Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1996/03/27 (8) MINUTES Chula Vista Planning Commission Workshop Chula Vista, California 6:00 p.m. Wednesday. February 21. 1996 Conference Rooms 2 & 3 Public Services Buildin~ I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER / ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 5:55 p.m. by Chair Tuchscher. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Tarantino, Salas, Davis, Ray, Willett and Thomas STAFF PRESENT: Special Planning Projects Manager Jerry Jamriska, Assistant Planning Director Ken Lee, Senior Planner Rick Rosaler, Senior Civil Engineer Bill Ullrich, Civil Engineer Lonbardo DeTrinidad, Associate Planner Beverly Luttrell and Planner Julia Matthews OTHERS PRESENT Kim Kilkenny, Kent Aden and Ranie Hunter of The Baldwin Company, John Bridges ofCottonlBelandlAssociates and Greg Smith a property owner representing SNMB 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of November 8 and 15, 1995 MSU (Thomasffarantino) to approve the minutes of November 8 and 15, 1995 as submitted. Approved 7-0. III. SCHEDULE: Mr. Jerry Jamriska indicated that the planning process was back on schedule. He pointed out key dates as it relates to the Planning Commission deliberations On March 27, staff would like the Planning Commission to consider opening the SPA One Environmental Impact Report (EIR) public hearing, take testimony and request that the Planning Commission close the ErR and refer the issue to staff for preparation of Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, etc. And if time permits, staff would like the Planning Commission to open the SPA One Plan deliberations. On April ]0, staff would like the Planning Commission to consider taking final action on the SPA One EIR and certifYing it, and to also take action on the SPA One Plan. On April 24, staff would like the Planning Commission to take action on the Master Tentative Map. Mr. Jamriska further indicated that the City Council will begin their deliberations on the SPA One Plan and SPA One EIR April 30 or May 7. City Council will take a second reading either May 7 or May ]4. City Council would then take action on the Master Tentative Map on May 21. The City Council schedule is subject to a meeting on that fifth Tuesday of April. City staff is in the process of polling Council members in an effort to get a meeting set up for that fifth Tuesday. 3 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes February 21, ]996 Page 2 of ]2 IV. OTAY RANCH UPDATE: 1. Major Issues: A. EIR Recirculation Issues: Mr. Jamriska reminded the Planning Commission that, at their last meeting of November 15, ] 995, they were asked to continue their deliberations on the SPA One EIR to an unspecified date because new issues were raised that were not adequately addressed in the EIR. Those issues have been addressed in more detail, and the SPA One EIR has been recirculated for the formal public review period of 45 days. Mr. John Bridges (CottonlBeland/Associates), EIR consultant for the project, stated that new information regarding biological resources, traffic circulation and landform alterations became available after the original SPA One EIR was circulated in September 1995. Minor modifications were also made to the cultural resources, agricultural and public services sections based on comments that had already been received on the first draft of the ElK The recirculated SPA One EIR includes a new biology section and new biological technical report. There were two issues under biology that were changed: 1) noise impacts to the California Gnatcatcher, and 2) the performance standards related to four grassland bird species. The performance standard that exists in the General Development Plan (GDP) is that the Gnatcatcher cannot be exposed to more than 60 decibels, on the average, over a 24-hour period. The 60 decibel limit was a theoretical number that the Fish & Wildlife and Fish & Game agencies identified as a basis for how the bird might maintain itself and survive over the long-term. However, there was no empirical evidence to suggest that 60 decibels was, in fact, a proper level. And, indeed, there were a lot of instances in the field where biologists had noted Gnatcatchers living, surviving and multiplying in areas where noise was higher than 60 decibels. Because of that, modifYing the GDP standard ITom 60 up to 65 decibels is now reflected in the ElK The second biological issue that represented a change are the performance standards for the grassland birds The existing standard in the GDP calls for maintenance of about 80% of the habitat for those birds Those birds are generally wide ranging, and the habitat can be a large area, so that particular percentage did not make a lot of sense in terms of the amount of area that would be affected. Also, that standard was derived before the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) was developed. The change that has been made is to eliminate the 80% requirement and replace it with a performance standard that would say, "... included within the open space preserve, occupied breeding and forging habitat to maintain and enhance a viable population". t/ Planning Commission Workshop Minutes February 21,1996 Page 3 of ]2 The last area of primary concern is the landform alternative section The GDP performance standard requires that 83% of all steep slopes on a Ranch-wide basis be maintained. Ranch-wide not SPA-by-SPA Because there will be several ownerships involved over time in the Otay Ranch project, it became important to identify some method of ensuring that the 83% standard could be met over time. Therefore, a table was included in the recirculated SPA One EIR (pages 4.2-18 through 4.2-2]) that identifies a village-by-village breakdown of the steep slopes and those that need to be preserved in order to meet an 83% standard Commissioner Salas asked if it was like deficit banking? Me Bridges responded in the affirmative Commissioner Willett asked what is the angle determination for a steep slope? Me Bridges stated 25%. Me Bridges referred to a one-page handout he had distributed that described the bottom line conclusions of the EIR. Significant and unmitigable project -level environmental impacts, significant and mitigable project-level impacts and less than significant project-level impacts all relate to impacts associated with SPA One and with the annexations that are proposed. Significant and unmitigable cumulative impacts and mitigable or less than significant cumulative impacts relate to SPA One and other development that is expected to occur over the next 20-40 years within the South Bay area. It is important to recognize that significant and unmitigable project -level environmental impacts and significant and unmitigable cumulative impacts are impacts in which Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted in order to approve the project. B. PFFP Report Conclusions: Me Rick Rosaler stated that the PFFP is based on the Salt Creek Ranch PFFP that was approved by the City several years ago. The GDP requires that the developer contribute their fair share to the capital and operating costs for transit facilities serving the Ranch (pFFP, page 3.2-5). Staff has been working with MTDB on the alignment, station locations and the identification of the transit right-of-way. It is the position of City staff, and the Baldwin Company agrees, that the dedication of right -of-way and transit stops, since it is approximately 26% of the total system, constitutes Baldwin's fair share of that construction requirement (PFFP, page 3.2-10). Me Jamriska indicated that there is no provision in the law that requires any municipalities to participate in operational costs, and that has been the position of the City. The City has a mechanism in place as part of its s Planning Commission Workshop Minutes February 21, 1996 Page 4 of 12 Development Impact Fees (DIFs) and does not want to be penalized by MTDB to carry the whole burden of operating the light raiL If and when MTDB establishes a region-wide financing plan, the City will require the developer to participate. Expect MTDB to come back and not be supportive of that Chair Tuchscher asked ifMTDB is locally funded Mr. Jamriska responded that MTDB finances 20% of the cost while State and Federal assumed 80%. Mr. Kim Kilkenny (Baldwin Company) pointed out one area where MTDB may disagree. MTDB anticipates that, if the trolley system is constructed, the traditional means of transportation will be reduced by about 10%. MTDB, therefore, concludes that the need for roads will be proportionately reduced, and they are suggesting that the City divert about 10% of their road fee program into transit. City staff determined that was not an appropriate recommendation at this time. Mr. Bill Ullrich indicated that the DIF does not include the transit because the rail is not expected to be on the Otay Ranch for 15-20 years, if at all. Staff would have to go back to Council and have that added into the program, including additional costs. Mr. Rosaler directed the Commissions' attention to Tables 9 through ]6 (PFFP, pages 3.2-23 and 3.2-29) which describe the improvements or facilities needed prior to approval of the first final map within the designated phase unless otherwise indicated. Table 20 (PFFP, page 3.3-4) deals with the threshold compliance on police facilities The City has a public facilities DIP. That DIF does not include police, fire, library, civic center, corporate yard and other public facilities for the Otay Ranch. Staff if proposing that the Baldwin Company finance the update of the DIF to include the Otay Ranch and receive ] 00% credit for it on their DIF fees. Section 3.5 deals with schools. At one time Baldwin was looking at turn key schools Achieving that was too difficult, so Baldwin has paid both Districts the $25,000 to get the Mello Roos Districts for SPA One and the rest ofOtay Ranch underway. Staff has identified when the first elementary schools and high school are necessary and when those sites have to be delivered to the school districts. The high school needs to be rotated up into the development process, possibly, to Village Six. Staff will probably be back to the Planning Commission sometime within the next year with a General Development Plan Amendment that relocates the high school site. Page 35-12 of the PFFP shows the thresholds for the high school facility. ~ Planning Commission Workshop Minutes February 21, 1996 Page 5 of 12 Commissioner Ray stated that funds for the temporary buildings come out of the Capital Improvement Funds off the Mello Roos. Me. Rosaler indicated that the Mello Roos will include not only construction of the school, but a certain segment of funds set aside for the relocatables. Commissioner Willett asked if Mello Roos would be put into your regular mortgage or be completely separate? Me. Rosaler was not sure but would find out from the school districts and would be prepared to answer at the public hearing. Commission Ray asked if SunBow will have any impact on the Ranch? Me. Rosaler responded in the negative. Me. Rosaler indicated one of the ongoing struggles that staff has had on this SPA has been the provision of parks and making sure they get phased properly and everything is there when it is suppose to be. The first 25-acre community park is going to be needed sooner than it was originally planned in the GDP (PFFP, page 3.7-13). Currently, it is in Village Two There are two alternatives: 1) extend utilities and streets down to that park site, or 2) relocate the park. Chair Tuchscher asked how that would affect annexation? Me. Rosaler indicated that, if anything less than the northerly half of the Otay Valley Parcel was annexed, it would have an impact. You would not only have the school site and community park, but also off-site water lines, sewer lines and drainage that all run down Otay Valley. C. Phase 2 RMP Issues: Me. lamriska stated there had been subtle changes throughout the document. The change that will probably receive most attention during the public hearing process will be conveyance, which starts on page 58 of the Phase 2 RMP. The preserve conveyance plan contained in this document is based upon developable acreages throughout the entire project The 1],3 75 acres were divided among the developable acreages subtracting out commercial, industrial, community facilities, parks, etc. Conveyance priority is given to high quality resources, the most vulnerable areas, keystone parcels and potential restoration areas (RMP, page 67). With different ownerships involved in this process, their position is that they are not in favor of the proposal as presented in the RMP. There may be different methods of allocation brought forth as one of the potential new property owners does not have any land to be conveyed. ? Planning Commission Workshop Minutes February 21, 1996 Page 6 of 12 Commission Salas asked if there had been a land ownership change? Mr. Jamriska responded that there has been no change in the ownership pattern relating to the Otay Ranch than what was contained in the EIR and the RMP. Mr. Smith has sold some of his land to SDG&E who then sold it to a holding company for U.S Fish & Wildlife. As soon as Fish & Wildlife get funded, the holding company will convey that ] 00% to them. The other potential change is about 1,000 acres ITonting on Telegraph Canyon Road going east and west of La Media. West Coast Land Fund has filed for foreclosure from the property owner. They were to take title on February 8 to this property when three creditors filed against Tiger Development (a Baldwin controlled partnership) for involuntary bankruptcy. That put a stay of all action on the foreclosure As of today, Tiger Development still has control of the property. Exhibit 13 on page 69 shows the ownership pattern. Commissioner Willett asked what the impact on Village Five would be? Mr. Jamriska stated that the potential new owner does not like the plan. The City Council and the Board of Supervisors have taken a position that the plan is the plan. We worked too hard and too long to start changing the plan. While these people do not have the ownership, they will participate in the discussions. Commissioner Willett asked if they could become part of the process? Mr. Jamriska indicated that they can become part of the process, but right now they have taken a position that they do not want to be part of the SPA application The Municipal Code says that SPA applications should be under unified control, but your Commission has the authority, by the Municipal Code, to permit the SPA to go ahead where you do not have unified ownership. Whether or not staff will recommend that policy decision has not come down yet. Chair Tuchscher asked if there was unified ownership today? Mr. Jamriska answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Willett asked if there is a possibility that all the effort and all the costs could go down the drain? Mr. Jamriska responded that the potential is there, but he did not think it would happen. West Coast Land Fund is not opposed to the annexation or the sphere. They do not like the plan. Staff will be attempting to negotiate with them in the next two weeks. q Planning Commission Workshop Minutes February 21, 1996 Page 7 of ]2 Commissioner Salas inquired if part of the negotiation would be the way that the villages are built out, the timing and the sequence? Mr. Jamriska responded in the negative. That discussion will probably occur if and when the foreclosure went through. Chair Tuchscher asked Mr. Smith if he would like to address the Planning Commission on the conveyance plan. Mr. Greg Smith (property owner representing SNMB) stated that the Baldwin proposal, basing conveyance on acreage, has disfavored all of the development in the eastern two sections. The bulk of the open space is coming from the two eastern parcels. Normally, open space is given at the recordation of a Final Map. Baldwin proposes that, when they have developed 50% of the villages in SPA One, they will then have to start conveying the open space in blocks. That poses a problem when 3,800 units are final mapped and no open space has been dedicated. I wrote a letter going through issues of how the current proposal, voted by the City Council and Board, does not implement the RMP that was adopted by the Board and City Council. The RMP that was adopted by the Board and City Council did not decide how the open space was going to be conveyed. The RMP specifically says that open space has to be conveyed with the Final Maps, yet the proposed RMP 2, basically, ignores all that language and does not deal with that. Mr. Kilkenny indicated that the difference of opinion between the property owner and Otay Ranch is whether or not a property owner's obligation to convey open space should be based on the number of homes that are built or on the number of acres that are developed. The position supported by County staff, City staff, County Planning Commission and the Baldwin Company is for every I acre of property that is developed, the property owner should be obligated to convey 1.18 acres of open spaces. The position supported by Greg Smith and some of the other property owners is it should be based on a per dwelling unit bases. The solution has been proposed to put together a fee in lieu program so that a property owner can essentially buy their way out of it. Mr. Jamriska indicated that there is another alternative staff is formulating. A conveyance plan according to the impact upon the environment. D. SPA Design Issues: 2. Possible Vehicular Connection to EastLake (item taken out of order): Mr. Bill Ullrich stated that, after the EIR went out, it was requested by EastLake Development to provide access through 9 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes February 2], 1996 Page 8 of ]2 SPA One to a triangular parcel on the southwest comer of Otay Lakes Road near SR-125 acquired by EastLake in a land swap with Baldwin. When this parcel was being proposed, the City told EastLake that they would have right in, right out only because the City did not want a median break so close to the interchange. Staff looked at it from a traffic engineering and safety standpoint and felt that EastLake's proposal would not meet the City's criteria. Staff has looked at two additional proposals. One with a single one-way access coming out, which would allow for the turning movement to go toward the west. The second with a two-way access, which would impact Baldwin by about 10 lots. In both cases, the gate location that was proposed by Baldwin would have to be moved northerly. Commissioner Tarantino inquired as to what land use was intended? Mr. Ullrich indicated commerciaVoffice. Mr. Ullrich continued by stating, should Baldwin be required to provide access to a parcel they will not be using? It is solely for the purpose of improving the access to EastLake. If the decision is made that there should be access, should it be one-way or two- way? Should Baldwin be required to dedicate it at no cost to EastLake, and should they be required to improve it? If Baldwin is required to provide that access, staff would recommend the single direction because that is the least impact to Baldwin. Commissioner Salas asked if EastLake would be willing to do a fair share contribution to Baldwin? Mr. Ullrich indicated he has talked to EastLake about that They have not told him they would or would not. 1. Proposed Neighborhood Park Relocation: Mr. Rosaler indicated that the Policy Committee determined that neighborhood park P-2 be relocated to the north side of Palomar Street and pedestrian park P-3 be moved south of Palomar Street. Baldwin went back and tried to design it in the Tentative Map. But what they have is a slope bank with a 7 -acre neighborhood park that overlooks a single-family neighborhood. Baldwin were concerned about that. They went back to the Policy Committee and proposed that the park site be relocated on the other side of the street. The Policy Committee determined that their previous decision was still appropriate based upon the proximity of the II-acre park (P-]) in the center of the village. Staff will be presenting a new proposal to the Policy Committee tomorrow. /0 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes February 21, 1996 Pa~e 9 of 12 ***1'11: Break from 7:35 - 7:45 p.m. uu E. Chula Vista Gated Community Policy: Ms. Julia Matthews indicated that staff was directed by the Policy Committee to look at a City-wide gated communities policy. This policy is only looking at gated communities for middle and upper-middle income families. The State of California Appeals Court has declared that you cannot set up a gate on a public street. The first issue staff looked at was exclusivity vs community. Do gates keep people, or do gates encourage community, or do they bring about exclusive neighborhoods? Most of the evidence is anecdotal; it's how you feel. Most of the gated communities would likely fall in the east side ofI- 805. Would that further divide or does that enhance a new kind of community? The second issue was of demand and property value. There is some evidence that gated communities are becoming more popular. There was a little evidence to show that having a gated community vs. a similar type community without a gate raises property values by 25 to 30%. There is also some evidence to show that a gated community is protected slightly more from market downturns. There is also an argument under demand and property values that gated communities create more property taxes so they bring in more revenue for a city. Security and defensible space is probably the hottest topic in relation to gated communities. The obvious argument is, do they or do they not protect you against crime? Police departments in the country do not really know if gated communities reduce crime. Traffic and circulation is a another issue. Some people argue that gates reduce traffic, make streets safer and make cars go slower so that children are safer playing. Flip side of the argument is, all you have done is increase traffic that border these streets putting those homes at greater risk. It is a zero, some game. Gates overly protect one area and overly not protect another. Same with traffic congestion. Another issue is emergency access. The Police and Fire posltlon is, in general, as long as they can continue to meet their GMOC threshold standards, they are not going to oppose gated communities. Police and Fire would like to see some of the gates manned. The SPA One Plan has four gates in each village. Each of those gated areas probably has about ] ,200 to 1,400 single-family units. There is no one area that is completely behind one gate without access to any area. 1/ Planning Commission Workshop Minutes #t#tlt* February 21,1996 Page ]0 of 12 Commissioner Willett asked if there were three pedestrian parks located within the gates? Ms. Matthews answered in the affirmative. The parks would have public, pedestrian, bicycle and cart access. The Policy Committee has decided that, if there is a pedestrian park of 2 acres or less, it will receive zero credit, and it will be privately maintained. Commissioner Ray asked if all the streets behind the gates were going to be private? Ms. Matthews responded in the affirmative. They would be maintained to City standards as set forth by Engineering. Commissioner Ray asked what is the mechanism to ensure that those streets are maintained and built to City standards? Mr. Kent Aden (Baldwin Company) indicated that the Department of Real Estate at the State level will require the homeowners association to set up reserves for any long-term maintenance items. There will be a specific line item budget for street maintenance. Commissioner Ray asked if trash, school buses and city buses, etc. would be going on private roads? Ms. Matthews indicated that the School District has verbally agreed to bring public City school buses onto private streets as long as they are built and maintained to City standards. There are no schools behind the gates. There are no City buses planned for any of the areas behind the gated communities. Trash would most likely be privately collected. Commissioner Ray left at 8:14 p.m. u" Chair Tuchscher asked how is phasing affected by the gates and visa versa? Ms. Matthews indicated the gates would have to be open for 5 or 6 years, which is an issue with the Planning Department. Their concerns is, what are you really selling the homeowner if you are not going to shut that gate for 5 to 6 years? Is it just a marketing strategy or is it a promise that can be sold down the road? The whole system will not work until Palomar Street is running through it. /~ Planning Commission Workshop Minutes February 2], ] 996 Page] I of ]2 2. Secondary Issues: A. Sphere of Inf1uence/Annexation Update: Mr. Rosaler indicated that LAFCO approved the Sphere without the County peninsula. Supervisor Cox was able to get provision included that, if the City and the County were able to successfully conclude the landfill negotiations, we go back to LAFCO on April ] and the peninsula will be included into the City's Sphere. Staff has an annexation proposal that is about ready to file with LAFCO. It includes the Otay Valley parcel, the Ranch House and the Inverted "L". The Executive Director of LAFCO wants it phased. Staff is going back to him with an issue paper showing him why it should not be phased because of the service problems: drainage, sewer, streets, parks, schools, etc. B. University Site: Mr. Jamriska indicated that the University site issue has surfaced again. U.S. Fish & Wildlife and California Fish & Game are concerned about the conveyance program permitted in the GDP allowing the Salt Creek Canyon area to be used for biological research only. They would like to see that provision deleted. Chair Tuchscher asked if somebody from the Service would be speaking at the hearing? Mr. Jamriska was sure they would. It will be a controversial item during the public hearing process on the conveyance plan. C. Proposed SPA Conditions of Approval: Ms. Beverly Luttrell indicated that City staff has been working on the Conditions of Approval for SPA One since November. Staff has honed down some language that everyone seems to be fairly happy with for the most part. Parks is the big outstanding issue. It is complex in terms of figuring out credit, location, size and phasing of the parks. The Baldwin Company is reviewing those conditions closely and determining whether or not they want to come up with some kind of independent agreement with the Parks Department that would cover all these conditions. Issues in the PFFP are contained in the Conditions of Approval Phasing is one of the more controversial and complicated conditions. Also, staff is asking that two additional roads be provided in Village One north of Palomar Street. D. Proposed Tentative Map Conditions of Approval: Ms. Luttrell indicated that staff was just getting started on the Tentative Map Conditions of Approval The Planning Commission would see a lot of the SPA One conditions repeated as the Tentative Map conditions. /3 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes February 21,1996 Page 12 of 12 E. Deposit Status: Me. Jamriska reported that the Baldwin Company is 100% paid up with the City as of February 21, ]996. V. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 27, 1996: 1. Hearing Presentation and Organization: Me. Jamriska indicated that the method of presentation before the Planning Commission on March 27, ]996 regarding the Environmental Impact Report would remain the same unless the Commissioners would like something different. 2. AgendalReport Distribution Timeline: Me. Jamriska indicated that the Project Teams' goal would be to distribute all reports to the Commissioners two weeks in advance of each hearing. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to the regular meeting on Wednesday, February 28, ]996, at 7:00 p.m. Prepared by ~/.e/ W~~ Lin Bond, Secretary Otay Ranch Project llb:\linda:\spa:\pc22196~tdoc /1 ~ I I .-. m m .-; I I I I~ I') 0 "I 10> I~ "I I') ~ 1;- I 0 I:!! IN 0> ICO IN "I .., I , I r- i , 10 I .-. ~- r- I ~~ "" O' ~ , u~ "" z< ~ ~ I :s~ . .-. I Q.<r l. '" I i >w I u<r l? , ~ ;, I 8 , ,.... IN ICO t-. :g '... I~ IN .... I '" X ~ ..c: ~ w ~ z~ I ~~ " ~ z~ 00 <- ;:)z ~ 1 -~ ., 0 i5~ Xw 00 Q. :;;5 Q. .$ "' ~Q m iDx ~<r ~ i 0- > >< Uw ~ I ~~ I w '" Z ZQ. z~ ~ ~o 53 ..c: 0 O<r I ., U UO Q.u i . I . I...~ .~ 8 --J~ 0 I 0 00 ~ iO", ~ ,~ r '''I I') I I ., " w w I f .;; " ~ " I :; ~ :; .c =~ '0 ~ u" ~ c .~ IE OczE 0 ! I , Uo::J0 U . I~ ~~8~ m I u > ,~ ~ ~ (i)Q:>-tJ ~ u '" ~~'=W 00 I . 00 w<[u~ in I z " . ~ . I~ . '" 0 0 0 0 5: 0 0 0 0 . . iN<(J 10> ~ _.~U')____ ,~ ~ '''I "I ---T i I <r c , UJ~ c_ ~Z 0 0_ ~ii'j c c< 2 'm ~:! ~ .U ~Q. _0 ~X ~ .~ Ow - "<r Uz ~ Q., OZ U U~ u~ u uw 5~ ~ ~<r I . ~ . I 8 0 8 , 0 I.... '~ID co "'ID ID ------ --'~ ,~ IN ~ i i '"" ::- I ~ 10 , I:: I C- O '0 .-. IE i I ~ It. I. I ! -c ,:11) .$ i I i I;;; I I... <I , 10 I.... ;t 'I') ,~ ,~ "I /S "" i!i ~ " 0 z ~ ~ i;j 0 u~ > ;:0 u _r :> U~ ~ 8::: 8 ,,~ . . . 8 8 C"?,:..: Om "" ~ '" -- '" '" .. - ~ . ~ . ~ ~ o o o ~ :; ~ o U " G o z ::1 ~ "'0 0z ~U) ~< ,,~ ~[;} Uz oz u. s&? 8 m '" - len - .., o - '" '" '" '" ~ :; :> o U '" " ~ , u . U I 0 I,.-~ ,- I I~ ] I I I i I~ I I I~ '''' I ~ [' i~ u~ I :~ I~~ I I I,., I- I I i I '''' '''' I i I", en ~!; I', ~~ riD :>~ I ~t;: uf; z< I :5~ ~~ I 8 10.... 1- 8 i:' :E - CD ~ u z ~ o u ~ ~ " '" i;! < ~ ~ ~~ -0 "'<5 ~~ u~ uiO , I g lOw ,,., 8 . "" , I I", '(7) IT'" 1-'-"---'-'-'~:--- , , I , 'CD , ,~ - 'en '" '" i Ii:' I~ . !'iii . 'w I I , ,- '''' CD '''' I ~ .. ,- ',," /0' t- IC .... t- "" "" '<j< 'i ~ Q, :g OJ .c: " '" .. '" .$ ~ OJ -5 .!!J '" ;a .. .. to -5 ~ .~ ;> OJ '" to OJ 0:: <r> ~ c. o .... ... "'" .$ <=i d: '" - - '" - '" '" N - '5 ~ . ~ ~ I 10 I'- ... - ,- - N .., I'- t- ID .... t- oO '" ... i - .. I c.:r ___Ja> I", cb .., 0 :g .- N .., '" I '" I ..c I u "' +' "' 2< ..!'i , '" I I -5 i I , "' J", I::: .~ "' I'" Ia> :a I- N '" I ... ... ~ . ~ '" " w -5 ~ " ~ ~ " . < , :::'< ~ ~ I c O. 0r.c;, ~ .>:; z<n z~ z I ,,' ii~ ~ 1 '" O~ O~ <w iJj > ~~ 'i'. I i '" -~ i O~ 0 , "' OI ON 0 I '" 0 " I", ~ '" 0 0 il: 0 0 ~ ,... 0 ,- _____J~, ,- IN 'N ------~.~-_." .r---. I I , I~ 1 Ii I I ;~ I [.., 10 , I i .., 'I'- '" - 'N IN I <D I~ ~ '" I Co 10 ,. i 0 '" .... ,. I ,~ I ..,. !~ I -0 I 2< IN i", I <= .'" it '" ,- ,- IN N /1