HomeMy WebLinkAbout1637 Westmoor Road - Staff Report�� CITY �
� �
BURL.INGAME
m
'"co Q . �o
�FNTEo �uN[ 6.
MEMO
DATE:
TO:
FROM
RE:
April 11, 2005
Planning Commission
City Planner
Planner's Report
Meeting Date: 4/25/OS
FYI — REVISION TO APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1637
WESTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1.
Summary: On December 13, 2004, the Planning Commission approved a design review, side setback
variance and parking variances for a first and second story addition at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1
(12/13/04 minutes attached). The project was referred to a design reviewer at study and came back to the
Planning Commission with a positive recommendation at action. The Commission voted 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojues,
Brownrigg and Vistica absent) on a roll call vote to approved the revised project.
The applicant is requesting changes to the approved plans that include changing the existing wood burning
fireplace in the living room to a gas fireplace, as well as changing the proposed wood burning fire place in the
family room to a gas fireplace. These proposed changes will result in the elimination of the stone veneer
chimney stacks approved on the on the right elevation (new chimney in family room) and the elimination of
the existing chimney to be extended above the roof of the garage.
The applicant is also requesting a change in size and type of windows located in the master bedroom, and
bedroom #2 and #3. The applicant applied far a building permit on January 26, 2005, but the permit has not
yet been issued. In bedroom #2 and #3 they will be changing from single hung windows to casement windows
in order to ensure that they will meet egress requirements. The master bedroom window on the rear elevation
will be increased from 4' x 4'6" to 4' x 5' to meet egress.
Planning staff would note that because of the minor revisions, it was determined that these changes could be
reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item
may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS:
October 12, 2004 Design Review Study Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes
Design Reviewer Recommendation
Approved and Revised Elevations
April 6, 2004
Jake & Leslie Nguyen
1637 Westmoor Rd.
Bur(ingame, CA 94010
R/E FYI: Request approval to remove two wood burning fireplaces
and replace it with one gas-burning fireplace. In addition, in order to meet egress
requirement pertaining to bedrooms 2& 3, second floor, front elevation, we are
requesting to change the window size from 3'x 4'6" to 3'x4' and from single huna to
casement. For the master bedroom, we've increased the window in the rear elevation
from 4' x 4'.6" to 4' x �' to meet egress.
To the City of Burlingame Planning Commissioners:
The above home owners requests approval to remove two wood burning fireplaces on previously
approved plans. One gas-burning fireplace will be added to the rear family room and located on
the right elevation towards the back.
The request is based on our need to have full utility of the garage with a 10'.6" width versus an
8'.6" as previously approved. In addition, the previous fireplace in the living room was off-
centered to the room making the space awkward and unappealing. Along with this change, the
garage door is now a ro11 up offering greater convenience for the homeowners.
We are replacing one wood-burning fireplace with a gas buming one located in the family room.
In our research, we found gas burning to be more environmentally friendly and energy efficient.
The egress code requires 5.7 sq. ft total vent, 20" width, 24" height and 44" maximum from the
floor to the bottom of the vent. This code applies to all three bedrooms on the second floor and
the changes are as follows; the window size in bedrooms 2& 3 might or might not meet the
current egress code. The uncertainty is based on different manufacturing methods of sash size and
thickness from different manufacturers. To ensure that we comply the egress code, we've elected
to change the opening from single hung to casement to be in compliant with the code.
The master bedroom window in the rear elevation was increased from 4' x 4'.6" to 4' x 5' to meet
egress. The changes did not change the appearance of the elevations or the grid patterns. It merely
changes the operation mechanics of the windows themselves.
We feel that these changes are minimal relative to the scope of the project and at the samG�time,
the changes did not impact the elevations' appeal. We hope that you recognize our efforts,,with
comply with current codes and approve the changes as requested. Thank you ail in advance and
as al�vays, your attention is appreciated.
Jake and Leslie Nguyen
�'`� f :
City of Burlingame Planning Cornrnission Minutes
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
Oczober 12, 2004
11. 1637 WESTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIIZST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JACOB AND
LESLIE NGUYEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PETER SANO, DESIGNER) (53
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Jacob Nguyen, applicant and property owner, was available to
answer questions, noted that proposed project is below maximum allowed FAR and lot coverage.
Commission noted that if the fireplace in the living room is relocated or removed, the required width would
be provided in the garage and the parking variance can be eliminated. Applicant noted that he considered
relocating the fireplace, but this is really the only place it could be located and kept in the living room, would
like to keep a wood burning fireplace, if relocated would have to install a gas unit, the existing brick
fireplace adds a nice feel. Commission asked if the garage is now being used for parking? Applicant noted
that currently it is not being used for parking, but will be once the project is complete. There were no other
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:
• Why is the garage being extended? Is it necessary? Could eliminate the side setback variance if
extension is not required;
• This is a strong candidate for design review; need to look at the quality of the plans;
• Plans are incomplete, need to show floor to top of plate dimensions far first and second floors;
• Need to provide detailed landscape plan, site is pretty barren now, landscaping should enhance addition;
should add at least two trees and large scale shrubs at front of property;
• Inconsistency in addition on second floor with the existing style;
• Should avoid different sloped roofs in redesign;
• Need to provide window and eave details;
• Second floor plate heights should be articulated, bring portions of the roof down to add interest.
C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion
was seconded by C. Bojues.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this proj ect to a design reviewer. The motion passed
on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg and Keighran absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:38 p.m.
15
Ciry of Bu�•liizga�ne Planning Con7missioiz Miiautes
December 13. 2004
1C. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2005 - CITY PLANNER: MARGARET
MONROE
Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests.
C. Keighran inoved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by
resolution including the Commissioners 2005 calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair
called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-3 (C. Bojues, Brownrigg, and Vistica absent). Appeal
procedures were advised.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
Item #2, 2108 Easton Drive was moved to the end of the Regular Action Calendar
3. 1637 WESTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JACOB AND
LESLIE NGUYEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PETER SANO, DESIGNER) (53
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report December 13, 2004, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Osterling opened the public heanng. Jake Nguyen, property owner, 1637 Westmoor Road, stated that
he appreciated the Planning Commission's comments at the study meeting on October 12, 2004, as a home
owner, feels that the plans have significantly improved. There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission comments: tremendous improvement with the design review process.
C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that
the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
November 18, 2004 sheets 1 through 11, and L-1, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2) that
should the primary structure on this lot ever be demolished for any reason, the vanances granted for this
remodel shall be voided; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope ofthe basement, first or second floors,
or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subj ect to Planning Commission review;
4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal's
memos dated September 9, 2004 shall be met; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed
surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that
height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 6) that prior to
scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide
architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown
on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or
contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department; 7) that pnor to fina] inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note
compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been
►.1
Ciry of Bur•linganze Planning Com�tiiission Minartes
December 13, 2004
built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8) that the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9)
that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10) that the project shall
meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of
Burlingame; and 11) that two noble laurels shall be planted in the front yard to screen the new addition of the
subject property, as approved by the City Arborist. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Commission discussion: for the parking variance, the existing garage is 8' wide by 20' deep, so there is no
change to the existing configuration caused by chimney encroachment, the side setback variance is necessary
to follow the line of the existing structure, can support based upon design; notice that property owner is
planting noble laurels in the back yard, good choice, consider putting one of two in the front yard, will
enhance the proj ect, should add condition; much improved design; shows how project can be improved with
the design review process.
The maker of the motion and the second on the motion agreed to add a condition that two noble laurels be
added in the front yard to screen the anew addition, location to b e approved by the City Arborist.
Chair Osterling called for a roll call on the amended motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-3
(Cers. Bojues, Brownrigg, and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
7:15 p.m.
4. 716 HOWARD AVENUE, ED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW ATTACHED GA.R.AGE
(KENDRICK LI, �PPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; BEN BEHRAVESH, ARCHITECT) (51
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Refereilce staff report November 13, 2004, with attachments. Plnr. Barbe � presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for sideration.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Kendrick Les;�iroperty owner, 716 Howard Avenue, noted that
he is back after two months with revised plans. Mael'e lots of changes, also got an arbonst report for the fir
tree on the adjacent property, met with Rand C3fange, design reviewer, and followed his recommendations,
changed driveway to a no soil cut with . rvious pavers; met with neighbor Sheila Janakos, she liked the
revised plans. The proximity of the�mney to the roof is o.k. because it is a gas fireplace, also sloped the
firebox, the posts in the front h been removed and more landscaping has been added to thg.site plan, the
front entry is now emphasiz Architecturally this design will fit in the neighborhoo , e property owner
presented a slide with the addition superimposed on the subject property. The erty owner noted that the
design reviewer agrees that the proj ect will fit in with the neighborhood. is analysis he also commented
that the floor area ratio is consistent with other houses in this, eas and if the floor area ratio were
calculations for a project with a detached garage then the p�ct would be 230 SF below the maximum
allowable floor area ratia The proposed garage is set.f�"r back in the driveway and appears as detached
garage. The property owner showed other homes in the area that have attached garages. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was .closed.
C. Keele moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 1, 2004
3
Properry Owiier:
Applicant Nanze:
Designer:
Project Address:
Pla�zner:
Date of Review:
Design Guidelines:
Design Review Comments
City of Burlingame
Jacob & Leslie Nguyen
Jacob & Leslie Nguyen
Peter Sano
1637 Westmoor Rd.
Catherine Barber
18 November 2004
1. COMPATABILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT
OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
The era of the homes in this area are 1950's-1960's. Many of the home have
lowe pitched roofs; stucco finish; wood or brick accent for exterior materials.
Double-hung wood windows with wood trim are prevalent throughout the
neighborhood. Most of the homes have small front porches. The neighborhood
has a variety of existing single-stary homes, with several remodeled two-story
homes.
2. RESPECT FOR THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
The garage pattern for the area is attached garages set forward or back 3-5 feet
from the front of the house. The neighbors to either side of said residence each
have a two-car garages, whereas this residence will retain their single car garage
at the front, left side of the house. The garage is no longer being extended as
originally proposed. This gives additional relief to the front elevation.
3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CONSISTENCY AND MASS AND
BULK OF STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
The designer has revised the original submittal which was more bulky than this
proposed solution. The first floor has a plate height of 9'-1", and the second floor
is 8'-1" high. Since the site slopes down in front, the designer has proposed a
wood water table to break up the front elevation, and reduce the height of the first
floor.
There second story is set back from the first story to reduce its mass. There is a
lot of articulation in the elevarions, adding interest, and reducing mass.
The architectural style seems appropriate for this newer neighborhood. The
designer is proposing similar materials as the neighborhood, as well as using
double hung windows with wood trim.
There are a couple elevations which lack windows, One of which is the first floor
East elevation. However, this is not visible from the street, or neighbor, and
allows a better working kitchen, so leave it as is. The only area that increasing a
window size might be advantageous, would be the first floor bedroom window at
the West elevation. All the windows viewed from the street are larger double
hung, and I believe the width of the proposed 2'-0" wide could be increased to
better match the surrounding windows.
The designer has brought the styles of the first and second stories together
through the materials and elements, which had been concern of the Planning
Commission.
4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE
STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
The house to the right, 1641 Westmoor, has a similar roof pitch and lines to those
proposed on the second floor roof adjacent to their house. The second floor front
elevations should blend well together.
The house to the left, 1633 Westmoor, though it is single story, should not be
affected by the proposed addition, since it is on its north side, and adjacent to their
double garage.
The proposed addition matches well with the neighborhood, and as such, should
blend in well. The rear of the house backs to El Camino Real, with tall
Eucalyptus trees, and will possibly not even be noticed.
5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF THE
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS.
This neighborhood currently has one street tree for every third house. The
designer has proposed adding a maple tree at the street elevation. He has also
added some trees and shrubs to the front of the yard. There are proposed trees at
the rear perimeter for some additional privacy.
6. IN THE CASE OF AN ADDITION, COMPATABILITY WITH THE
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING
STRUCTURE AS REMODELED.
Many of the home's originals materials are being proposed for the addition. These
materials and elements should tie both floors together nicely.
COMMENTS:
We have spent quite a bit of time working with the homeowners and the designer.
I feel they have responded to the Planning Commission's comments, and reached
a design that will wark well with the neighborhood.
Catherine J.M. Nilmeyer
e
PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEES RECEIPT
Subject Address: �(03� W� S� �''''b � r j�-�I .
Received for application to the Planning Department for:
ACCT.101-36630 (#63)
Date:
�Application to the Planning Commission � ���
_ Title 25 Zoning Code (postage add $3.00)
_ Title 22- Sign Code
_ General Plan and Specific Area Plan (postage add $6.00)
_ Specific Area Plan Only (postage add $4.00)
_ Zoning Map
_ Photocopies ($0.10 x _)
_ Environmental Handling Fee (35% of Contract)
Other
ACCT.101-22525 (#67)
_ Res. and Com. Design Review Consultant Deposit
_ Res. and Com. Design Review Handling Fee
ACCT.101-36640 (#57)
Engineering Fee
ACCT.101-36342 (#58)
_ Parks City Arborist Review
ACCT.101-36620 (#64)
_ Second Unit Amnesty Building Inspection Deposit
ACCT.101-22590 (#83)
Environmental Consultant Fee
ACCT.739-22591 (#93)
_ Bayfront Development Fee
,� n 2�s�� TOTAL FEES PAID:
4��-os
$ l00.0�
$ 10.00
$ 2.00
$ 45.00
$ 10.00
$ 1.50
$
$
$
$ 765.00
$ 250.00
�
$ 125.00
$ 380.00
$
$
� �Ofl. o�
EifCCt1VC �3/�4/Z��S ` S:�FORMS AND TEMPLATES�F'EES RCPT 2005.FRM.doc
n
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org
��� CITT O�
BUPoJNGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. FEE SCHEDULE
�
'L.,m.,�•��
anD�ss l c�3� �Je.s--l-�,00,� P-� .
�I
Prelimin Plan Check- new construction $ 170.00
Prelunina Plan Check- remodel 105.00
APPLICATIONS
Desi n Review - Addition 535.00
Design Review- New Construction 545.00
Desi n Review Consultant De osit 765.00
Design Review- Handling Fee 250.00
Amendments Desi Review 385
Desi n Review -FYI submittal 100.00
Condominium Pernut, 4 units or less 920.00
Condominium Permit, S units or more 1,120.00
General Plan Amendment 1,275.00
Rezonin 1,120.00
Conditional Use Pernut 870.00
S ecial Permit 870.00
Variance 870.00
Si n Variance 920.00
Antenna Exce tion 25.00
Fence Exce tion 610.00
Hillside Area Construction Pernrit 230.00
Minor Modification 230.00
Second Unit Amnes I
Building Official Inspection Fee 380.00
A eal to Ci Council 230.00
Extension to ermits 205.00
Amendments to ernuts 205.00
Detemiination - Plannin Commission 445.00
ENGINEERING
Sin le-famil Dwelling 88.00
All others 125.00
Added char e if streetsca e installarion 340.00
Traffic and Parkin Studies 135.00
Creek Enclosures 572.00
Draina e and utilities 135.00
PARKS
Arborist Review 125.00
NOTICING
R-1 and R-2 $ 100.00
All Other Districts 100.00
Desi Review, residential 155.00
Desi Review, all otber dishicts 155.00
Minor Mod. And Hillside Area 155.00
General Plan Amendment 1,005.00
Rezoning 1,00�.00
Environmental Im act Re ort 1,010.00
Second Unit Anmesty Noticin 55.00
Ci Council A eal 25.00
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Cate orical Exe tion 55.00
Inirial Stud 105.00
Ne ative Declararion 1,225.00
Mitigated Declaration and/ or with 1,430.00
a Res onsible A enc
Environmental Impact Report 35 % of
(De osit deternuned b Ci Planner contract
Environmental Posring Fee- Neg Dec 135.00
and EIR
Neg Dec. w/ Fish and Game Review 1,275.00
Req'd (make check payable to San
Mateo County)
EIR w/ Fish and Game Review 890.00
Req'd (make check payable to San
Mateo Coun
BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FEES
Office 1,852.00/TSF
Restaurant 7,458.00fI'SF
Hotel 607.00/room
Hotel, Extended Sta 590.00/room
Office/Warehouse/Manufacturin 2,808.00lTSF
Retail - Commercial 6,818.00/TSF
Car Rental 43,268.00/acre
Commercial Recreation 13,428.00/acre
All other 1,492.00/ tri
� Unused portion of deposit will be refunded.
Z Handling fee will be refunded if project does not get referred to a design review consultant.
' S0% of preliminary plan check fee will be credited toward required applicarion fees if and when project is submitted as a
complete application.
REGULAR FEES
$
TOTAL FEES $ � °�° ' ° �
REFUNDABLE FEES $
P�. PLAN CHECK FEE C�DIT $ S:\HANDOUTS\FEES MAR 4 2005.FRM.doc (eff. 3/4/05)
= M E T R O S C A N P R O P E R T Y P R O F I L E_
• San Mateo (CA)
*****�*��**�***********�***�***************�********�**�***�**�**�*****+****�**�*�****�**��
* *
* ------- OWNERSHIP INFORMATION =______ *
* Parcel Number :025 233 090 *
* Owner :Nguyen Jacob;+ *
* CoOwner :Tom Leslie *
* Site Address:l637 Westmoor Rd Burlingame 94010 *
* Mail Address:1637 Westmoor Rd Burlingame Ca 94010 *
* Telephone :Owner: Tenant: *
� *
* ______= SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION =______ *
* Transferred :07/30/2001 Loan Amount :$466,400 *
* Document # :115466 Lender :E-loan Incorporated *
* Sale Price :$583,000 Full Loan Type :Conventional *
* Deed Type:Grant Deed Interest Rate :Adjustable *
* % Owned :100 Vesting Type:Unmarried Person *
* �
* ______= ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION =______ *
* Land :$302,881 Exempt Type . *
* Structure:$302,881 Exempt Amount . *
* Other . Tax Rate Area :004002 *
* Total :$605,762 04-OS Taxes :$6,461.76 *
* a Improved :50 *
* *
* ______= PROPERTY DESCRIPTION =______ *
* Map Grid :728 CS *
* Census :Tract:6051.00 Block:l *
* Zoning :R10006 *
* Land Use :Ol Res,Single Family Residence *
* Legal :LOT 10 BLOCK 5 BURLINGAME VILLAGE *
* :RSM 23/31 32 *
* *
* *
* ------- PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS =----- *
* Total Rms:S Stories :1 Lot Acres :.12 *
* Bedrooms :2 Bldg SqFt:1,120 Lot SqFt :5,250 *
* Bathrooms:1.00 Year Built :1942 LotDimension:50 X 105 *
* DiningRms:Yes EffYrBuilt . Carport . *
* FamilyRms: Bldg Cond: Garage Space:l *
* Lvng Room:Yes Bldg Style :Ranch Garage Type :Garage *
* Kitchen :Yes Bldg Matl:Wood Unit Type . *
* BrkfastRm: Roof Matl:Shake View . *
* Util Room: F1rCoverl:Hardwd FunctionRtng: *
* Den . F1rCover2:Carpet Improve Type: *
* Attic . Foundation . QualityClass: *
* FrmlEntry: Pool . Topography :Level *
* BsmntType: Spa . Lot Location: *
* Units . Patio . Sewer/Septic: *
* AirMethod: Deck . Tennis Court: *
* Heat Type:Central Dishwasher :Yes YardSprnklrs:Yes *
* Heat Srce:Gas Range/Oven . FireSprnklrs: *
* Fireplace:Yes Microwave: Intercom . *
* Bsmt SF . GrbgDisposal: *
* *
* ______= EXTRA FEATURES =_____ *
* 1.1 Stall Shower 5. *
* 2.1 Tub 6. *
* 3. 7. *
* 4. 8. *
* *
****�**�****************�*******+*�*�******�***********�*+************��**��***�****+**+*+*
/�vja�mntion compiled fi�om i�m�ious som�ces. Ren[ Estnte Solutions makes no represen�ations
or n m ranties as to the necurncy or cantpleteness ojiitjormation con(nined in this repor�.
0