Loading...
07/21/1986 r 12-8.1059 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JULY 21, 1986 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92324 on July 21, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice-Chairman Gerald Cole, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Joseph Kicak, Planning Director Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary EXCUSED ABSENCE: Sanford Collins, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of July 7, 1986, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. PCM 86-56 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson, seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 4-0 vote, to approve the minutes as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS A. Detailed Landscaping and Irrigation plans for Orco Tool & Hardware. Chairman Caouette asked for the staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented Staff Report. Noted that the plan meets and exceeds the requirements. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the subject irrigation and landscaping plan. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of staff. Asked if there was anyone who wished to address the Commission regarding this matter. Being no one, entertained a motion. PCM 86-57 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 4-0 vote, to approve the detailed landscaping and irrigation plans, as submitted. B. Landscaping and Lighting Plan for Mt. Vernon Villas, Phase I. Chairman Caouette asked Staff for presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented staff report. Noted that Staff feels that the landscaping, as proposed, based on the artists presentation of the landscaping, appeared to be adequate. Staff recommended that the landscaping plan, as submitted, be approved. Mr. Kicak noted that Staff requests a more detailed irrigation plan be submitted by the applicant, prior to the issuance of building permits. Chairman Caouette asked if the applicant, or his representative, was present. Asked if the Commission had any questions of the applicant. Asked the representative to state name and address for the record. Dan Busbin, SWA Group, 580 Broadway, Laguna Beach, CA. Landscape Architects for this project. Commissioner Cole asked whether or not it would be possible to berm up along the 6' high block wall that was conditioned along Mt. Vernon Avenue, in order to lessen the impact of the wall. Mr. Busbin noted that the wall had been approved previously, so that they were proposing a continuation of the street trees and shrub treatment along the base of the wall. A berm had not been recommended because of the opportunity to jump the wall. Carol Tanner, Forest City Development, Applicant, noted that the berm would eliminate some security measures. Commissioner Cole asked if it was possible to break up the wall, so there would not be a straight expanse of 6' high wall, maybe some reveals. Dan Busbin, noted that they could recommend using shrubbery that could be planted along the parkway in front of the wall, which could undulate and break up the visibility of the straight wall. Or, a hedge condition that would also help provide a greener appearance from the landscaping. Another might be to recommend intermittant openings that might allow some visibility into the site. P.C. Minutes 7-21-86 Page 2 Chairman Caouette asked the applicant for clarification about a note on the plans which states that the proposed plant pallette is subject to soils agricultural suitability. Dan Busbin, SWA Group, responded that, at the time plans were being prepared, an agricultural suitability analysis was being performed on the site. This was to determine whether the soils might have any particular conditions that might be detrimental to the plants being recommended. He noted that, at this time, they had positive results from the agricultural suitability. Chairman Caouette questioned why they did not include plant sizes and some sort of irrigation system. Dan Busbin - responded that the irrigation system for the entire project is proposed to have a complete system that would include pop-up overhead spray-type sprinklers in all landscaped areas. Upon approval of the landscaping for construction, they will be able to prepare a working drawing of the irrigation plan that would be submitted to the City prior to installation. Dan Busbin, in response to Chairman Caouette's question regarding landscaping along the Canal, noted that there is no proposed landscape outside of the propertyline. They were under the impression that landscaping would not be allowed by Gage Canal Company. Noted, at this time, the following are the tree sizes proposed: 24" box tree will line Mt. Vernon Avenue, 15 gal. size trees will line the parking courts. The Eucalyptus trees that are providing the perimeter buffer treatment would be a range of 5 to 15 gal. sizes. The central trees that would be planted within the meadow and green areas would be a mix of 15 - 24" box. The only areas that have a smaller 5 gal. size would be the Eucalyptus. He noted that this was because they have had greater results by planting smaller sizes. Discussion took place between Chairman Caouette and Mr. Busbin regarding the submittal of more detailed landscaping plan that would also include a detailed irrigation plan and cross sections showing the block wall treatment. Discussion between Commissioner Munson and Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, regarding the location of buildings within the 25' setback. Mr. Kicak noted that in Phase I and Phase II the proposed carports are within the 25' setback area and would have to be adjusted and relocated out of that area. Joseph Kicak noted that setback requirements are subject to a variance and not staff approval. Dan Busbin, SWA Group, responded that the dimensioned site plan shown is the proposed final location for the project buildings, parking and carports and the landscaped open space area. He P.C. Minutes 7-21-86 Page 3 noted that they were under the impression that the earlier plan that had been presented was approved with the carports in the location along Mt. Vernon. He mentioned that those carports along Mt. Vernon Avenue would be relocated out of that area and would be located in the other side of the parking area. Noted that they could move those carports out of the 25' setback area. Discussion continued among the Commission, Staff and the Landscape Architect, Mr. Busbin, regarding the landscaping plans. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that the plans for carports and the irrigation system would have to come back to the Planning Commission. And, with respect to the landscaping plan, he had no problem with it. Mr. Kicak, also noted that one of the plans presented to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, at a joint body meeting, indicated a meandering sidewalk on Mt. Vernon Avenue, with rolling terrain in the sidewalk area. Dan Busbin, SWA Group, responded that with a 6' setback, they did not feel they could successfully provide a rolling terrain and meandering sidewalk condition. Felt a hedge condition would be a more desirable solution to provide a variation along the wall. Chairman Caouette went back to the issue of carports and noted that they would have to go through the variance process. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, concurred with this statement. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to address the Commission regarding the landscaping plan. Being no one, turned back to the Commission for discussion. PCM 86-58 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 4-0 vote, to conceptually approve the landscaping plans as submitted. PCM 86-59 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 4-0 vote that prior to issuance of building permits, for Phase I of Mt. Vernon Villas, the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to review and approve detailed landscaping and irrigation plans showing the typical section and elevations to show plant species, size, location and density. The plan will also show the block wall treatment P.C. Minutes 7-21-86 Page 4 and the irrigation system. III. PUBLIC HEARING A. Specific Plan 86-1/Conditional Use Permit 86-3 and Site and Architectural Review 86-6 for Mt. Vernon Villas Phase II. Chairman Caouette, asked that prior to staff presentation, the City Attorney advise the Planning Commission if they should consider this plan, due to the two (2) recently passed Ordinances that this Specific Plan does not address. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, in response, noted that they should consider the plan as proposed. Noted that anything that has had approval prior to adoption of the Ordinances has a vested right in continuing. If it did not have prior approval, then the two (2) Ordinances would, in fact, be applicable. The two Ordinances referenced are the Minimum Square Footage and attached garages. Further, discussed that there are several options. The first is to find that there was a prior approval and as a result of prior rights having been established, waive the two Ordinances. The 2nd is the opposite of that, find that a portion of the project did not have that prior approval and thus, the two Ordinances would be applicable to that portion only. Third, through a variance process, waive or grant a variance as to the applicability of those two Ordinances on this particular project. It could have a detrimental affect on the developer, who has potentially detrimentally relied on the existing Ordinance of the City. In his discussions wiht the Applicant, one portion of the project, which is referred to as the Karger project indicated in Phase II, has not received approval. The remainder has received prior approval. Chairman Caouette questioned whether the site plan was approved as they see it here. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that this site plan represents Phase II. A project submitted by USA Properties had been previously considered and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. In response to Chairman Caouette's question, noted that it was seen in a different form. The project was redesigned as Phase II and represents what was approved in concept by both the Planning Commission and City Council. In response to Chairman Caouette's question regarding sizes of units, as submitted by USA Properties, Mr. Kicak noted that they probably did not meet the standards of the current Ordinance and that they were larger than those proposed by this particular proposal. P.C. Minutes 7-21-86 Page 5 Chairman Caouette asked for the Staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented the Staff Report. He noted that the applicant is proposing some density transfers from Phase I to Phase II, asked to have the applicant address this. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission make the findings presented in the Staff Report and take action subject to the legal advice on the applicability of Ordinances 100 and 104. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of staff. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson noted that the same setback problem in Phase II, as in Phase I. Noted that the Planning Commission did approve the USA Properties, but with a new plan vs. what the Planning Commission had originally approved, felt that he would interpret that as being a major deviation. He thought the process should start over again. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, noted that the City Council and the Planning Commission, in a joint session, discussed and indicated their approval. Also, that the City encouraged that all of the project be developed as one development project. The applicant is simply complying with all of the City's requests at that time. He noted that the Planning Commission could treat it as one entirely new plan; however, you would have to treat that portion of USA Properties as already having received approvals. As to the other requirements, the Planning Commission has the right to provide various conditions that would protect the Community. Chairman Caouette clarified with the City Attorney that because they have a plan that was approved, the Ordinances that were enacted since that plan was approved may not apply to one-half of the plan, but they could apply to the other one-half. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney concurred with this statement. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney noted that the fact that a change in the size of units and circulation, has little bearing on garaging of automobiles, whether they are enclosed or not enclosed or upon the minimum residential size of units. He felt that if the Planning Commission finds, that due to changed conditions should require new conditions, the Planning Commission could impose that condition. But, to use that as a justification for imposing something that is more restrictive simply to impose something more restrictive, the Planning Commission cannot do that. The applicant would be protected from that. Commissioner Cole noted that because of the City's request that the development be developed as a whole, that conceptually the Planning Commission apply the same condition on the 2nd half P.C. Minutes 7-21-86 Page 6 because the applicant is complying with the City's wishes. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, concurred with this statement. With regard to USA Properties project, the prior approval has occurred. As to the other portion of the project, the Planning Commission and the City Council have to interpret whether or not those prior approvals have occurred. If you have, at some previous time, given those approvals, then Ordinances 100 and 104 would not apply. If, in fact, the Planning Commission has not, then Ordinance 100 and 104 would apply. Unless the Planning Commission determines that a variance would be granted for those two Ordinances on this project. Chairman Caouette noted that the City Attorney is making a distinction when talking about approval between the USA Properties Specific Plan that was approved and the Conceptual Land Use Plan for the whole area that was never heard in a public hearing. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, concurred with Chairman Caouette. The applicant has an argument in whether or not some approvals were granted through various actions of the Planning Commission, including the final approval of a bond issue by the City Council in regards to this entire project, including the Barney Karger land. Chairman Caouette noted that conceptual approval had shown some buildings, streetscapes and landscaping, but he did not recall addressing the size of units, the number of parking spaces and whether there were carports on that plan. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson agreed with Chairman Caouette that they did approve a concept. Chairman Caouette noted difficulty in seeing this plan as substantially the same as the approved USA Properties plan. Asked if there were questions of Staff. Discussion between Staff and the Planning Commission regarding other parts of the the conceptual plan. It was noted, by Staff, that the plan included property down to Barton Road. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, in response to Commissioner Cole's statement regarding a blanket approval for other properties, mentioned that conceptually that could be correct, but the Planning Commission could indicate that they are doing this for this project and not for any other projects. Chairman Caouette asked if there are any other questions of staff. Asked if the applicant or his representative was present and if they would care to address the Commission. Carol Tanner, Forest City Development, 11601 Wilshire Blvd. , Los P.C. Minutes 7-21-86 Page 7 Angeles, CA, addressed the issue of density transfer. At the time she became involved with the project, there was an approval for 252 units on Phase I. Based on the land development program, they ended up with 248 units. That eliminated 4 one bedroom units from that site and they moved them to Phase II. Noted that she would be happy to answer any questions. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, noted that he would like Mrs. Tanner to address the major issue. The effect if she had to comply with Ordinances 100 and 104. Her reason why the entire project should not have Ordinances 100 and 104 apply. Carol Tanner, Forest City Development, in response, noted with regard to attached one car garages, they have two effects, both of them detrimental. The first, being cost of constructing the garages could create a serious hardship to the project. The other, having to do with long term mangement. The fact that it is not possible to control the use of the garage. It may be used for storage, and the landlord has no control. She noted that Forest City Development intends to own and manage this project in the future. With regard to unit size, it is not possible to do a rental project that can be rented for the number of dollars required to pay for that size of unit and maintain the economic feasibility of the project. Mentioned that they have included some studio units, all the other units are exactly the same as previously approved in Phase I. The Architectural style will be the same. The landscape program will be the same. Noted that the requirement for guest parking, the inclusion of one more parking space for each unit is going to add 12,000 square feet of asphalt; and, in this particular unit mix, they have included two (2) parking spaces per unit, for 32 units that will have one person occupancy. Mentioned the Planning Commission may want to reconsider that just on the basis of the affect it has on paving. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, asked Mrs. Tanner to address the question of why she doesn't feel the Ordinances do, in fact, apply or why she has prior approval. Carol Tanner, Forest City Development, noted that at the time Forest City Development became involved was December of last year. They proceeded with this project on the basis that the City Council approved and sold bond issue to finance the projects knowing what they had in mind. On the basis that there was something called the Mt. Vernon Master Plan, which they thought, reflected what the Planning Commission and the City Council wanted to see. They did rely on that information in proceeding to develop the Phase II project. Chairman Caouette asked if the Commission had any questions or comments for Mrs. Tanner. P.C. Minutes 7-21-86 Page 8 Discussion took place between Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and Carol Tanner regarding the feasibility of keeping the whole project within the same architectural concept. If on the Karger parcel garages became a requirement, that Forest City would or would not entertain the idea of retroactively going back and putting garages onto the approved units. It was noted by Carol Tanner that they could not do that. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson questioned whether they would do one-half of Phase II one way and the other one-half another way would be something feasible. Mrs. Tanner noted that it might be something doable, but that she could not speak to the economics of it. She felt that over the long term, it would be a very difficult project to manage and maintain because of the differences. Chairman Caouette noted that the 430 square foot unit size is the smallest the Planning Commission has seen yet. And that it sounds as if Forest City finds the Ordinances 100 and 104 unworkable from the standpoint of their project. Carol Tanner, noted that for an apartment complex, did not see how it could be made feasible. They have to look at the frame work of available rent and what people are willing to pay for housing. She didn't feel that they could make anything economically feasible with the new unit sizes that are proposed in that Ordinance. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions or comments. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked Staff how many Canal Crossings there would be for this project. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that there would be three (3) total. One for Phase II, one for Phase I and a third crossing would be below, just north of the Town & Country Office Complex. Dan Busbin, SWA Group, presented the landscaping presentation. Noted that they have four (4) primary areas of landcaping. One being the Mt. Vernon streetscape treatment, one being the perimeter treatment, next being the identity road landscape treatment, parking courts and then the open space. Comparing the land plan of Phase I, their intent was to continue the same concepts, so that the project would appear as one continuous project. The architectural styles are similar to Phase I, however, the footprint will be larger vs. the pinwheel which is used in Phase I. Their concept was to develop separate neighborhoods that would have an identity of their own. They have continued the same landscape concepts within the parking courts. The intent was to frame the carports and help to provide some landscape relief from the parking to the P.C. Minutes 7-21-86 Page 9 architecture. The main concept was to develop a landscape that would be of a California character. The key thing was not to use plant materials that would require a lot of water. On Mt. Vernon Avenue, in Phase II, they had been proposing the same conditions of wall with shrub along the base of the wall and continuing the street tree treatment. Felt, due to earlier discussions on Phase I landscaping, that they could change that condition or concept and provide relief with low hedges and through undulation and openings in the block walls. Asked if there were any questions. Dan Busbin, in response to Chairman Caouette's question regarding width of street for off-street parking, responded that the approved street width was 24' wide and that they used the same street width in Phase II. They have a 32' wide road where they have visitor parking. D;sc,,ss;on *oo'- pl-ce het-ee^ th- Plann;ng Qom-is-io^, Staff and the Landscape Architect, Mr. Busbin, regarding meandering sidewalks along Mt. Vernon Avenue. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that if they discussion meandering sidewalks, the area that is away from the curb may be less than 4' . Also noted that the plan that was presented at the Joint Meeting did show meandering sidewalk. Mr. Kicak also felt that the responsibility for maintenance of the landscaping outside the wall should be part of the overall maintenance for project area. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, concurred with this statement. Chairman Caouette noted the stated preference for meandering sidewalks. Chairman Caouette asked if there were further questions of the applicant. Discussion between Commissioner Munson and Dan Busbin regarding the decorative block wall. Commissioner Munson noted his preference for a sawtooth type blockwall, and wanted to see what Phase I had before he would vote for Phase II. Dan Busbin agreed to take a closer look and see what they could do. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Being none, thanked the applicant. Opened up the public hearing asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of the project. Being no one, asked if there was anyone who wished to speak against the project. Andrew Smith, Attorney at Law, 5053 Lamart Drive, Suite 204, Riverside, CA 92507. Noted that he was retained by Dr. Terry McDuffy, who owns 3.7 acres immediately between Phase I and Phase II of this project, to represent Dr. McDuffy's concerns. Dr. McDuffy's concern was with regard to the increased traffic created in Phase I and Phase II along Mt. Vernon Avenue. His concern is that Mt. Vernon Avenue will have to be widened P.C. Minutes 7-21-86 Page 10 on his side of the street sooner or later. Mr. Smith noted his own concern with the applicability of Ordinances 100 and 104 to his clients property. Mr. Smith also noted that Dr. McDuffy expressed his concern relative to the minimum square footage sizes of the units in this project. Mr. Smith requested that he be notified of further discussion for this area, because it has a direct bearing on his client. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, noted that there is no question that the two Ordinances would apply to his client. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak against the project. Being no one, asked the applicant if they would care to address the Commission relative to testimony received. Carol Tanner responded that Mt. Vernon Avenue could be developed to it's full width, if Dr. McDuffy were to give the City the easement rights for dedication in order to accomplish that. Chairman Caouette asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission regarding this project. Being no one, closed the public hearing and returned the item back to the Commission for discussion. Discussion took place between the Planning Commission and Staff with regard to block wall location. Carol Tanner noted that the block wall would be constructed around the entire perimeter of the project, with both Phases as one project. Chairman Caouette suggested reviewing the Conditions of Approval prior to any motions. Noted on Conditional Use Permit Condition #10, indicated that prior to issuance of building permit lighting and landscaping plan conforming to the requirements of Ordinance 57, shall be approved by the Planning Commission, asked Staff if this was designed to get greater detail at a later stage. Joseph Kicak, noted that it probably should have read prior to the issuance of Building Permit, a lighting, landscaping, and irrigation plan shall be submitted and approved. PCM 86-60 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 4-0 vote to revise Condition #10 of Conditional Use Permit #86-03, to read as follows: that prior to the issuance of building permit a detailed lighting, irrigation, and landscaping plan conforming to Ordinance 57 shall be approved by the Planning Commission. P.C. Minutes 7-21-86 Page 11 Vice-Chairman Hawkinson felt that since these Ordinances, #100 and 104, were in place, that whatever happens from this point has to conform with the new Ordinances and that there is a variance process open, if anyone cares to deviate. Cahirman Caouette noted that in Condition #11 it mentions compliance with Ordinance 100, but the conditions of approval make no mention of Ordinance 104. Discussion between Commission and Staff regarding Conditions of Approval #11. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, suggested that the Planning Commission add the recommendation regarding Ordinance #104 as a separate motion. PCM 86-61 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson seconded by Chairman Caouette and passed by a 4-0 vote, to add Condition #30, that indicates this project must comply with the Ordinance #104, regarding minimum square footage for unit size. PCM 86-62 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 4-0 vote, to add Condition #31, that a meandering sidewalk be constructed along Mt. Vernon Avenue. Discussion took place among the Planning Commission and Staff regarding provision for the elderly within this Specific Plan. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that there was no provision in this Specific Plan. Discussion between Planning Commission, Staff, and the Applicant regarding the 20% for lower income people. Carol Tanner noted that the bond issue sold by the City in order to finance this project, because it is a tax exempt issue, has a requirement that 20% of the units have to be rented to people that 30% of their income of a person that makes 80% or less than the median income in the area. She noted that approximate rental will be area of $375.00. Also, that these units are not designated for senior citizens in this project. In response to Commissioner Cole's question of handicap accessibility, Mrs. Tanner noted that all of the units, on the ground floor, are handicap accessible meeting the State's regulations. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, noted that the Planning Commission would have to make a finding that Barney Karger's property has or has not received any prior approvals. If it has, then P.C. Minutes 7-21-86 Page 12 it would not have to comply with Ordinances 100 and 104. If it has not, then it would have to comply with said Ordinances. PCM 86-63 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson seconded by Chairman Caouette and passed by a 4-0 vote that Mr. Karger's project was not a part of prior findings. In response to Vice-Chairman Hawkinson's request for clarification on USA Properties and whether it was approved with carports or garages, Mr. Kicak noted that the USA Properties project Specific Plan was approved with carports. Chairman Caouette noted that in his opinion that the one-half of the plan which relates to USA Properties' project is not the same project which was approved. Noted that square footage of units are smaller, circulation and their building footprints are different. Noted that the vested right that they have is for the previously approved project. PCM 86-64 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 4-0 vote that the other one-half, being USA Property project, had no previous approval existing for this land plan. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, asked that the Planning Commission ask the applicant whether she would prefer an action or a continuance for this project, since there are several alternatives open to her. Carol Tanner asked what the legal ramifications of a denial and how these actions will affect USA Properties' prior approval. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, noted that it does not affect USA Properties' prior approval. The USA project still stands approved, until expires, unless extended. In response to Mrs. Tanner's question as to whether the project is denied or continued, Ivan Hopkins responded that if it is denied, then they have the ability to appeal to the City Council. If it is continued, there is nothing to appeal. Mrs. Tanner ^xpresced * iliin-ne-s t- co^ti^ue *he -1tem. PCM 86-65 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 4-0 vote to continue the P.C. Minutes 7-21-86 Page 13 Specific Plan 86-1/Conditional Use Permit 86-3 and Site & Architectural Review 86-6, for a 2-week period to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:20 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully Submitted by: JO tPH KICAK, Planning Director Approved by: CHAIRMAN, Planning Commission P.C. Minutes 7-21-86 Page 14