Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-1977 City Council Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, March 16, 1977 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Saratoga City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave.,Saratoga, Calif TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmen Brigham, Corr, Kraus, Matt~oni, Bridges Absent: None ' B. MINUTES It was moved .by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the minutes of March 2, 1977, be approved. The motion was carried. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. COMPOSITION OF CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by CounCilwoman Corr the Consent Calendar Composition be approved. The motion was carried. B. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Release of Performance 'Bdnd, James A. Rodrigues (SDR-1073) ~ . ity Treasurer ' s Report . 4. City Clerk's Financial Report It was moved by Councilman Brigham and Seconded by CoUncilman Kraus the items for the Consent Calendar be approved. The motion was carried unanimously. III. BIDS AND CONTRACTS ~IV. PETITIONS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE NO. 38.76 An Ordinance of the City of 7Saratoga Amending Section 9-39 of the Saratoga City Code Designating a Portion of Third Street _~. as Angle Parkin , Limiting such Parking to Two Hours andq~ ~"~C~'~'~%~_~i% Eliminating Par~ing on a Por,.tion of Third<Street . " ..... It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus Ordinance No. 38.76 be introduced, and the reading .waived. The motion was carried Unanimouslye. B. RESOLUTION NO. 808 ' Resolution of the City Council of Saratoga Modifying the Hazardous Fire Area Maps It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham Resolution No. 808 be adopted. The motion was carried. C. RESOLUTION NO. 809 Resolution Providing Findings Concerning Adoption of the Uniform Fire Code and Changes or Modifications Thereof It was moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Kraus Resolution No. 809 be adopted. The ~otion was carried unanimously. D. RESOLUTION NO. 811 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Sarato a Thanking the Members of the Saratoga Senior Citizen Housin~ Tas~ Force for Their Contributions to the Community It was moved iby~Ma'~%~l'd~ and seconded by Councilman Kraus Resolution No. 8ii'B~'~ado~ted. The motion was carried unanimously. E. PETITION REQUESTING CRISP AVENUE EAST OF GRANITE WAY TO BE DESIGNATED A CUL-DE-SAC (Cont'd. 3/2/77) It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the Council approve Crisp Avenue as a cul-de-sac, and indicate that "it is the expressed intent of this City Council that in conformance with the 1974 General Plan, Crisp Avenue shall not become a through, feeder or connector street, but that it will culminate in a cul-de-sac, such Cul-de-sac not to exceed seven additional lots as now provided for in Ordinance 60." The motion was carried unanimously. F. ORDINANCE NO. 3E-14 An Interim Emergency Zoning Ordinance Prohibiting Certain Uses of Land in the Bohlman Road Slide Area - The City Manager explained that this ordinance was drafted at the direction of the Council. on March 2, 1977, based on the input and recommendation of the Planning Commission. He then proceeded to read the ordinance in full. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded bX Councilman Brigham Ordinance 3E-14 be adopted. The motion was carried unanimously. ~ G. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND GEORGE W. DAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR INCLUSION 0F LAND INTO A CITY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE It was agreed to consider th~s item following consideration of the proposed rezoning actionon this evening's agenda (Item VI-C). V. SUBDIVISIONS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued following ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. MAYOR 1. Appointment t6 Planning Commission It was moved by Mayor Bridge~ and seconded by Councilman Brigha~ the appointment of Shelley Williams to the Saratoga Planning Commission, replacing CommisSioner Norm Martin. Councilwoman Corr commented that in voting for ~thi~ motion, she mu~t~.express'a'~personal'concern because of the business Mr. Williams is in. <~The motion was--Unanimously carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 15 OF ORDINANCE NS-3 TO ALLOW FOR THE CONTINUATION OF A NON-CONFORMING COMMERCIAL USE IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 14038 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD (LILLIAN RODONI, UP-315) (Cont'd. 1/19, 2/16, 3/2) The City Manager a~vised that the applicant has requested a continuance of this matter for a period of two weeks. The Mayor opened the public 'hearing at 8:02 P.M. No comments were heard on this matter at this time. ~'rt'~he'~"~BVed~bf~u~a~l~'KF~s and '~a~y'~ouncilman Brigham the public hearing be continued to April 6, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously. B. CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTED ABANDONMENT OF PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY BETWEEN SURREY LANE AND RICE COURT The Council acknowledged a ~etter from Everett McNicholas, District Superintendent of Saratoga School District, expressing opposition to closure of the Surrey Lane easement. The City Manager explained ~haD~'~'i~l~r~"~'~e' ~h~ Council at its regular meeting at that time requested a public hearing to determine the need for retaining this easement. He indicated a pho~a,j_l~.was received from the principal.at Foothill School._~ent~gT~he had met with some residents on Rice Court who had~fi~i~ed their children do use the walkway, and.also, School District would be abandoning its bus service this next year which would make the pathway even more valuable. The Mayor then op~ned the public hearing at 8~05 P.M. Henry Nettesheim, 13625 Surrey Lane, addressed the Council. Mr. Nettesheim commented that this problem began in late 1969 or early 1970, when the City required the Osterlund Company, which was developing some property between Surrey Lane and the highway, to have a secondary access road. Osterlund chose to put this access road over some right-of-ways which existed be- tween Surrey Lane and that property, passing over the west side of the Nettesheim property and the east side of the adj'acent owner's property. This was done~rather than connecting with' Paramount Drive, which was the other possibility. Mr. Nettesheim indicated there were several engineering proposals made on how to route that secondary access road, and at least two of these proposals were'agreed to by themselves, however, they were not agreed to by the other property owner. In view of this, the Council adopted a proposal to put a narrow access road over the property on the west side of the right-of-way, and to put a pedestrian path over the'Nettesheim property. Mr. Nettesheim stated that they finally decided notto make any formal appeal to this ruling, due to the fact it would be costly and perhaps unsuccessful. Consideration of Pedestrian Pathway Surrey Lane and Rice Court (Cont'd.)i As a consequence of this pathway, Mr. Nettesheim stated they have had some problems, such a trash, broken bottles, cans dr~pped, acts of vandalism, use of motorcycles which encroach on their driveway, and horses on the pathway. Additionally, there have been many instances of motorists on Surrey Lane thinking the road extended down the Nettesheim's driveway. Mr. Nettesheim ~tated that if the pathwa'y were closed, this would eliminate some of the problems they have had, and would enable them to somehow change the appearance of the driveway with plantings or posts to make ~t look narrower andsunlike an extension of the street. Gary Starkweather, 13225 Paramount Drive, addressed the Council. He indicated that many residents are very concerned about the children's safety on Highway 9, as there is a go6d chance busing will be eliminated. He commented that cars do travel at a rela- tively high speed on Highway 9 and he has personally seen a number of bicycle accidents jwhile walking along the highway. Mr. Starkweather commented ~hat he can appreciate the concern with regard to refuse and vandalism, and he can't conceive of who might be causing this. As far as motorcycles and horses, he indicated that there areat least 3 or 4-foot high posts which block the pathway, and it is extremely"difficult to get through. He indicated this:pathway is the o~ly access for children to walk from Foothill School'back to this area. Mr. Starkweather stated theresidepts areof the feeling the children's safety has to. come first. Mr. Krauter, 20~82 Rice Court, addressed the Council onbehalf of the Sutters, the Shays, the Barrys, the Petersons, the Duntons, and the Reynolds, who live either on Rice Court or up further on Paramount Drive. He stated.that for th~se.~children who live either on Paramount or Rice Court, the only access if they walk to Foothill School is to go along the near side of Highway 9. He commented that if they ride their bicycles to school,-in order to conform to the reg61ations of riding.their bicycles in the bike lanes, they have to.cross Highway 9 ~,twice to get home to Rice Court or Paramount. He agreed that the safety of those children has to come to the forefront. Therefore, speaking on behalf of himself, his wife, his daughter and other.families mentioned, they are very much opposed to the abandonment of this pathway. Mr. Nettesheim commented with regard to the allegation ~that motorbikes could not get through this pathway, this is not true. In fact, two trailbikes had crossed onto the pathway just this evening, and larger bikes had used it in the past. He pointed that Surrey Lane is not without danger, as a pedestrian right-of- way~ due to the fact there are no sidewalks. Mrs. Nettesheim addressed the Council. She ind~cate~that it is very dangerous walking along Saraview and Sara H{~ls Drive because of the sharp angles and the homes which have their shrubs practically up to the curb. She further commented that anyone living on Paramount has a longer way to go to shhool if using this pathway. Mr. Starkweather again addressed the Council, stating that the thing he is talking to is not so much a percentage of absolutes -- that the pathway representsa thoroughly safe thoroughfare -- but it is a matter of degree. He stated he would teel much safer about having his child travel the inner route,through this pedestrian path, rather than Highway 9. - 4 - Consideration of Pedestrian Pathway Surrey Lane and Rice Cou~t (Cont'd.)L Mr. Randolph of Paramount Drive requested the City Council consider leaving the city easement. He indicated when they first moved into the area, they considered the open access to the hills from their property an asset, and continue to consider it as such. He stated that his children utilize~ the trail for visiting their friends, and if the easement were removed, it would be necessary for them to outaroundHighway 9. Mrs. Cavelli, a resident of Rice Court, indicated she lives on the property where the children come through, and she has no objections to this. However, she asked if she would be able to put up a chain across the road to keep. the cars ~ut. Mayor Bridges indicated he would request the staff to look at this problem. Karen Corolich, 13630 Surrey Lane, indicated she would like to confirm what Mrs. Cavetli h~s said this evening, and there are cars down at the end of this access road turning around at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning." Also, the access roa~id. has ~ gate which she feels should.be better maintained~"="~'~'~'~ Mr. Krauter again addressed Ithe Council, commen~ing he would think the thing to do would be .to take the last two suggestions into consideration sot. the u~e of this area is restricted to the use that is required. ~HoweVer, he felt the path should be kept open ~o enable the children'to use.it. Mayor Bridges pointed out the fact that this_~is a secondary fire access road, and anything pUt up there must be able to be dis- mantled by a fire truck. Karen Sutter, 13201 Paramount Drive, indicated her main concern for keeping the access openis for the children, as there are a great deal of children under fourth grade, and they would be walking to school if the buses are not available. Mike Shay, a resident of Rice Court, indicated that his children go to summer school at Foothill, and h~=feels it is important that they have an 'access other than Highway 9 to g&t there. Gloria Peters0n, 13192 Paramount Drive, commented that she feels the same as her other neighbors on Paramount who have spoken this evening. Also, she comment~ that sb~e_e p3Es~nally enjoys using the path, -particularly d~U~_ihg ~h~=~rn~6~ths Mrs. Nettesheim again addressed the council. She stated that when children come down thezpath, they don't stay on the path, and they wander all over the property. Also, horses come through there, and she has noticed children sitting under the tree smoking "pot". Mrs. Nettesheim indicated that her insurance agent had suggested possibly increasing their coverage, and she doesn't feel they should have to be the victims of this. She indicated that there are plenty of other streets where the kids are able to use tO visit their friends, such as Russel Lane and Leonard Road. . It was then moved by CouncLlman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried. The public hearing wasclos'ed at 8:30 P.M. It was then moved by CoUncilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham to'deny the request for abandonment of a pedestrian pathway at. this location. The motion was carried unanimously. .- 5 - C. CONSIDERATION OF REZONING FROM "HCRD" (HILLSIDE CONSERVATION f RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) TO "A" (AGRICULTURE) THE ONE PARCEL DESIGNATED IN THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S BOOK AS APN-503-13-68, LOCATED NORTH OF MT. EDEN ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET WESTERLY OF PIERCE ROAD - GEORGE DAY CONSTRUCTION Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Diredtor, indicated that this area is 12.4 acres in size, and it is intended that this rezoning~7_~ facilitate an application to enter the property into a Williamson Act Contract with the City of Saratoga. The site abuts a present Williamson Act preserve property in excess of 29 acres. He explained that the City's policy is to not consider contracts for Williamson Act lands which are less than 20~acres, with the exception that if they do abut an existing agricultural preserve area, an extension_of~that_area~ld be considered, and this is ,' e g equested:onthe~earller agenda item (IV-G). what ~s__5_~_~_ ~ ,~ng ,reqUe~s.~~ .... The Planning CoEission at its January 12¥ 1977 meeting, recoEen- ded this rezoning be approved, and also recoEended the Council give favorable consideration to enEering into a Williamson Act contract for this property., The Mayor opened the public,hearing on this matter at 8:42 P.M. Jim Harper of H.M.H. Engineers~qpresenting George Day '-"~ - pleased'~o~n~?any questFons the Council might have. Councilman Kraus inquired why this particular configuration chosen for the Williamson kqt, and not the property along Mr. Eden Road. Mr. Harper replied that there are ~wo separate assessors parcels separated by Cala~azas Creek, and there was at one ~ime a tentative map filed covering both parcels; however, one of the conditions.on that tentative map was the requirement for an extensive geotechnical investigation, upon which basis the development of the property was considered uneConomical, plus ~he fact that the fire protection was extremely expensive. Councilman Kraus inquired if there were geotechnical reports made on the proper~y. Mr. Hatper replied tha~ there was a preliminary evaluation by the City's consultant, Mr. Cotton, which indicated some susoected faulting and slide hazards. Also, on a preliminary evaluation by Mr. Day's consultant, her findings were confimed from a walk- through, but without the benefit of a full investigation. Mr. Kraus asked if this was not a problem on the property which is on Mr. Eden. Mr. Hatper replied it is not nearly as severe as that which is on the back parcel. Councilman Matteoni asked if, in the development of the property along Mr. Eden Road that is not within the proposed rezoning~ is there any anticipated use of ~he shaded ~ed'area~on the Mr. Hatper replied there is not at this particular time. There being no further coments at this time, i~ was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the public hearing be continued to the hext regular meeting of April 6, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously. -'6 Consideration of Rezonin8 - George Day Construction It was then moved by Councilman Brigham and seconded by Councilman Matteoni the introduction of Ordinance NS-3-ZC~79, in connection with this request for rezoning. The motion was carried unanimously. The Mayor advised item IV-G'w~uld be carried forward to the ~ ...... ne_x~_.~g~la!~m~e__~g_~gr__cg~j~ratiq~a~n~ with_this~~te_r. D. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR REZONING FROM "R-I-40,000" (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, VERY LOW DENSITY) TO "R~l~20,000'' (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,.LOW DENSITY) THE SOUTHERLY 2.3+ ACRES ~OF THAT 10.7+ ACRE PARCEL OWNED BY THE CAMPBELL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ALLENDALE AVENUE, BETWEEN DOLPHIN DRIVE AND ViA ALTO COURT - OSTERLUND ENTERPRISES~' INC. Mr. Van Duyn, Planning Director, explained that the 2.3 acre piece is under the contiguous ownership of the Campbell Union High School District. He indicated that the entire site is a little over 10 acres in ,size, and is intended to be subdivided for "R=1-12,500" square foot single-family homes. A tentative map has been submitted, whidh is in process w~th the City Planning Department at the Dresent time. He indicated that the General Plan has this area designated as Medium Density-Residential, for which "R-i-20,000 is consistent. The Planning Commission has reviewed this and recommended the rezoning be approved. The Mayor opened the publicshearing at 8:50 P.M. The City Manager indica~d~~on~p~epukl_ic ~earipg notice was received bac~ in~his~ffic~tex~sih~ 6~'~os~tion to this proposed~6~i~.~-~h=iY~'i-s~f~omriI-s~l-l~e~B~lilic~tti. Dan Judd, owner.~f .the property adjacent to that which is under consideration, addressed the Council. He indicated that the residents in his area are concerned about going to low density or medium density, due to the fact it is inconsistent with the strip of land on Allendale adjacent to this property. Mr. Judd commented that he ~ecalls the Council's concern about having minimum access and t~affic on Allendale, and if this were to remain at "R-I-40,000" and this property is developed, there would probably be one access through here.~ If it does go to "R-I-20,000,, there would then probably be'~four parcels across the front, which will increase the density on Allendale. He commented that if this strip were to remain at one-acre lots, this would be more consistent than to have just this one section at a lower density rate. He stated that as property' owners along this area, he would like to represent to the Council their desire for the property to remain as it i's, ~nd to amend the General Plan to conform. , Councilman Kraus asked Mr. Judd if he was correct in understanding him to say this property is~presently all zoh~d "R-i-40,000". Mr. Judd replied that it is, with the exception of the° one section which is delineated "R-i-20,000"; however this is not' split, and it is a one-acre lot at the present time. Consideration of Rezoning Osterlund Enterprises, Inc. Jim Harper, H.M.H. Engineering, addressed the Council, stating that on the contrary, the current General Plan is in fact medium density on the northerly side of Allendale, and low density on the southerly side of Allendale. In answer to Mr. Kraus's question, Mr. Harper!ndica~ed that medium density would allow a plan use designation of "R-l-12,500"or "R-l-10,000". Mr. Harper stated that with,regard to .the increased density, while it is true there is allowance for two additional lots along that frontage, the access seems to beof prime concern to the Subdivision Commitee and to ~the Planning Commission. He indi- cated that if a thru streetor a cul-de-.sac street is.,~sed, which is the current plan, there would be a potential for three access'points onto Allendale with "R-i-40,000". However, with the current plan that is proposed, by use of a ~oint driveway access to the four lots fronting on Allendale, and.with the street connection, there are only two access points onto Allendale. Therefore, the ~ezoning iS consistent with the current General Plan. Councilman Kraus asked{~r. Harper why the entrances couldn't bee off of the cul-de-sac rather than onto Allendale. Mr. Harper r~plied that-the'plan as proposed would require · the access onto the cul-de-Sac street. It was then ~oved byCouncilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus to continue the public hearing to the next regular Council Meeting on April 6, 1977. The motion was carried unanimOhsl'y. It was mo~ed'by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus the introduction of Ordinance NS-3-ZC-8_0 and~EaivinK ok the r. eading, with the understanding that~%~?Q~'~i~e-'~ the Council in its further Considerations of this rezoning appli- cation. The motion was carried, 4 to 1, with Councilman Brigham in opposition. VII. ~MINIST~TIVE ~TTERS (Cont'd~) B. COUNCIL AND CO~IISSION REPORTS C. DEPAR~ENT HE~S A~ OFFICERS 1. Public Works Report Re:=Quito Road Study Implementation Program Mr. Shook, Director of Public Works,.reported that a recent Co~ittee of the ~ole Meeting, the staff' had presented to the Council a portion of the study on Quito Road ~nvolving the area in the i~ediate vicinity of Vessing. An interim measure was discussedat that time that the Council authorize $2,350 to implement interim improvements along this area. Fo%10Wing some discussion on this proposed program, it was moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilman Kraus in the Director of Public Works's memorandum of March 10, 1977, deleting the item of Street Lighting in the amount of $200.00. The motion was carried unanimously. - 8 -, 2. Director [ic Works (a) Quito Road-Pollard Road intersection and bridge con- struction is nearing completion (estimated completion by the end of March); (b)Reid Lane signal i~ under construction, and is anti- cipated to be completed within 65 working days. D. CITY MANAGER 1. City Manager Report Re: Request for Waiver of Fees by the Odd F~llows The City Manager indicated it is his recommendation this request be denied; however, one area the Council consider ~_~e~6'g'~-a-~' be that of the Park and Recreation Fee 'for a ~{o~ci~tizen project.. Gerald Clark, Secretary'for the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, addressed the Council, indicating that it was his understanding sinceLthey are a non-Drofit organization and tax exempt, some of!these fees may Be waived, and they are appealing this to the City Council. It was moved b_y__Councilman~Kraus~and seconded by Councilman Brighami~~ ~?/~p~_ei&y} °gnT~~{~ ~ Building Department,~a~d~Pdblic Works Department fees'~ ~nd direct the staff to negotiate regarding the Park and Recreation fees. The motion was carried unanimously. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS A. WRITTEN 1o Barbara J. Noggle, President, Santa Clara Valley Coalition, requesting passage of several resolutions regarding property tax reform: "~e resolve that the Saratoga City Council join with other public officials, a~.dI!with Santa Clara County citizens organizations, in urging Governo~Brow~l to meet with HALT and other taxpayer groups in Santa Clara County on or about March 15, 1977. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss a unified approach to prypetty tax reform." Mayor Bridges advised that the City Manager has already directed a letter to Governor Brown requesting him to come to Santa Clara County for the purpose of discussing property tax reform. "We resolve that the Saratoga City Council ~ndorses, and calls for the current session of the California Legislature to pass, legislation which incorporates two crucial elements of ~;operty tax reform: (a) s~lit roll assessments which decrease the assessment ratio on residential property, and .(b) limitations on local government revenues from the property tax~ so that total revenues cannot increase at a greater rate than the GPI or CPI." The Mayor indicated this action would not be consistent with the Council's position in opposition to a split roll assess- ment. "We resolve that the Saratoga City Council will not vote a tax rate for 1977-78 that will increase total revenues from the property tax in Saratoga more than the increase in the GPI." The Mayor commented t~at adoption of this kind of resolution would be a circumvention of the Blue Ribbon Committee appointed to study the property tax rate in Saratoga. It was suggested the Council not take this action until there has been a report byzthe~dommittee. 2. Austen Warburton, Vice Chairman and Acting Chairman, County of Santa Clara Historical Heritage Commission, Re: Endangered Historic Heritage Resources. - Referred to the staff for a report back to the Council. 3. Russell L. Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, requesting the Court mandate be followed Re: Slope Conservation Zone. - The City Manager advised that~the Court has notlmandated anything to the City; rather, the City has been directed to answer a Writ of Mandate which has been served and is now in court on the matter. 4. Mary Anna Eklund, ROAR C6ordinator for the American Association of University Women of SUnnyvale-Cupertino and League of Women Voters of Santa Clara County, requesting that all residents of Saratoga take part in.the Oil Recycle Program. - Directed · staff to include list of locations where used oil can be recycled in the next issue of the Saratogan Report. Councilwoman Corr indicated she would ask the local A.A.U.W. to write a letter to the Saratoga News on this subject. 5. Audrey Lo Summers, offering a water conservation model, and requesting the cooperation of all Saratoga residents in the conservation of water. -LMayor Bridges indicated this item is covered extensively inthe current issue of the Saratogan Report, and the City is making available kits which can be utilized in helping to conserve water. 6. Robert H. Foster, 12516 Saratoga Avenue, requesting a thirty (30)-day extension for removal of his backyard structure. Councilman Kraus moved to deny this request. The motion failed for lack of a second. It was then moved by Councilman Matteoni and seconded by Councilwoman Corr to allow Mr. Foster a twenty (20)-day extension for removal of the structure (by April 6, 1977). The motion was carried, 4 to 1, Councilman Kraus in opposition. 7. Daniel G. Wendin, Presid&nt, Board of Directors, Midpeninsula Regional Park District, extending appreciation to the City Council for its support Re: denial of applications for detachment from the District boundaries. Noted and filed. IX. ADJOURNMENT The City Manager requested the Council adjourn this meeting to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on March 22nd, in order to administer the Oath of Office to the new Planning Commi§sioner. It was moved by Councilman Kraus and seconded by Councilman Brigham the meeting be adjourned to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday, March 22, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. ec submitted, Ro 10 -