Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda: Study Session Item a: Report, discussion and direction regarding notification procedures for single-family architectural design review.7 STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: August 21, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services DirectoC�L,_- By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator, Lisa Flores, Senior Planner lir SUBJECT: REPORT, DISCUSSION, AND DIRECTION REGARDING NOTIFICA- TION PROCEDURES FOR SINGLE - FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Recommendation: Establish a Design Review Board with a process similar to that of the City- designated Homeowners' Associations SUMMARY At the May 15, 2012, City Council meeting, staff was directed to schedule a discussion on how neighbors could be notified of the design review of proposed new houses. The request was in response to a letter from a resident, and follows several earlier discussions on this topic. If notification to neighbors of proposed new houses is to be added to the City's Single - Family Architectural Design Review process, there are four options for consideration: 1) Notification after staff -level decision 2) Notification during staff -level review 3) Requirement for a pre- meeting with neighbors 4) Establishment of an Architectural Review Board or Hearing Officer If any of these options are selected, Planning Services will prepare a Text Amendment and Ordinance to add the necessary steps to the architectural design review process, and if necessary, will also present to the City Council any applicable fee adjustment proposals. BACKGROUND At the February 14, 2011, Special City Council meeting, the City Council discussed the process for design and development review of single - family homes. Comments were presented by representatives of some of the City- designated homeowners' associations, and by representatives of the development community. The City Council Notification Options for Design Review August 21, 2012 Page 2 of 5 directed staff to focus more attention on the issue of privacy by considering window placement and other second story features, and continued the discussion to the March 1, 2011, regular meeting, to have staff provide information on the topic of neighborhood notification. Copies of the February 14, 2011, and March 1, 2011 staff reports are attached. The following was included in the March 1, 2011 report: In the majority of cities, notification is typically only given on planning projects if there is an "event" to notice such as a community meeting or public hearing. Many cities provide notice of design review cases for single - family homes, and all of these processes include a meeting before a Design Review Board, the Planning Commission, or a Hearing Officer that hears these cases in a public hearing format. There are some cities, such as Rancho Palos Verdes for example, that require notice to neighbors for any design project, but, again, the vast majority of cases are heard by a Board. Certainly, all new homes or second story additions in these communities (the focus of the majority of design cases in Arcadia) are heard by a Board. It is important to realize that Arcadia is truly unique for an in -fill City in the number of "tear downs" and new homes we receive. For nearly every other City with design review for single - family homes, additions and front elevation changes dominate the agenda items of their Board or Commission. The fact that new, large homes are common in Arcadia provides a significant challenge for design review in that, as a staff member, you are not attempting to ensure that an addition is compatible with an existing home; rather, you are looking at a completely new home within an established neighborhood. Thus, the issues that are contested by neighbors are not often architectural issues; they are bulk and mass issues, and privacy issues. Planning staff has significant reservations about notifying neighbors of a subjective, staff -level process. The primary reason for these reservations is that comments taken from a neighbor on design will be subjective as well. Layering subjective comments upon staffs subjective comments is problematic. A neighbor may make comments on the design, but these would typically be made to Planning staff in over - the - counter meetings. To be clear, the issue is not notification itself; the Planning Staff is a strong supporter of neighborhood involvement in any process. However, Staff strongly believes that there is no "middle ground" when it comes to notification. If notification is to occur, the model of staff -only design review should be changed and the model currently utilized by the Home Owners Associations should be adopted City -wide. In this model, all new homes (or development over a certain threshold) should be sent to a Design Board, an Architectural Review Committee, the Planning Commission, or a hearing officer of some kind. Clearly, there are cost and timing issues with such a change. r f � 'Notification Options for Design Review August 21, 2012 Page 3 of 5 DISCUSSION Planning Services is receiving 80 to 90 design review submittals each year for new houses. Each submittal typically goes through three design iterations before being approved, and it takes about five weeks for each iteration to be reviewed for a total time of about four months for each design review case. Currently, there is no notification to any neighbor of a submittal or of the decision on a design review application unless the proposed design needs a zoning modification. In that case, the project is either reviewed by the adjacent neighbors for an Administrative Modification, or it goes through a public hearing (100 -foot radius notification) for a Modification before the Modification Committee or the Planning Commission. The following four options are presented for discussion of adding neighborhood notification to the design review process. Option No. 1 — Notification after staff -level decision The current design review process includes a five working -day appeal period, which only applies to the applicant and owner because they are the only persons notified of the decision on a design review. If they were to appeal a denial or condition of approval, the appeal would be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. No notification is specified for the public hearing. Therefore, the only public notice would be the agenda. The appeal process could be expanded to include notices to neighbors who could then come to City Hall to review the plans and decide whether, or not to appeal the decision. The current design review appeal fee is $210, and the applicant would need to provide additional copies of the plans for the public hearing. This option would probably result in most design reviews being appealed to the Planning Commission (and subsequently to the City Council) and additional planning staff would likely be needed to administer the lengthened design review process. This option is also not desirable because it precludes any type of meaningful neighbor input. The neighbor's review comes after the fact, and this does not provide true involvement. Option No. 2 — Notification during staff -level review Notification could be provided during the design review process. Specific times should be set for the neighbors to come to City Hall to review the plans, and comments should be required to be submitted in writing. This should occur early in the review process so that the neighbors' comments can be combined with staffs, and the applicant can address all of the comments in revising the plans for resubmittal. Staff would then review the revised submittal to determine if all of the comments have been adequately addressed. If not, the applicant would be notified of the comments and afforded an opportunity to revise the design a second time. Then, when a decision has been made on the design, notices would be sent to the applicant and owner, and the neighbors, and any of them could appeal the decision, which would then be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Again, this option would result in many design reviews Notification Options for Design Review August 21, 2012 Page 4 of 5 being appealed to the Planning Commission (and subsequently to the City Council) because the appeal fee is minimal, and many neighbors would appeal with the hope that the Planning Commission or City Council would reduce the size of the new house. As a result, additional planning staff would likely be needed to administer the lengthened design review process or the review times would be extended considerably. Option No 3 — Requirement for a pre - meeting with neighbors This option would require the applicant to notify and meet with the neighbors prior to submitting the design review application to the City. The applicant would need to include an affidavit in regards to having completed the pre- meeting requirement, and a notification form should be created so that the neighbors are given all of the information they should receive. Staff would then review the plans, and when a decision is made, notices would be sent to the applicant and owner, and the neighbors, and any of them could appeal the decision, which would then be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The hope is that by meeting with the neighbors before submitting the plans to the City, the applicant will address those neighbors' concerns. Nevertheless, this option would probably result in many design reviews being appealed to the Planning Commission (and subsequently to the City Council) and additional planning staff would likely be needed to administer the lengthened design review process. Option No 4 — Establishment of an Architectural Review Board or Hearing Officer This last option would completely revamp the City's design review process to be similar to that of the City- designated Homeowners' Associations where an Architectural Review Board (ARB) considers the proposed plans at noticed public hearings. This would relieve staff of performing the subjective review, and the ARB could be assisted by an independent, licensed architect. This option could significantly increase the costs of design review, which should be covered by an increased fee. And, the ARB(s) would be very busy, based on the current rate of single - family development. A hearing officer with architectural experience would be an alternative to an ARB. However, such a hearing officer would likely need to be compensated (whereas an ARB would be a volunteer board) which would have General Fund implications. Planning Services is a strong proponent of neighborhood involvement in any process. However, that involvement cannot be limited to notification; there must be a forum in which the neighbors can substantively participate and be heard by their fellow residents. If notification is to occur, the current staff -only design review process should be replaced. The process currently utilized by the five City- designated Homeowners' Associations should be implemented City -wide. This process would have all new homes and large additions presented to a Design Review Board. There will be significant cost and timing issues with such a change. Depending on the option the City Council selects, staff will prepare the appropriate adjustments and /or text amendment for approval at a later date. Notification Options for Design Review August 21, 2012 Page 5 of 5 Additional Considerations Regardless of the option that the City Council selects, if any, this discussion is a good opportunity to gain an understanding of whether the current interpretation and application of the design guidelines is consistent with the City Council's desires and expectations. In other words, in the City Council's view, are the new homes that are being approved compatible with the neighborhoods, and is design review meeting the City Council's goals? Some possible points of discussion are: • Mass and scale • Tree preservation • What is the definition of a "Neighborhood ?" • Development standards such as, setbacks, height, and floor- area -ratio (FAR) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council establish a Design Review Board with a process similar to that of the City- designated Homeowners' Associations in order to include neighbors in the design review process. Approved: ominic Lazza tt City Manager Attachments: March 1, 2011 Staff Report February 14, 2011 Staff Report with Attachments Current Development Standards for Single - Family Zones Flow Charts Depicting Design Review Process List of Typical Design Review Issues City -wide Design Guidelines - - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK - - ,t 9 Aup�wf IIPD STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: March 1, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: REPORT, DISCUSSION, AND DIRECTION REGARDING SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR SINGLE - FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW Recommendation: Provide Direction BACKGROUND At the February 14, 2011 City Council meeting, the Council discussed the City's process for design and development review of single- family homes. The Council also heard public comments from members of some of the City's Home Owners Associations, and representatives of the local development community. The Council voted to direct staff to focus more attention on the issue of privacy in the design review process. Specifically, the Council directed staff to take into consideration window placement and second story features as they may impact neighboring properties. While these issues are currently considered by Staff, the Council's direction provides Staff with more specific guidance in the review of proposals. In addition, the Council directed Staff to bring back information on the issue of neighborhood notification; specifically, notification of property owners adjacent to proposed new homes in areas outside HOA boundaries. This issue is the focus of this staff report, although other design review issues may be discussed at the study session. The staff report provided for the February 14 study session is attached to this report for further background. DISCUSSION The City's Development Services Department (DSD) has an active staff -level design review process which includes City -wide Design Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines were originally approved in 2006 and were updated in 2009. The DSD typically receives more than 60 applications per year for new homes and another 20 to 25 for additions. Design review in Arcadia for areas NOT in a HOA is a staff-level function, meaning that there is no public hearing held. Within the HOA areas, public hearings and neighbor notification are part of the process. The Council requested additional information on the issue of notification of neighbors for properties outside of HOA areas. Currently, notification is given to neighbors if a proposed new home or addition seeks a Modification or Variance from a development standard (e.g. reduced setback, height, accessory structure size, driveway width, etc.). If a property owner meets all of the City's development standards, the issue of design is strictly a staff -level function. The design review process typically takes from 4 -6 months and involves an average of three iterations of the plans. Because this is a subjective process, and the guidelines are "should" statements and not "shall" statements, there is no notification provided to neighbors of the staff's determination. In the majority of cities, notification is typically only given on planning projects if there is an "event" to notice such as a community meeting or public ,hearing. Many cities provide notice of design review cases for single - family homes, and all of these processes include a meeting before a Design Review Board, the Planning Commission, or a Hearing Officer that hears these cases in a public hearing format. There are some cities, such as Rancho Palos Verdes for example, that require notice to neighbors for any design project, but, again, the vast majority of cases are heard by a Board. Certainly, all new homes or second story additions,in these communities (the focus of the majority of design cases in Arcadia) are heard by a Board. It is important to realize that Arcadia is truly unique for an in -fill City in the num4er of "tear downs" and new homes we receive. For nearly every other City with design review for single - family homes, additions and front elevation changes dominate the agenda items of their Board or Commission. The fact that new, large homes are common in Arcadia provides a significant challenge for design review in that, as a staff member, you are not attempting to ensure that an addition is compatible with an existing home; rather, you are looking at a completely new home within an established neighborhood. Thus, the issues that are contested by neighbors are not often architectural issues; they are bulk and mass issues, and privacy issues. Planning staff has significant reservations about notifying neighbors of a subjective, staff -level process. The primary reason for these reservations is that comments taken from a neighbor on design will be subjective as well. Layering subjective comments upon staffs subjective comments is problematic. A neighbor may make comments on the design, but these would typically be made to Planning staff in over -the- counter meetings. To be clear, the issue is not notification itself; the Planning Staff is a strong supporter of neighborhood involvement in any process. However, Staff strongly believes that there is no "middle ground" when it comes to notification. If notification is to occur, the model of staff -only design review should be changed and the model currently utilized by the Home Owners Associations should be adopted City -wide. In this model, all new homes (or development over a certain threshold) should be sent to a Design Board, an Architectural Review Committee, the Planning Commission, or a hearing. officer of some kind. Clearly, there are cost and timing issues with such a change. Single Family Design Review and Development Standards March 1, 2011 — Page 2 If notification is to be pursued as part of the existing staff -level process, it could occur either at the beginning of the process (when an application is submitted), toward the end of the process (when the staff writes the letter of approval), or it could be a requirement of the design review process where the applicant notifies and meets with neighbors BEFORE an official submittal is accepted. All of these options have questions associated with them, and protocols would need to be established to guide the process in any case. Staff will be prepared at the study session to describe the pros and cons of any of these notification options. If the Council does wish to pursue one of these options, staff would like to bring back a suggested methodology for Council approval at a later date. The Council took the step at the February 14 study session to direct staff to be more aggressive in protecting the privacy of neighboring properties, especially in those cases of a new second story being built in a predominantly single -story area. Staff is already working this policy into review of new submittals. In addition, we could also bring back specific language to be inserted into our Design Guidelines that would more pointedly address the Council's direction on this matter. This, staff believes, would be more effective than a new notification process, unless the notification is tied to a hearing. RECOMMENDATION This report is provided at the request of the Council for discussion and direction. I APPROVED: Donald Penman, City Manager Attachment 1 — February 14 Staff Report on Single Family Design Review with attachments Single Family Design Review and Development Standards March 1, 2011 — Page 3 - - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK - - 6;_M, � '- it !':i:...: 4_"o DATE: February 14, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Council STAFF REPORT Development Services Department FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director, Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrates Lisa Flores, Senior Planner 4( a_- SUBJECT: REPORT, DISCUSSION, AND DIRECTION REGARDING SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Recommendation: Provide Direction BACKGROUND At the January 18, 2011 City Council meeting, the Council voted to hold a Special Meeting to discuss the City's process for design and development review of single - family homes. The City's Development Services Department (DSD) has an active staff - level design review process which includes City -wide Design Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines were originally approved in 2006 and were updated in 2009. In addition to Design Review, the City also has development standards applicable to all residential zones in terms of setbacks, height, lot coverage, encroachment plane, and other such standards. Attached to this report for Council consideration are several pages that describe the City's single - family development regulatory structure and process. DISCUSSION The City of Arcadia is known as the "Community of Homes" and about 65% of all lots in the City are developed with a single - family home. The City has beautiful residential neighborhoods, a top -rated School District, and excellent City services. In addition, there are five Homeowners' Associations (HOAs) in Arcadia that have been established for decades and that provide a separate review of new construction in their specific areas. The combination of these factors has contributed greatly toward keeping property values very high in Arcadia, even through the recession of the past several years. The issue of design and development of new single - family homes is a very important one for Arcadians. Largely due to the school system and high property values, the development pattern in Arcadia in recent years has been to view smaller, decades -old homes as "tear downs" and to replace them with larger new homes. Arcadia's larger- than - average lot sizes thus tend to lead toward larger homes. Inevitably, a larger new home in an established neighborhood can lead to issues of compatibility. Like most cities, Arcadia has a two- pronged approach to reviewing new homes and additions: development standards and design guidelines. The development standards in the zoning code that the City has can be referred to as the "shall" statements. To deviate from these standards requires a Modification and a formal approval. The second category is the Design Guidelines... which can be described as "should" statements. These are interpretive and are administered on a case -by -case basis. In utilizing these "shall" and "should" statements, the City staff strives to find the balance that the City Council expects in protecting neighborhood welfare while at the same time preserving property rights. The City's development standards (summarized in Attachment 1) include the typical range of zoning restrictions such as setbacks, building height, lot coverage, encroachment plane, etc. The City does not have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement for single - family homes. This issue has been discussed by the Council in the past and the Council has elected to leave this regulation out of the City's "toolbox" of zoning standards. The remainder of the City's single - family development standards are similar to those utilized by neighboring cities. As mentioned above, Single - Family Design Review was adopted in 2006. In 2009, these standards were updated and enhanced. The DSD typically receives more than 60 applications per year for new homes and another 20 to 25 for additions. Design review for single - family homes represents approximately 25% percent of all the applications processed by Planning staff. Typically, the market of buyers coming into the City want a new home and tend to seek the maximum within our development standards. A typical design review process goes through at least three iterations of plans to arrive at a design that is acceptable to the staff. Often, these iterations lead to more compatible materials, changes that reduce bulk and mass, and simplification of architectural features. Design review in Arcadia for areas NOT in a HOA is a staff -level function, meaning that there is no public hearing held. Within the HOA areas, public hearings and neighbor notification are part of the process. Please see Attachment 2 for flow charts of the processes for both types of design reviews. Staff has the tools necessary to conduct a thorough review of single - family homes, and is familiar with additional types of zoning regulations. The question is whether the Council wishes the process to be changed in some way or if the Council wishes further study or modification of any development standards or design guidelines. If this is the case, staff can bring back additional details on any such item. If the Council wishes the design guidelines to be interpreted in a different manner, this can be discussed as well. Single Family Design Review and Development Standards February 14, 2011 — Page 2 RECOMMENDATION This report is provided at the request of the Council for discussion and direction. APPROVED: Donald Penman, City Manager Attachment 1 — Current Development Standards for Single - Family zones Attachment 2 — Flow Charts depicting Design Review process Attachment 3 — List of typical Design Review issues Attachment 4 — City -wide Design Guidelines Single Family Design Review and Development Standards February 14, 2011 — Page 3 i N N N N to A r- N M � 8� O w tND N In M a In V1 I� GN II 11 11 11 II 11 II 11 N Ln J � m m m m m m m M Ln M O U. 3 3 ; 3 3 3 3 3 d o v in d o a n n n % n v n �EI o t cp o c � o o o ,c, o C 11 o m O C .d Co �a � Co yN� CZ y+ p6 r 'a r N 'o r N p3 r N N N N N N CM IV 0/ d d d N N- N� N N N N N N N N N N N � N N in in m m o o C o v a� N N N N w L L p L N L. N N N N m p IV in m m m d d N w d N N w al N N d m N N an d N N w d N N d d �:2 N N w a -a'0 N N H N U U U U U V U V U V U U U 1Up M w U w Dw1 fVp W w w 041 w v ro w w w w w DW1 a c c 0 0 c c 0 0 c c O O c c O O c c p 0 c c 0 0 c c O O c c O O 0 in Ln In In In In N e 1 N N up N N a �gr-4 �4�np j� E O N 0 ly N O N N rI '' ri N 'p-1 V N N N v N C N `y N N N .� GO R Ol O Io W M C c a_ a� a_ C a =T C 5. a Y Op L OD OD 00 L TA L OD �00 L �OG CM $ v o � Q L P w Q Dpi d a a OR N `! n NQ �D a m« 00 a �0 w 1�.+ OD r 00 r C G M m m M m M M M OZi 2 " a O w o7! O in - !Z O w OZ 9 !, O `k D, O `k !" O Ln i!1 N iA N N I N N M N M M M M E G O e+1 O In N 8 7 E q O x M %D I O x 14 x -4 x r1l x en x n n $ 14 g g G n n 14 14 O J _C of •C 8 p g 25 4 8 +or ^ p ryry� N In N O NJ .-1 �-i rl L U_ x 3 � c E o c v � d C 0 C .P OD N F N L TK ID > a R a °o U LL fp c 1� Tn 4) N v m w � t � � o �� c 0 E C V V L � r r Attachment 1 Attachment 2 u c v c w c CU m m c 3 0VI Q c Q LA C L a O y u m m a m rn o 0 . Ol ai CL C 00 C c L O m L 'A oA N m z v y E> 0 Y 3 v u ar c °0 v 0 c Y '� E 3 z 3 0 y E m z c 0 c ° Q E° Q CA V H N c 0 c 0 ° w p` °u"__m E b a O M � aD, u Ln a u c CLa > 0 3 0 4� 0 m o Y E L> . a/ m Ln > W m ai > CL 0 ` o N L 0 an d y 0 U al - m m E c c •> O .0 = •C v Y ro am+ aj aL+ d O 0 > ai cr c c m m ►' Q y w vi L E L 0 L U 00 c O IA C " m of L �"� a r+ O N O N L L N ` O 0 'fl a 0 � r C V V= c +L•' c m � m.3 °C ¢ o Y a L u o> •� d r N « O m= v co Q 'u G 3 c =a =ca �m LL. a •- �•—E � to w Z ar Q L O LL v C VI Oi vvf C y L .a Y C m m C o a, ca a 4' E a CL v a 'i v M u 0o w a c_ M m m O m OY 3 $ Ol o a M a 'tea a s m' C o u O ra y cl: N a E c � ho 0 031 3 L. IL of u O m M c m M 0 E v E m N N U Y m u u a w ma a u Attachment 2 The City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines state the following Objectives and Issues: Objectives • Provide guidance for the orderly development of the City and promote high - quality development. • Allow diversity of style while promoting the positive design characteristics existing throughout the City. • Encourage excellence in architectural design that: • Enhances the visual environment and character of the community; • Preserves and protects property values; • Is sensitive to both the site and its surroundings; and • Has been carefully considered and conveys a sense of balance, integrity, and character. Issues The following are the primary design and development issues that are important to the community relating to new single - family development: • Mass and scale: Inappropriate massing and scale is a key issue as large, two -story homes are replacing smaller single -story homes throughout the City. • Front entry: Excessively tall or flat entry porches can have a towering or monumental appearance that is inappropriate for most Arcadia neighborhoods. • Garages: Street - facing garages tend to be uninviting and have the potential to dominate the front elevation of a house. • Architectural style and design: Many new homes lack a coherent architectural style, attempt to combine too many different styles, or have a style that is incompatible with the surrounding homes. • Additions and accessory buildings: Additions, as opposed to new homes, have their own set of design challenges. Poorly designed additions and accessory buildings can ruin the character of an existing home. • Colors and materials: The use of bright or strong paint colors and /or unnatural building materials can result in a house that looks out -of -place in a more traditional neighborhood setting. • Landform and tree preservation: Careless removal of mature trees and severe grading of hillside properties shows little regard for a site's natural attributes and degrades neighborhood character. Attachment 3 < ,. � .r.. .. y . . �� � t � «`: . w. � . ... \� . > \\ % \� /mow \� \ ) �} �\ h d fi d bG In N Q ti CS d h N ti �L bG a O U N U 4-i N d' O U N N U U a3 Id M CO) M N N N �O N bn M o cd Cr) Ln to o dpr�cx �s �nWC�w�l �, L, �CL1U�1 C7 Q�t1U�iWwC7x Q QL�U Q O U N U 4-i N d' O U N N U U a3 Id / % % / \ .\ � Q \ % % 7 � � � 2 � « / # >1 r.§ En C ° : jo ° § E & o f \ k '\ ƒ § M'\ � ._ § 3 ® m \ q En § o q ƒ \ cn�� ° / o ) ( 2 � / a o � • ct ) 2 o __ � — k ° c En � � � p cw'\� ± / — a / � 0 � � g / � m � G \ Q � M I N bq d Q o� N �L i bq +U' to w cl O > ^" O Cd cz � O � � U � •� � U O .� U bA � U O O U cC cz Imo' � � � �, '� � '� �, U � � ~ a y •� � U � O :b p 3 y O En -b y O bA N GU 3 N O O O > bA U 'd cd ..o N � H Q U 4-, U �Y `G G U C1: M N N U U r-� ..d s. I ON, c bC Q O .fi N N O a b�4 � �n .� o �, � U ti w � U O � U p � Q � N N h •� U U y C O N O `off y O N o cz � 0 3 En In U U ° y O° 4 Q• U s on -d 4.1 Z ct ct Ln ° m 'ion ? q � cn cn E Ln rA N o ere Ln o zs ens ct °�•� �� w C7 d���3 d °� U° ..ate { % % / / { Q / Q � { � : \ \ � \ 2 7 'ƒ � k � J � � � \ « / \ W \ 2 ? as \ � � S � k c � � 2 � § t / a § � \ @ / % ƒ \ � � © U � V c// \ 2 7 'ƒ � k � J � � � \ « / \ W o � — a / \ � ? # � 0 ƒ G q ) \ � w as \ � k c o � 2 � § t � \ CZ6) � U W V c// c u � ku/ � � 4 o � — a / \ � ? # � 0 ƒ G q ) \ � w o; be y q to ti G e.i by ci; o ry eo fi G U � O C S� N a °q d N U v � � ti U o 0 N G O G G N O U fi Z G � G G O � � G o U � ng � O C." U ccz w O .0 O U •- O y = Q - O z r. O O ,-O 'C3 V �, = CA bUO N fti ¢ cOH > O ct cz Ln 44 ell o x o u'l ar cct QCA En ct �, o � o •� bn �, �. � o � � � o � o -� v Ln i , C ,Z) r- a� a U w U O U x N N U U O { / .\ 3 ./ { Q � / { R \ w � a � � 2 \ c •E §7\ ©% � � \ \ e 2 «§ � � o [ / � � # $ 2~ ® v \� / f � k =) p / ƒ / G m k I » \ k k � \ # / ƒ k � § \ § § y : 3 k � k / 44 � § % § / •� \ •4 § 2 . � � ƒa /z t � � \ u � t Q § § « \/A 5 \/ » _ /k� o oc k C —a / \ u � � 7 � ¥ q ) \ � M C bG In d q bG 5 s %) U ti O � � O ,y ti Q Q 1 C ti C ti � •U � S ti O � ti U 4-a Q, cl' O M N N U c• .a O Ld O ' �bA O ' ° a� 3 o a� 3 3 3 .� Cd u r an > a� a � � � � � � . � • O gyp., � � E'er +•� � � > O � � s., N U � O c�3 to p y L O �' >' O N �' 0 O O a� y 'C O CA O "d >, by p �bA O y O N t1, N OV O w cat p N 'G y p c O A v N +� � p 4, v V O N O N 'C 71 O O O p O � to � V) cz .� O • •0 � op En °' 4" N o ° a. t2 to 0 °o cz „ o � o 0 tA a� .� w U 4-a Q, cl' O M N N U c• .a O { / / / { / \ / � : _ \ � R e 3 a 41 \ R k k k E« u= \ ƒk %/ � -� }�2ta §SSE/ 2 2 \ e \Ek� 2a °$ � 2 \ ( ) •_ ° f 7 a £ ± 2 a � t � ƒ \ � k _ 2 @ _ � ( �q6) \ � qk � 7 » \ƒ 2 = $ to � y 2k �ƒ § \ \ � ƒ/ u � : u q » � � � \ � m � G % \ 71 S v N be btj h q a C v a U � 'Ln Qno a � o 0 i 7 u V1 ctl cz � O oA O Ln rA O fl C cd � cd r CZ cd .fl .D v U C a o O � a� oA .o O N .0 C O .O a� -o O U N pp u 3 r ' r o �w o O� o � o N 3 U � O U CJ �, c y � U O � U � yy U O � O k--' U a� U � � O bA � a� cz 42 U � � O C U C�3 U � � O o� o � � U ..O N • � � � O bA � � Q bn 0- u cd 0 3 0 Lr W oA o , c3 .� 7 tb `ti b0 pq N 00 q m o U o b° -Z � w N vi cG. Ln o Ln o .z' w o y U � 'Ln Qno a � o 0 i 7 u V1 ctl cz � O oA O Ln rA O fl C cd � cd r CZ cd .fl .D v U C a o O � a� oA .o O N .0 C O .O a� -o O U N pp u 3 r ' r o �w o O� o � o N 3 U � O U CJ �, c y � U O � U � yy U O � O k--' U a� U � � O bA � a� cz 42 U � � O C U C�3 U � � O o� o � � U ..O N • � � � O bA � � Q bn 0- u cd 0 3 0 Lr W oA 4-, N o` O a� N f�l U • o , c3 .� 7 tb En E N vi cG. o o > � cn � .> U M as � N En O" O cd O 7� cC Q U rA rA �E 0 .C� � � i��•i C"" CCU R3 .D 4-, N o` O a� N f�l U • { 2 % .� 2 ./ / Q � % { k w \ \ 2 # 5 ƒ � / \ � .\ \ \/ / E r '\ ƒ � \ \ \ � \ » ƒ� � \ � 5 � •( ) % \ k ( 6� 0 / 2 .\ § \ $ � y � \ t ¥\k k/ƒ « / # \�$ ƒ / c \ \ k E 4 •3 \\# / � \ 5 ®(ƒ qk \q § \ ( ( -� � 7 � # � } / � ° ® ƒ % �7\ � // # \ 232 o \ }\ 4\ /\ \ � B� \ § \ � # � \ \ ( .B y\ \ y \ � � � � ® � \) m % � § / � / § � ± � « \/ .2 •b � � 2 Qw§% o� � $ u q u � � � m � m q j \ � S bq q d �r O by a O O za cc bA N N sue, U p cd cd N �-o• CC h ti �0 Q N V ti U N d h y � O O � a h C � O N `ti h � O � Q U V„ �n 9 v, c� bA v� s 1 �°+ C cd v u 0 p U � U U c's N O C C3 ct E- 73 cOa o-d0� ° U "C -0 U O 0 N O � U U U U U U r � O _ M bA p � bA O U p U y,0 p � 0 s0. i-r Ct th M bA O •� � N � t�, N cl cz o ��.cz U N ti O R O O O O N N h O p � o, � � O c o LZ N w U y G U U N ^J U .r Q U N bq h N a �i h Z) a m bq rd .l AM h� c� vi vi •• cz cd U ° — ^O V) Q O O cC a3 'C O O t '� u cd O bn c�3 p cd CZ aj rUil v "O • - U cn U ^C3 U y c� cn cd Ln N y ci o c' o ��'w Z En -ors CZ C13 V) CZ cn rn cd ct U mu ct En rS. r d 3 �s ab Ub C74. U V) m m —. N M vi U 4-a N C, O N �i M N r' U U C3 r+ 'G Yr n `J a N ? y � Z "z O Z a o a ° a a a a m 'L bq v Q N a �t c� b{, a d .ti h O � O � C y � O � o b d ti Ci O ti h o; v 'ZO)' O by b4 y � Q o� 'a w Q eo °' v W o a, w U v N G U c� N N r r u c� C� .v q a v ti bG cn - o -o >, c� U 'L3 73 O > by ' > c'- °' to +�+ 'o O cd tb A. to ��. t 3 •r by CZ to CW b +' U «3 'o O,� Ij ti b4 � U " z cn a� W 0 O fs" Ln � O � O O U y -o 0 U 0 N cz a� tb 'O N c o � cn cC E- 0 rA rA rA a. O 0 0 Q 3 0 N � b b 'S o ° a� oU ,� b U O c ¢' bn 7:) , O � O C O � � b w � 3 MR Cd G u b � y a; 3 � ,� .� b N �. th • � cOC N cz crS �. En 03 En Vi O tt • Q •� V i-.i �. �i . FA O O CA t, � y bA N >1 En In uN3� "o cn ca Ln 4. > N O¢ O G .o u M CA 'C O Z .O Ln cn � 1'. = = °? 0.) ° � v� � v. 'o d —:z o .o 3 4, 0 o O .14. O, C', cd ^O N .O U O w o cI.. Ln ?? Cd U En - o -o >, c� U 'L3 73 O > by ' > c'- °' to +�+ 'o O cd tb A. to ��. t 3 •r by CZ to CW b +' U «3 'o O,� Ij ti b4 � U " z cn a� W 0 O fs" Ln � O � O O U y -o 0 U 0 N cz a� tb 'O N c o � cn cC E- 0 rA rA rA a. O 0 0 Q 3 0 N � b b 'S o ° a� oU ,� b U O c ¢' bn 7:) , O � O C O � � b w � 3 MR 11C 11C > a U w o\ O N N C`7 U m G u � y a; u � ,� .� b N �. N • � cOC N cz crS En Vi O tt • Q •� V i-.i �. �i . FA O O t, � y bA N >1 En In uN3� ca N O¢ O G .j O M CA 'C O Z .O � 1'. = = °? 0.) ° � v� � v. 'o d —:z o .o 3 4, 0 o O .14. O, C', °W' w cI.. Ln Cd U 'o 11C 11C > a U w o\ O N N C`7 U m { / / / .� \ / / j % § \ � MR u s \ � t » 3 @ \ \ • 3\zi E » � ® . • o _� \ = m � « / � \ ( � / � � �•\ - (� # � ll� o � � ƒ \ 2 .± % � u � � 7 � G � 0 u a .\ y m § % w .m % / / & / / / \ \ � _ 5 ƒ \ \ \ b � Rƒ 2± �» � ) k\ \ \ w M§/ � § 6 § t � \ � \ 2 § � \/\ � � 3 y t = 8 2 7 29bE £ e � � «\ � s7/ m � \ 5 a ®�« k2� •- � � t to ƒ \� t\ % 5 § \ ? E ) � �2 E % 3 § •E ƒ § \ / •� # Vie« R•�� ƒ k� » § \ (\ / § � \ � � § ƒ § \ � k \ � \\ 2�\ � � k ? � � A u � : u q u m � � � \ � m � G \ 5 � S V q V V V W 5 cz 0 0 " =S o� �Cd O � p rA cCS O G = + V3 O 4r U b z. 00 �. U 44 n U--I .fl L7� �nw.0 Ln cz ci tb tb al O CZ Ct al •-fl w� p O cet v U a' y�� U �, U w s, s. U rA :O O S� U p ;� G u Z7 O y 4G rA cz U U C O m UO U p .fl N TJ O O N cn th O ° a$ z7° r- U U ^p En U U wy, Q) O cd v cCS O `C U = CZ th En c"IZIC U O O Ln cUC O Ln 4� v t✓ cz u cz � � cz '� r "� C u cz rA C U ✓ 7•- U cz ° OU U N cz U cz O O c� N x� U s: dV��� 00 a, U wy, Q) O cz '� r "� C u ° OU U N cz U cz N L�cll CIS .0 U C •'4 ,' t~ cC cd E 4r O O U by ', U s, O O T3 U O rA OrA y O b rn cc Ln 'w � � � cn by • � � U a+ �.+ � � � Q .b ,rte � 'L2 O U O cn y cn y s0, U cs cn U U CZ CIS ;.. O O y O 'LS U U cn t~ O U U th c� q a .v a GL d tG 5 a y � � O a � o b O p ct d O 'CIS v, � � � � v' O p � � "C • � O cd � U� U cd 3 U O ^C L L7 � cUC C1," v' + C: L, O EA 03 � U bA U U � O � U s•, U � �, �.. .--.� V) bA as cd cz UO '.�. Q 00 vi U O tz .� rA cd U p vUi O C) bA ct 3 cz vi CIS En cz tD to cz as U o to c ti h d fi zz bo � O Q � ti O O a •� o O O �y N � 0 c \10 o O N U w 4-+ U c a� c� C'J U r s.. o� c N Q ti bq fi O ti � ILI %) v C 'v C G a o � o N � p to cn C6 cd U En th cC 'L3 to y" vUi cz bA cC • ., V cn o CL to �O a: U c� th o —,4 V ,� UO i U vUi cz 00 cd M ct N M + bA W cz O (`J � U N Q+ U 4.i U c a M N N U M { / / / c / �\ * \ \ � a \ � � k � S 27 $ § _ ƒ � %\k E \ k $« / \ ƒ/ , \/ \ � \ q ƒ\ § 2 / \ % _ � 2 { _ E _ 77� \ � � ƒ/% e § @ / 22/\ / �\� \ § \ 2 § 2 § 5w�« ƒkk % \ \ 2 m � •/ � t o � \ \ $ ) § 2 \ a R ° � \ \\ \�« ƒ •\ � ƒ /k 7 * o ® ®% ± � \§ 5 # ( o k 5 2 2 _ •� � = S t� \ƒ \ \ a « ��± \ � % y •_ \ 4 \ •t +_ \ u/ ± t � m % m \ � m q \ / � m bo c� Q x rA Ln cc M a Q¢ o o Q c bb o •� I� ^� •� L L % r •�- f^ 'b J .0 C+ v m r r U ¢ O U 'LS U �- C: cC CZ U r ^'" U o+.. �. °�' cn tb c o a oQ o a� o U o 3 �% o NC7 QQ U W czC7 ° cC U ° 3 non ° M ct �. ct 03 o o ct L. _ O ''..' b U� b U • i. w O r U U u O- ct En 1 . 'R w U tb O CM a °"g.-' oon o v ° ct �.� o. =t to to o °�' ' x ° a u' a V) Ha�U° a�En �� Q oc q bG a cd Q 4 Cd -4 O an o 0 a o tD gip• bD to s 4 bn > a� O ,b 4- U a� o ° cl °� � �,• own � °' `" 0 3 � � o v �•� Ln CIA 0 0 cn a� o cn o o a° •J fw 0 c 3 a is v w o o'o � U 4, �. nz� tD to En ¢ to cn r CIS rn by 0 OV r. O N 3 > cd U CZ 'd En En vi Lt 4ti bA O En t • Q ¢" N Q "C '° cad O y Q > 3 cz U O 0 >, Lei � bA ° iii �� -a � � � bA �" 'mod cd U •� �, _ r-I .. cn �, O 0 _ :ty tw. ..- U y ..b b U Q N ti U � � U N v Q �c 2 c >' crO O � UO ° cr �, U rA a) � U N cl � � O ' O � Q O � 0 u. d a) O bA a) Q w M 0 O O O 03 IN U ° k ..U. a) O O O U • O O t�, O U p U � U "r cli O C3 bA 0 a� 0 x a, a) cz a) • U Q a� ON U G� iJ U a, a, G U tai N a) V O Q O R s" U p y0j U U � � � O 0 �' • �, m cd O 3 ° Q ° 0 '� ccs ice", ° U � ,—; �° 'p � , >y U b C° � bA O czs a, -o o' `� --„ 3 a 3 o U ,° c cn C3 a) Ccz L: cC . Z U U U b 'fir U U O U U O 'd c U by by O cz CFJ U ct CZ cn u r. :b U iC3 53� U G 3 cC L7 N It N U cz O N O O U u O~ O u ct c -0 U u O O ° U Qj Q U , 0 p y �' N> U ✓, chi 'i �O N y 'U O U 0 O O O 03 IN U ° k ..U. a) O O O U • O O t�, O U p U � U "r cli O C3 bA 0 a� 0 x a, a) cz a) • U Q a� ON U G� iJ U a, a, G U tai N a) Do o 3 ° Q •U ice", CCS b Q � ,—; �° 'p � , >y O� � 3 a o o U ,° Ln ° CFJ CZ cn u r. :b �~ O U y cn U ° U Qj Q ° , 0 p y N> U 'i _ y 'U O U aa)i C,3 � � W Z C 0 O O O 03 IN U ° k ..U. a) O O O U • O O t�, O U p U � U "r cli O C3 bA 0 a� 0 x a, a) cz a) • U Q a� ON U G� iJ U a, a, G U tai N a) h N v �N x q ti n 5 C o 3 o o —Cd o o cz U 6 U �, �� O 6 y > .. v, cz u U '' y o .'" cn 4r cd cd r ,O •d O w U ° U o O U N �] O cd rn 3 cC U U - U s. 4r O O N N p•+ U 4-, U C` V O v: N �G M .-r CV N J ° CG 'G W" I o> Q ti Q bq cn bA b 0 0 on 0 0 U 'CS U U ct U a� o C � 0 U o GA � 0 3 0 k3oa� O O U U bA C U cC A4`;WW cz '0 3 cz O N O � .� CO � O cz cd �. U p � � O � O '� :1 „O � a� o � � ; 0..i 0 U C r= �; � � • � �, •� O 'C3 U C."3� �, W O- CA U p3 3 C U C's o Lt a) w �� a; � aj o U cz" o 3 w U 4. Cc, .r +p 'C7 O °a O U O+ s d V, U u, U .cc) tb O vpi u p O O o O s r O QU v U v p U O O cC ct N v -C T1 V, N U U O cz O O U O sU• v U O U a� an U U r U m p 4 p LZ N v � cz -. ' � � U •� � .fir � bq C1. � S-. . �` CA s-+ � � U X0."4" U cd Cl rA a3 v �^ .c N U U O E w pq .� C, ^. .Q O 03 � = • " p «t f—" �, O ' n (;j bA — U :5 u y ct cat p cn cz U c� �' N p O �" O COC T) rvi O� .O. O iUr ice. C crS O O Q. 4 U 0 c� cn bA b 0 0 on 0 0 U 'CS U U ct U a� o C � 0 U o GA � 0 3 0 k3oa� O O U U bA C U cC A4`;WW '0 3 bA o � .� CO � U O cd �. U p -= C O 0 4.. O o •� :1 „O � a� o 0 U C r= U O ,- O 'C3 U C."3� W O- U C's o Lt aj Ln o 3 w °a d , v .n 4 V, U u, U .cc) cn bA b 0 0 on 0 0 U 'CS U U ct U a� o C � 0 U o GA � 0 3 0 k3oa� O O U U bA C U cC A4`;WW � O "� Cd U cz 0 10 Ulm o WW�GC9G�C7 °L7 maxis O bA o � .� CO � U O cd �. U p -= C O 0 0 o •� :1 „O � a� o 0 U C r= U O ,- O 'C3 U C."3� W O- � O "� Cd U cz 0 10 Ulm o WW�GC9G�C7 °L7 maxis G C bq o, q a i N bq re bA U � � O O en � 0 b�A y�j U CQ � ca a� 0 V1 cd U 'b O o 'b C �10 Oc O N U a J U U Vr 7t O V] N ly, M N N U U G :C r_ 'O w � o 03 y O "O U N O ••O on U "Cl �n p cz O O cn O CA •� 'C bOA En p �O app O ul o un cn�ea>,�o L) CCi ► p a� tc C� Vn 6 cl 11-3 -0 Z V) z (A U �n a� 0 V1 cd U 'b O o 'b C �10 Oc O N U a J U U Vr 7t O V] N ly, M N N U U G :C r_ 'O N N d q Q ti a N N 'TJ CA N U U 'C3 U r-+ L." N N U a� a� a4 a� 3 0 0 all x a� a� 3 0 Wd O N '- CC v a U U V O CA U C4 N C' d U U r v N y J bq d q c b S �0 0 O c� N Gl, U 4a: w N O U N N U U r r "d J