HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/1996, 2 - APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1789 SAN LUIS DRIVE i'II�III city o f San LUIS OBISpo MEETING DATE:
d-b-Flo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT GVMrna ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Directorjy,/�
PREPARED BY: Todd Martin, City Arborist
SUBJECT: Appeal of Tree Committee decision to deny tree removal request at 1789 San
Luis Drive
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution denying.the appeal of the Tree Committee decision to deny
the removal request at 1789 San Luis Drive
DISCUSSION:
On November 6, 1995 City staff received a tree removal application from Mr. John Wallace of 1789
San Luis Drive in San Luis Obispo. The request was for the removal of a liquidamber tree located in
the front yard of 1789 San Luis Drive. The request was based on the claims that roots from the tree
were damaging a concrete walkway leading from the public sidewalk to the front entrance to the home
and also the homes' foundation.
City staff inspected the tree and determined that is did not meet the criteria for tree removal as
described in Section 12.24.180 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The applicant was notified of
this by letter on November 9, 1995, and that the removal request would be placed on the November
27th Tree Committee agenda for consideration. Since there was not a quorum for the November 27th
meeting, the item was moved to the December 18, 1995 agenda. Mr. and Mrs. Wallace were present
at the December 18th meeting. Mr. Wallace noted damage to the home's foundation and to a concrete
walkway. Mr. Wallace also expressed concern over liability incurred as a result of the walkway
damage.
Municipal Code Section 12.24.180 C-6 provides guidance for approval or denial of tree removal
requests. One of the following criteria must be met before a removal request can be approved:
A) Does the existence of the tree cause undue hardship to the property owner?
B) Does the removal of the tree promote good arboricultural practice?
C) Will removal of the tree not harm the character or environment of the surrounding
neighborhood?
After careful deliberation the Tree Committee was unable to make the findings necessary to approve
the removal request per the Municipal Code.
December 28, 1995 Mr. and Mrs. Wallace filed an appeal with the City Clerk's office appealing the
Tree Committee decision per the Municipal Code, Chapter 12.24.180 H. The appeal contained further
reasons for removal, which were not made known to the Tree Committee at the December 28th
meeting. The applicant expressed concern that a "common wall" was being damaged by the tree,
J-1
��►►nni�I►I�Illflll�pl���`11 city of san lues oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1789 San Luis Drive
Page 2
causing a potentially dangerous situation. An inspection of the wall by city staff failed to reveal any
visible damage to the wall. Furthermore, an inspection for visible foundation damage revealed none.
There is, however, an 18" stump located approximately one foot from the foundation where the
damage is said to have occurred. Due to the close proximity of the stump, it is possible that any
existing damage was caused by this root system rather than that of the tree proposed for removal.
Alternative: Adopt a resolution approving the appeal.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the City for either denial or approval of the appeal. The cost of the tree
removal is borne by the applicant.
Attachments: Resolution
Appeal to the City Council received December 28, 1995
December 18, 1995 Tree Committee Meeting minutes
Tree Removal Application dated November 6, 1995
Arborists letters to applicant
Photographs - Cocnel 1 &,A C A 0 dAty
c2
RESOLUTION NO: (1996 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL FOR A
TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1789 SAN LUIS DRIVE.
BE IT RESOLVED. by the Council of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings . That this Council, after
consideration of the applicant' s appeal, and the San Luis Obispo
Tree Committee' s action, staff recommendations and reports
thereon, make the following findings:
1 . The. tree is not causing undue hardship to the property owner;
and
2 . Removing the tree does not promote good arboricultural
practice; and
3 : Removing the tree will harm the character or environment of
the surrounding neighborhood.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the following resolution was adopted this day of ,
. 1996.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1789sanluis.res/tmq
*0A00
®v
_ 02-3
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING THE APPEAL BY JOHN WALLACE
OF THE TREE COMMITTEE'S DECISION TO DENY TREE REMOVAL
REQUEST AT 1789 SAN LUIS DRIVE.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after
consideration of the applicant's appeal, and the San Luis Obispo
Tree Committee's action, staff recommendations and reports
thereon, make the following finding:
1. The tree is causing undue hardship to the property owner.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of ,
1996.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
vl/f -
Q.
AILY Attu by
12�28/95 14:57 S 408 375 4124 uunniun ti w»uu. r .uc
Fill city osAn luis oBispo
Ili
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of .
. .... rendered on -
which
n _which Consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are iappealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
Please see attached.
1
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed Oth:
The Tree Committee On
• Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: John and Sandy Wallace 1789 San Luis Drive, SLO,CA 93401
NamelTitle - Maili g Address (& Zip Code)
(805) 594-1766
Home Phone Work Phone
rHarry`A aWallllace, Esq. 27].1. Garden Roadr Monterey, CA
Representative: _
Name/17tle Mallio Address (& Zip Code) 83940
ror Official UBrt Only.
Calendared for A/6,/96 Date � Time_f wived:
c: City Atloinky
City Administrative Officer �,,�re I V Cs 0
Copy to the following department(s):
DEC 2 81995
CLSAK
SAN LUIS OBISPO'Ch
Original in City Cleik'IS Office /J `
• 12/28�95 14:58 S 400 375 4124 DUNNION & ASSOC. P.03
Attachment to Appeal
John and Sandy Wallace
1789 San Luis Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
APPEAL OF•,�'RE8 COMMITTEE ,DECISION..OF.,,D.��EHBER.�B�__}��.
XNp
NOTICE TO CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OF DANGEROUS CONDITION
John and Sandy Wallace have applied for permission to remove a tree
on their property. The reasoning is straight ;forward and logical.
They made application based upon very substa�Itial undue hardship
and their belief that removal of the tree would not harm the
character of the surrounding neighborhood. The Tree Committee
rejected the application.
John and Sandy Wallace respectfully appeal the committee's
decision. It is the Wallace family's firm belief that the costs
and risks that they and their neighbors and the City of San Luis
Obispo face, directly relating to the tre$, far outweigh the
environmental benefit of the tree.
UNDUE HARDSHIP
A. Walkway - Personal Injury Litigation
The Wallace family made application as the tree has opened them to
litigation regarding a personal injury claim. Over the
Thanksgiving Holiday a relative tripped and fell over a walkway on
the Wallace property. The walkway had been raised over one inch
owing to the root system of the tree in issue. The raised walkway
is now out of code. A negligence per se situation exists. The
situation is owing only to the tree root system.
The claim is being made for personal injuries. This relative is
extremely litigious. She has filed prior claims for trip and fall,
store employee negligence and motor vehicle: accident. In this
particular claim, liability will clearly be adverse to the Wallace
family.
There is no reason to expect that a similer accident wouldn't
occur. It actually is far more likely than not. It is a very
tenuous position to hold that the benefit to the local environment
is outweighed by strong likelihood of future substantial injury to
.12/28/95 14158 $ 408 375 4124 DUNNION & ASSOC. P.04
Appeal of Decision and Notice of Dangerous Condition
Ra: 11§11age Residence
1789 San Luis Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA
December 28, 1995
Page 2 of 3*
those using the walkway.
B. Residence Foundation
Further grounds for the application is the ongoing damage the root
system the tree is causing to the foundation of the Wallace
residence. Repair to the foundation, and adjoining walls,
will conservatively cost the Wallace family $7, 500.00.
C. common Wall
Further grounds for hardship is the foreseeable substantial
property damage that may be caused by the root system of the tree
in issue. The root system will cause larger cracks to appear in
the common wall between the Wallace properly and the property
directly to the south. Repair / .replacement of this wall will
conservatively cost $4 , 000.00.
Should the wall become unstable owing to the root system, it is
quite foreseeable that the wall could fail. As the City of San
Luis Obispo is aware, the neighborhood has many young children. It
is not difficult to imagine a young child playing on and around the
wall. Owing to an instability, the wall could well fall and cause
extremely serious injuries to that child.
Again, the Wallace family believes that weighing the benefit to
the risk clearly leads to the conclusion their application should
be granted.
D. Root system
The personal injury and property damage involved is owing to the
root system of the tree. It must be clearly noted that the roots
of concern extend in three out of four directions. One cannot
simply remove a single root and expect the total situation to be
remedied. Major roots in three separate direction would have to be
removed. This clearly would kill the tree.
A remedy to the hazards of simply removing the roots involved is
not viable.
o2-7
• 12z28Z95 14:SY S 4Ub .5I7 4124 uunnlun 6 H7ZUk.. r. nz,
Appeal of Decision and Notice of Dangerous Condition
Re: Wallace Residence
1789 Ban Luis Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA
December 28, 1995
Page 3 of 3.
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD
Members of the Tree Committee expressed to the Wallace Family that
a substantial reason for denying the tree removal application was
the uniqueness and rarity of the species of tree involved. It was
said that this was the only tree of its type in the neighborhood.
The Wallace family wish to point out that this observation of the
committee is inaccurate. The residence directly to the north of
the Wallace family has three full grown trees of the exact same
species. The tree in issue is not unique or rare.
MTICE TO CITY OF BAN LUIS OBIBPO.RE,.DANQEROUB CONDITION
The City of Ban Luis Obispo, through its Tree Committee, has
refused to allow the Wallace family to remedy a dangerous
condition. The City of Ban Luis Obispo clearly is on actual notice
of this situation. The Wallace family has no choice but to sue
the City of San Luis Obispo for indemnification for any and all
claims of personal ipjury arising from their inability to rectify
a clearly hazardous condition owing to the City of Ban Luis
Obispo's refusal to allow for removal of the tree causing such
condition.
The City of Ban Luis Obispo, through its Tree Committee, has
refused to allow the Wallace family to remedy a condition whereby
their tree has caused, and continues to cause, damage to a wall
commonly shared vith their neighbors directly to the south. The
City of Ban Luis Obispo clearly is on ac ual notice of this
situation. The Wallace family has no choicq but to sue the City
ooh San Luis Obispo for indemnification for ahy and all claims of
property damage arising from their inability to rectify a clearly
hazardous condition owing to the City of San Luis Obispo's refusal
to allow for the removal of the tree causing such condition.
F: \DATA\RAW.MEM
-91
• 12 20%J5 14150 a 400 3'5 4124 DUHNION 6 ASSOC. 1`.01
TEE ,PFAX TRANSMISSION
zM: Harry A. Wallace, Esq.
P.O. BOX 689
Pebble Beach, CA 93953
2711 Garden Road
Hontorcy, CA 93940
(408) 373-8035
(408) 375-4124 -T.. ckw
TO: City Clerk
City of San Luis Obigpo
(805) 783-7309
DATE: December 28, 1995
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RE: Appeal of Rejection of ApplJcation for Removal of Tree
John and Sandy Wallace
1789 San Luis Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Five pagca' total ocnt by tcicfax, original Will NOT
follow by U.S. Mail . This telPfaxed transmitted document
Is to be the original for purposes of appeal and notice
of dangerous condition.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TREE COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1995
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Regan, Barbara Murphy, Jeff Ferber, Eva Vigil
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Mandeville
STAFF PRESENT : Todd Martin, Lisa Woske,
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the October 23, 1995 regular meeting were approved as
submitted.
2. TREE REMOVALS
-- 1345 BROAD (Eucalyptus)
The applicant discussed the removal request and the problems they were
having with root damage and breaking limbs.
Jeff Ferber noted that some parking lot damage was evident, but that the
entire lot was worn and in poor repair. Although the trees were in a bad
location, he felt•• they were in good health and benefited the skyline.
Eva Vigil felt the area was overplanted and the the problems would just get
worse as the trees grew larger. - She favored removal .
Barbara Murphy did not see significan damage caused, but was concerned
about how large the trees would get in that small space.
e
Ron Regan felt there was damage to the driveway and the trees were growing
into the powerline and that problems would increase as the trees grew. He
also favored removal.
Ms. Vigil moved to approve the removal request to promote good
arboricultural practice and require no replacement planting.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Ferber moved to approve the removal request to promote good
arboricultural practice and require one replacement tree to be planted
within 45 days of the issuance of permit.
Mr. Regan seconded the motion.
TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 18, 1995
'AGE TWO
The motion passed unanimously.
-- 1337 BROAD (Alanths)
The applicant discussed the removal request.
Mr. Regan noted that there was parking lot damage and felt this was a
"volunteer" tree. He favored removal without replacement planting, as
there was not sufficient room.
Ms. Murphy agreed with his comments.
Mr. Ferber favored removal, but felt there was room for a replacement tree .
Mr. Regan moved to approve the removal request to promote good
arboricultural practice and because the property owners were suffering
hardship. He did not require a replacement planting.
Ms. Vigil seconded the. motion.
The motion passed 3:1 (Ferber against)
-- 1345 BROAD (Modesto Ash)
The applicant discussed the removal request and was concerned with the
continual maintenance requirements and the aphid problems.
Mr. Martin noted that no one had called for an aphid spray, which the city
performs free of charge. He also noted that the city repaired necessary
sidewalk damage .
Ms. Vigil stated she had not been able to view the tree and would abstain •
from the voting.
Mr. Ferber did not notice particular sidewalk lifting and did not favor
removal.
Ms. Murphy felt the tree was in good health and that spraying would take
care of thefdisesse. She did not notice any sidewalk lifting.
Ms. Murphy moved to deny the removal request, as no findings could be made .
Mr. Ferber seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously (Vigil abstained)
TREE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 18, 1995
PAGE THREE
-- 1307 MILL (Camphor)
The applicant discussed the removal request and stated the tree was
unsightly and in poor condition.
Mr. Ferber discussed the historical significance of the camphors in that
neighborhood, but agreed the tree was poorly shaped and did not affect the
canopy for the street.
Ms. Vigil felt the trees around this tree were crowded and that the subject
tree was in poor health and did not enhance the canopy effect. She favored
removal to allow the other trees to grow and fill in.
Mr. Regan and. Ms. Murphy agreed with the above comments.
Mr. Regan moved to approve the removal request to promote good
arboricultural practice and in doing so, improve the appearance of the
canopy. He did not require a replacement tree .
Ms. Murphy seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
-- 1789 SAN LUIS DRIVE (Liquid Amber)
The applicant discussed foundation cracks and the continual root problems,
which ciaused sidewalk lifting. They were concerned about the liability.
They felt the tree was in poor shape with brittle limbs and did not enhance
the skyline effect.
The Committee was concerned with the lack of evidence for the foundation
damage and felt it was necessary to consider that for the findings.
•
Mr. Ferber suggested realigning or replacing the private sidewalk. He felt
the tree was significant to the neighborhood.
Ms. Vigil felt the tree w,.s a good specimen and suggested root pruning, as
the roots were a good distance from the house.
Mr. Ferber further suggested trenching by the foundation to determine root
damage specifics.
Mr. Ferber moved to deny the removal request, as no findings could not be
made.
Mr. Regan seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
,2/�
TREE ' COMMITTEE MEETING rnaNUTES
DECEMBER 189 1995
PAGE FOUR
-- 2263 FLORA (Monterey Pine)
Ms. Murphy noted that the two trees in the back of the house were dead, the
two next to them were dying, and the fifth tree in that area was in
decline. She felt the side trees had been heavily pruned and looked
healthy, but there might be evidence of tip die-back in the stand.
Mr. Ferber felt that the side trees were in relative good health and could
be saved.
Mr. Regan moved to refer the item back to the City Arborist and to approve
the removal of any trees that were dead or in declining health, keeping any
trees that did not show evidence of pitch canker.
Mr. Ferber seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. to the next regular meeting of Monday,
January 29, 1996.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Woske
Recording Secretary
o?/3
V
,• �nI.GJ�//�� ^ � i'tlCLLI'i1 W[II�)lt'CeU Lut'lll ,
z� �iG•. Ll ity Arborist
25 Prado Road
�11j1 IIIIIIIIIIIIII �IIIIIIIIIIIIII �Z����� ��iliillllll� IIIII
citySLO, CA 9
3401
oaspo
25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
TREE} REMOVAL APPLICATION FORM
Applicant: -,J-oh 7 A�y�� -PAn j,,99 bL)1'9&jfGb Telephone:
Address:
Location of tree(s) : l ka ; CAA Ljt�'-r
Please indicate nearest cross street: fiy,d e,,-, i`S
Important: A tree removal application will only be considered if
accompanied by a plot plan showing the location and species of
any tree proposed for removal.
Tree Species: L-rL#;lsl� L, 4
Botanical name Comm naive
Reasons for removing: r21(n��9�� ;y � G`4►/_[��Q
a iIDO
P
CT
JAW
`t'tn.,_ ►2, bl�.w� S°� r;C, Y � ��1 �',�i�s.erQ -�v/� t� E���,`,�C�� M
i
Compensatory replacement proposed: .�
Comments:
Applicant/owner W Date
(plot plan attache )
tremowaldrm/tm#2
PLOT PLhMJ
179q S, LvLs t>Q iv15 ff/�
S
� C
N � p
L �
v �
s -
�ND��wS
b L
1.ilucL E1 o,
o2-�S
licity tuis oaspo
25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
November 9, 1995
John and Sandra Wallace
1789 San Luis Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Your application for tree removal at 1789 San Luis Drive has been reviewed by the City
of San Luis Obispo Arborist. Since the existing conditions did not allow the City Arborist
to make a favorable finding regarding removal of the trees, the matter has been
forwarded to the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee, pursuant to City Ordinance No.
1153, Section 12.24.180.
The Tree Committee, which is comprised of five members, will review your application
and inspect the trees in question. The members will then take up the issue at the next
Tree Committee meeting scheduled for November 27, 1995 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference
Room A at the City Corporation Yard, 25 Prado Road. A copy of the agenda will be sent
prior to the .meeting. You are encouraged to attend the meeting.
At the meeting, the City Arborist will provide a brief overview of the circumstances
surrounding your proposed removal of the trees, after which you will be given an
opportunity to explain your reasons for requesting the removal. The-Committee members
will then address your concerns and deliberate the facts to determine whether they
should, in fact, grant or deny your request, or provide you with other options.
Any decision rendered by the Tree Committee can be appealed to the City Council if you
are not satisfied with the Tree Committee's decision.
If you have any questions regarding this process, you may contact Todd Martin at
(805)781-7220, Monday through Friday.
Sincerely,
Todd Martin
City Arborist
trreview.ltr1e5
V� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. /)/�
►������ ��ii����►IIIII 111111 �►���� �����il
IIII city1U�S - OBISPO
25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
December 19, 1995
John and Sandra Wallace
1789 San Luis Drive
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 -
Your application for tree removal at 1789 San Luis Dr. was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo
Tree Committee on December 18, 1995. After careful consideration of the facts provided by you and
an on-site inspection of the tree, the Committee members have voted, in compliance with Municipal
Code Section 1224.180.0.6, to take the following actions:
a. The tree is not causing undue hardship.
b. Removal would not promote good arboricultural practice.
C. Removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood.
The decision of the Committee is final unless an appeal, in accordance with Municipal Code Section
1.20.020 - 1.20.050, is filed with the City Clerk's office within ten (10) days of the Committee's decision.
An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a'decision of the Committee.
You are reminded that the Tree Ordinance (#1153 - 1989 Series), Section 12.24.131, Protection of,
Trees, reads in part:
C. No person shall willfully injure, disfigure, or intentionally destroy by any means any tree
growing within the planting area or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this ordinance,
except with permits described elsewhere in this chapter.
G. Any person deemed responsible for damaging a tree or removing a tree without a
permit as described in this ordinance shall be liable for damages to the city in an
amount equal to the value of the tree plus
costs incurred to assess damages. Tree values shall be established according to
evaluation standards of the International Society of Arboriculture.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact Todd Martin at (805)781-7023,
Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully,
h-zCt*✓��-
Todd Martin,
City Arborist
1789sanluis/denial#5
/O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. -/
hE JG AGENDA C;21
CITY CLERK MEMORANDUM DATE a�ITEM #
_ T�?..;.:9E`. c;:i:•'•,y;�`:r.w...r.:.....:::: ..J:::?:i;<:ii}i}:.,ir.,;.J}:::.,}:....:::,..,:•
�•.. J..'}1:..r :. :.:.::.rr.n.:.::.,r.:•:::tn}}K. }..r.. ;p:..v:..r:.::4. ..n.:.':;.:n:.::.:::. ..:..,.v';}..O::K:.iy:.::.::.i':f;.v}}:!.}::i::::>. .
vm.r;: Y... •::;,•r,.:RJ:;f}$p:pv.,}:v:n:v.jJ::i::i:..., .�>:•,
.�A. vw.vivvH,,\Kw.W.wn..n. i�.....:...::: ..n::. 3 ..v.....:::iyJ::::n.:::::.:ii}}:iii}... •••
v.BnlG.riv.%;!<vn.v::IX:KL•i:vi::i:l�:<v..wn '!:>.i} ::Y•.M ••J:.A :;r•:}J:r''"n
February 6, 1996
TO: City Council
FROM: Kim Condon, Assistant City Clerk
SUBJECT: 2/6/96 AGENDA ITEM AC - TREE APPEAL SAN LUIS DRIVE
John and Sandy Wallace, the appellants and applicants on Item #2, are unable to attend tonight.
Due to the number of items already scheduled for February 20th, and with the Wallace's
agreement, it is requested that this item be continued to a date certain; I�esday, March 5, 1996.
c: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
sly 7yy.�� q spr- �.. T'� • � L _ "S
r �;
ro
y1 �� .�„ rt/i � �Zt�.: , �<'� 1 s � Yi sr � -. s1 ^.f �•1 y
Lt i�-� Int � ����� � � - ��•: �,� � � 4. 1 �. . y t`if t ��rs rfp2�s�
IMI
v1�..��yy 'r 5� •:
1 �
�•� Icy .y, i:. � 1 1 � I � � �'.i 's � JSr',?S`i t �
-r--0Yf C•
1 1
..rj
f•� .moi rel i
IT
1 i 1
� >1
t
ilii •)' � ' 4.
5
1
1 e ..�y� :.} • Y`��Y` ��^. }'moi 'L �.` V'll. ��. t_ ,,.
lad�(s t S
f z
I
�I
6�
a 1!�
3 5
>
s.'�t•
fi
w Y�
5
i4
s
t
ell
el el
rr v
., ,
V i
h
1 hY t E �
Ft 7
T�S
a
..Fit
r F
jl
P
t
c I
? s
4 ' r
4
V ty✓v 3 e
IY a ` r
if
r t P
ft