HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 D.R. 95-006 07-03-95NO. 21 DATE: JULY 3, 1995 Inter-Com TO: .WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 95-006 (THE HOME DEPOT) RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with this project, as this is an owner initiated project. The applicant has paid application fees to recover the cost of processing this application. BACKGROUND On April 24 and May 22, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed a request by The Home Depot to permit the outdoor display of merchandise in front of their store in the Tustin Marketplace. On May 22, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 3358 conditionally approving the outdoor displays at The Home Depot on a temporary basis, through September 5, 1995 (Attachment A). On May 26, 1995, the City received a request from Greenberg Farrow, representatives of The Home Depot, appealing several conditions of approval of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 3358 (Attachment B) . The site is located southwest of the intersection of E1 Camino Real and West Drive in Phase I of the Tustin Marketplace. Surrounding uses include a car wash to the north, in-line retail tenants to the south, the auto center and flood control channel to the west of Myford Road and Carl's Jr. restaurant across the parking lot to the east. This item is not a public hearing, therefore official'noticing was not required. The applicant was informed of the availability of the agenda and staff report for this item. DISCUSSION Over the past several years, The Home Depot has maintained outdoor storage and displays (both on the sidewalk and above the garden center perimeter fence) in violation of conditions of approval and City Council Report Appeal of DR 95-006 July 3, 1995 Page 2 Section 3.8.3K of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP). Plants, garden ' supplies, BBQ's, building materials and promotional demonstrations have been regularly located across the front of the building. In addition, bags of soil, mulch, bark and soil amendments have been regularly stacked well above the 17-foot height of the existing perimeter wrought iron fence. This type of activity is in conflict with the provisions of the Section 3.8.3K of the ETSP which requires outside displays t~ be screened from view from public streets and the conditions of approval for the Tustin Marketplace. In early 1993, traffic circulation became Congested and traffic conflicts increased on West Drive and at the E1 Camino Real and West Drive intersection. As a result, a traffic study was prepared as part of Black Angus Design Review. Since the study identified mitigation measures to improve circulation in the vicinity of West Drive, several conditions of approval were added to the Black Angus project to require the temporary closure of one of the parking area access drive aisles off of West Drive and restriping the Beacon Bay drive-way to one-way westbound. The traffic study also indicated that the outside display of merchandise in front of The Home Depot could be a contributing factor to the traffic congestion on West Drive. In March of 1994 the property owner (The Irvine Company) began modifying the drive aisle to satisfy the conditions of approval of Black Angus, and then stopped work in order to address the concerns of adjacent tenants (Beacon Bay and The Home Depot). To date, those improvements still have not been completed. In July 1994, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 94- 021, to modify the exterior of The Home Depot, including the expansion of the garden center and construction of a one-way drive aisle on the north side of the building to Myford Road. Representatives from The Home Depot indicated at'that time that these modifications were designed'to provide more space for garden supplies in an attempt to eliminate the need for outdoor displays on the sidewalk. To date, construction of those improvements have not commenced. In early November 1994, the outdoor displays were discontinued as a result of City meetings with the store manager. At that time, The Home Depot was advised that the Planning Commission would need to review and approve a Design Review application to permit the outdoor display of merchandise. Despite direction to the applicant, the temporary outdoor display of merchandise in front of the store has reoccurred as part of the store,s spring promotions. City Council Report Appeal of DR 95-006 July 3, 1995 Page 3 Over the past few months, the outside displays in front of The Home Depot store have completely covered the entire sidewalk in front of the garden area, with plant materials placed adjacent to the edge of West Drive pavement. The merchandise in front of the store also extended to the edge of the pavement/loading zone, thus requiring pedestrians to walk in the drive aisle. The merchandise has been on display throughout the week and the site had not been cleaned of dirt and debris. SITE DESIGN The applicant proposes to establish specific outdoor display areas on the sidewalk in front of the store to display merchandise and plant stock. The total amount of space would be 2,390 square feet in size, 990 square feet under the front canopy and behind the pillars and 1,400 square feet of space in front of the garden center. The'applicant is also proposing to construct an 8-foot high decorative screen wall, 20 feet in length at the north east corner of the garden center to block viewing the merchandise from E1 Camino Real. The screen wall will be constructed of masonry block and painted to match the existing perimeter walls, a reddish brown color. Section 3.8.3K of the ETSP requires outdoor storage areas to be visually screened from view of streets and highways. In addition, the proposal will require an amendment to the original conditions of approval for the Marketplace and the conditions imposed as part of the garden center expansion, both of which specifically prohibit outdoor display of merchandise. The proposed modifications also required Planning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 3.12.2 of the East Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed use of the area under the building canopy for outside display is a logical location for merchandise and consistent with locations previously approved for temporary sidewalk sales. The merchandise would be partially screened by the building pillars and would be limited to the specific areas shown on the plan by pavement markings. The Planning Commission was concerned that the continual display of products outside of the store will detract from the orderly appearance of the project and may set a precedence for other business desiring outside displays. There was also a concern that the merchandise will extend beyond the limits shown on the plans and may encroach into pedestrian walkways, further impacting City Council Report Appeal of DR 95-006 July 3, 1995 Page 4 traffic circulation in front of the store as has been the case in the past. The outdoor displays add a certain degree of congestion and confusion to the front of the store and vehicular driveways. The Planning Commission Resolution No. 3358 included conditions of approval to address these concerns. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPEALED There was no representative for The Home Depot at the May 22, 1995 Planning COmmission meeting to address the concerns of the Planning Commission. A representative from Donahue Schriber, the property management company, stated that they believed that the proposed conditions of approval were acceptable to The Home Depot. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting staff was told by the applicant's representative, Greenberg Farrow, that the proposed conditions were acceptable. The applicant has appealed five of the Conditions of Approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3358 as discussed below. ' Condition'Nos. 1.4 and 3.4: . "1.4 The applicant and property owner shall sign and return an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed"' form prior to issuance of building permits. In addition, a separate agreement shall be executed' by the applicant, subject to City Attorney approval, acknowledging and accepting the requirements stated in Condition 3.4 below." "3.4 The Home Depotshall reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City, including all reasonable attorney's fees, in enforcing the provisions of the subject Design Review. In the event there is a violation, the City may also require The Home Depot to post a cash bond in the amount of $10,000 to cover costs of enforcement. Prior to issuance of a building permit, The Home Depot shall sign a separate agreement evidencing its consent to this condition." ADDlicant's Arquments - The applicant believes that the requirement for a separate agreement under Condition 1.4 is not necessary and that this is an unreasonable condition. They feel that the type of financial requirement imposed by Condition 3.4 is not necessary since the City has the authority to revoke the Design Review approval and the approval is temporary. City Council Report Appeal of DR 95-006 July 3, 1995 Page 5 Response - The City Attorney suggested that a separate agreement and cash deposit would be appropriate in this particular case, in response to the continual code enforcement issues and the applicant's lack of Compliance with previous conditions of approval related to outdoor displays. They have operated outdoor sales for several years in .violation of the ETSP regulations and the conditions of approval for the Marketplace. Should the applicant not comply with the conditions, the only other ~ption would be for the City to issue citations and pursue litigati°h both of which are costly and time consuming. There is no other speedy remedy if the applicant continues to violate conditions of approval. As long as the conditions are met, the requirement for a cash deposit is not triggered. Staff has further discussed this requirement with the City Attorney who continues to believe that a separate agreement and ability to request a cash deposit are appropriate in light of previous code enforcement violations and noncompliance with conditions of approval. Condition No. 2.1E: "A physical barrier (of a decorative design) shall be installed at the eastern edge of the display areas located under the building canopy, between the pillars, to prevent the merchandise from extending into the walkways. The plans shall indicate the design, color and location of these barriers, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department." Applicant's Arquments - The applicant believes that any type of physical barrier will defeat the purpose of outdoor merchandising by preventing the public from easily accessing the products. They also believe that a physical barrier is not necessary for defining the allowable sales area, as the merchandise "can be completely contained by a painted area on the sidewalks" and store employees would be able "to police those limits on a continual basis". Response - This condition was intended to address the concern that the location of the outside display areas are not well defined and have previously blocked pedestrian walkways and interfered with traffic circulation. A decorative physical barrier between the existing building pillars will help res~ric~ the merchandise, thus ensuring that merchandise does not block pedestrian paths or City Council Report Appeal of DR 95-006 July 3, 1995 Page 6 vehicular driveways." Staff was suggesting the use of three-foot tall temporary poles and a chain as a physical barrier, similar to 'what has been used in other sections of the Marketplace. This condition could be modified to identify the specific type of physical barrier (pole and chain). During several site inspections over the past few weeks (the most recent being June 20, after the Planning Commission action), staff noted that the red stripes painted on the pavement define a much larger area than identified on the plans (approximately 250 square feet larger) and that the merchandise has not been contained within the painted area. It has also been observed that merchandise continues to be displayed to completely block the walkway, thus forcing pedestrians onto the drive aisle. Condition No. 3.1: "Outdoor displays shall be limited to the weekends (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) and may be permitted on the holiday weekends of May 26 through 29, June 30 through July 4 and September 1 through 4, 1995. Display areas shall be cleaned and free of dirt and debris no later than the morning after the weekend or holiday period." Applicant's Arquments - The applicant believes that their outdoor displays are necessary in order to be competitive with other home improvement businesses in the area. They feel that the displays do not affect the traffic congestion or circulation problems on West Drive, and for that reason they should be allowed outdoor displays on a continual baSis. Response - This condition was intended to address the concern that the outside display of merchandise on a daily basis will contribute to a cluttered and disorganized appearance of the site and may have a negative affect on surrounding uses. In addition, the Commission wanted to limit the days of operation pending completion of West Drive improvements. It was anticipated that the construction could be finished by September and then the Commission was amenable to reevaluating the situation. The original traffic study indicated that the outdoor displays contribute to the traffic congestion, either by motorists slowing to actually look at the merchandise or from pedestrians walking into the drive aisle due to walkways being blocked by merchandise. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the City Council Report Appeal of DR 95-006 July 3, 1995 Page 7 applicant's traffic study and their analysis is discussed below under Traffic and Circulation section. Condition 3.5: "The temporary outdoor display of merchandise is permitted with the understanding that the property owner will actively, diligently and expeditiously construct the necessary improvements to West Drive and adjacent areas to satisfy the requirements of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3174." Applicant's Arquments - The applicant has noted that the spring and early summer is their main marketing time and that any disruption to West Drive would create havoc. The applicant has suggested that an alternative solution would be to construct a left-turn pocket on E1 Camino Real southbound to Carl's Jr. driveway as a Phase I improvement to provide another access into the parking areas for the Phase I development. The applicant agrees that these improvements could be completed now without interfering with The Home Depot operations. It is their desire that the West Drive improvements commence after October 15. Response - This condition was included to ensure that the property owner would move forward soon with the West Drive improvements, since it has been nearly three years since the traffic circulation problems were first identified. It is not anticipated that the proposed improvements to West Drive will be an extensive construction project, and since the spring/summer "selling" season is already half over, this requirement for a "diligent and expeditious" construction is not unreasonable. There may be other tenants within the center that would object to construction in the Fall, since that is approaching their "Christmas Season" Staff has discussed this condition with the City Attorney who believes that in order to protect the public safety and ensure that the construction not interfere with the traditional "Christmas Season" shopping, it is important that the West Drive improvements be completed as soon as possible, and at the very latest by November 1, 1995. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The Beacon Bay drive aisle has not been converted to one-way westbound as recommended by the traffic study and required by City Council Report Appeal of DR 95-006 July 3, 1995 Page 8 conditions of approval for Black Angus. The City has received plans and a draft Traffic Study from the property owner for an alternative design solution in an attempt to satisfy the condition, however, that application requires additional traffic information prior to review by the Planning Commission. The draft study continues to indicate that the outdoor sales are a contributing factor to the traffic congestion. In support of their appeal request, The Home Depot has prepared a traffic study on their own initiative to show that the traffic problems on West Drive and E1 Camino Real are not the fault of The Home Depot and that the outdoor displays do not distract motorists and negatively contribute to the existing traffic congestion on West Drive and E1 Camino Real. Their traffic study is included as Attachment C. The Engineering Division has reviewed the traffic study and disagrees with the applicant's findings. The Engineering Division has concluded that the major contributing factor affecting congestion along West Drive is a combination of the large pedestrian movements and left-turn movements in front of The Home Depot. In addition, although the outdoor displays may not be a major cause of traffic congestion, it is a contributing factor. The Engineering Division believes that an additional left-turn ingress in this area (as suggested by The Home Depot) may alleviate some of the traffic congestion at the West Drive/E1 Camino Real intersection, however a more comprehensive study needs to be conducted, which the property owner is currently preparing. Since the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to review the applicant's Traffic Study prior to their decision on the outdoor displays, another option would be for the City Council to refer this item back to the Planning Commission for review of this new information. CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis and information, the conditions of approval being appealed were developed to address specific concerns related to enforcement issues, traffic safety issues, and timing of required circulation improvements in the vicinity. The Council may also wish to refer this item back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the Applicant's Traffic Study. As another alternative, the Council may wish to modify Condition No. 2.1E for further clarification of the type of physical barrier desired as follows: City Council Report Appeal of DR 95,-006 July 3, 1995 Page 9 "A physical barrier shall be installed at the eastern edge of the display areas located under the building canopy, between the pillars, to prevent the merchandise from extending into the walkways. This barrier shall consist of temporary poles, approximately three feet in height, with a chain connecting from pole to pole. The plans shall indicate the design, color and location of this barrier, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department." Staff will be prepared to provide any needed Resolution to support the City Council's direction on this matter. et°rn Attachments: Location Map A - Planning Commission Resolution No. 3358 B - Appeal letter C - Applicant's Traffic Study Site Plan and Elevations CAS: S J P: br: kl~n\DR95006, s j p LOCATION MAP ? .J ×. NO SCALE ATTACHMENT A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 3358 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 95-006, TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY OUTDOOR SALES AREA AND MODIFY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE RETAIL BUSINESS LOCATED AT 2782 EL CAMINO REAL. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: ao That proper applications for Design Review 95-006 were filed on behalf of The Home Depot requesting approval of an outdoor sales area in front of The Home Depot store located at 2782 E1 Camino Real and to modify previously adopted conditions of approval. Be Pursuant .to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of Design Review 95-006 will not. impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings. · · Setbacks and site planning. Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. · Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. · · Location and method of refuse storage. Physical relationship of proposed improvements to existing structures in the neighborhood. · Appearance and design relationship of proposed improvements to existing structUres and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. · Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 Planning commission Resolution No. 3358 Page 2 Ce That this project has been determined to be a minor modification to an existing development and is therefore categorically exempt (Class 1) pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. De That the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-Element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent or has been conditioned to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-Element. Ee That the proposed outdoor display of home improvement materials and garden supplies is consistent with the nature of the subject retail business. This type of merchandise (building materials and garden supplieS) is typically stored and on .display in an outdoor area. The outside display of home improvement merchandise is consistent with the design and operation of the business and will not establish a precedent for other non-garden retail outdoor sales areas within the center. Fe Ge The proposed outdoor display, as conditioned, will not have a negative impact on surrounding properties or uses. The display areas will be screened from view from public streets and will be placed directly adj'acent to the building to minimize conflicts with pedestrian circulation. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Design Review 95- 006 to approve a temporary outdoor sales area on the sidewalk for a limited time period in front of the store located at 2782 E1 Camino Real, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I~ Planning Commission Resolution No. 3358 Page 3 III. Condition 3.15 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2464 is hereby amended to read as follows: "The ~ ~porary outdoor storage and display of merchandise is cc .tionally permitted on the sidewalk only in front of T? tome Depot store located at 2782 E1 Camino Real.- Said roval is permitted only on a temporary basis and will .pire on September 4, 1995, unless the Planning Commission approves additional time. All other tenants are prohibited from having outdoor storage or open pallet .storage, unless in compliance with the provisions of the Tustin City Code and the East Tustin Specific Plan. Any pallet storage areas shall be completely screened by an enclosure. IV. Condition 3.1 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3292 is hereby amended to read as follows: "The temporary outdoor display of merchandise on the sidewalk in front of The Home Depot store loCated at 2782 E1 Camino Real, is permitted subject to the conditions identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3358. Said approval is permitted only on a temporary basis and will expire on September 4, 1995, unless the Planning Commission approves additional time. The storage of materials above the garden area perimeter wall is prohibited. The Home Depot shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City, including all reasonable attorney's fees, in enforcing the provisions of this condition. In the event there is a violation, the City may also require The Home Depot to post a cash bond in the amount of $10,000 to cover costs of enforcement. Prior to issuance of a building permit, The Home Depot shall sign a separate agreement evidencing its consent to this." PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 22nd day of/~ay, 1995. ~~~ ~ Chair~son B~BA~ REYES ~ Recording SecretarY 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3358 Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) cOUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I,.BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3358 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of May, 1995. Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A DESIGN REVIEW 95-006 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 3358 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date-stamped May 8, 1995 on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development Department in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director may also approve minor modifications to the plans if such modifications .are determined to be consistent with the approved plans. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 Design Review approval shall become null and void unless all building permits are issued within eighteen (18) months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway. (1) 1.4 The applicant and property owner shall Sign and return an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form prior to issuance of building permits. In addition, a separate agreement shall be executed by the applicant, subject to City Attorney approval, acknowledging and accepting the requirements stated in Condition 3.4 below. (1) 1.5 The applicant shall hold and defend the City of Tustin harmless for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY (2) CEQA MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (6) -LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (4) DESIGN REVIEW (7) PC/CC POLICY *** EXCEPTIONS Exhibit A Design Review 95-006 Conditions of Approval Page 2 PLAN SUBMITTAL · (3) 2.1 At building plan check the following shall be submitted: A® Final -screen wall design details shall be consistent with the site plan, and shall be approved in writing by the property owner prior to submittal to the City. Be Final construction plans shall show the exact location of the existing garden area perimeter wall as well as existing landscaping and any landscaping proposed to be relocated. Ce The screen wall shall be reduced in height to 48 inches from finish grade, and shall be designed to be compatible with the garden area perimeter wall. De The screen wall shall be located so that there is a minimum clear distance of 48 inches provided on the sidewalk at the top of curb ramps for disabled access. Ee A physical barrier (of a decorative design) shall be installed at .the'eastern edge of the display areas located under the building canopy, between the pillars, to prevent the merchandise from extending into the walkways. The plans shall indicate the design, color and location of these barriers, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. Fe The plans shall identify the type, design and location of pavement markings proposed to define the specific areas designated for outdoor displays. SITE CONDITIONS (4) 3.1 Outdoor displays shall be limited to the weekends (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) and may be permitted on the holiday weekends of May 26 through 29, June 30 through July 4 and September 1 through 4, 1995. Display areas shall be cleaned and free of dirt and debris no later than the morning after the weekend or holiday period. Exhibit A Design Review 95-006 Conditions of Approval Page 3 (4) 3.2 The outdoor display of merchandise shall be limited to the areas designated on the plans, and shall not exceed 990 square feet in size for the area under the canopy and behind the pillars, nor 1,400 square feet in size for the area in front of the garden center. (4) 3.3 There shall be no storage or display of any merchandise, products, plant materials or promotional activities beyond.the limits defined on the approved plans. A note shall be added to the plans stating that outdoor storage and display is only permitted in designated areas. (4) 3.4 The Home Depot shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City, including all reasonable attorney's fees, in enforcing the provisions of the subject Design Review. In the event there is a violation, the City may also require The Home Depot to post a cash bond in the amount of $10,000 to cover costs of enforcement. Prior to issuance of a building permit, The Home Depot shall sign a separate agreement evidencing its consent to this condition. (4) 3.5 The temporary outdoor display of merchandise is permitted with the understanding that the property owner will actively, diligently and expeditiously construct the necessary improvements to West Drive and adjacent areas to satisfy the requirements of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3174, or as may be modified by the Planning Commission. Approval of Design Review 95-006 shall become null and void on September 4, 1995 and all outdoor display of merchandise shall immediately terminate. After September 4, 1995, the applicant may request additional time for the outdoor display of merchandise, for review by the Planning Commission. No additional application fees will be required for subsequent design review of outdoor display of merchandise for The Home Depot. FEES (6) 4.1 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall pay all applicable building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. Payment will be required based upon the rate in effect at the time of permit issuance and are subject to change. ATTACHMENT B May 26, 1995 Sara Pashalides City of Tustin Planning Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 RE: The Home Depot, Tustin Design Review #95-006 Planning Commission Resolution #3358 Dear~Sara: o~ A R C H I T [ C T U R E ENGINEERING P [ A N N I N G As per our previous discussion, this letter is written as formal request for appeal to the conditions of approval of the above mentioned resolutions. Condition 1.4 - "The applicant and property owner shall sign and return an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form prior to issuance of building permits. In addition, a separate agreement shall be executed by the applicant, subject to City Attorney approval, acknowledging and accepting the requirements stated in Condition 3.4 below." Condition 3.4 - "The Home Depot shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City, including all reasonable attorney's fees, in enforcing the provisions of the subject Design Review. In the event there is a violation, the City may also require The Home Depot to post a cash bond in the amount of $10,000 to cover costs of enforcement. Prior to issuance of a building permit-, The Home Depot shall sign a separate agreement evidencing its consent to this condition." We are questiOning this Condition in two regards: If this approval is temporary, with the Planning Commission having 'revocation privilege, why would a financial requirement be necessary? Is this a standard City requirement, or is Home Depot the first to be imposed with such a condition? If this is a standard, please provide a list of other instances where this requirement has been imposed. Condition 2.1-£ - "A physical barrier (of a decorative design) shall be installed at the eastern edge of the display areas located under the building canopy, between the pillars, to prevent the merchandise from extending into the walkways. The plans shall indicate the design, color and location of these barriers, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department." We find this condition to be unacceptable on the grounds that to put any physical barrier between the customer and the merchandise is simply poor marketing strategy. It makes the same amount of sense as giving a child a toy in a sealed glass box. If a customer cannot access the merchandise, they will lose interest and walk away. We believe this condition would defeat the purpose of the application. We strongly believe that the merchandising areas can be completely contained by a painted area on the sidewalks. The change in coloration would be enough to alert the store employees of the limits available, and enable them to police those limits on a continual basis. LARRY J. FARROW. Y, ARCHITECT 17941 FIlCH ROAD/SECOND FLOOR · IRVINE, C.-~LtFORNIA 92714 · TEL 714.833.7444 · FAX 714.833.7440 Condition 3.1 - "Outdoor displays shall be limited to the weekends (Friday, Saturday 'and Sunday) and may be permitted on the holiday weekends of May 26 through 29, June 30 through July 4 and September I through 4, 1995. Display areas shall be cleaned and free of dirt and debris no later than.the morning after the weekend or holiday period. We would like to appeal this condition on the grounds that it would make Home Depot non-competitive with other similar merchandisers in the area. The nature of the home improvement business has become aggressive, and requires aggressive marketing strategies. In order to be aggressive in the market today, Home Depot would require the ability to have outdoor merchandising capabilities seven days a week. Again, because this approval is temporary, the City can refuse to extend the privileges if the area is not kept in a neat and orderly manner. Condition 3.5 - "The temporary outdoor display of merchandise is permitted with the understanding that the property owner will actively, diligently and expeditiously construct the necessary improvements to West Drive and adjacent areas to satisfy the requirements of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3174," We realize that it has been some considerable time since the West Drive improvements were imposed as a condition to the approval of the Black Angus Restaurant. We have been continually working with the Irvine Company to find an equitable solution to these improvements, but until recently, could not in any good conscience accept any of the proposed solutions. We believe the solutions currently before the Commission will be acceptable to all, and greatly encourage their implementation. However, we must object to the "diligently and expeditiously" verbiage. The spring and early summer are the main marketing time for The Home Depot. It is, in essence, their 'Christmas Season' To have the West Drive entrance to the Home Depot parking lot disruptJd at this time would create havoc, adding to what is already our mutual cause of concern. We would propose the following solution. The required improvements are to include a left turn lane from E1 Camino northbound at the drive adjacent to the Carl's Jr. restaurant. If this turn lane were to be Phase I of the improvement plans, it would enable Home Depot customers to easily maintain access to the site while Phase II (the West Drive improvements) is compl~eted. We would also like to request that work on West Drive itself not begin until October 15, so as to not interfere wi th Home Depot's main selling season. We would be very happy to cooperate with any work that can be done now that would not interfere wi th traffic within the current curb lines. Please find enclosed a check for $175.00 to cover the fees for filing this appeal. If you have any questions, or need any further information please do not hesitate to call. ' Sincerely, Tamara Schippers Santoni GREENBERG FARROW ARCHITECTURE CC: Jeff Nichols, Home Depot Real Estate Steve Kamp, Home Depot Store Manager Frank Coda, GFA ATTACHMENT c June 15, 1995 Sara Pashalides City of Tustin Planning Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 RE' The Home Depot, Tustin Design Review #95-006 Planning Commission Resolution #3358 o o ARCHITECTURE I~ N G I N E E R I N C; P L A N N I N C~ i ... :.-.:::i:. ~,.~ .... :;- ..... Dear Sara- Please find enclosed a copy of KHR's analysis the Kaku Associates Traffic Study of the above mentioned property. We believe that this analysis will verify our opinion that outdoor sales will not compound the existing traffic congestion on West Drive in front of the Home Depot as you have referred to in your Report to the Planning Commission dated April 24, 1995. We have asked Jim Kawamura to do further studies of the area and are enclosing his results as well. We acknowledge that this is a busy area, but it is not wholly due to Home Depot customer traffic. As this analysis will show, only 60 to 65 percent of the traffic coming through this intersection can be attributed to Home Depot. We strongly believe that this analysis supports our proposal for a left turn lane off E1Camino Real at the Carl's Jr. location. This would potentially divert 35 to 40 percent of existing traffic away from the West Drive parking lot entrance, and away from the front of the Home Depot store. We also believe there is potential for an even greater diversion as Home Depot customers will also choose to use the secondary access. We believe that this analysis also shows that there is little difference between the amount of traffic on weekends (with outdoor display) and the amount on weekdays (without outdoor display). Therefore, we would like to again request outdoor sales seven days a week. Please feel free to call either me or Jim Kawamura with any question you may have as to how we have reached these conclusions. Sincerely, Tamara Schippers Santoni GREENBERG FARROW ARCHITECTURE cc- Jeff Nich61s, Home Depot Debbie Frost, Tustin Marketplace c' wp60~ 1 etters\95067.002 LARRY l- FARROW, ARCHITECI 17941 FITCH ROAD/SECOND FLOOR · I'RVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 · TEL 714.833.7444 · FAX 714.833.7440 KIIR ASSOCITES POI brand fax transmittal me~no 7671t-~!.°~ pr.~" ~. i . To: Fmc: D~e: l~ubject: M r. Jeff Nichols, The Home Depot, U.S.A. Jam~ H. Kawamum, I(Hl~ A~toclat~s Pha~e I and S~ ~lla~ T~fin Ma~ ~ S~p~men~l Traffic S~dy {May t995} by Kaku A~i~s Per your request, KHR Assoclate~ has reviewed and evaluated the "Phase I and South Village Tustin Market Place Supplemental Traffic Study," dated May 1995, and prepared by Kaku Associates for the Irvine Retail Properties Company. The following observations and recommendations are made: 1) In their July 1993 franc study for the Black Angus restaurant. Kaku Associates identified vadous traffic-related improvemenls for the East Drive end Wes[ Drive entrance.~ into the Tu$fin Market Place. Of the several initial and interim improvements identified by Kaku Associates for West Drive, only the interim closure of the "first driveway" (i.e., first parking aisle lateral to Wast Drive and south of El Camino Real) has been accomplished as of May 1995. (Nora: as referencad in this memorandum, El Camino Real is assumed to run east. west and East Drive and West Drive are assumed to run norlh.south.) 2) The closure of the first driveway through the use of planter boxes has .proven to be of benefit to traffic flow on West Drive, Thus, this closure should now be designed and constructed as a permanent feature. 3) With the permanent closure of the first driveway, the adjacent parking ama should be permanently recontigumd and consbt~ed. 4) The widening of Wast Drive t~ accommodate two outbound lanes to tho"second driveway' (i.e., second parking aisle lateral to West Drive and south of El Camino Real) and increasing th~ radius of the southeast corner of West Drive/FI Camino Real should be implementedas specified by Kaku A~ates in the July 't993 traffic study. In the subject supplemental traffic study, only the widening of West Drive to accommodate two outbound lanes is proposed. 5) Tho comments by Kaku AssocJ~tes regarding the Home Depot's "sidewalk sales" do not establish a clear relationship bebveen Home Depot's use of the outside storefront area and congestion problems along West Drive. The Home Depot's use of th~ storefront area for the outside display of merchandise and other store-related activities have be=an purpoded to be a major cause of congestion along R=96% 714 756 6440 06-14-95 03:21PM P001 548 714 6440 KHR ASSOCITES P02 West Drive. Unfortunstely, while such activities may confl'ibute to some of the cont3esfion problems, it is our observation that the overall significance of these activities is minor. Problems occur only when mercha~i~ and pedestrian traffic encroach onto the vehicu- lar path of West Drive - as may occur in front of the outside entrance to the garden center. Otherwise, storefront ama activities go unnoticed as drivers am more concerned with the movements of other vehicles and pedestrian cross traffic. Therefore, the elimination or curtailment of storefront area activities will not alleviate traffic congestion problems in front of the Home DepoL The congestion problems along West Drive in front of the Home Depot are caused prim~ily by the high volume of traffic on Wect Dr~ve coupled with the numerous conflic~ that arise, between vehicular and peCles~an f~affic. Most of delay to I~a~ic flow on We~t Drive results from left turning vehicles et the each of the parking ai~le~ in f~or~t of Home Depot and the heavy psdestrian cross traffic. Therefore. altertlafives to reduce trafr~ on Wes[ DHve should be explored. Traffic counts taken at the Intersection of West Drive and El Camino Real indicate that the westbound lee turn (i.e., westbound [] ~C~ino Re~l to ~u~und West Drive) is a heaviest of all intersection turn rnoveme~ts..Therefore, ar~ additional point of leR turn ingress from El Camino Real into the Tustin Market Place (between West Drive and East Drive) should help alleviate tmfr= congestion on West D~ive and improve traffic signal operations at Ihs West Drive/El Camino Real ir~tersection. An ideal location for this addifiortal point of lef[ turn ingress is at the existing right turn i~/out only driveway adjacent to the Cart's Jr. restauranL This driveway appears to be lightly used at present, but could serve as a convenient alternative to both East Drive arid West Drive if ingress only lee tums were per,niXed fn3m El Camino Real. 8) In order to def~rnine the percentage of vehicular traffic on West Drive gc=nerated by the Home Depot, itis recommended that traffic counts be taken along West Drive at all parking aisles servicing Home Depot customers. If there are any questions regarding our review and evaluatior~ of Kaku Associates' "Phase I and South Village Tustin Market Place Supplemental Tm~c Study," please contact me at your convenience at (714) 756-6440. cc: Ms. Tam Santoni, Gmenberg Farrow Architecture rna mo.chp~word~nemos~n-hd-tus.doc R=96% 714 756 6440 06-14-95 03:217M P002 ~48 714 75 ~0 Mr. Jeff Nichols The Home DepoL U.S.A. 60i South Placentia Ave~uo Fullerton, California 9265i ~! 3,4"J ~ ~. ~ 400 - I,,,t~, G. li;o~l~ 027~ ~ ~t4) 7S~. F~ ~t4) 7~6~-~ _. June ~ 3, 19~ P~-E' ~and ,~ transmi,al memo 7~ j~ ef~a~ ~ ..... Dear Mr. Nichols: In a R/lay 19, t995 memorandum to you, KHR A~;s~ia~ provided commenr[$ on Kaku Associ~s' "Phase I and South Village Tustin Market Place Supplemental Traffic Study," dated May 1995 (prepared for the Irvine Retail Properties CompanY). As a follow-up, ii was recommended that traf/ic counts be taken in order to de~rtnine the perc~mtagie of vehicular traffic on West Drive generate-od by the Home Depot versus Tustin Market Place genm'a~ed traffic. As authorized by the Ho~na Depot, KHR Associa~s conducted tr~affic counts a~ ~e I~ons depi~ in Rg~e 1 on Ju~ 6 1~5 (a Tuesd~) and J~e 10, 1~5 (a ~turday), ~een ~ hours of 4:~ end ~:20 P.~. ~ 1:~ P.~. and 2:~ P.M., res~ely. The d~y: houm s~l~t~ f~ ~ ~a~ ~~ ~esp~d io ~e ~ys ~d ~um ~ ~aEic ~s ~e ~en by Kaku Asides ~"Ph~ I a~ ~ ~llage Tusfln Manet Pla~ ~l~en~l Traffic S~." The msul~ ~ ~e~ ~fic ~n~ =e ~b~at~ in ~min~ i~mmen~ in ~ibi~ A a~ B (we~day and S~rday, res~v~). The following re~omsents our interpretation of these traffic counts and the findinl3s based on these interpretations. WEEKDAY TRAFFIC Between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 P.M., ih~ ~ hour of weekday ~fiemoon ~a~c. generation was cLaflarrninod by KaEu Associa[es to b~ ~:30 to ~:30 P.M. Traffic counts t~k~n by Krrit~ ~s~;ooiata~ on Tuesday, Ju~ 6, 1995 be~n ~e ~urs of 4:30 ' and 5:~ P.~. ro~e~ typi~l ~kday p~ak hour ~1c generated by ~e Home ~pot and ~ Tusfin Manet Place as a ~olo. ~o~e t~c ~um~ do~ly co~es~nd to ~a~c ~unts taken by K~u A~odates on Thursday ApHI 13, 1995, and indi~te ~at vehicular tra~ on We~t R=95% 714 756 6440 06-I4-95 04: 19PTA F0:i! ;C05 714 644O --.~.~.~ - KER ASSOCITES -- PO2 t~tr. Jeff Nichol~ June 13, 'i og5 _Page TWo Drive in front of the Home Depot is comprised of appro×im~ely 6~% Home Depot oer~ra~ed traffic and 36% other Tustin Market Place generated ttafrm. During this weekday peak hour, a tot~ of 471 p,3des~ians cro~ Wesi Drtve ooing to or from th~ Home Depot. SATURDAY TRAFFIC Be[ween the hours o~ 12:00 end 2:00 P.i~.. the peak hour of S. aflJrday t~a~fic {;~neration was determined by Kaku Associates to be l:00 to 2:00 P.M. Tm~c counts taken by KH~[ ~',~cla~ on Ssk~rday, June ~ O, ~ 995 ~~n ih~ h~?s of 1:00 a~ 2:~ P.~. re~ ~ ~rday ~ak h~ ~c O~n~ by ~e H~ and ~ Tusfin Me.et ~a~ ~ a ~e. T~o ~e ~un~ elo~ly ~rm~p~d ~ tm~c ~u~ ~k~ by Kaku Ass~~ ~ ~tday ~dl ~5. 1~, and i~di~ ~at veh~l~ tm~c on ~st DHve in ~ont o~ t~ H~e ~t is ~m~d of a~ro~a~ly 60% Hoh~e De~t ~mt~ ba~c and ~% ~r Tus6n ~e~ Pi~ ~m~d ~c. Dudng ~is ~turday ~ak h~r, a ~1 of ~6 ~~s cm~ ~st ~ve g~ ~ or ~m ~e Home Dept. The above data suggest that, if ~raffic congestion problems on West Drive in ~or~ of the Home Depot are directly related to volume of imfiic genersted on West Ddvo. 60 to 65 perc~n/b~ We congestion problem is a~butsble to Home Depot paiw~ md 35 to 40 percent of ibc ~ongestion problem is attribut~le to other Tus§n Mark~ Place par'one. Thu.~. if oi~er-Tusfin Market Place generated traffic were reduc~ or ~lirninated on Wr~si Drive in front of ire Hom~ Depot, con.etlon problems c~uld b~ r'*,~:luc~ to 60 to 65 p~rcen[ of cunrent: i~vels. The volume of pedes~ian cross traffic in fronl of the Home Depo~ is extremely high. Based on the ratio of pedestrian io vcohicular traffic 13ena~ed by the Ho~e Dept. [he vehicle. ~upancy rate for Home Depot patrons is eetirna[eg to be approximately 2.5 occupants per whicle weekdays and 1.IS occupants par vehicle on SaflJrday. As nord in rr~e k/lay t9. 'i995 ~amor~durn. h~vy pedestrian ~oss ~a~o is a majo~ ~use of congestion on West Drive. On the other hand. p~sltiari a~vi~/along ihe s~orefront (i.e.. parallel to West Drive) does not appear to have any significant affect on the movement of vehicular tra~c immc=~i ,laity in front of the Home Depot IN CLOSING The ubove inte~pr~tion of i, ra~c data surge=si that additional ingress to th~ TusBn Market Place (i.e., other than at We~t D~ive) co~ld all~,viaib tmfiic co~g~stio~ on W~st Ddve In fcont of th~ Home Depot. Ag ~adier suog~ted, a left turn in only m~,diA~i opening betw6~n West Ddv~ ~nd E~st Ddva, at tha Cad'~ Jr. rco~urant driveway i~ one possible tocaiion for additional ingr~ t~ th~ Turn Market Piace. R=93% 7!4 ?56 6440 06-14-95 04: lgPM PO02 ~:05 714 7, 140 KI4R ASSOCITES P03 LOADING DOCK GARDEN CENTER PEDESTRIAN LANE I LANE 2 LANE LANE 4 THE HOME DEPOT MAIN BUILDING ~IGUtRE i THE HOME DEPOT AT TUSTIN MARKET PLACE TURN MOVEMENT COUNT LOCATIONS LANE 5 LANE 6 SOUTHBOUND THROUGH TP-,A Ni~ORTATION/ENVIROHMENrT'AL/URBAN SYSTELIS 3347 I¢,,cr,;!~¢~. C¢;.~a, ~i~a 4g0 ,. r.,.ba. ~!ifo'a~a 92716 ,. t~41 76§-§410 . R=95% 7t4 756 6440 06-i4-95 04' 19PM P003 ~05 '~ 71~ '~ 6440 I~IR ASSOCITES P04 Mr, Jeff Nichols June 13, ~1995 _P_-_a.§e Thr~e The above ~ alu sugg~t~ ~nat ~~i~n ~oss ~c is a pdma~ ~use of v~i~ar im~c ~n~s~on on West ~o in ~nt of~e Ho~ ~[ M~asures to dir~ a~ ~ffol ~es~an ~oss tr~c ~h~d ~ explored. Painted ~oss~l~s m~y ~ on~ s~u~on ~ ~n~eli~" ~~an ~a~c ~ dssion~ ~o~inoS. If thara ara any questions or concerns reg-~rdinf3 ~he data s~qd/or conclusions reachsd in this report, please cio not ~~ to call me ~ your convenie~ ai C7~i4) 758-6440. Sincerely ~/ours, Iq. Pro~idont cc: Ms. Tam Santoni, Greenberg Farrow Amhi~ec~ure letters, chp~word~le~ars~l-hd-tus.doe R=95~ 714 756 5440 06-14-95 04: 19P~ PO04 ~05 Exhibit A ~ ASSOCIATES TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY Project: Location: intersection: Count Date: The Home Depot Tustin Market Place ('Tu$fin, California) West Drive/Home Depot Parking Lanes 6/6/I 995 Day: Tuesday P.M. Count Period: Field Count ,By: Data Input By: 4.:30 to, ,,5j30 PM _ G. Urbie/C. Lohrrn~n C. Lohrman ........ Lane t ~,r,e 2 " Lane 3 '" Time Period i i iii il ii ii Time In out In out In Out Totals Period "Left Right 'Left Rig'h~ Left Right Left Right Left Right Left "Right In Out 4:30 to 4:45 PM 12 2 3 10 8 1 I 9 5 2 0 8 30 31 4:45 to 5:00 PM 14 2 2 16 17 0 0 9 7 2 1 5 42 33 5:00 to 5:15 PM 14 0 I 13 8 0 0 5 10 I 0 4 33 23 , 5:15 to ~:30 PM g 1 O 10 17 1 0 8 12 0 2 10 40. 30 In vs. OutTotals 54 55 52 32 ' 39 30 145 1 17 i ii i i i ii In & Out Combined 109 84 69 262 i ,i i ii .~ i i ........... Lane 4. .... Lane ~ "Lene 6 Tim~' Period Time "i~ Out ..... In Out In ' Out Totals -P. eriod 'Left Righ_t Left Right Left Rig,hr,, Lift Right Left Right "Left Righ,,t In Out 4:30 to 4:45 PM 4 I 0 0 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 I 10 4 , , ,, 4:45 tO 5:00 PM 9 1 1 .., 3 0 1 0 7 0 0. 0 1 11 ,,,12 5:00 to 5:15 PM 7 ' 0 0 1 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 1' 9 7 5:15 to 5:30 PM 3 3 I 5 2 0 ,,, 0 6 2 0 1 1 10 14 .. . In vs. Out Tolals 28 11 10. 21 2 5 40 37 In & Out Combined 39 31 7 77 ,1,1 i iiiiii i i i _ii i Time Through Traffic % o1 Period Northbound Soulldbo~nd Through Totals Total Count' 4:30 tO 4:45 PM 22* 16 38 33.63 4:45 [o 5:00 PM 27 22 49 33.33 ,, ,, 5:00 to 5:15 PM 31 24 55 43.31 5:15 to 5:30 PM 26 22 48 33.80 I I I ii Time No. of Period Peaestrians 4:30 tO 4:45 PM 138 , , , 4:45 to 5:00 PM 117 , ,~ 5:00 to 5:15 PM 103 5:15 to 5:30 PM 113 , , Pea, k Hour Totals I 47.1 Percent of Through Versus Home Depot In & Out Traffic 714,' ~ 6'440 KHR ASSOCITES PO6 ~ ASSOCIATE~ ProJecfc The Home Depot P.M. Count Period: Location: Tus_..tj_9 Market Place (Tustin_,_.California) Field Count By: Intersection: West Drive/Home Depot Parking Lanes Data Input By: Count Daie: 611011995 Day: .Saturday_._._._ 1:00 to 2:00 PM L.Nicolas/G. Urbie C. Lohrman Period ,, ~ Left ..... 'r-i'~i- -"i~=~'l~io-I~'t' '~' '-~tiOhi ~'L~w'--[~'~'' --Le~: Ri-i~Et': Le-i~""l~R'ioht:- -'-id'-~-6~TM 1:00 to 1'15 PM 25 1 0 15 32 2 .1. 1 2 1 5 5 1 9 ....80 ·38 ,, , __ 1:15to 1:30PM 22 0 _ 2 ..... ._1.9 29 3 _2 16 ..... 2.1_ .... 4_ . 3__ 1,2. ..79. 54__ ,.. l:30to l:45PM 21 0 I 24 26 I 2 18._ 13 I__~ .... 2 13 62 60_ , , 1:45 to 2:00 PM 19 2 1 22 19 2 I 14 14 2 1 14 58 53 In vs.OutTomls 90 84 114 ] 66 75 55 279 205 _ ~ ~ i ~ 0 U~..~.0~ ~2~~ ...... 174 1 80 130 .... 484 Time l~ mn ~ Out I in 1 out ,, l. I out m ,.,o~ )~ ~-~ i'm~i .... L'~'"i-~i"~' i"[~-7~6'~: --L[~q'"i~t" L~?i-~i,~ L~-i-,6U) i~""'~'("Sj .... i~ ..... , ~ ' ............................................................................. ~m' 'l ............. ~ ..... m 1:00to 1:15PM 11 2 1 ,[ 8 4 _..2 1 ~ 5 4 ~ , 0._i__~3 ...24 1:15 to 1:30 PM 9 4 2 10 3 2 2 3 3 0 2 1 21 20 1:30to 1:45PM 12 2 3 8 5 I 0 5 2 2 0 [ ..... ~.124 20 l:45 to 2:00 PM 4 2 1 9 3 ,, ] _ ~ .... 17 18 ,,, ~ ~: ._ ~: ,. ........ : ,~ In rs. Out To~l$ 46 42 23 22 17 12 86 76 In & Out Combin~ 45 ,., ........ ..-- w ..... --~ .... , .~ ............................ -.~ ..... . ........ . ......... - .............................. Time Throu0h Traffic % of ....... --~--, - - .~ .... ~ ...... --T- ..... ~-~- ........ Period North =bo~,.n~___ ...... S__~..nd__bo~_nd _.~Thr~o_ugh.T_O.~_is__ ._ .__T.o..,tafl__C.~oun~,._ :OOto I:15PM 64 47 111 . 40.96. · 15 to 1:30 PM 52 42...- . 94 3~_.07 ... .__. · 30 to 1:45 PM 65 52 a,! 7._, _41.34 _. ,, .... , :45 to 2:00 PM 64 44 108 42.52 ' Tithe [ No. of l 1:oo to 1:15 PM 141 ,, - .,. , 1:15 ~o i:30 PM 139 .... 1:30 to 1:45 PM 143 1:45 to 2:00 PM 122 _ _,! 545 ~ Percen~ of Through Versus Home Depo[ In & Out Trafiic R=96% 714 75f, 6440 06-14-95 04: 19PM PO06 I ITTITI I~~l ! ! r'l ' J :1'- . m Ilmll mil i i iml~ ~, · ! E3 t i---i---i .... ; ..... i ~ "1 I I I I ' ' ' I .... ! ..... I I ., I r l I. I I l ! ~ ........ ~ ...... I The ..... [5 ? I