CC 09-03-19 PresentationsCC 09-03-19
Below Market Rate (BMR)
Study Session #1
Presentations
_,.,
CC Study Session #1 9/3/19
EXISTING BMR HOUS ING PROGRAM
• For Sale: 15% BMR
Housing Element
Strategy HE-2.3.2
• Rental: 1 5% BMR for
low /very low income
households
Housing
Mitigatioa
Manu I
• Implements Housing Element
Requirements
• Authorizes rules and regulations
• Includes alternative compliance
options
• Defines specific requirements applied to
individual projects
gold farb lipmon attorneys
EXISTING BMR HOUSING PROGRAM
New
Residential
Development
with 7 or
More Units
□ 15% of total units reserved for BMR
Program
Ownership Units
Median Income Units
50%
Very-Low Income Units
60%
Moderate Income Units
50%
Rental Units
Low Income Units
40%
goldforb lipmon attorneys
1
INCOME LI M ITS
HCD 2019 Household Income Limits for Santa Clara County
Income Category
Extremely Low
Very Low
Low
Median
Moderate
Approximate Percent of Area
Median Income*
Up to 30%
Up to 50%
Up to 80%
Up to 100%
Up to 120%
Income Limit for 4-Person
Household
$43,900
$73,150
$103,900
$131 ,400
$157,700
*HCD adiu sts very-low and /ow-income limits, which do not precisely equal 50% and 80% o f the median.
goldfarb l ipman attorneys
EXISTING MITIGATION FEES
31111 •---------------------------i
□ Established following 2015 Nexus Study
□ Housing Mitigation Fees:
c $17.82/sf for detached single family
c $19.60/sf small lot single family /townhomes
c $23.76/sf for attached multifamily residences
□ Commercial Linkage Fees:
c $23.76/sf for office/R&D uses
c $11.88/sf for hotels
c $11.88/sf for retail uses
goldfarb lipman attorneys
2
LEGAL FRAMEWORK:
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS l::::J _______________________ ,
CBIA v. San Jose (2015)
□ Upheld inclusionary requirements
□ No nexus study required
□ Requirements must be reas011ably related to the public health, safety, and
welfare
□ Property owners may not be denied fair return opportunity
AB 1505 (2017)
□ Permits inclusionary requirements applied to rental projects, provided that:
c Requirements must be imposed in the zoning ordinance
C If more than 15% of total units are requi red for low income households, HCD
could require a feasibility study
C Alternatives to on-site compliance must be offered
goldfa rb li p ma n attorneys
LEGAL FRAMEWORK:
NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
[:::::l •----------------------------1
□ Impact fees (aka commercial linkage fees) are
generally allowed, provided:
□ Fees are reasonable; and
□ A nexus exists between the fee amount and a project's
impact on need for affordable housing
□ A nexus study is legally required
□ Nexus studies identify the upper limit of fees that may be
imposed
c Cities frequently set fees well below the legal maximum
identified in a nexus study to preserve project financial
feasibility
gol d fa r b l ipma n attorneys
3
•
CC Study Session #1 9/3/19
CUPERTINO
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
STUDY
CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
STRATEGIC ECONOMICS
COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE NEXUS (2015)
9/3/2019
1
HOUSING IMPACT FEE NEXUS (2015)
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY:
KEY QUESTIONS
RESIDENTIAL
• How would increasing inclusionary requirements or affordable housing
mitigation fees affect a project 's bottom line?
• What is the potential for includ i ng ext remely-low income housing units in
rental projects?
• What is the potential for including median-income and moderate-income
units in rental projects?
NON-RESIDENTIAL
• How would increased non-residential lin kage fees o n office/R&D, hotel ,
and retail d evelopments affect a project 's botto m line?
9/3/2019
2
WHAT IS A FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS?
• Commonly used by cities to assess the impact of public
policy changes, like BMR requirements, on development in
the short term
• Analyzes costs of development in comparison to projected
revenues to see if the development generates sufficient
returns for investors
• Some limitations to the analysis:
• Tests "prototypes" that represent typical development projects , but
individual projects may have different results under certain
circumstances.
• Sensitive to assumptions about current construction costs, land
prices , and rents/sales prices . If any of these conditions change, the
results would be different.
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS STEPS
Step 1:
Generate Assumptions
About:
•Development Prototypes
•Development Costs (land
+ hard construction + soft
costs+ financing)
• Project Values/
Revenues
Step 2:
Development Costs
Developer Return
(ROC or YOC)
9/3/2019
3
RESIDENTIAL BMR PROGRAM
RESIDENTIAL BMR PROGRAM
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS STEPS
• Update the prototypes from the 2015 nexus study to represent the residential and mixed-use
residential and retail projects that would be subject to the BMR policy
• Develop assumptions about the % inclusionary requirement, income targets, and affordable
sales prices and rents for BMR units
• Collect key inputs for the proforma model -rents, sales prices, land costs, hard construction
costs, soft costs based on commercial real estate data from Costar and Redfin, interviews
with local developers and brokers, and review of proformas from other projects and clients
• Tally all development costs and subtract from project value to calculate net value
• Divide the net value or net operating income by total development costs to calculate return
Step 4. •Compare the return to the minimum thresholds to determine if it is feasible
9/3/2019
4
RESIDENTIAL BMR PROGRAM
PROTOTYPES
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3 Prototype 4 Prototype 5
Tenure
DwellingUnitS Per Acre
Ground Floor Retail (S q. Ft.)
Parking
Parking Requirement
(Per Unit)
Parking Requirement
(Commercial)
Required Parking Spaces
Reduced Parking Spaces
Source Strateg1cEconom1cs. 2018
Detached Single
Family
For-Sale
4.5
0
2-Car Garage+
Driveway
4
n/a
28
28
RESIDENTIAL BMR PROGRAM
Small Lot Single
Fam ily/ Town home
For-Sale
15
0
2-Car Garage+
Driveway
2.8
n/a
140
140
Condominium Lower Density Rental Higher Density Rental
Apartments Apartments
For-Sale Rental Rental
35 35 76
10,000 10,000 15,000
Podium Podium Podium
2
4 per 1,000 sq. ft. 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. 4 per 1,000 sq. ft.
240 240 260
216 185 205
( 10% reduction wi th (State Density (State Density
arkin stud Bonus Law Bonus Law
BMR REQUIREMENT ON OWNERSHIP
Minimum Required Return on Cost 10-15% 18-20% 18-20%
20% lnclusionary 14% 21% 19%
25% lnclusionary 1% 16% 14%
In-Lieu Fees 28% 37% 33%
Net Project Value
Return on Cost (ROC) =
Infeasible Total Development Costs
S01.1 rce Str ateg1cEcoriom1c,. 201 8
9/3/2019
5
9/3/2019
RESIDENTIAL BMR PROGRAM
BMR REQUIREMENT ON RENTAL
Lowe r Dens ity Re ntal Rental
Minimum Required Yield on Cost 4 . 75%-5 .25 % 4 . 7 5o/~5 .25%
20% lnclusionary 4.10% 4 .50%
25% lnclusionary 3 .94% 4 .34%
In Lieu Fees 4.40% 4 .76%
Feasible Net Operating Income
Yield on Cost (YOC) =
Infeasible Total Development Costs
Source Strateg1eEconom1 cs. 2018
RESIDENTIAL BMR PROGRAM
BMR PROGRAM IN PEER CITIES
-■fflAIIMHl,61,Wma WWWfUififWJ6iffin444._
Ownership Renta l Ownership Rental Own ersh ip Renta l
15% 15% 1/2 BMR units at 60% BMR units at Single family: S 1 7 .87/af Multifamily
Median (100% AMI) Verylow(50% Small lot single Attached (up to 35
1/2 of BMR units at AMI) famlty/fownhome: du/ac): $23.76/sf
Moderate (120'.ICi AMI)* 40'K, BMR units at $19.60/sf Multifamily
Low (60% AMI) Multifamllyattached: attached (ove r 35
523.76/af du/ac): $29.70/sf
10% 15% Moderate Low(SO-BO'KAMI) In-lieu fu of 3" of sales $34/sf (appUes to
(80 -120'.ICi AMI) price fractlonal units only)
12.5% None Moderate Low {Below 8°" AMI) ln-lleufee of 7"' of sales $17/sf
(Below120'.ICiAMI) price
15% 15% Moderate 9" Mod (80% AMI) ln-.lieu fee or $153,000 per $17.41/arfor projects
(Belowuo,l,AMI) 6% VU (30-50% AMI) """-of 3 to 19 unita In size
15% 15% Moderate Moderate $20-$30/sf, depending
(Below 1®" AMI ) (Below 1®" AMI) on housln&type
15% 15% Moderate Low (Below 7°"AMI) $34.50/atror projects of 6 None
(Below 11°" AMI) unitaorless
15% None 2/3 BMR unita at SO. Mod (80-120% AMI ) SS0-$75/sr dependln&on $20/sf
100%AMI Low (50-80% AMI ) housing type
1/3 BMR unita at 10(). VU (30-50% AMI )
12mliAMI
Source Interviews with City staff BMR ho using ord inances. ,Strategic Economics. 201B
6
9/3/2019
NON-RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE FEE
M1
NON-RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE FEE
NON-RESIDENTIAL PROTOTYPES
Prototype Descnpuon Office/R&D Hotel Retail
Class A Office Select-Service Upscale Neighborhood Retail
ProiectTvpe Speculative Building Business Hotel Shopping Center
Parcel Size rs a. Ft.l 174,240 87,120 21,780
Parcel Size (Acres ) 4 2 0.5
Total Stories 4 5 1
Floor-Area Ratio 1.50 1.20 0.35
Gross Building Area (GSF) 261,360 104,544 7,623
Efficiency Ratio (b) 90% n/a 90%
Net area (NS F) 235,224 n/a 6,861
Number of rooms n/a 140 n/a
Total Parking Spaces 825 155 30
Surface 93 70 30
Structured Garage 732 0 0
Underl!round 0 85 0
Parkin!! Ratio (per room) n/a 1.1 n/a
Parkin!! Ratio (per 1,000 SF) 3.2 1.5 4.0
7
Slide 14
SM1 I didn't abbreviate because it doesn't look like an overhwleming amount of info to me
Samantha Moskal, 7/19/2019
9/3/2019
NON-RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE FEE
R&D/OFFICE FEASIBILITY
Fee Scenario Fee Level Per Sq Ft Yield on Cost Office Feas1b11ity
Current Llnkaie Fee $23.76 6 .04 % Feasible
Scenario 1 (No Feel $0 6.25% Feasible
Scenarlo2 $25 6.03% Feasible
Sce nario3 $30 5 .99% Mar2inal lv Feasible
Minimum Yie ld on Cost to be Feasible: 6.0%
Sou rce Strateg1cEconomics2019
NON-RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE FEE
HOTEL FEASIBILITY
Fee Scenario Fee Level Per Sq Ft Yield on Cost Hotel FeasIbIlIty
Current Linka2e Fee $11.88 7.50% Feasible
Scenario 1 (No Fee l $0 7.65% Feas ible
Scenario 2 $15 7.46% Ma r2i nall v Feasib le
Scenarlo3 $20 7.39% No t Feas ible
Minimum Yield on Cost to be Feasible: 7.5 %
Source. Suateg1c Economics 2019
8
NON-RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE FEE
RETAIL FEASIBILITY
Fee Scenario Fee Level Per Sq Ft. Yield on Cost Retail Feas1b1hty
Current Linkage Fee $11.88 6.35% Not Feasible
Scenario 1 (No Fee ) $0 6.48% Not Feasible
Scenario2 $15 6.32% Not Feasible
Scenario3 $20 6.26% Not Feasible
Minimum Yield on Cost to be Feasible: 7.0%
Source Stra teg1cEconom1cs 2019
NON-RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE FEE
LINKAGE FEES IN PEER CITIES -Office/ R&D/ Medical Office -■:ffifffi~•11',;;;.,. .... , ••
UUlllll5"'III,;;
Colma
Cupertino
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Los Altos
Menlo Park
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Redwood City
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Francisco
San Mateo City
San Mateo County
Santa Clara City
South San Francisco
Sunnyvale
$18 -$25
$5
$23.76
$10.72
$27.50
$25
$17.79
$13.14 -$26.27
$36.22
$20
$12.50
$20
$19.04 -$28.57
$25
$25
$10-$20
$15
$8.2 5 -$16.50
$12 $7 2017
$5 $5 2006
$11.88 $11.88 2015
none none 2016
$12.50 $6.25 2016
$15 $15 2018
$9.66 $9.66 2018
$1.41-$2.81 $1.41 -$2.81 2014
$21.08 $21.08 2017
$5 $5 2015
$12.50 $6.25 2015
$10 $5 2017
$21.39 $26.66 1996
$10 $7.50 2016
$10 $5 2016
$5 $5 2017
$5 $2.50 2018
$8.25 $8.25 2015
Source City Ordinances and Fee Schedules. :a Ele me nts. 2019. S1hcon Valley at Home, 2019: Strategic Econom1cs 2019
9/3/2019
9
CONCLUSIONS
KEY TAKEAWAYS: RESIDENTIAL BMR
• Ownership units (single-family detached, small lot/town homes, and
condominiums) can support an increase of the i nclusionary requirement
• Requirement can feasibly increase to 20%
• Housing mitigation fees could be increased
• Neither lower density nor higher density rental apartments would be economically
feasible if the requirement were increased above 15%
• Any amount of inclusionary units would be challenging for these prototypes
• None of the residential prototypes would be feasible if the on-site affordability
requirement increased to 25%
• In-lieu fees could be increased for all prototy pes except the low er density rental
apartments.
9/3/2019
10
KEY TAKEAWAYS: NON-RESIDENTIAL
• Office/R&D linkage fees have a current fee of $23. 75/sf, which could be
increased feasibly to $25/sf. Increasing the linkage fee to $30/sf is marginally
feasible.
• Hotel uses can support the cu r rent linkage fee of $11.88/sf. An increase to
$15/sf is marginally feasible.
• Stand-alone retail uses are barely feasible without any linkage fee, so no increase
is projected to be supported. Retail may be feasible when developed in
conjunction w ith office or residential.
DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS
9/3/2019
11
RESIDENTIAL BMR PROGRAM
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING SCENARIOS TESTED FOR
OWNERSHIP PROTOTYPES
lnclus1onary Housing % of Units at BMR Income Targets for BMR In-lieu Fee
Scenarios Pnces Units* Payment
Scenario O 0 % N/A No
(No Requirements)
Scenario 1 15% 8% of units at 90% AM I No
(Existing Policy) 7% of units for 110% AMI
Scenario 2 20% 10% of units at 90% AM I No
(20% lnclusionary) 10% of units at 110% AM I
Scenario3 25% 13% of units at 90% AM I No
(25% lnclusionary) 12% of units at 110% AMI
Scenario 4 (I n-Lieu Fees ) 0 N/A Yes
Source City of Cupertino Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual. 2018: Strategic Econom1cs. 2018
RESIDENTIAL BMR PROGRAM
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING SCENARIOS TESTED FOR
RENTAL PROTOTYPES
lnclus1onary Housing % of Units at BMR Income Targets for BMR In-Lieu Fee Payment
Scenarios Rents Units*
ScenarioO 0% N/A No
(No Requirements)
Scenario 1 15% 9% of units at 50% AM I No
(Ex isting Policy) 6% of units at 60% AMI
Scenario 2 20% 10% of units at 50% AM I No
(20% lnclusionary) 10% of units at 60% AM I
Scenario3 25% 10% of units at 50% AMI No
(25% lnclusionary) 10% of units at 60% AMI
5% of units at 30% AMI
Scenario 4 (In-Lieu Fees) 0 N/A Yes
Source City of Cupertino Housing M1t1gat1on Program Procedural Manual. 2018. Strategic Economics. 2018
9/3/2019
12
RESIDENTIAL BMR PROGRAM
AFFORDABLE RENTS AND SALES PRICES
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3 Prototype 4 Prototype 5
'
'
Income Target for Pricing
BMRUnits
30%AMI (Extremely Low)
50% AM I (Ve ry Low)
60%AMI (Low)*
90%AMI (Media n)*
110%AMI (Moderate)*
Detached
Single Family
n/a
n/a
n/a
$483,270
$612,662
Small Lot Single Condominium
Family/
Townhomes
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
$344,879 $322,981
$462,872 $435,374
Note: *Per policy. the max price for BMR units for low income is 60% AMI , median income 1s 90% AMI , and moderate income 1s 110'31i AM I
Source Strategic Economics. 2018
RESIDENTIAL BMR PROGRAM
Lower Density
Rental
Apartments
$116,806
$211,968
$260,224
n/a
n/a
REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
Higher Density
Rental
Apartments
$116,806
$211,968
$260,224
n/a
n/a
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3 Prototype 4 Prototype 5
Detached Small Lot
Single Family Single Family/
Townhome
Sales Price or Monthly Rent $3,500,200 $1,794,500
per unit per unit
Assumptions for Estimating Net Operating Income for Apartments
Calculating annual revenues from rents
Adjust for vacancy rate of 5%
Subtract operating expenses • estimated at 30% of revenues
Source. CBRE. 2018. Costar. 2018. Strategic Economics. 2018
Condo Lower Density Higher Density
Rental Rental
Apartments Apartments
$1,542,500 $4,216 $4,216
per unit per month per month
9/3/2019
13
RESIDENTIAL BMR PROGRAM
COST ASSUMPTIONS
Metnc Estimate
Land Costs
Land zoned for sin!lle-familv oer site acre $9 million
Land zoned for townho mes/mult i-familv/mixed-use oer site acre $10 million
Ha rd Costs
Site Costs {demo. infrastructure, etc.) oersitesa. ft. $30
Residential Area
Sinele Family (in cludes 2-car e,:ara.e:e ) per e,:ross sq . ft. $95
Town homes I includes 2-car s:tara11e 1 oer i:tross sn . ft. $150
Stacked condominiums rrvoe VI oer 2ross sa . ft. $275
Stac ked aoartments ITvoe Vl oer !!ross sa . ft. $235
Hi'1herdensitva artments ITvoe Ill modified\ oer 2ross sa . ft. $300
Retail Area l lncludiMT.l.l oer !!ross retail so . ft. $130
Surface oarkini;i: oer soace $10,000
Podium oarkin.e: oer soace $35,000
Soft Costs
Architectural, Enl!'ineerin2 Consultimi: % of hard costs 6%
Taxes. Insurance, Le2al , Accountin2 % of hard costs 3%
Other % of hard costs 3%
Contine:encv % of ha rd costs 5%
Deve loper Overhead and Fees % of hard costs 4%
Citv Permits and Fees
Prototvoe 1 oer unit $153,022
Prototvoe 2 oer unit $83,463
Prototvoe 3 per unit $67,755
Prototype 4 per unit $65,949
Prototvoe 5 oer unit $67,241
Financ ine:Costs
Financine: % of hard and soft costs 6 %
So ur ce Develo per interviews. 2018: City of Cupertino. 201 8: Cupertino Sc hool District and Fremont High Sc hool District 2018. Strategic Economics. 2018
NON-RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE FEE
REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
Prototypes Metric
Retail
Annual RentlNNNl Per Ne t Sa. Ft.
Vacancv Rate
Oaeratin2 Exoenses % of Gross Reve nue
Annual Net Oaeratlne In come Per Net Sa. Ft.
Office/R&D
Annual RentrNNNl Per Net Sa . Ft.
Vacancv Rate
Operatlne Exaenses % of Gross Reven ue
Annual Net Ooeratlne Income Per Net Sa. Ft.
Hotel
Gross annual Room Income Rev PAR*
Gross Annual Other Revenue Per Roo m
Gross Revenue Per Roo m
Vacancv Rate**
Ooeratin2 Exoenses 70% of Gross Revenue
Annual Net Ooeratlne Income
Notes: *RevPAR 1s a measure of revenue per room. equaling occupancy percentage times average daily ra te
**Vacancy rateis<1lreadyrefl ected inRev PAR estJmate
Source. Costar. 2019 STR Trends Report 2019. Individual developer intervie ws. 2019: Strategic Economics 2019
Assumption
$48.00
5%
10%
$4 0.80
$54.00
5%
7%
$47.52
$79 ,154
$27 ,704
$10 6 ,858
n/a
($74,8 00 )
$32,057
9/3/2019
14
NON-RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE FEE
COST ASSUMPTIONS
lllllfMMillH¥MWAIA ■ lidN;U,illll#i1ffillllllll;fffMIIII
Hard Costs
Site Prep
Construction Costs
Furniture Fixtures & Equipment
Parking Costs
Surface
P.odtum
Structured garage
Underground
Tenant lmprovementAllowance
Land Costs
Entitled land
Soft Costs
City Permits and Fees
Arch , Eng & Consulting
Taxes , lns., Legal , Acctg
Developer Overhead
Other Soft Costs (Exclud ing Fees)
Construction Financing
RESIDENTIAL BMR PROGRAM
per site SF
per gross bulldlng SF
per room
Cost per Space
per net SF
per site SF
per gross building SF
96 of hard costs
% of hard costs
CJ6 of hard costs
% of hard costs
96 ofhard+softcosts
$3
$300
N/A
$7,000
$25,000
$30,000
$60,000
$75
$138
$65.41
5 .0%
3.0%
4 .0%
12.0%
6.0%
$3 $3
$250 $165
$35,000 N/A
$7,000 $7,000
$25,000 $25,000
$30,000 $30,000
$60,000 $60,000
n/a $35
$138 $75
$43.04 $67.10
5 .0% 5 .0%
3 .0% 3 .0%
4 .0% 4 .0%
12.0% 12.0%
6 .0% 6 .0%
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR LOWER DENSITY
MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL
5 .50%
BMR Requirement of 15% with
15% higher rents s.so~.;.
5 .00% 5 .00~~
BM R Requirement of 15%
with 15% lower costs
.Mini.l!'.':1.IJ!J:ti.r.~~-Q.ql.Q.~QLf.~&1.~it>illtt:11{.4,Z~.°d. ............................................................................................................................................. .
4 50% 4 50~t>
0 00~~ 0.00%
Current Apartment and Retail Increased Rents (15l~ Higher Current Costs Reduced Costs ( 15<\; Lower Costs1
Rents Apartment and Retail Revenues)
Source Strateg1cEconom1cs. 2018
9/3/2019
15
RESIDENTIAL BMR PROGRAM
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR HIGHER DENSITY
MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL
5 .50%
BMR Requirement of 15% with
10% higher rents
5 50%
sooo,~inimumThreshold for Feasibility of 4 .75% 5 OOOb
BMR Requirement of 15% with
5% lower costs
········································································································································································································
4 50%
400%
3 50~0
2.5010
2.00%
1.50%
1 oc~-.;
0.50~'<>
OOO+o
Current Rents
Sou rce· Strategic Econom ic,. 2018
Increased Rents (10% Higher
Apartment and Retail Revenues)
450%
400%
3.50%
300·:-.;
250%
200%
150%
1.00%
050%
0 .00%
Current Costs Reduced Costs (51h lower)
9/3/2019
16
CC 09-03-19
#12 Review Procedures
and Application Package
for SB 35 Projects
Presentations
/0 C) ~
CD C • 0 -· W CD o_ <.n )> -· CD ,
C < ~ )>
CO CD ::J :)
C Q_CD:)
(/) ti) (D
-+ () ::J °' 0 Q_ ~ C 3
0 ::J CD
--i ~ ::J '° --+ ti) (/)
'
n :::!!
:::;: C --< :::s n 2.
0 :::s
CCC
:::s n n -·O ;;; 3
C3
C. u;·
--< !!!.
V, 0
(1) :::s = C -· :::s g C.
u,
~ )> 0 .. Q_
► CD n ► o.
::::!" _Q Q OJ Q_(D
::) . C. () __.
Q_..,co-co----0
::J. 3 g_ V>-::J
(Q CD o· :::J'" (Q
:::::l :::::l v, . C
--1-0 0 ° ---+, .., (Q
~ '< (D
............ Q ~ :::) 0
o_ o_ CY
.., () 0 ffi O C -· :::) Q_ V> ~
(D (D
:::) _Q
--1-o · ~
:::)
()
(D
V>
-C .... -· 0
:::s
CJJQ ~)> vf()
o< co-co
:::, (D (D O ---+, """""i
C """""' ~ ~ =+,;
V) V) ::::t (D r'\ -•
-· :::, ~-(D o<Ocoo_coo_
-0~ 0:::,
D ~-· o_ _--+: =f =-= __, :::, 0
() () Q_ ---+, -+-
0 --· 0
-+-C ::::t """""' 0
-· Q_ 0 :3 :::r
0 (D :::, 0 (D
:::, V) 0 --+-() ... -· A """""i
(D
< -· (D
~
0
---+,
0
(D
:::,
V) V) -· -+--<
0 -(D :::, v=;·
0 --+-
"""""i -· (D
"""""i
0
<
(D
"""""i
V) -· (Q
:::r
-+-
"""""i
(D
_Q
C -· """""i
(D
V)
n
:::T
C :::,
(C
CD u, ....
0
:::a
CD < -· CD
~ .,, ...
0 n
CD
C.
C ...
CD u,
• • 0
AJ AJ ::T
CD CD C < < ::, -· -· V) V) tQ CD CD
Q_ Q_ CD u, • )> ..... 0 ---+-, 0 0 ---+-,
0 0 ---.i; m
--+-Q_ --· -· 0 0 tQ
:) IT -· tT -· (/) -· -· CD --+--'< -· 0 .....
(/) --< --+--· CD 0 0 ::J 0
--+-::T -· 0 CD
:) n
~ --· u, .....
• • • n
() C ;::cJ C ::,-
ou (1) :) C
3 Q_ < -· ::, -+ -·
-0 8-V) 0 cc (1) 0 CD =-= (1) Q_
0 Q_ C en
:) _Q :) ....
0 () C -+ 0 (/)
(1) (1) (1) )> ~ V)
-+ -+ -0 -· -· ---+, 0 -· -0 0 :) -0 -· -· n -+ V) -· -+ C 0
:)
.... -·
0 0 ::,
---+, ,,
C n
~
C cc
CD • •
om
--h ><
V) ::;-
_Q a-=
C -· 0 -+
' Q_
(D (D
0~ g_ :J
0 V)
(0 =r
(D g_ -· :J
(0
()
0 -0
C -0
-+
0 0 C () ~-rr-oo -ro co· o_ ~-
~-O O ~
0 -+ (1)-+ -· -· :J ~ Q_ (0
V) ' ' -+ (l) (D
0 _Q <
:J C v,·
Q_ ~--·
Q (D g
9-~ ln
0 ~ :J (/)
Q_ (D
(D (0 =:-;o
(0 ' -· Q_
CY -· =-= :J -· '<<0
.,, n
C ::r n C
~ ::,
CCC
(C (I)
CD en ....
0
)>
-c -c --· n
C .... -· 0 ::,
~ 0 )> ::!1
o::Jo_::J
-0 Q_ 0 Q_
0 ;u-0 0
V') (D --+-Q_
(D < --+-Q_ -• ::::y 0
-0 ~ (D -g_
C < ;u -· ~ 7J(D 0
V') ~ V') ::J
C O O (D Oo-::JcoS.x
-+ -· (D
-+ Q_ 0 3
O~::J-o
~ mo=: ~ ~
w O )> 0 ~ ~ -0 3
~-0 ()
0 -· '--• O m
(D O 0
0 :::!: )>
vi 0
::J
,a
CD n
0
3
3
CD ::::,
a.
CD a.
:t> n .... -· 0 ::::,