Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDog Park IssuesCITY OF PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Consideration of Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendations Regarding Dog Park Issues. SUBMITTED BY: Janis Steele, Parks and Recreation Services Manager DATE: February 23, 2006 CONTENTS: 1. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes — September 20, 2005 2. Pooch Park — a Guidebook Recommendation: By Minute Motion: Provide appropriate direction in this matter. Executive Summary: There are two outstanding dog park related issues that the Parks and Recreation Commission has asked that City Staff bring to the City Council for direction. The two main issues are: 1) Not allowing dogs at Hovley Soccer Park. 2) A card system for the Palm Desert Dog Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission has been confronted with growing concerns with the Palm Desert dog parks during numerous Commission meetings. After considering many options, the Commission has identified a card system and accompanying dog park regulations as their recommendation to help improve the enjoyment of patrons at the park and in order to maintain turf and park amenities at an acceptable level. They requested that Staff present this recommendation to the City Council (see minutes from September 20, 2005). At the request of the Executive Management Team, Staff also looked into other alternatives. Staff Report Dog Park Issues and Recommendations February 23, 2006 Page 2 of 5 Background: Staff has received feedback and ideas to help provide more control and a safer environment at the dog park, from our citizens, Commissioners and City Staff. Among the concerns that prompted staff to look for solutions are: • Dogs without tags and collars. • Dogs without tags/collars may or may not have current shots. • People dropping dogs off and leaving to run errands. • People bringing large dogs into the small dog area. • Dangerous dogs in the park not being supervised by their owner. • Increased damage to turf due to dogs digging, and people not picking up their dog waste. • Owner's not following park rules. • Park users not taking care of the facility. • The duty imposed on the City to ensure that the premises are "reasonably safe" for those coming onto the property (legal obligations). • Dogs running off leash in parks and on sports fields. • Pet owners not picking up after their dogs and leaving feces in parks and on sports fields. These represent just a few of the concerns, but the main issue with our dog park is that some of our citizens do not feel comfortable or safe in them anymore. This is not the type of environment we would like our citizens to experience. In addition, we have been receiving complaints and increasing concern about dogs running off leash at Hovley Soccer Park, and the amount of feces that is found on our sports fields. Representatives of the Palm Desert Youth Soccer organization have reported that Volunteer Coaches have to clean up dog feces before every practice and game. Staff, in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Commission, and with support of local dog park users, investigated and reviewed possible options to help increase the safety of guests to our park and preservation of our facilities. The following is a list of options: Option 1: The Parks and Recreation Commission support the following recommendations for general dog park policies and a card system: Staff Report Dog Park Issues and Recommendations February 23, 2006 Page 3 of 5 1. Install a card system. Dog owners would be issued a card that would allow them access to the dog park. 2. A card would be issued for each dog owner that utilizes the park. 3. A resident and non-resident annual fee structure would be set up. For example: $15 (resident 1st dog) and $10 for additional dogs (up to 4 total). This fee is established to cover the cost of the card only. A non-resident would be charged a higher rate ($50 - 75) to help cover park operational costs that taxes would generally cover. Those who have vacation homes and/or spend time in Palm Desert for extended periods of time will be treated as "residents". 4. Limit number of dogs per person to four to coincide with City Ordinance. 5. In order to receive a card, dogs would have to meet the following criteria: have a current dog license and vaccination record to comply with City Ordinance. 6. Dog owners would attend an orientation. The orientation would be scheduled monthly and consist of a review of all the park rules and consequences for not complying with them, as well as a review of City Ordinances relating to dogs. It will include a discussion regarding "dog park etiquette" for first time users, which will help make their experience a more enjoyable and successful one. During the implementation period in the beginning, to process all current users, orientations could be held once per week, or more often if needed. 7. It is possible to develop a core group of "volunteers", so that orientations could happen on an appointment basis if needed. A combination of No. 6 and No. 7 might be ideal. 8. At the end of "orientation" the new card holder would sign a form that states that they have received and understood all rules and regulations associated with the dog park. 9. If a dog or owner is in violation of any rule or regulation, their card could be revoked immediately. It would be revoked for the remainder of the year and they would need to re -apply the following year. 10. Each dog will also be issued a plastic tag indicating that they have a card, that must be with the dog whenever they are at the dog park, whether it be on the collar or with the owner on a keychain. This tag would change colors annually, so they are easy to spot. The Commission feels that this type of structured dog park will eliminate some of the problems with unruly dogs, owners dropping dogs off, unsupervised dogs, cleanliness of park, and with users not following park rules. It is believed that committing to the purchase of a card and participating in an orientation will not only help to educate park users, but it will also help instill an ownership and pride of the park in users, and that they will take more responsibility in keeping the park clean and safe. This system would assist with the ability to enforce dog park policies and procedures, as park patrol and staff will be able to revoke cards if users are in violation of the rules. Staff Report Dog Park Issues and Recommendations February 23, 2006 Page 4 of 5 Option 2: It is believed that part of the reason that there are issues with dogs off leash, owners not picking up after dogs, and in general, citizens not following the existing City Ordinances, is due to the lack of enforcement. Riverside County Animal Control has a contract with the City of Palm Desert to provide "animal control" services but this is an on -call situation only for problems that might arise in city parks. They do not routinely patrol the parks, and check dog licenses and vaccinations, or enforce City ordinances such as "dogs on leash" and "picking up after animals". Staff originally contacted Riverside County to determine what the cost would be to routinely check parks in addition to "regular responsibilities". Staff has spoken with the Palm Desert Animal Control Officer, and he has expressed a willingness to do random checks at the parks, yet the County tends to be continuously short staffed which interferes with the ability to do so. If Riverside County were adequately staffed and could provide consistent checks, it could also assist in enforcing rules at Hovley Soccer Park and on other sports fields in the City. This would only be a viable option if Riverside County were adequately staffed at all times. Option 3: In order to continue in a similar manner as Option 2, and find a way to enforce existing ordinances, Staff has looked at the possibility of requiring that Park Patrol serve as "Park Rangers", and participate in Peace Officer Training — Level 3 — PC832. This would allow them to write citations and enforce park ordinances during the park hours of operation. In light of recent vandalism in the parks, this option might also serve to allow for better enforcement of all park rules and regulations by giving the Park Patrol this type of responsibility. This would require a restructuring of the park patrol program. This option would assist in enforcing rules at Hovley Soccer Park and on other sports fields in the City as well. Option 4: No change is made. Staff Report Dog Park Issues and Recommendations February 23, 2006 Page 5 of 5 Recommendation: In order to ensure the safety and enjoyment of our dog park by the citizens of Palm Desert, City Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission feel that a change must be made. After researching this issue and discussing numerous alternatives, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommends a card system. They also recommend prohibiting dogs in Hovley Soccer Park. Staff has provided several options to address this issue, and would appreciate direction from the City Council. In addition to whatever recommendation is made by the City Council, Staff would like to recommend the development of an education piece that will provide information to dog park users and pet owners. Attached is a sample of such a book: Pooch Park — a Guidebook for the Skokie, Illinois Park District and City of Evanston. Staff recommends developing a booklet along these lines to provide to our dog park users. Including park locations, rules and regulations, City Ordinances, how to obtain a dog license, etc. would be very helpful. Submitted By: Depa ent Hea Iti� Ja is Steele Homer Croy 'I is and Recreation Services Manager ACM for Deve pment Services Approval: CaroloeL. rte City Manager CITY OF PALM DESERT PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Guyer convened the meeting at 8:30 a.m. II. ROLL CALL IV. Present: Chair Randy Guyer Commissioner Phill Babcock Commissioner Dan Barnes Commissioner Gerald Dawson Commissioner Alternate Connor Limont Commissioner Terry Schukart Commissioner Van Tanner Absent: Vice Chair Julie Munson Staff Present: Bob Spiegel, Council Member Janis Steele, Parks & Recreation Services Manager Jay Niemczak, Parks Maintenance Supervisor Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Monica Loredo, Administrative Secretary ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Guyer announced that Commissioner Dan Seymour has resigned due to his work schedule. The City Council could consider that the Alternate Commissioner fill the position. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 Minutes of Parks and Recreation Commission of September 7, 2005, were approved with a change on page 10 of the minutes to reflect that Commissioner Schukart seconded the motion for a second monthly meeting, and not Commissioner Scheurer. Motion moved/seconded by Dawson/Tanner and carried by a 7-0 vote with Commissioner J. Munson ABSENT. MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 V. PRESENTATIONS A. UNIVERSITY PARK PROJECT Mr. Drell presented to the Commission neighborhood parks that staff is recommending as part of a community development project. There are going to be 1,200 units in the development with most being single-family homes, and medium density with some low density. He indicated that the 1,200 units would require a dedication of approximately 12 acres for park usage. The developer also has a significant need for water retention similar to Freedom Park. Mr. Drell referred to the maps provided that half of each park is devoted to water retention. He noted that the developer has volunteered to not only dedicate the land for the parks, but also to develop them. He said that cost to build a neighborhood park costs approximately $500,000 an acre, which is about the cost of an acre of land in that area. Mr. Drell updated the Commission that they are also pursuing another regional park along the same lines as Freedom Park in the same area, which is north of Gerald Ford. Commissioner Tanner asked if that area would be in conjunction with the developer or part of the City. Mr. Drell responded that there would be some parkland dedication from the developer and fees from other developers. Commissioner Tanner asked if it would be going through the Commission. Mr. Drell replied yes. Commissioner Barnes asked for the approximate acreage of the parks. Mr. Drell responded that the three smaller parks are about 2 acres and the larger park is about 4.5 acres. Mr. Ron Gregory, Landscape Architect, addressed the Commission that they are proposing four parks. He explained that parks A, B, and D are vaguely similar in a sense that they offer non -structured type activities like Palma Village Park. Park B has two tot lots for two different age groups, basketball courts, sand volleyball courts, pavilions for barbequing, and would be ADA compliant so everyone could use the facility. Park C is more of a dog park, which would be located at the corner of College Drive and University Park Drive. There is a large turf area that is separated for larger and smaller dogs, pavilions in the center, and provision of approximately 14 to 15 spaces of off-street parking. He mentioned all areas that do not have turf would have water efficient landscaping with drip irrigation. He also mentioned that they are retention type areas and they are trying to make use of the areas, which would otherwise be landscaped without play or accessibility. Mr. Gregory asked the Commission if they had any questions. r.-,.-.A, 2 ` •'` G:VDevServicesWkNca Loiedoffon! DefeVPst*s&RecWinutes%9-20.05.min.doc MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 Councilman Spiegel commented that from the Council's standpoint, it is better to have the parks in place before the homes are built so residents know where the parks are located before they move in. Commissioner Tanner asked what the schedule is for building the parks. Mr. Drell responded that the infrastructure would be built at one time along with parks. Councilman Spiegel noted that the project has not gone the City Council for approval. Mr. Drell mentioned that the bigger park has a softball backstop, although it is not diamond shape, but people can bring bases and play softball. Commissioner Scheurer asked how many homes would be in the development. Mr. Drell replied 1,200, and mentioned that there is one parcel that is being developed by another developer. All total there would be approximately 1,400 homes. Commissioner Scheurer asked what the anticipated start date is for the development. Mr. Mark Smith, V.P. of Operations, Hover Construction, responded that they are looking at grading the site at the end of this year, and expect construction of the models to start in the third or fourth quarter of 2006. He commented that within each area were there is a park, and that as the development is being built; the park would be built along with it. He said the goal is to have the park completed as people are moving in. Commissioner Scheurer asked if the homes are being built sequentially or parallel. Mr. Smith responded that it depends on how quickly the builders buy from them. Their goal is to have the parks built at the.same time the homes are being built. Mr. Smith mentioned that the park is not in the backyard of homes, but across the street. Only the dog park is down a slope. Mr. Drell asked the Commission is if they would like to see bocce ball, horseshoes, or other activities in the parks. Commissioner Tanner asked what the demographics of the area are and what they are trying to accomplish. Mr. Drell responded that some homes would cost approximately $700,000 to $800,000, and in some other areas it would 'cost $400,000. Commissioner Tanner commented that it seems it would be mostly families moving into the community, and he was not sure if many kids play bocce ball. Chairman Guyer asked if there was any consideration in building two large parks. Mr. Smith responded that the parks were broken down to four parks due to the need to have areas for water retention. They tried to address 3 G:IDsvServkeslMonks LonrdolWad DotslP8*S&ReclMinufesl9-20.05.min .doc MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 the different uses for the parks such as having two tot lots for the older and younger kids. There is also open space where dads can play baseball with their children; there is basketball and sand volleyball. Mr. Drell also commented that the parks are on a hill. He indicated that they initially looked at having one large park; unfortunately, it is difficult to create a large flat area in this development. Chairman Guyer asked if the parks would be lighted at night. Mr. Smith responded that they would not be lighted. There will be normal security type lighting. Mr. Drell commented that there might be lighting around the basketball court and volleyball court, which would be more of the down shining parking lot type lighting. Councilman Spiegel indicated that assuming the Council approves the project, the project would return to the Commission for the final design of the parks. The Commission asked if there have been any complaints concerning the basketball lighting at Palma Village Park. Ms. Steele replied that there has not. Commissioner Barnes pointed out that he did not see parking on the maps and asked if there is separate parking. Mr. Drell responded that all the parks have street parking only, except for the dog park will 'have approximately 15 dedicated spaces. The parks are strategically located within walking distance of every neighborhood. Commissioner Barnes asked if there are going to be community pools or tennis courts within the 1,200 homes. Mr. Smith replied no. Commissioner Barnes asked if any the communities would be gated. Mr. Smith responded that there is only one community that would be gated. Commissioner Babcock asked how this project would fit in with the school systems. Mr. Drell responded that the school district felt the land was too expensive so he is not sure if they are still pursuing purchasing land in the area. He noted that it would be a joint use park similar to Washington Charter and Freedom Park. He also noted that if the school would not be built, the City would be back building their own park. Commissioner Barnes asked what the price range of the homes is. Mr. Drell replied that they would cost $400,000 to $800,000. Commissioner Tanner asked if there is any affordable housing dedicated to this area. Mr. Drell responded that the housing authority is working with " , 4 1 t G:1DevSsrviceslMonica LorWd Word DetalP@ft&RoeminutesW-2"5.mfn.doc MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 the same developer that did Hovley Gardens to do a similar apartment project. He also mentioned that there is a project that was approved on Gerald Ford near Monterey that has an obligation for affordable units. Commissioner Barnes asked what golf course is shown on the key map. Mr. Drell responded that it is a potential future Desert Willow, which would be next to the hotel site. Commissioner Barnes asked. if the City owns that land. Mr. Drell replied yes. Chairman Guyer asked if the project is on a hill, why are water retentions needed. Mr. Drell responded that it is required in accordance to the City's ordinance. Ms. Limont asked if water conservation was taken into consideration. Mr. Drell responded that the City has a water conservation ordinance and considered a serious issue. Mr. Smith stated that they are putting in four well sites. It was mentioned that all the parks would be brought back to the Commission once the project has been brought forward for changes and modifications. Chairman Guyer asked if the project is all residential and no commercial. Mr. Drell responded that there is commercial on Cook Street and Gerald Ford and Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford. There might be more commercial on Technology Drive north of Cook Street. He said there might be approximately 35 acres of commercial. Chairman Guyer asked why the parks could not be put on the corners. Mr. Drell replied that they could not put the parks on the corners because they had to accommodate the water drainage. Chairman Guyer commented the City would have four areas to monitor and maintain, and that a couple of the parks are isolated. He mentioned that he was disappointed that there couldn't be two larger parks. Commissioner Scheurer moved to recommend the project to the City Council with a provision that they consider night lighting for the basketball courts. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Tanner and carried by a 7-0 vote with Commissioner J. Munson ABSENT. Vl. NEW BUSINESS A. LEGENDS FIELD/SENIOR GAMES HONOREE Ms. Steele reported that she had done some research on the Senior Games dedication. She asked the Commission whom they would like to GV@vSarvk63LV0nk9 LoredDkftrd Data%PaArs&ROCVJki s$W-2O-05.min.doc MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 select for the honoree dedication. She mentioned that last year Charlie Pasarell was selected, but he was unable to attend. She also pointed out the area on a map staff is recommending to add additional columns. Ms. Steele noted the budget and cost for the columns. Commissioner Babcock asked where the names for potential honorees came from. Ms. Steele responded that she found the names from previous meeting minutes. Chairman Guyer stated that Jeff Winklepleck and Ryan Stendell put the list together. Commissioner Barnes suggested that the columns for the baseball players are kept together. The columns could not be moved, but pictures could possibly be moved. The sign with their name and bio might be hard to move. Mr. Niemczak said that he would check if the signs could be moved. Commissioner Babcock commented that some of the columns/plaques are showing some wear and tear, and that maybe staff could take a look at them. The Commissioner's briefly discussed recommendations for the honoree. Commissioner Scheurer motioned to 1) Authorize staff to update the columns and review the costs; and 2) Authorize staff to contact Charlie Pasarell, Johnnie Lujak, and/or Don Baylor for the Senior Games honoree. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Schukart and carried by a 7-0 vote with Commissioner J. Munson ABSENT. B. AMPHITHEATER COMMITTEE Ms. Steele asked the Commission if there are volunteers to be part of the Amphitheater Committee to work with staff to begin a concept for renovations of the amphitheater. Chairman Guyer and Commissioner Dawson volunteered. VII. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. LAWN BOWLING Ms. Steele referred to a letter she received from Mr. Ted Harper that she wanted to share with the Commission. She stated that she would like to continue this item until October 18, 2005, when the people that want make a presentation are back in town. 6 vServkesUAonica Lme101W.1d NWP8*.&RS. MhU0SW.2"5.,W..dx MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 She also provided a photograph of a possible site for lawn bowling. Staff believes the section of green space directly south of the Skate Park would be the best option. She asked the Commission if they could take a look at the site before October 18, and to let her know if they had any suggestions. B. DOG PARK RECOMMENDATIONS Ms. Steele asked the Commission to look at the recommendations for the Dog Park. She commented that Ms. Limont had done a lot of research, and that she also spoke to a couple of dog park people, and the Risk Manager. Ms. Steele briefly mentioned some of the issues in the dog park. Ms. Limont stated that the situation in the dog park is getting too crazy, and that she has had to change her schedule to go to the dog park at a different time. She stated that the City needs to take steps on how we are going to run our dog park; therefore, everyone understands the rules, and the City is not liable if something were to happen at the dog park, such as a toddler getting bit by a dog. Ms. Limont noted that they talked to a very successful park in Michigan, along with a dog park in Colorado and Texas. Mr. Niemczak stated that he talked to Santa Monica and Riverside. He stated that Riverside had no requirements. Santa Monica does require that they are a resident and the dog must be registered, but no enforcement. Commissioner Babcock recalls at a previous meeting that at one time it was being considered to add an animal control officer to City Staff. Councilman Spiegel responded that the animal control officer is out of Cathedral City, but will be moving into the new Animal Campus facility. Commissioner Babcock expressed that people are going to be in some shock with all the new rules. He said that there are rules out there now, but just need enforcement. Commissioner Babcock also expressed that if in the future there were to be an animal control officer, he could check the dog park in the morning and evening to ensure that dogs are licensed. The dog park people should handle it themselves. Ms. Limont responded that the card system is pretty simple, and explained the process and procedure. Note: Animal Control is now handled out of the Indio office. Commissioner Scheurer asked Commissioner Babcock if he disagreed with any rules. Commissioner Babcock feels having a card to get into the dog park is too much. L01 G:IDevServkesLWnka Lom&lWord OatalParks6ReeLWnut"W-20-M.min.doe MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 Ms Sharon Marshall (73-874 Masson Drive, Palm Desert) informed the Commission that majority of the people at the dog park want the card system and requested that staff look into the system. Commissioner Babcock asked Ms. Marshall why the system is not working now. Ms. Marshall responded that there is absolutely no control of who and what comes into the dog park. if something happens there is no recourse. She stated that an animal control officer would have to sit in the dog park 24 hours a day because people are in and out throughout the day. At this time there is no way of knowing if dogs have had their shots. Councilman Spiegel explained the system at the Skate Park, and that Council decided to have someone there to monitor that skaters have safety equipment and bikes are not allowed. The card system is like having someone there from his standpoint. Commissioner Barnes commented that the card system is a good idea and explained the process to request a dog license. The only problem he foresees with the card system is who would follow up that the license is up-to-date. Chairman Guyer responded that the card could only be good until the license expires. Councilman Spiegel asked if the card system would be added to both dog parks. Ms. Steele replied that the City would have to, and to any new dog parks as well. It was mentioned that the card system would be the same type of system as Desert Willow resident cards. There would be a charge for the card and a lesser charge for Palm Desert residents, Commissioner Babcock asked how much personnel would be needed to handle the card system. Councilman Spiegel responded that it would go through the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District (CVRPD). They handle the Desert Willow and Skate Park cards. Ms. Marshall also replied that if they need volunteers, some of the people from the dog park would be happy to volunteer. Ms. Steele commented that if the card system goes into place, initially volunteers would be needed. Ms. Limont voiced that a system needs to be put into place now and not continue to put it off. She is concerned that there is going to be a difficult situation, whether it is a little guy getting hurt or two people fighting. Commissioner Schukart. commented that when he lived in Oregon, they had to close the dog park because it got so bad and it was paved over. Commissioner Scheurer commented that he has a concern with the cost of the card. He said an amount should be set for residents of Palm Desert. io t 4lw:(Lvsa,vkasu�koL�iwwvv@tewe*.,&Recuui,�,� sie-so-os.n.aoc a V C ? y f C N Id Cs cL O w w cp O m d o_ 'd a� a a�i 3 o` U GJ 10 n NN = = to 3 C 2i o p °c. m rn 3 CL O U O O O • 'M fp 0 Ina O +O N v v U w �p C a orb [ °' L ,o ro 0 0 v o �ov N M 0 'iA a t`5 a� •��.ww 01 C O p N of -0o. t U ,i� NI-t LM C � Aga co s � 0 � a N }' � R Q1 � O �' b , m m 0'Pn r. wcu '� _ 0 0 C N O I N .LoU � c c C -0 o_ jauuBq� a�cr�iS j[ �1 ` 0 C O fN0 y E C f. N C <.e. _... ...... _, .: o-v"•_., .'°"iSfi "4 ?:=., .r. .,:k :'hw'`Y.°.a a'si5`..�.''' :w", , 'b :.f•:. `"; v`$c 't ';�., 'i� X W f0 a� U i C O U C C C -:Is lj'oIW.1037W S cC0 N O O N U H G O (PS CL 0 c E12 a� t c d y:, E c k +� (U fo cn c � �...- , . � O � v c = : 0 L �v o u r: � w N 0� O ro v m c c a Ln L CL r m c rn � oa c 4a cu �n 0 0>. w cn (n c c 2 B rn E U� 0. C Lfp +O+ '� NoOO p � O O OO O i U Oc QO a to O L O + m O c n OO L O O N N d U _ O O V v a� U2:3 a m o w u L t._ aU —_ 75 E a O O co txO ars O p to M M rLo = O L p c E N O a 3 3 c � L E L C 4- V1 f� L Vf 4-0 +' U E o^ c c +� + M � _cu g' a� 3 `� s a m CC N � L c v O aL�'i c w e O w 3 L L m 2 (n � � _ L N g � C c rn a o D u ¢ �. o" FA o ' 0 cn O wo TON o G cn O G _. O CL o E o a � � -0 n�i 0 ow 0 N T O � co Q1 0 (V A 'C O O N o a-+ y S O ,. N a- -04- O N N O .. 4 C 0 O (A O aG 1, O N O c in 0 w U (Oa Tu � O Ti to 0 W N > L�1 N lLd (d a N Q G i c EOJo G N'3 0 N E .�V 'p d N N g C IS L 0 a� O N > "0 N�1�gT O O a-0 d+ U L N E f1 tn a� L �0Oo� 'p >tn >O o� 03�EL Ln aTi c ° o N C N 4) -- 40L 'or m GN L .� N O cao aa;� orn 0 cn = d O w CD-0 ,� p, 0 0 -0o c S Ci E Q tL j .; .� -sa06 Q. 1.. W G > i.1 irlr > C3 N N -0 � C] i L O CA cn `.. � — "' fl. i C pp � w y L 01 G O G c� 0 i V N p m O N L G N � N E Ec� cQ'G � o � :3 O Q-G 0 'O L-� g � � c RM O O. i O O � Y a a1 L +� N L Q N a) R > C Q aO O'a tOn 3 0c 1N vog E 0 C u��c°� E Ln E = 3os ro oa�o v,CN M.g N a)O C^4-1 3 w-=w O a .Z ro3��om C L a 0 is c L _ii 3 0p� z z° V; ri 0 c o 0 c c O Q Q v, � L 0 n M 0 0 -0-0 � > M L O OL m nC VA w L MQ 3 v,-- 0 in E0 .oc aco Ln .0 ` t mc3c a� 3 `°' at_i Q'sa0a' E �o in.� Eo�r 'uin uE O a "4 p U 3 ��En a) f° L E c� �0 a U C EV > O O O QI L N -0 3 3 Win- ui °'rLp g,0 C$' _ -a'� Wo c�O�L� C o,-co, MLn coo rn3= "c o `�a� 3c �0 acvLnCMW Q¢ocO O a QE d, v -a c . 0E3�v °5z z0m zCU o P. ,.4 N M 0�0 1 O N N N 0 C. co vo- -0 a to C: X-2 lc: zZi 0 W S -0, u 7 im) 3-i 30� U'l th 10 -0- to 110, .00 1410 Rg oo e .0 'a) -,4 % A - - .5 t .0k, ca r. C: so 0 ( G S CAP 3�- "*--O C- W. t !, U�; 5. 0 W OR to 0 r_. G • %I v v r, — a CL L tJl N C O O C O O 3 O O f0 N M U C a.+ L H p y +� r- O & m O '2 N O rC O N O EO m � O (�O p1 L: E u cn C C O c1 O u > O > £ L O i E E �o O E o m O + 'a u1 >` +' V1 C L M I i _ O f0 f0 ►- O M L y .v E y y 4.. cn E co u oCD 0 v 0 IS E ai �r� c c L c p E u ,o -v u �n CD O 13 C = N j U d V OLn N cn p v� Jd � rn O `d+ m .i O ►-� Q IC m O fd f0 • 0 • �O O N o 0 N �L N U1 Q o c o°� o wa o' co �4 �4 L �a 0nN 06. U�G 3: �o"' waoia`o. a� 6 O°- N R O �0(� 1,0 av� C3, o o• n o or a; �rn coo A to Z o V O d; o• a ;, N to ow � o � c� o• o -a c 3 S W a CAUocw G a)o3 DW oo c�00 ovo o r- ` 4- CP to O .F� O N 0 CP � o O N 0 O -d O co