►
From YouTube: Special called council meeting Jan 18 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
You
told
me
three
earlier:
okay,
he
has
some
slides
and
then
we
have
some
representatives
from
the
tree
committee
and
and
there's
a
handout
that
the
tree
committee
prepared
that
I
put
in
front
of
you
and
what
I'm
trying
to
do
is
just
streamline
the
meeting
a
little
bit,
there's
a
lot
of
verbiage
and
a
lot
of
text
and
everything.
But
basically
there
are
just
several
points
that
are
going
to
change
and
we
wanted
the
council
would
like
know
what
are
they
and
then
what
the
implications
are.
C
All
right,
I
tried
to
break
it
down
to
the
the
few
things
that
we're
trying
to
change
in
the
ordinance
basically
going
over
what
will
be
protected
what's
exempted
and
then
some
other
details.
So
first
thing
that
will
be
protected
with
the
changes
in
the
ordinance.
Now
that
we're
proposing
would
be
live.
Oaks
bald,
cypress
southern
magnolia
at
eight
inches
in
diameter
when
measured
four
and
a
half
feet
above
the
ground
and
any
other
non-protected
species,
16
inches
or
larger
in
diameter.
So
that
would
be.
C
If
we
have
a
let's
say
we
have
a
really
big
willow
oak,
that's
in
really
good
shape
and
it's
over
16
inches
in
diameter.
It's
going
to
be
protected.
Also
it
would.
They
would
have
to
get
a
permit
for
it
that
we
would
still
issue
the
permit
for
removal
if
they
had
some
structural
flaws
or
that
kind
of
thing,
but
they
would
have
to
at
least
come
to
us.
C
C
C
That's
for
no
that's
it!
That's
only
that
only
relate
the
only
trees
that
would
have
to
be
mitigated
are
for
commercial
properties,
okay,
and
we're
also
discussing
possibly
for
residential
subdivisions
meeting
that
that
table
also.
C
Mainly
is
dealing
with
dealing
with
your
commercial
stuff,
we're
established,
establishing
a
mitigation
trust
in
lieu
of
planting
on-site.
The
developer
can
donate
to
the
mitigation
trust
to
aid
in
planting
projects
around
the
city
mitigation
costs
will
be
the
local
market
rate
times.
Two
so
say
somebody
cuts
down
a
let's
go
back
to
the
mitigation
table.
Let's
say
somebody
cuts
down
a
oh
hold
on
dragging
on
me.
Somebody
cuts
down
a
17
inch
oak
tree
is
required
to
do
three
replacement
trees.
C
C
Next
is
the
cities
around
the
coast
that
that
also
have
mitigation,
ocean
springs,
gulfport
ocean
springs,
long,
beach
path,
christian
and
st
louis
all
require
a
one-for-one
replacement
on.
If
you
cut
a
tree
down
and
you
have
to
mitigate
it
with
one
one
replacement
tree
golf
board
is
a
little
different
in
that
it
only
requires
a
mitigation
tree
if
your
your
density
falls
below
one
for
every
thousand
square
feet
of
lot
and
gulf
ports
only
deals
with
commercial
multi-family,
industrial
and
residential
lots
over
one
acre.
So
your
main
small
lots
and
subdivisions
do
not.
C
And
that's
the
specifics
of
that.
I
wanted
to
go
over
a
case
that
we
just
recently
looked
at
euless
street
is
proposing
to
put
in
a
development.
The
developer
is
proposing
to
remove
13
trees.
Currently,
the
mitigation
for
that
site
would
be
39
replacement,
trees
using
the
mitigation
table
based
on
the
size
of
the
trees
removed.
The
mitigation
would
be
50
replacement
trees.
C
C
A
Okay,
I
have
a
question
on
the
mitigation
trust
the
local
market
rate
times
two
okay.
So
if
I'm
cutting
down,
let's
make
it
simple
three
oaks
of
pick
a
size.
It
doesn't
make
any
difference.
Three
live
oaks,
so
I'm
going
to
purchase
when,
when
somebody's
got,
to
tell
me
how
much
I've
got
to
pay,
I'm
looking
at
replacing
what
was
cut
down
with
that
same
type
of
tree
right,
okay,.
C
So
just
for
example,
stat
say:
you're
cutting
down
three
10-inch
live
oak
trees.
You
would
be
required
by
the
mitigation
table
8
to
12
inches
you'd
be
required
to
put
in
you
would
be
required
six
mitigation
trees.
C
A
Chose
not
to
plant,
and
that
would
be
if
it
was
a
live
oak.
That
would
be
the
cost
of
12..
If
it's
a
protected
tree
that
you
remove,
live
oaks
and
and
again
I
ask
because
I
know
dollars
and
cents
that
concerns
some
of
my
colleagues
up
here
as
well
as
myself,
and
so,
if
I'm
going
to
get
these
live
oak
replacements,
I've
got
to
pay
for
six
of
them.
You
said,
or.
A
C
It
would
deal
with
commercial
subdivision
subdivisions,
multi-family
and
industrial.
D
D
F
Those
trees
can
actually
go
into
areas
where
maybe
the
canopy
has
been
damaged
in
the
past
and
re-established
that
can
be
be
in
there.
Now
are
those
trees,
gonna
grow
up
overnight?
No,
that's
not
gonna
happen,
but
we're
talking
long
term
that
those
trees
could
go
in
the
right
places
and
help
along
the
street
of
the
streetscapes,
where
trees
have
been
lost
due
to
hurricanes
and
those
kind
of
things
also
on
the
city
properties,
hillary
park
and
the
cemeteries
and
places
like
that.
F
The
only
thing
that
we
changed
in
our
recommendation
is
the
recommendation
for
the
new
subdivisions
that
are
going
in
where,
if
you're
familiar
with
construction
you
you
know
how,
when
they're
clearing
property
for
a
subdivision
and
how
they
have
to
reshape
the
drainage
and
put
in
the
sewer
lines,
water
lines
and
all
those
things
the
roads
going
in
is
it
sometimes.
They
have
to
almost
totally
reshape
the
landscape
there
to
make
sure
that
that
drainage
flows
the
right
way
and
that
those
things
can
can
go
in,
and
you
know
there
was
some
concern
about.
F
Well,
you
know
a
contractor.
That's
putting
in
a
subdivision
is
not
going
to
worry
about
the
cost
of
of
replacing
a
few
trees,
but
let's
just
say
that
on
that
subdivision
that
we
have
to
to
take
down
300
trees,
that
means
the
replacement
ratio
at
three
to
one
would
be
900
trees
and
that's
when
you
get
up
into
the
cost.
F
Where
developers
and
contractors
really
start
to
consider
whether
or
not
they
can
can
do
that
project,
so
I
think
the
advantages
here
is
that,
with
the
three
to
one
ratio,
we
can
reestablish
that
tree
canopy
for
years
to
come
by
making
sure
those
trees
go
in
the
right
locations
that
we
we
think
it
gives
us
the
tree
canopy
again,
and
the
compromise
would
be
with
the
single
family
subdivisions.
Does
that
mean
that
the
new
subdivision
developers
are
not
going
to
plant
trees?
F
G
Jerry,
you
may
answer
this
or
mr
nolan
may
be
able
to
answer
this
more
adequately.
The
ordinance.
Where
does
it
require
that
the
new
trees
are
planted,
who
the
mitigation
trees?
Where
do
they
go?
I
you
may
have
said
it.
He
may
have
said
I
may
have
missed
it.
G
F
Theoretically,
theoretically,
the
trees
should
be
planted
on
the
same
piece
of
property,
but
what
we
get
into
is
a
situation
like
with
the
the
new
hyatt
place
that
came
in
where
they
removed
300
trees.
There
was
no
way
they
could
plant
300
trees
back
on
that
property,
because
you
get
with
parking
and
road
competition
and
everything
else
it
would
never
work.
So
what
happens
is
the
developer
when
it's
physically
impossible
for
him
to
plant
that
number
of
trees
on
the
property?
F
Whatever
number
he
has
to
mitigate?
He
would
basically
pay
into
the
trade
the
mitigation
trust
that
we're
establishing
in
the
changes
to
this
ordinance
and
then
once
that
money
goes
into
the
trust,
then
the
tree
committee
recommends
to
the
city
where
they
believe
those
replacement
trees
need
to
go.
And
then
we
come
to
the
city
council
to
get
y'all
to
release
the
money
from
the
trust
so
that
when
it
gets
tree
planting
time,
we
can
take
care
of
getting
those
trees
planted.
G
F
G
G
My
question
is:
he
said
that
if,
if
they're
not
willing
to
do
the
replacement
trees,
they
basically
pay
twice
the
cost
of
the
trees
right
now,
if
now
in
the
example
with
the
hyatt,
they
could
not
physically
do
that
they
couldn't
mitigate
them
on
their
property.
Would
they
then
still
have
to
pay
twice
the
mitigating
trees
cost,
or
would
they
pay
just
one
cost
to
call
one
times
the
tree
instead
of
two
times
the
tree?
Do
you
see
the
question
in
that
kind
of
example,.
C
In
that
kind
of
example,
what
would
happen
was
if
you're
building
a
building
a
hotel
and
you
cut
down
a
bunch
of
trees,
to
build
the
hotel
you're
going
to
have
some
landscaping
that
you
put
back
in.
So
we
would
count
all
those
trees
as
a
as
the
way
the
mitigation
table
counts.
G
So
the
question
is:
if
you
can't
plant
it
not
if
you
the
statement
was
that
they
don't
want
to
plant
it
they'd
have
to
pay
twice.
So
I'm
asking
is
this?
Don't
want
equates
who
can't
if
they
can't
plant
it
not
so
you
cut
300
trees
down
to
build
a
hotel.
It's
not
choose
not
to
you,
can't
right,
so
if
they,
if
they
can't
do
it,
does
that
fall
in
the
same
categories.
G
F
Would
be
held
to
that
table
regardless,
but
we've
not
run
into
that
because
most
of
the
development
that
we
have
in
there,
if
they
landscaping,
is
a
big
part
of
it
and
the
the
hotel
that
was
built.
The
hyatt
place
that
we're
talking
about
right
now.
They
knew
that
those
trends
that
they
had
out
there
contributed
to
looking
established
on
that
piece
of
property,
so
they
saved
as
many
of
the
trees
as
they
could,
while
still
having
to
meet
our
parking
requirements.
F
You
know
the
ordinance
parking
requirements
for
the
number
of
rooms
that
they
had
in
the
hotel
there.
If,
if
someone
chooses,
I
don't
want
any
trees
on
this
piece
of
property,
you
know
we
just
want
it
to
be
clear-cut
from
one
end
to
the
other,
and
and
if
that
gets
approved,
when
it
goes
for
their
hearing
before
the
planning
commission,
they
would
still
be
held
to
the
mitigation
formula
ratio.
F
That's
in
the
book.
F
H
I've
got
a
question
not
that
it
happens
in
biloxi.
It
has
happened.
You
know
when
somebody
said
cut
the
damn
thing
down.
I'll
worry
about
the
fine
okay.
What
teeth
do
we
have
about?
You
know
that
somebody,
you
know
some
countries
say
well,
you
know
my
owner
or
you
know
who
employ
me,
go
cut
it
down.
I'll
worry
about
a
fine
I'd
rather
pay
two
thousand
dollars.
What
teeth
do
we
have
there
from
you
know
from
a
fine,
not
just
a
building.
Permit,
I'm
just
going
to
go.
H
F
G
Just
to
help
me
understand
this
table
because
I'm
just
working
with
these
slides,
the
current
mitigation
is
three
to
one.
Then
the
diameter
of
the
tree
creates
a
number
of
mitigating
trees
right.
So
so,
if
it's
an
eight
to
twelve
inch
tree,
they
have
to
do
two.
So
is
it
then
six
because
it's
three
to
one
that's
correct.
F
A
Mr
guys
and
then
mr
lawrence
I'll,
give
you
a
shot.
Okay,.
I
Okay
and
and
my
mind
may
be
something
you
you
answered
already,
I'm
looking
at
the
the
south
out
pamphlet
water
oaks
are
one
of
the
protected
species.
Why
was
it
removed.
C
We
chose
to
remove
water
oaks
from
the
protected
actually
in
our
current
ordinance.
All
oaks
and
all
all
magnolias
are
protected,
but
we
chose
to
remove
water
oaks
from
that,
because
water
oaks
take
up
about
eighty.
Eighty
percent
of
the
tree
removal
permits
that
I
do
now
and
they're
when
they're
over
16
inches
in
diameter.
C
They
get
a,
they
get
a
sarcophagic
root,
rot
they
get
a
heart
rod
in
them.
The
tops
start
dying
back
and
they
become
a
hazard
really
quick.
So
we
decided
that
there
was
some.
There
were
some
better
things
to
focus
our
gaze
on
which
was
protecting
the
live
oaks
and
the
southern
magnolias
and
the
bald
cypresses,
so
that
we're
not
shooting
with
a
shotgun
we're
trying
to
shoot
with
we're
trying
to
be
a
little
bit
more
precise
in
our
protect
protections.
C
G
Okay,
I'm
sorry.
C
G
Just
for
simplicity,
should
we
not
just
change
this
table
for
eight
to
twelve
and
make
it
six
and
13
to
17,
make
it
nine
12,
15
and
18
trees
just
instead
of
having
to
start
doing
trigonometry
and
calculate
how
many
trees
you
have
to?
We.
C
A
C
C
A
I
got
that
I'm
going
back
to
mr
deming's
thought
was
that
well,
if
I,
if
I
build
my
hotel
and
I
have
some
room
and
and
I
plant,
however
many
I
took
down
that
whatever
the
ratio
is,
then
I'm
good,
I
don't
have
to
worry
about
it
and-
and
my
thought
is
if
it's
say
a
two
inch
caliper
oak
tree,
I'm
just
going
to
plant
them
four
feet
apart
over
here,
because
it's
cheaper
for
me
to
do
that
whichever
ones
live
great,
which
everyone's
croaked
doesn't
bother
me
whatever.
A
And
one
of
my
concerns
is
that
hey,
if
I'm
a
developer-
and
I
just
let's
look
at
the
trees,
do
the
calculations.
What's
the
number,
I
write
a
check
for
that.
It's
clean
whatever
it
is
now
the
burden
falls
on
the
city
good.
We
got
this
money,
it
goes
in
the
mitigation
bank.
A
Now,
when
we
have
to
have
tree,
we
want
to
plant
some
trees,
I'll
use
the
by
the
ip.
Where
you
get
on
I-110
from
bayview.
There
was
a
big
tree
down
that
was
on
a
fence.
It's
removed
so
yeah
you,
maybe
you
could
plant
a
live
oak
there.
Well,
somebody
from
the
city
or
you've
got
a
contract
with
somebody
to
put
that
plant
that
live
oak.
A
There,
then
somebody's
got
to
go
check
it
every
once
in
a
while
all
those
things
that
that
you're
looking
to
do
and
that
costs
something
that
could
be
paid
for
out
of
that
mitigation,
trust
and
somebody's
got
to
irrigate
it
or
something
I
mean
you're,
trying
to
get
the
tree
to
grow.
So
in
a
perfect
world.
A
That's
what
I
would
do.
That's
what
I'd
like
to
see,
but
I
know
just
in
going
to
planning
commission
meetings.
Everybody
worries
about
the
cost
everybody
we
have
when
we
talk
about
abatements
in
here.
You
know
I
can
remember
we're
going
through
what
would
that
abatement
be?
Well.
If
I
can't
get
this
abatement,
I
can't
build
this
two
million
dollar
project.
What
does
the
abatement
amount
to
eighteen
hundred
dollars
or
twenty
five
hundred
dollars?
You're
gonna?
Mr
lawrence
once
said
you
that
much
money
and
you're
not
gonna
build
it.
A
A
So
a
not
everybody
can
put
trees
on
their
property,
but
people
look
to
gain
the
system
and
that
that's,
I
guess
that's
what
I'm
looking
at
from
a
developer's
point
of
view,
I
think
I
think
three
to
one
is
reasonable,
as
I
said
last
week,
if
we're
losing
canopy
and
over
time
somebody's
bearing
the
cost
of
that,
it's
either
going
to
be
the
developer
or
the
community
or
the
citizens
of
biloxi
in
its
simplest
form.
So
right
now
the
the
ratio
mitigation
ratio
is
three
to
one.
That's
not
what
everybody
else
does.
A
Right
and
I
would
assume
an
answer
to
just
a
comment
associated
with
mr
deming's
observation.
You
know
why
don't
you
just
change
the
number
of
trees
to
what
is
it
6,
9
16,
so
you
don't
have
to
do
the
trigonometry
well.
A
C
G
A
And
and
I'm
think
and
I'm
thinking
where,
where
where
it
really
gets
into
some
bucks,
I
guess
is
when
you're
doing
developments
like
maybe
apartment
complexes,
depending
on
the
size
of
that
or
big
subdivisions,
and-
and
I
know
it's
easier
just
to
go
in
and
bulldoze
everything.
But
that's
that's
a
lot
of
greenery
and
trees.
You
lose
most
of
the
projects.
F
That
we
have
coming
forward
and
that
we've
dealt
with
they
want
landscaping
to
be
a
big
part
of
their
development.
You
know
they
do
put
in
attractive
landscaping,
because
if
it's
attractive,
it's
going
to
draw
more
people
into
that
hotel
or
whatever,
but
remember
with
the
mitigation
money.
F
D
D
A
Okay,
well,
what
I'd
like
to
do
right
now
is
if
we
have
somebody
from
the
tree
committee
and
we
had
a
handout,
just
let
you
review
your
handout
and
then
kind
of
be
sure.
We
all
understand
where
we're
headed
with
this
and.
G
A
K
I
have
a
couple
questions
for
eric
and
I
have
a
couple
points
I
wanted
to
clarify
regarding
mr
deming's
questions
and
for
the
sake
of
the
powerpoint
being
right
there
on
the
slide
that
I
was
going
to
address.
I
thought
we'd
start
there.
So
can
we
do
that.
K
And
was
so
what
I'm
going
to
talk
about?
Is
the
mitigation
table
that's
being
proposed?
Okay,
it's
really
quite
simple,
and
it's
shown
here
on
the
second
page
of
what
I
gave
you
on
that
right
hand,
column
and
it's
right
there.
So
it's
just.
If
you
remove
an
8
to
12
inch
tree,
then
you're
required
to
mitigate
at
a
rate
of
two
to
one.
K
That's
what
the
two
is
and
so
larger
tree
three
to
one
even
larger
tree.
Four
to
one
all
the
way
up
to
super
tree
gets
six
to
one,
so
it's
that
number
can't
be
calculated
until
we
know
how
many
trees
are
being
removed,
how
many
protected
trees
are
being
removed,
so
that
only
relates
to
protected
trees
that
are
approved
for
removal
doesn't
require
it,
and
so,
when
you're
talking
about
a
subdivision
that
might
require
the
numbers
been
thrown
out
here,
so
that
might
require
300
trees
to
be
removed.
K
K
So
it
actually
incentivizes
protecting
more
of
our
canopy.
It's
a
bit.
You
know
of
a
little
bit
of
a
math
situation
for
eric
and
for
us,
as
we
have
to
you,
know,
it's
not
just
a
clear
three
to
one
anymore,
but
it
like.
I
said
it
incentivizes
the
developer,
to
protect
more
of
the
largest
trees,
which
we
think
is
a
good
thing.
K
Okay,
question
for
eric
you'll
back
up
a
couple
slides
back
up
to
slide
one!
Please
uh-huh!
K
K
I
think
it
should
probably
be
considered
that,
for
instance,
at
the
beginning
of
maybe
every
two
year
period
or
whatever
you
figure
out
okay,
this
is
the
average
cost
of
a
tree.
Fifty
dollars
a
hundred
dollars
whatever
it's
not
that
and
then
that's
what
we
go
by
for
x
number
of
months
years,
whatever
it's
not
that
any
tree
that
that
developer
decides
to
plant,
whether
it's
a
bald
cypress
or
a
southern
magnolia
or
a
live
oak.
K
C
K
And
then
another
bit
of
confu
another
bit
of
confusion
that
I
sensed,
as
I
heard
your
questions,
was
the
on-site
versus
the
off-site
mitigation
so
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
because
this
is
definitely
the
way
we
understand
it,
and
so,
if
we
don't
understand
it
correctly,
we
want
to
know
like
he
said:
mitigation
is
mitigation
if,
if
they
remove
x
number
of
trees,
they
have
to
mitigate
at
the
rate,
according
to
the
mitigation
table,
whether
they
choose
to
mitigate
on-site
because
they
have
that
available
space
they
can,
but
they
can
also
opt
to
pay
into
the
mitigation
trust
at
which
time
the
city
becomes
responsible
for
the
planting,
the
maintenance,
the
irrigation,
the
tracking
and
the
warranty
for
three
years,
and
so
it's
actually
a
lot
easier
on
the
develop,
because
otherwise
the
developer
actually
has
to
pay
for
the
planting,
the
irrigation,
the
maintenance,
the
tracking,
the
you
know,
establishment
for
three
years
and
they
fall
off
that
it
falls
off
their
radar
pretty
quickly
because
they're
gone,
you
know,
they've
already
built
their
establishment.
K
So
this
the
the
whole
mitigation,
the
mitigation
trust
really
ensures
for
our
city.
That
more
of
those
trees
that
are
required
to
be
planted
are
actually
planted
now
and
cared
for
by
somebody
with
the
know-how
and
capacity
to
do
it.
K
The
issue
that
the
tree
committee
takes
with
that
part
of
it-
and
I
don't
want
to
go
into
too
much
detail
in
that,
but
it
is
outlined
here,
is
we
seriously
question
whether
the
city
has
the
capacity
to
do
that,
and
we
say
that,
because
the
trees
and
the
tracking
of
the
trees
we
have,
we
have
not
seen
good
evidence
that
that
has
been
trapped,
I
mean
so
as
as
we've
tracked
it
the
city,
the
city
is
owed
by
developers,
many
many
many
many
trees,
and
because
there's
you
know
them
planting,
it
is
not
being
reinforced.
A
Let
me
excuse
me,
let
me
make
a
comment
because
I
remember
the
gas
station
was
at
murphy
oil.
I
think
that
opened
over
there
on
eisenhower
drive
by
the
track
several
years
ago.
A
I
think
it
was
murphy
oil.
It's
a
gas
station.
There
we
turned
to
go
to
the
big
on
ct
switzer.
There
I
mean
they
planted
some
trees
and
some
crepe
myrtles
and
then
there's
a
two
or
three
year
period,
where
some
somebody's
got
to
check
them
and
if
those
trees
don't
make
it
they're
supposed
to
place
a
plant
replacement
tree.
So
I
mean
that's
the
city's
responsibility
to
do
that
right
and
I
I'm
just
thinking
ahead.
A
Well,
if
we're
going
to
see
more
mitigation
and
more
trees
planted
or
a
developer
plants
the
trees,
then
it's
still
the
city's
responsibility
to
go
check
those
trees.
I
don't
know
what
the
manpower
required
is,
but
it
just
makes
sense
to
me
the
more
trees
you
plant,
the
more
time
it's
going
to
take
I'll.
Just
leave
it
at
that.
Just
an
observation:
go
ahead:
tracy,
okay,.
K
Oh,
the
other
thing
that
is
new
to
this
ordinance
proposal
and
the
you
know.
Community
development
and
the
tree
committee
is
in
agreement
with
this
is
in
the
past.
There
was
no
mitigation
species
requirement,
it
was
just
am
I
correct
that
it
was
just
you
got
to
mitigate
three
trees
for
the
one
you
removed
and
now
it
is
you've
got
to
replace
it
with
the
correct
number
of
protected
species.
So
you
can't
just
plant
palms
or
crepe
myrtles
to
take
care
of
removing
a
live
oak.
G
K
Which
you
are-
and
I
am
not?
Okay
actually-
and
I
don't
mean
that
weird,
but
I
just
mean
just
to
say
it
from
a
layperson's
standpoint
from
the
things
I
hear
from
the
people
in
biloxi
that
I've
that
I've
just
heard
from
we
love
our
tree
canopy,
we
love
our
native
species.
This
is
the
heritage
of
this
of
this
area,
and
so
it's
it's,
those
those
live
oaks
and
those
magnolias
and
those.
K
G
There's
other
native
species
that
could
be
planted,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
a
live
oak
for
a
live
oak
or
whatever.
If
that's
the
logic,
someone
could
plant
some
other
species
of
tree,
that's
native
to
that's
what
I'm
just
asking.
Is
there
a
scientific
benefit?
I
get
the
being
able
to
survive
in
the
soil
and
it
so.
K
G
G
Sorry
and
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
offend
anyone
else,
but
I
do
have
to
go.
I've
got
to
close
up
my
shop.
Had
this
been
a
night
meeting,
I'd
have
been
able
to.
L
L
J
I
think
before
it
may
have
been
a
functional
cost.
You
could
take
out
two
live
oak
trees
and
put
in
two:
what's
the
two
cheapest
trees
I
can
replace
it
with
and
you
get
like
two
crepe
myrtles
or
two
cheap
palms.
So
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
part
of
it
too.
I
think,
is
getting
the
cost
equalized
to
what's
being
taken
away.
F
So
can
somebody
plant
it
if
they
want
to
yes
do?
Do
we
encourage
magnolia
trees,
not
necessarily
it
depends
on
where
it
is
and
how
close
it's
located
to
some
of
our
drainage
infrastructure.
G
Thank
you
again,
I
wasn't.
I
wasn't
pushing
for
any
changes.
I
was
just
asking
that
question
for
knowledge.
That's
all,
but
again,
thank
you
guys
for
coming
up
here
and
explaining
this.
If
you
have
a
lot
more,
would
you
be
happy?
Would
you
be
willing
to
put
in
an
email
and
send
it
to
me,
so
I
don't
want
to
miss
anything
and
be
prepared
for
our
be
prepared
for
our
meetings,
so
we
can
discuss
this
and
vote
to
approve
or
deny
or
whatever.
K
A
K
Okay,
as
we
stated,
the
mitigation
requirement
in
the
past
was
three
to
one
now
we're
proposing
it
goes
to
this
new
table,
but
then.
K
That
subdivision
development
of
new
single-family
homes
that
they,
that
their
mitigation
requirement
does
not
go
by
that
table,
but
goes
by
a
lesser
ratio
of
just
one
to
one,
and
so
it
takes
for
one
thing,
our
point
was
to
simplify
the
whole
process
and
the
language,
and
so
it's
taking
that
whole
table-
and
it's
saying
this
and
this
and
this
type
of
development
this
table
applies
to,
but
then
this
other
type
they
just
do
one
to
one.
So
let
I'm
just
you
know
everybody
do
the
mitigation
table.
K
K
K
Number
two
new
development
subdivisions
are
established,
then
without
aesthetic
and
environmental
benefits
of
trees.
Con
number
three
would
be.
This
is
an
entirely
different
pattern
of
mitigation,
which
I
already
addressed.
Number
four
would
be.
This
does
not
incentivize
protecting
native
and
the
native
and
the
important
and
native
canopy.
K
The
proposed
policy
sends
a
message
of
favoring
one
kind
of
development
without
requiring
reasonable
mitigation,
and
then
the
does
anybody
have
any
questions
on
that
point
and
then
the
final
point
that
we
wanted
to
make
is
under
the
old
policy,
all
applications
for
the
removal
of
five
or
more
species
of
protected
trees,
five
or
more
protected
trees
was
to
go
to
planting
commission
one
to
four
trees
and
that's
handled
through
the
community
development
and
and
the
city
arborist
signs
off
on
that.
K
The
problem
with
that
is,
it
creates
a
loophole
for
developers
who
go
in
through
planning
commission
and
get
the
approval
to
remove
300
or
50
protected
trees,
whatever
it
is
to
plot
out
their
subdivision,
and
then,
when
all
that
is
said
and
done
a
couple
years
later,
they
become
the
builder,
and
this
is
a
I'm,
giving
you
a
real
scenario
that
happened
within
the
last
year
without
naming
names
and
then
the
same
developer
comes
in
and
serves
as
the
builder
of
five
of
those
lots.
Am
I
right
in
the
number
of
five
carol
a
thread?
K
K
K
Clusters
of
trees
that
the
protected
trees
fall
on
property
lines
or
near
property
lines
so
that
there's
still
room
for
a
home
to
be
built
without
requiring
you
know
the
the
homeowner
to
come
in
and
buy
that
plot
of
land
and
have
to
take
that
to
you,
know
community
development
and
ask
for
that
tree
to
be
removed,
so
there's
a
so
that
we
haven't.
We
take
issue
with
that.
F
F
F
F
The
second
part
of
it
that
has
to
do
with
the
the
different
lights
that
each
had
a
separate
application
that
has
to
do
with
subdivisions
that
are
developed
in
different
phases.
Sometimes
when
that
developer
or
that
engineer
brings
that
project
in
at
that
point,
they've
only
decided
on
the
way
that
phase
one
is
going
to
be
designed.
F
F
I
think
that
if
this
table
is
passed
that
it's
going
to
more
than
compensate
with
the
commercial
development
that
we
have
for
the
compromise
that
we're
making
on
the
number
of
trees
in
a
subdivision
development
we're
going
to
be
getting
many
more
trees
off
of
the
commercial
developments,
the
isolated
commercial
developments
that
will
more
than
make
up
for
the
removal
of
those
trees
in
the
subdivision.
I
think
it's
a
very
fair
compromise.
F
You
cannot
shape
around
those
trees
to
protect
those
roots
on
it,
the
the
way
that
it
it
needs
to
be
done.
So
that
that's
our
argument.
I
think
that
we've,
I
think
that
we've
compromised
with
regard
to
the
commercial
tables,
and
I
would
hope
that
the
the
tree
committee
would
work
along
with
us
and
compromise
on
the
on
the
subdivision
development
as
well.
I
One
quick
question:
go
ahead,
have
we
she
mentioned
about
a
loophole?
Have
we
addressed
those
issues
where
the
possibility
of
being
compromised
in
certain
areas
that
the
loopholes
that
she
was
talking
about.
F
Well,
I
think
she's
referring
to
the
fact
that
those
lights
out
there
were
separate
lights
and
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
address
with
the
phasing
of
a
subdivision
development,
because
we,
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
an
issue
with
the
commercial
developments
you
know
when
they
come
in.
They
come
in
with
a
site
plan
for
their
entire
project
and
it's
already
designed,
and
then
we
work
with
them
through
drc
to
move
the
building
around
on
the
property
or
maybe
move
the
parking
lot
over
to
save
more
protected
trees.
F
That
part
is
working
with
the
subdivision
development.
The
only
thing
that
we
could
do
is
to
require
the
subdivisions
to
go
ahead
and
completely
design
the
entire
plant
from
start
to
finish
so
that
everything
is
addressed
at
that
time.
Sometimes
the
developer
is
not
ready
to
do
that
and
I'm
sure
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
whether
or
not
they're
going
to
have
to
cut
down
a
few
more
trees.
F
I
think
that
has
to
do
with
the
fact
that
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
get
phase
one
in
because
we've
got
the
financing
for
phase
one
and
right
now
we
don't
have
the
financing
for
phase
two.
We
have
a
general
idea
about
the
way
that
it's
going
to
look,
but
we
haven't
reduced
that
to
engineering
designs
yet
and
whenever
that
happens,
we
will
come
in
with
that.
There
was
one
thing
that
wasn't
mentioned,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
mention
when
the
developer
comes
in
with
his
tray
survey.
F
Actually,
the
city
arborist
is
scheduling
a
on-site
visit
with
the
tree
committee
to
actually
go
out
and
walk
the
property,
and
I
think
that's
important
to
understand
that
nobody's
being
blindsided
by
this
that
the
tree
committee
has
under
the
ordinance
now
can
send
a
representative
to
the
drc
committee
to
ask
these
questions
in
advance.
They
also
once
the
survey
is
generated.
They
also
can
meet
with
eric
out
on
the
site
to
do
a
walking
tour
to
look
at
the
trees
and
discuss
those
things.
So
I
think
that's
important
for
y'all
to
know
as
well.
A
K
You,
my
only
response
to
that
would
be
is
regarding
the
phases
that
jerry
was
speaking
to
all
we're
asking
there
is
that
those
projects,
also,
if
they're,
five
or
more
trees
they
go
through
planning.
Commission,
that's
what
we're
asking.
A
K
A
A
First
first.
I
need
a
motion
to
table
this
ordinance
for
a
second
reading
at
the
january
25th
meeting
by
mr
lawrence,
a
second
by
mr
guys.
Any
discussion
all
in
favor,
it's
approved
on
a
4-0
vote,
entertain
a
motion
to
adjourn.