HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 ParkAltSchaeferRnchProj (2)
~ .'
.,~
CITY CLERK
File # @][2]~~-~[Q]
.
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 15,1996
SUBJECT:
Park Alternatives for Schaefer Ranch Project.
Report by: Diane Lowart, Parks & Community Services Director
EXIDBITS ATTACHED: ( A. Schaefer Ranch Planned Development Rezone Map
/ B. Neighborhood Park Standards
/ C. Conceptual Neighborhood Park (6.4:1: acres)
I D. Conceptual Neighborhood Park (14.2:1: acres)
/ E. Conceptual Neighborhood Park (4.0:1: acres)
RECOMMENDATION: ~ Select one of the park alternatives.QI provide Staff with appropriate
0V direction
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: See Discussion Below
DESCRIPTION: On April 8, 1996 the City Council and Planning Commission
conducted a Study Session on the Schaefer Ranch Project to address development issues that could affect
the physical design and institutional framework of the project. One of the issues concerned park land
requirements and whether the project should provide a public neighborhood park on site. Also, whether
Je neighborhood park should be designed in accordance with the standards of the Parks and Recreation
~aster Plan (minimum 5 to 7 acres). The consensus of the Council and Commission was that a public
neighborhood park should be included on site, but that some flexibility from the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan policies should be allowed. Attached in Exhibit B are the neighborhood park standards of the
adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed development of the 500:t acre Schaefer Ranch is located immediately north of I~580 at
Schaefer Ranch Road and includes 474 single family homes separated into four distinct neighborhoods
ranging from single family attached units or duets to custom estate residential on lots from approximately
3 to 40 acres in size. The proposed project also includes a small commerciaVoffice complex located at the
intersection of Schaefer Ranch Road and Dublin Boulevard Extension. Large areas of open space and
recreational amenities are also included as part of the overall project design. At buildout, the project
would have an estimated population of 1,517. The Planned Development Rezone Map for the proj ect is
attached in Exhibit A.
P ARK REQUIREMENTS
The City's Parks and Recreation Masterplan establishes a standard of 5.0 acres of public park per 1,000
residents which is split between neighborhood parks at 1.5 acres and community parks at 3.5 acres per
1,000 population. Acquisition of land for public parks and funding for improvements to public parks is
provided thro:ugh the Quimby Act Ordinance and the Public Facilities Fee.
.-----------------------------------------------------------------
. . COPIES TO: Applicants
ITEM No.1. I
F:\planning\schaefer\cc I 0 I Spk.doc
,:..~;,!~
#
Ouimby Act Ordinance
In accordance with Chapter 9.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Quimby Act Ordinance), the proposed
project would generate the need for approximately 7.6 acres of parkland. Of this amount, 2.3 acres would.
be designated for neighborhood parks and 5.3 acres would be designated for community parks.
Public Facilities Fee
The project would also be subject to the Public Facilities Fee in the amounts set forth in resolution No.
32-96 (as such resolution may be amended). The Public Facilities Fee Justification Study, dated March 7,
1996, is currently being updated to include the Schaefer Ranch project within the development projections
used in the Study. This requires a recalculation of the amount of the City's adopted Public Facilities Fee
(Citywide) to include the project and the establishment of a fee for Neighborhood Parks (Land and
Improvements) for the Western Extended Planning Area. The draft update of the study (currently under
review by Staff) estimates that the Public Facilities Fees that would be required of this project would total
$3,555,000 as calculated below:
Cost Per Unit Number of Units Total Fee
Citywide
Community Parks, Land $ 2,275 474 $ 1,078,350
Community Parks, Improvements $ 1,338 474 $ 634,212
Community Buildings $ 1,107 474 $ 524,718
Libraries $ 540 474 $ 255,960
Civic Center $ 35 474 $ 16.590
Total - Citywide Fees $ 5,295 474 $ 2,509,830
Western Dublin Only .
Neighborhood Parks, Land $ 1,443 474 $ 683,982
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements $ 762 474 $ 361.188
Total. Western Dublin Fees $ 2,205 474 $ 1,045,170
.
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEES $ 7,500 474 $ 3,555,000
The Public Facilities Fees as shown above would be implemented in conjunction with the park dedication
requirements under the Quimby Act ordinance. If land was dedicated for parks under the Quimby Act
'ordinance, the park land component from the public facilities fee would be deducted.
PROPOSED PUBLIC NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
At the September 16, 1996 meeting of the Parks and Community Services Commission, the Commission
reviewed five alternative park proposals for the Schaefer Ranch project; Alternatives # 1, #2 and #3 were
proposed by the developer and Alternatives #4 and #5 were proposed by City Staff. .Each of the five
alternative park proposals are summarized below.
, ,1;" ,~.'
. Alternative #1 . This alternative will provide a 6.4:t acre park'8t Schaefer Ranch Road near 1-580, just
north of the Rowell Ranch Rodeo Grounds. The proposed park site encompasses 6.4:t acres, however,
only 4.0:t acres are flat usable acreage. The preliminary design proposed by the developer (Exhibit C)
provides for a sports oriented park which could accommodate the following: 1) 210' x 330' regulation
soccer field, (\yhich could double as two overlapping little league fields with grass infields and no raised
pitchers moUnds); 2) two basketball courts; 3) sand volleyball court; 4) flat turf play area; 5)
picnic/barbec.ue area elevated 6' above the play field; 6) tot lot with play structure and parent seating; 7)
restrooms; 8) equipment storage and maintenance building; 9) drinking fountains; and 10) paved parking
for 47 vehicles.
.
..2.
..'''foilt"..
.. Staff Analysis of Alternative #1 ~ Neighborhood parks are typically located within the development
that they serve. The proposed park site is located within the boundaries of the project, but it is not
conveniently located adjacent to the residents. Staff is of the opinion that this park will actually function
"ore as a community park than a neighborhood park due to the location and design of the park. As
~roposed, the park contains many recreational amenities found in a community park that will benefit the
residents of the Schaefer Ranch project as well as residents of adjoining residential subdivisions.
However, for the reasons cited below, Staff does not believe that a park in this location is the preferable
alternative.
1. Topo~aph.v of Site
In order to accommodate a park in this location, extensive regrading of the site will be required. In
preliminary discussions with the developer, it was estimated that 220,000 cubic yards of dirt will
need to be moved to form the park. Regrading of this magnitude will increase the development cost
of the park.
2. Location of Park
The park site is not located within the core of the development but instead is located south of
Schaefer Ranch Lane in the area which has been set aside for development of up to eight estate lots.
The park is removed from the neighborhoods and is fairly isolated which creates an ideal place for
vandalism and crime to occur. Although two to three of the estate lots will be in the vicinity of the
park, these lots will be sited above the park and the homes will be located approximately 300 feet
from the park. Consequently, the ability of these residents to observe the park will be limited. Staff
anticipates that the costs related to vandalism at this park will be increased, thus, increasing the
. ongoing maintenance costs to the City.
3. Access to Park
Because of the distance from the core of the Schaefer Ranch development and from the remainder of
the City, it is anticipated that most people will access the park by vehicle. Pedestrian or bicycle
access to the park is not conducive to the residents of Schaefer Ranch due to the steep grade from the
housing to the park. There are also two planned trail routes to the park. The first one accesses the
park from the rear and is fairly long, winding and secluded. This could be a source of physical peril
to youngsters who use this route. The other trail is the East Bay Regional Park District regional trail
which will run along the east side of Schaefer Ranch Road opposite the park entrance. With both of
these trails, children will have to cross Dublin Boulevard which will be the busiest street in the area.
4. Visibility and Control
Because of the parks proximity to I~580, the design of the site grading includes the creation of large
earth berms with varying slopes to create natural appearing mounds. The berms will range from 11'
to 16' above the elevation of the soccer field and the soccer field will be sited approximately 15'
above 1-580. The siting of the soccer field and construction of the earth berms were specifically
designed to mitigate freeway noise. The proposed dense landscaping was designed to act as a wind
break to mitigate any wind concern.
.
Unfortunately, the berms and tree plantings that are proposed as noise mitigation for the site will also
limit sight .visibility into the park. Under the current arrangement, the berms will only allow viewing
into the park from the narrow expanse of the entry roadway opening. The use of the limited view
-3-
,".' :'.'~'
'..
from above on Schaefer Ranch Road will not allow adequate viewing because it will require stopping
on a road way and the use of binoculars to be effective. In order to adequately patrol the park, police
will need to drive into the parking area and physically walk the park. Additionally, the berms may .
hide criminal activity.
5. Freeway Noise
The park is located in close proximity to the freeway and the noise from the freeway will spill over
into the park. The City's General Plan contains noise standards for neighborhood parks as follows:
Normally Acceptable:
Conditionally Acceptable:
Normally Unacceptable: '
Clearly Unacceptable:
60 dBA or less
60 - 65 dBA
65 - 70 dBA
Over 70 dBA
An acoustical study was completed by a consultant retained by Schaefer Heights, Inc. which
indicated that the noise levels would range from 59.5 dBA (at present with proposed mitigation) and
61 dBA by the year 2010. However, there is a small area where the earthen berm will not provide full
shielding and noise levels will occur at approximately 65 dBA. The conclusion of the study was that
the park as designed should not exceed 65 dBA. This noise level exceeds the normally acceptable
level for neighborhood parks of the City's General Plan.
6. Sewer Access
Sewer access to this site is not feasible as the closest sewer line is located 140 vertical feet above the
park. Consequently, the toilets will have to utilize holding tanks and will need to be pumped out on .
a .regular basis. This, will result in increased ongoing maintenance costs to the City which are
estimated in the range of$3,800 per yeaz:.
Alternative #2 - This alternative will provide a 14.2::!: acre park in the middle of the project at the
confluence of three of the neighborhoods (Exhibit D). Although a design has not yet been done for this
park, the developer has proposed that this park will provide for a "village green" type leisure oriented
park. A one half mile jogging trail encircles a 3.0:1: acre lake; the trail will connect into the three
neighborhoods. A 3.0:1: acre flat area could include a sand tot lot with play structure and a large turf area
for informal sports, games and passive activities.
Staff Analysis of Alternative #2 - This parks location within the core of the development will make the
park easily accessible to the future residents of Schaefer Ranch. While smaller than Staff would like, the
3.0::!: acre flat area provides opportunities for informal recreation activities, and the one half mile jogging
trail around the lake connects the three neighborhoods for easy pedestrian access to the park.
However. for the reasons cited below, Staff does not believe that the park as presently proposed is the
preferable alternative.
1. L.aG
The lake tP-at is proposed for the park is actually a detention basin and, as such, the water level will
fluctuate' according to the amount of rainfall and storm runoff. During periods of heavy rain, .
pollutants' from the street will be washed into the detention basin which will contribute to poor water
quality. Also, as with any water element, there will be increased liability to the City.
-4-
/.\~., .'.
.,
For the detention basin to function as a lake, a permanent water source will need to be pumped into
the lake on a daily basis. Additionally, regular monitoring of the water quality will need to be done.
This will result in increased ongoing maintenance and utility costs to the City; thes.e costs are yet to
be determined as City Staff have not been provided with information related to the engineering of the
lake which is needed in order to develop an estimate.
.
2. TopoW~PQY of Site
The site is bordered on two sides with 3: 1 slopes and homes which are 15 to 20 feet above the park.
Although 3:1 slopes .are not generally prone to landslides, there may be increased ongoing
maintenance costs to the City depending on the type of landscaping that is envisioned for the slopes.
Alternative #3 - This alternative will include both the 6.4:t acre park described in Alternative # 1 and the
14.2:1: acre park described in Alternative #2 for a total of20.6:t acres of public park.
Staff Analysis of Alternative #3 - The resulting park acreage far exceeds the acreage requirements for the
development. The combined ongoing maintenance costs for 20.6:1: acres of public parks under this
alternative as opposed to 7.6 acres of public parks required for the development under the Quimby Act
will impact the City's General Fund. And, while the Economic and Fiscal Analysis that was done for the
Schaefer Ranch Project concluded that the project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City, the cost
of park maintenance was not factored into the cumulative cost projections as public parks were not
included in the project that was studied.
Alternative #4 - This alternative will include the 6.4:1: acre park described in Alternative # I and only the
3.0:1: acre flat area described in Alternative #2. Under this alternative, the remaining acreage (which
Acludes the lake/detention basin and slopes) will be deeded to and maintained by the Schaefer Ranch
~omeowners' Association. A total of 9.4:1: acres of public park will be provided under this alternative.
Staff Analysis of Alternative #4 - This alternative is the preferred alternative of the Parks and
Community Services Commission. They felt that the combination of the sports oriented park removed
from the neighborhood and the leisure oriented park adjacent to the neighborhood would serve the
residents well. They also felt that maintenance and responsibility for the lake/detention basin and slopes
should be assumed by the Homeowners' Association and not the City.
Alternative #5 - This alternative will provide a 4.0:t acre park in the same location as described in
Alternative #2. This will be accomplished by increasing the size of the 3.0:1: acre flat area by 1.0:t acres
which will result in a lose of approximately five lots (Exhibit E). Although a design has not yet been done
for this park, a 4.0:1: acre neighborhood park could accommodate both the passive, informal recreational
activities and the more active sports uses. A park of similar size was recently completed by the City of
San Ramon on Village Parkway just north of the Dublin City Limit. The 4.35 acre park is located in close
'. proximity to the houses and includes the following recreational amenities; .1)60' baseball field; 2) 55' x
100' soccer field; 3) children's play area; 4) picnic tables for informal picnicking; 5) restroom building;
and 6) off-street parking for 17 cars.
Staff Analys~s ~f Alternative #5 - This alternative is the preferred alternative of Staff. Although the size
of the park does not meet the neighborhood park standards of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
.inimum of 5. to 7 acres), there is sufficient acreage to develop a park which will meet the recreational
-5-
'1,
needs of the residents of the Schaefer Ranch project. In fact, this park would have the same amount of
usable acreage as the 6.4:1: acre site proposed in Alternative #1. Additional reasons that this park is
, preferable are cited below. .
1. Location of Park - the park is located within the project boundaries in close proximity to the
residents. There is street frontage on two sides of the park and the park is also adjacent to open space.
2. Access to Park - the park is located at the confluence of three neighborhoods with public streets on
two sides which will make the park easily accessible to the residents of Schaefer Ranch. Residents
could walk or ride bikes to the park and not have to cross major streets. In addition, there is adequate
on-street parking for those who choose to come by vehicle.
3. Visibility and Control - the park is level and can be easily patrolled by the Police Department. The
views into the park are open and the residents who leave near the park will be able to serve as an
extension of the Police Department.
4. Noise Standards - the location of the park is far enough away from the freeway and from major
arterials that the park will meet the noise standards for parks in the City's General Plan.
5. Sewer Access - the park has access to the project's sewer system so that toilets will not have to be
pumped.
6. Maintenance Costs - the topography of this site does not pose any unusual maintenance concerns; the
ongoing maintenance costs for a park of this size and design are reasonable and will not have a
negative financial impact on the City.
Of the five alternative park proposals that were presented, Alternative #3 was initially the preferred
alternative of the developer. However, they have since indicated that Alternative #4 is acceptable. Under
all five of the alternatives, it has been suggested that the developer dedicate the land for the park(s) and
construct the park(s) in return for credit against the Public Facilities Fees. The 'estimated Public Facilities
Fees for this project are $3,555,000; of this amount, $2,757,732 is allocated for park land acquisition and
park improvements (based on a park dedication requirement of 7.6:1: acres). If the preferred alternative of
the developer and the City Council is in excess of 7.6:1: acres, credit should not be given for the park land
value and development costs in excess of the Public Facilities Fee - Parks. It is important to remember
that the balance of the Public Facilities Fees will fund community facilities such as expansion of the
current.Dublin Library and the Dublin Civic Center, a new Senior Center, and Recreation and Community
Centers in Eastern Dublin. These facilities will benefit the entire City, including the residents of Schaefer
, Ranch. If the value of the park improvements (in excess of the developer's park requirement) are credited
against these fees, the City's General Fund will need to absorb the difference in order to construct these
facilities.
.
Analysis of Financial Impacts
Staff has prepared a financial analysis of the aforementioned alternatives. The "analysis identifies the
,estimated land and improvement costs for each of the alternatives, as well as the estimated maintenance
costs. For the purposes of the analysis, the land and improvement costs that are used are the costs that are
used in the Public Facilities Fee Justification Study: Community Parks, Land - $228,000 per acre;
Community Parks, Improvements - $134,000 per acre; Neighborhood Parks, Land - $300,000 per acre;
and Neighborhood Parks, Improvements - $158,400 per acre. Maintenance costs were provided by the
City's Public ,Works Department and are estimates based on parks of similar size with similar amenities.
.
-6-
.~.
Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3 Alternative #4 Alternative #S
6,4% ac. 14,2: ac. 6.4: ac. Sports Park 6.4:l: ac. Sports Park 4.0:l:ac.
Sports Park ParklLake 14.2:l:ac. ParklLake 3.Qt ac. Park Park
.and Value $1,459,200 · $1,425,000 $2,884,200 $2,383,200 $1,200,000
evelopment Cost 857.600 · 752.400 1.610.000 1.345.472 633.600
Total $2,316,800 $2,177 ,400 $4,494,200 $3,728,672 $1,833,600
Public Facilities Fee - Parks $2,757,732 $2,757,732 $2,757,732 $2,757,732 $2,757,732
Difference $440,932 $580,332 <$1,736,468> <$970,940> $924,132
Public Facilities Fee. Comm. $797,268 $797,268 $797,268 $797,268 $797,268
BldgsJLibrary/Civic Center
Public Facilities Fee Due $1,238,200 $1,377,600 .. $797,268 .. $797,268 $1,721,400
From Developer
Annual Maintenance Costs $62,200 + $27,500 + $89,700 $76,100 $34,800
Although the total acreage of this alternative is 14.2:t acres, the developable acreage totals 4.75:t acres (3.08:1: acres
neighborhood partell.O:!: acres jogging traill.67:l: acres picnic/view area).
.. Credit will not be given for park land value and development costs in excess of the Public Facilities Fee. Parks. The
balance of the Public Facilities Fees will fund community facilities such as expansion of the current Dublin Library and
the Dublin Civic Center, a new Senior Center, and Recreation and Community Centers in Eastern Dublin. If the value of
the park improvements (in excess of the developer's park requirement) are credited against these fees, the City's General
Fund will need to absorb the difference in order to construct these facilities.
Excludes maintenance costs associated with the lake/detention basin.
.
+
.he balance of Public Facilities Fees - Parks which are shown in Alternatives #1, #2 and #5 would be
used to fund acquisition and development of community parks which would serve the entire community,
including the residents of Schaefer Ranch.
Recommendation
The recommendation of the Parks and Community Services Commission is for the City to accept the
dedication of Alternate #4 (6.4i acre Sports Oriented Park and 3. O:t: acre flat area of the Leisure
Oriented Park) and that credit for park costs in excess of the Public Facilities Fees for Parks (estimated to
be $2,757,732) should not be given.
If it is the decision of the City Council is accept the recommendation of the Parks and Community
Services Commission (Alternative #4), Staff recommends that the developer be required to incorporate the
following mitigation measures into the design of the 6.4:1: acre park in order to limit the crime and
vandalism that is expected in a park of this desigri and location. Further, Staff would concur with the
recommendation of the Parks and Community Services Commission that the developer not be given credit
for park costs in excess of the Public Facilities Fees for Parks.
1.
Redesign the park so that the basketball and volleyball courts and children's play area are on the
same level as the soccer/baseball field. Provide an elevated section. of the parking lot road way that
would facilitate the viewing of the elevated picnic area.
Install park lighting throughout the park at the standard of current parking lot requirements. The
lighting should be capable of being timed for the best effect of crime prevention.
.
-7~
3. Install a remote controlled camera observation system of low light capability with an auto scan and
manual mode recording feature (more than one camera may be required to cover the park).
Preliminary evaluation by Police Services Staff has found that two types of systems are available; .
wireless and closed circuit. It is anticipated that the selected system would be deployed in
accordance with a policy to be developed at a later date. The Park would have signage indicating that
for park safety video monitoring may be in use. It is anticipated that when a video recording would
be made, the system would allow for a subsequent review of the tape. The review of the video tape
would be based on reports of criminal activity, and/or potential criminal activity and other pertinent
information. It is not. expected that the system would be constantly monitored, whereby all activities
in the park are watched 100% of the time. The actual type, cost and monitoring options of the
cameras, will require further study. The suggested location for mounting of cameras would be the top
of the park lighting fixtures.
4. Relocate the toilets for better supervision. Two possible locations are next to the parking lot (as
opposed to the back corner of the parking lot) or closer to the tot play lot.
5. Install an electrically controlled gate that is operated by use of an opticom reader on the parking lot
entrance. This will cause the gate to open automatically when exposed to the opticom unit of police
or fire vehicles. The park lighting should be keyed into the circuit so as the gate opens, all the lights
in the park will turn on and reveal the locations of unauthorized persons.
6. Install a gate at the lower end of the public trail to the park and fence and gate the upper end of thetrail.
7. Fence the area surrounding the park with 8' high chain link fence on the south, west, and north sides.
Although fencing of this type may be unsightly, it will prevent the escape of suspects and prevent
unauthorized use of the park.
.
.
-8-
<( ~ ~ .,
.,
I- 0::; ,~ "
0\
iii ~ ... E
= V)" t ...
. >< Q) Jl c;
LU ~
~ ~ . ...
::: ." ~
I . Q .~
~ V) ~
<U .~
_Q:: c=: g~
UJ ~;
."
~~ c:: · 'Ii';
~ ." "'~
'. 'iij .~ ~ ;;\
lU ~ :-a
Q Cl.. t~
u~ ""
. -
>-..,
~ ~~
~H
~ 0.:: .,]
.,,,
" .
...'"
~
~ ~o! i v ,-
.
~ ~;i i~
:::.~
~ ~,
. ~ ,~ !
~ a~i ,
j
,
~~
~~
~~ I
"I
I,
I ~
. g
~ I:
I'
!:
,
~ (:;~,
.
I
Neigllborllood Park Standards
EXHIBIT B
The neighborhood park can be the visual and social center for the local conununity. In addition to meeting
the local residents' recreational needs, the neighborhood park is also a "village green". These parks should
be designed to reflect the unique character of each neighborhood.
.
Neighborhood parks are developed to provide space for improvement in relaxation, play and informal
recreation activities in a specific neighborhood or cluster of residential units. The park improvements are
oriented toward the individual recreational needs of the neighborhood in which it is located. Facilities should
be designed to include practice fields and not for ones competitive use, which traditionally bring more traffic
into a neighborhood.
Development Criteria:
1.5 acre minimum per 1,000 person, 5 to 7 acres minimum.
Service Area:
Service area defined by major arterials or topography.
Adjacent to neighborhood boundaries or open space area, visible from neighborhood
entry.
57 ANDARDS
~
Site Characteristics:
Major percentage of the site should be level to accommodate active recreation uses,
Natural or visual qualities to enhance the character_
Access/Location:
Minimum of 2 public street frontages.
On collector or residential streets; no major arterials,
Park Design:
Central green/social center for neighborhood. Reflect character of setting - natural
features or architectural style of homes.
Play Area:
Tot lot for children 2-4 years.
Apparatus play area adjacent to tot lot.
Parents seating area.
.
Potential Sports Facilities; Turf fields graded and maintained for practice softbal1/basebal! (minimum 250'
outfield) and soccer (minimum ] 80').
Tennis courts,
Volleyball courts.
Outdoor basketball courts.
Picnic Facilities: Tables and secluded space for informal family picnics up to 6-8 people.
Barbecue facilities in family-sized picnic areas.
Natural Areas: Open space meadow for informal sports, games and passive activities.
Parking: Off-street parking for 10-20 cars where minimum street frontages are not provided.
Lockable parking fo['6-10 bicycles,
Lighting: Provide lighting for security purposes not for night-use activities, Avoid penetration
of unwanted light into adjacent neighborhood,
.
DUBLIN PARKS
56
.
.
.
.,
~)'\ J
e ;.<.;::.,. ~. "'. / i
(J;J" '\.;J.~~. _. , " / J
.--::" '''. '...., '":"':" :' . \ , ~ I
r-l)..~ " '" __ ""'__" . .' . . .,
- ~:-~::;~~, "r, ..' -",\ ! (' I
,-, '.. ' --. "'.- , f,' "'" , , ,
,~. - C<".., , , ", , I
-""'f~~:;:;-;::;~,<o-2},~-- ;.-- . ", / I II '
- -. c-..;'-" -- - ;,,, "c":. ',,~. ,__\ : I" I
~.- - Ii!; '''. 'i\ .'" ~" '''''; ....'."..., . ii' I I I
- \ "" : . \' .,",,",'1' -'2. .. '"". i" ! , . , I"
" .. . n .""<0,.\5, "., _.,__ " " ". ,
" _v ,'\<"" . , C ;:", '\ ;' f I
~'\ r\'\ ~~: I.,~~~\{\~,~ \::y..... (," :.;':,:~:" >~,\ IIi _ I,
~ rr-. "". '--~J"t.~...~"" ~.: ~:'_ ,~"f)'''\'I' , I
-. 0, ',-~ .. "".'0. ", . "!;'.... 'D , , ,.
'.""" ~~-0-~, ',.. . '<. ;o,s '. -- , ,,; ~J~' '\ / I , /
~ '-- '/'. " ---'~;~ - .... ','
:,-r'J;G. , 'S;;",-., ~ >:":"~"I / ! IJ I
---'cr-~.c"\' '...e-,'~, ~~~I,', , I
' .~ "'d}\i];':'~',~...ft"'fIff;;-:;\ \'{,,~~~. .. 7 I.. ' / /
..'. ' . ~ " :~<::, ; \(S." >,/ <. \ \\ '\ ');;~~'~\.:-~~fi1;" ~ ~~ , I 1---; .,
' ','...' '0 '. ..\ ',,' ~_"""" ~ I I I . ,',
' . .', , .", ',-'i'. " . ~ .~~. "( / 'I I
' .-- -", "\~~?'<', 0. x " "" )J\.i' .. ! i Ii' /'
..' :{5,;,~~ "',.. ' . '~~ 1;: / I .', ' I I
'~i;':!~il-'_;,'1:\ /&;,~:'"~ .~~/ / ,: I ;/ /
',....".;......IU..;.!;-':f~:,' ~\' ....::,~~'. '~. ',~;.. (P .J~..:", '~,., / I I I
" .. ""/'.. u", ',' .--',/ c'.... .. 'I ;
;' , ".1..' """'. \~(~.- -:.,.;'.1 _ V/ I, 'I I
fie:: '<r' ..- ,~, -<nr;'r,. I / ,;
, \ \ . '\-~", \A'" -~:'-'F~~h"f,~, "II.
' ' -< '\ ", ~'5i<i;~.('.-""'-r l '''.=r: I. I
' I). 'J ", ,h""'.':".-r-."'''d. .:,'
\ ; ~,' ""'-"'-~",( __('C",, , '/' /
'f . .::' . ~- ",' "f-:'-~~ ':'" _:~ ._:' ,. ,
I..., k"'--, '", "'~"., I I
,," ,..".:',..,.; "2.-' h, '-'~'-"'" , , I
f /"""Y()c,<.",,::--- .~( '!' I
~ ~-""":_':'.':":':':"':'01'",~ I Iffl I' /
? .4'....,..':1:,:.'; 0'::' r.; .... ;'1 11/ ' I
~ " ',",',,' ,= ,,",' '.. ,,' I, ,
( /'," -' . i'>_ ''0.' , ''',.- ','...: , I "
/ :':".. ~''''.,.", ':':""-"1 I, /
' -- '. ". -c.. ' --, " "'. '" I I
~ :'<<~~;llill/tF I II !
U
l--
05
s::
><:
l..LJ
~~/~ ~
r~ \ ~ .
'~\::::::)I ~ I
t=~o:> (""'\ .. ~
-/ ~ : :
~"~=';l 0 ~
~ Q ~
'''''1 :t ="
6'2:: ~ ~
~J 0 %l
~
~~ S
r,"'jfYJ ~ {]
l~ [.,."i ~
rr- ~,~
~~~
~~~
~l ;;j ~
~ ~.-
~, ~ ~-:J
1r-J ~
~] \J
I? '\ ~
\:::::J Q
f~>?) \.,)
~"""
I:,
r, "
u
"1 ;
., ., "'I
.- .. ...- Q,
1. li ~ '"I
~~ i 1; ~
"" .::
2: "
01 '"
'"
i:l
C::o" ::
~~ i ~
~ ~ ~
I.l .
~ f
~ i ";
Q;:: oil · ~
"'. h
.~ I !i
Cl L
~H
Q;;H
i
I
~ !
lj
i!
II
.,
Iii
:1
r.',
~ ~i.t ~
---~~.:........:-_... -..-.. ._-----~
~.-~--~T..--.~.~-
XiI''<>'d OOOH<rO--;H'(;/;"';'03GOdOU r1_~,'
HJNViI' il'3~3'<>'IfJG ill
liIJ,A.JA J'l~' . liu!J;'i11I.'61/_~ . tiu,ilillf1f(1
'(d
1'1 I ,
~u I" .
I-I.. ~
jl~',;i ; ~~i
'n-iL ""
- - ~'" - -'
~ ~ liiN ~I
..
"'1,\'.)'O~/1V'J 'NI.,(?(':C
COI -1W"S 'p.o!t ~"'t1rA Ot:}"II~A (lOll
_------..------.~~.~
':JU/ 'sa:JJnOsa}J u5!saa
<=>
?-
m
=
><
Li.I
.
i
I
I
;'
I
)
,/
\
I
l
I
I
J
ii~
&J~
-----------'
,,'
r----- . ~,
. \ 'II'
t : I'"
'--=:J '
.. i
.
I
,I,
I !; -
\L,--
~
W
( ,/"
i ,,/
'- -------
r..-
~...
.
.
......
~
;;.
.....
...
Cf4
=
I..
~
...
-
-(
.c-
.....
(j)~
W+t
> ~
- "l!t
1--
~ t"
0:: ~ ~
.'(:. @ el
~ ~~
Wo
I- =
- ==
000
::s:::~
e:::: z
<t~
c.. ~
~
~
~
U
Z
o
U
.
w
>
i=
<t:
z
a::
w
~
<t:
~
t>
...J
<t:
U)
o
Q.
o
a::
Q.
U)
~
z
<t:
U
...J
Q.
Q.
<t:
~;
ii'
I
)
I
)
f
I
I
..
m
ill
~I
i~
"
t-
~
~
....
ll!
e.
't:l
OJ
en
a
e.
a
....
e.
en
!i::
1lI
.....
en
~
()
.....
o
Ql
C
:;:;
::::l
o
I
I
I
I
I
en
Ql
...
CJ
cu III
+1.....
1:0.2
0_
'CU
"<t ._
II 'E
Ql Ql
....."C
en 'iij
~ Ql
... ...
Ill"<t
a..M
~
...
ll!
e.
-c
Ql
en
a
e.
a
....
e.
III
:...
c
1lI
.2
C.
0.
<
.....
a
Ql
.5
:;:;
::::l
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
III
~
U
III III
+,.....
1:0.2
0_
. lU
M ,_
II 'E
Ql Ql
....."C
en 'iij
~ Ql
... ...
Illm
Q.M