[Item 1]
          [00:04:49]
          AUDIO] 
          [Item 2]
          [00:06:01]
ZONE AND HOW THAT IS ENFORCED ON A DAILY BASIS. 
          THAT HAPPENS TODAY BUT HAVING QUALIFIED WITHIN THE CODE IS IMPORTANT TO INSURE IT CONTINUES. 
          AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, AS WELL AS ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. 
          THE PROJECT FOR ALL CLEARING AND FURTHER AN REQUIREMENT AND THE SITE PLANS ONCE THEY'RE COMPLETE. 
          THEY'LL ATTEST TO IT TO BE INTACT AND CLEAR TO FINALIZE. 
          WE TALKED ABOUT THIS PREVIOUSLY AND DISCUSSED SEVERAL OPTIONS. 
          THIS COULD NOT BE SOLELY ON CITY STAFF IN ORDER TO BE ON SITE AT THE PRESENT TIME. THE BOARD WAS REALLY CONSIDERING THE VALUE OF HAVING SOMEBODY WHO WAS PAID BY THE CITY TO BE THERE, VERSUS THE DEVELOPER PAYING SOMEONE TO HAVE AN ARBORIST ON SITE. WE NEED TO DISCUSS A FEE SCHEDULE, A FEE TO RECUPERATE THE COSTS OF THAT TIME THAT ENDS THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE RENDERED IN ORDER TO HAVE THE OVERSIGHT. THE OTHER IS TO DEVELOP A LIST OF ARBORIST THAT WE WOULD CALL ON A ROUTINE BASIS. 
          >>  THEY CONSIDER THE VALUE OF HAVING SOMEBODY [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          >>  RIGHT. WE SPEND A GOOD AMOUNT OF THE EVENING AND ASSOCIATED SPECIFIC WITH PERMITS. 
          WHEN SOMEONE GOES OUT AND REMOVED A TREE AND I CAN'T DOCUMENT IT ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT TO BE A HAZARD TREE. 
          IN THOSE INSTANCES THIS -- THIS -- THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL PENALTY, BEYOND WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE AND PROPOSING TO KEEP IN PLACE. 
          IT IS RESTORATION TO GET BACK IN THE GROUND. 
          THIS WOULD BE PENALTY, LESS FRUSTRATION, RESTORATION COMPONENT OF OUR ORDINANCE WOULD NOT CHANGE AT ALL, WITH EXCEPTION TO THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH -- WITH TREE REMOVAL. 
          YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET RESTORATION PLAN. 
          THERE'S CONCENTRATION ABOUT INCREASED FEES FOR THAT AREA AS WELL. HERE ARE CHANGES FOR [INDISCERNIBLE] REMOVAL, AS WELL AS INCREASED FEES AND PROPOSED FEES FOR WHETHER OR NOT YOU'LL MEET THOSE THROUGH THE RESTORATION PLAN. THEN ANOTHER NOTE ABOUT HOLDING WORK. RIGHT NOW WE DISCUSS WHERE VIOLATIONS HAVE OCCURRED THAT WE WOULD NOT ISSUE A C.O. AND IT ALSO SAYS THAT -- THAT -- THAT CEO INSPECTIONS WOULD NOT CONTINUE ON A PARTICULAR PROPERTY. 
          WHAT IS ADDED HERE IS TO REALLY ALLOW IF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR DESIGNEE TO ISSUE A STOP ORDER. 
          [00:10:02]
THAT WAY ON THE PROPERTY IS STOPPED AND NOT JUST HOLDING UP INSPECTIONS. AS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, THIS IS WHERE WE REALLY GET SOMEONE'S ATTENTION WHEN YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO HAVE PEOPLE AT THE JOB ANYMORE THAT YOU PAY. 
          THAT'S WHEN YOU QUICKLY -- THEN -- THEN THE LAST SECTION IS AN AREA THAT WE HAD NOT TOUCHED UPON PREVIOUSLY BUT IT GOES BACK TO THE -- TO THE BOARD SELECTION TO CONSIDER A 50-50 RATIO FOR TREES HAVE BEEN REMOVED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. 
          I LIKE THE BOARD TO THINK ABOUT -- ABOUT ADDING SOME LEVEL OF ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER COMPONENT TO ADJUST FOR SETBACKS. 
          THE REASON BEHIND THAT IS YOU WANT TO SAVE A PARTICULAR TREE EVEN UNDER THE CURRENT CODE AND THE LATITUDE OF A STANDARD OF A 25-YARD SETBACK AND 2 1/2 FEET. THAT'S NOT MEANINGFUL WHEN YOU LOOK IT SAVE A TREE IN THE BACKYARD. 
          AND SO THAT PUSHES THAT PROPERTY OWNER INTO A POSITION OF GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO SEEK HELP. 
          SOMETIMES IT IS A PROPERTY OWNERSHIP THAT JUST BOUGHT THE LOT FOR THAT TREE. SO WHILE I THINK THAT FIVE FEET, AND THAT REALLY -- THAT -- SINCE PROPOSED IT INITIALLY, MIGHT BE OVERLY AGGRESSIVE. I WANT TO ASK THE BOARD IT CONSIDER A LEVEL OF LATITUDE. EVEN TEN FEET OF DEVIATION WOULD BE ENOUGH TO HELP SUPPORT ON A GIVEN LOT. 
          THE OTHER COMPONENT AND IS IMPORTANT TO THIS IS THERE BE -- THAT SOME KIND OF -- OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THAT IS NOTICED AND MAKE SURE THAT GETS INCLUDED IN HERE. 
          THE WAY ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVERS ARE PRESENTED THEY DON'T SPEAK TO A PROCESS SO WE NEED TO INCORPORATE THAT COMPONENT. 
          >>  OKAY. >>  THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          LET'S OPEN UP THE BOARD DISCUSSION AND WE WALK THROUGH THESE ONE AT A TIME. START AS WE WENT THROUGH. 
          SO -- LET ME JUST SAY THAT I THINK -- I THINK -- WHILE I THINK FINES AND PENALTIES ARE NECESSARY TO -- TO -- WHEN THINGS DON'T GO WELL. OUR GOAL REALLY IS ABOUT SAVING THE CANOPY AND SAVING TREES. THAT'S A MATTER OF COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT. HOW DO YOU BETTER DEAL WITH COMPLINESS AND ENFORCEMENT AS WE WORK THROUGH THESE. 
          I ASK TO PUT THAT THINKING CAP ON. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. THE FINES AND FEES ARE REALLY AFTER -- WHEN NOTHING ELSE WORKS, THEN [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          THE FIRST ITEM IS THE IDEA OF CHANGING THE -- CHANGING THE -- THE PERCENTAGE FROM 80 PERCENT TO 50 PERCENT. 
          WHAT WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM REPLACEMENT AND I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST MEETING. IS THERE ANY MORE THOUGHT ON 
          THIS? >>  SOMETHING WE WANT TO MOVE 
          FORWARD WITH? >>  I THINK IT IS AGGRESSIVE. 
          I THINK LAST TIME, I GOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT. 
          >>  WHAT KIND OF IMPACT DOES THAT HAVE -- ON THE STANDARD LOT. BUT DOES THAT -- DOES THAT CREATE -- I'M TRYING TO GET COMFORTABLE WITH IT MYSELF. 
          30 PERCENT DIFFERENCE IS -- IS A LOT. 
          >>  UH-HUH. >>  BETWEEN 80 AND 50, 30 PERCENT IS A LOT. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT -- THAT THAT'S A SERIOUS IMPACT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF IMPACT 
          THAT IS. >>  I DON'T HAVE ANY -- ANY WAY. 
          >>  I THINK WE'LL FIND A CASE WHERE IT IS AN IMPACT. 
          SAME PROBLEM. NOT A WAY OF GAUGING, EITHER 200 LOTS LEFT ON THE ISLAND THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY OR TWO 
          LOTS. >>  RIGHT 
          >>  I CAN SAY WE SUGGESTED THE 50 PERCENT. 
          MY THINKING WAS THAT UNTIL THE COMMENTS BEFORE THAT TIME YOU TALKED ABOUT GOING FROM 80 TO 60 AND YOU SAID I THINK THAT'S WORKABLE FROM THE PLANS I'VE SEEN. 
          WE CAN GET THERE AND THERE WON'T BE -- THERE WON'T BE THAT -- IT WON'T BE THAT DIFFICULT. I THINK WE CAN GET THERE. 
          [00:15:05]
I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY 50 PERCENT WAS A STRETCH GOAL BUT MAY BE WORKABLE. MAYBE THAT'S A WRONG SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU SAID, PLEASE CORRECT ME. 
          IF THE FEELING IS THOSE THAT LOOK AT THE PLANS, WE COULD GET TO 50 PERCENT. IT IS A STRETCHFUL BUT REALISTIC -- I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT. IF IT UPSETS THE APPLECART AND YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE IT IS JUST TOO RESTRICTIVE, I GUESS I GO THE OTHER WAY. I THINKS A LONG AS 50 PERCENT LOOKS LIKE IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS A REASONABLE THAT WE COULD MUTUALLY ATTAIN, I THINK IT IS WORTH TRYING. 
          THIS IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY DOES IMPACT. 
          I WATCHED A LOT OF LOTS GET DEVELOPED AND I SEE A LOT OF TREES COME DOWN THAT I DON'T THINK HAVE TO COME DOWN. 
          THIS KIND OF REQUIREMENT IS A WAY TO PROTECT THAT AND MAKE SURE WE DON'T UNNECESSARILY USE TREES ON DEVELOPED LOTS. 
          AGAIN, I'M IN FAVOR OF -- OF A 50 PERCENT BECAUSE I THINK -- I THINK IT IS A STRETCH GOAL. BUT I THINK WE CAN GET THERE WITH SOME REALLY THOUGHTFUL PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDINGS ON 
          LOTS. >>  IF WE CAN PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY, DOES THAT NOT TAKE PRESSURE OFF THE NUMBER? 
          >>  IT DOES. IT CREATES POSSIBILITIES TO ADDRESS THAT AND AVOID THE [INDISCERNIBLE] PROCESS. 
          I THINK THAT EVEN IF YOU LEFT THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPONENT AS IT EXISTS, WHAT THIS TYPE OF REQUIREMENT WILL DO IS -- IS FORCE EARLY CONSIDERATION OF THE SITE IN HOW IT WILL BE EFFECTED. 
          SO DESIGN WILL BECOME A P PARAMOUNT IN HOW YOU PROTECT THE ORDINANCE AND GET THROUGH IT WITHOUT PAYING A LOT IN FEES. 
          BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL IS THAT YOU BUILD WHAT IS OTHERWISE A STANDARD -- A STANDARD BUILDING ENVELOPE AND POTENTIALLY HAVE TO REPLACE A GOOD NUMBER OF TREES AT THAT NEWLY RECOMMENDED RATE OF 350 DOLLARS PER TREE. SO FOR A PROPERTY OWNER, THEY MAY BE MORE WILLING TO CONSIDER A DESIGN FOR LARGE TREES WHEN THEY KNOW THEY'LL PAY TO MITIGATE THAT. 
          IT WOULDN'T BE ON THEIR PROPERTY EITHER. 
          >>  ARE THERE -- THE WAY THAT YOU WOULD GET CREATIVE IN -- IN DOING -- IN DESIGNING A HOUSE THAT SOCIALLY, LET'S JUST SAY IT IS A HOUSE, TYPICAL LOT IS LINED UP WITH THE STANDARD SETBACKS, 25 FEET IN THE FRONT AND ON THE SIDES. 
          SO INSTEAD OF THAT, THEN IN CONSIDERING THE DESIGN, ARE YOU SAYING THAT MAYBE THE HOUSE COULD BE TURNED SIDEWAYS OR -- OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT THEN CREATES A -- ALMOST A ZERO LOT LINE KIND OF THING. IF ALL OF THE TREES WERE IN THE FRONT AND THE BACK AND THEY SAID, WELL, LET'S JUST TURN THE HOUSE SIDEWAYS AND THEN THE HOUSE ACTUALLY -- THE FRONT IS NOT REALLY THE FRONT AND THE BACK IS NOT REALLY THE BACK. 
          I COULD SEE WHERE YOU COULD HAVE SOME -- SOME ISSUES WITH -- WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS, ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT A HOUSE WITH ALMOST A ZERO LOT LINE AND A HOUSE THAT HAS THE PROPER -- I MEAN, THAT DOES SHOW THE FLEXIBLE BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, IT -- IT CREATES A DIFFERENT -- A DIFFERENT LOOK BUT A DIFFERENT -- A DIFFERENT ZONING. 
          IT MAKES YOU THINK ABOUT DETACHED AND HOW YOU DO YOUR DRIVEWAY. WHAT YOU DO YOUR DRIVEWAY IN? RIGHT? PERMANENT SERVICE OR CONCRETE SLAB? I THINK IT BEGINS TO IMPACT THOSE ISSUES AS OPPOSED TO SO MUCH THE HOUSE IS ORIENTED. 
          IT IS LIKE THE OTHER -- THE OTHER COMPONENTS OF IT. 
          AGAIN, IT IS ALL ABOUT HOW TO -- WHAT THE BEST WAY WE CAN SUPPORT IN EFFECT, TO CONSIERVE THE CANOPY WE HAVE TODAY. 
          [00:20:01]
VERY STRUCTURED.A PARK THAT IS - THE HOUSES ARE ALL X NUMBER OF 
          FEET. >>  I KNOW THE PARKING LOT. 
          SCENARIO HAS DIFFERENT DESIGN STANDARDS. 
          >>  SO THIS WOULDN'T APPLY TO SOMEBODY? 
          >>  OUR PROTECTION ORDINANCE ALSO APPLIES TO THE PARK BUT THE FLEXIBILITY ASSOCIATED WITH IT IS NOT REALLY NECESSARY BECAUSE WE ARE ABLE TO DEVIATE THROUGH THEIR FUND. 
          >>  MR. [INDISCERNIBLE], ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE? 
          >>  I'M THINKING ALSO THAT -- THAT MOST OF THE LOTS ARE ALL 50 OR 50-FOOT WIDE. MAYBE 90 TO 100 FOOT DEEP. 
          THAT DISTANCE BETWEEN -- BETWEEN SAY 5 PERCENT COULD CHANGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOK BY -- BY DOING SOME -- SOME OF THESE ITEMS AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO AND THE LOOK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M NOT SURE. 
          I LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHER PEOPLE. 
          AND AGAIN, KEEP IN MIND, IF YOU HAVE A 25-FOOT SETBACK, HE WAS YOU'RE MOVING ONE HOUSE TO A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK, JUST IMAGINE THAT YOUR [INDISCERNIBLE]. YOU KNOW, YOUR HOUSE IS 25-FOOT, NEXT DOOR IS FIVE-FOOT, YOU WANT TO WALK OUT YOUR FRONT DOOR AND SEE ONLY SIGNS OF [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          THERE'S IMPACT ON THE STANDARD THAT HAS BEEN SET UP. 
          >>  PROBABLY EXPLODING. SOME FLEXIBILITY WOULD APPEAR TO BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO AS FAR AS THE SITE. 
          I WOULD SAY 20 WOULD BE TOO MUCH. 
          >>  I TEND TO AGREE. IN TERMS OF WHAT I HAD INITIALLY PROPOSED AT FIVE FEET. I THINK -- I THINK -- I THINK THAT'S TOO AGGRESSIVE. I THINK TEN FEET GIVES YOU ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY, PARTICULARLY ON THE FRONT AND SIDE YARDS. 
          WHEN WE THINK OF THE REAR YARD, WE THINK ABOUT THE SIDE YARDS, HOWEVER, THE STANDARD IS 10 PERCENT OF THE LOT FIFTH. 
          YOU COULD HAVE A 50-FOOT LOT, WHICH IS A TYPICAL LOT WIDTH. 
          YOU HAVE THE STANDARD OF FIVE FEET ON EACH SIDE AND THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT WHEN YOU GO -- YOU GO 25 AND 35 FEET AND THE SETBACKS INCREASE ON EACH SIDE UP TO 35 FEET. 
          THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE THROUGH ANY OF THIS. 
          FIVE FEET ON THE SIDE IS WHAT WE TYPICALLY SEE TODAY. 
          ON A 75-FOOT LOT, I THINK PLACING SOMETHING THERE, I WOULD NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE FOR THE VERY REASON DISCUSSED HERE. 
          I THINK YOU NEED A LEVEL OF CERTAINTY WHERE YOU'RE NOT ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF. AND THE OTHER CRITICAL COMPONENT IN MY MIND WITH CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THIS IS THAT [INDISCERNIBLE], SOMETHING IS WELL INFORMED AND WHAT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AND THEIR HOME LOOKS AND THEY'RE CONSTRUCTED, SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO -- TO TALK ABOUT THAT AND HAVE A PROCESS FOR IT. 
          >>  I KNOW THE REALITY IS -- YOU COULD ALSO ARGUE THIS THIS DOES NOT -- YOU DO NOT HAVE TO NECESSARILY CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR DESIGN. IT ACTUALLY INCREASES THE COST OF THE BILL. YOU'RE GOING TO PAY MORE. 
          THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT IT HAS NO IMPACT ON THIS DESIGN STANDARD. THAT IT INCREASES THE COST OF 
          YOUR BILL. >>  IT DOES NOT FORCE. 
          >>  IT DOES NOT FORCE. >>  IT WOULD THEORETICALLY AND TECHNICALLY INCREASE THE COST OF YOUR BILLS AND KEEP OUR [INDISCERNIBLE] AND SETBACKS AND NOTHING ELSE, NOT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AND DOLLARS TO YOUR [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          >>  BUT IN THE -- IN THE -- IN THE -- IN THE VERY END OF THE CONVERSATION HERE WHERE IT IS ASKING FOR -- FOR SOME ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVERS THAT -- THAT PROCESS IS -- IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK REALLY NEED TO BE THOUGHT OUT MORE THAN JUST A WAIVER BECAUSE -- THAT'S WHERE IT CAN GOT -- REAL CREATIVE. 
          >>  MY CONCERN IS WITH WAIVERS, WE COULD GET INTO -- INTO TOO MUCH [INDISCERNIBLE] FROM THE STANDARD. 
          [00:25:04]
THERE'S TOO MUCH SUBJECTABILITY AND LESS RIGOR. 
          YOU COULD EASILY GET INTO TROUBLE. 
          >>  I TEND TO AGREE. I THINK WE GOT TO BE REAL CAREFUL ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVERS AND SETBACKS, PARTICULARLY IN THE FRONT YARD. A LOT OF ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING FEATURE TO ALLOW SOMEBODY TO BE FIVE FEET OFF THE FRONT YARD PROPERTY WOULD BE A HUGE DEVIATION. AND THE SIDE YARD HAS SIMILAR KINDS OF IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORS. 
          I WAS THINKING -- I'M OPEN TO SOME -- SOME AMOUNT OF VARIANCE BUT NOTHING CLOSE TO WHAT -- TO WHAT -- TO WHAT -- TO WHAT -- I CAN TELL [INDISCERNIBLE]. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO THROW OUT IS -- IS WHAT DOES EVERYBODY THINK ABOUT ALLOWING THIS WAIVER THING TO APPLY FOR -- FOR LARGER TREES? IF YOU HAD A REALLY CHARGE TREE, I GUESS I WOULD FEEL BETTER ABOUT WAIVERS AND WE'RE SAVING A 36 INCH TREE AS OPPOSED TO A MUCH SMALLER TREE. THAT THOUGHT DID OCCUR TO ME. 
          TO CONCLUDE, I'M OKAY WITH SOME ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER BUT NOTHING CHLOSE IT WHAT IS HERE N ONLY SHOWING THE [INDISCERNIBLE]. WE OPEN THE DOOR TO IT AND IT 
          BECOMES A LOOPHOLE. >>  A LOOPHOLE. 
          YES. >>  IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT GRANTING SUCH A WAIVER WOULD BE ONLY ON SOMETHING 
          REALLY COMPELLING. >>  SO THE SAME AREA, THE ISSUE OF CHANGING THE FEE STRUCTURE FROM 355 TO 350. 
          IS THIS A RATIONALE TO THE 350? >>  THE VALUE IF THE PLACEMENT OF A SHADE TREE RANGES AT THIS TIME BETWEEN 300 AND 400 DOLLARS APPROXIMATELY. THIS IS A SHADE TREE THAT NEEDS 
          [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>  OKAY. 
          >>  SO THE 350, WE FELT CONFIDENT IN PROPOSING AS THE 
          VALUE. >>  THIS IS [INDISCERNIBLE] AND NEW LOCATION. IT IS TOTAL OUT OF POCKET EXPENSE TO LEAVE THE HOLE AND THE TREE IN. 
          >>  THIS IS -- NO. IN FACT, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED. 
          IT IS ONLY [INDISCERNIBLE] CONSIDERING THE COST OF THE 
          TREE. >>  [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          >>  THAT'S CORRECT. >>  I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE FEE. I THINK THIS COMMENT APPLIES TO THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND YOU TALK ABOUT REPLACEMENT TREES. 
          I THINK THERE'S A MATTER OF THE COST OF THE TREE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND A COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE MAINTENANCE FUND AND THE COST OF THE TREE AND MAINTENANCE AND I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A SURETY THAT GUARANTEED LIKE THAT TREE FOR TEN YEARS. IF IT DOESN'T SURVIVE, THERE SHOULD BE AN ABILITY TO REPLACE IT. 
          I THINK THAT SHOULD BE IN THE COST. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE NUMBER AND COVERING THOSE COSTS. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS 350 OR WHATEVER IT IS. 
          FOR MY PART, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHERS THINK. 
          WE TALK ABOUT REPLACEMENT TREES. >>  AND MUCH HIGHER VALUE. 
          >>  I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT EACH OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL COSTS BE IDENTIFIED AND SO WHEN YOU SAY OKAY, LET'S JUST SAY YOU JUST HAVE A TREE EXACTLY THAT QUALIFIED TO REPLACE IT. 
          THEN YOU WANT TO SAY I HAVE A TREE THAT I NEED TO REPLACE. 
          I'VE ALREADY BOUGHT IT FROM A LEGITIMATE LANDSCAPER. 
          IT HAS THE BUR LAP BAG AND READY TO GO. 
          WHAT ABOUT ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT NEED TO GO IN THERE THAT EQUALS, OKAY, CHECK MARK, YOU GOT THE TREE BUT YOU STILL GOT TO PAY FOR THE BOND AND THE -- WHATEVER ELSE HAS TO GO WITH THAT. 
          I'M ADVISING THAT SOME, I THINK IS IMPORTANT. 
          >>  THE TREE. WHAT I'M HEARING IS TWO 
          DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS. >>  IF -- THIS PROPOSED FEE THAT IS IN HERE WOULD BE -- WOULD BE THAT FEE THAT SOMEBODY PAYS WHEN THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO MITIGATE WITH TREES THAT STILL CONTINUE TO GET -- TO EXIST THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE OR THAT -- OR THAT THEY HAVE PAID TO HAVE INSTALLED ON THEIR 
          [00:30:01]
PROPERTY. WHERE THEY DO EITHER OF THOSE OPTIONS, THERE'S A THIRD OPTION TO PAY THIS FEE AT -- AT 350 
          DOLLARS. >>  INTO THE TREE FUND. 
          >>  INTO THE TREE FUND AND THE CITY WILL PLANT TREES ON THEIR 
          BEHALF. >>  IN THAT CASE, THE -- THE SUM OF MONEY SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE CITY TO BUY A TREE, AND THE CITY -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE CONTRACTING TO PUT THE TREE IN, THEN YOU HAVE TO PAY A CONTRACTOR TO PUT THE TREE IN. 
          YOU SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH MONEY IN THERE TO HAVE IT GUARANTEED IT WILL BE THERE. WE TALK ABOUT BOND, BUT YOU COULD BUY A GUARANTEE FROM A LANDSCAPER THAT IT WILL BE THIS THREE YEARS. THAT'S SUFFICIENT. 
          >>  IT WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE FUNDS TO MAINTAIN THE TREE WHICH WOULD BE APPROPRIATE WATERING. WE DON'T HAVE A WATER TRUCK ANYMORE. WE USED TO HAVE A WATER TRUCK. 
          WE DON'T HAVE ONE ANYMORE. FOR THE CITY. 
          SO. YOU KNOW, IT -- IT IT IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF HERE'S YOUR MONEY, BUY A TREE, BUT HOW -- HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAINTAIN THE TREE? HOW IS THE CITY GOING TO MAINTAIN IT? WHAT IS THE COST TO THE CITY TO MAINTAIN? AND ALL OF THE TREES THAT THEY PLANT OUT OF THE TREE FUND. 
          SO WE THINK THE NUMBER IS MORE THAN 350. 
          >>  I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS EXACTLY. 
          >>  I'LL TRY [INDISCERNIBLE]. THERE'S A REASONABLE COST. 
          >>  OKAY. >>  I THINK THAT'S 
          [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>  RECOMMEND THEM TO INCREASE THE FEE OVER TIME. IT IS THE 350 THIS YEAR. 
          OBVIOUSLY COSTS GO TO 500 NEXT YEAR. 
          THERE HAS TO BE A MECHANISM SO YOU DON'T COME BACK AND CHANGE IT EVERY TIME THERE'S AN INCREASE IN COSTS. 
          >>  ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS SUBJECT? I LIKE US TO WALK THROUGH THIS. AND GET UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          I THINK IT IS WOULD BE EASIER FOR US. 
          THE NEXT SECTION IS THE PRESERVATION CREDITS. 
          AND YOU KNOW, THE -- THE -- THE -- I THINK WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT -- ABOUT IT IS NOT DOING WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO DO. SO MAYBE IT IS A MATTER OF -- OF 
          TAKING IT OUT. >>  UH-HUH. 
          >>  I'M OKAY WITH TAKING IT OUT. >>  WE GET THE INDICATION. 
          IT IS AN ELEMENT OF CITY-WIDE. >>  THE NEXT SECTION, A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN. THIS GETS TO THE WHOLE IDEA OF HOW DO YOU ENFORCE AND MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN. 
          I'M A STRONG BELIEVER IN THE ADAGE THAT -- THAT YOU HAVE -- YOU HAVE TO INSPECT WHAT YOU EXPECT. 
          AND SO IF YOU EXPECT COMPLIANCE TO THESE ORDINANCES YOU NEED TO HAVE A ROBUST PLAN THAT THEY'RE BEING MET. 
          I THINK THIS IS A GOOD STEP IN MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION. 
          PARTICULARLY IF WE CAN CONTROL THE ARBORIST THAT WE'RE IN CONTRACT WITH ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, TO DO THAT, TO DO THAT INSPECTION AND REQUIRE THAT COMPLIANCE. 
          >>  RIGHT. I AGREE WITH THE WORDING HERE. 
          I AGREE WITH THE IDEA OF HAVING -- HAVING A LIST OF ARBORIST OR THE CITY ARBORIST. I AGREE WITH WHAT KELLY HAS WRITTEN IN THE RED NOTE HERE THAT -- THAT THE FEE SCHEDULE WOULD BE ADJUSTED SO THE CITY HAVE IT -- OUT OF POCKET ON THE CITY'S PART AND THE CITY COULD RECOUP THAT COST. 
          >>  [INDISCERNIBLE] DEVELOPER. THIS IS ALL UNDER -- THIS IS UNDER PROTECTION OF TREES AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. 
          SO THEN APPROVED INSPECTION OF THE TREE PROTECTION AREA BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST AND THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD LOOK, THE DEVELOPER WOULD LOOK AT A LIST THAT THE CITY COMPILES AND SAYS DON JONES ARBORIST, I'M GOING TO HIRE YOU -- NO. 
          HE'S GOT -- HE'S -- HE'S GOT TO GO TO THE SITE TO PERFORM THESE DUTIES TO -- TO DO THE INSPECTION OF THE TREE AREA. 
          DOES THE CITY -- DEVELOPER STILL HAS TO PAY IF THE TIME OF THE 
          ARBORIST. >>  THE CITY WOULD ASSIGN AN ARBORIST TO THE PROJECT. EITHER A CITY ARBORIST OR 
          [00:35:01]
CONTRACTOR ARBORIST. THEY WOULD WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER. THE FEES WOULD BE PART OF THE 
          CONSTRUCTION FEES. >>  DEVELOPER PAYS TO THE CITY. 
          >>  OKAY. >>  THERE'S A POINT ABOUT THIS, KELLY, I NEED INPUT FROM YOU. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT -- THAT HAVING CONSISTENCY, I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU HAVE THREE GREAT ARBORIST AND THEY MAY LOOK AT THINGS DIFFERENTLY. 
          IF WE COULD HAVE ONE PERSON, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORKLOAD 
          REQUIREMENTS ARE OR ARBORIST. >>  IT WOULD PRESENT A SCHEDULING CONCERN. YOU'RE EXPECTING ONE AND YOU GOT TWO PEOPLE TO BE IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS AND UNDER [INDISCERNIBLE] ACTIVITIES FULL TIME FOR EXTENDED DAYS, IN ORDER TO DO THAT. IN THAT CASE, THEY'RE FULL-TIME IN ONE LOCATION FOR EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, THEY'RE NOT COMPLETING THE OTHER INSPECTION BASED ACTIVITY. 
          >>  IN ORDER TO HAVE A CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF OUR PLAN AND OUR STANDARDS, THAT'S FINE. 
          YOU COULD HAVE MULTIPLE ONES. IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE THREE THAN TEN. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ARBORISTS ARE OUT THERE. IT SEEMS NOT TO HAVE SO MANY, AND YOU HAVE SO MANY IDEAS AND YOU END UP WITH A PLAN. 
          I UNDERSTAND ONE PERSON CAN'T DO IT ALL. 
          I WOULD TRY TO LIMIT THE NUMBER TO JUST WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE JOB RATHER THAN MAKE A LONG LIST. 
          >>  I THINK WE HAVE TO -- WE HAVE TO -- THE CITY MAY CREATE MORE -- MORE DEFINITION AND PROCESS AROUND WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE ON SITE BY THIS CONTRACTED ARBORIST SO THAT THEY ALL -- THEY ALL -- CLEARLY ALL HAVE THE SAME SET OF -- OF INSTRUCTIONS OR WHATEVER WE NEED TO MAINTAIN THAT CONSISTENCY. 
          >>  LET ME UNDERSTAND SOMETHING HERE. 
          I DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT HAVING THREE RATHER THAN TEN. 
          YOU'RE ARBORIST AND YOU HAVE THE QUALIFICATION, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO [INDISCERNIBLE] FROM SOME PEOPLE. 
          BUT THE WAY I'M READING THIS IS THAT THE DEVELOPER GETS THE ARBORIST. THE CITY ARBORIST AFTER THE FACT GOES OUT THERE AND SOMETHING IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE AND THIS IS NOT IN THE CONSTRUCTION, HE CAN THEN CHECK TO SEE THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE ARBORIST THAT WAS HIRED BY THE DEVELOPER. IS THAT A POSSIBILITY? SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT TO GET A LOT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED WITH MORE MONEY AND THE CITY PAYS FOR. WE HAVE AN ARBORIST. 
          THEY COULD DO THE WORK. DOES THAT MANY SENSE OR DOESN'T? 
          >>  WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WOULD MAKE SENSE BUT WHAT THE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN UP TO THIS POINT IS THAT IT WOULD BE PREFERRED TO HAVE THE CITY HIRE, MANAGE AND PAY ARBORIST FROM THE CITY'S FUNDS AND THE DEVELOPER HAS PUT IN PLACE AS PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT TO COVER THAT COSTS SO THAT IT IS -- IT IS FULLY FUNDED BY THE CITY AND THE OVERSIGHT IS PROVIDED BY THE CITY TO -- TO -- TO HIRE A CONSULTANT ON THEIR BEHALF AND MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING COMPLIANCE. 
          >>  THE POINT IS ONE ARBORIST THAT IS DOING THAT. 
          THERE'S NOT ONE ARBORIST THAT DOES IT. 
          A DEVELOPER AND ONE PERSON [INDISCERNIBLE] ALL OF THE INSPECTIONS FOR THE PROJECT AT HAND. 
          >>  THAT WOULD BE FINE BY THE CITY TO OVERSEE THE CONSTRUCTION. IN THAT CASE YOU HAVE 15 JOBS AND CONSTRUCTION, YOU NEED MORE THAN ONE ARBORIST. 
          WHATEVER IT IS, I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THERE SOMEBODY -- THERE SHOULD BE THREE. I'M SAYING YOU DON'T WANT TO LIVE SO LONG THAT YOU HAVE -- HAVE LOTS OF DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS AND TO THE EXTENT WE COULD BE CONSISTENT OUR APPLICATION I THINK THAT'S GOOD. 
          I'M NOT TRYING TO LIMIT IT TO THE POINT IT IS A WORKLOAD ISSUE. WE HAVE GONE TOO FAR THE OTHER 
          WAY. >>  INDEED PEOPLE THAT DO IT OFTEN ENOUGH, THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE EXPECTATION REALLY IS AND NOT SOMEBODY THAT IS DOING IT EVERY TEN MONTHS BUT SOMEONE IS DOING IT ON A PRETTY REGULAR BASIS AS A CONTRACT WITH THE 
          [00:40:01]
CITY. NOW THE DEVELOPER MAY HAVE THEIR OWN ORDINANCE. THAT'S THEIR DECISION. 
          THIS IS THERE TO MANAGE COMPLIANCE WITH THE TREE 
          ORDINANCE. >>  HE'S BASICALLY ACTING AS AN 
          ON-SITE POLICE. >>  UH-HUH. 
          >>  INSPECTOR. HE HAS TO REMOVE A TREE THAT IS NOT ON THE [INDISCERNIBLE]. THE PLANS ARE IN PLACE. 
          >>  PLAN IN PLACE. PLAN IS APPROVED. 
          WE'RE MAKING SURE NOTHING IS REMOVED BEYOND THAT AND THE PROTECTIVE [INDISCERNIBLE] OF THE SITE ARE PROTECTED. 
          >>  WE HAVE A FENCE IN PLACE AND EVERY TREE IS PROTECTED. 
          >>  CORRECT. >>  SO THEY'RE INSPECTING FOR 
          COMPLIANCE. >>  YES. 
          THAT'S -- THAT'S LIKE -- I THINK THAT'S -- THAT'S LESS OBJECTIVE, IT IS -- IT IS TREES THERE. IT IS PROTECTED. 
          DON'T TOUCH IT. >>  RIGHT. 
          >>  I THINK SOMETIMES YOU RUN INTO OUR ISSUES ABOUT SURVIVABILITY OF THE TREE. CONTRACTORS ARE PUTTING IN STREETS AND STORES AND THERE'S A BIG TREE AND THE ISSUE WILL BECOME, DOES OUR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY GOING TO DAMAGE THAT TREE AND IF SO HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN? I TALKED TO A LOT OF ARBORIST AND THEY ALL HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS ON HOW TO DO THAT. I'M SAYING WHAT WE WANT AS A CITY IS A CONSISTENT APPROACH TO THAT AND NOT A LOT OF PLACE TO DO IT. YOU'LL HAVE ISSUES ON 
          ENFORCEABILITY. >>  YOU COULD GET IN AN ISSUE WITH ROOT STRUCTURE AND [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          >>  EXACTLY. >>  IS ALL THAT CONVERSATION DONE PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN SO THAT WHEN YOU GET AN APPROVED SITE PLAN YOU SHOULD KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE IMPACTING THE ROOT SYSTEM OF TREE A AND WHETHER THE SURVIVABILITY OF TREE B IS REASONABLE? 
          >>  I WILL SAY WHEN YOU'RE IN [INDISCERNIBLE], THERE'S ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON WHAT THE SURVEY SHOWEDER AND WHERE IT -- WHERE -- WHERE IT IS INTENDED TO BE VERSUS WHERE THE TREE IS IN 
          -- IN -- IN [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>  YES. 
          >>  THOSE KIND OF CONVERSATIONS DO TAKE PLACE. 
          HOW DO WE NAVIGATE THIS PARTICULAR LINE TO MAKE SURE THE TREE IS SAFE. MORE OFTEN THE CASE IS IT LOOKS LIKE THIS TREE IS SOMETHING WE CAN KEEP. 
          IT APPEARED CLOSER THAN IT ACTUALLY IS. 
          WE DON'T HAVE TO REMOVE THE TREE. 
          THAT HAPPENS MORE OFTEN THAN THE OTHER. 
          >>  ANY ARBORIST HAS ANY IDEA. WE TALK ABOUT NUMBERS. 
          >>  UNDER 20. >>  OKAY. 
          I THINK TWO? >>  NO. 
          >>  NO. >>  THEY WORKING FOR? 
          [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>  AND -- [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          NOT LISTED. >> OKAY. 
          >>  WORK FOR US AND A DEVELOPMENT. 
          SAME. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 
          UP FRONT AS WELL. >>  I'M SURE THE CITY. 
          >>  SO YOU [INDISCERNIBLE] ARBORIST WHO IS WORKING FOR A TREE COMPANY TODAY. IS THERE CONTRACT TO BE THE ONSITE COMPLIANCE OFFICER FOR PROJECT A THAT CAN'T BE THE TREE 
          COMPANY. >>  WE WOULD [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          >>  WHEN MYERS WAS IN BUSINESS, THERE WAS ARBORISTS THAT WORKED FOR THE CITY. HE WAS THE CITY ARBORIST. 
          WHEN THEY CALLED FOR AN EXPERT. THEY DID INDEPENDENT CONTRACT BUT ALSO SUPPORTING THE CITY DECISIONS. 
          THAT WAS KIND OF A DUAL ROLE THERE. 
          >>  ENOUGH, KELLY? >>  I THINK SO. 
          ALL RIGHT. >>  RIGHT. 
          >>  MOVE ON? >>  UH-HUH. 
          >>  NOW THE NEXT SECTION IS -- IS 11 AND -- AND NOW WE GET TO TALK ABOUT MONEY. SO WE -- WE [INDISCERNIBLE] CAN COMPLIANCE AND WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP OUR CANOPY IN PLACE AND SOMETHING FAILS. WE HAVE A COMPLIANCE ISSUE. 
          THERE'S FEES AND PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ACTION. 
          SO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT HERE ARE SEPARATING OUT, SO YOU CANNOT SEPARATE OUT, I WANT TO CHARGE A HOMEOWNER OR DEVELOPER FOR THAT, 
          [00:45:04]
BUT YOU CAN SEPARATE OUT AN INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VERSUS A SUBDIVISION VERSUS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. 
          WHAT KIND OF PROPERTY IS IT? AND THE FEE SCHEDULE AND THE PENALTY SCHEDULE AND FOR THE FINES BASED ON THE KIND OF PROPERTY. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF HAVING A FEE FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER VERSUS -- VERSUS FINES ASSOCIATED WITH MULTI-FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS, MIXED USE AND NONRESIDENTIAL. 
          >>  ALL RIGHT. >>  WITH A -- WITH A SUBDIVISION, SAY SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS -- WHICH IS A DEVELOPER, DEVELOPER IS DEVELOPING A SUBDIVISION. 
          WHAT HAPPENS IF SUBDIVISION A THAT DEVELOPER HAS -- HAS -- HAS DEVELOPED THAT -- THAT -- THAT -- THAT THEY -- THEY HAVE CUT DOWN SOME TREES AND IT SAYS, THEY WILL BE FINED FOR THE FIRST UNAUTHORIZED TREE REMOVAL. BUT THEN THAT GOES BY. 
          THEN NOW WE HAVE SUBDIVISION B, THE SAME DEVELOPER, BUT 
          SUBDIVISION B AND -- AND -- >>  ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          >>  A DIFFERENT PIECE OF PROPERTY BUT THEY DO THE SAME THING. SO DOES THIS ALSO FOLLOW THE -- THE DEVELOPER THAT -- THAT SEEMS TO HAVE A -- A QUOTE, UNQUOTE TRACK RECORD FOR -- FOR -- FOR COMING BACK AND SAY, IT IS ONLY THE FIRST TIME IN SUBDIVISION B THAT I CUT THIS TREE DOWN. 
          BUT THEN BY THE WAY, THIS IS A HISTORY THAT THAT DEVELOPER HAS CUT DOWN IN PREVIOUS SUBDIVISIONS ON -- ON -- ON UNAUTHORIZED TREES. IS THERE -- IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT OR IS IT -- IS IT ALWAYS THE SUBDIVISION FIRST UNAUTHORIZED TREE REMOVAL VIOLATION? 
          >>  THAT'S [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>  IT IS AN INTERESTING POINT. 
          >>  SO KELLY, YOU GOT -- YOU AND I TALKED EARLIER, YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ABOUT -- ABOUT -- ABOUT WHO ARE THE [INDISCERNIBLE] AND WHERE THESE ARE CREATED NOW. 
          >>  YES. DIFFERENT ANALYSIS. 
          WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW -- HOW -- ABOUT THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. I LOOKED [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          THERE'S VIOLATIONS COMING FROM. I LOOKED TO THAT, TO 2010. 
          FOR PURPOSES OF KIND OF UNDERSTANDING OUR CURRENT [INDISCERNIBLE] WAS ESTABLISHED IN LATE 2006 IN THE WAY IT GENERALLY WORKS TODAY. YOU DIDN'T WANT TO GO MUCH BEYOND 2010 AND I DIDN'T SEE MANY CAES IN 2008. 
          THIS IS A GOOD STARTING POINT. MOST VIOLATION, IN TOTAL THEY WERE 20. 14 OF THOSE ARE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS. OF THEM, FIVE OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE IT IS -- UNFORTUNATELY THEY'RE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY A TIME DOCUMENTED, VALIDATE TREE SERVICE COMPANY. 
          THERE'S A [INDISCERNIBLE]. REALLY. 
          FEEL BADLY FOR. IN ALL FIVE CASES, WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE INCHES ON AN ADJOINING PROPERTY IN THE SAME AREA AND AVOID A POTENTIAL PENALTY. 
          WITHIN THE 20 CASES, FOUR OF THE CASES OCCURRED WITHIN THE LOST YEAR, IN FACT. IT HAPPENED TO RESIDENTIAL HOME BUILDERS. THERE WAS ONE NONRESIDENTIAL CASE THAT OCCURRED WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME AND ONE THAT WAS AN HOA. THEY [INDISCERNIBLE] ON THE PROPERTY. IN TOTAL, WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME, THE CITY COLLECTED JUST OVER 3,000 DOLLARS IN FEE IN LIEU. SO IT IS TO MAKE UP FOR WHAT WAS LOST. AND ALL OF THE CASES, ONLY ONE PROCEEDED THROUGH TO THE CODE [INDISCERNIBLE] A VIOLATION FOR NONCOMPLIANCE. YOU GET COMPLIANCE FOR THE RESTORATION COMPONENT FOR THE MOST PART. 
          AND THEN IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE PAYING, IT WAS EITHER THEY 
          [00:50:05]
SIMPLY DID NOT HAVE THE [INDISCERNIBLE] OR THEY HAD NEIGHBORS WHERE THEY WERE WILLING, WILLING TO ACCEPT TREES ON THEIR PROPERTY. WE TRY TO WORK WITH SOMEBODY TO GET THE TREES BACK AND AVOID THE PENALTY COMPONENT. 
          THE OTHER CASE, SIMPLY WHERE SOMEBODY JUST WANTED TO PAY IN ORDER TO AVOID HAVING EXCESS NUMBER OF TREES ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE NO ATHEY ALREADY HAD A OF TREES. 
          >>  THE FOUR BUILDERS, DEVELOPERS, WERE THEY DIFFERENT 
          ONES? >>  THEY WERE -- THREE OF THEM 
          WERE THE SAME. >>  UH-HUH. 
          THAT'S MY QUESTION. >>  OF THEM -- OF THE FOUR, TOTAL, TWO OF THEM WERE SIMPLY REMOVAL THAT OCCURRED BEFORE A PERMIT HAD BEEN ISSUED. THERE WAS PENDING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. THEY WENT AHEAD AND PRECLEARED A SITE ANTICIPATING THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE APPROVAL WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE. AND YOU SEE THE DOCUMENTS AND THEY'RE NOT CAPTURED HERE AND THERE WAS MITIGATION COMPONENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. THEY STILL SERVICE. 
          I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THEY INDICATE A VIOLATION THAT OCCURRED THERE BUT THEY MET IT THROUGH OUR COMPONENTS. 
          >>  THERE'S AT CONSIDERATION. I HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. THIS IS A QUESTION MARK. 
          IT IS A YES. WOULD YOU CONSIDER CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS? IT IS BEING DONE. 
          IT IS -- IT IS -- IT IS HERE. THERE'S A LOT TO IT. 
          THE QUESTION IS, IF YOU'RE EXTREMELY SERIOUS AND YOU WANT TO GO ALL THE WAY, IT BECOMES A CRIMINAL -- THERE'S STILL ADMINISTRATIVE. WE LEAD IT INTO A FEE REPLACEMENT OR CONSIDER ANYTHING ON APPROVAL. 
          YOU DON'T, JUST -- JUST NOT THE CONVERSATION. 
          IT WAS JUST BROUGHT OUT AND THAT'S ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE. 
          >>  I THINK WE NEED A LAWYER TO TELL US. 
          >>  I DIDN'T KNOW [INDISCERNIBLE] WOULD BE HERE. 
          >>  IT IS INTERESTING THOUGHT. >>  I'M NOT SURE THAT'S 
          [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>  WELL, SO OF THOSE THREE THAT WERE THE SAME, WERE TWO -- WERE THEY THE TWO THAT DID THE PROPERTY CLEARANCE AND THE PERMIT? SO OF THE -- YES. TWO. 
          SO OF THE BUILDER, OF THE DEVELOPER WHO HAS -- WHO HAS A RECORD NOW THREE. ONE WAS -- ONE WAS -- TWO OF THOSE THREE LOTS WERE CLEARED BEFORE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO. 
          >>  MET THROUGH MITIGATION OF THE TREE. 
          AND [INDISCERNIBLE]. >> THE THIRD WAS? 
          >> [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>  APPROVAL OF THE LOT. 
          [INDISCERNIBLE]. PRIOR TO CLEARING THE LOT. 
          >>  YES. >>  SO THAT WE COULD REALLY SEE 
          THOSE INCHES. >>  THE PENALTY FOR CLEARING THE LOT, WITHOUT THE TREES. I WOULD THINK. 
          >>  RIGHT. >>  THIS -- THIS IS ANOTHER ISSUE, WOULD -- WOULD IT BE INAPPROPRIATE TO HAVE, A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER, AND A MULTI-STRUCTURE, USUALLY A -- AN INCORPORATED COMPANY DOING THE WORK. 
          50 PERCENT OF THE COMPANY. ARE THEY GOING TO BE A POLICEMAN, IS THIS GOING TO COST ME MONEY? I'M NOT JUST DOING WHAT THE DEVELOPER SAYS, I SHOULD KNOW 
          BETTER. >>  THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEYS. NOT AN ANSWER TO THAT. 
          IT IS SOMETHING WE CAN BRING UP AT THE MEETING. 
          WE COULD REACH OUT TO [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND. 
          >>  THE THINKING IS IT JUST PUTS ME, MAYBE THERE'S TWO PARTIES THAT ALL OF THE RESPONSIBILITY ARE KIND OF MAKE SURE WE'RE KEEPING ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW. 
          >>  I HAD A QUESTION FOR KELLY. FLORIDA LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO THAT WAS AIMED AT CITIES AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT OF TREE REGULATIONS. COULD YOU BRIEF US ON WHAT THAT WAS AND -- AND MY -- MY THINK IT HASN'T HAD MUCH IMPACT. 
          I STILL THINK IT IS A BACKGROUND. 
          CAN YOU SAY WHAT THEY'RE DOING? >>  IN THE LAST SESSION, 2019, 
          [00:55:01]
THE STATE PASSED A LAW THAT SAYS THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CANNOT FORCE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCES ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A DOCUMENTED HAZARD CONCERN ASSOCIATED WITH THE THAT TREE. 
          WE CAN'T HAVE REQUIREMENTS WITH IT. 
          THE CITY ORDINANCE OPERATES THAT WHERE A TREE IS DETERMINED TO BE DYING OR HAZARDOUS, WE PROVIDED PERMITS AS A MATTER OF COURTESY. 
          IT SERVES AS A RECORD, IF YOU WILL, WHEN A NEIGHBOR CALLS, WE COULD SAY YES, THIS PROPERTY RECEIVED A PERMIT. 
          IT IS ONLY NOTHAT YOU RECEIVED THAT PERMIT. 
          WE CAN'T REQUIRE THAT ANY LONGER. 
          WHERE SOMETHING HAS BEEN REMOVED AND THERE'S NO AWARENESS OF IT AND IT PUTS THE CITY IN A POSITION OF NEEDING TO FIND OUT, DID YOU IN FACT HAVE SOMETHING THAT STATES FROM CERTIFIED ARBORIST AND A LANDSCAPE PROFESSIONAL THAT SAID IT WAS A HAZARD TREE. DO YOU HAVE THAT DOCUMENTATION TO PROVIDE TO US TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE COMPLYING WITH THE REGULATIONS. WHEN HAS BEEN [INDISCERNIBLE] IS SO FAR TREE COMPANIES ARE WORKING WITH THE CITY FOR THAT PURPOSE, DOCUMENTATION WISE. ARE THERE SITUATIONS WE MAY NOT BE AWARE OF? ABSOLUTELY. 
          IT I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT. WE HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN GETTING A PERMIT IT MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS ABOVE BOARD. 
          >>  LOOKING AT THE FINE SCHEDULE. 
          WE LOOKED AT TWO SEPARATE FINES FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND ALSO FOR MULTI-FAMILY. EARLIER TAMMY HAD SAID SHE FOUND IT JUSTIFIABLE TO BE ABLE TO UP TO 5,000 DOLLARS BECAUSE IT IS -- I FORGOT HOW SHE SAID IT. IT HAS TO DO WITH SHOWING CAUSE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE TALKED ABOUT DOING THINGS ALONG THE LINES OF 2500 DOLLARS AND THEN TREE VIOLATION AND MAYBE 5,000 FOR -- FOR -- FOR -- FOR MULTI-FAMILY. 
          THEN THERE ARE TWO PROPOSALS HERE THAT GO ON. 
          THE ONE WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WAS [INDISCERNIBLE] BASIS AND THEN THE TREE CONSERVANCY HAS COME BACK AND TALKED ABOUT ONE IN TERMS OF SIZE. SO I THINK THAT -- THAT THEY GET TO THE SAME POINT. GENERALLY ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT YOU'RE NOT THINKING OF A HUGE NUMBER OF TREES, BUT CLEARLY ON -- ON -- ON SUBDIVISIONS AND LARGER PLOTS YOU -- YOU CERTAINLY GET INTO -- INTO MULTIPLE TREES QUICKLY. 
          SO IS THERE SOME VIEW AS TO WHICH ONE MAKES MORE SENSE? 
          >>  IN TERMS OF >>  ON HOW WE PROCEED WITH THE FINE. THE FIRST TREE IS THIS -- IS THIS, AND THEN EACH ADDITIONAL TREE IS GOING TO CARRY AN 
          ADDITIONAL FINE. >>  TALKED ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF 
          SIZE. >>  I HAVE SEVERAL COMMENTS BUT MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO SUM IT UP. 
          >>  THAT KIND OF FOLLOWS SOME OF THE STUFF I TALKED ABOUT. 
          ONE THING I HAD -- I WAS REALLY FOCUSED ON VARIETY LAST TIME. 
          WE HAVE A WHOLE LIST. THE COUNTY HAS EVERY TREE LISTED. THAT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. 
          >>  THE CITY CODE DOES NOT SPECIFY. 
          IT TALKS ABOUT HEALTHY TREES PERIOD. 
          >>  I DID A 180. THAT'S SMARTER BECAUSE THEY REVERSED WHAT THEY DID. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THEY'RE NATURAL AND NATIVE AND PART OF THE ISLAND STRUCTURE. 
          THEY SHOULD BE LEGAL. PALM TREES. 
          I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A FEE OR FINE OR PENALTY. 
          MY PROBLEM IS I'M TOO TECHNICAL. I I WANT TO SEE STRUCTURE. 
          SHOW ME LOGIC. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 100 
          [01:00:01]
PERCENT. SHOW ME WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO GO THROUGH IT. YOU SAW THIS ARTICLE. 
          THERE'S ALSO A HANDOUT THAT I TAKING YOU THROUGH. 
          THIS IS THE PROCEDURE. I LIKE TO SEE SOMEBODY TAKE THAT AND TRY IT OUT AND SEE IF THERE'S 5,000 DOLLARS. 
          IT IS 4500. 5,000 IS A GOOD NUMBER. 
          THE OTHER THING WOULD BE WE ARE AS A COMMUNITY HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTECT WHAT WE FEEL IS IMPORTANT TO US AS A COMMUNITY. 
          THE NUMBER CAME OUT 2200. WAIT A MINUTE. 
          TREES ARE IMPORTANT. I GUESS I WOULD SAY THE THREE THINGS WE TALK ABOUT TODAY. MAYBE THAT'S A -- THAT IS A TWO-EDGED MULTIPLIER. WE AS A COMMUNITY PUT ON TOP OF. 
          BUT I STILL THINK PARTICULARLY IF YOU GO FROM THE STANDPOINT OF AN INSURANCE CLAIM OR SOMETHING, THEY WANT TO SEE THE STRUCTURE. 
          THAT'S -- THAT'S A PROBLEM. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE PENALTY. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PUTTING A 
          NUMBER OUT THERE. >>  OKAY. 
          JUST A COUPLE OF GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THIS. 
          THE FIRST ONE IS THAT OUR GOAL IS NOT PERMISSION. 
          OUR GOAL IS NOT PUNISHMENT. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE IS CANOPY OR INCREASE. WHEN I LOOK AT THESE FINES, I THINK WILL IT ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL OF MAINTAINING [INDISCERNIBLE]? I SAY THAT BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE, SECTION ONE TALKS ABOUT PENALTIES BUT LOOK AT SECTION TWO. 
          SECTION TWO SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A RESTORATION PLAN. 
          NOT ONLY ARE WE APPLYING A PENALTY. 
          WE'RE ALSO SAYING, YOU HAVE TO REPLACE THE TREES YOU TOOK DOWN. 
          WE'RE DOING BOTH. WE TALK ABOUT MR. STEPHENSON TO YOUR POINT, WHERE IS THE MATH AND HOW DID WE GET TO IT. 
          THAT'S IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE RESTORATION PLAN. 
          HOW DO YOU GET TO IT? THE PENALTY IS MORE ABOUT HOW DO YOU GET PEOPLE TO BEHAVE THE WAY WE WANT. 
          THAT'S TO SAY WE DON'T WANT THEM INDISCRIMINATELY OR UNAUTHORIZED. I THINK ABOUT THOSE THINGS BUT I THINK IT IS -- I THINK WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WE'VE GOT THREE DIFFERENT SECONDS THAT DEAL WITH UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL. 
          THERE'S THE PENALTY SECTION. A1 AND THEN A2, THE RESTORATION PLAN, THEN SECTION D, IF THE CITY MANAGER TERMS THAT IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE PLAN CANNOT REPLACE THE QUALITY A GENERALING AND SO FORTH, THEN THE CITY MANAGER CAN IMPOSE ADDITIONAL FEES. SO I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OWL OF THIS TOGETHER, NOT JUST INDEPENDENTLY LOOK AT -- AT THE PENALTIES. SO THAT'S AN OVERALL STATEMENT AND THEN THE SECOND THING, THE LAST THING I WANT TO SAY AND I THINK THIS -- THIS -- THIS SUGGESTS THIS. 
          I THINK THERE'S GENERAL CONSENSUS. 
          THE FIRST TREE REMOVAL SHOULD BE -- SHOULD BE [INDISCERNIBLE] AND IT IS -- IT IS -- IT IS -- IT IS -- IT IS -- IF YOU WILL, IT INCREASES AND GOES ON. I THINK IT COULD BE GREATER. 
          BUT FOR THE FIRST ONE, THE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER OF A SINGLE LOT OF RECORD I WORRY IF WE MAKE THE FINE TOO HIGH, IT BACK FIRES. WE HAVE THAT INDIVIDUAL APPEALING TO THE COMMISSION AND TO THE CODE, WAIVER OF COMMITTEE THAT WE HAVE AND THE THING THAT GETS TURNED OVER. 
          OR WORSE, YOU START GETTING LEGISLATIVE ACTION FROM THE -- FROM THE LEGISLATURE SAYING WE DON'T -- THIS IS CRAZY. 
          WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR AUTHORITY. 
          YOU GET THE COURT SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THESE PENALTIES. AND I REALLY WORRY ABOUT THAT. 
          I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND WHAT OUR GOAL IS WHICH IS TO MAINTAIN CANOPY. WE NEED TO LOOK AT PENALTIES IN THAT CONTEXT. IF WE MAKE THEM TOO HIGH WE SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE FOOT. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. 
          >>  [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>  [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          SINGLE OWNER, ONE LOT. CAN YOU HAVE A -- REPLACE THE TREES YOU CUT DOWN. 
          THEY CUT DOWN A 10-FOOT TREE, THEY HAVE TO REPLACE IT IN 
          [01:05:01]
SOMEOTHERSOME OTHER LOCATION. 
          THE DEVELOPER DOES MORE DAMAGE. THEY HAVE TEN ACRES AND HAVE AN IMPACT. AND I THINK FOR THE CITIZEN OF ONE LOT, [INDISCERNIBLE]. I REPEAT MYSELF, A LOWER FEE AND A REPLACEMENT FOR WHAT WAS TAKEN OUT. 
          IF THAT'S AN OAK TREE, PLANT AN OAK TREE, MAPLE, WHATEVER. 
          DO WHAT YOU WANT WITHOUT -- >>  WHAT SIZE. 
          I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE. >>  IF THEY TOOK OUT WHATEVER SIZE TREE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE IT. 
          THAT SIZE OR LARGER. >>  SO I ACTUALLY LOOKED AT SOME OF THAT. YOU CAN REPLACE BIG TREES. 
          >>  YES. >>  AND NOW YOU TALK 30,000 DOLLARS TO REPLACE A 20, 30-INCH OAK TREE. 
          WHERE DO YOU PUT IT IN? >>  I'M [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          >>  [INDISCERNIBLE] FOLLOW THE RULE. 
          >>  I KNOW. >>  WE HAVE A RULE HERE. 
          YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO -- >>  IT IS NO PENALTY. 
          >>  OKAY. IT IS CLOSE AND POSSIBLE. 
          I MEAN, IT IS DIFFICULT TO THINK THAT AN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER. 
          >>  WE HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE. REPLACE WHAT THEY CUT DOWN, THAT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO GO. RESULTS, [INDISCERNIBLE] THAT WE KNOW OF. SO WE HAVE A CITY ARBOR. 
          >>  THEY SAY IF THEY REPLACE THE TREE, THAT'S IN THE [INDISCERNIBLE]. ANY PENALTY OR IS THERE A 
          PENALTY AS WELL? >>  I THINK THE [INDISCERNIBLE] MOSTLY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS BUT -- 
          >>  14 AND DIVIDE. >>  THE DEVELOPER DOES MORE DAMAGE IN THE ONE LOT, WHATEVER THAT IS. 
          IT BECOMES A FOUNDATION FOR -- FOR -- WE HAVE TWO STAGES IN THE 
          DEVELOPER. >>  THE DEVELOPER COMES IN AND THE UTILITIES AND SO FORTH. AND THEY START BUILDING HOUSES. 
          THEY MAY NOT BE BUILDING ONE BUILDING. 
          THERE'S MULTIPLE BUILDERS. SECOND STAGE WHERE WE HAVE A TREE, SO IT IS REALLY DEVELOPER HERE COULD BE FIVE COMPANIES THAT ARE ACTUALLY DOING THE BUILDING. 
          >>  TREE SURVEY FOR THE AREA. >>  IT IS A LOSS. 
          >>  EVERY TREE. EVERY TREE IS [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          >>  IF IT IS IN THE DEVELOPMENT, IT IS SURVEYED. 
          >>  WE DO A HOUSE, WITH -- WITH -- WITH THE BUILDER OR WHATEVER IT IS, TYPICALLY, THAT'S NOT THE SAME SCENARIO. 
          THE LOTS AND WHATEVER AND DID SOMETHING VERSUS A SUBDIVISION. 
          YOU DO SOMETHING IN THE DEVELOP. YOU'RE GOING TO FIX THE PENALTY 
          THAT THE DEVELOPER FIXED. >>  UNDER HIS AUSPICES FOR A 
          HOMEBUILDER WORKING FOR YOU. >>  THERE'S -- THERE IS A PROCESS IN JACKSONVILLE. I HAVE NO IDEA. 
          I COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT. VERY AMUSING. 
          WHAT THEY CALL -- LET'S SEE IF I COULD FIND THE NAME. 
          CAL [INDISCERNIBLE] CALCULATIONS. 
          THEY CAME UP WITH 57 DOLLARS PER CALIPER INCH. 
          THIS GETS INTO HOW FAR WE WANT TO GO. 
          WE NEED -- WE NEED AN IBM360 TO CALCULATE THE PENALTY OR DO WE DO SOMETHING LESS GRANULAR AND THIS IS REASONABLE AND IT PASSES OUR TEST OF -- OF LOGIC. I THINK IT IS LEGAL LOGIC AS WELL AS WHAT WE THINK PERSONALLY. 
          SO I THINK THAT MAY -- THAT MAY BE WHAT WE DECIDE. 
          IF WE WANT TO GO MORE DETAILED AND SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, THAT COULD GET COMPLICATED QUICK. AND THEN YOU GOT TO MAINTAIN IT. 
          [01:10:06]
IT IS IN THE STAGNANT. JACKSONVILLE WANTS THE APPROACH. 
          I HAVE NO IDEA IF THEY USE IT. IT IS THIS AFTERNOON. 
          >>  AND [INDISCERNIBLE] FOR DPA. >>  ANOTHER ONE IS THIS ONE FROM PURDUE UNIVERSITY IS ANOTHER APPROACH. 
          THAT ONE IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROCEDURES WRITTEN ON IT. 
          I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD 
          DO TONIGHT. >>  [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT -- THAT WE LOOK AT IT AND GO UP AND THE 
          CALCULATION. >>  SO WHAT WE HAVE, THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT -- THAT HAS TREES ON THE GROUND AND YOU ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW HOW BIG THE TREE WAS. 
          >>  YEAH. >>  ONCE YOU [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          YOU DON'T KNOW HOW BIG THE TREE WAS THAT THEY TOOK DOWN. 
          >>  FROM EXPERIENCE WITH [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          GROUND IT DOWN BUT OFTEN WHEN THE CALLS COME IN, THERE'S EITHER THE PORTION OF THE TREE IS LEFT ON THE PROPERTY OR YOU HAVE STACKS OF TREES. THIS IS BASED ON THE PILE THAT THEY LEFT BEHIND. THAT HELPS TREMENDOUSLY, IDENTIFY THE NUMBER OF TREES AS WELL AS THE APPROXIMATE SIZE. 
          IT DOES IN A COUPLE OF CASES, IT BECAME A [INDISCERNIBLE] AND IT WAS A TEN-INCH TREE AND BASED ON THE PILES THAT REMAINED AFTERWARD AND LOOKED AT WHAT WAS LEFT IN THE GROUND. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE THE FIGURES COME FROM. 
          [INDISCERNIBLE] BEST GUESS AT IT, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT 
          YOU HAVE ON THE PROPERTY. >>  IT WAS IN THE FRONT YARD. 
          I THINK THE REMOVAL SPEAKS. [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          >>  ARE WE SAYING, BECAUSE I LIKE TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS TO PUBLIC COMMENT IN A MINUTE, ARE WE SAYING THAT -- THAT THE IDEA OF EITHER NUMBERS OF TREES OR TOTAL SIZE OF TREES IS A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS? WE JUST NEED TO DO MORE RESEARCH ON HOW YOU DO A NUMBER THAT IS VALIDATED AND SUPPORTED, OR ARE WE SAYING WE WANT TO LOOK AT IT COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY IN TERMS OF THE COST OF THE RESTORATION PLAN? 
          >>  KELLY, CAN I ASK -- KELLY, IN WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE, WHICH IS WHAT THE STAFF IS TALKING ABOUT, NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED. 
          THIS IS IRRESPECTIVE OF SIZE. >>  CORRECT. 
          >>  IN THIS CALCULATION, IF IT IS A [INDISCERNIBLE] OR A -- A 
          21-INCH TREE IT COUNTS THE SAME. >>  YES. 
          >>  WITH WHAT THAT SAYS AND THE CONSERVANCY RECOMMENDS YOU LOOK 
          AT THE TH AND YOU AGGREGATE. >>  THE TREE REMOVED, A5,000 DOLLAR PENALTY. THEY ALSO REMOVED ANOTHER TREE THAT WAS 15 INCHES, THERE WOULD BE A TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR PENALTY. IT IS PER TREE. 
          >>  THAT'S CORRECT. >>  YEAH. 
          >>  FOR MY PART OF THIS, THANKS. I THINK TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SIZE OF THE TREE IS IMPORTANT. SO I -- I -- I AM MORE ON THAT. 
          SIMPLY TREAT ALL THE TREES THE S 
          SAME. >>  I THINK THAT'S VALUE. 
          THE INTRINSIC VALUE. >>  WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS? 
          >>  I'M SURE THAT -- THAT -- THAT MISS KIRKLAND WILL SPEAK TO THAT. THERE'S A SECOND PART WHICH IS THE RESTORATION PLAN, WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL COST TO THE CLIENT. RIGHT? AND HOW -- AND HOW -- AND SO WE WOULD WANT TO CONTINUE TO KEEP THIS IN PLACE SO IN ADDITION TO THE FINES THE RESTORATION PLAN. 
          IS THIS -- IS THIS -- IS THE SIZE OF A TREE REMOVED, IF IT IS -- IF IT IS A TEN-INCH TREE AND THE FINE IS 5,000 DOLLARS, IS THAT 5,000 DOLLARS GOING TO GO UP HERE IN THE NUMBER A1 THAT 
          [01:15:03]
SAYS EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE FIRST UNAUTHORIZED TREE, IT WAS TEN 
          INCHES THEREFORE IT IS 5,000? >>  IT COULD BE. 
          YOU COULD READ IT THAT WAY. >>  PART OF THE RESTORATION 
          PLAN. >>  PRETTY STIFF FOR A 
          HOMEOWNER. >>  IT IS. 
          100 DOLLARS PER SQUARE FOOT. >>  THAT'S WHAT IS IN PLACE TODAY. RIGHT? 
          >>  THAT'S RIGHT. WE TALKED ABOUT IT PREVIOUSLY 
          BUT IT IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. >>  WE TALK ABOUT ONE TREE. 
          FIVE BY FIVE FOOT AREA. THERE'S 25 SQUARE FEET. 
          25 [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>  NOT ONLY FIVE-FOOT, BUT YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PROTECTED TREES. 
          >>  CORRECT. >>  MY READING IS IF THE LAND HAS BEEN CLEARED. THAT'S A 5,000 DOLLAR. 
          >>  YEAH. >>  HOW MUCH CLEARED AND UNCLEARED. THAT COULD BE SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION. THIS COMPONENT OF THE PLAN HAS EVER BEEN ENACTED? A DOLLAR PER SQUARE FOOT AS PART 
          OF THE RESTORATION PLAN? >>  YOU NEVER USED THAT? 
          >>  NO. YOU NEED TO STRIKE OUT OF THERE NO PRESERVATION CREDIT SHALL BE APPLICABLE BECAUSE WE ALREADY 
          ESTABLISHED PRESERVATION. >>  YEAH. 
          >>  RIGHT. EXCEPT WHERE YOU HAVE PRESERVATION OF TREES ON SITE TO MEET YOUR MITIGATION. 
          THAT'S WHY YOU WANT TO KEEP THAT IN THERE. 
          THAT GOES TO THE PREVIOUS SECTION WHERE YOU HAVE BALANCES 
          AND YOU HAVE TREE REMOVAL. >>  YES. 
          YOU HAVE THE PRESERVATION COMPONENT THAT EXISTS. 
          >>  THAT 3A. 3A, SECTION 3A, RIGHT? 
          >>  I THINK BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP IN OUR QUESTIONING, I BELIEVE THAT THE TERM SHOULD BE REWRITTEN TO BETTER -- BETTER CONNECT -- BETTER CONNECT THE TWO BACK TOGETHER. 
          >>  ALL RIGHT. >>  DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? 
          >>  NO. I'M PUZZLED ABOUT THE PENALTIES AND HOW -- HOW THEY RELATE TO THE -- TO THE RESTORATION PLAN. 
          I WANT SOMETHING TO HAPPEN. I MEAN THE RESTORATION PLAN IS REALLY IMPORTANT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE AFTER. 
          YOU GET THE TREE IN PLACE. IF -- IF I WAS REALLY LOOKING FOR COMPLIANCE THAT IS WHERE I LIKE TO SEE IT. 
          IT IS A GOOD RESTORATION PLAN AND THE TREES PLANTED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE LOSS AND APPROPRIATE TREES AND THE WORK 
          TO BE MAINTAINED PERFECTLY. >>  PENALTY. 
          >>  PENALTY. THE WAY THIS IS STRUCTURED, I THINK THE PRACTICALITY IS -- IS -- TO ME IT IS A LOT EASIER TO ARGUE ABOUT THE RESTORATION, THE REPLACEMENT PLAN. 
          IT IS MORE COMMON SENSE. IT IS WHAT THE COMMON SENSE. 
          WHAT ARE WE DOING? WHEN YOU SAY YOU GOT TO REPLACE WHAT YOU TOOK DOWN ILLEGALLY, IT IS HARD TO ARGUE WITH THAT. 
          A BUILDING IS MORE ARBITRARILY DETERMINED AND IT IS HARDER TO 
          JUSTIFY. >>  OBVIOUSLY A PENALTY IN THERE AND THEY REPLACE IT, CHEAPER THAN WHAT THE PENALTY IS. 
          THEY WOULD PROBABLY DO THAT. >>  RIGHT. 
          >>  THEY DO BOTH. WE COULD GET ADDITIONAL PENALTIES ON SITE. WE GOT TO [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          >>  RIGHT. >>  YEAH. 
          >>  THERE WAS ONE OTHER THING, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE TOUCHED ON IT TONIGHT, WE WERE ALSO TALKING ABOUT IF WE RAN INTO SITUATIONS WHERE -- WHERE THE DEVELOPER WENT THROUGH -- WENT THROUGH AND GOT PENALIZED AND DOING SOMETHING INCORRECTLY AND THEN THEY -- THEY MAYBE THEY KNOW ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT STARTS OVER. THE SAME THING COULD OCCUR ON THE PROPPERTY. THE SAME DEVELOPER COULD TAKE OUT MORE TREES. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE SHOULD BE CUMULATIVE OR TWO OR THREE YEARS THE PENALTIES MOVE UP. 
          >>  YOU COULD TALK TO THE ATTORNEY ABOUT THAT. 
          I THINK THERE'S A BALANCE. PARTICULARLY WITH WHAT IS GOING ON. YOU WENT TO BE ABLE TO WALK THAT FINE LINE THAT I'M NOT GOING TO GET IT TAKEN AWAY FROM ME MORE 
          [01:20:06]
THAN IT ALREADY AND I WANT TO JUSTIFY THE PENALTIES AND RESTORATION PLAN. THAT'S OUR BALANCING ACT MOVING 
          FORWARD. >>  IT IS JUST ANOTHER -- IT IS 
          [Items 3 & 4]
          JUST ANOTHER REPEAT. >>  ARE WE AT A POINT FOR PUBLIC INPUT? LET'S GO TO THE PUBLIC INPUT. 
          Y'ALL HAVE NOT HAD TO FILL OUT FORMS OR WHATEVER. 
          I NEED TO SAY THAT AS YOU WANT TO SPEAK, JUST COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND -- AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND KEEP IT AS CONCISE AND TO THE POINT AS POSSIBLE. 
          ALL RIGHT? WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST? [INDISCERNIBLE] HAS HIS HAND UP. HE LIKE TO -- HAPPY TO HEAR FROM 
          HIM AND THEN MARGARET. >>  I LIVE ON CANOPY DRIVE. 
          I SPEAK TO YOU AS THE COMMISSION LIAISON TO THIS GROUP. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHETHER ALL OF YOU WERE AWARE THAT I'M YOUR LIAISON OR NOT. BUT FIRST OF ALL, I'M -- I'M DUAL LIABILITY ON -- ON THE TREE REMOVAL SERVICE AND YOU CAN DO THAT. I TALKED TO TAMMY ABOUT IT. 
          SO NOT ONLY CAN YOU HOLD THE HOMEOWNER LIBEL FOR FINES BUT ALSO THE SERVICE THAT TOOK THE TREE DOWN. 
          ON THE -- ON THE 5,000 DOLLAR STARTING POINT THAT IS WHAT TAMMY CONSIDERS A SAFE PLACE. I HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH TAMMY WHERE SHE SAID TO ME, YOU COULD MAKE IT 15,000 OR 20,000 JUST BE AWARE THAT -- THAT THE HIGHER YOU GO, SO IN TALLAHASSEE, EXAMPLE OF -- OF -- OF WHAT WAS IT 48,000 DOLLARS? 
          >>  24. >>  24,000 DOLLARS. 
          THE HIGHER YOU GO THE MORE YOU RISK. 
          OKAY? A CHALLENGE. 
          SO THE 5,000 IS A SAFE STARTING POINT. 
          I HEAR A THIRD POINT, BUT I THINK IT IS TOTALLY ELUDED ME NOW. NOW -- NOW I RECALL. 
          AS FAR AS TRYING TO WIN AN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER TAKING DOWN A TREE AND A DEVELOPER TAKING DOWN TEN TREES AND THAT INITIAL FINE. I CAN TELL YOU THE DISCUSSION AT THE CITY COMMISSION WHEN THIS WAS BROUGHT UP TWO MEETINGS AGO WAS THAT THE CONCERN WAS -- IF WE USE THE TREE CONSERVANCY EXAMPLE OF THE SIX-INCH TREE, 5,000 DOLLARS. 
          THAT WOULD BE VERY -- VERY CONCERNING TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO AN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER WHEN THE CURRENT FINE FOR SIX INCH TREE IS 150 DOLLARS AN INCH. 
          >>  [INDISCERNIBLE] MEET THE RESTORATION COMPONENT, IT WOULD 
          BE 125. >>  125. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT 600 BUCKS. >>  YES. 
          >>  GO FROM 600 TO 5,000 FOR AN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER. 
          AS YOU DELIBERATE, JUST BE AWARE OF THOSE THINGS. 
          THANK YOU. >>  THANK YOU. 
          [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>  MARGARET KIRKLAND. 
          I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF [INDISCERNIBLE] CONSERVANCY. 
          YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH IT ONE PIECE AT A TIME. 
          >>  IF THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON. 
          >>  I THINK ALL OF -- OF -- OF -- OF -- EVERYTHING ON HERE IS A -- IS BASED ON EXPERIENCE OVER THE LAST, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS. EXPERIENCE. 
          WE HAVE OBSERVED THIS EVER SINCE -- SIX YEARS. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD MATERIAL HERE. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SORT OF BAND-AIDS. 
          STOP GAP MEASURES UNTIL WE'RE ABLE TO -- TO REWRITE THE ENTIRE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND I THINK IT IS A GOOD -- A GREAT IDEA TO DO THIS NOW. I WOULD -- WE WANT TO GO BACK TO 
          [01:25:04]
THE FIRST PART? IN TERMS OF THIS SECTION, YOU KNOW. IF YOU WANT TO REDUCE IT TO 60 OR 50 PERCENT BECAUSE EITHER ONE IS GREAT STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I -- I ENCOURAGE DOING THAT. 
          WE COULD TRY TO SEE HOW IT WORKS. 
          BUT KELLY DOES IT ALL THE TIME AND I THINK GOING WITH HER RECOMMENDATION. IN TERMS OF DELETING THE SECTION ON CREDIT. AS KELLY HAS SAID, WE SEE THAT DOESN'T REALLY WORK. I SPENT MY LIFE IN ACADEMIA. 
          WE FIND THERE'S PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE THE BEST INTENT. 
          SO I JUST DON'T -- I DON'T SEE THAT IT IS WORKING WELP ABOUT MOVING DOWN THE PAGE AND PROTECTION OF TREES AND THE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT PART AND THE MONITORING, WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO INSURE THE RIGHT THING HAPPENS. YOU HAVE TO BE INSPECTING, NOT JUST ONCE BUT THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
          OUR OBSERVATION IS THAT HE WHO WRITES THE CHECK CAN DETERMINE THE OUTCOME. THIS IS NOT TRUE FOR EVERY ARBORIST. THIS IS WHY WE SUPPORT HAVING EITHER THE CITY ARBORIST DO THIS INSPECTION OR A SHORT LIST. 
          A RELATIVELY SHORT LIST OF ARBORISTS THAT HAVE BEEN TRAINED, THAT HAVE GUIDELINES THIS THEY NEED TO GO BY. 
          I THINK THAT IS CRITICAL BECAUSE OF THE POINT YOU MADE ABOUT YOU KNOW DIFFERENT ARBORIST SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY. 
          IT NEEDS TO BE STANDARDIZED THROUGH A CHECKLIST OF STANDARDS AND TRAINING AND IN THAT CASE A SMALL LIST WOULD WORK WELL. 
          I DON'T THINK DAVE CAN DO IT ALL HIMSELF. 
          SO I DO THINK THAT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. 
          THAT HAS BEEN A BIG ISSUE BOTH IN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. 
          I THINK THAT ACCOUNTS FOR A LOT OF PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE HAD. 
          OKAY. IN TERMS OF PENALTIES, I THINK IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNTS WE HAVE RESEARCH WE NEED TO DO. 
          I ASKED SOME QUESTIONS OF CHOCK AND DANNY FROM ST. AUGUSTINE WHEN ARE AMONG THE TOP ARBORISTS IN THE STATE TO SEE WHAT INPUT -- THEY PROVIDED INPUT BEFORE AND SEE WHAT GUIDANCE AND RESOURCES THEY COULD GIVE US ON THIS. 
          I'M SURE THAT YOU FIND THE AMOUNTS THAT I PUT HER TO BE HIGH. BUT I CAN'T PROPOSE A REALLY LOW RATE. THAT'S -- SOMEBODY ELSE CAN DO THAT. BUT I CAN'T DO THAT. 
          I THINK WE NEED TO REALIZE THAT THE SIZE OF THE TREE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE REGARDLESS OF THE -- OF THE SPECIES OF THE TREE, THE LARGER IT IS, THE OLDER IT IS AND THE MORE IT -- IT IS COOLING OUR AIR IN THE SUMMER AND WARMING IT IN THE WINTER. THE MORE IT IS MANAGING STORM WATER. ALL OF THE BENEFITS THAT THE TREES PROVIDE US ARE DEPENDENT ON ITS AGE. 
          SO YES, REPLACEMENT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT, BUT IF YOU ARE REPLACING ONE OF OUR HUGE OLD OAK TREES WITH A SMALL TREE THAT IS ABOUT THIS BIG AROUND THAT'S NOT THE SAME. 
          IT WILL BE MAYBE 60 YEARS OR SO BEFORE IT CAN PERFORM THOSE FUNCTIONS WITH -- WITH YOU KNOW, ANY LEVEL OF SATISFACTION. 
          [01:30:06]
I THINK SIZE IS IMPORTANT. IT IS INTERESTING THAT YOU'RE SAYING EITHER A NUMBER OF TREES OR -- OR SIZE. 
          WHEN I WAS GOING OVER THERE AND I'M SURE THERE'S OTHER DISCUSSIONS BUT WHEN I WAS GOING OVER THERE, I WAS THINKING OH, SIZE AND NUMBER OF TREES WOULD BE GOOD FOR THAT. 
          FRANKLY, I THINK IT SHOULD BE MORE. 
          I'M NOT OPPOSED TO HAVING A LESSER PENALTY FOR THE HOMEOWNER. KELLY EMPHASIZED THAT -- THAT WE NEED TO HELP THE CITY FIGURE OUT HOW TO -- TO PREVENT HOMEOWNERS FROM -- FROM [INDISCERNIBLE] TO THE PRESSURE THAT THEY GET FROM THESE TREE SERVICE COMPANIES. THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF PRESSURE. I MEAN I HAVE IT AT MY OWN HOME. 
          PEOPLE WILL WALK DOWN THE STREET AND INCKNOCKING ON DOORS INSIST YOU CUT YOUR TREES DOWN OR SEND YOU MAIL OR WHATEVER. 
          THE OTHER THING THAT HAPPENS IS -- IS -- IS THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE OFTEN USING MODELS THAT ARE BASED ON KANSAS OR YOU KNOW, A COMPOSITE OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AND THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY APPLY IN ANY SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENT, MUCH LESS A BARRIER ISLAND. SO WE ALL NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE THINGS. I THINK WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO HAVING A DIFFERENT RATE FOR INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER. 
          I DIDN'T BREAK IT DOWN THAT WAY BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO GET 
          PEOPLE'S ATTENTION. >>  CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? 
          >>  YES. >>  5,000 AND 10,000 DOLLARS, 
          WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? >>  THEY WERE BASED ON -- I 
          FORGOT NOW, FRANKLY. >>  THAT'S OKAY. 
          JUST LET US KNOW LATER. >>  THE NUMBER ACTUALLY GOT 
          THROWN OUT AT A COUNCIL MEETING. >>  FOR A [INDISCERNIBLE] NOT 
          FOR A TREE. >>  5,000 IS THE AMOUNT THAT EVERYBODY, INCLUDING MIKE MULLIN AND THE COUNTY AGREES IS A PRETTY SAFE AMOUNT. 15,000 BASED ON WHAT I UNDERSTAND [INDISCERNIBLE] DO-ABLE. 
          SO -- >>  WE JUST NEED TO TEST THE NUMBERS. NOT RIGHT OR WRONG. 
          >>  NO. I UNDERSTAND THAT QUITE WELL. 
          THAT'S ONE REASON WHY I'M NOT SAYING, SOMETHING LIKE LET'S USE I TREE. THE -- THE -- THE ARTICLE THAT YOU DISTRIBUTED I THINK IS -- PRESENTS INTERESTING IDEA, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO INVESTIGATE THE NUMBER MORE CAREFULLY. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS THAT -- ONE OF THE POINTS THAT I LIKE TO GET ACROSS IS -- IS THAT -- IS THAT YOU KNOW, MY NEIGHBOR CAN CUT A TREE. THAT TREE, CUTTING THAT TREE NOT ONLY EFFECTS HIS PROPERTY. IT EFFECTS MY PROPERTY AND MY COMMUNITY. IT MAY WIND UP THAT THE CITY OR COUNTY HAS TO INVEST MONEY TO MAKE UP FOR THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES. I MEAN THERE'S A LOT OF IMPLICATIONS FOR -- FOR TREE REMOVAL. 
          THE MORE ARE REMOVED, THE MORE -- THE GREATER THE IMPLICATIONS ARE. SO THIS IS NOT THAT IT JUST IMPACT THAT PROPERTY OR -- OR -- OR AN INDIVIDUAL, IT IMPACTS ALL OF US. IN THE -- IN THE -- IN THE -- IN MY NOTES THAT I PRESENTED, I -- I SENT YOU AND I THINK I LEFT 
          THOSE OVER HERE TOO. >>  I SUGGEST ED ADDITIONAL FINES. A NUMBER OF TREES TO COMPENSATE FOR DIFFERENTIAL OF THE -- OF THE IMPACT OF THE STORM -- ON THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, WHETHER THIS TREE REMOVAL IMPACTS OTHER TREES, IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T HAVE -- THESE 
          [01:35:05]
PLANS THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE PRESENTING ARE VERY URBAN ORIENTED. THEY'RE BASED ON STREET TREES AND TREE THAT IS PEOPLE HAVE PLANTED IN SPECIFIC LOCATIONS. 
          THAT APPLIES IN FRONT OF THE CITY TO A NUMBER OF AREAS. 
          IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ALL. IN THE AREAS WHERE WHAT WAS MARITIME FOREST HAS BEEN -- HAS BEEN CARVED OUT TO PUT HOMES IN THERE. THERE'S A DIFFERENT -- THERE'S A DIFFERENT KIND OF IMPACT BECAUSE -- BECAUSE IN -- IN -- IN A WOODED AREA, ALL OF THE TREES ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT YOU FROM WIND AND STORMS. ALL OF THEM ARE TREE ROOTS AND SO ON ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO MANAGE STORM WATER SO YOU REMOVE TREES THERE AND YOU COULD EASILY HAVE THE WIND KNOCK OVER MORE TREES BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PROTECTED BY THE OTHER TREES. 
          SO IT IS -- IT IS NOT -- IT IS IN THE A SIMPLE MATTER OF JUST WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE ONE TREE. 
          WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ENVIRONMENT AROUND THAT TREE? HOW IS THIS IMPACTING THE OTHER TREES. 
          HOW IS THIS IMPACTING THE COMMUNITY? AND I DON'T KNOW THAT -- I DON'T KNOW THAT -- THAT IN THE BAND-AIDS THAT WE COME UP WITH AT THIS TIME, I DON'T KNOW THAT -- THAT WE CAN GET THERE IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT IT -- AT IT EXACTLY THIS WAY. I THINK THAT IT IS A WAY THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT IN THE FUTURE. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS JUST THAT ONE TREE. 
          I DON'T THINK. I KNOW IT IS NOT THAT ONE TREE. 
          THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT -- WHAT I PRESENTED IN -- IN -- IN THE MATERIAL I ISN'T. VERY CAREFUL NOTES. 
          >>  WE RECEIVED A COPY OF. >>  THOUGHTS BASED ON THE DIRECTION, BASED ON ATC EXPERIENCE THE DIRECTIONS WE NEED TO GO IN AND HOW FAR WE CAN GET AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          >>  I LIKE TO GET TO OTHER POINTS. 
          >>  WE HAVE ONE QUESTION. THE VALUE OF THE CANOPY. 
          IF THE VALUE IS 2,000 AND YOU GO THROUGH THE FORMULA BUT BECAUSE OF WHERE IT IS, IT IS RELATIVE STRUCTURE WITHIN THE ISLAND. 
          MAYBE THAT'S TWO X. IT IS SOMETHING TO ADD AS 
          ANOTHER DATA POINT. >>  SOMEONE WHO HAS BETTER SKILLS WITH MATH THAN I DO, COULD DEVELOP A FORMULA, IT WOULD BE JUSTIFIABLE IN A COURT OF LAW OR ELSEWHERE. 
          I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE NEED SOMETHING DOCUMENTED AND CAN BE 
          SUBSTANTIATED. >>  DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT ANY OTHER LOCATIONS THAT HAVE MARITIME FORESTS FOOTPRINT THAT DONE THAT MULTIPLIER IN THEIR ORDINANCES? 
          >>  NO. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY. 
          WE HAVE VERY LITTLE MARITIME FOREST LEFT. 
          WE WANT TO LIVE THERE AND BUILD OUR HOUSES AND CUT IT DOWN. 
          >>  THANK YOU. I WANT TO GET SOME OTHER FOLKS UP HERE. THANK YOU, MISS KIRKLAND. 
          >>  WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. 
          >>  MY NAME IS JAN. I LIVE AT 1658 STEELE STREET. 
          I JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. NUMBER ONE I ABSOLUTELY THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA PER THE POINT YOU JUST MADE, WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IS THAT IT IS TAKEN AT NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES, SUCH AS ST. MARY'S ST. AUGUSTINE'S AND ATLANTIC BEACH AND OTHER BEACH COMMUNITIES AND SEE WHAT DO THEY CHARGE FOR TAKING DOWN TREES. I THINK THE GOOD ILLUSTRATIVE COMPARISON. I THINK PERSONALLY I AGREE WITH THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS SUGGESTED. 
          HOWEVER, I THINK THE POINT AND THE SENSITIVITY OF LEGAL ACTION IS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN. IF YOU COULD POINT TO ALL OF THE OTHER COMMUNITIES AND WHAT THEY'RE CHARGING AND THE AMOUNT THEY'RE CHARGING IS RELATIVELY IN THE SAME BALLPARK, I THINK 
          [01:40:02]
THAT WOULD DISSUADE OR STAND IN GOOD STEAD IF THERE WAS ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES. ALSO, WHENEVER I LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, AND IT IS SOMETHING I'M -- I'M VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT, I HAD A VERY SMALL ROLE WITH JULIE FERRARA AND OR PEOPLE IN THE 2006 ORDINANCE THAT IS ON THE BOOKS NOW. I -- VERY SMALL. 
          MEETINGS AND PROVIDED INPUT. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STRUCK ME, I ALWAYS TRY TO LOOK FROM THE PERSPECTIVE, YOU'RE ONLY AS STRONG AS YOUR WEAKEST LINK. 
          I KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN A DEVELOPMENT THAT I WILL NOT NAME UNLESS ASKED TO, THE WEAK LINK IS THE TREE SURVEY. 
          I CAN TELL YOU FOR A FACT THAT THE PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT I HAD EXPERIENCE WITH, THEY HAVE HAD CERTIFIED ENGINEER DO A TREE SURVEY AND IN A PARCEL OF LAND THAT HAD SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF TREES. THE TREE SURVEY SAID THERE WERE ONLY FOUR. SO OF COURSE WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT WAS DONE, THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE. 
          IN REALITY, THEY WERE IN THE. BUT BASED ON A FAULTY TREE SURVEY THEY WERE. THAT'S A WEAK LINK. 
          IF THE ARBORIST IS SELECTED BY THE DEVELOPER, I THINK THE POINT WAS MADE, WHO WRITES THE CHECK? THAT'S A VERY VALID POINT. 
          IN ADDITION, I DO NOT MEAN IT CAST ASPERSION ON ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING ARBORISTS, HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN MY VERY LIMITED EXPERIENCE THAT IN SOME CASES AN ARBORIST AND THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DO AS A DEVELOPER, I AM MORAL AND TRY TO BE, BUT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, I THINK, IF I WANTED TO GET AWAY WITH SOMETHING, WHAT WOULD I DO? I WOULD GET A CERTIFIED ARBORIST TO SAY THE TREE WAS DISEASED AND THAT HAS IN FACT BEEN DONE. 
          THE POINT WAS MADE BEFORE, TO GET A LIST OF CERTIFIED ARBORISTS THAT -- THAT YOU CAN HAVE MORE OF A CONFIDENCE LEVEL, PERHAPS BASED ON THEIR TRACK RECORD THAT THEY REALLY ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF WHAT IS TRULY DISEASED AND IF THEY ARE GOING TO DO A SURVEY, IT WILL BE A LEGITIMATE ONE. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. 
          I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
          AND ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE EARLIER. 
          I HESITATE TO SAY IT. ONE OF THE NICEST THINGS ABOUT GETTING OLD, YOU DON'T CARE SO MUCH. 
          I HAVE A [INDISCERNIBLE] DETECTOR AND IT DIDN'T GO OFF WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING. I WANT TO THANK YOU. 
          I KNOW YOU SPENT HOURS GOING THROUGH PACKETS AND REVIEWING THINGS AND I THOUGHT ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS WERE NOT SELF-SERVING. 
          THEY WERE TRYING TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF TREES IN OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR PRECIOUS ISLAND. 
          >>  THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>  [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          [INDISCERNIBLE]. THIRD STREET. 
          >>  MY COMMENTS. I ECHO EVERYTHING THAT JAN SAID AS FAR AS THIS COMMUNITY. I THINK IT IS AMAZING YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THE SPEECH NOW AND TRYING SO HARD TO WORK THIS OUT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. I DO WANT TO COME TO SOME SORT OF RECOGNITION OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH A PENALTY. 
          FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, YOU'RE TRYING TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM CUTTING A TREE DOWN. SO THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT WE MAY WANT TO TRY. 
          IN A COMMUNITY WHERE I USED TO LIVE, THEY HAD YOU SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT WHEN YOU BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WERE IN YOUR COMMUNITY THAT WERE REALLY IMPORTANT SUCH AS LEAD BASED PAINT AND THEY HAD YOU SIGN FOR CERTAIN ORDINANCES IN YOUR COMMUNITY. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF WE HAVE A NEW PERSON COMES TO TO THE COMMUNITY AND THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE ORDINANCES ARE, AT CLOSING THEY COULD BE REQUESTED TO SIGN AN 
          [01:45:11]
AFTE AFFIDAVIT SO THEY DON'T CUT DOWN THE TREE. COULD WE ADD THAT SYSTEM TO A GRADING PERMIT THAT THEY -- THEY GET A COPY OF THIS AT THE GRADING PERMIT OR SOME SITE PLAN OR WHATEVER, THAT THEY SIGN IT AND THIS THEY KNOW THAT THIS IS -- THIS IS THE WAY IT IS AND YOU MAY ANTICIPATE THIS ACTION ON OUR PART. 
          ONE THING WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH IS THE FLOOD PLANE ORDINANCE. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. WE HAVE SO MANY RESIDENTS THAT PLAY FLOOD INSURANCE. OUR TREE PROTECTION ADDS TO POINTS IF THE VALUE OF OUR FLOOD INSURANCE. 
          YOU MAY WANT TO LOOK AT SOME AVENUE ON THIS. 
          WE COULD GET GRANT MONEY FOR OUR PROTECTION PROGRAM. 
          THERE'S ALL KINDS OF GRANTS FOR EDUCATION. 
          A SIMPLE HANGER THAT CAN BE PURCHASED BY GRANT MONEY FOR FLOOD PROTECTION AND CAN ACTUALLY GO AROUND NEIGHBORHOODS AND PUT IT ON DOOR HANDLES WITH OUR TREE PENALTIES OR PRECAUTIONS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO PUT ON THAT. 
          I ASKED IF YOU GUYS HAVE A PERMIT? I GOT THIS PUZZLED LOOK AND THEN -- I'M SURE WE HAVE A PERMIT. 
          I CALLED THE ARBORIST, AND HE WAS IN A CONFERENCE WHICH WAS GREAT. BUT NO ONE COULD TELL ME IF THERE WAS A PERMIT. MAYBE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE COULD DO AS PART OF OUR ENFORCEMENT INSTEAD OF RUNNING AROUND AND CALLING PEOPLE IS TO ASK THAT A PERMIT BE ON SITE AND YOU'RE ABLE TO REQUEST IT. IF THERE'S SOME WAY WE COULD PUT A LITTLE DATABASE ON THE WEBSITE OF THE CITY OF THE PERMITS THAT WERE ISSUED AT WHATEVER ADDRESS AND THAT WAY A HOMEOWNER CAN JUST GO OVER AND LOOK AT THE DATABASE ON THE WEBSITE AND SAY THAT ADDRESS HAS A PERMIT, I'M NOT GOING TO BOTHER. 
          THAT SAVES YOU A LOT OF TIME AND ALL OF US A LOT OF TIME TRYING FOR FIGURE OUT WHO HAS A PERMIT OR NOT. 
          WE DO HAVE AN ACTIVE COMMUNITY CHECKING IF THERE'S A PERMIT OR NOT. IT MAY BE HELPFUL. 
          I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT RETENTION. 
          I KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE ST. JOHN'S WATER MANAGEMENT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DO. THEY CUT OUT HUGE SWATHS OF TREES. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD PLANT THE TREES BACK INSIDE THE PO PONDS. IT IS JUST A QUESTION. 
          >>  PLEASE STATE YOUR AND ADDRESS. 
          >>  I'M 1438 SOUTH FLETCHER AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR -- FOR OUR ARBORISTS WHICH I THINK WOULD HELP A LOT. 
          I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY WE NEED TO BRING ON BOARD, WHETHER IT IS TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE. I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA TO HAVE ONE ARBORIST, I SUPPOSE AS OUR CITY ARBORIST HAVE IT RUN BY OUR HEAD ARBORIST SO EVERYBODY IS CONFORMED IN SOME WAY. MY THOUGHT. 
          >>  THANK YOU. >>  THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION 
          [01:50:04]
IN THE AREA OF -- OF [INDISCERNIBLE] OF -- OF -- OF -- OF OFFENDERS. PRIMARILY [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          THERE ARE OTHER WAYS MAYBE WE COULD -- WE COULD PERSUADE PEOPLE TO COMPLY, ESPECIALLY REPEAT INDIANAERS WHICH WOULD BE -- I THINK WE ALL STEREOTYPE THE DEVELOPERS AS DOING THIS. 
          I KNOW I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN. WHAT ABOUT THEIR ABILITY TO -- TO -- TO UPDATE PERMITS IN THE FUTURE FOR BUILDING? MAYBE C.O. PERMITS. OR MAYBE THERE'S A WAY TO WAKE THEM UP BY THREATENING THEIR LICENSE OR THEIR ABILITY TO GET PERMITS IN THE FUTURE. IN OTHER WORDS SOMEONE -- THE BRL BUILDER WHO REPEATEDLY OFFENDS WE KEEP TRACK OF THAT. YOU'VE DONE RESEARCH ON THAT. 
          SO BASICALLY IT PUTS THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IN THIS COMMUNITY. 
          I DON'T WANT TO -- I HATE TO SAY OUR COMMUNITY IS BETTER THAN OTHERS. IT IS A UNIQUE ECOSYSTEM AND IF THERE'S GOING TO BE OFFENDERS AND FLOP THE REGULATIONS THEN THEY COULD DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSEWHERE IT IS LESS SENSITIVE. 
          ALSO STOP WORK ORDER AND THERE'S PERMITS IN PLACE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE OR BUILDING. 
          PUT A STOP TO THE WORK AT FIRST UNTIL CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE MET SO THEY COULD ACCOMPLISH A VALID PLAN FOR CORRECTING THEIR ACTIONS. THIS WAY IT DOESN'T PENALIZE THE INDIVIDUAL HOMER. A WAY TO SPANK THE FOLKS THAT KNOW THE LAW AND KNOW BETTER AND WILLING TO PAY A FINE, THERE'S OTHER DISINCENTIVES. IF YOU STOP WORK, IT COSTS MONEY. IF YOU -- IF YOU -- IF YOU DON'T LET THEM GET PERMITS AFTER SEVERAL OFFENSES THEN THAT RUNS THEM OUT OF THE COMMUNITY. SEEING LICENSES. 
          THAT MAY BE HARD TO ENFORCE. FOOD FOR THOUGHT. 
          DIFFERENT WAYS OF -- OF -- INSTEAD OF DOLLARS AND CENTS. 
          OTHER WAYS OF ENCOURAGING PEOPLE NOT TO DESTROY THE CANOPY AND WE COULD KEEP IT INTACT OR SOMEWHAT. 
          >>  THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GOOD IDEAS. 
          >>  ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? YOU'VE SPOKEN AND I GOT OTHER 
          PEOPLE WITH THEIR HAND UP. >>  MIKE, 2493 [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          IN MY FORMER LIFE AS A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING OFFICER, I READ THINGS AND I SEE WHAT CAN GO WRONG IN THIS? I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING MARTIN SAID. 
          I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING OVERSIGHT BY THE STAFF AND [INDISCERNIBLE] CONTRACTING OFFICER PRESENTED OUT IN THE FIELD. WE HAD OUR -- WE HAD OUR RESIDENT ENGINEERS WHO HAD AUTHORITY DOWNGRADED BY A CONTRACTING OFFICER TO -- TO [INDISCERNIBLE] WHAT WAS GOING ON WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING AS FAR AS THE STAFF. 
          ON PAGE 4-3, WE TALK ABOUT AN ARBORIST THAT MUST COMPLETE -- A CERTIFIED ARBORIST MUST COMPLETE A PRIOR INSPECTION FOR ALL SITES, FOR ALL SITE CLEARING ACTIVITIES. 
          THIS SHOULD BE DONE PRIOR TO THE ACTIVITIES OCCURRING, NOT -- NOT INSPECTION OF THE TREE PROTECTION AREA BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST. WHAT WE'VE DO NOT, THE ACTIVITIES BEFORE, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED NEXT. 
          THE NEXT PAGE OVER YOU TALK ABOUT EXCAVATION OCCURRING WITHIN -- WITHIN TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 
          [01:55:04]
I KNOW THAT FPL COMES OUT AND THEY DID. 
          AND I'M SURE THE CITY HAS PEOPLE THEY USE FOR ENTRENCHING FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD. THEY GET IN THE ROOT SYSTEM AREA AND MAY CAUSE THE SAME PROBLEMS THAT THE DEVELOPER CAN DO. 
          YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE DOWN, IT SAYS PROTECTED TREES PRESENTED AND PRESERVED WITH WALLS AND POST-HOLES AND TRENCHES LOCATED CLOSE TO TREES SHALL BE DUBBED. I SAY HAND DUBBED. 
          VERY TOP OF THE PAGE, YOU ACTUALLY SAY THAT YOU CAN'T USE ROOT [INDISCERNIBLE] EQUIPMENT. SO MORE CONSISTENT AS FAR AS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN THE DOCUMENT. 
          YOU DO AHEAD AND SAY ONE THING IN ONE PLACE AND IN THE CLARIFY IN THE NEXT PLACE. SOMEBODY CAN FIND A LOOPHOLE, THEY'LL FIND A LOOPHOLE. EVERYTHING ELSE AS FAR AS THE FINES. I'VE BEEN READING GONE, UNFORTUNATE [INDISCERNIBLE] WE LIVE IN GEORGIA, WE HAVE A HOUSE DOWN HERE. I LOOK AT ALL OF THESE REGULATIONS AND RULES LAWS IN SOME STATE. 
          AS FAR AS NORTH CAROLINA A NEW JERSEY AND MASSACHUSETTS. 
          WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS NOTHING NEW. 
          LOOK AROUND AND YOU FIND SOMETHING, THE CANOPY IS DOWN HERE. THAT'S WHY I MOVED HERE. 
          WE LIKE IT DOWN HERE. DON'T LET IT GET DESTROYED. 
          >>  THANK YOU. SOMEONE ELSE? 
          YES, MA'AM. >>  [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          >>  YOUR ADDRESS? >>  1255 FLORENCE DRIVE. 
          I WITNESSED THE -- I REALIZE I'M IN THE PART OF CITY, I'M ON THE ISLAND, BUT I'M [INDISCERNIBLE] LIKE MARGARET WAS SAYING, YOU TAKE DOWN A TREE AND BARRIER ISLAND IT WILL IMPACT. 
          WHEN TREES WERE TAKEN DOWN IN HARRIS SHOPPING CENTER AND FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT THERE, I LIKE THE OTHER PERSON WHO SPOKE, DESPERATELY, THE COUNTY, THE CITY, THE NEWSPAPER, ANYONE WITH ZONING AND PLANNING TRYING TO GET SOMEBODY TO DO SOMETHING. 
          BY THAT TIME IT WAS TOO LATE. ALL OF THE THINGS YOU'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT ARE GOING FORWARD. 
          ASSUMING THAT -- THAT THE PERSON IS HONEST AND GOES THE ROUTE PRESCRIBED IN THE CITY ORDINANCE. 
          YOU HAVE DEVELOPERS THAT COME IN AND DO THAT WITHOUT PERMISSION. 
          I SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE A HOTLINE THAT ANY CITY RESIDENT OR -- OR WHATEVERER SAOS A TREE COMING DOWN HAS A QUESTION THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO LOOK IT UP TO SEE IF THEY HAVE A PERMIT AND BY THAT TIME THE TREE IS GOING TO BE GONE, TRUST ME. 
          AND THEY -- IT COULD BE ANONYMOUS OR WHATEVER. 
          JUST SAY, HEY, THIS STREET ADDRESS AND THE TREES ARE COMING DOWN. THE ARBORIST SHOULD BE ON CALL. 
          THAT'S PRIMARILY WHAT HAPPENS. YOU KNOW, EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE AND YOU HAVE A SURVEY IS NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOWED. HOPEFULLY THAT PROBLEM WILL BE -- BEING MORE WITH THE CITY ARBORIST ON SITE AT THE TIME OF CLEARING. I WOULD SUGGEST, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT LITIGATION. BUT YOU REALLY NEED TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE. WE'RE A BARRIER ISLAND, THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT PROTECTING OUR AESTHETICS AND OUR CANOPIES, IT IS PROTECTING OUR LEAFS. THERE WAS -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW ON 60 MINUTES, YOU SEE THE INCREASED FLOODING IN MIAMI AND DIFFERENT AREAS. ONE OF THE SCIENTISTS THEY HAD SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED JACKSONVILLE, AND THAT IN THE DECADES TO COME BECAUSE OF THE LOSS OF TREES AND THINGS THAT ARE TAKING PLACE AND -- AND INCREASED WEATHER CONDITIONS OF -- OF TIDES RISING AND THINGS, THOSE COASTLINES AND LANDS AREN'T GOING TO BE NEAR. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT HAVING A NICE CANOPY. IT IS ABOUT OUR ISLAND BEING UNDERWATER. WE'RE NOT UNDER WATER. 
          I COMMEND YOU. IT IS NOT AN EASY JOB. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS THE EXTENSION OFFICE WHICH IS FUNDED THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WOULD BE A GREAT RESOURCE FOR YOU. THERE'S A LOT OF -- LOT OF PROFESSIONALS ON STAFF THERE THAT WE PROBABLY BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO COLLABORATE WITH YOU. SO I WOULD -- I WOULD SUGGEST THAT. THE OTHER THING IS THAT I GET YOUR CITY ATTORNEY TO START LOOKING AT THE TREE ORDINANCES 
          [02:00:02]
LIKE THE GENTLEMAN SAID. YOU DON'T NEED TO REINVENT THE WHEEL. I WAS LOOKING, KEY WEST, THERE'S MANY TREE ORDINANCES ALREADY IN PLACE THAT YOU COULD BORROW FROM. USE YOUR STAFF TO DO THAT. 
          THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU SHOULD DO BY YOURSELF. 
          YOU KNOW, IT IS -- THERE'S ORDINANCES OUT THERE AND YOU COULD SEE WHAT IS APPLICABLE AND WHAT IS NOT. 
          LAST POINT. THE CITY IS LOOKING AT THEIR -- THEY'RE ALIGNING THEIR ZONING MAPS. 
          I'M SURE YOU MUST HAVE A GPS MAPPING SYSTEM WHERE YOU COULD HAVE A TREE OVERLAY TO THAT MAP. THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE? HOW DO WE TELL? THAT SHOULD BE IN YOUR RECORDS. 
          IF NOT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER IT. IT COULD BE EASY -- THERE'S NOT MUCH PROTECTED LAND THAT IN THE DEVELOPED YET ON THE ISLAND. 
          YOU COULD HAVE THAT ADDED AS AN OVERLAY SO YOU COULD SEE TODAY, THESE ARE THE TREES ON THIS ACRE AND THIS ACRE AND THIS ACRE. 
          SOMEBODY TAKES SOMETHING DOWN YOU GOT PROOF RIGHT THIS. 
          THANK YOU. >>  THANK YOU. 
          ANYONE ELSE? ONE MINUTE. 
          AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THIS FOR DISCUSSION. 
          >>  MARGARET KIRKLAND. PLANTATION DRIVE. 
          I NEGLECTED TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT -- ABOUT THE WAIVER, THE FLEXIBILITY THAT KELLY IS LOOKING FOR UP AND APPROVING THINGS. THIS HAS ALSO BEEN ADDRESSED AT THE COUNTY. IF WE GET FINISHED WITH THE COUNTY'S RENDITION OF THE TREE ORDINANCE, OF THE TREE ORDINANCE IF THE ISLAND, THIS WILL BE IN THERE THAT THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY. FOUR YEARS AGO I WOULD HAVE SAID, NO, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE STAFF FLEXIBILITY BUT I HAVE SEEN CASES WHERE -- WHERE THEY'RE HAVING SOME FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF WHERE -- WHERE THE BUILDING GOES ON THE LOT, CAN ENABLE THEM TO SAVE TREES OR TO SAVE AN AREA SECTION WHERE ALL OF THE TREES ARE TOGETHER. ANYWAY. 
          >>  THANK YOU. >>  CAN I ASK YOU ONE QUESTION? IS THE ORDINANCE 2018-36 NOT THE LATEST? THEY MODIFYING THAT ONE? THAT WAS 2018 VERSION OF THE TREE ORDINANCE. WE GOT SOMETHING NEW. 
          >>  YEAH. >>  IT IS. 
          >>  YEAH. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR 3 1/2 YEARS. YEAH. 
          >>  THANK YOU. >>  ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC COMMENT. SO WHAT IS THE -- WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THIS GROUP? YOU LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          AGAIN, OUR GOAL TONIGHT IS TO PUT TOGETHER A SET OF -- OF RECOMMENDATIONS BACK TO THE STAFF THAT KELLY CAN THEN PULL TOGETHER FOR OUR NEXT PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING. 
          DO WE WANT TO MOVE TO THE TOP AND BACK THROUGH THESE AGAIN? 
          >>  PENALTIES AND FEES. >>  I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS. MISS RUSS SPOKE AND HE ADDED [INDISCERNIBLE] AND THAT'S A VERY SIMPLE THING, YOU GOT TO PUT A [INDISCERNIBLE] WHEN YOU BUILD IT. 
          THAT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD ADD. THE AFFIDAVIT. 
          WHENEVER THE FINAL MINUTES THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, THEY SHOULD BE THE AFFIDAVIT AND THEY KNOW WHAT THAT IS. 
          SO IF THEY BREAK THE RULE, THEY WILL [INDISCERNIBLE] AND IT IS RIGHT UP [INDISCERNIBLE] AND IN THEIR FACE. 
          THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE WHOLE 
          PROCESS. >>  PROPOSING. 
          >>  RIGHT UP FRONT. >>  I THINK THOSE ARE GOOD 
          IDEAS. >>  THOSE ARE TWO GOOD IDEAS. 
          >>  I ALSO THINK THAT -- [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          SO YOU COULD LOOK FOR A TREE PERMIT? 
          >>  YES. >>  BY ADDRESS. 
          >>  BY ADDRESS. >>  ONLINE TODAY? 
          >>  ONLINE TODAY. >>  BUT TREE TRIMMER, THEY COULD MAKE A COPY OF IT AND PUT TO THE IN TRUCK. 
          >>  IN THE PERMIT ITSELF, IT SAYS IT HAS TO BE PLACED IN A CONSPICUOUS LOCATION ON SITE. IT SHOULD BE VISIBLE AND 
          [02:05:01]
AVAILABLE. YOU RUN INTO A SITUATION WHERE THEY READ IT THAT WAY. AND SOMEBODY IS NOT GIVING YOU A PERMIT THEN THAT'S SOMETHING TO QUESTION BECAUSE IT PROBABLY IS NOT AVAILABLE. YOU WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL, ESPECIALLY WITH THE NEW LEGISLATION IN PLACE BECAUSE -- BECAUSE WHILE WE'RE RECEIVING VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE TO GET PERMITS IF US, IT IS NO LONGER SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REQUIRE. 
          SOMEBODY MAY HAVE THAT JUSTIFICATION TO REMOVE THE TREE BUT NOT HAVE A PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE. 
          WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL. >>  HELPFUL? 
          >>  WE HAVE AN AVAILABLE DATABASE THROUGH OUR ONLINE PERMIT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THROUGH CTIZEN'S HEALTH SERVE. 
          >>  IT IS PUBLIC AT THE PRESENT TIME. 
          >>  HOW [INDISCERNIBLE]? >>  ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, THERE'S A LOCATION. CITIZEN'S HELP SERVICE. 
          AND THE BUTTONS ARE AVAILABLE. >> [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          >>  OKAY. GREAT, THANK YOU. 
          >>  WE LEARNED SOMETHING TODAY. >>  SO I CAN -- I CAN -- YOU 
          WANT GENERAL COMMENTS? >>  YEAH SURE. 
          >>  I LIKE THE IDEA. AFFIDAVITS. 
          ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO INFORM PEOPLE ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TREE ORDINANCE IS A GREAT IDEA. 
          PARTICULARLY PUTTING FLYERS OR WHATEVER WE CAN INTO THE PACKAGE YOU GET AS A NOW PROPERTY OWNER IS REALLY IDEAL. 
          YOU GET THAT INFORMATION ANYWAY. I DON'T SEE IT AS A BIG PROBLEM TO ADD THAT TO INFORMATION COMING IN. 
          I LIKE THAT IDEA. I LIKE THE DOOR HANGER IDEA. 
          ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO GET THE WORD ABOUT ABOUT THESE REQUIREMENTS. WE'RE LOOKING FOR COMPLIANCE. 
          WE'RE NOT TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE AND IMPOSE PENALTIES. 
          WE WANT PEOPLE TO COMPLY. THEY NEED TO KNOW THE REQUIREMENTS ONCE THIS IS AD ADOPTED. 
          I LIKE THE IDEA OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ENFORCE THIS WITH TREE CONTRACTORS. I LIKE TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY REPORT BACK. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          ANYTHING THAT GETS TREE CONTRACTORS INFORMED IS GOING TO BE IN OUR INTEREST. I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD GO SO FAR AS TO LICENSE TREE CONTRACTORS BUT IF WE CAN DO THAT, KELLY, MAYBE JUST MAINTAINING THE LIST OF THE TREE CONTRACTORS AND MAKING SURE THEY'RE UP ON IT, BECAUSE I THINK THEY KNOW THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO CUT DOWN TREES ILLEGAL A THEY MAY BE ABLE TO INFORM PROPERTY OWNERS THAT DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE. 
          >>  THEY NEED TO BE LICENSED TOO. 
          >>  I WANT TO THROW OUT AN IDEA FOR THE -- FOR -- FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT. I'M STILL BACK LOOKING AT THE TWO BASIC THINGS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE TO GET THE JOB DONE. WE HAVE THE PENALTY AND RESTORATION PLAN SECTION. WHAT I WAS TRYING TO THINK ABOUT WAS -- WAS IF -- IF SOMEBODY PROPOSES AND IMPLEMENTS AND DOES THE RESTORATION PLAN FOR MORE THAN ONE TO ONE REPLACEMENT, THEY DO 20 PERCENT MORE. WOULD THAT ALLOW THEM TO REDUCE THE PENALTY PAYMENT? THIS IS AN INCENTIVE TO GO MORE? IS THERE TREE CANOPY AND A TIME BETWEEN THE TWO IS WHAT I'M 
          THROWING OUT. >>  IS THAT CREDIT SECTION? 
          >>  NO. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. 
          >>  YOU TALK ABOUT SECTION TWO. >>  I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PENALTIES NOT THE CREDIT TERM BEFORE. 
          THIS IS UNDER 11.08 AND PARTS ONE AND TWO. 
          WE HAVE PENALTIES IN ONE SECTION, PARAGRAPH NUMBER ONE A1 AND PARAGRAPH TWO SETS UP THE REQUIREMENT FOR RESTORATION PLAN. AND THE RESTORATION PLAN LANGUAGE SAYS REPLACES ONE FOR ONE. 
          SO THAT BASICALLY SAYS, OKAY, IF YOU -- YOU'LL LEGALLY CUT DOWN A TREE, YOU HAVE TO REPLACE THAT TREE, THAT AMOUNT OF TREE. 
          WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHAT IF THEY COME BACK AND DO MORE THAN THAT? COULD THAT HAVE THE EFFECT OF REDUCING THE PENALTY? NOT ALL OF IT. SOME OF IT. 
          ANY HOW I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT BETWEEN THE TWO. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO GET TREE CANOPY. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PENALIZE PEOPLE. WE'RE TRYING TO GET MORE TREE 
          [02:10:02]
COVER. I WANT TO THROW THAT OUT AS AN 
          IDEA. >>  EVERYBODY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PENALTIES GO TO THE TREE FUND. 
          >>  RIGHT. >>  THEY DON'T GO TO THE GENERAL FUND. PENALTIES FOR THIS FOR THE TREE FUND. IT IS LIKE 60,000 DOLLARS. 
          IT IS USED TO -- TO -- BENEFIT TREES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. 
          >>  IT ALLOWS US TO DO GIVE AWAYS AND THAT TYPE OF THING. 
          IT CAN ONLY BE USED FOR ESTABLISHING NEW PLANTING. 
          IT CAN'T BE USED FOR THE EXISTING CANOPY. 
          YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL FOR THAT, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT IT WILL DEPLETE THE FUND QUICKLY. 
          THE COSTS OF MAINTAINING OUR CANOPY AND OUR PUBLIC PARKS AND CEMETERY AND GREENWAY AND WITHIN THE AREAS, FAR EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF FUND YOU WILL EVER GENERATE IN THAT ACCOUNT. 
          >>  I HAD ONE. FIRST OF ALL, I APPRECIATE [INDISCERNIBLE]. THIS IS VERY HELPFUL. 
          M I HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT. 
          IN TEAMS OF THE [INDISCERNIBLE] I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE NUMBERS THAT -- THAT THE CONSERVANCY IS RECOMMENDING, NOT BECAUSE -- I'M WITH YOU IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET DONE HERE. 
          I FEAR IF WE IMPOSE PENALTIES LICK THIS, THEY MAY NOT GET ENFORCED. I THINK THEY'RE TOO HIGH. 
          WHAT I LIKE TO SEE AND I -- I APOLOGIZE, BUT LOOK AT OTHER COMMUNITIES AND OTHERS HAVE SAID IN TERMS OF WHERE THE AMOUNTS ARE GOING ON. WHAT IS THE STATE OF THE ART? I THINK IF WE CAN FIND WHAT THAT IS I THINK WE'RE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE A PROGRAM THAT IS SUSTAINABLE GOING FORWARD RATHER THAN JUST MAKING SOMETHING UP AND HOPING THAT [INDISCERNIBLE] LEGALLY. I THINK THE ATC RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TOO HIGH. THAT'S MY GUT. 
          THE FIRST TREE FOR THE HOMEOWNER, I WOULD THROW A NUMBER OUT, LIKE A THOUSAND DOLLARS, WHICH FOR A LOT OF HOMEOWNERS WOULD BE A REALLY COLD SHOWER. 
          IT WOULD HAVE EFFECT. BUT THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT. 
          MY REAL ANSWER IS I THINK WE NEED BETTER DATA ABOUT WHAT COMMUNITIES ARE DOING. MY GUT TELLS ME THOSE NUMBERS ARE TOO HIGH BY A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT AND WOULDN'T SERVE OUR LONG-TERM INTERESTS. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. 
          >>  WE GOT SOMEBODY NOW [INDISCERNIBLE] FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S [INDISCERNIBLE] TREE EXISTED AND THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE TREE IS TO BE DETERMINED, A 10,000 DOLLAR FINE SHALL BE ASSESSED PLUS THE COST OF MOVING THE TREE AND 100 DOLLARS [INDISCERNIBLE]. THESE NUMBERS THAT THEY'RE SUGGESTING ARE OUT THERE. [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          I DID A RANDOM SEARCH. [INDISCERNIBLE] WHATEVER THAT IS. IF WE GOT [INDISCERNIBLE] WE CAN DO SOMETHING ELSE, AND WE COULD DO THAT. 
          >>  I SAY WE LOOK AT IT SYSTEMATICALLY AND SEE WHAT THE FINES ARE AND WHAT SUCCESS THEY HAVE WITH IT. 
          >> I'M SUGGESTING IT IS ONLINE. AND WHEN WE KNOW AND COME BACK, LET'S DO ORIGINAL RESEARCH OF WHAT IS ONLINE AND SEE IF THE 
          NUMBERS ARE REASONABLE. >>  I AGREE. 
          >  YOU KNOW. >>  JACKSONVILLE DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF NUMBERS BUT THEY HAVE AN EQUATION. 
          THAT'S A DATABASE. THAT'S SOMEWHAT, I WOULDN'T SAY JACKSONVILLE HAS SOME OF THE SAME INVENTORY OF TREES. 
          >>  I LOOKED AT HILTON BECAUSE THEY'RE -- I TRY TO LOOK AT 
          BARRIER ISLAND. >>  I TRY TO LOOK -- I WENT OUT AND LOOKED AT OTHER ISLANDS TO SEE WHAT THEY WOULD DO. 
          FOR THE MOST PART, THEY -- THEY HAVE A -- THEY HAVE A SMALL LIST 
          OF TREES. >>  THERE'S A LOT OUT THERE. 
          [02:15:05]
          >>  VICTORIA. >>  I HAD NOTHING TO ADD. 
          >>  THE ONLY THING WE COULD GET IS THE ISSUE OF MARITIME FOREST IS MORE PERSONALIZED THAN JACKSONVILLE. 
          IF WE COULD FIGURE OUT A WAY TO QUANTIFY THAT. 
          THAT COULD BE A MULTIPLIER. THE TREE WHERE IT IS HAS MORE VALUE. THAT'S -- THAT'S -- YOU COULD PROBABLY MAKE THAT JUDGMENT WITH 
          AN EXPERT. >>  I'M SORRY, WE CLOSED THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC COMMENT. KELLY, ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO 
          HELP YOU WITH? >>  THE LAST PIECE. 
          I HAVE A LIST OF THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN TAKING NOTES ON FOR THE ENTIRE MEETING, GIVING PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU WOULD LIKE, YOU'RE GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF THE CONSERVANCY PROPOSAL AS IT RELATES TO SIZE AND NUMBER OF TREES WHICH HAVE BEEN REMOVED. 
          YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FIGURES PROPOSED VALIDATED THROUGH -- THROUGH A METHOD THAT -- THAT HELPS DETERMINE IF THIS 
          IS -- MAKES SENSE. >>  INDEFENSIBLE. 
          >>  OKAY. IS THAT? 
          >>  MY THOUGHT. I THINK THE PENALTY FOR THE 
          FIRST TREE FOR THE HOMEOWNER. >>  A RATIO APPLIED FOR THE FIRST TREE AND EVERY TREE THEREAFTER. 
          >>  I THINK IF WE MAKE IT TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THE FIRST TREE IT 
          WILL BACKLASH. >>  THEN YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS. I WON'T GO THROUGH EVERY ONE. 
          AND MAINTAIN A LIST. THE OTHER AREAS I LIKE TO GET THE BOARD ON IS AS IT ROELATES O THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES AND HOW YOU MAY WANT TO PROCEED WITH THAT. 
          THIS IS INTENDED TO BE FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS. 
          AS I INTRODUCED EARLIER, I'M NOT SURE THE FIVE-FOOT IS A GOOD FIGURE BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS CERTAINLY A STARTING POINT FOR A CONSERVATION. I THINK TEN FEET, AS MINIMUM, MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. 
          IT DOES INDICATE THIS ONLY APPLIES TO THE FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES AND NOT THOSE ON THE SIDE. 
          >>  WHAT IS THE STANDARD SETBACK NO A RESIDENTIAL? 
          >>  IT IS 10 PERCENT OF THE LOT WIDTH. 
          25 FEET STANDARD FRONT YARD. >>  25 FEET. 
          SO WHAT AREAS WOULD YOU ALLOW? I THINK I'M GOING TO A REDUCTION OF NO LESS THAN TEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, GIVE YOU ENOUGH WIGGLE ROOM TO -- TO SHIFT EITHER FORWARD OR BACKWARD TO ACCOUNT FOR TREES LOCATED IT THE FPROPERTY LINE. 
          >>  IT COULD BE 15 FEET? >>  YES. 
          >>  THAT PUTS IT AT [INDISCERNIBLE] AND THE ISSUE OF WHAT IS NEIGHBORHOOD'S STANDARD? IF YOU'RE DOING IN ZONE DEVELOPMENT AND EVERY OTHER HOUSE IS AT 25 FEET, THEN IT -- 
          IT IS A PROBLEM. >>  IT COULD BE. 
          THAT'S WHY IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU HAVE THAT NI PROVISION 
          ASSOCIATED WITH IT. >>  [INDISCERNIBLE] 
          >>  SOME [INDISCERNIBLE] SHOULD BE MAXIMUM. 
          OTHERWISE YOU START TO LOSE THE CULTURE OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          MOST COMMUNITIES LAY OFF, LOTS ARE LAID OFF BEFORE THE HOUSES. 
          IN MOST COMMUNITIES THERE'S A GENERAL LIKENESS AND THE STRUCTURES AND SOMETHING. I THINK YOU START TO INTRODUCE 
          SOME OTHER ISSUES. >>  I WOULD BE WILLING TO SEE IF THERE'S ADJUSTMENTS IN THE FACT, IN THE REAR SETBACK THAN IN THE 
          FRONT. >>  I AGREE. 
          >>  THAT'S A GOOD POINT. >>  OR THAT YOU CAN REDUCE THE ROUTE AND YOU RUDD THE BACK FOOTPRINT SO YOU MAY MOVE THEM UP. INSTEAD OF 25-FOOT SETBACK, YOU COULD HAVE A 15-FOOT SETBACK IN THE BACKYARD. 
          >>  I AGREE. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          YOU NEED A SETBACK. IT COULD BE VARIANCE OF TEN FEET. THAT'S SIGNIFICANT. 
          >>  RIGHT. >>  YOU STILL HAVE 15 FEET. 
          YOU STILL HAVE 15 FEET ON THE REAR YARD AND -- AND -- YOU KNOW, I THINK GENERALLY, HOUSES PUSH BACK ARE LESS OBTRUSIVE 
          THAN HOUSES PUSHED OUT. >>  I'M USED TO SEEING HOUSES ON 
          [02:20:11]
EACH SIDE. YOU KNOW WHERE THEY ARE AND YOU COME OUT. THIS IS JUST WHAT I'VE SEEN IN OTHER PLACES. THAT ALLOWS THE STREETSCAPE TO 
          BE CONSISTENT. >>  I COMPLETELY AGREE ABOUT THE YEAR YARD. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME HARDSHIP LANGUAGE. WE CAN'T JUST ALLOW WILLY-NILLY 
          TEN FEET. >>  THIS IS ONLY IF -- IF WHERE 
          YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT TREES. >>  SO I WANT TO COCLEARLY SAYS THAT IS WHAT IT IS. IT HAS TO BE CLEAR THAT THE ONLY REASON WE'RE ALLOWING THAT IS TO SAVE SIGNIFICANT TREES. 
          >>  QUALIFY, YOU GOT THE FIRST STATEMENT IS THAT THE REDUCTION IS NECESSARY BORDER TO IMPLEMENT TREE PROTECTION STANDARDS OF THE LBC AND YOU LIKE ANOTHER QUALIFIER THAT SAYS WHERE TREES 
          ARE -- ARE A CERTAIN SIZE -- >>  A [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          STANDARD. >>  THAT'S ANY PROTECTED TREE. 
          >>  YEAH. OKAY. 
          >>  WHICH [INDISCERNIBLE]. YOU KNOW. 
          >>  SO THE OTHER QUALIFIER IS THAT [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          IT HAS TO BE FOUR IMPLEMENTED PROVISIONS FOR THE LBC AND WHERE IT IS THAT THRESHOLD THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT FOR A DEVIATION. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT R2 AND R3 ZONED PROPERTIES ONLY HAVE A 20-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AND NOT 25. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR 
          FOR EVERYONE. >>  [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          MAYBE. >>  [INDISCERNIBLE]. 
          DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HERITAGE TREE AND -- AND WHATEVER. 
          >>  YEAH. >>  THAT'S -- I AGREE. 
          >>  I THINK IT HAS TO BE FOR A SIGNIFICANT TREE. 
          THE HERITAGE TREE. >>  ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE COULD POTENTIALLY BE. I'M THROWING OUT OPTIONS AND I'M THINKING ALOUD. MAYBE LEAVE THE LANGUAGE. 
          IT IS NO MORE THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE STANDARD. 
          PERHAPS YOU WOULD REDUCE FEES FOR VARIANCE AND TREE PROTECTION. THEY GO THROUGH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DEVIATE FROM THE STANDARD. IT IS BEFORE A PUBLIC BOARD. 
          I'M THROWING OUT AN IDEA. >>  REVIEWING BODY. 
          >>  10 PERCENT. >>  10 PERCENT OF ALL OF THE -- 
          >>  SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. >>  SIDE, FRONT AND BACK. 
          >>  A SIDE YARD HAS NEVER BEEN IN QUESTION. 
          IT IS A SETBACK FOR THE REAR. IT WAS WORTH IT TO APPLY THIS 
          SECTION. >>  SO YOU DON'T WANT TO 
          RESTRICT IT TO THE REAR YARD? >>  I'M COMFORT AN EITHER WAY. 
          I THINK IF YOU LEAVE IT IN PLACE, YOU REALIZE YOU'RE LIMITED TO EITHER TWO OR [INDISCERNIBLE] AT THE PRESENT 
          TIME. >>  10 PERCENT. 
          >>  I WOULD LEAVE IT AS JUST SAY THAT WE'LL WAIVE THE FEE FOR THE VARIANCE PROJECT. I THINK FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE INPUT ON IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          >>  TAKE OUT THE 10 PERCENT. >>  THAT'S A GOOD POINT. 
          >>  IT IS A PROCESS. >>  YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR A 
          TREE. >>  A TREE. 
          YOU WOULD BE INCLINED TO ADVOCATE FOR A BIG TREE AS 
          OPPOSED -- TO -- TO -- TO -- >>  YEAH. 
          >>  AND THAT ALLOWS A 10 PERCENT. 
          >>  TAKE 10 PERCENT OUT. YOU GO -- YOU GO -- YOU JUST GO FOR VARIANCE. THE INCENTIVE WOULD BE IN ORDER 
          [02:25:01]
TO SAVE THE TREE, YOU WOULD WAIVE OR REDUCE THE -- 
          >>  I [INDISCERNIBLE]. I THINK THE BOARD WOULD CONSIDER 
          IF YOU GO BACK. >>  THAT'S AN IDEA. 
          >>  LARGER AREAS.  25-FOOT SETBACK AND 10 PERCENT IS 2 1/2 
          FEET. >>  NO POINT. 
          >>  IF YOU TAKE 10 PERCENT OUT AND OPEN IT UP SO YOU COULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE STATED BACKYARD BY TEN FEET, 12 FEET, TO SAVE A TREE. THEN DOES THAT OPEN US UP FOR MORE -- SO YOU SEE MORE OF THESE, I GUESS. 
          >>  [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>  AND [INDISCERNIBLE] 5050 RATIO. THAT'S WHY I BRING THIS UP. 
          YOU WIND UP BALANCING AND YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE AND THE DESIGN THAT WORKS WITH THE TREES INSTEAD OF FORCING IT INTO THAT STANDARD ENVELOPE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS 
          CONVERSATION. >>  WHAT WE'RE SAYING, WE WOULD WAIVE THE VARIANE FEE. SOMEBODY HAS A BIG TREE AND WANTS TO SAVE IT AND IT IS IN A REQUIRED SETBACK. 
          THEY WAIVE THE VARIANCE FEE AND PLEAD THEIR CASE. 
          >>  IT WOULD BE ROUGHLY A 30-DAY DELAY AND ALSO AT RISK. 
          SO THERE'S IN GUARANTEE OF IT. >>  VARIANCE. 
          IT IS WHERE YOU -- WHERE YOUR BOND COMES IN. 
          IT GOES FOR THIS. THEY GOT THE VARIANCE AND CUT 
          THE TREE DOWN. >>  WE HAVE A CONDITION ON THE VARIANCE. NOT JUST THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. WEER COULD RECOMMEND TO THEM, SO YOU COULD RECOMMEND TO THEM THEY DO THE BOND AND THIS AND THAT AND THEY DO CERTAIN KINDS OF TREE PROTECTION. 
          YOU CONDITION THAT WITH WHAT YOU WANT TO CONDITION. 
          >>  THE EXISTING TREE AND HOW FAR AWAY THINGS ARE FROM THE EXISTING TREE. THAT'S WHERE THE CRITERIA WOULD COME IN. I THOUGHT AS FAR AS NOTIFICATION AND SOMEONE MENTIONED THE TREE -- THE TREE SERVICES ARE NOTIFIED OF WHATEVER WE DO HERE. ALSO ARCHITECTS. 
          ARCHITECTS ARE -- IT IS WHERE IT STARTS. 
          CERTAINLY THEY ARE BROUGHT IN PRETTY EARLY ON AND IF YOU TRY TO GET CREATIVE WITH WHERE THE SITE, A -- A BUILDING ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THE ARCHITECT IS THE ONE THAT -- THAT -- THAT MAKES IT. HE MAY CHANGE WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS. THEY CHANGE WHERE THE GARAGE IS. 
          IT IS A SEPARATE BUILDING. ADDING ARCHITECTS MAY BE 
          HELPFUL. >>  THE CONCEPT IS GOOD. 
          I'M STYMIED ABOUT -- ABOUT -- ABOUT ALLOWING THAT WAIVER OF FEE. ANY TREE OR CERTAIN SIZE OF TREE? IT IS A PINE TREE AND IT IS FOUR INCHES AND THE BUILDER SAYS I WANT TO [INDISCERNIBLE] ON THIS AND MAKE THEIR CASE. WOULDN'T JUST ENCOURAGE THAT. 
          ALL TREES ARE THE SAME. >>  THERE'S THAT. 
          >>  THERE'S THAT TOO. >>  WE GIVE KELLY ENOUGH 
          GUIDANCE? >>  NOT SURE. 
          >>  I CAN STRIKE THIS LANGUAGE AND ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER ALL TOGETHER. WE DON'T WANT THAT AVAILABLE AT 
          THIS POINT AT ALL. >>  THE OTHER OPTION? 
          >>  WELL, NO, I THOUGHT THAT THE PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE WAS THIS IDEA OF WAIVING THE VARIANCE FEE AS -- AND IT IS -- SEPARATE 
          ACTION. >>  THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE ON. 
          I'M NOT SURE HOW WE HANDLE THAT ADMINIST ADMINISTRATEIVELY-TO-IT WRITTEN SOMEWHERE. 
          >>  IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SHOW UP IN THESE WORDS. 
          >>  WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN FEBRUARY. 
          MAYBE WE COULD THINK ON IT AND LOOK AROUND. 
          MAUB WE'LL HAVE SOME MORE THOUGHTS ON IT AND WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO -- TO FINALIZE IT AND CHANGE IT AND KICK IT IN AND 
          OUT. >>  THAT'S FAIR. 
          [02:30:01]
I DID HAVE ONE LAST THING ON THE RESTORATION PLAN WHICH IS NUMBER -- IT READS THE CITY MANAGER SHALL -- OKAY. 
          THIS IS A REQUIREMENT FOR PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION OF THE RESTORATION. THIS IS GOOD. 
          THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING. WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS A [INDISCERNIBLE]. THE PERFORMANCE GETS THE TREE THERE. MAINTAINS IT. 
          MAINTENANCE FUND. >>  IT DOES SAY AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND SURVIVAL OF THE IMPLEMENTED RESTORATION PLAN. 
          >>  DOESN'T SPEAK TO A MAINTENANCE BOND. 
          >>  WELL. THEY'RE NOT RIGOROUS IN THAT SENSE. SATISFY YOURSELF THAT IT COVERS 
          [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>  YES. 
          >>  ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.