CONSIDER APPLICATION TO Amend California American Water Distribution System to ServE Monterey Bay Shores Ecoresort IN Sand City; California American Water and Security National Guaranty, co-applicants; MPWMD Application #20080915MBS; APN 011-501-014


Meeting Date:

January 29, 2009





Darby Fuerst,




General Manager

Line Item No.:     N/A


Prepared By:

Henrietta Stern

Cost Estimate:



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 a public hearing held on November 17, 2008 for consideration of Application #20080915MBS (Exhibit 18-A) submitted on September 15, 2008 by co-applicants California American Water (CAW) and Security National Guaranty, Inc. (SNG).  The item was continued to allow the public more time to review environmental documents associated with the Monterey Bay Shores Ecoresort (MBSE) in Sand City, and for the applicant to respond to several information requests posed by the District Board.  The MPWMD Board’s action solely relates to California American Water (CAW) supply to the affected parcel, not the overall merits of the proposed resort.


Pertinent elements of the November 17, 2008 staff note are repeated herein for clarity; the complete November 2008 materials are available on the District website at:


Various quantities of water have been estimated for the project.  As of January 16, 2009, the MBSE application requests District approval to enable CAW service of up to 90 acre-feet per year (AFY) to Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 011-501-014, the site of the proposed Ecoresort (Exhibit 18-B).  CAW extractions from the Seaside Groundwater Basin could increase by up to 90 AFY based on water rights held by SNG as specified in the Seaside Basin adjudication, and approved by the Seaside Basin Watermaster in a letter dated September 19, 2008 (Exhibit 18-C).  The Court determined in March 2006 that SNG has rights to 149 AFY to serve the 39-acre parcel, based on its historical use as a sand mine.  There are no new wells or other major facilities associated with this action.  The “Discussion” section below reviews new information provided by the applicant in December 2008 and January 2009 in response to information requests by the Board. 

The MPWMD serves as a Responsible Agency in this matter 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 files associated with this application are available for review at the District office.  This public hearing has been properly noticed.


RECOMMENDATIONS:  District staff recommends that the Board take the following actions:


1.      Adopt the MPWMD Findings of Approval for Application #20080915MBS to Amend the CAW WDS (Exhibit 18-D) with specific reference to Findings associated with District compliance with CEQA as a Responsible Agency.


2.      Approve Application #20080915MBS; authorize issuance of MPWMD Permit #M09-03-L4 with the 28 Conditions of Approval specified in Exhibit 18-E.  The Conditions of Approval include required conditions as specified in MPWMD Rule 22-D as well as special conditions for this project.


3.      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:


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 visitor-serving condominium units; (4) 92 residential condominium units; (5) auxiliary uses to include a restaurant, conference and spa facilities; (6) open space area, public access and parking, and trails.  Many sustainable “green” technologies are proposed, as described on the MBSE project website:  Water-related technologies are discussed below.  Additional project information is found in Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report, Monterey Bay Shores Resort, SCH #97091005 (light blue cover dated October 2008, but actually printed in December 2008).  This version contains updated information as described in the “CEQA Compliance” subsection below, and is provided on the District website at: 


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 Seaside Groundwater Basin shall be administered by a Watermaster.  SNG was granted an Alternative Production Allocation (APA) of 149 AFY under the Decision, which is not reduced over time.    In a letter dated September 19, 2008 (Exhibit 18-C), the Watermaster confirmed SNG’s right to produce 149 AFY from the Seaside Groundwater Basin for beneficial use on the SNG property.  Importantly, the APA does not constrain the production to occur on the subject parcel through SNG’s existing on-site wells. Water may be produced from another offsite well owned by another entity and delivered to the SNG parcel so long as the well is within the Seaside Basin.  Hence, CAW may deliver water to the MBSE site through CAW wells located further inland.  From a hydrogeologic perspective, production from inland wells is preferable to production by coastal wells as the risk of seawater intrusion is reduced.  The adjudication decision and other information are available on the Watermaster’s website at:  


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 18-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 Seaside Basin litigation.  This 59 AFY, if converted from an APA to SPA, would be subject to reduction calculations as provided in the Decision.  Water produced from the Basin under a SPA is not restricted to use on the SNG property.   Notably, conversion of the 59 AFY is not the subject of Application #20080915MBS before the District Board.


MPWMD Information Requests in November 2008

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:


  1. Obtain letter from Monterey County Health Department that concurs with the gray water reuse technology that is proposed for MBSE. 
  2. Compare water use in similar mixed use resorts or full-service hotel/spas, if available, to the water use proposed for MBSE; explain how MBSE would use less water than a similar resort that does not employ the water-saving technologies proposed for MBSE.
  3. Demonstrate how the MBSE water use estimates were derived, and obtain concurrence from MPWMD staff.  
  4. Explain water rights associated with MBSE parcel and use of these rights by CAW.  Explain how CAW would deliver water to the parcel and how the projected monthly water demand would be served by CAW, especially during the high-flow period (November through April), when CAW is required to minimize its production from the Seaside Basin.  Explain the role of proposed Sand City desalination project, if any.
  5. Address means to ensure migrating, wind-blown sand will not adversely affect operation of water-saving equipment and technology.
  6. Provide water-related sections of the October 2008 Addendum for public review on the MPWMD website, including project description (Section 3), hydrology/water quality (Section 4.8) and public utilities (Section 4.16).
  7. Encourage City of Sand City and California Coastal Commission to provide October 2008 Addendum for public review, with the full document available on a website. 
  8. Provide list of local public outreach or public review opportunities prior to the January 29, 2009 MPWMD Board meeting.


The applicant responded to these eight information requests in a letter dated December 22, 2008, which was part of a package received on December 23, 2008, as described below.  Additional information was received via e-mail through early January 2009.  The “Discussion” section below highlights pertinent information submitted by the applicant that responds to the eight requests.

DISCUSSION:  The following paragraphs review the applicant’s responses to the eight information requests, and highlight new information.  Findings and Conditions of Approval are then discussed along with CEQA compliance.


Exhibit 18-F provides the applicant’s December 22, 2008 response to each of the eight information requests.  The entire December 2008 package is not reproduced herein as several attachments (more than 150 pages) consist of copies of previous Court Decisions and State of California regulations already in the public record.  For some items, attachments referenced in the December 22, 2008 overview have been superseded by more recent January 2009 information; these older versions are also not provided herein in order to avoid confusion.  Instead, the most recent, accurate information submitted by the applicant is provided as various exhibits in this MPWMD staff package. The MBSE file is available at the District office for inspection upon request.


Item 1:  Provide Letter from Monterey County Health Department re: Gray Water Reuse

Exhibit 18-G is a December 23, 2008 letter from the Monterey County Health Department (MCHD) concurring with the gray water reuse scenario described in the applicant’s “Water Process Flow Diagram” dated December 23, 2008 along with accompanying descriptive text.  It is noted that some of the original MBSE reuse concepts had to be changed to conform with MCHD and State regulations, particularly the restriction to subsurface irrigation only.


Subsequent to the MCHD letter, the District was contacted by staff from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), who expressed concerns about certain elements of the gray water reuse approved by MCHD.  Exhibit 18-H is a January 7, 2009 e-mail from Mr. Matt Keeling, expressing support for such sustainable technologies, but noting regulatory issues associated with gray water discharge, which is currently classified as a “waste discharge.”   In response, the applicant amended the “Water Process Flow Diagram” dated December 23, 2008 to a new diagram and description dated January 7, 2009 (Exhibit 18-I).  In an e-mail dated January 8, 2009, Mr. Keeling noted his satisfaction with revised design (Exhibit 18-J). 


Item 2:  Compare Water Use in Similar Mixed Use Resorts, If Available

The applicant’s response (Exhibit 18-F) explains why comparisons are not possible, given the unique nature of individual resorts.  The response provides reasons why the MBSE project would use less water than standard resorts of a similar size.


Item 3: Provide Water Use Calculations and Obtain MPWMD Staff Concurrence

The Board requested that a table be prepared showing the components of the MBSE project and how water use was estimated.  Exhibit 18-K includes a summary table dated December 22, 2008 that relies on MPWMD water use factors.  This table assumes 100% occupancy, no reuse of water from laundry facilities, and the need for 1.2 AFY of potable water to augment non-potable (recycled/gray water) irrigation sources.  Water use is estimated at 62.99 AFY with this scenario.  The total estimated use is 71.08 AFY if the gray water/recycle systems are assumed to be non-functioning, a difference of 8.09 AFY.  District permit staff has reviewed the summary table and the supporting MPWMD forms from which the table was derived, and concurs with these water use estimates.   The forms and related raw data are available for inspection, upon request.


As requested by the Chair/Vice-Chair on January 2, 2009, a second table dated January 7, 2009 (Exhibit 18-L) compares the original 1998 project proposal, and the current MBSE proposal with and without water-saving technologies in place. This table also takes into account the revised “Water Process Flow Diagram” described in Item #1 above.  Net water use with the project as proposed is estimated to be 56.99 AFY with all reuse technologies in place; estimated water use could increase to 71.08 AFY if reuse systems fail.  The 1998 project proposal envisioned 99 to 125 AFY.  The exhibit also provides a figure to illustrate these comparisons.


Regardless of the assumptions made about reuse, a maximum amount of 90 AFY is requested in the application.  This higher amount would provide 26% to 58% more water above the base amount (depending on assumptions made), and would serve as a buffer to account for highly unusual circumstances and/or additional irrigation needed to establish vegetation after the completion of construction.  Recall that the MBSE can receive up to 149 AFY from the Seaside Basin, so water supply is not a limiting factor.


It is noted that water use calculations will be finalized by MPWMD staff after the project is approved by the California Coastal Commission and City of Sand City, and final construction drawings are prepared as part of the building permit process.


Item 4:  Explain MBSE Water Rights and Water Delivery by CAW

The applicant’s response (Exhibit 18-F) describes the Seaside Basin adjudication and water rights associated with the property, and the ability of CAW to use those rights based on approvals by the Watermaster.  The response asserts that CAW’s use of the applicant’s Alternative water rights from the Seaside Basin under the adjudication places this supply in a different and independent  category from CAW water production described in State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order 95-10.  The response describes the engineering aspects of water delivery and provides attachments on CAW infrastructure.  The engineering figures are available for inspection, upon request.  The MBSE is not a recipient of water from the pending Sand City desalination project; MPWMD Ordinance No. 132, adopted in January 2008,  prohibits service to the MBSE from the desalination project because MBSE has its own independent source of Seaside Basin water. 


Item 5:  Address Potential Effects of Wind-Blown Sand

The applicant’s response (Exhibit 18-F) describes measures taken to prevent or minimize damage to water-saving equipment by wind-blown sand.


Item 6:  Provide Water-Related Sections of MBSE Addendum for Public Review

On December 3, 2008, the applicant provided the District a CD with project description and water–related sections of the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report, Monterey Bay Shores Resort, SCH #97091005, which was placed on the District website the following week.  A hard copy of this document (light blue cover) was placed in the District foyer on December 12, 2008.  The Addendum excerpts may be found on the District website at: 


Item 7:  Encourage Sand City to Provide Full Addendum for Public Review

The applicant’s response (Exhibit 18-F) describes efforts to work with the lead agency, the City of Sand City, to provide public review opportunities for the full Addendum.  There are links available from the MBSE website at:  As described in the “CEQA Compliance” section below, the City formally adopted the Addendum at a public hearing held on January 20, 2009 via Resolution #SC 09-06.


Item 8:  Public Outreach Efforts

The applicant’s response (Exhibit 18-F) describes public outreach efforts since the MPWMD hearing on November 17, 2008, which include a public workshop hosted by the City of Sand City on November 18, 2008, and a December 3, 2008 Green Building Expo, as well as other presentations.  Additional future efforts are planned, and there is a project website at:  The public activity attachments provided by the applicant are available for inspection, upon request.


Findings and Conditions of Approval

The Findings of Approval for Application #20080915MBS (Exhibit 18-D) are based on evidence provided in the application materials, including supporting documents received through mid-January 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, technical studies and reports, technical memoranda and maps, correspondence between MPWMD staff and the applicant, previous approvals by other governmental entities, and action by the Superior Court.  MPWMD approval of the application, as conditioned, is not anticipated to result in a further effect to the Seaside or Carmel River Basins beyond what has already been approved and/or is allowed.  All things being equal, there could be physically more water drawn from the Seaside Basin in the near-term with the project than without it. However, the Superior Court’s action in the Seaside Basin adjudication compels Standard Producers such as CAW to reduce their cumulative use over time to the natural safe yield of the Basin, and preserves the rights of overlying Alternative Producers such as SNG to extract water from the Seaside Basin.  Thus, approval of the application is consistent with MPWMD Rule 22-C-4 regarding overdrafts.


The Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 18-E) proposed for Permit #M09-03-L4 are consistent with MPWMD Rule 22-D governing approval of Water Distribution Systems.  Conditions #1-4 define the Permitted System, including designation of up to 90 AFY of metered CAW sales to serve the MBSE located on APN 011-501-014, based on SNG’s legal right to 149 AFY of Alternative Production Allocation water.  Importantly, for the purpose of MPWMD’s Mandatory Conservation and Standby Rationing Program, Condition #3 adds 90 AFY to CAW’s allowed use from the Seaside Basin.  This means the current amount of 3,504 AFY would be increased to a new amount of 3,594 AFY in the near-term.  It should be noted that even if the Court or Watermaster reduces water available to CAW below the 3,504 AFY amount, the 90 AFY reserved for the applicant would still be added to CAW’s recognized allotment, based on SNG’s Court-established water right.  The CAW system production limit of 11,285 AFY from the Carmel River as currently set by the SWRCB Order 95-10 would not be changed by this action.   


Conditions #5-23 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. Other Conditions of Approval (Conditions #24-25) address water rights and the Endangered Species Act; these 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.  Special Condition #28 requires Security National Guaranty, 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.  The applicant has indicated that he understands and agrees with these conditions.


MPWMD CEQA Compliance

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 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 complied with Guidelines Section 15096.  The District Board has relied on previous action by the City of Sand City, the Lead Agency under CEQA.  On December 1, 1998, the City adopted Resolution SC 98-83 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#97091005) for the approving the MBSE. The City also approved the project via a series of resolutions that were provided in the November 17, 2008 public hearing materials.  The City’s Notice of Determination for the FEIR was filed with the County Clerk on December 2, 1998. 


As described in more detail below, 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 its reduced water use due to new water-saving technologies that are now part of the project description.  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) no Subsequent EIR is required for the revised project.


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 revised version with minor changes (light blue cover, still dated October 2008) was provided to the District.  Project description and water-related section of this December 2008 document were placed on the District website and a hard cover copy was provided in the District foyer.  Exhibit 18-M provides December 2008 (light blue cover) Addendum pages 69, 70, 108 and 109, and marks the paragraphs where minor changes were made to the text. 


As required by CEQA Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093, the District Board, through Findings (and cited evidence) #21, 22 and 23 (Exhibit 18-D) has determined 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 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 Section 15096(i).  


CEQA does not require an Addendum to be circulated for public comment.   The Addendum was prepared for the City of Sand City because between the date that an environmental document was completed (in this case, 1998) and the date the project is fully implemented, one or more of the following changes may have occurred:  (1) the project may change, be modified or revised; (2) the environmental setting in which the project is located may change, becoming more or less sensitive with respect to specific resources; (3) laws, regulations, or policies may change in way that may impact the environment; and/or (4) new or previously unknown information can arise.  Before proceeding with a project, CEQA requires the Lead Agency to evaluate these changes to determine whether or not they affect the conclusions in the environmental document.  It is noted that the project size has been reduced, “green” building practices have been incorporated, and the anticipated water demand has been reduced as compared to the project analyzed in 1998.  Also the proposed WDS application anticipates production from CAW wells further inland rather than by coastal wells at the project site, which reduces the risk of seawater intrusion.


As stated in the Addendum, its purpose is to reevaluate the environmental impacts of the MBSE in compliance with CEQA Guidelines and based on the modifications made to the project to address concerns raised by the California Coastal Commission staff.  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 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) have occurred. 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.  The District’s understanding is that the adopted Addendum has been provided to the Coastal Commission to assist staff and the commissioners in evaluating the revised project and its impacts.  Although not legally required, the District’s understanding is that the adopted Addendum will be available to the public as part of the Coastal Commission review.


Noticing and Public Comment

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, 2009 meeting; (5) standard agenda/hearing notices to local media; and (6) posting of the CEQA documents and related materials on the District website at: and for agenda items/meetings at: (see Jan. 29, 2009, Item 18).


To date (January 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM), fifty comment letters have been received; a listing is provided as Exhibit 18-N and the actual letters will be 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 January 29, 2009 hearing.  All letters are available for inspection, upon request.  Nearly all of the letters received have expressed support for the MBSE project and the benefits of the water-saving technologies; one letter written in mid-December 2008 expressed concern about access to the project EIR and requested a delay of the public hearing until February 2009; and one letter requested that a new Condition of Approval be imposed that relates to SWRCB Order 95-10.  Due to its legal nature, this letter is copied as a separate exhibit and is addressed in the following paragraphs.


Exhibit 18-O is the 3-page letter dated January 15, 2009 from Laurens Silver of the California Environmental Law Project (CELP) on behalf of the Sierra Club.  The letter on page 1:


“urges the District to include in its Conditions of Approval for this project a condition that would require that the water pumped by Cal Am for use on the SNG site (90 AFY) be subtracted from the CAW system production limit of 11,285 [AFY] from the Carmel River, in accord with SWRCB Order 95-10, Conditions 2 and 4.”


SWRCB Order 95-10 Condition No. 2 mandates one-for-one reductions in unlawful diversions from the Carmel River if new sources of supply become available, but makes an exception for water from the Seaside Basin, which is instead governed by Order 95-10 Condition No. 4.  SWRCB Condition No. 4 states:


Cal Am shall maximize production from the Seaside aquifer for the purpose of serving existing connections, honoring existing commitments (allocations), and to reduce diversions from the Carmel River to the greatest practicable extent.  The long-term yield of the basin shall be maintained by using the practical rate of withdrawal method.”


It is noted that the full text of Condition No. 4 was not quoted in the CELP letter.  It is beyond the scope of District staff’s expertise to compare the merits of the applicant’s assertion of superior, independent water rights that CAW may use (see Exhibit 18-F, and discussion Item 4 above) with the assertions in the CELP letter.  Another question is whether the District has the authority to reduce the 11,285 AFY diversion limit set by the SWRCB. 


The CELP evidently has sent a separate letter to the SWRCB requesting a determination on this issue.  The CELP letter to the District (on page 2) asks for deferred action as follows:


“If the District is not inclined to make a determination on this issue itself, Sierra Club urges the District to defer action on these applications until the Water Rights Division has made its determination.”


As shown in Exhibit 18-P, the applicant provided a January 20, 2009 e-mail from Kenneth Emanuel, a SWRCB/Water Rights Division technical staff member, confirming the applicant’s understanding of a meeting between the applicant and SWRCB staff regarding SWRCB’s authority in the Seaside Basin.  The e-mail refers to an October 10, 2008 letter written by the applicant (also part of the exhibit).


On pages 2 and 3, the CELP letter asserts that MPWMD Rule 22-B compels a reduction in Carmel River pumping to protect public trust resources. 


Printing deadlines do not allow a legal analysis by District Counsel in this staff report regarding the merits of the aforementioned assertions.  It is anticipated that these issues will be discussed at the January 29, 2009 hearing.  Exhibit 18-Q is a letter from the applicant’s attorney (Sheri L. Damon) received January 21, 2009 that responds to the CELP letter as well as a January 6, 2009 letter written by the League of Women Voters. The Damon letter notes that the District was consulted in all environmental documents associated with the project and did not challenge them; that the current MBSE project results in reduced impacts; that the City of Sand City has formally adopted the Addendum; describes Court-ordered water rights; and asserts that the CELP logic is flawed in relation to SWRCB Order 95-10.  The letter notes that use of CAW water is the preferred option, but that the applicant has an alternation “Option 2” to use onsite wells.  The letter requests action on this second option if for some reason use of CAW is denied.


The CELP letter also expresses concerns about CEQA compliance and reliance on an Addendum that has not yet been approved by the Lead Agency.  The letter was written before January 20, 2009, when the City of Sand City formally adopted the Addendum (with minor corrections unrelated to water supply or hydrology) via Resolution #SC 09-06.  In relation to water supply issues, the Addendum simply 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 Seaside Basin adjudication;

·        Confirmation by the Watermaster that CAW may serve the MBSE parcel based on SNG 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 MPWMD approval process for the subject WDS permit. 



18-A    Application #20080915MBS to amend the CAW WDS (without attachments)

18–B   Map of Project Location

18–C   Seaside Basin Watermaster letter confirming water rights

18–D   MPWMD Draft Findings of Approval, January 2009

18–E    MPWMD Draft Conditions of Approval, January 2009

18–F    December 22, 2008 response by applicant to eight District information requests

18–G   December 23, 2008 letter from Monterey County Health Department re: gray water reuse

18-H    January 7, 2009 e-mail from RWQCB re: concerns about gray water reuse

18-I     January 7, 2009 letter and flow diagram from Rana Creek with revised gray water reuse

18-J     January 8, 2009 e-mail from RWQCB re: confirm acceptance of revised flow diagram

18-K    Summary table of water use estimates using MPWMD figures

18-L    Summary table comparing project with and without reuse technologies

18-M   December 2008 Addendum to Final EIR, four-page excerpt

18-N    List of comment letters received

18-O    Letter from California Environmental Law Project/ Sierra Club dated January 15, 2009

18-P     Email from SWRCB (Kenneth Emanuel) dated January 20, 2009 confirming applicant letter dated October 10, 2008 regarding SWRCB jurisdiction over Seaside Basin pumpers

18-Q    Letter by applicant attorney (Sheri L. Damon) received January 21, 2009 responding to California Environmental Law Project/Sierra Club letter and attaching Sand City Resolution #SC09-06 adopting the Addendum to the EIR



Prepared by H. Stern, updated 01/21/09 at 10 AM