Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.04.23THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 1973 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Jacobs Kindig Mink Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER Norberg - excused, City Planner Swan illness City Engineer Marr City Attorney Karmel A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:05 P.M., Chairman Cistulli presiding. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of March 26, 1973 and the minutes of the study meeting of April 9, 1973 were approved and adopted. HEARINGS 1. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, A PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE GENERAL PLAN Chairman Cistulli announced this matter for public hearing. City Planner Swan introduced Mr. George Mader, an associate of Mr. Wm. Spangle, who made a presentation on this subject. Mr. Mader informed the Commission that Mr. Spangle was unable to be present, due to a conflict in appointments. He reported that the State Planning Law now requires that each city and county have an open space element by June 30, 1973. Impetus for this law came -from groups who were concerned that not enough was being done to protect open space. He went on to describe the four types of open space as defined by State law. These are: 1. Open space for preservation of natural resources, including areas required for preservation of plant and animal life; 2. Open space used for the managed production of resources including forest lands, rangeland, and areas of economic importance for the production of food; 3, Open space for outdoor recreation, including parks, beaches, riverbanks, lakeshores; 4. open space for public health and safety including areas requiring special management such as earthquake fault zones, flood zones, watersheds. However, he told the Commission, the Spangle report proposes a broader view of open space: the concept of open space lands and all the open space above them. i.e., air space is also open space. He emphasized a concern with all quarti.ties of open space from the macro -scale of undeveloped regions and large expanses of water to the micro -space of personal backyards. Mr. Mader quoted 8 objectives of this element of the general plan. - 2 - Basically, these are: preserve existing open space; increase privacy and safety and assure light and air; preserve important vistas: provide open space for recreational needs; protect areas necessary for natural processes such as water and air quality; protect open space for wildlife; maintain open space to enhance community identity; establish framework for continuing action program. Mr. Mader pointed out the large open space diagram prepared for the audience and illustrated it by slides. These depicted the open space now existing in the city, and included in 20 such areas street rights of way, the S.F. watershed, various parks,public school grounds, the waterfront, and the S.P. right of way. He noted these areas are described in detail in the plan. He categorized these as macro open space, intermediate open space, micro open space, and air space, giving examples of each. He commented that if views in the city are obstructed, the open air space is violated; and added that actually the city's major open space, aside from air space, was rights of way. Mr. Mader remarked that the city was fortunate in being situated between the two large open spaces - the S.F. watershed and the S.F. Bay. He reported that the Open Space element has many recommendations for implementation, and enlarged on some of these. He suggested that BCDC be supported in their control of the Bay and its shores, and that tidal plain zoning regulations be reviewed and strengthened if necessary. Bayside Park should be developed as a major open space link between the City and the Bay waters. The inner lagoon between Bayshore Freeway and the industrial area should be retained as open space, since it is valuable for drainage and is an important part of a visual corridor. He suggested that an appropriate development plan along the shores of the lagoon be made, and that there be an open space continuum from the land across Bayshore Freeway to the inner lagoon. He recommended that Anza Pacific lands around the outer lagoon be kept in open space use except for sites for restaurants. Anza Pacific lands around a proposed inner lagoon (known as Area 17 on the map) he felt should be kept essentially open. He moved into a discussion of the east shoreline which he thought should be enhanced by a system of walks and pedestrian paths. The west shoreline, already much developed, should have zoning regulations requiring public access and uses restricted to those requiring water- front location. With regard to the major open space area of the S.F. watershed, he felt good liaison should be maintained with the City of San Francisco Water Department so that actions on these lands could be monitored. Concerning other areas, Mr. Mader suggested lease or purchase of the proposed Skyline Park; acquisition of easements to Mills Canyon Park and Mills Canyon Hillside; prezoning of Russell College; protection of Burlingame's creek system to maintain quality; prezoning of hillside lands in the Easton Creek and Canyon Drive area, and acquisition of conservation easements. Mr. Mader presented a precis of recommendations for city parks, school lands, institutional lands, Burlingame Plaza, Broadway, and the downtown area. He summarized that actions for implementing - 3 - these recommendations fall into three classes: zoning regulations, acquisition of easement rights by gift or purchase, acquisition in full fee by purchase or gift. Chairman Cistulli opened the meeting to public discussion. Chuck Nolan, 221 Victoria, questioned if the City, by preserving the open space by zoning, would not be limiting property owners' use and would therefore be liable for compensation to the owner or outright purchase. Mr. Mader replied that the history of regulations regarding land is based on legislation developed in the past. The line between these regulations and property ownership is difficult to define. He suggested enactment of amendments to present regulations. ACKNOWLEDGMENT At this point, Chairman Cistulli acknowledged the presence in the audience of Councilman Dorothy Cusick. David Keyston of Anza Pacific commented that much of this open space element affects their property, and in most cases has the same excellent objectives as his company. He was most favorably impressed with the proposal. However, he asked that the City Consider very carefully the extension of tidal plain zoning to all tidal plains since he felt this was extremely restrictive. He suggested minor developments along the shoreline. In speaking of the outer lagoon and its use limitation to restaurants, he said this property is leased from -.the State. Permitted by the agreement with the State it may be developed as restaurants and related retail. This includes public uses, shop uses. He suggested a revision of C-4 zoning regula- tions in his area, pointing out that Anza requires 30% landscaping instead of 15% under the code. He told the Commission that in Anza's preliminary plan they attempted to maintain three visual corridors. if they were to make the open space in Area 17 as large as shown on the proposed city plan, it would not eliminate but would restrict the other two visual corridors. He commented his present plans are for less than 20% lot coverage in the entire area south of Airport Boulevard. He stated that all of Anza Pacific property facing on the Bay has dedicated shoreline access to the City, but requested the City's help in working with the S.F. Airport and BCDC in some areas where their permission is required for access walks and roads. He further stated that the east portion (Areas 18 and 19) of Anza's property would contain 80% of surface area in open space;'60% of the parking would be underground. 30% to 40% of this property is dedicated to public access. Again, he requested that uses for Area 17 be expanded to include other waterfront activities. He summarized that overall Anza Pacific approved of the open space element and hoped the City would adopt it. Mrs. Elizabeth Anderson of 113 Crescent had a number of comments about the open space element. She criticized the concern with the view of the city from Bayshore Freeway with no apparent concern for the views of city dwellers, and felt that the view of the shoreline was very important. She asked if it were legal to consider Burlingame -Hills, which is in the County, in this projected plan for Burlingame. City Planner Swan informed her that prezoning of contiguous property is legal. - 4 - She complained that not enough attention was being given to the needs of aging people in aging areas of Burlingame and that specific recommendations of -the General Plan were not being followed with relation to housing and building codes. On Commission question as to what this had to do with the Open Space Element, she replied she believed that the rehabilitation of neighborhoods fits in with the Open Space Plan. Mr. Mader told her that the open space plan does address building height in that air space shall be protected through zoning regulations. The urban design plan which is under study will suggest more specific regulations on this. The Open Space element has no regulations as to housing quality other than those for the micro open spaces of setbacks and yards. These need to be in the zoning ordinances, but the housing element is a separate plan. He commented that the view of the City from Bayshore is important in relation to the way Burlingame fits into the fabric of the Bay area. Mrs. Anderson insisted that the open space element concerned all other elements of the General Plan and that all sections, which she said must be adopted by the first of June, should be considered together instead of separately. City Planner Swan told the Commission he had sent copies of Burlingame's Open Space Element to the County of San Mateo, Hillsborough, Millbrae, City of San Mateo, and LAFGO. He then read a letter dated April 19, from Donald A. Wo'.lfe, Planning Director for the County of San Mateo, commenting favorably on this element. He reported that staff had prepared a resolution on the Open Space Element to forward to the City Council. Commissioner Sine commented that he was in favor of open space but with respect to more park space he had observed that we already have a number of parks that seemed to have a paucity of use. He wondered if additional space for this use was necessary. Commissioner Mink commented that Paragraphs 526, 527, and 528 make references to consideration being given to residential areas, and he did not understand Mrs. Anderson's concern. He also noted that the section dealing with "pocket parks" lies in the area of speculation to be implemented when the land is available. Commissioner Kindig stated that he was a resident of the flat area of Burlingame which does not have the view corridors that the hillsides do, but he did think that consideration of these residential neighborhoods was being given. Commissioner Taylor stated he thought Mrs. Anderson was somewhat confused and possibly did not realize that the City is not adopting a new general plan or changing it. The City is adopting a supplement to it. He liked the objectives of the element and was looking forward to implementing some of them. Commissioner Jacobs thought the Spangle report was very good and was pleased with the Anza Pacific proposal for open space on their lands. Commissioner Taylor raised the question of whether the Commission - 5 - would be adopting the map - Division III - if the open space element were approved. He felt that some parts of the map, such as Area No. 17 below the actual lagoon were somewhat inflexible. Mr. Mader replied that adoption of the open space element would require the adoption of the plan diagram, which is Division III. He commented that a general plan is not a detailed plan, but a some- what flexible and general document. However, some things are specified. He asked to get on record a change on the map due to technicalities. This is Area 9 which should be extended to include all of Russell College. Commissioner Kindig commented that the Commission would be adopting this resolution as part of the general plan, and questioned how details could be changed if necessary. The City Planner here commented that the open space element contains three divisions if adopted: 1. Definitions and Policies; 2. Proposals and Action Program= 3. Plan Diagram. Commissioner Taylor suggested that if the element were adopted without Division 3, subsequent action taken in regard to zoning could be required to be consistent with the general plan. He felt the City might be handicapped by having the map as part of the plan. The City Attorney told the Commission that it was felt appropriate to include a diagram as part of the plan. If at some future date changes are made, the City must resolve that such action is not inconsistent with the general plan or with the open space element, Divisions 1, 2, and 3. Commissioner Taylor felt this might present a complicated problem in the future. Commissioner Mink was concerned with the technicality of intermediate open space as it relates to Anza Pacific holdings in Area 17. He wondered if the wording could be changed (paragraph 537) to "This area, or its equivalent, privately owned, should be kept essentially open . . . ." This would allow the City and the developer to determine the location of these open spaces. Mr. Mader understood that some flexibility was desired without amending the general plan. He commented it was only fair to say that Area 17 was designated based on a plan where a major view could be obtained. He thought if that were maintained, conditions would be met. The City Planner concurred, stating that the intent of the legislation is to insure that cities and counties recognize that open space is a valuable resource to be conserved wherever possible. He emphasized the "wherever possible." There was some further discussion. Commissioner Taylor moved that Resolution 1-73 approving the Open Space Element be recommended to the City Council for adoption. This motion was amended by Commissioner Mink to include the amendment of paragraphs 537 and 538 by addition of the words "or its equivalent" after "This area," and "zone this portion." Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,KINDIG,MINK,SINE,TAYLOR,CISTULLI NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONTRACT TRANSPORTATION ESTABLISHMENT IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1465 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE (APN 026-101-120) TRANSPORTATION LIMITED AS LESSEE: BY OWNER, RICHARD LAVENSTEIN ET AL This item was considered out of agenda context for the convenience of the audience. Secretary M. Jacobs read letter of April 19, 1973 from Richard Lavenstein advising that John Harder wished to withdraw his application. The Commission agreed to accept this withdrawal. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR COVEY TRUCKING COMPANY IN M-1 DISTRICT WITHOUT STREET FRONTAGE AT 1246 ROLLINS ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-134-040); TRUSTEE: BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 26, 1973 ) Chairman Cistulli announced this application for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read letter dated March 22, 1973 from the Bank of America stating that as owners of the property they are opposed to a permit for an underground tank. Mr. Spencer Covey addressed the Commission. He stated he no longer had a need for a fuel tank; that he had leased this property for 4h years, and the former City Planner had told him he would not need a special permit. (Ed. Covey Trucking Company has a 2-year lease which expires in November, 1973. Fire Inspector's report of January 2, 1973 states: "This has been a problem since April 14, 1971 when a business license was approved for Mr. Covey to use the building at 1246 Rollins Road as a workshop for the construction of a small personal airplane.") He added he had checked with the Bank of America regarding an access near the Blue Chip Store. They told him Blue Chip had been considering moving, but the problem was not yet resolved. Blue Chip has a fence which closes off his area. He has access through Bank of America property on Rollins Road and across the PGE easement. There was no audience comment for or against this application. Charles Nolan, 221 Victoria, stated that because of lack of merchandise at the Blue Chip Store his wife had checked with their Redwood City office and they had informed her that Blue Chip was closing. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine commented that obviously the problem of circulation for entry and exit of Covey's trucks had not been solved. He asked Mr. Covey where he would store all his equipment in the event he had no construction work at all. Mr. Covey replied that his heavy equipment was stored at project site, and if he had no work his - 7 - equipment would go back to his creditors. Commissioner Taylor noted -that Covey's business license expires on July 1, 1973 and his lease on November 1, 1973. He was concerned about the appearance of the area, even though Mr. Covey was not entirely responsible, and he objected to the approval of this application unless Mr. Covey is able to park his equipment on land which he leases. Commissioner Mink had no comment since he was not present at the study meeting. Commissioner Jacobs had no comment. Commissioner Kindig questioned if Coveys lease was subject to renewal. Mr. Covey replied that he had a two year option, and that the Bank of America had no objections to his parking on their property. Commissioner Kindig suggested the permit be limited to one year, so that the entire area could be cleaned up if an opportunity arose. Mr. Covey objected that he was being put on the defensive for all five of the businesses concerned in this area. Chairman Cistulli suggested that the permit be made concurrent with the lease, since Mr. Covey has been in business in this location for 431 years, and it did not seem fair to ruin his business. He suggested permit be granted until November of 1973, at which time it could again be considered by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sine moved that the special permit for Covey Trucking be granted until November of 1973. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, KINDIG, SINE, TAYLOR, CISTULLI ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MINK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG 3. VARIANCE FOR A FOUR -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX ON TWO LOTS IN AN R-2 DISTRICT AT 922-926 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, BEING LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK A, EASTON ADDITION, BY ABEL AND NANCY LAZAR Chairman Cistulli brought up this application for public hearing. Secretary Jacobs read letter of application from Mr. and Mrs. Lazar which stated they wish to construct a 4-unit residential building with guest facilities for elderly women. They noted they had recommendations from the Department of Public Health and Welfare of San Mateo County. City Planner Swan distributed plans dated March 8, 1973 to the Commission. Mrs. Lazar had nothing to add to the facts contained in the letter of application. Chairman Cistulli requested audience comment. Mr. Paul Hinchcliffe Jr., 904 Paloma, objected to a rest home in this area, citing increased traffic problems, increased load on utilities and complained of -present inadequate storm drainage in the wet season. He stated he definitelydid_ _ want, to know what the plans were for the neighborhood_ as he was uncertain as to how to use his property. He was informed by the Chairman that if he wished to improve his property he could file for variance; that the present hearing dealt only with the applicant, Mrs. Lazar. Mr. Hinchcliffe insisted on information about the inadequacies of utilities in this area. City Engineer Marr told him that if there are gas leaks, P.G.E. should be notified. He said water fire flow is fairly satisfactory and sewage mains gave trouble only in the wet season. With reference to street lighting, the City Engineer said that citizens complaints are given attention and the City will improve if possible. Mr. Charles Nolan, 221 Victoria, objected to this use since it is an increase in density. Mrs. Barbara O'Neill, 1411 Sanchez, objected to the greater density and the increase in traffic. There were no audience comments in favor and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine questioned the City Engineer as to sewer adequacy. City Engineer Marr replied it would probably be adequate for a standard 4-family unit but he did not know how many people the Lazar's were proposing to accommodate. Commissioner Sine was concerned that the structure would be used temporarily for a nursing home and then modified to a 4-plex apartment. He considered the second floor area very bad for occupants of a nursing home. Old people must climb stairs; there is only one bath, no kitchen facilities and no fire escapes. He stated this would be a fire trap and he would not vote for it. Commissioner Taylor objected to the 50% lot coverage and questioned if a special permit for this use could be issued in an R-2 area. Chairman Cistulli thought the plans would accommodate 16, guests and staff, which would be excessive. He was concerned that in the future interior walls could come out and allow an eight apartment building. Commissioner Mink objected to the excessive land coverage and considered it a bad use. Commissioner Jacobs objected to the 12 bedrooms on 'the 2nd'floor and stated he could not vote for it. Commissioner Kindig commented he was acquainted with Mrs. Lazar and approved the condition of her establishment, but did not like the design and the excessive coverage. Commissioner Sine moved that this application for variance be denied. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, KINDIG,MINK, SINE,TAYLOR, CISTULLI NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG Mr. and Mrs. Lazar were informed by Chairman Cistulli that they had the right to appeal this decision to the City Council. 4. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 2-6 INCLUSIVE IN BLOCK 23, SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 22 AND 24 AND RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 23, TOWN OF BURLINGAME FROM R-1 TO R-3A BY PETITION OF ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND REPRESENTED BY LEON RICHARDSON. S. RECLASSIFICATION OF ADJACENT LOTS 1 AND lA IN THE SAME BLOCK FROM R-1 TO R-3A ON THE INITIATIVE OF THE BURLINGAME CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 6. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 1, lA AND 2-6 INCLUSIVE IN BLOCK 23 FROM R-1 TO R-3A. Chairman Cistulli announced public hearing on these items. Secretary Jacobs read petition signed by five property owners on this block requesting reclassification. He then read eleven communications from property holders, some signed by several people, opposing this reclassification. Mr. Richardson was invited to give his reasons for wishing this reclassification. He spoke as a property holder on the block, stating that since 3/4 of the block is already zoned R-3, he felt strongly the remainder should be zoned R-3A. He wishes to pull down an old building and build a 5 unit apartment, in which he will live. He noted there are two apartment buildings already on the same side of the street. Randall Wardlaw, 116 Bloomfield, opposed the rezoning, citing increased costs in taxes and assessments, and the fact that most property holders wish to keep this an R-1 area. Charles Nolan, 221 Victoria, opposed on the grounds that there would soon be too many apartments and some would not be rented. Raymond Guerber, 313 Estrella Way, San Mateo, stated he had purchased property at 14 arundel Road, and the increased traffic would be dangerous for school children, including his own. Sam Marengo, 207 Clarendon, opposed, objecting to the fact that variances are given in R-1 neighborhoods too much and that the R-1 classification should either be upheld or discarded. A resident of 105 Arundel Road spoke in favor of the reclassification, stating that the property was run-down and should be improved. He also noted the presence of two apartment houses on this block. He felt the reclassification was not being viewed in the proper perspective. The public hearing was declared closed. City Planner Swan reported that Burlingame's code permits an application for reclassification by property owners, by the City Planning Commission, and by the City Council. He stated there was a 100% request for reclassification of Lots 2-6 to R-3A. The request for reclassification of the two remaining lots was made by the City Planning Commission. He noted that a request for reclassification cannot be enlarged, but it can be reduced, and offered as an alternative the reclassification of the single lot owned by Mr. Richardson. He commented that approval of a one lot reclassification does -not include building plans. He stated, however, that Mr. Richardson's tentative apartment plan did meet the R-3A regulations. A 7,500 square foot lot would permit no more than five units. The City Planner produced a draft of EIR-17P, which EIR could be approved at a subsequent meeting. He presented conclusions of the EIR briefly, and noted that the March, 1973 tax assessment roll was - 10 - reviewed for all properties in a 12 block area in this neighborhood. This was done to get a ratio of the value of the land to the value of the improvements, explaining that when the land is assessed at a higher value than the improvements, it could be termed underimproved property. He produced several exhibits: 1. Location of high density, medium density, and low density as indicated in the General Plan; 2. Location of existing multi -family housing in this area; 3. Lots where the ratio of assessed valuation of land to the assessed valuation of improvements is more than one in this area. He suggested a small reclassification to ascertain the actual impact on this neighborhood. The City Planner then suggested that this matter be adjourned to the meeting of May 14 so that findings could be prepared and action taken on EIR-17P. Commissioner Mink commented he was led to believe there was R-3 zoned property in the city which was not being used to its fullest capacity. There were vacant properties now in the R-3 zone. Commissioner Sine stated that sewer and water mains must be upgraded if this reclassification were approved. In his opinion upgrading systems for these few lots was not feasible and the whole area from Burlingame Avenue to Peninsula should be upgraded, since this area contains much old undersized cast iron pipe which has been in for some 50 years. He noted that R-3A requirements call for a water flow of 2,500 to 3,000 GEM which is more than these old mains can provide. He stated the only way he would consider a reclassification would be to reclassify the entire area to R-3A and upgrading the entire underground system. He stated that by his computation this would probably cost around $9.00-10.00 per linear foot. He suggested that each developer should be required to pay $2,000 for each unit to help defray this cost. Another suggestion was that owners of non -conforming properties as well as properties built before 1922 be required to participate in payments. Commissioner Taylor thought the reclassification proposal made more sense than requesting the applicants to come in for a variance. He suggested two alternatives - acquisition of the land by Washington School or rezoning the lots to R-2A. Commissioner Mink had no comment. Commissioner Jacobs had'no comment. Commissioner Kindig stated that consideration of these five lots is unrealistic unless it takes into effect the fact that there is already one 5-unit apartment and one 4-unit apartment on this block, leaving only two lots with single family dwellings. He thought if the water situation could be resolved, these five lots were a logical R-3A. Commissioner Mink moved that the staff prepare findings of fact and a resolution with regard to lots 2-6 inclusive, and that the resolution contain a provision that the rezoning not take place until a satisfactory resolution of water service in the area (100 block of Arundel Road) is made and the fire flow be brought up to the standards of the Fire Department. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried by unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Mink moved that the Planning Commission drop reclassification of Lots 1-1A. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried by unanimous voice vote. 8. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL - CONVERSION OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS TO CONDOMINIUMS City Planner Swan reported that he wished to make a progress report to the City Council on this item, and that the key issue is that of off-street parking. 9. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL - ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN After some discussion, Commissioner Mink requested that notices be given and the resolution be considered at the adjourned meeting of May 14. All Commissioners agreed. 10. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Sine nominated, Commissioner Jacobs seconded Everett Kindig for chairman. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Sine nominated Charles Mink as vice chairman, Commissioner Jacobs seconded. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Sine moved the Commission continue with Malcolm Jacobs as secretary. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Kindig noted he would be out of town on the date of adjourned meeting May 14. COMMUNICATIONS: City Planner Swan read communication from Mrs. Robert L. Hammett thanking the Commission for their action in denying the Heskett application for a carpet coliseum. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Taylor moved the meeting be adjourned to May 14. Commissioner Kindig seconded and the motion carried by unanimous vote. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 M. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary