HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview GP Update Circulatiion System & Selection of Project Description - EIRPLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
P. O. BOX 1768
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
92658 -8915
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3219
c aramirezOcitv.newport- beach.ca. us
Date: August 26, 2005
Re: August 30, 2005 General Plan Update Meeting
Attached are the following documents related to the next General Plan Update Meeting:
A table that outlines the preferred land use alternatives recommended by the
Planning Commission and those selected by the City Council for six of the ten Sub -
Areas.
2. A letter from the traffic consultant, Urban Crossroads, that discusses and identifies
preferred alternative Circulation Element (Roadway) system assumptions.
3. A report from the Economic Development Committee that identifies their preferred
land use recommendations. Refer to the July 20, 2005 EDC report included in your
earlier package for their report on the Sub -Areas not discussed in this report.
4. A copy of the GPAC Land Use Recommendations power point presentation.
W)
N
(
r
N
7
Q
O
N
N
O
C
C
N
O
c
a
O
U)
O
—•tiQv +
=
V
U
(D CO
O L m m'V
U 3Q 2N
Q ~— C a E
E
7 T
m E U .
' T E
a a T N �
X-
(D E ".a
$ 5
.2 :LLLD5 -T
N 7~ p
E 76 E E c m w y
p W lL 0 fn I- m C
U a
V r N
Q ax)
c
Uy
Q ui
C7 E
>'O
a �
0
E m
p p
V L
¢ m
L
•O
w
a
a
N p
EU
O c
. E
C
¢a
L Y C
>+O
N
100
a2 E
N p
E
O C
N •C
C
Qa
t C
> O
y
aS2-0w
CD
a p
E
O C
O •C
L C
Qa¢IL
L
Y pT •
0
N
p
E
O C
N .0
C
U)
m
� Y
>,
.0
.0 °o 0
w as
a)
v n
°
a a
p
O O
=>
O UJ a
4i
ca m
a)
O N
uJ
O
y
O a) O
vJ
C
O a Q
...
U O O a
X p
a)
W
p m
C C U
E m
7 m
7
7 0= a) y
E N N
O
Q
N
N
N
N
O
O�
VYi
X
X
X- L r E
d
7 v y
O a C
Co p
E
E
E Y CL
p°
E
y 5 a)
> M E N
a)
fY6 Z
a
fY6 ¢
N
O
(Y6 p w
E o N
E
O
.0
O
O
•F' Q: .T (Q
CL LL
E
m a) m
{Z o
Y
o
Y�
a�
Y
a
Y .0 N Lo (D Qi
n E 0) a vs
d
U 0 co a)
U p m>
pad
U m
U
V
U m C p a) 7
QI
X LL W
X +-. d CO
a)
X a)
m a
X m
0
X
a)
X. y E 7 C
(D m •- �
cUca(MD
i3 °O
U 3
C)
Uc
U
UwaXiEy
O
Q o C y
Q •i =
Q L
Q m
Q
Q a Q) C X N
N
. CU
c
C7 v a-0C7s
(Dao m0
( '0- �
'
N O
m N C
Q
To
tl)
L
.Q .0 a) 2.0
O
J Q
.0
m
Eam�N�'
O U
aaNO.aa
a)
a) a) '
ac.Ga
a) ._ _
p Q
aO�L i
a)< > Y O O
YL
L
C L
C a m
C a
C
= m a
Q C pa)
= E c
a) rn
y
0) � .—
0) V
)
d m (6
+N
E >
mp
m
m
EwEQ
E< —.
—>o
E LLj
EsQ
E
E
E o o
E.2 .0
Uw
o�
i
8-0 m
�o
�
0 ( m
2
`a t
N
)
`O
`) O
`
a
L
s
.
m
<2<aaco
wQc°
Q °0+
N
m w0
>
3
�
s
d
O
7
C
C
m
c
m
0
Q•
0. O
d
cc
.��
m
dR
a
Q
z
Z b
m
m
co
m
Q) 7
z
o
Q
p
c
•L
U)
3
ic 5
O
m
�./Q�
m
1 t'6c{xorate PSP14 - fax
2005
August 25, 2005
Mr. Woody Tescher
EIP ASSOCIATES
12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Subject: Preferred Alternative Circulation Element (Roadway) System
Assumptions
Dear Mr. Tescher:
The General Plan Preferred Alternative that will be analyzed in the environmental
impact report (EIR) will consist of a combination of a Preferred Land Use alternative and
a Preferred Alternative Circulation Element (Roadway) system alternative. This letter
provides our recommendation regarding the Preferred Alternative Circulation Element
roadway system.
For the traffic analysis of the land use alternatives developed by the General Plan
Advisory Committee (GPAC), the General Plan Update Committee approved the use of
a "constrained network' as an assumption in the traffic model. This constrained network
was developed in response to visioning process input that residents want to minimize
further widening and extension of the arterial roadway system, as well as staff and
consultant information on roadway improvements that are uncertain due to political or
funding issues. Key roadway changes reflected in the constrained network (versus the
Currently Adopted General Plan Circulation Element) include:
No extension of the SR -55 Freeway.
No widening of Coast Highway through Mariner's Mile.
• No extension of 19th Street across the Santa Ana River.
Mr. Woody Tescher
EIP ASSOCIATES
August 25, 2005
Page 2
• No widening of Jamboree Road north of Ford Road.
• No grade separation at MacArthur Boulevard /Jamboree Road
• No extension of 17th Street
• No extension of 15th Street to Coast Highway
For the EIR project description, our opinion is that the most prudent approach is to
reflect a relatively constrained future system that reflects political and financial realities.
However, it is also desirable to include future roadway infrastructure that is likely to be
needed to serve future traffic demand. If desired, elimination of these improvements can
be adequately analyzed through additional sensitivity analysis, after the model runs
using the preferred roadway system are complete.
Based on the aforementioned criteria, it is recommended that the Preferred A4ternative
Circulation Element roadway system analyzed the EIR be largely consistent with the
constrained network that was used to evaluate the prelim inary- •alternatives, with the
following exceptions:
The 19th Street / Hamilton Avenue connection / crossing of the Santa Ana River
should be included.
• Widening of Coast Highway to 6 through lanes through Mariner's Mile (Newport
Boulevard to Dover Drive) should be included.
Future traffic deficiencies that would require local roadway widening above and beyond
the currently adopted Circulation Element roadway system can be expected in the
absence of these roadway additions / widenings. It is our opinion that, if necessary, the
overall analysis can still be structured in a manner that addresses the elimination of
these improvements in a manner that adequately addresses the environmental analysis
requirements associated with the General Plan update. This will allow the decision -
making process to explicitly consider the need for these specific improvements.
Mr. Woody Tescher
EIP ASSOCIATES
August 25, 2005
Page 3
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this letter summarizing our guidance
related to the General Plan update process. Please feel free to contact me at (949) 660-
1994 x210 if you wish to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Carleton Waters, P. E.
Principal
CW JS
JN:01232 -20
y �� T
Q
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
0 �1+iYTap�' ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
General Plan Update Land Use Alternatives
Options Review and Recommendations to
Planning Commission and City Council
August 17, 2005
INTRODUCTION
On June 22, 2005, the Economic Development Committee established a subcommittee
to review the proposed land use alternatives for the general plan update developed by
the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). The charge of the subcommittee was to
examine the proposed Options and report back to the entire EDC for consideration and
adoption of formal recommendations to GPAC and the City Council.
At their regular meeting of July 20, 2005, the full EDC discussed the subcommittee's
report and voted to forward recommendations for ten (10) geographic subiweas:.�See<
Attachment 1).
The Committee then continued the discussion until its August 17, 2005 regular meeting,
to complete discussions on the remaining seven (7) sub - areas. These
recommendations are provided below for the Planning Commission and City Council
meetings on August 30, 2005.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
As noted in the fiscal analysis of the General Plan Alternatives, the City has the
potential for increased annual revenues in a wide range of between $317,000 and $10.7
million per year, depending upon which of the various Options for each sub -area is
selected. Significantly, increases in lodging (short-term hotel and vacation home rental)
and retail sales are projected to provide the largest contributions to increased revenue.
However, in order to provide balance for the City and its quality of life, the EDC
discussed and agreed a number of 'overriding principles' affecting the discussion, and
by which the committee's conclusions were guided.
1. Changes to the General Plan should show an overall positive fiscal impact on the
City, although not necessarily in each geographic sub -area.
Page 1 of 6
2. It is clear that the City's residents do not believe a general citywide increase in traffic
is acceptable. Therefore the "true maximum" Option —which in most areas increases
traffic within a sub - area —will not be the EDC's recommended Option unless there are
overriding issues or mitigating factors that would recommend otherwise.
3. It may be advantageous to recommend an Option that would anticipate additional
traffic in a few geographic sub - areas; if in exchange, the Option adds substantial fiscal
benefits, and that results in less overall potential traffic impact in other sub - areas.
4. All of the recommendations regarding the General Plan require a balancing of trade-
offs-- between providing for increased revenue for the City; increasing traffic;
addressing environmental concerns; and quality of life.
5. The Committee notes the comments of the Harbor Commission regarding the fact
that the harbor is an economic engine for the City, and notes that there is a need to
preserve marine uses where possible, while allowing for market activity to enhance
those uses.
6. The Committee notes that the financial data used in the Fiscal Analysis of the
General Plan Alternatives is three years old, taken mainly from the FY 2002 -2003
budget. If possible and practicable, the EDC suggests that staff examine the cost and
feasibility of updating the numbers to the newly adopted FY 2005 -2006 budget when the
model is used to analyze the preferred land use plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS BY SUB -AREA
Mariner's Mile:
The Harbor Commission, in a letter to the City dated September 10, 2003, pointed out
that the marine industry accounts for over 1,000 jobs and generates nearly $2.7 million
in annual net revenues to the City of Newport Beach. This places marine revenues in
3rd place in the category of business that provides net revenue to the City behind
lodging (15') and retail (2nd) . The marine industry produces 5% of total sales tax
revenues, ahead of light industrial and hotels. It also produces 5% of gross City
revenues; below lodging, but still ahead of light industrial and service commercial. The
fiscal impact model shows the marine industry revenues growing only $0.3 million over
22 years with no change in expenditures over the same 22 year period; yet the industry
maintains a net positive balance to the City of approximately $3 million, remaining third
in net revenue producer behind lodging and retail. The Harbor Commission deems this
lack of a proactive stance by the City in encouraging marine uses a 'passive no growth
alternative.'
The Harbor Commission urged the City to avoid the 'passive no growth' alternative for
marine industry related uses in order to avoid the "potentially catastrophic decline in the
role of marine industry uses as a Newport Beach economic engine." The Commission
recommended that the City: (1) adopt a proactive sustainable growth plan for the
Page 2 of 6
harbor; (2) review the revenue sources allocated to marine uses in the model; (3) add
marine tourism uses and revenue sources to marine uses in the general plan update;
and (4) expand consideration of tidelands uses to new water -based uses. These
options would: conserve key waterfront locations and important marine uses; enhance
user -pay public access; improve the harbor environment; and allow for the multiplier of
secondary economic benefits to the City and harbor.
However, Mariner's Mile presently accommodates many commercial uses other than
marine. The automobile sales presence in Mariner's Mile is one of the most successful
in the City. There is a retail/personal service "commercial village" in the area between
Riverside and Tustin that is again becoming successful, and the restaurant presence
along the bay front is one of the most well -known in the City. However, a number of the
current office developments in Mariner's Mile are required by marine - related zoning
regulations to devote at least 40% of their property to marine - related or marine -
enhanced operations. These regulations were adopted as a method to satisfy California
Coastal Commission requirements for public access as well as to conserve marine uses
adjacent to the water itself. These uses may include restaurants, marine architects,
brokers, and other office -based marine uses, as well as boat sales, boat yards, marine
equipment sales and service, and similar uses. However, in order to address the
market concern for general use office space, the elimination of the 40% marine use
requirement has been requested by some of the Mariner's Mile property and business
owners as a part of the General Plan updates. Additionally, allowing residential use
within Mariner's Mile is becoming an attractive economic opportunity, and the allowance
of it may be a necessary step toward seeing full redevelopment of some properties.
Recommendation: The EDC recommends that the following be adopted within the
General Plan for Mariner's Mile, subject to allowing the maximum flexibility of uses in
accordance with the recommendations articulated by the City Council at their 8/16/05
meeting:
• On the bay side of Coast Highway, commercial development with a marine and
visitor - serving component, with the exception that residential land use could be.
allowed if a property has 200 or more linear feet of bayside frontage, subject to the
following restrictions: 50% of the total floor area must be devoted to marine or
visitor - serving land uses; and the property is subject to conformance with a 26'
height limitation;
• On the west end of the inland side of Mariner's Mile (approximately from 'Arches
Bridge' to Riverside Avenue) general commercial development only;
• On the east end of the inland side of Mariner's Mile (from approximately Rocky Point
to Dover Avenue) general commercial development only;
• In the central "Mariner's Village" area of the inland side of Mariner's Mile
(approximately from Riverside to Tustin and from Coast Highway to the foot of the
bluff behind Avon Street) vertically- oriented mixed -use commercial & residential
development;
• In the eastern "Mariner's Village" area of the inland side of Mariner's Mile
(approximately from Tustin Avenue to Rocky Point, and from Coast Highway to the
Page 3 of 6
foot of the bluff) horizontally- oriented mixed -use commercial and residential
development.
An additional recommendation by the EDC is that public visitor - serving guest boat slips
should be added in Newport harbor wherever it makes appropriate physical sense.
These visitor accommodations add little if any increase in traffic, but users of the slips
will provide an additional source of revenue to area businesses, which in turn benefits
the City fiscally.
McFadden Square East:
The addition of a hotel for this area does not appear practical because of traffic and
parking problems. The existing general plan provides for mixed use development, and
the possibility of additional condominiums.
Recommendation: The EDC recommends no change from the existing General Plan
characteristics.
McFadden Square West:
The proposed option allows the reuse of properties occupied by commercial for mixed -
use- buildings that integrate housing above ground level retail uses, with overnight
accommodations (bed and breakfast, small scale boutique hotel.) The option has a
positive fiscal impact for the City.
Recommendation: The EDC recommends Option 1 for this sub -area.
Old Newport Boulevard:
The existing general plan provides for limited expansion of retail with infill of adjoining
residential neighborhoods consistent with current zoning.
Recommendation: The EDC recommends supporting the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and City Council, as articulated in their public meetings of 8116105
for this sub -area.
The existing General Plan provides for little additional development in Block A and a
modest fiscal benefit. Option 1 provides for some mixed -use residential and commercial
redevelopment, with some reduction in the existing lodging rooms in the area. This
results in a negative fiscal impact of $669,000 per year; Option 2 results in a $1.4 million
negative impact on the City. Options 3 & 4 are similar, with minimal economic difference
between them.
There are no proposed changes to the General Plan for Block B
Page 4of6
In Block C it is proposed that vertical mixed -use 2 -3 story redevelopment occur at the
two signalized intersections, to provide commercial nodes that support the surrounding
housing. Option 2 provides for the addition of a new hotel, although the Committee does
not feel it is practical. The Committee has concluded that maintenance of the area's
existing affordable hotel rooms is beneficial to the City for economic and social reasons.
The redevelopment of the mobile home park as primarily open space and
parking /staging areas for the proposed Orange County River Park is problematic for
practical economic reasons. However beneficial that scenario seems on a conceptual
level, the Committee feels that there would be little real incentive for the owner to let the
property change hands, and the current situation would continue for the future. A
practical solution might be to recommend commercial and /or residential development
for the site, and incorporate any necessary parking /staging if the River Park becomes a
reality.
Recommendation: The EDC recommends that a flexible land use strategy be adopted
that encourages economically - viable redevelopment; including, but not limited to:
affordable and moderately- priced hotels, mixed -use development; and possibly multi-
family residential development.
West Newport Industrial Area: I =t _
The Committee analyzed the fiscal impacts of the General Plan alternatives on a City-
wide basis. From that perspective, it is clear that not all sub -areas will maintain positive
fiscal situations; in fact, other considerations might warrant that the City accept some
negative fiscal impacts in specific areas. All Options proposed for the West Newport
Industrial Area indicate that the fiscal situation might be somewhere between
$1.1million and $1.6 million negative, primarily due to the fact that Hoag Hospital is a
non - profit institution and does not pay property taxes. The Committee concludes,
however, that Hoag Hospital is an important institution that provides benefits to the
community far in excess of the benefit of whatever property taxes might be collected if
the property was in tax- generating use. Further, the Committee feels that the area's
medically - related characteristics should be enhanced and supported to the greatest
extent possible, while minimizing the loss of revenue to the City.
Option 3 appears to best address the strong demand for medical office without the
excessive $428,000 revenue loss to the City suggested with Option 2. Ultimately, the
difference is a potential $1.6 million loss from Option 2 versus a potential $1.1 loss from
Option 3. Further, Option 3 provides for a mix of housing types that could provide more
employee- accessible housing (for the hospital and elsewhere in the City) and may
produce some minor reductions in traffic congestion.
One hitch in the Committee's support of Option 3: the Newport Technology Center is a
property designated for research and development, with only limited office development
permitted. Option 3 could not accommodate the critical need for the conversion of this
Page 5 of 6
property to medical office use, and the Committee viewed this as a special issue to be
examined.
One final reason for the Committee's support of Option 3 is that it will allow not only
additional office space, but continuing industrial space that would help maintain the
viability of some of those marine - related uses not dependent upon a water - adjacent
location.
Recommendation: The EDC recommends the support of Option 3 for this sub -area.
Attachment 1: July 20, 2005 Recommendations
Page 6 of 6
� \
\
»\
Ilk
U)
L
C
r
V
�
r
V
�o
�
�
05_z "
�
c
mU
LL
ZCD
L
C
N
V
�
r
V
�
�
�
c
W f',
N
G
0 A-
LO
cys
ti
C.0
LO
OD
LO
r--
Ci
cvi
CN
co:
LO
cys
ti
C.0
E
ta
1 ' �
gg
\\ rr r 4
� r
`1
}
r
C. 3 s WE
IV
C
d
U)
A
m
E
E
i-
J
syiun
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O N O O O N
V M M N N � r
yaa=i aienbs
to
l0
65
a
C7
3S
U
a
C7
w
yf6
Y'
a
xN_
W
C
J
L
�C
d
fop N V <O+] N O O
swoon
I
Mv
m
ro
a
dS
1
1
�
j
Z`
i,
syiun
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O N O O O N
V M M N N � r
yaa=i aienbs
to
l0
65
a
C7
3S
U
a
C7
w
yf6
Y'
a
xN_
W
C
J
L
�C
d
fop N V <O+] N O O
swoon
I
Mv
m
ro
a
dS
1
0
m
v
0
m
m
u
O O O O O O
O O O O O
LO O O 07
N N r r
19e=1 ajenbg
O O O O O O O O O
O O co O O O O O
W [- COO M N rO
199j ajenbg
U
a
c7
m
� A
c
m
N
m
a
c7
Nx_
W
1
A
a
c7
xN
W
Y
N
3
C
O O O O O O O
O LL O LOO O tO0
m N N
n.un
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
m O O Lb CO V N
l99=1 ajenbg
U
a
0
� I
a
N
J
:i
m
a
M
W
!0
m
m
A
L
m
u
mom
U
a
c7
w
m
a
y
Lb
laaj aienbg
O O O O O
Lo O O N O
' � N
3aaaj ajenbg
c
m
a
a
m
�L
Y
M
C
M N
swn
U
a
c7
w
3S
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
;ae j ajenbg
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
laaj aienbg
O O O O O
Lo O O N O
' � N
3aaaj ajenbg
c
m
a
a
m
�L
Y
M
C
M N
swn
U
a
c7
w
3S
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
;ae j ajenbg
11
ld-
d
U_
A
d
V
La
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
laa_� ajenbg
0 0 0 0 0 0
iri o �n o Sri
N N
laaaj aienbg
U
a
c�
w
U)
IL
N_
U
a
C7
a
Q
dS
�o
c
m
a
'w
d
Ell
si!un
U
a
0
a
C7
m
3S
d
i�
E
j1
d
_V
R
d
E
raj
O O O O O O O O O
O O p O p p O O
V N N O O O O O
V l0 00 O N
laa.1 ajenbg
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p O n O N a M N
1999=1 aienbg
w
N
o_
x(/1
W
c
a
J
L
W
C
d
u
R
YC
d
a
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N W (O E N O 00 fp a N
swooa
OD I- fD LO
syun
P.
m
o_
c�
xN_
W
U
a
(7
w
U)
a
x_W
W
iY
Jill
Ib
#ll
I I &1lIIII I I RE
S
5
L 60
hH
I -�
q
T I � r!)
.7
J
L
�
�
f+
A,
W
w
T!'
C
++
A0
r
L
�
Q
S
5
L 60
hH
I -�
q
T I � r!)
.7
J
L
�
�
f+
N
d
_V
�a
m`
E
E
S
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0o 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N fm9
aaa=l aienbg
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(O -0 cl O O (O V N
199=1 ajenbg
U
a
0
m
65
a
xN_
W
c
J
L
01
L
O
a
m
a
d
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O W 1� O O V fh N
SWOON
N N �
s;iun
U
a
m
U)
V
41
W
U
a
m
a
m
Lb
g6
LE.
O
I
Im
k-I
mw�
IN
04 Q LO
laaj aienbS
Q<
(OD I
a-
laaazi ajenbS
0
12
N
swn
C)
(<L
(D
Lb
A'3-
NO
I
PrA
Qi
0
CL
Z
m
C
0
ca
LL
d
_V
m
d
L
O O O O O
laa j ajenbg
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
laaa.1 ajenbg
U
a
C7
m
cz
a-
0
xN_
W
U
a
(7
a-
0
c
J
L
C
d
u
R
C
d
a
d
M N N
swOOa
O O O O O O O O
sliun
U
a
C7
w
`m
o_
x_y
W
w
V1
a
N
W
a °!
%I,
a
2
8
f6
m
E
UN
°o °o °o °
0 0 0 0 0
(°O V M I
laaj ajenbg
U
a
0
ca
a
�xx
W
U
a
`m
a
cD
Nx_
W
yaaaA ajenbg
R
C
d
V
N
d
silun
U
a
C7
`i t0
�IdS
'?I
tot
/\ \ \ .: ly 2
H
do
\ \. /� � �
�� ` :s � \� .
J1
Cam:
w
L
Q1
C
t
0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 O O o o o 0 0
V t`m N� O N M V o 0 O
leaf ajenbg
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
LL� O Lo O N O V) O
laa9=1 aienbg
U
a
m
IL
C7
xN_
W
R
w
c
a
ayi
m
y
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
M M CV N
swn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O u7 O O O O O N o 0
N 7 V M M N N
399.1 ajenbg
U
a
0
w
m
a
U
_m
Lb
U
a
C7
m
05
a.
;
W
a4
P-1
Le,
A
_
d
.�
W t�
zz
s *A
P L L
I
4
c
m
'gin
c
L
•L .
.,
Jo
_
d
.�
W t�
zz
s *A
P L L
I
IPA
AL
O
4-
(D
0
Mill
r
o
Wo,
co
MC-
UY
LU
7-
All
46.
kl
IPA
AL
ct
Y�
CL
V
3
0
j
ca
i E
c
Q
E
mi
o
U
o
Q
Lo
CL
CD-
O
t
l
a"'
9
�
DNen —
j
N
cn
M
ti
O•,
C)
ct
Y�
CL
L
0
+�+
i E
c
L
E
mi
o
U
o
Q
Lo
CD-
t
l
a"'
9
�
DNen —
j
cn
M
ti
L
O
L
0
+�+
i E
E 3
C O
t
a"'
9
DNen —
j
c�
J
U
Q
nsl
Q:` a
L
� c
� o
to y
m m
r-
CD O
Q �
.6
Cl) Z
-t7 �� idL
(D
11, Ol
E
IWL
cu
LL
0
LU
cc
E
*0
it
-t7 �� idL
(D
11, Ol
cu
?'
5Y
06
�E
j
«t cv
LL =
V
' O
_!
CL
O
aU
a
1
In
cv
z
l
a
�
�
a
m
o
y o W
>
U)
in
Cc L
'cc , =mm
L g err
r
5Y
D
0
f6
_!
CL
O
aU
a
In
z
(D
a
m
.6
>
U)
in
N
M T-
1` co) to
0)
O
v
11111
14- O)
1`
Mco
cc CO)
M
N
O
O co
V
t~A
V-
N
O)
. V 0
in
..
Lo•.
(C
CO M
�t
�
�S�
•��,
4��
3
�
� ,�
�
.
T1 ..i. :�I
�
�
�; yPl1 Si,�T `
Y •i+ ��'
nS� � a.
+k ;$� �,,,