HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2013-10-02 (2)LATE MAIL#
TO:
Tiburon Town Council
FROM:
Randy Greenberg
DATE:
October 1, 2013
RE:
Obligations under the Martha Co. MOU
The MOU that you are currently party to, and considering extending, requires that the Town
formally assert that there are no dangerous health and safety issues associated with the 32 -unit
lower density alternative. So the Town has an obligation to fully satisfy itself as to the
completeness of information and efficacy of mitigations related to health and safety issues. The
MOU explicitly directs the Town, after County EIR certification, "to conduct all other studies,
reviews and analyses necessary to make this determination ". However, the Town's first step
should be to make sure the County's EIR process adequately addresses all health and safety
issues. It is certainly more efficient, less costly — and more appropriate — to have as much of this
work as possible done as part of the County's ongoing EIR process.
The County Planning Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors not certify the
EIR until it provides more information on a number of issues, including several labeled "health
& safety ". These issues are related to the construction road, adequate fireflow and landslide
repair.
In addition, in its own written comments on the EIR, Tiburon raised the issue of adequate
residential water pressure, which it stated is a health and safety issue, and questioned whether
there was feasible mitigation. The response was that the MMWD Code allows for provision of
service with a signed low pressure agreement and written waiver of liability, which MMWD
would require. This mitigation does not provide actual safety just legal protection for the water
district. An appropriate mitigation is needed here, and the County's EIR should provide it.
There should also be an EIR re- examination of traffic issues, which are based on the wrong peak
time and therefore raise health and safety issues of emergency response times and the school -
related bike /pedestrian, car traffic impacts which coincide with end of construction day times —
all around 3:30.
These are real health and safety issues which concern all of us as residents of Tiburon. They
deserve complete and workable mitigation. The County's EIR process should address these
issues and it is in the Town's best interest to add its recommendation to that of the County's
Planning Commission and members of the public that it do so. Please ask the county to address
these health and safety issues as part of its EIR process.
Attch. 7/29/13 letter from County Planning Commission to John Roberto, EIR consultant
/
$il
NISM
NISM
Brian C. Crawford
DIPECTOR
C U.N|TY MF.Y.EkO.P.M.E.NT A,G�NC.Y
July 2S'2U13
Morin County Civic Center
35Ol Civic Center Drive John Roberto, JFAAssociates
Suite 308
5�^Ru�e|'��Y4vO3 c/o �Wehn<�ounty(�nnnnnunitvOeve{opnnentAgency
415473 62697 Environmental Planning Section
4\54737880F 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 308
4|J473225JTTY Son Rotse|, CA 94903
Building and Safety
SUBJECT: 2008 Easton Point Final Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Health Services
Planning
Dear Mr. Roberto:
Environmental Review
xoo^mg
On July 22, 2013, the Planning Commission held a workshop to review the 2008
Sv`tainvb/{ity
Easton Point Residential Development Final EIR, including the responses provided
Code Enforcement
to the comments submitted on the Draft EIR. A number of issues were discussed as
G|S
they relate to the adequacy of the environmental review, and there was unanimous
Federal Grants
agreement among all the Commissioners concerning e number nfsignificant
deficiencies in the Final E|R. These deficiencies are summarized emfollows:
.w,~.mp,/oco"ntyorg/cJn
Home Size/Lot Size. Insufficient detail is provided in the response to comments
on possible reductions to impacts (i.e, gr8ding, construction traffic, visual, tree
removal, and landslide repair related) that could be realized by substantially
reducing the sizes of both the hunono and the lots while still achieving 43
rnininnunn'ho|f-aone lots as specified in the Court order. This is o potentially
significant mitigation measure that the Final E|R has ignored in utilizing only
^ similar" house sizes in the two alternatives analyzed. |tie noted that the
average proposed house size in Alternative 1 is O'89U square feet and in
Alternative is 7'694 square feet, while according tnthe Draft E|Ra survey of
the house sizes in the immediately adjacent Hil I Haven subdivision indicated
existing homes range from approximately 2,500 to 5,000 square feet with more in
the 3,000 to 4,000 square foot range, or roughly one half the size of the proposed
homes analyzed in the Final E|R.
2. Health and Safety Issues. There are significant deficiencies in the analysis and
response to comments related to three particular health and safety related
A. The temporary construction road. Insufficient information has been provided
|n the response to comments to fully evaluate the safety of the 25percent
grade, heavily grooved concrete temporary construction road proposed to be
installed atop a ridgeline and the potential hazards that heavy construction
traffic utilizing it could cause totraffic, bicyclists especially, on Paradise Drive
beyond the property frontage section ofParadise Drive recommended to be
widened bv the Department of Public Works.
B. Providing adequate water pressure for fire prevention. The BR indicates that
up to 20 of the homes will not have adequate water flow for fire protection
(1'500 gallons per nninute). The recommended mitigation measure istn
EITHER increase the fire flow or reduce the size of some nf the homes to
3.00U square feet. There isno indication of what might be involved in
increasing the fire flow, such as requiring individual on-site water storage
tanks, and what the irn pacts of this option to comply with the mitigation
measure might be.
C. Landslide repair. The BF( contains a relatively detailed description nfthe
proposed landslide repair, and it appears all landslides would be repaired to
within 10U feet of any residence. Many of the |enda!ide areas are located
below proposed homes, and while the area within 10O feet of the home may
be re-engineered fill, the area below that (often on very steep hillsides) is
proposed tobe left in its current unstable condition. The E|F|contains
insufficient information aSto what the impacts would be and how access
would be gained tn the unutabi|izad portion ofa landslide area located
downhill from a home, ifit begins tnslide.
Utilization of Temporary Construction Road. While itmay be technically
feasible for construction vehicles to use the temporary construction road, there is
insufficient information toevaluate how realistic the fundamental assumption in
the EIR really is that ALL construction related traffic for 10 to 20 years will
actually utilize it and what the traffic impacts might be, especially in the adjacent
Hall Haven neighborhood, if that doesn't happen.
4. Landslide Repair Site Disturbance. Insufficient detail has been provided inthe
analysis and response tm comments to fully evaluate the potential impacts ofthe
mitigations related to landslide repair, including in particular excavation and other
work beyond the actual footprints of the slides required for associated benching,
heying, retaining walls, and drainage facilities, and the extent to which this work
could impact site biologic resources.
5` Traffic. The response to comments does not adequately address the analysis of
traffic impacts from the proposed project. Specifically, the traffic analysis was
based solely on the peak hours for commuter traffic and does not include on
analysis of the impacts during the other important local peak traffic period - that
caused by school-related traffic. This information ia critical for both the general
public and the decision makers to fully understand the traffic impacts of the
proposed project.
0. Property Owners Association Responsibility. Several mitigation measures, as
well ne the resource conservation plan and the ongoing nnaintenanoeofopon
space trails, rely exclusively or heavily on a future Property Owners Association
for implementation. The complexity of these tasks would pose a significant and
potentially unrealistic financial and liability burden on the Property Owners
Association that could potentially compromise the implementation ofthe
-------'------------'—.................. ......... --------.................. ..... — ............... ---- ....... — .... —
COUNTY OF MARIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 3501 Civic Center Drive - Svite 308 - Son Rofael, CA 9A903
mitigation measures. The BR fails b adequately address this possibility and the
p�e��|mp��
PG�3OF3 '
7. Water Tank/MERA site. Insufficient detail has been provided in the response bn
comments to evaluate the potentially significant innpaotu(ie,visuo[gnading.ond
access) that would result from the mitigation rneouupe that calls for raising the
water tank pad elevation from 580 to 590 feet and from expanding the site to
accommodate addition of the yWERAfacilities.
8. Kyle Cove Spring. Insufficient detail has been provided in the response tu
comments regarding the impacts to the Kyle Cove spring, with respect to both
the effects on the habitat of the red | egged frog and the effects ho the KvoCove
property pond and the historic gardens.
9. Tree Removal. Both the response to comments and the alternatives analysis
provide insufficient detail with respect to the significant tneerennovo proposed
and a range of potential possibilities for tree replacement or other mitigation
measures, including a reduction of tree removal that could occur as a result of a
reduction in house sizes.
For the above reasons, the Planning Commission concluded that the current Final
EIR does not provide adequate information for informed decision making by the
Commission and Board of Supervisors on the merits of the Easton Point application.
As a result, we do not consider the Final EIR ready for certification by the Board of
Supervisors.
Sincerely,
Wade B. Holland, Chair
Marin County Planning Commission
cc: Marin County Board of Supervisors
--'-........... -------------...... — ........... '--............ ....... ---'—......... - ... ........ .... ....... ---... .... .... ...... .... ........
COUNTY OF MARIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 3501 Civic Center Drive - Swite 308 - Son Woe], CA 94903
Scott Anderson
From: Jeffrey Cusack Beffrey.cusack @gmail.comj
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 3:10 PM
To: Scott Anderson; Peggy Curran
Subject: Flag Pole
Dear Tiburon Town Staff,
Page 1 of 1
I understand the matter of the proposed flag pole is coming before the Town Council on October 2, 2013. Sadly I am
unable to attend the meeting as I will be away on business. Since I am unable to attend I wanted to write to express
my full and enthusiastic support for this project.
I think it is a wonderful tribute to Dick Collins, I have no doubt he would love the idea.
It will be a beautiful addition to our waterfront. I can imagine heading toward Tiburon by boat and seeing the
welcoming sight of a flag fluttering in the breeze marking the entrance to town.
This would be a good place to show our pride in Tiburon by flying our town flag.
It would also be a nice place to recognize special events. For example, we could have had an Americas Cup flag.
I understand there will be some discussion about the best location. I have given this considerable consideration. I
originally thought the best spot would be next to the anchor in the middle of the traffic circle. After walking the area
it became obvious that putting it on the knoll would probably be better for a few reasons. First, the closer to the
water it is the more visible it will be. If we put it in the circle it will begin to blend in with the trees and hill side which
would kind of defeat the purpose of having the flag pole. Second, if we ever want to have any formal flag raising
ceremonies, in the interest of public safety, it would probably be best to eliminate the need to cross the street to
access the pole.
Regarding the installation itself. I would prefer to see a simple installation with perhaps some cobble stone around
the base that matches the the stone around the ferry landing. Keep it simple and beautiful.
Lastly I want to thank whoever it was that brought this idea forward and complement our Town Council for
supporting another terrific town beautification project!!
Best, Jeffrey Cusack
4 Cazadero Lane
Tiburon, CA 94920
9/30/2013
3
IH
'I S FE F' 3 0 Vii!
I
__...
Page I of I
Diane Crane lacopi -F
Fns From: Peggy Curran
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:25 PM 0 111 3
To: alITC (Tiburon Town Council) TOWN CLERK
Cc: Ann Danforth; Dan Watrous; Diane Crane lacopi TOWN OF TIBURON
Subject: Appeal Withdrawn
Hello, Council:
\ I -
Ve have been in-'mrmed that the parties have their differences, so the appeal on tonight',s agenda is
WITH DRA ,,V' -N.
Tnanl<s,
Margaret (Peggy) Curran
150-Z buron Boule-vard
Tits on. CA 949N
4 i 5-43 5-733"
10/2/2013
10 1011 IM A 10� • rA-1 J
Via Email dwatrous@townoftiburon.org
September 30, 2013
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Phone 415/435-4506
Facsimile 415/435-7483
0 `C
... "
This letter is in regard to my appeal of the DRB decision of July 18, 2013
regarding the proposed project at 510 Ridge Road. I have lived at 600 Ridge
Road for over 24 years and I have continuously enjoyed the views, including the
nighttime views, since 1989. The plan as approved by the DRB will allow
nighttime pollution that seriously interferes with my nighttime view. I believe it is
unfair to allow the plan as approved because there is an easy fix available. I
invite all members of the Tiburon Town Council to my house before the
Wednesday meeting. Please phone me at 415-435-4506 to set a time for your
visit.
I have two concerns: First, the light from the new dining room window will
interfere with my nighttime view. Second, the light from the two windows (upper
and lower) at the entrance of the house will also interfere with my nighttime view.
Regarding the dining room window, the applicant earlier reduced the size from a
14 foot width to 3 feet 9 inches. My objection remained because of the extremely
prominent location of the window in the middle of my view. In exchange for
increasing the window size to a width of 8 feet, Robert Swatt, the applicant's
architect agreed to install unmovable louvers to eliminate the light when viewed
from 600 Ridge Road. This is an acceptable solution to which I agreed.
Regarding the upper window and the lower window at the entrance to the house,
here is what has been agreed to by Mr. Swatt. Light from the lower entrance
window will be blocked by vegetation installed specifically to screen this area.
Regarding the upper entrance windows, which consist of two four foot wide
windows, the applicant agreed to revise the plan to a single five foot wide
window. Unfortunately, this reduction does little when this window is viewed from
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
September 30, 2013
Page 2 of 3
my property, especially at night. The project architect stated that they intended to
use recessed downlights in the hallway where this window is located. Although I
would much prefer to see louvers at the upper entrance widow(s), in the spirit of
getting this resolved, I simply suggested the applicant agree to a condition of
approval memorializing the use of recessed downlights not greater than 38 wafts
(architect's desired wattage) in the hallway where this window is located. For
some unknown reason, the applicant is refusing to agree to this condition, and
instead seeks to continue to an appeal, and possibly litigation. I therefore request
my first choice, which is that louvers be used on this nonessential window.
In the interest of accuracy I have a few comments on the September 26, 2013
letter from Paul Wong to the Tiburon Town Council which contains certain
incorrect information:
1. First, he states that he and I met four times. That is not true. We met one
time on Ridge Road when he was climbing a ladder set up on the street. I
was shocked to see the ladder and walked over to the ladder where I
chatted with Mr. Wong and his employee, Jesus. I told him he could come
to my house that same night and he said he would contact me the
following week to do so. He never did contact me until I filed an appeal
and the design was done.
2. Second, Mr. Wong states it would not have been useful to visit my yard
because my home is surrounded by a 20 foot perimeter bamboo hedge.
The idea is to visit my house to see the view, not my yard. The hedge is
12 feet tall and is not bamboo but is podocarpus gracilior. The reason for
my stating the correct facts is to point out that it appears Mr. Wong sought
to mislead others with facts about my property.
3. Third, Mr. Wong refers to 16 existing uphill facing windows now at his
house. Once again, this is a gross exaggeration which Mr. Wong may
believe will help him justify the existing windows. This is false. He does
not have 16 windows now facing uphill. He states that he has a 1,600
square foot two bedroom house and then claims there are 16 windows
facing uphill. Most of the windows in the house face in the other direction
in order to see the view of the bay, which is not uphill.
Finally, I would like to note that I currently enjoy an unpolluted nighttime view.
This is confirmed by the fact that Mr. Wong was unable to capture any light from
his home with his camera, such that he himself admits he needed to rent multiple
1200 waft work lamps in order to artificially illuminate the interior of his house and
wildly overstate current conditions. (The DRB was not informed of the added
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
September 30, 2013
Page 3 of 3
lights when they were shown photos of the allegedly existing conditions). This
type of trickery should not be rewarded.
As stated above I am happy to withdraw my appeal provided the applicants will
commit in writing to what is set forth above. My attorney Riley Hurd will draft a
document for execution by the applicants and upon receiving their signature on
the document I will be pleased to withdraw my appeal. And I wish the applicants
the best of luck with building their new home.
Respectfully submitted,
ROME - M ,
Bruce Breitman
cc: Riley Hurd, Esq.
Michael Heckmann
Dan Watrous
From: Paul Wong [mingwong888 @gmail.com] -
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:13 PM
To: Dan Watrous
Subject: Re: Letter to Council Members re: Town Council Hearing
Attachments: Ridge Rd Tiburon Letter to Council Members Final Version.docx
Dear Town of Tiburon Council Members: My wife and I would like to invite you to visit our existing
home at 510 Ridge Rd. We can show you how the appellant's property is at a much higher
elevation than our home and mostly obscured by a continuous 20ft tall perimeter hedge. Also one can
view our current property which has twice the number of uphill facing windows as our proposed
residence. Our schedule is totally open ; please don't hesitate to contact us.
Thank you, Paul Wong and Julie Huh
Dear Town of Tiburon Council Members,
I would like to extend an invitation to all of you to visit our house at 510 Ridge Rd. We can show you the
story poles around the exterior of the existing home that represent our proposed home. Ad the same time
we would like to relate to you our three year odyssey to receive our July 18th unanimous DRB approval.
But first I'd like to clear up several misconceptions. Although I've never had the pleasure of visiting the
inside of Mr Breitman's home I have met with him more than four times in front of his property as well as
my family's. I have communicated my wish to visit Mr Breitman's home more than several times. But each
occasion there were obstacles which prevented this. As of this email I currently have a pending request to
visit the inside of his home. Moreover I have been able to visit properties that surround his home in order
to take pictures and study the proposed design from several vantage points during the night time hours.
|n addition our project anchibaotK8iyoK8unahihoshadthep|aaauraofviaitingthe|ivingroonnofK8r.
Breitman's home during the design phase in order to take photos and study the impact of our proposed
residence onK8rBreitrnan'mviewohed.
The second misconception is that some of the night time photos I've taken somehow misrepresent the
amount or nature of the night lights of our current home. I have taken a lot of time to take pictures from
around the neighborhood. Many neighbors were very gracious and allowed me to enter their yards at
night to study the night lights and night time views. Mr Breitmen'a home is surrounded by very tall (20ft)
perimeter bamboo hedge so pictures from his yard would not have been useful. But several Unnas | was
able to setup a 20ft ladder on Ridge Rd in order to take night time pictures from a higher angle.
In short I believe that Mr Breitman is able to see most of our current home's 16 uphill facing windows from
his living room deck. Although some are obscured by existing vegetation. Some of the photos I have were
taken ot night with the lights onin our home. But the camera was not able bo capture any light coming
from our home when only the current light fixtures were turned on. | had bo come back one week later ho
p|oms bwe|vg, very bright. portable, 1200wott halogen work lights inside our current home in order for the
camera to capture any light from our existing windows. Because of this, the photos do not represent m
"real life" situation.
In order to be granted our July DRB approval our architect, my wife and I have spent more than two years
addressing the needs of one or two uphill neighbors who are actually gaining more views and will
experience less night light than what is the caused by the current two bedroom 1600sf home.
For our other uphill neighbor we've made numerous design changes including lowering our proposed
home more than 1O times to the current design which will be actually lower than the existing home's roof
line by more than one ft.
Ph m
Prior DRB hearing Mr Breitman had us reduce the width of the dining room north window
by 1 Oft to the current 3ft width; for the lower level hallway window we covered it entirely when viewed from
N1rBnaitnnan'a home. Our current design has eight windows facing uphill. One is only 1ftwide. The dining
room window is only 3ft wide. In short only 6 windows of the proposed home would be visible from Mr
Breitman's home if the neighborhood were to be stripped of all existing vegetation.
Though approved by the DRB this design is still not perfectly suitable for Mr Breitman. In his appeal he
and his attorneys have requested to cover our 3ft dining room window in ifs entirety, further detail the
lower level hallway window covering as well as modify or mitigate our front entry area window.
VVe don't believe vva are required to do anything to the plans oa they were approved by the DRBvvith full
compliments. But in hopes that Mr Breitman will withdraw his appeal, allow us to complete our new home
and move in to enjoy it we offered to do more for Mr. Breitman, including:
1. Cover the dining room with louvers
2. Further define the dimensions and nature of the proposed lower hallway window covering.
3. Reduce the size of the front entry window by4OY6
As of this email we have not heard back from Mr8reitmanaoto whether or not ha will withdraw his
appeal despite being presented with the completed design ohangeothothehoansquamted.
VVe want to ba free to move forward, build and live in this home. Many neighbors have been completely
supportive of our project ondp|anotonnoveourynunOfami|y|n.ThepastbwoORBoboffneportaohow
numerous letters of support written by neighbors. Please consider our request to approve our home.
Sincerely, Paul Wong and Julie Huh
I
FFBI
I
t^
vi
ui
D
(f)
U)
13
c
I
ry
I
M
AN"
E
U
U
LLJ
(H?
CD
I
U)
ui
0
Z
Z
u(-,
zo
00.
U)-
W =-j
, D
I
U)
(15
Lij
ui
M
UJ
-r
u
Z
U
z
•0
V—
z
•
•
F—
•o
V-
0
Cl
<
ui
F-
ui
ry
LJJ
ui
ui
U-
ui
Lij
LLI
•
ui
ui
•
2
r,; y
•
0
w
U-
0
ry
•
LLJ
0
•
UJ
•
>
0
Lu
0-
•
U
•
ui
jjj
w
_j
U)
UJ
ry
5
Lij
(/)
<
•
Z
LLJ
<
LLJ
•
ui
U
<
<
z
D
•
•
u
LLJ
z
w
0
>
U)
•
W
UJ
0
M
Z
LIJ
U)
0
z
<
ui
1
>
LIJ
UJ
0
z
CL
0
ui
Lli
LLJ
7-
u
(H?
CD
I
U)
ui
0
Z
Z
u(-,
zo
00.
U)-
W =-j
, D
I
(D
z
uj
u
(A
i A
•
uj
r
LJJ
•
U.j
UJ
•
•
U
Z
U)
<
3�-
z
0
z
U)
Lli
LJJ
UJ
0
u
U)
Z
r-)
•
UJ
U
•
M
<
uj
•
I
I
G
(f)
LLJ
(D
Z
U
Z 0
0
W >!
uj
u
(A
i A
IF
t of
I
I
G
(f)
LLJ
(D
Z
U
Z 0
0
W >!
U)
u
W
Z
t_.)
--
LU
OfI
W
f.
t
W
UJ
Q
i
ffi
V J
`
J�
Z
Lij
`wQ
w
UJ
ry
U
uj
W
( 3
Q
LU
WD
o
`'
C-)
K M
0
I
z
0
U.j
0
z
U)
F__
U
LLJ
7-
u
Of
V)
LLJ
0
z
r
U,_l
zo
rQ
uj
D
I
CY)
0
ui
r
u
z
LU
cc)
r
LU
LU
Co
U_
CY)
ry
V_
m
0
LU
u
M
cl
UJ
ui
w
ui
0
U
0
z
z
U)
►
U)
0
ui
ui
z
r
u
Z
z••
z
—
LU
Lu
r
LU
K M
0
I
z
0
U.j
0
z
U)
F__
U
LLJ
7-
u
Of
V)
LLJ
0
z
r
U,_l
zo
rQ
uj
D
I
O
0
z
0
w:2
wQ
0 w
00
�o
0z
O
LL 0
w�
ZQ
w�
cr-�
W LLl
V
W
Z
u
U
Z
CC
W
U
0
U
W_ �;
,3L
U
LU
F-
2:
C)
ry
u
LLJ
0
Q:
LU
0
0
fy
E;
0
w
U-
3:
LL,
M
LLJ
0
0 a_
(L ry
■
F-
W
u
/
Lli
_
0
LL, <
On
E; z
® u
LL
LLJ
LU
> z
<
}
Z
LLJ
.
LJ
.
u
u
uj
0
0-1
ui
O
0
cr-
LL
Lij
z
ui
x
fy_
D
u
u
LLI
0
Q�
uj
O
0
fl�
U-
uj
a.
0
w
CL
u
LLJ
U
cr-
(1)
Z
ry
LU
U
Z
0 �2
u
LLJ >�
R
0
0
w
0
z
0
w
LU
cri
cl
O
O
;-Y
0
Er
LL
3:
LLJ
F-
z
w
D
U
I
(f)
Z
uj
U
Z
0 :2
U 0 r"4
LLJ >I
5 D
: �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
3
\
d
\
ƒ
\
#
W
>
R
I
g
2
i
\
\
ƒ
R
\
NO
:2
0
0
z
0
ry
ui
(D
cl
w
0
0
0
w
LL
3:
LLJ
r
ui
U)
0
0-
0
R
:2
0
0
ry
(D
z
0
cr-
0
0
0
cr-
LL
Ui
r
z
F-
z
ui
D
U
m
I
U)
Z
w
ui
U
Z
0
U
ui
LU
I dh
s
m
LLJ
z
D
0
F-
z
uj
(D
L.
ry
U)
z
0
z
D
0
H
(D
Z
U)
X
uj
U) au
zz
u V
1� Z
E
T7
—T
ry
U)
z
0
z
D
0
H
(D
Z
U)
X
uj
U) au
C-17
•
z
cr-- Ln
0 uj
(D
<
LIJ
u
z uj
UJ
<
Z7i n
uj z
U.j
z•
E5 0
Lj-
u
u
ry
U)
Z
0
0
Z
❑
0
U-
(D
Z
P:
U)
X
LLJ
0m)
Z
75,;
n-
ui >�
cr °'}
W,
0
--i
ui
Lo
z
z
V)
•
00
LLJ
U
z
LLJ
M
un
ui
z
(D
z
LLJ
LiC
z
ui
r
U
Cr)
u
LU
u
U)
z
0
0
U-
(D
z
U)
x
ui
Z
U)
uj''ms
a,
LLJ
b
u
n.
LLJ
O
t—
cs
s^
u
Z
•
CZ
LL
J
Q
cr-
•
0
of
•
CS
T^
O
O
O
CK
LL
W
-j
> <H
S 0
t7 Z
Z t-g:
0
W O
U) _1
O M
� S
O F-
_
d
N
LLJ
b
n.
uj
s^
b
•
a
LL
bT
•
u
`max
•
a
of
•
T^
,z'Oc-�
ti
Ad
Lli
u
z
ui
n
LLJ 0 C-
w
0
LL
us