HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-139-80 - SOLLY DEVELOPMENT - OFFICE / RETAIL BUILDINGSOLLY
SOUTHCENTER COMMERCE
PARK
EPIC - 139 -80
CITY OF,TUKWILA
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FINAL
DECLARATION OF O ViNON- SIGNIFICA JCE
Description of proposal OFFICE /RETAIL BUILDING
Proponent
BRUCE W. SOLLY DEVELOPMENT CO.
Location of Proposal
Lead Agency
INTERURBAN AVENUE N. of SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
CITY OF TUKWILA File No. EPIC- 139 -80
This proposal has been determined to ( /not have) a significant adverse im-
pact upon the environment. An EIS (t /is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)
(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed
environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
Responsible Official Mark Caughey
Position /Title
Planning Director 74;7
Date 25 June 1980 Signature
COMMENTS:
Zi/ /
1) Grading, clearing or other site preparation work may not
encroach above the 106' contour elevation.
2) A definitive landscape plan will be approved by staff prior
to foundation inspection of the building
3) Parking for the subject development should be based upon
maximum occupancy of the total structure as office useage.
• •
Bruce W. SoIIy Development Co., Inc.
March 16, 1981
Mr. Mark Caughey
City of Tukwila
Planning Division
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Mark:
One reason that Parkwood Services revised its plan was to
eliminate the planters as there is not room to meet the
handicap access requirement of the city and the state.
Another reason was to up -grade and improve the plan with
larger plants to offset for not having planters. We have
also added small blockouts in the walkway that can be used
for tulips, daffodils or the like.
We presume our solution to the above conflict is acceptable.
If it isn't, then we will work out something else, but in the
meantime, please note that we do not expect an occupancy
permit on a $700,000 building project to be delayed, even
an instant, for such a trivial matter.
cc: Mayor Frank Todd
Mikulski, Tucker & Harrison
Wimer, Harpold & Phillipson
BWS /nj
Si c= rely,
B c" . Solly
esident
Post Office Box 88715 - Tukwila Branch - Seattle, Washington 98188 - 206 - 575 -4825
City of Tukwila
Planning Division
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845
Office of Community Development
5 March 1981
Bruce W. Solly Development Co.
P.O. Box 88715
Tukwila, WA 98188
Subject: Landscape Proposals
We have received for review the two landscape proposals approved by your office
last week. Our comments follow:
Southceneter Office Park Project
Plan is acceptable as presented.
Southcenter Commerce Park
Proposed plan omits pedestrian protection planters on walkway immediately in
front of the building. The requirement for these items is clearly indicated on
the'building permit drawing set (Sht. A -1). Thus, installation thereof is a
prerequisite for obtaining an occupancy certificate. (See inclosed excerpt).
We suggest that you refer to the landscape drawing of 2 -10 -81 by Parkwood Services
which depicts an acceptable solution in this regard (see enclosure) in any case,
the landscape plan must be revised to depict installation of these protective
planters.
Please resubmit your revised drawing prior to requesting certification of occupany.
Tukwila P) ling Department
Ma Caughey
Acting Director
MC /blk
TO:
Fire Department
(Planning Department
Public Works Department
FROM: Building Department
SUBJECT: /3-02 - 3 at j s
DATE
Permit No. %C- /O
Type of business o ✓.
•
The subject project is nearing completion. Please investigate your
area of responsibility and indicate below either your acceptance or
corrections necessary in order that a Certificate of Occupancy may
be issued.
IF NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED WITHIN 7 DAYS, IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE
MATTER IS NOT OF CONCERN TO YOUR DEPARTMENT AND A CERTIFICATE WILL
BE ISSUED AT THAT TIME.
TO: Building Department
FROM:
This project is not approved by this department due to the following
correction(s) needed:
a
1
(, 11 61111-1- PeA7as zif*) TE )o J pc_lz 51-1E , -t c
ii4,FIZIASk2 13,0 LPt►Xo r f ,Q
3-4-E:1 •
Date au -6rized Signature
This .project is approved by this department.
bate Authorized Signature
a
MESE
MEM
Citf Tulkvvila
Planning Division
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188- 433-1845
Office of Community Development
25 June 1980
Bruce W. Solly Dev. Co.
PO Box 88715
Tukwila, WA 98188
SUBJECT: SEPA REVIEW, SOU'IliCENTER CO VIERCE PARK (EPIC-139-80)
Enclosed is the final declaration of Non-significance issued.
by the city as lead agency in accordance with RCW 43.21C.
TUKW PLANNING DEPT.
rk Caughey
Acting Planning Director
1%ICii as
Enclosure
XC: City Atty.
• ."
: • . •
-•-•-,
•
• •..
.• ,
. . • • . •
' • •••••••• - • .
• . • ■
• • -
•
•
• •. , •
•
•
• ., . •
. .. •
• - • •
•
•
Bruce W SoIly Development Co., Inc.
June 18, 1980
Mr. Mark Caughey
City of Tukwila
Planning Division
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Mr. Caughey:
Regarding your letter of June 13, 1980, Southcenter Commerce Center:
1. A. Enclosed are revised site plans based on the entire building
being office use. This plan is now in accordance with the
applicable ordinances.
B. After talking to Policeman Lowrey, -we have increased the
driveway width to 14' in front of the building.
C. As you know, the architect has evaluated many different
alternate site layouts. Considering all factors, we
feel this the the best layout.
2. 13a. Should be yes, but due to the.relatively small size of
the p'r:oject,.the effect would be insignificant.
13b. No, because parking requirements are satisfied on site.
13f. Maybe, because with any vehicle movement there "is a
possibility of accidents.
3. The plan has been revised to include sidewalks per my discussion
with the Engineering Department.
Sinc rely,
Br ji '' ^. So ly
P sident
Post Office Box 88715 — Tukwila Branch — Seattle, Washington 98188 — 206 - 575 -4825
City of Tukwila
Planning Division =
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845
Office of Community Development
13 June 1980.
Bruce W. Solly Devel. Co.
PO Box 88715
Seattle, WA. 98188
Re: SEPA Threshold Determination - Soctr. Commerce Park
Our office has completed its review of the environmental checklist sub-
mitted in support of your building permit request. In order to make a
final determination as to the environmental significance of your project,
we are requesting additional information in the following subject areas:
1) Public Safety Impacts
The Tukwila Police Dept. has reviewed the project plans and notes
the following:
a) Parking may be insufficient. (Incidentally, the project
is described as retail and office space, yet parking is pro-
vided on the the basis of retail only. It appears, there-
fore, that the project does not have sufficient parking.)
Pedestrian /vehicle safety conflict. Back -out movements .
from the street - frontage parking spaces may endanger
pedestrians walking in front of the building. It appears
that the minimal the aisle -width may not be sufficient in
this case. ;..
c). Interurban Avenue access. Concern . expressed regarding one-
way traffic flow.
-: To resolve these matters, I suggest that we arrange a meeting with a
Police Department representative.
2) Transporation
The Engineering Division has requested justification of "no"
responses to question 13 (a), (b), (f).; trip - generation informa-
tion, justification of reduced parking spaces provided, and a
discussion of the safety implications of the one -way on -site
circulation system should be provided.
3) Sidewalks
Ordinance 1158 adopted in. May, 1980 by City Council mandates
installation of sidewalks in new commercial developments. Since
Ltr. to Bruce soup
SEPA Threshold Determination
Page 2
..13 June 1980,
compliance with this requirement is not reflected in your permit plan
set, and will obviously impact your landscape plan, we suggest that
this matter be studied and resolved with the Engineering Division.
The preceding information and clarifications are requested-in accordance
with Sec. WAC- 197 -10 -330 of the State Environmental Policy Act Guidelines.
Your prompt attention to the matters will expedite further processing of
the building permit.
MC /mkb
cc: Police Dept.
Engrg. Div.
TUKWIL ANNING DEPARTMENT
M k Caughey
Acting Director
CITY OF TUKWILA •
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM
PROJECT NAME: G0,404ERC.E PARK Ott 8 IWO
• PROJECT ADDRESS: IN iZU1Z64 1 @ 5.149 -T—V- Sr.
PLUSE. getUrzIJ GG'V■ENTS R`1 ID JULIE go
•
1.. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW:
❑ Building: by:
;SE-Engineering: ( o/ b /8n by: ��.�to , fir
fir,
❑ Fire: by:
❑ Planning: by:
❑ Police: by:
(date) (reviewer)
2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS:
Utstl. 14 Sd115 Q.2aPLAT WiitGN Pck)O S'�51 g lt-p-4
o "Tv% Wu.. o, cu-r tom- -r wz 1' SUMO G • (N I �•�
1-Fesv, \ 3 tAcsr c,t 4 rvaoncssio - stfi t_ QU rnivi >t
III CITY OF TUKWILA •
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM
PROJECT NAME: sovTNr....SO Cnr. ARK
PROJECT ADDRESS: INMEOR4eaJ g s. 14,1
fLete.4 RAP comEaTs rl 10 JONE 80
1.. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer)
❑ Building: by:
❑ Engineering: by:
❑ Fire: by:
.13-1-Errirr+t+g-t by:
❑ Police: by:
2 ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS:
f/' , , /O n. h o ✓ 41o� c /�rP�
6 y
7‘4,1- e6%.- P ��.., P R i �i (f-P_ L.�.! K c rr „ /rF e e -rs
Qo e - k ef r r..,,K; 144, 4 �� X:r /;1.- ■ 74te.ae— 74< -t ./
•
•
• 1
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL OUESTIOdNAIRE REVIEW FORM
CITY OF TUZJllA
PROJECT NAME: ficiourniegAITA 401^MMAE. 9434
PROJECT ADDRESS: INTtsga5A,) S. 14,a 'ST JUN 4 1980
1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer)
❑ Building: by:
❑ Engineering: by:
❑ Fire: by:
❑ Planning: by:
Police; by:
2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS:
Insufficient information contained in Para 1 — 6 for this Department to draw
valid conclusions as to the impact. It is important to know the type tenant,
if tenant would require only employee parking or additional parking for
transient clients. (SEE OVER)
• •
Para 14 — Incomplete, alludes to an impact on police services but contains no
explanation. Lack of information in -Para 6 — 1 and this Para make
a valid evaluation extremely difficult. Site plan specifies .20 parking
spaces, this might be sufficient if the only parking required is for
building employees. The "Occupancy Type" calls for Retail and Office —
Should the retail business be of the type to generate transient traffic
it is hard to imagine 20 parking stalls being enough.
A conclusion based upon examination of the site plan would be an in-
sufficiency of space for cars backing from the stalls and attempting
to exit parking area. From the plans there would appear to be only 10'
from inner end of parking stall to outboard curb of sidewalk. The
average full size auto is 15 to 19 feet in length. To exit a vehicle
would be required to back in such a manner as to place a portion of the
vehicle over the sidewalk and possible endanger pedestrian thereon.
Entry and exit from and to Interurban Ave. at this point is extremely
dangerous. A similar stretch of Interurban on the Eastside in the
vicinity of 147 St. has always been one of the city's high accident
areas.
•
LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATE.
ARCHITECTS
130 Lakeside Suite F
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122
(206) 325 -2553
TO CITY OF TUKWILA
31T� ua ma� oT�aL
w,.
Cm Of N'
6230 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington
E
5_20 -80
JOB NO
ATTENTION
RE
e
SOUTHCENTER COMMERCE CENTER
S
GENTLEMEN:
— WE ARE SENDING YOU ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval
I1 For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution
❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints
❑ For review and comment ❑
❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO
FORM 240 -2 - Available from ( Ees %Inc., Groton, Mass. 01450
SIGNED: PATRICK KERR
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
CITY OF..TUKWILA
.147CelVet3'..
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM, Ci"aFtu ►IA
This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with t tpreat8n for
permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all pers' ns applying for a
permit. from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible
Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible
Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed.
A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: BRUCE W. SOLLY DEVEL. CO. INC. & PARK PROPERTIES LTD.
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: P.O. Box 88715
Sea.ttl e, Washington 98188 1206 ). 575 - 482_,_
3. Date Checklist Submitted: May 21, 1980
4. Agency Requiring Checklist:
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: SOUTHCENTER COMMERCE CENTER
6. Nature and,t3rief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited
to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give
an accurate understanding of its scope and nature):
40' -0" x 90' -0" Two story framed construction with wood facia and built -up
roof.
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
Property is located on the west side of Interurban Ave. South, 1/2 block
south of South 149th St. The east half of the property is basically flat
whereas the west half has, a continuous 30 °+ slope.
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: Winter 80/81
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES NO X
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES X NO
(c) Building permit: YES X - NO
(d) Pugot Sound Air Pollution Control Permit
(e) Sewer hook up permit
.(f) Sign permit
(g) Mater hook up permit
(h) Storm water system permit
(i) Curb cut permit
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington)
(k) Plumbing permit (King County)
(1) Other: Demolition Permit (To remove existing house)
YES • NO X
YES X NO
YESX NO
YES X NO
YES X NO
YES X NO
YES X NO
YES X NO
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
No
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
No
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
No (None)
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil?
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures?
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
-2-
YES MAYBE NO
X
X
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation,, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
a, b & c - Some cut, fill and fine grading will be required.
Soil under building and paving to be compacted.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
Explanation:
a, b - Some dust and exhaust from construction equipment.
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
X
X
X
X
X
X
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any rater
body? X
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters? X
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
-3-
X
X
YES- MAYBE NO
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either
through direct injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, pho phates, detergents, waterborne
virus or bacteria, or other substances into the
ground waters? X
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail -
X
able for public water supplies?
Explanation:
b,f - Pavement and building areas will create
impervious surfaces reducing absorption
and increasing runoff. On site storm
retention system required.
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
X
X
X
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
Explanation:
New species may be introduced or existing species
replenished with new landscaping.
5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of fauna (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, ra) e or
endangered species of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of fauna?
X
X
X
(d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat? X
Explanation: Existing fauna will be displaced on part of site due to
paving and building. Natural field vegetation to remain on part of site
as natural food source and fauna habitat.
-4-
YES MAYBE NO
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels? X
Explanation: Due to increase in traffic and people.
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? .
Explanation: Office and exterior site lighti maybe
visable at night. Exterior light to
be non -glare type.
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area?
Explanation:
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
Explanation: Construction materials
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi-
ation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
X
X
X
YES MAYBE NO
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
Explanation: Proposed tenants would come from
existing work force.
X
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing? X
Explanation:
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? X
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods? X
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians? X
Explanation:
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect .upon,
or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the
following areas:
(a) Fire protection? — C X —
Emergency only
(b) Police protection. X
(c) Schools? X
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X
(e) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? X
YES . MAYBE NO
(f) Other governmental services ?' X
Explanation:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of
energy?
Explanation: Relatively low energy consuming use.
X
X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas? X
(b) Communications systems? X
(c) Water? X
(d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
(e) Storm water drainage? X
(f) Solid waste and disposal? X
Explanation: Only as required for connection from
site to existing systems.
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
X
YES. MAYBE NO
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically of-
fensive site open to public view?
Explanation:
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his-
torical site, structure,
object or building?
Explanation:
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above
information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency
may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in
reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation
or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Signature and Title
L CE P. MUELLER, ARCHITECT
Agent for Owner
-8-
May 21, 1980
Date
X
X
1-1 M 41IM-rIf1L
U.1.1 -h61 J;-t.'M 1/
1N utor
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL,_ ;
ANON
��?IN `r Ih' Y I •
t t w41-1w-1
. ••• • . .
. •
41.
•• •
*...rigolPagrr-r " LANE. ;11;044-
' . •
I
• Ito
-#1
// •
7 •
tg
raloo;alati'
P..
■<•
"••••■
•
:-..---- ---- - -
. .. -/ ,............ ./10■P
I .......... •■•■—••••
, .
7 • - . ' . . Z ../"...... 4."".... .......".—..
.....,'", .......--
... • . • / .: ' • •
. ;/ • r
. .. •
....,.„ ../..........■ •"-- _.-------
: • --.7 ....,...- ........., —
:,, •_-, . . z
• .7,"
'• / 7 / ,-------------
• 'Z. - z . 7, -..
/7e
V z
—
\\‘ ,N,••,,;
\ ‘‘‘
, • • ‘‘` ,•\\
• •s` • \‘' •
•••••••■
, • -"•••■•••.....
•
lee •
■--.7.7—•••••••
•
• ,\ s's
`‘.
"
- '` •
■••■•.•..
I N •
88 /a
rt2.1r042-11-19" 1-1 N 617 t
0+1 iac,
ZONE; 3 .
r-fP a' olpl�
yrRUe rIoN, .TYPE 'SAN
Lae° FA(RKINCa -, • .
•
'i5oo tort i, Mr2, 070, .54tl farm• •reef" Q •
tiI'lk a PSIa •moo h. P. • - 20 .•Aakit.16r
P A R k IN(i. SELL S I t : q -O x 401,08 •
•
1 I 1..7 7144-VV F vn r,wr*7 v.•,-i.--, • ..--.r .....
IN -r6N'( ONLY,
2, Givii owy. 6.-(.. 'i1 .
. % At-L • hIr2 walJt� :• -1'a . MCI" 11�s rbLLONIW • gegrA 't'K
R. 4" 114k. �.oNC.. `w1 G-4I' Ji. Q2o'- o°e.e,. M,4)c.
' 6:4Loto fkotz PizAt.INACI i
I% MIN. - 5% 1444
4 I. Ht2-+4f° 1'o C5e 131vn - t7 I(N
•
rlr+. Grr.�.oE
wAi
zrrr�z; lf,12IGk WR�L
:. deprur7 (wool, F-t )
:-'11 x it' 61JT -ou-r IN _ QIMr•417kgt
t' I "14oUNtaa1"toN VtsN1 �7Yr)
y .
a
2M PR
6,0riNG7
— l$+ Te.G
3voNZ�
I NI Go
c�Ir�Nr
— I�'r►iN iI
L- L.