2016-3986 Ordinance TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIREMENTS
ORDINANCE NO 2016-3986
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CITY CODE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 118,
"ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES," ARTICLE VI, "DESIGN
REVIEW PROCEDURES," AT SECTION 118-253, BY INCLUDING
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
APPLICATIONS, TO INCLUDE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF TRAFFIC STUDIES, AND BY AMENDING CHAPTER 118,
"ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES," ARTICLE X, "HISTORIC
PRESERVATION," DIVISION 3, "ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS TO DIG / CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR
DEMOLITION," AT SECTION 118-562, BY INCLUDING THRESHOLD
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBMISSION OF TRAFFIC STUDIES FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD APPLICATIONS; PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION; REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach has the authority to enact laws which promote the
public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach Land Development Regulations ("LDRs") provides
for the regulation of land within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City currently has in place policies and procedures as part of the
planning process for review of traffic impacts from private development projects; and
WHEREAS, although the Planning Board as part of the Conditional Use process reviews
and evaluates traffic impacts from development, currently the Design Review Board and Historic
Preservation do not generally consider the traffic impact resulting from a private development
project; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to consider and evaluate traffic impacts
and mitigation measures from development projects even when a Conditional Use review and
approval from the Planning Board is not required; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to establish certain threshold requirements for the
submission of traffic impact studies for Design Review Board and Historic Preservation Board
applications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board, at its meeting dated October 27, 2015, by a vote of 7-0
recommended in favor of the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to accomplish the above
objectives.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. That Section 118-253, "Application for design review", is hereby amended as
follows:
Sec. 118-253. -Application for design review.
(a) The applicant shall obtain a design review application from the planning department, which
shall be responsible for the overall coordination and administration of the design review
process. When the application is complete, the planning department shall place the
application on the agenda and prepare a recommendation to the design review board. The
planning department shall determine the date on which the application will be heard by the
board; however, the board shall consider the application and planning department
recommendation at the next available meeting date after the submission of a completed
application to the planning department.
(d) All applications involving demolition, new building construction, alteration, rehabilitation,
renovation, restoration or any other physical modification of any building, structure,
improvement, landscape feature, public interior or site in accordance with section Section
118-252 of the Miami Beach Code shall be on a form provided by the planning department
and shall include such information and attached exhibits as the board and the planning
department determine are needed to allow for complete evaluation of the proposed
demolition, construction and other physical improvements, alterations or modifications
including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Completed board application, affidavits & disclosures of Interest.
(2) Written description of proposed action with details of application request.
(3) Survey (original signed & sealed) dated less than 6 months old at the time of
application (lot area shall be provided by surveyor), identifying grade (If no sidewalk,
provide a letter from Public Works, establishing grade), spot elevations and Elevation
Certificate.
(4) All applicable zoning information.
(5) Complete site plan.
(6) Materials containing detailed data as to architectural elevations and plans showing
proposed changes and existing conditions to be preserved.
(7) Preliminary plans showing new construction in cases of demolition.
(8) All available data and historic documentation regarding the building, site or feature, if
required.
2
(9) Provided certain minimum criteria as to gross square footage or floor area are triggered
as delineated under subsection a., below:
A traffic circulation analysis and plan, prepared by a professional traffic engineer
licensed and registered in the State of Florida, which details the impact of projected
traffic on the immediate neighborhood and how this impact is to be mitigated, shall be
required in the following instances:
a. Within the City's Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA's), as
amended from time to time, all new development projects exceeding 5,000 gross
square feet.
b. For development projects that propose new floor area or an increase in floor area,
and are located within a half mile of any roadway segment with a level of service E
or F, as defined by the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual,
as amended from time to time.
c. The following shall be excluded from performing a transportation study and
mitigation plan to:
1. Single family homes; and
2. Multi-family projects (exclusive of mixed-use projects) with less than 5 units or
15,000 gross square feet.
SECTION 2. That Section 118-562, "Application", is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 118-562. -Application.
(b) All applications involving demolition, new building construction, alteration, rehabilitation,
renovation, restoration or any other physical modification of any building, structure,
improvement, landscape feature, public interior or site individually designated in
accordance with sections 118-591, 118-592 and 118-593, or located within an historic
district shall be on a form provided by the planning department and shall include such
information and attached exhibits as the board and the planning department determine
are needed to allow for complete evaluation of the proposed demolition, construction
and other physical improvements, alterations or modifications including, but not limited
to, the following:
(1) Written description of proposed action.
(2) Survey.
(3) Complete site plan.
(4) Materials containing detailed data as to architectural elevations and plans
showing proposed changes and existing conditions to be preserved.
(5) Preliminary plans showing new construction in cases of demolition.
(6) An historic resources report, containing all available data and historic
documentation regarding the building, site or feature.
3
(7) Any application which involves substantial structural alterations to or the
substantial or full demolition of any building, structure, improvement, significant
landscape feature, public interior or site individually designated in accordance
with sections 118-591, 118-592 and 118-593, or located within an historic
district, with the exception of non substantial exterior structural repairs,
alterations and improvements (as may be more specifically defined by the
board in its by-laws and application procedures), shall be required to include a
structural evaluation and corrective action report prepared by a professional
(structural) engineer, licensed in the state as a part of the application at time of
submission. A financial analysis or feasibility study addressing the demolition
proposed shall not be required by the historic preservation board in their
evaluation. For nonsubstantial exterior structural repairs, alterations and
improvements (as may be more specifically defined by the board in its by-laws
and application procedures), a signed and sealed engineering drawing shall be
required. The structural evaluation and corrective action report shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
(8) The historic preservation board, for applications involving the full demolition of
any contributing building, structure or site individually designated in
accordance with sections 118-591, 118-592 and 118-593, or located within an
historic district, may request the city to retain a licensed independent structural
engineer, with expertise in historic structures, to perform an independent
evaluation of the structure proposed to be demolished. The city commission, in
its sole discretion, may review the request and appropriate funds to cover the
costs associated with the retention of such engineer. The planning department
shall select the independent structural engineer from a qualified list it
maintains. If it is determined by the independent structural engineer that the
building, structure or site can be retained, preserved or restored, and a
certificate of appropriateness is issued based upon such determination, then
the property owner shall reimburse the city for all costs it paid to such
engineer, and the property may be liened to assure payment. If it is determined
by the independent structural engineer that the building, structure or site
cannot be retained, preserved or restored, then the city shall bear the
responsibility of all costs incurred by such independent structural engineer.
(9) A traffic transportation study and mitigation plan, which shall include strategies to
mitigate traffic generated by the development, and shall encourage the use of
alternative modes of transportation, in accordance with the following:
A traffic circulation analysis and plan, prepared by a professional traffic engineer
licensed and registered in the State of Florida, which details the impact of
projected traffic on the immediate neighborhood and how this impact is to be
mitigated, shall be required in the following instances:
a. Within the City's Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA's),
as amended from time to time, all new development projects exceeding 5,000
gross square feet.
4
b. For development proiects that propose new floor area or an increase in floor
area, and are located within a half mile of any roadway segment with a level
of service E or F, as defined by the Transportation Research Board's
Highway Capacity Manual, as amended from time to time.
c. The following shall be excluded from performing a transportation study and
mitigation plan to:
1. Single family homes; and
2. Multi-family projects (exclusive of mixed-use projects) with less than 5
units or 15,000 gross square feet.
SECTION 3. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances and all section and parts of sections in conflict
herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the City Commission, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of
this ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of the City of Miami Beach as
amended; that the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish
such intention; and that the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section" or other appropriate
word.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the
remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED this /3 day of J4nk*7' , 2016.
Philip Levine,C/ Mayor
ti
AT aalt'
l 'fit - _ ��•• ... f
Raf I E. Granado City ler
First Reading: December 9, 20 ANC APPROVED AS TO
Second Reading: Janua 13 201; CRp ORATE * ARM &LANGUAGE
g t D FORM EXECUTION
Y� / � �:-.� �• � •'',ms r & /-
Verified b 114 `P
Thomas R. '` oo ;..', AICP TM '`��' Oer
Planning Director � �� City pat®
Cty
5
Underscore denotes new language
StFikethFetigh denotes deleted language
(Sponsored by Commissioner Micky Steinberg)
T:\AGENDA\2016\January\Planning\Traffic Study Requirements-Second Reading ORD 1-13-2015.docx
6
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
An Ordinance amending Chapter 118 of the Land Development Regulations of the City Code to
provide minimum standards and requirements for the submission of traffic studies for development
applications reviewed by the design review and historic preservation boards.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Increase satisfaction with neighborhood character. Increase satisfaction with development and
growth management across the City.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc 48% of residential respondents and 55% of
businesses rate the effort put forth by the City to regulate development is"about the right amount."
Item Summary/Recommendation:
SECOND READING—PUBLIC HEARING
The subject Ordinance would add development threshold standards for the mandatory submission of
traffic studies for certain projects reviewed by the design review and historic preservation boards.
On July 29, 2015, the Land Use and Development Committee discussed the item and recommended
that the City Commission refer the item to the Planning Board. The Land Use Committee also
continued discussion on the item to September 9, 2015, in order to further evaluate proposed traffic
study threshold data being prepared by the Transportation Department. On September 2, 2015, the
City Commission referred the subject Ordinance to the Planning Board (Item C4B).
On October 7, 2015, the Land Use and Development Committee endorsed the threshold standards
proposed herein.
On December 9, 2015, the City Commission: 1) accepted the recommendation of the Land Use and
Development Committee via separate motion; 2) approved the attached Ordinance at First Reading;
and 3) scheduled a Second Reading Public Hearing for January 13, 2016.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the Ordinance.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
On October 27, 2015, the Planning Board reviewed the proposed Ordinance and transmitted it to the
City Commission with a favorable recommendation (Vote of 7-0).
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1
2
3
()BPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
In accordance with Charter section 5.02, which requires that the "City of Miami Beach shall consider
the long-term economic impact (at least 5 years) of proposed legislative actions," this shall confirm
that the City Administration evaluated the long-term economic impact (at least 5 years) of this
proposed legislative action, and determined that there will be no measurable impact on the City's
budget.
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Thomas Mooney
Sign-Offs:
Departme t Dire •r As " ant City Manager City Manager
T:\AGENDA\2016\January\PI_ ning\Traffic Study Requirements-Second Reading SU ••cx
M AGENDA ITEM R S�
I AM I BEACH I -
DATE.
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
CO MISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members the City C■mmissi•
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: January 13, 2016 SECOND READING — PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment—Traffic St dy Requirements
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CITY CODE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 118,
"ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES," ARTICLE VI, "DESIGN
REVIEW PROCEDURES," AT SECTION 118-253, BY INCLUDING
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
APPLICATIONS, TO INCLUDE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF TRAFFIC STUDIES, AND BY AMENDING CHAPTER 118,
"ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES," ARTICLE X, "HISTORIC
PRESERVATION," DIVISION 3, "ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS TO DIG / CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR
DEMOLITION," AT SECTION 118-562, BY INCLUDING THRESHOLD
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBMISSION OF TRAFFIC STUDIES FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD APPLICATIONS; PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION; REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
On June 10, 2015, at the request of Commissioner Micky Steinberg, the City Commission referred
this item to the Land Use and Development Committee and the Neighborhoods Committee (Item
C4H). On June 17, 2015, the Land Use Committee directed the Administration to draft an
Ordinance establishing broader requirements for the submission of traffic studies, and continued
the matter to July 29, 2015.
On July 29, 2015 the Land Use Committee discussed the item and continued it to the September
9, 2015 meeting. The Committee also recommended that the City Commission refer the item to
the Planning Board. On September 2, 2015, the City Commission referred the subject Ordinance
to the Planning Board (Item C4B).
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance Amendment—Traffic Study Requirements
January 13, 2016 Page 2 of 5
On September 9, 2015, the Land Use Committee discussed the item and continued the matter to
October 7, 2015, in order for the Administration to provide threshold traffic study standards for the
Ordinance. On October 7, 2015, the Land Use and Development Committee endorsed the
threshold standards proposed herein.
ANALYSIS
As part of the planning process for approval of private development projects, the City Code
requires that, under certain conditions, the applicant prepare a traffic impact study for approval by
the City. Below are excerpts from the City Code related to the provision of traffic studies in relation
to applications reviewed by the Planning Department.
Sec. 118-6. - Use of, and cost recovery for, consultants for applications for development
approval.
(a) Purpose and summary. The City Commission declares that new procedures are required to
provide for preparation and review of traffic and other technical studies and/or reports to
restore and instill confidence in the development approval process. Further, such new
procedures are necessary to confirm that adverse effects of development are adequately
evaluated for property owners, citizens, residents and taxpayers in the City of Miami Beach.
The new procedures will provide for the creation and maintenance of an approved list of
qualified consultants to provide impartial expertise for preparation and/or review of studies
and reports required for assessment of impacts of applications for development approval,
upon which applicants for development approval, affected citizens, and the city can rely.
(d) Requirements for selection of a city consultant and procedures for payment. Prior to the
applicant submitting an application for development approval, the applicant shall meet with
city staff to determine the types of studies and/or reports required for the proposed project,
as well as the methodology to be followed as part of the production of the study.
(1) When an applicant is required to submit, as part of an application for development
approval, a traffic or any other technical study and/or report, the applicant may elect
either:
A. To authorize the city to commission the study/report, to be prepared by a
city-approved consultant selected by city staff from the approved list
maintained by the procurement division; or
B. To prepare a required study/report using its own consultant.
The process described as part of the City Code has been recently modified to expedite the peer
review process. Under the current process for Planning Board applications, the applicant retains a
traffic engineering consultant who attends the pre-application meeting with City staff in order to
discuss the methodology of the traffic study, prior to submittal. The City has a peer reviewer under
contract to provide review of all traffic studies related to Planning Board Conditional Use
applications.
At the pre-application meeting, the traffic study methodology is discussed and developed.
Subsequent to the pre-application meeting, the applicant's traffic engineering consultant will submit
to the City the written study methodology for approval prior to initiating the production of the study.
At this meeting, the applicant is also informed of the cost of the peer review. A check in the amount
indicated must be submitted to the City prior to initiating the peer review process.
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance Amendment—Traffic Study Requirements
January 13, 2016 Page 3 of 5
Once a traffic study is submitted to the City as part of the Planning Board application, a copy is
sent to the peer reviewer for review and comments. Shortly after receiving the traffic studies, city
Transportation staff submits comments to the applicant. These comments are also coordinated
with the peer reviewer. The goal is to address all traffic/transportation issues related to a
development project at least 20 days prior to the Planning Board meeting. After all the traffic
related issues have been addressed, the Transportation Department submits a memorandum with
recommendations to the Planning Department.
The Planning Department takes the transportation considerations into account in making a
recommendation to the Planning Board, including adding specific conditions of approval if needed.
In many instances development projects are required to obtain both Conditional Use approval
(from the Planning Board), as well as either Design Review Board (DRB) or Historic Preservation
Board (HPB) approval. In these instances traffic impacts are addressed as part of the Planning
Board application review.
Unlike Planning Board applications, however, DRB and HPB applications follow a different review
process. In general, the traffic impact resulting from a private development project is not a
consideration in HPB and DRB applications. Thus, projects reviewed by the HPB and DRB (that do
not require Planning Board review) are currently not required to conduct a traffic impact study as
part of the initial Board review. As part of the Building Permit review process, the City can require
that a traffic impact study be submitted. However at this point the permit plans have been fully
developed and modifications to the plans can come at great expense to the applicant.
PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS
Planning and Transportation Departments have put together thresholds under which applications
to the DRB and HPB would be required to submit a traffic impact study. This would provide a
sufficient level of assessment by the Transportation and Planning Departments in order to identify
any major concerns or issues with an application, which could be addressed early in the
development review process.
In the attached draft ordinance, the sections of the Land Development Regulations that would be
best suited for DRB and HPB required traffic studies have been identified, as well as the specific
thresholds for mandating the submission of a traffic study for these particular boards. Specifically,
the following new language is proposed for both the DRB and HPB submission requirements:
(1) Provided certain minimum criteria as to gross square footage or floor area are triggered as
delineated under subsection a., below, a Transportation Study and Mitigation Plan, which
shall include strategies to mitigate traffic generated by the development, and shall
encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, in accordance with the
following:
a. A traffic circulation analysis and plan, prepared by a Professional Traffic Engineer
registered in the State of Florida, which details the impact of projected traffic on the
immediate neighborhood and how this impact is to be mitigated, shall be required in
the following instances:
1. Within the City's Transportation Concurrency Management Areas
(TCMA's), as amended from time to time, all new development
projects exceeding 5,000_gross square feet.
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance Amendment—Traffic Study Requirements
January 13, 2016 Page 4 of 5
2. Development projects that propose new floor area or an increase in
floor area, and are located within a % mile radius from any roadway
segment with a level of service E or F.
b. Developments excluded from performing a Transportation Study and Mitigation
Plan are limited to:
1. Single family homes.
2. Multi-family projects (exclusive of mixed-use projects) with less than
5 units or 15,000 gross square feet.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
On October 27, 2015, the Planning Board transmitted the proposed ordinance amendment to the
City Commission with a favorable recommendation (PB File No. 2289).
FISCAL IMPACT
In accordance with Charter Section 5.02, which requires that the "City of Miami Beach shall
consider the long term economic impact (at least 5 years) of proposed legislative actions," this shall
confirm that the City Administration City Administration evaluated the long term economic impact
(at least 5 years) of this proposed legislative action. The proposed Ordinance is not expected to
have a negative fiscal impact upon the City.
SUMMARY/UPDATE
On December 9, 2015, the City Commission approved the subject ordinance at First Reading, with
additional clarifying text pertaining to the applicability of required studies. This modification has
been included in the revised text of the attached ordinance.
The subject ordinance will require traffic studies be submitted as part of certain threshold HPB and
DRB applications. The review process for these studies will be the same as that used for projects
requesting a Conditional Use Approval (CUP) from the Planning Board, inclusive of the Peer
Review Process. This process requires that the applicant submit a traffic study and that the City
select a consultant as a Peer Reviewer; the applicant is responsible for all costs associated with
the Peer Review.
The Peer Review Process generally requires that a pre-application meeting, consisting of City
Staff, the Peer Reviewer, and the Applicants, be held in order to agree on a Traffic Study
Methodology at least 90 days prior to the expected date of the Board hearing date. The completed
application, inclusive of a Traffic Study, must be submitted to the City approximately 68 days prior
to the hearing date. The Transportation Department and Peer Reviewer then provide comments to
the applicant approximately 55 days prior to the hearing. The applicant is then expected to
address those comments 50 days prior to the hearing date. Any pending comments should be
addressed by the applicant 35 days prior to the hearing. It is expected that all transportation/traffic
related issues will have been finalized at least 20 days prior to the hearing date. If the issues have
been fully addressed, the Transportation Department, in conjunction with the Peer Reviewer,
completes its analysis and recommendations for the Traffic Study and mitigation measures, and
provides the Planning Department with a memorandum at least 15 days prior to the expected
hearing date.
- Commission Memorandum
Ordinance Amendment Traffic Study Requirements
January 13,:_20.16 .. - 'Page 5of.5
_- --- Had the proposed Ordinance,•been-in•effect last year (2015), it is„estimated that approximately`34 -
applications requesting approval of a-Certificate of Appropriateness:from the'Historic Preservation
Board and approximately_.20 projects requesting Design Review Approval from the Design Review
Board would have met the threshold for requiring the submittal of a,traffic-study: . •
CONCLUSION = , •
- The Administration recommends that'the.City Commission adopt the Ordinance -
A'
JLM/SMT/TRM/RAM
T:\AGENDA\2016\January\Planning\Traffic Study Requirements-Second Reading MEM:V2:docx
i. -
f .
• • ,
_r
. 3 •
•
y1'
fi
O Oc"w ° c a) C >. C m m o V) :j 15 m : m '-
> N O O m H C O C m N m Y LN'm YC C
O_
•_
8
U Z O L O m ,L .. C J a)t C U a L.L▪ E _ U l w Y O'- Y'O N _ U N Q 0 Y O O C "U 0 m> .Y U m N C .o m O •� m 0 N U m h m :C y m m'5 O 3 O c U L a C U V m
E � m D 2•t U E 2 o C=a E > m E o •pain 7 > y-o co O E E o > .t..*g v) - - m 7 t 2 c ) a) YA0 �• m `M
2 tL, rn Y m ;Y° O N c m HI'' E 2 U fi
: ,Q > N c U to q (U! ' rn `m o a m y c a m o u° i tm • V o N m m 0 m m o r CI, y H U E Q ._. C` E L)o O W_ Q )• _M .m w E L 7 U m. • m .. m LO N c Q N co o m Q N y a7 E to -' EQ E :$•.c C Y U) >7 R -
il E o Q d▪ U' s N fl .0 C x c Ec c C7 U m m° ° •�o• a) c c Q E C E o no U•Y - y Q ta N Q W a) m i- 1 L N O U ° E U C 7.- '15.
N =,C m U 7-O Cy m O) m Ne . m= m E h f ;E a
t� = c o c.1'w o .c 0 m _ m Q CD Y m•C o. m m 0 0 m c7 m m `m f °'3 Q ° O o E= a V) c p ,,,- a) o , co ...7..- o c - c L t , c m C a @ N 7 m m C C U U = O 0 Y u>Q l L'j 7 .E U O) o'.Y.«• > 7 Y U D L C o - C C m V) : N - c i o N T) m m m E w) ) C.1:1 m Z o L' N U L 5 L ° N s Q 0 Q Q
'C > C F N V) f!j 0 o_ ;a.V CL a 0 y E >•L• yO t y m.. o a Q1.0 m L m .p N '�., C m L c L N O 2- m V ▪0_-' ` ` > Q m y Q L m y o m m m 'D « O` C *cil L «
0 o v a) Q H H c a 0 m
c o a L Y m C
L a' U to m c m m o._ o y Lo N y a
w 7`o c a m E E 0�> a; c > c EEE mw >L ' c w o •mm ° ° E c
U n m O c a m y U �= c i.`O Fo W o c r o > Q X U o c y °
a)m o U` m
CO a) 1- m 3 o O '- m N.gin ` )- .t..-:., U v - m o Z a V N p U m C y N a m :o Y m y ° m Q c m U)_.°' c Qc r 0 > =>� N� m w c o °E O m •C 2 N C= y c
m CO ca" C c7 ai-°y a ' p O ° o c0 ° 5 7 mCm •� _o E C m 7 m.rn C m Q y c a LO m o yL° _ *iii* 2; E = ° E C Nv
`. Um -°Q O Y Q�, ?"_ O) N 0 C > o m a ao m E O g 7 N• o.o • Q V: o , N L mo m W
O c m ° m m o a C..) a
m m o) Q Y m 0 LL -I- m u'o v o ° O L m�m tF- > t ) m o Q a a; 2 O vc�a � c�il-i c n m o>rn m aiM`
E y Q m 0 Z E N
Er 7E o Q m}
� e
a.?� ui olL� �f0 ' cu m °
c � , o o > o o � o o Y
: m-oL ° Z >; aE CO p Q V Q U ? c-0 O > a) 7 W
L m 7 U C = c
U N m TO U m •5
m m o c O ° �,( x y o E y N Q ? C U Q D m .- a) 0 Y
Y L` ,_Q UO_ O 2 U C Q D c ! C E LO • L a x 0 0 .- o U N •- 'C o c
U C O a LL `U .0 c r W
CO U rn
> c c U >.
c rn m c
o Q m c m
' m
E c .- 7 C o 7
c E m W i
m V LU 7.° Y m.2 O o E m o
m'2 ° o ' ` U U C'
w N 2
J m 0 ° y CI-
73
^ E ' C Q° C a) N 0 Q2 .v j c C'C o NE cQ O °c n `o EE m- a ai v QN
Q CO O ° 'm��
Qar� QLL p ` ° v
p NQ > m o O-a mL� 13.` � m2m m > " `v
O a f x 8_ _ > ` t a: C j 0 m o m o Q m a' r a c E o m a H -o H m.f m N m _ 7,5 c 3 m Lri 5 a ° � y C° c ° m 'o - Q 0 p c
p w 'Y O o E �° * C y C O Y o- O o
m L m i m a c{L my c O 7Q cZ III !> UHi ,
UI
o I1i
.0 o c U W U 1— Y a) F- ° J m te Y:. m U LL a.Q d a' t- E O L 0 1)om o a ' L C V ^ m 0 7 m U C o > C U y z m m U a) y C m O Y . m m W m .. O
E N.E W-O m • �C ° a m °•y v_ L E m E m 0:. O m O a V 1.- o E L ^ ,Cl)m o m
. h o 0 y^ co-Q-o E O tc LE o N ac O c H E o 0 o q ° � in a O ° tm m o 0 i y ,_ o-a m a th m o o t*i Q o U , c o N c 3z > La p aE «0 Ta) y� y �F- C c �ti o y y m C as 3 o N•- p p To ° ai c� -10 � 8 ' o . ..- °=c p m ° a c C.j o O° m O 'y V co _ a o m •m 4..,a' ° .- o
co E
< L o O m °7
•` L 9 m 0 .- O m -5.'6 c U m L'?C U M o °U 0 m •- N m 7 z L°` C •tiO.`> a > a L•V 0 p m 0
CO U U V 7 Y N LO.N O)m 1).p W t a] N > U C Q O y ` m > L L 7 0 C O) C a) .c ° O)C a m O 7 CD m CL F- > y a) m p Y O E Y m m C N 0 L m c CL m'6 Lo C a C= c O CL 0 a c c O m L U -c ° c t Y j 1 a c m m a) co W F_ .." a); U C O °.N 03 N U U m m cc 7 U m c �Q C V. J r-77 E Q E `- m 3 E , -- m C c L m C >-C L o Y '( . Y m•E E I ° :) co e OnU c E E 0U ° Yc.h a -U Y 7.c m IH V e rn a� Y E 0 a�U m ,o a)q E Q m O °�'7 Y a C m UU i co` C) >a 0 E C • E .- o - •0iaw rn> Q m E a C>C C ao E � Y m o > i C a m Y,. CM �c Q ',3 7. •Y c m m L c ° .N C
c > E 0 0 m a a c9" a) y `m ! m o �O c c pc m w > c N .
o mQ o m,> E Q y > 5° la) to > r a)U o aa >•Y - � m rn m E e m m m 4- N a °° C o U m m N Q ° >t)•L_0 0!L, a CO tom.C co U O Q y C m co Lo'C o C O m o Ea,
Y -0 f° m N "�— m m o › ° O0U m N o° m� om a) , D v 'aQ 1-0 '°-O-° c .c a- m.: Y ° Ey o a .o U-0 a) c r-.D m•6 -0 n2 m n ma c Q,tQ � F- >I N 3mE0 O ao a fty L � U p t0 C C y Q a U c o a C 2 E
m - ° m "'= : m _
m > a) ) C y U a) U T m c ; °N y -a O U a L ., m am m m a)U to o m m O L E U C E a' ° °L > L m m Q t U o H w 0 D m O oo . o o N �> ) M cao o F- U °0 lc m c m p= 0L° m o
am ` M c
=' F- t y ~cn o - ° ° rn y E ai (2--C' 7 O"O o U"O O LO 7 •C ,V U> Q 7 aT P N O p .. C p. E (3 C Y c L m � C Z Q�0 O c - o -or) Q m a � Co s Y E� O c ,:>, (3 co om E`
e o --a O .-E, U o m C .m . c 0 _ C -a Y Ll y W C U .. c U = m m
° O a C Y O cl, Fu) N 0 o E 2 '� C m ) C m C- °` _ L m U am L °s u m ° m 7 U
E o f E° m Q 11 m ` ° E m ` ")a 2 U 2 O a - Em w °m Q w Q c, oc Q l . 2ro a y O i m •a C7 m Q c •`Q Q•o o m a c 0 y°y
m v 0_ m o >. ° O to O ° - • > Cr W IL LE m O O m m p «o• m o m m C fn Cl. m m OO m U. > O U m L > co O n m N c a 0 L c m g 2 f ° c c0 0 ` ) U= n o c rn Q m'-.L_ E c'-7 t c: = E w r- v E o 7 c « m-m o W° to u> 0 Q a co a 0,i a E o c rnN m m o a 2 a to H y 7 Y m m a> m y •=v E C Y E c w o a E c ° o) E-1:,5- c » .1 E c E m p L" a)W V LO"E. tt 3 N a•` f W 'O ° 2 m C @"O C C.0'C,� LO-O co O 47 12.Y 'O m ym U U = Egg Q > L w 5.0 -0 co O o0 � yao °O. 0U m U " O m� � Oo00 >. m m:os - Q •> Q .> > o s 'C E ` ai ai S ! C N o o c o o ` Q F- r Y 7 7 C >> o ° �z O L m p C � m p c m 7 p p C 0O � Q C >� wwz '-QOi Qr>C7�0� ?U.E N a a m m F- L Q i ZU _c .- QO ,-QCCfAo2M .-< c)5. .- <co s