An Ordinance By The Pasco County Board Of County Commissioners Amending The Pasco County Land Development Code; Amending Section 802 Tree Preservation And Replacement; Section 802.1 Intent And Purpose; Section 802.2 Applicability; Renaming Section 802.3 Tree Removal To Exemptions; Creating Section 802.4 Tree Canopy Standards; Section 802.5 Tree Removal; Section 802.6 Problem Trees; Section 802.7 Tree Replacement And Mitigation; Section 802.8 Tree Protection Requirements; Section 802.9 Trees Of Special Significance; 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.

2:11:37Uh good afternoon Planning Commission members, Gianna German. Item P eleven, you will be sitting as a local planning agency. And I would also like to note that there are expertise that were received for this item. Item P11 is PDE 26004, an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners, amending the Pasco County Land Development Code. Amending section 802, tree preservation and replacement, section 802.1, intent and purpose, section 802.2 applicability, renaming section 802.3, tree removal to exemptions, creating

2:12:07section 802.4, tree canopy standards, section 802.5, tree removal, section 802.6, problem trees, section 802.7, tree replacement and mitigation. Section 802.8 tree protection requirements, Section 802.9, trees of special significance. Appendix A definitions and other sections as necessary for internal consistency, providing for applicability, repealer, and providing for severability, an inclusion to the land development code and an effective date, and Amandela Hill will provide a presentation.

2:12:43Good afternoon, Planning Commission. Amanda Hill, Planning Development, Economic Growth.

2:12:58Like Gianna mentioned, item P11 is the section eight hundred two tree preservation and replacement land development code amendment.

2:13:06The purpose of this amendment is to conduct a comprehensive update to section 802, tree preservation and replacement of the land development code. to enhance tree protection within the county as directed by the board. The adoption of these proposed amendments will set the effective rate date for the new contribution rates to the tree mitigation fund as approved by the board by resolution number 25-291. Staff previously proposed LDC amendments to the LPA to repeal

2:13:37section 802.3C. One B three eight D And section 802.3e on August 21st and September 18th, and was requested by the LPA on September 18th. to provide a comprehensive proposed revision for section 802 to be considered in conjunction with the repealed fees. Key updates to the code include restructuring of section eight oh two, Inclusions of standards for tree canopy preservation. Enhanced

2:14:08requirements for true removal. clarification of the tree mitigation fund references. New and revised definitions related to tree protection, and minor revisions throughout the code for internal consistency.

2:14:21Starting with the restructuring of section 802. Section 802 currently is structured in three subsections. Subsections 802.1 and 802.2 are relatively short, and all the other standards related to tree preservation in this section of the code are currently under 802.3. This amendment proposes the restructuring of the code to allow for nine subsections. I just wanted to note here that most of these subsections are already existing, just all nestled under 802.3. And the only section that we're

2:14:52proposing that would be a completely new subsection is section 802.4.

2:15:01Moving on to standards for tree canopy preservation. So for the purposes of calculating the existing tree canopy, The diameter at breast height of a tree will be used as a proxy for the coverage of the tree's canopy. The required minimum tree canopy retained shall include each tree And associated native vegetation within the area of the dripline, undisturbed except for invasive species removal. developments will be generally required to maintain 20% of the

2:15:31total number of inches of existing tree canopy, 10 inches in diameter and larger. There are some special situations where the required preservation will be reduced. So namely for Mutterm and TND sites, a minimum of 5% will be required. The idea behind this is that these sites will organically have enhanced tree preservation due to design principles that have compact development areas and respect for natural features as an amenity to the development. Additionally, for

2:16:01development sites where wetlands and their associated buffers occupy at least 10% of the total site area. A minimum of 10% of the existing trees located within the upland developable area will be required to be preserved.

2:16:19Thirdly, commercial sites that are less than five acres in size, minor rural subdivisions, industrial sites, redevelopment sites, along with bona fide agricultural lands are exempt from the requirements of Section 802.4A. There was some consideration for small commercial sites that might not have the room to adjust the site layout to accommodate the preservation of trees. And for minor rural subdivisions, essentially those are Typically, families that are trying to subdivide

2:16:50lots and not large scale development. So we didn't want to make that process any more cumbersome for those families. And for industrial sites, redevelopment sites, the board has been very supportive of promoting employment-generating uses. And as such, staff do not want this ordinance to create additional hindrances to site developments in those situations.

2:17:13Listed here is the tree preservation priorities that will be required to be considered. These aren't necessarily in order. Essentially any of these circumstances would require the developer, the applicant to consider those when preserving trees. We've also included passive recreational opportunities within the canopy preservation areas, including decks, boardwalks, paths, and trails, and legal protection of

2:17:43the canopy preservation areas required. Preserved trees are also required to be located in areas that are not subject to flooding due to the activities related to site development. And if that is unavoidable, then appropriate drainage would be required to be installed.

2:18:03We did look into some density increases as a preservation incentive as requested by the LPA. However, what we noticed was that the projects typically come in under entitlements already when the site plans are being submitted for review. So as such, density was not a feasible option. We did consider some additional preservation incentives. So namely, this staff is proposing credits to incentivize the preservation of large trees over 54 inches. uh the location of passive and accreation

2:18:33and recreational areas adjacent to each other. And if sites save additional canopy over the 20% requirement, then those would also be entitled to incentives. Essentially, these can be combined and these would serve as credits to the total amount that would be to due to the tree mitigation fund.

2:18:56Let me ask a quick question.

2:19:01Diameter or circumference?

2:19:03Diameter. So everything would be based off of the diameter at breast height.

2:19:08Mm mm mm.

2:19:11Moving on to enhanced requirements for tree removal. So the current code requires the submittal of a tree survey, a tree inventory, and a tree plan. A discretionary option of a representative sample is also included. Staff is proposing a requirement for the tree health to be included on the inventory for trees that are to be retained to meet the canopy preservation area requirements. as well as for all trees that are greater than 24 inches in diameter. The previous discretionary option by the county to allow

2:19:41for a representative sample has also been removed from the code. For site development, in addition to these, clarification was also provided on the existing tree survey requirement as currently identified in Appendix A of the code as a tree location inventory. So essentially it was referenced as a tree location inventory in Appendix A, but it's actually describing the tree location survey. For lots not associated with site development and those that are not exempt as a single family home,

2:20:12a replacement tree will be required to be planted for trees that are removed.

2:20:22I'll now review uh some of the references that were clarified for the tree mitigation fund. So the previous outdated language related to the purpose and authorized locations for the tree mitigation fund were stricken. The previous contribution rates are revised in accordance with resolution number twenty-five-two nine one. The TBBA did request three items in their previous discussions with the board regarding this resolution: namely the vesting of projects, phasing of new fees, and the installation of a cap. And

2:20:53$3,500 per upland developable acre was the results of said negotiations and is included accordingly in this draft. Staff also conducted additional research Regarding the appropriateness of setting the contribution rates by ordinance to consider the LPA's recommendation. Section one hundred seven fees of the Pasco County Land Development Code. Authorizes the board to adopt by resolution all necessary fees to administer, implement, and enforce this code. The

2:21:24said fee resolution may include provisions for consulting assistance as required. As such, the adopted fees along with the $3,500 cap are currently included in the draft amendment. However, staff will request guidance from the board at the January 6, 2026 meeting to determine if the fees will be referenced in the ordinance. or exclusively referenced in the amended resolution which will be brought to the Board for approval. Additionally, we would also seek clarification from the board as to whether

2:21:54or not future fees would be amended by resolution or ordinance.

2:22:03Staff is proposing the regular evaluation of contribution rates to the Tree Mitigation Fund to provide consistency to interested parties regarding future changes. This evaluation will consider the inflation rate and other applicable factors in addition to the performance of the existing tree protection standards. And this subsection of the code also clarifies that the authorized locations, recipients, expenditures, distribution, and monitoring of funds shall be based on a resolution by the board.

2:22:34The amendment proposes new definitions for the following terms in Appendix A definitions and updates the existing definitions for diameter at breast height and tree location inventory.

2:22:50And I'm just gonna run through the some of the minor revisions that were done in other sections of the code for internal consistency. So section 802.1, intent and purpose, there's an expansion of the intent and purpose to include the value of trees and the benefits derived from their protection. Section 802.2, applicability. There's a minor clarification of existing applicability. Section 8 or 2.3 exemptions. There's a clarification of the types of county projects that are exempt from this section of the code. County roads and drainage, maintenance,

2:23:21and land management projects are the projects that are specified in this section where there previously wasn't any specification. There is also a clarification of the prohibition of wetland tree removal without authorization for the fencing exemption that currently exists in the code.

2:23:39Clarification is provided of the notice required to meet the exemptions provided for proposed bona fide agricultural land. Clarification is provided of the term residential lot for the purposes of this section of the code. and additional and the addition of language based on the state requirements of section 163.045 of the Florida statutes. For section 802.6 problem trees, specification is provided that replacement trees should have appropriate

2:24:09tree growth control measures and fulfill the original intended design objectives. For section 802.7, tree replacement and mitigation, there's a specification of when palm trees may be substituted for shade trees.

2:24:25Section 802.8 tree protection requirements. Uh we currently have a term that's um in there for protection, but it didn't reference a tree protection zone specifically, so we just clarified what Is the area in question that was being referenced in that section of the code as tree protection zone. And we utilize that term throughout the section. We also added in the prohibition of final grading within the tree protection zone and added a requirement to replace trees that have been destroyed or received

2:24:55major damage prior to final engineering inspection. And then finally for 802.9, trees of special significance, there's a revision of the easement requirements from 15 feet in all directions of the trunk to the tree's drip line. This comes to you with a recommendation to find the proposed land development code amendments consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. And I'm available for any questions that you may have.

2:25:20If you could just remind me again what the tree mitigation fund is used for. I mean what's the what's the purpose of the fund once monies are paid into it?

2:25:28Uh I I will have to look at the resolution to give you that.

2:25:32It showed the language change too.

2:25:39Mm-mm. That one, yes.

2:25:49I'm going back to the two thousand one resolution to find the language when it was created.

2:26:00Doesn't the resolution outline what it's to be spent for?

2:26:04So the resolution was amended from the original resolution. So it basically mentions what has changed since the previous one, but it's not necessarily rewriting everything from scratch. So going back to 2001 language for the tree mitigation fund. A tree mitigation fund is hereby established, which shall consist of all monies received by Pasco County pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, and shall be deposited in the general fund. which shall be in a separate revenue account established and maintained apart from other general revenue funds and accounts of Pasco

2:26:34County. The fund shall be used solely for the purchase, planting, and maintenance of native trees, meeting the intent and requirements of this ordinance, and associated administrative costs as designated by the Board of County Commissioners. And then it goes on where the trees can be planted, the recipients, et cetera.

2:26:51Okay, so p planting of trees by the county on county property

2:26:56It doesn't have to necessarily be exclusively on county property that um the locations have expanded throughout the years, but it includes county property, yes.

2:27:06David, just a quick question for you. The very first sentence. On the screen is stricken. Is there any legal significance to that?

2:27:17Do the striking of a tree mitigation trust fund is hereby established?

2:27:25I was curious as to why we would strike that and is there some s what's the significance of that?

2:27:32It already says the second sentence will be deposited in an accountant extreme easier to define. So I don't

2:27:39I think the difference is is that

2:27:44I imagine either accountants don't like setting up separate funds. they set up separate accounts. So,

2:27:54Let me elaborate my question.

2:27:56So

2:27:59I don't I I don't think that there's any problem with it, if

2:28:02My question has more to do that the funds received as payment for tree mitigation are used for trees, they're not used for roads, they're not used for

2:28:16parks,

2:28:16they're not used for not used for firefighting.

2:28:19the reason I think it was struck and I wasn't involved in this conversation, but

2:28:25Our accountants don't like to create separate funds, they like to create separate accounts. But t to your general concern, yes, it's earmarked for trees. It's not it's not commingled with other things that can be spent on roads or parks or Well, except for trees in parks or trees in on in roads, or the but the yes, it's supposed to be spent on trees. Okay.

2:28:53You've answered. Good.

2:28:58And it that language still says establish and maintain apart from other general revenue funds and accounts of the county. It it was just they don't set it up as a separate fund, they set it up as a separate account. I gotcha. That's why it was struck. Okay. Eric, I'm

2:29:13satisfied. Uh well I I had asked what it was you that was my f first question. I did have a follow up too, 'cause we um when we spoke um on our one on one meeting, I mentioned um speaking about um clarifying s species of trees and and this. So I understand that there's already exemptions for palm trees and pine trees and so forth, but I mean was there any more Did you look into doing that or

2:29:39Not in detail. Um we are still looking at the palm exemption to potentially um consider some additional scenarios where that might be appropriate, but um we're still doing additional um research discussion with stakeholders as to whether or not that would be feasible. But other than that, we haven't considered additional species.

2:29:56So the issue I brought up um for everybody else's information is to um it's a discussion regarding uh canopy coverage. We're trying to main to protect canopy. However, canopy doesn't always equate to a proportionate amount of tree diameter because it depends on the species of the tree. on average. So, you know, one species of tree, um, there's probably an average uh tree diameter to canopy ratio, but for different species that ratio

2:30:26is probably different. So that's why I was curious about um Getting more detail on the species of the trees. Obviously we're trying to protect hardwood trees, but

2:30:35we did have discussions with um staff that's related to um trees and uh permitting process and so. And my understanding is that it essentially works as a proxy that if you have a tree with a larger D B H that it typically corresponds to a larger canopy. Of course, in the case of palms and so that wouldn't be the case. But for hardwoods,

2:30:54but you know. So um another example might be a cypress tree. You know, so that can be a very large D B H diameter but not a really huge canopy.

2:31:01Right. And we did have some um

2:31:04well generally, yeah.

2:31:06Yeah. We didn't know I'm

2:31:07just looking at ra you know, average ratios of of tree canopy coverage too. The diameter.

2:31:13Yeah, we were tr attempting to find the simplest way to have the tree preservation um percentage calculated. At first we were looking at it based off of the aerials, but then there were some concerns in terms of the time of year and whether or not you have the trees in full bloom and the leaves on the trees versus wintertime, and then is it shade versus is it the actual canopy? So we figured that the inches would be a cleaner way of considering it. Right. Because they're doing the survey with the inches anyway.

2:31:40Okay.

2:31:42Can I ask anything else? Yeah, can I ask Patrick a question? Sure. Since he's the guy that's going to Administer the ordinance. Yeah. Can we flip to the side slide about the priority?

2:32:02And I don't know if you have but the The ordinance says that priority shall be given to Saving certain trees. What does that mean and how do you intend to administer that If I come in with a plan and I've saved twenty percent of the Tree inches. And I express this in my I express this concern in my discussions with staff and with T B

2:32:32B A I want to have an ordinance That's easy for people to comply with and that there's not going to be a lot of argument about. And I don't want to get into Petty arguments with staff of you should have saved this tree versus that tree or that tree, because I'm personally looking at this as Any tree saved under this ordinance is more trees than we would have saved under the prior ordinance. So I'm

2:33:04s a little skeptical, maybe you can convince me about what you mean by priority shall be given to Somewhat subjective is what you're saying. Yes.

2:33:14Is it okay if I provide some more context before he answers?

2:33:18Yeah, and can we look at the actual language?

2:33:20Yeah, it's page six of the red line. Somebody has the actual ordinance.

2:33:24It's six, Janie. Thank you.

2:33:30Okay. So while Patty works on that, um, this list was a lot longer in the original draft that we had. I think we had about nine different categories, and it said it shall be prioritized in order of preference, something along those lines. And I definitely recognize what Mr. Moody said that it would be challenging to identify, well, this one versus this one. And having conflicting opinions cause an issue in terms of the review process. So we did simplify the list. We only have four right now. And these represented the

2:34:00ones that we were told are the ones of greatest priority to the various stakeholders that we've spoken with. So whether it's a heritage tree, we definitely want to prioritize saving those. Those that exist in natural groupings, so that is the tree stands that we were talking about in previous sessions. The ones adjacent to the required site perimeter landscape buffering and screening along arterial and collector roads. So essentially that if you're going down little, for example, that you try to preserve those trees that are immediately adjacent to the road. In preference over

2:34:30trees that might be located further back in the development. And then the ones that complement the streetscape appearance of subdivision collector roads. So as you go into the developments, that you preserve trees that are located along that main road. So that's why we pare down that list. And the language that previously set in order of priority is no longer there as well. So we did attempt to make that a bit more objective.

2:34:53I don't know if that helps. Well I guess Amanda, can if I can expand on that a little bit. I mean, 'cause John raises a really valid point. I mean as engineers, we put forth quite a bit of effort on projects before you guys even see them. And my biggest fear in reviewing this is that We bring a plan to you and then you guys look at it or somebody looks at it and says, Wow, why don't you save this cluster of three trees over here? Why are you saving these three over there? I mean I go back to I I think there's language in there. that requires

2:35:23the creation of of an easement, a conservation easement to be dedicated to the HOA. Well, how how do you do that for a ch a street tree that you're saving along the street? I mean there there's a lot of uh I mean there's there's a lot of ambiguity here and I'm I think everybody's got the same goal. We're trying to get to the same place, but it's just how's that gonna be interpreted? And even if that's not by you, by the next people. And I just I couldn't follow why that priority list was there.

2:35:50So um and Amanda can correct me if I'm wrong, um, but I believe it was it's um Method of encouragement. Um some of our stakeholders I think uh preferred that we try and save trees in certain areas and we should try and prioritize these, but it's not a shall statement. And that it's

2:36:11not.

2:36:16It does it say shall I thought shall was removed.

2:36:20Right. In the first draft it said should, because I actually asked somebody about that.

2:36:24Yeah. The first draft said should and I think it said in order of priority and this version just says shall and it doesn't mention the language about priority. So I guess it's a matter of which one is most objective. It

2:36:35says priority shall be given to.

2:36:37Yeah.

2:36:40So

2:36:40any of the ones that

2:36:41are on that list.

2:36:49What I would suggest is is it's great to encourage

2:36:55The saving of those trees.

2:36:59Trying not to get too far into the weeds. I'm working on a project right now where we're having an argument over the code. where and this has to do with the parking section of the code. where it says parking should be on the sides or at the rear of the building. It doesn't say parking shall be at the sides or the rear of the building. Well, There's a big legal difference between should and shall. Or maybe I'll ask Mr. County Attorney.

2:37:30Shall mean shall is mandatory. You knew it was coming. Yes. Should is not really mandatory.

2:37:37And we did have some previous language in the code, not in reference to this specifically, that said should and the feedback that we got from priority shall. What

2:37:46do what does that mean? Does that mean you must save the heritage tree?

2:37:52Sounds like it. So if you have a heritage tree and you have a non-heritage tree and you can save one or the other, you should save the heritage tree over the other tree.

2:38:04Well

2:38:06So

2:38:09by way of example a Lowe's store or Walmart store or a Home Depot store would be greater than five acres. And if that heritage tree's in the middle of the Lowe's store, I'm to do what?

2:38:25then maybe you can save a tree that's along the buffering instead.

2:38:29Yeah, but the but see that's the problem. I don't wanna get into an argument with someone who's not the design professional over which tree Should have been saved. And the whole point of this exercise, this ordinance is You know, under the current ordinance, I can kill every tree on the site

2:38:51And I have a a cap of the fee based on the acreage. And in this ordinance You are going to save twenty percent of the trees, unless you're in one of these exempt. categories.

2:39:03Aren't

2:39:04we in a better place than where we were before?

2:39:06Sure.

2:39:07We're in a way better place. Why do we want to get in and pardon my language a p sync contest? over which tree it should have been. Any tree saved is better than no tree saved in my opinion, but

2:39:20Um Terry's online and he'd like to um speak to this as well, if that's okay with you. Sure.

2:39:27Uh good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, uh Mr. Moody, Planning Commission, Victorious Petitos, Planning Development, Economic Growth. I apologize. I'm not present today. If you hear I'm sick. Um And the question of should versus shall. We've understood that should is not a mandatory statement like shall is. However, should it does express the intent of the code. And so the way we've looked at it in the past is d please demonstrate to us how you May

2:39:58not be able to uh meet the intent of the code. And at that point. uh we can we can check that off. and move on with the review.

2:40:10So that's kind of how should has been interpreted.

2:40:14So is would the staff object if the the Planning Commission recommended that language should be Changed back to the word should instead of shall.

2:40:27Uh I am there would be cons the interpretation would be consistently applied, so um So it's it's it's it's one way to do it.

2:40:51I'm not sure he answered my question.

2:40:52Yeah, I I don't mean I d I I was waiting on the answer. I mean do you

2:40:55Oh uh you're waiting for me to answer?

2:40:57Yes. Well

2:41:03Yeah. I would be okay with it. as should. It allows for a checklist of items to be go gone through and to identify which priority actually works.

2:41:15Well, Terry, I I don't I'm not sure you

2:41:19the point's not understood because now we're still in a negotiation point. when it comes to site plan review. I mean We there's again there's a lot of work that's gone into a project by the time we I mean It almost sounds like we need to have a a pre meeting before we even do any design work.

2:41:45Sure. And I think we're almost there. I think we can be here.

2:41:49Yeah.

2:41:52If we wanted to say Shaw.

2:41:54But it's it's when it says priority shall that it's that's very nebulous. And and I might have an opinion as to what the priority is and someone on the staff's gonna have an opinion and your staff arborist will have a different opinion and Jackie over there's gonna have a different opinion and And We're all gonna get into circular arguments over which tree Could have, would have, should've, might have been saved. At the end of the day. The goal here is to save trees and I think

2:42:24you got an ordinance that now saves trees. I just don't wanna g get into creating a dragged out permitting process arguing over which tree.

2:42:35Yeah, I understand you want to

2:42:40Of what you're trying to do, but I mean it may be better stated if it's just stated as the intent of the We

2:42:46encourage you to

2:42:47prioritize saving these trees. Right. As opposed to Listing it specifically because it is a very subjective Requirement.

2:43:00It is encouraged. That priority should be given to preserving healthy native trees. Some you know

2:43:07we

2:43:08got county attorney over here for me.

2:43:09Yeah, I mean you could even include it in the very beginning of the section under intent and purpose.

2:43:14Sounds like that's you're setting yourself up for a court battle there. Yeah,

2:43:18you you could you could even include it this portion under the intent and purpose at the beginning. Yeah,

2:43:22it's already in the intent and purpose up front.

2:43:25Right.

2:43:28I don't even know how you would interpret this. I mean I i the way this is written, priority shall be given, okay, well I'll go to A, heritage trees. I mean every heritage tree I gotta save till I get to twenty percent?

2:43:38Yeah.

2:43:41Yeah. I I I just don't know the interpretation of this and we're th this it's it's really gray. At best. Well

2:43:47if you're gonna build your building where the heritage tree is, you're gonna have to make some kind of accommod accommodation for it. But that doesn't doesn't mean you're gonna have to make a combination for every heritage tree.

2:43:57better way to handle this is my opinion is If there are trees that we don't want to count towards the canopy requirement because they're just Add trees. Just exclude them. I mean, I think that's a good thing

2:44:17There's certain trees that are just They're you know, what do we call them? Invasive trees or the That shouldn't be counted towards the canopy. But if you want black and white, then just say that. You know, These are the invasive trees that we're just not gonna count towards the canopy requirement. They don't count towards the twenty percent and just leave it at that. That's black and white. They can't count. I don't think

2:44:47they count already.

2:44:48Right. Okay, well then

2:44:49And we also have that language later on, I believe, in the section of the code.

2:44:56Number six, uh eight oh two point four A six.

2:45:04I guess what I guess I'll go back to maybe ask Terry the question. What is the goal overall goal with the priority requirement then? If you've already excluded the bad trees, the trees that that You don't want to count. Because they don't do anything for us.

2:45:26What is the what's your goal of prioritizing the good trees?

2:45:33Are you asking me or Tari?

2:45:35Whoever can answer the question.

2:45:36I think I could start to answer. Uh Terry, you could fill in anything that I might have missed. But um they're

2:45:41all good. What why is one

2:45:44gooder than another? Why is one gooder than another gooder? They're all good. Yeah. So there's been a lot of discussion from stakeholders um and the public just in general in terms of preserving these large trees that have been around for a while. in terms of preserving groups of trees and not just replanting trees to replace the ones that have been cut. So we're trying to emphasize that if those exist on the site as feasible, you should be trying to serve to preserve those instead of preserving just said the

2:46:14magic word.

2:46:15See. As

2:46:15feasible?

2:46:16It's feasible. It's gotta be feasible. I brought the example up of I'm gonna build a Walmart that's takes more than ten acres. That's not exempt under this ordinance. You gotta save twenty percent of the trees, and now there's a heritage tree right in the middle of the Walmart store. Well I can't build a hole in the Walmart store to save the heritage tree. Unfortunately it's gonna go. But he still ha they still have to meet and save the other Twenty percent.

2:46:40Sure.

2:46:40Trees, we've still met

2:46:42our

2:46:43objective.

2:46:46You've already created your incentive process to try I mean, maybe you tackle this a different way, which is if you're trying to Incentivized the The gooder trees, the better trees, whatever we're calling them. Why don't you just create more of an incentive, like a monetary incentive for preserving those higher ranked trees. And say hey, the more you preserve what you kind of started to do with the

2:47:16heritage trees Why don't you just handle it that way? Let's say For every Great, you know, w for every outstanding tree you create. Bonjour. We'll give you this additional incentive so that it's It's more of a carrot than a stick. Because heritage trees were defined as

2:47:35what? 54 inches or

2:47:36so actually no. Heritage trees were defined as uh twenty-four inches and larger for southern magnolias and then thirty-four inches and larger for live oaks. Um for the incentives, we have fifty-four inches and larger. You would be entitled to um an incentive. So that's basically at four and a half feet, the tree is as wide as is a As it's tall. So diameter of breast height is measured at four and a half

2:47:59feet. Everybody seems to like the incentive concept. Why not just take those ones that are high priority and just make them Incentivized trees. That's right.

2:48:14That way if somebody really they really want that in s monetary incentive They can point out that they saved the Those really gr fantastic trees.

2:48:23It's a much more black and white.

2:48:27Yeah, uh just just I think to the additional context and Amanda, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Uh Patrick Dutter Planning Development Economic Growth. I think the original intent behind this entire section is based off of our um not so distant memories, our poster child that we like to reference, Newport Corners. It would have been real nice if they saved a twenty or thirty foot strip along the frontage. So hey, let's try and incorporate that in this. Um So that is I think where this language came from is we should try and prevent things like

2:48:57that from happening if we can. Well,

2:49:00no,

2:49:00we I

2:49:00think we all think this is great.

2:49:02Sure.

2:49:02The question is is how do you

2:49:05Absolutely. I'm just saying, you know, the question was raised, hey, where did this what's what's the intent behind it? It's I think those things that were fresh in our memory, how do we prevent these things from happen? That's where it came from. So right. How we again go about solving it, right? Should it be a shall, a should, uh you know

2:49:24But I guess what I'm saying is rather than I guess I believe in putting your money where your mouth is. Okay. If you really think it should be a should

2:49:38Put a dollar value to it. Say for every time you do one of these things, We'll give you credit for it. If you're serious about it. Give him a dollar credit for it.

2:49:53Thank you, David. I made the same exact suggestion in my meetings and that's a great segue to the next comment about the incentive When I met with you guys I talked about having a Four X, five X, possibly ten X incentive for saving trees. And in some ways you guys almost took my bait. Because I said to my partner, I said, you watch. They'll come back in this ordinance, in a revised

2:50:24ordinance, with an incentive for the trees. It'll only be for the most biggest trees because they don't want to give up the money to the tree fund.

2:50:33If a heritage tree is twenty four inches for a magnolia or thirty something inches, then we should be giving the incentive to save that tree. You guys gotta start it out at almost double the size of the tree. Fi how many fifty four inch trees do we come along to begin with anyways, right? I mean We need to make sure that the tree mitigation fund is not a revenue raising exercise and that it's actually Or you know, mitigating and replanting trees.

2:51:04And We should also give carrots to those who save the trees. If you're willing to go in and Design a road around a thirty-six inch tree, why shouldn't you get some credit against your tree mitigation for that?

2:51:26Overall suggestion is change the diameter from fifty four to be something more consistent with the definition of your heritage tree and the ordinance don't Don't be stingy with the credit, would be my suggestion. And At a at a hundred dollars an inch. You g gotta remember the math. We talked about the math, about how we get here, about how the tree always loses, because the math doesn't work in the tree's favor. Well you given

2:51:56a You're charging seventy five dollars an inch under the new resolution to take down a tree. And you're g only giving them a hundred dollars inch and for the one rare The rarest of all rare trees, right? Fifty four. So I'm ma I'm I'm netting twenty five dollars an inch. I think we should be a little bit more generous with the credit to David's point. Put your money where your mouth is.

2:52:21So I do have one question about the credit. 'Cause I don't know what the intent is. Um

2:52:29The credit against the inch requirement makes sense to me. I'm not sure if it makes as much sense to me if you're paying Per acre.

2:52:42per acre was that it was supposed to be a cap. Like to make sure that If you were paying per inch it didn't get Like crazy.

2:52:52Mm-hmm.

2:52:53So my concern is if you're giving these credits if you're paying per acre that

2:53:00Somebody might effectively

2:53:03It almost might end up paying almost nothing because the cap

2:53:09I don't think that was the intent. I mean I thought that the cap was sort of like a you know, just let's just make sure things our inch requirement payments don't get totally out of whack. I didn't think that we was we were gonna start giving credits against this cap. But the way this is worded is it makes it sound like you get a credit against whatever The payment is

2:53:33And Was that your intent or was you only were you only gonna give credit against if you're paying by inch?

2:53:40So it would be either or and I think it may work out at least in staff's opinion based on when we were looking at this that it may work a little bit differently to how you mentioned it. That it wouldn't necessarily go all the way down to zero. But let's say for example someone comes in, they are cutting, I don't know, 50,000 inches. And at that point they decide that they're gonna save their 20%. That doesn't mean that they're not paying anything. They're still paying for whatever they're cutting. So out of that total amount that's due, after they save

2:54:10their 20%, if they're saving those larger trees, if they're saving in excess of the 20%, if they're saving the ones that are collo uh that are located adjacent to the open play areas, then they would be able to get a discount on that total amount. And then if you look at D below, it also says that it goes up to twenty five percent. So So there shouldn't be a scenario where someone's not paying anything. It's not

2:54:37uh zero is an extreme example. I I'm what I'm saying is that I thought the intent of the per acre way of paying was that it was supposed to be a cap. That it it wasn't supposed to be the base payment that it that you then Deduct credits from the right-of-way. that it was supposed to be just a ceiling, like to make sure that there was no way under any scenario you would pay more than that amount. At least that's how it was described to me, was

2:55:07that T B VA was pushing for A cap on payment. Like there's just no way under any scenario If we'd ever have to be pay more than thirty five hundred dollars an acre. I didn't think it was gonna become the baseline and then we're gonna start deducting credits from the the baseline. That is the baseline. I thought credits were only going to be deducted from the per inch payment.

2:55:32But I I don't know what you mean. My fear is that if you're deducting it from the thirty five hundred dollars per acre

2:55:42And I realize it's not a revenue scenario, but but uh but

2:55:47you may effectively be getting very low payments at that point.

2:55:54And I would tell you personally. Yeah. I'm not trying to get in the way of negotiations. I think the thirty five hundred dollar an acre cap is way too low. When you start to look at we're we're charging seventy five dollars an inch for the tree. So a ten inch tree is seven hundred and fifty dollars. Well, doesn't take many ten inch trees before I'm at thirty five hundred bucks, right?

2:56:19That's my point. I I don't think he should be giving credits against a thirty five hundred dollar an acre thirty five hundred dollar thirty five hundred dollar an acre payment.

2:56:29Even for the enhanced protection.

2:56:33I

2:56:33think

2:56:33thirty five hundred dollars should be a cap only. It should just be That's like your worst case scenario. Like you if you add up all your required payments, all your credits, whatever you do, you do all your calculations based on inches and credits. And if that dollar amount ends up equaling more than thirty five hundred dollars an acre You go with that as your cap. It just it all it is serves as is a cap, not as a alternate way of paying I understand that you worded it

2:57:03the way that way, is it oh we can elect to pay that way? But I'm with John. I just think that's gonna result in like an extremely low payment.

2:57:17Presented to Planning commission and the board was that was a cap. Not a oh we can just elect to pay it this way too.

2:57:29Especially now that you have this credit concept. I I think the credit should be based on the inch way of paying, not based on the cap.

2:57:38Um, I might be mistaken. Um, Patrick, do you mind clarifying for me? Um in terms of generally when sites come in and when projects come in, um, do they usually elect to pay per inch or do they usually go with a cap? Because we also have a cap right now for the existing fees.

2:57:56Uh to answer that question specifically, generally your smaller sites are paying by inch and your larger sites are gonna be paying by the developable acre. And also coverage is you know, it's coverage dependent, but generally the smaller sites are paying by inch. Larger ones are paying with the cap.

2:58:16I think some people to aunt to go back to what you were saying, I think there are some developments that they're just electing to go with the cap instead.

2:58:26In the table down here for the percentage canopy retained in credit, shouldn't that say percentage of additional canopy retained?

2:58:35Sure. Yes,

2:58:36I think we can

2:58:36add it.

2:58:37Yes, I think it should.

2:58:41Additionally the twenty percent.

2:58:46Meaning

2:58:46if you're

2:58:47not going to be able to do it.

2:58:50Do we also need to mention it in the title of the table?

2:58:55So B One says developments at preserve more than twenty percent.

2:59:03Change more twenty percent.

2:59:06Mm-hmm.

2:59:18Yeah, thinking.

2:59:23It's probably fine the way you have it.

2:59:40I Did not have those were my questions. I didn't have any other with this.

2:59:47But but but but but let me just finish my point. So I agree with John that you need to look at Maybe upping the credits and maybe adding some additional credits for the stuff that you these priority things that you have. But I would not be giving credits against an upland acre cap.

3:00:08And I

3:00:09opinion I would agree with you. To me a cap was basically to effectively avoid a taking, basically. That's what the developers were arguing. They came in here and said, if you don't cap this, we're gonna have these billion dollar payments, is effectively what they were arguing. I was I'm I'm exaggerating, but wasn't that basically what they were arguing?

3:00:35That was the purpose of the cap. It wasn't to become the new baseline for credits.

3:00:46In my opinion.

3:00:48Okay, so if we're doing it per inch, we would say that instead of seventy-five dollars per inch, the percentages that we have here would be applicable to that amount instead of the total amount. I want to make sure I can't.

3:01:01You also could just you need to revise your language about the thirty five hundred dollars per acre and say it's a instead of saying it's an elective way to pay, say it's a cap, it's the maximum that You calculate your inches and it c no matter how you calculate your fee, it can't exceed that dollar amount.

3:01:18In no circumstance shall the payment of any mitigation fee exceed the amount of thirty five hundred dollars. Right,

3:01:24just just make it a cap as opposed to an an alternate way

3:01:27to pay.

3:01:30Of a motion for an amendment to this and the reason that I suggest that. Yes, I understand that Mr. Engel is under great pressure to get this in front of the board. And I am committed to help him do that if we can today. I I don't know where the rest of you guys are on all this. I mean if we're far enough along If we can make recommendations for changes to move it on to the board, then that would seem to me to be

3:01:59I think those are easy changes to make.

3:02:00Okay.

3:02:02All right, state your motion, please.

3:02:05Agreed. Um s oh so the the language regarding the cap shall not be an election.

3:02:12Yeah.

3:02:12Well it should. change to say something of the effect of and if the county attorney wants to help me In no circumstance shall the amount of tree mitigation paid exceed the amount of thirty five hundred dollars per acre.

3:02:29That's accurate, that's how I would say it. Good job. So you could be an attorney.

3:02:46Okay. Do you want to make another motion about how to fix the

3:02:50Yeah, what about the should show the

3:02:52the how we're gonna fix the Yes. Priority priority. I would move that

3:02:56priority should be given, not priority shall be given. Is that all part of the same motion?

3:03:04Well but is that really what you want to do? Because Because this

3:03:09still doesn't solve the problem of the Well then if you really want me to make a motion, I'd recommend we just strike that section.

3:03:16I let me just ask because I I want to know what staff's thought is. Can you Can you do what I suggested, which is the stuff that's pr prioritized, the stuff that you want to really Make sure c can you move that into a an the incentive section?

3:03:35I think we can. Yes.

3:03:39Yes you can't do. Then that would be the motion. All right. And I would

3:03:45that's we're gonna make the changes something we're just not gonna see. I mean I I get it. I'm I'm all for trying to get this keep this moving at David's recommendation or from the board the direction. But I mean I I don't think it needs to go unsaid that We sitting up here have seen this document for 48 hours. It's not like we've been looking at this thing for four months, five months, six months. We've seen it for 48 hours. We got our agenda on Tuesday afternoon. So I I mean I I'm all for trying to keep it going. But

3:04:17I I I have some comments here too, but I mean th these are important things and these are things that

3:04:23i it's everybody has the same goal. Everybody wants to get there. I'm for saving my my comments aren't to that I don't want to save trees. Um but I wanna make sure we get it right rather than hurry up and get something that we gotta come back three months from now and talk about for four more hours and be here until six o'clock talking about the same thing again.

3:04:42I I would agree with you. And if if you don't feel like we're for If you don't feel like we're far enough along. Yeah. I'll happily withdraw those motions. Well, let me throw Come come back another day in a better form.

3:04:58I think I think we can get there. I just

3:05:01Let me ask let me ask you let me ask a stringle question. I know this would be highly unusual, but This has to go to two public hearing in front of the board.

3:05:13Is it possible that between first public hearing and second public hearing Planning Commission could see the one more draft? Yeah. So that they've had one more chance to make comments so that that if they've got additional revisions you can make them before the final public hearing in front of the board. So that at least we don't stop at the train moving but they've got another chance to make final

3:05:44comments.

3:05:45You're you're correct. That's very unusual. I've never dealt with that before. Um if you could find me the the roadmap to get us there legally, I will certainly ex we certainly embrace that.

3:05:58Well,

3:06:01Well the Planning Commission's role is to find the ordinance consistent with the Comm Plan. Um you know, you in theory could do that today. That's your only legal role. Um but if you don't feel like you your other comments have been addressed you know, I don't see any problem with you with you having another chance to You know Make comments to it before it goes to the board, you know, for final

3:06:31action.

3:06:35Jamie,

3:06:36what are your comments

3:06:37that

3:06:37haven't been addressed?

3:06:38Well I guess I just and d some of these aren't comments, some of these are just clarifications. But I but

3:06:42I think Mr. Gerardi's point though is goes beyond what he's about to say. You know, if they're gonna move the priority stuff into incentives, I think his point is he won't know what that says.

3:06:52Right. What does it even say? Well,

3:06:53can we agree upon it today what it might or should say?

3:07:02we can kind of treat this as a defective workshop.

3:07:07You know, I what is your current schedule for this, David? Like what's the current what's the current

3:07:12Uh first reading in January, second reading in February with the BCC.

3:07:19And w are there any planning commission meetings?

3:07:26That's it. Yeah,

3:07:26we could

3:07:27bring it back then. What's well could could we bring it back what's do we have a planning commission meeting in December, right? Yes, sir.

3:07:34We do it on the eleventh.

3:07:37So in theory if we brought it back in December

3:07:41We could do the January first reading with the BCC if we

3:07:46guess my question is if we if you pl Gate Planning Commission one more shot at it in December

3:07:52You could still put it on the board meeting for January, right? That's

3:07:56right.

3:07:58And presumably if Planning Commission still had issues, you could make those changes before the final public hearing in February.

3:08:07Well I I was hoping that in the December Planning Commission meeting we could deliberate with the draft that we will present to you as a result of the conversation today. today and and then and then make a recommendation to the board and then we can

3:08:21proceed to the right-of-way.

3:08:26No

3:08:27no, but the flip side is I

3:08:28mean, I think it's a good idea

3:08:29if the bo if the board if the board starts looking at this item at first reading and having interaction with the staff and making directions, then uh it it's a little unusual for me to bring back that that back to the Planning Commission. It would be a problem, I think.

3:08:45Okay, so

3:08:46I think we should focus on trying to clear it through the PC in December, if we can.

3:08:53But you can you get it on the January agenda.

3:08:58I think that might be a concern. Um for January sixth, that's gonna be the first hearing. I believe the deadline, for example, to hit the county attorney's office's queue for reviews is December 9th, which would actually be before the December 11th date for Planning Commission.

3:09:17So it gets a little weird.

3:09:19Well i if if the CAO could be a little flexible with that deadline, I think we could work through it.

3:09:26It's the it's the county administrator deadline to get it on

3:09:31I I feel very confident because of the prioritization that the board has placed on this that the county administrator would be very cooperative.

3:09:44I don't have any problem a talking through these things now. I don't want to give that impression. I mean I I I thought the intent was to move this to towards the board today.

3:09:54Well that was the hope. That was the goal. And and Mr. Gerardi you had indicated that you had some questions. I did. Mm so if there's just clarification, we could do that today.

3:10:04Yeah. And I mean I I mean again I go back to these priority things. I mean I I agree if you want to incentivize the priorities. My h my whole again, I don't wanna repeat, but my concern is I don't want this to get a ha be a hang up when we get into site plan. And and the way it's written now, it it's potentially a hang up when we get to site plan.

3:10:24So I mean if if if we add h priorities, I mean the first priority is the heritage trees. If you if Change the language and the incentive incentivization and the credits from the fifty four inch to a heritage tree, I think that takes care of and you take that off the list and you go to the next one. And where it exists in you know natural groupings. I mean do we want to give an incentive for that if it's important?

3:10:46Or is that just the goal? If so, why are we even stating it?

3:10:53So so we're back to this really is the same issue we just talked about. Yeah,

3:10:57sure.

3:10:58So maybe we just need to hash out that issue. Yeah. So um

3:11:07So who who's the decision maker on this issue on these priority issues? Like how much do we want each of these things and then like

3:11:19How much of an incentive should we give for each of these Things.

3:11:24I think we should take it back and come back on the December eleventh meeting. Um Who's the quarterback on this? It's really the uh Planning Commission because you're making a recommendation to the board. And I I don't think anything that we spoke about here is is unreasonable. I think they're good ideas.

3:11:46Even the initial idea about the incentives to begin with came from the planning commission. Right,

3:11:50but somebody put in monitoring like dollar amounts for or for these credits. Like who came up with those?

3:11:57That would be stuff.

3:12:00So like what dollar amount would you give for preserving a heritage tree?

3:12:07We can have the same amount. Uh do you think it It's enough or Do you think it

3:12:13Well if you're gonna prioritize above preserving another tree, you want it to have a higher amount, I would assume. Correct.

3:12:19I mean you charge seventy five dollars an inch under the resolution. I suggested when you and I met. that that should be four or five X.

3:12:26Don't they charge one hundred fifty dollars an inch for heritage? I'm sorry,

3:12:29so it's a hundred and fifty dollars for heritage tree. You don't even get the credit

3:12:32they're gonna

3:12:33How about double? I'll start with double. Give 'em three hundred dollars credit for saving the heritage tree?

3:12:43Yeah, it's it's gotta be significant enough to really Move the needle. I agree. To incentivize them to keep these trees. You know, what's and again and I you did address it somewhat with the inflation aspect of it and we're gonna revisit this every three years, but I mean you you get in some of these bigger projects and it's just a lot easier for them to

3:13:05All

3:13:05right.

3:13:06So you want to make that a motion? We're gonna change three heritage fees to incentive, three hundred dollars No moved. Incentive.

3:13:13Second.

3:13:14Okay.

3:13:15All in favor? Aye.

3:13:18Okay, what about natural groupings? I don't know what that means, but I'm not sure.

3:13:23Tree stance. So a group of trees essentially naturally growing together.

3:13:26Is that an objective standard that it's a certain

3:13:29number

3:13:29is there?

3:13:30Jackie,

3:13:30do you want to speak to that?

3:13:32I know what heritage tree is an objective standard. I don't know what natural groupings means. Is that a defined term?

3:13:41I think you're making our point for us.

3:13:48Jackie Jordan, Parks Rec and Natural Resources Department. Um I don't think there's really a standard for tree grouping. It was just um an objective, a goal to group larger trees together or groups larger amounts of trees together rather than just protecting one singular tree.

3:14:01Could I move to move? that goal or a To the intent and purpose

3:14:08section.

3:14:10I'll second that.

3:14:12Motion and a second. Other discussion.

3:14:18I

3:14:20So basically it becomes non regulatory, it's just a

3:14:23goal. Because it's it's how do you define that? If we can't define it the right-of-way, we can't define what

3:14:28it is, and I agree, and then the problem and I can and and Jamie and I is the little wheels turning, okay. Does that mean the trees are separated by one foot, two foot, three foot, six foot, ten foot? Who decides what's a grouping?

3:14:40Three, six, ten.

3:14:42Oh, there's a tree over there and a tree there and a three there. Is that a grouping?

3:14:46Okay. So

3:14:47depends on how far you zoom out.

3:14:48You you got a motion to

3:14:50Well related to drip lines.

3:14:53Drip lines. We have a second.

3:14:55Well I mean that could be a way that you could define a grouping, right, as intersecting drip lines or something like that. So No, I'm I agree with the intent of it. We should try to preserve those groupings, but if you can't define it then We run on the issues, so

3:15:11On this list I'd say that that one is one of the ones of lower priority. So if it's okay with the Planning Commission, we could strike it completely. If it makes it easier.

3:15:20Well I think the incentive's already there for the developer. If we think back to we're trying to save twenty percent, the closer the more grouping we can pick out, the smaller the footprint of the area I'm gonna have to s set aside's gonna be, right?

3:15:32Correct.

3:15:32Okay. So I I mean they're already incentivized, I think, there.

3:15:37We have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion?

3:15:42I think she's suggesting it's easier just to strike it than to move it somewhere.

3:15:46Okay. I will can I amend the can I withdraw the motion? Go right ahead. And then I will make a motion to strike that section as per staff suggestion. I will still second. Thank you.

3:16:00The whole rest of the section under the priority? Or just that's

3:16:04I think it's B. We haven't got the C and D yet. Yeah, just B.

3:16:13We can quickly we can talk about C and D first if you unless you want to just finish the motion on B. I don't care. What do we want to do?

3:16:24All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed like sign. Next.

3:16:29I see.

3:16:31are adjacent to required site perimeter, landscape buffering, and screening along Arturo and Collector Roads.

3:16:40This is a little more objective. What what is is staff's this is the Newport Coroner scenario? Is this is this what Patrick talked about? Patrick?

3:16:53See the Newport coroner scenario?

3:16:55Yeah, I'm trying to push this button. Uh yes.

3:16:59The only reason I was saying C and D were still a little bit more subjective were because they say adjacent to. How close is adjacent to? Yeah. Yeah, but that you can see it.

3:17:11Well, I mean you could change adjacent to to say within thirty feet. I mean you that you can make it objective.

3:17:19At least C you can. I don't know about that.

3:17:29In In other words, if they're in the buffer then you will save the tree. Okay.

3:17:34The trunk. I I do think it's important. I don't the reason I don't like I think I don't think it's appropriate to strike C because I think what staff is trying to say is if you can preserve it along the roadway. You should do so. Absolutely. We should give you some credit for I mean this is what got Sure Mad. That's right. We don't want to strike C.

3:17:58I'll start the bidding again at Chairman Mari All right. Is there a second? So that's what, a hundred and fifty dollars an inch? Because these aren't heritage trees, right?

3:18:11Mm-hmm.

3:18:12And then uh it

3:18:13uh Okay well first of all we need to define what adjacent within. Change it to say within within the buffer or

3:18:22Are within the required site perimeter

3:18:24landscape? To Jamie's point, adjacent what? Is that ten feet, twenty feet, fifty feet, a hundred feet, but within is very difficult.

3:18:31Yeah, within is well defined. Yeah, I can live with that. Within the buffer.

3:18:35is, yeah, because you can't define the right-of-way.

3:18:37Okay, so I think so I think you have two motions. One is to redefine C to say are within the required site perimeter landscape buffering screening. So you need then you gotta assign assign a dollar value to it.

3:18:49And that's the trunk being within, correct? Not the canopy.

3:18:55Okay, so

3:18:58Is somebody move within or partially within? Because it could be a trunk that's halfway in the buffer too.

3:19:05So what credit

3:19:06went inside?

3:19:09Yes. Yeah. So moved. We All right. Second. We have another second. All

3:19:16in favor? I suppose like time. It's like the Vodorama in the sound is

3:19:22Okay. D.

3:19:25Compliment the streetscape appearance of subdivision collector roads.

3:19:30Tough. Can staff explain the objective they are trying to achieve with the?

3:19:37Yeah, how is it different than C? That's my question.

3:19:42Um, technically, um a subdivision collector road is different than an arterial and collect well. I guess it broadly says collector roads. roads.

3:19:55That's what I'm saying. I just

3:20:02Unless Patrick you can tell us he uh D is different.

3:20:07Um in that C says collector road and a subdivision collector road is a type of collector road. I would assume I would assume it's covered there.

3:20:14So it's still covered. Okay.

3:20:19I still second.

3:20:20You okay with that, Patrick?

3:20:23Sure.

3:20:24Okay, so we have a motion and a second? Further discussion. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

3:20:34Okay, and we so we already covered the issue about the cap language.

3:20:39What else did we need to cover?

3:20:41The incentives for saving trees. We talked about the easement. Oh uh you

3:20:47wanted to deal with B one A, right? The fifty-four inch

3:20:54correct. Yes.

3:20:55What do you want to do?

3:21:01So we get rid of that

3:21:02three hundred dollars an inner.

3:21:04I think that has already been addressed by the change that we made for A three uh A, our heritage trees, because we assigned two times the cost of the heritage tree and we said that we were going to put it in the incentives.

3:21:19So uh do we not need B one A anymore?

3:21:23We will replace it with Heritage Tree Language and $300 per inch as the ensemble.

3:21:28Okay.

3:21:29Perfect.

3:21:32And then you will amend B one B the title in the table to say percentage additional canopy retained? Sure.

3:21:52And just a clarification. When you're saying credit five percent, credit ten percent, you're saying The credit is five percent of the total amount of tree mitigation.

3:22:08For the project.

3:22:10That's what we were initially saying, but my understanding for Mr. Goldstein was that we didn't want to Yeah, I think

3:22:17that'll be clearer when you fix it. the cap language that we talked about earlier that to make it clear the amount due is the amount due per inch. And the the F the mountain per acre is just a cap. If you do if you make the if you m do what Mr. Moody's motion was earlier, the one where he acted as a lawyer, um I think that'll be fixed.

3:22:46So then I don't have to change the language in this section of the

3:22:48right-of-way. I think this language will be fine once you make that other language fixed. Okay.

3:22:52And just to confirm the language we're talking about, in no circumstance should the shall, I guess, the amount paid exceed thirty five hundred dollars per uplum developable per acre.

3:23:01Right. As long as that language is clear clarified that that's just a cap. And that the amount due because the B this section here talks about the total amounting total monetary contribution due to the fund. If the amount due is the amount per inch.

3:23:21Um

3:23:33The amount due prior to any cap being applied or something like that. Um

3:23:44Now that I think about it, we might we might need to add to Mr. Moody's language that says that all credits under this subsection B. are applied against the per inch payment? And not against the cap. Just to make it perfectly clearer. So moved. 'Cause otherwise I think we're just I don't want to have to fight about this later. Yeah.

3:24:09I understand the intent of what you're saying, but I don't think I captured exactly what the change would be.

3:24:15So The la after the language that we pr that Mr. Moody previously suggested that we added to

3:24:26I don't know where we added it, but it was

3:24:29thirty five hundred dollar per acre cap. Yeah.

3:24:31H nineteen. Yeah.

3:24:33Yeah, yeah.

3:24:37Um yes. Um did we say that any credits

3:24:45issued pursuant to subsection whatever this

3:24:51Eight oh two point four b

3:24:56shall be issued against the per

3:25:00They're required per inch payment and not against the cap. I can work with you on exactly how to word it, but that's the concept.

3:25:08Okay.

3:25:15All right, so do we I think he you made a motion on that? Is that yeah he made a motion to that effect? Yes to that effect, okay. I second. again. Again.

3:25:24All in favor? Aye. Aye.

3:25:28Okay.

3:25:30Mm-hmm.

3:25:34Are we there?

3:25:38Last and this is actually very minor. On page eleven

3:25:47When we're talking about individual tree removal replacement for lots not associated with a development proposal, and I'm talking about Point your attention to D, condition of the tree. It says the condition is field verified by an ISA certified arborist. I would ask staff to be consistent with the state statute that says an arborist or a licensed landscape architect. We

3:26:17don't need to make this the Arborist Enrichment Act.

3:26:21Mm-hmm.

3:26:26That's right. I think that's mentioned in a couple different spots.

3:26:31Yeah, it's mentioned in another section where you can use a landscape architect to just be consistent through the whole thing. Yes, that's a motion.

3:26:39Second. Further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye sign. Permanent?

3:26:50Mr. Drari, did that have we covered all your issues? Okay.

3:26:55All right, I'm gonna go to eight oh two three B, County Maintenance. Just a clarification, my legalese isn't near Mr. Moody's. Can you give us a page one? Uh page two. Um

3:27:10Is does that exempt all county projects?

3:27:15Uh no. Uh the list is included here for county yards on drainage, maintenance, and land management uh practices. I mean it goes into beautification, preservation, design, et cetera.

3:27:29But it says but in included but not limited to, so it's Any county project that's initiated, fully or partially funded and maintained by Pasco County. including but not limited to county road and drainage projects, maintenance projects, land management projects.

3:27:47So If you're asking my opinion

3:27:57The answer is yes. I'm just gonna give you a straight answer. The answer is yes. I mean I I don't because it says include I mean because it says any project initiated fully or partially funded and maintained by Pasco County That means if we fund it. Or maintain it. Or partially fund it. Or partially funded or maintain it. It's a we're not subject to it. Now it does say that.

3:28:28We will follow beautification, preservation design, and best management practices.

3:28:36Yeah. From a practical standpoint, if we don't do these things, certain commissioners will not be happy with us. Well I

3:28:45and I I think really just and the reason I asked the question is I I don't think the county intends not to play by the same rules, but it kinda gives the impression that they're not going to play by the same rules. So

3:28:56Yeah, I think the intent for this too was to provide some degree of clarification as to what county maintenance may mean because before there wasn't anything. So this actually attempts to give that clarity.

3:29:10Yeah, um Patrick Dutter. Um the intro to this county maintenance it's for county maintenance purposes. This is what we mean by county maintenance. Um all of the site plan applications that we've received for county projects are following the landscape code. We generally don't give them an exception unless there's rare instances, but just like everyone else.

3:29:33So should we clarify or Should we just state this exemption shall apply to county maintenance projects initiated? If it's specific to county maintenance?

3:29:48I mean I know it's under the heading already that says county maintenance. So

3:29:51Yeah the weird part about it Patrick is it it says including of an element to county road and drainage projects and then it says maintenance projects. Like so it it The way it's worded is it makes it sound like it's

3:30:03Mm-hmm.

3:30:04capital projects and maintenance projects.

3:30:11So I I don't if the intent was that it was just gonna be maintenance projects, that's not how it's worded.

3:30:21Mm-mm. Just for your edification, we have five people that have signed up to speak. So

3:30:27Okay.

3:30:39Well maybe we should should we can we well I don't know. It's up to the chair. I don't know how many more questions.

3:30:44Well, I I only have a couple more questions, but do we answer that one? Are we gonna

3:30:47Yeah again I I don't think the whatever however we need to change the language, I don't think the intent was to give the county a pass to do road projects and you know, I I think it was just for Maintenance. Um I think they're trying to give examples and maybe some of those examples are weren't maybe we can clean up some of those examples.

3:31:05So if we could just get a motion to limit the language to maintenance projects, we can work on how the wording

3:31:11So moved.

3:31:12Second. All in favor?

3:31:14Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, page s eighteen.

3:31:22Whatever subsection that is where the planning credits stricken.

3:31:30Oh, it was just relocated. Um it is under give me one second.

3:31:36Just couldn't find it, sorry.

3:31:38Uh if you just go back to page 17, it's under number 10.

3:31:43Perfect.

3:31:45See that was an easy one. Yeah.

3:31:51And and just for my this this really stupid question, the twenty percent is mandatory.

3:31:56That's a mandatory save, twenty percent preserve. Outside of the exemptions that and the special cases that we mentioned. Any new project that doesn't meet those exemptions is twenty percent. Twenty percent. Is

3:32:08there's no

3:32:09hardship criteria or anything? It's just uh Sites could uh request an alternative

3:32:15standard if

3:32:18The alternative standard process still exists. Okay.

3:32:21Yeah.

3:32:24Okay.

3:32:25It actually reminds me of another question. So where is the language that talks about when this will be applicable? Because I know we talked about it. Grandfathering projects that are currently in Yes, what's the proposed effective date?

3:32:44So the effective date for the ordinance or the effective date for the fees?

3:32:49The effective date for the ordinance.

3:32:52Okay. So for both it would be at the adoption hearing for this item, which is currently scheduled for February seventeenth of next year.

3:33:03And then so that would apply to that is a Any new project?

3:33:12applied for from that point forward or I mean so in other words uh uh projects that are currently have an application in process, this this would not apply to?

3:33:23If there's a site plan that's currently in, then they would be under the current

3:33:26need to add an applicability section to this if it's not there already?

3:33:31There's one in eight oh two point two.

3:33:36But it just talks about

3:33:39Right, but it doesn't deal with the changes to the code. Right. Um

3:33:47Patrick normally normally apply these based on whether they have a complete application for a P S P or P D P?

3:33:54Uh development application because it could be masquerading, could be operating permit, so the development application.

3:34:04the change?

3:34:05Correct.

3:34:07So if we can get a motion to add language to that effect? So moved.

3:34:12Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

3:34:25Do you have more, Mr.

3:34:25Jordan? My apologies for my rant. That wasn't that difficult.

3:34:28That actually wasn't bad. Anything else? Is That's all you got?

3:34:31David. That's

3:34:32it.

3:34:33David, I don't I don't think it necessarily matters for your last motion, but um operating permits are technically four oh four and de site development is four oh three and I said only four oh three. I think your motion was intended to mean both categories, so I don't think you need to modify.

3:34:48Correct. You all are the ones drafting this? So yes, put both in.

3:34:55Okay. I think that's uh All we have for for that.

3:35:00So let's No, my only my only comment was the disparity between the fifty four inch and the heritage tree, so that was we've answered that in the spades.

3:35:12Rich, do you have anything?

3:35:14School board got a bucket of money set aside? Well I'm just

3:35:17you know

3:35:19In theory I mean you guys all this information is good because in the end the county it works better together and things get done quickly and it just it makes the job of the county easier if all these get f you know f figured out now. And then run into all these problems later.

3:35:34Okay, so what I'm hearing then is we don't need to come back to the Planning Commission.

3:35:38Correct. I think that's correct, yeah.

3:35:41He just made David Ingalls life easier and that's the goal. Nobody's gonna yell at him or me.

3:35:47That's right.

3:35:48We wouldn't have done it if

3:35:49it wasn't for David. Well, we still have members of the public that may come up and tell us that we're all crazy and we need to just start all over, but

3:35:56Can I summarize where um we're at? Sure. As of right now? Okay. So uh 802.2, we're gonna add language in there that the code is applicable to sites after the site plan submission, completed application under section 403404. Uh for county maintenance, we're going to limit the language that it's just for maintenance projects. For

3:36:20802.4A3, we are going to essentially move most of these into the incentive section. So for uh 3A, we're going to be doing $300 per inch. for eight oh two point four A three B. We're going to strike that completely. For eight oh two point four three C, we're going to add language it says within the landscaping buffering instead of adjacent.

3:36:50We're gonna also have that at $150 per inch. And uh D, we are going to strike. uh for eight or two point four B The ones that I just mentioned, we're going to move them into that section. We are going to add language to the table title for B1B that says percentage of additional can be retained.

3:37:15And

3:37:17Hmm.

3:37:21When it was it for that section. Um eight oh two point five B Two D we're going to say Um ICA certified arborist, oral landscaping, licensed art landscaping architect and Check the entire document to ensure that it's consistent throughout.

3:37:45Moving on to eight oh two point seven

3:37:50D, we are going to update this language to say that in no circumstance shall the amount paid exceed $3,500 per upland developable acre. And I believe we're going to add an additional D there because I don't know And Mr. Golstein, I could defer to you with this if you want this to be a separate bullet or if you want us to continue C to say any credits that are issued subject to eight or two point four B shall be issued against the per inch payment and not the cap.

3:38:21And that's what I have so far. Did I miss anything? Yep. I think you got it. Okay. Okay.

3:38:27Thank you very much.

3:38:28Great job. The only thing we didn't really address um we got well We gotta hear from the public. But so you didn't really hear it in staff's recommendation, but You have a difference of opinion with staff about where the fees are going to lie. Staff is recommending they be in the resolution. You all I think are recommending they be in the ordinance. Are you sticking with your recommendation?

3:39:00Or are you gonna

3:39:01go? My personal preference. Is that they remain in the ordinance so that if there's a proposed change that there is a public hearing.

3:39:11Correct.

3:39:12If you want to change the language of this that they'll adopt it by resolution at which there's a public hearing and the public can participate in it and they can do it by resolution, but there needs to be a public hearing where people get their due process.

3:39:26So that's a motion?

3:39:28Yes.

3:39:29Motion and a second further discussion. All in favor? Aye. Okay.

3:39:34Can I get some clarification on what this motion does? Is there additional language I need to put in here?

3:39:39No, they just they're they just disagree with you. That's all. Okay. Just wanted to get their position on the record. Okay. Doesn't mean you can't recommend something different to the board. I'm just wanting to know what their position was.

3:39:50Yeah. Okay. And we have it in the in the ordinance. We the language is currently reflecting the fees and we intend to communicate your preference for it to be in the ordinance to the board as well.

3:40:01I just wanted their position to be on the record and why it was their position.

3:40:08There needs to be due process in determining the fees. It can't just be on the consent agenda and no public hearing. The public is gonna have to have the right to put Have input. On the

3:40:24Yeah. And I'm not worried about what our board is going to do. It is some future board that comes along and decides in the middle of a meet where it's slipped in and nobody knows and all of a sudden they're ten thousand dollars an inch or they're zero dollars an inch. Right.

3:40:44Well while while we're talking about those I mean does that prior motion that we talked about about the applicability and when this becomes effective, does that apply to the fees as well?

3:40:54Yes it does.

3:40:55Okay. I just wanna make sure 'cause I thought the position before was was that there was no vesting.

3:41:00So there's language that's currently in resolution twenty-five-two nine one that says that the fees would become in effect once the language that's currently in the code that speaks to the old fees are appealed.

3:41:11Okay. Which that's what this does.

3:41:14Correct.

3:41:15Good. All right. We're good. Thank you.

3:41:21Yeah, a difficult job there. You did a great job. Yeah. Yes. So we have what five people? Okay, who's done the list?

3:41:29The first individual we have signed up to speak is a Miss Nancy Hazelwood, and after her we will have a Miss Melanie Lamberson.

3:41:38Okay, if you will come up toward the front please. That'll make it a little quicker for everybody.

3:41:46Please move up toward the front if you're gonna speak.

3:41:54Hmm.

3:41:59I'm sorry, Nancy, you've already used up all your speaking time.

3:42:04Nancy Hayeswood, [address removed]. Well, first off, y'all stole my thunder with um the couple of things I like about it. One of 'em happened to be um having the ISA take a look at trees before they're removed. I know that organization very well. Uh one of the things I've noticed is that a lot of people that come up to evaluate trees own their own tree cutting company, so

3:42:34they wanna make sure that it's in. ISA isn't like that. They're very ethical and told over and over again in the classes they have to keep up in in in ethics. So I and I kinda like that one.

3:42:53Well we didn't get rid of the ISA arborist. We just added that it could also be a l licensed landscape architect.

3:42:59Yeah. Maybe.

3:43:02They have to be

3:43:03ethical too?

3:43:05Yes.

3:43:06Okay. Um I thought the intent and purpose part of this 802 point one was very well put. Um that they covered a lot of things that say what we need to say about trees. Of course I'm Uh in favor of all this.

3:43:29I would like to see something mentioned on tree mitigation fund for it to be used to rewild some of the open space that might be left around there. And I don't I don't know where anybody's given any thought to to that.

3:43:47Um other items I'm having difficulties with. Minor rural subdivisions. That's exempt. I can choose I I was trying to read about it looks like there are about five acres each for minor rural subdivisions and there can be up to sixteen of 'em. If they're exempt from that, that could be eighty acres that they're tearing trees down on. Am I incorrect about this? Anyways. So I I think there oughta

3:44:17be something with minor rural subdivisions. I don't think it should be exempt.

3:44:24Uh there's a lot a pretty long list of exemptions and I was thinking, well, maybe we could get rid of half of 'em and they wouldn't be exempt. But I don't know. That'd have to be re looked at.

3:44:39Uh

3:44:42Do not lose sight of what a tree ordinance can and should accomplish. Saving our natural resources is paramount in this, and that's what makes Pasco a better and attractive place to be. That's the major criteria of the whole thing. And the citizens in Pasco have made it pretty clear that they want the trees in open space.

3:45:07And y Pasco has enough entitlements to last for the next ten years. This should give up the count they should give the about county the ability uh, to save more tree canopy all over Pasco. We aren't we don't need to rush to have growth all over the place anymore. We don't need to give the the development community everything they're asking for and they seem to have had a quite a bit of input in this.

3:45:38And they don't really care what condition they leave Pasco County in, but they don't really live here a lot of 'em, most of 'em. They come through and destroy everything and move on. Um

3:45:53I think the time has expired. One

3:45:55more thing.

3:45:55Okay. When

3:45:56the tree canopies are gone, they're gone, it's asphalt and rooftops then.

3:46:01Thank you.

3:46:05The next individual I have signed up is a Melanie excuse me, Melanie Lamberson and then after that we have Miss Julia Bartneck.

3:46:15Yes.

3:46:21Uh go ahead, Ms.

3:46:22Okay. Um Julia Bartunick, [address removed]. And um I'm submitting uh public comment for the record um from Sierra Club Pasco Conservation Committee and it's uh my comments regarding the proposed uh tree. Mitigation cap of $3,500 per acre, that amount is far below the actual cost of replacing the environmental value of

3:46:52an acre of trees in Pasco County. Planting a single tree with proper soil preparation labor, staking, and the required two to three years of care costs between Uh $300 and $700. A typical acre of tree canopy represents 40 to 100 trees. That means the actual replacement cost for a cleared acre is between $12,000 and $70,000. And that does not even account for decades of lost canopy,

3:47:23stormwater absorption, wildlife habitat, and heat reduction benefits. Other Florida communities charge higher, more realistic rates, often $20,000 to $50,000 per acre when calculated by caliper inch. At $3,500 an acre, Pasco would only be able to plant five to ten trees. That replaces barely 5 to 20 percent of what was lost and unintentionally in. incentivizes clearing rather than

3:47:53preserving canopy. Long-term community value, the environmental value of that acre, is typically tens of thousands of dollars per acre, sometimes hundreds of thousands, depending on canopy density and ecosystem functions. So $3,500 an acre cap doesn't come close to compensating for what is lost. Typical mitigation or tree fund rates are way higher. Across the U.S., cities commonly charge $10,000 to $50,000 per acre

3:48:23for canopy mitigation, or $150, $500 per caliper inch of tree removed, or $2,000 to $8,000 per large specimen tree. Compared to those standards, $3,500 per Per acre is only a token amount, not enough to replace lost canopy. Replanting costs far exceed $3,500. Planting one tree usually costs.

3:48:54Um much more. So I respectfully request that the County Adjust the mitigation cap to a range that reflects true environmental values such as twenty five to fifty thousand dollars per acre or adopt a different system ensuring meaningful compensation protects Pasco County long-term tree canopy. Um that's from an organization and I'd just like to request uh that I submit this for the record and that the thank you Chair and I

3:49:24would like to have thirty more seconds please.

3:49:27Removed. Exactly.

3:49:34My other thirty thirty seconds.

3:49:37Yes.

3:49:38Yes, thank you. Um my other thirty seconds is that we would like to increase the wetlands uh ten percent to twenty to fifty percent uh canopy because they're the most environmentally sensitive areas. And also that I think that this um I understand it was the holidays and ever I'm just speaking as myself right now, but I understand that it was the holidays and everything. But I really think that this should there's a lot of uh delineations and specifications that are still ambiguous

3:50:09in the way this is written. And I think more time uh should have been taken on it. There's the word should. Um and I think that you in the end of this shall wind up taking more time because it was expedited today. Thank you.

3:50:26Okay, you realize that the wetlands can't be developed anyway. Right. You do uh re recognize that, right? Okay. Who's next?

3:50:37Up next we have a Miss Cindy Buckle and after that we have a Kathryn Capello.

3:50:43I think we just did a motion. No, I think we just emotional. Now there was like six seconds. So in essence.

3:50:50All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, the clerk has it.

3:50:59Just give 'em the gowble. Yeah, right.

3:51:01Ready.

3:51:04Синди Бакл. [address removed]. Okay, the first thing I want to talk about is The three different changes that the newspapers touted, Pasco County actually touted themselves, um, starting with I believe it was January sixteenth, twenty twenty five. Pasco leaders volunteered tout to benefit trees, raising

3:51:35prices for developers. Then a again July twenty-first, twenty twenty-five. However Nothing's been done. Um where I live right now There were twenty-seven totally healthy heritage oaks that were. And at least I think the smallest one was probably maybe ten inches, but the rest of them were like were like Twenty heritage

3:52:05oaks, healthy oak trees that did not need to come down. The developer or whoever originally put orange fence around some of them to save, but they bulldozed them all down. Um the other issue that we have is of course They've raised the they've put so much dirt in there they've already flooded Gateway from the rains we had earlier this year. They flooded Gateway, they flooded frontier. Um

3:52:36their little retention ponds and the one acre Lake they were supposed to build is nowhere near one acre. So what my question is, how are they able to change the the plans to something that they'd already presented and got their permits for? And by the way, they got their permits before 114 gopher tortoises were removed because I worked with the contractor and F W

3:53:07C it took me three years to get a contractor out there and I actually helped them remove the gopher tortoises. They were not all removed. The ones that were left were killed. I actually have pictures of the dead tortoises. So FWC I contacted numerous times. I went to Wilton Simpson, which was a waste of time. And finally I had a contractor out there and I offered to help because

3:53:37I actually took pictures of every borough and included the coordinates with every single borough. It's not my first rodeo. I've been doing this a very long time. Um But basically you know, they've talked about this from January to July and now here we are in November and we're just now trying to reach an amount of money to charge these developers for bulldozing down trees. Trees

3:54:08were supposed to be saved on this property, they had the orange fencing around it and the next thing I know, they're bulldozing it down. I asked who who told them to do that and the surveyor was there and he said I did and I said, Are you an arborist? And he said no. And I was like, okay. As far as a contractor or anybody in charge, there's no one on in charge on that property. I stop every single day and

3:54:38ask who's in charge and Nobody is. They're just running machinery and Doing whatever they want. But they've changed the plans three times. I have the original.

3:54:53that you drive on roads and gopher tortoises got moved and trees got removed to build the roads you drive on. They also got removed to build your house and go for tortoises got removed to build the neighborhood you live in no different than the neighborhood any of these people live in or that I live in.

3:55:11Okay. We're

3:55:11up here trying to make the situation better. Okay? Right now we have a tree ordinance today that somebody can come in here and just wipe out every tree on the site and pay whatever it is per acre and go away. Now, after after this happens and the board adopts this, 20% of those trees will be saved. Do not come tell me we have not made it better. And I'm sorry it didn't happen on your

3:55:35schedule. It's

3:55:36gonna be a lot better than it is.

3:55:38I'm not saying you didn't make it better. Yes.

3:55:41Your time has expired.

3:55:42Okay. It's guys just don't want to hear what happens.

3:55:49Yeah, we don't want to hear more than three minutes.

3:55:53The next individual we have signed up to speak is Ms. Kathryn Capello.

3:56:00Kathryn, is she in the room?

3:56:02Oh Kathryn left.

3:56:04Yeah, from last okay. Anybody else?

3:56:07No sir, that's all we have signed up to speak for this item.

3:56:10All right. Wait, there's lady in the back.

3:56:18Please come forward. I don't wanna have to come get ya.

3:56:29Melanie Lamberson, [address removed]. Although it's out in the county. I think you guys know. Um, I just the exemptions are uh kind of disturbing to me. Um I I wanted to know why the the agricultural land was exempt.

3:56:54It's

3:56:55Legislative. Well if you look at most of the agricultural land, there's no trees on it except cypress trees. Because they all had cows on it at one time.

3:57:04Um so a developer would not be uh If there

3:57:08are trees that are in in the open pastures, they have to still have to comply. If it's agriculture, it wouldn't be developed. Yeah.

3:57:14Yeah, I we're talking open fields. They don't have to plant trees though. I mean,

3:57:20if they if they developed it they would, yes. Okay.

3:57:24So in order in order to develop it, you have to change the zoning from agricultural to something else. Yeah. To develop it more than just for agricultural uses.

3:57:33Yeah.

3:57:33So at that point You're

3:57:34required to plant

3:57:38They would fall under the same ordinance. Correct. They would because they'd have to rezone it and then that would put them under this this ordinance.

3:57:48I don't understand.

3:57:49In other words, if they want to clear land to grow fifty acres of corn and there's a tree in the way, they're exempt. The tree is they they're exempt from this tree ordinance. They can take the tree down Chip. plant their acres of corn. if they're planning on building a subdivision on this land. When they submit plans to build a subdivision, they are not exempt from this ordinance.

3:58:12Okay.

3:58:14But this is this only

3:58:16the reason that the exemption exists in our ordinance is because there's state laws that give them the same exact protection that the state's already preempted those activities. Right. It's not that the county's giving some special favor to agriculture. The state the state does it.

3:58:32The the states prioritize agriculture and our food supply over.

3:58:36The other issue is that oftentimes for agriculture the tree is their crop. I mean. For some cases the pine tree is is their actual crop. Right. So they're growing trees to harvest them. So we can't make them protect their crop because that is what they're selling

3:58:59They they wouldn't be able to sell their product if they if we made them protect that tree.

3:59:05Yeah, I gotcha. Okay. Yeah,

3:59:09because they aren't natural, they're planted there.

3:59:11I just I just hope to see a lot more trees in future developments.

3:59:18We all do. That's why we're passing this. Yes. We're trying to recommend that it gets passed because at least with this there is going to be some trees saved. Whereas now there there's no mandate to save any. Now there is. Or will be.

3:59:31Okay. Thank you.

3:59:37That

3:59:37it?

3:59:39Okay.

3:59:42Move to recommend approval of the ordinance with all of the Previous voted upon motions.

3:59:51Okay, we have a motion. Second. We have a second. Further discussion on the motion. If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed. Okay. Great job. Good job, Patrick.