Loading...
2013-87-Minutes for Meeting February 26,2013 Recorded 3/8/2013DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL III! I II 11111111111111 20 7 CLERK°S CJ 2013.87 03/08/2013 09:39:22 AM Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.or MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013 La Pine Senior Center The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a public hearing on the proposed Newberry Country Plan (South County Plan). Present were Commissioners Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone; Commissioner Tammy Baney was unable to attend. Also present were Tom Anderson, Interim County Administrator; Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and sixteen other citizens. Chair Unger opened the hearing at 6:05 p.m. Peter Gutowsky read the preliminary statement. The hearing will continue at Sunriver on Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. Regarding conflicts of interest, the Commissioners had none to declare. No challenges were offered. Commissioner DeBone explained that Commissioner Baney is in Washington DC on County business for a few days. He said that he thinks of this Plan as a twenty- year plan for this area. The term `regional problem solving' is used by the State for many areas going through change, or are in the process of updating their Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out the history of the area, including the fact that John Strong Newberry was an explorer in this area in the 1800's, tasked with finding the best route for a railroad, and Newberry Crater is named after him. This plan represents the areas outside the City of La Pine and the Sunriver Resort, which are governed separately. The project has taken over 18 months to get to this point. It is based on input from the citizens, organized by staff. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing on the South County Plan Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Page 1 of 7 Commissioner Unger added that they have learned a lot over the past seven or eight years, including how to communicate and how to come up with positive things to move forward into the future. Mr. Gutowsky gave a PowerPoint presentation at this time. He said this is the last stage before the Board of Commissioners will consider approving the Plan. (A copy is attached for reference) They did not stop where the land use issues ended, but included references to health care, education, natural resources and much more. The term `regional problem solving' is an uncomfortable one for many citizens, so this language is being removed with the next Comprehensive Plan update. Commissioner DeBone asked if the Plan goes to a State agency for approval. Ms. Craghead said it will go to the State, and DLCD can appeal. Mr. Gutowsky stated that DLCD has reviewed the proposal and is supportive. However, anyone who has attended a meeting and testified has standing and can be party to any appeal At this time, Chair Unger opened the hearing to public testimony. He explained that they are anxious to hear testimony to clarify any questions or issues. Robert Ray read from a prepared statement at this time. He feels the community conversations were not well thought out. Multiple choice questions were not adequate. They finally got to where they are communicating and it has gone well. It did not start out that way. Now that the Plan is in place, he wants to make sure the Board will support this work. The Commissioners should have said it has not gone before the people in regard to Goal 1. He wants reassurance that the work done locally will be supported and not let legislation get in the way. Some legislators have been improperly led by developers who want destination resorts. Commissioner Unger said that it is their job to support the Comprehensive Plan. This should be the guiding force to move things forward. Mr. Ray said he hears that the Board will allow destination sorts to bypass the process. Commissioner DeBone stated that anyone can put a concept together and float it. He does not see that anything wrong was done. Mr. Ray stated that Goal 1 says it must have local citizen involvement. Commissioner DeBone said the legislative concept did not get a lot of traction and does not seem to be going anywhere. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing on the South County Plan Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Page 2 of 7 Commissioner Unger indicated it did not get far in Salem because of the Goal I issue. Jerry Criss stated that everyone has worked hard on this. Regarding the language concerning groundwater, it comes down to an infrastructure issue that should have been addressed many years ago. It needs a plan and can't be hit and miss. It needs to be laid out for the long term. This has to be a living, moving piece so that when development comes back, it can be addressed in a positive fashion. It needs to be master planned so it won't be hit and miss in the future. Wendell Evers said that he has lived here over seven years and has been involved with many things having to do with this area and the Comprehensive Plan. He is on the board of directors of the Citizens Action Group. He admires all the work that has been done. However, they can do all this work now and just repeat it again. He is referring to a word called resolution. It is a legislative term. There is a Comprehensive Plan but it needs a Master Plan added to it. He does not see anything that has been accomplished after a lot of work and a lot of salaries. The budgets are passed on to work sessions. There need to be resolutions. On page 36, he asked if a problem really exists as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, relating to the geography and the nitrate problem. He asked who edited this into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gutowsky stated that this references groundwater. This was lifted specifically out of the DEQ North Klamath and Deschutes County website. The DEQ is the governing body for groundwater issues. There is a link on the page for reference. This is how they handled this sensitive issue, which some time ago was relegated to the DEQ. Mr. Evers stated this was not documented the way the USGS documented it. It needs to be authentic. He wants to get back to the DEQ groundwater issue that DEQ has so much influence on. It is a ground issue, how the land is used. DLCD has its own methods. If they obey what the DLCD says, it is a land issue. They need to use the land appropriately to avoid any DEQ concerns. He wants to point out that there are a lot of people who did research into this issue. They do not want another twenty-year Comprehensive Plan. He wants to end this by resolution. A lot of money has been spent by the DEQ and the County on salaries. They need to work better together. He asked if anyone disagrees with what he says. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing on the South County Plan Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Page 3 of 7 Chair Unger stated that the County has to conform to State and Federal laws. DLCD and DEQ are required to weigh into this. He is hearing that people want solutions for how they can use their land. Mr. Evers said what is being done is a Band-Aid. Chair Unger said the County tried and failed on the groundwater issues, and the DEQ is now working on it. Everyone is frustrated with how long it is taking. Mr. Evers stated that it is their lives and land and water. They are concerned about the County just agreeing with what is in the system. These citizens would not do anything to harm this area. Judy Forsythe asked for a little leeway for more time. She admires County staff for the opportunities they have presented so the public can be part of the process. She thanked the Planning Commission for listening diligently. And commended the Board of Commissioners for listening to the concerns of the public. She would like to reiterate comments about a Master Plan. They have some ideas about the Master Plan and will be working on that. The South County chapter is a very positive piece of work. It should be moved forward into a Master Plan. The interagency wildlife plan is still referenced. Mr. Gutowsky said that as this was being developed, they were getting input from the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife regarding recommendations for compatibility with wildlife. It was seen in some circles as being controversial. He thinks it was recognized as a reference but was not included directly. It was left quite vague because the community did not want to take it any further. Ms. Forsythe said they don't want any agencies dictating what they can or can't do with their land. She will be watching for this. As soon as the DEQ steering committee recommendations are in, she wants to call for a moratorium on new subdivisions and destination resorts until they can deal with the 10,000 platted lots in the area that have not been developed. They need resolution for those lot owners. She wants all information for the whole area to be laid on the table. The lack of infrastructure for the area is screaming for attention. She is thankful for the efforts put in on this and considers this a success. She feels that with this success, she is excited with what will come with a master plan. She relates to the frustration that the plan will be implemented over twenty years. The issues they have in South County have been ignored for far too long. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing on the South County Plan Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Page 4 of 7 Chair Unger stated that it does not mean they don't start working on it now. The State requires this so that infrastructure can be matched with future growth. Ms. Forsythe said on Page 26 there is a typographical error regarding the wildlife combining zone referred to as a combing zone. Commissioner DeBone said they need to look at what they are going to do now, with an eye for the future in five years and beyond. Chair Unger stated that they have periodic review with an eye on the future as well. Anne Gregersen said she did not like Page 36 regarding groundwater and the aquifer. It is supposedly becoming contaminated with nitrates and causing potential health problems. This does not belong in the Plan. It is not scientific at all and they fought over this language for years. She has an idea of what can replace it. The USGS is unscientific and citizens asked for peer review of their findings. They got nowhere with this. She has asked the DEQ and others and did not get anything done. It should be eliminated because of the lack of scientific evidence. Peer review reports should be requested. It should be publicly disclosed so they can back some of these statements. They are not interested now. They need to tell everyone the truth and this language needs to go. Maybe the Commissioners can find out about the peer review. Tonya Karbiocz testified for TAPS - Think Again Parents, South County Substance Abuse prevention. She learned that this is supported in the Plan. They would like to see more language included in the Plan relating to TAPS. They will be working on further language to be inserted in the Plan to support this program. Pat Murphy stated he has been in the area for about six years, and most of that time has been involved in the septic system issue. He feels this part of the county is being overridden by bureaucracy. He does not approve of all of it. They have been fighting over the language for five years. There is a limit to the amount of nitrates per State law. From a medical standpoint, the statements are suppositions and he has found nothing in the research he has done that supports the language. He further understands groundwater movement from septic systems can be looked at for nitrate levels. This does need to be observed and not ignored. There is very little understanding in spite of the DEQ and the USGS. They have not established well the movement of the groundwater. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing on the South County Plan Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Page 5 of 7 He understands there is a computer model being used for the movement of groundwater. All of the computer models over time have been shown to some degree to be inaccurate. This is inaccurate data. This is an attempt to project into the future something that is going to happen. Sometimes they are accurate, sometimes not. Public policy should not be based on this. He is in support of being proactive. The U.S. overall is very poor at being proactive. By making public policy with very questionable scientific results is not good public policy. Occasionally mentioned is the agenda 21 from the U.N. There are a tremendous amount of people who are not allowed to enact their policies. The surface appearance of this document is acceptable but he won't put up with some of this. They need to be concerned about the environment. In the goal statement per DEQ this has not been truly accomplished, regarding septic systems and groundwater. There are all kinds of contamination going on in this County. No one seems to be getting upset about it. Herbicides are used in this County by large ranches for hay production. He looked at this extensively. It will be a much bigger problem than nitrates. The DEQ and Comprehensive Plan need to talk more broadly about the contamination happening to the County. It is worse in many places. He thanked staff and those who are doing this Plan, and he hopes it is effective in reaching the goals. Chair Unger said as they work through the groundwater issue with the DEQ, things may be revised to make it as good a document as possible. He said that he has asked Tom Anderson to talk about the County's role. The County is over 3,000 square miles but a lot of attention has been paid to South County. Mr. Anderson stated that this has been a very long road since the mid 1990's when planners started working diligently in this area. The road has been bumpy at times. It does not mean that the CDD folks have not cared a great deal about the area and its wonderful qualities. He has been with the County for 15 years and the amount of time spent in this area compared to other unincorporated areas has been about half of their time. Some has resulted in good things and other times there were issues. In hindsight, sometimes you wish you could have done things better. During the past few years, things have turned positive and he appreciates the recognition of the Plan and the community as to what they want to see here. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing on the South County Plan Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Page 6 of 7 Hopefully that trend will continue through implementation. He noted that the rubber hits the road in the CDD work plan. Many of the policies on that to-do list are part of the work plan. This is also a public process. One recommendation of the Planning Commission was the desire to have a public meeting here after the recommendations of the steering committee to review this. County staff has been very much involved in this. They welcome the opportunity to discuss this with the DEQ and committee. This collaboration and work should continue. Once there is a finished Plan, they need to implement things as quickly and well as possible. Chair Unger thanked the citizens for their attendance and testimony. After the next hearing, the Board will deliberate and likely will adopt the Plan. It is a living document and is meant to reflect local values. It will guide them into the future. There is always the question as to what can be afforded. People want less government and less money spent, so they have to figure out how to do more with less. Chair Unger continued the public hearing to the Sunriver SHARC scheduled for Tuesday, March 12 at 6:00 p.m. Being no further items addressed, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. DATED this Day of )!Jat_CA_ 2013 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. vv~- Alan Unger, Chair - dl.t_st4IL~ Tammy Baney, Vice Chair ATTEST: r Anthony DeBone, Commissioner bLm Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing on the South County Plan Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Page 7 of 7 p G~{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Proposed Newbe Count Plan Date: Name Address 19-4 Phone #s S S 3 C_ 3 z E-mail address A v ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING RE UEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Proposed Newb Count Plan Date: Z~ 6 r~~ ~ Name Address" 7 _,~rSS e Phone #s - r.2 . , 2 S? E-mail address -TZ 1- / ~M ,v4 In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ~JY~s o 4 p H ,t Agenda Item of Interest: Proposed Newb Count Plan Name 6 G... 2,1 . Date: Address Phone #s BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING RE UEST TO SPEAK E-mail address 11SA ❑ In Favor Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes F-] No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. c z{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Proposed Newberry Country Plan Date:Q R/'_~ Name ~.Z/ Address Phone #s~ E-mail address- . L22 ❑ In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F-] Yes 0 No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. 4 ~ " 4Gy< BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REOUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest'kPro osed Newb Count Plan Date: Name Vl l'P 'ow Address Phone #s E-mail address 11 In Favor LT Neutral Undecided ❑ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F~ Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. a { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Proposed Newberry Country Plan Date: I z Name Address --Dc. Phone #s -A , 1 . S 'i E-mail address In Favor , Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? F1 Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. .fES AAPrn z{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Proposed Newberry Country Plan Date: Name PAI'-.'I r/v A Address ~Q Phone #s ~ v a E-mail address In Favor ❑ Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Peter Gutowsk From: Joyce Faltus <nanajoyce@q.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:38 PM To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Re: Southern Deschutes County I propose that Deschutes County add small acreage areas in all of Deschutes County to the South County Plan Proposal. The rule of thumb with regard to agricultural acreage generally supports 2 farm animals per usable irrigated acre. Crooked River Ranch is a rural RESIDENTIAL subdivision. It is the largest residential subdivision in Oregon, with approximately 4000 residents. Most lots are 5+/- acres, some between 1 and 5, and there are some rare 10 acre lots. Having unlimited farm animals on small acreages constitutes a general nuisance what with horrendous odors, piling up of manure, uncontrollable fly infestation and possible groundwater contamination. Most acreage on CRR is not irrigated having restrictions on watering due to being on wells. I propose the County limit farm animals to 1 or 2 per usable acre. Please forward this email to the County Commissioners. Thank you. Joyce Faltus 11425 NW Dove Road Terrebonne, OR 97760 541-504-8770 February 14, 2013 TO: Peter Gutowski - Deschutes County Comments for South County Plan From: Deschutes Soil & Water Conservation District and Oregon Department of Agriculture Tammy Harty tammyharty@msn.com 541-815-0203 The plan has done a great job identifying areas of concern for water quality issues. The purpose of our comments is to give further detail and recommendations from out perspective. Issues from Appendix 1: Control and maintain livestock manure on-site to protect water quality. (-The language in this sentence is a little mis-leading I would recommend it be worded: " Control and manage livestock manure to protect water quality and take measures to ensure that it does not leach into or contaminate the groundwater. ) We don't want to state that they need to maintain it on site that is problematic and by remaining on site, will eventually contaminate the groundwater. One of the solutions is to remove the manure before it leaches into the groundwater or runs off the property onto neighboring property or into the river. Another solution is to contain it /store it on site in a way that it will not leach into the groundwater, for instance by storing it on a concrete _pad and covering the pile with a tarp or wooden structure. We are working on solutions to storing it on site in a way that it will not contaminate the groundwater and intend to do outreach to educate landowners about those practices. Due to the high water table, nitrates are leeching into the soil and water table as a result of poorly managed manure on small properties. There are a number of small (I acre) lots in South County that require very diligent management of manure on these small parcels and require consideration for the number of animals on these acreages. We would ask that the County consider an ordinance to limit the number of livestock allowed on small acreages in order to limit the nitrates from entering the groundwater. This could be added to Policy 13.3. It is our intention to limit livestock only on small parcels within the South County area where the groundwater level is an issue. However, we have also been involved in complaints regarding large numbers of livestock on small acreages in other areas of the County including Crooked River Ranch. There are manure issues on these properties also but for issues of nuisance, flies and smell due. to the close proximity of neighbors rather than contamination of the ground water. Both reasons would warrant considering an ordinance to limit the numbers of livestock on small acreages, A number of other Counties around the state have similar ordinances limiting the number of livestock based upon the acreage of the property. We would be happy to provide further information as to how they handled this issue. ODA has investigated two complaints regarding groundwater pollution by poorly managed horse manure. Both landowners were found in violation of Oregon Revised Statute 468.025 by placing waste where it the Little Deschutes. The cattle were damaging the stream banks to get access to water, had grazed the streamside vegetation too low and caused sloughing of certain areas of the river bank. Appendix 2 - Issue Analysis Add a sub category under "Protect Water Quality" Develop an ordinance to limit livestock numbers on small acreages Require landowners with livestock to protect streambanks and streamside vegetation Require proper agricultural use of rivers, riparian areas and wetlands to prevent water pollution Policy 2.6 : Add Streamside stewardship information/requirements. Policy 14.2. Please add information about maintaining native vegetation streamside, in the wetlands and in the flood plain in order to maintain streamside bank stabilization and for water quality. Policy 16.12: Please add Forest Service, Upper Deschutes Watershed Council and County Code officials in these meetings. Many of these affected landowners have built in the flood plain and are not aware of their conditions of approval and the landowner responsibilities surrounding that flood plain area. Goal 9: Include ground and surface water runoff and contamination as issues. Including information and outreach about enhancing native streamside vegetation. Address the, negative affects of fertilizers contaminating wetlands, flood plains and streams. Stress the negative effects of planting lawns and non-native grasses in the wetlands that discourage the functioning of the native vegetation in the flood plains/wetlands and streamside. Issue identified in Appendices 1 and 2: "Control and maintain livestock manure on-site to protect water quality'. I recommend a change in the language to state "Control and manage livestock manure to protect water quality. and exclude the words " on-site Then the issue of where to take the manure comes up. Related to that : I suggest that you may want to add under Goal 3 a community composting/manure composting facility in addition to or as a part of the community greenhouse listed in Policy 3.1 (d). One of the issues about manure is what to do with it. If we encouraged a composting facility, it would also give an option for getting manure off properties before it enters the groundwater. We would enjoy talking more about our comments and issues with the commissioners in a work session. Thanks for considering our comments. Tammy Harty Deschutes Soil & Water Conservation District c 0 m. c a N N E. 0 'U c C a O U d -a ro m o c y }Q}.ca a Q ° Q> C U C ~ (d am 41- 0 c a) rn c_> m UJ ai 1 0 a ca o U m 0 a~ ro C/) 2) O a~j U O m vi O c (1) 73 U O U ° r- O cp ca a ~ m ~ O ro T N ;N co co 0 c _ O ch (n co 4? -0 4 ro a U Q a 0 cc c O U a_ fQ a) a C) 0 a w U O Q ~ co - co O ~ p L-_ ~ N ~ . o c Q OL ZZJ) _ V ro O x O ° ° .pro m ro I JI o~ cc~ o L o a ° ° v U a O N C ~ b~ ro O U _a _ q fi a a v o d- a N c Cl) l b L Q 2 J) aoZ3 ~E 7 a~ocro~ 1 3 ti;' ro ~ ~o ro a) C) ~ o C ° Q) CZ O C co C1 o L QL ~u ° 3 CL m ro C) CL to `Q o ' 'a o a i m ~ U C CU ~ N~ ° n Q i a :2 U) o 0 o cis -O O L- N O O U V-j C~ L Q N co 'co ro a ro (D o U cu > ro ID ry a~ U~ O N o Ci~~ v ~,o a> 1 co a) U 7 L N a o L _ C U C7 U M C ) Q ro U EE O U C O XC 4 C6 N Q) co O ca- C3.C~ ro c 0 a ) a LO a C co c m OX m e ai a o o ai o o o D 73 C o 71 a (j) m c 3: Q) 0, w in ro C ~ Co LL J -0 m o _ c O Q. S z ¢ ¢ v~ cts C-- - 70 j 25L,2 00 Q co ~ UU Q a 42 v Z. o ~ cB q) ro ~ ro ~ ro Q) m CL X Q Q Q a) O Cl) ~ v ~ ~ U U U U U 0 ~ OOH `b ~ ti M Q O R ( Q ~ a C ~ ~ rQ U .U w (D N O O (D Cl) 'C7 C: d j O O 7t3 C v m Ufi m o O u i ro fi o O co o C)) fi Ll- p ` U 4 V V Q i L <o Vi ( Q p .1 Q o d U a (3) Q , o v o a 13 c (D co b ro C O U fi ro cB ° C i; ro U 00 CL c v, o ' a a m a 2 . 15 co L-: Q) CO c`°ia c ❑ c avi c o vv~ ' v~ o N ~fiov a a CO b v v 4 o ~a o M (b C/i ~ Q) o d U CO , m U co cb cab E,- O CO co v ~I m N Q v 3 occ~zi a v co , IQ) -Z - a ~ m vvZ_ bva a o ro N ca Q ro v w ~ Q O C ro z Q C o Q N ca U ° d O ct3 ~ a vi 70 CU C to rL (Z 0 a 0) N -0 z Q) v -0 70 Co (D Z ' L Q O O Q) CO Z3 v U (D U) ( O O N ~ N C co c(D O ~ cj) 'x c Z3 CL ~ q j 0 fi C) Z5 U .o ro' C) o I z ro z C° -C is N d a ° tq CD Co Q (n 0- CO :3 v U° O O 70 m fi cc a co O "O 0 (i m v o co ~ Z ~°oa0) CL CL m a m X Q) ~ o yam 71 roa CT cl O O Z O m (6 O = u C U CU U CX C O~ cD C a ro Q fi c0 c - v d d y Q cD L b~ i E CJ L cc U N co Ctl ;b d Q) O D- M :3 -o N CO O i5) O Qi O v Qj Q) O C a~ U V p N io 70 N q 6 co C~ Qi O ~ a O vj ~ O ,C a U O d m N O M _ w -0 L Q ? fi b U cz -0 x Q ao a 1-3 s z z z Z, o 2 ~o 0 ¢ M d ¢ r t O~ Q) v (13 o C CL CL m m C ~ a U l It m U cj) Q f- O (b F O ]C ?C ]C X ~ O wwww 4 - -0 <O a N N N C J F r ~ ) F❑ v - C O co Q ti Qi 4 C7 _0 Z rnl 7 70 co ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ v ~ v a~ v v v v c Q v Q a CO Q co Q O CV C`•) It F It Q o rr v v er co Cl) F U f U U U U U U • ~M 0 o o f o;, `o i o f C) o a n Q F Q F C F F CL „ { F N Y Q3 Q). v CI- m = T C c6 CL -I- C • ~ C t - M - (1) . - - to C v ~ ro ~ ~ rom ~ a cs CL C ro ~ ~ 70 C ' ° O p C (n cn ca (1) v U tq o 73 o U) c O u) a) ro 0 70 3 0 4) ? p O U L Q) ~ 7 r, C CI) C C u) -0 O O- U ) E (D c S M N - 0- _ O m - C : Cl7 N 73 'N Q) a) ❑ tin c O Q) a C 73 Ql 7 J' (nO D U C10 Q) ro O O D+ O (n ❑ C D O N C 3 o W m ~ L C a C) C a) ` C3i N ( c0 Q _0 : E2 0 W U C o (1) 9 E t-f y CL ~z ca (D a) _0 0 d tt C C 9 E m cll (O zT C L v V C C 0 : w c O N m 007 (U - 5 Y (L) -A ~ll O cw C L N C C L 4- (L> 0) D U ll ~ (D ' f/) m Q) V) o C U m 0 (n Q) , D c) E ro 0- n Q Y) U Q a _ O D 0-a N C Z3 O N m Ca ❑ p p o C U N (B t U o U N (p o CD > O U ' E .Z7 C O C cB ` cCT N N Q1 C U C Q) ❑ UJ Q 1~ ) H F= U) -1 O . j '6 O C3) - co C z 0 G . C O (0 .C t U) (3) n = (1) ::3 ro C _ . U (1) D C_ , - C a) JC z3 L cn co g N ) - - 7 U 0 L U o C CT Q) M N p❑ 0) 'E - O m U p 0) Q) M U O C o Q) N Q) 7•+.. a) ro C G Q) Q Q1 0 v) N CD a) C F C N 0 a O ` _0 C C M in > a) p~ M L 73 N CD c ai n ro 0) N N 7 t -7; 0 7. CD u) a) a) O a cu _0 U " N u) b f ) a) Cl =3 " _0 m a) a) C ci 0 v cCO c _ is 4) O c 0 O O v U a V 0 a -ci cy U) ) a U o f 'v) o d 0. c a) .0 O~ X t.2 U N u)( 0)o a)- ~ v~- E C ~ fIl -0 L 0 co v°' 0 Q) c ~ N O W Wo U C c~ N A M cB m e a O ro c O N D U 0'7 ❑ U L - 0-0-0 -p E E (L) Q) W C (1) L O ? ro > G 0- C U ro U) M C N 0 CO w 0 C r D ro (t) U❑ fD C C C C _ W D a) or- E - O ~ 7 (6 0) Lo O 'r t' CS E O Cn Q) D C O N C L -0 U 0 C i~( ~ C m f Q77) Y N C L C N Q C C N O (1) - a) 0 m Cn O V O Q _p N O Q) C1a C O a) CD) (h _ C m ❑ O n 'C ~ll 0 LA C -0 Cn Q3 a) Cl) UJ U _ 0 }L cv :C U a)` 0 UJ p p N 4) C ct3 O N U Co O O M U) n C 0 O Q) O ~ 0 Q) cn ❑ O ~ c U Uj c `na u, -0 cn m=1 0 O3; c D O 7 'v 0 C o CQ - c ~ i w _ a o n C O C 7a C Co M in p 7 ) E~. ~ CD l) a) ro . ?-0 ' 7 m m a) O al cu 2- Q) 0) 0 w ~J ro O (1) - p N C7 -0U (nm 7•LQ CO Q) co O ~ 7-. (1) 0 ? Z -0 4) - " C N a) 'a) C O j N a) q 0 c Q • U ~ U I) N N❑ N Q) -0 -c - ( O 0 W C) .d 1) . o fd 0 4 076 7 cn4 - o O a cn ¢ U)~ r © a) v) : C 0 U) O (3) 0 G~ a ro 0 - C 73 CY) ' 73 Co C L ) _ a i o~ 0 iv " Q N C V I$ O¢ o C O C)i d E E cn ._It c ~ •Y (1) '2 a) u) v) Qm O O o O~ O m O CJ m r U N 0 p r O cp j~ ro u) 7, a ro u) u) (L) a w a) E 0 Q - Q U Q) ro ro C) J 0 4 m tr J O CV c0 ~ 0 ~ F Q c\j U°v ~c C -'M' `?a)0' 4 ca 03 ) 4 a) lq- co ~ U ~ ~ c0 ~ U Q N ~ v) O .t ~ C co 0 Qa ❑ N 4jti Co m Qf= :3 QCD 0 f7 r m Q Eo m fi U , co Q 0 01 - m 0 E a) (n L v (n (D Q) O (!7 ' Ql j O N v X ~ CO O cu -0 C) CL O ~ ~ ~ Q O Q ~ j L v (U m ~ ro ~ o 'o roof cm p O p O CJ C o cu CL Op 7,7 v m~v v L O_ m N +J G N Q O C .2 0 N -fi Q. co 0 fn o (0 N p c :s m fi 0 v 00 V (O0 > U) C 'D O ro E C m v G (n C Q C~ (n } (n G (L - •fi O r- U7 ~ N G co 0) O C v Q N m cv v,ro7 0 ~ ro ~ 70 ' ~ ro c ° v 2 mQ v c C v a> . - m G v O a) a U d J O m 7 w c U) -3 O o Q ~ G E2 M O - Q) -`Cl C a m N v G 0= 70 O ' ~ U - 0 c fi ' ~ 0 m -p (n ~ U (p (0 v N 6 4 -0 L ~ f ~ 70 ~ aro ~ ~ ~c(n v -a ¢ Cl ro ~ Q (j 4 v i a~ ~ a n a, c 0-C L Q) Q m ¢CL ¢ C U~ zi i