the cost, tile staffdetermined to solicit proposals for an E1R. Staff continues to believe that an EIR is the prudent wavto proceed. 3. Should the CiD' undertake a broader EIR to prepare for revisions to thc City's sphere of influence and future annexations'? It has been suggested that tile City ',**'ill have to request LAFCO approval lbr a revision of its sphere of influence before it can initiate annexation of additional territory into the City limits. For that reason, the question has been asked whether the proposed scope of thc EIR should be revised in anticipation of that application. It is true that tile City's sphere of influence as approved by LAFCO is larger than the area identified as an appropriate sphere of influence in tile City's General Plan. qo make the LAFCO approved sphere consistent with the Cily's General Plan, tile City should apply to LAFCO to revise its sphere of influence. In slalFs opinion, however, that revision ,.','ill not require extensive environmental review, because the revised sphere of influence is already included in the larger area. As a result of the re', ision, the area remaining in the City's sphere will see no change. The areas removed from the City's sphere ;,,ill remain in the County with their current land use designations. Moreover. the environmental impacts of the reduced sphere have already been evaluated ill the City's General Plan EIP,. If the City were expanding its urban influence, that would require more extensive environmental review. Attached: Exhibits MEMORANDUI~! Date: To: From: Subject: April 19, 2005 Mayor Ashiku and Honorable Councilmembers Candace Horsley, City [Vlanager Water Policies and Decisions Contract with Flood District The City has contracted with the Russian River Flood Control District for 500 Acre Feet (AF) of District water per year. This decision was made by unanimous vote of the Council on October 20, 2004 affcer discussion with the City's water right's attorney, Gary Weatherford. The City's hydrologist consultant, Bob Wagner, had prepared an analysis of Ukiah's water right shortage during critical dry months and the expected amount needed from the Flood Control District. It was estimated that under historical flow conditions in the East Fork and based on conservative hydrological assumptions, that the City would only need District water in one out of ten years on average and in the amount of 343 acre feet for the period .~une through October. This amount was based on the following assumptions: a. Pumping would be available from Wells 2~6 based on 2002 use, demand conciitions are based on June-October 2002. b. When water under the City's permit is available, flow to the Ranney Collector is first satisfied by main stem Russian River flow, with the balance from East Fork Russian c. Under'dry' conditions, the assumption is that no water under the City's permit is available to the Ranney, however City well water is still available. No return flow from water used is returned to the Russian River (both assumptions are conservative) d. Hydrological conditions for wet, normal and dry conditions include Eel River reductions. The 500 AF requested from the Flood District was made by taking the conservative number of 343 AF that would be needed by the City in 'dry' years, and then adding 157 AF to it to allow for additional growth in the City. The following points apply: 1. Under contract with the Flood District, this 500 AF must be reported as Flood District water, even in years when we do not use it, which limits the amount of water that we can perfect under our own water permit. 2. The City must also pay the Flood District for the full 500 AF every year whether we use it or not. 3. The City is required to request extension of its 20 cfs water permit every ten years, if the Water Board does not allow us to extend our permit in the future, we will be licensed for 500 AF less than we are now currently using, which is around 8 cfs. if the City annexed adjacent land in the future, the additional water usage would assist in perfecting our permit. The pros and cons considered by the Council at that time were the following: PROS 1. 2. 6. 7. 8. Get use of Project Water for at least five years Avoids some uncertainty as to when natural flow available under City permit Gives City benefit of 1949 Flood District priority date Gives City option to purchase additional Project Water, if it becomes available $23/acre foot price relatively Iow cost Helps District perfect 8000 acre foot right Does not require waiver of independent water rights Allows City to sell Contract water for use within District CONS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. City must pay for Project water when City does not need it Reduces amount of water City can perfect under its own permit Unlike water perfected under City permit, right to use water under Flood District contract can be terminated affcer five years City waives right to challenge District ordinance requiring contracts and District resolution establishing rates for purchase of Project water Compromises City's right to contest District's interpretation of 8000 acre foot permit City acknowledges and agrees that District may seek to secure additional water rights and water supply facilities Reduce s utility of 8000 acre foot right by counting direct diversion only, with no allowance for return flows The 500 AF figure was based on the hydrology analysis and Council's discussion of the pros and cons. The Council felt that this amount provided a level of security for the City's needs. Conversely, the City could contract for 800 AF or any other amount that the Council would feel provides an appropriate level of assurance. The City would pay for that amount whether used or not and it would reduce the amount the City could perfect under its own permit. The benefit would be that the District permit has a higher priority date under its permit and can draw from project water. However, because the District contract has a five year term, it is less secure than water perfected under the City's own permit. The City is also in the process of exploring for additional wells which would give us an even higher level of security in 'dry' year conditions. A table of water rights and priority of use for the City and water districts is attached (Attachment 1). Policy reaardinq servina water outside the City limite AL the September 29, 2001 Council meeting, the Council discussed the policy that was in place regarding serving water to properties outside the City limits. The policy stated that if water was served outside the City limits, the property owner would agree to file for annexation to the City when requested by the City. The City had been in discussions with the County since the early 1980's in an attempt to come to agreement on a Lax sharing plan for annexation. At the September meeting, the Council discussed the policy in relation to a discussion on the Brush Street Triangle and voted on a new policy regarding serving water outside the City limits. The new policy required that property owners must annex into the City prior to receiving water service by the City. The reasons for this change are outlined in the minutes of the council meeting (Attachment 3). The one exception to this policy was the decision to serve RCHDC as Iow income housing was needed and RCHDC staff agreed to file to LAFCO for annexation into the City, which they have done. Attachments: 1. Comparison of water rights chart 2. Memo of water law definitions and concepts, major events 3. Minutes from City Council meeting 9/19/2001 AN INS~ENTORY OF WATER USE AND FU~JRE NEEDS IN TILE RUSSIAN RIYER BASIN OF MENDOCINO COUNTY by Sari Sommarstrom, Ph.D. Water PoliTy and Planning Couaultant Prepared for the MENDOCINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT September 1986 S'm'~ary of Future Water Needs List of Water Supply Alternatives quick Reference Table III-T Table IV-T page 14 page 48 page 67 o ~ 22 ~ # luaw4oo~V Attachment MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: DAVID J. RAPPORT SUBJECT: WATER RIGHTS WORKSHOP DATED: JANUARY 4, 1991 The purpose of this memorandum is to aid the Council in discussing the City's water rights at the workshop scheduled for January 9, 1990. It will first provide some basic water law concepts and definitions, then outline the major events and water rights decisions and permits that will affect the City's water rights in the Russian River and finally identify some of the issues that the City must address in analyzing its water rights position. WATER LAW DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS Pre- 1914 rights: The Water Commission Act of 1914 declared that surface waters of the state not used for useful and beneficial purposes are public waters subject to appropriation. Prior to 1914 appropriative water fights were acquired by recording a notice in the county recorder's office declaring the use ora certain quantity of water (usually expressed in miners' inches~) followed by actual and open appropriation and diversion of that water. Appropriation: The diversion of surface water, such as by pumping water from a river or lake or empounding water behind a dam, for use on land not riparian to the water source or for storage and later use on riparian or other land. Appropriative right: Afier 1914 a right granted by the state through a permitting process. In the event that insufficient water exists priority among rights is established by the date when the application for the permit to appropriate water was first filed with the state agency. "First in time is first in right." Appropriative rights permit: The permit issued by the Division of Water Rights of the Water Resources Control Board to use a prescribed amount of water (expressed in acre feet (ara)2 or cubic feet per second (cfs)) during a prescribed time period, such as from November 1 to July 1. The permit issued by the state authorizes the diversion of water, but is not permenant until the appropriator is actually using the water. For example, an apropriator may receive a permit authorizing the appropriation of 20 cfs throughout the year and the permit may give the appropriator until a certain date to make beneficial use of the water. If the appropriator is only using 10 cfs by the deadline, its permit may be changed to authorize the diversion of only 10 cfs. 50 miners' inches equals approximately 1 cfs. An acre foot is the amount of water covering an acre of land to a depth of one foot. Pre-1949 rights: Rights recognized in Decision D 1030 as superior to permits issued to SCWA and MFC & WCID by that decision, which have a priority date of Jan. 28, 1949. Riparian land: A legal parcel of land that lies adjacent to a surface water source, such as a river, creek, stream or lake. Riparian right: The right to divert surface water for immediate use on riparian land. After the adoption of Article X, section 2 of the State Constitution in 1928, a riparian right is superior to appropriative rights and downstream riparian rights as to the amount of water that can be beneficially used on the riparian land without undue waste. Surface water: Water present on the surface of land or subsurface water flowing in a definite water course. In the Russian River surface water is present both above and below the strearnbcd. Water percolating from the river through the gravels below or adjacent to the river are considered surface water. This subsurface water is referred to as "the underflow" of the river. Groundwater: Subsurface water that does not flow in a definite water course. In the Ukiah Valley groundwater is water accessible through wells that is hydrologically separate from the Russian River; that is, water that collects beneath the valley directly from rain and run-off. Project Water: The water available for diverison from the Russian River that would not exist but for the construction of Coyote Dam and Lake Mendocino. "Project" refers to the Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Project for which the dam was constructed. CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS, DECISIONS AND PERMITS 1872- Ukiah Water Company incorporated 1884- recordation of use of 60 miners inches from Orrs Creek in name of Ukiah Water Company. 1885- recordation for use of 1000 miners inches from Cold Creek for City of Ukiah. 1885- recordation for City of Ukiah of 500 miners inches from Carr's Canyon. 1886- Ukiah Water Company began contracting with City to provide water to City. 1892- Ukiah Water and Improvement Company formed with franchise to build, equip and operate water works in City, included the establishment of wells near present location, pumping from underflow of Russian River. Facilities expanded in 1899. 1896- Ukiah Water and Improvement District recordation of 1000 miners inches from Orr Creek. 1908- Eel River diversion at Van Arsdale Resevoir completed and water diverted through Cape Horn Dam from Eel River into East Fork Russian River to drive hydroelectric generators for Snow Mountain Water and Power Company, later acquired by PG & E. 1921. Lake Pillsbury on Eel River completed with capacity to store 93,700 afa. Through siltation that capacity is now reduced to approximately 80,700 afa. 1922- City purchased all water rights and facilities of Ukiah Water and Improvement Company. 1949- California Department of Finance filed application for permit to divert 200,000 ara for storage and to directly divert from East Fork Russian River 550 cfs. (Application numbers 12919, 12920.) This application was to allow the construction of the Coyote Dam and Lake Mendocino by the Army Corps of Engineers. 1949-1954- Dept. of Finance assigns 122,500 ara and 335 cfs to Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) on condition that SCWA reassign 8000 ara to an entity in Mendocino County to be formed for that purpose. (Application numbers 12919A, 12920A.) 1950- capacity of Eel River diversion tunnel increased to 350 cfs and PG & E abandons right to all water in excess of the 50 cfs which it is contractually obligated to provide to Potter Valley Imgation District. January 25, 1954- Ukiah applies for permit to appropriate 20 cfs from underflow of Russian River year round for municipal purposes. (Application 15704.)3 1956- SCWA assigns 8000 acre feet under Application 12919A to Mendocino Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (MFC & WCID). 1957- Coyote Dam and Lake Mendocino constructed with storage capacity of 122,500 ara, 70,000 afa reserved for water storage, 48,000 afa reserved for flood control and 4,500 ara for silt storage. August 17, 1961- State Water Rights Board adopts Decision D 1030. Decision assigned permit numbers 12947 and 12948 to application numbers 12919A and 12920A, respectively. 12947 divided into 12947A for SCWA and 12947B for MFC & WCID. Permits approved as follows: 12947A, 12949, 12950 authorize SCWA to divert for storage, divert and redivert 92 cfs and 37,544 afa for storage in Lake Mendocino and diversion and rediversion at Wohler Intake and Mirabel Park Intake in Sonoma County. 12947B authorize MFC & WCID to store, divert and redivert 8000 afa at Lake Mendocino and at various points along Russian River between Coyote Dam and Mendocino-Sonoma County line. Approved City of Ukiah application 15704 for 20 cfs to be diverted between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31 with priority date of Jan. 25, 1954. Under the decision, the rights under permits approved in Decision D 1030 are inferior to rights acquired or to be acquired by application based on the continuous beneficial use of water since prior to Jan. 28, 1949 (the date the Dept. of Finance filed applications 12919 and 12920). April 17, 1986- Division of Water Rights issues Decision 1610, which amends SCWA permits 12947A, 12949, 12950, 16596 to permit diversion list of Appmpriative Water Rights for Local Water Purveyors is attached as Exhibit 1. for storage, diYersion and rediversion of 180 cfs and 75,000 afa. This in- cludes water stored at Lake Sonoma. The permit also adds as a place of use under 12947A Redwood Valley County Water District, subject to a maximum withdrawal from storage at L~e Mendocino of 7,500 afa and to curtailment, if water inadequate for senior uses. This memorandum contains a simplified overview for the City Council's use. It does not pretend to include all significant water rights principles, information or issues. 4 Attachment # ,~ concerns specif;cai!y in ~ r--~ ,' ~' ~ ,,,.~.,,~ ~, y~ ,e,,,,s o,~ssJes ,n,..y may h~,,¢ ~t the contract th~:t ma ~ the City's ~ntent, which is to properly amortize this project and spread the burden not only on City residents, but also on ail the users or potential users. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Smith, Libby, Baldwin, and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None, Recessed: 7:55 p.m. Reconvened: 8:04 p.m, 10. NEW BUSINESS 10b. Discussion of City Policy Regard_lng Annexation and Delivery of Water Outside the City Limits City Manager Horsley advised that the City Council directed staff to meet with Mendocino County representatives regarding the Brush Street Triangle (Triangle) mitigations contained in the EIR that was performed by the City's consultants. During the meeting, the (Chief Administrative Officer CAO) raised a very pertinent issue and that was "If we're going to be participating in the cost for mitigations and other expenses, we really aren't interested in putting a lot of time, effort, or money forward if the City is going to require that the property owners annex before they receive City water, that is if it turns out that City water is the only water that's available." She felt this is something that needs to be discussed because of current policy, and that in the past the City has provided water to the Brush Street Triangle area and have asked the property owners to sign an agreement that if the City ever asked them to annex, they would annex. There are several hurdles to annexation that include not only that the property owners agree, but also LAFCO requires that we have a tax sharing agreement with the County. The City hopes the bridge will be in place by next year linking Orchard Avenue to Brush Street, and so the potential for development in that area is very high. Water is something that will be needed in this area. She has notified property owners, Dan Thomas, as well as Jim Anderson, CAO for the County, and discussed this issue. The issues revolve around development in the area and not only the mitigations but also what discretionary review would be required as well as the types of requirements that would be imposed on developers within the Triangle. As a result of discussions with the County, she thought that the County has agreed to pass an ordinance that would require discretionary review and the implementation of the mitigations as proposed in the EIR. It was their understanding in the meeting that discretionary review would not be required. Planning Director Stump stated that in terms of future development and discretionary review, the County does not require discretionary review in the Triangle for many types of development. This has concerned City staff and led to staff's discussions to obtain some assurance of mitigation measures. The County had indicated that they would be prepared to perhaps pursue the adoption of a resolution or ordinance that would require at least CEQA review of any ministerial or building permit. He was not sure if that would fulfill Council's concern about design review and some other things that could be achieved through a true discretionary review process. He thought staff is close to finding the mechanisms that would work for both the City and the County. Regular Meeting September 19, 2001 Page 7 of 16 , Mayor Ashiku explaine~ that he was to;d before that they could develop their cwn water resource and that they weren't very. conce;ned about it. His concern about changing [ne policy a;~.d requi~ing annexation, if it was the City's desire to have such a project annexed, is that if we extend into that sen,ice area we're agreeing to provide water to an unknown size of project, costing our citizens oppo,'lunity in the future to utilize that resource which we've committed elsewhere without any direct reimbursement to the citizens or our treasury. He would have a hard time committing to a project of that magnitude without having control over it. Councilmember Larson stated that the traffic impacts, increased law enforcement costs, and fire protection costs that we would assume through our service agreements with the other Districts would be an impact on us that would not be addressed financially. Annexation is the logical land use policy here and water is a component of it. If we are going to allocate water to a project, he would tike to see what the project is and what value it brings to the community, both in terms of City revenues and community service. He felt he would not support any water contracts that don't involve probable or necessary annexation. At the very least, discretionary review is vital to maintain our community development plan that has been worked on so hard. It was his opinion that the County needs to be participatory in this. This ceased to progress due to a committee that couldn't seem to come to some resolution about a revenue sharing agreement. He felt that's where it needs to be resumed on a government level. Councilmember Libby was of the belief that annexation is the best answer to this matter. She felt that the City has been holding these property owners hostage for them to develop this land because two jurisdictions have not been able to work out their differences. She would like to see the City and County earnestly work something out together to make this work. Considerable discussion followed concerning the issue of development in the Triangle and whether to require annexation prior to providing water service outside the service area. There was also discussion concerning LAFOO's involvement in the annexation process. Council member Baldwin was of the opinion that we have to look after the best interest of the majority of the citizens of Ukiah and there may be immense negative impacts from full development in the Triangle. We should not give up the control we currently have and we should look toward annexation. Mayor Ashiku stated that no one is deprived of an opportunity to develop their property and owners can apply for building permits at the present time. Council has given staff direction to work out a mitigation program that would satisfy the impacts of building that bridge. Jim Andersen, Mendocino County Administrative Officer (CAO), stated that he appreciates City staff talking with the County. He came away from the meeting with something markedly different than what has been presented to Council at this meeting. The last time they were here, the direction of the Council was to look at the mitigations that would be necessary in order to consider approving the EIR that had been done for the area, to look at what is a reasonable cost sharing for those mitigations, to look at the issue of continuity of design for the Ukiah Valley, and then return to Council with that information. the meeting with staff he thought there was an understanding by all parties that if the City Regular Meeting September 19, 2001 Page 8 of 16 were tc proceed with cer~.ification of the £!R, the mitigations outlined in the E!R would have to be addressed, dis comments to the City representative were that the ratio would be determined by the availability of water. But if you look at the development that's anticipated in the EIR, from a moderate to large level, development can only be supported if water is available. From the perspective of the County, when talking about the mitigations and the ratio, or the share of cost in those mitigations, water is a key variable that goes into that equation. The extent to which water is available certainly provides more options with regard to development in that area. With regard to discretionary review or CEQA, it has been the position of the County that as development occurs on the 90 acres, the County would have discretionary review and subject any of the projects to the CECA process. Aisc, as development occurred, County staff would recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the cumulative impacts of development on the 90 acres would be considered when looking at the cost of the off site improvements. For the record he stated that the County is interested in intelligent and proper planning and development of the valley like the Ukiah City Council. As far as design standards, he thought that from a staff standpoint, they have discussed the fact that the City has worked on actual commercial design standards for the City of Ukiah. Looking at those design standards and possibly applying them to development in the Brush Street area is something they would be willing to consider and potentially propose to the Board of Supervisors. He was of the opinion that annexation was not discussed much when he spoke with City staff. However, the County is very open to discussions of annexation and tax sharing agreements. The Board is looking at updating its General Plan and the extent to which an annexation or tax sharing agreements may be appropriate for proper planning for Mendocino County, is something they have not ruled out at the staff level. Councilmember Larson inquired if Mr. Andersen was suggesting that the County adopt the City's Design Guidelines. Mr. Andersen stated that it has been discussed at the staff level but not with the Board of Supervisors. Discussion continued with regard to a tax revenue sharing agreement and the issue of annexation. Water resources and services were addressed. Dan Thomas, representing Marino and Company, one of the property owners of the property in question, stated that his company has had an application since 1995 to annex property and nothing has been done during that time. He thought that the property owners are stuck between these two government entities. As a majority property owner in that area, he controls annexation and has been trying to get the City and the County together since 1995 to no avail. With regards to the EIR and construction in the 90 acres, he did not think anyone knows what's going to happen there in the next 10 or 15 years. He discussed the City's 20-year plan and changing zoning to meet the needs of the community. The Agenda Summary Report comes as a complete surprise to him in regards to the County's oversight in development of the 90 acres. It was his understanding that when the City approved the EIR for the bridge, they identified mitigations. The basis for that EIR was a reasonable attempt at defining what would occur in Regular Meeting September 19, 2001 Page 9 of 16 the 90 acres, it was his belief that there was an attempt to assess what the mitigatons would be for development ofthatland. In the original EiR, the City required that itwouid oversee the procedure regarding the County's review. He felt that the correct way is through CEQA. The compromise between a~l parties during discussions was that the County would generate a spec:.al overlaying district of 90 acres that would impose CEQA guidelines on the 90 acres and there would be discretionary' review. The last he heard, everyone was happy with that concept. It's been a very frustrating experience for him to try to get the two entities together. Mayor Ashiku discussed his previous conversations with Mr. Thomas regarding construction of the bridge and the advantages of being in the City. Previously, Mr. Thomas had indicated to him that he wasn't dependent on the City's water or utilities. It now comes as a surprise to him that water is needed for this project. City Manager Horsley explained that there are two issues. One is that the bridge is going to be built and the water issue is not associated with that project. The second issue is, when we talk about discretionary review, we are not talking about the CEQA mitigation process. Planning Director Stump stated he was confused about Mr. Andersen's comments in which he indicated discretionary review would occur but it is his recollection that at the last meeting they had, it was clear the County was not contemplating an overlay zoning district or discretionary review but rather adopting some sort of resolution that would require CEQA review on building permits, which is a very unusual procedure. They were willing to listen but there was no commitment to an overlay zoning district or discretionary review. At that meeting he had asked 'Don't you want to have control over projects through the discretionary review process?" He thought it crucial for any jurisdiction that is entertaining major development, that they have discretionary review. City Attorney Rapport discussed the confusion that might be occurring with regard to the meaning of discretionary review. He detailed the discretionary review process. City Manager Horsley stated that Director Stump specifically asked, "Are you saying you don't want discretionary review" and Ray Hall said "no'1. There may have been miscommunications regarding this matter. M/S Baldwin/Ashiku that property owners must annex into the City prior to receiving water service by the City. Further discussion followed concerning the motion and adhering to the current policy. Councilmember Libby was of the opinion that issues could be worked out between the City and County with further discussions. City Attorney Rapport explained that the informal policy previously adopted by Council requires a majority vote of Council in order to hook up to water service outside the City limits. He continued to discuss how the LAFCO law has changed since this policy was put into place. The City has discretion as to extending its water boundaries. Regular Meet[ns September 19, 2001 Page 10 of 16 Them_ was some discussion conw, n,,,~ Mr. Thomas' ~pp.,,a,,,.,n o ~' *" to ~-a, FCO in 1995 for annexation that has resulted in no action. M,,'S Councilmember Baldwin/Ashiku calling for the question. Motion carried by the following roil call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Larson, Baldwin. and Mayor Ashiku. NOES: Councitmembers Smith and Libby. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 10, NEW BUSINESS 10c. Presentation of Proqrams Eligible to Utilize Money in the Public Benefits Fund Customer Service Supervisor Archibald provided Council with an updated report, on the Public Benefit Fund. She explained that the report demonstrates that the Ukiah CARES program, the Electric Vehicle lease program, the Photovoltaic rebates, an Energy Conservation Program, and a one-time geothermal proiect expansion are possible within the projected resources of the Public Benefits Fund. She discussed various assumptions that were made by staff in deve!oping this report. At the end of ten years, an ending fund balance of $170,670 is projected for the Public Benefits Fund. The actual amount available for additional adjustments to the programs provided will depend upon actual participation and expenses of approved programs. Up until this year, Ukiah CARES was the only substantial program within this fund. Currently the CARES program provides relief to about 532 Iow and moderate-income families for the electric charges on their City bills in the form of monthly discounts and Temporary Emergency Assistance. These benefits were most recently increased in March of 2001. The current participation will cost the program approximately $161,000 a year. She continued to discuss the overall results of the programs over the ten-year period that total $4.8 million. Public Utilities Director Barnes discussed the proposed one-time geothermal project expansion. He noted that there has been an increase in steam production and the project would provide more generation to the City. Upon questioning by Coucilmember Baldwin with regard to why staff is proposing more than five times the residential photovottaic rebates, Mr. Barnes explained that it has to do with the potential size of the system, which is usually 3Kw for residential use. Councilmember Libby inquired as to the percentage of generation that we obtain from the Geysers. She also inquired if we did not take the money out of the reserve fund, how would we pay for the program. Director Barnes responded that the percentage of generation is about 25-30%. He explained that it would have to be paid out of generation costs and the generation cost would increase. He continued to discuss the photovoltaic rebate, noting that it could be generation that the City would use. Discussion followed relative to the photovoltaic rebate and purchasing the power. Supervisor Archibald discussed details of each of the four scenarios presented for the CARES program. She explained that if Council wishes to incl(~de providing additional relief to Regular Meeting September 19, 2001 Page 11 of 16 Attachment November 15, 2000 Mr. Mark 8tretars Division of Water Rights State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 Re: Petition for Extension of Time for the Ci~ of Ukiah l,Vater Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) Dear Mr. Stretars: On behalf of fine City of'Ukiah, we are submilting a Petition for Extension of Time for Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704). The Pennittec has complicd with the pern~l reqmrements and requests additional time in wkich to fully maximize its water use. Also enclosed are fine required ices. $ 100 payable to State Water Resources Control Board and $850 payable to the Department of Fish and Game The enclosed Agent Assig~wnent form authorizes Wagner & Bons~gnore to act as fine agent for the above re£erenced Permit. Please change your files accordingly. Please contact me if you have any' questions regarding fine enclosed. VeT truly yours, WAGNER & BONSIGNORE CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINTERS Encls. '/ cc: Darryl Barnes George BoreckT Gary Weather ford cot:oo5 DOC State of California 51ate Water Resources Control BoaJ-d DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS P.O. Box 2000, Sacramento, CA 9S~12-2000 ~9: (916) 6z*-2170, FAX: (916) ~57-1485, E-mai: http://w~w w~:~ s~c~ ~gcv PETH'ION FOR EXTENSION nE TI>~ WATER USERS: Application I 5704 Pe~it 1 2952 Water Code section 1396 requires an applicant to exercise due diligence in developing a water supply for beneficial use. The State Water Resources Control Beard (SWRCB), in considering requests for extensmn of . re'ne, will review the facts presented to determine whether there is good cause for granting an extension of tiane to complete the project. Where diligence in completing the project is not fully substantiated, the SBRCB may set it he matter for hearing to determine the facts upon which to base formal action relating to the permit. Formal action may involve: i 1. Revoking the permit for failure to proceed with due diligence m completing the project. . 2. Issuing a license for the amount of water heretofore placed to beneficial use under the temps of the permiL ~ 3. Granting a reasonable extension of time tn complete construction work re:d/or full beneficial use of water. The time previously allowed in your permit within which to complete construction work and/or use of water has either expired or will expire shortly. Please check below the actmn you wish taken on th}s permit. [] The project has been abandoned and I request revocation of the pemdt. Signature fi'3 Full use of water i;as been ~nade, both as to anaount and season, and i request license be issued. Signature The project is not yet complete, t request the SWRCB's consideration of the following petthon for an extension of time. PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TEVIE If ST.ad~T of construction has been delayed Complete items 1,2, and 3. 1. What has been done since permit was issued toward commencing conslruction? 2. Estimate date construction work will begin._ 3 Reasons why conslamction work was not begun within d~e time allowed by the permit. PET-EXT (11-99) Continued on next page PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME If cnnstruction work is proceeding [f construction wnrk and/or use of water is proceeding but is not complete, an extension of time may be petitioned by completing items 4 through 16. Statements must be restricted to construcaon or use of' water only '.ruder this permit. ,i A 1 S - year extension of time is requested to complete construction work and/or beneficial use of water. (Indicate period ultime. Must be consistent with time frame allowed in "Guidelines for considering Petitions for Extensious of Time.") · Average between 1990 1999 5 }tow much water bas been used?. 1 0 0 5.4 MCY a~r~je-.c~yaar_ cfs 6 How mmly acres have been irrigated? N/A 7. }tow many bouses or people have been served water? 6, ,q48 connections in 1 999 8. Extent of past use of water for any other purpose none Water Treatment 9 What construction work has been completed during the last extensJon?~ta riced i n 1 qq 1__ 10 Approximate amountspeut on project during last extension period $~22 800,000 11. Estimate date constructton work will be completed. See Attachment 12 Estimated year in which water will be fldly used See Attachment 13 Reasons why construction and/or use of water were not completed within mnc previously allowed. See Attachment Plant If the use of water is for municipal (including industrial) and irrigation supplies and is provided or regulated by public agencies and use of the water has commenced, but additional time is needed to reach full use contemplated, the following information must be provided. 14 ~qmt water conservation measures are m effect or feasible within the place of use? See Attachment 15 Itow much water is being conserved or is it feasible to conserve using these conservation measures? acre feet perannnm. See Attachment 16. How much water per capita is used during the maximum 30-day period? gpm See Attachment 1 (we) declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct to the best of my (our) ,~nowledge and beliefl Dated: - at (/l~C,~ ~ , California Signature(1 Telephone No. NOTE: A $513 FEE ivLADE PAYABLE TO THE State Water Resources Control Bo~rcl must accornplmy a per'non for an exteasmn of Ume An $850 feet made payable to the Department offish and Game rnusl accompany all bu~t the first petition for an ¢×teaSmn of ~tme PET-EXT(I1-99) Bxr~ s, t_ ~, AITACttMENT TO PETITION FOR EXTENSION O1~ TIME PEILMIT 12952 (APPLICATION 15704) OF CITY OF UKIAH [lem 11, 12, 13: Water R~gbt Permit 12952 was issued in October, I96t re the City of Ukiah for the purpose of serving mumcipal xvater. Permit 12952 alloxvs tbr water to be diverted from the Russ/an River and its underflow at a maximum diversion rate of up to 20 cubic feet per second. While the City has steadily increased the number of water connectmns since Permit issutmce, it has not reached its projected build- out and requires an extension of nme in which to develop additional connections within its service area and put water to full beneficial use. The Uncial City Council adopted a Gcnerai Plan in December, 1995 which defines how the service area will be developed through the ycau- 2015. In 1999, the City delivered mtmicipal water to 6,848 connections for fiat and rnctered water users. Future water dcmax~ds are based on population projecnons contained in the General Plan. The present poplulation served ~s approximately 15,030 and the projected population ibr thc year 2015 per thc General Plan is 22,739, which represents a 34 percent increase. Additionally, the City of Ukiah anticipates growth in commercial businesses as the populanon increases which will also increase the water demand. Per the annual Progress Reports by Pennittee, the maximum amount of water diverted, at all Points of Diversion named in Permit 12952 was 5.24 cubic feet per second which occurred in I999. Attached Is a stm2mary of the City of Ukiah's water use pursuant to Pen'nit 12952. Item 14: ['he following are the conscrvat4on measures employed by the City as outlined m its "Urbm~ Water Maxmgemen[ Ptan" prepared by Ke~medy/Jcnks Engineers in 1985 and addJ. tional measures Unnpleruented subsequent to 1985: · Distribution of water saving devices supplied by the State Department of Water Resources. · Education of customers regarding water consetwation. · Installation of more efficient landscape ~rrigation of CiD, parks and golf course. · Adoption of sewer rates for commercial customers that are based on water consumption, indirectly encouraging consumers to conserve. · Adoption of regulations that require mandatory conservauon when deemed necessary by the City Council. · Requu-ement of low flow products for new development. Item I~: I'he Ci[y of [.*ki',~ does not have a method to men, sm e thc amount oi' water ~av~d as a result of its conse~'ation mczsnres. Item 16: The rz;:~ximmn monthly water use as reported on the Progress Report by Permittce occurred in July 1990 with 241.90 million gallons consumed. Therefore, approximately 0.79 gpm per com~ection was used during the maximum 30-da.x periocl. CITY OF UKIAlt Water Use llistory Annual Water Use~ Water Use No. of (MGY) (cf s) Connections 1983 102960 * 4.37 1984 1173.20 * 4.97 1985 1086.30 * 4.61 1986 1049 50 * 4.45 1987 116370 * 493 1988 1118.10 * 4.74 1989 1094.60 * 4.64 1990 893.36 3.79 1991 70345 298 6225 1992 766.87 3.25 (3443 1993 1009.55 4.28 6283 1994 1117.88 4.74 6316 I995 1078.89 4.58 1996 114687 4.86 6316 1997 109798 466 6801 1998 100310 4.25 6871 1999 1236 21 5.24 6848 Average ~ 100540 Estimated Population 15,050 15,050 15,050 5,000 5,000 5.0O0 5,000 5.030 As reported on Progress Reports by Permittee. *Includes water diverted from groundwater Well ~¢4 (which is not subject to appropriation per i~crmit 12952) Average water use between 1990 and 1999 COUA002 ×ts ins~o. H. Hickox Atta~hmen! # State /atcr Resources Contr,,l Board 1)i',ision of \Vater Rights (Slay Davis NOV 0 7 2001 in Reply Re/Er to: 363:KKVv': 15704 Mr. DauTyl L. Barnes Director oFPub!ic Utilities City of Ukhd~ 300 Seminary. Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear ,X, lr. Barnes: PEtLMIT 12952 (APPLICATJON !57{7)4) RUSSLX~N PdVER L~DERFLOW, IN M ENDOCEN'O COUNTY Di¥ision of' Water P, sghts (Division) staffconducted an inspection on August 8,200I, of the project served by the above water rSght. This inspection was conducted to check the City o£ Ukiah's (City) overall compliance with tim terms and conditious of its permh. Permit 12952 authorizes the year round direct diversion of 20 cfs £rom a Rarmey Collector and two wel]s tapping Russian River underflow The water dive:!ed under Permit 12952 is for mLmicipal use x,,it'rnn the Cio' limits az~d its environs, as shown on a map filed with the State Water Resou;ces Control Board (S\\nRCB). The time to complete beneficial use of water under Permit 12952 elapsed on December 31, 2000 November 15, 2000 Accompanying this petition was an Agent Assignment form in which the City designated Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Civil Engineers, A Co~oration ~ ~ts mpresentaUve to deal with ali matters pertaining to tNs water right pemfit. Accordingly, Division has ch~ed its records to show Wa2ner & Bonsignore as the agent fbr Pemnt l ~ and they will receive all ~mre cogespondence pe~aining to Pemait 12952 on the City's behalf. Our compliance inspection of the project found that the quantmes diverted from the Russian River by the City a-e within the season and amoums authorized by Pemnt 12952. However, also fom]d that the City is diverting water from the Russian River at two additional wells (Wells 5 and 6) not covered by the pernnt, a2d is serving property outside the place of use designated by Permit 12952. Apparently, service of water outside the place of use is made parsuant to inter-tie agreements with Millview and Willow County Water Districts. Mr DarPy! L. Barnes 2 NOV 0 ? 2001 Based on these findings, tt~e Dix lsion reqmres within 30 days from ti~c date o£this letter, that the City provide evidence either contradicting the Division findings, or supporting a right to usc the ',,,'ells and serve properly outside the place of use covered by Penmt 12952. i£there is no contest to the Division findings and no basis of right, t}~e City should petition to chaz~ge thc points of diversion and place of use under Permit 12952 at this Ume. The Division final recommendation depends on the City's response and corrective actions t'e&en Please note an unauthorized diversion of water constitutes a trespass against the State and may be subject to entbrcement action pursuant to Water Code section I052, subdivision (b). Therefore, tlus matter requires your immediate attention. If you have an.,,, questions regarding your water fight pernut or the above findings, please telephone Mr. Kelly Warren at (916) 34I Sincerely, John O'Hagan, Chief Compliance and Enforcement Unit CC¸ Wagmer & Bonsignore, Consulting Civil Engineers 444 North Third Street, Suite 325 Sacraraento, CA 95758 Aft~chment # J;muar5, 4, 2002 Mr. Jotm O'Hagan State Water Resources Control Boau-d Division of Water Rights PO. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812 2000 Re: City. of Ukiah Pernfit 12952 (Application 15704) Dear Mr. O'Hagan: This is in response to your November 7. 2001 letter regarding the Inspect/on of the project served by Permit 12952 of City of Ukiah We anderstand that during your inspection of the facilities you identified two wells that are not named as points of diversion m the Perrmt and you Ibund that occasionally water is being ser¥'ed to areas outside the specified place of use The City a~ees with your finding that Weils #5 and #6 arc not named as points of di;'ersion in the Pemm. Well g5 was mstalled in 1985 and is located midway between the Rannev Collector and Well ~2 (Points of Diversion #1 and #2, respectively). Well ,"6 was installed in 1986 and is located within 200 feet of Well .~2 and discharges tkrouL,A~ the same meter We believe the source of both Wetls #5 and #6 is Russian River Underflow. Witt'an the next 60 days, the City tntends to file a Petition on Permit 12952 for Addition o£ Points of Diversmn at Wells #5 and #6. We request that this Petition be considered and approved without public notice. Calilbmia Code of Regulations Section 795 sets lbrth certain conditions when public notice of petitions is not required. Section 795(a)(I) states that notice will not ordinarily be required for "Petition for a chas~ge in point of diversion which does not change the point relative to diversion points of others and tributary sources on the same stream" Since Wells #5 and #6 a-e located within the general vicinity and draw from the same source as two of the points of diversion named in Permit 12952, and since the addition of such wells do not Impact any diversion points of others, the Petition should not require a public notice. The issue of the place of use is more coinplicated. Pursum~t to Lnterconnection Agreements that have been in place since 1993, the City ser,,'es mumcipai water on a temporary. emergency basis to both Mitlview and Willow Count¢' Water Districts. The City serves water to these Districts from t~me to t~me when they experience equipment failure, to allow mamtentmce of their systems and or for fire protection proposes Mr .lohn O'.~:lag:m Januar', 4, 2002 Page 2 The place of use identified m the Application covcr,.~d by Permit 12952 is the City of [,~kiah and "environs". Our recent review of the State Water Resources Control Board files reveals that the maps submitted bem,,een I954 and I959 in connection with the Application do not appear to include the service areas of Mil]view m~d Willow County Water Districts. We understand that ~he Willow and Millview water rio~:~ht pem~.~ts have been the subjects of compliance inspecnons by your unit. Farther, we understand that those Dismcts will likely be required to file petmons to change thmr respective places of use. Wc would propose to coordinate with both of those Districts in the identification of a place of use consonant with the haterconnection Agreements. To allow for such coordination, the City would like to defer the filing of a petitmn to change the place of use. We expect that this coordination with both Districts can be accomplished so as to allow the City to file a Petition for' Change m Place of Use prior to July 1,2002. Please contact me if you have any quesnons regarding this matter. Very truly yours, WAGNER & BONS[GNORE CO'N~SULTiNG CFv~[L ENGLN~ERS CCi Darryl Barnes, City of' b~dah Candace ttors¢!y, City of bSqah David Rapport Gary_ Weather£ord COL%V0] 5 DOC State _ zer Resources Contru i~smn H. Hickux Attachment # 3oard City of Ukiah Director of Public Utthties 300 Seminary Avenue Urkiah, CA 95482-5400 Division of Water Rights Gray Davis ,,t~4N~R g. BON$~GNOi~JF .Dear Applicant, PETITION 15704 (PER.MIT 12952) BY THE CITY OF UKIAH TO APPROPRIATE 20 CFS OF WATER FROM jAJ.'~T~ARY i FO DECEMBER 31 FRGM RUSSIAN RAWER TRIBUTAP, V TO PACIFIC OCEAN iN MENDOCINO cOUNTY On November 15, 2000, you filed Petition 15704P001117 for an Extension of Time to develop full beneficial use of water authorized under permit 12952. Permit 12952 authorizes direct diversion of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) from January I to December 31. The City's maximum average amnual rate of diversion for the years 1990 through 1999 was 5 24 cfs. The Petition lbr Exmnsion of Time constitutes a reauthorization of the project for the difference of 14.76 cfs. Assessment of the potential cumulative impacts of increasing direct diversion from the Russian River on sensitive plant and animai species and their habitat is pertinent to the continued processing of the sub3ect water tight petition. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires environmental rev/ew of' water right Petition 15704P001117 before approval of Petition for a Time Extension can be processed. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) staffhas reviewed the subject application, and detem~ined the SWRCB is a Responsible Agency for this project. Moreover, it is determined that the Petitioner, the City of Lrkiah, is the Lead Agency for this project. This letter is to inform you that as the Lead Agency, it is your responsibility to prepare a CEQA document for this project. SWRCB as a responsible agency will review the Lead Agency's CEQA document and use the Lead ,\~emzy's CEQA doc'&ment when ma~ng a dec/sion on *.2,.e project. Please forward two copies of the final CEQA document to the SWRCB. Approval of the water right application cannot be finalized until the above requested information has been received, evaluated, and the CEQA process has been completed. If you have any questions, please contact MaryLisa Lynch at 916.341.5365. Environmental Review Unit 1 cc: See next page qnsto{1 H. Itickox Attachment # State' ater Resources Contr Board Division of Water Rights 100/ [ Street, 14m Fkor · Sacramento, C'aJitbrma 95814 · t916) x41 54!4 Marling Address P O [3~x 20'30 ' Sacramento, Cahromla - '~5812 2000 Gray Davis FEB 0 G 2002 In Reply Refer to 363:KKW:A015704 City of Lrkiah c/o Paula J. Whealen Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Civil Engineers 444 North Third Street, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95814-0228 Dear Ms. Whealen: PER.MIT 12952 (APPLICATION 15704) RUSSIAN RJVER LN MENT)OCI2N'O COU%'TY The State Water Resources Control Board (SW~RCB), Division of Water Rights (Division), received your letter dated January. 4, 2002, requesting additional time to respond to the water right issues raised in our letter to the City of Ukiah (City) dated November 7, 2001. The requested sixty-day extension to file a petition to add the City's Wells 5 and 6 as points of diversion (POD) under the permit is granted. %qule preparing this petition, the Division recommends that the City review its records for Well 4 to confirm that it is not diverting water from the subterra~ean stream of the Russian River, or tributaries. Dunng thc recent compliance inspection, Division staff did not investigate the City's claim that Well 4 taps percolating groundwater Therefore, thc City has an oppormrdty to include Well 4 as a POD under Fermit i29>2 clunng tbas extension, if its review concludes Well 4 taps groundwater subject to the SW~RCB's permitting authority. Upon receipt of the City's petition, the Division's Petition Urut will determine whether a public notice of the petition is necessary. Your letter requests a longer extension of time to file a petition to change the place of use (PC)U) authorized by the permit. Your extension request is longer than normally granted by the Division because we do not want to h-nply, by giving additional time, it is acceptable to divert water outside the POU during the extension period. However, due to your plan to coordinate with representatives from the City, Millview County Water District and Willow County Water District to correctly identify the POU served wittfin those districts, the Division grants an extension until July 1, 2002. The City should proceed with diligence in resolving this matter. Satisfactory. resolution of this matter will be the receipt ora petition for change to expand the POU to include all areas served by the City under Permit 12952 by July 1, 2002. The City should consider a single comprehensive enviromnental document covering the changes to the POD and POU and its petition for an extension of time currently on file with the Division. California Environmental Protection Agency "77le enerKy challenge facing California is real Ever5' Californian needs to rake immediate action to reduce energy conyumprlon July l, 2002 .Mr. Mark Stretars Division of Water Rights State Water Resources ConU-ol Board P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812 2000 Re: Petition for Change in Place of Use Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) On behalf of the City of U~kJah, we are submitling a Petition for Chm~ge in Place o£Use for Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704). The Petitioner is requesting to increase thc place of use to include additional lands within its service area as well as the lands w/thin Willow, Millview mid Calpella County Water Districts. The required filing fee of $ I00 payable to State Water Resources Control Board will bc submitted by thc end of the month. We request that the Deparm~ent offish and Game filing fee previously paid for the pending Petition for Extension of Time on Application 15704 also cover tins petition. Please contact our office if you have any questions regarcLing the enclosed. Very truly yours, WAGNER & BONSiGNORE CONSULTING CIVIL ENGI2'TEERS Encls. ,/ cc: Darryl Banes (w/encls.) Gary Weatherford (w/encls.) Dave Rapport (w/encls.) John O'Hagan, SWRCB (w/o encls.) i OUA035 doc gtatc,, Waler Resources Control Board Divlqon of Water .... Po[r~t oI Divcu~ion. Applir~t~t __ 1_.~.7_0_~ .... Pcnnil PETITION FOR CIIANGE (WATZR CODE 1700) _ Po{at o£Radiv~£o~L, -_X . PI~¢ of Usq . . ~o~ of Us~ 2 9 5 2 Lic~ae ........ S~[~t m ~ I (irc) bc~uby pctilion £c~ dm~gc(s) uc4t:d alyovc ~nd ~lmwn ~ ~ =compmwing map ~ 40 m',rc ~)~lNi'ion i. width dm [,rr~t & p~oposcd po~n~ lie.) Proposed Dace oflI~t (I f irrigation then s~tt n.mh~r of at. es ti; be in'iga~ed within each 40-acre .q~o. Attachment walcr (.qe= WC 1707)? ~..) TO accurately describe how the project GIVEREASONFORPROPO.qEDf~{ANGE:_o_~erste_$__W. bich includes Dossible emerq~ncv ~ur~n~ant to ~xistinq A potential emerqency Interconnection Agreements. WILL Tilt{ Ol,~} OINT (.~ D~EIISION OR ~CE-O~ USEBE ~A~D~ No WA'FEI[ WIIL BE USED FOR Munici pal PURPOSES. l(wc) h:~ve ac~s to Ilm ~o~d lminl Of ~vu~ion er em~l U,~ ~opos~d pla~ ot~ ~ v~ of ~.ri tten A~g¢~nt s lt<~ ;e or agtec~cnl' ~ta~ fl~c n~m ~d ~dr~ ofp~(~) ~om whom a~s ~ b~ oblm~. Mi]lvJcw County Water District Willow County Water District 30}~1 North State Street ~5~ Laws Avenue Ukiah, C~ 95402 -0klah, ~ 95402-6655 pcopoxcd po~nl o/diwrsi(m ~ ~cdiv=~n~l, &s weld ~ al~ o~ ~ou(s) ~ m y~ ~ ~y ~ ~d by ~c plod/cd chan~ ............... LLQIIL,_ 1 UIS CilANCE l~OliC; NOT INVOJ,V~2 Ab~ INCRE&qE ~ 'r~ ~O~T OF ~IE A~ROI'RIAI'ION OR SEASON OF II,'~[',, I (we) dt C~c undrr~/_./Pr~d~ ofpc~ ~ d~e above h ~ .~ ~ ~ the ~ of my (o~) ~l~ge ~ ~li~C ~at/~].{,~ {~]{~9n.oro~ Consult{ng Civil Engine~r~ rek~nd " kT'rA CI I MENT TO ACCOMPAN'i' PI¢'FITION FOR CltANGE BY CITY OF UKIAII PERMIT 12952 (A. PPIACATION 15704) EXISTING PI,ACE 01;' USE (~i Ly23f.U k Within thc C~ty ot'UkE~h scr~'iec att:a being within the tbllowing projected Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 30, 32 of ql5N, RI2W, MDB&M. (As shozm on the map on file wilh II~c I'I~¢)POSEi) PLACE OF U'SE C i t y _.o_!3_Lk i_r_a ~. ~:~ illS'ic?__Q(~ m t ¥ .B(~g_cr_D istri c t ?:~Ipg]l_;L£}9~!jlty Water District WRhin lhe boundaries ofCily ofUkiah, Millview, Willow and Calpella Comity Water Districts being wilhirt thc following projected S~tlons 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 2'/, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 of T16N, R12W, MDB&M; Sections I and 12, T15N, RI3W. MDB&M; Sections 2, 3. 4. 5. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28. 29. 30, 31. 32, 33 of T15N, R12W, MI}B&M; ;~ml pmjcct,M Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, I0, 15, 16 ofT14N, RI2W. (As shown on lite enclosed map). doc Affachment # UNITEO STATES OEPA~TMENT National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Soulhwest Region 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 Santa Rosa, California 95404 In Response Refer To: February I3, 2002 151416-SWR-02-SR-6196:SKL City of LT,:iah Director of Public Utilities 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 Dear Director of Public Works: We received a copy of a letter, dated January 1 I, 2002, from Mr. Steven Hen-era of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requesting that the City of Ukiah prepare a Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document in relation to Petition 15704P000117, a request for an Extension of Time to fully develop beneficial use of water authorized under permit 12952. Permit 12952 authorizes direct diversion of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) from January 1 to December 31. However, the City's maximum average annual rate of diversion for the years 1990 through 1999 was 5.24 cfs. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) agrees with SWRCB that the Petition for Extension of Time constitutes a reauthorization of the project for the difference of 14.76 cfs. Granting the petition would result in more water being used than was used prior to the Petition for Change, and therefore, would potentially have an adverse effect on federally listed anadromous species in the Russian River. The federal listing and the development of protective measures for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) occurred after the issuance of this permit and they, therefore, constitute new and substantial information and an issue that needs to be addressed in the CEQA review of this project. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing may require additional terms and conditions since extensive diversions from rivers have contributed to the listing of these species. We would be happy to assist you in avoiding adverse impacts to steelhead that would facilitate a more effective and efficient review of your CEQA document. If you have any questions or comments concerning the contents of this letter please contact Dr. Stacy K. Li at (707) 575-6082. Sincerely, Northern California Supervisor Habitat Conserw'ation Division cc: S. Herrera, SWRCB, Sacramento R. Floerke, CDFG, Yountville XVagn onsi. 3ore June 4, 2002 Afiachrnenf # Mr. William E. Hearn National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Re: Ci~ of Ukiah - %'ater Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) Dear Mr. ]rtearn: This is to respond to the February 13, 2002 letter (copy attached) from James Bybee regarding the City of Ukiah's Petition for Extension of Time for Permit 12952 pending at the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and to confirm my understanding of our discussion at the May 8, 2002 meeting in your office. The City' of Ukiah (City) holds Permit 12952 for the diversion of up to 20 cubic feet per second from the Russian River. Its Permit expired on December 1, 2000 and a Petition for Extension of Time was filed before then with the SWRCB to request additional time in which to put water to beneficial use. The City's present peak diversion is about 8 cubic feet per second. ]n it's January 11, 2002 letter (copy attached), the SWRCB staff requested that the City prepare a cumulative impacts analysis on biolog/cal resources and their habitat to address the City's potential increase in direct diversion. Mr. Bybee stated in his letter that the City should also consider any potential impacts to federally listed anadromous species. Subsequently at a meeting on February 15, 2002, the SWRCB staff suggested that we confer with your office as to the scope of the analysis that the City should undertake. My understanding from our conversation is that to address the concerns raised by NqMFS, the City's environmental analysis should identify the impacts that may result if the storage elevation of Lake Mendocino changes due to the City's potential increase in water use. It is also my understanding that you do not believe the City's environmental analysis needs to include a cumulative impacts analysis of anadromous fishery resources in the main stem of the Russian River since the SWRCB, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NMFS arc jointly working on a detailed study and analysis of the main stem resources in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Mr. William E. }learn June 4, 2002 Pagc '~ Accordingly, the City will be preparmg thc appropriate environmental docmnent for its pending Petition for Extension of Time and will circulate it for comment to the NMFS and SWRCB as required. Please notify me as soon as possible if your understanding of our conversation is different frum that describcd above. Very truly yours, Encl. WAGNER & BONSIGNORE ~NS~TING C~ cc w/attach: Darryl Barnes COUW032 DOC xYv agne_r ons ore___ bcc: Gar5,' Weatherford David Rapport AHachment # EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered in URiah, California, on (~z'z~¢. / 2002, by and between the City of URiah ("URiah"), a general law municipal ~Ferpo~tion and Millview CounW Water District ("Millview"), a county water district formed under the provisions of Water Code sections 30000 et seq. RECITALS: 1. MillvJew and URiah operate water systems that serve contiguous territory. water mains belonging to the two agencies lie in close proximity to each other. 2. Urgent or emergency conditions can from time to time interrupt the water service Millview and URiah provide their customers."Urgent or emergency condition~' in this Agreement means a sudden or unexpected occurrence or combination of occurrences causing the domestic water supply to be temporarily interrupted or lessened, and does not include inadequate water rights to meet pear demand. 3. It would improve the reliability of water service Millview and URiah provide to their customers, if the water mains of both systems were physically connected but separated by valves that could be opened during urgent or emergency conditions. 4. The purpose of this agreement is to establish the terms and conditions under which the systems can be physically connected and the water made available to the neighboring system during urgent or emergency conditions; provide4, however, that none ~.f the quantity ~f water provided by Ukiah to Millview under the agreement is to be delivered by Millview to the Calpella County Water District. AGREEMENT: Wherefore, in consideration of the above-recited facts and on the terms and conditions as further stated herein the parties hereby agree as follows. 1. Interconnection. On and after the effective date of this Agreement the Ukiah and Millview water systems interconnections are in operation using Iockable valves that can only be operated by Millview and URiah and a water meter of sufficient capacity for the connection size. 2. Ukiah's Provision of water service to Millview. Upon written or verbal request from MilIview's General Manager or his duly authorized delegate, including a representation that urgent or emergency conditions exist, Ukiah's City Manager or his duly authorized delegate shall open the valve allowing water to flow from URiah's water system to MilIview's water system under the following terms and conditions: a. If practicable, Miltview shall give Ukiah at least 24 hours advance notice to open the valve. In its request for service Millview shall indicate the time when it wants the temporary service to begin and the time when it wants that service to end. Unless earlier notified of a different termination date, URiah shall end service on the date s:\u~ gr m ts02\m illview June 26, 2002 indicated in the notice from Millview. In any event, URiah may, but need not, end service when the limits of service imposed by subparagraph b have been reached. b. Ukiah shall not be required to furnish water service for longer than fourteen continuous calendar days or for more than twenty total calendar days in any calendar quaffer (Jan. 1 to March 31, April I to June 30, July 1 to September 30, October 1 to December 31). c. Ukiah shall only be requirea to furnish water service to MillvJew for the following reasons: (1) An emergency and/or equipment failure affecting Millview's capacity to deliver water to its customers; (2) To combat a fire within or without the MillvJew service (3) TO allow for necessary rnaJntenance or repair of MJllvJew equipment not practicably achievable without that water service; or (4) Contamination of MilIview's water source. 3. Payment for service provided by Ukiah. Millview shall pay Ukiah S1.00 per 1000 gallons for water furnished under this Agreement. Ukiah sl~ll bill Millview for requested service within fifteen days after said service ends, or within 30 days of beginning service, whichever comes first, and each 30 days thereafter until the charges for service have been paid in full. Payment of each bill shall be due no later than thirty days from the billing date. The parties shall confer in good faith at least once every two years after the effective date of this Agreement to negotiate rate adjustments, taking into consideration changes in the cost of operations and other factors affecting the cost of supplying water unqer the terms of this Agreement. In the event of future mutually agreed upon changes in the rate, MiiIview understands that Ukiah may charge a higher rate for water service outside city limits than it charges for water service within city limits. If it agrees to such higher charges, it shall also release and waive any legal or other objections it might otherwise have to paying such higher rates and agrees to fully defend, indemnify and hold Ukiah harmless from and against any claim by any MilMew customer against Ukiah or its officers, agents or employees arising out of such rate differences, if any. 4. Provision of water service to Ukiah from Millview. Upon written or verbal request from Ukiah's City Manager or his dulv authorized delegate, including a representation that urgent or emergency conditions exist, Millview's General Manager or his duly authorized delegate shall open the valve allowing water to flow from Millview water system to Ukiah's water system under the following terms and conditions: a. If practicable, Ukiah shall give Millview at least 24 hours advance notice to open the valve. In its request for service Ukiah shall indicate the time when it wants the 2 s:\u~ag rmLsO2\millview June 26, 2002 temporary service to begin and the time it wants that service to end. Unless earlier notified of a different end date, Millview shall end service on the date indicated ~n the notice from Ukiah. In any event, Millview may, but need not, end service when the limits of service imposed by subparagraph b have been reached. b. Millview shall not be required to furnish water service for longer than fourteen continuous calendar days or for more than twenty total calendar days in any calendar quarter (Jan. 1 to March 31, Al:ril '1 to June 30, July 1 to September :~0, OCtober to December 31). c. Millview shall only be required to furnish water service to Ukiah for the following reasons: (1) An emergency and/or equipment failure affecting Ukiah's capacity to deliver water to its customers; (2) To combat a fire within or without the ukiah service area; (3) To allow for necessary maintenance or repair of Ukiah equipment not practicably achievable without that water service; or (4) Contamination of Ukiah's water source. 5. Payment for service provided by Uillview. Ukiah shall pay Millview Sl.00 per 1000 gallons for water furnished under this Agreement. Millview shall bill Ukiah for each requested service within fifteen days after said service ends, or withh 30 days of beginning service whichever occurs first, and each 30 days thereafter until all charges are paid in full. Payment of each bill shall be due no later than thirty days from the billing date. The par~ies shall confer in good faith at least once every two vears after the effective date of this Agreement to negotiate rate adjustments, taking into consideration changes in the cost of operations and other factors affecting the cost of supplying water under the terms of this Agreement. In the event of future mutually agreed upon changes in the rate for water service under this Agreement, Ukiah understands that Millview mav charge a higher rate for water service outside its district boundaries than it charges for water service within those boundaries. If it agrees to such higher charges, it shall release and waive any legal or other objections it might otherwise have to paying such higher rates and agrees to fully defend, indemnify and hold Millview harmless from and against any claim by any Ukiah customer against Millview or its officers, agents or employees arising out of such rate differences, if any. 6. Waiver. Failure to enforce any breach of a provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or a dfferent provision of the Agreement. 7. compliance with law. This Agreement shall not obligate either party to furnish water to the other, if the provision of such water would violate any provision of state or federal law or any term or condition of any permit, license or other approval 3 s:\u~ag rmts02\millview June 26. 2002 held Dy either party in connection with its public water system. As of the date this Agreement was executed Ukiah and Millview had each been informed by the State Water Resources Control Board that relevant places of usewould have to have been approved by the Board before interconnected water service could be provided under this Agreement. 8. Limits on flow. Ukiah and Millview mutually agree to limit the transfer of water under this Agreement to a rate of flow that will not adversely affect the distribution system or customer service levels of either system. If the City Manager of Ukiah or the General Manager of Millview determines that such an adverse impact will occur, the manager or authorized representative of the affected system may without prior notice discontinue or reduce flow to the other system. 10. Entire agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties concerning its subject matter and supersedes any prior statements, agreements or understandings between the parties concerning the same subject matter. Any such prior statements, agreements or understandings are hereby declared null and void and of no further force or effect. The parties may amend this Agreement or enter new or additional agreements to, among other things, transfer or sell water to each other, provided any such amendments or agreements are contained in a writing approved by the legislative bodies and executed by duly authorized officials of both parties. 11. NOtice. Whenever written notice is required or allowed under the terms of this Agreement it Shall be deemed given when personally delivered or when received by certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 General Manager Millview Water District 3081 North State Street Ukiah, California 95482 13. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be five (S) years from its effective date. The term may be extended on such terms as the parties shall agree. NO such extension shall be binding unless contained in a writing signed by both parties. 14. Third party beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the exclusive benefit of Ukiah and Millview and confers no rights or benefits on any persons or entities not a signatory to this Agreement. No third party beneficiaries are intended or established by this Agreement. 15. Duplicate originals. This Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals and when so executed each duplicate original bearing the original 4 s:\u~agrmts02\rnillview June 26, 2002 signatures of the parties shall be admissible in any administrative or legal proceeding as evidence of the terms of this Agreement. above. WHEREFORE, the parties have entered this Agreement on the date first written A,TTEST: City Clerk CITY OF UKIAH Mayor / ATTEST: MILLVIEW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT airman 6~t~Board L'.I'" s:\u~,grmtsO2\millview June 26, 2002 5 A.'ffachment Cf UNITEO STATES OEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVIC~ 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 ~_ _ Santa Rosa, California 95404 In Response Refer to: June 21,2002 151416-SWR-02-SR-6196:WEH Ms. Pau]a Whealen Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Engineers 444 North Third Street Suite 325 Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Ms. Whealen: I have reviewed your June 4, 2002 letter concerning issues to be addressed in the City of Ukiah's environmental assessment for Water Right Permit 12952 (Application No. 15704). You are correct that the assessment should be focused on the cumulative effects of diversions on conditions in Lake Mendocino. However, the principal question to be answered is what effect the additional diversion by Ukiah would have on the water temperature of reservoir releases from Lake Mendocino. Another question concerns the cumulative effects of Ukiah's additional diversion on water quality within Lake Mendocino (e.g., what is the level of dissolved oxygen (D.O.) released from Lake Mendocino during late summer under existing, legal water releases, and how would the increased diversion by Ukiah effect those levels?). Allowing the additional diversion would place an increasing demand on Russian River water supply. Minimum flows in the Russian River are currently maintained at levels specified under State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Decision 1610. In its staff report on the Russian River, SWRCB (1997) states: In 1986 the SWRCB adopted Decision 1610 that established conditions relating to SCWA's.[Sonoma County Water Agency,] water right permits for the operation of the Russian River Project. The decision established instream flows to be maintained by SCWA in the Russian River and DO/ Creek through the coordinated operation of Lake Mendocino and Lake Sonoma. In that decision, the SWRCB also evaluated water availability and stated: "Because of the projected shortage, we have in effect allocated the remaining available water under Permits 12947A, 12949, and 12950 first to instream environmental uses including the fishery, and then to SCWA at its d/version facilities, to the extent that downstream m/n/mum flow requirements are met. Substantially higher minimum flows likely would cause the system to go dO/in less than normal years, to the detriment of ail beneficial uses dependent on it, and would in other years lower Lake Mendocino enough to impair its recreational and environmental uses and reduce its reliability as a water supply." SWRCB (1997) also states that, "approval of applications on the main stem could result in increased diversions from Lake Mendocino and/or Lake Sonoma which, in turn, could deplete the amount of cold water stored in the lakes. This could result in an increase in water temperature, both in the lakes and downstream, which could have an adverse impact to fishery resources." The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recognizes that instream flows in the highly regulated Russian River is a complex issue that is currently governed by SWRCB Decision 1610. Stream flows in the Russian River are also the subject of ongoing analysis and discussions between the Army Corps of Engineers, Sonoma County Water Agency, and NMFS, through an Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation pertaining to operations of Coyote Dam and Warm Springs Dam. Therefore, Ukiah's project would have little effect on the actual flow levels within the Russian River. However, the quality of water released from Coyote Dam could be affected if the drawdown of Lake Mendocino is increased or accelerated to meet the needs of Ukiah. It is the cumulative effect of that additional drawdown on water quality (i.e., temperature and D.C.) that should be quantitatively evaluated in the environmental assessment conducted for the City of Ukiah. If you have questions about this letter, please call me at 707-575-6062. Contact Dr. Stacy Li at 707-575-6082 for technical and water right related questions pedaining to this project. Sincerely, William E. Hearn, Ph.D. Team Leader Habitat Conservation Division Scientific & Technical Support R. FIoerke, DFG- Yountville S. Herrera, SWRCB - Sacramento Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Civil Engineers A Corporation 444 North Third Street, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95814-0228 (916) 441-6850 phone (916) 448-3866J~tx January21,2003 Candace Horsley City Of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenne Ukiai~, California 55482 RE: City of Ukiah - Application 15704 (Permit 12952) Transmitted: Copies of protests filed against the City of' Ukiah's petition for change m place of use from: o Sonoma County Water Agency o Lee Howard o Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Irrigation District Remarks: Please find the attached protests we have received regarding the City of Ukiah's petition for change in place of use Due to the re-notice sent out on 12/24/02 by the State Water Resources Control Bsa:'d (SWRCB), the De?.rtment of'Fish & Game and the National Marine Fisheries Serw'ices have until January 24.2003 to file their protests. We will forward those vchen received. The S WP-.CB has not yet accepted any of the protests yet When (or if) they do so, we will be directed to respond to each FSncls ~,," cc DaMd Rapport Ga:¢ \Veathe~ fo~d ,~,. 'erect Via US By: Paula J. Whealen LE'I'TER OF TRANSMITT,\L December 13, 2002 SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCy /,31achmen! # '- / FILE wck,42-0-1 WATER RIGHTS PROTESTS (AU[.) ~qA FAX (916-341-5400) AND US MAIL Mr. Brian Coats State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights PO Box 2000 Sacraanento, CA 95812-2000 R C VED [ EC 18 RE: PROTEST OF PETITION TO CHANGE WATER RIGHT PERMIT 12952 APPLICATION 15704 BY THE CITY OF UK1AH- RUSSIAN RIVER MAINSTEM IN MENDOCINO COUNTY Dear Mr Coats The Sonoma County Water Agency (Agency) has reviewed the State Water Resources Control Board's notice of the petition to change water-right Permit 12952, which was issued on Application 15704. The Agency files this protest based on potential injury to the Agency's water rights under pernuts 12947A, 12949, 12950, and 16596 (Applications 12919A, 15736, 15737, and 19351) Under Water Code section 1702, the State Water Resources Control Board may not approve any change ~n a water-right penmt or license that would operate to the mjmy of any legal user of the water involved Studies performed by the Agency indicate that the supply of water in the Russian River mamstem is already msufficxent in most .,,'ears to supply HTainstcm water rights that are junior to the Agency's, and this problem w/Il worsen in the l~aturc if Po~er Valley Project ~mpo~s into the Russian River watershed are reduced. Lq light of tbcse chronic shortages, the State Water Resources Control Board must include appropriate terms and conditions in any order approwng the change petition, to assure that the approved changes w/Il not reduce the supplies available to other legal users of water, and to assure that the approved changes ~qlI not otherxv~se adversely affect other legal users of water At this time, the Agency docs not have sufficient information about tile details of the change petition to be able to determine whether or not the petition should be approved, or, if it is approved, what terms and conditions should be included in the order approving the petition to protect other legal users of water. The Agency wqll review any cnviromnental document that is prepared fl0r this change petition, and the Agency is w/lling to meet with the petitioner to discuss appropriate temps and conditions to protect other legal users of water Because modcl0~g studies indicate that there is no unappropriated water available for post-1949 appropriations during the dr',' months in over 90?5, of the years modeled, the State Board also should add terms to pernuts and licenses for post-1949 rights that noti~' the water right holder that file perrrattee's or licensee's right to divert ~atcr from the Russian I~ivcr may bc curtailed in thc future, unless aa~ alternate suppl.',' of water ~s obtamcd through contracts with thc Agency or from some other source To provide this notice, thc Agency requests that the State Board's proposed Standard Permit Terms 80(a) and 90(a) be added to ail permits and licenses for post- 1949 Russian River mainstem water fights that are subject to orders approving change petitions. A copy of these Standard Permit Terms is enclosed. Because of uncertainties regarding future availability of water under both prc-1949 and post-1949 nghts, these standard permit terms should be included in pernuts and licenses for all mainstcm Russian River fights in Mcndocino County Because of the present uncemainnes regarding the amounts of water that are diver[ed from the Russian River in Mendocino Count)', the Agency also requests that the State Water Resources Control Board, in any order approvtng the change petition, add additional terms requiring the perrmttee or licensee to install an accurate flow meter or meters to mzasure all of thc pemfittce's or licensee's diversions, and requiring the permittee or licensee to submit verified annual reports of the metered diversions to the SWRCB Further perrmt terms may be required to prevent unauthorizcd diversions of water. For the reasons discussed above, the Agency hereby files protest against the above-referenced water right apphcations If you have any questions or corrtments, please call Chris Murray at (707) 547-I 925 Sincerely, Randy D Poole, P E General Manager / Chief Engineer Chins Murray - Sonoma County Water Agency Pam Jeanc - Sonoma County Water Agency Jill Golis - Sonoma County Counsel Steve Shupe - Sonoma County Counsel Alan Lilly - Bartkiewicz, Kroinck & Shanahan Petitioner: City of Ukiah c/o Wagner and Bons~gnore 444 North Third Street, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95758 ENCLOSURE The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Water Rights proposed standard permit terms 80(a) and 90(a) are as follows: Term 80(a) The State Water Resources Control Board reserves jurisdiction over this permit to change the season of diversion to conform to later findings of the Board concerning availability of water and the protection of beneficial uses of water in the Russian River Any action to change thc: authorized season of diversion will be taken only aPter notice to interested parties and opportunity for heating. Term 90(a) This permit is subject to prior rights Permittee is put on notice that, during some years, water will not be available for diversion during portions or all of the season authorized herein The annual variation in demand and hydrologic conditions in the Russian River are such that, in any year of water scarcity, the season of diversion authorized herein may be reduced or completely eliminated on order of this Board made after notice to interested parties and opportunity for heating December 10, 2002 t,J :x. hmenf # F'AGE To: Slate Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights c/o Oreg Wilson P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento. CA 95812-2000 Re: Protest to changes proposed in petitions for City Of Ukiah 15704, Willow County Water District I5121, 177232 and MilMew Count3, Water District 3601, 17587. It is unclear whose or what water is to be diverted, at ~vhat time it will be diverted, but no matter what water is diverted it will have an environmental impact. It ~v/ll injnre many existing water rights and Mil affect some risking. And the way it is being done with these petitions is contrary, to the law. Mi, llvie,.,,, County Water District was formed to serve domestic and municipal water to the people inside its district and had no agricultural customers. In its history 'die district had an ordinance in place not to have agricultural customers in compliance with its water permit from the state. In the late 90's the Board of Directors at the Millview County Water DislMct changed and saw a way to make money. They started selling ag water as late as I997 only having three ag customers. The Millview County Water District has a very limited water right and has no formal agreement with the Russian River Flood Control District. (Please note State Water Rights Board Decision D 1110 dated February 31, 1963 item # 10 and 11 of page 3). Whose water is MilIvJew County Water District petitions to cover? MiIlview County Water District can't cover its water customers (domestic and municipal) right now, how can it service additional area and new use? The City of Ukiah seeldng to remove the E.I.A. and provide a more predictable water supply and expand its place of use will require mom water and will induce growth. Willoxv Count}, Water District has no permit for agricultural water, like Millview, and thc addition of ag water will only require more water. With added use other water right water holders will be harmed along with the Fisheries. The State Water Resources Control Board should not make changes of place, of use, or consider a place of use petition for change of place of use with regards to local government, w/thout the locaI L.A.F.C.O. first approving the same and any requirements of CEQA. To comply w/tt~ Lcgislalive Intent Public Resourcc:~ Code 21000, the City of Ukiah, Millview County, Water District, and Willow County Waler District should go to L.A.F.C.O. of Mendocino County first. There is substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that this project will have significant effects on thc environment and need to address the curnulative impact. '['be petition will create many more problems and deplete local government services, fragmenting the system even more, Rather than go through the L.A.F.C.O. process, as laid out by the State Legislature, fire City of Ukiah and the two districts want the State Water Resources Control Board to give permission to add areas and change places of usc without going through the correct process. With the Russian River being fully appropriated for summer time uses and the adequacy of ground water to make up the source needed to cover the system's reliability of ail three petitions it is clear that the petition lacks clarity. They should be required to address the sensitive issue of ground water versus surface water and the fact that there could be injury to existing water rights. During dry years, when natural flows in the Russian River are limited, even the City of Ukiah will depend on the water of others to meet s ,ummer demands and with the purposed petitions for change of place, of use, and of purpose of use many more people will be harmed. Please do not move forward with this project at this time, as there is not enough information supplicd to make an informed decision. Sincerely, 3900 Parducci Rd. Ukiah, CA 95482 l~[endoclno County Russian Ri er Flood control & Water Conservation Im[ rovement Distrie! ^ttachment # //q/] ~ ~ 151 L~v~ Avenue. Sui~ D · ~b, CA 9~2 phone ~0~ 46~5278 · F~ ~0~ 462-5279 January 15, 2003 Mr. Brian Coats State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights PO Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 RECEIVED RE: Application 15704, Permit 12952 City o f Ukiah Dear Mr. Coats, The Board of Trustees of the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District (MCRRFC) withdraws it's protest against the City of Ukiah Application 15704 and Permit 12952 only if the City of Ukiah would have in place specific language on their Application 15704 and Permit 12952 which should read, "The City of Ukiah will not use Mcndocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement District's (MCRRFC&WCID) outside of the MCRRFC&WCID's place of use and MCRRFC&WCID's District Boundaries." Sincerely, Q-~Judy ~tch President Cc: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482 President Judy H~h l~ce President Tom Mon Pete Trustees Tom Ashut~ Bill rawnsend Robe~ Wood Paula Whealen Wagner & Bossignor 444 N. Third St., Ste 325 Sacramento, CA 95814-0228 ...... ~,, ,_ ,t.~. 1G, 2, 707 q62~ , -m- ~.,.% ~ State of Call fo]mi* State Water K~soure~s Contro[ Board DIVISION OF WATER R1GItTS P.O. Box 2000. Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 lnfo: (g 16) 341-5300. FAX: (916) 341-54Q0. ~'ch. htrp:,'/'*"~v w'~t¢cqght~ cs.g~v PROTEST - APPLICATION . ow~) Mendocino Coun~ Russian River Flood Control & W2ter Conse~atian Improvement Dist. ~ 151 Laws Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 ~"~°¢~'~*~"ff~) 707 ~ 462-5278 h~: to ~,w~b~, ~o~ Ukiah, CA 95482 .t a ~lnt 707 462-5278 *,ill r~, ~. im,r~ to uS ¢~ rotlo-~: possible n uw t~o_Pri~or P,i¢ .h.f& -- Water ri~tS A~oli~abon ~129~8 ~ ~r~xh~c d.t= first use madc /~-~ b amount u~ed OUUU ~cre ~e~[ ' Und:r what condidod~ my thiJ protest be di~ed and dism~? See A~ach~ PRO-APP (I-OOl Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement Di~tr£ct December Il, 2002 Ukiah, CA 95482 Phone (707) 462-$2~'g Fax (707) 462-5279 Mr. Brian Coats State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rigl'~ts P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento. CA 955!2-2000 Application 15704, Permit 12952 City of Ukiah Dear Mr. Coa~: The Board of Trustees of the Mendoeino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservat/on lmproveme~.t District (MCRRFC) hcrcby objecls and protests the Petition Requesting Changes, Corrections. or Extension of Time in Water Rigl:ts Permits and Lmenses as described for tl~e subject Water District for the following rea.son: ' · t ~ -- MCR.RFC does not ob. jeer to ~e City of Lrkiah bringing /ts permits into compliance. MCRRFC does. however, have concem~ about the City of Ukiah serving its cmtomers water under MCRRFC's permit outside oF its place of use thereby placing the District in a position of noncomplimace of its permit. MCRRFC ha., a policy in place which does not allow its water to be sewed outside of its place of u_~e.. Specific language shotdd be placed in the City's permit indicating the City of Ukiaht ,hall not use MCRRFC's water outside of the District's place of use. AI~o. the City should be able to demonstrate they are not u~ing Mendocino County Russian River F~ood Control and Water ConservatSol~. Improvement District water outside of the District's place of use. Thc above mentioned concerns regarding use of water outside of MCR. RFC's place of use also includes areas in the Willow Court%' Waler District. Millview County Water District, and the Calpella County Water District ~,vhich are being added to the City of Ukiah's place of usc. Th-crc is also a specific reference to the City seeking to remove the Emergency Int~rcormection Agreement with tee surrouvd~ng water districts. Tlqis ~greement must rema/n in place acid be consi:acnt with the water district contiguous to the CiD' ofUkiah's boundahes. There are limitations on the use of water trader these agxe~ments and these Iimit~tion5 should continued~ l'//13/:~b] 1~!22 ;"~7-4~L i NO COUNTIE~ EN~.,~EER P~GE ~d 'vlr. R~i~n I:o~t~ December ! I. 200~ We assumc the State Water Resources Control Board ',*'ill l~erform its responsibilities rcquircd by the Califemia Environmental Quality Ac't, Sincerely, Thomas Ashtrrst Trustee cc: City of Ukiah P~ula Whenlen Gandace Horsier/ To: Subject: Council Members FW Protests For your lnzormation. Please call me if you have questions. Candace. -- -Orlg!nal Message ..... Prom: Pau!a Whealen [ma~ito:PCWhealen~wagner engrs.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 9:01 ~M 'Fo: candace@cityofukiah.com Sublect: RE: P~otests They will likely accept the District's protest and ask whether or not we will accept the term proposed by the District. I do not expect the State to accept Lee Howard's protest. The Department of Fish . Game and Natzonal Marine Fishery Service have until January 24, 2003 to file protests (they requested an extension). I expect they will file as they did before on your prevlous petition. Also, the State will likely accept the Sonoma County Water Agency protest and will ask if we agree w~th the terms they have proposec. Cop&es of all of the protests are going out in today's mall to you, Dave and Gary. I will forward the Fish ~ Game and NMFS protests when received. ..... Original Message Prom: Candace Horsley [mailto:candace~cityofukiah.com] Sent: Tueseay, January 21, 2003 5:17 PM To: 'Paula Whealen' Sub}ect: RE: Protests W~il the State expect us to say ~f we agree to the District's request when we respond to the protests? .... Original Message P~om: Paula Whoa!eh [matlto:PJWhealen@wagner-engrs.ccm] Sons: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 3:51 PM To: canmace@cityefuklah.cem Su~}ec~: RE: Protests ! believe we have now received copzes of al! of the protests filed against the Petition for Change ~n Place of Use. We also received a letter from the Plood Control O~str~ct today that states the terms under which it would withdraw ~ts protest (the City was copied on that letter dated January 15, 2002). I bel~eve the terms are acceptable, but I want to wait until the State Water Resources Control Board accepts the protest and directs the City et Ukiah to respond on each one. We will send you copies of all of the puc~ests tha~ have been received. We will also send cop~es to Dave Rapport ~nd Gary Weatherford. .... O}!ginal Message ..... ~rom: Candace Horsley [mail~o:candace@cityofukiah.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 2!, 2003 3:24 PM }et Whoa!eh Paula (E-mail) Subject: Protest? appl±cat~on? Thanks, Cangace ]~tendocino Counly RUSsian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement District Ai'tachment # ]/~ - c/ Phone ~OD 46~5278 · F~ ~0~ 46L527~ January 15, 2003 Mr. Brian Coats State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights PO Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 Application 15704, Permit 12952 City o f Ukiah Dear tMr. Coats, The Board of Trustees of the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District 0vlCRRFC) withdraws it's protest against the City of Ukiah Application 15704 and Permit 12952 only if the City of Ukiah would have in place specific language on their Application 15704 and Permit 12952 which should read, "The City of Ukiah will not use Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement District's (MCRRFC&WCID) outside of the MCRRFC&WCID's place of use and MCRRFC&WCID's District Boundaries." Sincerely, President Cc: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiak, CA 95482 President V'tce President Tom Mort Pete Trustees Tom Ashu~ B~ Rob~ Wood Paula Whealen Wagner & Bossignor 444 N. Third St., Ste 325 Sacramento, CA 95814-0228 Winston II. Hickox Attachment # /'~ _-_ ~ State Water Resources Control Board l)ivision of Water Rights (;ray Davis NOTICE OF PETITIONS REQUESTING CIIANGES, CORRECTIONS, OR EXTENSIONS OF TIME IN WATER RIGHT PERMITS AND LICENSES Dated: November 15, 2002 NOTICE: The purpose of this notice is to advise interested persons of petitions requesting changes to water right permits and licenses. This notice provides a summary of all petitions that have been revie;,,ed and prepared ~br noticing during the month by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Rights (Division). This notice provides a short summary of each petition and also provides instructions for filling a protest against the requested changes, if you would like additional information relating to a petition, or infbrmation relating to the procedure for filing a protest please cai1 the contact person listed for the specific petition The Division's public notices may also be viewed and printed from ~ts web-site, v~w.waterrights ca gov. GENERAL INFORMATION: Persons diverting water from a stream must, in most cases, obtain a water right permit issued by the SWRCB, in accordance with the provisions of the Calitbmia Water Code. (People carl divert water from a stream under riparian rights or fights initialed prior to 1914.) A water right pemfit issued by tile SWRCB defines the: Stream or river from which water is diverted; ,Mnount of water that can be diverted; Season of the year during which the water can be diverted; Point of diversion from the stream; Place of use of the diverted water; and Puq~ose of use. In addition, the water right permit includes a date for applying the water to beneficial use. ,Any party having a water fight pcmait must submit a petition and receive approval from the SWRCB to change the place of use, purpose of use, or point of diversion, or to request and extension of time to make full beneficial usc of the water. The SWRCB must consider the potential impacts to other water users that could be affected by the proposed change and must also consider the potential environmental impacts that would result from the proposed change. The SWRCB must comply with the requirements of thc Call fomia Environmental Quality Act prior to approval of any peution Pf~,OCEI)UILES FOR I:II,ING PROTESTS: ,,M~y person inay file a protest against the changes proposed m a petition. However, protests filed in response to this notice must be postmarked or received in tbe ' ,' ' D x s on s office at thc address listed below, [~:()(~J!~ (~[~ thc 30~}~ day aider the date of this notice. - ..... A protest should be submitted on the standard protest fonn that is available fi'om the Division and carl be printed from thc Division's web-site v,~.waten'ights.ca.gov/forms/. Due to the constraints of the noticing period, protestants may file protests, etc, by FAX. However, an original copy of ali materials must be received, for the SWRCB to consider your protest. The protest should be submitted to: State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights c/o Greg Wilson P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 Additionally, a copy of the protest must also be sent to the petitioner. SWRCB will respond to all protests within 90 day of the date of this notice. A protest ma?' be based on any of the factors listed below: Injury to existing water rights; }las an adverse environmental impact; Is not in the public interest; Is coutrary to lax,,'; or Is not within the jurisdiction of the SWRCB. All protests must clearly describe the objections to approval of the petition and the lhctual basis for those objections. For example, if the objection is based on injury to existing water rights, the protest must describe the specific injury to the existing water right that would result from approval of the changes proposed by the petition. In addifion, the party claiming injury to prior water rights must provide specific infom~ation that describes the basis of existing right, the date the use began, the quantity of water use, the purpose of use, and the place of use. Protest based on envirormaental impacts, public interest, legality, or jurisdictional issues must be accompanied by a statement of facts supporting the basis of the protest. If sufficient information is not submitted, the SW~RCB may reject tile protest or request that the protestant submit additional infom~afion. The Divisions will not accept protests that ale directed against the underlying water right, rather than the change proposed by tile petition. The SWRCB may grant an extension of time to file a protest, tbr good cause. A request for an extension of time must be submitted in a timely manner, must specify thc additional time required, and must state why additional fime is needed to file the protest. A pamphlet is available that provides additional information relating to water rights and tile procedures for filing protests. Please contact the person listed below if you would like a copy of the pamphlet or protest forms. RESOI,UTION OF PROTt':STS: TI'~e pctilioncr and protestant arc encouraged to discuss methods tha~ could he used to resoIve the protest. If~he protest can not he resolved, SWRCB stM'f may conduct a field inx cstigation with all interested pa~ties or may hold a watc~ right hearing. CONTACT PERSON: Please contact the staff person desigmated under the petttion of interest, if you would like additional information regarding the petition, protests, information pamphlets, protest fom~s, or to request an extension of time in which to file a protest. DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONS: The £ollowing provides a summary ofall petitions for changes in water rights or extensions of time to put water to usc. The petitions are listed alphabetically by County. COUNTY OWNER APPLICATION NO. EAKE Charles and James Carpenter 24482A M[ENDOCINO Millview County Water District 3601 8,: 17587 City of Ukiah 15704 Willow County Water District 15721 & 17232 La Ribera Vineyards 20540 & 24013 Richard llenwood 21516 SANTA CRUZ Big Basin ~Vater Company 24804 SHASTA ~ John & Theresa Rotter 29685 NOTICES WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LAKE APPLICATION 24482A PERMIT 18067A ISSUED ON October 6, 1980 Pemnittee: Point of Diversion: Purposes of Use: Sto[agc :\me,mt and Season of Diversion: 90 acre feet ITem October Max Annual /Mnount: 90 acre f'eet per year Charles and James Carpenter 200 N. Main Street, Suite C Lakcport, CA 95453 Unnamed Stream tributary to Scotts Creek thence Rodman Slough tile Clear Lake, thence Cache Creek NW'A of SE~A of section 11, T14N, R10W, MDB&M I~Tigation, Frost Protection, Recreational, and Stockwtering lo Jtmc 30 of rite succeeding year Place of Usc: Existing Project: Petition for Change: Extension of Time: Environmental Document: Contact Person: Recreation and Stockwatering at the Reservoir located within N55 of SEV,, of sectionll,TI4N, R10W, MDB&M. Frost protection and Irrigation of 45 acres located witlnm the SE~/4 and NE% oFNW¢q of section 11, T14N, R10W, MDB&M, as shown on maps on file wilh the SWRCB. Tine existing project is permitted for the collection to storage of 90 acre-feet of water per annum to be used for recreational, stockwatcnng, and imgation of 45 ucres of pasture. Pcrmittee is reconstructing thc earlhfill dam and installing new pumping facilities and distribution systems for development of the place of use (POU) Water will be pumped from thc reservoir using two 350-gallon-per-minute pumps for overhead, drip system, and furrow irrigation of orchard, vineyard, and row crops. Pcnnittee petitioned to add a total of 61 new acres to the existing 45-acre POU fl0r a total of 106 acres. Of the 106 acres, 18 acres are in vineyard, 24 acres in pears, 19 acres will be in row crops, along with the permitted 45 acres in pasture all within section 11, T14N, RI0W, MDB&M. Permittee requests an extension of time to develop fidl beneficial usc of water authorized under this pemnt. An environmental document [las not yet been prepared fi)r the action described in this notice Ralph Gunby at (16) ,>41 >334 NOTICES WITIIIN TIlE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO APPLICATION 3601 APPLICATION 17587 I,ICENSE 492 PERMIT 13936 ISSUED ON March 12, 1926 ISSUED ON March 26, 1963 Applicant: Points of Dixersion: Millview County ",Vamr District 3081 North State Street Ukiah, CA 95482 Russian River (Underflow) tributary to Pacific Oceun A~pplication 3601 North 32 West 2,300 feet from SE comer of projected section 5, T15N, R12W, MDB&M, being within NE/.~ of SE% of said .section 5. AN)lication 17587 Well No 1 Soulh83%8'43"Wcsta,432t~et fmm SE comer of projected sechon 33, TION, R12W, MDB&M, being sxithin thc SE% of NE% of projected section 5, T15N, R12W, NIDB&M. Purposes of Use: Direct Diversion Rate and Season of Diversion: Place of Use: Existing Project: Pe!ition £or Change: WcllNo. 2 South 60 45' West 3,588 feet from SE comerofprojcctcd section 33, TI6N, R12W, MDB&M, being within thc NEP; of SES'; of projected section 5, TISN, R12W, MDB&M. Domestic & Municipal Application 3601 0.18 cubic foot per second from June 1 to August 15 Application 17587 3 cubic feet per second from November 1 to July 1 of the succeeding year Within the boundaries of the Millview County Water District (MCWD) located north of Ukiah and within projected sections 2-10 and 17, T15N, Ri2W, MDB&M, and projected sections 27 33, T16N, R12W, MDB&M, as shown on map on file with the SWRCB MCWD supplies water under License 492 (Application 3601) and Permit I3936 (Application 17587) for domestic and municipal uses to the MCWD service area within Mcndocino county. The Division conducted a routine compliance inspection of MCWD on December 17, 2001 As a result of the inspection, it was found that: MCWD ',vas diverting wate~ from 17 shallow wells and 3 Uver intake pumps vYhicb are not covered under its license arid pemfit, MCWD ,.vas diverting water from tile surface flow of tile Russian River into a gravel recharge basin to elevate water levels at its wells, which is not covered under its license or permit, MCWD ,.:as serving water to areas outside the authorized place of use under its license and pemmit, including the Calpella County Water District, and MC\VD ,,vas diverting water for imgation use which is not covered by its license or permit, The violations have been addressed by MCWD through thc filing of petitions to change the point of diversion, place of usc and purpose of use under License 492 and Permit 13936. PtLrpose of Usc MCWD has petitioned to add h~igation to the authorized Domestic and Municipal uses listed in License 492 and Permit 13936 hrigation water would seDe ten existing agricultural se~m~icc connections covering !00 acres of vinc):nd In ordcz re curb ~[lttlre imgation dcvclopmenl, MCWD has recently adopted a polio)to prohibit thc Rltmc usc ofwalcr lbr commercial inigation of crops over and above what is cu~rcntly hcmg irrigated Point of Diversion- MCWI) has requested thc addition of two points of diversion along tile Russian River and tile addition to the well field defined during tile recent inspection ]he newpomtsofdiversionarcdefincdas follows: Upper Russian River Diversion (two pumz2)- Located North 556,508 feet and East 1,660,210 feet, California Coordinate System, Zone 2; being within the NE¼ of SE¼ of projected section 5, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. Lower Russian River Diversion (one pureR) Located North 556,243 feet and East 1,660,217 feet, California Coordinate System, Zone 2; being within the NE¼ of SE¼ of projected section 5, TI5N, R12W, MDB&M. Well Field multiple wells within Mendocino County Assessor Parcel No. 178-03 I 1, consisting of 7.15 acres within tile NE¼ of SE¼ of projected section 5, TI5N, R12W, MDB&M, as shown on thc map on file with the SXA.~RCB. Place of Use - MCWD has petitioned to amend its place of use to include water delivery to Calpclla County Water District and other neighboring communities. In addition, MCWD has ail Emergency lntcrconnection Agreement (EIA) with tile City of Ukiab for the sen, ice of water. The agreement stipulates that if tile other entity requires water on an emergency basis, u, ith proper notice, water will be provided to tile said entity. Tile intent of the EIA is to improve the reliability of water service to each entity's costomers in times of an emergency and/or equipment failure, to combat a fire, to allow for maintenance or repair, or in the case of water system contamination. The petition to expand the place of use requests that the licensed and permitted place of use be increased to include tile City of Ukiah, Willow County Water District, and Calpella County Water District service areas, described as follows: Within thc boundaries of the City of Ukiah, and Millvicw, Willow and Calpel[a County Water Districts being within projected sections 15- 17, 20- 22 and 27-36 ofTI6N, R12W, MDB&M; Sections 1 and 12, TI5N, RI3W, MDB&M; sections 2-I1, 16-21 and 28-33 ofTI5N, R12W, MDB&M; and projected sections 3-I0 and 15-16 ofTI4N, RI2W, MDB&M as sh,*,.vn on rile map on file with tile SWRCB 6 Docunlcut: An enx iroranental document has not yet been prepared Ibr the action desmibcd in this notice. Related Applications: License 6793 (Application 15721) Willow County Water [District Pcmlit 13035 (Application 17232) x, , ~v llo,,v County ~'a er District Pcmfit 12952 (Application 15704) City of Ukiah Contact Person: Brian Coats at (916) 341-5311 APPI.ICATION 15704 PERMIT 12952 ISSUED ON October 24, 1961 Pe~ mittee: City of Ukiab c/o Wagner & Bonsignore 444 North 3'd Street, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95758 Source: Poinls of` Diversion: Purposes of Use: Direct Divers.ion Rate and Season of Diversion: Place of' Lise: Existing Project: Russian River (Under flow) tributary to Pacific Ocean (1) SE~4 of N",V9~ of'section 16,715N, R12VV, MDB&tX{ (2) SE¼ of NEV., of section 17, TI5N, RI2W, MDB&M (3) SF.;/~ of'SW¼ of section 16, T15N, Ri2W, MDB&M Municipal 20 cubic feet per second from January 1 to December 31 of each year Within and near the City of Ukiah as shown on the map on file with the SWRCB. Thc existing project involves tile pumping of groundwater, classified as Russian River Undcrflow, for Municipal use within and near the City of lJkiah. On occasion, the City supplies water to Millview and Willow County Water Districts through Emergep,-y lnterconnection Agreements (EIA) which are instituted whenever an emergency situation such as fire, contamination, or equipment failure occurs. Millview County Water District, itl addition to its own needs, also supplies a portion of its water to Calpella County Water District. Unlbrtunately, there arc no provisions within the City ofUkiah's EIA to allow for'the use of ElA water in Calpclla (?nunty's sop'ice area Seeking tt~ remove llte L:IA completcl) and provide a more predictable water supply, the kity of'Ukiah has flied a petition to expand its Place of Use to incoH~oratc the service a~eas of Millvicw. Willow, and Calpe!Ia Co[Inly Water D~stricts with its pcm~it t'ctition for Change: Environmental Document: Related Applications: Contact Person: Pemuttce has petitioned to change the place of usc under PcFmit 12952 to incorporate the service areas of Millvicw, Willow, and Calpella County Water Dist~dcts. The proposed place of use is described as follows: Within thc boundaries of the City of Ukiah, and Millview, Willow, and Calpella County Water Districts being within thc following projected Sections 15, 16, 17, 20, 21,27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of T16N, R12W, MDB&M; Sections 1 and 12, TI5N, RI3W, MDB&M; Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11,16,17, I8,19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 ofT15N, RI2W, MDB&M; and Projected Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16 ofT14N, R12W, MDB&M as shown on map on file with the SWRCB. An environmental document has not yet been prepared for tile action described in this notice. License 6793 (Application 15721) Willow County Water District Permit 13935 (Application 17232) Willow County Water District License 492 (Application 3601) Millview County Water District Permit 13963 (Application 17587) Nlillview County Water District Brian Coats at (916) 341-5311 APPLICATION 15721 APPEICATION 17232 LICENSE 6793 PER,XI1T 13935 ISSUED ON June 7, 1926 ISSUED ON l~larch 26, 1963 Applicant: Sol. ii'ce: Points of Diversion: Purposes of 1 ~'se: Willow County Water DistiNct 151 Laws Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482-~5655 Russian River (Underflow) tributary to Pacific Ocean Wells_~3, 5 anti 6 located as follows South 1,800 Feet and East 4,350 feet F[onl point Y-45 on boundary of Yokayo Rancho, being within log 7I of Yokavo Rancho and thc NWVq of projected section 33, TI5N, R12W, MDB&M Municipal Direct Di~ ersiort Rate and Season o£ 1)i; crsion: Place of Use: Existing Project: Petition for Change: ,,~)t?licatiun 1572 t 1 cubic foot per secoud fi-om January 1st to December 3Ist A~Dplication 1 /__>~_ 3 cubic Feet per second from November I to Jul3.' 1 of Ibc succeeding 5,'car Lots 45, 6I, 67-74, 78 and 91 of Yokayo Rancho being wifl]in projected sections 28, 29, 30, 32 and 33, T15N, R12W, MDB&M and projected sections 4 and 5, TI4N, R12W, MDB&M Willow County Water District (WCWD) supplies water under License 6793 (Application 15721) and Permit 13935 (Application 17232) to municipal users ira the WCWD service area within Mendocino County. The Division of Water Rights (Division) conducted a routine compliance inspection of WCWD on August 22, 2001. As a result of the inspection, it was found that WCWD ,.,,'as diverting water for use outside the authorized place of use covered by its pemfit and license. In addition, WCWD ,.;'as found to be diverting water for irrigation usc that is not an authorized use in either its permit or license Lastly, the inspection determined that the Burke ,'fill Well Field site is not listed as an attthodzed point of diversion for Permit 13935 or License 6793. While WCWD bas contested the finding that the new ,.veils at the Burke lfill Well Field are drawing from a subterranean stream, WCWD recently agreed to amend the petition filed to change thc Place of Usc and Purpose of Use to correct the discrepancies found during the Compliance Inspection, to the include the new well field as a Point of Diversion. Permit 13935 (Ap~olication 17232) Extension of Time WCX, VD has requested a 15-year extension of time, as they }lave not reached the anticipated build-out and predict future increases m both residential and commercial water demand. WCWD submitted a 15 year water usc history from 1986 to present illustrating the gradual and continued increase in both thc ammal water use and number of municipal connections. Therefore, WCWD requests an extension of time to coraplete development of full beneficial use i_ cens_e_6793 (Application 1572 l)..~_Pcrmit 13935 (Application 17232j Ptnt)ose of Use - WCWD has petitioned to add [rngation, Frost Protection and Heat Control to the already authorized Municipal use defined in Permtt 13935andLicensc6793I. Approximately10% ofthe reportcd water use bet,,', een 1986 and 20t) 1 has been for district agricultural connections. WCWI) estimates, based on the pie; ious 15 years of use, the agricuhutal water demand will not exceed 135 acre-feet per year for use or] over 200 acres of'vineyard and pears. Point of Diversion \VCWDbasrequestedtheaddi/itmofthcBurkeHiIl Well Eield site, that encompasses \Vells l~7 and ;;8. as an attd]onzed point of 9 Enviromnental Document: Related Applications: Contact Person: di',efsion to both lacense 6.793 and Permit 13935 The '~,ell field is located as follows: By Cali fomia Coordinate System of I927, Zone 2, North 521,015 feet and East 1.665,790 feet, being within thc NE'A of NEV4 of projected section 9, T14N, RI2W, MDB&M Place of Use -- WCWD has petitioned to amend its place of use to include water delivery to neighboring communities. WCWD has an Emergency Intercom~ectiou Agreement (EIA) with tile City of Ukiah for the emergency service of water. The agreement stipulates that if the other entity requires water on an emergency basis, with proper notice, water will be provided to said entity. The intent of the EIA is to improve the reliability of water se~x.'ice to each cntity's customers in times of an emergency and/or equipinent failure, to combat a fire, to allow for maintenance or repair, or in the case of water system contamination. The City of Ukiah also has an EIA with Millvicw County Water District which provides for tile same arrangement The petition requests expansion of the place of use under License 6793 and Permit 13935 to include the service areas of the City of Ukiah, Mil]view County Water District, and Calpella County Water District, described as follows: Within the boundaries of the City of Ukiah, and Millview, Willow, Calpella County Water Districts being within the projected Sections 15-17, 20-22 and 2%36 ofTl6N, RI2W, MDB&M; Sections 1 and I2, T15N, RI3W, MDB&M; Sections 2 I1, 16 21 and 28-33 ofT15N, R12W, MDB&M; and projected Sections 3-10 and 15-I6 of' I'14N, RI2W, MDB&bi as shown on map on file with tile SWRCB. An enviro~tmentaI document has not yet been prepared for the action described in this notice. License 492 (Application 3601) Mi llview County Water District Permit 13963 (Application 17587) Millview County Water District Permit 12952 (Application 15704) (?it5,' of Ukiah B~ian Coats at (916) 341-5311 ~o APPE1CAT1ON 20540 APPEICATION 24013 LICENSE 11989 EICENSE 13408 ISSUED ON April 30, 1986 ISSUED ON Noveml>er 3, 1998 Licensee: La Ribcra Vineyards c/o Richard A and Beatrice O. Robinson P.O. Box 189 Tahnage, CA 95481 Sourcel Russian River tributmy to Pacific Ocean Poiuts of Diversion: (1) North 4,350 feet and West 1,150 feet from SE comer of projected section 15, T14N, RI2W, MDB&M, being within NEV,~ of NEV,, of said section 15 (2) North 2,800 feet and West 700 feet from SE comer of projected section 15, T14N, R12W, MDB&M, being within SE[/,, of NE~¼ of said section 15 (3) Nortlr 1,950 feet and West 100 feet from SE comer of proJected section 15, T14N, RI2W, MDB&M, being within NE¼ of SE'A of said section 15 (4) Norflq 300 feet and East 1,600 feet from SW comer of projected section 14, TI4N, R12W, MDB&M, being within SEV,~ of SW¼ of said section 14 (5) South 1,200 feet and West 2,250 feet from NE comer of projected section 23, TI4N, R12W, MDB&M, being within NW¼ of NEV,~ of said section 23 Purposes of Use: License 11989 Iln:igation, Heat Control, and Stockwatering License13408 Frost Protection Direct Diversion Rate and Season of Diversion: Eiccnse11989 1.47 cubic feet per second from May l to November l of the succeeding year License 13408 13.4 cubic feet per second from about March l to May 31 of the succeeding year Place of Use: License11989 227 acres;Mthinprojectedsectiou 14, 15, and 23, all within T14N, RI2W, MDB&M License 13408 --- 175 acres within projected section 14, 15, and 23, all within TI4N, R12W, MDB&M Existing Project: Points t~3 and ;~5, arc CUrTently the primary source.,, ofv, atcr supply for the two licenses. Point tt3 consists oftwo 2.500 gallon per mmute (gpm) diesel pumps and Point ~5 is an electrical centrifugal pump with a capacity of 1,020 gpm. All three pumps, according to the licensee, areoperatmg~xith fisl~ screens ou the intake p~pe> and are in compliance with sections 1001, 1603. and/or 6100 of thc Fish and Game Code Petition for Change: Environmental Document: Contact Persotl: Water is pumpcd flora the Russian River and conveyed through a se~ies nC 6" and 10" pipes to an ovcrl = ,~au ~rt~oat~on and frost protection dispersal system covering 175 acres of vineyard. Additionally, 50 acres along the riparian corridor are irrigated periodically for bank stabilization and habitat purposes As a result ora recent license inspection performed by Division of Water Rights staff, Point of Diversion #3 was found to have been moved approximately 1,000 feet from the authorized point ofdi;'ersion. A petition for change in point of diversion was required. Aside from the point of diversion changes, licensee was found to be in compliance with the terms of both licenses. Licensee petitioned to add the onstream reservoir authorized under License 12634 located as fbllows, North I00 fcct and West 2,600 feet from the SE comer of projected Scction 14, TI4N, R12W, MDB&M, being within tile NW'A of SW¥~ of said Section 14 as point ofrediversion of water diverted undcr License13408 and11989. Licensee aIso requested to change the description of Point of Diver/son #3 to a point described as follows, North 1,370 feet and East 650 from the SW comer of projected section 14, TI4N, R12W, MDB&M, being within tile NWSq of SWT,, of said section I4. An environmental document bas not yet been prepared for thc action described in this notice. Brian Coats at (916) 341-5311 APPLICATION 21516 LICENSE I0356 ISSUED ON July 15, 1974 Licensee: Richard A. Henwood c/o Wagner & Bonsigmore Consulting Civil Engineers, A Corporation 444 North Third Street, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95814 Points of Diversion: Puq~oses of Use: Direct Diversion Rare and Season of [)tvers~on: Russian River tributary to Pacific Ocean (1) SEW of NE[q of section 30, T13N, RllW, MDB&M (2) NE'A of SE'A of section 30, TI3N, RllW, MDB&M Insgation 0.61 cubic feet per seco ~d frorr May I to Novembcr 1 of each yca~ 12 ~l£iX ~zXllr]LlaI ,~\UI~Llnt 105 acrc-l'eet per year [ hlcc of I~sc. Irlig:>tion of 56 acres descril)cd as folio;rs: 100 acres located within thc MW¼ of $\V¢d of section 29, O.0 acres located within thc NW¼ of NW¼ of section 29, 10.5 acres located within the SW'/4 of NW¼ of section 29, 05 acres located within the NE[4 of SE'/4 of section 30, 13.0 acres located within tile NE¼ of NE¼ ofsccnon 30, 160 acres located within the SEV4 of NE¼ of section 30, all within T13N, RI 1W, MDB&M as shown on maps on file with tile SWRCB. Ex st lg Project: Licensee is autho~-ized to directly divert 0.61 cfs from two points of diversion on the Russian River during May I through November 1 for imgation of 56 acres. The license also provides that, "as long as there is no interference with other rights, junior, as well as senior, Licensee may increase his rate of diversion to a maximum of 2.63 cubic feet per second; provided that the totaI quantity diverted in any 30-day period does not exceed 36 6 acre-feet." The water is served to tile 56 acres of vineyard. Petition for Change. Licensee petitioned to change the place of use under License 10356. 23.5 acres will be eliminated from the original place of use and bc developed elsewhere, however, the total acreage will rcnrain at 560. The new place of use will be described as follows: 25 acres within NW[q of NW¼ of section 29, 16.5 acres within NWPq of NE¼ of section 29, 2.0 acres 3 0 acres 5 0 acres within 3 5 acres within within within 1.5 acres within NE'/~ of NE¼ of section 29, SWV,, of NW¼ of section 29, SW~/:~ of NE¼ of section 29, NW¼ of SW~/~ of section 29, NE¼ of SEV., of section 30, 8.0 acres w~tbin NE'/~ of NE¼ of section 30, 140 acres within SE'/~ of NE~/; of section 30, ail within ~I'13N, Rl lW, MDB&M. There ,,~ill be nc> change in the existing points or rate of diversion. Fish screens are installed at the pointsofdiversion Any order issued pursuant to this request ;~.ill contain a term requifing Licensee to install a flor, meters on the Licensee s dlverst ,n facilities [~n',-'i ronrncntal Docunlentl An environmental document has not yet been prepared for tile action described in this notice [¢ch~tcd ,~Xpplications: la addition to water fight [Acense 10356 (Application 215I(5), the IDcensee holds water right Permit 17388 (.Apphcation 241411, .,Xpplication 31040. I./vcsrockteg/snanon 031353 andStatenaentofWatcrDixersu~nandUse (SOOS ~ 63) ¢7ont:tct Person: ?\lana I (iibbs at {916) 341-5324 13 NOTICES WITItlN TIlE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ AI'PEICATION 24804 LICENSE 17425 ISSUED ON August 10, 1978 Pennittec: Big Basin Water Company P.O. Box 197 Boulder Crcckl CA 95006 SOUrCeS: (1), (2), (5) Unnamed Stream tributary to Jamison Creek thence Boulder Creek (3), (4) Ummmed Stream tributary to Boulder Creek thence San Lorenzo River Points of Diversion: (1) NWV,, ofNW¼ o£section 14, T9S, R3W, MDB&M (2) NW¼ of SWV~ of section 14, T9S, R3W, MDB&M (3) SW¼ of NE¼ of section 23, Tgs, R3W, MDB&M (4) NE¼ of SE¥~ of section 23, T9S, R3W, MDB&M (5) NW¼ of SW¼ of section 14, T9S, R3W, MDB&M Purposes of Usc: Domestic and Fire Protection Direct Diversion Rate and Season of Diversion: 0.52 cubic feet per second from January 1 to December 31 Storage Amount and SeasonofDiversion: 10 acrc-feet from January l to December 31 Max Anmud Amount:335.25 acre-feet per water year (October 1 to September 30 of the succeeding year) Place of Use: Within the boundaries of the Big Basin Water Company (BBWC) in Sections 2, I l, 12, 14, 15, 23, & 24, T9S, R3W, MDB&M, as shown on maps on file with the SV~'~RCB. Existing Project: Permit 17425 authorizes year round direct diversion of 0.52 cubic feet per second and storage of 10 acre-feet from five points of diversion (POD). Water is diverted at POD's #1 and #2 from Jamison Springs and camed through pipes tn a 2000-gallon rcgulating tank. From the 2000-gallon regulating tank, water can either bc piped to Jamison Reservoir or a 5,000-gallon regulating tank. Water Ii-om Corw'in Spring (POD 03) is diverted and carried by a pipe into anotl',er 2000-gallon regulating tank and then can also travel cithe~ to Jamison Reservoir or a 5,000 gallon icgulating tank I:< :est Spnng is identified as POD ~,~4, ho;;ever, pennittce is not prcsenrly divemng ,,water ITem lhis POD. Jamlson RcseD'oir is identified as POD ~/5..larlli,~on Reservoir has bccn situated in such a InanncI that it docs ~4 Petition for Change: Extension of Ti~ne: Environmental Document: Related Applications: Contact Person: not block the stream channel of the unnatBcd slrcam nor docs it divert any flow from thc stream Addifinnally, BBW(? diverts fiom three groundwater wells to supply their se~'ice area BBWC's v, intcdimc operation diverts xvater into the resep:oir where it is stored au&'or pumped to the water treatment plant. BBWC's sumrucr-time operation divcrts water ~nto tile regnlating tanks and then pumps it to tile water treatment plant. The reservoir is not used dunng the summer months duc to taste and odor concerns from algae growth. The reservoir serves as a fire protection supply. The BBWC currently provides water to 575 service connections. 40 of these connections were found to be outside of the permitted service area, in an adjacent, I20-acre subdivision (Galleon Heights). These homes have been served by BBWC since 1981, following a ruling of the Santa Cruz Local Agency Formation Committee. Pemnttee has petitioned to increase the place of use under Permit 17425 to add approximately 120 acres, known as the Galleon Heights Subdivision, to the Big Basin Water Company's service area. The Galleon Heights Subdivision is located within the SW% and NW% of section 13, T9S, R3W, MDB&M. Pennittee requests an extension of time to develop full beneficial use o£ water under thispennit The calcnlated maximum amounts pnt to beneficiaI use to date include continuous diversion of up to 0.32 cfs by direct diversion and collection of 4.6 acre-feet of water to storage for a total annual use of 201 acre feet of',¥ater. An environmental document bas not yet been prepared for tim action described in this notice. Statement 8439 filed for riparian use fiom Corvin Spring. Statement 8440 filed for riparian use from Jamisnn Spring. Statement 8439 filed for riparian use from Forest Spring. Alana L. Gibbs at (916) 341 5324 , O rICES ~,VITIIIN 'FilE COUNTY OF SIIASTA APPIJCATION 29685 PEbEMIT 20764 ISSUED ON December 9, 1994 P~nnhtcc: John F. Roltcr and The~ez;a Rotter 2841 ()ak (;reck Drive SanI~amon, CA !)4583 Point of Diversion: Purposes of Use: Storage Amount and Season of Diversion: Place of Use: Existing Project: gxtct~sion of Time: Enviro~rnental Document: Related Applications: Contact Person: l~/nnamcd Stream t~ ibutary to N.[:. Cottonwood Creek thence Cottonwood (reck NESq of NE¼ o£section 34 T30N R6W MDB&M Irrigation, Fire Protection, Recreatioual, and Stockwatcring 27 acre-feet from December I to March 31 of thc succeeding year At the Reservoir located within SWV~ of SW¼ of Section 26, SEN of SE¼ of Section 27, NE¼ of NE¼ of Section 34, NW¼ of NW¼ of section 35 T30N R6W MDB&M. Imgation of 6 acres located within the NE¢q of NE'A of section 34 and NW¼ of NW¼ of section 35 T30N R6W MDB&M as shown on maps on file with thc SWRCB. The permittee is authorized to collect 27 acre feet in a reser~'oir located on an umiak'ned stream for imgation, fire protection, recreational, and stockwatcring uses. The reservoir has been constructed and has collected watcr to storage. Pem~ittee requcsts an extension oFtime to develop full beneficial use of '~,,ater authorized under this penntt. ]'he pcnnittce has not developed the irrigation usage to date. An cn,,ironmcntaI document has not yet been prepared for the action described in this notice. License 12917 (Application 28799) authorizes Permittee to store 3 acre-feet per annum at the same resei-',,,oir. Alana L. (iibbs at (916) 341-5324 Winston H. Hickox State Water Resources Control Board l)Msion of Water Rights I001lStrcct, I4'h/Ioor. Sacramcnto,(ahfilmia95814.(916) 341_5300 Mading Address P () Box 2000 · Sacramento, Cahfomla · 95812-2000 (;ray Davis FAX (916) 341-5400 · Web Site Address http qwww swrcb ca gov D/vision ot \Valet Righls http//www walcmghts ca RENOTICE OF PETITION REQUESTING CHANGES IN WATER RIGHT PERMITS FOR THE CITY OF UK1AH Dated: December 23, 2002 NOTICE: The purpose of this notice is to advise interested persons of clarification of the Notice of Petitions dated November 15, 2002 as it relates to the petitions for change in place of use requested by the City of Ukiah. Due to a misinterpretation of the Emergency lnterconnection Agreement's (EIA) function by Division of Water Rights staff, the November 15, 2002 notice inadvertently included a phrase which has now been corrected with this notice. This notice provides a short summary of the petition and also provides instructions for filling a protest against the requested changes. If you would like additional information relating to the petition, or information relating to the procedure for filing a protest please call the contact person listed for the specific petition. The Division's public notices may also be viewed and printed from its web-site, '~ww waterrighls ca.gov. GENERAL INFORMATION: Persons diverting water from a stream must, in most cases, obtain a water right permit issued by thc SWRCB, in accordance with the provisions of the California Water Code. (People can divert water from a stream under riparian rights or rights initialed prior to 1914.) A water right permit issued by the SWRCB defines the: Stream or river from which water is diverted; Amount of water that can be diverted; Season of the year during which the water can be diverted; Point of&version from the stream; Place of use of the diverted water; and Purpose of use. In addition, the water right permit includes a date for applying the water to beneficial use. Any party having a water right permit must submit a petition and receive approval from the SWRCB to change the place of use, purpose of use, or point of diversion, or to request and extension of time to make full beneficial use of the water. The SWRCB must consider the potential impacts to other water users that couId be affected by the proposed change and must also consider the potentiaI environmental impacts that would result from the proposed change. The SWRCB must comply with the requirements of the Calitbmia Environmental Quality Act prior to approval of any petition. PROCEI)URES FOR FILING PROTESTS: Any person may file a protest against the changes propoged in a petilion. However, protests filed in response to this notice must be postmarked or received in tile Division's office at the address listed below, bY 4:00 pm on the 30th day after the date of this notice. A protest should be submitted on the standard protest form that is available from the Division and can be printed from the Division's web-site www watcrrigl~ts.ca.gov/forms/. Due to the constraints of the noticing period, protestants may file protests, etc., by FAX. However, an original copy of all materials must be received, for the SWRCB to consider your protest. The protest should be submitted to: State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights c/o Greg Wilson P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 Additionally, a copy of the protest must also be sent to th,. petitioner. SWRCB will respond to all protests within 90 day of the date of this notice. A protest may be based on any of the factors listed below: Injury to existing water rights; Has an adverse enviromnental impact; Is not in the public interest; Is contrary to law; or Is not within the jurisdiction of the S WRCB. All protests must clearly describe the objections to approval of the petition and the factual basis for those objections. For example, if the objection is based on injury to existing water rights, the protest must describe the specific injury to the existing water right that would result from approval of the changes proposed by the petition. In addition, the party claiming injury to prior water rights must provide specific information that describes the basis of existing right, the date the use began, the quantity of water use, the purpose of use, and the place of use. Protest based on environmental impacts, public interest, legality, or jurisdictional issues must be accompanied by a statement of facts supporting the basis of the protest. If sufficient information is not submitted, the SWRCB may reject the protest or request that the protestant submit additional information. The Divisions will not accept protests that are directed against the underlying water right, rather than the change proposed by the petition. Tile SWRCB may grant an extension of time to file a protest, for good cause. A request for an extension of time must be submitted in a timely maturer, must specify the additional time required, and must state why additional time is needed to file the protest. A pamphlet is available that provides additional information relating to water rights and the procedures for filing protests. Please contact the person listed below if you would like a copy of the pamphlet or protest forms. RESOLUTION OF PROTESTS: Thc petitioner and protestant are encouraged to meet and discuss methods that could bc used to resolve the protest. If the protest can not be resolved, SWRCB staff may conduct a field investigation with all interested parties or may hold a water right hearing. CONTACT PERSON: Please contact the staff person designated under the petition of interest, if you would like additional information regarding the petition, protests, information pamphlets, protest forms, or to request an extension of time in which to file a protest. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION: APPLICATION 15704 PERMIT 12952 ISSUED ON October 24, 1961 Pennittee: City of Ukiah c/o Wagner & Bonsignore 444 North 3rd Street, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95758 Source: Points of Diversion: Purposes of Use: Direct Diversion Rate and Season of Diversion: Place of Use: Existing Project: Russian River (Underflow) tributary to Pacific Ocean (1) SE~A of NW'A of section 16, T15N, RI2W, MDB&M (2) SEV4 of NE'A of section 17, TI5N, R12W, MDB&M (3) SEN of SWV4 of section 16, T15N, R12W, MDB&M Municipal 20 cubic feet per second from January I to December 31 of each year Within and near the City of Ukiah as shown on the map on file with the SWRCB. The existing project involves the pumping of groundwater, classified as Russian River Underflow, for Municipal use within and near the City of Ukiah. On occasion, the City supplies water to Millview and Willow County Water Districts through Emergency Interconnection Agreements (EIA) which are instituted whenever an emergency situation such as fire, contamination, or equipment failure occurs. Millview County Water District, in addition to its own needs, also supplies a portion of its water to Calpella County Water District. Unfortunately, there are no provisions within the City of Ukiah's water rights to allow them to transfer EIA water outside of the authorized place of use. Thc City of Ukiah has thus filed a petition to expand its Place of Use to incorporate the service areas of Millview, Willow, and Calpella County Water Districts within its permit. Petition for Chant, e- Environmental Document: Related Applications: Contact Person: Permittee has petitioned to change the place of use under Permit 12952 to inco~!0orate the service areas of MilMew, Willow, and Calpella County Water Districts. The proposed place of use is described as follows: Within the boundaries of the City of Ukiah, and Millview, Willow, and Calpella County Water Districts being within the following projected Sections 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 of T16N, RI2W, MDB&M; Sections 1 and 12, TI5N, R13W, MDB&M; Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,21,28,29, 30,31, 32, and 33 ofTl5N, R12W, MDB&M; and Projected Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16 ofT14N, R12W, MDB&M as shown on map on file with the SWRCB. An environmental document has not yet been prepared for the action described in this notice. License 6793 (Application 15721 ) Willow County Water District Permit 13935 (Application 17232) Willow County Water District License 492 (Application 3601) Millview County Water District Permit 13963 (Application 17587) Millview County Water District Brian Coats at (916) 341-5311 Law Offices Of RAPPORT AND MARSTON A~ Asst~ciati~n of'Sc, lc Practititmers 405 W, Perkins Street P 0 Box 488 UkJah, California 95482 e-mail: drappor~paobell.net David J, Rapport Lester J. Marston Scott Johnson Mary Jane Sheppard May 29. 2002 (707) 462-6846 FAX 462-4235 Mr. Frank McMichael, Chairman Local Agency Formation Commission 200 S. School St., Suite 2 Ukiah. CA 95482 Re: LAFCO approval of emergency wa[er interconnection agreements Dear Chairman McMichael: Candace Hors[ey has asked me to provide you with my opinion as to whether the emergency water interconnectJon agreements between Calpella County Water District, Millview County Water District, the City of Ukiah and Willow County Water District require LAFCO approval She understands that you have requested an opinion from County CounSel, but she wanted me to provide this additional information for your consideration. CONCLUSION In my opinion, Government Code Section 88133 does not apply to these agreements and, therefore, LAFCO does not need to approve them ANALYSIS The agreements are being revised and have not been approved by the various parties as of this writing. I base this opinion on the wording of the or gina agreements, the changes we are recommending and my understanding ef how the parties have interpreted and performed under the agreements Jn the almost 10 years since they were originally approved, The emergency water system interconnection agreements were originally approved for five year terms at different times in the early 1990's, all prior to January 1, 1994 Each agreement included the following recta s, which are taken from the 1993 agreement between the City of Ukiah and Millview County Water District: 2 Temporary or emergency COr~ditJona can from time lo time interrupt the water service Millview and Ukiah provide their customers. 3. It would improve the reliability of water service Millview and Ukiah provide t~ their customers, if the water mains of both systems were Memorandum to Mcmichaels Subject: LAFCO Approval of Interconnection Agreements Date: May 28, 2002 Page 2 physic, ally connected but separated by relying that could be opened during temporary or emergency condil~ons, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the agreements contain the provis~ons govermng each party furnishing water to the other party. The following quote comes from paragraph 2 0fthe agreement between Uk~ah and Millview but identical provisions w;th the parties names reversed appears in paragraph 4 and in the other agreements: 2 Ukiah's Provision of water service to Millview. Upcn whiten or verbal request from Milrview's General Manager or his duly authorized delegate, Ukiah's City Manager or his duly authorized delegate :shell Open the valve allowing water to flow fi-om Ukiah's water system to Mi[[viow's water system under the following terms and conditions a Mil]view shall give Ukiah at least 24 hours advance notrce to open the valve, unless due to an unforeseen emergency a 24 hour delay could result in the loss of reliable water service to Millview customers er property damage In such event Millview shell notify Ukah of the nature of the emergency and of the time within which it requests Interconnected service to commence, In its request for service Miliview shall indicate the termination date for the service requested. Unless oadier notified of a different termination date, Ukiah shall terminate service on the date indicated in the notice from Millview, In any event, Ukiah may, but need not, terminate service when the limits of service imposed by subparagraph b have been reached. b Ukiah shall not be required to furnish water service for longer than fourteen continuous calendar days or for more than twenty total calendar days in any calendar quarter (Jan. I tO March 31, April 1 to June 30, July 1 to September 30, October 1 to December 31) c, Ukiah shall only be required to flJrnJsh water service to M~llview for tho following reasons: (1) An emergency and/or equipment failure affecting Millview's capacity to deliver water to its customers; (2) To combat a fire within or without the Millview service area; (3) To allow for maintenance or repair of Millview equipment, or (4) Contamin,~tion of M[tlv[ew's waler source AS you can see, the provis,ons only allow a party to furnish water to the other party during a short term emergency, not to exceed 14 consecutive days or 20 total days in any calendar quarter, and only for specified reasons. The agreements do not make a greater quantity of water available to the parties than they would have under their separate water rights. Moreover, paragraph 7 of tho agreement provides' 7 Compliance with law. This Aqreement shall not obliqate erther party to famish water to the other, if the provision of such ware,' ',.~o'~ld violate, any provision of state or federal law or ar~y term or condition of any p=L¢z.m.i:[.~license or otr~er adp.oval held by either pa. rt~L2n connection with ih5 Memorandum to Mcmichaels Subject: LAFCO Approval of Interconnection Agreements Date: May 28, 2002 Page3 Dubtic water system (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the parties cannot furnish water to each ot~er, if it would violate the terms of their water rights permits or licenses I understand that the parties have interpreted this agreement as applying only to emergency s~(uations, meaning a sudden and unexpected event and they have never furnished water to each other for thc maximum number of days authorized by the agreements. The City stgff intends to propose some clan~rng amendments to the agreements, when they are presented tO the City Council and water district Boards. One of the amendments provides a specific definition for "urgent or emergency condition" which reads: "Urgent or emergency conditfons" in this Agreement means a sudden or unexpected occurrence or combination of occurrences causir~g ~he domestic water supply to be temporarily interrupted or lessened. 'Urgent or emergency conditions" do not intrude inadequate water rights to meet peak demand. Government Code Section 56133 requires LAFCO approval of cedain agreements to provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside the jurisdictional boundaries of a city or district However, subsection (e) of Section 56133, provides: This section does not apply to contracts or agreements sorely involving two or more publfc agencies where the public service to be provided is an alternative to, or substitute for, public services already being provided by an existing public service provider and where the level of service to be provided is consistent with the level of service contemplated by the existing service provider. This section does r~ot apply to contracts for the transfer of nonpob~ble or nontreated water Tbis section does not apply to contracts or agreements solely involving the provision of surplus water to agricultural lands and facilities, including, but not limited to, incidental residential structures, for projects that serve conservation purposes or that directly supped agricultural industries. However, prior to extending surplus water service to any project that will support or induce development, the city or distr{ct shall first request and receive written approval from the commission in the affected county. This section does not apply to an exIended service that a city or district was providing On January 1, 1994. Under subsection (e), LAFCO approval is not required because the service at issue was being provided among the parties on January 1, 1994. In fact, even though the original 5 year terms of the agreements expired, the parties have continued to perform under the agreements up to the present. In addition, these emergency agreements do not increase the revel of service that each party would provide in the absence of the agreements AS stated in the recitals, the agreements' sole purpose is to provide 9rearer reliability for each water system by making water available to that system during an emergency which prevents that system from providing the water itseli' In other words, under c~rcumstances "where the public service to be provided is an alternative to, Or substitute for, public services already being provided by an existing public service provMer/' For all of these reasons, in my opinion, Government Code Section 55133 does not apply to these Memorandum to Mcmichaels Subject: LAFCO Approval of lnterconnection Agreements Oate: May 28, 2002 agreements and, therefore, LAFCO does not need to approve them I hope this information is helpful, when and if LAFCO addresses this issue V,~ry.4'¢~ yours, /"~ CC: Candace Horsley, City Manager H. Pctcr Klein, Coun[y Counsel Page4 Robcrr( ~'(sgnCrl EE pxtda J '~'hcalen lohn V Whgner Bonsi,u2ore November 22, 2004 Mr. Steven Hen'era Division of Water Rights State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 2000 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 Aftachrnent # Amendment to Petition for Change in Place of Use Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) - City of Ukiah Dear Mr. Herrera: This letter is to request an amendment to the Petition for Change in Place of Use filed on July I, 2002, for Water Right Application 15704 of the City of Lrkiah. The Petitioner no longer proposes to add the WilIow County Water District serx, ice area to its place of use. As stated in the original Petition for Change, the Petitioner continues to request an increase to the place of use named in Permit 12952 by including additional lands within its service area as well as the lands within Millview County Water District and Calpella County Water District service areas. The accompanying amended map and attached description sets forth the location of all lands requested to be added to the place of use. This map supersedes the map filed in July 2002 with the original Petition for Change in Place of Use. We would appreciate you making the necessary changes to this Petition for Change. Please contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, WAGNER & BONSIGNORE CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS Encls. ,/ cc: Candacc Horslcy(w encls) Bernie Zicmianek (x~, encls.) Altachn'~enl # ~ /~', ..... DMSION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 Date of Inspection: Accompanied by: OWNERSHIP: Change Agent Assignment 8/8/01 Alan Jam/son PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: Inspected by: Telephone: K. Warren & J. O'Hagan 707-463-6295 City o f Lqdah 300 Seminary Ave. Uqdah, CA 95482 Agent: Wagner & Bonsignore, Consulting Civil Eng/neers A Corporation 444 North Third Street, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95758 SOURCE(S): No Change Russian River Underfiow Flow at Time of Inspection: 131 cfs How Determined or Measured: USGS Gau~ng Station Historical Data, USGS 11462500 Russian River Near Hopland, CA AMOUNT: No Change I. Authorized Amount(s): Rate- 20 cfs Annual Amount- No Annual Amount I~. Calculated Max/mm Amounts Beneficially Used (last 2 years of records; see Calculation Page) Rate- 8 cfs Annual Amount- 3100 AFA The City of bqciah (City) has petitioned for an extension of time on the permit to further develop the project. The City is projecting a 34% increase in population and an increase in commercial development. Maintenance on the Rarmey Collector is scheduled and will allow for the system to achieve nearer the maximum capacity of 20 cfs when needed. Expansion of the Water Treatment Plant would be required to ach/eve full use of the permit since the current plant capacity is only 6 MGD (9.28 cfs). The existing capacity of the Rarmey Collector is 6.2 cfs and the combined capacity of all City wells is 4.7 cfs. DMSION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: SEASON(S) OF DIVERSION: No Change Authorized Season(s) of Diversion: Direct Diversion January 1 to December 31 USE(S) OF WATER: No Change Current Authorized Uses: Municipal Existing Use: Municipal POINT(S) OF DWERSION: Petition for Correction/Addition Authorized Point(s) of Diversion: Point 1: S 44° 47' 30" E 1170 feet from the NE comer of Lot 19 of the Yokayo Rancho and being within the SE ¼ ofNW ¼ of projected Section 16, T15N, R12W, MDB&M Point 2: S 6° 18' 48" E 1183.64 feet from NE comer of Lot 19 of the Yokayo Rancho and being within the SE ¼ of NE ¼ of projected Section 17, TI5N, R12W, MDB&M Point 3: S 750 31' 30" W 1653.45 feet fi.om NE comer of Lot 29 of Yokayo Rancho being within said Lot 19 and the SE 'A ofSW ¼ of projected Section 16, T15N, R12W, MDB&M Existing Point(s) of Diversion: Point of Diversion #1: By California Coordinate system of 1927, North 546,257 feet and East 1,662,103 feet being within the SW ¼ ofNWq ¼ of projected Section 16, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. This POD is referenced by the City as their Ranney Collector. DIVISION OF WATER RiGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: Point of Diversion #2: By California Coordinate system of 1927, North 546,227 feet and East 1,660,970 feet being within the SE ¼ of NE ¼ of projected Section 17, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. This POD is referenced by the City as Well 2. Point of Diversion #3: By California Coordinate system of 1927, North 543,385 feet and East 1,663,003 feet being within the SE ¼ ofSW ¼ of projected Section 16, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. This POD is referenced by the City as Well 3. Well 5: By California Coordinate system of 1927, North 546,106 feet and East 1,661,959 feet being within the SW ¼ ofNSV ¼ of projected Section 16, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. Tiffs POD is referenced by the City as Well 5 Well 6: By California Coordinate system of I927, North 546,350 feet and East 1,661,072 feet being within the SE ¼ of NE ¼ of projected Section 17, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. This POD is referenced by the City as Well 6 Well 5, located southwest of the Ranney Collector (POD 1), is not identified as a POD in the permit. It is an offset well similar to wells 2, 3, and 6. Well 5 is located approximately 210 feet from the Ranney Collector at POD 1. Well 6 is approximately 160 feet from Well 2, but it discharges through the same meter. The City considers these two well sites one POD. The permitted POD is Well 2. County: Mendocino POD 1, POD 2, Well 5 and Well 6 POD 3 Parcel #: 179-01-008 Parcel #: 179-10-001 A petition adding Well No.'s 5 and 6 to Permit 12952 is recommended. Adding these points of diversion under Permit A~t~chment # ~' State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water lt-/gM~ City of Lr~rd a,\ Wagner & [lonsign.~re 444 North Th/rd Street, Suite 325 Sazrnm~-nto, CA 95~t4 In R~ly Ref¢~ ,o.3.~w.BRC,I:~704 PEK,MAT 12952 (APPLICATION 1570~-) RUSSIAN RIVER L~'DERFL©W TRIBL~ARy TO PACIFIC OCEAN hN MENT2OC]NO COUNq'Y A~eemcnt ~M) ~cludefl wifl~in *&e pcfitt~ filed for a change h~ th~ place of uae that wac n~fi~ed on Nov~ber I5, 2002. ~c p~ase, "Seeing to remove ~e E~ completely and pro,de a more ~dietable ~t~ aupply," that was noticed under Application 15704 should have bccn removed tim ~ Ci~ af~ah did not request ~ remove thc E~ a~ec~nt in ¢~ ¢*~dun Iilefi ~y Wa~ & Bor.~i~ere. The wording cf the CiLy or Ukin.q. nonce wtls different fram the M ll',bew County and Willow County notices since ~hey were ~qeared at different times. As such. we are draflkng this Ierter to asmage any cence,.,'~ that the intent of the City of Uk/ah's p~titlon was any di£fer~nt than that ofMillview Cetmty and Wil}ow CouuW' We have off~rerl tn r=no~ice the City of Ukiah'a petition without thc above p~ase if de~-m~d necessary to resolve any concerns your citizens may have. If you have any questions ragarding this ]~tter. please contact Hr/ma Coats, :he s, talTperson assigned to p oc~s tills patroon at (916) 35;~.-531 I. Sincerely, Br'i~ Coats Water Re~okirccs ConSol F-a. Dneer Petitions and Trana,rcrs Unit Mendozmo Ca~nry Ruasfan ~ver Flood Contzol and Water Cocserv:~tion r~m~ovement Dismct ![5I Laws Avenue. Sra. D U~ah, CA ~5482 i~l Laws Avenue 3~8~ Nor~ S;arc S~zrr k~k:ak, CA 954~2 L~ah, CA 9h4~ ray 13arm Attachment # EXHIBIT A BID PROPOSAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO WATER RIGHTS PERMITS FOR THE CITY OF UKIAH AND MILLVlEW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT January 2005 Prepared for: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482-5400 Prepared by: Leonard Charles and Associates 7 Robie Court San Anselmo, California 94960 415.454.4575 INTRODUCTION The following proposal describes the scope of work that Leonard Charles and Associates (LCA) proposes to conduct to prepare the Initial Study and EIR for the proposed amendments to Water Rights Permits for the City of Ukiah and Millwew County Water District ('the prolect") Before describing the work that would be done. we would note the following advantages to the City and the district of using our firm to conduct this study General Experience Since, t977, Leonard Charles and Associates (LCA) has produced many EIRs and other CEQA documents on projects occurring ~n Northern California We haveextens~veexpenence~nprepanngalltypesofEiRs Experience with Program Level EIRs LCA has substanbalexperience prepanng EIRs for General Plans, Specific Plans, and other projects that encompass large planning areas We are currently prepanng the Program EIR for the Ukiah Valrey Area Plan and the Southwest Dixon Specific Plan In the recent past. we have prepared the EIRs for the Fort Bragg Lafayette, andNovatoGeneraIPians, as well as numerous specific plans Familiarity with the Area LCA has prepared numerous EIRs in the Ukiah ValJey and is quite familiar w~th the local envrronment and ~ssues ~mportant to the local commumty Most~mportantly, we are currently preparing the Ukiah Valley Area Plan EIR, which assesses long-term ~mpacts of growth ~n much the same area that rs included ~n the proposed places of use for the City and the district Recent EIRs completed for projects Jn the Ukiah Valley include EtRs for the Mendoono County Regional Transportation Plan, the Orr Creek Bridge/Orchard Avenue Extension project, the Ukiah Sohd Waste Transfer Station, and the City of 10,000 Buddhas project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Calpella County Water D~strict Annexation, and the UkJah Western Hrlls Study In the past, we have preparede~ght additional EIRs for projects w~thin the Ukiah Valley Legal Adequacy. Because of our ~nvolvement with controversial projects, we are thoroughly familiar with the most recent court cases involving EIRs As importantly, the ma~n controversies surrounding the project involve the potential growth-inducing ~mpacts We are the only firm who will have access to the growth pro]ections and possible ~mpacts of that growth for the Ukiah Valley We are experienced ~n preparFng EIRs that will undergo substantial legal scrutiny Please note that ]n twenty-five years we have never had one of our EIRs even challenged in the courts Understandings and Assumptions This proposal is based on the folrowing understandings · The project does not include .~onstruction of any new points of diversion The amendments will legally clarify existing points of diversion Water R/ght Perrnffs EIR B,,d Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 1 During the summer. M~llwew CWD currently pumps the maximum amount allowed under their Water Right License in the summer months The project would not ~ncreasetheir water rights The CWD may be ableto pump more water from their various wells and paints of diversion, but those additional withdrawals are either from groundwater sources or diversions made pursuant to the Mendocino County Russian R~ver Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District's Permit The proposed project includes expanding the place of use for both entities to form a ioint place of use Actual annexation of areas outside their current serwce boundaries would require LAFCO approval The project simply provides the legal right to use water supplied under the respective licenses and permits in the joint use area in the future, if and when LAFCO approves annexation Calpella CWD is served water by M~llview CWD and can also receive water from Millview under Millview's Emergency lntertie Agreements (EIAs) with City of Ukiah As such, Calpella would become part of the joint use area Willow CWD is independently amending its Water Rights Permit W~llow CWD will maintain its Emergency Intertie Agreements (EIAs) with the City of Uk~ah The EIAs between the City of Ukiah, Millview CWD, and Calpella CWD allow sharing of water between the threeent~t~es~n emergency situations However, any sharing of water supplies rn times other than that specified ~n the existing EIAs would require approval of the C~ty and/or Distr,cts Since approval of the water right Petitions would allow shanng water supplies without restrictions in the future, the EIR will need to examine a worst case scenario including increased water use, and thus new development, anywhere ~n the City or the two districts, consmtent w~th City and County General Plan land use designations and policies · The Petitions do not require construction of any new pipelines The proposal is based on the following assumptions · The applicants or their eng]neenng consultants will provide a full project description The applicants or their eng~neenng consultants will provide all necessbry data and explanations regarding any questions we have regarding water rights, the license and permit requirements and procedures, and the operations of the three water providers To assess growth-inducing ~mpacts, this EIR will use the year 2025 growth projections developed for the Ukiah Valley Area Plan Draft EIR This EIR projects a level of development and the general locations of that development Impacts to listed fish and other listed aquatic life will reference the analyses and assessments included in the 1400-page Russian River Draft Biological Assessment prepared for the Army Corps and the Sonoma County Water Agency (Entrix NC, PlZater R~ght Permits EIR B~d Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 2 2004) Th~s E',R will not include field surveys assessments, or extensive hterature reviews on potential impacts to these aquatic species Water R~ght F'erm~ts EIR B~d Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 3 INITIAL STUDY PREPARATION We propose to prepare an lmtial Study and Notice of Preparation (as required by CEQA) forthe project The purposes of thm lnitial Study would be To describe the project To inform agencies and the public that an E1R will be prepared for the project To present a sufficient level of analysis for the many secondary impacts so that these areas would not need to be addressed in the EIR To provide a description of those areas of impact that will be focused on in the EIR The Imtial Studywill be attached as an appendix to the EIR For those areas of ~mpact that the Initial Study addresses ~n sufficient detail and where mitigation measures are not required to reduce the ~mpact to a less than significant level the EIR wiil not include an analysis of those areas of impact This wilt reduce the length of the EIR text and allow it to focus on the more important environmental concerns It ~s possible that agencies or other individuals responding to the NOP will request that additional analysm be prepared and presented in the EIR, and the EIR will include those analyses (assuming the applicants believe the request ~s reasonable and feasible) All potential enwronmental impacts will be discussed in the lnitial Study We will use the format presented in the most recent CE©A Guidehnes See thedescriphon of the tasks presented below for the EIR to determine the level of analysis that will be prepared PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING Leonard Oharres will facilitate a public scoping meeting to describe the proposed project and the scope of the EIR He will answer questions and will record all comments and suggestions given The City or the d~strictwill provide a space for the meeting as well as public notification of the time of the meeting EIR SCOPE OF WORK The following section describes our proposed scope of work and methodology using the same format that will be used to present the data in the Draft EtR The EIR and this proposal are divided into four basic sections an overview, a summary, an environmental impact analys~s, and a discussion of topical ~ssues and impact summanes This proposal details what work will be done to complete each section of the ~ate; R/ght Per'nits EIR B/d Proposal Leopard Charles and Associates Page 4 1.0 OVERVIEW SECTION The first section of the EIR will locate the project in t~me and space ~n order to give the reader a clear understanding of what the project is, where it is, and its relationship to local land use plans This Overwew will include 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE EIR This section will describe the purpose of the EIR and provide introductory statements 1.2 CONTENTS OF THE EIR This section will provide a discussion of the purpose of the EIR, the bases for determining rmpact significance, the assessment of project alternatives, and other information to allow the reader to understand what ~s and is not included in an EIR 1.3 COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA REQUIREMENTS This section describes the CEQA requirements for the project and discusses how those requirements have been fulfilled It will include a summary of comments received as part of the NOP process and a summary of comments made at the public scop~ng meeting on the EIR 1.4 PROJECT LOCALE AND SETTING This section will include location maps plus a narrative description of the project locale This will include a brief overview description of the enwronment and land uses ~n the area served by the C~ty and the district 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION We will provide a complete description of the project as proposed The description will include narrative, tabular, and graphic descriptions of the technical and environmental characteristics of the project 1.6 REQUIRED APPROVALS Th~s section will describe all required approvals and permits for the project It will include a hstof aIIreview~ng agencies We wdl specifically address the concern raised by Lee Howard in his protest of the petitions regarding whether LAFCO needs to Water R~ght Permits EIR B~d Proposal ~ eonard Char;es and Associates Page 5 approve the pro;ect It,s our understanding that the project only gives the right toser~e the expanded places of use and that LAFCO would only come ~nto the p~cture ff and when the City and or district applied to annex the areas outside their current serwce areas We will explain this interpretation, as amended by our further discussions with the applicants and their consultant 2.0 SUMMARY In this section, we will present a summary of all the major findings and conclusions of the report This will include a section that describes each ~mpact and lists the recommended mitigation measures for that impact This section will also summarize the growth-inducing~mpacts, cumulative~mpacts, and project alternatives It willsummanze those impacts ~dent~fied as "significant adverse" impacts despite available m~t~gations -rh~s section ~s intended to be an outline of major ~mpacts, m~tigations, and project alternatives for the reader who does not wish to or need to read the entire report This section ~s required by CEQA 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The EIR will focus on the growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project These impacts are the main concern of the four agencies/individuals who protested the petition for the project The EIR will also describe the actual wells and diversion points However, s*nce those ~mprovements are already in place, the assessment of their development w~ll not be detailed It will be explained that these improvements are ~n fact, part of the environmental setting The site-specific effects of the past development of the wells and diversion points w~ll be fully described to ensure that rewewmg agencies and the public are informed about these ex~st~ng ~mprovements The potentially significant impacts of the project would be the potential for new development throughout much of the Ukiah Valley both because of extending the places of use and the possible future sharing of water supplies Each resource area assessed in the EIR will be analyzed using the following format A. Setting This section includes a description of the existing situation on the site and m the project area Potential Impacts and Mitigations This section includes a description and analysis of all possible constraints on development and of impacts that would result from development of the project. The section includes a discussion of cumulative ~mpacts resulting from other projects in the project area The EiR w~ll clearly list Water R~ght Permits EIR B~d P~'oposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 6 any mnpacts that should be considered "significant" per the CE©A ~D~uidei~nes, the basis for s~gn/icance w~ll be defined for each area of analysis Each ~mpact wdl be numbered and a determination of significance will be determined for that impact. After the discussion of each impact, there wirl be a listing of feasible m~t~gation measures to address the identified impact These discussions will close with a determination of the significance of the impact following application of the mitigation measures To conduct these analyses of growth-inducing impacts, we will rely on the Program we are currently preparing for the County of Mendocino This Program EIR examines the long-term impacts of additional growth throughout much the same area as included in the proposed places of use identified for the project While it is possible that the UVAP EIR would not be published prior to the EIR for this project we would stdl have access to all those data We are currentry completing a population projection for the area and are distributing that projected growth to traffic area zones ~n the vairey These projections w~rl be used to prolect growth within the service areas of the City and the d~stricts Because the pnmary ~mpacts of the project are growth-inducing, the assessment of such impacts can be general in nature (i e, at the level of what ~s typically done for a Program EIR) Because we will not know exactly where such growth might occur, the analysm would not be site-specific It would assess the general impact of new growth~n an area on the resources of that area Our EIR will specifically address the questions and concerns raised in the four protest letters A primary concern of air these letters is these growth-inducing ~mpacts of the proposed project We are ~n the position of being able to thoroughly address these impacts, thereby reducing the legal vulnerability of the EIR The following sections outline the proposed scope of work and methodology for each environmental factor 3.1 GEOLOGY Using existing reports and the UVAP EIR that describe the geology and soils of the area, we will describe ex~stmg hazards and constraints on development This will include a discussion of seismic hazards landslide hazards liquefaction, and other constraints Given these hazards and constraints, examine the possible risks of new development ~n the area, or portions of the area Determine whether the City's General Plan and the proposed UVAP would provide sufficient protection from geologic hazards for projected new development If warranted, we will recommend additional mitigations Water R~ght Permits EIR Bid Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates ,c,~ge 7 3.2 HYDROLOGY The area is drained by the Russian River. The river provides a critical focus for the area, not only because it drains away runoff, but because ~t provides ~mpodant b~ological habitat, supports listed fish species, and ~s a recreational and aesthetic focus for residents and visitors We will do the following work · Summarize existing data regarding flows, flooding, and water quality in the Russian River system · Describe ex~stmg major flooding problems groundwater availability and use, and groundwater and surface water quality · Describe possible impacts resulting from · placing new development within flood zones, · increasing runoff (from new development) and therefore the extent of the flood zones or d,~ration of the flood; · increasing the amount of pollutants on streets and other paved areas which can pollute the r~ver system and groundwater aquifers; · erosion from construction and various land uses and impacts on water quality; and Review the policies and implementation measures of the City General Plan and the Draft UVAP to determine whether they provide adequate protecbon for hydrologic resources and protect thepubhc from flooding If warranted, recommend additional mitigabon measures necessary to reduce the growth-inducing ~mpacts 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Using data included in the UVAP EIR supplemented by other data we have generated in preparing other area EtRs, we would do the following work: · Describe the basic vegetation communities · Describe wildlife use of the area · Describe the status of the Russian River fishery and current efforts to rehabilitate salmonid runs · Provide a list of special status and sensitive species · Describe wetlands in the area ~,!,,ater Rzght Perm]ts ElF? Bid Proppsal Leonard Char!es and Associates Page 8 D~scuss whether new deveiopment would adversely affect any of the resources described above This ~ncludes indirect ~mpacts such as sedimentation and water pollution impacts on salmonrds Assess the impact of reducing water flow in the Russian River on listed speoes The assessment of ~mpacts to salmonids will include a detailed summary of the findings and recommendabons included in the Russian River Draft Biological Assessment We will specifically respond to the varlous ~ssues and concerns raised ~n the Department of Fish and Game protest letters on the project This would include responding to the following The project (including ~rngation. frost protection, and heat control agricultural uses) could result in use of water beyond licensed/permitted rights · The project could have significant growth-inducing ~mpacts The pro~ect could adversely affect listed salmonid species as well as terrestrial species Address the ~ssues where DFG was unclear about the petitions Review the policies of the C~ty General Plan, the Draft UVAP. and other reg~onw~de agreements on water rights and salmonids to determine if they would reduce, at a program level, all potentially significant ~mpacts to a less than s~gnificant level If warranted, recommend additional m~tigation measures necessary to reduce the s~gnificant ~mpacts 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Provide a general d~scussion of historical and archaeological resources present or possibly present ~n the area Discuss how the policies and implementation measures of the City General Plan and the Draft UVAP provide adequate protecbon for these resources 3.5 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Traffic modeling is currently being done both for the City and the UVAP plan area by Omni-Means Omni-Means is working as asubconsultanttous on the UVAPEIR To the degree the~r studies are completed we would do the following: · The existing traffic conditions within the area will be described · Roadway improvements required to improve existing roadway deficiencies will be identified Levels of Service varues wd be reported for conditions with ~mplementation of improvements Water R/ght Permits Ell:? B,d Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 9 Based on population projections for the area, roadway daily capacrty analysis will be completed for these conditions Roadways forecasted to operate below acceptable LOS thresholds will be identified Roadway alignments and structural conditions will be compared with the appropriate functional classification standards for each facility As warranted, roadway improvements required to improve area buildout roadway deficiencies will be identified Levels of Serv~ce values will be reported for conditions with implementation of improvements 3.6 AESTHETICS The aesthetic resources of the Ukiah Valley are an important reason that many people choose to live in the area We wili do the following work: · Describe the major aesthetic resources ~n the area. especially scenic wstas from major roadways and public places · Discuss how future development could adversely affect scenic views and resources Discuss potential impacts to existing neighborhoods This will include assessment of ~mpacts of new lighting placement of utirity towers and other special use impacts Determine whether General Plan and Draft UVAP policies and implementat~on measures will adequately protect scemc wews and resources Where warranted, we would recommend additional mitigations to protect important scenrc wews and the character of existing neighborhoods 3.7 NOISE Based on the noise analysis being prepared for theUVAPEIR we will do the following · Provide a table showing the distance from major roads to the 60, 65, and 70 Ldn contours, for both existing and future conditions for major roads · Based on this table, LCA would determine whether new development would be allowed ~n areas where existing or future no~se levels would exceed standards estabrished in the existing Noise Element of the City and County General Plan (s~nce the Draft UVAP does not include a new Noise Element) Determine whether existing policies and measures of the Noise Elements provide adequate protection from unacceptable fixed source or traffic-generated noise Where warranted, recommend additional mitigation measures Water R/ght Perm,'ts E/R B/d Proposa; Leonard Charles and Associates Page 10 3.8 AIR QUALITY We will do the following work · Describe existing air quahty and air quality concerns and issues facing the area Discuss how future development ~n the area could adversely affect air quality This will include consideration of PM10 emissions from construction and future use, emission of ozone precursors and other vehicle-generated pollutants, and other pollution We wirt not conduct air quality modeling Instead, we wdl determine whether City General Plan and Craft UVAP policies and implementation measures provide a smart growth planning framework that reduces the need for commuting · With input from the MCAQMD, recommend additional mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant air quality concerns 3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES The EIR must assess whether the amount of new development allowed by the project can be adequately served by existing resources or ~mprovements that are planned by thepubhcserviceprovlders We will do the following work · Calculate the ~ncreased demand for public services from projected development over the next 20 years Contact all public service providers to determine existing resources and their ability to serve projected 20-year growth w~thin their service area This will include contacting the Ukiah Unified School District, Mendocino-Lake Community College District County Sheriffls Department, Ukiah Valley Fire Protection District, Redwood Valley-Calpella Fire Protection District, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Mendocino Emergency Services Authority, Calpelia CWD, Millview CWD, w~rlow CWD, Rogina Water Company, Ukiah Valley Sanitation District, and the SoJid Waste Management Authority Assess potential long-term ~mpacts on recreational facilities and parks Specifically address the concern expressed by the Mendoc~no County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement District (MCRRFC) that the project would result in MCRRFC being ~n noncompliance with its permit Water R~ght Perrmts E/P, B/d Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 11 D~scuss how the project would benefit the applicants' ability to provide water to existing and future residents and businesses Working with the applicants' eng~neenng consultant provide a summary of the existing water rights s~tuatlon in the Ukiah Valley This will include at least the following discussions · What existing permits and licenses are held by the apphcants, MCRRFC, and others in the valley? · What are potentially available water in the Russian River, its underflow, and groundwater sources? · How could the project, in the future, allow the Oity and districts to share water? What would be the effect on other licensees/permitees (particularly the MCRRFC and the Sonoma County Water Agency, both entit~es which protested the petitions) if the City and districts were able to take the maximum amount of water allowed under the proposed project? Determine whether Genera[ Plan and Draft UVAP policies provide the framework for ensunng that adequate services are available prior to new development occumng If the analys~s ~ndicates that adequate services may not be available, despite Plan policies and implementation measures, we will recommend additional m~tigat~on measures needed to reduce ~mpact to public se~wce providers to a less than s~gniflcant level 3.10 LAND USE We w~ll do the following · Assess possible long-term ~mpacts on agriculture · Assess possible impacts as regards displacement of population or housing · Assess for possible impacts of physically dividing a community · Determine whether the policies of the Genera[ Plan and Draft UVAP sufficiently address these potential impacts · Where warranted, recommend additional mitigation measures Water Right Permits EiR B~d Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 12 3.1 1 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS We will do the following work Provide a general drscussion of the potential hazards of transporting, storing, and using hazardous chemicals and materials Determine whether the Draft UVAP and the General Plan provide adequate protection from hazardous materials and adequate response ~n case of a spill or release Identify areas that are 'high" and "very high" fire hazard areas Describe exisbng response strategies Determine whether the General Plan and Draft UVAP provide adequate protection from wildfire hazard · Review the existing emergency response and evacuation plan(s) for the Plan Area Determine whether there is adequate emergency planning and response · Where warranted, rewse or recommend additional mitigation measures to provide adequate protection from hazards and hazardous materials 4.0 TOPICAL ISSUES 4.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Based on the list of proJects already prowded to us by the City and the County, we wdl provide a d~scuss~on of the cumulative ~mpacts of those projects plus the proposed project (Cumulative ~mpacts differ from growth-inducing impacts The former ~s the combined ~mpacts of the project plus other planned or approved, but not built, projects The latter are possible long-term impacts that might be "induced" by the proposed pro~ect) However, since the ~mpacts of the project would take over a long period of hme, the cumulative impacts would be less than the growth inducing ~mpacts assessed earlier in the EIR This point will be made, but we will still summanze the potentially s~gnificant cumulative impacts that might occur 4.2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA requ~res an analysis of project alternatives We wili work with the applicants and their consultants to develop the final list of at least threealternahves It,s possibleth~s list might include · No project as required byCEQA · Restrictions to prohibit the sharing of water sources other than ~n an emergency srtuation · Reduction in the places of use Wa'er R/2ht Pefrnits EIF' B/d Proposal Leonard Charles and Assooates Page 13 5.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS We will attend two public hearings on this EIR, including one hearing on the Draft VVe will be responsible for responding to all written comments plus verbal comments rendered atone public hearing on the DraftEIR The comments plus our responses wilt become the F~nal EIR for the project Water Right Perrmts EIR B~d Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 14 SCHEDULE AND PRODUCTS Once a contract is s~gned, we will beDn work From that date, the follow~ng products will be completed Submittal of 6 copies of Draftw~thin 4 weeks of contract Initial Study and NOP signature 2 Submittal of 40 copres of Initial Study within one week of receipt of all and NOP comments 3 Submittal of 6 copies of the within 10 weeks of #2 Administrative Draft EIR 4 Submittal of 40 copies of Draft EIR within 2 weeks of receipt of all comments 5 Submittal of 6 copies of Administrative within 5 weeks of receipt of apl Final EIR comments 6 Submittal of 40 cop~es of Final EIR within 3 weeks of receipt of all of all comments STAFF The following fist of indiwdua!s will work on this project. Staff Member Leonard Charles, Ph D Lynn Milliman Natahe Macris Responsibility Project Manager Environmental Analyst Environmental Analyst Water R/ght Permits E/R B¢d Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page !5 PRICE QUOTE The Initial Study, NOP, and EIR will be prepared for a fixed cost of $47,730 breakdown is shown on the foliowmgtable Preparation of Initial Study and NOP Initial Study NOP Subtotal 2. Public Scoping Meeting Preparation of ADEIR Introduction Chapter Executive Summary Chapter Geology and Soils Hydrology and Water Quahty Biological Resources Cultural Resources Traffic Air Quality Noise Aesthetics Public Services Land Use Hazards Cumulative Impacts Project Alternatives Graphics Writing Subtotal 4. Preparation of Draft EIR 5. Preparation of Administrative Final EIR 6. Preparation of Final EIR 6. Public Hearings (2) 7. Printing (138 copies) 8. Project Administration and Coordination Total The cost 3.900 20O 4,100 1,100 $ 1,100 95O 640 850 3,400 100 1,600 450 400 640 2,800 4OO 2OO 1,900 3,700 1,700 4,700 28,630 500 4,200 400 2,200 2,300 4,300 $47,730 Water Right Permffs EIR B/d Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 16 ASSUMPTIONS AND CONDITIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 If the apphcants receive requests for additional analysts or study not included in th~s scope of work either as a response to the NOP or during the public scopmg meeting, and agree that additional work *s needed, the addit~onaI work can be prepared by amending the scope of work and price quote listed above The cost for the Response to Comments includes responding to comments based on analyses included in the scope of work Requests for additional studies beyond those included in the scope of work would require an amendment to the contract The cost for responding to comments is based on it taking LCA staff 20 hours to respond to comments and 20 hours to prepare the document (ie clerical time) If LCA and staff of the applicants agree that responding will take more time to respond and prepare the FEIR then listed above, the applicants will agree to amending the contract to cover the unforeseen level of comments The Administrative Draft EIRand Administrative Final EIRwdlrece~ve one round of review by applicants' staff only, prior to publication Once LCA is authorized to start work, the project description will not substanWely change The analysis of project alternatives will be quahtative It will not include quanhtative, technical analyses of traffic, runoff, engmeenng, no~se, a~r quality or other qgantitahve assessments The pnce quote includes the attendance of Leonard Charles at one scop~ng meeting and two public hearings If Leonard Charles to attend additional hearings, the cost wdl be $1,100 per person per hearing If additional cop~es of documents are required, the cost wrll be $12 per Initial Study and $25 per DEIR or FEiR The RFP does not specifically request preparation of other CEQA-required documents Often these are prepared by public agency staff, but more and more frequently the public agency requests the consultant to prepare these documents tf desired, the following documents can be prepared: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program $900 Notice of Determination $300 Draft F~ndmgs $2,600 The scope of work does not include the following: · color mapprng · geologic reconnaissance or subsurface explorahons Water R~ght Permits ElF? B~d Proposal Leonard Charles and Assooates Page 17 10 11 field surveys for animals or plants · assessments of biological impacts by a botanist, fisheries biologist, or wildlife biologist · quantification of habitat values · field sampling for a~r or water quality · prows~on of eng~neenng design for stormwater or any other pubhc service systems · engineenng analysis of water or wastewater systems · subsurface archaeological explorations · Level 1 or higher investigations for toxic materials · quantitative a~r quality modeling If work is stopped or slowed by circumstances outside LCA's control, the applicants will notify LCA in wnting. LCA will be reimbursed for all work completed at the timeit receives the notice to stop work If work is stopped for more than six weeks, the contract will be amended to cover the costs of having to re-start the project The EIR is intended to be a furl d~sclosure document and is provided solely to assist in the evaluation of the proposed proiect Leonard Charles and Associates shall not be liable for costs or damages of any client or third part~es caused by use of this document for any other purpose, or for such costs or damages of any chent or third parties caused by delay or termination of any project due to judicial or administrative action, whether or not such action ~s based on the form or content of this report or portion thereof prepared by Leonard Charles and Associates ~l/ater R~ght Permits EIR q~d Proposal Leonard Charles and Associates Page 18 EXHIBIT B INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance agarnst cia;ms for miuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with he performance of the work hereunder by the CONSULTANT, his agents representatives employees or subcontractors A. MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE Coverage shall be at least as br~ad as 1 insurance Services Office form number GL 0002 (Ed 1/73) covering Comprehensive General L~ability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liabdity, or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Aoccurrence: form CG 0001) 2 Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed 1/78) covenng Automobde Liability, code 1 Aany auto- and endorsement CA 0025 3 Worker s Compensation ~nsurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liabdity insurance if CONSULTANT has empFoyees whowill directly or indirectly provide service or support CONSULTANT in h~s prows~on of seduces under the Agreem, ent B. MINIMUM LIMITS OF INSURANCE CONSULTANT shall maintain limits no less than 1 General Liability $1.0000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily iniury, personal injury and property damage If Commeroa/ General Liability lnsurance or other form w~th a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate hmit shall apply separately to th,s project/location orthe general aggregate 'mit shall be twice the required occurrence hm~t 2 Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily ~njury and property damage Workers Compensation and Employers Liability; Workers compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of Cahfornia and Employers Liabihty I~rnits of $1,000000 per accident C. DEDUCTIBLES AND SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City of Ukiah At the optionoftheC~tyofUkiah, e*ther the msured shall reduce or ehmmate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the C~ty of Ukiah its officer, officials employees and volunteers; or the CONSULTANT shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following prows~ons 1. General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages a The City of Ukiah, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT, products and completed operations of the CONSULTANT, premises owned, occupied or used by the CONSULTANT, or automobiles owned leased, hired or borrowed by the CONSULTANT The coverage shall contam no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials employees or volunteers The CONSULTANT-S insurance coverage shall be pnman/insurance as respects the City ofUkiah, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers Any msurance of officials, employees and volunteers Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Ukiah, its off,cers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the CONSULTANT S msuranceandshallnotcontnbutew]thlt Any failure to comply with reporting provision so the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Ukiah, ,ts officers officials, employees or volunteers d The CONSULTANT S insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim rs made or su~t is brought, except w~th respect to the limits of the insurer s liability 2. Worker Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage The insurer shall agree towa~ve all rights of subrogation agamsttheCityof Ukiah ,ts officers, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the CONSULTANT for the City of Ukiah 3. AIIcoverages Each Insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or m limits except after thirty (30) days priorwntten notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been g~ven to the City of Ukiah ACCEPTABILITY OF INSURERS Insurance ~s to be placed vsth insurers with a Best s rating of no less than AVII 2 F. VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE CONSULTANT shall furnish the City of Ukiah w~th certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by th~s clause The certificates and endorsements for each Insurance policy are to be s~gned by a person authorized by that ~nsurer to bind coverage on,ts behalf The cedificatesand endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City of Ukiah Where by satute the City of Ukiah:s Worker:s Compensation related forms cannot be used, equivalent forms approved by the Insurance Commissioner are to be substituted All cedificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City of Ukiah before work commences. The City of Ukiah reserves the right to require comp ere certified copres of ail required insurance policies, at any time SUBCONTRACTS CONSULTANT shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor All coverages for subcontractors shall be subiect to all of the requirements stated herein Attachment Chronology of Petitions filed by City of Ukiah Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) Action Date Date Issued for Public Notice City Filed Petition for Extension of Time with SWRCB S WRCB Inspection of City of Ukiah's Permit 12952 SWRCB Directs City to File Petitions to Change Place of Use and add Points of Diversion City filed Petition for Change in Points of Diversion with SWRCB to add Ukiah Wells #5 & #6 City filed Petition for Change in Place of Use to increase its Place of Use, and to include lands of Willow, Millview and Calpella CWDs City Amended its Petition for Change in Place of Use to eliminate Willow CWD from Place of Use City Amended its Petition for Change in Place of Use to withdraw the 11/22/04 Amendment, and make modifications to Willow CWD Place of Use. 11/15/2000 6/25/2001 8/8/2001 N/A 2/6/2O02 N/A 3/13/2002 Not Required 7/1/2002 11/15/2002* 11/22/2004 Not Required 12/6/2005 Not Required *The Petition was re-noticed on 12/24/2002 to clarify the nature of the interconnection agreements between the parties. COUJ089.XLS 10/30/06 Attachment DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 Date of Inspection: Accompanied by: OWNERSHIP: Change Agent AssiL3~ment 8/8/01 Alan Jamison PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: Inspected by: Telephone: K. Warren & J. O'Hagan .707-463-6295 City of Uldah 300 Seminary Ave. Uldall, CA 95482 Agent: Wagner & Bonsignore, Consulting Civil Engineers A Corporation 444 NoFu~ Third Street, Suite 325 Sacramento, CA 95758 SOURCE(S): No Change Russian River Underflow Flow at Time of Inspection: 131 cfs How Determ/ned or Measured: ' USGS Gauging Station Historical Data, USGS 11462500 Russian River Near Hopland, CA AMOUNT: No Change I. Authorized Amount(s): Rate- 20 cfs Annual Amount- No Annual Amount ' Calculated Maximum Amountz Beneficially Used (last 2 years of records; see Calculation Page) Rate- 8 cfs Annual Amount- 3100 AFA The City of Ukiah (City) has petitioned for an extension of time on the permit to further develop the project. The City is projecting a 34% increase in population and an increase ~ commercial development. Maintenance on the Ranney Collector is scheduled and will allow for the system to achieve nearer the maximum capacity of 20 els when needed. Expansion of the Water Treatment Plant would be required to achieve full use of the permit since the current plant capacity is only 6 MGD (9.28 cfs). The existing capacity of the Kanney Collector is 6.2 cfs and the combined capacity of all City wells is 4.7 cfs. CIR2001-Page 1 .__ DMSION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: SEASOft(S) OF DIVERSION: No Change Authorized Season(s) of Diversion: Direct Diversion January 1 to December 31 USE(S) OF WATER: No Change I. Current Authorized Uses: Municipal 11. Existing Use: Municipal POINT(S) OF DIVERSION: Petition for Correction/Addition Authorized Po[ut(s) of Diversion: Point 1: S 44° 47' 30" E 1170 feet from the NE comer of Lot 19 of the Yokayo Rancho and being within the SE ¼ ofNW ¼ of projected Section 16, T15N, RI2W, IvlDB&M Point 2: S 6° 18' 48" E 1183.64 feet from NE comer of Lot 19 of the Yokayo Rancho and being within the SE ¼ of NE ¼ of projected Section I7, T15N, R12W, MDB&M Point 3: S 75031' 30" W 1653.45 feet from NE comer of Lot 29 of Yokayo Rancho being within said Lot 19 and the SE ¼ ofSW ¼ of Pr0jected Section 16, TISN, R12W, IVlDB&M Existing Point(s) of Diversion: Point of Diversion #1: By California Coordinate system of 1927, North 546,257 feet and East 1,662,103 feet being within the SW ¼ ofNW ¼ of projected Section 16, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. This POD is referenced by the City as their Ranney Collector. CIK2001 -Page 2 DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 PERMIT:12952 LICENSE: Point of Diversion #2: By California Coordinate system of 1927, North 546,227 feet and East 1,660,970 feet being within the SE ¼ of NE ¼ of projected Section 17, T15N, R12W, MDB&aM. This POD is referenced by the City as Well 2. Point of Diversion #3: By California Coordinate system of 1927, North 543,385 feet and East 1,663,003 feet being within the SE ¼ ofSW ¼ of projected Section 16, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. This POD is referenced by the City as Well 3. Well 5: By California Coordinate system of 1927, North 546,106 feet and E~t 1,661,959 feet being within the SW ¼ ofNW ¼ of projected Section 16, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. This POD is referenced by the City as Well 5 Well 6: By California Coordinate system of 1927, North 546,350 feet and East 1,661,072 feet being within the SE ¼ of NE ¼ of projected Section 17, T15N, R12W, MDB&M. This POD is referenced by the City as Well 6 Well 5, located southwest 0fthe Rarmey Collector (POD 1), is not identified as a POD in the permit. It is an offset well similar to wells 2, 3, and 6. Well 5 is located approximately 210 feet from the Ranney Collector at POD 1. Well 6 is approximately 160 feet from Well 2, but it discharges through the same meter. The City considers these two well sites one POD. The permitted POD is Well 2. County: Mendocino POD 1, POD 2,.Well 5 and Well 6 POD 3 Parcel #: 179-01-008 Parcel #: 179-10-001 A petition adding Well No.'s 5 and 6 to Permit 12952 is recommended. Adding these points of diversion under Permit CIR2001-Page 3 DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: 12952 should be made at the same time the city petitions to change its place of use. Adding these two additional well sites should not require public notice since there is no change to the point relative to diversion points of others and tributary sources on the same stream. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23 § 795, subd. (1)). PLACE OF USE: Petition to add the Millview County and Willow County- Water Districts to Place of Use METHOD(S) OF DIVERSION: Petition to add the Millview County and Willow County Water Districts to Place of Use Authorized Place of Use: Within the City of Ukiah and its environs as shown on map filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. Current Place of Use: Within the City of Ukiah service area being within the following projected Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 30, 32 ofT15N, R12W, MDB&M. Place of Use was not collected by GPS receiver. The City of Uldah has established inter-ties with Millview and Willow County Water Districts. Water has been sold to Millview County Water District w/thin the past year under the inter-tie agreement. The pending Petition for extension of time does not request an expanded place of use. Recommend that a petition for the expanded place of use be filed to include the areas served within Millview and Willow County Water Districts. An E- Map of place of use ~houid be included with the petition. County: Mendocino The Cities main diversion point is a Ranney Collector (POD 1). Water is also diverted fi.om Russian River undertow by four other wells. Three of these wells (2, 5 & 6), are located on the Water Treatment Plant ('CFI'P) site and one (POD 3) is located approximately ½ mile southeast of the WTP site in a pear omhard south of Perkins Street. The diversion capacity of the permitted points of diversion and Wells 5 & 6 is a combined 8.86 cfs (see attached spreadsheet). CIR2001 -Page 4 DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: COMPLIANCE TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS: No Violations Water from the Rarmey collector is transported to the treatment plant and processed for domestic consumption. The treated water is transported from the WTP through a two-foot metered pipe. Water fi.om the other wells is routed directly into the supply system. The City utilizes four regulating tanks in its supply system. The largest tank is two and one-half mill/on- gallons. The three other regulating tanks have capacities of one hundred thousand, thirty-two thousand, fourteen thousand gallons respectively. Water is then distributed from the regulating tanks to 6,848 service connections throughout the City of Ukiah and environs. The base infrastructure of this delivery system consists of 9700 feet of 16-inch and 3200 feet of 12-inch welded steel transit pipe. The City has the abihty to serve water to Millview and Willow County Water Districts through a 6" pipeline connected to the water districts system. The flow is by gravity and the rate of transfer depends upon the water level elevation difference between the two systems. The maximum elevation head between the City and the two systems is 5 feet. Other Rights: Possible Riparian with summer exception (D1030). A statement for this right was requested in March 5, 1991 meeting with stakeholders. A claim of pre-1914 right was made in a November 1991 meeting with stakeholders. The City of Ukiah has the ability to transfer water from Millview and Willow County Water Districts if needed. The Urban Water Management Plan term required a management plan be submitted by March 31, 1987 as per order issued March 31, 1986. This term has been complied with. The City submitted the managemefft plan on September 17, 2001. FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: The City of Ukiah (City) has two issues to be resolved regarding their existing permit. The City has two unauthorized points of diversion (Wells 5 and 6) which should be added by CIR2001-Page 5 DMSION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 Change Ownership (Agent) Petition Required 0'or), ~'OU) PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: petition. The City is also serving areas outside the authorized place of use by virtue of the inter-tie 'agreement with Millview and Willow Water Districts. The City should correct these discrepancies by filing a petition. The primary water source for the City is their Ranney Collector. The Ranney Collector is currently operating at a low efficiency due to a clogged lateral line. The design capacity of the Ranney is 13 MGD (20 cfs) and is currently operating at a capacity of 4 MGD (6.19 efs). The capacity of the Water Treatment Plant is 6 MGD (9.28 cfs). The existing combined operating capacity of all additional City wells, (including wells operating outside the parameters of Permit 12952), is 4.7 els. The current capacity of points of diversion envered by Permit 12952 is 8.1 cfs. The population served by the City has not increased by any significant amount in the past decade. Water use has steadily increased due to an increase in commercial growth and the sale of water outside the authorized place of use. The City is currently using 40% of the amount authorized under this permit. A petition to extend the existing permit that expired on December 1, 2000 was requested by the City on November 15, 2000. The petition requests further time to develop the project to maximum capacity. The City is projecting a 34% population growth and an increase in commercial businesses in the next 14 years. CIR2001-Page 6 DMSION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: CALCULATION OF AMOUNTS BENEFICIALLY USED: From Daily Well Production Data (attached), Total of Permitted Wells Maximum 30 day well production, (May 22 through June 20 1999) = 151.6 MG 151.6x 106 gallons ~ 58.5 gallons month sec 58.5 gallons ~ 7.82 FT~ ,ay ~ 8 cfs sec o nd sec ond Annual Amount: Maximum Year of Use (1999) Amount Taken in 1999 = 1236.2 million gallons/ x x 3079 Acre - fl I1236.2 x 106 gallons Iff~ 1Acre ~ = L year 7.48gallons 43560j~2 J - Year ./ Capacity of Diversion Works '. As stated by Alan Jamison: Diversion point Capacity (els) POD I 6,19 POD 2 0.28 POD 3 1.62 Well 5 0.78 Total 8.87 Maximum transfer capacity to Water Districts: 500. gpm 1.11 cfs CIR2001-Page 7 DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: Figure 1 Ranney Collector Well House Figure 2 WTP Outflow Meter CIR200I .Page 8 DMSION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 5. · PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: Figure 3 Well 5 Pump Figure 4 Wellhouse POD 2 CIR2001-Paga 9 DMSION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: leigar~ 5 Well 6 Figure 6 Wellhouse POD 3, Well 3 CIR2001-Pag~ I 0 DMSION OF WATER RIGHTS REPORT OF COMPLIANCE INSPECTION APPLICATION: A015704 PERMIT: 12952 LICENSE: Figure 7 Pump for POD 3, Well 3 Figure 8 Well 4 (not covered under permit, not Russian River Underflow) CIR2001-Pa~e 11 __ OWNER:- crrY OFUKIAH SOURCE: RUSSIAN RIVER UNDERFLOW POINT OF DIVERSION: (1) SWl/4 OF N~¢I/4 OF PEOJ. SECTION I6, TISN, RI2W, M~B&M (2) SSl/4 OF N~ 1/4 OF PaO~. SECTION 17, TI~, al2W, ~B~ (3) SE 1/4 OF SW I/4 OF PROJ. SE~ION 16, TI5N, RI2W, MDB~ 00~: ~OC~O ~SGS QUAD: ~, C~. SOAL~: 1:24000 LICENSE NO. PERMIT NO. 12952 APPLICATION NO. 15704 iT STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS COMPLIANCE E: DRAWN: CHECKED: OWNER: CITY OF UKIAH SOURCE: aUSSL~N P. rwR UNDERFLOW PLACE OF USE: SHOWN AS GREEN OUTLINED AREA COUNTY: MENDOC]NO USGS QUAD: UKIAH, CALIF. & ELLEDGE PEAK, CALIF. SCALE: 1:30000 LICENSE NO. PERMIT NO. 12952 APPLICATION NO. 15704 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS COMPLIANCE § 56076. "Sphere of influence" "Sphere of influence" means a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the commission. § 56425. Determination of spheres of influence (a) i'n order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities, the commission shall develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the county and enact policies designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere. (b) At least 30 days prior to submitting an application to the commission for a determination of a new sphere of influence, or to update an existing sphere of influence for a city, representatives from the city shall meet with county representatives to discuss the proposed sphere, and its boundaries, and explore methods to reach agreement on the boundaries, development standards, and zoning requirements within the sphere to ensure that development within the sphere occurs in a manner that reflects the concerns of the affected city and is accomplished in a manner that promotes the logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere. If no agreement is reached between the city and county within 30 days, then the parties may, by mutual agreement, extend discussions for an additional period of 30 days. Tf an agreement is reached between the city and county regarding the boundaries, development standards, and zoning requirements within the proposed sphere, the agreement shall be forwarded to the commission, and the commission shall consider and adopt a sphere of influence for the city consistent with the policies adopted by the commission pursuant to this section, and the commission shall give great weight to the agreement in the commission's final determination of the city sphere. (c) If the commission's final determination is consistent with the agreement reached between the city and county pursuant to subdivision (b), the agreement shall be adopted by both the city and county after a noticed public hearing. Once the agreement has been adopted by the affected local agencies and their respective general plans reflect that agreement, then any development approved by the county within the sphere shall be consistent with the terms of that agreement. (d) If no agreement is reached pursuant to subdivision (b), the application may be submitted to the commission and the commission shall consider a sphere of influence for the city consistent with the policies adopted by the commission pursuant to this section. (e) In determining the sphere of influence of each local agency, the commission shall consider and prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following: (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. (3) Th e present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. (f) Upon determination of a sphere of influence, the commission shall adopt that sphere. (g) On or before Sanuary 1, 2008, and every five years thereafter, the commission shall, as necessa fy, review and update each sphere of influence. (h) The commission may recommend governmental reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the spheres of influence as the basis for those recommendations. Those recommendations shall be made available, upon request, to other agencies or to the public. The commission shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure wide public dissemination of the recommendations. (i) When adopting, amending, or updating a sphere of influence for a special district, the commission shall do all of the following: (1) Require existing districts to file written statements with the commission specifying the functions or classes of services provided by those districts. (2) Establish the nature, location, and extent of any functions or classes of services provided by existing districts. (j) Subdivisions (b), (c), and (d) shall become inoperative as of .]anuary ~L, 2007, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2007, deletes or extends that date. § 56426. Change to sphere of influence where agency provides services or facilities related to sewers, nonagricultural water, or streets and roads The commission shall not approve or conditionally approve a change to the sphere o?/nfluence of a local government agency of territory that is subject to a farmland security zone contract pursuant to ^rticle 7 (commencing with Section $1296) of Chapter 7 of Part 1 of Division 1, ff that local government agency provides or would provide facilities or services related to sewers, nonagricultural water, or streets and roads to the territory, unless these facilities or services benefit land uses that are allowed under the contract and the landowner consents to the change to the sphere of influence. § 56427. Notice and hearing The commission shall adopt, amend, or revise spheres of influence after a public hearing called and held for that purpose. At least 21 days prior to the date of that hearing, the executive officer shall give mailed notice of the hearing to each affected local agency or affected county, and to any interested party who has filed a written request for notice with the executive officer. Zn addition, at least 21 days prior to the date of that hearing, the executive officer shall cause notice of the hearing to be published in accordance with Section 56:153 in a newspaper of general circulation which is circulated within the territory affected by the sphere of influence proposed to be adopted. The commission may continue from time to time any hearing called pursuant to this section. At any hearing called and held pursuant to this section, the commission shall hear and consider oral or written testimony presented by any affected local agency or affected county or any interested person who wishes to appear. This section shall only apply to spheres of influence adopted by the commission after .lanuary 1, 1975. § 56430. Updating of spheres of influence; Service review (a) Zn order to prepare and to update spheres of influence in accordance with Section 56425, the commission shall conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the commission. The commission shall include in the area designated for service review the county, the region, the subregion, or any other geographic area as is appropriate for an analysis of the service or services to be reviewed, and shall prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following: (1) Zn frastructure needs or deficiencies. (2) Growth and population projections for the affected area. (3) Financing constraints and opportunities. (4) Cost avoidance opportunities. (5) Opportunities for rate restructuring. (6) Opportunities for shared facilities. (7) Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers. (8) Evaluation of management efficiencies. (9) Local accountability and governance. (b) In conducting a service review, the commission shall comprehensively review all of the agencies that provide the identified service or services within the designated geographic area. (c) The commission shall conduct a service review before, or in conjunction with, but no later than the time it is considering an action to establish a sphere of influence in accordance with Section 56425 or Section 56426.5 or to update a sphere of influence pursuant to Section 56425. (d) Not later than July 1, 200~., the Office of Planning and Research, in consultation with commissions, the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions, and other local governments, shall prepare guidelines for the service reviews to be conducted by commissions pursuant to this section. § 56434. Extensions of services (Repealed lanuary 1, 2007) (a) The commission may review and approve a proposal that extends services into previously unserved territory within unincorporated areas and may review the creation of new service providers to extend urban type development into previously unserved territory within unincorporated areas to ensure that the proposed extension is consistent with the policies of Sections 56001, 56300, 56301, and the adopted policies of the commission implementing these sections, including promoting orderly development, discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, providing housing for persons and families of all incomes, and the efficient extension of governmental services. (b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2007, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2007, deletes or extends that date. § 56653. Application to include plan to provide services within affected territory (a) Whenever a local agency or school district submits a resolution of application for a change of organization or reorganization pursuant to this part, the local agency shall submit with the resolution of aDD#cation a Dian for providinq services within the affected territory. (b) The plan for providing services shall include all of the following information and any additional information required by the commission or the executive officer: (1) An enumeration and description of the services to be extended to the affected territory. (2) The level and range of those services. (3) An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory. (4) An indication of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other conditions the local agency would impose or require within the affected territory if the change of organization or reorganization is completed. (5) Znformation with respect to how those services will be financed. APPLZCABLE F4ENDOCZNO LAFCO POLZCZES 8. Spheres of Influence should reflect consideration for existing and/or potential agricultural use or resource land use and should not be extended into such areas for purposes of allowing urban development. D. SPHERE OFINFLUENCE LAFCO is required to adopt a sphere of influence for each local agency within its jurisdiction. "In order to carry out its purpose and responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local government agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities, the commission shall develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local government agency within the county and enact policies designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere." [56425] General Policies for Spheres of Influence 1. A sphere of influence is defined as a "plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local government agency, as determined by the commission" [56076]. Every determination on changes of organization or reorganization shall be consistent with the spheres of influence of the local agencies affected by that determination [56375.5]. A sphere of influence is primarily a planning tool that will: Serve as a master plan for the future organization of local government within the county by providing long range guidelines for the efficient provision of services to the public. Discourage duplication of services by two or more local government agencies. Guide the Commission when considering individual proposals for changes of organization. Identify the need for reorganization studies and provide the basis for recommendations to particular agencies for government reorganizations. 2. In determining the sphere of influence for all local agencies the Commission is required to consider and make a written statement of determinations with respect to each of the following: [56425(e)] The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines they are relevant to the agency. Before making these determinations the Commission will review the factors to be considered in the review of a proposal as detailed in Section 56668. 3. When adopting, amending or updating a sphere of influence for a special district the commission shall do all of the following: [56425(h)] Require existing districts to file written statements with the Commission specifying the functions or classes of services provided by those districts. Establish the nature, location and extent of any functions or classes of services provided by existing districts. 4. As mandated by law, in order to prepare and update spheres of influence in accordance with Section 56425, the commission shall conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the commission [56430]. (See Section D, Service Reviews below) 5. As mandated by law, the adequacy of each adopted sphere of influence will be reviewed every 5 years following the initial sphere determination or initial sphere review. At approximately 5-year intervals, a preliminary sphere evaluation will be conducted by LAFCO. The evaluation will include a recommendation by the Executive Officer to either proceed with a comprehensive sphere update study or to affirm the existing sphere. Each subject agency will be notified of the pending review of its sphere of influence and will be invited to participate actively in any restudy efforts deemed necessary by the Commission. Each agency will complete a sphere of influence questionnaire relating to its services and plans. Failure to respond will be regarded as concurrence with the Executive Officer's recommendation. 6. Changes in land use, planning policy, demographics, service capabilities, resource availability, increased demand for public services, or requests for changes in organization or reorganization may justify the need to perform a comprehensive update study to amend or affirm spheres of influence. 7. Any person or local agency may file a written request with the Executive Officer requesting a Sphere of Influence Study/Amendment. [56428] The request shall state the nature of the proposed amendment, state the reasons for the request, include a map of the proposed amendment and contain any additional data and information as may be required by the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer shall conduct the study/amendment (1) according to his or her discretion as to size, complexity and inclusion of a need for a service review of the affected agency and (2) according to the provisions of C-K-H as specifically referenced in Section 56428 including CEQA and (3) according to any other provisions of C-K- H and the policies and procedures of LAFCO implementing C-K-H. [56428(g)] 8. Fees for conducting sphere of influence/service reviews shall be apportioned according to the following: The applicant agency is responsible for the cost of a review and revision of sphere of influence studies/service reviews required for changes of organization or reorganization. The affected agency(s) are responsible for the costs of the review and updates required by law every five years. The Commission is responsible for the cost of a LAFCO initiated review and revision of sphere of influence for purposes of Reorganization. LAFCO will seek cooperative cost sharing agreements with the agencies involved. The party that requests a review according to Item 7 above will be charged the actual costs associated with the sphere review and/or amendment including CEQA. 9. Except for minor changes involving one or two parcels, no change of organization or reorganization will be allowed until an initial or 5-year updated sphere of influence review and service review as required by Sections 56425 and 56430 are completed. Agencies may submit proposals for a change of organization or reorganization along with a sphere update study and service review so that they can be conducted concurrently. This would be the most cost effective means of completing the requirements of Sections 56425 and 56430. 10. The Commission may recommend governmental reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the spheres of influence as the basis of for those recommendations. The Commission shall make all reasonable effort to ensure wide public dissemination of the recommendations. [56425(g)] 11. The Commission may initiate proposals for consolidation of districts, dissolution, merger, establishment of a subsidiary district or a reorganization that includes any of these changes of organization, if that change of organization or reorganization is consistent with a recommendation or conclusion of a study pursuant to Section 56378 (special studies) or Section 56425 (sphere of influence studies) if the Commission makes the determinations specified in Section 56881(b) [56375(a)]. (See Section A, Special Studies and Section B, LAFCO Initiated Proposals above) 12. When more than one agency can serve an area, LAFCO shall consider each agency's service capacity, financial capabilities, costs of service, social and economic interdependencies, topographical factors, LAFCO policies and input from affected communities and agencies. 13. LAFCO will make every attempt to bring about amicable agreements on spheres of influence but ultimately, if a conflict between agencies should arise, LAFCO is the final determiner of the sphere of influence. 14. Inclusion of territory within an agency's sphere of influence does not assure annexation of that territory into that agency. There are a number of factors the Commission must review before it can approve an annexation. 15. Spheres of Influence for cities and districts shah promote the long-term preservation and protection of the County agricultural, resource and open space lands. 16. Once a sphere of influence has be adopted, it shall be reviewed and updated, as necessary, not less than once every five years [56425(0] General Guidelines for Determining Spheres of Influence 17. Territory that is currently receiving services from a local agency, or territory that is projected to need an agency's services within the next 5-10 years may be considered for inclusion within an agency sphere. Additional territory may be considered for inclusion if information is available that will enable the Commission to make determinations as required by Section 56425. 18. Territory will not be considered for inclusion within a city's sphere of influence unless the area is included within the city's general plan land use element. 19. A special district that provides services, which ultimately will be provided by another agency (e.g. mergers, consolidations) will be assigned a zero sphere. 20. When more than one agency can serve an area, agency service capabilities, costs for providing services, input from the affected community, and LAFCO's policies will be factors in determining a sphere boundary. 21. If more than one agency appears equally qualified to serve an area, and if fiscal considerations, agency service capabilities, and community input do not clearly favor a specific agency, overlapping spheres may be approved. 22. If additional information is necessary to determine a sphere boundary or if the Commission determines not to approve overlapping spheres, a partial sphere may be approved and a special study area may be designated. 23. A local agency may be assigned a coterminous sphere with its existing boundaries if: · There is no anticipated need for the agency's services outside its existing boundaries. · There is insufficient information to support inclusion of areas outside the agency's boundaries in a sphere of influence. · The a.qenc¥ does not have the service capacity, access to resources (e..q. water r~qhts) or financial ability to serve an area outside its boundaries. · The agency's boundaries are contiguous with the boundaries of other agencies providing similar services. · The agency's boundaries are contiguous with the sphere of influence boundaries previously assigned to another agency providing similar services. · The agency requests that their sphere of influence be coterminous with their boundaries. 24. If territory within the proposed sphere boundary of a local agency does not need all of the services of the agency, a service specific sphere of influence may be designated. Guidelines for Updating City Spheres of Influence 25. After completion of the initial requirements to conduct a sphere of influence update and service review, once every five years thereafter a preliminary sphere evaluation will be prepared by the Executive Officer for each city in Mendocino County to determine whether a sphere update study should be conducted. A preliminary evaluation may be conducted at any time if requested by a city. Applications for changes of organization or reorganization may trigger a preliminary sphere evaluation by the Executive Officer; the closer the time to the five year mark, the greater the likelihood of a preliminary sphere evaluation upon receipt of an application for a change of organization or reorganization. If the initial review has not been made as required by law, then LAFCO will require a sphere of influence update and service review. Applications for changes of organization or reorganization with a sphere of influence amendment will trigger a preliminary sphere evaluation and may require a comprehensive sphere update study. 26. A preliminary evaluation will begin with a questionnaire requesting the city to update pertinent information. The city's response should include: · Information necessary to complete a statement of determinations required under Section 56430. · Each city's assessment as to the need for a sphere update, sphere change or sphere amendment. · Information as to changes in land use (e.g. General Plan or Specific Plan changes), planning policy, demographics, service capabilities, resource availability or increased demand for public services. · Necessary maps and legal descriptions · Other data or information as considered appropriate by the Commission or the Executive Officer 27. The preliminary sphere evaluation will be distributed to the subject city, other affected agencies, the county and other interested parties. 28. The preliminary sphere evaluation will include one of the following recommendations by the Executive Officer: Proceed with a comprehensive sphere of influence update study because of significant changes in circumstances from the previous study or last update Affirm the city's existing sphere of influence without an update study Amend the city's existing sphere of influence with a comprehensive update study Amend the city's existing sphere of influence without a comprehensive update study (e.g. minor amendments) 29. The subject city will be requested to respond to the preliminary sphere evaluation and recommendation within 90 days. Failure to respond within 90 days will be regarded as concurrence with the evaluation and recommendation. 30. The Executive Officer will present his/her preliminary sphere evaluation and recommendation, along with the response and recommendations from the subject city and comments received from other local agencies or interested parties, to the Commission at a noticed public hearing. 31. At the hearing the Commission may approve, with or without changes, or deny the Executive Officer's recommendation. 32. If the Commission determines to proceed with a city comprehensive sphere update study/service review, applications for jurisdictional changes will be considered incomplete until the sphere update is completed. Exceptions will be made if the Executive Officer has issued a Certificate of Filing prior to the Commission's decision to proceed with an update study. 33. Within 90 days of a public hearing where the Commission determines to proceed with a comprehensive sphere of influence update study/service review, LAFCO staff in cooperation with city staff will develop a work plan, time table and mapping requirements needed for completing the update study, service review and appropriate environmental study. 34. City staff, in cooperation with LAFCO staff, will prepare a comprehensive sphere update study/service review according to the agreed upon work program and timetable. If the city chooses not to participate in the development of the sphere update study, then the Executive Officer may proceed with the process using LAFCO staff or consultants. Costs for this process will be billed to the city. 35. At least 30 days prior to formally submitting the sphere update study to LAFCO, the city must distribute its proposal to all affected agencies and other interested parties who have requested a copy, other than the county. Affected agencies must be notified that their comments will be received by LAFCO for purposes of evaluating the update study. 36. At least 60 days prior to formally submitting the sphere update study to LAFCO the city must distribute the study to the county. Representatives of the city are required to meet with representatives of the county to discuss the proposed sphere and its boundaries and explore methods to reach agreement on the boundaries, development standards and zoning requirements within the sphere. The purpose of the discussions between the city and the county is to ensure that development within the sphere occurs in a manner that reflects the concerns of the city and is accomplished in a manner that promotes the logical and orderly development of the sphere territory. 37. Upon receipt of the sphere update study from the city, LAFCO staff will review the spheres of influence for affected districts in conjunction with the review of the city sphere update study. 38. The Executive Officer will present a report and recommendations concerning the city sphere update study and sphere amendment, if any, to the Commission at a noticed public hearing. The report may include recommendations to amend the spheres of affected special districts. 39. The Commission will approve, with or without changes, or deny the Executive Officer's recommendation for the comprehensive sphere update. Guidelines for Updating Special District Spheres of Influence 40. After completion of the initial requirements to conduct a sphere of influence update and service review, once every five years, a preliminary sphere evaluation will be prepared for each special district to determine whether a comprehensive sphere update study is warranted. A preliminary evaluation may be conducted at any time if requested by a district. Applications for changes of organization or reorganization may trigger a preliminary sphere evaluation by the Executive Officer; the closer the time to the five year mark, the greater the likelihood of a preliminary sphere evaluation upon receipt of an application for a change in organization or reorganization. If the initial review has not been made as required by law, then LAFCO will require a sphere of influence update and service review. Reasonable questions as to the lack of financial resources, infrastructure capacity, availability of resources, inability to provide service to the affected territory or the potential to degrade service to the existing territory of the district will trigger a comprehensive sphere of influence review and service review. Applications for changes of organization or reorganization with a sphere of influence amendment will trigger a preliminary sphere evaluation and may require a comprehensive sphere update study. The adoption, amendment or update of a special district sphere of influence will be closely coordinated with other affected jurisdictions that provide similar services. 41. A preliminary evaluation will begin with a questionnaire requesting the district to update pertinent information. The district's response should include: Information necessary to complete a statement of determinations required under Section 56430 (service reviews). Each district's assessment as to the need for changes in sphere boundaries. A written statement specifying the functions or classes of service provided by the district as required by Section 56425 Identification of the nature and location of facilities that provide the services as required by Section 56425 Necessary maps and legal descriptions as required by the Executive Officer Other data or information as considered appropriate by the Commission or the Executive Officer 42. The Executive Officer will review each district's response and make a preliminary evaluation as to whether a comprehensive sphere update appears to be warranted. 43.The preliminary evaluation will include one of the following recommendations by the Executive Officer: · Proceed with a comprehensive sphere of influence update study because of significant changes in circumstances from the previous study or last update · Affirm the district's existing sphere of influence without a comprehensive update study · Amend the district's existing sphere of influence with a comprehensive update study · Amend the district's existing sphere of influence without an update study (e.g. minor amendments) 45. The Executive Officer will notify the district of his/her recommendation. The recommendation shall be distributed to each affected city and special district, the county and other interested parties. 46. The district will be requested to respond to the recommendation of the Executive Officer concerning the preliminary sphere of influence evaluation. Failure to respond within 90 days will be regarded as district concurrence with the preliminary evaluation. 47. The Executive Officer will present his/her preliminary sphere evaluation and recommendation, along with the response and recommendations from the subject district and comments received from other local agencies or interested parties, to the Commission at a noticed public hearing. 48. At the hearing the Commission may approve, with or without changes, or deny the Executive Officer's recommendation. 49. If the Commission determines to proceed with a comprehensive district sphere update study, applications for jurisdictional changes will be considered incomplete until the sphere update is completed. Exceptions will be made if the Executive Officer has issued a Certificate of Filing prior to the Commission's decision to proceed with an update study. 50. Within 90 days of a public hearing where the Commission determines to proceed with a comprehensive sphere of influence update study, LAFCO staff in cooperation with district staff will develop a work plan, timetable and mapping requirements needed for completing the update study/service review and appropriate environmental study. LAFCO will then conduct the update study using LAFCO staff, consultants or district staff at the discretion of the Executive Officer. 51. Comprehensive sphere update studies for special districts may be conducted individually, or as part of a larger study that considers either cities and/or other special districts. Service Reviews will be conducted in conjunction with the sphere update and will include determinations as required in Section 56430. 52. The Executive Officer will present a report and recommendation concerning the comprehensive special district sphere update to the Commission at a noticed public hearing. 53. The Commission will approve, with or without changes, or deny the Executive Officer's recommendation for the comprehensive sphere update. E. SERVICE REVIEWS In order to prepare and update spheres of influence in accordance with Section 56425, the commission shall conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the commission. [56430] 1. The commission shall include in the area designated for service review the county, the region, the sub region, or any other geographical area as is appropriate for an analysis of the service or services to be reviewed, and shall prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following: [56430(a)] Infrastructure needs or deficiencies. Growth and population projections for the affected area. Financing constraints and opportunities. Cost avoidance opportunities. Opportunities for rate restructuring Opportunities for shared facilities. Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service ~roviders. Evaluation of management efficiencies. Local accountability and governance 2. Local agencies that are subject to LAFCO rewew, or are required to have a sphere of influence, are subject to service reviews. 3. The Commission shall conduct a service review before or in conjunction with, but no later than the time it is considering an action to establish a sphere of influence or update a sphere of sphere of influence. Minor amendments to a sphere of influence, as determined by LAFCO, may not require a service review. 4. Generally, reviews will be prepared in conjunction with sphere of influence studies or updates however service reviews may also be conducted independent of the sphere of influence process. LAFCO will conduct service reviews independent of the sphere of influence updates based on a number of factors, including but not limited to: Concerns of the affected agencies, the public or LAFCO Public demand for a service review Pubic health, safety, or welfare issues Service provision issues associated with areas of growth and/or development or request for changes of organization or reorganization 5. As part of the budgetary process, LAFCO will develop a work plan of service reviews to be addressed during the fiscal year. During this process, LAFCO shall establish a fee for conducting services review and may recover reasonable costs for preparation of a service review study beyond the standard LAFCO fee. Agencies that are to be part of the annual review process shall be notified of their selection for review and their respective costs. The fee may be adjusted according to the degree of help and support provided by agency staff and the degree of difficulty of obtaining the requisite information for the service review. LAFCO may alter the annual service review work program at any time in response to changing circumstances, new information, or direction from the Commission. 6. In conducting a service review the commission will use state guidelines to the extent considered appropriate by the Commission to comprehensively review all of the agencies that provide the identified service or services within the designated geographical area. Service reviews will fall into two categories: · Routine reviews that are anticipated to be uncomplicated and straightforward with few concerns about the adequacy of public services. Routine service reviews may be conducted for single agencies or for multiple agencies that provide similar services. · Intensive reviews that are anticipated to require detailed analysis of complex and controversial issues. Categorizing a service review as intensive may be the result of analysis of pending LAFCO proposals for boundary changes, major sphere changes, lack of resources or of service provision concerns identified by LAFCO, other agencies, or the public. 7. Service reviews will address identified services within the service review boundary, which are associated with growth and development. Target services include, but are not limited to, water, sewer, drainage, libraries, roads, parks, police and fire protection. General government services such as courts, social services, human resources, treasury, tax collection, and administrative services will generally not be included. LAFCO will determine which services will be included in each service review. 8. LAFCO will determine the final geographic boundary and agencies that will be the subject of a service review. Factors that may be considered in determining a service review boundary include, but are not limited to, existing city and special district jurisdiction and sphere boundaries, topography, geography, community boundaries, tax assessment zones, infrastructure locations, transportation systems, and roads, areas with shared facilities, areas with shared social and economic communities of interest plus other factors as determined by LAFCO. 9. LAFCO may hold public scoping meetings, as necessary, for selected service reviews to gather additional input on the following issues: · Additional agencies to be included within a service review. · Geographic area of a service review · Concerns of affected agencies · Areas of concern to be addressed in a service review 10. AFCO may establish a service review committee to provide technical and/or policy advice to LAFCO staff. The service review committee may consist of LAFCO Commissioners, representatives from special districts, cities and other members as determined by LAFCO. 11. Local agencies may submit service review proposals to LAFCO. If it is determined by LAFCO that the agency has the requisite staff and ability to assist the Executive Officer to conduct the service review then the Commission may allow the agency to perform the service review under the direction of the Executive Officer. 12. LAFCO staff will prepare a final service review report that includes the determinations required by state law. The report may identify future studies or actions which LAFCO or agencies may take to implement the recommendations of the report. 13. The Commission will consider the service review report and determinations at a noticed public hearing. The report will be available for public review 21 days prior to the hearing. 14. The service review process does not require LAFCO to initiate changes of organization based on service review findings; it only requires that LAFCO make determinations regarding the provision of public services per the provisions of Section 56430. However, LAFCO, local agencies and the public may use these determinations to pursue changes to services, local jurisdictions or spheres of influence. F. OUT-OF-AREA SERVICE AGREEMENTS 1.A city or district may provide new or extended services outside its jurisdictional boundaries only if it requests and receives written approval by LAFCO (§56133). It is the general policy of LAFCO that out-of-area service agreements, especially for sewer and water, be permitted only on parcels within the sphere of influence and contiguous to the boundaries of an agency in anticipation of annexation. (Some exceptions may apply--See Chapter III, Section F, Boundary Lines and Item 2 below) 2. Out-of-area service may be permitted either for non-contiguous parcels or outside the sphere of influence of the agency, if the agency provides documentation of a threat to the health and safety of the public, or the affected residents, and notice is given to service providers as specified in §56133(c)(2). 3. Contracts or agreements solely involving two or more public agencies where the public service is to be provided is an alternative to, or substitute for, public services already being provided by an existing public service provider and where the level of service is consistent with the level of service contemplated by the existing service provider are not required to be approved by LAFCO. However, prior to extending surplus water service to any project that will support or induce development, the city or district shall first request written approval from the commission in the affected county. 4. Contracts or agreements for the transfer of non-potable or non-treated water and for provision of surplus water to agricultural lands for projects that serve conservation purposes or that directly support agricultural industries are not subject to LAFCO review. Service extensions providing surplus water to any project that will support or induce development requires written approval from the Commission. 5. Generally, an out-of-area service agreement will be for the provision of a single purpose service and not the full range of services an agency may provide. As a condition of approval for an out of area service agreement the Commission will require the completion of the annexation within a specified time frame, unless there are circumstances that would preclude the ability of the agency to provide the full range of services to the area. 6. Written approval for emergency connections may be authorized by the Executive Officer and service may be provided prior to review by the Commission only under all of the following circumstances. The emergency connection does not require major infrastructure development such as trunk lines, or pump stations and can be accomplished primarily by using existing facilities except for parcel lines for hookup. The agency or landowners provides documentation of a threat to the health and safety of the public or the affected residents, such as a failing well or septic system. (Documentation could be a letter from the Mendocino County Health Department, a septic tank firm, a letter from a sanitation district or water agency certifying that the subject parcel's system is in failure) The territory is within the Sphere of Influence of the agency; and An application to annex the territory will be submitted within a defined time frame by the agency. 7. Emergency connections authorized by the Executive Officer will be reviewed by the Commission at the next regularly scheduled LAFCO meeting. H. PLAN FOR SERVICES LAFCO's mission includes oversight of the orderly formation and development of local agencies including the provision of efficient and economical services. LAFCO requires that all service providers must document their ability to provide service to proposed annexations. An evaluation of an agency's plan for services is necessary to the proper consideration of any change of organization or reorganization, which expands or diminishes a service provider's responsibilities. The intent of plan for service evaluations is to ensure that the capacity, cost and adequacy of service within the existing district or city are not adversely impacted by the proposed LAFCO action and that the agency can provide all the services to the subject territory as the same level, or greater, than that presently received by the existing agency territory. [56375(g), 56375(h), 56668, 56653] The following information requirements will enable the applicant and LAFCO to obtain information necessary to render a fair and informed decision. During the required pre-application conference, LAFCO staff will assist the applicant with the determination of required project specific plan for service information. 1. Applications shall include a plan to provide services, which include information needed to render an informed decision on the project. [56653] 2. Plan for Service submittals are required to contain the following information and any additional information required by the Commission or the Executive Officer: [56653(b)] An enumeration and description of services to be extended to the affected territory The level and range of those services An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory A list of any improvements or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other terms and conditions the affected agency would impose or require within the affected territory, if the change of organization or reorganization is completed A list of any improvements, upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or permits needed to be obtained or approvals required by any local, regional, state or federal agencies and the terms and conditions of any such required permits or approvals required for present operations or which would be required if the change of organization or reorganization is completed. (Copies will be required for verification) A list of any contracts, special orders, injunctions, court orders, administrative decision or other such documents controlling the ability of the affected agency to provide service from any local, regional, state or federal agency and the terms and conditions of such documents. (Copies will be required for verification) Information as to adequacy of water [56668(k)] (See Section I, Adequacy of Water below) Information with respect to how those services will be financed Information as to reserve capacity required for existing parcels or territories (See Item 5 below) Any data or information, as may be required by any regulation of the Commission [56650(d) and 56653(b)] Any additional data and information, as may be required by the Executive Officer [§6650(e) and 56653(b)] 3. All applicant agencies must provide a capacity analysis, which states: · The number of service units available (units can be described as parcels, meters, equivalent dwelling units or other project specific units of measure as approved by the Executive Officer) · The number of service units currently allocated. · The total number of service units within the agency's boundaries, including assessment districts that are entitled to receive service · The number of service units proposed to be added as result of the annexation The total number of service units entitled to receive services as a result of the proposed project. In the event that the applicant or annexing agency finds that there are not enough service units available to provide for the total number of service units entitled to receive service as a result of the proposed project, the agency shall provide a plan for obtaining the capacity necessary to provide service. 4. All applicant agencies must provide a description of the size and capacity of existing infrastructure along with a map that depicts the location of the infrastructure. 5. The agency must provide a statement disclosing its disposition regarding its responsibility to reserve capacity for unserved parcels and a current list of unserved property within its current boundaries. The list shall include the assessor parcel number, address or location of the parcel, names of owners, the mailing address of the owners, the zoning for the parcels and the capacity needed to provide service to each parcel for present zoning. The list shall be provided in Microsoft Word or Excel and shall be titled Reserve Capacity Requirements for Parcels in Existing Territory with the name of the agency above the title and the date below. 6. The agency must provide a list of conditions that the proposed annexation parcels or territory must meet in order to receive services from the annexing agency, such as annexation costs, facility plan report, fire flow requirements, and a statement regarding who is responsible to fund required items. 7. The affected agency must provide a statement of intent to provide services to the affected territory. The statement shall include: A description of the affected territory requirements to fund infrastructure so that areas within the existing district can be served, or will continue to be served, as the same or higher level of service. Documentation that the affected territory service areas will be accommodated at the same level of service of that received by the existing agency territory. 8. If service cannot be provided without expanding service capacity or constructing infrastructure other than parcel connections to service, then the following information is required. A description of any required facility or infrastructure expansions or other information shall be provided. A schedule of completion of the expanded capacity project, the viability of the needed project, and the relation of the subject property to the overall project and project time line. A list of required administrative and legislated processes such as CEQA review, local, regional, state or federal permits required (such as State Water Resource Control Board allocation permits, Regional Water Quality Permits or the like) including assessment of likelihood of approval of any permits and existence of any pending, or threatened, legal or administrative challenges. The planned total capacity The size and location of needed capital improvements The proposed project cost, financing plan and financing mechanism including a description of the persons or properties that would be expected to bear the costs. Any proposed alternative projects if the preferred project cannot be completed; include information required above for each proposed alternative. 9. No application to annex to a special district or city shall be deemed complete until the following information is provided: A statement that the annexing agency will be capable of providing adequate services when such services are projected to be needed within the area being annexed. A statement that the furnishing of adequate services at such time as such services are needed within the area being annexed will not result in a significant fiscal impact, service level impact or other impact in the existing service area within the boundaries of the present district or city 10. No application will be deemed filed until a plan for services is received and accepted as complete by the Executive Officer and the Executive Officer is hereby directed not to issue a Certificate of Filing until the Plan for Services meets the requirements of this section. 11. All Plans for Services information shall be provide as a hard copy and a disc using Microsoft Word or Excel as appropriate. I. ADEQUACY OF WATER Under C-K-H, LAFCO is required to determine if there are adequate water supplies to meet the needs of the proposal. Section 65352.5 provides the guidelines to be used in determining adequate water supplies, which by policy LAFCO will use for all proposals. 1. Adequacy of water supplies is to be determined by: · Examining the water provider's service plan and capital improvement plan. · Sources of water-by-water right or contract. · Description of quantity of surface water purveyed. · Description of quantity of ground water purveyed. · Description of proposed additional sources of water. · Description of total number of customers by category of agricultural users, commercial users, industrial users and residential users. · Quantification of reduction of total water demand by each customer category. · Water reduction measures. Any additional information that is relevant to determining the adequacy of existing and planned future water supplies to meet existing and planned future demands on water supplies. 2. Copies of relevant documents will be required as considered appropriate by the Executive Officer for purposes of determining adequacy of water. A~ auhment # Ammendment of Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) for the City of Ukiah and Water Right License 492 and Permit 13936 (Applications 3601 and 17587, respectively) for Millview County Water District -- ~rd Chades & Assodates Initial Study Amendment of Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) for the City of Ukiah and Water Right License 492 and Permit 13936 (Applications 3601 and 17587, respectively)for the Millview County Water District Project Description The City of Ukiah (City) will be preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for review and comment on the Amendment of Water Right Permit :[2952 (Application 15704) proposed for and by the City of Ukiah and Water Right License 492 and Permit :[3936 (Applications 360::[ and 17587, respectively) proposed for and by Hillview County Water District. The proposed amendments are set forth in Petitions filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) seeking changes to: The place of use, the purpose of use, and points of diversion (points of extraction) that have occurred since the time the Permits and Licenses were issued. Additionally, the water right permits held by the City and the District have expired, and Petitions have been filed to request additional time in which to perfect the full beneficial use of water under the permits. The proposal does not include construction of any new points of diversion or any other physical improvements. Details regarding the Petitions are provided in Section 3.0 of the :Initial Study. CIl"f OF UKIAH Department of Planning & Community Development 300 Seminaw Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 planning@cityofukiah.com Notice of Preparation Environmental Impact Report Amendment of Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) for the City of Ukiah and Water Right License 492 and Permit 13936 (Applications 3601 and 17587, respectively) for Millview County Water District To: State Water Resources Control Board CA Dept of Fish and Game, Region 3 Russian River Flood Control Division of Water Rights PO Box 47 District 901 P Street, 3"* Floor Yountville, CA 94599 Sacramento, CA 95514 State Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region (1) 5550 Skylane Bird, Suite A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 U S Fish and Wildlife Service U S Department of Interior 2800 Cottage Way, RM W260 Sacramento, CA 95821-6340 Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement District 151 Laws Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Other Interested Groups Organization, and Persons Mendocino County Water Agency 890 North Bush Street, RM 21 Ukiah, CA 95482 U.S Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District Office 333 Market Street, RM 701 San Francisco, CA 94105-2195 National Marine Fisheries SePzice 777 Sonoma Avenue, RM 325 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 State Clearinghouse, Sacramento Willow County Water District Sonoma County Water Agency Cities of Santa Rosa, Cloverdale, Healdsburg, and Windsor County of Sonoma Sonoma County Water Agency Lead Agency: Pursuant to state and local guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), please be advised that the City of Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development will be the lead agency for the project. Contact: Charley Stump, Director Consulting Firm: Leonard Charles & Associates - 7 Robie Court, San Anselmo, CA 94960 Project Description: The City of Ukiah (City) will be preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for review and comment on the Amendment of Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) proposed for and by the City of Ukiah and Water Right License 492 and Permit 13936 (Applications 3601 and 17587, respectively) proposed for and by Millview County Water District (hereafter called the project). The proposed amendments are set forth in Petitions filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) seeking changes to the place of use1 purpose of use, and points of diversion (points of extraction) that have occurred since the time the Permits and Licenses were issued. Additionally, the water right permits held by the City and the District have expired, and Petitions have been filed to request additional time in which to perfect the full beneficial use of water under the permits. The proposal does not include construction of any new points of diversion or any other physical improvements. Details regarding the Petitions are provided in Section 3.0 of the Initial Study. Initial Study: The City has prepared the Initial Study that describes the proposed project and the environmental resources that could be affected by the project. The Initial Study is attached for your review (or if the Initial Study is not attached, it is on file at the Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development, 300 Seminary Drive, Ukiah, CA 95482, where it is available for public review between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p m, Monday through Friday. The Initial Study concludes that because the project will not include construction of new facilities and would include diversions consistent with its Water Right Permit, it would not have a direct or cumulative impact on most environmental resources. Therefore, the EIR will focus on the following three areas of potential impact The onl? direct impact the project could have on the environment is by potentially increasing dry season diversion as allowed under the City's Water Right Permit. Increasing the diversion pursuant to this Permit would cause additional withdrawals of water from Lake Mendocino. The EIR will examine the cumulative effect of additional withdrawals from Lake Mendocino on water quality (i.e., the temperature of the water and the dissolved oxygen of the water) and the consequent effects on fish and other aquatic species. · The EIR will assess project consistency with the County of Mendocino and City of Ukiah General Plans and Zoning regulations. The EIR will assess the potential growth-inducing impacts that could be caused by the increased diversion under the City's Water Right Permit and the expanded place of use proposed both by the City and Millview County Water District. · The EIR will also assess alternatives to the proposed project. Comments on the Scope of the EIR: To ensure that the EIR for this project is thorough and adequate, and meets all needs of all agencies reviewing it, we are soliciting comments on the specific issues to be included in the environmental review and the project alternatives that should be evaluated. Public comments on the scope of issues to be evaluated in the EIR are encouraged. Project Scoping Meeting: Because the project would potentially affect habitat used by threatened and endangered species and because it could potentially affect the environment beyond the city and county, the project is of state, regional, and areawide significance. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City will hold a public EIR scoping meeting to determine the scope of issues to be evaluated in the EIR. The EIR scoping meeting will be held on October 3, 2006 from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. in the Ukiah City Council Chambers located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA Responsible and Trustee Agencies are requested to attend, and all other agencies and members of the public are encouraged to attend Deadline for Comments: Please submit your written comments to the Ukiah Department of Planning and Community Development by Comments by FAX or E-mail may not be able to be confirmed as officially received and accepted before the end of the comment period deadline. Accordingly, you are advised to mail written comments postmarked on or before October 23, 2006. Questions about the project should be directed to Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development - 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, CA 95482 / charleys~cityofukiah.com / (707) 463-6200. ~la~ /StL~, 'D~rector '/~ and Community velopment ¢.~ty f Ukiah /(707) 463-6200 ~ (707) 463-6204 (Fax) planning@cityofukiahcom Amendment of Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) for the City of Ukiah and Water Right License 492 and Permit 13936 (Applications 3601 and 17587, respectively) for Millview County Water District Initial Study May 2006 Prepared for: Prepared by: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 Leonard Charles and Associates 7 Robie Court San Anselmo, California 94960 Section 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Background Project Location and Setting Proposed Project Description Lead Agency Regulatory Oversight Cumulative and Growth-Inducing Impacts Initial Study Checklist Sources and References Pa~e 2 2 3 6 7 9 14 35 TABLE OF FIGURES Map 1. Regional Location 2. Project Vicinity 3. Proposed Place of Use for City of Ukiah 4. Points of Diversion- City of Ukiah 5. Proposed Place of Use for Millview County Water Distdct 6. Points of Diversion- Millview County Water Distdct Following Page. 3 3 3 3 3 3 Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 1 City of Uldah 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code 21000 et seq and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et se. The project assessed in this Initial Study consists of the amendment of Water Right Permits and/or Licenses for the City of Ukiah and Millview County Water Distdct (hereafter called "the project"). The proposed amendments are set fodh in Petitions filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) seeking changes to the place of use, purpose of use, and points of diversion (points of extraction) that have occurred since the time the Permits and Licenses were issued. Additionally, the water right Permits held by the City and the District have expired, and Petitions have been filed to request additional time in which to perfect the full beneficial use of water under the Permits. The City of Ukiah, as Lead Agency, has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for this proposed project. This Initial Study has two aims. First, it will identify which environmental resources would 1) not be affected by the project, or 2) be affected at a less than significant level. Supporting data will be provided to demonstrate how a conclusion of "no impact" or "less than significant impact" is reached. Second, the Initial Study will identity the remaining resources that the project may significantly impact. These are the resources and areas of impact that will be addressed in the EIR. Thus, the Initial Study "focuses" the analyses to be included in the EIR. Please note that this Initial Study is more detailed than many Initial Studies for a project where an EIR will be prepared. The City request that reviewing parties carefully review the Initial Study and the proposed scope of the subsequent EIR for completeness, so that the City correctly understands the issues that should be addressed in the EIR. 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The City of Ukiah, Millview CWD, Calpella CWD, and Willow CWD currently provide water service to much of the developed portion of the Ukiah Valley (the planning area). The City provides water to areas within the Ukiah City Limits and limited areas outside the City. Willow CWD provides water to the area south of the City limits to south of the planning area, extending generally from the NorthWest Pacific Railroad on the east, to large blocks of land south and southwest of the City including the Oak Knoll area and lands along Highway 253. Millview CWD serves an area extending north of Ukiah to south of Calpella, and west of Highway 101 into the eastern Valley, including the Redemeyer Road area. Calpella CWD provides water to the area surrounding the rural community of Calpella near the north end of the Ukiah Valley. Approval of the Petitions would result in one place of use that includes the existing and proposed service areas of the City of Ukiah, Millview CWD, W~llow CWD, and Calpelia CWD. Figures 1 and 2 show the regional location and the Ukiah Valley region. Figures 3 and 5 show the location of the existing and proposed places of use. Figures 4 and 6 show the diversion points that would be changed/added to the Permits. Initial Study for Water Right Pe~tions Page 2 City of Uldah 3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes the following Petitions to Amend Water Right Permits and Licenses. A. Permit 12952 (Application 15704) - City of Ukiah Petition for Extension of Time The City of Ukiah holds Permit 12952 for the diversion of Russian River undertow for municipal purposes. Water can be diverted at a rate not to exceed 20.0 cubic feet per second from January 1 through December 31. The Permit expired on December 31, 2000, and the City filed a Petition for Extension of Time for Permit 12952 with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Petition for Extension of'Time will allow the City additional time in which to perfect the full beneficial use of water authorized by Permit 12952. The Petition asked for a 15-year extension (i.e., to the year2015). Petition for Change in Point of Diversion The SWRCB has requested that the City add two of its existing wells, Wells//5 and 1/6 (UW5 and UW6), as Points of Diversion under its Permit. UW5 was installed in 1985 and UW6 was installed in 1986. These wells are shown on Figure 4. A Ranney Collector facility and Wells 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3 (RC, UW1, UW2 and UW3) are the other Points of Diversion already named in the Permit. All of the diversion facilities are existing, and the project does not involve the construction of any new facilities. The locations of all facilities are shown on Figure 4. Petition for Change in Place of Use In its compliance inspection report of the City's Permit, the SWRCB requested that the City's Permit be amended to include Millview and Willow County Water Districts' service areas, and other lands currently served or potentially to be served by the City of Ukiah. The reason for the request is that there are physical facilities in place that allow for service of water from the City to Millview and Willow County Water Districts (CVVDs). The facilities exist in order for water to be transferred between the entities pursuant to existing Emergency Interconnection Agreements (EIAs) between the parties. The City of Ukiah has Emergency Interconnection Agreements (EIAs) with Willow and Millview CWDs that stipulate if one of the entities requires water on an emergency basis, with proper notice, water will be provided to the other entity. The intent of the EIA is to improve the reliability of water service to each entity's customers in times of an emergency and/or equipment failure, to combat a fire, to allow for maintenance or repair, or in cases of contamination. Presently, water served under the EIAs can only occur with SWRCB approval. If the City increases its place of use under its Permit to include Millview and Willow CWDs, it could serve both entities water under the EIAs without obtaining further SWRCB approval for each instance of service. If the City does not add Millview and Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 3 City of Ukiah T NOTTO SCALE FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION Figure 2: Area Encompassed by Ukiah Valley Area Plan Ukiah Valley Area Plan Boundary Figure 3 Figure 5 mN J Figure Willow CWDs to its place of use, the City would have to file a Temporary Urgency Change Petition with the SWRCB each time such water is to be served under the EIAs. The City would be responsible for preparing an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of CEQA to support each temporary transfer. The Temporary Urgency Change Petition, if granted, would be valid for 180 days. Currently, the service of water from the City to Millview and VVillow CWDs is limited to that provided for in the EIAs. If the Petition is approved to add Millview and Willow CWDs to its Permit, the water dght Permit would not restrict the water use, but service for purposes other that what is specified in the EIAs would require execution of a new water service agreement between the entities. Such an agreement would be an action subject to CEQA review. While the City's EIA does not currently provide for water to be served to Calpella CWD, the City is seeking to add Calpella's service area to its place of use since the physical facilities exist for the City's water to be used within Calpella CWD by way of Millview CWD's system. The lands sought to be added to the City's place of use are shown on Figure 3. Willow CWD has concluded that it is not currently interested in expanding its place of use to include the City. Instead, Willow CWD will seek Temporary Urgency Change Petitions each time they serve water to the City pursuant to the EIA. License 492 (Application 3601) and Permit 13936 (Application 17587) - Millview CWD Petition for Extension of Time Millview County Water District holds License 492 (Application 3601) and Permit 13936 (Application 17587) for the diversion of Russian River undertow for domestic purposes. Under the License, water can be diverted from Well #6 (MW6) at a rate of 0.18 cubic feet per second from June 1 to August 15. Under the Permit, water can be diverted from Wells #1 and #3 (MW1 and MW3) at a rate of 3.0 cubic feet per second from November 1 to July 1. The Permit expired on December 31, 2003 and Millview filed a Petition for Extension of Time. The Petition for Extension of qqme will allow Millview additional time in which to perfect the full beneficial use of water authorized by Permit 13936. Petition for Change in Point of Diversion In 1989, MW1 was abandoned. Extractions from MW6 were suspended due to water quality issues. Millview has been diverting water from an existing Well Field and from its two existing pumps on the Russian River, MP3 and MP4, all of which are proposed to be added as Points of Diversion under its License and Permit. The Well Field is a 7.15-acre parcel that contains multiple wellheads, a 0.5-acre gravel recharge basin, and a water treatment plant. MP3 and MP4 are located at the edge of the Well Field and convey water directly to the treatment plant. They are also used to recharge the existing gravel basin to raise water levels in the Well Field. Millview plans to continue water diversions from MW3, and will attempt to address the water quality issues of MW6 so that it may be used in the future. All of the diversion facilities are existing, and the project does not Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 4 City of Ukiah involve the constcaction of any new facilities. The Distdct states that diversion under License 492 (Application 3601) would be better utilized if the diversion point were moved to the existing well field. Water quality would be improved and the existing facility could be eliminated. The locations of all facilities are shown on Figure 6. Petition for Change in Place of Use When the SWRCB conducted a compliance inspection of MiIIview CWD's water rights, it requested that their License and Permit be amended to include the City of Ukiah, Calpella and Willow CWDs, and all other lands it was currently serving or had the potential to serve. As stated above, the reason for the request is that there are physical facilities in place that allow for service of water from Millview CWD to the City and Calpella CWD. The facilities are in place in order for Millview CWD to transfer water to the City pursuant to an existing Emergency Interconnection Agreement (EIA), and to wheel (i.e., deliver) water that Calpella CWD receives under contract from the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement Distdct (RRFCD). Under its Permit and License, Millview has no current authority to serve water to Calpella CWD. The Emergency Interconnection Agreement with the City of Ukiah stipulates that if the City or Millview CWD requires water on an emergency basis, with proper notice, water will be provided to the other entity. Presently, water served to the City under the EIA can only occur with SWRCB approval. By increasing its place of use, Millview CWD could serve water to the City without obtaining fudher SWRCB approval for each instance of service. If Millview CWD does not add the City to its place of use under its Permit and License, it would have to file a Temporary Urgency Change Petition with the SWRCB each time such water is to be served to City under the EIA. Millview CWD would be responsible for preparing an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of CEQA to support each temporary transfer. The Temporary Urgency Change, if granted, would be valid for 180 days. Currently, the service of water from Millview CWD to the City is limited to the conditions of the EIA. If the Millview CWD Petition is approved to add the City to its water right Permit and License, the rights would not restrict the water use but service for purposes other than what is specified in the EIA would require execution of a new water service agreement between the parties. Such an agreement would be an action subject to CEQA review. While Millview CWD's EIA does not currently provide for water to be served to Willow CWD, Millview is seeking to add Willow CWD to its place of use since the physical facilities exist for Millview CWD's water to be used within willow CWD by way of the City's system. Millview CWD is seeking to add Calpella CWD to its place of use since the physical facilities are in place for the purpose of wheeling RRFCD water thereby providing the potential for Millview CWD water to be used within Calpella CWD. The lands to be added to the place of use are shown on Figure 5. Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 5 City of Ukiah Petition for Change in Purpose of Use Millview CWD seeks to add irrigation as a purpose of use under its License and Permit to cover the existing use for ten agricultural service connections. Millview CWD has adopted a policy to prohibit any future use of water for commercial crop irrigation over and above the ten properties currently being irrigated. C. Project Objectives The PetitioneCs objectives include the following: · To amend the pertinent license and permits to accurately reflect the existing points of diversion and place of use of the City and Millview CWD. To amend the pertinent license and permits to accurately reflect the existing purposes of use of the water diverted by Millview CWD. · To provide additional time for the Millview CWD and the City to perfect the full beneficial use of water authorized by each entity's permit. · To amend the place of use under pertinent license and permits to allow for service of water to other entities pursuant to the existing EIAs and other operating or water service agreements that may be executed in the future. D. Scope of the Environmental Study The Petitions do not include construction of any new facilities, so there would be no direct impact to any environmental resources resulting from construction. The Petitions seek to expand the area where water can be used and extend the period of time within which the City and Millview CWD can perfect the full beneficial use of water authorized by their permits. If the Petitions are approved, the rights would not restdct the water use, but service for purposes other than what is specified in the BAs or other existing water agreements would require execution of new water service agreements between the parties. Such agreements would be actions subject to CEQA review. VVhile no new agreements are proposed, this EIR assesses impacts that could occur if such future service agreements were executed. This ensures that the EIR assesses a worst case scenado. 4.0 LEAD AGENCY Project Title Amendment of Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) for the City of Ukiah, and Water Right License 492 and Permit 13936 (Applications 3601 and 17587, respectively) for Millview County Water Distdct Initial Study for Water Right PetYdons Page 6 City of UkJah Lead Agency Name and Address City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah. CA 95482 Contact Person and Phone Number Ann Burck, Water & Utilities Project Engineer (707) 463-6286 5.0 REGULATORY OVERSIGHT The Ukiah City Council is responsible for proceeding with the Petitions to amend its Water Right Permit. The Millview CWD Board of Directors is responsible for proceeding with the Petitions to amend its Water Right Permit and License. The State Water Resoumes Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Rights is a Responsible Agency, and would be the entity that approves the Petitions. The SWRCB will use the EIR in making its determinations. Under Water Code Section 1702, the State Water Resources Control Board may not approve any change in a water right permit or license that would cause injury of any legal user of the water involved. This EIR will assume that the SWRCB would not approve the Petitions unless the City and Millview CWD provide the necessary documentation to show compliance with this legal requirement. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is a Responsible Agency that would use the EIR to determine whether the project would adversely affect fish or other resources under its jurisdiction. On August 2, 2004, Millview CWD received a 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG for the two pumps on the Russian River (Notification Number 1600-2001-1023-3). The Notice of Preparation and EIR will be sent to CDFG for comments. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries (NOAA - Fisheries) is a Responsible Agency with regard to impacts to anadromous fishery resources. The Notice of Preparation and EIR will be sent to NOAA - Fisheries for comments. Mendocino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would need to approve any changes in the City limits and county water distdct service boundaries, and approve any out-of-district water supply agreements. However, at this time, neither the City nor Millview CWD is proposing to annex areas into their service areas. The City states that changes in the place of use do not require LAFCO approval. Concerned Agencies The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) operates Coyote Dam and holds permits that allow diversion and rediversion of stored water in Lake Mendocino at diversion and rediversion points along the Russian River. VVhile SCWA has no authority to approve or Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 7 City of Ukiah regulate the proposed project, it is a pady of interest since additional diversion of water that adversely affected its legal rights to diversion and rediversion would adversely affect its ability to serve its customers. The Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement Distdct (RRFCD) is the holder of water right Permit 12947B (Application 12919B) that allows annual direct diversion from the East Fork Russian River of 53 cubic feet per second and 122,500 acre-feet diversion to storage in Lake Mendocino, with a maximum annual use of 8,000 acre-feet by direct diversion and rediversion of stored water. The Permit identifies the allowed place of use for this water. Protests Filed Against Petitions Four agencies and one individual have filed Protests against the Petitions. The SWRCB has acknowledged receipt of these Protests, but has not officially accepted them. Once SWRCB has officially accepted the Protests, it will require that Millview CWD and the City formally respond to them. Sonoma County Water A.qency The Sonoma County Water Agency filed Protests against the City's and Millview CWD's petitions. These Protests will be withdrawn if the City and Millview CWD agree to include SWRCB Division of Water Rights standard permit terms 80(a) and 90(a) that provide for the continuing jurisdiction of the SWRCB and for recognition that pdor rights to the water be included in any order issued on the permits. If the Protests are accepted, the City and Millview CWD have indicated that they would agree to those standard terms. Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement Distdct As described previously, the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement District (RRFCD) is the holder of water right Permit 12947B (Application 12919B). The Permit identifies the allowed place of use for this water. RRFCD protested the City's and Millview CWD's petitions stating that it could result in water provided under RRFCD's permit being used outside of the allowed place of use. While the RRFCD Protests were never accepted by the SWRCB, the RRFCD stated it would withdraw its Protest against the City's Petitions provided that the City acknowledged that the water diverted under the RRFCD's permit would not be used to serve lands outside of the RRFCD boundary. The City and Millview CWD both have indicated that they would agree to this condition. California Department of Fish & Game CDFG filed Protests against the City and Millview CWD's Petitions with regard to impacts to aquatic, biological and fishery habitat. Their Protest states that 1) the proposals may result in "take" of steelhead trout, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon (all federally threatened species and coho salmon is a California endangered species); 2) Millview CWD's proposal to add irrigation as an allowed use (for 10 properties that ara Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 8 City of Ukiah currently served) may result in use of water above allowed amounts; 3) growth-inducing impacts of the proposal could adversely affect biological habitat; and 4) clarification of severa~ components of the proposals is needed. The EIR will address the three identified impact concerns and provide the requested project clarifications. N©AA- Fisheries NOAA - Fisheries filed a Protest against the Millview CWD petition. The Protest stated that the proposed changes might result in "take" of steelhead trout, a Federally threatened species, and that the project be conditioned with terms set forth in the CDFG/NOAA - Fisheries Instream Flow Guidelines dated June 17, 2002. The EIR will address proposed project impacts on steelhead trout. Lee Howard Lee Howard (a private citizen) filed Protests against both the City and Millview CWD's petitions claiming injury to existing dghts and fishing in the watershed. The EIR will assess proposed project impacts on fish. 6.0 CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Cumulative Impacts As required by the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR will assess cumulative impacts. Because the proposed project does not include the construction of any new fadlities, including any new points of diversion, the project would not combine with the impacts of other reposed projects in the area to result in any direct impacts to environmental resources. Additional water diversion by the City that may result from the proposed project could combine with other projects that include water diversion to result in potentially significant cumulative impacts. Millview CWD also has submitted a petition to extend the time to perfect its water dght Permit. However, Millview CWD already diverts all of the water allowed by its Permit and License during the summer months, but it has not fully perfected the use of water under Its Permit dudng the winter months. As winter diversion is not expected to result in any impacts to downstream users or the rivedne environment, Millview CWD's petition to extend the time to perfect its water right would not have an environmental impact nor be an increment of a cumulative environmental impact. Willow CWD has submitted petitions to extend the period of time to perfect its water right Permit, change its place of use, amend its purpose of use, and change the allowed points of diversion under Water Right Permit 13935 and Licenses 6793 (Applications 17232 and 15721, respectively). These petitions could also result in potential increased diversion from the Russian River. Willow CWD's Petitions seek to add only the unincorporated areas south of the City to its place of use and does not propose adding the City, Millview or Calpella CVVDs. Millview CWD is also negotiating with the Masonite Corporation to obtain the right to use up to 1,000 acre-feet of water each year pursuant to Masonite's water dght License. Initial Study for Water Right Petib~)ns Page 9 City of UkJah The License provides for the diversion of water from the Russian River on the Masonite property, which is located east of Highway 101 near the Highway 101 overcrossing of North State Street in Ukiah. In order for Millview CWD to use the water under the Masonite License, it would require approval of a change petition from the SWRCB, an action subject to CEQA review. If Millview CWD is successful in obtaining the use of water under the Masonite License, there could be a potential for increased diversions from the Russian River. Other proposed or planned residential, commercial, and industrial projects would be served with water from the City or the county water districts using additional diversion that is included in the proposals for extension of time of the Permits held by the City and Millview CWD. Analysis of cumulative impacts will include potential adverse impacts that mighl result from increased summer diversion of Russian River water. By potentially diverting additional flow of the Russian River, the project by itself and/or in combination with the other projects listed above could reduce water available to holders of existing permits and licenses downstream of the diversion points. The EIR will assess any potential environmental impacts to downstream water users having a pdodty of right junior or senior to that of the City and Millview CWD. Regarding downstream flows, it is noted that the SWRCB set minimum flow standards in the Russian River pursuant to its Decision 1610. Per Decision 1610, Sonoma County Water Agency is responsible for meeting those minimum flow standards via releases from Lake Mendocino. The full permitted diversion amounts for both the City's and Millview CWD's Permits were considered by the SWRCB when it issued Decision 1610. Growth-Inducing Impacts The ability of the City to divert additional water could be seen as inducing growth in the Ukiah Valley. As described above, the Millview CWD Petitions would not result in additional summer diversion, so these petitions would not induce growth. There are several reasons why the CEQA Guidelines do not require the EIR that will be prepared to assess those growth-inducing impacts. First, the approval of the project does not commit the City to transfer water outside its current service area. The City Council and the Board of Directors of the receiving CWD would need to execute a new water sen/ice agreement in order to serve water other than under the conditions set forth in the existing BAs. Approval of the proposed petitions does not commit to water shadng between the City and any CWDs. In the absence of such a commitment, the potential future effects of such interagency transfers would be speculative and not subject to CEQA review. Second, any growth that requires water that may be made available through approval of this project would be growth that was foreseen and allowed in the City and County General Plans. The EIRs prepared for those plans addressed the environmental effects of allowing such growth and discussion of those impacts in those EIRs can be referenced and incorporated herein without additional analysis. The EIR for the City's general plan is available from the Ukiah City Clerk located at the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Ave., Ukiah. The EIR for the county general plan is available from the Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 10 City of Ukiah Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services located at Room 1440, 501 Low Gap Road, Ukiah, Ca. (See Friends of the Eel River v. 5CWA (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 877). The City General Plan forecasts a projected 2015 population of 22,739 people. The County General Plan Housing Element projects a 2020 City population of 23,760 people. It forecasts a 2020 population in unincorporated areas of 78,680 people or about 20,000 more people than lived in that area in 2005. The Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan (see below) projected that over 50% of the County's growth in the unincorporated areas would occur in the Ukiah Valley. Thus, the level of growth projected within the proposed place of use is within the projections included in these adopted general plans. Third, it is speculative that the City or Millview CWD would sell or transfer water to another entity. There has been no indication that the City or any of the other districts propose to transfer water out of their service areas. CEQA does not require assessment of speculative impacts. CEQA only requires consideration of impacts that are either foreseeable or to which the approval of this project legally commits an agency. For the reasons already stated, service other than under the BAs is not foreseeable, and approval of the change in place of use does not legally commit Ukiah or Millview CWD to provide water for non-emergency purposes. Ukiah and Millview CWD are seeking the change in place of use to permit service under the EIAs without having to seek SWRCB approval each time emergency service is requested. Fourth, if any entity proposed to serve water to another entity, that project would need to undergo CEQA review at that time. The growth ramifications of such transfers could then be more precisely measured and assessed. Fifth, Millview CWD's potential future use of water diverted pursuant to Masonite's water dght License would require amendments to the License and CEQA review. Finally, any proposal to expand the boundaries of any water provider would require LAFCO approval, which would again tdgger the need for CEQA review. For any and all of these reasons, the potential growth-inducing impacts do not need to be assessed in this EIR. However, to ensure full disclosure and because the City is interested in understanding the possible long-term effects of an increased water supply, this EIR will discuss the growth-inducing impacts that might occur if the project is approved. Growth projections were developed by the County when preparing the Draft EIR for the Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan (Draft UVAP). These projections were based on the State Department of Finance's projections for growth in the county as a whole and adjusted to estimate growth in the Ukiah Valley area. Though these projections have not been officially adopted, they are the only recent projections that have been developed for the area. They are considered a worst case scenario, and they are not intended to predict that all this growth will actually occur (this is noted because some people commenting on the Draft UVAP EIR commented that the projections in and of themselves somehow induced or pre-approved this level of development). It is recognized that the County is currently revising the Draft UVAP. It is possible that the new Draft UVAP may include restrictions on new development that could reduce the total buildout possible by 2025. Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 11 City of UkJah lands outside the existing City limits.~ This projection is consistent with the projections descdbed above Table 2 Projected New Non-Residential Development to Year 2025 New Commercial New Industrial Development (in square Development (in square Area feet) feet) N. State Street, S. State 434,000 1,115,000 Street, and Forks Rural Community Brush Street Tdangle 600,000 240,000 Call)ella Rural Community 43,000 0 City of Ukiah 500,000 0 Total 1,577,000 1,355,000 Based on projections developed for the Draft UVAP Draft EIR, Leonard Chades and Associates, 2005; adjusted to delete the area in South State Street that would be sen/ed by ~MIIow CWD For purposes of this EIR, the new commercial development will be rounded to 1.6 million square feet and the new industrial development to 1.3 million square feet, for a total of 2.9 million square feet of new non-residential development. This would average 145,000 square feet of new nonresidential development per year in the proposed place of use. Most of this projected growth would occur within the proposed place of use for the City, Millview CWD, Willow CWD, and Calpella CWD. It is expected that future growth within the proposed place of use would be approximately: City of Ukiah - 1,000 housing units and 500,000 square feet of commercial development Proposed Place of Use Outside the City Limits - 3,400 housing units, 1,100,000 square feet of commercial development, and 1.3 million square feet of industrial development Total - 3,400 dwelling units, 1.6 million square feet of commercial development, and 1.3 million square feet of industrial development. Conclusion The EIR will examine the potential growth-inducing impacts that would result from the City diverting additional water that could be used for future City annexations and development of the annexed areas and/or the City providing water service to Willow, Millview, and/or Calpella CWDs. The impacts of this projected growth have been assessed in the Draft EIR prepared from the Draft UVAP. Those impacts will be summarized in this EIR. The 2005 population estimate is from the State Department of Finance. It is a January 1, 2005 estimate. Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 13 City of Ukiah 7.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST This section documents the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed project using an Initial Study Checklist and provides a brief explanation supporting the findings of each checklist item. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" or "Potentially Significant" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Because the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared for the project prior to completing this Initial Study, this Initial Study does not attempt to provide in-depth discussions of some of the impacts. Instead, the Initial Study simply identifies these impacts as "potentially significant," thereby indicating that they will be further addressed in the EIR. The EIR will identify mitigation measures where warranted and determine if any of the possible impacts identified in this Initial Study remain significant after mitigation measures have been applied. Agriculture Resources Aesthetics Air Quality Biological[] Resources CulturaIOResources Geo~.~ & Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials HydrologyNVater Quality Land Use & Plan~ Mineral Resources Population & Housing Noise Public Services Recreation Transportation Traffic Utilities & Service Systems Mand~ry Findings of Significance Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 14 City of Ukiah DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" 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 eadier analysis as described on attached sheets. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an eadier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to an eadier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. X Signature Charley Stump, Community Development Director City of Ukiah Date Initial Study for Water PJght Petitions Page 15 City of Ukiah EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This Initial Study is based on CEQA's Environmental Checklist Form. Each item on the checklist is answered as either "potentially significant impact," "less than significant with mitigation incorporated," "less than significant," or "no impact" depending on the anticipated level of impacL The checklist is followed by explanatory comments corresponding to each checklist item. A "no impact" response indicates that it is clear that the project will not have any impact. In some cases, the explanation to this response may include reference to an adopted plan or map. A "less than significant impact" response indicates that there will be some impact but that the level of impact is insufficiently substantial to be deemed significant. The text explains the rationale for this conclusion. A "less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated" response indicates that there will be a potentially significant impact, but the Initial Study determines there are adequate mitigations, which are described, to reduce the level of impact to an insignificant level. These mitigation measures will be carried forward into the EIR. Finally, a "potentially significant impact" response would indicate that the Initial Study cannot identify mitigation measures to adequately reduce the impact to a level that is less than significant. The EIR will address these areas of impact. Discussion of Environmental Impacts The proposed project would have potentially significant impacts in the areas of biological resources, land use and planning, and mandatory findings of significance. Based on this Initial Study, the EIR will focus on analyzing project-specific and cumulative impacts on biological resources, plan consistency, and growth-inducing impacts. Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 16 City of Uldah I. Aesthetics Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qua/ih/of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? x x The project does not include construction of any new facilities or new lights. Therefore, it would not change or impact views from any public or private vantage point. Because the project will not alter any existing views, it will not be a component of any cumulative aesthetic impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential aesthetic impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. II. Agricultural Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricuitural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farm/and Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use ? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-acjricultural use ? No Impact X X X The project does not include construction of any new facilities or the conversion of farmland to other uses. Approval of the petitions would not be in conflict with the existing zoning ordinances. Therefore, there would not be any impact on agricultural land or agricultural operations. Because the project will not affect agricultural lands or Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 17 City of Ukiah operations, it will not be a component of any cumulative agricultural impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential agricultural impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth- Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. III. Air Quality Where available, the signh?cance criteria by the applicable air Less Ihar~ Potentially S~gnificanl Less than quality management or air pollution control district may be relied S[gnif-mant with Mitigatio~ Significant upon to make the fo/lowing determinations. Would the project: ~mpact Incorporaled Impact 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 ? 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? Nolmpact X X X The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not result in any new sources of emissions of pollutants into the air. All pumps and engines associated with the project are electdc and do not generate air pollutants. Because the project will not increase emissions of pollutants into the air, it will not be a component of any cumulative air quality impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in the proposed place of use. The potential air quality impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 18 City of Ukiah IV. Biological Resources Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and 14flldlffe Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as 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? 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? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance ? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X X No Impact Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service ? Potentially significant impact. The proposed diversion points are all currently being used. There will be no new construction of diversion points pursuant to the Petitions. Thus, the project will not have any direct impacts on sensitive species or any other biological resources. Millview CWD has atready obtained a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) from CDFG for the Russian River pumps it is seeking to add, and it abides by the conditions set forth in that SAA. PresentJy, Millview CWD diverts water from its River pumps during the summer months pursuant to the RRFCD's existing water dght permit, which does not require CEQA review. Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 19 City of Uldah By extending the time to perfect the City and Millview CWD's water right permits, the project has the potential to withdraw additional Russian River water thereby potentially affecting the amount of water in the River below the diversion points. However, the Sonoma County Water Agency's (SCWA) existing water right Permit 12947A (Application 12919A) requires that it meet minimum flow standards in the Russian River by releasing water from Lake Mendocino for the purpose of maintaining minimum streamflows necessary to support listed fish and other instream uses. The SWRCB set forth these flow standards in its Decision 1610 which ordered SCWA to maintain a continuous streamflow of 25 cfs in the East Fork of the Russian River from Lake Mendocino to its confluence with the Russian River. Depending on the combined water in storage in Lake Pillsbury and Lake Mendocino, SCWA must maintain a minimum streamflow of 75-185 cfs between the East Fork Russian River and Dry Creek during normal water supply conditions, dudng different months of the year. Dudng dry and critical water supply conditions, the minimum streamflow amount is reduced to 75 cfs and 25 cfs, respectively, for the entire year. Unless there are "critical water supply conditions," streamflows on the main stem of the dyer are required to be maintained at 75-185 cfs depending on the time of year and the water supply conditions. Therefore, even if the City of Ukiah were to increase its diversions up to its full Permitted amount, the flow in the Russian River will not drop below the levels that the SWRCB established in Decision 1610, which were determined necessary to support listed and other fish and aquatic species. The full permitted amounts of the City, Millview and Willow CWD's Permits were considered by the SWRCB when it issued Derision 1610. This is the same conclusion reached by NOAA - Fisheries in a letter sent to the City and Millview's consulting engineers that addressed the issues that need to be addressed in this EIR (letter from William E. Heam dated June 21, 2002; the letter is included in the Appendix). That letter states, Therefore, Ukiah's project would have little effect on the actual flows within the Russian River. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the project w~uld be less than significant on streamflow and corresponding impacts on biological resources. NOAA - Fisheries stated in the aforementioned letter that additional diversions would potentially affect releases of water from Lake Mendocino if releases are accelerated or increased to meet the City's needs (or the possible needs of Millview and Willow CWDs). The EIR will examine the cumulative effect of additional withdrawals from Lake Mendodno on water quality (i.e., the temperature of the water and the dissolved oxygen of the water). Impacts to water quality could adversely affect fish and other aquatic species. This impact will be assessed in the EIR The potential changes in water quality could adversely affect a number of candidate, sensitive, and special status species of fish and wildlife, including: Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 20 City of UkJah Central California Coast (CCC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) (Federally threatened and State endangered species); Central California Coast (CCC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ifideus) (Federally threatened species); summer run steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss ifideus) (Federal candidate species); green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostfis) (Federal concern species); California coastal chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (Federal threatened species); Russian River tule perch (Hysterocarpus treski pomo) (Federal concem species); dver lamprey (Lampetra ayrosi) (Federal concern species); northern rod-legged frog (Rana aurora aurora) (Federal concern species); California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) (Federally threatened species), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (Federal concern species); and northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys morata morata) (Federal concern species). NOAA - Fisheries recognizes that instream flows in the highly regulated Russian River is a complex issue that is currently governed by SWRCB Decision 1610. As the aforementioned letter states, Stream flows in the Russian River are also the subject of ongoing analysis and discussions between the Army Corps of Engineers, Sonoma County Water Agency, and NMFS, through an Endangered Species Acf, Section 7 consultation pertaining to the operations of Coyote Dam and Warm Springs Dam. It is anticipated that the Section 7 consultation's draft Biological Opinion will be issued in 2006 or 2007, which could result in modifications to the minimum flow standards established in the SWRCB's Decision 1610. The EIR will summarize the findings of that Section 7 consultation to the degree that information is available at the time the Draft EIR is prepared. The EIR assessments of impacts to special status species will use existing sources of information and will not include field surveys or original base research. Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 21 City of Ukiah The project may induce or facJlitate additional growth in the proposed place of use. The potential biological impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant impact. Potential changes in temperatures and dissolved oxygen in water released from Lake Mendocino would not be expected to significantly affect the riparian habitat. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in the proposed place of use. The potential biological impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as 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? Less than significant impac~ Potential changes in temperatures and dissolved oxygen in water released from Lake Mendocino would not be expected to significantly affect wetlands. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in the proposed place of use. The potential biological impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EtR. 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? Potentially significant impact. Changes in the water quality of releases from Lake Mendocino could affect fish migration and spawning. This potential impact will be assessed in the EIR. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in the proposed place of use. The potential biological impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-inducing Impacts section of the EIR. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preserva tion policy or ordinance ? No impact. The project does not involve removing any trees. Neither the City nor the County has adopted specific ordinances or policies for protecting biological resources, other than policies in the General Plans and Zoning Ordinances. Consistency with these documents will be assessed in the Land Use and Planning Section, Checklist item IX(b). Initial Study for Water Pu~ht Petibbns Page 22 City of Uldah Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? IVo impact. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan for the project site. The project would not conflict with the provisions of a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. V. Cultural Resources Would the project: Cause a substanbbl adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064. 5 ? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature ? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries ? Les~ than No Irnpacf X x x x The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not result in any impacts on cultural resources. Because the project will not affect cultural resources, it will not be a component of any cumulative cultural resource impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential cultural resource impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 23 City of Ukiah VI. Geology and Soils Would the project. Less lhan Expose people or structures to potenbbl substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-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? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? 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? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not result in any geologic or soil impacts. Because the project will not disturb the earth, it will not be a component of any cumulative geologic or soil impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential geologic and soil impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-inducing Impacts section of the EIR. Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 24 City of Ukiah VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the roufine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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? 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, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. 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? Impair implemental~on of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacual~on plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild/and fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild/ands ? x x The project does not include construction of any new facilities. The project includes pumping water from existing diversion facilities. This pumping does not involve the use of any hazardous materials. The project would not create any new health hazards or be subject to any hazards. Because the project will not increase the use of hazardous materials or be exposed to hazardous conditions, it will not be a component of any cumulative hazard-related impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential hazard-related impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 25 City of Ukiah VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net dettcit 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) ? Substantially alter the existiT~g drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or dyer, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pottem 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? Create or contn'bute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff7 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a fOO-year flood hazard area slructures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a signittcant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation b)/ seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X X The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Thus, there would be no new development within a floodplain, no new runoff, and no changes to drainage patterns. The water diverted under the License and Permits is considered by the SWRCB to be Russian River surface water or underflow, so there would be no impact on groundwater supplies. The project would not add pollutants to the Russian River and would have no impact on water quality, or expose people or structures to flooding. The Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 26 City of Uldah project would not be a component of any cumulative hydrologic impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential hydrologic and water quality impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. IX. Land Use and Planning Would the project: Physically divide an established community? 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? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservabt)n plan or natural community conservation plan? Significant v~h Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact X No Impact X The project does not include construction of any new facilities so it would not divide a community. There is no adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the area. The project could potentially affect biological resources and, therefore, be inconsistent with some City and County General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance guidelines aimed at protecting these resources. The EiR will assess the project for consistency with pedinent policies, regulations, and guidelines. However, it is noted that determination of consistency is ultimately the responsibility of the Lead Agency decisionmakers. It is also noted that an inconsistency with a policy is not an environmental impact under CEQA. A Lead Agency cannot approve a project it finds inconsistent with its adopted policies and regulations, but such an inconsistency is not a physical impact on the environment. Nevertheless, a plan consistency analysis will be provided to allow the public and decisionmakers to understand whether the project is consistent with said policies. X. MinemlResources Would the project: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state ? 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? L~s than No Impact X Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 27 City of Ukiah The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not result in any impacts on mineral resources. Therefore, it will not be a component of any cumulative impact on these resources. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential mineral resource impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. Xl. Noise Would the project result in: 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 ? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibrahbn of groundborne noise levels? A substantial penmanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or pedodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 ? For a project within the vicinity of a pdvate airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact x x The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not result in any new noise impacts. Therefore, it will not be a component of any cumulative noise impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential noise impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 28 City of Ukiah Xll. Population and Housing Would the project: Induce substantial population 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 ? Induce substantial population growth in an area, either di~ctly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Potentially significant impact. The project will potentially provide potable water to areas not currently within the places of use under the water rights held by the City or Millview CWD. As discussed earlier in this report, it is possible that some portion of the projected development for this area over the next 20 years might not be possible without approval ofthe petitions for extension of time. However, water served bythe City or Millview CWD for any use other than that provided for under the existing EIAs, would require execution of a new water service agreement between the entities. Such an agreement would require the preparation of a separate CEQA document at that time. The EIR will contain a discussion of the projected 20-year growth in population within the region and will summarize the possible impacts of that projected growth. This discussion will be a summary of the impacts identified and discussed in the Draft EIR that was prepared for the Draft UVAP, as revised per comments received on that Draft EIR. See Section 6.0 earlier in this Initial Study for a more detailed discussion of the proposed approach to examining growth- inducing impacts. The project would not result in displacement of housing or population, and those issues will not be discussed further in the EIR. No Impacl X Initial Study for Water Righf Petitions Page 29 City of UkJah XIII. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilitibs, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construcbbn of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response hYnes or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection ? Police protection ? . Schools? Parks ? Other public facilities ? No Impact X X X X X The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not require any new public services. Therefore, it will not be a component of any cumulative public service impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential public service impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. XlV. Recreation Would the project 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? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not result in any new recreation impacts. Therefore, it will not be a component of any cumulative recreation impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential recreation impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. No Impact X Initial Study for Water Fb~7ht Petitions Page 30 City of Ukiah XV. Transportation/Traffic Would the project result in: Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relab~)n to the exislThg 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 ? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks ? 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 supparhhg alternative transportation (e ~., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)~ The project does not include construction of any new fadlities. Therefore, it would not result in any new traffic or transportation impacts. Therefore, it will not be a component of any cumulative traffic impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential traffic impacts of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. No Impact X X X Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 31 City o¢ Ukiah XVI. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projecYs projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No impact X x x The project does not include construction of any new facilities. Therefore, it would not result in any new impacts on utilities or service systems. The project would allow water use within the proposed service areas of the City, Millview CWD, Willow CWD and Calpella CWD. Any development of additional diversion facilities and/or improvements to water treatment facilities, would be assessed in a CEQA review when an actual project is defined and proposed. The project will not be a component of any cumulative utilities impact. The project may induce or facilitate additional growth in Ukiah and the proposed place of use. The potential impacts on utilities and service systems of that induced growth will be assessed in the Growth-Inducing Impacts section of the EIR. XVII. Energy Use The. Checklist does not contain items related to energy use, though the CEQA Guide/ines require that energy use be assessed in EIRs. Electricity to operate pumps and other equipment used to dived water is supplied to the project site by PG&E. If diversions are increased, the additional pumping would use proportionally more Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 32 City of Uldah electncity. However, this increase would not be expected to represent a substantial increase in electrical use nor would it be used in a wasteful fashion. XVlll. Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 restn'ct the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major pedods of California history or prehistory? 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)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X No Irnpacl 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 pedods of California history or prehistory? Potentially significant impact. The project has the potential to affect the temperature and dissolved oxygen levels in the water released from Lake Mendodno. These changes in water quality could adversely affect sensitive fish species and other aquatic wildlife. These issues will be addressed in the EIR. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("CumulaSvety 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)? Potentially significant impact. The project plus the projected development to the year 2025 described in Section 6.0 of this report could have potentially significant cumulative impacts with regard Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 33 City of Ukiah to water quality in the Russian River and the corresponding impacts on biological resources as described above. The cumulative impact analysis in the EIR will address cumulative impacts to those resources. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially significant impact. The project may accommodate additional development within the proposed place of use. That development could cause potentially substantial effects on human beings. These potential growth-inducing impacts of the project will be identified and discussed in the EIR. Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 34 City of Ukiah 8.0 SOURCES AND REFERENCES Bibliography California Department of Health Services 1999. Annual Inspection Report for Mil/view County Water District. 2002. Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment- Ukiah Valley, Mendocino County, Ddnking Water Field Operations Branch, Mendocino District. Entrix, Inc. 2004. Russian River Biological Assessment. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Sonoma County Water Agency. Leonard Chades and Associates 2005. Draft EIR for Draft Ukiah Valley Area Plan. Mendocino, County of n.d. Mendocino County Code, D/vis/on II, Appendix C (Inland Zoning Code) 1981. Mendocino County General Plan; some elements have been revised since 1981. 2004 General Plan Housing Element. Millview County Water District 2004. Mill View County Water District LWS Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program. Ukiah, City of 1995. 2004. Ukiah Valley General Plan. LWS Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program (For Calendar Year 2003 ending December 31, 2003). Persons Contacted Bradley, Tim Stump, Charley Wagner, Robed Whealen, Paula Ziemianek, Bernie Millview CWD Manager City of Ukiah Community Development Director Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting C/vii Engineers Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Civil Engineers Former Ukiah Public Utilities Director Report Preparation Leonard Charles, Ph.D., Project Manager and Environmental Analyst Lynn Mill/man, Environmental Analyst Initial Study for Water Right Petitions Page 35 C/t,/of Ukiah ~kholas E Bonslgnore, Robert C. Wagner, Paula J. xr/nealen Monlque Robbing, P.E. Ryan F~ Stolfus To: Prom: Date: Re: Candace Horsley Paula Whealen ~ May 7, 2003 Water Right Issues This is to provide you with information regarding the entities 'in the Russian River watershed in Mendocino County, other than the City of Uldah, whose water rights are repres¢nted by Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Engineers. In the Ukiah Valley, our office prepared water right petitions on behalf of Willow and Millview County Water Districts that were filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. In an effort to share the costs for preparation of the petitions ' and required engineering map, the City of Uldah requested that we work with these Districts to jointly file petitions to change the place of use under each enfity's Water rights. Our firm does not represent these Districts beyond the jointly filed petitions. In the Hopland area, downstream of the City of Ukiah's point of diversion, we represent the water rights of several agricultural entities that divert water from the Russian River and its tributaries pursuant to their own water right permits aud licenses. We also represent the water fights of a few other agricultural entities that divert water from tributaries to the Russian River upstream of the City of Ukiah's point of diversion. In these cases, the agricultural diversions are for relatively small amounts of water that are diverted from the tributaries in the winter months, generally November through March, pursuant to their own water right permits and licenses. We trust this provides you with the information you requested. Please contact me if you have any questions. COUW043.DOC 444North 7~trd Straeg, Sutte 3~2~,, Sacramento, Odgfornia 95814<)228 Pb: 91C~41,~o850 Pa:. 91~44~386~ Chronology of Petitions filed by City of Ukiah Water Right Permit 12952 (Application 15704) Action Date Date Issued for Public Notice City Filed Petition for Extension of Time with SWRCB SWRCB Inspection of City of Ukiah's Permit 12952 SWRCB Directs City to File Petitions to Change Place of Use and add Points of Diversion City filed Petition for Change in Points of Diversion with SWRCB to add Ukiah Wells #5 & #6 City filed Petition for Change in Place of Use to increase its Place of Use, and to include lands of Willow, Millview and Calpella CWDs City Amended its Petition for Change in Place of Use to eliminate Willow CWD from Place of Use City Amended its Petition for Change in Place of Use to withdraw the 11/22/04 Amendment, and make modifications to Willow CWD Place of Use. 11/15/2000 6/25/2001 8/8/2001 N/A 2/6/2002 N/A 3/13/2002 Not Required 7/1/2002 11 / 15/2002' 11/22/2004 12/6/2005 Not Required Not Required *The Petition was re-noticed on 12/24/2002 to clarify the nature of the interconnection agreements between the parties. COUJ089.XLS 10/30/06 A~xlrew T, Ban',lxst~-r D-avid M. H(~,to~, er&Bonsignore April 1, 2005 Ms. Candace Horsley, City Manager City Of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Re: Qualifications of Wagner & Bonsignore Consulting Civil Engineers Dear Candace: The following responds to your mqu~t for additional information regarding our firm's area of eXPertise as well as the services that we provide to the City of Uldah and to our client base. As you know, we provide consulting engineering services in the area of water resource management to a wide variety of interests throughout California. In addition to our work for cities, water districts and agricultural water users, we also provide services to environmental interests. Our client base (approximately 300 entities) is distributed throughout California from the southern, central and northern coast regions to the mountains and deserts. The reason for pointing this out is that each of the areas of the State have water management issues specific to that region. Our staff of eight includes four registered Civil Enginoers and two Resource Professionals qualified to perform a variety of services. The firm's expertise includes, general civil engineering related to water distribution, diversion, storage and source development. These activities include design of small reservoirs for irrigation and other uses, earth embankments, transmission pipelines, diversions and conveyance facilities. We have designed fish screens for in-stream diversions, and passive by-pass devices to divert water around impoundments for in-stream flow enhancement. We also provide services related to resource management including land use classification, water use requirements for emps and municipal uses, hydrologic studies for water supply availability and litigation support for determination of rights and responsibilities related to allocation. In this regard we have provided services to cities, water districts, and individuals in Court and in administrative hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). I have been retained and testified as an expert witness in matters related to beneficial water use, consumptive uses, water rights matters such as pre-1914 appropriative rights, riparian rights and water rights administered by the State Water Board. Paula Whealen and Nicholas Bonsignore have both provided litigation support and technical expertise in these matters as well. We have been closely involved in two complicated groundwater adjudications on the Mojave River and the Santa Maria River, and in the adjudication of Putah Creek. I currently serve as engineer for the Court appointed Mojave Basin Watermaster. 444No~b ;~trd~#,~, Suae32~, Sacramanm, Ca/~,brnta 95814~2225 Po.. 916-441-6850 19o 916-448-~8~g Ms. Candace Horsley April I, 2005 Page 2 A foundation for a major part of the firm's activities includes the administration, acquisition, and processing of water right applications, permits, and licenses and petitions for change subject to the State Water Board's jurisdiction. Of 1,400 plus pending water right actions before the Division of Water Rights, we are the authorized agent for processing 150 of them involving issues of place of use, purpose of use, changes to points of diversion, environmental documentation, and surface water groundwater interactions. We have also worked on issues involving determinations of the Fully Appropriated status of certain streams, including Putah Creek in Lake County, Temescal Wash in Riverside County, and the American River in Sacramento County. Our services for the City of Ukiah have included filing water right petitions with the State Board in compliance with its regulations and the evaluation of the City's water rights relative to priority, supply and to determine the City's need for supplemental water right coverage from the Flood Control District. We have provided technical expertise to the City's water attorney in support of protecting the City's water right interests in the recent heatings before the State Water Board. We have provided services necessary to support the preparation of a CEQA document ~equired to process the pending water right petitions. We trust that the foregoing is responsive to your request for additional information about our firm and our services provided to Ukiah and to our client base. Paula, Nick and myself are grateful to have an important client like the City of Ukiah and look forward to continuing our relationship. eouzO77.pdf Very truly yours, WAGNER & BONSIGNORE CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS Robert C. Wagner, P.E. ,onsisnore