R7B-Design Review Board Appeal - DAS Node At 1604 Alton RoadMIAMIBEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, ,l700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33,l39, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEAGH, FLORIDA, GRANTING / DENYING AN
APPEAL FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 118.262 OF THE CITY
CODE BY ARRP MIAMI, LLC, OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S
ORDER RELATING TO DRB FILE NO. 23062 TO LOCATE A
D|STR|BUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM (DAS) NODE AT 1604 ALTON
ROAD.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Open and continue the Appeal to a date certain of February 11,2015.
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to City Code Section 1 18-262, W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A. and Rafael E. Andrade,
P.A., on behalf of ARRP Miami, LLC, as the affected person, are requesting a review of
the Design Review Board decision rendered on August 05,2014 (DRB File No. 23062)
pertaining to the approval of of a Stealth Distributed Antenna System (DAS) node within
the public right-of-way at the approximate location of 1604 Alton Road. The subject
property is not located within a historic district.
On October 22, 2014, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-28791, setting
a date certain of December 17,20144 for the public hearing for the appeal.
Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach City Code allows the applicant, the City Manager
on behalf of the City Administration, the Miami Design Preservation League, Dade
Heritage Trust or an 'Affected Person', to seek review of any order of the Design Review
Board by the City Commission. For purposes of Section 118-262, an "affected person"
shall mean either:
(i) a person owning property within 375 feet of the applicant's project reviewed by
the board, or
Mayor Philip Levine and Members
Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
December 17,2014
f the City dorrir.ion
J>
PUBLIC HEARING
Design Review Board Appeal-S Node at 1604 Alton Road
Agenda ltem
Date
Rtg
t2-,1-tv538
Commission Memorandum
DAS Node:1604 Alton Road APPEAL - Public Hearing
December 17, 2014 Page 2 ot 2
(ii) a person that appeared before the design review board (directly or
represented by counsel), and whose appearance is confirmed in the record of the
design review board's public hearing(s) for such project.
It appears from the appellant's "Request for City Commission Review of Design Review
Board Decision" that the definition of 'affected person' has been satisfied, as the
Appellant owns property within 375 feet of the applicant's project. A copy of the appeal
request is attached hereto.
Also pursuant to Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach Code, the review by the City
Commission is not a "de novo" hearing. The hearing must be based upon the record of
the hearing before the Design Review Board. Furthermore, Section 118-262 (b) states
the following:
ln order to reverse, or remand for amendment, modification or rehearing any
decision of the Design Review Board, the City Commission shall find that the Design
Review Board did not do one of the following:
1) provide procedural due process;
2) obserue essenfra/ requirements of law; or
3) base ifs decision upon substantial, competent evidence.
ln order to reverse or remand a decision of the DRB, a 5/7th vote of the City Commission
is required.
CONCLUS!ON
At the request of the Appellant, the Administration recommends that the City
Commission open and continue the public hearing to review a decision of the Design
Review Board pertaining to DRB File No. 23062 for the proposed DAS Node at
approximately 1604 Alton Road to a date certain of February 11,2015.
oda
JLM/JMIJ/TRM
T:\AGENDAVO14\December\DAs NODE DRB File No. 23062 Appeal - MEMO OC.docx
539
ot+
W. TUCKER GXtstsS, P.A"
ATTORNEY A'I L\W I{HCHIVHD
P.O. BOX t05o
cocoNur cRovE FL 33133 lh sEp I 0 AH g: I ?
'r:r,en+oNI@Ij 44s-s4s EpAcsrMlLE(soc).448+zza Clly All0RHtY'S 0f FiGEUrckerrarrtsibbc.cm
September L0, 2AL4 VIA EADTD DELTVERY
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
City of Miarni Beach
1700 Convention Cenc,er Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33L39
Rq:, R6qu6st f,or City Cormissioa Review.
Crown Cast1e NG East, 1504 Alton noad.
DRB Fi.le 23062.
Dear Mr. Granado:
On behalf of my cLienE ARRP Miami, LLC, and pursuant t,o
section tt8-262 of Ehe city's land development regiulations,
enclosed for filing is uhe atLached request, for ciEy
conrmission review of the Desigrn Review Board Decision
regarding the applicaEion of Crorarn Castle Nc East,, regarding
the placemenL of a cellular Eransmission pole aE 1604 Alton
Road (DRB File 23062) . Al-so enclosed is a check for Ehe
appticable filing fee ($430.00).
a1so, please confirm EhaE pursuant to secEion LL8'264
that, the issuance of any fult building permit is stayed for
the project being appeaLed unEil its final resolution,
I am available to answer any questions you may have
regarding this fiLing.
Sincerely,
lTrulh4rfril,w. Tucker\EiUUs
cc: Planning Director Thomas R. Mooney
Ciby AEtorneY RauI Aguila
firsU.assistanE, City Attorney Gary lleLd.
AARP Miami, IJLC
455
540
BEF'ORE TIIE IVTIAMI tsE^&CH CXTY CON&UISSIO},I
DESIGN R.EYIEW tsOAR.D F'II,E 23062
Ii[ RE: CRO]VN CASTLE NG EAST, D{C.
That portion of the north side of the right-of-way known
as Alton Road located at Latitude: North 25 degrees,
47'20.649", LONGITUDE West 80 degrees, 08'28.655".
Florida State Coordinates: X=9387 17 .491,
Y=529948.984. AIWA 16A4 Alton Road, Miami Beach,
Florida 33139
REQITEST FOR CrTy COMMTSSTON REyTEW OF
DESIGN REYIEW BOARD DECISION
ARRP Miami, LLC ("ARRP"), pursuant to section 118-262, City of Miami
Beach Land Development Regulations, requests that the City of Miami Beach City
Commission ("commission") review the decision of the Miami Beach Design
Review Board ("DRB") to grant the application for design review approval for the
placement of a 25-foot tall cellular receiving and transmission device ("cell pole")
at the referenced location. (DRB File No. 23062). ARRP requests that the
commission reverse that DRB decision, or in the alternative, remand the matter to
the DRB with instructions to reconsider the application after a properly noticing
the hearing pursuant to the requirements set out in the City of Miami Beach Land
Development Regulations ("LDRs") and the City Charter of ttre City of Miami
Beach.
456
541
1. ARRP owns the property at 16L4 Alton Road, lVliami Beach, Florida,
within 375-feet of the applicant's project (at L604 Alton Road) reviewed by the
' DRB.
;2. ARRP is an affected person under the definition in LDR section 118-
' 262 because it owns property within 375 feet of the applicant's project reviewed by
the DRB. Therefore ARRP may seek city commission review of the DRB Order on
File No. 23062,
3. The DRB on August 5,20L4, held a quasi-judicial hearing and
reviewed the application for design review approval for the installation of the cell
pole at 1604 Alton Road ("Alton Road pole").
4. At that hearing Rafael E. Andrade, Esq., appeared before the DRB and
objected to its consideration of the application for the Alton Road pole because the
DRB hearing on this matter was not properly noticed to the public as required by
section 118-76 of the LDRs and section 8 of the By-Laws and Rules of Order of
the Design Review Board.
5. The DRB rejected the argument, considered the application and voted
to approve the 25-foot high telecommunications device.
6. On August2l,2014, the board rendered its order granting design
review approval to permit the Alton Road pole pursuant to the design review
criteria set forth in section 118 of the LDRs and subject to conditions set forth
therein.
457542
7 . The DRB consideration of this matter was characterized by procedural
errors, in particular its unabashed failure to foilor,v the LDRs as well as its own by-
laws and nrles of order regarding public notice of the hearing at issue,
8. ARRP requests that the city commission either reverse the decision of
the DRB to approve the installation of the Alton Road pole or to remand the matter
to the DRB for it to evaluate application to approve the installation of the Alton
Road pole consistent with the proper procedure as set for*r in *re land
development regulations and the DRB bylaws and rules of order.
9. Aside from the failure of the DRB to follow the city requirements for
public notice of the hearing at issue in this request for review, ARRP also asserts
the following:
The failure to disclose ex-parte communications pursuant to
sections 2-5ll through 513 of the city code is a tailure to provide
procedural due process and a failure of the DRB to observe the
essential requirements of law in its evaluation of the Alton Road
pole application.
The decision of the DRB to approve this application subject to
subsequent staff approval "consistent with the Design Review
Criteria and/or the directions from the Board," is a failure to
observe the essential requirements of law,
b.
458543
FAILUR,E TO PROYTDE PUBI,IC NOTICE AS REQ{XIB,ED
tsY TI{E SECTION 2.T18 OF'TtrilE LAND DEVEX,OFMEI.{T
REG{JI,ATIONS AND SECTIO}.I E TTIE DESIGN REYTEW EOAR.D BY.
LAWS AND RULES OT ORDEts.
8. Section 118-2540) states:
"At least 30 days prior to the [DRB] public hearing date,
a description of the request, and the date, time and place
of such hearing shall (i) be posted on the property, (ii)
advertised in a paper of general paid circulation in the
community, and (iii) given by mail to the owners of
record of land lying withn 37 5 feet of property. . ."
(emphasis added)
9. The city failed to provide the LDR-required notice for its August 5,
201,4 meeting because it held its meeting at 1:30 pm instead of the properly noticed
time of 8:30am contrary to the explicit requirements of section 118-254(b) of the
LDRs.
10. This direct violation of the LDRs is a failure of the DRB to observe the
essential requirements of law.
11. Section lI8-76 of the LDRs requires that "[a]il meetings [of the DRB]
shall be open to the public and shall be conducted in accordance with the rules and
regulations adopted by the board." (emphasis added)
L2. The DRB By-Laws and Rules of Order state: "Regular meetings of the
Board are open to the public and shall be held from time to time in City Hall.
Change of meeting date/time may be at the call of the Chairperson and as *re
Board may determine with a mlnimum fifteen (15) days notice." (emphasis
added).
4
459544
13. The board changed its meeting time less than 15 days prior to its
scheduled meeting contrary to the minimum 15-day notice required in its By-Laws
and Rules of Order and therefore is contrary to the LDR requirement that DRB
meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the DRB's ru1es and regulations.
14. This direct violation of the LDRs is a failure of the DRB to observe the
essential requirements of law.
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EX.PARTE COMMTINICATIONS AS
REQUIRED BY SECTIONS z-sLt rIrROUGHz.st3
OF TIIE LAND DEYELOPMENT REGULATIONS
15. Section 2-5lt defines a prohibited ex parte communication as any
written or oral communication with any member [of a city quasi-judicial board],
which may directly or indirectly influence the disposition of an application, other
than those made on the record during a public hearing.
16. Section 2-512(a) establishes a procedure o'for all ex-parte
communication" with a board member of a quasi-judicial board such as the Design
Review Board. Section 2-512(a)(l) requires ttrat "[t]he subject matter of any ex-
parte communication, together with the identity of the person, grcup or entity with
whom the communication took place, shall be disclosed and made a part of the
record on file with the city prior to final action on the matter."
17, Section 2-512(0$) requires that "[a]ny ex-parte communication or
activity regarding a pending quasi-judicial matter and not physically made a part of
the record on file with the city and available for public inspection prior to the
460545
public meeting on the matter shall be oral1y stated and disclosed on the record at
the public meeting prior to the vote on the matter ..,"
18. Based on information and belief, prtor to the Design Review Board's
hearings on the Alton Road pole application (August 5, 2014) representatives of
the applicant Crown Castle NG East, Inc, met with and communicated with a
member or members of the Design Review Board regarding the disposition of the
Alton Road pole application.
19. No disclosure has been made of the subject matter of this
communication, or the identity of the person, group or entity with which the
communication took place.
20. According to section 2-512b) without such disclosure a presumption of
prejudice arising from thaUthose ex-parte communication(s) remains attached to
that communication. These non-disclosed ex-parte communications and the
attached presumption of prejudice effectively impacted ARRP' ability to obtain a
fair hearing and denied them procedural due process. Furthermore this direct
violation of the LDRs in the city code is a failure of the DRB to observe the
essential requirements of law.
6
46L546
trMPR.OPER DELEGATION TO DESXGN REVIXW STAFF
OT'DRB AIJTHORITY TO EVAtr,U.dTE AND APPR.OVE PI,,{NS
PUR,SUANT TO DRB R.EVIEW CR,I"fflR,IA.
21. The city commission has delegated certain authority to the DRB to
approve design review applications subject to specific criteria set forth in section
118-251. This authority, spelled out in sections 118-251 through 265, does not
allow the DRB to delegate to design review staff its responsibility and duty to
make decisions based on those criteria. 1
22. Yet that is what the DRB did when it approved the Alton Road pole
application. According to the final order of the DRB, it approved the project
subject to conditions, including:
"Revised elevation, site plan and floor plan drawings shali be
submitted to and approved by staff; at a minimum, such drawings
shall incorporate the following:
a. The exterior of the steel pole shall be powder coated finished
and ttre final exterior color selection shall be reviewed and
approved by staff consistent with the Design Review Criteria
and/or the directions from the Board.
I While section LL8-260 authorizes the planning director to approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for eight specific issues all associated with minor
public improvements, and rehabilitation, alterations and demolition of structures or
portions of structures, it does not authorize the DRB to delegate its authority to
approve an application (or any portion of an application) for new development
such as the Alton Road pole application.
462
547
23. While there is authority tor the DRB to prescribe conditions of
approval, there is no authority for the DRB to delegate its review and approval
authority to staff.
24. This condition traruforms a design review decision into a staff-level
determination, without any authority in the LDRs and is therefore a failure of the
DRB to observe the essential requirements of law.
WHEREFORE, ARRP requests: that the Miami Beach City Cornmission
review the decision of the DRB and reverse it, or alternatively, remand this matter
to the DRB with instructions to the DRB to reconsiderthe approved application
after a properly noticing the hearing pursuant to the requirements set out in the
LDRs and City Charter of the City of Miami Beach.
Respectfully Submitted,
w. TUCKER GIBBS, ESQ.
Co-Counsel for ARRP
P.O. Box 1050
Coconut Grove, FL33133
Tel (305) 448-8486
Fax (305) 448-0773
Email: tucker@wteibbs,com
RAFAEL E. ANDRADE, ESQ.
Co-Counsel for ARRP
1111 Lincoln Rd Suite 400
Miami Beach, FL 33t39 -2439
Tel (305) 531-9511
Email: ralph @ randradelaw.com
463548
EXHIBTT 65A"
464
549
BESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beactr, Florida
MEETING DATE: August 05,2014
FILE NO:
PROPERTY:
LEGAL:
IN RE:
23062
Citylvide Diskibuted Antenna System (DAS) Nodes: 1604 Alton Road
Thai portion of the west side of the right-of-way known as Alton Road
located at LATITUDE: North 25'47'20,649', LONGITUDE: West
80'09'28.655',
Florida State Plain Coordinates : X=9387 17.491, Y=529948,984
The Application for Design Review Approval for the installation of a
Stealth Disiributed Antenna Systom (DAS) node within the public rlght-of-
way at the followlng aoproximate location outsido of historic dishicts:
1604 Alton Road.
ORDER
The applicant, Crown Castle NG East, lnc, filed an application with the City of Miami Beach
Planning Department for Design Revlew Approval.
The City of Miarni Boach Design Review Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT,
based upon the evidence, informatlon, testimony and materials presented at the public hearing
and which are part of the record for this matter:
A. Based on the plans and documents submltted wlth the appllcation, testlrnony and
information provided by the applicant, and the reasons set forth.in the Planning
Department Staff Report, the project as submitted is inconsistent wlth Dosign Review
Criterla 5, 6, 8, and 12 in Section 118-251 of the Miami Beach Code,
B. The project would be oonslstent with the oriterla and requirements of section 118-251\t
the folloMng conditions are met
1, Revised elevation, site plan and floor plan drawings shall be submitted to and
approved by staff; at a minimum, such drawings shall incorporate the following:
465550
Dana lgf y'., ev'
Meeting Date: August 05, 2014
DRB File No,23062
The exterior of the steel pole shall be powder coated finished and the final
exterior color selection shall be reviewed and approved by staff consistent
with the Design Review Criteria and/or ths directions from the Board,
A copy of all pages of tho recorded Final Order shall be scanned into the
plans submitted for bullding permlt, and shall be located immedlately aftor
the front cover page of the permit plans.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project Arohitect
shall verify, in writing, trat the subJect project has been constructod ln
accordance wlth the plans approved by the Plannlng Department for
Building Permit,
The Design Review Board retalns jurisdictlon so that should any now
development or construction adjacent to the approved DAS Node require the
removal of this DAS Node, this approval is subject to modiflcation or rovocation
pursuant to a noticed hearing before tho Design Revielv Board.
The Final Order shall be rscorded in the Public Records of Miami-Dade County,
orior to the lssuance of a Building Permit.
All equipment shall be servlced.and maintained by Crown Castle.
Satlsfactlon of all condiiions is requirad for the Plannlng Department to givo lts
approval on a Certiflcato of Occupancy; a Ternporary Certificate of Occupancy or
Partial Certificate of Occupancy may also be conditionally granted Planning
Departmental approval.
The Final Order ls not severable, and if any provision or condition hereof is held
void or unconstitutional in a final decision by a court of competent jurisdictlon, the
order shall be retumed to the Board for reconsideration as to whether the order '
meets the criteria for approval absent the stricken provision or condltlon, and/or lt
is approprlate to modify the remaining conditions or lmpose new conditions,
7. The conditlons of approval herein ara binding on the applicant, the propertt's
owners, operators, and all successors in interest and assigns.
8, Nothing ln lhis order authorizes a violation of the City Code or other applicable
law, nor allows a relaxation of any requlrement or standard set forth in the City
Code'
lT lS HEREBY ORDERED, based upon the foregoing flndings of fact, the evidence, information,
testimony and materials presented at the public hearlng, which are part of the record for this
matter, ind the staff report and analysis, which are adopted herein, including the staff
recommendations whioh were adopted by the Board, that the Application for Dosign Review
approval is GMNTED for the above-referenced project subject to those certain conditions
sp6cified in Paragraph B of the Findings of Fact (Condition Nos, 1-8, inclusivo) hereol, to whioh
the appllcant has agreed.
b.
3.
+.
5.
6.
466551
Page 3 of4
Meoting Date: August C5,2014
DRB File No.23062
PROVIDED, the applicant shall build substantially in accordance with tho plans approved by the
Dosign Review Board, as determinod by stafi, entitlod "City of Miami Beach Crown Castle
Dstributed Antenna system Node 5-7", as prepared by Grown castle, dated June 12, 2014,
modified in accordance wlth the conditions set forth in this Order and staff review and approval.
No bulldlng permtt may be lssued unless and until all conditions of approval that must be
satlsfled prior to permlt issuance as sot forth in thls Order have been me[ The lssuance of
Design Review Approval does not relieye the applicant frorn obtaining all other required
Municipal, County and/or State reviews and pemits, including final zoning approval. lf adequale
handicapped access is not provided on the Board-approved plans, this approval does not mean
that such handicapped accees ls not required.
When requestlng a building permit, the plans submitted to the Building Department for permit
shall be conslstent wlth the plans approved by the Board, modified ln accordance with the
conditions set forth in this Order.
lf the Full Bullding Permit for the prolect is not issued withln eighteen (18) months of the meeting
dato at whlch the original Design Review Approlel was granted, the Design Roview Approval
will expire and bocome null and void, unless the applicant makes appllcation to the Board for an
extension of time, in accordance wlth the requirements and procedures of Chapter 118 of the
City Code; the granting of any such extension of time shall be at the discretion of the Board, At
the hearlng on any such application, the Board may deny or approve the request and modify tho
above conditions or impose addltional conditions, lf the Full Building Permit should expire for
any reason (including but not llmited to construction not oommencing and continuing, with
required inspections, in accordance with the applicable Building Code), the Design Review
Approvalwill expire and becomo null and void.
ln accordance with Section 118-264 of the Ctty Codo, the violation of any conditions and
safeguards that are a part of this Order shall be desmed a violation of the land development
regulations of the City Code.
Dated thls SIOYa^yor
STATE OF FLORIDA
coUNTY oF MIAMI-DADE 'it n -rh-The foregoing instrument-was acknowledged before me this *o/ day otThe foregoing instrument-was acknowledged before me this *o/ day ol
cf -'?-ua*20/2:by T[omas R, Mooney, ntanning Direttor, planning
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
THE CITY OF MIAMIBEACH, FLO
PLANNING DIRECTOR
FORTHE CHAIR
467
552
Page 4 cf 4
Meeting Date: August 05,2014
DRB File ltlo, 23062
Department, City of Miaml Beach, Florida, a Florida fulunicipal Corporation, on behalf of the
Corporation, He is personally known to me,
+.s.lqu IERE$A[$R|A
. s.-a . MYcomilsslo{tFFol2t&.rS-%Jffiffirffififfit#;l
Miami-Dade County, Florida
My commlssion expires:
tldfffii,fi,:"off#' frfu. (F-N.-,1y )
Filed wlth the Clerk of the Deslgn Review Board on 8 - zt . t ut ( (JGA
FIPLAM$DRB\DRB 1 4\Aug 1 4\DRB 23062 DAS NODE 1 604 Alton Rd,AlJ Gl 4.fo. doo<
468553
N: THURSDAY, N0VEMBIR 13,2014 [ 7NE
r---.-.
---
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
NOTICE OF REVIEW OF DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD DECISION
BYTHE CITY COMMISSION
The Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Miarni
Beach, Florida, pursuantto Section 118-262 of the Code
of the City of Miami Beach, on Wednesday, December
17,2074 at 11:OO a.m,, or as soon thereafter as the
fftatter can be heard, at City Hall, 170O Convention
Center Drive, Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor,
Miami Beach, Florida. will review the decision of the
Miami Beach Design Review Board {DRB), rendered
on August 5, 2014, relating to DRB File No. 2.3062,
pertaining to the approval of a Stealth Distributed
Antenna System (DAS) node within the public righr-
of-way at the approximate location of 16O4 Ahon
Road.The Request for City Cornmission Review has
been filed by appellant ARBP {ARRP) Miarni, LLC.
The review shall be based on the record ofthe hearing
before the DRB, shall not be a de novo hearing, and
no new, additional testimony shall be taken.
The ABFIP Bequest for City Commission Review
and all documenls pertaining to DRB File No. 23062
are available for public inspection during normal
business hours in the Planning Department, 2"d floor,
City Hatl. lnquiries may be directed to the Planning
Department at 305.673.7550.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla, Stat., the City
hereby advises the public thar if a party decides to
appeal any decision made by the City Cornmission
with respect to any matter considered during its
review of the DRB decision, such pany must ensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence
upon which lhe appeal isto be based.This notice does
flot consthute consent by the City for the introductlon
or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant
evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals
not otherwise allowed by law.This review is open to
viewing by the public.
To request this material in accessible format, sign
language interpreters, information on access for
persons with disabilities and/or any accommodation
to review arry document or participate in any City-
sponsored proceeding, please contact us five days
in advance at 306.673.7411 (voice) orTTY users may
also callthe Florida Relay Service at 711.
The review of the DBB decision by the City
Commission may be opened and continued, and
under such circumstances additional legal notice
would not be provided.
Rafaef E. Granado, City Clerk
City of Miami Beach
Ad 952
554
:R) *a oo c> oi -'>,^' :!o oa :!:S !5" c> o-- :o ir:( aEN "E g H#s xqp E: EEnE+ gEE i:€ €EBfp.o ::t, :o ;=il go .5=Y. FAE E= 6 Es: ;-N aA 35r"1 85o s :'- q.ls$ PEH f5 :iHEi::g:Eg EEE=9s t=d sr i=i[*:.;E B€; HE3,i-!l +EH EE abl :f 6p? Ea: e;;'eE s,EE 2; ?:E :-E tAE r:s !e 6i; ,jE n; E€S EB E;= ;s6 _Ep s3s IEs' F; !€E="E 5EE EiE EsEER 5 B3 e; EsE ! i aig EfE €i3R 'srS *P P;E :s :Pi .EE* EE;9 i8d ;; :=S S; =:E ():i !!o0R *:; i!t< -:o- oo Sii >:1'; tEEX ;+EE Ei^ C;lgE;si "i: ig
c*l 9.ol .E:^.ci dllo:= qE ' a9-o iorF ElE #{E :[!Ei {}E;iE E:AS 5EE !-.?R #EH gU 6.:-- oo* .DaEE i$t c?5s <..o.! Es PiE !EE IF5I gsF i€* fFI iE : *; ;EE ;Eis r;E {*E sgrsE i*; lii ii=". ^i-5 ifh 50s.:P >_-. trcb :.e+s t-3P E*,F Ys* Ei .=96 -.e- r=.is $er fA$ B3s;i.EiP Est EEER :5H EEP 9Ei AEE "hE "*'=s Pbk* 6Eci ;*S f EE:.ii 3;3 aEE E*
+issEEitt,cEiEil;xg€EXPE =<<**g CIE EEE Fgi;i:E,Ii EEE iRi: ig; sfi :!E I=
=
;;; it: EHc X ri*=€€ ;EE #;t ;$x;iIEIs iI8:E
=EeEEEEEEiEEEliig;iiEEEgs;g es?. itE? pere;sgEB Eg: $r.€H p;$ IEgE gEE Ei: ;€s iEE= EE
e#? EEil l;ii x}i;it*i*- BE:i Fs
sE6 fiE€ EiEg -E$E sE; E;iE:3ii EFzlE E35A,ibE'= l,lp; r:E qIpB E=':T q-(,- c 'i- c^- >^,'69 =='- o -.: )Y or !:- !a; o H !2 o
T;I ii}E giti EEE; s;; l!!i [iEE EE
5E; E;;; r;;e =st:EgEfii5EE€i;;iEsb ;b;# d6:# NnEE==!EteE;HiHEq
Etl. Eiig tEiE Ei;E;E=rE;E4;iEr€e
iEEHg i};;S gH;Ss gFifE iE5 EEI* :IEf si$ ?
E d !!> ;<pHo < iii beo;g i 3P'5 €.EF€r : =Es E+5:-Ee 5 ,f45 acc8.:;; i =:ts
gEEE
E; E sEiE 5;'g.iEH tr s'E<.6 oo.-odE b .="Y:ts 9"gxss ; jp€t
-agEE;; g EE€S ?PE;rl E qf;: fiff
3; ! tE:$ :F;ee-fr 3 *i?E :Ei;-.
iigiiilEE?i;: i a=eE=i : Bd=t €lgE
ii;IE$if$Eiis 1- SrlE scF,BE HF I;5 * E EiEoE E.; =;RS <,qE=!! ;H {E;g EP?!*-* 58 !-jI? E=!fi* -*d b-e1.: .E1€::E Ix =.S$5 EEii
iE gE eH=I ;;Ituo _.3 E.9Z =.e.S<!o' ES .s.9:< EE>=BE ;$ =EEr tEbe
Ei s$ ffEg ;fEsir iE Ei=,* €f?ge: ?g Ei?e"si E,i esf e S=-i?
=ii*rftsisrigE !i sEsg SfrSi5 -P,t E=s= gf#E
E;giiEcEEt.Ei
fiq t;$ :€iE? e E*"5
EF epi PeEEE HE€s,E
=; P<s Pi,X&f Pt3i]8
N
N
N(o
o
a\o
o
o
o
so
o
o\o
oo
!
oa:
G
,e
u
q,
oo
o.:
o
U
c
!c
c
,F
o
t
otl-
5
o
oot'
EoooE
oLoc
=o
L
o(,
-1C)0E
IJI UIO:E
=9<6
=?*u-v6
I ,rrb9l-oz
llr
lr
tl
tl
ll
)
ojJI<lC,lrl
=:<t:i
Eo:
E:
6
@1T1
Eo:
=i
Uz
o;N'
{l
d:U:m:>:U:U:Ui6it:<!6ial
li
-i:i
ulizlq,
555