The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About420 Carolan Avenue - Staff Report* ` i � CP by for 8urlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 November 8, 1982 C. Giomi moved for approval of this condominium permit with the following conditions: (1) that the final working drawings for this condominium project be consistent with the plans date stamped September 29, 1982; (2) that the conditions in the Chief Building Inspector's memo of October 22, 1982, the Fire P1arshal's memo of October 14, 1982, the City Engineer's memo of October 19, 1982 and the Park Director's memo of November 2, 1982 be met; (3) that the final landscaping and irrigation plans be approved by the ' Park Department prior to the issuance of a building permit; (4) that the developer work with Pl,�nning and Building Department staffs to use the front door in the design if it meets code and that the Park Director approve the plaque to be placed on the site; and (5) that the final landscape plans include a pedestrian walkway from the sidewalk to the f'ront door of the project on the north side of the proposed driveway; exterior lighting should be provided along this walkway and at the entrances to the building and garage. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR AN 18 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1449-57 BELLEVUE AVENUE, BY FRAH�1-EDLER-CANNIS FOR ALAMEN DEVELOPMENT TNC. Reference City Engineer's November 3, 1982 memo. CE Erbacher recommended approval and transmittal to City Councils C. Graham moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of �his tentative subdivision map. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll ca7i vote. 3. TENTATIVE AND FTNAL PARCEL MAP TO CONSIDER SUBDIVIDING OF THE EXISTING 20 ACRE HIRAM WALKER SITE AT 1645 �OLLINS ROAD INTO TWO PARCELS, BY WM. WRIGHT & C0. FOR HIRAM WALKER & SONS, iNC. _ _ CE Erbacher reviewed the proposed resubdivision of the Hiram Walker lands. Reference CE's memo of November 2, 1982 with attached Notice of Exemption filed October 18, 1982; October 18, 1982 memo from the Fire M,rshal; October 18, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; Parcel Map and Photo Map dated October 18, 1982. CE noted con�itions of the Building Division and Fire Marshal and that the map conforms to the Gener�`1 P'lan and the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommended approval and recommendation to Council with five conditions as listed in the staff report. 0 Chm. �1ink opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. C. Harvey moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this Tentative and Final Parcel Map with the following conditions: (1) Parcel "B" grant to Parcel "A" a parking easement adjacent to the easterly most common boundary between the two parcels; (2) the map to include a 15' sanitary sewer easement to the City of Burlingame and adjacent to the easterly boundary of Parcel "B" and the remnant of Lot 19 for the construction of a bypass sewer main in accordance with the 1976 Metcalf and Eddy Study recommendations; (3) all new utility services to either of these buildings be installed underground if served from Rollins Road; (4) the most easterly common boundary of Parcel "A" and "B" be 10' minimum from tMe existing building; and (5) the conditions of the Building Division's memo of October 18, 1982 and the Fire Marshal's memo of October 18, 1982 be accomplished before filing of the Parcel Map with the County. � Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED METAL-SIDED PARK SHED LOCATED IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CORPORATION YARD IN WASHINGTON PARK Monroe noted that an amendment to the Building Code requires architectural review the Planning Commission of a building in which metal sheeting or plates are used external covering of the roof or walls. Reference staff report dated 11/2/82; � • �. � � CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEPIBER 8, 1982 CALL TO ORDER • A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman P�ink on Monday, November 8, 1932 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cistulli, Garcia, Giomi, Graham, Harvey, Leahy, Mink Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MI�lUTES - The minutes of the October 25, 1982 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted with the following correction: Item #5, page 4, third paragraph, next to last sentence, add the underscored, "the higher 3'-6" parapet was also favored because it provided a better looking, more finished building, and would reduce the safety hazard on the roof." AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN 18 UNIT TNREE-STORY CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1449-57 BELLEVUE AVENUE, BY PHIL GERMAN FOR ALAMEN DEVELOPMENT INC. CP P�onroe reviewed this revised application for an 18 unit residential condominium. Reference staff report dated 11/2/82; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 10/1/82; October 22, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; October 14, 1982 memo from the Fire Marshal; October 19, 1982 memo from the City Engineer; 10/7/82 memo from the City Attorney; 11/2/82 memo from the Park Director; study meeting minutes of October 25, 1982; aerial photograph of the site; and plans date stamped September 29, 1982. CP discussed the design of the project and code requirements; staff review and comments; Commission concerns raised at the study meeting; incorporating present significant structural features of the existing home in the design. Planning staff recommended approval with five conditions as listed in the staff report. Phil German, the applicant, was present. Chm. �1ink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the Chair declared the hearing closed. During discussion Safwat Malek, architect for the project, addressed the matter of incorporating portions of the existing structure into the present design. He advised the flat roofs of the revised project would be a problem in using the dormer windows in the new plan, that if the front door met code it could be used in the pool building and that there was no place for the portico in the current proposal. He further advised that the developer was previously committed to putting a plaque on the site. Mr. Malek agreed to include a pedestrian walkway in the final design if that was staff's recommendation and to rectify the omission of exterior lighting. CP advised that parking requirements have been met. She further noted the new address assigned by Public 4Jorks to this site is 1457 Bellevue Avenue r B�rlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 November 8, 1982 Municipal Code Section 18.08.240 of the Building Code; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 9/15/82; aerial photograph; Exhibits A-D, Park Corporation Building Study; September 29, 1982 memo from Kris Konecny, Park Project Coordinator; Park Corp. Yard Landscaping Plan dated 11/1/82; October 12, 1982 memo from the Chief Building Inspector; "no comments" memo from the City Engineer; October 18, 1982 memo from the Fire Marshal; study meeting minutes of October 25, 1982; November 2, 1982 memo, Architectural Review of Park Corporation Yard Building, from Kris Konecny; Wall System drawing, stylwall panel and insulation and interior surfacing method. CP discussed details of this proposal, staff review, Commission comments at the study session, and showed samples of the proposed exterior material. She noted code requirements of Sec. 18.08.240 and five suggested criteria for Commission review. Planning staff recorrAnended findings be made on the basis of these criteria; three conditions of approval were suggested. Kris Konecny, Park Project Coordinator, was present representing the Park Department. Discussion: comparative costs of inetal and block buildings; Fire Department has determined this type of structure is safe for the intended use; the building will be placed on a slab foundation; no major mechanical work will be done there. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the Chair declared the hearing closed. Commission comment: this building is the best alternative proposed in a number of years. Addressing design criteria enumerated in the staff report, it was found the height is compatible with the area, glare or light reflection will not be a problem, the building and its color are compatible with its setting, and construction material is compatible with its intended use. It was pointed out the entire building would be insulated; the office space insulated and heated. C. Harvey moved to accept this desiqn as submitted with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of October I2, 1982 and the Fire Marshal's memo of October 18, 1982 be met; (2) that the landscaping be installed as proposed in the landscape plan dated November 1, 1982; and (3) that the final building plans and siting of the building be consistent with the plans dated October 8, 1982. Second C. Graham; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. ITEMS �OR STUDY 5. SPECIAL PERP�IT TO CONSTRUCT A 119 SF BATH HOUSE AND A 71 SF CABANA BEHIND THE EXISTING HOUSE AT 2614 SUMMIT DRIVE Requests: drawing which shows the drainage from the roof area of the bath houses; setbacks from the structures as proposed to the property line; graphic showing nearest structure on adjacent property. Item set for hearing November 22, 1982. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 741 SF DETACHED GARAGE AT 2160 TROUSDALE DRIVE THAT EXCEEDS CODE STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT, PLATE LINE AND FLOOR AREA Requests: reason why a roof with lesser pitch could not be used; aerial photograph to see relationship to adjacent neighboring structures; height of vehicle to be stored in the garage; check square footage of the proposed garage. Item set for hearing November 22, 1982. ,.. - . � � . � Page 4 , Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1982 CITY PLANNER REPORT 0 CP Monroe reviewed the City Council meeting of November 1, 1982: - Approved the revised Anza/Owen Office Park project, 477 Airport Boulevard, to be confirmed by resolution at their November 15 meeting. ' - Continued the revocation hearing for Davis Banquet and Party Center, 1450 Rollins Road with the condition that affairs contracted through December 18 be allowed but no other affairs contracted for. The Horns (property owners) to present a concrete proposal for the use of this site for Council review prior to December 18. - Approved a revised Bayfront Traffic Allocation procedure; denied extension of traffic allocation request for BayBreeze office project, 1484 Bayshore Highway. - Introduced Ordinance Limiting Retail, Office and Dwelling Uses in the M-1 Zone. - Approved the Negative Declaration on the Housing Element amendment, scheduled for hearing and action November 15. - Appeal of Commission's denial of the snack bar at 801 Mahler Road was set for hearing November 15. CP reported BCDC had approved Phase I of the Marriott Hotel project, 700 rooms, and Marriott expects to comnence construction in March, 1983. She also reported Council's concern about businesses fronting on alleys or public parking lots. ACKNOWLEDGMENT October 12, 1982 letter from Janet K. Fernandez, new owner of La Petite Cafe, 851 Burlway Road, confirming her review of the conditions of the use permit previously granted to the property by the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary � � 3TRUCTION �ich structure is located in the 'rea� of any type of construction a1lowPd j neans for roof drainage shall be irtst Ord. 780; July 1, 1963: Ord. 987 'i , 1978). ::�:'F:�� mended — Fire zone definitionµ�ek� �de is amended to read: �"F� �� "„ planning commission or the �cify � a variance with respect to real pr0 `pett�; dential use, the property so reclassif�, en granted, shall automatically be ii� that if said property is contiguotis td! � : «��.�'��. > ,•:; „ . . :�_:_ . ;�,;��s,�;� �r�. ...� '��.t,C� 'Tt�'`YA� { ..1 .1�ti_' .- • � }.��.Y � �_'41}� i'" > I�y S�� 1 �`T'�h.(�i T� �, 1 ✓ y.; * r �t � R T�,��t{..;'n� q�'I«i�'�'��d�''�'�f�{ dF�at,�i � 1 r, ��t4 � ttF� � .�` � y r % �i . 4 ��'rWi Y "Yi �'. � � � v�� BUILDING CODE 18.08.210-18.08.245 �� .�'� , � I � � �.�r,c I at any point, it shall be automatica included within Fire Zone I� „ Y �s:c�J of Fire Zone II as of the date of the granting of such reclassification � ��fl:lilCe, as the case may Ue." (Ord 829 § 6; September 20, 1965, as ,Cscnded by Ord. 906 § 6; January 5, 1970). � 1�.0g.210 Section 1602 amended — Restrictions in fire zone l. Section ;.�J'�a► of the building code is amended Uy adding exception number 3 to �ss! s� follo�vs: , "3. First floor wa}ls whose main entrance fronts on a street having a aa:th of at least fifty (50) feet may have combustible frame work as �o��ed for one-hour construction provided the structural frame is �tccted as required by this code. This paragraph applies to Group B 9s..,pancies." (1941 Code § 2400.14, added by Ord. 780; July 1, 1963: .M. �5_'9 $ 7; September 20, 1965: Ord. 906 § 7; January 5, 1970: Ord. 987 #'; �Isy 7, 1973: Ord. 1128 § 16; June 19, 1978). °�"' �' �-'" 1l0�.220 Section 1603 amended - Prohibited occupancies provision of ��t f",,"�" -�c cone 2 deleted. Section 1603 of the building code is amended by ! +�t��s�-�° �ting all of subsection (c) "Occupancies Prohibited." (1941 Code § :=�;`�` �� :aA.l�, added by Ord. 780; July l, 1963). �-`�+-� -- _ ,�,�„ : $t:ra� �.5;. r3e < . � cY�Y�y✓ ;;`: a � � �'.�<,�;�. � . '',If.��,. ��" •.�� ; " ..x�i,'�s; * �` - ,^:�� .:. ; � .-�.:�,�, ..aa. „.. , ; -; ,y�,, �:�� ;;. . -;,� • . a: �1 4 : �� • i .. 3:t`:~; = e.��. psa�;; ';�;:�', �. . ,trtr�.��.. � : 15.08.240 Section 1701 amended — Exterior metal coverings. Section �ui of tlie building code is amended by adding the following paragraph: "The use of inetal slieets or plates for the external covering of roofs or `�-`� �s prohibited, anything in this code notwitlistanding, with following �ptiun. "�. l�fetal or metallic shingles as roof coverings and prefabricated r';nished modular siding or panels approved and acceptable to the F�ire '�1 anci the Buildin� Official for specific installation. -. Gasoline service stations as provided in Section 2101 of this Code. ��. Architectural approval for all such installation is to be obtained ~"' tfie p annin� Commis�siropn.'' (1941 Code § 2400.16 added by Ord. 780; ''�' �. 1963, and ame�lded by Ord. 906 § 8; January 5, 1970, and by Ord. �� ` �: �1ay 7, 1973). -r} ��.. �� H.245 Section 2203 amended — Exteraor walls and openings. �<"=,�7`'':� ��0� �'?03 of the building code is amended to read as follows: , ;,t., ,�,�f> -� ^�`'�;_ ��) Exterior Walls. In Fire Zone No. 2, exterior walls shall be of not •+u�:�;'-:-'='- �� rt.. - a'�`- ��n one-hour fire-resistive construction. . , �,,�: "�``_��"�� -xception: Exterior walls fronting on a street having a width of at , x+��`.. `a' thirty (30) feet may be of unprotected incombustible construction, or ,;,+,�,�.: -. •-- �• sy�,. �;^� protected on the exterior with materials as required for one-hour fire �.:;r,��t,�,� ance. All structtiral members shall be fire rotected as set forth in Table ..,:+�is�' " �+� I �-A. p �" � � �t� �'` ;"`"!�?� y��b) Openings in Walls. All openings in exterior walls shall conform to .��r��-��'%_� ''�uirements specified in Section 504. In Fire Zone No. 2 all openings ;.;:�',��. 216-2 217 (Burlingame 10-15-78) P.C. 11/8/82 I tem #4 MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED METAL PARK SHED BUILDING, WASHINGTON PARK ADJACENT TO CITY NURSERY An amendment to the Building Code Sec. 18.08.240 requires architectural review by the Planning Commission of a building in which metal sheeting or plates are used for external covering of the roof or walls. The proposed metal exterior structure (3352 SF) will be added to an existing 319 SF concrete block building (total building area 3671 SF). The interior of the building will be partitioned off into three areas: a small office area (160 SF), a storage area and a working space. Only the office area will be heated. However, the entire metal portion of the building will be fully insulated. The building will be used for equipment, storage and minor maintenance such as changing mower blades. The proposed structure will have a maximum height of 14 feet. Exhibits A-D indicate its visibility from off-site locations. The color of the structure will be earth tone dull tan or green. The landscape plan addresses reinforcement of existing vegetation screening to further reduce off-site visibility of the new, larger building. Vine plantings will be selected which do well naturally; initial irrigation until plants are established will be done by hand by Park maintenance staff who are regularly on the site. After plants are established irrigation will not be necessary. City staff has reviewed the proposed building. The Chief Building Inspector (memo of October 12, 1982) notes the need to review siding panel/modules. The City Engineer had no comments (memo of September 17, 1982). The Fire Marshal (memo of October 18, 1982) is requiring adequate smoke release vents. - Commission comments. At the study meeting the Commission expressed a number of concerns (minutes of October 25, 1982 meeting) and the need for additional information. Kris Konecny of the Park Depart- ment, who has been responsible for this project, has written a memo (November 2, 1982) addressing each of these concerns. Corr�nents include: the needed space for equipment storage and high cost of alternative types of construction; clarification of areas to be heated within the structure and insulation of the structure; location removed from scenic corridors or entrances to areas of public use or access; addition of vegetation to further protect public from view of the area; irrigation of new vegetation; reflective quality and color of proposed building. - Commission action. Commission should hold a public hearing on this request. It should be pointed out that staff's interpretation of Code Sec. 18.08.240 is that no structure with metal siding or roofing should be brought before the Comriission for architectural review unless it has already been approved by the Building and Fire Departments (items 1 and 2 of Code Sec. 18.08.240). Since the code compliance and safety have been established, Commission's attention should focus on the issues related to the character and compatibility of the proposed structure at the proposed location. Suggested criteria for Commissioners to consider in architectural review might include: 1. the building's height is compatible with the view from adjacent properties and uses. -2- 2. the building's visibility will not be increased by glare or light reflecting from its surfaces. 3. the building is compatible with its setting, e.g., adequately screened, landscaped, designed to blend into its surroundings. 4. the color of the building is compatible with its setting and encourages blending with existing uses in the area. 5. building construction material is compatible with its intended use. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission should make a determination on the adequacy of the architecture of the proposed structure. Staff would suggest findings be made on the basis of the above criteria and any other criteria added by the Commission. Staff would recommend the following conditions to approval: 1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of October 12, 1982 and the Fire Marshal's memo of October 18, 1982 be met; 2. that the landscaping be installed as proposed in the landscaping plan dated November 1, 1982; and 3. that the final building plans and siting of the building be consistent with the plans dated October 8, 1982. ��a�� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 11/2/82 cc: Park Department CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE BUILDING CODE 1$.08.240 5ection 1701 amended — Exterior metal coverings. Section 1701 of the building code is amended by adding the following paragraph: "The use of inetal sheets or plates for the external covering of roofs or walls is prohibited, anything in this code notwithstanding, with following exception. "l. Metal or metallic shingles as roof coverings and prefabricated prefinished modular siding or panels approved and acceptable to the Fire Chief and the Building Official for specific installation. "2. Gasoline service stations as provided in Section 2101 of this Code. "3. Architectural approval for all such installation is to be obtained from the Planning Commission." (1941 Code § 2400.16 added by Ord. 780; July 1, 1963, and amended by Ord. 906 § 8; January 5, 1970, and by Ord. 987 § 8; May 7, 1973). , , .� �. PROJECT APPLICATION ��.�CITY o� WASHINGTON PARK �r CEQA ASSESSMENT euRurvc�e project address � PARK SHED " � project name - if any Appl i cati on recei ved ( 9/ 15/82 )��'�"'"`� • Staff review/acceptance ( ) 1. APPLICANT City of Burlingame name telephone no. Park Department applicant s address: street, city, zip code contact person, if different teleohone no. 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION Specia.l Perr;it () Variance* () Ccn�+ominium Pernit () Other *Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code Chapter 25.54. 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Architectural review of the proposed remodeling and addition to the park-shed. Section 18.08.240 reg uires the Planning Commission to review this building since the exterior of the buildina is a metal material. (attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) Ref. code section(s); � $eCt1011 � � � 18.08.240 4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION n .d . � ) � ) � ) � APN lot no. block no. subdivision name � ) � ) zoning district land area, square feet � owner•s name address Reauire� Date received city zip code (yes) (no) ( ) Proof of ownershi� (yes) (no) ( ) Owner's consent to application 5. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The site is located in Washington Park adjacent to the Peninsula Tennis Club and the Burlinqame Hiqh School parking lot. Required Date received (yes) (x�a) ( g�15�g2) Site plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks and �YeS) ��ff) �YeS) ��8) �YeS) ��) (other) curbs; all strGctures and improvements, paved on-site parkino; 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). (10/14/82) Visual anal�isis of hP ti .P *Land use classifications are: residential (show # dwelling units); office use; retail sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described). 6. PROJECT PP,�POSAL (addi tion only) Proposed construction, Below qrade ( - SF) Second floor ( _ SF) gross floor area First floor ( 3 3 52 SF) Third floor ( - SF) Project Code Project Code • Pr000sal Requirement Proposal Requirement (Burl ingame Ave. �— Front setback �QQ' 15' Lot coverage - - _� Side setback 11.d. - Buildinq height ].4�± 30� Si de yard 12� �+ 5' Landscaped area 11 , d. - (Burlingame High _ Rear yard 25' 15' On-site pkg.spaces n.d. - & tennis courts) • r 6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) Full tir�e employees on site Part tir�e em�loyees on site Visitors/customers (weekday) Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.) Residents on property Tri� ends to/from site* Peak hour trip ends* Trucks/service vehicles EXISTING IP! 2 YEARS IP! 5 YEARS after after after 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM 8-5 5 PM *Show calculations on reverse side or attach se�arate sheet. 7. ADJACENT BUSINESSES/LAtdD USES Washinqton Park is bounded bv Burlingame High and the Peninsula Tennis Club on the north, residences to the east and south, and commercial areas to the west. This use complies with the General Required � Date received Plan. (yes) � ( 9/15/82 ) Location plan of adjacent properties. (��) (no) ( _ ) Other tenants/firms on property: no. firris ( ) no. employees ( ) floor area occupied ( SF off•ice space) ( SF other) no. employee vehicles regularly on site ( ) no. company vehicles at this location ( ) 8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 () Other application type, fee $ () Variance/R-1,R-2 districts $ 40 () Project Assessment $ 25 () Variance/other districts $ 75 () Neoative Declaration $ 25 () Condominium Permit $ 50 () EIR/City & consultant fees $ ( TOTAL FEES $ RECEIPT N0. Received by I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. � Signature Date Applicant STAFF USE ONLY NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. The City of Burlingame by on , 19_, 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: Cateqorically exempt 15102• Re elacement or reconstruction. Signature of Processing Official Title Date Signed Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the d�te posted, the deternination shall be final. DECLARATION OF POSTIPIG Date Posted: I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Neoative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to th� Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on Apoealed: ( )Yes ( )Plo 19 EVELYP� H. HILL, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME . ► �1 STAFF REVIEVV 1. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATIOfJ Project proposal/plans have been circulated for review by: Ci ty Engi neer Building Inspector Fire Inspector Park Department Ci ty Attorney date circulated ( 10/8/82 ) i " ) � ° ) ( _ ) � — ) reply received (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) ?. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES memo attached (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) (yes) (no) Concerns Mitigation Measures Does the project meet the Review plans and visual analysis. criteria established by the Planning Commission for architectural review? Do the plans meet the require- Request comments from the ments of the Fire and Bldg. Chief Fire and Chief Building Departments? Inspectors. 3. CEQA REQUIREMEPlTS If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project: Is the project subject to CEQA review? No - cateqoricallv exem�t 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 � � � � � � � � ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Study by P.C. Review period ends Public hearing by P.C. Final EIR received by P.0 Certification by Council Decision on project Notice of Determination � � � � � � � 4. APPLICATIOPJ STATUS Date first received ( 9/15/82 ) Accepted as complete: no( ) letter to aoplicant advising info. required ( ) Yes( ) date P.C. study ( 1Q�25�$2) Is application ready for a�ublic hearing? yes (no) Recommended date (/l�3 ��— ) Date staff report mailed t oplicant ( ��/ �� ) Date Corrmission hearing (��r ��'� Application approved ( ) Denied ( ) Appeal to Council (yes) no) � Date Council hearing ( ) Apolication approved ( ) Denied ( ) � 11 i ne date . . ��. 1 . ,r ��:r �� .'r �..t, ,'�� .r � � '� g� , � , y y ' " ,� r' �� ; fi '� � f . � � i" � I .i�. �r [� ::�'- � ' - � ^� ' ^�� . .,'' r� . .� r� ,d . �'i,'''y �y.. ij;'I" , y, ' � . � 't'�a�: � '� "•� �` .��'t'�,Y �+C�,�y `e. ,� � t .^�E �� . ! •4• a Y H �� w �� '�;t,�ei '!!'! � `' *'�a.� . « k�''�,,, �R� �,. ♦� �'''F �� d•,' �`�,'`� s��'"�o _ �. ;.^s� � `�i;:' } , f `ia�. ��, ,�• ,. � i • a � j: � . r, r. � , il h �.�4w �� "'�. �.:. , ��,�,�`{ jmrs�'� �-r.�.�!. .aJ ��,��• . r,k , � � AA � ,. ` ,` J` � �s : : !� .� .P' �'S �y r � ��'' "� 's ♦ ' ,+. .r ! . :�y "r r ' e� ",�C � �� "�.r."' `�.,pu'�FY.' J 't� �':-).� � �� i � x.':' s ` `. � �': - ,+� � , rM ¢ .i�' �=..'� x . � S '�c . r �s S � ! x ..,. a �: ' r � ,z�a,Jk ,� � � , ..�: . �r� T �M �t_a'�"� :,��.,�� '!a '� v 'e � �-F, � + �� ti �'" i aRt a. , h � > �i� '` �'",� � k � A'V�t ' � y L ti:�., ��. . ♦� � � 1(�^ '�+' V w t�S°•. 9�Y' �+�'�Y u� � � :.. S � �1�.v A�T � 'Y'.�y� a'�'�.aZ 4 b., Q��; ,: .ps: Yj,,,��,� . ��"'�'.,;. r '4 y�e ,.� � ,� � �, t � �r. s; • t ::�. � Y : * � .. ' t �`" 'X��. _�t� �' � � t'� � + '� .r.,� � � � 1' �.,� . C� F r� �.i' , s �► '�i' �E" . �y.+i:,�:^ m . �, aSrP�"t. � T .rCtt.'� � ,� � � i � Y��e ♦ � c �' ` +� '�' � � ,� ,,, g� � � � ��, � �., i j v �. ' °-a - � � ' � � , f�r s �J . ,s+� „��+�^�' �.r N .. .� . .y �^ 4' z�. .Y`'p � .' ' � .:� . . ' �\ ' �,> / iM � ��aiC' �n/ /�/ � � iX Q �� ,':1 1 . ,.4.�.. +� �.: k'i. ��,J.. � - . .'-� �}`-��' ^ . � ��rY e'�u ��' . �,�j +�.ih �` i: + � ��-. �l �� ,� �`.Y,'� y,�:' � ... .. , 1�' f y� • • �i t,� �� . )k� .Ad•} t id,t.�r � i . � V , N'"' � �� 1f ' ♦ +C ��.� .'r.. * „�z'.�. '� •� i 5L 'If Fi � ;�:y c , '; . � � �` �.. '� � : � � fF iA wv'',i!. � 9 ,f1 � V % t rt�� .2 .._ +. r ''�^..�f' . y� "'� �,.• . '� i� d : ��} +VR[ c"�� :��:', S '� �.� �.f' • , . .. ,:. ... .,. , ; �.. r � . . . LV" , 'T�.b' � • � eM, �, � . ., . 1 ■ -� � t�, i ;4 -`.y 'N , aY ' . J �i 1. # rd w �. \ � ' � �1 M� �� 1 �� . ' ' , • � ��'� '. Xl:�X�'� ' +e+I ,. � . . � ..' �i5 rt.: r,�, t ' . '. . .�:� ' ' � Z � 4'. � � * �1 Y .. y �, . h � . � � � ! � `^.tv M �r "� . L t�� ' � l:- �..� V:��. :\ ,S' � ��i ��`' . � l ' � � � . � �� y .�� ' . r ' �. � � ` �/:' � r � C°'Y �' ` rs'� � `a '4• ` >, � �''� y, r � � � �' 'r�' � „ Ax :.$�yj � �, �y�n �� . � �'1►. /�� w �.,. �.� �.5 � f � t� ,� 'j,C�*'i�.r � �iJ V1 . . 7� � �' T��'�}. I �I ' - ,y - . . �. LL� I� / �. �+. A � � � ` � 4 �1X� ��v'�� r II y,, y ( , � II I� �VI � �•y Y(� � r �. wic �A .'*iqrT4SF"'.. � . <. ; �£i s.> ( "�. , - ;. ,�, . � ' - , � ,� �'o '� ��t � . 3� �r r r ';;�` � '�,{ �` � � � �:� +� V �. t ,,�'t y i ., � ` ►,�. ,' , ; �'� . .. , ' ;��`:. � � -: �i , :Ak� _ :� ��. V � `� <� i�� , „�,➢M ' r . r a�` : � �" ... � ` p �; � r ;. :. � �� v,'�t � '� 12 .?,T ...� � �.y "�'� 'i�l` .y,�y. r �� .� ,, ,� � � �� .:' �,� ' . � > �'i`� �` r �' �i�,. i ': �.,'�`�. a C � ,. ' ��+�y � # �j. �'1�' i � ! '�" T ` ,�i� � � F .� �.. . . a y .. . _ t � ,�, i ^ r � ". �- .• _ , , ' _ �� I�II ��' � -•4 � 3 .:ti �;'�. ;S,_ S� .,� F '��.., i:�� r � . :. � -:.'� � � v 'AS"' � �"'' } ♦ ,-; r . '• "'� .' ��,' ; � y4 : it•.� � y.. f`: r �s ��♦f �i k ��II '�.�� y., �� TT- "�'1 r;:.. ,i �� "�_� . . ,3� � .t Aa'-' � � ! '",.�k A�, ]l, +N. F� y' F �I . . ;; y' .p 3,... , y:.-, � �� ' �i.i.� (� �.. .�k.. . � � +' ikt� ' o. .� `�'" r t1_� ► : p?',4 �• _ �F Y . ty,^� . - , r�y .. . . + 4 ,� A _ Y� N ��.w��'�� ,t � �,� ,� � �w �t �r �� - - � �'af . ��„�, - '��, . �` . i z �.. �' , .. a � �Y� f : ,�` .� „�,� �^-.. F •, � / � �:i.a o y :`� ��.. �;"� �'°S�'.��; �'aya- ` ?yc � � � �_� .� ��.,� �` S. �S.aP �� f� i � L"14" r � n r d �^k" e � � : � +t� � e �` �,��e ,} uS r'��s. �'� . , � +' � � �� a_f�� tl i� ��I4i. n�`,`"'r � �r ::.�� rt-- ��a"k�J�4.:: ��:.'?i �.� '+�,��. �� ti. s ��.� '°`"p �`�` i � .''�� sAu':"° '�r" : �j�� 7,-� �` I� ' �,il I'il � ,� � . � � � � y� ,,,� ;`' � d.!,' �r ,�?�'�� _.,� .�F� 4yN,��,:. I " +a^ ��. .�. � _ � .�� °-. - .,�, . s �s? �� r'� s�; � �� „��y�FH f ` � . . �'' t x ;'� � � . �, �, �x �_ '..e t .� . � � � �'��. ��t r ' + � ��t. ,� � �' x�',. � � � 4M°S�°w r r�"��'�+�� `a;,.. "� ��J�,%v _ { 2� u� � i � � a �r � x 9 . r �3'l. � , . t '�t< �"" �t i � +' a s.� � v� 't„ ,� ,h✓� .A"'r ' , - a � �'i ��:`�' � � '�i�3�t, ;y#' �� , .�� ,a,��`�� N�, �� ,+ �'t �+ r + r ° `, . *� y ;A =' ,�i , �� , � �� z ,V � 1[ Y � , 4 1�r 1 a S, � r��x �v$� ,, �'�v 'r' r�'�+b h-'' , .� .� ` s " z 'dF t a : '�t` ; �:,Xt k�. J .. . i 1 �*5fi'Y y i �"[iY � fi�' u"5� � M�� e� "S,'f7 i, �.i,t�3,..� ��.�,:�,c i� �p�.1�,4 Ita �� ff � � r Z� � � �+^ �'�' . � � ,� ��"++ # � ..)' ,+(�� .o• ?♦ /� ��? � �?• t F +� •' }r� �, . t�., � .' �N �* » � 9'p �� '�'* �;� f �'d�� A�'� � "y�,�r , �, � "�'q a✓ � � � ♦ '� y >� t� � �' ..,. . � , �� L-� < ��' ��.� '�' �y�� 5r�:•i� n "��: t L Y'�� c '' y�� ',�'� �.R ,fi'!, �`t,_,� t 3'' .....+a+ �i � �`ir,. r��l t 2,` a �y+,� . � Y,�k� 5�� t �+� �,� � ^� ,�r�,� x � a <t � # �s. � :. � � � ��..., :.. c E '�� a' �� '�s a^ k r "Y>. 4 4� W� �, x,�'` r � r - '.` _ r �� _ ,'� i A �"f � f"a, i ,� .iNz f �•4 T h +�,� • .wa , t ��'�T'�t,nPti �S"i.s� �',r ��5 �? � i'g��t" �� „,�' � � �# � �`t . � �. . �,4. i•. > � � � F > ? -:�� ` s�.� c 5 � �� ' 1 ... �+'� � � �i``i ,� a�S'� 2 �. + � 6s-x.,:;�'i �1:i�X�� .^" �'d�.''� . �„� g �.' t�' y �' � � a : C � ��.�t '! � f� �+ �'y,;«, �;�;, @, ' � ji{� f• � 'Kd ."{';�, .�• �1°:�'.;r�'�u -:. � - r�ry.��..�,}� ,�:X eY R - a?f�z�'.' 7 �'� r � �� .w� +Y:tF4,ai . � ....� ,� l : q, � 5 �: Ar: °r.�F ' f = . , '�.. -r � !°,rr T z;;-� .k""'S' �' ,��i"�I', 9� t , , i .$` �a, °+.�y�y w - d. �Wx�; �»;a. y :. c' � , � ,�,� 4 h .q � 1�_ '� �,�0 �� .f +� ` � �� y s b +" �� ¢ � Z, w ,, �' 'W "� k . � �p � ` =`T �"'( .S.' q".�t� . � s �,'r #, :. ��`i z f„�: j t �� §.r;y t:�`}' A . 'e r N ,'�` � ' ,� e 3 . � �, � 4 ,A!+� . ��'� .P �;� S�' � '' � � �-'� '^ ,.: ^"�, . q,,, ,:. � r i ��;' i e '. A , �' t .:*,� t7. �. ,L . �. ",i� ' ' '�a � ,. . . ,� .1-. �jK= +� � ^�1(�, �Q.�, r J U 4' Ij"i f . S !i . T K i�� s c`. l t 7 F�`• >> � 'r t�, � t 1 t•�r � - �� j, ": �"� +s.r , eWi y�'�_ x, ,_ �r, "6 - ir . „a � � �`�:.i Q �#t� � ��„ 1 R C k� �" � �X��''R�d .� -.`7�; �'zw . R�� ``' at'�^ _n ��» �... .�;- �'� R ti -o. .� � . , � *� ~s:�; ±.�-�F �; 1.. ��. � f �`�g'' S � £ _ r t 4 � '�. �: al .� ^� �� u^ ..,?''.'a �' ��,,g ,3'-�:,,�. `�� .��.`d...,,1� �x. •!:. �F` �dg�.� �,�Yt :�.�� `��q.;i.:�3�<4s ��b*M.s��,.+3,5�,�� =�:w ',*,-. � .; � .� - ,� .' r�`�n.,..� ._ � +t�, �`�,r n f � ,�sM1`��-�. � � � � < . +. 4,.. �,. ,, },�. , � x �::� :. _., -�. . . � t i0o . � r • 4 �� C � � , � � 4� f( - t�-.iF'i-1^.° `�c'' �"i'_ •�- �d. 6e:t' f ,�'=•- , � t..;� -"'^ ,�!.� �pt. �.a�� J �� Y PARK CORPORATIGN BUILDIlVG STUDY There are only two vantage points that will be effected by the construction of the new park corporation building. One view is fram the private tennis club courts labeled "B", and the other is from the Burlingame High School parking lot labeled "C". Both views "B" and "C'� are on the following sheet. The proposed building is outlined in white to indicate an approximate location. � � � View point '�A" is taken from the southern end of the park yard, and is shown only to give the viewer a better idea of the project site. PARK CORPOftATION BUTLDIN G STUDY (con't) �� To mitigate the sight line from the tennis courts to the pai•k building, landscaping will be done along the fence line. This landscaping shall be approved by the Burlingame City Park Director. C� � The view from the high school parking lot is of minimal importance, because of the distance and the insignificance of a parking lot as a scenic viewing area. PARK CORPO�TION BUILDING STUDY (con � t) � View point "D" is taken fr�n Washin�ton Paxk baseball field� and shows the trees that effectively screen the building site. » � DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 1982 T0: PLANNING DEPARTP1ENT FROM: PARK DEPARTMENT RE: PARK CORPORATION YARD BUILDING This memo is in response to the concern over the color appearance of the exterior of the proposed park building. All of the walls and roof panels of the park building shall have a factory applied color coat. This exterior coat will have a uniformity of thickness, with no thin spots or pinholes w�iich occur in normal paint jobs. The color finish to be used shall be an approved architectural color of either contemporary green or adobe tan, with all trim and flashing being the same. These are subdued colors and will allow the building to blend into the surrounding. If there are further questions on this matter please contact the Park Department. , ^"4 I � Kris Konecn Park Project Coordinator KK/kh � � � X � � � � s � s* � i �� . � � � � � �/t�b'��E►`� V I N ES �x •- pJLYf�01`tU M Au$E-RT I I SOLANI,�M JA�MiNDID�S � �---��..__._ ._� Pf�►zK N u4Z��F..�/ -� � �� V�� ♦ � ' . � � . '_ � \` ��\� , � � . \�\\\\ �� , ,. ,\ . , � ` ` �� n �u�WiNv �:.\�.. �, .'\ �� . -Ev��N V� �x. — pOLyl�Oriur �uM �A r i' � , �- � �.--- �/� C� / �'7�C � ��E � � LOG�E� 'f�dX�M �RK C��P'f GARP�^ � �� - >T�RA[>� $INS � EY��C�REE►`f Vrr�,S � � �x. - �D�YGONu�1 �. r8��(� � SULANuM S,�MlN01�D�j, �� / . ` � .;� � y/!/r• F ` A4- �,�� :� y ';� '` i ',, r� • : � ,` � , : i� � � � � � � /,. �� , ' � ��i ,.: �;t,�= Y � f ��1 h v ' �� K �Y Q�x ISTI N.� `f R E'%� o� 1-�:-. � SN RUP� �� xiSTin� G��ND ��v� C tY�:; �'�rS��'i P(,v�NTtiNC� 1 AR K GDiZ.P. ��AFZD L�r+ �s�P�N� �i�r�. /�- l -82 r�o �c�� INTER-OFFICE MEMO To: PZanning Department From; BZti2ZCZ272g DZVZSZOYI ��OV�ED OCT� 121962 �PU�NNIN6 � October 12, 1982 RE: Park shed RemodeZ & Addition ShouZd the appZieation be approved, the BuiZding Division recommends the foZZm�ing item be ineZuded as part of the approvaZ, 1. The �rre-fabricated finished modular siding or paneZs to be submitted for �uiZding Division & Fire Department approvaZ. Pete Kriner �„ar�� . Chief BuiZding Inspeetor PK/pma � September 17, 1982 � �Jct,,.i✓ ;,v I C(� d-> MEMO T0: ENGINEER--� (/`" CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR CHIEF FIRE INSPECTOR FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: PROPOSED PARK SHED REMODEL AND ADDITION, WASHINGTON PARK The attached plans were received for review by the Planning Commission who must grant "architectural approval" since it is a metal building (reference attached copy of Building Code Sec. 18.08.240). Please review the plans and submit any comments you may have to this department by October 1. Thank you. ��EZ1 � �L L'-C Helen Towber Planner HT/s attachments ' �ep� -� : Pla"'"`�i _ ,. , . �� j y'i�s P��''��J� �dlStDy � s o� f�ie ��/ 1>��" ��o�� ,C/� lo�.��f , � � . - P�/!Bt✓ � � �sr �P�'! G�a� P��, �� 6e r � � � P�� , � � - r�� `-� � �� ` �ti �/�J�P�N. Ci!%� INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: Meg Monroe, City Planner FROM: Malcolm Towns, Fire Marshal DATE: October 18, 1982 SUBJECT: Park Shed Reviewed revised plans submitted on October 8, 1982. Automatic smoke release vents required at a ratio of one (1) foot venting for every one hundred (100) square feet of floor area. % l. LOI.Y�/\ Malcolm Towns Fire Marshal MT/fas Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 1982 6. AMENDMENT OF REGIONAL HOUSING NEED FIGURES TO THE NOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Reference staff report dated 10/18/82; Exhibit A, Amendment to City of Burlingame Housing Element; Negative Declaration ND-326P posted October 20, 1982; City Council Reso�ution No. 14-82, Local Government Revision of Housing Needs Determination; ABAG Work Program and Coordination Committee Resolution 1-82, Housing Needs Determinations with attachments; City Council staff report from City Planner, February 23, 1982, Review and Action on ABAG Housing Allocation Methodology with attachment: Planning Commission staff report, 2/22/82, Item #9, Review of ABAG Regional Housing Allocation Methodology. CP discussed the process which resulted in Council approving the revised local share numbers; ABAG's action on the regional share numbers; income category adjustments. CP noted the numbers adopted by ABAG were responsive to Burlingame's local review and revision and recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on amending the Housing Element with the regional need figures as endorsed by ABAG, recommending the amendment (Exhibit A) to City Council. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the Chair declared the hearing closed. C. Giomi moved the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 7-82 recommending to the City Council approval of Exhibit A, Amendment to City of Burlingame Housing Element of the regional need figures endorsed by ABAG and acceptance of Negative Declaration ND-326P. Second C. Garcia; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. ITEMS FOR STUDY 7. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR AN 18 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1449-57 BELLEVUE AVENUE 8. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE ABOVE CP reported these revised plans meet all zoning code requirements. It was noted there is no walkway to the street from the entrance of the building nor exterior lighting of the walkway. Set for hearing November 8, 1982. 9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO CONSIDER THE SUBDIUIDING OF THE EXISTING 20 ACRE HIRAM WALKER SITE AT 1645 ROLLINS ROAD INTO TWO PARCELS Tentative and Final Parcel Map set for hearing November 8, 1982. ` 10. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED META�-SIDED PARK SHED, CORP. YARD, WASHINGTON PARK \� CP Monroe requested guidance from Commission concerning criteria they would consider appropriate for reviewing metal buildings. Commission discussion: why a metal buil�ing, what are the advantages?; will it be heated?; buildings of this iype should be in zones that are not scenic corridors, i.e., entrances to community facilities; be certain there is proper visual shielding of the structure; provide a better definition of the landscap- ing and mitigation; give specific description of the proposed landscaping including irrigation; submit sample of the siding; aspects of the siding and roofing which should be considered include nonreflective, colored; height of structure should be related to its visibility. Item set for hearing November 8, 1982. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary � DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1982 T0: PLANiJING DEPARTMENT 0 FROM: PARK RE: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF PARK CORPORATIOiJ YARD SUILDING The following is in Burlingame Planning park building. response to the questions raised by the Commission on the propose� metal-sided Why a metal building? Because of monetary restraints we are unable to consider a building structure that would be constructed out of another material. Even the proposed metal structure, which will pro- vide the needed storage and working space, may be over the allotted funding that was set for this project. Will it be heated? Tne small office space will be heated and completely insulated. The storage and working space shall have roof and wall insula- tion. Is buildin4 in zones that are scenic corridors? The proposed structure is not located in a scenic corridor or at an entrance to a community facility. Is there ro er visual shieldin of the structure? What type of andscaping? Fast growing evergreen vines shall be planted al.ong the fence lines that face the privaie tennis courts and ttie Burlingame High School parking lot. These plants when they reach maiurity will be dense and large, and thus adequate to provide visual screening of the building. Additional plantings of these vines shall be done along the f�nce lines that fac� the baseball fields. Ti�ese latter plantings will be more than sufficient to fill-in around the existing vegetation and provide screening. Polygonum Aubertii or Solanum jasminoides arP two examples of vines that could be used in the before mentioned situations. All the plant- ing is to be approved by the City of Burlingame Park Director. See attached drawing. What is tl�e proposed landscape irrigation? The new plantings will be droughttolerant and shall be hand watered by the Park Department until the plants are established. Once established the plants will require minimum care and main- tenance to remain healthy. .��.��•�� x What is the sidinq and roofinq color? Is it nonreflective? All the walls and roof panels of the park building shall have a factory applied color coat. The color finish to be used shall be an approved architectural color of either contem- porary green or adobe tan, with all trim and flashing being the same. These are subdued colors and are nonreflective. Kris Konecny Park Project Coordinator � :r . . . ,., . �.:..:. , , :: � .. .. _ .. ,. .. . h .:�a �/A�1� 5�'ST� 111 � AN IN?�RI.OGKIN(� �P�NEL S�S'f�i"� w�'��H A 5U�'PD�T �D� 11�1T�1�10'� �lP�►�l, �u��P�G1�lC� _ . � ..,res w � �. . . � � . . >� . ,: I� STRUCTURAL UNE . , . ; � �� --- � r--� -- — -- ;,,. - ' _ . , — — ; „�,: - i ; f � ; ., � �� _� .. �� . _' ` � � � � i" � .� � - �� , � �,' . � N �M , , ' g . i � � r__________.1 1 � •� �------- Y` ' ----� ~ -- � � � , ,. >. , ,. = ;a; 4 4 4� 4� �, , . ,.. , e . � , , .; �,-< � *• t , 16" ,;.� , • ; , �., � ;; .., , .�r. � � � �_�- , , _ � ��STYLWALL� PAN�L � ` _ ' _, , t 4 A � CROSS SECTION 4 '�'- � �` � SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" , , , ,. . - ..' - "�' •,... .� -.:. � i. .� :.�..- . ,�,:�, .M, . M .. 1�� . . . � . � �`_ .. . . .. � , . - . . - ,-,.. . .,,.. . .� . t ' �' � O �--� m STRUCTURAL LINE ,� � 3" iNsu�-rivr� �NSu�P�'fiDN f�N� 1��RID�Z SI,IR'�ALINI� M�TNUD sl.�4l.E ', I ��z" - I'-v„