EXECUTED RESOLUTION 09-360"/��S-3
Before the Board of Supervisors in and for the
County of Monterey, State of California
Resolution No: 09-360
Resolution by the Monterey County Board of Board of
Supervisors adopting revised Staking arid/or Flagging
Criteria"
PD070742/County of Monterey)
Revised Staking and Flagging Criteria came on for public hearing before the Monterey County
Board of Supervisors on July 21, 2009. Having considered all the written and documentary
evidence, the administrative record, the staff report, oral testimony, and other evidence
presented, the Board of Supervisors adopts revised criteria for staking and flagging countywide.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, County policies and regulations require visual impact analysis for proposed
development in Monterey County.
WHEREAS, in 1994, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors adopted Staking and Flagging
Criteria to provide guidance on implementing these policies and regulations.
WHEREAS, in June 2006, the Planning Commission requested staff to develop criteria for
removing staking and flagging.
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2008, the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on options
for additional changes to the criteria. The Commission continued the matter and provided
direction to staff as to the scope of work and offered suggested edits.
WHEREAS, between January 2008 and. August 2008, staff worked with the Permit Streamlining
Taskforce to obtain input from the development industry as interested parties that work with
these criteria. A copy of the taskforce recommendations was distributed to all of the 12 Land
Use Advisory Committees for comments and three LUACs responded North County-Inland,
Toro, Carmel Valley).
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2008, a duly noticed public hearing with the Planning Commission
was held to consider proposed changes. The Commission continued the matter to allow staff
time to work with the Permit Streamlining Taskforce to obtain input from the development
industry as interested parties that work with these criteria.
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
and continued the matter with direction to staff for edits to the revised, proposed, Criteria.
BIB]
40023-U01
EXECUTED-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
09-360-U02
LI21329-U03
FO21330-U03
FO74555-U03
FO75266-U03
MG75341-U03
AS75360-U03
AS75366-U03
AI81784-U03
DO82393-U03
C13-U03
RESOLUTIONS-U03
7/29/2009-U04
MUNOZP-U04
13704-U05
2-U06
HOLD-U07
A-U07
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER-U07
REVISIONS-U07
TO-U07
STAKING-U07
FLAGGING-U07
CRITERIA.-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
7/8/2009-U011
PD070742/COUNTY-U012
OF-U012
MONTEREY-U012
STAKING-U012
FLAGGING-U012
CRITERIA,-U012
COUNTY-WIDE)-U012
EXECUTED RESOLUTION 09-360"/��S-3
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and
unanimously voted to recommend approval of revisions to the Staking and/or Flagging Criteria
with a minor clarification to Section 4.0.
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2009, the Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed public hearing and
voted to adopt revisions to the Staking and/or Flagging Criteria.
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors adopt Staking and/or
Flagging Criteria" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as ATTACHMENT] on
the condition that the Planning Department report back in one 1) calendar year on the
effectiveness using examples) of staking taking place over the one 1) year period.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 21St day of July, 2009, upon motion of Supervisor Potter,
seconded by Supervisor Parker, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Supervisors Armenta, Salinas, Calcagno, Parker, Potter
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
1, Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an original order of said Board of Supervisors duly made and entered in
the minutes thereof of Minute Book 75 for the meeting on July 21, 2009.
Dated: July 23, 2009 Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Monterey, State of California
By
Deputy
BIB]
40023-U01
EXECUTED-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
09-360-U02
LI21329-U03
FO21330-U03
FO74555-U03
FO75266-U03
MG75341-U03
AS75360-U03
AS75366-U03
AI81784-U03
DO82393-U03
C13-U03
RESOLUTIONS-U03
7/29/2009-U04
MUNOZP-U04
13704-U05
2-U06
HOLD-U07
A-U07
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER-U07
REVISIONS-U07
TO-U07
STAKING-U07
FLAGGING-U07
CRITERIA.-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
7/8/2009-U011
PD070742/COUNTY-U012
OF-U012
MONTEREY-U012
STAKING-U012
FLAGGING-U012
CRITERIA,-U012
COUNTY-WIDE)-U012
EXECUTED RESOLUTION 09-360"/��ATTACHMENT 1
BOARD RESOLUTION 09-360
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Salinas 168 West Alisal, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA 93901
Telephone: 831.755.5025 Fax: 831.757.9516
Coastal Office 2620 First Avenue, Marina, CA 93933
Telephone: 831.883.7500 fax: 831.384.3261
STAKING AND/OR FLAGGING CRITERIA
The purpose of staking and/or flagging is to provide visualization and analysis of projects in relation
to County policies and regulations. Staking and/or flagging is intended to help planners and the
public visualize the mass and form of a proposed project, or to assist in visualizing road cuts in
areas of visual sensitivity. Staking and/or flagging:
1) Shall be required when any of the following conditions exist:
All or part of the project site is designated with a Design Overlay D").
All or part of the project site is designated as Visually Sensitive VS") on an
adopted visual sensitivity map Toro Area Plan, Greater Monterey Peninsula Area
Plan, North County Area Plan).
When the project/site has potential to create ridgeline development, as determined by
the project planner.
When the application includes a variance to height restrictions.
2) May be required where the project planner determines that the project has potential to
create an adverse visual impact.
3) May be exempted when the project planner determines that no visual analysis is required
for the project e.g. Lot Line Adjustment).
1. DELINEATION
As required, delineate the structure with flags of international orange, bright red, and/or other
visible color(s) attached to sturdy poles that are able to withstand weather conditions for that area.
Delineation may be accomplished using one of the following:
1) String with colored flags. Flagging colors shall be subject to approval by the project
planner.
2) Continuous orange netting Sample Photos Exhibit 1).
3) Multiple staking and/or flagging, using the following criteria:
Flags shall be a minimum of 2-foot by 2-foot square located at the highest point of
the structure Sample Photos Exhibit 2).
Staking shall identify major corners. Intermediate stakes and/or flags, as deemed
adequate by the project planner, may be required so that the volume is easily
perceived.
Stakes without flags may be required for road cuts where required by the project
planner.
4) Photo Simulation, with a couple stakes for verification Sample Simulation, Exhibit 3).
See Section 4 Photo Documentation" for more information.
Exhibit A, Draft Resolution
Stakine and,/or Flagging i P13070742)
Board of Supervisors, 7/2109
Pace 3 of 7
BIB]
40023-U01
EXECUTED-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
09-360-U02
LI21329-U03
FO21330-U03
FO74555-U03
FO75266-U03
MG75341-U03
AS75360-U03
AS75366-U03
AI81784-U03
DO82393-U03
C13-U03
RESOLUTIONS-U03
7/29/2009-U04
MUNOZP-U04
13704-U05
2-U06
HOLD-U07
A-U07
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER-U07
REVISIONS-U07
TO-U07
STAKING-U07
FLAGGING-U07
CRITERIA.-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
7/8/2009-U011
PD070742/COUNTY-U012
OF-U012
MONTEREY-U012
STAKING-U012
FLAGGING-U012
CRITERIA,-U012
COUNTY-WIDE)-U012
EXECUTED RESOLUTION 09-360"/��Exhibit 1: Sample Continuous Netting
Exhibit 2: Sample Flags
Nae 4 of 7
Exhibit 1, Draft Resolution
Staking ancllor Flagging PD070742)
Board of Supervisors. 7/2109
BIB]
40023-U01
EXECUTED-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
09-360-U02
LI21329-U03
FO21330-U03
FO74555-U03
FO75266-U03
MG75341-U03
AS75360-U03
AS75366-U03
AI81784-U03
DO82393-U03
C13-U03
RESOLUTIONS-U03
7/29/2009-U04
MUNOZP-U04
13704-U05
2-U06
HOLD-U07
A-U07
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER-U07
REVISIONS-U07
TO-U07
STAKING-U07
FLAGGING-U07
CRITERIA.-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
7/8/2009-U011
PD070742/COUNTY-U012
OF-U012
MONTEREY-U012
STAKING-U012
FLAGGING-U012
CRITERIA,-U012
COUNTY-WIDE)-U012
EXECUTED RESOLUTION 09-360"/��Exhibit 3: Sample Photo Simulation
2. HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUESTS
When a variance to height regulations is requested, there shall be two structure lines flagged:
1) proposed building height
2) maximum height allowed by the zoning district.
The flags representing the allowed and requested heights shall be in contrasting colors.
3. STAKING AND/OR FLAGGING PLAN
Staking will be required to clearly indicate the visual impact of the proposed project as determined
by the project planner. Where staking and/or flagging is required, the project planner shall
determine what points of the proposed building corners, ridges, etc) must be staked and/or flagged
in order to complete their visual assessment. The project planner may exempt a project, or
components thereof, from the staking and/or flagging requirement where there is clearly no
potential visual impact e.g. addition behind an existing house, back walls, road alignment, etc) and
where staking and/or flagging is not required.
The applicant shall submit a Staking Plan that identifies the locations of stakes using numbers,
direction e.g.; NWC northwest corner), or some other identification method Site Plan illustrating
location of stakes in the field). Photos of the staking from visual points near and far shall be
submitted with the Staking Plan, and said plan shall identify where the photo points are located See
sample Staking Plan, Exhibit 4).
Page 5 of 7
Exhibit A. Draft Resolution
Staking ancllor l laeuine i1'1)074742)
Board of Superti ismr 7 12109
BIB]
40023-U01
EXECUTED-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
09-360-U02
LI21329-U03
FO21330-U03
FO74555-U03
FO75266-U03
MG75341-U03
AS75360-U03
AS75366-U03
AI81784-U03
DO82393-U03
C13-U03
RESOLUTIONS-U03
7/29/2009-U04
MUNOZP-U04
13704-U05
2-U06
HOLD-U07
A-U07
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER-U07
REVISIONS-U07
TO-U07
STAKING-U07
FLAGGING-U07
CRITERIA.-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
7/8/2009-U011
PD070742/COUNTY-U012
OF-U012
MONTEREY-U012
STAKING-U012
FLAGGING-U012
CRITERIA,-U012
COUNTY-WIDE)-U012
EXECUTED RESOLUTION 09-360"/��Structure Classification
Address or
Location
County Zone
Designation
Assessors
Parcel No:
APPLICANT Design Professional E] Owner
Name
Title
Address
City
State
Zip
Date
20
Application No.
Contractor El Other
Work Phone
Home Phone
Fax
e-mail
C3 0),
New
Residence
Fah Fl
Elevation 4951 I
r!
NO
dentlfy sides that have
sua Y. sensitive vieew
Abbreviations & Marking
I BC-501 Building Corner & I.D. No.
with stake and flag at visual
sensitive view side of building
BC-513 Building Reference Corner
marked with 4' stake and number
at non visual sensitive veiw side
IC Intermediate Corner 4' Stake
marked IC" no number)
Ridge line flagging
RL-515 I Ridgeline End Points I
BRC-513 Building Reference Corner
File: \A&L Work\Work\moco-2.ged
Submitted By: Date:
Ordinance
Received By: Planning
Figure Number
STAKING AND FLAGGING CRITERIA
STRUCTURE OUTLINE EXAMPLE
See Staking And Flagging Criteria for Requirements
Department
Exhibit A, Draft Resolution
Staking and/or Flanging 0D070742)
Board of Supervisors, 7%2109
BIB]
40023-U01
EXECUTED-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
09-360-U02
LI21329-U03
FO21330-U03
FO74555-U03
FO75266-U03
MG75341-U03
AS75360-U03
AS75366-U03
AI81784-U03
DO82393-U03
C13-U03
RESOLUTIONS-U03
7/29/2009-U04
MUNOZP-U04
13704-U05
2-U06
HOLD-U07
A-U07
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER-U07
REVISIONS-U07
TO-U07
STAKING-U07
FLAGGING-U07
CRITERIA.-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
7/8/2009-U011
PD070742/COUNTY-U012
OF-U012
MONTEREY-U012
STAKING-U012
FLAGGING-U012
CRITERIA,-U012
COUNTY-WIDE)-U012
EXECUTED RESOLUTION 09-360"/��4. PHOTO DOCUMENTATION
Staking and/or flagging is required for the duration of the review process" in order to help the
project planner visualize the proposed development. Photo simulation of the proposed project is
encouraged to supplement this visual analysis.
After 60 days from the date of submittal or the date staking and/or flagging is installed whichever
is later) and review by the Land Use Advisory Committee if applicable), the project planner may
determine that use of a photo simulation is adequate in lieu of staking and/or flagging for the
duration of the review process, except in the following circumstances:
1) The project involves construction of a road or structure within a critical viewshed Big
Sur Land Use Plan), or
2) The project is located in an area designated as highly sensitive on an adopted visual
sensitivity map Toro Area Plan, Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan, North County
Area Plan)
3) The project is determined by the project planner to involve ridgeline development.
All photo simulations shall have a point of reference to reveal major building features, highest
points, relation to adjacent buildings, entry, or other significant details. Said reference point, and
points of visual assessment, shall be from the visually sensitive side of the structure in the best
location(s) determined by the project planner.
5. REMOVAL OF STAKING AND/OR FLAGGING
Staking and/or flagging not removed within 10 days following final action, or upon direction by the
Planning Director, shall constitute a public nuisance.
Staking and/or flagging shall be removed upon completion of the review process or at the direction
of the Planning Director. For purposes of this criteria, duration of review process" shall mean 10
days following action by a decision-making body, unless an appeal is filed pursuant to appropriate
chapters of the Zoning Codes Titles 20 and 21).
Projects are encouraged to use technology/materials e.g. telescoping poles) that allow flexibility to
reduce/remove staking during periods when the project is not pending review or a noticed hearing,
as determined by the project planner. Staking and/or flagging that has been damaged e.g. weather)
shall be removed or repaired within 10 days following said damage or upon direction by the
Planning Director. Damaged staking and/or flagging need not be replaced until such time as notice
for the project hearing has been posted, as determined by the project planner.
Page 7 of 7
11xhibit A. Draft Resolution
Staking andd'or Flagging O'D070742)
Board of Supervisors, 7/2100
BIB]
40023-U01
EXECUTED-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
09-360-U02
LI21329-U03
FO21330-U03
FO74555-U03
FO75266-U03
MG75341-U03
AS75360-U03
AS75366-U03
AI81784-U03
DO82393-U03
C13-U03
RESOLUTIONS-U03
7/29/2009-U04
MUNOZP-U04
13704-U05
2-U06
HOLD-U07
A-U07
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER-U07
REVISIONS-U07
TO-U07
STAKING-U07
FLAGGING-U07
CRITERIA.-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
7/8/2009-U011
PD070742/COUNTY-U012
OF-U012
MONTEREY-U012
STAKING-U012
FLAGGING-U012
CRITERIA,-U012
COUNTY-WIDE)-U012
SIGNED BOARD REPORTX��"/��MONTEREY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MEETING: July 21, 2009 1:30 pm AGENDA NO: S-3
SUBJECT: Consider revisions to Staking and Flagging Criteria. PD070742/County of Monterey Staking and Flagging Criteria, County-wide)
DEPARTMENT: RMA Planning Department
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve revisions to the Staking and Flagging
Criteria as drafted in Exhibit A.
DISCUSSION:
The Monterey County Planning Commission recommends approval of revised Staking and Flagging
Criteria, which developed out of a referral to the Planning Department in response to requests from
citizens to address standards for removing the staking and flagging. Staff was tasked to draft an
amendment to the guidelines that addresses how/when flagging should be removed to reduce
visual clutter for long periods of time.
On August 27, 2008, staff presented revised guidelines, including a request from the Permit
Streamlining Taskforce to suggest more comprehensive revisions that would streamline the criteria
in a manner that helps assess project impacts but also allows flexibility with changing technologies
e.g. photo simulation). As part of the direction, staff sent a copy of the Taskforce
recommendations to the Land Use Advisory Committees. Three LUACs submitted comments
North County-Inland, Toro, Carmel Valley).
There has been general support for the Taskforce changes; however, the LUACs wanted to make
sure staking would remain in place until they have reviewed the project. Although it is not explicit,
the attached criteria have been revised to address this concern. In general, the proposed changes
would:
Consolidate three criteria into one, also keeping the variance requirement to have two
strings of flagging.
Establish timelines to address the Commission's concern to get flagging down timely.
Integrate the ability to use modem technology e.g. simulation).
Allow parts of a project that would be unseen to be staked without flagging, as
determined by the project planner.
Allow different types of staking and flagging to help reduce the need for heavy
vegetation and high wind areas.
FINANCING:
This work would be performed as part of project review. Funding for staff time associated with
project review is included in the FY09-10 Budget for the Planning Department. No additional
funding would be required as a result of this direction.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:
Permit Streamlining Taskforce, Land Use Advisory Committees
Prepared b(: \ A A Approved by:
Carl P. Holm, AICP Mike Novo, AICP
Assistant Director Director
RMA- Planning Department RMA- Planning Department
BIB]
40023-U01
SIGNED-U02
BOARD-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO21330-U03
FO74555-U03
FO75266-U03
MG75341-U03
AS75360-U03
AS75366-U03
AI81784-U03
DO82398-U03
C10-U03
BOARD-U03
REPORTS-U03
7/29/2009-U04
MUNOZP-U04
13704-U05
2-U06
HOLD-U07
A-U07
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER-U07
REVISIONS-U07
TO-U07
STAKING-U07
FLAGGING-U07
CRITERIA.-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
7/8/2009-U011
PD070742/COUNTY-U012
OF-U012
MONTEREY-U012
STAKING-U012
FLAGGING-U012
CRITERIA,-U012
COUNTY-WIDE)-U012
SIGNED BOARD REPORTX��"/��Date: June 29, 2009
cc: Counter Copy, Board of Supervisors; County Counsel; Environmental Health Division; Public Works;
Monterey County Water Resources Agency; Parks Department; California Coastal Commission; Mike
Novo; Carl Holm; LUAC Chairs, Streamline Taskforce Chair E. Mills), File PD070742.
Attachments:
Exhibit A Resolution, Staking and Flagging Criteria
Exhibit B Redline draft Staking and Flagging Criteria
BIB]
40023-U01
SIGNED-U02
BOARD-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO21330-U03
FO74555-U03
FO75266-U03
MG75341-U03
AS75360-U03
AS75366-U03
AI81784-U03
DO82398-U03
C10-U03
BOARD-U03
REPORTS-U03
7/29/2009-U04
MUNOZP-U04
13704-U05
2-U06
HOLD-U07
A-U07
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER-U07
REVISIONS-U07
TO-U07
STAKING-U07
FLAGGING-U07
CRITERIA.-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
7/8/2009-U011
PD070742/COUNTY-U012
OF-U012
MONTEREY-U012
STAKING-U012
FLAGGING-U012
CRITERIA,-U012
COUNTY-WIDE)-U012
PUBLIC COMMENT - JAN MITCHEL/��MEMORANDUM
DATE; 10-3-2001
TO; Members of the Monterey County
Planning Commission
CC: Dale Ellis, Planning Services Manager
FROM: North County Non-Coastal LUAC
SUBJECT; FLAGGING & STAKING CRITERIA
On June 13, 2001, the Monterey County Planning
Commission voted to form a Subcommittee, comprised of
Commissioners acy, Brennan, nd Hernandez, to
specifically rev ie an ti ale the county's policies
for flagging and staking project sites.
In that regard, the North County Non Coastal LUAC has
also agendized and discussed this criteria, and>have
formulated recommendations to submit for consideration
by the Subcommittee see attached).
In addition, it was suggested and agreed by all THAT
THE LUAC MEETINGS SHOULD BE NOTICED. The LUAC feels
that this is important' from the standpoint that ALL
neighbors who might be impacted could submit their
public input for consideration prior to any LUAC
recommendations for any specific project.
Furthermore, and as a matter of comment, it has come
to the attention of the LUAC that a uniform fee
schedule" for traffic impact fees is needed
countywide.
Our LUAC members are hopeful that you will find our
suggestions and comments insightful, and we appreciate
your giving them your consideration.
nM<I,.k__1
k
Received by Clerk to the Board
Additional Material for
Board A�en a D at 61 of: t No
Dist 1 CAO
Dist 2 Cou ty C unsei
Dist3
Dist4
Dist 5
BIB]
40023-U01
PUBLIC-U02
COMMENT-U02
U02
JAN-U02
MITCHEL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO21330-U03
FO74555-U03
FO75266-U03
MG75341-U03
AS75360-U03
AS75366-U03
AI81784-U03
DO82399-U03
C12-U03
ATTACHMENTS-U03
7/29/2009-U04
MUNOZP-U04
13704-U05
2-U06
HOLD-U07
A-U07
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER-U07
REVISIONS-U07
TO-U07
STAKING-U07
FLAGGING-U07
CRITERIA.-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
7/8/2009-U011
PD070742/COUNTY-U012
OF-U012
MONTEREY-U012
STAKING-U012
FLAGGING-U012
CRITERIA,-U012
COUNTY-WIDE)-U012
PUBLIC COMMENT - JAN MITCHEL/��ATTACHMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS BY NORTH COUNTY NON COASTAL LUAC TO
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT; COUNTY FLAGGING AND STAKING POLICIES
1. The same requirements for flagging and staking
should apply to non-coastal as well as coastal areas.
In other words, the same set of rules should apply
for all).
2. Non-coastal areas Stake building corners with
orange colored flags at least one square foot in size,
attached to wooden stakes which are high enough to be
VISIBLE ABOVE THE BRUSHLINE". Frequently,
manzanita, and poison oak grow higher than two feet.)
3. If a project is NOT properl staked by the
applicant, the project should of go forward until it
is properly staked by the applicant.
4. It would be helpful for LUAC volunteers to view
flags at parcel corners for proposed subdivisions.
Often,'-there is considerable difficulty locating the
site, as well as denoting the proposed boundaries for
subdivision of new parcels.
BIB]
40023-U01
PUBLIC-U02
COMMENT-U02
U02
JAN-U02
MITCHEL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO21330-U03
FO74555-U03
FO75266-U03
MG75341-U03
AS75360-U03
AS75366-U03
AI81784-U03
DO82399-U03
C12-U03
ATTACHMENTS-U03
7/29/2009-U04
MUNOZP-U04
13704-U05
2-U06
HOLD-U07
A-U07
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER-U07
REVISIONS-U07
TO-U07
STAKING-U07
FLAGGING-U07
CRITERIA.-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
7/8/2009-U011
PD070742/COUNTY-U012
OF-U012
MONTEREY-U012
STAKING-U012
FLAGGING-U012
CRITERIA,-U012
COUNTY-WIDE)-U012