EXHIBIT 21-D
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT
FINDINGS of APPROVAL
CONSIDER APPLICATION TO AMEND
Service area: APN 011-501-014
Application #20080915MBS,
Permit #M10-07-L4
Adopted by MPWMD Board of Directors on July
_XX__, 2010
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: Security National
Guaranty, Inc., (SNG) is identified as the owner of the subject 39.04-acre
parcel in
EVIDENCE: Application #20080915MBS, site map and associated materials submitted September
15, 2008; additional application materials submitted in October 2008. MPWMD Permit #M07-03-L4 to CAW approved on
October 15, 2007. MPWMD Ordinance No.
132 adopted January 24, 2008. Notice of
Determination for MBSE filed by City of Sand City on December 2, 1998. Seaside
Groundwater Basin Adjudication Judgment dated March 27, 2006, as amended, Monterey
Superior Court Case #M66343, California American Water vs. City of Seaside et al. (referred to herein as the “Seaside
Basin Adjudication Decision”).
2. FINDING: The 39.04-acre parcel is in the process of being annexed
into the CAW service area. Two Advice Letters filed by CAW with the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) in 2008 and 2009 were rejected for technical
reasons. In October 2009, CAW submitted
a third Advice Letter, but withdrew it in November 2009 due to ongoing
litigation. On July 9, 2010, CAW
prepared a new Advice Letter No. 850 to the CPUC to renew its annexation
request; CPUC approval is expected shortly.
EVIDENCE: Permit application and other materials specified
in Finding #1. CAW Advise Letter No. 712
to the CPUC and map dated October 23, 2008; CAW Advice Letter No. 724 dated
January 26, 2009; CAW Advise Letter No. 806 dated October 30, 2009; CAW letter
dated November 24, 2009 withdrawing Advice Letter No. 806; CAW letter to MPWMD
dated July 6, 2010 describing annexation history; CAW Advice Letter No. 850 to
the CPUC dated July 9, 2010.
3. FINDING: No new wells or water supply facilities regulated by
MPWMD are associated with this permit application. The Monterey County Superior Court, Seaside
Groundwater Basin Watermaster and Sixth District Court of Appeal have confirmed
that an Alternative Production Allocation (APA) of 149 AFY is reserved for use
on the subject property, and may be delivered from offsite CAW well(s) located
in the
EVIDENCE: Permit application and other materials specified
in Finding #1. Seaside Basin Adjudication
Decision specified in Finding #1. Letter
from Seaside Basin Watermaster to SNG dated September 19, 2008. Order After Hearing on SNG’s Motion to
Enforce and Clarify the Amended Decision, Case #M66343, filed by the Monterey
County Superior Court (Judge Roger Randall) on May 11, 2009 (referred to herein
as “Court Order”); Sixth District Court of Appeal Decision, Case #H034335,
dated April 1, 2010 (referred to herein as the “Appeal Decision”).
4. FINDING: The applicants have applied for a permit to amend the CAW
Water Distribution System (WDS) to enable CAW to produce (“wheel”) up to 90 AFY
of SNG’s water to serve parcel APN 011-501-014 via a “Front-Loading” Water
Delivery Agreement.
EVIDENCE: Permit application materials specified
in Finding #1. MPWMD Permit #M10-07-L4, Conditions of Approval #3 and #4. Agreement Between Security National Guaranty,
Inc. and California American Water Regarding Front-Loading Delivery of Water
executed on May 18, 2009 (referred to herein as the “Water Delivery
Agreement”).
5. FINDING: Based on District staff analysis of the application, 90 AFY
has been set as the annual CAW production limit from the
EVIDENCE: MPWMD Permit #M10-07-L4, Condition of
Approval #3. CPUC Decision 09-07-021 dated July 9, 2009 (issuance date
7/10/2009); MPWMD Rules & Regulations.
6. FINDING: The application to amend the CAW water distribution system, along with supporting materials, is in accordance with District Rules 21 and 22.
EVIDENCE: Permit application materials specified
in Finding #1. Letter from MPWMD to SNG
dated October 31, 2008 re: complete application.
Required Findings (MPWMD Rule 22-B)
7. FINDING: The approval of the permit would not cause unnecessary
duplication of potable water service with any existing system. The
proposed system will be limited to one master CAW connection for the resort
complex on the subject parcel, and will be guided by a Water Delivery Agreement
between SNG and CAW. It is noted that an
onsite well owned by SNG exists on the property, and could be used as a back-up,
with proper treatment for potable use. Two
monitoring wells owned by MPWMD also exist on the property. The property
benefits from overlying water rights to percolating groundwater. [Rule 22-B-1]
EVIDENCE: Permit application materials specified
in Finding #1. Water Delivery Agreement described in Finding #4. MPWMD Permit #M10-07-L4, Conditions of Approval #1 through #4.
8. FINDING: The approval of the permit would not result in water
importation or exportation to or from the District, respectively. The
referenced property is located wholly within the MPWMD. [Rule 22-B-2]
EVIDENCE: District 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
EVIDENCE:
10. FINDING: The
application is based on specified water rights associated with the subject
parcel as determined by the Superior Court as part of the Seaside Basin
Adjudication. [Rule 22-B-4]
EVIDENCE:
11. FINDING: A
long-term reliable source of water supply of 90 AFY of CAW is available to the
subject property as this amount is less than the 149 AFY specified under the
Seaside Basin Adjudication. [Rule
22-B-5]
EVIDENCE:
12. FINDING: The
source of water supply is the CAW water distribution system, solely from wells
in the Seaside Basin, consistent with the May 2009 Court Order, April 1, 2010 Appeal
Decision, and Water Delivery Agreement. The
cumulative effects of issuance of this WDS permit do not result in significant
adverse impacts to the source of supply or the species and habitats dependent
on the source of supply due to actions by the Superior Court to reduce
EVIDENCE: MPWMD Permit #M10-07-L4, Condition of
Approval #3. Letter from Craig
Anthony, CAW General Manager, dated January 29, 2009. Letter from James Kassel, State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Assistant Deputy Director for Water Rights,
dated February 5, 2009. Seaside Basin
Adjudication Decision specified in Finding #1. May 11, 2009 Court Order and
April 1, 2010 Appeal Decision specified in Finding #3. Water Delivery Agreement specified in Finding
#4.
13. FINDING: The
source of supply for the subject parcel is derived from the Paso Robles and
Santa Margarita Aquifers in the
EVIDENCE: MPWMD hydrogeologic maps on file. January
20, 2009 e-mail confirmation of Kenneth Emanuel, SWRCB technical staff member,
confirming applicant written summary of October 10, 2008 meeting regarding
SWRCB jurisdiction in
14. FINDING: MPWMD
Permit #M10-07-L4 does not allow
a permanent intertie to any other water distribution system. The proposed project will be connected to the
CAW system, which derives supply from several wells in the
EVIDENCE: Permit application materials specified
in Finding #1. MPWMD Permit #M10-07-L4, Conditions of Approval #3,
#4, #13 and #32. Water Delivery
Agreement specified in Finding #4.
15. FINDING: A
back-flow protection device to prevent contamination of the CAW system is not necessary
as CAW is the water purveyor. CAW may
determine that a device is needed if a non-CAW onsite well is activated for back-up
use. [Rule 22-B-9]
EVIDENCE: Permit application materials specified in
Finding #1. MPWMD Permit #M10-07-L4, Condition of Approval #14.
Minimum Standards for Granting a Permit
(MPWMD Rule 22-C)
16. FINDING: The
application adequately identifies the responsible parties as California
American Water and Security National Guaranty, Inc. [Rule 22-C-1]
EVIDENCE: Permit application materials specified
in Finding #1.
17. FINDING: The
application meets the definition of a “multiple-parcel connection system” as
water will be provided by CAW, a public utility with nearly 39,000 customers, for
commercial, residential and landscape use on the 39.04-acre parcel, and is therefore
subject to California Title 22 water quality standards. [Rule 22-C-2]
EVIDENCE: Permit application specified in Finding
#1. MPWMD Permit #M10-07-L4, Conditions
of Approval #1, #2, #3, and #15.
18. FINDING: The
application identifies the location of the source of supply for the water
distribution system as CAW wells in the
EVIDENCE: Permit application specified in Finding
#1, including engineering maps. Letter from Craig Anthony, CAW General Manager,
dated January 29, 2009. MPWMD Permit #M10-07-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, and a superior right has been
demonstrated. The Superior Court has
determined the “natural safe yield” and specified pumping rights of property
owners as part of the Seaside Basin Adjudication, and has designated 149 AFY
for SNG for use on the MBSE parcel identified in Finding #1. [Rule
22-C-4]
EVIDENCE:
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:
Compliance with
21. FINDING: In
the review of this application, MPWMD has followed those guidelines adopted by
the State of
EVIDENCE: Notice of Determination for Monterey Bay
Shores Resort Final EIR (SCH#97091005), filed with the County Clerk on December
2, 1998, along with Cal. Dept. of Fish and Game Environmental Filing Fee Cash
Receipt #68608. List of resolutions of
approval by
22. FINDING: Pursuant
to CEQA Sections 15091 and 15092, the MPWMD Board finds that the project will not
have a significant effect on the environment, based on the documentation cited in
Finding #21. Mitigation measures are not
made as conditions of approval by MPWMD for this action. The full record for
all facets of the project is located in the offices of the City of Sand City,
EVIDENCE: Findings and Evidence provided in
Finding #21 above. MPWMD Notice of Determination prepared July XX, 2010 as described in
Finding #21.
23. FINDING: Pursuant
to CEQA Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was not required
to be adopted by the MPWMD Board for approval of the subject permit.
EVIDENCE: Findings and Evidence provided in
Finding #21 above. MPWMD Notice of Determination prepared July XX, 2010 as
described in Finding #21.
CAW Request for
Moratorium on New Connections
24. FINDING: In
May 2010, CAW filed a request to the CPUC for a moratorium on new connections within
its Monterey District, with certain defined exceptions, until compliance with
the SWRCB Cease and Desist Order has been achieved. The text of the filing is
unclear regarding the effect on the MBSE parcel, but CAW representatives have
stated the intent was to exclude the MBSE parcel from the moratorium because
the Water Delivery Agreement ensures that Carmel River resources would not be
affected.. SNG submitted a formal
response to the CPUC on July 1, 2010 requesting clarification that all parcels
in
EVIDENCE: SWRCB Order WR 2009-0060 issued October
2009; CAW Amended Application to the California Public Utilities Commission
dated May 27, 2010 (Application #10-05-020 filed May 24, 2010); SNG Response to
CAW Application #10-05-020 dated July 1, 2010; CAW letter to MPWMD dated July
6, 2010.
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2010\20100719\PublicHrgs\21\item21_exh21d.doc