monterey county minor subdivision committee

MONTEREY COUNTY MINOR SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE

Meeting: February 24, 2011

Time:^('WA.M Agenda Item No.: tProject Description: Eicholz (PLN060382) Minor Subdivision to allow the division of a 121.86acre parcel into three parcels of 41.86 acres (Parcel A), 40 acres (Parcel B), and 40 acres (ParcelC), respectively.Project Location: 52195 Smith Road, Bradley APN: 424-331-013-000

Planning File Number: PLN060382Owner: John EicholzAgent: MJ Goetz

Planning Area: South County Area Plan Flagged and staked: NoZoning Designation: RG/40 or "Rural Grazing, 40 acres per unit"CEQA Action:Department: RMA - Planning Department

RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends that the Minor Subdivision Committee adopt a resolution (Exhibit C) to:

1)

Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration;2)

Approve the Minor Subdivision (PLN060382), based on the fmdings and evidenceand subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures (Exhibit C); and

3)

Adopt a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program.

PROJECT OVERVIEW:The proposed project is a Minor Subdivision to allow the division of a 121.94 acre parcel intothree parcels of 41.71 acres (Parcel A), 40.19 acres (Parcel B), and 40.05 acres (Parcel C),respectively. The subject property is a "T-shaped" parcel located at 52195 Smith Road, Bradley(Assessor's Parcel Number 424-331-013-000) within the South County Planning Area; north ofthe Nacimiento Reservoir and south of San Antonio Lake, one mile east of the intersection ofHesperia Road and Smith Road.

The proposed subdivision does not include construction of single family residences, accessorystructures, or associated improvements; however, the property's zoning designation, RuralGrazing, 40 acres per unit (RG/40), allows for up to three single family dwellings accessory tothe agricultural use of the property, for an owner, operator or employees employed on-site,without benefit of a discretionary permit. Conditions required by the Environmental HealthBureau require proof of certain land improvements prior to filing of the Parcel Map. Specifically,confirmation by the applicant that the design of the onsite water/well improvements meet fireflow standards as required and approved by the local fire protection agency and that the applicantdemonstrates that the well pads confoiin to the Environmental Health Bureau requirements.Project issues regarding archaeology and biology have been identified and are discussed in detailwithin Exhibit B of the staff report.

Pursuant to the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the projectdoes not qualify for an exemption. Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 21080.d andCEQA Guidelines Section 15064.a.1 require environmental review if there is substantialevidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, an InitialStudy was conducted and concluded that impacts from the project would be potentiallysignificant for biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, population andhousing, and public services. The Initial Study identified mitigations that include protection anddesign measures for biological and cultural issues. The provision of these mitigation measuresprovides substantial evidence that impacts will be less than significant for these topics. AMitigated Negative Declaration was filed on September 22, 2010.Eicholz (PLN060382)

OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT: The following agencies and departments reviewed thisproject:

RMA - Public Works DepartmentEnvironmental Health BureauWater Resources AgencyCDF South County Fire Protection DistrictParks Department

Agencies that submitted comments are noted with a check mark ("4"). Conditions recommendedby Public Works, Environmental Health Bureau, Water Resources Agency, CDF South CountyFire Protection District, and the Parks Department have been incorporated into the ConditionCompliance/Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached as Exhibit 1 to the draftresolution (Exhibit C).

The project was referred to the South County Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) for reviewon June 20, 2007. Based on the LUAC Procedure guidelines adopted by the Monterey CountyBoard of Supervisors per Resolution No. 08-338, this application did warrant referral to theLUAC because the project is not exempt from CEQA. Public comment consisted of: viewshedconcerns, road paving requirements, and runoff and drainage. As a result of the subdivision,there will be a potential for nine single family dwellings (up to three per lot, accessory to anagricultural use of the property for owner, operator, or employed onsite). The construction ofsingle family dwellings is not proposed at this time.

Note:

decision . this project is appealable to the Board of Supervisors.

a V. Queng(831) 755-5175,February 14, 2011

cc: Front Counter Copy; Minor Subdivision Committee; CDF South County Fire ProtectionDistrict; Public Works Department; Parks Department; Environmental Health Bureau;Water Resources Agency; Anna V. Quenga, Planner; Laura Lawrence, PlanningServices Manager; John Eicholz, Property Owner; MJ Goetz, Representative; DonMcKenze, Neighbor; Jean Lewey, Neighbor; Project File PLN060382.

Attachments: Exhibit A

Project Data Sheet

Exhibit B

Project Discussion

Exhibit C

Draft Resolution, including:1. Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring and

Reporting Program2. Parcel Map

Exhibit D

Vicinity Map

Exhibit E

Bradley/Parkfield Land Use Advisory Committee Minutes

Exhibit F

Mitigated Negative Declaration

Exhibit G

Comments on Miti ted Negative Declaration

This report was reviewed

by Laura Lawreend

g Services Manager

Eicholz (PLN060382)

EXHIBIT A

Project Data Sheet for PLN060382

Project Title: EICHOLZ

Location:

Applicable Plan:

Permit Type:

Environmental Status:

52195 SMITH RD, BRADLEY

SOUTH COUNTY AREA PLAN

MINOR SUBDIVISION

MND

Primary APN:

Coastal Zone:

Zoning:

Plan Designation:

Final Action Deadline (884):

424-331-013-000

NO

RDR/40

RURAL DENSITYRESIDENTIAL

03/10/2010Advisory Committee: SOUTH COUNTY LUAC

Project Site Data:

Lot size: 121.86 ACRES

Existing Structures (SF): N/A

Proposed Structures (SF): N/A

Total SF: N/A

Resource Zones andReports:

Coverage Allowed: 25%Coverage Proposed: N/A

Floor Area Ratio Allowed:Floor Area Ratio Proposed:

Height Allowed:Height Proposed:

30'N/A

N/AN/A

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat:Biological Report #:

Forest Management Rpt. #:

Archaeological Sensitivity Zone:Archaeological Report #:

YESLIB070223N/A

HIGHLIB070226

Erosion Hazard Zone: LOWSoils Report #: LIB070224

Geologic Hazard Zone: IvGeologic Report #: N/A

Fire Hazard Zone: N/A

Traffic Report #: N/A

Other Information:

Water Source:

Water DistlCo:

Fire District:

Tree Removal:

WELL

N/A

CDF SOUTH COUNTY FPD

Sewage Disposal (method): SEPTIC

Sewer District Name: N/A

Total Grading (cubic yds.): N/A

N/A

Eicholz (PLN060382)

EXHIBIT BPROJECT DISCUSSION

The property is located at 52195 Smith Road, Bradley (Assessor's Parcel Number 424-331-013-000), South County Planning area. The parcel is zoned Rural Grazing, 40 acres per unit or(RG/40), which allows for the creation of new lots provided the maximum gross developmentdensity shall not exceed the acres/unit as shown on the specific RG district as shown on thezoning map. The applicant proposes to subdivide one 121.86 acre lot and create three new lots,all of which are greater or equal to 40 acres, consistent with the site development standards of theRG district.

Although the proposed project does not include construction of structures, the result of the minorsubdivision may have potential impacts to biological and cultural resources as identified in theMitigated Negative Declaration.

Project Issues - CEQAThe Abbott's bush-mallow, listed on the California Native Plant Society's List 1B, was foundwithin the resulting "Parcel A". The Bryson Quadrangle, where the subject parcel is located, isone of the three Quadrangles the plant is known to occur. Mitigation measures have beenincorporated to reduce the project's impact to less than significant since: the plant has fewoccurrences, is located within a small area, and has been threatened by housing development,grazing, energy development, and road construction. Mitigation measures require submittal of afloristic inventory and rare plant survey of the area of development, completed by a qualifiedbiologist/botanist during the appropriate seasons to determine the presence or absence ofAbbott's bush-mallow prior to initiation of any future construction activities.

The San Joaquin Kit Fox (SJKF) is state listed as threatened and federally-listed as endangereddue to habitat loss caused by development. Recorded sightings of the SJKF in the greater localarea have occurred and the subject property is located near the zone of known occurrences(within a 10-mile radius) as identified by the California Natural Diversity Data Base records.While no SJKF was observed on the property, the biologist detected five possible SJKF burrowsduring the first survey and again during the spring survey. The burrows showed no signs ofrecent disturbance nor were tracks detected and the biologist stated that it is probable that theobserved burrows were from badgers diggings. Due to the close proximity of knownoccurrences and the on-site grassland and oak woodland habitats which could serve as marginalhabitat for this species, a mitigation measure has been incorporated to reduce any potentialimpact to less than significant. The mitigation measure requires that prior to the issuance ofgrading or building permits, a Kit Fox survey shall be submitted.

An archaeological survey was performed for the subject property in November 2006. Surfaceevidence of prehistoric cultural resources were identified on a portion of the property, whichinclude a scatter of lithic materials, bone fragments, marine shell, and fire-altered stone.Subsequently, an archaeological resource management test was perfoimed, excavating in andaround the area where surface evidence was found. Additional cultural materials were found,similar to those found within the surface scatter. Due to the potential for construction of up tothree single family dwellings, additional accessory structures, septic and leachline systems, andaccess roads, a mitigation measure is required for the project to have a less-than-significantimpact on cultural resources. The mitigation measure requires that the applicant conduct anadditional, more focused survey of the area proposed for development prior to initiating anyconstruction activities.Eicholz (PLN060382)

Additional Issues IdentifiedTwo letters were received during the public review period from neighboring property ownersconsisting of: viewshed concerns, road paving requirements, and runoff and drainage. Althoughas a result of the subdivision, there will be a potential for nine single family dwellings (up tothree per lot, accessory to an agricultural use of the property for owner, operator, or employedonsite); the concerns of the public cannot be addressed at this time because construction of singlefamily dwellings is not proposed. However, during review and prior to issuance of buildingpermits, the applicant will be required to submit supporting evidence that access roads, buildings,runoff, and drainage meet the requirements of the County Agencies and the CDF South CountyFire Protection District.

Section 19.10.095 (Underground Utilities) of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that all utilitydistribution facilities installed in and for the purpose of supplying service to any minorsubdivision, be placed underground. However, the decision making body may waive thisrequirement if topographical, soils, or other physical conditions make underground installationsof said facilities unreasonable or impractical. The applicant contends that approximately 3,900lineal feet of trenching would be required to install underground utilities, causing an impracticalsituation with regards to finance and creates an additional potential impact to biological andcultural resources that could be avoided. Therefore, the applicant requests that the minorsubdivision waive the underground utility requirement and allow an overhead system.

ConclusionThe project as proposed and conditioned is consistent with the 2010 Monterey County GeneralPlan, South County Area Plan, South County Area Plan Inventory and Analysis, the MontereyCounty Zoning Ordinance (Title 21), and the Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance (Title19). An environmental review has been completed and of the project was found to have a lessthan significant impact to biological and cultural resources with mitigation measuresincorporated.

Eicholz (PLN060382)

EXHIBIT CDRAFT RESOLUTION

Before the Minor Subdivision Committee in and for theCounty of Monterey, State of California

In the matter of the application of:Eicholz (PLN060382)RESOLUTION NO.Resolution by the Monterey County MinorSubdivision Committee:1) Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration;2) Approving the Minor Subdivision (PLN060382)

to allow the division of a 121.86 acre parcel intothree parcels of 41.86 acres (Parcel A), 40 acres(Parcel B), and 40 acres (Parcel C), respectively;and

3) Adopting a Mitigation, Monitoring, andReporting Program.

[PLN060382, John Eicholz, 52195 Smith Road,Bradley, South County Planning Area (APN: 424-331-013-000)]

The Minor Subdivision application (PLN060382) came on for public hearing before theMonterey County Minor Subdivision Committee on February 24, 2011. Having consideredall the written and documentary evidence, the administrative record, the staff report, oraltestimony, and other evidence presented, the Minor Subdivision Committee finds anddecides as follows:

FINDINGS

1. FINDING: CONSISTENCY - The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with theapplicable plans and policies which designate this area as appropriatefor development.

EVIDENCE: a) During the course of review of this application, the project has beenreviewed for consistency with the text, policies, and regulations in:

- the 2010 Monterey County General Plan;South County Area Plan;

- South County Area Plan, Inventory and Analysis;Monterey County Zoning Ordinance (Title 21); andMonterey County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 19)

Communications were received during the course of review of theproject concerned with inconsistencies with the text, policies, andregulations in these documents. Staff has analyzed the project and aresponse to the comments can be found in subsequent Evidence "d."

b) The property is located at 52195 Smith Road, Bradley (Assessor's ParcelNumber 424-331-013-000), South County Planning area. The parcel iszoned Rural Grazing, 40 acres per unit or (RG/40), which allows for thecreation of new lots provided the maximum gross development densityshall not exceed the acres/unit as shown on the specific RG district as

Eicholz (PLN060382)

Eicholz (PLN060382)

shown on the zoning map. The applicant proposes to subdivide one121.86 acre lot and create three new lots, all of which are greater orequal to 40 acres. Therefore, the project is an allowed land use for thissite. Also see Subdivision Finding No. 6 for further subdivisionconsistency analysis.

c) The project planner conducted a site inspection on June 15, 2007 and in2009 during the preparation of the initial study to verify that the projecton the subject parcel conforms to the plans listed above.

d) During the circulation period for the Initial Study, two comments fromneighboring property owners were received. Although the issues raisedwere not on the content of the environmental document, they didquestion the consistency of the subdivision with the County'srequirements. The first comment was received by Don McKenzie, anadjacent neighbor whose property abuts the southeastern property linesof the subject property. Mr. McKenzie states that he "objects to thisproposed subdivision if all County Codes are not enforced as many ofus in this area have had to adhere to such as 1) any roads over 8% gradeare to be asphalted/concrete; 2) all roads to be built must be 10 feet fromexisting fence lines; 3) all entrances have asphalt aprons; (and) 4) whereis the power source for the 3 parcels going to be delivered from. Iwould just like Monterey County to be fair and consist(ant) in these newrules." The second comment was received by Jean Lewey, the neighborwhose property abuts the southwestern property lines of the subjectproperty. Mrs. Lewey expressed concerns with the proposed right-of-way adjacent to her property and if it will contain culverts that will drainonto her property. The CDF South County Fire Protection District hasreviewed the project and placed conditions requiring access roads tomeet the fire districts requirements. All County requirements for aminor subdivision in the South County area have been incorporatedwithin the project as design or conditioned. Power to the site could beprovided through Pacific Gas and Electric or through a solar powersource. As construction is not part of the project, neither option isdefinite.

e) The project was referred to the South County Land Use AdvisoryCommittee (LUAC) for review on June 20, 2007. Based on the LUACProcedure guidelines adopted by the Monterey County Board ofSupervisors per Resolution No. 08-338, this application did warrantreferral to the LUAC because the project is not exempt from CEQA.Public comment consisted of: viewshed concerns, road pavingrequirements, and runoff and drainage. Although as a result of thesubdivision, there will be a potential for nine single family dwellings(up to three per lot, accessory to an agricultural use of the property forowner, operator, or employed onsite); the concerns of the public cannotbe addressed at this time because construction of single familydwellings is not proposed. However, during review and prior toissuance of building permits, the applicant will be required to submitsupporting evidence that access roads, buildings, runoff, and drainagemeet the requirements of the County Agencies and the CDF SouthCounty Fire Protection District.

f) The subject property is a legal lot of record, which was created througha minor subdivision in 1973 (Monterey County Planning File No. MS

73-386). During the survey for the Parcel Map, the southeasternproperty line was depicted along the aliquot part ' of Section 30.However, the landowners assumed that a long standing fence shouldhave been the "true" property line, which was located 127.5 feet southof the surveyed line for the minor subdivision. Therefore, in 1981, theportion between the southeastern property line and the fence wasquitclaimed over to the owner of the subject property and a Record ofSurvey Map was subsequently filed on March 1982 (Volume 13,Surveys page 30). The Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance No.1713 (dated 1970) was in place during the time of the quitclaim.Section 2.20.C of the ordinance states that " `subdivision' shall notinclude the division of property for the sole purpose of adjusting theproperty lines between contiguous parcels when no new building site isthereby created and where no building site is being substandard. Basedon information from the County's Historical Zoning Map (1978) theproperty was zoned as "Rural with a 10 acre minimum building site"(N-10) and both properties were still in conformance with the sitedevelopment standards of the district resulting from the adjustment ofthe boundary lines. Therefore, the County recognizes that the lotconfiguration in the Record of Survey Map filed in 1982 is the legal lotof record.

g) The project was reviewed and found to be consistent with the 2010Monterey County General Plan, specifically Policy No. LU-1.19.Although the proposed subdivision is not located within a CommunityArea, Rural Center, or Affordable Housing Overlay district, and is notconsidered as top priority for development in the unincorporated areasof the County, it does not meet the criteria to be evaluated through theDevelopment Evaluation System. Furthermore, the only agriculturalrestriction (see Section AG-1.3 of the 2010 General Plan) restrictssubdivisions of "Important Farmland" for exclusive agriculturalpurposes. Based on the Monterey County Geographic InformationSystem, the subject property is not considered to be ImportantFarmland.

h) Section 19.10.095 (Underground Utilities) of the Subdivision Ordinancerequires that all utility distribution facilities installed in and for thepurpose of supplying service to any minor subdivision, be placedunderground. However, the decision making body may waive thisrequirement if topographical, soils, or other physical conditions makeunderground installations of said facilities unreasonable or impractical.The applicant contends that approximately 3,900 lineal feet of trenchingwould be required to install underground utilities, causing animpractical situation with regards to finance and creates an additionalpotential impact to biological and cultural resources that could beavoided. Therefore, the applicant requests that the minor subdivisionwaive the underground utility requirement and allow an overheadsystem. The Public Works Department has been made aware of theapplicant's request and no comments or concerns were identified.

i) The application, project plans, and related support materials submitted

1 The aliquot part is the standard subdivision of a section, such as a half section, quarter section, or quarter-quartersection.Eicholz (PLN060382)

by the project applicant to the Monterey County RMA - PlanningDepartment for the proposed development found in Project FilePLN0603 82.

2.

FINDING:

SITE SUITABILITY - The site is physically suitable for the useproposed.

EVIDENCE: a) The project has been reviewed for site suitability by the followingdepartments and agencies: RMA - Planning Department, CDF SouthCounty Fire Protection District, Parks, Public Works, EnvironmentalHealth Bureau, and Water Resources Agency. There has been noindication from these departments/agencies that the site is not suitablefor the proposed development. Conditions recommended have beenincorporated.

b) Based on the South County Area Plan Inventory and Analysis, staffidentified potential impacts to biological resources, archaeologicalresources, and soils. Pursuant to the requirements of the MontereyCounty Zoning Ordinance (Title 21), technical reports by outsideconsultants were required for submittal. These reports concluded thatthere are no physical or environmental constraints that would indicatethat the site is not suitable for the use proposed. County staffindependently reviewed these reports and concurs with theirconclusions. The following reports have been prepared:

"Spring Survey of Biological Resources Including Kit Fox Study"(LIB070223) prepared by Ed Mercurio, Salinas, CA, October 5,2006 and April 3, 2007)."Archaeological Evaluation" (LIB070226) prepared byArchaeological Resource Management, Dr. Robert Cartier,Principal Investigator, San Jose, CA, May 3, 2007)"Percolation Data Report" (LIB070225) prepared by Mid-CoastGeotechnical, Inc., Paso Robles, CA, September 29, 2006)"Geotechnical Engineering Report" (LIB070224) prepared byMid-Coast Geotechnical, Inc., Paso Robles, CA, September 29,2006)

c) Staff conducted a site inspection on June 15, 2007 and in 2009 duringthe preparation of the initial study to verify that the site is suitable forthis use.

d) The application, project plans, and related support materials submittedby the project applicant to the Monterey County RMA - PlanningDepartment for the proposed development found in Project FilePLN060382.

3.

FINDING:

HEALTH AND SAFETY - The establishment, maintenance, oroperation of the project applied for will not under the circumstances ofthis particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in theneighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious toproperty and improvements in the neighborhood or to the generalwelfare of the County.

EVIDENCE: a) The project was reviewed by the CDF South County Fire ProtectionDistrict, Public Works; Parks Department, Environmental HealthBureau, and Water Resources Agency. The respective

Eicholz (PLN060382)

departments/agencies have recommended conditions, whereappropriate, to ensure that the project will not have an adverse effect onthe health, safety, and welfare of persons either residing or working inthe neighborhood.

b) Necessary public and private facilities will be provided. A percolationreport (see Finding 2, Evidence b) submitted by the applicant states thatbased on the performance test rates, the proposed parcels are adequatefor effluent disposal by the leach line method. Each of the proposedparcels contains a separate well and the Environmental Health Bureaudid not identify any issues concerning the water quality and/or quantityfrom these wells.

c) Finding Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 and supporting evidence for PLN060382.

4.

FINDING:

NO VIOLATIONS - The subject property is in compliance with allrules and regulations pertaining to zoning uses, subdivision, and anyother applicable provisions of the County's zoning ordinance. Noviolations exist on the property.

EVIDENCE: a) Staff reviewed Monterey County RMA - Planning Department andBuilding Services Department records and is not aware of anyviolations existing on subject property.

b) Staff conducted a site inspection on June 15, 2007 and in 2009 duringthe preparation of the initial study and researched County records toassess if any violation exists on the subject property.

c) There are no known violations on the subject parcel.d) The application, plans and supporting materials submitted by the project

applicant to the Monterey County Planning Department for theproposed development are found in Project File PLN060382.

5.

FINDING:

CEQA (Mitigated Neg Dec) - On the basis of the whole record beforethe Monterey County Minor Subdivision Committee, there is nosubstantial evidence that the proposed project as designed, conditionedand mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment. TheMitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment andanalysis of the County.

EVIDENCE: a) Public Resources Code Section 21080.d and California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.a.1 requireenvironmental review if there is substantial evidence that the projectmay have a significant effect on the environment.

b) The Monterey County Planning Department prepared an Initial Studypursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study is on file in theoffices of the Planning Department and is hereby incorporated byreference (PLN060382).

c) The Initial Study identified several potentially significant effects, butthe applicant has agreed to proposed mitigation measures that avoid theeffects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significanteffects would occur. The Initial Study is on file in the RMA-PlanningDepartment and is hereby incorporated by reference (PLN060382).

d) Issues that were analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration includebiological and cultural resources.

e) Biological Resources, Abbott's bush-mallow - The Abbott's bush-mallow, listed on the California Native Plant Society's List 1B, was

Eicholz (PLN060382)

found within the resulting "Parcel A". All plants within List 1B meetthe definitions of Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant ProtectionAct) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) ofthe California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible forstate listing. Therefore, it is mandatory that they be fully consideredduring preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA. TheBryson Quadrangle, where the subject parcel is located, is one of thethree Quadrangles the plant is known to occur. Although the proposedproject does not include the construction of structures, mitigationmeasures are required to reduce the project's impact to less thansignificant since the plant has few occurrences, is located within a smallarea, and has been threatened by housing development, grazing, energydevelopment, and road construction. Mitigation measures requiresubmittal of a floristic inventory and rare plant survey of the area ofdevelopment, completed by a qualified biologist/botanist during theappropriate seasons to determine the presence or absence of Abbott'sbush-mallow prior to initiation of any future construction activities.Biological Resources, San Joaquin Kit Fox (SJKF) and SJKF Habitat -The SJKF is state listed as threatened and federally-listed as endangereddue to habitat loss caused by development. Recorded sightings of theSJKF in the greater local area have occurred and the subject property islocated near the zone of known occurrences (within a 10-mile radius) asidentified by the California Natural Diversity Data Base records.While no SJKF was observed on the property, the biologist detectedfive possible SJKF burrows during the first survey and again during thespring survey. The burrows showed no signs of recent disturbance norwere tracks detected and the biologist stated that it is probable that theobserved burrows were from badgers diggings. Although the proposedproject does not include construction and no SJKF were observed on theproperty, due to the close proximity of known occurrences and the on-site grassland and oak woodland habitats which could serve as marginalhabitat for this species, a mitigation measure has been incorporated toreduce any potential impact to less than significant. The mitigationmeasure requires that prior to the issuance of grading or buildingpermits, a Kit Fox survey shall be submitted for review and approval bythe RMA-Director of Planning.Cultural Resources - An archaeological survey was performed for thesubject property in November 2006. Surface evidence of prehistoriccultural resources were identified on a portion of the property, whichinclude a scatter of lithic materials, bone fragments, marine shell, andfire-altered stone. Subsequently, an archaeological resourcemanagement test was performed, excavating in and around the areawhere surface evidence was found. Additional cultural materials werefound, similar to those found within the surface scatter. Although theproposed project does not include grading and/or construction activities,there is a potential for the construction of up to three single familydwellings, additional accessory structures, septic and leachline systems,and access roads. Therefore, in order for the project to have a less-than-significant impact on cultural resources, a mitigation measure isrequired. The mitigation measure requires that the applicant conduct anadditional, more focused survey of the area proposed for development

Eicholz (PLN060382)

f)

g)

Eicholz (PLN060382)

prior to initiating any construction activities.h) All project changes required to avoid significant effects on the

environment have been incorporated into the project and/or are madeconditions of approval. A Condition Compliance and MitigationMonitoring and/or Reporting Plan has been prepared in accordance withMonterey County regulations and is designed to ensure complianceduring project implementation and is hereby incorporated herein byreference as Exhibit 1. The applicant must enter into an "Agreement toImplement a Mitigation Monitoring and/or Reporting Plan as acondition of project approval.

i) The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for PLN060382was prepared in accordance with CEQA and circulated for publicreview from September 24, 2010 through October 25, 2010 (SCH#2010091070). Issues that were analyzed in the Draft MitigatedNegative Declaration ("MND") include: biological resources, culturalresources, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, andpublic services.

j) Evidence that has been received and considered includes: theapplication, technical studies/reports (see Finding No. 2), staff reportsthat reflect the County's independent judgment, and information andtestimony presented during public hearings (as applicable). Thesedocuments are on file in the RMA-Planning Department (PLN060382)and are hereby incorporated herein by reference.

k) Staff analysis contained in the Initial Study and the record as a wholeindicate the project could result in changes to the resources listed inSection 753.5(d) of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) regulations.All land development projects that are subject to environmental revieware subject to a State filing fee plus the County recording fee, unless theDepartment of Fish and Game determines that the project will have noeffect on fish and wildlife resources. The site supports Abbott's bush-mallow (Malacothamnus abbotii), a plant on the California Native PlantSociety's List 1B and has the potential to support the San Joaquin KitFox, a federally listed endangered species. For purposes of the Fish andGame Code, the project will have a significant adverse impact on thefish and wildlife resources upon which the wildlife depends. StateDepartment of Fish and Game reviewed the MND. Although nocomments were received and no additional conditions wererecommended, a letter of exemption from the Department of Fish andGame for the proposed project was not received. Therefore, the projectwill be required to pay the State fee plus a fee payable to the MontereyCounty Clerk/Recorder for processing said fee and posting the Notice ofDetermination (NOD).

1) Two letters were received during the public review period fromneighboring property owners. The comments pointed out issues theneighbors had with the subdivision in general and did not includespecific issues with the environmental document. Therefore, theCounty has considered the comments and deteimined that they do notalter the conclusions in the Initial Study and Mitigated NegativeDeclaration. Although the comments were not on the environmentaldocument, they do question the subdivision's consistency with Countyrequirements. Therefore, a response can be found within Finding No. 1,

Evidence d and Finding No. 6.m) The Monterey County RMA-Planning Department, located at 168 W.

Alisal Street, Second Floor, Salinas, California, 93901, is the custodianof documents and other materials that constitute the record ofproceedings upon which the decision to adopt the negative declarationis based.

6. FINDING: SUBDIVISION - Section 66474 of the California Government Code(Subdivision Map Act) and Title 19 (Subdivision Ordinance) of theMonterey County Code requires that a request for subdivision be denied ifany of the following fmdings are made:1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general

plan and specific plans.2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not

consistent with the applicable general plan and specific plans.3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of

development.5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is

likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially andavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likelyto cause serious public health problems.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements willconflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for accessthrough or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

EVIDENCE: a) Consistency. The project as designed and conditioned is consistentwith the 2010 Monterey County General Plan, South County Area Plan.(Finding 1 and supporting evidence)

b) Design. The lot design is consistent with the Lot Design Standards ofSection 19.10.030 of the Monterey County Code (MCC).

c) Site Suitability. The site is suitable for the proposed project includingthe type and density of the development (Finding 2 and supportingevidence).

d) Health and Safety. The proposed project as designed and conditionedwill not, under the circumstances of the particular application, bedetrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and generalwelfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to thegeneral welfare of the County. (Finding 3 and following evidence)

e) Easements. The subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflictwith easements. There are two existing easements on the subjectproperty, one easement for Public Utility and incidental purposes for thePacific Telephone and Telegraph (Pacific Bell) company and oneeasement for Public Utility and incidental purposes for Pacific Gas andElectric Company, a California corporation. The proposed parcel mapincludes a 30-foot wide road and utility easement. The project is alsoconditioned by the Public Works department to provide for all existingand required easement of rights of way.

f) Water Supply. MCC Section 19.10.070 requires that provisions shallbe made for such domestic water supply as may be necessary to protectpublic health, safety, or welfare, that the source of supply is adequate

Eicholz (PLN060382)

and potable, and that there is proof of a long term water supply with theproposed project. MCC Sections 19.03.015.L and 19.07.020.K requiresWater Supply and Nitrate Loading Information in order to assess theseconditions. The Environmental Health Bureau has reviewed theproposed subdivision for proof of long term water supply. There arethree wells on the property and the subdivision will result with one wellon each parcel. A Well Completion Report for each well was submittedby the applicant and the Environmental Health Bureau found no issueswith water supply.

g) Sewage Disposal. (MCC Sections 19.03.015.K and 19.07.020.J). TheEnvironmental Health Bureau has reviewed the proposed project forcompliance with MCC Section 15.20 (Septic Ordinance). A PercolationData Report was submitted by the applicant as supporting evidence thatthe subsurface soils on the property are suitable for sewage effluentdisposal by the leach line method. The Environmental Health Bureauhas conditioned the project requiring deed notifications on the newlycreated parcel stating that all development be in compliance with thePercolation Report.

h) Traffic. The subject property is located in a rural area of the County.The Public Works Department has reviewed the project and has notrequired submittal of a traffic report, nor have they given any indicationthat the existing roads and circulation can not support traffic caused bythe newly created parcels.

i) Affordable Housing. Pursuant to MCC Section 18.40.060, the applicantis not required to provide Inclusionary housing because the proposedproject includes the creation of less than three new lots.

j) Parks and Recreation. The Parks Department has reviewed andconditioned the project requiring the applicant to comply with Section19.12.010 - Recreation Requirements, of the Subdivision Ordinance,Title 19, Monterey County Code, by paying a fee in lieu of landdedication. The Parks Department shall determine the fee inaccordance with provisions contained in Section 19.12.010(D)

k) The application, tentative map and supporting materials submitted bythe project applicant to the Monterey County Planning Department forthe proposed development are found in Project File PLN060382.

1) The project planner conducted a site inspection on June 15, 2007 and in2009 during the preparation of the initial study.

7. FINDING:

APPEALABILITY - The decision on this project may be appealed to theBoard of Supervisors.

EVIDENCE:

Section 19.16.020.A of the Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance(Board of Supervisors).

DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above findings and evidence, the Minor SubdivisionCommittee does hereby:

A. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; andB. Approve the Minor Subdivision (PLN060382) to allow the division of a 121.86 acre

parcel into three parcels of 41.86 acres (Parcel A), 40 acres (Parcel B), and 40 acres(Parcel C), respectively, both exhibits being attached hereto and incorporated herein

Eicholz (PLN060382)

by reference., in general conformance with the attached sketch (Exhibit 2) andsubject to the conditions (Exhibit 1), both exhibits being attached hereto andincorporated herein by reference; and

C. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 1)

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 2011 upon motion of

, seconded by, by the following vote:

AYES:NOES:

ABSENT:ABSTAIN:

Jacqueline Onciano, Minor Subdivision Committee

COPY OF THIS DECISION MAILED TO APPLICANT ON

THIS APPLICATION IS APPEALABLE TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

IF ANYONE WISHES TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, AN APPEAL FORM MUST BE COMPLETEDAND SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ALONG WITH THE APPROPRIATE FILINGFEE ON OR BEFORE

This decision, if this is the fmal administrative decision, is subject to judicial review pursuant to CaliforniaCode of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6. Any Petition for Writ of Mandate must be filed withthe Court no later than the 90th day following the date on which this decision becomes fmal.

NOTES

1.

You will need a building permit and must comply with the Monterey County Building Ordinancein every respect.

Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance provides that no building permit shall be issued, nor any useconducted, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions and terms of the permit granted oruntil ten days after the mailing of notice of the granting of the permit by the appropriate authority,or after granting of the permit by the Board of Supervisors in the event of appeal.

Do not start any construction or occupy any building until you have obtained the necessarypermits and use clearances from the Monterey County Planning Department and BuildingServices Department office in Salinas.

2.

This permit expires 2 years after the above date of granting thereof unless the parcel map hasbeen recorded within this period.

Eicholz (PLN060382)

Project Name: Eicholz

File No: PLN060382 APNs: 424-331-013-000

Approved by: Minor Subdivision CommitteeDate: February 24, 2011

RESOLUTION ### - EXHIBIT 1Monterey County Resource Management Agency

Planning DepartmentCondition Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring

Reporting Plan*Monitoring or Reporting refers to projects with an EIR or adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration per Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.

Po alitCond.1Nlnhtr

1iti^.Aiiin/e/

( oitilitioiis of

I1>/ p rnral and

Iit'spo111lhlt'1all(1

or 1liti^'alio/t llt'asurt' n an(/

t se1)epaiti//Clll

( 0 /lip/ia/it

ti/'

lh!/1ttol tut;

It f10//S.

to be petto/ wed. li hers' appli(vlhle aI?L, N pall

Patti' 1 /nlint

-

'.

ct i/rc (molt

of(onlp/!(tilt('(/1a/lit' t/at{)

Ctrtifit'iiprofessional Is rt'qut/e(i fol'- --( 'onlpllantt'

-(ICll(111 1(1 he (IttLptt'(I -

1tMA - Planning Department

1. PD001- SPECIFIC USES ONLYThis Minor Subdivision (PLN060382) allows the divisionof a 121.86 acre parcel into three parcels of 41.86 acres

Adhere to conditions and uses specifiedin the permit.

Owner/Applicant

Ongoingunlessotherwise

(Parcel A), 40 acres (Parcel B), and 40 acres (Parcel C),respectively. The property is located at 52195 SmithRoad, Bradley (Assessor's Parcel Number 424-331-013-000), east of the intersection of Hesperia Road andSmith Road, South County Area Plan. This permit wasapproved in accordance with County ordinances and landuse regulations subject to the following terms andconditions. Any use or construction not in substantialconformance with the terms and conditions of this permitis a violation of County regulations and may result inmodification or revocation of this permit and subsequentlegal action. No use or construction other than thatspecified by this permit is allowed unless additionalpermits are approved by the appropriate authorities.(RMA-Planning Department)

Neither the uses nor the constructionallowed by this permit shall commenceunless and until all of the conditions ofthis permit are met to the satisfaction ofthe Director of the RMA - PlanningDepartment.

RMA -Planning

stated

To the extent that the County hasdelegated any condition compliance ormitigation monitoring to the MontereyCounty Water Resources Agency, theWater Resources Agency shall provideall information requested by the Countyand the County shall bear ultimateresponsibility to ensure that conditionsand mitigation measures are properlyfulfilled.

WRA

RMA -Planning

Eicholz (PLN060382)

Per /nit

( . -o111L

\unrb c 'r

Ifni*

n umbel

-

-Conditions of 1 pprorat and or 11itiation1leasures and

--Responsible 1uiu1 ( se Apartment

C'onto /r/rlrcc or llc,ilitnrirt,

1

thins,:

-"to be pc'r/ornled. 11 /lcrc' opp/scab/c, a

-c•ertificd ['MR'S S1011111 IS 1Ci/{lira for

at tl()11 tU be ,lCCepted.

,'1^csponsible

PQltl /of

Conrpllahce

inlilrti

(tificlltion

of

Cnlrlplianco

(lrtlnlc'. diltc'J

2. PD002 - NOTICE-PERMIT APPROVALThe applicant shall record a notice which states: "Apermit (Resolution #//) was approved by the Director ofthe RMA-Planning Department for Assessor's ParcelNumber 424-331-013-000 on February 24, 2011. Thepermit was granted subject to 25 conditions of approvalwhich run with the land. A copy of the permit is on filewith the Monterey County RMA - Planning Department."(RMA-Planning Department)

Obtain appropriate form from the RMA-Planning Department.

The applicant shall complete the formand furnish proof of recordation of thisnotice to the RMA - PlanningDepartment.

Owner/Applicant

RMA-Planning

Prior to theissuance ofgradingandbuildingpermits orcommence-ment ofuse

3. PD032(A) - PERMIT EXPIRATIONThe permit shall be granted for a time period of 2 years, toexpire on February 24, 2013 unless use of the property oractual construction has begun within this period. (RMA -Planning Department)

The applicant shall obtain a validgrading or building permit and/orcommence the authorized use to thesatisfaction of the Director of Planning.Any request for extension must bereceived by the Planning Department atleast 30 days prior to the expirationdate.

Owner/Applicant

As statedin theconditionsof approval

4. PD003(B) - CULTURAL RESOURCES -POSITIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTIf archaeological resources or human remains areaccidentally discovered during construction, thefollowing steps will be taken:There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of

the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected tooverlie adjacent human remains until:

The coroner of the county in which the remains arediscovered must be contacted to determine that noinvestigation of the cause of death is required, and

If the coroner determines the remains to be NativeAmerican:

The applicant shall submit the contractswith a Registered ProfessionalArcheologist and a RegisteredProfessional Anthropologist to theDirector of the RMA - PlanningDepartment for approval.

Owner/Applicantper

archaeolo-gist oranthropol-ogist

Prior to theissuance ofgrading orbuildingpermits orapproval ofSub.Improve-mentPlans,whicheveroccurs first

Eicholz (.PLN060382)

l'cnmiond.

\ttnihcr

%ra

.

\u mbel(onditicnrs of Ipprot'al and Orlliti,at/Olt Vcaurres and

Retponsihle Lund (se Departmtent

( onaplntncc or l10nitnritt ,,

1ctiM1S

to he performed. 11 he/ t' applicable, ciccrtificdprnfc}cinmal is rcgnireator e

aetion to he accepted.

hcsponsihlcPatti rot

C'unrpiianc ciiinin;

I erifhationof

('untplirrmccIramnc ilalet

- The coroner shall contact the Native AmericanHeritage Commission and the RMA - PlanningDepartment within 24 hours.

- The Native American Heritage Commission shallidentify the person or persons from a recognizedlocal tribe of the Esselen, Salinan, Costonoans/Ohlone and Chumash tribal groups, as appropriate,to be the most likely descendent.

- The most likely descendent may makerecommendations to the landowner or the personresponsible for the excavation work, for means oftreating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity,the human remains and any associated grave goodsas provided in Public Resources Code Section5097.9 and 5097.993, or

The requirements of this condition shallbe included as a note on all grading andbuilding plans, on the SubdivisionImprovement Plans, in the CC&Rs, andshall be included as a note on anadditional sheet of the parcel map.

Owner/

Applicant

Prior to theissuance ofgrading orbuildingpermitsand/orprior torecordationof theparcel map

- Where the following conditions occur, thelandowner or his authorized representatives shallrebury the Native American human remains andassociated grave goods with appropriate dignity onthe property in a location not subject to furthersubsurface disturbance:

1.

The Native American Heritage Commission isunable to identify a most likely descendent orthe most likely descendent failed to make arecommendation within 24 hours after beingnotified by the commission.

2.

The descendent identified fails to make arecommendation; or

3.

The landowner or his authorized representativerejects the recommendation of the descendent,and the mediation by the Native AmericanHeritage Commission fails to provide measuresacceptable to the landowner.

(RMA - Planning Department)

Eicholz (PLN060382)

Permitd

NI* Conditions of .1 pproral and or 11it/,(11nm Measures andC'oni/^liunce or llonitorin, lawns

to he perforated. 11 /here uppm_ able, iiResponsible

l'irrt1'to/ 1 inru^ r

I e/ Ili( at/onof

( n er

.\umber

5.

\ranhet Responsible

and / se /)Lparttnent

PD004 - INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT

certified professional is rC (/mired lotQetlO/l Ire hC (CCC/ned.

Submit signed and notarized

Cotnpliaine

Owner/ Upon

CnmpliunL r(name date)

The property owner agrees as a condition and inconsideration of the approval of this discretionarydevelopment permit that it will, pursuant to agreementand/or statutory provisions as applicable, including but notlimited to Government Code Section 66474.9, defend,indemnify and hold harmless the County of Monterey orits agents, officers and employees from any claim, actionor proceeding against the County or its agents, officers oremployees to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval,which action is brought within the time period providedfor under law, including but not limited to, GovernmentCode Section 66499.37, as applicable. The propertyowner will reimburse the county for any court costs andattorney's fees which the County may be required by acourt to pay as a result of such action. County may, at itssole discretion, participate in the defense of such action;but such participation shall not relieve applicant of hisobligations under this condition. An agreement to thiseffect shall be recorded upon demand of County Counselor concurrent with the issuance of building permits, use ofthe property, filing of the fmal map, whichever occurs firstand as applicable. The County shall promptly notify theproperty owner of any such claim, action or proceedingand the County shall cooperate fully in the defensethereof. If the County fails to promptly notify the propertyowner of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails tocooperate fully in the defense thereof, the property ownershall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify orhold the county harmless. (RMA - PlanningDepartment)

Indemnification Agreement to theDirector of RMA - Planning Departmentfor review and signature by the County.

Proof of recordation of theIndemnification Agreement, as outlined,shall be submitted to the RMA -planning Department.

Applicant demand ofCountyCounsel orconcurrentwith theissuance ofbuildingpermits,use of theproperty,filing of theparcel map,whicheveroccurs firstand asapplicable

6. PD005 - FISH AND GAME FEE-NEG DEC/EIR The applicant shall submit a check, Owner/ Within 5Pursuant to the State Public Resources Code § 753.5, StateFish and Game Code, and California Code of Regulations,the applicant shall pay a fee, to be collected by the

payable to the County of Monterey, to theDirector of the RMA - PlanningDepartment.

Applicant workingdays ofproject

Eicholz (PLN060382)

PermitCoils^nmher

.lliti,.wnher

Conditions of

Ipprowtl am/ orlliti•,^ltiotl 11easttrrs and--

_

-,.

_Responsible Lund t se Department

C'otnhlianc e or 11cnitorin, h oonsto he performed. If Ic°re npplleahlc', a..

-

-.

-certified professional is required for :

action to he aeccplecl.

hesponsihlc'l[ll1l forontplirhlcC

eli/ilin,,

I e/ /tic alionof

C 'onlpGcul(cIna/nc''dalc'J

County, within five (5) working days of project approval.This fee shall be paid before the Notice of Determinationis filed. If the fee is not paid within five (5) working days,the project shall not be operative, vested or final until thefiling fees are paid. (RMA - Planning Department)

I approval

I l

If the fee is not paid within five (5)working days, the applicant shall submita check, payable to the County ofMonterey, to the Director of the RMA -Planning Department.

Owner/Applicant

Prior to therecordationof theparcel map,the start ofuse or theissuance ofbuilding orgradingpermits

7. PD006 - MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAMThe applicant shall enter into an agreement with theCounty to implement a Mitigation Monitoring and/orReporting Plan in accordance with Section 21081.6 of theCalifornia Public Resources Code and Section 15097 ofTitle 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations.Compliance with the fee schedule adopted by the Boardof Supervisors for mitigation monitoring shall berequired and payment made to the County of Montereyat the time the property owner submits the signedmitigation monitoring agreement. (RMA - PlanningDepartment)

1) Enter into agreement with theCounty to implement a MitigationMonitoring Program.

2) Fees shall be submitted at the timethe property owner submits thesigned mitigation monitoringagreement.

3)

The requirements of this conditionshall be included as a note on allgrading and building plans, on theSubdivision Improvement Plans, inthe CC&Rs, and shall be includedas a note on an additional sheet ofthe parcel map.

Owner/Applicant

Within 60days afterprojectapproval orprior to theissuance ofgrading orbuildingpermitsand/orprior torecordationof theparcel map

IZ11:^ - Public W orlcs Department

Eicholz (PLN060382)

/'erlnit(unrl.\ umber ^

8.

lid^\umbel

.

( om/itions of 1 ppritral anil of

utti ration Measures and

Responsible Lrinrl L se Department-

PW0008 - DEDICATIONDedicate to the County of Monterey, 30' from thecenterline of Smith Road for street and right-of-waypurposes.(Public Works)

(otnpliattc•e or 11oflitorin nictions

to be pet (miter/. 11 here rtp/tlic able, It

certified professional is required forac•tlrnrto

Applicant's surveyor shall preparedescription of area to be dedicated.DPW can prepare deed.

The requirements of this condition shallbe included as a note on all grading andbuilding plans, on the SubdivisionImprovement Plans, in the CC&Rs, andshall be included as a note on anadditional sheet of the parcel map.

ResponsiblePat tl' . for

(onip/ianc c

Owner/Applicant/Surveyor

/iltlinc


I

rifirntiunof

(ornplirntre(Hants'. date)

9. PW0015 - UTILITY'S COMMENTSSubmit the approved tentative map to impacted utilitycompanies. Subdivider shall submit utility companyrecommendations, if any, to the Department of PublicWorks for all required easements. (Public Works)

Subdivider shall provide tentative mapto impacted utility companies forreview. Subdivider shall submit utilitycomments to DPW

Owner/Applicant

Prior torecordationof parcelmap

10. PW0022 - FIRE REQUIREMENTS FOR ROADSImprove roads in accordance with requirements of thelocal fire jurisdiction. (Public Works)

Subdivider shall submit improvementplans prepared by his Engineer to localfire jurisdiction and to DPW forapproval. Roads to be constructed inaccordance with approved plans.

Subdivider Prior torecordationof parcelmap

11. PW0031- PARCEL MAPFile a parcel map delineating all existing and requiredeasements or rights-of-way and monument new lines.(Public Works)

Applicant's surveyor shall prepareparcel map, submit to DPW for reviewand approval.

Owner/Applicant/Engineer


12. PW0036 - EXISTING EASEMENTS AND ROWProvide for all existing and required easements or rightsof way. (Public Works)

Subdivider's Surveyor shall include allexisting and required easements orrights of way on parcel map.

Subdivider/Surveyor


Environmental Health Bureau

Eicholz (PLN0603 82)

Pc'rnrit

AII/116C1'

111th".\umber

(otidit/ll/1S of

lpprlll'lll t!/Ill lll' 11111"Uttl/Il

Vet/wires am/^Responsible Land 1 se Department

or 1fo111tl1titlg

lclio111'

to be pel'fol'/Ilecl.

^{ he1'C

able, a

= certifreel professional is 1Ctluiroil for(lc tiOtt tU be (lc t (Pell.

-Respolt ihie

1'at t I ',fo l'( onlpl/allcC

1!111111 ,~

^ c'1'lflt atom0/

C lnthlirrtt«'(twine (late/

13. EH001- FIRE FLOW STANDARDS (NON-STANDARD)Design the onsite water/well improvements to meet fireflow standards as required and approved by the local fireprotection agency. (Environmental Health)

Submit evidence to the EnvironmentalHealth Division (EHD) that theproposed improvements for fire flowstandards have been approved by thelocal fire protection agency.

CALicensedEngineer/Owner/Applicant

Prior tofiling theparcel map

14. EHOO2 - DEED NOTIFICATION (NON-STANDARD)A deed notification shall be recorded concurrently withthe parcel map with the Monterey County Recorder foreach new parcel that states: "A Soils and PercolationReport has been prepared for this parcel by Mid-CoastGeotechnical, Inc., dated September 29, 2006 and is onrecord at the Division of Environmental Health,Monterey County, File Number PLN060382. Allproposed development shall be in compliance with thisreport and the recommendations therein.(Environmental Health)

Submit proposed working and forms tobe recorded to Environmental Healthand RMA-Planning Depth hnent forreview and approval. Record the deednotification and provide proof ofrecordation to END.


Concurrentwith filingthe parcelmap

15. EHOO3 - WELL PADS (NON-STANDARD)Well pads shall conform to Environmental HealthDivision requirements for a concrete pad that is 2.0 feetoutward from each of the well casings for all threeparcels. (Environmental Health)

Demonstrate that the well pads conformto Environmental Health Divisionrequirements for a concrete pad that is2.0 feet outward from each of theexisting three well casings.


Prior tofiling theparcel map

Monterey County Water Resources Agency

16. WR41 - NOTICE OF WATER CONSERVATION Submit a recorded notice to the Water Owner/ Recorda-REQUIREMENTS Resources Agency for review and Applicant tion of theA notice shall be recorded on the deed for each lot approval. notice shallstating: "All new construction shall incorporate the use occurof low water use plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant (A copy of the County's standard notice concur-landscaping, in accordance with County Water can be obtained at the Water Resources rently withResources Agency Ordinance No. 3932." Prior to Agency.) the parcelrecordation of the final map, a copy the completed map

Eicholz (PLN060382)

Pc'/ntitC (lllll.

Vunlher\tu/th(i

,.

..(ott(lt(lonsof

Ipp,oval and orlltth,ation 11e(lsurc's ai111

t /f('11/nnSiblC 1uittl C SC 1)elnlrtinent

Comp/lam e or llottitotin , 1(twits-..to he /telfoli!bete i/111^11c'able, aCL'rtifi^^il professional is requited for

action to he (lc( (TIM.

ResponsiblePatti for

C'unrhliaii e

1/llitll^i

l Crifl

(liion

of(onqtltan(c°(Ham( (late)

notice shall be provided to the Water Resources Agencyfor approval. (Water Resources Agency)

17. WR42 - LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTSA notice shall be recorded on the deed for each lotstating: "The front yards of all homes shall belandscaped at the time of construction. Low water useor drought tolerant plants shall be used together withwater efficient irrigation systems." Prior to recordationof the parcel map, a copy the completed notice shall beprovided to the Water Resources Agency for approval.(Water Resources Agency)

Submit the recorded notice to theWater Resources Agency for reviewand approval.

(A copy of the County's standard noticecan be obtained at the Water ResourcesAgency.)

Owner/Applicant

Recorda-tion of thenotice shalloccurconcur-rently withthe parcelmap

Fire Agency - CDF South County

18. FIRE001- ROAD ACCESSAccess roads shall be required for every building whenany portion of the exterior wall of the first story islocated more than 150 feet from fire department access.All roads shall be constructed to provide a minimum oftwo nine-foot traffic lanes with an unobstructed verticalclearance of not less than 15 feet. The roadway surfaceshall provide unobstructed access to conventional drivevehicles including sedans and fire apparatus and shall bean all-weather surface designed to support the imposedload of fire apparatus (22 tons). Each road shall have anapproved name. (CDF South County)

Applicant shall incorporatespecification into design and enumerateas "Fire Dept. Notes" on parcel mapand building/grading plans.

Applicantor owner


Applicant shall schedule fire dept.clearance inspection for each phase ofdevelopment.

Applicantor owner

Prior tofinalbuildinginspection

19. FIRE002 - ROADWAY ENGINEERING Applicant shall incorporate Applicant Prior to theThe grade for all roads shall not exceed 15 percent. specification into design and enumerate or owner issuance ofWhere road grades exceed 8 percent, a minimum as "Fire Dept. Notes" on parcel map grading orstructural roadway surface of 0.17 feet of asphaltic and building/grading plans. buildingconcrete on 0.34 feet of aggregate base shall be permits

Eicholz (.PLN060382)

^1 ^'1 'lnll(

\71111 h c,

111ti.Aum ber

-Conditions oflpproral and or 11iti,̂ 'atioll lh'atitlres and

Responsible Laird ( so D ' 7art111elit

required. The length of vertical curves in roadways,exclusive of gutters, ditches and drainage structuresdesigned to hold or divert water, shall not be less than100 feet. No roadway turn shall have a horizontalinside radius of less than 50 feet. A roadway turn radiusof 50 to 100 feet is required to have an additional 4 feetof roadway surface. A roadway turn radius of 100 to200 feet is required to have an additional 2 feet ofroadway surface. Roadway turnarounds shall berequired on dead-end roads in excess of 150 feet ofsurface length. The minimum turning radius for aturnaround shall be 40 feet from the center line of theroad. If a hammerhead/T is used, the top of the "T"shall be a minimum of 60 feet in length. (CDF SouthCounty)

(omplhencc ur 1lonitolnlg

Icthins

to he pcrrfnrnl^'d. 11 //etc' applicahlt', aecertified professional is rctlnlre[l for

-(lcnnlr tuhe accepted.

ResponsibleParr l Jur

(otllpllall(l ilnin,

and/orprior torecordationof theparcel map

l tiificutim1 ,

(U1111711^f11^'c'

(nanlc (laic)


Applicantor owner


20: FIRE006 - DEAD-END ROADS (4)For parcels greater than 20 acres, the maximum lengthof a dead-end road, including all dead-end roadsaccessed from that dead-end road, shall not exceed 5280feet. All dead-end road lengths shall be measured fromthe edge of the roadway surface at the intersection thatbegins the road to the end of the road surface at itsfurthest point. Where a dead-end road serves parcels ofdiffering sizes, the shortest allowable length shall apply.Each dead-end road shall have turnarounds at its

Applicant shall incorporatespecification into design and enumerateas "Fire Dept. Notes" on parcel mapand building/grading plans.

Applicantor owner


terminus and at no greater than 1320-foot intervals. Theminimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be 40feet from the center line of the road. If a hammerhead/Tis used, the top of the "T" shall be a minimum of 60 feetin length. (CDF South County)


Applicantor owner


Eicholz (PLN060382)

PrrlnitC ourl.\111116cY

\umbel

(ondilions of

Ipprlmll and or 1/itiKatiotl llcasrirc's and

-Responsible /mul l seDcpartn ent

U111p/((II1CC or llonito1'lll,

1( twits

to he perfornnCd. lucre lrpplicahle, Ir

certified professional is reyuiled tot-

-

-NC thin to hC tlcLC1)1ed:

1? sponii111'artl tot

( o111p1/Clrl(C

1 halm;

1 c7//7cat/o11of

C'unlpliun^'c'((1[IINCr(laic)

21. FIRE010 -ROAD SIGNSAll newly constructed or approved roads and streetsshall be designated by names or numbers, posted onsigns clearly visible and legible from the roadway. Sizeof letters, numbers and symbols for street and road signsshall be a minimum 4-inch letter height, Y2-inch stroke,and shall be a color that is reflective and clearlycontrasts with the background color of the sign. Allnumerals shall be Arabic. Street and road signs shall benon-combustible and shall be visible and legible from

Applicant shall incorporatespecification into design and enumerateas "Fire Dept. Notes" on parcel mapand improvement plans.

Applicantor owner


both directions of vehicle travel for a distance of at least100 feet. Height, visibility, legibility, and orientation ofstreet and road signs shall be meet the provisions ofMonterey County Ordinance No. 1241. This sectiondoes not require any entity to rename or renumberexisting roads or streets, nor shall a roadway providingaccess only to a single commercial or industrialoccupancy require naming or numbering. Signsrequired under this section identifying intersectingroads, streets and private lanes shall be placed at theintersection of those roads, streets and/or private lanes.Signs identifying traffic access or flow limitations (i.e.,weight or vertical clearance limitations, dead-end road,one-way road or single lane conditions, etc.) shall beplaced: (a) at the intersection preceding the traffic accesslimitation; and (b) not more than 100 feet before suchtraffic access limitation. Road, street and private lanesigns required by this article shall be installed prior tofinal acceptance of road improvements by theReviewing Fire Authority. (CDF South County)


Applicantor owner

Prior toissuance ofbuildingpermit(s)fordevelop-ment onindividuallots withinthe phaseof thesubdivi-sion.

Parks

Eicholz (PLN060382)

-Pe/7111

on d:1 nlllhel

22.

-lit/ ,,

1umbel

-

-1(o/Idilio/ISof

Illllrovdl andResponsible Land

PKS002 - RECREATION

The Applicant shall complyRecreation Requirements, ofTitle 19, Monterey Countyof land dedication. The Parksdetermine the fee in accordancecontained in Section 19.12.010(D)Department)

or.llitltiulion, Measures and

1 se Ikparlnlent

REQUIREMENTS/FEES

with Section 19.12.010 -the Subdivision Ordinance,

Code, by paying a fee in lieuDepartment shall

with provisions(Parks

( '1/lnplia/he or llonilo/1/Iti

I( /Ionsto ht 1u'rfor/nc'd. 111/ere applicable, acertified llrolc'sswnal is /e(fliired toi'

tltlll tll hC //ccC'pted.

The Applicant shall comply with theRecreation Requirements contained inSection 19.12.010 of the SubdivisionOrdinance Title 19, Monterey CountyCode.

/cespoliS7hleParts flit

^UII1pIIa11Ce

Owner/Applicant

I //Him

Prior to therecordationof theparcel map

,//fltilllo/l

^!f(on/pliant c'

(name date/

11 itigation l\l cas a res

23. 1. MITIGATION MEASURE 1 - FLORISTIC Prior to filing of the parcel map, a note Owner/ Prior toINVENTORY AND RARE PLANT SURVEYS shall be placed on the parcel map or on a Applicant recordationPrior to initiation of any future construction activities, a separate sheet to be recorded with the of thefloristic inventory and rare plant survey of the area of parcel map encompassing all language parcel mapdevelopment shall be completed by a qualified within Mitigation Measure No. 1. Priorbiologist/botanist during the appropriate seasons to to recordation, the map, with notes, shalldetermine the presence or absence of Abbott's bush- be submitted to the RMA - Planningmallow (Malacothamnus abbotii). Surveys shall be Department for review and approval.floristic in nature (i.e. all plant species observed shall berecorded), and shall be conducted in accordance withthe California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts ofSpecial Status Native Plan Populations and NaturalCommunities (November 2009), and United States Fishand Wildlife Service (USFWS) Guidelines forConducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories forFederally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants(USFWS, 2000).

Prior to initiation of any constructionactivities, the applicant shall retain aqualified biologist to conduct a floristicinventory and rare plant survey. Ifspecial status plants are identified,future applicants shall submit writtenproof that the RMA - PlanningDepartment and CDFG have beencontacted and development areas shall

Owner/Applicant/Contractor

Prior toissuance ofgradingand/orbuildingpermits

_ Multiple focused field surveys may be required to

be situated such that impacts areavoided or minimized. If impactscannot be avoided, a mitigation and

capture the flowering period of the target species. The monitoring plan shall be prepared by a

Eicholz (PLN060382)

PCrllllt(( ) n( L

\limbel'-

t/ui^Vumbel

C oil(litiolls of . I pproral aml or 11itl «utiort 1leasurc's (Intl

Responsible / (I

tl (se 1)cl)(rrtiiullt--

:`

;;

,

-C 'l)nllifi/lnceOr 1lotlit01I/I

1(twit s -.

to he per/untied. II here applicable, a

certified professional is required Jot

,..-•

^

acti on 10 h e (lc'ccptc ' ( 1 .

-Responsible

Purtr for

(()nrpliance-

7ilninz

-.

I c' rificOlion

of(on/pliarrrc

(n ( lnle ilarr)

location and extent of any rare plant occurrencesobserved in the project area shall be documented in areport and accurately mapped onto site-specifictopographic maps, aerial photographs, or satelliteimages.

If special status plants are identified within the area ofdevelopment, future applicants shall submit writtenproof that the RMA - Planning Department and CDFGhave been contacted. The report shall include estimatesof the plant populations and the percentage of the totalpopulation that will be lost as a result of development.Once the location of these special status plant species isknown, impacts to these species shall be avoided orminimized to the greatest extent possible. If impactscannot be avoided, a detailed mitigation and monitoringplan that addresses impacts to'all special status species,including Abbott's bush-mallow, shall be prepared by aCounty-approved biologist/botanist and reviewed by theRMA - Planning Depai lunent and CDFG. The detailedmitigation and monitoring plan shall be developed toprotect and enhance the remaining occurrences of thesespecies and to increase the overall numbers of specialstatus plants located on the property. The mitigation andmonitoring plan shall at a minimum include thefollowing:

•

The overall goals and measurable objectives ofthe mitigation and monitoring plan;

•

Specific areas proposed for revegetation, theirsize, and replanting ratio;

•

Specific habitat management and protectionconcepts to be used to ensure long-termmaintenance and protection of Abbott's bush-

County-approved biologist/botanist.Surveys shall be conducted prior to sitedisturbance on the property andappropriate mitigation shall beimplemented if special status speciesare found to occur in the area ofdevelopment.

Eicholz (PLN060382)

- -

-hC1nlll

oncL,11111~.

-

\In1111Pr

(01011110111 Y/f . ^lllU•(I1'Nl llncl 01

11111ticltlonl1c'lllnr.•CI and

Responsible 1nnd

1C 1)^fl(Irtllc'71t-' .

, '

- .

•.

(ompliante or llonilorin•,

thins

tll he peitorvnoll. 1{ hertz (11)l)llia111c, c1 :

-Cc'r11flCll pro/c'SStonal11 ICi/lllrc'(1 t(II'

QCtlon ' 10 /ICaCic'l)t('(1•

/?espo1111b1charll' for

-,( on/pilo11CC

11n1111:;-

- ^-

1 critic ((11011

of(on11111on n C(11011,",1010)71n1 11Cr

mallow, such as annual population censussurveys and habitat assessments; establishmentof monitoring reference sites; fencing of speciespreserves and signageto identify theenvironmentally sensitive areas; a seasonally-timed weed abatement program; and seasonally-timed plant/seed/bulb collection, propagation,and reintroduction of Abbott's bush-mallow intospecified receiver sites;

•

Success criteria based on the goals andmeasurable objectives to ensure a viablepopulation on the site in perpetuity;

•

An adaptive management program to addressboth foreseen and unforeseen circumstancesrelating to the preservation and mitigationprograms;

•

Remedial measures to address negative impactsto Abbott's bush-mallow and their habitat thatmay occur during construction activities as wellas post-construction when dwellings areoccupied;

•

Reporting requirements to track success orfailure of the mitigation program and to ensureconsistent data collection and reporting methodsused by monitoring personnel; and,

•

Maintenance and cost estimates.(RMA - Planning Department)

Eicholz (PLN060382)

Permit

\umb el 'Vuwhcl

Conditions o

I pprurul and or lliti^utloli 1easures andResponsible Lrmd L se Department

(ow/lance or 11011itoring

lc tioil sto be per/orated

II llc^rr (lpplic able, accrailed professional Is required /or

action to be oct(7)te(1.

ResponsibleI'crrtltor

Compliance7 thin

rif i(Yltiull

Cnnipli(rnce(name date)

24. 2. MITIGATION MEASURE 2 - SAN JOAQUINMTFOX

HABITAT

EVALUATIONPrior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, aqualified biologist shall conduct a San Joaquin Kit FoxHabitat Evaluation to assess the extent of potentialSJKF habitat displacement in the area of development.The biologist shall use the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) evaluation form to calculate thequality of habitat and submit the form to CDFG forreview. The biologist shall submit a letter to the RMA -Planning Department reporting the date the survey wasconducted, the survey protocol, survey results, and whatmeasures were necessary and completed, in consultationwith the CDFG, to address any SJKF activity within theproject limits.

The RMA - Planning Department shallthen review the biological letter and proceed with anynecessary

recommendations

of the

letter.

Possiblerecommendations may include, but are not limited to,the following:

•

Proof of compliance with the Federal and CaliforniaEndangered Species Acts, inclusive as necessary of

Prior to filing of the parcel map, a noteshall be placed on the parcel map or on aseparate sheet to be recorded with theparcel map encompassing all languagewithin Mitigation Measure No. 2. Priorto recordation, the map, with notes, shallbe submitted to the RMA - PlanningDepartment for review and approval.

Owner/Applicant

Prior torecordationof theparcel map

Eicholz (PLN060382)

/'crrnitortr/'

Vtrnncc'r\urtber

oit(litio)rs of

lpprovarl and or 11itigatioti llc,ustrrc's rttuf'

ne^1^Otisiblc^ L_diic! ( S^'^Dcfxtrtlxcrtt

(ot)iplirtttc

or 1lotritoritrti

lc trims

to helparfotniciL II htcrO applicable, it

Ccrtificullrraft'ss/anal IS reyriircrl f+rr

actr<rtr IO he tcc epterl.

Rc'SpOttsilTh

'

_.1artl /otonrplirurce

1/A1tR u°

c'ri/r`cotionor

('onrlrli^urcc(name doh')

signed

copies

of incidental take

permits

andassociated

enacting

agreements,

or

othermemorandum from the

appropriate state andfederal agencies determining that such complianceis not required;

•

Habitat replacement at a ratio of 3:1 for affectedacreage;

•

Establishment of an exclusion zone, or buffer, frompotential SJKF dens; and/or

•

Dedication of a conservation easement.

Upon review of the San Joaquin Kit Fox HabitatEvaluation, if CDFG determines that there will be noimpact to SJKF, no further action is necessary.However, if CDFG does find potential for impact toSJKF, implementation of additional MitigationMeasures recommended by the biologist shall berequired to reduce potential impacts to a less thansignificant level. Documentation of the requiredmitigation must be completed prior to issuance ofgrading and/or building permits. Mitigation measuresmust be fully implemented prior to the commencementof any grading. (RMA - Planning Department)

Prior to initiation of constructionactivities, the applicant shall retain aqualified biologist to conduct a SanJoaquin Kit Fox Habitat Evaluation forthe area of development. The biologistshall submit a letter to the RMA -Planning Department reporting the datethe survey was conducted, the surveyprotocol, survey results, and whatmeasures were necessary andcompleted, in consultation with theCDFG, to address any SJKF activitywithin the project limits. The RMA -Planning Department shall review thereport and may require an additionalenvironmental review if necessary.


Prior toissuance ofgradingand/orbuildingpermits

25. 3. MITIGATION MEASURE 3 - CULTURAL Prior to filing of the parcel map, a note Owner/ Prior toRESOURCE EVALUATIONPrior to issuance of grading and/or building permits forParcel A, a registered archaeologist shall review andcomment on any proposed development to assess anypotential impacts to either identified or un-identifiedcultural resources.

The archaeologist shall submit areport to the RMA - Planning Department reporting thedate the survey was conducted, the survey protocol,survey results, and what measures were necessary andcompleted, to address any cultural resources found

shall be placed on the parcel map or on aseparate sheet to be recorded with theparcel map encompassing all languagewithin Mitigation Measure No. 3. Themap, with notes, shall be submitted tothe RMA - Planning Department forreview and approval.

Applicant recordationof theparcel map

Eicholz (PLN060382)

Pet /nitCnnc l .\ 11tllhet

1/it/^.linnhel

( with/Ions of l pproral anti or 1JIti ation . lleasnres Only/ ,sponsihle Land / se Pcparlnlent

C ow/lance or llonitotitt,

Icthnls" t) he pertllrttted. II here nppltru/11e, a

certified pro/esslonal is tegiiired foraction iu be ucrcpled.

ResponsibleParts for

(Ut11p/IQnce

/ itnin^

erifitatt

lor

C'nnplialceonline dater

within the area of development. The report shall alsoinclude acknowledgement of review of the previousarchaeological report, grading plans, and constructionplans. The RMA - Planning Department shall thenreview the archaeological report and proceed with anynecessary recommendations of the report. Possiblerecommendations may include, but are not limited to,the following:

•

Requirement of an additional environmentalreview and further mitigation measures; and

•

Dedication of a conservation easement.

(RMA - Planning Department)

Prior to issuance of any grading and/orbuilding permits for Parcel A, theapplicant shall submit an archaeologicalreport conducted by a registeredarchaeologist which identifies anypotential impact caused by thedevelopment to any archaeologicalresource. The report shall include, but notlimited to:

•

Review of the previousarchaeological report, datedMay 3, 2007 by ArchaeologicalResource Management,

•

Review of the proposed gradingplans (including any new orimproved access roads),

•

Review of the proposedconstruction plans (includingseptic, leachlines, and anysecondary locations, and areasfor utility trenching).

The report shall be reviewed andapproved by the RMA-Director ofPlanning, and any additionalenvironmental review and mitigationmeasures shall be identified at that time.


Prior toissuance ofgradingand/orbuildingpermits forParcel A

END OF CONDITIONSRev. 11/21/09

Eicholz (PLN060382)

GEOLOGIC STUDY MID-COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.SOILS ENGINEER: P.O. BOX 3125

PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93447

BIOLOGIC STUDY: ED MERCURIO BIOLOGICAL CONSULTANT647 WILSON STREETSALINAS, CALIFORNIA 93901

ARCHAEOLOGIST: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT4% N. FIFTH STREETSAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95112

SUBDMDER'S STATEMENTI) PROPOSED' DEVELOPMENT: LOTS FOR SALE2) ZONING: RG/403) WATER. EXISTING INDIVIDUAL WELLS4) SEWAGE DISPOSAL: INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEMS5) TREE PLANTING: NONE PROPOSED6) EROSION CONTROL: THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 16.12 OF

THE MONTEREY COUNTY CODE SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH.

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT E

Action by Land Use Advisory CommitteeProject Referral Sheet

Monterey County Planning Department168 W Alisal St 2nd Fir

Salinas CA 93901(831) 755-5025

Advisory Committee: Bradley Parkfield

Please submit your recommendations for this application by Wednesday, June 20, 2007.

Project Title: EICHOLZ JOHN B & ROSE ANN TFile Number: PLN060382File Type: MSPlanner: QUENGALocation: 52195 SMITH RD BRADLEYProject Description:MINOR SUBDIVISION TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE 121.86 ARCE LOT INTO ONE PARCEL OF41.86 ACRES (PARCEL A), ONE PARCEL OF 40 ACRES (PARCEL B) AND ONE PARCEL OF 40 ACRES (PARCELC). THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 52195 SMITH ROAD, BRADLEY (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER424-331-013-000), EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HESPERIA ROAD AND SMITH ROAD, SOUTH COUNTYAREA.

Was the Owner/Applicant/Representative Present at Meeting? Yes X No

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Concerns were expressed by neighbors Don McKenzie and Tom and Marty Wize about viewsheds, since wells have beendrilled near presumed building sites, gentle treeless knolls they look directly up at. Neighbor Jean Lewey expressedconcerns (seconded by Mr McKenzie) that the roads ought to require paving for fire protection, since in the rugged areafires on 40 acres tend to spread to neighboring parcels. Jean Lewey also said that rain runoff from any development willrun across her road. Mr Goetz remarked that "runoff will have to be addressed". Neighbor Vince Pineda worries that useof the new wells would diminish his water supply, and that he generally is opposed due to "unsuitability of the property".

Neighbor Janice Ramseier noted that this subdivision is consistent with zoning.

Note: neighbors provided extensive photos with comments which will be sent back to Planning Commission withsubdivision map and other materials.

AREAS OF CONCERN (e.g. traffic, neighborhood compatibility, visual impact, etc.):

The LUAC generally agreed that there might be runoff and water concerns that need to be taken up with appropriate Countyagencies. If there are County rergulations concerning hill or ridgetop development in the case, the same should apply (andnote that neighbor McKenzie believes County staff never made a visual inspection to see that such indeed is the case).Neighbor Heather Cruz reiterated the concern about fire, and Camsuzou stated that the CDF should be contacted to insurethat there standards for access, water storage, and fire prevention are met.

[PLN060382 EICHOLZ CONTINUED]

RECOMMENDED CHANGES/CONDITIONS (e.g. reduce scale, relocate on property, reduce lighting, etc.):

None

ADDITIONAL LUAC COMMENTS:

See previous page.

Also, it was noted by Bartosh that the Lockwood Bryson Hesperia area needs their own LUAC (see motion below)

RECOMMENDATION (e.g. recommend approval; recommend denial; recommend continuance):

Camsuzou moved to recommend that the project is consistent with zoningSeconded by Orradre

CONCUR WITH RECOMMENDATION:

AYES: 3 (Orradre, Camsuzou, Bartosh)

NOES: 0

ABSENT: 1 (Work)

ABSTAIN: 0

MEETING ADJOURNED AT:

8:45 PM

Sent by Bart Bartosh, Secretary of the Bradley Parkfield LUACReceived via email on June 27, 2007Michele Friedrich, LUAC Contact

EXHIBIT F

County of Monterey, State of California

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION

Project Title: EICHOLZ JOHN B & ROSE ANN TFile Number: PLN060382

Owner: EICHOLZ JOHN B & ROSE ANN T MAZZON

107 SUNSET TERRACE

SCOTTS VALLEY CA 95066

Project Location: 52195 SMITH RD BRADLEYPrimary APN: 424-331-013-000

Project Planner: QUENGAPermit Type: Minor Subdivision

Project Description:

MINOR SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE MAP TO ALLOW THE DIVISION OF A 121.86 ACREPARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS OF 41.86 ACRES (PARCEL A), 40 ACRES (PARCEL B),AND 40 ACRES (PARCEL C), RESPECTIVELY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 52195SMITH ROAD, BRADLEY (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 424-331-013-000), EAST OFTHE INTERSECTION OF HESPERIA ROAD AND SMITH ROAD, SOUTH COUNTYAREA. .

THIS PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AS IT HASBEEN FOUND:

a) That said project will not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment.

b) That said project will have no significant impact on long-term environmental goals.

c)That said project will have no significant cumulative effect upon the environment.

d) That said project-will not cause-substantial -adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Decision Making Body (check one):

E Planning Commission

q Zoning Administrator

E Board of Supervisors

Subdivision Committee

Responsible Agency: County of Monterey

Review Period Begins: all24hOC Chief of Planning Services

El Other: Review Period Ends: to(-51(o

Further information, including a copy of the application and Initial Study are available at the Monterey CountyPlanning Department, 168 West Alisal St, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA (831) 755-5025

S E DA Y&

r,._.

nn,ni

MONTEREY COUNTYRESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY - PLANNING DEPARTMENT168 WEST ALISAL, 2ND FLOOR, SALINAS, CA 93901(831) 755-5025 FAX: (831) 755-9516

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONMONTEREY COUNTY MINOR SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Monterey County Resource Management Agency - PlanningDepartment has prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, for aMinor Subdivision (Eicholz, File Number PLN060382) at 52195 Smith Road, Bradley (APN 424-331-013-000)(see description below). The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, as well as referenced documents,are available for review at the Monterey County Resource Management Agency - Planning Department, 168West Alisal, 2nd Floor, Salinas, California. On a date later determined, the Minor Subdivision Committee willconsider this proposal at a meeting at the Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 168 West Alisal,2nd Floor, Salinas, California. Written comments on this Negative Declaration will be accepted from September24, 2010 to October 25, 2010. Comments can also be made during the public hearing.

Project Description: Minor Subdivision Tentative Map to allow the division of a 121.86 acre parcel into threeparcels of 41.86 acres (Parcel A), 40 acres (Parcel B), and 40 acres (Parcel C), respectively. The property islocated at 52195 Smith Road, Bradley (Assessor's Parcel Number 424-331-013-000), east of the intersection ofHesperia Road and Smith Road, South County area.

All written comments on the Initial Study should be addressed to:

County of MontereyResource Management Agency - Planning DepartmentAttn: Mike Novo, Interim Director of Planning168 West Alisal, 2nd FloorSalinas, CA 93901

-_From:

Agency Name: _Contact Person:Phone Number:

No Comments providedComments noted belowComments provided in separate letter

COMMENTS:

We welcome your comments during the 30-day public review period. You may submit your comments in hardcopy to the name and address above. The Department also accepts comments via e-mail or facsimile butrequests that you follow these instructions to ensure that the Department has received your comments. Tosubmit your comments by e-mail, please send a complete document including all attachments to:

[email protected] .

An e-mailed document should contain the name of the person or entity submitting the comments and contactinformation such as phone number, mailing address and/or e-mail address and include any and all attachmentsreferenced in the e-mail. To ensure a complete and accurate record, we request that you also provide a follow-up hard copy to the name and address listed above. If you do not wish to send a follow-up hard copy, thenplease send a second e-mail requesting confirmation of receipt of comments with enough information to confirmthat the entire document was received. If you do not receive e-mail confinnation of receipt of comments, thenplease submit a hard copy of your comments to ensure inclusion in the environmental record or contact theDepartment to ensure the Department has received your comments.

Facsimile (fax) copies will be accepted with a cover page describing the extent (e.g. number of pages) beingtransmitted. A faxed document must contain a signature and all attachments referenced therein. Faxeddocument should be sent to the contact noted above at (831) 757-9516. To ensure a complete and accuraterecord, we request that you also provide a follow-up hard copy to the name and address listed above. If you donot wish to send a follow-up hard copy, then please contact the Department to confirm that the entire document

' was received.

For reviewing agencies: The Resource Management Agency - Planning Department requests that you reviewthe enclosed materials and provide any appropriate comments related to your agency's area of responsibility. Thespace below may be used to indicate that your agency has no comments or to state brief comments. Incompliance with Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, please provide a draft mitigation monitoring orreporting program for mitigation measures proposed by your agency. This program should include specificperformance objectives for mitigation measures identified (CEQA Section 21081.6(c)). Also inform thisDepartment if a fee needs to be collected in order to fund the mitigation monitoring or reporting by your agencyand how that language should be incorporated into the miti gation measure.

1.

State Clearinghouse (15 copies)-include Notice of Completion2.

County Clerk's Office3.

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments4.

San Antonio Union School District5.

Pacific Gas & Electric6.

Pacific Bell7.

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District8.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, South County Area9.

Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner10.

Monterey County Water Resources Agency11.

Monterey County Public Works Department12.

Monterey County Parks Department

13.Monterey County Division of Environmental Health14.

John B. Eicholz and Rose Ann T Mazzone, Owner15.

MJ Goetz and Associates, Agent16.

Property Owners within 300 feet (Notice of Intent only)

Revised 02-02-2007

MONT ;REY COUNTYRESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCYPLANNING DEPARTMENT168 WEST ALISAL ST., 2 r'd FLOOR, SALINAS, CA 93901PHONE: (831) 755-5025

FAX: (831) 757-9516

INITIAL STUDY

I. BA CKGR 0 UND INFORMATION

Project Title: Eicholz

File No.: PLN060382

Project Location: 52195 Smith Road, Bradley CA

Name of Property Owner: John B Eicholz and Rose Ann T Mazzone

Name of Applicant: MJ Goetz and Associates

Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 424-331-013-000

Acreage of Property: 121.94 acres

General Plan Designation: Rural Grazing

Zoning District: RG/40 (Rural Grazing, 40 acres per unit)

Lead. Agency: RMA-Planning Department

Prepared By: Anna V. Quenga

Date Prepared: October 1, 2009

Contact Person: Anna V. Quenga

Phone Number: (831) 755-5175

Eicholz Initial StudyPLN060382 Page I

II DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

A. Project Description:The proposed project is a Minor Subdivision to allow the division of a 121.94 acre parcel intothree parcels of 41.71 acres (Parcel A), 40.19 acres (Parcel B), and 40.05 acres (Parcel C),respectively. The subject property is a "T-shaped" parcel located at 52195 Smith Road, Bradley(Assessor's Parcel Number 424-331-013-000) within the South County Planning Area; north ofthe Nacimiento Reservoir and south of San Antonio Lake, one mile east of the intersection ofHesperia Road and Smith Road.

The proposed subdivision does not include the construction of single family residences,accessory structures, or associated improvements; however, the property's zoning designationallows for up to three single family dwellings accessory to the agricultural use of the property, foran owner, operator or employees employed on-site, without benefit of a discretionary permit.

Although the applicant does not propose construction or improvements, conditions required bythe Division of Environmental Health require proof of certain land improvements prior to filingof the Parcel Map. Specifically, confirmation by the applicant that the design of the onsitewater/well improvements meet fire flow standards as required and approved by the local fireprotection agency and that the applicant demonstrates that the well pads conform to the Divisionof Environmental Health requirements.

B. Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses:The subject property was created through a minor subdivision in 1973 (Monterey CountyPlanning File No. MS 73-386). During the survey for the Parcel Map, the southeastern propertyline was depicted along the aliquot part s of Section 30. However, the landowners assumed that along standing fence should have been the "true" property line, which was located 127.5 feetsouth of the surveyed line for the minor subdivision. Therefore, in 1981, the portion between thesoutheastern property line and the fence was quitclaimed over to the owner of the subjectproperty and a Record of Survey Map was subsequently filed on March 1982 (Volume 13,Surveys page 30). The Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance No. 1713 (dated 1970) was inplace during the time of the quitclaim. Section 2.20.C of the ordinance states that " 'subdivision'shall not include the division of property for the sole purpose of adjusting the property linesbetween contiguous parcels when no new building site is thereby created and where no buildingsite is being substandard." Based on information from the County's Historical Zoning Map(1978) the property was zoned as "Rural with a 10 acre minimum building site" (N-10) and bothproperties were still in conformance with the site development standards of the district resultingfrom the adjustment of the boundary lines. Therefore, the County recognizes that the lotconfiguration in the Record of Survey Map filed in 1982 is the legal lot of record.

The terrain of the site varies from flat lands and slightly rolling hills in the southern portion ofthe property to steeper rolling hills and natural swale features in the northern portion of the site.The property is primarily covered in non-native grassland with almost half of the property

1 The aliquot part is the standard subdivisions of a section, such as a half section, quarter section, or quarter-quartersection.

Eicholz Initial StudyPLN060382

Page 2

containing diverse native plant flora. Oaks and brush cover the lower areas of the northernportion of the property. The site, which was used as grazing land in the past, contains old ranchroads and fences but is void of any structures; however, there are three existing wells on theproperty.

This area of the County is rural in character. Single family dwellings and small scale agriculturaluses are found within the vicinity of the project area.

The subject property's zoning is Rural Grazing, 40 acres per unit or "RG/40", with similarzoning in the surrounding areas.


Page 3

Eiclzolz Initial StudyPLN060382 Page 4

M-VNICINS BY

ViCtITY MAP,A F.

SUBDIVCERS STATEMENTI) Hi.1 1PATI,

. 1016 I q, .Al;oRll!c

a) RATH.

c.. 1111 WA, NILil,rAqc,,L trrsG R'o:;n-o,c

5) 'PIT PtIRAIIi. RCM FROMM>PPIHIIRF CNTF,:T.

1 1PPAI61015

Cn-APTFII 16.12 CIrTN: MANFI- 1:11.1'ClAgi('T CGL•1. 5.411E CI: cce,tau ni n rd.

s,ncr

Sr

1

-LE

Or0a:cAeoCAL, ,111.P.0 IAN AARI=ay FFAFII:=. cal ii cle, n.: N-Hs

I,K.IAP; nG 11110* llp w,looPIF Ma:: 57.RHA

ARC-11RI-41.00IST:

RpRrAiRcc.

PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER APPLICABLE LOCALAND STATE PLAN' AND MANDATED LAWS

Use the list below to indicate plans applicable to the project and verify their consistency or non-consistency with project implementation.

General PlanlArea Plan

®

Air Quality Mgmt. Plan

Specific Plan

q

Airport Land Use Plans

q

Water Quality Control Plan

Local Coastal Program-LUP

q

General PlanlArea Plan. The proposed project was reviewed for consistency with the 1982Monterey County General Plan and the South County Area Plan. Section IV. A discusseswhether the project physically divides an established community, conflicts with any applicableland use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project or conflictswith any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Theproject has no impact to land use planning and is consistent with the 1982 Monterey CountyGeneral Plan and the South County Area Plan. CONSISTENT

Water Quality Control Plan. Monterey County is included in the Central Coast Regional WaterQuality Control Board - Region 3 (CCRWCB). The CCRWCB regulates the sources of waterquality related problems which could result in actual or potential impaiiinent or degradation ofbeneficial uses or degradation of water quality. The proposed project will not significantlyincrease on-site impervious surfaces and does not include land uses that introduce new sources ofpollution; therefore, the project will not contribute runoff which will exceed the capacity ofstoiniwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Theproposed project will not result in water quality impacts or be inconsistent with objectives of thisplan. CONSISTENT

Air Quality Management Plan. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) addresses theattainment and maintenance of state and federal ambient air quality standards within the NorthCentral Coast Air Basin (NCCAB). The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District(MBUAPCD) incorporates the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)population forecasts in its preparation of regional air quality plans. The project is considered anagricultural subdivision with no result in the increase to the estimated cumulative population andemployment forecasts provided by AMBAG. Therefore, the project is consistent with the AQMP.CONSISTENT

Eicholz Initial Study Page I

PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ANDDETERMINATION

A. FACTORS

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, asdiscussed within the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics

q Agriculture and Forest q

Air QualityResources

Biological Resources

®

Cultural Resources q

Geology/Soils

® Greenhouse Gas Emissions

q Hazards/Hazardous Materials q

Hydrology/Water Quality

q

Land Use/Planning q Mineral Resources q

Noise

Population/Housing

Public Services q

Recreation

q

Transportation/Traffic q Utilities/Service Systems q Mandatory Findings ofSignificance

Some proposed applications that are not exempt from CEQA review may have little or nopotential for adverse environmental impact related to most of the topics in the EnvironmentalChecklist; and/or potential impacts may involve only a few limited subject areas. These types ofprojects are generally minor in scope, located in a non-sensitive environment, and are easilyidentifiable and without public controversy. For the environmental issue areas where there is nopotential for significant environmental impact (and not checked above), the following finding canbe made using the project description, environmental setting, or other information as supportingevidence.

q Check here if this finding is not applicable

FINDING: For the above referenced topics that are not checked off, there is no potential forsignificant environmental impact to occur from either construction, operation ormaintenance of the proposed project and no further discussion in theEnvironmental Checklist is necessary.

EVIDENCE: 1) Aesthetics - The subject property is located within the rural area of southMonterey County, which is mainly comprised of large parcels with grazing landwith small scale residential dwellings and out buildings accessory to an agriculturaluse of the property. This landscape is considered as the visual character of the area.The subject property is not located within any view of a designated scenic highwayor corridor which requires land use controls pursuant to General Plan Policy No.

Eicholz Initial Study Page 2

PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

40.2.1 and 40.2.2 and the South County Area Plan delineates Interelake Road as theonly designated scenic route in the planning area and Policy No. 40.1.2 of the SouthCounty Area Plan states that additional scenic routes are not appropriate. Inaddition, the proposed minor subdivision does not include construction of anystructures. The size and shape of the proposed lots are, consistent with thesurrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a substantialadverse effect on any scenic resources. (Source: 1, 9, 10, 11, 13)

2) Agricultural Resources - Monterey County General Plan Policy No. 30.0.04requires the preservation of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance.Although the subject property is zoned as Rural Grazing, 40 acres per unit (RG/40),and the land was used as grazing in the past, it is not considered to be PrimeFarmland, Unique Farmland, or Faiinland of Statewide Importance, as shown on themaps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of theCalifornia Resources Agency nor is the property indicated as such in Figure 5 of theSouth County Area Plan Inventory and Analysis. The proposed project is consistentwith the parcel's zoning and therefore does not conflict with existing zoning foragricultural use. Potential changes in the environment as a result of the minorsubdivision would be the construction of single family dwellings and accessorystructures. Although construction is not proposed at this time, the RG zoningdesignation allows up to three single family dwelling on a parcel. The dwellings areto be accessory to the agricultural use of the property and for either an owner,operator, or employees employed on site. Therefore, the project will have no impactto agricultural resources. (Source: 1, 9, 10, 11, 13)

3) Air Quality - The MBUAPCD's 2008 Air Quality Management Plan for the

Monterey Bay Region (AQMP) addresses state air quality standards. Population-generating projects that are within the AQMP population forecasts are consideredconsistent with the plan. While the proposed project does not include constructionof single family dwellings, the property's zoning allows for up to nine single-familyresidences, resulting in a potential increase in population that is within the currentAQMP population forecast for Monterey County (Source: IX. 8). This populationincrease is within the forecast because the holding capacity of the county is the sumof existing and potential development under the current zoning. Therefore, theincrease is already accounted for per the Monterey County General Plan. Since thepotential for increased population is consistent with the AQMP, the proposedproject will have no impact.

The proposed project does not include grading for building construction, roads, andutility installation; resulting in no site disturbance that will cause a temporary short-term localized decrease in air quality due to generation of particulate emissions(PM 1 o) caused by site disturbance activities. Likewise, the proposed project will notresult in stationary emissions or indirect emissions which exceed thresholds ofsignificance established by the MBUAPCD. Therefore, the proposed project willhave no impact air quality.

Eicholz Initial Study Page 3PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

The proposed minor subdivision will not create objectionable odors due to thenature of the proposed use. Therefore, no impacts related to generation of odors areexpected to occur. (Source: 1, 9, 10, 12, 14)

4) Biology - See Section VI.

5) Cultural Resources - See Section VI.

6) Geology and Soils - The proposed minor subdivision does not include grading orconstruction activities; however based on the requirements set forth in Title 19,Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance, a preliminary soils report was required tobe submitted with the project application. Therefore, the applicant submitted aGeotechnical Engineering Report, dated September 29, 2006 by Mid-CoastGeotechnical (Monterey County Library No. LIB070224). The report did notidentify any potential impacts created by expansive soils, the potential for groundwater, or near source seismic conditions. The surface soils were found to be verylow to low expansive sandy material, no ground water was encountered, and thenearest active fault zone is located greater than 10 kilometers from the subjectproperty. A Percolation Data Report, dated September 29, 2006 by Mid CoastGeotechnical, Inc. (Monterey County Library No. LIB070225) was submitted by theapplicant. The percolation report analyzed the subsurface soils with regards to theirsuitability for sewage effluent disposal by leachline method and the tests wereperformed in accordance with County of Monterey requirements. The reportconcludes that based on test rates, the soil within the areas tested is adequate foreffluent disposal by the leachline method. If and when actual building sites areidentified and peiinit applications are submitted to the Monterey County RMA-Building Services Department, pursuant to the California Building Code, theapplicant will be required to submit an additional Geotechnical Report with specificrecommendations for soils engineering based of soil type and conditions and type ofconstruction. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact to life orstructures caused by geological or soils conditions. (Source: 1, .6, 7, 11)

7) Hazards and Hazardous Materials - During review of the project site, no hazardsor hazardous materials were identified. The Miscellaneous Hazards section of boththe South County Area Plan and the South County Area Plan Inventory andAnalysis state that there is a potential hazard caused by pesticides, fertilizers,petroleum, and radioactive, flammable, or explosive materials. Since the propertywas only used for grazing of animals, no pesticides or herbicides were used onsite.The proposed project does not include the creation of a hazardous situation or theuse of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impactcaused by hazards and/or hazardous materials. (Source: 1, 10, 11)

8) Hydrology and Water Quality - The South County Area Plan refers to Figure 6 ofthe South County Area Plan Inventory and Analysis for the deteiinination ofpotential flooding. As delineated on Figure 6, the subject parcel is not located

Eicholi Initial Study Page 4

PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

within a 100-year flood zone nor is it located within an area that has the potential tobe inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

There are three wells located on the subject property. No construction is proposedat this time. Therefore, the project will have no impact to water quality or quantity.During the subdivision application, the Environmental Health Division required theapplicant to submit a Hydro-Geological report to show proof that the resulting lotswill sustainable water. Policy No. 26.1.43 of the Monterey County General Planand Policy No. 6.1.3 of the South County Area Plan states that new developmentmay only be approved if the existence adequate water quality and quantity can bedemonstrated. Therefore, if construction of single family dwellings occurs, theDivision of Environmental Health will analyze the any proposed dwellings with thequantity and quality of water that any of the wells will supply. Therefore, theproject will have no impact in hydrology and water quality. (Source: 1, 9, 10, 11)

9) Land Use Planning - Policy No. 26.1.4.3 of the Monterey County General Planrequires proof of water supply and quality prior to the approval of a minorsubdivision. The project is consistent with this policy (see part 8 - Hydrology andWater Quality above. The lots resulting from the minor subdivision are inconformance with the land use designation, zoning, site development standards, andsize regulated by the South County Area Plan, the South County Area PlanInventory and Analysis, and Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance). Title 19 (SubdivisionOrdinance) requires that the tentative map be consistent with the General Plan andapplicable area plan. Therefore, the project's consistency with the General Plan,South County Area Plan, and South County Area Plan Inventory and Analysisprovides consistency with Title 19. The proposed project will not physically dividean established community, conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, orregulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmentaleffect, nor will it conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or naturalcommunity conservation plan. Therefore, the project will have no impact in LandUse Planning. (Source: 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

10)Mineral Resources - Objective 2.1 of the Monterey County General Plan is toprotect potentially significant mineral deposits and mining operations fromencroachment by incompatible land uses, in accordance with established land usepriorities. The South County Area Plan and South County Area Plan Inventory andAnalysis indicate that the main area of mineral extraction in South County is the oilfields of San Ardo. There is no other indication that subject property is locatedwithin an area where there is a known mineral resource. Therefore, the project willnot result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is of value tothe region and the residents of the state nor will it result in the loss of availability ofa locally-important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local generalplan, specific plan or other land use plan. Therefore, the project will have noimpact to mineral resources. (Source: 1, 9, 10, 11)


PrN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

11) Noise - Monterey County General Plan Policy No. 2.2.2.1 requires newdevelopment to confoiui to noise parameters of Table 6, Land Use Compatibility forExterior Community Noise. The proposed minor subdivision does not includeconstruction or grading activities and therefore does not have the potential to exposepersons to the generation of noise levels in excess of standards of the County ofMonterey, or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbornenoise levels. Therefore, the project is well within the acceptable noise rangeindicated on Table 6. The project will not create a substantial temporary or periodicincrease in ambient noise levels, or a substantial peulianent increase in ambient noiselevels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. The subjectproperty is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a publicairport or public use airport. Therefore, the project will have no impacts related tonoise. (Source: 1, 9)

12) Population and Housing - See Section VI.

13) Public Services - See Section VI.

14) Recreation - The property's zoning allows up to three single family dwellingsper lot and the proposed minor subdivision will result in the creation of twoadditional parcels. Although no construction is proposed at this time, there is apotential for nine single family dwellings. As a result, the Monterey County ParksDepartment requires, as a condition of approval, that the applicant comply withSection 19.12.010 - Recreation Requirements, of the Subdivision Ordinance, bypaying a fee in lieu of land dedication. Therefore the project will have no impact onregional parks. (Source: 1, 12)

15) Transportation/Traffic - The proposed project has been reviewed by theMonterey County RMA - Public Works Department. It has been determined thatadditional two parcels resulting from the project will not cause a substantialincrease in traffic where the existing traffic load and capacity of the existing streetsystems would impacted. The potential for additional trips will not result in thedecrease of the existing level of service for roads and highways within the vicinityeither individually or cumulatively. Therefore the project will have no impact totransportation and or traffic. (Source: 1)

16) Utilities and Service Systems - The proposed project will result in two new lots.However, no single family dwellings are proposed. Therefore, wastewatertreatment, wastewater treatment facilities, and storm water drainage facilities are notproposed. There are three existing wells on the property and a percolation reporthas been prepared, reviewed, and approved by the Division of EnvironmentalHealth. There has been no indication that the wells will not be able to serve thepotential number of single family dwellings resulting from the subdivision, or that awastewater treatment facility will be required instead of a standard septic system.


Therefore the project will have no impact to utilities and service systems. (Source:1, 7)

B. DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

q

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on theenvironment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on theenvironment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in theproject have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATEDNEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and anENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

'I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least oneeffect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legalstandards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysisas described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT isrequired, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

q

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on theenvironment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequatelyin an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVEDECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the -proposed project, nothing further is required.

<^1m

Sigziature

Anna V. Quenga

Assistant Planner

V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1)

A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that areadequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses

Date

Eiclzolz Initial Sat(tyPLN060382

Page 7rev. 04/01/2010

following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referencedinformation sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the oneinvolved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answershould be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as generalstandards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based onproject-specific screening analysis).

2)

All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well asonsite, cumulative as well as proj ect-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction aswell as operational impacts.

3)

Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then thechecklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less thansignificant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" isappropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there areone or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the dete_miination is made, anEIR is required.

4)

"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applieswhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "PotentiallySignificant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describethe mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less thansignificant level mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may becross-referenced).

5)

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQAprocess, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist

were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuantto applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed bymitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with MitigationMeasures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which wereincorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which theyaddress site-specific conditions for the project.

6)

Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to informationsources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to apreviously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a referenceto the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.


PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

Supporting Infouniation Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources usedor individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8)

The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; andb) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than

significance.

Eicholz Initial Study

Page 9

PLN060382

rev. 04/01/2010

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1.

AESTHETICS

Less ThanSignificant

Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

No

Would the project:

Impact

Incorporated

Impact

Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

q

q

q

(Source: 1, 9, 10, 11)

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, butnot limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic

q

q

q

buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1, 9,10, 11)

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character orquality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 1, 9,

q

q

q

10, 11, 13)

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare whichwould adversely affect day or nighttime views in the

q

q

q

area? (Source: 1, 9, 10, 11, 13)

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation:See previous Sections II. B (Project Description) and C (Environmental Setting) and Section IV.A (Environmental Factors Potentially Affected), as well as the sources referenced.

2.

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies mayrefer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the CaliforniaDept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determiningwhether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies mayrefer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state'sinventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessmentproject; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California AirResources Board.


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact Incorporated

Impact ImpactWould the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, orFarmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), asshown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FarmlandMapping and Monitoring Program of the CaliforniaResources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Source: 1,9,10,11,13)

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or aWilliamson Act contract? (Source: 1, 9, 10, 11, 13)

Eiclzolz Initial StudyPLN060382

Page 10rev. 04/01/2010

2.

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies mayrefer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the CaliforniaDept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and fai niland. In determiningwhether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies mayrefer to information compiled by the California Depai lucent of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state'sinventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessmentproject; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California AirResources Board.

Wouldtheproject:

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,forest land (as defined in Public Resources Codesection 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PublicResources Code section 4526), or timberland zonedTimberland Production (as defined by GovernmentCode section 51104(g))? (Source: 1, 9, 10, 11, 13)

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? (Source: 1, 9, 10, 11, 13)

e) Involve other changes in the existing environmentwhich, due to their location or nature, could result inconversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use orconversion of forest land to non-forest use? (Source: )

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation:See previous Sections H. B (Project Description) and C (Environmental Setting) and Section IV.A (Environmental Factors Potentially Affected), as well as the sources referenced.

3.

AIR QUALITY

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollutioncontrol district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact

Incorporated

Impact

Impact

q

q

q

q

q

q

Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of theapplicable air quality plan? (Source: 1, 14)

b) Violate any air quality standard or contributesubstantially to an existing or projected air qualityviolation? (Source: 1, 14)


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact Incorporated

Impact

Impact

q

q

q

Eicholz Initial Study Page II

PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

3.

AIR QUALITY

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollutioncontrol district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Wouldthe project:

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ofany criteria pollutant for which the project region isnon-attainment under an applicable federal or stateambient air quality standard (including releasingemissions which exceed quantitative thresholds forozone precursors)? (Source: 1, 12, 13, 14)

d) Result in significant construction-related air qualityimpacts? (Source: 1, 12, 13, 14)

e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutantconcentrations? (Source: 1, 12, 13, 14)

f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantialnumber of people? (Source: 1, 12, 13, 14)


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact

Incorporated Impact Impact

q

q

q

Discussion/Conclusion/1Vlitigation:See previous Sections II. B (Project Description) and C (Environmental Setting) and Section IV.A (Environmental Factors Potentially Affected), as well as the sources referenced.

4.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly orthrough habitat modifications, on any species identifiedas a candidate, sensitive, or special status species inlocal or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or bythe California DepaiUnent of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 8)

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitator other sensitive natural community identified in localor regional plans, policies, or regulations or by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game or US Fishand Wildlife Service? (Source: 1, 2, 3)



Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact Incorporated Impact Impact

4.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less ThanSignificant

Potentially With Less ThanSignificant Mitigation Significant No

Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protectedwetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean WaterAct (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? (Source: 1,2, 3)

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any nativeresident or migratory fish or wildlife species or withestablished native resident or migratory wildlifecorridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurserysites? (Source: 1, 2, 3)

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinancesprotecting biological resources, such as a treepreservation policy or ordinance? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 13)

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HabitatConservation Plan, Natural Community ConservationPlan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitatconservation plan? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11)

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation:A biological report, dated October 5, 2006, by Ed Mercurio, Biological Consultant, wassubmitted by the applicant during the application process. The October 5th biological reportstated that in order to identify the annual flora on the property, a spring survey would be required.Subsequently, a spring survey of biological resources was conducted and a report, dated April 3,2007, was submitted. Both reports are on file with the Monterey County RMA-PlanningDepartment under file No. LIB070223.

4(a). Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigations Incorporated. A comprehensive studyof environmentally sensitive habitats was not prepared for the South County area; therefore, thereis no habitat location identified by the South County Area Plan or the South County Inventoryand Analysis. The Area Plan relies on public and private agencies with programs that identifysignificant natural areas and rare and endangered species. The Current California Department ofFish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base records indicated that there was no environmentallysensitive habitat found on site. However, one significant plant species was found during both theOctober 2006 survey and the April 2007 survey.

Abbott's bush-mallow (Malacothamnus abbotii) - The Abbotts's bush-mallow was found withinthe resulting "Parcel A". Although the plant has no state or federal listing status, it is listed onthe California Native Plan Society's List 1B. All plants within List 1B meet the definitions ofSection 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (CaliforniaEndangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible


q

q

q

q

q

q

for state listing. Therefore, it is mandatory that they be fully considered during preparation ofenvironmental documents relating to CEQA. The Abbott's bush-mallow was thought to beextinct until rediscovered in 1990. Staff research of the California Native Plant Societyinventory identified Abbott's bush-mallow to be rare, threatened, or endangered, and beingseriously endangered in California. There are less than six occurrences, or less than 1,000individuals, or less than 2,000 acres identified within the state of California. CEQA's definitionof rare is when either: 1) not presently threatened with extinction; however, the species isexisting in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it maybecome endangered if its environment worsens; or 2) the species is likely to become endangeredwithin the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may beconsidered "threatened" as that teen is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act. The BrysonQuadrangle, where the subject parcel is located, is one of the three Quadrangles the plant isknown to occur. Although the proposed project does not include the construction of structures,mitigation measures are required to reduce the project's impact to less than significant since theplant has few occurrences, is located within a small area, and has been threatened by housingdevelopment, grazing, energy development, and road construction.

Mitigation Measure No. I: Floristic Inventory and Rare Plant Surveys. Prior to initiationof any future construction activities, a floristic inventory and rare plant survey of the area ofdevelopment shall be completed by a qualified biologist/botanist during the appropriate seasonsto determine the presence or absence of Abbott's bush-mallow (Malacothamnus abbotii).Surveys shall be floristic in nature (i.e. all plant species observed shall be recorded), and shall beconducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Protocos forSurveying and Evaluating Impacts of Special Status Native Plan Populations and NaturalCommunities (November 2009), and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposedand Candidate Plants (USFWS, 2000).

Multiple focused field surveys may be required to capture the flowering period of the targetspecies. The location and extent of any rare plant occurrences observed in the project area shallbe documented in a report and accurately mapped onto site-specific topographic maps, aerialphotographs, or satellite images.

If special status plants are identified within the area of development, future applicants shallsubmit written proof that the RMA - Planning Department and CDFG have been contacted. Thereport shall include estimates of the plant populations and the percentage of the total populationthat will be lost as a result of development. Once the location of these special status plant speciesis known, impacts to these species shall be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent possible.If impacts cannot be avoided, a detailed mitigation and monitoring plan that addresses impacts toall special status species, including Abbott's bush-mallow, shall be prepared by a County-approved biologist/botanist and reviewed by the RMA - Planning Department and CDFG. Thedetailed mitigation and monitoring plan shall be developed to protect and enhance the remainingoccurrences of these species and to increase the overall numbers of special status plants locatedon the property. The mitigation and monitoring plan shall at a minimum include the following:

Eiclzolz Initial Study Page 14

PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

• The overall goals and measurable objectives of the mitigation and monitoring plan;

▪ Specific areas proposed for revegetation, their size, and replanting ratio;

• Specific habitat management and protection concepts to be used to ensure long-termmaintenance and protection of Abbott's bush-mallow, such as annual population censussurveys and habitat assessments; establishment of monitoring reference sites; fencing ofspecies preserves and signage to identify the environmentally sensitive areas; aseasonally-timed weed abatement program; and seasonally-timed plant/seed/bulbcollection, propagation, and reintroduction of Abbott's bush-mallow into specifiedreceiver sites;

• Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives to ensure a viablepopulation on the site in perpetuity;

• An adaptive management program to address both foreseen and unforeseen circumstancesrelating to the preservation and mitigation programs;

® Remedial measures to address negative impacts to Abbott's bush-mallow and theirhabitat that may occur during construction activities as well as post-construction whendwellings are occupied;

• Reporting requirements to track success or failure of the mitigation program and to ensureconsistent data collection and reporting methods used by monitoring personnel; and,

• Maintenance and cost estimates.

Mitigation Monitoring Action No. la: Prior to filing of the parcel map, a note shall beplaced on the parcel map or on a separate sheet to be recorded with the parcel mapencompassing all language within Mitigation Measure No. 1. Prior to recordation, the map,with notes, shall be submitted to the RMA - Planning Department for review and approval.

Mitigation Monitoring Action No. 1b: Prior to initiation of any construction activities, theapplicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a floristic inventory and rare plantsurvey within the proposed area of development. If special status plants are identified,future applicants shall submit written proof that the RMA - Planning Department and CDFGhave been contacted and development areas shall be situated such that impacts are avoidedor minimized. If impacts cannot be avoided, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall beprepared by a County-approved biologist/botanist. Surveys shall be conducted prior to sitedisturbance on the property and appropriate mitigation shall be implemented if special statusspecies are found to occur in the area of development.

Potential for San Joaquin Kit Fox (SJKF) and SJKF Habitat -The SJKF is state listed asthreatened and federally listed as endangered due to habitat loss caused by development.Recorded sightings of the SJKF in the greater local area have occurred and the subject property islocated near the zone of known occurrences (within a 10 mile radius) as identified by theCalifornia Natural Diversity Data Base records. While no SJKF was observed on the property,the biologist detected five possible SJKF burrows during the first survey and again during thespring survey. The burrows showed no signs of recent disturbance nor were tracks detected andthe biologist stated that it is probable that the observed burrows were from badgers diggings.The proposed project does not include construction and no SJKF was observed on the property.Due to the close proximity of known occurrences and the on-site grassland and oak woodland


habitats which could serve as marginal habitat for this species, a mitigation measure is requiredto reduce any potential impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure No. 2: San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat Evaluation. Prior to issuance ofgrading and/or building permits, a qualified biologist shall conduct a San Joaquin Kit FoxHabitat Evaluation to assess the extent of potential SJKF habitat displacement in the area ofdevelopment. The biologist shall use the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)evaluation faun to calculate the quality of habitat and submit the foiin to CDFG for review. Thebiologist shall submit a letter to the RMA - Planning Department reporting the date the surveywas conducted, the survey protocol, survey results, and what measures were necessary andcompleted, in consultation with the CDFG, to address any SJKF activity within the project limits.The RMA - Planning Department shall then review the biological letter and proceed with anynecessary recommendations of the letter. Possible recommendations may include, but are notlimited to, the following:

• Proof of compliance with the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts, inclusiveas necessary of signed copies of incidental take permits and associated enactingagreements, or other memorandum from the appropriate state and federal agenciesdetermining that such compliance is not required;

• Habitat replacement at a ratio of 3:1 for affected acreage;• Establishment of an exclusion zone, or buffer, from potential SJKF dens; and/or• Dedication of a conservation easement.

Upon review of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat Evaluation, if CDFG determines that there willbe no impact to SJKF, no further action is necessary. However, if CDFG does fmd potential forimpact to SJKF, implementation of additional Mitigation Measures recommended by thebiologist shall be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.Documentation of the required mitigation must be completed prior to issuance of grading and/orbuilding peiniits. Mitigation measures must be fully implemented prior to the commencement ofany grading.

Mitigation Monitoring Action No. 2a: Prior to filing of the parcel map, a note shall beplaced on the parcel map or on a separate sheet to be recorded with the parcel mapencompassing all language within Mitigation Measure No. 2. Prior to recordation, the map,with notes, shall be submitted to the RMA - Planning Department for review and approval.

Mitigation Monitoring Action No. 2b: Prior to initiation of construction activities, theapplicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a San Joaquin Kit Fox HabitatEvaluation for the area of development. The biologist shall submit a letter to the RMA -Planning Department reporting the date the survey was conducted, the survey protocol,survey results, and what measures were necessary and completed, in consultation with theCDFG, to address any SJKF activity within the project limits. The RMA - PlanningDepartment shall review the report and may require an additional environmental review ifnecessary.


PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

4(b), (c), (d), (e), (f). No Impact. The subject property does not contain vernal pools, ponds,streams, or larger bodies of water. Therefore the proposed minor subdivision will have noimpact on riparian habitat, wetlands, or the movement of native or migratory fish. In addition,protected species which rely on wetland habitats that are normally found in this region, such asthe Arroyo toad (Bufo californicus), fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), the California red-leggedfrog (Rana aurora draytonii), or the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinumcaliforniense) were not found on the property, mainly due to the lack of suitable wetland habitat.

The project does not include the removal of any protected or non-protected trees and thereforedoes not conflict with the regulations set forth in Chapter 21.64.260 of the Monterey RMA -Planning Department Zoning Ordinance (Title 21).

The subject property is not a part of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural CommunityConservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, andtherefore the minor subdivision will have no impact.

5.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

0


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoWould the project:

Impact

Incorporated

Impact Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofa historical resource as defined in 15064.5? (Source: 1,4, 5)

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofan archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?(Source: 1, 4, 5)

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologicalresource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 1,4, 5)

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interredoutside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 1, 4, 5)

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation:The South County Area Plan refers to Figure 4 contained within the South County Area Plan,Inventory and Analysis for archaeological resources. Figure 4 identifies the subject property tobe located within a high archaeological sensitivity zone. In addition, Monterey County GeneralPlan Policy No. 12.1.2 states that all proposed development located within high sensitivity zonesrequires an archaeological field inspection prior to approval. Therefore, as part of the application,the applicant was required to submit an archaeological report. The applicant contracted withArchaeological Resource Management to survey the subject property in 2006. Due to culturalmaterials found on the surface, the applicant requested that the archaeologist conduct asubsurface survey. The applicant has submitted an Archaeological Evaluation of the site, datedMay 3, 2007, by Archaeological Resource Management. The report is on file with the RMA-Planning Department under library No. LIB070226.

Eicholz Initial Study Page I7PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

5(a) and (b). Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.An archaeological survey was perfonned for the subject property in November 2006. Surfaceevidence of prehistoric cultural resources were identified in the northwest portion of the property,which include a scatter of lithic materials, bone fragments, marine shell, arid fire-altered stone.

Since surface evidence of prehistoric cultural resources were identified, the property ownerrequested that Archaeological Resource Management test and excavate in and around the areawhere surface evidence was found. Subsurface excavation consisted of two lxl meter unitswhich were hand-excavated and ten backhoe test trenches. Additional cultural materials foundwithin the subsurface excavation were similar to those found within the surface scatter. Based onthe materials found, and the fact that they were unrecorded, Archaeological ResourceManagement submitted recordation fauns for the site to the Department of Parks and Recreationand a trinomial CA-MNT-2082 was assigned.

The California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) considers a cultural resource to besignificant if it qualifies as eligible for listing in the CRHR. A property is eligible if it meets oneor more of the four CRHR criteria. The subject property and the relatively intact archaeologicaldeposit is potentially eligible for inclusion in the CRHR under the fourth criterion: the property"has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history ofthe local area, California, or the nation."-

All materials found were located within the proposed lot identified as "Parcel A". Although theproposed project does not include grading and/or construction activities, there is a potential forthe construction of up to three single family dwellings, additional accessory structures, septic andleachline systems, and access roads within Parcel A. Therefore, in order for the project to have aless than significant impact on cultural resources, a mitigation measure shall be required.

Mitigation Measure No. 3: Cultural Resource Evaluation. Prior to issuance of gradingand/or building permits for Parcel A, a registered archaeologist shall review and comment on anyproposed development to assess any potential impacts to either identified or un-identified culturalresources. The archaeologist shall submit a report to the RMA - Planning Department reportingthe date the survey was conducted, the survey protocol, survey results, and what measures werenecessary and completed, to address any cultural resources found within the area of development.The report shall also include acknowledgement of review of the previous archaeological report,grading plans, and construction plans. The RMA - Planning Department shall then review thearchaeological report and proceed with any necessary recommendations of the report. Possiblerecommendations may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Requirement of an additional environmental review and further mitigation measures; and• Dedication of a conservation easement.

Mitigation Measure Action No. 3a: Prior to filing of the parcel map, a note shall be placed onthe parcel map or on a separate sheet to be recorded with the parcel map encompassing all


language within Mitigation Measure No. 3. The map, with notes, shall be submitted to the RMA- Planning Department for review and approval.

Mitigation Measure Action No. 3b: Prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permits forParcel A, the applicant shall submit an archaeological report conducted by a registeredarchaeologist which identifies any potential impact caused by the development to anyarchaeological resource. The report shall include, but not limited to:

• Review of the previous archaeological report, dated May 3, 2007 by ArchaeologicalResource Management,

• Review of the proposed grading plans (including any new or improved access roads),• Review of the proposed construction plans (including septic, leachlines, and any

secondary locations, and areas for utility trenching).

The report shall be reviewed and approved by the RMA-Director of Planning, and any additionalenvironmental review and mitigation measures shall be identified at that time.

5(c) and (d). No Impact. No unique paleontological resource, paleontological site, uniquegeological feature, or human remains were found on the subject property. In addition, thearchaeological report concludes that the property does not have a potential to have humanremains; therefore, the project will have no impact on these cultural resources.

6.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoWould the project:

Impact

Incorporated

Impact Impact

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantialadverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, ordeath involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineatedon the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake FaultZoning Map issued by the State Geologist for thearea or based on other substantial evidence of aknown fault? (Source: 1, 6, 11) Refer to Division ofMines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source: 1, 6, 11)

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, includingliquefaction? (Source: 1, 6, 11)

iv) Landslides? (Source: 1, 6, 11)

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?(Source: 1, 6, 11)

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q


Page 19rev. 04/01/2010

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project:

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, orthat would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateralspreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Source:1, 6, 11)

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-Bof the Uniform Building Code (1994), creatingsubstantial risks to life or property? (Source: 1, 6, 11)

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ofseptic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systemswhere sewers are not available for the disposal ofwastewater? (Source: 1, 7)



Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact


GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly orindirectly, that may have a significant impact on theenvironment? (Source: )


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact

Incorporated

Impact Impact

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulationadopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions ofgreenhouse gases? (Source: )

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation:Greenhouse gases (GHG) are emitted by natural processes and human activities such aselectricity production, motor vehicle use, and agricultural uses. It has been found that elevationof GHGs has led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth's climate, otherwise known as the"greenhouse effect". In order to reduce the statewide level of GHG emissions, the StateLegislature adopted California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) California Global Wauning SolutionsAct of 2006. AB 32 established a comprehensive statewide program of regulatory and marketmechanisms to achieve reductions in GHG emissions, thereby reducing the State's vulnerabilityto global climate change (GCC). Pursuant to Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), the Governor's Office ofPlanning and Research (OPR) issued interim guidance for addressing climate change throughCEQA and recommends that each agency develop and approach to address GHG emissions


PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

based on the best available infoimation. At this time, the County of Monterey and the MontereyBay Unified Air Pollution Control District (agency responsible for regulating air quality in theregion) have not identified a significance threshold for GHG emissions.

There will be GHG emissions associated with construction materials (such as dry wall, steel,concrete, wood, etc.) of the proposed project. However, at this time, quantifying the emissionsassociated with the construction materials provides a level of uncertainty. Therefore, in lieu ofState guidance or locally adopted thresholds, a primarily qualitative approach will be used toevaluate possible impacts for the proposed project.

7(a) and (b). Less Than Significant Impact.The 2010 Draft Monterey County General Plan includes a policy (Policy No. OS-10.11)requiring the adoption of a GHG Reduction Plan within 24 months of the adoption of the GeneralPlan. The GHG Reduction Plan shall include an inventory of current (2006) GHG emissions anda forecast of GHG emissions for "business as usual" conditions in the County. The plan will alsoidentify methods to reduce GHG emission, quantify the reductions in GHG emissions from theidentified methods, and establish requirements for monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions.Adoption of the Monterey County General Plan, the GHG Reduction Plan, and implementationof both will allow a more quantitative analysis of a project's impact to the environment throughthe creation of GHG emissions.

Although the County does not have a current plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposeof reducing the emissions of GHG and there is no certain timeframe for the adoption andimplementation of a GHG Reduction Plan, it can be seen with certainty that the project willresult in an increase in GHG emissions. However, the project's impact is considered to be lessthan significant.

The proposed project will result with the creation of two additional parcels, but development ofthe parcels is not included as part of the project application. Therefore the project will not havean immediate effect caused by greenhouse gases. The project is in compliance with the AQMPpopulation forecasts (see Section IV.A.3), therefore all potential dwelling units have beenaccounted for in the Monterey County General Plan.

Zoning for the properties will allow a maximum of nine dwelling units (up to three single familydwellings per parcel, accessory to the agricultural use of the property, for an owner, operator oremployees employed on-site). Therefore, there is a potential for a direct temporary impact to airquality caused by future construction activities as a result of the project. Although it is uncertainwhen construction will occur, the use of today's standards will help to qualify if there is apotential for a significant impact to the environment by the generation of GHG emissions. Ifsingle family dwelling were to be built within 2010, Title 24, Part 6 of California Building Code(Energy Efficiency Standards or Residential Buildings) requires construction meet the minimumrequirements for energy efficient windows, insulation, lighting, plumbing, and mechanicalequipment. Contractors are required to submit proof that the installed features, materials,components or manufactured devices conform to the energy efficiency standards prior to theissuance of building peitnits.


PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

The nine dwelling units will create a greater amount of vehicle trips, causing an increase in theemission of carbon dioxide (CO 2) by fuel combustion. However, based on zoning requirements,six of the nine dwellings units are required to be accessory to the agricultural use of the propertyand occupied by an owner, operator, or employee employed onsite. Therefore, it is assumed thatthe normal amount of car trips will be reduced due to the lack of peak A.M. and peak P.M. traveltimes associated with working off-site.

Although temporary impacts caused by future construction activities and traffic trips generatedby the potential single family dwellings are considered to be incremental contributions to theemissions of GHG, these contributions will nonetheless create a greater amount of emissionswithout the project. Therefore, the project will result in a less than significant impact caused byGHGs.

8.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

No

Would the project:

Impact

Incorporated

Impact Impact

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

q

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment through the routine transport, use, ordisposal of hazardous materials? (Source: 1, 10, 11)

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment through reasonably foreseeable upset andaccident conditions involving the release of hazardousmaterials into the environment? (Source: 1, 10, 11)

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous oracutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste withinone-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?(Source: 1, 10, 11)

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list ofhazardous materials sites compiled pursuant toGovernment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment? (Source: 1, 10, 11)

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within twomiles of a public airport or public use airport, would theproject result in a safety hazard for people residing orworking in the project area? (Source: 1, 10, 11)

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for peopleresiding or working in the project area? (Source: 1, 10,11)

Eickolz Initial StudyPLN060382

Page 22rev. 04/01/2010

8.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with anadopted emergency response plan or emergencyevacuation plan? (Source: 1, 10, 11)

h) Expose people or structures to a-significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including wherewildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or whereresidences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1,10, 11)


HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste dischargerequirements? (Source: 1)

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interferesubstantially with groundwater recharge such that therewould be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a loweringof the local groundwater table level (e.g., theproduction rate of pre-existing nearby wells would dropto a level which would not support existing land uses orplanned uses for which permits have been granted)?(Source: 1)

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of thesite or area, including through the alteration of thecourse of a stream or river, in a manner which wouldresult in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?(Source: I)

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of thesite or area, including through the alteration of thecourse of a stream or river, or substantially increase therate or amount of surface runoff in a manner whichwould result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 1)



Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact

Incorporated

Impact Impact

q

q

q


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact

Incorporated

Impact

Impact

9.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceedthe capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainagesystems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff? (Source: 1)

Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source:1)

Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area asmapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or FloodInsurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineationmap? (Source: 1, 10, 11)

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structureswhich would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source:1, 10, 11)

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding, including floodingas a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 1,10, 11)

f)

g)


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact

Incorporated

Impact

Impact

q

q

q

Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Source: 1,10, 11)

j) q

q

q

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation:See previous Sections II. B (Project Description) and C (Environmental Setting) and Section N.A (Environmental Factors Potentially Affected), as well as the sources referenced.


PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

10.

LAND USE AND PLANNING

Wouldthe project:

a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1,9,10,11,12,13)

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, orregulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specificplan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating anenvironmental effect? (Source: 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ornatural community conservation plan? (Source: 1, 9, 10,11, 12, 13)


11.

MINERAL RESOURCES


Potentially

With

Less Than

11

Significant

Mitigation

Significant

No

Would the project:

Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineralresource that would be of value to the region and theresidents of the state? (Source: 1, 9, 10, 11)

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally importantmineral resource recovery site delineated on a localgeneral plan, specific plan or other land use plan?(Source: 1, 9, 10, 11)



PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact

Incorporated

Impact

Impact

q

q

q

q

q

q

12.

NOISE

Wouldthe project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels inexcess of standards established in the local general planor noise ordinance, or applicable standards of otheragencies? (Source: 1)

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessivegroundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels?(Source: 1)

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noiselevels in the project vicinity above levels existingwithout the project? (Source: 1)

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambientnoise levels in the project vicinity above levels existingwithout the project? (Source: 1)

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within twomiles of a public airport or public use airport, wouldthe project expose people residing or working in theproject area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1)

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working inthe project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1)




Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact

Incorporated

Impact Impact

13.

POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, eitherdirectly (for example, by proposing new homes andbusinesses) or indirectly (for example, throughextension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1,9, 10)

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housingelsewhere? (Source: 1)

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitatingthe construction of replacement housing elsewhere?(Source: I)

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation:12 (a): Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is a minor subdivision which willresult in the subdivision of and existing parcel into three parcels. The property's zoning allowsup to three single family dwellings per lot. Although no construction is proposed at this time,there is a potential of nine single family dwellings as a result of the subdivision. Therefore, theproject can be considered growth-inducing. However, the potential increase in population willnot be substantial and will result in a less than significant impact on population and housing.

12 (b) and (c): No Impact. The proposed minor subdivision does not include the demolition ofexisting housing, nor will is required the displacement of people, causing a demand for theconstruction of replacement elsewhere. Therefore, the project will have no impact on existinghousing.


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact



PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

14.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project result in:

Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with theprovision of new or physically altered governmentalfacilities, need for new or physically altered governmentalfacilities, the construction of which could cause significantenvironmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptableservice ratios, response times or other performanceobjectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire protection? (Source: 1)

b) Police protection? (Source: 1)

c) Schools? (Source: 1)

d) Parks? (Source: 1)

e) Other public facilities? (Source: 1)


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact

Incorporated

Impact

Impact

q q ® q

q q ® q

q

q

®

q

q q q

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation:13. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e): Less Than Significant Impact. The South County area has no organizedfire protection. However, the California Department of Forestry, the San Ardo Volunteer FireDepartment, and the Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts Fire Departments cover the area forfire suppression. The nearest Sheriff's station, which is the primary provider of police services inthe area, is located in King City and one full-time deputy is assigned to patrol San Ardo and thelarge surrounding area. The California Highway Patrol also has jurisdiction and law enforcementpowers on all county roads, freeways, and state highways. The Monterey County ParksDepartment's park rangers are authorized to enforce park ordinances and the Parks Department hasjurisdiction over the nearest parks to the subject property, the San Antonio and NacimientoRecreation Areas. The subject property is located within the San Antonio Union King City JointUnion School District. No school fees are required for the minor subdivision. However, if andwhen building peaniits are applied for single family dwellings, school fees are required to be paidprior to issuance. The proposed project is a minor subdivision which will result in the subdivisionof and existing parcel into three parcels. The property's zoning allows up to three single familydwellings per lot. Although no construction is proposed at this time, there is a potential of ninesingle family dwellings as a result of the subdivision. As a result, the project can be consideredgrowth-inducing. However, the potential increase in population will not be substantial and will notrequire the need for any new or physically-altered governmental facilities. Therefore, the projectwill result in a less than significant impact on public services.


PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

15.

RECREATION Less ThanSi gnificant



a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regionalparks or other recreational facilities such that substantialphysical deterioration of the facility would occur or beaccelerated? (Source: 1, 12)

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or requirethe construction or expansion of recreational facilitieswhich might have an adverse physical effect on theenvironment? (Source: 1, 12)

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation:

16.

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less ThanSignificant



a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policyestablishing measures of effectiveness for theperformance of the circulation system, taking intoaccount all modes of transportation including masstransit and non-motorized travel and relevantcomponents of the circulation system, including but notlimited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (Source:1)

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion managementprogram, including, but not limited to level of servicestandards and travel demand measures, or otherstandards established by the county congestionmanagement agency for designated roads or highways?(Source: 1)

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including eitheran increase in traffic levels or a change in location thatresults in substantial safety risks? (Source: 1)

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) orincompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source: 1)

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source: 1)

Eichoiz Initial Study Page 29PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010

16.

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less ThanSignificant



f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programsregarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of suchfacilities? (Source: 1)

Discussion/Conclusion/lMlitigation:

17.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less ThanSignificant



a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of theapplicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?(Source: 1)

b) Require or result in the construction of new water orwastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existingfacilities, the construction of which could causesignificant environmental effects? (Source: 1)

c) Require or result in the construction of new stonu waterdrainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, theconstruction of which could cause significantenvironmental effects? (Source: 1)

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve theproject from existing entitlements and resources, or arenew or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 1)

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatmentprovider which serves or may serve the project that it hasadequate capacity to serve the project's projecteddemand in addition to the provider's existingcommitments? (Source: 1)

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacityto accommodate the project's solid waste disposalneeds? (Source: 1)

Comply with federal, state, and local statutes andregulations related to solid waste? (Source: 1)

g)


Page 30rev. 04/01/2010

Discussion/Conelusion/Mitigation:


VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

NOTE: If there are significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and no feasible project alternativesare available, then complete the mandatory findings of significance and attach to this initial study as an appendix.This is the first step for starting the environmental impact report (EIR) process.

Does the project:

a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of theenvironment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fishor wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populationto drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten toeliminate a plant or animal community, reduce thenumber or restrict the range of a rare or endangeredplant or animal or eliminate important examples of themajor periods of California history or prehistory?(Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

b) Have impacts that are individually limited, butcumulatively considerable? (Source: 1) ("Cumulativelyconsiderable " means that the incremental effects of aproject are considerable when viewed in connectionwith the effects of past projects, the effects of othercurrent projects, and the effects of probable futureprojects)? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13)

c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantialadverse effects on human beings, either directly orindirectly? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13)

Discussion/Conclusion/Mitigation:(a) Less Than Significant with Mitigations Incorporated. Although the project will not havea direct effect on the environment, the result of the subdivision will allow the construction of anadditional six housing units (nine in total). However, placement or construction of the units willbe determined at a later date. Potential impacts to biological and cultural resources have beenidentified within the initial study and mitigation measures have been incorporated to reduce thoseimpacts to less than significant.

(b) Less Than Significant Impact. Although construction is not part of the proposedsubdivision, the project will have the potential to create nine new single family dwellings in anarea that is currently void of any structures. Development of the resulting parcels may include:new or improved existing access roads, utility trenches, septic tanks and leach fields, and gradingfor and construction of single family dwellings and accessory structures. These are allowed useswithin the zoning district without benefit of discretionary permits, which are exempt by CEQA

Eicholi Initial Study Page 32

PLN060382 rev. 04/01/2010


Potentially

With


Mitigation

Significant

NoImpact

Incorporated

Impact Impact

q

q

q

review. Therefore, mitigation measures have been incorporated within the project to minimizepotential impacts to biological and cultural resources to a less than significant level.

(c) No Impact. The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse effect on humanbeings, either directly or indirectly. There is a potential for an impact on biological and culturalresources; however, mitigations have been incorporated to reduce those potential impact to lessthan significant. In addition, those impacts and mitigation measures will not create a substantialadverse effect on humans, directly or indirectly.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov.Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151,Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoffv. Monterey

Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007)

147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at

1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th

656.

VII FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FEES

Assessment of Fee:

The State Legislature, through the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 1535, revoked the authority oflead agencies to determine that a project subject to CEQA review had a "de minimis" (minimal)effect on fish and wildlife resources under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game.Projects that were determined to have a "de minimis" effect were exempt from payment of thefiling fees.

SB 1535 has eliminated the provision for a determination of "de minimis" effect by the leadagency; consequently, all land development projects that are subject to environmental review arenow subject to the filing fees, unless the Department of Fish and Game determines that theproject will have no effect on fish and wildlife resources.

To be considered for determination of "no effect" on fish and wildlife resources, developmentapplicants must submit a form requesting such determination to the Department of Fish andGame. Forms may be obtained by contacting the Department by telephone at (916) 631-0606 orthrough the Department's website at www.dfg.ca.gov .

Conclusion: The project (will/will not) be required to pay the fee.

Evidence: Based on the record as a whole as embodied in the Planning Department filespertaining to PLN060382 and the attached Initial Study / Proposed MitigatedNegative Declaration.

Eicholz Initial Study

Page 33PLN060382

rev. 04/01/2010

IX REFERENCES

1. 1. Project Application/Plans.

2. "Biological Survey", dated October 5, 2006 by Ed Mercurio Biological ConsultantMonterey RMA - Planning Department Library File No. LIB070223.

3. "Spring Survey of Biological Resources", dated April 3, 2007 by Ed Mercurio BiologicalConsultant. Monterey RMA - Planning Department Library File No. LIB070223.

4. "Archaeological Evaluation", dated May 3, 2007 by Archaeological ResourceManagement. Monterey RMA - Planning Department Library File No. LIB070226.

5. Staff consultation with Dr. Robert Cartier, Principal Investigator at ArchaeologicalResource via telephone.

6. "Geotechnical Engineering Report", dated September 29, 2006 by Mid-CoastGeotechnical, Inc. Monterey RMA - Planning Department Library File No. LIB070224.

7. "Percolation Data Report", dated September 29, 2006 by Mid-Coast Geotechnical, Inc.Monterey RMA - Planning Department Library File No. LIB070225.

8. "California Native Plan Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants" onlineresource. Web address at http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi (A hardcopy of the query is within the project file PLN060382-Eicholz, located at 168 W. AlisalStreet, Second Floor Salinas, CA 93901).

9. Monterey RMA - Planning Department General Plan.

10. South RMA - Planning Department Area Plan.

11. South RMA - Planning Department Area Plan Inventory and Analysis.

12. Monterey RMA - Planning Department Subdivision Ordinance, Title 19.

13. Monterey RMA - Planning Department Zoning Ordinance, Title 21.

14. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District's 2008 Air Quality ManagementPlan for the Monterey Bay Region (AQMP), adopted August 2008.


13.Monterey County Division of Environmental Health14.

John B. Eicholz and Rose Ann T Mazzone, Owner15.

MJ Goetz and Associates, Agent16.

Property Owners within 300 feet (Notice of Intent only)

Revised 02-02-2007

EXHIBIT G

MONTEREY COUNTYRESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY - PLANNING DEPARTMENT168 WEST ALISAL, 2ND FLOOR, SALINAS, CA 93901(831) 755-5025 FAX: (831) 755-9516

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONMONTEREY COUNTY MINOR SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Monterey County Resource Management Agency - PlanningDepartment has prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, for aMinor Subdivision (Eicholz, File Number PLN060382) at 52195 Smith Road, Bradley (APN 424-331-013-000)(see description below). The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, as well as referenced documents,are available for review at the Monterey County Resource Management Agency - Planning Department, 168West Alisal, 2nd Floor, Salinas, California. On a date later determined, the Minor Subdivision Committee willconsider this proposal at a meeting at the Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 168 West Alisal,2'd Floor, Salinas, California. Written comments on this Negative Declaration will be accepted from September24, 2010 to October 25, 2010. Comments can also be made during the public hearing.

Project Description: Minor Subdivision Tentative Map to allow the division of a 121.86 acre parcel into threeparcels of 41.86 acres (Parcel A), 40 acres (Parcel B), and 40 acres (Parcel C), respectively. The property is

located at 52195 Smith Road, Bradley (Assessor's Parcel Number 424-331-013-000), east of the intersection ofHesperia Road and Smith Road, South County area.

All written comments on the Initial Study should be addressed to:

County of MontereyResource Management Agency - Planning DepartmentAttn: Mike Novo, Interim Director of Planning168 West Alisal, 2nd FloorSalinas, CA 93901

From:

Agency Name:Contact Person: DOf 7ZiL'\C --E'2X.I2

Phone Number: B9 - /?-2 -• ;251 7

No Comments providedV Comments noted below

Comments provided in separate letter

COMMENTS: T oo ESTTor+)IS- t c' EpS vRD I v'c/e X) IF 4L L Cnc,v7y Dt-5 -

4 ,uoT /',S"14/.î/c7F Lis//v 7t//S 4/1',cA/7/4'4 g/,/ TogA'fy70 4'-(--''(7// 4-c

7E04 AS oz,,&z- R% /A T ^c^f/,9LiÛaês^r , P.CC y ^. 2 422 75''j9,^ is

vrvE L? titi-25 T K5 G oFr t=cZOw^ (5-T-)v c, FEA.,(r 3446 -,,,r ,,,zx 'F5 .4s)D V o,T

^ 20 L7 , -A& ^ w Ha'

S

h._1 S ^ v,2(^ s o i` r/i 3 -A gc.C 5- c? F g-3

/

y7z; r ^^ a 1^^^ P^ %° c v[ p 1'o57 ( T'QOio Te, (E pv rJ Ty TC^ 6 FW i

G 1 v n i 5 s'7- / 7 j

/ t - 2 4 2 4E

D _

IF II `'v f

SEP302010

MONTEREY COUNTYPLANNING [DEPARTMENT

A- ; !. /c

z

k'zr--

/G/)/a6 6 3 s

/)2y p,e:e9/ot.- ,e -r

/d.j-

T

792A

L9,cr/C/

/tt/+7 te-)L LL .626 /9-

,Sz-e/3d;t/isre',n).

///5

/s SGopool ()iucN

/),j)/

L,9//c/ , e-(_}/1-/-Z7.T-A/ ZA-i)

//-e

//-V

/-n

i:i

/

,----a ev0L-L,S/7/'d /474 ,---------:

/(20/9-cl

57ce//

/-21y

/2-

/ .17,06-6"

A)-Y-c) cal y' ip/eer:

OF ‘'a/9d tuILL- -r-

;-J- do /17 -1/c--i

&e46' e-6271

de- 67- vd/i)/6,-/E-

7?-7

/._I

\I,

OCA 15 2.0\0

1\AONI'ERE\( COUNPANNING IDEPP.TME

V NT

monterey county minor subdivision committee

Documents