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 good how are you we can start now start right was I holding things up yeah long drive am I the Corum you the longest drive yeah right five two yes we're good all right good afternoon i' like to call the meeting of the Land Development code committee to order it is uh 2:34 on Tuesday June 25th a note um everybody is in attendance um Stephen Mr Steven shank has a excuse absence and Miss Martin will be coming shortly and um Mr Nasser is not here I'd like to um call for approval of the minutes for Monday May 13th and Tuesday June 25th is there a motion nobody wants to make a motion so so moved Mr Axel with a motion is there a second thank you all in favor I I any oppose right uh time for public comment do we have any public here public comment seeing no public comment we'll close public comment and next is uh public meeting items which is the review of Article 15 environmental preservation and with that I'll hand it off to the staff thank you madam chair um at our last meeting we had a discussion about um the staff's proposal for Landscaping um we were going to um have a discussion based on the existing landscape requirements compared to the what the consultant is requesting and then staff also had a proposal um Mr Harris Burns cattle cattle um kind of mentioned some of it he gave you a preview of it so now he's going to go into details about it so I'm going to turn it over to Harris well thank you Deborah I really appreciate it um council member members or excuse me committee members uh we went through some of the presentation last time and some of this will be a little bit of a summer review but we want to go into why trees matter and kind of discuss the importance of trees and how what they do what benefits they provide uh quality um Wildlife benefits economic benefits energy benefits water quality benefits they reduce noise pollution and also provide mental health benefits this is a article uh the article that this literature came from is listed at the bottom of the uh PowerPoint slide and just to provide some stats on the tree benefits uh 240 lounds per year of small uh particles and gas are absorbed by trees by a mature tree um 3/4 uh a single tree produces nearly 3/4 of the oxygen required for one person and a canopy of trees in an urban environment can slash smog Levels by up to 6% this is the pattern of development these site this site is the dwell uh which did preserve a small amount of trees but the majority of the trees removed we'll get into the numbers a little B ler in the uh conversation but you can see and then the after picture um this is development that doesn't have tree requirements and I could disclose the location but this could be in a lot of different places in the southeast of or southeast of America and other places in the United States and then obviously this is a v on the park this is what it looks like when you have tree standards in particular these are uh you got landscape Island trees and Street trees that are in the area so what does the code discount currently uh when we count trees the tree mitigation when we conduct the tree mitigation calculations the trees are done by range instead of inch for inch the preserved trees count towards required trees we have a tree cap which currently is based off the required lotteries times two we'll get into that in a little B more specifics in a moment and then the the uh we don't count below 8 in caliper yet the planting the new planting start at 2 and2 inch caliper and So currently the way that we uh conduct our calculations is we have five different categories based off of the ranges as listed Point slide so the first category you multiply that by one one by two so on and so forth for each category and that's how you get the um what is this is it cutting out yeah and is that better and at the the only one that we do inch for inch is the Heritage tree Heritage or Champion tree and so those those are counted inch for inch and the basic equation is trees preserved minus trees removed equal the replacement trees and so Redevelopment uh does not get the count preserved trees it's just the replacement trees required and then there is a uh tree replacement cap which is the lot trees times two and we'll talk about that a little bit further um so for example if there were 20 25 trees preserved and 100 trees removed that would equal 75 replacement trees you know your equation is backwards huh right yes I but we know what you mean yes you know what I mean and you're right the the equation is backwards I appreciate that thank you um the in this example the required lot trees is 30 because the it's 15 lot trees required times two or oh times two because there's two acres and then the tree repl replacement cap times 2 is 60 and so the effective replacement for this particular example would be 60 replacement trees uh the compensation for the replacement trees is either um providing additional trees on site or providing a payment to the tree Bank currently the the payment to the tree Bank per tree is $250 per tree and then uh four additional trees that are placed on if you plant 2 and 1/2 in caliper that counts as one tree but if you to plant 4 in it counts as two or 6 in it counts as three and so some some developments particularly uh for instance the dwell when they went they had replacement trees that were required instead of planting 2 and 1 half inch caliper they planted 4in caliper trees and so their required trees counted as required and replacement trees at the end of the day if that makes sense okay um and this is a breakdown it doesn't include traditional single family houses uh it includes Town Homes multif family and so on and so forth but you could see that there's a difference in the requirements for the typology for the lot trees that are required and so for instance with lot uh with Town Homes there's one large tree required um per lot although that's expressed a little bit differently when it comes to the actual requirements because you you could provide a medium tree and a and a palm tree so on and so forth but that's the way that we we calculate it and then for multif family it's 15 trees per acre um and then there's trees that factor into lot tree count so a lot of the uh sites they have landscape Island trees that are based off of the the layout of the parking there's buffer trees that are required and then sometimes there are Street trees that aren't able to be put into the street and there placed on site those will count as lot trees all those count to your lot tree uh towards your lottery requirement and so if you're def let's say if you had um a two you know based on the example you have a 2 acre lot with uh 15 trees per acre that are required that's 30 trees for your lot tree requirement but the required trees for your landscape buffer Street you had 25 then you'd have plant five additional trees to meet your lottery requirement question you can ask them as as we're going along or you can wait till the end whichever you prefer Well yeah if the plan unit development had a different Lottery requirement than the Pud lry requirement would would supersede the code or it has it has its own modified code St standard might be a stupid question but the lot tree requirements that's in addition to the replacement trees or is that inclusive of the replacement trees the the replacement trees are in addition to the required trees but very good question um any other questions on COD requir trees so the consultant Pro provided a proposal and their proposal was uh for the trees preserved and the trees required minus the trees removed um uh equal the replacement trees and so they they went and it excuse me and the tree replacement cap is two times the required landscape trees and so back to the conversation we were happen before where there's 30 required trees for the lot and let's say in this particular case you you reserved five uh five trees then that would be 35 trees minus whatever has been removed which gets you to your replacement tree count um the differences from the code the Consultants version count by inch the categories are reduced from five to three uh and we'll we'll show that more specific specificity when we get to the Excel spreadsheet the cap equals the required the requ PIR trees which is a little bit of a moving Target because when you're going through the plan review process the site layout changes the amount of landscape Islands may change um your buffers typically stay the same uh but the amount of plantings that are being planted cont change so so that that's a little bit of an issue to CH which the um but the lot tree requirement is fixed you know that's 15 trees per acre and you have a a little bit of a more manageable situation in that particular setting uh and then the third the fourth uh bullet point which is new plantings count towards of replacement trees Harris just a clarification yeah go ahead is the cap that they are proposing only the required trees or it's the cap that they're proposing is the require trees times two times two but they're also counting the required they're counting the plantings that are planted on site I know but it's it's the C the required trees plus two the cap two times the required landscape trees I'm sorry I'm not following you the so maybe it's just because it's differences from the code that you the cap that they are proposing is twice the number of required trees is that not the required trees only no a multiplier there is a multiplier yeah that says two times the require trees right the tree replacement cap oh I I think so okay I'm not sense yeah I don't know if actually staff's proposal agrees with this standpoint so I don't know if there's necessarily an argument against the current the code currently does not um so stas findings through through the analysis that we conducted and we're going to get to this beloved spreadsheet here in a moment and kind of break down some of these numbers instead of talking about this PowerPoint conversation uh but the tree cap I mentioned before the lot tree requirements they're they differ based off typology and so for instance and we all in Town Square home or all in square town homes they have 52 lots and so those lots uh dictate what the replacement cap is and they don't require trees on the area that don't have town homes on it so this huge storm water tract uh if they didn't have replacement trees that were required they could not plant any trees if they so desired um but more importantly another lot of same size that was multif family that has 15 trees per acre would require double the amount of trees to be planted on the site and so there's a there's a bit of a uh difference when you're talking about the lot Trey requirements and how that dictates what the replacement treaty requirements are as opposed to what's actually out there in the field um Harris to to to be clear on that project so everyone understands the town homes have a street the street requires Street treats correct multif family has a parking lot which requires Island Trees which is different so the count might end up being the same might possibly right yeah um the required trees we we touched on it before where in counting the required trees for the site it's based off a site Dynamics and so while you're going through the review for staff at least as on a administrative level it's a little bit difficult to keep track and again it doesn't necessarily relate to the trees on site that are being removed and repl uh removed or preserved and that's the third bullet point which is the relationship to the scy canopy um trees by inch is a better metric and we say that because when you do it by the range you're really not kind of accounting for especially if a site has uh and this kind of goes into the different tree composition for the Lots the majority of trees are between 8 in and and uh 18 in that are on site but you have have some tree you have some lots that have a large a large percentage of Heritage trees between seven and 8% Heritage trees and so when you call when you talk about one tree that may mean a 48 or 69 in tree or May mean an 8 inch tree but when you count it inch by inch you're actually getting a better metric of what it is that's on site per acre and so staff's proposal uh takes on some of the Consultants uh uh ideas by counting by inch instead of having uh five categories or three categories we we Whittle it down to one category and then we're using a percentage of those existing trees to get to the get to the replacement tree number and we'll get into that the specifics on that in a moment the plantings will count towards the replacement trees and then we do have a question about whether we should start at 8 in or possibly lower um and we can have discussion about that at a later point if You' like or we could discuss that now the basic proposal is trees preserved plus trees required minus trees trees removed will equal the replacement trees and so the there there won't be any there won't be a cap ver uh Vis A V lot trees or required trees the cap will be based off of uh what the ratio is or the percentage is of the ex existing tree Tre and so with that oh one we wanted to show you what a tree survey looks like so this is what an app the Mitchell hammock project presented the tree survey and then they conduct their analysis by listing all the different trees and then and then they provide a which which we validate at the end of the day with their table to explain to staff what their mitigation calculation is at the end of the day and so here is our um our case study exercise that we conducted and so there's a lot going on here and so we'll walk through it the this is the main portion of the calculator down here is kind of additional information um these are the total trees on site these are actual this is the trees it doesn't uh compute the inches this is the trees by inch divided by 2.5 which 2.5 is the lowest uh caliper or planting that that the city requires this is the breakdown of trees based off of the codee's current Cate categories total removed trees again this is the actual trees and then when it says converted it goes back into that inch divided by 2.5 inches and then these are the preservatory so on and so forth in this section of the spreadsheet we have the code required replacement trees the consultant's required replacement trees and then staff's proposal is yours in trees or inches these are all in trees it all gets converted into trees so how did 706 turn into 85 704 whatever because we counted then the trees provided right so if we are changing now to say that the trees the minimum requirement of the article 12 will count then you have you just count the ones are provided um can you go back to it yeah we we can I was going to go so so I'm just trying to understand I see that you're proposing 704 but it says then after that 85 which one are you proposing the sorry I didn't explain this category this is the required trees over here so you're you're actually suggesting that all in town homes should have had a requirement of 704 trees so we provided a a ratio here and that ratio can go up or down we haven't landed on what the appropriate ratio is we're just talking about a methodology at this point so so I'm trying to understand what what's the 704 then you you actually on that AC Ridge expect them to plant 704 trees it's a good question so let's go under the hood and let's talk about it for each for each category right or for each type so this is the code and we'll we'll get to the staff's proposal here in a second but this is the code these are the trees uh and this is the conversion and so in the the current code we count the trees and they gets multiplied with the exception of Heritage trees which is inch by inch and at the end of the day it gets converted to um you got 1,124 uh trees that are require Replacements except for there's a tree cap and so that tree cap puts you at 104 for the consultant it gets converted to inches and those inches are for the category these inches are multiplied by one or well they are what they are these are multiplied by two mul Factor are three and then this is the result and this is the conversion into the trees which is you know just divided by two and a half and so you can see that the the total trees uh that come out out of this computation is far higher but the tree cap that the consultant provides gets them down to 85 if they were to plant all the required trees so but what is the 85 * 2 17 that's the total that's the tree cap oh but so okay you provided 85 so you're replacing 35 right and then finally staff's proposal which is um sorry I'm it's okay I'm we'll we'll work on it so the proposal right now is 30% we can play around with the numbers here in a second yeah okay and it's just the inches uh with that ratio applied and that's the result and this is what it looks like by tree and this is what it comes down to at the end and you can see that this uh this calculation is the total trees minus the 8 minus 85 and that's how the computation is calculated and so if you play around if you change the uh if it were 25% the number goes down to 573 for all in town homes so on and so forth but let's talk about all in town homes for a second comparatively to um AO Commons so you can see Ido Commons which is right ly the same uh the same acreage their lot tree requirement is 204 while all in town homes is 104 what's what's OO Commons uh OVO Comm M family here next to bonefire yeah and yeah not yet built not yet not yet built right yeah they have there's a little bit of mixed use and then it's multif family for the most part so even mix jues I think I have to go back back to the spreadsheet is it yeah right so mixed the mixed Ed portion of it gets counted as 10 acre and then the multif family gets counted as 15 an acre I just add that one of the um with our sustainability task force one of the things that they have complained about is that when development comes in that they come in and they clearcut all the trees on the property so what was there before before you may have a heavily treed property and then by the time development comes it's clearcut and then they come back with these little saplings these little 2 and 1/2 in um caliper plantings that they replace on the site and it takes some years to grow so one of the things that they were interested in is how do we get development to preserve some of these trees on the site so that it's not clearcut or how do they develop around these trees that are there um to protect them so when um Harris goes through this you may want to look at how many trees are removed and then how many trees are going to be replaced with each one of the scenarios so you'll have the existing code compared to the consultant's proposal compared to the staffs so you want to keep that in mind as well and one of the things that I think we we doing this exercise we identified is that the cap that we propose today is actually a projection doesn't have a relationship with the trees that exist on site right so this is all for preservation of trees right that's the that's the the Article Five what is Article 15 is all about so um it should have a relationship an access with how many trees you have on site not on how many trees the site would have as a requirement and and with a multiplier so you if you see that first column over there in the replacement the numbers vary because they have different standards for the lottery requirement has no relationship to how many trees you had on site so what we are trying to um to identify is that okay you have X number of trees on site you should account for a percentage of those for preservation we understand development destroys trees and and um and and we know that so how how much of those trees that exist on site should be preserved and then in this new um development we are then accepting that the trees you're planting as a minimum requirement count towards that but we are counting everything that you're putting on site but you we want to have a relationship to how the the trees that existed before and um so that you account for at least the percentage that we agree upon yeah that's absolutely right Teresa and it's a great point back to in David's question about all in town homes and relation to Ido Commons and so again what the difference in the code requirements are 104 to 204 based off of typology but if you also look at the total trees removed the total trees removed are roughly the same you OVO Commons has more 540 total trees removed while all in town homes has 476 but when you look at the converted rate you're talking about 3,59 total trees out there so that's inch by inch of trees divided by two and a half which kind which is our converted rate when but when you look down at Ido Commons is 935 and so they just they didn't have as much mature growth you can down here in the spreadsheet here let's look all over the spreadsheet you can see the percentage growth well there might be an error in the spreadsheet right here so so how much more is to this presentation Harris are we there yeah we're there okay this is the primary point of conversation right here is this is the exercise so so chair when when are you ready to hear from people yeah I I was trying to wait yeah that's that's fine so so I have a question so what I hear you all saying is there's an attempt to balance inches removed qualitatively over the projects with with what the requirements are is that a correct statement yeah okay so I'm just going to lay out my philosophy of this which varies considerably from from the staffs so you got heard the presentation trees are good everyone could have read trees are good um there's a desire from the general public which I can tell you having led a lot of development projects is you know I don't know what people fuss about more trees or traffic but they're both up there you're generating too much traffic cutting down too many trees so the question is do you wish to punish people for doing development in a mode that's allowed for removing these trees by forcing them to plant a lot of trees or plant larger trees or charge the money or do you wish to come up with a way to have a sustainable tree cover in an area and I would come down squarely on how wooded your lot is should not dictate what you pay into the system because that's very simply to me just a transfer of wealth it's the presumption that the public deserves the benefit from your private trees and you should pay to remove them it's that simple that's not true but it's okay I I'll talk about that that that's simply the case we can all agreee they're important we can all agree that people don't like them to be torn down it's a matter of how are you going to have a sustainable reasonable amount of tree cover where you live it's that simple how do you get it so this way I mean just look at that number for for Allen 573 I I can't read it can you yeah you're right it's 573 so so and the acreage of that project is is what 7.22 okay that's just a ridiculous number so what's the result the result is you start planting larger trees which I will tell you from experience you there's a lot of people that plant forign trees because you can actually reasonably achieve and do that you start planting larger trees you have survivability problems and all kinds of issues so the simple fact is if you make that number higher you're you're basically achieving a payment to the city that's that's what you're achieving or a ridiculous amount of tree cover so in essence if you own a wooded lot you're disincentivized from developing it your expenses driven up and you're being told to pay the public because you had a wooded lot if you have a lot with no trees then you don't have very much of a require at all now if you don't do this all the time you might not know but just because you see multif family there's you know 15 Lots required per acre and if there's 10 acres it's 150 trees it rarely works out that way and I think Harris kind of pointed that out depending on what's next to you you have buffers depending on how your parking lot's designed you got tree Allen trees so there's like lots of different ways you can get trees I think Harris pointed out kind of appropriately they have a large retention Pond and all on landing and it kind of I don't know if you ended up with trees on it or not Harris were there trees on it yes only because there was a replacement tree requirement right but I'm going to come down squarely on I I don't I think it's inappropriate to presume the public owns private trees and to charge people money to develop their land because they cut down larger trees now part of the way the math happens and I've been doing this in Ovito for a lot of years okay I was involved in the last committee that rewrote this very section of the code we can have philosophical debates about how it's written I'm not going to get into that right now but there was the absence of a caeo veto and it was removed on purpose there was roughly two weeks ago a small less than half an acre project that came to the city Council that had challenges more than just trees I think it had geometry buffers size use all all kinds of issues but there was a lot of discussion by the council members at that meeting which which I watched that they were uncomfortable with the amount of trees being required there is only one council member uncomfortable challenging us only one I heard four so so it's it's all matter we can all hear different things one was very specific about saying it uh I won't get into names but I I heard four okay concerned with the the amount the numbers the mitigation uh I just listened to the meeting afterwards I'm sorry I'm just going to tell you if there's any proposal to make it more stringent than it is I'm going to oppose it it's as simple I don't think it's more stringent and we're trying to reach what is what is the right balance so my point is that it's it's it's it's in a way the same conversation as Wetland mitigation um there are wetlands in private property the public does not own the wetlands but there is a recognition that impacting Wetlands which is possible um there is an impact to the environment and there is there needs to be a compensation elsewhere how much it is we don't know because we don't get into the you know the Wetland mitigation process is St Jones but there is a process for that trees are the the same thing they trees help the environment right so we all know we are all um dependent on the environment to function well and you know the the effects of not having the proper uh maybe standards or taking care of the environment um is visible to us you know so um it is the idea that we need to compensate the trees being removed so you know some way to balance out you're stating that as fact that's an opinion okay so well that's the the code as the code as it is the code from that you participated had rules to compensate and right I I understand so we are not this are not new this is not the new we are not inventing that we are just trying to um um create now what are the rules that make sense to what we know today and uh and so there was there has been a criticism on the um current code that it does not account for the trees um that you're planting as a minimum requirement to count as replacement trees as restoration trees so we are trying to say what is what is the math that would be more Equitable that we can it doesn't not vary of what type of development that we can create that has a it's a percentage of whatever you removed that you have to account for to replace and as a replacement let me just finish as a replacement then the minimum requirement would count that is and 30% was a um a suggestion we can come up with different numbers but that was the the suggest that would simplify the calculation and would be easier for everybody to understand so the question is not whether or not there should be requirement to replace treeses the question is what are the requirements to so I disagree there's absolutely a question of the first the first one so the premise that we're hearing is if you cut down a tree you've you've done something to the public and you must atone for it that is what's being suggested not to the public to the environment yeah so the environment's not here at the table okay so so well that's why we are here so so let's let's do this quickly because one I'll ask staff that is in your research is there any jurisdictions that do not require tree replacement that you know of I have not been able to find any municipality that does not require tree replacement okay and we all know trees have ecosystem services such as climate heat reduction storm water management Etc so yes trees are a public benefit regardless of where they're at so I'll just put it up for vote right now now do we as a group want to to your point of require tree replacement in the LC I never oppose that okay understand okay what I'm saying is madam chair I would like to hear the vote I would like to hear the consensus okay so I'm not going to say no there shouldn't be a tree replacement requirement I don't think anybody is well but he posed the question think it's important that we get that okay so all in favor of a Tre requirement replacement requirement say I I I don I no okay he's got how about we hold that do we want to hold that and you can have your discussion because I had just asked what's the question we're here to answer but you said you wanted to that that was a question right as to if should we require it here's really the question to me okay do the the public at large do they control the trees on your piece of land it's that simple but that's a philosophical question we're not here to answer because we absolutely are but do they control Wetland so I'm not here talking about Wetlands we talking about trees so so basically Teresa that argument is if you have a wooded area next to Wetlands you must mitigate for touching any of it at all and so what people have to recognize is every time you do this it costs money it makes everything less affordable and less attainable it costs money so what's the goal the goal is to have a reasonable amount of tree cover figure out what that is and require it okay so I'm the one that worked on drafting what there is now it's been convoluted in weirdly distorted ways that end up with screwed up math but just look at that number 573 so let's convert that to math well but also conversely look at Ovito Commons which the same acreage and before they were required to have 204 by the code but because of the inch by inch analysis instead the proposed requirement would be 116 wait am I right seven they are 7.2 they're the same AC so let me go back now that Don's back here so I'll take a vote again all in favor of ensuring Tre replacement in the LDC say so so I think that's a weird metric but we're not on the metrics yet this is just do we scratch it all together and just clearcut do what you want you're not required to replace trees because that was the comment that you had made no I said there's there is that question yes so and then the next step is what is the best approach the metrics and I have some comments on that so you look confused I think his his is how do we measure it right what what are your requirements and there's three options here and none of them are written in stone and that's where we can maybe come to some compromise but we just need to answer the first question based upon the comment of what are we here to do scratch it all together even Mr Axel voted for right for the replacement what's that you voted for that we should have so that's kind I waited Don's vote because he was the Quorum vote Yes okay so now it's we're back to this I'll make my comment I don't believe all trees are created equal I think you knock down you know a less and two in three oh well yeah not oh well but it should not be thought of in the same um value as a mature tree that's you know has habitat you know etc etc so I like the idea of the larger the tree the more established the tree the higher the Val the higher the ecosystem resources provided to the environment that that tree provides and it should be replaced I don't know what the ratio is but I do agree that saplings and and those may not require the same it's not a one to one across the board so I I do like the idea of the of the ratio just not sure what it is so this is another he um Harris's I'll let Harris talk about what he just did thanks Deborah originally we were looking at a tiered system where it would be kind of a progressive uh waiting the Heritage or Champion trees more in this example um and we're just throwing numbers at it we're not saying that this is the truth or the best way we're but 10% for the first category which is 8 to 18 in 20% for the 18 in uh to 29 and then uh 30 30 over would be 30% and that gets a it gets a lower number for the overall but um part of the math is based off the composition and so again I found out what the error was was I made an adjustment to the spreadsheet and the total got sorted so I adjusted the percentage down here and you can see the composition of trees and so you can see most of them don't have a whole lot of Heritage trees some of them don't have any Heritage trees at all the majority of the trees live within these first two columns and so the from a from a standpoint of waiting those Heritage trees if you were to save one of those Heritage trees it would also count more for preservation but overall you're going to require less replacement trees depending on as opposed to doing a cross the board so so I want to make a point and and I have to tell you over the years you have a code that's written in a way that can be interpreted multiple paths and you have the staff interpreting it different ways and some of those ways are counterproductive to saving trees or or in it or let me put it this way incentivizing the protection of trees as opposed to punishing the removal trees and the primary example go back to your equation which was a little backwards but can you go back to it all right so it's really removed minus preserved plus required so so just understand the equations a little backwards but the way that this environmental preservation section is written you count up what you're removing and there's a count and you have a replacement requirement that today and not getting into what counts as replacement is double what the lottery requirement is in the tree planning and that's something with the prior committee that we came up with as a balance of there's there's a reason for someone to try to preserve or to plant more where there was a wooded lot because the requirement is double but what's happening now the way and and correct me if I'm wrong in one chart they add up the the removed and the preserved and can they they you subtract one from the other in that first chart correct MH so and then you apply the cap which means if you do it that way way that you count none of the preserved trees as if they were planted trees which I think is backwards so so to me it's the method by which you're doing the math if you didn't subtract the preserved trees when you came up with the cap the preserved trees would matter more to the developer and it's not really doing anything different but than how you're doing the math language is there so they get the preserved trees and the planted trees including the preserved tree the second time right so so the idea and I've I've always tried to when I have the privilege on some of these projects try to save the trees which is hard it's hard to do but if you don't count the preserved ones that are larger as multiple trees multiple in whatever the methodology ends up being then they don't matter anymore in other words do because if we account by inches right for your calculation if you preserve it's less more inches than your not if there's a cap it it becomes canceled out in the equation what I'm saying is you should count the preserved afterwards after you figure out the cap because then there's more reason to preserve them so let's say you had a 10 acre lot that was multif family and it requires 1550 trees right Harris MH and you destroyed a th and save 200 under this math you'd have a cap that the preserved trees had no no effect on whatsoever if you count them before the cap you need to count them after the cap so people have reason to preserve them and it's just a simple change of the way you're doing the math yeah well the C today is written that way no it's not it it it it discounts the trees um from the it says that you can count The Preserve trees as as replacement trees but you're subtracting them before you get to that is what I'm saying the way you're doing the analysis these days so they don't they don't count are we I'm I'm gonna I'm trying to understand what what is the difference that we we are proposing here because I don't see that are you are you referencing something in particular so there's any number of projects I've worked on and if you just look at where the math is done it's varied over the years okay and we had this very discussion and Florence might remember it uh on chelonian WE subtracted the preserved at the end and you said we were double counting I said no I never told you to subtract it in the first chart but if you didn't the math would not have changed on the cap it would not have changed so I'm saying subtract them at the end not at the beginning well I understand that but in just because thenation we we've as long as Flo and I have been been counting them the same way I understand but it's but it's a way that's counterproductive to saving trees I'm just telling you it just just the way you do the math because with the cap The Preserve trees if you don't subtract them as counting at the end now to me a tree that's there whether you preserved it or planted it is a tree that's there the mature tree if you save it I would agree with everyone else is often more valuable but not always so sometimes in this sea of trees your canopy is constrained and the tree you know everyone thinks oh it's a 36 or 16in tree that's going to be a beautiful tree it's not necessarily true it could be just a stick in the middle of a field when you preserve it um and you know we talked the other day about Panera which I think is over planted and and some of you don't and I drove past it on my way here today and if you look closely the trees have have reached the point where it's obvious they'll never fill out to their full canopy their growth is constrained by the adjacent trees they'll never go to maturity the full canopy so I'm just saying if if you just simply change the way you're doing the math you'll end up in a more beneficial situation can you go back to the calculation yeah so let me let me just do you want an example so so I started with an example and and so maybe just just here so 10 multif family base requirements 150 trees okay so let's say that that you know on a 10 acre project so so all those all in town homes those were like seven acres right so let's get one example cofy and then we we change the well well no let just just hear me out so let's say just use a number that the the total trees on site was 500 and and and you you know you took out 400 of them yeah right you got me so far Harris removed 400 okay so you preserve so there was 500 and you removed 400 you pres okay yeah I need I need bigger numbers let's let's start with I was cheating I had it over by me so so if we're if we're looking at all on what was the requirement originally yeah the base requirement for the project that's a bad one because it's not by acre right what maybe I'm misunderstanding you the base requir oh the base requirement is 80 okay use the 85 number so so you want to use all as an example use it so what did they so the cap is 170 yeah cap how much they removed they removed 400 no no no use the actual they're they saying use the actual what is the how much use the actual from from their project oh the it's number of trees or number of trees for with the caliper discounted no the the actual the old code way well the old code way would give different numbers depending on the ranges I understand but he had figured out give me a moment I can get this but I got to get back over here and we're here the total that's the you want the total converted trees or all right so what am I doing from that from this point yeah the total removed the total preserved just just just to which is the oh come on it was right isn't it right out of your chart I don't have it in the no didn't you have it in the current code all in Avenue didn't you have it in there well it's it's subtracted from one another no but but just look at that you're adding Harris go to the actual project with current code all in Avenue Town Homes okay and the converted trees removed that's right there is is what no no the remove was 1219 129 19 and and the preserved was 95 right okay let's go go back to so it's 1124 okay one24 there well hang hang on well yeah but I wasn't sure well this is this is what all right just just hang on are we saying the total amount of total trees on site or are you doing your calculation here no no today and then we can you let me finish this what I'm doing here so we had 1219 and they now they did didn't preserve very many okay but the way you're doing the math today you would say take the 1219 subtract the 95 right oh why won't you let me do it you're adding why won't let me do it it's not it's like you have a blocked cell or something it's weird yeah Z 26 it's 1124 just there you go okay I got now everyone understand today the math would say 1124 but the cap was 170 right so the 170 counts correct now put another column for him you know for whatever he's gonna propose okay no just the cap just have the the the cap the cap Cap's up here the cap is 170 correct the cap is 170 okay so the way we're talking about it right now those 95 trees don't matter because the cap is 170 okay now don't don't subtract them all right it's still and it you'd have 1219 because that's what you removed right mhm the cap is still 170 it's two times right so today today if you subtract them at the beginning they don't count so somebody's incentive to save them is severely diminished because it doesn't even matter do you understand it didn't even matter because they didn't even count for large projects yeah for smaller projects it count okay so I can show you any number of projects and we did discuss this and do this on the chelonian project where the preserved trees counted they should count you should not subtract them so the requ requ that number comes from what that comes from trees Island Trees the the minimum tree requirement in the yeah whatever's planted on was that whatever's required to be planted on site which is by the land use by the land use by the by the project and the land use so even if you have a site with no tree you have to provide 85 Tre so now I I I just told you so the cap today is 170 okay now depending on how you do the math does a required tree and and a replacement tree do they count do they not count you're either at 170 or you're at 20 55 right depending on which way you do the math either either either required trees count as Replacements or they don't one or the other right required trees count as Replacements or they don't well today you're saying they don't and other people are suggesting maybe they should right but one way or another you're going to have a cap that's either uh anywhere from 170 to 255 do you understand okay okay the math is right there there's a a cap on replacement 170 there's a base requirement it's 85 there is a debate about whether required trees and replacement trees both are the same tree but Dave what's your preferred model though so so right now we have your calculation here yeah exactly okay so according to what I'm saying there's there's at the bottom line you remove 1219 you don't subtract the preserved that number there is 1219 okay okay but the cap is is 170 all right so you want so then it would be your model is you've hit the cap and then you subtract 9 95 from 170 that way The Preserve trees actually matter if you subtract them first they don't even matter they're they're vaporized in the cap they it's just because the cap is so low no that it kind of evaporates a bunch of trees yeah that's that's that's that's a philosophy I'm saying the methodology makes preserving trees if there's a cap pointless I I got it well I think staff's point of view at least has been that when you look at what's on the lot [Music] comparatively and then what's being required in the cap it's not necessarily in the conversation we're trying to strike a balance with what's you know creating a R I'm just saying if there's a cap and that's a matter of debate right which we not resolved if there's a cap then a tree that's preserved should count just as much being on the lot just as much as a tree that's planted and the way that the math is being done now it doesn't potentially count at all and that's a mistake because it's disincentivizing the preservation it's it's in other other words not benefiting preservation it's a mistake now we had that debate and that came out a different way on chelonian but well I I got a question regard if we did it your way do you think that Tre more trees would be preserved yes absolutely sorry what what was what was the question if we did it David's way would tree more trees be preserved because if there's a cap the preserved tree counts now the reality is when you go look at this piece of land I think I heard you say the older growth more mature larger tree is better right it's in goodth uh if it's not in good health they're not supposed to count you're supposed to get your Arbor to say so and the City come out and see I I guess my push back towards that conversation is that for the developer they're the primary metric that they're going after and correct me if I'm wrong cuz I've never been on the private side of developing I've only done on the public sector I've been the private sector for other things but there after intensity and density ultimately that's what performs that's where the that's where the money is and saving trees while it may help a little bit at the bot on the bottom line depending on how the code performs on the other hand being able to save that tree out in the wild is a whole another conversation and you know very well what that means means because when you go and do your clear and Grading activity even if with best intentions you may kill the tree and then it may count against you anyway so to to on that particular project there's a substantial Wetland at the rear of the project and the way the project was designed close to that Wetland was where the storm water Pond was going and the grading was such that the buffer that was required outside the Wetland didn't have to be touched there happened to be mature trees there the trees were preserved the trees being preserved was beneficial it was able to be done which project is this Chon and and I was very involved in helping them do that because I understood the way the math had been done previously and we did the math that way on that one so what I'm saying is if there's a cap there's no benefit whatsoever to the city to subtract the preserved from the removed before the ation because you're disincentivizing the the the saving of those trees it's hard to do but you might as well make it worthwhile so if you can save a tree and it does two things for you as a developer you had your little chart about why trees are wonderful well everybody knows that especially the people that live places and buy town homes and move into Apartments they want to see those trees if they can so a developer that can save them get credit for them those are ending up if you're close to those those are the premium Lots if you see how these things are priced you're next to the buffer with the woods it's the premium lot you probably back up to Wetlands Dawn right so who knows how the math was done way back then so I'm just saying the very simple method of doing the math can affect the outcome here okay let's go back to the calculation to see what what can we have um um um consensus on sorry we were having so let's go back to the calculation to see what we can have consensus on so so staff's proposal so staff's proposal is to flatten just count inch by inch and then have one ratio um or or different ratios depending on the on the caliper or the you know how mature the tree is that's fine too yeah maybe that's the better way of going about it having a good on doing one or the other and then we can talk about ratio would it then make the uh preserved trees count more well the the preserved trees so in this particular exercise for instance there's a 20 one tree is 25% of that counts and so whether that's removed or preserved that's the way that that it's uh calculated but if you had a progressive scale where it's 10 20 30 like we were talking about before then your heritage tree would count more because you'd have a progressive system and so it's all it's all based on how you want to do the calculation and then in that case would that mean they have a lower requirement because they preserve the Heritage tree possibly yeah it dep it depends on the composition of their site and how many preserved trees they have towards removed trees but at the at the end of the day the calculation will work its way out so typically most sites they have more Reser removed trees than preserved trees but the remove the the more you preserve the more that counts against that okay so so Harris how many trees were actually planted that were above the required on all land on on that project the town homes they they planted their 85 required trees and then they planted uh 57 additional trees that were at 4 in caler okay so can you go to your chart MH with the with the numbers okay I want everyone to understand the math so 573 is your calculated requirement right with the 57 is what they did above the requirement so it would be 573 minus 57 which is what 3 - 57 okay so do it that way 573 everybody Flo who filled out this whole Excel Excel spreadsheet and did all the hard work to make all this come outed double siiz trees so they counted twice okay so 573 minus 104 469 469 times 250 which is the currently what you charge uh 117,000 all right I want everyone to understand that number how many town homes are there in that project 52 okay now it's not 117,000 ided 52 because it's 17,000 paid up front before you build them that's financed that has to be recovered in the purchase price so understand what you're doing here you're charging someone $117,000 for doing this project according to the proposed math more than now did they pay as it was did they have a tree payment or did they not they did not have a tree payment they they did double the they did 4 in trees now what we haven't gotten to is you think 250 isn't enough right no the consultant told us 250 is not what it cost to purchase a tree and plant it okay so it's possible the number could go higher so understand what what you're saying so the proposal is to for whatever reason whether you like it or don't like it is to charge people money for developing wooded lcks it's as simple as that and I think you also have to keep in mind the total number removed as well so I think you have to have a balance is right now there's some trees that are not accounted for I don't know how many it would be the difference between the 440 and however many they replace no I use the actual project math yeah so if you you do the math on that between 440 and the code required then all of those are not even accounted for that that just went by the wayside has nothing to do it it's almost like those trees didn't count so it's a simple Choice it's you charge people money for developing their property that has trees on it so we already we already um made that question and the question is yes we want tree replacement right so yes the city will charge so now it's how to calculate and again these numbers are there 0.25 010 03 three these are numbers that we can run and see what is the right amount so if you so what would be for that project and can we can use the all in you know as an exercise what would be a good size can we go back to that project how many trees did they plant so the you said their 57 were 4 inch so they counted as they planted 85 2 and 1/2 in caliper and 57 4 in caliper okay so that's the total of what they planted correct so the 57 counted as 114 plus 85 what's that number 190 something 200 trees yeah 199 okay so 199 trees on how many acres 7.22 and you you're saying that if people don't plant more than that they must pay understand what what the choice is so I will tell you Winter Springs has this fuzzy language they have no cap it says if you want to ask for Relief go to the city commission years ago you'd go to the city commission I'm planting a lot of trees look at this great project I'm doing and you'd routinely get the cap reduced or waved the politics change the makeup of the city Commission Now is they're not interested in any reduction they don't even want to talk about it they don't even want you to bring it up so I had basically a 4 acre project that I was working on for somebody and did the math and it was $300,000 in Pre mitigation expense and they didn't want to talk about it at the city commission the project we're not proposing that we are not proposing that right we want something that is um a rule we are trying to simplify the rule we trying to say this is the rule for everybody for every project um and um we do not we are not proposing to be subject to a board you know but I'm saying you're you are potentially proposing numbers that can achieve that that realm those num let let's work with those numbers see what where where do we land that makes sense that's the propos this is an exercise right absolutely I mean that's what we went through the trouble of creating this exercise so that we could go ahead and input the numbers and play around is 110 so what's triggering some it's the composition and the total so the composition and how how would it yeah they removed or they yeah yeah when you when you look down here at this now let me go back to that 4040 over there do we so the 440 441 is already removing the required trees can can you put in that um cell what is the calculation that's the required well the calcul under the hood but yeah the requ the required trees are in there so the required trees are sub already being subtracted okay correct reserve some they may have reserved some and then it also counts the plantings that they provided make it's Al it's making the assumption that they've planted all the required trees for in the case that we're talking about um uh projects that haven't been completed yet so so Harris today there's a graduated scale not based on inches but sort of that way ranges of inches right a multiplier so does everyone understand the point I made if you don't subtract preserved at the beginning but subtract them at the end they matter more to a developer they matter more to the prod we can try to do that the only thing is that preserved trees also count as required trees so if a preserve Tree in a buffer that counts as a as a as a buffer tree so we have to be careful not to double count right I I I understand so a buffer requirement is X number of trees per linear length mhm that that shouldn't change no matter what right right I can double count so so those are different trees so so what happens now and and it's Troublesome for the staff also is you're counting trees so many different ways that you end up going round and round in circles getting these plant sets right labeling every tree it gets a little insane so to me it shouldn't matter if you planted the tree why you planted the tree or if you preserved the tree if you count every single tree you just change whatever this math is at the end to get where you want to go and make this easier because it's really a bear right now everyone reads it a different way yeah you have how many times do you go through this math how many times do you sit in there count trees it gets a little crazy yeah so we agree we'll make it one column inch by inch and we'll have one ratio and it'll be simple your correct but I'm I'm just saying move the move The Preserve to to the end of the equation I think right now it's already like that it's not well in in in staff's proposal proposal in staff's proposal it doesn't really matter because going out our proposal we said we going to count everything that is on yeah we're counting everything we're counting everything as on the final side you're proposing the absence of a cap no because if we saying there is a percentage you have to account for that's not that's not a cap based on tree planting requirements that's a percentage based on what was on the lot yeah because that that is to account for the trees being removed this is Article 15 it's tree preservation and tree replacement well I guess there's another question that I keep on hearing come up over and over again which is does it matter whether we count what's out should somebody be penalized based off how many trees they have on the L that's because that's the simple question that's what keeps on bring if you have a wooded property do you want to make it harder to develop in the in the way it's allowed to be developed and you can argue till the end of time about there's a cost for removing trees there's a burden on the public because the trees are gone everyone presumes that the trees they see on the lot across the street or next to them are their god-given right and it's the question is is do you tell people they have to pay when they develop this land because understand Everyone likes to say the word developer who's a developer someone who builds something anyone who wants to start a business on a wooded lot do anything on the wooded lot is going to face this expense so if you vote Yes you're charging people money and making things less affordable but you voted yes B no no I did not vote Yes you voted yes for retrie replacement I did not vote Yes on No Cap which is what's being proposed well no we have a cap and we have so right now the cap is a moving it's a moving Target because it varies on the type of the development it varies has no Nexus with the the tree you know being removed it has it has the Nexus is what kind of development your braing which doesn't make sense to me now we are saying regardless of what development you have you have X number of trees in your site it can be a single family home can be a town home can be you know Walmart gumming McDonald's you have to account for X number of trees this is for everybody this is the cap now you can provide more but this is the cap that we you have to account for that X number is is this exercise how what is the X number that we are okay with that's not I think what is being proposed that's what is being proposed so what you you did not understand okay so I understood you to say you're proposing that there is no cap based on the planting requirement no that the the the cap is this percentage that we we say that's not a cap that that means you're just reducing the number of the cost that's that's all you're doing well we are saying number of trees we needed to be accounted for everything that you plant on site counts for that everything you preserve on site counts for that all right so I'll say it again today there's a maximum replacement requirement no matter how you count it that is today double what the basic planning rate is what you proposing eliminates that correct creates a different methodology which is going to be percentage of the of what you had on site so well for the tree so it's basically unrelated the replacement requirement becomes unrelated to the planting requirement and you will have differing requirements for the same rectangle of land depending on how wooded it was when it started very different requirements and you're basically telling people with wooded Lots they must make up for this environment degradation out of their pockets so when it's not true that it's unrelated to the planting because we count the planted which today we do not right and you may think it's a mistake but you know it's tough position that today we do knock out so today in this proposal we would count everything that you put on site and we are going to say regardless of whatever development whatever how wooded it is X number of trees should be accounted for if have zero trees on site then you account for zero as a tree replacement you only have the minimum requirement trees if you want to develop a 500 acre acre parcel and 60 Acres of that are in a heavily wooded Wetland that doesn't count are they do not count as part of any of these calculations that correct okay because they you cannot do anything with that so that is out of the equation we only count the ones that that you're going to impact okay so as long as everyone understands if you you cannot develop property you cannot develop it and have it as would it as when you started you can't okay so in that circumstance that what's being suggested here is saying that someone who had the same size piece of property should have no cap call call your thing a percentage you're you're basically saying replace a percentage or pay a fee it's that simple and that just makes things cost more money it doesn't achieve more trees well depending on the calculation depending on the mass right it can be even more flexible than it is today because again we are counting the trees um that you have to require some of your and more some it's less some it's not I gave you the math for On's Landing do you want to charge that much more per town home depends on the percentage so put 0.1 0.15 and 0.2 here in the bottom the ratio depends on this number here we this is the excise that we wanted to okay put put zero put put 0 10 in the beginning oh okay 010 yeah do it do a proportionate oh okay like that it drops to 252 these are this are this is the exercise that we were trying to do you know it so this would be us saying if you have whatever trees you have in that range between 8 and 18 Ines 10% you have to account for so so do this do this for me don't subtract like I said don't subtract the preserved from the removed sub subtract them after and that completely changes the dynamic you do that exercise too we can do that exercise too oh correct correct because you're now giving them a reason to preserve those trees whereas the other way you you would not be yeah you usually the the issue is more the geometry of the size sry if you have a huge tree in the middle of the size it's going away anyway right we we want to preserve trees uh when we forced the hand to preserve trees sometimes it came back to bite us and aan square is an example that we tried to preserve some Street trees the the side construction impacted those trees in the end we had to go back twice to resolve the issue so yes we do have but lately what we have been seeing with construction is that unless you have stuff you know tre good trees around the property they will be all of them will be impacted so this2 that's only based trees removed trees presed Inc into yeah it's the trees removed minus the trees preserved plus the plantings so presed that number go up or would that number down say run that by me again I'm sorry already say don't it now if there's no cap it doesn't matter yeah yeah there's no cap and he he's when he says that count the preserved after he's talking about when the cap is there he's talking about the current code no cap it makes no difference yeah cuz I mean yeah the preserved trees are coming out regardless well there is a cap right it's a percentage of the that's the cap that we will require right but but when it's a percentage of both it doesn't matter where you do the maap yeah it's it's coming out one way or it's coming out the same way we we can do the exercise how when to account for the preserved trees so so honestly I think you end up in a better place counting them after so so you come up with a number and people try to plant that number of trees or pay that's the two choices right Harris so if if you do the math in a way that the preserved tree counts just as much as a planted tree it's it's just better for everybody I think optically we saved this tree this tree counted as a tree every tree should count as a tree they do today as even they they count as required trees so the only thing that for us we'll have to kind of be careful not to kind twice as preserved trees and as a requir yeah go ahead remes and it but now you're saying don't requ I think that's going to get some push that they can CER and not that doesn't happen yeah yeah it does you can see there yeah which project let's let's see which projects and how it was the calculation before so you're forgetting there's still require trees in the other article this is just replacement trees well these are but we are talking about tree preservation and tree replacement right they're still required trees that doesn't go not to compensate to the trees they are going to be uh removed right so let's let's get one is this Sugar Mill one of them yeah I'm trying to figure out if I have an error you'd have bad it was resubmitted Monday oido Fitness but you're no it's it's calculating we also want to simplify the calculation for staff because it's it's if it's more complicated it's also bur to more mistakes you know you know so we want to make something that is kind of simpler for everybody to review and and and or how it is today why because I like the idea of um not all trees are created equal and I don't think just because you have a heavily wooded lot but not smaller trees you shouldn't so right but if today the way they do it with a cap they move the calculation to the end instead of the beginning it has a it has the same effect they going to play around that that would have the same effect and and so going to play around putting in the end right so so here's the question of of it's a views of equitability one view is um you know and right right now today if you happen to have a wooded lot it might be that your base requirement is double or triple depending on how the math works out but the reality is there's often planting rates that are way more than the the minimum number in the first article right just because of Island Trees buffer trees Street trees all these things so so do you charge wooded Lots with bigger trees more money or do you charge everybody a similar amount for the same size project that's really the question so I see where you're coming you know in favor of some greater level of call it protection or how can how can we charge the same amount for regardless of wooded or not being wooded no I didn't didn't say that it be similar so right now the way the cap functions has nothing to do with how the Tre I know that yeah it that's not true so if you had no trees um there's no replacement requirement I know but it it has the the cap has no the differences between what is required for one and for another one has nothing to do with how many trees you have on your lot I'm just saying so it's noty is that you want to I mean what's the goal are you trying to get money from people or you trying to get more trees planted you got to understand what the goal is well I don't know if that's necessarily the discussion or the decision I part of what staff's conversation is how the current cap doesn't have anything to do or relationship with what's on site or what's being removed on site and so that's the that's one of the primary concerns for staff that we want to relate to what is there on site what's being what's being needs to be replaced and it's not true that that we want more money right because we allow for instance if you want to upgrade from two 2 and 1 half inch to 4 Ines it counts as twice you know two trees if you go to 6 Ines it's three trees so we allow people to plant on S side and to upgrade their trees to count for more so so Harris let me ask you a question your consultant told you that the 2 and a half inch tree cost at 250 is too low right that's that's what we've been told yes so would you like me to get you the what it actually costs so we can actually do the ACT are are you proposing to have a number that makes more sense given the market they are giving us that number yeah what is your number the consultant I don't have it off the top of my head but but I went through that exercise with some recent projects so I I have it and I know people that are commercial landscape installers and some people make the mistake what does the tree cost that's not what it cost planted yeah what cost is the labor plus the transport plus the irrigation it's much more complicated when you add it all up it's it's much more expensive Madam chair can we finish the consensus yes so go ahead are you g to keep oh no you go ahead because we have two so far you and um Miss Martin are are we getting consensus the consensus of is that the staff will go in and play with the ratios a little bit more for something and double check some of the math I think with some of the questions and then look at what it would look like by um removing the The Preserve trees at the end what those numbers would look like and come back to us with some scenarios well so far the the board is looking at the staff's recommendation as opposed to the current code and then the consultant so I have two hand head shakes for yes so but there's okay four more so can I just ask question let's try and get consensus I I know but it's about what the consensus is are we not establishing a percentage just the methodology today no no percentage today no they're going to play around with some of those ratio come back and come back okay gotcha no percentage today can can I ask a more basic question what is the goal that we're trying to accomplish by having a cap at all the cap is not to over penalize or to penalize wooded areas right so we going to say we understand development you know destroyed trees we are Urban we are trying to protect the surrounding area which is not Urban but the urban trees yeah in the development you saw the pictures on the aial when it was all wooded and when we have development but we we don't want to make it in a way that if you have if you own a wooded area you cannot develop because it's so expensive right to account for the tree removal so it's the cap has always been not to penalize you know property owners that have wooded areas which in the case of a v if it's one the first development it's mostly all all the land right that we had so um that was the cap it's the same um it's the same conversation now that we have with the percentage so if you have whatever you know U trees on site what is the percentage that we say you need to account for those you know either on site or you pay into the tree bank and the city will plant in the common areas right in the parks on the streets you know in the city facilities to kind of balance out the environment that's the idea it just seems to me like a much simpler calculation would be you take the total number of trees on the lot you subtract from that the number that have to be removed in order to build and you arrive at a number of trees that have to be replaced as a result of that allowing for differences in size of trees and calibers and all of that kind of stuff but if I discount the the the ones that have to be removed for the development sometimes it's all the trees cuz nowadays A lot of the development they clear the whole site okay because they have to grade the site so they clear the whole site and so I would say it's zero if I account for all the ones that have to be removed yeah we have they so that just means you have to replace in theory more trees no right well if I have the trees that are there and I discount the ones to be removed yeah trees that exist versus ones that are removed tells you how many you have to replace so if you remove all the trees then you don't if you clearcut it you replace them with adjustments for size and all of that so we're trying to get to the percentage of what they would have to replace so it wouldn't be every tree they would have to replace so we're trying to do that calcul one at the time I can't hear you both we're trying to do that calculation of determining how much of what they removed they need to replace so it's not going to be every tree like Dr Korea talked about we understand that development comes and sometimes development has to clearcut those trees but we want them to preserve some of those trees so what is the best way to have them preserve the trees what is that balance between them removing the tree and replacing the tree it's not going to be 100% that they're going to have to replace so we're trying to get to that percent of what they would have to replace I just don't get what the cap is adding to this ter in terms of value in the conversation the cap is saying um if I have a site that I have a 2,000 trees and my cap is 200 I'm going only to account for 200 trees so I'm going to 1800 trees is that Bal so it's about striking that balance yeah now I were you proposing into account of every tree removed is that what you're trying to so it's not it's the trees that exist minus the tree that you are going to plant and or or what are you trying the trees removed I I did not understand what was The Proposal not sure how to say it which is probably why this is such a difficult conversation for me um I think what ought to be counted are the number of trees that are there the number of trees that are planted and subtract the numbers of trees removed with allowances for size as whatever formula we want to use and that's the formula and scrap the whole conversation of caps because I'm just not sure that they add anything is what is being proposed they're they're saying according to their methodology there's not a cap there's a percentage that that's all the percentage is the cap right the percent it's not a numeric cap it's a perent right because they don't want to say they don't want to do a taking if you make it too expensive for them to replace the tree to replace the trees because there's no cap then nobody if there's not a percentage then then it becomes uneconomic to develop so there needs to be some of liit I want to add something because I think the way I understand it um that is per inch so if you have a wooded land and you had a th000 inches that you're removing what percentage of that you want to put back that's what the percentage is it's not a tree per tree and that's why the number of trees is so high is because it's a percentage like the all in landing they removed 2,845 in how many of that do you want to see back 10% 5% 2% so that is the and that is why it looks weird like big uh but the way the code is now is based on the actual development so the C varies so if you have a single F A PUD that only requires three tree per lot your cap is going to be way lower because if you have a 10 home you only need 30 trees so your cap is 60 but if you develop something more intense there then your cap is higher so that's why they want to get away from the two times cap that is now well counting it on inches makes a whole lot more sense to me so counting it on inches just so you understand I said $250 a tree because they were counting it by trees once you start counting it by inches you have to look carefully at this math if it's a 2 and inch tree and it's 2,845 you're replacing this could be an astronomical number we need to see the actual cost to projects to understand that I agree well we convert back to trees right in the end we always convert back to trees okay so we account for inches but then we convert back to trees and then again we will have the SC because I think it makes sense um to give an incentive that if you plan 4 in tree it counts two trees if you plant 6 in tree it counts although in 10 years it's going to be the same the trees are going to be the same size but you know but we given an incentive to plant more mature trees so Florence in recent times has there been too many people that planted 6 inch trees or is typically fours isn't it I don't D did I remember the D did not I think they yeah so so most people default to to they'll do two and a halfs or fours beyond that it gets really logistically challenging to even find them and to plant them and to have them survive so so just keep that in mind you can't just and the cost also starts getting crazy you'd rather write a TR check to the tree Bank than start going to six eight 10 inch trees it just doesn't work so are we do we want want staff to continue to move in this direction and kind of maybe do some research for maybe some other cities that do approach it this way see what some of their percentages may be and is that the direction we want to go in consensus I have four nods and I'm fine with the percentage if if if we know what it is and know what the cost is okay with one little wrinkle that we never got to and and I don't know what the intent is today because we're not on the earlier article we're on replacement are we going to the earlier article which one the planting on 15 12 12 are we going to talk about that today or we're not no we're finished with article 12 now we're on 15 we never really finished 12 we have comments from the ldcc on 12 so so we have consensus okay so then I'll give you the Proviso okay so and and we've talked about this the the other day in the downtown core there's a 0% open space requirement in most other areas there's either 25 or 30 to have the same calculation now it may be and I have think this through that it almost doesn't matter because there's a whole bunch of wooded land it might not really matter but I think it's kind of silly to say in your downtown most urbanized area it's the same set of rules with no open space requirement I I just want that recognized when you go through this you're talking about for Article 15 or article 12 which requirements do not make sense if there's no longer a cap and an article this is only for new development it's it's not for article 12 I don't think we ever came up with what is the planting rate per acre for those areas we we never we never did that right no we touched on the you mean the lot the lottery requirement we haven't seen a change yeah my recollection is we brought that before the board and the major change to the lot lottery requirements was a consolidation of the single family districts to simpy that we never what I'm saying is we never touched on there should be less of a planting rate where there's less land to plant on which is the downtown core yeah specifically the downtown core less of a planting rate we didn't discuss that no it wasn't brought up so we can go back to article 12 um briefly but we have to finish Article 15 I understand so all I'm saying is if in Article 15 there should be a difference in the core areas where there's no open space requirement on this number because it's less practical to plant the trees with less space to plant it's that simple just when you bring it back just keep that in mind it's all M okay so are we are we good was there a consensus for that for to move forward with the staff's recommendation there was consensus okay so before the because you're going before the continues I just wanted to give give you um a heads up that yesterday I was asked by Council that the Elder SE should reach Council in October they think that the process is taking too long I try to explain that you know it's hard to speed some of the discussions because they are really you know and uh you know the board has been asking a lot of questions and we are taking the time and that's and I explained it we have started our meeting early now in the afternoon so that we have more time but they gave us a hard date and that we need to reach in October so we need to be more effective yes go ahead okay so did you want to go to article 12 or do you want to just finish 15 and then go back to article because we've already have comments from the ldcc 15 since we're on it but can we take a five minute stretch break five minutes and then we'll be more effective when we get back only for for spe they sh all right we ready to get started again yes thank you madam chair so this is Article 15 on page eight is where we left off um two criteria for replacement trees um one of the comments there is that um we should have tree protective barriers should be required for replacement trees um so we're telling the consultant that we should have those barriers to protect the trees and in that same section we've also deleted the language where it says the replacement trees shall and then it says we added be large trees per the Florida friendly Landscaping plant guide we removed um plant list we also removed have at least equal shape potential um screening properties we removed all of that because we just went ahead and put that it should be a large tree um per that Florida friendly Landscaping plaque guide so I need um LC's consensus on that good okay the next one is on page nine this is also tree replacement guidelines oh sorry Sam go ahead it's it's right there three yeah so um the note there is that we suggest adding a subsection which um States for additional large tree planting to count as a repl placement tree the large tree shall be in addition to code requirement um that is for tree replacement guidelines we also added C and D which is Redevelopment shall not count existing trees as preserved trees so as to not double dip um and then um replacement trees are in addition so so so we we just talked about this so we may have to change this language this language was put in after um after before this yeah it was before so we may have to reward that so I don't need consensus on this section we'll go back and and change it so so you you don't want consensus on this not on this one we'll go back and change no because we have to change because that's on the proposal on what we discussed on the proposal from staff this was prior to our proposal yeah okay this is based on what we discussed today it'll be reflected here okay so page 12 this is um four there's a comment where on five go down to the bottom right there there so there's a comment that says the Consultants this is talking about the tree replacement fee schedule um we have not seen this tree replacement fee schedule um yet but the consultant is going to provide it to us and this is what um Dave was talking about the fee schedule uh cost to replace a tree um so they're going to give that to us we haven't seen it yet so hopefully we'll get it pretty soon would that be better to put that as in the fee schedule of the city that is approved every year so it's not going to be adopted in the Land Development code it'll there just referencing that they're going to that we're going to have one but then but let's remove that approved by land use administrator it should be in the Fe schedule appr by city council so if we don't establish one we can't judge the math you're bringing us so it would be kind of a Fool's errand I think we have to initially establish no we need to establish what we going to propose but it should be in the Fe C today is 250 and that was an email from a City Arborist so now what I want to do is put in the fee schedule so we can discuss you know what we going to preper now in the budget but should be in the budget okay so page oh did I get consensus on that so yeah you're just gonna remove you can remove land administrator and put City Council yeah okay is there a consensus for that that's going be approved by city council you to put ldcc okay the next one is on page 13 and if you all have any comments you can just ask them as I'm going through it um page 13 on number four we added um it says it is prohibited we added it it's prohibited instead of it being shall be unlawful we put prohibited and then in number eight we rename the title so from encroachment of drip line we called it tree protection um because it's really talking about tree protection section of the code is there a consensus for those changes can can you I want to read that treat protection SC yeah so the the the standard detail is that from the engineering standards manual that's used on plans just out of curiosity where does that come from there's like a pre tree protection standard that you have use on their plans comes from the engineering standards okay just just ask is everybody good with the wording should we reference that here put a comment to yeah confirm with Gloria Alexis is here I didn't know she can confirm Alexis do you know if it's in the engineering standards because we have a a specific in design that we ask right a drawing that we ask in all the I think it's coming from the yeah they they provided detail on the plans but we're trying to look into whether yeah whether it's the engineering standards manual or whether it's state requirement can you put confirm with Public Works while was just and we have consensus on four and eight yeah okay so unless it's marked up it's existing language it's existing language exactly okay page 14 now um page 14 number on G number two um we change the language from four years to two years because it's inconsistent with what's provided below which requires two years um we on number three protective um it said barricades required we changed it to barriers required and those are the two changes there is there a consensus for that yes okay page 15 when you're finished and this is the table table 15.4 true replacement schedule for violations um this is probably going to change based on if we do um Ines it's probably going to change based on our new exercise that we did so um Paris do you think it'll change in Teresa based on the this is for violation so however many you're required to how many however many trees you're required to replace without there being a violation um it's double when it's a violation so this is whatever it is whatever we come up with it's still G to be double but the numbers would probably change so we'll see um you know where has 8 Ines up to 18 inches 18 inches up including 30 inches so that may change Harris did you want to add anything more okay okay so 15 under penalties so there was a comment on here the um fee schedule will need to be created that the adoption of the LDC the fee schedule should also include a set amount for when we do not know how many trees were destroyed there are a lot of times when people will clearcut property without getting a permit and they will not account for those trees and we don't know how many trees have been removed so um there should be a set amount for if they clearcut the whole thing and we don't they can't account for how many they clearcut there should probably be another um another um fine here for that so I'm not quite sure how the board feels about that so now with the um Champion trees we're going inch per inch so if you look at a it says failure to obtain a clearing and Grading tree removal permit um that's just based on the permit B is removal of a tree without a permit or not in accordance with the permit and this one is a fine per caliper so the it would be covered under B because of the it's we're measuring it by caliber now um C we're removing removal of herish which um Miss Nicole just talked about D failure to AB buy by a cease and desist order um we added the fee schedule establishes the fine per day for the First Defense and the fine per day for the second um and each subsequent offense so we removed fine of $250 because the fee schedule is going to have the fine in that fee schedule so is that the same as code enforcement or is it different this code enforcement okay and it's mainly for residential uh we remove failure to obtain a contractor's license um we don't provide a contractor's license here at the city um you do have they do register but they don't we don't provide licenses here so we remove that uh we added um an age payment for the city's environmental consultant services that is something that our special magistrate orders um whenever we whenever there's a homeowner who removes trees and our consultant has to get involved because of a restoration plan um the special magistrate orders the payment of the city's environmental consultant for review so we added that into the Land Development code and those are the changes for that section and you created those two new areas right f and g consultant yeah the consultant added added that language and that was there but as far as what staff added we okay it's just highlighted ones did you all is there a consensus for that that language is every pretty good okay yes okay you need to program a key to write that copy okay so the next one is page 88 and this is wetland protection section 15.4 and a lot of this is going to be um the consultant rewarding a lot of this and also referring to the city's comprehensive plan so um we have a lot of comments about the wording not making um sense so they'll have to go through and reward some of this language um and replacing so if you click on purpose and [Music] intent um that whole section staff is saying should be rewarded so um it came from our public works department so our public works department they're going to also meet with us this week so that we can sit down and talk about what language makes sense for um them um and then on you're going to bring that back to us then or you just we're gonna we're GNA bring it back but it's going to come back when um kimley horn comes back so we're going to have some discussions with them as staff as well but we can bring that back to the board um when we bring the the um Landscaping stuff back and that's going to go for page 18 as well B Wetland approval required one of the things that we want to clear in here is that we don't have a an approval process to identify wetlands and so um a lot of the sections in the Wetland section needs to be deleted um and we have agencies there's FD St John's who already regulate these Wetlands so we want to make sure that there's no duplication in services um here so that's going to be a lot of what what staff just a suggestion and this is perhaps varying over time due to Legal actions right now after FD if you can just put a comment say as may be applicable so it's not like you know right now it's kind of confusing which agency does what when so are you deferring to the agencies for all Wetland we do yes we do not have you know any review in the city so so D was issuing Army Corps Wetland impact permits and there was a lawsuit based I guess on Endangered Species Act and now the St is prohibited from issuing Army Corps permits and the Army Corps isn't issuing them either and who knows what the result of that is so you never know sometimes on a project who who you're talking to about these things sometimes both sometimes three sometimes one now we do have an environmental consultant who who we do um the consultant does review the wetlands and they also check for the same thing that St John and fdp or whoever is applicable would check for um so like on Wetland verification of significance which is here we want to keep that information here we had a comment that this is needlessly complex and should be deleted we want to look for and it's B connection um the extent of hydraulic connection to a major Wetland or aquatic system um that is how we determine whether or not something is significant as if it's connected or not to another Wetland um or aquatic system so we want to keep the Wetland um the verification of it here because our consultant they do look at it but we don't permit it that's the I guess my my question is because I've seen it kind of both ways and a lot of argument about it is who has the final say in Wetland protection right so yes in order to impact it you have to get a permit but that if a city does not want any impacts to Wetlands that you guys have a greater authority to protect wetlands and that overrides potential permit so we can have more buffer requirements Upland buffer requirements that's all but we are not the ones that also that flag them right the permit where they are even if they are not um impacted so we have to rely on so what identifying them identifying them but we have all the preservation so that they need to be preserved in in their natural state you know and how much the up we have all that letting go of protection no we have all that and we have in the in the in the comp plan right so so I'm a little confused here because I think maybe the comment when you look at the entirety of number three the department who's the department what department so all these things are things that are being done as part of like a umam analysis by your consultant being reviewed by the agencies not by the city I mean you know there's a there's a report and you guys see the report and you have a specialist look at the report but there's no department so just so at the end at the end this this is the methodology the agencies use why are we repeating that or or just make it clear that you know why is that there well they're redoing this whole section anyway right you said or above we're redoing the front portion the top just to let them know that it's we're following the guidelines of fdp St John's or whoever's at but there's no there's no Department involved in any of this well sometimes with our department acts in the code enforcement and right right but I'm I'm looking at this saying in this sentence who's the department all those things are part of the analysis that's being reviewed by the appropriate agencies and it's also reviewed by our consultant as well so we're we're also reviewing it do you want to just change Department to city does that make sense yeah we can discuss with with Dave Mack and what what would be language yeah but we also want the the right to do that because we're the city we want to look at um any areas of significance in terms of wet lands is everybody good with that just just I'm saying just don't call it apartment if you're doing it you're doing it right right okay and then there's also a question that we had come up in the past oh okay you can put ldcc discuss with David yeah um one of the things that we've discussed in the past is whether or not a storm water retention can be allowed within an Upland buffer um we've had meetings with our public works department with our um environmental consultant um and it's not very clear so we wanted to get some clear for public works it's no um for us it's we're unsure so we to look at the Statue to see what the statue allows in Upland buffers and it's still kind of fuzzy to us so we want to get some clarification in our code and whether or not we would allow um storm water retention within an Upland buffer so I I would just suggest be very careful here because there's retention is one thing and a lot of localities allow like seminol County you can go x% into it you know with your storm water pond but one of the problems and we ran into this at um what's now OVO Center the the when the central Wetland was done there was a Conservation Area placed on the Upland buffer also but then St John's on the on the engineering side wanted outfall structures that were spreader swells and actual physical structures that had to be in the buffer you had absolutely no choice that's the only way it would work so you have to have some exception for the outfall because if you just prohibit it it becomes impossible to do it right so that's more an engineering issue but because there was already a conservation easement because of how the order of those things happen we had to go get a partial release from the conservation eement just to design it the way the agency that imposed the conservation eement wanted it you run around in circles okay is consensus to um keep the language for 3B which is the connection and um talk with David manin about um the department the department and then I also need consensus on whether or not we should talk to the consultant about allowing storm water retention within a buffer upand buffer so Department to City okay with b and further research on that topic everybody good yes I'm almost finished whether or not it can be allowed within a up to discuss right to discuss with the consultant okay page 21 number seven environmentally sensitive areas we had a comment it says wetlands and flood planes identified as environmentally sensitive areas shall not permit new development unless permits and mitigation are approved by the appropriate jurisdictional agency and the comment was from Dave Axel says blood planes are different from wetlands and are not always environmentally sensitive blood planes should be handled by separate language of um engineering standards or of so so for for everyone's understanding a 100-year flood is is where water is that's below a certain level where you know you can have land that's below that level and that all functions through the Federal Emergency Management agency you can impact that if you replace the flood storage and that's 100% an engineering solution that has nothing to do with Wetlands at all and one of the problems that I want to be avoided here is seol County constru them the same and has in their administrative code that you can't ever change a Conservation Area unless it was a mistake so you can't go re-engineer these flpr areas well the the problem is the Maps change so I I just want you to be very very careful not to call them the same thing because they're not the same thing they often overlap but they're absolutely not the same and my comment would be I don't think that Wetlands should have any new development at all like I don't know how you I know how you develop a wetland you fill it you develop it right but get professionally I don't think that Wetlands should be developed at all mitigated no that says development andless permits and mitigation are approved by the appropriate jurisdictional agency with the I guess it depends upon what kind of what kind of wetland yes and then that gets into a sticky subject but to me you know generally speaking all Wetlands provide some sort of function in terms of groundwater recharge flood mitigation Etc so I guess the question is how important is dealing with flooding in the city and using Wetlands to help so the thing is that we do not control that right so that is it's it's not our agency it's not the city back to you of yeah we so we have to rely on St Jones fdp whatever they if they think that can be mitigated the only thing for us is once if it's mitigated and there's a new line then our Upland buffer requirements would apply but we do not control mitigation from other agencies right so that's if if there's mitigation but are you wanting to as a city protect Wetlands so they can serve their function or are you willing to let Wetlands be developed because the city has the three your protect this is what I brought up earlier the protection you guys can decide whether or not you want to protect your Wetlands which if you're like no you can impact some then that goes to the mitigation so yes so Wetlands that are wetlands are protected okay if you if you mitigate then they are not Wetlands anymore right and then but you just said they're protected so why would you mitigate if we are not the ones that that issue the permit for the mitigation we we are not the ones so am I not I don't know if I'm explaining it right so if you have Wetland protection would it why would it get to mitigation have you ever done this what a project that requires Wetland mitigation there's impacts and then I guess there's developments which is what I'm where I'm so so are you it's almost impossible it's almost impossible most of the time with what they call Wetlands which includes by the way Upland cut ditches Puddles the the definition is pretty extreme so if you make a blanket statement that you can develop no Wetlands well then you can have no New Roads no new projects in a lot of places no new anything so that goes to the delineation of the wetlands and then that goes to your but we can't change that that's all agency level stuff so yeah it's very complex analysis St John's which is usually the agency you're dealing with you have to do avoidance and Min minimization and justification it's not like you just go in there I want to wipe this Wetland out it's not that simple many proposals that have said let's go in and WIP as w l it's not that simple it's not that simp want to make sure that we're protected in terms of that that might that I guess I saying that's not a city function the city doesn't have any control whatsoever with that s fdp and I think she's suggesting maybe she wants the city to right now the city's protction stops at you cannot develop on a wetland until they bring that's as far as our protection or our well you cannot develop in a wetland period but if that is not a wetland anymore and we are not the ones to establish that right there then so you just said you cannot develop in a wetland but if it's not considered a wetland any anymore per the regulations of the agencies then that's fine but that's not the way because it's unless permits and mediation are approved by the appropriate jurisdiction jurisdictional agency which is not us so we cannot hold up a development if um if they have not gotten approval by St John's FD then is it really a wetland anymore you said if it's not a wet so it could be a wetland and they can mitigate it yeah so usually in the plans they will show the original Wetland and they will show the new Wetland line with the hatched area that's this is going to be mitigated and then in this new Wetland line we will apply our buffer right but also the stage does not allow us to to subject our permit to someone else's permit so we have to you know kind of trust that the process is being you can tell them they can't physically start until they have the appropriate permits but what she's saying is you can't say our permit is held hostage until you get the other permit it's two different things yeah so they can say you're not going to go do this till you get your permit but they're not going to hold back your have a condition in their permit right we can only hold if there's a denial so if we know there's a denial then we have to we can subject to show us the permit for us to release whatever and we we can coordinate we can call but we cannot subject our permit to another approval from another a l it removed our yeah yeah the state removed a lot of our control over Wetlands I think we should take it back I think I agree so so you how many more people you going to hire to do that right okay so then Wetland buffers the um eight um the comment there it said well it says no development shall be allowed in the transition of buffer zone between Wetland and Upland communities to the extent necessary to preserve the type of wetland classification unless permits are approved by the appropriate jurisdictional agency the applicant must demonstrate that the buffer is sufficient to protect the Wetland and its hydrological connection within the transition zone so why are we proposing who's proposing to add that is this consultant language or your guys language consultant yeah this is a consultant so it seems to just be paring the agencies but to standards that nobody can understand and who's doing this I think it's a mistake which standard is that one this is eight well buffers they may have taken it from our comp plan I think it's just repetition from some either they moved cuz I think we already had that language the last sentence you know so you have unless permits are approved by the agency above that then you have this additional sentence who's doing this thing they I think they removed this from the econ standards this language from our comp plan from the Eon standards and we can pull that up um because they also put in the next one which is nine Wetland setbacks require 25 foot minimum 50 foot average Wetland buffer from all protected Wetland boundaries as determined by FTE um our standard today is 10 10 outside of the econ the language that they put in here which is a 25 foot minimum average 50 is the econ um Wetland um buffer requirements Wetland setback do we have a comment for that already I think we put in here it's the nine yes we did we put we put a comment in there so so I'm suggesting that you already have in my comment there seven covers eight and nine already it there's no real reason to have that language there without causing confusion and work and who's in charge of what you know who you demonstrating these things too by what criteria you know already so yes the city adopted the econ language but it was St John's language that they have it's it's a state regul we required to adopt it right but the state has the same exact regulation today are you saying no Wetland buffers or no no I'm saying there's already state established regulatory structures which we already covered in number seven adding eight nine is is no but the nine we need the nine we need the nine no we need the nine but we have to change the the setback whatever so it's for outside the Eon and then put the econ um setbacks in there as well because I don't care if it's the same as what St John's does and I don't know if it's the same but well well right but I'm saying if number Nine's the same that's just a buffer that's not a big deal it's a buffer but that's that's that's a a lens um a development standard right so we need that number number eight is just yeah the way it's written trouble so what's the difference between a buffer and a setag or a set bag is from the property line from the watland the buffer is the transition the up buffer with be the transition now I I I understand what Dave is saying this last sentence the applicant must demonstrate that the buffer is sufficient to protect the Wetland in its hydrological connection with the transition zone we don't even have a thing called a transition zone I don't think that we do in the Eon I think that sentence should be there yeah that sentence may they they just took it out of the econ language out of the comp plan and just made it applicable throughout the entire city so you're saying in this section an econ base and then outside the econ if you're going to add this language it needs to be two because they're two different in there yeah so I think that's not transition of buffer it's transition or buffer zone and we don't really have a thing called a transition zone right it's an up and buffer it's an up and buffer I would say for for us it's the it's the so it's all that where it says transition or buffer zone if you're not going to delete eight just the last sentence let's fix that first sentence to say in the Upland buffer that that's what it's called put put a comment let's let's check with uh David Mack if we are missing something here but I I agree I mean I don't know what a transition zone is it's it's one in the Eon lock hatching area and I'm telling you they just took that from e but what is a transition a in addition to a buffer in addition to the buffer go to the comp plan cu the comp that is the exact language from the comp yeah but I don't know what the difference between transition and buffer we do not have anything else we we require the 25 minimum 50 average from the econ I think they call it transition so that's that's I'm saying we need to clarify what is that if if it's the same we remove M but it's there is not one outside of the Eon so we'll have to where we put what but there is enough plan buer requirement if you're going to keep a please remove the last sentence and check the language of the first sentence because it seems to be Mis so you can delete the last sentence which Mr Hall just suggested and I would to check with dve minck to I think I understand I think it makes sense but let's check with him because he's this the exper okay so is there a consensus for that if on nine you're going to fix the buffers to what yes to the and let's just ldcc on the first sentence well not the consult your own person which one are you highlighting one of many consultants I have this okay and then nine we have to change it so that it matches what we actually do outside of the econ so we'll need two standards econ and all the other areas LCC put l okay and the last one is on page 22 so they have um econ lock Hatchy River protection overlay standards classification and so this one um we're saying that this whole section needs to be um checked based on the comprehensive plan so if you scroll down you just want to make sure all of it is Con consistent with the comprehensive plan and that is it for that one so that is it for tonight for today right let's see that ends public meeting items are there any discussion items comments or announcements from committee members Don William Nicole on the same page well they have to be right okay I was it doesn't seem like they have been on the same page so that's why well they are waiting for our um coms comments to be able to kind of do you know the changes okay so we have we'll have to pick up with them now I think um article 12 and 15 were the most the ones that I think were could be more controversial so we still have to you know um clear some things but and then we still have some pending issues on article four and that is a discussion on exactions we will have to go go through you know when they were here about article 8 I was pretty certain I heard them say they've got another draft and we've never seen it we haven't we haven't received anything so so to her point this is months ago and it's like well what's the trouble so we have a meeting with them this coming week and now we have to kind of Hit the first of all the the the U articles that we already sent comments we need to get it back right cuz it's we have 18 um uh art um chapters in the in the code so it's a lot one we are removing so now we we have 17 but um we have to start getting the final version and um start reading at the clean copy because I'm sure we still going to find you know some issues to correct so yeah so the challenge yesterday we already knew and we were we are trying to reach the the October deadline anyway cuz we are trying we know there will be elections in November so we want to have you know um this city council to be able to approve um the eldc so there were items that we had wanted and suggested for them to come back with suggestions as well they're planning to provide it to us at one time um so that way we're not going back and forth with them um because every time we go back and forth they charge us yes it's more money for us so they're going to um give us after we give them the majority of the Articles they're going to come back to us with the Revis um so that's how they're planning that one but I wanted to talk about the upcoming meetings um we have one that is scheduled for July 9th and we're not going to have that one on July 9th and the one that was scheduled for July 23rd is going to be moved to July 29th which is a Monday at 2:30 and that's the one Katie is coming to talk about article 12 and Article 15 with us this one is at 2:30 July 29th so she's also bringing their landscape architect Greg Witherspoon um with them on on the 29th as well so we want to make sure we have all of our questions ready for them um so if there's something else that we did not cover um that you want just us let me know and we can send it to them ahead of time otherwise what we have already provided in the document with questions for kimle horn they're going to go over so we want to make sure that this time that we spend with them is efficient that we ask all of our questions um they will be here for an hour and a half on that day so we want to make sure that whatever we discuss that we very efficient with it so if there are any other questions that we need to ask them that we did not already discuss let me know so I can get it to them ahead of time9 the 29 it's we're not having the one on the the 9th and the 23rd are cancelled right and we'll be having it on the 29th at 2:30 yes with the consultant and then later on the same day we're going to finish up the other articles um the next articles for that okay is everyone able to make it on the 29th I can can you make it on the 29th as far as I know okay and I think I don't know if you we discussed with you all that if we we are planning to have one in the end one last session um in conjunction with the LPA so that we can go uh over the things that there are two recommendations to see if we can you know converge to one CU we trying to you know simplify the the draft and um if we still have to then in the work session for Council we propose both of them or you know as many as we have and then we are going to have the consensus or the direction from Council and we will let you all know what the differences are ahead of time we're keeping track of the differences between LPA and the ldcc so we will let you all know that ahead of the meeting Nicole you had an I think you said you had two comments do you remember just it okay great Clayton all right so with that then we went over future meeting dates um and so with that we're adjourned thank thank you