An Ordinance By The Pasco County Board Of County Commissioners Amending The Pasco County Land Development Code; Section 802 Tree Preservation And Replacement; Appendix A Definitions; And Other Sections, As Necessary, For Internal Consistency; Providing For Applicability; Repealer; Providing For Severability; Inclusion Into The Land Development Code, And An Effective Date.

1:20:15The next item on the list is item PC 15, which is the proposed tree preservation ordinance by Patrick Dutter.

1:20:24By the way, this is regulatory.

1:20:33All right. Uh good afternoon. Patrick Dutter, Planning, Development, Economic Growth.

1:20:40All right, long time coming. Uh tree ordinance update. I think it was requested by the board um I don't know, probably close to a year ago now. Uh so some updated language to eight oh two. Um so first I want to talk about the uh exemption adjustments. So there are a lot of pieces to this. Um, you know, we we're we're tasked with looking at, you know, um There a lot of clear cutting going on. Um there was concern about s why are we clear cutting every

1:21:10tree, uh if we could keep some of the larger trees somehow. Um so that kind of opened up this code section and then the the team um wanted to clean up some items while they were there, some some loopholes that we kinda discovered throughout the years. So since we had eight hundred open, um we wanted to take that advantage. So So that's why you see some adjustments to some stuff you might not be expecting. So the first is is exemption adjustments. We remove the exemption of getting a permit to install a fence or a wall, remove the exemption of getting

1:21:40a permit for the creation of a survey. We allow for the removal of high-risk trees on residential lots with without a permit. There is state statute language that was adopted, I think, a year and a half ago that's required us to have that language in our code. And remove the exemption to remove small tree or trees smaller than uh five inch DBH on residential lots. Um This is already implied with the uh introduction piece uh in the exemption. So some cleanup items there.

1:22:10Explain a couple of things. Remove the exemption of getting a permit to install a fence or wall. Sure. So what's the implication of that?

1:22:20Um so I I think we saw and I have uh Mike Woodard here, he is our our arborist working in central permitting. He deals with every single tree application that you come in. Uh I believe there it was um people I think were taking advantage of that by saying they're going to have a tree or fence or wall, and we don't really have permits for that. Um so people were using that to say I'm gonna take down this tree because I'm gonna put up a tree or fence or wall. Now we're not restricting anyone from doing that. You just gotta get a permit first.

1:22:49So How does that save a tree?

1:22:53Well, it doesn't save a tree, but it just it gets rid of the loophole where they didn't have to get a permit. To what end?

1:23:01But So uh is it I guess what I'm asking is it a fee raising exercise? The goal of an ordinance is to save the trees. If it doesn't save the trees, then why are we doing it?

1:23:15I can answer that. Mike Woodard, Pasco County Arborist. Um, the biggest issue was coming from natural resources not being able to review fences being placed possibly in a wetland. So we're not saying no, it's just for coun for uh natural resources to review for wetlands and for us to make sure that it is on the property line and not just a random fence across a backyard. Um we were getting people doing that and clearing out quite a number of trees that aren't for

1:23:39a property. I got a big backyard. Agricultural property. I want to get a horse or a cow. Are you telling me I can't cross fence my yard to create paddocks for the livestock?

1:23:53Right now the exemption's only for delineating a property line.

1:23:59So for agricultural properties, people put in fences anyway and they basically have to go around the tree. Since it's in your property, you could go around to say a grand oak that would require a permit and that's what we would ask people to do.

1:24:10Okay.

1:24:12And then just sim The follow up to my question Same thing with getting a creating a survey.

1:24:21Right now code allows trimming to proper pruning standards to be able to access a site to do any surveys of trees. I've encountered one person who had a really odd it the tree came up out about five feet and then crossed horizontally across the property and they couldn't bring a truck into survey. And that's the only one I've encountered where people couldn't work. around the trees. And they did come to us and ask how they would do that first and we worked with them on it.

1:24:43So if are you saying a surveyor needs to get a permit to conduct a survey?

1:24:48No, to remove a tree to conduct a survey because they shouldn't need to. They can work around the trees generally to see what a site is. I've done it myself and I have never had to remove a tree.

1:24:55And then the the exemption on five inch DBH trees on residential lots.

1:25:03That issue did you want to speak to that or you want me to do that?

1:25:04Yeah, I c I can answer that. So if you read the intro to the exemptions piece, uh it says a tree removal permit is required for the removal of all five inch diameter of breast height, except for the following circumstances. In that it's saying five inch or greater, it's implying that anything less than that doesn't need a permit.

1:25:23Right. So you're saying it needs a permit to take something out that's less than five inches?

1:25:27No, you you don't have to have that permit.

1:25:30Only if it's five inches

1:25:32or more.

1:25:32Five inches or more.

1:25:34What are high risk trees, Patrick? High

1:25:37risk trees. Mike?

1:25:41So that um statute, Florida statute one six three point oh four five requests that an arborist writing an arborist letter to exempt from permitting certify that the tree cannot be mitigated below a moderate risk as determined by a

1:25:58basic risk assessment. They don't have to do a full risk assessment, a basic risk risk assessment of that tree. If they can certify that, then they don't need a permit to remove the tree. And that's what that uh exemption speaks to.

1:26:09I I'm not sure. It's it's still not clear quite clear to me. Is it clear to everybody else? No. So maybe you could

1:26:17dumb it down

1:26:17a little bit.

1:26:18When a new development is created, they have trees that they have to place on their lot. They're all going to be about two or three inch caliber. Many phone calls I get after people move into those uh subdivisions is they read our code and go, oh it's less less than five inches. I don't need a permit, correct? But it was part of an approved plan for their home. And that's a discrepancy we're trying to get clear for

1:26:38people to do. The Chair is asking about he's asking about the high risk tree removal in the statute. I think that's what

1:26:45Oh the statute states we cannot require a permit if they possess that letter and it meets the state law's requirements. Okay.

1:26:58Does the statute use that exact term? Yes.

1:27:01It does. Does the statute define what a high risk tree is? Yes,

1:27:04as defined by the basics. It is an ISA document and a methodology from the International Society of Arborists to determine the risk of a tree as relating to human infrastructure.

1:27:16But what is the risk? You asked the question right before that, but what what is the h what is classified as a high risk tree?

1:27:22What makes for a high risk tree?

1:27:25It's somewhat situationally dependent, but you have to have a target nearby, like a home or a car, people walking by even. So you have to have something that can be damaged, and you have to have an issue with the tree that you can't trim or do any sort of mitigation to, like a dying tree, for example, near a home. is a high risk because you cannot resolve the issue. But one branch over the home can be trimmed to remove that level of risk. And that's what that risk assessment's supposed to determine.

1:27:54And you're you're saying that's determined by an arborist. It's not a full risk. I say

1:27:57certified arborist.

1:27:58Okay, so it's not a full risk assessment, but it's a it's a basic

1:28:01risk assess risk assessment, which is not so basic. There's quite a lot of criteria they look at. They look at, like I said, the targets, what's there, what's not there, the condition of the tree, the species of tree, in the location it is. So there's a lot of leeway for argument in it as well.

1:28:19So it's not really what kind of tree it is or what the diameter of the tree is. It's Other issues. Yes,

1:28:25the the

1:28:26specific condition

1:28:27of that individual tree, yes. Okay.

1:28:31Mike, I've got a question for you before you go down. It's the go back to the that exemption on the this the slide here says remove exemption and getting a permit for the creation of a survey But the I think the the section of the code that's stricken is not just a survey, it's geotechnical tests, anything else. So in order for geotechnical tests to be done. We've got to get a surveyor out there to survey the trees and then submit a permit to remove a tree that's in their way to get the drill rig in there to do the test. Is that right?

1:29:02Possibly, but I don't get very many requests for that. Um

1:29:06Well now you don't because I don't know because it's

1:29:07exact.

1:29:08I mean I don't get

1:29:10people calling to ask about it either very often.

1:29:12Well, 'cause they know it's it's written in the code, that's the way it's always been. I mean that's a good thing. It's gonna create quite the delay on on

1:29:19I mean I can tell you I have had multiple sites where we've had to go in and clear trees for the purpose of getting a drill rig onto a site that's that densely forested. That's not uncommon.

1:29:34We do it all the time. And question for you all, how often are those trees something that would need a permit? Um we tend to have a lot of invasive trees, the palms and pines we don't require permitting for.

1:29:46Well, I I mean again, if if it's stricken here Then all of a sudden what kind of Pandora's box do we open up? Hey, that w tree was eight inches, or that tree was six inches, or that tree was four inches, or I I mean That exemption's pr present now and all the all the people I've worked with. All are careful and we usually walk the site with them to make sure that care is taken and we carefully choose the route that they get there. We're not going through a twenty four inch tree to Get a rig in there.

1:30:13Yeah, by by practice we typically try to use five inches or, you know, above is kinda so we're we're not gonna touch anything that's that's above five inches, but so we try to wind our path through it, but yeah, that I mean that's a very good point.

1:30:28Okay. So maybe modify that language to bring back the piece about um professional geo geologist, geotechnical stuff.

1:30:36Let me ask a question about these.

1:30:38Sure.

1:30:40I didn't hear the board getting upset. About Geotechnical engineering companies. removing some five inch trees to do geotechnical explorations and I didn't hear the board screaming that we're losing all the trees in the county because Mr. Gray decided to put or Mr. Moody decided to put up a fence along his property line. The issue is

1:31:10develop developments that result in the clear cutting of trees. Sure.

1:31:17At least this portion and I know you haven't finished this. This doesn't solve clear cutting problems of developments. This just makes more bureaucracy for a homeowner or a geotechnical engineer or a surveyor. Sure.

1:31:37Small amounts of trees and a lot of times just like the gentleman said, nuisance trees and exotics and I I I'm just not understanding why we're going to this level. That's does this doesn't seem to address the issue.

1:31:51Sure. And and I think we attempt to address the main issue further along in the the PowerPoint presentation, which we can talk about. I think these were were smaller cleanup things that danced around the subject and maybe things that we could improve to make even the smaller projects a little bit better to keep some of our trees. Um but ultimately if it's something that we want to just Just keep the language as is and just focus on the large development stuff. That's something we can do, assuming the board is that's

1:32:21the bo what the board wants, I guess.

1:32:25Would you like me to keep going through the right-of-way?

1:32:38Okay, um new development adjustments, um removal requirements at tree survey. We will continue to allow representative sampling. Um we added clarity what the tree survey entails for the tree inventory. We added clarity to what the tree inventory entails as well. Um so oftentimes, and um the engineers that are Here I don't have the issue with, but some other engineers provide us tree surveys, entry inventories that are not very clear. So we're just provided some additional

1:33:08direction about what we want to see on the tree survey entry inventory. Um in terms of retention and replacement requirements, um

1:33:18Nothing's really changing there. Still need a tree plan. Um you need to include the replacement calculations showing how trees will be planted equal or above the removal amount. Um projects can still and deficit can still pay into the tree mitigation fund. I have that covered in another slide. So um like I if you if you review the red line text, it looks like a lot, but a lot of the stuff is is clean up and clarification stuff or Or just shifting how the code section reads a little bit.

1:33:48Um problem trees and tree protection um cleaned up and expanded on the existing problem tree section, uh expanded on removal criteria and added the requirement for replacement plantings. Um so we have uh basically You're you're removing tree or you have problem trees on basically non-residential lots and then everything other than that. Um so we have basically two separate sections that talk about if you're removing a tree on a residential lot, uh this is the stuff you need to provide us. Again, just adding

1:34:18some more clarity about what we're looking for. Uh we did the same thing on non-residential. Most of that language still or existed previous to this. We just cleaned up some of that. language and uh format it formatted it a little bit better just to make it read a little bit more clear.

1:34:36All right, so this will be a fun one. Um, tree mitigation fund. Um so the current code uh currently uh for residential development, you have to pay uh if you're removing trees, right, and you have a deficit, $50 per inch, not to exceed $500 per unit. For affordable housing projects, it's $10 per inch, not to exceed $50 per unit. For non-residential

1:35:07with a building, it's fifty dollars per inch not to exceed $500 for each 2,000 square foot of the first floor. And then for non-residential with no building, it's fifty dollars per inch. So that's what the current code has. Their proposed code is is in attempt to kind of simplify that a little bit. We're not really breaking it up by residential or commercial. We're going by how much land are you disturbing and of that land that you're disturbing What how many trees do you have on

1:35:37there? So all project types, it's gonna be $70, $75 per inch. Also all project types. There's it's gonna be an additional $150 per inch for heritage trees. And I'll cover what a heritage tree is in a future slide, and Mike can probably help me out with that too. But that's generally larger oak trees and larger magnolia trees. So the larger oak trees and larger magnolia trees, you're paying not $75, you're paying $150 if per inch if you need to remove those trees.

1:36:09And then of course the in lieu of payment clause that we currently have, we're changing that a little bit too. Like I said, we're doing per disturbed acreage. So in lieu of payment per inch, it's gonna be uh $2,750 per disturbed developable acreage until May 1st, 2026. And that amount is going to increase to 3,500 after 5126.

1:36:34So does that mean? If the developer wants to pay Twenty seven hundred and fifty dollars.

1:36:43He can clear cut it whatever trees he needs to clear cut.

1:36:47Uh yes, if if whatever their whatever deficit they have, so between uh inches that they're going to replace and maybe you know they're gonna h hopefully they're gonna save some trees, but inches that they're gonna replace, um there's a a number that they come up with. Well, okay, we're we're in a deficit of five thousand inches. Um so it's gonna be now by developable acreage.

1:37:09And those inches is that diameter in inches or around the tree? Uh D B H diameter.

1:37:17So Patrick, you and I have had this conversation Um I think the code needs more clarity about

1:37:24when what projects these new fees are going to be applicable to, not just for the initial change, but also for your change in One five one twenty six. Um That I didn't know you were changing it again on five one twenty six until just now. Um so I think The timing of who pays these incr these changed fees. I don't know if they're increases or not, but whatever they're Needs to be clearer in the code.

1:37:53Right. And and we have language that I'm about to read that I think should potentially solve that issue. Um so uh we have uh a lot of MPUDs that have conditions of approval that mention um specific ordinance, the older ordinance in terms of tree mitigation. Uh And so we have some language that we want to read in that was not included in this original code to hopefully help with that. So resolution number 08-284 is hereby amended and superseded by this section 802.4.

1:38:25These mitigation rates shall be applicable to all applications for construction plans, operating permits, or mass grading plan that is not completed prior to the effective date of the 2025. Mm-hmm. So that's added language.

1:38:37Yeah, I just think you're gonna have to add similar A similar trigger for this increase on five.

1:38:46Add some language to that that says what projects are gonna have to pay the increase rate on five one twenty six. Understood.

1:38:52So that's application complete or application submitted?

1:38:56W what what specifically which which piece?

1:38:59Triggers the new fees.

1:39:02Appli it's going to be application submittal. So if you have your construct if you have your your application submitted. Yeah, okay. you're covered by whatever you were under at that time. If we take a year to approve it, you're still subject to the the previous whatever you were approved under or submitted.

1:39:21Okay. So and The date, the operative date would be the date that the this ordinance takes effect, which presumably would be when. If you're on schedule, current schedule.

1:39:32Uh I do not know the final hearing date off the top of my head. But I would obviously include that.

1:39:39Okay.

1:39:42Okay, um so here's a comparison chart. Uh it hopefully you guys can see it on your screen there. I know it's a little small for us here. Um so I took 10 or 15 projects to show you what these new changes would look like. Now uh these projects, what they decided to do um was pay by. Right? So what I did is I took those projects and then rather than the $50 per inch, I changed it to $70, $75 per inch. Now I understand the caveat to

1:40:12this is I did not go through every single one of these projects and figure out which ones of these were heritage trees, right? Because that number is obviously increased when assuming you have heritage trees. So the numbers on the right are the increases or potentially decreases. And like I said, it is not including the heritage trees. What's probably a little bit more telling is the next comparison chart. So this is the what I like to uh say the in-lieu of comparison chart.

1:40:42So uh previously, you know, you can do $50 per inch or you could pay $500 per residential lot, that type of thing, right? So that's what this is. So the those are again 10, 12 projects. The first column is in lieu of payment, so that is actually what they paid. And then what I want to do is I found the uh developable acreage for all of these projects and multiplied that by our new rate. So you can see generally the increases that you're gonna

1:41:12see for the 2750 uh number and then the 3500 number. Um The observation that I think I've made with this is usually your more compact developments are not paying as much in tree mitigation. Your projects that are more sprawling are paying more in tree mitigation. Obviously, that makes sense because now we're triggering triggering based off of developable acreage. So again, residential subdivisions that have large locks.

1:41:51Just a comparison chart.

1:41:55So we also clarified tree mitigation fund usage. So we clarify what constitutes an affordable housing use at an I think the 80% AMI. Clarify the use for the Economic Growth Commercial Landscaping Program to make that clear. Added the ability for the county administrator to use the tree mitigation funds for public use. So as an example, like Arbor Day or Tree Day, if we want to do programs where people can come and get trees from the county for free, we can use that funding for that

1:42:26or any other types of Of of similar uses. And then added a cap on the amount of the funds that the county can use for non-vegetative costs. So oftentimes the county will come in and try and use funds for the tree mitigation fund, which is great. That's probably how we got a lot of landscaping in some of our medians. But the county wanted to use um some of those funds for other than just landscaping um like uh mulch and and all that kind of stuff we're really we're really focused on trees so we put a a cap in there that okay they can use

1:42:56some of the funds but it can't exceed a certain amount.

1:42:59So just to clarify the third one, Patrick That's still for Purposes of planting trees. I mean it's not I mean, we're not gonna use this fund to build roads or correct okay. 'Cause it says public You may want to clarify that because That makes it sound like we can use the money for any public purpose. That that does that doesn't sound very good.

1:43:22Okay.

1:43:22You might have make it clear that it's

1:43:29Hmm. For some

1:43:35By any public purpose is a little too broad.

1:43:37Right. It may be clearly in here. I just probably generalized it for the slide. But I will go back and check to make sure that we're going to be able to do that.

1:43:43Sure. Because that's too broad.

1:43:45Understood.

1:43:46Okay. Can you can you remind me what the second one is? What is the Economic Growth Commercial Landscaping Program?

1:43:52Yeah, so uh I believe three or four years ago at this point, uh the economic growth uh group developed a program to help incentivize um maybe some rundown looking development or commercial development to you know install landscaping along their frontages. Um funding used from the tree mitigation fund is used for those purposes.

1:44:14Is that something so maybe there's a a business out there that was, you know Done way before there was a landscaping whatever, do they apply for a grant or how does that work?

1:44:27Yes, I believe and Mr. Engle I think was the expert there, but I believe they will apply for the grant funding and assume they meet certain criteria. Uh funding will be released for them to uh make those improvements.

1:44:39Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to the first bullet. I noticed that you got rid of the reduced rate for affordable housing projects. Is the theory that Because you'll just give them now the grants from the fund directly if they're Below eighty percent of AMI is the y they don't need a reduced rate.

1:44:54No, honestly the thinking there was um at the time w we don't think affordable housing projects should um not have any less trees than anyone else, I think was the thinking.

1:45:06I I get that. What I'm asking is

1:45:11Since they may still struggle to put them all in, it it sounds like you're you're Building in the ability to That they can request funds from the Dream Mitigation Fund?

1:45:21Sure.

1:45:22Okay.

1:45:27Um okay, so then our heritage tree. Uh heritage tree shall have a condition rating of good or better as determined by the uh ISA condition rating system. Tree species as stated below must be at the required DBH or greater to qualify for a heritage tree. Every effort must be made to incorporate heritage trees into the design of the project. So our live oaks that are larger than 34 inches DBH and Magnolia trees that are 24 inches Four inches or larger

1:45:52in C. Does that mean every effort must be made to incorporate heritage trees into the design of a project? What's every effort? Try your best. Well, who decides whether I've tried my best or not? Who's judge and jury?

1:46:11If you would like we could strike that language. Why? you guys proposed the ordinance so I'm asking the question.

1:46:18Yeah, there I mean there I think there's a lot of aspirational stuff that we have in the code. Um and I think that's probably one of them.

1:46:28Okay. We'll just leave it at that for the moment.

1:46:30Sure.

1:46:34Uh questions.

1:46:37Well, I'm just concerned about the payment of uh twenty five hundred dollars and then you can clear any tree you want, you know, basically.

1:46:47Mm.

1:46:47I I don't know, I'm not I'm not I don't like 'em taking down hair of these trees, period.

1:46:53Sure.

1:46:54And I think Sometimes it's better to have not have all straight roads. Yeah, you can go around things and And uh if you think you can Sell a lot for fifty thousand dollars, spend three thousand dollars to Cut down a heritage oak. It's a pretty Reasonable sacrifice.

1:47:13That's my problem with this, Mr. Gray. His Weird Increasing the fee by twenty-five dollars an inch. If I'm Just By way of example. For a thirty inch tree, that's not a heritage tree. Actually it's we'll make it a thirty-three inch tree, 'cause that doesn't qualify as a heritage oak tree. It costs eight hundred and twenty five dollars. All right. If I'm developing

1:47:43an M P U D On a forty foot wide lot. And that lot's worth a hundred thousand dollars in market value? You think eight hundred and twenty five dollars is gonna make me save that tree? I'm gonna kill that tree every time. That is n that is a economic decision that takes not even a fraction of a second to make.

1:48:10I won't be supporting this ordinance. Because I don't feel like and for exactly this reason that this is gonna move the needle. What all I see is and back to my Initial comment. I see more bureaucracy for the poor homeowner that needs to take down a five and a half inch dead tree in their yard. I don't see Anything here that incentivizes a developer to save a tree. All we did was make the tree fund bigger and we already have an excess

1:48:40of money in the tree fund anyways. The commissioner's been talking about we've had this tree fund and we haven't spent the money.

1:48:47There were some of us that we have. We're getting frustrated with the amount of clear cutting and tree removal that's going on.

1:48:59and the approach that was proposed. was one of incentivization to save trees, not penalties, 'cause these penalties are meaningless in the scale of the value Of a lot.

1:49:17One of the ideas floated was we have a a density bonus in our comprehensive plan. That allows a developer to get extra density by preserving a wetland. Well I'm not gonna tell you that you can't impact a wetland. People get permits to impact wetlands every day. When there are reasons. But you don't get this isn't nineteen seventy two where I can

1:49:48just go and take twenty acres of wetlands and dredge and fill them all to create a new subdivision. If I need to knock the corner of a wetland off to get a road around, yeah, I can get a permit to do that. So my point is I can't develop those wetlands anyways. So we give developers a bonus for Preserving something that the state's gonna make and the federal government's gonna make 'em preserve anyway. So why do we even bother with that? Why don't we give 'em a bonus when you save trees. What

1:50:19I was hoping for when this discussion started was that this would come to us in the form of a comprehensive plan amendment. and a change in how we do business at Pasco County. One give the bonus for saving a percentage of tree canopy, not saving wetlands that I can't get permits to develop anyways. The other is more policy.

1:50:43We've had lots of discussions over the last few years about the minimum widths of lots. And I think I was one of the first ones to say I'm done with forty and fifty foot wide lots. I think that was on the Hale Collier thing and that started a big discussion about this.

1:51:02And then what happened was discussions with the T B B A And a policy memo that comes out that says you can have 45 foot wide lots. So I'll propose this.

1:51:16How about when we're going to be able to do Barbara's client comes in for an M P U D We start with R four zoning. You start with sixty foot wide lots. And when you save that wetland. then I'll give you fifty-eight foot wide lots. And when you save twenty-five percent of the trees, then I'll give you fifty foot wide lots. And then when you give me two acres of neighborhood park, then I'll give you forty-five foot wide lots.

1:51:42Then we The developers need to understand you give, you get. We just give right from the front end. And I think that's part of our problem. The other thing that this ordinance doesn't do, and I and I apologize, I don't want any of the staff to take my comments personally because I know that this ordinance was started under a previous ACA. wasn't David Allen that started this. I think Roy Major did this. But we'd had discussions with Roy. We told R Roy

1:52:12what our what our thoughts were on this. and what he chose was not the incentive basis, the the regulatory. And I know you've guys got of st stuck with this and you're trying to put it over the goal line and we understand you're just doing your job. But it's not a program that I feel like is gonna move the needle. And we haven't done anything in our code. We have to look at why do developers clear developers don't just get up in the morning and say, I'm going to clear cut the trees. It

1:52:44starts with the stormwater design. I have to start from the lowest place. And then everything goes uphill from there. Every one of our sites and I hear the commissioners complaining about it, they're wondering why are these developments four and five and seven feet higher than their neighbors? Well that's because water flows downhill. And we can only start with the bottom and we we work our way up. Unfortunately you can't change the code to stop those things or we're going to flood people. But that's why these

1:53:15things get clear cut. But I can tell you that Twenty five dollars an inch. The only guy that that might discourage is my neighbor. And the only thing that he's gonna get discouraged about is going down to actually legally get a permit. He's gonna cut the tree down on Saturday afternoon and we'll make it disappear in the bonfire Saturday night. You'll never know. It's not homeowners that are the issue. So I don't feel like there's any need other than in if we wanna make some minor

1:53:45tweaks or corrections in the existing ordinance to clarify things, but until you get something that's actually gonna incentivize a developer to do to To save trees? An a new way of doing business. It's not gonna work.

1:54:01And Patrick, that's the that's really the thing that's bothered me too, is that, you know, I think the problem, as he said, is n is not the homeowners, it's the developers. Because they're the only ones that go in a clear cut. Sure, and uh Yeah. Every time I drive down Little Road.

1:54:20Yeah. And see all that area clear cut. Um that was forced. You know, you can't imagine how many calls I've gotten about that. And uh So I think that's really the fo what should be our focus is the Find a way. Practical way to Put put developers in a position where it's not economically Attractive. Cut down. A thirty four foot oak, a thirty four inch oak, I mean that's That's a

1:54:50pretty big oak. You know, a thirty three inch is still a pretty big oak. Yeah, so Um You know, I think Uh maybe You know, that number should be decreased too. It should be a smaller oak, should even be Because they take so long to grow.

1:55:10I and I I get it. I just don't think unless you're gonna start charging them Thousands of dollars an inch. And then at some point we're going to make development impractical if you have a wooded Sight. But I feel like if we do it the opposite way rather than We want carrots, not sticks. Sure.

1:55:36then I feel like there'll be a lot more creativity. When i look at if my goal is to get forty five foot wide lots, I'll figure out how to cluster my development so I can save part of that tree canopy and and again, we're giving away density for property that can't be developed in the first place. Sure. That There was a time. I was a very young child at the time where you could walk where you could go in and blitz a wetland and do that kind of stuff and you didn't need permits. That was a long time ago.

1:56:15And now it's ten thousand a day and that stops B.

1:56:19So I do want to comment on one thing though. I'm not opposed to your idea, but I will say that I'm I have some concerns about taking away the wetland credit because that was put in place partially to avoid a taking. I mean uh I understand that you From a practical standpoint you're saying it doesn't really achieve a whole lot, but it still shows that we're giving some value for those wetlands. Okay. It may be a value that that most developers don't

1:56:49really care about, but on the books you're getting some value for that land That If we don't give value for that land arguably we've we've given no value. Okay. And so now you arguably have a taking

1:57:01of that property.

1:57:06preserving trees over a certain size or a certain percentage of canopy.

1:57:12So I what I'm saying is I don't have an objection to you as giving other density incentives like you're saying, but I I wouldn't want to take away the wetland.

1:57:21Fair argument. Um Okay. Chris. I mean several years ago I I heard him talk about conservation subdivisions. And and it was an idea like okay, you preserve all this green space and you cluster your development. Mm. I'm not sure I've still today have seen one of those and maybe there are. But I'm not familiar with them but I think your ideal. But weren't those

1:57:47those were generally in the low density, like the Res One areas and they were intended for places like the northeast rural More so than, you know, the West Market area, the central

1:58:00But again, when I'm seeing development happening out in VOPH per se, I'm not seeing That but I'd like I think your idea has merit. I think that should be something we should consider because again if you can preserve trees and and green space and then cluster development, that it may that makes sense to me. So so you have a question for

1:58:22staff. Um And Patrick, you and I have had this conversation. I mean this ordinance has other gaps, like for example, it doesn't even codify PM twenty six. Um Which is odd to me because The M PUDs were imposing these tree requirements and landscape requirements through PM twenty six. But apparently the rest of the county if you're not an M P U D you don't have to comply with those tree landscape requirements would Seems like at some point we should codify PM twenty six. Um

1:58:52is there going to be a part Is this just part one of the tree fix? And there's going to be a part two where we do things like codify PM twenty six and Maybe put in density incentives for preserv I mean I I I don't know if this is just the the band-aid and then we're gonna do the cure later or what what but somebody help me out here.

1:59:14Hi David Engel Planning and economic development director, so I've been listening very carefully. And I really appreciate Mr. Moody's discussion of the history and genesis of this effort because he's right. Uh we had a very ambitious tree mitigation and and tree preservation concept ordinance that we were proffering. And the we had tremendous pushback, frankly, from the development community. Uh the development community acknowledged

1:59:44that our fees haven't been increased for about twenty years. and that they were aligned with that. And it's our intention after speaking to some of the commissioners that we this is the first step. This is a Band-aid ordinance. Uh we realize that this doesn't do the job. It basically anures more revenue coming into the tree mitigation fund. And frankly, the tree mitigation fund was not appropriately in agre in proactively handled by the county staff. So we we

2:00:15are we're trying to start utilizing those funds to get them on the street to increase the number of trees in our county and increase the canopy. So what I'd like to do is taking this opportunity to having a candid discussion with the Planning Commission and also having a new ACA. Uh asked for a continuance of this matter. And not gonna just let it die, but come up with some maybe some recommendations so this band-aid first step is more effective. Yep. I don't think we want to let the issue die. I think we are all concerned about the question. Yeah, because

2:00:45I I I mean if if the Planning Commission doesn't support it, and then we go to the Plan the Board of County Commissioners, I don't I'd like to see us work with the Planning Commission coming up with a better outcome. I think that's a good idea.

2:00:59The pushback. 'Cause I watched a a lot of those horizontal round table meetings and those discussions.

2:01:08The pushback

2:01:12was about the tree survey. requirements and the whole crazy point scheme that was proposed and I would Tell you I still come to the same conclusion. We can make a crazy tree evaluation and point scheme and charges for taking down trees, but at the end of the day they still, in my opinion, were not going to move the needle or incentivize a developer to

2:01:42save the trees. All they were were going to rate one, they were going to create More Fees for I guess landscape architects or arborists to go out and evaluate trees a little more paid into the tree fund And I hear you, well we're gonna raise more revenue and get the trees out on the in the community from the tree fund, but we've already got a tree fund that hasn't been so I've heard the commissioners in multiple discussions that we've got all this money in the tree fund that still hasn't been spent. So this is money that's been

2:02:12collected years over years and the the trees still aren't out there if at least being paid for from the tree fund. So all I see this is just more money in the bank and I guess maybe we collect more interest on the tree fund, but I feel like

2:02:28You just need a different Again, I feel like this needs to go more to the comprehensive plan and a way of doing business more so than an ordinance. We have a tree protection ordinance. And this isn't any this isn't much radically different other than it's increased the fees. Well This ordinance has been on the books, I don't know how long, t twenty years, twenty-five years. Hasn't stopped anybody from cutting it down a tree. Well Mr Engel

2:02:59is in an effort to move move it forward. I think uh Mr Mr. Engel had a great suggestion. I think it's a good idea that I'm going to do that.

2:03:05Yeah, and I and Mr. Chairman, I love coming back with carrots here. I mean I think that's that's the positive way of dealing with it. And I wanted to tell you, Mr. Moody, that you're right about money sitting there. We have over three million bucks sitting in that fund. And now, you know, one of the problems is is the prescription of use of funds in the current ordinance is too narrow. So we're we're opening it up and I I can tell you that we have we've we could spend that money three times.

2:03:32I would tell you I would be very supportive of tweaks in the ordinance to do that, like to open up the spigot to let the trees get planted out of that fund or figure out how you know how the county can use them for beautification projects or to incentivize redevelopment projects. Especially up in the northwest market area and down in uh what what do we call holiday now? What market area

2:03:57Well we what what we want, you know, these places The A lot of times just the cost when somebody wants to come in and they got a change of use and they need to get a new site plan, the cost of complying with the landscape plan, it becomes unaffordable for them. So I'd like to see changes to the current ordinance that allow for the use of these kinds of funds. But I think when we're talking about mass areas of trees and big developments Just uh a another

2:04:27twenty five or fifty dollars, even if it's a hundred dollars an inch, it's it's not

2:04:33Can

2:04:33I ask a question, David? Yes, sir. And I don't have an objection to a continuance, but if the reason why you wanted to pursue the band aid was simply to get the fees. Updated. Why couldn't you just amend the fee resolution? I mean i it just I mean, I think it's a good thing and then sort of table everything else until you come up with a more comprehensive Solution because you have a resolution today O eight dash two six four, whatever it is, that Establishes the feet

2:05:04per inch. you could in theory just update that resolution to strike for the whatever deal you struck with T B B A in terms of the rates At least get at least to get that in place so that you've got updated fees. while you pursue a more comprehensive ordinance to deal with all the other.

2:05:24Well,

2:05:24that's

2:05:24a great idea,

2:05:24and the

2:05:24Planning Commission could recommend that today. We could

2:05:28Well I'm

2:05:28not even sure you need

2:05:29Planning Commission action to update that resolution to be

2:05:31No, but I mean we we could come back and do that, at least to get the fees on the table because we're We're undercharging our development community compared to our peers by a dramatic amount.

2:05:44I want to make it clear, I would agree that our rates maybe lower than some of the surrounding communities and maybe they we could afford an increase. All I'm saying though is that don't be fooled to think that because we charge another twenty five dollars an inch then anybody's gonna make a decision to not cut a tree down because the fee got higher. In fact, what I see is that doesn't really That doesn't so much penalize the big developers. They got the budgets. that they can go

2:06:14in and afford this. The person that it penalizes is my next door neighbor that has to pay the bigger fee to cut down the tree.

2:06:25Well I I we really appreciate the input that the Planning Commission has given us and I thank you very much.

2:06:34And I'm a little surprised that T B B A would be object to this, is that We probably should codify the PM twenty six requirements. For lectures? I mean I It doesn't make sense to me why only the MPUDs have to comply with what's in P M twenty six, but Anybody that comes in with the Euclidean zoning apparently doesn't have to. So I would think that even T B B A would support a more uniform Tree requirement that isn't limited to just the M P Dr.

2:07:08Victorious Pito's playing development economic growth. Uh yes, it's in the plan to uh codify the tree requirements for PM twenty six. But this ordinance here was about tree preservation versus what's in PM twenty six was about landscaping and the approach to landscaping. Well but there's some tree.

2:07:35So you're saying

2:07:35that

2:07:35would be an

2:07:36amendment to nine

2:07:37oh five.

2:07:37It's another

2:07:38ordinance, yeah.

2:07:39But but but to your point, we can still do it, yes.

2:07:44Okay.

2:07:45Oh

2:07:45what do we do for that? Well that that root book. If we're gonna continue it and deal with the larger issues, I'm just saying that you might as well codify those two. But I don't know how long we continue in You want David, um on this? I mean I I think we need at least no I

2:08:04well aren't there certain things, David, that that are here that This helps I mean like like direction or ability to spend dollars that are in the tree fund, isn't that outlined in here and clarified in here?

2:08:16But they could also put that in the resolution. Yeah, I

2:08:19I see

2:08:19that.

2:08:20Not that doesn't have to get continued. That can be done in the interim.

2:08:23For the record, David Engel again. Uh yes, um, why don't we focus on the resolution cleanup? We can come back uh within you know probably the seventeenth of April has that gives me a month to work with because we have to get back to the T B BA because you know we we we try to maximize our stakeholder engagement and our transparency but uh we could we could we could come back with a resolution fix And then we will work judiciously over the next ninety days coming up with a

2:08:57I'd like to see some Workshops. on the issue. There were some horizontal round table meetings. And I I Unfortunately, because I sit on this board. We We've been counseled not to participate 'cause the issues may become before the Planning Commission. But I heard a lot of the discussion. And I think part of the problem with the format is Is you're not going to be able to do go to the horizontal round table and you present them.

2:09:28Here's the proposed new tree ordinance. and they're commenting on the ordinance themselves. And I heard all the rumblings and grumblings about the point scheme and the amount of work it was gonna take to do the tree surveys. But nobody the reason I'm proposing workshops is I think you need to get the the developers and the engineers and the landscape architects and get everybody in a room And say

2:09:54What can we do? to attempt to save the trees. Where are there things in the code that we think could be changed or that cause us to ki t t to have to remove trees that might be changeable and I think some of the flood regulations are gonna stop us from doing this. But or Are there things we can offer you that would incentivize you to do more clustering? Or w we need to get some ideas out on the t I'm one idea.

2:10:24There's probably ten other good ideas out there too, if we go to the people and ask them.

2:10:33So To back up, um

2:10:35ask them what uh could you just to get some ideas. I've thrown out one idea as to an approach to attempt to save injuries, and it doesn't mean I'm right or that I have the best idea, but I think if you have a workshop We're people can brainstorm this stuff and tell you these are my challenges as a developer. This is my challenge in attempting to save the trees. to give you some good ideas about what you can do. to

2:11:05incentivize large scale saving of trees, not just an individual tree here and

2:11:12that's a good idea because most members of the T B B A were sensitive to our mission and I think that using their experience would be helpful coming up with ideas. And we realize that carrots are good for you.

2:11:26What I'm hearing is so uh yes, you're talking about a planning commission workshop, right? Um Talking about Well I think it would have to be if you all wanna participate and not violate the Sunshine Law. I think it has to be a workshop of the Planning Commission if you wanna participate in this brainstorm. Well,

2:11:43okay.

2:11:44Yeah, that'd be fine.

2:11:44I think you have to have a stakeholder I mean clearly a stakeholder workshop too or something. Right. Whatever you want to do. I mean you can invite all those stakeholders

2:11:50to the workshop.

2:11:54the Bilanning Commission.

2:11:56I just think that these things need to be and I see this a lot with proposed ordinances, with with proposed land development code changes. What happens is the staff goes and we've got this ordinance develop O D T or whatever you call it, ordinance development team and you're doing all the work. back there and then here's what we're gonna do. Then everybody's going, Oh wait a minute and Why don't we get everybody in a room together and say, here's the mission we're trying to accomplish, the goal we're

2:12:26trying to achieve. get people to throw out ideas. Sometimes when you throw the spaghetti at the wall it actually sticks and Do that first, then start writing the legalese. Okay. Yeah.

2:12:42So I guess I'll defer to Mr. Ingall on when he could set a work that kind of workshop. But I might want to be clear. We're talking about a workshop to deal with the More global solution to Tree preservation. The issue about the increase in the fees and clarifying what you can use the treatment mitigation fund, that's sounds like that's an amendment to the resolution. Are you asking that because normally amendments to resolutions don't have to come to the Planning Commission. Are you asking for it to come to the Penny for Pasco? That was my mistake.

2:13:09We have a clear path on the fees and the use of funds.

2:13:12Yeah. And I

2:13:12would tell you I am not

2:13:13opposed to you raising those fees.

2:13:15So I guess my question is do you all have any objection to them amending the current resolution?

2:13:21No.

2:13:22To increase the fees and clarify the use of the funds and just that goes straight to the board, you don't need to see that anymore.

2:13:27Correct.

2:13:30Great, then we'll just we'll I'll work with m uh Chair Gray and we'll schedule a workshop. And and the Chairman I have had discussions about having Planning Commission workshops. So this is great. Thank you.

2:13:40Okay, great.

2:13:41Appreciate that. Thank

2:13:42you. Okay. So Patrick, I'll just ask you logistically. Um

2:13:48Can you and Elizabeth work on amending that resolution? To update the fees and the use of the funds. Sure.

2:13:59Sure. The the only question I have is that I think our existing code has language about how much you're paying. Um so how would

2:14:07set it by resolution. It actually defers to the resolution.

2:14:11Uh okay, I can double check that.

2:14:13Yeah, because I saw that you struck the language that says by resolution.

2:14:17Okay.

2:14:18So Which I think you did because you were putting it in the code.

2:14:22Sure. Okay.

2:14:24So I think if you're amending the resolution You're just operating within the code 'cause it says by resolution, you just gotta amend that resolution. But Mr Engels right. That that resolution was last updated in two thousand eight. Sure. Yeah. So so we're Been a lot of inflation since we've updated a lot of our impact fee since then, so I mean this is somewhat analogous to an impact fee, so it makes sense that it needs to be updated.

2:14:54Uh yes, I can work with Elizabeth.

2:15:00Okay.

2:15:00Anything else from me?

2:15:01So we don't have to take any action on this?

2:15:04Well I think you're what it sounds yeah, it sounds like he's got another path on the the fee part of it. Um Which d you'll need to act on. As far as the ordinance, I guess the question is You can continue it, but you also could just

2:15:22Like a staff could also just withdraw it too and and bring back a different one. I I don't know what you want. I don't know what staff's preference is. Go ahead.

2:15:31I I I didn't have a preference, so

2:15:34What I was gonna say is

2:15:37If the staff wants to come in and make Clarifications. in the existing ordinance where we think language is ambiguous or there's, you know Room for multiple interpretations. I wouldn't be opposed to doing something like that. Sure.

2:15:58So I guess I'm asking you and Mr Ingle, is do you see any benefit to Continuing this or do you want to just withdraw it and bring back something else? Um

2:16:10Mr. Chairman Mr. Goldstein and the Planning Commission, we want to withdraw the item. And Based on the direction and and guidance. We're gonna proceed with a resolution to the board updating the fees and the use of funds. And we're gonna work on establishing as soon as we can A Planning Commission workshop with our development stakeholder industry peers. Sounds great. Maybe the public too. Maybe you know they should have some input as well. If anyone's

2:16:39withdrawing the ordinance, I understand they're gonna do a separate resolution, but if they're withdrawing the ordinance, I don't think you need to take any action.

2:16:44Okay.

2:16:46Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you guys. Thank you, David.

2:16:50Thank you, Peter. Yep, thank you. Yeah. Good job. Sure. Sure, sure, sure, sure, sure. Felt like you needed some kind

2:16:59of pattern on the back. Well, he got he got stuck with it.