Loading...
CC 09-16-68 CITY Ok' CUPERTINO, State of California 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California Phone: 252-4505 95014 Mlt.1JTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE C[TY COUNCIL HELD SEPTEMBER 1(" lè"~ U¡-,THE COUNCIL CIlfJm:;rtf;, CITY HALL, CUPEL:TINO, CALIFOIU:L'. The meeting ~~G called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mayor Noel, who subsequently l~d the aSDemblage in the flag Dùlute. Councilmen present: Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes (8:48 p.m.), Noel. Also present: City Attorney Anderson: City Manager Storm; City Clerk - Finance Director Ryder; Director of Public Works Finn~y; Engineer Viskovtch att"nding for City Engineer Boyd; Senior Plann<>r Laurin; Assistant Planner Nuzum; Chief Building Inspector Benevich; Director of Parks and Recreation Parham; Recording Secretary Lucie M. Matzley. Councilman Beaven moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously to approve the minuteD of th0 September 3, 1963 meeting as printed. City Clerk Ryder advised the Council of the following written commu- nications: 1. Advice from the League of California Cities requesting that each city designate a voting delegate and a voting alternate for the meeting to be held in October; 2. Advice from John W. Hanahoe requesting that the appeal on the Planning Commission's denial of Application 15-Z-68 under "Public Hearings" be withdrawn; 3. Letter from Mrs. Frank W. Pursell, Jr., relative to the above appeal; 4. Petition signed by 734 area residents, submitted by Donald H. Diehl, requesting that the City Council re-open the public hearing on the high-rise apartment development. Councilman Dempster moved, Councilman Beaven seconded and it was passed unanimously to designate Mayor Noel as voting delegate and Councilman Fitzgerald as alternate to the League of California Cities. Councilman Dempster moved, Councilman Beaven seconded and it was pasaed unanimously to remove the John W. Hanahoe appeal matter from this and subsequent agendas. Since the petition from the citizens opposed to the hi.gh-rise apart- ment development w~s in direct relation to a listed agenda item, the Council agreed to hear this matter at that time. An additional written communication was handed the City Clerk at this point. This communication was in the form of a petition and requesting that the Rl zoning on the triangular area of land between Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino Road and Foothill Bou- levard be maintained. CC-25 call to order flag salute roll call ,,",j,nutes approved ritten communications delegates designated 15- Z- 68 appeal matter removed earing deferred etit10n elivered I I page 2 letters filed audience comments reading deferred audience statement planning present- ation 20- TM- 68 approved 21-TM-68 approved 19-~68 approved h control present- ation Minutes of the City Council September 16, 1968 CC- 25 Written Communications cpnt'd Councilman Beaven moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously to file the balance of the communications. When Mayor Noel called for audience communications, Mr. Donald Diehl stated that he wanted to read a letter which related to the Maryknoll appeal matter under "Unfini,shed Business". Councilman Dempster moved, Councilman Beaven seconded and it was passed unanimously to hear the reading in conjunction with the listed agenda item. Mr. Bernard Ponseggi of 22350 Cupertino Road, Manta Vista, stated that the petition as submitted relative to the wishes of the area residents to maintain the rBzo~iri~0 in that area was not restricted to the Hanahoe appeal but for all future rezoning requests. Report of Commissions A. Planning Commission Iplanning Commission Chairman Frolich presented the minutes of the September 9, 1968 meeting of the Planning Commission and briefly ,eXPlained the actions taken relative to each listed application. ,councilman Dempster moved, Councilman Beaven seconded and it was ¡passed unanimously to approve Application 20-TM-68 as per Planning ¡Commission Resolution No. 563. Councilman Dempster moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was ;passed unanimously to approve Application 21-TM-68 as per Planning ¡COmmiSSion Resolution No. 565. Councilman Dempster moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously to approve Application 19-TM-68 as per Planning Commission Resolution No. 559. B. Architecture and Site Control Committee 'H Control Chairman Small presented the minutes of the September 11, 1968 meeting of H Control and briefly explained the action taken relative to each application. discussions"Applications 348-HC-68, 358-HC-68 and 365-HC-68 were briefly discussed bY the Councilmen. , H Control Chàirrnan Small reiterated the Committee's feelings relative to Application 369-HC-68, emphasizing that one pole sign advertising the entire Oakmont Square facility would be more advantageous than a lot of individual signs as might be applied for by the various shopping center tenants. points emphasized I Minutes of the City Council September 16, 1968 H Control minutes cont'd Councilman Fitzgerald moved to approve Applications 348-HC-68, 358-HC-68, 365-HC-68, 369-HC-68 and 372-HC-68. Councilman Beaven seconded with the provision and understanding that the applicant for Application 369-HC-68 agrees not to apply for any additional signs fo~ this shopping center even though these signs might be allowable under the Ordinance. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes, Noel Noes: None Absent: None C. Parks and Recreation Commission There had been no meeting of this Commission; no minutes were presented. Public Hearin ;\s A. Appeal from John W. Hanahoe had previously been removed from this and any other subsequent agenda. E. Application 19-Z-68: Claude T. Lindsay, Inc., for rezoning from Residential Single-Family 10,000 sq.ft. lots (RI-IO) zone to Residential Single-Family 7,500 sq. ft. lot (Rl-7.5) zone; appro~imately 3.3 acres located east side of Randy Lane between Forest Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard; Ordinance No. 414. There were no audience comments. Councilman Dempster moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded to close the public hearing. CC- 25 page 3 h control applications approved with minutes and proviso parks no minutes publ.hearings 15- Z- 68 removed 19-~68 legend no comments p.h. closed City Attorney Anderson cautioned that staff reports should be prior to closing the public hearing since these reports might additional audience comments. obtained induce, counsel cautions There were no further comments from the staff. The motion to close the public hearing passed unanimously. Ordinances 1. First reading of Ordinance No. 414: Legend as listed under "Public Hearings. Item B., Application 19-Z-68" above. Councilman Dempster moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously that the Ordinance be read by title only and that the Mayor's reading of same cOnstitutes a first reading. no staff report motion passed ordinances Ord. 414 Urst reading page 4 Ord. 002 ,:.2. .!Q:1l legend request for joint meeting matter continued Ord. 002 (<I-I) first reading Ord. 412 legend Ord. 412 enacted Ord. 413 legend Ord. 413 enacted Minutes of the City Council September 16, 1968 CC-25 Ordinances cont'd First reading of Ordinance No. 002 (0-2), providing for the rédàction of the minimum area requirement of a Planned Development to not less than 15 (fifteen) acres and amending Ordinance 002 (0). Since this Ordinance had been referred back to the City Council by the Planning Commission with the recommendation that the minimum area of a Planned Development be reduced to not less than fifteen acres, Councilman Dempster felt that the City Council and the Planning Commission members should be afforded an opportunity to jointly discuss this matter at an adjourned ;c.c."'t:i,ng prior ~oa listed reg.ular meeting. Councilman Dempster moved to continue discussion of Item VIlA. 2. to 7:30 p.m. on the night of the next meeting of the City Council. Council~ man Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously. 3. First reading of Ordinance No. 002 (q-l): establishing require- ments for off-street parking. Councilman Dempster moved, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed unanimously that the Ordinance be read by title only and that the Mayor's reading of same constitutes a first reading. 4. Second reading of Ordinance No. 412: prohibiting gambling or the keeping, conducting or maintaining of any house, room, apartment or place of gambling in the City of Cupertino, prescribing penalties for the violation thereof and fixing effective date therefor. Councilman Dempster moved enactment, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes, Noel Noes: None Absent: None 5. Second reading of Ordinance 413: providing for the abatement and removal as public nuisance of abandoned, wrecked, dis- mantled or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof from privet.cor 'Public property not including highways, and recovery of costs of administration therefor as authorized by Section 22660 of the Vehicle Code. Councilman Dempster moved enactment, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes, Noel Noe s: None Absent: None Minutes of the City Council September 16, 1968 Resolutions 1. No. 1687: approving final map of Tract No. 4245; accepting certain drives, places, avenues and roads; authorizing the City Rngineer and the City Clerk to sign the final map; and authorizing execution of the agreement in connection therewith. Councilman Beaven moved approval, Councilman Dempster seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes, Noel Noes: None Absent: None 2. No. 1688: authorizing the City Manager to act in behalf of the City Council as proponent in matters related to the annexation of territory. Councilman Dempster moved adoption, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes, Noel Noes: None Absent: None 3. No. 1689: authorizing execution of an agreement with the City of Saratoga establishing a common boundary. Councilman Dempster moved adoption, Councilman Fitzgerald seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes, Noel Noes: None Absent: None 4. No. 1690: approving final plan for the improvement of frontage of east side of Highway 85 north of Bollinger Road, authorizing the City Engineer to sign the final plan; and authorizing the execution of the agreement in connection therewith. Councilman Dempster moved for adpption, pending receipt of the im- provement bond. Councilman Fitzgerald seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes, Noel Noes: None Absent: None CC-25 page 5 resolutions Res. 1687 adopted Res. 1688 adop te d Res. 1689 adopted Res. 1690 adopted pending bond receipt 5. No. 1691: payroll for the period ending September 15, 19,68. Res. 1691 City Treasurer Fitzgerald presented the payroll. Councilman Beaven moved for adoption, Councilman Dempster seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes, Noel Noes: None Absent: None adopted page 6 Res. 1692 adopted unf.bus. candy rock manager suggests deferral Minutes of the City Council September 16, 1968 cc- 25 Resolutions cont'd 6. No. 1692: miscellaneous and general expenditures. City Treasurer Fitzgerald presented the list of expenditures. Councilman Dempster moved for adoption, Councilman Beaven seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fitzgerald, Stokes, Noel Noe s: None Absent: None Unfinished Business A. Appropriate action to be taken relative to the Candy ROck Development. City Attorney Anderson asked that the City Manager make a report on this matter. City Manager Storm stated that it would be advantageous to defer this matter to a later time pending receipt of a completed package from the developer of the project, thus eliminating the necessity to expend public funds for the completion of the development. Since it was Attorney Anderson's suggestion not to have the City install candy rock the improvements but to defer the matter pending completion of the matter post-balance of the project, Councilman Dempster,,¡nov,edto continue Item VIllA. poned for thirty days. Councilman Beaven seconded and it was passed unanimou~ly. 17-~68 appeal - legend mayor's statements p.h. re- opened with directive staff report B. Appeal by Maryknoll Construction Company and Suburban Associates for the denial by Planning Commission on August 12, 1968 of Application 17-Z-68: rezoning of approximately 20,5 acres located west of Lockwood Drive between Voss Avenue and Alcalde Road from Agricultural Residential (AI-IO) zone to a Multiple Hig~density Residential (RJ-2.2*) zone. Mayor Noel reiterated that the public hearing had been closed during the previous meeting of this body; however, since it had been the City Attorney's opinion that additional staff reports might influence audience comments, he requested a decision from the Council members relative to the re-opening of the public hearing. u Councilman Dempster moved, Councilman Stokes seconded and it was passed unanimously to re-open the public hearing asking, however, that comments be kept to a minimum by designating a spokesman for both the opposition and the proponents, and not to duplicate statements. When asked to do so, Director of Public Works Finney stated that, according to instructions received from the City Council, he had researched all inherent matters relative to this proposal. Mr. Finney said that, basically, four areas of concern had previously been discussed: insufficient water supply for the area; lack of sanitary sewer facilities; an additional traffic burden on existing roads; and incorporation of this area into the Master Plan. Minutes of the City Council September 16, 1968 Appl. 17-Z-68 appeal cont'd Mr. Finney emphasized that , with the proposed installation of the water tank, the area would have sufficient water; that the Sanitary District had provided sufficient facilities for any and all multiple dwellings that might be constructed in this area; that recent traffic counts had shown sufficient existing streets to handle this additional vehicular traffic generated by the proposed development; and that the area development was a Planning Commission matter and would be Master planned in the future. Mr. Finney contended that all matters could be solved adequately and that the Public Works Department could not foresee any problems. Mr. Donald Diehl of 1055 Cordova, Cupertino, addressed the Council stating that the opponents did not have a formal organization and that he could not represent the entire opposing citizenry. Also, that the submitted signatures did not represent a petition but merely a list of , people opposing the construction of the high-rise. Mr. Diehl outlined that national attention had been given the density problem and read a letter submitted by the Committee for Green Foot- hills and addressed to the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Cupertino, which letter emphasized that the proposed high-rise structure was not only contrary to Cupertino's Master planning, had been denied by the City's Planning Commission, but also that cluster developments should not be permitted in the foothills. Mr. Diehl stated that this letter concurred with his feelings on the matter as he was concerned about this change of zoning which is not in the Master Plan; this development did not qualify under the minimum acreage rule; that an irrevøcable precedent would be set; that the City staff:s opinion was not valid since they were not actual residents of the area under discussion; that considerations such as taxes should warrant an additional study; that time should be allowed to afford alternate proposals; that the tax base should show all the costs involved, sQch as grading problems and the like; and that a great number of residents in that area had moved there to escape the high density in evidence elsewhere. Mr. Diehl also asked that additional time be granted prior to a final decision in order to afford in-depth study of all aspects. City Attorney Anderson stated that Ordinance II. A., Section 6.012 specifies no time limit in which the City Council can reach a decision on the application; however, that this matter had been before the Council previously, had been duly processed, and that it was left to the discretion of the Council members to either render a decision at this time or continue the matter for a specified time. I ¡ CC- 25 Ipage 7 in-depth study by staff cited presentation of opposition let ter read points of opposition defined counsel cites ordinance provision page 8 audience comments present- ation by architect legality questioned p.h. closed ~~ opinion rendered prOject status inquiry suggestion for continuance points reiterated Minutes of the City Council September 16, 1968 CC-25 Appl. 17-Z-68 appeal cont'd Mr. Grantin Hogan of 11067 Monta Vista Drive stated that he was against this proposal because of the considerations mentioned by staff and not because of the specific proposal which, in his opinion, was well thought-out and attractive. Mr. Hogan maintained that all watters researched by staff had been of a technical nature and did not reflect the feelings of the reSidents of the area. He suggested that study groups be permitted to research this matter further. Architect David Termohlen of 1670 El Camino Real, Atherton, the architect for the applicant, stated that the objections voiced by the Planning Commission in their denial of this application had been of a technical nature and, according to the staff report tonight, could be solved. He requested that the Council view this matter merely on the basis of the data submitted and upon the consideration that a definite time limit is involved. Mr. Dave Sayer of 10805 South Stevens Canyon Road, a member of the , audience, questioned if it was legally correct that a 51% opposition ¡by adjacent property owners to any proposal would not constitute a legal block, and requested that the City check into the percentage of the opposition to this proposal. Councilman Dempster moved, Councilman Stokes seconded and it was passed unanimously to close the public hearing. City Attorney Anderson stated that he knew of no such legal block rule of law and that the audience member might be thinking of a referendum which would need to generate from the entire citizenry of Cupertino and not merely from a Committee. Councilman Dempster asked the staff about the status of the foothill mapping project and was advised that the contract for this project had been let, the maps were being drawn up, and the maps should be delivered to the City by the end of this week. Councilman Dempster stated that, since the City had moved forward to some degree with the mapping of the foothills, this matter should be referred to staff for further examination and recommendation which could then be discussed through a public hearing by the Planning Commission, fully advertised, and be returned to the City Council after that time. It was Mr. Dempster's feeling that this would be the proper method to employ and that he would be more satisfied in having done the right thing in discussing the subject exhaustively. Councilman Stokes found himself in complete agreement with Councilman Dempster, reiterating that he had requested an exhaustive study of the foothills for quite some time, and that he was opposed to any major project in the foothills without such study. ~rther, that the members of the City Council had recognized the 1mportanc~ of a study for this area and had authorized the expenditure of public funds for the mapping of the foothills. Minutes of the City Council September 16, 1968 Appl. 17-Z-68 appeal cont'd Councilman Stokes emphasized that other projects had been denied in the past for reasons of not having this study available and, although he found himself somewhat excited about the proposed project, that an irrevocable trend would be set and it would not be in the best interest of the c~unity if the Council were to make a decision without being able to refer to the study of the hill areas. Councilman Fitzgerald agreed with his fellow Councilmen, but asked that a time limit be set for any possible continuance, stressing the fact that an indefinite waiting period would not be fair to the applicant. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he liked the proposal as sub- mitted and would agree to an additional two or three-week waiting period, but that he would not agree to an indefinite period of con- tinuance. Councilman Beaven stated that he was in basic agreement with his fellow Councilmen but specifically agreed that a specified time limit should be given for a possible continuance during which the adjoining areas could also be considered. Mayor Noel stated that he would not like to see the project turned down; he did feel, however, that it would be premature to render a decision now without the benefit of having viewed the foothill study. CC- 25 Ipage 9 councilman voices opinion Itime limit !,requested ¡ ! I j ¡councilman ¡ ¡agrees í i ¡ ¡ " mayor's opinion Councilman Stokes felt that this project was being viewed on the basis of its attractiveness and not on the basis of whether or not this was a good zoning for the area, and said that the Council had no assurance that the project would be developed exactly as it was shown on the renderings and that, although the applicant had repeatedly stated his willingness to conform to all conditions, the adherence thereto could caution not easily be enforced after an approval had been granted. Also, that ¡expressed this was not merely a decision to solve technical matters but to setting by a trend for the entire area and that aesthetic considerations should councilman be left out of a decision altogether as the prime consideration should be the zoning. It was Mr. Stokes' feeling that the matter had not been studied adequately to determine whether or not the City could subsequently live with the trend it was setting. Councilman Stokes moved to deny Application 17-Z-68, Councilman Dempster seconded. Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Stokes, Noel Noes: Councilman Fitzgerald Absent: None Mayor Noel called a recess at 9:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m. ! 17-Z-68 I denied ! o recess Mayor Noel inquired as to the status of the library matter and the im- provements of Blaney Avenue, and Bubb Road. He was advised that the library matter had status quo and that a meeting was planned with the inquiries principals to the Blaney Avenue matter later in the week, both of which matters would be reported to the City Council at their next meeting. page 10 new bus. bid r~sults Minutes of the City Council ,$ßPJ;gmbar 16, 1968 CC- 25 New Business City Clerk Ryder had previously submitted a written recap of the auto- motive equipment bid opening results. Mr, Ryder explained that seven agencies had checked out the bid forms, six had been returned, two of which were from local agencies. Councilman Dempster questioned if the low bidder was responsive, as he had not complied with the delivery date condition and asked the City Attorney for his opinion on the matter. ¡ !Attorney Anderson stated that if the Council decides that the low bid is non-responsive because of the non-conformity to a listed requirement, ¡the next lowest bidder would qualify. j ¡In re-emphasizing that difficulties had previously been encountered bid is ¡because of non-conformance to a stated requirement by a bidder, Council- non- ¡man Dempster moved to declare the Courtesy Chevrolet low bid non- responsive responsive. Councilman Fitzgerald seconded and it was passed,unanimously. question asked legal opinion Some discussion ensued on the subject of the bids having been submitted as unit proposals or as an integrated proposal, It then became the majority discussion opinion that the bid be awarded on the low net cost for all pieces of equipment as the bid proposal did not specify otherwise. bid award ,Councilman Fitzgerald moved to award the contract to the lowest bidder, Key Chevrolet agency, in the amount of $13,739.11. Councilman Dempster seconded. I Ayes: Councilmen Beaven, Dempster, Fit~gerald, Noel Noes: Councilman Stokes Absent: None ¡Mayor Noel reiterated an offer made by Mr. Gerald Puetz relative to park ,citizen participation of the financing for the park development in the discussio~western section of the City. In that connection, Mayor Noel felt that !the City should be provided with a temporary ball park, one that would ¡not be elaborate but merely provide a ball park for the citizens. ! suggestio costs reported ma tter to staff Councilman Dempster felt that this matter should be referred back to the Parks and Recreation Commission for further study, as he was not sure of what the Mayor had in mind as far as costs were concerned. Director of Parks and Recreation Parham reported on some preliminary reports he had assimilated relative to the initiation and costs for a ball park, itemizing the costs for all necessities to amount to some $20,000 to $23,000. It was the consensus that a staff report relative to this matter be requested and to place this item on the agenda for the next Council mee ting. directive Councilman Fitzgerald so moved, Councilman Stokes seconded and it was passed unanimously. page 12 parks pamphlets distributed clerk no further report request for further consideration due process of law emphasized Minutes of the City Council September 16, 1968 cc- 25 Report of Officers cont'd H. Director of Parks and Recreation ',;,- Pamphlets describing the City's Fall recreation program had previously been handed the Councilmen for their information and file. There was no further report. 1. City Clerk - Finance Director There was no report in addition to the previously submitted written departmental report. Mr. James W. Cooper, one of the principals of Suburban Associates, addressed the Council stating that, because of the rather abrupt decision to deny a high-rise apartment project of this magnitude, he would request the Council's indulgence in permitting this matter further study and possible re-consideration. Mr. Cooper said that there were several reasons for this request, not the least of which was the investment of some twelve million dollars by the principals to the proposal. Mr. Cooper maintained that during the last two weeks there had been a distinct change in the feeling toward the project by the Councilmen; he asked for a continuation of this matter to a later time. City Attorney Anderson stated that the City Council had followed his suggestion for a report from the staff, had re~opened the public hearing, had permitted the public to be heard and to comment on the points raised by the staff and that, in his understanding of the law, the applicant had received full and due process of this law. According to Attorney Anderson, there is no provision in the Ordinance by which this public hearing can be re-opened again as the people opposed to the construction had left the premises and the Ordinan~e does not allow for a re-hearing of the matter. Councilman Dempster stated that he would not object to a further study further study of this matter, but that he would like to receive the requested study welcomed and all additional information as the receipt of same could possibly render a change in circumstances. attorney cautions of possible suits In answer to questions by the applicant if the attorney for the applicant could make a statement, City Attorney Anderson cautioned that anything the applicant or his representative would say at this time might prejudice their own case. Mr. Anderson reiterated that the Council was merely interested in preventing the City's exposure to mandamus suits by people who are no longer present at this meeting and that there is no listed business matter before this Council at this time, but that the applicant could re-apply at any time since this City does not have a one-year limitation. This, then, would afford the City Council to grant a new hearing and the citizens an opportunity to be heard further. Minutes of the City Council September 16, 1968 Report of Officers A. City Treasurer There was no further report from the City Treasurer. B. City Manager Mr. Storm had previously submitted his written report to the members of the City Council; there was nothing further, C. City Attorney In quoting portions of the Los Angeles judicial district of the People vs. Green, Attorney Anderson stated that a landowner had been charged with a criminal complaint in maintaining a defective condition on his property that could be dangerous to persons or property. He had been tried, found guilty by a jury, and appealed the decision to the Appellate Court who had reversed the decision. This, in turn, was appealed with the re-affirmation of the original verdi~t. Mr. Anderson cited this case in connection with his research on the powers of the Council relative to the rights of property owners within the City. D. Director of Public Works There was no verbal report in addition to the written departmental report submitted earlier. E, City Engineer In the absence of City Engineer Boyd, Mr. Viskovich presented the written report of his department. Councilman Stokes moved, Councilman Dempster seconded and it was passed unanimously to authorize the City Engineer, by minute order, to inform the developer and his bonding company that the improvement bomds for Tract No. 2769, La Cresta Unit No.2, may now be retired. F. Director of Planning There was no report from that department. G. Chief Building Inspector There was no written report. At this point, Mr. Cooper, a principal to the previously denied appeal of the Maryknoll Construction Company proposal, asked to be heard prior to adjournment. The Council agreed. cc- 25 page II treasurer' no report manager report submitted attorney complaint cases cited pub 1. works no report engineer report submitted 51,002 minute order approval planning no report building no report request for recognitiC" Minutes of the City Council September 16, 1968 Councilman Stokes stated that if it was the applicant's feeling that there had been a decided change in the thinking of the Council, he might not have correctly understood, and probably read into, the com- ments made by the Councilmen. In view of the City Attorney's remarks, Councilman Stokes suggested adjournment, Councilman October 7, mously, Fitzgerald moved for adjournment to 7:30 p.m. on Monday, 1968. Councilman Stokes seconded and it was passed unani- The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p,m. APPROVED: ~ ~ of Cupertino ATTEST: ~~f2 CC-25 :page 13 misinter- pretation suggested adj ourned to special meeting adjournment