The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFebruary 19, 1991' - .~ . . . • ~,* . . . ~~ .. ~ .. . . , j ~F_' . . ~ ,. .. . . - . - . ' . . . . . . . A G E`N D A " ; _ ~ • ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 7:30 P.M. '. INVOCATION ACTiON ' PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: -Council Members Ciraulo, Fasching, Gilb', Harbicht and Young , All Present MINUTES of the adjourned and regular„meetings of , February 5, 1991 . Approved MOTION: Read all ordinances and resolutions by title , ~ only and waive reading in full. Adopted 1. Time reserved for those in the audience who W.E ,~ {/,~,~ wish to address the City Council (five- Charles Chivetta minute time limit per person). 2. RECESS CITY COUNCIL - . 3. MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ` a. ROLL CALL: Agency Members Ciraulo, Fasching , Gilb; Harbicht and Young All Present b. MINUTES of the study session and the regular meeting of February 5, .1991. ' APProved c. Request to approve an.amendment to the Assignment and Amendment Agreement and to th e Disposition and Development Agreement (Northside Project). Appr,oved.' d. Request to award contract for Phase I Envi- ronmental Assessment (Southwest Corner Traffic Island and Access Road). Approved e. ADJOURN to 7:00 p.m., March.5, 1991 AGENDA 2/19/91 ~.; ,.-,, ..~ ;~ ~ 4. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL - - ACTION 5. CONSENT ITEMS • ' a. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission',s approval of Tentative Parcel Map' 90-014, consolidating'118 lots into 13 lotsj , 1'2 lots along C1ark Street and one lot which is a back lot having no street frontage (City ~ of E1 Monte, appellant, Edward Hartman Z~ „ Associates, the engineer representing . Livinqston-Graham, owner - PUBLIC.HEARING TO ~ BE SCHEDULED). Public Hearing 3/19/91" b. Consideration of Text Amendment 91-001," _ proposing to change the setback requirements , " and the window restrictions in the C-0, C-1., C-2 and C-M commercia,l zones (PUBLIC HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED)..' P,ublic Hearing 3/5/91 c. Request to purchase operating equipment for • the new Senior Citizen Center/Recreation " Department facility. - Approved d. Request from Arcadia High School Athletic- Booster Club to reduce Business License fees for the amusement rides at.the Arcadia Community Fair March 8-.10, 1991. Approved e: Request for a refund to Monique Breen for = - student project filming fee. Approved f. Recommendation to approve Individual Cyclic Storage Agreement with Main.San Gabriel _ ' Basin Watermaster. ~ Approved:. g. Reeommendation to oppose SB52, which wouTd duplicate existing water agencies in the San,Gabriel Valley. Approved h. Recommendation to join American Communities' for Cleanup Equity. Approved . , 6. ' CITY 'MANAGER ' Recommendation ~1 tabled; #2 No, reduce water time; a. Recommendation for water conservation at #3 Approved, but not full time; #4 Approved; City-owned facilities. ~ ~ ; Bring,uack recommendation regarding ~~' nzrrow medians -2- AGENDA 2/19/91 a ~l \ 9 ,. ' . . . . ~ ~ , . -. ~ .. . -. . ' . ~ - ' . .~ . . 6. CITY MANAGER,(continued) , ACTION b. Report on zoning for large lot, single- family neighborhoods. Approved c. Recommendation to adjust salaries for part-time employees. ; RESOLUTION N0. 5572, establishing compensation for various.~art-time employee positions. Adopted 7. CITY ATTORNEY a. RESOLUTION NO. 5570, supporting the troops of the United States of America in the Persian Gulf War. Adopted b. EtESOLUTION N0.,5571, declaring Ehat weeds growing upon and in front of, and brush, rubbish, refuse, and dirt upon and in front of certain private property 'in the City are a public nuisance,, and decYaring its. intention to provide for the abatement - thereof (Public Hearing scheduled for March 5, 1991). Adopted c. Claim of Great American Insurance - F,. Nagata Denied 8. MATTERS FROM STAFF ` 9:' MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS .. 10. ADJOURN to 7:00 p.m., March 5, 199T Woolard - Report and recommendation regarding air conditioning unit noise levels for review and possible Code changes. k Approved delaying enforcement of 55 dba for air conditioning units. ;', ~. . -3- AGENDA 2/19/91. ' 8 7.o - 3J 4-cc d oom Memotandum l excanrA r, 4.cO 09,as9_oo Date February 14, 1991 TO: City Council FROM: George J. Watts, City Manager & SUBJECT: American Communities for Cleanup/; Attached is a request for the City of Arcadia to join and financially support the American Communities for Cleanup Equity (ACCE) . Staff wholeheartedly agrees with the goals of this new organization which among other things will aggressively pursue a change in the Federal laws to exempt third-party suits made against cities by industrial polluters. This is particularly important to Arcadia because of a recent claim filed with the City regarding the U. S. vs. Montrose case (Potlatch-Simpson) which we fully expect will result in third-party suits against Arcadia and other cities within the L.A. County Sanitation District to the tune of millions of dollars. It is recommended that the City Council approve the City joining ACCE and authorizing $2 ,000 for first-year dues. GJW:cr Attachment LASER IMAGED -ct-1 • . City of� iaambra Office of the City Manager December 26, 1990 _:cw:, George J. Watts, City Manager CITY 4 .1 ,=1, City of Arcadia DEC .n) ri 240 W. Huntington Drive �� Arcadia, California, 91007 I, %% dr Dear George: Gateway lotbe In December 1989, 29 cities in Southern California were San Gabriel Valley named in a lawsuit, Transportation Leasing, et al v. State of California. Unfortunately, Alhambra was one of the "lucky" cities to be named in this lawsuit. 111 This lawsuit is an effort by 64 major corporations to South First Street collect third party contributions from cities that may Alhambra have taken household waste or "garbage" between 1948 to California 1984 to the former Operating Industries landfill (OII) 91801 in Monterey Park. 818570-solo The plaintiffs assert that by virtue of our garbage Fax 818 284-4905 franchise agreements or business licenses to haulers, we are "arrangers" or "transporters" of hazardous waste and must share in the cost of cleaning up the landfill . Under the Federal statute, CERCLA, once a private party incurs "response costs" (as the plaintiffs have with EPA at OII to the tune of $61 million) , then they may sue third parties to recover their costs. The ultimate clean up of the landfill could run as high as $800 million by some expert estimates. The plaintiffs view the cities as the "generators" of 90% of the material in the landfill and therefore 90% responsible for the clean up or $720 million. Yes, $720 million! Over the last year our 29 city group has spent $1. 5 million in legal defense costs. These lawsuits are extremely expensive to defend due to the great complexity of the issues and the volume of written data which must be gathered, filed and reviewed. For example, we have obtained and reviewed over 68 , 000 manifests from the landfill. As the Chairperson of the 8-person Steering Committee for the defendants, it became apparent early on that we needed to reform the underlying Federal statute that brought this lawsuit on. Our group, after interviewing two firms specializing in lobbying in Washington on environmental issues, selected the law firm of Spiegel and McDiarmid to represent our group and coordinate the creation of a National Coalition to reform Superfund. LASER IMAGED ,.dry t.printed on recycled paper °� December 26, 1990 Page Two Just last month our National Coalition was formally founded and is known as the American Communities for Cleanup Equity or ACCE. Since its creation the League of California Cities and the National League of Cities have adopted resolutions supporting its goal of municipal Superfund reform. I've enclosed a copy of the ACCE Mission Statement and Goals along with the important "Dues Structure" . I hope that you'll carefully review this material and decide to take this matter to your City Council in the near future. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call at (818) 570-5010. Sincerely, CITY OF A BRA Kevin J. Murphy, City Manager KJM:dh Enclosure P.S: Please join ACCE and Alhambra, Baldwin Park, Beverly Hills, El Monte, Industry, La Puente, Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, South Pasadena,. and Walnut to change Superfund. LASER IMAGED rU low .: AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FOR CLEANUP EQUITY 4 I 1350 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 1100 is A WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-4798 4 TELEPHONE (202) 879-4000 11 II NI I`II TELECOPIER (202) 879-4001 TELECOPIER (202) 879-4081 JOIN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FOR CLEANUP EQUITY! This past fall, 29 cities founded American Communities for Cleanup Equity (ACCE) to address the growing national problem of local government liability under Superfund. We invite you to join us in a national effort to fight for Superfund reform. The stakes for local governments under Superfund are extremely high, involving billions of dollars in potential liability and litigation costs. If the law isn't clarified to protect - local governments and their citizens, we will be forced to waste precious resources defending ourselves against overreaching lawsuits brought by private polluters. - The time for action is now. Local governments cannot wait any longer to join together and take this issue to the United States Congress. Superfund was meant to make polluters of hazardous waste pay for the results of their actions. American Communities for Cleanup Equity strongly supports Superfund's goal of cleaning up hazardous waste sites, but opposes the application of the law's strict,joint and several liability scheme to local governments which merely handled municipal solid waste. In the last few years, private polluters sued as "potentially responsible parties" at Superfund sites have started to search for "deep pockets" to help shoulder enormous cleanup costs. These corporations have launched a major campaign to redistribute the lion's share of the costs at municipal landfills to local governments and, ultimately, the taxpayer. If this corporate campaign is successful, local governments and their taxpayers will pay the same amount to clean up a ton of old magazines and food scraps as industry pays to clean up a ton of hazardous toxins. At the Operating Industries site in California, 64 industrial corporations have sued 29 cities alleging that the cities should pay up to 90 percent of the cleanup costs,which could exceed $800 million. In Connecticut, 22 cities and towns have been sued for approximately 50 percent of cleanup costs at two landfills where preliminary studies estimate costs of$70 million. At another site, the city of Woodstock, Illinois, which has an annual budget of under $13 million, could be liable for over $12 million for site investigation and study costs alone. Even if your local government is not faced with Superfund liability today, the odds are that you will have to face it tomorrow. American Communities for Cleanup Equity was founded to educate federal officials regarding the nature and extent of the municipal garbage problem, and to undertake an aggressive legislative effort to secure Congressional and regulatory relief. As outlined in our Position Paper, we have developed a just, coherent, and winnable agenda. To aid our efforts, LASER IMAGED 2 we have retained an outstanding consulting team to keep us educated, organized and focused, and to provide critical access to key players in Washington, D.C. But we need your support. Given the size and nature of our corporate opposition, we need the strength that comes from numbers and grass roots support. Congress is much more likely to redress our concerns if we speak from all over the country with a unified voice; ACCE's members will be urged to become actively and personally engaged in a coordinated lobbying effort. You will benefit by joining us. Besides making ACCE more likely to succeed, your participation will make you part of an invaluable network to share information about Superfund issues. We publish a monthly newsletter explaining legislative and regulatory issues related to Superfund of concern to local governments. Special legislative alerts are issued whenever appropriate. For those local governments who are already embroiled in Superfund litigation, ACCE serves as a clearinghouse to share information. We will continue to arrange seminars, especially in conjunction with other nationally planned meetings or conventions. When the time is right to pressure.Capitol Hill, we will guide local governments through the Washington lobbying scene. Along with this solicitation, we have also made available a Position Paper, a more extensive Mission Statement, and a Dues Structure. We hope you will join us as soon as possible and send us a completed Preliminary Application form. If you would like any further information about American Communities for Cleanup Equity or have any questions, please call Kevin Murphy, City Manager of Alhambra, California, at (818) 570-5014 or Rena Steinzor, ACCE attorney, at (202) 879-4000. Thank you for your support. We look forward to working with you. City of Alhambra City of Huntington Park City of San Gabriel City of Artesia City of Industry City of San Marino City of Baldwin Park City of La Puente City of Santa Fe Springs City of Bell City of Lynwood City of Sierra Madre City of Bell Gardens City of Maywood City of South El Monte City of Beverly Hills City of Montebello City of South Gate City of Commerce City of Monterey Park City of South Pasadena City of Compton City of Norwalk City of Temple City City of Cudahy City of Paramount City of Walnut City of El Monte City of Rosemead • LASER IMAGED O AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FOR CLEANUP EQUITY 135.0 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 1100 is • . WASHINGTON; D.C. 20005-4798 TELEPHONE (202) 393-3734 \`\ 1111 II TELECOPIERS (202) 879-4001 /. (202).879-4081 • POSITION PAPER December 1990. The Superfund statute (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) has brought welcome progress in the effort to clean up the nation's hazardous waste sites. The statute properly makes all parties who have created, transported, managed, or disposed of hazardous waste liable for the cost of hazardous waste cleanup. Superfund's - severe liability provisions, however, are being abused, placing unintended and potentially crippling liability on local governments. Under Superfund, polluters who jointly contribute to a hazardous waste site's dangers are each potentially liable for the entire cleanup bill. When the federal government sues a party for "response" costs, that party acquires the,right to sue its fellow polluters to share the cleanup expense. Even without action by the federal government, a potentially responsible party can incur cleanup costs and then sue its fellow polluters. . How could this law affect local governments? Because local governments, who frequently arrange for the disposal of their citizens' garbage and sewage sludge, are increasingly the target of corporations' attempts to make others pay their cleanup costs. • Superfund does not and should not focus on municipal solid waste, and the Environmental Protection Agency has begun to take steps to keep the focus where it belongs. Recently, EPA announced in its Interim Municipal Settlement Policy that it would not routinely pursue local governments under Superfund, acknowledging that only a tiny fraction of municipal solid waste (including both garbage and sewage sludge) is toxic. . Nevertheless, landfills containing a mix of ordinary municipal solid waste and industrial hazardous waste are now on EPA's list of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites, and corporate entities have tried to exploit this situation at the expense of local governments. Specifically, corporate defendants in Superfund cases have tried to equate a ton.of household garbage with a ton of toxic chemicals and have sued local governments to pick up a disproportionate share of the cleanup expense. These actions egregiously distort Superfund's "polluter pays" philosophy. American Communities for Cleanup Equity does not seek to undo Superfund's general liability scheme or to gain immunity for local governments who have improperly managed truly hazardous waste. If a local government has acted like an industrial generator or handler of hazardous waste, then it must pay the consequences. But if a local government has managed only garbage or sewage sludge, Superfund should be irrelevant. LASER IMAGED 61 • • • ACCE Position Paper - Page 2 American Communities for Cleanup Equity wants to build upon the steps taken by EPA and ensure that its municipal policy has teeth. But at the moment, that policy does nothing to stop industrial polluters from launching frivolous, expensive lawsuits against local governments. American Communities for Cleanup Equity asks that local governments be treated fairly, that municipal solid waste be recognized as non-hazardous, that corporate polluters be stopped from dragging local governments into spurious and costly Superfund lawsuits, and that local governments be better equipped to join forces with federal and state authorities to enforce Superfund. In particular, American Communities for Cleanup Equity supports: • Amending Superfund to state clearly that municipal solid waste is not a hazardous substance. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) already treats household waste as a non-hazardous substance. Extending that treatment to all municipal solid waste under Superfund would eliminate potential Superfund liability for all local governments who transported or generated only municipal solid waste, including both garbage and sewage sludge. • Empowering only the federal government to sue local governments for cost-sharing under Superfund when they handled municipal solid waste. If a local government has handled truly hazardous waste, then it deserves to be treated as a private party who behaved the same way. But given the history of corporate overreaching and the special status of local governments as partners in enforcing Superfund, only the federal government should be allowed to sue local government transporters and generators of municipal solid waste, including both garbage and sewage sludge. • Easing settlement procedures for local governments involved in Superfund cases. If local governments must be involved in these cases, they should have the opportunity to settle their potential liability quickly. The special nature of municipal waste -- its high volume and extremely low toxicity-- should be statutorily recognized, and toxicity should be the prime factor in assessing liability. And to promote quick and fair settlements, EPA should assist local governments who need help in estimating their just share of cleanup costs. '• Strengthening local governments' power to sue polluters for damages to natural resources. Although judicial interpretations of Superfund have established local governments' right to bring actions for damages to natural resources, American Communities for Cleanup Equity supports a clarification and enhancement of local governments' enforcement partnership with federal and state governments. The right to sue on behalf of their citizens to restore natural resources is an essential right of local governments. Contact: American Communities for Cleanup Equity: Rena Steinzor, Anthony MacDonald,or David Kolker at (202) 393-3734. LASER IMAGED 62 J • Ii ♦ e . a \ ler :, AMERICAN COMMUNITIES FOR CLEANUP EQUITY •I ' 4 1350 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., SurrE 1100 1 " 0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-4798 4 TELEPHONE (202) 879-4000 II II+iiii filo TELECOPIER (202) 879-4001 TELECOPIER (202) 879-4081 Membership Dues Structure Population Annual Dues Less than 10,000 $ 250 10,000-25,000 $ 600 25,000-35,000 $ 1,000 `35,000-50,0 , (1-56-0- ; 50,000-75,000 $ 3,000 75,000-100,000 $ 4,500 100,000-150,000 $ 6,000 150,000-250,000 $ 7,500 250,000-400,000 $ 10,000 400,000-750,000 $ 12,500 More Than 750,000 $ 15,000 lots February 19, 1991 TO: ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS IN LARGE-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS BACKGROUND Arcadia is known as the Community of Homes. It is a highly desirable city to live in, characterized by many large lot neighborhoods and extensive open spaces. Approximately 47% of the City's total acreage is zoned single-family residential, - with lots ranging in size from standard residential lots to estate size lots. Years ago, in the area south of Duarte Road and west of Santa Anita Avenue, the rear yard portions of many large lots were consolidated, resubdivided and new through streets were created. In southeast Arcadia, along such streets as Mayflower Avenue, Tenth Avenue, etc. a number of the large lots were developed with chicken farms and other types of semi-agricultural uses. When these uses became obsolete, many of the lots were subdivided into cul-de-sacs. As property values continued to rise, developers began subdividing the larger lots, into smaller cul-de-sac developments. Initially this was done predominantly in southeast Arcadia where existing cul-de-sacs were somewhat common along the City's north/south major and secondary arterials. Because of the skyrocketing costs of property within the past ten years, and the desirability of owning a home in Arcadia, it has become economically feasible to buy larger, more expensive lots within west Arcadia and subdivide them into cul-de- sacs. These neighborhoods have been characterized by large single-family lots and cul-de-sacs are not common. There has been continuing concern from Arcadia residents regarding the subdividing of large lots into smaller as a result of cul-de-sac development and subdivision of corner lots. Large Lot Neighborhoods February 19, 1991 Page 1 64_ LASER IMAGED _ll On December 4, 1990, the City Council adopted the revised General Plan. In response to the continuing concern expressed by Arcadia citizens, the Council included the following two goals in the Land Use Element: (1) Maintain and preserve single-family large lot neighborhoods and (2) Maintain.the spacious character of the single-family neighborhoods and discourage development within these areas which are inconsistent with this goal. The following "Action Programs" were adopted to implement these goals • Encourage down zoning (i.e., require larger minimum lot sizes) of residential areas which would be consistent with the existing development pattern of the area and when requested by the majority of the residents of the area. (Action program) • The Planning Commission and/or City Council should identify the single- family neighborhoods which are developed predominantly with large lots and look into the adoption of measures to preserve these areas. The City Council on December 4, 1990 directed staff to prepare a report identifying large lot single-family neighborhoods and recommending possible zone changes to preserve these areas. Single-Family Zoning Designations There are three single-family zoning designations: R-M (Residential Mountain), R-O (First one-family) and R-1 (Second one-family). The R-O and R-1 zones have the following minimum lot size designations: R-0 12,500, 15,000,22,000 and 30,000 R-1 7,500, 10,000, and 12,500 The above designations set forth the minimum lot size required in the underlying zone, i.e., R-1 10,000 requires any new lot to have a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The minimum lot dimensions for the R-O zone are 100'-0" frontage and 100'-0" depth. The minimum lot dimensions for the R-1 zone are 75'-0" frontage and 100'-0" depth. New Zoning Designation As part of this study, the Planning Department noted that many areas currently zoned R-1 7,500 are developed with lots which are significantly larger in lot area Large Lot Neighborhoods February 19, 1991 Page 2 LASER IMAGED Ca than the most restrictive R-1 zoning of 12,500 sq. ft. The Planning Department is recommending that the City Council consider adding a new R-1 zoning designation of R-1 15,000. Although there is an R-0 15,000 zone, it would not be appropriate to rezone these areas to R-O because of the increased zoning requirements relating to front, side and rear yard setbacks. Rezoning to R-O could create many nonconforming conditions on the existing R-1 lots. STUDY AREAS The Planning Department in preparing this report, looked at all R-O and R-1 single- family residential areas within the City. There are several areas within the City which are developed predominantly with large lots which have not been included in our study because there is no feasible way to subdivide the properties into smaller lots (i.e., the lots are not deep enough and the properties to the rear are not deep enough to be included in a cul-de-sac development). Staff also reviewed the feasibility of rezoning other neighborhoods within the City, including properties along Fourth Avenue, Sixth Avenue, Eighth Avenue, Tenth Avenue, Mayflower Avenue, etc. These areas are not homogeneous in character and cul-de-sacs are common. The lots vary significantly in lot width, depth and area and several are developed with more than one dwelling. Many of the properties already have been subdivided into cul-de-sacs, and there is the potential for future cul-de-sac development which would be compatible with development in the area. One of the goals set forth in the Land Use Element is to "maintain the diversity of single-family residential zoning densities to provide a range of quality residential environments". If future developments are proposed within theses areas, the City should provide for the appropriate development of large isolated single-family lots and discourage developments which leave existing lots which cannot be subdivided in the future. Although cul-de-sacs are an appropriate development of residential property, they should be discouraged in neighborhoods which have always been characterized by large lots. Areas Proposed for Change Staff focused this study on neighborhoods which are developed predominantly with large lots and are characterized by lots with similar widths, depths and areas, and are located on streets where there are no existing cul-de-sac developments. Fourteen areas have been identified which meet this criteria. Because of the lot sizes, the Large Lot Neighborhoods February 19, 1991 LASER IMAGED Page 3 areas potentially could be subdivided into lots which are significantly smaller than lots within the surrounding area and incompatible with the neighborhood. Twelve of the areas are zoned R-1 7,500 and two of the largest areas are zoned R-0 12,500. Staff focused on the areas identified below because of the potential for cul-de-sac development and the possibility of subdividing the corner lots into smaller lots which are not compatible with the existing lots and development in the area. Area 1 Area bounded by Duarte Road on south, Fairview Avenue on the north and Holly Avenue on the west. Addresses: 350 through 370 Fairview, 335 through 379 West Duarte Road and 1012 through 1120 Holly Avenue. Number of Lots: 18 Existing Zoning: R-1 7,500 Lot Size: Ranges from 16,725± sq. ft. to 24,585±sq. ft. Lot Width: Ranges from 70±' to 82+' Lot Depth: Ranges from 160" to 298'. Rezone to: R-1, 15,000 (new zoning designation). Area 2 Area on the north side of Leroy Avenue between 245 and 347 Leroy. There are ten lots within this block with potential for cul-de-sac development. Number of Lots: 14 Existing Zoning: R-1 7,500 Lot Size: Ranges from 8,040±sq. ft. to 24,000+ sq. ft. The average lot area is approximately 20,000± sq. ft. Lot Width: Ranges from 75' to 100' Lot Depth: Ranges from 120' to 275', with an average depth of 250±'. Rezone to: R-1, 15,000 (new zoning designation) Large Lot Neighborhoods February 19, 1991 Page 4 LASER IMAGED. Area 3 Area bounded on the north by Leroy Avenue, on the south by Camino Real Avenue on the west by Holly Avenue and on the east by El Monte Avenue (not including Pamela Road). Number of Lots: 101 Existing Zoning: R-1 7,500 Lot Size: Ranges from 8,075± sq. ft. (corner lots) to 29,000+ sq. ft. Lot Width: Ranges from 77'± to 100'± Lot Depth: Ranges from 100' (corner lots) to 285'. Rezone to: R-1, 15,000 (new zoning designation) Area 4 Area bounded on the north by Leroy Avenue (properties on north and south side), on the south by Camino Real (properties on the north side of Camino Real are included), Lovell Avenue on the west and Holly Avenue on the east. Number of Lots: 104 Existing Zoning: R-1 7,500 Lot Size: Ranges from 6,489 sq. ft. to 19,000+ sq. ft. The average lot area is approximately 18,000± sq. ft., however there are a few lots within the area which are significantly substandard in lot width (40'+) because of lot splits which - occurred in the 1950's. Lot Width: Average width is 92+' Lot Depth: Average depth of 205'. Rezone to: R-1, 15,000 (new zoning designation) Area 5 North side of Walnut Avenue between Baldwin Avenue and Holly Avenue and the south side of Walnut Avenue from 400 to 632 Walnut Avenue. Large Lot Neighborhoods February 19, 1991 Page 5 LASER IMAGED 1 Number of Lots: 58 Existing Zoning: R-1 7,500 Lot Size: Ranges from 8,967± sq. ft. to 33,902_+ sq. ft. Lot Width: Ranges from 59±' to 130±' Lot Depth: Ranges from 133' to 367'. Rezone to: R-1, 12,500 Area 6 Bounded on the north by Palm Drive, on the west by Baldwin Avenue, on the east by Holly Avenue and on the north by Woodruff Avenue, including lots on Florence Avenue and Los Altos Avenue. There is the potential for both cul-de-sacs and corner lot splits in this area which would result in lots inconsistent with the existing lot sizes. Number of Lots: 110 Existing Zoning: R-1 7,500 Lot Size: Ranges from 6,405± sq. ft. to 30,550±sq. ft. Lot Width: Ranges from 60±' to 130±' Lot Depth: Ranges from 98±' to 271±'. Rezone to: R-1, 12,500 Area 7 Lots on the south side of Woodruff Avenue between Baldwin Avenue and Holly Avenue and the properties located at 401 through 525 on the north side of Las Tunas Drive. A rezoning in this area would prevent the potential of the corner lots being subdivided into smaller lots. Number of Lots: 54 Existing Zoning: R-1 7,500 Lot Size: Ranges from 11,2,7+sq. ft. to 14,842±sq. ft.. Large Lot Neighborhoods February 19, 1991 Page 6 LASER IMAGED Lot Width: Ranges from 50' to 82' Lot Depth: Ranges from 95 to 181±'. The majority of lots are 181±' in depth Rezone to: R-1, 10,000 Area 8 Properties located at 480-530 Las Tunas Drive (south side of the street) and 481-535 Workman Avenue. There is the potential for both cul-de-sacs and corner lot splits in this area which would result in lots inconsistent with the existing lot Number of Lots: 13 Existing Zoning: R-1 7,500 Lot Size: Ranges from 12,300 ±sq. ft. to 15,375±sq. ft. Lot Width: Ranges from 75±' to 105±' Lot Depth: Ranges from 164±' to 205±'. Rezone to: R-1, 12,500 Area 9 Properties located at 480-600 Workman; 481 to 551 Live Oak and 2804 to 2846 Baldwin Avenue. There is the potential for both cul-de-sacs and corner lot splits in this area which would result in lots inconsistent with the existing lot sizes. Number of Lots: 23 Existing Zoning: R-1 7,500 Lot Size: Ranges from 9,430± sq. ft. to 29,855±sq. ft. Lot Width: Ranges from 69±' to 89±' Lot Depth: Ranges from 195±' to 344±'. Rezone to: R-1, 15,000 (new zoning designation) Large Lot Neighborhoods February 19, 1991 Page 7 LASER IMAGED ;�3 Area 10 Area bordered by lots on west side of Bradford Avenue to the lots on the east side of El Monte Avenue, between Las Tunas Drive and Live Oak Avenue. There is the potential for corner lot splits in this area which would result in lots inconsistent with the existing lot sizes. Number of Lots: 154 Existing Zoning: R-1 7,500 Lot Size: Averages 10,500 sq. ft. Lot Width: Ranges from 60' to 100' Lot Depth: Ranges from 160±' to 200±'. Rezone to: R-1, 10,000 - Area 11 Area bordered on the north by Camino Real, on the south by Palm Drive, on the west by Holly Avenue and on the east by El Monte Avenue. With the exception of a few lots, most of the lots within this area average well over 15,000 sq. ft. The Planning Department would recommend that the area be rezoned to R-0 15,000. This designation would be a more appropriate zoning in the area and more consistent with the underlying lot sizes. The area indudes the following streets: south side of Camino Real avenue between Holly and El Monte north and south side of Norman Avenue between Holly and El Monte north and south side of Sharon Road between Holly and El Monte north and south side of Wistaria Avenue between Holly and El Monte north and south side of Las Flores Avenue between Holly and El Monte north and south side Longden Avenue between Holly and El Monte north and south ,side of Walnut Avenue between Holly and El Monte north side of Palm Drive between Holly and El Monte Number of Lots: 308 Existing Zoning: R-0 12,500 Lot Size: Ranges from 12,500± sq. ft. to 37,851±sq. ft.. Lot Width: Ranges from 83±' to 111±' Large Lot Neighborhoods February 19, 1991 Page 8 LASER DIAGED • Lot Depth: Ranges from 100' to 341±'. Rezone to: R-0 15,000 Area 12 This area includes all the following R-O 15,000 zoned properties: south side of Camino Real Avenue east of El Monte Avenue - 100-182 West Camino Real north and south side of Norman Avenue east of El Monte Avenue - 105-185 and 100-182 West Norman Avenue north and south side of Lemon Avenue east of El Monte Avenue -105-183 and 100-182 West Lemon Avenue north and south side of Wistaria Avenue east of El Monte Avenue - 105-183 and 104-182 Wistaria Avenue north and south of Las Flores Avenue east of El Monte Avenue - 101-183 and 100-182 Las Flores Avenue - Number of Lots: 103 Existing Zoning: R-0 12,500 Lot Size: Ranges from 9,800± sq. ft. to 40,105±sq. ft.. Lot Width: Ranges from 80±' to 135±' Lot Depth: Ranges from 97±' to 264±'. Rezone to: R-0 15,000 RECOMMENDATION The rezoning of the above properties, is based upon the average lot size of properties within each area. The larger minimum lot size requirements would apply to all future divisions of property. Existing lots which would not meet the new minimum lot size requirements would not be affected. The existing development standares such as building height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc. will not be affected by any of the proposed changes. The changes would prohibit future lots splits of the corner lots and future development of cul-de-sacs which are inconsistent with the new zoning designation. Although there are lots within the areas,.which do not meet the proposed minimum lot size requirements, rather than creating highly irregular zone Large Lot Neighborhoods February 19, 1991 Page 9 LASER IMAGED Y boundaries, an attempt was made to describe the areas by the most logical boundaries. Attached for the City Council's consideration are maps identifying each of the proposed areas. CITY COUNCIL ACTION The City Council should direct staff to: 1. Prepare a text amendment adding a new zoning designation of R-1 15,000, and initiate the zone changes as identified in the staff report or as recommended by the City Council, or 2. Take no action at this time. i APP1K0 ED: •"(,/ e, ,/ '.(//lity,/, George J. atts • Large Lot Neighborhoods February 19, 1991 Page 10 Dc. 8a —PS ,a•. ''4 emoiay edum DATE: 2/19/91 TO: Arcadia Redeveloent Agency FROM: / Dale R. Connors Economic Development Associate SUBJECT: Request to Approve an Amendment to the Assignment and Amendment Agreement and to the Disposition and Development Agreement (Northside Project) The Agency has received a request from the Chandler Group (Attachment No. 1) for a nine month time extension to the development schedule for Parcel D (Kiewit West, Location Map, Attachment No. 2) of the Northside Project as well as a one year extension to the Agency's September 19, 1989 Design Review. Additionally, Chandler has indicated that they are no longer interested,in purchasing and developing Parcel E (Kiewit East) but that Emkay will fulfill that obligation. In light of these developments, Agency Special Counsel has prepared an "Amendment to Assignment and Amendment Agreement and to Disposition and Development Agreement (Emkay Project) " (the "Agreement") for Agency consideration (Attachment No. 3) . The Agreement provides for the following: 1. The Schedule of Performance concerning Parcel D is amended by extending the completion date for construction of the improvements on Parcel D, ie, both office buildings, parking structure and landscaping, from June 30, 1991 to September 30, 1991. This extension is at no cost to Chandler. 2 . By March 31 Chandler shall provide $30, 000 in the form of a letter of credit or cash upon which the Agency may draw. If construction on Parcel D is not completed by September 30, 1991 the Agency will withdraw $10, 000 from the $30, 000, and Chandler will have another 3 month extension to complete the project. If construction on Parcel D is not complete by December 31, 1991, the Agency will withdraw $10,000 from the remaining $20,000 balance on deposit and Chandler will have another 3 month extension to complete the project. Should construction remain incomplete on March 31, 1992, the Agency may claim the remaining $10, 000 held on deposit and declare Chandler in default. If Chandler completes construction prior to any of the performance dates above, the Agency shall be required to LASER IMA.GED3 4 February 19, 1991 Arcadia Redevelopment Agency page 2 refund any funds held on deposit or remaining in the letter of credit. Completion is defined as issuance of the Certificate of Completion. 3 . The Agency Design Review granted on September 19, 1989 is extended to December 31, 1991. Chandler would have until this amended date to obtain a construction permit in order to keep the Design Review approval current. 4. The Agency releases Chandler from obligation to develop Parcel E and substitutes Emkay (the "Original Developer") . The development schedule for Parcel E will remain unchanged, ie, construction of a 48, 000 square foot professional office building within 2 years of escrow close. Emkay has already posted a $20, 000 letter of credit to secure the position as developer of Parcel E. All other terms, conditions and Agency remedies contained in the DDA and Assignment and Amendment Agreement remain unchanged. A representative of Chandler Group will be at the Agency meeting to answer any questions you may have concerning the project. RECOMMENDATION: That the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency approve the "Amendment to Assignment and Amendment Agreement and to Disposition and Development Agreement (Emkay Project) " and authorize and direct its execution by the Agency Chairman, subject to minor revisions approved as to form by the Agency Attorney. Approved: , r, Lee-t /� Execu ive irector DRC:dc chndlr2.mem LASER IMAGED 7 X991 Investment— Builders GROUP IINVELOPMENT AGENC January 3 , 1991 Mr. Peter P. Kinnahan Arcadia Redevelopment Agency City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, Ca. 91106-0060 Re: Arcadia Parcel D 201 and 251 Santa Clara Street Dear Pete: The Chandler Group has been diligently pursuing some opportunities to enable us to develop and construct the Arcadia Terraces Project. We wish to apprise you of current developments. Sumitomo Bank has proposed making a construction loan on either one of the two lots of Parcel D, with the basic requirement being a 30% cash equity contribution by the developer. We would be willing to proceed on a spec basis with Sumitomo if we can pin down our business plan regarding the remaining parcel . The second building on the corner site is being pursued as a "build to suit, " and we made a counteroffer to the initial proposal on December 14, 1990. They have responded favorably, and a meeting with the principals was held on Friday morning, December 21, 1990, with a follow-up meeting scheduled for January 4 , 1991. Conversations with the plan checkers hired by Building and Safety leads us to believe a permit will be available to construct the improvements in January. As we discussed, normal construction practice would not allow us to complete the project by the expiration dates currently in force in the DDA and the Assignment Agreement. Pursuant to our meeting, we propose that both documents be modified as outlined below: An extension of three months, from June 30, 1991 to September 30, 1991 at no additional cost, to resolve our disagreement regarding , the timeliness of plan checking with Building and Safety. An additional extension of six months, to March 31, 1992 , for a payment to the Redevelopment Agency . of $20, 000. Payment will be made in two installments of $10, 000 each: September 30, 1991 and December 31, 1991. REAL ESTATE: Investment • Development • Construction • Management • Consulting 610 North Hollywood Way, Burbank, CA 91505: (818) 843-8644 (213) 87718 5 ER IMAGED P.O. Box 2009, Burbank, CA 91507-2009 FAX (818) 842-91 56 Attachment No. 1 i/1 • Mr. Peter P. Kinnahan January 3 , 1991 Page 2 In addition, we will need a one year extension of the design review approval from the Agency. There have been no changes to the building. Lastly, we currently have a $20, 000 performance letter of credit posted on Parcel E, and we respectfully request the same amount be required on Parcel D to be posted by March 1, 1991. Please let us know if we can help expedite this matter. Very truly yours, st I) Steven C. :. . sford Executive e President SCB/ls cc: Mr. Dale Connors Mr. Dan McF. Chandler, Jr. Mrs. Rosemary B. Schroeder Mr. Roger Olin Wolf LASER IMAGED h1 \ 1 . . ."---‘. . . . . . LOCATION MAP AVEs iiiiiiiii [ 13 \ \--- _ 6 '1 .■••., rsa• il..• , . ' ""m11117_,_ (p..\i \ 00 'Ill\ kst 1.0T N\. 4,,,T .\ . \ . ......... .'''' Jii 2 3 5 8 . - . 2 12 5 is la • is 144.2,4•647 q. • Millir"-"2 °t 7 . I6 , 11M11 IINS ess,v.•_ 1 - a a jairaiminit . . . - rr P E. i . • 4 • i ma 13 . . . . . i t ... N A.\-ill./•_' ' (Port di LOT•7 -,./.. .. ", 1 • , i•„4,. iewit. East • 't4kr/. II I 4c, a I Kiewit West 1 I .I■ . . ,,:-...c. -... . _ s.„-F.... ctc,....a_ 5-1-,-...-1- . 1 : ...... :, .: ,.., . :LW i i: 1;IP .14.42 P. .) 1. MUZIF M0 •4 0 41 ce . 4 ;ft ..., ., El 8 9 8 0 ... -.„. ,.. . ..\ P.IL O. 004•111-44 .4!„...../ ' --Y :z:In ffs. i• (Part ii)LOT-3 \ \ \ 'Es. 114.aa WAY • 1440 \\\\ LOT-4 ....1„. i / I . . 1■11•114.4. . . . . • KIEWIT PROPERTIES • A North Attachrent No, 2 s LASE-R IMAGED :-. c). ,...„ rat RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO Arcadia Redevelopment Agency 240 west Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91006 (Space above for Recorder's use) AMENDMENT TO ASSIGI(M iT AND AMENDMENT AGREEMUT,6411 TO DISPQMITIQN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (EMXAY PROJECT) This Amendment (the "Amendment") is entered into this day of , 1991, by and among the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (the "Agency") , a public body, corporate and politic, of the State of California; EMKAY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. , a Nevada corporation (the "Original Developer") ; and CHANDLER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, L.P. , a Delaware limited partnership (the "Successor Developer") , with respect to that certain Disposition and Development Agreement entered into by and between the Agency and the Original Developer on or about November 17, 1987, as amended (the "DDA") and with respect to that certain Assignment and Amend- ment Agreement (the "Assignment Agreement") thereafter entered into by and among the Agency, the. Original Developer and the Successor Developer concerning the DDA. BECITALS WHEREAS, Attachment "3" (Schedule of Performance) of the DDA, as amended by the Assignment Agreement, currently requires that the t E'hmMAGED 3 Successor Developer complete construction on Parcel D two (2) years following the date of close of escrow for conveyance of Parcel D from the Original Developer to the Successor Developer or June 30, 1991, whichever occurs first; and WHEREAS, the Successor Developer has requested an extension of time beyond June 30, 1991 within which to complete construction on Parcel D; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City of Arcadia, California (the "City") will suffer a loss of tax increment revenue and, potentially, sales tax revenue in the event that construction on Parcel D is not completed within the time currently required in the DDA, and the Successor Developer is willing and intends to pay to the Agency a sum of money in consideration for an extension of time to complete construction on Parcel D; and WHEREAS, the Successor Developer has also requested an extension of the design review approval heretofore given by the Agency to the Successor Developer for construction on Parcel D, and the Agency is willing to grant this request; and WHEREAS, the Successor Developer no longer desires or intends to acquire fee title to Parcel “Ell , as described in the DDA and the Assignment Agreement, and the Agency, the Original Developer and the Successor Developer desire and intend that the Original Developer retain all rights and obligations of the Developer, as defined in the DDA, with respect to the development of Parcel "E" . • _2_ BPDS0s8 Revised 02/21/91 LASER IMAGED 3 AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms and provisions set forth hereinafter, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. RECITALS. The Recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated herein by reference. The parties hereto agree that each and every fact set forth in the Recitals is true and correct, and the parties hereto further agree not to contest any one or more of such facts in any proceeding brought by any party hereto concerning the DDA, the Assignment Agreement or this Amendment. Section 2 . AMENDMENT TO SCHEDULE Q ' PERFQRMANCE IN DDA. Item 22 of Attachment "3" (Schedule of Performance) of the DDA, as previously amended by the Assignment Agreement, is hereby amended by deleting therefrom the words "June 30, 1991" and by substituting therefor the words "September 30, 1991" . Section 3 . DEPOSIT OF CONSIDERATION AND EXTENSION q COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION ON PARCEL Q. On or before March 31, 1991, the Successor Developer shall either (a) submit to the Agency an irrevocable, stand-by, direct pay letter of credit (the "LOC") in the amount of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) (the "Consideration") , or (b) deposit into an escrow (the "Escrow") for the benefit solely of the Agency cash in the amount of the Consideration. In the event that the Consideration is in the form of the LOC, then the issuer of the LOC and the form and substance -3- BP05058 Revived 02/21/91 LASER IMAGED .i i of the LOC shall be subject to approval by the Executive Director of the Agency, and such approval shall be a condition precedent to the satisfaction of the obligation of the Successor Developer to submit the LOC to the Agency hereunder. In the event that the Consideration is instead in the form of cash deposited in the Escrow, then the escrow agent shall be selected by mutual agreement of the Agency and the Successor Developer. In the event that the Consideration is in the form of the LOC, than the LOC shall expire no sooner than May 30, 1992. In the event that the Consideration is in the form of cash deposited in the Escrow, then the Escrow shall not terminate until the latter of the following; (a) May 30, 1992, and (b) the date that the Agency's rights and remedies concerning the deposit of the Consideration into the Escrow are fully satisfied. Pursuant to the terms of this Amendment and of the LOC or the Escrow, as applicable, the Agency alone shall be entitled to draw upon the LOC or funds in the Escrow for its own benefit as hereinafter as set forth. In the event that the Successor Developer does not complete construction on Parcel D, as required by the DDA, on or before September 30, 1991, then the Agency shall immediately be entitled to draw upon the LOC or funds in the Escrow, as applicable, in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) , without notice to or right of hearing or objection by the Successor Developer. In the event that the Successor Developer does not complete construction on Parcel D, as required by the DDA, on or before December 31, 1991, then the Agency shall immediately -4- IPD505a Revised 02/21/91 LASER IMAGED I ') Y • 1 v �-1 be entitled to draw additionally upon the LOC or funds in the Escrow, as applicable, in the amount . of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10, 000. 00) , without notice to or right of hearing or objection by the Successor Developer. In the event that the Successor Developer does not complete construction on Parcel D, as required by the DDA, on or before March 31, 1992, then the Agency shall immediately be entitled to draw upon the LOC, or funds on deposit in the Escrow, as applicable, in the amount of the remaining Ten Thousand Dollars ($10, 000.00) , without notice to or right of hearing or objection by the Successor Developer. Notwithstanding any provision in the DDA, the Assignment Agreement or this Amendment to the contrary, the Successor Developer shall not be deemed to be in default of its obligations to complete construction on Parcel D, as required by the DDA, until March 31, 1992 , so long as either the LOC remains in effect or funds remain on deposit in the Escrow and the Escrow remains open, and so long as the Agency is able to draw upon the full amount of the LOC or of funds on deposit in the Escrow, as set forth herein. In addition, the right of the Agency to draw upon the LOC or upon funds in the Escrow shall constitute a remedy separate from and in addition to any and all other remedies of the Agency set forth in, the DDA with respect to any default by the Successor Developer to complete construction on Parcel D, as required by the DDA. The Successor Developer understands and agrees that the Agency shall be entitled to draw upon the LOC or upon funds in the Escrow as set forth herein, without any hearing -5- $PDSOS8 Revised 02/21/91 LASER IMAGER ; or notice to the Successor Developer as may otherwise be required pursuant to the terms and conditions of the DDA, and the Agency may draw upon the LOC or upon funds in the Escrow simply by submitting written notice to the issuer of the LOC, or the escrow agent, as applicable, signed by the Executive Director of the Agency, stating that the Agency is entitled to draw upon the applicable portion of the LOC or of funds on deposit in the Escrow, pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Amendment. If the Consideration is in the form of cash deposited in the Escrow, then the Successor Developer and the Agency shall execute escrow instructions and any and all other documents required by the escrow agent to open and maintain the Escrow in accordance with this Amendment including, without limitation, standard escrow instructions prepared and required by the escrow agent; provided, however, that the terms and provisions of any such escrow instructions and documents shall be consistent with the terms and provisions of this Amendment. If the Consideration is in the form of cash deposited in the Escrow, then such funds shall be deposited in an interest bearing account, and any and all interest shall accrue for the benefit of the Successor Developer and shall be paid to the Successor Developer upon the date that the Escrow closes. Section 4. RELEASE OF CONSIDERATION. In the event that the Successor Developer has on or before March 31, 1992 completed construction and development of improvements as described in Section 3.07 of the DDA, on Parcel D so as to entitle the successor -6- $6-5058 Revised 02/21/91 LASER IMAGED Developer to receive, a Certificate of Completion therefor, as provided in Section 3.07 of the DDA, and provided that the Agency is not then entitled to draw upon any remaining portion of the LOC or upon funds in the Escrow, as applicable, then the Agency shall release to the Successor Developer the remaining LOC or remaining funds in the Escrow, as applicable, upon the issuance by the Agency to the Successor Developer of the Certificate of Completion for Parcel D. Section 5. EXTENSION OF DESIGN REVIEW. The parties agree that the design review approval by the Agency of plans for construction on Parcel D heretofore granted on September 19, 1989, to the Successor Developer shall be extended to December 31, 1991. Section 6. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS CONCERNINGJPARCEL "E" . The parties agree that the assignment by the Original Developer to the Successor Developer of any and all rights and obligations of the Original Developer under the DDA with respect to Parcel "E", as described in the DDA, is hereby terminated. The parties further agree that the Agency's approval of the sale of fee title to Parcel "E" by the Original Developer to the Successor Developer, and of the assignment by the Original Developer to the Successor Developer of any and all rights and obligations with respect to the development of Parcel "E" , as described in the DDA, is hereby rescinded and terminated and is of no further force or effect. Section 7 . RATIFICATION OF TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF DD4 AND ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT. The parties hereby ratify each and every -7- BPDSOS8 Revised 02/21/91 LASER 9MAGED ' 1 ti term and provision of the DDA and Assignment Agreement, except insofar as such terms and provisions have been expressly modified or amended in this Amendment. Section 8. .COUrTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original of this Amendment, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of the date set forth hereinabove. ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: ATTEST: By: Agency Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Michael H. Miller Stephen P. Deitsch Agency General Counsel Agency Special Counsel ORIGINAL DEVELOPER: EMKAY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. , a Nevada Corporation By: Its: -8- SPD5OSd Revised 02/21/91 LASER IMAGED 1 : By Its: GED —9— S ReVIS 02/21/91 ,,, i J SUCCESSOR DEVELOPER: CHANDLER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, L.P. By: Chandler Investments, Inc. General Partner By: Dan McF. Chandler, Jr. President Py• Its: --10- SPD5058 Revioed 02/21/91 LASER IMAGED