EXHIBIT 11-C
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT
DRAFT
FINDINGS of APPROVAL
CONSIDER APPLICATION TO
CREATE
“
Service area: APN
259-021-004
Application #20080606AND, Permit #S09-27-L4
Adopted by MPWMD Board of Directors on
October ___, 2009
Unless noted otherwise, all cited documents and
materials are available for review at the MPWMD Office,
It
is hereby found and determined as follows:
1. FINDING: The P&B Miller
Charitable Remainder Unitrust (January 9, 2006), Perry D. Miller and Barbara R.
Miller, Trustees; and JSA Charitable Remainder Unitrust (January 9, 2006), John
S. Anderson and Lesley A. Anderson, Trustees, is identified as the owners
of the property at 2969 Monterey-Salinas Highway in the City of Monterey. The subject parcel (APN 259-021-004)
comprises 5.95 acres.
EVIDENCE: Application #20080606AND, site map and application materials dated June 6,
2008; Grant Deeds recorded by the Monterey County Recorder on April 4, 2006
(Document ID #2006029749 and #2006029750).
2. FINDING: The parcel is within the area served by California Am
EVIDENCE: Permit application as specified in
Finding #1; map of CAW service area.
3. FINDING: A total of three valid well construction permits for
three wells to serve the project were issued by the Monterey County Health
Department (MCHD) on November 30, 1999; September 19, 2003 and August 8, 2007
for Wells #1, #2 and #3, respectively.
The wells were constructed on October 22, 2000; November 25, 2003 and
October 19, 2007, respectively, and were tested for 72-hours during “dry
season” conditions.
EVIDENCE: Monterey County Health Department
Permit #99-282, #03-02652, and #07-11134 for Wells #1, #2 and #3,
respectively. State Department of Water
Resources Well Completion Reports #723409 dated 1/25/2000, #0900415 dated
12/28/2007, and e018492 dated 10/30/2007, respectively. 72-Hour Constant Rate Well Pumping and Aquifer Recovery Test with
Pumping Impact Assessment for Anderson Wells #1, #2 and #3, prepared by Bierman Hydrogeologic, dated
January 25, 2008 (referred to herein as “Hydrogeologic
Assessment”); Review of Well
Source and Pumping Impact Assessment for Anderson Wells #1, #2 and #3
(APN259-021-004), prepared by Pueblo Water Resources, dated June 30, 2008
(referred to herein as “Technical Review”).
4. FINDING: Applicant has applied for a permit to create the Anderson
Water Distribution System (WDS) for a well to provide potable and irrigation water
for office (commercial) use on the parcel specified in Finding #1.
EVIDENCE: Permit application as specified in
Finding #1.
5. FINDING: Based on District staff analysis of the well data provided
in the application, 4.74 acre-feet per year (AFY) has been set as the annual
production limit for the Anderson WDS to meet the water needs for the parcel
specified in Finding #1.
EVIDENCE: MPWMD
Technical Review of Hydrogeologic Assessment specified in
Finding #3; MPWMD Permit
#S09-27-L4, Condition of Approval #3.
6. FINDING: The application to create the Anderson WDS, along with supporting materials, is in accordance with District Rules 21 and 22.
EVIDENCE: Permit application as specified in Finding
#1.
Required Findings (MPWMD Rule 22-B)
7. FINDING: The approval of the Permit would not cause unnecessary
duplication of water service with any existing system. The subject property is within the CAW
service area, but there is presently no CAW service to the parcel. CAW water for the proposed office condominium
project is unavailable due to existing constraints and production limitations
imposed by State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order WR 95-10 and the
need to reduce CAW diversions from the
EVIDENCE: Map of CAW service area; MPWMD Permit #S09-27-L4, Conditions of Approval #1 through #4. SWRCB Order 95-10 dated July 1995.
8. FINDING: The approval of the Permit would not result in water importation
or exportation to or from the District, respectively. The referenced parcel is located wholly
within the MPWMD [Rule 22-B-2]
EVIDENCE: MPWMD boundary location maps.
9. FINDING: Approval of the application would not result in
significant adverse impacts to “Sensitive Environmental Receptors” (SER) as
defined by MPWMD Rule 11, including the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer
(CVAA). There are two active wells
within 1,000 feet of the subject well, but no SER located within 1,000
feet. Site-specific hydrogeologic
evaluations have demonstrated that well pumping of up to 4.74 AFY is not
expected to have significant impacts on the CVAA, including pumping during
extended dry-season pumping periods. [Rule 22-B-3]
EVIDENCE: MPWMD
Technical Review of Hydrogeologic Assessment specified in
Finding #3; MPWMD Permit
#S09-27-L4, Condition of Approval #3. MPWMD Notice of Determination dated October ___, 2009 adopted by the
District Board on October __,
2009 as described in Findings #21 and #22.
10. FINDING: The
application adequately identifies the claim of right (overlying use) for the
source of water supply (percolating groundwater) and provides supporting
verification (deeds to property). [Rule 22-B-4]
EVIDENCE: Permit Application as specified in
Finding #1; Grant Deeds showing ownership of property by applicant.
11. FINDING: The
application demonstrates existence of a long-term reliable source of water
supply for the proposed use of up to 4.74 AFY (an estimated 4.2 AFY for potable
commercial use and 0.54 AFY for landscape irrigation). The MPWMD Technical
Review concludes that the supply should be adequate to provide water during
peak and extended dry season periods with the production limit of 4.74 AFY.
[Rule 22-B-5]
The
long-term sustainable capacity of wells completed in fractured bedrock
collectively referred to by MPWMD as the “Miscellaneous formations” is
dependant on a variety of factors that cannot be fully evaluated through
analysis of relatively short duration (i.e., 72 hours or less) pumping
tests. The movement and long-term
availability of groundwater in these materials are controlled by the
occurrence, connectedness, and distribution of fractures. The distribution and connectedness of
fractures to sources of recharge are essentially random, and the volume of
groundwater in storage in these systems is often limited. The low volumes of groundwater in storage can
limit long-term supply particularly during period of deficient recharge. The implications of these factors should,
therefore, be taken into consideration when planning long-term use of wells
that are completed in fractured bedrock settings.
It
should be noted that MCHD well construction permits include a generic
disclaimer regarding the long-term sustainability of wells completed in hard
rock formations.
EVIDENCE: Hydrogeologic Assessment and Technical
Review specified in Finding #3.
12. FINDING: The
source of water supply is non-alluvial fractured bedrock (consolidated rock) of
the area collectively referred to by MPWMD as the “Miscellaneous
formations.” The cumulative effects of
issuance of a Permit for the subject well would not be expected to result in
significant adverse impacts to the source of supply or the species and habitats
dependent on the source of supply. These
impacts have been evaluated by the District, including calculations of extended
(6 months) dry season pumping cycles.
The existence of two wells and no SER within 1,000 feet of the subject
well, the planned local recharge using collected rainwater, and the estimated
production from the subject well were also considered. [Rule 22-B-6]
EVIDENCE: Hydrogeologic
Assessment and Technical Review specified in Finding #3. MPWMD Permit
#S09-27-L4, Condition of Approval #3.
13. FINDING: The
source of supply for the subject parcel is not derived from the Carmel Valley
Alluvial Aquifer or the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System. The source of supply is not within the
jurisdiction of the SWRCB, and has not been determined to be tributary to the
source of supply for any other system.
The source of supply is from fractured bedrock in the area collectively
referred to as the “Miscellaneous formations” (percolating groundwater). [Rule
22-B-7]
EVIDENCE: MPWMD map showing boundaries of project
site and jurisdiction of SWRCB superimposed on
14. FINDING: MPWMD
Permit #S09-27-L4 does not allow
a permanent intertie to any other water distribution system. The proposed WDS will be limited to a
physically and legally separate system and is not connected to the CAW
system. Temporary water service could be
provided by trucked-in water in a non-fire emergency such as system
failure. A stand-by CAW meter may be
installed for separately plumbed indoor fire suppression only (ceiling fire
sprinklers) as the parcel is within the CAW service area. [Rule 22-B-8]
EVIDENCE: Map of CAW service area available at
District office; MPWMD Permit #S09-27-L4,
Condition of Approval #13. MPWMD Rules and Regulations.
15. FINDING: A
back-flow protection device to prevent contamination of the CAW system is
required, if deemed necessary by CAW. [Rule 22-B-9]
EVIDENCE: Map of CAW service area; MPWMD Permit #S09-27-L4, Condition of Approval
#14.
Minimum Standards for Granting a Permit
(MPWMD Rule 22-C)
16. FINDING: The
application adequately identifies the responsible party as the property owner
specified in Finding #1.
EVIDENCE: Permit application and Grant Deeds
specified in Finding #1.
17. FINDING: The
application meets the definition of a “Single-Parcel Connection System” but it
will provide potable water for commercial use on the parcel identified in
Finding #1. It is therefore subject to,
and must conform with California Title 22 water quality standards as
administered by MCHD. [Rule 22-C-2]
EVIDENCE: Permit application as specified in
Finding #1. MPWMD Permit #S09-27-L4,
Conditions of Approval #1, #2, #3, and #15; California Administrative Code,
Title 22; MPWMD Rule 11.
18. FINDING: The
application identifies the location of the source of supply for water
distribution system (water source and well site). [Rule 22-C-3]
EVIDENCE: Permit application as specified in
Finding #1, including location map.
MPWMD Permit #S09-27-L4, Condition of Approval #4.
19. FINDING: The
approval of the application would not create an overdraft or increase an
existing overdraft of a groundwater basin.
No overdraft has been declared for the fractured bedrock (consolidated
rock) in the area collectively referred to by MPWMD as the “Miscellaneous
formations.” [Rule 22-C-4]
EVIDENCE: MPWMD hydrologic monitoring data and
annual reports; MPWMD Permit #S09-27-L4,
Condition of Approval #3.
20. FINDING: The
approval of the application would not adversely affect the ability of existing
systems to provide water to users due to conditions of approval that limit
future water use to a reasonable and acceptable amount. Overlying water rights
holders are also co-equal to other overlying users. [Rule 22-C-5]
EVIDENCE: MPWMD hydrologic monitoring data and
annual reports; Hydrogeologic Assessment
and Technical Review
specified in Finding #3; MPWMD Permit #S09-27-L4, Condition of
Approval #3.
Compliance with
21. FINDING: In
the review of this application, MPWMD has followed those guidelines adopted by
the State of
Copies
of the City of
EVIDENCE: CEQA Guidelines Section 15096; City of
Monterey Use Permit #08-235; MPWMD Notice of Determination for Anderson WDS
dated October ___,
2009, as directed by the Board at a public hearing on October ___, 2009.
22. FINDING: Pursuant
to CEQA Section 15091, the MPWMD Board finds that the project will not
have a significant effect on the environment, based on the documentation cited
in Finding #21 as well as the hydrogeologic information provided in Finding
#3. Mitigation measures are not made as
conditions of approval by MPWMD for this action. The full record for the “
EVIDENCE: Findings and Evidence provided in
Finding #21 above; MPWMD Notice of Determination dated October ___, 2009 as described in Finding
#21.
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2009\20091019\PubHrgs\11\item11_exh11c.doc