Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/1998, 8 - ACQUIRING AND IMPROVING PARK LAND IN ANNEXATION AREAS council MmueD= j ac En as REpont lumNmba CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Financewa-� SUBJECT: ACQUIRING AND IMPROVING PARK LAND IN ANNEXATION AREAS CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution establishing guidelines for acquiring and improving park land in annexation areas. Advisory Body Recommendations ■ The Parks & Recreation Commission recommends that the Council adopt the proposed guidelines (7-0). ■ The Planning Commission recommends that the Council adopt the proposed guidelines (5-1-0, Commissioner Senn voting no and Commissioner Ashbaugh absent). REPORT-IN-BRIEF As we began developing a park financing program as part of the Margarita Area Specific Plan, it became apparent that we need city-wide guidelines for acquiring and improving park land in annexation areas. As discussed with the Council on January 13, 1998, there are three key areas that need to be addressed in these guidelines: ■ Amount of acreage to be dedicated per 1,000 residents. ■ Responsibility for improving the dedicated park land(developer or the City). ■ Phasing of when land should be dedicated and when improvements should be made. In accordance with currently adopted General Plan policies,the attached guidelines propose that: ■ Park land should be dedicated upon annexation at the rate of 10 acres per 1,000 residents. ■ The applicant should be responsible for improving park land. ■ Improvements should be phased in accordance with the adopted specific plan for the area, with alf improvements completed by the time that two-thirds of the units are available for occupancy. DISCUSSION The purpose of these guidelines is to implement two key General Plan goals: ■ Park system goals. The City shall develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents(PR 6.1.1). v�� Council Agenda Report—Acquiring and Improving Park Land in Annexation Areas Page 2 ■ Paying for public facilities needed to serve new development The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits(LU 1.14). Current Situation Although the General Plan sets a goal of 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, under State law the City can not require a park land dedication of more than 5 acres per 1,000 residents (and then only if the community already meets this standard), unless a discretionary legislative act or approval is required. Additionally, unless it is in conjunction with a discretionary legislative act or approval, the City can only require land and off-site improvements in this case; it can not require full improvements. This means that for most residential development within the City's current boundaries, we can only require the dedication of land in the amount of 5 acres per 1,000 residents, or the payment of in-lieu fees based on this same criteria. Our current ratio of developed park land per 1,000 residents is 5.3 acres. Opportunity to Achieve Goals in Annexation Areas While State law limits our ability to require that new development fully pay for the cost of the park improvements required to serve it, we are allowed to require that annexation areas meet our General Plan goals because annexation is a legislative act of the City. Why should we do this? Because if we do not meet our General Plan goal with each residential development we approve, we will make any gap between our goal and current circumstances even larger— and that much more difficult to achieve at some time in the future. In short, if we do not achieve our park standard for new development on a case-by-case basis, service standards for existing residents will fall, and new residents will not be receiving the service levels set in the General Plan. While these guidelines are most likely to be applicable in the case of annexations, they should be used whenever State law allows us to do so. In addition to annexations, this is likely to occur whenever discretionary approvals of the City are requested, such as zone changes, general plan amendments or development agreements. Are These Guidelines Reasonable? The answer to this question rests solely on the reasonableness of our General Plan policies: ■ Is 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents a reasonable standard? ■ Is it reasonable to require that new development pay for the facilities needed to serve it? Within the context of these two policies, we believe the proposed guidelines are a reasonable approach in implementing General goals. Council Agenda Report—Acquiring and Improving Park Land in Annexation Areas Page 3 It is possible that part of the park land standard could be financed through the General Fund if we determined that there was a community-wide benefit associated with the development. We recommend that any such determination be made on a case-by-case basis, and that the general prevailing standard be clearly communicated in the guidelines. Our most recent experience. The City's most recent experience with a large-scale, residential annexation is the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area, which was approved in 1982. The ratio of park land to residents in this area is roughly 10 acres per 1,000 (excluding open space areas like Islay Peak, but including the privately owned and maintained interior park and pathways). Given our most recent, comparable experience, a requirement of 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents seems reasonable for future annexations. Approach to Building Parks The proposed guidelines envision that developers will be directly responsible for improving parks,rather than paying a fee and having the City take the lead role in building the park. This is similar to the approach the City takes on other on-site, project-related infrastructure improvements such as streets, sidewalks, storm drainage collection, water distribution lines and sewer collection lines. It is also based on our past park improvement experience. In the Edna-Islay area, we built two parks using two different strategies: French Park was built by the City over a number of phases; and Islay Park was built by the developer in one phase. The "Islay Park" model was a much more effective approach in a number of ways; and while it may not be possible to follow in all cases,this is the model for park improvement we would like to use in the future. What Other Communities Do We have not performed an extensive survey of practices in other California cities. However, we have consulted with David Taussig & Associates (DTA) regarding their experience and opinion on this matter. DTA is a public finance, urban economics and planning firm that specializes in preparing public facility financing plans. They are currently working for the City in preparing a park financing plan for the Margarita area and a broader infrastructure financing plan as part of the airport area specific plan. In their experience, what we are proposing would be a relatively ambitious approach for several reasons: ■ Our standard of 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents is high compared to many other California cities. ■ For cities that do have a standard this high, a commitment like this to actually achieving it would be unusual. ■ Most cities do not require a specific plan as a condition of annexation — and annexation approval provides the opportunity for achieving this standard. In short, other cities do not O '3 Council Agenda Report-Acquiring and Improving Park Land in Annexation Areas Page 4 address this issue until after annexation; and then it is generally too late to achieve this standard as a condition of development. While not in the mainstream of what other California cities do, DTA concurs that these are reasonable guidelines given our General Plan policies and a genuine desire to achieve them. Public Review Process Several opportunities for community and stakeholder involvement were provided before finalizing these guidelines and bringing them to the Council for adoption: ■ We sent notices to a broad range of interested community groups and individuals on February 5, 1998. ■ We held a general briefing on March 4, 1998 to discuss the proposed policy and answer questions about it. ■ The Planning Commission considered these guidelines on March 25, 1998 and April 8, 1998. ■ The Parks &Recreation Commission considered these guidelines on April 1, 1998. As noted above, both the Planning Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission recommend that the Council adopt the proposed guidelines. Concerns Raised During the Public Review Process The following summarizes concerns raised by individual advisory body members and speakers, and discusses how the guidelines have been revised in responding to them: ■ Flexibility. Advisory body members and speakers commented several times on the need for flexibility. Staff concurs, and believes the guidelines are clear that they are intended to provide a"framework for achieving General Plan goals"—they"are not intended to be hard and fast rules." Further, the guidelines go on to state that a number of issues need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. In short, we believe the guidelines provide a wide range of latitude in addressing specifics, while at the same time sending a clear message on what the City hopes to achieve, and what we believe is likely to be the best way of achieving it. ■ Phasing. Concerns were expressed with the phasing guidelines (Section C.3). Again, it is important to stress that these are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. On a case-by-case basis, phasing could certainly be different than what is set forth in the guidelines; however,the guidelines provide an important starting point for these discussions. With this in mind, we made the following modifications to the phasing of improvements: are reflected in the proposed guidelines: Council Agenda Report—Acquiring and Improving Park Land in Annexation Areas Page 5 • Improvement phasing was simplified by removing an interim phase of grading and off-site improvements; all phasing will be determined on a case-by-case basis as set forth in the specific plan for the area. • Completion of all improvements was extended from when 50% of the units are available for occupancy to two-thirds. This change is based on our experience in the Edna-Islay specific plan area. About 70% of the units were available for occupancy before Islay Park was completed. However, we began receiving complaints from residents long before then about when their park would be finished. On balance, we believe 67%is a reasonable target,keeping in mind that it is a guideline,not a"rule." ■ Relationship of Park Land to Open Space. The guidelines have been amended (Section C.l.c) to make it clear that since the General Plan defines and considers open space separately, that these guidelines only apply to park land; and that open space will not typically be counted as park land in meeting the 10 acres per 1,000 residents standard. ■ In-Lien Fee Management. Several concerns were raised about how any in-lieu fees would be accounted for. Before responding to this concern, it is important to stress that the City's goal is not to collect fees — it is to achieve our General Plan goals. The purpose of introducing the concept of an in-lieu fee is to provide flexibility — it is not intended to be the main way that General Plan goals are accomplished. Nonetheless, several valid comments were made about the in-lieu fee concept, and we revised Section CA of the guidelines to make it clear that any such fees will be restricted solely for park land acquisition and improvement; and they will be determined, assessed, collected and accounted for in a manner consistent with state requirements for development impact fees as set forth in AB 1600. ■ Neighborhood Parks Versus Community Facilities. Concerns were raised, especially in the context of in-lieu fees, about improving neighborhood versus community facilities. While the General Plan does not make distinctions between these types of facilities in its standard of 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, we added Sections CA.c and C.5.f to provide that fees should be used for parks in the area, unless a finding is made that the area is already adequately served by existing neighborhood facilities. In this case, fees will be used to acquire or improve community-wide facilities. ■ Affordability. This is admittedly a conundrum: how do we set high standards,make new development pay its own way, and at the same time build affordable housing? The proposed guidelines can not be expected to reconcile this dilemma. However, it is important to note that development costs are only one factor among many that ultimately determine the sales price of homes. The market place determines this. There are many communities with very high fees and yet have relatively affordable housing; on the other hand, there are communities with very low (or no development impact fees) that have the most expensive housing in the State. Council Agenda Report—Acquiring and Improving Park Land in Annexation Areas Page 6 ■ Cards Held by the City Versus Developer. Concern was expressed that these guidelines deal the City a better hand than the property owner/developer, and give the City an unfair advantage by stacking the deck in our favor. We do not believe this is true for several reasons: • First and foremost, these are only guidelines for implementing already adopted General Plan policies. As discussed below under Alternatives, perhaps the fundamental concern is with the policies themselves, not the guidelines for implementing them. • The key reason for developing these guidelines is to ensure that we clearly communicate our goals — and method for achieving them — to those proposing residential annexations in order to avoid any misunderstandings about development requirements and related costs; and that we achieve these goals in the most effective manner. In this sense, we genuinely believe that having clear guidelines only enhances the developer's hand by ensuring that she or he is not sandbagged later in the process. • Lastly, we can only achieve these guidelines with the owner/developer's agreement. As noted in the guidelines (Section C.2), an annexation agreement is the likely method of achieving these goals. It takes both the City and the owner/developer to make this happen. If, after fully understanding the City's guidelines for all infrastructure needs (not just parks), the owner/developer does not believe there is sufficient value in annexing to the City,then they can simply choose not to do so. ■ Variances Between Actual Build-Out and the Specific Plan. The question was asked: what if the actual build-out (and resulting population) is more or less than specific plan projections? If we believe that variances are likely, then this should be addressed when the specific plan is prepared, and needed infrastructure improvements are determined. In short,we plan other infrastructure improvements based on our best understanding of what will be needed to serve the development— for example, how we should size water lines, sewer lines and street widths. Park planning should be accomplished in a similar fashion. After the development is completed, we don't resize water lines if densities are lower than we initially projected, nor do we refund the potential value of the oversizing. We should take the same approach with our park infrastructure. CONCURRENCES ■ Advisory Bodies. As noted previously, both the Planning Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission recommend that the Council adopt the proposed guidelines. ■ City staff. Staff from Community Development, Parks & Recreation, Public Works and Administration concur with the recommendation. U�SO Council Agenda Report—Acquiring and Improving Park Land in Annexation Areas Page 7 ALTERNATIVES ■ Do Nothing. Since our current General Plan policies are clear on both our park land standards and how public facilities needed to serve new development are to be funded, a case could be made that these guidelines are not needed. However, we believe that clearly communicating our standards through these guidelines will help avoid any misunderstandings about development requirements and related costs. ■ Reduce the Acreage Dedication and Improvement Requirements. If we are serious about achieving our General Plan goals,this option is not recommended. ■ Amend the General Plan. Some may be concerned that these development requirements are too onerous. In considering the reasonableness of these guidelines, the issue may not be that the strategy is flawed, but that the goal is unreasonable. In this case, the Council may want consider amending General Plan policies, either in regard to the park land standard or the requirement that new development pay its own way. Given our recent, comprehensive General Plan update and review process that resulted in these policies,we do not recommend this option. SUMMARY We have tried to be responsive to the comments we received from advisory members and others in drafting the proposed guidelines. We believe these guidelines will help ensure that in those circumstances where State law allows (most notably annexations), we will achieve our stated General Plan goals of: ensuring that new development pays for its fair share of the costs of the facilities necessary to serve it; and developing and maintaining a park system at the rate of 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents: ATTACHMENT Resolution adopting guidelines for acquiring and improving park land in annexation areas EDITS ■ Guidelines for acquiring and improving park land in annexation areas ■ Notice and mailing list H:Margarita Area Specific Plan/CoLmcil Agenda Report-April 21,1998 Sr� RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE.CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING GUIDELINES FOR ACQUIRING AND ROROVING PARK LAND IN ANNEXATION AREAS WHEREAS, the City's General Plan says the City shall develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, and that the costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by the new development; and WHEREAS, State law allows the City to achieve these goals whenever a discretionary, legislative act of the City is required, such as an annexation, zone change, general plan amendment or development agreement; and WHEREAS, if the City does not achieve its General Plan goal with each residential development it approves, any gap between this goal and current circumstances will grow even larger, and that much more difficult to achieve at some time in the future. Service levels will fall for both existing and new residents; and WHEREAS, the City wants to ensure that it clearly communicates its goals — and method for achieving them — to those proposing residential annexations in order to avoid any misunderstandings about development requirements and related costs; and that it achieves these goals in the most effective manner possible. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that it hereby adopts the attached guidelines for acquiring and improving park land in annexation areas. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 1998. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,,AWG-Orgep0h, Attorney Q� 8''O �►u►u��u►IIII�IIIIIP1°°°9111b city of san Luis awspo Park Land Acquisition and Improvement in Annexation Areas A. OVERVIEW The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a framework for achieving General Plan park system goals in annexation areas. While these guidelines are not intended to be "hard and fast rules,"they are intended to provide sufficient direction to help ensure that: 1. We clearly communicate our goals — and method for achieving them — to those proposing residential annexations in order to avoid any misunderstandings about development requirements and related costs. 2. We achieve these goals in the most effective manner possible. B. GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The General Plan sets forth two key policies regarding the City's park system standards, and new development's responsibility to pay for the cost of the park land necessary to serve it: 1. The City shall develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents (PR 6.1.1). 2. The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits (LU 1.14). C. EUPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES In accordance with General Plan policies, the City will use the following guidelines in acquiring and improving park land whenever State law allows us to do so. This is most likely to occur in the case of annexations. However, these guidelines are also applicable whenever discretionary approvals of the City are requested, such as zone changes, general plan amendments or development agreements. 1. Park land acquisition and improvement goal. The City will achieve a ratio of 10 acres of park per 1,000 residents projected to reside in the annexation area This includes land and improvements. a Privately owned and maintained landscaped areas such as interior parkways and community greens may be considered as contributing to this goal. This will be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the purpose and nature of such areas, and the level of public access to them. �r� Park Land Acquisition and Improvement in Annexation Areas Page 2 b. School sites may also be considered as contributing towards this goal. This will be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the location of the proposed school site to planned park sites, and the likelihood that the school site will be used as a"joint use"facility. C. Open space will not typically be counted as park land in meeting the 10 acres per 1,000 residents standard. The City's General Plan is clear in its distinctions between open space and parks, and the purpose of these guidelines is to help implement the General Plan's park system goals, not open space goals. 2. Property owner dedication and developer improvement requirement Through an annexation agreement, the City will generally require the dedication and full improvement of required park land by the property owner and/or developer (applicant) as a condition of the annexation. This means that the City will typically not take the lead role in acquiring and improving parks in annexation areas; this is the applicant's responsibility similar to the construction of other on-site, project-related infrastructure improvements such as streets, sidewalks, storm drainage collection, water distribution lines and sewer collection lines. 3. Acquisition and improvement phasing. The phasing of when dedication and improvements are required by the applicant will be set forth in the annexation agreement, specific plan or development plan. While this will be determined on a case-by-case basis, land dedication and improvements should generally be phased as follows: a. Land should be dedicated upon annexation. b. Phase 1 improvements (as defined in the annexation agreement, specific plan or development plan) should be completed before the first certificate of occupancy is issued; other improvement phases and standards may be established in the annexation agreement, specific plan or development plan. C. All improvements should be completed by the time that two-thirds of the units are available for occupancy. 4. Fees in-lieu of dedication and improvement. Depending on the circumstances, the City may prefer to develop some portion of the required park acquisition and improvements on property that is not being annexed. This would generally occur when the City plans to meet part of the"10 acres per 1,000 residents"requirement through a community-wide facility that is not located in the annexation area, or when the annexation area is not large enough to dedicate and improve a meaningful amount of park land. g��o Park Land Acquisition and Improvement in Annexation Areas Page 3 In this case, an in-lieu fee will be paid by the applicant equal to the value of required land and improvements that will not be dedicated and built by the applicant in the annexation area Whenever fees are paid in lieu of dedicating and improving park land,they will be: a. Restricted solely for park land acquisition and improvement. b. Determined, assessed, collected and accounted for in a manner consistent with state requirements for development impact fees as set forth in AB 1600. C. Used for park land and improvements that directly serve the annexation area, unless a finding is made that the area is already adequately served by existing neighborhood facilities. In this case, fees will be used to acquire or improve community-wide facilities. 5. Case-by-case review. The following issues will be addressed on a case-by-case basis as part of the specific plan or development review process: a. Amount of park land to be dedicated and improved within the annexation areas versus the amount that will be met through the payment of in-lieu fees in meeting the overall goal of 10 acres of parks per 1,000 residents. b. Location and type of park land to be developed in the annexation area. C. Value of the park land and improvements that will not be developed in the annexation, and the resulting amount of fees to be paid. d. Timing as to when these fees will be paid. e. Timing as to when park improvements will be made by the applicant. f. Distribution of any in-lieu fees between neighborhood versus community parks and facilities, and the need to redress any deficit in the availability of neighborhood parks in the vicinity of the annexation area H:Margarita Area Specific PI=Mark Land Acquisition in Annexation Areas 4b flaigm! city Of INU san lues oBlspo February 17, 1998 NOTICE REGARDING GUIDELINES FOR ACQUIRING AND IMPROVING PARK LAND IN ANNEXATION AREAS On January 5, 1998,we mailed you a notice regarding proposed guidelines on acquiring and improving park land in annexation areas. The purpose of these guidelines is to address two key issues: ■ Amount of acreage to be dedicated per 1,000 residents. ■ Responsibility for improving the dedicated park land(developer or the City). At a study session on January 13, 1998, the Council considered the general need for guidelines in this area, without discussing any specific content. The Council directed staff to discuss these proposed guidelines with affected stakeholders,and then return to the Council with a recommendation. Proposed Guidelines. In accordance with currently adopted General Plan policies, attached are draft guidelines proposing that park land in annexation areas be dedicated at the rate of 10 acres per 1,000 residents,and that the applicant be responsible for improving it. Review Process. There will be several opportunities for interested community groups and individuals to express their opinions on the proposed guidelines before they are acted upon by the Council: • Community Briefing Wednesday,March 4, 1998 General forum for questions and 7:00 pm comments on the guidelines Council Hearing Room,990 Palm Street 1 y� • Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday,March 25, 1998 7:00 pm PO! Council Chambers,990 Palm Street • Parks& Recreation Wednesday,April 1, 1998 Commission Meeting 7:00 pm City/County Library Conference Room B,995 Palm Street • City Counci[Meeting Tuesday,April 21, 1998 7:00 pm Council Chambers,990 Palm Street As reflected above, Council action on these guidelines is planned for April 21, 1998. We encourage you or a representative from your group to attend any of these meetings. Additionally, we will be happy to meet with you or your organization at your convenience prior to the April 21 Council meeting. If you have any questions concerning these guidelines or require additional information,please call me at(805)781-7125. Sincerely, Bill Statler,Director of Finance ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Business Improvement Association Building Industry Association of the Central Business Coalition 1108 Garden St,Ste.205 Coast 846 Higaera St,Ste.2 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 P.0.Box 6180 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Santa Maria,CA 93456 Chamber of Commerce ECOSLO Residents for Quality Neighborhoods Director of Governmental Affairs P.0.Box 1014 c/o Ray Nordquist 1039 Chorro San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 750 Pasatiempo Dr. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RRM Design Group SLO Assoc Manufacturers&Distributors SLO Board of Realtors Association 3026 S.Higuera clo Barnett&Cox 443 Marsh St San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 979 Osos St,#F San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 SLO Property Owners Association Sierra Club Chorro Neighborhood Group P.O.Box 12924 clo Pat Veesart c/o Carol Tangeman San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 1446 Morro St 806 Murray Ave. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Dan Smith SLO County Builders Exchange SLO Housing Authority 1111 Vista Lago 3563-G Sueldo St Atta: Executive Director San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 P.O.Box 1289 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 SL Coastal Unified School District Assignment Editor Telegram Tribune Atm:Assistairt Supt for Business Services KSBY TV Attn: Jamie Hurley 1499 San Luis Drive 467 Hill Avenue P.O.Box 112 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3099 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 News Director University-Cal Poly Irish Hills Investors KGLO Radio Administrative Services c/o Hamish Marshall P.0.Box 170 One Grand Avenue 555 Ramona Drive Arroyo Grande,CA 93421 San Luis Obispo,CA 93407 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Orcutt Specific Plan Area property Owners Roy&Dolly Garcia Douglas&Eileen Damon c%Andrew Merriam-Cannon Associates 547 Prado Road 252 Daly Avenue 364 Pacific Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Richard DeBlauw Santa Maria Contractor's Association John E.King,King Ventures Sierra Gardens of San Luis Obispo 2003 Noah Priesker c/o David Watson 411 El Camino Real Santa Maria,CA 93454 246 Encanto Avenue Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 Pismo Beach,CA 93449 J.Martinelli Susan Ostrov Chris Whitby San Luis Tallow Company John L.Wallace&Associates C.W.Construction P.O.Box 767 4115 Broad Street,Suite B5 1970 Chorro San Luis Obispo,CA 93406-0767 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 8'-l3 Kelly Gearhart Harold Muehlenbeck _c.E.Wisberg 6660 Navajoa 1164 Shannon Lane 4370 Broad Street Atascadero,CA 93422 Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 R L.Cummings L.Fuller Alex Madonna 4420 Edna Road A1C Route 3 Box 1840 P.O.Box 3910 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 The Dalidio Family Howard McBride etaL c%Andrew Merriam-Cannon Associates 2631 Kensington Way 364 Pacific St Stoclaon,CA 95204 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 G•kT.ISTSTARKLAND ACQUISITION