Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1992.06.22CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22, 1992 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Mink on Monday, June 22, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Ellis, Galligan, Jacobs, Kelly, Mink Absent: Commissioner Graham Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Frank Erbacher, City Engineer; Bill Reilly, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the June 8, 1992 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - The order of the agenda was approved with the notation that Item 12, 1420 Burlingame Avenue, was continued until the parking study was complete, the item will be renoticed. ITEMS FOR STUDY 1. REAR SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO BUILD A DECK AT THE REAR OF 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Requests: on a sloping site like this how can one tell when a deck is over 30" from grade on a site visit; deck needs to be viewed from adjacent site; since an estate is involved what is the purpose of making this improvement, more saleable, is someone living there now; when originally developed this property was in the county and then annexed to the city, is the development now inconsistent with city regulations because of the requirements when it was built; did the property require any variances or permits when it was developed. Item set for public hearing July 13, 1992. 2. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE TO BUILD AN EXTENSION OF THE FIRST FLOOR AND BASEMENT AT 1512 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Requests: how can one tell what is going on in the basement since no room sizes or dimensions are provided; are the stairs shown the only access from the floor above, is there other access to this area; provide dimensions and ceiling heights for the unfinished space; dimensions for enclosed area in application and on plans are not consistent, what is the correct size; other than the house already being there, what is unusual about this property; applicant addresses findings for a variance but not findings for view impact, please submit Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 22, 1992 these findings; provide more detail about what is happening in the kitchen remodel and making the breakfast area bigger; address equivalent fixture units, eight seems a large number for a single family residence. Item set for public hearing July 13, 1992. 3. HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AT 13 HAYWARD COURT, ZONED R-1 Requests: put up a frame to show where the addition is located and how it would affect view; what is the height between the bottom of the addition and the ground below; what is declining height envelope exception 16; what will occur under the structure, will the area be enclosed, what kind of storage will occur there. Item set for public hearing July 13, 1992. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT 2667 SUMMIT DRIVE. ZONED R-1 Requests: in the past all satellite dishes have been required to face south and have that orientation unobstructed, can this dish receive with the proposed orientation; what is the color of the dish, will it be reflective. Item set for public hearing July 13, 1992. 5. NEGATIVE DECLARATION, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR 74 STALLS FOR A LIVE COMEDY THEATER AT 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA B Requests: would like to see location of off-street parking lots proposed, people are not easily directed, people in the area should not suffer; some unnamed -parking lots which may or may not be leased does not help to address the potential impacts, need to know location and shuttle bus routes; include a copy of the traffic study in the packet; concern about safety of pedestrian access across California Drive, may be mitigated by shuttle and leased lots but need detail to ensure people crossing the street would not be a problem. Item set for public hearing July 13, 1992. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALES FOR A BRIDAL SHOP AT 1608 GILBRETH ROAD. ZONED M-1 Requests: explain how this wholesale/retail activity is different from a similar retail use in downtown Burlingame; if the use were wholly retail how would the use of floor areas change; break out percentage of retail and wholesale sales; why is so much space required for so few employees and customers; do a survey of available parking on site on weekends. Item set for public hearing July 13, 1992. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 22, 1992 ITEMS FOR ACTION 7. SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION ABOVE AN EXISTING GARAGE AT 724 CONCORD WAY, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/22/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff comments, study meeting questions, required findings. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the.public hearing. Responding to questions, staff explained that uncovered tandem spaces were legal in single family districts, and that the side setback request was an extension of a nonconforming situation which was created at the time the building was built. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Mrs. Howe, applicant and property owner, was present. She noted support for the: project from her neighbors on either side and across the street, :Mating they had no objections, the addition conformed to the style and architecture of the structure, the addition would not block views and would make the rear of the building more attractive, and they appreciated keeping the architecture consistent. She noted that in design they had made an effort not to maximize the square footage of the addition but to keep the architecture sound. Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way, the property owner at the rear of the project, spoke in opposition. He noted two concerns, the general overbuilding in the neighborhood on his side of the: fence and the fact the project would intrude on the privacy of his patio and back yard by adding more rooms and windows at the second story. He noted he was generally familiar with the declining height envelope and the discussion by Council about it. He felt this project violated the spirit and letter of that envelope. If viewed from the street the project is nice and in tune with the neighborhood; from the rear there is a wall of windows including a 4' x 4' window at the rear 10' closer to his lot than any other; other windows on this house are presently screened by vegetation on his lot. The purpose of the declining height envelope is to prevent substantial overbuilding. His house is built in a "U" configuration and the internal outside patio is an important part of his living space, it will lose its privacy. He suggested the application should be denied unless they remove the window at the rear on the second floor or the applicant provides :Landscaping on his property to block the view into Mr. Voltz' lot. In response to question he noted his house was about 25' from rear property line. A Commissioner noted the applicant's addition as shown on the plans was about 21' from rear property line. He noted the back of the garage looked more like 12' from property line. Commission noted there was 46' between the two buildings. Commissioners noted Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 22, 1992 that even without the side setback variance the window could be there, regulations currently do not address window placement. Second floors are required to have windows, could be placed. on side wall but would affect someone else. Mrs. Howe noted that they tried to keep privacy in mind in their design. There are no windows on the right side of the building where the distance from the neighbor is about 71; the separation to the rear is much greater; other windows face onto other parts of the house. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/ comment: regarding required window size, Fire Marshal said no fire requirement for size; two issues, side setback for first floor no problem because if no declining height envelope this would be a minor modification; issue of privacy can't be addressed because there has to be a window someplace, the declining height envelope does increase bulk some and effect is to reduce one bedroom from 11' to 1011 the other bedroom could be cantilevered toward this property's patio, be consistent with the architecture and retain its original dimensions, therefore loss would be one foot overall; although sensitive to privacy concern, window may be needed for other code requirements, possibly it could be raised so people inside could not see out. Based on comments in discussion and staff report, C. Deal moved to approve the side setback variance and deny the declining envelope variance with the additional condition of requiring verification of the actual rear setback, action taken by resolution, including the following conditions: (1) that the addition as; built shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 7, 1992 Sheets 1 through 8; revised plans date stamped June 12, 1992 Sheets IA, 5A, 6A and 8A and additional revised plans date stamped June 19, 1992 Sheets 1, 2 and 3, except that the declining height requirement shall be met and the property owner shall verify the actual rear setback dimension on plans submitted to the Building Department; (2) that the finish material used on both the flat and sloping portions of the roof shall be nonreflective as determined by the Chief Building Inspector and City Planner; and (3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Motion was seconded by C. Ellis. Comment on the motion: not concerned about the window because difficult to see where people could peek out 40' away; as designed this is sensitive; would go for the declining height envelope if exceptional circumstances existed with this property but see none; why should rear setback be verified, to make sure the 15' minimum is adhered to; project is O.K. if it is less than 21' but not if it is less than 151; suggest that applicant has heard the neighbor's concern and if they could redesign the window it would be appreciated. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 June 22, 1992 Motion to approve the side setback variance and deny the declining height envelope variance was approved on a 4-2-1 roll call vote, Cers Jacobs and Mink dissenting, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 8. PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SUBSTANDARD INTERIOR DEPTH OF GARAGE AT 931 PARK AVENUE, ZONED R-2 Reference staff report, 6/22/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, required findings. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Responding to questions, the City Planner indicated that the Ray Park garage dimensions were 18' x 201, the parking variance is required because the family room meets the definition of bedroom since the wall between the kitchen and family room is not open 50%. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Mary Robertson, applicant and property owner, spoke, noting that this was a small house, she was recently left a formal dining room set but had no dining room so wanted to add'a dining room and second bath, in addition because she teaches dance and does volunteer work she has lots of equipment and needs the study area. She lives alone and does not need three bedrooms; the neighbors have no problem since she is the only one who uses her garage for parking, she keeps her cars an average of 13 years so uses the garage to maintain them; she has a long driveway and her visitors use that. She does not want 50% of the wall opened up. In discussion with Commissioners it was pointed out that if the wall between the kitchen and family/dining room were opened up 50% then the new room would not be called a bedroom and a parking variance would not be required, the opening would have to go from counter top to ceiling. It was also noted that 15'-9" was very short for a garage particularly if someone added one foot of storage at the rear. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/ comment: it was noted that there was a big difference between 151-911 in length and 17' or 181, this may be all right for the applicant's circumstance but the variance would go with the property permanently; the variance could be avoided by opening up the new room wall adjacent to the kitchen 50% or by adding to the garage, in either case no variance would be required. There is something unusual about this property, it has a very long driveway and is a two bedroom house with a family room; as shown by pictures, some people in the area are not using their garages for parking in any event. A motion was made by C. Jacobs to approve the parking variance with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Kelly. Comment on the motion: noted that the variance could be avoided and the applicant does not need more parking for herself but in the long term the land needs to be upgraded with a conforming garage; the condition of the garage is not the best and in time it will need to be replaced; the problem is that once a variance is granted this property will never Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 June 22, 1992 have to comply with the code requirement for parking unless the house is added onto and exceeds four bedrooms. The variance is being driven by the definition of bedroom; if this is not a bedroom a variance would not be necessary and when nature takes its course with the existing garage the site will have parking to code requ.irgments. Commissioner Jacobs withdrew her motion and the seconder agreed. C. Jacobs then moved that the Commission determine that the new room was a dining room since the house did not have a dining room and that this determination be made by resolution and recorded with the property with the following condition: that the dining room be as noted on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 21, 1992 Sheets 1 Site Plan, 2 Floor Plan and 3 Elevations. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:05 P.M., reconvene 9:15 P.M. 9. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 612 PENINSULA AVENUE, ZONED R-3 CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, negative declaration, study meeting questions. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. City Planner noted an addition to Condition 17 addressing depth of balconies and how they shall be measured; it was noted that removal of existing trees would require a permit from the Parks Director, that guest parking was not required, and that it is the Planning Commission who determines whether guest parking will be provided or not. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Edward Powderly, 105 West 24th Avenue, San Mateo, owner and builder, was present. He noted that he believed they met all the requirements, that the questions were the maneuvers from the guest parking at the rear which can be corrected by moving the structural column inward and increasing the strength of the structure; the large tree in the footprint of the building needs to be removed, the tree in the corner will remain; they can provide the 50% soft landscaping in the common open space next to the guest parking; it was noted that revised plans showed that the support post had been removed and the landing from the stairs was not raised to obstruct vehicle movement. Since the guest parking creates a problem and is not required, can it be removed. Applicant noted desire for guest parking outside so each unit could have its own private two car garage with a door. There is a contradiction in the revised June 12 plans, the north elevation shows the structural support but the :site plan does not. The parking garages are not 20' clear interior dimension and this item needs to be conditioned so that the dimensions are accurate when plans are submitted to the Building Department and the setbacks are not affected. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 June 22, 1992 Yanni Grivakis, 614 Peninsula Avenue, noted he had reviewed the plans and wanted to know what the elevation of the finished grade would be since a fourplex built on the -other side of him mounded soil along the property line causing a drainage problem on his site; if he has the circumstance on both sides he will have a real drainage problem. He is not opposed because the existing building on this site is a fire hazard. It was noted that the other property and this proposed project should drain to the street and the Public Works Department is responsible for this review; the City Engineer noted he would review the construction plans with drainage in mind. A letter in opposition from Michael and Catherine Ryes, 10 Bloomfield Road, was entered into the record. They note they are strongly opposed to the project because it would eliminate the only secluded area remaining on their lot since two other three story apartment buildings directly next to them overlook their yard. They note progress is inevitable but they would prefer to see a single family home, duplex or two story condominium project on this site. They note if the project is approved they would like to see the window in the living room in the unit closest to their lot eliminated and no other windows added on that side of the building; balconies protected by a wall where the project adjoins their lot; a higher wooden fence built on the property line between the two lots; and trees on the property retained, particularly a large tree in the northwest corner of the lot and the smaller tree east of the large tree. They note they would be unable to attend the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs noted that the project meets the requirements in the negative declaration, that Commission has discretion in dealing with the guest parking .and given the discussion of the trees, -the removal of the structural support and the maneuvers into the parking space with the added condition that all zoning requirements would be met, found that there was no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and moved that Negative Declaration ND -457P be accepted with these findings. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on a roll call vote 6-0-1, C. Graham absent. Commissioner Jacobs then moved for approval of the condominium permit with conditions as amended and adding a condition requiring that all zoning regulations be met and that trees be retained as shown on the tentative map. Conditions follow: (1) that the project as built shall be consistent with the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 12, 1992 Sheets 1 through 3 with the same footprint but with the third floor balconies having a 3'-9" interior dimension, and Sheet lA from the plans date stamped May 7, 1992 as amended by the conditions following, without support posts for cantilever overhangs, and that all zoning code requirements shall be met; (2) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's May 11, 1992 memo, the Chief Building Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 June 22, 1992 Inspector's May 12, 1992 memo, the City Engineer's June 16, 1992 memo and the Park Director's June 5, 1992 memo shall be met; (3) that the guest parking shall be designated and marked on the plans and the tentative map and not assigned to a unit, but. shall be maintained by the condominium association and shall never be uped by the members of the association for any kind of storage or any other use but guest parking; (4) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; (5) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; (6) that 50% of the total common open space located at the rear of the property shall be provided in unpaved, soft landscaped area and that the third floor balconies which provide private open space shall be 3'-9" wide as measured from the exterior wall of structure to the inside of the balcony railing; (7) that the furnaces and water heater shall be shown in a legal compartment within each dwelling unit; (8) that the property owner or developer shall have prepared an arborist's report outlining the precautions and limitations to construction necessary to retain the existing tree at the rear of the lot, the Parks Director shall approve the arborist's report prior to issuance of a building permit, and should the tree die because of neglect or abuse during construction the developer or property owner shall be subject to a penalty fee under current city code and shall replace the tree as directed by the Parks Director; and (9) that the project including egress and access -requirements shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. Comment on the motion: project poses a difficult trade-off between open space and guest parking; this project does not show open space but a planter which is not usable as open space; someone who left their car parked in the guest parking space may not be comfortable with people using the open space immediately adjacent; this lot is on Peninsula and there is no parking on this side of the street, therefore parking is more important than open space at this location; providing guest parking has meant that one unit will not be stuck with only one space because of the city's requirement; guest parking is never used when one of the required spaces is taken; if no one is parking in the parking space it can be used as open space; feels as if a common open space exception is being granted since the area is only 7' wide. Motion to approve the condominium permit was approved on a 6-0-1 roll call vote, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 June 22, 1992 10. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, LOT 22, BLOCK 30, MAP NO. 1, TOWN OF BURLINGAME (612 PENINSULA AVENUE) Reference CE's memo, 6/22/92. CE recommended this map also be considered as a tentative and final parcel map, it may be forwarded to Council for approval. Public hearing for the tentative map was included in the public hearing for the negative declaration and condominium permit.. C. Ellis moved to recommend the tentative map to City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan, motion was approved on roll call vote 6-0-1, C. Graham absent. 11. TEMPORARY TENT PERMIT AT SAFEWAY STORE, 1450 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA. SUB AREA B AND R-3 Reference staff report, 6/22/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review. Five conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP :noted amendment to conditions to address site inspection during the period of time that the tent was in place to determine parking impacts. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the CE was asked why they needed the flags on the guy wires, it was noted that they were for the protection of pedestrians; it was noted that the walls of the tent would be red and white and the top would not be ultra white. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the temporaryâ–º permit with the conditions as amended: (1) that the tent shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 10, 1992 Exhibit and Site Plans," five sheets total (all 8-1/2" x 1111); (2) that the temporary tent shall be removed by July 10, 1992 and the parking spaces shall be restored to their original use; (3) that while the tent is in place, parking shall occur in the surface parking lot to the south and west of the store; (4) that the installation of the tent shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (5) that the site shall be inspected once during the event to evaluate the impact of this temporary use and then inspected for removal of the tent in July, 1992. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved on roll call vote 6-0-1, C. Graham absent. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 June 22, 1992 12. VARIANCE FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR 43 PARKING STALLS FOR SEISMIC UPGRADE AND REMODEL OF 1420 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUB AREA A Item continued until the parking study is submitted. Item will be renoticed at that time. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR COMMUNICATION ANTENNA AT 1799 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 6/22/92, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, study meeting questions, required findings. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. CP was asked about the attachment of the antenna to the roof and whether all antennas in this district required. a permit. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Richard Richeal of Broadcast International noted that the antenna can be seen from the back side of the parking lot but from no other location; the antenna is white. The Commission inquired how the antenna would be attached; Mr. Richeal noted that sometimes guy wires are attached to the framework of the building and lag bolts are used to attach the antenna but not in this case; it was noted that the installation requires a building permit and must conform to these standards. The public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit for the antenna by resolution with conditions, based on the fact that it was located in the most obscure area it could be on the roof, it was needed in order for this business to continue in the M-1 area. The motion was seconded by C. _Ellis. Comment on the motion: it was pointed out that since this antenna could not be seen screening was not necessary. Commissioners suggested removal of Condition 14. C. Jacobs agreed to amend the motion with removal of Condition 14 regarding requirements to screen the antenna. Amendment was accepted by the seconder. Conditions of approval follow: (1) that the 6'-7" diameter communication antenna shall be located on the roof as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 1, 1992, Sheets A1.1 and A1.2 and May 26, 1992 Satellite Section; and located on the western half of the portion of the building facing Mitten Road; (2) that the applicant or property owner shall be responsible for an amendment to this use permit if future construction on any adjacent property requires relocation of the antenna, removal and reinstallation costs shall also be borne by the applicant and/or property owner; (3) that the communication antenna shall be painted a nonreflective light gray color and that this nonreflective surface shall be maintained by the property owner; (4) that all the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector's May 4, 1992 memo shall be met and the engineering calculations and method of attachment Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 June 22, 1992 approved prior to any installation of the antenna; (5) that the engineer of record shall inspect the installation of the antenna and verify to the city in writing that the antenna was installed as specified; (6) that the project shall meet Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame; and_ (7) that should this tenant leave the building the antenna shall be removed from the roof and the city notified of its removal. Motion was approved on a roll call vote 6-0-1, C. Graham absent. Appeal procedures were advised. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Hillside Area Construction Permit and Minor Modification, 2907 Frontera Way, zoned R-1. It was noted that the washer, dryer and heater would have to be relocated outside of the garage in order to get the 20' interior width required for parking. CITY PLANNER REPORT CP Monroe reviewed her memo on modifications to parking regulations for tandem parking and driveway widths. Report suggests clarifying that required covered parking shall not be provided in tandem but uncovered parking may be provided in tandem configuration in the driveway. In addition report suggests that the code be amended -to require a 9-1/2' wide driveway in the R-1 and R-2 districts rather than the inferred 12' width now present in the code. Commission discussion: regarding tandem parking, one: Commissioner asked if parking requirements were adequate with only one covered and one uncovered tandem space in the driveway for single! family homes with four bedrooms. New homes should be required to provide two covered off-street parking spaces without regard for the number of bedrooms; this requirement would reduce the size of the footprint of new homes because of the larger size requirement for the garage and the 40% lot coverage maximum; do not want to eliminate opportunity for any lot which can provide two covered spaces from providing them; lots previously developed where a two car garage is not possible should be allowed to have a single car garage to code dimensions. Other Commissioners noted that the current parking requirement of one covered and one uncovered space for four or fewer,bedrooms was a requirement recently reviewed and approved by City Council. Requiring two covered parking spaces would reduce the size of the project; it was suggested Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 June 22, 1992 that maybe the size of a garage should be based on the size of lot, for example 5,000 SF or less, one covered and one uncovered; 8,000 SF, two covered; it was pointed out two covered parking spaces could always be provided at the sacrifice of something else, a tree, usable back yard area, living space. C. Jacobs moved to take forward to the City Council a recommendation to modify the parking regulations for tandem parking and driveway widths, clarifying that covered parking shall not be provided in tandem but shall be allowed in tandem uncovered in driveways and that driveway widths be clarified to 9-1/2' in the R-1 and R-2 districts. Motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved unanimously on voice vote. CP reviewed City Council actions at its June 15, 1992 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Galligan Secretary