Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1989.03.13CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, March 13, 1989 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Harrison, Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerry Coleman, City Attorney; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the February 27, 1989 meeting were approved with the following correction: Item #8, page 5, first paragraph, add "motion was seconded by C. Harrison". AGENDA - Order of the agenda approved. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1304 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Request: explanation from applicant regarding why they need an encroachment permit, why not put the fence on applicant's property. Item set for public hearing March 27, 1989. 2. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1536 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Requests: further explanation of why a building permit was issued for this 6' fence over a 41 retaining wall; is this fence on property line; explanation of how a fence is measured; number of feet of soil taken out and number of feet to be put back in; clarification of fence along rear property line. Item set for public hearing March 27, 1989. 3. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TWO SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD AND OPERATE A GROCERY STORE - 814 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED C-2 Requests: is it easier to get in on the Edgehill side of the property; explain parking; could this site be used for auto repair; will loading be on site and off site; will a loading zone on the street be requested. Item set for public hearing March 27, 1989. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 13, 1989 4. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE OPERATION OF BATTING CAGES, INCIDENTAL SALE OF BASEBALL ITEMS AND INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP INSTRUCTION IN BATTING - 1872 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 Requests: why a 7:00 A.M. starting time; what would the snack bar consist of, any cooking facilities; will snack bar add to the number of employees; who will be there all the time to supervise; describe the classes, how big, will there be a difference in the summer; will they supply goggles and helmets. Item set for public hearing March 27, 1989. ITEMS FOR ACTION 5. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A DINING ROOM EXPANSION AT 2930 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants' letter, neighbor's letter in support. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Paul Ratto, applicant, was present. He advised the dining area is too narrow and they would like to widen it by 31. A Commissioner stated he could appreciate the applicant's request but had difficulty finding exceptional circumstances to support the variance. Applicant commented on the ordinance change since they had had the plans drawn previous to the change and had been working on the house over a long period, now because setbacks were increased they require a variance; this addition will not be noticeable from the street; the house next door has a 15' side setback and is about 8' lower than his property, they cannot see the addition, their 15' setback consists of sloped yard only. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: a 7' side yard setback is required, applicant is proposing 61, cannot find exceptional circumstances with this property to justify the variance, meeting code requirements would be only the difference between 13' and 12' dining room width; agree there is nothing unusual or exceptional about this lot, would it be possible to lengthen the dining room rather than making it wider; do not think one foot with a slope and a 15' yard next door will interfere. C. Giomi moved for approval of the variance request for the reasons stated in the applicants' letter and those stated by Commission this evening; she found because of the slope and distance to the neighbor's house there will be no impact on the neighbor; the neighbor has a wider than normal side yard, well within what the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 13, 1989 new ordinance requires; this proposal is not an unreasonable request. Motion was made by resolution with the following condition: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 14, 1989. C. Jacobs seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: C. Giomi added findings: granting of the variance will not change the general plan nor the zoning of the property, there were no objections from the neighbors and there will be no visual impact on the neighborhood. C. Garcia commented the staff report includes many findings: the proposal meets all other code requirements, it is only a one story addition, there are no windows to interfere with the neighbors and the neighbors' letter supported the project; the addition will not be noticeable from the street; there is roughly 21' from applicant's wall to the neighbors' wall and neighbors' property is 8'-10' lower. Further comment: do not feel the first criteria under required findings has been satisfied, this criteria states there must be circumstances or conditions applicable to the property which do not apply generally to property in the same district, it appears this property has a wider setback on one side than the other, do not see the difference between this home and others in the area; with the findings added by C. Garcia can support the project. Motion was approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham and S.Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. PARKING VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF A FOURTH BEDROOM AT 1472 HIGHWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. C. Garcia advised he would abstain. Discussion: documentation of ownership included in the packet; the total square footage proposed would include the proposed enlargement of the garage; there are two exterior entries to the house. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jim Valenti, designer of the project, was present. His comments: existing front door is on the south side of the property, a new entry will be put where the existing dining room is now; house is vacant at present and in poor condition. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. From a site inspection and study of the plans, C. Harrison found there were exceptional circumstances, this is the only reasonable way to expand the existing garage interior to the house without Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 13, 1989 going into the side setback; the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property rights of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss; it will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity nor detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; and it will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of properties in the general area because the existing setbacks will be maintained. C. Harrison moved for approval of the parking variance and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Variance with the following conditions: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 10, 1989; (2) that this property shall be used as a single family dwelling and shall not be converted into a second dwelling unit; and (3) that the garage shall have minimum interior dimensions of 18'-2" x 18'-411. Motion was seconded by C. S.Graham and approved on a 5-1-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs voting no, C. Garcia abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR A 6'-8" TO 6'-10" HIGH FENCE AT 1915 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letters, (staff was unable to gain access to this property so unable to measure on the inside, as long as the fence is higher than 6' on the inside applicant does, in fact, need a fence exception); study meeting questions (staff's attempt to get the requested information failed, also staff was unable to obtain the property owners' consent to the application from Mr. Moran, the applicant and contractor). One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Staff and Commission discussed penalty fees when a retroactive building permit is obtained for an existing fence. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Michael Moran, applicant, was present. He inquired about the penalty fee; staff advised it would be ten times the building permit fee. Mr. Moran's comments and answers to Commission questions follow: there was no fence on the plans for the house, he felt a fence was needed for privacy, he planned to place a planter box in front of the fence so he built the retaining wall, then decided not to have the planter box as it would be too expensive and the fence on top of the retaining wall became too high; there are a lot of fences over 6' in Burlingame, he took photos of at least nine fences in the city that are over 6' (these photos were presented to Commission). Chm. Jacobs noted the city's fence exception regulations. Applicant advised this is the first house he has built in Burlingame, his other projects have been in San Francisco, he is a licensed contractor; a Commissioner pointed out that as a licensed Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 13, 1989 contractor he should be well aware that different cities have different regulations, and wondered why he did not investigate the codes in Burlingame. Applicants responses to further questions: he put the retaining wall all around the property, the fence is 6'-2" on the inside, on the outside it is 61-1011, when standing in the back yard it is just barely over 61; the deck is about 21 off the ground; he could have lowered the deck but would need to put in steps from the house, he preferred no steps; with a lower fence the deck would not be very private; two houses across the street have fences over 6.51. Mr. Moran stated when he bought this property in January, 1988 there was an old cottage there in disrepair, he tore it down, built a beautiful house and did a lot of improvements to the neighborhood; the property owners have been out of town, they are very busy people, they wish to keep the fence, he did not want to bother them with this matter, it is his responsibility. A Commissioner noted Commission must find there are exceptional circumstances with this property and asked, other than the fact that the fence is existing and would be a pain to take down, what are the exceptional circumstances. Applicant stated it is a very busy street and the owners will need privacy. Patricia Fox (her sister owns this house) commented: her sister is very happy with the way it is, if the fence were lowered there would not be much privacy, if the fence were removed or lowered everything would have to be rearranged; to her knowledge the neighbors do not have objections to the way it is. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: Commission recently had a similar request which was denied by the Commission, how can exceptional circumstances be found for this request, many of the streets in Burlingame are busy; other than the fact that the fence is up and the deck is in place, have difficulty finding exceptional circumstances to grant a fence exception after the fact, a contractor should know that regulations exist; did current owners buy this house before it was finaled; staff believed the fence height problem was identified in the final inspection. Chm. Jacobs allowed applicant to comment: he stated the owners bought the house after the building was finaled by the city, the fence was up at that time and there was no mention of it. Further applicant comment: he finished the house in September, 1988, had the house on the market September/October, somebody notified the Planning Department or City Attorney (during October/November) that the fence was too high. The Chair commented this is between the person who bought the property and the contractor, Planning Commission is considering the fence exception. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 March 13, 1989 Further Commission comment: having trouble finding exceptional circumstances, there are a lot of busy streets in Burlingame and not all have fences over 61, in this case perhaps the deck should have been lowered, if deck were lowered and fence lowered there would be more privacy than the property has now, the fact that it was built and is in position does not mean there are exceptional circumstances. C. Giomi moved for denial of the fence exception, seconded by C. H.Graham. Comment: there was disregard for a fence permit. Motion to deny was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:35 P.M.; reconvene 8:47 P.M. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A_GIFT _SHP A 1199 B OADWAY,ZONED-C-1 Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicants' letter, letter in support from Broadway merchants, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Maria Brosnan, applicant, was present. Commission asked about their estimate of customers, 20 in the first year and 75 in five years. Applicant stated they do not have a record of number of present customers, they may average 20 now, some days they have more than that; with 75 customers per day in five years they would still expect to handle this business with only two employees on site. She was advised if employees were added she would need to amend her permit. Responding to another Commission question, applicant said they have moved out of their Capuchino Avenue location and have moved items into the Broadway location, they have not been open for business on Broadway pending the permit. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. S.Graham found this new location on Broadway will help the applicants get more business, the proposed use will not be detrimental to other businesses in the area (a petition in support has been received), it will be compatible with the general plan and with the zoning. C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the following conditions: (1) that this gift shop shall operate Monday -Sunday from 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. with a maximum of two employees on the site; and (2) that this tenant space shall comply with the master signage program approved for this property and any subsequent amendments of this program and shall not have any signs or other objects in the walkway in front of the shop or anywhere in the public right-of-way. Motion was seconded by C. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 March 13, 1989 H.Graham and approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. THREE SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A GROCERY STORE AND DELICATESSEN AT 891 CALIFORNIA DRIVE. ZONED C-2 Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, special permits required, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions, Planning staff comment (parking standard for grocery stores). Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Commission discussion: this will be a more intense use than the previous use (vacuum sales and repair shop); where will the garbage dumpster be located;. difficult to ensure employees walk to work or that employees of any subsequent business do the same; what signage is proposed; will there be cooking facilities on site; C-2 and residential zones meet at this location; conditions require no expansion of the footprint; this is a retail use in a commercial zone which is nonconforming in parking because there is no on-site parking; where will trucks be unloaded, this site is located on a corner. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jae Dong Jun, applicant, was present. She responded to Commission questions: she has operated a restaurant business but not a grocery store; cooking facilities are not proposed at this site; she will pick up food for the store every day, beer and wine will be delivered to the store, items such as popcorn and chips will also be delivered to the store; the residential portion of the property is not occupied at present, she plans to rent the house; there are no plans for a dumpster; they have a van which they will use to pick up the food each day; they will keep their present restaurant at 1355 Broadway. There were no audience comments in support. The following spoke in opposition: Robert Cameron, 1200 Majilla Avenue; Val Sheffield, 945 Chula Vista Avenue; Bill Fox, 1220 Sanchez Avenue; Donna Pikna, 949 Chula Vista Avenue; Linda Noeske, 913 Laguna Avenue; Leonard Ma, 1112 Edgehill Drive; Marjorie Ungar, 1200 Edgehill Drive; Irvin Ungar, 1200 Edgehill Drive; Chris Rose, 926 Laguna Avenue. Letters in opposition were presented from the following: Neal Lucett, 1225 Majilla Avenue; Kristin Sheffield, 945 Chula Vista Avenue; Roger Pascoe, 926 Chula Vista Avenue; Ronald Batistoni, 1300 Edgehill Drive; Maureen and John Lennon, 1312 Edgehill Drive; Wayne Okey and Marie Okey, 965 Chula Vista Avenue. Their comments and concerns: lack of parking, increased traffic; impact of a combination deli/grocery store with only one off-street parking space, could be worse than the Adeline Market site; narrow streets, parking on both sides of the street, Majilla during the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page'8 March 13, 1989 day is filled with cars now; nearby body shops test their cars on these streets and sometimes park there; motor vehicles speed down the streets in the neighborhood now; it is difficult to get stop signs for these streets; the previous use was a low volume business, this use will have much higher traffic impact; it will increase foot and vehicular traffic in the area; where will customers park. Object to a commercial use so close to homes in the area; decline in neighborhood safety, might be unable to walk freely on California Drive; opposed to the sale of beer and wine, drugs and liquor are consumed in the easements now, this could add to that; site is across the street from Burlingame High School, could attract students and result in litter, noise and abuse of liquor, would be a concern to parents; opposed to another delicatessen in the area so close to residential, there are other places to eat and shop for food within a five minute walk; dumpster will create odor; increased litter problems; opposed to the sale of alcohol, difficult to control young people, might bring people into the area especially later at night; possible drunk driving problems. In a neighborhood already struggling to maintain its residential feeling this will be a threat to privacy; concern for the safety and security of the children in the neighborhood, walking to and from school they will have to pass a grocery store/deli/liquor store much like a 7-11 or Stop & Go market; families with young children are increasing in the area; this use could change the family oriented neighborhoods. A take-out operation could generate a lot of traffic, need a lot of customers to make a deli profitable; U turns on California to park in front of the store could cause many accidents; 30 customers a day is a low estimate, couldn't make a living on that small a number; think the residential neighborhood should be considered, other businesses which are not too intensive might find this site a good one. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment/discussion: was surprised at the neighborhood reaction, had thought this might be a good interim use, opposition this evening could change my mind; CA advised Commission cannot prohibit sale of liquor in a given business. C. S.Graham found this is a bad location for this type of business, she would prefer a more service oriented business such as the previous vacuum shop, consider the situation at the Stop & Go market which has a parking lot and still has a parking and circulation problem, this use is not appropriate in a residential zone, particularly a residential zone situated like this, it is not well defined. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 March 13, 1989 C. S.Graham moved for denial of the three special permits. Motion was seconded by C. Harrison with the findings this would be a dangerous situation, high parking turnover creates a dangerous situation, with reference to the residents' concerns there are already parking problems in the area, this use will be detrimental to the public health and safety. Comment on the motion: will support the motion, primarily because of the parking issue, a vacuum shop might be all right but not this use because of inadequate parking; the basic problem is trying to use too much of this property without parking and the intensity of use of the deli and store; will go with the neighborhood and support the motion; a market survey would not support this use. At the request of the Chair, CP Monroe discussed permitted uses in the C-2 district. Motion to deny was approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. SIGN EXCEPTION AMENDMENT TO ADD SIGNAGE AT THE AUTO DEALERSHIP AT 1100 CAROLAN AVENUE, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, sign exception granted for this site in May, 1988, staff review, applicants letter and letter from applicant's representative, study meeting questions. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. C. H.Graham noted he would abstain from this action. Discussion: freeway oriented signage; staff commented freeway oriented signs are more of a problem for properties which front directly on the freeway; location of Sign E5; approved signs not yet installed by the applicant are to be included or there is the possibility of continuing the item for two weeks to clarify applicant's request. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Mike Harvey, applicant, addressed Commission: he stated they had incorrect information on the original sign, a larger sign is needed for Broadway and California Drive, there is very little signage on that side of the building; Chrysler does not allow him to use two brand signs at the same location, the only one will be on the pole sign and as originally submitted it was not proportional to the height of the pole. Thomas Cannon, Cannon and Associates, applicant's representative, stated the sign is to be viewed from California and across Rollins Road, it is not a freeway sign, their original submittal was incorrect, the square footage of this new proposal is 180 SF per face sign area plus supporting structure, this is a double faced modular sign. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 March 13, 1989 Commission discussion: how sign is measured, difference between the sign permit application indicating 208 SF per face and Mr. Cannon's statement it would be 180 SF per face is based on including the frame which holds the three panels and the space between the panels, code defines how to measure; height of the Acura pole sign across the street; concern about height of the pole sign at this location in Burlingame and a larger sign than originally proposed, will vote no; Commission approved a 35' high pole sign on the original application, concern about the size of this proposed sign, was concerned about the total square footage of the original application and am concerned now, cannot support an increase over the 775 SF approved previously, am not concerned about visibility from the freeway; drive down California Drive every day, there is too much signage on the Carolan frontage of that building, think it's redundant signage, there is so much signage no one could miss applicant's place of business. C. S.Graham moved for denial of the sign exception amendment; motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: concur with the motion, this building cannot be missed, a larger sign is not necessary, Commission reduced the original request by 12%, this is an increase of 20% over what was approved, think Commission was being reasonable in the first place; perhaps auto row signage should be reviewed again, Commission is still waiting for the auto dealers to respond to a review last November/December, this might have given better guidance for decisions on signage in the area including this one; auto dealers seem to feel it should be done on a case by case basis. Motion to deny was approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. H.Graham abstaining. Appeal procedures were advised. 11. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CAR RENTAL STORAGE AT 840 COWAN ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 3/13/89, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, previous use permits, staff review, negative declaration, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP explained traffic generation was not considered a problem since the proposed number of cars would not generate more P.M. peak hour trips at the critical intersections as determined by the traffic analyzer than a permitted use such as warehouse. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. James Saunders, general manager, Dollar Rent A Car, was present. He confirmed there is no car wash on either portion of the Cowan Road site. His comments: the primary use is storage of new cars and storage of used cars that are about to be returned to the manufacturer; from November, 1988 to the present they took delivery of about 1,250 new cars, Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 March 13, 1989 during the same period they returned to the manufacturer over 700 cars; the only work done on new cars at this location is stripping off the decals and installing license plates; they need a staging area for these cars; cars to be returned are checked out mechanically, visually for needed body work, this work is done at another location; they do not sell any cars at this site; they plan no change in security arrangements, have had no major problems; there is no lighting, this is strictly a daytime operation; once past March 31, the end of the turnback program, they expect only 200-300 cars to be delivered from April 1 up to June; cars they have received are already in service; it is anticipated from April 1 until November they will use only half of the cars, the other half will remain dormant until November. Speaking in opposition, Ruby Kueffer, Kueffer-Shieber building across the street (office/warehouse): they have owned this building for three years, when first purchased they were warned about parking and traffic problems, in view of that they enlarged their parking lot; have never found on -street parking available, this use will increase traffic; some of the other office/warehouse owners feel the same; after listening to the applicant this evening she felt somewhat better but still was concerned about the number of cars increasing and being transported regularly. A Commissioner pointed out to Ms. Kueffer that one of the points in the negative declaration indicated that traffic generation was not considered a problem because vehicle storage at 175 cars would not generate more P.M. peak hour trip ends at the critical intersections than allocated to the site. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Staff noted for the record that the conditions require all employees generated by the use on this site park on site and all loading and unloading of car transport vehicles be done on site, so the public street should not be used as a result of this use for anything other than it is used now and not by employees of this business. C. S.Graham had no problem with the negative declaration and moved to recommend Negative Declaration ND -419P to City Council. Addressing the concern about increased traffic, she found there would be a greater problem if there was a large office building across the street with everyone leaving at the same time, with this use traffic will be dispersed throughout the day. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham and approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting. C. S.Graham found this use will ultimately have less impact than an office building and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. C. S.Graham moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permit with the Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 March 13, 1989 six conditions in the staff report. Motion was seconded by C. H.Graham. C. Ellis requested that Condition #2 be amended to require that all vehicles owned by this use be parked inside the fence. Maker of the motion and seconder agreed to the amended condition. Conditions follow: (1) that the 6' chain link fence should be installed at the location shown on the plans date stamped December 22, 1988 and that the use of the westerly enclosed area at 840 Cowan Road shall be limited to the storage of new cars intended for the car rental fleet and storage of used car rental cars in preparation to be shipped off the site in accord with James Saunders' letter of February 14, 1989; (2) that all employees shall park on the site in designated parking spaces and all vehicles owned by this business shall be parked inside the fence; (3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of January 16, 1989 shall be met, particularly that the access shall be maintained at all times from Cowan Road to the city's pumping station at the rear of the site; (4) that no more than 175 cars will be parked on the westerly half of the site at one time; (5) that this site will be used in conjunction with the car rental use at 1815 Bayshore Highway and will not be leased or rented to a separate business or use without an amendment to this use permit; and (6) that this project shall be reviewed in one year (March, 1990) for compliance with its use permit and conditions and upon complaint thereafter. Motion was approved on a 6-1 roll call vote, C. Jacobs dissenting (cannot support rent -a -car storage in the M-1 zone). Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its March 6, 1989 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mike Ellis, Secretary