Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2019-266 PW PRR PROJECT REVIEW REQUEST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division Please Distribute to: Date: January 7, 2020 Building — Kennedy Public Works - Keely/,'1+ b0tt— Please return PRR and Plans to Staff Planner Fire - Guzzetta David S. Lee, Assistant Planner 949-644-3225, dlee@newportbeachca qov Applicant: Irvine Company Contact: Shawna Schaffner 949 581 2888 Project Name Westcliff Plaza Parking Reduction Address: 1000— 1150 Irvine Avenue PA2019-266 UP20194W# A conditional use permit to allow the eduction in off-street parking at Westcliff Plaza shopping center. T icant is R9 to-redo a parking requirement for a possible future addition of approx., 7,400 sq. ft of creased development his would be made possible through the reconfiguration of the exis ing parking lot to prove e nced circulation and increase the number of parking spaces from 580 to 609 spaces. Even with the increased parking provided, the Zoning Code would require 763 spaces with the future development, resulting in an 183-space deficit. The applicant has provided a shared parking analysis to demonstrate that the proposed 609 spaces meets and exceeds the parking demand in the plaza. REPORT REQUESTED BY: January 15, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: TBD Check all that gRpllr: Notes: [.-7.4 T*F) ❑ No comments on the project 'fig k4pq4M1%a Wow .- r as presented. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements are not _— r�r� rur,� pll-tifl•�'ZtiP� 16►b4- Lpmwt expected to alter the project design. ❑ Recommended conditions of approval are attached. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements or the attached conditions of approval will substantially impact or alter the design of the project. ❑ I contacted the applicant on ❑ To schedule an appt. for Code review ❑ To discuss the following (see notes) Signature Ext. Date Tmplt:06/07/19 SC' 1)2-t)20 CAA PANNING December 19, 2019 Mr. rim Campbell Deputy Community Development Director City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Westcliff Plaza- Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Reduction in Off-Street Parking for an Existing Neighborhood Shopping Center Located at 1000-1150 Irvine Avenue Dear Mr. Campbell: On behalf of the Irvine Company,CAA Planning,Inc. (CAA) submits the enclosed application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a reduction in off-street parking at Westcliff Plaza shopping center located at 1000-1150 Irvine Avenue. The parking reduction is requested in accordance with City of Newport Beach (City)Zoning Code §20.40.110(B). Westcliff Plaza is located on the corner of Irvine Avenue and Westcliff Drive, and is additionally bound by Rutland Avenue and Mariners Square Apartments, as shown on the attached Vicinity Map. The site comprises approximately 113,382 square feet of commercial shopping center space and provides a total of 580 parking spaces. Approximately 95,775 square feet of the shopping center is currently occupied and 17,607 square feet is currently vacant. The project site is within General Plan Land Use Statistical Area J2, and the development limit for the site is contained within Anomaly 66. The General Plan (Anomaly 66) allows for a maximum of 138,500 square feet of development at the shopping center as indicated on the attached Land Use Element Anomaly Locations Table LU2. Irvine Company is contemplating improvements to the shopping center including the potential for new construction, within the General Plan development limit. Depending on the types of future uses,it may be necessary to deviate from the City's parking standards for shopping centers over 100,000 square feet, which require parking for -P each individual use compared to one parking rate for the entire shopping center. In order to allow Q �� for future flexibility of uses within the Shopping Center, Irvine Company has prepared a parking �a study to analyze how future improvements will impact the shopping center parking. No new construction is proposed at this time. A Parking Demand Analysis, dated December 4, 2019, has been prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. in order to analyze the existing parking demand and the shared parking opportunities for Westcliff Plaza. While the shopping center is currently developed with 113,382 square feet, the Parking Analysis contemplates an increase in square footage with new 30900 Rancho Viejo Road,Suite 285 - San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 • (949) 581-2888 a Fax(949) 581-3599 4 Mr. Jim Campbell December 19, 2019 Page 2 of 5 restaurant uses. The Parking Analysis contemplates approximately 7,400 square feet of increased development and a reconfiguration to the parking lot to enhance circulation. Proposed Project The requested reduction in off-street parking is possible through the reconfiguration of the existing parking lot to provide enhanced circulation and additional parking spaces. As indicated above, the Parking Analysis contemplates the addition of approximately 7,400 square feet of new construction, for a total of 120,777 square feet. The reconfigured parking lot would increase the parking supply to 609 spaces, which is an increase of 29 parking spaces. As detailed on the site plan, the major components of the reconfigured parking lot include the following: • Reconfigure existing parking lot for increased efficiency including: ■ Reconfigure existing angled parking to 90-degree parking. ■ Addition of new drive aisle to allow direct vehicle access between primary and secondary parking lots by reducing fagade of building 1100. ■ Eliminate secondary driveway along Westcliff Drive to provide additional ( V,tqrQA use parking. O�i City Parking Code Requirements The Parking Analysis contemplates an increase in restaurant square footage in order to provide a worst-case parking demand. Parking requirements for the proposed expansion of Westcliff Plaza are established by City Zoning Code §20.40.040,Table 3-10,which details off-street parking rates for land uses within the City. The following table details the City's parking requirement for the existing conditions and the increased restaurant square footage. City Parking Code Requirement Parking Requirement Existing Condition 291 Shopping Center 113,380 sf 580 spaces Proposed Condition S 1.11,990 sf Restaurant 8,787 sf 763 spaces Total i erence (183) spaces The existing parking supply would not satisfy the parking required by the City's Code and would have a shortfall of 183 spaces.While the City's Code provides appropriate parking rates separately for each land use within the shopping center,it does not necessarily take into account the collective nature of uses associated with a shopping center. Therefore, in addition to increasing the parking Mr. Jim Campbell December 19, 2019 Page 3 of 5 supply to 609 spaces, a shared parking analysis is appropriate to determine the required parking demand. Sha4.Parking Analysis The Parking Demand Analysis was prepared for the purpose of comparing off-street requirements to collected parking demand data and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and international Council of Shopping Center ,(ICSC) methodology. The resultant shared parking analysis was used to determine the appropriate amount of parking needed to adequately serve the peak parking demand generated by the uses proposed by the shopping center expansion. The opportunity for shared parking at Westcliff Plaza is a result of the variety of land uses that are offered onsite. The ULIACSC model describes shared parking as follows: Shared parking is defined as parking space that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The opportunity to implement shared parking is the result of two conditions: • Variations in the peak accumulation of parked vehicles as the result of different activity patterns of adjacent or nearby land uses (by hour, by day, by season). • Relationships among land use activities that result in people's attraction to two or more land uses on a single auto trip to a given area or development, t1 k L Parking counts were done at the shopping center over a 4-day period(September 11, 2019 through ` September 14, 2019). The counts began at 10:00 a.m. and continued for a 12-hour duration with a peak parking demand observed at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, September 13,2019. During peak parking 4�c��5 demand, a total of 335 spaces were occupied or 58% of the parking supply was utilized. Yr Q� a The shared par ' a1ysi-s—,�g4k ammendations of ULI/ICSC,took into consideration . ��`* � �a establish kin rates for shoppine g cer�er (4 spaces/4 ks and fine dining/casual dining Vol restauran 1 s aces/20 ks time of day, weekend vs. weekday, seasonal variation, mode adjustment and internal capture, auto occupancy, and existing conditions. The input assumptions and results are illustrated on Table 7 of the Parking Demand Analysis.Based on the model, under AIL the future conditions, Westcliff Plaza would experience a peak parking demand of 571 parking spaces during the busiest hour at the busiest day of the year(12.-00 p.m. on a December weekday). The model estimate indicates that the proposed parking supply of 609 spaces would exceed the Npip}akA parking demand, and Westcliff Plaza would maintain a surplus of 38 spaces during peak demand conditions. �'YI J S t �r n �' 4 / G� a- i Conditional Use Permit e-c.l � 4� A Conditional Use Permit for a reduction in required off-street parking is requested consistent with Zoning Code §20.40.110 to allow a parking supply total of 609 spaces when the Code alone would require a total of 763 spaces. In compliance with §20.40.110 B, a Parking Demand Analysis was Mr. Jim Campbell December 19, 2019 Page 4 of 5 prepared and is submitted with this application. As part of the Parking Demand Analysis, two parking management recommendations were provided and will be implemented as necessary. Zoning Code §20.52.020 provides the Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator the 1+�k authority to approve Conditional Use Permit applications. To approve or conditionally approve a use permit, the hearing body must make the following findings provided by §20.52.020 F. 1. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 2. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and the Municipal Code; 3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; 4. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and 5. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience,health,interest, safety,or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. A set of draft Findings is included as an attachment to this application_ Conclusion The application to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Westcliff Plaza to allow for a reduction in off-street parking is consistent with the provisions of Zoning Code §20.40.110,and the required Findings can be made consistent with Zoning Code §20.52.020 F. During peak demand, the existing parking supply is less than 60%utilized,and even when adjusted for full occupancy,there would still be 126 available parking spaces. With the contemplated increase in restaurant use and full occupancy of the shopping center at 120,777 sf, the proposed parking supply of 609 parking spaces would exceed the conservative model peak demand by 38 spaces. We have included an authorization letter from Irvine Company, a check in the amount of$4,830, and public noticing materials for the processing of this application. We appreciate your time and look forward to working with you on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Mr. Jim Campbell December 19, 2019 Page 5 of 5 Sincerely, CAA PLANNING, INC. Shawna L. Schaffner Chief Executive Officer c: Gina DiNapoli Attachments: Vicinity Map Parking Demand Analysis, Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. Draft Findings ■ iIlvibson transportation consulting, inc. DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO: Gina DiNapoli, Irvine Company Retail Properties FROM: Sean Mohn and Janet Ye, EIT DATE: December 4, 2019 RE: Parking Demand Analysis for Westcliff Plaza Newport Beach, California Ref: J1732 Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. (GTC) was asked to prepare a parking demand analysis for the proposed expansion of Westcliff Plaza (Project) in Newport Beach, California (City). GTC compared the offs-street parking requirements, as indicated by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (City Code), to the results of a shared parking analysis based on empirical parking demand data and the Shared Parking, 2r'd Edition (Urban Land Institute [ULl] and the International Council of Shopping Centers [ICSC], 2005) methodology. This memorandum summarizes our analysis. �. j, " � SL` PROJECT DESCRIPTION ryte, k0 The Project site is located on the northeast corner of Irvine Avenue & Westcliff Drive, asV.JI Z illustrated in Figure 1. The existing site currently consists of approximately 113,382 square �•- feet (sf) of commercial shopping center space and provides a total of 580 parking spaces. Based on discussions with Irvine Company staff, it is our understanding that the Project is �, 1 proposing the following modifications to the existing site in order to accommodate an u[� additional 8,78Z sf of restaurant space and provide a total of 609 parking spaces: • The existing parking lot would be reconfigured to provide 90-degree parking (vs. angled parking) • The pedestrian walkway connecting the primary parking lot (front) to the secondary parking lot (rear) would be modified in order to allow direct vehicular access and circulation The secondary driveway along Westcliff Drive would be eliminated in order to provide additional parking l� 1 The proposed modifications described above are illustrated in Figure 2. 1 555 W.Sth Street, Suite 3375 Los Angeles, CA 90013 213.683.0088 213.683,0033 Ms. Gina DiNapoii December 4, 2019 Page 2 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS The City Code has identified the off-street parking requirements of various land uses; in particular, City Code Section 20.40.040 details the required off-street parking rates for all developments proposed within the City. These parking rates, and the previously approved Use Permit rates for various Project tenants, were applied to the various land use elements of the Project to determine the required amount of off-street parking stalls per the City Code for the following analysis scenarios: • Existing Conditions o Shopping Center—95,775 sf o Vacant— 17,607 sf • Existing Conditions (Adjusted)' o Shopping Center— 113,382 sf • Proposed Expansion— 120,777 sf �� ov . © 5 o Shopping Center— 111,990 sf 7C o Restaurant— 8,787 sf rip, Existina Conditions As detailed in Table 1, the Project is required to provide 442 parking spaces based on the Existing Conditions scenario, City Code parking rates, and the previously approved Use Permit rates for various Project tenants. This parking requirement is satisfied by the current parking supply of 580 parking spaces. Existing Conditions Adjusted As detailed in Table 2, the Project is required to provide 513 parking spaces based on the Existing Conditions {Adjusted) scenario, City Code parking rates, and the previously approved Use Permit rates for various rojiec tenants. This parking requirement is satisfied by the current parking supply of 580 parking spaces. I1 t qWA- &V f. WIC" NA,o *-. [&4v 4 e hot va aAf Sw'�t �I� � 14� At 10 (oZ)� I+ Seems Jtvk4 teA", t114t7 15 belie GSSurr► 4 a.S rejvol® Proposed Ex ansion but torlV-6tltA (- *A&W 4h f /1 Uwur+ umety' nWk3. As detailed in Table 3, the Project is required to provide 763 parking spaces based on the Proposed Expansion scenario, City Code parking rates, and the previously approved Use Permit rates for various Project tenants. This parking requirement would not be satisfied by the proposed parking supply of 609 parking spaces. ' The Existing Conditions (Adjusted) land use allocation assumes the activation of the currently vacant shopping center space. Ms. Gina DiNapoli December 4, 2019 Page 3 City Code Summary As detailed in the analyses above, the Project would not be able to satisfy the City Code off- street parking requirements based on the Proposed Expansion land use allocation. The City Code analysis indicates a parking deficit of 183 parking spaces. It should be noted that the City Code parking requirements identified above for each individual land use are not necessarily reflective of the collective land use parking demands experienced with shopping centers. The City Code analysis assumes that the demand for each land use peaks at the same time or that the peak is consistent for all tenants within each land use category; this may lead to the provision of more parking than is needed at any given time. As such, a shared parking analysis was performed based on empirical data to help determine the appropriate amount of parking needed to adequately serve the peak parking demand generated by the proposed land uses of the Project. SHARED SPARKING ANALYSIS The shared parking demand analysis was performed using the ULI/ICSC model in Shared Parking, 2nd Edition, which describes shared parking as follows: Shared parking is defined as parking space that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The opportunity to implement shared parking is the result of two conditions: • Variations in the peak accumulation of parked vehicles as the result of different activity patterns of adjacent or nearby land uses (by hour, by day, by season) • Relationships among land use activities that result in people's attraction to two or more land uses on a single auto trip to a given area or development Most zoning codes provide peak parking ratios for individual land uses. While this appropriately recognizes that separate land uses generate different parking demands on an individual basis, it does not reflect the fact that the combined peak parking demand, when a mixture of land uses shares the same parking supply, can be substantially less than the sum of the individual demands. For example, retail uses typically peak in the early to mid-afternoon while restaurant uses typically peak in the evening. Empirical Data Collection In order to ascertain the weekday and weekend parking needs of the Project based on the Proposed Expansion land use allocation, parking utilization surveys at the existing site were conducted over a period of 12 hours beginning at 10:00 AM on the following dates: • Wednesday, September 11, 2019 • Thursday, September 12, 2019 Ms. Gina DiNapoli December 4, 2019 Page 4 • Friday, September 13, 2019 • Saturday, September 14, 2019 The parking utilization survey data is summarized in Table 4 and detailed in the Attachment. As shown in Table 4, the peak parking utilization, i.e., the peak parking demand for the Project under Existing Conditions, of 335 spaces (or 58%) was observed at 12:00 PM on Friday, September 13, 2019. Shared Parking Assumptions and Model Calibration The shared parking model utilizes a series of assumptions, in addition to the base ULI/ICSC data, to develop the parking demand model. This discussion explains the assumptions used in this analysis and describes the background documentation used for each of these factors. Land Use Allocation. The ULI/ICSC methodology recommends that the parking demand for restaurant and/or entertainment space be calculated independent of shopping center space when the percentage of those land uses exceeds 20% of the total shopping center square footages. The amount of Project restaurant and/or entertainment space does not exceed 20% of the total 19' 'IP0 shopping center square footage under any of the analysis scenarios, which wou allow the y Project parking demand to be calculated based on the ULI/ICSC shopping center parking demand rates. For conservative purposes, however, the parking demand for the Proposed Expansion scenario was calculated based on both the ULI/ICSC shopping center parking demand rates and the fine/casual dining parking demand rates, as detailed below. Parking Rates. The ULI/ICSC methodology requires that each land use select parking rates; that is, the parking rate for each land use if used independently. The base parking demand rates were developed through an extensive research and documentation effort by ULI/ICSC; these base rates reflect a national average. • For the purposes of this analysis, the weekend base rate of 4.00 spaces/1,000 sf(ksf) (vs. �} the weekday ratio 0 3.6 spaceslksf) was utilized for the shopping center component of the Project for both weekday and weekend calculations, effectively calibrating the shared�inamodel to flect the observed weekda and weekend variations. The following are the parki g demand rates (weekday/weekend) used for the two distinct land use components of thi study: 3.(0 y o Shopping Center 4.0 4.00 spaces/ksf a Fine/Casual Dining Restaurant— 18.00/20.00 spaces/ksf Time of Day. The time of day factor is one of the key assumptions of the shared parking model. This factor reveals the hourly parking pattern of the analyzed land use; essentially, the peak demands are indicated by this factor. ULI/ICSC's research efforts have yielded a comprehensive data set of time of day factors for multiple land uses. As the demand for each land use fluctuates over the course of the day, the ability to implement shared parking emerges. Ms. Gina DiNapoli December 4, 2019 Page 5 • For the purposes of this analysis, the base time of day factors were adjusted slightly to � t� reflect the hourly patterns detailed in the parking utilization data summarized in Table 4, GA N effectively calibrating the shared parking model to reflect the observed hourly patterns. ka Weekday ys._ Weekend. Each shared parking analysis measured the parking demand on a � weekday as well as on a Saturday. Research has indicated that a source for variation in parking demand can be traced to the difference between weekday and weekend demand. • As previously discussed, the weekend base rate was utilized for the shopping center CY` component of the Project for both the weekday and weekend calculations, effectively calibrating the shared parking model to reflect the observed weekday and weekend variations. Seasonal Variation. The shared parking analysis in this report was based on the peak month of the year. The total parking demand of the Project was compared over the course of the year; the peak month's demand is reported. • For the purposes of this analysis, the parking utilization data summarized in Table 4 was conservatively assumed to exhibit the same September to December seasonal variation patterns as the ULIIICSC data, effectively calibrating the shared parking model to reflect the absolute peak conditions. The following are the September peak month adjustment ratios (customer/employee) used 1S for the two distinct land use components of this study: o Shopping Center—0.64/0,80 o FinelCasual Dining Restaurant—0.91/1.00 _Mode Split and Captive Market. One factor that affects the overall parking demand at a particular development is the number of visitors and employees that arrive by automobile. It is common that mixed-use projects and districts have patrons/visitors captured within the site itself based on the mixed-use nature of the Project. The mode split accounts for the number of visitors and employees that do not arrive by automobile (transit, walk, and other means) or are internally captured. The Project's mode split ratios and internal capture ratios were left unadjusted for conservative purposes. Auto Occupancy. The Project's shared parking analysis used the national averages for auto occupancy, i.e., the typical number of passengers in each vehicle parking at the site, for all land uses. No changes were made to the ULIIICSC average rates. Existing Conditions The following land use allocation was assumed for the Existing Conditions scenario: • Existing Conditions o Shopping Center—95,775 sf o Vacant— 17,607 sf Ms. Gina DiNapoli December 4, 2019 �`N 05v) ��((`` Page 6 S to Table 5 illustrates the input assumptions and results of the Existing onditions shared`parking analysis. For each land use, the table shows the base parkin dema d ratio for a weekday and a Saturday, the mode adjustment (mode split), the non-captive ra io internal capture), and the peak hour and peak month adjustment ratios (the shared parking model calculates the peak demand to occur at 12:00 PM on a December weekday, the busiest hour of the year for parking demand). Figure 3 illustrates the hourly weekday and weekend parking demand patterns during the peak month of December. For comparative purposes, the empirical September 2019 parking demand patterns are also illustrated on Figure 3. By component, the model estimates that the busiest hour of the year would experience a peak parking demand of 383 spaces under the Existing Conditions scenario, which does not exceed the current parking supply of 580 parking spaces. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 5. Existing Conditions (Adjusted] The following land use allocation was assumed fo(theisting Conditions (Adjusted) scenario: • Existing Conditions (Adjusted) o Shopping Center 113,382 s# Svx // C Table 6 illustrates the input assumptions and results of the Existing Conditions (Adjusted) shared parking analysis. For each land use, the table shows the base arkin 11demand ratio for a weekday and a Saturday, the mode adjustment (mode split), the non-captive ratio (internal capture), and the peak hour and peak month adjustment ratios (the shared parking model calculates the peak demand to occur at 12:00 PM on a December weekday, the busiest hour of the year for parking demand). Figure 4 illustrates the hourly weekday and weekend parking demand patterns during the peak month of December. For comparative purposes, the empirical September 2019 parking demand patterns are also illustrated in Figure 4. By component, the model estimates that the busiest hour of the year would experience a peak parking demand of 454 spaces under the Existing Conditions (Adjusted) scenario, which does not exceed the current parking supply of 580 parking spaces. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 6. Proposed Expansion The following land use allocation was assumed for the Proposed Expansion scenario: • Proposed Expansion — 120,777 sf t03,60 (��3K5�� c Shopping Center— 111,990 sf �1c 'y}{, o Restaurant—8,787 sf �� t� OL Ito Ms. Gina DiNa oli December 4, 2019 Page 7 Table 7 illustrates the input assumptions and results of the Prop sed Expansion shared parking analysis. For each land use, the table shows the base parking emand ratio for a weekday and a Saturday, the mode adjustment (mode split), the non-cap ive ra Jo in emal capture), and the peak hour and peak month adjustment ratios (the shared parking model calculates the peak demand to occur at 12:00 PM on a December weekday, the busiest hour of the year for parking demand). Figure 5 illustrates the hourly weekday and weekend parking demand patterns during the peak month of December. For comparative purposes, the empirical September 2019 parking demand patterns are also illustrated on Figure 5. By component, the model estimates that the busiest hour of the year would experience a peak parking demand of 571 spaces under the Proposed Expansion scenario, which does not exceed the proposed parking supply of 609 parking spaces. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 7. Shared Parking Summary Based on the results of the ULIIICSC shared parking analysis, which was conservative in its approach, it is our professional opinion that the proposed parking supply of 609 spaces will easily accommodate the parking needs of the Project under the Proposed Expansion scenario. PARKING MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS As detailed above, although the amount of restaurant and/or entertainment space does not exceed 20% of the total shopping center square footage under any of the Project analysis scenarios, which would allow the Project parking demand to be calculated based the ULIIICSC shopping center parking demand rates, for conservative purposes the parking demand for the Proposed Expansion scenario was calculated based on both the ULIIICSC shopping center parking demand rates and the fine/casual dining parking demand rates. Recognizing that the Project land use allocation (i.e., retail vs. restaurant) and related parking needs may change in the future, should the restaurant and/or entertainment space ever exceed the 20% threshold detailed above and/or the total square footage of the site exceed the 120,777 sf analyzed under the Project Expansion scenario, it is our recommendation that the following parking management measures be considered for implementation: 1. Measure One W) - Parkinq Demand Analysis Update — M1 involves the preparation of an updated parking demand analysis in order to assess the parking needs of the Project under future conditions. If it is determined that the parking demand would not be satisfied by the proposed parking supply, additional parking management measures would be required. 2. Measure Two M2 - Valet Parkin — M2 involves the development and operation of a valet parking program for the patrons of the restaurant space within the Project (or any other commercial tenants that merit such action) in order to address the potential shortfall identified in M1. @ibson ,""D ROAD -�- r t 1024 1020 n 6 E;4DWNACE Lv$ OAN�CI HAR05VARE 21 Sax SF AtAERI h r t? 96 1_ 4 O Oli U c� o 0 PARKING SUPPM 580 SPACES . d ` o 0 0 ti o 1150 RALPHS Q Q 9Z1�: �� o M � CHAS¢BA,N1E PROJECT SITE FIGURE EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 da�wrtrtivn cvruuNng I� k q . a PARKING SUPPLY:609 SPACES =� F PROJECT SITE FIGURE 2 5 FIGURE 3 PEAK MONTH DAILY PARKING DEMAND BY HOUR-EXISTING CONDITIONS 700 600 Parking Supply:580 stalls 500 0 Weekday ©Weekand ——— September 201E 400 N C 300 y ` 200 100 a 0 1 h AZ �ti N � tk h 6 1 0 NQO NN �L Hour FIGURE 4 PEAK MONTH DAILY PARKING DEMAND BY HOUR-EXISTING CONDITIONS (ADJUSTED) 700 600 Parking Supply:580 stalls 500 Weekday ©Weekend a-9 Septemhar2019 400 IL 300 — — a J I 200 100 0 ,1. a e F' e� � e Q� ill, Q� Q� Q� Q� 4� Q� 4� Q Q11 41111 e� 1 ,�o a+. �ti rL a h ro 1 4 ,� �. Hour FIGURE 5 PEAK MONTH DAILY PARKING DEMAND BY HOUR-PROPOSED EXPANSION 700 Parking Supply:6D9 stalls 600 500 L�Weekday �Weeken]2!019 Septemb R 400 U) a, c CL 300 200 100 117-1 0 Hour f TABLE 1 WESTCLIFF PLAZA PARKING CODE SUMMARY-EXISTING CONDITIONS Suite Trade Name Area(sf) Area(%) Coda Requirement la} Required Spaces f 115D Ralph's 27,900 29% 1 space I 20D sf 140 spaces 1132 Newport Nails 1.035 1% 1 space/ 80 sf 13 spaces t 1130 Anthony's Shoe Repair 975 1% 1 space/ 250 sf 4 spaces mmm1128 The Coffee Bean&Tea Leaf 1,200 1% 1 space! 250 sf 5 spaces 1126 Pandor Bakery 1,940 2% UP2011-031 21 spaces 1124 Z Pizza 780 1% UP20064)22 4 spaces I 1120 Chronic Tacos 1,300 1% UP3171 6 spaces 1116 Pressed Juice 975 1% 1 space/ 250 sf 4 spaces 1112 Pick Up Stix 1,4D0 1% UP3464 6spaces 1104 VACANT 2.635 N/A 0 spaces 11DO VACANT 11,235 WA 0 spaces 1062 VACANT 3,737 NIA 0 spaces 1058 Core Refcnn Hates 1,300 1% UP2010-012 9 spaces 1052 Massage Envy 2.503 3% UP2010-023 11 spaces 1048 Newport Business Center 2.029 2% 1 space/ 250 sf a spaces 1044 Krisan s 2,750 3% 1 space f 250 sf 11 spaces 1040 orangethLDry 2,420 3% 1 s ace! 250 sf 10 spaces 1036 GNC 2,200 2% 1 space 1 250 sf 9 spares 1024 Crown Hardware 10.270 11% 1 space 1 250 st 41 spaces 1020 CVS 23.594 25% 1 space 1 250 sf 94 spaces 1016 Bank of Am erica 7,200 8% 1 space 1 250 sf 29 s aces 1000 Chase Bank 4,005 4% UP2012-004 17 s aces Total Floor Area(Restaurant) Total Required Spaces 7,595 8% 46 spaces (Restaurant) Total Floor Area lb] 95,775 100% Total Required Spaces 442 spaces Total Parking Supply BBC spaces Parking Surplus/(Shortfall) 13a spaces Notes: [a]As established in Section 20.40.040{Table 3-10)of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and Wesidiff Plaza. [b]Total Floor area represents occupied space only. TABLE 2 WESTCLIFF PLAZA PARKING CODE SUMMARY-EXISTING CONDITIONS(ADJUSTED. Suite Trade Name Area(sf) Area I%) Code Requirement Eat Required Spaces 1150 Ralph's 27,900 26% 1 space 1 200 sf 140 spares 1132 Newport Nails 1,035 19A 1 Spam/ 80 sf 13 spaces 1130 Anlhon s Shoe Repair 975 1% 1 s ace 1 250 sf 4 spaces 1128 The Coffee Bean&Tea Leaf 1,200 1% 1 space/ 250 sf 5 spaces 1126 Pandor Bakery 1,940 1,5% UP2011-031 21 spaces 1124 Z Pizza 715101 0.5% UP2006-022 4 spaces 1120 ChrenicTacos 1.3001 1% UP3171 6 spaces 1116 Pressed Juice 975 1% 1 space 1 250 sf 4 spaces 1112 Pick Up Stix 1.400 1% UP3464 6 Spaces 1104 Restaurant 2,635 2% 1 space 1 250 sf 11 spaces 1100 Retail 11,235 10% 1 spare 1 250 sf 45 spaces 1052 Retail 3,737 3% 1 space 1 250 sf 15 spares 1058 Core Reform Pilates 1,300 1% UP2010-012 9 spaces 1052 Massage Envy 2,503 2% UP2010-023 11 spaces 1048 I Newport Business Center 2,028 2% 1 space/ 250 sf 8 spaces 1044 1 Kriser's Z750 2% 1 s ace/ 250 sf 11 spaces 1040 Orangetheory 2,420 2% 1 space/ 250 sf 10 spaces 1036 GNC 2,200 2% 1 s ace/ 250 sf 9 spaces 1024 Crown Hardware 10,2 9% 1 s ace/ 250 sf 41 spaces 1020 CVS 23.594 21% 1 space/ 250 sf 94 spaces 1016 Bank of Amarica 7,2 6% 1 s ace/ 250 sf 29 spaces 1000 Chase Bank 4,005 4% UP2012-004 17 s aces Total Floor Area(Restaurant) 10,230 g-A Total Required Spaces 46 spaces (Restaurant) Total Floor Area 113,362 100% Total Required Spaces 513 spaces Total Parking Suppiy 550 spaces Parking Surplus/(Shortfall) 67 spaces Notes (a]As estsVshed in Section 20.40.040(Table 3-10)of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Cade and Westdiff Paza. x Ilk ' TABLE 3 WESTCLIFF PLAZA PARKING CODE SUMMARY-FUTURE CONDITIONS Suite Trade Name Area(sf) Area Cade Requirement Lai Required Spaces 1150 Ralph's 27,9C0 23% 1 space 1 20U sf 140 spaces 1132 Newport Nails 1.035 1% 1 space l 80 sf 13 spaces 1130 Anthony's Shoe Repair 975 1% 1 space 1 250 sf 4 spaces 1128 The Coffee Bean&Tea Leaf 1,200 1% 1 space 1 250 sf 5 spaces 112E Pandor Bakery 1,940 1.5% UP2011-031 21 s aces 1124 Z Pizza 7501 0.5% UP2000-022 4 spaces 1120 Chronic7acos 1.300 1% UP3171 6spaces 1116 Pressed Juice 975 1% 1 space 1 250 sf 4 space.s 1112 Pick Up Stix 1,400 1% UP3464 6 spaces (�'d,� 1104 Restaurant 2,635 2% 1 space 1 250 sf 11 s aces 1110 Medical Office 5,205 4% 1 space 1 200 sf 26 s aces Restaurant / 4.638 4% 1 space f 50 sf 93 spaces je 1062 Retail 3.737 3% 1 a 1 250 of 15 spaces 1058 Core Reform Pilates 1,300 1% UP2010-012 9 spaces },�a/1 r (r 1 D52 Massage En 2,503 2% UP2010-023 11 spaces —s+� 104E Newport Business Canter 2,D28 2% 1 space/ 250 sf 8 spaces 1044 Kril 2.750 2% 1 space 1 250 sf 11 spaces 1040 Oran etheo 21420 2% 1 space/ 250 sf 10 spaces fit 1036 GNC 2,200 2% 1 space 1 250 sf 9 spaces e, J 1024 Crown Hardware 10.270 9% 1 space! 250 sf 41 spaces 1020 CVS 23,594 20% 1 space 1 250 sf 94 spaces ar(Jc { 1016 Bank ofAmerica 7,200 6% 1 space/ 250 sf 29 spaces 1000 Chase Bank 4.005 3% UP2012-0D4 17 spaces New Pad Restaurant _ 0,787 7% 1 space I LOLL— 175 s aces Total Floor Area(Restaurant 23,655 20% Total Required Spaces fad ' (Restaurant) 315 spaces i� Total Floor Area 12C,777 100% Total Required Spaces 753 spaces Total Parking Supply 580 spaces Parking Surplusf(Shortfall) (183)spaces Notes, [a]As esta6lrs ad in Section 20.40.040(Table 3-10)of the City of Newport Beach Muniapal Gcde and Weslciiff Fla a. ,1L k ? S {� hr �' "1 kO INS' TABLE 4 PARKING UTILIZATION SUMMARY WESTCLIFF PLAZA TOTAL PARKING UTILIZATION(SPACES[ 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM Wednesday(September 11,2019) 273 281 297 290 284 289 300 300 256 235 165 110 Thursday(September 12,2019) 257 267 293 265 258 287 274 266 204 197 150 145 Friday(September 13,2019) 270 285 335 299 272 272 283 271 229 202 135 104 Saturday(September 14,2019) 304 313 329 306 281 235 225 194 168 143 110 109 WESTCLIFF PLAZA TOTAL PARKING UTILIZATION(%Hal 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM S PM 9 PM Wednesday(September 11,2019) 47% 45% 51% 50% 49% 50% 52% 52% 44% 41% 28% 19% Thursday(September 12,2019) 44% 46% 5114 46% 44% 49% 47% 46% 35% 34% 26% 25% Friday(September 13,2019) 47% 4F/fr 58% 52% 47% 47% 49% 47% 399/. 35% 23% 18% Saturday(September 14,2019) 52% 54% 57% 53% 4B% 41% 39% 33% 29Y, 25% 19% 17% Notes: [a]Total perking supply is 589 spaces. r k � a VN;, TABLE SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS SUMMARY-EXISTING CONDMONS SHOPPING CENTER PEAK MONTH:DECEMBER PEAK PERIOD:12 PM,WEEKEND Weekday Weekend Weekd y Weekend Nan- Nan- Peak Hr Peak Mo E.Umated Peak Hr Peak Ma Estimated Pmled Da4 Bane Driving Captive project Baas Dlt ing Captive PmJeat Ad] Alu Parking Ad] Adj Park{nu Land Use Duantity unit Rstfu Ratio Rao Unit Rake Ratio Ratio Rate Unit 12 PM December Demand 12 PM December Demand Cammunfly Shopping Center lW00 ksq 95,775 WOLA 3.20 1.09 111 1,20 A¢f GLA 3.20 1.00 100 320 NO GLA 1.00 1.00 306 1no 1.00 306 Empfvyee 0.80 1.00 1.00 0 AO lksf GLA 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.00 ftl GLA 1 00 1.0a T7 1.00 ion 77 Castcmer 3D6 Customer 30E E.ployoe 77 Employee 77 Reserved Hesarved 0 A Tatal 383 9 -, 3n Za i Shared Parking Raducton 0% 0% qN �-�.. `� � �''� %✓'�,,�•.�,a-tom! s TABLE g SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS SUMMARY-EXISTING CONDITIONS(ADJUSTEO) SHOPPING CENTER PEAK MONTH:DECEMBER—PEAK PERIOD:12 PM,WEEKEND Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak M. Eadmamd Peak Hr Peek M. E.tIII ?mJect Data Baae Drrving Gapdre Pm)ect Sass D WNg C.P1We Pmj a Ad] Ad] Parking AdJ AdJ ?.*Ing Land U.. OuaAm Unit POL P.M. Red. Rad Unit Ram Rail. R.B. Rate U.It 12 PM December Demand 12 PM Deeember Demand m—ty Shopping Center(�400 kso 113,3B2 s1GLA 3.20 1,00 1.00 32a Aksl GL4 1.20 I. 10D 329 fief GLA 1.00 1,00 363 1.9a t.00 363 Employee 0.69 7 So 1.00 O.AO lkel GL0. 0,60 1.00 1.09 0.60 lNSF GIA I.00 1_DD g5 1.00 1.00 91 cus rrwf 363 Customer 363 Employee iB1 Employee 01 Reserved Reserved 0 A T.W 464 Tom] i54 1 Shared Parking ReduclEon 0% o% y s q O� TABLE 7 SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS SUMMARY-PROPOSED EXPANSION SHOPPING CENTER 6 RESTAURANT PEAK MONTH:DEC... PEAK Pe...:12 PM,WEEKEND W-kd y weekend Weekday Weekend Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak- Eatlmatad Peak Hr Peak M. Estimated P 1�0� I Bn DtMng Capr[v, Proj ect' Sane Ddving Captive Prol.ct Adl ml Parking Adl AdJ Parking Land We Quantlty Unit Ratlo Ratio R.I. Un. Rohe Rath Rrtic Rate Unit 12 PM Decemtrer Demand 13 PM Dawmher Demand ammundy Shopping CeiAer(<400 ImTl 111,900 si GLA r320 1,Op tA0 3.20 WGGO/, 3.20 }_00 L00 320 4.f GL4 1,00 i_g0 358 1AG 1.00 353 Employee O.SO 1.00 1,q0 O.SO /kaf GL4 ago 1.00 1.0a 0.80 1ks1 GLA 1.00 1.00 o0 1.00 1,00 90 Rne/Casu,l Dining ll,si,,,,t 3,7e7 sf GIA 15.25 1.OG 1.00 15.25 /xsf 17.00 ion 1,00 17.00 &.1 GLA 0.75 s! 1.00 101 0.50 1 1.00 75 Employee 2.75 1.0o 1.0G 275 GLA 3,00 1.00 1.G0 300 ftf GLA 0.qU 1,00 22 075/ 1.0G 20 Cuatamer 451 ee.tamer 433 Empicyee 112 Employ,, 110 Reserved P- Reeerv,d 0 Tore! 571 Toter 54 Shared Peddng Reduction 6% 13% Attachment Parking Utilization Survey Data Imltn. Wuefll Pl.]I.]I¢wpgM Hncfi[A WN7 a.r51�f oWtr.]inn la];.Lg3 A1re Spur 3eW]EAp PM lily PM LpO OAI 1 ].SO PM HyIOPM 3:lp PM 4:Op PM J M 4gp PM 1pH}M Lm PIA 9Ap PIA H] slpndda a g� 3z r. ea a] sr 1% Hal 34 u u w ` s ss Hz u� ]o IM La - ems• E5Y 3lY 31 aY 31% lH% }1% 3gY 3} sTY 3}11 Iox Ibl ssY ]] y HEY ]]% a% ]gY ]HPI mx ]31i AT fsentlwtl l 3 6 1p l] f 1 } LL a 1p a 5 y TEY ]ubW 1b 4 9 6 i] 9 T ]3 la N Li LL si% 44% a% E]Y SUY 54f 43 � E l 0 � LY 41% Sk% Sd% 56Y 6EY p% FSeI 12i 9% eY 1% v% 4 5(pM°ly EiH la .10 ]m ipg ll] 15] g9x Nf lE3 1w la WO U! aY 115 l]] lF5 ]W N 38 pY 3k% Ip% 4]% ae14 45% 101i N% SL% 39f fEY] � I3Y SH% IS% 4X 4pP4 15% IE% ]A% q s�eyp 31 a ]1 31 >e Zb 2a 31 >a Lg a 13 ]IY Tl% dtl 9ple e1Y f!Y IVOSI H.x 9p% LL% 5eY 61Y H]Y +aY gtwt 13 ]e u l 5 ]sx TRl1 elf m nY Tlx ]gf Ibx r'* sP�gnM ]n N ll 13 10 EH L. 1 27 }pli 55% 65Y Splf R ®% TS% 45% [d% YnY 65Y EpY xOF' 65Y LLT ]3 Il a] d TSY T5% Ikx ]SY Y 65% 55% 4Of Y !O% SgY IY SIfi N !! 33 � L }l% a4% Nf 5IY HgY 5q{ W% S@l 5! Ii6 l5Y 4gY 51% 5]% Sd% S) Y 5CA 4M m ggx IS% o] slwbN 5 S 5 1 IDY 4 3 ! E 2 3CY IDY 3 ] ] 6p.L wK !Y]L 5 SOY SOY 50% 40% SpY IpY ]p% 1p1L EO% Nli IO% IOY L L Ho% 3px ECY 1p14 f0% O3 SNNunI 2 ] ] ] 4 ] 3 3 0 o p 0 o p D. 3 i ggx 33% li]I ]ail 5p% 6 6a{ L014 5p% Sn14 5L% Mt pY cY tT< iew F6 >b yY E E94 1]9 n1 Y ay ]ffi 190 ]61 a1 aH YS 'fi 5 W k] 1�6 4TS 1 �Q 1mIW'. Wm[591}pie-tlewport 0lldt.CA fOMn UJWadm -R-19 fo-m 4M:om 43n slm 4u a am w.1 woale 1zo PM I:A a1Y 3m ali 1i3 A,L am vin a mcn o-.Se OLL T90 RA T�va.1 mewl e�awx u sr�e,r n n xeY� 33 33 +x 3o n� a w n u 3� n v n n x]�Y �wc u r9 ve xn1 ]!x 3ox 3mL 11% mL % axx ss% ax awl 3xs nx 3vx 3lx le% 16K tT% 13x IT% ux s 53Y +li �% SM ux l 59Y ]3% 4M IT% 53x 35Y 3M N% E% 3S% alx tM LLY IO% e Stw�� 1. ] x l 1 r t ]T% 11% 31% 3 aY nll 3e% 4x% '�% 51% SM 30x 54% x l5% I% 1% 4x aY aK ¢ 3mNON I]e We 131 1W t2b LL 11] m1 90 ]09 LA ID l]9 113 115 11] Kt Ix 6 54 . fix 47 4S% 4px ux x1Y a0Y +SX IlY 4ox Sex 40% 41x 45% 4]% 4l% a3Y 43x xM n% >ox 1911 TO% llY ]M 27 a funtlb+C TO N 35 lut nY x] TO M A imf u m 19 xe ll % a a 33 xl Y m 65% Tl% 3a% 9af eM 3!% P% % Deli fi5K 6lx 651L 5eIL % L+% 9011 Tax eex % © 3mnCON la LL IS SSY e5Y � ¢ f0 IO I SY 3 L 1T LL Oot 1� 11 I 11 9 � YR IeK TO% ]3]I 5q1 50% 50% avx e5K fib% e5x TOx 60% Iml A% a5% % aSx of SmMON 6 l5 5x 55 47 46 aT ae !0 w LL 3! 3• n 31 !3 aM IT1L 53% Slx TA 82Y EAY SM SOIL 59l1 SSY Sti sY% SI% 49x STx l]Y aSx +3% IM 10% 10% 4x% 3ex N ]lenmN to a 5 l 4 s 5 5 4 s s 5 S A >O% xaf x x]Ox 1 1 Ivli 50% 10% 4ex 4ox a0Y Sall SOK 50% 4vx ao% 9ex SO% SOIL 50x avx N% ]o% % 33% ]!% 33x t 1 6Tf1 33% 3!x 3 50x Sal 11% 3sx M 9K O!1 Ox Tool S1 x3T xOb S]v Pe Ib0 ]Y3 n3 ]13 i5l 71L >LL 1e"I .3 b,5 ]� LL] >DZ Nl f93 I50 I50 ]al E!3 y% aix 40Y 4li 40K 19K a5% 4Tx 4x! ux IM IS% aOx +sx 4xY IaK 3a% EM 31% 3]Y ]!Il xii N% ]314 uol6n: wnteill Puu eb�.l.nrt 9e5v5u Fn'E3Y_%!W!YUIY'mlion l¢e3.a9} _ AM Ifm aa!A PM 13SpPM lA9 PM Llp9M 290 PM x3e1 PM 1:30 PM lAO PM .1 36ndarE 111 II 36 3L 35 39 4B 31 la 31 33 A 29 3] A 39 1L l3 Al SmMam V T 11 19 9 9 1! 12 T ! 9 ! ] a3% �% 5y% aT% Sa 45K 53% IT% al% PJ% 35f 5a la% ]6Y ]1% al% 53% 53% 41% Il% 35% 35r 1✓K v% 8 stmMN lb T a 5 65 l5 1p W ID p 0 E% bsL 9Y 3L% 35[ 3eY aryl Sp% 33N p% a BM 4K .% R R 9x C3 lN�tlnO A! 11! !Y Ipa 130 13! 130 LV ]19 43 31 37% M% Sa 5uK 47% 4R as 33Y IeY e!r lA' 45% µx u% 35% 36% 39% 19]I 1a% ]!r yr 13% 0 3leribN Za 33 ]A 15 1! 17 x3 l9 15 12 lTK S1% 14% 5M w% 9]! llY ]]Y 45% 6IY 9% ss% T4% M% 81% 65% tl% �% e1Y 1<Y BSx aer 39x 3a � Tmneerd Y 1. l3 ll T 11 1] 13 a 15% )vK TR SR 90f TR TR 65% S% 3a% a0% 85% 6514 ]-0% TS% ]a wK 55x 65x �Y 3R .s% 1R SSX Di TleNnpAl 1. 41 43 33 3] 31 4eY £a 35Y 53x 59Y 61% 6R 6R O2 llaMvrtl ip 1 T 1 T ] T ] 1 2 p p J 6R TLx lR ]R SR ]L% 7W TR 60K 601E 59K Sa .oK evf 3R 40% ]R ]DY R R 9% OK p% R 03 Smnlnm 6 3 1 3 31 3 1 T 3 3 9 6 0 p SR — 5v% . !3% 3a 5R 3!Y ]3et R R R pr R a R R 9r —1 359 3u 3]5 3l! 3. ]LI — Al 2Z! 1p! lIS 131 u% 15x uY Ia 51Y LY 49% 511 m% m% 15% a6% 9]% se% 461 4a SI% 39% YY 31Y P% ]l% 1]% 16F I YlYllullon ]419 Arec� ¢YOMB 30:90 AM 11:00AM v sY3 anA 3 mPM 1:30 GM ]A09M a:3U FM 5ilOYM 5:3o PN mPM i50 WA 9.-0O PM 4:l0 PM Al smMnxd 35 33 33Y 9 N 18 6a 30 ]55 � 31 y 33 3x fl � � ll ]] 56 L� 11 rt 19% 3015 36% 33% 13% 30% S]% % 3 3li 35% 3014 SNB 19% % ID% sH 1H SS% 19% V fmndom xt �6 ' S 13 is ]0 N36 Hly 3 > } y5 e 3 8 fMtl]m ] e 6 ]Y LY ] 3 s 3 ] 3lYO IY 5 1 O a Y OY 9 O x Q SmNu.e ]91 LAY 531E S% Li] 536 x] 3%Y YY y 17 ]] 6B x B x]6 Y Bj% Ili Z} 31 o sb�n }I ?d S 19 9. 9oY 300% N% ]1 'x9 M 11 22 1Y 6 L y xB ]5 tY 3KY % ll y FIR ]l% IY a SmndvN ]O y 56 x1 I] 16 1. I] l5 ]3 1a 10 IF l0 9 ] 10 B 8 ] 9 1 5 ]% 3v% 00% 90Y BSY BOY eWt 60% )5% 55% ]o% SOY 55Y SOi a5% 35% 50% 30% aH SY N[ Oi StnL 5% OI SmNVN de a6 H SD B63 s6% NY 53 a] � M' S3Y aB% ei ♦] N � 30Y 31n LY 3!Y >2 ] sH 53% 56% SB% }% HR 6M 95% 53% sl% F 1 Ba% <O% Bl% fOK xa% A] tmndrid LP 3 5 3 � � 5 5 3 3 3 �Y 50Y S 3 0 % oK OY H O O aH a% 50% !OR % Y 30! s[M 5v% 30Y 30% BOY soR x0% SO% 0% ml 01i ,ol.l xrx sos 3m ]B 3m >ex zBY uY % zH ]ss xw] 59x Seo l�Yi ]%Y MB s SB6 91 eY