PC RES 2024-018 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2024-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A VIEW RESTORATION
PERMIT (CASE NO. PLVR 2022-0010) REQUIRING THE
FOLIAGE OWNER AT 2138 FAIRHILL DR. TO CROWN
REDUCE ONE FICUS TREE 10 FEET FROM THE TOP OF
THE TREE CROWN OR NO MORE THAN 40 FEET IN
HEIGHT, WHICH IS THE SAME HEIGHT LEVEL
ILLUSTRATED IN ATTACHMENT NO. 3A, WITH THE
OPTION TO REMOVE AND REPLACE IT, AS DESCRIBED
IN CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 3, IN ORDER TO
RESTORE THE APPLICANTS' VIEWS FROM 29642 N.
ENROSE AVE., 29648 N. ENROSE AVE., AND 29636 N.
ENROSE AVE.
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2023, Frank and Carolina Albert at 29642 N.
Enrose Avenue, Matthew and Jennifer Misetich at 29648 N. Enrose Avenue, and
Manuel Cortes at 29636 N. Enrose Avenue ("Applicants"), filed an application
requesting a View Restoration Permit ("Permit") to restore views significantly impaired
by a tree owned by Alicia Macgowan at 2138 Fairhill Drive ("Foliage Owner"); and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2023, the City Arborist visited the Applicants'
properties, and 2138 Fairhill Drive because of the owner's consent, and provided an
Arborist Report dated January 2, 2024; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing was published in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 11, 2024, and the public notice was mailed to
the Applicants and to the Foliage Owner on January 11, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the request to restore the views, at which time, all interested
parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and after
deliberating on the application the Planning Commission continued the hearing on the
application to May 14, 2024, to give time for the City Arborist to re-visit the subject
properties and to allow the parties the opportunity for additional mediation; and
WHEREAS, on February 29, 2024, City Staff and the City Arborist visited the
Applicants' properties at 29642 and 29636 N. Enrose Avenue and the Foliage Owner's
property at 2138 Fairhill Drive. The resulting City Arborist Report, dated March 14,
2024, opined that view restorative crown reduction of the Ficus Tree is survivable within
two years; and
P C Resolution No 2024-18
Page 1 of 11
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2024, a mediation session was held and attended to by
City Staff, the City Mediator, Mr. and Mrs. Albert, representing the Applicants, and the
Foliage Owner. The Foliage Owner made a tree height proposal to the Applicants that
was subsequently considered by the Applicants. The Applicants later offered a counter
proposal to the Foliage Owner that the Foliage Owner rejected. The parties could not
find agreement concerning the tree trimming height level; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the request and the tree trimming remedies to restore the
views, at which time, all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence. After deliberating on the matter, which included a discussion
concerning unknown tree height measurements for the Ficus tree located at 2138
Fairhill Drive, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2024-14,
bifurcating the Applicants' View Restoration Permit request by approving tree removal
and replacement at 29623 S. Trotwood Drive and at 2133 W. General Street and
approving a tree trimming requirement at 29624 S. Trotwood Drive, but continuing the
matter pertaining to the Ficus tree in order for Staff to obtain certain Ficus tree height
measurements. Specifically, the Planning Commission requested that the matter be
continued to the June 11, 2024 Planning Commission meeting to allow Staff time to
obtain Ficus tree height measurements, which included a measurement height for
crown reduction to the harbor view restorative yellow line referenced in the February
13th staff report;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The recitals above are true and correct, and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: Property Ownership
(a) Applicants, Frank & Carolina Albert, own and reside at 29642 N. Enrose Ave.
(b) Applicants, Matthew & Jennifer Misetich, own and reside at 29648 N. Enrose
Ave.
(c) Applicant, Manuel Cortes, owns and resides at 29636 N. Enrose Ave.
(e) Foliage owner, Alicia Macgowan, owns and resides at 2138 Fairhill Dr.
Section 3: Tree
The view impairing Ficus tree is located at 2138 Fairhill Drive.
P C Resolution No 2024-18
Page 2 of 11
Section 4: Views
Section 17.02.040(A)(14) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
("RPVMC") defines a "far" view as a scene located off the peninsula including,
but not limited to, the ocean, Los Angeles basin, city lights at night, harbor,
Vincent Thomas Bridge, shoreline or offshore islands. Section V-B.6 of the City's
Guidelines and Procedures for Views Where Foliage is Involved otherwise known
as the View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
("View Restoration Guidelines" or "Guidelines") further defines protected views
that include prominent view landmarks that includes the Vincent Thomas Bridge,
harbor and city skylines.
As defined by the RPVMC and the Guidelines, the Applicants' views are of the
harbor (Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports), city lights at night, the Vincent
Thomas Bridge, Ford Bridge, Heim Bridge, the Long Beach City International
Gateway Bridge, the Long Beach city skyline, Los Angeles basin, and the ocean
(San Pedro Bay). From the Applicants' viewing areas, the harbor is central to the
view with the ocean framed by residential structures to the south and a sweeping
Los Angeles basin vista that is relatively unhindered by structures and
topography towards the north.
Section 4: Viewing Areas
Section 17.02.040(A)(15) of the RPVMC defines viewing areas as that area of a
structure (excluding bathrooms, hallways, garages, or closets) or that area of a
lot (excluding the setback areas) where the owner and City determine the best
and most important view exists. Section 17.02.040(B)(5) of the RPVMC states
that the City determines a viewing area based on balancing the nature of the
view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot from
where the view is taken.
(a) Viewing area from 29642 N. Enrose Avenue and 29648 N. Enrose Avenue:
The Planning Commission determines that the living rooms are the best and
most important viewing areas on the properties because the living rooms are
the primary living area of the residence, they are a natural gathering area,
and from these locations the vista of the ocean, Los Angeles basin, and
harbor, including views of the Vincent Thomas Bridge and the Long Beach
city skylines, could be observed; and
(b) Viewing area from 29636 N. Enrose Avenue: The Planning Commission
determines that the dining room is the best and most important viewing area
on the property because the dining room is part of the primary living area of
the residence, it is a natural gathering area, and from this location the vista of
the ocean, Los Angeles basin, and harbor, including views of the Vincent
Thomas Bridge and the Long Beach city skylines, could be observed.
P C Resolution No 2024-18
Page 3 of 11
Section 5:View Restoration Mandatory Findings
The Planning Commission makes the following findings, in accordance with
Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code:
(1) The Applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process
and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts.
The case record shows that the Applicants complied with the early neighbor
consultation requirements and have shown proof of cooperation based on the
following facts:
a) On July 29, 2022, the Applicants, Frank Albert, Jennifer Misetich, Manuel
Cortes, mailed a certified letter to the Foliage Owner, Wells, requesting tree
trimming to restore their view. Ultimately, the Applicants and the Foliage
Owner could not resolve the matter privately.
b) On November 8, 2022, in accordance with the City's View Restoration
procedures, the Applicant Frank Albert at 29642 N. Enrose Avenue submitted
a Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit (Case No. PLVR2022-
0010) requesting that the City mediate the issue with the Foliage Owner
Alicia Macgowen.
c) On November 18, 2022, in response to the request, the Staff mailed a pre-
application mediation meeting invitation to the Foliage Owner, Macgowen,
and they subsequently accepted Staffs invitation.
d) On January 10, 2023, Staff and the City's View Restoration Mediator met
with the Applicant, Albert, and the Foliage Owner Macgowan at 2138 Fairhill
Drive at their respective properties to discuss the matter. The Foliage Owner
opted not to voluntarily trim foliage to the height level requested by the
Applicants but pledged to voluntarily trim the tree to a height level considered
acceptable by her tree service contractor.
e) On February 7, 2023, the Applicant, Frank Albert, revised his pre-application
to include additional applicants, including his neighbors Jennifer Misetich at
29648 N. Enrose Avenue and Manuel Cortes at 29636 N. Enrose Avenue.
Again, Staff notified the foliage owner, Macgowan, of the modified pre-
application and invited her to mediation. The original foliage owner,
Macgowan, declined mediation with the original Applicant, Albert, and the
additional applicants, Misetich and Cortes.
f) In or around July 2023, Foliage Owner Macgowen trimmed the Ficus tree.
However, the tree, although trimmed, continued to impair the views.
g) After it became clear that the Foliage Owner Macgowen did not wish to
conduct additional trimming, the Applicants elected to submit a formal View
Restoration Permit application.
h) On November 22, 2023, the Applicants filed a formal View Restoration Permit
application.
P C Resolution No 2024-18
Page 4 of 11
Therefore, the finding can be made that the Applicants have complied with the
early neighbor consultation process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/
her part to resolve conflicts.
(2) Foliage exceeding sixteen (16) feet or the ridgeline of the primary
structure, whichever is lower, significantly impairs a view from the applicant's
viewing area, whether such foliage is located totally on one property, or when
combined with foliage located on more than one property.
It is determined that the one Ficus tree at 2138 Fairhill Drive is approximately fifty
(50) feet in height and, based on the tree's central location within the view frame
from the viewing area at 29636, 29642 and 29648 N. Enrose Ave., and because
the tree impairs prominent features [i.e. harbor, bridge (Henry Ford, Long Beach
City International Gateway), city skyline (Long Beach)], has been found to
significantly impair the view from the living room viewing areas at 29642 Enrose
Avenue and 29648 Enrose Avenue and from the dining room viewing area at
29636 Enrose Avenue. This determination has been made in accordance with
Section V-B.6 of the View Restoration Guidelines.
Therefore, the finding can be made that foliage exceeding the ridgeline of the
primary structure significantly impairs a view from the Applicants' viewing area,
whether such foliage is located totally on one property, or when combined with
foliage located on more than one property.
(3) The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of which is less
than one thousand (1,000) feet from the applicant's property.
The foliage that is to be voluntarily removed or ordered to be crown reduced is
located less than 1,000 feet from the Applicants' properties. The subject foliage,
which is one Ficus tree located at 2138 Fairhill Drive, is located no further than
350 feet from the Applicants' properties at 29642 N. Enrose Avenue, 29648 N.
Enrose Avenue, and 29636 N. Enrose Avenue.
Therefore, the finding can be made as the subject foliage is located on a
property(s) that is less than 1,000 feet from the Applicants' properties.
(4) The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist, as view impairing
vegetation, when the lot from which the view is taken was created.
The Applicants' lots (Lot Nos. 268, 269, 270) and the Foliage Owner's lot (Lot
No. 254) are located within a residential housing tract (Tract No. 16726), which
became legal lots when recorded in February 1952. Prior to 1952 the land
conditions that would become Tract No. 16726 is characterized by grass covered
slopes with small watercourses descending into San Pedro (Attachment No. 5a).
P C Resolution No 2024-18
Page 5 of 11
No mature trees were evident prior to 1952. After the Foliage Owner's lot
became a legal lot in 1952, the engineer for the tract subdivision, Donald R.
Warren Co., produced a soil compaction report associated with grading activities
that occurred after tract recordation. The engineer's report on compaction dated
October 27, 1954 states that prior to the placement of fill, the natural grounds
within the tract, which includes the Applicants' and the Foliage Owner's
properties, were "stripped of vegetation, watered, and compacted". As a result,
all vegetation, which likely consisted of short grasses and shrubbery within
watercourses, within the tract and associated lots had been removed
(Attachment No. 5d). Indeed, after rough grading operations were completed, an
aerial photograph was taken of the site showing that no trees or vegetation
existed on the Foliage Owner's lot in 1953, corroborating the engineer's report
that all vegetation had been removed (Attachment No. 5d).
Based on the engineer's report that described the removal of vegetation at or
around the time of tract recordation, including the aerial photos taken before and
after recordation in 1952, the subject foliage could not have existed as view
impairing foliage when the Applicants' lots were created in 1952. Therefore, the
finding can be made.
(5) Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable
infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the
foliage is located.
With respect to the Ficus tree at 2138 Fairhill Drive, trimming the tree to a view
restorative height level will leave the lower canopy foliage intact. More
importantly, the Ficus tree is well above the roofline and therefore the view
impairing portion of the canopy does not provide privacy screening to the interior
and outside spaces of the residence. Furthermore, the Foliage Owner's rear and
side yards are exposed to observation from upslope, neighboring properties, thus
trimming the upper-to-mid canopy of the tree for view restoration purposes will
have little to no effect on privacy.
Therefore, removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable
infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the
foliage is located.
(6) For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation &
Park district, the Committee shall also find that removal or trimming of the foliage
strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of section 17.02.040
set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on November 7,
1989, and preserving the historical development of the Miraleste Recreation &
Park District area with large numbers of trees.
P C Resolution No 2024-18
Page 6 of 11
The subject properties are not located within the Miraleste Recreation and Park
District. Therefore, the finding is inapplicable.
Section 6: Removal and Replacement of Foliage Findings
The Planning Commission makes the following tree removal and foliage
replacement findings, in accordance with Section VI-E of the City View
Restoration Guidelines:
(1) The Planning Commission finds, pursuant to Section VI-C, that removal of
the Ficus Tree at 2138 Fairhill Drive is warranted because the City's
Arborist has determined that the view restorative crown reduction to these
trees will destroy the aesthetic value.
(2) The Planning Commission further finds pursuant to Section VI-E.1(f) that
removal of the Ficus Tree described under Section 6.1 at 2138 Fairhill
Drive, without replacement, will cause significant adverse impact to the
integrity of the landscaping of the property on which the foliage is located.
This mature tree is a prominent tree within the property's landscape and
the loss of the tree will result in the loss of the landscape focal point.
Therefore, the Planning Commission makes the finding that the tree
removed must be replaced with one 24-inch box size tree needed to
mitigate the loss of the integrity of the landscaping and landscaping focal
point; and
Section 7: The Planning Commission determines this project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section
15304 "Minor Alterations to Land" as this involves relatively minor modifications
to existing landscaping and potentially the removal and replacement of a tree.
The project to restore the Applicants' view also does not include the removal of
scenic and mature trees as those mature tree groupings defined and identified by
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (Visual Aspects). In addition,
none of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption set forth in CEQA
Guidelines, section 15300.2 applies to this project including that the project does
not present any unusual circumstances.
Section 8: Any interested person aggrieved of this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040
(2)(g) of the RPVMC, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing and
with the appropriate $3,100 appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following
the date of the Planning Commission's final action.
Section 9: Based on all documentary and oral evidence presented, including the
Staff and arborist reports and its attachments, comments from the public, and
testimony provided at the public hearings, and making the findings that removal
without replacement trees or shrubs will cause significant adverse impacts on the
P C Resolution No 2024-18
Page 7 of 11
integrity of the landscaping, the Planning Commission hereby approves a View
Restoration Permit (Case No. PLVR 2022-0010), requiring the Foliage Owner at
2138 Fairhill Drive to crown reduce one Ficus Tree 10 feet from the top of the
tree crown or no more than 40 feet in height, which is the same height level
illustrated in Attachment No. 3a., with the option to remove and replace it, as
described in Condition of Approval No. 3, in order to restore the Applicants' views
from 29642 N. Enrose Avenue, 29648 N. Enrose Avenue, and 29636 N. Enrose
Avenue, as provided in, and subject to, the conditions outlined in the attached
Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June 2024 by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS BRACH, NELSON, NULMAN, PERESTAM
SAADATNEJADI, VICE-CHAIR SANTAROSA & CHAIR CHURA
NOES: NONE
ABSTENTIONS: NONE
RECUSALS: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Cva tht
�on Santarosa,
Vice-Chair
Bra :�' o .es, Al P
Directo of Community Development
Secretary of the Planning Commission
P-C Resolution No 2024-18
Page 8 of 11
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT
CASE NO. PLVR2022-0010
1. The Applicants shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have
read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Resolution. Failure to provide the written statement within ninety (90) days
following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. The Applicants shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City,
and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of
mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable,
declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute
resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside,
void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or
any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for
or concerning the project.
3. This approval shall require the Foliage Owner at 2138 Fairhill Drive to perform
only ONE of the following:
a. Crown reduce 1 Ficus Tree 10 feet from the top of the tree crown or
no more than 40 feet in height, which is the same height level
illustrated in Attachment No. 3a. The Applicants are responsible for
the initial trimming costs.
OR
b. Voluntarily remove 1 Ficus Tree.
If technically feasible, as determined by a professional tree contractor,
tree removal includes stump grinding to existing grade or below grade.
If stump grinding cannot be performed, the tree trunk shall be cut flush
to or close to the grade adjacent to the tree trunk. In no case shall the
tree's root system be removed. Stump grinding and/or flush cutting
shall be performed at the Applicants' expense. The Applicants shall
bear the expense of replacing the removed tree with the installation
one 24-inch box sized tree. The costs of performing tree removal and
the installation of the new tree shall be borne by the Applicants.
P C Resolution No 2024-18
Page 9 of 11
4. Upon completion of either crown reduction or removal described in Condition of
Approval No. 3, but no more than one week after completion, if additional foliage
on the subject property is found by Staff to be impairing the view protected by
this permit, then the additional foliage shall be crown reduced to a height that
eliminates the significant view impairment, and the Applicants shall be
responsible for the cost of the additional trimming.
5. Within 45 days following this decision, the Applicants shall present to the City, at
least one itemized estimate to carry out the tree trimming work and the optional
removal and replacement work. Such estimate shall be supplied by a licensed,
bonded, and insured tree service contractor or landscape contractor, acceptable
to the City, and shall include all costs of cleanup and removal of debris, and the
cost to have an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified tree trimmer
or accredited arborist on site to perform or supervise the work being done.
6. If the tree work estimate is found to be acceptable, as determined by City staff,
then the Applicants shall pay to the City, within 180 calendar days of this permit
approval, an amount equal to the City-accepted estimate and such funds shall be
maintained in a City trust account until completion of work as verified by Staff.
The time period to fund the trimming, removal and replacement work can be
extended by the Director an additional 180 calendar days. With exception to any
tree that dies within a 2-year period whereby tree removal and replacement costs
are to be provided by the Applicants, pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code Section 17.86.070, failure to provide funding to a city trust deposit account
to cover the tree trimming or removal and replacement work within 180 calendar
days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
7. The Foliage Owner shall select a City-approved tree service contractor from the
estimate(s) provided by the Applicants and then schedule a tree trimming or
removal date. If a Foliage Owner chooses to use a different tree service
contractor, then the Foliage Owner may do so, but the Foliage Owner shall only
be reimbursed for the amount of the lowest bid submitted by the Applicants.
8. The Foliage Owner shall, within a 90-day period of October 1, 2024, after the
bird nesting season, or on or by December 30, 2024, complete either the
removal or the crown reduction work to the extent required by this Permit. Due to
the raptor breeding season beginning January 1st, said 90-day deadline may not
be extended by the Community Development Director should the City-approved
tree service or landscape contractor contact the City indicating that they cannot
accommodate the removal or tree trimming work within the 90-day deadline.
However, if the Foliage Owner does not complete the required work within the
90-day time period stipulated by staff and because a Director-approved
extension period will not be granted, because one is not necessary with proper
scheduling, then the City may seek a court order that authorizes a licensed,
P C Resolution No 2024-18
Page 10 of 11
bonded and insured tree service contractor or landscape contractor to perform
the work at the subject property and at the Foliage Owner's expense. In the
event that the City is required to perform the work at the Foliage Owner's
expense, the City shall reimburse the Applicants their trust deposit for tree
trimming and/or tree removal with replacement work from the City trust account.
9. Upon completion of the work, the Foliage Owner shall notify the City and if the
Foliage Owner hired a contractor approved by the city, the Foliage Owner is to
submit a copy of the paid contractor invoice showing that the work was
performed. Upon submittal of the invoice and verification by Staff of compliance,
the City shall transmit the funds from the City trust account to the Foliage Owner
no later than 30 days. If the paid invoice submitted by the Foliage Owner is for an
amount less than the funds in the City's trust account, the Foliage Owner shall
only be transmitted an amount equal to the actual cost of the trimming. In such
situations, the balance of the trust account shall be refunded back to the
Applicants (within 30 days of receipt of the appropriate billing) if that account
contains a surplus balance. If the paid invoice submitted by the Foliage Owner is
for an amount that exceed the funds in the City's trust account, the Foliage
Owner shall only receive the funds from the City trust account and the Foliage
Owner shall be responsible for paying the difference.
10.Failure to comply with and adhere to the tree trimming conditions of approval,
namely Condition No. 3, may cause the City to issue administrative citations as
described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code.
11.Foliage maintenance shall be subject to the trimming maintenance provisions of
the City's Guidelines, Section VIII-A, where subsequent to the completed crown
reduction and/or voluntary removal of the trees as described in the Condition of
Approval No. 3, the restored view from the Applicants' viewing area will be
documented by Staff. The photographic documentation will be used as a
benchmark by City staff for making a staff determination of view preservation
enforcement. Pursuant to Section VIII-A of the Guidelines, the Foliage Owner
shall annually maintain the tree subject to the View Restoration Permit decision,
at her own expense. Should the Foliage Owner remove the tree subject to the
View Restoration Permit approval but allow other trees or foliage to grow to
impair the view, the new growth shall be trimmed at the Foliage Owner's expense
to preserve the view on an annual basis.
P C Resolution No 2024-18
Page 11 of 11
Attachment No. 3a. Trim Instruction. Photograph from 29642 N. Enrose Ave (Albert).
Ten feet (blue line) reveals Long Beach City skyline, Long Beach International Gateway bridge, portions of the Los Angeles and
Long Beach harbors.
LB International Gateway Bridge 11 LBC Skyline
v9 - . '. .-. •IL...q - -
••• _ --F ,•• •, I• ' -ram 7 '••.+, +. ' ... ..-.j ♦ •a• 1
• ilr. " „
...Air... - , ,., "1 ,• _
- L.
/� 'mod • - r• • • ~' ••
• t y•i���:•G �•1� •.•'�• J _•09 i L�
ilif . •64111110001 .. ‘ : .
' • ..pi.,,:'
.. . ..,, • . : ••. . . .b., .. , . .....,,,,....
. . .., _.• _ _A--Allb •. 7.• V :•.,... 7. ...*r •• "••• - • g-
s 4'i ..." ••. �• ,err .h.,..„
fz eIllill'' -
lit
Yi 4