e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e you know what what we'd like I think as as the committee and as the city staff would like is canopy of Street trees yes but a a canopy tree requires 's a certain amount of loose soil what what is that volume and I think if people don't know what structural soil is it's soil with rocks in it which means it's less soil and the soil cells are a lot more free space so how much I mean is there kind of a rule of thumb or is a tree specific how much like you know how many cubic feet for a canopy tree at maturity I mean what's really is I know it's kind of a rough question not one of these random questions but you know it's it's Cutting Edge science to be honest with you to try to figure out that answer on a per tree species basis what we've been doing is we have assumed for something like a live oak tree that about 1,200 cubic feet is a good number right and so you start with the fact that you can probably only count on about 3T deep and so then you move out from there to make that calculation depending on how much width you have versus depth that's that's kind of an industry standard that we've been using lately although there isn't any specific specific science that says that's the number so so what what I'm getting at is you know where where it doesn't make sense to have a street tree because you don't have enough soil we'd like to say well either find a way to address this or put the tree somewhere else and and the alternative which is really hard to codify and I know this is instead of saying okay plant X trees maybe you dial back the number of trees and spend the money on which are quite expensive the soil Sals and I know a menu of scientific things in a code is virtually impossible but you know I'm just throwing out there we're trying to come up with achievable Solutions in constrainted areas for the street trees uh absolutely and I'd also like to offer that um it is my personal opinion as a professional landscape architect in the State of Florida that while it is correct that you want to say that plant the appropriate tree in the right place right you always hear that right tree right place however in urban conditions a tree that is planted that may not reach full maturity like live o right so a live o full mature is somewhere you know we were just at the the science center in the museum and I mean it was it's 180 foot canopy however a 15% size of that tree still gives you really nice canopy and a really nice shade so it isn't a simple equation that says you shouldn't plant this tree because trees that may not reach that full canopy are still very valuable in a street condition but Greg if I can um it's one of the issues we have that so the code today requires large trees yes does not specify what kind of tree depending on the width that you have so what we would like to have is more Direction in the new code to say because the issue is not so much not having the Live Oak reaching the full maturity maturity is the is the live V raising um the sidewalk or or you know destroying infrastructure because it requires more space and and we do not have um in staff a landscape architect that can direct say well a life hope would not work here but another type of tree that provides the canopy that we want would can the code give more Direction into you know what type of canop tree would work depending on more um restricted you know landscape strips in Central Florida especially in urban conditions there's a there's a list of probably you know 8 to 10 recommended trees right and the Live Oak is one of them um another common one is Elm trees um and then there's some other ones that are native maybe a little bit harder to find that's probably two of the most common ones uh Elm trees uh especially certain species cultivars like the LA Elm are not as destructive as a typical cist virginiana and there's also some experimentation out there of different cultivars of Live Oaks for instance high-rise Live Oaks um those have only been grown for I think about 20 years now and so there's the jury's still kind of out as to whether or not that's going to be an appropriate species but yes you could indeed say that in certain zones or in certain conditions we would require species a versus species B so just point of interest and I don't know if it's different from the highrise but presently the Draft plans for the Connector Road which is an urban street which will have as of now soil cells it's Sky climber Oaks space 30 foot on Center that's the present yeah design and you know a lot of That's The Wider canopy would hit the buildings you know and over there we have like five or six feet of of strip space and that's it and I think what we're concerned about is in other areas of the city where it's not a brand new road how do you squeeze these trees in and should you squeeze in as many cuz what's the typical spacing now is is one per 50 Teresa is that for Street trees yeah so so I'm just looking at I hear heard what you said 1,200 cubic foot maybe they're not going to be full maturity maybe it's 600 or 800 but I think that's kind of important because right now you didn't plant the tree because you can't plant the tree unless un you're doing a developers agreement we're facing mitigation putting it on the site doing things that are hard to do and I think a little more guidance without writing a thesis might be helpful and we we obviously won't solve this tonight but it would just be nice to have a little more direction from an expert let's say fair enough all right thanks thank you uh there was a couple of questions here um the first one how do you propose to use landscape to integrate uses instead of buffers um the first question to that is that we've removed the buffer requirement in most of the urban target areas so we've eliminated some of the buffer requirements which we think encourages that integration um the second question uh says what does railroad refer to I'm assuming that refers to a railroad right away this is existing code material we didn't we didn't add this particular piece um so that's that's kind of the answer to that one is there a desire to sorry is there a desire to keep the railroad component do you have a railroad line okay so we can just remove that okay um and then the last one is uh vehicular use area buffer requirements removed in table 12.2 um we basically made them consistent across all the uses and so the Great G of the requirement or the buffer requirements pardon me the greater of the required buffer is the one I'm not saying this correct am I I got you yeah so um basically table 12.2 had different buffers for uses depending on what was being proposed so to make it more simplified which we've seen in many other codes um it's just a seven and a half fo buffer for all uses and so when he's talking about which is more uh of of a large buffer you still are required to do um a buffer between uses as long as you're not in the urban target areas so if that requirement is 8 ft and the the vehicular landscape up for a 7 and 1/2 ft you're going to have to meet the the greater of the two um but you don't have to provide both is there a way to stop that I don't know it's getting cell that's to there you go all right our Tech you've had the experience with this before I see Deborah has a little button she was just doing with you okay um let's see the next one is uh consensus to remove this language unless the consultant can justify why it's needed and we're talking about continuous evergreen shrub row breakes per pedestrian circulation is allowed um we think a a consist consistant screen is an important part of screening uh parking lots and things like that however uh we recognize the important of importance of pedestrian connections and so we're allowing for that type of break that's kind of why we're we put that language in there um what what what's the issue with providing the continuous ever I don't think you all were here when we discussed this so no we weren't okay so the the issue was um Dave can you see if it's yours now duh We are following the direction they never did that before so I don't I don't know uh so the the city kind of moved away from shrub rose and the issue was they they end up unkempt and poorly maintained and code enforcement issues and a big problem and moved more toward trees and so it's kind of going backwards from a direction that was already done and it's just um while it might be nice in practice it's kind of a god- awful mess and we're also moving more toward you know mixing uses as opposed to separating uses so that was kind of the discussion and you know I I think it creates perhaps more problems than it solves because of how it ends up and I'll give you what what I think the staff probably knows a little more about this but a lot of times you're on a main arterial and someone does a triple net lease and sells this to an investor the tenant's not responsible for the trees the landlord doesn't care because they have a trip net lease there's code enforcement against this fictitious group of people that are doing nothing and it ends up looking hideous and the the favorite one for me to hate because I drive past it every day is the CVS at the corner of Mitchell hammock and and Lockwood and I don't know that you guys experienced this but I can see it and I've just kind of heard the chatter about it's hard to get these people to do anything so to us you know medium trees are a better solution in the long run I I think that was kind of the discussion that's it does staff have any issues with striking it well there were in the past I think there were issues police sometimes had issues with um continue you know landscape um bushes like chasing after people no people hiding visibility there were you know there are different positions the mayor likes the brakes because she likes Crossing you know which we would not stimulate pedestrian to cross you know through the landscape bufer to access um um parking areas yeah so we had specifically written in allowing brakes for pedestrian circulation so I'm just want to make sure that everyone's on board with striking it we're fine to strike it if okay I think we're not against having those the thing is the requirement of those right okay so um and mainly because of the idea of having um more integration than having buffers you know uses being buffered but I think what Dave is saying here if I understand you correctly we should consider medium tree instead of a large tree a medium tree was still provide shade it will still provide everything we want so they're they're in there there's options for both they're in there and and I think you know to Teresa's point no one's saying you can't have a shrub row right so maybe if this can be rephrased with some Alternatives you know so so I've ended up in situations not in this locality but a very heated project in seminal County where you have two components and in a thin area and they wanted a continuous shr R and medium trees and I'm like well the tree doesn't like the shrubs and the shrubs don't like the tree so you know there's got to be a happy medium so I think maybe if you give people options maybe there's someone who who likes them and'll maintain them but I I think it's just kind of been a problem and ends up ugly whereas the medium trees really don't end up ugly so I would not suggest making a list of options here I would have requirements and then people can decide to do above and beyond those requirements if they want want to I think it gets confusing when you say minimum placement of large trees here oh and you can do this if you want to um up to you guys but uh I would move away from optional within this table at least I agree with that within the table it should be the minimum required yeah I staff agree with that absolutely so so but if you want to get creative above and beyond that absolutely by we took we had a vote to deleted and I don't think that's changed okay perfect it's struck here that's why we're talking about it okay yep uh the second one is uh why was the minimum mature height for small cheeries changed from 15 to 30 um this specifically references the resource of the Florida friendly plant guide there's some trees in there that list for instance the easy one to list is is a crepe myrtle uh they list a mature height of a crepe myrtle at 30 ft and think we want to be sure to be able to include trees like that as as part of this buffer list and so that's why we've increased that height it's really to be more inclusive with uh more species allowed so so I'm I'm confused you're saying a a bigger number is more inclusive but wouldn't it exclude trees no for the purposes of this table the mature height of small trees sh shall could reach a minimum of 30t but it says shall reach and so we need to change that to could okay well then I don't think anyone has an issue no I don't think so okay um let's see the next one sorry that's all right uh trees and buffer yards count toward the minimum required number of on-site trees included in table 12.1 uh yes all newly planted trees should count towards the requirements including the ones in buffers was there uh clarification that was needed here an issue with that or it's conflicting perhaps maybe and we don't know till we get there with the environmental preservation Clause let's just wait till we we get there okay that I think that's what that be why Harris it came up because because there's mutually exclusive language in different places so this this has never been a conflict so existing trees always counted as landscape trees if they serve that say existing this says trees well trees in bu for yards right whether they're existing or or new I think that's why the question came up is all I'm saying okay but we are also trying to resolve that issue right yeah um so this was removed um and we'll add it back just wanted to note that um so this one we were asked if this is new language it's really a a rephrasing of what's on the bottom here so what's on the bottom here is called landscape divider strips and that initially had all of this language so we just separated out that the central landscape strip has to be five and then the central landscape strip with The Pedestrian walkway and and kind of spelled it out for you a little bit better but it's the same requirements that are already in code it's just same princi so I think that might come into play in I think it's in the article with the urban form stuff in it where these were potentially required and I think there might be some interaction there but we're not on that article right now I think that's the zoning article where where the target area requirements are that have pedestrian walkway requirements so I guess that is that where this comes into play yes yes okay so can you go back to that um so one of the things and and the more than 10 parking spots was wasn't that Islands tree Islands which is not Central landscape strips so it's kind of not the same thing but in the current code for the the downtown mixed use districts because of the urban area the 10 was was actually 20 uh so I just think we need to be careful here and and look at a way to get shade without you know the The Pedestrian walkways for pedestrian purposes the shade is for its purpose but the 10 spaces was for Island Trees which this is not what that is correct this is literally specific about providing pedestrian access in that landscape strip it doesn't it's it's not this okay particular part of it well so so all I'm saying is is you would typically if you're doing a crosswalk since you're now requiring this landscape area with these pedestrian walkways is the crossing walkway have the same requirement so it it's not a crosswalk and I can see where this is a little bit confusing but if you think about uh the way a parking lot is done and then you've got a curb and a curb let's say it's like six or seven feet in between the the two faces of the cars that are parking like this right what this is referring to is a cross a crosswise pedestrian way that connects those two curves so you don't have to take your shopping cart over a med I understand what it is but what I'm saying is I see here and understand different people interpret this code at different times right so we're providing it every 10 spaces let's say and I'm suggesting maybe the tree island spacing that's in the urban more urban areas now which is 20 makes sense just just throwing that out there but we now have a Crossway wise walkway it does the crosswise walkway in your mind require the same 9 ft okay if not we should say a crosswise walkway that doesn't have to meet this width requirement because it's not clear if you're suggesting it does or it doesn't so I so I have a question is this a new requirement no it's literally copied and pasted from the section of code below just split into two sections but one is that if you have a central landscape strip with pedestrian it should have a minimum of nine and the other one saying if you do not have it's 5et is that what it but when is it required because we do other article but we do not have um today you can have um parking space facing a parking space without a landcape strip so we have to understand is this just informational if you Prov dividing one it's five is the minimum is 5 ft or when are we when is it required we talked about it in the downtown core article with block length that was in there no but but this is this is for everybody right it's not only for the well I know but if you have one because of that section it has to meet this section so all I'm saying is two things the 10 parking spaces and I'm just asking the question does the cross wise walkway have to meet that same minimum width of nine if it does we we we're hacking up this parking area pretty severely if it does not it should say it does not two different widths right so there's the width if you have a lengthwise pedestrian way that's 9 ft right if you have a crosswise walkway this is not saying it literally doesn't say how big and how wide that has to be so I'm just suggesting the language would say a crosswise walkway which doesn't need to meet the same with requirement of 9 ft you it doesn't I would suggest that we add a 5et well then then say what it is but to that point and just suggesting to the committee if in the downtown mixed use districts today we have these these tree Islands let's say every 20 spaces then maybe it should be 20 instead of 10 now 10 is what it says for the rest of the the code and this might be a distinction for the target areas because you don't necessarily want to take this parking lot and hack it into every 100 foot crosswalks when we have block lengths that allow 600 foot it just gets a little much in my opinion that that's all whether anyone else again I still have the same question when is it required because it's not saying here when is it required okay if it is required right right yeah so do you need us to have consensus if you want to put the language for 5T minimum yes we should add that walkway in consensus reached 9 ft is referring to the actual width of the planting strip the crosswise walkway should be a minimum of five fet so let's just say that and we just had consensus right do that y got it and so the if going back to that the distinction of 10 parking spaces well it can be 20 everywhere or it can be 20 in in the target areas and it's up to to the committee but I think 10 in the target areas when we now have and what I'm thinking is where you have a island you could have a crosswalk conceivably or are these separate distinct things I I don't I don't really know but we have this issue of a single code for all areas when the target areas are different and I I don't know what people think about that I think every hundred feet is a little often to have have to have a crosswise walkway every you know and if we're at are we changing to 9 by 18 yeah 90 so so it be 180 ft if it's 20 spaces that's not that far to walk so I'm just suggesting if everyone has consensus that we make 1020 I'm not sure where's the 100t from 10 parking spaces it's really it it's really 18 * 10 180 so it's 180 and 20 it would be 360 it's it's 90 right so they're 9t wide you said n I'm sorry nine I'm sorry I meas the wrong way so it's 90 or 180 yeah so what you're saying the cross the crosswise is only when it extends that far only when it extends 90 ft or more correct but but that's we have a downtown core block length which I think Katie suggested of 600 ft or something like that before there's a crosswalk this a parking lot I I understand I understand it's a parking lot but if that's often enough and people can walk that far then hacking up your parking lot and taking more space every 90 ft seems a little much I'm just saying if we change that to 20 it's 180 ft it's not that big a deal to walk 180 ft to me it makes more sense to make it further apart in your more Suburban areas where people are you know but I also want to be clear we're not taking up up space in any of the parking spaces this is literally just a crosswalk a crosswise walk Picture in between a couple of cars it it's not a it's not a handicap acceptable ramp and all that kind of thing in between parking spaces it's like in case you walk down the wrong parking aisle you can get to the other so parking aisle without cutting through the landscap you have a 9t wide space yes and you have another 9 wide space and you have a 5 foot walkway how does how does that fit in the two 9ft SPAC it's just across one side of the other it's so two head in parking spaces like this with Landscaping in the middle I can for you here can we can we put it up on the screen I mean I don't understand does anyone else understand I guess I'm a I had to draw it first thing I had to go like okay I get what they're kind of saying parking space paring space yeah you pull in here you're pulling in here and you have trees in between them in a landscape sh if you walk down here and you're like oh no I parked over here instead of having walked 200 more feet this way to go around with your shopping cart there'll be a 5 foot walkway in the median for you to be able to get to one time so it's not in the parking spots no it's in the med land okay I I withdraw my confusion thank you and to your point perhaps we could add a small diagram that would help into your point no you you thought they were building a walkway across I understand well well for people like me we need diagrams I'm just no that's perfectly fine I will put together something it's to avoid having people walking through the cars right that is the difference between the distance in a block yeah a block has a sidewalk so so just funny thing I went to R poly Technic and their plan was simple wherever people walk and cause a rut we build a sidewalk that's reactive but it works we we call that the cowpath uh method of sidewalk design there you go perfect all right I'm sorry I'll be quiet huh that's a promise okay the next one is about the building perimeter landscape area um so we got some comments about this of of why we are proposing this so I I I would say from a landscape architect perspective building perimeter landscape AP is a very very common aspect of many landscape codes uh the intent here is to not be overburdensome but at least require some type of Greening in front of the buildings and that's that's literally it on the primary facade as well we specifically said the primary facade so I'm going to retract the I won't speak thing we didn't believe you so so so in the target areas the the code says put your building up against the street there's some discussion of in a residential use you create more of a a dard so to speak and I'd refer to b2a there because we do reference the target areas and we allow planter boxes well right but but what we're saying is there shouldn't be any requirement for any planting because what we're doing in the Target area we're trying to do is the Furnishing Zone with the trees the walking area the retail area of the building there's no landscape in there and putting it in there kind of pushes the building back and it's kind of a I think a problem so my view is b1a we should not require anything in those target areas against the building question would the Furnishing Zone would that area allow for those Planters so that they're technically not losing 18 in but it's not against the building and this is what that this is building perimeter it's not on the per or the building it's on the street yeah so in our Banaras it's very common to have Planters right um pots bringing right if you see Park Avenue in Winter Park if we have we going to so there is no landscape area in between the sidewalks and the and the buildings because we have that that's the area we have the um usually seting Cafe you know the so the Furnishings right the furniture so I think it's kind of tricky the other things so I see as um as a resource in architecture MH if you have a facade that is you know that is missing some interest to bring landscape and we have that in the in the landscape uh in the AR U architectural standards we have that as an option the other things to require because I also can see people saying you're requiring landscape next to Foundation if you so you start having and even the code requires some distance with trees so we you start getting into areas that is kind of difficult if you're going to require so we tried to write this to where we require landscape but we're agnostic as to what type of landscape okay right so we're not saying that you have to do this many trees and that kind of thing it just has to be landscape my point is within the target areas there should be specifically stated that there is no requirement because it's counter productive to what we're doing from architectural standards and and urban form okay so what I'll do is I'll go back to the Target area proposals of the street Scapes and look at them in comparison with the section and we'll make some updates to make sure that they speak to each other right but what what I'm saying right now is in my view b1a should say there is no requirement for building perimeter Landscaping in the target areas period because it doesn't really work with what we're trying to do it it just doesn't really work when when you look at everything we've done now that doesn't prohibit it and residential uses it makes some sense non-residential uses it's counterproductive to what we're trying to do which is push the buildings up at with a zero foot setback and this kind of adds a setback that we don't want does anyone have any other comments on this uh I agree with Dave I think that again again go to any City we're try in the target areas that you go to any City and that's exactly it would be a detriment to have suddenly against the against the building you're now 18 inches off and having Planters Etc then you're going to put your little cafe tables or whatever you're going to have out there when especially when the requirement is to have X amount out here already so I think it definitely the the two ways should really just say it's not required in the target areas at all any other thoughts so if we don't have specific streetcape requirements in the less Urban target areas are you comfortable with this addressing those specific target areas so so not um mud CA DM or DN it would be the others so I I think that's probably true because we're talking the the downtown core and the Central Avenue District are a little different right so like the the both the marketplace and Gateway areas could have these requirements we're just don't want to conflict with the ones that have specific streetcape requirements is that what I'm hearing I don't I don't really have an issue with that okay you we'll take it back and look at those and make sure that they're not conflicting and make sure that this addresses specifically um well Citywide plus the target areas that are do not have specific but even for those I would say that this would be a good turn one of the um ways that you can articulate a building is to bring the landscape as an articulation element to the architecture of the building more than do you want to add this to like the mitigation section well not because we have elements that you you can use to bring an interest to the to articulate the building I I think a requirement for every building even in Suburban areas we are going to have issues then I think we should strike it and allow them to just go if it makes sense in the in the in the plan you know then it's good I mean it's it's it's not a requirement I don't think it belongs in the Land Development code one of our concerns is that the lot already has a buffer requirement outside of the target areas so we felt like the building um perimeter Landscaping was probably Overkill so that's in front of the building between the building and the street as opposed to the sides and the rear which are by the buffer requir today we have that as an option how you can articulate your facade this is a one of the options okay if it makes sense it's yeah it's a good feature but I I I question if it should be a requirement in every building okay so my question is do you want us to beef up the language that you already have in that mitigation or architecture section with some of this language or are you happy the way it is and we should strike this section and allow the existing one to stand not strike because then it's required everywhere within target areas no strike means no I think it should be part of the mitigation it should be beefed up let's beef the mitigation okay so I'll Greg I'll work with you on that we'll go look at the mitigation section and add some of this language strike the whole thing yes strike it from this section which is currently required we're going to put it in put some of this language into the existing section which makes it an option for buildings which are not meeting the architectural standards to provide enhanced landscaping and so we're going to better Define what that enhanced Landscaping should look like in the mitigation section it will not be required target areas or Citywide it'll be a mitigation option yeah everybody on the same page okay and then I have a question where you're saying one large tree in the facade right does it have to be located within that perimeter or can it be they're talking about striking the whole thing but going to beef up another section so that's why I want to ask this question before you throw in a large tree up against a a building are you talking about number two second line down yes okay so you know under story trees palm trees that's fine but large trees up against a building could cause some structural damage so I'm not comfortable with saying a large tree okay especially when you already have large you already have your tree requir the street scrap or buffer okay okay okay so so Katie just a a general request could could you or Greg send us and I know you're changing it but can you send us the presentation so we have it sure thanks I'm going to send it to staff because I don't think I have well that's what I meant okay okay so digging into Article 15 uh so this is existing code uh the the red lines you see came from staff uh when we got these back or from the ldcc comments when we got this back um where traffic areas are proposed at or near natural grade alternative perious surfaces may be used used in conjunction with stone or gravel specific details may be approved by the development order or permit issuing authority and the question is is this intended to be during construction or permanent solution and this is existing code language so how is it interpreted now temporary I think that what we came up with I think I I don't know Gloria if you were here or Alexis was here I think everyone agreed it worked yeah we titled it differently we added that I think yeah I think everything is good with the change so I don't know that there's anything to talk about okay I think it's fine skip I skipped one yeah go back sorry there we go okay so we have a comment why is 12.1 being deleted from here um that that table is not included in the section um but there is a 15.1 and we did not delete it we did do some changes to it so just a little unsure about this question so I this is Harris's game a little bit but but I think 121 was the planting requirement in the landscape section yes and there was a provision of having a cap uh in the replacement requirement based on 121 I think it's the reference about the reference being removed not the table being removed yeah and I I think some of this will get sorted out with the tree exercise conversation okay okay which is our next slide so we'll just jump right into that so we have been updated from staff about y'all's previous meeting and discussion of a a different means of tracking the number of trees on the site and providing a cap and providing a cab and so we had responded to staff encouraging the percentages to adjust a little bit and there was some push back so I leave it to you all to talk about so uh I'll just I was uh presented with this last week and uh I went back to some of our intern experts Tree Experts uh registered tree expert Landscape Architects throughout the firm and the idea of proposing a ratio as shown here is is a viable option and it and it will work it's our recommendation that the percentage that we're shown here that we are showing here are too low uh to actually protect a significant amount of the existing tree cover so what staff has presented here um is probably up for discussion amongst the group but where I would have you focus is where it says ratio over there on kind of the the bottom right and scale and so the proposal as currently shown is that for trees that are uh in between 8 and 18 in that 20% of those trees would be 20% of those inches would be required replacement inches does that make sense and so in following that ratio um currently it's showing the same for 18 to 30 in and then for 30 in plus the required percentage goes up to 25% our team the consultant team recommends that those numbers should be changed to say 50% of the inches that are 8 to 17.9 should be required for replacement uh 18 to 29.9 should be 75% and 100% of the trees that are 30 plus inches should be required for replacement and obviously per the code if you can't fit all of those trees on the site that cap would then refer to the tree mitigation cost where the funds would go to the bank the tree Bank whenever you're ready chair somebody else want to go first before dat so I know staff has a response yeah so I was going to say them right this I was to say I'd like to hear what staff has to say first and then Dave after staff completes their or whoever else wants to go first go Noe nobody raise your hand so Dave go first oh I'll go first I don't care I can go after we're gonna plug those numbers in that Greg mentioned so you all can see what the difference would be can you make it thank you I was I feel like I like stuff really tiny like to read it I feel like I'm in an optometry I like stuff really tiny man that's tiny for me so let me just explain what is the idea here right so we wanted to simplify the regulations there was this need you know so that it does not open to multiple interpretations of the code uh we needed to have a uniform and more Equitable way to require replacement trees because right now today is based on the future development and we we wanted to make it a percentage of the canopy that you had on site and um so that's why we came with the percentage so what is the P how much you should account for from the trees you are removing from site and then um in in this percentage that you have to account for we would like to include preserve trees and landscape trees so if you have to account i''s say 30% of your of the canopy that you had before everything that is on the S would count yes the trees you're preserving and the trees um you're planting it's new trees that serve as landscape trees would count for those and buffer trees that is buffer trees Island Trees you know so this would be a way to simplify the you know the calculation and and that will have to be explicitly you know written in the code so that it does not open to different you know um uh recommendations the other thing that today and that is also up to discussion apart from the percentage is today we do not account for any tree um smaller than 8 in but we require for replacement in new trees 2 and A2 in so we could still and it's another pass to say we are not going to count for the h 8 in Street and we need Greg's opinion on that cuz I don't know if we reach that level with him but we could count anything that you preserve that is greater than 2 and A2 because 2 and 1/2 Ines is the new requirement so if you preserve 2 and A2 inch and greater that that counts as a new tree so so the discussion is now on the percentage and and um haris is going to lead that exercise real quick just just for clarification because I know this part of our discussion before and maybe I'm dumbing it down you had 100 Ines of trees you remove 50 inches you're required to replace what 20% of 50 I don't know 20 it's 100 so no for this so say you have to read go ahead I I a little Clarity um it's dependent on the size of the tree that you removed right so I'm just dumbing it like in total regardless of the size of the tree like when you did your math you had to replace total amount of inches you're saying that if you saved 50 in that 50 in counts towards your total yes okay yes Harris before you talk and I know he said make it bigger but we can't see the project list so can we make it one nub smaller so we can see what we're talking about which which I guess not that's okay it's a big Night sheet we can tell you yeah we can go back and forth when we start if we need to get into project specifics we can get there well I'm just curious when I'm sitting here to look at it and I I can't tell yeah we we'll slide back when we need to just to get that information in so the uh consultant was talking about their 5075 one uh ratios being applied and so if that were to happen um y yellow in the table over here on this end we have code consultant and then staff's proposal that would sway it so that the amount of trees required for replacement would be the highest level for staff's propos well just a clarification that the first consultant is your first proposal based on the original draft the original draft and now the staff in yellow is the second consultant proposal it's the proposal based on the percentage with their with their percentage numbers right yes is it inches or trees in yellow yeah it's well it's trees but it's drive by deriv from the Ines um so staff was in a previous conversation with the consultant The Preserve canopy desirable preserve canopy was between 20 and 25% and so we kind of ran with that and came up with so I think someone asked the question oh I'm sorry where it says staff is that inches or trees inches it's Tre it's trees uh it's so is it trees or is it's trees it's converted to trees yes it's counted on on on inches but they convert they are converting back in the table to trees two and a half to two and a half yes so so there was something that required the consultant proposed 85 and and your math based on what they just said is 466 466 trees yes that is correct and that's two and a half the Consultants is 85 yeah but again it's one project so the is that's 85 85 trees and that's 2 and a half inches is that I'm just trying to get that so it's 85 trees at 2 and A2 inch caliper MH yes and then the next one is 466 trees at 2 and 1 12 inch caliper required trees 85 just so we're all kind of again I'm I was getting confused so let's go back to what the STA what the um consultant is proposing if you go back to the ratios and put in the numbers the 466 is going to be staff's version I don't care I'm not it just I want to know what what's my what what am I looking at all replacement trees regardless of whether it's the code consultant or staff or 2 and 1/2 inch replacement right but you're talking trees over there number of number of trees at 2 and a half inches not not not inches not in correct that's all we trying but they were calculated based on inch but they were converted back so the last column is not changing when you're doing this so we should ignore it the last colum required trees no that that column is not changing because that's the landscape that's the landscape 12 that's 121 right yeah thank you yes got it so so basically we're not trying to increase the number of replacement trees are we we are trying to have now Equitable type of of U regulation and I just want to going to point out that the first one um increases substantially but that is because they had a pass because of the cap because of the type of development if it's single family um development then the cap is very low and that's why the numbers in the first and second column are are low is that project it's the um Allin all in landing Town Homes all in town homes so the town homes are not calculated by acreage it's the number of units for the town homes and town homes have two two trees right for lot yeah yeah one one large tree per a lot actually yeah so when so the cap is very low because twice that number so you calculate the number of of and that is the thing that we have today that because the cap is based on the projection of what type of development that differs you know depending on the side that's a seven acre project correct yeah a little over seven yes so based on this proposal they're going to have streets they're going to have town homes and we're going to require either them to pay or put in 66 and a half trees an acre it's kind of insane it is insane and I what I was trying to say is I heard the staff say 30 20% will be replaced and I heard the the consultant mention we should they suggest 50% then another number it was 50 and they suggested 75% which is a huge increase I don't I don't agree with that I think that is cumbersome developers have so many hurdles to go through and so much expense we don't need to overburden them with more stuff and more and more and more this is just we want to encourage developments not put more Road Blocks yeah that's my if I may just to provide some clarification as to how the calculation comes to its result in relation to the trees that are out there on site so for instance with Allin you have 444 or 440 trees that were actually removed but when when you talk about the uh inches converted so whatever the inch those 440 trees multiply by the inches that they have divided by 2 and A2 which is our standard replacement tree it comes out to 2845 trees that were removed from the site and so some of these depending on the composition of the trees that are on site that's what's kind of speaking into the calculation and that's why some for instance with all in town homes it has a very high uh replacement count comparably to another project of vetto Commons which is about the same acreage they remove they actually removed more trees but they had a young they had young um they were younger trees yeah they were younger trees and because of that their conversion was it was uh much smaller they only have 71 replacement trees but you can see in this column the difference is 500 so all in town homes 440 trees 539 for AO Commons but the converted trees all in town homes has 2,845 while oo Commons has 935 Stephen okay so I apologize because I wasn't at the last one if I go to the last the the replacement trees per exercise the required trees that's how much they were required at the end if I can get like the 85 I I'll look at that we look at that line all in landing so they were required their required number was 85 in the end the are you talking about this column right here yeah the required the required trees are the code minimum required landscape trees so that's what they would be required again and I know it's the 2 and 1 half inch trees it's converted to trees so going through that exercise code right now they would be required to put 85 trees in8 go ahead can I just say that 104 plus 85 or 85 I apologize some of some of you are on the sustainability task for force and at the sustainability task force one of the things that the task force complained about and we hear this from residents is that when developers come in they clear the land by La they do not try to preserve any of the trees and so the board was concerned about how do we get them to preserve some of the trees um because you see you'll see that same development they clear cleared 440 trees was it 4 I can hardly see but the required replacement was 85 and that's I'm going to get to if it give me give me a sec hold on if you give me a sec so it's again there they took two 440 trees that's converted to 2,845 and2 in to convert it over to the column over there m now it's say code requires 104 I'm sorry cuz again I missed yeah C so they re 104 plus the 85 is what today today yes today that's what they were required um and that's what I'm trying to when you you keep saying we want to kind of even it out so then they had to they can only put on how many they're required for two per whatever so they really just put how many trees on and then paid into a bank correct well in this that's part of the thing to me I I really don't care like we we can get into it because that's part of it to me is I I and I have this discussion I've had this discussion for years with people I use lioke as an easy example I have people from chilota saying we've ruined live o ruined and I go let's go look at the satellite pictures please and take the satellite pictures and go tell me what that looks like and around the little water holes were trees and the rest was flat sand with some scrub nothing I go now look at it now and tell me there are less trees on the 2,000 acres with 900 homes or 900 I think it's th000 Acres with 900 homes tell me that there are less trees now and that's a problem I I and I'm looking at this going this is kind of reverse like well so how many trees are actually planted on that property that are that are consequential trees not you know that are 2 and 1/2 in that they were required that's important to me not well then I have to put into the tree bank I that's a punishment to me I just go it doesn't do anything in reality to refresh and put up trees in an area plus it's punishing someone because I looked right at him and said so if I got an egg right now and I got CH Chapman is my easy again another easy examp example Chapman used to have that beautifully worthless pine tree Forest sitting there that they planted to keep their ad when they cleared it first 15 years ago then they planted do nothing pine trees to sit there to keep their EG then they cleared it and put up town homes so I'm like so the reality would be to me looking in a two second thought is oh so if I got my a already and I'm going to convert my future land you is whatever I should knock the trees down now and put on cows and then I'm not going to be beaten on because this is retaliatory in a way if I happen to have big trees on that area cuz you look at it 28,45 they had some big trees there so they get hit hard yeah they had an older right so they get killed versus someone else who had maybe had more trees a much denser area well you're going to pay less and not get hit as hard and they get capped because they're a town home they're going to get capped anyway I'm like it it's well it's a recognition that trees have value I'm not I'm not against it I they do well in a way should be if you're saying it's so if um um Allin would not be required to replace any trees so they would remove for 140 trees I'm not saying they shouldn't put down some trees I'm just saying you're say you keep saying it should kind of be even we should find a way to make this well what is even and I look at this and go it totally is not no well if every site is different right so exactly so um either we say it's the same the same percentage to every calber that would be another way right so let's say we require any tree regardless of the of the caliper right to be 25% right right so that would be we would equalize right the percentage Yeah what this is saying is that well larger trees have more value mhm then smaller trees than less mature trees right cuz you're removing you know 100y old trees with a huge canopy whatever for the environment has more you know value but we are giving the same rule to everybody you know it's the same percentage the standard is the same for everybody I I'll use D's argu but it's my tree it's it's I happen to have the land that has 5 30in trees and it's like so I can't use my land you're telling me or I got to pay deal for it the first question that we ask here is that do are we eligible should we require replacement trees and the whole board said yes of course region so so the question is what is the rule who's responsible you you you make it my respons I'm the Landover I own allans the property for Allens Landing I got I happen to have five 30inch beautiful trees my future land use is set 1978 through 82 is putting that on there so I have the right to do that okay but I happen to have property that's beautiful and has these great 30inch trees so it's I get hit very hard because of that keep your tree keep my tree it's not it is my tree so I can cut it down what's what it it's up to you as the community so then you as the community it's like this my my father-in-law he had people behind him they didn't want to build a house he got together and they bought the five acres that were behind him and preserved them what's the little park in Alfa that was a snid for how many years that's like the biggest Credit in life to me is well they felt it was responsible enough so those alipa woods paid for 20 years a little extra in tax to preserve you're telling me well this is my you're demanding this is my responsibility to take care of all these trees for every everyone because it's in everybody's benefit to do that no we say that everybody will have the follow the same rule 30% it's not everybody doesn't have to follow it's not that you're but again it's for the common good correct this is a community good and for the good of not only ovita the US the world whatever this is for everybody's good but I have to pay for it on my tree that I own that's my point is it's my you just said it it's your tree so keep it and it's in the reverse so you're questioning my Tre I should cut it down you're saying no to that question that the city should not require replacement trees no I'm not saying that at all you arguing no I'm arguing that this is this is abusive almost this gets very harsh if you have an older tree so let me let me one it's a philosophical question that's in the courts do trees have rights right and you know are they you know for the people you but at to what point do they need to replace it the consultant is saying you need to be stronger staff is saying 20% so no they're not asking them to replace every every tree every inch that was so and on top of that I'd also like to offer the fact that all in town homes was first in the batting order as far as the Excel sheet so it kind of takes out some of the punch of what's going on in the rest of the Excel sheet right and so there's you could see the cells that are identified in yellow those are where the highest amount of trees are required excuse me and the code for three of the projects is still the highest requirement um and and so the by doing it by ratio there are other projects that are actually uh not highest required and so it's really B but it it's tying that Nexis of the calculation back to what it is you have on site as opposed to an arbitrary number that's been created as far as what our lot tree requirements are which is the current version or the lot minimum requirements which would be uh moving Target as staff calculates because when you change the site whether it may require more trees because of the Dynamics of the site development my argument is going just higher that's my big argument is going above what it what you proposed the first proposal is just crazy C your issue is because um um so you you're okay with this requiring replacement trees the your issue is is differentiating be asking more for more mature trees and last for if I if I had any proposal for the answer I swear I'd be like here's a better way I don't know the better way I'm just pointing out I this is not you keep saying we want to be fair I'm going oh it's totally not fair and the end result is a lot of times payment into a tree Bank versus trees so it's well it's I I would also like to offer that payment into the tree bank is not the only way and a lot so for instance Allen did not pay into the tree bank at all except for Street trees that they couldn't place in there and they had planted additional trees because uh so the lot tree requirement required at least one large tree per the lot so they did that and then they provided uh the additional replacement trees which I think was 52 or 56 and then they upped them in caliper to 4in caliper and they did that all in the open space area which wouldn't have required any trees because of the way that the lot tree requirement works right now so due to time I'd like to um one do do we want to do the ratio in the the terms of you know trying to make things a little bit more even across the board regardless of the type of lot what you're developing at Etc and then two the current options on the board are 20% 20% 25 50 75 100 or is there another option and there's another option and I I would like a chance go ahead before we take action here okay so Stephen alluded to some of it and the simple premise we can all agree Everyone likes treats we can all agree that it's disturbing to most people when they see clear cutting we we all get that okay so I understand the the politics of that so the the issue of equity there's different perspectives so we're listening to to the staff and their perception of equity is someone who had more trees gets hit harder I think Steven's perception of equity is everybody should be treated the same so so I just wanted to throw out there and read to you guys a couple things from the courts okay and how how I I found this but my position is simple and I'll say it up front before I read these things Madam chair I'm sorry can I can I just interrupt because the consultant has about 15 more minutes so can we go through the rest of that presentation then come back to this discussion I have a question for the consultant the numbers that you require which are quite high is there a reason like is there science behind that percentage uh larger trees are more valuable okay yeah if you plant a tree today you're not going to get a yeah the 30y old trees you just can't replace right so it's really a deterrent correct the percent it's supposed to make that is the intent that the penalty is so sever that it is encouraging development to protect the natural resource okay that was my question and I will say in other municipalities there are straight up restrictions on not being able to remove trees above a certain diameter period with like 27,000 $30,000 fines and fees to take to take out these larger oak trees so um you know I think what is is written is really a compromise of what we see industry standard other places okay yes and I'm the tree um but and I hate to move on from that I know you guys are going to circle back and get us an answer on where you guys land but I do want to get through these items before we head out um this one I was just a little bit confused on the question um there was a comment about oh yeah go back I'm so sorry um this one is asking about subdivision 5 but this is existing language in the code um so it's talking about the city's Tree Bank per subdivision 5 the city Tree Bank I I'm not sure and I'm not sure I think there's some confusion in terms of this as well but the the reference in terms of the diversity of species is correct it will follow article 7 I think it was the wrong reference I think it was the reference was wrong yeah okay so that's existing code so if it's the wrong reference I I I'll look for it um and and make that update and then for the next one um the uh as far as the fee yeah for for the fee we would propose that we develop a fee that matches the cost of a 2.5 in planted tree which is currently in Market standards hovering around $200 an inch so there's the cost of the tree there's the cost of the installed tree this is an installed tree the $200 so you're talking like 500 bucks correct okay so that that's pertinent when we go back it is to what the numbers are yes so because today it's 250 right Harris yes yeah and it's 250 forever I know yes it's 250 forever right which is a problem so wait a minute we know it's completely outdated right yeah okay so for the burden of tree protection I know Greg had some thoughts about this what is the appropriate number of years to ensure survival it says one in the code today and the proposed change that we got was to two years so we we kind of need to split this up a little bit because we have retained and replacement listed as both the one year um you could easily put a two-year requirement on the retained trees but industry standards from a landscape installation perspective are going to have a one-year warranty they're not there you'd have to force somebody to pay for additional warranty on that so a question for staff if someone has and I've seen this happen you have a a requirement it's in your your plans something dies you come to make a change you're going to say you're going to go back to the plans and make them put those trees in so th this is really an onon planning thing but you're still going to have teeth in Code Enforcement to get those trees back if they're gone right like like like happened with Longhorn right I don't know if it was treated with something so this this is not forever this is just what they have to guarantee when they put it in kind of like public facilities what do you get two years one year yeah yeah so it doesn't mean the staff doesn't get to make people put trees back later right and this is existing code yeah so we're getting into the Wetland section here um and we have some conflicting requests um so we did not make a ton of changes to the section um it was not identified for us as a high priority so we're willing to make whatever kind of changes you guys want to see here um so if you want to make some more suggestions and send them our way that's that's fine with us um this makes no sense this is in your code today so um we we hadn't made a lot of changes here so if you'd like to update this let's let's do it well there's stuff in the code that that makes no sense we're just acknowledging that oh yeah um so it was all written before Teresa was oh yeah of course or or times changed right yeah um so uh Dave you had asked to remove number or letter B from this list again this is existing code we're fine to strike it if if staff is okay with striking it but this should really defer to the if you guys are not reviewing any sort of permit for a wetland here most of this language should just defer to St John's River Water Management District and FD so if you're asking for kind of an overhaul of the section to strike most of it and refer things through that process I think that's smart um and refer to the comp plan because you have some comp plan standards related to Wetland buffers um but my understanding is there's no state requirements for buffers but you can have them so um some of the suggestions that you guys had were oh here we go 10 or 25 ft um your comp plan has currently has where is it for the econ L hatche River quarter protection area it's 50 ft 25 minimum yeah well the protection Zone says 50 feet not 25 it's 25 50 average in the protection Zone it's 50 and then on the right in in the rest of it it's 25 she was just the average is 50 the minimum it's 5050 minimum if you if you continue the language there yeah the minimum 2 minimum 25 average of 50 okay sorry I was looking at D up here where it says contain at least 50 feet of Uplands property which is D in the top left I think the thing is that we were taking language from the econ and putting it elsewhere in the city so we wanted to just make sure that requirements for econ remain in the econ because it's greater the buffer width is greater so we want to make sure so there isn't one currently for outside of econ and we don't want one 10t it's 10 ft for setback okay so I I again I'm just trying to clarify because I see a a recommendation to remove buffer requirements from Dave I see a recommendation to add two different buffer requirements from um Harris burins C so I just want to make sure we're all on the same page about what we should be adding so my comment dates to October and I think the committee made recommendations and whatever they are they are we already did it okay so we want 10 or 25 well no we we wanted to follow today it's 10 feet for anything outside of the econ we want to leave it at 10 so if you're going to put in if you're going to put in buffer requirements because the one thing that you that um kimley horn did was they put the econ buffer requirement for all of the city so it just needs to be specified that that's for right we want to specify what's econ and what's the rest of the city and you want it silent on the rest of the city or you want 10 ft for the 10 okay and then there was a comment about incorporating storm water into the Upland buffer areas um I found there a question about whether or not you can um include storm water into the Upland buffer our public works department um says no um but it was just a question to see if it's something that's common or not so I'm not quite sure what you all have experienced why not so uh we're working with Orange County right now and their Public Works is saying the same thing they don't want any in the UP UP And buffer area so we're writing it out of that um I I I don't think the state regulates that as long as you can have compensating storage for anything that you with so so my experience with the state is if they require the buffer and you're going to impact the buffer for any reason number one minimization they don't want you to do it number two mitigation so so I think the trick here is the the city doesn't really regulate what St John's does and follows what it does and and coming up with something that varies from that is bewildering so so St John's does a pretty good job of discouraging this stuff with umum scores and and mitigation and I think the distinction is a regular buffer for example Central County not a wetland buffer but a buffer buffer you can put your pond 50% into it right but that's a buffer buffer that's not a that's not a Upland buffer which is an Environmental Protection buffer which St John's is all over your case and I'm in the middle of and Harris knows one of those situations right right now uh they really don't want you to do it and I think the city can rely on they're going to require the mitigation if you do do it they're going to discourage you from doing it we're trying to avoid the duplication of having the city separate separately regulating the same exact physical thing so what I'm hearing from you is that the code should be silent on that issue and allow the state state regul um jurisdictional bodies to regulate that I think we had a meeting we took action our prior comments were just prior comments and they they aren't really well I there isn't language that relates to this right now that's why I'm bringing it up Katie I think we need to be explicit with it because we had that issue come up within the econ laachi area and our econ regulations are a lot stricter um than we although we all have the same language we are a lot stricter than other municipalities and that question came up um on one of the properties within the econ laachi um area so we Upland buffer so we want to make sure that it's explicit and that's just for econ or for Citywide Wetlands Upland buffers Wetland Upland buffers I for any of them is that what I'm saying okay so for any of them done uh the one thing I would add is I I think I understand what you're saying that uh sjr wmd regulates them and and they do a pretty good job of doing that but the other part of it is we don't we're not purview to the approving process their approvals we can't tie anything to it and by the city having uh a minimal requirement of 10 ft buffer that gives us the ability to be able to have a say and so for instance on one of the projects that we're working on uh the encroachment is not necessarily an issue except for the fact that it gets close enough to the Wetland that we're unsure whether they're able to put their erosion sedimentation control devices in to be able to get the retaining wall in uh and and not affect the Wetland and so I think the city does have interest in being able to at least weigh in on those those issues and we also have the ability to be able to deviate when uh those considerations come up so so to add to Harris's thing and since we're in the middle of this project and he and I had this discussion it gets a little bewildering because you have Wetland impacts and if you impact the Wetland You by definition have to get to the Wetland wiped out the Upland buffer so now it's gone and you have dual impacts and typically they make you say okay the Wetland is now here and the buffer is now here but it's not in its natural state it's changed so these things have moved okay so part of what happens with with what Harris is reviewing let's say this project isn't done with St John's yet this line is moving well you can't touch this buffer but the Buffer's not there anymore it's it's moved so it gets horribly bewildering because also the city is prohibited from not issuing your permit if you don't yet have the St John's they can say you don't start building so you run up run around in this circle of not knowing where you're coming from and I think the city weighing in now now I get what Gloria is saying if you have an Upland buffer don't put a pond in it makes perfect sense okay what har is saying is if you have a tricky situation you mtig you you from the city perspective can get a deviation mitigate or not mitigate it comes down to what you negotiate but I think an overall you can't touch is bad now to to Deborah's point the comprehensive plan adopted the draft language St John's put out years ago for the econ buffer they're they don't have that kind of setup other governments didn't put it in the comp plan so you can go deviate we can't deviate from the comp plan so I think to Deborah's point it is what it is what it is and the code has to match for the econ but that's not the case everywhere else and the buffer moves and you get caught in these situations of this staff trying to enforce something that St John's is doing and it's just Troublesome I I would think that you should be reviewing plans once you have a permit from the St John river water man where the jurisdictional lines are you know they can't in in that in that vein when you have a wetland when you have a wetland mitigation for instance that you're projecting on the plans the plans get projected with that Wetland mitigation the verification of it happens afterward and technically speaking you're not really you don't have to convey that to us although it has been in the past and so if the conversation is that the applicant plans on uh uh reducing the buffer through sgr wmd then that could stated on the plans and we can go ahead and wash it out I think so is there a question that we have to answer the board or are we going with the statement of no up it's 10 ft for anything other than the econ Basin so if you're the in the econ protection area you have to follow the comp plan which is the 2550 and then anything else is a 10 foot Upland buffer and with no storm water allowed within the Upland buffer correct Citywide Citywide okay that's what I heard everybody good everybody's good with that good so the only distinction I would make and and if it's understood it's understood is when you read that it might suggest you can't touch this Wetland You Can't Touch This Upland buffer but through your St John's permit you're moving those lines they're not and it's fine right we are fine with that okay as long as it eventually matches that permit well so what we get is the they will have to show in the in our side plan the new line and from this new line we um then apply the buffer whatever the and you guys don't issue that building permit until you've seen that approval of the jurisdictional we cannot we cannot um subject our permit to someone else's permit by the statutes but we can coordinate we can you know unless they deny a permit if they deny a permit then we have to uh we can you know subject our permit to a new permit being issued and it has happened in the past but we cannot today we cannot byy by the statute subject our condition our appointment to someone else's permit is that a new statute no it's been a year some years but yeah yeah 2011 that all happened yeah I when I was at the city of Orlando we requireed those permits at the master plan stage so you you you've got your lines drawn already yeah I I think as a courtesy and they have the permits on hand and we typically do it as a tracking method saying we're requesting the documentation and they developers typically provide it but we you know if they were to say no I don't want to n and boo boo then we'd have to go okay all right move forward okay and then we could communicate with sgr wmd or if it was FD ISS to them to enforce right exactly got it okay well that concludes our presentation I think we have some good direction um I am going to write up these notes and get back to you early next week I'm actually headed out of town tomorrow okay um but I do still have some follow-up questions for staff so I'll Circle back with you next week okay all right perfect thank you thank you everyone thanks thanks can I pass us back to you let us know where you land on the trees oh absolutely hang hanging from your your uh parachute do you want to have a five minute break or continue this we'll break for five minutes really cool kimy horn work I am gonna take a r sprinkle cook good to see you guys thank you have a good rest of your day thank first want of inter a copy of the article so this is what we're going to review now wow you e you yes okay we had to thank you all right we will um bring the meeting back to order and where we had left off um on this discussion David you were okay speaking okay so so to kind of restart um I think I said you know it's understandable people like trees we could agree that there's a benefit to trees we can agree that people don't like it when trees are cut down and I would also tell you having experience this directly um developers who cut the trees down are the scourge of society that are ruining the world so so we can all uh now that I'm what did you say developers that cutes down are can you say that again please no I did not hear I really did not now that's what people say I'm not saying that this is my statement what then people that uh developers that cut down trees are are a Scourge on society I've I've heard it all okay you didn't hear that oh I've hear it plenty I say it to so the first time I sold something up the street from my first home my wife came home mad that the trees were cut down I said did you enjoy your dinner well what do you mean well how do you think I bought it so hey there you go so I hear it everywhere okay uh so so let's all acknowledge that and and I think there's a difference in perspective of Equitable I I think what Theresa is suggesting Equitable is is if you cut down more trees than there were larger ones there should be more um call it what you will punishment mitigation discouragement whatever you call it there should be more of it that's your view right no my view is that we will have now a percentage that will be applied to everybody if we going to differentiate or not that's that's right but the basic and can I just say it's not um Teresa's view it's our existing code so so today the larger the tree the the worse you punished I got you okay so it happens to be my view and I think I heard Stephen saying something but I won't put words in his mouth that if you're allowed to use a property a certain way that punishing you for doing it because you happen to have the peace with more trees and your neighbor didn't is is sometimes what I would call from the perspective of everyone's treated the same not Equitable so it's all a matter of perspective you had more trees so it's Equitable and bigger ones that you pay more or everybody's treated the same so well but everybody's not treated the same as it is today and so for instance with the code and and I just to kind of parse through that a little bit with the code it's based on lottery requirements well the lottery requirements are different for the type of development that happen so for I'm I'm not trying to debate it I'm just setting the stage for what what I'm getting to so I'm just saying there's two different perspectives uh one perspective is someone who had no trees and has a certain requirement shouldn't necessarily have a different requirement from someone who had a lot of trees that's one perspective another perspective is people that had a large number of trees especially larger ones should mitigate more more okay now back in 04 I was on a Land Development code committee and the city code at that time which kti referenced there are cities that do this including Winter Springs frankly every inch you cut down you must replace and if you don't you pay what Winter Springs used to do you're allowed to go to the city commission and years ago they would say well this is a ridiculous amount of money and too many trees we're going to give you relief the president City commission says go pound sand too bad okay so you end up with these very egregious sums of of money so I kind of did a little research on this for for other reasons I came across some things and I don't I'm I'm going to read from some court cases I'm not seeking legal opinions I'm not asking David Hall to agree or disagree I'm not debating them I just want to read you what they say now without getting into the section where it says it a tree is physically attached to the soil o on the property so a tree by definition is not personal property it's real property it's physically attached that's the legal definition of what it is okay and that matters in this stuff but that's what it is so really not related to trees there was a Supreme Court case called sheets which was really about can you legislatively impose things requirements that you couldn't otherwise do in the executive in other words can you take someone's property by legislative action and we happened to be here debating legislative action so so whether you can or can't is applicable and nine Supreme Court Justices said you can't and I just want to read a little thing from this case because basically the premise is trees are good for the public trees benefit the public Harris gave a presentation at our last meeting about all these wonderful things trees do um remove carbon dioxide provide shade lower the temperature all all kinds of things we can all agree that inre property values all all those things okay so nobody's debating whether those things are true or false okay so here's the beginning of the decision now nine justices agreed but there were I think three three or four separate nuanced decisions so this is from the primary decision and it says and I'm not going to read the whole thing held in other words this is their finding the taking Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land use permit conditions that's the first thing I said so here's the what I think is the important one and everyone could debate what this means but I just want to read it when the government wants to take private property for public purpose which which is exactly what we're talking about that's your tree and you owe us because of this tree it's private property for public purpose the fifth amendment's taking Clause requires the government to provide the owner just compensation the Clause saves individual Property Owners from bearing public burdens which in all fairness and Justice should be borne by the public at large okay so this all relates to and I'll just read this last section we've talked about it here the Nolan Dolan test does does the city have a reason to regulate trees and we've all acknowledged yes okay and that's that's true so the Nolan test is should they um regulate trees certainly the Dolan test is is it roughly proportional okay so all this is saying here is regardless of whether there's physical takings Regulatory takings and so forth the the unconstitutional doctrines the unconstitutional conditions Doctrine which underlies Nolan Dolan test applies to legislative and official acts we're participating in a legislative process so interestingly since I'm a big fan of Pacific Legal and since Pacific Legal brought this to the Supreme Court I decided to read the the plaintiff's brief to the Supreme Court okay the plaintiff's brief to the Supreme Court referenced two cases against the township of Canton Michigan that's specifically related to trees and I just want to read a couple of things from those now this case was decided by the six District Court of Appeals in 2021 the case I just referenced was April 12 2024 so these are very very recent okay so I'm not going to suggest our district is the six District but the Constitution is the Constitution okay so what was Canton doing Canton was requiring based on inches inch for inch replacement of trees the city of Vito today has a cap the staff is suggesting percentages I don't I don't think that's the point so I just want you to read in this case that went to the court um that plaintiff referenced a Texas case and this court decision references that Texas case and I'm going to read this part then it noted the government's lack of evidence to support of finding of rough proportionality which is the Dolan test okay the city did not show and this is in quotes from that case which is referenced in this one the city did not show that the removal of trees and development would harm the air quality increase noise and glare remove ecosystems bring down property values or reduce other benefits of trees in the ordinance as we do here in other words with this case found the Texas Courts held that based on the record before the ordinance could not meet the evidentiary bar set for rough proportionality now I already acknowledged trees do these wonderful things okay the city in Texas did the same thing that this City's doing have a finding that trees do wonderful things without reading the entirety of this it basically was held there's no scientific basis for this it's just an assertion there's no analysis you're planting a certain number of trees you're removing a certain number of trees they're this canopy they're that canopy so I look at this and say gee we're asking this private property owner to take on this burden that is for the public and we're doing it in a way that might seem like rough proportionality but this court said it's not doesn't pass constitutional mustard now like I said David I'm not asking to debate this I just want people to have this information when we have this discussion D clarification was that inch per inch that they were requiring it was but the finding was that using inches as the metric was not scientific okay not that it was too many or not not too many it wasn't about the how many it was about the how Okay so the reality is there's been discussion here and I think Deborah referenced it and or Teresa mentioned it so let's just say the whole staff probably agrees with this there's Wetlands protections and there's mitigation the difference is when you go to Wetland destruction and mitigation there's something called this uniform method that they use called a umam score what was the quality of this Wetland what was the value of this Wetland what are you providing in mitigation and there's a scientific analysis that passes the Dual rational Nexus test inches for inches size of tree is a nice easy measurable metric but it's not scientific so basically what I'm saying is two things number one we're taking people's private property presuming it benefits the public so we own it somehow and we should make them pay which I disagree with and number two we're doing it in a method that you can agree or disagree that it's more Equitable I think we can all agree larger nice mature trees would be nice to save but the reality is you're telling someone they could use their property and then telling them you must pay so what I did in 20 2004 is recognizing certain properties were significant ly devalued and couldn't be developed which I thought was unfair proposed simply that we all get it that people want some politically redress for these removed trees the requirements in in actuality at you know the 85 trees on that piece of property the requirements for most projects other than single family or town home are kind of significantly below what you end up putting there because of buffer trees Street trees Island Trees all the other differing requirements you'll end up with more than the on some of these 12 Trees 10 trees 15 trees an acre okay so so back then the happy medium I proposed which not everyone agreed with but it passed and it voted on it got adopted by the council was table 121 requires a certain number of trees per acre don't make people plant more than double that period okay now as the staff says and as the consultant said you can read different things different ways and that has morphed into and and I'm not trying to debate it I'm saying just what was intended by me when I worked on drafting that and what was initially done was if you required 15 trees an acre and you took down a bunch of trees and you do all the math you're not required to plant more than 30 period what has happened is if you required 15 those don't count now and you're required 45 I I personally think that's wrong so very simply I would like to do what was intended in 2004 and cast it into the code now and I think that this exercise while I get what they're doing is basically saying You must pay the public because you took down your private tree and I would suggest to you the Supreme Court disagrees and the US your your your suggestion does the same thing the only thing because if you require replacement trees you're doing the same thing as we are doing the only thing is the method is the formula your formula is different but if you're requiring replacement trees and that's why I asked I asked the board are we okay should we require replacement trees is the is the can the city require replac rep Trees Everybody said yes and you said yes to I did so if if we can require replacement trees we are we are accept let's just say but we are accepting that there is private we are we are we we have there is public use or public benefit in replacing those private trees I'm just trying to get to what I'm recommending I'm not trying to to debate it with the staff I'm I'm not yeah but you're paint a picture though but you say that we cannot accept those our our position because of the court but yours is also no no no I read that to advise everybody so here's the reality you're a developer you're proceeding with your project like Sam talks about you're putting a lot on these people there's a lot of things that can have different interpretations nobody really wants to go to court okay that's a that's a reality so if you look at something on the face and you say the the intent of it and the scope of it is reasonable you're not going to challenge it and you're going to accept it so yes I'm reading what this says but is somebody going to go try to do a a takings case and go to court when when they're making their trees 4 inch trees instead of two and a halfs or they're planting a few more trees they're really not and it's been been that way for a number of years okay so I'm looking at the political circumstance and the Practical circumstance and this circumstance and saying what's a fit and trying to propose something period so Sam go ahead thank you I think what Dave is saying makes a lot of sense and we already talked about the city staff recommending numbers I think that is reasonable that is the code we accept it we respect it we agree with it but the point is we should not have somebody consultant we pay them dearly to come and tell us we suggest that you increase your numbers from 20% to 50% and from 50% to 75% we should not we should all say no we already have enough restrictions enough burdens what the staff is suggesting is wonderful well hang hang on Sam what they're suggesting on that one thing is someone does 466 trees where they were required to have4 yeah but let me remind you Dave you just said if the code requires 15 and you go to 30 you double it the city council said okay so we we put that as the limit so let's that's not what is being proposed clarify Mr there are two the code today has the cap and the cap is twice the number of the lotteries per one table and it varies depending on the type of development that's what they was was proposing to go back to what the code is we are suggesting a different thing right now is the percentage that will apply to all the and and what is the percentage we are not we are not married we we did not accept the suggestion from the consultant as well but I want to emphasize that you know Nicole asked a question is there a reason for adding this Hefty percentage on top of what we have I don't think there's a reason but let me just be let me just run something by you people when developers come to develop something they have mountains in front of them to move we should not add more and more and more we should be mindful when we do that let me just run by you one one more thing that goes parallel with trees for example you have generally speaking 25% open space requirements for almost everything you want to develop Housing Development commercial or whatever so 25% of the parcel is open space you need 15 to 20% for a pound okay you need at least 20 to 25% sometimes 30 for setbacks front setback 25 p 20 and back SE back is another 20 side sit Backs from 8 to 10 feet that adds to about 30% of the of the parcel then you also have roads of about 10% you also have buffers is also about 10% when you add all that up about 80 to 90% of the parcel it's gone you have to be mindful you can't just keep adding bordens more and more we want to be fair and reasonable does okay go ahead D I'd like to hear Teresa complete her thought you kind of got sidetracked here in the middle of saying some things I want to hear the rest of it I was just trying to say that we have two proposals right according to um Mr Axel so one is to you know go what to he says the the intention in 2004 and again he knows there are different interpretations of what was the intention in 2004 and it's you have the cap um um for development based on twice the number of the uh minimum required for the lot um uh trees which varies from development to development and that's why that that first um column that says code varies depending on the development because if it's a single family it differs from the the commercial because it's it's a it's the cap is a projection of what the S plan will be the proposal today from us that we wanted that we thought it was a simplification was to say okay we're going to say if you have a canopy in your site you have to account for a percentage of that c that that canopy in the new um post development right we know you're going to destroy and this number we are not married to is it 20% 25 30% we rejected the Consultants idea when they came today with um 50 75 in 100% without oh that's too much right because it's not reasonable to say you have to account for all the large trees on site we know development destroys trees but we are trying to balance out the post development because we also know that there is value for the city to have trees right it's also Economic Development according you know apart from all the other values that we that um Harris explained last time so our proposal is to is to discuss this percentage here and this percentage will count the new trees landscape trees would count preserved trees so it would be simplified and is it 20% do we want to vary depending on the size of the tree so you heard Greg saying well larger trees more more mature trees have more value so do you want to have a higher percentage to the 30 in and higher trees right or are we going to give the same you know percentage to any caliper of tree that's another approach or we going to invert because there are more L more smaller trees usually than larger trees in a so you destroy more smaller trees so we kind of we did some exercise and this is the exercise we we are proposing right this is our proposal what is this number here it's up to the board to to the committee to um to finalize but that was The Proposal but I was just trying to differentiate that Mr Nasser was agreeing with with u Mr Axel but they were having uh but he was also agreeing with staff so these are two different proposals sir go ahead you look like you have a question so are we now trying to determine between the two that that's what I'm thinking is that we need to determine do we want to stick with the old but clarify it or go with the staff's recommendations so if we have more questions for staff why they want to and I had a question on the I thought when you were talking about it last time you were saying the cap sort of it removes the incentive for Pres serving the tree do you remember that part of the conversation me yes so it's the method by which the Math's being done which I think is mistaken okay so the way I read the code and the way it was done for a number of years you Su you counted your your your um removed trees you figured out the cap and you got credit for the preserved the way the Math's being done now and Harris Can correct me if I'm wrong it all goes into one chart and you subtract the preserved uh and then apply the cap which means the preserved in in not all cases but in many cases did absolutely nothing for you and didn't count and it's not now we we clarify with Bri okay so you fix that no Brian has always had that he has always calculated that way and Brian was in my position for 20 years well all I'm saying is that way disincentivizes preserving trees and I I think it it's it's wrong now regardless of that I'm not suggesting and I just want staff to understand this that you shouldn't count a bigger tree is more you shouldn't have percentages or you shouldn't like fiddle with this math I think they would also agree that doing this math and then applying a cap could eviscerate this purpose of this math okay so I just wanted to give you a number and I appreciate what Harris is saying the example of Allin Square might be extreme but extremes happen Okay that that is what that's called right yeah so we just heard and I don't disagree with $250 a tree to buy it and plant it irrigate it doesn't really make sense because you can't do it okay now maybe you're going to buy one and plant it at your house you can do that but in a commercial construction environment where you're paying all these different providers you can't do it okay so 500's probably sensible I'm I'm not going to debate that so that project had 104 replacement trees according to the current code it had 85 required trees according to the current code according to the current staff interpretation the required trees couldn't count as replacement trees so they had to plant 855 plus 104 and some of that was probably achieved by doing 4 in trees right okay so you get the right to plant a bigger tree now today plan a bigger tree is because you felt you should because the 4in tree costs more than $250 more than the the uh 2 and a half inch tree now the math I've seen it's not quite 500 but it but it's the spread because six Ines are harder to get 6 inches are also less survivable but not egregiously so you you plant the two of them next to each other in four or five years the 2 and a half inch tree will be the same or larger size than the 6 in tree so it's a happy thing when you do it but it's not a longlasting difference so that particular project according to this particular lower set of percentages which is coming from the staff would require that developer to pay $132,500 into the tree bank for their own trees which is $2,600 it's 50 Town Homes more or less yeah 52 so I I'm slightly wrong this math but it's close enough I did $2,650 or a little less upfront by the developer which has interest carry and they've got to recover that money and it's going to add to the price of the house now some people suggest at some point there'll be a reduced developer profit but the fact of life is when people are doing development they have to recover a certain amount or they're not doing it sometimes market conditions allow them to crank the prices up they're now more constrained because interest rates are higher and they can't do it so you're basically charging this new Resident because they happen to buy a residence and whether it's a residence or an apartment complex or what whatever it is whether it's a home they're buying or somewhere they're living or a retail shopping center somebody has to pay for this yeah and I don't disagree that it's disturbing when you see trees that were there that are gone what I'm saying is deciding to hit those people that happen to have the more trees is imbalanced unfair and and wrong and I'm suggesting we have a cap if we check for instance in the the in the case of Allin if you remove 2,000 I cannot read that number 2,845 845 trees you're being requested to account for 300 yeah 384 I I changed the percentage by the way so yeah because if you change the percentage that that will change so we can work in that percentage to say what would be a fair lending right so so I understand that and I appreciate that and the percentages end up getting so low to make it fair because the reality is well but but just to have a convers I I think it may we're kind of posturing here about why it's important which way is important and so on and so forth it may be helpful for us to kind of gain the system and throw in some ratios in here and just talk about how this works because it may we may decide that this is complete hooy we need to throw it away and it doesn't work or and go back to the other side or we may go you know what these ratios actually kind of present a good situation that we want to have moving forward and one thing that I would like to say is that the preserv trees actually do matter when you're doing it in this particular scenario and on the bottom line here uh I'll go ahead and highlight it 13 we have a hypothetical scenario and so I just went ahead and I pre-loaded 250 trees I did it in a very arbitrary fashion uh where it's 175 50 20 and 5 uh for different categories and so uh and I also there's some assumptions here as far as what the inch the caler of those trees so on and so forth but long story short if you take the five trees from the removed for Heritage trees and then put them over into to the uh preserve column it goes you know the table changes so what was it before I'm sorry I should have accounted for that so before was 177 and then it changes down to 142 so there's an actual There's an actual Delta in the calculation based off what you're doing on the ground now obviously developer is probably not going to be able to save the five Heritage trees it might be spread out but this is is an example of how the preservation actually does save the amount of Replacements that you have to do so what you do on the on the site does matter so I also changed the scale from we had it I think before at 20 25 and 30 I changed it down I revised it down to 15 20 and 25 and we could do the same percentage all the way across if we want to we could do you know a couple different go rounds with the this but when we revise it so here let me put it back to 20 I I like the 15 202 yeah so this uh you know all in goes up to 516 when we do it in this fashion when we revise it down it goes down to 384 um and then but we have to see the others right some others are depending on the composition that you have on your can can we see which which is which here yeah we can go to the we can go back and forth which one it looks like most of them are going down so when you went down that far the the honest result is is and well well remember one caveat right now the way that the replacement trees do not include the minimum required trees and so now the new calculation does include the minimum required trees and so that's there is a cave that's why I was doing the spread now I I disagree with that but that's the way it's done today so what Harris just suggested which changes it to 384 still has a payment to the tree Bank of $91,500 for 52 units and the reality is if that's the approach without a cap you are saying that that private property owner with his private trees must pay for having taking them down to do a legal use of his property as as opposed to the the existing cap that is for a few different projects of 346 44 204 and 352 so if you isolate one project and you talk about only one project you'll come to that conclusion so what I was suggesting was was really two parts okay and and I guess now I have to add a third it was number one every tree you plant should count as a replacement tree every tree you plant or preserve every single one I don't care if it was required I don't care if it's a street tree I don't care whether what it is okay that that's just my my view now I think the present way of doing the math which I don't think I read the code that way and I've done plenty of projects where it's not that way where you subtract the preserved trees up front instead of counting them as actually being there is disincentivizing now well sometimes it it it it just um you you have zero balance because of that that is correct yeah and sometimes that that was the logic they said well if you preserve if you're offsetting the the the removal with the preservation it's an incentive to preserve and if you have zero balance you you pay zero you plan with zero because you preserved enough that was the logic but what what I'm saying is if you apply the cap after subtracting the preserved trees aren't counting unless you are you allowing them to count subsequently in in other words I preserve this tree is it there does it count if if you're already subtracting it are you saying no and that that's my point is if they're required this cap of trees but none of the preserved trees count even though they're there I I just don't understand the reasoning for that they're there well so they're there they count as credits and then the removal count as debits and you do the you do the calculation you get the balance and then either currently in the way the code works is either that that balance is greater than the cap and then you just do the cap or it's lower than the cap and you do but the what I'm saying is the preserved tree is preserved it's physically there yeah when you're doing the math does it count yeah when you're doing the math the math when it comes to the minimum uh required landscape ape yes the preserved trees do count okay so maybe just scenario he showed if he added five trees that he preserved it lowered the tree count by like 20 for your new so yeah in the new version what what this would do is shift more of the burden to people who happen to have more heavily wooded Lots with bigger trees either you agree with that or you disagree I made my case period And I could recommend specific language to be voted on if I've got to uh but I'm kind of suggesting that every tree you plant or retain should count every single one okay I don't have a problem with a 4inch tree counts as two trees all those things I don't have a problem with the way they do the math of larger tree is this many trees or whether they do this percentage math but I'm saying the cap is the cap is the cap is the cap to is not equable Equitable no no the cap today in your view is not Equitable well it's not cuz if if it's it's heavier on Commercial and it's giving a pass to residential okay we're not talking about the 121 chart okay and that may be you know it says commercial should be 15 and multi family should be 12 which doesn't make a lot of sense I'm not talking about the chart in 121 121 probably has issues you're right okay what I'm saying is we have a choice either we say there's a cap and the cap is the cap and and in this case there's still more that's going to be done but it's within achievable reason on this property and they can do it or you're going to tell people they've got to write checks or lose a large portion of their property to not write checks which is usually impossible not always but usually anyone have period I have a question da I know you work with simal County a lot I know we're not s County but what what is your experience so seol county has morphed uh so they've had this thing hiding in their code for like forever called save 25% of your tree canopy but it's a little misleading because they count Wetlands so if you happen to have a property with Wetland so so what happened is you've got a strenuous rural area Lobby that started looking for what says what in the code and found this thing and it was discretionary for the staff and it's become not discretionary okay so so they have as far as the replacement thing it's way more open-ended it's a lot of Staff discretion involved so there's a requirement but if the I think it's called the planning manager decides that it's excessive then she doesn't have to impose it which what does that really mean okay so Winter Springs used to have that at the commission level but they don't do it anymore so here's the fear I have Harris is right you move these percentages down it doesn't seem like such a big hit but it's the philosophy now a percentage can change at two Council meetings you get a new Council this percentage isn't high enough they have no benefit of this discussion and understanding you could say the same thing about the way the credit system any6 hasn't changed so it requires three public hearings to change but a percentage is just a number and and I'm just making the point that a number when it's just a number is very easy to change a philosophy of there's a cap and there's a maximum and there's replacement and they all count is a philosophy which is a much more in-depth discussion this is a philosopher too the the the development code as it's not easy to change it's a Land Development code Amendment let's go before the LPA three public hearing and then two city council public hearings so that's not something easily changed can I can I ask Dave a question when you said um you keep saying every tree should count I'm I'm can you I don't know can you explain it to me you're like okay I'm just I'm missing that there's a disconnect in my head when you're say today whether you agree with it or disagree with it the the methodology used by the staff which they say is supported by Teresa's predecessor is that if you required a tree look at the chart the code says on the top line and I'm sorry to pick on 's Landing it's just the Top Line says required was 85 the replacement the the way they're figuring out the code is 104 the math is the math okay the the cap on that particular one uh would have been twice 85 but they're at 104 right so they didn't approach the cap so the present approach is you have to plant 104 plus 85 I'm saying the required tree counts every tree counts you planted it it counts you remove the tree you replace the tree no matter what what you guys are considering this time right we considering there but the result of that consideration even at this lower percentage is still for that one project 990,000 bucks yeah it's a big number you might consider it little but it's big it's a big number now some other people because they didn't happen to have trees or didn't happen to have large caliber trees are now at a much lower figure because you're lower interes is that third one down today's code was 344 which was more than Allin under the code but then under this new methodology is 89 so yeah we're I I again I would like toate go ahead hold on a second the other way so I can see the replacement the end of the I just oh the seeed that's thank you okay Harris Can you continue please yeah I I think we're kind of losing track of the fact that all in town homes because of the composition of the site is weighted differently because of the way that we're doing the math but the reason staff proposes this is because it's a r the rationale is tied to the composition of what you have on site as opposed to an arbitrary number that was picked for different styles of development right now the cap is based off of uh one per lot for a town home 10 per a uh 10 per acre for commercial 15 per acre for mixed uh for multif family 12 per acre for uh mixed use and so at any rate the you know whether those numbers are right or wrong they were they were picked and in this particular case there's an actual rationale to what's there on site and what we're requiring so um real quick so I I agree I personally do not think that based upon what the end result is should dictate that cap number right I think it should I like the idea of the Nexus as to what's on site so I think that's a bit more Equitable because you're looking at things the same way right we can get into the whole taxes conversation you know it's the same kind of concept uh I don't know about the percentages I think they're a little bit too low um but maybe that's something we can talk about Stephen go ahead no no I'm so I'm just trying to decipher the all really hard I think a good exercise Council council member shank Mr shank is the fact that um we can get um the commercial the more commercial to compare CU alling is having a huge um break with the 01 104 because of the cap for residential is so low right so if we can compare the same level of um oh yeah we could do that calculation real one that has removed you know in a commercial um larger a high number of trees as well but the code requires much higher you know cap yeah oo common is actually comparable as far as uh so remove the same the same number of trees I cannot read the how many trees they removed in and a half they removed 539 trees total but their converted inches was 935 900 and they required much almost a double right than Allen in in the so it's 204 the other one is 104 even though Allen did greater inches removal right and then through the new formula now ired much less and this is not Equitable that's what I'm saying right so if I if we if there is a percentage of the canopy that is applied to everyone then that is one standard for every type of development for every um lot in the city Don I don't know if I'm premature on this or not but for purposes of bringing this airplane in for a landing cuz I feel like we're going to run out of fuel if we cing the field we C I would like to make a motion that we approve the staff recommendation in terms of the the general methodology we can talk about tweaking the numbers and how the formula works but just the concept of what we're talking about here I'm going to move to approve hi second that was what all you approved last time so that's a great start so last time you all said that it's good the methodology the methodology as for the the percentage ratio we can discuss cap and percent it's good to have that well he has a motion in a second you can suggest an amendment yeah and if there's if you vote this down somebody else make another motion yeah but let's bring it in with with amendments that Sam suggesting or not what's the amendment you suggest to consider a cap it should have a cap well a cap is the percentage the is the cap no it's not no let's say a cap 30 trees per acre something like that well then you negating that's a different methodology won't we do the vote the way you got it and then yeah let's do the vote on the motion the way I made it because the cap can be added in the discussion so there's a first and a second to move forward the discussion on on adopting the ratio concept methodology all in favor thank you I no one no two NOS did you vote how many can we get a roll call a vote okay three to so the motion is to discuss or not discuss the motion is the motion passed to move forward with the ratio and discuss what the ratios and potential of a the methodology methodology of that to discuss the ratio yes yes believe but M let me clarify the the percentage is the cap so it's not it is so we what we saying is that you can remove a th000 trees 2,000 trees the maximum that's the cap there's an unlimited amount of money if people have a large lot of a lot of trees and there's no cap on it the percentage just dictates how much money it is it doesn't EST establish how the maximum that you required maximum number of trees that that's the cap the max maximum number of trees that you're required to compensate or to account for it's 30% or 20% that's the cap I disagree but whatever okay if you say so so um let's discuss the the ratio numbers right now the staff is proposing 15 20 and 25 anyone have other suggestions that over again in this situation in light of the we just approved 15 is more than enough yeah okay y 15 I I make a motion to only agree to maximum of 15% in all three spots in all three spots so plug it in yeah I'll plug it in y15 okay here so on all of these code you got whatever I don't care the numbers I'm not trying to differentiate between just trying to you've got code 104 the top line so we we're effectively going with the the staff one throughout the cultan line so to speak at this point right mhm and required trees what is that what's the end number represent for the 85 say that you got 104 85 the 85 oh the required trees that's the required landscape trees the code minimum that's the minimum require now then that gets tacked on to the 104 that's I'm getting like back and forth loss on it correct the way the math is currently done is you required to plant 85 trees on site and then the 104 replacement trees are in addition to the 85 and the 85 is figured out how again just refresh back what so it's based on some factors so you have required buffer trees those are by linear feet that's a whole another that's that comes into here and goes okay we pluged that in you've got 85 trees that's on top of the 104 that's figured out through this computation through the old computation well yeah whatever the new I'm but I'm just saying that that's then added on to the uh 310 currently at this point it would be 310 right by the new math well exactly so the it's actually 395 as far as replacement trees then the 85 got subtracted from there so this has already been subtracted out of the 310 the 85 has already been subtracted yeah here hold on for a second let me go 310 is the balance so they would have 395 but they were total 395 is the real number but then we already discounted the 85 so the balance to account for to I you know can you go back so I misunderstood so you're saying that the total required trees on that site would be 395 because we already discounted the 851 no okay so this completely changes the math I did so in this particular case in this particular case what that means we're going today today there's a requirement for 104 plus 85 correct yes tomorrow in 15% and I completely misunderstood because I thought the 310 was the total but you're saying it's not 310 10 go go back no well hold on for a second I I I would rather explain all right going under the hood and talking about what's here so you have the replace you have the total removed these is the actual trees yeah but this is what the conversion comes out to 2 and times whatever 426 right and then down here there were 36 trees preserved it comes out to 32 trees and this is because the percentage is being applied right and so that's the 1520 25 all right all right it totals out to 394 trees subtracted the minimum required trees from that that gets your replacement okay so so go back to that first page and I completely misunderstood so in this circumstance but it does there there were there were required under the current code 104 plus 85 correct the total number of trees right now the current one is saying 395 however you're also required 85 so with this formula that 85 is taken out so you only need to put in 310 no no 395 no you just said on the pr no you're already planning the 85 they still plan you have to plant them you have them oh it's the yeah you're talking the yeah I'm I'm just talking the math oh okay so so hear me out but you're still require it doesn't count that 85 doesn't count when you say when you say it's taken out it's just already counted I don't know why it's there it doesn't need to be part part of this it could just disappear because it doesn't mean anything anything towards this in reality no it does cuz it we counted the 85 and and you see the numbers vary too right 310 trees and it's Tak for everyone's benefit replacement trees I'm I'm sorry just so everyone understands that's $103,000 to pay into the city Tree Bank for 52 units which is $1,980 we haven't changed anything if we if we do this we we've changed a whole lot for all the other project on here we you using the the the the most you know on purpose because they're well but let's see all the others right let's see all the others if look look at the look at the current code and then look at the look at the Ellington the dwell or veto common so on and so forth you look at the other projects that have uh that that far exceed what it is that stat current proposed we are going to have much more multif family mixed use than than um um single family you're punishing people for own trees period if that's what the board does that's what the board does then the code currently punishes people because we have an arbitrary lot requirement and so you can have your argument one way but you got to look at it through through the odd right and so this all this proposal does is actually tie it to what's on site as opposed to have an arbitrary number decide and we've already decided that the methodolog is approved so basically the recommendation you're making now is increasing the number of required placement trees no depending on the project Mr NASA so for some it decreases let's go through the that table over there for some you see the the yellow right so the code it's 404 for one project now it's now it's 319 or um 204 to 22 204 now it's 22 22 so depending on the project right because it it depends on the canopy that you had it depends on your side plan depends on you know how many trees your your your planting on your side so let's take the the first one on the top it says 104 you requiring that one that's 104 now to have 310 yeah no it's 104 plus 85 and it's 310 plus 85 no it's 310 you guys said the 85 is already uh what so in the current what David is saying and and he is right the current code the replacement is 104 and it doesn't include the lot minimum required trees so effect what he's saying effectively if you were going to compare apples apples the what would be um 189 is the actual what you are required to plant and what you're required to replace compared to 310 compared to 310 no 395 then it would be 395 comp to no compared to compared to 310 because 189 would compare to 3 395 the minimum required trees is subtracted from the 395 getting the 310 all right I'm not getting it did you plant the 85 in your yeah you're you're planting the 85 in that you're planting the 85 in both both cases right and you're planting the 310 in in in the second case or you're paying for the you're you're planting or paying yeah okay so the total requir no you're you're right 3959 18 189 still $100,000 this is this is pen hold on if I can ask what's the fourth one down because that's that paints a whole different picture or the fifth that's what I'm saying can't keep looking at the top uh the dwell the dwell okay roll back now so I know what it is I yeah there were a lot of trees taken off that site so dwell because they've got because they removed 3,400 trees yeah now if you look at them they go the exact opposite way in a large fashion cut well it's a bigger project well that's true too it's it's and that's when it all comes down again it's not just number of trees it's number of acres and in the composition so if if you had more louer trees I think we're we're well it's total removed is that total removed Tree on the left side is that total remov trees or is that converted to inches I'm converting to inches 779 the 284 284 5 versus a 3485 it's 3,485 in of trees are removed correct correct yeah that's trees 779 trees please let's take a look at the second column there yeah 779 trees and 3,485 in the the pink line is inches that's converted to inches the two and a half yeah right that's I know I'm talking yeah well it's converted to trees it's the it's the 440 trees right 2 and2 time 2 and2 in the same thing we're rolling over here that's yeah yeah so we're talking inches right so that one works out in a much better F again we're concentrating on the first one and I understand I'm Pro so at 3485 inches I'm just going to say the word inches the conversion the other one was 2845 converted this is 3485 converted that now pops down to code 405 you know was 404 now it goes to 319 cuz it's apples to oranges cuz you're looking at the numbers of the current code which is capped based upon the land use and now you're looking at it apples to Apple like I know I'm just trying to point out to every we've we've been we've been we've been F you know you focus on the top one I want you know again which was trying to show cuz that that one that you just showed they removed many more trees so this whole comp of being penalized They removed much more but under the proposed they're getting a great VI so that's what I was going to say was I don't know that there's there's there's there's 10 ways to you know we can sit all day and and go well this is a better way better motion better I I I think there is a if there are other ways I'm not a big fan of the the the tree bank and just paying the paying the bill it doesn't put trees it doesn't for all the what we what we start off with and say trees are good environment I'd sit there and go well then find other ways then they have to Florida friendly throughout then if they didn't go well we're going to do they have to do Florida on everything they can't put anything not Florida F there's no s there's no it's requirement re every it's already a requir yeah and in addition to that now we're actually requiring a certain level of diversity of planning on but if there's other thing that's all my point is is there other ways besides just going charge $22,000 per unit we do not you can plant trees can upgrade your bump your trees but it's not it it's it becomes unfe I'm talking about the feasibility and the reality of that becomes a cost whether it's well I can do two yes less units and then put more trees I could put up a four you know 4inch tree it today's point I think it's cost effective now you know it's it's more in line to well because it's only 250 per tree it's a better cost than putting in the bigger tree is to pay pay the tree bank because it's less expensive in real at this point um but a lot of projects do not pay into the tree bank so it's not a require and I can ask I don't know if Alexa has the number what how much we have in the tree bank today we do not have much money so so it's not that we have millions in the tree bank right not every project contributes to the tree Bank a lot of projects find a way to to provide more trees or and I think the dwell did not pay did the dwell pay into the no they they up I think the way I recollect is that they upsized everything on site and because what we want is them to plant trees if they can plant trees on site project okay so um we're discussing this and I think the point of conversation is not again the going up and down when we need to determine the ratio numbers so Sam had um discussed 15 across the board is there a discussion on that is there going to be a discussion on a c yes or no after we uh well let's come up with the percentages first and then we'll discuss the cap I'll I'll go with what Sam said what's what's the current right now again my brain 15 15 and 15 the current is 15 across the board the prop stand what's the concurrent right now there is no such thing there is no right now staff had proposed originally um 15 2025 that's right so that this was staff's proposal and then I'll I'll revert it back to what Sam was proposing yeah it was just a recognition that you know more mature trees have more value right does anyone which I I agree with so I I I think it should be tiered but um well it is according to where we are now because we voted yes on on no right now it's 15 15 15 right I see yeah we voted the other conversation second make sense did he did you make a motion or did you so Sam made a motion to 15515 did you second that uh did Stephen second it I said I'm okay so I didn't I'll I'll second it okay all in favor say I I I is there discussion on that oh sure is there discussion on it thank you yes sure I don't I think it should be tiered I agree with teered as well hit your button how much do the numbers actually change between a 15 15 15 and a 15 20 25 huge yeah let's so me is it much yeah let's talk about it um so right now I'll go ahead and snapshot a couple it's just the first and third column first and third okay got it so that's the only ones we're really looking at first you can do what want I'm just no no you're fine I'll yeah zoom in zoom in so we can see the change banner just that thank you you know um no that area yeah I'm getting there there I'm getting there all right yeah all right now we get to see the magic together and then it's the third column right that we going to see the change five so I'd mark down um 310 change to 384 and then then the third column down changed from 40 to 89 so just for the sake of fun here what if you did what if you you did you know you're wanting tiered a lot of other people are concerned about the totality and there's a way to get both so let's just see so can you go back to 15 across the board and what it did to that top one just out of curiosity so that was 310 yeah not much the difference no no noow throw a total bottom column on that hang on on the bottom of that staff just put a total column that would be an easy way to just see that what's the overall change change just put that sum down there no under 119 the 119 yeah just some that some that above above so when we make the changes you'll see overall oh got it at least have a number to go it changed all of them by a factor whatever sorry I'm having time they'll all be different just equal yeah equals add some yeah do the sum I'm trying to see here but it's hard I'm starting to get old y'all no here that button up at the top at the top you got it okay there we go okay so I'm just saying okay the totality I I find disturbing and but it was disturbing before and and Sam came up with this 15 15 15 we have two people saying they want tiered uh but another way to do this is let's just see what happens if you do 10 15 20 so so just just see okay so stam's current proposal is 1027 and then going with 1020 or 1015 20 yeah I just want just to see so so it's a pretty significant change but it's still tiered now if you don't think that tier is enough 10 2030 just just to see it let's just let's just play for the ones with zero can you um how many trees that they remove the ones the three that have zeros I'm sorry can you screw it over to show the three that now have zeros with this amount how how many trees they removed well they had preserved trees which is part of why yeah yeah they preserved trees yeah oh they preserved a lot yeah well two preserved more than they two out of three three did not one of them one all office was just a small yeah it was just a small project where is oo Comm um next to B fire next it's the multif family that has hasn't come yet but it's that would go down Al Trail Apartments it used to be called okay of course they're planting 118 trees so that's part of it so so just understand we're still talking about $100,000 and I I stick on this and I know it's the most egregious one but you're telling this one project that took down the trees is going to carry this heavy burden of over 100 Grand we should we remve 3,000 I I get it I'm just the committe is going to do what it does I'm just pointing it out 50 I'm sorry Square it's kind of interesting Square how many unit oh 52 52 100 Grand that's interesting at that two 345 52 no yeah so it's because they're taking out more of this $2,000 with the 15 15 15 across the board so we were saying how even with the higher tier to 30 in total it's less total trees than if it was lower consistent again depending on the no so the re the reason for that is the bulk of your your trees are in this8 to 18 category and then the second tier is where the other amount of trees is the here hold on for a second just to get into that just a little bit so from a removal side not even talking about preservation you could see the different composition and you could see that in the majority of the projects they just kind of live you know really Within These first three tiers which goes back to the conversation we had not all trees are created yeah the thing is that they contribute less right in inches because they are smaller right so you if you remove a huge tree that equates to several smaller trees right can you go back to where we were before um yeah scroll over and then change that I i' like the that so far I like I me I but can you change it back to the 15 across the board so we can look at the stop again yeah so Sam's actually o overall on the on the aded added more trees over all because to Harris's Point yeah the you're getting whacked just as hard for the littles and makes it uh simple across the board 15 15 15 but it's the opposite of what we have two people saying they'd like to look at tiered which is what the staff said well the teered made it less trees yeah we looked at both situations and it looks better at 15 well the tier with with with the lower in the bottom would make less what if 15 was the base and then it was 25 and 30 yeah if you do 10 20 30 12 and a half 20 no honestly 12 half on the first one 15 20 sorry 15 30 20 20 and I can go 30 I'll smack your on the big should be no I could I could easily go out you know I think the 30 should be 30 and that that doesn't no difference really than the 15 uh 1015 well 310 at the top became 287 uh and you know some of these other ones they're all it's like throwing out the high and the low we're we're we're doing the uh diving or ice skating we throw out the high and the low and kind of look at the that's why I want to see the total numbers draw the high and the low let's look at the average in the middle and see where they change those I know it's that that is a problem and I'm not going to disagree with it like I said and if there's other ways and they are taking advantage of the other ways to whether it's caliper whatever then you know I can start getting along with that well I don't know that we ever tried that one we did a 10 2030 but yeah I think it's 1227 15 20 25 which is 1274 and if you look because that's slightly different from because you guys were 20 20 25 originally Yeah well yeah at the beginning of the presentation we were 20 25 30 right no I think 20 20 25 20 20 25 that was what we showing there yeah it was sorry sorry my my fingers are not doing my brain is telling it that's what we were doing before right that's a pretty high number we we were that that just yeah starts hitting the I'm comfortable start getting out of the comfort zone right across the 15 20 25 15 205 all right so there's so there's is there any more discussion well there's not a motion to do tier he made a motion he made a motion for 15 we did a we're doing discussion right now okay okay I got you William any any more discussion all right call to vote on 1555 all in favor say I I well I'm confused did we we had a discussion about tiered right but we're voting only on the 15 because that's the motion the table is he wants 15 okay so if that one fails then you guys will go to a motion for now so I can't I can't now that we've discussed it withdraw my second or can I too late we have to vote okay I'll vote all right so motion is 15 15 15 all in favor say I I three so three I I I haven't voted yet I'm still thinking oh um raise your hand so I can I'm sorry it's for the tier what is 15 15 if that motion fails they'll do one 15 across the board one two three four all in uh those oppose is that a finger four four and four four four so it ties so it goes nowhere so all right so there is the motion didn't pass motion failed okay I'll make a motion 10230 and see let's see what the math does before I do there well it does is is that what I had the first is that what I had said 10230 is that what I had said I think so what's the purpose the purpose is to protect try and protect the higher value trees right well we we failed I'm trying to craft a motion that my right so I'm making a motion that we do 10 20 30 presuming we're still going to discuss a cap issue but that could fail too I'm making a motion for 10230 discuss I'm Happ you guys want to change chairs it's been a long okay it's always a long day a discussion I like the 30 on the 30 because I think it gives that value to the higher higher trees even though in total you're getting less trees because of the lower numbers but 15 so does this you just pop up 15 20 30 do that brings up to 1,200 or 13 that's I'm com 15 20 30 any any discussion on 102 motion to 15 2030 you're you're uh making a suggestion that I alter my motion second and then a second would have to amend who who was my second qu um where was I at 10230 yeah you were 10230 2030 all right now I know everyone's tired of talking about the outlier but just bear with me just so we know what we're doing and if are we GNA discuss and vote on a cap if we are then then I'll I'll drop this I'll I'll uh I've been requesting do amend my motion okay do a second your motion to add discussion heed 15 2030 I had 10230 he's asking me to alter it I'll agree but the second has to agree okay so motion passes to amend the original motion to 15 the second agree AG accepted the friendly oh I'm sorry not pass he accepted okay so now it's discussion on 15 20 30 yes yep open for discussion for corre I made the motion I amended my motion I put in for an amendment they accepted might as well thank you what a hard job Don you look like okay call the vote can can we just make sure that there's a consensus before this vote that way um if it fails we'll know what people feel comfortable with well let's just vote and then you'll have it'll okay so make uh all in favor of 15 20 and 30 say I I I any oppose motion okay now I guess we can have a a further motion and it can fail or it can pass and I'm I'm just going to do the math here so today the code required 104 plus 85 195 right for the for the all we we are stuck in the all in right no no I'm just doing an illustration okay okay so the difference is is between really 397 and 104 right 293 times $500 which is what we've not voted on but we'll generally accept what the consultant said now it's 625 actually he slid it over again until 625 he said 250 per calber 200 200 he said 200 yes yeah he said 200 inch 200 per inch 200 inch come out 500 so it's so a 2 and a half inch standard tree is 500 bucks it just Teresa just tried to inflate us no I thought it was 250 sorry I she really loves trees so I just want everyone to understand now this project doesn't exist anymore as something that's going to happen to it it already happened okay how many more Parcels there are with big oak trees I can't exactly tell you so it may be that this never happens again I I don't really know okay but that's $146,500 on a 7 acre project okay so that's just a huge amount of money for 52 Hound homes it's just a huge amount of money and I think there's something wrong about it personally so so so that average them all and you but but my point is not the average of them all but somebody is being hammered severely somewhere if you can figure a way to to I'm all up for c h we need to have a cap but how tell me how that work this is that's that's a as probably as long a discussion as we just had about percentages tell me how we get a cap so the cap it doesn't make sense to have cuz the percentage is supposed to be a cap that is the cap we can have as long a discussion about how do we figure out a cap what's what's the what's your way to figure out a cap you know that you want to propose because I I I don't know one so I'm sitting there going I could sit here and figure out looking at that right now the numbers just changed and I went well okay so so so so what and I'm not trying to put words in people's mouths so I'll I'll suggest what you're trying to achieve and this is Harris's uh got the support of the rest of his staff but he's the author here right so I'm going to speak to you but but yes we cook in the kitchen together you cook in the kitchen together you're you're the chef and they're the Sue chefs right whatever it is you're hold the spatula this is crabby patties we making crabby patties right my SpongeBob you at least knew what that was you had kids the right age okay I'm sorry so so in essence your goal is to apply more pressure to save bigger trees is is the intent well I think our primary intent is to if you can and really to tie things back to the site and yeah if we can wait wait so the basic premise is the larger tree is more important than they wiped out this bunch of smaller trees and that's what you're trying to achieve Teresa's point which which I agree with okay from the perspective of making a point is if you apply some sort of cap then you to some degree depending on what the cap is remove the benefit of the percentages correct NE Gates completely well well I'm just trying to fra frame this but Dave may I add one more thing if you are going to create a cap we went through this painstaking process to tie things to this site so if the cap is going if you're going to provide a cap in addition to what the cap is which is based off percentage then it should be something else the percentage is a is a what's the hit you're taking the cap would be a separate thing which may not get the support of the committee so I'm just trying to frame the question and come up with how how do you do this so today they they were at 104 plus 85 in your perception on the that site it was insufficient correct y okay so 104 397 is is kind of a pretty heavy Hammer right okay let's just hear me out but the way you achieved that the 104 today was a lot of math but the today math was driven by um removed minus um preserved right M and two times the 85 somehow is in that math I I I don't know the exact math right yep okay and I think in generality what we just voted on is a general agreement that the bigger trees should count more and there should be some redress for that which we didn't all 100% agree with but we voted on it so we're done so perhaps there's something that would make the all in like pieces not get screwed to the wall with $146,000 fees now how how do we do that I have it talk on that okay can I just say one quick that does that show um the size the acreage anywhere yeah so down down below I forget it down below it's seven these These are the acreage for can you just copy that column the number 7222 all that yeah and then copy it and we'll put it somewhere like there's an open space all the way to whatever that gray space or righted over there is perfect yeah d i I had one more question this keeps thank you I think I'm still confused so the staff that's where we are now based upon our recommendations required trees as all the other required trees and the code so for those that say zero or three are they still required to do the 39 and the 24 or are they at zero and three 39 no yeah the zero is the balance by providing 39 trees the required they had zero replacement trees got so got it now I have a thought to see if we can discuss it and agree on it when you require these trees replacement and new trees the developer has to plant them either in front of the property or in the back or on the sides of the property or every fet where there is an island there's no other place now remember if this is a housing subdivision which is the case every house is required to provide three more trees they they would count right how do they count I they required trees they're not included in this this yeah they're including in the calculation so that will be up this number will be offset M by the three AB Okay then if that is offset no it's not those are the trees that count that's why it's not upset it is upset 397 plus they have to still pay do the 85 went before they have to do the 397 and they have to do the 845 those are the required trees we got well the 397 is after they've done the 85 right right I know but I'm saying if they were able to plant every tree everywhere they have to put up the 397 in total trees or or paying for that so the staff column should really read replacement minus required equal yeah whatever right that's yeah that's the balance yeah okay i' I've thought of a way and it's just throwing it out there for discussion so today just just for the sake of numbers the cost of a tree is 500 bucks a two and a half inch tree right and to Harris's point the previous math and we can go back to table 121 another time is kind of randomly arbitrary depending on use which makes no sense right Harris you're saying it's 10 it's 12 it's 15 whatever it is so I don't want to go back to table 121 because you all don't like table 121 and residential doesn't do it that way residential is doing it by number of it's Street trees and lot trees and all these other things right right so here we are that's a s acre project and it's being hammered um basically 20 grand an acre do do you understand so I look at that and say 20 grand an acre is 40 trees an acre that's that's a lot of trees that that's just almost insane so my suggestion is this that that the cap is of of how you punish somebody so to speak or mitigate or whatever you want to call it I'm going to say it's 10 trees now what would that be in this case 10 10 trees an acre in this case would be 72 do you understand so telling somebody that you have to plant when you're already planting 85 that that planting another another 10 per acre which is another 72 is bad so that that's just my suggestion it's it's so what does that really mean today no one's going to get hammered more than $5,000 an acre if a tree cost inflates tomorrow to 625 it'll be 6,250 acre so I'm trying to establish let's not abuse these people into the wall but let's go with to some extent the bigger tree hurt you harder but there's some limit to this before you know but but also I think it's it's not um completely accurate to do the calculation on on the All In because with the new rules they might have done different decisions to the side plan to account for more trees on the side plan I know a project because I'm working on it because I own part of the property called sugarm Mill Apartments Harris knows full well that the that the developer came in and said okay fine I'm going to put in a bunch of for INE trees now they didn't do that because it's cost effective they did that because they could do that it cost more than the 250 per tree I know what it cost because he told me yeah okay so you don't always sit there as a developer and say how could I spend the least money you want to build the best project you also want to quite frankly agree with staff whenever you can you know they really want to even though it might not seem that way it's very it's very kind well I don't know if your number of a cap was just thrown out or if it was 10 but that means that would null and void everything that we just did cuz everything would be less than what they required what they were before you could no no no no I'm saying the maximum um the maximum you'd pay into the tree Bank oh the tree bank has a is that many trees per acre so so it's it's basically 5,000 today would be 5,000 so you're saying if they could fit let's take somebody else if they can fit the 335 trees on that they fit 335 trees on but if they can only fit 200 then they pay they're supposed to pay 135 trees into the tree bank but you're saying well you're messing up with the percentage Yeah there's no way I mean if you're doing that you you you're and a methodology because Stephen asked how would you do it I came up with it yeah but how so you're saying that that methodology is tied to the acreage but the number that you're creating is not tied to anything it's the same sort of issue that we have right now where you know we 10 acre or 10 trees are required for commercial but 15 are required for multif family and and so we're right back where we we go revisit that and I'm just suggesting that you're already required so so I just threw a number out there if the number is 10 if the number is 20 I don't know what the number is I'm trying to come up with a way step and then I think as you were just saying because that's my whole thing is you start getting into the weeds because it's like if you look go back now now I want the other side sorry yeah no you're like these are all different types of projects they're not all you're not again this is Apples oranges peaches and plums because they're not all the same thing and you can't you can't say well commercial Project A Town Home Project we're not going to see very many homes project anymore so I'm not going to really but you know Apartment project they're different animals and you know so it's we're looking at them all the same but if I'm going to look at a cap I'm going to look at them differently and go well if I've got a town home it should have this many trees so thus you know the expectation is versus well an apartment you know it's going to have theoretically a bigger bigger footprint a footprint with a larger Mass on it that then has more parking on it to suum that that so I want to have different all these things the Caps start changing to what that is so that's why so don hold on Don Don was next can I just ask a question isn't the the fact that we have percentages built into this formula a cap in and of itself and what we're talking about here is a double cap essentially right absolutely I guess I'm wondering why we should have a double cap and we can stop this conversation right away is there any stomach amongst the group to come up with another cap on top of this cap if there's not no I'm just saying is is is if anyone wants to do it speak up if no I'm going to stop talking about this and we're done I mean I'm not it's a fun mathematical trick and I'm sure I'll be looking at it just for pure fun to if i' say you send me that spreadsheet because I will play with it just for raw fun I like that's things I like to do is taking that and going well is there a for is there a way I'm just po but group if I make a motion is there any semblance that it might pass if there's not I'm done I'll stop if the answer is no I'm done no okay I'm not going to make a motion agree that we should not penalize the people who have more Tre we should put a cap on that pen there's I I think again if you could find a fair way it's the same way of saying how do you find a Fair Way well we just did just but that's not a fair way I mean I I don't I don't disagree that I don't this it's not perfect by any means and if you can find the perfect way I think we'd all go hey that's it okay I have a way I've come up with the way okay this is really simple and I can't imagine why we can't do it okay you're going to be is it this cuz it's not math it's not math mark it down 5:45 at night no an applicant May seek um relief from the city council period end of story okay so if the council agrees it's egregious they cut them a break and reduce it can't do I'm G to ask can't they do that now or not no there's no Rel have a lot of applicants Rec I'm sorry again I hear think you want to put Council on that position no no I'm not saying that I I was just asking can you know is that a way right now is there a I think what you really talking about is a dollar cap that's the only way you can do it is if you put a dollar cap on well I was trying to make different Siz projects not have the same bet the dollar cap there that there is no no cap that it' be double capping or well the attorney is saying we should put a do cap no no no I'm not saying that I'm saying that the only really fair way you can do it is if you decide on a dollar cap a dollar cap because like Dave has been pointing out the alland that is an outlier as you can see this and there are other there other uh developers on here that wouldn't pay anything or whatever so you're if you want to make a cap you got to come with a fairway it all comes back to money so and we are making recommendations and if Council feels this is egregious and that they feel that the way that there can be a solve is they will go you know what add what Dave just said into it and that's what we'll approve they're allowed to put themselves in that position right that's what I'm saying this is a recommendation and Council can always go hey by the way add in that they can come to us at but it's going to be a double cap I make no motion to this so I have a suggestion if I can because the other thing that we discuss internally is how so how to meet the replacement requirement right you you can plant on site you can upgrade the caliper of the tree uh and that will count for more you can pay into the tree bank and another thing that we discussed you can also plant on city property it's still the same amount of money it is but but sometimes you have you know your crew you have access that can be an option I don't know why that would be an option me we thought because since the tree bank would be used to plant on you know Street trees or you know Parks whatever that would be another way that if you I have one last little suggestion along those lines one second Don's been waiting sorry I just wanted to I just wanted to say in response to Dave's Last proposal um as somebody who's made his living in the political arena for the better part of 50 years doing this kind of thing everybody is going to go to the city council with a request for a variation and you make this a completely political process and leave yourself wide open for lawsuits I hope to God we don't do this well I withdrew all my proposals about a c and I said council could always add thems in they will never do it because of that exact reason there there's a heart out for them that they can just go it you know it's not a decision except they want to review every architectural thing but they never say no all right so here here's my suggestion so Teresa made a list of things you could do can I stand suain okay right and it all Revol D in where do you plant trees correct one of the points earlier in the meeting was maybe it makes sense to plant trees using soil cells structural soil and so forth okay so an alternative there's a payment to the tree Bank of X okay alternatively you could spend that amount of money on your site doing things such as structur soil or soil cells or other things we come up with in other words can you enhance your own property for better tree canopy better survivability better Landscaping if you can do that then you're achieving what you're trying to achieve which is a better a more mature canopy so so this I think you were absent when they talked about tree barriers so I spoke up for you uh you know root barriers killing trees we talk about I think mall but no no today they brought it up oh yeah okay so so you know if if you guys have this list and we're not going to do this list tonight if you could plant trees everywhere you should be able to enhance the survivability of the trees on your own site spending an equivalent amount of money and you'll have to show the staff here's the amount of money we're spend on your own site or on the city s side on your site on the street street trees well where if you plant because this is usually usually it's an issue for when it's next to sidewalks well it's also an issue and and if you drive around and and I worked on a project in Orange County where the the project was built like 25 years ago and either every tree island has broken curbs and lifted pavement near it or every tree is dead it was one or the other so so it's it's it's in a lot of places where you could do it so who cares where if if if you do enhancements to the tree planting on site with an equivalent amount of money I think that's a good thing okay any other discussion Don I think I like that idea but I want to be clear that we're not doing that in lie of planting trees on this site if we use that in Li of contributing to the tree bank then I think I'm talking about right but it should be no more than 5,000 per acre well we already dropped that no we didn't establish a c the decided going to go with that except you and I Sam and then I think also U that it's not on some doing somebody else's responsibility like a private land owner or that no I'm saying on your own site so if you own another site that no no no on this the development s and he's talking about instead of replacing the trees that amount instead of replacement trees can go towards enhancing the site yeah is what he saying four trees the things they talked about but you don't agree to it no no no no no no no no so here you are you have 100 Grand to pay into the mitigation bank or as Teresa says plant trees on a city property find another place to plant trees in the city I'm saying have the option so we talked about earlier soil cells they're quite expensive okay so but they enhance survivability they provide for a better canopy it's a better future for those trees and the city at large why not let people do that with with they they spend the equivalent amount of money on those things isn't isn't that a requirement that's going to be a requirement we just talked about there's no requirement to do that stuff no it's a requirement of the root barrier but not the RO the root barrier is like like nominal amount trying to recollect what we had no no I'm talking about and I'm not a fan of structural soil but I don't want to tell people what they're doing so if everyone understands structural soil is so you can put pavement over this soil and there soil for the tree but it's like 85% rocks so it really doesn't work very well C were you gonna say something no just I I hear what Dave is saying I think we had something mind we had something like that build into our do that was for Mobility right if we pick three or four of these different options we got an out on whatever it was for parking and this and I think it was like drop our our miles per hour down to 35 and then do a um what was it golf carts bike or wider sidewalks stuff like that so that just provided options I I hear what you're saying which I think that is a good out sometimes to have I'm not sure I would like for staff or somebody to to bring back some ideas to where maybe there could be options like that I mean I think it is a different a different way to say there is there is an out I watched ours we've kind of slowed down and what our plan was but I we were adamantly against paying into the tree bank I mean we grow sad we support you know farmers and ranchers and tree farms and stuff like that so we basically took them took the Mantra of we're going to plant every tree that we have to on this product and that is fair we we we are happy with that too but here but I'm going to after and I'm not Mr landscape architect and I'm going to wear it on my shoulder and scream it loud and proud kind of thing like he was down there earlier but I can look at a site you know it reminds me we want things to thrive not just survive and the planting schedule that our own landscape architect was proposing I was not you know I I was not for it because essentially and I've seen it done on other development sites it's egregious they're going to be too crowded they're going to die I mean we're here we are all here for a limited period of time all these trees that we're all debating over guess what some of them are here before us some of them weren't some of them won't be here after us some of them will be we're here fighting over time and trees that took up some time that we saw and appreciated while we were here and looked at but they're renewable they come back replant if they are replanted yeah but if they're replanted but if they're replanted incorrectly which happens so often well that's why sometimes it's better to payt to the tree Bank than to plant every tree on site if the site cannot you know accept all the trees we are just trying to balance out and find a fair way to have you know a city tree and have development that's what we're trying to do I like the idea of Staff coming back with some ideas including planting on you know various properties as well as keeping things on on property so so just to Clay's point I want everyone to understand what we've done tonight okay so today and and I know staff might not view the meeting I watched the same way there was a small project and the guy had to pay $2,000 at the tree bank but it was half an acre and he had to plant 16 large trees I think it was and there was a lot of commentary from the council were requiring too much because they can't grow to maturity and it's too crowded we didn't solve that today so so I think the point he's making is we're sitting here concentrating on what you make people do now most people are trying to satisfy these requirements and as he's saying would rather plant the tree than pay for the tree to be planted somewhere else the result result is the trees are crowded the site is overcrowded the the the trees won't survive the trees won't grow to maturity in a full canopy and it's a negative result not a positive result and that's just the reality of what's going to happen here because that's what we V I don't know if that's completely true in my experience at least that may happen on some projects but staff openly has a conversation about survivability um with the with the uh landscape consultant to talk about whether the virtue whether these trees are going to be able to survive um and you know we've done particular I'm thinking of uh small projects that just have a hard time to even be able to meet the standards of the code we talk about alternative ways of being able to plant uh to be able to give them that space that they need and then also talk about the the virtue of deviation but in a case where there's High mitigation and a a higher fee that's now $500 people are going to try harder to plant more trees on site and you're not going to tell them they can't or preserved I think that we took care of some of that I mean look at the reduction of some of these numbers so I think some of that over planting and those comments to the board about trying to squeeze them all in I think we took took care of that so hopefully we have healthier trees that can be more viable long term so yeah all right are you I'm sorry I took over your job that's all right any more discussion on um well we didn't talk about parking I think they're know we're going to talk about parking at our next meeting I [Laughter] swear um and that is coming up on um August 13th August 13th we're going to have a joint um work session with the LPA the local planning agency U we're going to talk about um um development um exactions and um takings at that meeting we're going to have a work session with the board on that but then we're also going to talk about parking um so just keep your information on parking and we'll talk about it on the 13th we're also having um an ldcc meeting on August 27th as well okay so we will get you your information that you will need to review for those meetings so so so our clerk up there is going to tell us all this right yeah you you will get an email um I won't be at here at the 13th meeting but it sounds like an interesting you wanton to be here no I got to take my mine to college so I'd rather be here I'm kidding all right you lie it's just eight hour drive as far all right any other no more conversation or that discussion items any comments or announcements from committee members Don Nicole clay Stephen okay we already went over future meeting dates and so with that one minute before six o'clock meeting adour oh thank you meeting is it next one with LPA yes yay thank you more people in here L more people LP everything signed is there anything okay [Applause] a little bit about I'm just saying knows I