HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2015.11.12aTRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m.
Members of the public may comment on any action or study item appearing on the agenda at the time it is called. Comments on
other items should be made under agenda item #5. Provision of identifying information is optional but assists in preparation of the
minutes. All votes are unanimous unless separately voted for the record.
Q
3.
91
7
A
CALL TO ORDER — 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 8, 2015 regular meeting minutes
PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON -AGENDA
Members of the public may speak on any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest
an item for a future Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M. Brown
Act (the State -Local Agency Open Meeting Law) prohibits the Commission from acting on any matter that is
not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a "Request To Speak' card located on the table by the
door and hand it to staff. The provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional.
Speakers are limited to three minutes each. The Commission Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the
number of anticipated speakers.
DISCUSSION/STUDY ITEMS
California Roundabout Update
Staff report
b. TSPC Chair and Vice -Chair Discussion
Oral report
ACTION ITEMS
INFORMATION ITEMS
a. Engineering Division Reports
Reports and/or updates on Public Works -Engineering Division projects and activities
Staff report
Police Department Reports
Reports and/or updates on Police Department programs and activities
Oral report
C. Farmer's Market
Reports on inquires/comments/topics brought up by residents at booth during the Farmer's Market.
Oral report
d. TSPC Chair/Commissioner's communications
Reports on meetings with City Council Members, general public, interested parties.
Oral report
9. COMMITTEE & SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS
10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
a. California Drive Bike Route
b. General Plan Update by Commissioners
c. Nomination and selection of new TSPC Chair and Vice -Chair
11. ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650-558-7203 at
least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public viewing at the City Clerk's
office, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website
at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at the site.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission regarding any item
on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at City Hall, 501 Primrose
Road, Public Works - Engineering counter.
NEXT REGULAR TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION MEETING: Thursday, December 10th.
2015
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of Thursday, October 8, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
3. ROLL CALL.
MEMBER PRESENT: Martos, Londer, Akers, Wettan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Noworolski
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) Motion: To accept the minutes of August 13, 2015 with the following edit:
• Page 4 —Action Items — ECR/Floribunda Project Update
Minor edit, B missing in Burlingame on line 8
M/S/C: Londer/Akers; 4/0/0
b) Motion: To accept the minutes of September 10, 2015 as submitted
• Page 4 — Discussion/Study Items — Hoover School Update
Minor edit, percentage sign missing on line 1
M/S/C: Londer/Akers; 4/0/0
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS —NON -AGENDA
Jim Evans conveyed that the one-way sign on Devereux has been working well but due to
heavy traffic in the afternoon, he recommended extending the one-way traffic to 3:30 pm.
6. DISCUSSION/STUDY ITEMS
a. Hoover School Update
Mr. Wong made a presentation which provided maps showing the locations of the
1
proposed improvements (A -G), a matrix of improvements, and the potential distribution
of students. The goal of the discussion item was to prioritize the suggested
improvements and make any necessary additions. After going over the potential paths
of travel for clarification and conducting an in-depth discussion regarding the proposed
improvements, the Commission prioritized the improvements by assigning each as low,
medium, or high priority.
Since this agenda item was not listed as an action item, but as a discussion/study item, it
was decided to hold a special meeting on Tuesday, October 13, in order to take action
and move forward with the Commission's priorities related to the proposed
improvements.
b. Stop Sign Discussion for Trousdale/Marco Polo and Trousdale/Ogden
Mr. Wong provided the Commission with background information regarding a stop sign
review at Trousdale Drive/Ogden Drive and Trousdale Drive/Marco Polo Way, which
included an aerial map of the vicinity illustrating the housing increase.
Commissioner Akers noted that the intersections referenced above are terrible and that
staff should extend the public noticing efforts to the City's a -news outreach and by
posting notices at the actual crosswalk(s).
7. ACTION ITEMS
None.
8. INFORMATION ITEMS
a) Engineering Division Reports
Mr. Wong went over the staff report and provided updates on the following projects:
• 2015 Street Resurfacing Program
• US101/Broadway Interchange Project
• Broadway Grade Separation
• California Drive
• TSPC Email Communications
• Downtown Parking Strategies
• RFP's for City Hall/Floribunda Traffic Calming and California Drive Bicycle Facility
• Larkspur/Linden Traffic Circle
At the close of Mr. Wong's report, Commissioner Akers requested to include the TSPC on
the distribution list for the two RFP's referenced above.
[►J
b) Police Department Reports
In the month of September, there was an increase in total accidents but a decrease in
injury accidents. There were 32 accidents reported in September of 2015, which is only
an increase of 2, compared to accidents in September of 2014. One of the 32 accidents
occurred on Floribunda, and another involved a child on Quesada getting struck by a
vehicle.
Commissioner Akers requested to forward any education materials to the School
District to share with students and parents.
With the railroad accidents that have occurred near the Broadway station, BPD has
stepped up railroad crossing safety education and enforcement. Enforcement at the
Broadway/Rollins/Carolan intersection has increased as well due to the current
construction conditions.
The Police Department had a presence at the Burlingame Pet Parade and plans to be
present for the upcoming tree lighting and escort the Burlingame High School Band at
an event in late October.
Two new officers are currently in motor school that should be rotating into patrol.
c) Farmer's Market
There was no participation at the last Farmer's Market but TSPC did participate at the
Farmer's Market on September 20. Chair Martos summarized the following concerns
gathered from residents:
• Bike safety on California Avenue
• U-turns at Broadway and Rollins
• Repaving issues on Bloomfield
• Speeding at the bottom of Riviera Drive
Commissioner Wettan suggested visiting businesses and discussing the survey questions
instead of spending those two hours at the Farmer's Market.
d) TSPC Chair/Commissioners Communications
Commissioner Akers noted that people do read the City's a -news and it would be a
good avenue to reach residents regarding the California Roundabout Project, especially
to articulate the problems with that intersection.
Vice -Chair Londer attended the Community Advisory Meeting for the General Plan
Update on September 30 where land use, retail trends, and economic conditions were
among the major topics of discussion. He also has heard from several people that
c3
would like the City to consider the possibility of 15 MPH signs in school zones.
Chair Martos reminded the group that there is a workshop on Saturday, October 24 at
the Recreation Center to take public comments regarding the General Plan.
Commissioner Wettan believes that the Hoover School Project is an opportunity for
Burlingame to be at the top of its game. He also received comments about resetting the
speed limits within school zones.
Chair Martos noted that all candidates have highlighted traffic, parking and safety
issues as part of their campaign discussions.
9. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
No reports.
10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
a) Hoover School Update
b) California Roundabout Project
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Update has been temporarily removed from
the future agenda list per Commissioner Wetten.
11. ADJOURNMENT 9:50 p.m.
4
a
STAFF REPORT
To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
Date: November 12, 2015
AGENDA ITEM NO: 6.a —California
Roundabout
Update
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2015
From: Andrew Wong, Transportation Engineer — (650) 558-7230
Subject: Item 6.a — California Drive Roundabout Project Update
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission receive an update on the California Drive Roundabout
Project. This is an informational item, and no action is required.
BACKGROUND
The intersection California Drive/Bellevue Avenue/Lorton Avenue is a three -approach
intersection with multiple traffic movements, as well as a wide pedestrian crossing. There are
stop controls on the Lorton Avenue/Bellevue Avenue approach, and the pedestrian crossing on
California Drive. The multiple movements at this intersection as well as the proximity to the
adjacent intersection of Lorton Avenue/Bellevue Avenue creates not only an atypical
intersection for right-of-way assignment, but creates gridlock during many times of the day.
In 2007, DKS Associates was hired by the City to prepare and complete a Traffic Signal
Evaluation for California Drive/Bellevue Avenue/Lorton Avenue. This report reviewed the
existing operation of intersection, as well as analyzed alternatives to improve the efficiency and
safety at the intersection. Three alternatives were analyzed, they included:
Signalization of the existing intersection
Installation of a Roundabout
Installation of a Half -Roundabout
Through an evaluation process which included a review of engineering, safety, and aesthetics,
the roundabout was identified as the preferred alternative. The roundabout option incorporated
into the City's Downtown Specific Plan (adopted on 10/4/2010).
On October 6, 2015, a project kick-off meeting was held in Social Hall at the Burlingame
Recreation Center with the public. Approximately 25 members of the public attended, The goals
1
Item 6.a - California Drive Roundabout Project Update November 12, 2015
of this meeting were to introduce the project and obtain public comments and concerns. These
comments and concerns would be evaluated by the design team, and then incorporated into the
potential design.
Benefits of Roundabouts
Over 20 people are killed at intersections each day in the United States, most due to right-angle
crashes at signalized and stop controlled intersections. Federal Highway Administration has
identified roundabouts as one of nine proven life-saving roadway safety strategies. In
comparison to signalized and/or and stop -controlled intersections, roundabouts:
Eliminate left -turns across opposing traffic
Virtually eliminate high-speed right-angle and head-on crashes
Operate more efficiently (no waiting at red lights)
Have lower life cycle costs
Greener than signals (less idling, increased fuel efficiently)
Slower vehicle speeds make it safer for pedestrians
Public Comments and Concerns
A meeting summary report with a table showing public comments and questions can be found
as attachment, however some of the repeated items from that table:
A. Concerns on if this project is a "done deal"?
B. Desires of maintaining or even adding more green space
C. Desire for an exclusive northbound lane
D. Gateway feature is a good idea
E. Single lane to provide traffic calming effects
F. Complete streets treatment for bicyclists and pedestrian
Next Steps
After the design team gathers up comments, feedback, and suggestions from October 6, 2015
meeting, they would then by evaluated by the design team, and then incorporated into the
design, or addressed at a future meeting.
The Design team will proceed with gathering traffic counts and modeling the intersection with
SIDRA software. Using the model outputs, the Design team will move forward with a
preliminary design of intersection improvements
A second public meeting will be held to present design simulation and preliminary design
options. The design team will use this opportunity to gather additional public input on
landscaping, hardscaping, and other amenities.
2
ATTACHMENT A
California Drive Roundabout Project
Community Meeting
October 6, 2015
Meeting Summary Report
The City of Burlingame hosted the first of two community meetings for the public
to learn about the new California Drive roundabout project. The meeting was held
on October 6, 2015 from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. in the Social Hall at the Burlingame
Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue in Burlingame.
The project seeks to place a roundabout at the intersection of California Drive,
Bellevue Avenue, and Lorton Avenue in downtown Burlingame.
The meeting started with a brief introduction and review of the agenda by the
facilitator. She introduced the Augustine Chou, Project Manager and Engineering
Program Manager in the City's Public Works Department who gave a brief history
of the project and the purpose of the Study effort.
The project team, John Pulliam and Kevin Aguigui from Kimley Horn, introduced
detailed information about project elements, the benefits of roundabouts and how
to use them safely, the proposed schedule, and potential changes to the area.
This information was augmented by several videos, including several taken at the
existing intersection, a video of a similar project in Santa Cruz and a safety video
from Canada.
At the conclusion of the presentation, the audience had approximately an hour's
worth of general questions and comments with the city staff and project team.
The general questions and the answers provided at the meeting are captured
below.
The meeting was noticed through the mailing of the notice to the potentially
impacted property owners and tenants in the project area around California
Drive, Donnelly Avenue, Lorton Avenue, Primrose Road, Douglas Avenue,
Burlingame Avenue, Bellevue Avenue, Howard Avenue and Mangini Way;
through two e -blasts from the Burlingame staff to the broad city a -blast
distribution list, special distribution to project stakeholders including the Business
Improvement District, Chamber of Commerce and the area car dealers. The
notice was also posted on the city website. The meeting was noticed through the
Burlingame Voice web site. Approximately 80% of the attendees indicated they
received the mailed notice and 20% said they received the email notice. One
person indicated they saw it on the Burlingame Voice website.
When the attendees arrived they were asked to sign -in to become part of a
database for notification of future meetings.
Approximately 25 people attended the meeting. Several business and area
property owners identified themselves as such the remainder of the attendees
indicated they were project neighbors or community leaders who have been
involved with various planning efforts for the area.
The facilitator asked the attendees if they had ever driven through a roundabout
and about 80% indicated they had with only 15% indicating they did so regularly.
An additional question was asked about prior bike and pedestrian use of
roundabouts. Approximately 15% indicated they had biked through a roundabout
and 10% indicated they had previously walked through a roundabout.
The questions received during the general session question period are as follows
the answers given are shown:
Question
Response
Is a roundabout always two lanes?
No it does not have to be. That is traffic
demand dependent. We have not yet
done traffic counts. Sometimes
roundabouts are two lane with two lane
approaches, sometimes one -lane with
one lane approaches, sometimes two
lane approaches to one lane
roundabout.
Is this a done deal? Has the decision
The grant that is funding this study if
been made to do this? Have we
specifically for a roundabout. If the City
already decided?
decides not to do a roundabout then
the City would need to reimburse the
Transportation Authority. The City has
not decided to move forward but is
headed in this direction. The City will
continue to seek public input and look
at design implications to make sure
everyone's interest are being
considered. If the City moves forward
with this concept, the City will need to
do a lot of education regarding the use
of a roundabout. The City will also
reach out to Google and others who
supply information to navigation
systems to make that accurate.
There are better places than this
The crosswalk lighting is not currently
location for a roundabout. Will there be
part of the project scope but we can
lighting in the pedestrian crosswalks as
look into that. Street lighting will be part
part of the project. It should be part of
of the project.
the project.
The biggest impact of this project will
The impacts and traffic movement on
be on north south traffic on California
California Drive will be looked at
Drive.
closely. There is a desire, as part of
this pro'ect, to make it safer and easier
cross California Drive.
er of commercial building
There is no proposed design yet.
=concto
erned
s concerned to hear this
These are important concerns to bring
one deal." Concerned
up. There is no design yet so we can
s to downtown
make sure to take this all into
, specific impacts to his
consideration.
building and those nearby. Concerns
expressed regarding impacts on
building property values and access.
Specific concerns and questions about
existing driveway interface with
proposed designs.
Nearby residential property owner
There are no proposed designs
concerned about potential impacts to
developed yet. The project team will
southbound movement of California
take these comments into
Drive and the weaving involved. Also
consideration when developing the
would prefer "straight shot" for
design.
northbound California Drive. The
pedestrian movements might not be
safe in "proposed design."
Question about specific elements of a
Explanation given at the meeting.—
graphic.
What is green area in graphic?
This could be a landscaped area—this
was a concept only. There are no
designs yet.
The northbound California Drive
Comment noted. The project team can
movement should not have to go
look into that as an option.
through the roundabout.
Why is round so curved in these
To slow down the traffic and make it
roundabout examples?
safer for bikes, pedestrians and the
mprging of vehicles.
Residential neighbor expressed
This project as a proposed roundabout
frustration with the "done deal" aspect
has been thought about since 2005.
of the project. Property owner
There have been several studies that
explained the history of her property
had public input on this design concept.
going from residential/commercial to
The roundabout design is also
commercial only without her say.
consistent with the Downtown Specific
plan. These City planning efforts also
went through City Committees and the
City Council
A property owner indicated he did not
Comment noted.
remember being noticed about the
2007 planning effort.
California Drive green space is utilized
Not necessarily, we can look at adding
now. This design would take that green
green elements and usable space as
space away.
nnrf of the lannin rocess.
The green space on California Drive on
Comment noted.
the graphic would be a good location
for a bus turn out.
Can there also be parking lot
The City leases but does not own that
improvements along California Drive?
land. It is not currently part of the
project scope. The project team has
been told not to impact that site.
Can the roundabout be moved toward
Yes, we can look at developing designs
California Drive?
that are in that direction.
Push northbound lanes far over into
The City leases but does not own that
California Drive. Keep it away form
land that is the parking lot. We will
downtown.
research the exact ownership/lease
arrangement for the next meeting.
The project team needs to take traffic
The City will need to do education for
counts during school drop off times.
all drivers if a roundabout goes in at
The project team needs to understand
this location. We will be sure to take
that the current route to the high school
traffic counts during school times.
is through this intersection, as a result
there are a lot of new drivers using this
intersection. Concern expressed on
whether the new drivers and distracted
parents would be able to navigate the
roundabout appropriately.
This project has been vetted in the
We can look into the safer connection
Specific Plan and it is good that it is
to parking lot as a design element.
being studied. The parking lot along
California Drive is underutilized. There
should be a safe connection from
downtown to that side of California
Drive and Caltrain. The roundabout
slowing traffic down would be a good
thing. Read a study that proved
roundabouts can move more traffic
through an intersection. There already
has been a lot of public input on this
concept.
Would like the green elements of the
We can look into this.
roundabout to be useable.
Property owner wanted to know how to
There is no proposed design yet.
access his parking lot under the
Access to driveways and parking lots
design.
will be provided for in the desi ---
The study should also look at a
Comment noted.
pedestrian bridge over California Drive
A pedestrian bridge wouldn't be
Comments noted.
practical. There would be property
takes, ADA issues and few would use
it. The northbound California Drive
should go straight through. There
should not be flowers. It is unlikely that
the middle of a circle would be an
attractive place for a picnic. Has
experienced some very nice and
functional roundabout on travels to
Canada. Keep in mind bike use in
design. The intersection, as it is today,
is not safe for bikes. A traffic light won't
work in this location. There is too much
traffic that will back up. Put in an island
for pedestrians along California Drive
to help them cross.
Need to make sure the designs take
Will do analysis as part of design.
into account future bike paths and
connections. Need to explain future
bike path interface.
Historic Cannon Park is a gateway
Comment noted.
opportunity.
Explain connection to the road diet of
The Project Team will incorporate
California Drive between Burlingame
these possible concepts into the design
Avenue and Broadway Avenue.
analysis of the roundabout.
Likes the idea of roundabout area as a
Comment noted.
gateway opportunity.
road diet.
Comment noted.
ill be a parking loss under the
Comment noted.
e will need to know whereit
will be replaced.uld
P
be a financial
The Project Team has been told to
nt done as to how much the
have no impacts on that property. If for
the Caltrain property will cost
some reason that would change then
the pno'ect.
an assessment would be done.
Look at the Specific Plan and show
Comment noted.
how this is consistent.
Where are the best bus stop
Comment noted.
opportunities? Existing conditions are
very bad for pedestrians. The
roundabout would be an improvement.
The roundabout at two lanes will not
The Project Team will look at a variety
slow traffic. This should be a one lane
of designs and at the traffic counts that
roundabout.
need to be accommodated.
Residential property owner is
We will look into that as the designs
concerned about the driveway and
are developed.
parking impacts of any design in the
area between Comcast and the surf
shop, specifically how they will get out
of their driveway.
Gateway feature would be great.
There are two gateways under design
now perhaps there could be a theme.
The underutilized parking lot is a
This project team would like to make a
concern how can this project help
safer access to that lot to encourage
make it more attractive?
more usage.
If the objective of this effort is to slow
Comment noted.
traffic that can be done without a
roundabout. There could be wiggles or
curves added to California Drive and a
big island in the median.
Bellvue Avenue resident likes the idea
Comment noted.
of a roundabout and the reduction of
the traffic back ups.
Gateway idea is a good one. Lorton
Comment noted.
used to be Main Street in Burlingame.
In a strip along the long parking lot
Comment noted.
perhaps the project can add a cycle
way and pedestrian access in a buffer
zone all the way to Broadway.
Swap the land with the parking lot and
We can look into something like that.
have the parking on the downtown side
and the road over by the tracks.
I want to learn about the half round
We can post the 2007 DKS study on
about.
the City website so you can have
access to that information.
The parking meter technology in use in
Comment noted.
downtown and the long parking lot is
confusing. Need to make it more
understandable.
There was on set of comments sent to the City staff prior to the meeting and their
questions are outlined below:
• What pedestrian — auto — bike problems have been identified in the
existing street configuration?
• What about bicycle paths?
• What traffic studies have been done to date? What are the results?
• What CA street design standards are in play?
• Will there be sidewalks along California Dive at Caltrain Parking lot?
• Are the 5 new crosswalks protected and signed with flashing lights?
• What is envisioned for the inner circle? Art?
• What is the speed limit in (and adjacent) to the roundabout?
• Are there any stop lights in the roundabout?
Meeting Summary by Apex Strategies
a
STAFF REPORT
To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
Date: November 12, 2015
AGENDA ITEM NO: 8.a — Engineering
Division Reports
MEETING DATE: November 12, 2015
From: Andrew Wong, Transportation Engineer — (650) 558-7230
Subject: Item 8.a - Engineering Division Reports/Public Works Update
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission receive a presentation by staff providing an update on
various Public Works — Engineering projects and activities.
BACKGROUND
• 2015 Street Resurfacing Program — Project is about 80% complete. Remaining work
includes Sanchez, Carolan, and Bayshore. Parking impacts.
• US101/Broadway Interchange Project — Stage 2 of construction continues. The
southbound 101 off -ramp and retaining wall construction almost all complete. New
overpass concrete decking to be poured mid-November. PG&E replacement tower
footing construction all month.
• Broadway Grade Separation PSR — Design team and city staff continues detailed
analysis of specific preferred design concepts. PSR document production almost
complete. Update presentation to Council planned for late January/early February 2016.
• California Drive Roundabout — See agenda Item 6.a
• TSPC Email Communications — Four new communications. Status: addressed &
closed.
• Downtown Parking Strategies- Parking survey (-35 returned surveys), and parking lot
inventory underway.
• Request for Proposals — Staff issued RFPs for City Hall/Floribunda Traffic Calming and
California Drive Bicycle Facility.
7
Item 8.a — Engineering Division Reports
October 8, 2015
• Hoover School Update — Copies of TSPC report and staff report were distributed to
Burlingame School District for their meeting with the City Council subcommittee on
11/9/15.
• Peninsula Interchange Project — City of San Mateo has been awarded funding from the
San Mateo Transportation Authority (TA) to complete the initial Caltrans documents to
determine project feasibility.
• TSPC Priority List (May 2015):
4
1)
Caltrans' ECR/Floribunda
4
2)
Hoover School Update
4
3)
Parking Strategies update
4
4)
Stop Sign installations
4
5)
B/PAC setup
1
6)
Floribunda corridor
7)
California Drive parking restrictions
8)
California Roundabout
9)
General Plan — Circulation Element
10)
Larkspur/Linden traffic circle
11)
Commuter bike route
DISCUSSION
Some of these items may have been originally presented to City staff and/or the Traffic Safety
and Parking Commission as public requests or comments. Items on this list are matters that
would typically be addressed by City staff on an administrative level, or are City capital
improvement projects. Matters that require broad public input or have a wide -spread impact are
addressed as Commission "Study Items" (TSPC Agenda Item 6).
2
m
o
-
3
as
o
_
`o
00
2
H u E
a
v'q
'c oo o
r
c
> >
:
5
�
0
% an a°
`von
00
u
°'0
`cY
no_
° cc
0
y$
rYCY
9&ac5
—na°
E
d
n
a o o
E
o
unE
E
E E
E
5
'o
v
m
�y
z
o
«
w
o
°
a°
E
°
u`pop`aa�
t;
L c
`o
Em o
s ,� i m
o 2 r
fL° U5
E
.o
o E
o"',
v
'; 'w
v z c S E ns E n
z e x h a e
G Y a
a w
.m
t=
o`
0tSescWq
=ac
°°
Ed
pB
@E
c"
ME
a
0
-
a�
4 4 4 4 N N N N N e e e
O O OO%
e N N N
O O O O O O O O
O m b N
O O O O O O
O N N
O O O
O O O
O O
O
v\I\
N
Sr\
N O
n \
j
m N m 01 O '1 N 1/1 'i N 4
N 4 N b h
q O ncqm
N
4
N N
N