|
ITEM: |
PUBLIC
HEARINGS |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
15. |
CONSIDER APPLICATION TO Amend |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Meeting
Date: |
February 26, 2009
|
Budgeted:
|
N/A
|
||
|
|
|||||
|
From: |
Darby Fuerst,
|
Program/ |
N/A |
||
|
|
General
Manager |
Line Item No.: N/A |
|||
|
|
|||||
|
Prepared
By: |
Henrietta
Stern |
Cost
Estimate: |
N/A |
||
|
|
|||||
General Counsel Approval: Yes
|
|||||
Committee Recommendation: N/A
|
|||||
|
CEQA Compliance: The MPWMD, as a Responsible Agency, will
rely on the EIR for the Monterey Bay Shores Resort (SCH #97091005) previously
certified by the City of Sand City in December 1998, and the Addendum to the
EIR (December 2008) adopted by the City on January 20, 2009. |
|||||
SUMMARY: This action is a continuation of public
hearings held on November 17, 2008 and January 29, 2009 for consideration of Application
#20080915MBS
(Exhibit 15-A)
submitted on September 15, 2008 by co-applicants California Am
The
MPWMD Board initially continued this item in November 2008 to allow the public
more time to review environmental documents associated with the MBSE, and for
the applicant to respond to several information requests posed by the Board. On January 29, 2009, the Board opened the
public hearing but continued this item pending receipt of a formal written determination
by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regarding applicability of
the one-for-one replacement condition in SWRCB Order WR 95-10. A letter dated February 5, 2009 was received
from the SWRCB on February 9, 2009 (Exhibit 15-D), and is described
below. Technical information from CAW about
delivery of water solely from wells in the
Pertinent elements of the November 17, 2008 and January 29, 2009 agenda packages are repeated herein for clarity. The November 17, 2008 materials are available on the District website at: http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/2008/20081117/11/item11.htm. The January 29, 2009 staff report and presentation materials are available on the website at:
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/2009/20090129/18/item18.htm. Substantive letters to the Board are also tabulated weekly and are available on the website at:
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/gmletters/gmletters.htm.
The MPWMD serves as a Responsible Agency in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and relies on environmental documents adopted by the City of Sand City (Lead Agency), as discussed below. All MPWMD files associated with this application are available for review at the District office. This public hearing has been properly noticed.
The “Discussion” section in the January 29, 2009 agenda package reviewed information received as of January 21, 2009. Several documents were provided immediately before and on the day of the January 29, 2009 public hearing. This staff report will review pertinent information that updates the materials in the January 29, 2009 agenda package and was received as of February 19, 2009. Please review the “Background” and “Discussion” sections below for more information.
Importantly, Board members who were not present at earlier hearings on this matter must review all materials received during those proceedings and view the meeting video in order to vote on this matter. The meetings materials and DVD have been provided to affected Board members.
RECOMMENDATIONS: District staff recommends that the Board take the following actions:
1. Adopt the revised MPWMD Findings of Approval for Application #20080915MBS to Amend the CAW WDS (Exhibit 15-E) with specific reference to Findings associated with District compliance with CEQA as a Responsible Agency. The “Discussion” section below reviews written assertions about adequacy of MPWMD’s CEQA review that were made by participants at the January 29, 2009 public hearing.
2. Approve Application #20080915MBS; authorize issuance of MPWMD Permit #M09-03-L4 with the 33 Conditions of Approval specified in Exhibit 15-F. Board guidance is needed for Condition #32 as noted in Recommendation 3 below. The Conditions of Approval include required conditions as specified in MPWMD Rule 22-D as well as several special conditions for this project, as described in the “Discussion” section below.
3. Determine which version of Condition #32
shall be imposed. Option 1 urges
CAW to obtain an additional 59 AFY from SNG (and other available adjudicated water
rights) to reduce pumping from the
4. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Monterey County Clerk in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(i).
BACKGROUND: The history of the MBSE application is provided on the District website at:
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/2008/20081117/11/item11.htm and
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/2009/20090129/18/item18.htm.
The
39.04-acre project site was used for sand mining for 60 years, and is currently
in a degraded state. The resort proposal
now includes the following uses: (1) a
161-room hotel; (2) 46 visitor-serving condominium units; (3) 42 additional visitor-serving
condominium units; (4) 92 residential condominium units; (5) auxiliary uses to
include a restaurant, conference and spa facilities; and (6) parking, open
space area, public access, and trails.
Many “green” technologies are proposed, as described on the MBSE project
website: http://www.montereybayshores.com/.
Additional project information is found
in Addendum to the Final Environmental
Impact Report,
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/ceqa/ceqa.htm.
There are existing on-site well(s) owned by the applicant, but these are not part of the application currently before the Board. The District owns two monitor wells located on the subject parcel.
Water
Rights
Integral
to the MBSE water supply is the Seaside Groundwater Basin Adjudication Judgment
of March 27, 2006 (Final Decision). This
Decision sets the groundwater quantity allowed to be used by SNG on its property
(APN 011-501-014). The Decision also
stipulates that the
www.seasidebasinwatermaster.org.
It
is noted that the District received a copy of a February 5, 2009 letter from
the California Environmental Law Project (CELP)/Sierra Club to
Unless
reconsidered by the Watermaster, the ability for SNG to transfer excess water (149
AFY – 90 AFY = 59 AFY) elsewhere in the Basin has also been affirmed by the
Watermaster in its September 19, 2008 letter (Exhibit 15-C). Specifically, subject to timelines set by the
Superior Court, SNG or its successor(s) has the right to convert the remaining
59 AFY of the 149 AFY original allotment to a Standard Production Allocation
(SPA) by filing a declaration and serving it to all parties in the
Citing the Seaside Basin adjudication, James Kassel,
Assistant Deputy Director for Water Rights, and Chief Enforcement Officer for
the SWRCB Water Rights Division, determined that the one-for-one replacement
required in SWRCB Order 95-10 does not apply to the SNG situation if CAW water
is supplied only from wells in the Seaside Basin and not from Carmel River
sources (Exhibit
15-D). The letter recommends
that MPWMD require “strict water accounting methods to ensure that any use of
For reference, the MBSE parcel is currently within the CAW
service area, but is not eligible to receive water from the pending
MPWMD Board Information Requests on November
17, 2008 and January 29, 2009
At the November 17, 2008 public hearing, the District Board directed that the hearing be continued and made several information requests. These requests were provided to the applicant in a letter from MPWMD staff dated November 20, 2008, and included:
The “Discussion” section in the January 29, 2009 agenda package provides the applicant’s responses to the eight information requests, including supporting attachments.
The more recent information requests posed by the Board at the January 29, 2009 hearing include:
1. Obtain a letter from SWRCB regarding applicability of one-for-one replacement element in Order WR 95-10.
2.
Obtain a technical report from CAW describing what operational
changes will be made to deliver water to the MBSE parcel solely from Seaside
Basin sources, in light of SWRCB Order 98-04, the interagency Quarterly Water
Supply Strategy and Budget process, and infrastructure/hydraulic constraints in
the CAW system. A CAW letter dated
January 29, 2009 (Exhibit 15-I) stated that CAW will serve
MBSE solely from wells in the
3. District staff and Counsel review validity of assertions made by hearing participants regarding adequacy of CEQA review, particularly the need for a Subsequent EIR.
DISCUSSION: The following paragraphs review pertinent new information received immediately preceding, during, and after the January 29, 2009 hearing that have not been reviewed in a written agenda staff report to date. Revised Findings and Conditions of Approval are then discussed along with CEQA compliance. The MBSE file is available at the District office for inspection, upon request.
Obtain SWRCB Determination on Applicability of Order 95-10.
As noted above, the SWRCB’s February 5, 2009 letter (Exhibit 15-D)
determined that the one-for one replacement requirement in Order 95-10 does not
apply to the MBSE application so long as CAW water is supplied solely from
Explain CAW Water
Delivery Solely from
The applicant previously submitted materials describing the
engineering aspects of water delivery and provided attachments on CAW
infrastructure. The current focus is on
the ability of CAW to serve MBSE solely from
The key technical questions relate to the physical ability of
CAW to supply water to just one customer (MBSE parcel) from a Seaside well
given that large municipal wells are typically designed to run on full throttle
(on or off) and serve many customers at one time. Regardless of seasonal changes, CAW must
always remain under the annual limits set by the SWRCB for the
As of this writing, and perhaps due to the limited time between the January 29 and February 26, 2009 meetings, a formal response by CAW to these questions has not been received. Additional information may be presented at the February 26, 2009 hearing. Note that new Special Condition #30 requires a formal written response from CAW on this subject within 90 days of permit approval, or the WDS permit will not be valid.
Adequacy of CEQA
Review by MPWMD
For the January 29, 2009 hearing, the District received
letters from CELP/Sierra Club,
Other Agency Review
The District focus is solely on the WDS application by
CAW/SNG to enable CAW service to the MBSE project using SNG’s water
rights. Another entity associated with
water supply from the
Other agencies address the whole of the project, including the
City of Sand City, the CEQA lead agency, and the California Coastal Commission
(CCC). CCC’s strong preference is for
MPWMD to first approve the water service before the CCC hearing on the MBSE
project, slated for March 11-13, 2009 in
MPWMD Condition of Approval #5 addresses approvals by other agencies, which is required by District Rules 22-D-1-c and 22-D-3. This condition has been revised to specifically name pertinent agencies that regulate the MBSE project, and states that the validity of the MPWMD WDS permit is contingent on project approvals by these other entities.
February 2009 Findings
of Approval
The February 2009 Findings of Approval for Application #20080915MBS (Exhibit 15-E) are based on evidence provided in the application materials, including supporting documents received through February 19, 2009, on file at the District office. Staff believes the application meets the criteria and minimum standards for Approval set by District Rules 22-B and C. Pertinent information includes environmental documents prepared for the City of Sand City in compliance with CEQA; technical studies, reports, memoranda and maps; correspondence between MPWMD staff, the applicant, and/or SWRCB; previous approvals by other governmental entities; action by the Monterey County Superior Court and Seaside Basin Watermaster; and review of CEQA in light of comments made by hearing participants to date.
MPWMD approval of the application, as conditioned, is not
anticipated to result in a further effect to the Seaside Basins beyond what has
already been approved and/or is allowed.
All things being equal, there could temporarily be more water actually drawn
from the
The SWRCB letter of February 5, 2009 and the proposed MPWMD
Conditions of Approval dated February 2009 (Exhibit 15-F), which are consistent
with the SWRCB letter, will result in no additional impact to the Carmel River,
and could potentially benefit the river.
Only
The Findings of Approval also include several Findings that specifically relate to CEQA compliance by the District. These are addressed in the “MPWMD CEQA Compliance” subsection below.
February
2009 Conditions of Approval
The February 2009 Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 15-F) proposed for Permit #M09-03-L4 are consistent with MPWMD Rule 22-D governing approval of Water Distribution Systems. Conditions #1 through #4 define the Permitted System, including up to 90 AFY of CAW production to serve the MBSE located on APN 011-501-014, based on SNG’s legal right to 149 AFY of Alternative Production Allocation water.
Condition #3 includes several additional components:
·
The source of CAW supply to serve the MBSE
parcel shall be derived solely from the
· Due to system losses in the CAW system, the 90 AFY production limit is equivalent to a maximum of 83.7 AFY metered sales at the MBSE project site, based on assumed system losses of seven percent (7%). The MPWMD General Manager may consider a change to the 7% loss factor if CAW provides adequate documentation (as determined by MPWMD) showing such as change is warranted. This issue is discussed further below.
·
For the purpose of MPWMD’s Expanded Conservation
and Standby Rationing Program, 90 AFY is added to CAW’s allowed production from
the
The consideration of system losses, resulting in a lower number than 90 AFY for actual metered sales to the MBSE parcel, was requested by the General Manager on January 29, 2009, when he realized that this technical consideration was not included in the January 2009 draft Findings and Conditions. For all projects depending on CAW water, the District distinguishes between production from the well(s) and metered sales at the point of use by the customer. Based on CAW records, the system losses (sometimes referred to as “unaccounted for water”) have been 10% or more for the past four years. Using a 10% factor, 90 AFY of production would equate to 81 AFY of metered sales. This amount was suggested to the Board during the staff presentation on January 29, 2009. The applicant disagrees with this change and discussed his concerns with the MPWMD General Manager in early February 2009. District staff is willing to change the factor to 7% (the standard target for CAW system losses in the MPWMD Rules and Regulations). Using a 7% loss factor, 90 AFY of CAW production is equivalent to 83.7 AFY of metered sales at the MBSE parcel. As noted above, CAW may provide documentation in the form of a technical report to the MPWMD General Manager to support a requested change to the 7% loss factor, based on protocol approved by the MPWMD General Manager prior to the submittal of the technical report. Importantly, the SNG situation is not the same as the Sand City Desalination Plant WDS, where a brand new pipeline will transmit desalinated water directly from the plant into the CAW system at a specific location only a few hundred feet away. The District did not impose a system loss factor for the desalination project WDS due to that unique situation.
Conditions #5 through #23 reflect standard MPWMD mandatory conditions, including water quality, metering and annual reporting, conservation, required Indemnification Agreement, fee payments, timely notice of pending or actual changes to the system, and other required elements. As noted above, Condition #5 has been expanded to specify other agency approvals that are needed. Other Conditions of Approval (Conditions #24 and #25) address basic water rights and the Endangered Species Act; these conditions are not required by District rules, but are included in all MPWMD WDS permits.
Special Condition #26 addresses the requirement that District staff have physical access to the two dedicated monitor wells owned by MPWMD on APN 011-501-014, in addition to the existing production well owned by SNG. The District’s wells must be maintained in good condition throughout construction.
Special Condition #27 requires SNG and its successors to provide copies to the District of any report submitted to the Watermaster on water levels in its production well(s) on a monthly basis; the amount of water it has produced on a quarterly basis; and certain water quality test results on an annual basis each Fall. It also requires CAW to provide metered sales information to parcel APN 011-501-014 on an annual (water year) basis, and more frequently, if directed by the MPWMD General Manager. This information is used to ensure that metered sales to MBSE do not exceed the 83.7 AFY limit imposed in Condition #3.
Special Condition #28 requires SNG and its successors to give notice to the District and copies of any correspondence with the Watermaster regarding transferring the right to produce water from the Basin under an Alternative Production Allocation right to a Standard Production Allocation right.
Conditions #29 through #33 are new, and
stem from the SWRCB letter dated February 5, 2009 as well as the technical
questions about how CAW will serve the project with only
Condition #29 states that CAW must implement “strict water accounting methods approved by the MPWMD General Manager to track CAW production sources to ensure that only Seaside Basin wells (and not Sand City desalination water) serve the MBSE parcel identified as APN 011-501-014, and no Carmel River Basin water is produced to serve the subject parcel.” The condition also requires quarterly reporting of MBSE-related water production data, and that the reports shall be provided to MPWMD “in the manner and form as prescribed by the District.” It adds that the data tracking and reporting protocol must be approved by the District prior to completion of construction of the MBSE project. This means that the District will work with CAW to develop a reasonable production tracking and reporting protocol that will enable compliance with the SWRCB letter of February 5, 2009. This condition focuses on the sources of supply for the 90 AFY maximum production in contrast to the metered sales at the MBSE parcel addressed in Condition #27.
Condition #30 is related to Condition
#29 as it addresses how CAW will actually serve the MBSE parcel with only
Condition #31 requires that CAW provide the District a copy of any quarterly report to the SWRCB that includes information about service to the subject MBSE parcel.
Condition #32 addresses CAW’s
opportunity to obtain an additional 59 AFY from SNG (and potentially other available
adjudicated water rights in the
·
Option 1
“urges” CAW to obtain an additional 59 AFY (as amended by restrictions imposed
by the Watermaster) from SNG (and potentially other available adjudicated water
rights in the
· Option 2 requires CAW to enter into an agreement with SNG to obtain the remaining 59 AFY (as amended by restrictions imposed by the Watermaster) available from SNG’s 149 AFY water rights, and to show proof of an agreement within 180 days of the CCC Coastal Development Permit approval. Similar to Condition #29, Option 2 also requires careful monitoring and reporting of production sources using protocol approved by the MPWMD General Manager. Option 2 is mandatory as it relates to CAW and SNG; of course, CAW is encouraged to voluntarily pursue water rights from parties other than SNG.
District staff recommends Option 2 be adopted by the Board because CAW and SNG are co-applicants on this application, and Mr. Ghandour indicated his intent to make his remaining water rights “available to the public trust” at the January 29, 2009 hearing. The financial and legal arrangement between CAW and SNG is not the domain of the District; MPWMD is solely interested in the beneficial use of the remaining SNG water rights. District staff briefly spoke with Mr. Ghandour, who prefers Option 1 due to unspecified tax, legal and other ramifications associated with the Watermaster and CCC. He will be available to discuss this issue in more depth at the February 26, 2009 hearing.
For
both Option 1 and Option 2, the obtained water rights would be subject to the
one-for-one replacement in Order 95-10.
It is also understood that the 59 AFY would be in the Standard Production
Allocation category, and thus would be reduced over time pursuant to the
Condition #33 requires SNG to ensure
that any use of its on-site wells on the MBSE parcel does not result in more
than 90 AFY extractions from the
The net result of Conditions #3, #27, #29, #32 and #33 is that: (a) no more than 90 AFY production will be extracted from the Seaside Basin to serve the MBSE parcel; (b) no more than 83.7 AFY of CAW metered sales will be consumed at the SNG parcel; (c) CAW’s near-term rights to water in the Coastal Subareas of the Seaside Basin could be as high as 3,653 AFY (3,504 + 90 + 59); and (d) extractions from the Carmel River could potentially be reduced by 59 AFY.
The applicants have indicated that they understand these conditions, and generally agree with them, with the exception of the system losses described above for Condition #3 and Option 2 for Condition #32. Notably, District Rule 22-D-1-m as specified in Condition #19 requires written, notarized acceptance of the conditions via a Permit Condition Acceptance Form in order for the WDS permit to be valid. Rule 22-D-1-n as specified in Condition #22 requires recordation of a deed restriction signed and notarized by the property owner that includes the WDS permit, conditions, and Indemnification Agreement between the applicants and MPWMD.
The
District Board action must comply with CEQA as well as MPWMD regulations. In the review of this application, MPWMD has
followed those guidelines adopted by the State of
The District Board also relies on a technical Addendum, prepared in October 2008 and updated in December 2008, which describes the reduced size and scope of the project, particularly the reduced water demand due to new water-saving technologies that are now part of the project description. The Addendum addresses each of the questions posed in an Initial Study, and evaluates the potential impacts associated with each environmental topic. In relation to water supply issues, the Addendum summarizes information that is already in the public record and/or has already been evaluated by MPWMD independently as part of the WDS approval process. The pertinent information in the Addendum includes:
·
Updated water rights status for SNG and
determination of 149 AFY available to the project site as a result of the
· Confirmation by the Watermaster that CAW may serve the MBSE parcel based on SNG’s water rights;
· Revised water use estimates, as confirmed by District staff, for MBSE as proposed in 2009; this amount is less than the original project evaluated in the 1998 EIR; and
· Description of the MPWMD approval process for the subject WDS permit.
The October 2008 (brown cover) Revised Draft Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey Bay Shores Resort (SCH # 97091005) was provided to District staff, Board members, and was available for public review as part of the November 17, 2008 public hearing. In early December 2008, a final version entitled Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Monterey Bay Shores Resort (light blue cover, still dated October 2008) was provided to the District with minor changes to the water-related sections. The project description and water-related sections of this December 2008 document were placed on the District website and a hard copy was provided in the District foyer. The Board was provided the four pages where there were minor refinements from the October 2008 to the December 2008 versions. This information is included in the January 29, 2009 staff report.
At a January 20, 2009 public hearing, the City of Sand City formally adopted the Addendum, including an errata sheet with minor corrections unrelated to water supply or hydrology. The City passed Resolution #SC 96-06 that determined: (1) no major revisions to the EIR are needed for the revised project, and (2) a Subsequent EIR is not required for the revised project.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in CEQA Section 15162(a) regarding a Subsequent EIR have occurred. District staff and Counsel do not believe a Subsequent EIR is needed because the project does not:
· Involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects due to a change in the project [Guidelines 15162(a)(1)];
· Involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects due to a change in the circumstances (setting) under which the project is undertaken [Guidelines 15162(a)(2)]; or
· Involve new information of substantial importance that shows any of the following: (A) the project will have one or more significant environmental effects not previously discussed; (B) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than previously described; (C) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the measure or alternative; and (D) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different than those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the measure or alternative. [Guidelines 15162(a)(3)].
With respect to hydrology and
water supply, the anticipated water demand has been reduced due to “green” technologies
incorporated into the project description; the Superior Court has adjudicated
the Seaside Groundwater Basin resulting in 149 AFY water rights assigned to SNG;
and water production to serve the MBSE parcel would be pumped from CAW wells farther
inland rather than by coastal wells at the project site, thereby reducing the
risk of seawater intrusion. The current
MBSE project, with the proposed MPWMD Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 15-F)
is consistent with the
The Addendum will suffice for purposes of the District as a Responsible Agency, thus fulfilling the requirements of CEQA. Furthermore, CEQA Section 15164(c) states that an Addendum need not be circulated for public review. As noted above, the City of Sand City adopted the Addendum at a public hearing on January 20, 2009.
CEQA directs that projects should first avoid, then minimize and mitigate impacts, in that order. As described above, the February 2009 proposed Conditions of Approval focus on avoidance of hydrologic impacts via: (a) serve the project only from Seaside wells in accordance with the Seaside Basin adjudication and SWRCB letter for February 5, 2009, (b) obtain additional available water rights in Seaside to reduce Carmel River pumping, (c) implement stringent tracking and reporting of water production and consumption, (d) regulate on-site pumping to stay within limits set by the Seaside Basin adjudication, and to minimize pumping near the coast, and (e) develop clear operational plans to consistently comply with the conditions.
As required by CEQA Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093, the District Board, through Findings (and cited evidence) #21, #22 and #23 (Exhibit 15-E) has determined, in relation to hydrology and water supply, that: (a) the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, (b) mitigation measures are not required as part of the District’s action on this WDS permit, and (c) a Statement of Overriding Considerations was not required to be adopted by the District Board for this action. If the application is approved by the Board, the District will file its own Notice of Determination in compliance with CEQA Section 15096(i).
Exhibit 15-K is a table
prepared by District staff and Counsel that consolidates the assertions related
to CEQA compliance contained in letters submitted for the January 29 and
February 26, 2009 public hearings, as of February 19, 2009. The specific letters received are listed and
provided as exhibits in the “Noticing and Public Comment” subsection
below. Stated very briefly, recent
information renders moot most of the assertions or recommendations in these letters
regarding interpretation of SWRCB Order 95-10, and impacts of the MBSE project on
the
·
January 29, 2009 letter from CAW (Exhibit 15-I)
stating it will serve the MBSE parcel only with water pumped from
·
February 5, 2009 letter from SWRCB Water Rights
Division (Exhibit
15-D) determining that the one-for-one replacement requirement in
SWRCB Order 95-10 does not apply to the MBSE application so long as CAW serves
the project from
·
Revised proposed MPWMD Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 15-F)
crafted to ensure that only
Public notice has been provided for this public hearing in several ways, including: (1) mailed notices to property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel; (2) posted notices at the project site; (3) posted notice at the MPWMD office; (4) notice of the public hearing to recipients of District agendas for the January 29 and February 26, 2009 meetings; (5) standard agenda/hearing notices to local media; and (6) posting of the CEQA documents and related materials on the District website at: http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/ceqa/ceqa.htm and for agenda items/meetings at: http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/meetings/meeting.htm (see Feb. 26, 2009, Item 15).
To date (February 19, 2009 at 10:00 AM), 83 comment letters have been received; a cumulative listing is provided as Exhibit 15-L. The actual letters have been provided to the Board under separate cover. Any letters received after the printing deadline for this staff report will be provided to the Board at the February 26, 2009 hearing.
A total of 77 letters expressed support for the MBSE project, lauded the benefits of the innovative, water-saving “green” technologies, and noted the positive benefit to the local economy and jobs. The “Discussion” section in the January 29, 2009 reviewed letters from environmental organizations received by January 21, 2009 that opposed the MBSE application and/or questioned the District’s compliance with CEQA. Additional letters from attorneys representing the applicant and environmental organizations were received through the day of the January 29, 2009 hearing, and were summarized by the attorneys during the public hearing.
To date, the letters containing substantive questions or assertions about the District’s CEQA compliance, regulatory authority or permit conditions include:
· CELP for Sierra Club dated January 15, 2009 (Exhibit 15-M)
· CELP for Sierra Club dated January 26, 2009 (Exhibit 15-N)
·
· League of Women Voters dated January 6, 2009 (Exhibit 15-P)
· Lombardo & Gilles for applicant dated January 21, 2009 (Exhibit 15-Q)
· Lombardo & Gilles for applicant dated January 29, 2009 (Exhibit 15-R)
·
Any letters received after February 19, 2009 at 10:00 AM will be provided to the Board at the February 26, 2009 hearing.
EXHIBITS
15–A Application #20080915MBS to amend the CAW WDS
(without attachments)
15–B Map of Project Location
15–C Seaside Basin Watermaster letter confirming water
rights
15–D SWRCB letter to CELP/Sierra Club dated February 5,
2009
15–E MPWMD Draft Findings
of Approval, as of February 19, 2009
15–F MPWMD Draft Conditions of Approval, as of February 19, 2009
15–G February 5, 2009 letter from CELP/Sierra Club to Seaside
Basin Watermaster
15–H February 11, 2009 letter from CELP/Sierra Club to
Seaside Basin Watermaster
15-I CAW letter dated January 29, 2009 regarding service
to SNG from
15–J January 16, 2009 letter from CCC to applicant with
list of information requests
15-K Staff/Counsel review of CEQA-related assertions
through February 19, 2009
15-L Updated list of comment letters received as
of February 19, 2009
15-M CELP for Sierra Club letter dated January 15, 2009
15-N CELP for Sierra Club letter dated January 26, 2009
15-O
15-P League of Women Voters letter dated January 6, 2009
15-Q Lombardo & Gilles for applicant letter dated January 21, 2009
15-R Lombardo & Gilles for applicant letter dated January 29, 2009
15-S Sand City letter dated February 9, 2009
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2009\20090226\PubHrgs\15\item15.doc
Prepared
by H. Stern, 2/18/09