2020_0511_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ATTACHMENT B 31 family lots, should the required amount of replacement trees be unattainable. In summary, these 32 changes accomplish the following: 33 Lower the cash-in-lieu maximum for single family lots from 10% to 5% of the assessed value 34 of the land, 35 Use assessed land value verse fair market value (assessed value is typically lower than fair 36 market value), and 37 Removes language regarding allowing replacement locations more than 1,000 feet from the 38 development site. 39 40 The changes related to the first two bullet points noted above aim to reduce the financial burden when 41 applying the cash-in-lieu fee (the main issue the Variance Board was faced with by two requests in 42 July of 2019). The change related to the third bullet point removes provisions that are nearly 43 impossible to coordinate for an indiviual property owner and are thus, never undertaken. While this 44 language is being removed from this section, the City still has the ability to plant trees in locations 45 greater than 1,000 feet from the develoment site by using funds accruedby the cash-in-lieu tree 46 replacement payments. The only difference is the City would undertake the planting verses the 47 applicant. 48 49 Staff finds these amendments likely accomplish the Planning Commission’s original goal of 50 considering revisions to the ordinance that would reduce and/or eliminate unreasonably high cash-in- 51 lieu payments. These amendments effectively reduce cash-in-lieu tree replacement payments by 50% 52 or more, but only for single family lots, which was the specific direction of the City Council.The 53 broader Council discussion can be found in Attachments B – G. 54 P UBLIC C OMMENT 55 At the time this RPCA was prepared, no public comments were recevived by Planning Division staff. 56 R ECOMMENDED A CTION 57 By motion, recommend the City Council adopt the draft Ordinance proposed by staff, amending 58 Section 1011.04.J.8 of the Tree Preservation and Restoration ordinacne, revising the requirements 59 related to Tree Replacement Locations. 60 A LTERATIVE A CTIONS 61 a. Pass a motion to table the item for future action. An action to table must be tied to the need for 62 clarity, analysis and/or information necessary to make a recommendation on the request. 63 b. Pass a motion recommending denial of the proposal. A motion to deny must include findings of 64 fact germane to the request. 65 66 Prepared by: Janice Gundlach, Community Development Director 67 Attachments: A. Draft Ordinance (for Council adoption) 68 B. March 9, 2020 RCA & Attachments 69 C. March 9, 2020 CC Minutes 70 D. February 10, 2020 RCA & Attachments 71 E. February 10, 2020 CC Minutes 72 F. November 25, 2019 RCA 73 G. November 25, 2019 CC Minutes Page 2 of 2