HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1976.08.09THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Cistulli
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Sine
Taylor
CALL TO ORDER
August 9, 1976
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Francard (excused)
OTHERS PRESENT
City Planner Swan
Asst. City Planner Yost
City Attorney Coleman
City Engineer Kirkup
A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by
Chm. Taylor at 7:40 P.M. on the above date.
ROLL CALL
The above named members were present, C. Francard having been excused.
MINUTES
Minutes of the July 12, 1976 meeting were approved as mailed.
ACTION ITEMS
1. FINAL PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS 1A AND 2, BLOCK 31, LYON AND HOAG SUBDIVISION
OF BURLINGAME (APN 029=294-150/160), ZONED R-3, BY EDWARD W. BACA FOR ROBERT
AND SYLVIA PISANI.
C.E. Kirkup advised this final parcel map referred to the northwesterly corner of
Dwight Road and Peninsula Avenue where an apartment is now being built; he said
the map meets all requirements of the code and recommended approval. C. Mink moved
approval of this Final Parcel Map; second by C. Cistulli and carried by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: FRANCARD
2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICE AT 1365 ROLLINS ROAD
(APN 026-122-200), ZONED M-1, BY JACK K. HUDSON (APPLICANT) WITH BOGER AND REED
(OWNERS) (ND -87P POSTED 7/15/76).
C.P. Swan reviewed this application, advising that Jack Hudson's application was
for a small automotive service to be called Jack's Automotive. He would be
leasing a 3200 SF area in an existing 15,000 SF industrial (building at 1365 Rollins
Page 2
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1976
Road. This area has been used for a machine shop, which is an M-1 use. The
automotive service would be a C-2 use and thus required a special permit. The C.P.
noted Commission had received letter from the applicant with justification for this
use and a site plan showing how the building is divided into four different
establishment areas. There is off-street parking at 90 degree angle to Rollins
Road in front of the building. Jack's Automotive is in need of four parking spaces
for that amount of processing floor area. Mr. Hudson plans to use the interior and
most cars being worked on would be parked inside. A sketch of the layout has given
staff doubts that most cars could be parked inside at one time. There will be only
2 or 3 employees, and thus it would seem 3 or 4 cars would be a full day's workload.
Generally it is expected work could be completed on each car• in one day. A Negative
Declaration was posted July 15, 1976 with the City Planner's conclusion that:
"Applicant proposes to run a clean professional auto shop in 22% of an existing
industrial building. Most of the cars will be kept inside the building. The
increase in traffic to and from the establishment will be insignificant. It appears
that there will be adequate parking and that the proposed use will not have adverse
impact upon neighboring business establishments." A report from the Fire Inspector
dated 8/3/76 was noted as well as the fact that the fire exit requirements would be
met. C.P. Swan told Commission this special permit can be acted upon and, thereafter,
inspections by Building Inspector and Fire Inspector after business license applica-
tion will be a further check that the Fire Department's requirements have been met.
The applicant addressed Commission advising he has had experience in running a
service department in a new car establishment in San Mateo, and consequently is
aware of the laws and requirements for this type of business. It was determined
during discussion between Mr. Hudson and Commission that: he did not plan to get
into the business of wrecked cars; overnighters would be limited to one or two at
the most; Wilson Auto Air, next door in the same building, installs air conditioners
in cars; the applicant could not foresee himself being able to afford loaners. He.
also advised he would be willing to have the special permit conditioned to exclude
body repair and was agreeable to limiting the overnight parking to the inside of the
building.
Chm. Taylor asked for audience comments in favor of this application. Gordon Wilson,
owner of Wilson Auto Air, told Commission he had known Mr. Hudson for the last three
years and dealt with his former company; regarding parking, Mr. Wilson said the
applicant is welcome to share space in his shop which is 5,000 SF and is empty at
night. Dirk Reed, owner of the building, 13765 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA. stated
he had talked to Fire Inspector Pearson, and advised Commission the building will be
fire sprinklered, with the required fire exits. Referring to C. Jacobs' observation
regarding cars parked in front of the building this evening, Mr. Reed noted that
there is still a tenant in that area of the building and they are using the parking
spaces. Chm. Taylor requested audience comments in opposition and, there being none,
he declared the public hearing closed.
C. Mink moved approval of this special permit to Mr. Jack Hudson with the following
conditions: (1) there will be no repair of wrecked automobiles; (2) overnight
parking will be limited to the inside of the facility; and (3) Fire Department
requirements are to be met before applying for a business license. Second by
C. Cistulli and motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: FRANCARD
Page 3
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1976
3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN ACCESSORY BUILDING AND TO USE THIS
BUILDING AS A RUMPUS ROOM, AT 1404 BALBOA AVENUE (APN (126-013-190), ZONED R-1,
BY OLOF AND LYNNE FLODIN.
Chm. Taylor determined that the applicants were in the audience, and asked Asst. C.P.
Yost for review of this application. Mr. Yost reported that 1404 Balboa is a large
lot - 140 ft. deep and 7,000 SF in area. At the back it abuts on a 10 ft. wide
alley, and the R-3 apartment zone along E1 Camino Real. The Flodins presently have
a three bedroom two bath house; they have two children, a boy and a girl, ages 11 and
9; Mr. Flodin's father, aged 70, is also staying with them. In order to obtain extra
space for family activities, they have applied for a permit: to use an existing 200 SF
accessory building as a hobby room. The Asst. C.P. advised this structure is
technically illegal; it was constructed without a building permit at some point in
the recent past; it has been well maintained since its construction. The Flodins
wish to add a storeroom of 71 SF to the existing building, plus a 47 SF bathroom
with shower, sink and toilet. Plans of these proposed changes have been submitted
and distributed to Commission, together with photographs of the garden and a letter
of explanation. Staff recommends the Commission review both the immediate and
proposed use of this building by the Flodins, and also its future potential as a
rental unit.
Mr. Flodin told the Commission they do not have plans in the future for turning
this accessory building into a rental unit; in fact, they are very happy with this
R-1 neighborhood and do not foresee ever wishing to move. After his father moved
in they merely ran a little short of room and need some extra area as a benefit to
the whole family.
Secy. Sine read into the record an August 2, 1976 letter from Joe and Gail Galligan
which stated: "We reside next door to the Flodins on their south side and request
you grant them the special permit. It will be a fine addition to their home and
thus enhance the values of the entire neighborhood." Chm. Taylor asked for audience
comments for or against and, receiving none, he declared the public hearing closed.
Discussion between the applicant, Commission, City Attorney, and staff brought out
the fact that approval might set a precedent which the Commission would have to
live with through the years and which would become untenable; granting this permit
would constitute condoning an illegal structure for which no building permit was
issued. It was determined the present accessory building is quite a substantial
room, but even with the proposed expansion, not all family members could use it
at the same time. C..Sine advised he had visited the site with Mr. Flodin, that
the electrical comes underground from the existing building, there is no plumbing
or water at present, and it is not a badly constructed building. C. Mink suggested
the applicant reconsider remodeling his house rather than adding to the accessory
building; C. Sine also questioned Mr. Flodin in this regard. Commission consensus
was that the proposed plan would invite a prospective buyer of this home to go
into the rental business which would downgrade the R-1 neighborhood. It was noted
that one of the obligations of the Commission is to be concerned with what might
happen in the future.
C. Sine moved to deny this special permit; and the motion died for want of a second.
Commissioners discussed the option of bringing this accessory building up to code
and granting the applicants a permit to use it as a rumpus room. C. Jacobs moved
to approve the special permit to Mr. and Mrs. Flodin for use of the existing
accessory building as a rumpus room, after it has been brought up to code. Second
C. Kindig. C. Mink suggested adding to the motion, for clarity, "with improvements
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 4
August 9, 1976
to be limited to bringing it up to present code but without expansion of the
building." C.A. Coleman advised Commission any properly constructed building may
be used for storage and that there would be no limitation on storage by allowing
it to be used as a rumpus room. Motion having been made and seconded, it was
approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, TAYLOR
NAYES: COMMISSIONER: SINE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: FRANCARD
Chm. Taylor advised the applicants their special permit would become effective
one week from tomorrow if there is no appeal to City Council.
4. VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION WITH TWO BEDROOMS .AND BATH OVER AN
EXISTING GARAGE WHICH IS LESS THAN 20' WIDE AT 2000 DEVEREUX DRIVE (APN 025-
212-280), ZONED R-1, BY EDWARD AND BERNADETTA DOWD (CONTINUED FROM JULY 12, 1976).
Asst. C.P. Yost reviewed this application to add two bedrooms and one bath to a
house with a garage of substandard width. He noted that the public hearing had
been concluded July 12, 1976 and an amended plan which removed the new staircase
from the garage interior was to be prepared by Mr. Dowd. The item had been continued
to the meeting of August 9. The Asst. C.P. advised new plans have been received
from Mr. Dowd which show that the proposed stairway has been moved. It no longer
touches the garage at any point, but ascends from the new family room which
presently is a bedroom. Also the second floor plan has been redesigned. In the
opinion of Mr. Yost the.plans have been considerably improved; architecturally
it is a far better layout and a much cleaner design which will qualify for a
building permit if the variance were granted. There are no staff objections to
the amended application.
Mr. Dowd said they were much more satisfied with the plans themselves and thanked
Commission for their suggestions in prior meetings. There was.little Commission
discussion. C. Jacobs moved approval of this variance in accordance with the
latest plans submitted dated August 5, 1976. Second C. Cistulli and approved on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: FRANCARD
5A. VARIANCE FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICE SPACE TO BE ADDED WITHIN EXISTING
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT 320 BEACH ROAD (APN 026-332-090), ZONED M-1, BY TAIN .
YUNE AND ANZA SHAREHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST (ND -88P POSTED 7/30/76).
C.P. Swan reviewed this application, first noting two letters in support of the
application which were received August 9: (1) from George S. Kujiraoka, President,
TPS Aviation, Inc., 381 Beach Road, and (2) from Fred Wurlitzer, M.D., another
nearby property owner. He then distributed plans to the Commission and discussed
the proposed alterations. Preliminary plans show 20'x97' or 1940 SF of office
space with two stairways for access to storage rooms on the second floor. It was
the C.P.'s belief the total addition of floor area would more likely be in the
Page 5
Burlingame Planning Commission. Minutes August 9, 1976
neighborhood of 3800 SF. Parking in that particular area is a problem. Essentially
there are eight off-street parking spaces in the front of the building, to the east.
There is a planted area along Beach Road and it would be preferable not to disturb
that for parking Therefore, the applicant had suggested the alternative location
of the driveway to the drive-in theater which is not in use during the day. He
noted Anza is the owner of the drive-in theater which is leased to Syufy Enterprises;
their lease runs until 1989. The 15 or 16 parking spaces proposed at the entrance
to the theater are within less than a block of the location of this proposed
import business. Mr. Swan stated this application is for a parking variance, and
concluded his review.
Mr. David Keyston of Anza Shareholders' Liquidating Trust, co -applicant of this
variance application, next addressed the Commission. He noted that this building
was built at the time Burlingame had a parking ordinance covering bulk warehousing.
That ordinance has since been repealed and the parking has been nonconforming since
that time. The drive-in theater entrance area has been used by some of the other
Beach Road establishments in present years. He stated the applicants would be
happy to comply with whatever parking requirements the Commission would ask, and
remarked about the difficulty of leasing or selling warehouse space without office
space. It is an importing business, importing and redistributing merchandise. The
second floor area with windows is designed as a showroom, not office space.
Mr. Keyston also noted the presence in the audience this evening of Tain Yune and
Dick Lavenstein, a nearby property owner.
Commission discussion with the applicants determined: that in Mr. Keyston's opinion
the 1900 SF on the second floor is storage space; they would be willing to stripe
more parking spaces if required by Commission and expected to add one more parking
space on the premises, bringing it from 8 to 9 spaces; it is strictly a warehouse
use, and strictly wholesale; the showroom will be used for out -of -the -city
customers; the products imported and distributed are horticultural accessories;
there would be approximately three truck pickups per day by a truck company such
as PIE, and only four employees; two or three times a month sales are made to local
people who come in with their own trucks.
Chm. Taylor requested audience comments for or against; there being none, he declared
the public hearing closed and asked for any further Commission questions. C. A.
Coleman requested recording of a document which would alleviate his concern about
some future lessee of the drive-in property wondering about the stripes, a document
stating this owner has the right to park in the drive-in entrance. Mr. Keyston
was agreeable to this suggestion, adding he would record only the number of parking
spaces required by Commission for this application. Any further modifications
would require another application.
C. Kindig moved approval of this variance from -parking requirements for office space
to be added within existing industrial building at 320 Beach Road (per modifications
as submitted in the drawings dated July 29, 1976), with the understanding that the
additional parking needed would be on the drive-in theater property and that a
document would be recorded indicating same. Second C. Cistulli and approved by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, KINDIG, MINK, SINE, TAYLOR
NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: FRANCARD
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 6
August 9, 1976
Chm. Taylor declared a recess at 9:05 P.M. after which the meeting reconvened at
9:15 P.M.
STUDY ITEMS
5B. FENCE EXCEPTION TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING 10' HIGH FENCE BETWEEN HOUSE AND
GARAGE, 13 HUMBOLDT ROAD (APN 029-305-250), ZONED R-1, BY CARL CARING.
C.P. Swan commented on this item which had come to his attention Friday, August 6.
On Friday he had not seen the screen or fence, or decided regarding proper handling.
He had advised the applicant a minor permit might be acted upon at the August 9
meeting, but did not tell him there was a $15.00 fee for a fence exception. This
item is concerned with a privacy screen on top of a fence. August 5 letter from
the Chief Building Inspector to Mr. Carl Carino noted the fence had been constructed
without the required building permit, it is in violation of the local fence
ordinance, and also in violation of the local zoning ordinance which states that
four feet clearance must separate an accessory building from any other building.
Chm Taylor, with Commission consensus, set this item for hearing August 23, and
requested the required notices be sent to adjacent -property owners. It was also
requested by Commission that staff ask a member of the City's public safety agencies
to inspect the site.
6. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE: PENINSULA AVENUE REZONING STUDY
C.P. Swan introduced this item. He noted on July 19 the City Council considered
an appeal by Mr. Peratis for reclassification of the vacant lot at the corner of
Peninsula Avenue and Dwight Road from R-1 to C-3. Council sustained Commission
denial and directed a study be made by the Commission to determine whether or not
rezoning is desirable for the lots fronting on Peninsula Avenue for the area between
Dwight and Humboldt Roads, (which would include only 25 lots). Staff had collected
information covering physical relationships, assessed valuation, land use and a
new traffic count on Peninsula Avenue. By considering these facts at this study
meeting and subsequently taking some action on August 23, the Commission would
fulfill the Council directive to report back within a 40 day period.
Asst. Planner Yost presented the preliminary report, Rezoning of 25 R-1 Lots on
Peninsula Avenue, with exhibits covering the following: a physical description of
the proposed study area (noting the difference in zoning across the street in the
City of San Mateo); lot area, setbacks and accessory building(s) information for
each lot; graphic showing lots which are less than 5,000 SF in area; assessed values
of property listed with owners' names and designating absentee owners; graphic
indicating "Best" properties; owner/renter occupied housing within the five block
area; graphic indicating single family/multi-family housing units; a population
profile based on 1970 census data; and a listing of property owners' responses to
a rezoning questionnaire mailed out by staff. He told Commission if rezoning is
favorably considered the P.C. would have to decide which type of rezoning would be
best from a number of options. It was suggested that the Commission could direct
the Chm. to send a written report to Council. Another option would be to initiate
reclassification and direct staff to prepare an EIR.
Considerable Commission discussion followed. C. Jacobs questioned surveying only
the 25 property owners since rezoning would affect many other people in the general
area. C. Kindig felt using the 25 property owners for this, preliminary report was
a good idea, but agreed that in any rezoning the area impacted would be much wider.
C. Cistulli wanted a report from staff covering costs for water and sewage and felt
this was needed before Commission could make any recommendation to Council.
Page 7
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 1976
C. E. Kirkup noted the water system will have to be improved, and the Department
has already embarked on a five year program for the entire City. The sewer system
is adequate now, but will have'to have some work done in the downstream. Storm
drainage is adequate and would remain adequate. He mentioned that traffic on
Peninsula Avenue would undoubtedly.get heavier with future development of the Anza
properties and tne.new golf course which might have more impact than the 25 lot
rezoning study; consideration of the entire general area, however, would of course
have a greater impact. C. Mink wished to consider a General Plan study rather than
a rezoning study. C. Sine agreed and commented that he had recommended to the
Traffic Department that it consider widening the street by .10 feet. The Commission
referenced lot sizes and inferred that for proper development there should be some
consolidation and that the study should perhaps include Lots 12 and 18 of all the
subject blocks.
It was generally agreed the Commission has seriously considered and determined not
to set this item for public hearing, but instead will submit a report to City
Council at a later date for.their subsequent action.., Commission report essentially
will be a progress statement. The P.C. will formulate a response two weeks from
tonight, but a response without public hearing. Chm. Taylor affirmed the matter
will be on the agenda for the 23rd of August.
7. VARIANCE TO PERMIT A HOUSE ADDITION THAT WOULD HAVE A 2' SIDEYARD AT 822 CROSSWAY
ROAD (APN 029-021-280), ZONED R-1, BY JOSEPH AND HELENA VELLA.
Asst. C.P. Yost reviewed this application for Commission. 822 Crossway Road is a
large lot: 187' deep, 9500 SF in area. The present house sits at the front of the
lot and has a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room and three bedrooms
with two baths. On the second floor there is a playroom and storeroom. The house
originally had only two bedrooms and one bath, but in 1968 a building permit was
issued for a 468 SF addition. This present application is to allow a further
extension of the house. The reason for the variance is that Mr. Vella proposes
the new addition be extended to within 2' of the side property line. The required
code sideyard is 5'. Mr. Vella has been advised by staff that both the Fire
Department and Planning Department will recommend against the granting of this
variance; however, the application is complete and could be set for hearing.
During Commission discussion Mrs. Vella was asked if they had considered alternatives.
Revised plans were suggested. She thought they could be presented and asked the
Commission to schedule the variance for hearing August 23. Chm. Taylor so advised.
(This item will be continued, as an August 10, 1976 letter from Mrs. Vella has been
received requesting their application for variance be taken off the agenda to allow
more time to come up with alternative plans.)
8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO USE AN EXISTING GARAGE AS A RUMPUS ROOM AT 1520 VANCOUVER
AVENUE (APN 026-034-180), ZONED R-1, BY WILLIAM J. KIRCHEN.
Asst. C.P. Yost told Commission that within the last two months the two car garage
at 1520 Vancouver had been remodeled. It had been fully paneled, carpeted and
rewired; sliding glass doors had been cut into the side wall, and the car door
no longer can be opened. This was brought to the attention of the Building Department
by a neighbor and the Chief Building Inspector confirms no permit was issued for
this work. The present application is to permit this room to be used as a rumpus
room, with the family's 18 year old boy sleeping in a built-in bunk in one corner
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
Page 8
August 9, 1976
No plumbing or cooking facilities have been installed. There is no covered parking
on site since the conversion of the garage to a rumpus room. Mr. Yost advised
the application is technically complete, and could be set for public hearing.
During Commission discussion of this application Mr. Kirchen did make a commitment
to obtain a building permit for a carport before the August: 23 hearing. Chm. Taylor
set this item for hearing at that time.
9. RECLASSIFICATION OF ONE LOT FROM R-1 TO R-3, BEING A PORTION OF 1500 HOWARD
AVENUE (APN 028-291-010), BY SOL AND HOPE GITTLESOHN.
This request for reclassification of one lot from R-1 to R-3 was presented by C.P.
Swan. Sol and Hope Gittlesohn advised their house at 1500 Howard Avenue is located
partly on each of their two lots. Draft Negative Declaration, ND -89P, described
the project. Mr. Swan read his reasons for a conclusion that no environmental
impact report is required: "Environmental Impact Report EIR-32P for the reclassifi-
cation of the lot and 9 other lots from R-1 to R-3 was approved by P.C. Res. No. 2-75
and later modified and certified by the City Council April 21, 1975. Reclassification
of this lot was recommended by P.C. Res. No. 3-75 adopted March 10, 1975. The
resulting R-3 parcel would be 12,560 SF in area. The urban corner lot could be
improved with an 8 to 10 unit apartment building fronting on Howard with a 20 foot
side setback from E1 Camino. Such an improvement would have little or no adverse
impact but measurable benefits to the City of Burlingame."
C. Kindig recommended that a parcel map be prepared to combine the two lots into
one parcel. It was decided to hold up scheduling a hearing on the application
for reclassification until a tentative parcel map was received for concurrent
review and action.
10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO DEALER'S USE OF EXISTING GARAGE IN M-1 DISTRICT AT
1100 CAROLAN AVENUE (APN 026-233-100), BY RECTOR CADILLAC (APPLICANT) AND
DONALD TATEOSIAN (PROPERTY OWNER).
C.P. Swan explained this special permit to remodel an existing building at the
corner of Carolan Avenue and Cadillac Way. Rector Cadillac needed more space for
new car preparation. Extension of the C-2 use to this building in an M-1 District
deserved the benefit of a special permit. Proposed plans were reviewed and the
application was scheduled for hearing August 23.
11. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A MINI STORAGE WAREHOUSE AT '1241 WHITETHORN WAY
(APN 026-131-020), ZONED M-1, BY NICHOLAS CRISAFI (BUYER) WITH INDUSTRIAL
REALTY COMPANY (SELLER).
C.P. Swan indicated the proposed use is a retail service that will bring customers
to this M-1 District for storage of personal and business goods. The preliminary
plan submitted by Mr. Crisafi indicated aisles within the existing building. The
arrangement of storage cubicles has not yet been determined but cars could enter
to just inside the door. Seven parking spaces would be provided in front of the
building on Whitethorn Way. Mr. Crisafi confirmed that the building is located
on two different parcels. He advised that he intended to purchase both of these
parcels, upgrade the buildings and improve Whitethorn Way.
Commission requested a tentative parcel map for consideration along with the special
permit. Mr. Crisafi thought this could be prepared by Bill Wright, his land surveyor,
in time for the August 23 meeting. Both matters were scheduled for that time.
Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes,
CITY PLANNER REPORT
Page 9
August 9, 1976
C.P. Swan reported on the problem of approving bedroom additions to houses in Ray
Park because double garages are nonconforming. He said that garages were built
too narrow to obtain FHA approval. Commission was firm in following code require-
ments to solicit a variance when the garage has less than a 20 ft. wide clear
interior space. An option discussed was amendment of the existing regulations.
This matter will be reconsidered at the September 13 study meeting.
The City Planner distributed for information a tentative draft of proposed formula
for parking contribution by new projects within the existing Parking District,
and commented briefly on the status of possible capital improvements in Burlingame.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas W. Sine
Secretary