HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - Greenlight Consultant ReportAgenda Item 20
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
JULY 25, 2000
TO: Mayor & Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert Burnham, City Attorney
RE: Greenlight/Consultant Report
On February 28, 2000, the City retained the Planning Center to prepare a report on Greenlight
(Planning Center Report). The Planning Center Report evaluates each general plan amendment
approved by the City Council from November 1990 to date. The Planning Center Report
evaluates each amendment in terms of any increase or decrease in density, intensity and traffic.
The Planning Center Report and a staff report prepared by the Planning Director and Assistant
City Manager (June 27 report) were submitted to the City Council at the June 27 meeting.
According to the June 27 report, the purposes of the Planning Center Report were:
"1. To assess which of the City's Statistical Areas had already reached the thresholds to
require any General Plan request to be submitted to the voters under the prior ten -year
cumulative provisions of the initiative.
2. To identify which, if any, General Plan amendments approved by the City in the last ten
years would have required submittal to the voters if the initiative provisions had been in effect
at the time."
The June 27 report concluded that 18 amendments approved by the City Council from November
1990 to date would have required voter approval if Greenlight had been effective in November
1990 and no amendments had been approved during the preceding ten (10) years. The
Planning Center Report and the June 27 report also concluded that Greenlight would, for varying
periods of time depending on the date of approval of prior amendments, require voter approval of
any substantive amendment in six Statistical Areas.
Discussion of the Planning Center Report was continued to July 11 because of the length of the
Dunes hearing and comments on the accuracy of the report. The staff report prepared for that
meeting (July 11 report) concluded Greenlight would have required only 11 elections. Greenlight
proponents and opponents have expressed disagreement with the conclusions in the July 11
report. The matter was referred to this office for analysis.
DISCUSSION
Greenlight Voter Approval Thresholds and Cumulative Provisions
The provisions of Greenlight that are relevant to this memo, the Planning Center Report, the
June 27 staff report and the July 11 staff report read as follows:
"Voter approval is required for any major amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan. A
"major amendment" is one that significantly increases the maximum amount of traffic that
allowed uses could generate, or significantly increases allowed density or intensity.
"Significantly increases" means over 100 peak hour trips (traffic), or over 100 dwelling units
(density), or over 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity); these thresholds shall apply to
the total of: 1) increases resulting from the amendment itself, plus 2) Eighty percent of the
increases resulting from other amendments affecting the same neighborhood and adopted
within the preceding ten years. "Other amendments" does not include those approved by the
voters. "Neighborhood" shall mean a Statistical Area as shown in the Land Use Element of
the General Plan, page 89, in effect from 1988 to 1998, and new Statistical Areas created
from time to time for land subsequently annexed to the City."
Greenlight also states that "the city council is encouraged to adopt guidelines to implement the
foregoing amendment to the City Charter of the City of Newport Beach following public notice
and public hearing, provided that any such guidelines shall be consistent with the amendment
and its purposes and findings." The adoption or amendment of Greenlight "guidelines" requires
six affirmative votes.
For purposes of this memo and the exhibits, the three thresholds (traffic, density or intensity) that
trigger the voter approval requirement of Greenlight are individually referred to as a "threshold ",
"specific threshold" or, in some cases as the "traffic threshold ", "density threshold" or "intensity
threshold." The three thresholds are collectively referred to as the "voter approval thresholds."
The language in Greenlight that adds "increases" from a proposed amendment to "Eighty percent
of the increases resulting from other amendments within the preceding ten years" is referred to
as the "Cumulative Provision."
Elections Required if Greenlight Effective in November 1990
Greenlight proponent Allan Beek (Beek) contends that 15 elections would have been required
had Greenlight been in effect in November 1990, not the 18 suggested by the Planning Center
Report or the 11 suggested by the July 11 report (See Exhibit A — prepared by Beek). This office
has prepared a chart (Exhibit B) that (1) lists the amendments we believe would, or could be
argued to, have required voter approval; and (2) provides the basis for voter approval as well as
any assumption that may have been a factor in the differing conclusions referenced above.
Exhibits A and B are in agreement except for the Bonita Canyon Annexation.
One reason for the conclusion that Greenlight would have required voter approval of 18
amendments was the assumption that 80% of any increase in traffic, density and intensity
attributable to each amendment in a statistical area should be considered for purposes of the
Cumulative Provision. This assumption failed to account for the fact that Greenlight exempts
"voter approved" amendments from the Cumulative Provisions. Greenlight would have required
voter approval of some of the amendments that staff counted for purposes of assessing the
impact of prior amendments in each Statistical Area. For example, the Planning Center Report
concludes that GPA 91 -2 (407 Bolsa) would have been subject to electoral approval because
80% of the density, intensity and traffic of a prior amendment (GPA 92 -1(C) - Old Newport Blvd
Specific Plan) in the same Statistical Area exceeds all three voter approval thresholds. However,
GPA 92 -1(C) would have required voter approval so any increase in density, intensity or traffic
attributable to that amendment is excluded for purposes of the Cumulative Provision.
Accordingly, Greenlight would not require voter approval of GPA 91 -2.
Staff made other assumptions that affect the number of elections that would have been required
if Greenlight had been effective in November 1990. On advice from this office, the Planning
Center and staff did not count amendments that reduced peak hour trips. For example, the One
Ford Road Project (GPA 93 -2A — 1,330,000 square feet of commercial changed to 500 DU)
resulted in an overall reduction of more than 1100 trips. However, after further review, we
believe that a valid argument can be made that Greenlight requires voter approval of
amendments that exceed the density threshold or intensity threshold but reduce peak hour trips.
Statistical Areas Where 80% of Prior Amendments Exceed a Voter Approval Threshold
This office concurs with the conclusions in the Planning Center Report regarding the six
Statistical Areas in which 80% of prior amendments exceed one or more of the specific
thresholds. We have prepared a chart (Exhibit C) that identifies the six Statistical Areas as well
as the date of the relevant prior amendment and the specific threshold that was exceeded. We
have identified the specific thresholds that have been exceeded because Greenlight can be
interpreted so that voter approval is required only if an amendment (1) increases a specific
threshold that has been exceeded; or (2) increases traffic, density or intensity so that the
amendment, plus 80% of prior amendments, exceeds a specific threshold. For example, voter
approval may not be required of an amendment to add ten (10) dwelling units (density) to a
Statistical Area in which only the intensity threshold has been exceeded unless the additional
trips would, when added to 80% of the traffic from prior amendments, exceed the traffic
threshold.
Here is what would have happened ifGreenlight had been in effect for the last ten years,
and the City Council had decided to start with a clean slate--- not accumulating anything from before 1990.
•
Threshold
100
40,000
100
John Douglas's raw data
Area
GPA Name
- - - -- 100° /a--
800/
- --
Vote?
D.U.
Sqft
Trips
D.U.
T,,, Sgft Tum
Trips
Taal
B5
91 -3A 3008 -3012 W. Balboa Blvd.
3
-5,500
-13
2
0
0
88 -2E St. James Church
0
6,504
-20
0
2 5,203
3.203 0
97 -3A 3312 -3336 Via Lido
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
- 11,573
-24
10
12 0
3,203 0
Dl
98 -1A Bay Shores Inn
-2
2,100
1
0
1,680
1
D3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
94 -1D Central Balboa Specific Plan
40
0
0
32
0
0
95 -1E Ebell Club
4
4,200
0
3
35 0
0
E3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
89 -2H Balboa Island Fire Station
0
2,275
14
0
1,820
11
Hl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92 -1C OldNwpt Blvd Specific Plan
147
50,339
154
Vote
Vote
Vote
Yes
J1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95 -2E Lutheran Church
0
30,000
22
0
24,000
18
J6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
89 -2A Birch/Mesa properties
4
25,214
35
0
20,171
28
Kl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92 -2C Newport Landing Sr. Housing
120
0
0
Vote
Yes
L1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
91 -1C Library Exchange
0
15,000
106
Vote
Yes
93 -2D Family Fitness Center
0
3,805
16
0
3,044
13
•
94 -1B Edwards Theater
0
31,598
63
0
25,278
2022 50
1
94 -1A Granville Apartments
0
5,000
8
0
4,000
32,322 6
6,
94 -213 Fashion Island Expansion
0
266,000
995
Vote
32,322 Vote
69
Yes
95 -2C Corona del Mar Plaza
0
5,000
23
0
4,000
36,322 18
87
97 -31) Four Seasons Hotel
0
59,436
42
Vote
36,3=
97
Yes
99 -2E Newport Sports Collection
0
1,000
2
0
800
37,122 2
s9
L2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
91 -3C Texaco Station
0
300
29
0
240
23
L3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
93 -3B Pac Tel - Dahn Mini - storage
0
90,600
-46
Vote
Yes
93 -2A Aeronutronic to residential
500
- 1,331,000
-1,145
Vote
Yes
95 -1D Fletcher Jones
0
88,000
560
Vote
Vote
Yes
96- 1 B Temple Daughter of the Sea
0
40,000
126
Vote
Yes
96 -3E Dahn Mini- storage II
0
86,000
22
Vote
Yes
L4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90 -3A Sheraton Hotel
0
- 87,638
45
0
0
36
93 -2E Pascal's Restaurant
0
1,080
8
0
864
g6, 6
a
98 -1B 1401 Dove
0
26,122
41
0
20,898
24762 33
75
98 -1C HEV/Lennar
0
149,122
17
Vote
21,762
75
Yes
98 -3B 1300 Dove
0
2,350
4
0
1,880
1,12 3
78
97 -3E Pacific Club
0
15,000
65
MM2 Vote
79
Yes!
99 -2A Extended Stay America
0
17,890
-2,248
Vote
23,6,2
79
Yes!
. M3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
94 -1F Pacific View Memorial Park 0
99- 1 E Harbor Day School 0
113,680
42,822
0
0
Vote
Vote
Yes
Yes
Amendments not shown give insignificant 80% totals (that is,
less than 1116 of threshold).
EXHIBIT A
(Revised
07- 20-00)
CITY ATTORNEY LIST OF GREENLIGHT ELECTIONS
SA
GPA
PROJECT
VOTER
APPROVAL THRESHOLDS
VOTER REQUIRED /REASON
Densit
Intensity
Traffic
H7
92 -1C
Old Newport Blvd SP
147
50,339
154
YES /EXCEEDS ALL THRESHOLDS
K1
92 -2C
Newport Landing Sr. Hsg.
120
0
0
YES /EXCEEDS DENSITY THRESHOLD
Ll
91 -1C
Library Exchange
0
15,000
106
YES /EXCEEDS TRAFFIC THRESHOLD
94 -2B
Fashion Island Expansion
0
266,000
995
YES /EXCEEDS INTENSITY & TRAFFIC
97 -31)
Four Seasons Hotel
0
59,436
42
YESIEXCEEDS INTENSITY THRESHOLD
L3
93 -3B
Pac- Tel —Dahn MiniStorag
0
90,600
(46)
YESIEXCEEDS INTENSITY THRESHOLD
93 -2A
Aeronutronic to Residential
500
- 1,331,000
(1145)
YESIEXCEEDS DENSITY THRESHOLD
95 -1D
FletcherJones
0
88,000
560
YESIEXCEEDS INTENSITY &TRAFFIC
96-1B
Temple Bat Yahm
40,000
126
YESIEXCEEDS TRAFFIC THRESHOLD
96 -3E
Dahn Mini-Storage II
0
86,000
22
YESIEXCEEDS INTENSITY THRESHOLD
L4
98 -1C
HEV /Lennar
0
149,122
17
YESIEXCEEDS INTENSITY THRESHOLD
97 -3E
Pacific Club
0
15,000
65
YES /CUMULATIVE PROVISIONITRAFFIC
99 -2A
Extended Stay America
0
17,890
(2248)
YES /CUMULATIVE PROVISION /INTENSITY
M3
94 -1 F
Pacific View Memorial Park
0
113,680
0
YESIEXCEEDS INTENSITY THRESHOLD
99 -1E
Harbor Day School
0
42,822
0
YES /EXCEEDS INTENSITY THRESHOLD
M6
97 -2
Bonita Canyon Annexation
1521
55,000
1166
YES /EXCEEDS ALL THRESHOLDS
1. ELECTION REQUIRED IF ASSUME GREENLIGHT APPLIES TO AN AMENDMENT THAT INCREASES
FLOOR AREA BUT REDUCES TRIPS BECAUSE THE SUBSTITUTED USE GENERATES FAR FEWER PEAK
HOUR TRIPS.
2. ELECTION REQUIRED IF ASSUME GREENLIGHT APPLIES TO AN AMENDMENT THAT INVOLVES A
CONVERSION FROM ONE LAND USE TYPE TO ANOTHER THAT RESULTS IN A REDUCTION IN PEAK
HOUR TRIPS.
3. ELECTION REQUIRED IF ASSUME GREENLIGHT APPLIES TO AN AMENDMENT THAT, WHEN ADDED TO
PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS, EXCEEDS THE INTENSITY VOTER APPROVAL THRESHOLD EVEN THOUGH
AMENDMENT RESULTS IN A REDUCTION IN PEAK HOUR TRIPS.
4. ELECTION REQUIRED IF ASSUME THAT GREENLIGHT APPLIES TO ANNEXATIONS AND THAT THE
DENSITY, INTENSITY AND TRAFFIC RESULTING FROM AN AMENDMENT IS MEASURED AGAINST
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN NOT THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF IRVINE. WHEN
MEASURED AGAINST IRVINE GENERAL PLAN THE AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE REDUCED DENSITY,
TRAFFIC AND INTENSITY.
EXHIBIT B
Statistical Areas Where 80% of the Traffic, Density or Intensity of General Plan
Amendments Exceed One or More Greenlight Thresholds
Statistical Amendment That Date Amendment
Type of Threshold
Area Exceeded Threshold Approved (And Most
Recent Date Threshold
Exceeded)
H1
Old Newport Boulevard
3/24/97
All Thresholds
(GPA 92 -1(C))
L1
Fashion Island Expansion
11/14/94
Traffic Threshold
(GPA 94 -2(B))
Four Seasons Hotel
6/22/98
Intensity Threshold
(GPA 97 -3(D))
L3
Dahn Mini - Storage II
3/24/97
Intensity Threshold
(GPA 96 -3(A))
Temple Bat Yahm
8/26/96
Traffic Threshold
(GPA 96 -1(B))
Ford Aeroneutronic
7/10/95
Density Threshold
(GPA 93 -2(A))
L4
Pacific Club
12/13/99
Traffic Threshold
(GPA 97 -3(E))
HEV /Lennar
1/25/99
Intensity Threshold
(GPA 98 -1(C))
M3
Pacific View Memorial
6/12/95
Intensity Threshold
(GPA 94 -1(F))
M6
Bonita Canyon Annexation
11/10/97
All Thresholds*
(GPA 97 -2)
* Assumes that Greenlight applies to this annexation and that voter approval thresholds
are measured against the Newport Beach General Plan (annexing jurisdiction) and not
the Irvine General Plan (de- annexing jurisdiction).
EXHIBIT C
City of Newport Beach
PROTECTION FROM TRAFFICAND
DENSITYINITIATIVEANAL MIS
REVISED DRAFT
•
Prepared for:
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Contact: Patricia Temple,
Planning Director
Prepared By:
THE PLANNING CENTER
1580 Metro Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Contact: John Douglas, AICP
JUL Y 14, 2000
E
Analysis and Findings
Newport Beach Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative
July 14, 2000
Executive Summary
The Planning Center has been retained to assist in clarifying the assumptions and
methodology that should be used in analyzing previously approved General Plan
Amendments pursuant to the Protection from Traffic and Density initiative, and
to compile a summary of General Plan amendments approved since November
1990 in each of the City's 46 statistical areas. Under the cumulative provisions of
the initiative, any General Plan amendment in a statistical area where one or
more of the development thresholds have been exceeded would require that the
amendment be submitted for a referendum. This analysis found that the
development thresholds specified in the initiative have been exceeded in 6 of the
City's 46 statistical areas. In addition, one statistical area is just below the
threshold. The analysis also found that if the initiative had been in effect since
1990 a total of 13 General Plan amendments would have required confirmation
by the voters.
• Background
On February 8th the City Council authorized the City Manager to retain the
services of The Planning Center to analyze the effects of the Protection from
Traffic and Density charter amendment initiative on the planning process in
Newport Beach (a copy of the proposed measure is included in the Appendix).
The initiative would amend the City Charter to require voter approval of all major
amendments to the General Plan. "Major amendments" are those that either
individually or cumulatively would generate more than 100 peak hour trips, add
more than 100 dwelling units, or add more than 40,000 square feet of floor area
to the allowable development within any statistical area of the city. To
determine if any specific amendment is "major ", the trips, dwelling units or floor
area of that amendment are added to 80% of the trips, dwelling units or floor
area resulting from other amendments affecting the same statistical area that
have been adopted by the City Council within the preceding 10 years.
The consultant was asked to develop assumptions and methodology to be used
in the preparation of implementation guidelines if the initiative is adopted by the
voters in November, and compile a comprehensive list of General Plan
amendments that have been adopted in the last 10 years. The initiative deals
with technical issues that would require some interpretation prior to
•
implementation, and it is hoped that this exercise will help clarify areas of
The Planning Center Page 1
Protection From Traffic and Density Initiative Analysis July 14, 2000
ambiguity so that the initiative's implications can be better understood by all
•
interested parties.
The scope of this assignment did not include an assessment of legal issues or the
merits of the initiative.
At the City Council meeting of March 28, City staff and the consultant presented
a list of proposed assumptions and methodology to be used in the evaluation of
previous GPAs. Table 1 contains a detailed discussion of these assumptions.
Discussions between City staff, community members and the consultant have
focussed on two key questions: 1) which of the City's statistical areas have
reached the cumulative development thresholds identified in the initiative; and 2)
how many amendments approved in the past 10 years would have required voter
confirmation if the initiative had already been in effect.
Analysis and Findings
One noteworthy aspect of the Newport Beach General Plan is its unusual level of
specificity. Unlike many General Plans for other jurisdictions, the Newport Beach
plan identifies the exact development limits for each neighborhood in the city.
• Development limits are typically expressed as the maximum number of dwelling
units or non - residential floor area. As a result, General Plan amendments are
sometimes required for even very small projects if the statistical area is "built
out". For example, GPAs were required to allow a large single - family lot to be
subdivided into two single - family lots on Bayside Drive [GPA 92 -2(B)] and to
allow four homes to be built on the former Ebell Club site on Balboa Peninsula
[GPA 95- 1(E)]. GPAs have also been required for minor boundary adjustments
such as for the Crown Pointe (Summerhouse) development [GPA 96 -1(C)] and
the Shelton residence [GPA 98- 1(D)].
The first task was to compile a comprehensive list of General Plan amendments
approved since November 1990 (10 years prior to the election date). The source
of this list was the City Planning Department, with verification from City Council
records maintained by the City Clerk. A total of 51 amendments were reviewed.
(Note: Amendments that did not change the development entitlement for a
specific property were not included in this analysis.) A table was then compiled
summarizing the amount of dwelling units, non - residential floor area and peak
hour trips for each amendment by statistical area. When non- residential
entitlement was stated in a form other than floor area (e.g., hotel rooms or
theater seats), floor area was estimated using building plans or information
presented in staff reports. As required by the initiative, peak hour trips were
• determined using the Trip Generation Manual, e Edition (1997) published by the
The Planning Center Page 2
Protection From Traffic and Density Initiative Analysis July 14, 2000
• Institute of Traffic Engineers. Although the initiative would allow the City to fine -
tune trip generation rates up to a 5% difference from ITE, our analysis used ITE
rates whenever available. For land uses not included in the ITE manual,
guidance on the appropriate trip generation rate was provided by the City Traffic
Engineer.
Table 2 contains a summary of the General Plan Land Use Element Amendments
approved since November 1990 in chronological order for each of the 46
statistical areas. The table shows statistics for land uses added, land uses
deleted, peak hour trips represented by the uses added or deleted, and the net
increase (or decrease) in dwelling units, non - residential floor area, and peak
hour trips.
Once all amendments were identified and reviewed, a cumulative summary of
development and traffic generation was prepared for each statistical area. Since
the initiative does not contain explicit guidance on how some of its provisions
should be interpreted, it was necessary for us to make some assumptions. For
example, the initiative does not address situations where the allowable use is
changed from one type to another (e.g., residential to commercial) or where the
traffic generated by the new use would be less than that generated by the
existing use. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that when the new
use would result in a decrease in peak hour traffic as compared to the current
• entitlement, the new development entitlement would not be added to the
cumulative totals. No credit was given in the cumulative totals for land uses
eliminated or for a decrease in peak hour trips. As provided in the initiative, the
cumulative analysis includes only 80 percent of the dwelling units, floor area or
peak hour trips represented by the previously approved developments.
Table 3 shows the cumulative analysis of General Plan amendments by statistical
area. This analysis indicates that since November 1990 the development
thresholds specified in the initiative (i.e., 100 dwelling units, 40,000 square feet
of non - residential floor area, or 100 peak hour trips) have been exceeded in 6
statistical areas. Therefore it is our interpretation that if the initiative is
approved any GPA in these areas would require a referendum until such time as
the 10 -year cumulative development total drops below the initiative's threshold.
The table below includes the date when the 10 -year cumulative development
level would drop below the threshold requiring a referendum, assuming no
additional amendments are approved in the interim.
The Planning Center Page 3
•
Protection From Traffic and Density Initiative Analysis July 14, 2000
Statistical Areas Where Development Thresholds
Have Been Exceeded
Date When
Cumulative
Statistical
Neighborhood
Development Will
Area
Drop Below
Threshold
H1
Old Newport
3/2007
Boulevard
Ll
Newport Center
11/2009
L3
North Ford
3/2007
L4
Airport Area
1/2009
M3
Pacific View
4/2009
M6
Bonita Canyon
11/2007
The purpose of this exercise was to determine which statistical areas would be
considered "built -out' if the initiative is approved. Any amendment within one of
these six areas would therefore require voter approval, even if the amount of
development allowed by the amendment were below the thresholds stated in the
initiative.
• The second issue addressed by the cumulative analysis was determining the
number of amendments during the past 10 years that would have required voter
approval if the initiative had already been in effect. This question required
different calculations than the previous exercise.
Based on the provisions of the initiative, in Table 4 it was assumed that
amendments exceeding one or more of the thresholds would have been subject
to a referendum and therefore would not be included in the cumulative
tabulation of amendments. Further, it was assumed that the cumulative
tabulation should begin with a "clean slate" as of November 1990. It is
recognized that this assumption appears to conflict with the language in the
initiative stipulating that the cumulative analysis shall include amendments
adopted within the preceding 10 years. In order to strictly adhere to this
provision it would have been necessary to examine amendments dating back to
1980 in order to determine whether any amendments approved after 1990 would
have exceeded a cumulative threshold and therefore would have been subject to
referendum. The effect of using this 1990 "cutoff date" is that the number of
amendments that would have been subject to voter approval could be
understated.
Table 4 presents the analysis of amendments that would have required voter
• approval if the initiative had been in effect since 1990. This analysis found that
there were 13 such amendments. These are summarized below.
The Planning Center Page 4
•
Protection From Traffic and Density Initiative Analysis July 14, 2000
Amendments That Would Have Required Voter Approval
if the Initiative Had Been in Effect Since 1990
General
Plan
Project Name
Summary
Amendment
92 -1(C)
Old Newport Blvd.
Comprehensive update to the Old Newport Blvd. Specific
Specific Plan
Plan, including an increase to the permitted floor area
ratio (FAR) in the area
92 -2(C)
Bayview Landing Sr.
Add affordable senior housing as an optional use.
Housin
91 -1(C)
Newport Village
Increase GEIF entitlement from 50,000 to 65,000 sf for
(Library Exchange)
the Central Library
94 -2(B)
Fashion Island
Increase entitlement for Retail & Service Commercial by
Expansion
266 000 s .ft.
97-3(D)
Four Seasons Hotel
Increase the entitlement by 100 hotel rooms
95 -1(D)
Fletcher Jones
Redesignation of the site from Administrative,
Mercedes
Professional and Financial Commercial to Retail and
Service Commercial and increase the entitlement by
88,000 s .ft.
96 -1(B)
Temple Bat Yahm
Increase entitlement by 40,000 sq.ft. for expansion of
synagogue com lex
96 -3(E)
Dahn Mini - Storage II
Increase entitlement by 86,000 sq.ft. for mini - storage
facili
98 -1(C)
HEV /Lennar
Increase entitlement by 149,122 sq.ft. for office building
and 304 hotel rooms
97 -3(E)
Pacific Club
Increase Administrative, Professional and Financial
Commercial entitlement by 15,000 sq.ft. to allow
expansion of existing health club
94 -1(F)
Pacific View Memorial
Increase the allowable floor area for buildings. and
Park
mausoleums by 113,680 sq.ft.
99 -1(E)
Harbor Day School
Increase the allowable floor area by 42,822 sq.ft. to
allow addition of a gymnasium
97 -2
Bonita Canyon
Establish pre- annexation entitlements for the Bonita
Planned Community
Canyon propeq
Note: This analysis assumes that the cumulative development tabulation begins with a 'clean
slate" in 1990 and therefore may underestimate the number of amendments that would have
required voter approval.
Conclusions
This analysis has examined the Protection from Traffic and Density initiative and
identified assumptions and methodology to determine the anticipated impacts of
the initiative on the City's planning process if it is approved by the voters. Based
on these assumptions, a list of General Plan Amendments approved since
• November 1990 has been compiled and a determination made of the statistical
The Planning Center Page 5
Protection From Traffic and Density Initiative Analysis July 14, 2000
areas where one or more of the development thresholds have been exceeded on
•
a cumulative basis. This analysis found that 6 of the City's 46 statistical areas
have reached one or more of the development thresholds specified in the
initiative.
•
J
The analysis also determined which amendments would have required voter
approval had the initiative been in effect since 1990. This analysis required
certain assumptions that could understate actual number of elections that might
have been required. Based on the identified assumptions, it was found that 13
amendments approved since 1990 would have required a referendum.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 — Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative
Exhibit 2 — Map of Statistical Areas
Table 1 — Assumptions and Methodology
Table 2 — General Plan Amendment Summary
Table 3 — General Plan Amendment Cumulative Analysis
Table 4 -- Amendments Requiring Voter Approval
P: \CNB -04 \Products \Reports \Council report 2 revised 7- 14.doc
The Planning Center Page 6
•
Ll
•
Protection From TralTlc and Density Initiative Analysis July 14, 2000
APPENDIX
PROTECTION FROM TRAFFIC AND DENSITY INITIATIVE
The Planning Center
Page 7
INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS
The city attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
[TITLE AS PREPARED BY THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY ATTORNEY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 9203]
(Summary as prepared by the Newport Beach City Attorney
in accordance with California Elections Code Section 92031
Petition for Submission to Voters of Proposed Amendment to the Charter of the City of Newport Beach.
To the city council of the City of Newport Beach: We, the undersigned, registered and qualified voters of the State of California, residents
of the City of Newport Beach, pursuant to Section 3 of Article Xa of the California Constitution and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
34450) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 4 of the Government Code, present to the city council of the city this petition and request that the
following proposed amendment to the charter of the city be submitted to the registered and qualified voters of the city for their adoption or
rejection at an election on a date to be determined by the city council.
The proposed charter amendment reads as follows:
First. Amendment. Article IV of the City Charter of Newport Beach is amended by adding the following provisions as Section 423:
"Section 423. Protection from Traffic and Density.
Voter approval is required for any major amendment to the Newport Beach General
Plan. A "major amendment" is one that significantly increases the maximum amount
of traffic that allowed uses could generate, or significantly increases allowed density or
intensity. "Significantly increases" means over 100 peak hour trips (traffic), or over
100 dwelling units (density), or over 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity); these
- - - - - - - - - (The proposed amendment is continued on the other side of this paper.) - - --- - - - - - - - -
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID
SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK. This column for
All signers of this oetition must be registered to vote in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. official use only
1
(Print Name)
(Residence Address ONLY)
ignature)
(City) (Date)
2.
(Print Name)
(Residence Address ONLY)
(Signature)
(City) (Date)
3.
(Print Name)
(Residence Address ONLY)
(Signature)
(City) (Date)
4.
(Print Name)
(Residence Address ONLY)
(Signature)
(City) (Date)
5.
(Print Name)
(Residence Address ONLY)
(Signature)
(City) (Date)
DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR (To be completed after above signatures have been obtained.)
(PRINT your name 4 ) I, am registered to vote in the City of Newport Beach,
Orange County, California. My residence address is
I circulated this petition and saw each of the appended signatures being written. Each signature on this petition is, to the best of
my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. All signatures on this document were
obtained between the dates of and I declare under penalty of perjury under the
lathe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Exe on at California. Signature
Dam city
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Proposed amendment, continued) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
thresholds shall apply to the total of: 1) Increases resulting from the amendment
itself, plus 2) Eighty percent of the increases resulting from other amendments
W.fecting the same neighborhood and adopted within the preceding ten years.
Other amendments" does not include those approved by the voters.
"Neighborhood" shall mean a Statistical Area as shown in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan, page 89, in effect from 1988 to 1998, and new Statistical Areas
created from time to time for land subsequently annexed to the City.
"Voter approval is required" means that the amendment shall not take effect
unless it has been submitted to the voters and approved by a majority of those
voting on it. Any such amendment shall be submitted to a public vote as a separate
and distinct ballot measure notwithstanding its approval by the city council at the
same time as one or more other amendments to the City's General Plan. The city
council shall set any election required by this Section for the municipal election
next following city council approval of the amendment, or, by mutual agreement
with the applicant for the amendment, may call a special election for this purpose
with the cost of the special election shared by the applicant and the City as they
may agree. In any election required by this Section, the ballot measure shall be
worded such that a YES vote approves the amendment and a NO vote rejects the
amendment; any such election in which the ballot measure is not so worded shall
*void and shall have no effect.
This Section shall not apply if state or federal law precludes a vote of the
voters on the amendment."
----- ----- ------------------
------------------
----
(End of amendment. But the proposed ballot measure also includes the following "Second" through "Seventh ".)
Second. Purpose. It is the purpose of the amendment to give the voters the power to prevent Newport Beach
from becoming a traffic- congested city, by requiring their approval for any change to the City's General Plan that
may significantly increase allowed traffic; and also to make sure that major changes do not escape scrutiny by
being presented piecemeal as a sequence of small changes.
Third. Findings. 1. In planning the growth of their city and protecting its quality of life, a prime
concern of the people of Newport Beach is to avoid congestion and gridlock from too much traffic.
2. The General Plan guides growth in the City of Newport Beach by designating land use categories for
all lands in the City, and providing limits on the allowed density and intensity of use for each land use category.
3. The General Plan already provides for additional growth in the City; if all development allowed by the
General Plan were to be built, the traffic generated in the City would increase by about 20 %.
4. The people, whose quality of life is at stake, should have the power to disapprove any proposed
General Plan amendment that may significantly increase traffic congestion beyond that which could already occur
from development under the General Plan.
Fourth. Implementation. 1. It is the intent of the foregoing amendment to the City Charter of the City of
Newport Beach that, to the maximum extent permitted by law, it apply to all amendments to the General Plan
a�wed by the Newport Beach city council after the time of filing of the Notice Of Intent To Circulate Petition,
p�lded that it shall not apply to any amendment for a development project which has obtained a "vested right"
as of the effective date of the foregoing amendment to the City Charter. A "vested right" shall have been
obtained if:
(a) The project has received final approval of a vesting tentative map. As to such vesting tentative maps,
however, they shall be exempt only to the extent that development is expressly authorized in the vesting tentative
map itself; or
(b) The project has obtained final approval of a Development Agreement as authorized by the California
�vernment Code; or .
(c) The following criteria are met with respect to the project:
(i) The project has received a building permit, or where no building permit is required, its final discretionary
approval, and
(ii) Substantial expenditures have been incurred in good faith reliance on the building permit, or where no
building permit is required, the final discretionary approval for the project; and
(iii) Substantial construction has been performed in good faith reliance on the building permit, or where no
building permit is required, on the final discretionary approval.
Phased projects shall qualify for vested rights exemptions only on a phase by phase basis consistent with
California law.
2. The city council is encouraged to adopt guidelines to implement the foregoing amendment to the City
Charter of the City of Newport Beach following public notice and public hearing, provided that any such
guidelines shall be consistent with the amendment and its purposes and findings. Any such guidelines shall be
adopted by not less than six affirmative votes, and may be amended from time to time. by not less than six
affirmative votes.
3. The City shall take all steps necessary to defend vigorously any challenge to the validity of the
foregoing amendment to the City Charter of the City of Newport Beach.
4. Peak hour trip generation rates shall be calculated using the most recent version of the Trip Generation
Manual of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The city may fine -tune these rates, but not to less than 95%
of the rates in the Manual..
Attachment. Attached to this petition is a copy of page 89 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
9EPWing the "Statistical Areas" of the City of Newport Beach.
Sixth. Construction. Nothing herein shall be construed to make illegal any lawful use presently being made of
any land or to prohibit the development of any land in accordance with the provisions of the City's General Plan
in force at the time of filing of the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition.
Seventh. Severability. If any part of this initiative is declared invalid on its face or as applied to a particular
case, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts, or their application to other cases. It is
hereby declared that each part of this initiative would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or
more other parts be declared invalid. "Part" is generic, including but not limited to: Word, clause, phrase,
sentence, paragraph, subsection, section, and provision.
- - - --------------- (End ofproposed ballot measure) ------------------
'Me following copy of the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition is printed here as required by Elections Code sections 9207 and 9256:
Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition
Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate the
petition within the City of Newport Beach for the purpose of submitting to the voters a proposed amendment to
the Charter of the City of Newport Beach. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated
in the Petition is as follows:
Future growth in Newport Beach is guided by the General Plan. To avoid gridlock, this limits growth to
what will produce about 20% more traffic than we have now. Even that limit is now in danger. Lobbyists are
pu g heavy pressure on the city council to keep granting General Plan changes which will raise that limit ever
nW. Requiring a vote of the people on any change which raises that limit significantly will take pressure off
the city council, and protect the people from unwanted increases.
Date of first publication: June xx, 1999 Signed: Evelyn R Hart, Philip L. Arst, Thomas E. Hyans, proponents
iv F 4a
LL,
ni
IQ:
J:
M coo
pl
15,
cn
pr
•
•
V)
k
d
7
b �
o tea,
n e
m
m
dw
A
u
r
L
a
d
d T
E m
.Ep
JG
L
+U°
�
N
> E
L
�
7 r .O vUi pC^p
O
3
�
•O
N 'fl
A
'L' N T 'O « p c
>+ N �0, vi
L
c 3
m
o v
H o c •`-°, s m 3 U
a� $� .E �
tO 3 'nq
v
c
E„
o� E o� ,_ ` o�
,.N.
a E m� o
� :° •O d
�
E;
� G` L
E d •O fO N
Op
r
N Oq r W O
n
u« � L
'C lC N
O
m 0 3
3
>�
o c "•u .E
o,d c E
N
E >_ s
N d E .20 v
.. = .a v
? E U E
O O
.
p d N
N
L •y
'O N O O N U N
O y U y
Y U O
'O
«. te
12O
m o
E4N
d 6 Yt6
i6
�y
�o 'C
vW
W
�
g000 y
N �.
qC T C
AN L
C C
L
44Uo •.
7E
„=dOc „ D
N
LN r
o
N ' E
R N
Y L
C
c
.
°o
L
E
12v'
G
�
Co
❑d? � �
` 0 E2ao
v
mo
° E
>
E
d
O
y= y a •�
r« 7
A N N
0 ooA
yv'ud3N
CV CR
NN"vc
Er ❑v�aya.EEEa•����
«on
n
E E o v •,'.�
s o
y
L c
R
v
E= d i v o F
s°
•m
>
aLOi
E o s >, °'
m A m E,�.
N N
j p 0« N 9
O. O '« 12 N
c N 4 N
°P_'.E
..�vo°Q•A
p
ys
Ate«
•
E= m
>
.-
` y
v
v v
a>
bL >
sc
O .?c «
O
EW
a
464
O
� A
2 L
U
C •O iC
{
°>
a m d s
>E
m 5
° E
«
v d
M E
0
06 G E E F
E
L Z
N [
bo
C4 a U
NI:
E'
0
o F
v �
•« is
.c o
�
u
C
L N
— E
3
v v�
o
cm
v •'> °•
3 � m
a�
m
v
3•°v
m
v E,c
0
O
7�
>>
64„
U
c
C w>
C N
.O
C N N
�
O
U A
N«
N�
W
O C
c
O
d
oc C c`
d U
E ,E y
4 C
U
0 0.2
O
C
'C
o
t
•Q
WvOi
4.
U U
U
4C�.
U
A
N R
y •p > •UO
m
Q c
U v v n
i
m w .E
m n .E L
O
O
O
N
t0
O
O/
r
r
d u
m
N Em`<
m �
d
C U
E
a
d
a
d
C
d
D
4ta
�
Ila
a
E
s
8
°8
�n
�i
vLLi
n
n
�LLF
82
e
a'E
ga
a8
a�
3
S
x
q
v4�
eg�
a�g$
]�
=22�JE
sa
yy5
-
°!
nE
jig
€
<
$ 3 e
3gg
s
ag
t
.
W
Pgp
&
1
gga
gy
gg!
gy!
gge
�g
3•
Y
993
4
@p5
°
a
1
1
H
9A
1
gg
�
55
�s
€pd
p
g
Y�
z
i
g
f
D
O
O
N
t0
O
r
r
N u
E m
N E m
7
-i y n
Q C Z
H N
C U
E
c
m
a
d
e
d
(7
;a
g
g y
y} E
E p
ppj
m
d d
d
¢§m m
m e
e e
e m
m e
e m
m e
e• e
e o
o o
o e
e e
e m
m m
m Q
e e
e e
e o
o 0
0 0
0
Ya e
ed r
ry •
•�.�yn 4
4 ¢
¢a_ ¢
¢ E
E B
B a
a F
Q e
¢ A
A
;9 a
ag 5
53$S e
egg c
c d
dsf
3m g
g� o
o
00
0
N
l0
0
o0i
R
r E
W
J V%
Q 4)
�E
9
C
E
e
R
IL
V
d
C
d
C9
t
A
me
C�0
Ii
i^
V
v
c
e
s
B
'e
6S
6;
I
5
5
6
z
e
g
a
a
e
Y
s'
e
m Eg` E
eC�
m
&'
4
ME-
£
-
$a
qn
94nn.
gs3
3sg
8tt
4E'
p
gg
aa�
P
fill
S=
SRI
�
ii
88
a
9
tit
A
i. °
$
8
L3r
Gd8
YS
Fgg
pp ��fJ�
lit
I
iiiiii
fi
6
33
E6
as
s
iP�i5
i
"�°a�p��iggn
�fi5
°�E
F�FO
�'
gs
:b gggg
io
ad
9
a
v
c
e
s
B
'e
6S
6;
I
5
5
6
z
e
g
a
a
e
Y
s'
e
m Eg` E
eC�
m
.y
N
C
a
l6
M �
U
LU
to
H O
c
d
E
a
c
a
l6
07
C
CD
t
A
m �
0 N
n
9-
z2
O
,q
c a
QQ
°
o
Q
QQ
QQ
a
O
2
z Z
p
Z
o
2
u n
m
o00 �
r
rc
>
e e
U
m=
o
m
o
K j
mF
a
m
�
0 O
z
Z
LL
0
K j
r
E
�55
at
E
Hv5a
N
s
U�2
m
m
Q
o
o
a
a�
a
=_
a
as
o
0
o
0
0
0
S
o
0
�o
6qp
O
�
}
G
m
U
W
a
m
4
p
Z
2
z
2
o
N
Z
m w
NN
U
v
W
K
$
W
B
C
2
o
�
W
Z
F°,
p
J
W
W
3
i
W
3
z
y
a
z
a
p
z
z°
6
(0
m
Lo
m
m
vw
m
U
D
O
O
m
w
i
m
m
E
n
c9
m
2
�
\
a
E
LU
in
E
�{
E
.§
a
)
§
0
\(
{�
£
»
1.11
�
i
\
5
ff{J
�
�
% | {■
{|
[�,
!.;
�)
|!2
!■
!!|
`$|
/§
L /
.
!|
§!!
|■:
■ |
■!!E
|!
!!!
;|!|
]oz
!!
•
!
§
■
�)
}
M
k}
\
k
)
B
co
§
;
)
|
°
o
!'2
;
!
2
T
!
\
=}
!
r
1.11
�
i
\
N
N
T
N
C
Q
d
N
E
LUM �
U
m c�
G
C
d
E
Q
C
l6
IL
R
m
C
m
0
L
N
(� o
0
O N
3
Ul >
Z
O �
U
y p/ V
v
a
°
0
°o
m
a
fJ
>a —v
o m
m m
i
i
$
i
TZ
a i x
Vow
Z m
O
O
N
N
O
O
m
e
eB�
Y 4
ro
6
m
O
O
O
h
h
O
O
Oo
g
O
O
�°.rca
N
0
N
o
v
m
LL
U$=
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
(&
O
S x
O
N
OI
N
O
O
O
0 1-
a
•
O
>
g U
8
E
m
Em
dF
°a S
S
m
a
c o
c a°
K
a
Oml
mml
O
p
0
0
0
Omi mOi
mml
a
a
a
a
S
a
a
s
as
Q a
O
Q
W
U
6
w
w
Q
U
Q
2
p-
6
O
Y
m
pn Lc
m
�
o
B
e
a
E
o
°e
z°
g
z°
=
v
v 3
z°
z°
z°
N
Q
Z
S
6
N
9
f
m
o
IL
LL_
J
o
so.
rn
6
xm
5 °
m
y p/ V
v
a
°
0
°o
m
a
fJ
N
�N
10
C
Q
d
1
E
M �
U
W
J
to £
�a
C
d
E
Q
C
IL
W
d
c
m
L
A
m o
Y
a N
�a
� T
z a
`6
U
Syr
Z
O �
d
OI
GO
CO
ZE
N Y
d�
O
O
0 F
LLq
q
yp
ry
S LL
E
w e
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S
f8
e0
ON
0
m
N
a
OI
O
�
'
G
f0
N
tRF
a
a
o
m
o
0
0
o
$
v
0
o
0
r°i
0
0
0
0
0
0
°
<
$
u'
n
Si
m
vv
m
Z
O
N
LL
Ly
8
E
$
Z$
$
g
&
G
o,
N,
_
Q
S`
N SS��
us z
C G
A Md i�
N
o
_
1.
12
E A�
c E2'fra
LL O
E
9
8
El
n
i d
.-b
So '^�
a B
s°
E
°
E
�$
'b
^V' d
=s_JiB._=
C j �
N
n
m
r
O
tmV
0
N
r
O
N
W
Q
W
[S1
fC
N
CC
K
Bg
a
Q
a
a
o
a=
a
a
=
a
a
cl
_o
�
o
w
E
+
LL
01
V
1
O
Yp
cl
Yp
O
C
Y^
O
N
w
d
w
9
W
Q
N
Q
o_
w E
E
q
d -O.
u
o al;
.2
o
e
E$
f
D
m
c
U E
Q�y�o�Sea
sa
gm
pe
�LLSgQ�s�W�
oe
�4E
�B
f
a
GsA
W
o
D
d
C
LL
v
d
a
r
m
a
U'
H
R
C
Q
A
E
CO)
W
J
to C
FQ- o
c
m
E
a
C
a
V
d
C
d
L
N
d
m o
0
O N
CL
d�
Z
`O
v
°a
X
Y
m
p
s
Q
ry
v
a
v
o`
E
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Jq
6
a
m
a
m
�p
Y
0 IC
N
a
m
tf ¢
n
mi
ai
v
12
LL
a=
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
� �
r
sa
0.2
p "tl
mLi
E
o
b
ES
y
S
&
8
E 3
c
S e
a
g
a
y
m
=g.
p
K
a B
a
w
m
2
<
a
w
N
E
N
N
7
N
N
m
NtR
m
a
E
m
m
_
y
y j ^atl9y
2�=
Y
uoom
x8�yg�
yco
�`
E
-m
m
m
m
z
N
z
x
z
z
m
z
J_
2
2
W
m
E
y U
N
J
r2
E
E
E
E
z 2
v
a
v
4
A
k$
.\>
�\
..
Eo
>.�
w _ �«2
c.c C ¥
Z.
« i5z| _
)k
k k
)
FMI
)
R// \
I,- 1-d
k,
,
!
!
,
!
_
!
«
!
!
!
,
}
}{
|
®
!
f
|!
!|
|)
Em
2,m
|
|
\,
,kt
«!m
ir!
!-
���
�>
-
�$
(
)
)
(
)
)
)
z
� !
/
]
#
a
-
!
k
k
\|
\
\
)
\
!
|
!
|
!
�|
2
CL
{
/
|
z
§
)
o
§.\
/
k
$
)
)
FMI
)
R// \
I,- 1-d
(n
>� W
l6
C f0
Q >
N Oi
> a
CL
3 L U
d
= C d O
m O
W c I o
m N
m 'c
d
3 Z
C cr`o
E U)
Q N U
c c
d
a E
v
c
m
E
C Q
,d
V
a
M1
m�
_ me
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
w aq
z m
o
0
0
0
0
0
w �
o
a r
om
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
� O
y
m
Z 11
�
O
O
7
WL
m H
6
0
@
N
N
N
N
8
a
e `o
°p
n
v
ry
ry
mz
=
LL
m 9
a
a
o
0
0
0
o
m 8
0
E
E
�
yp
SU
a°
rn�°
q�E ia
`°
E a°
E E S
rcrc
e2
rcrc
rc
rc
rc
$
u -y a
R
a�
c'
y
n
o
yyry
o
m
U 0 z
K
m
x
m
a
a
Q
Q
O
W
Q
S
m
P
O p
Q
U
d E E
-
�-
�
N
N
2
�
..
_
°S
8i
m
m
m
m
,A
ai U
m
tO
a
•-
9v'
Iz
z
N
z
z°
`w
y
ci
z°
7
0'
w
v
q
O
O
E
F
O`
�
m
O
O
E
y
y
V!
0❑
O
11�
LL
LL
LL
4
LL
LL
IL
IL
N
0
a
v
L
0
0
v
v
c
v
v
m a
r 6
w
gv
� a
wt E E
Mn
yy. t0
N -
C >
ao
�a
� V L
O U
3 O m O
C o
m a� •� 3
C � U
� C
a .o
C
L 4%
c £
,d a
V
Q_
L pN
Y•
<<
z
Q
Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
Q
O
z
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
z
O
Z
O
Z
Q
z
Q
Z
Q
z
O
Z
m
W
14 m
o
o'
ry
ry
ry
o
°
Y
$o
m
—
o `o
° m
_W
� IL
�
u
U
K`c
J
O F
a
w
Z
2
LL
rc�
E
3
�
y
C
S
ffi
_
8
E
�g U5
y C m
0
�
E
gal'
W
IO
§
e
O° z
m
m
OI
O
q
OA1
OI
U m 2
K
j
OI
OI
0011
Omi
O
OI
0
OI
0
d
c
6
0
0
0
0
o
m
n
O_
Q•
G,�1
U
N
Q
W
W
6 E
r
N
OI
r
m
N
N
17
L
6
O
yg
m
i
N
Y
'•
Z
a
m
o
W
3
3@
Z m
m
$1
Z
0
m
m
m
•j.
N
m
m
0
m
P
n e
a`
z°
i
3
m°
f
O
°v
C
z°
C
z°
C
i
Z
v
v 5
Z
z
z
a�
E
E
m
=
2
Q
K
W
N
W
o$
0
2
E
K
a
W
2
W
3
o
m
m
q
z
G
5
5
x
LL
_
m
P
m
6
iz
m
C
°
n
L_
C_
°
v
m
m
T
m
m v
m A
r
e S.
E > @
E 5
� E 10
"S E
F U °
a
z 0 ° i
W
N
� m
m _
C m
Q �
Q
�a
L �
!U
O m O
v >ig
jC CL i
m m �_ d
Q �?
� 4) v
m G
a E
C
d
N
ca
d
a
v
p
M1
¢
^
W @
�
IL
y
N
O
O
O
N
d
m
O
O
0
m
m
m
m
X
Y 6
O
ma
O it
p
O
O
O
d
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
N
M
M
M
M
10
a
z LL
d
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Z p
N
O
O
f0
O
m
m
m
P
N
N
N
F
m
IN
a
C�
a
6 O
N
Yl
M
�
VI
0
mN
VI
OI
Z
LL
p 8
d
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
`a
ag
d
LL�a
§e
LLLdg8
s��
d�
b
�
m
raa
>
a
a
a;
a
i
Taq
F
C
c
LL E
N
N
r
7
N
7
7
w
0
W
2
LL
L
O
rrm
r8P
8s
°8`8
o
�•
w
E
21
gB
omofio
@�
`o
mm
u3o�x
3
am
m
o
NZO
LY
7zdm
�mW
ml?LL
v
m'�,m?m�
u
9
�
m
p
111
}-i
W
°%
a
�c
A
a
of
�
m
Y
Y
J
P
w
a
i(
m
C
fi
v
m
r
m
ry P
N_ p
s 1
m -
A N
E t
F H V
6
� J
N
T 10
m _
c N
a>
d�
>
a a
c
Gc7 � U
M
m O
J c c o N
a D •3 ?
Q N U
C
a-0
c
L m
c E
N a
0
a
R
m
r
n
C
N
0
m
m
A
T
m
m v
� o
w r
O_ p
IL
iE
N Y
m
2 m a
O`
m 5
O
2
O
Z
O
Z
w p
w p
w N
p
Z
O
Z
O
Z
w
} p
O
Z
^
O
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
W
O
O
O
LL
e
e
ma
w
2 w
2
Y'C
0 F
O
O
O
O'JO
O
m
N
O
N
N
m
m
m
p
O
p
O p
N
N
N
N
N
w
Z LL
U
C'E
J
Y 6
BF
10
a
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
b
mO
N
N
N
O
O
�
O
Z -
Z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
�9
Y7¢8$rc
�a
�i
�;�m2pg
��U'aUw
oEd
A��rco
m
°I
OI
m
m
0
ONi
m
0
m
m
O
U 0 Z
yy
a
o
0
0
as
c9
m
a
v
m
w
<
w
m
v
m
w
a
Z
m
v
0
E
w
z
u
g E
O
C
m
z u
"
z p1
c
c
Z.d.z
.:ZZ
a
Z`.Ya
U
U
Y�
p
2
°
Z
N
J
z2
GI
w
w
K
m
3
S
gs
-
z
Ro
f
gs
S
a
z
a
m
?
2
m
a
R
m
r
n
C
N
0
m
m
A
T
m
m v
� o
w r
O_ p
IL
iE
N Y
m
2 m a
\3
)0
r.2
§2t
>M;
W ;
�c.c��
§ |�
� 2 ƒ {l
22/
�k
�k
�■
§
�
|
k
k
\
|�f�•�,
,
� «!
)
�|
\!|
§
7;°
k
®
|!§
!
E`k��
s
�
)!|�
|
!!!!
!
!
!
§.
_
!
!
.
� §
k,t
|
$
Z§
§
�
|
k
k
\
)
�|
§
�
|
k