HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2013-09-04 #3cirvoF Meeting Date: September 4, 2013 (Wednesday) Case Numbers: ED13-027 & UP 13-00 Project Planner: Kraig Tambornini (4 )-485-3092 Community Development Department — Planning Division Agenda Item: _ REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 5800 Northgate Mall Drive (Northgate Mall Renovation Project Amendment) — Environmental and Design Review Permit and Use Permit for renovation of the existing 29,538 square foot vacant pad building at 1500 Northgate Mall Drive (formerly Rite Aid) with a parking modification (to reduce number of spaces required and dimensions), as an amendment to the prior renovation project approvals granted under ED07-90, SR07-91, UP07-56 & DA07-01; APN: 175-060-61, 66, 67, 59, 40, & 12; General Commercial (GC) Zone; Macerich, LLC, Owner; North San Rafael Neighborhood. PROPERTY FACTS Location General Plan Designation Project Site: General Commercial North South East: General Commercial & Office General Commercial, Office & Public/Quasi-Public Zoning Designation GC GC, O, C/O GC, O, P/QP General Commercial, Office & Low GC, O, RLD Density Residential Existing Land -Use Regional Mall Gas station & office buildings Retail stores, offices, restaurants, financial institution & cemetery Sears, elderly care facility, office building, single-family residences West: Office & Open Space O, OS Bank, Northgate III & Cemetery Tree Removal: 9 mature pine trees and several smaller trees. Replacement with at least 18 street frontage trees. SUMMARY The subject project is being referred to the Board for review of site and design improvements of an amendment to the Northgate Mall renovation project; as required pursuant to San Rafael Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 14.25. The project requires Environmental and Design Review Permit and Use Permit approvals for the proposed re -tenanting of the 29,538 square foot vacated pad building in the east parking lot (formerly Rite Aid) and to allow reduction in required parking to less than 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet as well as to continue to utilize a nonconforming 8.5 foot standard parking width, 24 - foot backup space and 65 degree angled parking space. When the Northgate Mall Renovation project was approved by the City in 2008, this building was proposed to be removed and the area converted to parking. The Board's recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Based on review of the applicable criteria, discussed in detail below, staff has concluded that the project would be in substantial conformance with general plan policies and zoning standards. Staff requests that the Board provide its recommendation on compliance with all pertinent design criteria, and specifically consider the following: Site Plan • Whether the project would provide good pedestrian and revised vehicle circulation and access to the site and the adjacent buildings within the center. Architecture • Whether the design of the building is compatible with the design of adjacent buildings within the center, and adequately addresses all sides of the building. Materials and Colors • Whether the color scheme and materials palette would be consistent with the adjacent development in the center, and adequately addresses all sides of the building. Landscape and Lighting Plan • Whether the proposed lighting and landscape modifications blend with the approved concept and appropriately accent the building appearance, particularly as viewed from Los Ranchitos Road and Promenade frontage. The project would qualify for an exemption from environmental review as a Class 1 Existing Facilities (Section 15301) exemption. BACKGROUND Site Description & Setting: The Northgate Mall property comprises 44.75 acres with up to 773,238 square feet of commercial development (including three anchor tenants, pad buildings, a theater and general leasable tenant space. The site is located in north San Rafael, west of Highway 101, south of Manual T. Freitas Parkway, and bound by Northgate Drive, Las Gallinas Avenue and Los Ranchitos Road. The property has a consistent 3 -percent upslope to the north, from Los Ranchitos Road to Northgate Drive. Site addresses include 1000, 1500, 5000, 5800, 7000 and 9000 Northgate Mall Drive. Parking is provided at a ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area, excluding the main mall concourses and required emergency exit corridors (Exhibit 1 — Vicinity Map). History: The Northgate Mall was originally constructed in the 1960's and composed of several buildings that were linked with outdoor walkways. In 1986 the mall buildings were connected under a common roof system that enclosed the walkways. In 2008, the City approved a major renovation and development agreement (ED07-90, SR07-91, UP07-56 & DA07-01) that included parking lot, landscaping and building renovations. The renovation included creation of the Oak Plaza outdoor gathering space between Kohl's and the mall tenants, adoption of comprehensive tenant design criteria and a sign program, and construction of a portion of the San Rafael Promenade along the property frontage. The approvals allowed continued use of the existing nonconforming parking space dimensions (8.5 foot wide standard dimension, 24 -foot backup aisles and 65 degree angled space), and an allowance to build -back leasable tenant space that was proposed to be removed during the renovation; up to an historic 773,238 gross leasable area (i.e., 0.40 floor area ratio). The project, as currently approved, included demolition of the subject vacated Rite Aid building along with portions of the mall (primarily the former food court and shops at the east side of the mall), with partial build -back of this space with a new Rite Aid building at the northeast corner of the site and two pad buildings adjacent to the Oak Plaza outdoor gathering space. The estimated build -back area at that time was 55,000 square feet. The applicant obtained all required building permits, encroachment and license agreements, and pursued the renovation project as approved in 2008. Nearly all work has been completed, with the exception of the following outstanding work: • Demolition of the 29,538 square foot former Rite-Aid building (aka Building 11) along Los Ranchitos Road, and completion of the parking and Promenade improvements in this area. • Construction of Pad 30 along Oak Plaza. • Conduct of a housing study for the site. The subject applications propose to amend the 2008 project approvals and retain the 29,538 square foot vacated Rite-Aid building, aka, building 11; which would be re -tenanted with a proposed "Home Goods" retail tenant. This would leave a remaining build -back space of approximately 3,851 square feet (staff calculated the remaining build -back space as the 4,448 indicated on plans, which assumes a 7,700 square foot Pad 30 building, minus 597 square feet - which is the combined areas of storage spaces 145A, 145C, 145D and S-3. Further, staff notes that the Pad 30 building could be larger or smaller than assumed for this review). On December 4, 2012, the Board reviewed a conceptual design review application (CDR 12-002) for this project. Another building that has been approved and anticipated for Pad 30 has not been constructed because the owner has not been successful in leasing this space. Future construction of Pad 30 would be preserved as part of this application. This is recommended by staff in order to fulfill a goal of the renovation project to provide an active outdoor gathering area on the east side of the mall. The housing study (aka, housing opportunity study) is required to be completed for this project consistent with the terms of the development agreement (the mall is a part of the Northgate Town Center, in the North San Rafael Commercial area, which has been designated with housing potential for up to 200 units). In June, the applicant initiated work to complete all tasks related to conducting the housing study, and has met with at least two housing developers. Plans and funding ($20,000) for a traffic study based on at least two housing concepts are expected to be submitted by Macerich, before the subject project is referred to the Planning Commission. Staff notes that Macerich is not required to develop housing on the site, but is obligated to investigate the opportunity. Prior Board Comments: At its December 4, 2012 meeting on the conceptual design review submittal, the Board provided the following comments: Promenade (and Bus Pad) ➢ Indicate whether the bus stop was to remain or be removed at this location. ➢ The Promenade needs to be shown on the plan. Pull the promenade curb line away from the existing trees in order to preserve them, or address this in the revised landscape and design plans. Oak Plaza & Parking ➢ The "Temporary" Oak Plaza `solution' for use as parking is not supported and it is recommended that this building pad be kept available for a restaurant to be built there. The pad could be provided as a nice gathering space in the interim. No parking intensification should be placed near the heritage oak which changes the design concept for the area. Building Exterior ➢ Reuse of the building is supported. However, the previous project approval that included removal of the building was intended to increase visibility of the proposed redesigned individual mall storefronts as viewed from the public street. This needs to be addressed in developing the building exterior renovation. ➢ Some attention needs to be given to scale with respect how this building fits on site with respect to tenant design criteria. ➢ Picking up on the existing approved material and color palettes and signage is right direction. A departure in design details and use materials other than EIFS (stucco) is supported. ➢ Address all four sides of the building architecturally, 'soften' the building with landscaping and consider how people will move around the building and connect with the rest of the center. ➢ Removing trees in order to enhance the east elevation and to give it some presence could be supported. ➢ Consider installing display windows and/or exterior treatments to enhance presence of the building on the street. ➢ Consider adding massing at roof level to improved architecture. Consider stand off panels, rain - screen, etc. ➢ The existing split face block has decent texture, so could consider a seal and provide better, revised colors and accents to enhance the building design. ➢ Consider how exterior lighting can impact the building. Landscaping & Colors ➢ Landscaping on the east side needs to be restored. ➢ The loading dock on the south elevation provides an opportunity to lose an aisle and install additional landscaping. ➢ The west side of the building needs to incorporate a sidewalk and landscaping planters. ➢ Use of steel trellis for maintenance and upkeep is recommended. The concept of adding landscape on west side is good. ➢ The landscape design would be hard to achieve the way it is shown. Need to provide adequate planter widths and consider maintenance and irrigation needs of hanging baskets and `tall' plants on north building wall. ➢ Address the front entrance columns so they don't look so narrow. Thicken columns to provide depth. ➢ The same landscape architect should be used to match the existing palette. ➢ The colors proposed are good. ➢ The green screen is not a favored solution as hard to get them to fill out. Need to give real thought to providing a strong and viable landscape solution. Parking & Pedestrian Circulation ➢ Better pedestrian circulation to, from and around the building is supported. The Board would like to see better general pedestrian traffic to/ from the building(s). ADA walkways and room for landscaping need to be accommodated. ➢ The Concept on plan does not work. Parking amount needs to be provided that is compliant, maintains good vehicle circulation, adequate amount for the center and maintain vacant pad site approved as part of renovation. ➢ Provide formal parking analysis to support amount. ➢ Maintain the two way parking direction of drive aisles and wants to continue the existing 2-way traffic access around the center ➢ Distribution of parking that is balanced for both sides of the center needs to be considered. ➢ Would be supportive of loss of parking spaces if it can be justified in order to provide more landscaping and good pedestrian circulation to / from the building. ➢ The existing parking spaces are tight, though it is understood that this is not likely to change. ➢ It was noted that employees are encouraged to park in back (behind yellow dotted line), and only have been encouraged to park in the subject area in the interim. Further, it is noted that the site no longer leases to Kaiser. The Board meeting can be viewed and heard online at: http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/meetings/; by clicking on the Design Review Board meeting of Dec 4, 2012 and viewing the video. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project requires Design Review Permit and Use permit approvals for the following: 1) Exterior Renovation of Building 11 (former Rite Aid building) for a 29,538 square foot retail tenant, and adjacent parking lot, lighting, landscaping and promenade improvements. 2) Parking modification to reduce the parking requirement to below 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of the gross building area (excepting excluded areas) and to continue utilizing the nonconforming space dimensions and configuration. Additional parking spaces are proposed through reconfigured spaces on the top level of the parking structure west of Sears, in the Oak Plaza and Sears loading dock ramp. 0 The applicant has provided revised plans and exhibits for the building, proposing a design intended to integrate with the approved project design, and in response to the December 4, 2012 Board comments on the concept plan (Exhibit 2 — Project Narrative). The applicant has also provided a parking study (Exhibit 3, Kimley-Horn, July 31, 2013) which is intended to show whether the parking supply would be adequate for anticipated demand of the project. The approved Tenant Design Criteria (TDC), Storefronts criteria, found on page 18 of the TDC, have been provided in the attached Exhibit 4. The parking study assumed full build -out of the mall operating at 95 -percent occupancy. As proposed, the project would provide 2,942 parking spaces (including 6 grandfathered parking spaces lost for ADA upgrades); whereas 3,093 are required for full build -out. However, the project would retain approximately 4,000 square feet of remaining build -back space, (which reduces parking demand by approximately 16 spaces). The study concludes that the project would function adequately with parking provided at a ratio of 3.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area; which would provide more than 400 excess parking spaces on the busiest shopping days. Detailed signage plans have not been provided. Sign locations are indicated on the front entry and interior side walls. It is anticipated that signs for the building would comply with the existing sign program; which calls for primary wall signs consisting of non -illuminated individual halo illuminated or reverse channel letters, with a maximum 36" height (see page 37 of the tenant criteria, attached as Exhibit 4). The building design would include a new storefront entry fagade (north elevation) with smooth cedar hardi-plank, with the existing concrete block walls and accents proposed to be painted a complementary matte finish, and powder coated metal trellis awnings proposed along the west (interior) elevation. A colors and materials sample board will be provided at the hearing. The site changes also include a new walkway to from the subject building to the mall, and propose to close the existing exit -only driveway located on the south side of the building; which would allow for a few additional parking spaces, landscaping and extension of the promenade. ANALYSIS General Plan 2020 Consistency: Detailed analysis was previously conducted for the project, which included build -back of retail space up to the original 0.40 FAR; as noted in the March 25, 2008 Planning Commission staff report prepared for the mall renovation project. Re -tenanting of the subject building remains consistent with the project approvals and applicable General Plan 2020 policies, including the General Commercial land use designation. However, since approval of the project the City adopted the General Plan 2020 Sustainability Element and an updated Climate Change Action Plan which has been certified by the air district. In order to ensure consistency with the new General Plan 2020 Sustainability Element policies and the City Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), the applicant has been required to demonstrate that their project would comply with specific programs, as listed on the City Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Compliance Checklist. The applicant has submitted the compliance checklist together with a LEED Core and Shell report for the project. These documents substantiate that the project would comply with the General Plan 2020 Sustainability Element, the Climate Change Action Plan and the City Green Building Ordinance. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: The project, including build -back of retail space has been previously reviewed and determined to the be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance development standards; as noted in the March 25, 2008 Planning Commission staff report prepared for the mall renovation project. However, since approval of the renovation project, the City adopted new parking requirements for bicycles and fuel efficient vehicles parking. 5 The retail use is consistent with the zoning and general plan land use classification. The proposed amendment to the building design and use are subject to review for consistency with the approved tenant design criteria, the current project conditions of approval, and Chapters 14.18 (Parking Standards) & 14.25 (Design Review), which are discussed as follows: Chapter 18 — Parking Standards The retail shopping center parking standards requires 1 space per 250 square feet of gross building area (i.e., 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area), 26 foot backup space, 60 degree angled spaces, and 20 to 24 -foot two-way drive aisles. The proposal requests a use permit for a parking modification with the increased parking demand satisfied by; 1) reducing the parking ratio from 4/1000 to less than 3.8/1000, and 2) continue to utilize the historic design dimensions as allowed under the current project approvals. Kimley-Horn has provided a parking demand study (July 31, 2013) that identifies the peak demand anticipated for the building, based on 95% occupancy of the building at its maximum potential build out (773,238 square feet). The analysis assumes occupancy of all space, including future Pad 30 and the vacant Sears seasonal outbuilding, located west of the Sears store. This analysis is considered to provide a conservative estimate of the parking demand and occupancy rates at the mall, and indicates that the supply of parking would provide more than 400 spaces in excess of the highest demand on peak shopping days (Exhibit 3) (the study indicates an excess supply of 421 spaces. However, the total building cap will not be realized, and as discussed further below report staff recommends some of the proposed new parking spaces should not be supported). Staff has identified the following concerns and comments with the proposed parking layout: • Hydrants would need to be relocated where modifications result in a conflict (which occurs at one location in the revised east parking lot layout and one location in the Oak Plaza revised layout). • The modifications in the east lot would create a workable layout and more parking adjacent to the proposed Home Goods store. However, the revised one-way lands would potentially result in a less efficient flow of traffic, as compared to the current scheme as well as the prior approved layout. • Further revisions to several curb returns in the parking lot would appear to be needed in order to comply with emergency vehicle (fire) access radius requirements. This may result in loss of a few parking spaces. • The 9 spaces proposed in the Sears loading dock ramp are not considered to be practical, and should not be supported. • The reconfiguration near Oak Plaza, to provide 17 additional spaces, is not supported as it would alter the purpose and function of this area which is primarily pedestrian oriented. Staff recommends that number of parking spaces could be further reduced, and still remain adequate, based on the information provided in the July 31, 2013 traffic demand study prepared by Kimley-Horn. As noted, deviation from parking standards requires approval of a use permit, including a recommendation from the Public Works Director. The criteria for approval are discussed in the Use Permit section below. The Public Works department is currently reviewing the traffic demand study and parking layout, and staff will provide the Board with an update at the meeting on conclusions and recommendations of the Public Works Department. The revised bicycle parking requirements of Section 14.18.090 were revised in 2011 from 3% of total parking area to 5% of total parking area for short-term spaces, 5% for long-term spaces, with a minimum of one space. However, because this project involves re -tenanting of an existing building as an amendment to the current project approvals, the new standard is not required to be applied, but may be applied as a condition of approval if deemed appropriate. The mall has been approved with 80 bicycle parking spaces for the proposed renovation work. Approximately one-half of the required bicycle racks have been provided on-site, and the remainder would be installed as needed based on demand. The building would generate demand for up to 118 parking spaces. Therefore, if the new bicycle parking standard is applied, this would equate to an additional 6 short term and 6 long term bicycle spaces required (under the new standards). Based on the realized demand for bicycle parking at the mall, there does not appear to be a deficiency in the number of spaces being provided. This requirement could also be phased in as a condition of approval on an as -needed basis, with a minimum amount of bicycle parking provided at the building. Clean air vehicle parking standards were also adopted in 2011, per Section 14.18.045. As noted in the paragraph above, this standard may be applied as a condition of approval, if deemed appropriate. If applied to the amendment, the demand for clean air vehicle parking associated with this building would be 11 spaces. The mall had implemented clean air vehicle spacing as part of its effort to meet LEED green building standards, but the spaces were removed due to confusion regarding vehicles that were qualified to park in such spaces. Staff notes that this requirement could be implemented by condition on an as needed basis given that the building is existing, the numbers of qualifying vehicles have significantly increased over the past five years (which includes PZEV vehicles), and as public awareness increases over time this may become moot. Moving forward, pre -wiring for electric vehicles is anticipated to be more beneficial to support shift in industry and consumer habits. Chapter 22 — Use Permit The following current Master use permit conditions of approval would need to be reviewed and/or revised to support the proposed amendment: • Condition 1 to include the subject store in the mix of uses. • Condition 33 which allows the grandfathered parking standard to be used, would need to be amended if re -tenanting of the building is required to provide reconfigured parking that complies with the current dimensions. • Condition 34 establishes the required parking ratio which would need to be amended, if the ratio is reduced. • Condition 35 establishes the bicycle parking ratio which would need to be amended if the current standard is applied. • Condition 36 and/or 37 establishes employee parking and traffic management conditions, which would need to be amended if additional measures are required or recommended. As discussed in this report, approval of the additional use would remain consistent with the current approvals and applicable zoning development standards. In order to grant a parking modification the decision-making body must consider the recommendation of the Public Works Director and determine that the parking provided would be fair, equitable, logical, safe and convenient, and in proportion with the demand generated by the use. Based on the Kimley-Horn study, the amount of parking proposed for the project including the recommended reductions and revisions discussed in the Parking section above appear to be adequate and would be sufficient to serve the new use as well as the entire center. In general, the Public Works staff recommend compliance with current dimension and design standards, which are considered to provide safe and efficient parking.* *Staff will provide its final recommendation on the parking reduction and dimensions to the Planning Commission, after Public Works Department has completed its review of this proposal. Chapter 25 — Environmental and Design Review Permit The project would amend approval ED 07-090. Board review and recommendation is requested on the project details, as follows: Site Plan, Architecture and Colors Macerich has proposed building materials, colors, landscaping and pedestrian pathway details in an effort to address the Board comments on the concept plan. Aside from the parking concerns mentioned above, staff generally supports the revised plan and building details. The Board is requested to comment on these details, specifically the following: Whether the project would provide good pedestrian and revised vehicle circulation and access to the site and the adjacent buildings within the center. Whether the design of the building is compatible with the design of adjacent buildings within the center, and adequately addresses all sides of the building. Whether the color scheme and materials palette would be consistent with the adjacent development in the center, and adequately addresses all sides of the building. Landscaping and Lighting The project proposes to add one additional light standard in the parking lot west of the existing building. The lighting levels propose a 2 foot-candle average intensity and 21 foot-candle maximum. The concept appears to be consistent with the current and approved lighting levels, and would match the existing approved post designs (i.e., 37 foot tall standards with adjustable square fixtures). The existing 9 mature pine trees in the front landscape area would be removed and replaced with 9 new tree species. An additional 8 trees are proposed in the median along the street frontage. A mature Redwood tree at the corner of the site would be preserved and a new Redwood tree, along with Callery pear and Olive tree species proposed along the frontage. Chinese pistache is called out for the parking lot, which is consistent with the current project approval. The proposed understory planting appears to be consistent with the approved plant palette. However, approved plans called for Coast live oak along the front yard and Ornamental pear in the planter strip, with Gingko trees along the entry drive and in planters at the ends of parking rows. More variety in the front landscape strip may be appropriate to blend with the planting around the rest of the site perimeter. Staff requests the Boards comments on the landscaping and lighting details, and specifically address the following concern: • Whether the proposed lighting and landscape modifications blend with the approved concept and appropriately accent the building appearance, particularly as viewed from Los Ranchitos Road and Promenade frontage. INTER -DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW The project has been forwarded to Building, Fire and Public Works staff and outside agencies (including MMWD and LGVSD) for review and comment. The Fire Division requires that the applicant make minor revisions to a few curb returns at the ends of parking rows in order to provide adequate emergency vehicle turn radius, designation of the area in front of the building as a fire lane (to provide a 30 foot aerial apparatus), and relocation of hydrant conflicts with parking spaces in 2 locations. The Building Division has not identified any issues that would impact the site or building design. Public Works staff is currently reviewing the parking layout and traffic demand study. In general, the Department recommends compliance with current dimension and design standards, which are considered to provide safe and efficient parking. Staff will provide an update on the status of the Public Works Department review of the parking layout and demand study at the meeting. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Fifteen days prior to the meeting staff mailed notices of the meeting to property owners, residents and homeowner associations located within 500 feet of the site, and to neighborhood interest groups, and posted two public hearing signs on the property. Any written correspondence will be forwarded to the Board at the meeting. CONCLUSION Staff request that the Board review this report, and provide its recommendation to the Planning Commission on the proposed zoning entitlements, particularly with regard to the specific concerns identified by staff in this report and listed in the Summary section above. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Applicants Project Narrative 3. Kimley-Horn Parking Demand Study 4. Tenant Design Criteria excerpt (Pages 18 & 37) Full-sized plans, including the colors & materials details, have been provided to the DRB members only. cc: Ashil Anne, Macerich Tom Coppin, Kimley-Horn 60] >,"dd Nt I V cl ndty h&ai p (,l5(('--')'00 Northgai-ka) Mrai 0 Dave) Py 9R�VF� MRRY a 0 JW Ex" O� 'vv 1O joRTiA S 7RNE EL 4 !L O ti O� I o G TRrE 0� O� SCALE 1 :6,815 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 FEET MARI DRII n yWy 1A Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:46 PM EXHIBIT 2 - Project Narrative �Vv /'-� , I II�A(l� PROJECT NARRATIVE The project involves a renovation of the 29,538 square foot existing freestanding vacant Rite Aid store building. Originally, the project approvals contemplated the removal of the old Rite Aid building with a reconstruction of leasable square footage in the center in an amount not to exceed 773,238 square foot. After considering several alternatives to demolishing this vacant building, we have elected to reuse the asset since retaining it still falls under the maximum build out of the center. We propose to keep and upgrade the existing building. Further, bringing a new -to -market retailer will respond to the customer demands of North Marin, capitalize on the underlying value of the underutilized space and compliment the current tenant mix of the center. A renovation of the building fagade, new landscaping and decorative elements surrounding the building, coupled with reconfiguration of the parking layout and pedestrian connectivity will generate new activity and help improve the center's performance. The current design responds to the Tenant Design Criteria and DRB comments on several levels. The colors compliment the existing shopping center, while accommodating the tenant's nationally recognizable look. Enhanced landscaping on all four sides, upgrading the existing lighting with new decorative sconces and pedestrian pathway lighting unifies this area of the parking lot with other pedestrian areas of the center. To balance the existing massing and height of the building, while preserving visibility of the main mall and tenant signage behind it, we have focused changes to the projection over the entry to create an armature for the primary tenant signage. Tying the new building facade to the main mall are accent details featured along the pedestrian path such as trellis elements with suspended planter baskets. These are similar in material, detail, and color to the recently renovated mall perimeter sidewalks. The color palette and materials accent the building architecture and will likewise be complimentary to the existing mall materials. The scale and articulation of the primary entry fagade of the renovated building will amplify the tenant's presence along both the adjacent roadway to the east and the primary vehicular entry to the north. For the building exterior, landscaping has been selected for the perimeter of the building to enhance the architecture and improve the pedestrian experience from what exists today. The promenade was designed by award winning landscape architecture firm RHAA and we have no plans to change the previously approved promenade design, which when complete will improve connectivity to the both surrounding sidewalks and the main mall. In conjunction with the renovation of the building we are proposing changes to the adjacent parking. The proposed parking increases the number of spaces by a more efficient layout that also incorporates more parking lot lighting and landscape to bring the area to the same level as the rest of the center. To ease parking congestion and reserve the best shopping spaces for the customers, there exists today an employee parking program that encourages employees to park on the periphery of the center which 401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite. 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401-1452 P:310.394.6000 1 F: 310.395.2791 www.niacerich.com I NYSE: MAC �V1 �C E IP H es the prime par ing or customers. Convenient parking supports shopping and enhances the i e i ood of the success of this tenant. Also included in this submittal is a parking analysis prepared by our traffic engineer. The analysis describes a startling reality; on the most heavily trafficked day of the year, the mall by actual count never fills the provided parking. Further, when calculated based on full occupancy and build out, the parking analysis data indicates there would still be ample parking left open (over 400 spaces). This supports the concept of permitting a reduced parking ratio for the mail even though the zoning code demands a higher ratio. We seek your support in retaining this 30 year old vacant building to be revitalized to create a more connected and cohesive shopping environment. Sincerely, Ashil Ann Development Manager 401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401-1452 P: 310.394.6000 1 F: 310.395.2791 www.macerich.com I NYSE: MAC Exhibit 3 - Kimley-Horn Parking Demand Study ❑ �� Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1,3;tl:IVED AUG 0 0 2013 PLANNING ■ 31 July 2013 Suite 200 6150 Stoneridge Mall Road Ashll Alin Pleasanton, CA 94588.3279 Development Manager office: 925.398.4840 Macerich Fax: 925.398.4849 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: San Rafael Northgate Mall — Updated Parking Demand Survey and Evaluation Dear Ashil: Northgate Mall is permitted under the development agreement with the City of San Rafael to have a maximum Gloss Leasable Area (GLA) of 773,238 square feet. The mall is not developed at its full GLA potential but instead has 768,790 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) and 2,870 parking stalls surrounding the shopping center.' As part of a proposed project for a new Home Goods fittniture store (to occupy the former Rite- Aid pharmacy building), the mall is adding 66 spaces to increase the on-site parking to 2,936 stalls. With the six grandfathered spaces and the 2,936 spaces the total is 2,942 spaces for parking of customers and employees.2 Under the City's Municipal Code the shopping center is required at the maximum GLA to have four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet which equates to 3,093 spaces.3 Therefore, the mall will still be 150 spaces below what typically is required by Code.4 Based on cursory observations it was believed that although the Mall currently has (and is proposing) less than the Code required spaces, there may be sufficient parking supply available to meet the demands of the shopping center during typical non -peals and peak weekdays, weekends, The shopping center also has 6 grandfathered parking spaces which arc not physically resent but which count towards the number of spaces required in the Municipal Code. 2,942 spaces equates to 3.8 spaccs/1,000 s.f. of GLA. 3 773,238 s.£ GLA x 4 spaces/1,000 s.£ = 3,093 spaces. d 3,093 spaces (Code required) — 2,942 spaces (provided on site and grandfathered in) _ 151 space deficit. K3BAY_7PT0W971270n3 - Nmiliple hrkurg Swdy-)L•N'-TfC'Wncumnus�NmUrgme\1n11Parkingtimd)1>').UPJnrnlPurkingSmJyV2.Aocs Kimleyddorn Northgate Mall Parking Demand Study, page 2 and Associates, Inc. and holiday shopping periods. At your request, we have completed a parking demand study at the shopping center. This letter summarizes the evaluation and results of the study. METHODOLOGY Parking spaces surround Northgate Mall on all sides and are naturally divided into discrete areas by buildings and interior roadways. These spaces were inventoried in November 2012 by Kimley-Horn and were identified as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1— Northgate Parldng Areas kAbay_tpto\097727003 - noithgate parking study-jciv-tgc\documents\tiorthgatcmallparkingshidy09.updatedpad:ingstudyv2.docx ❑Kirnley-Horn Northgate Mall Parking Demand Study, page 3 and Associates, Inc. For purposes of this study, parking was divided into sub -areas for convenience in counting and to identify locations around the mall where parking demand may vary. Existing sub -areas were assigned letters from A through L and range in size from 45 spaces to 480 spaces as noted in Table 1. The proposed modification to the parking layout will increase the number of spaces by 66 stalls to be distributed to several sub -areas as also shown in Table 1. (Table 1 does not include the 6 grandfathered spaces that are not physically present for parking use.) Table 1— ExistinLy and Proposed Parkin ' Upper level of parking garage " Lower level of parking garage It is noted that the former Rite-Aid pharmacy building (29,538 square feet), located in Sub -Area J, is currently vacant but is proposed to be occupied by Home Goods which sells home furnishings and some furniture. This evaluation considers the effect on parking demand without and with the Horne Goods store. Parking demand surveys were conducted on the following days to determine the number of spaces that were occupied during the peak of the day: Saturday, November 10, 2012 (typical peak weekend) — November was selected because the month is considered by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to represent slightly greater than an average month of the year at shopping centers. Saturday was selected because the day typically generates greater trips (and parking) than Sunday (or even Friday).5 • Tuesday November 14, 2012 (typical peak weekday) — November was selected because the month is considered by the Institute of Transportation Engineers to represent slightly greater than an average month of year at shopping centers. Tuesday was s Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual 9"' Edition, 2012 k:\bay_tpto\097727003 - northgate parking study - jcw-tgc\documents\northgatemallparkingstudy09.updatedpadangstndyv2.docz i(irnley-Horn _J and Associates, Inc. Northgate Mall Parking Demand Study, page 4 selected because the day typically generates greater trips (and parking) than Monday, Wednesday, or Thursday. • Friday November 23, 2012 (typical peak day of the year) — The Friday after Thanksgiving was selected because this day historically has been retail's busiest shopping day of the year since 2005. During the three days, the numbers of occupied parking spaces were surveyed every 60 minutes between the hours of noon and 6:00 PM. The survey tunes were selected based on ITE data which shows that parking demand at shopping centers typically peaks between 1:00 and 2:00 PM.8 Results were summarized to determine the percent of occupied spaces by time of day for a typical weekend Saturday, weekday, and peak holiday shopping day. RESULTS Results of the parking surveys on the three days are summarized in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4. Table 2 — Saturdav, November 10, 2012 (Without Home Goods Store 12:00 PM 01 36 1401 191 308 671 4801 27 1881 2741 243 104f 1886 66% 1:00 PM 2 55 169 25 310 124 469 25 186 269 273 119 2026 71% 2:00 PM 8 53 200 32 305 72 448 25 186 274 268 154 2025 71% 3:00 PM 7 51 176 20 290 55 444 24 184 270 268 137 1926 67% 4:00 PM 4 38 145 10 299 43 411 19 174 268 285 130 1826 64% 5:00 PM 1 35 140 3 306 42 358 16 132 265 284 104 1686 59% Ibid. 7 International Council of Shopping Centers. "Holiday Watch: Media Guide 2006 Holiday Facts and Figure"; ShopperTrak, Press Release, ShopperTrak Reports Positive Response to Early Holiday Promotions Boosts Projections for 2010 Holiday Season (November 16, 2010). 8 Institute of Transportation Engineer, Parking Generation 4`r' Edition, 2012. kbay_tpto1097127003-northgatcparking study -jcw-tgctdocuntcnts\jtorthgatcmallparkingsRtdy09.updatcdparW- gstudyv2.docx Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc, Northgate Mall Parking Demand Study, page 5 Table 3 — Tuesday, November 13, 2012 (Without Home Goods Store) -Start 12:00 PM :1 A 0 234 -31 ZZ6 67 45 17 312 257 1&1 Stalls 19 464i6 per Sub 172 -Area 26 109 152 93 59 TotalOccupied 1002 35% , 1:00 PM 0 28 98 17 243 23 189 19 99 171 100 63 1050 37% 2:00 PM 0 31 100 16 239 19 184 20 105 161 67 65 1007 35% 3:00 PM 0 24 82 12 225 15 181 26 96 164 84 57 966 34% 4:00 PM 1 22 77 11 211 13 170 22 95 167 76 53 918 32% 5:00 PM 1 25 79 10 217 11 149 22 84 172 75 60 905 32% Table 4 12:00 PM — Friday November 23, 2012 (Without Home Goods Store) Total Parking Per Sub -Area .. :0 :0 :0 318 453 2870 Occupied Stalls per Sub -Area Total Percent 7 100 200 33 310 158 480 52 188 278 285 211 2302 Occupied Occupied —80—'/.-- 1:00 PM 11 111 206 33 310 159 472 43 185 278 288 233 2329 81% 2:00 PM 9 92 197 30 309 124 463 37 188 278 285 277 2289 80% 3:00 PM 13 75 197 28 310 99 451 25 183 274 267 260 2182 76% 4:00 PM 9 81 186 20 305 103 408 20 174 272 285 232 2095 73% 5:00 PM 5 53 159 17 307 71 375 16 158 261 284 232 1938 68% As seen in each of the three tables, peak parking occurred as follows: Saturday November 10, 2012 — 71% occupied (844 spaces available) Tuesday November 13, 2012 — 37% occupied (1820 spaces available) Friday, November 23, 2012 — 81% occupied (541 spaces available) November 23 was the peak day at 81% occupancy but Northgate Mall still had 541 spaces available. Parking consistently peaked between 1:00 to 2:00 PM on all days surveyed. At the time the surveys were collected, 50,330 square feet of GLA was vacant and unoccupied which represents a 7% vacancy rate. Shopping centers regularly have vacancies but a rate of 7% was considered to be slightly higher than what might commonly occur during strong market conditions. Figure 2 shows that the national average regional mall Bbay_tpto\097127003 - nortlrgatc parking study-jew-tgc\documents\northgatcmallparkingsntdy09.updatedparkingstridyv2.docx J�'\ Kimley�{�orn and Associates, Inc, Northgate Mall Parking Demand Study, page 6 vacancy rate was just above 5% during the strong market of 2003 through 2008 but increased to about 9% in 2012.9 Figure 2 — Mall Vacancy Rate 2000 Through 2012 Mall Vacancy Rate (source: Reis, quarterly) Recession —StripMalls —RegionalMalls 12% 10% F3% m s c 6% m 4% 2% o% 11000 ,LOO** 11001 .00" .1004 1005 0 .1p01 .1008 1009 0 10**** 11011 10**1 http://vnnv calculatedriskblog.com/ Assuming Northgate Mall tracks with national trends and will fall back to a 5% vacancy rate, the November 2012 parking data was adjusted to represent unproved market conditions at the mall and higher typical parking demand.'0 Results of the adjusted parking surveys to represent 95% leased occupancy (i.e. 5% vacancy rate) are summarized in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7.11 9 Source: Reis.com which provides commercial real estate performance information and analysis data. 10 100% leased occupancy was considered to be unrealistic given that shopping centers typically have some vacancies. " Leased occupancy represents the percent of GLA that is leased and occupied. This should not be confused with parking occupancy which is the percent of occupied parking stalls at a given tune of day. k:\bay_tpto\097127003 - northgatc parking study-jcw-tgc\docuinents\northgatcmallpukingstudyo9.updatcdparkingstudyv2.docx Northgate Mall Parking Demand Study, page 7 Kimley-Horn ®_ and Associates, Inc. Table 5 — Saturday, November 10, 2012 Adjusted to 95% Mall Occunancv (Without Home Goods Store) 12:00 PM 01 37 1441 201 312 831 4801 33 1881 2801 249 1071 1933 67% 1:00 PM 3 57 173 26 312 132 480 28 188 275 279 122 2075 2:00 PM 9 55 205 33 312 74 458 28 188 280 274 158 2074 188 3:00 PM 8 53 180 21 297 57 454 25 188 276 274 140 1973 JH9% 4:00 PM 5 39 149 11 306 44 420 20 178 274 292 133 1871 174 5:00 PM 2 36 144 4 312 44 366 17 135 271 291 107 1729 Table 6 — Tuesday, November 13, 2012 Adjusted to 95% Mall Occupancy (Without Home Goods Store) Stalls Per Parking :� :0 - Occupied Stalls per 81 - :0 318 Spaces 453 Total 2870 Occupied 12:00 PM 0 32---M 2801 18 263 20 176 27 112 156177 211 61 1029 36% 1:00 PM 0 29 101 18 249 24 194 20 102 175 202 65 1080 38% 2:00 PM 0 32 103 17 245 20 188 21 108 165 202 67 1035 36% 3:00 PM 0 25 84 13 230 16 185 27 99 168 190 59 992 35% 4:00 PM 2 23 79 12 216 14 174 23 98 171 163 55 945 33% 5:00 PM 2 26 81 it 222 12 153 23 86 176 62 931 32% Table 7 — Friday November 23, 2012 Adjusted to 95% Mall Occupancy (Without Home Goods Store) 12:00 PM 1 81 103 2051 341 312 1781 4801 59 1881 2801 296 2161 2359 82% 1:00 PM 12 114 211 34 312 171 480 45 188 280 299 239 2385 83% 2:00 PM 10 94 202 311 312 131 4731 43 188 280 296 283 2343 82% 3:00 PM14 77 202 29 312 107 461 26 187 280 273 266 2234 78% 4:00 PM 10 83 190 21 312 106 417 21 178 278 292 237 2145 75% 5:00 PM 6 55 163 18 312 75 384 17 162 267 291 237 1987 69% As seen in each of the three tables, peals parking at 95% leased occupancy would occur as follows: kAbay_ipto\097127003 - northgalc parking study-jciv-tgc\documcnislnorthgatcmallparkingshidy09.updatcdparkingsmdyv2.docx ❑Kirnley-Florn Northgate Mall Parking Demand Study, page 8 and Associates, Inc, Saturday November 10, 2012 — 72% occupied (795 spaces available) Tuesday November 13, 2012 — 38% occupied (1790 spaces available) Friday, November 23, 2012 — 83% occupied (485 spaces available) The Home Goods is most closely described as a Furniture Store per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). However, Home Goods may not always occupy the building and a higher intensity use could be present in the future. To be conservative, parking demand calculations for Home Goods were based on Shopping Center (ITE Land Use Code 820) which has an average demand rate more than twice that of a furniture store. 12 Furthermore, parking demand for the day after Thanksgiving was based on a typical Saturday in December (because "Black Friday" data was not available). Black Friday for Home Goods was conservatively assumed to exhibit parking demand more similar to ITE December data than an average month. Parking demand for the Home Goods store was estimated as shown in Table 8.13 Table 8 — Parkingr Demand for Home Goods Because the surveys did not include the planned Home Goods store, parking generation for the new store was esti nated by time of day and then added to the parking surveys (which were previously adjusted to 95% lease occupancy) to determine the total parking demand estimate as shown in Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11. The tables respectively represent a typical weekend peak (i.e. on Saturday which is higher than Friday or Sunday), a typical weekday peak (i.e. Monday through Thursday), and the peak day of the year at Northgate Mall. The tables also assume 66 additional parking spaces will be created at the mall. 12 Institute of Transportation Engineer, Parking Generation 4"' Edition, 2012. 13 Institute of Transportation Engineer, Parking Generation 4i7' Edition, 2012. kAbay_tpto\097127003 - northgatc parking study - jctv-tgc\documents\nonhgatcmallparkingstudy09.updatcdparkingstudyv2.docx Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc, Northgate Mall Parking Demand Study, page 9 Table 9 — Typical Weekend Peak (With Home Goods Store) Based on November 10, 2012 Survey at 95% Lease Occuuanev 12:00 PM 01 37 1441 201 312 831 4801 32 1891 3051 309 1071 2018 69% 1:00 PM$236 0 32 103 17 245 132 480 27 - 189 305 318 138 2160 74% 2:00 PM 0 25 84 13 230 74 458 27 189 305 318 173 2158 74% 3:00 PM 21 231 79 U1444 2161 57 454 25 189 305 318 144 2051 70% 4:00 PM 21 261 81 111 2221 44 420 20 189 305 315 133 1936 66% 5:00 PM 44 366 17 158 305 291 107 1786 61% Table 10 — Typical Weekday Peak (With Home Goods Store) Based on November 13, 2012 Survey at 95% Lease Occupancy 1:00 PM 1 01 291 1011 181 2491 241 1941 201 1021 2511 1031 651 1156 1 39% 2:00 PM 0 32 103 17 245 20 1881 211 108 2401 691 67 1110 38% 3:00 PM 0 25 84 13 230 16 1851 271 99 2381 861 59 1062 36%- 4:00 PM 21 231 79 121 2161 14 1741 231 98 2291 781 55 1003 34% 5:00 PM 21 261 81 111 2221 12 1531 231 86 2271 771 62 982 33% Table 11 — Typical Peak Day of Year (With Home Goods Store) Based on November 23, 2012 Survey at 95% Lease Occupancv 12:00 PM 81 103 2051 341 312 1781 4801 61 1891 3051 318 3041 2497 85% 1:00 PM 12 114 211 34 312 171 480 61 189 305 318 308 2515 86% 2:00 PM 10 94 202 31 312 131 473 61 189 305 318 351 2477 84% 3:00 PM 14 77 202 29 312 107 461 61 189 305 318 292 2367 81% 4:00 PM 10 83 190 21 312 106 417 61 189 305 318 256 2268 77% As seen in the three tables, the Home Goods store increases the overall parking demand by only 2%-3% (when respectively compared to Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7. k:\bny_tpto\097127003 -no rdigate parking study-jea%,Igc\documents\northgntema]1park ingsnidy09.updatcdparkingstudyv2.docx Kimley-Horn Northgate Mall Parking Demand Study, page 10 and Associates, Inc, Peak parking for Northgate with the Home Goods store is calculated as follows: Typical Peals Weekend — 74% occupied (776 spaces available) Typical Peak Weekday — 39% occupied (1780 spaces available) Typical Peak Day of Year — 86% occupied (421 spaces available) Even on the peals day of the year (i.e. the day after Thanksgiving), there will be 421 spaces available. All demand is well below the Code required spaces of 3,093 spaces. The data shows that shoppers tend to favor the northern half of the mall for parking. The greatest parking demand occurs in the following areas: • Area E • Area G • Area H © Area I Area J • Area K Other sub -Areas have lower percentages of occupied parking spaces. The imbalance is partially affected by the popularity, clustering of individual stores, and walking distance to building entrances but much of the unevenness is a result of the shopping center's orientation and connection to the adjacent street network. The popular areas of the mall have more convenient connections to Las Galinas Avenue, Manuel Freitas Parkway, Merrydale Road, and US -101 whereas other areas of the mall typically have less convenient street connections with lower bordering traffic volumes. Although some areas during Saturday and other peak shopping days are at or approaching full occupancy, there are still several hundred parking spaces available in other areas surrounding Northgate Mall. Shoppers expect that on Saturday and pre -holiday shopping periods they may need to park farther from their intended store destinations. kAbay_tpto\097127003 - northgato parking study - jcw-tgc\docmnentslnorthgatcmallparkingstndy09.updatcdparkingstudyv2.doex ❑Kimley-Florn Northgate Mall Parking Demand Study, page 11 and Associates, Inc. Home Goods will be located in Sub -Area J which is one of the more - favored areas to park. During weekdays and most weekends, there are still spaces available in the sub -area for customers. In some cases, shoppers may need to park a little farther away; however, Horne Goods mostly sells small to medium-sized home furnishings that can be easily carried or transported hi a shopping cart. Therefore, like other stores in the mall, customers should have little difficulty getting their purchases fiom the store to their vehicle. CONCLUSIONS Northgate Mall currently has 2,870 parking stalls (plus 6 grandfathered stalls). As part of a proposed project for a new Home Goods furniture store, the mall will add 66 spaces to increase the on-site parking to 2,936 stalls. With the six grandfathered spaces and the 2,936 spaces the total is 2,942 spaces for parking of customers and employees. Under the City's Municipal Code the shopping center is required to have 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA which equates to 3,093 spaces. Therefore, the mall will be 151 spaces below what typically is required by Code. Parking demand was calculated at Northgate Mall for a typical peak Saturday, typical peak weekday, and the peak shopping day of the year. On the busiest day of the year, only 86% of the parking spaces at the shopping center will be occupied which leaves 421 spaces available for additional parking demand. 14 On other days, peak occupancies are lower. Because some areas tend to have higher demand than others, the mall may wish to consider encouraging employees to park in low demand areas to make popular areas more available for customers. 14 Calculation conservatively assumed Northgate Mall is 95% leased, the Home Good Store is occupied and has parking demand similar to a shopping center, and 66 spaces are added to the existing parking supply. kAbay_tpto\097127003 - northgatc parking study - jcw-igc\documents\nonhgatcmallparkingstudy09.updatcdparkingstudyv2.docx I Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc, Northgate Mall Parking Demand Study, page 12 Based on the parking surveys and calculations, Northgate Mall can provide parking spaces less than required by the Municipal Code and still have ample spaces available for customers and employees. Furthermore, our evaluations confirmed that the Code -required spaces could be reduced to 3.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA and still provide excess parking for the shopping center users. It is our professional opinion that all parking can be acconunodated on site (as currently proposed) without the risk of spillover into the nearby neighborhoods or businesses. Please contact Tom Coppin or me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Jim West, P.E. #C65854 Ubay_tpto\097127003 - northgate parking study - jcw-tgc\documcnts\northgatcmallparkingstudy09.updatcdparkingstudyv2.docx Exhibit 4 - Tenant Design Criteria Excerpts o w C) t `o•� W � O N O 3 aE osF- ,� = CJ m 0> O a) a O > E a) cc ao�Eo M 'a a o 3 -.0 -100,6 - R c m a) Q m a) c d o = � - J a) a) - d)— o E N d �C a co) o� c E a�3ai a roam No` o > 4, a N 0 O a O ,N., V cm cst :° O U C N _ L C V Z 4 O O N O a) J D O �N N N O N a L a) r N E C m am rna co a) E coc cm m doted oaovc o Q `�a a a) i a c 12:1) n, >oa m V d 0 m aJ 3 H y c= `) = V O C N V n m s m > � n •N > a) y � : o o a) a E ECA m o U= co N p E , C C a •� N= C C N U 15 a C C N o =) N O .y N U O moi) C (� O N Cc CT aJ •� Pw E U �o 00 fl.o `a N o� a s N ajNaQa cin c d`o w e ti o m o `� i10 t°) o o > 'Od G R E E O N p "p6 O X o .Q m CC O t..) O co o N> N T Fps .,LL..N N Cm C W �F�F� i Q ��o v E R U1 N N r i C C06 mO- 0) to >i N a) G7 C N C O E- O a) L 7 N otj N N > N •C U) E o- E o ER ... ,O a) N O YOV = O+N.. R O = Q L OC@ O Cc, C U C a =mom =Y C =� =Coa) d m aJ N E 7 LL Co O flaNs_ Gp N Call C U= IE .- U a a) �m a)o N Q C dO C O r O s .� N O N X R c6 V_ U U U �9 EC? a)- a N s In'O O N N O(O O Cs (C6 r (6 OM - N •- 1L to 0 ? N O N O = >, N .ta - > a a Co `oo a ca) cd co t f `o o o p;oo op o0 om >, a) a O a) w ZD 0 y a) N " r- -2 C -2 O- _ J 2 0 a3 T o co N o R o N m O O R V CO a) V= O j..... U L o. U °. = E EE E m a o a o 2 tl) 0) 'E CM in O a V) O v) O > O - O `c r` m 3 N 1- c U V 0.0 UCX U� epic eco C C O O C N = m O C) E C O N O O CO N E O N E O N > O N y 61 N L N y d N O U O C N N wto o�N n Co o a Vi aQ r cF� Q - E N M V ui CO i-� CO' � O) C) E O L O N O nl a c N CJ m � c0 E E a) O a o R O a c d o = � - N O r a - m Q N o a) aS s C E O O O 0 O O y a o N E Q m O N F i C _ NN (v L a) O a) o Cu aa)i m C: a) Y 0 C n -=Sx o E CO .N-. O p N m E C n : E E C y o •E o , O a) `p N rO aY T C d w N R O O D a RT = CU k0- c F o ll! W ti W o d J,, � CL C) C) � LL � � � \ ) CA \ \ 0 / \ G Cl) / C £ / / \ k \ k uj e ) 2 & ° ( Cc \ . $ E & § e r � PM � � \\\ {cp - /IS\ /\\( °\< ' \ / \\/ / / sem£ � PM � �