The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1548 Howard Avenue - Staff ReportDesign Review City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1548 Howard Avenue Item No. 7b Consent Calendar Meeting Date: January 13, 2020 Request: Application for Design Review for a first floor remodel and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Hector Estipona, J Deal Associates Property Owner: Hugo Girol General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 028-291-120 Lot Area: 7,765 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated July 25, 2019. The results of the evaluation concluded that 1548 Howard Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. Project Description: The existing one-story house with a detached garage is located on an interior lot, contains 3,276 SF (0.42 FAR) of floor area, and has four bedrooms (den on first floor and sunroom on second floor qualify as bedrooms). The applicant is proposing a first floor remodel and second story addition to the existing house. The house and detached garage will have 3,961 SF (0.51 FAR) of floor area where 3,985 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including front-facing covered porch exemptions). There is one existing tree on the property, which is not protected sized and proposed to be removed. A total of four landscape trees are required for this project; four new 24-inch box size landscape trees will be planted (see Landscaping Plan). With the proposed project, there will be a total of four bedrooms in the house. A total of two on-site parking spaces are required, one of which must be covered. The existing detached garage is considered a two-car garage (19'-7" wide x 23'-7" deep clear interior dimensions provided, where 18'-0" x 18'-0" is the minimum required for an existing two-car garage), and therefore the project complies with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: ■ Design Review for a first floor remodel and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 2 Design Review 1548 Howard Avenue 1548 Howard Avenue Lot Area: 7,765 SF Plans date stam ed: December 18, 2019 EXISTING ORIGINAL REVISED � PROPOSAL � PROPOSAL ' ALLOWED/REQUI j ; RED i 11/20/19 PLANS j 12/18/19 PLANS ! Front Setback (1st flr): 23'-7" � No change No change ; 15'-0" or block (2nd flr): 26'-5" No change No change ! average ' � 20'-0" Side Setback (left): 11'-6" I 10'-8" ; 10'-8" ' 4'-0" (right): 4'-2" , No change No change ; 4'-0" � .......................................................................................................................................... ............ , Rear Setback (1sf flr): 75'-1" 66'-5" 66'-5" ' 15'-0" (2nd flr): 96'-6" ' 76'-5" 76'-5" � 20'-0" � � ........................................................... .. .. . Lot Coverage: 2,398 SF 2,681 SF 2,681 SF � 3,106 SF 30.9% 34.5% 34.5% 40% � ...................................................................................... ..............:......................... ....................................................................... i .................................................................................................................... � FAR: 3,276 SF 3,961 SF 3,961 SF 3,985 SF' 0.42 FAR 0.51 FAR 0.51 FAR 0.51 FAR ....................................................................................................._............................... .......................................................................................�.....................................................................................................T.................................................................................................i............................................................................................._._.................. # of bedrooms: 4 4 4 ' --- ............................................................................... . . _ .................................................. .......................................................... Off-Street Parking: 2 covered � No change No change � 1 covered (19'-7" x 23'-7" ; (18' x 18' for clear interior existing) dimensions) 1 uncovered , 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Building Height: 28'-1 11/16" 29'-8 1/16" 28'-1 11/16" * 30'-0" : _ _... _ _: _..._ ;...... DH Envelope: Does not Complies Complies CS 25.26.075 comply ' (0.32 x 7,765 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 = 3,985 SF (0.51 FAR) * The only change to the metrics detailed in the table above from the original proposal to revised proposal was the building height which was lowered by approximately 1'-7" to line up with the existing ridge height. All other changes to the revised plans are architectural details. Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: Aluminum clad wood windows • Doors: Aluminum clad wood doors � Siding: Shingles • Roof: Composition shingles • Chimney:8rick • Gutters: Painted aluminum • Other: Stone veneer Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on December 9, 2019, the Commission suggested increasing the size of the gable end vents to make them more substantial and noted that the roof peak at the rear (master bedroom) projecting above the existing ridge looked out of place � Design Review 1548 Howard Avenue (see attached December 9, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission recommended that the roof peak either be reduced, so it is no taller than the existing ridge height, or that it be made more prominent so it isn't just peaking over the existing ridge. They noted that it could be brought down by lowering the plate height or reducing the roof pitch. The Commission voted to place the project on the Consent Calendar when the recommended changes were made. The applicant submitted a response letter dated January 3, 2020 and revised plans date stamped December 18, 2019, to address the Planning Commission's comments. In summary, the highest roof pitch has been lowered to the height of the existing front gable with a reduced pitch from 7.5/12 to 7/12. The details at the two gable ends on both the right and left side elevations has been enlarged, along with the one gable end on the front elevation. On the left side elevation, the second floor master bedroom window location has been changed to a new location and different size. Along the right side elevation the second floor bathroom and closet windows have been changed, with two windows instead of one. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the project retains the architectural style of the existing building and restores the house to the true, original character with the use of shingle siding, stone veneer and wood trellis detailing. The new mass and bulk of the proposed remodel and second story addition are focused towards the rear of the house and do not exceed the height of the original roof ridge, and therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 18, 2019, sheets A0.0 through BMP, and a site survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4 Design Review 1548 Howard Avenue 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at the time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c. Hector Estipona, J Deal Associates, designer and applicant Hugo Girol, property owner Attachments: December 9, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Letter of Response, dated January 3, 2020 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed January 3, 2020 Area Map Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated July 25, 2019 5 � CITY � �� ; � f � .ws`l+�� ' - � �,E��_ i�i7 '��o�� _ o qPORATED , City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, December 9, 2019 7:00 PM Council Chambers a. 1548 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Hector Estipona, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Hugo Girol, property owner) (111 noticed) Staff Contact: Fahteen Khan All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. > There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > For the addition at the rear of the house, are you working with existing plate light, and that's was springing up the gable at the rear and causing the peak to extend above the existing roof ridge? (Deal: Yes, that is correct.) > It appears that the existing front porch windows along the right side of the house are being removed . What is the reason for removing the windows? (Deal: To make the porch more open, not sure if they'e even the original windows.) > Would it be possible to make the gable end vents a little more substantial? (Deal: Yes, we can do that.) > Did the original house contain wood shingle siding and is that what your are proposing to install? Worried about the required engineering for the project given how much of the existing siding is being removed. (Deal: Yes, an engineer is working on the plans now.) Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Love the old flavor of Burlingame and the history this house represents, so in support of preserving what you can. Think it's an ambitious project and am happy you're willing to undertake it. > Think it's really well designed, addition fits in well with the existing architecture. > Noticed the roof peak extending above the house as well, not a huge deal, but would happier if it didn't happen. Would need to adjust the width of the spring poinf of the second floor gab/e at the rear of the house. Would encourage the applicant to look at reducing the widfh so the roof didn't extend above the original roof ridge. City of Bur/ingame Page 1 Printed on 1/8/2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2019 Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Deal: One thing we could look at doing is reducing the plate heights on the sides of the gab/e, that would be a pretty simple solution. > Would be terrific if you can make the peak that rises above the original ridge go away so it really is the same old house, seems like it can be done. (Deal: Yes, we can do it.) > Might be a little fussy and too small, but another solution could be to make the roof extension a gable that sits on the original roof. (Deal: Agree. We could also slightly reduce the pitch, which would bring it down.). If you reduce the roof pitch, then you should a/so do that on that lower floor gable on the back so they match. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6- Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis Absent: 1 - Sargent City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 1/8/2020 J Deal Assaciates / JDA �3 i A Beacl� I�d �iele: I= -mail: Vv'ebsite: Bu.rlinga�nc, CA��tQ70 6�Q-697-1 �70 oftice��deaiassociates.com ww� jdealassociates.eom I�at,e: �-3-2a2Q �: ��+ ��u�ew for �.�4� �t�3ara�r� A�v� Residential Design � �tu lo�: �aild;tic�ns ; Rexnoc:iel� Custom Home �esigns Interic�r De�i�n ,- Rem�ciels �nerg�� C:onserti-atiun ; Green The f'ollowing changes have been made to the ptans as per clirection by members of� lhe Burlingame Planning commission: 1. The hbgl�est roaf �i.� l��s bee� ].owe�e.d ta �he l�eigtrt of �he exis�i�rg f ra� g�ble a�d ther�fc�e ttre peak of that �ormcrih� highcr roof pitc� can rro �ongcr bc seErt frarn th� f�cr�rt elc�aticr�. Ti� reduced pitch from 7.5/12 to 7/12 shauld not be noticeable. 2. Detailing at two gable ends on the Left Side Elevation have been enlarged. 3. Detailin,g at one gable end on the Front Elevation has been enlarged. +�. �atati�n�-at tv�+�o g-a�b�e�er�c'ls�on t�e'Ri�?ht ��c�e �e�vativn�a�e �►�ri��l. �. �t tl� Lef� �id� El�ration 1.he�second flc�or �v�i-�do� c�f the ma��er bedroom has been ehan��d to a new location and different size. 6. At the Ri�lit Side Elevation the second floor bathroom and closet windows have been changed. �here are now two wi��vws i�rs�ea�d: af cme. Although the changes are minor I feel they have enhanced the exterior and I thank the Comrnis,siofn for tbeir input. Jerry Deal ��Y�YI�i DeA% Prirvcipal d I�eat As.sncia�es ��JRLIN M COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.b58.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: 1ffi Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: 029-181-200 ❑ Conditional Use Permit O Special Permit ❑ Other: PRo�ECT an�REss: 1548 HOWARD AVENUE � Please indicate the contact person for this project APPLICANT project contact person �1 OK to send electronic copiea oi documenb �1 Name: J DEAL ASSOCIATES Address: 337 BEACH ROAD, SUITE A City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME, CA, 94010 Phone: (650) 697 -1370 Fax: E-mail: office@jdeaiassociates.com ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Pro�ect contact person Ig OK to send electronic coples of dxuments � PROPERTY OWNER pro)ect contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents �( Name: HUGO GIROL Address: 1548 HOWARD AVENUE CitylState/Zip: BURLINGAME, CA, 94010 (650) 619-9640 Phone: Fax: E-mail: HGCCO@yahoo.com Name: J DEAL ASSOCIATES Address: 337 BEACH ROAD, SUITE A City/State/Zip: g U RLI N GAM E, CA, 94010 Phone: (650) 697 -1370 Fax: E-mai�: office@jdealassociates.com �Ir Burlingame Business License #: 05755 � � �:� � r� x',�1�� N �� M � ��; :�� - �� '?i`� ,, ., �. . r � ,��..�� t ;°��:_ � �� - : �, _ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: First Floor remodel & second floor addition to existing two story residence AFFADAVtT/StGNATURE: I here best of my knowledge an '..� Applicant's signature: I am aware of the proposed application Commission. _—f Property owners under �,1 that the information given herein is true and corred to the oate: ,� c;� __ f �` / � applicant to submit this application to the Planning /,.` �, c Date: l �' ��C` � � Date submitted: � Veriticatlon that the project architect/desi�ner has a valid Burlingame buslness Ilcense will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. ❑ Pleaae maric one box above with an X to indicabe the contact pe►son tor this project S:1Handouts�PC Application 2008-B.handout RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desiqn Review for a first floor remodel and second story addition to an existinq sinqle family dwelling at 1548 Howard Avenue, Zoned R-1, Hugo Albert Girol, property owner, APN: 028-291-120; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 13, 2020, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of Januarv, 2020, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1548 Howard Avenue Effective January 23, 2020 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 18, 2019, sheets A0.0 through BMP, and a site survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staffl; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at the time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1548 Howard Avenue Effective January 23, 2020 Page 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. _ . — __ _ .-- ��. CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY QEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ap ' BURLINGAME, CA'S4010 ;i� 1 . PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (65Q) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 1548 HOWARD AVENUE The City of Burlingome Planning .tommission announces the #ollowing public hearing on MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2020 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Cauncil Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burl� CA• PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ingame, ,. Application for Design Review for a#irst and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1548 HOWARD AVENUEzoned R-1. APN 028.291.110 Mailed: January 3, 2020 (Please refer to other srde) Citv of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this praject may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Galifornia. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be" limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are respansible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call, (650) 558-7250. Thank you. Kevin Gardiner, AICP Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTIGE (Please refer to other side) � "" ,�n," ��:r ` 4- a��- ;� � L'� e�i � c} ��r7 G:J ��\`fJ ' � , �G �1 �r � �c�' vC> , � ` �4�,,,, �Ci�� ' p C•r7 � � � � �� t.-,:�� q� �i � �, � W Q �� J, ch �'� ?�� J' a � q,� � � � `� �,` ; R sa � � +a � p� ,1 l� p=> �� ' o ca � c' �� c,�n ea ♦ 4 . p (J �; Ca c� �' 4� !� �, � ,r,�'' a u � c� Ci ;�'�' c? p� �G 1 ii' (7 '�� Q � � '`' � � ,� CM� C� �+�` Fyi (jG, dQ � o� �+ w p �al O�y1Q � Q�� d 'C�'Q '� p ��,-7 � .n � w sa ��4 +� �� c+� � C� O �° Q W c�'� �� rs;� ca p r� � �d � �; � a a � a � � �' �� '��' � � p � ��c � � � ��a �a� a Ct1 ya G 4�*,�` L'� Q "� � � p� � p � � � ��a Q �d C'� W O a�g:.,:� � .W�' 't,�� n+i1 7 ta �J � ��r 5� ' b C��e". Q � � A � �� p ��' a �� o c� ,� � � ��' ` �U�� ta � a �a �-� �i � d�GR e'z� . � ry c; � Gr�i� ti:� C� � � j� t�w� ,� s� =3�1 � �W . � r� 5 �i� f��` �� `� ` � '� p r4'f �`"�.�` (� Q�T� Sa � 4 .� 'a ��p� �Uc� �� A ��' �'"� �,,� �C� ;. �� ' p fi �+x � ' � � � '��LS � � � Ca+ � �N� � �� t � � � '�� . t�Sl �'a�a' . � � a° .. ��''C� /} i" } s =� �F � a.,1 . ..:� .�'°�� m � /1 j, U � � x .� .i � � 'v�^Y� � N ,C:1 4'�j � U�� ', ��f � {`� -�'iy �� ;�� .t'�� ,� � �4T ! 4� 'f,G9� 4� t f1F�� . C�r; .. � :J �d �., �'.a�, �t "� Us� whti "§� �, yy " � `'a =p' "� t''� � n r � +� Tv7 x ' . � fii . ' . ' „ , � Q - a r».. ^" �� r C� '-' '.� . 4.�'a �2 A'-�'° y � ,�,�.'� a� � �;"jn �: � . , x ,y . � '"�'' ' ^`yA � ' 4 � ;� �� ,�. "�� , 1 i y`-,"� ,��^. �;�,, �;, �y CT Cr'C� ;a � � ''*�,°' , 4� � q� Cp C-� � " �`� �} A q�`'v Cy , , '4 �� ,�''��' �.�'" qQ� � � � � �� C� � �,�� > ��"y�<r �� Q ��jr� "�,�.�, -�'� � s �� .�,�° Q,� �� nFt 4q ` t'i., i �ca �?:` ,�' ;�` c 7 t�i.} � t7 :� � � � �� ^, � ` � �r"u ,�y.�c' ,�C � � Ce, �� r:�$� . h �`� _r�.. ��., Q nP1Cii �' � ' �c " ' i [��` �}Q �'� C: . GIC; �n` "�C L'�'i K Q� Q� 4' � � (� �'� {r'+� S� ca ��9 q '� � �p(� 4� ��`� �� c � �� p � �� , 1 qg9 Q � N � a e� � a� ap ��v �,�� D � � � Q O� � C N c� O� N � a��Q �'� p �c. r�� v o _ � �* °�, `� � O Z �IIU� �on- �' �MQ Ci n .. C �� 4' p ��`�� (}�i� Ct O � � c ;� '�'''Lr,� il�4 � c7 <' at3�'� ,� y3�{�l � G'r' �y �n� �� p`�a `� � y�5j�`� c> c o„ �� W ..,�'�� a, �