Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 04/24/1990
PUBLIC REVIEW COPY PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE FROM COUNTER A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA. FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM APRIL 24 , 1990 7 :00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the require- ments of Government Code. Section 54954 .2 . By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the brief general description of each item, the action that may be taken shall include: A - referral to staff with specific re- quests for information; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning the policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration; authorization to enter into negotiations and exe- cute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval . Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection during City Hall business hours . The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for five ( 5) minutes . No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. No one may speak more than twice on any item. * Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond but, after the allotted time has expired; may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call 06 City Council Comment: Proclamation': "Public Schools Week" , April 22-28, 1990 .. COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than' scheduled :agenda items. To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum', the following ruleswill be enforced: * A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community:Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual' member thereof. No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, commissions & staff. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar,which shall then be reviewed and acted upon> separately after the adoption- of the Con- sent Calendar. Where ordinance adoption is involved, action by Council on the Consent Calendar will presuppose waiving of the reading in full of the ordinance in question. 1. APRIL 10, . 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. ' APRIL 19, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Adjourned Meeting) 3. CITY TREAS'URER'S REPORT, MARCH 1990 4., FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, LARCH 1990 5. RESOLUTION NO. 35-90 - DECLARING WEEDS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ABATEMENT OF SAID NUISANCES B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES 1 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 02-89 - CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL BY THOMAS BENCH OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE PRO- POSED DIVISION OF AN APPROXIMATE 3.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS CONTAINING 1 .1 AND 2.3 ACRES LOCATED AT 7503 'CARMELITA 2. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY REPORT CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION`- RELATED TO POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG ATASCADERO CREEK FOR OPEN 2 SPACE AND/OR RECREATION (7503 CARMELITA, LOT 1, _PM 82-831 THOMAS BENCH, OWNER) 3. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO ESTABLISHA PLANNED DEVELOP- MENT OVERLAY ZONE (PD-7) AND THE CORRESPONDING CREATION OF A FOUR-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 7955 SINALOA :(Charles Voorhis II/Richard Mitsuoka, Agent) A. Ordinance No. 206 Adopting PD-7 Overlay Zone B. Tentative Parcel Map 26-89 Approving Findings and Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map" C. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. RESOLUTION NO. 47-90 GIVING NOTICE OF THE CITY'S INTENTION TO CANCEL ITS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY OF 'SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 . ANNUAL LEAGUE OF CA CITIES, CHANNEL COUNTIES DIVISION, MEET- ING- JUNE 1, 1990 V . D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION. 1 City Council: A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or standing commitees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1 . City/School Committee 2 . North Coastal Transit 3 . S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council 4 . Traffic Committee 5 Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Committee 6 Recycling Committee 7 . Economic Opportunity Commission 8 B.I .A. 9 . Downtown Steering; Committee 10. General. Plan Subcommittee 2. City Attorney 3 . City Clerk 4 . City Treasurer 5. City Manager 3 .. I P R O C L A M A T I O N "PUBLIC SCHOOLS WEEK" April 22-28, 1990 WHEREAS, the California Masons have declared the week of April 22-28, 1990, to be "Public Schools Week" in Atascadero; and WHEREAS, the Masons understand the necessity for a strong public schools system, as indicated in their observance of the theme, "For a drug-free America and a better tomorrow, support public schools today"; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of Atascadero, State of California, is pleased to join the California Masons in pro- claiming April 22nd through 28th as "Public Schools Week" ; FURTHERMORE, the City Council wishes to take this oppor- tunity to extend its gratitude to the Atascadero Unified School District and teaching staff for their ongoing efforts in pro- moting the education and welfare of Atascadero' s youth. ROLLIN W. DEXTER, Mayor City of Atascadero, CA April 24 , 1990 t MEETING AGENDA DATE -L4U4Z REMI A-1 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 10, 1990 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro-Tem Lilley at 7:05 p .m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Shiers. ROLL CALL: Present : Councilmembers Mackey, Borgeson, Shiers and Mayor ProTem Lilley Absent : Mayor Dexter Staff Present : Ray Windsor, City Manager ; Arther Montandon, City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community Development Director ; Andy Takata , Director of Parks, Recreation & ?oo ; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director ; Bud McHale, Police Chief; Gregory Luke, Public Works Director and Lee Dayka, City Clerk Mayor ProTem Lilley introduced and welcomed Gregory Luke, the new Public Works Director . Mr . Luke gave a brief description of his arofessional background for those present . PROCLAMATIONS- Mayor ProTem Lilley read the following proclamations: - "Victims ' Rights Week" - April 22-22 1990 - "Child Abuse Prevention Month - The Month of April 1990 - "March of Dimes WalkAmerica Day" - April 21 , 1990 - "Earth Week" - April 15, 22, 1990 Recycling Program Presentation by Jim Patterson: Jim Patterson, Chairman of the Recycling Committee, gave an in- depth status report on the committee ' s efforts and concerns . He reported on the concept of curbside recycling , describing two types: Material Separatio!7 Method and Cc-Mingling . He stated that the program would need to be tailored to the community and added that the system would apply only to residential customers CC4/ 10/90 Page 1 and offer limited reduction. Mr . Patterson explained that the economic future of recycling looks grim and that new markets must be created to complete the circle. He stated further that the committee was in support of Wil-Mar Disposal ' s request for a fee increase and that the garbage company has been very cooperative with the concerns of the Recycling Committee. The committee ' s chairman spoke in support of mandatory garbage collection, stating that currently Atascadero does not have an accurate accounting of how much solid waste it is producing . He added that in order to meet the strict requirements of new legislature, the City must focus on source reduction, pursue curbside recycling , continue with public education programs, establish regional cooperation to share costs and benefits, and urged the designation of a City employee whose sole duty would be to implement these concepts. Mr . Patterson introduced the members of the Recycling Committee as Councilwoman Mackey, Craig Dingman, Michelle Velasco , Renee Silberman, Ron Vilarino , David Crouch and Bill Gibbs. Additionally he acknowledged Jim Rosa of Wil-Mar Disposal Company. Mayor ProTem Lilley thanked Mr . Patterson for his presentation and asked the public to hold their comments regarding mandatory garbage pick-up (C-2) until that item of the agenda was called for . COMMUNITY FORUM: Mayor ProTem Lilley opened the meeting for public comments. There were none. Chief McHale recognized the work of the Retired Senior Volunteers Program (RSVP) and reported that there are currently 16 members from this group working with the Police Department . The Chief announced that on April ?, 1990, at a County-wide meeting of the Board of Directors of RSVP, the Atascadero Police Department RSVP Station received the ,honor of "Station of the Year" . He stated that the unit is coordinated by Officer Ken Spann and supervised by Lt . Bill Wattcre. The Chief also announced that his department had also received two awards recognizing Investigator Blair Sims for his efforts in prevention of child abuse. CCS+/10/90 Page 2 Mayor ProTem Lilley thanked the Chief, his department and the senior volunteers. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor ProTem Lilley read the Consent Calendar . 1 . MARCH 27, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. MARCH 29, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Study Session) 3. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - FEBRUARY 1990 4. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - FEBRUARY 1990 5. RESOLUTION NO. 36-90 - RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 3-81 AND AUTHORIZING THE ADJUSTMENT AND SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY 6. FINAL PARCEL MAP 16-B90 9350 SANTA CRUZ RD. - Subdivision of one parcel containing approximately 9.63 ac . into two lots of 4 .00 ac . and 5.63 ac . in the RS zone (Lobo Investments, Inc . /Pace) 7. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURES - ATASCADERO • CRITERIUM, APRIL 29, 1990 8. RESOLUTION NO. 38-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A NO PARKING ZONE ON EL CAMINO REAL a SANTA ROSA ROAD 9. RESOLUTION NO. 37-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A NO PARKING ZONE ON EL CAMINO REAL, 150' NORTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE VILLA MAR- GARITA MOBILE HOME PARK 10. RESOLUTION NO. 39-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A NO PARKING ZONE ON CAPISTRANO FROM THE CALTRANS PARK-AND-RIDE TO THE NORTH EDGE OF THE HOTEL PARK PROPERTY 11 . RESOLUTION NO. 46-90 - ESTABLISHING A ROAD IMPROVEMENT STAN- DARD DETAIL 12. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION BY- LAWS 13. RESOLUTION NO. 44-90 - CITY OF ATASCADERO WASTE REDUCTION AND PROCUREMENT POLICY (Recycling Committee) CC4/ 10/90 Page 3 Councilwoman Borgeson asked to pull Item #5 for further • discussion. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman Shiers to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item #5; passed unanimously by roll call vote. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 36-90 — RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 3-81 AND AUTHORIZING THE ADJUSTMENT AND SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY Mark Joseph gave staff report recommending adoption of Resolution No . 36-90 establishing the Risk Review Committee. He indicated that the formation of this committee would expedite settlements, streamline the process, place risk management on a higher priority and ultimately save the City in litigation and insurance costs. Council discussion fol-lowed regarding the settlement authority of $10,000. The City Attorney explained that he had suggested this figure, but that the City Council had the discretion to change that amount . Mr . Montandon further explained that this maximum does not relate to cost savings on insurance premiums. He reiterated that the Council will be kept informed of all claims and implied if a claim needs to be settled on an emergency basis, a special Council meeting can be called to do so . In addition, he advised that the counciimember appointed to the committee did not have to be an attorney. There was no public comment . MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman Shiers to adopt Resolution No . 36-90; passed unanimously by roll call vote. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES: 1 . CONSIDERATION OF HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AS PART OF PARCEL MAP APPLICATION (44-87) FOR THE PURPOSES OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION BY OWNER RUSS JOHNSON AT OBISPO ROAD Henry Engen gave staff report with the recommendation to approve subject to a 2: 1 replacement . Brief discussion followed regarding the road alignment and possible alternatives. The applicant was not present . There was no public comment . CC4/10/90 Page 4 Councilwoman stated that she was in favor of the road and that it would create better traffic flow. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to approve the Heritage Tree Removal based upon the recommendations of the City Arborist ; passed unanimously by voice vote. 2. CONSIDERATION OF HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AS PART OF AN APPLICATION FOR PRECISE PLAN 69-89 FOR THE PURPOSES OF HOME CONSTRUCTION, 14400 EL MONTE ROAD (Ranallette) Mr . Engen gave staff report recommending the arborist ' s reluctant approval , with a 4: 1 replacement . The Community Development Director described the property, proposed homesite and septic system. Lisa Schicker , City Arborist , reported that she had not consulted with the applicants or architect before the home had been designed . She indicated that a pre-design consultation might have avoided the tree removal and given the Ranallettes a home just as pleasing . Ms. Schicker reiterated the importance of pre- site counseling . Councilman Shiers commented that initially the applicants were advised that the two trees were dead and asked the City Arborist if they had been informed that this was not so . Ms. Schicker responded that she knew the architect was aware of this, but was not sure if the applicants themselves knew prior to receiving a copy of her report . Additional discussion followed regarding the notification of public . Staff indicated that a Public Notice is printed in the newspaper and that notice is also posted on the property indicating the date of City Council hearings. The applicant , Ann Ranallette, described the house as a two-story one and indicated that attempts were made to protect the trees, but that the septic system designated the building site. The City Arborist explained , based on her discussion with the architect , that she had interpreted the house to be one-story . She stated that two of the floors have a few, small steps and that the home has a large floor plan with slightly risen and sunken levels. The applicant answered Council questions regarding the condition CC4/10/90 Page 5 of the trees. Mrs. Ranallette stated that she had originally been told the trees were diseased and dying , and acknowledged that it ( time of inspection) may have been a bad time of year for them. She added that there were over fifty other trees on the property. Mayor ProTem Lilley asked the applicant if any attempts to be re- design the home were made after the Ranallettes were informed that the trees were healthy. Mrs. Ranallette responded that they had tried a few other designs, but because of the septic system, the proposed site was the only one that would work . Steve Casler , 1400 El Monte, spoke in opposition of the tree removal request stating that he believed the applicants have other options for the homesite. He reported that he himself had worked with the Tree Committee in planning his own home and had built it without removing any trees. Mr . Casler stated that approval would impact both his and the applicant ' s property and stressed concern for the two large trees . He urged the Council to deny the request . Additional discussion followed . Councilwoman Mackey explained that she had not been able to find the site and therefore could not vote on the matter . Mayor ProTem Lilley explained that he was not sure if he had actually seen the site in question and entertained a motion to continue. MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to continue the matter to allow consultation between the architect and City Arborist for consideration of optional building plans ; carried 4 :0. 3. CONSIDERATION OF HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 7955 DEL RIO ROAD (Payne) Henry Engen gave staff report recommending approval with a 2: 1 replacement . He indicated that the site was heavily covered with Oaks and that the applicant was requesting to replace the oak with two purple leaf plums. Discussion followed regarding noticing . Mr . Engen reported that a sign is supposed to be visible from the street and a ribbon Placed upon the proposed tree. Ms . Schicker clarified for Council that it is the applicant or the applicant ' s arborist who is responsible for posting the notices, indicating that her office sends the applicant the necessary posters and ribbons for marking at least a week before the meeting . CC4/10/90 Page 6 Councilwoman Borgeson noted that the applicant would have planted the purple leaf plum trees anyway and stated that Mr . Payne might be willing to donate some Oak trees to the City ' s Oak Nursery. Councilman Shiers commented that the Tree Ordinance states the removed trees shall be replaced with a similar native tree and technically this tree should be replaced with native oaks rather than the plums. The applicant , David Payne residing at 7955 Del Rio Road , was present and stated that he was, indeed , willing to donate two oak trees to the Oak Nursery. There was no public comment . MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to approve the Heritage Tree Removal Request ; passed unanimously by voice vote. 4. CONSIDERATION OF HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 5715 SANTA CRUZ (Lindsey/Hilltop Mobile Manor ) Henry Engen gave staff report indicating that the ribbon marking the tree had been stolen, but that the tree had been identified a:ith an "X" . The staff ' s recommendation, he explained , was for approval with a 10: 1 replacement . Ms. Schicker clarified for Council that the applicant was concerned over the safety of the elderly residents who walk to the mailboxes daily. She expressed reluctance toward approving the removal stating that she wished there was an alternative as few trees get to be that big . The applicant was not present . Mr . Engen reported that the manager of the mobilehome park was recovering from surgery. Council comments followed . alternatives of moving the mailboxes and/or driveway were discussed . In addition, issues of replanting and forest rejuvenation with respect to the revision of the Tree Ordinance were addressed . There was no public comment . MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to continue the item until contact can be made with the owner of the mobilehome park to discuss alternatives of re-locating the mailboxes and roadway; motion to continue unanimously carried . CC4/ 10/90 Page 7 C. REGULAR BUSINESS: With the concurrence of Council , Mayor ProTem Lilley reversed the order of the first two items of regular business taking up Item #C-2 first . 2. SOLID WASTE: A. LANDFILL FEE INCREASE B. CONSIDERATION OF MANDATORY GARBAGE COLLECTION The City Manager advised that the two sub-matters be discussed as one. Mark Joseph gave background on the landfill fee increase request which would include "tipping fees" to cover the costs of a comprehensive recycling study as required by new State Legislation (AB939) . He added that there would also be a minor increase in the franchise fee the City collects to ensure Wil- Mar ' s recovery of costs . Mr . Joseph reported that staff ' s recommendation was for adoption of Resolution No . 45-90 and answered Council questions regarding the fees. Councilwoman Borgeson stated that she was reluctant to approve a rate increase of this size on the citizens of Atascadero . She expressed that it is only fair for Wil-Mar to recover their increased costs, but indicated that she had a problem with funding the study because only those who take Wil-Mar ' s service will be paying for it . Councilwoman Mackey clarified that the Recycling Study is to be a County-wide preparation of a nine-element report to the State due by July 1991 and will be expensive to complete. She reported that the Technical Committee for the Solid Waste Task Force had recommended the increased "tipping fee" of $1 .00 per ton in order to fund this study. Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated that Wil-Mar customers in Atascadero will be paying this extra dollar . Councilwoman Mackey indicated that the issue of mandatory garbage collection has been raised , in part , to spread the costs to all . Representing Wil-Mar Disposal Co . . Inc . Luci Dalton, on behalf of Betty R. Sanders of the law firm of Wright & Sanders, read the attached letter (see Exhibit A) asking Council to grant Wil-Mar Disposal ' s request for a fee increase and support the concept of mandatory garbage collection. CC4/10/90 Page 8 David K. Smith , C.P.A. , answered questions from Council regarding the preparation of the proposal submitted by Wil-Mar Disposal . He clarified that the 5% franchise fee is charged by the City and the $1 .00 tipping fee is mandated' by the County, and that it was quite appropriate for Wil-Mar to pass these increases on to its ' customers. The accountant stated that whether or not it is fair for the governing agencies to assess these fees is another issue altogether , one which Wil-Mar has no control over . With respect to mandatory garbage collection, Mayor ProTem Lilley asked Mr . Smith if the proration of the landfill increase would need to be re-calculated . The CPA responded that it would not , as the costs have been determined on a per-yard basis. He stated that if mandatory pick-up became a reality, other costs would need to be re-examined and advised that the cost per service may decline in some areas. Public Comments: George 2idbeck , 1869 San Fernando Road , recognized the need for a dumping fee increase stating that he will pay for it at the dump . He suggested a one-time fee for all residents of the County to pay for the Recycling Study, but opposed the mandate of full- garbage pick-up . Whitey Thorpe, 8825 Santa Ynez , opposed mandatory collection stating that citizens should take more responsibility for their garbage. He declared that government has had too much control and stressed the benefits of burning , salvaging and composting . He insisted that Wil-Mar ' s recent addition of the 2-can garbage container has already allowed for an increase in fees. He urged the Council to accept free enterprise, ever, in trash collection. Jerry Bond , 4840 E1 Verano , supported the landfill rate increase but strongly opposed mandatory garbage collection. Bob Nimmo , 7375 Bella Vista, stated that the City cannot allow the garbage company to go broke and implied that most responsible citizens would accept mandatory garbage pick-up and the rate increase rather than having a city that is cluttered with trash . He expressed concern over the fact that irresponsible citizens are dumping their garbage into other people ' s dumpsters and asserted that it was time for the issue of mandatory garbage collection be constructively addressed . Mr . Nimmo urged the Council to take positive action on both matters. Mike Tobey, 8193 San Dimas, objected to mandatory garbage CC4/ 1OJ90 Page 9 collection claiming that it would be an invasion of his rights . He additionally opposed the commercial rate increase stating that businesses should not be charged more than residents. Mr . Tobey stressed that the differential is wrong and noted that he would probably cancel all services if passed. Larry Sherwin, 2755 Campo Road , opposed mandatory garbage pick- up . He reported that three of his neighbors have recently spent $60,000 to put in the road he lives ,lust off of and that the road is not City-maintained. He expressed concern over the wear and tear it would receive from the added traffic of garbage trucks. Mr . Sherwin urged the Council to allow people to get rid of their own garbage as long as they do it in the appropriate place. He added that animals are responsible for getting into garbage and spreading it through our town. Ralph Gatos, 7770 Valle, commended the Recycling Committee for its ' earlier report describing it as eye-opening . He supported the committee ' s suggestion of allowing pick-up of individual trash bags, stating that he and his wife do not generate much garbage but opposed mandatory collection. Mr . Gatos asked if Wil-Mar had a vacation credit . Mr . Gibbs answered that it does. Mayor ProTem Lilley called for a recess at 9:22 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. Mr . Lilley recapped the issues and reported that staff recommendation with respect to mandatory garbage collection was for further review and Council direction. Lengthy Council discussion followed . Councilwoman Borgeson stated that trash pick-up services should be put out to bid to ensure cost-effectiveness. She indicated that she was not in favor of mandatory garbage pick-up and that the concept requires more staff research . Acknowledging earlier public comment regarding the issue of competition, Councilman Shiers indicated that monopolies are typically granted by government agencies because of the large economies of scale. He stated that it is often cheaper , on a per-unit basis, to have only one firm provide service. The Councilman noted that fees should be decreased if we are going to have mandatory trash pick-up and only have one company provide that service if , in fact , it can do so because of large economies of scale. He added that further review of the fee structure should be done and recommended giving direction to staff to study what might happen to fees with mandatory garbage pick-up and establish if the per-unit costs could be reduced if only one CC4/10/90 Page 10 • company provides service or if there is room for competition. Councilwoman Mackey reported that she had been approached by two citizens who were against mandatory garbage collection and recognized that there are those who will not be happy with this concept . She advised that Atascadero is the only city in the County which does not have mandatory garbage collection. She continued that the County is mandating that the urbanized areas in the rest of the County under their jurisdiction have mandatory collection and explained that she could not see how Atascadero could avoid it . Ms. Mackey questioned whether mandatory garbage collection would be required within the Urban Services Line or within the total City limits and concurred that the issue needs more staff study. In addition, Councilwoman Mackey was in support of a pass-through increase for Wil-Mar and suggested a flat percentage for both residential and commercial customers. Mayor ProTem Lilley stated that although he was hesitant to regulate his neighbors, he failed to see how the City could meet the goal of 25% reduction in waste within five years unless everyone is part of the system. Mr . Lilley continued that he was in favor of mandatory garbage pick-up and that unless the Council was ready to impose this regulation in the very-near future, was in support of approving the present rate increase. He expressed concern about the fee structure and although he supported Wil- Mar ' s request to recoup their added fees, stressed that the Council has an obligation to the community to ensure that the rates are prorated fairly. Additionally,, Mr . Li . leY s comments echoed those of Councilman Shiers with respect to the economies of scale. Councilwoman Mackey asked for an explanation of the rate percentages . Mark Joseph reported that he had based the percentages an the current service level and pass-through figures calculated by Mr . Smith . He added that the additional AB939 study and franchise fees are based on one dollar- per ton. If those fees were deducted , he speculated , there would still be a variation in percentages. Mr . Smith noted that if the City were to establish mandatory garbage pick-up , it would require a complete re-analysis of the rate structure. He stated that if the City imposes mandated pick-up , some costs would decrease on a per customer basis, but other costs may increase because of the added services. The CPA advised that the rates reflect a direct pass-through based on a per-yard cost and added that no percentages were considered at the time he completed his analysis. CC4/ 10/90 Page 11 Councilwoman Borgeson expressed concern about the franchise fee increase. The City Attorney advised that the 5% increase could be deleted . Mr . Joseph explained that administratively there may be some implications for Wil-Mar and that the City would lose that additional revenue. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Mayor ProTem Lilley to adopt Resolution 45-90, passed unanimously by roll call vote. Additional discussion followed regarding mandatory garbage pick- up . The City Manager suggested , in light of comments from Wil- Mar ' s CPA and Council , that the issue be referred back to staff with direction to meet with Wil-Mar to provide applicable data to report back for further review as part of another formal , noticed hearing . Members of Council made further comments reflecting their concerns. Mayor ProTem Lilley asked for a cost estimate if pick- up became mandated . Councilwoman Mackey asked for an evaluation of costs for pick-up within the City limits versus within the Urban Services Line. She also made note of the letter received from Dean E. Wooldridge, Jr . of Atascadero who requested consideration of lower rates for certain households. Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated that a bid process should be used if mandatory pick-up is considered . She continued that issues of maintaining the roads and liability should be addressed as well . The City Manager indicated that staff will go over all concerns of Council and come back with an in-depth report . Councilman Shiers stated that he would like to see the cost study be done as completely as possible with an indication of how much mandatory garbage pick-up will actually go towards reducing the amount of solid waste. Mayor ProTem Lilley asked for specific , comparative information on what kind of effect the various recycling programs within the City would have with and without mandatory garbage collection. Mr . Lilley referred back to the scheduled agenda, Item #C-1 . CC4/10/90 Page 12 1 . CONSIDERATION OF FISCAL PLANNING MODEL SERVICES - RECOMMEN- DATION OF REVIEW PANEL AND STAFF Henry Engen gave staff report with the recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and enter into a contract with Crawford , Multari and Starr to prepare Task 3: Long-Range Financial Analysis and General Plan Policies review for a Fiscal Planning Model , not to exceed $40,000. Mr . Engen introduced Michael Multari and Dr . Steven French from the consulting firm, who were present in the audience. The Community Development Director responded to questions from Council . Councilwoman Mackey asked what the payment terms would be, to which Mr . Engen stated that the firm was flexible and open for negotiation. Councilwoman Borgeson inquired if additional staff would be needed . The City Manager clarified that no additional personnel would be hired in order to complete the study. Councilwoman Borgeson indicated support and elaborated. on the benefits . The City Manager added that the study would give the Council a number of tools to allow for more effective decisions with respect to land use. Mayor ProTem Lilley endorsed the study stating that it represented a part of responsible government and entertained a motion to approve. MOTION: By Councilman Shiers and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to direct staff to enter into negotiations for Task 3 with the consultants , Crawford , Multari and Starr ; unanimously passed by roll call vote. The City Manager indicated , for the record , that Mayor Dexter was in support of the fiscal planning model . ( Item C-2 discussed previously) 3. RESOLUTION NO. 19-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF STOP SIGN ON OLD MORRO ROAD EAST AT THE INTERSECTION WITH LOS OSOS ROAD (Traffic Committee recommendation) Henry Engen gave background and staff recommendation to approve Resolution No . 19-90 which would establish a stop sign on Old Morro Road East at Los Osos Road . He stated that the present stop sign would remain. CC4/ 10/90 Page 13 Mike Tobe 8193 San Dimas asked the Police Chief how man Y� � Y incidents had been reported in that area. Chief McHale explained that the incident rate there was very low. Mr . Tobey suggested that other areas need the attention more than this one and asked to leave well enough alone. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Mayor ProTem Lilley to deny both requests and leave the intersection unchanged ; motion carried 3: 1 with Councilwoman Mackey voting against the denial . 4. DISPOSITION OF SAN BENITO LOT: A. RESOLUTION NO. 42-90 — ABANDONING A PORTION OF SAN BENITO ROAD SUBJECT TO FOUR (4) CONDITIONS B. RESOLUTION NO. 43-90 — AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A PUR— CHASE AND SALES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MICHAEL L. FREDERICK FOR THE CITY PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN THE SAN BENITO ROAD ABANDONMENT Henry Engen gave background and recommendation to approve both resolutions . He explained thesalesagreement and conditions of approval noting that as a condition of the sale, the nonconforming lot of record would be merged with the adjoining property owned by Mr . Fredericks, and that the City would retain an easement for potential sewer and pump station. Greg Ravatt , architect representing Mr . Frederick , addressed the Council offering to answer any questions. There were none. There was no public comment . MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Mayor ProTem Lilley to approve Resolution 42-90; passed unanimously by voice vote. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Mayor ProTem Lilley to approve Resolution 43-90; unanimously carried by roll call vote. 5. PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF MARCHANT WAY RIGHT-OF- WAY ADJACENT TO LOT 79 AT 9590 MARCHANT WAY AND PROPERTY EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AND MURRAY WARDEN: A. RESOLUTION NO. 40-90 — ABANDONING A PORTION OF MARCHANT WAY SUBJECT TO FIVE (5) CONDITIONS CC4/10/90 Page 14 0 B. RESOLUTION N0. 41-90 - EXCHANGING PROPERTIES IN RELA- TION THERETO Henry Engen gave his report recommending approval of both resolutions stating that by doing so , the Council could clean up this property issue. Brief Council discussion followed . Mr . Warden was present and availed himself for questions. There was no public comment . MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman Shiers to approve Resolution No . 40-90; passed unanimously by voice vote. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman Shiers to approve Resolution No . 41-90; motion unanimously carried by roll call vote. 6. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION EVENT - June 2, 1990 The City Manager recapped that Council had discussed this item and had agreed to participate in a county-wide household hazardous waste collection day. He stated that the original estimated cost to the City, based on a per capita basis formula , was for around $28,000. Mr . Windsor referred to a letter received from G.B. Rowland , M.D. , County Health Director and explained that those costs have escalated considerably. He indicated that the per capita basis funding has been changed to an individual participant basis and reported that the estimated cost would be $90 to $100 per participant for disposing of household hazardous waste. He advised that he was uncomfortable with now not having any indication of what the true cost would be. Additionally, he stated that the location would not be in the County as originally hoped for , but in San Luis Obispo , North Cou P Y 9 Y and speculated a lower participation because of this. Councilwoman Mackey indicated that it has been determined that r events are needed but that the Solid Waste Commission had three , �t for now. She reported that voted to go ahead with one eves P there is no way 9 of knowing what the actual cost will be until a collection day is held . Ms. Mackey explained that the County will bill the City for each Atascadero participant after the fiscal year and added that each person will be required to show identification and fill out a detailed form. CC4/10/90 Page 15 Council discussion followed regarding the cost and site location. . Mayor ProTem Lilley stated that he would like to see some cooperation with the City of Paso Robles to put together a hazardous waste disposal day in the North County. He stated that it was of questionable merit to ask the people in this area to load up their hazardous materials and drive Cuesta Grade to dispose of them. He added that he would expect a poor turn-out and expressed concern that the drive to San Luis Obispo itself will not deter participation. Councilwoman Mackey advised that there has not been a representative from Paso Robles at the meetings. The City Manager offered to make inquiries as to possible locations in Paso Robles. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilman Shiers to extend the meeting past 11 :00 p .m. ; all were in favor . Discussion continued. The City Manager relayed his discomfort over this matter stating that there are too many unknowns and was hesitant to commit the Council to something they were uncomfortable with . Mayor ProTem Lilley expressed opposition to the last-minute changes and lack of exact costs . Mr . Windsor added that he feels dissention among all the communities about whether or riot to be involved in this event . Councilwoman Mackey agreed , but reiterated her support of going ahead with a one-day event despite the lack of firm figures . The City Manager agreed with the councilwoman and recommended going ahead with the event . He added that the City needs a program to determine what the affects are to be and supported a cooperative effort with other communities in the North County to establish a collection location which would meet State standards. MOTION: By Councilwoman Mackey and seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to confirm with County of San Luis Obispo Atascadero ' s participation in a one-day hazardous waste event on June 2, 1990 at Camp San Luis ; motion carried 3: 1 , with Mayor ProTem Lilley opposing . 7. ATASCADERO BABE RUTH - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION FUNDING The City Manager gave staff report recommending approval . Councilwoman Borgeson was in support . There was no public comment . CC4/10/90 Page 16 MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson and seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to approve the request for additional funds; passed unanimously by roll call vote. D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1 . City Council : A. Committee Reports (The following represents ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1 . City/School Committee - The City Manager announced the next meeting as May 9, 1990. 2. North Coastal Transit - Councilwoman Borgeson stated that there would be an upcoming meeting and that she would bring back a report at another date. The City Manager announced that as part of Earth Week , April 17, 1990 has been designated as Free Transit Day. and asked Council for approval to participate. Council was in agreement and the Mr . Windsor stated that he would see that the City received the necessary publicity. 3. S.L.O. Area Coordinating Council - No report . 4. Traffic Committee ( See Items A-8, 9, 10 & C-3) 5. Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt . Committee (See Items C-2-A & B) 6. Recycling Committee ( See Item A-13) 7. Economic Opportunity Commission - No report . 8. B. I .A. (See Item A-12) 9. Downtown Steering Committee - Henry Engen announced that a public hearing had been scheduled for May 10, 1990 at 7:00 P .M. to review the Draft Atascadero Downtown Master Plan. Mayor ProTem Lilley stated that this was a major event and wanted to see lots of publicity. 10. General Plan Subcommittee - Henry Engen reported that the next meeting would be April 11 , 1990 at 4 :00 p .m. CC4/10/90 Page 17 Councilwoman Mackey announded that she would be away during the regular meeting of the Council scheduled for April 24 , !990. 2. City Attorney - No report . 3. City Clerk - No report . 4. City Attorney - No report . 5. City Manager Mr . Windsor announced that the city-sponsored Big Chill Night was a success and that $1 ,000 was to be donated to the Lake Pavilion Fund. In that regard , he explained that he had been contacted by the committee who asked that the $5,000 donated by Warner Bros. be released to them to be placed into the same account so that advantage could be taken of the additional interest earned . Council was in concurrence. Mayor ProTem Lilley recognized Andy Takata, Director of Parks, Recreation & Zoo for the department ' s efforts. The City Manager , addressing a separate item, asked Council to schedule a closed session for the purpose of hearing a presentation from Becker & Bell on up-coming employee negotiations and to discuss the proposed purchase of property located in the 9000 Block of Morro Road . He suggested a meeting date of Thursday , April 195 1990 at 5:00 P .M. stating said meeting would be held in the Club Room. Discussion followed and Council agreed to that date. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11 :20 P.M. TO A CLOSED SESSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1990 AT 3:00 P.M. MINVTES. PREPARED AND RECORDED BY: LEE DAYKA CITY CLERK Attachment : Exhibit A (Sanders) CC4/10/90 Page 19 Ey h . A WRIGHT & SANDERS TELEPHONE A LAW CORPORATION (805) 466-9026 WILLIAM D. WRIGHT (RETIRED) 5950 ENTRADA AVENUE FAX BETTY R. SANDERS ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422. (805) 466-9098 April 10, 1990 City Council City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council : I have asked that this letter be read to you in my absence, an absence which I sorely regret . As many of you know, I believe very strongly that mandatory collection of solid waste is extremely important for all the citizens of Atascadero. You have been advised of the necessity to reduce the solid waste stream in order to comply with new State law. You doubtless know the penalty for non-compliance. I further believe that each of you appreciates the value of preserving our environment and that each of you understands the necessity of full involvement by all of us in this endeavor . For this reason we believe that mandatory solid waste collection is a logical first step toward waste reduction mandated by State law. If we are to have a viable plan for waste reduction we must be able to identify source generation. Further , a curbside recycling plan can only operate effectively if there is full participation by everyone . It would be patently unfair to expect the residents currently paying for garbage collection to subsidize the ones who do not . Therefore, from an equity point of view, mandatory collection is the fairest and least burdensome method for achieving our goal . We therefore respectfully request that this Council direct staff to go forward with all due diligence to prepare a resolution adopting mandatory collection within the city limits of the City of Atascadero. Very truly yours , BETTY R. SANDERS BRS/baw MEET DATE INS 2_ 4/90 r EMI A-2 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - ADJOURNED MEETING APRIL 19, 1990 The Adjourned Meeting of the City Council was called to order at 3 : 10 p.m. in the 4th Floor Club Room. ROLL CALL Present : Councilmembers Borgeson, Mackey, Shiers, and Mayor Dexter Absent: Councilman Lilley Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Mgr. ; Mark Joseph, Dir. of Administrative Services; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Alicia Lara, Personnel Coordinator; Steve Schinnerer, Becker & Bell, Inc . • Motion: By Councilman Shiers, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to adjourn to a Closed Session; passed unanimously. Motion: At 4 :35 p.m. by Councilman Shiers, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey to reconvene to an open ses- sion; passed unanimously. Agenda Item 2a. • There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey, seconded by Councilman Shiers to authorize the Mayor to sign Purchase, Sale and Reciprocal Option Agreement for Lot 32 , Block JC, Morro Rd. (Mumford) ; passed unanimously by roll-call . MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4 : 36 P.M. MINUTES PREPARED BY: CINDY WILKINS, Admin. Secretary 1 MEETI� 24/90 AGEND& DATAfTEM CITY OF ATASCADERO SCHEDULE OF CASH RECEIPTS AND TRANSFERS TREASURER ' S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1990 CASH RECEIPTS: Property Taxes 91 ,728.30 Sales Tax 211 ,990.47 Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 55,744 . 30 Cigarette Tax " 3, 114 .70 Sanitation Fees 13,790.62 License/Permit/Fees 40, 150.50 Franchise Fees P3,035.08 Fines/Penalties/Overages 734.75 Investment Earnings 688.88 Rents/Concessions 516.61 Sales-Maps/Publications/Reports 262.90 Police Services 542.50 Weed Abatement 620.70 Parks and Recreation Fees 15, 125, 75 P.O.S. T. Reimbursement 4 ,282.68 Miscellaneous 348. 36 Developer Fees 37 .320.55 Coo Receipts 3, 373.04 Dial-A-Ride 3,532.08 Dues 110.00 A. D. 54 - Separ3do/Cayu=os 5, 153.84 A. D. 05 - Chandler Ranch 2 , 218.02 Street Maintenance Districts -52.50 Gas Tax Receipts 29. 112.57 Park Pavilion Donation 5,000.00 Sub-Total 618,549. 70 Other Cash Receipts Reimbursement to Expense 6, 257.22 Total Other Receipts. 6,257. 22 Total Cash Receipt=_ $624 ,806. 92 MEET V�4/90 AGENID�-4 DATE CITY OF ATASCADERO SCHEDULE OF DISBURSEMENTS FINANCE DIRECTOR'' S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1990 DISBURSEMENTS Hand Warrant Register for March , 1990 $23,283.47 3/1 /90 Accounts Pavable Warrants 196, 348.51 3/9/90 Accounts Pavable Warrants 201 , 055.55 3/16/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 224,444 . 32 3/23/90 Accounts Payable Warrants 30,520.65 3/30`90 Accounts Payable Warrants 142,426. 08 Service Charge - Mastercard/VISA 5.00 Wires for !larch , 1990 725 ,000.00 3 '24190 Payroll Checks 49469-49609 112,622 .66 3/28/90 Payroll Checks 49610-49755 1. 17.5`5. 27 TOTAL 1 ,772.241 . 51 LESS: Voided Check # 48387 $ 109.50 Voided Check # 48977 45. 10 'Jo ided Check # 49855 192.00 Voided Check # 49953 35.00 Voided" Check # 50378 6. ,000.00 Voided Check # 50401 i 90. 010 Voided Check # 50415 159.4n Voided Check # 50474 21915 . 50 SUB-TOTAL VOIDED CHECKS $9,545. 50 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $i . 7b3 ,696.01 IDSEPH, do hereby cer . _fy and declare that demands enumerated and referred to i , the '' GrF'g:;inq "rE?g,. --?r are aczurate and just .c:`,Dirn F- against the and that I—ere ar E= funds available for aayment. thereof :n the City Treasury . he breakdown detail on all accounts is available for your viewing in }'-e Finance OffiCe . MARK. A. f ,CSEP�;,�� I'd min.. straL �e Services Director CITY OF ATASCADERO CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY TREASURER ' S REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1990 BEGINNING CASH RESOURCES X85392,804 .83 ADD: RECEIPTS 624 ,806.92 FUND TRANSFERS 250,000.00 LESS: DISBURSEMENTS 1 ,038 ,696.01 FUND TRANSFERS 308, 133.00 ENDING CASH RESOURCES $71920,782 .74 SCHEDULE OF GASH RESOURCES As of March 30, 1990 Checking Account : int . Due Mid--State Bank $76,797.74 Rate Date Other Investments: Local Agencv Inv. Fund 6,016,000.00 8.538% N/A Fed Home Loan Bank-FICO 1 , 327 ,445. 00 8.35 ,. 12/6/90 Other Cash Resources: Petty Cash 540. 00 TOTAL CASH RESOURCES $7,920,782.74 DERE SIBBACH City Treasurer REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: A-5 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting date: 4/24/90 From: Michael Hicks, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Resolution 35-90, Weed Abatement Program RECOMMENDATION: Recommend adoption of Resolution No. 35-90, declaring weeds a public nuisance and commencing proceedings for the abatement of said nuisances . BACKGROUND: City Ordinance No. 61 addresses the abatement of weeds, rubbish, and similar materials which constitute a fire hazard. Adoption of Resolution No. 35-90 would be the first step in this annual program which requires Council action. The attached "Exhibit A" contains parcel numbers of parcels which appeared to require weed abatement at the time of the first inspection by the Fire Department. Owners of those parcels will receive written notice of the abatement requirements. Also attached is a weed abatement schedule which includes the dates of public hearings, printing of legal notices , etc . , required under Government Code Section 39500. FISCAL IMPACT Costs involved in administering this program are recovered through the administrative fee charged to parcels abated by the City contractor. NOTE: EXHIB C ED ABOVE, IS ON FILA'` HE CITY OFFICE UBLIC REVIEW. RESOLUTION NO. 35-90 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DECLARING WEEDS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ABATEMENT OF SAID NUISANCES The City Council of the City of Atascadero , County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1 . That weeds growing or potentially could grow, and rubbish, refuse and dirt upon public and private property hereinafter described, constitute or could constitute a public nuisance and are hereby declared to be such, for the reason that such weeds upon maturity will bear wingy or downy seeds, will attain such a large growth as to become a fire menace when dry, will be otherwise noxious or dangerous , or will constitute or potentially could constitute dry grass, stubble, brush, litter or other flammable material thereby creating a hazard to public health. SECTION 2 . The description of the parcels of lots of private property upon which, or in front of which, said nuisances exist, according to the official Assessment Map of said City of Atascadero, are set in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and hereby incorporated herein by reference as though here fully set forth . SECTION 3 . The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to mail written notice of the proposed abatement to all persons owning property described in this resolution in accordance with Section 6-13 .04 of City Ordinance No. 61 . SECTION 4 . The time at which the City Council shall hear and consider all objections or protests to the required removal of said noxious or dangerous weeds , or other flammable material will be at 7 : 00 p.m. on May 22 , 1990. On motion by Councilperson and seconded by Councilperson , the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote : AYES : NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: Resolution 35-90 Page 2 ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO LEE DAYKA, Deputy City Clerk ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ARTHER MONTANDON MICHAEL HICKS City Attorney Fire Chief • WEED ABATEMENT SCHEDULE 1990 April 2-15 Identify parcels April 4 , 6 , 11 , 13 Legal notices printed in newspaper regarding contractor's bids . April 24 Resolution declaring weeds, etc. , a public nuisance. April 26 -May 8 Mail notices to property owners . April 30 , 10 . 00 a.m. Open contractor's bids. May 9 Legal notice in newspaper regarding public hearing. May 22 Public hearing regarding appeals and awarding of contractor's bids . May 23 Start reinspection of lots for compliance. June 4 Begin abatement process. July 11 Legal notice in newspaper regarding abatement costs. July 16 End abatement. July 17 Post parcel numbers and charges at City Hall and Fire Station. July 24 Public hearing regarding appeals on abatement and Council approval of list of parcel numbers and charges for abatement. On or before August 10 Submit parcel numbers and charges to County Tax Assessor. WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A - ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER/STREET PAGE 1 28-052-17 ESTRADA 28-021-03 SYCAMORE 28-052-18 ESTRADA 28-021-04 SYCAMORE 28-052-19 ESTRADA 28-021-09 SYCAMORE 28-052-20 ARIZONA 28-021-10 SYCAMORE 28-052-32 ESTRADA 28-021-11 SYCAMORE 28-052-37 ARIZONA 28-021-15 SYCAMORE 28-052-38 ESTRADA 28-021-18 SYCAMORE 28-061-05 SEPERADO 28-021-28 SYCAMORE 28-061-12 SEPERADO 28-021-31 SYCAMORE 28-061-13 SAN JACINTO 28-021-32 SYCAMORE 28-061-18 ARIZONA 28-032-03 SYCAMORE 28-061-19 ARIZONA 28-032-06 SYCAMORE 28-061-23 ARIZONA 28-032-13 SOLEDAD 28-061-28 ARIZONA 28-032-18 HIDALGO 28-061-31 ARIZONA 28-032-19 HIDALGO 28-061-36 ARIZONA 28-032-35 SYCAMORE 28-061-42 SEPERADO 28-032-47 SYCAMORE 28-061-45 SEPERADO 28-032-49 HIDALGO 28-062-11 ESTRADA 28-041-01 SOLEDAD 28-062-13 VISCANO 28-041-02 SOLEDAD 28-062-14 VISCANO 28-041-03 SOLEDAD 28-062-15 VISCANO 28-041-05 30LEDAD 28-062-16 VISCANO • 28-041-06 SOLEDAD 28-062-20 ESTRADA 28-042-03 HIDALGO 28-062-21 VISCANO 28-042-04 HIDALGO 28-062-21 ARIZONA 28-042-05 HIDALGO 28-062-25 VISCANO 28-042-06 HIDALGO 28-062-25 ARIZONA 28-042-18 MIRAMON 28-062-26 VISCANO 28-042-32 MIRAMON 28-062-28 ARIZONA 28-042-42 HIDALGO 28-062-30 ARIZONA 28-042-49 MIRAMON 28-062-31 ESTRADA 28-042-50 MIRAMON 28-062-31 VISCANO 28-051-05 SEPERADO 28-062-32 VISCANO 28-051-16 SAN ANSELMO 28-062-32 ARIZONA 28-051-18 SAN ANSELMO 28-062-33 ARIZONA 28-051-30 ARIZONA 28-062-34 VISCANO 28-051-31 ARIZONA 28-062-35 VISCANO 28-051-35 ARIZONA 28-062-36 VISCANO 28-051-36 SAN ANSELMO 28-062-36 ARIZONA 28-051-38 SEPERADO 28-062-37 SAN VICENTE 28-051-39 SEPERADO 28-062-38 ARIZONA 28-051-42 ARIZONA 28-062-39 ARIZONA 28-051-44 ARIZONA 28-062-41 ESTRADA 28-051-45 ARIZONA 28-071-01 TRAFFIC WAY 28-051-49 ARIZONA 28-071-02 TRAFFIC WAY 28-051-50 ARIZONA 28-071-06 DOLORES 28-051-51 ARIZONA 28-071-09 DOLORES 28-051-52 ARIZONA 28-071-12 SAN JACINTO 28-052-06 ARIZONA 28-071-27 TRAFFIC WAY 28-052-09 ARIZONA 28-071-28 DOLORES 28-052-13 ESTRADA 28-071-29 SAN JACINTO WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 28-141-23 ARENA PAGE 2 28-141-24 SAN ANSELMO 28-141-25 SAN ANSELMO 28-071-33 TRAFFIC WAY 28-141-31 ARENA 28-071-34 VISCANO 28-141-32 ESTRADA 28-071-35 VISCANO 28-141-33 ESTRADA 28-071-36 VISCANO 28-151-24 YERBA 28-071-37 DOLORES 28-151-26 ESTRADA 28-071-39 VISCANO 28-151-27 DOLORES 28-072-01 SAN JACINTO 28-151-28 MANANITA 28-084-02 TRAFFIC WAY 28-151-34 MANANITA 28-091-03 SYCAMORE 28-151-42 MANANITA 28-091-05 HIDALGO 28-151-48 YERBA 28-092-04 SYCAMORE 28-151-50 YERBA 28-092-10 SYCAMORE 28-151-60 MANANITA 28-092-19 SYCAMORE 28-151-87 MANANITA 28-093-12 MIRAMON 28-152-16 SAN JACINTO 28-093-16 MIRAMON 28-152-40 DOLORES 28-093-32 SYCAMORE 28-152-42 SAN JACINTO 28-093-33 SYCAMORE 28-152-50 SAN JACINTO 28-093-40 SYCAMORE 28-152-58 MANANITA 28-093-45 BUENA 28-152-60 MANANITA 28-101-02 MIRAMON 28-161-01 SAN JACINTO 28-101.-03 MIRAMON 28-161-06 SAN JACINTO 28-102-01 TRAFFIC WAY 28-161-11 SAN VICENTE 28-103-09 TRAFFIC WAY 28-161-14 SAN JACINTO 28-103-11 TRAFFIC WAY 28-161-22 SAN JACINTO 28-103-12 TRAFFIC WAY 28-161-26 SAN JACINTO 28-103-13 ALAMO 28-161-29 SAN VICENTE 28-103-14 TRAFFIC WAY 28-161-30 SAN VICENTE 28-112-01 SYCAMORE 28-161-31 SAN VICENTE 28-131-04 SYCAMORE 28-162-03 SAN VICENTE 28-131-07 SYCAMORE 28-162-05 SAN VICENTE 28-131-16 SYCAMORE 28-162-06 SAN VICENTE 28-131-18 SYCAMORE 28-162-07 SAN VICENTE 28-131-25 SYCAMORE 28-162-08 SAN VICENTE 28-131-26 SYCAMORE 28-162-23 SAN VICENTE 28-131-27 SYCAMORE 28-162-38 SAN VICENTE 28-131-28 SYCAMORE 28-171-02 VISCANO 28-131-29 SYCAMORE 28-171-04 VISCANO 28-131-30 SYCAMORE 28-171-05 VISCANO 28-131-31 SYCAMORE 28-171-07 DOLORES 28-131-32 SYCAMORE 28-171-11 VISCANO 28-131-34 SYCAMORE 28-172-01 DOLORES 28-131-35 SYCAMORE 28-172-13 VALENTINA 28-132-01 SYCAMORE 28-172-14 VALENTINA 28-132-23 SYCAMORE 28-172-15 VALENTINA 28-132-24 SYCAMORE 28-172-22 ALAMO 28-132-26 SYCAMORE 28-172-32 ALAMO 28-132-27 SYCAMORE 28-181-02 DOLORES 28-141-01 SAN ANSELMO 28-181-03 VALENTINA 28-141-02 ESTRADA 28-181-08 VALENTINA 28-141-11 YERBA 28-181-09 VALENTINA 28-141-15 ARENA 28-181-18 SAN PEDRO WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 28-213-22 MERCEDES PAGE 3 28-214-01 MAGDELENA 28-214-02 MAGDELENA 28-181-19 SAN PEDRO 28-214-13 MAGDELENA 28-181-20 ALAMO 28-214-18 MERCEDES 28-181-21 ALAMO 28-215-14 MERCEDES 28-181-25 VALENTINA 28-241-01 CORTEZ 28-181-26 VALENTINA 28-241-02 CORTEZ 28-181-27 VALENTINA 28-242-05 CURBARIL 28-181-28 VALENTINA 28-242-06 CURBARIL 28-181-29 VALENTINA 28-242-08 CURBARIL 28-181-30 VALENTINA 28-251-01 SAN ANSELMO 28-182-02 SAN PEDRO 28-251-07 SAN ARDO 28-182-05 SAN PEDRO 28-251-08 DOLORES 28-182-09 SAN PEDRO 28-251-09 SAN ARDO 28-182-10 ARROYO 28-251-14 SAN ANSELMO 28-182-17 ALAMO 28-251-18 SAN ANSELMO 28-182-20 ALAMO 28-251-19 SAN ANSELMO 28-182-22 SAN PEDRO 28-251-20 SAN ANSELMO 28-182-23 SAN PEDRO 28-251-21 SAN ANSELMO 28-182-25 ALAMO 28-251-25 SAN ARDO 28-182-26 ALAMO 28-251-26 SAN ARDO 28-182-30 ARROYO 28-251-29 SAN ARDO 28-182-31 ARROYO 28-251-30 SAN ARDO 28-182-90 SAN PEDRO 28-251-31 SAN ARDO 28-191-08 TRAFFIC WAY 28-261-09 SAN ARDO 28-191-09 TRAFFIC WAY 28-261-10 SAN ARDO 28-191-10 TRAFFIC WAY 28-261-19 ARENA 28-192-05 TRAFFIC WAY 28-261-20 ARENA 28-192-06 TRAFFIC WAY 28-261-22 SAN ARDO 28-192-15 TRAFFIC WAY 28-261-26 YERBA 28-192-19 ROSARIO 28-261-28 YERBA 28-192-20 ROSARIO 28-261-31 YERBA 28-192-35 TRAFFIC WAY 28-261-33 ARENA 28-192-42 TRAFFIC WAY 28-261-34 ARENA 28-192-44 TRAFFIC WAY 28-271-06 SAN ANSELMO 28-192-47 BARRENDA 28-271-06 SAN ANSELMO 28-192-50 TRAFFIC WAY 28-271-18 DOLORES 28-192-51 BARRENDA 28-271-23 SAN ANSELMO 28-192-52 BARRENDA 28-271-24 SAN ANSELMO 28-192-53 BARRENDA 28-271-25 SAN ANSELMO 28-192-55 BARRENDA 28-271-26 SAN ANSELMO 28-201-01 VIA 28-271-27 SAN ANSELMO 28-201-04 VIA 28-271-28 SAN ANSELMO 28-211-01 CAPISTRANO 28-271-29 DOLORES 28-212-01 CAPISTRANO 28-271-30 DOLORES 28-212-03 CABRILLO 28-271-31 DOLORES 28-213-03 MAGDELENA 28-271-32 DOLORES 28-213-06 MAGDELENA 28-272-09 HERMOSILLA 28-213-09 MAGDELENA 28-281-01 DOLORES • 28-213-11 MAGDELENA 28-281-02 CURVADO 28-213-12 MERCEDES 28-281-04 EL VERANO 28-213-18 MERCEDES 28-281-11 NAVIDAD 28-213-19 MERCEDES 28-281-12 EL VERANO WEED ABATEMENT -EXHIBIT A 26-311-33 GANCHO PAGE 4 28-311-35 DULZURA 28-311-36 ROSARIO 28-281-15 EL VERANO 28-311-37 ROSARIO 28-282-02 EL VERANO 28-311-38 BAJADA 28-282-04 EL VERANO 28-311-40 BAJADA 28-282-13 EL VERANO 28-311-42 GANCHO 28-282-15 DOLORES 28-321-11 ROSARIO 28-282-18 DOLORES 28-321-18 ROSARIO 28-282-21 EL VERANO 28-321-21 ROSARIO 28-282-27 EL VERANO 28-321-24 GANCHO 28-291-01 DOLORES 28-321-25 ROSARIO 28-291-02 DOLORES 26-321-32 ROSARIO 28-291-03 DOLORES 28-321-33 ROSARIO 28-291-04 DOLORES 28-321-35 ARROYO 28-291-09 CURVADO 28-322-01 ROSARIO 28-291-10 CURVADO 28-322-03 BARRENDA 28-292-05 DOLORES 28-322-08 ROSARIO 28-292-06 NAVIDAD 28-322-14 ALAMO 28-292-09 NAVIDAD 28-322-15 ALAMO 28-292-10 SAN JACINTO 28-322-25 BARRENDA 28-292-13 NAVIDAD 28-322-30 ALAMO 28-292-14 DOLORES 28-322-35 ALAMO 28-292-15 DOLORES 28-322-36 ALAMO 28-292-16 CURVADO 28-322-36 ROSARIO 28-292-17 NAVIDAD 28-322-40 ROSARIO 28-292-18 SAN JACINTO 28-331-04 ROSARIO 28-292-19 SAN JACINTO 28-331-05 ROSARIO 28-301-08 DULZURA 28-331-06 ROSARIO 26-301-09 DULZURA 28-331-09 BARRENDA 28-301-12 SAN JACINTO 28-331-12 BARRENDA 28-301-13 SAN JACINTO 28-331-15 ROSARIO 28-301-16 SAN JACINTO 28-331-16 BAJADA 28-301-18 SAN JACINTO 28-331-17 BAJADA 28-301-20 DOLORES 28-332-01 BARRENDA 28-301-22 SAN JACINTO 28-332-03 BARRENDA 28-301-25 DOLORES 28-332-04 BARRENDA 28-301-26 DOLORES 28-332-08 JUAREZ 28-301-31 DULZURA 28-332-09 JUAREZ 28-301-32 DULZURA 28-332-10 ALAMO 28-301-33 DULZURA 28-332-17 HONDA 28-301-34 DOLORES 28-332-19 HONDA 28-301-35 DOLORES 28-332-21 ALAMO 28-301-36 SAN JACINTO 28-332-25 HONDA 28-311-03 GANCHO 28-332-27 BARRENDA 28-311-04 GANCHO 28-332-30 JUAREZ 28-311-05 GANCHO 28-332-35 ALAMO 28-311-08 ROSARIO 28-341-02 TRAFFIC WAY 28-311-13 DULZURA 28-341-09 ENSENADA 28-311-15 DULZURA 28-341-11 ENSENADA 28-311-18 DULZURA 28-341-18 VIA • 28-311-28 DULZURA 28-341-21 VIA 28-311-29 DULZURA 28-341-24 TRAFFIC WAY 28-311-31 GANCHO 28-351-01 ENSENADA WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 28-382-14 MERCEDES PAGE S 28-391-02 DOLORES 28-391-06 DOLORES 28-3S1-02 ENSENADA 28-391-07 VISCANO 28-3S1-05 ENSENADA 28-401-03 VERNALIS 28-351-09 CAPISTRANO 28-401-OS TAMPICO 28-351-11 CABRILLO 28-401-06 VERNALIS 28-351-12 CAPISTRANO 28-401-11 TAMPICO 28-3S1-16 CAPISTRANO 28-401-14 ARAGON 28-352-01 CAPISTRANO 28-401-15 ARAGON 28-352-05 CAPISTRANO 28-401-16 AURORA 28-353-08 MAGDELENA 28-401-18 AURORA 28-3S3-09 MAGDELENA 28-401-19 AURORA 28-3S3-10 MAGDELENA 28-401-20 AURORA 28-354-02 MAGDELENA 28-401-22 ARAGON 28-354-03 MAGDELENA 28-401-23 TAMPICO 28-354-06 MAGDELENA 28-411-01 VERNALIS 28-354-07 MAGDELENA 28-411-04 VERNALIS 28-354-09 MAGDELENA 28-411-05 TAMPICO 28-355-08 MERCEDES 28-411-07 GARBADA 28-35S-13 MERCEDES 28-411-09 GARBADA 28-35S-1S MERCEDES 28-411-10 GARBADA 28-361-02 TRAFFIC WAY 28-411-13 CURBARIL 28-361-08 ENSENADA 26-411-14 CURBARIL 28-361-09 ENSENADA 28-411-15 CURBARIL 28-361-10 ENSENADA 28-411-20 TAMPICO 28-361-14 ENSENADA 28-411-21 GARBADA 28-361-17 TRAFFIC WAY 28-411-22 GARBADA 28-361-27 ENSENADA 28-411-23 GARBADA 28-361-28 ENSENADA 28-411-2S VERNALIS 28-361-29 TRAFFIC WAY 28-411-27 VERNALIS 28-371-04 ENSENADA 28-411-28 CURBARIL 28-371-09 CAPISTRANO 28-412-01 TAMPICO 28-371-17 CAPISTRANO 28-412-02 AURORA 28-371-18 CAPISTRANO 28-412-04 AURORA 28-371-21 CAPISTRANO 28-412-06 AURORA 28-371-26 CAPISTRANO 28-412-07 TAMPICO 28-371-30 ENSENADA 28-412-06 AURORA 28-372-06 CAPISTRANO 28-412-09 AURORA 28-372-10 MAGNOLIA 28-413-03 CORTEZ 28-372-11 MAGNOLIA 28-413-06 CORTEZ 28-372-14 MAGNOLIA 29-011-04 SAN ANSELMO 28-372-15 MAGNOLIA 29-011-16 SAN ANSELMO 28-372-19 CABRILLO 29-011-23 TRANQUILLA 28-372-2S CAPISTRANO 29-011-26 TRANQUILLA 28-372-26 CAPISTRANO 29-011-37 SAN ANSELMO 28-372-28 CAPISTRANO 29-011-41 NOGALES 28-381-23 MAGNOLIA 29-011-42 TRANQUILLA 28-381-24 MAGNOLIA 29-011-43 TRANQUILLA 28-381-25 MAGNOLIA 29-011-44 DOLORES 28-382-0S MERCEDES 29-011-45 DOLORES 28-382-06 MERCEDES 29-012-02 SAN ANSELMO 2S-382-12 MERCEDES 29-012-03 SAN ANSELMO 28-382-13 MERCEDES 29-012-07 TRANQUILLA WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 29-041-12 SAN JACINTO PAGE 6 29-041-13 SAN JACINTO 29-041-15 SAN JACINTO 29-012-08 TRANQUILLA 29-041-16 SAN JACINTO 29-012-09 TRANQUILLA 29-041-24 SAN JACINTO 29-012-10 ROSITA 29-041-25 SAN JACINTO 29-012-11 ROSITA 29-041-26 SAN JACINTO 29-012-12 ROSITA 29-041-27 SAN JACINTO 29-012-15 ROSITA 29-041-30 VIDA 29-012-20 ROSITA 29-042-03 VIDA 29-012-21 ROSITA 29-042-04 VIDA 29-021-01 LOBOS 29-042-06 VIDA 29-021-04 LOBOS 29-042-07 VIDA 29-021-05 LOBOS 29-042-08 VIDA 29-021-06 LOBOS 29-042-09 VIDA 29-021-06 LOBOS 29-051-06 DULZURA 29-021-08 LOBOS 29-051-07 DULZURA 29-021-08 LOBOS 29-051-08 DULZURA 29-021-10 ROSITA 29-051-09 DULZURA 29-021-11 ROSITA 29-051-10 SAN JACINTO 29-021-12 LOBOS 29-051-12 SAN JACINTO 29-021-15 LOBOS 29-051-13 SAN JACINTO 29-021-16 LOBOS 29-051-17 SAN JACINTO 29-021-27 ROSITA 29-051--22 SAN JACINTO 29-022-21 ROSITA 29-051-30 SAN JACINTO 29-022-25 ROSITA 29-051-32 DULZURA 29-022-26 ROSITA 29-061-13 BARRENDA 29-023-06 TRANQUILLA 29-061-16 TRAFFIC WAY 29-023-10 ROSITA 29-061-23 BARRENDA 29-023-11 ROSITA 29-061-31 HONDA 29-024-06 NOGALES 29-061-33 BARRENDA 29-024-07 NOGALES 29-061-34 BARRENDA 29-024-09 NOGALES 29-061-37 HONDA 29-024-10 NOGALES 29-061-38 HONDA 29-024-13 TRANQUILLA 29-061-42 TRAFFIC WAY 29-024-14 ROSITA 29-061-43 HONDA 29-024-17 ROSITA 29-061-44 HONDA 29-024-19 ROSITA 29-061-45 TRAFFIC WAY 29-024-20 NOGALES 29-062-02 BARRENDA 29-031-05 NOGALES 29-062-10 BARRENDA 29-031-06 NOGALES 29-062-11 BARRENDA 29-031-07 EL VERANO 29-062-12 TRAFFIC WAY 29-031-08 NOGALES 29-062-15 BAJADA 29-031-10 NOGALES 29-062-17 BAJADA 29-032-06 NAVIDAD 29-062-18 BAJADA 29-032-07 NAVIDAD 29-062-25 BARRENDA 29-032-09 EL VERANO 29-062-30 BAJADA 29-032-10 NAVIDAD 29-062-38 BARRENDA 29-032-12 EL VERANO 29-071-01 FRESNO 29-032-13 EL VERANO 29-071-03 FRESNO 29-032-46 SYCAMORE 29-071-04 NOGALES 29-041-02 VIDA 29-071-09 NOGALES 29-041-08 VIDA 29-071-10 NOGALES 29-041-10 SAN JACINTO 29-071-15 ROSARIO WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 29-111-03 PINAL PAGE 7 29-111-04 PINAL 29-111-05 PINAL 29-071-16 ROSARIO 29-111-06 PINAL 29-071-21 FRESNO 29-121-01 PINAL 29-071-22 FRESNO 29-121-02 PINAL 29-071-23 NOGALES 29-121-05 MALEZA 29-071-24 ROSARIO 29-121-06 MALEZA 29-071-28 NOGALES 29-121-07 MALEZA 29-071-30 NOGALES 29-121-08 MALEZA 29-071-32 ROSARIO 29-121-09 MALEZA 29-071-33 ROSARIO 29-121-10 MALEZA 29-071-35 ROSARIO 29-121-15 MALEZA 29-071-39 ROSARIO 29-121-17 MALEZA 29-081-02 ROSARIO 29-121-18 MALEZA 29-081-03 ROSARIO 29-121-19 MALEZA 29-081-05 ROSARIO 29-121-20 MALEZA 29-081-06 ROSARIO 29-121-21 MALEZA 29-081-07 ROSARIO 29-121-22 MALEZA 29-081-09 ROSARIO 29-131-02 MALEZA 29-081-10 ROSARIO 29-131-12 PINAL 29-081-13 ROSARIO 29-131-19 MALEZA 29-081-15 ROSARIO 29-131-20 PINAL 29-081-16 ROSARIO 29-131-21 PINAL. 29-082-02 BAJADA 29-131-22 PINAL 29-082-11 ROSARIO 29-131-26 MALEZA 29-082-13 ROSARIO 29-131-27 CASTANO 29-082-15 ROSARIO 29-131-28 CASTANO 29-082-16 BAJADA 29-131-29 MALEZA 29-082-22 BAJADA 29-131-30 MALEZA 29-082-23 BAJADA 29-132-02 CASTANO 29-082-42 ROSARIO 29-132-04 MALEZA 29-082-47 BAJADA 29-132-10 MALEZA 29-091-01 OLMEDA, 29-132-16 CORTEZ 29-105-04 PINAL 29-141-04 CASTANO 29-105-07 SERENA 29-141-05 PINAL 29-105-12 MAGNOLIA 29-141-06 CASTANO 29-105-14 MERCEDES 29-141-07 CASTANO 29-105-20 MERCEDES 29-141-08 CASTANO 29-105-23 MERCEDES 29-141-09 CASTANO 29-105-27 MERCEDES 29-141-10 PINAL 29-105-28 MERCEDES 29-141-13 CURBARIL. 29-105-31 MERCEDES 29-141-14 CURBARIL 29-105-32 MERCEDES 29-141-15 CASTANO 29-105-33 MERCEDES 29-141-17 CURBARIL 29-105-34 MERCEDES 29-141-18 CURBARIL 29-105-35 MERCEDES 29-141-21 CASTANO 29-105-36 MERCEDES 29-141-22 CURBARIL. 29-105-37 SERENA 29-142-04 CASTANO 29-105-65 CAPISTRANO 29-142-15 CASTANO 29-106-04 CAPISTRANO 29-142-21 CORTEZ . 29-106-05 CAPISTRANO 29-142-27 CASTANO 29-111-02 PINAL 29-142-28 CASTANO 29-111-03 PINAL 29-151-04 YESAL WEED ABATEMENT —EXHIBIT A 29-181-29 CORTINA PAGE 8 29-181-35 CORTINA �9s 29-181-49 `VALLE 29-151-05 YESAL 29-191-02 PINAL 29-151-12 VALLE 29-191-08 PINAL 29-151-15 VALLE 29-191-09 PINAL 29-151-20 YESAL 29-191-11 CORTINA 29-151-22 YESAL 29-191-14 CORTINA 29-151-23 YESAL 29-191-17 CORTINA 29-152-09 CASTANO 29-191-24 CORTINA 29-152-10 CASTANO 29-191-26 CORTINA 29-152-11 CASTANO 29-191-29 CORTINA 29-152-12 CASTANO 29-191-32 CORTINA 29-152-21 YESAL 29-191-34 PINAL 29-152-22 CASTANO 29-191-35 PINAL 29-152-23 YESAL 29-191-39 CORTINA 29-152-24 CASTANO 29-191-40 CORTINA 29-152-26 YESAL 29-191-41 PINAL 29-153-01 CORTEZ 29-191-44 PINAL 29-153-09 CORTEZ 29-191-45 PINAL 29-153-11 CORTEZ 29-191-46 PINAL 29-153-19 CORTEZ 29-191-48 VALLE 29-153-20 CORTEZ 29-191-49 VALLE 29-153-28 CORTEZ 29-201-04 PALOMAR 29-153-30 CORTEZ 29-201-07 PALOMAR 29-153-33 CORTEZ 29-201-08 CASTANO 29-161-04 SONORA 29-201-10 CASTANO 29-161-07 ESCARPA 29-201-15 CASTANO 29-161-08 ESCARPA 29-201-16 CASTANO 29-161-09 SONORA 29-201-18 CASTANO 29-171-01 SONORA 29-201-26 PALOMAR 29-171-02 SONORA 29-201-32 CASTANO 29-171-03 SONORA 29-201-33 CASTANO 29-171-07 VALLE 29-202-01 CORTEZ 29-171-08 VALLE 29-202-01 CASTANO 29-171-09 VALLE 29-202-04 CORTEZ 29-171-10 VALLE 29-202-05 CASTANO 29-171-11 VALLE 29-202-06 CORTEZ 29-171-12 VALLE 29-202-07 CORTEZ 29-171-13 VALLE 29-202-16 CASTANO 29-171-14 VALLE 29-202-17 CASTANO 29-171-15 VALLE 29-202-19 CORTEZ 29-171-16 VALLE 29-202-20 CORTEZ 29-171-18 VALLE 29-202-21 CORTEZ 29-171-20 SONORA '29-211-02 ROS ITA 29-171-21 SONORA 29-211-04 , ROSITA 29-171-22 SONORA 29-211-09 LOBOS 29-181-08 CORTINA 29-211-14 LOBOS 29-181-20 SONORA 29-211-15 LOBOS 29-181-22 SONORA 29-211-16 LOBOS 29-181-23 SONORA 29-211-20 LOBOS 29-181-24 SONORA 29-211-25 LOBOS 29-181-27 VALLE 29-211-27 ROSITA 29-181-28 VALLE 29-211-28 ROSITA WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 29-223-11 NOGALES PAGE 9 29-231-02 NOGALES 29-231-06 SAN JACINTO 29-211-30 LOBOS 29-231-07 NOGALES 29-211-32 ROSITA 29-231-08 SAN JACINTO 29-212-02 LOBOS 29-231-09 SAN JACINTO 29-212-03 LOBOS 29-231-12 NOGALES 29-212-06 LOBOS 29-231-13 NOGALES 29-212-09 SAN ANSELMO 29-231-14 NOGALES 29-212-11 CAYUCOS 29-231-15 LOBOS 29-212-12 CAYUCOS 29-231-16 LOBOS 29-212-13 CAYUCOS 29-232-01 VIDA 29-212-15 CAYUCOS 29-233-05 SAN JACINTO 29-212-19 LOBOS 29-233-07 SAN JACINTO 29-212-20 LOBOS 29233-14 VIDA 29-212-21 LOBOS 29-233-17 NOGALES 29-212-22 LOBOS 29233-18 VIDA 29-212-24 SAN ANSELMO 29-233-19 NOGALES 29-212-25 LOBOS 29-233-20 VIDA 29-221-01 HERMOSILLA 29-233-21 NOGALES 29-221-01 CAYUCOS 29-233-23 VIDA 29-221-02 CAYUCOS 29-233-24 VIDA 29-221-03 HERMOSILLA 29-233-25 NOGALES 29-221-04 HERMOSILLA 29-241-02 NOGALES 29-221-05 HERMOSILLA 29-241-11 FRESNO 29-221-06 HERMOSILLA 29-241-22 NOGALES 29-221-10 CAYUCOS 29-241-23 NOGALES 29-221-11 CAYUCOS 29-241-24 NOGALES 29-221-12 CAYUCOS 29241-25 NOGALES 29221-13 CAYUCOS 29-241-27 FRESNO 29-222-02 HERMOSILLA 29-241-29 FRESNO 29-222-03 HERMOSILLA 29-241-32 FRESNO 29-222-05 HERMOSILLA 29-241-33 NOGALES 29-222-06 HERMOSILLA 29-241-34 NOGALES 29-222-09 CAYUCOS 29-241-35 NOGALES 29-222-10 CAYUCOS 29-241-36 FRESNO 29-222-11 CAYUCOS 29-241-37 SAN JACINTO 29222-13 CAYUCOS 29-241-38 SAN JACINTO 29-222-18 ENCIMA 29-251-04 ROSARIO 29-222-19 ENCIMA 29-251-05 ROSARIO 29-222-24 CAYUCOS 29-252-01 ROSARIO 29-222-27 ENCIMA 29-252-03 TRAFFIC WAY 29-222-28 ENCIMA 29-252-05 TRAFFIC WAY 29-222-32 HERMOSILLA 29-252-07 TRAFFIC WAY 29-222-33 CAYUCOS 29-252-09 OLMEDA 29-222-34 HERMOSILLA 29-252-24 TRAFFIC WAY 29-222-36 HERMOSILLA 29-252-25 OLMEDA 29-222-37 ENCIMA 29-252-26 ROSARIO 29-222-38 HERMOSILLA 29-253-04 ROSARIO 29-223-01 LOBOS 29-253-05 TUNITAS 29-223-02 LOBOS 29-253-08 TRAFFIC WAY 29-223-04 LOBOS 29-253-13 TRAFFIC WAY 29-223-08 LOBOS 29-253-14 TUNITAS 29-223-10 LOBOS 29-253-15 TUNITAS WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 29-272-21 HERMOSILLA PAGE 10 29-272-22 HERMOSILLA 29-272-23 ENCIMA 29-253-24 OLMEDA 29-272-24 LOBOS 29-253-25 ROSARIO 29-281-05 FRESNO 29-253-26 ROSARIO 29-281-06 OLMEDA 29-253-30 TUNITAS 29-281-13 SAN JACINTO 29-253-31 TUNITAS 29-281-17 SAN JACINTO 29-254-07 TUNITAS 29-281-18 SAN JACINTO 29-254-14 TUNITAS 29-281-20 OLMEDA 29-254-15 TUNITAS 29-281-23 FRESNO 29-261-01 CAYUCOS 29-281-28 OLMEDA 29-261-14 CAYUCOS 29-281-29 OLMEDA 29-261-17 CAYUCOS 29-281-30 FRESNO 29-261-19 CAYUCOS 29-281-31 FRESNO 29-261-20 VALDEZ 29-281-32 OLMEDA 29-262-06 EL CAMINO RL 29-281-34 OLMEDA 29-262-07 EL CAMINO RL 29-281-36 OLMEDA 29-262-14 HERMOSILLA 29-281-40 FRESNO 29-262-17 EL CAMINO RL 29-281-41 OLMEDA 29-262-19 EL CAMINO RL 29-281-42 FRESNO 29-262-23 HERMOSILLA 29-281-43 MARIQUITA 29-262-26 HERMOSILLA 29-281-44 MARIQUITA 29-262-34 HERMOSILLA 29-281-45 FRESNO 29-262-41 HERMOSILLA 29-281-46 OLMEDA 29-262-42 HERMOSILLA 29-281-48 FRESNO 29-262-43 EL CAMINO RL 29-281-49 FRESNO 29-262-46 HERMOSILLA 29-291-03 FRESNO 29-262-47 EL CAMINO RL 29-291-06 MARIQUITA 29-262-57 EL CAMINO RL 29-291-07 MARIQUITA 29-262-58 VALDEZ 29-291-11 MARIQUITA 29-271-01 EL CAMINO RL 29-291-16 FRESNO 29-271-04 EL CAMINO RL 29-291-18 FRESNO 29-271-05 EL CAMINO RL 29-291-23 MARIQUITA 29-271-06 SAN JACINTO 29-291-24 FRESNO 29-271-07 SAN JACINTO 29-291-25 FRESNO 29-271-13 SAN JACINTO 29-291-27 MARIQUITA 29-271-14 SAN JACINTO 29-291-28 MARIQUITA 29-271-16 HERMOSILLA 29-291-29 FRESNO 29-271-17 HERMOSILLA 29-291-30 FRESNO 29-271-18 HERMOSILLA 29-291-31 ROSARIO 29-271-21 HERMOSILLA 29-291-32 MARIQUITA 29-271-22 HERMOSILLA 29-291-33 MARIQUITA 29-271-23 SAN JACINTO 29-292-03 OLMEDA 29-271-24 HERMOSILLA 29-292-07 MARIQUITA 29-272-03 HERMOSILLA 29-292-12 OLMEDA 29-272-05 HERMOSILLA 29-292-13 OLMEDA 29-272-06 HERMOSILLA 29-292-14 OLMEDA 29-272-07 HERMOSILLA 29-292-15 OLMEDA 29-272-08 HERMOSILLA 29-292-16 OLMEDA 29-272-13 ENCIMA 29-292-17 OLMEDA 29-272-16 LOBOS 29-292-18 OLMEDA 29-272-17 SAN JACINTO 29-292-19 OLMEDA 29-272-18 HERMOSILLA 29-292-20 MARIQUITA . WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 29-311-12 PALMA PAGE 11 29-311-15 PALMA 29-311-16 PALMA 29-292-24 MARIQUITA 29-311-17 PALMA 29-292-25 MARIQUITA 29-311-16 PALMA 29-292-29 ROSARIO 29-311-19 PALMA 29-292-30 MARIQUITA 29-311-22 PALIMA 29-292-40 MARIQUITA 29-311-23 OLMEDA 29-301-04 OLMEDA 29-311-31 PALMA 29-301-07 OLMEDA 29-311-33 OLMEDA 29-301-09 OLMEDA 29-311-36 OLMEDA 29-301-10 OLMEDA 29-311-37 OLMEDA 29-301-11 OLMEDA 29-311-38 OLMEDA 29-301-13 PALMA 29-312-11 EL CAMINO RL 29-301-14 PALMA 29-312-12 EL CAMINO RL 29-301-16 PALMA 29-312-18 PALMA 29-301-18 PALMA 29-312-23 EL CAMINO RL 29-301-21 PALMA 29-312-24 EL CAMINO RL 29-301-23 OLMEDA 29-312-25 PALMA 29-301-29 OLMEDA 29-312-26 PALMA 29-301-31 OLMEDA 29-312-27 EL CAMINO RL 29-301-32 OLMEDA 29-312-28 PALMA 29-301-34 PALMA 29-312-33 PALMA 29-301-35 PALMA 29-312-34 PALMA 29-301-36 PALMA 29-321-02 OLMEDA 29-301-47 PALMA 29-321-03 OLMEDA 29-302-02 PALMA 29-321-14 ROSARIO 29-302-03 PALMA 29-321-15 ROSARIO 29-302-10 PALMA 29-321-20 ROSARIO 29-302-11 PALMA 29-322-39 ALAMO 29-302-14 PALMA 29-324-01 ROSARIO 29-302-16 EL CAMINO RL 29-324-09 PALMA 29-302-17 EL CAMINO RL 29-324-09 RIDGEWAY CT 29-302-18 EL CAMINO RL 29-324-14 RIDGEWAY CT 29-302-19 EL CAMINO RL 29-324-15 RIDGEWAY CT 29-302-20 EL CAMINO RL 29-324-16 PALMA 29-302-28 PALMA 29-324-17 PALMA 29-302-33 PALMA 29-324-19 RIDGEWAY CT 29-302-34 PALMA 29-352-01 VALLE 29-302-35 PALMA 29-353-01 ESCARPA 29-302-38 PALMA 29-361-13 MERCEDES 29-302-39 PALMA 29-361-14 MERCEDES 29-302-41 PALMA 29-361-15 MERCEDES 29-302-42 EL CAMINO RL 29-371-10 SOMBRILLA 29-302-43 EL CAMINO RL 29-371-14 VALLE 29-302-45 PALMA 29-371-16 SOMBRILLA 29-302-47 EL CAMINO RL 29-371-17 SOMBRILLA 29-302-48 EL CAMINO RL 29-371-18 VALLE 29-302-49 EL CAMINO RL 29-371-19 SOMBRILLA 29-302-50 PALMA 29-371-21 SOMBRILLA 29-302-52 EL CAMINO RL 29-371-22 VALLE 29-302-53 EL CAMINO RL 29-371-23 SOMBRILLA 29-311-06 OLMEDA 29-371-27 SOMBRILLA 29-311-09 OLMEDA 29-371-28 VALLE WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 30-041-13 SOMBRILLA PAGE 12 30-041-14 SOMBRILLA 30-041-15 SOMBRILLA 29-371-29 SOMBRILLA 30-041-16 SOMBRILLA 29-371-30 VALLE 30-041-17 SOMB-RILLA 29-371-31 VALLE 30-041-18 SOMBRILLA 29-371-32 VALLE 30-051-03 VALLE 29-381-01 VALLE 30-051-09 PALOMAR 29-382-01 VALLE 30-051-12 JUNIPERO 29-382-03 VALLE 30-051-18 JUNIPERO 29-382-04 VALLE 30-051-19 PALOMAR 29-382-05 ENCINAL 30-051-20 PALOMAR 29-382-06 ENCINAL 30-051-22 VALLE 29-382-07 ENCINAL 30-051-27 VALLE 29-382-08 ENCINAL 30-051-30 VALLE 29-382-18 VALLE 30-051-35 VALLE 29-382-19 VALLE 30-051-38 JUNIPERO 29-382-20 VALLE 30-061-11 CURBARIL 29-382-22 VALLE 30-061-18 JUNIPERO 29-382-23 VALLE 30-061-19 JUNIPERO 29-382-28 VALLE 30-061-23 JUNIPERO 29-382-29 ENCINAL 30-061-27 CURBARIL 29-3B2-30 ENCINAL 30-061-28 CURBARIL 29-382-31 ENCINAL 30-061-32 CURBARIL 30-011-05 SOMBRILLA 30-061-44 CURBARIL 30-011-06 SOMBRILLA 30-061-50 VALLE 30-011-15 SOMBRILLA 30-061-52 CURBARIL 30-011-30 SANTA YSABEL 30-071-01 JUNIPERO 30-021-05 SOMBRILLA 30-071-06 JUNIPERO 30-021-07 SOMBRILLA 30-071-12 JUNIPERO 30-021-08 SOMBRILLA 30-071-16 JUNIPERO 30-021-12 SOMBRILLA 30-071-17 PALOMAR 30-021-13 SOMBRILLA 30-071-25 JUNIPERO 30-021-17 ENCINAL 30-071-29 JUNIPERO 30-021-18 ENCINAL 30-071-30 PALOMAR 30-021-19 ENCINAL 30-071-33 JUNIPERO 30-021-20 SOMBRILLA 30-071-34 PALOMAR 30-031-02 ENCINAL 30-071-36 PALOMAR 30-031-03 ENCINAL 30-081-03 SANTA YSABEL 30-031-09 CURBARIL 30-081-16 SANTA YSABEL 30-031-11 SOMBRILLA 30-091-16 SANTA YSABEL 30-031-12 CURBARIL 30-091-17 SANTA YSABEL 30-031-15 ENCINAL 30-091-18 SANTA YSABEL 30-031-16 ENCINAL 30-091-19 SANTA YSABEL 30-031-17 ENCINAL 30-091-34 SOMBRILLA 30-031-18 ENCINAL 30-091-35 SOMBRILLA 30-031-19 VALLE 30-091-36 SOMBRILLA 30-041-05 SOMBRILLA 30-091-40 SOMBRILLA 30-041-06 CURBARIL 30-091-42 SOMBRILLA 30-041-07 SOMBRILLA 30-091-49 SANTA YSABEL. 30-041-08 SOMBRILLA 30-091-50 SANTA YSABEL 30-041-09 CURBARIL 30-101-03 SOMBRILLA 30-041-10 SOMBRILLA 30-101-06 CURBARIL 30-041-12 SOMBRILLA 30-101-25 CURBARIL WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 30-182-03 VEGA PAGE 13 30-191-09 ATAS MALL 30-].91-11 ATAS MALL 30-101-35 CURBARIL 30-191-40 SANTA LUCIA 30-101-42 SANTA YSABEL 30-201-01 ATAS AVE 30-111-15 PALOMAR 30-212-16 MORRO RD 30-111-24 PALOMAR 30-213-08 ALCANTARA 30-111-29 PALOMAR 30-213-10 ALCANTARA 30-111-37 PALOMAR 30-221-19 ALCANTARA 30-111-39 PALOMAR 30-221-20 ALCANTARA 30-121-01 SANTA YSABEL 30-221-22 ALCANTARA 30-121-02 SANTA YSABEL 30-221-23 ALCANTARA 30-121-03 SANTA YSABEL 30-222-25 MARCHANT 30-121-04 SANTA YSABEL 30-222-32 MARCHANT 30-121-21 EL CAMINO RL 30-222-44 EL CAMINO RL 30-121-24 EL CAMINO RL 30-223-04 MARCHANT 30-121-27 SANTA YSABEL 30-223-08 MARCHANT 30-121-37 EL CAMINO RL 30-231-20 EL CAMINO RL 30-131-23 SINALOA 30-231-21 EL CAMINO RL 30-131-27 SINALOA 30-231-24 EL CAMINO RL 30-131-30 SINALOA 30-232-25 MARCHANT 30-131-34 SANTA YSABEL 30-232-26 MARCHANT 30-131-38 SANTA YSABEL 30-241-57 SAN LUIS AVE 30-131-43 SINALOA 30-241-59 SAN LUIS AVE 30-132-02 SINALOA 30-241-60 SAN LUIS AVE 30-132-25 EL CAMINO RL 30-241-61 SAN LUIS AVE 30-132-39 SINALOA 30-241-62 SAN LUIS AVE 30-132-40 CURBARIL 30-241-64 EL CAMINO RL 30-132-43 SINALOA 30-242-13 MARCHANT 30-141-20 CURBARIL 30-242-25 MARCHANT 30-141-22 CURBARIL 30-242-31 MARCHANT 30-141-23 CURBARIL 30-242-36 CONSTANCIA 30-141-74 EL CAMINO RL 30-242-37 CONSTANCIA 30-152-14 PALOMAR 30-251-05 VENADO 30-152-26 PALOMAR 30-251-08 ARDILLA 30-152-36 PALOMAR 30-251-20 ARDILLA 30-152-37 PALOMAR 30-251-21 ARDILLA 30-161-01 VEGA 30-251-23 ARDILLA 30-161-02 VEGA 30-251-25 ARDILLA 30-161-03 SAN PALO 30-251-26 VENADO 30-161-04 SAN PALO 30-251-27 ARDILLA 30-161-05 SAN PALO 30-251-30 VENADO 30-171-15 VEGA 30--251-31 VENADO 30-171-16 VEGA 30-251-32 VENADO 30-171-17 VEGA 30-251-33 ARDILLA 30-172-01 ARDILLA 30-261-04 VENADO 30-172-06 ARDILLA 30-261-06 VENADO 30-172-10 ARDILLA 30-261-11 ARDILLA 30-172-16 ARDILLA 30-261-13 ARDILLA 30-172-17 ARDILLA 30-261-14 VENADO 30-172-18 ARDILLA 30-261-16 VENADO 30-181-56 VEGA 30-261-18 VENADO • 30-181-58 VEGA 30-261-19 ARDILLA 30-182-02 VEGA 30-261-20 ARDILLA WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 30-321-12 AGUILA PAGE 14 30-321-13 AGUILA 30-321-14 AGUILA 30-261-21 VENADO 30-321-24 AGUILA 30-271-03 ARDILLA 30-321-25 AGUILA 30-271-19 ARDILLA 30-321-26 AGUILA 30-271-21 ARDILLA 30-332-10 AGUILiA 30-271-22 VENADO 30-332-11 SANTA LUCIA 30-271-24 VENADO 30-332-14 SANTA LUCIA 30-271-25 VENADO 30-332-15 SANTA LUCIA 30-281-15 ATASCADERO AVE 30-332-18 SANTA LUCIA 30-281-16 ATASCADERO AVE 30-332-20 AGUILA 30-282-03 MORRO RD 30-332-21 SANTA LUCIA 30-282-05 NAVAJOA 30-332-25 AGUILA 30-282-07 NAVAJOA 30-391-01 EL CORTE 30-282-17 ATASCADERO AVE 30-391-02 EL CORTE 30-282-24 MORRO RD 30-391-03 EL CORTE 30-282-38 NAVAJOA 30-401-01 EL CORTE 30-291-13 MORRO RD 30-401-03 LA LINIA 30-291-14 MORRO RD 30-401-04 LA LINIA 30-291-15 MORRO RD 30-401-05 LA LINIA 30-291-17 MORRO RD 30-411-09 ARCADE 30-291-19 MORRO RD 30-412-05 EL DORADO 30-291-20 MORRO RD 30-412-21 EL DORADO 30-291-21 MORRO RD 30-412-22 SANTA FE 30-292-05 TECORIDA 30-412-23 SANTA FE 30-292-16 MARCHANT 30-413-01 EL CORTE 30-292-17 MARCHANT 30-421-01 LA LINIA 30-292-21 SAN ANDRES 30-421-03 LA LINIA 30-292-22 SAN ANDRES 30-421-05 LA LINIA 30-292-23 SAN ANDRES 30-422-04 PINO SOLO 30-292-27 SAN ANDRES 30-422-09 LA LINIA 30-292-39 SAN ANDRES 30-422-10 LA LINIA 30-292-41 ALCANTARA 30-422-11 LA LINIA 30-292-45 ALCANTARA 30-431-05 PINO SOLO 30-292-47 SAN ANDRES 30-461-16 EL BORDO 30-301-09 CRISTOBAL 30-461-17 EL BORDO 30-301-17 CRISTOBAL 30-461-26 MUSSELMAN 30-301-J.8 CRISTOBAL 30-461-43 MUSSELMAN 30-301-22 CRISTOBAL 30-461-55 MUSSELMAN 30-301-44 SAN ANDRES 30-471-01 EL BORDO 30-301-45 CRISTOBAL 30-471-03 EL BORDO 30-301-48 MARCHANT 30-471-04 LAS LOMAS 30-301-54 MARCHANT 30-471-05 LAS LOMAS 30-301-56 MARCHANT 30-471-06 LAS LOMAS 30-311-01 CHAUPLIN 30-471-07 LAS LOMAS 30-311-02 CHAUPLIN 30-471-08 LAS LOMAS 30-311-OS CHAUPLIN 30-471-09 LAS LOMAS 30-311-10 AGUILA 30-472-09 EL CAMINO RL 30-311-11 CHAUPLIN 30-482-01 LAS LOMAS 30-321-04 VENADA 30-483-01 LAS LOMAS 30-321-06 VENADO 30-483-02 LAS LOMAS 30-321-07 VENADO 30-483-03 LAS LOMAS 30-321-11 AGUILA 30-483-04 LAS LOMAS WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 31-051-47 MORRO RD • PAGE 15 31-051-49 MORRO RD 31-051-S9 NAVAJOA 30-483-05 LAS LOMAS 31-OS1-61 NAVAJOA 30-491-01 PRINCIPAL 31-052-07 ATASCADERO AVE 30-491-02 PRINCIPAL 31-052-11 ATASCADERO AVE 30-492-01 PRINCIPAL 31-OS2-11 ATASCADERO AVE 30-501-03 SOLANO 31-052-12 ATASCADERO AVE 30-502-11 LA LINIA 31-052-13 ATASCADERO AVE 30-502-12 LA LINIA 31-052-15 MORRO RD 30-511-01 EL CENTRO 31-052-16 MORRO RD 30-S12-03 EL CAMINO RL 31-052-17 MORRO RD 30-512-08 EL CENTRO 31-052-18 MORRO RD 30-513-03 LA LINIA 31-052-20 MORRO RD 30-513-04 CASCADA 31-052-21 MORRO RD 30-521-01 ARCADE 31-OS2-23 MORRO RD 30-522-23 EL CENTRO 31-OS2-24 MORRO RD 30-522-27 EL DORADO 31-052-28 ATASCADERO AVE 30-522-28 EL DORADO 31-061-06 CRISTOBAL 30-522-29 EL DORADO 31-061-10 TECORIDA 30-522-30 EL CENTRO 31-061-30 TECORIDA 30-523-02 EL DORADO 31-061-32 CRISTOBAL 31-012-22 CHAUPLIN 31-061-35 TECORIDA 31-012-23 CHAUPLIN 31-061-36 TECORIDA 31-013-27 VIOLETA 31-061-37 TECORIDA 31-013-29 VIOLETA 31-061-39 TECORIDA 31-021-05 CORTA 31-061-40 CRISTOBAL 31-021-06 SANTA LUCIA 31-062-01 TECORIDA 31-021-24 CHAUPLIN 31-062-02 ATASCADERO AVE 31-021-26 CORTA 31-062-03 TECORIDA 31-023-OS CORTA 31-062-04 TECORIDA 31-023-06 CORTA 31-062-06 ATASCADERO AVE 31-041-16 SAN MARCOS 31-062-08 ATASCADERO AVE 31-041-22 SAN MARCOS 31-062-09 ATASCADERO AVE 31-041-23 CARMELITA 31-062-18 ATASCADERO AVE 31-041-61 CARMELITA 31-062-20 ATASCADERO AVE 31-042-03 CARMELITA 31-071-17 CRISTOBAL 31-042-04 CARMELITA 31-071-19 CRISTOBAL 31-042-05 SANTA YNEZ 31-071-23 CRISTOBAL 31-043-25 SAN ANDRES 31-071-25 CRISTOBAL 31-043-27 SANTA YNEZ 31-071-29 MARCHANT 31-043-28 SAN ANDRES 31-071-30 MARCHANT 31-043-29 SAN ANDRES 31-081-03 MARCHANT 31-051-09 NAVAJOA 31-081-07 CURBARIL 31-051-11 MORRO RD 31-081-10 COROMAR 31-051-19 NAVAJOA 31-081-11 COROMAR 31-051-23 SAN ANDRES 31-081-12 COROMAR 31-051-24 SAN ANDRES 31-081-13 CURBARIL 31-051-31 NAVAJOA 31-081-16 COROMAR 31-051-33 NAVAJOA 31-081-17 CURBARIL. 31-051-38 MORRO RD 31-081-19 MARCHANT 31-OSI-39 NAVAJOA 31-081-20 CURBARIL • 31-051-43 MORRO RD 31-081-21 CURBARIL 31-051-44 MORRO RD 31-081-31 MARCHANT WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 31-113-12 ALTA VISTA PAGE 16 31-114-10 ALTA VISTA 31-114-11 ALTA VISTA 31-082-20 MARCHANT 31-114-12 ALTA VISTA 31-082-32 CURBARIL 31-114-12 ALTA VISTA 31-082-34 CURBARIL 31-115-01 LINDA VISTA 31-082-35 CURBARIL 31-115-06 LINDA VISTA 31-082-39 CONSTANCIA 31-121-01 LINDA VISTA 31-091-01 CHAUPLIN 31-121-02 LINDA VISTA 31-091-04 ATAJO 31-122-01 LINDA VISTA 31-091-07 CHAUPLIN 31-122-02 LINDA VISTA 31-091-09 CHAUPLIN 31-122-04 LINDA VISTA 31-091-10 CHAUPLIN 31-122-06 CERRITOS 31-091-11 CHAUPLIN 31-122-07 CERRITOS 31-091-15 CHAUPLIN 31-122-08 NAVARETTE 31-091-1.7 ATAJO 31-123-01 CERRITOS 31-091-18 ATAJO 31-123-03 CERRITOS 31-091-19 ATAJO 31-123-08 NAVARETTE 31-091-29 CHAUPLIN 31-123-09 NAVARETTE 31-101-01 CHAUPLIN 31-123-11 CERRITOS 31-101-03 ENCINO 31-123-12 CERRITOS 31-101-08 ENCINO 31-124-01 NAVARETTE 31-101-11 CHAUPLIN 31-125-01 SAN MARCOS 31-101-12 ENCINO 31-125-02 SAN MARCOS 31-101-13 ENCINO 31-125-03 SAN MARCOS 31-102-16 SANTA LUCIA 31-131-01 SAN CLEMENTE 31-104-01 NAVARETTE 31-131-03 HERMOSA 31-104-02 NAVARETTE 31-131-04 LARGA 31-104-03 SANTA LUCIA 31-131-06 PEOUENIA 31-104-04 SANTA LUCIA 31-131-07 PEOUENIA 31-104-05 SANTA LUCIA 31-131-08 NAVARETTE 31-104-06 SANTA LUCIA 31-131-10 NAVARETTE 31-104-08 SANTA LUCIA 31-131-11 LARGA 31-104-09 SANTA LUCIA 31-131-12 NAVARETTE 31-104-10 SANTA LUCIA 31-131-12 LARGA 31-104-11 SANTA LUCIA 31-132-02 LARGA 31-104-12 SANTA LUCIA 31-132-06 LARGA 31-111-03 MIRA FLORES 31-132-07 LARGA 31-111-04 MIRA FLORES 31-132-43 LARGA 31-111-11 EL RETIRO 31-133-02 LARGA 31-112-01 EL RETIRO 31-133-14 LARGA 31-112-02 EL RETIRO 31-134-03 SAN CLEMENTE 31-112-04 ALTA VISTA 31-134-09 SAN MARCOS 31-112-05 ALTA VISTA 31-141-04 CURBARIL 31-112-06 ALTA VISTA 31--141-06 CURBARIL 31-112-07 ALTA VISTA 31-141-14 SAN MARCOS 31-112-13 EL RETIRO 31-141-50 SAN MARCOS 31-112-14 EL RETIRO 31-141-51 SAN MARCOS 31-113-01 ALTA VISTA 31-142-04 CARMELITA 31-113-02 ALTA VISTA 31-142-26 CARMELITA 31-113-03 ALTA VISTA 31-151-07 SANTA YNEZ 31-113-07 ALTA VISTA 31-151-13 SANTA YNEZ 31-113-08 ALTA VISTA 31-151-14 SANTA YNEZ 31-113-11 ALTA VISTA 31-151-15 SANTA YNEZ WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 31-202-25 SAN CLEMENTE PAGE 17 31-202-28 SAN CLEMENTE 31-211-04 CURBARIL 31-151-16 SANTA YNEZ 31-211-06 SAN MARCOS 31-151-27 SANTA YNEZ 31-211-07 SAN MARCOS 31-151-28 SANTA YNEZ 31-211-08 SAN MARCOS 31-152-03 SANTA YNEZ 31-211-09 SAN MARCOS 31-1S2-16 SANTA YNEZ 31-211-10 CURBARIL 31-152-23 SANTA YNEZ 31-221-07 CARMELITA 31-161-04 CURBARIL 31-221-09 SANTA YNEZ 31-161-04 ATASCADERO AVE 31-221-11 CARMELITA 31-16119 MORRO RD 31-221-25 CARMELITA 31-161-24 CURBARIL 31-222-07 SANTA YNEZ 31-161-31 MORRO RD 31-222-08 SANTA YNEZ 31-161-33 MORRO RD 31-222-09 SANTA YNEZ 31-161-34 MORRO RD 31-222-10 SANTA YNEZ 31-161-35 ATASCADERO AVE 31-222-12 SANTA YNEZ 31-161-36 ATASCADERO AVE 31-222-13 SANTA YNEZ 31-161-38 ATASCADERO AVE 31-222-15 SANTA YNEZ 31-161-40 MORRO RD 31-222-17 SANTA YNEZ 31-161-41 MORRO RD 31-222-18 SANTA YNEZ 31-171-01 MARCHANT 31-231-02 CURBARIL 31-171-10 ATASCADERO AVE 31-231-03 CURBARIL 31-171-18 ATASCADERO AVE 31-231-04 CURBARIL 31-171-22 MARCHANT 31-231-19 CURBARIL 31-181-02 SANTA YNEZ 31-231-34 SANTA YNEZ 31-181-21 SANTA YNEZ 31-231-35 SANTA YNEZ 31-182-08 NAVAJOA 31-231-36 SANTA YNEZ 31-182-18 SANTA YNEZ 31-241-09 AZUCENA 31-182-36 NAVAJOA 31-241-10 AZUCENA 31-183-02 NAVAJOA 31-241-11 AMAPOA 31-191-02 NAVARETTE 31-241-12 AMAPOA 31-191-03 NAVARETTE 31-241-13 AMAPOA 31-191-04 NAVARETTE 31-241-19 AMAPOA 31-191-05 NAVARETTE 31-242-13 MORRO RD 31-191-06 LINDA VISTA 31-242-14 MORRO RD 31-192-12 HERMOSA 31-242-16 MORRO RD 31-192-14 HERMOSA 31-251-01 ATASCADERO AVE 31-192-15 HERMOSA 31-251-04 ATASCADERO AVE 31-192-16 NAVARETTE 31-251-06 ATASCADERO AVE 31-192-17 NAVARETTE 31-251-26 AZUCENA 31-192-18 NAVARETTE 31-251-27 AZUCENA 31-192-19 NAVARETTE 31-251-28 AZUCENA 31-192-20 HERMOSA 31-2S1-29 AZUCENA 31-192-64 NAVARETTE 31-251-32 ATASCADERO AVE 31-192-67 NAVARETTE 31-251-43 AZUCENA 31-202-05 SAN MARCOS 31-251-55 CURBARIL 31-202-08 SAN MARCOS 31-261-02 SAN FRANCISCO 31-202-18 SAN MARCOS 31-261-04 SAN FRANCISCO 31-202-19 SAN MARCOS 31-261-05 SAN FRANCISCO 31-202-20 SAN CLEMENTE 31-261-06 SAN FRANCISCO 31-202-22 SAN MARCOS 31-261-11 MARCHANT 31-202-23 SAN CLEMENTE 31-261-30 SAN FRANCISCO 31-202-24 SAN CLEMENTE 31-271-09 CARMELITA WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 31-361-02 MORRO RD PAGE 18 31-361-03 MORRO RD 31-361-05 MORRO RD 31-271-13 CARMELITA 31-361-12 AMAPOA 31-271-27 CARMELITA 31-361-17 MORRO RD 31-271-42 CARMELITA 31-361-18 MORRO RD 31-271-46 CARMELITA 31-361-20 MORRO RD 31-281-OS CARMELITA 31-361-22 MORRO RD 31-281-16 CARMELITA 31-361-30 AMAPOA 31-281-19 PORTOLA 31-361-31 AMAPOA 31-281-20 CARMELITA 31-381-07 MARCHANT 31-291-02 MORRO RD - 31 381-09 MARCHANT 31-291-09 MORRO RD 31-381-22 CARMELITA 31-291-21 MORRO RD 31-381-27 AVENAL 31-291-22 MORRO RD 31-381-35 MARCHANT 31-291-23 MORRO RD 31-381-47 MARCHANT 31-291-26 PORTOLA 31-381-55 BANTA ROSA 31-291-27 MORRO RD 40-052-19 CARRIZO 31-301-25 AZUCENA 40-431-17 LAS LOMAS 31-301-29 AZUCENA 45-301-02 ORTEGA 31-301-30 AMAPOA 45-301-03 ORTEGA 31-302-13 MORRO RD 45-301-04 ORTEGA 31-302-34 MORRO RD 45-302-01 ORTEGA 31-311-01 AZUCENA 45-302-06 ORTEGA 31-311-02 AZUCENA 45-302-07 ORTEGA 31-311-03 AZUCENA 45-302-08 ORTEGA 31-311-05 AZUCENA 45-302-09 ORTEGA 31-311-06 AZUCENA 45-302-12 ORTEGA 31-311-07 AZUCENA 45-302-13 ATASCADERO AVE 31-311-10 MARCHANT 45-311-01 SALINAS 31-311-16 MARCHANT 45-311-02 SALINAS 31-311-19 PORTOLA 45-321-02 EL CAMINO RL 31-311-23 MARCHANT 45-321-03 EL CAMINO RL 31-321-01 AGUILA 45-321-09 VIEJO CAMINO 31-321-01 PORTOLA 45-321-10 VIEJO CAMINO 31-321-02 PORTOLA 45-321-11 JORNADA LANE 31-321-03 PORTOLA 45-321-12 JORNADA LANE 31-321-05 CARMELITA 45-321-13 JORNADA LANE 31-321-07 CARMELITA 45-321-14 JORNADA LANE 31-321-08 CARMELITA 45-321-15 EL CAMINO RL 31-331-10 CARMELITA 45-331-01 EL CAMINO RL 31-331-12 CARMELITA 45-331-02 EL CAMINO RL 31-331-17 CARMELITA 45-331-03 EL CAMINO RL 31-331-18 CARMELITA 45-331-04 EL CAMINO RL 31-341-06 CARMELITA 45-332-01 VIEJO CAMINO 31-341-07 CARMELITA 45-332-03 VIEJO CAMINO 31-341-19 CARMELITA 45-332-04 VIEJO CAMINO 31-341-21 CARMELITA 45-332-07 EL CAMINO RL 31-341-22 CARMELITA 45-332-08 EL CAMINO RL 31-341-23 CARMELITA 45-332-09 VIEJO CAMINO 31-341-24 CARMELITA 45-341-01 EL CAMINO RL 31-351-05 PORTOLA 45-341-02 SAN DIEGO 31-351-06 PORTOLA 45-341-03 SAN DIEGO 31-361-01 MORRO RD 45-341-04 SAN DIEGO WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 45-381-06 LA PAZ • PAGE 19 45-381-07 BANTA BARBARA 45-381-08 BANTA BARBARA 45-341-05 BAN DIEGO 45-381-09 BANTA BARBARA 45-342-01 EL CAMINO RL 45-381-11 LA PAZ 45-342-02 EL CAMINO RL 45-381-13 LA PAZ 45-342-06 VIEJO CAMINO 45-381-14 LA PAZ 45-342-07 VIEJO CAMINO 45-391-01 BANTA BARBARA 45-342-08 VIEJO CAMINO 45-391-02 ATASCADERO AVE 45-342-09 VIEJO CAMINO 45-401-04 VIEJO CAMINO 45-342-10 VIEJO CAMINO 45-401-09 HALCON 45-342-11 VIEJO CAMINO 45-401-10 HALCON 45-351-01 EL CAMINO RL 45-401-12 HALCON 45-351-02 EL CAMINO RL 45-401-14 HALCON 45-351-07 EL CAMINO RL 45-411-01 ALONDRA 45-351-12 EL CAMINO RL 45-411-02 ALONDRA 45-351-14 EL CAMINO RL 45-411-03 ALONDRA 45-352-03 BAN DIEGO WAY 45-412-01 ALONDRA 45-352-04 SAN DIEGO WAY 45-421-01 SAN DIEGO RD 45-352-05 BAN DIEGO WAY 45-421-02 SAN DIEGO RD 45-352-06 EL CAMINO RL 45-421-03 BAN DIEGO RD 45-353-01 SAN RAFAEL 45-421-04 ATASCADERO RD 45-353-02 SAN RAFAEL 45-421-05 ATASCADERO RD 45-353-05 SAN DIEGO 45-421-06 ATASCADERO RD 45-354-01 VIEJO CAMINO 45-421-07 ATASCADERO RD 45-361-01 CUESTA CT 45-421-08 LA PAZ 45-361-02 CUESTA CT 45-421-09 ATASCADERO RD . 45-361-03 CUESTA CT 45-421-10 LA PAZ 45-361-04 CUESTA CT 45-421-11 LA PAZ 45-361-05 CUESTA CT 45-421-12 LA PAZ 45-361-06 CUESTA CT 45-431-01 BAN DIEGO RD 45-361-07 CUESTA CT 45-431-02 SAN DIEGO RD 45-361-13 CUESTA CT 45-431-04 BAN DIEGO RD 45-361-16 CUESTA CT 45-431-05 SAN DIEGO RD 45-361-25 CUESTA CT 45-431-07 SAN DIEGO RD 45-361-26 BAN RAFAEL CT 45-441-01 SAN RAFAEL 45-361-27 SAN RAFAEL CT 45-441-02 BAN RAFAEL 45-361-28 SAN RAFAEL CT 45-441-04 BAN DIEGO RD 45-371-01 SANTA BARBARA 45-441-05 SAN DIEGO RD 45-371-02 LA PAZ 45-441-06 SAN DIEGO RD 45-371-03 LA PAZ 45-441-07 BAN RAFAEL 45-371-04 LA PAZ 45-441-08 SAN RAFAEL 45-371-05 ATASCADERO AVE 45-441-09 SAN RAFAEL 45-371-06 LA PAZ 45-441-10 COLORADO 45-371-07 LA PAZ 45-441-13 COLORADO 45-371-08 ATASCADERO AVE 45-441-14 COLORADO 45-371-09 ATASCADERO AVE 45-441-16 COLORADO 45-371-10 BANTA BARBARA 45-441-17 COLORADO 45-371-11 SANTA BARBARA 45-441-21 COLORADO 45-371-12 SANTA BARBARA 45-441-22 COLORADO 45-371-13 SANTA BARBARA 45-441-23 COLORADO 45-381-01 LA PAZ 45-441-24 COLORADO 45-381-03 LA PAZ 45-441-25 COLORADO 45-381-05 LA PAZ 45-441-26 COLORADO WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 49-061-21 OBISPO PAGE 20 49-061-22 OBISPO . 49-061-23 OBISPO 45-441-29 COLORADO 49-061-27 OBISPO 45-441-30 SAN DIEGO RD 49-062-06 TRAFFIC WAY 45-441-32 SAN DIEGO RD 49-062-07 TRAFFIC WAY 45-451-06 SAN RAFAEL 49-071-06 CHICO 45-451-07 SAN RAFAEL 49-071-08 CHICO 45-451-08 SAN RAFAEL 49-071-12 TRAFFIC WAY 45-451-10 COLORADO 49-071-13 TRAFFIC WAY 45-451-11 COLORADO 49-071-14 DEL RIO 45-451-13 COLORADO 49-071-17 TRAFFIC WAY 45-451-15 COLORADO 49-072-04 CHICO 45-451-16 COLORADO 49-072-06 CHICO 45-451-20 COLORADO 49-073-06 DEL RIO 45-451-21 COLORADO 49-073-15 LA LUZ 45-451-25 COLORADO 49-073-20 LA LUZ 45-451-26 COLORADO 49-073-31 DEL RIO 45-451-27 COLORADO 49-073-32 DEL RIO 45-451-28 COLORADO 49-073-47 LA LUZ 45-451-29 COLORADO 49-073-48 DEL RIO 45-451-30 SAN DIEGO RD 49-073-55 LA LUZ 45-451-31 SAN DIEGO RD 49-073-57 LA LUZ 45-451-32 SAN DIEGO RD 49-073-60 DEL RIO 45-451-33 SAN DIEGO RD 49-073-62 LA LUZ 45-451-35 ATASCADERO AVE 49-073-63 LA LUZ 45-451-36 ATASCADERO AVE 49-073-65 LA LUZ 45-451-40 ATASCADERO AVE 49-073-66 LA LUZ 45-451-42 ATASCADERO AVE 49-073-71 DEL RIO 45-451-43 ATASCADERO AVE 49-074-01 ARENA 49-041-09 SANTA CRUZ 49-074-02 ARENA 49-041-12 SANTA CRUZ 49-075-01 ARENA 49-041-13 SANTA CRUZ 49-075-02 ARENA 49-041-14 SANTA CRUZ 49-075-03 ARENA 49-041-15 SANTA CRUZ 49-075-04 ARENA 49-041-16 SANTA CRUZ 49-081-07 GARCIA 49-042-15 EL CAMINO RL 49-081-08 GARCIA 49-042-18 EL CAMINO RL 49-081-10 GARCIA 49-051-07 CARRIZO 49-082-14 GARCIA 49-051-21 SANTA CRUZ 49-082-16 GARCIA 49-051-24 SANTA CRUZ 49-082-19 GARCIA 49-052-01 CARRIZO 49-091-01 GARCIA 49-052-03 CARRIZO 49-091-04 GARCIA 49-052-05 CARRIZO 49-092-17 GARCIA 49-052-14 CARRIZO 49-092-20 GARCIA 49-052-21 CARRIZO 49-092-30 GARCIA 49-052-23 OBISPO 49-092-32 GARCIA 49-052-27 CARRIZO 49-092-38 GARCIA 49-052-31 OBISPO 49-092-43 GARCIA 49-052-32 OBISPO 49-092-44 GARCIA 49-052-33 OBISPO 49-093-06 SAN RAMON 49-061-11 POTRERO 49-093-07 SAN RAMON 49-061-14 OBISPO 49-093-17 SAN RAMON 49-061-16 POTRERO 49-093-35 SAN RAMON WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 49-131-48 EL CAMINO RL PAGE 21 49-131-52 DEL RIO 49-131-53 EL CAMINO RL 49-093-36 SAN RAMON 49-131-55 EL CAMINO RL 49-101-09 EL CAMINO RL 49-131-57 SAN RAMON 49-101-10 EL CAMINO RL 49-131-58 EL CAMINO RL 49-101-15 EL CAMINO RL 49-131-59 EL CAMINO RL 49-101-18 CARRIZO 49-131-63 SAN RAMON 49-101-20 CARRIZO 49-131-66 EL CAMINO RL 49-101-25 CARRIZO 49-131-68 SAN RAMON 49-102-31 DEL RIO 49-131-69 EL CAMINO RL 49-102-32 DEL RIO 49-132-01 SAN RAMON 49-102-33 OBISPO 49-132-14 SAN RAMON 49-102-48 DEL RIO 49-132-24 SAN RAMON 49-102-53 OBISPO 49-132-25 SAN RAMON 49-102-54 OBISPO 49-132-27 SAN RAMON 49-102-55 OBISPO 49-132-29 SAN RAMON 49-111-01 OBISPO 49-141-10 EL CAMINO RL 49-111-09 OBISPO 49-141-22 EL CAMINO RL 49-111-19 DEL RIO 49-141-23 EL CAMINO RL 49-111-22 POTRERO 49-141-24 EL CAMINO RL 49-112-05 DEL RIO 49-141-26 EL CAMINO RL 49-112-15 SAN BENITO 49-141-30 EL CAMINO RL 49-112-24 DEL RIO 49-141-31 EL CAMINO RL 49-112-25 DEL RIO 49-141-35 EL CAMINO RL 49-112-26 DEL RIO 49-141-36 EL CAMINO RL 49-112-27 DEL RIO 49-141-40 EL CAMINO RL 49-112-31 SAN BENITO 49-141-41 EL CAMINO RL 49-112-33 SAN BENITO 49-141-44 EL CAMINO RL 49-112-34 SAN BENITO 49-141-45 EL CAMINO RL 49-112-35 DEL RIO 49-141-46 EL CAMINO RL 49-121-07 ARENA 49-151-06 EL CAMINO RL 49-121-08 ARENA 49-151-08 EL CAMINO RL 49-121-20 ARENA 49-151-12 EL CAMINO RL 49-121-26 ARENA 49-151-16 EL CAMINO RL 49-121-32 ARENA 49-151-17 EL CAMINO RL 49-122-02 ARENA 49-151-20 EL CAMINO RL 49-122-04 ARENA 49-151-24 EL CAMINO RL 49-122-10 FALDA 49-151-25 EL CAMINO RL 49-122-16 FALDA 49-151-26 EL CAMINO RL 49-122-23 LIGA 49-151-27 EL CAMINO RL 49-122-26 ARENA 49-151-28 EL CAMINO RL 49-123-06 AMARGON 49-151-40 EL CAMINO RL 49-123-07 AMARGON 49-151-47 EL CAMINO RL 49-123-18 ARENA 49-151-48 EL CAMINO RL 49-123-20 AMARGON 49-152-24 SAN BENITO 49-123-22 ARENA 49-152-27 LA UVA 49-123-27 ARENA 49-152-39 SAN BENITO 49-123-28 AMARGON 49--152-41 SAN BENITO 49-123-34 ARENA 49-152-42 LA UVA 49-131-32 EL CAMINO RL 49-161-05 COLIMA 49-131-44 DEL RIO 49-161-08 SILLA 49-131-45 EL CAMINO RL 49-161-09 SILLA 49-131-46 EL CAMINO RL 49-161-11 SILLA WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 49-191-36 CONEJO PAGE 22 49-191-38 DEL RIO 49-201-04 CAMPO 49-161-12 SILLA 49-201-09 CAMPO 49-163-05 SAN ANSELMO 49-201-10 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-08 COLIMA 49-201-14 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-09 COLIMA 49-201-21 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-10 COLIMA 49-201-24 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-13 COLIMA 49-201-25 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-14 SAN ANSELMO 49-201-30 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-15 COLIMA 49-201-35 CAMPO 49-163-18 EL CAMINO RL 49-202-17 MONTEREY RD 49-163-19 EL CAMINO RL 49-202-18 MONTEREY RD 49-163-22 EL CAMINO RL 49-202-19 MONTEREY RD 49-163-23 EL CAMINO RL 49-202-20 MONTEREY RD 49-163-25 EL CAMINO RL 49-202-21 MONTEREY RD 49-163-28 EL CAMINO RL 49-202-22 CAMPO 49-163-29 EL CAMINO RL 49-202-23 CAMPO 49-163-31 EL CAMINO RL 49-211-11 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-33 EL CAMINO RL 49-211-14 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-34 EL CAMINO RL 49-211-16 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-35 EL CAMINO RL 49-211-18 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-40 EL CAMINO RL 49-211-32 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-43 EL CAMINO RL 49-211-33 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-44 EL CAMINO RL 49-211-38 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-45 EL CAMINO RL 49-211-48 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-46 EL CAMINO RL 49-211-49 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-47 EL CAMINO RL 49-212-01 RAMONA 49-163-50 EL CAMINO RL 49-212-02 RAMONA 49-163-51 SAN ANSELMO 49-212-05 RAMONA 49-163-52 SAN ANSELMO 49-212-17 RAMONA 49-163-56 COLIMA 49-212-19 RAMONA 49-163-59 COLIMA 49-212-21 RAMONA 49-163-61 COLIMA 49-221-34 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-62 COLIMA 49-221-46 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-64 SILLA 49-221-49 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-65 SILLA 49-222-38 EL CAMINO RL 49-163-66 EL CAMINO RL 49-222-41 EL CAMINO RL 49-172-01 SANTA CRUZ 49-222-46 SAN PALO 49-172-02 SANTA CRUZ 49-222-56 SAN ANSELMO 49-172-09 SANTA CRUZ 49-222-57 SAN PALO 49-172-14 SANTA CRUZ 49-222-64 SAN PALO 49-172-15 SANTA CRUZ 49-223-05 MONTEREY RD 49-181-05 GARCIA 49-223-29 MONTEREY RD 49-181-06 GARCIA 49-223-30 MONTEREY RD 49-182-03 SAN GREGORIO 49-223-34 MONTEREY RD 49-182-13 SAN GREGORIO 49-231-01 SAN GREGORIO 49-183-11 DEL RIO 49-231-05 SAN GREGORIO 49-183-23 SAN GREGORIO 49-231-11 SAN GREGORIO 49-183-24 SAN GREGORIO 49-231-12 SAN GREGORIO 49-191-02 CONEJO 49-231-14 SAN GREGORIO 49-191-22 CONEJO 49-231-25 DEL RIO 49-191-23 CONEJO 49-232-02 SAN GREGORIO 49-191-32 CONEJO 49-232-10 SAN GREGORIO WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 49-301-18 AMARGON PAGE 23 49-301-19 AMARGON 49-302-02 SAN ANSELMO 49-232-13 DEL RIO 49-302-05 COLIMA 49-232-22 DEL RIO 49-302-08 COLIMA 49-232-29 SAN GREGORIO 49-302-09 COLIMA 49-232-31 SAN GREGORIO 49-302-14 COLIMA 49-232-32 DEL RIO 49-302-18 COLIMA 49-232-33 SAN GREGORIO 49-302-25 FALDA 49-232-34 SAN GREGORIO 49-302-28 FALDA 49-241-08 DEL RIO 49-302-29 FALDA 49-241-19 DEL RIO 49-302-31 COLIMA 49-241-20 DEL RIO 49-302-32 FALDA 49-241-22 DEL RIO 49-302-33 COLIMA 49-241-23 DEL RIO 49-302-34 FALDA 49-241-27 DEL RIO 49-302-35 FALDA 49-241-33 DEL RIO 49-302-36 COLIMA 49-241-38 DEL RIO 49-302-37 COLIMA 49-241-40 DEL RIO 49-311-01 EL CAMINO RL 49-241-45 DEL RIO 49-321-08 SANTA CRUZ 49-251-17 MONTEREY RD 49-321-11 SANTA CRUZ 49-251-19 MONTEREY RD 49-321-14 SANTA CRUZ 49-251-20 MONTEREY RD 49-321-15 SANTA CRUZ 49-251-23 MONTEREY RD 49-321-16 SANTA CRUZ 49-251-35 MONTEREY RD 49-321-19 SANTA CRUZ 49-251-36 MONTEREY RD 49-322-01 PASEO PACIFICO 49-251-37 MONTEREY RD 49-322-05 PASEO PACIFICO 49-251-38 MONTEREY RD 49-322-09 PASEO PACIFICO 49-251-40 MONTEREY RD 49-331-01 BALBOA 49-251-41 MONTEREY RD 49-331-02 BALBOA 49-251-42 MONTEREY RD 49-331-09 BALBOA 49-251-45 MONTEREY RD 49-331-15 BALBOA 49-252-07 DEL RIO 49-331-19 BALBOA 49-252-08 DEL RIO 49-331-20 BALBOA 49-262-01 MONTEREY RD 49-331-24 BALBOA 49-262-02 MONTEREY RD 49-331-25 BALBOA 49-262-03 MONTEREY RD 49-331-26 BALBOA 49-262-07 MONTEREY RD 50-012-01 SANTA CRUZ 49-262-28 MONTEREY RD 50-012-13 SAN GREGORIO 49-262-31 MONTEREY RD 50-012-14 SAN GREGORIO 49-262-32 MONTEREY RD 50-012-18 SAN GREGORIO 49-262-35 MONTEREY RD 50-012-19 SAN GREGORIO 49-262-36 MONTEREY RD 50-012-20 SAN GREGORIO 49-271-16 SAN FERNANDO 50-012-21 SAN GREGORIO 49-271-17 SAN FERNANDO 50-012-24 SAN GREGORIO 49-271-21 SAN FERNANDO 50-012-25 SAN GREGORIO 49-281-01 SAN FERNANDO 50-012-27 SANTA CRUZ 49-281-02 SAN FERNANDO 50-012-28 SANTA CRUZ 49-281-07 SAN FERNANDO 50-012-29 SANTA CRUZ 49-281-08 SAN FERNANDO 50-012-30 SANTA CRUZ 49-281-11 SAN FERNANDO 50-012-31 SANTA CRUZ 49-301-01 AMARGON 50-012-32 SANTA CRUZ 49-301-10 AMARGON 50-021-02 SAN GREGORIO 49-301-13 AMARGON 50-021-03 SAN GREGORIO WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 50-043-06 BALBOA PAGE 24 50051-01 SAN FERNANDO 50-051-05 BALBOA 50-021-04 DEL RIO 50-051-06 BALBOA 50-021-14 SAN GREGORIO 50-051-14 BALBOA SO-021-19 SAN GREGORIO 50-051-15 BALBOA 50-021-20 SAN GREGORIO 50-051-16 BALBOA 50-021-21 SAN GREGORIO 50-051-17 BALBOA 50-021-22 DEL RIO 50-051-18 BALBOA 50-021-22 SAN GREGORIO 50-051-19 BALBOA 50-021-23 SAN GREGORIO 50-051-20 BALBOA SO-021-24 SAN GREGORIO 50-051-21 SAN FERNANDO SO-021-25 SAN GREGORIO 50-051-22 SAN FERNANDO 50-021-26 DEL RIO 50-051-24 SAN FERNANDO 50-021-27 .SAN GREGORIO 50-051-25 BALBOA SO-021-28 DEL RIO 50-051-26 BALBOA 50-021-29 DEL RIO 50-051-27 BALBOA 50-021-30 SAN GREGORIO SO-051-28 BALBOA 50-021-31 DEL RIO 50-051-29 BALBOA SO-021-32 DEL RIO 50-051-30 BALBOA 50-031-03 DEL RIO 50-061-02 ARDILLA 50-031-08 ALTURAS 50-061-03 ARDILLA 50-031-10 DEL RIO 50-061-03 BALBOA 50-031-11 DEL RIO 50-061-09 BALBOA 50-031-16 ALTURAS 50-061-10 BALBOA 50-031-19 ALTURAS 50-061-11 BALBOA 50-031-20 DEL RIO 50-061-12 ARDILLA 50-031-22 DEL RIO 50-061-13 ARDILLA • 50-031-26 ALTURAS 50-063-01 ARDILLA 50-031-27 ALTURAS 50-071-04 ARDILLA SO-031-28 ALTURAS 50-071-OS ARDILLA 50-031-29 DEL RIO 50-071-06 ARDILLA 50-031-30 DEL RIO 50-071-07 ARDILLA 50-031-33 DEL RIO 50-071-08 ARDILLA 50-031-34 DEL RIO 50-071-09 ARDILLA 50-031-35 DEL RIO 50-071-11 GRAVES CREEK RD SO-031-38 ALTURAS 50-071-12 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-031-39 ALTURAS 50-071-13 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-031-40 ALTURAS 50-071-23 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-031-41 ALTURAS 50-071-24 ARDILLA 50-041-06 BALBOA SO-071-25 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-041-09 BALBOA 50-071-26 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-041-11 BALBOA 50-071-27 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-042-01 ALTURAS 50-071-31 ARDILLA 50-042-02 ALTURAS 50-071-32 ARDILLA 50-042-03 ALTURAS 50-071-33 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-042-07 BALBOA 50-071-34 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-042-08 BALBOA 50-071-35 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-042-09 BALBOA SO-071-36 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-042-10 BALBOA SO-081-01 SANTA CRUZ 50-042-11 ALTURAS 50-081-09 SANTA CRUZ 50-042-12 ALTURAS 50-061-10 SANTA CRUZ 50-043-02 BALBOA 50-081-11 SANTA CRUZ 50-043-OS BALBOA 50-081-12 SANTA CRUZ WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A SO-121-02 SANTA ANA PAGE 25 50-121-06 SANTA ANA 50-121-07 SANTA ANA 50-081-13 SANTA CRUZ 50-121-08 SANTA ANA 50-081-14 SANTA CRUZ 50-121-10 BALBOA 50-091-02 SAN GREGORIO 50-121-13 BALBOA 50-091-04 SAN GREGORIO 50-121-14 SANTA ANA 50-091-07 SAN GREGORIO 50-121-15 SANTA ANA 50-091-12 SAN GREGORIO 50-121-17 SANTA ANA 50-091-13 SAN GREGORIO 50-121-20 SAN FERNANDO 50-091-14 SAN GREGORIO 50-121-21 SAN FERNANDO 50-091-15 SAN GREGORIO 50-121-22 SAN FERNANDO 50-091-16 SANTA CRUZ 50-121-23 CORRIENTE SO-091-17 SANTA CRUZ 50-121-29 CORRIENTE 50-091-18 SANTA CRUZ 50-121-30 CORRIENTE 50-091-19 SANTA CRUZ 50-121-31 CORRIENTE 50-091-20 SANTA CRUZ 50-121-32 SANTA ANA 50-091-21 SANTA CRUZ SO-122-03 BALBOA 50-092-03 SAN GREGORIO 50-122-05 SANTA ANA 50-092-07 DEL RIO 50-122-08 BALBOA 50-092-08 SAN GREGORIO 50-122-14 SANTA ANA 50-092-09 SAN GREGORIO 50-122-15 BALBOA 50-092-10 DEL RIO 50-122-16 SANTA ANA 50-101-01 SAN GREGORIO 50-122-19 BALBOA 50-101-09 SANTA ANA 50-131-02 BALBOA 50-101-11 DEL RIO 50-131-04 BALBOA 50-101-12 SAN GREGORIO 50-131-05 BALBOA SO-101-12 DEL RIO 50-131-09 SAN FERNANDO 50-101-13 SANTA ANA 50-131-14 BALBOA 50-101-14 SANTA ANA 50-131-15 BALBOA 50-101-15 DEL RIO 50-131-16 BALBOA 50-101-16 SANTA ANA 50-131-18 SAN FERNANDO 50-101-17 SAN GREGORIO 50-131-20 SAN FERNANDO 50-101-18 SANTA ANA 50-131-22 SAN FERNANDO 50-101-19 SANTA ANA 50-131-23 SAN FERNANDO 50-110-01 SANTA CRUZ 50-131-24 SAN FERNANDO 50-110-02 SANTA CRUZ 50-131-25 SAN FERNANDO 50-110-03 SANTA CRUZ 50-131-26 BALBOA 50-110-04 SANTA CRUZ 50-131-27 BALBOA 50-110-06 SANTA CRUZ 50-131-28 BALBOA 50-110-07 SANTA CRUZ 50-131-29 SAN FERNANDO 50-110-08 SANTA CRUZ 50-131-30 SAN FERNANDO 50-111-03 BALBOA 50-141-04 BALBOA 50-111-04 ALTURAS 50-141-08 ARDILLA 50-111-08 BALBOA 50-141-09 ARDILLA 50-111-10 ALTURAS 50-141-13 SAN FERNANDO 50-111-11 DEL RIO 50-141-16 SAN FERNANDO 50-111-12 DEL RIO 50-141-19 ARDILLA 50-111-14 BALBOA 50-141-21 SAN FERNANDO 50-111-15 BALBOA 50-141-22 SAN FERNANDO SO-111-16 SANTA ANA SO-141-23 SAN FERNANDO 50-111-18 SANTA ANA 50-141-24 BALBOA 50-111-19 DEL RIO 50-141-25 BALBOA 50-111-20 DEL RIO 50-141-26 BALBOA WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 50-173-12 SANTA ANA PAGE 26 50-173-13 SANTA ANA 50-173-15 CORONA 50-141-27 BALBOA 50-173-17 CORONA 50-141-28 ARDILLA 50-173-19 SANTA ANA 50-141-29 ARDILLA 50-173-20 SANTA ANA 50-141-31 ARDILLA 50-173-21 SANTA ANA 50-141-32 ARDILLA 50-173-22 CORONA 50-141-33 SAN FERNANDO 50-173-23 SANTA ANA 50-141-34 SAN FERNANDO 50-173-24 CORONA 50-151-02 ARDILLA 50-181-02 SANTA ANA 50-151-05 ARDILLA 50-181-03 SANTA ANA 50-151-06 ARDILLA 50-181-04 SANTA ANA 50-151-07 ARDILLA 50-181-05 GARCERO 50-151-08 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-181-06 GARCERO 50-151-09 SAN FERNANDO 50-182-02 SANTA ANA 50-151-10 SAN FERNANDO 50-182-03 SANTA ANA 50-151-11 SAN FERNANDO 50-182-04 GARCERO 50-151-12 SAN FERNANDO 50-182-05 GARCERO 50-151-19 SAN FERNANDO 50-183-02 SANTA ANA 50-152-10 SAN GREGORIO 50-183-03 SANTA ANA 50-152-12 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-183-04 SANTA ANA 50-152-13 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-183-05 SANTA ANA 50-152-14 SAN FERNANDO 50-183-06 SANTA ANA 50-152-15 SAN FERNANDO 50-183-07 SANTA ANA 50-152-17 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-191-04 CORONA 50-153-08 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-191-05 CORONA 50-153-09 GRAVES CREEK RD 50-192-02 CORONA 50-161-04 SANTA CRUZ 50-192-03 SANTA ANA 50-161-05 SANTA CRUZ 50-192-04 GARCERO 50-161-06 SANTA CRUZ 50-192-05 CORONA 50-161-07 SANTA CRUZ 50-192-06 CORONA 50-161-08 SANTA CRUZ 50-192-07 GARCERO 50-162-02 SANTA CRUZ 50-192-08 SANTA ANA 50-162-05 SANTA CRUZ 50-192-09 CORONA 50-162-11 SANTA CRUZ 50-192-10 SANTA ANA 50-162-12 SANTA CRUZ 50-192-11 SANTA ANA 50-162-13 SANTA CRUZ 50-201-02 BOLSA 50-162-14 SANTA CRUZ 50-201-03 CORONA 50-162-15 SANTA CRUZ 50-201-04 CORONA 50-162-16 SANTA CRUZ 50-201-05 BOLSA 50-162-17 SANTA CRUZ 50-202-05 BALBOA 50-162-18 SANTA CRUZ 50-202-08 OTERO 50-162-19 SANTA ANA 50-202-11 OTERO 50-162-20 SANTA ANA 50-202-12 OTERO 50-162-21 SANTA ANA 50-203-01 BALBOA 50-171-04 CORONA 50-203-10 OTERO 50-171-05 BALBOA 50-203-11 BALBOA 50-171-06 BALBOA 50-211-01 SANTA ANA 50-171-08 CORONA 50-211-02 SANTA ANA 50-172-02 CORONA 50-211-03 SANTA ANA 50-172-03 CORONA 50-212-03 SANTA ANA 50-173-04 CORONA 50-212-07 SANTA ANA 50-173-06 SANTA ANA 50-212-08 SANTA ANA . WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 50-242-02 LLANO PAGE 27 50-242-03 LLANO 50-242-05 LLANO 50-212-09 BALBOA 50-242-07 OTERO 50-212-10 ENCHANTO 50-242-08 BALBOA 50-212-13 ENCHANTO 50-242-13 LLANO 50-212-15 SANTA ANA 50-242-14 BALBOA 50-212-16 CORRIENTE 50-251-04 LLANO 50-212-18 SANTA ANA 50-2S1-06 LLANO 50-212-19 SANTA ANA 50-251-08 BALBOA 50-212-20 SAUSALITO 50-251-09 BALBOA 50-213-01 BALBOA 50-251-10 ENCHANTO 50-213-02 BALBOA 50-2S1-11 CORRIENTE 50-221-05 CORRIENTE 50-251-12 CORRIENTE 50-221-12 SAN FERNANDO 50-251-13 ENCHANTO 50-221-13 CORRIENTE 50-251-14 BALBOA 50-221-15 SAN FERNANDO 50-251-15 LLANO 50-221-17 SAN FERNANDO 50-251-16 LLANO 50-221-18 SAN FERNANDO 50-251-17 LLANO 50-221-19 SAN FERNANDO 50-2S1-18 LLANO 50-221-22 SANTA ANA 50-251-19 CORRIENTE 50-221-23 SANTA ANA 50-261-01 SANTA ANA 50-221-25 SAN FERNANDO 50-262-03 SANTA ANA 50-221-28 CORRIENTE 50-262-06 CORRIENTE 50-221-29 CEBADA 50-262-08 CORRIENTE 50-221-30 CEBADA SO-262-09 CORRIENTE 50-221-31 CEBADA 50-262-11 SANTA ANA 50-221-33 CEBADA 50-262-12 SANTA ANA 50-221-34 CEBADA 50-262-13 SANTA ANA 50-221-36 CEBADA 50-262-14 CORRIENTE 50-221-37 SANTA ANA 50-262-16 SANTA ANA SO-221-38 CORRIENTE 50-262-17 SANTA ANA 50-221-39 CORRIENTE 50-262-18 SANTA ANA 50-223-03 SAN FERNANDO 50-262-19 SANTA ANA 50-223-04 SAN FERNANDO 50-271-08 SANTA ANA 50-223-OS SAN FERNANDO 50-271-09 SANTA ANA 50-223-06 SAN FERNANDO 50-271-10 SANTA ANA SO-223-10 SAN FERNANDO 50-271-11 SANTA ANA 50-223-11 SAN FERNANDO SO-271-14 CEBADA 50-223-14 SAN FERNANDO 50-271-15 SANTA ANA 50-223-16 SAN FERNANDO 50-271-17 SANTA ANA 50-223-19 SAN FERNANDO 50-271-18 CEBADA 50-223-20 SAN FERNANDO 50-271-19 CEBADA 50-223-22 SAN FERNANDO 50-271-20 SANTA ANA 50-223-23 CEBADA 50-281-02 SANTA ANA 50-223-24 CEBADA 50-281-04 SANTA ANA 50-223-25 CEBADA 50-281-05 SANTA ANA 50-223-26 CEBADA 50-281-06 SERRIJON SO-223-30 CEBADA 50-281-07 SERRIJON 50-223-31 CEBADA 50-281-08 SERRIJON 50-223-32 SAN FERNANDO 50-281-09 SANTA ANA 50-223-33 SAN FERNANDO 50-281-10 SANTA ANA 50-241-02 BOLSA 50-302-01 SANTA LUCIA SO-241-06 CORONA 50-302-02 SANTA LUCIA WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 50-341-18 SANTA LUCIA PAGE 28 50-341-20 LOMITAS 50-341-22 LOMITAS 50-302-09 EL MONTE 50-341-24 LOMITAS 50-311-05 SANTA LUCIA 50-341-25 LOMITAS 50-311-06 SANTA LUCIA 50-341-26 SANTA LUCIA 50-311-07 SANTA LUCIA 50-351-07 LLANO 50-311-08 SANTA LUCIA 50-351-09 LLANO 50-312-09 SANTA LUCIA 50-351-10 LLANO 50-312-11 SANTA LUCIA 50-351-11 LLANO 50-312-12 SANTA LUCIA 50-361-06 EL MONTE 50-312-14 EL MONTE 50-361-07 SAN LUCAS 50-312-15 EL MONTE 50-362-02 EL MONTE 50-312-17 SANTA LUCIA 50-362-03 EL MONTE 50-312-18 SANTA LUCIA 50-362-04 EL MONTE 50-312-19 SANTA LUCIA 50-362-05 EL MONTE 50-312-20 EL MONTE 50-362-10 SAN LUCAS 50-321-05 SANTA LUCIA 54-011-17 SAN ANSELMO 50-321-06 SANTA LUCIA 54-011-18 SAN ANSELMO 50-321-08 SANTA LUCIA 54-011-19 SAN ANSELMO 50-321-12 BOLSA 54-011-20 SAN ANSELMO 50-323-05 SANTA LUCIA 54-011-21 SAN ANSELMO 50-323-06 SANTA LUCIA 54-011-23 SAN ANSELMO 50-323-08 BOLSA 54-011-24 SAN ANSELMO 50-323-14 SANTA LUCIA 54-011-25 SAN ANSELMO 50-323-16 BOLSA 54-012-02 ARDILLA 50-323-18 LLANO 54-012-05 ARDILLA 50-323-19 BOLSA 54-012-10 ARDILLA 50-323-20 BOLSA 54-012-11 ARDILLA 50-323-26 SANTA LUCIA 54-012-16 ARDILLA 50-324-01 SANTA LUCIA 54-012-17 ARDILLA 50-324-03 SANTA LUCIA 54-012-23 ARDILLA 50-324-04 SANTA LUCIA 54-012-26 ARDILLA 50-324-07 SANTA LUCIA 54-012-27 ARDILLA 50-324-13 SANTA LUCIA 54-012-29 ARDILLA 50-324-14 SANTA LUCIA 54-012-30 ARDILLA 50-324-15 SANTA LUCIA 54-012-33 ARDILLA 50-324-17 SANTA LUCIA 54-012-34 ARDILLA 50-331-02 LLANO 54-012-35 VENADO 50-331-03 LLANO 54-012-36 VENADO 50-331-06 LLANO 54-012-38 VENADO 50-331-08 LLANO 54-012-39 ARDILLA 50-331-10 LLANO 54-012-40 ARDILLA 50-331-11 LLANO 54-012-41 ARDILLA 50-331-13 LOMITAS 54-013-01 SAN ANSELMO 50-331-14 LLANO 54-013-02 MARICOPA 50-331-16 LOMITAS 54-013-04 MARICOPA 50-331-17 LLANO 54-013-11 ARDILLA 50-341-03 LOMITAS 54-013-13 ARDILLA 50-341-04 LOMITAS 54-013-16 ARDILLA 50-341-06 LOMITAS 54-013-17 ARDILLA 50-341-14 SANTA LUCIA 54-013-18 ARDILLA 50-341-16 LLANO 54-013-19 ARDILLA 50-341-17 SANTA LUCIA 54-013-20 MARICOPA WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 54-032-45 MONTEREY RD PAGE 29 S4-032-52 MONTEREY RD 54-013-21 MARICOPA 54-032-53 MONTEREY RD • 54-013-22 MARICOPA 54-032-54 MONTEREY RD 54-013-23 ARDILLA 54-032-S5 MONTEREY RD 54-013-24 ARDILLA 54-032-57 MONTEREY RD 54-013-25 ARDILLA 54-032-58 MONTEREY RD S4-013-26 ARDILLA 54-041-05 MARICOPA 54-013-27 ARDILLA 54-041-06 MARICOPA S4-014-04 SAN ANSELMO 54-041-07 MARICOPA 54-014-05 MARICOPA 54-041-08 MARICOPA 54-014-06 SAN ANSELMO 54-041-09 MARICOPA 54-014-07 SAN ANSELMO 54-041-10 MARICOPA 54-021-01 CHAUPLIN 54-041-11 MARICOPA 54-021-09 PORTOLA 54-041-12 MARICOPA 54-021-11 ATAJO 54-041-13 MARICOPA 54-021-14 PORTOLA 54-041-16 MARICOPA 54-021-15 PORTOLA 54-041-17 GRAVES CK 54-021-16 PORTOLA 54-041-18 GRAVES CK S4-021-18 CHAUPLIN 54-041-44 ARDILLA 54-021-19 CHAUPLIN 54-043-01 GRAVES CK 54-021-20 CHAUPLIN 54-043-02 GRAVES 0K 54-022-04 PORTOLA 54-043-03 ARDILLA 54-022-08 PORTOLA 54-043-04 ARDILLA 54-022-09 PORTOLA 54-043-06 ARDILLA 54-022-10 PORTOLA S4-043-07 ARDILLA 54-022-11 PORTOLA 54-043-08 ARDILLA 54-022-12 PORTOLA 54-043-09 ARDILLA • 54-022-17 PORTOLA S4-043-10 ARDILLA 54-022-18 PORTOLA 54-043-11 ARDILLA 54-022-19 PORTOLA 54-043-12 ARDILLA S4-022-21 PORTOLA 54-043-13 ARDILLA 54-022-26 PORTOLA 54-043-14 ARDILLA 54-022-27 PORTOLA S4-043-15 ARDILLA 54-022-30 SANTA LUCIA 54-043-16 ARDILLA S4-022-31 SANTA LUCIA S4-043-17 ARDILLA 54-031-09 MONTEREY RD 54-043-18 ARDILLA 54-032-10 GRAVES CK 54-043-19 ARDILLA 54-032-12 GRAVES CK 54-043-20 ARDILLA 54-032-13 GRAVES CK 54-043-22 MARICOPA 54-032-15 MARICOPA 54-043-23 MARICOPA 54-032-17 MARICOPA S4-OSI-10 PORTOLA 54-032-21 MARICOPA 54-051-16 PORTOLA 54-032-22 MARICOPA S4-051-18 PORTOLA 54-032-27 MARICOPA 54-OSI-20 PORTOLA S4-032-30 MONTEREY RD 54-OSI-21 PORTOLA 54-032-32 MONTEREY RD 54-051-22 PORTOLA 54-032-34 MONTEREY RD 54-OS1-41 PORTOLA 54-032-36 GRAVES CK 54-051-43 PORTOLA S4-032-38 MARICOPA S4-051-45 ARDILLA 54-032-39 GRAVES CK 54-051-46 PORTOLA 54-032-40 GRAVES CK 54-051-47 ARDILLA 54-032-41 MARICOPA 54-051-51 PORTOLA 54-032-44 GRAVES CK 54-051-52 PORTOLA WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 54-065-07 BELLA VISTA PAGE 30 54-065-10 PORTOLA 54-065-14 PORTOLA 54-051-54 PORTOLA 54-065-16 PORTOLA 54-051-56 PORTOLA 54-065-25 BELLA VISTA 54-051-57 ARDILLA 54-065-27 BELLA VISTA 54-051-58 SANTA LUCIA 54-065-28 BELLA VISTA 54-051-58 ARDILLA 54-065-29 BELLA VISTA 54-051-59 SANTA LUCIA 54-065-30 PORTOLA 54-051-59 ARDILLA 54-065-31 PORTOLA 54-051-60 PORTOLA 54-065-32 BELLA VISTA 54-051-61 SANTA LUCIA 54-065-34 BELLA VISTA 54-051-61 PORTOLA 54-065-35 BELLA VISTA 54-051-62 PORTOLA 54-065-38 BELLA VISTA, 54-051-63 SANTA LUCIA 54-065-40 PORTOLA 54-051-63 PORTOLA 54-065-41 PORTOLA 54-051-65 PORTOLA 54-065-42 PORTOLA 54-051-66 SANTA LUCIA 54-065-45 BELLA VISTA 54-051-67 PORTOLA 54-065-47 BELLA VISTA 54-051-6S PORTOLA 54-065-48 PORTOLA 54-051--69 PORTOLA 54-065-49 PORTOLA 54-051-70 PORTOLA 54-065-50 PORTOLA 54-051-71 PORTOLA 54-065-51 PORTOLA 54-051-72 PORTOLA 54-071-01 PORTOLA 54-051-73 PORTOLA 54-071-02 PORTOLA 54-051-76 PORTOLA 54-071-03 PORTOLA 54-051-77 PORTOLA 54-071-05 PORTOLA 54-051-81 PORTOLA 54-071-31 PORTOLA 54-OSI-82 PORTOLA 54-071-33 PORTOLA 54-061-01 PORTOLA 54-071-36 PORTOLA 54-061-07 SANTA LUCIA 54-071-37 PORTOLA 54-061-08 SANTA LUCIA 54-071-38 PORTOLA 54-061-12 SANTA LUCIA 54-071-40 PORTOLA 54-061-19 PORTOLA 54-072-06 PORTOLA 54-061-23 PORTOLA 54-072-16 SANTA LUCIA 54-061-25 SANTA LUCIA 54-072-40 PORTOLA 54-061-26 PORTOLA 54-072-41 PORTOLA 54-061-28 SANTA LUCIA 54-072-61 ELORES 54-061-29 PORTOLA 54-072-66 PORTOLA 54-061-32 PORTOLA 54-072-67 PORTOLA 54-061-35 PORTOLA 54-072-68 PORTOLA 54-061-36 PORTOLA 54-072-69 PORTOLA 54-061-40 PORTOLA 54-072-70 SANTA LUCIA 54-061-41 SANTA LUCIA 54-072-71 SANTA LUCIA 54-061-42 SANTA LUCIA 54-072-73 PORTOLA 54-061-43 PORTOLA 54-072-74 PORTOLA 54-061-44 PORTOLA 54-073-01 SANTA LUCIA 54-061-45 PORTOLA 54-073-06 PORTOLA 54-061-50 SANTA LUCIA 54-073-07 PORTOLA 54-061-53 PORTOLA 54-073-09 PORTOLA 54-061-56 PORTOLA 54-073-12 PORTOLA 54-061-64 SANTA LUCIA 54-073-14 PORTOLA 54-061-65 SANTA LUCIA 54-073-18 PORTOLA 54-065-02 BELLA VISTA 54-073-20 PORTOLA . WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 54-086-18 BELLA VISTA PAGE 31 54-091-01 CASCABEL 54-091-09 CASCABEL 54-073-22 PORTOLA 54-091-13 CASCABEL 54-073-24 SANTA LUCIA 54-091-14 CASCABEL 54-073-26 SANTA LUCIA 54-091-17 CASCABEL 54-073-27 PORTOLA 54-091-18 CASCABEL 54-073-28 SANTA LUCIA 54-091-19 CASCABEL 54-073-29 PORTOLA 54-091-20 CASCABEL 54-073-30 PORTOLA 54-091-21 CASCABEL 54-081-14 PORTOLA 54-091-22 CASCABEL 54-081-18 PORTOLA 54-091-23 CASCABEL 54-081-19 PORTOLA 54-091-24 CASCABEL 54-081-22 PORTOLA 54-091-25 CASCABEL 54-081-23 PORTOLA 54-092-01 CASCABEL 54-081-25 PORTOLA 54-092-11 CASCABEL 54-081-26 PORTOLA 54-092-14 ' CASCABEL 54-081-27 PORTOLA 54-092-15 CASCABEL 54-081-28 PORTOLA 54-092-20 CASCABEL 54-081-29 PORTOLA 54-092-21 CASCABEL 54-081-30 PORTOLA 54-092-22 CASCABEL 54-081-31 PORTOLA 54-101-05 SANTA LUCIA 54-081-33 PORTOLA 54-101-10 SANTA LUCIA 54-081-35 SAN MARCOS 54-101-14 SANTA LUCIA 54-081-41 PORTOLA 54-101-15 SANTA LUCIA 54-081-42 SAN MARCOS 54-101-16 CASCABEL 54-081-43 SAN MARCOS 54-101-17 CASCABEL 54-081-44 PORTOLA 54-101-18 CASCABEL 54-081-45 PORTOLA 54-102-11 CASCABEL 54-081-53 PORTOLA 54-102-12 CASCABEL 54-082-06 SAN CLEMENTE 54-102-13 CASCABEL 54-082-11 SAN CLEMENTE 54-102-17 CASCABEL 54-082-12 SAN CLEMENTE 54-102-18 CASCABEL 54-083-04 SAN MARCOS 54-102-19 SANTA LUCIA 54-084-01 SAN MARCOS 54-102-20 CASCABEL 54-084-02 SAN MARCOS 54-102-21 CASCABEL 54-084-04 SAN MARCOS 54-111-05 SANTA LUCIA 54-084-05 SAN MARCOS 54-111-18 SANTA LUCIA 54-084-06 SAN MARCOS 54-111-24 SANTA LUCIA 54-084-07 SAN MARCOS 54-111-25 SANTA LUCIA 54-085-24 PORTOLA 54-111-27 SANTA LUCIA 54-085-46 PORTOLA 54-111-30 SANTA LUCIA 54-086-03 BELLA VISTA 54-111-33 SANTA LUCIA 54-086-04 BELLA VISTA 54-111-34 SANTA LUCIA 54-086-05 BELLA VISTA 54-111-35 SANTA LUCIA 54-086-06 BELLA VISTA 54-111-38 SANTA LUCIA 54-086-07 SAN MARCOS 54-111-39 SANTA LUCIA 54-086-08 SAN MARCOS 54-111-40 SANTA LUCIA 54-086-10 BELLA VISTA 54-111-41 SANTA LUCIA 54-086-12 BELLA VISTA 54-111-43 SANTA LUCIA 54-086-13 BELLA VISTA 54-111-44 SANTA LUCIA 54-086-14 BELLA VISTA 54-111-45 SANTA LUCIA 54-086-15 BELLA VISTA 54-111-46 SANTA LUCIA 54-086-16 BELLA VISTA 54-121-02 LOS GATOS WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 54-132-63 BELLA VISTA PAGE 32 54-132-64 BELLA VISTA 54-132-65 SAN GABRIEL 54-121-03 LOS GATOS 54-132-66 BELLA VISTA 54-121-12 LOS GATOS 54-132-68 SAN MARCOS 54-121-19 LOS GATOS 54-132-69 SAN MARCOS 54-121-21 LOS GATOS 54-132-70 SAN MARCOS 54-121-25 LOS GATOS 54-132-73 BELLA VISTA 54-121-27 LOS GATOS 54-141-03 BELLA VISTA 54-121-28 LOS GATOS 54-141-05 BELLA VISTA 54-121-29 LOS GATOS 54-141-06 BELLA VISTA 54-121-30 LOS GATOS 54-142-03 SAN GABRIEL 54-121-31 LOS GATOS 54-142-04 SAN GABRIEL 54-121-32 SAN GABRIEL 54-142-12 CARMELITA SAN 54-121-33 SAN GABRIEL 54-142-13 SAN GABRIEL 54-121-35 LOS GATOS 54-142-15 SAN GABRIEL 54-121-36 SAN MARCOS 54-142-17 SAN GABRIEL 54-121-37 SAN MARCOS 54-142-23 SAN GABRIEL 54-121-38 SAN MARCOS 54-142-24 SAN GABRIEL 54-121-40 SAN GABRIEL 54-142-26 SAN GABRIEL 54-122-08 FLORES 54-142-29 BELLA VISTA 54-122-12 FLORES 54-142-30 BELLA VISTA 54-122-16 SANTA LUCIA 54-142-33 CARMELITA 54-122-18 SANTA LUCIA 54-142-35 BELLA VISTA 54-122-19 SANTA LUCIA 54-142-36 BELLA VISTA 54-122-20 FLORES 54-143-08 CARMELITA 54-122-22 FLORES 54-143-09 CARMELITA 54-122-24 LOS GATOS 54-151-13 SAN GABRIEL 54-122-29 LOS GATOS 54-151-18 SANTA ROSA 54-122-30 FLORES 54-151-19 SANTA ROSA 54-122-31 LOS GATOS 54-151-21 MORRO RD 54-131-10 SAN MARCOS 54-151-23 SANTA ROSA 54-131-11 SAN MARCOS 54-151-25 MORRO RD 54-131-15 SAN MARCOS 54-151-26 MORRO RD 54-132-08 SAN MARCOS 54-151-29 SANTA ROSA 54-132-11 SAN GABRIEL 54-151-29 SANTA ROSA 54-132-14 SAN MARCOS 54-151-31 MORRO RD 54-132-25 SAN GABRIEL 54-151-34 SAN GABRIEL. 54-132-27 SAN GABRIEL 54-151-39 SAN GABRIEL 54-132-28 SAN MARCOS 54-151-42 SANTA ROSA 54-132-33 SAN MARCOS 54-151-43 SANTA ROSA 54-132-34 SAN MARCOS 54-151-44 SAN GABRIEL. 54-132-37 SAN MARCOS 54-151-45 SAN GABRIEL 54-132-38 SAN MARCOS 54-151-46 SAN GABRIEL 54-132-39 SAN MARCOS 54-151-47 SANTA ROSA 54-132-43 SAN MARCOS 54-151-48 SANTA ROSA 54-132-44 SAN MARCOS 54-151-49 SANTA ROSA 54-132-45 SAN MARCOS 54-151-50 SANTA ROSA 54-132-48 SAN MARCOS 54-151-51 SANTA ROSA 54-132-51 SAN MARCOS 54-151-54 SANTA ROSA 54-132-52 SAN MARCOS 54-151-55 SANTA ROSA 54-132-53 SAN MARCOS 54-161-06 GRAVES CK 54-132-54 SAN MARCOS 54-161-07 GRAVES CK S4-132-62 BELLA VISTA 54-161-08 GRAVES CK WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 54-201-52 ESCONDIDO PAGE 33 54-201-53 ESCONDIDO 54-211-05 SAN GABRIEL 54-161-09 GRAVES CK 54-212-01 SAN GABRIEL 54-162-02 SANTA ANA 54-212-13 SAN GABRIEL 54-162-04 SANTA ANA 54-212-14 SAN GABRIEL 54-162-05 SANTA ANA 54-212-29 SAN GABRIEL 54-162-06 GRAVES CK 54-212-30 SAN GABRIEL 54-162-07 SANTA ANA 54-212-32 CARMELITA 54-162-08 SANTA ANA 54-212-33 CARMELITA 54-171-01 SANTA ANA 54-212-35 CARMELITA 54-171-06 SERRIJON 54-221-04 CARMELITA 54-171-09 SANTA LUCIA 54-221-05 CARMELITA 54-171-17 SANTA LUCIA 54-221-08 CARMELITA 54-171-18 SANTA LUCIA 54-221-10 CARMELITA 54-171-19 SANTA LUCIA 54-221-11 CARMELITA 54-171-20 SANTA LUCIA 54-231-07 OLD MORRO RD 54-171-22 SANTA ANA 54-231-14 OLD MORRO RD 54-171-22 SANTA ANA 54-231-15 OLD MORRO RD 54-171-23 SANTA ANA 54-231-19 SAN RAFAEL 54-171-24 SANTA ANA 54-231-20 OLD MORRO RD 54-171-25 SANTA ANA 54-231-21 OLD MORRO RD 54-171-26 SANTA ANA 54-231-24 OLD MORRO RD 54-171-27 SANTA LUCIA 54-231-25 OLD MORRO RD 54-171-29 SANTA LUCIA 54-231-32 LOS OSOS 54-181-03 SANTA LUCIA 54-231-33 LOS OSOS 54-181-06 SANTA LUCIA 54-231-34 LOS OSOS 54-181-14 SANTA LUCIA 54-231-35 SAN RAFAEL. 54-181-21 SANTA LUCIA 54-231-36 SAN RAFAEL 54-181-27 SANTA LUCIA 54-231-38 SAN RAFAEL 54-181-28 SANTA LUCIA 54-231-39 SAN RAFAEL 54-201-06 SAN GABRIEL 54-231-40 OLD MORRO RD 54-201-08 SAN MARCOS 54-231-42 LOS OSOS 54-201-12 SAN MARCOS 54-231-43 LOS OSOS 54-201-19 SAN MARCOS 54-231-44 OLD MORRO RD 54-201-24 SAN MARCOS 54-231-45 LOS OSOS 54-201-32 SAN MARCOS 54-241-30 SAN RAFAEL 54-201-33 SAN MARCOS 54-241-34 SAN RAFAEL 54-201-34 SAN MARCOS 54-241-35 SAN RAFAEL 54-201-35 SAN MARCOS 54-241-39 SAN RAFAEL 54-201-36 SAN MARCOS 54-251-02 TECOLOTE 54-201-37 ESCONDIDO 54-251-03 TECOLOTE 54-201-40 SAN MARCOS 54-251-04 TECOLOTE 54-201-41 SAN GABRIEL 54-251-05 TECOLOTE 54-201-42 SAN MARCOS 54-261-01 SANTA LUCIA 54-201-43 SAN MARCOS 54-261-03 LLANO 54-201-44 SAN MARCOS 54-261-04 SANTA LUCIA 54-201-45 SAN MARCOS 54-261-09 SANTA LUCIA 54-201-46 SAN MARCOS 54-261-10 SANTA LUCIA 54-201-47 SAN MARCOS 54-261-13 SANTA LUCIA 54-201-48 SAN MARCOS 54-262-04 SANTA LUCIA 54-201-49 SAN GABRIEL 54-262-05 SANTA LUCIA • 54-201-50 SAN GABRIEL 54-262-06 SANTA LUCIA 54-201-51 SAN GABRIEL 54-271-07 LAUREL WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 54-311-40 BARRANCO PAGE 34 54-311-41 SAN MARCOS 54-311-42 SAN MARCOS 54-271-09 LAUREL S4-311-44 REALITO 54-272-06 SANTA LUCIA 54-311-45 REALITO 54-272-14 LLANO 54-311-47 REALITO 54-272-15 SANTA LUCIA 54-311-48 SAN MARCOS 54-272-16 SANTA LUCIA 54-311-49 SAN MARCOS 54-272-17 LLANO 54-311-50 SAN MARCOS 54-272-20 GALLINA CT 54-311-51 SAN MARCOS 54-272-21 GALLINA CT 54-311-52 SAN MARCOS 54-272-22 GALLINA CT 54-311-53 SAN MARCOS 54-272-23 GALLINA CT 54-311-54 SAN MARCOS 54-272-24 GALLINA CT 54-311-55 BARRANCO 54-272-25 GALLINA CT 54-311-56 BARRANCO 54-281-01 SANTA LUCIA 54-311-57 REALITO 54-281-07 PORTAL 54-321-08 ANDRITA 54-281-10 PORTAL 54-321-09 SIERRA VISTA 54-281-12 PORTAL 54-321-10 ANDRITA 54-281-13 LAUREL 54-321-11 ANDRITA 54-281-15 PORTAL 54-321-12 SAN MARCOS 54-281-15 LAUREL 54-322-02 MONITA`` 54-281-16 PORTAL 54-322-03 SIERRA VISTA 54-291-12 PORTAL 54-322-04 SIERRA VISTA 54-291-14 PORTAL 54-322-09 MONITA S4-291-16 PORTAL 54-322-11 SIERRA VISTA 54-291-17 PORTAL 54-322-12 SIERRA VISTA 54-291-18 PORTAL 54-322-13 SIERRA VISTA 54-291-19 PORTAL 54-331-01 CASITA S4-291-21 PORTAL 54-331-01 SIERRA VISTA 54-301-10 ESCONDIDO 54-331-02 CASITA 54-301-13 SAN MARCOS 54-331-03 CASITA 54-301-16 SAN MARCOS 54-331-04 SIERRA VISTA 54-301-18 ESCONDIDO 54-331-05 SIERRA VISTA 54-301-19 ESCONDIDO 54-331-06 SIERRA VISTA 54-301-20 ESCONDIDO 54-331-07 SIERRA VISTA 54-301-22 ESCONDIDO 54-331-10 SIERRA VISTA S4-301-24 SAN MARCOS 54-331-11 SIERRA VISTA 54-301-25 SAN MARCOS 54-332-09 CASITA S4-301-26 SAN MARCOS 54-332-10 CASITA 54-301-27 SAN MARCOS 54-333-03 SIERRA VISTA 54-301-73 SAN MARCOS 54-333-04 SIERRA VISTA 54-311-03 SAN MARCOS 54-333-05 SIERRA VISTA 54-311-05 SAN MARCOS 54-333-07 SIERRA VISTA 54-311-08 REALITO 54-333-08 SIERRA VISTA 54-311-16 BARRANCO 55-011-12 PUENTE 54-311-19 BARRANCO S5-011-13 PUENTE 54-311-22 BARRANCO SS-011-14 SANTA LUCIA 54-311-29 SAN MARCOS 55-011-17 SANTA LUCIA 54-311-31 SAN MARCOS 55-011-18 SANTA LUCIA 54-311-33 SAN MARCOS 55-011-20 SANTA LUCIA 54-311-35 SAN MARCOS 55-021-02 SANTA LUCIA 54-311-37 SAN MARCOS SS-022-08 SANTA LUCIA 54-311-38 BARRANCO 55-022-09 SANTA LUCIA WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 55-071-15 SAN MARCOS N PAGE 35 55-072-02 CASANOVA O 55-072-05 CASANOVA 55-022-11 SANTA LUCIA 55-072-06 CASANOVA 55-022-12 SANTA LUCIA 55-073-02 ANDRITA 55-031-31 CENEGAL 55-081-01 BARRANCO 55-031-32 LAUREL 55-081-02 BARRANCO 55-031-34 LAUREL 55-081-03 BARRANCO 55-031-37 CENEGAL 55-081-04 CASANOVA 55-031-38 LAUREL 55-081-06 CASANOVA 55-041-12 SAN MARCOS 55-082-01 ANDRITA 55-041-13 SAN MARCOS 55-082-05 ANDRITA 55-041-14 SAN MARCOS 55-083-04 ANDRITA 55-041-16 LAUREL 55-091-02 SIERRA VISTA 55-041-18 LAUREL 55-091-03 SIERRA VISTA 55-051-08 VISTA 55-092-01 ANDRITA 55-051-09 VISTA 55-093-02 SIERRA VISTA 55-051-11 VISTA 55-093-03 CARMELITA 55-051-12 VISTA 55-101-04 BARRANCO 55-052-02 REALITO 55-101-09 CASANOVA 55-052-03 REALITO 55-101-12 BARRANCO 55-052-09 REALITO 55-101-14 CASANOVA 55-052-10 REALITO 55-101-15 CASANOVA 55-052-11 REALITO 55-102-01 CASANOVA 55-052-12 REALITO 55-102-02 CASANOVA 55-052-13 REALITO 55-102-07 CASANOVA 55-053-01 VISTA 55-102-11 CASANOVA 55-053-04 REALITO 55-121-01 CENEGAL 55-053-06 REALITO 55-121-18 CENEGAL 55-061-02 BARRANCO 55-121-19 CENEGAL 55-061-03 BARRANCO 55-121-20 CENEGAL 55-062-19 BARRANCO 55-131-12 CENEGAL 55-062-20 BARRANCO 55-131-14 CENEGAL 55-062-22 BARRANCO 55-141-05 CENEGAL 55-062-23 BARRANCO 55-141-06 CENEGAL 55-062-24 BARRANCO 55-151-07 SAN MARCOS 55-062-27 BARRANCO 55-151-08 SAN MARCOS 55-062-28 BARRANCO 55-151-12 LAUREL 55-062-30 BARRANCO 55-151-13 LAUREL 55-062-32 BARRANCO 55-151-16 LAUREL 55-062-33 BARRANCO 55-151-17 LAUREL 55-062-34 BARRANCO 55-151-20 LAUREL 55-062-36 BARRANCO 55-151-22 LAUREL 55-062-37 BARRANCO 55-161-03 MORRO RD 55-062-38 BARRANCO 55-161-04 MORRO RD 55-062-39 BARRANCO 55-161-07 MORRO RD 55-062-40 BARRANCO 55-161-08 SAN MARCOS 55-062-41 BARRANCO 55-161-09 SAN MARCOS 55-062-42 BARRANCO 55-161-10 SAN MARCOS 55-071-01 SAN MARCOS 55-161-11 SAN MARCOS 55-071-11 SAN MARCOS 55-161-12 SAN MARCOS 55-071-12 SAN MARCOS 55-161-13 SAN MARCOS 55-071-13 SAN MARCOS 55-161-15 SAN MARCOS 55-071-14 SAN MARCOS 55-161-16 SAN MARCOS WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT -A 55-311-01 MORRO RD PAGE 36 55-311-07 MORRO RD 55-311-08 PALO VERDE 55-171-09 SAN MARCOS 55-311-09 OLD MORRO RD 55-171-11 SAN MARCOS 55-311-10 OLD MORRO RD 55-171-12 SAN MARCOS 55-311-12 MORRO RD 55-171-13 SAN MARCOS 55-311-13 MORRO RD 55-181-08 SAN MARCOS 55-311-15 PALO VERDE 55-181-09 SAN MARCOS 55-311-16 PALO VERDE 55-181-15 SAN MARCOS 55-311-18 OLD MORRO RD 55-191-03 SAN MARCOS 55-321-07 MORRO RD 55-191-08 SAN MARCOS 55-321-08 MORRO RD 55-191-09 SAN MARCOS 55-321-09 MORRO RD 55-192-04 SAN MARCOS 55-321-12 MORRO RD 55-201-08 SAN MARCOS 55-321-17 MORRO RD 55-201-09 SAN MARCOS 55-341-01 PALO VERDE 55-201-14 SAN MARCOS 55-341-02 PALO VERDE 55-201-15 SAN MARCOS 55-341-03 PALO VERDE 55-201-16 SAN MARCOS 55-341-05 OLD MORRO RD 55-201-17 SAN MARCOS 55-361-13 PALO VERDE 55-201-18 SAN MARCOS 55-361-18 PALO VERDE 55-201-19 SAN MARCOS 55-361-19 PALO VERDE 55-201-20 SAN MARCOS 55-361-23 PALO VERDE 55-211-07 SAN MARCOS 55-431-01 SANTA LUCIA 55-211-15 MORRO RD 55-431-03 SANTA LUCIA 55-221-01 MORRO RD 55-441-01 LOMITAS 55-231-01 SAN MARCOS 55-441-02 LOMITAS 55-231-05 SAN MARCOS 55-441-04 LOMITAS 55-231-08 SAN MARCOS 55-441-05 SANTA LUCIA 55-231-15 SAN MARCOS 55-442-01 LOMITAS 55-241-04 LOS ALTOS 55-442-02 LOMITAS 55-242-04 SAN MARCOS 55-442-03 LOMITAS 55-242-05 SAN MARCOS 55-442-04 LOMITAS 55-242-08 SAN MARCOS 55-442-05 LOMITAS 55-242-15 LOS ALTOS 55-442-06 SANTA LUCIA 55-242-26 LOS ALTOS 55-442-08 SANTA LUCIA 55-242-30 LOS ALTOS 55-451-06 SANTA LUCIA 55-242-31 LOS ALTOS 55-451-13 RAYAR 55-242-32 SAN MARCOS 55-451-14 RAYAR 55-242-33 LOS ALTOS 55-451-15 LOMITAS 55-242-34 SAN MARCOS 55-451-17 LOMITAS 55-242-35 SAN MARCOS 55-451-18 LOMITAS 55-243-02 MORRO RD 55-451-19 LOMITAS 55-251-07 MORRO RD 55-451-20 LOMITAS 55-252-05 SAN MARCOS 55-451-21 LOMITAS SAN 55-252-14 SAN MARCORn 55-451-22 LOMITAS 55-252-16 MORRO RD 55-451-23 LOMITAS 55-252-17 SAN MARCOS 55-451-25 LOMITAS 55-261-04 MORRO RD 55-451-26 LOMITAS 55-261-05 MORRO RD 55-451-27 SANTA LUCIA 55-261-06 SAN MARCOS 55-451-28 SANTA LUCIA 55-261-12 MORRO RD 55-451-29 SANTA LUCIA 55-261-13 SAN MARCOS 55-451-30 SANTA LUCIA 55-261-14 SAN MARCOS 55-461-02 SANTA LUCIA WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 56-071-20 EAST FRONT • PAGE 37 56-071-24 EAST FRONT 56-071-25 EL CAMINO RL 55-461-03 SANTA LUCIA 56-071-26 EL CAMINO RL 56-031-29 COROMAR 56-071-29 MONTECITO 56-031-31 COROMAR 56-091-09 CURBARIL 56-031-33 EL CAMINO RL 56-091-17 CURBARIL 56-031-34 EL CAMINO RL 56-091-26 - COROMAR 56-031-35 EL CAMINO RL 56-091-28 COROMAR 56-031-36 COROMAR 56-091-35 COROMAR 56-031-37 EL CAMINO RL 56-091-36 COROMAR 56-031-38 EL CAMINO RL 56-091-37 COROMAR 56-031-41 COROMAR 56-091-36 COROMAR S6-031-42 COROMAR S6-091-39 CURBARIL 56-031-43 EL CAMINO RL S6-091-40 CURBARIL 56-031-46 COROMAR 56-091-41 CRISTOBAL 56-031-47 COROMAR 56-091-43 CRISTOBAL 56-031-48 COROMAR 56-091-44 CRISTOBAL 56-041-14 COROMAR 56-101-05 ATASCADERO AVE 56-041-17 COROMAR 56-101-10 ATASCADERO AVE 56-041-23 COROMAR 56-101-11 ATASCADERO AVE 56-041-2S COROMAR 56-101-12 COROMAR 56-041-26 COROMAR 56-101-13 COROMAR 56-041-33 COROMAR 56-101-14 COROMAR 56-041-36 COROMAR 56-101-17 COROMAR 56-041-38 COROMAR 56-101-18 COROMAR 56-041-40 COROMAR 56-111-13 COROMAR 56-041-41 COROMAR 56-111-15 COROMAR 56-041-42 COROMAR 56-111-19 COROMAR 56-041-44 EL CAMINO RL 56-111-20 COROMAR 56-041-45 EL CAMINO RL 56-111-24 COROMAR 56-041-46 EL CAMINO RL 56-111-25 COROMAR 56-041-48 COROMAR 56-111-27 COROMAR S6-051-21 EL CAMINO RL 56-111-29 COROMAR 56-051-23 EL CAMINO RL 56-111-30 COROMAR 56-051-30 EL CAMINO RL 56-111-32 COROMAR 56-051-37 EL CAMINO RL 56-121-05 COROMAR 56-051-43 EL CAMINO RL 56-121-07 COROMAR 56-051-46 EL CAMINO RL 56-121-10 COROMAR 56-051-47 EL CAMINO RL 56-121-14 COROMAR 56-051-49 EL CAMINO RL S6-121-17 PORTOLA 56-051-51 EL CAMINO RL 56-121-18 PORTOLA 56-051-55 EL CAMINO RL 56-121-21 COROMAR 56-061-18 EL CAMINO RL 56-121-22 COROMAR 56-061-19 EL CAMINO RL 56-121-23 COROMAR S6-061-22 EL CAMINO RL 56-121-24 COROMAR 56-061-24 EL CAMINO RL S6-121-28 COROMAR 56-061-25 EL CAMINO RL 56-121-33 COROMAR 56-061-26 EL CAMINO RL 56-121-3S COROMAR 56-061-28 EL CAMINO RL 56-121-36 COROMAR 56-071-08 EL CAMINO RL 56-121-37 COROMAR 56-071-13 MONTECITO 56-131-12 PORTOLA 56-071-15 EL CAMINO RL 56-131-13 PORTOLA 56-071-19 EAST FRONT 56-131-14 PORTOLA WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 56-163-14 SAN GABRIEL PAGE 36 56-171-09 MARCHANT 56-171-15 MARCHANT 56-131-15 PORTOLA 56-171-15 CRISTOBAL 56-131-17 WEST FRONT 56-171-16 MARCHANT 56-131-18 WEST FRONT 56-171-20 MARCHANT 56-131-19 WEST FRONT 56-171-21 MARCHANT 56-141-06 SANTA ROSA 56-171-25 MARCHANT 56-141-09 SANTA ROSA 56-171-26 MARCHANT 56-141-11 SANTA ROSA 56-171-28 CRISTOBAL 56-141-12 SANTA ROSA 56-171-29 CRISTOBAL 56-141-16 SANTA ROSA 56-171-32 ATASCADERO AVE 56-141-17 SANTA ROSA 56-171-36 ATASCADERO AVE 56-141-18 SANTA ROSA 56-171-41 CRISTOBAL 56-151-01 SAN RAFAEL 56-171-45 ATASCADERO AVE 56-151-05 SAN GABRIEL 56-171-46 ATASCADERO AVE 56-151-07 SAN GABRIEL 56-171-47 ATASCADERO AVE 56-151-09 SAN GABRIEL 56-171-48 ATASCADERO AVE 56-151-19 SANTA ROSA 56-171-49 CRISTOBAL 56-151-21 SANTA ROSA 56-181-06 ATASCADERO AVE 56-151-26 SANTA ROSA 56-181-08 ATASCADERO AVE 56-151-28 SANTA ROSA 56-181-10 PORTOLA 56-151-30 SANTA ROSA 56-181-12 ATASCADERO AVE 56-151-31 SANTA ROSA 56-181-13 ATASCADERO AVE 56-151-32 SANTA ROSA 56-181-14 ATASCADERO AVE 56-151-34 SANTA ROSA 56-181-15 ATASCADERO AVE 56-151-42 SAN GABRIEL 56-181-16 ATASCADERO AVE 56-162-03 SAN GABRIEL 56-181-18 ATASCADERO AVE . 56-162-04 SAN GABRIEL 56-181-21 PORTOLA 56-162-05 SAN GABRIEL 56-181-22 PORTOLA 56-162-06 SAN GABRIEL 56-191-19 SANTA ROSA 56-162-07 SAN GABRIEL 56-191-20 PORTOLA 56-162-08 SAN GABRIEL 56-191-22 PORTOLA 56-162-09 SAN GABRIEL 56-191-25 SANTA ROSA 56-162-10 SAN GABRIEL 56-191-26 SANTA ROSA 56-162-11 SAN GABRIEL S6-191-33 PORTOLA 56-162-13 SAN GABRIEL 56-191-37 ATASCADERO AVE 56-162-1S SAN GABRIEL S6-191-38 ATASCADERO AVE 56-162-16 SAN GABRIEL 56-201-03 SANTA ROSA 56-162-17 SAN RAFAEL 56-201-10 SAN GABRIEL 56-162-18 SAN RAFAEL 56-201-12 SAN GABRIEL 56-162-19 SAN RAFAEL 56-201-15 SAN GABRIEL 56-162-20 SAN RAFAEL 56-201-16 SAN GABRIEL 56-162-21 SAN RAFAEL 56-201-21 ATASCADERO AVE 56-162-22 SAN RAFAEL 56-201-28 SAN GABRIEL 56-162-23 SAN RAFAEL 56-201-29 SAN GABRIEL 56-162-24 SAN RAFAEL 56-201-30 SANTA ROSA 56-162-25 SAN RAFAEL 56-201-31 SANTA ROSA 56-162-26 SAN RAFAEL 56-201-33 SANTA ROSA 56-162-27 SAN RAFAEL 56-201-35 ATASCADERO AVE 56-162-28 SAN RAFAEL 56-201-36 ATASCADERO AVE 56-162-29 SAN RAFAEL 56-211-03 SAN RAFAEL 56-162-30 SAN RAFAEL 56-211-12 SAN RAFAEL 56-162-31 SAN RAFAEL 56-211-15 ATASCADERO AVE WEED ABATEMENT EXHIBIT A 56 S251-12 SANTA ROSA PAGE 39 56-251-13 SANTA ROSA 56-251-16 ATASCADERO AVE 56-211-20 ATASCADERO AVE 56-251-17 ATASCADERO AVE 56-211-22 ATASCADERO AVE 56-251-18 ATASCADERO AVE 56-211-26 ATASCADERO AVE 56-251-19 ATASCADERO AVE 56-211-37 ATASCADERO AVE 56-251-20 ATASCADERO AVE 56-211-38 ATASCADERO AVE 56-251-21 ATASCADERO AVE 56-211-39 ATASCADERO AVE 56-251-24 ALEGRE 56-211-40 ATASCADERO AVE 56-251-27 ALEGRE 56-211-41 ATASCADERO AVE 56-251-33 ATASCADERO AVE 56-211-42 SAN RAFAEL 56-251-34 ATASCADERO AVE 56-211-44 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-04 SANTA ROSA 56-211-46 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-11 SAN GABRIEL 56-211-47 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-13 SAN GABRIEL 56-211-48 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-19 ATASCADERO AVE 56-211-49 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-21 SAN GABRIEL 56-211-50 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-25 SAN GABRIEL 56-221-06 MARCHANT 56-261-26 ATASCADERO AVE 56-221-14 MARCHANT 56-261-58 SANTA ROSA 56-221-15 MARCHANT 56-261-59 SANTA ROSA 56-221-20 MARCHANT 56-261-61 SAN GABRIEL 56-221-21 MARCHANT 56-261-63 SANTA ROSA 56-221-22 MARCHANT 56-261-64 SANTA ROSA 56-221-23 MARCHANT 56-261-65 SANTA ROSA 56-221-23 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-67 SAN GABRIEL. 56-221-24 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-68 SAN GABRIEL 56-221-26 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-69 SAN GABRIEL 56-221-27 MARCHANT 56-261-70 SAN GABRIEL 56-221-28 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-71 SAN GABRIEL 56-231-07 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-75 SANTA ROSA 56-231-08 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-76 SAN GABRIEL 56-231-12 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-79 SAN GABRIEL 56-231-13 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-80 ATASCADERO AVE 56-231-15 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-82 SAN GABRIEL 56-231-16 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-84 CALENTA LANE 56-231-21 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-85 CALENTA LANE 56-231-22 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-86 CALENTA LANE 56-231-23 ATASCADERO AVE 56-261-87 CALENTA LANE 56-241-03 PORTOLA 56-261-88 CALENTA LANE 56-241-07 PORTOLA 56-261-89 CALENTA LANE 56-241-09 PORTOLA 56-262-01 SANTA ROSA 56-241-10 PORTOLA 56-271-01 SAN RAFAEL 56-241-11 PORTOLA 56-271-10 SAN GABRIEL. 56-241-13 PORTOLA 56-271-11 ATASCADERO AVE 56-241-16 PORTOLA 56-271-13 ATASCADERO AVE 56-241-17 PORTOLA 56-271-20 ATASCADERO AVE 56-241-18 PORTOLA 56-271-21 ATASCADERO AVE 56-242-02 PORTOLA 56-271-25 ATASCADERO AVE 56-242-05 PORTOLA 56-271-26 ATASCADERO AVE 56-242-06 PORTOLA 56-271-28 ATASCADERO AVE 56-242-07 PORTOLA 56-271-30 SAN GABRIEL 56-251-08 ATASCADERO AVE 56-271-31 ATASCADERO AVE 56-251-10 SANTA ROSA 56-271-32 ATASCADERO AVE WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 56-322-10 SANTA ROSA PAGE 40 56-322-11 LAKE VIEW 56-322-16 LAKE VIEW 56-271-33 SAN GABRIEL 56-322-17 LAKE VIEW 56-271-34 SAN GABRIEL 56-322-18 LAKE VIEW 56-271-35 SAN GABRIEL 56-322-19 LAKE VIEW 56-271-36 SAN GABRIEL 56-322-20 LAKE VIEW 56-271-37 ATASCADERO AVE 56-322-23 LAKE VIEW 56-271-38 ATASCADERO AVE 56-322-24 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-271-39 ATASCADERO AVE 56-322-27 SANTA ROSA 56-271-40 ATASCADERO AVE 56-322-28 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-281-04 PORTOLA 56-322-29 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-281-06 MARCHANT 56-322-32 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-281-09 MARCHANT 56-351-11 SAN GABRIEL 56-281-10 MARCHANT 56-351-22 SANTA ROSA 56-281-11 PORTOLA 56-351-24 SAN GABRIEL 56-281-16 PORTOLA 56-351-26 SANTA ROSA 56-281-83 SAN GABRIEL 56-351-27 SANTA ROSA 56-291-01 PORTOLA 56-351-28 SAN GABRIEL 56-291-03 PORTOLA 56-351-29 SAN GABRIEL 56-291-06 PORTOLA 56-351-31 SAN GABRIEL 56-291-07 PORTOLA 56-351-33 SAN GABRIEL 56-291-08 PORTOLA 56-351-34 SAN GABRIEL 56-301-03 SANTA ROSA 56-351-35 SAN GABRIEL 56-301-08 SANTA ROSA 56-351-36 SANTA ROSA 56-301-09 SANTA ROSA 56-351-37 SANTA ROSA 56-301-24 SANTA ROSA 56-351-38 SAN GABRIEL 56-301-30 SANTA ROSA 56-351-39 SAN GABRIEL 56-301-32 SANTA ROSA 56-351-40 SAN GABRIEL 56-301-33 SANTA ROSA 56-351-41 SANTA ROSA 56-301-34 SANTA ROSA 56-351-42 SANTA ROSA 56-301-35 SANTA ROSA 56-351-46 SAN GABRIEL 56-301-37 SANTA ROSA 56-351.-47 SAN GABRIEL 56-311-02 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-351-49 SAN GABRIEL 56-311-10 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-351-50 SAN GABRIEL 56-312-04 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-361-02 SAN RAFAEL 56-312-07 LAKE VIEW 56-361-18 SAN GABRIEL 56-312-08 LAKE VIEW 56-361-21 SAN GABRIEL 56-312-14 LAKE VIEW 56-361-22 SAN GABRIEL 56-312-15 LAKE VIEW 56-361-24 SAN GABRIEL 56-312-16 LAKE VIEW 56-361-25 SAN GABRIEL 56-312-25 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-361-26 SAN GABRIEL 56-312-26 LAKE VIEW 56-361-27 SAN GABRIEL 56-312-27 LAKE VIEW 56-361-28 SAN RAFAEL 56-312-28 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-361-29 SAN RAFAEL 56-312-29 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-361-30 SAN RAFAEL 56-312-30 LAKE VIEW 56-371-23 SAN GABRIEL 56-312-31 LAKE VIEW 56-371-24 SAN GABRIEL 56-312-32 LAKE VIEW 56-371-25 SAN GABRIEL 56-312-33 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-371-26 SAN GABRIEL 56-321-06 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-371-30 SAN GABRIEL 56-321-10 SANTA ROSA 56-371-31 SAN GABRIEL 56-322-01 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-371-37 SAN GABRIEL 56-322-07 MOUNTAIN VIEW 56-371-38 SAN GABRIEL WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A 56-411-14 LOS OSOS PAGE 41 56-411-15 LOS OSOS 56-411-16 TOLOSO 56-381-07 EL CAMINO RL 56-411-17 TOLOSO 56-381-09 CATALPA 56-411-18 TOLOSO 56-381-11 CATALPA 56-411-19 TOLOSO 56-381-13 CATALPA 56-411-20 TOLOSO 56-381-14 CATALPA 56-411-21 CASTENADA 56-381-15 CATALPA 56-411-22 CASTENADA 56-381-16 CATALPA 56-411-23 TOLOSO 56-381-17 CATALPA 56-411-24 TOLOSO 56-381-20 CATALPA 56-411-25 MORRO RD 56-381-24 CATALPA 56-431-01 CARMELITA 56-381-25 CATALPA 56-431-02 CARMELITA 56-381-27 CATALPA 56-431-03 CARMELITA 56-381-29 CATALPA 56-432-01 CARMELITA 56-382-13 WILLOW CT 56-432-02 CARMELITA 56-382-14 WILLOW CT 56-432-03 CARMELITA 56-382-18 WILLOW CT 56-432-04 CARMELITA 56-382-19 CATALPA 56-432-05 CARMELITA 56-382-25 MAPLE 56-451-01 MORRO RD 56-382-26 MAPLE 56-451-02 MORRO RD 56-383-16 MAPLE 56-451-03 MORRO RD 56-383-20 EL CAMINO RL 56-451-04 MORRO RD 56-383-21 EL CAMINO RL 56-451-05 MORRO RD 56-383-23 EL CAMINO RL 56-451-06 MORRO RD 56-383-32 SAN RAFAEL CT 56-451-07 MORRO RD • 56-383-34 SAN RAFAEL CT 56-451-08 MORRO RD 56-391-01 MORRO RD 56-451-09 MORRO RD 56-391-03 MORRO RD 56-451-10 MORRO RD 56-401-02 MORRO RD 56-461-02 SAN DIEGO 56-402-01 TOLOSO 56-461-03 SAN DIEGO 56-402-02 TOLOSO 56-461-04 SAN DIEGO 56-402-03 TOLOSO 56-461-05 SAN DIEGO 56-402-04 TOLOSO 56-461-06 SAN DIEGO 56-402-05 TOLOSO 56-461-07 SAN DIEGO 56-402-06 TOLOSO 56-471-01 TOLOSO 56-402-07 TOLOSO 56-471-02 SAN DIMAS 56-402-08 TOLOSO 56-471-03 SAN DIMAS 56-402-10 SAN DIEGO 56-471-04 SAN DIMAS 56-402-13 TOLOSO 56-471-05 SAN DIMAS 56-402-14 SAN DIEGO 56-471-06 SAN DIMAS 56-402-15 SAN DIEGO 56-471-07 SAN DIMAS 56-411-03 CASTENADA 56-471-08 SAN DIMAS 56-411-04 MORRO RD 56-471-10 SAN DIEGO 56-411-05 CASTENADA 56-471-11 SAN DIEGO 56-411-06 MORRO RD 56-471-12 SAN DIEGO 56-411-07 MORRO RD 56-472-01 TOLOSO 56-411-08 MORRO RD 56-472-02 TOLOSO 56-411-09 MORRO RD 56-472-03 SAN DIMAS 56-411-10 CASTENADA 56-472-04 LOS OSOS 56-411-11 MORRO RD 56-472-05 SAN DIMAS 56-411-12 LOS OSOS 56-481-03 SAN DIMAS 56-411-13 LOS OSOS 56-481-04 LOS OSOS WEED ABATEMENT - EXHIBIT A PAGE 42 56-481-05 LOS OSOS- 56-481-06 SAN DIMAS 56-481-07 SAN DIMAS 56-481-08 LOS OSOS 56-481-09 SAN DIMAS ' 56-481-10 SAN DIMAS 56-491-01 LOS OSOS 56-491-02 LOS OSOS 56-491-03 LOS OSOS 56-491-04 LOS OSOS 56-491-05 SAN RAFAEL 56-491-06 SAN RAFAEL 56-491-07 SAN RAFAEL 56-491-08 SAN RAFAEL 56-491-09 SAN RAFAEL 56-491-10 SAN RAFAEL 56-491-13 SAN RAFAEL 56-491-14 LOS OSOS 56-491-15 LOS OSOS 56-491-16 LOS OSOS 56-491-18 LOS OSOS 56-491-19 LOS OSOS 56-491-20 LOS OSOS 56-491-22 LOS OSOS 56-491-23 LOS OSOS 56-491-24 LOS OSOS 56-491-25 LOS OSOS 56-491-26 LOS OSOS 56-491-27 LOS OSOS 56-491-28 LOS OSOS 56-491-29 LOS OSOS 56-491-30 LOS OSOS 56-491-31 LOS OSOS 56-502-02 LOS OSOS 56-502-03 LOS OSOS 56-502-06 LOS OSOS 56-502-07 LOS OSOS 56-502-08 LOS OSOS 56-502-09 LOS OSOS REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM B-1 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 4/24/90 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir Vt File No: TPM 2-89 SUBJECT: Division of one parcel containing approximately 3 .4 acres into two lots containing 1 . 1 and 2 .3 acres each at 7503 Carmelita - Thomas Bench. BACKGROUND: On April 3, 1990, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the subject matter and on a 3 : 1 vote, denied the request as outlined in the Findings for Denial contained in the attached staff report. There was considerable public testimony and . discussion on the matter as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. Subsequently, on April 4, 1990, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission' s decision for denial . RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Planning Commission' s recommendation to deny Tentative Parcel Map 2-89 . HE :ps Attachments: Applicant' s Appeal Letter - April 4 , 1990 Staff Report - April 3 , 1990 Minutes Excerpt - April 3 , 1990 cc : Thomas Bench w II April 4, 1 P90 lIVED, APR 0 4 t Thomas Bench 7503 Carmelita Ave. Atascadero, Ca. 93422 City of Atascadero 6500 Palma Ave . Atascadero, Ca. c3a22 I am arnegling the decesion which the Planning Commission reached at their April 3rd. meeting regarding ray property split at 7503 Ca.rmelita _Ave. Sincerely, Thomas Bench f 41-- 2.3¢// CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-2 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 3, 1990 BY: Op Steven L. DeCamp, City Planner File No: TPM 02-89 SUBJECT: Division of one (1) parcel containing approximately 3. 4 acres into two (2) lots containing 1 . 1 acres and 2.3 acres. RECOrMENDAT I ON: Staff recommends denial of TPM 02-89 based on the Findings for Denial contained in Exhibit G. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1 . Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thomas Bench 2 . Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Same 3 . Project Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7503 Carmelita 4 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Mod. Density Single Family 5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . . .LS (FH) - Special Recreation w/ Flood Hazard Overlay 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4 acres 7 . Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parcel 1 - SFR Parcel 2 - Vacant 8 . Environmental Status . . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted March 13, 1990 BACKGROUND: The history of subdivision activity on the subject property is lengthy. In 1963, the owner of Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8 in Block UB (see Exhibit F for area map) sold those lots minus a sixty (60) foot wide strip of land at the rear of the lots adjacent to the Creek Reservation. An additional sixty foot wide strip leading from Carmelita Avenue to the Creek Reservation was also retained. At that point, the County of San Luis Obispo determined that the sale of the lots minus the 60' strips of land constituted illegal subdivisions . As a result, the owner of property in question made an irrevocable offer of dedication of the 60' strips for road purposes . When the County was convinced that the strips would not be used for building purposes, violation proceedings were terminated. As an aside, an application to developed within the "dedicated" strips was denied by the County in 1978 . In 1982, Jim Haun applied to the City for a subdivision of the Creek Reservation (#6) in conjunction with the 60 foot strips. That proposal would have resulted in four (4) lots of 3. 44, 1 . 92, 1 . 57, and 1 .50 acres . It was the applicant' s intention to utilize the Creek Reservation to fulfill minimum lot size requirements the 60' strips to provide the buildable areas. Among the issues raised by this proposal were: (1) General Plan Creek Policies; (2) Recreation Easements/Dedication; (3) flood elevations and buildable sites; and (4) need for sewage pumps. The proposal was ultimately continued pending amendment of the City' s General Plan. At that time (1982) , the City' s General Plan contained a policy that required a 50 foot setback for all structures from the banks of Atascadero and Graves Creeks . When applied to the proposed Haun parcel map, this policy rendered the proposed lots undevelopable. The General Plan was amended in 1983 to delete the specific requirement for a 50' setback. This action paved the way for the approval of the Haun subdivision. The original Haun proposal for a four lot subdivision was reduced to a three lot subdivision at the time of tentative approval . A recreation easement along Atascadero Creek for the full length of all three lots was also required as a condition of approval of the map. The Planning Commission indicated that it was their intent to not approve any further division of the property in the future. This stipulation was not made a condition of approval, however. Subsequent attempts to divide "Parcel 1" of the Haun subdivision were submitted in 1985 and 1987 by the current owner. Both of those applications proposed further division of the 3.53 acre parcel into lots of 1 . 06 acres, 1 .23 acres, and 1 .26 acres. These prior maps were disapproved by the Planning Commission because the required Subdivision Map Act findings could not be made. In both cases, the City Council, on appeal, upheld the Commission' s denial of the maps. ANALYSIS: The application currently before the Commission proposes the division of one (1) parcel containing 3 .4 acres into two lots containing 2. 3 acres and 1 . 1 acres . This property is designated "Moderate Density Single Family" on the General Plan map. The subject property is located in the LS (Special Recreation) zoning district with a Flood Hazard Overlay. Single family residences are an allowed use in the LS zone. When such a use is proposed, the minimum lot size is 1 . 0 acre where sewers are available and 2 1 . 5 acres where sewers are not available. Because the parcel proposed for division is located within a sewered area, the 1 . 0 acre minimum lot size is applicable. Reasonable expectations for further development of the subject property are constrained by its location within, and adjacent to, Atascadero Creek. The existing recreation easement across the property (see Exhibit E) restricts future development within the proposed new lot. In addition, the extent of the 100-year flood hazard area (see Exhibit D) severely limits available locations for locating new structures. Combined, these two areas of special concern eliminate most opportunities for development on the new lot. In addition to the physical constraints on development noted above, the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance each contain policies or other provisions which argue against further division of the subject property. "The banks and bed of Atascadero Creek" are included within the " [a] reas of open space available for recreation that shall be preserved. . . " (p 76) . This policy directive is contained within the Public Safety Policy Proposal of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan also • contains the following Creek Policy Proposals which are applicable to Atascadero Creek and the property in question: "Building setback requirements shall be established along the banks of both creeks [Atascadero and Graves Creeks) to insure the uninterrupted natural flow of the streams and ensure access to the recreational use of the creeks. " (p 77) "Land disturbance shall be minimized within at least 50 feet of water courses, except for that maintenance such as brush clearing which shall protect adjacent properties from flood hazards. Other minor exceptions could be made for harvesting sand and gravel and for low intensity recreational uses, such as trails and picnic areas . Channelization of creeks with concrete shall be prohibited. " (p 77-78) "Some areas of the creeks shall be left in their natural state for public enjoyment and to provide a continuing home for the beaver population, as well as the foxes, weasels, coyotes, wildcats and raccoons . " (p 78) Further division and development of the subject property is not in conformance with the above cited General Plan policies. The General Plan policies quoted above do not appear to seek a total prohibition on land use development near creeks . The Plan does, 3 however, strive to limit the locations and densities of new development to protect the resource values of the creeks . Taken together, and in light of existing residential densities, these General Plan policies suggest that the current levels of development adjacent to Atascadero Creek in and around the proposed subdivision should not be exceeded. The purpose of the Special Recreation zone, as stated in the Zoning Ordinance, is as follows: "9-3 . 411 . Purpose: This zone is established to provide suitable locations and standards for the development of recreational facilities on land in private ownership. This zone also provides for residential and agricultural uses where intensive recreational activity may not be appropriate. " This zone does allow for residential development where intensive recreational activities may not be appropriate. Although uses with the intensity of ball diamonds, for example, would not be appropriate on the subject property, the use of the area within the recreation easement for trails, picnic areas or an equestrian staging area have been discussed by the City' s Parks and Recreation Commission. Past experience has shown us that such uses, in proximity to single family residential uses, often lead to conflicts between residents and users of the recreational areas . There is already one dwelling on proposed Parcel 1 which is near the recreation easement . Further division and development of the subject property could lead to the creation of additional potential conflicts. Finally, the Subdivision Ordinance contains provisions that affect the division of the subject property. Section 11-8 .206 (Depth-width relationship) provides that: "Lots with a ratio of depth to width greater than three shall not be permitted unless there is adequate assurance that deep lot subdivision will not occur or that deep lot subdivision and subsequent development will be accomplished without detriment to adjacent properties . " (p 37) The proposed subdivision would result in the creation of a lot that exceeds the 3 : 1 depth to width ratio. The history of subdivision applications for this property shows that deep lot subdivisions were originally proposed in 1985 and again in 1987. The applicant has offered to sell a portion of the new lot to the City which, if accompolished, would eliminate that concern. There is, however, no guarantee at this point that such a sale will take place. If the applicant withdraws his offer to sell, or if the City decides not to purchase the property, future subdivision applications for this site can be anticipated. The only feasible design for such a subdivision would result in the creation of a 4 flag lot or deep lot subdivision. Although the applicant has not specifically requested an exception from Section 11-8 .206, a review of the Findings required in Chapter 11 (Subdivision Exceptions) of the Ordinance was undertaken. In this case, it was not found possible to make each of the required Findings necessary to grant an exception from the imposition of the 3 : 1 depth to width standard. CONCLUSIONS' Further subdivision of the subject property is not in conformance with the General Plan' s policies regarding creek preservation. This site is not physically suitable for either the type or density of development which would follow the subdivision. The open space and resource protection values of the creek and its associated riparian vegetation could be lost, or at a minimum severely impacted by development of additional housing. Such additional development could also conflict with public use and enjoyment of the recreation easement previously obtained by the City. A reasonable level of use of this property has been obtained through construction and occupancy of the existing single family dwelling. Additional development will conflict not only with the General Plan' s policies, but the intent of the Special Recreation zone to protect recreational opportunities as well. Finally, the design of the proposed subdivision conflicts with the criteria contained within the City' s Subdivision Ordinance. In this case, it is not possible to make the Findings required to grant an exception from those design standards. ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A - General Plan Map Exhibit B - Zoning Map Exhibit C - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit D - Flood Hazard Map Exhibit E - Existing Recreation Easement Exhibit F - 1983 Parcel Map (Haun) Exhibit G - Negative Declaration Exhibit H - Findings for Denial 5 IN � • ��� '�,� � � I�' `SII .,� ori. ,� '►� �.! � / ♦ ♦ //y � ♦:�► .�. 1 40 • Vr 449V MAP MR W-IMP 117y' EXHIBIT C CITY OF ATASCADER O TPM 02-89 * M%, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tentative Parcel Map DEPARTMENT M I�� w 4 u i / 7z 1 � •N � t CC OIL EXHIBIT D � ... CITY OF ATASCADERQ TPM 02-89 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Flood Hazard Area DEPARTMENT /0Jv of 4 f p r t v r ,3 4t / • � Q ' 49 J qr y � T ' e w l� ff \ O Y \ � 1 y ` `kit EXHIBIT E CITY OF ATASCADERO TPM 02-89 r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Existing Recreation ,e, DEPARTMENT Easement 13 oky i V y � 1 S / � �l l �c R � EXHIBIT F ` CITY OF ATASCADERO TPM 02-89 ..., . . .. - A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1983 Haun Parcel Map DEPARTMENT AT82-83 otow eeR �isN 400 .56 It it Op Q ` do 7,w,.,e,z w Z N ac71 wr_.r �. ► `V �.rn 1 1 !MY/r.O!s.� r' a.rY.9rv.•, ~I��� - ��� ��W! 1� l• A, ,..,,:� :;;, � ,7ao Rte. ;J♦ ��, ��---- �, ������K a 4D it Z 2 N •n w .o .e: lr ��•--';:;fes � _ : : � � : \ N wz z •_ i it • � • � �', w�•�r-'tea a Z� � a e �w •� 1 � •3/1d 1 � - s�;sus 'R 3 EXHIBIT G CITY OF ATASCADERO agar un 7 ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 461-5035 APPLICANT: Thomas Bench 7503 Carmelita Ave. Atascadero, CA 93422 (805) 461-9009 PROJECT TITLE: Tentative Parcel Map 02-89 PROJECT LOCATION: 7503 Carme l i to Ave. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Division of one (1) lot containing 3. 44 acres into two (2) parcels containing 1. 26 and 1. 18 acres. FINDINGS: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but comulatively considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. DETERMINATION: Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study (made a part hereof by refer- ence and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. AA�'-" �';7_ :�� -- Henry Engel evelopment Director Date Posted: March 13, 1990 Date Adopted: is CDD 11-89 EXHIBIT H - Findings for Denial Tentative Parcel Map 02-89 7503 Carmelita April 3, 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment . The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. MAP FINDINGS: 1 . The proposed map is not consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 2 . The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 3 . The site is not physically suitable for the proposed type of development . 4 . The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development . 5 . The design of the subdivision, and the type of improvements, will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Substantially equivalent alternate easements are not provided. PAGE `OUR MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 4/3/90 MOTION: By Commissioner Highland, seconded by C issioner Waage and carried 6 : 0 to recommen approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26-89 and a Change 14-89 subject to the Findings and Co itions of Approval with the following amendmet 1116 . A handicapped rking stall (as shown on Exhibit F) -i of required. 1117 . The w s are limited to two bedrooms each as sho on the floor plans (Exhibits H and J) . " Commissione ' rasher stated there is a need to address the concept affordable housing. this project does not meet the Brite - a for affordable housing. Chairperson Lochridge declared a break at 8 :30 p.m. ; meeting reconvened at 8 :40 p.m. 2 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2-89 : Application filed by Thomas Bench to divide one parcel Containing approximately 3 .4 acres into two lots Containing 1 . 1 acres and 2 . 3 acres each. Subject site is located at 7503 Carmelita. Commissioners Luna and Highland stepped down from the Commission due to possible conflicts of interest. Steve Decamp presented the staff report and provided a history of subdivision activity on the subject property dating back to 1963 . Staff is recommending denial of the parcel map. Commission questions and discussion followed regarding General Plan Policy and the creation of flag lots if the proposal is approved. Thomas Bench, applicant, spoke in support of the request and elaborated on objections Ile had Concerning various statements contained in the staff report. Mr. Bench clarified that it was not he but the Council who initiated "friendly condemnation" proceedings for acquisition of creekside property ( as referenced in Item B-3 ) . Mr. Bench further stated that the creek does not belong in open space reservation and that it belongs to him and is private property; it can be recreational but the public is not entitled to use it. Mr. Bench then responded to questions from the Commission. Discussion followed relative to where the existing easements are which lead to Mr. Bench' s property. PAGE FIVE MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 4/3/90 Virginia Powers, 7505 Carmelita, read the attached statement noting her objections to the lot split. Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, read the attached statement in objection to the parcel map. David Brown, 7175 Pinal, voiced his objection to the proposal stating the property does not appear suitable for future development as most of the lot is either creek bed or recreational easement. He did not feel it to be in the best interest to develop the property further. Bob Powers, 7505 Carmelita, expressed objections to the lot split stating that there are many owners of property on the creekway. He asked if this proposal is approved, would a precedent be set for others to split their property? (an additional statement is attached. ) Helen Heinz, 7555 Carmelita, read the attached statement explaining her reasons for objecting to the subdivision. Donald Saueressig, 10735 San Marcos Road, asked for clarification concerning property frontages for the proposed parcel . He indicated that given the constraints for meeting the building setbacks for the proposed parcel , there would be little distance between the front of the house and the edge of the creek bank. The building site would require extensive engineering to insure that there would not be structural problems with the house. Mr. Saueressig also added that the only realistic recreational use for the creek would be as a hiking trail and only after a considerable amount of development takes place (clearing brush, etc . ) , and noted that the creek banks have been slowly crumbling each year. 011ie Bishop, 7655 Carmelita, noted her agreement with the previous speakers as she did not feel this development is in the City' s best interests . Mr. Bench addressed various statements made by the previous speakers . He noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission is working to develop a trailway plan and emphasized he is not denying anyone a chance to use the easement . Mr. Bench spoke about the appraisal amount for the recreational lot and stressed that there have been no negotiations regarding the property to date. He requested the assistant City Attorney to review a title report Concerning whether the driveway easement is a community driveway. Donald Sauerissig clarified that his statements were based on . having lived across from the subject property for fifteen years . PAGE SIX MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 4/3/90 Dorothy Bench, applicant, took opposition to Mr. Saueressig' s statements stating that in the five years she has lived there, there has been no crumbling of the banks and has had engineering tests performed to verify this . In responding to Mrs . Heinz ' s earlier comment, Mrs . Bench clarified that the court did not deny the Bench' s case against the City but, in fact, they dropped it. Discussion followed relative to what type of road standards would be required and what easements would be used for the subdivision should the map be approved. Commissioner Hanauer inquired oil whether the existing easement would have to be renegotiated if there were to be additional development. Wendy Stockton, Assistant City Attorney stated this is a civil matter. In addressing Mr. Bench' s previous inquiry concerning the stai:us of the easement, she replied that she could not make a determination due to the legal description on the deed. MOTION: By Commissioner Hanauer and seconded by Commissioner Waage to deny Tentative Parcel Map 2-89 based on the Findings for Denial contained in the staff report. Commissioner Brasher voiced concern that there have been several issues raised (access to property, condition of bank, setbacks , etc . ) which have not been resolved and under the circumstances , she asked if a motion to continue the matter could be substituted for the previous motion. Chairperson Lochr-idge clarified that the motion was based on Findings that could not -be made for approval , and felt it to be a moot point to take the study any further since there was plenty of information available to make the necessary Findings for Denial. Commissioner Waage felt this property should never have been allowed to divide in the first place and to subdivide it further would be a mistake. The motion carried 3 : 1 with Commissioner Brasher dissenting. Commissioner Highland took his seat back on the Commission. PAGE TWELVE / 4e-et thio .iot 4.6 an uneui twl-e bui,f:.'.urr�C .a4te 4ox tw main xertoarca. One xeaaon 44 .die 4r 7hC V4i� OF thzp-' it J-h vV a zmaLe ox disc%. Since nouaea ate built on the J.im #aun wbdi u ons theme hab been ,teta;bvetj4 t ttLe Aazn. In thin ,o ,icrLt'vn == ojZ oun Axmeet, Canmefii a bi a on a xidge. rt .n a hcav y :,airz4a.U the watt t c..a w z: an. t/le .slope w, t zlie czeeh. TAe 4au 4z co l=ctec� arrL: :,zob;4 bna£e and c'vc:.a not, a6aon:i uat" /n ,waceo -'JeAg ase Z=w a b/7.eatz of In /93 :�, za , e -az a ,w4nz;tlo.-,n and the razten uoo „ucafwuz <zourc :jze .in a .:L 42ot' uxde .oAAcrct. /: .;az o vcz ? ar^,.d caa lp doz.n_ t ecu rh Laty the ' a w;6ie z ;zc u,e d.0 :Ju(_u on r= , u;w avid,. Je .71.b{)Ui lwjl_iw e .11JL _��. :'iaa4e be Cou.Ld the oune�t U f TiilL; aity oe,-,; We e 2S%tULL� be Cal '' ' t_oO2ed at Je:oAe a bl1:JG.0 J[.dl„'1n C a ^✓ZCltiu?t . Jit[t L&L-z Z6 at, o!UPL� l =Pl.� Jia� e llJrL G :lave a :7.I1� a.ttze ::1.'11Ju :9�CLB�iR 1J2C✓ZC'.1cS J!L e.ze sa OR _;u_ =,.er-c'_� .-za- Cato :a?lU2e(- 0 n (— UR :hG'2 .:2ew'lUeVzz o1_^ -: c 1�4art^,(.,- '�J.�:i��1(.iR olt 11.a.J: CouncE2 .?17lCz axle ;�o .Co U2 at .�Ley ata noz am;-,piC.z �:Lett '✓ci� aC�z 1,LC UR Jt1.T �'u5,�zuzn .7a:.; :czj..,,e : �i:aJ .0 ir:� T i :.5 ^�` 1.^e 'i -IC-<..•L I he nLe o� :ime tLca .=ve ^.e ;; 'itt to ,Oullugiz6e aru� a Aouae on Lia:. h.ouae ar= , Land. ,'ix. v �.ui de one vprrnnezb� ;:a no a .zi: tti out a ytLvLte7e : erau a one mu w:L aLbo contw-i-ez corc7urti,:lf :zi...i:�s. /n lhu woe, / 4ee—,' tne c=,wf u-,-ibr'toua have the ;u—At to object -o ,f4Z bubc,c.vtzi0n. The 4')'ocUrd bhouLd be xe: ' pecthat t�eve been hued on=- jfox doing .theist ;'ob on -Ao,oe,,L�4 ars.; 1/Le�ne bhvu�2 rroti 4eeL Zz;i.:zadated do .00,.-ce:Qjzq urLLch may not ae ,'he ,u:gntth ww, to do. The peopte o1' Jza6cadewro expect you to do the ni.,At #hung. inary ti=6 L .i.a dL4fL U 4oA .the oomid to .7za/e, decLzLona but a4tea xeaa'ijug the czae agai,nat .Mem .zt arca ce, evident .that what user dzd .in the pant uxza ALAI and / .bee no aea avn �ox them nv t .t o .Hobe the xi:At decL,. ion again. ..LAgz 4-a f ouaewta r'.tarvairu Comms, i*itaa. riLai U 3,1990 PAGE THIRTEEN April 3, 1990 9985 Old Porro Rd. East Atascadero, Ca 93422 Members of the Planning Commission: I have a number of questions regarding the legality of this proposed subdivision. Please consider them wilien making your dc-vision. If this parcel is subdivided the City will be creating flag lots. Certain findings must be made in order to approve flag lots. Let us assume the existing parcel is not a flag lot. By creating a new lot or lots Parcel 1, which is the developed parcel, would turn into a flag lot that would not meet the flag lot requirements. The reason for this is that the Subdivision Ordinance section 11-8.209.D requires that there be a 10 foot building set back along any access way whether easement or lot line. The exisiting structure does not meet this requirement. Although it does meet set back requirements for a standard lot it does not meet them for a flag lot. In addition, Parcel 2, as represented on Tentative Parcel Map 88-307, will also have to be considered a possible flag lot. This will happen if the city allows the creation of a third lot adjacent to Cu-baril. Whether the City purchases the lot or not, it will turn Parcel 2 into an illegal flag lot. The reason for this is the second residence will have access through an easement only. Subdivision Ordinance 11-8.209.E requires that the lot furthest from the street own the accessway in fee. As stated previously it only has an easement which on your map is labeled "Private road. " Now let us assume that the existing parcel is considered a flag lot; then the newly created parcel 2 would also be a flag lot and does not meet the requirement of Subdivision Ordinance 11-8.209.E. As stated previously this requires the lot farthest from the street to own the accessway in fee. At this point I can understand if you are confused. Additionally I am also concerned by the applicant's statement in the Initial Assessment, #2. He plans to "subdivide into 3 residential building lots." The City has first option to purchase Parcel 3 as noted on Tentative Parcel Map 88-307. If this parcel is divided into 3 parcels and the City chooses not to purchase that parcel then will this steep riparian parcel become a developable lot? I support staff's recommendation to deny Tentative Parcel Map 2-10-89 and I support their recommendation that the existing recreational easement meets the General Plan mandate to preserve the banks and beds of the Atascadero Creek. The Recrpation Department's plan is to establish linear parkways along the creek. The City already has a nice walkway or trail in this recreational easement. Staff has done a professional analysis of this proposal and the reasons for denial are well founded. Joan Okeefe PAGE FOURTEEN ,then Le puJCGhaoea/ owc pwrxx t:fjj on Ca wl-i to / agreed to ;;ive up 25' cz~ ,Ae Aca& o;' ou x paopen;t;4 icon an eaaement. Thio easement, / ano told, fmzo root one houoe that mays be vuc and / fwi ve 4 oeGi eyed what / =4 tali. / dict thio ao / avatd have the t&* to use theaixt yam;:t. eneement ea,r v4 mfc nwpe.--t u. Th-4 avu.0 attow me acc ess to the Ae= o mrLz pn pext y and to have mei cganage 4wiV Lhe .zeas o4 the ?ocope4b4n afead orf- mut Canmet Ua. i'iry p w pen:g and rra%uch / vin and pec., taxed on, should Se �on one /ldwe *mi£jt oru: and not :;zewa .::u 3e a st zaet. O;r.:n cane ane p z'r on ea semen: a.'2eJCEr;J� (11...LI-4�-JUja/L1 •LIY�LE��S Jis. (:Cg��.Ob �..OJL �JLe UfnP,i'LO Uj'._ •Jle P_aDP.:1PlLa.. ��l.c. onetime c1LY !!X/�J 't7i te4J on .'a1,er 3I2: yid i:IX7 arw4,a,—. AXL44c on, —Io.i ?, i'L-- .61� r 1:7n co-, !e ana Re. Ta,-L4 .(,O one •iea bon a', / aw :1ftWZi any noire in '..t b a,-Lea. ."wuze :Z2 a•-o^.-C.L2G fo,: a .:'Lim-•aw,C -.ot in o.!Lea to `JILC,:.G + UI `�:..%LO ;'iuV:-_ r::..; «.cx5u:. an ....-..._:2.,�.-. ..Z .7.�`J•ly:.:..^... v'LL:.' � ^�:E:�'�:.:. /�� :LC.O ;1�U7'?e::.1..; 'i�u: C.� �'"�;YOV L'C�' :1L'.,.i .L�. J r �� '2� 1J• ..a'_ J:. J".TLS ' Z,; C-LV.Z—e Z-ZCZi U" v2? �LJI✓ LJ:�:L,) LJlL .JLLRG� �` G'` ✓yiy '.2i OrL tae G:ec"lL� .Ltatyiin...1.c>IL '7iiJ tii v�. %rZe G;LE UlY1L, : .d J llcS aiu: V(� a:t1.Jn JiZUL .. Je : .J 1 1. 1 ^ ' f .t i+ r •1 + >, f / a-,z c.Ulzzuzeaal J,A .,o :Ai clz -'A�., i'ui. r!'U2C'L J •A� U., --. e D ADE JLLL: :U2: .1L..e, .X7Lr'-a -e U a Pot. O;t ZLvc ' eLL w L2 /r- Ae ,°iia; -;o t .ice a ;_ cz� oti i,6 i t -,ue ;a ;ze moat ve L ,+° T;xom .the eu,5emenZ? I Poe �8 m.,Ucte /// oZ the ;itaacac' w .1mJdLvZ,6L-n 0,%cjj zce a�, 7Ae .;of Lest ;icon ;tAe 4&,ce: 4/u oan .the ecce was 4 .in .ee." Can you a c-lai n 2�ati bJ iz necnv? uon POt;p-u, ka P.Cann&zg Comm i.aci on illtq- ,4p%U j, /990 • PAGE FIFTEEN - - M : z7j ..AV i am Ellen Heint 74.live at 7555 Carmelite, Atasoadero. =-== t x . x.+...+179` _ ..-.....,. .. .. ... ... _ �szviss�� iii... Tom Bench is a clever man, he has tried three times with the - _ planning (;ni;r}ril and three tines she citu 'Council to have this lot -- 3Nlit t and in 1988, sued the City of Atascadero, the City - pl;,;crie�s t"a Litu Council. Each time he has been turned down on this lot split, now he has come before you with the same lot split, only this i irne +lr wants the cite to purchase one if the lot-), which a y �A� „j., h_ 1 ?, whi h is an linbui.J:s,:; 1 he a`e his lot �.tt;jfi `i f•!i Dnp of t�1e o f! for ? •i 'Hould be if e+ter, n i c ! r ' -.+ Dolle in f2 city CO�aid split their iiJ1.S j U sell 'r._ iAl!buildable ones to the cite. There is another two acres on �j`j r•_rl� `-i ,1 .,} }!� Mr. Benc;i, to .:r�l l �7 last iiij t:� e i�i.L r r'�i , + U�_ _ J{i lJ l d �h _ itq; bu,, i"�'. .�l . w _lie 1 _�.. +' e the creat' ti a,nk a,-..-4 -r IL' \ FIJI 11\v ,J,. #tli. b .i�S =1e cre,pL, t1_ I '.h1S eserl:ling "I Me i:#an sp,:ce Tong the tree#;" jn Bob Uly said in the Atas. News, March 15th. 11+90. .La#_te "He vents tc viscus 'Y&;ays to keep lots from being developed before the city's s2tba ,! issue is resolved." unquote, and I would say ne;�, lots should NOT be CREATED on the creek before this issue is resolved. The lot Mr. Bench wants to split has a Recreation Easement and a Flood Brea alo;;g the entire lot. The only reason for the city to purchase the lot is for the protection along the banks of this creek as sugested in the General plan of Atescadero. ._ - ..- --- _� �,ti 1rt„bi=rd w9a, >• „� -'a-*p yr x�'�� ,>�e..+:_- ._.. " f. �: As it stands no a . now public the right c'has to walk,,hike ar nde page 1 April 3, 1990 12:28 PM PAGE SIXTEEN S horse an on this easement, because, ft was given.to the city as a _ "T condition wheri:the parcel was originally devfded, so why wouTd the city + need to buy it for the same purpose? I lived on a Wyo. ranch f or forty years_and rode menu horses, l would say ridinn along this creek bank or in-the creek bed %-Yoirld be a challenge to anu horseback rider. In reading the comments made by the members of the Parks and Recreation Dent. there Mia- cons:rlerable doubt that this parcel .,could be 'i' _: _ .ii Alascader{� but at" vote that it `iou d -.- be purchased. it rr;a:: be 3I{�tle ?and t�� may no to ;t,au O ,i.-r, ,n ! - : r fee!i {�i� � Fj Y`t 1 I_�._�} �i {11.] t 1� u k 1:.!'1C1• r u..t _ t: . :t , YU, kt,l7Y�, wha S be:•t •.tt.r .•„;N.�,�et . i 1 1_lte L11.l� ih�:�it to yt Z{lzf., the banks of the i_! }i ._t� �illt I?t�^in4-� •.ttr•� w•3: tre! ti tF•r? t'��`;;� -ancel where :5dd f. on:j hou-sling has to Jr cul! _ n:� ,t ,:, 41�} `i;,rte; j? ?e ;.r-e'i: 8rd i?flw i}?t-? ?1•_i?- ; i? Y11r. r'1r�t?Qn `�j�I'�t�r :� ti r.-.i} •.i::u 1 ulld 5 •-n-� Fni,. pa-+ of the ��.�at�.t grant 31 • par- _. creek. �h cre 1 - mor, 11114 1 r:i n + bank?4; t� trh1J rl G•�k_ ,1l1JI LtU, itr ;l_ on L113 creek. tli�il�''7 . 7t} tt lI1AC. .11F 1.: .+j ..'f' tlti! ;Vl •:a anyone to Jell ur give their idnd to the Citu to protect the creel; banks? Isn't it tnie, the City should NOT create a new building site on the creek bunks? We have deer, racoon, opossum, squirrels, red tailed hawks, and numerous birds where the additional housing would be. These would disappear with division of this property. I am sure these need the park much more than the people of Atascadero need it. I believe as taxpayers we nearly all agree that setbacks are very essential, for the control of any of our building,.and the control of any of t our coma sties To"see the result of no setback, 'we 'can' look at Mr A page 2 April 3, 1990 12:28 PM _ - - PAGE SEVENTEEN _ - - -- . t . Bench's house, it is built over the creek in the back and is only six or sevRn feet from the easement in front. AND, the city gave him the right _ to build that way, but ! would.like to have you, go oyer the building codes, the General Plan, the Zoning ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance, before yo,u cre to another illegal building lot. __- ;jntier dear lot stxndivisinns each lot shot', hi rwa cards as required bu the zoning regulations, including a ten foot setback along any accessway, wh2L1IGt or ,L•t line. ; his I., onl, ::..e of the reasons, the lot Th.� SstQ 1 the pr0)p -� -. itt;11 i .�S rl tl con.nfl lic 'C with the criteria I�� ::LJI n of Illy t J ob�L .:iU J 1YtJiv:+ �Y:�rrr r r 1\J : tr , { 1'i L i :iii i !1 rA cl�iilij-�i�li u�I Lill:+ _h8 _11y'S •uia�'i**tj,...•��•,i3t, _ vrl,.,,. e. _ 4 Ti ce et t have i_ e s it t1 covi dle V J itil T hi�_: iJ�ai i does n0 h��Y 0 b _pl;t .v ��:;.� :li �h,.- parcel h c .v t� h + -11" Yi� '.�riT •'i1 t T%!i 'J 'i^;�ri:. (i i..:A+art"y �1r. �er.'... '���, _�! .1a.. !ny his to+. i.'4�•: -i - -ii Jei�ivy r� .••.vt: 5("j�1�v h tet' _. r.a r•.=r'+_ c"or"d be t{ .y i} t j,i•:i� r•'i�`� _•O1.1 I.'i i-..a•-,01 f l•i e part +j t e u 'a _ 7 _ I'nrn`h�t =0rr i. =#-r tc J in i ',?+fe# to i1,P :i{ _ i uicite .Sha dldn" -A,�nt rY'!~^ :ii..lnit IlY?r Tier property,r.y. utiqV•.e, itiev;ll+ra �liereL'1 GuLiiuii arna t vat t!i$ ,�n111 tiVai+ she ian not t1_ her h(rne ;and t.o her back* yard. Lv�-_r:rt.!r {{, r —, 7 `J .� J is to %7�•1Ulk of drive over easements owned by THREE other property owners. No---she doesn't want the public to use the Recreation +< Easement on her property--unless they buffy it--. In 1988 Mr. Bench sued the city of Ates., the City Planners, and the Cite Council, because they wouldn't split this parcel. The court dismissed the case because--- a reasonable level of use of this property has been obtained through construction and occupancy of the existing + ;. i sIngie fam1ly dwelling page 3 April 3, 1990 12:218 PM REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM: B-2 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 4/24/90 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir:kAt File No: GPCR 90-1 SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report regarding acquisition by the City of certain real property located along Atascadero Creek for Open Space and/or Recreation purposes . BACKGROUND: On April 3 , 1990, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above subject. There was public testimony and discussion on the matter as referenced in the attached minutes excerpt. RECOMMENDATION Per the Planning Commission' s recommendation, that the City Council find that acquisition would not be in conflict with the General Plan but is not compelled by it. HE:ps Attachments : Staff Report- April 3, 1990 Minutes Excerpt - April 3, 1990 cc: Thomas Bench CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-3 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 3, 1990 BY: ,.0 Steven L. Decamp, City Planner File No: GPCR 90-1 SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report regarding the acquisition by the City of certain real property located along Atascadero Creek for Open Space and/or Recreation purposes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission advise the City Council that the existing recreation easement and flood plain regulations meet the General Plan' s mandate to preserve "the banks and bed of Atascadero Creek." Acquisition would not be in conflict with the General Plan but is not compelled by it. BACKGROUND: The California Government Code requires that a city acquire or dispose of real property only after the planning agency of that city has reported on the conformity of the proposed purchase or sale with that city' s adopted general plan (see Exhibit A - Government Code Sec. 65402 (a) ) . A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1 . Proponent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thomas Bench 2. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Ptn. Lt . 1, PM AT82-83 3. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 acres 4 . Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LS (FH) - Special Recreation w/ Flood Hazard Overlay 5 . General Plan Designation. . . . .Mod. Density Single Family 6. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vacant 7 . Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Categorically Exempt - Class 1 (Any future development of the recreation area would be subject to separate CEQA review) B. ANALYSIS: The proponent has offered to sell the City a portion of his property located along Atascadero Creek at Curbaril Avenue (see Exhibit A) . The property offered for sale contains approximately 1 .2 acres. The property is designated "Moderate Density Single Family" on the General Plan Map. The zoning of the property is Special Recreation with a Flood Hazard Overlay (LS (FH) ) . As shown on Exhibit D, a majority of the property offered to the City is located within the 100 year flood hazard area of Atascadero Creek. Approximately 1/3 of the property is covered by a Recreation Easement in favor of the City of Atascadero. The City' s General Plan contains numerous policy references to the need for preservation of open space and recreational opportunities within the City in general and along creeks in particular. One of the primary Open Space Principles contained in the Open Space and Conservation Element states : "Scenic and open space easements, parklands, and open space dedications shall be obtained through the subdivision and development process, including, but not limited to: creek reservation, wooded areas, flood plains, scenic and historic sites and other suitable sites. " (p 69) The Plan' s Preservation Policy Proposals contain the following two relevant statements : "Because water resources are the principal key to the survival of whole plant and wildlife communities, the watershed areas of Atascadero shall be allowed to continue to function without disruption. " (p 70) "Creek reserves shall be retained for park and recreational use. " (p 70) Specific Creek Policy Proposals for Atascadero Creek include the following: "Possible purchase of privately owned portions, or negotiation of easement rights, shall be considered in order to develop the whole area as recreational land. " (p 77) The importance placed on preserving open space by the General Plan, particularly along creeks, is clear from the foregoing policy directives . To this end, the City required the dedication of a Recreation Easement along Atascadero Creek over the subject property when it was subdivided in 1983. Thus, this property may already enjoy all of the protection suggested for it by the General Plan. With regard to the acquisition of real property for recreational 2 purposes, the General Plan lists only three areas: (1) the Chandler Parkland; (2) the Pine Mountain Amphitheater; and (3) the County-owned lots on Atascadero Lake. The Plan includes " [t]he banks and bed of Atascadero Creek" within the " [a] reas of open space available for recreation that shall be preserved. . . " (p 76) . The Plan, however, stops short of suggesting outright purchase of these areas. The City' s Parks and Recreation Commission has discussed the possible acquisition of the subject property. The minutes of their meetings are attached to this report along with a staff report as Exhibits E, F and G. The Parks and Recreation Commission determined that the property could be used for recreational purposes and that purchase would be in conformance with the General Plan and the Draft of the new Recreation Element. That Commission was, however, silent on the issue of priorities for parkland acquisition. The question, therefore, remains how the acquisition of this property ranks versus the acquisition of other property, including property where development plans are imminent that would seriously impact future recreational opportunities . Given the protection that already exists for the subject property through the Recreation Easement, and the City' s Flood Plain Zoning Regulations, purchase of the site does not appear to be compelled by the General Plan. Creek Policy Proposal #1 requires that "Possible purchase of privately owned portions, or negotiation of easement rights, shall be considered. . . " In this case, the acquisition of easement rights has fulfilled the General Plan' s mandate for preservation of the subject portion of Atascadero Creek. CONCLUSION: If an easement did not exist over a significant portion of the subject property, and if the property were more readily developable for purposes that would be potentially incompatible with recreational uses, consideration of outright purchase of the site would be appropriate. There is no General Plan policy that would restrict such a purchase. Therefore, although purchase of the property is not specifically called for by the General Plan, such a purchase would not violate any provisions of the Open Space and Conservation Element. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Government Code Excerpt Exhibit B - General Plan Map Exhibit C - Zoning Map Exhibit D - Detail Map Exhibit E - Parks & Recreation Staff Report Exhibit F - Parks & Rec. Minutes of Jan. 4, 1990 Exhibit G - Parks & Rec. Minutes of Jan. 18, 1990 3 EXHIBIT A ., ` ; CITY OF ATASCADERO GPCR 90-1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Govt. Code Excerpt DEPARTMENT 65402.(a)If a general plan orpart thereof has been adopted,no real property shall be acquired Restrictions on acquisi- by dedication or otherwise for street,square,park or other public purposes,and no real tion and disposal of real property shall be disposed of,no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public property building or structure shall be constructed or authorized,if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition or disposition,such street vacation or abandonment,or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof.The planning agency shall render its report as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof within forty(40)days after the matter was submitted to it,or such longer period of time as may be designated by the • legislative body. i 9 ol�m: Fil�_I • � • � VIII/� ►''vim CITY OF AIASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT W4 �:� , iii`• • EXHIBIT D CITY OF ATAS .,.. : . . �,� CADERO GPCR 90-1 »— COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Detail Map DEPARTMENT y ••�_�,.-,.�a..a�.;=.,�;"t-h�i. .. r. r ,a.. .� +� -- --sem- .. - arm �-k � ,.s'°* ..r�xai:+a r .raw. .. 7 - .•4< ..a.�C,m..d-,. .�,yi '�,.w. � .,cE�.uz-w moi+.+.-/ `�I �f cam.:�.� r- -•� ve+5�a � '� ..� �> f �x`3•$'K.. 'aA'iCi .L',DxY ^+.#e°t��' ..afaa�a'- -�t" '._Y -r-,'F. f' _� _ ._i.w '/���5�..�'w�- F .. .,.an+ :.. ry .*?su y.fm ...xyi "a, t NM_ s_,:.. ..ars � �' ! {. . s✓ 4 - ¢ L MAP '� / ��P ,/ ,•; PAR E 14 rS, t ... - $UGQ�FRR r8' w y 4 000 ».x.w + v-< g a� �•._ as a«�,..+h'��.j�s,•*m ex�`"�. � " �: mss, x ..� r - •. ,:,�. o .p'^ *f"'Y# .xvar �+w� rw `• .ry •p.�TW'g•w.xJ^r Yw .�l... +�'.�' a A X ,•,,, yx', gy i.� � '�, ,: � /1pp`J�oier��'0 y�_./�Q 6 s Y _ .T EXHIBIT E GPCR 90-1 REPORT TO PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: 4-B CITY OF ATASCADERO FROM: Andrew J. Takata, Director Meeting Date: 1/4/90 Parks, Recreation and Zoo Deaartment SUBJECT• PROPOSED PURCHASE OF PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY AT 7503 CARMELITA BACKGROUND• The City Council has requested that the Parks and Recreation Commission determine if the aforementioned property should be purchased for the use of 1 ) mini park ; 2) open space; 3) as part of the Atascadero Creekway Plan (as indicated on the attached map ) , and does it conform with the City ' s Recreation Element . ANALYSIS: The Parks and Recreation Commission is to determine: 1 . If the aforementioned property in conformance with the Recreation Element, which is presently being re-written for review by the Planning Commission. 2. If the aforementioned property should be purchased by the City of Atascadero . Option 1 - Purchase Propertv: Advantages: 1 . Additional land to be utilized in the Creekway Plan which could be used for a picnic area or staging area. Disadvantages: 2. Financial impact from purchasing property. Ootion 2 - Not to Purchase Property: Advantage: 1 . Funds to purchase the aforementioned property could be utilized to purchase other property for recreational uses Disadvantage: 1 . Loss of additional open space land . n �QEpp� . vle? S�I C"i O \ �i�'r'�A•a� Nuc �� :J / r z i c� C t T O hey 441 ij Io It I 71) 1 ; � nrm g �Ta?uX3 / l J j Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes January le 1990 EXHIBIT F :QAD CR 0-1 TEM 4-A - DISCUSSION ON USE OF CITY-OWNED SYCAMORE PROPERTY,_ APN#2B-092-09: Commissioner Mc -Krell arrives to the meeting . The City Council has requested direction rom the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding future us of the Sycamore Road property. The Planning Commission . pre ously recommended the surplus of the property. The prope ty has been appraised at approximately $72,000. Staff' s recommendation is to surpl s the property and dedicate funds from the sale to purcha recreational use properties adjacent to Atascadero Lake Park . An informal survey was sent to residents in the vicinity of the Sycamore Road property as to the future use of the subject property. The survey indi ated disinterest in developing the lot into a mini-park , ith many interested in leaving the property in open space. Commission consensus i that a mini park and related upkeep would be inappropriate wi the density of the area. It was felt that it would be too sma 1 for an equestrian staging area to the Salinas River . Commissioners agreed that if surplussed , an access easement ould be considered across the property. Local residen concluded the lot has been previously used as access to t Salinas River during floods and access is needed . The develop ent of a mini park was not desirable and could attract va rants. There is a desire to retain the property in open spa , and allow pedestrian/equestrian access to the river . A loca resident states that . the City has not been maintaining the operty by mowing , etc . *in the past , and maintenance should be dressed if the City continues to keep the property. MOTION: Commissioner Harris moves to continue this item to the January 18, 1990 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting; Commissioner Mc Krell seconds; Motion carries 5-0 (Commissioner Cooper absent) ITEM 4-B - DISCUSSION ON NEED TO PURCHASE PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY AT 7503 CARMELITA: Chairman Bench steps down from the Park and Recreation Commission due to conflict of interest on this item (property owner ) . Vice Chairman Harris assumes the Chairman position for this item. - The City Council has requested the Commission to review the property for use as a mini park , picnic area, or equestrian staging area, and determine if the property will conform with the Recreation Element for the creekway. It is noted that the property has been appraised recently at $72,000 for recreational use on proposed parcel 3 only. The existing recreation easement will be located on a portion of proposed parcel 2 also. The Planning Commission will later be reviewing this item to determine if it is consistent with the General Plan. Chairman Harris notes that there is no Creekway Plan presently for this area. Though it does conform with the Recreation Element theory, purchase would be premature at this time. Chairman Harris also questions the immediacy for dealing with this proposal at this time. Commissioner Meyer feels this proposal will set a precedent and may encourage other premature sale proposals. Commissioner Meyer agrees that the property does add additional access to the creekway. Commissioner Smart echos that the proposal is premature at this time due to the Recreation Element not being completed . Mr . Bob Powers, Carmelita resident feels the property is not appropriate as a park . Mr. Tom Bench, property owner , states that he presented this proposal to the City Council for consideration. In order to begin friendly condemnation, a need is required to be determined. Commissioners Meyer and Smart agree -that additional review of the existing easement is needed prior to making a recommendation on this item. MOTION: Commissioner Smart recommends to the City Council that the purchase of the property at 7503 Carmelita is in conformance with the Recreation Element, as proposed; Commissioner Mc Krell seconds; Motion carries 4-0 (Chairman Bench abstains due to conflict of interest) (Commissioner Cooper absent) MOTION: Commissioner Mc Krell moves to continue this item • to the January 18, 1990 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting to receive additional input; Commissioner Smart seconds; Motion carries 4-0 (Chairman Bench abstains due to conflict of interest) (Commissioner Cooper absent) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes January .4Y, 1990 �8 EXHIBIT G GPCR 90-1 ,f ITEM 4-A - DISCUSSION ON NEED TO PURCHASE PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY AT 7503 CARMELITA: Due to conflict of interest with this item, Chairman Bench steps down from the Park and Recreation Commission. Commissioner Harris takes the Chairman position. City Attorney Art Montandon states that the City Council previously reviewed Mr . Bench ' s proposal regarding the City obtaining a portion of his parcel for recreational purposes. The City Council then requested the City Manager to meet with Mr . Bench to review the proposed transaction. The Parks and Recreation Commission have been directed by the City Council to determine if the proposed property purchase would be needed for recreational purposes. The City Council will again review this item and make the final determination. Community Development Director Henry Engen reviews the area being considered and delineates the location of the existing recreation easement on the lot and access to easement from the roadway. Mr . Engen clarifies that the property is presently in one parcel with a proposed two and three parcel split being applied for . Mr . Engen states that there is a question as to whether the third lot being proposed would be considered buildable due to the terrain. Regarding to a proposed Curbaril Bridge, it would rank low priority due to the City ' s present bridge replacement program. City Attorney Montandon clarifies that the City Council did not give specific direction as to 'the specific type of recreation use (passive open space or active) the property could provide. Mr . Bob Powers, Carmelita resident , feels the location has poor access and would not be safe for children or elderly. Helen Heins , Carmelita resident , feels area is small , remote, and may be misused for youth parties, etc . Virginia Powers, Carmelita resident , questions the immediate need for. purchase of the proposed lot . Anna Hartig , Carmelita resident , feels that the purchase of the property would be premature at this time, as no creekway use plan exists. The present parcel is primarily in creek preservation zoning which could preclude further splitting of the property. She feels that the City should not consider purchasing additional property at this location at this time because the City already owns a recreational easement across it . 2 Larry Sherwin, Carmelita resident , feels that the City should determine if the property would enhance creekway use and purchase it , if needed , as property prices are increasing . Dorothy Bench states that if Curbaril Road is extended this property would be needed , and feels it would be to the City ' s advantage to purchase it . Joan Keaton, Morro Road resident feels that ownership of the proposed property would be premature without a creekway plan. The property may later not accommodate the plan. Commissioner Meyer questions if the property could be used as an equestrian staging area to access the creekway. Commissioner Smart clarifies that lot 3, if split , would total 1 .2 acres. Chairman Harris questions if other alternate access point may be more appropriate, and feels that a decision at this time is premature. Chairman Harris notes that there are other current recreation projects ongoing that may be more of a priority related to expenditure of funds. City Attorney Montandon clarifies that the City Council has not yet determined if it will purchase the property, but have assessed the alternatives. Commissioner Mc Krell feels this property could conform for recreational purposes , but other locations may be more viable. Motion: Commissioner Smart moves that the proposed acquisition of this property would be in conformance with the City's General Plan and could be used for recreational purposes; Motion carries 5-0 Commissioner Bench returns to the Parks and Recreation Commission as Chairman. ITEM 4-B - DIS'CUSSION ON FUTURE USE OF CITY-OWNED SYCAMORE ROAD PROPERTY, APN#28-092-09: Parks, Recreation and Zoo Director Andrew Takata states that this item was continued frcm January 4, 1990 to allow additional staff/public input . Mr . Takata feels that if the property is to be surplussed , it is recommended to retain a 15-foot easement for Salinas River 3 PAGE SEVEN MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 4/3/90 3 . GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY REPORT : General Plan conformity report regarding the acquisition by the City of certain real proptL�rty located along Atascadero Creek for Open Space and/or Recreation purposes. Legal description of site is a portion of Lot 1 , PM 82-83 (Thomas Bench, proponent) . Commissioner Luna did not resume his seat because of a potential conflict of interest. Mr. DeCamp Presented the staff report noting that acquisition of the property would not be in conflict with the General Plan but is not compelled by it. Commissioner Highland stepped down from the Commission due to a possible conflict of interest. Commission questions and discussion followed. In response to question, Mr. DeCamp explained that a subdivision is not necessary in order for the City to acquire a piece of property. If the City acquires some property, it can be subdivided without going through tiie normal steps mandated by the Subdivision Map Act. He added that a clear distinction needs to be made between the subdivision application and purchase of property as they are independent actions in this case. Commissioner Waage inquired if the property is bought for recreational purposes but, in the future, is not used for that purpose, does the lot become buildable. Mr. DeCamp explained that before the City could sell the property, it would first have to determine that the lot was buildable. He questioned whether or not this particular parcel would be suitable for the construction of a residence. Doug Lewis , area resident, stated he has a deep and long standing committment and interest in the creekway and expressed concern that the community is going to lose one of its last remaining assets (the creek) . ,loan O'Keefe stated that at some time the practicality of purchasing this property should be looked at. The City would not be practicing fiscal integrity to purchase a piece of property where they currently have a recreational easement. she would like to see the money go towards buildable properties that will lead to further erosion of the creek banks . Celia Moss stated she found it difficult to look at purchasing a piece of property when she does not have a whole picture of the City' s budget and the amounts of money that they have for acquisition of land for parks and recreation. PAGE EIGHT MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 4/3/90 Don Saueressig stated the only real recreational use of this property is for a hiking trail. The ultimate best use of creek bottoms is to leave them the way they are without any further development around them which could be achieved through assuring 50 foot setbacks through consistency with zoning and the general plan. Commissioner Waage expressed concern about buying creek land to leave it in open space, and voiced reservations about recommending this particular piece when there are so n.any other pieces of property in more danger than this one. MOTION: By Commissioner Brasher, Seconded by Commissioner Hanauer and carried 4 : 0 to recommend to the Citv Council that the Planning Commission finds that acquisition would not be in conflict with the General Plan but is not compelled by it. Commissioners Highland and Luna took their seats back on the Commission. A-2. Consideration of Findings for Denial of Tentati Parcel Map 19-89 at 7675 Bella Vista - Kelly Gearh t (Sierra Pacific Engineering Commissioner Highland stated that informat ' n has come to light in the past month that was not availab e at the previous hearing which is pertinent to this lot sp' t app'Llc"atlOn. He indicated that he has 'Learned that B- la Vista is a City maintained street from San Marcos to ie edge of the subject property. He added that a re intly approved Council resolution concerning road stan rds applies only to new roads. Because of that, he could lot support the Findings for Denial because part of them ar not pertinent. Commissioner Highland f ther stated it appeared that discussion at the previo s hearing mainly consisted of road improvements for Bella ista but did not so much include the lot split being revi ed on its own merits . Mr. Decamp indic ed that a majority of the discussion did focus on the ro d issue and the merits of the map were not discussed in etail . He explained that Bella Vista was accepted in the County maintained road system in 1955 by resolutioi ut no specific resolution adopting the roads was adopted the City Council at the time of incorporation. He furthe stated that the question of whether or not the road stan rds that were adopted by the City applies only to newly cr- ted roads is still an issue that is being discussed. P lic Works is developing policy language to take to the ouncil to specifically indicate when the road standard will be implemented. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO AGENDA ITEM: B-3 Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 4/24/90 From: Henry Engen, Community Dev. Dir.V$ File No: TPM 26-89 & ZC 8-89 SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to establish a Planned Development Overlay zone (PD7 ) and the corresponding creation of a four lot residential subdivision at 7955 Sinaloa Avenue - Charles Voorhis II (Richard Mitsuoka, agent) . BACKGROUND : On April 3 , 1990, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above request and on a 6:0 vote, unanimously recommended approval of both the parcel map and zone change subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval ( revised Conditions for the map) . There was discussion and public testimony as reflected in the minutes excerpt. RECOMMENDATION: Per the Planning Commission' s motion, approve Tentative Parcel Map 26-89 Change 8-89 as follows: 1 ) Motion to waive reading of zoning ordinance amendment in full and approve by title only; and 2 ) Approval of Ordinance No. 206 on first reading. 3 ) Approve TPM 26-89 subject to the Findings and Revised Conditions of Approval. HE :ps Attachments : Staff Report Dated April 3 , 1990 Revised Conditions of Approval (TPM 26-89) - 4/3/90 Ordinance No. Minutes Excerpt - April 3 , 1990 cc: Charles Voorhis II Richard Mitsuoka CITY OF ATASCADERO Item: B-1 STAFF REPORT FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 3, 1990 BY: Doug Davidson, Senior Planner File No: TPM 26-89/ZC 08-89 SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to establish a Planned Development Overlay zone (PD7) and the corresponding creation of a four lot residential subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26-89 based on the Findings for Approval in Exhibit O and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit P. Likewise, staff recommends approval of Zone Change 14-89 based on the Findings for Approval contained in the Draft Ordinance (Exhibit N) . SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Owner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .Charles Voorhis II 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Richard Mitsuoka 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7955 Sinaloa Ave. 4. General Plan Designation. . . . .High Density Multiple Family 5. Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . .RMF/16 6. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 38 acre 7. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Single family residence 8. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted on March 13, 1990. ANALYSIS: The proposed project is four single family dwellings on what is currently one original Colony lot. With a site area of 0. 38 acres, a maximum of five two-bedroom units could be constructed under the Multiple Family Density standards of the Zoning Ordinance. A project of this size would normally be processed as a Precise Plan application, however, this project proposes the creation of individual small lots. With a minimum lot size of one-half acre in the RMF zones, small lot subdivisions require the establishment of a Planned Development Overlay Zone (PD) . The City has created an generic overlay zone of PD7 for small lot residential subdivisions. Based upon our experience in processing the Bruce Jones project at 7715 Sinaloa Ave. , staff is reviewing this project in a more comprehensive manner. By reviewing the PD Overlay and Parcel Map simultaneously, a piecemeal approch is avoided and the ultimate goal of the application is more easily understood. Since the proposal hinges on the establishment of a PD Overlay, the analysis will start with the Zone Change request. Minimum Lot Size Standards The Zoning Ordinance and General Plan set a minimum lot size of one-half acre in multiple family zones. Residential Policy #6 of the General Plan (Page 57) allows smaller lot sizes "in conjunction with planned residential developments, provided that the overall density within the project is consistent with other density standards contained herein. " As stated above, the proposed density conforms to the density standards of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Twelve (12) two-bedroom units are the maximum allowed per acre on a level to gently sloping lot in the RMF/16 zone. Planned Development Overlay Zone The Zoning Ordinance contains the purpose and required findings for PD zones. The purpose statement (Section 9-3. 641) reads as follows: "The Planned Development Overlay Zone identifies areas where development standards or processing requirements different from those established by the underlying zoning district are deemed necessary to promote orderly and harmonius development and to enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area. " To implement the purpose statement, the following four findings (Section 9-3. 644) must be made: 1. Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonius development. 2. Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 3. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. 4. The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for the requested modifications. The development statements (Exhibits A and B) present a valid argument for allowing smaller lot sizes. Although the lots are small (3, 930 to 4,510 square feet) , the identical project could be approved under a Precise Plan, without the creation of separate lots. Staff agrees with the applicant that the ability to provide small lots for single family home ownership is a benefit to the commuity. One of the fundamental goals of the General Plan (Page 130) is "a desire to encourage residential projects to provide housing units affordable to persons with low and moderate incomes by offering developers either a density bonus or other bonus incentives. " The PD will allow separate ownership of a lot, as opposed to an airspace condominium, where the land outside the building footprint is commonly owned. In this case, the goal of providing more affordable housing and the resulting pride in home ownership cannot be achieved with a minimum lot size of one-half acre. Site Development Standards In addition to meeting the density standards, the project maintains the proper development pattern by complying with the corner lot setback requirements. The required setbacks for a corner lot in this location are 25 feet from Curbaril, 10 feet to the rear (opposite of Curbaril) , 12 ' 6" from Sinaloa Ave. , and 5 feet on the other side. Staff is recommending that these minimum setbacks be provided in the project' s final form, in other words, after the project has complied with the Conditions of Approval. Thus, the front setback from Curbaril for Parcel 3 needs to be 25 feet from the offer of dedication line for the corner rounding. (Note: The proposed porch on Parcel 2 must remain outside the front setback, as well. ) Although the creation of separate lots changes the setback orientation, staff believes the neighborhood character is maintained by the project layout. Again, the project could be reviewed and approved in this identical form under a Precise Plan. The other development standards required by the Zoning Ordinance for Multiple Family zones have been satisfied. The site plan provides 400-500 square feet of private outdoor recreation space per unit, well in excess of the required minimum area of 300 square feet per unit. The floor plan shows more than 100 square feet of storage space per unit, located in the garage, stairwell, and loft. The proposed coverage of the site is 27. 6 percent, or just slightly over half the 50 percent maximum coverage allowed. Single family dwellings require two parking spaces per dwelling. Multiple family zones require provision of guest parking, hence four two-bedroom units require nine parking spaces. One parking space must be covered for each unit. With two-car garages for each dwelling and a total of eleven parking spaces, this project provides more than the required parking. In fact, staff would suggest the relocation of the handicapped parking stall to the guest parking area between the structures on Parcels 1 and 2. One additional guest parking space could possibly be provided, while eliminating a parking stall directly in front of a dwelling unit. Since the Engineering Division identified drainage as a concern in the preliminary review, a drainage plan was submitted as a part of the application. As a result of this review, grading and drainage measures have been required to convey stormwater toward Curbaril and down to E1 Camino Real. By limiting access to Sinaloa Ave. only, the site plan has addressed the other main concern of the Engineering Division. Site access from Curbaril or backing out of the site onto Curbaril, could cause traffic safety problems. The other City agencies had no serious concerns about the proposed development. An upgrade of the existing fire hydrant at Curbaril and Sinaloa Ave. was the only necessary improvement to ensure fire safety. The site ' s level slopes and availability of sewer posed no significant structural concerns to the Building Division. Although the site contains no native trees, a certified arborist has recommended protection measures, particulary for the Siberian Elm to be saved in the center of the driveway. CONCLUSIONS: Staff believes that the proposed project justifies the granting of the PD Overlay, and thus, the creation of four small lots for single family home ownership. By not proposing the maximum number of units, the site is able to accomodate ample yard space and buildable area for each unit. Areas of concern, such as site access and drainage, were identified early in the process and suitable mitigation measures have been incorporated within the project design. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Letter from Applicant Exhibit B - Developer' s Statement Exhibit C - Zoning Map Exhibit D - General Plan Land Use Map Exhibit E - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit F - Site Plan Exhibit G - Grading Plan Exhibit H - Floor Plan (Unit "A") Exhibit I - Elevations (Unit "A") Exhibit J - Floor Plan (Unit "B") . Exhibit K - Elevations (Unit "B") Exhibit L - Arborist' s Report Exhibit M Negative Declaration Exhibit N - Draft Ordinance Exhibit 0 - Findings for Approval (Parcel Map) Exhibit P - Conditions of Approval (Parcel Map) NOV 1 t) 1999 EXHIBIT h TPM 26-89/ZC 14-89 _UPPL_MENTARY ST,3 1E.`1 T EV E-L-OPc.l's With resnect to `Jur n oosed I011r unz t plant? 1 e-veloptyler. az .orn~r Curbar-_ an-- z5inaloa , we be_� •..•� "ia_ lour U,.j_ ,D_annia eV'.iOU;ne n t 5u_:i aS �4e _ . pope r .4c,,ui .._ - -1 ot:,,1(i er-n -4r?d�Cr 3S_==,`.e t is .3:-:.%a I- i o _3ndr-o-i-it -ind 3�_ = ��. _ir aa—�a ''^_Cr= 2_�' _ t L:.n'_ �.- _CS '+fin -a b_'ii.'g -c,nB-:5 tan... ':J _ p—ni,s_'r= _ _.f _ D'?-r Wi. a--7, _ '-i-. _ _ ni_S r ea..iii a 3r ^a -• ^_ ant: _ _ ..h _ EXHIBIT B TPM 26-89/ZC 14-89 S . RICHARD MITSi OKA, ARCHITECT CO �/�y ��G� l���� '�ly A � January 10, 1990 NT City of Atascadero Planning Department Attention: Mr . Douglas Davidson. Associate Planer Dear Mr . Davidson : .E. Developer ' s Statement for Proposed Development at 8805 Curbaril Avenue/7955 Sinaloa Avenue We propose to develop ;he above captioned property under provisions of the "Planned Development Overlay" provision _ _ the Atascadero City Zoning Ordinance Sections 9-3 . 641 - 9-3 . 644) : 1 , Tuve will create four (4) parcels from an existing . 38 acre . RMF 16 zoned lot . The new lots will varyin size from approximately 3 S . F. to 4 . 51.0 S .F. ne newly created parcels will require modification of standard setback requirements for fron- aide and rer yards . More specifically. for Lot 1 we propose the following setbacks : North - 10 ft . min . . east - 5 ft . min . . south - 15 _t . min . , west - 10 n. F � 2 1 V i L :1_ ��r Lot we propose :: North - 5 f t . min . , east - 5 1 t . min . . south ( fronting on Curbaril ) 20 ft . min . . west 5 ft . min. For Lot 3 we propose : North - 5 ft . min . , east 5 ft . min. , south - (fronting on Curbaril ) 20 ft . min. . west - ( fronting on Sinaloa) 10 ft . min. For Lot 4 we propose : north - 10 ft . min. , east - 5 ft . min . , south - 10 ft . min . . west - ( fronting on Sinaloa) 10 ft . min . Actual location of the units on the lots will exceed the setback requirements described above . Due to thecurva- ture of Curbarii , the proposed structures on Lots 2 and 3 will actually be set back 20 feet to 30 feet from the property line : along Sinaloa, the proposed structures on Lots 3 and 4 wil _ actually be "set back" 1" feet and 15 feet (13 feet at chimney projection) . In comparison, if the property were to be developed as a single lot . the allowable setbacks would be : north - 10 ft . min. east 5 ft . min. , south - ( fronting on Curbaril ) 25 ft . min . , and west - ( fronting on Sinaloa) 10 ft . min. City of Atascadero Mr . Douglas Davidson Page 3 January 10 . 1990 -1) Blanket easements will be recorded with the county to allow access and utilities across newly created lots of the subject property . 41) Maintenance agreements will be required to provide for e.-tenses. re i ated to common d.-iveway , l an'd-Ocaping and utility cepa;= replacement . etc . T?ie =�ed pr'' = 'Ct :;f f�U2 l4) 1n;t3 �. GIG'+J tiic aliGwable _ _'Je unit's that are p_ :._ttBi.: by the 1_Mt �15 Z-•iting . Ihe de�..�a:. t.he develoor.nent will ,IIlnimizp the remo``a1Of eXlSting i1ldtUre trees on the property and _eaatUres the -ema;nlnr" trees in a pa2''1-- ii.;a land_--a^.e s;c em -? . The design also minimizes the number 0= v?wayS :'- ,u_r e'_.. 3„1 l V ratr±$ t;:?:Tt 1"1 ._ _.. : Ja a qu. -tr?e} r.3 iher than l an undiv-ide: arterial -Y;-; t- a mUc-; } i -n?Y t:'a_ ilc Ct]i1:. _ vparking paing iii _al.'ag and _+iia _ _ . %arkin area-- >.cee ? `re requirements of tib? PLIF 16 zoning . T OCai flooding azc�rdS W111 b? :;lln'•Il;;� d y constr 1-,r.:w c~ui-b, gut+er , tiT.reeT ?caving and dra.na'_`s Cevlces to Convey away pY l Jrwt.'' anQ l is to e; _lit'_; curb and jut t�r on Curbari 1 nYar El Camino Real . The creation of four (4) p a r c e 1 s will al ?ow for :,ale of individual units w th land as opposed to airspace condominium units . pct?nt.7a'I buyers prefer to "own the _and" and finan!cial institutions are c—,.irrently reluctant to lend on airspace condominium units in this area . Individual ownership will result in better upkeep of the units as opposed to an apartment building or airspace condominium units . The architecture of the units can be described as updated country/traditional , featuring wood siding and trim with shingle accents, dormer windows , wi City of Atascadero Mr . Douglas Davidson Page 3 Jc:. _ary 10 . 1990 We believe that this development will be a desirable place to live, enhancing the neighborhood by its design and to the best of our knowledge and ability, will not have unmitigated adverse impacts . Respectfully submitted, i Owner/Developer i S . Richard Mitsuoka , i 935 Riverside Avenue , Suite 18, Paso Robles , CA 93446 EXHIBIT ., CITY OF ATASCADERO ZONING MAP TPM 26_89/ZC 14_89 r µ� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1 jr; r t K = — t 1 log+: RM F �%. R S F•Z OR roft OMF•40 AV • � Ts,�� I f ,.;, ate-- _ . PS FL "r� e L ,Y Vim•, � ,�, � �zt R � CT + DEno i \ _ , ; s • t� 1 EXHIBIT D Igloo ' CITY OF ATASCADERO GENERAL PLAN rzAP 1, N - , .9797 TPM 26-89/ZC 14-89 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . qp �• PUBLIC • Ii , E r_ S •• •, • RECREATION ITE iom* M�fAI!A14Y-, LOW • •��� i 7777 a �� - DENSITY MULTIFAMILY i#�AVY �' DSI~? �It Z k .S I , �4 fFA*I LYEN S1 o M OE. • • RDtkSIT {{ s •. • • ' COMM �bL •t • °� /j C 0 M.,� SING L�\\,FA to I' Ay COM. �r K 1, MDUS - = Nt Y �kRK_ a ( R1E A L F � - COM. -41 .�? EXHIBIT E CITY OF ATASCADERO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP �. TPM 26-89/ZC 14-89 COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Lo;,' _74 9 \ ipoa f rl • /• I _ .� i of ( �E i � " k•t 1 I i R i s 1 mar-----�— .� ul h EXHIBIT F CITY OF ATASCADERO SITE PLAN y. _ TPM 26-89/ZC 14-89 ` *��» COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT W� ; • I` F F leg g F � �' a� FF € 6 4V Il ill H ? r� t f a11 . 111 t --- f i , � i/i V a — ,? � i 2' �"I if v 'PREUMiNARY• ! SITE PLAN Q"a" .n•«.s 4 - UNIT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CHARLES VOORwS u s.xr....Mu... EXHIBIT G CITY OF ATASCADERO GRADING PLAN TPM 26-89/ZC 14-89 —�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT a I • i I � J I I 1 ! 1 ' I I I rrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rrrr a ,I q h 1 � I' i •� T � � � I rn I 61 h S I I ,I I6I' I 1i 611 h I � it � �►�' � t 61 r I 1 I l r I '� ...� �G 5 f- p•e 1' EXHIBIT H ���.. CITY OF Alk'---'C ADEZO FLOOR PLAN - UNIT "A" T, 1 E , -- r n TPM 26-89/ZC 14-89 co��r.,ru.rr � t �� f� �o� �tir��vl �..:. DtPART��rcvr mc STAR STAR LOFT/PE-MEAT I — '----- MASTER SEDMM ; ..- w• f S' BEDROOM 2 MA ST CATH H '.�.,r,. x• � ' � ;40 SO.R SECOND FLOOR PLAN f Z I QQW � O c° J - TS ORAGF- j � <n D LIVMG , ¢ O I x:y,d✓t LL! "— Z I GARAGE I - , HA u° I C a --lL- CLQ a cwi �1 4 u- 9u —{ v ( �PORCHtOTCHEN ,4T 'C ; DINMS/FAMILY 1 � i AREA TABULATIONS ------ ---- a6JAFi •'•"'• 1 ST FLOOR wR SAT "^ aV FUM b SFS LODIL GAAAW 47D SCR .� PST =LOOR PLAN EXHIBIT I CITY OF ATS.•r . T� n ��• • • - `-="�l-/�l\O ELEVATIONS - UNIT "A" etc :14 ��,tz cw_ „• ` CO��I.LIUNITY Dc '�ELOP-�Ic.VT TPM 26-89/ZC 14-89 DCPARTitiiEVT tii �.rn.w•a..e�.s-..n I ME EEE In +seuiav,f�•sd q CD�� LEFT SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION w tn a Zo O J w ~ w o W �� r—m.+w+•++see I 9 Z W a ZZ •� Til I. P'--�F_i ����__ � —^.eacvv ter✓ ��� a � I�V.��:���!y'•_��T����–��j���'"rt}. • ao.s +.+r �� mss"^ ziGHT SIDE ELEVATION. �=AR ELEVATION w I { i EXHIBIT i CITY ._OF A ,V__-CADERO FLOOR PLAN - UNIT "B" _ CO,1 ,111 NITY 0EEL0P.VfE:VT TPM 26-89/ZC 14-89 U `✓ DEPARTAIE VT 7� fyi UA R BATHH �MLIc IN 1 r-777, - ` CLOSET - ;" S -+ALL • ON I x. at. • n .2 MASTER BEDRWM :? i ' LOFTJRETREATi TAIR >zs sasx i CS SECOND FLOOR PLAN s,td F- 2 n a f� O PATIO: Lu > uJ -- Z -- Q — Z� p —:KITCHENLLI I DINWGJFAMIIY wro. Z i'•D'.mai iLOCARON' Z 33 ----HALL I A Z <� Z \j - ,ENTRY! J �<�+ 1 bi UTI TYr — ZN PORCH \\ LfM � - .�.... AREA TABULATIONS ------ - ._----- - ;02 so FT ...,. :57 ROOK :02 Sc F! 27O FLOOR 'S5 50 Fc fist -OTAL :357 SOFT .�• .. 51. f 502 SQFT 4 --7Cr ;LOCR a_-NN 11JE HIBIT I; ���/. CITY OF AT�.�CA EVATIONS - UNIT "B" ►�� DERO CO�� MLI[T Y D E. T/L- 0 ": N- DZ 26-89/ZC 14-89 V ✓V v 1 DEPARTMENT t . i I t vuwr owls«rwe roes-� - Vii; � G y � N > > 1aia000�aMaMIL• � N J ro *�� �}� ~- las► Q+Q r--•-- 0� �--f.wsvmn- - fw+ F- z W 6n a Q J WW a vn.�rt r JW W a LAJ LZ • r=—± �.� r—� t. weo+ate.-e.n � ._ 3 j I I i EXHIBIT L AMERICAN SOCIETY,"OF'C©k' ULTING ARBORISTS -�r CA , T 1�!t �, . , .,, JL4•..►.. ' .. .. CASE LOCATION 8805 Curbaril Avenue CITY Atascadero OWNER NAME Charles Voorhis ADDRESS 935 Riverside, Suite #18 CIT`( Paso Robles, CA 93446 P.O. ox M4 Paso Robles, CA 93447 RES. PHONE ( ) BUS. PHONE ( 805 ) 239-7970 238-4711 AGENT NAME S. Richard Nitsuoka ADDRESS 935 Riverside Suite #18 CITY Paso Robles. CA 93446 RES. PHONE ( ) BUS. PHONE ( ) DAMAGE or ACCIDENT DATE TYPE OF DAMAGE INSPECTION DATE WEATHER TEMP. D. 0. Denney Certified Arborist: 391 P.O. Box 3090 Paso Robles, CA 93447 ['11 0 Consultation on the care, safety and protection of the trees located on this construction site. Prune nine (9) trees and cut down two (2) elm trees. NO. SIZE SPECIES CONDITION RECOMMENDATION 1 . 20" Monterey pine good crown thinning (Pinus radiata) 2. 5" Siberian elm (Ulmus parafolia) 3. 18" Siberian elm good a driveway will be constructed (Ulmus parafolia) around this tree. Pre-cast concrete/pave over permeable sand 4. 15" Siberian elm fair remove for construction site (Ulmus parafolia) 5. 18" Siberian elm good crown thinning (Ulmus parafolia) 6. 4" Siberian elm good crown thinning 7• 4" Siberian elm dead remove 8. 10" Siberian elm fair crown thinning (private tree) M1 j- t' ice: , j�, lI • r�� M .. .� i• � ..✓v+ moi. r�.cr�`��•;�• �'jn•^,:" �to , � i Lw?r. •! `�� ir-. •-at 3 ,♦ '� ,rtk, � p^ 11W�i.l _ 4!�...ash• . �T � � , Imo+-yip'^ �� e•y � ��7.*v 3 - - #{ : 4. ��,='���v u _r ,r f;.,', +� *r •-4,,,;.,a�.Lei 'j�,j .r• 1 k ♦ ./ r '•..' " .r ,fir.. -�. +t�` 31.E �• f. y ' a't, ,a a s�Y /' Nair, slide TREE PRO1ECiION PLAN III flan';I. r a;ns whin bu i 1 f1 i ng, we chanyr, the complete nr►v i rornnen t around a tree. 11. ';rIry Ivnd very we l in it's natural si.ato. We sever its roots which are nr,ml& im- arichorage and absorption of water and nutrients . We rave and compact Lho soil around them, hindering the oxygen and water supply to tine roots. Yes, you purchase the property because of the beautiful tree scape only to witness many of your trees declining soon after or even some .years after you have built your hnmo. Who is to blame? Did the Architect, City Planner, the Arborist, Contractor add to the demise of the tree? His your building plan condusive to the impact on the trees on your property? Your City or County Planner have codes and regulations to follow and public pressure i.o preserve and protect your trees. Even Lrees that are in excellent health sometimes cannot tolerate the transition from natural (growing in a desirable natural condition) to semi-natural (sever Lh9 roots , compact the soil and build within the dripline) to the unnatural (paved all My way around the trees causing disturbances in air and water exchanges in soil and many other changes ). ilniiy rhanyps can take place in the soil during construction. Physical changes may have effecLs on aeration and moisture. Changes in grade, new paving, trenching, soil cnmpacLion, can all affect the soils ability to support life. AlmnQ all building and landscape development will involve some grading and exca- va t i r)n. i lre consequences of these changes can sometimes be detrimental to trees. 5-11 = al.ion is a critical factor. Roots must receive adequate oxygen. frees can also sniffer from moisture related problems , either not enough or too much. i1,1w 1ha1, you rare aware that trees are sensitive living things , and we all must put mansurns into effect that will protect them. Prater:L i ve measure needs to be applied : Yes ilo During construction, trees on the property outside the immediate construction zone will be barricades) off with bright color flagging. ih parking, storage of materials and dumping of excavated or building material will be permitted. r� irees within 10 feet. of the construction zone will be protected by installing—a light colored protective fence (temporary) around the drip line area of the trees. Trees within 6 feet of construction zone will have their trunks barricaded to miirimize damage caused by construction equipment. No parking of equipment., storage of equipment, disposing of gasoline, taint, thinner or anyother foreign material will be permitted in and around this property unless so noted in report. Ir-P_(3 Protection Plan cont'd. Page 2 Y„; fig, Irenching ror utilities is r-equired. Urie will run feet from base of tree. Hand (Jig ar►d tunnel under or above major anchorage roots. if a major root is encountered in direct line of utility, a Certified Arborist will be consulted before severing it. _ No grade changes will be made around the tree unless (1 ) a protec- tive measure is applies , (2) and it is so rioted in the Certified Arborist report. Factors have been used to determine the tree condition before con- struction begins . this report Inas been reviewed by all people involved in this pro- ject. Diligent care will be applied to protect the trees. .PES OF PRUNING - MMURE TREES A. Crown Cleaning Crown cleaning or cleaning out is the removal of dead, dying. diseased, crowded, weakly attached, and low-vigor branches and watersprouts from a tree crown. B. Crown Thinning Crown thinning includes crown cleaning and the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration and air movement into the crown. Increased light arid air stimulates and maintains interior foliage, which in turn improves branch taper and strength. Thinning reduces the wind-sail effect of the crown arid the weight of heavy limbs. Thinning the crown can emphasize the structural beauty of trunk and branches as well as improve the growth of plants beneath the tree by increasing light penetration. When thinning the crown of mature trees, seldom should more than one-third of the live foliage be removed. At least one-half of the foliage should be on branches that arise in the lower two-thirds of the trees. Likewise, when thinning laterals from a limb, an effort should be made to retain inner lateral branches and leave the same distribution of foliage along the branch. Trees and branches so pruned will have stress more evenly distributed throughout the tree or along a branch. An effect known as "lion's-tailing" results from pruning out the inside lateral branches. Lion' s-tailing, by removing all the inner foliage, dis- places the weight to the ends of the branches and may result in sunburned branches, watersprouts, weakened branch structure and limb breakage. C. Crown Reduction Crown reduction is used to reduce the height and/or spread of a tree. Thinning cuts are most effective in maintaining the structural integrity arid natural form of a tree and in delaying the time when it will need to be pruned again. The lateral to which a branch or trunk is cut should be at least one-half the diameter of the cut being made. U. Crown Restoration Crown restoration can improve the structure and appearance of trees that have been topped or severely pruned using heading cuts. One to three sprouts on main branch stubs should be selected to reform a more natural appearing crown. A vigorous selected sprout may need to be thinned to a lateral , or even headed, to control length growth in order to ensure adequate attachment for the size of the sprout. Restoration may require several prunings over a number of years. EXHIBIT M CITY OF ATASCADERO *71 ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR a NEGATIVE DECLARATION* COMMU=DEVELOPMENT DEFT. 6500 PALMA AVE. ATASCADERO, CA 93422 (805) 461-5035 APPLICANT: C-4A-R L E S i1 oD R 1-41 S R tC 4 A K D M r t" -S c1 J/( A 935 Riu,_ i� S1J' E U'- l$ PASO ROBLE S GIq PROJECT TITLE: TF_N-r/4 T i U F_ N^Ez L E L AA,4 1- Z(a. — ACIVE C*A Al(—E PROJECT LOCATION: 19 S s 5 r ri/A L o A AU E . 1q-91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: R E q u c s T TV E S r4 8 L r s #4 A P`A IJ N E D DrUEL0i'A41Z1VT 0V6KL/Ay ZCNE C Po) ro 4LLC vV C: RrA t/ 0/V OF -4 SMALL LOT 5J $ JiV (S1Ut11, FINDINGS: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. . 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but comulatively considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. DETERNIINATION: Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study (made a part hereof by refer- ence and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. �k� 2:_� Henry Eng n Community Development Director Date Posted: MARCH 13, 1990 Date Adopted: CDD I1-BS EXHIBIT N DRAFT ORDINANCE TPM 26-89/ZC 14-89 ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 17 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT 7955 SINALOA FROM RMF/16 TO RMF/16 (PD7) (ZC 14-89: Voorhis/Volbrecht Surveys) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendments are consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 3, 1990 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 14-89. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use element. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 4. Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonius development. 5. Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 6. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development standards or processing requirements. Ordinance No. 7. The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Section 2. Zoning Map. Map number 17 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify the parcels listed below and as shown on the attached Exhibit A which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Lot 32 of Block HA; Atascadero Colony Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12: 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor City of Atascadero, California ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, Acting City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director • EXHIBIT A CITY OF A. A S �• I •• • • ;y C AD ERO ORDINANCE NO. Fop Iy "rtes RSF•Z i 1 f AVC \ ' �OR ` DrCI1fIt 7 .� Cfvt� P§ T coollk IS ,oa4 CT Mt �� r � � ► • E�/G i � ; s EXHIBIT O - Findings for Approval Tentative Parcel Map 26-89 7955 Sinaloa Ave. (Voorhis/Volbrecht Surveys) April 3, 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING: The proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. MAP FINDINGS: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 2. The design and/or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable General or Specific Plan. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision, and/or the proposed improvements, will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, and the type of the improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or the use of property within the proposed subdivision; or substantially equivalent alternate easements are provided. 7. The design of the subdivision and/or the type of proposed improvements will not cause serious public health problems. EXHIBIT P - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 26-89 7955 Sinaloa Ave. (Voorhis/Volbrecht Surveys) April 3, 1990 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Co. Water lines shall be extended to the frontage of each parcel prior to the recording of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer at his sole expense. 3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to recording of the final map. If any drainage is directed to the north, a comprehensive off-site drainage plan is required for Sinaloa Ave. and Pueblo Ave. The minimum slope along the gutter shall be . 50 percent. Drainage facilities shall be constructed to City of Atascadero standards and completed prior to recording of the final map. 4. Road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Engineering Division prior to recordation of the final map. Plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Sinaloa Ave. : Design shall conform to the road improvement design being prepared by Cuesta Engineering in connection with the proposed development at 7715 Sinaloa Ave. (Precise Plan 87-89 - Jones) . Plans shall include a minimum paved section of 15 feet from centerline of the right-of-way to face of curb with City standard curb, gutter, and five (5) foot sidewalk. b. Curbaril: Design shall conform to the existing road improvements at the corner of Curbaril and E1 Camino Real. Plans shall include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and additional paveout. A cross gutter shall be constructed across the intersection of Sinaloa Ave. and Curbaril to the existing curb west of the project. 5. Construction of the public improvements shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map. 6. All public improvements shall be covered with a 100 percent Performance Bond and a 100 percent Labor and Material Bond until construction is accepted and by a 10 percent Maintenance Bond until one year after construction approval. 7. Public improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department prior to recording the final map. These shall include the fire hydrant upgrade at the corner of Curbaril and Sinaloa Ave. and the maintenance of 13' 6" vertical clearance around the Siberian Elm tree in the driveway. 8. Sewer improvement plans shall require approval from the Public Works Department prior to recording of the final map. All newly created lots shall be connected to public sewer. All annexation fees in effect at the time of recordation shall be paid for the newly formed lots prior to recording the map. 9. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for all work to be done within the public right-of-way prior to recording of the final map. Applicant shall sign an inspection agreement, guaranteeing that the work shall be done and inspections paid for, prior to the start of public works construction. The construction of these improvements, as directed by the encroachment permit, shall be completed prior to recording the final map. 10. Parcels 2 shall have no direct access to Curbaril Ave. , while Parcel 4 shall have no direct access to Sinaloa Ave. Access to the lots (with the exception of Parcel 3) shall be from the common access easement. Relinquishment of access rights shall be shown on the final map. No parking is permitted along either street frontage. 11. An access and utility easement shall be recorded prior to the recording of the final map. 12. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed. A note to this affect shall appear on the final map. 13. The applicant shall make the following offers of dedication to the City: a. 25 feet from centerline of right-of-way to property line along Curbaril Ave. A minimum 20 feet radius corner rounding at property line is also required. b. 20 feet from centerline of right-of-way to property line along Sinaloa Ave. C. The offers of dedication shall also include public utility easements. d. All offers of dedication shall be recorded prior to or simultaneous to the recordation of the final map. 14. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyor' s Act and the Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within any road right-of-way shall conform to City standard M-1. b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the engineer or surveyor shall notify the City Engineer in writing that the monuments have been set. c. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 15. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. .EXHIBIT P - Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 26-89 7955 Sinaloa Ave. (Voorhis/Volbrecht Surveys) Revised by the Planning Commission (April 3, 1990) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Water shall be obtained from the Atascadero Mutual Water Co. Water lines shall be extended to the frontage of each parcel prior to the recording of the final map. 2. All existing and proposed utility, pipeline, open space, or other easements are to be shown on the final map. If there are building or other restrictions related to the easements, they shall be noted on the final map. All relocation and/or alteration of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the developer at his sole expense. 3. Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to recording of the final map. If any drainage is directed to the north, a comprehensive off-site drainage plan is required for Sinaloa Ave. and Pueblo Ave. The minimum slope along the gutter shall be .50 percent. Drainage facilities shall be constructed to City of Atascadero standards and completed prior to recording of the final map. 4. Road improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, scall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Engineering Division prior to recordation of the final map. Plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Sinaloa Ave. : Design shall conform to the road improvement design being prepared by Cuesta Engineering in connection with the proposed development at 7715 Sinaloa Ave. (Precise Plan 87-89 - Jones) . Plans shall include a minimum paved section of 15 feet from centerline of the right-of-way to face of curb with City standard curb, gutter, and five (5) foot sidewalk. b. Curbaril: Design shall conform to the existing road improvements at the corner of Curbaril and E1 Camino Real. Plans shall include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and additional paveout. A cross gutter shall be constructed across the intersection of Sinaloa Ave. and Curbaril to the existing curb west of the project. 5. Construction of the public improvements shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map. 6. All public improvements shall be covered with a 100 percent Performance Bond and a 100 percent Labor and Material Bond until construction is accepted and by a 10 percent Maintenance Bond until one year after construction approval. 7. Public improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department prior to recording the final map. These shall include the fire hydrant upgrade at the corner of Curbaril and Sinaloa Ave. and the maintenance of 13 ' 6" vertical clearance around the Siberian Elm tree in the driveway. 8. Sewer improvement plans scall require approval from the Public Works Department prior to recording of the final map. All newly created lots shall be connected to public sewer. All annexation fees in effect at the time of recordation shall be paid for the newly formed lots prior to recording the map. 9. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for all work to be done within the public right-of-way prior to recording of the final map. Applicant shall sign an inspection agreement, guaranteeing that the work shall be done and inspections paid for, prior to the start of public works construction. The construction of these improvements , as directed by the encroachment permit, shall be completed prior to recording the final map. 10. Parcels 2 shall have no direct access to Curbaril Ave. , while Parcel 4 shall have no direct access to Sinaloa Ave. Access to the lots (with the exception of Parcel 3) shall be from the common access easement. Relinquishment of access rights shall be shown on the final map. No parking is permitted along either street frontage. 11. An access and utility easement shall be recorded prior to the recording of the final map. 12. A road maintenance agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the deed to each parcel at the time it is first conveyed. A note to this affect shall appear on the final map. 13. The applicant shall make the following offers of dedication to the City: a. 25 feet from centerline of right-of-way to property line along Curbaril Ave. A minimum 20 feet radius corner rounding at property line is also required. b. 20 feet from centerline of right-of-way to property line along Sinaloa Ave. C. The offers of dedication shall also include public utility easements. d. All offers of dedication shall be recorded prior to or simultaneous to the recordation of the final map. 14. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and compliance with all conditions set forth herein shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Lot Division Ordinance prior to recordation. a. Monuments shall be set at all new property corners created by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as required by the Land Surveyor' s Act and the Subdivision Map Act. Monuments set within any road right-of-way shall conform to City standard M-1. b. Pursuant to Section 66497 of the Subdivision Map Act the engineer or surveyor shall notify the City Engineer in writing that the monuments have been set. C. A recently updated preliminary title report shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. d. A preliminary subdivision guarantee shall be submitted for review in conjunction with the processing of the final map. 15. Approval of this tentative map shall expire two years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request prior to the expiration date. 16. A handicapped parking stall (as shown on Exhibit F) is not required. 17. The units are limited to two bedrooms each as shown on the floor plans (Exhibits H and J) . ORDINANCE NO. 206 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO AMENDING MAP 17 OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS BY REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT 7955 SINALOA FROM RMF/16 TO RMF/16 (PD7) (ZC 14-89: Voorhis/Volbrecht Surveys) WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map amendments are consistent with the General Plan as required by Section 65860 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with Section 65800 et seq. of the California Government Code concerning zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Atascadero Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 3, 1990 and has recommended approval of Zone Change 14-89. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Atascadero does ordain as follows: Section 1. Council Findings. 1. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. 2. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan land use element. 3. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental P g n al im acts. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is adequate. 4. Modification of development standards or processing requirements is warranted to promote orderly and harmonius development. 5. Modification of development standards or processing requirements will enhance the opportunity to best utilize special characteristics of an area and will have a beneficial effect on the area. 6. Benefits derived from the overlay zone cannot be reasonably achieved through existing development • standards or processing requirements. Ordinance No. 206 7. The proposed plans offer certain redeeming features to compensate for requested modifications. Section 2. Zoning Map. Map number 17 of the Official Zoning Maps of the City of Atascadero on file in the City Community Development Department is hereby amended to reclassify the parcels listed below and as shown on the attached Exhibit A which is hereby made a part of this ordinance by reference. Lot 32 of Block HA; Atascadero Colony Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this certification together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12: 01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage. On motion by and seconded by the foregoing Ordinance is approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE ADOPTED: By: ROLLIN DEXTER, Mayor City of Atascadero, California s ORDINANCE NO. 206 ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, Acting City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: RAY WINDSOR, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHER MONTANDON, City Attorney PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGEN, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A CITY OF Alk' t. N I •� �.y CADERO ORDINANCE O. 206 _s^s oil! .T.— �,� c `- CO��I. lUNIT'! DEVELOPMENT D E P A R L M E N T • ;ter,: - SONOH �. �1 ♦Q !ILL �; --- — ��• RF•Z j In , I � f C j TSiN T ate+--1A a. < eye sFa a�f� �_ F• j ;o X04 Isr Lop Z R // ;,6� / 1 � / ; • E�/L P 6 Y 6 \ t PAGE TWO MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 4/3/90 B. HEARINGS, APPEARANCES AND REPORTS 1 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26-89/ZONE CHANGE 8-89 : Application filed by Charles Voorhis II (Richard Mitsuoka, agent) to establish a Planned Development Overlay zone (PD7 ) and the corresponding creation of a four lot residential subdivision. Subject site is located at 7955 Sinaloa Avenue. Doug Davidson presented the staff report on this request. Staff is recommending approval of the parcel map and zone change as reflected in the proposed conditions and draft ordinance. Mr. Davidson suggested an additional sentence at the end of Condition ##13a to read: "The required 25 front setback shall be maintained along Curbaril Avenue. " Commission questions and discussion followed. In response to question from Commissioner Luna, Mr. Davidson explained the intent of 13a is to establish the required 25 foot setback for the structures and does not include a yard maintenance requirement. . Commissioner Luna inquired when the condo conversion report would be readv for review. and expressed concern that this proposed planned unit development �as well as other similar developments are really not affordable housing for lower and middle income families . He also expressed concern that the older (more affordable) existing dwelling on the lot is being removed to accommodate 4 unser income units and asked if there was a way the City could prevail upon a developer to reduce the anemities to bring the price down. Discussion followed regarding these units being a more affordable alternative than many of the lot splits creating new home sites . Richard Mitsuoka, representing the applicant, showed a colored rendering of the site plan and spoke in support of the request. He objected to the 25 foot setback on Curbaril stating there is an existing elm tree in the middle of the proposed driveway which the applicant is desirous of maintaining. He asked that they be allowed an extra 2 to 3 feet into the setback. He explained the encroachment would not be used for floor area but for a covered porch or overhang area. Mr. Mitsuoka requested that the extra parking proposed be allowed. He then responded to questions from the Commission. Charles Voorhis, applicant, explained it is his intent to develop the project in a manner such that the units could be sold in a range lower than what is currently available for single family dwellings . PAGE THREE MINUTES EXCERPT - PLANNING COMMISSION - 4/3190 . Commissioner Brasher stated she would like to see some genuinely affordable housing that a senior citizen could purchase or a that a new family could buy as their first home. She indicated she did not see this project meeting that intent. There was further discussion concerning possible reorientation of the buildings in order to keep the elm tree as well as comply with the 25 foot setback. Commissioner Waage stated that the PD overlay should tie the size of the building' s square footage into the square footage of the lot. He added that when smaller lots are created with fairly good size housing, affordable housing is not achieved. Commissioner Waage expressed concern that the possibility exists for these units to be converted to 3-bedroom dwellings and would like to see assurances made that these units remain 2-bedroom. Mr. Decamp explained that neither the Planned Development overlav ordinance or General Plan language implied that the dwelling units within a planned development are intended to be affordable housing. He added it is an alternative housing form and is typically more affordable than a single family dwelling on acreage. Commissioner Brasher questioned why the handicapped space is included on the site pian as she did not feel it was appropriate with this type of project. Commissioner Hanauer concurred. Mr. Decamp responded that development standards for multi-family were incorporated in this project which would include provision for a handicapped space, but the site plan may be modified to exclude that requirement. Commissioner Highland expressed concern with condition ,t13a regarding the Curbaril setback stating that a reduction of 2 or 3 feet was better than necessitating a complete redesign of the project. Commissioner Waage suggested an added condition to insure that the units remain as two bedroom dwellings . Discussion ensued concerning the practicality of such a condition as it would be hard to enforce once the project has been constructed. PAGE FOUR _ N - 4 0 MINUTES EXCERPT PLANNING COMMISSION /3/9 MOTION: By Commissioner Highland, seconded by Commissioner Waage and carried 6 :0 to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26-89 and Zone Change 14-89 subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval with the following amendments : 1116 . A handicapped parking stall (as shown on Exhibit F) is not required. "17 . The units are limited to two bedrooms each as shown on the floor plans (Exhibits H and J) . " Commissioner Brasher stated there is a need to address the concept of affordable housing; this project does not meet the criteria for affordable housing. Chairperson Lochridge declared a break at 8 :30 p.m. . meeting reconvened at 8 :40 p.m. 2 . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2-89 : Application filed by Thomas Bench to di ide one parcel containing approximately 3 .4 acres into two lots containing 1 . 1 acres and 2 .3 acres e ch. Subject site is located at 7503 Carmelita. Commissioners Luna and Highland s epped down from the Commission due to possible conflict- of interest. Steve DeCamp presented the staff • port and provided a history of subdivision activity on the subject property dating back to 1963 . Staff is recommendii denial of the parcel map. Commission questions and di cussion followed regarding General Plan Policy and the crea 'on of flag lots if the proposal is approved. Thomas Bench, applic it, spoke in support of the request and elaborated on objec ions he had concerning various statements contained in the taff report. Mr. Bench clarified that it was not he b t the Council who initiated "friendly condemnation" proceedings for acquisition of creekside property (as eferenced in Item B-3 ) . Mr. Bench further stated that the creek does not belong in open sp- a reservation and that it belongs to him and is privat property; it can be recreational but the public is not titled to use it. Mr. Bench then responded to questions from the Commission. Discussion followed relative to where the existing easements are which lead to Mr. Bench' s property. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda Item: C-1 - From: Ray Windsor, City Manager Meeting Date: 4/24/90 SUBJECT: Cancellation of the City's Emergency Medical Services Con- tract with the County of San Luis Obispo RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 47-90, giving notice of our intention to cancel the City' s Emergency Medical Services contract with the County of San Luis Obispo. DISCUSSION: The City Managers and City Fire Chiefs of San Luis Obispo County have jointly reviewed and considered the existing City/ County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) contracts, which deal with ambulance services . The majority of the contracts are individual agreements between the County and each city, most of which were signed in 1976 and 1977 (Attachment 1) These indi- vidual City/County EMS ambulance contracts transfer ambulance service responsibilities to the County for a period of five years . The contracts also contain an automatic five-year renewal clause unless a one-year advance cancellation notice is given. The City of Atascadero Emergency Medical Services (EMS) con- tract (Attachment 2 ) became effective November 10, 1980 . The next opportunity for the City to modify the contract will be November 10 , 1995 . However, the City must notify the County at least one year in advance of its intention to cancel or change the existing contract. At a February, 1989 meeting, the City Managers of San Luis Obispo County reviewed a report prepared by the Fire Chiefs (At- tachment 3 ) and unanimously agreed that the -current EMS contracts essentially eliminate local input into the decision-making process required to determine the level of emergency medical ambulance services provided to each incorporated City. As the report also indicates , a number of contract changes have been made since the contracts were originally signed without local input. The City Managers collectively concluded that new City/ County contracts should be negotiated to rectify this inequity. The basic goal of the City Managers and Fire Chiefs is to introduce local community input prior to any decision of the County affecting the level of medical service within their own jurisdictions . To this end, a sub-committee consisting of City Managers Rick Kirkwood and Ray Windsor and Fire Chiefs Michael Dolder and Paul Henlin was formed to negotiate a new draft EMS contract with the County for ultimate review and approval by all cities in the County. Negotiations began in February, 1989, and after three meet- ings it was determined that insufficient ambulance response data was available to accurately assess the current ambulance delivery services . During the interim, data was collected and submitted to the Emergency Medical Services Agency (EMSA) for analysis . The results of the ambulance performance study was published by the EMSA in January, 1990, some ten months after the committee' s original request was made. Although the EMSA' s intent was to analyze the current ambulance service level, the report' s con- clusion was that insufficient ambulance response criteria and response data exist to make specific findings . Following review of the EMS ambulance report, the City Manager/Fire Chief' s sub-committee resumed negotiations with the County in February, 1990 . The sub-committee has concluded that, while negotiations continue, it would be best for each city to formally notify the County that it does not intend to review the existing EMS contract in order to avoid having the existing contract automatically renewed, as well as to go on record indi- cating our joint dissatisfaction with the existing situation. Although the City of Atascadero' s notification must wait an addi- tional four years to be formally consistent with the existing contract, it is the unanimous opinion of the County' s Managers that going on record now and notifying the County of our intent to cancel the current EMS ambulance contract will strengthen our negotiations position. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Notify San Luis Obispo County of our intent to cancel the exising EMS ambulance, and during the interim period develop an alternate EMS ambulance agreement which provides for service level review and a recognized level of input for decision-making by each city of San Luis Obispo County. 2 . Continue contract negotiations without serving notice of our intent to cancel the existing EMS contract. 2 • 3 . Do nothing and continue EMS operations under existing con- tract and stop negotiations with San Luis Obispo County. PROS AND CONS OF ALTERNATIVES : 1 . Pro Serving notice of intent to cancel the existing con- tract prevents an automatic five-year renewal and allows the City flexibility to evaluate and establish ambulance service levels and cost controls . In the event City/County negotiations fail, the City would not be obligated to continue under the current contract which eliminates local control . The City would also have the flexibility to directly implement a suitable ambulance delivery alternative which could include a direct City ambulance service or a contracted private ambulance service. Con Providing direct City ambulance services or contracted private ambulance services may increase the cost of ambulance service to the unincorporated County areas adjacent to the City. Administration of direct City service or City contracts will require additional ad- ministrative staff time. 2 . Pro No Council action is required at this time. However, if negotiations fail, the City will have lost local control of Emergency Medical Services for the next five years Con without serving notice of our intent to cancel the existing EMS contract, the County may not be motivated to negotiate a new contract since the current contract delegates total control of Emergency Medical Services to the County. 3 . Pro No Council action is required. The City will continue to receive ambulance services under County direction without local control or input for five additional years . Con Ambulance delivery costs , which currently are higher than Santa Barbara, Ventura and Monterey Counties , will continue to escalate without City input or control . Ambulance response standards will also be regulated by the County. • 3 FISCAL IMPACT: No additional costs will occur if the City cancels the Emer- gency Medical Services contract except for staff time incurred during contract negotiations . RW: cw Attachments : • Resolution No. 47 -90 • Attachment #1 - Comparison of Cities EMS Contract Initiation and Renewal Dates . • Attachment #2 - City/County EMS Contract • Attachment #3 - Cities Fire Chiefs ' Report RW:cw 4 RESOLUTION NO. 47-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO GIVING NOTICE OF ITS INTENTION TO CANCEL THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WHEREAS, the City adopted an agreement on November 10 , 1980, with the County of San Luis Obispo transferring the City' s Emer- gency Medical Services authority for ambulance service to the County for five years; and WHEREAS, the existing EMS Contract is automatically renewed for additional five-year periods unless the County is notified of the intent to cancel one year in advance; and WHEREAS, the existing EMS contract does not provide the City input into County ambulance ordinance changes or changes to the Emergency Medical Response Manual (EMRM) ; nor does the contract allow the City input on ambulance transport charges; and WHEREAS, the changes to the EMS contract have a direct affect on the ambulance service level to the City without its involvement; and WHEREAS, the City Managers and City Fire Chiefs of San Luis Obispo County have reviewed all city/County EMS contracts regard- ing ambulance service levels and found the existing contracts to be lacking in provisions for local input; and WHEREAS, it is important to maintain local control and have input into how ambulance services are delivered to a city and at what level and cost; and WHEREAS, population, service demands and County-wide changes have had dramatic effect since the contract was originally signed; and WHEREAS, it is essential to review and update emergency medical services with the involvement of all effected jurisdic- tions . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Atascadero notifies the County of San Luis Obispo that the City intends to cancel its current City/County EMS contract, effective the earliest possible date, and directs City staff to evaluate the emergency medical service levels and negotiate a new EMS contract as necessary, working with all of the other effected parties in the County. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 47 -90 ( cont' d) On motion by Councilmember seconded by Coun- cilmember the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted on the following roll-call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: LEE DAYKA, City Clerk ROLLIN W. DEXTER, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney RAY WINDSOR, City Manager 2 Attachment -�-� i DATE OF ORIGINAL NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL CITY C'ONTRAC'T DATE, CONTRACT RENEWS REOTYrRF.D BEFORE Arroyo Gmnde 7/1/76 7/1/91 711 )OG. Council took minute action 927/88 Grover i6/7/76 6/7191 6/7/90 Pismo Beach 3/14177 3/14/92 3/14131 San Luis Obis 5/5116 5/5!91 515190 Morro Bay 5/9177 5/9192 3/9)92-Has 2 month notice of non-renewal Atascadero 11!10/80 11!10/95 1111Q194 Paso Robles No contract exisLS Action may not be _ . Teguimd • i 17 G-1 thrtr',-28 IN TIfr. BOARD OF SUPER VISORS . COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECEIVED DEC 3 p 1980 ---- -day-----November__.0------19-ZZ- PRESENT:Supervisors Hans Heilmann, Steve Mac Elvaine, Howard D. Mankins, Jeff Jorgensen, and Chairman Kurt P.• Kupper ABSENT: None In the Matter of Consent Agenda Items: Consent Agenda Item G-7 withdrawn. Item G-27 withdrawn for separate action. Item G-28 added. On motion of Supervisor Mankins, seconded by Supervisor Mac Elvaine, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Supervisors Mankins, 14ac Elvaine, Heilmann, Jorgensen, Chairman Kupper NOES: None ABSENT: None Consent Agenda Items G-1 through G-28 are approved as recommended by the Administrative Officer and as amended by this Board. Item G-13 3s RESOLE TION NO. 80-406. Item G-23 is RESOLUTION NO. 80-407. Item G-24 is MES0l TION NO. 80-408. Item G-25 is RESOLUTION NO. 80-409. Item G-28 is adder to read: Letter from Department of General Services requesting postpone- ment of bid opening date on County Government Center-HVAC, Plumbing, Fire Protection Bid Issue #10 from November 10, 1980 to November 18, 1980 at 2:15 P.M. (RECO1,24END APPROVAL.) Said Consent Agenda Items G-1 through 28, as.amended, are on file in the office of the County Clerk and are available for public. inspection. CC: Administrative Office 10/13/80 dee STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SS. County of San Luis Obispo, } I, --------------------I_IISBETH WOLLA14 _ __,___ County Clerk and es-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, in and for the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of an order made by the Board of Supervisors, as the same appears spread upon their minute book. WITNESS my band and the seal of said Board of Supervisors,affixed this..____-13th - day of------November_____-- ------------------t•IISBET11_Wj LAM----____ County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board (SEAL) of Supervisors By __-- - _-- ------410. _-- Deputy Clerk 'r V DIVISION VIII CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT entered into this ldqlbday of 1980, by and between the CITY OF ATASCADERO , a general law city located in the County of San Luis Obispo , State of California (hereinafter called "City" ) , and the COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a political subdivision and one of .the counties of the State of California (hereinafter called "County" ) ; WITNESSETH : :WHEREAS, County has :duly adopted . an Amb.ul.ance O,r_dinance as :'_stet -forth in Chapter 6. 60 of the County Code, and pursuant to such Ordinance, County- has also duly- adopted an Emergency 'Med- ical Response Manual ( hereinafter called " EIMRM" ) ; and WHEREAS , in order to have uniform ambulance operation- procedures perationprocedures in the entire County of San Luis Obispo , it is necessary that all cities within the County of San Luis Obispo , and the County, enter into contracts pursuant to Government Code Sectibns -51300 through 51303 , inclusive, for the 'per- ormance .by...the ..a.ppropr:i.ate County off.i.c.er..s . and employees of the cities ' ambulance functions ; and ;WHEREAS:, _Government Code .Section 38794 also permits .City to contract for ambulance service to serve the residents of City as convenience requires; and WHEREAS , it is in the interest of the taxpayers and resi- dents of the County and of such cities , and it is in the public interest that such contracts be entered into by County and such cities. oleo CD 't NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the mutual covenants ,' conditions , promises and agreements herein set forth , City and • County hereby mutually covenant and agree as follows : 1 . That the recitals set forth hereinabove are true, correct and valid . 2. That pursuant to Government Code Sections 51300 through 51303, inclusive , and to Government Code Section 38794, County shall by its appropriate officers and employees perform within City all of City ' s ambulance functions , including , but not limited to , thane referred to in. Government Code Zection : 38794_ 3. That City and County hereby agree that during the term of this Contract , the provisions of the County Ambulance Ordi- nance (namely, Chapter 6 . 60 of the County Code) and as hereafter amended, and of the EMRM and as hereafter amended , shall be and • are in full force and effect within City ; and Chapter 6. 60 of the County Code and as hereafter amended , and the EMRM of County and .mss _hereafter..zmended., .;are both .her.eby expressly ,incorporated herein by reference as though here fully set forth. 4. The term of this Contract shall be for five (5) years from and .after. the date set forth hereinabove, and -such term hall be automatically .renewed for additional periods of five ( 5) ,years each unless the . legislative body of either County or City votes not to renew the term at a meeting more than one ( 1 ) year before the expiration of any five-year period and duly notifies the other party hereto within thirty ( 30) days after such vote. -2- C-� 5. The following County officers and employees shall exercise within City the powers , duties and functions herein- after specified : a. The San Luis Obispo Emergency Medical Care Committee shall exercise within City all of the powers , duties and functions conferred on such Committee by such Chapter 6 . 60 and as hereafter amended , and by the EMRM and as hereafter amended, to be exercised within County. b. The County Sheriff, -as -the EMRM. licen.sing agency, shall Qxercise within City al.l of the powers., duties and functions conferred on such Sheriff by such Chapter 6. 60 and as hereafter amended, and by the EMRM and as hereafter amended, to be exercised within County. C . The County Central Dispatch Center shall exercise within City all of the powers , duties and functions conferred on • such Center by such Chapter 6 . 60 and as hereafter amended , and by the EMRM and as hereafter amended , to be exercised within County. d. The Board of Supervisors of County shall exercise within City all of the powers , duties and functions conferred on such Board by such Chapter 6. 60 and as hereafter amended, and by the EMRM and as hereafter e amended to be exercised within County. e. The County Communication Director shall exercise within City all of the powers , duties and functions conferred on such Director by such Chapter 6 . 60 and as hereafter amended , to be exercised within County_ -3- �`° 6. This Contract may only be amended or repealed by the mutual written agreement of both parties hereto . 7. It is understood and agreed by County and City that City shall have no obligation or duty pursuant to this ' Contract to pay any money to County for any purpose hereunder. 8. County shall defend , indemnify and save harmless City and its officers , agents and employees from and against any and all claims , demands , liability , costs , expenses , judgments , causes of action and damages , arising in any manner out of this Contract or out of the performance -or attempted performance of the previsions hereof, including , but not limited to , any act or omission to act on the part of County or its agents or employees or independent contractors directly responsible to County. 9. Neither party hereto shall assign or transfer this Contract or any interest herein without the prior written con- sent of the other party, except as may be otherwise specifically ' permitted by such Chapter 6 . 60 and as hereafter amended or .by such EMRM and as hereafter amended . 10. This Contract shall be binding on the assigns , trans- ferees and successors of- the parties hereto. 11 . No waiver by either party hereto of any failure by the* other party to comply with any term or condition hereof . _ _ shall be or shall be deemed to be a waiver by such first party of any similar or other failure by such party to comply with any term or condition hereof. -4- C� r IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and County have executed this Contract on the day and year first hereinabove set forth . CITY OF ATASCADERO ATTEST: —� Mayor of/City rY L WARDEN, City Clerk COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By: 0 ex C firman , a of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FO BY THE CITY ATTORNEY OF E CITY OF ATASCADERO City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: JAMES B . LINDHOLM , JR. County Counsel Y B y: ,, t r7 1 Deputy County Counsel Dated: f` -5- �� ` rr ti CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO REGULAR MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27, 1980 Re: Contract with County of San Luis Obispo regarding ambulance services !MOTION: Councilman Nelson moved for the approval of the contract. The motion was seconded by Councilman Highland and unanimously carried. CERTIFICATION I, ARDITH DAVIS, Deputy Clerk of the City of Atascadero, California, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct motion duly made and passed by the Atascadero City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on October 27, 1980. Dated: October 30, 1980 ARDITH DAVIS, Deputy City Clerk City of Atascadero, California . 1 • -- C B/S AGENDA FOR 11-10-80 G-8 Letter from Murray, Joan, and Am Smith comm a Count Employee. y ending Don A. Hines, Y (RECOMMEND ITEM BE RECEIVED AND FILED WITH A COPY TO PERSONNEL.) G-9 Submittal of two personal services contracts with the Agricultural Commission with: A. Carolyn Irwin, Agricultural Inspector I B. Janice M. Bise, Agricultural Inspector I (RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND INSTRUCT CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.) ID G-10 Submittal of two personal services contracts with the Sheriff's Department with: A. Sandra L. Myers, Data Entry Operator II B. Juanita F. McIntyre, Intermediate Typist Clerk (RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND INSTRUCT CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.) • G-11 Letter from Steve Keil, Personnel Director, reporting on the feasi- bility of withdrawal from Social Security System. (RECOMMEND ITEM BE RECEIVED AND FILED.) &-12 Letter requesting approval of loan contract for water system improvements in County Service Area No. 16 (Shandon). (RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND INSTRUCT CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.) G-13 p� Letter requesting acceptance of right-of-way conveyance from Herbert Paul Goble and Audrey M. Goble for Corbett Canyon Site 1; 0 4th Dist. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL.) 1G-14 Letter requesting approval of Tract 663, a proposed subdivision being developed by Curtis Leon and Norva Sue White, located on Division Street (1029), Higos Way (NIS), Fir Place (NIS), Nopal ' (NIS): 4th District. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL.) Submittal of a contract by City of Atascadero regarding ambulance services. (REC01M1END APPROVAL AND INSTRUCT CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.) S G-16 Submittal of negotiated contract between the City of Morro Bay and the County of San Luis Obispo for the services of Kent Taylor as Acting City Administrator for the City of Morro Bay. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND INSTRUCT CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.) G-17 A copy of the letter sent to Dr: Stanley Reichenberg by the Air 'Pollution Control Officer regarding the oil smell in the South San Luis Obispo County. (Response to B.O. #19, F-6 of 9122/80) (RECOMMEND ITEM BE RECEIVED AND FILED.) G-18 Transfer request of $2,104 by the Agricultural Commissioner from Salary and Wages allocated positions to the Equipment account. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL.) G-19 Submittal of a CETA Worksite Agreement by the Department of Employ- ment and Training for CETA Titles II-D and VI Public Service Employment job sites for the current fiscal year.. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL.) / G-20 Submittal of a modification to the CETA Title VII by the Department of Employment and Training to extend the time of performance for the Employment Development Department from September 30, 1980, to December 31, 1980. (RECO.IMEND APPROVAL.) G-21 Application for one Certificate of Compliance for the Southwest quarter of Section 34 in T26S, R13E, MOM (CC 15-061-12) Dist. 111. (SHANNON). (RECOMMEND APPROVAL.) G-22 Notice by Planning Commission of road naming request in the Huasna- Lopez area. (RECOMMEND ITEM BE RECEIVED AND FILED.) G-23 Resolution authorizing District Attorney Imprest Cash Fund and Maintenance Bank Account. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND INSTRUCT CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.) G-24 Resolution amending the position allocation for the Health Depart- ment's Home Health Agency. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND INSTRUCT CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.) Attachment . TO: City Managers of San Luis Obispo County FROM City Fire Chiefs of San Luis Obispo County SUBJECT: City/County EMS Contract DATE: February 23, 1989 BACKGROUND - Beginning in 1975 the Cities of Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, Grover City, San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles and the County of San Luis Obispo developed contracts to provide ambulance services within the County of San Luis Obispo. Each of the respective Cities signed similar contracts with the exception of Pismo Beach and Morro Bay. Atascadero signed an EMS contract at the time of their incorporation. Pismo Beach and Morro Bay contract's included various covenants which restricted the counties ability to increase rates and/or to limit various EMS functions performed in their particular city. In all signed EMS contracts reference is made to an undated County Emergency Medical Response Manual (EMRM). The EMRM is a procedural document which regulates the performance criteria for pre-hospital emergency medical services both public and private. The existing contracts allow the County to modify the EMRM without City input and/or comment. At the time contracts were signed, the EMRM did not significantly impact City EMS operations performed by their respective Fire Departments. However, the most recent„EMRM„revision. not yet adopted would have significant impa-zt Da..,Eizc.JD�cypartment emergency response requirements. The existing EMS contracts compel a City to continue the EMS/County relationship without change for a 5 year period. The exception is Morro Bay which has a yearly renewal option. Since the signing of these contracts the County has made numerous procedural changes which include: 1. Eliminated the Emergency Medical Care Committee and created a non-profit private corportation known as the Emergency Medical Services Agency (SMSA); granting the EMSA all authority and responsibility conferred on the county by the cities' contracts and state law. 2. Revised the EMRM in 1982 and adopted revisions. This revision, without city input, changed the responsibilities and benefits affecting the cities. 3. Redrafted the EMRM in 1988 without City input (not yet adopted) and increased the impact discussed in #2 above. 4. Considered ambulance contract revisions which include exclusive operating areas for private ambulance companies, further restricting local determination of delivery levels, cost and quality of service. Current City subsidies provided by free Fire Department services would also continue. Exclusive operating areas could further increase the city subsidized ambulance rates in county areas. Since 1975 Emergency Medical Service levels within the County have undergone significant changes which include: 1. The transition from a standard first aid training and service level to EMT-I, then to EMT-II and presently an EMT-Paramedic training and service level. In 0 addition, the type of medical calls responded to, such as hazardous materials V25-(24) 2/23/89 1 or radiological incidents, require more technical knowledge and increased training levels as well. 2. Significant population increases and service demand increases. 3. Implementation of a County wide 9-1-1 system. Cities under the Health and Safety Code Section 54980 are authorized to provide Emergency Medical Services which include ambulance services. Existing contracts between the County and Cities transfers the Cities ambulance authority to the County without sufficient reviews and approval mechanisms. The County presently can and has changed ambulance service standards and rate structures without City input or approval. However, ambulance service rates are based upon service runs including dry runs, and all operating and maintenance costs for the total ambulance service area rather than geographic response zones. Other than mileage, ambulance cost between operating areas are exactly the same. If a medical incident occurs across the street or in California Valley, the rate is the same. Added service levels and support provided by Fire Departments are not reimbursed to the local agency nor is the patient's cost of service reduced. Cities are, therefore, significantly subsidizing ambulance rate structures in county areas. JFJid-..image s'-Of-San Luis Obispo County met with County Fire Chiefs to `' discuss the existing situation and Cities options to either collectively or individually correct the ambulance service inequities and loss ss of local control within their communities. The Fire Chiefs have researched the existing contracts (Attachment 1) and Health and Safety Code Sections which apply to Emergency Medical Service. The Fire Chiefs have identified five alternatives relative to the existing contracts. ALTERNATIVES 1. Revise the existing County/City ambulance contracts to include references to a specific EMRM, the SMSA and Ordinance 660. This would permit City input into proposed EMRM changes. 2. Develop a new County/City contract. This would provide sufficient safeguards to protect the City's interests and options involving emergency medical service, the ambulance delivery system and rate structuring. 3. Replace the existing county EMS contract and the SMSA lines of authority with a J.P.A. This would permit the County and Cities to jointly regulate the management of emergency medical and ambulance services. 4. Dissolve the current EMS contracts at their renewal dates. This would allow all agencies to operate independently in providing EMS and ambulance service. 5. Do nothing; allowing the existing contracts to automatically renew themselves. This would continue the present situation. V25-(24) 2/23/89 2 Some of the arguments.for and against the atlernatives are: • 1. Revise the Existing Countv/City Ambulance Contracts to Include a Reference to a Specific ENRIC the EMSA and Ordinance 660. The emergency medical system continues as is with the exception that cities would have input into any EMRM changes. This alternative would require less City staff time since the system would be managed by the SMSA with increased City involvement when EMRM changes are proposed. Only limited local control and input would be available. Local input would be sought when changes are suggested. In the referenced EMRM cities would continue to subsidize ambulance costs in county areas in that basic rate structures other than mileage costs are not based on actual area response costs. In pursuing only limited revisions to the EMS contract cities would be prevented from establishing individual performance standards and/or rate structures. In addition, the existing contract does not provide sufficient representation on the SMSA board nor does it include a process for appointing or recommending representatives to the SMSA except through the Board of Supervisors. The current SMSA board structure is predominantly composed of special interest representatives, i.e. physician, nurse,madica,.pro�'.--err;pitizens at large with current or previous medical service affiliation background, and lacks City and general public interest representation. 2. Develop a New County/City Contract Which Provides Sufficient Safeguards to Protect the City's Interests and Options Involving Emergency Medical Services and the Ambulance Delivery System and Rate Structuring. Pro = This option provides sufficient flexibility in meeting each City's-local needs for medical and ambulance services and at the same time creates an opportunity to coordinate EMS delivery. The alternative restores local control and allows cities to establish service levels within individual boundaries. The contract could provide the following: the ability to review and approve ambulance service rates and reduce City ambulance subsidy for response to county areas. The ability to more frequently review and reconsider the contract, i.e. one year vs. 5 year period. This alternative allows a city to operate from a standard contract with local options to address specific community issues and concerns. Con - The ambulance rate structure for responses to county areas may increase. The rates for unincorporated areas should reflect the areas actual cost of providing service. This alternative may require the formation of county service districts and/or assessment districts in order to pay for actual ambulance costs. 3. Replace the Existing County EMS Contract and the SMSA Lines of Authority with a J.P.A. Whereby the County and Cities Jointly Regulate the Management of Emergency Medical and Ambulance Services Pro - This alternative maximizes local control and allows the cities and the county to jointly coordinate medical response, system operations and program administration. The JPA provides the most immediate and direct V25-(24) 2/23/89 3 involvement in the delivery of emergency medical services. J.P.A.'s have proven effective in dealing with medical insurance and similar benefits and could potentially do the same for EMS. Cin - The J.P.A. could require significant staff time in order to act on the specific programs and responsibilities. The insertion or addition of a J.P.A. into the existing situation could introduce time delays and unneeded bureaucracy. The level of staff expertise assigned to the J.P.A. might initially be technically deficient and if not planned properly, could cause initial disruption in the current delivery system. The cities establishment % of a J.P.A. might require financial subsidies. Impacts on city staff time could be 2 - 3 meetings/month or more. To our knowledge, no J.P.A. exists in the State of California which regulates EMS as proposed by this alternative. 4. Do Not Develop a Joint EMS Contracts Allow All Agencies to Operate Independently in Providin¢ EMS and Ambulance Services Pro - Independent contracts or services would provide the greatest opportunity for local control with a minimum of direct city cost. This alternative provides an opportunity to improve service levels and design specific emergency medical services based on local needs and desires. Each city would maintain the ability to contract with the county for delivering all Ambulanc-etEMS.services. The local agency may provide more ambulance units if an increased level of service is desired and if it is willing to assume the additional cost. Con - EMS/Ambulance Services operating independently could provide the highest cost consequences for the county. The independence and autonomy of the service delivery could produce a disjointed service especially in a disaster situation where mutual aid resources are required and coordination has not been built into the system. Operating as individual cities does not provide the coordination opportunities that Alternative #2 provides. 5. Do nothing, allow the existing EMS contracts to automatically renew themselves Pro - The county will maintain full control over EMS issues. No additional staff time will be required. Con The cities will continue to transfer local control of EMS issues to the county. Ambulance rates in county areas will continue to be subsidized by consumers and cities in incorporated areas. The five year renewal periods will be the only change period where individual city can address local needs. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Fire Chiefs have reviewed all the alternatives and recommend the following: A. Agree on a common goal to maintain local control with City/County cooperation and allow local communities to determine the level of emergency medical services within their own jurisdiction. V25-(24) 2/23/84 4 R Notify.the county that the cities request contract renegotiations begin immediately. In addition,during a 60 day interim period no county action should be taken which would change the existing program including modifications to the EMRK Ordinance 660, EMSA or creating exclusive ambulance operating areas. C. Choose Alternative #2 and develop a new county/city contract which provides sufficient safeguards to protect the City's interest and options involving emergency medical services, the ambulance delivery system and rate structuring. V25-(24) 2/23/89 5 �III�NINIIIINI�N�������� INIIIIIIIII CityOf SAn tuis OBI S � 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 April 6, 1990 VLi Mr. Robert E. Hendrix, County Administrator County of San Luis Obispo County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Bob: During the March 19, 1990 City Managers and Fire Chiefs' Subcommittee meeting on the emergency medical services contracts and related issues, you requested assurance that the City Managers and Fire Chiefs were in concurrence that the EMS contract with the County needs to be updated. On April 6, 1990, the City Managers and Fire Chiefs met and unanimously agreed that our EMS contracts are outdated. These present contracts provide no meaningful local input into the delivery of emergency medical services to our cities within the County, and we believe they should. Each of the cities are currently reviewing their individual contracts and have agreed to place the issues before their respective City Councils as soon as possible. Our purpose is to provide due diligence on contract review and establish a modern foundation with the County that will enhance emergency medical services throughout the County. We understand that on April 10th the County Board of Supervisors will consider a rate request from San Luis Ambulance Service, Inc. which will increase their fees by 21%. We understand the auditor/controller has disallowed certain expenses and is recommending a 13% average increase. Our objective is to address the EMS services comprehensively including funding sources, therefore, we would request that the requested rate increase not be considered at this time. If the proposed rate increase is placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda, then we would ask that this letter be attached to your staff report, and we would request a copy of the staff report. Again, this was a unanimous opinion of the City Managers and Fire Chiefs of the cities within the County. We stand ready to meet with you and other County representatives to work out the details of a new contract as quickly as possible. Sincerely, On behalf of the City Managers of San Luis Obispo County Cities John D nn I dministrative Officer JD:mc MEETI� AGENDA QRTE / fT€M ff League of California Cities Y California Cities, Channel Counties ,Division Work Together Mark your calendars for JUNE 1 , 1990 , and plan,-, to attend the Annual Channel Counties Division"' Workshop and Quarterly Meeting in Grover City . David G. Jones, Ph.D. , of Sentient Systems, w 11 be our guest speaker. Teambuilding is the topic of the workshop from 1 :00 P.M. to 4 : 30 p.m. Social Hour will follow at 6 : 00 p .m. with dinner (Chicken Cordon Bleu and Beef Wellington) and the meeting at 7 :00. Dr. Jones will also be the evening speaker . It will be an exciting day. The cost of the workshop is $25 . 00 per person. Dinner will be $20 . 00 per person. An advanced registration form is attached. Please register early. David Jones needs preliminary information on who will be attending to develop his presentation . Also attached is a brief look at the many accomplishments of this dynamic man who has been winning the respect and love of , C. E . P .O. (Continuing Education for Public Officials ) participants since 1973. He really is worth the trip to Grover City! Division President Chuck Comstock , the Grover City Council , d� Staff, Chamber of Commerce and our local businesses are all looking forward to welcoming you to our beautiful City by the beach. The Oak Park Resort Hotel in Grover City will be offering a special $59 . 00 rate for June 1st . Come spend the night and enjoy the only drive-on beach in California. Explore the wonderful shops in Grover City, Arroyo Grande and Pismo Beach. WE HOPE TO SEE YOU JUNE 1 , 1990! CEPO PEOPLE SPREAD THE WORD '_ DAVID JONES IS GREAT'.