EXHIBIT 1
DRAFTMONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
FINDINGS
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION TO CREATE
MONTEREY BAY SHORES WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMOctober 26, 2000
[new text and substantive revisions in bold italic]
It is hereby found and determined as follows:
1. FINDING: On December 1, 1998, the City of Sand City approved the proposed development project known as the Monterey Bay Shores Resort, a 495-unit mixed use (visitor-serving/residential) project. The City certified the project Final EIR on November 17, 1998 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
EVIDENCE: City of Sand City Resolution RA 98-07, SC 98-85, SC 98-86, SC 98-87, SC 98-88, and SC 98-93; Resolution SC 98-83 for EIR certification.
2. FINDING: An appeal of the City's determination regarding consistency with the Local Coastal Plan was filed before the California Coastal Commission. The Commission has chosen not to act on the appeal, nor allow the project to go forward, until various steps are completed. A permit for a Water Distribution System from MPWMD is one requirement.EVIDENCE: Letter from California Coastal Commission (Charles Lester) to Edmond Ghandour (applicant) dated May 20, 1999, on file at District office.
3. FINDING: Mr. Edmond Ghandour of SNG Development Company (applicant) has applied for a permit to create the Monterey Bay Shores Water Distribution System (WDS) to serve the area included in the following Assessor's Parcel Numbers:
(1) 011-501-014 to be divided into multiple APNs in the future.EVIDENCE: Re-submission of application dated November 3, 1999, which references information in April 22, 1999 application; both application packages are on file at MPWMD office.
4. FINDING: Application to create Monterey Bay Shores WDS, along with supporting materials, is in accordance with District Rules 21 and 22.
EVIDENCE: Permit application and supplemental materials on file at the MPWMD office.
5. FINDING: The application adequately identifies the responsible party as Mr. Edmond Ghandour and SNG Development Company. Mr. Ghandour's local agent is identified as Mr. Larry Seeman (District Rule 22 B).
EVIDENCE: Permit application on file at the MPWMD office.
6. FINDING: The applicant's property overlies the Seaside Groundwater Basin coastal subareas. An estimated 109.4 acre-feet per year of groundwater underlying the property will be used to provide potable and subpotable water for the parcel(s) identified in Finding No. 3. The Monterey Bay Shores WDS shall be independent of any other system. A professional firm, California-American Water Company (Cal-Am), will be retained to operate the system on a contractual basis. There shall not be an intertie to the Cal-Am system.
EVIDENCE: Permit application and re-application packages, including supplementary information provided by applicant, on file at the MPWMD office. Addendum to Ground Water Operations and Monitoring Plan -- Monterey Bay Shores Resort, prepared by Martin B. Feeney, September 3, 1999, page 1. MPWMD conditions of approval dated _____.
7. FINDING: The applicant, as a condition of holding a permit, shall meet annual reporting requirements for the Monterey Bay Shores WDS. (Rule 22 B)
EVIDENCE: MPWMD Conditions of Approval dated _____ .
8. FINDING: The approval of the permit would not cause unnecessary duplication of the same type of services by any existing system (Rule 22 C).
EVIDENCE: Parcels to be served by proposed WDS are located outside of boundaries of the Cal-Am service area, as shown on current Cal-Am Monterey Division Service Area maps.
9. FINDING: The approval of the permit would not result in water importation or exportation to or from the District, respectively (Rule 22 C).
EVIDENCE: The referenced parcels are located wholly within the MPWMD as shown on District boundary location maps on file at the District office.
10. FINDING: The approval of the permit could potentially result in significant environmental effects, both direct and cumulative. It is reasonably probable that the suite of mitigation measures proposed as conditions of approval attached to the MPWMD permit would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, but their implementation and success cannot be guaranteed at this time (Rule 22 C).
Potential effects include seawater intrusion associated with chronic water levels below sea level (drawdown) in the coastal area of the Seaside Basin anticipated to occur with the proposed water system operations under current regional basin management. Current management is driven by SWRCB Order R 95-10, which has ordered Cal-Am to "maximize production from the Seaside aquifer .... to reduce diversions from the Carmel River to the greatest practicable extent ..." while maintaining the long-term yield of the Seaside Basin. Cumulative effects include increased extractions from Seaside Basin coastal areas.
Mitigation measures within the control of the applicant that would partially reduce direct adverse effects were identified. They include: (1) use of irrigation water from the shallow dune sand aquifer underlying the site, and construction of a larger (1 million gallon) water storage tank to reduce summer peak demand and dampen the seasonality of extractions; (2) locate production well as far away from coast as possible on the property; (3) install ultra-low flow fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping; and (4) construct and maintain monitor wells for quarterly reporting of water quality and water level data.
Additional measures within the control of the applicant to reduce direct and cumulative effects includes proportional reduction in MBSR system water use to meet basin-wide pumping limits to the extent and duration specified by the District. This action includes development of a Water Use Reduction Plan, to be approved by the MPWMD General Manager before the District permit vests, that describes how 10%, 20% and 30% reductions would be attained during the specified emergency period. The applicant is required to construct an on-site desalination project, sized to produce up to 109.4 AFY, if other measures fail to reduce the applicant's share of the cumulative impact. The applicant must submit an engineering design, cost estimate and environmental summary prepared by qualified professionals to the District General Manager for his approval prior to enjoyment of the District water distribution system permit.
Mitigation measures that require regional cooperation and are beyond the control of the applicant and MPWMD include: (1) move Cal-Am and other large production wells inland to new sites; (2) artificially recharge the basin via MPWMD injection/recovery project or similar means; (3) construct regional desalination project if approved within five years of MBSR water system approval (contingency measure); (4) coordinate with SWRCB to assess feasibility of amending Order WR 95-10 to allow Cal-Am to serve Monterey Bay Shores WDS from Cal-Am inland wells in exchange for the applicant to cease extractions from shoreline wells on the Monterey Bay Shores property; and (5) action by MPWMD to require reduced pumping by Seaside coastal area extractors to meet specified production targets. The applicant is required to contribute funding to regional projects on a pro-rata basis. Measures 2 and 3 are potential components of the "Plan B" long-term water project contingency alternative.
EVIDENCE: Report entitled Ground Water Operations and Monitoring Plan -- Monterey Bay Shores Resort, prepared by Martin B. Feeney, August 1999 (pages 9-12 and Figures 6 and 7). Letter to applicant from Darby Fuerst, MPWMD General Manager, dated August 26, 1999 (page 2). Addendum to Groundwater Plan dated September 3, 1999 (pages 2 and 3). SWRCB Order WR 95-10, July 1995, Condition No. 4; MPWMD staff analysis and exhibits contained in September 18 and October 26, 2000 Board packet, Item VI-A. Letter from Cal-Am Water Company attorney (Somach) dated June 21, 2000 to MPWMD chairperson and Cal-Am letter (Terry Ryan) dated October 16, 2000 to MPWMD General Manager Darby Fuerst. Facsimile from applicant dated October 17, 2000. All citations are available for review at the MPWMD office. Draft Conditions of Approval dated _______.
11. FINDING: No formal declaration of overdraft in the Seaside Basin has been made to date, though recent physical evidence suggests that the basin is being stressed. Thus, approval of the permit would not increase an existing overdraft in the Seaside Basin coastal subareas (Rule 22 D). In the vicinity of the proposed project, the water strata to be extracted by the applicant (the Paso Robles Formation) has remained relatively stable and water levels have slightly increased in recent years, while other strata have declined. Thus, no evidence currently exists to support a finding that the proposed system will create an overdraft.
EVIDENCE: MPWMD staff analysis contained in September 18, 2000 and October 26, 2000 Board packets, including all referenced documents. Citations are available for review at the MPWMD office.
12. FINDING: The approval of the permit would not adversely affect the ability of existing systems to provide water to users, though concerns exist about potential indirect effects (Rule 22 D).
EVIDENCE: Letter from Cal-Am attorney (Somach) dated June 21, 2000 to MPWMD chairperson. Cal-Am letter (Terry Ryan) dated October 16, 2000 to MPWMD General Manager Darby Fuerst. No other system has raised a concern about possible project impacts. MPWMD staff analysis contained in October 18, 1999, September 18, 2000 and October 26, 2000 Board packets, including all referenced documents. All citations are available for review at the MPWMD office.
13. FINDING: The source of supply has been determined to comply with potable water standards set forth in Title 22 of the California Administrative Code (Rule 22 B).
EVIDENCE: Water quality analytical results in application, also submitted by applicant to California Department of Health Services (State Health). Letter from State Health to applicant dated March 22, 2000 stating confirming with Title 22 standards; May 9, 2000 letter from MPWMD (Stern) to applicant confirming receipt of State Health letter.
14. FINDING: In the review of this application, MPWMD has followed those guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. Specifically, the MPWMD as a responsible agency under CEQA for this action, has relied on and has considered the certified EIR adopted by the City of Sand City in November-December 1998 as well as additional supplemental environmental documentation requested by MPWMD in 1999.
EVIDENCE: CEQA and CEQA Guidelines (Section 15096). MPWMD Rules and Regulations. Certification of EIR by City of Sand City per Resolution SC 98-83. Report entitled Ground Water Operations and Monitoring Plan -- Monterey Bay Shores Resort, prepared by Martin B. Feeney, August 1999; Addendum to report dated September 3, 1999. MPWMD public hearing on project environmental review held on October 18, 1999. MPWMD staff analysis contained in September 18 and October 26, 2000 Board packets, Item VI-A. All citations are available for review at the MPWMD office.
15. FINDING: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(a)(1) and 15096(h), MPWMD has required changes and alterations in the project that address potential adverse impacts of the project. To address potential seawater intrusion induced by the project and cumulative impacts of water extractions on the Seaside Basin coastal areas, MPWMD has required the applicant to carry out the measures described in Finding No. 10 above and in MPWMD Conditions of Approval, Conditions No. 11, 12 and 13. Applicant-controlled actions include extraction of irrigation water from shallow dune sand aquifer; construction of storage tank; locate well(s) away from coastline; install water-saving fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping; construct and maintain monitor wells, and report data monthly. Other applicant actions include: if ordered by MPWMD, proportionally reduce production from system via a Water Use Reduction Plan approved by MPWMD General Manager prior to permit vesting; co-fund pro rata share of regional efforts to reduce cumulative effects on Seaside Basin; and construct on-site desalination project sized to produce up to 109.4 AFY if other measures fail to reduce project impacts; preliminary design, cost estimate and environmental summary prepared by qualified professionals must be approved by MPWMD General Manager prior to District water distribution system permit vesting.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2), the ability to carry out regional efforts identified in Finding No. 10 to reduce cumulative impacts of water extraction on the Seaside Basin coastal areas is dependent on the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies and entities such as the City of Seaside, City of Sand City, California Public Utilities Commission, State Water Resources Control Board and Cal-Am Water Company. These regional efforts such as should be adopted and implemented by these entities in coordination with MPWMD.
EVIDENCE: CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(a) and 15096(h); MPWMD Conditions of Approval dated ______. MPWMD staff analysis contained in September 18 and October 26, 2000 Board packet, Item VI-A. All citations are available for review at the MPWMD office.
U:\henri\wp\ceqa\2000\mbsfindcond091800.wpd
includes refinements by DF, 10/19/00
Previous Page
Back to Oct 16, 2000: Agenda (Item VI B) | MPWMD Home Page | Contact MPWMD