HomeMy WebLinkAbout1215 Vancouver Avenue - Staff ReportP.C. 3/14/83
Item #3
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A THREE CAR GARAGE AT 1215 VANCOUVER AVENUE
The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Dan Rosenbledt, are requesting to build a three car garage
which exceeds three of the accessory structure review criteria: (1) 726 SF (500 SF
maximum allowed); (2) 13'-2" plate line (10' maximum allowed); and (3) overall height
19'-8" (14' maximum allowed) (Code Sec. 25.60.010-b,g,h). The proposed garage will
replace an existing garage. The project site is a flag lot of 25,260 SF in area
zoned for 7,000 SF minimum lot size. Other code requirements for lot coverage and
setbacks are met by the proposal.
City staff have reviewed the project. The Chief Building Inspector (February 22, 1983
memo), Fire Marshal (February 14, 1983 memo) and City Engineer (February 10, 1983 memo)
had no comments on the project.
In their letter of February 22, 1983 the applicants indicate their request is based
on the fact that under the current code one cannot build a three car garage without a
special permit. The height and plate line exceptions are being requested so that a
new structure will conform in appearance to the existing house. The existing garage
is old and unuseable. The new garaoe would upgrade the property and benefit the
corr�nuni ty.
- Study Session Questions (Planning Commission Minutes, February 28, 1983)
In measuring plate line staff always looks at the worst case. In this project a survey
has not been completed and there is substantial variation in the grade on-site which,
because of its location, will affect this structure. Given this circumstance, after
discussing the plans with the contractor, it has been determined that the plate line
on the downhill side of this structure will be 13'-2" above grade. On the uphill side
the plate line will be 9'-2" above grade. Thus the building conforms in plate line
at its front and not at its rear. In terms of height, at the rear of the building the
project would be 19'-8" tall, at the front of the building it would be 15'-8" tall.
Therefore the building front and rear exceeds the maximum height allowed in the city.
The peak of the roof rises 6`-6" above the plate line. However, because of the framing
required to support the roof, there will only be a clear space of about 5'-5" immediately
below the peak of the roof. A habitable room could not be created in this area without
substantial modification to the interior of the structure.
The site is about 25, 260 SF in area, zoned for 7,000 SF minimum lot size. However,
since this lot is a flag lot a variance would be required if the lot were to be
subdivided because there is no street frontage. Hillsborough staff reports that the
applicant has requested an encroachment permit for a curb cut to provide access off
Armsby Drive. Even if this additional access is provided, the site is considered a
nonconforming flag lot in Burlingame and a variance for subdivision would be required.
Finally, the applicants could request an annexation to Hillsborough, but it is unlikely
that the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission would approve.
It is difficult to determine the lot coverage of a hypothetical lot split. This is
a good sized lot. If it were to be subdivided a variance would be required because
of the flag lot, and at that time the Commission could determine the appropriateness
of the proposal.
-2-
Drainage would be a definite consideration should this lot be more extensively
developed. Staff would probably call for a special study of the existing conditions
and possible impacts on existing development. Currently, the size of the lot and
placement of the proposed garage is such that drainage is not an issue.
Planning staff would point out some adjustments in calculations of height and plate
line between the Project Assessment and staff report. Most of these problems result
from the fact that the applicant did not want to invest in a survey prior to preparing
plans for Planning review. Staff has used the worst case figures (13'-2" plate line
and 19'-8" overall height) to insure that the building as proposed could be built.
These limits will act as the maxima when the survey is complete and the final building
plans are submitted for Planning Department and Building Department review. Therefore
the final building will not exceed the limits established in the Planning approval.
If the plans do exceed these limits then the plans will have to be reviewed again
by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and make a determination on the
three special permit requests. The following condition should be considered at the
public hearing:
1. that the project be built according to the plans date stamped
January 28, 1983 with a maximum plate line of 13'-2" and a maximum
height of 19'-8".
V� l�� i`�
Mar ar t��e
g e
City Planner
MM/s
3/8/83
cc: Mr, and Mrs. Dan Rosenbledt
Mr. Robert F. Lindstrom
� .�av�.,. v � a�as • . s 4
PROJECT APPLIC�TION
b� CEQA ASSESSMENT
Application received ( 1/28/83
Staff review/acceptance (
R�`CITY o� 1215 VANCOUVER AVENUE
eueuncaMe project address
�"b.,.
1� project name if any
(Business) 583-1345
(applicant i. APPLICANT Mr. & Mrs. Dan Rosenbledt (Home) 347-5555
mai 1 i ng address : name telephone no.
P.O. Box 2086 1215 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame, CA. 94010
$0. San Franci sco, applicant s address: street, city, zip code
Robert F. Lindstrom, 2 Azalea Lane, 592-0406
CA. 94080) -- -
contact person, if different $d11 Car OS, telephone n�.�.
• 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION �A. 94070
Special Perr;it (X ) Variance* () Ccndominium Per�it () Other
*Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 7.5.54.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SPECIAL PERMIT to construct a three car detached
g�raae which exceeds code standards for total area, plate_line and
�ght: (1) 726 SF floor area is proposed; 500 is the maximum
a�� owed: (2� 11'-0" maximum plate line is proposed; 10'-0" maximum
is required; and (3) overall height is 18'-3"; 14'-0" maximum height
;e �lnw�l (reference Code Chap. 25.60). Other code requirements
�or lot coverage and setbacks are met b.y the proposed design. _
(attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed)
Ref. code section(s): ( 25.60.010 � �
4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
( 027-340-160 ) ( ) (
APN lot no. block no.
( R-1 ) ( .58 Ac.
zoning district land area, square feet
Mr. & Mrs. Dan Rosenb7edt
land owner's name �
Reouired Date received
(yes) �-e� (2/23/83 )
�3'� �no) � — )
( Acreage, City of Burlingame
�ubdivision ��ame
1215 Vancouver Avenue
a dre s,
�ur�lingame, CA. 94010
city zip Co<�E
Proof of ownershi�
Owner's consent to a�plication
5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Existinq two story home with detached one car garage
Required Date received
(yes) � ( 1/28/83 )
(yes) #� ( 1/28/83 )
(yes) (no) ( " )
(other) (n�) ( 2/23/83 j
Site plan shov+ing: property lines; public sidewalks and
c�rbs; all structures and improvements;
paved on-site parking; landscaping.
Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area
by type of us�`on each floor plan.
Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant).
Site cross section(s) (if relevant).
_let�Pr of explanation __
'`Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail
sales; restaurant/cafe; manufa,cturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described).
6. PROJECT PP,QPOSAL
Proposed construction, Below grade ( — SF) Second floor ( — SF)
gross floor area First floor (] 2 6 SF) Third floor ( — SF)
Project Code
Pr000sal Requirement
Front setback $Q'± 15'
Side setback — —
Side yard 3� � 5 �
Rear yard 50' — 15'
Project Code
Proposal Requirement
Lot coverage ° ° md .
Buildina ne;9nt15 3"/18'3" SP over 14'
Pla�e line 8'/11' SP over 10'
On-site pkg.spaces 3 1
�-,.�-.W.:
6
PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued)
Full tir�e emoloyees on site
Part tir�e employees on site
Visitors/customers (weekday)
Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.)
Residents on property
Trip ends to/from site*
Peak hour trip ends*
Trucks/service vehicles
EXISTING
after
8-5 5 PM
IM 2 YEARS IP! 5 YEARS
after after
8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM
'`Show calculations on reverse side or attach seoarate sheet.
7. AdJRCFNT BUSINESSES/LAND USES
Residential uses on all adjacent sites; Hillsborough city limit
on the south; this use conforms to the General Plan. _ __
Required
�2T) (no)
(3'��) (no)
Date received
( - ) Location plan of adjacent properties.
( n.d. ) Other tenants/firms on property:
no. firms ( ) no. employees ( )
floor area occupied ( SF office srace)
( SF other)
no. employee vehicles reyularly on site ( )
no. comoany vehicles at this location ( )
8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 ( X) Other application type, fee $ ( i
Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 ( j
Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 (
Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & corsultant fees $
TOTAL FEES $ 1��.�0 RECEIPT NO.� 5862 Received by_ H. Towber
I F�ereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is
true and correct to the best. my knowledae and b2lief.
,� a, '�.�<!'t J-�,�' _ 4� :�
3"�gnatur�y�� P�, , t�'1� �'�[�n ��_�� .� Gete...�-a��._�-
STAFF USE ONLY
NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No.
The City of Burlingame by on
completed a review of the proposed project and determined that:
( ) It will not have a significant effect on the environment.
( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Reasons for a Conclusion:
Categorically Exempt: Reference Natural
Resources Code Sec. 15101.
19 ,
����i �1°n`F'Y'nI /��`('�C ���
Sig,�t�ur of Processine Official Cl, itle � ���a e�Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the deternination shall be final.
DECLARATION OF POSTI"!G Date Posted:
I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that
I oosted a true copy of the above Neoative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near
the doors to th� Council Chambers.
Executed at 6urlingame, California on
Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )Plo
19
EVELYP� H. HILL, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
�
�
STAFF REVIEW
1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATIOP� ,
Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review hy:
date circulated reply received
City Engineer ( 1/10/83 ) (yes) (no)
Building Inspector ( �� ) (yes) (no)
Fire Inspector ( " ) (yes) (no)
Park Department ( ) (yes) (no)
City Attorney ( ) (yes) (no)
memo attached
(yes) (no)
(YeS) (n0�
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
(yes) (no)
2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
Concerns Mitigation Measures
�
Will the structure have an Review plans. Request comments �
adverse impact on surrounding at the public hearing. �
properties? � ;
Could the structure be Review the plans. Condition
converted at some future time the application if approved.
to an unauthorized use?
Does the structure meet Fire Request comments from the Fire
and Building Code requirements? and Building Departments.
.
__ �
3. CEQA REQUIREMEPITS
If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project:
Is the project subject to CEQA review?
IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED:
Initial Study completed
Decision to prepare EIR
Notices of preparation mailed
RFP to consultants
Contract awarded
Admin. draft EIR received
Draft EIR acce�ted by staff
Circulation to other agencies
�
i
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Study by P.C.
Review period ends
Public hearing by P.C.
Final EIR received by P.C.
Certification by Council
Decision on project
Notice of Determination
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4. APPLICATION STATUS Date first received ( 1/28/83 )
Accepted as complete: no( X) letter to aoplicant advising infoP Ceqstudy (.�f�� �3 )
Yes( � date
Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes (no) Recommended date (3�Ii�F �S )
Date staff report mail�ed �t oplicant (��� ��) Date Commission hearing (��/� � 3)
Application approved (�/ ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) no) '
Date Council hearing ( ) Apolication approved ( ) Denied ( )
�i� � i� �e �t�3
signed
�'��[�/f��?'� 02,� /1�i'�'
1S�'U/',cl��°��� �r���vf�'�- C��rN,�rs�srv�^
5� I 1�h'ftv�r.^c.s� �oi?D
���►z,��,�� ���,: �'�
' 9�/C?l(1
>
En�;�.r►nEn�;
����IVEp
FEB 2 3 1983
��n' OF BURLINGAME
�uNNIrdG DEpT,
.a
>
�Y. �Ai'��G.E �D�iILi"eu' - 1.2/S ��1.���'u�1�rP, - ��;�'�L�✓c✓lrrll-
j�s yc�� n��� �lw,-he�, u1�� ✓�,ir �i��u�s� c�Jc J,a2��N�Cs rN rf►E ScZ�
l�ni�7 �Et�Hr11'xA7E l-Tn1F �� �
�l.i� l� N✓: �1QC F���JrD �+�rAE� �I.l�NS �i�= �rii � %��Cv'�
DEsc2rB�0 �'�°�,n�,�i�/.
�HF STZE pirr�R,�niitl�L �[4wLST tS QwE TC: CN�C' �ESri2E
� TH✓�EE CF1�C' C:t)/c'AGc TC f�iU,�ini,�c,—
. Z'T Ls ti�i Pc'.�S[h�.� TC; C.<'1,itc� sv'rcy A t/l,/c'AiE tn,'�TN
i'��SCn1; .� t2� 2�J'N'IC`rciJ.1..
��� �+EtGdr ��'�.I�rE
J.1'ni� ��(CEPfi�ld�i�� ��v;= - THM-,EE 1=,EEr TS F���
L�- Y►'� FU h'. ►m I T y �t; Z tl� T N
'�� A�J� C E�t�r�� P-�srr��Nc�, tuE Sr2urru►:,_ ���s' �
P�r�wEr� �_C�r
.i i �'►1 L L 91: C' (;'li..i iYt N t T YC �v s: ,�c� iP� Lc G/�y/(�r� C� (,�' L i. L C+i K..f �
A C�RrAt�v n�'6��� �F 4N�rce�vntr4.
tNt Ho��� L� �9P('2CXL✓N/aTtL4
S�OYnH �yi � JLQCr�I i-iinlam�2►� 75 Y�fq21 CJin i9ni,,� :L.i GC.v��,=2[n F',�i
LS QL� , rj I��r txWT'C,JC Cni� c'f1� n�'TWCH���
�% t7 u��1 �15;1(3dt ' f:r�2NG E
�~ � t�u� P�e�f���sW � w2i� �1'�C,E'/aOL THE Pr <:��"rzr;-y
�+�� �Jc���n r��N�rrr r+�+� Cc��►v►,uni;.ry.
��s��r�c� F����ti S�,�cmtrr�n
,
`����� � �
✓� �"'�'�`���
���� :�L- ' �,`� ���,<,,,� - �
���
�
0.2 /S 1� �l�'c�uv�=�,'
�g�� 1?�,t„�����1�r
J
_ February 10, 1983
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER �
�/CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR�P�u�S ih �w%�i� �a''ks �
FIRE MARSHAL /
FROM: PLA�JNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A GARAGE ADDITION AT 1215 VANCOUVER AVENUE
Please review the attached project application. We will schedule it for study on
February 28. Your comments should be received by February 18.
Thank you.
�E�E�iiE�i
/�� �
Helen Towber � r
P1 anner / � �
S/
dtt.
►
��d�''`'' '
�� �'' ', n/
�� % /�� �`%
,f/ � F �� ,� �i�J f � /
�. � .
,�i y�� .y ft� •�
�_��- �3.
—" � i L'� � /o .� �c1 .�� /�E� ��d �as .�? t's� / S
/ �z �,�.��n� .,,�
�'� a .� �'+ k / �� �s d/� �r�c //of.� r
�
�� .
� , � A �
�
FE�w�1983
ci �uK� r'�a""r,Na�M�
_ February 10, 1983
MEMO T0: CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
v�RE MARSHAL
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A GARAGE ADDITION AT 1215 VANCOUVER AVENUE
Please review the attached project application. We will schedule it for study on
February 28. Your comments should be received by February 18.
Thank you.
��� �
Helen Towber
Planner
s/
att.
2- I�- I 1�� � D�Pf�-( fYl er� � I-� r�S t�.� p
C� � 2C-7i 0� c� OI�Z �N ��( O�S
. �'d � 1 1�� S '��Q � � � -
�1.'�w� S
� - � {�.
_ February 10, 1983
MEMO T0: ✓CITY ENGINEER
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR
FIRE MARSHAL
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A GARAGE ADDITION AT 1215 VANCOUVER AVENUE
Please review the attached project application. We will schedule it for study on
February 28. Your comments should be received by February 18.
Thank you.
��� �
Helen Towber
Planner
s/ �
att. � � �
� �r �/�i/�/o �
�
r /. /' � 7 l� � f� �t��`" ' �i
`�l� C� �.-► s,-, e,� �
r \
'�,yi • `��ll'%/��PPi4^f
�
o Page 4
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 1983
felt this area would be less hazardous than warehouse use; means of including this
type of project in the traffic allocation calculations; suspended ceilings are
proposed, applicant will be required to comply with all Fire standards of the city;
suggest that 10% landscaping be required, that with 56% office space, the building
be sprinkled and office space should be determined by the available parking; concern
about traffic in an area where there already is a problem and about loss of tax money
by converting warehouse to office space.
C. Giomi moved to approve this Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that
the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of January 28, 1983, the City
Engineer's memo of January 31, 1983 and the Fire Marshal's memo of January 26, 1983
be met; (2) that the final plans be found to be consistent with the plans date stamped
January 19, 1983; (3) that the final landscaping plans meet the approval of the
Director of Parks; (4) that no less than 10% of the property be landscaped and the
applicant be allowed to consider public area in this 10%; (5) that the total building
be sprinkled; and (6) that any change in the plans date stamped January 19, 1983
be determined by the available parking. Second C. Graham; motion approved on a 6-1
roll call vote, C. Leahy dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised.
6. REQUEST FOR 12 MONTH EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM P4AP, 1277 EL CAMINO REAL
CE Erbacher reviewed this request for tentative map extension for a 6 unit condominium
development. Reference City Engineer's memo of February 22, 1983 and February 15, 1983
letter from John Rahimzadeh, Agent for Mr. Dai-Javad. CE discussed tentative map
extension granted in December, 1981; applicant's receipt of Building Permit which is
valid until h1ay, 1983; and applicant's request for a six month extension. CE recommended
a 12 month extension be approved and recommended to Council.
Discussion: CA confirmed that since the Building Permit is now valid, the Condominium
Permit also granted and extended in 1981, is valid as long as a Building Permit is
in force; CE estimated 8-9 months for completion of this project.
C. Schwalm moved to approve and recommend to City Council a 12 month extension, until
December 7, 1983, of this tentative condominium map. Second C. Cistulli; motion
approved unanimously on voice vote.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
' 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A THREE CAR GARAGE AT 1215 VANCOUVER AVENUE, BY MR. AND MRS.
�� DAPd ROSEPlBLEDT
Requests: how was the plate line measured; what portion of the area in the aitic would
be useable; is this lot subdividable; if so, what would lot coverage be if it were
subdivided; can lot be subdivided and maintain proper setbacks; direction of drainage
runoff. Item se� for hearing March 14, 1983.
8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A DONUT SHOP WITHIN SUB-AREA D AT 212 CALIFORNIA DRIVE,
BY ARTURO MORALES
9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A RETAIL HOME AND AUTO STEREO SHOP WITHIN SUB-AREA D AT
214 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY AP,TURO MORALES
Requests: comparison of present/proposed use of this building with previous use; traffic
generation of the total building; problem with handicapped access to central restrooms.
Items #8 and #,9 were set for hearing March 14, 1983.
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 1983
4. SPECiAL PERr-tIT TO ALLOW A PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO IPd SUB-AREA D AT 210 CALIFORNIA DRIVE,
BY DAVID A. DORNLAS
CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a non-automotive use in Sub-Area D, the area
designated for Auto Row. Reference staff report dated 2/22/83; Project Application &
CEQA Assessment received 1/18/83; January 31, 1983 memo from the City Engineer;
January 20, 1983 memo from the Fire Marshal; January 28, 1983 memo from the Chief
Building Inspector; February 14, 1983 memo from David A. Dornlas; February 14, 1983
Planning Commission study session minutes; aerial photograph; and plans date stamped
January 18, 1983. CP discussed details of the proposal, code requirements, staff
reviea�, applicant's comments and study session request. Three conditions were
suggested in the staff report for Commission consideration.
David Dornlas, the applicant, was present. Chm. P1ink opened the public hearing. There
were no audience comments and the hearing was closed. During discussion two changes
to the conditions were suggested: modify Condition #1 to read "No processing of film
or prints . .", and add Condition #4, "that retail sales beyond the primary purpose
of selling photographs be limited to frames and photo albums." Further discussion:
film will be developed in a commercial laboratory; Commission's concern about the use
of chemicals on site and parking in the area; applicant's understanding that there is
a master sign program for this building.
C. Giomi moved to approve this Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that
no processing of film or prints should occur on this site; (2) that the conditions of
the Chief Building Inspector's memo of January 28, 1983 and the Fire Marshal's memo
of January 20, 1983 be met; (3) that at a minimum the conditions of the City Engineer's
memo of January 31, 1983 be met should a request for photo processing or photo
enlargement be made for this site; and (4) that retail sales beyond the primary purpose
of selling photographs be limited to frames and photo albums. Second C. Leahy;
motion apnroved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONVERSION OF WAREHOUSE SPACE TO OFFICE SPACE IN THE
M-1 DISTRICT AT 840 MAHLER ROAD, BY GEORGE DOLIM FOR 840 h1AHLER BURLINGAME ASSOCIATES
CP Monroe discussed this application to allow conversion of 56% of warehouse to office
use. Reference staff report dated 2/23/83; Project Application & CEQA Assessment
received 1/19/83 with Supplemental Information received 1/19/83; January 28, 1983 memo
from the Chief Building Inspector; January 31, 1983 memo from the City Engineer;
January 26, 1983 memo from the Fire Marshal; aerial photograph; February 14, 1983 study
meeting minutes; February 23, 1983 memo from the Fire Marshal; and plans date stamped
January 19, 1983. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review,
Planning staff comments, study meeting concerns regarding handicap access, sprinkling
and landscaping. Three conditions were suggested in the staff report for Commission
consideration.
George Dolim, architect representing the applicant, was present and pr�sented a graphic
indicating existing and proposed landscaping. He advised that since discussion at
the study session the landscaping had been increased to about 10% of the total site
area, some of which is between the property line and the sidewalk, i.e. on city
property. Discussion: a requirement that no more square footage be added than there is
parking to code provided; property owner will maintain the landscaping on public property.
Chm. Mink opened the public
closed. Further discussion:
structure; applicant advised
hearing. There were no
Fire Code requirements
all office areas would
audience comments and the hearing was
with regard to sprinkling a
be one hour construction and they
:KL/NG OR. ' � � ti
o''
0
., �'-
�•
y� �ti �y� 33
� 50
pR� h,; �'�V� �� �� � �� a, ��� �� �
P� �.� y'-, � a :, � -a
�� � , ,
, � �:.
,
,� �;�� ° , Q� 20'
� o
�n v o_ � 3`� L d�' N
m — a W
.a � � �n
/ O �, �
�-� o o Q
' o ,n
� °' � �,N �ae
4 CY. ° O �' O �" �
s 0 �13 a
�.n � � Q � o
Z �o 'n �
i .n n � d�
;�n p0
� ''� , d5. �0 � N
_ 1 5 � L w�` �
� a 1 5 � /8 9?5 �� v
—�
� �
� o Id� ln
m - 8 Zg EASE �
� �6 /7 J w
� �
Ico � N _-,i�
340 . ��
o � ,00
% 3 a 5a 5`� o 0
Q � � �� J T O � �
.n .n � d�?a
� �
� � � 00'
� J o
.� O a
�
i /0 ��, OO =n � m O m
s 6
s __�.�,
�� � �
Ia LG 1°0
„�. 4 0
a> > 4� ` _- - Z�o� Y �
,� � G� ,� z� Z�t2 z'O8 WA
. � ,s �.; Zitb BROA�
Q` LOT A
o �P�
5� A,� '.
O� n �?.! aV E 1
� p� �33a
5so ,s: :9 w I IG 2B y SCN��L DlST
Iw — —i;.e� ,"•'� ti��� � BUR�lNGAME
6 ti � �� �1
p0 �'+ a
2I � ^'��
N
� R "
i4Sp .sisac QI is
3i , � ��=' o � �, �,11 .
05 Q CT R y��� �� ROpSE✓ElT scNoo�
� _ 0 W' � m r/_54 � �
a
i B' .ro Q�v_ � 1 h �GQ ZB'
cj
vi
m � �o ` �� . 502AC 2 �
m� `� � �°, �
m
4p� �r9z7 Rw
5 95 �4-w
C/ T Y OF BURL /NGAME
�
W
�
�
0
V
�
So
BK
��
� REYIVOLOS WOODS RSM 56�