Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/15/1989, 2 - APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DENIAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE SIGN REGULATIONS TO ALLOW P MEETMG DATE 411�I I city of San Luis oBl Spo 8-15-89 rMM IIiI�UII COUNCIL AGENDA REPOW NUM89aZL FROM Randy Rossi, Interimunity Development Director; By: David Moran, Associate Planner /yam SUBJECT: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission denial of an exception to the sign regulations to allow projecting signs as part of a revised sign program for the Pacific Coast Center at Madonna Road and Higuera Street. BACKGROUND/CAO RECOMMENDATION: At its August 1 meeting the Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal of an action by the Architectural Review Commission to deny a portion of a revised sign program for the Pacific Coast Center at Madonna Road and Higuera Street. The applicant had requested an exception to the sign regulations to allow eleven projecting signs along the project's Higuera Street elevation (see previous council report, attached). The council wanted a clearer picture of how the signs will look on the building. For this reason, the Council conducted the public hearing and voted 5-0 to continue action on the appeal to the meeting of August 15, 1989, with direction to the applicant to prepare an exhibit which better illustrates how the projecting signs and project identification logo will appear as viewed from Higuera Street. The applicant/appellant has prepared an exhibit which will be available at the meeting which better illustrates how the proposed project identification logo and projecting signs will appear from Higuera Street. The.Council should review the applicant/appellant's illustration to determine if the signs are acceptable. If so, the Council should adopt Draft Resolution No. 2 to uphold the appeal and approve the projecting signs and logo sign. Otherwise, the council should continue review with direction to the applicant and staff. Attachments: previous staff report and draft resolutions plans an illustration will be available at the meeting MEETING DATE- city ATEcity of San tins o61Spo A-1- Q IMMaGe COLAMCIL - - COaJNCIL AGENDA REPORT rTB"NUMBER: FROM: Randy Rossi, Interim Community Development Director; By: D id Moran, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission denial of an exception to the sign regulations to allow projecting signs as part of a revised sign program for the Pacific Coast Center at Madonna Road and Higuera Street. CAO RECOMMENDATION: The Council should adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 to: 1. Approve the project identification sign over the Madonna Road/Higuera Street project entrance, and 2. Deny the appeal for the projecting signs. INTRODUCTION On March 5, 1988, the Architectural Review Commission granted final approval for this commercial center which included a sign program. The applicant subsequently applied for revisions to the approved program which included exceptions to the sign regulations to allow eleven projecting signs along the project's Higuera Street elevation. At its June 5, 1989 meeting, the ARC approved a portion of the proposed revised sign program which included tenant identification signs, a monument sign and a project identification logo on the project's south facing wall. The commission continued review of the proposed logo sign on the trestle over the Madonna Road/Higuera Street project entrance as well as the proposed projecting signs. At its June 19th meeting, the Commission voted 3-2 (one commissioner stepped down, another was absent) to approve the Madonna Road/Higuera Street entrance logo and to deny the projecting signs based on the findings that they would be confusing, potentially hazardous and were not needed at this prominent location. The applicant has appealed this action to the Council. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Actions regarding a sign program are categorically exempt from environmental review. However, the projecting signs could be confusing and potentially dangerous to motorists passing through the Higuera Street/Madonna Road intersection. In addition, the projecting signs could have an adverse aesthetic impact on the historic character of the project. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION If the projecting signs and entrance logo are denied, the applicant could pursue other signage options or employ the previously approved.sign program for the project. Qll city of San lues osispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 87-186 Page 2 BACKGROUND Data Summary Address: 65 Higuera Street Applicant: Interwest Investment Group Representative: Marshall Ochylski Zoning: C-S-S General Plan: Service Commercial/Light Industrial Environmental Status: The sign program is categorically exempt from environmental review. Site Descrintion Relatively flat, irregularly-shaped 2.34 acre site at the intersection of Madonna Road and Higuera Street. A new 50,000 sq.ft. commercial center on the site is approximately 80% complete. Surrounding land uses include a mobile home park, used car lot, government offices, a cemetery and gas station. Evaluation 1. Historical Aspects Of The Site -- The property at 65 Higuera Street is listed on the City's Master List of Historical Resources. The historical significance of the site relates to the fact that it was owned by the family of A.M. Loomis, a pioneer settler in San Luis Obispo County. During the late 1800's, the site was used by the old narrow-gauge Pacific Coast Railroad which transported agricultural products between San Luis Obispo and Port Harford (Avila Beach/Port San Luis). In addition, the foundation of the one remaining structure which has been renovated (the Loomis Building) is composed of bricks manufactured in the factory of Ah Louis, a central figure of early Chinatown, whose store on Palm Street is a State Historical Landmark. The design of the new commercial center was found to be consistent with the city's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines which identify general principles to help guide actions which change historic properties. It should also be noted that the State Historical Resources Commission has recommended that the site be added to the National Register of Historic Places. 2. Project Design and Setting - Aspects of the project design and setting which were considered by staff and the ARC in evaluating the revised sign program include: Historic Character -- The historic shed-like building which was retained on the project site (the Loomis Building) has been renovated, expanded, and remodeled with new metal siding material, store-front windows and a more articulated roof line (a color/materials board will be available at the meeting). The result is a modern rendition of a vintage architectural style which is in keeping with the historic character of the site. Because the building is oriented with the longer portion (approx. 330 ft.) adjacent to the sidewalk on Higuera Street, the project will have two spans of flat building face along Higuera Street of 190 feet and 140 feet. �-3 city of san tins omspo Wo A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 87-186 Page 3 Project Setting -- The project site occupies a prominent entryway location at the intersection of two major arterials, Higuera Street and Madonna Road, which funnel north-bound traffic through the city. Traffic volumes through the redesigned intersection at Madonna Road and Higuera Street are fairly heavy and are expected to increase. Tenancy — Approved tenancy for the building will emphasize the building design and construction trades, but will also include a wide spectrum of retail and service oriented uses (see list of allowed uses, attached). 3. Revised Sign Program — The revised sign program includes both tenant and project identification signage (see plans, enclosed) which were approved by the ARC. However, the most controversial aspect of the proposed sign program is the projecting tenant identification signs which were denied as part of the motion to approve the logo sign over the Madonna/Higuera project entrance. Projecting Signs The applicant had sought a total of eleven, 3 feet X 6 feet projecting signs attached perpendicular to the Higuera Street building face at the. top of the wall just under the eave. Each sign would have a grey background, white lettering and trim consistent with the interior tenant identification signs and would be externally illuminated. The sign regulations do not allow projecting signs in the C-S zone and therefore an exception must be granted if the council wants to approve these signs. The desire to retain the historic building in its present location (ie, with a non-conforming street yard setback of 0 feet) constitutes a special circumstance which may justify an exception to the sign regulations, since new buildings in this zone must be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the street and the streetyard may be occupied by signs: While staff recognizes the difficulty in providing exterior signage for individual project tenants given the limited opportunities for signs along Higuera Street and the desire to maintain the historic aspects of the project site, we feel the projecting signs are not appropriate in this case because: — Proiectina signs are not allowed in the C-S zone. They are not allowed because, since 1982, a minimum 10 foot street yard setback has been required for all new construction in this zone which can accommodate conforming free-standing and monument signs. Thus, a projecting sign (by definition, a sign which extends over the right-of-way) can only be used on non-conforming buildings in the C-S zone. -- They may detract from the character of the building. The projecting signs introduce an element which breaks up the linearity of this otherwise flat building face. Both the ARC and Planning Commission wrestled with alternatives which would relieve the flat linear appearance of the Higuera Street elevation during the approval process and concluded that, to be faithful to the i_ architectural style, the building should stand on its own. Photographs of how the sign would look against the building will be available at the meeting. J__ / 4441PRI city of san tins owpo Worms COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT ARC 87-186 Page 4 -- The sisns may be confusins to the passing motorist. narticularly people from out of town. The intersection of Madonna Road and Higuera Street is one of the most heavily used in the county, and, even though it has been redesigned and improved, it can still be confusing. The addition of signs to this already complex stretch of road could aggravate this situation. From a staff perspective, we would prefer that motorists not be distracted by signs which may resemble traffic control signs in color and form- - They are probably not needed for this nroiect. given its unioue design and prominent location Prospective tenants would probably do just as well advertising that they are in the Pacific Coast Center at Madonna and Higuera. An interior tenant directory sign with a map showing their location in the center would likely be equally effective; perhaps incorporating some information about the historic aspects of the project site. A tenant directory could also be incorporated into the monument sign. -- They are to be only for the retail tenants of the project. What happens when there are less than eleven retail tenants? Vacancies? Removing unused signs or leaving unused signs blank would look awkward. The Commission had a variety of concerns with the projecting signs and felt that they would be confusing and would contribute to sign clutter along Higuera Street. Based on these concerns the applicant returned to the Commission at their June 19, 1989 meeting with revised plans which showed the size of the projecting signs being reduced to 3 feet X 3.5 feet. However, the Commission had the same concerns as before and voted 3-2 to deny the signs. I Madonna Road/Higuera Street Entrance Logo As outlined above, the ARC approved the logo signs as submitted in two separate actions. The motion to approve the logo sign over the Madonna Road entrance included an action to deny the projecting signs along the project's Higuera Street frontage. Even though the denial of the projecting signs is the actual subject of this appeal, the applicant must appeal the entire action which included the approval of the logo sign over the Madonna Road/Higuera Street entrance. The logo-type signs were devised to identify the project in two locations: on the trellis which spans the Higuera/Madonna entrance and on the southerly elevation of Building B (see sign locations and dimensions on plans enclosed). These signs will consist of square painted metal cabinets with an alucobond face with the words Pacific Coast Center. The face will be red with scalloped yellow trim and white translucent letters (colors and materials will be available at the meeting). The logo signs will be attached to the building with a steel square tube support which will make the signs appear to "float" above the building face; both logo signs will be tilted 17 degrees from vertical to further set them apart from the building. Staff supports the style and location of the logo signs as submitted. ►��Iil lig 11 city of san Us vwpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 87-186 Page 5 ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may deny the appeal by adopting Draft Resolution No. 1 to approve the entrance logo sign and deny the projecting signs (Staff and ARC recommendation). 2. The Council may uphold the appeal by adopting Draft Resolution No. 2 to approve the logo sign and projecting signs. 3. The Council may continue review. RECOMWIENDATION Adopt Draft Resolution No.1 to deny the appeal for the projecting signs and approve the logo sign. Attachments: vicinity map Draft Resolution No. 1 Draft Resolution No. 2 ARC minutes from June 5 and June 19 approved tenant occupancy list plans enclosed color/materials available at the meeting I I Draft Resolution No. 1 RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE A PROJECT IDENTIFICATION LOGO SIGN AT THE PROJECT'S MADONNA ROAD/HIGUERA STREET ENTRANCE AND DENY THE PROJECTING SIGNS FOR THE PACIFIC COAST CENTER AT 65 HIGUERA STREET (ARC 87-186) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and City Council have held public hearings on this request for a project identification logo at the project's Madonna Road/Higuera Street entrance and projecting signs along the project's Higuera Street elevation in accordance with Chapter 2.48 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the item has come to the council on appeal by the applicant and the council has considered the staff report, commission minutes, applicant, appellant, and public testimony, and project plans; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves to deny the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action to grant final approval to the project identification logo sign and denying the projecting signs based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The proposed projecting signs are not appropriate at the proposed location because the size, shape, color and location of the signs could be confusing and hazardous to passing motorists. 2. The exception is not warranted because of the prominent location of the project at the intersection of two arterial streets and because of the unique design of the project. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: �— / Resolution No. (1989,Series) Page 2 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of , 1989. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: l City A ministrative Officer �a City Attorn y / Community Development Director Draft. Resolution No. 2 RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION TO APPROVE A PROJECT IDENTIFICATION LOGO SIGN AT THE PROJECT'S MADONNA ROAD/HIGUERA STREET ENTRANCE AND PROJECTING SIGNS FOR THE PACIFIC COAST CENTER AT 65 HIGUERA STREET (ARC 87-186) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and City Council have held public hearings on this request for a project identification logo sign and projecting signs in accordance with Chapter 2.48 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the item has come to the council on appeal by the applicant and the council has considered the staff report, commission minutes, appellant, and public testimony, and project plans; and NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo resolves to uphold the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action to grant final approval to the project identification logo sign at the project's Madonna Road Higuera Street entrance and projecting signs based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The projecting signs and project identification logo are appropriate at the proposed location and will not be detrimental to the safety of persons utilizing the site or adjacent streets. 2. The desire to retain the existing nonconforming historic building with a 0 foot setback along Higuera Street constitutes an exceptional circumstance which warrants an exception to the sign regulations to allow the projecting signs. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Resolution No. (1989 Series) Page 2 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of 1989. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Ad ninistrative Officer City Attorn y Community Development Director o- VICINITY� �� 7,1, SOUTH IT STREET r J ------ ------------------------ - ------------------------- --------------------- r__ r- In W I RAYNE W i WATER a I SOFT r CO. I , 1 i I r North CAS j i STN. L 1" = 50' I r I r , t r , r �- r , r ! , 1 r I I XOBII.E i [ HOME r ' PARK � I � I Y � P ' C XT I C � `) y BRIDGE STREET 1 I NRC Hinutes.From June 5, 1989 r i A.. 'ARC 87-186: 65 Higuera Street; new service-commercial center, C-S-S zone; revisions to approved sign program. Commr. Chatham stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the commission approve the project identification signs and tenant signs; approve the monument sign with direction that iPbe made to conform to the 5-foot height limitation; deny the projecting signs with findings as suggested by staff; and provide direction with respect to signage along the project's Higuera Street elevation. Pierre Rademaker, representative, responded to the staff report and noted site difficulties relating to signage. He indicated the monument sign was in scale with the project as proposed and the size of the projecting signs were small. He noted a conflict with the existing Beacon sign adjacent to the property. He also noted the red color of the sign would be-non-illuminated. Marshall Ochylski, applicant, noted the unfortunate situation regarding the entry planters and that no left turn from Higuera Street would be provided. Therefore, there was a need for frontage signage for tenants. He noted a sign could not be suspended from the trestle because it would interfere with fire truck clearance. He also noted that signage was a major issue with the tenants. Commr. Bradford felt a monument sign would be acceptable with a height exception, but she could not support the project signs since there were too close to the street and and looked too cluttered. She also questioned the sign on the south end of the building. She felt the sign over the trestle would be acceptable. Commr. Morris felt the the monument sign would be acceptable, as well as the log over the entry. He felt the projecting sign should be higher. Commr. Gates supported the monument logo signs but wanted the logo sign lowered. She felt the projecting sign should be smaller. Commr. Cooper was concerned that the logo sign would detract from the form of the bridge and suggested relocating it on the north-angled wall. 1 ti: Commr. Bradfe moved to continue consideration of `Ne project ldentlllcallun lugu sign and projet. .d sign along the projeces Higuera 1. :t elevation and approve the individual tenant signs and a. taller monument sign subject to the following findings and condition: CFindings 1. The 6-foot, 6-inch monument sign is appropriate at the proposed location and will not be detrimental to the safety of persons utilizing the site or adjacent streets. Z The design to retain the existing non-conforming historic building with a 0-foot setback along Higuera Street constitutes an exceptional circumstance which warrants an exception to the sign regulations. QlId iti n 1. The monument sign shall be a maximum of 6-feet, 6-inches tall and shall be located so that sight distance is not impaired, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Commr. Gates seconded the motion. AYES: Bradford, Gates, Morris, Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: Jones, Starr, Chatham The motion passes. Commr. Chatham rcturncd to the meeting. C trinutes From ARC *Seeting o> Jur+p 19, 1989 1. ARC 97-186. 65 Higu Street; new service-commercial cen C-S-S zone; .revisions.to approved sign program. Commr. Chatham stepped down due to a conflict of interest. , Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the commission review the changes to the sign program and either approve them or continue review as appropriate. Pierre Radcmakcr, designer, responded to the staff report. He preferred to sec the logo sign remain as shown in the original plans because it would not be visible to north-bound traffic if it were centered on the trellis. He indicated that he and his clients had considered reader-board directories as an alternative to the projecting signs. He felt that the projecting signs added interest to the Higucra Street building facades. He noted that the proposed signs had been lowered on the building and reduced in size. Marshall Ochylski, applicant, felt that eliminating the guy-wire cable attachments would reduce the building's clutter and improve the appearance of the Higucra Street elevation. He was agreeable to installing a logo sign on the northerly elevation. Commr. Gates liked the signs' design and consistency but was concerned with their readability and drivers' attention being diverted from the road. She felt the logo sign could be approved as submitted. Commr. Bradford thought the projecting signs were not pedestrian-oriented, but supported the logo sign. Commr. Starr supported the revised sign program feeling that it added interest to the facade. Commr. Jones like the idea of mimicing train features. He agreed that the signs added interest to the project and supported the revisions as submitted. He liked the skewed logo. Commr. Jones felt the projecting signs were not visible and could not support them. However, he supported the approval of the logo sign as submitted. Commr. Bradford moved to approve the logo sign as submitted but deny the projecting signs based on the following findings: 1. The proposed projecting signs arc not appropriate at the proposed location because the size, shape, color and location of the signs could be confusing and hazardous to passing motorists. 2. The exception is not warranted because of the prominent location of the project at the intersection of two arterial streets and because of the unique design of the project. Commr. Gates seconded the motion. AYES: Bradford, Gates, Cooper NOES: Jones, Starr ABSENT: Chatham, Morris The motion passes. Commr. Chatham returned to the meeting. ��� Revised Project Tenant List Allowed By Riaht Advertising and related services (1:300) Computer services (1300) Contractor's offices (1:300) Photocopy services (1:300) Photofinishing -- wholesale, including blueprint and microfilming services (1:300) Printing and publishing (1:300) Retail sales —auto parts and accessories except tires and batteries as principal use (1:500) Barber, hairstylists (1200) Cabinet and carpentry shop (1:500) Offices (engineering) (1:300) Uses Allowed With Director's Aonroval Retail sales -- appliances, furniture, data processing equipment, catalog sales,.sporting goods,.outdoor supply) (1:500) Retail sales -- tires and batteries (1:500) Warehousing, ministorage (1:300 office; 1:1500 storage) ,—� Water treatment services (1:300 office; 1:1000 warehouse) JWholesale and mailorder houses (1:300 office; 1:1500 storage) Retail sales -- landscape and building materials (1:300 office; 1:500 sales; 1:2000 storage) Equipment rental (1:300 for office; 1:500 display area; 1:1000 storage) Feed stores and farm supply sales (1:500 sales; 1:2000 storage) Repair services -- household appliances, locksmith, shoe repair (1:300) Photofinishing -- retail (1:200) Laboratories (1:300) Laundry dry cleaning plant and pickup point (1:500 cleaning; 1:300 pickup) Credit reporting and collection (1:300) Delivery and private postal services (1.,300) Detective and security services (1:300) Ambulance Services (3 spaces per emergency vehicle) Building and landscape maintenance services (7:300) Catering services (1:100 food prep area.) Broadcast studios (1:300) Christmas tree sales Circus,carnival, fair, festival (1:500 or as provided in use permit) •Electronic game amusement center Laundry — self service (1:4 washers or dryers) Organizations (professional, religious, political, ctc.) (1:300 office; 1:4 fixed seats in largest assembly room or 1:40 sq. ft. if no fixed seats) Photographic studios (1:200) Retail sales and repair of bicycles (1:300) Schools — business, trade, recreational or other specialized schools (1:50 sq. ft. ' classroom area) Secretarial and related services (1:300) �-1S Uses Allowed By Director's Aooroval (cont'd) Telegram office (1:300) Temporary sales (determined by use permit) Temporary uses (determined by use permit) Ticket/travel agencies (1:300) Art galleries (1:500) Hobby, arts and crafts supplies wholesale and retail (1300) Use Allowed By Planning Commission Use Permit Antennas (commercial) Retail sales — groceries, liquor, and specialized foods (1:200) Restaurants, sandwich shops (1:60 customer use area; 1:100 food prep area) Manufacturing — food, beverages, ice, apparel, musical instruments, sporting goods, eta (1:300 office; 1:300 to 1:500 manufacturing floor area; 1:1500 outdoor manufacturing area) Bars, taverns (1:60 customer use area; 1:100 food prep) Athletic and health clubs (1:300) Public assembly facilities (l space per four fixed seats or 1:40 sq. ft. of assembly area) Retail sales -- general merchandise (drug, discount, department and variety stores) (1:300) • m j T m m � Ng Ng� ew raw a -- — z D a N I I CL � 1 I ED ® I p I � I I - I a I i m to e i I r i I i m � I I I \ iFa ( iJ �v�e34 s• °�`:IIx T 92f4taF r m A. L I� i L — 3 = O 41 4I� „ a v < A r m C o r g y m m �a s3m N m Iti yH 2 r N y O \ i= a rr rr N q � I o 000 00 Im I . I , � I G mma a mmn Q 2 I I CN 0 9 mo r Sao:c m9 a m I s r Tm A�A �y�0 s •i Ntim I^ R y r a G "orc+ w I r Iz N V Q� Mom V �O I I �IolA $j m •j7 I a„ I I /p� '60 0 I m �DD m I v v = P m K a = �N 1 1'1 m A m m P ` -� - 116 �. 1._6° r N ? • ' 2 t 11 OO 2LW P m Ip m m o lr i Sr =m m 0 . II I m = oa 5= €gm I I a i H m T T G y N O D K P K r O 1 L a —� .o m 9 lil � o \ n a Imm Fn i a _ ® 9 A O O I Co. I I i Iw y, , w S 8 i < I N W 1 O V C6 O IEb I �fEfY"s;d,��}3t;Q •I -12.L FiI� m p 2 m Os•9 yl qq G�tAx¢ig5Q'lFj m 3 �6o➢gi •e r 9Fi='�IY53i�ia o Iv i J D m O O T N :+e N �, i IYG i m Gl °� n M u TR A o YI s 2 t T T y _ N y p S � T =>y N y ° 13m P i = p a o y T jjj) y r CO3 rO a 1® N I II iL=ST i z _ N ® P OO m V I b I I ° p. � p ' SIC < ❑ I ,w LLU i IP u T 9 s m C- O K T p I / .III \I =N -''3"oaf(=,2'=`a? ' ❑ � I — s'r.=Ta��F a='att )E3 � O , aE9&4X� o SE3l6!9�pqy! - %S t�t"4t�ie o o 33 m m m T. I i2 � � A. � � YI >,ti � N g y T = 2 ❑ i I G N I I _H I 2 o EE N 2 r•r I I Li IV CL I I m I I ❑ _ � L9 I I I I ' I I .J I i Oti.P P r N T O r 1 a T N 3 O \ D N I T i vti� I I < It I� i a oZ� I m T V O N TCm T r m W pt Py ^ r T o K a a L A rnr m I �— �( 1 I I I I •� ❑ iC N 41 r I I G a 13 m .41 -r yi•e€:. i ajar tF :3F• iyp�nGXn T " nil _;5 o�'3j�ii•S'ij:3 �• (`Ssgi_S:ij9�d{ \ MUlff[ a7 0 ie �d o r, +F3^!it1FE �Sr �4¢ C I r I I p i m D�D a T WE Cl ppyoo$j �, y. O j 13 Oy ® UU9 m yy r m �aN u � z � a _ m _ D m r n N a m i o g b a � O r m u o � C z a m 9 0 t 13 < m IcCL K I � n i I L L �flf�SEFIc�17TS± N p m {; a T I� �.J•J