AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 4 Since the initial facilitated discussion, staff also worked with both sides to (a) find appropriate professional appraisers and (b) bring together potential sources of funds to acquire all or a portion of the development property. Second Facilitated Discussion After the direct discussion about a purchase of the property, both sides requested a second opportunity to meet and continue to search for compromise. The neighborhood group was revised and two new neighborhood representatives were brought to the table. Mario Fausto and Bill Coleman joined Julie Abraham to represent the neighborhood interests at the working session on August 23. The meeting was held at City Hall and lasted two and a half hours. At the conclusion there was general agreement on four interrelated elements. 1. Set back houses 25' from the top of creek bank where possible. Specifically, move the houses on lots 3 and 4 completely out of the 25' line, and modify the house on lot 2 to reduce the area within the 25' setback (To move the house on lot 1 requires the loss of the redwood tree and the parties agreed the loss of the redwood tree was not desirable.) 2. Modify the setback and frontage of the two houses along Finger Avenue (lots 7&8) to more closely resemble the set back of adjacent houses and reduce the feeling of mass on the street. 3. Come to agreement with Owner/Developer on a purchase price and process for the sale of either lots 7 & 8 or lots 7 & 6 to a third party (or parties) from the neighborhood as undeveloped lots. 4. In order to ensure the survivability and propagation of native trees (oaks, redwoods, and bay laurels) and the protection of any biological resources (such as the White Tailed Kite) the City will consult and coordinate with both the Owner/Developer and a neighborhood group representative (potentially Julie Abraham) in the selection of appropriate Arborists and Biological Resource experts as part of the mitigation monitoring, and will communicate with both the Owner/Developer and neighborhood representative throughout the process. The City has a legal obligation to act independently and therefore will select the expert but would consult with Owner/Developer and neighborhood prior to making its final decision. The parties agreed to work on the acquisition portion of the agreement between the meeting and the City Council meeting of September 10. Because the parties understand that the lots are considered part of the overall development proposal, it is not essential that a deal be reached prior to the Council meeting. Staff is not privy to the private negotiations, but anticipates that the parties will strive to create a letter of