Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-1996 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, April 17, 1996 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting Pledge of Allegiance 1. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Councilmembers Burger, Tucker, Moran, Wolfe and Mayor Jacobs. Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, City'Attorney Riback, Community Development Director Curtis, Public Works Director Perlin. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Resolution commending Mitoh Cutler for Service on Heritage Commission MORAN/BURGER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION COMMENDING MITCH CUTLER FOR SERVICE ON HERITAGE COMMISSION. PASSED 5-0. B. Resolution appointing Heritage Commissioners WOLFE/TUCKER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 96-16 APPOINTING HERITAGE COMMISSIONERS.- PASSED 5-0. C. Administration of Oath of Office to incoming Commissioners Mayor Jacobs administered the Oath of Office to incoming Commissioners Willys Peck and Norman Koepernlk. D. Proclamation on National Multiple Sclerosls Society Day. TUCKER/MORAN TO ADOPT THE PROCLAMATION ON NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSI8 8OCIETY DAY. PASSED 5-0. 3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 12, 1996. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (llmlted to 15 minutes) - None B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS - None. C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Previously-Discussed Items - None. B. New Items 1) Planning Commission Actions, 3/10 - Note and file. 2) Finance Advisory Committee, 2/12 - Note and file. 3) Public Safety Commission Minutes, 3/11 - Note and file. 4) City Financial Reports for March: a) Treasurer,s Report - Receive and file. b) Investment Report - Receive and file. c) Financlal Report - Receive and file. d) Approval of Check Register City Council Minutes 2 April 17, 1996 e) Quarterly Quarry Creek Trust Report 5) Resolutlon 95-30.12 authorizing budget adjustment for Cable Franchise Fee Revenues and Expenditures 6) Resolution 96-17 authorizing City Manager to apply for grant for TDA Funds for Qulto Road Sidewalks BURGER/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE ITEMS 5B, i THROUGH 6 OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 5-0. C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY - None. Mayor Jacobs moved the agenda to Item 7. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Appeal of Design Review approval to construct a 536 sq. ft. first story addition and a 769 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 4, 154 sq. ft. single story residence with a detached garage and recreation room. .The subject property is a 45,389 sq. ft. parcel located at 14970 Sobey Rd. in the R-1-40,000 zoning district (DR94-042)(Applicant, 8kov; Appellant, Anderson) (continued from 4/3 meeting, at which public hearing was closed) Mayor Jacobs clarified that the item was continued from the April 3 meeting because the vote was split 2:2 with one councilmember absent. The public hearing has been closed with no further testimony allowed. Councilmember Burger indicated that she reviewed the Planning Commission and City Council minutes on the matter, listened to the meeting tapes, and visited the sites. She reported that based on the information reviewed, she would vote to uphold the Planning Commission decision and deny the appeal. She said that she felt the proposed addition does not unreasonably interfere with any the neighboring properties and because of the lot slope, setbacks and configuration, a one story addition was an impractical solution. WOLFE/TUCKER TO DENY APPELLANT'S REQUEST AND UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW. COUNCILMEMBERS WOLFE# TUCKER AND BURGER VOTES AYE; MAYOR JACOBS AND COUNCILMEMBER MORAN VOTED NO. PASSED 3-2. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Oral Communications (continued) and. instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications - None B. Resolution declaring Results of Election concerning Measure G at Election of March 26, 1996 and acknowledging Insertion of Measure G in the City of Saratoga General Plan City Manager Peacock indicated that as of the close of business April 17, the certification from the Registrar of Voters of the official outcome of the March 26 eiection had not been received. Thus, the resolution is not in order at this time, and pending receipt of the actual certification from the County, the Council should continue this matter either to April 23 or May 1. Under the statute regarding the recording of the election results, the Registrar has 28 days after the election is completed to submit the results. C. Resolutions in connection with Landscaping and Lighting District LLA-1 1) Resolution preliminarily approvlng Engineer,s Report for Reauthorization of District for FY 1996-97 2) Resolution of Intention to Order Levy and collection of Assessments and Setting Meeting for May 15 and Hearing for June 5 City Council Minutes 3 April 17, 1996 3) Resolution of Intention to Undertake Proceedings for Detachment Public Works Director Perlin reviewed the spreadsheet for the preliminary assessment roll for the landscaping and lighting district for the fiscal year 1996-97. He pointed out all of the zones would receive a reduction in the next fiscal year assessment, and stated that there are no significant improvements planned in any of the individual zones for the coming year. He reviewed the benefits provided within each zone and answered councilmembers' questions. In response to Mayor Jacobs' comment regarding decreasing assessments, Mr. Perlin reiterated that assessments have decreased and overall will be lower for the next year, but said he was hesitant to infer that the trend would continue over time. Mr. Perlin explained that a public meeting has been scheduled for May 15 and the public hearing scheduled for June 5. The public is encouraged to attend the public meeting scheduled for May 15 to provide input. K. B. Wilton, 20405 Cox Avenue, said that the members of the Saratoga Creek Homeowners Association would like to examine the figures before preliminary approval is given. He said the association would like to have the opportunity to discuss with the Council the option of returning control of the zone to the homeowners association, with the city retaining billing of the requisite bill onto the tax bill. He said that the association felt they could manage it and at less expense than the current method of operation. He noted from last year that there was still a preliminary assessment schedule and said they would like to have access to this year's. Mr. Wilton pointed out that last year based on the contract cost, the city charged a total of 43.16% overhead which the association considered excessive. He reiterated that the association would like to have the opportunity to examine the figures and return on May 15 with a more solid definition of their standing. Mayor Jacobs suggested that the members contact Mr. Perlin before May 15, with proposals to discuss with staff. He said that the administration of the contract is an added expense; however, the City has found in the past that eventually people who initially volunteer their time and talents, lose interest in working for no charge or move away. Mr. Wilton stated that he did not object to a nominal fee, but felt some of the fees were excessive. Mr. Perlin explained that the administrative charges include charges for staff, equipment used by city staff, clerical support, and employee benefits for the employees assigned to the activity. He stated that the proposed assessment for the zone 2 is $39.82 for the year, which amounted to about $3.50 per month per homeowner, and the homeowners would have to decide if it is worth $3.50 per month to have the city take care of it for them or whether they would like to undertake the responsibility themselves. Councilmember Moran concurred with Mayor Jacobs' suggestion that Mr. Wilton and the neighbors work with Mr. Perlin, pointing out that Mr. Perlin has been successful in working with other associations and he was. most approachable. She pointed out that a lot of progress can be made with the kinds of suggestions mentioned, balanced against the concerns raised whether people really want the city to be handling the service or not. Councilmember Tucker commented that in the event the association decided to withdraw at a later date, she would be interested in knowing how many people in the district wanted it. Mayor Jacobs clarified that the association was not considering withdrawing, but suggesting they hire their own contractor. Mr. Perlin stated that the proposal that the association take over the work themselves, but have the city maintain them in the assessment City Council Minutes 4 April 17, 1996 district for the purpose of collecting the fees, and then in turn using the money to pay their contractor,could possibly have merit and would be considered. He agreed to work with the association. BURGER/MORAN TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION 96-13.2 PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 96-97. PASSED 5-0. Councilmember Moran said she agreed with the understanding that these are the preliminary results. Mr. Perlin commented that the numbers after this evening cannot increase, they can only decrease at this point. He said it was staff's intention to solicit bids before the hearing date of all the landscaping zones in the city as well as some other landscape contract work in order to see if better prices can be obtained. If lower bids are received, they will be reflected in an assessment schedule that has reduced assessments for each zone. The Council would make the final award in June. Councilmember Wolfe commented that he was delighted to see that the assessment decreased in various districts, stating it was a move in the right direction. BURGER/MORAN TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION 96-13.3 OF INTENTION RELATING TO THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996-97. BURGER/MORAN TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION 96-18 OF INTENTION TO UNDERTAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE DETACHMENT OF TERRITORY FROM THE DISTRICT. Mayor Jacobs moved the agenda back to Item 6. 6. PUBLIC HEARING . A. Appeal of denial of request for use permit approval to allow a nonconforming commercial trucking business to continue within a residential zoning district. The subject property fronts onto Merida Dr. and abuts Prospect Rd. to the north and Route 85 to the east. The parcel is 20,878 sq. ft. in size and is located at 20201 Merlda Dr. in an R-1-10,000 zoning district (UP95-00S)(Appellant/applicant, Kolotouros) (continued from 4/3 meeting) Community Development Director Curtis reviewed the staff report which summarized the history of the Kolotouros' business and application for use permit. He reported that the Planning Commission determined that continued use of the property for a commercial trucking business was not compatible with the nature of the residential district. In response to councilmember Burger's question, Mr. Curtis clarified that in 1985 the intent of the use permit was to allow the applicant to phase out the operation over a three year period. He explained that extensions throughout the ten year period were granted because of the Highway 85 construction. Conditions of approval of the use permit indicated that the use would terminate when the access to Prospect Avenue was eliminated by the freeway construction. City Attorney Riback clarified that the Condition of approval that triggered the termination of the use permit occurred when the Planning Director determined that it was time to phase the use permit out, some time after the construction of Highway 85 was completed. The Community Development Director then advised the applicant in writing that they needed to come in and apply for a new use permit. Mr. Riback quoted the following: '... this permit shall expire and the use terminated when construction of Route 85 prohibits access onto Prospect Avenue or as determined by the Planning Director.' He pointed out that the Planning Director provided some extension of time. He said that the applicant was given the opportunity to submit an application, and they did so; and once the application was submitted, the use permit would continue until a determination is finally made as to whether it should be renewed. Mr. Riback emphasized that it is a new use permit. City Council Minutes 5 April 17, 1996 Mr. Curtis stated that staff always tries to work with the applicant when the extension expires, and did continue to work with the Kolotouros family on a viable solution. In response to Councilmember Wolfe's question regarding the basis for appeal and the time limit, Mr. Curtis stated that the applicant requested no time limit; but at the Planning Commission meeting, when the question was raised about how much time was needed, the response from the applicant was they were not sure, but perhaps until Mr. Kolotouros retired in 7 years. He pointed out it was not the same request as submitted previously when they requested a three year extension. Councilmember Wolfe noted that when he inspected the property he viewed the area where the petrol tank was removed. Several piles of dirt still remain that need to be removed over a period of time. Mr. Curtis explained that there is a cleanup process which is being handled by another agency in terms of timeline. He clarified that the use permit is for the property and not to the applicant in particular. If the property changed hands, the use permit would still apply to the property. In response to Mayor Jacob's question, City Attorney Riback clarified that Measure G prohibits changes to residential land use designation to a commercial designation or to a commercial use by virtue of a conditional use permit or some other discretionary approval. In response to Mayor Jacobs' question about Measure G, Mr. Riback stated that it is a new application for a use permit and effectively if Measure G were in effect today this action would come within the provisions of Measure G and would require it be resubmitted. In response to Councilmember Tucker#s question, Mayor Jacobs clarified that it is not legally enforced today; but what he was questioning was. whether, if it were enforced today, it would fall under provisions of Measure G. Mr. Riback reiterated that it would, because the residential zoning district that the property is located in does not allow for a conditional use approval of a commercial business of any kind. The only reason it is allowed to be considered at this point is because it was originally a legal nonconforming use that was grandfathered by virtue of a use permit issued back in 1985 and continuously renewed. He stated that there was a home occupation permit provision in the City code that does allow for home office, and said it is grandfathered only to the extent that you are allowed to consider it. It was at one time a nonconforming use preceding the city's zoning ordinance. The City code states that a nonconforming use may remain in existence only for 5 years from the day that it becomes non conforming. The code also states that within that 5 years, if a use permit is applied for and granted, it then becomes a conditionally permitted use. It went from a legal nonconforming use to a conditionally permitted use. As long as that use permit is continued and the use permit can be granted without any time restrictions it runs with the land as long as the activity continues with the permitted use. He said it was granted for specific periods of time, the last of which has expired, but the applicant still has the right this one time to come before the Council because they did apply for a renewal on that permit and it was determined by staff that the use had not yet expired officially until after they applied for the renewal. This use permit expired when the Planning Director determined when it expired and provided a notice to the applicant that he should apply for a renewal. The applicant did apply for a renewal and it is the reason they have a right to be before the Council this evening. Mr. Curtis clarified that the position of the Planning Director was to continue the extension because Highway 85 was still under construction. When it was completed in October 1994, the Planning Director allowed the use to continue per the condition imposed. When the Planning Director indicated the permit had expired, the applicant indicated he would like to request an extension to the use permit. The Planning Director said he considered the request an amendment to the previously City Council Minutes 6 April 17, 1996 approved use permit. In response to Mayor Jacobs' question about Measure G, Mr. Riback said that if the City Council granted a use permit without any time restrictions, it will be allowed to continue so long as the business continues without any break in time unless the City Council were to impose a time restriction. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing at :8:37 p.m. City Manager Peacock noted that correspondence from Sharlene Carmichael was received relative to the application and should be considered part of the record. George Kolotouros, 20201 Merida Drive, stated that he planned to retire at age 65, and was requesting approval to park his business truck on his property, so that'he would not have to park the truck elsewhere and drive to pick up the vehicle each day. Peter Kolotouros, son of the applicant, explained that the request was not a legal maneuver to bypass Measure G or rezoning, but was merely a request for extension of three years to park one truck on their property. He reiterated that the timeframe was three years, when Mr. Kolotouros planned to retire. He outlined some of the issues that he felt were important to the family and neighbors. Mr. Kolotouros addressed the issue of the noise resulting from Highway 85, which passes 20 feet from the barrier wall adjacent to the applicant's land. He said that a short time span of only three minutes was utilized to move the truck on and off the property, and that the truck was not noisier than a diesel vehicle or recreational vehicle. He pointed out that the fuel tank was removed proactively by applicant and tested clean. Applicants have received notice from the County and Water District that the dirt can now be moved. He explained that the contractor over-excavated the site when removing the tank which did affect the neighbors because of the longer period of time for the. equipment. He said that the truc~ was about 4 to 6 feet longer than a pickup truck and was no more visible than a recreational vehicle. He stated that relative to the safety issue, he felt the vehicles driving in the neighborhood at unsafe speeds posed more of a safety issue than the truck leaving the property in the morning and returning in the evening. He said that home values were very important to the family and the neighbors. A study was conducted on home sales in the area over the last 15 years to determine if there was any impact from the truck location, and the only impact was related to the completion of Highway 85. He commended the neighbors' support and urged the councilmembers to read the petitions from the neighbors. Mr. Kolotouros pointed out that the home has been in the Same location for 56 years. Mr. Kolotouros stated that in the Planning Commission's deliberations, an erroneous reference was made to trucks; whereas the request was for one truck to be parked on the property for the next three years. Mr. Kolotouros thanked the Planning Commission and City Council for' their consideration and expressed his appreciation on behalf of the family. , In response to a question from Mayor Jacobs, Mr. Kolotouros stated that the other trucks were being parked at the drivers' homes in other cities. Responding to Councilmember Tucker's question, Mr. Kolotouros said that the truck weighed 15,000 pounds. Mr. Kolotouros read a portion of a letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District which related to the removal of the dirt left from the removal of the fuel tank. The District indicated in the letter that a chemist would examine the dirt, and upon his determination that the soil was not contaminated, would issue release to allow the dirt be hauled away. He said that once the release is obtained, it is simply a matter of hiring a licensed trucking firm to haul away the dirt. A brief discussion ensued regarding the weight and size of the truck. City Council Minutes 7 April 17, 1996 Mr. curtis clarified that at the Planning Commission meeting there was no discussion about parking only one truck for three years; but that the discussion pertained to four trucks, and when the applicant was asked about why they couldn't be parked elsewhere, it was stated that other cities would not allow it or the cost was excessive. He pointed out that there was a misunderstanding at the Planning Commission as they were considering multiple trucks because the applicant indicated he had multiple trucks. City Attorney Riback pointed out that there are weight restrictions on commercial trucks that can be parked overnight in residential neighborhoods. He said that the business in question operates out of the family home. Robert Kiehl, 12168 Kirkbrook Drive, said that he has been a neighbor of the Kolotouros' for 20 years and he was not aware until recently that they were operating the trucking business from their home. He said that many people run businesses out of their homes in Saratoga and trucks are parked in the street frequently. He said he felt that there was no issue at hand as the family was not doing anything that others did not do in the neighborhood. Allen Stitt, 13055 Kirkbrook Drive, said that he has lived on the same street as the Kolotouros family since 1969. He pointed out that the family had renovated an old farmhouse and had operated their business with permits. He said he felt that it was not justified to be raising questions about the family business operation at this time after their positive contributions to the community for so many years. Jim Kolotouros, 20201 Merida Drive, summarized that the application was for a use permit for three years for one vehicle to be parked on the family property. He indicated that the family was willing to waive their right against Measure G as a remedy if it was a concern relative to the application. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. City Attorney Riback referred to the Municipal Code and clarified the four truck routes in Saratoga. He stated that all other streets in the city are considered restricted streets and no commercial vehicles exceeding five tons may travel or be left standing on those restricted streets or on any public or private property within the restricted streets, unless for temporary unloading or delivery. He pointed out that commuting to and from work in the truck in question was not permitted under the Municipal Code without a use permit and one would be required. Mayor Jacobs reopened the public hearing at 9:07 p.m. In response to Peter Kolotouros' question, Mr. Riback clarified that the distinction between the vehicles was commercial versus recreational. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing at 9:08 p.m. In response to a question from Councilmember Moran regarding the regulations of the other cities, Mr. Curtis said he was not aware of what cities the other trucks were parked in, and therefore could not respond. Mr. Curtis clarified that the Planning Commission's decision was based on at least three or four trucks on the site for a term possibly of seven years. He said he did not know what the effect would have been if the proposal was made for one truck for three years. Councilmember Wolfe referred to the letter from the Carmichael family pointing out that the property was unique and large enough that the trucks could not be seen. He also said that the neighbors have testified. that the family has improved the property and the truck is not intrusive. Councilmember Wolfe indicated that if the use permit was for a limited time of three years he would be inclined to approve the application. City Council Minutes 8 April 17, 1996 Councilmember Tucker said she was on the Planning Commission when the family requested an extension until Highway 85 was completed. She said she felt it was important to uphold the zoning ordinance and felt that the use is inappropriate in a residential neighborhood. She pointed out that the use permit was previously approved with several extensions and it was time to end the approval of extensions. Councilmember Burger concurred that the 2property is well kept and commended the neighborhood support. She said as a Council, the members are required to look beygnd that and look at the zoning ordinances and uphold them. As such, commercial trucking in a residential neighborhood is not permitted and unfortunately as difficult as it is, it happens to be the bottom line and those kinds of regulations are there for a very good reason. She said what has been witnessed over the past ten years is the community, Planning Commission and City Council bending the rules and giving a great deal with the applicant in terms of approving extensions of the use permit. She echoed the feeling of Councilmember Tucker that it was time for the granting of extensions to end and time for the nonconforming use to come to an end. Councilmember Moran said she felt the use was not compatible with the residential area. She said she was a member of the Planning Commission when they tried to work with the family on a solution and made an effort to work with them over the last ten years. She said she might be open to approving one truck for three years if she hadn't considered the long history of having the issue come back year after year. She said she could see no end in sight. She emphasized that it was not an easy decision to make, and commended the neighborhood support, with the exception of the people who did express concern. She concluded by saying that she felt she had been through the situation many times before. Mayor Jacobs said his position could be broken down into personal, legal and pragmatic reasons. He said he visited the site and it was well cared for with no visible indication that there was a business. conducted on the property. He pointed out that although personally he felt, as the neighbors did, that allowing the practice to continue was not detrimental to the neighborhood, as an elected councilmember he was obligated to follow the law, applying objective criteria and not favor people because of circumstances. He said the law is to keep commercial use out of the residential areas, even if it appears that the use is benign. Mayor Jacobs pointed cut that legally the use permit would not be compatible with the objectives of the R1 zoning which is to keep commercial use out of the residential areas even if there appears to be benign use. He said that granting a use permit is a discretionary act that can be done if the Council feels it can make the appropriate findings. He stated he was reluctant to exercise discretion over something which almost certainly falls within the provisions of Measure G. Mayor Jacobs explained that three of the four vehicles owned are parked offsite, and if the use permit is not granted, it will not prevent Mr. Kolotouros from operating his home office or from preventing him parking the vehicle offsite and commuting to that vehicle each day. He said it may add some additional cost to Mr. Kolotouros to make arrangements to park his vehicle, and it may be inconvenient, but it doesn't force Mr. Kolotouros to shut down his business. If the City Council denies the use permit, it would simply be saying to move the fourth vehicle offsite which he said he felt does not pose a significant burden to him. Mayor Jacobs concluded by stating that he did not feel he could support the continued granting of the use permit. Councilmember Wolfe said that in his colleagues' deliberations he heard compassion for a very fine family and acknowledged and honored that compassion. For that reason and for the practical reasons they mentioned, he said he Was inclined not to Vote against his colleagues on the issue. Councilmember Wolfe commented on Mr. Stitt's indignation that the government would interfere with a free enterprise operation. He said that although he was inclined to agree, the councilmembers' obligations extended further than that. He said he was impressed with City Council Minutes 9 April 17, 1996 the Kolotouros family and that they would take their entrepreneurial spirit and extend that further to take care of the current situation and relocate the subject vehicle offsite. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO DENY APPEAL OF REQUEST AND UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL FOR USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL TRUCKING BUSINESS TO CONTINUE WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. PASSED 5-0. Mr. Curtis recommended that the City Council allow ample time for the Kolotouros' to find an alternative site for the truck and proposed a thirty day grace period after adoption of the resolution. City Manager Peacock said it was appropriate to instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution which would be effective on June 1, 1996. Councilmembers concurred. Mayor Jacobs moved the agenda to Item 8D. 8. NEW BUSINESS D. Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings - Nagpal Appeal MORAN/BURGER TO APPROVE MEMO AUTHORIZING PUBLICITY FOR UPCOMING HEARINGS - NAGPAL APPEAL. PASSED. 5-0. 9. ROUTINE MATTERS A. Approval of Minutes - 4/3; 4/9 MORAN/WOLFE TO APPROVE MINUTES OF 4/3/96 MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER BURGER ABSTAINED. PASSED 4-0-1. MORAN/WOLFE TO APPROVE MINUTES OF 4/9/96 MEETING. MAYOR JACOBS ABSTAINED. PASSED 4-0-1. 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for joint meeting with Youth Commission May 7. Councilmember Moran requested a report on the Saturday Night activities at the Hutton House. Mayor Jacobs suggested inviting Ted Atlas and Captain Wilson to attend to address high school students relationships with law enforcement. Councilmember Moran requested a report from Councilmember Tucker and staff on the Youth Commission plans. B. Other - None 11. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m. to the Town Hall meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, April 20, in Community Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue, then to meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 23, in Administration Meeting Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Respectfully submitted,