Agenda packet — Shasta Lake City Council, July 5, 2022

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA July 5, 2022

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
City Council Chambers
4488 Red Bluff Street
Shasta Lake. CA 96019
Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 6:00 PM
Mayor: Rick Kern
Vice Mayor: Matt Doyle
Council Members: Pamelyn Morgan, Janice Powell, Greg Watkins

OTHER WAYS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING
• Watch a livestream of the meeting online or view the recording any time after the meeting concludes at the following: cityofshastalake.org/meetings • Submit public comment by mail or email addressed to City Clerk, City of Shasta Lake, PO Box 777, Shasta Lake, CA 96019 or [email protected]. Mailed and emailed comments must be received one day prior to the meeting to be included. 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER – REGULAR MEETING:

Call to order (please place electronic devices on silent) Statement for the record of Council Members present or absent Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation
AWARDS & RECOGNITIONS:

1. Proclamation recognizing July as Park and Recreation Month.

The Brown Act prohibits the Council from taking action on any item not placed on the Agenda in most cases. The Brown Act requires any non-confidential documents or writings distributed to a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours before a regular meeting to be made available to members of the public at the same time they are distributed.

Should supplemental materials to be evaluated in the decision-making process be made available to the members of the legislative body at the meeting, seven (7) copies must be provided to the City Clerk who will distribute them.

Councilmembers are encouraged to contact the City Manager prior to the meeting with questions or concerns regarding any item on the Agenda so that their questions and concerns can be adequately addressed at the meeting.

Agenda packets are available for public review at City Hall, 4477 Main Street, Shasta Lake, CA during normal business hours of 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. weekdays, excluding holidays.

In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call (530) 275-7407. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting is requested to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA July 5, 2022
PRESENTATIONS: None
COMMISSION, COMMITTEE, AND OUTSIDE AGENCY REPORTS:

PUBLIC COMMENT:

This time is set aside for citizens to address the City Council on matters listed on the Consent Agenda as well as other items not included on the Regular Agenda. If your comments concern an item noted on the regular agenda, please address the Council when that item is open for public comment. Each speaker is allocated three (3) minutes to speak. Speakers may not cede their time. Comments should be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the City. Council discussion or action cannot be taken on items not listed on the agenda other than to receive comments. Speaker forms are available from the City Clerk, 4477 Main Street, Shasta Lake, on the City’s website, or at the back of the meeting hall. If you have documents to present to members of Council, please provide a minimum of seven copies.

CONSENT AGENDA:

The items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine business and will be voted on together by one motion unless a Council Member requests a specific item to be removed and discussed separately.

2. Acceptance of the June 7, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes. (page 1)

3. Acceptance of the June 21, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes. (page 5)

4. Ordinance approving Military Equipment Use Policy for the City of Shasta Lake. (page 8)

5. Information Item: (page 11)
Checks, E-Payments, and Wires
05/13/2022 $1,196,576.15
05/26/2022 $228,242.66
06/02/2022 $920,329.63
Payroll:
05/06/2022 $ 173,380.41
05/20/2022 $178,912.39
06/03/2022 $176,677.28
06/17/2022 $177,223.31
07/01/2022 $174,687.25
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA July 5, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS:

6. Public Hearing and possible action to approve a Resolution establishing a “Mitigation Fee In Lieu of On-site Tree Replanting” pursuant to Section 12.36.075 C of the City of Shasta Lake Municipal Code. (page 25)
REGULAR AGENDA:

7. Presentation from North State Planning & Development at Chico State Enterprise on the Community Economic Resilience Fund (CERF) and possible action to provide a letter of support for the Regional Convener and Fiscal Agent. (page 57)

8. Review and possible approval of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission’s recommendation for the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) parks projects and possible direction to staff for the hiring of a consultant to prepare the design and cost estimates. (page 61)

9. Discussion and possible designation of Voting Delegate(s) for the League of California Annual Business Meeting. (page 64)
STAFF COMMENTS:

CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REPORTS:

This is the time set aside for Council Members, who may so desire, to give brief comments or reports concerning City matters. The City Council may not enter into discussion on matters reported. Statements made by individual Council Members should not be interpreted as a statement of the City Council. The City Council only takes action by majority vote. • Brief reports by members of the Council regarding correspondence, events and/or meetings attended, and upcoming meetings/events.
• Suggestions/motions for future agenda items.
• In compliance with Assembly Bill 1234, Council will report on attendance at conferences/meetings/events where expenses are reimbursed by the City.

ADJOURNMENT:

Meetings are broadcast on the Wednesday following the meeting at 6:00 PM and the following Friday at 2:00 PM on Charter Channel 181. Videos of meetings are also available through the City website: www.cityofshastalake.org

PROCLAMATION
A CITY OF SHASTA LAKE MAYOR’S PROCLAMATION FOR

RECOGNITION OF JULY AS PARK AND RECREATION MONTH
WHEREAS, parks and recreation are integral parts of communities throughout this country, including the City of Shasta Lake; and
WHEREAS, parks and recreation promotes health and wellness, improving physical and mental health of community members; and
WHEREAS, parks and recreation promotes time spent in nature, which positively impacts mental health by increasing cognitive performance and well-being; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation encourages physical activities which promote active, healthy lifestyles; and
WHEREAS, our parks and natural recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our community and provide a place for children and adults to connect with nature and recreate outdoors; and WHEREAS, the City of Shasta Lake’s Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, City Council, and City Staff strongly support recreational opportunities.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Mayor, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Shasta Lake, that July is recognized as Park and Recreation Month.

Dated this 5th day of July, 2022
RICK KERN, Mayor
1 MEETING OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD TUESDAY JUNE 7, 2022 AT THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 4488 RED BLUFF ST, SHASTA LAKE, CALIFORNIA

6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER - Regular Session
Mayor Kern convened the regular meeting at 6:00 PM
Council Members present: Doyle, Morgan, Powell, Watkins, Kern Council Members absent: None
Pledge
Invocation

AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS:

1. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation congratulating Knauf Insulation on their 20th anniversary of operations in the City of Shasta Lake.

PRESENTATIONS:

2. Presentation by Peter Bonkrude, District Manager, Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control – Annual Report.

3. Presentation by Jason Peterson, Finance and Administrative Services Manager on Drought Water Rates.

COMMISSION, COMMITTEE, OUTSIDE AGENCY REPORTS:

Rose Smith, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission updated Council on recent meetings of the commission.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Brenda Wood commented on the Parks and Recreation meeting discussion regarding ARPA funds.

Jim Mark commented on wildfire issues and the need to do more for fire prevention.

Charles Fleming announced that he has been appointed to the Shasta County Building Board of Appeals.

CONSENT AGENDA:

4. Acceptance of the Minutes of the regular City Council meeting of May 3, 2022.

5. Acceptance of the Minutes of the regular City Council meeting of May 17, 2022.

6. Resolution designating “Authorized Agents” to engage with the Federal Emergency Management Administration and the California Office of Emergency Services. 2 Minutes – June 7, 2022

7. Resolution approving and adopting the revised fiscal year 2021-2022 Payrate Schedule for regular fill-time and regular part-time position titles and classifications.

Motion/Vote:

By motion made/seconded (Morgan/Watkins), and carried, the consent items were approved.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

8. Public Hearing and possible action on Resolutions for the Deer Creek Landscaping and Lighting Drainage Maintenance Districts.
a) Resolution approving the Engineer’s Report for the Deer Creek Manor Landscaping and Lighting District and for the levy and collection of assessments within such district for fiscal year 2022/2023 ad confirming diagrams and assessments pursuant to the provisions of Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code and as provided by Article XIII D of the California Constitution.

Motion/Vote:

By motion made/seconded (Morgan/Doyle), and carried, Resolution CC-2022-63 was approved. b) Resolution approving the Engineers Report for the Deer Creek Manor Drainage Maintenance District and the levy and collection of assessments within such district for fiscal year 2022/2023 and confirming diagrams and assessments pursuant to the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982.

Motion/Vote:

By motion made/seconded (Morgan/Powell), and carried, Resolution CC-2022-64 was approved.

9. Public Hearing for application submittal to the California Department of Housing and Community Development CDBG Program General Allocation.

Motion/Vote:

By motion made/seconded (Watkins/Doyle), and carried, Resolution CC-2022-65 was approved.

REGULAR AGENDA

10. Discussion and possible action on a Resolution for exception to the 180-day wait period, Gov. Code Section 7522.56 & 21224.

Motion/Vote:

By motion made/seconded (Watkins/Morgan), and carried, Resolution CC-2022-66 was approved

11. Discussion and possible action on a Resolution adopting updated or new Personnel Policy Section under Chapter 35, to be titled Cellular Phone Issuance and Stipend Policy.

Motion/Vote:

By motion made/seconded (Morgan/Watkins), and carried, Resolution CC-2022-67 was approved.

STAFF COMMENTS:

City Manager Jessaca Lugo informed Council that a large water balloon event is being planned to be held at Polf Park.

3 Minutes – June 7, 2022
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REPORTS:

Councilmembers reported on recent events and meetings they attended.

ADJOURNMENT:

With no further business, Mayor Kern adjourned the meeting at 8:13 pm.

_____________________________
TONI M. COATES, CMC, City Clerk
4 MEETING OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD TUESDAY JUNE 21, 2022 AT THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 4488 RED BLUFF ST, SHASTA LAKE, CALIFORNIA

6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER - Regular Session
Mayor Kern convened the regular meeting at 6:10 PM
Council Members present: Doyle, Powell, Watkins, Kern
Council Members absent: Morgan
Pledge
Invocation

AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS

1. Kim Smith was presented with a crystal award in appreciation of her service to the Shasta Lake community as Postmaster and community volunteer.

PRESENTATIONS:

2. Lt. Tyler Thompson provided an update on business break-in and illegal camps.

3. Todd Jones, President of the Shasta EDC gave a presentation.

4. Torrie Cardilino gave an update on the Veteran’s Village Project and provided notification to the governing body of the intent to apply for CDBG Super NOFA. Council offered no opposition.

5. James Takehara, Electric Utility Director, gave a general update on the State of California power outlook for summer of 2022.

COMMISSION, COMMITTEE, OUTSIDE AGENCY REPORTS:

Rose Smith, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission updated Council on recent meetings of the commission.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Jim Mark spoke regarding new water tank, body-cams, herbicides, and fire code enforcement.

CONSENT AGENDA:

6. Acceptance of the May 26, 2022 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission.

7. Acceptance of the June 9, 2022 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission.

8. Resolution approving the dedication and renaming of Field 1 (Shasta Field) at Bizz Johnson Park in the name of Mark Lillibridge. (Item taken out of order for discussion) 5 Minutes – June 21, 2022

9. Resolution CC-2022-68 approving the dedication of a memorial bench at the new dog park at Akard park in the name(s) of Robert and Betty Ferguson.

10. Resolution CC-2022-69 approving a 2-year Professional Services Agreement with the Economic Development Corporation of Shasta County (Shasta EDC).

Motion/Vote:

By motion made/seconded (Powell/Doyle), and carried, the consent items were approved with the exclusion of item 8.

8. Discussion took place regarding Resolution approving the dedication and renaming of Field 1 (Shasta Field) at Bizz Johnson Park in the name of Mark Lillibridge.

Motion/Vote:

By motion made/seconded (Powell/Doyle), and carried, Resolution CC-2022-70 was approved. Council Member Watkins voted No.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
REGULAR AGENDA:

11. Discussion and possible action to approve the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office Military Equipment Policy #704 by Ordinance – first reading.

Public Comment: Jim Mark spoke in opposition of the use of the equipment and his opinion that all officers should wear body-cams.

Motion/Vote:

By motion made/seconded (Watkins/Doyle), and carried, the Ordinance was read by short title only and moved to the second reading.

12. Discussion and possible action regarding Outside Agency Funding Requests for fiscal years 2022- 2023 and 2023-2024 and the Mayor’s recommendations.

Motion/Vote:

By motion made/seconded (Watkins/Doyle), and carried, the Mayor’s recommendations were approved with the addition of $1500 dollars per year (for 2-year period) added to the American Legion’s funding.

13. Discussion and possible action to approve Shasta Lake Dog Park as the name for the new dog park at Akard Park.

Motion/Vote:

By motion made/seconded (Powell/Doyle), and carried, Resolution CC-2022-71 was approved.

14. Discussion and possible action to approve the City of Shasta Lake two-year budget for fiscal years 2022/2023 and 2023/2024.

Motion/Vote:

By motion made/seconded (Watkins/Powell), and carried, Resolution CC-2022-72 was approved with a $250,000 adjustment for the HSIP Pedestrian Safety Project.

STAFF COMMENTS:

City Manager, Jessaca Lugo, reported that National Night Out would held on August 2nd and if there are no pressing issues the Council meeting will be cancelled that night. She also reported 6 Minutes – June 21, 2022
that she would provide information on the ribbon cutting event to be held at a future date for the Shasta Lake Dog Park. She reported on the success of a recent micro-chip event organized by the Animal Control Supervisor, Shad Boone.

CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS:

Councilmembers reported on recent events and meetings they attended.

ADJOURNMENT:

With no further business, Mayor Kern adjourned the meeting at 8:56 pm.

_____________________________
TONI M. COATES, CMC, City Clerk
7 ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE

APPROVING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY

FOR THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE
WHEREAS, the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement to the City pursuant to contract; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481, codified in California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by an ordinance adopting a “military equipment” use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. The term “military equipment” is defined in California Government Code section 7070; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481 allows the governing body of the City of Shasta Lake to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it makes specified determinations. The County of Shasta (“County”) has adopted a City of Shasta Lake (“City”) military equipment use policy which is found in the Sheriff’s Office Lexipol Policy, Section 704 (Lexipol Policy 704), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, Lexipol Policy 704 was published on the City of Shasta Lake’s internet website on June 16, 2022. In addition, Lexipol Policy 704 was presented by the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office to the City Council during a regular meeting open to the public. A meeting for public input was also held on May 6, 2022, in a previously publicized location open to the public.

That meeting was at the Larry Farr Community Center located at 4499 Main Street, City of Shasta Lake, California; and
WHEREAS, Lexipol Policy 704 meets the requirements set forth in California Government Code section 7070, subdivision (d) for allowing the funding acquisition and use of military equipment within the City of Shasta Lake.

The City Council of the City of Shasta Lake ordains as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council adopts and approves the military equipment use policy, otherwise known as the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office Lexipol Policy 704.

SECTION 2. In adopting and approving Lexipol Policy 704, the City Council makes the following findings:

A. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.

B. The Sheriff’s Office Lexipol Policy 704 will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
8 Ordinance No. _______
July 5, 2022

Page 2 of 3 ends

C. The military equipment identified in the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office Lexipol Policy 704 is reasonably cost-effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

D. The military equipment identified in the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office Lexipol Policy 704 is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

E. Prior military equipment use either complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

SECTION 3. Lexipol Policy 704 shall be made publicly available on the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office internet website and the City of Shasta Lake website for as long as the military equipment is available for use.

SECTION 4. The City Council shall review this Ordinance and Policy 704 at least annually and, in accordance with Assembly Bill 481, vote on whether to renew this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid for any reason, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or provisions be declared unconstitutional or invalid. The term “Ordinance” is intended to include all of the provisions of Lexipol Policy 704.

SECTION 6. All former ordinances and resolutions, or parts thereof, conflicting or inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby superseded by this Ordinance. The adoption of this Ordinance shall not in any manner affect any action or prosecution for violation of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, be construed as a waiver of any license, fee, or penalty required by or resulting from any such ordinance, or affect the validity of any bond (or cash deposit in lieu thereof) required to be posted, filed, or deposited pursuant to such ordinance. The term “Ordinance” is intended to include all provisions of Lexipol Policy 704.

SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force 30 days after its passage.

The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published as required by law.

9 Ordinance No. _______
July 5, 2022

Page 3 of 3 ends

DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______________________, by the City Council of the City of Shasta Lake by the following vote:

AYES: _______
NOES: _______
ABSENT: _______
ABSTAIN: _______
RECUSE: _______

CITY OF SHASTA LAKE
____________________________________

RICK KERN
Mayor
ATTEST:

By: _________________________________

TONI COATES
City Clerk

#2497
4874-0306-4357, v. 1
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 Report and Recommendations 6 Reviewed and Approved

City Manager

AGENDA ITEM
City Council
July 5, 2022, Agenda
TO: Jessaca Lugo, City Manager
FROM: Jim Hamilton, Annuitant Planner

DATE: July 5, 2022
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing an In-Lieu Tree Replacement Mitigation Fee and Program Pursuant to Shasta Lake Municipal Code (SLMC) Title 12, Section 12.36.075.C. “In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Contribution.”
FILE NO.: Rezone No. 20-01
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff requests that the City Council review the information provided in the staff report and attachments, open the public hearing, and consider any public comments received. Staff recommends the Council establish the “in-lieu tree mitigation” fee amount as set forth in the attached resolution.

BACKGROUND:

On October 20, 2020, the City Council adopted revisions to Chapter 12.36 “Tree Conservation” of the Shasta Lake Municipal Code. The ordinance modifications provided additional flexibility and direction in ordinance implementation. The amendments also addressed effectively balancing tree conservation with other development requirements. The foundation of the ordinance remains the community’s strong commitment to tree conservation. Changes that were adopted in the revised ordinance included:

• Updated “exemptions” that recognize the need for fire fuel management and improved fire prevention and community protection.
• Recognition of large trees over 36” DBH, and native oaks 24” DBH or larger, as “Heritage Trees” along with creating additional protections for these trees. • To facilitate more efficient project review and processing, the ordinance established a 2- tier review system based on a development projects scale. • Establishing administration of the ordinance through use of a Planning Commission approved implementation resolution.
25 • Establishing the foundation for alternative mitigation of trees which are lost as part of the development of property.

REPLACEMENT TREE PLANTING MITIGATION
Section 12.36.075.C “Alternative mitigation for tree replacement including payment of contribution in-lieu of tree planting” of the Municipal Code establishes the authority to adopt an “In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Contribution” to aide development projects in satisfying tree planting mitigation standards. The ordinance allows alternatives to on-site replacement tree-planting upon a finding that the alternate measure is consistent with the purpose and goals of the ordinance.

A mitigation fee in this case is not a mandated impact fee like infrastructure fees that are required of all new development. The use of the in-lieu fee contribution option would be a limited choice for property development since the ordinance requires trees to be conserved or mitigated onsite as the first option. The ordinance also stipulates that the approving authority must determine when replacement of trees onsite is not feasible or desirable. In such cases the authority could allow the payment of a mitigation fee were one to be adopted. Mitigation alternatives specifically allowed by the ordinance are:
• A 3:1 replacement tree credit for the protection of each heritage tree on a project site. • The permanent protection of trees on the property on land not otherwise designated as open space; and
• Payment of an “In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Contribution.” Since the mitigation fee option is not available today, alternatives which can be used to satisfy mitigation today include:

1. Saving or replanting additional trees onsite.

2. Planting trees at an approved offsite location with adequate protections in place. This can be a difficult alternative to achieve for smaller projects.

3. Permanently protecting lands through the recordation of conservation easements that contain adequate numbers of trees.

RECOMMENDED IN-LIEU FEE CONTRIBUTION
Attached for Council consideration is the “In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee Nexus Study.” This study is necessary to satisfy the provisions of CGC §66000, should the Council determine that adopting a mitigation fee is desirable. The study establishes a maximum mitigation fee amount for each tree to be planted or protected offsite as mitigation for Protected Trees that are removed for development. The contribution amount must be based upon the cost of purchasing, planting, monitoring and maintaining replacement trees.

The total mitigation required by the SLMC for loss of a protected tree is three (3) 15-gallon tree plantings (3:1 ratio). This ratio establishes the specific mitigation option which must be used in calculating the maximum justifiable fee amount. Based on the findings in the nexus analysis, the maximum justifiable fee contribution can be established at $489.00/per replacement tree planting. 26 The full 3:1 mitigation amount for a single tree would therefore be $1,467.00. The following table breaks down how these costs are generally allocated.

COST COMPONENTS Price
Tree Acquisition and Planting $335
Maintenance and Monitoring $131
Administration (5%) $23
Total Mitigation Cost per tree planting $489
A complete discussion on how the mitigation fee amount was developed can be found in the Nexus Study. In-lieu contributions would be collected prior to any tree removal, and after approval for use by the permitting authority. The City would utilize these funds to purchase, plant, maintain and monitor trees on public lands, or on private lands where appropriate protections have been established. If the Council chooses to adopt the program, the Planning Commission will craft the administrative procedures that govern the application and administration of the replanting program (See SLMC §Section 12.36.115 “Implementation”).

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Prior to adoption of the ordinance amendments in 2020, the City as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prepared and adopted a Negative Declaration (ND) with supporting Initial Study for the ordinance adoption. Notice of the availability of the Negative Declaration/Initial Study was provided as required by law. The notice of availability was also posted with the State Office of Planning and Research CEQA Clearinghouse.

Establishment of this program is a planning activity that is categorically exempt under Title 14 of the Cal. Admin. Code Section 15262 (feasibility and planning studies), and on a separate and independent basis is covered by CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, “Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.”
FISCAL IMPACTS:

None directly. As reflected in the attached resolution, the fee contribution amount includes a 5% administrative charge to offset administrative costs associated with the replacement tree planting program. The resolution also calls for an inflationary increase based on the CPI to be considered on an annual basis as is done today for other development related fees.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. City Council Resolution: Establishing the In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee Contribution and Program.

B. In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee Nexus Study (Attachment A to the resolution).

DISTRIBUTION:

City Council
City Attorney
27 RESOLUTION NO. CC-2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE

ESTABLISHING AN IN-LIEU TREE MITIGATION FEE CONTRIBUTION PROGRAM PURSUANT TO SHASTA LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE (SLMC) TITLE 12, CHAPTER 12.36 “TREE CONSERVATION”
WHEREAS, the General Plan of the City of Shasta Lake has been adopted to guide development in compliance with State Law; and
WHEREAS the Government Code allows the City to adopt ordinances and standards to reasonably control the development of property and to protect the environment consistent with the direction provided by the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has Adopted Chapter 12.36 “Tree Conservation” of the Municipal Code to provide for the protection and conservation of mature trees on developing properties where feasible, and for the mitigation for the loss of mature trees where necessary.

WHEREAS the City of Shasta Lake proposes to establish an “In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee Contribution” pursuant to the authority in Municipal Code § 12.36.075.C. “Alternative mitigation for tree replacement including payment of contribution in-lieu of tree planting.” WHEREAS the Nexus Study identifies a fee amount adequate to pay the full cost of the necessary mitigation for impacts to protected trees established in Chapter 12.36, including acquisition, planting, maintenance and monitoring of plantings, as well as necessary administrative functions, and this cost is reflected in Attachment “A” to this resolution.

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Government Code at least ten days prior to the date this Resolution was heard, data was made available to the public indicating the estimated cost, required to provide the mitigation for which the fee is being levied.

WHEREAS notice of the public hearing on the proposed mitigation fee was published twice in the Redding Record-Searchlight, a paper of general circulation as required by law in accordance with Government Code Sections 66018.

WHEREAS the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 5, 2022 and considered the entirety of the record and all public testimony that was provided regarding the proposed mitigation fee.

WHEREAS, prior to adoption of the enabling ordinance amendments in 2020, the City as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prepared and adopted a Negative Declaration (ND) with supporting Initial Study. Notice of the availability of the Negative Declaration/Initial Study was provided as required by law, and the notice of availability was also posted with the State Office of Planning and Research (CEQA Clearinghouse).

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that this planning activity related to implementation of Chapter 12.36 “Tree Conservation” is categorically exempt under Title 14 of the Cal. Admin.

Code Section 15262 (feasibility and planning studies), and on a separate and independent basis 28 is covered by CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, “Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.”

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I: The City Council makes the following findings and determinations in support of this action:

A. ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION FEE

1. The proposed fee will further the public necessity, convenience and general welfare because the establishment of the fee will fund replanting of trees lost to new development thereby reflecting the policy direction in the General Plan and the standards of the Municipal Code relative to the development of property. Establishment of the In-lieu Tree Mitigation fee will provide additional efficiency in the development review process, while also ensuring the replanting of trees for the benefit of property developers and the public.

2. The In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee Nexus Study (Attachment A) provides the information as required by Government Code Sections 66000 et. seq. that is necessary to support establishment of the maximum justifiable mitigation fee.

3. The In-lieu Tree Mitigation Fee will provide an additional tool to facilitate decision making and environmentally sound development of property as directed in the City of Shasta Lake General Plan and the Shasta Lake Municipal Code.

4. The proposed mitigation fee contribution would preserve and enhance the quality of life of residents by supporting development of a variety of living environments and accommodating additional community growth, but only within well-defined and understood limits intended to preserve and enhance the overall environment of the community. Use of the mitigation fee requires analysis which must be completed prior to action on development proposals that would result in the modification or loss of protected trees and the potential for related impacts to the environment.

5. The proposed mitigation fee contribution is consistent with the General Plan because it provides a mitigation option for public and private development proposals which is not available today. The development of new residential and non-residential land uses in the City may impact trees or result in a loss of existing trees. The In-Lieu Fees are calculated according to the impact of the development on protected trees and provides a means for development to occur while also achieving the environmental goals and objectives stated in the General Plan. The proposed fees will be used to acquire and maintain mature trees, and to acquire and plant individual replacement oak trees and maintain them for a period of 3 years, thereby furthering the City's overarching objectives and biological resources goals.

6. The establishment of the mitigation planting program will help to facilitate administration of the development review process by supporting:
a) The efficient and expeditious handling of planning matters based on specific standards and processes.
29 b) The timely and decisive action on permitting matters, benefitting the public and property owners.

7. As fully documented in Attachment A to this resolution, the proposed fee is in compliance with the applicable findings of Government Code Section 66001 et seq, including those relevant provisions of the Government Code related to the establishment of development exactions and fees. The required findings are fully discussed in the Study (Attachment A) and the following findings synopsize and/or add to those findings:
a. Government Section 66001(a)(l): Identify the purpose of the fee.

The In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee will be used for the conservation and/or replacement of Protected Trees that are lost to new development. This will promote the health, safety, and general welfare of City residents by protecting significant historical values of the community, by providing environmental benefits to both new development and existing residents, by protecting and enhancing the City's natural scenic beauty, and by complementing and strengthening zoning, subdivision and land use standards and regulations, while at the same time recognizing and facilitating individual rights to develop private property. The In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee is designed to fund mitigation of impacts to community tree resources within the boundaries of the Shasta Lake Planning Area through acquisition and/or conservation of trees or tree planting. The In-Lieu Fee is intended to pay the full cost of acquiring, managing, and monitoring trees, and to pay the full cost of planting and maintenance for a 3-year period.
b. Government Code Section 66001(a)(2): Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. The In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee will be used to acquire, plant or maintain trees through direct property acquisition or acquisition of conservation easements; to conduct maintenance and planting activities designed to ensure conservation and preservation of existing trees for the benefit of property owners and residents.

The In-Lieu Fee will also be used to acquire and plant individual replacement trees, and to perform maintenance activities that support tree planting and/or tree health for a period of not less than 3 years. The costs associated with the acquisition, planting, protection, and monitoring of replacement tree plantings, of maintenance and protection of existing trees, or of the establishment of tree conservation areas, are accounted for in the In-Lieu Fees.
c. Government Code Section 6600l(a)(3): Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. The mitigation fee program may be used by new residential and non-residential development where such development results in the loss of Protected Trees, and such loss cannot or will not be fully mitigated within the project boundary as required by the Municipal Code. The proposed InLieu Fee is calculated according to the impact of the development on tree resources on the project site. It provides a means for development to occur while also achieving the environmental goals and objectives required by the General Plan and Municipal Code. The proposed fees will be used to acquire or conserve other Protected Trees, or to acquire and plant individual replacement trees and maintain them for a period of 3 years, furthering the overarching General Plan objectives and goals, and satisfying the requirements of the Municipal Code relative to conservation or mitigation of trees lost to development. Therefore, a 30 reasonable relationship exists between the use of the In-Lieu Fees and new development that would pay the fees.
d. Government Code Section 66001(a)(4): Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. Each new development project that negatively impacts Protected Trees triggers a need for conservation measures to implement the overarching objectives and biological goals of the General Plan, and to satisfy the purposes, goals, and requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 12.36 “Tree Conservation.” Trees are considered “public facilities” and are eligible for development fee funding because the definition in Government Code Section 66000(d) states that public facilities include “public improvements, public services, and community amenities.” Community amenities are those that provide a public benefit, improvement or contribution that can enhance the quality of life for a community’s residents and businesses. It includes, but is not limited to, public spaces, land or an interest in land, affordable and/or special needs housing, and other facilities or improvements, which meet a range of social, environmental, cultural, recreational and infrastructure needs of the community. As documented in Chapter 12.36 “Tree Conservation” of the Municipal Code, trees are a community amenity because of the many environmental, health, and scenic benefits they provide.

8. The proposed mitigation fee is consistent with the City’s General Plan by supporting the adopted goals, objectives, policies and implementation measures including but not limited to the following:
a. Objective I-6. To ensure that administration of the planning process is characterized by: The efficient and expeditious handling of planning matters through the coordination and communication of the various departments and divisions of the City and other government agencies; and b. Objective FS-1. Protect development from wildland and non-wildland fires by requiring development to incorporate design measures responsive to the risk from this hazard.
c. Objective OSR-3. Establish, integrate, and maintain "natural" and "man-made" greenbelt areas along existing creeks, floodplains, natural open space areas, certain roadways, bike and trail systems.
d. Implementation FW-(6). Evaluate the establishment of procedures for reviewing development applications in, or adjacent to, NH (Natural Hazard) areas and for approving off-site mitigation to replace resources affected by development. e. Implementation FW-(1). Prepare a Best Practices Manual, including general development standards and resources management guidelines for all sensitive habitats found in the City. Standards and Guidelines should be developed for the following habitat types: oak woodlands, riparian woodlands, vernal pools, emergent wetlands, riverine habitats, and open water.
f. Objective LU-1. Promote a development pattern which will accommodate (growth), consistent with the other objectives of the (General) Plan, the growth which will be 31 experienced by City of Shasta Lake during the planning period (1999-2020), and as such period is extended by future revisions of the Plan.

B. Environmental Determination

1. The City of Shasta Lake Development Services Director conducted a review of this action on the possible environmental consequences of the proposed tree ordinance amendments which established the tree in-lieu fee mitigation option, which study was completed and made available for public review on or about July 7, 2020. A 30-day review period for the ND was initiated on July 7, 2020, with the submittal of a Notice of Availability/Completion and ND to the State Clearinghouse for public review and distribution to responsible, trustee, and public agencies with authority over the resources affected by the Project (SCH # 2020070102). The City Council adopted the Negative Declaration and related findings prior to action to adopt Chapter 12.36 of the Municipal Code.

2. This activity is categorically exempt under Title 14 of the Cal. Admin. Code Section 15262 (feasibility and planning studies), and on a separate and independent basis is covered by CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment. State of California CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15308, Class 8 “consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.”

3. The proposed project will not result in significant adverse impact on the environment as it is a regulatory action that will implement the General Plan providing improved permitting processes and mitigation opportunities. Projects which utilize the In-lieu Fee program remain subject to the substantive review requirements of CEQA.

SECTION II: Approves the establishment of the In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee and Program as outlined below and in Attachment A to this Resolution, subject to the following provisions.

1. The maximum justifiable in-lieu mitigation fee contribution is $489.00 per individual replacement tree planting.

2. The maximum justifiable fee for full mitigation as required by the Tree Conservation Ordinance for a “Protected Tree” is $1,467.00. (3:1 Replacement ratio).

3. Permittees shall pay an in-lieu fee contribution amount that is adequate to cover the capital and other costs for the required mitigation plantings of the project as determined necessary by the authority approving the development project.

4. To satisfy the intent and purposes of Chapter 12.36 of the Municipal Code, the fee amount shall be adjusted overtime as may be determined necessary by the City Council to reflect changes in market conditions and the effects of inflation on costs. This determination shall be made annually at the time and in the manner that other City development processing and/or impact fees are adjusted.

5. Site specific conditions at locations where replacement plantings occur are not known at the time this fee is established. These conditions may result in higher or lower 32 replacement tree planting costs on an individual project basis than used in calculating this fee.

6. There may be a significant delay between the time in which a development project pays its in-lieu fees, and the time at which the mitigation planting or related mitigation activities occurs. The City Council recognizes that this will occur because thoughtful mitigation requires adequate funding to support a tree planting or maintenance project at a costeffective scale. Therefore, where use of the in-lieu mitigation fee is authorized, payment and collection of the fee shall satisfy the purposes for which the fee is established.

7. It is generally not cost effective to plant a few individual trees at a time. Options to consider in addressing this issue are general fund loans or grant funding of mitigation projects to allow the financing of an entire project before adequate in-lieu fees are collected. In-lieu funds collected over time may then be used to repay the loans, or to provide the required grant match. The City Council may consider such funding options and or grants on a case-by-case basis when determined necessary by the City Manager or the City Council.

8. The implementing guidelines for collecting and use of the fee funds (see SLMC §12.36.115 “Implementation”) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission upon a recommendation of the City Manager, or their designee. The guidelines shall be sufficiently flexible to allow for the funding of a range of mitigation planting and tree maintenance options, and for the use of alternative mitigation measures such as purchase of conservation easements, and for the maintenance of existing at-risk mature trees to support their preservation.

9. Consistent with state law and General Plan Housing Element policies (Policy HE-1.5), the approving authority shall consider waivers of fee collection or other options in implementing the fee program for those projects which meet affordable housing requirements. The process for determining the appropriate application of such waivers shall be reflected in the program implementation resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, pursuant to applicable provisions of state law, the In-lieu Fee Rates set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, are hereby adopted and shall take effect no sooner than sixty (60) days from execution of the Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of July 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RICK KERN, MAYOR
ATTEST:

TONI M. COATES, CMC
City Clerk
Attachment A – City of Shasta Lake In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee Nexus Study 33 City of Shasta Lake
In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Fee
Nexus Study
Prepared by City of Shasta Lake Development
Services Department – Planning Division

June 2022
34 2 | Page
Table of Contents Page
INTRODUCTION 3
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 4 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................................. 5 PURPOSE OF IN-LIEU FEE CONTIBUTIONS ...................................................................................................... 6 ESTABLISHMENT OF FEE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT ....................................................................................... 7 COST STRUCTURE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THE FEE AMOUNT........................................................................ 8 NEXUS ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 9
• NEXUS FOR MITIGATION FEE AMOUNT ........................................................................................... 9 • UNIQUE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MITIGATION FEE 10
• ANALYSIS FINDINGS 10
o Analysis Question 1: Purpose of the Contribution 11
o Analysis Question 2: Use of the Contribution 13
o Analysis Question 3: Relationship Between Contribution Use and Development 13 o Analysis Question 4: Relationship Between Conservation Need and Development 14 o Analysis Question 5: Relationship Between Contribution Amount and Mitigation Cost 15 CONTRIBUTION CALCULATION 15
COMPARISON TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS WITH IN-LIEU FEE MITIGATION OPTIONS 18 FEE CONTRIBUTION CALCULATION EXAMPLES 20
RESOURCES 22
35 3 | Page

INTRODUCTION
This analysis has been prepared for the purpose of establishing an in-lieu tree replacement planting mitigation fee amount, which may be utilized in specified situations to provide mitigation for the removal and replacement of trees as set forth in Section 12.36.075 of the City’s Tree Conservation Ordinance which states:

12.36.075 - Alternative mitigation for tree replacement including payment of contribution inlieu of tree planting.

The approving authority may allow for a different tree-planting requirement as a condition of a discretionary permit or tree removal permit upon a finding that the alternate standard is consistent with the purpose and goals of this chapter. This may include but are not limited to the following:

A. Credit of three replacement trees for the preservation of each native heritage tree (such as mature valley oaks).

B. The permanent protection of land not designated as open space for tree preservation offset.

C. In-Lieu Tree Mitigation Contribution. The approving authority may determine that replacement of trees on site or within set-aside areas of the property are not feasible or desirable, and may allow the payment of a cash contribution based upon the cost of purchasing, planting, and irrigating replacement trees, or for use in maintaining existing trees anywhere within the city, in a number equivalent to that required by Section

12.36.070. The cost of purchasing, planting, irrigating and maintaining a fifteen (15) gallon replacement tree of an appropriate replacement species shall be established by resolution of the city council. Such contributions shall be placed in a fund specifically established for this purpose. Such fund shall be used by the city to purchase, plant, irrigate, protect, and maintain replacement trees; or to protect and maintain existing trees within the city for the benefit of residents and visitors. (Ord. No. 20-284 , § II(Att. A), 10-20-2020) An in-lieu fee contribution program involves the restoration, establishment, enhancement and/or preservation of resources through funds paid directly to the City to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements for permits. An in-lieu fee program in essence sells “advance credits” to permittees who purchase these credits. The preference is always to provide mitigation on-site and then by planting near the subject property where feasible. In some cases, planting on-site is not feasible as there is not enough physical space to plant the required trees in a manner ensuring long-term survival. In these cases, permittees may request the ability to pay a mitigation fee in-lieu of replanting on-site. If payment in-lieu of planting is permitted by the facts of the situation, the fee payment goes into a fund established specifically for that purpose.
36 4 | Page

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
This analysis reflects an identification and evaluation of the various cost factors that must be considered to implement the provisions of Section 12.36.075.C. of the Shasta Lake Municipal Code (SLMC). The analysis has been developed utilizing local information and information from similar analyses conducted for municipalities in California, as well as from knowledgeable local professionals in the landscaping field.

It follows the approach for establishing development impact and processing fees as reflected in California Government Code (CGC) 66000, et seq. Use of this in-lieu fee would be voluntary by a property owner or developer – hence the use of the term “fee contribution” in this report.

However, answering the questions required to establish an impact fee ensures the in-lieu mitigation fee contribution is established in a legal, thoughtful and well documented fashion. The answers to these questions as documented in this analysis have established the following recommendations and facts.

1. The maximum justifiable in-lieu mitigation fee contribution pursuant to the Municipal Code requirements is $489.00 per required individual replacement tree planting.

2. The maximum justifiable fee for mitigation as required by the Tree Conservation Ordinance for removal of a “Protected Tree” is $1,467.00.

3. Permittees should pay an in-lieu fee contribution amount that is adequate to cover the capital and other costs for the required mitigation plantings.

4. To satisfy the intent and purposes of Chapter 12.36 of the Municipal Code, the fee amount should be adjusted overtime to reflect changes in market conditions, and the effects of inflation on costs.

5. The cost of individual mitigation tree planting or tree maintenance projects funded by the fee will vary relative to labor, materials and other cost at the time a planting project is commenced, as these costs are not static in time.

6. Site specific conditions at locations where replacement plantings occur are not known at the time the fee is established. These conditions may result in higher or lower replacement tree planting costs on an individual project basis than used in calculating this fee.

7. There may be a significant delay between the time in which a development project pays its in-lieu fees, and the time at which the mitigation planting occurs. This is a common issue when using funding from in-lieu fees for replacement plantings. This occurs because thoughtful mitigation requires adequate funding to support a tree planting or maintenance project at a cost-effective scale.

8. It is generally not cost effective to plant a few individual trees at a time. Options to consider in addressing this issue are general fund loans or grant funding of mitigation 37 5 | Page
projects to allow the financing of an entire project before adequate in-lieu fees are collected. In-lieu funds collected over time may then be used to repay the loans, or to provide the required grant match.

9. The implementing guidelines for collecting in-lieu fee funds (see SLMC §12.36.115 “Implementation”) should be sufficiently flexible to allow for the funding of a range of mitigation planting and maintenance options, or the use of alternative mitigation measures such as purchase of conservation easements or maintenance of existing trees to support their preservation.

10. Consistent with state law and General Plan Housing Element policies (Policy HE-1.5), the City Council should consider waivers of fee collection or other options in implementing the fee program for those projects which meet affordable housing requirements.

BACKGROUND
On October 20, 2020, the Shasta Lake City Council adopted comprehensive revisions to Chapter

12.36 “Tree Conservation” of the Shasta Lake Municipal Code (SLMC). The ordinance was first adopted in 2004, and the most recent revisions were adopted to:
• Protect the public and property from the potential for catastrophic wildfires. • Protect and enhance the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the community provided by both native and non-native trees.
• Preserve the city's valuable natural features wherever feasible and not in conflict with adopted development standards.
• Protect trees on developed and undeveloped properties from unnecessary damage or removal.
• Require the reasonable replacement or mitigation for Protected Trees that are removed. • Establish a range of mitigation strategies to offset the loss of trees when required for new development that is otherwise consistent with the General Plan. This includes, but is not limited to, allowing for payment of in-lieu contributions to support the offsite planting, replanting, or maintenance of trees in parks, natural areas, or other developed locations within the city limits. (Ord. No. 20-284 , § II(Att. A), 10-20-2020) As reflected in SLMC Chapter 12.36, tree conservation and maintaining a substantial urban tree canopy is a community priority. While the ordinance recognizes on-site tree conservation standards must be balanced with other important development requirements, the foundational goal of the ordinance remains tree preservation and protection when feasible. Replacement tree planting at offsite locations is one alternative that is available when opportunities for on-site preservation or mitigation planting are not practical or possible. 38 6 | Page

PURPOSE OF IN-LIEU FEE CONTIBUTIONS
Concerns about the loss of urban forests and tree canopy coverage have led many cities, including Shasta Lake, to seek land use approaches that encourage the preservation of mature trees on developed properties. When this is not possible, many communities seek to offset the loss of trees through the planting of replacement trees, or the preservation of treed open space areas where possible. This is necessary because of the many community benefits provided by trees including shade, cooling, noise and wind reduction, soil stabilization, greenhouse gas reduction, protection of surface water quality, aesthetic value, air filtering and release of oxygen, benefits for wildlife and the area's ecology, and because of their economic enhancement to property.

The “in-lieu” mitigation fee option studied in this analysis is intended to provide an additional tree mitigation path for projects, when after utilizing all available on-site preservation or replanting options, other methodsfor additional tree plantings must be found to achieve consistency with the General Plan and Municipal Code.

Specifically, the purposes of this in-lieu fee contribution are:

1. To support the public health, safety, and general welfare through the conservation and planting of trees on public and private property.

2. To conserve trees on development sites where feasible, or to replant when not possible, preferably with native species.

3. To promote, maintain and enhance the urban tree canopy throughout the community where feasible and appropriate. This is to be accomplished through:
a. The preservation of existing native trees where feasible and consistent with other development requirements.
b. The replacement or transplanting of trees where appropriate and feasible. c. The phasing of development to reduce impacts to trees and the forest canopy when possible; and
d. The planting of trees as needed in locations, number, and type that is compatible with local conditions.

4. To balance the on-site preservation or replacement of trees with other needs related to responsible development of private property and compliance with municipal infrastructure and land use standards. This balance includes the need to provide protection from wildfire, ensure development and maintenance of well-designed infrastructure, and to produce adequate housing, commercial and industrial development for the benefit of the citizens of the city.

In adopting the Tree Conservation Ordinance that established the in-lieu mitigation fee option, the City Council recognized that it may not be physically possible to replace all trees within the on-site boundary of individual development projects. The Council considered creation of the in-lieu 39 7 | Page
mitigation fee contribution as necessary to satisfy General Plan policy direction intended to ensure that administration of the development permitting process is characterized by “..the efficient and expeditious handling of planning matters through the coordination and communication of the various departments and divisions of the City and other government agencies” (General Plan Policy I-6).

ESTABLISHMENT OF FEE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT
The authority for the in-lieu mitigation fee option is established in Section 12.36.075 of theTree Conservation Ordinance. As stated previously, the fee contribution is intended as one alternative mitigation path for projects when required on-site replacement planting is not feasible due to the physical or other constraints of the property being developed. Section 12.36.075 reads as follows:

12.36.075 - Alternative mitigation for tree replacement including payment of contribution in-lieu of tree planting.

A. Credit of three replacement trees for the preservation of each native heritage tree (such as mature valley oaks).

B. The permanent protection of land not designated as open space for tree preservation off-set.

COST STRUCTURE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THE FEE AMOUNT
To achieve compliance with the purposes and goals of Chapter 12.36 “Tree Conservation” and state law, the amount of the in-lieu fee contribution must reflect the reasonable cost of planting, maintaining, and monitoring replacement trees planted in accordance with the standards provided in Chapter 12.36. The list below identifies the basic elements of ensuring each tree replacement planting is successful.

For purposes of this analysis the contribution amount is based on the cost of the following:
1) Acquisition and planting of a new 15-gallon tree (equivalent to 1” diameter at standard height or DBH).
2) Maintenance and monitoring over a three-year period; and 3) The on-going cost of administration and management of the replanting program.

The mitigation plantings must be tracked over time to ensure the goals of the ordinance are met, and the necessary mitigation is successfully accomplished. For this analysis, a minimum monitoring period of three (3) years has been utilized for cost calculation purposes. A timeframe of 3 to 5 years is a period utilized in most jurisdictions for monitoring.

The general tasks associated with replacement planting activities that are generally required are listed below:

Planting and Monitoring:
• Site acquisition and/or planting rights.
• Site preparation.
• Tree stock acquisition.
• Planting plan development including due diligence survey/analysis of the planting site. • Excavation and physical planting of tree.
• Photo documentation.
• Irrigation.
• Tree stock replacement (when needed).
• Weed control.
• Staking.
• Mulching.
• Monitoring.
• Installation of above/below ground protection devices (cages, tubes, etc.). • Removal of protective materials after established maintenance and monitoring period. • Pest and disease control as needed to achieve tree survival during the monitoring period.
41 9 | Page
Administration of Program:
• Calculation and collection of the contributions.
• Tracking of payments.
• Preparation of required reports.
• Periodic updates to the Tree In-Lieu Payment Contribution Nexus Study. • Tracking of trees planted and/or maintained with mitigation funds. • Inspections.
• Contracting with outside sources to complete replacement tree planting projects.

The maximum justifiable mitigation fee contribution recommended in this report reflects these tasks.

NEXUS ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
This section of the analysis documents the nexus for the contribution option to new development projects, calculates the proposed rates for the City’s Replacement Tree Mitigation In-Lieu Fee, and documents the findings of this nexus study.
• NEXUS FOR MITIGATION FEE AMOUNT
The purpose of a nexus analysis is to quantify and document the cost of addressing the impact of the loss of trees as a community resource and amenity. Sources and analyses used are noted in the text, footnotes and in the list of sources at the end of this document.

Thisstudy has been prepared following the requirements of the “Mitigation Fee Act,” also known as AB 1600, and CGC § 66000 et seq. This has been done to demonstrate that a reasonable relationship or “nexus” exists between new development that occurs within the City of Shasta Lake, and the fee amount which is needed to replace trees that have been removed to facilitate new development.

To demonstrate a nexus between the fee amount and the mitigation fee requirement, this study:

1. Identifies the purpose of the contribution.

2. Identifies the use to which the contribution is to be put.

3. Identifies how there is a reasonable relationship between the contribution's use and the type of development project on which the contribution is imposed.

4. Identifies how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the “public facility” (trees and urban forest) and the type of development project on which the contribution is imposed.

5. Determines how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the contribution andthe cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the contribution is imposed. 42 10 | Page
Trees as defined in the Municipal Code are considered “public facilities” and are eligible for development fee funding because the definition in Government Code Section 66000(d) states that public facilities include “public improvements, public services, and community amenities.” The definition of community amenities is:
“…any public benefit, improvement or contribution that can enhance the quality of life for a community and includes, but is not limited to, public spaces, land or an interest in land, affordable and/or special needs housing, and facilities, which meet a range of social, environmental, cultural, recreational and infrastructure needs of the community.” (On-line reference, Community Amenity Definition | Law Insider)
• UNIQUE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MITIGATION FEE
It must be noted that use of this in-lieu mitigation fee option is not mandatory. A permittee may choose to preserve trees on-site through project design, or replant an adequate number of trees on-site to achieve required replacement planting mitigation. Alternatively, a permittee may choose to achieve mitigation through the permanent preservation via a conservation easement on other lands (either on- or off-site) containing an adequate number of mature trees.

Clearly fee contributions in-lieu of on-site replacement plantings can help a development project resolve mitigation obligations that would otherwise be difficult. The community also benefits through the opportunity to maintain or enhance the tree canopy over time there-by achieving the purposes of the tree conservation ordinance.

To achieve other community goals and policies – particularly those as reflected in the City’s adopted Housing Element (see General Plan Housing Element Policy HE -1.4 “Governmental Constraints” and Implementation-HE-1.9 “Address Housing Opportunities and Constraints”) - it will be advisable for the City to consider providing waivers to tree replacement requirements for affordable housing projects that meet specified standards. Relief from this requirement either by reducing or possibly waiving in-lieu fees for new affordable housing projects, should be considered part of establishing the tree replacement in-lieu fee contribution program. • ANALYSIS FINDINGS
This analysis quantifies the costs for replacing and monitoring tree plantings when such work is initiated by, and administered by, the city. Development of this analysis utilized available print and on-line resources, analysis methodology utilized to develop similar fees, established City ordinance provisions, as well as discussion and input received from private sector and public sector professionals.

The methodology established in this analysis may be useful for a variety of applications such as establishing an affordable housing project benefit, or as part of a development agreement for a large commercial project. While all sources utilized are believed to be sufficiently accurate for the purposes of the analyses, they cannot guarantee absolute accuracy because of changing market conditions and project specific needs or limitations.
43 11 | Page
Analysis Question 1: Purpose of the Contribution
The Tree In-Lieu Mitigation Fee Contribution program analyzed in this nexus study is designed to aid in preserving or replacing the City’s established tree population when new development results in the removal of mature trees. The In-Lieu fee will provide an additional mitigation option to facilitate the replacement of “Protected Trees” (SLMC Chapter 12.36), which must be removed because of permitted development activity. These funds when collected would be used for the planting and monitoring ofreplacement trees, or for the maintenance of existing trees anywhere within the city limits to ensure their health and survival.

Given the potential environmental challenges and related survivability rates for planted trees in an urban environment, the Shasta Lake City Council has previously established a replacement ratio of a minimum 3 (15-gallon) replacement trees to offset the impact of the loss of each Protected Tree.

The 3-1 replacement ratio has been determined to be necessary to account for variability in replacement tree mortality, and the impacts that result from a reduced tree canopy over the medium-term because of property development and the loss of mature trees.

This planting ratio standard is supported by significant research. A research paper published in 2015 analyzed survival rates of replacement shade tree plantings in the city of Sacramento over a 22-year period (Long-term monitoring of Sacramento Shade program trees: Tree survival, growth and energy-saving performance, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 143, November 2015 by Ko, Lee, McPherson, and Roman). The Sacramento Shade Tree Program, referred to as “Sacramento Shade,” is one of the largest shade tree planting initiative in the United States.

Begun in 1990 as a partnership between the Sacramento Tree Foundation (STF) and Sacramento Municipal Utility Districts (SMUD), the program has distributed approximately 500,000 deciduous trees to homes, businesses, and public spaces throughout Sacramento. Using field surveys, aerial photos and survival analysis, the authors calculated cumulative survivorship of planted trees from this program was approximately 42.4% of planted trees. On average, measured growth rates were within expected ranges to provide shading benefits; the 22-year-old trees reached 74.6% and

68.8% of the projected 30-year mature size for tree heights and crown diameters, respectively.

The maximum amount of in-lieu mitigation fee contribution that can be collected must be based on the standard for tree replacement as established by the City ordinance. To satisfy the mitigation obligation necessitates the replanting and a maintenance period to ensure the tree is established.

The In-Lieu Fee Contribution established in this study is intended to cover the cost of tree stock acquisition, as well as tree planting, maintenance and monitoring for a three-year period for replacement tree plantings. The fee contribution is structured such that for each Protected Tree removed and not mitigated through on-site landscaping or permanent protection, replacement planting can be made at approved off-site locations. As reflected in the examples below, the number of Protected Trees removed is multiplied by the In-Lieu Fee Contribution to account for the needed planting and maintenance of one-inch replacement trees. 44 12 | Page
The establishment of the in-lieu fee mitigation contribution is consistent with and furthers the purpose of the Tree Conservation Ordinance, which states in part:
…It is the intent of this chapter to promote the conservation of a healthy tree population and to maintain and enhance tree canopy throughout the community where feasible and appropriate. This is to be accomplished through: 1) The preservation of existing native trees where feasible and consistent with other development requirements; 2)The replacement or transplanting of trees removed where appropriate and feasible [on-site]; 3) The phasing of development to reduce impacts when tree removal is required; and 4) The planting of new trees in locations, number, and type that is compatible with local conditions.

The city council recognizes that notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, it may not be physically possible to preserve or replace all trees removed within the boundary of development projects, and alternative mitigation methods for tree protection and replacement are necessary for the benefit of property owners and the citizens of the city.

Furthermore, the guiding principles in the City’s General Plan support the establishment and use of the in-lieu contribution. These goal and policies include:
• General Plan Goal 1: Preserve and enhance the quality of life by providing a variety of living environments and accommodating growth.

Objectives and implementation policies in the General Plan, particularly those in the Land Use Element and the Natural Resources Element (Groups), identify the established regulatory relationship between the proposed contribution and new development:
• FW-1 Conserve and manage significant fish, wildlife and vegetation resources. • FW-2 Recognize that wildlife habitat and development practices may on occasion conflict and shall need to be resolved according to policies specified in the General Plan. • FW-(6) Evaluate the establishment of procedures for reviewing development applications in, or adjacent to, NH areas and for approving off-site mitigation to replace resources affected by development.
• FW-(9) Evaluate the establishment of a fund for acquisition and/or maintenance of Natural Resource Protection-Habitat areas to ensure permanent protection if tax revenues not otherwise committed can be allocated for the purpose. Also, explore the feasibility of establishing maintenance districts for ongoing management activities. • OSR-d The City may require the dedication of land and/or improvement of open space, parks, or the payment of in lieu-contributions in accordance with City development standards as part of the entitlement and/or building permit process. • LU-2 Guide development in a pattern that will provide opportunities for present and future City residents to enjoy the variety of living environments, which currently exist within the City, which are served by the full range of urban services. • LU-4 Guide development in a pattern that will establish an acceptable balance between public facility and service costs and public revenues derived from new development. 45 13 | Page
• LU-6 To recognize that the major economic resources for achieving the development pattern will come from the private sector, rather than government, and that the General Plan, as the expression of community values, will guide the use of these resources.

Analysis Question 2: Use of the Contribution
The proceeds from the contribution, will be placed in a City managed “Tree Planting, Maintenance, and Replacement Fund,” which will be used to maintain existing trees in a healthy and safe manner to avoid unnecessary losses of existing trees, or to acquire and plant replacement trees and maintain them. This effort will also include performing required monitoring and maintenance activities for a period of three years to ensure that the trees successfully establish themselves, and have the best chance to grow to maturity. The funds will also be used for City-wide tree canopyhealth improvement efforts, which can support increased tree and forest health. Because of City staffing constraints, accomplishing this work may involve outside contractors selected through the City’s established selection processes.

By helping to maintain the City’s tree canopy over time, the fee contributions help further the General Plan and ordinance goals and policies which establish the need for the fee contribution.

Analysis Question 3: Reasonable Relationship Between Contribution Use and Development Consistent with the City’s General Plan vision as reflected in the Tree Conservation Ordinance, the replacement of Protected Trees through replanting promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of Shasta Lake bysupporting the development of private property and community economic development efforts, while protecting and enhancing the natural and scenic resources of the community. The development of property in the City that results in a loss of mature trees negatively impacts the community.

By maintaining the health of existing trees and through planting of new trees, the fee contribution will help retain the beneficial effect of trees on reducing urban temperatures by providing shade and cooling. In addition, replacement tree plantings and healthy trees increase the attractiveness of the city to visitors, help reduce soil erosion and clean the air while also increasing the oxygen levels in the area. Replacement tree plantings are needed to combat increased air pollution resulting from the development of property which results in the removal of trees and the reduction of community tree canopy.

The proposed tree in-lieu fee contribution is needed to mitigate the loss of Protected Trees on properties without adequate space for on-site replanting. It provides a means for new development to occur without undue delay, while also achieving the environmental and other goals and objectives stated in the City’s General Plan and the Tree Conservation Ordinance. The benefits of the funding collected through an in-lieu fee contribution option can:
• Enhance the City’s scenic natural beauty.
• Support the maintenance of property values over time. 46 14 | Page
• Help reduce the urban heat island effect; and
• Provide air quality benefits consistent with the Regional Air Quality Plan. • Facilitate a more efficient and timely development of property by allowing greater use of site for buildings and other property improvements than otherwise might be possible because of tree mitigation requirements.

Analysis Question 4: Reasonable Relationship Between Conservation Need and Development
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for the tree in-lieu fee contribution and new development that would pay the fee. The contribution is designed to mitigate the impacts of developments that remove Protected Trees by funding the cost of planting new trees or maintaining existing trees which may otherwise be lost overtime due to lack of maintenance. As reflected in Section 12.36.010 “Purpose” of the ordinance the fee and the conservation need and its relationship to new development can be expressed as follows:
“Trees are recognized as important to the general well-being of the citizens of the city given their shade, cooling, noise and wind reduction, soil stabilization, greenhouse gas reduction, protection of surface water quality, aesthetic value, air filtering and release of oxygen, benefits to wildlife and the area's ecology, and their economic enhancement to property.”
The reduction of the City’s mature tree canopy resulting from the loss of individual trees makes it more difficult to address the “urban heat island” effect. Studies show that tree canopy loss reduces the shading effect of trees, negatively impacts air quality, and increases community noise levels. It may also result in a loss of wildlife habitat, while also negatively impacting the scenic beauty of the City.

Pursuant to Chapter 12.36 of the SLMC, development projects must preserve and protect trees where possible, and when this is not possible, they must mitigate for the loss of Protected Trees, unless specific findings are made. This obligation is consistent with the purposes of the ordinance, as it seeks to address the resulting reduction in the benefits provided tothe community by trees, which would make the relevant General Plan goals more difficult to achieve. 47 15 | Page
Analysis Question 5: Reasonable Relationship Between Contribution Amount and Mitigation Cost As demonstrated in this analysis, the amount of the Tree In-Lieu Contribution resulting from the removal of Protected Trees by a new development is proportional to the cost of purchasing, planting, and maintaining a tree onsite. The in- lieu contribution amount is calculated based on the current cost of satisfying the requirements set forth in Section 12.36.075 of the Tree Conservation Ordinance. The costs associated with the acquisition, planting and maintenance of required tree plantings for a period of three years is accounted for in the proposed Tree In-Lieu Contribution.

Should a project applicant choose to remove Protected Trees, and be provided the in-lieu contribution alternative by the approving authority, the contribution amount will be based on the scale of the impact as measured by the loss of a specific number of Protected Trees. The contribution amount is an amount equivalent to that required of a development for planting and monitoring were the in-lieu contribution option is not available. Therefore, a reasonable relationship exists between the amount of Tree In-Lieu Contribution necessary to offset impacts to Protected Trees by new development.

CONTRIBUTION CALCULATION
This analysis provides the basis upon which the amount of the Tree In-Lieu Mitigation Fee Contribution is calculated. The estimated cost for the equivalent of a 15-gallon size native tree such as a live oak or valley oak is considered a tree with a one-inch trunk diameter. Table 1 provides a survey of the cost of purchasing tree stock. For purposes of this fee calculation values were rounded to the nearest dollar. The average price of a 15-gallon oak tree was calculated from a survey using direct staff contacts with local nurseries conducted in May 2022.

To provide a check on the accuracy of the cost analysis, a similar 2019 survey of nurseries in Northern California conducted by the Sacramento Tree Foundation (STF) was utilized for comparison. The 2019 STF values were then adjusted to account for inflation through the end of 2021. As reflected in Table 1 below, this check resulted in a per tree average amount of $111.

Excluding the adjusted 2019 costs estimates reflected in the Table 1 (below), the average retail price of planting stock in 2022 is $90.00 per tree. Survey prices ranged from a low of $63.00 to a high of $100.00. The average estimate of $90.00 has been used for the fee calculation. The actual cost of purchase can be expected to vary based on the availability and demand for planting stock at the time of mitigation project implementation.
48 16 | Page
Table 1 - Retail Price for Live Oak and/or Valley Oak (15-Gallon Size) 1 Based on the requirements of SLMC Chapter 12.36.070 Tree planting and replacement standards; and ANSI Standard Z60.1 – American Standard for Nursery Stock.

ANSI Z60.1 sets minimum height/caliper standards for nursery plant material 2 2019 STF Survey amount has been adjusted for inflation between 2019 and 2021.

The total fee contribution for non-exempt tree removal activity on a development site is proportional to the scale of the impact based on the number of mature trees removed by the project. To provide estimated costs for the elements required for planting, maintaining, and monitoring replacement plantings, the local commercial landscaping firm of McEntire Landscaping, Inc. was contacted. McEntire Landscaping, Inc., is an 'A' General and C-27 licensed landscape company. Founded in 1978, McEntire Landscaping is an industry leader in the City of Shasta Lake region. The company has a broad and substantial field of expertise that totals over 40 years of operation.

As demonstrated in Table 2 below, the Sacramento Tree Foundation (STF) and the McEntire Landscaping estimates include identical project cost elements. These elements address the cost of planting, installation, and planting maintenance to estimate annual costs during the first three years to ensure successful establishment of the replacement plantings. The original STF estimate was completed in 2019.

Table 2 below provides a comparison of cost estimates utilizing 4 separate approaches: two utilizing the 2022 McEntire estimates, each with a different cost factor for replacement tree costs; and two utilizing the 2019 STF estimates – one using 2019 cost estimates and one with inflation factors added for the period 2019-2021. These comparisons indicate the variation between the McEntire estimate and the adjusted STF estimate used in this study to be approximately 9%. This difference can primarily be associated with the use of volunteer labor reflected in the STF estimate, and the 3-year difference between the timing of the estimates.

Nursery Location Retail Price
Western Tree Nursery Oroville $63.00
Wyntour Gardens Redding $99.00
Green Acres Nursery Rocklin $100.00
Gold Leaf Nursery Redding $99.00
Side One Landscape Center2 Sacramento $103.00
Big Oak Nursery2 Elk Grove $92.00
Fair Oaks Blvd. Nursery2 Arden $140.00
El Dorado Nursery and Garden2 Shingle Springs $108.00
Average Inflation Adjusted Price (2019 survey) $111.00
Average 2022 Survey Price $90.00
49 17 | Page
As allowed by state law, an administrative charge of five percent (5%) has been included in the fee amount to cover the cost to the public of administering and updating the contribution program. City services justifying this charge include managing contribution obligations for each development project separately, collecting contribution revenues, managing contribution revenues in the Tree Planting and Replacement Fund to satisfy state reporting requirements, preparation of monitoring reports, and preparation of RFPs and contracts to obtain planting services, along with general project management.

Table 2
Installation, Maintenance and Monitoring Costs*
Estimated Tree Planting Expenses
– 2019 Sac. Tree Foundation (STF)
Analysis and 2022 McEntire/CSL.
2019
STF
2022
McEntire3
2020
STF
2023
McEntire
2021
STF
2024
McEntire
2021
STF
Totals
2022
McEntire
Totals
Replacement Tree
$101 $60.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $101 $90.00
($60.003)
Supplies (Irrigation materials,
treeshelters, stakes, mulch) $35 $45.00 $18 $20.00 $9 $15.00 $61 $80.00 Project Design $11 $85.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11 $85.00
Site Preparation $11 $20.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11 $20.00
Installation and Maintenance $51 $50.00 $25 $40.00 $25 $30.00 $101 $120.00 Monitoring and Reporting $6 $6.00 $3 $3.00 $3 $3.00 $11 $11.00 Volunteer Coordination (to
overseeplanting, etc.) $7 $0 $4 $0 $4 $0 $14 $0.00
Tools and Equipment $8 $10.00 $8 $10.00 $8 $10.00 $24 $30.00 Vehicle Expenses $12 $10.00 $12 $10.00 $12 $10.00 $35 $30.00 Total $139 $286.00 $69 $83.00 $60 $68.00 $369
Average Cost per 15-gallon Replacement Tree incl. planting, maintenance and monitoring:
$369
($395.001)
$466.002
($436.003)
Program Administration Charge 5%:
$21.804 $387.00
($414.001)
$489.002
($458.003)
Total Recommended Fee (x3 for each protected tree) $489.004 *Notes: Figures are rounded o the nearest dollar. The figures excludes non-standard project costs suchas water connection fees or other permits, which are unique and site specific.

1. Amount reflects San Francisco Region CPI yearly inflation factor to provide comparison to McEntire 2022 cost estimates. Sacramento Tree Foundation 2019 contract cost used in preparation of City of Folsom In-Lieu Tree Replacement Fee Nexus Analysis with amounts inflated to 2022 costs would be $414. Note - STF estimate includes use of volunteer services for planting and monitoring, while the McEntire estimate of cost is based on 2022 private sector labor costs.

2. May 2022 average cost for replacement 15-gallon oak tree (valley oak or live oak) based on phone and e-mail survey of local nursery providers is $90.00. The McEntire estimate assumes $60.00 per tree – this amount is 30% lower than average of all material providers surveyed. The size of the planting purchase order will affect the per tree costs depending on the vendor.

3. McEntire Landscaping Inc. estimate of cost for individual tree purchase/installation/maintenance/monitoring over a three-year basis.

4. Maximum Justifiable fee, assuming average cost of replacement tree per supplier survey. 50 18 | Page
Table 3 summarizes the general allocation of cost by activity associated with developing the fee amount. These costs include material acquisition, planting, monitoring, and maintenance for three years. The total in-lieu contribution cost for a tree is estimated at $489 per 15-gallon tree.

Table 3

Aggregated Fee Cost Components*
Cost Components Price
Tree Acquisition and Planting $335
Maintenance and Monitoring $131
Administration (5%) $23
Total $489
*Note: Figures are rounded to nearest dollar and generalized for type of activity.

COMPARISON TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS WITH IN-LIEU FEE MITIGATION OPTIONS The following table (Table 4) provides a frame of reference relative to tree removal in-lieu fees charged by other jurisdictions in Northern California. Unlike the proposed City of Shasta Lake fee, which is a flat fee contribution regardless of the size of the tree removed, fees as reflected in Table 4 are collected on a per inch basis for the size of the protected tree that is removed.

For example, the City of Chico fee for removal of a 20-inch oak (not mitigated in other fashion) would be $1,749. The proposed Shasta Lake fee is $1,489. As the size of the tree that is removed increases in Chico the fee amount also continues to increase, while the Shasta Lake fee is a single “flat-fee.”
51 19 | Page
Table 4
Comparison of Regional In-Lieu Fees
Jurisdiction In-Lieu Contribution
Citrus Heights $298 per trunk inch, native oaks 6” DBH, others 19” DBH Davis $189 per trunk inch, trees 5” DBH or larger
Chico $530 per 6” in diameter or fraction thereof - charged for removal of native oaks over 6” DBH or larger in size
Lincoln $150 per trunk inch (oak trees only)
Loomis $100 per trunk inch (for removal of 1 to 4 oak trees). $300 per trunk inch (for removal of 5 to 9 oak trees).
$500 per trunk inch (for removal of 10 or more trees)
Placer County $100 per inch DBH or the current market value of the trees as established by an arborist, forester, or landscape architect plus installation costs.

Rancho Cordova $165 per trunk inch, native oaks 6” DBH, others 12” DBH Roseville $118 per trunk inch
Sacramento $325 per trunk inch (excluding palm trees)
$100 per trunk inch for each linear foot in height of clear trunk removed.

Sacramento County $325 per trunk inch of native oaks, other types vary by project.

West Sacramento $325 per trunk inch
Folsom $250 per trunk inch on all trees over 6” DBH
Regional Average
(Estimated per inch of
tree removed.)
$230 per trunk inch
52 20 | Page

FEE CONTRIBUTION CALCULATION EXAMPLES
In Shasta Lake, a Protected Tree is a tree (except Grey Pine) with a 10-inch or larger trunk diameter, measured at 4.5 feet above ground level, or diameter breast height (DBH). Any Protected Tree that is permitted to be removed requires mitigation on- or offsite by planting and maintaining three 15-gallon trees per SLMC Chapter 12.36.

If established by the City Council, the payment of the in-lieu fee contribution would be multiplied by the number of required replacement trees. Per this nexus study, the maximum justifiable cost per replacement tree planting is $489, or a total fee contribution of $1,467 per Protected Tree that is removed and not otherwise mitigated.

Following are several scenarios that reflect how the fee contribution would be applied.

Scenario 1
In-lieu fee contribution calculation for mitigation of one (1) Protected Tree:

1. Trees impacted: 1 tree at 10 DBH inches (or larger)

2. Maximum justifiable cost per replacement tree of $489 = 1 x $489 per replacement tree.

3. Three (3) replacement tree plantings required for ordinance compliance.

4. Tree In-Lieu Fee Contribution = $489 x 3 replacement trees

5. Total mitigation amount: $1,467.00
As shown in Table 4 above, the average in-lieu contribution of the cities surveyed is $230 per inch of tree removed for a total contribution of $2,300 for a 10-inch native oak tree. This is compared to a $1,467 mitigation fee contribution under the City’s current ordinance structure.

Scenario 2
The project involves the removal of four (4) Protected Trees on-site. The permittee would permanently protect a 30” DBH Heritage Oak tree within a large landscaping area. No additional plantings can be made on-site, and the permittee would like to use the In-lieu Fee Contribution program to complete the mitigation requirement. The Tree In-Lieu Fee Contribution would be calculated as follows:

1. Trees Impacted: 4 trees removed at 10 inch or larger DBH:

2. Calculation of replacement trees = 12 replacement tree plantings

3. Cost per replacement tree of $489 x 12 replacement trees = $5,868

4. Credit for preservation of 30-inch Heritage Tree of $1,467 .

5. Total Tree In-Lieu Contribution = $5868 - $1,467 = $4,401 For comparison, if the Regional Average in-lieu contribution was used ($230 X 40 inches) as shown in Table 4) then the total cost would be approximately $9,200. 53 21 | Page
Scenario 3
A property owner submits plans to build a custom home on a vacant 26,000 square foot lot (20,000 square feet or larger lot) with three ProtectedTrees (1- 22”, 2-12”) to be removed for site development. The property owner has 4 tree plantings (beyond minimum landscaping requirements) proposed in the landscaping plan for the site beyond minimum landscaping requirements, and would like to use the In-lieu fee program to complete the mitigation fee requirement.

In-Lieu Contribution Calculation:

1. Trees impacted: 1 tree at 22 inches DBH, plus 2 trees at 12 inches DBH each = 3 x 3 replacement plantings, or 9 required tree mitigation plantings.

2. Full in-lieu fee contribution for tree replanting: $489 X 9 = $4,401

3. Credit for plantings of 4 trees (beyond landscaping minimums): 4 X $489 = $1,956.00

4. Total mitigation amount: $4,401 - $1,956 = $2,445
The City’s present approach of using a set planting ratio of 3:1 amount is unique among jurisdictions in the region. Most jurisdictions use a per inch contribution based on the diameter measured at standard height or DBH (measured 4.5 feet above ground level), while a few use 100 percent ofthe appraised value of the tree.

While not a requirement of the Mitigation Fee Act, Table 4 shows the in-lieu contributions of jurisdictions within the Northern California region. In-lieu contributions based on diameter inch of the tree removed is the most common method used regionally for the contribution calculation. Of the jurisdictions surveyed in Northern California which use that measure, the contributions ranged from as little as $100 per inch diameter to as much as $500 per inch. 54 22 | Page
Resources:
• City of Folsom Tree In-Lieu Mitigation Fee Nexus Analysis, January 14, 2020. • Sacramento County Native Tree Replacement Program – Attachment 1 to Contract No. 81423; Sacramento Tree Foundation Scope of Work.
• Big Oak Nursery, Elk Grove. Live Oak (15 gal.) - Cost: $85. Contacted 11/13/2019. • Eisley’s Nursery, Auburn. Live Oak (15 gal.) - Cost: $99.99 to $129.99 (depends on vendor). Contacted 11/13/2019
• El Dorado Nursery and Garden, Inc., Shingle Springs. Live Oak (15 gal.) - Cost $100.

Contacted 11/13/2019.
• Fair Oaks Boulevard Nursery, Arden-Arcade. Live Oak (15 gal.) - Cost $129. Contacted 11/13/2019.
• Green Acres Nursery, Shasta Lake. Live Oak (15 gal.) – Cost $85.00. Contacted 11/13/2019. • Village Nursery Landscape Center (aka Site One Landscape), Sacramento. Live Oak (15 gal.) - Cost $94.50. Contacted 11/13/2019.
• Sacramento Tree Foundation, Proposal for Tree Programs and Services for Planting and Maintenance June 2015-June2017. May 2016.
• County of Sacramento Municipal Services, Contract No. 81423, Agreement for Native Tree Mitigation Services; May 10, 2016.
• Keith Wilson, Principal Landscape Architect / Owner of Wilson Design Studio – Landscape Architecture and Site Design. Discussion with City staff regarding tree maintenance and monitoring costs on November 19, 2019, and subsequent email correspondence on December 4, 2019.
• El Dorado County Oak Resources In-Lieu Fees Nexus Study, Public Review Draft, June 21, 2014.
• Guidelines for Preparing a Compensatory Mitigation Plan, Charleston District, Working Draft, 1993.
• Bing Internet Search Engine, Tree Nursery Search List, 4/14/2022. • McEntire Landscaping, Inc., City of Shasta Lake 2022 Cost per 15-gallon Tree Estimate. Emails – Debbie Leone, May 2 and May 5, 2022. • Green Acres Nursery, Rocklin and Roseville, Contractor sales, Cost $99.50, emails 5/10/2022.
55 23 | Page
• Western Tree Nursery, Oroville, Ca. Order form, emails – Frank Chimenti, 6/16/21; John Inglett May 10 and 19, 2022.
• Consumer Price Index, Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Measurements, San Francisco California, Regional Price Increases, May 2022. • “Long-term monitoring of Sacramento Shade program trees: Tree survival, growth and energy-saving performance”; Author Yekang KoaJun-HakLeebE.

GregoryMcPherson, Lara A.Romand, et.al.; July 2015
• Big Oak Nursery, Email - Leslie Schahfer, May 10, 2022. • Aimee Nunez, City of Folsom, City Arborist, City of Folsom, multiple emails, May 2022.
• Michael Lander, ASLA, Redding, CA.; email May 5, 2022. • McEntire Landscaping, Inc., Emails – Doug DeMallie, June 26, 2022. 56 Report and Recommendations 7
Reviewed and Approved

City Manager

AGENDA ITEM
City Council Meeting

TO: Jessaca Lugo, City Manager
FROM: Whitney Zeller, Community and Economic Development Manager

DATE: July 5, 2022
SUBJECT: Presentation from North State Planning & Development at Chico State Enterprise on the Community Economic Resilience Fund (CERF) and Possible Action to Provide a Letter of Support for the Regional Convener and Fiscal Agent
FILE NO.: New

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff is recommending City Council receive a presentation from North State Planning & Development at Chico State Enterprise and approve a letter of support for their application as Regional Convener and Fiscal Agent for Community Economic Resilience Fund.

BACKGROUND:

The 2022 California State Budget includes the Community Economic Resilience Fund (CERF), an allocation of $5 million per region. CERF’s planning phase will establish regional, inclusive planning tables to develop blueprints and align resources for each region’s economic future.

These planning tables will result in recommended investments throughout the region that will support economic recovery from COVID-19, bolster equity outcomes, groups and organizations that may not have been at the table in past planning initiatives) and to assist in identifying shovelready infrastructure projects to queue up for the implementation dollars slated for release later this year.

Phase I: Regional Convener and Fiscal Agent - $5 million The footprint for the north state regions aligns well with CSU, Chico’s service territory. The North State Planning and Development Collective (the Collective) at CSU, Chico, is proposing to pursue the role as the convener and fiscal agent for Phase I of the CERF planning process and funds.

The state will select one convener through a competitive grant application. There are 13 regions statewide.
57 Impact of CERF
The Collective’s goal is to honor established planning efforts, to identify efforts to build upon, to replicate successful models and best practices in parts of our region that are lacking, to engage with our farthest-located counties, to include Tribal leadership, and to invite those that have not traditionally been involved in planning processes of the past.

Phase II: Implementation - $500 million statewide - $20 million Tribal allocation In Phase II, the CERF state leadership team has allocated $20 million available for CA Native American Tribes out of the $500 million for economic planning and implementation projects.

CERF Timeline
June 2022: Final Guidelines Released and Bidder’s Conference June – July 2022: Application preparation – Outreach – Partner Engagement July 25, 2022: Convener Applications Due
October 2022: Convener Selection and Contracting Process Nov ’22 – June 2024: Regional Planning and Project Identification June 2024: Encumbrance Deadline
About the North State Planning and Development Collective The North State Planning and Development Collective (the Collective) is comprised of the Center for Economic Development (CED – established in 1986), and its sister agency, the Geographical Information Center (GIC – established in 1988). The NSPDC provides services and resources to the region’s businesses, governments, communities, and residents by pairing GIS mapping services and broadband infrastructure support with economic development research, surveying, analysis, planning and implementation throughout the state of California. Additionally, the NSPDC is the lead agency for the Northeastern and Upstate California Connect Broadband Consortia providing support for broadband infrastructure projects and adoption and access initiatives for rural communities.

Web site: https://www.nspdc.csuchico.edu/
FISCAL IMPACTS:

No fiscal impact
ATTACHMENTS:

Map of CSUC – CERF Regions
Sample Letter of Support
DISTRIBUTION:

City of Shasta Lake City Council
58 What is the Community Economic Resilience Fund (CERF) The 2022 California State Budget includes the Community Economic Resilience Fund (CERF), an allocation of $5million per region. CERF’s planning phase will establish regional, inclusive planning tables to develop blueprints and align resources for each region’s economic future. These planning tables will result in recommended investments throughout the region that will support economic recovery from COVID-19, bolster equity outcomes, and facilitate the transition to carbon neutrality. CERF should be inclusive (especially of communities, groups and organizations that may not have been at the table in past planning initiatives) and to assist in identifying shovel-ready infrastructure projects to queue up for the implementation dollars slated for release later this year.

Phase I: Regional Convener and Fiscal Agent - $5 million The footprint for the North State region aligns well with CSU, Chico’s service territory. We, as the North State Planning and Development Collective (the Collective) at CSU, Chico, propose to pursue the role as the convener and fiscal agent for Phase I of the CERF planning process and funds. The state will select one convener through a competitive grant application. There are 13 regions statewide.

Impact of CERF
Our goal is to honor established planning efforts, to identify efforts to build upon, to replicate successful models and best practices in parts of our region that are lacking, to engage with our farthest-located counties, to include Tribal leadership, and to invite those that have not traditionally been involved in planning processes of the past.

CERF Timeline
June 2022: Final Guidelines Released and Bidder’s Conference June – July 2022: Application Preparation – Outreach – Partner Engagement July 25, 2022: Convener Applications Due
October 2022: Convener Selection and Contracting Process Nov ‘22 – June 2024: Regional Planning and Project Identification June 2024: Encumbrance Deadline
About the North State Planning and Development Collective The North State Planning and Development Collective (the Collective) is comprised of the Center for Economic Development (CED – established in 1986), and its sister agency, the Geographical Information Center (GIC – established in 1988). The NSPDC provides services and resources to the region’s businesses, governments, communities, and residents by pairing GIS mapping services and broadband infrastructure support with economic development research, surveying, analysis, planning and implementation throughout the state of California. Additionally, the NSPDC is the lead agency for the Northeastern and Upstate California Connect Broadband Consortia providing support for broadband infrastructure projects and adoption and access initiatives for rural communities.

Web site: https://www.nspdc.csuchico.edu/
59 60
Report and Recommendations 8
Reviewed and Approved

City Manager

AGENDA ITEM
City Council Meeting

TO: Jessaca Lugo, City Manager
FROM: Whitney Zeller, Community and Economic Development Manager

DATE: July 5, 2022
SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Recommendation for American Rescue Plan Act Park Projects and Potential Action to Approve Funding for Selected Projects
FILE NO.: G-100-500-010

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff is requesting City Council review and approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission’s Recommendation for the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) parks projects and direct staff to hire a consultant to prepare the design and cost estimate for the following parks projects:

1. New skatepark facility at the Civic Center (leaving old skatepark in place)

2. Expansion of Lassen Field at Bizz Johnson Park and the addition of new lighting

3. Disc golf course behind ballfields at Bizz Johnson Park

4. Covered picnic pavilion (location yet to be determined)

5. Walking trail at Civic Center
BACKGROUND:

The City of Shasta Lake received $2.49 million in funding through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). City Council appropriated $2.39 million of this funding to implement parks and recreation projects and tasked the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission with facilitating the community outreach process. The community outreach process began in March and included several public meetings, a school survey, household survey, and stakeholder input to collect feedback on potential projects to fund.

Survey Response
The school survey received a total of 322 responses and the household survey received a total of 220 responses. Combined survey results indicated the following:
61 Most Used Parks:

1. Margaret Polf Park & Boomtown BMX

2. Claire Engle Park & Skatepark

3. Bizz Johnson Ball Park
Community Interest in Potential Park Features:

1. New Park Locations

2. Water Features/Splash Pad

3. Updated Playground Equipment

4. Walking Paths/Trails

5. Picnic/BBQ Areas
Most Used Park Facilities:

1. Playgrounds

2. Walking Paths/Trails

3. Sports Fields/Courts

4. Picnic Grass Areas

5. Skatepark
What Park Users Like Most:

1. Well maintained and clean

2. A great place to be with friends, family, and the community

3. Walking paths and trails

4. Playgrounds and open space
Improvements Needed:

1. Safety and Crime

2. Splash Pad/Water Feature

3. Updated Facilities (skatepark, playgrounds, ball fields, bathrooms) Public Meeting Response
Several public meetings were held throughout the community outreach process and averaged 15- 20 participants. Participants expressed support for specific projects, including a new skatepark facility, improvements at Bizz Johnson Ball Park, a new disc golf course, and splash pad. The Commission reviewed two options recommended by staff that would utilize the full funding amount.

Option 1:

New skatepark facility located at the Civic Center Campus New splash pad at the existing skate park at Clair Engle Park Option 2:

New skatepark facility located at the Civic Center Campus Demolition of the existing skatepark at Clair Engle Park Civic Center walking path
Civic Center picnic pavilion
Civic Center auditorium seating between City Hall and Community Center Expansion of Lassen Field and lights at Bizz Johnson Ball Park Disc Golf Course on property along Shasta Dam Blvd. Behind Bizz Johnson Park The Commission and members of the public noted that while a splash pad would be a great benefit to the community, the current drought situation, cost, and maintenance required make the project less feasible at this time. The community also advocated to keep the existing skatepark 62 and monitor its use before making a decision to establish alternative use of the space. The Commission and members of the public noted that a new skatepark facility, improvements at Bizz Johnson Ball Park, and a new disc golf course would provide opportunity for economic impact as well as expanded recreation opportunities to the community.

Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Recommendation The Commission’s recommendation is to utilize $2.39 million of the City’s American Rescue Plan Act funds towards the following projects in order of priority:

1. New skatepark facility at the Civic Center (leaving old skatepark in place)

2. Expansion of Lassen Field at Bizz Johnson Park and the addition of new lighting

3. Disc golf course behind ballfields at Bizz Johnson Park

4. Covered picnic pavilion (location yet to be determined)

5. Walking trail at Civic Center
Next Steps
Once the selected projects have been approved, the City will determine required consultant work to prepare designs and cost estimates. Staff will review design and cost options and provide an update to City Council. Final drawings will be completed for selected designs and put out for bid to be constructed.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

If the recommended action is approved, $2.39 million of the City’s American Rescue Plan Act funds will be allocated to the approved projects.

ATTACHMENTS:

Survey Results are available at cityofshastalake.org/parksurveyresults DISTRIBUTION:

City of Shasta Lake City Council
63 Report Reviewed and Approved 9

City Manager

AGENDA ITEM
City Council Meeting
TO: City Council
FROM: Toni Coates, CMC, City Clerk
DATE: August 5, 2021
SUBJECT: Designation of Voting Delegate
FILE: A-050-060-003
____________________
SUMMARY:

The League of California Cities has requested designation of a voting delegate and alternate to act on League Resolutions at the Annual Business Meeting at the closing of the General Assembly portion of the annual conference.

BACKGROUND:

The League’s 2015 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 7-9, 2022 in Sacramento. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting, scheduled for the last afternoon of the conference.

At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on Resolutions that establish League policy. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, City Council must designate a voting delegate. The City may also designate up to two alternates in the event that the designated delegate is unable to serve in that capacity.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

No Fiscal Impacts
ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution
DISTRIBUTION:

City Council
64 RESOLUTION CC-2022-

A SHASTA LAKE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A VOTING DELEGATE

FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2022
WHEREAS, members of the City Council may attend the League of California Cities Annual Conference in 2022; and
WHEREAS, The League’s Annual Business Meeting will be held on Friday, September 9, 2022, during which members consider and take action on Resolutions that establish League policy; and
WHEREAS, consistent with League bylaws, a city’s voting delegate must be designated by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shasta Lake as follows:
_____________________________is hereby designated as the City of Shasta Lake’s voting delegate, and ________________________as the alternate, for the League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting 2022.

PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED this 5th day of July 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT

______________________________
RICK KERN, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
TONI M. COATES, CMC
City Clerk
65

Shasta Lake City CouncilJuly 5, 2022

Shasta Lake City Council
July 5, 2022