HomeMy WebLinkAbout29 - Conexant Systems IncCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 29
December 9, 2003
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3219, gramirez a city. newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Modification Permit No.
2003 -097
4000 MacArthur Boulevard
(PA2003 -232)
APPLICANT: Conexant Systems Inc.
ISSUE:
Should the City Council approve Modification Permit No. 2003 -232 to allow a fifth wall
sign?
DISCUSSION:
Background:
On October 22, 2003, the Modifications Committee voted 3 -0 to approve Modification
Permit No. 2003 -232. The applicant requested approval for the installation of a fifth
tenant identification wall sign that is approximately 387 square feet in area on the west
tower of the Con exant/Mindspeed building located at 4000 MacArthur Boulevard. The Koll
Center Planned Community District Regulations allow signs on two facades per building
and limit each sign to 200 square feet in area. The Modifications Committee believed the
number of signs proposed is acceptable as the buiding is actually made up of two multi-
story towers connected only by a single story common area. The building is more akin to
two separate buildings which would be permitted to have two wall signs each. Additionally,
the Committee believed that the request for the fifth sign is rational given that the
Conxeant tower has five facades and that the 387 square foot size of the proposed fifth
sign is appropriate given the size and scale of the building and it is consistent with the
existing Conexant signage. This item was called for review to the Planning Commission by
Commissioner Kiser.
Conexant Signage
December 9, 2003
Page 2
On November 20, 2003 the Planning Commission reversed the decision of the
Modifications Committee by a 4 -3 vote and denied the request for the additional wall sign.
The Commission felt the building has adequate signage and that the additional sign would
be excessive.
The applicant believes the additional sign would not create a proliferation of signage and
that the additional signage is necessary to ensure site identification for customers coming
from the Los Angeles and San Diego International Airports via Highway 73.
Attached to this report are the Modification Permit approval letter, the Planning
Commission staff report (which includes findings for denial) and a copy of the draft minutes
from the November 20, 2003 Planning Commission hearing.
Environmental Review:
This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class
11 (Accessory Structures).
Public Notice:
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the property, and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this
hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the
agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website.
Alternatives:
The Council has the following options:
1. The Council can uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the
appeal.
2. The Council can reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and approve
the request by adopting the findings contained in the attached Modifications
Committee approval letter.
Prepared by:
Gregg B. amirez, Associate anner
Submitted by:
RJA.;64A J,10" p I-Q
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
Attachments:
Conexant Signage
December 9, 2003
Page 3
A. Planning Commission Staff Report
B. Draft Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of November 20,
2003
C. Modifications Committee Approval Letter
D. Appeal Application
E. Project Plans
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. .2
November 20, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION
Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner
(949) 644 - 3219, gramirez(a)city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Call for review of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2003 -097
Conexant Signage
4000 MacArthur Boulevard
(PA2003 -232)
APPLICANT: Conexant Systems Inc.
BACKGROUND:
FILE COPY
On October 22, 2003, the Modifications Committee voted 3 -0 to approve Modification
Permit No. 2003 -232. The applicant requested approval for the installation of a fifth
tenant identification wall sign that is approximately 387 square feet in area on the west
tower of the ConexanUMindspeed building located at 4000 MacArthur Boulevard. The Koll
Center Planned Community District Regulations allows signs on two facades per building
and limits each sign to 200 square feet in area. This item was called for review by
Commissioner Kiser.
The existing signage was approved by Modification Pemit No. 5036 on Februaruy 16,
2000 which allows a total of four wall signs (two on each tower) each of which exceeds the
200 square foot maximum size. The two Conexant signs measure 387 square feet each
while the two Mindspeed signs measure approximatley 226 square feet each.
The proposed fifth wall sign will be located on the west tower of the building (Conxant) and
bring the signage total to three " Conexant" signs in addition to the two " Mindspeed" signs
on the east tower. The Modifications Committee believed the number of signs proposed is
acceptable as the buiding is actually made up of two multi -story towers connected only by
a single story common area. The building is more akin to two separate buildings which
would be permitted to have two wall signs each. Additionally, the Committee believed that
the request for the fifth sign is rational given that the Conxeant tower has five facades and
that the 387 square foot size of the proposed fifth sign is appropriate given the size and
scale of the building and it is consistent with the existing Conexant signage.
Conexant Signage
November 20, 2003
Page 3
Environmental Review:
This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class
11 (Accessory Structures).
Public Notice:
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the property, and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this
hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the
agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold and affirm the decisioff of the
Modifications Committee. If the Commission believes the proposed fifth sign is excessive
in size or not appropriate for this location, the Commission has the following options:
1. The commission can reverse the decision of the Modifications Committee and deny
the request.
2. The Commission has the option of modifying the project by approving a smaller sign.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Gregg B. R irez, Associ�lanner
Exhibits:
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
1. Approval letter for Modification Permit No. 2003 -097
2. Findings for Denial
3.. Project Plans
Lit
October 22, 2003
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92658
(949) 644.3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229
Conexant Systems, Inc.
4000 MacArthur Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Application No:
Applicant:
Address of
Property Involved:
Legal Description
Approved as Requested:
MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2003 -097
(PA2003 -232)
Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, 644 -3206
Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date
Modification Permit No. MD2003 -097
(PA2003 -232)
Conexant Systems, Inc.
4000 MacArthur Boulevard
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map Book 114, Page 22
Request approved to allow the installation of a fifth tenant identification wall sign that is
approximately 387 square feet in area. The Koll Center Planned Community District
Regulations limit walls signs to 200 square feet in area per sign, and to two facades per
building. The request as approved will allow for a third wall sign that identifies Conexant
as a major tenant as viewed by vehicles traveling northerly on Jamboree Road. The
property is located in the PC (Koll Center Newport Planned Community) District.
The Modifications Committee, on October 22. 2003, voted 3 ayes and 0 noes to approve
the application request based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions.
The Modifications Committee determined in this case that the proposal would not be
detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the
modification as approved would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, and made the following findings:
FINDINGS:
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for
"Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" uses and the existing
structure is consistent with this designation. The signage is accessory to the
primary use. ^
October 22, 2003
Page - 3
4. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in
and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide
constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions.
5. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be
provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction
of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services
Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit
or agreement if required.
6. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of the construction.
7. All work performed within the public right of way shall be reviewed and approved
by the Public Works Department under an encroachment permit/agreement if
required.
8. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of
approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
unless an extension is approved prior to the expiration date of this approval, in
accordance with Section 20.93.055 (B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
The decision of the Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14
days of the date of the decision. A riling fee of $915.00 shall accompany any appeal filed.
No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired. A copy of the
aooro\ /al letter shaII be incornoratar{ into rha Riiilriinn nannrtmant ca+ of nlanc nr:�r to
issuance of the building permits or issuance of revised plans.
MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE
By
,Javier S. Garcia, AICP, Senior Planner
Chairperson
JSG:mem
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Apoeared
Appeared
in Support: None
M
Findings for Denial
Modification Permit No. 2003 -097
PA2003 -232
The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed sign will, under the
circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood for the following reasons:
1. The proposed sign is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Koll Center Planned
Community development regulations, which limits the number of wall signs to two per
building with a maximum of size of 200 square feet each.
2. The existing signage as approved by the two previous Modification Permit approvals is
adequate for the site and the proposed additional sign will be excessive.
W
L,
w
Tr
IZG T
L
L
C.j
\1 LL
0 C
o
0- 0 Co
22Z
)'b
�i
°s
3
e
j
s,
ui
8' I
a
WV
m n
FN
W Q
ZD
J as
30
ZJ
0 �
Z
WZ
ff
o¢
f F
W
O
0
w~
OWW
o
Z�
W
w
N
C .rte' r C
3 M
` Y Y
000�
W�ni
o V L R
me E
C ° r o
C C n~
m9
yN
C
d .2 N d
N
°Ece
n9 mar
i e o a
° N
y � J
J V
d d)
° 6 6
ati E
° r
A N d 3
d r r «
6 a
s
s8
E a!
L
N
Q
8i N
I
oQ
mV
H t
t V
X L A
w m
O'Ot
t)° 3
8 0
z
it
Ic
i
I g
¢V�
3 •'S° W_
s n 6
�1= O
w�°
wwo
LL. T Z
N
`\
ATTACHMENT B
Draft Minutes from Planning Commission
Meeting of November 20, 2003
\-
Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003
HEARING ITEMS
Conexant Sign, call for revie
4000 MacArthur Boulevard
mit the installation of a fifth tenant identification wall sign that
roximately 387 square feet in area. The Koll Center Planr
nmunity District Regulations limit walls signs to 200 square feet in a
sign, and to two facades per building.
Kiser noted the following:
Called this item up because there would be excessive
allowed for this building.
This building has been accommodated in a number of adequa
ways: a modification for four signs instead of two, a modification
the 'Mindspeed' signs that were over the PC Plan Standard maxIML
of 200 square feet; and modifications have been given for the b
existing Conexant signs, each of which are 387 square feet instead
the 200 square foot maximum that the regulations allow.
. Presently there is 1,226 square feet of signage on four elevations
the building (two towers) that is considerably more than the 400
800 square feet that are allowed whether you consider this c
building or two towers.
. It would be 1,613 square feet with the south elevation having
signs if this Modifications Committee decision was upheld.
. This would go beyond what is attractive and would start to
'junky'.
. If the decision were to be upheld, then to be fair and responsible
our decision making the same allowance should be made for 1
other buildings in the airport area. If you are going to allow signa
on three sides of a building, imagine what the airport area would Ic
like with signage on three sides. It is too much.
. The property owner or tenant will have to chose with the two
requirement, which two sides would look the best.
. The sign that is proposed to go up is one that Conexant already
and is the sign that was removed from the other tower when they
occupied that.
. There has to be an end point to the amount of signage allowed
this is the time to say no.
. To allow modification of what is in a PC District Regulation on an
hoc basis is carried through to many of these modifications that e
up legislating the signage of the Code on an ad hoc basis that lei
to poor planning and decision making.
file://H:\Plancomm\2003PC\l 120.htm
Page 2 of 15
PA2003 -232
Denied
12/02/2003
0
Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/2003
If we were to change these regulations and allow more signa
with significant amount of square footage, then we should do it
way of a modification to the Sign Code and in this case a PC
regulations and not piece meal.
For these reasons, I believe we should vote to reverse the decision
the Modifications Committee and not allow the additional sign.
mmissioner Tucker noted his support of the Modifications Committee.
staff report says that the committee believed the request for the fifth
n is rational given that that the Conexant tower has five facades and that
387 square foot size on the proposed fifth sign is appropriate given the
e and scale of the building and it is consistent with the existing Conexan
nage. I don't have the sense this was en erroneous decision. I dontl
to a problem with the decision.
ublic hearing was opened.
ublic hearing was closed.
nmissioner Eaton noted his support of Commissioner Kis,
iments. He suggested that he would advise the Conexant ;
dspeed to look at the placement of the existing signs and possibly
ribute them. Two of them are not provided enough visibility and cc
more if moved. I don't believe the applicant needs five signs.
nmissioner Selich noted his support of the Modifications
ision. The size of the property and size of the buildings, the
Je some good statements in support of their decision.
rperson McDaniel noted his support of comments made
missioner Eaton. I am not sure the signs are placed well, as they
:ed by some of the trees. I support reversing the decision of
fications Committee.
was made by Commissioner Kiser to reverse the decision of
tions Committee and deny the request if Modification Permit
7 based on the findings for denial attached to the staff report.
tall, at Commission inquiry, noted that if Conexant moved out of
uilding and another tenant moved in with different copy that
insistent with the size, they would have right to these sign locations.
Ayes:j Eaton, Toerge, McDaniel and Kiser
Noes:j Cole, Selich and Tucker
Absent:j None
Abstain: None
T: Mariposa Restaurant at Neiman- Marcus
601 Newport Center Drive
est for a Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage O
file://H:\Plancomm\2003PC\l 120.htm
Page 3 of 15
ITEM NO. 3
PA2003 -229
Approved
12/02/2003
ATTACHMENT C
Modifications Committee Approval Letter
\5
October 22, 2003
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229
Conexant Systems, Inc.
4000 MacArthur Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Application No:
Applicant:
Address of
Property Involved:
Legal Description:
Approved as Requested:
MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2003 -097
(PA2003 -232)
Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, 644 -3206
Appeal Period: 14 days after approval date
Modification Permit No. MD2003 -097
(PA2003 -232)
Conexant Systems, Inc.
4000 MacArthur Boulevard
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map Book 114, Page 22
Request approved to allow the installation of a fifth tenant identification wall sign that is
approximately 387 square feet in area. The Koll Center Planned Community District
Regulations limit walls signs to 200 square feet in area per sign, and to two facades per
building. The request as approved will allow for a third wall sign that identifies Conexant
as a major tenant as viewed by vehicles traveling northerly on Jamboree Road. The
property is located in the PC (Koll Center Newport Planned Community) District.
The Modifications Committee, on October 22, 2003, voted 3 ayes and 0 noes to approve
the application request based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions.
The Modifications Committee determined in this case that the proposal would not be
detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the
modification as approved would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, and made the following findings:
FINDINGS:
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for
"Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" uses and the existing
structure is consistent with this designation. The signage is accessory to the
primary use. ) (0
October 22, 2003
Page - 2
2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act under Class I I (Accessory Structures).
3. The modification to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community development
standards as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is a logical use of the property that would
be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District for
the following reasons:
• The site is comprised of two towers and each tower has a separate
primary tenant so the proposed sign is a reasonable design solution for
irregularly located structures.
• The Conexant tower has five facades. The proposed sign, along with the
existing signage, will allow drivers coming from any direction to identify
Conexant as a major tenant.of the site.
4. The modification to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community development
standards as .proposed will not be detrimental to persons, property or
improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the
existing use for the following reasons:
• The size of the signage is consistent with the existing Conexant wall
signs.
• The size of the signage is appropriate to the scale of the building.
5. The proposed sign will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential
properties because there are no residential properties in the area.
6. The proposed sign will not obstruct public views from adjacent public roadways
or parks because there are no public views through or across the subject
property that are affected by the proposed project.
CONDITIONS:
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot
plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions.
2. The " Conexant" sign shall not exceed 387 square feet, as measured within a
rectangle per the Koll Center Newport Planned Community development
standards.
3. Anything not specifically approved by this Modification Permit is not permitted
and must be addressed in a separate and subsequent Modification Permit
review.
II
October 22, 2003
Page - 3
4. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in
and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide
constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions.
5. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be
provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction
of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services
Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit
or agreement if required.
6. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of the construction.
7. All work performed within the public right of way shall be reviewed and approved
by the Public Works Department under an encroachment permit/agreement if
required.
8. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of
approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
unless an extension is approved prior to the expiration date of this approval, in
accordance with Section 20.93.055 (B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
The decision of the Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14
days of the date of the decision. A filing fee of $915.00 shall accompany any appeal filed.
No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired. A copy of the
approval letter shall be incorporated into the Building Department set of plans prior to
issuance of the building permits or issuance of revised plans.
MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE
By 4 rtundh ?.!2✓
Javier S. Garcia, AICP, Senior Planner
Chairperson
JSG:mem
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Appeared
in Opposition: None
Appeared
in Support: None
FAUSERS \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2003 \PA2003 - 232 \MD2002 -097 appr.doc
VICINITY MAP
l 4.
,]n
1]00
+w1
1200 �
,101
t D
4WI q
j
1CC0 A
J 3OV4SPi21T 09 400O
4101
1001 3991 •/
/
K t' ]901
1 %1 •/
901
Modification Permit No. MD2003 -097
PA2003 -232
4000 MacArthur Boulevard
6
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. PA 2003 -232 r-cz Pcr-M n sip.:- m3- oS-713 iCjk' 24 `'12:0,`
Name of Appellant
or person filing: "2mKe C S rwY0 S Phone: "I-'t Ct
Address: <{ yW Mkc A^ ur, 3L.
Date of Planning Commission decision: it -20 20 e—
Regarding application of: Co A('ka hT SYSTEtr,s INC , for
(Description of application filed with Planning Commission) !� aoldrl- tuncil watt sift
Ew Cow xcA t�t at 4 Wo M,c A.t-rt . R,)ye _ w es , TowE£ .
Reasons for Appeal :-11,ja $vI�Athh oows&±f, o - h,.oto' j sivfu Taivers tv� 'i\w %(ajvs
ParIn, -'N' AdAka -iaA of -T�e P!im 120serI k.)o1 el VO cvnU+T A Pwl oh
Of 5t% a<p 14 -I'VAra �:Jov wnu 1j V*Ver see more'(havy �twa s:�j�Ok\ :: invil a
firne.
T-f > LA-X aW,a S", peso /�ri(yivi"S.
Date t t /2y L03
Si na re f Appellant
CITY CLERK
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ^ l
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: 2003.
Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within thirty (30) days of the
filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (N13MC Sec.
20.95.060)
cc: Appellant
Planning (Fumish one set of mailing labels for mailing)
File
APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.050(6)
Appeal Fee: $455 pursuant to Resolution No. 2003 -40 adopted on 8 -12 -03 (effective 8- 13 -03)
(Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000) �"`
010''o
>0>
-1
0' "
M,
0
3D
nwi
m
moo
C) 0 0
(D
0
.,
r
(D
LJ
WO-0
0
CD
>< 0
CD
CL
Z
CD
do"MOW8390M.- Wow
M"" 711TY
r77T177rrrrra777V
RSKSH
(YIR&IIIIII14
2 -.11.-
,
V
m
O
N
0
m
w
s
0
N
cl
Z =m
0
0
D Z m
Z
m 2
rt�' �g$T9`Dv
m
m
a
b
O
m
z
48
o
0
n
WZ z
ON
3 , -1
D p•
3Wrs v n
Aso.
3^�•S� m
Ss Eg�E v
R o A i Y b
• 9
t
ma
i
ss3'
u: �,off
•�Ri
d
c
Mme
M�m
�O
Z y O
G) 2
m
y r 'n
m -O
r
a
-DI n
Z V!
�i
0
sn
m
�z
r�.
0
m
m ~
m
z
VJ
Z
H
� P
m
co
n m
P
• �.
• • •• • • a
T
� T
%CPO mD yi
rn
o�
S T�°
p
< A
m
2imC
It
z 2
� ti m
� W�vgi
P+
��CD
r y �Tj
GS bp�7�
D n
> zoT,
sJ o > c$�
0 cm
D m m
c cr
M ono
m m
EZ
Du
m
70 O O ti
Q D C y
O Z M T
O
0 o a$
n m
m G O
nZ
O m
C
m
m m
T
=, z
Z N
S •
N
r
m
r
IA
c•i
O
C
z
)
1
C
r
za
H
m
5
C
0
W
5
P
V -11'
5' -0' LOGO
4 y
151' -0' OVERALL HEIGHT
m
P
(�
N
W
w
d
c
Mme
M�m
�O
Z y O
G) 2
m
y r 'n
m -O
r
a
-DI n
Z V!
�i
0
sn
m
�z
r�.
0
m
m ~
m
z
VJ
Z
H
� P
m
co
n m
P
• �.
• • •• • • a
T
� T
%CPO mD yi
rn
o�
S T�°
p
< A
m
2imC
It
z 2
� ti m
� W�vgi
P+
��CD
r y �Tj
GS bp�7�
D n
> zoT,
sJ o > c$�
0 cm
D m m
c cr
M ono
m m
EZ
Du
m
70 O O ti
Q D C y
O Z M T
O
0 o a$
n m
m G O
nZ
O m
C
m
m m
T
=, z
Z N
S •
N
r
m
r
IA
c•i
O
C
z
)
1
C
r
za
H
m
5
C
0
W
5
P
V -11'
5' -0' LOGO
4 y
151' -0' OVERALL HEIGHT
LA
G1
z
0
i
Mon
'"v
r
N
0
H
z
0
N
m
Za
O
a w 2
D a
PIgE�Sn-
a. g
q4�a}
aa,s�
qa�
3 ;s
n
a
O
m
S
n
c
0
m
V
ro
0
7
r11
O
7
O
�
�
D
m
�
mm
ID
f4
N
C T
a
m
or
NOr
yam=_.
8
Nrows
4 � ;a
O
O
° Nm
�
W
m
O
S
W
;
N
0
H
z
0
N
m
Za
O
a w 2
D a
PIgE�Sn-
a. g
q4�a}
aa,s�
qa�
3 ;s
n
a
O
m
S
n
c
0
m
V
ro
0
I
a
0
� O
=o°
3 0
c 3
o �
E
7
7
r11
O
7
O
�
�
D
m
�
c
ID
f4
N
`
O
O
NOr
yam=_.
8
Nrows
O
O
CN
�
W
—e
O
V
W
;
I
a
0
� O
=o°
3 0
c 3
o �
E
7
7
r11
O
7
O
0 O
V
N
c
ID
f4
`
O
O
NOr
yam=_.
Nrows
O
CN
r
—e
3
;
4
(DHOscr
PP
pp
ID
N
°'
04
.�
0 8
3
0
°`°
30
of
'0
m
C
PP
C
P*
O
d
7
>>
IQ
m
N
rf�A
_pFN
2
D
N
A
C
A0
1
1 171
A
�vr
r
mZ
r. r
rt
zF
F
go
r
<o
V0
nm
Z
a
U)
Z
4b
W
r
*N
w
WN
nm
g�
mr
O
z
IN .
�s
H
r�r W r
Wy pe
v
fA
vx
N
�r
i.y
N
w
W
m
m
w
d
S z 'n
n M�
o
■ m4m
�
z
�
-M
� E£
m ® 5»
)][JIB&
® 'L z9, _
ae$§
§§ /«
i
29g
>(
)65Z
ce�-
Qom/
i@);
m22§
\�)
()
§
/ \§
2(5
a&
\ \\ {
/2i «
w 8!;
|�
' \(
®
§
§
a
_��
C/)
,;
CD
z
mo
w
�
`
~
r
�
�
)
\
\
_��
C/)
§
)/%
CD
z
mo
2 ?
2}
e§ee
q5@�
) §R\2
cc/)
m 2 =m
]me
ee
WE
j
CD
§