HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-2017 Item 1, Cooper
From:
COUNCIL MEETING: 4 - 12 - 17
ITEM NO,: r
Advisory Bodies
RECEIVED
APR 10 2017
SLO CITY CLERK
From: Allan Cooper [mailto:allancoope@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 2:38 PM
To: Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>; Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org>; Advisory Bodies
<advisorybodies@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>
Subject: April 12, 2017 Joint Council/Planning Commission Study Session on the Zoning Regulations Update
Dear Michael and Doug -
Would you kindly forward these attached documents to the
Planning Commission before their April 12, 2017 Joint
Study Session? I have already forwarded these same
documents to the City Council. However, if you think I
should forward them to Council again please let me know.
Thanks!
- Allan
Lessons Learned From The Past - Save Our Downtown's Suqqested "Onions and Orchids"
South Town 18 - Onion
What could have helped this project?
Neighborhood Wellness Action Plan that
would help devise strategies to maintain
neighborhood stability such as overlaying
"S" zones onto C -T or C -D zones abutting
residential neighborhoods. "Extend
pedestrian access along SLO Creek with
minimal interference to riparian habitats."
Olive Mixed Use - Onion
What could have helped this project?
Consider how the project can be designed
to fit in with the best examples of
architecture in the vicinity of the site. For
stricter enforcement of these principles,
incorporate the Community Design
Guidelines into the Zoning Regulations as
design standards.
Lofts @ Nipomo - Onion
What could have helped this project?
"Multi -story buildings should be set back
above the second or third level to maintain
a street facade that is consistent with the
historic pattern of development." For
stricter enforcement, place an "S" overlay
onto the C -T or C -D zones abutting
residential neighborhoods.
Libertine Market Place - Onion
What could have helped this project?
Limit the number of alcohol outlets per
each block face. Develop an alcohol outlet
"Public Convenience and Necessity"
policy.
Discovery SLO - Onion
What could have helped this project?
Limit the number of alcohol outlets per
each block face. Develop an alcohol outlet
"Public Convenience and Necessity"
policy. Stricter adherence to the Sign
Regulations: "C -D Zone: maximum 4
signs/tenant space".
M
1135 Santa Rosa Mixed -Use - Onion
What could have helped this project?
Preserve the historic flavor of the
community. Avoid "boxy" structures with
large flat wall planes. For stricter
enforcement of these principles,
incorporate the Community Design
Guidelines into the Zoning Regulations as
design standards.
Monterey Place - Onion
What could have helped this project?
Adhere to the "Conceptual Physical Plan
For The City's Center": "Open up the
creeks more to visual and physical
access." New multi -family open -space and
storage standards would address the
needs of workforce housing as opposed to
becoming de facto student housing.
22 North Chorro - Onion
What could have helped this project?
If exceptions to development standards
or easing of parking standards and
building setbacks result in traffic
congestion using objective and
quantifiable criteria then the project
should be modified or denied.
71 Palomar Avenue -Onion
What could have helped this project?
Reexamination of Ordinance 1544 with
regards to the role of the Tree Committee.
Incorporate sustainability standards
particularly as they would apply to
preservation of existing trees and optimal
solar orientation. Stricter adherence to the
City's Historic Guidelines.
'L' San Luis Square - Onion
What could have helped this project?
y- Reduction in overall height and the
installation of a temporary story pole as
part of the application requirements for
buildings exceeding 40 feet in height.
Pacific Courtyards - Orchid
Ill' A What did this project do right?
�r "Provided a harmonious transition between
the core area functions and neighbors on
the edges (in this case, the Old Town
Neighborhood)."
ef
Granada Hotel Expansion - Orchid
What did this project do right?
Adhered to the Design Guidelines: "Multi-
story buildings should be set back above
the second or third level to maintain a
street facade that is consistent with the
historic pattern of development,
maintaining the general similarity of
building heights at the sidewalk edge."
Shell Station Development - Orchid
What did this project do right?
"Accented the entries and gateways to the
r. *� t 0.0 downtown." "Preserved in general the
UL existing building height patterns of two and
three stories"
Hotel Serra - Orchid
What did this project do right?
"Preserved in general the existing building
height patterns of two and three stories"
Considered the architectural style, shape
and massing of neighboring structures.
Chinatown - Orchid
What did this project do right?
"Preserved in general the existing building
height patterns of two and three stories."
Considered the architectural style, shape
and massing of neighboring structures.
To: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
Re: SLO Zoning Regulations Update
From: Save Our Downtown
Date: April 9, 2017
Honorable Chair and Commissioners:
Members of Save Our Downtown ask that the following concerns be addressed
in the Zoning Regulations Update.
Tall Buildings Downtown
1. Tall buildings downtown will create the following problems:
a.
Loss of small town ambience and associated reduction of tourist
dollars (as the small town ambience is a major draw for tourists)
b.
Loss of sunlight on the sidewalks and public spaces (which is
compounded by cool ambient temperatures 6-8 months out of the
year)
c.
Loss of views of the surrounding hills
d.
Loss of historic resources (due to economic pressures to replace
low-rise historic properties with high-rise buildings)
e.
Loss of solar access to adjoining buildings
f.
Increases the "wind tunnel" effect
g.
Overwhelms landmark buildings (such as the Fremont Theater or
Jack House)
h.
Overtaxes existing infrastructure (to accommodate significant
increase in density)
i.
Overwhelms both vehicular and pedestrian traffic
j.
Drives up rents and drives out diversity (i.e., franchises and chain
stores that can afford the high rents will replace locally -owned
businesses)
k.
Complicates evacuation plans in the event of a flood
I.
Saturates the market for downtown housing (particularly housing
lacking on-site parking and open space amenities)
m.
"Buy in" is not likely from the residents of SLO
We are therefore urging you to lower the downtown height limits to a 50'
maximum or five stories whichever is less. If this is not within the scope of
Page 1
the Zoning Regulations Update then we are urging you to consider doing the
following as an intermediate measure:
Under 17.42.020.0 Maximum height: 50 feet. We are asking the City to
consider modifying the following language: "The Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) may approve building heights up to 60 feet if the ARC
determines that the project includes at least4we four objectives from the
following sections (lettered a. through g.), with no two being from the same
lettered section.
The Planning Commission may approve a use permit allowing maximum
building height of 75 feet upon determining that at least-twe four of the
following policy objectives (with no two being from the same lettered section)
are met, and at least one Affordable and Workforce Housing Objective must
be chosen."
Our argument is that it is far too easy for the developer to include two of the
following: "affordable and workforce housing" or "pedestrian amenities" such
as providing at a mid -block location a pedestrian connection or "view access
and preservation" such as providing a public viewing deck or "economic
vitality" such as providing two levels of retail sales or hospitality or "historic
preservation" through preservation of an on-site historically listed property or
"open space preservation" or "energy efficiency" by exceeding the Title 24 by
a minimum of 30% or "other policy objectives" as set forth in the General
Plan, the Downtown Conceptual Plan, the Downtown Strategic Plan or other
key policy document, to the approval of the Planning Commission.
Reduction in overall height and the installation of temporary story poles (a
simple vertical pole supported by guy wires simulating the true height of the
proposed building) as part of the application requirements for buildings
exceeding 40 feet in height would have helped in the case of the proposed
San Luis Square and Fremont Square projects. San Luis Square towered
over the Jack House and Fremont Square towered over the Fremont
Theater, both historical landmarks.
Therefore, with regards to requirements for planning applications submitted
for new buildings over 40 feet tall, we are urging the following item be added
to your list:
"Application requirements should also include for buildings exceeding 40 feet
in height the temporary installation of a story pole that can be easily viewed
by the public."
Page 2
Specifically with regards to the mixed-use project proposed at 1101 Monterey
Street, there was overuse of Planned Development (PD) zoning to justify a
75 foot tall building. Our Planned Development standards need to be firmed
up and "spot zoning" should be avoided.
Under Chapter 17.62 Planned Development 17.62.045 "Decision and
Findings", make the following change:
A. Mandatory project features. "The review authority may recommend or
approve a rezoning to apply the PD overlay zoning district only for a project
that incorporates a minimum of #we three of the following four features."
In Chapter 17.42 "Downtown Commercial (C -D) Zone", under 17.42.020
"Property Development Standards", C. "Maximum Height", 3. "Policy
Objectives" the third sentence should be changed so that the word
"must" (which is not legally enforceable) becomes "shall".
"Regardless of the number of objectives proposed (for buildings taller than 50
feet), the decision making body if tue, shall determine that the overall project
is consistent with the General Plan, including goals and policies for view
preservation, historical resource preservation, solar access and architectural
character, and that the project conforms to the Community Design
Guidelines."
In the Land Use Element under Chapter 4 "Downtown" Policy 4.20.4.
"Building Height" it states that:
"New buildings shall fit within the context and scale of existing development,
shall respect views from, or sunlight to, publicly -owned gathering places such
as Mission Plaza, and should be stepped back above the second or third
level to maintain a street fagade that is consistent with the historic pattern of
development."
There needs to be more precision here in specifying the depth of these step
backs. For example, a one- or two -foot step back will not achieve the
objectives of reducing the perceived height or scale of the building so a
minimum step back needs to be established.
Over Concentration of Alcohol Outlets Downtown
2. In the case of both Discovery SLO and the Libertine Marketplace there
should have been in place a "public convenience and necessity policy" that
could have limited the number of alcohol outlets concentrated in these
locations.
Page 3
The over -concentration of alcohol outlets downtown breeds crime, places
economic hardships on existing retail businesses, is a public health and
sanitation hazard, presents a livability problem for downtown residents and
hotel patrons and reduces economic diversity by displacing existing retail
stores and offices.
We are therefore urging you to either limit the number of bars and bars with
restaurants having more than 10 seats and/or entertainment/dance areas, so
that no more than one or two bars/restaurants/clubs are located on any one
block or, through the enactment of an "over -concentration law", prohibit the
approval of any more alcohol outlets within the downtown census tract.
This can be accomplished by expanding the scope of LUE Implementation
Subtask 4.32 "Alcohol Use Permits" to include a work program implementing
an alcohol outlet "Public Convenience and Necessity" (PCN) policy as well
as a reexamination of Ordinance No. 1578. Additionally, We are urging you to
revisit Ordinance No. 17.11.040: "alcohol outlet public safety strategies and
deemed approved alcoholic beverage sale regulations"...
Ordinance 1578 states that "upon receiving a complaint from the public, or
the Police Department ... of repeated nuisance activities within the premises or
in close proximity of the premises... then a public hearing will be scheduled
before the Administrative Hearing Officer". To the best of our knowledge,
such an administrative hearing has never taken place. This in spite of the fact
that there have been frequent noise complaints for the following
establishments: Marston's Bar & Grill, Black Sheep Bar & Grill, McCarthy's
Irish Pub and SLO Brew. This in spite of the fact that sexual assaults (44 this
last year) and simple assaults (148 this year) have risen dramatically within
the City over the past 3 years and that San Luis Obispo falls in the lowest
decile of safe cities in America.
The City promised that staff and Council would look into implementing an
over -concentration law. Under "assessing and renewing Downtown, staff
included in its action plan the following: "Alcohol Concentration Evaluation
and Adoption of Code Amendments." The completion time for this was
November of 2014. This never happened.
Such an over -concentration law could take the form of an "alcohol outlet
overlay zone". This zone (vis-a-vis, the City of San Diego) could prohibit the
approval of new alcohol outlets within the downtown census tract if such a
proposed use is:
Page 4
a. Within a census tract, or within 600 feet of a census tract, where the
general crime rate exceeds the citywide average general crime rate by
more than 20 percent;
b. Within a census tract, or within 600 feet of a census tract, where the
ratio of alcohol beverage outlets exceeds the standards established by
California Business and Professional Code section 23958.4;
c. Within 600 feet of a public or private accredited school, a public park,
a playground or recreational area, a church, a hospital, or a welfare
district office; and
d. Within 100 feet of a residentially zoned property.
The City promised that the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
Update Committee would address the long range management of alcohol
outlets in the Downtown. This would involve the implementation of LUE
Subtask 4.29: "Coordination of Late Night Environment" which would enact
additional regulations to ensure that the late night environment in and near
Downtown is safe and pleasant. This never happened.
Adherence to the Community Design Guidelines and the
Downtown Concept Plan
3. The Monterey Place Mixed -Use project did not adhere to the following
"Conceptual Physical Plan For The City's Center" recommendation: "Open up
the creeks more to visual and physical access." In the case of the Olive
Mixed -Use project, the 1135 Santa Rosa Mixed -Use project, the South Town
18 project and the Lofts @ Nipomo project there should have been stricter
compliance with the Community Design Guidelines.
Therefore, we are urging you to incorporate the Downtown Concept Plan and
Community Design Guidelines into the zoning regulations as design
standards, similar to the County's ordinance (see attachment: the SLO
County "Model to Codify SLO Community Design Guidelines as Zoning
Standards"). We are also urging you to initiate an illustrated Urban Design
section in the Zoning Regulations, to address how the visual character or
setting should be incorporated and reflected in new development projects,
and how neighborhood and community commercial areas should be laid out
in site planning. This does not have to be a "form based code," which may be
too limiting or diagrammatic.
Chain Stores Downtown
Page 5
4. It is well documented that national chains do not generate the sustainable
income and revenues locally owned businesses do, especially in smaller
cities. This is known as the multiplier effect. National chains are not what
sustain a self-sustaining business environment. While they add to the overall
tax base, the money earned by these businesses do not remain in the
community.
Therefore we are urging you to initiate an ordinance similar to the one San
Francisco has that would require a conditional use authorization application
for chain stores or "formula retail uses". Such an ordinance could, like San
Francisco's Hayes -Gough Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD), North
Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and Chinatown Visitor
Retail District, prohibit any additional "formula retail uses" in SLO's downtown
core.
In addition, the City should begin an economic development strategy to
protect and encourage small-scale, locally -owned businesses. More local
stores are good for tourism and good for the economy
Housing Capacity Analysis For All Commercial Districts
5. Initiate a General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendment to determine the
appropriate housing density and height in downtown, given a reduced height
limit and well -practiced urban design principles. A city-wide inventory and
analysis of housing capacity should be done of the commercial districts
(including downtown and shopping centers), as well as residential districts, to
determine the "right locations and fit" for additional housing stock for low to
moderate incomes. Changes to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
would come from this analysis, to highlight where limitations to increased
housing density are beneficial, and where added housing densities will be
more appropriate.
As regarding staff's suggestion for a "White Paper" on "flexible density
downtown": We wish to remind the City that, per the Downtown Association's
August 10, 2016 panel discussion on a film about "urban life", Christine
Theodoropoulos, AIA, PE, Dean of Cal Poly's College of Architecture and
Environmental Design stated that we "do not have to increase height in order
to increase density".
Tree Preservation & Role of the Tree Committee
Page 6
6. Because of recent questions raised regarding the proposed clear cut of 54
old growth trees at 71 Palomar, we have uncovered the need for more clarity
on the protocols regarding evaluation of trees, tree habitat and evaluation of
"cultural landscapes".
We are therefore urging you to reinstate the omitted LUE Implementation
Subtask 9.10 "Urban Forest" which would address the need for an update to
the master tree plan.
But, more importantly, we are also recommending a re-examination of
Ordinance No. 1544. This re-examination could address the following
policies:
a. Reordering the sequence of the review process when a Tree Committee
denial could over -ride previous administrative or advisory body
approvals.
b. The Tree Committee's right to initiate a discussion on any issue.
c. The role that an arborist consultant plays in determining the final
outcome. Also, discussion could center on how these arborist
consultants are selected.
d. The City Arborist's unilateral role as defined under
Ordinance Number No. 1544, 12.24.090 "Tree Removal"
D. "Removals for Tree Health or Hazard Mitigation" which
excludes advice and consent from the Tree Committee
except in the case where the Arborist cannot authorize
the tree removal.
e. Under Ordinance Number No. 1544, 12.24.090 "Tree
Removal" I. "Approval Conditions" the following changes
should be made: "In approving an application for tree
removal, the director, the tree committee, the
architectural review commission or the city council
shall require planting of replacement trees and may
require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be
planted and maintained."
f. The future of the Heritage Tree Program. Are we entirely
dependent on the public to identify trees suitable for this
program or would it be better that the Tree Committee be
more proactive in this regard?
g. Can't it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee
to address how trees maintain biodiversity, i.e., the role
certain tree species play in providing refuge, nesting
grounds and pollination pastures for a wide range of
insects and animals?
Page 7
h. Can't it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to
address the role trees play in sequestering greenhouse
gases? By the way, some species do this better than
others.
i. Can't it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to
address how various species of trees are not only more
drought tolerant but how older specimens use less water
than newly planted specimens?
j. Clarification is needed on existing, ambiguous and
conflicting policies. For example look at the following link
"San Luis Obispo Heritage Tree Program Information
Packet" available online
(see: http://www.slocity.or.q/home/showdocument
id=3373). This information packet states the
following: "The Tree Committee proposes the following
plan to formalize this Heritage Tree Program, so that
citizens and groups may participate in this community
program:
i. Submit Heritage Tree proposal and agreement forms to Urban
Forest Services
ii. Proposal will be reviewed by Urban Forest Services staff
iii. Proposal will be reviewed by Tree Committee
iv. Proposal will be reviewed by City Council — adopt resolution —
designation as Heritage Tree"
What is not clear is when did the Tree Committee propose this plan and
when does it become effective? It is also not clear who comprises the
"Urban Forest Services staff'?
Moreover a "Heritage Tree Program of San Luis Obispo
Information Packet and Form" contains the following verbiage:
"There are three categories of Heritage Trees:
i. Public trees — parks, public buildings, playgrounds, etc.
ii. Voluntary cooperation — privately owned trees.
iii. Required cooperation — tree preservation in new developments,
etc.
However there is serious ambiguity surrounding the term "required
cooperation" for new developments. Does this "required cooperation"
override the owner's consent?
Page 8
Neighborhood Wellness
7. We understand that LUE Implementation Subtask 2.14: "Neighborhood
Wellness Action Plans" is ongoing. This subtask would help devise
strategies to stabilize the rental/owner ratio, to maintain neighborhood
character, safety, and stability.
We are in support of the following:
LUE Implementation Subtask 2.11.2. Multifamily Open -Space and Storage
Standards. This is "deemed desirable" as these amenities will then
address the needs of our workforce as opposed to becoming de facto
"student housing".
LUE Implementation Subtask 2.12 Downtown Residential Development
LUE Implementation Subtask 2.13 & the associated
"white paper" on "edge conditions in the City and neighborhood
compatibility".
LUE Implementation Subtask 3.10 Noise Control with the addition that
other noise attenuation measures be explored such as requiring balconies
or rooftop decks to be enclosed with sound attenuating material (such as
glass or plexiglas).
However Save Our Downtown would like the City to take a more proactive
stance on traffic congestion, particularly in existing neighborhoods. The
Housing Accountability Act and Density Bonus Law recommends denial of
housing projects that contribute to traffic congestion. We are
recommending the following addition be made to the Housing Element:
"If `exceptions to development standards' or `easing of parking standards
and building setbacks' result in traffic congestion using objective and
quantifiable criteria then the project can be modified or denied."
Moreover, we are urging the City to place Special Consideration (S)
overlay zones over Commercial Tourist (C -T) and Downtown Commercial
(C -D) zones contiguous to residential neighborhoods, specifically Dana
Street and Lincoln Street.
There is a need for more City parks, especially in the North Broad Street
Neighborhood. The Parks and Recreation Commission has historically
focused on recreation at the expense of the parks. We urge the Parks and
Recreation Commission to focus on identifying the location of, and funding
for, a park in the North Broad Street Neighborhood.
Page 9
Administration of the Zoning Regulations
8. With regards to staff's suggested revisions to the "Table of Contents":
Under Article 1 - "Purpose and Applicability of the Zoning Regulations", the
following should be addressed:
The City could promote a more diligent administration of the Zoning
Regulations, by setting forth a "direction of duty," with the following text
recommendations:
Section 17.02.020 Purpose: "The Zoning Regulations express the specific
interest and intent of the residents of San Luis Obispo, as represented by
their City Council, as the means and methods by which to implement the
City General Plan. It is the obligation of City representatives, appointed
commissioners, staff and contract employees to promote, interpret and
implement these regulations in accordance with the City General Plan."
17.02.040 Interpretation: "Officials of the City of San Luis Obispo,
including, but not limited to staff, commissioners and City Council, shall
diligently defend and uphold the Zoning Regulations. Such officials shall
obtain and provide useful and expert interpretations and guidance to
applicants and the public, which clarify and show how development and
subdivision applications can become consistent with these regulations."
Other Key Issues Requiring Discussion
9. With regards to "Key issues requiring discussion with the City staff and
community to determine the best approach to implementing policies and
programs":
a. "Provide for an enhanced pedestrian experience in the Downtown". We
are urging the City to implement a Downtown Pedestrian Plan. Long-
range planner Brian Laveille was supposed to be working on a
Downtown Pedestrian Plan. Moreover, we were promised that
community charrettes would be organized to further flesh out this plan.
b. "Consider transfer of development rights (TDR) approaches to transfer
densities from outlying areas to Downtown". Shouldn't this be the other
way around? Shouldn't we maintain a predominately 2-3 story high
Page 10
downtown by encouraging a suburban developers to purchase unused
air rights above a downtown property?
c. "Incorporate sustainability standards". We endorse the formulation of
these standards particularly as they would apply to the carbon
sequestration achieved through the preservation of existing trees. We
encourage the City to formalize site planning standards that would
factor in optimal orientation to solar and wind. We advocate on behalf of
a light color palette for buildings that would not create heat islands nor
cause the need for cooling systems. We also encourage that the city
consider the impact of taller buildings on surrounding buildings in terms
of solar access.
Sincerely,
Russell Brown
Chair, Save Our Downtown
Elizabeth Thyne
Vice Chair, Save Our Downtown
Allan Cooper
Secretary, Save Our Downtown
Page 11
Mm I 'to Codit SLO Community Design Oukieklim as Zoning Standards
ShN GJI341112Nr! ;ttl nIYl e C - T. U 2Z Ltir: rl Ux, C-mm.lima:
{FMM.%than JILIG M-wkwomo Ct7rnrntMtltrjl 9t�tdiwdaj
rIUI'r l .urn�y ,:.17 (-a�nuni�ilir�S r�r;11''ill: �g °?^, IlOt l}ij�
vrl&I TPM ianrldar Dratga Pima. '71v CJltro;,Ibr • suu•brrelk grl'� ,u III@, r'ow"Iral Iir
Reran. (»f" or d Prn remiraw k Tlr varion• "uhk. Ncilirj ind Ides rirrlrial 5-q�k ramik
h (d nv r-mrgprirr. vl'ithilt rhe orrn .4mmo1 it N" IAR 7.
Coanpiiamte with the Pest Tefl Desili■ Flea. The Wz1 TeR ,-le;i&n Pin aaJ
rr+r fnlrr nr4rrn M11rr•rtrf, Is hrrv�r Irrnrpr+rnMd rnnu Mw `in*++n IhrwSh f vrrn
Iollr Nr., WrVe hrrw. &P %:.arrnC.Wirwurts, Mars, Uw- Plendil, (:lrabfNr A Uw
N" Irnll 111$1 rlisidrn, *Illi. nl'rnw tiilrn Ih, W-ftl Trll IR,gnI FlaI A-Prr irr
tri;ar- Itt114Tj 3`1111 Fr in rnnrnrrr sy areit arnlLsnct. rlirh dtr 9llexr'Cefr IieriCl•+ Pls1.
fnrh-r.>"nr;xinrcl>eflirnc�mtrt5n rx:llr�riiltelttar>t itcTireandrhe TksiC.1 P"�Ia,
rhr T)r ien Plat dr3 cormirml.
FiIpIrr1 1064 - ww Tdo O"n Mm
Pemit oegvieenenb. )dinar Use P>I wek VjX*T l i. Jmgtiod Enc s! new C' -t cdx6w
ur es Neiur>:Ilamiun u rexisting wmxt toes Afters u luul use VmWt a :stlu:nt er rtyuitw
bf this rede orwepll *rut dx "*UW
{I,• hi'rra+ MkIrraiw Awirmt-uI.I, ur. wrli '®r, ralgnrilnla:►:t III rcI_rwl 141lv.tt^II .Ii IIIc
r%1,jiiq; rka• a•L•1, vr�? I1r- rrc,I,�l1! il)m 4116 rt•s14i17im-11 In d.,• r)inl.l.rr I,f
Pllrruwi�xlnl Rrii lire $Iu I lvtrlx l +Irr-?I'ill arul.x I I Ir.I I ll rr 1411113 mi A nvFerr 1,will,.
t Exbedot Imade ao1_drilg ecJ c�asioas dwo e=acd O JGYerlt of dte*&a q
Rwt tart rrq bcappro.ed as ".Tx -j --e I✓rrwc Use Pearits is thrj an dekallixd bo
be caleAvltkJ3y MMCtpl rtU¢I the Ctiifusuu E,at•mvoarxtsUd Q4alite AA -1 b 0 LIM
Vim-moar uC Pluming acrd Buwbty ItnJ we it MCm.swe pith OIL W4 -A 'rem
O uriihit 1 ojp Pl nI
\ra:k R -rt: M1e Ire 2nW
W Ir
Lopoi: 3-647