Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCEQA DocumentsEXHIBIT C - INITIAL STUDY �r� CITY O� BURUNGAME � T0: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ��' � a•� 1400 - lOth Street ��.r�o����•• Sacramento, CA. 95814 Project Title Type of Permit: Rezoning Legal Description: Property Owner: APN 026-231-270 Name: David T. 0'Neal Address: 577 Airport Blvd., Suite 100 Burlingame, CA 94010 Contact Person: David T. 0'Neal Area Code: 415 Phone: 348-3300 residential) to M-1 (light industrial Zone: R-4 Applicant: Name: A1 and Jean Covarelli Address: 1001 Broadwa �, Suite 302 Millbrae, CA 94030-1951 Contact Person: A1 Covarelli Area Code: 415 Phone: 697-7370 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The ro'ect is a rezonin of a 13,200 s uare foot sin le p J g q g parcel located. at 1011 Cadillac Way from the present R-4 multiple family residential district to M-1 light industrial district. The property is developed with a nonconforming 5,300 SF office building, a carryover from the days when the structure served as the construction and sales office for the adjacent 500+ unit Northpark apartment complex. It is nonconforming since office buildings and uses are not allowed in the R-4 zoning district. The general plan designates this site as service and special sales. This same service and special sales designation is assigned to the adjacent area zoned M-1 and the Northpark apart- ment complex zoned R-4. Since office uses are allowed in the service and special sales commercial area, the existing use conforms to the general plan. The M-1 zoning would match the adjacent zoning on the north side of Cadillac Way and on the adjacent properties on the southeast corner of Cadillac Way and Rollins Road. The M-1 zoning designation would allow office use. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site at 1011 Cadillac Way is fully developed with a one story b ock bui ding used as an office. The structure is surrounded by asphalt most of which is used for parking. The driveway is shared with the adjacent Northpark apartment complex of some 500 rental units. Northpark is developed on a campus plan with a series of low rise buildings set among lawns and trees. Generally Northpark orients toward Carolan Avenue, and the shared driveway off Cadillac Way runs along its rear property line. Apartment buildings do have windows facing the shared driveway. The other adjacent parcels are developed lot line to lot line with structure and paving. The present structure is one story. If rezoned and replaced the maximum square footage of office use on the site would be about 6,000 SF (assuming 10 parking spaces on site and the present variance for 10 spaces). The present variance is valid for 20 years and is tied to office use only. The rezoning would automatically allow any permitted use in the M-1 district; and would require a conditional use for the types of uses already located on the adjacent M-1 zoned land, auto sales, retail grocery and restaurant. The adjacent residential uses would not be allowed in the M-1 zone. 1011 CADILLAC WAY Project Address or Location File No. ND-428P Rezonina of 13,200 SF parcel from R-4 -2- ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT: (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided at the conclusion of this section.) 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? Yes Maybe No —� ___z___ --�_ � —� �_ -� � —� �� x —� -3- c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned use of an area? Yes Maybe P�o --�— � �_ �— --�— —� � � �� —�— . � �_ � —� � x --� X X -4- 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. RISK OF UPSET. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or ai r traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or en ergy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Yes Maybe No � —� —� -�- x � --P�--- —� �_ � � X _� C �— � __z__. _� � �� -5- b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes Maybe No iC --� T � i� h k x K �_ X � � x � RESPONSES TO IDENTIFIED EVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 6. Noise a. The M-1 district regulations would allow as permitted use some activities which could be less compatible in terms of noise with the adjacent residential use than the present nonconforming office building. 8. Land Use a. The immediate rezoning will not necessarily result in an alteration of the present land use because of the existing structure but how will the rezoning affect the future use opportunities of the site? 18. Aesthetics a. Some of the uses permitted in the M-1 light industrial district are not visually compatible with residential uses. CITY OF BURLINGAME NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND-428P The City of Burlingame by MARGARET MONROE on NOVEMBER 16 , 1989, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: ( X) It will not have a significant effect on the environment. () No Environmental Impact Report is required. Reasons for Conclusion: The proposed site is adjacent to areas presently zoned M-1, has been developed and used historically for land uses more compatible with the M-1 light industrial district than the R-4 residential district and is consistent with the general plan land use element. In addition on the basis of theinitial study and comments there is no substantial evidence that the rezoning will have a significant effect on the environment. 1 �_. CITY PLANNER NOVEMBER 16, 1989 Sig t e of P ocessing Official Title Date Signed Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. Date Posted: , / Declaration of Postina I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on /��i�jj �(p� /9�9� 1989. Appealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No ` -----� _ i� ;' Y/// � O // // � JUDITH A� M�(L,FATTI, CITY CLER�CITY OF BURLINGAME EXHIBIT C - INITIAL STUDY � CITV �� O� BURUNGAME T0: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE � '• i 1400 - lOth Street �».r.o���.•'�' Sacramento, CA. 95814 1011 CADILLAC WAY Project Address or Location File No. ND-428P Project Title: Rezoning of 13,200 SF arcel from R-4 (residential) to M-1 li ht Type of Permit: Rezoning industrial Legal Description: APN 026-231-270 Zone: R-4 Property Owner: Name: David T. 0'Neal Address: 577 Airport Blvd., Suite 100 Burlinqame, CA 94010 Contact Person: David T. 0'Neal Area Code: 415 Phone: 348-3300 Applicant: Name: A1 and Jean Covarelli Address: 1001 Broadway. Suite 302 Millbrae, CA 94030-1951 Contact Person: A1 Covarelli Area Code: 415 Phone: 697-7370 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a rezoning of a 13,200 square foot single parcel located at 1011 Ca i ac ay from the present R-4 multiple family residential district to M-1 light industrial district. The property is developed with a nonconforming 5,300 SF office building, a cdrryover from the days when the structure served as the construction and sales office for the adjacent 500+ unit Northpark apartment complex. It is nonconforming since office building� and uses are not allowed in the R-4 zoning district. The general plan designates this site as service and special sales. This same service and special sales designation is assigned to the adjacent area zoned M-1 and the Northpark apart- ment complex zoned R-4. Since office uses are allowed in the service and special sales commercial area, the existing use conforms to the general plan. The M-1 zoning would match the ddjacent zoning on the north side of Cadillac Way and on the adjacent properties on the southeast corner of Cadillac Way and Rollins Road. The M-1 zoning designation would allow office use. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site at 1011 Cadillac Way is fully developed with a one story b ock bui ing use as an office. The structure is surrounded by asphalt most of which is used for parking. The driveway is shared with the adjacent Northpark apartment complex of some 500 rental units. Northpark is developed on a campus plan with a series of low rise buildings set among lawns and trees. Generally Northpark orients toward Carolan Avenue, and the shared driveway off Cadillac Way runs along its rear property line. Apartment buildings do have windows facing the shared driveway. The other adjacent parcels are developed lot line to lot line with structure and paving. The present structure is one story. If rezoned and replaced the maximum square footage of office use on the site would be about 6,000 SF (assuming 10 parking spaces on site and the present variance for 10 spaces). The present variance is valid for 20 years and is tied to office use only. The rezoning would automatically allow any permitted use in the M-1 district; and would require a conditional use for the types of uses already located on the adjacent M-1 zoned land, auto sales, retail grocery and restaurant. The adjacent residential uses would not be allowed in the M-1 zone. -2- ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT: (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided at the conclusion of this section.) 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? Yes Maybe No �_ �— _� —� —� � �— �_ �_ �._ � �_ -3- c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6 7. � NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned use of an area? Yes Maybe No \� � �_ — � — _� — �— — � — —� — �— — -�— - � — �_ — —� — �_ _ X, — � — —�-- X X -4- 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. RISK OF UPSET. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or en ergy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Yes Maybe No � C —� -� X � � —� �_ � __,z__ � �— �_ � � C �� C �_ �c� b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of peoole to potential health hazards? 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal corrmunity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-tettn impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes Maybe X No ic � --�— —� � h k �— � X X � k �� RESPONSES TO IDENTIFIED EVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 6. Noise a. The M-1 district regulations would allow as permitted use some activities which could be less compatible fn terms of noise with the adjacent residential use than the present nonconforming office building. 8. Land Use a. The immediate rezoning will not necessarily result in an alteration of the present land use because of the existing structure but how will the rezoning affect the future use opportunities of the site? 18. Aesthetics a. Some of the uses permitted in the M-1 light industrial district are not visually compatible with residential uses. RESPONSE TO IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Items not found to be affected: The possible environmental effects of this project, the change in zoning from R-4 to M-1 at 1011 Cadillac Way, are limited because the site is located in a developed area and is already developed and served with adequately sized public facilities and services. Allowance of permitted or conditional uses in the M-1 zone will not exceed these capacities. Since the project focuses on the potential use caused by the change in use opportunities resulting from the change in zoning, specific developments and uses which are conditional uses rather than permitted uses would require their own environmental review with appropriate mitigations required at that time. Therefore the focus of review of this project is on the potential impact of uses permitted in the M-1 district. This property is now a buffer between residential and light industrial zoning. The existing uses on the properties now zoned M-1 are not permitted uses but those requiring a conditional use permit. The kinds of uses permitted in the M-1 district include manufacturing conducted wholly inside the building, and including the manufacturing of foods and drugs; warehousing; storage or wholesaling of goods also contained within a building except for parking on site of related vehicles; and outdoor storage of materials used for manufacturing or other permitted uses except that storage would be at the side or rear of the building. Since the site is now fully developed and future installation of any permitted use could cover the site equally, the change in zoning would not result in a change from existing conditions of earth, water, plant life, animal life, light and glare, natural resources, population, public services, energy, utilities, recreation or archeology. Compliance with current fire regulations which is required prior to installation of any use in the M-1 zone and is enforced with regular inspection reduces the concerns about human health and risk of upset from permitted uses. Generally the permitted uses in the M-1 district generate fewer vehicle trips per day than an office use. However, more of these trips may be by trucks rather than is the case with office use. Since this site is small and therefore inappropriate for major manufacturing businesses, traffic is not anticipated to be a problem. Site access is from Rollins Road and Carolan Avenue both of which are arterials and heavily used presently by commercial traffic. Rollins Road connects directly to the Broadway interchange with Highway 101. The uses between this site and Rollins Road on Cadillac Way are on property zoned M-1 and uses which are consistent with the conditional uses in that district. Since Cadillac Way now serves them as well as the nonconforming office use on the present site, the capacity of Cadillac Way is adequate to handle the traffic generated by a permitted use. Thus there are no significant transportation/circulation impacts caused by the project. There should be no impacts on any air quality because traffic capacities are adequate and should flow freely. A new permitted use's emissions would be required to meet the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board and therefore would have no additional impact or would be considered by an environmental document at the time the project was proposed. Because the site is small and, although presently zoned residential, has always been in a commercial use and permitted uses employ fewer people per square foot than the present office use, the rezoning to allow permitted uses will generate no significant new housing problem. Future conditional uses which might increase employment on the site and possibly have an effect on housing would be required to receive a conditional use permit and be subject to environmental review at that time. Three items were identified as possible effects of the rezoning project: noise, land use and aesthetics. The noise issue relates to the possibility that some of the permitted uses in the district may be noisier than the present office use or a future residential use. The site is located in a CNEL zone which exceeds 70, the noisiest in the city. A permitted use would have to have an exceedingly high point source noise level in order to have a substantial effect on adjacent properties. Regulations controlling the placement of generators and other equipment exterior to a building established in the general plan require that noise levels not be raised above 5 dBA at property line. Given this requirement and the high ambient noise level, the adjacent residential uses would be protected by a future permitted use in the M-1 zone. Therefore, while noise from a use on site might increase, this effect is not felt to be significant. Since the site is presently developed with an office building and office use is a conditional use in the M-1 zoning district, rezoning the site will probably not result in an immediate change of land use. Moreover, since the present parking variance is tied to the office use, the most probable reuse, at least for the next 20 years, is office. The general plan designates this area, both the proposed site for rezoning and Northpark, as service and special sales commercial. Therefore the existing use and permitted uses under M-1 are consistent with the land use designation in the general plan and there would be no significant impact on land use policy caused by the change in zoning. Some of the uses permitted in the M-1 district can create offensive public views, outdoor storage is a primary one. However, the M-1 district regulations require all outdoor storage to be fenced by a solid fence or wall and kept to the side and rear of a building. Conditional uses can be conditioned to specifically address any visual nuisances. These requirements should reduce negative visual impacts to an acceptable level. � Given the fact that the proposed site is adjacent to areas presently zoned M-1, has been used for a use more compatible with M-1 than R-4 since its construction, that the proposed M-1 zoning is more consistent with the general plan designation and its policy than the present zoning and that on the basis of the initial study and comments there is no substantial evidence that the rezoning will have a significant effect on the environment. -7- DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( X) I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures which have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ( ) I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D a te (V �l ijh'� �t(' � �o �1�j�1 � �—. Signature For CITY OF BURLINGAME