HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-1996 City Council Minutes MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
TIME: Wednesday, September 4, 1996 - 6:00 p.m.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Closed Session in Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale
Avenue AT 6:00 p.m. pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6:
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Lori Pegg
Employee organization: Saratoga Employees Association and Saratoga
Management Organization
and
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Government Code Section 54956.9 in one case and possible initiation of
litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section
54956.9 in one case.
The Vice Mayor announced that in closed session the City Council had
ratified agreements with the Saratoga Employees Association and the
Saratoga Management Association.
7:30 - Pledge of Allegiance - Led by Betty Jo Stewart.
1. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Present: Burger, Tucker, Moran, and Wolfe.
Councilmembers Absent: Mayor Jacobs
Staff Present: City Manager Peacock, City Attorney Riback, Public
Works Director Perlin, Planner Walgren, and Finance Director Fil.
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Presentation to Mayor Jaoobs and Councilmember Burger by
Issues Today Television Forum
Vice Mayor Moran stated that Council would return to this item later in
the meeting when Mr. Jewett arrived.
B. Presentation of Certificate of AChievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting by the Government Finance Officers
Association
Vice Mayor Moran presented the certificate to Finance Director Fil and
thanked him and other staff members who had helped prepare the report.
C. Proclamatlon on Pollution Prevention Week in Saratoga
BURGER/TUCKER TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION.- PASSED 4-0.
3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
City Manager Peacock reported that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2,
the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 30.
4. COMMUNICATIONS PROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC
A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Lou Thorpe, 19550 Farwell Avenue, said that a letter to the City from
the Pacific Legal Foundation dated January 11 stated the. City "must
stop collecting this tax and place the ordinance on the ballot for
voter approval. Failure to do so may result in a complaint being filed
against the City within 30 days." The City responded on February 9
stating that "The City Council has decided to place the City's utility
users tax on the ballot for the November 1996 election subject to the
condition that no litigation is initiated against the City by the
Pacific Legal Foundation." He said one would conclude that it was the
City's intent to terminate this tax in November if Measure L is
defeated by the voters. Mr. Thorpe read the ballot statement and asked
if there were a logical explanation of why this statement on the ballot
City Council Minutes 2 September 4, 1996
fails to allow the voter to vote on terminating this tax immediately
after the election. He said this was a total sham and a direct attempt
to deceive the voters.
Meg Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, said that when a citizen appeals a
project the City Council has approved but which is environmentally
harmful, she thought it was in bad grace for the City to chastise the
citizen for doing what the citizen has been mandated to do under state
law which says all citizens have the responsibility and the duty to try
to keep the environment as sound and healthy as it can be. She said
she thought it was in even worse grace, in view of the fact that
Saratoga charges what is the equivalent of $4,000 per hour for a
citizen to exercise this duty. She asked Council to reconsider the
amount charged because of the hardship this imposes on citizens who
cannot afford it and because of the effect on the City' s environment of
projects which are harmful, which are approved by the City and which
should have more discussion and more environmental review.
B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS - None.
C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None..
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Previously-Discussed Items
1) Resolution 96-4S on Giberson Appeal of Wilson/Davison
Project heard S/7
2) Resolution 96-49 rejecting Offer of Setback Easement as
decided 8/7
TUCKER/WOLFE TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 5.A. 1AND2. PASSED 4-
.
B. New Items
1) Planning Commission Actions, 8/14 - Note and file.
2) Finance Advisory Committee Minutes, 6/24~ 7/30 - Note
and file.
3) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, 7/8 - Note and
file.
4) Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings -
Vldanage Appeal
5) Sunland Park Landscape Improvements - Notice of
Completion for Lone Star Landscape, Inc.
6) 1995 Street Maintenance Program - Notice of Completion
for California Pavement Maintenance Co.
7) 1995 Pavement Management Program- Notice of Completion
for Granite Rock Company
8) Award of Construction Contract for residing and painting
the Warner Hutton House: 1) Declare Louis Leto
Construction to be the lowest responsible bidder7 2)
Move to award contract to Louis Leto Construction in the
amount of $10,346~ 3) Move to authorize staff to execute
change orders up to $2,000.
9) City Financial Reports for July=
a) Treasurer,s Report - Receive and file.
b) Investment Report - Receive and file.
c) Financial Report - Receive and file.
City Council Minutes 3 September 4, 1996
10) Approval of check Register
11) Resolution MV-224 prohibiting parking on a portion of
Titus Avenue
Councilmember Tucker requested the removal of Item 12 from the Consent
Calendar.
TUCKER/WOLFE TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 5.B., i THROUGH 11.
PASSED 4-0.
12) Award of Purchase of Computers under Government Contract
to Dell computer in the amount of $31,708.56
Councilmember Tucker asked what the City plans to do with the old
computers. Finance Director Fil said that to the extent possible they
will be used as stand-alones and not be part of the network. The
majority will probably be donated.
City Manager Peacock said they would be offered to the school district
first, then to other non-profit agencies.
TUCKER/WOLFE TO AWARD THE PURCHASE OF C~MPUTERS UNDER GOVERNMENT
CONTRACT TO DELL COMPUTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,708.56. PASSED 4-0.
C. CLAIM8 AGAINST THE CITY - None.
Vice Mayor Moran moved the agenda to Item 2.A.
2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Presentation to Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Burger by
Issues Today Television Forum
Frank Jewett said he was happy to be making the presentation because
Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Burger personify that which is important
as relates to being an ambassador of the City and showing there is a
great deal going on in the Saratoga metropolitan area. This special
recognition award is for their appearance on Issues Today Television
Forum and is for service to the people of the City of Saratoga by
promoting the benefits, features, charm and characteristics of the City
of Saratoga to the television viewing audience in Santa Clara County
and Silicon Valley at large. He presented certificates to
Councilmember Burger and Mayor Jacobs (accepted by Vice Mayor Moran).
Councilmember Wolfe said he was co-host of the show which is on Channel
6 at 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday. He said Mr. Jewett is on many boards and
task forces and is a candidate for Board of Trustees for the West
Valley Mission College District. He thanked him for being at this
meeting.
Councilmember Burger thanked Mr. Jewett for the award.
7. OLD BUSINESS - None.
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff
regarding actions on current oral communications
Vice Mayor Moran asked the City Attorney to respond to Mr. Thorpe.
City Attorney Riback indicated he would respond in writing.
Councilmember Tucker said she did not believe the City charges $4,000
an hour to file an appeal and asked what the actual cost is. Ms.
Giberson clarified that the fee for filing an appeal is $675 which is
equivalent to a rate of $4,000 an hour as the appellant has ten minutes
to present their case.
B. Appeal of Denial of Kennel Permit at 13765 Saratoga Avenue
(Applicant/Appellant, Malish)
City Council Minutes 4 September 4, 1996
Vice Mayor stated that consideration of this item would be delayed
until after the public hearing because several people were present who
wished to speak.
9. ROUTINE MATTERS
A. Approval of Minutes -
BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTE8 OF AUGUST 7, 1996. PASSED
2-0 WITH WOLFE AND MORAN ABSTAINING.
10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
A. Request for Amicus Participation - Turner v. County of Butte
City Attorney Riback referred to the memo to Council which recommended
that the City join in the brief which considers the retroactivity of a
case upholding Proposition 62.
WOLFE/BURGER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AHICUS BRIEF. PASSED 4-0.
City Attorney pointed out that there would be no cost to the City.
B. Agenda items for adjourned reqular meeting September
1) Joint Meeting with Los Gatos-Saratoga High . school
District and Saratoga Union School District (Likens has
requested postponement until after election)
City Manager Peacock said he would keep Councilmembers informed on the
progress of development of fields at the schools. The joint meeting
will be scheduled tentatively for January.
2) Underground Utility Options
3) Issues related to Relinquishmerit of Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road
City Manager Peacock said the Public Works Director had suggested
moving items 2 and 3 to the quarterly review session October 22, in
which case there would be no items for the Sept. 24 meeting.
Vice Mayor Moran moved the agenda to Item 6.A. to be followed by Item
8.B
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Appeal of Design Review Approval to construct a new 5,528 sq.
ft. two-story residence on a vacant, hillside lot at 21777
Vintage Lane. The subject property is 1.57 acres and is
located within the Hillside Resldentlal (HR) Zoning district.
DR-96-021 (APN 503-72-032) Applicant, Basu; Appellant,
Saffarlan
Planner Walgren presented the staff report and background. He pointed
out on a map the area which cannot be built on because of the trace
faults discovered during geotechnical review. He said based on the
staff report analysis, compliance of the project with applicable City
codes and the fact that the concerns being heard from adjacent
neighbors were competing interests, the Planning Commission voted
unanimously to approve the project and staff recommends that the appeal
be denied. Staff's recommendation is based on the fact that the
application as submitted meets all of the City's minimum development
standards in terms of building height, placement, lot coverage and
size, and the necessary findings could be made in terms of
architectural compatibility, that the home minimizes the impacts on the
neighbors' use of their property in terms of privacy and views, and the
majority of the property is constrained by the no build zone which
requires that the home be built where proposed.
Planner Walgren said the original subdivision was approved in the late
1970s or early 1980s. As a result of the hillside preservation
City Council Minutes 5 September 4, 1996
initiative and resulting court settlement, the lots were reconfigured.
This lot was never part of the tentative map but was recorded as part
of the court ordered final map.
Planner Walgren said the revised plans presented this evening which are
being appealed are the result of the house being redesigned and shifted
northeast to avoid conflict with the trace faults. This is the only
set of plans the Planning Commission reviewed.
Planner Walgren said staff had been in contact with Mrs. Gaspar
throughout the process. She indicated she would have liked to see the
house moved farther down slope and would have appealed if Mr. Saffarian
had not.
Vice Mayor Moran opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Patrick Saffarian, 21519 Saratoga Heights Drive, said his father owns
Lot D which is east of the Basu lot. He addressed three issues: 1.
Removal of tree #26 for safety reasons. The Basus wish to put a
walkway and picnic area under the tree. The tree proposes no hazard to
the structure and provides a barrier between the two lots; they request
that it not be removed. He said the burden of moving the walkway and
picnic area would not be as great as the benefit of keeping the tree.
2. Repositioning Of site. He said his proposal would save trees,
while Mrs. Gaspar's would probably cause removal of more trees. 3.
Height of the structure. Section 15-45.080 of the City' s code states
that if a structure interferes with views and privacy of neighboring
properties, does not preserve the natural landscape to the greatest
degree possible, and does not minimize the perception of excessive
bulk, Planning Commission review should not be granted. He asked that
the 26 ft. height be lowered and that natural landscaping be kept.
Kurt Anderson, 780 Manx Avenue, Campbell, architect, said that while
the project is in accordance with the City's ordinances, he believes
that the house is relatively large for houses in Saratoga. He also
believed that the house could be pushed farther into the lot and
rotated to reduce pad elevation. If the house is moved down the hill,
six or seven more trees would have to be removed. He proposed rotating
the house toward the Gaspar property, setting the pad height down, and
letting the Saffarians and Mrs. Gaspar be involved in the landscaping.
Jalil Saffarian, 21519 Saratoga Heights Drive, said his house on Lot D
had been designed the only way it could because of the retaining wall.
The way the Basu house is designed, they could look into his master
bedroom and living room from their kitchen and living room. He
requested that City Council require that the house be rotated to
protect his privacy.
Mr. Anderson clarified that there is currently no house on Lot D, and
the privacy issue is based on the previously approved plans for which
the permit has expired. It is Mr. Saffarian's intent to resubmit the
same plan.
Norm Matteoni, 1740 Technology Drive #250, San Jose, said he was here
on behalf of Marie Gaspar. Warren Heid, architect, was also present.
He gave photographs of the site to Councilmembers, including an aerial
shot which showed both lots including vineyards shared by the two
properties. He said the vineyards are important in terms of the
heritage and the setting provided to the historic chateau. The aerial
also shows a grove of trees that would also be displaced by the
residence and garage at their proposed locations. He said it would not
be appropriate to remove those trees and provide screening along the
property line. He described what the other photographs showed. He said
the rear of the house is oriented to the common boundary line between
Gaspar and Basu and so is the functional equivalent of a rear yard. In
this hillside district, a rear yard setback would be 60 ft. He said
they are not asking that it be moved down the hill 60 ft. but there is
an ability to move down the slope. He said the crux of the issue is
the balance of trying to respect the heritage and provide a sufficient
setback from the front yard of a hillside home looking into the rear
yard of another hillside home. Mr. Matteoni said he wanted Council to
look at the house in relation to the proposed rear yard which will be
City Council Minutes 6 September 4, 1996
terraced and is up against the 20 ft. setback as a side yard. He said
the house could be moved easterly along the edge of the fault line.
Bill Heiss, 950 So. Bascom, San Jose, civil engineer for the project,
said this is a triangular lot which creates some problems in terms of
setbacks. He showed how setbacks are computed and showed the original
location before the geologist found it could not be built there. The
house has been designed to follow the contour with the goal 0f
minimizing grading. To rotate it would result in much more grading.
James Baker, geologist, 2768 Longford Drive, San Jose, said it was a
surprise to everyone to find the faults and explained the process used
during the geological study. He said the head of a large dormant
landslide is located on the eastern margin of the property. They
discovered some ground cracks 30 ft. from the fault, and they would
prefer to keep the building out of that area and as far back from the
dormant landslide as possible.
Walter Chapman, designer for the applicant, showed the building
footprint. He said they wanted to leave as much of the natural
vegetation as possible to screen from the lower neighbor and those
across the canyon. To move it up the hill would make it more visible
from across the canyon and across the street and would increase grading
dramatically. It would be closer to Mrs. Gaspar's property. To move
the house downhill will impact more trees.
Radha Basu, applicant, said they bought the property from Mrs. Gaspar.
She said they wanted a single-story house but since 65-70% of the lot
is unbuildable, they have a two-storyhouse. They also have to have a
detached garage which they did not want. She said they were told by the
arborist to remove Tree #26 because of disease. It is affecting two
other trees and has nothing to do with the walkway and picnic area. She
said they have spent hours and days looking at different plans and
requested that they be allowed to build the house as proposed.
Evert Vandeven, 21650 Vintage Lane, president of Saratoga Heights
Homeowners Association, said the house meets all the requirements of
their CC&Rs and bylaws. He said they are aware of the challenges of
building in the hills. As a neighbor he said he saw no problems with
the layout. The house is well-designed and will probably add value to
the neighborhood. He stated the opinion that it was strange that there
are two neighbors contesting the plan, one who had sold the property
and the other who has had his land for sale for a long time and has no
plan submitted and approved. He urged Council to uphold the Planning
Commission decision.
Anthony Cresap, 60 N. 10th St., #1, San Jose, said the last two
speakers had said everything he wished to say.
Mr. Matteoni said he had not heard the term perpendicular bisectors
before this evening. He said that it presented a mathematical answer
to design review and it looks like the house was made to fit the
property following the geologic review. A perpendicular bisector gives
no aesthetic or design consideration. He said the functional aspect of
how this house relates to the Gaspar residence is what he asked Council
to consider. In addition, he asked them to consider the large grove of
trees and not to give a mathematical answer but look to the feel of the
land and the historical character of what is there.
Mr. Anderson said with all due respect to all those involved, he would
like to leave the house in the existing location but would modify the
request to reduce the finished floor elevation of the pad by four ft.
He also requested that tree 26 be retained and that they have a chance
to work with the Basus on the landscaping. He said they understand
that lowering the pad will increase the grading but think the benefits
outweigh that. The design, architecture and location would remain the
same.
Dan Dykman, soils engineer, said they have not talked about the effect
of the landslide on the location of the house. He said he did not
think they could balance the location of the house any better than the
current proposal. Dropping the elevation by four ft. would add 1,000-
City Council Minutes 7 September 4, 1996
1,200 cubic yards to the current 1,700 cubic yards. In addition, the
retaining walls would be much higher and cover a much greater area of
the hillside.
Vice Mayor Moran closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m.
Councilmember Wolfe said that while he usually gives preference to the
person who has designed the house, in this case he would be in favor of
saving to the maximum degree possible the vista from the chateau
Councilmember Tucker said she had visited the site and viewed it from
the Gaspar property and did not believe the proposal would necessarily
affect the Gaspars' view. In considering what the soils engineer had
to say, she thought it would be less beautiful to have the high
retaining walls. She favored removing Tree #26 as recommended for
safety reasons and said it sounds like the applicants are trying to be
good neighbors.
Councilmember Burger thanked the Planning Commission for their careful
consideration and said she was intrigued by the plan to lower the
elevation. She would want to talk to staff about the impact on
additional grading, siting of the home, and fault lines. She agreed
that Tree #26 should be removed but would like to see a condition which
would require planting of trees in the space between the Basu and
Gaspar properties.
Vice Mayor Moran thanked everyone for their efforts and expressed
concern regarding the additional grading required if the house were
lowered. The current proposal keeps tree removal to a minimum and
keeps the retaining walls at a reasonable height. She believed that
additional screening could address the concerns of both the uphill and
downhill neighbors.
Councilmember Wolfe said he liked the idea of a condition requiring
trees to make up for the ones being removed.
Planner Walgren said that the Planning Commission had already granted
an exception for additional grading. In approving the lowering of the
pad, Council would be amending that exception. He expressed concern
about how lowering the house would affect the maximum retaining wall
heights.
Councilmember Wolfe said he had not realized the Planning Commission
had already made an exception. He would like to see a design that
would minimize the impact on the view from the historical site and
staff would have to work with the designers to achieve that.
Councilmember Burger said she did not think lowering the house 1-2 ft.
would have enough visual impact to satisfy anyone and the impact on the
amount of grading is not known. She said she was not willing to call
for a redesign of the home.
Councilmember Tucker agreed that lowering it two feet would not
accomplish anything and said the houses across the canyon are two-story
and very visible. The proposed design meets all zoning and code
requirements and the applicant has designed it in good faith.
TUCKER/BURGER TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN, DENY THE
APPEAL, AND REQUIRE HEAVY PLANTING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SCREENING.
Vice Mayor Moran suggested that the additional planting be handled at
staff level and not go back to the Planning Commission
THE MOTION PASSED 4-0.
6. B. Approval of Use Permit to construct a 34 ft. tall monopole
antenna at Congress springs Park on Glen Brae Dr. (UP-96-
009 (APN-389-02-001) - CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK) Applicants,
Pacific Bell Mobile Services/City of Saratoga; Appellant,
Vogel. An environmental Initial Study and subsequent
Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project
pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California
City Council Minutes S 8eptember 4, 1996
Environmental Quality Act. No action required; appeal has
been withdrawn.
RECESS - 9225-9231 P.M.
8. NEW BUSINESS
B. Appeal of Denial of Kennel Permit at 13765 Saratoga Avenue
(Applicant/Appellant, Mallsh)
City Attorney Riback presented the staff report and said this appeal is
different from the previous one in that it is not a public hearing but
a review of the decision of the hearing officer, in this case the City
Manager. He said Council is limited to determining whether or not the
hearing officer acted reasonably and within his authority. He said the
administrative record is complete. The parties should be given an
opportunity to argue their case but no more documentary evidence should
be allowed. Council has the authority to modify the decision by
adjusting the time frame if they find that the hearing officer acted
reasonably. They can reverse the decision if they find that he did not
act reasonably.
Shari Boxer (Malish), appellant, read a letter from the Executive
Director of the Humane Society praising her efforts toward caring for
animals, and a letter from a real estate agency stating the house is on
the market and the closing date for escrow is October 15, 1996. She
requested that Council extend the September 30 deadline to October 15.
Dr. David Malish said in his practice as an allergist, he sees lots of
'people who have more dogs than they do and suggested that Council
inform residents about the law. Second, he thought the time of the
administrative hea~ing, 2:00 p.m., was inappropriate as most people
worked during that time. His third issue was that there had been a
significant amount of harassment about moving as quickly as possible
and they had to reduce the price of their house.
Bill Webb, P. O. Box 156, Soquel, said he owns the house adjacent to
the Malishes. Me talked about the odor in the back yard and said
neighbors have complained because of the stench and barking. It is a
health issue. He said the Malishes may be back for another extension.
They have already been in violation for four years.
Mark Allen, 19822 Merribrook Drive, said the issue for him and his wife
is the environment. There used to be deer in the creek corridor, but
when the dogs arrived the deer went away. Also, when kids play, dogs
bark. He said he could live two more weeks with the dogs but asked
that in the event the contract falls through the City do something.
The Malish's maintenance of six dogs brings up a guestion of whether
they would have complied if granted a kennel permit.
Mark Waldron, 19826 Merribrook Drive, said he did not believe City
Council should grant the permit and did not think the Malishes would
comply. They have been in non compliance for four years. There were
many complaints at the hearing and the Malishes still maintained they
would keep six dogs. They clearly are not making an effort now so why
should we assume they would if they receive a permit? He said the
neighbors have pursued due process and have changed their lifestyle
because they cannot use their back yard.
Fred Reed, 13735 Saratoga Avenue, presented a letter from his wife who
could not be present. He said their property surrounds this property
on three sides. He said he also picks up strays and tries to find
their owners. The problem they have is the number of animals. Four,
five or six dogs are too many. They cannot go into their back yard.
It is not that they do not appreciate what Ms. Malish has done, but
they do not control their animals and they need to be held to the
decision. He said they feel it was a reasonable hearing, the neighbors
had done a good job, and the City Manager made the decision. The dogs
have disrupted their peace and tranquillity.
Gay Grant, 19814 Merribrook Drive, said they bought their house four
years ago and they live in their back yard. Sound is magnified in the
City Council Minutes 9 September 4, 1996
creek corridor and the Malishes are inconsiderate. She said when she
heard there was a kennel application she got 45 signatures of people
saying they did not want kennels in residential areas. To issue one
might set a precedent. She said she did not want to give them two
additional weeks. She said the neighbors have jumped through hoops and
want to see the decision upheld.
Councilmembers concurred that the hearing officer had acted reasonably
and within the scope of his authority.
councilmember Wolfe said he realized the hearing time is inconvenient.
He was impressed with the letter from the Humane Society and said it is
obvious these are people who care. However, due process has been
followed for a long period of time and carried out properly. The
defining factor is that the Malishes are moving..
WOLFE/TUCKER TO UPHOLD THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS BUT EXTEND
THE DATE TO OCTOBER 15 AFTER WHICH THERE MUST BE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
CODE WHICH IS NOT MORE THAN TWO DOGS.
Councilmember Tucker agreed that the City does not need kennels in
/ residential areas. She said she was sympathetic to the dog's owners
and was in favor of the extension. However, if it goes beyond that
date, the Malishes should be prepared to board their animals.
Councilmember Burger said she loved animals, but in spite of the
Malishes' great concern and care of animals, she thought the neighbors
have put up with it for far too long. She wanted it to be clear that
on the 15th of October the dogs must be gone. Beyond that Council's
next act would be forcible removal.
THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
B. Other - None.
11. Adjournment
At 10:07 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
September 10, at Administration Meeting Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,