03/19/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUqCIL MINUTES - March 19, 1980 SPECIAL REPORTS (continued): 2. Reports of Ad Hoc Committees: none 3. Reports frcm the Planning Commission: Planning Commissioner Lachenbruch extended the invitation to CouncilmoTbers to attend the Planning Commission mee�tings. He felt this would contribute to better lines of communication between the Commission and the Council. Presentations from the Floor: none vv I I , D ID I City Attorney: a) Agreement with the firn of Harris, Kerr, Forster & Go. regarding Adobe C�k Site The City Attorney reported that the services being provided by Harris, Kearr, Forster & Go. would not be a duplication of an earLier report on the Adobe property that the Town had received. The earlier report was incomplete and lacking in information the Town needed. In response to a question reqarding costs, the City Attorney noted that any expenses incurred under Item 4 of the Agreement could be cleared first with the City Manager, if Council so wished to add this stipulation. MOTION SEMMED AM CARRIED: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Proft and passed OW unani�ously by all members present to adopt Resolution #1270 approving and authorizing em�ution of an agreement for financial consultant services between the City of the Town of Los Altos Hills and Harris, Karr, Ferster arri Ccmpae�y including clarification of additional expenses. On the subject of Adobe Creek, Mayor McReynolds asked the City Manager to formally contact prior members of the Club soliciting their interest in writing. Regarding the possible foreclosure of part of the land, the City Attorney reported that presently there was a temporary restraining order against tl-ds foreclosure and the hearing on this case had been postponed to mid-April. McReynolds asked that a report on Adobe Creek be put on the next Council agenda so that Councilmembers will be kept up-to-date on tl-ds issue. The City Attorney reported on a case presently pending in appellate court, namely, the Bownds Case which concerns the State Housing Guidelines. The Department of Housing considers these guidelines mandatory while the cities consider t1on as guidelines - the discretion up to the local agencies. If upheld as mandatory, this would be a severe blow to home rule. The housing quideline will be the test wli-Lher local goverrments have control over their zoning. The firm of Rutan & Tucker is representing the cities in this case and has asked for support from as many cities as possible. KYTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Perkins , seconded by McReynolds and passed unanimously by all members present to support the 'friends of the court' concept in the Bownds Case. AW -3-