EXHIBIT 18-D

 

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

 

DRAFT

FINDINGS of APPROVAL

 

CONSIDER APPLICATION TO CREATE

RANCHO DEL ROBLEDO WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

Service area: APN 197-151-003 through -011, -016 and -017 (well lot)

 

Application #20090709RAN, Permit #M09-24-L4

Adopted by MPWMD Board of Directors on ____________, 2009

 

Unless noted otherwise, all cited documents and materials are available for review at the MPWMD Office, 5 Harris Court, Building G, Monterey (Ryan Ranch).

 

It is hereby found and determined as follows:

 

1.         FINDING:            George S. Lockwood and Marcia M. Lockwood, are identified as the owners of a well lot identified as APN 197-151-017 and other parcels near 285 Esquiline Road, Carmel Valley, in Monterey County.  The subject well presently provides water for irrigation for up to nine parcels within the 13-parcel Rancho del Robledo Subdivision, approved by Monterey County in 1972, comprising a total of approximately 27 acres.  It also provides potable supply for two Single-Family Dwellings on two parcels (APN 197-151-010 and -011).  Current water use (5-year metered average) is 14.74 acre-feet per year (AFY).  The proposed amendment to the existing Rancho del Robledo Water Distribution System (RDRWDS) entails annexation of parcel APN 197-151-016 and water service for domestic and irrigation needs as summarized in the table below:

 

RDRWDS Parcel Summary

APN

Acres

WDS Irrigation

WDS Domestic

CAW Domestic

197-151-003

 7.35

x

 

 

197-151-004

1.02

x

 

 

197-151-005

1.25

x

 

x

197-151-006

1.23

x

 

x

197-151-007

1.13

x

 

x

197-151-008

1.07

x

 

x

197-151-009

1.0

x

 

x

197-151-010

1.39

x

x

 

197-151-011

8.87

x

x

Active emergency meter

197-151-016

2.0

New

New

Inactive “Standby” meter

197-151-017

0.78

Well lot

n/a

n/a

 

EVIDENCE:         Application #20090709RAN dated July 9, 2009 and associated maps and supporting documentation; September 9, 2009 letter from applicant requesting removal of parcel 197-151-004 as part of the Application for consideration on September 21, 2009; water rights review and Chain of Title submitted by applicant on March 6, 2009; Individual Joint Tenancy Deed recorded by the Monterey County Recorder on July 16, 1971 (Document #G22469; Reel 715 Page 124).

 

2.         FINDING:            The Subdivision is within the area served by California American Water (CAW), and five parcels (APN 197-151-005 through -009) currently receive CAW service. A sixth parcel (APN 197-151-011) has an active metered connection which is only used for emergency back-up use when well water is not available.   A seventh parcel (APN 197-151-016) has an inactive “standby” CAW meter, which is not available for water service due to regulatory constraints on the CAW system.

 

EVIDENCE:         Permit application materials as specified in Finding #1; map of CAW service area; CAW water use records provided with application.

 

3.         FINDING:            A Monterey County well construction permit for the subject well is not required as the well was drilled circa 1939, and has been providing water to the recipient parcels (or their predecessors) since that time.

 

EVIDENCE:         Application materials described in Finding #1. 

 

4.         FINDING:            Applicant has applied for a Permit (revised 9/9/09) to amend the RDRWDS to annex parcel APN 197-151-016 to provide water for domestic and irrigation needs, as specified in Finding #1.

 

EVIDENCE:         Permit Application materials specified in Finding #1.

 

5.         FINDING:            Based on District staff analysis of the data provided in the application, 14.07 acre-feet per year (AFY) has been set as the annual production limit for the RDRWDS to meet the water needs for the parcels specified in Finding #1.

 

EVIDENCE:         Permit application as specified in Finding #1; MPWMD Permit #M09-24-L4, Condition of Approval #3.

 

6.         FINDING:            The application to create the RDRWDS, 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 areas served by CAW, and certain parcels are already served by CAW as described in Finding #1.  However, CAW water is unavailable for the parcel to be annexed due to existing limitations imposed by State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order WR 95-10 and the need to reduce CAW diversions from the Carmel River until a replacement source is developed.  The applicant has demonstrated adequate water rights to the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer (CVAA) for the purposes of this MPWMD Permit.  The proposed system will be limited to ten connections for irrigation, with three of these connections for residential use, as shown in the table in Finding #1.  Additional restrictions on water use are imposed as conditions of approval.  [Rule 22-B-1]

 

EVIDENCE:         Map of CAW service area; MPWMD Permit #M09-24-L4, Conditions of Approval #1 through #4, #13, #26, and #27; letter from MPWMD staff dated January 22, 2001 confirming RDRWDS; SWRCB Order 95-10. Water rights review submitted by applicant dated March 6, 2009; letters to applicant from District Counsel and staff dated April 14 and April 22, 2009, respectively, regarding adequacy of riparian water rights documentation.

 

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 as conditioned would not result in significant adverse impacts to “Sensitive Environmental Receptors” (SER) as defined by MPWMD Rule 11, including the CVAA.  The amended RDRWDS will impose an enforceable production limit of 14.07 AFY that is roughly 5% less than current use (5-year metered average of 14.74 AFY); currently there is no production limit. Conditions also address combined RDRWDS and CAW use in the service area.  No active wells are located within 300 feet of the subject well.  [Rule 22-B-3 and Rule 22-C-5]

 

EVIDENCE:         Permit Application as specified in Finding #1; MPWMD Permit #M09-24-L4, Conditions of Approval #3, #13, #26, and #27; MPWMD Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for RDRWDS dated August 5, 2009.

 

10.       FINDING:            The application adequately identifies the claim of right (riparian) for the source of water supply and provides supporting verification, which was reviewed and accepted by District General Counsel for the purposes of the MPWMD WDS permit process. [Rule 22-B-4]

 

EVIDENCE:         Permit Application and supporting materials as specified in Finding #1, including water rights review dated March 6, 2009, and deed showing ownership of property by applicant.  Letters to applicant from District Counsel and staff dated April 14 and April 22, 2009, respectively, regarding adequacy of riparian water rights documentation.

 

11.       FINDING:            The application demonstrates existence of a long-term reliable source of water supply for the proposed use of up to 14.07 AFY for domestic and landscape use. [Rule 22-B-5]

                                        

EVIDENCE:         Permit materials specified in Finding #1, including January 22, 2001 letter to applicant from MPWMD staff confirming RDRWDS as a pre-existing system serving nine connections with no production limit.

 

12.       FINDING:            The source of water supply is the CVAA.  There are current cumulative significant adverse impacts to the CVAA, and the species and habitats dependent on the CVAA.  However, issuance of a WDS Permit for the subject property, as conditioned, would slightly reduce the total impact due to enforceable production limits imposed on diversions via the subject well, in addition to limits when RDRWDS and CAW diversions from the affected parcels are combined.  This compares to the existing situation where there are no production limits.  The amended RDRWDS production limit of 14.07 AFY, including water use associated with the new parcel and Single-Family Dwelling, is roughly 5% less than current use (5-year metered average of 14.74 AFY).  [Rule 22-B-6]

 

EVIDENCE:         Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for RDRWDS prepared by MPWMD on August 5, 2009; MPWMD Permit #M09-24-L4; Conditions of Approval #1 through #4, #13, #26, and #27.  

 

13.       FINDING:            The source of supply for the subject parcel is derived from the Carmel Valley Alluvial Aquifer and the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System.  The source of supply is within the jurisdiction of the SWRCB. [Rule 22-B-7]

 

EVIDENCE:         MPWMD map showing boundaries of project site and jurisdiction of SWRCB superimposed on Monterey County parcels.

 

14.       FINDING:            MPWMD Permit #M09-24-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 may not be connected to the CAW system.  Temporary water service could be provided by trucked-in water in a non-fire emergency such as system failure.  The RDRWDS Permit acknowledges existing CAW service as described in Findings #1 and #2. Water for a fire emergency and separate standby CAW meters solely for emergency fire sprinklers in the ceiling of the residences is allowed as the RDRWDS is within the CAW service area.   [Rule 22-B-8]      

EVIDENCE:         Map of CAW service area available at District office; MPWMD Permit #M09-24-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 # M09-24-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 owners identified in Finding #1.  [Rule 22-C-1]

 

EVIDENCE:         Permit application and Grant Deed specified in Finding #1.

 

17.       FINDING:            The application meets the definition of a “Multiple-Parcel Connection System” and will provide water for domestic supply to a total of three parcels; it therefore must comply with California Title 22 water quality standards as administered by Monterey County Health Department. [Rule 22-C-2]

 

EVIDENCE:         Permit application as specified in Finding #1.  MPWMD Permit #M09-24-L4, Conditions of Approval #1, #2, #3, #5 and #15; California Administrative Code, Title 22.

 

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 #M09-24-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.  Though the CVAA has been determined by the SWRCB to be over-appropriated, the project as conditioned would slightly decrease water use. [Rule 22-C-4]

 

EVIDENCE:         MPWMD hydrologic monitoring data and annual reports; SWRCB Order 95-10; MPWMD Permit #M09-24-L4, Conditions of Approval #1 through #4, #13, #26, and #27. 

 

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.  Water rights have been adequately demonstrated for the purposes of this MPWMD permit. [Rule 22-C-5]

 

EVIDENCE:         MPWMD hydrologic monitoring data and annual reports; MPWMD Permit #M09-24-L4, Conditions of Approval #1 through #4, #13, #26, and #27.  Water rights evidence described in Finding # 10.  California Water Code.

 

Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

 

21.       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 lead agency under CEQA for this action determined that this action is subject to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070. MPWMD prepared and circulated an Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration signed August 5, 2009 for a 30-day public review period commencing on August 7, 2009 and ending on September 8, 2009.  The Negative Declaration was adopted by MPWMD on September ___, 2009 subsequent to a public hearing on the project.

 

EVIDENCE:         CEQA Guidelines; Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for RDRWDS prepared by MPWMD on August 5, 2009; Notice of Determination filed by County Clerk on _________ 2009 as directed by the MPWMD Board at a September 21, 2009 public hearing as part of its approval of the subject WDS permit application. 

 

22.       FINDING:            Pursuant to CEQA Sections 15091 and 15092, the MPWMD Board finds that the project, including the water production limits and other requirements in the Conditions of Approval, 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. 

 

EVIDENCE:         Findings and Evidence provided in Finding #21 above. MPWMD Notice of Determination prepared September ___, 2009 as described in Finding #21 above.  MPWMD Conditions of Approval for Permit #M09-24-L4 adopted on September __, 2009.

 

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 September __, 2009 as described in Finding #21.   

 

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2009\20090921\PubHrng\18\item18_exh18d.doc