Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0503 b4INUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THURSDAY - MAY 3, 1979 ? : 00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I . CALL TO ORDER The specially scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order at ? : 00 �.m.by Chairman Snyder, in the City Hall Council Chambers. � II . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Fleshman III . ROLL CALL Members Commissioner Berkey Present : Commissioner Fleshman Commissioner Kryder Chairman Snyder Others Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Present : Murrel Crump - Principal Planner Stan Sawa - Associate Planner Susan Schw�.rtz - Planning Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF b�INUTES A. Minutes of regular meeting of April 18, 1979 Mr. Williams noted the following corrections : Page 3, 2nd paragraph, last phrase should read: "if the comments are related to aesthetics. " �rr Page 3, last paragraph in Item IX, after "were approved" , add: "by Planning Commission Resolution No. 480" . On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the minutes of April 18, 1979 were approved as amended; carried unanimously (4-0) . V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. CUP 03-79 - JACK WISE, Applicant Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a racquetball and health club on property located on the north side of Alessandro Drive, west of DeAnza Way on Lots 6 & 7, Palma Village Unit #3 . Mr. Crump presentzd the case, relating a few of the conditions of approval, which include fixing the time of operations, and restricting it to a strictly private club. � Mr. Williams noted a letter rece.ived from a property owner directly across from the subject property, in which he stated his opposition to the proposal, in that this would be to the detriment of the surrounding residential area to convert residential into commercial for business purposes. Chairman Snyder then asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. RICK HOLDEN, Architect for the project , wished to note that he was available for any questions. Minutes Page Two Palm Dese�t Planning Commission May 3, 1979 VI . A. (cont . ) Chairman Snyder then declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this pro- posal. There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed, and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commission Berkey commented that this is a permitted use in the R-3 zone, and the project seemed well-designed to mitigate any problems that may be created, and made a motion to approve, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 481 as presented; carried unanimously. � B. Case No. DP 05-79 - GERALD J. CHAZEN, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan for a planned conimercial development on approximately 7. 9 acres within the P.C. (3) , S .P. zone at the westerly side of Palms to Pines shopping area, between El Paseo and Highway 111 . Mr. Crump presented the staff report, noting tha,t ma,jor �onsiderations for this project would include the method of screening; the handling of the loading dock for purposes of noise; and circulation to the site and within the site boundaries. He then related that the proposal, while conceptually acceptable, contains elements that need restudy. These elements include the loading area and driveway on El Paseo; on-site improvements including parking, aisles and landscaping; and architectural design and configuration. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners at this time, and the applicant was not present , so Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this proposal . PETER TORrlAY, 811 Sandpiper, did not necessarily wish to speak for or against proposal, but would like to pose a �r question regarding traffic. What would the flow of traffic be on El Paseo; are there traffic lights planned for this area? He has talked to others in the area that are concerned about the traffic flow when the project is completed. Mr. Williams answered that a signal is scheduled for ` installation at El Paseo and Highway 111 for next year. A signal is being planned for El Paseo and Highway 74 and should be constructed this .year; it is the Number 1 priority in signals. In terms of access on E1 Paseo, the applicant has taken advantage of the openings of Sandpipe�•, and the problem with this entry is it would appear that all a�.cess would have to come from the east and therefore there would be a tendency to park along El Paseo. Some adjustment should resolve that problem. Other access points - they are providing a second entrance and exit from Highway 111. It would be right- turn in and out only. Those are the four major points of access to this phase of the project . � JOHN TROPAY, 12C Sandpiper, wondered if consideration could be given to some kind of limitation to tonnage of trucks on El Paseo. If limitations of tonnage would have to come in and out on Highway 111 , it would make quite a difference on El Paseo. �,,, Mr. Williams commented that the loading dock location may be wrong in terms of the impacts on El Paseo. It was also suggested that perhaps a time restriction could be enforced, as trucks sometimes rumble through in the early morning hours. Chairman Snyder stated that a determination will be made as to whether there is a vehicle code or lirnitations on hours we could establish; we may need a City ordinance. He assured that the request would be investigated by Staff. �� 3 .�•c�W�on by Co�missic��er :�r���e�, s�ccanded bg C�j.�issi�ner �er��,, �,::�Q =��.�.�e a;as eantinued +o ��:� Pla�n��g �a�nmission meeting of '�ar ?�, 19�Q, carried unar.imousZy {4-Oj . Minutes Page Three Palm Desert Planning Commission May 3, 1979 VI . (cont . ) C. Case No. VAR 03-79 - DANIEL L. DWORSKEY, FAIA for COLUMBIA SAVINGS & LOAN, Applicant Request for approval for an exception to the Sign Ordinance to allow an additional identification sign next to the south entrance of their building now under construction at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Highway 74 . Nir. Crump presented the request , and stated that , upon reviewing � all of the applicable sections of the Sign Ordinance, realizing their full impartance and intent , Staff could not recommend granting an exception to increase the number of signs already permitted by the Ordinance. It would appear that there already exists a permitted method of gaining identification for the south side of their building by means of a pedestrian sign; therefore, Staff recommends denial of the request . Mr. Williams advised that two letters to the Planning-�ommission had been received, stating opposition to an exception to the Sigr� Ordinance in this instance, from: Hamilton P, and Millicent S. Lawrence, and Mrs. Jean C. Lane. Sa.id letters are attached hereto and made a part hereof, as Exhibit 'A' . At that point , a member of the audience presented the Commission with a petition from various property owners in Sandpiper stating their oppositian to the requested sign for the south side of subject building. Said petition is attached hereto and made a part hereof, as Exhibit 'B' . Commission Berkey asked for a description of a 'pedestrian sign ' . Mr. Crump answered that it is used where the main identification sign is not visible to pedestrians. Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, and asked if �r the applicant wished to make a presentation . ROBERT COFFEE of Daniel Dworskey & Assoc. stated that due to the unique situation of the building site, they have found it necessary to seek this Variance. There are two banks in the shopping center at the westerly end, and the suhject site is somewhat isolated. Their main concern is � that when turning into shopping area with four other buildings under construction, they need an orientation to motorists to turn in to their site; this is essentially a matter of directing customers. A pedestrian sign would work well if the building was up against a pedestrian area, but it is not . The three other signs can only be read from the side you are facing. MGE KUDLER, Director, Columbia Savings and Loan Association, stated that essentially, Mr. Coffee nas indicated what their particular problems are. They feel they are quite serious if they cannot get a sign on the south side of the building. As you drive in to the subject site, you are in a tunnel situation because there are buildings on both sides. The sign cannot be seen from Sandpiper; it can only be seen from across the street from the entrance there. The sign should not be able to be seen from any residential area. Again, you cannot see "�"'� two signs from one side; you can only see each sign head on. The Code did not take two different parking areas into consideration. He then named two other banks whc have signs on all sides of their parking lots. They are seeking this Variance as a necessity. He then asked for the reasons p�titioners objected, and Mr. Crump presented the letters and petition to Mr. Kudler. Commissioner Kryder noted that the two other signs are plastic face illuminated signs. He asked Mr. Kudler, if this Variance were granted for the sign facing south, would they be willing to consider ;r vatisfactory if rhat �ne �ere not i�luminated. Minutes Page Four Palm Desert Planning Commission May 3, 1975 VI . C. (cont . ) Mr. Kudler conceded that they might consider that . They need the sign as a first priority. Chairman Snyder then asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPFOSITION to this request . JOHN TROPAY, 12C Sandpiper, asked if the sign was �oing to be at the entrance off El Paseo, and was told that the sign would be on the �uilding. MRS. ROBERT HAYES, 18B Sandpiper, stated that she can see the � sign on El Paseo from Sandpiper. She is sympathetic to the business concerns, but feels that when a commercial building is near a residential area, these things must be considered. Mr. Kudler used the site plan to show where the sign is in relation to the street . The building is lower in elevation than residential areas, and he does not feel it can be seen in residential areas. The sign should be readable at only 700' visibility. The colors are very dark dull red on grey background. Chairman Snyder asked if the persons speaking in opposition to the request fully understand, now. The problem is that the City has created a Sign Ordinance to keep City from becoming garish by signs. They attempt to make all business comply with the Ordinance. DORIS EDDY, 14A Sandpiper, noted that she is the first unit after you enter off E1 Paseo. She does understand the request more fully now. She was not fully aware of what they were attempting. She had thought they were seeking a variance to place a sign on the sidewalk area immedately beginning at the parking lot . However, she would strongly object to an illuminated sign. �r. Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Kryder would question the need for illuminating the sign, also, since it is strictly for identification purposes. That would be a condition he would suggest . Commissioner Berkey agreed that the proposal is very low key. The sign consists of just one color block letters which are very unobtrusive and blend nicely with the building. He does agree that the sign should not be illuminated, and felt that some consideration should be given to the possible reduction in size of letters of sign on that side of the building. Chairman Snyder commented that some erroneous conclusions were created as to where the sign would be located. If Commissioners agree to make the condition of the south sign unilluminated, that should eliminate objections from Sandpiper residents. Discussion followed about the size of the letters of the subject sign, and it was concluded to also include a condition to reduce the size of the letters to 12" . On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Berkey, the exception was approved, subject to a maximum of 12" high '` letters, and that said sign shall not be illuminated; carried unanimously; � (4-0) . THERE WAS A 10 MINUTE RECESS AT 8 : 30 P.M. D. Case No. C/Z 0�-79 - WAYNE O. AN'D MARIE HUTCHESON, Applicant Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to C-1 (General Commercial) for property containing approximately 10, 000 sq. ft . ' located at the northeast corner of Lantana Avenue and Larrea Street . Minutes Page Five Palm Desert Planning Commission May 3 , 1979 VI . D. (cont . ) Mr. Crump presented the case, noting that the primary orientation of the subject dwelling is to Larrea Street and other single-family uses; however, offices of the HMS Plaza abut the property to the rear, separated by a masonry wall and screen planting. The subject property may be viewed as either the end of the commercial area or the beginning of the residential use area. A determination of which it actually is would be logically based on the orientation of the use, rather than the fact that it is adjacent to one use or the other use. The applicant ' s request is simply a Change of Zone to allow some undescribed future commercial use of the site. Therefore, the � proposed Change of Zone, as it is presently constituted, is not deemed necessary or desirable to implement the City General Plan, and Staff recommends denial of the request . Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. WAYNE HUTCHESON stated that he cannot see why it would be denied when commercial uses surround him. The dental building is directly west , HMS is on the north, and his property is on the northeast corner of Lantana and Larrea. Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request . JOHNNIE BASH, 45-466 Garden Square, stated that since the all new office buildings are occupied on Lantana, west of the proposal, the traffic has increased greatly. There have been near traffic accidents at the junction of Lantana and Larrea, as it seems that nobody is sure who has the right of way. He suggested consideration be given to a stop sign there. If this request for Change of Zone is granted, the other three houses on that corner will immediately ask for a Change of Zone also, and could not then be denied. � If offices were built on these lots, there would be a huge increase in traffic around Garden Square. There are many children and animals in Garden Square who have been in the habit cf playing on the street for years in comparative safety. In his opinion, there is no need to increase C-l . Those four houses offer a definite buffer and keep the neighborhood a completely residential one. The following persons also spoke in opposition to this request , generally for the reasons mentioned by Mr. Bash of increased traffic in the area: CHUCK SHADENST, 45-496 Garden Square PETER CANE, 45-411 Garden Square Chairman Snyder then offered to allow the applicant to make a rebuttal. BOB HUTCHESON stated he does not believe the Change of Zone would affect Garden Square at all . The traffic problEm could be niitigated by a stop sign or light at Lantana and Larrea. , � that is all that would be needed. �.r Chairman Snyder then declared the Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Kryder noted that a Change of Zone is a rather serious matter, and changing the zone for some unspecified future use is not particularly desirable. He does not feel it is warranted. Commissioner Berkey concurred with this statement , and that without further justification for a proposed use that could be mitigated by a design, and the absense of any plan, this request seems premature. Minutes Page Six Palm Desert Planning Commission May 3, 1979 VI . D. (cont . ) Commissioner Fleshman also concurred. Without a development plan to see how the access would work, he does not see how a Change of Zone could be granted at this time. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Fleshman, the case was denied by Planning Commission Resolution No. 483; carried unanimously (4-0) . E. Case No. CUP 02-79 and VAR 02-79 - DELOS H. BOBO, Applicant � Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a restaurant and a related Parking Variance in the San Pablo Village project on the east side of San Pablo Avenue, between E1 Paseo and Highway 111 , within the C-1, S .P. zone. Mr. Crump presented the case, noting tv� changes in the draft Resolution presented; the square footage of the restaurant should read 1 , 510 sq. ft . and the Assessor ' s Parcel Number should read 627-211-009-2. He also noted that assuming that the proposed restaurant would attract most of its clientele from people already shopping in the area or working in the area, it would appear that no major parking problems would result in granting this parking variance. Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. DELOS BOB, 73200 Tumbleweed Lane, described the proposed restaurant operation as a gourmet shop of fine selected meats and cheeses. There will only be approximately three tables, as 95% of the business will be carry-out . It is more a retail operation than a restaurant . Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this request . � There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission . On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the case was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 484, witr. changes noted; carried unanimously (4-0) . F. Case No. CUP 16-78 (Amendment) - C. G. DUNHAM for DON DRYSDALE, Applicant Request for approval of a modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to operate a restaurant in the El Paseo Village project , and a related Parking Variance to reduce the number of parking spaces from 38 spaces required by the Municipal Code to 22 spaces on property located on the south side of El Paseo, between Sun Lodge Lane and Lupine Lane, within the C-1, S .P. zone. Mr. Crump presented the case, noting that Staff feels that the request for an expanded restaurant will be acceptable, and that during the times of highest deniand for parking of restaurant patrans, the majority of the retail stores should be closed and should not present a parking problem. �""' Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation . GARY LOHMAN, 73210 E1 Paseo, wished to clarify one point . He has requested a change in the name of the actual people leasing the restaurant from C. E. Dunham. When acquiring a tenant to operate a restuarant , you are dealing with certain constraints. That is primarily why they are asking for additional space. Minutes Page Seven Palm Desert Planning Commission May 3, 1979 VI . E. (cont . ) It was also noted that the original size of the restaurant was somewhat restrictive for the particular operation they have in mind, as they are serving dinner and cocktails, and would like to have an additional room for customers who wish to be �away from the bar area. They also reiterated the fact that most of the other shops in the complex will he closed after 5 p.m. , so the restaurant should not create a parking problen, for dinner patrons. � Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this request . There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed, and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the case was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 485, as presented; carried unanimously (4-0) . G. Case No. DP 03-79 (continued case) - JAMES E . KAUL, Applicant Request for approval of a Residential Development Plan to allow 36 condominium units on approximately 7. 5 acres within the FR-5 zone on the south sid� of Country Club Drive, between Monterey and Portola Avenues. Mr. Crump presented the case, noting that the subject application was continued from the April 3 , 1979 Planning Commission meeting for redesign addressing six major items. Three subjects are still somewhat unresolved: the entrance design; wind/blowsand protection planting; and the alternate emergency access. The issues that remain could be left for resolution at the Design Review Board stage, but they appear to be critical to a decision of whether the �+ proposed development can be accommodated on the site. Therefore, Staff would recommend continuing the case to the Planning Commission meeting of May 29 for one additional opportunity to rework the preliminary Development Plan . Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. � MIKE GESLER, Architect for the project and NEIL MORRISON, Engineer for the project , discuss�d each of these design concerns with the Commission and Staff , stating that they would like to see the project approved at this meeting, as they feel all concerns can be met . Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request . There being none, he asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Fleshman stated that he could understand the architect ' s problem with time, but he would like to see a little more concrete evidence of the precise handling of these concerns. Chairman Snyder asked if the project could be approved with conditions that these items be worked out - the entrance design and ' the established protection planting area. �r�,. Commissioner Kryder stated that he would be in favor of approving the case at this meeting. Mr. Williams then suggested continuation of this case to the May 16 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Berkey agreed and made a motion for continuation to May 16, seconded by Commissioner Kryder ; carried unanimously (4-0) . Minutes Page Eight Palm Desert Planning Commission May 3, 1979 VI . H. Case No. PM 14625 - SIEGEL ENTEftPRISES , Applicant Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide ?7 net acres into two parcels upon annexation; proposing one parcel to contain approximately 9 acres in the P.C. -2, S .P. (U.A. ) (Planned Commercial, District , Scenic Preservation Overlay, Upon Annexation) zone, and the other parcel to contain approximately 66. 5 acres in the PR-4, S.P. (U.A. ) (Planned Residential, max. 4 d.u. /ac. , Scenic Preservation Overlay, Upon Annexation) zone and approximately 1. 5 acres in the P (U.A. ) (Public/Institutional , Upon Annexation) zone, located south and east of the intersection � of Country Club Drive and Cook Street . Mr . Crump nresented the case, noting that the proposed Parcel Map seeks to separate the approved commercial zoned property (Parcel No. 1) from the balance of the Development Plan area. There appears to be no problems in defining this area separately, as long as the site development continues to be tied to the larger area in terms of im- provements and design. Staff would, therefore, recommend approval of this case. Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. IRWIN SIEGEL, Encino, California, questioned Condition of Approval No. 4, stating that the configuration of proposed Parcel No. 1 daes relfect the same as that approved in Case No. C/Z 12-78 . He requested that this particular condition be deleted, as it is not applicable. After some discussion between Mr . Siegel and the Commission and Staff , it was agreed that Condition No . 4 should be deleted. The Commission also discussed with the applicant the merits of �,,,, defining the P (U.A. ) zoned area as a separate parcel . Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this request . There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed, and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. -- On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman , seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the case was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 486, su�ject to the deletion of Condition No. 4; carried unanimously (4-0) . I . Case No. C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79 - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-1, D. , S .P. (Planned Residential, maximum 1 d.u. /ac. , Drainageway, Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay, Scenic Preservation Overlay) to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u. /ac . , Scenic Preservation Overlay) ; PR-1, D. to PR-5; and PR-7, D. to PR-5 on approximately 101 . 5 acres; and related Development Plan providing for 805 dwelling units in a - combination of single-family, duplex and townhouses on approximately 179. 5 acres of land, generally located on the � east side of Highway 74, north and south of the existing flood control dike, extending south to the southern City limits. Commissioner Fleshman left the Council Chambers at this time, due to a conflict of interest . Mr. Crump presented the case, relating the details of the project . He then noted that , subject to the resolution of the design questions noted in the Staff Report at the Design Review stage, the proposal would appear acceptable, and Staff would recommend approval . +g +hA r±+�. �'��:cil . Minutes Page Nine Palm Desert Planning Commission May 3, 1979 VI , I . (cont . ) Mr. Crump then noted that the applicant had expressed a wish • for a change in wording on Standard Condition Nos. 4 and 13 , and also has a question on Special Condition No. 2 and 4a. No. 4 cites the maximum time for the validity of this approval, and No. 13 restricts development of the site prior to a tract map. Staff would be amenable to change of both of these conditions - No. 4 would specify 1989 as date project should be completed; and No. 13 would add "No residential dEvelopment" . � Chairman Snyder then asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. JOHN BALLEW, Ballew/McFalrand stated his agreement with the wording changes for Conditions as stated above, and noted that he had an additional question on Special Condition Nos. 2 and 4a. No. 2 cites a "solid decorative masonry wall along Highway 74" , and Mr. Ballew asked for some latitude in the design of wall . Mr. Williams suggested to add, after "perimeter" - "except where it abuts other portions of Iranwood" , and also to delete the word "solid" . Regarding No. 4a, Mr. Ballew related that theq could solve most of the 4-wav intersections, but would like the latitude of introducing 4-ways at points where it creates other design problems. . It was agreed to add "wherever possible" to Special Condition No. 4a. Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request . There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed. On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commission �,,,,, Kryder, the case was approved, with the changes noted to Standard Conditions 4 and 13, and Special Canditions 2 and 4a, by adopting Planning Commission Resolution NO. 487; carried 3-0-1 (AYES : Berkey, Kryder, Snyder, ABSTAIN: Fleshman) . Commissioner Fleshman re-entered the Chambers at this time. VII . OLD BUSINESS - None VIII . NEW BUSINESS A. Request for comments from Riverside County Planning Depart- ment regarding Change of Zone Case No. 2842, R-2-4000 to I-P. Mr. Williams reviewed the proposal with the Commission, and it was unanimously decided to direct Mr. Williams to notify the County Planning Department of the City' s opposition to this request , for the reason that the requested Industrial Zone district does not ap�ear compatible to the adjacent residential subdivision. � IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS Consideration of cases acted on by the Design Review Board at their April 24 , 1973 meeting. Mr. Crump reviewed the cases (Case Nos. 101 C; 171 MF; and 172 MF) . There were no additional conditions or comments by the Commissioners for these cases. On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the actions of the Design ReviEw Board at their April 24, 1979 meeting were approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 488; �,arr��a uLa���ausiy (4-0} . Minutes Page Ten Palm Desert Planning Commission May 3, 1979 X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None XI . COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - Not present �rr C. Planning Commissioners - None XII . ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, the meeting was adjourned at 10: 30 p.m. ; carried unanimously . c�..�.��� ����.,� PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: �� �.� r WALTER SNYDER, Chair n /ss � +��r EXHIBIT 'A ' � � � �'� ` `:i�- � � .� � � � -:�'S" ,�,�. f�.�. � -� -� � f�-�,,,� .:tS-.��,_ ��, C,�.G�,'�-z::�..�. ("�F r�-� �' �":� �`���� i�.,;,ti�y. �� e�. '� � � EN�JtF:C��:1��i'�ii.RL 3ERViCES �!a Y OF I�A�l4i DES�RT � � ; _, , - l,��-w z,��.�.���_,->.,<- �'�%ti-,-,-,i :r.!oz..:�<_' i-� ✓.(���z,-,.-,-t .•.,1' , ' � •.'�_.� . , `. «. ,,, �.G ,��,«_,C.t,� ,2..-,�-.�e.. ; . << z._� ;� 16<��_ y,. - � , . - �i�;2-c�� �7 z,•��. . �` ,c c.-��z.�-��-,- °�� , �- �:,�-.-�1-- > fi .,z, �..,,.�,l-c-t. � - � /C�,�. .�l'L,,, �z�"L -�'{ ,f ( i `� �,�..:�-G t..z ....-i:i �-I__e�.=�.-.[:..t-;:.�-� ,n.� ,AiY--�»--✓ _'''l" . if_�Go"i�.-% /C.✓''v:��� - , / � , _ s,.�_�.� r-.t z,� � ✓�_rr-L-��- ,L�_-.t�,c:, 1�r ,�.r c a �..yC �,.�-,.,:,. r� i . .�r_:7_.,�.2�-.....ac.�-,,,.-Z.-�i /�-"'-�.�t-c-�2�;�,.�.c� j�,c.-°� _ �.G t.L-C�..�� .t_,ry,,-,/ d� . � %' ' - . �+ - �. -i;���f L-'Y-`� � '"" /G��-t'% C./` 4 !��-'•�-t✓,� .�L,. (�e.,-s..t.,a._-:..e r� ,��-��i ' i/ / �C L�-t.-�-'ti-'. �; . ��,' ,�:� 7'�� L; �„�_�� �'.c..� � -t �--.�,-��_"" •.,y`r-z,�.,� _ - ;rl->��,.-,-:__.�..� �'_� _ za ,_'�--c_�ci ,'"f f�2 �z � / �...iJ ...c � �'L_.��{� c�G�:-�/ <. .��. l 1� �✓.�c-,�' :�/�-�n-,.- /i,.Z, _ u.%t +f � -.ki� ,�c -�%��.�v �'_- � y � /' � �1 J _ C/-C ' � �-- / ���,�-�--.�- �ayy��y.�., �o' �l y ,..�_� a��i..w�� C �:_,._-..c�C--.-.'����..�lL.� , .t-/1` � � `. ' � , � � 1 . , - L�+7- =�. � ; � w=':%l,-ti..J"z^..._��/ �. � ��_.. ,�4`-_y,.,-..� ,��.,ti.y,.-zv �'C. . � , . � _ �/�.x:'� .: �:,.E' _�.-.�-�. >���� .t' �-. � �,r.� .,i,,f,�.: ��.L.r-�L��.�_.- � /L�c.- ...-� �- , - ' �� . .���,��� ,.:,c�i .��.'i�1--i_��G'"�//r'-�i.�?-t.���/ .�_� ,.C��s�-,G-''��'2�4.�,�„r_;��.� � Z".. �/, � ; .C.--1`�r..a--� .,�`-�-v , � -�..' � t--�,-if� �. ,T' �..� ���-�-���'�� �, G�, �,� �-"� �" � , � . _ - . ,. y - �� ,,z,,_���-���_�_,_�.t_e��-;,�_�r� � _c .c,-z.-C..�'.C� {_/i_'�-r_ �-� ... �-ti-C'--F_;.-- � r - ..�:_-r''' iF'i .�,'.�-t_�`� �f.,,��K �-C� r�-z �. ;i� � . , _ �._ /- C -��L-z-,...-rvG.�-G_�_c'...�._,-. t�--�-�-�L-�� .,2�:�z-�Z��� --- �G_a����t.,..�.�,-�-z-a� G`--�-v d>c�-- .�,-�of--��-' , , �-� , _. _ �, C-�= .L.�z.,y�,c - � � �-`aa�.--�-v�.-' jd-C��_--� L.t���'�-�. . '� � n i � --L ry'�-�'_..�,��� f- � �� �� , � ' a' , -' _ . :-` l'..-z-:�c.� � ` �. ��'. e'_� .. (� , i � = , , `r:ri.i ll� :?_�'79 �.E: 'r�.�. o3-7c �rentl_e.�!en: :°ve -s�?�_ ��ot �e �n L��' . Jc::;er� Iia�- �, :.�_f'7� ��n.� � � (''.c�,vE.' C?S S:;1G- �'ll�)1_1C *'E�-�,�•�r7r:^ 0I7 <?��`TE.' �T`� ,�_i'.i:CB j �'C3'?FT.'F'Y'� '.;'E% _:.� <��,,,cl �i'ce 'r,� �� �n 7�ecr�rci of �e� �;• . 4I-">T �-�? � .�e:�+;�or7 to {_ ,e Si::-n Or� � ���.:�ce ir 1 �_s �-t,����.ce. � c- �--�C�=�-,.c_�.���`�> — ~ (1,��-��-�� , T .i.. T-• a- o�;,,-r�n, . -� • riu.:rl7 l �.,Oi1 :. =':,�lr�, ,.��l�CeTi v ,�. _._, . �CC-; 7_3—'3 ���c'-:,i��r, ��1,. �:.>e_�t , l � � +���.i�u,�tt��--'�. �:'i',c°'C/G�� t Cc:e.�- ExxzBz� �s � A ; , - , �,�.�.�� : �-,-�,�.u�, �`� ��`.�.�� ���,w ,� :L �c��z�. ,� �� ,� _ / � ,�� �%(� i i ,, ✓ � �.,�,�e,n � 1�,�� /// � � 7`� �L!yk ���-�.� �-�v, � �; � �� ��� ;:��-� � �r�z �C�-�c.L� �`'�� � ��� :�-!-�%�L��'W�� � � � � 1 �� � / J J J � � , ,� f ' , J � ��� �/�Lt7'C�a.h.l�,�- . �,.�2� C�� cu,c,�i2.,�ii/�� t�rc. ��.N-�z.. �j����� .� .� , � , � ; � ��. �y�" '�� .,�-:.���n ��=��z��-�'�-�'-�;' ��' ����G n � . � ` ' `�-� . 7� t-1�"�� ,G��-�%�� �r�z ��,.,� �,� �� , �, ���- -�� � . ' �� � ���'. ,�' � � ��`�"z�.�---- �'� -�-�� ���.�.� � �J � J ,. � / ��n�, / �y �y� /� �/y�� �� ���, ��� �...� � -�{`-- ��y�� -� /�-"�_/ (� � '��L...K 2/r.-�(�/7L ,�/"„i'I/ /I.'✓ �,/ " . � (/ � G,: t�t--�� ' �.�c.L�r�� _ ' � �f� � , G' e� .r� y�--���'-� o h. /�L°�/(,, r'�c�,-Z f^ �G�.�`.L� �'�- �.0 ��f ���G;�� ' O , �i � ', G/ �L�� ,��.Z '���,cr�.c.e-�-� ,�::Zc-��L�%'��%'/-z� G � `���� ,���/""��� /f�� .����,��'�'` ��' �,, � ,y .� i f�� i� �? �/���°_.�,/'e� � ' � � ( . ; . � ! / �� , /1 , ,�,,��� f'' ��j,7 �� ,.,;,., - � /� j, , �� , , ��� � �'�^'�s`J�..., ,.I.L : , r / f�- / / � ' �`�i` .� „__.. � . /� �9 `� (i ; : , , _ _ , y� r. t � k .;"'- ' �� f - ..--.... ...._ ..j' -t-' 2�l"- - .. ~ � �, ,4... i= �� j, � r� '' �-- � � -n- , ' ,� , �� �_�xL��i���t�-�.��' - �' ' - � � Y.�� ,._� ~ ��•.✓ ��,,,t.C'`""�`G'y-`C,L;� ,�".'� y` .�,1,.�"JL._ ' � i'� ��;t,.�1Lti � , , / ' �� �� � �: �n - . , �} �/ ------� , �V �.L`'-"?_. t 71 Y�.-l``Y4-�.7'Y�. ,, t .i ���G L't,_��t�� ���� _<'-� < , j'�� . ., � ..,: � � ��. �7 � + . � �� /.-� t'�� �'��`�L���' �f' /'`� � sy��//7/� , �{ , �� '� �' ; " � , , � ___� � {�--�G� ' ,� , ' �f.��y � '" �. ' � t� � __� "y ��..� - ' �: �, /�� c�_ , ., • ' �! . ""'`-,� , �_ � , F r . , ; � . _ r ,'�`.�„'',�:,.��„ /� � S. f u,r - �' '. i L' r .�(�` �t ._ :w � � � J *.�L�t, � � �++`` r. `�� ���L. l 7�� �A .E�4�.�,,.� ;�,r {,� �� t rt