Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.03.26THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION March 26, 1973 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Jacobs Kindig Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER Mink - excused Norberg - ill City Planner Swan City Engineer Marr City Attorney Karmel Consultant Spangle A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:05 P.M., Chairman Cistulli presiding. ROLL CALL The above -named members were present. MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of February 26, 1973 and the minutes of the study meeting of March 12, 1973 were approved and adopted. HEARINGS 1. PARCEL MAP OF LOTS 8, 9,10 AND PORTION OF LOTS 11 AND 12, BLOCK 10, BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY, MAP NO. 2 (APN 029-121-430) AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CHAPIN AVENUE AND EL CAMINO REALt BY CONTINENTAL SERVICE COMPANY 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING WITH PARKING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CHAPIN AVENUE AND EL CAMINO REAL, PORTION ZONED C-1; BY CONTINENTAL SERVICE COMPANY 3. VARIANCE TO USE R-4 DISTRICT PROPERTY FOR PORTION OF BANK OF AMERICA BUILDING AND PARKING AREAS BY RONALD M. MERKADEAU, ARCHITECT AND AGENT FOR CONTINENTAL SERVICE COMPANY Chairman Cistulli announced consideration of these inter -related applications. Secretary Jacobs read letter of January 29, 1973 from Continental Service Company stating their plans to construct a modern building for the Bank of America on this site. This would be a one story bank with mezzanine, totaling approximately 12,000 square feet, one hour fire wall and built in accordance with building code. They indicated the site would include drive-in banking services as well as walk-up window and landscaping. Secretary Jacobs also read letter of February 5, 1973, from Ronald M. Merkadeau, transmitting this letter of application, special permit application, fee, and site plan transparency. City Planner Swan suggested the special permit and variance applications be considered together and the parcel map be considered separately. City Engineer Marr stated that the City did not have the final parcel map. Since he understood it was the Commission's wish to consider the parcel map later when the project was definitely under construction, he suggested it be delayed. The Commission agreed to delay consideration of the parcel map. - 2 - Commissioner Taylor indicated he wished to explore architectural alternatives and Planning Department observations during Commission discussion. Chairman Cistulli opened the meeting to public discussion. Mr. John Cocktoft, 1250 Jackling Drive, stated he was in favor of the project as originally presented, and thought that one entrance and exit combined would make.a four-way intersection in the middle of Chapin. Robert Refvem, 20 Kammerer Court, was strongly in favor of the project, feeling it would be an asset to the community. Mr. Gilbert Rodli, 3007 Hillside, emphasized his approval. He noted that during his term as president of the Chamber of Commerce in 1968 this project was being discussed in terms of an 8 to 10 story building, and that even now it is reasonable to expect a site of this size to have a four story or higher structure. He felt the City should appreciate the fine contribution the Bank of America was making with a building of this type, and that the project should definitely be approved. Mr. Lawrence Putman, 1547 Cypress Avenue, speaking as a private citizen, urged the Commission to accept this project because the size of the building was ideal on this corner. There were no audience comments against the project. The public hearing was declared closed. Chairman Cistulli invited Architect Merkadeau to comment. Mr. Merkadeau stated they had already agreed to relocate the exit 60' from El Camino. Aside from that, the original plan with counter -clockwise traffic was the one they wished to pursue. Commissioner Taylor approved the concept of the building, and requested clarification on several of the City Planner's recommendations. He approved the suggestion that a landscaping plan be subject to approval of the Park Superintendent, but questioned relocation of employee parking behind the bank building, since there are 42 parking spaces and employee parking could be discretionary. He questioned the purpose of relocating the driveup window so that it could be seen from Chapin, noting three banks in Burlingame whose driveup facilities are not visible from the street. The City Planner replied that when the window is visible from the street and waiting cars can be seen, the driver has an option of either waiting or parking his car in the lot. He commentedhe had inade an analysis of driveup windows in several different territories some years ago, and found that a maximum of four autos waiting while another is at the window is the maximum allowable for efficiency of operation. He thought that using the driveup windows as one of the basic criteria for this bank siting was possibly an over -emphasis. Commissioner Taylor repeated he thought the plan design was good and the bank would be an improvement to the area. Mr. Merkadeau pointed out that if a driveup window were visible from the street a problem would be created with traffic congestion because of cars lining up. He could see no advantage. Commissioner Sine reported he had received a statement on the traffic count on Chapin from the Police Department and requested the Secretary to read it. Secretary Jacobs read letter dated March 12, 1973 from Sergeant Robert J. Quinn stating a 24-hour traffic count had been made - 3 - on February 9, 1973 which showed total of eastbound vehicles as 1,771; westbound, 2,3041 total of 4,075. He gave his opinion that the drive- way 48' from E1 Camino should be moved further east. The letter was endorsed by Carl M. Lollin, Police Chief, who further suggested that any ingress - egress driveway be located at least 200 feet east of El Camino. Mr. Merkadeau declared that he had another traffic count from Sergeant Quinn which showed 9,000 cars per day at Howard Avenue and 23,000 cars on E1 Camino, at that intersection. He thought it unfair that the two sites be compared, especially when the bank's parking possibilities are about 1/5 of the Howard Avenue site. Commissioner Sine viewed this as a substantiation of his own argument, since the bank will be the second recent project on Chapin, and within the next ten years the street will be completely developed commercially with a highly increased traffic count. He pointed out that there were 533 more cars westbound on Chapin than eastbound and it seemed the only solution would be to have the entry and exit at the easterly end of the lot. He stated Commissioner Norberg had designed a revision to the plan which put the parking at the rear of the building for better traffic flow. This is contingent upon the driveway being far to the east. He distributed sketches of another circulation plan to the Commission, stating he too thought the driveup window should be visible from the street. Chairman Cistulli questioned the street frontage along Chapin Avenue and was informed it was 2071. Commissioner Kindig felt the architect was not too cooperative in making changes requested and. indicated he had doubts about the design. Commissioner Jacobs thought there was nothing wrong with the original design, and disagreed with Commissioner Norberg's revision which he thought had too much traffic crossing in all directions. Chairman Cistulli also disagreed with Commissioner Norberg's plan. He suggested that the exit be moved another 20' east, 80' total, which would give space on Chapin for a total of four cars from the corner of E1 Camino to the exit of the Bank. Commissioner Kindig feared that since the building is 32' back from the property line, the exit driveway must be.:on the 20' El Camino setback. The City Planner stated the driveway was about 24' back from the El Camino property line. Commissioner Kindig then commented that if E1 Camino were widened the Bank would have to sacrifice their planting on this side. Commissioner Sine asked if the architect were agreeable to the circulation plan as proposed by Commissioner Norberg. Mr. Merkadeau inspected the plan and found it unsatisfactory. However, he deferred to the judgment of the Continental Service representative present. This representative, after inspection of the plan, did not approve primarily because of the relocation of the driveup windows. He emphasized the unsightliness of a line of cars waiting for service, and this revision would put this in full view from the street. Commissioner Taylor moved that the special permit for the Bank of - 4 - America be approved subject to these restrictions: that the project be \1 developed in accordance with Plan #1; except that the exit from the property be 60• from E1 Caminot that they install a "No left turn" control sign and also install a "right turn only" sign;that they agree to participate in the study and development of a center line street divider on Chapin; and that the landscaping plan be subject to the approval of the Park Superintendent. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried 4 - 1 on the following roll call votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, KINDIG, TAYLOR, CISTULLI NAYE S: COMMISSIONERS: SINE ABSENTS COMMISSIONERS: MINK, NORBERG Chairman Cistulli announced public hearing on the application for variance to use R-4 District property for portion of Bank of America building and parking areas. Secretary Jacobs read the application for variance. Mr. Merkadeau requested clarification on the need for this variance. Chairman Cistulli explained that since the parcel map, which effects rezoning of the entire parcel to C-1, will not be considered until the project is developed, it is necessary to have at this time a variance on the R-4 portion of the site. He requested the architect to give justification for the granting of this variance. Mr. Merkadeau replied that without the use of the R-4 portion of the parcel, the site is too small to build on; that either portion is too small. By combining both portions the site is large enough -for development. , Chairman Cistulli requested audience comments either for or against the granting of this variance. There were none. Chairman Cistulli requested Commission comment. There was none. Commissioner Taylor moved. that the application for variance to use R-4 District property for portion of the Bank of America Building and parking areas be approved. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried 4 - 1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, KINDIG, TAYLOR, CISTULLI NAYE S: COMMISSIONERS: SINE ABSENTS COMMISSIONERSs MINK, NORBERG Chairman Cistulli informed the applicant that the special permit and variance would become effective on April 3, 1973, if not appealed to the City Council. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR COVEY TRUCKING COMPANY IN M-1 DISTRICT WITHOUT STREET FRONTAGE AT 1246 ROLLINS ROAD Chairman Cistulli announced this application for public hearing. Secretary Jacobs read the application for special permit and a letter dated March 22, 1973 from the Bank of America in which they object to the issuance of a permit for an underground tank on their property. They stated the tenant, Covey Trucking, leases only the building with no provisions for underground storage. Secretary Jacobs also read Environmental Quality Act Affirmative Declaration prepared by the City Planner in which he gave his opinion that continuation of this use could have adverse impact upon the environment. - 5 - City Planner Swan showed slides of the site and neighboring properties, noting the general unsightliness of the entire area. Slides included the diesel fuel tank located on the P.G.E. easement, three Covey trucks parked on the easement, and the poor driveway with comments on its circuitous access. The City Planner reported three issues concerning this permits 1. The storage tank which is a hazard unless buried. The Fire Department will require its removal if the owner will not allow the underground installation. 2. The present business license is valid only until July 1, 1973. 3. Mr. Coveys lease will expire in November of 1973. He stated he had been advised by the Bank of America that the lease is for the one warehouse and the area used for equipment parking is not part of the leasehold. He suggested Planning Commission action be deferred until these matters are resolved, or the permit be granted on a time conditional basis. Mr. Spencer Covey addressed the Commission. He reported he had been informed by the former City Planner that no special permit would be required. He also stated that the diesel fuel tank had been erected because there was no source of diesel fuel in Burlingame. However, there is now a source on Peninsula Avenue, and he would be willing'to remove the tank. All he desired was access for his trucks off Rollins Road. He was questioned on the information of Bank of America that the.leasehold was for the building only, and claimed that was an error - his lease extends within 20' of the PGE fence. Mr. Covey was questioned as to entrance to his site, and replied that his trucks turn off Rollins Road 100' south of Marsten and go along the PGE easement, and that the terms of his lease 'give him access to his site. Chairman Cistulli requested audience comment. Mr. Ferdinand Gebhard, 11 Cozzolino Drive, Millbrae, spoke as owner of property on Broadway and Rollins Road. He u_ rgo l _ acceptance of the special permit, stating he had known Mr. Covey for a long time and he was an able business man who kept his equipment in good shape. He agreed the area was cluttered, but this was not caused by Covey Trucking; and also noted that other businesses such as Aero are allowed to park on the PGE easement. Mr. Frank M. Walch, owner of W. and W. Tool and Die at 1322 Marsten, objected that Mr. Covey's trucks must go through an easement on his property, and make a right hand turn. The trucks are too long to make the turn properly and must back up in front of his property. Necessarily they must scatter dust and dirt, which has a bad effect on the machinery in his shop. He did not object to the special permit, but suggested that Covey Trucking should have another access, possibly on the Bank of America site. It was his understanding that Bank of America was going to cut off part of that property which could be used as access. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine questioned Mr. Covey on the scope of his equipment. Mr. Covey stated he had three tractors with end dumps, a dirt loader, and a bulldozer. He stated equipment is seldom parked at his site, being left on job site instead.' Commissioner Sine questioned where the five pieces of equipment would be parked if Mr. Covey had no work for them at all. Mr. Covey insisted that they would not be all brought back to the yard. Commissioner Taylor disliked the unsightly area but was primarily concerned with the removal of the fuel tank and some provision being made for a one way flow of traffic. He stated he would have no objection if this could be worked out with the Bank of America. Commissioner Kindig thought this was a bad location for these large pieces of equipment, especially with the bad access situation. He thought the entire area should be cleaned up. Commissioner Jacobs suggested consideration of this permit be delayed to give Mr. Covey time to work out acceptable access with the Bank of America. Commissioner Sine moved that consideration of this special permit be continued to the regular meeting April 23, contingent upon Mr. Covey's making effort to work out suitable access with the Bank of America. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on voice vote. RECONVENE After a short recess, the meeting reconvened at 9:35. 5. VARIANCE FOR A FOUR -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX ON TWO LOTS IN AN R-2 DISTRICT AT 922-926 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, BEING LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 14, EASTON ADDITION, BY ABEL AND NANCY LAZAR Chairman Cistulli announced consideration of this item. Secretary Jacobs read letter dated March 26, 1973, the date of this meeting, from Nancy Lazar requesting a delay in the public hearing because her architect would not be present to represent her. There was Commission comment on the shortness of this notice and the reason given. There was also public comment from citizens who were present to protest this variance, and who had waited. Chairman Cistulli reminded the public that since the applicant was not present to speak on her own behalf, their objections could not be heard at this time, but the application would be heard at the meeting of April 23. There was audience question if letters of objection could be sent instead -of attending another time, and a question of how many times a hearing could be continued. City Attorney Karmel emphasized to the audience that the matter of granting a continuance is exclusively a Planning Commission prerogative, since no one knows what is going to occur at a public hearing. He stated there is no limit to the times the Commission can continue a hearing, and added that citizens may write letters if they wish. However, letters are not evidence, and if they wish to present evidence, they must -be present at the hearing. The Commission agreed to continue this application to the regular public hearing of April 23, 1973. 6. PARCEL MAP OF PORTION OF LOT 8, BURLINGAME MANOR NO. 2 BY GORDON STROCHER ET AL Chairman Cistulli announced hearing on this parcel map. City Engineer Marr addressed the Commission, stating he had previously informed them this parcel map was instigated by his department. When a building permit application had come in, his department discovered that some of the original property lines had been changed, and requested the owner, Mr. Strocher, to prepare a new parcel map. The City Engineer had - 7 - informed Mr. Strocher that it was not necessary for him to be present at this meeting, and told the Commission that the parcel map was satisfactory. There was no Commission comment. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the parcel map of portion of Lot 8, Burlingame Manor No. 2 be accepted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sine and carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, KINDIG, SINE, TAYLOR, CISTULLI NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK, NORBERG 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONDUCT RETAIL SALES OF CARPET, FURNITURE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 868 COWAN ROAD, LOTS 11-14 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 1, EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK (APN 024-390-200) OWNED BY ROBE RT A. SMITH J R. , BY DE LMA LEON HE SKETT 8. PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FACED 15 FOOT BY 120 FOOT ROOF SIGN, POLE SUPPORTED TO IDENTIFY HE SKETT'S CARPET COLISEUM AT 868 COWAN ROAD BY CUMMINGS & COMPANY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. EIR-14B POSTED ---MARCH 12, 1973. Chairman Cistulli announced public hearing on these two related applications. Secretary Jacobs read application statement from D. L. Heskett, which covered 'type of business, applicant's background with a similar operation in Oakland, projected sales and sales tax revenues for Burlingame, parking, traffic flow, environmental impact, and the fact that Heskett wishes to centralize his administrative and commercial operations in the Burlingame store. Secretary Jacobs then read letter from Albert J. Day, trustee for Jane K. Molyneux, propertyholder in the area, objecting to the retail business and to the sign. Secretary Jacobs also read Environmental Impact Report prepared by City Planner Swan which noted adverse effects of increased traffic, increased noise level and air pollution of this possible use and commented that the project would not be in accord with the proposed conservation element of the city General Plan. Chairman Cistulli asked Mr. Heskett if he wished to comment. Mr. Heskett replied he disagreed with the Environmental Impact Report and wished to make rebuttal. He contended that the sign would not have the alleged impact of distracting traffic since it is a one-sided sign visible only from the Freeway. He stated the traffic count would be less than the business now occupying the site, Transcontinental Music Company, which has 64 employees plus salesmen and delivery trucks. He offered as proof the guest log of his Oakland store which showed very low customer count during the first week of January, 1973 and only 57-67 for Saturday and Sunday. He explained that due to the nature of his business, which is open from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., most customers come in the evening or on weekends for family selection of carpet contracts. Fifty per cent of his traffic is from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. He commented the present tenant, Transcontinental, will stay in the building if he does not get his permit, and have said they will move their San Francisco business to Burlingame, which will result in more traffic. He emphasized his Mm business will cause no pollutants since carpeting must be kept clean. The City Planner stated he thought the rebuttal information was correct, and that he had compared the proposed use with the existing use. However, he made the point that all of the recent development in this area has been in office buildings. Allowing this and other retail businesses in this area would result in greater traffic at the same time that the airport is steadily increasing its traffic load. He stated it is recognized that the Broadway and Millbrae interchanges are already substandard. With the increase of traffic on the other side of the Freeway, the problem of gaining access to and from Bayshore will become more difficult. He showed slides which included the proposed site with its signs the neighboring undeveloped lots= eloseups of the -warehouse building; and the Oakland operation with its interior and its large sign. Mr. Heskett again addressed the Commission stating that the sign on the Oakland building is much bolder than the one proposed in Burlingame, since Oakland has virtually no sign ordinance. He stated he had'infor- mation from the owner of an adjacent property that it would not be developed within the next 5-6 years. Mr. Heskett added that his own lease would be for 51� years and the sign is to be taken down in 5h years. He again drew a comparison in traffic between the tenancy of his operation and that of Transcontinental Music; with further mention of sales tax revenue to the City. Chairman Cistulli requested audience comment. Mr. Eric D. Reynier, 1000 Verrada Road, Oakland, spoke as owner of property at 819 and 845 Cowan Road. He objected strenuously to the proposed Heskett sign. There were no further comments for or against, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Taylor questioned Mr. Heskett if he would be prepared to have his business closed on Saturdays and Sundays and if he would operate without the proposed sign. Mr. Heskett was negative*on both questions. Commissioner Taylor then told Mr. Heskett that the conversion of this area to retail is not in the best interests of the community, and is not consistent with the objectives the City has had in mind for years. Commissioner Sine questioned the applicant if the same type of wall signs and the same building color would be used in Burlingame as in Oakland. Mr. Heskett replied there would be no wall signs and the building would be painted a more subdued color. Commissioner Sine asked if all his advertising is keyed to the roof sign and was informed this was so - in particular, TV advertising. The Commissioner then commented he strenuously objected to the honky-tonk type of atmosphere this business would create in Burlingame with its garish advertising and added that since the City now received,lh million dollars in sales tax, he would like to think it could get along without income from the Heskett business. Commissioner Jacobs stated he agreed with Commissioner Sine in this - 9 - respect, and had no intention of permitting retail business in this area since the City had done a good job of planning here. Commissioner Kindig agreed with the comments of his fellow Commissioners. He thought this business would not fit in and especially objected to the sign, although he realized Mr. Heskett had use for it. He complimented Mr. Heskett on his frankness. Chairman Cistulli thought this type of business would be better in the retail district, and thought the industrial area should be kept free of it. He told Mr. Heskett he was in favor of revenue but this was not the place for it. He complimented Mr. Heskett on his presentation and told him he had the right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. Commissioner Sine moved the Planning Commission deny the application for special permit to conduct retail sales in an M-1 District by Delma L. Heskett. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, KINDIG, SINE, TAYLOR, CISTULLI NAYE S : COMMI S SI ONE RS : NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK, NORBERG Chairman Cistulli opened public hearing on the application for sign permit to identify Heskett's Carpet Coliseum, and requested public comment. There were no comments in favor, and one comment from the audience against. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine moved the application for sign permit be denied. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, KINDIG, SINE, TAYLOR, CISTULLI NAYE S : COMMI S SI ONE RS : NONE AB SENT t COMMI S SI ONE R S : MINK, NORBE RG OLD BUSINESS: Open Space and Conservation Elements of General Plan: Mr. Wtm. Spangle advised the Commission that his organization had been delayed in completing their work on these elements, but the Planning Commission would have documentation before the study meeting on April 9th. He commented he had previously thought the open space and conservation elements would be heard at the same time, but it had now been decided to hear the open space element first and the conservation element some time in May. He requested the Planning Commission set the open space element for public hearing on April 234 It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Taylor that there be a public hearing on the open space element on April 23, 1973. The motion carried by voice vote. - 10 - NEW BUSINESS Communications The City Planner enlarged upon the increasing problem of traffic on the other side of the Freeway. He emphasized that within the next ten years the number of people flying in and out of San Francisco Airport will double, causing much more traffic on Bayshore Highway. The S.F. Airport EIR now shows great numbers of people going south, and there are immediate problems with Freeway entrances and exits. He noted information from Sergeant Quinn that the Police Department is getting a report on the total number of accidents on Bayshore Freeway and Airport Boulevard. This will be brought to the attention of the Division of Highways in an effort to get them to improve interchanges. He reported two letters received from the Park and Recreation Commission, both expressing concern for the need for a new pedestrian overpass to service Bayside Park. He noted this is not a matter for the Planning Commission, but it is a matter of circulation concerns for the City. Another important circulation concern is the matter of connecting North Carolan to Rollins Road. He stated this may be resolved in the near future. The City Planner explained the new emergency ordinance No. 984. He stated this is not a moratorium but a new requirement. He read, ". . . no building or structure shall cover more than 30% of the total area of the lot or parcel upon which it is constructed, nor shall any building or structure exceeding 35' in height be constructed or erected within the City, nor shall any building permit be issued for any such buildings or structures except upon special permit granted by the City Council upon application." This does bypass the Planning Commission. Three districts are excluded, R-1, R-2-, and R-3. Exclusions are project applications already considered by the Planning Commission or projects where a Negative Declaration has been posted, or on which the Council has already approved the EIR. He stated that draft EIR guideline procedures will be considered by the City Council at their next meeting. He also reported that feedback forms published by the Boutique on the Spangle reports resulted in about 35 responses. He informed the`Commission that departmental budgets are due within the next three weeks, and that the Planning Department budget should be expanded this year, since the amount of work expected has greatly increased, especially in the area of EIR's. City Planner Swan commented on City capital improvements, and stated that Burlingame does not have a system for recommending what priorities are through the Planning Commission. He thought that at present those who spoke loudest for their particular project were the ones who were being served. He spoke of the tennis court proposal on property owned by the School District and City Park property, stating this was presented to the Park and Recreation Commission. He was concerned because the City Planning Commission did not receive a copy, although he as City Planner did. He questioned if the Commission wished to review it, and if they wished to report back to the Park and Recreation Commission. There was Commission comment that in a previous 3-4 year period the Planning Commission did work on the capital improvements and this system had been successful. The City Planner reported that he had made plans to attend the American Society of Planning Officials National Conference in Los Angeles on April 8, 9, 10 subject to the Commission's approval. It was agreed this would not interfere with the study meeting on April 9. Chairman Cistulli reported that Jacopi's Body Shop, which has a special permit, is continually blocking its driveways. He requested the Fire Department be contacted to make an inspection. Commissioner Sine requested the news media present to give publicity to the April 23 public hearing on the Spangle Reports. There was audience suggestion that the dry culvert going under the freeway be used for access to Bayside Park. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at llt20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs, Secretary