HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - PH-2 - Review of Planning Application PA-11-22 - 1/17/2012CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2012
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-11-22 AT 2775 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST
DATE: JANUARY 5, 2012
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PRESENTATION BY: WENDY SHIH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: WENDY SHIH (714) 754-5136
WENDY.SHIH@COSTAMESACA.GOV
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide feedback on the revised proposal which will be processed at a staff level.
(The project has been revised to comply with Code requirements and is therefore being
processed at a staff level.)
BACKGROUND:
On October 10, 2011, by a vote of 5 to 0, Planning Commission approved Planning
Application PA-11-22 for a new community building for the residents of Villa Venetia and
Pine Brook Village apartments. On October 17, 2011, Council Member Wendy Leece filed
a request for City Council review of the project on behalf of the residents from the
surrounding neighborhood.
The review request was continued from the November 1, 2011 and December 6, 2011
City Council meetings. During the November Council meeting, residents in the
surrounding neighborhood spoke in opposition to the project, citing concerns with vehicle
traffic and queueing for the proposed underground garage and at the existing southerly
entrance on Golf Course Drive, building height variance, noncompliance with Residential
Design Guidelines, and the quality of the view from Golf Course Drive due to removal of
part of the lake. The Council continued the item to the December meeting to allow the
applicant time to work with staff and residents to address the concerns. The Council then
continued the item to their meeting of January 17, 2012, per the applicant's request to
allow him additional time to evaluate the project.
The background information is included in the November 1, 2011 Council Agenda Report,
which is attached for reference (Attachment 1). The video of the public hearing can be
viewed on the City's Web page.
ANALYSIS
Revised Project
The original request, which included a variance from building height requirements and was
approved by the Planning Commission, has been withdrawn. The proposed original
project has been revised to achieve the following objectives:
• Comply with Code requirements.
Address most of the concerns expressed by the community.
Detailed plans are pending at this time and are expected to be submitted to the City
Council prior to the hearing. Please refer to Table A with regards to the Code
requirements for the revised proposal.
EM
TABLE A
PLANNING ZONING REVIEW SUMMARY
Location: 2775 Mesa Verde Drive East
Planning Application: Revised Proposal
Request: Construct a new community building serving tenants of both Villa Venetia and Pine Brook
Village apartments.
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
SURROUNDING PROPERTY:
Zone:
R3
North:
R1 (SFR) and C1 (commercial)
General Plan: _ High
Density Residential
South:
PI (Tanager Park); R1 (SFR); R3 (multi -family)
Lot Dimensions: _
Irregular
_
East:
PDR-Mb multi-famil
Lot Area:
20 acres
West:
R1 SFR
Existing Development:
468-unit apartment complex.
Development Standard
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON
City Re uirement
Proposed/Provided
Lot Size:
12,000 SF
20 acres 844,733 SF
Lot Width:
100 FT
Approx. 620 FT
Density:
1 unit/2,178 SF
1 unit/1,805 SF
O en Space includes landscaped areas, walkways, pool, tennis court, and fake :
Open Space
40% min. required
40% 340,269 SF proposed
43% 366,128 SF existin
Building Height: 2 stories/ 27 FT 2 stories/ 27 FT
Building Setback Golf Course Drive):
10 FT min.
25 FT — 32 FT
2" to 15 floor ratio :
80% max.
80%
Building Separation:
10 FT min.
31 FT min,
--
Parking:
Covered
471
633
Open
255
164
TOTAL
726
797
CEQA Status Exempt- Class 3
Final Action Pianninq Commission
1 Existing density and parking approved under Zone Exception Permit ZE-114-69 for a residential project
containing both Villa Venetia (subject property) and Pine Brook Village apartments (across Golf Course
Drive to the east). The new community building does not trigger additional parking requirements.
2 Residential Design Guidelines (second floor area calculation includes "open volume" area).
6
Table B lists some concerns expressed by the community and recent revisions to the project to
address the concerns.
TABLE B
PROJECT REVISIONS
Residents Concerns Revised Project
Vehicle traffic and queueing problems may be created by Underground parking garage is eliminated.
the proposed underground parking garage.
The building height variance is an issue of concern. Community building height is reduced from 3
stories/44 feet to 2 stories/27 feet per Code.
The building mass/noncompliance with Residential Design Community building is modified to comply with 80
Guidelines is an issue of concern. percent second -to -first Floor ratio per the Residential
Design Guidelines.
Quality landscaping and water features should be Enhanced landscaping and water feature along Golf
incorporated along Golf Course Drive. Course Drive is proposed.
Parking should be provided for loadinglunloading and Two parking stalls will be provided for
service vehicles. loading/unloading of service vehicles only.
Vehicle queueing at the existing southerly entrance on A new right turn lane into the complex will be
Golf Course Drive is an issue. constructed at the southerly entrance.
The Villa Venetia development contains an approximately two -acre lake visible from Golf Course
Drive and additional waterways. The applicant wishes to fill in a portion of the lake to create
recreational amenities: a two-story community building, sundeck, and pool area for their
residents. The outdoor "amenity courtyard" containing the swimming pool satisfies the open
space requirement for the project in the same manner as the manmade lake because the Zoning
Code does not make distinctions between a pool area and an artificial lake. The original
development approval in 1970 also did not include a condition of approval requiring that the
manmade lake be maintained in perpetuity.
Processing of Code -Compliant Projects
The Zoning Code authorizes the Development Services Director (including Planning staff) to act
on and grant approvals of projects which are compliant with Code requirements. In the case
of the proposed new construction in a residential zone, discretionary review is not required by
the Planning Commission or City Council because the proposal does not involve:
• Any deviations from Code requirements (i.e. variances, minor modifications,
administrative adjustments, etc.)
• Any deviations from the Residential Design Guidelines.
Since the proposed revisions eliminate the requirement for a variance and deviation from
Residential Design Guidelines, the project could now be approved at staff level; no discretionary
review is required.
4
The original application has been withdrawn and was previously scheduled to be considered at
the January 17 application
Council meeting. Although a public meeting is no longer required for the
revised proposal, the applicant has offered to make a formal presentation to review the project
revisions.
ALTERNATIVES
Provide feedback/input to staff regardinq the revised proposal. Staff will serve as the
decision maker on the revised project and take into consideration comments received from
the community and City Council.
2. Provide direction to staff to refer the final decision on the project to the City Council.
Although the revised proposal would be code compliant and therefore considered at a staff
level, Council may direct staff to refer the application to the City Council for final action.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney's Office has confirmed that the Zoning Code authorizes staff to be the
decision making authority on the revised proposal as a code -compliant project. As a ministerial
decision, the review of the project is limited to compliance with code requirements (i.e. building
height, setbacks, open space, etc.).
CONCLUSION
The original proposed project, including the building height variance request, has been
withdrawn. A revised proposal has been developed to comply with Code requirements and
address most of the concerns expressed by the community.
- kAi�
WEfqDY SHIH
Associate Plann r
DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer
Assistant Chief Executive Officer
0�6A:aft__
KHANH NGUYEN
Interim Developmebt Servic s Director
City Attorney
Interim Development Services Director
Interim Public Services Director
Transportation Services Manager
City Engineer
City Clerk
Staff (4)
File (2)
Gary Polodna
Peak West Development LLC.
5347 South Valentia Way, Ste. 240
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
5
UDR Villa Venetia Apartments LP
1745 Shea Center Dr., Ste. 200
Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Agenda Report for November 1, 2011
2. Location Map
3. Original Proposed Plans Under PA-11-22
File: CC011712PA1122 I Date:010612 1 Time: 2:30 pm
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2011 ITEM NUMBER:
ATTACHMENT 1
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-11-22:
DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FROM MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES AND
BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR A NEW COMMUNITY BUILDING AT 2775
MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2011
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PRESENTATION BY: WENDY SHIH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: WENDY SHIH (714) 754-5136
WEN DY.SHIH(CDCOSTAMESACA.GOV
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution to uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's decision to
approve Planning Application PA-11-22, a design review and variance for a new
community building for the residents of Villa Venetia and Pine Brook Village apartments.
The application includes the following:
1. Variance from maximum number of stories and building height requirements (two
stories127 feet allowed; three stories144 feet proposed).
2. Deviation from the Residential Design Guidelines for second -to -first floor ratio (80
percent maximum recommended; 86 percent proposed).
BACKGROUND:
Project Site
Villa Venetia is a 468-unit apartment complex bounded by Adams Avenue, Mesa Verde
Drive East, and Golf Course Drive. It was originally developed as part of a larger
residential community, which includes the 496-unit Pine Brook Village apartments located
across Golf Course Drive to the southeast. Both apartment complexes are under
common ownership. The property is zoned R3 (Multiple -Family Residential District) and
has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential.
The Villa Venetia apartment community features a central open space containing a lake,
tennis courts, pools/spa, barbeque grilling area, and a leasing office with a
community/fitness center.
7
Meeting History
On August 22, 2011, by a vote of 4 to 0 (Commissioner Fitzpatrick absent), Planning
Commission denied without prejudice Planning Application PA-11-15 for a 61-foot high
community building. Planning Commission denied the application due to the extent of
the variance request for the building height of the proposed community building, which
would have exceeded the height of the existing leasing office on the same property by
17 feet:
61-foot building height originally proposed
41-foot building height of existing leasing building
27-foot building height permitted by Code
On October 10, 2011, by a vote of 5 to 0, Planning Commission approved a revised
plan for the community building, under Planning Application PA-11-22, for a reduced
building height from 61 feet to 44 feet (inclusive of architectural tower and decorative
chimney). The architectural tower element was reduced from 61 feet to 41 feet, which
is consistent with the existing 41-foot high leasing office building.
The Planning Commission staff report from October 10, 2011 is included as Attachment
3. The video of the public hearing can be viewed on the City's Web page:
http://www.ci.costa-mesa.ca. us/CM Ca lend ar.htm
The applicant's updated letter of justification for the proposed project is attached
(Attachment 2).
Call for Review by City Councilmember
On October 17, 2011, Councilmember Wendy Leece filed a request for City Council
review of the project on behalf of the residents from the surrounding neighborhood. The
attached review application included the following concern: "After reviewing the decision
by the Planning Commission, it is [her] opinion that the Costa Mesa Zoning Code is not
being followed in approving the variance". (Review Application, Attachment 3).
ANALYSIS:
Variance Findings
The variance approval is based on three legal findings; two of which are questioned in
the review application:
Variance Finding I& Because of special circumstances applicable to the
property, the strict application of development standards deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning
classifications. [Section 13-29 (g) (1) a.]
N
Variance Finding 1b: The deviation granted shall be subject to such
conditions as will assure that the deviation authorized shall not constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other
properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. [Section
13-29 (g) (1) b•1
De Novo Hearing
The purpose of this report is to highlight or clarify the evidence in the administrative
record that was presented to the Planning Commission prior to its action to approve the
proposed project.
This report neither adds any new evidence that was not considered by the Planning
Commission nor provides any further justification for the approval of the variance
request.
As a de novo hearing, City Council may act to uphold or reverse the Planning
Commission's decision.
Evidence for Required Findings
State Law requires that the variance request be considered in an equivalent manner
and subject to similar expectations, requirements, and limitations as would be required
for other properties in the identical zone and in the vicinity.
With regard to the two variance findings in question, following is a summary of the
Planning Commission's consideration of evidence in the administrative record prior to
rendering a decision on the project.
• The unique size shape, and location of the 20-acre property represent s ecial
circumstances to justify approval of the variance request. [Page 5 of 10/10/11
PC Report. ]
Special circumstances applicable to the property exist to justify approval of the
variance from number of stories and building height requirements. Specifically, the
variance could be justified due to the unique size, shape, and location of the
parcel, which is 20 acres, more than twice the size of other multiple -family
residential properties in the immediate area. The property is also uniquely shaped
and bounded by Adams Avenue, Mesa Verde Drive East, and Golf Course Drive.
The community building would only be visible off -site from Golf Course Drive and
the apartment buildings immediately surrounding the new facility.
• The proposed project shall be "subject to conditions" to ensure that residential
development standards are e uivalent to or exceed those re aired for similar
structures located in the R3 zone. [Page 2 of 10/10/11 PC Re ort .
0
The approval of a variance request does not constitute a waiver from compliance
to the other required development standards in the R3 zone. Evidence was
given regarding the other residential development standards were either met or
exceeded.
1. The proposed building exceeds street setback requirement (minimum 10
feet required; 25 — 32 feet proposed).
2. The proposed project provides additional parking in excess of the existing
parking supply (net increase of 89 new parking spaces). The applicant
proposes to reconstruct carports and replace an upper deck tennis court
with parking for a net gain of 89 parking spaces on the property, including
20 parking spaces in the subterranean parking structure.
3. The outdoor "amenity courtyard" containing the swimming pool satisfies
the open space requirement for the project in the same manner as the
manmade lake. Technical note: The Zoning Code is silent as to making
distinctions. between a pool area and an artificial lake, as both would
qualify as open space areas.
• The applicant indicated that the variance is necessary to realize a substantial
pro erty right enjoyed by other R3 zoned ro erties but which the propetly
owner cannot enjoy due to such special circumstances and practical difficulties.
(Applicant Letter -_Attachment 2).
In this case, the substantial property right involved the right to provide common
recreational facilities desired by the residents in an apartment complex in an R3
zone. The applicant expressed the practical difficulty of the ongoing
maintenance of the two -acre lake, which apparently had become an
environmental and maintenance burden on the property owner. The owner
wished to exercise his right to replace this passive recreational amenity with an
actively -used community building, sundeck, and pool area for the 1,700 residents
• Buildings in the R3 zone are required to exhibit design excellence and be
compatible in scale and architecture to other on -site structures. Pace�7 of
1011012011 PC report].
In addition to replacing the lake with a more active recreational amenity area,
evidence was given regarding the proposed community building, which would be
similar in scale and architecture to other on -site buildings inclusive of the existing
41 foot high leasing building. The site contains two and three-story structures with
heights ranging from 26 feet to 41 feet and the second floor exceeding 80 percent
of the first floor.
10
• The intent of the Code related to scale and character of existing residential
nei hborhood would be still met with the approval of the variance. Pa e 6 of
1011012011 PC report.
There are no other R3-zoned properties with building height variances in the
immediate vicinity. The architectural context of surrounding properties was
analyzed.
For example, the new building would be located 25 feet to 32 feet from the Golf
Course Drive property line (10 feet required) and more than 100 feet away from
any Pine Brook Village apartments across Golf Course Drive and more than
300+ feet away from the single family homes at Mesa Verde Collection. The
scale and architecture of the proposed building would be similar to the design of
the proposed Mesa Verde Senior Residential Community at the northwest corner
of Harbor Boulevard and Mesa Verde Drive.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
City Council may consider the following alternatives:
1. Uphold Planning Commission's decision to approve PA-11-22. This would allow
the construction of the project as proposed, subject to conditions and Code
requirements. The draft Council resolution has been updated to reflect the
discussion contained in this report.
2. Reverse Planning Commission's _decision and deny PA-11-22. If Council denies
the application, the project may not be constructed as proposed and a similar
request involving discretionary approval may not be submitted for six months.
However, a proposed building that complies with the height limitations of the R3
zone could be submitted for plancheck at any time.
FISCAL REVIEW:
Fiscal review is not required.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney's office has confirmed the legality of the Planning Commission's action
and approved the draft Council resolutions as to form.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures. If the
project is approved, it would be exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 for New
Construction. If the project is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA Section
15270(a) for Projects Which Are Disapproved.
CONCLUSION:
De nova literally translates to "anew" "afresh" or "a second time." A de novo hearing is
essentially a new proceeding where the proposal is presented to the City Council for
final consideration. In its decisionmaking, Council is not restricted to the evidence that
was previously presented to the Planning Commission. In this case, the variance
request is a discretionary decision that can be approved or denied by the City Council.
WENDY SHE
Associate nner
DISTRIBUTION:
ATTACHMENTS
Chief Executive Officer
City Attorney
Public Services Director
Transportation Svs. Manager
City Engineer
City Clerk
Staff(4)
File (2)
Gary Polodna
Peak West Development LLC.
5347 South Valentia Way, Ste. 240
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
UDR Villa Venetia Apartments LP
1745 Shea Center Dr., Ste. 200
Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
1. Draft Resolutions
2. Applicant Letter dated October 20, 2011
3. Review Application
4. Planning Commission Staff Report
5. Location/Aerial Map
6. Plans
19.
ATTACHMENT 2
LU
Z
F-
L)
it
�CZ)
C)oC:)CD====
n
o
,�
0
0
0?
0
o
�-
n
°
o
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�.+
�
ram•+•
7
v
im-
0
(rp
v
v
rDD
X
�
�
crq
tit
ro
m
ry.
l�J
tt
�
0
0•
ro
o
�
�.
rD
M
ti
c
acn
d
a
rya
z
0�
A
0
sa3NINVd
x
n
a�, �
�
J
�
�
r�i• y
:J
ro �
a-
o
r
rt
n
o
@ M
a
a
n
1
�� �•�5, , a Ali s'"'�h
••uyS ,•e.y
ncn
nIIIFIi
CD
..
7 O F� M 1r {n 1i1�Wm
IL
Ir
40
CD
AN
W CD
7
�{.l
t�, l V ,.,r' n _ ' I �' Ali ,nt• � �4_ �1, ' �`.Y
O J r
I 1�'r'• �„� .fir n """� � V
�n,r
■-.J _"_1_�_.nIP r, k.,� , 1« y.h tit{.,'- ..0 N IP~ rkd
l � '-:I `-. 1 7 rlti �N A`•.J J�. �' ��.._7, Ir '."' b ry... -'�; � ..
lJI
1. Minh'MFk' i, r. k.r
N
n
..,• _. '� it _� rir. rr���'Y� li"i:. �. _11�.:a
�aarrraaaarrrrrrrrraraaaasaaaaaaasaaaaarrraaaaaarrrrrrrrrrarraaaararaaaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaraaarraaraaarr
VJ y ,0tD p m 1 O O p N 1 x O • R7
CD CA)
CD �iCD
IIE "C, "6 C o� 7 7 v
rNn ra Q- 0� W 1 W 1 N
m Q Q 7 G V r— d
( D aO Q Q 1 v a m EL -
WO. 1
CoOo
I F 7
r--^� rr JO '� cm V1
V1 N 1 w T c I
rn I 5�
I � I
I
ray (�i/y I I A
rnco w I N Q N
1 1 •
i f///••• f f f f/// I f 1 1 1 1 1
on
MyCl)
d
w a
C<7
rt
o
pq E .7
aim
m n
i 8 1 f/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1/ f 1• .. • I I I I I I f f 1 1// f f f f f f f I f f f f f f I f f f f f 1• f f 1 f f• I f f f f f f f f/• f f/ f f/ f f f•//// I f
000 000000000 00 0000 000
0. 0 ? h
N o �0
a o w A c 3 a ro S c c aa' c R o: d o
1 v a � � °_= rho 1p 7 o r
ro j g' m '4° e d x m A r�o N. °��' m x c D a o
d
0. C C C
oa roi b m d x A nf°i a y
m C, ° m a
g C3 W C
c d
T a C 0
C y^ N W
7 m
p
r
o�
a
�Cl)
C
CD
Da
0
CD
0
Ln
a �
c-,
FJn
�c
N
O
d ,
l y�
V
�i
CD
i
rrr^�I
VI
c o
-0 CO)n
o %
Z, C,3
0
a a C9
C")
�.
T
Rf [�
.I
x
�faffaafaffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafafaaaaaaaaaaaffaafaaafaaafaafffffaaffafaaaaff aaaffaeeeesafaaa
00000000 0000000000 000000000 .
In r1 ri n p a -•1 v In a� ?I m f7 ve ,n r m S ^n p m : ni
° ° ° C 5 Q y Ip c x C ° _ a .�. �_ N ° r 9 .�.. N Q ? • 2.
� m m n °°° � f ° rc � o � s � m ro p m — '2 � � �' 3 •o '4 •2 io ro � r� ; �
Qet
Im
O .�+ N S c = On c O ° ar 7
O np + ti O+ H �• N d v o 3 p �+ 'R n N A C of
n ''^ m w c c C � �• � y rD
f�°
113
C 7 3 C ip � � � b• ` j C y ?' � � �
c c o �w o •° �, Q a
ry
y m T w o p V s °c CL Pr n d a o
ro S^ o ° o i °' pzq p p1 O 7 v
S v .••� N 3 a W T3 ID
CL
C n O n
--------------,
I I
I �
I �
I I
I I
I
� I
c
rr
r z
® LNQJ'lCNS
C 0
r^ A 0 0
0
EYS
�60.
tom^
�r
ra
.•
I
� �r„a 'rr.•.�r
c� m
1q.�a4
,, .0
kf14. 9:
,F'J T^y7
-
� a
�J
z
583N-LJVd1 — —
��e�e�e�s������e������e����������eeeee�sseeeeeess�eeee�sseeeee�s���eeeee�e��eeee��eaeereeeeeesrr�e��������e�����ee�����eeee�eeeeseee•
�1ET ET
CD
a X:m m
rnn�I w
�TTi
Z
F y 3
T
E C M
aam
m
1
n -4
e eoeeeeaeaeeeaeaoo...........as.....aa............
s.
0000000000000000
��'
n
n n
o
zr
0
CD
_CDC7
~ C
m Z
Y
yam
r
m
a
{
n -a
co1i�lmc
_'A-e
I
u g
a
I
I! f f!!!!!! f!!!!!!! f! P! 1! I f/ 1!!!!!•♦!! P! f• f• P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P f P P• f f f f f f I f f f f P P f f f f f P I f f• f•
z o
ro
c q � d d
a v ro ro
ro
�
c X m rn m
m nr
x
• M1
a o
n v+ n
d ro
a
O
s c n m a
m d
•�
:Z
�
m
N
�
H
'^
m 00
4G �
N d
H
N l0 to Oo
N N � O
a a d
CI W O ll,
v T {!� N A
T � U A N
—
N
N .+
W Vt
•'ram
•��
7
y
r
M
_o
rD
rD
N
a
o v
cn �U
14
rn
?
C
s n
3::,
C'3 0
a 2S
$
8
4
w
?
a
z
q
'�
Z
CD
a';
g=
x
°7-
n
v
Y
S n
p
O p
O
°'
a
ro
o
,
r-
d
:c:.
CA O
ro ��
= ..
C7TZ
am
_BCD
m
C7 —1
a e e 0 i i i
e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0
CD
1
Z.3�IILk I'U
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i r i i i i i i i i 0 i i i 0 1•
i i i .............. i i i i i i i ........... i 0 i i i i 1 e o 0 i e o e e e e
m
e � � �'� a = ��• �% � � --��� APT
®'. r
-
�� � ✓ � T/ I MR
h
Pp
4,1
VR
\off i1 i ,� �� �✓y ',, f � ,fir �•- ' �' �:'�- = ~
;.✓ /r
r a•••• s a a a a a a a a•• a a a a a•• a a a a a a•• a a a a e• e• e e e e s•• e e e e e e e e e 1 e e e e r r r r r r r r f• r a• a• e a a a a••••••••••• a•••• e e e• e e e e e••• a a• s• r r 1 r r a a•••• a•• a a a a
C- o c
C 2:0 nED
0
m co
�+ m
v
n C7
-0 VI CID
a
Er
G
4r = 0
C7mZ
art
warn
y
m n -1
EZI
r ..... 0 0 * .... 0 . • • ..... • • • ..... • • ...... • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • . • ........ • • .. • .............................. o .. a .. . . e .... .