HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-02-21; City Council; 5341; EIR Case No EIR 352 & ZC 185*-s CITY OF "RLSBAD
A6EN-OA BILL NO. J\y <¥I Dept. Hd.
DATE: February 21, 1978 City Atty \J fjQ
DEPARTMENT: Planning City Mgr.
SUBJECT:
Environmental Impact Report and Preannexational Zoning,
Tootsie "K" Ranch. From County A-l-(8) to R-A-1 .
Case No: EIR-352 & ZC-185 Applicant: Robert Sonneborn
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
The site is a 186 acre parcel within the County Island generally situated 2,000
feet east of El Camino Real, and 4,000 north of Palomar Airport Road. It is
an irregularly shaped property without public access. The applicant originally
requested preannexational zone to residential agriculture one acre minimum
(R-A-1). However, at the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant verbally
requested the change to be the Limited Control Zone (L-C) . The L-C Zone is a
holding zone which will permit annexation, but allows time to determine the
proper development zone .
The EIR was originally drafted based on the R-A-1 request and contains scenarios
of greater and- less densities for comparision purposes. The EIR itself does not
address the L-C Zone possibility. The Planning Commission, however, has certified
that the EIR has been completed in compliance with all applicable requirements and
it is a proper document to determine the future zoning on the property regardless
of the request.
The Planning Commission also recommended approval of the L-C Zone as requested
verbally by the applicant. The applicant will request rezoning to a development
zone after further review of development options and the City ' s proposed R-E
Zone.
EXHIBITS
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1430
Staff Report dated January 25, 1978
EIR 352
Location Map
Petition opposing R-l-A Zone
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council certify EIR-352 and direct the City
Attorney to prepare documents approving ZC-185 for the preannexational zone of
L-C as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 1430.
Council action
2-21-78 The City Council certified EIR-352 and directed the City
Attorney to prepare documents necessary for approval of
the Zone change from A-l-(8) to L-C.
FORMHH.ANNING 73
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1450
2 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
•CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
3 ZONE CHANGE FROM COUNTY A-l-(8) TO L-C (LIMITED
CONTROL) ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED 2,000
4 FEET EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL, AND 4,000 FEET
NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD.
5 CASE NO-: ZC-185
APPLICANT: ROBERT SONNEBORN6 :
WHEREAS, a verified application for a certain property as shown on the
7
attached map, has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the
8
Planning Commission; and
9 I
| WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided
10
by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code: and
11
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 25th day of January, 1978,
12
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said
13
request; and
14
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the test-
15
imony and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to be heard, said
16
Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Change (ZC-185), and
17
found the following facts and reasons to exist:
18
1) The L-C Zone is appropriate for this property for the following reasons:19 |
a) The zone is a'holding zone which will not preclude options to the
20 applicant or"the City in the future.
21 b) The L-C Zone will permit the applicant to initiate preceedings for
annexation to the City.
2.2
c) The L-C Zone would have no adverse effects or impacts on the area or
23 the property.
»
24 2) The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan because:
25 a) The L-C Zone is a holding zone that only permits agricultural uses
and uses presently on the property.
26 • '
b) The L-C Zone does not exclude future options to the City.
27 .
XXX
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3) The proposed zone change complies with the requirements of the Carlsbad
Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972, because Environmental Impact
Report No. 352 has been certified for the following reasons:
a) The Environmental Impact Report sufficiently provides data to
determine proper zoning of the property.
b) The Environmental'Impact Report sufficiently describes the physical
characteristics of the property.
c) The Environmental Impact Report sufficiently explains impacts upon
the property and surrounding areas.
4) The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable City Public
Facilities Policy and Ordinance because:
a) There will be no added demand for public facilities caused by this
change of zone to the L-C holding zone.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT resolved by the Planning Commission of the City
of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the above recitations are true and correct,
B) That in view of the findings heretofore made and considering the applicable
law, the decision of the Planning Commission is to APPROVE ZC-IS5 located
2,000 feet east of El Camino Real, and 4,000 feet north of Palomar Airport
Road.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission held on January 25, 1978, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioner Rombotis, Larson, Woodward, Fikes, L'Heureux, Jose.
NOES: None. • • -•
* /
ABSENT: Commissioner Yerkes.
JERRY ROMBOTIS, Chairman
ATTEST:
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary
*-, I
ZG -185
FROM A
TO L-C
1000
COMPILED FROM DATA SHOWN
ON THE OFFICIAL 500 FT. SCALE
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY.
(REDUCED TO BAR SCALE)
EXHIBIT A
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CASE NO:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
January 1978
January 25, 1978
REVISED STAFF REPORT
January 25, 1978
Planning Commission
Planning Department
ZC-185
Robert Sonneborn, Agent
A) Certification of EIR J>52, an EIR regarding the
annexation and prezoning for:
B) PreannexationaI zoning to R-A-I acre from County
A-l (8) (Applicant has indicated L-C Zone is preferable)
SECTION I. BACKGROUND
Location and Description of Property
The approximate 186 acre parcel is within the County Island area and generally
situated approximately 2,000 feet east of El Camino Real, and 4,000 feet north
of Palomar Airport Road. It is an irregular shaped property without public
access. There is, however, an unimproved road leading from El Camino Pea!
through the site to Squires Reservoir, known as Sunny Creek Road. The area is
generally hilly with some plateaus cut by ravines. The westerly portion is
lower rising gently towards the east and north. A detailed description of the
site is contained in EIR 352.
Existing Zoning
Subject Property:
North:
South:
•East;
West:
A-l (8) County, this is an agricultural
zone requiring 8 acre minimum parcel size.
R.-A-IO,000
M and Open Space
R-A-10,000 and Open Space
R-A-2.5 acre, and E-I-A (County permitting
h acre lots)
Existing Land Use (See EIR for more detailed description)
Subject Property:
North:
South;
East:
West:
Agriculture (truck crops, packing sheds,
2 homes, and some vacant land).
Agriculture (truck crops) and some vacant
land.
Vacant land, industrial (industrial
development is separated from subject
property by a cliff that rises above the
Agua Hedionda Creek).
Agricultural uses and reservoir
Agricultural residential and vacant land.
History and Related Cases (See Exhibit "A" for location of nearby actions).
ZC-174; The Planning Commission Resolution No. 1247, Ordinance 9463 (Grosse),
approved by City Council on June I, 1976, a charge of zone for 25 acres located
adjacent on the west from R-l-10,000 to R-A 2 1/2 acres. The 2 1/2 acre
density was granted because it was felt that the topography and rural character
of the area needs to be preserved. The 2 1/2 acre density not only provides
open areas and requires less grading, it also does not require as much area
dsvoted to public streets. It was the feeling of the City and the applicant that
the City needs a diversity in housing and living and there was no other area
in Carlsbad as well suited for rural estates to provide open areas, for horses,
view lots, rural living etc.
V-255: The Planning Commission Resolution No. 1246 (Grosse), was approved by
the Planning Commission on May 12, 1976, to permit creation of lots not fronting
on a public street for property described in ZC-174 above.
ZC-144: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1067, Ordinance 9395 (Kelly), approved
on July 2, 1974, a change" of zone for 225 acres located northeast of Rancho
Carlsbad Mobile Home Park to R-A-10,000 from E-I-A (County). It appears from the
file that little staff research went into this case. Staff did indicate that
there were a number of environmental impacts which might occur, however, .it was
determined that an environmental impact report would be more.appropriate when
development proposals are made. No discussion of the terrain or public facilities
(except school agreement) was made relative to the zone. While not saying that
the results would be different today, staff assumes that more information would
be required if rhe game request was brought to the Planning Commission today
and a range of alternatives would be considered.
ZC-140: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1069, Ordinance 9399, (Loker),
approval on July 2, 1974, a change of zone and environmental impact report for
450 acres located east of subject site, to P-C from A-1-8 (County). An
environmental impact report was required with this application, but again detailed
discussion was omitted because development in the P-C Zone .requires a Master Plan.
ZC-66-12: Application to rezone property to the west to R-3 was withdrawn at
the request of the applicant. The City had received letters in opposition.
ZCA-86: Creation of Rural Estate Zone (R-E). At the suggestion of property
owners, and interested citizens, the City initiated a zone code amendment to
create a residential zone that would retain a rural character and give flexibility
in public facility requirements (reduction in standards). The staff started
with a density factor of 2 1/2 acres per lot, but at the suggestion of citizens,
the City determined that a density of 2 acre average would retain rural character
and the public facilities could be reduced. The Planning Commission approved
this zone on October 20, 1977. At the subsequent City Council hearing it was
suggested that the minimum lot be I acre with no averaging. The City Council
has returned the action to Planning Commission for report on this suggestion.
Environmental Impact Information
EIR 352 must be certified prior to taking action on this rezoning. The EIR is
to assist the City in determining the proper zoning to be placed on the property.'
For your information, staff believes the major environmental issues delineated in
EIR 352 are as follows:
. C2]
Public FaciIities
1) Roads providing adequate access must be provided with development. Sunny
Creek Road will not be acceptable. Size and number of roads will depend
on density and possible growth inducement to surrounding acrea.
2) Acceptable method of sewage disposal will have to be provided with development,
Encina capacity and extension of lines for same are sure to cause long delays.
Septic tank disposal has severe limitations in most of the area. It appears
that it will be difficult to use a septic system with only one acre lots.
Agricultural Lands
3) Most of the property is suitable for various agricultural crops although very
little of the area is classed as prime agricultural land. Much of the land
is currently in row crop production. Growth inducement on surrounding agri-
cultural lands is also a concern.
Dawson-los Monos Canyon Reserve
4) Concern for protection of reserves ecological integrity.
5) Concern for protection of the astrophysics solar wind study. University
of California recommends R-E Zone with minimum 2 acre lots.
Airport
6) There is a flight path over an area 'arout 5 acres) in south end of the
site. This area coincides with Los Monos Reserve and should have development
restrictions placed on it.
General Plan Information
The General Plan Land Use Element indicates low density residential with a
density range of 0 to 1.5 dwelling units per acre for this site. The request
is within the General Plan range, however, the actual zone density should relate
to the property and surrounding area. Generally speaking the rougher the terrain,
the lower the density. The Land Use Element also indicates an elementary school
site on or near this property. Thre school site should not be required at the
change of zone request, however, the school site will be a factor at subdivision
or development of the property. The Circulation Element indicates that two
arterial streets will serve this property in the future. An east-west street is
planned along the southerly boundary of the property, and a north south street
along the westerly portion of the property. These two streets will give adequate
access to the property when completed.
Public FaciIities
Presently there are ho public facilities existing on the property except for
water. The entire site is within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District and
they have indicated they will be able to serve property adequately. The
Carlsbad Unified School District has indicated that agreements are not necessary
at this time, but such agreements will be required at time of subdivision, (see
attached letter).
C3]
Eveots and History of Subject Application
4
This item has been discussed and active for a relatively long period. For no
other reason than to clarify what has transpired during the period, staff has
Iisted the events that we have records for.
1) Letter dated March 29, 1976, from Sonneborn to City Manager stating that
application for annexation and zoning will be submitted and zoning will be
2 acres minimum lot size.
2) Letter from Planning Department to Mr. Sonneborn dated May 12,'1976, ex-
plaining requirements for annexation, zoning and subdivision and given time
requirement for each, staff indicates R-A 2.5 is proper zone.
3) Letter from Mr. Sonneborn dated June 24, 1976, indicating he'desired 2
acre rural estates, but wished relief from sewer requirements, and questioned
access and circulation requirements.
4) Letter from Planning Department dated August 24, 1976, reply to Mr. Sonneborn
concerning sewer and" access. Staff indicates that reduced public facilities
is being considered in an R-E Zone being drafted. Staff recommended zoning
to R-A 2.5 with PUD for flexibility in lot configuration and public
faciIities.
5) Letter from Mr. Sonneborn to the City Manager, dated October 7, 1976,
basically it asks for the City to start the rezoning and EIR. There are
2 misconcep+ions in this letter: I) It indicates that the staff's letter
of Mav I"-, 1976, suggested I acre sites, whereas, staff indicated 2.5 acres
and; 2) The letter itself does not s+ari an application.
6) Staff letter to Mr. Sonneborn dated October 15, 1976, explaining EIR fee
with enclosed application for change of zone. The letter explains the
EIR processing takes longer than zoning and therefore, there is a need to
coordinate the timing of the EIR with the zoning application.
7) Letter from Mr. Sonneborn with application for zone change and LAFCO
questions (annexation).
8) Memorandum from the Planning Department to the City Clerk indicating that
annexation request by Sonneborn is premature and she should hold until EIR
is certified and zoning approval.
9) Fee for application accepted on November I, 1976, for rezoning (officially
accepted), but application is in error since the request is for the general
plan category (RLM) not a zone.
10) On November 8, 1976, Mr. Sonneborn corrected the application to ask for
R-A I acre.
11) The City Council approved request for proposal on EIR on November 16, 1976.
12) Proposal to prepare draft, request for proposal EIR submitted December 17, 1976.'
13) Agreement reached, to do draft EIR on January 18, 1977.
C4]
W .
14) . However, after agreement was reached and initial work started on E1R,
the City and the applicant agreed to expand the EIR by adding data on the
"Kato" property, (this was done at the strong uring of LAFCO). The Kato
property is not part of this application, but since it will become an
isolated counjy island if subject annexation is approved, LAFCO desired
review of impacts on Kato property also. This delayed preparation of pre-
liminary EIR information.
15) The preliminary EIR information was submitted to the City on September 1977.
16) Draft EIR review was completed on October 10, 1977.
17) At this point change of zone application could have been scheduled for
hearing. The applicant, however, was interested in the Residential Estate
Zone (ZCA-86), Then oemg considered by the Planning Commission and agreed
to hold from hearing until R-E zone completed.
18) Planning Commission approved R-E Zone on October 26, 1977, for 2 acres,
average lot size and I acre minimum.
»
19) However, at the City Council meeting of December 6, 1977, the City Council
directed.the Planning Commission to review the possibility of changing the
density of the R-E .Zone to I acre minimum without averaging. The City
'Council has sent this case back to Planning Commission to determine the
public facility needs for such increase in density. We anticipate report
will be presented to the Planning Commission on January 25, 1978. The
City Council did not indicate they had any bias on any particular density,
they simply wanted Planning Commission'review.
20) The week following this City Council action, Mr. Sonneborn requested that
ZC-185 be placed on the Planning Commission calendar for January II, 1978,
for R-A-I acre zone. This was done to facilitate rezoning so he could
initiate annexation.
21) At the January II, 1978, Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Sonneborn ex-
plained to the Planning Commission that the L-C Zone would be acceptable.
This would allow initiation of annexation, and permit the actual density
zone to be placed on the property after the adoption of the R-E Zone.
22) Staff has written LAFCO explaining the reason for the L-C Zone and that if
approved, the City Council Ordinance will contain a finding that the City
• intends to place the R-E Zone on the property upon its adoption.
Major Planning Considerations
1) Does the EIR contain sufficient information and draw proper conclusions and
mitigating measures to adequately determine proper zone for property?
2) Is the terrain capable to accommodate the density requested by this
application.
3) Is requested zone compatible to zones of nearby properties?
4) Is requested zone compatible to the existing land uses and character of the
surrounding area?
5) Is there another zone density that would better implement the goals of the
City?
[5]
SECTION I I. DISCUSSION
i
The terrain is gently rolling in the westerly portion rising in the east and
north to somewhat steeper and rougher terrain* There are ravines intersecting
the area. Approximately half of the area has slopes of 10$ or less, 25% have
10-20/5 slopes, with the remainder of the site with 20-25$ slope. There is
substantial native vegetations in the ravines with water supply through creeks
and springs for fauna. The general character of the area is rural with farming
and views of the ocean and back country.
Presently the site is erved by an unimproved road from El Camino Real called
Sunny Creek Road. The road is subject to flooding. 'Therefore, prior to dev-
elopment of the subject property, full public streets would have to be constructed
to give proper access.
There are approximately 9 residences existing that are presently being served by
this road, (see attached Exhibit "B"). The general character of these residences
is rural also, with most,of the present lots being 5 acres or greater: It is
a ranchet type setting with horses and open areas.
The latest rezoning in the area was 2.5 acre developments directly to the west,
(Grosse). It was felt that 2.5 acres was necessary to retain the integrity of
the terrain and the rural character of the area. Earlier zonings in the area
namely the R-l-10,000 zoning to the- north were done with very little critical
input.
From recent actions in this area and review of the draft E1R, it appears that
the R-A-I Zone as requested is not appropriate for the property. Development
in the R-A-I Zone requires full public improvements (probably sewer also because
of poor soil for septico on one acre site). Since the terrain is hilly, grading
will be necessary for building pads and public streets. With one acre zone,
grading could dominate the area giving the appearance of a large lot urban
subdivision.
The R-E Zone would be appropriate since smaller lots could be placed on the flatter
areas not needing extensive grading or larger lots in steep slope areas. Also,
public facilities could be reduced and septics put into the larger lots. However,
since the R-E Zone is not yet adopted, this action would have to be tabeled.
The R-A- 2.5 Zone, which has been already applied in the area would be a viable
alternative. This zone has lots large enough for non obstrusive grading, septic
systems, and requires less area in roads. Also, the R-A 2.5 zone would not
preclude later rezoning the property to the R-E Zone when adopted.
The applicant indicated at the January II, 1978, Planning Commission meeting
that the L-C Zone is acceptable at this time. The L-C Zone is a holding zone
that only permits agricultural uses and uses already on the site. It is
specifically used when an applicant wishes annexation, but at that time has not
yet determined ultimate use of the land or development zone.
This may be the best solution for the applicant because of the timing dilemma
he is now in. If the L-C Zone was given, he could immediately precede with
annexation. After the adoption of the R-E Zone, he could then determine if that
zone or any other zone would be suitable for the property and his plans. The
L-C Zone retains all options of the applicant and the City as to the future of
the property.
[6]
c
The-EIR will need to be certified with any rezoning. It will then become the
environmental guide for any future rezoning,
SECT I ON III. RECOMMENDATI ON
Staff recommends that the zone change to Preannexational R-A-I not be approved,
but does recommend approval of a change of zone to Preannexational Zone L-C, for
the following reasons:
1) Limited Control Zone. The L-C Zone is appropriate for this property for the
followi ng reasons:
a) The zone is a holding zone which will not preclude options to the
applicant or the City in the future.
b) The L-C Zone will permit the applicant to initiate preceedings for
annexation to the City.
c) The L-C Zone wou'l d have no adverse effects or impacts on the area
or the property.
2) General Plan Consistency. The proposed zone change is consistent with the
General Plan because:
a) The L-C Zone is a holding zone that only permits agricultural uses and
uses presently on the property.
b) The L-C Zone does not exclude fu+ure options to the City.
3) Envi ronment.. The proposed zone change complies with the requirements of the
Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972, because Environmental
Impact Report No. 352 has been certified for the following reasons:
a) The Environmental Impact Report sufficiently provides data to determine
proper zoning of the property.
b) The Environmental Impact Report sufficiently describes the physical
characteristics of the property.
c) The Environmental Impact Report sufficently explains impacts upon the
property and surrounding areas.
4) Public FaciIities. The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable
City Public Facilities Policy and Ordinance because:
a) There will be no added demand for public facilities caused by this
change of zone to the L-C holding zone.
EXHIBITS
Location Map
Exhibit "A" dated, Jan 5, 1978, other rezone application.
Exhibit "B" dated, Jan 5, 1978, buildings in the area.
School Letter dated, Jan 5, 1978
Petition opposing R-I-A Zone.
BP:ar .
1/19/78
K R
ZC -185
TOOTS IF
.•..... ... *
<: : :• • :- : ...
EXHIBIT A
1-5-78
LOCATION OF REZONE APPLICATION
IN VICINITY OF ZCA-185
KATO '
PROPER-, I
s —
EXHIBIT B
1-5-78
EXISTING BUILDINGS ALONG
.SUNNY CREEK ROAD
001 pine avenue carlsbadcalifornia 92000 729-9291
January 5, 1978
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Bud Plender, Planning Department
Gent!emen:
We sent a letter to the City of Carlsbad on October 7, 1977 relative to
the pre-annexational zone change request for the Tootsie K Ranch.
The proposed pre-annexational zone change does not, at this time, require
an agreement between the school district and the representatives for the
proposed zone' change, nor has such an agreement been developed at this time.
We would, however, require the execution of an agreement at that point
in time when a sub-division map is submitted for approval. Also, the
Carlsbad Unified School District has not made any decision at this time that
would affect any change in the master plan for locating an elementary school
in the area proposed by this zone change. We will be willing to consider
those needs with the developers at a time when a subdivision map is available
to be considered.
Sincerely,
Glen Whitener
Associate Superintendent
GW:mw
January 9, 1978
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to Case #ZC-185, Robert H. Sonneborn, Applicant,
property commonly referred to as the Tootsie-K Ranch.
Please be advised that the undersigned property owners are opposed
to any pre-annexational zone that would allow for a greater density
of an average of one unit per every two acres. We are further
opposed to any use of the subject property which would require the
development of Sunny Creek Road wider than 20 feet. Any develop-
ment beyond 20 feet in width would destroy the largest stand of
Oak and Sycamore trees in the City.
•
We believe that the area in question and the surrounding pro-
perties have one of the most beautiful rural settings in Southern
California. It is the best location in the City of Carlsbad in
which to establish a "Rancho Santa Fe" atmosphere. Many of us
have worked closely.with the City for years to protect this area
for country-estate development and to this end have helped create
and implement the rural development zone. Density of one to an
acre or above would require nr^rly full standard City improvements
which would destroy tho atmosphere which we are all so desirous of
saving.
Below are tho signatures of the property owners which are opposed
to the applicant increasing the density above the one unit per
two acre average. Attached hereto is a map and there has been
outlined on the map, in red, the property that is owned by the
parties executing this letter. Each parcel is numbered and that
number appears opposite the signature of the respective owner.
Sincerely,
NAME NUMBER
25
-10J 25
30
v^
O-
January 9, 1978
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to Case #ZC-185, Robert H. Sonneborn, Applicant,
property commonly referred to as the Tootsie-K Ranch.
Please be advised that the undersigned property owners are opposed
to any pre-annexational zone that would allow for a greater density
of an average of one unit per every two acres. We are further
opposed to any use of the subject property which would require the
development of Sunny Creek Road wider than 20 feet. Any develop-
ment beyond 20 feet in width would destroy the largest stand of
Oak and Sycamore trees in the City.
We believe that the area in question and the surrounding pro-
perties have one of the most beautiful rural settings in Southern
California. It is the best location in the City of Carlsbad in
which to establish a "Rancho Santa Fe" atmosphere. Many of us
have worked closely with the City for years to protect this area
for country-estate development and to this end have helped create
and implement the rural development zone. Density of one to an
acre or above would require nearly full standard City improvements
which would destroy the atmosphere which we are all so desj cous of
saving.
Below are the signatures of the property owners which are opposed
to the applicant increasing the density above the one unit per
two acre average. Attached hereto is a map and there has been
outlined on the map, in red, the property that is owned by the
parties executing this letter. Each parcel is^numbered and that
number appears opposite the signature of thCTrespective owner.
Sincerely,
NAME ADDRESS NUMBER
12
24-3
24-4
Ms \ A^S^L;!
xV\ V-..1"'S "~~-*v . • J*~i*j rx % \,^>>r ^
^AWi5S5Ov^^rGO^\! Nr//*fc>