Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07- Public Works i CITY OF SAN BERT( .RDINO - REQUEST 'L )R COUNCIL ACTION _ File No. 19.05 Adoption of Negative Declaration & Frr, ;n: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Subject: Finding of Consistency with the Circulation Element of the General Dept: Public Works/Engineering Plan - Widening of Tippecanoe Avenue from Redlands Boulevard to Date: 7-6-93 Laurelwood & Interconnection of Traffic Signals Public Works Project No. 93-02 Synopsis of Previous Council action: 12-02-91 -- Approved transfer of $100 , 000 from Account No. 250-670- 57871 , "Traffic Signals, South "E" St. & Fairway Drive, " to Account No. 250-670-57878 , "Widen and interconnect traffic signals, Tippecanoe Avenue, from Redlands Boulevard to Laurelwood Drive, " and authorized the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to negotiate a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Loma Linda. ' 10-19-92 -- Resolution 92-409 adopted approving Cooperative = ='- Agreement with City of Loma Linda for the improvement of Tippecanoe Avenue at I-10 Freeway. Recommended motion: 1 . That the Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 93- 02 , widening of Tippecanoe Avenue, from Redlands Boulevard to Laurelwood Avenue and interconnection of traffic signals, be adopted. 2 . That a finding be made that the widening of Tippecanoe Avenue from Redlands Boulevard to Laurelwood Avenue and interconnec- tion of traffic signals, is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. cc: Shauna Clark Jim Penman ZZ Sign ture Contact person: Roger G. Hardqrave Phone: 5025 Staff Report, Notice of Preparation, Supporting data attached: Init. Study,Neg.Dec. , Map Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) N/A _Acct. Description) N/A Finance: Council Notes: -- ---- A­A� I+.- K1- /7 CITY OF SAN BERN RDINO - REQUEST IF `R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT The Negative Declaration for Public Works Project No. 93-02 was recommended for adoption by the Environmental Review Committee at its meeting of May 27 , 1993 . A 21-day public review period was afforded from June 3 , 1993 , through June 23 , 1993 . No comments were received. We recommend that the Negative Declaration be adopted and a finding made that the project is consistent with the Circulation element of the General Plan. 7-6-93 75-0264 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for the following projects. The Environmental Review Committee found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment on the basis of the Initial Study and mitigation measures (if applicable) . PUBLIC WORKS CASE NO. 93-02 - Widening of Tippecanoe Avenue from Redlands Boulevard to Laurelwood to provide two through lanes in each direction plus left turn and right turn pockets at freeway ramps including pavement widening and overlay, right-of-way acquistion and other improvements. Copies of the Initial Study are available for public review at the Planning and Building Services Department, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California 92418, and the Feldheym Library, 555 West 6th Street, Sari Bernardino, California. Any environmental comments you have should be received in this office no later than 4: 00 p.m. , June 23, 1993. If you do not respond in writing, we will assume that you have no opinions and/or recommendations on the above projects. The Committee will review comments received and make its final recommendation at the Environmental Review Committee meeting of June 24, 1993 . SUBMITTED: June 1, 1993 PUBLISH: June 3, 1993 City of San Bernardino (909) 384-5057 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY PUBLIC WORKS CASE NO. 93-02 Project Description: Road improvements along Tippecanoe Avenue between Redlands Boulevard and Laurelwood Drive. The project consists of: widening of Tippecanoe Avenue to provide two through lanes in each direction plus left turn and right turn pockets at freeway ramps including pavement widening and overlay, curb and gutter, sidewalks, handicap ramps, traffic signal relocation and modification, right-of-way acquisition, re-striping, ramp widening, utility relocation, driveway approach reconstruction, and signal interconnect and coordination. Protect Location: The project site consists of Tippecanoe Avenue running from Redlands Boulevard on the south to Laurelwood Drive on the north. The total length of the road improvements is approximately .25 of a mile. The total area is about 3.5 acres. All of the right-of-way acquisition and most of the improvements will take place within the City of San Bernardino. The portion of the project that passes under the 10 Freeway south to Redlands Boulevard is in the City of Loma Linda. Date: May 17 , 1993 Applicant's Name and Address: City of San Bernardino Department of Public Works 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA. 92401 Property Owner's Name and Address: same as above Initial Study Prepared By: John W. Lampe Assistant Planner City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, California 92418 CCENT�rwwTrw PLAN-8.07 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) i Initial Study for Public Works Case No. 93-02 May 17 , 1993 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for Public Works Case No. 93-02 . Section 2 . 0 provides a description of the project and site characteristics. As stated in Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the purposes of an Initial Study are to: 1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration; 2 . Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impact before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for Negative Declaration; 3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by: (A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, (B) Identify the effects determined not to be significant, and, (C) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant; 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. Initial Study for Pubic Works Case No. 93-02 May 17, 1993 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 2.1 Project Description and Location The proposed project is to make certain road improvements along Tippecanoe Avenue between Redlands Boulevard and Laurelwood Drive consisting of: widening of Tippecanoe Avenue to provide two through lanes in each direction plus left turn and right turn pockets at the freeway ramps including pavement widening and overlay, curb and gutter, sidewalks, handicap ramps, traffic signal relocation and modification, right-of-way acquisition, re-striping, ramp widening, utility relocation, driveway approach reconstruction, and signal interconnect and coordination. There are approximately 12 parcels fronting along this portion of Tippecanoe Avenue. Three of the parcels located just north of Redlands Boulevard are situated in the City of Loma Linda; the remainder of the parcels are in the City of San Bernardino (see Attachment "A") . The project site consists of that portion of Tippecanoe Avenue running from Redlands Boulevard on the south to Laurelwood Drive on the north. The total length of the road improvements is .25 of a mile; the total area is about 3.5 acres. The only additional right-of-way acquisition proposed is between Rosewood Drive and the on and off ramps of the I-10 Freeway on the north side of the freeway. 2.2 Site Characteristics The development along this portion of Tippecanoe consists mainly of commercial uses. The area is fairly level with a gentle drop in elevation towards the north. The existing street has four travel lanes, two in each direction, from Redlands Boulevard to Laurelwood Drive. The site is located in an area susceptible to Moderately High to Moderate Liquefaction and is in a 500 Year Flood Hazard Area. The site is not located in an area affected by the Biological Resources Management Overlay District nor is it in an archaeologically sensitive area. Single family uses and vacant parcels are located to the west towards the Tri-City area along Hospitality Lane. Commercial areas lie to the south in the City of Loma Linda and to the east just north of the freeway. Properties to the east and northeast are developed to residential uses. Tippecanoe passes under the I-10 Freeway just before it intersects with Redlands Boulevard in the City of Loma Linda. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND t -1 Application Number: Project Description: �lX�d I rh YuV2►+��^'�t� 0.1�Y� 3 S>`Cr� t�►fQ ,�� p� ��c�L—,n�- �V"j ��- � ^W � u l Sl ►t5v1 d.�� �U^^ Location: JL WUO 't V`Q- Environmental Constraints Areas: General Plan Designation: FPPQ-c ,-.,off Ao"wjz- 15 0. r"A I VV /'tItkic 1M tK, &'.r LIU - Zoning Designation: IJ �A B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers,where appropriate,on a separate attached sheet. 1. Earth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement(cut and/or fill)of 10,000 cubic V yards or more? < 101 ooO .��3 X b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater v than 15%natural grade? X c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as defined in Section 12.0-Geologic �( &Seismic, Figure 47,of the City's General Plan? d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Development within areas defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0- Geologic& Seismic, Figure 53,of the City's General Plan? f. Modification of a channel,creek or river? _ � ��SM BERMARDM 29ME PLAN-9.06 PAGEIOF_ (11-90) g. Development within an area subject to landslides, Yes No Maybe mudslides, liquefaction or other similar hazards as identified in Section 12.0-Geologic&Seismic, Figures 48, 52 and 53 of the City's General Plan? h. Other? N ZA 2. Air Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality as defined by AQMD? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Development within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15.0-Wind&Fire, Figure 59, of the City's General Plan? 3. Water Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration x of surface water quality? d. Change in the quantity of quality of ground water? e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards as identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map,Community Panel Number 060281 001-5'- rA,and Section 16.0- Flooding, Figure 62,of the City's General Plan? f. Other? 4. Biological Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. Development within the Biological Resources Management Overlay,as identified in Section 10.0 -Natural Resources, Figure 41,of the City's General Plan? b. Change in the number of any unique,rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees? c. Change in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat? d. Removal of `viable, mature trees?(6"or greater) y e. Other? 1A/A r 5. Noise: Could the proposal result in: a. Development of housing, health care facilities,schools, libraries, religious facilities or other"noise"sensitive uses in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A)exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior as identified in Section 14.0-Noise, Figures 57 and 58 of the City's General Plan? ��� �5 PLAN-9.06 PAGE20F_ (11-90) b. Development of new or expansion of existing industrial, Yes No Maybe commercial or other uses which generate noise levels on areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses above an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior x or an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior? c. Other? d/,A 6. Land Use: Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? b. Development within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone(AICUZ)Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map? c. Development within Foothill Fire Zones A&B,or C as K identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map? d. Other? fJ/A 7. Man-Made Hazards: Will the project: a. Use,store,transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials(including but not limited to oil, pesticides,chemicals or radiation)? �- b. Involve the release of hazardous substances? X c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? X d. Other? M48 8. Housing: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? b. Other? lJ 9. Transportation/Circulation: Could the proposal, in comparison with the Circulation Plan as identified in Section 6.0-Circulation of the City's General Plan, result in: a. An increase in traff ic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? x b. Use of existing,or demand for new,parking facilities/structures? c. Impact upon existing public transportation systems? X d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? e. Impact to rail or air traff ic? f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? g. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? A _ h. Significant increase in traff ic volumes on the roadways or intersections? i. Other? N lA � � PLAN-9.06 PAGE30F_ (11.90) 10. Public Services: Will the proposal impact the following Yes No Maybe beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? c. Schools(i.e., attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Medical aid? f. Solid Waste? g. Other? �J /A 11. Utilities: Will the proposal: a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? v 1. Natural gas? X 2. Electricity? 3. Water? x 4. Sewer? X 5. Other? N 14 b. Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? X c. Require the construction of new facilities? X 12. Aesthetics: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any x scenic view? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? '\ c. Other? 13. Cultural Resources: Could the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site by development within an archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section y 3.0-Historical,Figure 8,of the City's General Plan? b. Alteration or destruction of a historical site, structure or object as listed in the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey? c. Other? tJ./A �� PFONTM PLAN-9.06 PAGE40F_ (11-90) 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. Yes No Maybe a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term,to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) GMTRALPftW1WG9ERW1GM PLAN-9.06 PAGE50F_ (11.90) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES DISCUSSION-CONTINUED CITY OF SAN BEANARDHO PLAN-9.D6 PAGE_OF D. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study, The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION will be prepared. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,although there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA .5*M)RA � �sCN, s&-N/ofZ P�ANni Name and Title Signatue Date: 6 —Z i7--A73 cc°�alp° P a"aFfolawma vnwoa PLAN-9.06 PAGE_OF Initial Study for Public Works Case No. 93-02 May 17, 1993 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Environmental Setting The site is a level area susceptible to Medium High to Medium Liquefaction and lies in a 500 Year Flood Hazard Area. The site is not located in an area affected by the Biological Resources Management overlay District nor is it within an archaeologically sensitive area. 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.2.1 Earth Resources 1.a. Minor grading will be needed to establish the roadbed. Such grading operations will have minimal impacts on the physical environment (erosion, drainage, etc. ) as well as the community (dust, noise, truck traffic, etc. ) . Standard City requirements on dust control, erosion control, and construction hours will reduce these potential impacts to a level of insignificance. 1.b. through f. The subject site contains no slopes greater than 15%. It is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone nor is the proposed development in an area defined for high potential for water or wind erosion as identified in Section 12.0-Geologic & Seismic, Figure 53 of the City's General Plan. No unique geologic or physical features and no water courses will be modified. 1.9- The site in not in an area subject to landslides, or mudslides or other similar hazards as identified in Section 12.0- Geologic & Seismic, Figures 52 , and 53 of the City's General Plan; however, it is in an area susceptible to Medium High to Medium liquefaction as shown on Figure 48 of said Section 12 . 0. Roads are not generally affected by liquefaction because they do not support any significant, concentrated, stationary loads. No mitigation measures are considered necessary. Initial Study for Public Works Case No. 93-02 May 17, 1993 3 .2 .2 Air Resources 2.a. The proposed project may have a temporary adverse effect upon ambient air quality through dust emissions during grading. The dust will be controlled by frequent watering of the soil and other standard dust control measures as required by the City's grading ordinance. Air emissions from the vehicles used in the road construction will be kept to a minimum by requiring all such vehicles to meet minimum AQMD standards. 2.b. There may be some minor odors created during the paving and widening of the street. Any temporary odors resulting from the equipment used in the road widening will be minimized by requiring all such equipment to meet minimum AQMD standards for air emission. 2.c. Development of the project will not be within a high wind hazard area as identified in Section 15 - Wind & Fire, Figure 59 of the City's General Plan. 3.2.3 Water Resources 3.a. The project may result in some minimal impacts relating to absorption rates, drainage patterns, and surface runoff. Standard requirements and conditions of approval will reduce these impacts to insignificant levels. Public Works Department Standard Requirements requiring conveyance of road drainage and runoff to public drainage facilities will apply. 3.b. through d. No streams cross the subject site, therefore, there will be no changes in the course or flow of flood waters. Also, the proposed road improvements will not result in the generation of any point source wastewater discharges. Non-point source pollutants in the form of road oil, sediment, etc. will be generated by the use of use of the roadway by motor vehicles. However, the project is not expected to cause any adverse significant alteration in storm water quality because of its limited extent; and no discharge into the groundwater in the area is I Initial Study for Public Works Case No. 93-02 May 17, 1993 anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary since the potential for adverse impacts are not considered significant. 3.e. The area lies in a 500 year flood plain. As the project does not involve the construction of housing or buildings, any potential exposure to people or property to flood hazards resulting from this project will be insignificant. 3.2.4 Biological Resources 4.a. through d. The project site does not lie in a Biological Resources Management Overlay as identified in Section 10. 0 - Natural Resources, Figure 41, of the General Plan. No unique, rare or endangered species of plants or animals will be effected by this project. Also, there are no viable, mature trees which will be affected by this project. 3.2.5 Noise S.a. The project site is in an area where existing and future noise levels equal or exceed 70dB(A) because of the adjacent freeway; however, as no noise sensitive uses are proposed, no adverse impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. Sob* During construction there is the potential that noise levels may increase and nearby residents may be temporarily exposed to high noise levels. To minimize the noise generated to a level of non-significance, the hours of construction shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 10: 00 p.m. per San Bernardino Municipal Code 8.54. Initial Study for Public Works Case No. 93-02 May 17, 1993 3.2.6 Land Use 6.a. and b. The proposed project will not change the land use as designated on the General Plan. The project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation which designates Tippecanoe Avenues as a Major Arterial. Also, the project is not located within an Airport District as identified in the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Report and the Land Use Zoning District Map. 6.c. The project site does not lie within a High Fire Hazard Zone as identified on the Land Use Zoning District Map, and no combustible structures are proposed. No mitigation measures are therefore necessary. 3.2.7. Man-made Hazards 7.a. through c. Because the project involves a public right-of-way, hazardous materials may be transported on the improved road from time to time. The regulation of the transportation of hazardous materials is a function of County, State and Federal agencies which will assure that hazardous materials do not create potential health/safety hazards. In addition, because of the nature of the project, no hazardous materials will be stored or disposed within the project site. 3.2.8. Housing 8.a There is no existing housing within the limited area where additional right-of-way is proposed between Rosewood Drive and the freeway on and off ramps; therefore, the project will not directly effect existing housing. Also, the proposal will not increase the demand for housing in the area nor will it alter the density of the population in the area. Residents in the area will benefit from improved access to the area. Initial Study for Public Works Case No. 93-02 May 17, 1993 3.2.9. Transportation/circulation 9.a through g. The proposed roadway improvements are consistent with the City's General Plan which calls for Tippecanoe Avenue to be developed as a Major Arterial. The proposed project will not result in traffic greater than the capacity of a Major Arterial as called for by the General Plan. Neither, will it effect parking facilities other than to provide additional on-street parking; nor alter present patterns of circulation; nor impact rail or air traffic. Also, the roadway improvements will have a general, overall positive impact on public transportation systems, and decrease safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclist and pedestrians. Lastly, as the project is consistent with the General Plan, it does not represent a disjointed pattern of roadway improvements. 9.h. The existing traffic volume for this section of Tippecanoe Avenue is about 19, 000 vehicles/day. The capacity of the planned Major Arterial is about 40, 000 vehicles/day. This portion of Tippecanoe Avenue is being improved in anticipation of an increase in traffic volumes associated with the reuse/development of the nearby Norton Air Force Base. 3.2.10 Public services 10.a through f. Because of the nature of the project which does not involve the construction of any housing or buildings, no additional demands will be placed on the City's public services. 3.2.11 utilities ii.a. through c. Because of the nature of the project which does not involve the construction of any housing or buildings, no additional demands will be placed on the City's utilities. Because of the road widening some relocation of existing utilities may be required. Such relocation will be in conformance with existing agreements among various utilities and the City and County and will be minimal in nature, given the limited scope of the project. Initial Study for Public Works Case No. 93-02 May 17, 1993 3.2.12 Aesthetics 12.a and b. The construction of the proposed road improvements will not result in any major obstruction of scenic views. The proposed roadway improvements will not result in visual impacts that will be detrimental to the surrounding area. 3.2.13 Cultural Resources 13.a and b. The project site does not lie within an archaeological sensitive area as identified in Section 3.0 - Historical, Figure 8, of the City's General Plan. Also, no historical sites, structures, or objects listed on the City's Historic Resources Reconnaissance Survey will be effected. 3.2.14 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Section 15065) The proposed project will result in road improvements along Tippecanoe Avenue between Redlands Boulevard and Laurelwood Drive consisting of: widening of Tippecanoe Avenue to provide two through lanes in each direction plus left turn and right turn pockets at the freeway ramps including pavement widening and overlay, curb and gutter, sidewalks, handicap ramps, traffic signal relocation and modification, right-of-way acquisition, re-striping, ramp widening, utility relocation, driveway approach reconstruction, and signal interconnect and coordination. The response to the checklist questions indicate that the project will not result in any significant impacts. No cumulative impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified. ATTACDIENT "An PW 93-02 , MMTAUTY Un L COU"-Mu STP= Z �u•rur�.nr 13 W > N fl� �o E LQ S?SXW ►9 0 ca S.73.c. • a • s.w At -a Aw �• } I I - mv>fMooc cam Poe 47 • i • � s ._- — twtrsoao aetR o a q o � RS L22 AC ©i L a N N N 1 .t M ' I i S r 7 C,a►. ,fAce - cTr't or top tt� tow'i AY i N'�STp1 E s-1� �,titj nu e w 2.17 y�, 3ACM/L i