HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-01-18; City Council; 4053; CT/PUD/SP Douglass- Southwest Corporation0
AGENDA BILL NQ.
13
CITY OF CARLSBAD *
Initial:
_ ...
DATE: _ Januar 18 19
DEPARTMENT; ' Planning
SUBJECT: CT 76-15, PUD-6 AND DELETION OF A PORTION OF,
SP-115 - DOUGLASS-SOUTHWEST CORPORATION
'.Stat'enian't^ of the Matter ; The property is situated on the west side
of El Camino Real on both sides of Tamarack Avenue. Originally, the
site was approved for 331 units, most being attached condominiums
with some single-family residences in the western portion near
Skyline Drive. This was approved through SP-115 and CT 73-8. Only
the portion at Tamarack and El Camino Real has been completed.
CT 73-8 has expired, but SP-115 is still in effect. However, with
the recent amendments to the P-C Zone, new 'developments require
PUD's. Therefore, the applicant has requested a PUD, a new CT map
for 136 single-family units and deletion of the undeveloped portion
of SP-115.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request and has recommended
denial of the revised CT and PUD, and retaining of SP-115. The
Planning Commission's major concern was the-private service road
to service those homes fronting on Tamarack Avenue. See attached
memorandum to the City Manager for further discussion and reasons for
denial. '
ATTACHMENTS: / / . '
P.C. Resolutions Nos.1307 & 1309
Memo to City Mgr., dtd. 1/10^77 /
Staff Rpt., dtd. 12/22/76 ^
(Tract Map #76-15, dtd. 6/10/76)"'
(PUD Mao #6, dtd. 6/10/76 ) -
Recommendation:
If the City Council agrees with the Planning Commission, it is recom-
mended that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare
documents denying PUD-6 and CT 76-15 as per Planning Commission
Resolutions 1307 and 1309.
COUNCIL ACTION:
/"/fr-77 Council referred the matter back-to the Planning Commission for further consideration of
correcting-deficiencies relative to parking along Tamarack, the location and accessability
of the RV Storage site, the necessity of meeting the PUD Open Space requirements and to
reconsider how the maintenance requirements of Open Space-can best be met.
FORM PLANNING 73
1
«»
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1307
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING
CT 76-15 FOR 136 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
DWELLINGS ON 43.99 ACRES ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL
BETWEEN PARK DRIVE AND CHESTNUT AVENUE.
CASE NO.: CT 76-15
APPLICANT: DOUGLASS SOUTHWEST CORP.
WHEREAS, a verified application for a certain property, to
wit:
That portion of Lot "I" of RANCHO AGUA HEDIONDA,
in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to the Map thereof No. 823,
filed in the office of County Recorder of San Diego
County, November 16, 1896
has .been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as
provided by Title 21 of the "Carlsbad Municipal Code"; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the time and in
the place specified in said notice on December 8, 1976 and con-
tinued to December 22, 1976; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to
be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the
tentative tract map (CT 76-15) and found the following facts and
reasons to exist:
1) The use will be detrimental to the health, safety or general
welfare of the persons residing or working in the vicinity or
injurous to property or improvements in the vicinity because:
a) If parking occurs on the south side of the proposed
frontage road, trash pick-up emergency vehicle access
and mail service would be substantially impaired.
j 2) The Planned Unit Development (PUD-6) was denied on December
22, 1976 and CT 76-15 does not conform to the Conditions of
2 approved SP-115 (City Council Resolution No. 3177, dated
August 7, 1973) .
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
4
the City of Carlsbad as follows:
5 A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
6 B) That a tentative tract map (CT 76-15) is denied to allow
7 136 single-family detached dwellings on 43.99 acres on
property located west of El Camino Real between Park Drive and
8 Chestnut Avenue.
9 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
10 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission held on December 22, 1976 by
11 the following vote to wit:
12 AYES: Commissioners L'Heureux, Fikes, Nelson, Larson and
Jose.
13
NOES: Commissioner Watson.
14 ABSTAIN: Commissioner Rombotis.
15
ABSENT: None.
16"
17
18- STEPHEN M. L'HEUREUX, CHAIRMAN
19 ATTEST:
20
21
22 BUD PLENDER, TECRETARY
23
.24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1309
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR 136
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS ON 43.99
ACRES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST
OF EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN PARK DRIVE AND
CHESTNUT AVENUE.
CASE NO.: PUD-6
APPLICANT: DOUGLASS SOUTHWEST CORP.
WHEREAS, a verified application for a certain property, to
wit:
*
That portion of Lot "I" of RANCHO AGUA HEDIONDA,
in' the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to the Map thereof No. 823,
filed in the office of County Recorder of San Diego
County, November 16, 1896
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as
provided by Title 21 of the "Carlsbad Municipal Code"; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was held at the time and in
the place specified in said notice on December 8, 1976 and con-
tinued to December 22, 1976; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to
be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the
Planned Unit Development Permit and found the following facts and
reasons to exist:
1) The use will be detrimental to the health, safety or general
welfare of the persons residing or working in the vicinity or
injurous to property or improvements in .the vicinity because:
a) The lack of a sidewalk and the "frontage road" design
on the northerly side of Tamarack will cause potential
pedestrian-bicycle-motor vehicle conflicts which will
become an unnecessary liability problem to the City;
1 b) The "frontage road" area which will have a 10% grade
may tend to become a play area, further increasing
2 the number of potential conflicts within the frontage
road area and the secondary arterial (Tamarack Avenue);
3 and
4 c) If parking occurs on the south side of the proposed
frontage road, trash pick-up emergency vehicle access
5 and mail service would be substantially impaired.
6 2)' The design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.110 and all
minimum development standards set forth in Section 21.45.120
7 will not be met because:
8 a) The plot plan and additional exhibits do not include
adequate provision for open space recreational facili-
9 ties, circulation and guest parking because:
10 1) The required guest parking is not adequate on
the north side of Tamarack (1 space is not
11 available for each dwelling unit);
12 2) The proposed recreation vehicle storage area is
not an adequate shape to accommodate workable
13 internal circulation and parking for large
vehicles;
14
3) The proposed recreational vehicle storage area is
15 in a location that could not be adequately screened
and/or isolated from surrounding residences; and16
4) Required usable open space area is not provided
3-7 at a ratio of 600 square feet per dwelling unit.
18- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
19 I the City of Carlsbad as follows:
20 A) That the above recitations are true and correct.
21 B) That a Planned Unit Development Permits is denied to allow
136 single-family detached dwellings on 43.99 acres on property
22 generally located west of El Camino Real between Park Drive
and Chestnut Avenue.23
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
24
25
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission held on December 22, 1976 by t-
the following vote to wit: '
26
AYES: Commissioners L'Heureux, Fikes, Nelson, Larson
27 and Jose.
28 NOES: Commissioner Watson.
-2-
1
2
3
- 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ABSTAIN:, Commissioner Rombotis.
ABSENT: None.
STEPHEN M. L'HEURUEX, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
BUD PLENDER, SECRETARY
-3-
v
MEMORANDUM
January 10, 1977
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMEN'
CASE NO.: CT 76-15, PUD-6
APPLICANT: DOUGLASS SOUTHWEST CORPORATION
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON CT 76-15 AND PUD-6, AS HEARD BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 22, 1976.
(STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL - PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDS DENIAL)
Basically there were two reasons for the Planning Commission's recom-
mendation of denial. One: the Commission did not feel that the
"frontage road" design as proposed met the intent of the General Plan
as discussed in the Staff Report. Two: that the "frontage road
concept" as designed by the Applicant would cause public safety
problems by combining a motor vehicle route, a oedestrian bicycle
route, and a potential play area.
Staff had indicated to the Planning Commission that althouqh the
subdivision, as designed, did not meet the PUD development standards
for visitor parking, recreational vehicle storage and usable open
soace, that these items could be accommodated in the subdivision by
redesign. Staff left the decision as to General Plan conflicts to
the Planning Commission as a policy decision.
Staff initially had problems with the frontaae road design for a
number of Engineering and Public Works reasons. These basically
hinged on the grade of Tamarack Avenue (10% in some areas), the
somewhat curvalinear street alignment and the ability of service
vehicles to use the frontage road. After studying the situation,
Staff came to the conclusion that the street system as designed was
workable. The Planning Commission was informed that the frontage
road, as designed, would work from an Engineering/Public Works
standpoint.
It should be pointed out that the applicant wishes to delete the old
Specific Plan for the area. Because the alignment of Tamarack
Avenue is included in this old Specific Plan, Staff does not feel that
it should be deleted until a replacement approval is adopted (PUD/CT
Tract Map).
If the City Council wishes to approve the requested PUD/CT, Staff
recommends that the items be sent back to the Planning Commission with
direction for Staff to formulate conditions of approval to mitigate the
following concerns:
(1) General Plan conflicts;
(2) Potential "frontage road" vehicle/pedestrian conflicts;
(3) Inadequately met PUD development standards.
It should be noted that the proposed project utilizes the zero-lot-line
concept for development of 111 of the 136 residential lots. The zero-
lot-line method provides one wide side yard and one zero-width side yard.
The structure is built along one side-lot line. This concept maximizes
the usable portion of the lot width and also allows for maximum setbacks
between structures. Zero-lot-line development is generally used when
lots have a minimal width and/or when unusual topography dictates differing
building pad elevations.
The average size of the lots to be developed with zero-lot-lines is
9,800 square feet. This may appear large; however, because of the irregular
topography, much of the lot will be in slope. For example, many of the •
lots have approximately 55 feet of frontage and approximately 180 feet
of depth, whereas the buildable portion of the lots, excluding slope,
equals about 55 X 85 (4,675 square feet).
In addition to the zero-lot-line development, 25 of the 136 lots are
proposed to be developed with standard setbacks. Some of these 25 lots
exceed 16,000 square feet in size but the rough topography requires
that much of the lot is devoted to slope. As an example, many of the
lots have 75 feet of frontage and 200 feet of depth; however, the
buildable portion of the lots, excluding slope, equals about 75 X 90
(6,750 square feet).
THrcpl
-2-
(CONDITIONS
DELETED FRO-31 ON ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT WITH AGENDA BQL ON THIS ITEM)
STAFF REPORT .
December 22., 1976
TO:
FROM:
CASE NO:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST: '•
PLANNING COMMISSION ' ..
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CT 76-15; PUD-6 '
^DOUGLASS SOUTHWEST CORP.-"-
Deletion of Specific Plan 118 (C.C. Resolution
. #3177, August 7, 1973) and approval of CT 76-15
•• and PlJD-6 to allow 136. single-family detached
•dwellings on 43.99 acres.
SECTION I. RECOMMENDATION: ••
Staff recommends that
findings:
76-15/PUD--6 be DPR-fHD based on the following
1) The use will be detrimental to the health, safety, or general wel-
fare of the persons residing or working in the v'fcinity or injurous
to property or improvements in the vicinity because:
a) The lack of a sidewalk and the "frontage road" design on the
northerly side of Tamarack will cause potential pedestrian- '
bicycle -motor vehicle conflicts which will become an unnec-
essary liability problems to the city. . -
b) The "frontage -road" area which will have a 10% grade may tend
to become a play area, further increasing the number of po-
tenti-a'l conflicts within the frontage road area and the sec-
ondary.^ arterial (Tamarack Avenue).
c) . -If parking occurs on'the south.side of the proposed frontage
road, trash pick-up emergency vehicle access and mail service
. w o u 1 d b e s u b s t a n t i a 11 y i m p a r e d .
2) The design criteria set forth .i n' Section 21.45.110 and al-1 minimum
• development standards set forth in Section 21.45.120 will not be
'"met because:**
a) The plot pla'n and 'auditorial exhibits do not include adequate
provision for open space recreational facilities, circulation
and gues.t - parking because:. • .-v • .' •' *
1) The required quest parking)' is not adequate on the north .
side of Tamarack (1 space is not ava.il able for each
. dwel 1 ing unit) ,•. . , ,
'-1-
2} The proposed recreation vehicle- storage area\ is not
an adequate shape to accommodate v/6rkable-internal
circulation arid parking for large vehicles-."
- " ' f f
3) The proposed recreational vehicle storage"area is in
a location that could not be adequately screened and
or isolated from surrounding residences.
i- '
4)• Required, usable open space area is not provided at a
ration of 600 square feet per dwelling unit,
-2-
0
SECTION II: BACKGROUND
LocotIon and Description of Property: . '• f /''
The 43.99 acre vacant parcel is located west of El -Camirio Real
between Kelly Drive and Chestnut Avenue. _
The property is characterized by rough topography and generally
occupies higher-ground than surrounding development.
A portion of the parcel has been rough graded and the general
alignment of Tamarack'established.
Tamarack Avenue will be" extended through,the proposed project
connecting Tamarack to El Camino Real.
Existing Zoning:
Subject Property: • PI anned--C.ommuni ty'
North: R-l-155000
South: R-l-15,000
East: Planned Community
•West: R-l-15,000
Existing Land Use: •
Subject Property: Vacant
North: • Single Family Residences
South: Single Family Residences
East:""' First Phase Condominiums
. West: Single Family Residences
Past History and Related Cases;
City Council Resolution No. 3136 approved a zone change from
R-A-10,000 to Planned Community (P-C) for the subject property
on June 5, 1973. . .• -
Specific Plan 115S (City Council Resolution No. 3177, August 7,
1973) was approved for 331 condominium- units on approximately.
63 acres.. - . -r . . .
CT 73-8 (City Council Resolution 3178, .August 7, 1973), approved
331 townhouse condominium units\ however, only a portion of the
•entire project (116 townhouses, a swimming pool, a tennis court
and two spas) was finaled to allow bui1ding•permits (Map 8039,
covering approximately 20 acres). ,~ v . ' • •
City Council Resolution 3137 (June 5, 1973) adopted Master Plan
No. 108 for the subject property. .In addition to M.P-108, City
Council Resolution 3137 certified an Environmental Impact Report
(No. 129) for the project. •
- 3-
En v i r o nme n to. 1 I nip a c tn f o ring t i o n :
Supplemental information to EIR-129 has been submitted, by the
applicant.
Staff has found that the information is adequate and as .a result,
it has been determined that the project satisfies the Carlsbad
Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972 by P r i or fcp.rn'p.1- i a nee .
G e n e r aj P1 a n I n f o rm a t i o n : •
The General Plan Land Use Plan Map designates the subject property
as RM (Residential Medium, 4-10 dwelling units per acre). The
submitted tract map provides 3.1 dwelling units per. acre.
Public Facilities:
Sewer and water facilities will be available from the- City.
The applicant will be required to build the..." connect,! ng link"
to Tamarack Avenue.
The site is within the jurisdiction'.of the Carlsbad Unified
School Di stri ct. . "-'•'.";
Major Planning Considerations:
Is the proposed subdivision consistent with the General Plan?
Does the proposed subdivision conform to the requirements of the
PUD Ordinance? • ' x
x
, • 'SECTION III: DISCUSSION
• .""•* . '-.„*• . " ' -Staff is concerned about the '"frontage road" concept as presented
on the various exhibits. The ap'pl icant'-has attempted to avoid
driveways along Tamarack Avenue by creating this parallel roadway.
The General Plan states the following regarding secondary arterials
(Tamarack): . . H
Guide'! ine 5; Minimize private driveway access onto' .
•-both major and secondary arterial roads,
' *«.' x • • • 'Guideline 6: Design roads so as to minimize conflict-
ing traffic movements such as turning, curb parking,
uncontrolled access and frequent'stops.
• . - * ! ( "
. Gin dp]J ne- .1 B: Separate pedestrian bicycle and vehicular-
traffic -where possible. %Al.so, establish a separate system
of hiking trails, bicycle .paths and equestrian trails from
which motorized vehicles would be banned.
-.4-
Street fun c t i o n r, a n d standards:\'
-.LLci§ IY_ At L°-L''A] 5.: "The main function o f a -seconds ,r,y- a r.t e r i a 1
Is to conduct traffic from collector street's to and from., major
arterials or freeways. Land access is only a minor function of
a secondary arterial and, therefore, parking should'be discouraged
arid residential buildings should not have driveways entering a
secondary arterial. Additionally, it is good practice to avoid
situations where secondary arterials cross major arterials to
form ,a--conti nuous, .system, since this mi ght'Yesul t- in a tendency />
for traffic to use the secondary arterial in-lieu of a major
arterial for long trips."
The frontage road, as designed, channels pedestrian, bicycle and
vehicular movements into one area. The :f-rontage road area will
be at a significant grade (10%) in ce.rtain are&-s and will conform
to a curved alignment. In addition, building pads otr the'steeper
areas along the frontage road will be oriented in a terrace
configuration. ..This will create driveways dropping ,/down from
pad elevation to a relatively steep'frontag'e" road elevation.
Staff is also concerned about the potential use of the frontage
road as a play area. Because it is steep in spots-,- the ability
to control bicyles, skateboards, etc. will be difficult. There
is no curb shown (see Exhibit C, Tamarack Avenue profile) separat-
ing the frontage road (cofrsmon driveway on.-plans) from Tamarack Avenue.
The possibility of skateboards, balls and the like, rolling out
onto the secondary arterial is potentially a hazardous situation.
There is a problem of possible owiflict between service/emergency
vehicl-es along Tamarac'k Avenue. ' Trash trucks and fire trucks
cannot be accommodated by the frontage road. It would be necessary '
•for.them to stop along. Tamarack Avenue to provide service. This
would be a hazardous situation, especially in the case of weekly
trash service.-'-,' Ma.il pick-up/delivery is also a possible problem
depending on the/ultimate location of mail boxes.
Staff does not object to the frontage road concept, however, '
considering the specific conditions on site, staff feels that :
potential hazards outweigh the positive aspects of the concept.
' ~ C '
In addition to the circulation problems, certain requirements .
.of the PUD ordinance are no.t met in staff's opinion. . ~
*^"" ' .-'•,*
The design of the frontage road along Tamarack Avenue does not
provide for one guest parking space per dwelling unit. Each
fifth house lacks a guest space. . . . . )*»
The recreational vehicle storage area as shown on Exhibit .C
meets the size- requirement-in square footage, however, staff •
does not consider the area .usabl-e for an adequate number of •.' '-.
1 a r g e v e hi c 1 c s . . - • ,
0
Also, staff does not feel that the recreational vehi c/le'v-area
.could be adequately screened from the residences':acroS'S the
street. . • • • . ^
Staff calculates that the applicant is providing about % acre
of usable open space. The PUD ordinance requires 600 sq. ft.
of usable open space per civ/ell ing unit. For the sublet -project,
this v/oulti equal almost 2 acres.
The Parks and Recreation Director has expressed concern about the
lack of usable open space area provided considering the number of
units requested, small lot size and fairly rough topography
(separating the subdivision into distinct areas). For-..'example,
the applicant shows an-open space lot on the western boundary
(lot 110, Exhibit C) th'at is shaded in, .however, only about half
of "this area is usable open space, the remainder is in slope.
The applicant has expressed a desire to calculate the open space
and recreational vehicle parking areas required base,d on the en--
tire project (condominiums with recreational-facilities and the
current request).
Staff believes that because the currently requested subdivision
is a 'distinctly, different residential land use covering a
relatively large area of unusual topography, it should be con-
sidered a separate project.
NOTE: Staff has been informed by an adjacent property owner
(Mr. Schwab, NE corner, of Birch and Skyline) that
litigation is in process to settle a land ownership
dispute over a portion"of the subject subdivision.
Mr. Schwab asked that the requested subdivision be
continued until a decision has been made establishing
- a property owner. The property in dispute is generally
in the area of lots 112 and 113 and a portion of the
• Tamarack Avenue as shown on Exhibit C.
It was indicated to Mr. Schwab that staff felt the
matter should be one between^ the property owners.
•" "\ ''I *'_Previous City-action has been taken regarding the
:,_/" subject property (approval of Master Plan, Specific
•— Plan and Tract Map^ under the« same circumstances.
•The property ownership has been disputed for a number
of years.' • : . .
Tlhmdp: ar. ;" ' .' .
(12/3/76) .", . < •„ . '/ ;
Attachments: Exhibit A, 10/1/76, .
Exhibit B, 10/1/76 .
. Exhibit C, 10/29/76 '.•;•'
Exhibit D, 10/29/76, . - ,<*
Letter from John Douglass, 10/29/76
Supplemental Information •.
ouglass southwest aorporalton
COMMUNITY BUILDERS • P.O. BOX 1114 • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 TELEPHONE (714)729-4958
January 6, 1977
City Council
City of Carlsbad *?
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Carlsbad Palisades
Case No. CT 76-15 and PUD-6
Honorable Members of the City Council:
We wish to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission which disapproved
our proposed new Tentative Map.
This new land development plan offers more advantages to the City of Carlsbad
than Tentative Tract 73-8 and the Precise Plan previously approved by the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
Our new proposed Tentative Map provides for a total of 136 residential lots
in the same area in which 207 lots had been approved in Tentative Map 73-8. The
new density averages 3.06 dwelling units per acre, as compared to nearly five in
the previously approved plan.
There will be autos from only 23 homes entering into Tamarack in our new plan,
where there were to be autos from 45 homes entering Tamarack on the previously
approved plan. There will be four separate driveway entrances and four separate
driveway exits in our new plan, whereas there were four double driveways providing
both entrance and exits on our previously approved plan. This new plan results in
fewer cars using the same number of entrances and exits, which is one of the improve-
ments over the previously approved plan.
The vehicular and pedestrian traffic system on our looped driveway design for
the homes facing Tamarack provides good control. It is at least as good as vehi-
cular and pedestrian control on the usual residential subdivision.
These homes we plan to build on the zero lot line lots are planned to sell from
$60,000 to $80,000, with the average to be about $72,000. These homes we plan to
build on the larger lots are planned to sell from $80,000 to $120,000, with the
average to be about $105,000.
If we cannot proceed with this new plan, the only alternatives we see to be
available to us are to either design a completely new plan with back yards facing
Tamarack and further loss of lots, or to build out the 207 lots in the previously
approved Precise Plan and Tentative Map.
We are preparing additional exhibits to present to the City Council at its
meeting of January 18, 1977 to more clearly show the advantages of our proposed
land development plan to the City of Carlsbad.
Please permit us to present these exhibits to you to enable you to make your
decision on this appeal.
fery)truly youjrs,
/^President
JCDjr:cab
SUBSIDIARY OF DOUGLASS PACIFIC CORPORATION