CC_Minutes_2016_0711 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 11, 2016 Page 9 of a particular development; or if the intent was to replace trees lost due to devel- opment and replacement elsewhere. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of a%z mile distance in both the poli- cy and ordinance. Councilmember Etten thanked staff for working with the City Council to make adjustments to better clarify wording in both documents. In Attachment D, page 2, Item c(line 46), Councilmember Etten asked for a defi- nition of "difficulty," opining the current language appeared too broad to him as it related to the "expenditure radius." Councilmember Etten suggested revised lan- guage that wasn't as vague, such as: "Consideration shall be given to broadening the expenditure radius if [' J[it is difficult to find tree lo- cationsJ within the %2 mile radius." Also, on the same page, Item D(lines 48 — 51), Councilmember Etten addressed staff time involved, should multiple neighbors need to meet with staff around a development site to address types or sizes of trees. Councilmember Etten ques- tioned if it was more appropriate to have development contractars responsible for the time-consuming work with the neighborhoods, making that part of their bid. Councilmember Etten stated his concern was the amount of staff time involved. In accordance with the proposed policy and city receipt of funds, Mr. Paschke clarified that there would need to be some staff time, with the obvious staff being from the Planning Division. Mr. Paschke noted this would be subsequent to con- tractor involvement once the city accepted those funds and the city's responsibil- ity going forward at that point as recipient of the funds for their expenditure. Mr. Paschke noted the only other option would be for the city to hire a tree consultant to take over that responsibility, but questioned how that would be funded. Councilmember Etten referenced the specific note for "landscape contractors" to bid on a final plan for replacement (line 49) and how that involved the previous discussion. Ms. Collins clarified that initially the burden was on the developer to initiate a di- alogue with adjacent neighbors, but as the fee was paid by the developer to the city, the Planning Division would need to be tasked to find sites and subsequently approach property owners. Ms. Collins noted each situation would need impact determination on a case by case basis as it related to staff capacity. Ms. Collins noted that if the tree replacement involved public improvement projects under- way, it wouldn't tax staff too much, but agreed there would be some cases that may involve considerable staff time. Ms. Collins advised that staff would monitor their time and make recommendations to the City Council as the policy developed and any changes that were needed in the process or fees.