HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-1995 Planning Commission minutesT T
•.:A\\ING COMMISSION MINL7~
MARCH 8, 199
Cih• Council Chambers, 13777 Fruiri•ale Avenue
Regular Meeting
The meeting ~~-as called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Murakami.
Roll Call
Present: Abshire, Cald~i-e11. Kaplan. Murakami, Patrick. Siegfried
Late: None
Absent: Asfour
City Attorney Riback ~i-as present this e~~ening.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MTNT TTF.C
February 22, 1995
COMMISSIONERS CALD~~~"ELL!KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 22,
199 MINUTES `WITH THE FOLLO`~ZNG AMENDMENTS:
- Page 3, last paragraph, line 2 to read: "...hec-attse e~e~'a~~~ the Cit~• does not ha~~e
control o~~er pri~~ate maintenance agreements."
- Page 4, first paragraph under item ~, line ~ to read: "...t«-o story homes~n°••'~ ~~e
............
appro~~e ....
- Page 4, last paragraph, line 2 to read: "Commissioner Cald«-e11 informed the applicant
that there is an issue in the south bay area relating to urban run off ~~-hich contain
metals ~°~~.
- Page ~, paragraph 1, line 3 to read: "...industry but «~as coming from urban run off ~
g=rizp°'a--r~r-a,i-r-~iicn t~2iix~--iiiF~Eepp •. L,•,"•.•° ,.,.,,-1:..~
r°'::~°°~••~°' ~=°*••--°~ *'~~*'~~-•~ °_ ~--°~ She asked Ms. Miranda if she «-ould be ~i•illing
~~ .-- err=-•
to use an alternate material that can be used so that there is no degradation of the copper
gutters i#~f «~ith «~ater running o~•er it.
- Page ~, paragraph 3, line 3 to read: "...trying to disseminate information te~a~ieits al~oiit
i~rbariruii bff ssues.:to:l~~eal jurisdictions. She felt that the Commission should be more
conscientious about theaes5ues in its land use decisions.
- Page 7, paragraph 3, line 3 to read: "appro~•al. Mr. Farsio responded that there «-as not
::
sufficient space ~ iri a`'sralier guest h~~e. He «~as
requesting...."
- Page 7, last paragraph, line 1, change the word "agree" to "agreed".
PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES
MARCH 8, 1995
PAGE - 2 -
- Page 8, paragraph 4, line 3, replace the ~~•ord "see°eral" with "numerous".
- Page 9, paragraph 3 to read: Commissioner Cald~i~ell commented that this subdivision
was not approved with a tree protection ~~t ir~r~...."
- Page 10, paragraph ~, line 7 to read: "...have been zoning '~~~~~~~~ ~~~a..,,+~a arid:
.::::::.::::.:..:::. .
getecl`ical:.cleances does not necessaril~• mean support,...."
- Page 10. paragraph 7 amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell felt that Ms. Fanelli's
letter misrepresented the comments o~ the technical experts and staff~•-~~e
~epesal. Ms. Fanelli responded that in October 1994, staff recommended approval of
this project in their staff report....She further stated the City- Council has given her their
agreement that the applicant can return ~~~ith a proposal. (~'omn~issioner Caldwell corrected
~~1s:.I=anelli b~- stating thatst~1€'::.did~t rec~o~i~~d apprc~ti~~t1.~ but ~a di.~.'.ferc~nc c~oursc of
..
afaon." .
- Page 1 1, last paragraph to read: "Commissioner Caldwell stated that she wanted to make
the record clear when statements are made that are not accurate because uher people iotk
at • ~ ~~• •'~ the statements, they think that the statements are correct... She commented
that it would be helpful if staff could be clear whether it supported a proposal ~~len:au~h
....:.
characterisations are rnadd...."
THE ~i01'IO\T CARRIED 4-0-2 ~~'ITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED
ABSTAINING AND CHAIR:viAN ASFOUR ABSENT.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
\TO comments were offered.
REPORT OF POSTING AGE\DA
Pursuant to Government Code 54942, the agenda for this meeting was properl~• posted on
1\~larch 3. 199.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
No corrections were reported.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PCTBLIC HEARING COiV'SENT CALENDAR
PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES •
MARCH 8, 1995
PAGE - 3 -
PUBLIC HEARI\GS
1. DR-94-0~0 - Lewis; 1881 IV1cCoy Ave., request for Design Review approval to
construct a 1,866 sq. ft. one and t~~-o-story addition to an existing 1,348 sq.
ft. single story residence pursuant to Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The
subject property is approximately 12.400 sq. ft. and is located «-ithin an R-
1-10.000 zoning district. (Cont. from 2/8/9 to prepare revised plans:
application expires ~/4/9~).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Cald~-e11 stated that she would be abstaining from this item because she did not
participate in the original approval and did not have an opportunity to review the proposal.
Planner ~Valaren presented the staff report on this item.
Vice-chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:42 p.m.
Mark Harrington, project designer, informed the Commission that he «-ould answer any questions
which it may have.
Commissioner Abshire asked if the applicant was satisfied with the redesign of the project.
Marilyn Lewis, applicant, responded that the design «•as a much nicer one but that it was more
costly.
COMMISSIO\TERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLA\ MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
7:44 P.M.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that the redesign «~as an improvement over the previous design.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not support the t~~-o story home but that she felt that the
design vvas a much nicer one.
Commissioner Abshire stated that the design «-as a vast improvement from the previous design
and felt that the addition would serve as a guidance for future neighborhood upgrades.
Commissioner 1\lurakami stated that he felt that the applicant took the Commission's concern and
applied them to the redesign of the project and therefore could support the proposal.
COIVLVIISSIO\ERS SIEGFRIED/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTIO\? DR-94-0~0
PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE ~~1OTIOI~T CARRIED 3-2-1 WITH
COIVIMISSIO\TERS KAPLAN AND PATRICK VOTING NO. COMMISSIONER CALDWELL
ABSTAINING A\D CHAIRMAN ASFOUR ABSENT.
2. DR-94-047 - O'Brien: 21778 Villa Oaks Ln., request for Design Review approval to
construct a new x,684 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 1 ~ of the
City Code. The property is approximately 1.3 acres and is located within
a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district.
PLANNING COMMISS~T MINUTES
MARCH 8, 1995
PAGE - 4 -
Planner ~?~'alaren presented the staff report on this item.
Commissioner Cald«-e11 asked if there «-as and- «-a~- to make sure that the required plantings be
maintained for a specific period of time. Planner `~'algren responded that irrigation is required
to be installed and that ~~-here plantings are critical, it can be required that a long term bond be
posted. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the tree locations for the San Marcos Heights
subdivision ~~-ere required b~~ the City or selected b~~ the applicant. Planner VValgren responded
that the trees ~~-ere located in an area selected b~~ the applicant.
Vice-chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:48 p.m.
James Stroupe, project architect, stated that he ~~-ould agree to answer any questions which the
Commission ma~~ have. He provided the Commission «-ith photographs of homes in the area.
Commissioner Kaplan inquired if the drive«-a~- could be relocated. Mr. Stroupe addressed the
reason for the proposed location of the drive~~-a~~ b~• stating that he tried to maintain as much of
the rear }•ard as possible. He indicated that there ~~-ould not be grading for the house itself but
that grading would occur onl~~ for the driveway. Mr. Stroupe informed the Commission that a
solid stamp concrete material ~yould be used for the drive«-a~•. Commissioner Kaplan asked if
the material for the driveway should be that of a permeable material. Planner ~Valgren responded
that the stamp concrete would be acceptable material.
Commissioner Cald~yell asked if the applicant ~~-ould agree to use medium earthtone colors. Mr.
Stroupe responded that he ~yanted to use a soft white color but that he would be «-illing to ~~-ork
with staf f to mo~~e to«~ards earthtone colors
COiviMISSIONERS K_APLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
7:~8 P.M.
Commissioner Patrick requested that petitions submitted be legible.
Vice-chairman iViurakami noted that his concern ~~-as that of the domes but that staff addressed
that concern.
Commissioner Caldwell commented that there is an exposure of the vertical columns. She
requested that the landscape address the concern and that it be better integrated into the lot.
Commissioner Siegfried concurred ~yith Commissioner Caldwell's comments.
COMMISSIONERS CALD~~'ELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-94-
047 WITH THE ADDITIO\T OF THE FOLLOWING CO\DITIONS: 1) THE LANDSCAPE
PLAN TO BE PREPARED AND REVIE`W'ED BY STAFF TO PROVIDE SCREENING FOR
THE VERTICAL COLUMNS AND 2) THAT THE COLOR OF THE HOME BE THAT OF
1~1EDIUM EARTHTONES TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0
(CHAIRMA\T ASFOUR ABSENT).
PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES •
MARCH 8, 1995
PAGE - 5 -
3. DR-9~-001 - Lotus Development Co.; 12800 Cumberland Dr., Lot #4, request for
Design Revie~• approval to construct a ne~~~ 4.238 sq. ft. one-store
residence per Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The propem• is approximately
19,1» sq. ft. and is located ~i~ithin an R-1-12,00 zoning district.
~. DR-9~-002 - Lotus Development Co.; 12778 Cumberland Dr.. Lot #~, request for
Design Review approval to construct a ne«- 4,130 sq. ft. one-story
residence per Chapter 1 ~ of the Cit~° Code. The property is approximately
16,674 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-12,00 zoning district.
Planner ~~%algren recommended that the staff reports for agenda items 3 and 4 be presented
concurrently as they were adjacent development.
IT `B'AS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COM~IISSIO~T TO CONSIDER BOTH AGENDA
ITEMS 3 A\D 4 CONCURRENTLY.
Planner ~~'algren presented the staff report for both agenda items 3 and 4. Staff recommended
approval of both applications.
Commissioner Caldwell inquired about lot ~. She stated that she was troubled that the driveway
came close to Cumberland Drive and Cox Avenue. She asked if there was enough room for cars
to turn around? Planner ~Valaren responded that there was enough space to allow for vehicle
turn-around.
Commissioner Kaplan requested that staff clarify where the tree between lots 4 and ~ is located.
Planner V~'algren clarified the location of the trees.
Vice-chairman Murakami opened item 3 (DR-9~-001) and item 4 (DR-9~-002) to public hearing
at 8:00 p.m.
THERE BEING \TO INPUT, VICE-CHAIRMAN iV1URAKAMI CLOSED THE PUBLIC
HEARING AT 8:01 P.M.
Commissioner Caldwell inquired as to the materials that ~;could be used for the soundwall.
Planner Walgren recollected that the material would be that of a split wall. Commissioner
Caldwell requested that the color not be a shade of pink. Planner Vl'algren responded that the
color board revie~m-ed at the time of subdivision approval depicted the color of the soundwall.
Commissioner Cald~;-ell asked if the city arborist, Barrie Coate. took into account the plans for
the ~~-a11 in terms of tree preservation. Planner ~?~'alaren responded that Mr. Coate reviewed the
°all detail to ensure tree preservation. y
COViMISSIOI\TERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-95-001
PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIOl~T. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 ~~ZTH CHAIR.I~AN
ASFOUR ABSENT.
CO1~~IISSIONERS SIEGFRIED~'PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-95-002
PLANNING COMMIS~1 MINUTES •
MARCH 8, 1995
PAGE - 6 -
PER STAFF'S RECOil1ME\DATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 `'WITH CHAIRMAN
ASFOUR ABSENT.
Commissioner Cald«-ell asked if staff ~~-orked with the applicants to keep the design in line ~~~ith
the surrounding homes as the homes «~ere designed to be compatible «-ith those of the
surrounding homes. Planner ~~'al~ren informed the Commission that the designer «~as a«-are of
the design issues. y
~. AZO-9~-001(a) - City of Saratoga; The Planning Commission is initiating an amendment to
Article 1 ~-70.020 of the Cit~• Code. This amendment ~~~ould allo«•
residential de~~elopment within hillside subdi~~isions to apply those building
setbacks in effect ~.~~hen the subdi~~ision and site de~-elopment plan ~i~ere
originally appro~-ed in lieu of current lot-percentage based setbacks.
Plamier `~'algren presented the staff report on this item.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she ~i-ould ha~~e preferred to re~~ie~~~ the amendments in a study
session to get an over~~ie~~- of ~~-hat the diagrams depict and to get a better understanding of the
proposed amendments. She requested that staff pro~~ide an analysis of the proposed setback
requirements. Commissioners Cald«-e11 and Siegfried agreed «-ith Commissioner Kaplan that the
amendments be revie«~ed in a study session prior to a public hearing.
Commissioner Cald~~•ell asked ho«= manv lots the proposed amendments «~ould be affecting.
Planner ~Valgren responded that the amendments «•ould affect six to eight subdi~~isions.
Commissioner Cald«-e11 asked if this amendment accommodates a concern of the cite that
de~•elopment a~~oid encroachment of a creek. Planner ~~'algren responded that the amendment
«-ould protect the creek.
Commissioner Cald~~•ell recommended that if Section 3, located on page 3 of the staff report. «=as
to be retained. that it be mo~~ed to subsection (b) located on page 2 or that ", and" be added to
the end of subsection (b)(2) located on page 2 as subsection (b)(1) ends «~ith "or". She
recommended that additional language be added to other sections of the codes to safeguard
authority relating to health and safety issues.
Vice-chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
Rader` haf informed the Commission that he purchased lot 11, Mt. Eden, in 1989. He
..:.:.:.......... .:::.;:.::
commented that a lot line adjustment «-as completed and that the purpose of the lot line
adjustment «-as to relocate the building pad to a better location. He asked ho~i- the proposed
setback amendments «-ould affect him? Planner Walgren responded that the lot line adjustment
«~as completed prior to the code amendment and that the proposed amendment ~i-ould ease
restrictions on Mr. Shaf's parcel.
VICE-CHAIR:'~1_AN MURAKAMI CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:21 P.M.
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that one zoning text
PLANNING COMMISS~i MINUTES •
MARCH 8, 1995
PAGE - 7 -
amendment is proposed to be scheduled each month. to be reviewed as part of a work session
prior to a public hearing.
Planner VVal~ren informed the Commission that the next zoning text amendment scheduled would
be the review of floor area reduction «°hich was advertised and scheduled for a March 21. 199
public hearing.
IT ~~l%AS THE CO\TSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDME~'TS FOR REVIE~'~~ AND CONTINUED THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO A DATE U1~TCERTAIN. I1~TCORPORATI\TG COMMISSIOI~TER CALDWELL'S
RECOMMENDATION (CHAIRIVI_AN ASFOUR ABSENT).
6. Greenbriar Homes Co.; 131 ~0 Saratoga Ave., review and approval of a
Development Agreement behveen the City of Saratoga and Greenbriar
Homes specifi~ing development requirements for the previously approved
94-lot, single family residential development on the former Paul Masson
~Vinerv Site. AT THE COI~TCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC HEARI\TG,
THE + PLANNING COMMISSIONT WILL FORWARD ITS
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL
APPROVAL. THE PLAi\"NING COMMISSIOI~T RECOMMENDATION
~~l%ILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL O\T
~~'EDI~TESDAY. MARCH ] ~. 199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. He informed
the Commission that the Development Agreement has been reviewed by staff, the City Attorney
and Greenbriar. Staff recommended recording of the Development Agreement document to the
City Council y
Commissioner Patrick asked ~i-hat the Commission's role was in this process because the
agreement was one made between Greenbriar and the City Council. City Attorney Riback
responded that the agreement has to be drawn up and be reviewed by the Planning Commission
and adopted by the City Council and that it was one of those documents that would be difficult
to negotiate changes in a public forum. If there was something in the document that the
Commission felt ~i-as inappropriate, he felt that the Commission could make recommendations
regarding that portion of the document. He explained that a vesting tentative map «-as good for
a period of five years and that a development agreement can be entered into for a specified period
of time. A vesting tentative map does not allo~r~ the city to make changes where a development
agreement allows the city to negotiate changes.
Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission was required to appro~~e the development
agreement or can the Commission pass the development agreement on to the City Council for
action. City Attorney Riback stated that the Commission can forward the development agreement
with no recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not
review the document as the terms of the agreement have been negotiated bet«-een the attorneys
and City Council.
PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES
MARCH 8, 1995
PAGE - 8 -
Commissioner Cald«-e11 commented that the document falls short in making assurances that the
development agreement reads the way the Cit<~ Council intended it to be. One fundamental
concern that the Council made ryas that of phasing. In revie~ying the tape of the meeting, she
stated that one Councilmember made a statement that if there was going to be an}~ phasing. that
phasing «-as to be from Saratoga Avenue on back. She further stated that originally, the 10 acres
were to be zoned R-1 40,000 and that no development agreement was secured for that
development. The current proposal is for high density development. She offered the following
recommendations: the intent was that this property was to be developed as residential. not
commercial; page ~, section 7.4 does not constrain the developer to ensure that development takes
place: phasing of the development is not stated: commercial development behind residential
would be inappropriate; and the exhibit does not ensure that development would occur ~-ithin a
specific period of time. if 10 years is the time frame. she felt that it was too long. Community
Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that tentative maps have up to five years
to final. Commissioner Caldwell felt that five years ryas a more appropriate time limit. She
further recommended that it be made sure that the basic goal does not get undermined by extreme
flexibility. She asked what her fello~~- Commissioners thought about the 10 year period.
Vice-chairman Murakami asked if a 10 year time period was standard for this type of agreement
and clarified that a developer ~yould be able to commence construction earlier than stipulated in
an a~~reement.
Commissioner Siegfried felt that Commissioner Cald~i-el1's comments ~yere valid ones but that
he felt that they were issues that should be addressed at the Council level. He noted that the
Commission denied this project.
Commissioner Caldwell felt that the Commission ~i~as representing the citizens of Saratoga and
that it «-as the Commissions responsibility to forward comments and concerns to the City
Council.
City Attorney Riback responded that he and staff drafted a document that «-ould allow the City
as much flexibility as possible. He stated that an_v comments expressed by the Commission
«-ould be passed on to the City Council and that the developer was present to listen to all
concerns.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he concurred ~yith the comments as expressed by
Commissioner Caldwell and that he would agree to forward her comments to the Council.
Commissioner Abshire commented that he revie«-ed several contracts «-hen he «-orked for Shell
Oil Company. In his review of this development agreement, he felt that the interest of Saratoga
were being protected as «°ell as that of the property o«-ner/developer. However, he felt that the
term of the agreement was too long and felt that three years «-ould be appropriate.
Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not review the City Council tapes relating to this
development. She inquired ~w°hen the park fees would be paid. Community Development
Director Curtis informed the Commission that the park fees are to be paid at time of final map
approval. City Attorney Riback confirmed that the park fees «-ould be paid at time of final map
' PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES
MARCH 8, 1995
PAGE - 9 -
approval.
Commissioner Patrick asked about Subparagraph x.3.4 located on page 87. Said subparagraph
«~ould allow for the formation of a Landscape and Lighting District. She asked as to the purpose
of the district. Cite Attorney Riback responded that a landscape and lighting assessment district
would allo«~ for the continued funding of public improvements within the development.
Commissioner Caldwell recommended that the purpose of the landscape and lighting district be
stated to make sure it is clear.
Vice-chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:47 p.m.
I'att7ck:~zstari~o~T~., representing Greenbriar, responded that the phasing of the project «~ould
allow anorth/south development. He informed the Commission that one of the conditions of
subdivision approval and the Development Agreement requires that all improvements along
Saratoga Avenue be installed as part of Phase I of the development and that the tot lot would be
built no later than t«-o years upon commencement of the project. In addition, he would be
submitting the map as one final map and that he ~i-ould not be taking advantage of phased
mapping. He informed the Commission that all road improvements would be installed at one
time. He addressed the concern regarding the ten year time limit. He stated that it «=as his intent
to have the project build out in a two to three year period. The ten year limit would allow
flexibility for unforeseen problems such as the recession that was experienced.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED!KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
8:52 P.M.
Commissioner Cald«-e11 recommended that the development agreement stipulate a three rear time
limit. Community Development Director Curtis stated that if the Commission felt that the 10
year agreement was too long, that the Commission could recommend a three year term as being
an appropriate time limit.
City Attorney Riback clarified that Subparagraph x.3.3 located on page 23 of the agreement was
added to require that contractors for the development obtain asub-permit from the State Board
of Equalization for the job site if the construction contract exceeded $x,000,000. This subsection
would allow the sales tax dollars for materials that are to be installed to go to the job site as
opposed to going into acounty-wide pool, benefiting the City. This modified language would
be included in future documents.
THE PLAIvi\TING COMMISSION COMMEI~TTS ARE TO BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY
COU~iCIL. NO ACTIO\T VAS TAKEI`T ON THIS ITEM.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Community Development Director Curtis updated the Commission as to the follow-up of
yesterday's study session regarding nonconforming signs within the Village.
PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES •
MARCH 8, 1995
PAGE - 10 -
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that 146 applications hay=e
been received for the vacant assistant planner position and that intervie«-s for the position would
be conducted on Monday. He stated that it is anticipated that the assistant planner would be on
board by mid-April.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Kaplan informed the Commission that she. Commissioner Abshire and Community
Development Director Curtis attended a meeting on Monday hosted by the Manufacturing Group.
She noted that Mayor Burger «-as in attendance as «~as Councilmember ~~~olfe ~i~ho «-as present
as a participant. She felt that Councilmember ~Volfe's comments regarding the high cost of
housing for young people in Saratoga were correct statements. She also informed the
Commission that she received a California la«- ne~i~sletter and that one article stated that a public
hearing conducted by Thousand Oaks resulted in the approval of a resolution which contained
x,000 conditions.
Commissioner Caldwell provided the Commission and staff with a copy of a legal report that
states that General Plans can be amended by voter initiative. She requested that at the next
meeting. staff inform the Commission as to the legal status of the Constantin application prior
to a study session being conducted with GIs. Fanelli.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written
1. Letter from Marcia Farris re: Kosich application for rezoning
2. City Council Minutes - 2/7. 2/13. 2/1~/9~ y
3. i\otices for the 3/21/9 Plannin~~Commission
Oral
Cite Council
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. to
7:30 p.m., Tuesday. March 21, 1995, Civic Theater. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Saratoga, CA.
RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED.
IR1~~1A TORREZ
MII~'UTES CLERK
irYC0=0895. sA K