Attachment 4\IX
TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
`Ogsv` Meeting Date: December 119 2013
PREPARED BY: Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner
isavaaeAlos atg osca.gov
APPLICATION NO: Architecture and Site Application S -13 -049
LOCATION: 134 Loma Alta Avenue (approximately 840 feet southeast of
Los Gatos Boulevard, between Cross Way and Redhead Lane)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER/
CONTACT PERSON: Donald J. Prolo, II
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to demolish a pre -1941 single - family
residence and construct a new single - family residence on
property zoned R -1 :8. APN 532 -29 -033.
DEEMED COMPLETE: September 5, 2013
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: March 5, 2014
RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential, 0 -5
dwelling units /acre
Zoning Designation: R -1:8 — Single- Family
Residential, 8,000 square foot lot
minimum
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan; Residential Design
Guidelines
Parcel Size: 7,000 square feet
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use' General Plan
' Zoning
North i Single Famiy
!Low Density Residential
R-1:8
East Si e Family
Low
R-1:8
South j Sin _e Family _
^ 1 Low Density Residential
R -1:8
West 1 Si!1gleFamj!X
Low Density Residential
R -1:8
CEQA: The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303
of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town
because the project consists of the demolition and construction of
a single - family residence.
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2
134 Loma Alta Avenue /S -13 -049
December 11, 2013
FINDINGS: ■ As required by Section 15303 of the State Environmental
Guidelines as adopted by the Town that this project is
Categorically Exempt.
■ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for
the demolition of a single family residence.
■ As required by the Residential Design Guidelines that the
project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines.
CONSIDERATIONS: ■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture and Site application.
ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless
appealed within ten days.
EXHIBITS: 1 -8. Previously received with the October 9, 2013, Planning
Commission Staff Report
9. Color renderting of revised plans (one page), received
November 27, 2013
10. Applicant's Letter, received November 13, 2013 (eight
pages)
11. Architect's List of Changes, received November 13, 2013
(one page)
12. Architectural Consultant Report, received November 25,
2013
13. Revised Development Plans, received November 27, 2013
(four sheets)
BACKGROUND:
On October 9, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject application. The
Commission continued the project to allow the applicant to redesign the project to address
neighborhood concerns. The Commission directed the applicant to:
• Meet with the neighbors;
• Provide a shadow study showing a one story vs. a two story;
• Reference the Residential Design Guidelines to show the proposed design meets the
guidelines, specifically regarding a second story addition; and
• Show how the architectural style fits with the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3
134 Loma Alta Avenue /5 -13 -049
December 11, 2013
STAFF REMARKS:
A. Architecture and Site
The applicant submitted a letter addressing the neighbors' concerns and the Planning
Commission's direction (Exhibit 10) including:
What changes were made to the plans - The applicant revised the design to set the
second story back from the first story at the front and side elevations (Exhibit 13). The
applicant emphasized the second story setback on the right side to maximize sunlight for
132 Loma Alta. The architectural style was changed from Spanish colonial to craftsman
after designing greater second story setbacks, reconsidering the neighborhood, and
consulting with the Town's architectural consultant. The applicant also reduced the
square footage from 2,335 to 2,249; changed the garage bathroom from a full bath to a
half bath; changed the first story setback from 25 feet to 22.5 feet; relocated the rear
covered patio; substantially reduced the size of the rear balcony. In addition, the height
was lowered two feet, one inch from 26' -10" to 24' -9 ".
How the redesign meets the Residential Design Guidelines - The applicant explains
how the redesign meets the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 10) including locating
the second floor mass to minimize impacts on the streetscape and adjacent neighbors, and
designing with sensitivity to adjacent neighbors.
How the architectural style fits the neighborhood - The applicant explains that the
craftsman architectural style fits with the existing variety of homes in the neighborhood
(Exhibit 10). In addition, the revised second story setbacks are more appropriate for the
proposed craftsman style than the previously proposed Spanish colonial, which further
allows the applicant to design the home with sensitivity to adjacent neighbors.
Providing a comparison shadow study - The applicant provided a shadow study
comparing the shadow impacts of a one -story home, the previously proposed two -story
home, and the redesigned two -story home.. During the winter, all three homes would
shadow the windows of the neighbor. During the summer, the previously proposed two -
story home would shadow almost the entire wall of the neighbor. The revised two -story
home would shadow the lower half of the neighbor's walls during the summer, which
would allow natural light to enter the windows. Thus, the revised design minimizes the
shadow impacts to the neighbor.
Meeting with the neighbors - The applicant explains that he met with neighbors after
the October 9`s Planning Commission hearing,
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4
134 Loma Alta Avenue /S -13 -049
December 11, 2013
The architect also submitted a list of the changes made to the plans (Exhibit 11). Revised
plans are attached as Exhibit 13.
The architectural consultant reviewed the revised plans (Exhibit 12). He found the
revised plans to be well designed and that they would create a home that fits comfortably
into the neighborhood relating well to both the one and two -story homes.
C. Neighborhood Compatibility
The Neighborhood Analysis table below reflects current conditions of the immediate
neighborhood and the applicant's revised plans.
rMMM_
13Alta
885
240
-
5,000
1
0.18
2,141
317
6,200
1
0.35
2,041
216
7,000
2
0.29
138 Loma Alta
2,037
270
7,000
1
0.29
129 Loma Alta
1,736
480
8,025
2
0.22
143 Loma Alta
1,743
586
11,000
1
0.16
139 Loma Alta
2,109
501
8,250
I
0.26
134 Loma Alta
2,249
516
7,000
2
0.32
At 2,249 square feet, the residence would be the largest in the immediate neighborhood in
terms of square footage. The residence would be 108 square feet larger than the 2,141
square foot residence at 132 Loma Alta. The proposed project would be the second
largest in terms of FAR. The Residential Design Guidelines specify that residential
development shall be similar in mass, bulk and scale to the immediate neighborhood.
The guidelines also specify that consideration will be given to the existing FAR's,
residential square footages, and lot sizes in the neighborhood..
The project was originally referred to the Planning Commission because the residence
would result in the largest residence in the immediate neighborhood in terms square
footage. The Planning Commission should still consider if the proposed floor area is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5
134 Loma Alta Avenue /S -13 -049
December 11, 2013
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
At this time, the Town has not received any written comments for the redesigned project.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
A. Summary
The Planning Commission should consider if the applicant has addressed the Planning
Commission direction and neighbor concerns that may be raised at the hearing.
Although the applicant reduced the square footage, the project was originally referred to
the Planning Commission because the project would result in the largest residence in the
immediate neighborhood in terms square footage and the Commission should still
consider if the proposed floor area for the residence is compatible with the immediate
neighborhood.
B. Recommendation
Staff is still recommending denial because the proposed residence would still be the
largest in the immediate neighborhood in terms of square footage.
If the Commission finds merit with the project, it should take the following actions:
1. Find that the proposed project is categorically exempt, pursuant to Section 15303 of
the California Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the Town (Exhibit 2); and
2. Make the required findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code
for granting approval of a demolition of a single - family residence (Exhibit 2); and
3. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code
for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 2); and
4. Approve Architecture & Site Application S -13 -049 with conditions contained in
Exhibit 3.
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Approve the application with additional or modified conditions of approval; or
2. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6
134 Loma Alta Avenue /S -13 -049
December 11, 2013
41 i 'v i f
Pre ared by: � pproved
Jennifer L. Savage, AICP andy L. B1� AICP
Associate Planner
Director of Community Developme
SLB:JS:ct
cc: Donald J. Prolo, I1, 19841 Glen Una Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070
N:\DEV\PC REPORW2013\LomaAltal34_2.docx
.EXaIr s
OfAttaehment 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Ms. Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Ms. Savage,
RECEIVED
Gull 13 2013
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
This memo addresses the changes made to my home after the October 9, 2013 Planning Commission
Meeting.
134 Loma Alta Avenue, Los Gatos
After the October 9, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, staff requested that I complete the following
tasks before returning to the Planning Commission:
1. Revise the plans to respond to the neighbors' comments and commissioner concerns that were
voiced at that meeting.
2. Reference the Residential Design Guidelines to describe how the proposed design meets the
guidelines, specifically regarding a second story addition.
3. Show how the architectural style fits with the neighborhood.
4. Provide a shadow study showing the differences between a one story vs. a two story building
S. Meet with the neighbors again to share the new design.
This memo explains and describes the re- design of my planned residence and provides responses to the
above numbered staff requests.
Background: Before commissioning my architect to redesign the home, I read the Town's Residential
Design Guidelines multiple times and then walked my neighborhood using the Guideline's Appendix A,
"How to Read the Neighborhood" as a guide. My intent was to better understand the existing
neighborhood patterns, and the massing and architectural style of the existing homes so that I could
design a home that is more compatible with the neighborhood than my original design. I found that my
neighborhood is a blend of one and two story homes with a mixture of architectural styles and have
summarized these findings in Appendix A. To my surprise, as I was walking my neighborhood I
recognized two homes pictured as good examples in the Design Guidelines on Loma Alta within a half a
block of my property. Both of these homes, 123 Loma Alta and 161 Loma Alta, are similarly sized two
story homes to my proposed home (see Appendix C).
I. Design Revision: After surveying the neighborhood I realized that most of the homes with two stories
have the second story setback. The setback second story on these houses makes them appear smaller
from the street. There were many comments during the oct 9h hearing that my original design
appeared too massive from the street. With this consideration I directed my architect, Chris Spaulding,
to design my second story setback in the front. Additionally we decided to setback both sides of the
second story to give my adjacent neighbors more room for views and light. The side second story
setback was especially emphasized on the right side of the house to maximize the sun for 132 Loma Alta.
Upon completing the floor plan redesign the geometric shapes created better suited a Craftsman style
home rather than my originally proposed Spanish style home. The Craftsman style also seemed to be
EXILWIT 10
ofAttachtnent 4
more compatible with the existing collection of homes in my immediate neighborhood on Loma Alta
Street (see Appendix A). After receiving further confirmation from the Town Of Los Gatos' consulting
architect that this style was a better fit for the neighborhood compared to the original Spanish Colonial
Revival style, we proceeded to finish our redesign with a Craftsman style home. The following outlines
our redesign:
• changed the Spanish Colonial Revival motif to Craftsman style,
• reduced the total square footage of the home from 2,335 sq -ft to 2,249 sq -ft
• reduced the setback of the second story in the front and sides which decreased the visual
massing and scale of the home and lessened the shadow on the neighboring home,
• made my front total house setback an average of the adjacent neighbors front setbacks placing
my home two and a half feet forward on the property and further reducing the shadows,
• reduced the garage bathroom from a full bath to a half bath,
• moved the covered patio to the left side of the house allowing more light for 132 Loma Alta and
providing increased backyard privacy for both 136 Loma Alta and my property,
• reduced the size of the back balcony to the minimum size for French doors,
• The entire house has been lowered 2 feet.
I believe that the re- design addresses the salient concerns of my neighbors and of the Town Staff. The
proposed home still complies with the height, setback, and structure limitations set by the Town and, as
with the previous project, no variances are being requested.
2 How the Redesign Meets the Residential Design Guidelines (specifically regarding a second story):
Section 2: Neighborhood Patterns of the design Guidelines:
• Section 2.2 — Street Presence; 2.1.1— Relate building front and side setbacks to those on adjacent
parcels. Since the front setback of the two adjacent properties are 20 feet and 25 feet
respectfully, we have moved the house forward 2 -1/2 feet towards the street in order to help
reduce the shadow effect on the house at 132 Loma Alta. The Guidelines state where homes
have differing setbacks, try placing the home such that it uses an average of the two.
• Section 2.3.1— Design two story houses in predominantly one story neighborhoods to blend with
the smaller homes. While this neighborhood is a mixture of one and two story homes, the new
design has been designed to blend with the smaller homes.
• Section 2.3.3 — Design home entries that are sympathetic to others in the neighborhood. The
new design provides an entry porch which is common with existing homes on the street.
• Section 2.3.6 — Locate second floor mass to minimize impacts on the streetscape and adjacent
neighbors. The second story has been placed back from the front story in order to minimize the
visual impacts.
Section 2.5: Site Development
Section 25.2 — Design with sensitivy to adjacent neighbors. While the guidelines state that
existing views are not protected as a right, I never - the -less took their concerns into
consideration. The second story has been set back in order to lessen the impact, both of views
and shadowing. Second story windows that may provide viewing opportunities of neighbor
properties will be of opaque or frosted glass, if desired by the neighbors. This should mitigate
any privacy concerns.
Section 3.2: Architectural Style:
® Section 3.2.1 —Select an architectural style with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood.
While there is no one predominant style in the neighborhood, I realized that a Craftsman style
home would be more compatible with the immediate neighborhood and provides a better style
for supporting a second story with increased setbacks (i.e., the second story can be tucked back
within the roof and eves). This architectural style allows variations in the plane of the front
facade which fits more comfortably in neighborhoods with smaller houses or with smaller
building masses close to the street.
Section 3.3.2 — Height and bulk of front and side setbacks
gi The redesign of the home avoids an unbroken front facade of two- stories. The second floor has
been set back from the front facade and the second floor has been setback from the side
property lines.
Section 3.11 Privacy and Solar Access
6 Section 3.11.1— Minimize shadow impacts on adjacent properties. The house has been moved
forward and the second story has been set back from the first story in order to minimize sun
blockage to living spaces on adjacent homes. The second story was especially setback and
carved out on the right side of the house to allow maximum light for 132 Loma Alta.
6 3.11.1— Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent residences. Windows have been placed on the
second story in a manner to minimize views into the living spaces and yard spaces of
neighboring homes. The windows can be of frosted or textured glass if desired by the neighbors.
The second floor balcony has been reduced in size so as not to intrude on the privacy of
neighbors.
3. Now the architectural style fits with the neighborhood: see "Background" and "Design Guidelines,
Section 3.2 ", above
4. Shadow Study showing the differences between a one story vs a two story building: Please refer to
Appendix B. Currently there is a 7ft 6inch fence located on the side of 132 Loma Alta facing my
property. As shown in Appendix B, during the summer the fence, a one story house, and my proposed
house create a morning shadow that is very similar on the side of the adjacent house, whereas my
house proposed at the Oct 9h hearing cast a shadow further up the side of the house. During the winter
the sun is lower in the sky and even a one story house would cast a morning shadow all the way up the
side of the adjacent house. When both a one and two story house create a morning shadow that covers
the entire side of the adjacent house, a one story house would create a shadow much deeper into the
properties than my proposed home. Appendix B shows where the house is least setback on the second
story and in reality there is an area in the center of my proposed house that is setback even further (see
architectural plans). In summary, the re- design allows substantially more light for the adjacent house
than my proposed design at the October 9" hearing. Additionally the current design would not create
shadows as far back into the lot on the adjacent house as a one story home.
5. Meetings with Neighbors: Since the October 9"' hearing I have met with Chris and Karen Evenden
(132 Loma Alta), George and LezLi Logan (136 Loma Alta), Laura Johnson (129 Loma Alta), Steve Piasecki
(205 Johnson) and other neighbors to help guide my redesign.
Sincerely,
�dtp v
Donald Prolo
Rp peel �lx
1lo�sP —s -vt ? 2- 30 ,
� 5B G of 2300 1 (
FAR ? e33 6
Fo, , 3 3 9
+a S`br�
Gj
Grn: �y f:�4t�
�Uto�Md 4�dlktlt�'C
5
�aaGh
Rp peel �lx
1lo�sP —s -vt ? 2- 30 ,
� 5B G of 2300 1 (
FAR ? e33 6
Fo, , 3 3 9
A
--v
--cJ
Cb
IX
a'
A`l
Town of Los Gatos
2.2.3 Maintain a strong street presence on both street.
facing facades of corner lots
Provide similar design arriculation and details on both fa-
cades.
Keep side yard fences low or limit their extent to the rear
yard setback.
2.2.4 Relate any street visible fences and gates to the house
facades
�oh,R
Hold fences and gates back a minimum of 5 feet from the
front facade
Use materials, colors and details that ate sunilar to elements
on the house.
vvnen unveway gates are used, setting them
back from front facade with materials, shape
and color related to the front facade, like the
example, above is encouraged
FORM AND MASS
2.3.1 Design two story houses in predominantly one story
neighborhoods to blend with the smaller homes.
Two -story houses may not be appropriate for every neighborbood.
For neighborhoods dominated by one -story homes, an effort should
be made to limit the house to one -story in height or to accommo-
dated second floor space within the existing roof. If a two -story
house is proposed in this type of a neighborhood, the house shall
be designed to blend with the smaller homes.
Residential Design Guidelines
r�t,w
i -
A low fence of approximately three feet and
good design articulation gives this house a
strong presence on the side street that is
complementary to other front facades on that
street
Second floor within roof form helps to relate
larger home to smaller neighbors
[_.o Vti R
F�Iiv,
K
Town of Los Gatos
edges
simple
and hii
facades in the neighborhood are
the one above, avoid complicated
articulated facades like the
• In cases where setbacks are varied in the neighborhood,
new homes should match those of adjacent homes.
• Where adjacent homes have differing setbacks, try placing
the home such that it uses an average of the two.
j tus i
EXielhg � 1 � � � ExMtina
Ibws I i i �. j Havla
Do NM Not
This TMs We
Exception: 4%ereadi"em lots have a nonconfarmingsedwek, appli-
cant may bavetheoption ofronformingto thereguired wningsetback.
In some instances, a eariedsetbarkfrom the neighborboodpattern may
be necessary or appropriate (such as lot constraints indudingtopogra-
phy, trees, aeeks, lot size, and architectural style). It is the applicants
responsibility to just any reguestfor4 setback variation. Tile Town
or deciding body will evaluate the applicants rationale in conjunction
with the design guidelines and other Town codes and policies.
2.2.2 Provide front facade articulation similar to those
predominant in the neighborhood
• If facades along a street front are generally simple, avoid
large changes in front wall planes.
• Where front wall setbacks are varied in the neighborhood,
new homes should relate more to those of adjacent homes.
The width of projecting building masses and the amount
of horizontal offsets in wall planes should also be similar.
IMMOMMEM Residential Design Guidelines
14
i/ -12 -13
VVf S ccw (s ,U AD C To
;-(-'r -� 6a4,1pE7 7v cf4¢F'�4Af 7b is�77 2
2 ��tcasl — +plc Rd ��a1 q,�c AqpEv 7z er to,e cL' s
3- /€05E:
�{; 21J0 �. �- DESfG✓y�� •� //fC(Lef(�E J`E7��
Z,rn5�2
ZNb �4L D{'"FS� -T �� Z�` '�R.c�%✓� 12tC�tfT_S�4E �•+�1� �-,
�_ Lk"Ss Ss:7 O�
T dtw S�Corf D— t=cx�iL �}, r3 �e 5
� —s s ��s CA-oJ aE cBScV asz7
`
2oSD �(L. � J«'p a li �1C�K'S -s��rc �- car- -cJ i
Pt79k b Ta ¢� o�c K�c3�oc �6t�, t �„d m ► 3z t-�A A L-vA
10• & 60 L�sC7E' To I/2 $Ae� z 3=C7Dt.S,
cr f Stva
RECEIVED
Nov 13 2013
"c�S SP��asc�
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
%1C1�7 (i PLANNING DIVISION
ExHIBIT I I
ofAttaehment 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
RECEIVED
RE: 134Loma Alta Avenue
Dear Jennifer:
I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My comments and recommendations are as follows:
Neighborhood Context
The site is in the established Loma Alta neighborhood, and is currently occupied by a.one -story home. Other homes in
the neighborhood are largely one -story in height, but a few are two -story structures. Loma Alta Avenue slopes uphill to
iewalks to the west. photos of
EXHIBIT 12
®fAftchnient 4
700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 TEL: 415.331.3795
CDGPLAN @PACBELL.NEI
Nbv 25 2013
November 25, 2013
Ms. Jennifer Savage
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Community Development Department
PLANNING DIVISION
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 134Loma Alta Avenue
Dear Jennifer:
I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My comments and recommendations are as follows:
Neighborhood Context
The site is in the established Loma Alta neighborhood, and is currently occupied by a.one -story home. Other homes in
the neighborhood are largely one -story in height, but a few are two -story structures. Loma Alta Avenue slopes uphill to
iewalks to the west. photos of
EXHIBIT 12
®fAftchnient 4
700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 TEL: 415.331.3795
CDGPLAN @PACBELL.NEI
View to the existing house in context with the
home to the immediate left
134 Loma Alta Avmw
Design Review Comments
November 25, 2013 Page 2
View to the existing house in context with the
home to the immediate right
Nearby two -story home
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR. CA . 94939
134 Loma Alta A c.n
Design Review Comments
November 25, 2013 Page 3
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In August, I reviewed a proposed home design for this properly. At that time, the applicant wished to replace the existing
one -story Spanish Eclectic Style home on the site with a new two -story house of a similar style. The current submittal is
for a home in the Craftsman Style. "The proposed house is modest in scale, and well designed. the Crafsman Style with
a Large front porch and second floor setbacks will reinforce the first floor feel of the front facade and relate well in scale to
the adjacent one -story homes. The house, as proposed, should fit comfortably into the neighborhood, and relate to both
the one -story, and the larger nearby two -story homes in the neighborhood.
7
Previous submittal Spanish Eclectic Style Front Elevation
Current Submittal Craftsman Style Front Elevation
I have no recornuundadons for changes to this design.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if there are issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON �D.cE�S,IGGNNNGRODUP
Larry L. Cannon
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
u
e a ca
< $
z
diNNOdt7d0 o SO,LtlO S07
8Ad VNIV VINO'I b£I
d a
d
a
Y
0'I0ud GINNOQ
t
t
N033ONHQISH ANOISZ MEIN OHSOdONdtl
OZ
¢0
HN� -- (�
HN o oau�vuo
d
o . ss II
0
Io c �44 -- m r _ I �n0n. 6 38.1ti 8S9 .b
sv
DD-
I' gId �" � m
z
d a
d
EpllF
Y
t
t
OZ
¢0
HN� -- (�
HN o oau�vuo
d
o . ss II
0
Io c �44 -- m r _ I �n0n. 6 38.1ti 8S9 .b
sv
DD-
I' gId �" � m
z
d a
d
Y
t
t
,ny
e
/
z S
II
c� aao
;
-
c
tit
if p
�
t
rr pppp
s
b
v =SGp
2y
ygY'QQppr54
sggg
p[F�`
}`
$SE„
!10
ixaxrw m ° " °"
OF 2['33P1't6 �y
i,
y. Y
9 ^ii
SQ
88 5�
E6
[
pill!
Y
d a
d
o
Y
,ny
/
asnou ixaxrw aaau�vt�
rvaxmv
wars mnr
II
c� aao
;
-
if p
a �
!10
ixaxrw m ° " °"
39Ya't^J
a�lrnna
y pj
maE
Y
4
ISE E s
Y
IF
EXHWIT 13
OfAttachment 4
5, w ¢a„
" &
a:
=
tlINNOd17V0 e SOYtlO Sol
3AV V111V VWO1VEI
MOW Q'IVNOQ
s
jai
� e.e, 1 na
ll03 80N20I63N AHOYS'Z MEIN /IHSOdONd tl
e'Y OlS3
V
_ mei
f
jai
� e.e, 1 na
ICI
1 I
y
---------
1111111
1
1
I �
�
k
I
1
I
=
1
i
I i
I
{
V
_ mei
f
� s � vixaoai�n+o o so cvo soy Ei
x
� 6-
`'
Ekik�
33EEyye
VINNOdPNO o SOlvo SO-1
3Ad VII vlhOI net
01OUd Q'IVXOQ
NOd 33N90IS9N A- 40IS-Z M3N MISOdONd V
i O
V
p
F
w
NNw
w
L
O �
N
O
11
O
QI
ti!
r
K
O
z
a
I
z
O
U
N
e��ivd