All right, we'll call the meeting to order at 602. And looking at the agenda, we're moving to item three. We're skipping three. We're skipping three. Start with one. OK. Approval of the agenda. Move to approve the agenda. OK. We have a motion. We have a move. OK. We have a motion in a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Motion is approved. Moving on approval of minutes for the December 18, 2024 meeting. Has everyone had a chance to review those minutes? Yes. I move to approve the minutes for the December 18th, 2024 meeting. Seconded. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Okay. That motion carries. Moving to agenda item four. We have legislative item Z 25 25-000006. The County initiated comprehensive plan amendment to add tree protection policies to the conservation and open space element. Good evening Madam Chair. Chris Dawson, Principal Planter for Development Services. This first item is a legislative item and it's an amendment to the policies in the the Elachio County Conference of Plan. The Board of County Commissioners has been having a series of workshops related to tree protection in new development and has identified specific trees for enhanced protection. And in addition, has identified the need to have a little bit more flexibility and the policies related to the designation of open space in new developments. So while staff is working on a text amendment to the land development regulations that will identify some specific new regulations, there's also some policies within our comp plan that are needed in order to support those regulations. There are two current policies related to tree canopy within the conference of plain. That's policy 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 of the common open of the conservation and open space element. And those policies have been the historic basis for tree protection policies or tree protection regulations in our land development code. These policies generally look at tree canopy as a percentage and identify places such as buffers or other conservation areas as the appropriate place to protect tree canopy. They also speak to the need for a specific hierarchy of trees to be protected and they indicate that those should be conduct, that the species as well as other types of features should be used to determine which are the most appropriate trees for saving. Based on the discussions of the board, staff identified a few places where there would be some policy changes needed in the comprehensive plan to accommodate the types of things that have been being discussed by the board. The first one is in policy 3.1.1 of the conservation and open space element. This is a policy that defines what conservation areas are and it includes things like wetlands and surface waters, significant geologic features and flood plains. If you want to see any of these, just let me know. I'm happy to jump to them what the actual changes are. They're also in the staff report that was provided. And what we did here is to add champion trees and landmark live oaks as conservation areas in the comprehensive plan. So that really kind of elevates these trees to the same kind of level, these particular types of trees, to the same level as other conservation resources like wetlands and significant geologic features. And that helps to make them eligible for an open space designation within a development. It gives them that additional protection. In addition we added objective 4.11 and policies 4.11.1 to 3. These describe the protection for champion trees and landmark live oaks. And I'm going to go ahead and jump to those ones just to take a look at them. It's a lot of text and that's why I didn't initially put these up here just because there's a lot of text that goes along with these. It's sometimes hard to see what's on the screen. But again, this identifies the idea of champion trees and landmark live oaks as a conservation area and similar to other conservation area identifies the reason why we want them protected in the objective and then also generally some policies that go along with them. So the land development regulations will establish standards for these different types of trees, including defining what a landmark live oak is, specifically, and then the other policies speak additionally to other preserved canopy on the site. Two new policies, or two policies, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3, which are existing policies. I'm going to jump to those. Policy 5.2.2 deals with the designation of conservation areas in open space. And what we've done is to say that it's just the exception of champion trees and landmark live oaks. These do not have to be preserved in perpetuity. Trees are a little bit different from our other conservation resources in that any tree could die at some point. And especially if there's a storm or some other sort of disaster, that tree could be gone. The area that the tree was in would still be designated as open space, but it wouldn't necessarily be trying to preserve that tree in perpetuity. In policy 5.2.3, what we've proposed is to remove the prescriptive designation of where and how open space is defined. This has been a discussion point of the board during these discussions on tree canopy. And what we've done is to really sort of define that the goal is to minimize the fragmentation of open space. But if there are natural resources on a site, you can't really, you know, say that they have to be in a particular place. So it's recognizing that there may be this tree canopy that qualifies as open space, and it doesn't necessarily have to be connected to all the other open space. But the goal would be if there is additional area that can be designated, that that be located around these conservation areas. So that's not just trees that would also be things like wetlands or significant geologic features. So really this is an attempt to give a little bit more flexibility where we have those trees. Those are the ones that we typically find to be a little bit smaller and so a little bit more fragmenting of the open space to give those a little bit higher priority in designation of open space. We do have one additional change and I didn't, oops, went too far there. This one is a sort of cleanup, which is to just identify correctly how these policies work, so that it's the preservation of any conservation resources in policy 3.1.1. That's really what that should say. And that we just changed the name of this one in C to rural residential subdivisions with no more than nine lots. That's how we refer to it in other parts of the comprehensive plan and also within the land development regulations. It's a relatively insignificant change. With that, Madam Chair, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission find the amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the amendment to the state land planning agency for review. Thank you very much. So questions from the commission? Yes. Go ahead. Thank you Madam Chair. I have a few questions. One is starting with live oaks. So why single out live oaks? Well, first start with landmark. What will be the definition of a landmark live oak? So obviously the board hasn't acted on those land development regulations, but the discussion has been around live oaks that are 45 inches or greater and also score a four or five on a new set of codified standards for evaluating the quality of a tree. So that's that would be the death. It's potentially the definition of a landmark live oak. Correct. Or is it just live oaks or are there other land? Landmark live oaks and then champion trees. Champion trees. Champion trees has a pretty standard definition yet. So my question why live oaks, why singlet live oaks? To be honest, that's been the board's discussion point, has been these landmark live oaks and the sort of role that they play in providing shade but also in sort of defining what's around Elatio County. Okay, I will say, for the commissioners, that's my sticking point in that there are a lot of fabulous trees that sometimes could better habitats than live oaks. So I understand that live oaks in people's minds are a symbol of Southern states and then that's they you know but there's some fantastic long leaf pines there's some fantastic blephoax there's some fantastic really wonderful trees so and then I think it's policy for the changing 4.1, where it's the location of the open space on the boundaries is that 4.1? That is 5.2.2. 5.2. So additional open space shall minimize the fragmentation of open space areas. How would minimize the interpreted by county staff? I think that that's going to be like a sort of case by case basis, but the goal would be that you don't then. So if you have conservation areas, so wetlands or significant trees, whatever they are, the goal would be that you would place any, so let's say you had 10% and your conservation area only takes up five that you would locate that additional 5% around those existing conservation areas to provide them a little bit more of a buffer. No matter where they are located. No matter where they are located. Yeah. Okay. So understand the original goal of that policy because habitat fragmentation is an issue. There's land mammals and birds and all sorts of things travel. You know, roads and fences and houses are impediments to travel between open space. So, I understand why it was in their first place and they even support it. But I imagine what you're hearing from is developers who are, who, it's a puzzle piece right to put all those together and where they want to develop May not fit with all the puzzles together is that what you're hearing? Yeah, Madam chair. I think that's part of it I think the other part is that you know now we're looking at these sort of significant trees that might live in their own little space And so in calling those open space now and giving them that additional protection that the board's looking for, you're automatically sort of taking those out of the puzzle. You're setting them aside. And so this is really a recognition that by having these significant trees that are somewhat smaller in size than say, maybe a wetland or a sinkhole or something like that, that you're kind of creating that fragmentation. And so the idea of the minimize the fragmentation is to really then take open space and set it around those features that you're identifying. Have you have any comments from EPD or the county arborist on the policy? So they've both the county arborist and our environmental protection department have it involved in the review of this policy and the drafting of it. We've worked together as staff, so it's a staff recommendation to the planning commission. So it's their recommendation as well. That's correct. And I would just say you know we're continuing to work on the the land development regulations part of it and that is all still a big work group as well that's involving all the departments not to mention outreach to other parts of the community. I think those are all my questions for now. I'm sure. Thank you. Thank you. I want to compliment you on coming up with these policies. I do have a question about the Champion Trees and Landmark Livebooks. When I looked up the Champion champion trees in Natural County, I don't remember seeing any champion tree for the entire state in Natural County. I will admit to not being able to confirm or deny that. I did not look up the list of trees. I think the idea is that we would recognize that if one were to be discovered or designated wherever that is, that it would be protected. We do have a list of amazing trees. I think there's seven or eight, maybe nine trees for a Lattria County. I wonder if it would be better to have a county champion tree for each type of species. Because I saw, for instance, I think one of the live oak species, I mean, they either have it down south. Miami-Dade counties got more champion trees than any other county because they're in a tropical area. But I thought that if we had a county champion tree that would have recognized the trees that were on the list, that would be something that we could then ensure that we would have trees on my hand. I'm sorry. I beg your pardon. I would think that it would be an excellent means of protecting some of the outstanding trees in the county. And then the landmark live-oaks, 45-inch and diameter with some other issues. Is that for each and every species of live oak? My understanding I'm not a biologist, so I'm just going to say that live oaks are a particular species. There are other oak trees that we have laurels and whites and reds. I don't know if we have all those here, but sure there's there are all different kinds of oaks, but live oak is a particular species. There may be cultivars, I don't know about that, but live oak would be the species that would be protected. Well, let me tell you, I was a little confused by that. I thought the same as you, but when I was looking at that list of champion and landmark trees in Lantua County and the state, it seemed like there were a number of species or subspecies of live oak as well as just oaks. But what if we were to use it for just live oaks, would we not be able to use it then for a, let's say, one of the species of pine that we've had. And I know we've had fights in the city about saving some of the larger pine trees, one of which had been the champion tree, either for the south east or for the United States, until it was hit by lightning. But I wonder if it would not be good also to use that 45 inch, which is probably specific to live oak, but if we had different diameters for each of the various species that we find frequent bilateral county, that that might be also good. Because I like to say trees and just asking if that. Yeah, so Madam Chair, I think there's a couple parts to that. Certainly the discussion of the board has focused on the landmark live oaks or these large live oaks, high quality live oaks, and that's why we took the direction that we did. It probably would be possible to identify for each species, or for a group of species, some diameter that is appropriate and high-quality for protection. If the board were interested in that, we certainly could take that, and so we can bring that as part of a recommendation if the planning commission is interested. We have not we have not done that with every species. I would say that generally our code even today is designed to protect high quality specimen species regardless of whether they're alive or or something else. So, and I anticipate that kind of language will continue to remain in our code that we'll be looking for those high-quality specimen trees. So those are indigenous trees that are usually larger and of high-quality. But we don't necessarily speak to that explicitly in these policies in the congl. And if I have one more item, Madam Chair, we, you mentioned that we don't have open spaces in perpetuity in 5.2.2 and we say with the exception of champion trees and landmark live oaks as the significant habitats and that's because they do they have a lifespan. Could we not have something like a like a life estate using a property law idea as long as the tree were alive, that that would be a, that would have the same protection as an open space. But if it were to die or when it was to die Then it would no longer be listed and it would go to To someone else, but I thought that might be a way of doing it because if I were a snarky attorney I would come in and say well wait a minute you say that that your places are for open space are intended in perpetuity. But then you say that we're not going to include champion trees in landmark live oaks. And I would use that as some argument to get away from or to allow me to have my client take down a champion tree or a landmark live oak. And I don't know if that would be possible, but that's just a thought. Yeah. Madam Chair, it's a good question. And we put a little bit of discussion into that. We're working pretty hard in the code as to how we write that out completely. I would say, you know, in terms of the idea of a self-expiring open space, a tree dies, or it has to be removed because it's hazardous or something like that. And then the open space kind of expires. There's a couple of issues that any developer probably would be concerned about, which is what happens to that piece of land that might be, in between two lots, or the focal point of a development or something like that. So that's certainly one thing that we want to try and consider. I think the other is that we do, in almost all of our new development, require a percentage of the existing tree can it to be saved. And this would count towards that tree canopy. And so I think as we've kind of, or open space, so we require kind of both. And so I think what we've sort of been looking at is the idea that the tree may go along with the future, whatever happens, But that open space could potentially still be reused, maybe to replant some trees afterwards, or potentially to be used as a sort of common open space, community green space, if you will, in the future. We're still working on exactly how that works in the code, but it's certainly something that we've thought about. Thank you very much. This is a bit of a sticky wicket. If you're looking at 4.11.3 preserved trees and tree canopies should be accessible to the public. We're appropriate to provide for the enjoyment of the natural systems associated with them. The land development regulation shall establish standards for limited impacts within the tree canopy area. So let's say that you have a lot and it has a beautiful qualifying live-oak on the back. Does that mean it's supposed to be open to the public? So Madam Chair, we've had a requirement for open space areas generally to be accessible to the public. So that's even been things like wetlands or you know significant ge. And we usually say we're appropriate because if you've got a big sinkhole on a piece of property, you don't want kids trapping down into it. And so accessible kind of really depends on the specific resource. I think what we've gotten to is that they really shouldn't necessarily be set off in a place where you can't even see them or whatever. Of course they are where they are, right? But the layout of the subdivisions should generally acknowledge that they're there. And that's pretty consistent with the way that our land development regulations look at the designation of open space prior to the designation of development. Yes. Well, I find staff to be very helpful in trying to get a good balance. I'm concerned with as we have more and more regulations and I actually really also understand why you need them. So it's that balance that you're trying to go through. We have more and more regulations and it becomes more and more difficult. If I had my real brothers and I don't think I can do it, I'd like to wait till we had some more specificity on some of these issues to vote, but I don't think I'm going to have that choice. And that's what's concerning me is because there's things I don't know yet. I would say that I have been a good supporter of trees. I have, um, got was actually on the cover of a forestry magazine back in the 70s for saving trees, but you have, as it turned out, I saved too many of them. But we live and learn, right? So that was a good idea. It's still a good idea, especially the live folks. If you go into Huntington, that entrance, those are, as you go through the community, those are planted trees. And just for the heck of it, I stopped on the way here today to see they're now somewhere between 16 and 34 inches. I just went to a couple of them. That was not a very scientific study. It's I stopped at one point and measured five trees. That's where that came from. And they did grow up. And so I'm going through this balance of having watched communities as they get better and as they grow. And I also know that we have had some instances of tree removals, which are very unsettling. And so you now, it's not necessarily the direction, it's how we do it. And I don't have enough of that to actually know yet. And so if we do policies, some of these policies are still open ended. And I'm sitting here, I'm listening to my fellow commissioners and listening and thinking. I'm trying to figure out how to make it better. And Madam Chair, that's why we're here. For sure. I would add one other thing. When Roll Gardens, which was not very much of a tree place in the city, I took a class. I was asked to take a class to walk and show them the construction of a house. We had a tree spade planting trees that day. None of the kids were interested in the house. They were all interested in watching the hydraulics of the tree spade. Trees are important. All right. Thank you. Any other comments from the... Yes, I'm sorry. So I'm a plant person. And so live oak, I assume is Quirkus, Virginia, and there are other species like that's Quirkus, Jim and Anna, I think. Yes, there are other live oaks with qualifying names, but I assume that's Corkis for Jim and Anna is the one. So, I'm just saying, clear for that. Okay, do we want to open this to public comment? Any members of the public? Thank you. I love you. Thanks. Make sure you get her on the end. Thank you. I'd like to thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Hi, Matthew Hurst. I appreciate the attention to tree canopy. Regarding the, first of all, regarding the land use of events before you, I suggest you may want to substitute the words landmark live oak tree with landmark tree to acknowledge that there may be species other than live oaks. The article I gave you was about a randomized controlled trial. We typically see those in the medical setting and what they did this one was they took neighborhoods in the Louisville, Kentucky area and they randomly selected them to have lots of trees planted or to continue the current practice. They recruited lots of residents in those neighborhoods before they started to study to agree to have various medical tests done to look for biomarkers associated with inflammation. And what they were trying to see is how does the tree canopy affect these biomarkers? How does it affect people specifically a heart attack or stroke or other inflammation related diseases? And so what they found was just in the six-year period that they did the study between 2018 and 2024, they projected that over time that biomarker reduction will result in about a 10 to 15% reduction in heart attacks and strokes, and they believe about a 10 to 15% reduction in overall mortality. This is the first page of the article. If you google it, you can find the rest of the article. You can also find a whole bunch of articles about the study. NBC News had a good one with an entire video on it. The real value of the study was a randomized controlled trial, so we could isolate the differences, the effects of the tree canopy from other differences in populations. Prior studies on this topic are observational studies where they compare different groups of people. People have an eliminate area of heavy tree canopy versus people who don't. In those studies, it also found reductions in heart attack and strokes and reductions in the biomarkers associated with those events. And so this big randomized trial helps us confirm that it really is the tree canopy that's helping to cause that reduction. Part of the reason I'm discussing this is I've seen that our approach to tree canopy, we seem to have protection of individual large trays and that's good, done as much as I would hope but some of that. And then we also used to have a greater focus just on canopy in general. If you look at developments built maybe about 40 years ago in the medium density range, you have areas like green leaf, low density range, you have sub-ditions like the appropriately named woodlands, or the bidera sub-dition again. So they're all that 1 to 4 units per acre range, typically the sub-ditions identified around 2 to 3. So and green leaf is between 4 and 8. So they're not that different than a lot of subdivisions built today. And what they did is they made sure they preserved tree cover wherever they could, including the individual lots. One of the requirements was that you couldn't clear the, when the lot was built, they would only initially clear for the infrastructure. They, the roads, the drainage, they were not clear for the specific subdivision lots until a permit was pulled to actually build the house. And by that time they had a much better idea of what exactly where the exact prune of the house would be, and so they could leave trees in the setbacks, and pretty much anywhere in the side and back yards. And the individual homeowners could decide if they wanted to fit them later, and that approach gave us much more tree canopy. And a lot of the trees themselves were not necessarily particularly special or unique. A lot of them are sweet gums, longer common species, but they still give you the shade. And I think intuitively people knew what this study was saying. This was an interesting study because they actually didn't realize trial to document that. And I would hope that maybe going forward our county could really put it emphasis on the clearing procedures and developments so that we get far more than just the kind of marimidimum trees that get the specific protection we're talking about today. So those are my comments. I think it's going to be an ongoing process of the development regulations and that would be the biggest specific thing is getting back to setting that would you clear or only clear what you need to clear. Another idea I've had is when people are buying or selling property a disclosure statement about the tree canopy along with a general statement that research like this study and others suggests the inverse relationship between mortality and tree canopy that if people are worried about safety they're probably safer with the trees. Thank you. Madam Chair, excuse me. Could the speaker identify himself and what his expertise is please? I I was an electrical engineering major, but it's very useful in reading statistics and studies. So you're mr Electrical engineer now. I was asking who you are. Oh, that's your I'm sorry. I didn't hear that but you're an electrical engineer, but you As an engineer you do have expertise in looking at this type of study is that correct? The understanding statistics data is where it will come in. Okay. So for example, study says of p-values less than .05, that's generally conserved statistically significant. If they find something but it's a p-value of less than .5, then it's good, well be 50% time, could it well be random chance? Okay, Mr. Hirst, I do have a question. When I first looked at this, it said reduced inflammation. I thought, wait a minute, we're talking about fires at first and then I realized we're talking about inflammation in the body, but have you seen anything that talking about ensuring that your home is protected as much as possible from wildfires? I haven't seen that specifically, so I don't know. I've been trying to find data that looks at insurance claims versus tree canopy because everybody thinks about hurricanes and trees blowing down, but the flip side of that is tree cover helps block the wind, especially some of the sturdier trees that have been around for midi prior storm events. But so far I haven't found any good studies looking at that. Thank you. I mean, the other approaches would be to try to deal with the data myself and try to find a correlation, but I haven't done that yet. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. Go back to the board. We have a motion. Can we have a discussion of that motion? Sure. So again, I'm concerned with the focus on the live oaks. I understand why that is it's easily recognizable tree they get quite large but other large trees also have value and some of these live oaks like the big sprawling ones that we think about, there's nothing going underneath them. They're, you know, very little ground cover in mid-story. I mean, there's some of the larger ones that are us sprawling. There can't be mid-story and understory. There is. In story and understory. But the ones that I think people think of in these huge cow pastures. I'm just... I'm thinking of that versus high quality trees on the periphery and how changing their requirement for connectivity would be impactful ecologically for conservation of animals. And the fragmentation of green space is bad. So I don't know where I am on this. I guess would we be interested potentially in expanding the concept of when champion trees and landmark live oaks to something along the lines of landmark trees with a definition that would include the concept of a county champion tree for each of the types of species that we might want to be looking at. Unique or endemic to a natural county? My it's you, there probably is a list of what a high quality tree is in the county. I know there is in the city, what species fall under that. Like for example, it's the state has that with the location of each one of the trees. Well, no, that's a champion, but I mean a high quality tree. Oh, the high quality. Which is what is used. So there are species that are considered high quality trees in the comp plant. I assume, because it is the same in the city, versus trees that are not as high quality based on maybe they have shallow root system they know they're just not as you know like I would not say water oak is a high quality tree for example so yeah it would be and I wouldn't want it use at this point to use the changes here to ask for a new system of county championship trees. But maybe that is a question that South Cancer, is there a list, I assume there's a list of what high quality tree species is. Yeah, so Madam Chair, what we have those in in the land development regulations now, we consider them specimen trees. And we've said high quality in the past, although we haven't had a codified system to evaluate that. So that's one thing that will be in our new land-developed regulations is a methodology for evaluating what high quality is, the quality of a tree. And I think the idea of a specimen trees will continue to exist, it just won't be at the same level as the landmark live oak or champion trees. So if you were on a site that didn't have either of those, you would go down that list and look for those additional tree species or individual trees to protect. I would like to have more specifications in the code. I agree with Mr. Ruttenberg that the specificity for this would be, I think, is important. I think the staff has done a good job of laying it out right now. But I wonder if those of us who have the development experience that as the planning staff does have raised an issue that might be of interest to the County Commission and that we would recommend that. And I would also recommend that we would talk about a champion tree for the various species in the county, a county champion tree to the County Commission. And also talking about landmark trees of various species within the county, which I think we heard, I think I heard that we have something like that already. But if we were to have that, I would recommend approval of this. Yeah. Big your park and let me do this. Okay. I recommend approval of Z25-50s and 6 on a comprehensive plan amendment with the provision that the county staff recommends to the county commission that more work needs to be, can be done for specificity of the various conditions that come about by these recommended plan changes and also to suggest to the county commission that they approve a set of county champion trees for species of interest within Lattua County and that there be conditions also for county landmark trees and not just specify landmark live oaks. And that would be my emotion. I'm sure could you repeat my mission? So I think what I've got there is, recommend the Board of County Commissioners, recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners with a provision, the county staff, the county staff does more work regarding the specificity of conditions that come about with these planned provisions and to suggest approval of a set of county champion trees for species of interest and county landmark trees. Not just landmark, not just live oaks. That's what I took. I think that's good enough. So is the mission removed landmark live oaks changes and just put landmark trees wherever landmark trees like wherever landmark live oaks exist in the proposed changes that changes landmark trees. Could you tell me where that is? Is that on 411.1? There's a few places that landmark live oaks 411. I think Okay. Right, starting in 3-1-1. There's a few places that landmark live-oaks, 4.11. I think it's the criminology right, starting in 3.11G where it just refers to champion trees and landmark live-oaks and then everywhere it refers to that phrase. I guess you would substitute live-oaks for landmark trees. Yeah, on objective 4.11, if we could amend amend my language, where it says in the objective and in the policies under 4.11, where it says champion trees can serve county champion trees and put in a sentence to explain what a county champion tree would be. And then also, I'm not going to worry, I'm not going to worry. Go ahead, Barry. I was just going to say, for a forestryrestry service, used to have a catalog of champion trees. And that would be a database to tap into with, you know, object in this, maybe. And I saw that. I was on that on the internet the other day. And it has like seven or eight allatial county trees of various species. It was very interesting. You do have that. I have a whole other point, but I don't want it interrupt. Okay. Did you want to comment on this? Yeah, I'm not going to support a lot of the ideas of the mission. I'm not going to support the mission. So the county championship tree registry. So the way that most championship trees are designated as someone's walking out somewhere, finds a tree, measures it and submits it. That's a multi-year, not decade process. So to create a county championship tree registry, that's a lot to do in a, and it takes a long time and I don't, it's something to explore and I'd like to see it what that would look like but I just not in this context. And then I just don't... I think the first point is to request staff to investigate further the specificity of the, what was that? So that, I think that's part of the development code. I think that's what you're pointing to. Yeah, okay. I still don't know if it's needed in the context of what we're discussing today. I'd really like to streamline a motion if we're gonna pass a motion. So I forget to talk about like a county championship tree program. I'd like to address a motion and then maybe talk about that as a recommendation to the county commission. Okay well I think we had the motion and I don't think it was seconded. No it hasn't. So procedurally I guess is there? If not, then we'll consider another motion. Yes, that's correct. Okay, I'm chair. If there is no second, then it fails for one to the second. And you can consider another motion. Okay. All right, then that motion will fail for a lack of second. I wish you remember. All right. All right. I'm very much in favor of tree preservation, but I'm also concerned with the affordability. And that's what I'm trying to balance. and I'm lacking some specificity to move forward and some thoughts on it and I do not want to be. I'm trying to be very careful in establishing that balance and I think that it's important for us to both think about the viability of the families trying to get housing and to also protect the natural abundance that we have. And that's I'm thinking it. I'm thinking on it. So I don't think this is going to change the balance of open space in development. If I'm correct, it's largely going to remain the same. It's just the new open space that comes from the championship trees and landmark live-oaks will come from the outside areas that are now being part of the open space, the continuous to the lots around it. So it will just be the same amount of open space, but just the where it's located will shift. And two, affordability, a lot of this is West Gainesville. We like to talk about affordability with housing. That's not the number one thing that's being built at affordable housing in West Gainesville. There are a number of ways to increase affordability of housing that doesn't have to do with saving live-outs. So, but please staff, could me if I'm wrong about the balance of it in space? So, Madam Chair, again, we're still working on sort of the details of that, but we're not in the comp plan, or I'm sorry, in the land development regulations, we're not changing the amount of open space that would be required. We're also not changing that in the comp plan. So the amount of open space stays the same. It's really just the ability to more flexibly designate where that open space would be. And then to also identify these specific trees as being sort of a focus for a conservation area. I have a question. Am I correct in understanding that champion trees really only either apply to state champion trees or national champion trees. And that's one in many. So that was one of the reasons I wanted to have a county champion tree. And I didn't think about going out and doing any type of survey. I thought of using the information that was already in the state forestry registry. But am I correct in understanding that champion really means just one tree for each state or one tree for each or for the nation? That's correct. That champion tree is its defined in our code is really either one of those things. Okay. so I mean we right now we don't have any champion trees. We do. We actually have the Ceylon Oak, which is a cook. Oh the Ceylon Oak, so I can't champion. We've got it. There's an Oak in Gainesville that's a champion Oak on like fifth or something. I don't know what what species it is. We do have some champions. I think even maybe like a slash pine, I might have a champion slash pine. Well, is the Ceylon oak in the county, or is it in the city of Elatroy? It's also protected. It's in the county, I believe. Is it okay? It's a park, too, so. Oh, is it, although okay? It's not going to be. And the most, the major part is not, there's only a handful of champion trees and they're probably not going to be facing development. Yeah, I was it although okay. Yeah, sorry. So the most the major part is not, there's only a handful of champion trees and they're probably not gonna be facing development soon. If ever is the live is the landmark live of portion that is the bulk of the trees in the, yeah. Well, I'm sorry. And let me understand what Mr. Rittenberg was saying. I thought that when I made that motion and talked about the specificity of regulations, I was talking about the specificity as to regulations to implement objective 3.1 and those objectives and policy, or policies under this. I wasn't thinking about other, what we're not talking about other specifics or more specificity and regulations for anything else other than these items. I think Mr. Ruttenberg was and I don't disagree with him but I thought since we were only talking about this we were talking about the trees. So I don't think the C-Lon is the champion anymore. I think there's a larger trainer. I 75. They're Peggy. It's possible. I'm looking at a list of I don't know 40 or so champions, coach champions, challengers, discontinued trees. So there's a lot. There are a lot. I'd like to hear. I mean, we do. I think we need to move on and try to get emotion. So I think I'm going to accept the minimization of the fragmentation of space spaces. I'd really like to see what it looks like in the going in the other regulations. I think I'm going to accept that. So what I'm going to suggest is recommend approval. And we can do other missions of this, but changing the phrase champion trees and landmark live books to champion trees and landmark trees. County champion trees. I'm not going to I'm going to say landmark trees that and comes as a lot more trees. I know I agree, but you. Champion trees and landmark trees. And then landmark trees would have a definition to be further specified, which could include the concept I think that's been contemplated here. I'm going to ask the governor. Um, am I allowed to second? No. I'm going to pass the gap. Okay. We have a motion in a second. We take public comment. It's a good chair. Okay. Public comment on the motion. This is Matthew Hurst again. Tree canopy affordability in general are not really at odds of each other. If anyone think they tend to kind of complement each other. And there was a study out with you about 20 years ago, a geography student compared tree canopy, utility rates, and square footage of houses in Latchwood, Berry and County and he came up with a pretty large decrease in utility usage with greater canopy and he used GIS mapping at the time it was relatively do. I guess what I'm saying is that utility usage is a major expense for a lot of people that are interested in affordability and you could reduce that by a significant percentage, it may help balance out any increase in purchase price or increase in mortgage. I have noticed too that if the idea I had earlier about timing the development, so you're not clearing all the beginning, that can help get canopy without necessarily any major change in exactly how it's platted. Regarding the champion tree, if you want to do it by the county, what you could do is any time a development approval comes into their tree survey shows a tree on there that's larger than the largest node tree in the county. Then we can assume that that's the new champion in the county. And that's how I guess that's the only way you can implement it without having to have a survey of every county tree. Yes. And I support the idea of making landmark trees, just landmark trees instead of living in the live oak trees. OK, thank you No further public comment comment from the board commissioners I'm thinking through the mechanics of that and it is I like the idea I'm trying to think about how to practically do it idea of the champion trees and I'm trying to think through how the mechanics of a county champion tree or what whatever we're doing this is a champion trees are already in existence already known and so they're already there are known fact but then there was suggestion that it might be I was going to say topped but you know there could be a larger or the data may not be accurate I I don't think so. Okay. The back of that, you know. I don't think so. Okay. I'll back, you know, I'm just trying to think of the mechanics of it. May I ask the staff a question, Madam Chair? Yes. When we're talking about a champion tree and a landmark tree, we're talking about the same regulations for both types, not one with a higher level of regulation and one with a lower level of regulation, are we? Madam Chair, I think the idea to this point in the land development regulations is that those two distinct types of trees, I'm saying they're distinct in just meaning they're described very specifically. So a champion tree has a very specific definition both in our our conference of plan and then also available regulations. And then this idea of what we call a landmark live oak would those are another set of trees. So however that ends up being defined if that's 45 inches and a four or five rating, then that's a particular set of trees and those both receive the same kind of protection. If you were to change that to be just a landmark tree, for example, we'd need to sort of go back and do some work about exactly what that means. You know, is that every kind of tree species that we might find that doesn't seem kind of reasonable? There's some maybe broader list of trees I'm imagining that would fall on that. That's probably generally what we considered to be specimen trees today. we'd have to do a good bit of work on what those sizes and ratings and all that would look like. And we certainly could do that. And then those would also qualify for that same kind of protection. I think just in listening to this discussion, I don't have a sort of inherent problem with that, except when we talk about landmark live oaks, we know that that's a particular species and of a particular size that, while, is not impossible to find, isn't necessarily on every site. And it doesn't necessarily include all the other trees. If we, if we broaden that group of trees out that qualify for that protection, again, it depends on how you define them, of course. But you could end up with the potential for more trees having to be saved and almost sort of in more fragmentation. Just because when we talk about trees, they kind of grow where they are. It's not like all the big trees grow near each other. And so you have the potential on a site to have these larger high quality trees spread out even more. And I don't have an evidence-based example of that that I can show you. It's just my sort of intuitive, I've reviewed development plans for a long time that tells me that that is one potential outcome of that otherwise I mean I don't necessarily have a lot to guide with on that. Madam Chair is the county forester here tonight? No, Madam Chair. No, I'd like to I think we ought to hear from the county forest. I moved to table. We have the motion on the floor. There's a motion to table. Superseeds that, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, so this is a good point that... Madam Chair, there's no discussion on a motion to table. Then I'm not going to vote to table, like, because I want to continue the discussion before we vote to table. We can do another motion to table. I want to continue the discussion. Is there a second to the table? Okay, that motion fails. We're referred to the existing motion. We're now there's an extra. We're referred to the existing motion. Okay. All right. So Madam Chair, at the last point that Mr. Dawson made its significant. So it's just that really so pulling out of life, seeing out live oaks and not really giving a ecological reason of live oaks is really kind of the crux of my issue with this whole discussion. And so when we expand it, other high quality trees, true. But again, it would be a certain size. It would be a certain size of magnolia, it would be a certain size of long leaf. And how much around that tree would be considered conserved? Is it the drip line? Is it beyond the drip line? So there's a lot of things that, and by consequence of changing, there's not very many champion trees, that's fine. But adding on to these landmark live-oaks, then we're changing the way that we're trying to preserve continuous open green space. So there's a lot of things in here just by inserting landmark live oaks and seeing that live oaks that's really kind of toppling everything else for me. Madam Chair, I've moved to table. Can we wait for staff to make the comment? Sure. Um,, I just want to speak to Jeff Hayes, the Director of Management Director. I did want to speak to a couple of the issues that have come up. One, I know sometimes when we're talking about a single subject, we lose the comprehensive part of the comprehensive plan. I think it's really important and Chris touched on it early on in the presentation is that we do have a list of conservation resources. Several of those different types of conservation resources are in fact different types of habitat. There's a list of species habitat. There's a strategic ecosystem. There's a well-being designated. There are strategic or excuse me, significant habitat, which is another classification outside of conservation areas. They're all defined and those are all based on a diversity of habitat types. All of the things that you're discussing related to trees. The board five years ago decided to elevate certain large live oak trees in the land development code. So as it stands right now in the land development code there's special protection for live oak's over 60 inches in diameter. When the board requested that staff develop these amendments and specifically and as Chris touched on in the land development code to bring it down to 45 inches, staff felt that it was necessary to basically put because it's really what's happening in a real sense from the regulatory standpoint is to put them on the same stature as the rest of the conservation resources in the comprehensive plan. And so that's really what we're doing tonight. It is specifically based on board direction, not that all this is all good conversation and any recommendations that this board has for the Board of County Commissioners. That's why we're here is to get that for sure. But I just wanted to point that out. And I did wanna point out one other issue that was discussed. There are the related revisions to the open space policies that are included in these amendments. Conservation resources are, once they're designated, a conservation resource. There are a little bit different. So there is not a cap. Some of the conservation resources have specific caps on how much of that resource can be set a size for TGC strategic ecosystems, an example, which is 50% of the upland portion of a property. Wetlands, we don't have a cap like that. So if you have a property that's 90% wetlands, you set aside 90% wetlands in the buffer, and then you can build on the remainder. It told such times as you might interrupt the economic leap beneficial use of the property. And then we can allow some impacts. So I just wanted to point that out that it, Chris, is correct. It doesn't. And on most properties, it will just mean that these large live-oaks are being elevated. And they will probably be what gets set aside first when it comes to the tree canopy preservation and the open space. On some other properties, if they're very bound to full, There's a lot of them. More of the property might be set aside, and that's just as it relates to any other conservation resource. So I just wanted to clarify those issues. Thank you. We have a motion. Should we put that to a vote? And then see where we go from there. So the motion on the table is moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners. No, it's a motion to the table. No, it's not a second. Yeah, that failed for a lack second. So then we're back. That was the first time. After we had the discussion, I made another motion to table. Right. And there was no second to that. What I may speak for a moment. Certainly. What I'm really balancing on is, is I thought, this needs needs deep thinking and there's a lot of importance in it and there's a lot it's I'm not trying to step on anything I like the idea of the forester coming in I'm also thinking through what the different implications and I am supportive of broadening it to having the other species, but I am concerned with the implementation of it. And that's what I'm trying to go through. I could second the table only because I'm not sure which way to go, but I think that's unfair to the group. And although I really want to do it, it's, I think it's unfair and I think that is, I want to be a member of this group to be constructive, not to be counter constructive. And I'm not trying to figure out a way forward that makes it better for what we're trying to do. Well. And having, give me just one more minute, one more minute. It is, I'm one of the people who tries to put the puzzle together. And how do we do this? How do we protect the nature area? How do we get it to some kind of basic without running up the cost? How do we do that? And that's what I'm going through in my mind is what's the smart way forward. And it's not by... And I don't have the answer yet. And that's what's bothering me is I don't have the answer yet. And I'm still thinking on it. Madam Chair, I want to make, I want to see this to go forward. I believe, first of all, I believe that the forester should have been here, because I think we need some direction from the forester. I will remove the motion to dismiss, but the motion that I made the first time, I thought was appropriate. It could have been amended, but no one wished to put it forward and to amend it. But we need to work together on coming up with what's appropriate for the entire board. Madam Chair, so implementation is kind of beyond our scope and I've tried to let that go over my years of being on this commission is that we're looking at the comp plan and there's many steps beyond the comp plan that we don't have say on as members of this body. That goes to the county commission and the manager and there's even smaller policies within the department. So I think implementation is something that I should like go up and we're looking at the scaffolding of what will be used to make those decisions that are beyond our scope going forward. So every time I'm up here, I think about implementation, especially the comp complaint, but it's something I've learned that it's beyond our scope. So we also have an opportunity as members of the public and we chop as members say we're members of this body to the county commission when they discuss this going forward. And so this is our last opportunity to talk about this either so Madam Chair I disagree with Lady that we do not have the ability to go as an individual member of this board and give a separate recommendation to the board of county commissioners. It comes from the staff. As an individual, you cannot. As a member of the public, yes, you cannot. No, you cannot because you are seen as someone who has already had their input on this. No. So I'd like to just put the question out to the commissioners here. Is there an interest in having the county forester come to discuss this? No, I don't see that there will be fine points that she can talk about. I don't think there's much she can say beyond of what we've heard from members of staff already. That will be. Because this is not really about the trees, it's about development. So it's about what can be developed on these parcels of land where the trees are. The county forester, I don't know what questions I would ask her that would impact my decision. Mr. Hues. No, I'm just here. If you have any questions, the only thing I was gonna say is that yes, the county farcer is not present this evening. Not trying to pose outside of my realm, but I am a trained biologist, was an environmental planner. I didn't know if I heard questions that weren't being answered. So I would at least like to have the questions not just to know if the farcer's not here. I just a question on a point of order. If if the motion is tabled, are we still able to make another motion? So the motion hasn't been. Oh, no, I've told. Oh, yeah, I just that's that, but that's, it's not, you have to. The whole issue is table to the next meeting. Okay. Can I ask a question? Sure. If, I've heard some discussions about having, excuse me, about having some kind of directory of like, if we had, the Forester had a library of, these are the areas that you need to be these are the trees. You know something the champion trees or whatever it is that this is what you would work with as opposed and that would give somebody who was buying a lot, buying whatever you know would give them give them some kind of idea of what they could do and not do with that piece of property they might be looking at or redoing or expanding their house or whatever it is. There's all sorts of things that require permits and this and it's That's the Unified Land Filament Code as that Information Am I wrong? What's the question commissioner? Can can we ask if there is if there is a list of Basically of trees Can you? Okay, I'll try it again. Yeah. So, if we're talking about, it's not too hard to know where you have a live oak, although sometimes we do manage to miss them, okay, and some whatever thought, because you don't have surveys and whatever. But we have enough more GIS coming up now where if we have the identification of we need some specificity as to what type of trees or a library of it. I mean there's some work that needs to be done to if we're going to expand it from the live folks. Matt, Matt, there's two issues. So the discussion was to create an Alachua County champion tree list. And there is a methodology, and then Chris pointed out, there's a methodology that's established to create those lists. Certainly that same methodology could be applied to all of the tree species in Alachua County to designate that list. And as I understood the motion was, it was relatively simple. I think it was just a conversation of county commission don't just focus on large live folks have a discussion about other species of trees. And I think that if we leave here this evening with that motion, we can take that loud and clear to the county commission that that was the planning commission's recommendation is to not just focus on one tree species to have a larger conversation about different species of trees. Okay, then that that is currently the motion that's on the floor. And for the motion is that to explore or to adopt and expand the list We're that does not include anything about a list. Okay Yes, just a general thought to think about it Madam chair the motion that I have is that the planning commission would recommend approval of the proposed changes changing the term champion trees and landmark live-oaks to just be champion trees and landmark trees. And that would... County, champion and county landmark. No, that wasn't part of the mission. Oh, I didn't know you had changed it. I didn't change it. Who did? No one. That's, it hasn't been made. That was the motion that she presented. I made the motion. And county is not part of that. If you put county back in, I would vote for it. And I would stop trying to table. I don't want to ask to create a county championship tree registry at this time. The idea is not to do it so that you have to go out and just check every parcel in the county it's just to have it as it comes along. And there are champion trees. There are trees in the list that the state has that could be county champion trees right now. You don't have to go out and you can put down in this. If you want to amend it to say we don't want you to have to go out and come up with a registry that's fine but what's the matter with saying well so and so has a champion a long leaf pine on their the county champion long leaf pine on their property. And somebody has the champion, the seal on live oak is the champion line. the county champion longleaf pine on their property. And somebody has the, the seal on live oak is the champion live oak in a natural county. But it is not a champion, it's not the champion live oak for for Florida. And that's what we're that's what we're dealing with. Champion trees are either Florida champions or national champions. Why not have an Alachua County champion? I could get into this, I would rather just say that I'm keeping my motion as it is. And I'm gonna vote against it. The landmark live, the landmark trees are the greater majority of the trees that are under concern and are based on size, which could be it. Well, they're gonna be size for different, each different species, but that means someone's going to have to come up and do a study on those. No, it wouldn't be every species of tree in Elatria County. It would be like the specimen trees list that already exist for. They would be the natural trees found in the county and not invasive or. I mean, it was brought in. Excuse me. I think that this is what would be up to staff to figure out. I mean, because we're not really giving them direction. We're just saying, I mean, hearing the discussion as staff has heard the discussion, the idea is, I think, to explore expansion of the concept where it makes sense. And that could include, I think, a list of county and cheap green trees. They could include expanding landmark live-oaks and trees of a certain size. Whatever staff might consider within their discretion and reasonableness, to take this direction of an expansion of concept to explore as feasible. That's my interpretation. I better show that that is also it provides leeway. Yes, thank you for interpreting it that way. Okay, so we have a motion. Wow, I can hear it again. Couldn't get so much. Yeah. Yep, Madam Chair, what I have is that Commissioner Young moved that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment changing the term champion trees and then mark Liveaks to champion trees and landmark trees. Without this specificity of what all the geographical and mark tree. Yes, that's the exact motion so we can definitely take that and work on that and see what the board wants to do with it. Okay. Is it? I'd rather have the specificity of it. Of what? What's the specificity? Of the geographic. Is this the state, the county? So Madam Chair, champion tree is already defined in the code as either a state or a national champion those those lists are defined. That's how we define it in the comp plan. Okay. So the idea would be then that landmark trees could be something different. Well, Madam Chair, the staff if we had made this recommendation to have county champion trees, then it would be incumbent upon the staff to present to the Board of County commissioners a definition of a county champion tree so that it would fit in and we'd have national, state, and county champion trees. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Again, I would think that having a term landmark tree, which is not defined, but includes any tree that staff would come up with. It's just to be defined, don't you, Barry? I'm uncomfortable with it. I could list a dozen species of, there exists in the county specimen trees that are considered high quality trees. That is likely what will be adopted. However, I am not gonna say that, that specificity is not needed right now for me. That is an implementation at the staff level. The idea of landmark trees will be worked out. It will likely be by size and it will likely be by the very large size of a specific number of species of trees that are considered high quality specimen trees in Lachakowne, the arborist already knows, the county already knows. I'm not looking to create a whole new database of trees. All the trees of high quality species They're not known to the first development tree, the first developed property, you're going to find a champion tree on that property because not all the largest specimen trees are known in a Latra County. So I don't want to have to survey all the trees on a piece of property to find if they're the champion tree I don't want to create a database of county champion trees for this exact purpose So that is why I'm resisting ma'am Jack I think it's unfortunate that The good lady thinks that it's up to the staff to come up with the implementation regulations and such. They do, but they need the direction from the county planning commission and from the county commission. It is not fair for them to come up and put themselves on a target to be crucified on using definitions for some type of regulation that hasn't been recommended from either the Planning Commissioner or the County Commission. I've been there and I've been crucified. I don't want that to happen to the staff. And the good lady over there thinks it's a joke, but it's not a joke. Madam Chair, I am pleased that is, I think that's not appropriate. Yeah, I think that everyone here is commenting in good spirit. And so, you know, we're all, I think, approaching this with an effort to try to be positive and productive. So with that in mind, we have a motion that's on the floor. Let's bring it to a vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Aye. So is that two to one? It was your vote? I didn't. I didn't. It is because I'm still not comfortable with this being a good way forward. And I'm going to have to, I could abstain, but you we can. Madam Chair, no. All plan board members who are here in present have to vote unless they have a conflict of interest. Well, I do have a question. I'd maybe I can make a. I don't. No, wait. I'm so sorry. We need to finish the vote. We have to vote. We have to finish the vote since I'm quite. I'm going to vote. I wanted to push it. I wanted to push this further so that we could get more detail in what we're doing and have some better thought into it. I have difficulty voting yes on something which I think still needs work. And for that purpose I would vote no, but I do want to also at the same time say that I think this needs to be worked on in a good way, in good spirits, and have the goal is to get something better for our actual county. And that's what I'm trying to do. And I'm not comfortable that we're there yet. And I have one of the things that I'm sorry, I'm sorry I'll put on a hat that I have found out how expensive it is to do tree surveys and otherwise in this county. And so that if we have a some methodology for a proof, a specific methodology, then I would be much more comfortable. And whether we had the forester here, there's, it isn't that you don't wanna protect the champion trees, it's, how do we do it in a way that makes sense? And I'm not pushing for something, and I would hope that staff would have something would have a better would be able to develop a better idea. There is something that we can we can be better and the object is to be better and and quickly to be better and I would come back for a special meeting if it was appropriate. Madam Chair, I don't want this to go forward with a negative vote. And you're going to have a negative vote unless we... Part me? We're too, too. That's a negative vote. Okay. It goes forward with a negative recommendation. No, we doesn't we don't have a recommendation. I'm sure yes that vote that motion failed because it was not a majority. And so there can be another motion now if this board is looking to not approve, not recommend approval to the VOCC. I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion that we ask staff to continue to work on this and to come back to us with a proposal based upon what you heard today and what you can find out. We don't have the power to ask staff to work on things. Okay, never mind. Where did you get that idea? Because it's probably the law somewhere. No, it's not. Well, at this point in time, we have the option to either make a motion or not to make a motion. Is that? I'm moved. I moved to the- Madam Chair, the staff is coming forward and what's before you is to ask for a recommendation on this county initiated comprehensive plan amendment to add the tree protection policies to the conservation and open space elements. So they're looking for a recommendation from this board to the BOCC, whether that's approval or denial or approval with some recommendations for things for the BOCC to consider, whether that's denial for things for the BOCC to consider. And then after that staff will take your recommendation either way to the B.O.C.C., B.O.C.C. will consider this comp plan amendment. And then the B.O.C.C. will also be considering amendments to the land development code that would be sister provisions that would fall. I'm out of maternity, let me ask. I mean, don't we get to review the LDRs for the implementation? No, Madam Chair. The Court Board of County Commissioners does not give that authority to the... Oh, we don't have that here. So the planning commission, unless it's a particular item where they direct. Okay. Staff to bring it to the. Then I move for purposes of having a more discussion about this before it goes to the Board of Commissioners. a motion to table until the next regular meeting of the planning commission. And the reason for that is to allow us to hear from the County Forester and from staff with ideas about what we can do to improve it with the discussion that you've heard tonight. I think I think everybody's come up with good ideas. Madam Chair. Yes. What staff would request? There's no motion on the table because There hasn't been a second madam chair. Yes. What staff would request this is there's no motion on the table because there hasn't been a There hasn't been a second madam chair I'd like to hear from staff We don't have a second Madam chair what I would suggest is and request this is a county initiated amendment the board has as request to present it and has actually been quite interested in it moving forward expeditiously. And therefore, this is the public hearing of the local planning agency to consider the amendment. You are requested and to make a recommendation, the county definitely wants, the commission wants to hear from you. It does not have to be specific language, it does not have to be wordsmithed. All of the ideas that you've thrown around, if you can find three of you to agree upon any combination of them, and even take them separately, because I think there's been discussion. That's what I would request that we have to move forward, because we are on a time frame, so to have this transmitted to the state. I'll take a shot at it. Thank you. This is, and it's gonna need some help, but I think that what we're interested in, let's see if we can get some consensus. There is, one is to move forward, and it's basically to move forward and we're going to come back and push us out. The second one is to broaden to study or act on broadening the species. And to look at the determination thereof, and I would ask to say to have an orderly procedure, some way to do this, you know, with reasonable cost. And actually, I'd like to have some kind of directory. That was that was spoken about right to have a directory. I think there was debate about it. Yeah. And so that point. And I'd start that as a framework to broaden out. Do you have the directory of the what type of trees? Well, that is one of the the questions that that was there. I mean you can include every tree ever and that would be not appropriate or you know reasonable. What do you mean champion trees are the, but if you had champion trees of the state I would take you know champion trees for the state and say if we had that, that it would be automatic, that would be in the protection. And there's a registry for it, right? Right. And so that's the way that could be done. I'm so sorry. Madam Chair, so is there a second then to have discussion about this motion? Is not a motion yet. Oh, okay, discussion. Right. We'd like to have a motion, I think that's a great to a directory. No, I like it that far. No, I mean, I think that the staff could Incorporate that in the in the consideration so we could say Move the staff recommendation It's easier for me to recommend it if you have a directory with consideration of expansion of landmark tree species or of tree species to be included in the directory for landmark trees. What is the what is the directory that you're envisioning? Isn't there, I thought the states kept their directory of champion trees. They know who the best yes you know who are the biggest and if you had the biggest of or the best I assume that they're not going to do every species I don't know that that's why I wanted to hear from DeForest. How would you go about in creating the county directory? I'm not so sure I'd create the county directory. I would do, they're gonna pick certain, if we pick every tree that there is, then that becomes problematic. But there is, I would think that there is some acceptance as to a number of trees based upon a state. But you're creating a directory of county trees, right? Is that what you're saying? No, I'm not. I'm going to the state directory. That's it. So Madam Chair, currently we recognize both a state and a national list of champion trees in a Lachoy County or that are designated in a Lachio County, the ones that exist in Elatio County. I went to the state because it was more appropriate and there was a broader chance, you know, the probability of having a national champion in Florida is not high. So I tried to make it more reasonable and that would be something that would, and to be close, there was a enforced ridge. We had the champion, La Blale, and it almost, and unfortunately, the lightning took it out, and that was, so it never got to its fruition. But it was a designated and a state, a national, a state tree, and it's paid attention to. And it is a way of tiptoeing to it. So your mission would include recognizing national and state champion trees and broadening the definition of tree species. I went to state, I went to the state, if you had a national, if you had a state champion tree. If you had a national tree. If you had a national tree in Florida, it would be state-easy. But that's the probability of that is slim. And so I went to the state. I'm sorry, to me that seems redundant because we already have champion tree as a champion tree. So I'm not sure where that adds. I might be missing something. I was starting to get out with a clean and going. Oh, okay. That's what I was trying to do. I was trying to do the here is the you know the the original staff motion. Okay, then you have of, and we're adding the state champion trees to it. State champion trees are already, already part of staff's recommendation. Okay. No, I mean, I'm, That's true, that is fine. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so I think that that concept of champion, the state and national championships are in here because by definition that we've got that definition as champion tree. So then the question becomes landmark live hoax or the expansion there. That's where I was trying to potentially keep it simple. With... expansion there. And that's where I was trying to potentially keep it simple, with consideration of expansion, of species, of tree species to be included. Well, what didn't it be with a recommendation maybe from the forester of the species to be included and the diameter in order to make it a landmark tree in the county? Yeah, I think, you know, based on what they were doing previously with the 45 inch and quality scoring. So I can't make a motion that that's that's in terms of trying to keep it simple. So Madam Chair, you can pass the gavel. No one else has an motion to do you pass the gavel and you can make that motion. Okay, then I'll move that we recommend the Board of County Commissioners. I recommend that we approve staff's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners with consideration of expansion of tree species to be included. Tree species and quality to be included. Yes. I'll second the mission. Okay. We have a motion and we have a second. Is there a question here from Mr. Hurts? And I think there's another member of the public outside. I saw walking around. But what do you think about the ideas? I think that every motion you pass is way a lot of competing concerns. And at level the Comprehensive play it is bigger than your more somewhat less specific than your late development Regulations. I think it's a good motion to unrecognize your permit. Thank you. Okay, there is other questions, other thoughts. Okay, are we ready to vote? Yes. Everybody's ready? All in favor? Yes. Aye. I. And so, what is your Are you voting against? I'm not voting against. I was debating whether or not to do it. I would have voted for it if it would have been the State Directory, and that was clear to me. The other one opens up all sorts of possibilities. Okay, then it'd be three to one, because you can't. You can't. Okay, then I would probably be three, I would be that, that only based upon the fact that The lack of specificity and the lack of time. I think if we had another month or two we would get it clear And we would and we would give staff something better to work with Okay, but I I wanted to gavill so that we could move forward. I wasn't trying to stop anything. I knew there were three votes, and mine is just a question. And I'm really mixed as to whether I'm right on that line. And I'm very much, I've been in land conservation for 40 years, and I'm there, but I'm trying to get some kind of business order to it as well and that's what I'm trying to do and I probably should just vote yes because then I can work on the side of getting it fixed. You know that's what I'd like to do is to be able to someplace have a conversation and I may do it with some commissioners to do the FL except that to do that so that we can improve it because a goal is to have a great community and when it's healthy and a good forestry. Okay that's kind of where I am and so for that one are we would you like Sure. I appreciate it. Okay. Madam Chair, thank you very much for your work on that item. We really appreciate it. Okay. Madam Chair. Thank you. I do have a question of the attorney. Is the policy of the Board of County Commissioners to allow members of the Board's commissions and committees to be able to make their own recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners after a vote has been taken by the commission? I mean the sub-commission. Yes, Madam Chair. We allow public comment from anyone. What we would ask for sunshine considerations if that if we knew that there was going to be multiple members of this board or another board that intended to get up and address the B OO.C.C. at a meeting that we would know and so that we could take steps either talk to you all or publicly notice it. There are two that we didn't have multiple members of the same board addressing that other board's issues at the B.O.C.C. and have a sunshine consensus. That's a different than what I'm asking. So what you're saying is if the Board of County Commissioners wants to hear from one, they should hear from them all, and therefore there should be a joint meeting of the planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Madam Chair, that's not what I said. What did that? Well, you did say then it should have more than one person speaking at the Board of County Commissioners meeting, didn't you? No, sir. What I said was if that was the intention, if multiple members of this board were going to go to a Board of County Commission meeting and speak about this item or some other item that is reasonably, reasonably could come before this board that we would want to know that to not have a sunshine issue. But there is no prohibition from a member of this board or any of the other BOC advisory boards getting up and addressing the B.O.C.C. public comment. So what I'm hearing is that it's it's okay if one does it but if it's more than one then you would want notice You don't want to hear about it. I think I've already said that I'm likely to have conversations with one or more commissioners and it would be based upon my concerns I voted yes but I also said I have some concerns and I'd like to be able to explore it with at least one maybe two and if you'd like I can I can do what's the best procedure. So first of all Madam Chair I just want to then clarify the vote. Were you a yes vote? Or? I was a yes. And OK, so it was a 4-0 vote. The prohibitions that come or the restrictions with sunshine are, if there's two, more than one member of this board together. So any individual on this board speaking to any individual B.O.C.C. member doesn't invoke the Sunshine and you would be. I've had some Sunshine training. Okay, yes, so you don't need to let us know for Sunshine purposes if you're having conversations with individual B.O.C. VOCC members. But more than one at a time, then it's a problem. Yes, sir. Outside of a public meeting. Outside of a public meeting, yes. Yes. But I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I have always been taught and I have had it applied in three or four jurisdictions that I've worked for in Florida that once a board makes a recommendation, it's the recommendation of the board and it is not you are not to go forward as a person who is voted against it or for it to either say yay or nay for it. It comes then from the staff who makes the recommendation. So Madam Chair, that's correct. We will give the board the Planning Commission's recommendation, but that doesn't necessarily mean that somebody can't speak at public comment about the item when it goes before the board. They'll hold a public hearing. You all are members of the public. Now that you've made a motion and as a board have arrived at a recommendation, that will carry the weight of the planning commission's recommendation. But your members of the public are allowed to speak at public comment and make your views known during their public hearing. Thank you. All right. Let's. Can I ask a question? I would probably have a discussion with a commissioner on a site or something else, but one in just one is or may or two, but not together. Yeah. I think we probably need to defer any further discussion on this till to the end. We do have another legislative item, the comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal process overview presentation. Do we have a two minute break? Maybe this will last long. Go ahead and take it. Good evening. Ben Chumley, Principal Planner with Growth Management. This item is an informational presentation on the county's comprehensive plan evaluation and update process. The purpose of the presentation is to provide the Planning Commission with an introduction and overview of the process. So every seven years we are required by statute to review the comprehensive plan and make any necessary updates to address changes in state statutes that have occurred since the last plan update which was in 2018 and to address local issues and generally make sure the content of the plan is up to date. So this process is just getting underway now. We're very early in it and it will continue into 2026. There is no specific action required by the Planning Commission today, but if you do have any input on certain policy areas that you would like to see us address as part of this process. We are happy to hear those recommendations. I know you all know what the comprehensive plan is, but for anyone listening remotely, the comprehensive plan is a planning document that is forward looking. It typically covers a 20-year timeframe. It expresses the community's vision in terms of goals objectives policies and strategies those tend to be very generalized more so than the land development regulations the comprehensive plan serves as a general guide for county decision making in areas like growth and development, public services and infrastructure, environmental protection and economic development to name just a few. It is also the foundation for the land development regulations. And the plan is based on community input and should reflect the community's values and the comprehensive plan document itself is adopted by the Board of County Commissioners through an ordinance. All local governments in Florida are required by statute to have a comprehensive plan and to include specific elements as part of the plan. So the Elatua County comprehensive plan currently has 16 elements dealing with various subject areas. These elements relate to many different aspects of the community and county government. Some elements of the Comprehensive Plan are regulatory in nature, like your future land use and your conservation and open space policies and there are other elements of the plan that deal with planning for infrastructure and services like transportation parks stormwater, podable water and sanitary sewer, schools, fire and solid waste. The plan also addresses how we coordinate with our partner local governments and other agencies. And it also deals with other specific issues like housing, economic development, historic preservation, community health, and energy. So the specific requirements and the statute for evaluation and appraisal at least once every seven years each local government in the state must evaluate its comprehensive plan to determine whether any updates are necessary to reflect changes in state requirements since the last update of the plan and whether any updates are necessary to reflect a minimum planning period of 10 years. The state sets deadlines for local governments to make those determinations and our deadline is April 1st. Local governments are also required to evaluate and update their comprehensive plans to reflect changes in local conditions. And any necessary amendments to the plan, as part of this process, must be transmitted for the state to review within one year of the April 1st determination. So staff has proposed a two-part process for the review and update of the plan. Part one is the determination of whether any amendments are necessary to reflect statutory changes. And staff has completed that review and found that we do have a couple of amendments that will be necessary in order to be consistent with the statutes. We generally try to keep up with those statutory changes as they come along, but there are still a couple that we need to deal with. Staff has drafted a letter to the state to let them know of the county's determination. That letter will be going to the county commission next week for approval. Once that is approved, we will submit the letter to the state and that's essentially completing part one of the process. Part two of the process is where we will get more into the substantive local policy issues and preparing actual amendments to the plan. And so that part will be going on for the next year or so. So in the second part of this process, that will involve scoping of local issues, evaluating the plan and preparing amendments to the plan. Any amendments that are necessary to reflect statutory changes or local issues must be transmitted within one year of, so by April 1, 2026. And this part of the process will involve broad-based public engagement just to help us determine what local policy issues we should be focusing on as part of the process. We will use a variety of strategies to solicit input from the community. Those will include workshops with the county commission meetings with the county, excuse me, the County Advisory Committees, including the Planning Commission to get input on specific issues that relate to their focus areas. I think we have about 30 County Advisory Committees. We also plan to use a combination of community workshops, online tools and questionnaires to better understand the issues that people are concerned about. We will publicize the process through various methods that we have available to us. And we also plan to meet with key staff of county departments about the work they are doing that might require some type of consideration or revision in the comprehensive plan. And we will also meet with community organizations who are interested in providing their input. We do know that there are certain issues that we will need to address as part of this process because either the county commission has directed us to do that already or in some cases staff has identified certain technical issues that come up and the course of implementing the comprehensive plan that we know need to be addressed in one way or another. Some examples of that are listed, updating population projections and demographic data that the plan is based upon, evaluating the capacity of the urban cluster, making sure that there's enough land within the urban cluster to accommodate our projected population growth, reviewing our policies for transit-oriented development and traditional neighborhood development, as well as storm-water management policies for new development. Those are ones that the county commission has asked us to focus on, reviewing the East Side Activity Center land use policies. That's the area generally surrounding East Side High School on Southeast 43rd Street and reviewing the commercial land use policies as well. Some additional examples of local issues that we know we will need to address updating the transportation element to reflect the work on the bicycle pedestrian and Safe Streets for all, and also looking at the transportation and capital improvements elements to ensure that they align with recent updates that were made to the county's mobility fee. Also the Parks Master Plan, we will need to look at potential revisions to recreation level of service standards based on some recommendations that were in that Parks Master Plan. And also reviewing the economic element to ensure that that aligns with current county priorities and strategies as well as the county's strategic plan, which is something that is being developed right now. We also know that there are other county planning efforts that are going on that will help to inform this comprehensive plan update. So we need to make sure that the comprehensive plan aligns with some of these other plans. Some examples are listed here, the climate action plan, which is not yet completed, I think that's expected to be completed toward the end of this year. The Parks Master Plan, that was recently completed, I think last late last year or early this year, the Fire Master Plan, there's ongoing equity audit of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as a bicycle pedestrian master plan. There's also the Forward Focus, Eastern Alachua County Planning Effort, which is going on, as well as several affordable housing efforts. So all of these kind of simultaneous planning efforts that are going on in the county will need to kind of feed into the update of the comprehensive plan as well. And just to wrap up, this is sort of a schematic of the process timeline. So the process essentially begins now and will continue through the middle part of next year. Between now and September, we will be talking with the County Commission and the County Advisory Committees about scoping local issues. And during that time, we will also begin collecting and analyzing data upon which the plan is based. Then beginning in the fall of 2025, we will focus on preparing the draft amendments to the plan, the actual text amendments and soliciting input on those from the county commission and advisory committees and the public. And that will hopefully lead us to Transmiddell Public Earrings in February or March of 2026. And then from there we have a state review process which is about 60 days and then public hearings for final adoption of plan amendments around the middle of next year. So we're at the very beginning of this process, and we have a long way to go. That concludes my presentation. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer them. My contact information is up here. We also have a website you can go to There's not a lot on it right now, but we'll be adding more to it as we move along in the process Okay, thank you very much. Any questions from the commissioners? I have a one question So it through the majority of this process last time so is our part on the on the graph on the timeline? September 25th is Is that one will start or 2025 brothers? Is that 25? Is that one will start reviewing changes? I think around the fall of this year, you will start to see some specific language changes. I do think I will be back here in front of you before then, just to help confirm what the local issues are that we need to focus on. But yes, September, October, I think we'll start to have some text amendments. I think you. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So the next item, the attendance report? I don't have a copy with me, but are we good with the attendance? Okay. Okay. Okay my case. Okay, then Commissioner comments. Okay. Hearing none. We're adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, attendance. Ah. No public comments.