Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2013.01.28 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, January 28, 2013 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the January 28, 2013, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Davis, Gaul, Cauchi, and Terrones Absent: Commissioners Sargent and Yie Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the January 14, 2013 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change:  Page 6, Agenda Item 4, first paragraph; delete “Hurin” from second line.  Page 12, first bullet; revise second sentence to read: “Believes that the applicant has mistakenly addressed the justification for the covered parking space, when justification for the variance to allow the uncovered space is needed.”  Page 13, Agenda Item 8, sixth bullet under Commission comments; replace “extends” with “did not extend”. Motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent, Commissioner Cauchi abstaining). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for discussion. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 28, 2013 2 Chair Gaul asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 1a. 1640 MCDONALD WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE AND UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; SUNEIL KOLIWAD & LEENA JADHAV, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 1b. 1032 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; 1032 CORTEZ BURLINGAME LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent, Commissioner Cauchi abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:07 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 1425 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USE FROM STORAGE TO A WORKOUT ROOM WITH A FULL BATHROOM (MEGAN WARREN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AMY LOU AND ANDREW WOODS, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 28, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Megan Warren, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Discussed the need for a fire-rated window; a wooden window is not fire-rated. Check the Fire Code requirements as a wood window is permissible if the percentage of open area falls below the standard in the code. A metal window is not preferred.  Noted that if a fire-rated window is required, some options are more attractive than others. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 28, 2013 3 Commissioner Gaul moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped December 18, 2012, sheets A.1 through A.5; 2. that if the windows do not match the existing windows, then the selected windows shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to installation via an FYI; 3. that the accessory living quarters above the detached garage shall only include a workout room and a bathroom; any changes to the use of the accessory living quarters shall require an amendment to the conditional use permit; 4. that the accessory structure shall never include a kitchen with a permanent cooking fixture, as this would change the use of the accessory structure to a second dwelling unit, and the accessory structure shall never be used for living purposes as a second dwelling unit; 5. that if the accessory structure is demolished, the envelope changed at a later date, or should the use in the structure change, the conditional use permit may require an amendment or may become void; 6. that the conditions of the City Engineer’s September 6, 2012, memo, Chief Building Official's December 20, 2012, November 13, 2012, and August 26, 2012, memos, and the Stormwater Coordinator's August 28, 2012, memo shall be met; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:13 p.m. Commissioner Auran noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 3 (1325 Drake Avenue) as he resides within 500-feet of the property. He left the City Council Chambers. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 28, 2013 4 3. 1325 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR AS- BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ZERS DEVELOPMENT INC., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 28, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen (17) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tony Leung, Burlingame; represented the applicant.  Provided letters from neighbors and photographs of changes for the Commission to review. Commission comments:  Most concerned with the vinyl windows. Is there a concern about paintability? (Leung – the three windows involved are Fiberglas and are paintable.)  Why the changes to the bay window and the attic vents? (Leung – made changes to the vents so that they were all the same size.)  Since the Fiberglas windows were only installed in the bathrooms; it is clear that the change was not made for cost. Also indicates that the windows are paintable.  With respect to the front bay; the reduction in the size of the vent and the reduction in the size of the brow and the trim at the top of the window, there is a lot of stucco present that wouldn’t have been present with the original design. Makes the design look a bit cheap. Wouldn’t be too difficult to add the trim back to the window. (Leung – willing to install additional trim to take the design closer to the original.)  Would like to increase the size of the vent in this area to the larger size. Would prefer the original design to be implemented, but is willing to consider an alternate design but would need details. (Leung – the home is in the process of being sold; doesn’t wish to have a further delay.)  Would not need to come back to the Commission if the bay trim and vent are installed per the plan.  Felt the window trim appeared richer before. Can live with the changes to the front bay.  Why was the copper chimney cap changed? (Leung – has been treated once by the contractor, but he will treat it again.)  Encouraged locking the house while vacant. Public comments: Chris Knightley, Burlingame; spoke:  Feels the changes that have been made are acceptable.  Is the window going to remain the same height? (Commissioner – the applicant is being instructed to install trim according to the original design.)  Agreed with installing the window trim. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 28, 2013 5 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 17, 2012, sheets L1.0 and A3.1 through A3.4; 2. that the details present on the right, front gable shall be installed consistent with the originally approved design; 3. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner or applicant shall provide documentation to show what protection measures will be in place during construction to protect the existing fruit trees and their root systems at 1329 Drake Avenue; protection measures shall be installed prior to demolition and shall be inspected by the City Arborist; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 22, 2012 memo, the City Engineer's March 21, 2012 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 19, 2012 memo, the City Arborist's April 11 and March 20, 2012 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 19, 2012 memo shall be met; 7. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 10. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 28, 2013 6 12. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 15. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 16. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 17. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 18. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie absent, Commissioner Cauchi recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:26 p.m. Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 1500 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 28, 2013 7 FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (STOTLER DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BUDROCK GROUP LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 28, 2013, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Scott Stotler, Los Altos; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  How is the garage being accommodated; will there be fill? (Stotler – the garage will be set about a foot or so below the street; the garage doors will be placed on the side rather than facing the street. The back-out area will require a retaining wall.)  How is the lawn accessed? (Stotler – the paver patio is two feet below the garage entrance, so there will be a few steps leading to the area then up the steps into the house.)  On the window trims, there doesn’t appear to be anything other than the trim provided by the manufacturer; will there be a stucco mold or something? (Stotler – are proposing more of a traditional Spanish style with the windows inset into the wall with wooden sills. The windows will be color, clad.) Provide detail of the recess on the plans.  Concerned about the window in the shower on the right elevation; may wish to think about another material in this area due to the wet nature of the area. (Stotler – if a fiberglass window is selected, then it will likely be clad.)  Nice job with the design, particularly articulation and massing.  Concern about the gate at the garage; has wrought-iron been considered? (Stotler – provided a pop-out on the garage to make it look more like the house. Believes that it would be nice to recess the gate even further than shown on the plans, this would break up the area. There are some pedestals shown in certain areas that are for urns.)  What is the material on the top of the area for the urns? (Stotler – like pre-cast so that they are water proof.)  On the ground floor, under the stairs, questioned whether the window should be at that location. (Stotler – will likely place the window higher in the stairwell.)  Where will water heater and furnace be located? (Stotler – will likely use tankless water heaters. Also have crawl space under the house for the heating system.)  The massing from the street is done well.  On the rear elevation, there are a lot of plant materials on the site; will this be removed? (Stotler – are removing existing and installing new materials to assist in reducing the height of the adjacent wall.)  Questioned the adequacy of the 5-gallon plant size. (Stotler – frequently the smaller box sizes grow more quickly.)  Provide details regarding the growth rate for the plant materials. (Stotler – happy to work with the staff.)  Some elements of the landscape plan are vague; there is nothing shown along the building wall – revisit this area with the landscape architect. Likes the addition of the decomposed granite parking strip.  Is nice to have the garage as a detached element. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 28, 2013 8  Can support the special permit for the height and the conditional use permit for the window facing the front property line.  The bedroom window on the front is so big that the arch is beginning to encroach on the roof trim; consider revising this element. (Stotler – agreed.)  The landscape plan shows the fireplace protruding out; assumes this will not be the case? (Stotler – correct; the landscape architect was using an earlier version of the plan.) Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Gaul called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Yie and Sargent absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:43 p.m. 5. 1509 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-2 AND R-3 – APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING OF A PORTION OF THE SITE FROM R-2 TO R-3, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, FOUR-STORY, 15-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH AT-GRADE PARKING (1509 EL CAMINO LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MOORE VISTICA ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated January 28, 2013, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Pat and Sheri Fellowes, Burlingame; represented the applicant.  Noted that the story poles would be difficult to provide.  Provided an overview of the visual simulations of the project; could provide story poles in areas visible from Balboa Avenue and Albemarle Avenue.  Could use scaffold in certain areas in lieu of story poles. Commission comments: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 28, 2013 9  Believes story poles will still be needed in the interest of the neighbors  Still a bit concerned about the scale of the project; but would like to see story poles along the rear where possible. Probably not as necessary along the front of the property.  Story poles will be an opportunity to view the potential impacts from other positions.  Will be one of the taller buildings along El Camino Real and need to provide sufficient time for public review.  Encouraged installing story poles as quickly as possible given that the public comment period on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is currently open. Public comments: James MacKay, Burlingame; Allen Menicucci, Burlingame; Samantha O’Neal, Burlingame; Michael and Sumita Fleming, Burlingame; Kim Rosales, Burlingame; Mark Haberecht, Burlingame; Emil Anderson, Burlingame; Paul Wallach, Burlingame; Ann Wallach, Burlingame; Patricia Gray, Burlingame; and Ellis Rose, Burlingame; spoke:  Resident at the building that is being removed. Where can he voice his concerns about displacement of the existing residents? (Guinan – there is no City ordinance requiring relocation assistance. Referred the speaker to one of the County housing agencies.)  With respect to the simulation from Albemarle, the building will be about 15-feet higher than the trees.  What will prevent others in the area from requesting a rezoning to R-3 as well.  Has lived on the street for 48-years.  The proposed building doesn’t belong in the area.  Is in the process of buying one of the duplexes in the area, may consider requesting a rezoning.  Heard a rumor that the applicant has approached the owner of Adeline Market for redevelopment.  Lives in the first home present on Balboa Avenue. Likes Burlingame because of the trees, but it is changing.  Feels the removal of the trees from the property is a betrayal of the trust that she had in the City. Feels disregarded as a resident.  The building will be much taller than it appears in the simulations.  Feels that story poles on the front will be needed as well so that people driving down El Camino Real can see what the future of Burlingame will be.  Doesn’t feel that the Commission has any respect for the history of the City.  There are huge concerns for parking in the neighborhood; strongly opposed.  Will have a full view of the structure from the side of their property and from their rear yard; will impact the neighborhood.  The majority of the cars parking in their neighborhood come from apartments in the area and from Adeline Market.  The building is pretty, but too tall.  The number of units will make a difference.  Encouraged providing story poles from all sides.  Individuals from sporting events at the parks park in the neighborhood.  Will also increase traffic congestion on El Camino and on Balboa Avenue at peak times.  Feels the scale of the building is out of character with the City.  There are issues with sewage in the area; feels that the project will exacerbate the problem.  Schools in the area are increasing enrollment; this will only add to the congestion to traffic and parking in the area.  Noise from the top of the building will impact the neighbors.  Views will be impacted.  The design is beautiful, but it is too large. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 28, 2013 10  Project will only increase traffic congestion.  Feels that the story poles are required in this case.  Referred back to the Commission’s prior consideration of the project in 2007; what conditions have changed since that time to warrant a taller, larger project with Spanish architecture.  Has reviewed the City’s design guidelines; doesn’t feel that the project is consistent with them.  The project is taller than anything around it and draws attention to itself.  This is a gateway to the City.  Projects should achieve a human scale consistent with the neighborhood.  The outdoor space will adversely impact residents and will impact neighborhood property values.  The prior project was withdrawn; this project is larger and more impactful. Doesn’t appear that the project has changed significantly since that time.  The community questions the developer’s motivations related to the project.  Will set a bad precedent if approved.  (Commissioner – do most people in the neighborhood park in their driveways?) Has observed residents intentionally park a vehicle on the street to reserve space for trash hauling.  In agreement with all previous speakers.  When their home on Balboa Avenue was purchased, there was no overnight parking allowed.  Lots of congestion during peak hours due to activities at the schools and parks.  Was very impressed with the level of analysis of the project.  Not very green to remove the existing living units for the new project.  Construction will create air and water pollution.  Concerned about removal of trees at the southeast corner of the property.  Will create visual pollution.  Referenced the soils/hydrology report. Noted that the study only went down 15-feet to sandy soil and clay; where will the solid ground be for the piers.  The study noted that the retaining wall on the creek is adequate. Noted a section of the retaining wall that is suspended in mid-air, what is supporting it.  A San Mateo County poll recently asked about their vision of communities in the future; all of these studies take into account scientific facts, but not emotional facts.  Parking is not adequate for the size of the units.  The scale of the building is out of character with the area; the building will look like a wall.  Concerned about noise from the project; the study assessed impacts from four similar-sized units on another of the applicant’s projects. Doesn’t feel that this is an adequate comparison when assessing the impacts upon the neighbors.  Has been a great transition in the population of Burlingame over the years; there are few places for low-income individuals to live in Burlingame.  Parking is heavily impacted in the area.  Traffic on Balboa Avenue is impacted.  Concerned about removal of the trees on the site.  In this time of climate change, global warming should be a consideration; deforestation is a contributory factor.  Feels that there should be more notice of changes in the zoning of an area.  Feels that the project is being snuck through the back door. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments:  Clarified that there will need to be a written response to all comments included in the response to the public comments regarding the environmental analysis. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes January 28, 2013 11  Was on the Commission when the prior project was considered in 2007; there are still concerns, feels the story poles should be erected.  Wishes to see responses to traffic and parking comments.  Feels that story poles are needed.  Feels the building is attractive.  Suggested providing a list of similar height buildings in the City as points of comparison.  Provide left and right scaffolding with ribbon across the rear.  Very concerned about the traffic.  Not certain the scale fits in with the neighborhood.  Requested that environmental consultant and traffic engineer come to action hearing.  The community needs to determine which neighborhood the project lies in; Balboa or El Camino?  Must look at the impact that the apartments have on the neighborhood.  Noted that there is a different traffic impact attributable to condominiums versus rental units.  Noted that only four more units are being added; though the project is more massive. What are the differences in impacts attributable to an incremental increase in the number of units on the property?  Is there an interest in pursuing the development of an El Camino specific plan? (Meeker – no.) No action was required. This item concluded at 8:42 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of January 22, 2013:  Noted that the City Council accepted the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014-2022 planning period. The allocation is used as the basis for determining appropriate locations for additional housing in the City as part of the update of the City’s Housing Element. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Vice-Chair