HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS2 - Plan Check Issues in Building & Planning DepartmentsCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Study Session Agenda Item No. 2
February 8, 2005
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Building Department
Jay Elbettar, Building Director, (949) 644 -3282
aelbettar(a city. newport- beach. ca. us.
SUBJECT: Records Management for Plan Check
ISSUE:
What steps should the City take to improve record management and timelines for
plan check for departments involved in development review process?
DISCUSSION:
Background:
Since 1995, the construction activity in Newport Beach has steadily increased
(see Exhibit 1). In July 2002, the Building Department led a streamlining effort by
all City departments involved in the development review process. This effort had
a goal to "improve the plan check and permit issuance process." The
measure of success was to perform 90% of the plan checks submitted within four
weeks or less. In order to achieve this goal, several techniques and procedural
changes were implemented. Concurrent plan review by all the departments
involved, versus successive review, was the key to the success of this new
program. The concurrent review required a greater number of project documents
and plans, which have now overwhelmed our resources and our filing systems.
Overseeing the management and flow of the plans amongst all the departments
involved in the review process is an important part of the success of our plan
check turn - around time goal. If a set is misplaced and does not reach its
destination, the review will not be conducted and the project will be delayed.
Current Records Management Requirements:
To begin the plan check process, between 2 -6 sets of plans (depending on type
of project) are submitted to the Building Department. Building then routes the
plans to the City departments responsible for plan check concurrently. As plan
Study Session Agenda Item No. 2
February 8, 2005
Page 2 of 6
checks and rechecks are completed by each department, extra plan sets are
returned to the Building Department, often one new set for every department
doing a plan check for every round of corrections. This means that if six sets
were submitted initially, and each department requires corrections to be
addressed two times, there will be 18 sets of plans that must be filed and
organized by project. In order to issue a permit, all these sets need to be
collected and merged with other supporting documents.
These added sets of documents presented a challenge to manage, look up, file
and retrieve from the outset of our streamlining efforts. This challenge was
amplified further when the number of project submittals increased in 2003 and
2004. The number of plan submittals in 2004 was 3,306 compared to 2,352 in
2002 when the streamlining effort was initiated, representing a 41% increase
(See Exhibit II). Considering the additional number of duplicate documents
required to achieve concurrent reviews, the number of additional plans to
manage increased by up to 3500.
In addition to the Records Management related to plan check and permitting,
Building Department administrative staff is responsible for customer service
related to records research. While there is no direct proportional relationship
between the number of plan checks submitted and the number of the customers
requesting historical information, the greater number of plan checks increases
the record management workload in two ways: by having a larger volume of
permits and plans to archive and file, and by having a larger number of
customers seeking access to the records to assist in plan preparation. This
relationship also exists between the number of plan check submittals and
auxiliary records requests such as subpoenas and Freedom of Information Act
records requests.
An additional challenge for the Building Department is the large volume of
records that have been turned over to the Building Department for the Newport
Coast/Santa Ana Heights /Bay Knolls annexation areas. Processing the annexed
records entails complete reorganization of the records, as the County records are
received in large boxes loosely organized by tract number. Once the documents
are reorganized, administrative staff can send them to the imaging company to
be scanned and can archive them in a separate Alchemy database dedicated to
Newport Coast, Santa Ana Heights or Bay Knolls.
The records transfer began in March 2003, when the Building Department
received a number of boxes of records for the Newport Ridge area. The second
transfer in December 2003 had the Building Department receiving 15 boxes of
plans and grading files. The most recent transfer was on January 31, 2005, the
first transfer of files in 13 months. The Building Department expects to receive
similar size shipments of permits to complete the previous transfer once every
Study Session Agenda Item No. 2
February 8, 2005
Page 3 of 6
two to three weeks for the next several months. Santa Ana Heights and Bay
Knolls records transfers were completed in July 2003. The transfer of annexation
records from Newport Coast is an ongoing process that may take several years,
with a constant flow of records from the County adding to our Records
Management responsibility.
Current Records Management Staffing:
Currently the supervision of Records Management is divided between the Senior
Permit Technician for projects prior to permit issuance and the Administrative
Assistant for approved projects. The increase in the number of sets is impacting
the Permit Technicians' availability to deliver customer service at the counter,
because they have to spend more time organizing and searching for plans. They
frequently need to work overtime to organize and file plans returned during the
day, so they can be ready for the next day's flow of work. And when a Permit
Technician is not able to file or retrieve a needed plan, our Civil Engineers must
do that, which takes away from their time for checking plans. Finally, the
difficulty in managing all of these records has caused us to lose plans, which is
contrary to the customer service goal with which we started our streamlining
efforts.
Records Management for approved projects is only one part of the Administrative
Assistant's varied duties. The increase in the volume of records in the Building
Department is impacting the Administrative Assistant duties and delivery of
customer service, such as answer, screen and direct telephonic,
telecommunications; maintain executive calendars and schedule meetings;
investigate and resolve customer complaints; respond to and assist with visiting
customers' inquiries; train, coordinate and supervise office clerical staff; prepare
a variety of documents for the department; assist in budget preparation; prepare
payroll; process accounts payables and credit card statements; process
customer refunds; receive and process subpoenas; act as Building Code Board
of Appeals secretary; act as record custodian by organizing, managing and
overseeing records management.
Proposed Solution:
Centralizing the flow and management of plans among all the departments
involved in the review process would allow the plan check staff in the Building
and other departments to do more efficient review and processing of projects,
without delays resulting from time spent in locating or organizing plans. To
accomplish this, I am suggesting that a new full -time position be dedicated to the
organization and management of all Building Department records. This position
will create a filing system that is uniform throughout and will provide training to
staff. Creation of the Records Specialist position would free up the other staff in
Study Session Agenda Item No. 2
February 8, 2005
Page 4 of 6
the Building Department to provide customer service more effectively, as well as
allow for increased customer service by making a person with expertise available
to help customers locate permits and plans. Better assistance and supervision of
customers also will reduce the potential for record loss.
It is intended that the Records Specialist also provide assistance to the Planning
Department with posting of sites that are the subject of public hearings, and
delivering agenda packets to the Planning Commission. These tasks are
currently performed by the Planning Technician, taking away from that person's
time at the counter and on plan check assignments.
Financial Analysis:
The cost for this position will be offset by the elimination of part time or student
aide positions in the Building Department and the additional fees from the high
volume of construction activities.
Conclusion:
Staff is requesting that the City Council provide direction for staff to bring a
budget amendment for a new Records Specialist position for Council
consideration at a regular meeting.
Submitted by:
Elbettar, Building Director
JE /mg
Attachments: Exhibit I through 11
Council StufUOWrecord mgmt pos 2 -3 -05
Study Session Agenda Item No. 2
February 8, 2005
Page 5 of 6
$3
0
0 $3
r
$2
> y
O $2
O
v $1
7 �
1
y
C
O
U $
EXHIBIT I
Construction Valuation
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005'
Fiscal Years 'Projected
Study Session Agenda Item No. 2
February 8, 2005
Page 6 of 6
0
EXHIBIT II
Number of Plan Checks
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005'
Calendar Years
'Projected
3,500
3,000
2,500
p
v
2,000
t
1,500
E
v
1,000
Z
500
0
EXHIBIT II
Number of Plan Checks
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005'
Calendar Years
'Projected
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Study Session Item No. SS2 .
February 8, 2005
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Patricia L Temple, Planning Director
949 - 644 -3228; ptemple @city.newport - beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Plan Check Workload and Turnaround Issues in the Planning
Department
ISSUE
What changes should be made in the Planning Department to address plan check
workload and turnaround issues?
DISCUSSION
For the last 6 months or more, the Planning Department has been unable to meet the
City's goal of 4 week turnaround time for initial plan check. In fact, the Department's
turnaround time has deteriorated to 8 to 10 weeks. This is proving to be a source of
great frustration and anger for our customers, as the Building Department can usually
return residential plan checks in 4 weeks or less. The Planning Department's failure to
meet the 4 week turnaround results in extra delays because planning - related issues can
lead to structural changes, requiring structural revisions to be prepared by the applicant
and then rechecked by the Building Department.
As has been illustrated by the Building Director in the report regarding the Records
Specialist position, there has been a steady increase in plan check submittals over the
past decade. The number of projected 2005 submittals is 43.5% higher than actual
submittals in 1995. During this time, the Planning Department increased the staff
dedicated to plan check by 33 %, from 3 to 4.
However, it is not just the increase in the number of plan check submittals, but the
increasing complexity of plan checking for zoning compliance, which creates the
backlog problem, especially in the older areas of Newport Beach governed by
conventional zoning. The City's conventional zoning regulations have evolved overtime
Plan Check Workload and Turnaround Issues in the Planning Department
February 8, 2005
Page 2
into a combination of very complicated standards combined with a high number of
exceptions and special provisions for unusual situations. These have led to the need to
spend much more time on zoning plan check than other communities do, or than we do
in our residential Planned Communities (PCs, such as Harbor View Homes, Big
Canyon). For example, the PCs govern the size of buildings based on lot coverage as
opposed to floor area ratio. This method of regulation frees the plan checker from the
detailed and time consuming task of calculating floor area. Another example is that the
32 -foot height limit in most PCs make it easier for architects to design houses that meet
their clients' needs within the height limit. With the 24 -foot limit in the older residential
areas, architects need to be more creative in designing houses that comply. This
results in more complicated plans to check and more pressure on staff to stretch what
the Code allows. Because of these differences in zoning regulations across the City,
there is a great disparity in the time various types of residential plan checks take. Plan
checking a new home or remodel in Corona del Mar, on Balboa Island or the Balboa
Peninsula (where development activity is the highest) takes upwards of 4 hours to
complete (15t round). This is compared to similar new construction or remodel projects
in PC and R-1 -B areas that seldom take more than' /2 hour.
There are many reasons the Planning Department's ability to meet the 4 week
turnaround has so deteriorated. They are listed below, with the 3 most significant items
listed first:
• The Department has had a vacancy within this work group since August, 2004.
While the position has now been refilled, the new employee will require a
significant amount of training before prior efficiencies are restored.
• Extra time away from routine plan check has resulted from procedural changes
which we refer to as the "Goetz Effect." We more closely scrutinize the
consistency between topographic surveys submitted with plan sets and the
translation of that survey information on to the building elevations and sections.
We also field check more often if there are any questions about the existing
grades on the plans.
• The Telecom Ordinance has established a process and permit requirements
which necessitate more analysis and greater detail than before. Prior to the
Telecom Ordinance, these were simple building permits. Now, just preparing and
processing the permit takes about 2 days, not counting pre - application meetings
with applicants, which can be numerous.
• Follow -up on Special Circumstance Variances on Goetz projects draws time
away from normal plan check.
• The Plan Check team receives 80 to 100 phone calls and counter queries per
day. This high level of activity is a natural outgrowth of the extremely high level of
residential remodeling and reconstruction going on in Newport Beach, and draws
time away from plan check.
Plan Check Workload and Turnaround Issues in the Planning Department
February 8, 2005
Page 3
• The complexity of our regulations combined with the pressure to turn plan checks
around quickly results in errors, necessitating more time to correct.
• Records received from the County of Orange for Santa Ana Heights, Newport
Coast and Newport Ridge are not indexed. This requires extra time for retrieval
since the records are not easy to find.
• We are starting to see the permits for residential remodels, accessory structures,
pools, patio covers, etc. from the transferred areas of Newport Coast and
Newport Ridge. Because these must be checked pursuant to the County's
Zoning Code (requirement of the Annexation and Development Agreement), staff
has to learn the provisions and standard administration of the County Code. This
requires City staff to call County staff on a regular basis.
• With the conversion from folded to rolled plans, it has become more difficult to
find the oldest submittals, which mean some plan checks "fall through the
cracks."
• Filing and handling of plans is done by the plan checkers, cutting into plan check
time.
• Plan checkers provide staff support to the Zoning Administrator on a rotational
basis. This is necessary support because of the increasing workload of the
Zoning Administrator, but also provides the opportunity for the plan checkers to
develop professionally as planners.
What have we done to address the problem, and can we do more?
Despite being reassigned to Advance Planning more than a year ago, the transferred
Assistant Planner still spends about 50% of his time plan checking. Also, we have
recently retained a contract planner for 20 hours per week just to do plan check.
Indexing of records is a primary duty of the department's part time Office Assistant.
While this position has been vacant for quite some time, we expect to hire a person by
the week of February 7,2005. On Saturday, January 2gth, the department held a "Plan
Check Party." Many department members participated, which was designed for the sole
purpose of making significant progress on our backlog. The event was very successful,
and we plan to do this again on February 12th
As we learned from our plan check party, we can benefit by reviewing plans as they are
submitted to identify projects and plan checks of greater and lesser complexity. We can
then assign the easier plan checks to the contract planner so that more experienced
staff can focus on those more difficult. Also, the ability to work uninterrupted by phone
calls and calls to the counter was identified as a great assistance to productivity. As a
result, we will be establishing a "sequester schedule" for all plan checkers. This will set
established times when they will not be available for phone calls or consultation. Each
applicant will be notified at the start of plan check the times their planner will be
available to them, so that they can plan their contacts accordingly. Should the City
Council approve the Records Specialist previously discussed by the Building Director,
Plan Check Workload and Turnaround Issues in the Planning Department
February 8, 2005
Page 4
that position will also be of great assistance to the planners in keeping the plans and
paper flowing efficiently.
Even with these changes in place, we do not expect to have fully addressed the
problem we have currently, or in the longer term.
Solutions to consider
The solution to this situation that we have used in the past is to request more staff so
the Planning Department can provide the plan check turnaround that the City desires to
achieve. Based on the overall workload increases experienced during the last decade,
at least one additional full time Assistant Planner for the plan check function is
necessary.
A second option would be to increase the use of contract planners. However, this option
presents some issues. There is not a ready pool of consultants geared to provide this
type of service as there is for engineering services. Because our codes are somewhat
unique as well as complex, it may be difficult to find contract staff willing to take this type
of assignment, and they may not be willing to stay in such an assignment for extended
periods of time. Also, contract plan checkers require a high amount of training, which
reduces their benefit compared to cost.
Another option that staff would like the City Council to consider is to make significant
amendments to the Zoning Code to simplify the residential and commercial
development regulations. This would not only improve efficiency, but it also would make
the rules more easily understood by the public and the design community, and reduce
the ways in which designers attempt to "get around" standards, as well as the potential
for plan check errors.
The question of the City's rules governing the height of buildings has been discussed in
City Council Study Session in the past, and a code amendment has been initiated.
Reform of the height limit system is one of the changes most likely to reduce the time it
takes to do a plan check, although it is important to stress that the primary purpose of
that amendment is to establish a more straightforward and understandable system
which is less prone to unequal application and fraud.
Should the City Council consider Zoning Code reform to be the preferred solution to the
zoning plan check problems, staff would like to develop amendments for Planning
Commission and City Council consideration as soon as possible. This would require
using a planning consultant to draft the regulatory changes. Should this be the direction
the Council takes, we are likely to also need additional contract plan check help in the
meantime.
Plan Check Workload and Turnaround Issues in the Planning Department
February 8, 2005
Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
Direct staff to return to Council with a budget amendment to:
1. Increase the Professional Services budget in the Planning Department for
consultant services, both for a Zoning Code reform project, and additional interim
contract plan check staff; or
2. Add an additional Assistant Planner position to the Planning Department; or
3. Add contract planning staff.
Environmental Review
A discussion of the staffing of the Planning Department is not a project as defined by
the California Environmental Quality Act, so no environmental review is required.
Public Notice
No public notice is required for this discussion. However, this item is on the Study
Session Agenda, which is posted at City Hall, and is also available on the City's web
site.
Funding Availability
All of the identified options would require an appropriation from the City's General Fund.
However, costs can be offset by the increased revenue attributable to the high volume
of business.
Prepared by:
"A44il
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
c�
V�
V�
U
Cu
m
O
CL
(D
Z
0
U
C
N
(6
Q
N
D
cm
a)
E
a)
c�
c�
0
N
ry
r
a
O
`FG
a
O
V
L
i
A
u
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
LO O LO O LC) _O V}
W) 60 60 60 60 60 60 EA
(suoiIIiw ui)
uopenlen uoi4ona4suo:D
x
LSi
O
O
N
O
O
N
M
O
O
N
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
co
O
O
O
O
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
rn
M
O
O
a)
t
U
O
It
x
W
L
V
LL
N
V
4)
s
V
i
m
a
O
L
d
E
7
Z
O O O O O O O °
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO CO N N e-
S313al.IO
ueld jo aaquanN
x
LO
O
O
N
lq-
O
O
N
co
O
O
N
N
O
O
N
r
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
00
rn
rn
rn
rn
CD
rn
rn
LO
rn
rn
a
N
U
N
O
x
L
R
L
C
R
U
co
l'
O
O
N
W
m
W
W
cl
LL.
O
H
Z
O
O
a
w
4
Z
O
D
Z
O
}
O
I
r
O
O
LL d
0)
O
Lo
V) N
O
N
�
O 11
"7
> O
�-
G)
0
CL
rn
N
co
O
t7
O
cc
O
M
O
M
N
O
'T
d
a
O
V
O
V
N
O
O
c
M
�
lU
N
O
co
In
O
Cl
Lo
r
M01)
H)
O
M
Cfl
N01)
G
N
O
CO
O W N
N 693 =
E9 fA
L
V
O
In
N�
O
=
bl'
M
`.O
LL
�
ffl
N
I�
I-
N
J
M
7
N
M
O
NI,-
CO
(D
N
r
0
O
N
M
v7
N
W
E
C
> O
In
d �
�
I
I
a,
co
G)
0')
N
Lo
Lf)
N
r
N
L
N
c
N_
O
�
N
m
�
�
N
N
U
N
m
Vl Vl
r
U
ml—
O
-0
LL
m m O
co
c
co m 0)
N
@
ILL
o
w
O
y
m
Q
(6
'�
y
cu
a
Vi � E c
C (Q @ m
O 1 LL O
y o m
O �n � N ,I
N 0 0 m
C O N Vi .�
c u
..
J
(0
y
N
0
y
>
a
a
v)
_=
E o r z s
y
6
Q ~
O
o
C
LL
F
m
�-
d
cl
W
D
U)
U)
U)
w
a
Z
J
D
m
0
V
O
I O
V N M
C t�
3 �
0
C
O
O
M
N
M
O
O
O
lU
O
O
V
O
V
N
O
O
O O O
I� CD LO
M
�
lU
N
O
co
In
O
O
=
CO
m
r
O
r
M01)
H)
O
M
Cfl
N01)
G
I�
M
Lf;
M
Efj
O W N
N 693 =
E9 fA
L
V
O
In
N
>
CV
EA
=
bl'
M
`.O
N
Ef3
ffl
V
I V
M
M
CO
(D
M
N
lU
LO
Q
N
M
v7
N
W
E
�
Z
I
I
n
N
O
�
o
N
c
N_
�
N
m
N
N
N
U
N
m
Vl Vl
r
O
Oi
co
ml—
O
-0
LL
m m O
co
c
co m 0)
@
ILL
_
C
M
w
O
Y
Ui
Q
N
n
Q
(6
'�
y
U
C
Vi � E c
C (Q @ m
O 1 LL O
y o m
O �n � N ,I
N 0 0 m
C O N Vi .�
c u
..
J
y
m 0
0
y
O
a
C-
O
v)
_=
E o r z s
y
.N
y y uy . v�) Z
Q ~
O
L—
LL
(1)
AMA
L
Cr
w
tO
i
E
z
O
N
L
Q
CD
M
M
U')
M
O
O
N
f
It
N
N
N
N
co
N
It
N
O
m
U
L
+
+-0
E
E
c
�
•L
E
U
U
E
E
LL
O
U
0
L
w
0
4-0
c
4-0
c
Q
E
0
U
cn
cn
L
0
0
c
c—
a
cm
cm
U
U
o
o
c
E
cn
c:
c:
o
Z
Z
Q
Q
cn
C7
C7
LO
L)
W
E0
L
�a
a
� J
� Q
�V
C �
W
m CC
L
V
0
3
0
G
0
a
i
a
14-1
CO
4
y
m
L
Nw_
C
O m
C
� v
d w
m Q
m 3 $
c m d
m �
c p
a m
� -6 a
w �
o x O
d L
N
E
5 p
U C L
0 U
O O O c
U N
Y Y Y d
a
N N 0 W
U
> 3: O �
W
c
a
am
ffi
m
3
a
a
y T
d W
a � w
m
V a N
O O O
d d a
L w a
3 � a
« «
5
4
C
m
c
d
C
f0a
a
I
�
x
x
I
1
i
I
i
I
I
X
X
=�
X
(
X
X
x
x
X
i
X
X
Xi
X
I
i
Q
I
I
I
�X
IX
;X
i
'�.X
X
X
;X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
XjX
X
I
XiX;X
XIX
XiX
'
X
�-X
N
X
X
XXX
X;X
X
X
X
X
X
i
X
X;X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
N
N
N
N
N
N
o
N
3
3
3:
3
3
0
N
V
V
NI,N
V
N
N
N
N
U
NON
N
N
N
N
N
N V
N
N
�i
0
I
C
O
y
i
i
I
a
v
EZ
�I
yl
y
E
E
�o
p
T
d�
d
f0
J
I
d
m
T
L'rnI
c
o
E
c
c
rn
c
c
a3i
3
d
0
a
w
m
TO
w
2
d
EW'E
d
di
Z
EQ
.2
'w
U)
cW3
3
m
l
9=
a
E
c
a`�
Y
a`�
Y
o
a
c
w
w
A
d
a
y
m:
C.
°
o
E
n
3
U)
d
a
a
rn
a
m
c
y
.d
c
U
C
f0
=
Y
V i
VJ
VJ
a
VJ
a
UJ
U)
U
L
c
O
L C
°m
Y
m
d
o
a-
d
d
0
d
a
c
2
U
m
m
E,
Z
Q
F�
U)
w
m
d
U
LL
E
LL
2�=
LL
2
2�a
IU
(7
O
Er
w
O1
CO
4
y
m
L
Nw_
C
O m
C
� v
d w
m Q
m 3 $
c m d
m �
c p
a m
� -6 a
w �
o x O
d L
N
E
5 p
U C L
0 U
O O O c
U N
Y Y Y d
a
N N 0 W
U
> 3: O �
W
c
a
am
ffi
m
3
a
a
y T
d W
a � w
m
V a N
O O O
d d a
L w a
3 � a
« «
5
4
C
m
c
d
C
f0a
a
¥
E
\{
)/
�} \
/ {}
}\)
\ })
} \)
I!
\ \j
! \/
)\\
\
1
�
\-
_
\��f
.6.5
'2
-
}
)( /)�
\
-
\_
/i�
0
\}
c
/
pi)
�
d
�
\22
!_
:-
/7
\ \_
-��
f2
}
-:
\ \`
\}
\£
¥
E
\{
)/
�} \
/ {}
}\)
\ })
} \)
I!
\ \j
! \/
)\\
E70
i
4
O
a
0
m
0
0
h
O
h
a
1p,
if
m
ca
O
O
r
ca
V
� �
V L
Qa
0
� i
as i
t �
y0 ,O
V h
V
�a #�
,�
. �,
I
I rn 4
s
CL -
(D C
C
t. c
1 F
m
Z
�P
y t
I f.r L L
*�
cyi
O
�Uo
c U
m
#Ilic.5 s 1
i.
M*J, i.
S! I�ti• 9 bn.a. �a
N
r
vJ
J
�f
/
4tlr
O
•�
N
.0
I
I rn 4
s
CL -
(D C
C
t. c
1 F
m
Z
�P
y t
I f.r L L
*�
cyi
O
�Uo
c U
m
#Ilic.5 s 1
i.
M*J, i.
S! I�ti• 9 bn.a. �a
N
r
J
�f
/
4tlr
c
.0
_
cu
^X
W
E
O
O 0 L
O O O
O ' ' � _0
U
X O
N �
-0 O
C6 ^ p E
I
U O O
� U O �
U O O
Y Q m C'7 .� .� m
>t C: C: X _0 U L cm
m O -0 C N c M
O �
L O C L U L M M
C6 O Q
C O
_ E O 4-0 C: O 0 ou O
i CO Q+
O ti O V) M NOM
CO z 0 >
AL A
M
r