All right, let's uh let's call this uh environmental commission meeting to order for June 10th. Um let's see. Uh having a call to order, let's have a roll call vote, please. Roll call. >> Chairman Jack >> here.
>> Vice Chairwoman Thompson. Member Berdett. Member Tucker. Member Miller >> here. Member Delgado >> here. >> Member Nico >> here. >> Alternate member Young >> here. >> Alternate member Rosa.
>> Well, it sounds like we have a quorum. >> So, with that, then let's uh move on to the pledge of allegiance, please. >> Here comes. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Let's let the record show Laura Lee has arrived. All right. Next up is the approval of the amendments
from May 13th. >> I have a couple of things. >> Uh oh. Okay. >> Turn your microphone. >> It's on. I think it's on. >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. Um so, um
let me get on the right page here. On page five of 253. Okay. Um in paragraph 4. Um okay. Um, so the paragraph says the Titusville Environmental Commission had
additional discussion regarding the motion and stated that the line item would be $100,000, which is what the $2 capita $2 per capita would equal. That is true, but it's the $2 capita has never ever come
from the landscape trust funds ever. It's it's part of the um it's part of it's part of the um the um maintenance um you know Sandraers it's it's part of
their budget um it's it's never >> part of our requirement >> it's our requirement right >> but the money has always come from public works departments >> pot of money >> right >> it's never come out it has ever never come out of the landscape trust funds so
then there's one other place. So Lori, you would just you would just end that sentence take out the last four words from the landscape trust funds or the last five words. That sentence would end after the word equal
>> or no after per capita >> per capita. Yeah. >> End ended at at $2 per capita period. And then there's one other place on page seven where it also talks about it incorrectly.
Okay, last paragraph. >> Second sentence. Make a dedicated line item from the landscape trust fund using >> using to Yeah. >> to specifically. >> So it would just say make a dedicated line item you
from the landscape trust fund and take out >> the 2% per capita. >> Yeah. Take out using the 2% per capita. >> So it would say a dedicated line. >> I understand what you're saying, but the motion actually stated that
>> it did. Okay. So to keep the minutes true, I listen to the motions pretty much verbatim. >> Well, I'm sure you do. You listen to the tapes. Okay, good. I'm sorry I didn't catch that. >> I will say that that motion was denied. Um Oh, >> you know, because you'll see the roll
call is nobody >> and then that's when you guys made a remotion later on. So, >> and was it correct? >> Yes, we corrected it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It says member Nico made a motion to recommend to city council to establish a budget line item from the
landscape trust fund specifically to fund the implementation of the urban forest management plan which would include hiring an urban forester and tree plantings. Chairman Mjack seconded. >> Awesome. >> And we all voted unanimously.
So, it didn't put anything anything on the 2% per capita or put a limit >> on what what uh council would recommend for initiating this process. >> Thank you. That's it. >> That's it. Anybody else have any other
comments on the minutes? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion to accept. We have a motion and a second from member Delgado. Any further discussions?
>> If not, all in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Which brings us to petitions and requests from the public. >> Congratulations. Congratulations on what
happened last night. Uh that the urban forestry management plan was uh uh promoted and uh has is moving forward. So good job Bill Hector
uh Norley and Mike. Okay. Good job. Uh and some other people too. >> Oh yeah. >> Uh tonight uh I want to just go over two subjects. One is what fresh sewage is odless. That's number
one. And number two is water flows downhill. It flows downhill to the legal positive outfall. Okay. Fresh sewage is odless. Uh that is something I learned first or second day in sanitary sewage. Maybe you don't
believe it. I mean when my grandpa's in the in the bathroom, it's hard to believe. But fresh sewage actually is is odorless. Uh and uh uh so we have uh uh many times I've called for sewage inspectors to come and inspect a site
because it looks like a sewage spill. So they come out there, they look at it, they turn their head and go away. What's going on there? What's going on there? They do it again and again and again. And larly you may remember and and also maybe some of you all remember
is that I had overheads of sewage coming out lifting out of manholes and so forth like that. They they claimed there was no sewage spills there. So what we have is something what I'm going to call is
we are training our inspectors to be dishonest from the very fact that fresh sewage is odorless. You can't tell by smell and I don't know
if you can tell by visible but uh I'm I'm that's that's my trade here. So, um, that's a terrible thing that for me to say, but, uh, that's what the inspectors are doing. They are trained to be dishonest.
Let me say that again. Our sewage inspectors are trained to be dishonest. Okay. The second thing has to do with water flows downhill. And water flows downhill and it flows to a legal positive outfall. In the case of the city of Tyusville,
our legal positive outfalls to the St. John's River in many cases are unmaintained, not inspected. That it's not sustainable. This is not sustainable. Uh nobody can do calculations on on a u
uh a blocked up legal positive outfall. They can't do it. And uh it was brought forward to the city of Titusville when uh uh Abbe Lily, not Lily, Larley and Mike were in meetings with with city
staff and uh I brought forward issues about the stormwater master plan and I I've shown you pictures before of of the clogged uh um ditches west of I95. They're not even visible. Many of them
are not visible at all. can't see them. So, uh, that's another case that what we have is the city of Titusville has is has, uh, I went to the human resources director and made a
complaint against, uh, Brad and Eddie about their saint sustainability report. And Brad confessed to it that he did not include this issue about legal positive outfalls to the St. John's and uh he said, you know, he he deliberately
deleted it. So this was a falsification of the sustainability report and it continued today by Brad, but it was it was said to put a affidavit in there uh amendment. They put in there a short time, then they took it out. So anyhow,
what we have is Brad, Edy, Lily, and so forth doing a sustainability report. That is incorrect. And over the years, this has been done for over 50 years at a cost of to the city that should have been budgeted in the millions of dollars. This is a
serious issue. And so what I'm saying is is regarding sustainability, the city of Titusville is doing what? They're training their employees to be dishonest. Let me say that again. We're training our employees to be dishonest.
We're training our employees to be dishonest in that. And also what I told you about um sewage inspectors. Any questions? This is my profession. Thank you. Thank you for listening. >> If you have questions later, let me
know. Thank you. Seeing no others, um I do have one question. Do we do we want to reorganize this so we can get Eddie home early instead of letting him wait till we're done playing with wetlands for another three months?
>> I can make a motion if you want me to. I would I would really appreciate >> I I I make a motion that we move um new business item 8A to be next on the agenda before old business so Eddie can go home and watch
the preliminary to the basketball game. >> I can second that. >> All right, we have a motion in the second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? passes unanimously. Thank you. All right, Eddie, you're up.
>> Great. Thank you, commissioners. Uh, this is item 8A, the comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal report, the EAR, which begins on page 31 of 253 of tonight's agenda packet. And I know that the agenda item itself takes up two the first 200 pages of your agenda packet,
but I promise you the changes are much simpler than that. And I've prepared a little exhibit that'll help us walk through it. Uh, shouldn't take more than 15 minutes. At least every seven years, pursuant to rule chapter uh 73 C-49 Florida Administrative Code, the city is
required to determine whether the need exists to amend the comprehensive plan to reflect changes in state requirements since the last evaluation of the comprehensive plan. The staff determined that several changes are necessary to bring the comprehensive plan into compliance with state requirements.
In October of 2025, city council approved the transmitter of the year based amendments to the city's comprehensive plan and sent those to the state's land planning agency, Florida Commerce, for review. Florida Commerce completed its review in January of this year and subsequently determined that
the proposed comprehensive plan amendments conflict with the application of chapter 2025 190 section 28 Laws of Florida, otherwise known as Senate Bill 180 um rendering the amendment null and void. Planning staff will provide an update
and present revised policy language for transmitt to Florida Commerce. The presentation of this report is a community engagement opportunity associated with the current evaluation period. Enclosed is a presentation that was given to city council in March of this year. And the presentation summarizes the state's response to uh
the amendments. City council is scheduled to hold transmitt public hearings on this item on July 14th, 2026. Um so pages 34 through 156. You don't need to turn to that right now, but that's the the
bulk of the the comprehensive plan and the changes that are being proposed. Um, what I would ask you to turn to is page 157. Page 1577 is the uh first slide of the presentation. It says evaluation and appraisal review
year uh March update. So if you go to the next page, the background on this um public meetings were held last year in June and July and city council voted to transmit the ear to the state in October of last year.
The state completed their review January of this year. On the next page, the state found that several of the proposed amendments conflict with chapter 20259 in that some of the policies as proposed were more restrictive or burdensome.
that's their term for it. Um and marked the entire amendment nonvoid we have to retransmit to the state. And the next page is an excerpt from the letter that we received from Florida Commerce and it reads, "Each county listed in the federal disaster
declaration for Hurricane Debbie, Hurricane Helen, or Hurricane Milton, and each municipality within one of those counties may not, and then the highlighted language, propose or adopt more restrictive or burdensome amendments to the comprehensive plan or land development regulations before
October 1 of 2027." So, the state's intent was to lock in current standards and uh allow uh businesses, homeowners to uh continue developing under the current rules and at least until October 1, 2027 because of the impact from those
uh several named storms. And so, the rest of the letter reads, the reasons outlined herein, the city of Titusville's proposed amendment is more restrictive or burdensome, making it null and void. On the next slide, again, we're on uh let's see, we're on page 161 of the
packet. These are the three policies or policy groups uh that were identified as more restrictive and burdensome. Um the exhibit goes into those in more detail, so we'll skip that for now. On the next page,
uh two policies were identified as potentially more R&B. And so we had a conversation with the state staff and they explained it as kind of a red light and a yellow light scenario. They said that these policies that have been identified as potentially more R&B are a yellow light, a caution. They said that
we could the city could move forward with adopting these policies. Um but caution because the implementation of them may result in new standards that are more restrictive and burdensome. And so I'll give you an example of that on page uh 167.
Conservation policy 1.2.6 says the city shall develop and maintain an urban forest management plan to support the expansion of the city's urban tree canopy. And that was at council last night. Um so this adoption of this policy into the comprehensive plan, the
the state flagged it as potentially more R&B. Again, we can still move forward with it. And in in tonight's amendment, we are proposing to continue moving forward with that amendment uh with the understanding that if this uh management plan moves forward, adoption of any new standards prior to October 1 of next
year um will be in violation of of the state law. And so we can't do that. Um the other example is on page 168. That's the comp uh capital improvements element policy 1.3.6.
The city shall consider adopting a mobility plan and fee to fund multimodal transportation projects. So very similar, we're adopting we're we're putting into the comp plan that the city will adopt this mobility plan. The adoption of the of that policy itself is not more restrictive and burdensome. But
what may result from that study, that plan, uh, could be. And so, yellow light again. Uh, so now I'll hand out the, uh, exhibit or the little guide. Oh, great. Thanks.
Let me go into just in case. I don't think you'll need this, but just in case. Okay. So this exhibit you have next. So this exhibit highlights the three policies or policy groups that were identified as definitively more restrictive and burdensome. So these are
the policies the state said you cannot move forward with your amendment because of these policies and they must be changed. Um the changes are very very minor. Uh you'll notice so on the left hand side of the chart is the policy number or objective number. The first
column is the current comp plan language. The middle column that has a strike through it is what was previously approved by city council to send to the state and what was identified as more restrictive and burdensome. And on the the last column on the right is the
proposed tweak so that uh we can move forward with adopting these policies. I know that these aren't ideal. I ideally um I think what we heard is that we wanted stronger language in the comp plan, but unfortunately we are bound by that state that state law um and cannot
move forward at this time. However, it's a potential future change and we'll keep it um keep a record of all these changes that um we would like to make in the future. Uh so you'll see policy 1.5.8, the word require and prohibit. Uh those
were some of the two key words, buzzwords that the state staff um basically they said they do a control F and if any new policies have those words in it, they're flagged immediately. So uh to soften that requires change to encourage and prohibit to discourage. Again, not ideal, but with working
within our current limits, that's what we're proposing. The next group is in the transportation element objective 1.1 uh 1.10 and policies 1.10. 10.1 through 1.10.5
on the second page. And that was a new set of policies that was being proposed uh to to address access management. And because a lot a lot of the policies mentioned SHA and um are providing new standards for access management, the
state said this whole group of new policy is in violation. And so at this time, we're proposing not to add it to the the ear. Um but it again it's something that we're very interested in having in the comp plan and we will move forward as soon as we can. Um one of the other things I didn't mention in the
slide in the presentation it's in there um let's see what page it is page 163 if you wanted to to look at that. Uh there was a potential legislative change in uh the session
this earlier this year that would have changed the ending date, the sunset date for that law to June 30th of this year. And that would have allowed us to to move forward with adopting the policies as previously proposed. Unfortunately, that uh that amendment uh did not move
forward and was not signed by the governor. So it's um we have to wait until the um the the deadline for next year for the sun setting sorry. So again those that group of policies are no longer proposed in the current year. And then
finally on the last page uh we have the strategy 1.2.1.2. Um and the word prohibit is what what got us flagged on that one. And so the change is to uh the word avoid. So
rather than prohibiting the planting of invasive exotic plants, avoid um with that, what we're asking for you from you tonight is a motion to recommend approval of um transmitt of the proposed ear as presented tonight uh
for city council uh so we can get this back to the state for review. Thank you. >> Thank you, Eddie. Anybody have any questions? It's frustrating, but it makes sense, I guess, from the from the way Dave describes it.
>> Yes. >> But we're going to hold them all in safekeeping, and when the uh when the guards guard rails are released, we'll put it back in. I suppose I would make a motion to recommend this go forward to to council
and accept it. >> Um, Bill, did you want to >> Yeah. Is it burdensome for me to pay taxes to these people that >> Wait, wait, wait, wait. There's a motion. Do you want to second the motion? >> No. I thought you're ready for comment. >> No. Well, we have to second before we can have discussion. That's kind of the
way the rules work. >> I thought somebody did. No, >> I'll second it. >> Okay, then we can have discussion. Bill, >> so it's burdensome for me to pay more taxes to pay their salaries. I'd like to see them removed the people that voted for this, the congressman. I mean, what
is burdensome? And can we go to the Supreme Court and ask the Supreme Court to make decision about what is burdensome and not? How far up the chain of law can we carry this to have someone else
define what burdensome is >> to Eddie. That That's as far as as we can go legally. >> What? The Supreme Court. >> Some ser No Eddie. >> Oh, Eddie. As far as we But we can't. That That's not >> I mean, let's take seat belts out of
cars. It's too much trouble to put them on and cost more to have them in the car. It's burdensome. >> Okay. Bill, >> I will add there are a couple lawsuits against this provision pending in state court and administrative courts. And they are going to take what another
year maybe or so. So about the time the sunset >> the wheels of justice turn slowly as they say. >> Yes. >> At least it sets. Yeah. Thank you. David. >> All right. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Member
Delgato. >> One question. Eddie is is the English uh on 1.2 one 1.2.1. 2.1.2 uh the word avoid is used for the first
time not discourage like it was used before. >> Is it is it is it is has it been used as a stronger meaning avoid versus discourage?
>> Uh no I don't think they're necessarily any stronger using the word discourage. If you'd like to propose changing that to discourage for consistency, we can do that. >> I'm I'm just looking for what transcribed within staff to come up with the difference in the front where we a lot a
lot of stuff is discouraged and then all of a sudden we come back here on the on the on basically the same subject native plants and then all of a sudden we're going to avoid. So the word avoid is in the current language. If you look at the the
first column, >> it says avoid the planting of exotic plants known to create nuisances. So that's existing language in our comp plan today that's being carried over into the new uh policy. >> So they can't complain about it. It's not really a change.
>> Okay. I I was just trying to figure out the how we get there from the 1.5.8 discourage. >> Sure. So again, that prohibit uh change to avoid is the the smallest change just to um hopefully get this approved by the
state. And so again, it's using the existing language in the comp plan that says avoid the planting of exotic plants. Uh but if you'd like to change that to discouraged, make it part of the motion and we can bring that to council. >> I just wanted for discussion because it it changes
from front to back. That's all. But I'm okay with it. I I understand what you're trying to do, but I just wanted to to see if there was any discussion. >> Thank you. >> There isn't. There isn't. We're good. I'm good. >> How about avoid with extreme prejudice?
>> Oh, okay. Just check. >> If somebody wants to plant poison ivy, they can, >> but they should avoid it. >> They should avoid it. So, let's go to their houses and plant poison ivy in their yard and see how they like it.
>> I think it's endemic. >> Yeah. >> All right. We have a motion and a second. There's no further discussion. We'll have a roll call vote. Member Young, >> yes. >> Member Delgado, >> yes.
>> Member Nico, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson, >> yes. >> Member Miller, >> yes. >> Chairman Mjek, >> yes. Very good. Wonderful. >> Thank you all. Have a good night. >> Thank you, Eddie. You too. Let us know how the pregame stuff goes.
>> Okay, back on to old business of wetlands. It's okay if we do the semiannual report at the end. We can Thank you, Eddie. >> Thank you. >> Bye. >> Excellent. >> Do the best we can with what we have.
>> Um, Mary Coco, just just to tell you, it is now 6:00 p.m. I expected this to take longer. It is possible for us to get done tonight. say possible. We will see. >> We're ready.
>> So, okay. Um the uh we had a meeting yesterday, Lily and David and Brad and I, and uh we hashed through a few things and there's been some changes made. So, um you're going to have to get paper
copies and I emailed it to Lily. Yeah. And so, um, we're going to have these passed out in order. We'll try the first one, which should go the fastest. you have.
>> Okay. Now, can you hear me? Okay. Now this first one we're going to look at is the one page uh handout which is
um regarding the future land use element strategy 1.16.2.2 to which um was very difficult to figure out what to do with. This policy
is uh meant to allow under conservation land use of if a land owner
who has to have a wetlands uh assessment also has gopher tortoises or other state listed species on their property. In particular for gopher
tortoises, um there are there are not enough sites that can take relocation of gopher tortoises. This will allow a state approved
um gopher tortoise um >> sanctuary. >> Yes, sanctuary. It will also allow if there are wetlands on the property, there's been a wetland delineation or suspected if it falls under the category
of when you get have to get a wetland environmental assessment with a wetland delineation to set aside uh with US Fish and Wildlife Service
um approval sites for uh habitat for the Florida scrub j in particular. We do not know if it's going to be needed because of impacts at um you know uh the
cape. We don't know, you know, with um the couple rockets that are pretty darn noisy um impacting the habitat. There's two meta populations out there
um and they're both near launch sites. So, we're preparing to help these um wildlife species if necessary. And it's been difficult to go through this
um policy and make uh it up to date, but I think we may have it. Um all we did, you can read the existing strategy now, which um you know is pretty wordy. We
tried to clean it up and make it less wordy. and um still do the job. >> I think it's good. So if you can I suggest that you read the existing
policy and then we'll go over the proposed strategy that is clean you know so >> for the audience I'm just going to go ahead and read it. >> Yeah the the completed one.
>> Yeah. You don't have to read the underlying strike through though. If an environmental assessment on a specific site indicates the state and or federal listed wildlife are present or may be present, the property owner shall
submit documentation which confirms the presence and potential locations of the listed wildlife species. If the documentation identifies a location or locations on the site for suitable habitat for preservation and these areas are
accepted by the permitting agencies as preservation for the identified species, then the city shall amend the conservation land use to include these areas. >> Well, now I just see that there's a hiccup.
Um, this is pretty much as it should be. And um where's my purse? Um did I leave it over there? I left it over there. I was having I have I have this new laptop. Did Did you get
the one What's Is this the latest one that I sent you this afternoon about 4:00? Okay. Where's Okay. What's what's different? >> You're missing an R in the second to the
last sentence. >> I had that fixed here. Was there something substantive that's missing there? >> No, it's that documentation should be changed to study. >> Well, you had study crossed out on the
first one and wrote documentation as the underline. >> Yeah. You know what? I have the I got this new little laptop. Oh my gosh. It's a Mac. Well, the other one was Windows. And um I am having a little I was having a little bit of
trouble getting the right file. I thought I did. Oh, >> well you say the property owner shall submit documentation. >> Okay, here it is. Now look at up here. We'll cross out I see I got this in the first. >> Yeah. Right.
>> Okay. So let's let's just not panic. >> Okay. >> What? The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has >> okay is to cross out that first sentence. Conservation um land use was
present on a specific site. A property owner shall submit a preliminary environmental assessment including wetland delineation when wetlands are present prior to any future development. Okay, that's redundant, >> right?
>> Because it's already in policy 1.16.2. two. And then it should say if the environmental assessment indicate if the environmental assessment
um and then I put um required by policy um 1.16 two required Yeah. Policy 1.16.2 indicates that state and or federal
listed wildlife are present. Um are present um on a specific site or something like Yeah. If the environmental assessment indicates that
state and or federal wildlife listed species are present. Oh, I know what I said. If the environmental assessment on a specific site on a specific site
site indic indicates If the environmental assessment required by policy 1.16 by policy 16.2
If the environmental assessment on a specific site required by policy 1.16.2 indicates that state and or federal listed wildlife are present within the areas of the site.
No. Are present or >> may be present. >> May be present. Okay. See here is the pro uh striketh through if the environmental assessment if you go down to the maybe we can get it
through the strike through. If the environmental assessment on a specific site required by policy 1.16.2 too. See that in the striketh through, >> right? >> Sorry, guys. I I'm just >> Yeah, go ahead.
>> This new computer has been uh >> throwing me for a loop. Indicates that state andor federal listed wildlife are present or may be present. The property owner shall submit an environmental study which confirms the
present presence and potential locations of the listed wildlife species. If the study indicates a location or locations on the site for suitable habitat for preservation and these areas are accepted by permitting agencies as
preservation for the identified species then the city shall amend the conservation land use to include these areas. So that is actually what I wanted to say the strike through and I think it may be I think what we may I may have been reading was the old language the
existing languages is what we do not want >> and we tried to mark it up with our pencil so you'll have to excuse me your patience is greatly appreciated. >> Okay we got it. So, what you're voting
on is to strike through that first sentence because it's already in policy 1.16.2. Okay? And what your the new language is going
to say just what that clean stuff does. If the environmental assessment on a specific site required by policy 1.16.2 two indicates that state and or federal listed wildlife are present or may be present. The property owner shall submit.
Okay. And it and I see that it then will go up to the strike through shall submit an environmental study which confirms the presence and potential locations of the listed wildlife. >> And so instead of the word documentation, you substitute an environmental study. It was. Yeah,
>> that's fine. >> Okay, >> so we got three edits. The required by policy 1.16.2, which goes after sight specific, excuse me, specific site then there and then indicates and then we replace documentation with an environmental
study >> and we corrected spelling. So what you're voting on is the underlying strike through because that is what is correct. I mean, if you want to vote on it, I think that may fly.
>> No, it what we just discussed is still in the underlying section in the middle. >> That's what I mean. It may fly. >> You said submit documentation be acceptable to >> Okay, wait, just wait a second. We just unplugged the word documentation for an
environmental study. In the underlined section in the middle, you still have shell submit documentation. So it doesn't say an environmental study there either. I think the cleanest one is the one on the bottom with the three edits that we have already identified.
>> Adding the R to where R is adding an environmental study in place of documentation in the second sentence and then doing required by policy 1.16.2 after site and before indicator. >> Wait a minute. Hold on just a second, guys.
>> Adding required required by policy 1.16.2 >> to go after where it says site after specific site required by policy 1.16.2 indicates the state andor >> this.
Okay. So, um yeah. So, >> so I got I got three edits. So, so in this underlying strike through Michael, can you go through that again? You said that I'm we're crossing out the
first sentence, right? >> This is not needed. >> Well, if you're going to modify the middle one, then where you have on a specific site, you have to add after that required by policy 1.16.2. Correct? It's
>> there. >> It's not there. It is online >> on a specific site. >> No, no, no. >> I don't have it online. >> So, we have two different >> copies. >> I must have an older copy.
>> My Is that the one I >> as far as I can tell? >> Yeah. See, I have it here. >> You have it on yours. I don't have it on mine. >> Yeah. >> That's mine.
>> No, you can have mine. >> Here. Anybody want the old one? >> Recycle. Thank you. Let me just update that here. So I I did have one other question. Yes. Um and I might just need to be pointing the right direction. So as I look at
this and I'm looking at the the comp plan as well and we might have changed this in a previous meeting. I don't recall. >> So it says that the spec the environmental assessment is required by policy 1.16.2. But as I look at the comp plan, the
requirement is actually in 1.16 the strategy 1.16.2.1. Is that just kind of semantics that I'm >> That's You're looking at a past document. It the requirement is in um is
is in um policy 1.16.2 of what we have um >> I see what you're confused about of 1.16.2 that we already >> uh fixed. That's what I was asking.
Okay. Okay. Good. Because I'm looking at the current >> Yes. >> Okay. Perfect. >> Thank you. >> That makes sense. >> The fixes that we made are in this are in our packet somewhere. >> Yeah, they are.
>> And I apologize. I really apologize for hopefully this is the end of any confusing because those other documents are more complicated. Let's put it that way. >> That was 20 minutes. Next. Go. Um, >> do we want to accept this now? Are we
ready to make a motion? >> It's on page 20, Jason. >> Oh, thank you. >> Yeah, I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. Okay. Have a motion and a second. >> Yeah. So my motion is that we would
change the language of um future land use strategy 1.16.2.2 to say if the environmental assessment on a specific site required by policy 1.16.2 indicates that state andor federal
listed wildlife are present or may be present. The property owner shall submit an environmental study which confirms the presence and potential locations of the listed wildlife species. If the study
identifies a location or locations on the site for suitable habitat for preservation and these areas are accepted by the permitting agencies as preservation for the identified species, then the city shall amend the
conservation land use to include these areas. >> Amen. >> Is that right? >> Absolutely. That's it. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Shall we have a roll call vote on this, please? >> Member Miller,
>> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson, >> yes. >> Member Young, >> yes. >> Member Delgado, >> yes. >> Member Nico, >> yes. >> Chairman Mek, >> yes. Very good. Passes unanimously. Another one down. >> Okay. Onward.
>> The next one. >> Um, okay. We're on to objective 1.1, natural resources. And I'd like to point out that you
approved the changes which you informally approved what's on the first page um at your last meeting. >> Yeah. I was up there at the podium. you
know, we're just changing environmentally endangered adding environmentally endangered lands to the objectives. We're trying to uh broaden them from just listed species. So you can look that
over. Um that objective 1.1 it broadens it to include environmentally endangered lands. Okay. And policy 1.1 1.1 this is probably
um we got rid of we voted to get rid of this thing which required a map by 2012. Um >> right >> of the u potential wildlife habitat and um sites of elicited species.
Um I don't think it's I think Lily discovered that it had never been done and um the 2040 plan omits this policy. >> So we'll see how that plays out. >> Okay. And then on policy 1.1.3
um the city shall inventory, identify and define environmentally endangered lands within the city utilizing applicable data from the state and federal agencies and will cooperate with the state and with Bvard County
in acquiring and conserving environmentally endangered lands to be preserved through acquisition and or regulations. We added Bvard County because their eel program acquisitions u could be very helpful to the city.
>> Does that make sense? >> Okay. >> Okay. So now this strategy 1.1.3.1 took some word smithing by you. You had a some uh several suggestions.
You wanted the uh we wanted to include on environmentally endangered lands wetlands five acres or greater in size and crucial adjoining portions of their respective watersheds. >> Right. That took some doing by you.
That's your recommendation. And then we se you know separated out natural lakes, lagoon and rivers. And then um Lily had found out that you know
critical habitats um you know aren't being um a focus of the east um east coast east central east east central Florida regional planning council >> and so we got rid of that and Um
critical habitats has a weird definition in our um LDRs. So we put critical or essential habitats, you know, for state and federally listed species and lands providing habitat connectivity.
And that you all decided on last time sounded pretty good. Mhm. >> So, are there any questions on the first page? >> Nope. >> Any concerns on the first page? >> Do we need a motion? Are we going to
page by page or we going to >> Yeah, the whole thing. >> Try I think we should try for the whole thing. >> Right. >> Okay. >> On to 116. >> All right. 1.1.4 four is the same.
There's a little uh poor word choice in 1.1.5 which was also caught in the 2040 plan. >> The owner developer of development in the city of Titusville should be the owner developer of property in the city
of Titusville. Okay. Um, and we corrected that. And that's existing language. And um, this is existing language. I did run it by David today. He thought it was
reasonable, right? >> Yeah. But um just looking at it real quick, purchase of development right at the end should probably be rights. >> Oh. Oh, okay. And that's in the next one. We'll do that. Okay. But 1.1.5.
Yeah, that's okay. Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, let's go on to 1.1.6. Um, >> okay. >> We did. We talked about it. >> Shall I read it and we move on?
>> Yeah. This one is >> Please. >> Um, asking, you know, um, for the city to purchase, um, if it's economically feasible, um, the critical habitat
um >> maybe green space >> identified by the regional planning council or you know um >> so I have a I have a quick question on this just where it says properties identified as environmentally endangered >> do we have a process by which we're I
identifying them as environmentally endangered or is that just >> correct um we we have the criteria here >> okay >> on strategy 1.1.3 3.1 on the pre previous page. >> Okay.
>> And that that is um a very good question that that is very good question because that strategy 1.1.3.1 is extremely important. It's it's um the criteria.
And so um now what um what this policy is suggesting uh even though it's a little bit of out of date, we um agree with it. Um
there's some um besides uh acquiring um or protecting this land by purchasing it, there are other ways of um protecting environment these
environmentally endangered lands. So, we've kind of shortened it. Well, if you like this, um, and this we talked about before
and, um, David had a suggestion and, um, you know, um, I added something important today. Okay. So let's go through the underline under
policy 1.1.6. Okay. The city shall purchase if economically feasible properties identified as environmentally endangered lands. The city shall also consider alternate
methods of protecting these lands, including easements, land donation. Okay, now here's the new thing. Mitigation bank establishment. This is something that the city's got on
its radar screen and we may be able to really save and improve a large wetland um by turning it, you know, that is not in the world's greatest shape by turning
it into a mitigation bank. And I know there's interest on the council for this. So, I'm suggesting that we add that in there. it to tell you what's going on with the
water management district is right now they are not finding these um mitigations uh lands within our county very easily. In
fact, almost all the farm farm tune mitigation bank credits are used up. And so they want, let's say, somebody uh impacts a a wetland in Titusville, they want them to
buy mitigation over in the other side of the state. Well, that is not flying too well with some city council members. They want the um mitigation which would be the improvement of wetlands to happen
in the county or preferably in the city. And since we got you know quite a few wetlands that maybe um targets for uh you know the creation of a um mitigation
bank. you know the city would appreciate it and the water management district would appreciate it too. So that is why that mitigation bank establishment language is in there which is new from last time.
Then we have transfer of development rights and purchase of development rights with an S. You have to have the S. As David point out we need a S. Yes.
>> And other planning tools. So, look that over and see if you think that's reasonable. >> Any any questions, complaints, or shall we move on? >> Does that sound reasonable to all of you? >> Yeah. Yeah, >> I think that's a great idea.
>> Okay. Okay. There was no changes to strategy 1.1 1.6.1. Um Okay. So what I did the protection of you know it says priority shall be given to the
acquisition and protection of land which are well that's a subjectverb problem so I put lands which are identified as environmentally endangered into those areas known to be important as habit habitat corridors. I got just got rid of
the >> quotes >> uh quote marks. Yeah. And then this particular um provision environmental value shall be prioritized
even where public use may be limited or inappropriate. is um is moved from 1.1.6 where it says
even though public use and recreation may not be appropriate. and it's moved down here and it says even where public use may be limited or inappropriate. Um, so we're covering that base
that the environmentally endangered lands just like the EEL program the emphasis is on the value of the e environmental value of the lands not on the recreational
you know potential. It's not whether they can be a great soccer field. And that language was just moved from policy 1.1.6 to um strategy 1.1.6.2
because I personally think we got enough to think about the way that 1.1.6 is rewarded. That is a very important policy and we'll just get the fluff out of it and move it.
Does that make sense? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Onward >> 117. >> Okay. So, this was a strange policy. 1.1.7
I got to say when I read it I thought it was what you know um the first sentence um you can read it and
I just thought it might be a bit much and you know for a person who just owned the property property to, you know,
be required for any reason to have a management plan. >> I think there needs to be an or uh after fish and wildlife commission on the end second to the last end of the second to the last sentence. >> Okay, wait a minute.
We say the city shall recognize the species as listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fishery Service, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services. Are we saying species have to be listed by all of those, >> which is what an AND says? It should be an or. >> I hear. Okay, that sound right. Okay,
good catch. Um, they might have, but we're putting over. >> Otherwise, I think it's good. >> Okay. >> So, we're scrapping one, >> scratching out and and we're putting or, >> right?
Okay. And now, just to make sure you got it, um, you can see that strategy 1.1.7.1 was where I got all this stuff about the agencies that list
species. >> There's some uh inconsistencies in their acronym. We they mostly use FWS for fishing. You United States. It should be United States, not United State.
>> Oh, >> okay. We're putting an S on there. Um, >> do you want to change FWS to USFWS? >> Well, okay. because
>> it I debated that and I looked at how many instances of FWS they have and they they have mostly FWS but I was going to hey David
do you happen to know if there's a acronym list for these agencies um within some portion of the city documentation >> I don't believe there is I think certain acronyms might be defined in the LDRs, but I don't believe it's comprehensive
by any means. >> Okay. So, I know um when I try to go about I try to go this iPack B, you know, the Oh my gosh. Well, it did not work out too well. I got somewhere somewhere I got some listed.
>> For what it's worth, if you go to the US Fish and Wildlife Service page, yes, >> it is fws.gov. And as soon as they start talking about themselves, it says what's going on at FWS. It doesn't say >> that. That's just what I noticed there, too. Yeah, that iPad B. If you can do
iPad B, that would be great. Um, you know, maybe we can get a get some idea. you know, that'd be great to bring back to um TEC is a a list of the you know, what you
can find out about some of these properties in Titusville because um I kind of hit a wall and what I could do even with the new little laptop I tried it because the other computer actually is just
almost not working at all. >> So, are we done with this page? >> Okay, so wait, we're done. We added an S and we added an or. >> We're done with that. Okay. So, we're done with that. But if you find out more stuff with IPACB B, it might be great to
bring it to the attention of TEC because I was unable to do it tried. Okay. So, um we've moved the acronym list in, you know, the existing 1 strategy 1.1.7.1
to policy 1.1.7. And then you don't even need any strategies after policy 1.1.7. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Mostly we have 119 >> f as far as um >> 118. >> You know Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission. They never call themselves FFWCC. It's always FWC. You go on the computer, my FWC, you know, email so and so, you know,
you know my FWC dot >> reminds me of working >> whatever tax register >> anyway so um no this policy 1.1.8 8 is really important. They got it pretty they have it um
pretty well um written here that the city shall work cooperatively with you know fish and wildlife service and FWC to protect and promote the recovery of species designated by these agencies at least the wildlife species right we want
that and we want applicants of a development order to provide determination of these agencies when development proposals are received for sites documented as having historic or andor current occurrences of state or
federal listed wildlife species. It's just that we can't hold up some of the approvals by that state law that Lily >> right >> brought to our attention last time. you know, you >> even if the permit is a state required,
>> but but it it um you you can't hold up um like um certain reviews, but um you can hold up um the
building type of permit, you know, starting the construction stuff, >> the land clearing >> is is the most important. You you have anything to say about that, David? >> Um, not about that. Something else I wanted to flag in a second on the same uh for the change from FFWCC to FWC. As
far as the acronyms, FFWCC is used elsewhere in the comp plan. So for consistency, I think we should keep it as the longer acronym. >> Okay, we can handle that, right? Okay. What about US Fish and Wildlife
Service? >> Most of these other acronyms are only currently used in um 1.1.7.1. So no inconsistency issues, but FTE and FWCC
uh are used elsewhere. >> Okay. So I'll change all the Okay. results changed all the um FWC's to FFWCC. Okay, change all. Okay, we'll do it.
Not a problem. Um >> shall we move on to >> and then Okay. So um the city shall consult with these agencies for technical assistance consultation as appropriate. I mean
does that sound reasonable? >> Yes. And then the city shall cooperate with these agencies in locating potential introduction sites for designated species. >> Yes, >> we Okay. Now, we know for a fact that they don't just do it on conservation
land. We know that those gopher tortoise um sites are they're looking for private land as well. So, we got rid of >> Okay. No. Um Okay. So
then policy 1.1.9 is um not been changed. Um you can read it over. >> I thought we got rid of the management plan. >> The Okay. The management plan.
Um, we Okay, so we now think that they're going to have to interpret management plan as a a plan
um that is approved by one of the agencies. Isn't that right, David? Um, and we we decided That would be confusing. >> The management plan language in 1.1.9
reads like it would be a city required management plan. It's a little bit vague um but very flexible and through discussion we didn't see a big reason to get rid of it even though it doesn't seem to do a lot of work currently. Um it just kind of has some
future options it leaves open. Does anybody have any questions for him? Because I mean we are very lucky we have an attorney here and you know >> do we need to define this management plan, what it contains, what its
requirements are, if there's any tasking. >> I think the found acceptable by the city kind of takes care of some of that. It would be more of a a negotiated plan it seems like rather than binding either party upfront to some >> prerequisites. I think the flexibility
to me seems kind of like the benefit to it. >> This is actually the exact language in the technical manual. >> Mhm. >> So it's not this is not the only place this language it's it's repeated almost it is totally repeated in um the
technical manual environmental technical manual. Um po part 2.6. >> Well, flexibility is good up until a point. >> Yeah. >> You know, it can be too flexible and then things can get flipped inside out.
So, I I don't I don't know. It just it seems like it having a plan to do something or having some some >> what was required by state law. And I um I tried to find out what I had and I I
did not find out um but um that uh law that uh Lily handed out last time. Um do you happen to have that, Lily?
You know that one? Uh oh, thanks. It is. It says um a m okay that a municipality shall attach wait issuance of a development permit or development order
um by a municipality does not create any right on the part of the applicant to obtain a a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of a municipality for issuance of the permit if the
applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Well, that sounds like the state
um might pass. Now, listen to this though. A municipality shall attach such a disclaimer to the issuance of de development permits and shall include a permit condition that all other
applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development. So I don't know if Titusville does this, you know. I tried to find out but I
didn't find out, you know. Um, you know that email I sent, Lily, you know, and um I was hoping that >> Oh, this is about see this here. Um, >> yeah. >> Right. Right. But then what what I
wanted to know also um was whether this whether the city includes this um language in their um their their de um development permits.
Um >> um you're talking about. >> Yeah, we did talk about that as well. You're right that we did talk about that, but this is another topic, right? Okay. So, what would you like to do
about um policy 1 1.9? >> Well, the problem that I witnessed um when uh Mr. parrot came before us
back in 2015 2017 I forget. Um this was some four or five years maybe longer after we had that building bubble burst in 2008 and they had stopped building in the
back of um uh Sterling Forest. There were several lots that were platted but and cleared, but in the seven years or however many it was, the gopher tortoises had moved back in again. Well, Mr. Parrot came and complained
because the people were building and burying the gopher tortoises on these cleared lands. And what we found, we even had a TEC meeting on the property out there and had fish and wildlife conservation biologists come and visit us.
And what we ended up concluding was that the city had granted the permit years earlier and there was no requirement whatsoever for them to go back and get another permit. So they simply buried them. And uh
before we arrived for our meeting, Mr. Parrot had gone and planted flags, you know, like flying flags all around wherever there was a gopher tortoise hole. He identified 117 on just four quarter acre parcels
and they were almost all juvenile. They were all all little. And um and they uh they threatened to take Mr. parrot away for trespassing because it wasn't his land. So that showed me that there's a problem
with the way our process works because while we indicate here that we need to have these permits in place, they don't stop the initial action that allows or permits the land clearing to begin with.
And by state law, we can't. >> You can. Yeah. Because maybe we should this is what this says that you know um all other applicable state or and or federal permits
um you know shall be obtained before commencement of the development. So you could >> but there's a state law that says otherwise. >> No >> that we can't hold up the development because we don't have a state permit. Am I wrong on this, David? So, you're both citing to the exact same
paragraph. It's not a model of legislative clarity. The way it reads to me is that you can't hold up the permit process, but you can restrict the actual groundwork and development until other permits by state and federal agencies
are obtained. >> Okay? So you have to allow the application and the processing of the permit but then the actual site work it appears to like I said it's not very clearly written can be held up based off other permitting. Okay. >> So that's what we should be putting in there maybe. You think?
>> Yeah, I think we need to we need to make that clear. you know. Um, so, um, >> what I what I found out was that in Valuchia County, they they were able to
to stop that or prevent or not, what am I trying to say to to have the permit uh, executed based on other factors um, particularly the soil type and the habitat type of the parcel.
And what they did was if they found the soil and habitat type crossed for a gopher tortoise or a scrub j or an indigo snake then that was when they initiated the survey requirement for the survey to prove that they weren't there
as opposed to you know show me they are there and that flipped it around for them and I thought we could do something like that here that that to me would make the most sense. You know, I worked on this language and
I had an option for um for doing this, but let me run this by you. When more and more individuals of state or federal listed wildlife species are found on a site undergoing development activities for which no management Oh,
okay. undergoing development activities. Let's just say when one or more individuals of state or federal listed wildlife species are found on a site undergoing development activities, said activities shall cease until all
applicable state or federal permits have been obtained. So you're taking out the words management plan and substituting permits. >> You're taking out for which I >> I don't think there is a management plan.
>> I don't Yeah, that's my I mean you the only reference we had to a management plan was in um policy 1.1.7 and we struck through it. >> Through it, right? >> Yeah. And and to top it off, in the 2040
plan, they struck through it, but they didn't strike through this one. So, tell you what, David, why don't you look at this? Um, >> so do we want to strike through management plan again and put permits? >> Let's let's get a let's get a legal
opinion. So >> if you want >> the proposed language here, I don't know if it would actually solve the issue because if they're at the stage where they're already undergoing development like it contemplates in the first half, they would presumably have already obtained their state and federal permits
at that point, >> which would be fine. >> They've already got their permits. Okay, the language that Mary just proposed would be that said activities shall cease until all applicable state and federal permits have been obtained, >> right? >> But if they've already obtained them,
that doesn't hold them up any then. >> Okay. >> Right. They're already they've already got them. So, if they have their permits, then then they're good to go. >> But how do we know they have them? >> My question is if they've already gotten their permits, how did how did they ever even get to this point? >> We see that's a thing. We don't even
know they got their permits because >> their state law says that doesn't it say down there that um you know the city should tell them they need to do it but it doesn't create any liability on the
part of the city for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligation imposed by state or federal agencies Maybe. So
I agree we need to do something about this. Well done. >> So what if it if you said when one or more individuals of a state or federal listed wildlife species are found on a site undergoing development activities,
said activities shall cease until the owner produces the permits and proves that they have the permits. But who's the cop? >> Well, that's >> who plays the cop.
>> That's that's what staff is there for. Staff is making sure that they're following the comp plan and that their application meets all the criteria. This is one of those criteria. >> But no one I go clear land. Nobody goes there and says, "Show me all your permits."
>> No, but before you go to clear the land, you have to go and get your permit for land clearing. And before you can actually clear the land is where we're trying to step in here and say, "Well, wait a minute. Before the land's cleared, let's verify that there aren't
any endangered species." That's my understanding. At least that's my desire. >> So, how can we change this >> undergoing activities? So, they're already clearing it. >> Yeah, >> that's that's what I was seeing. Like, this sounds to me like they're already developing it. They're already clearing
land. And then a listed species is identified like after the activity has already started. >> Well, instead of undergoing we could say slated for development. >> Just change the instead of undergoing.
>> So again I go back who's the cop? It's the city. >> Yes. that says, "Can you bring me all your all of your permits and all your wildlife uh from all the institutions and then I will issue a permit to
clear?" Is that what we're talking about? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Because that I don't think that's done today. >> Well, it could be reported just by a individual, a neighbor, >> right? Anybody can report. Anybody can report that they've seen gopher
tortoises and scrub jays on a piece of property that's slated for development. >> When the bulldozer shows up, >> well, that's what we're trying to get there is before bulldozer. >> I thought that when a developer goes in and requests permits to develop on a
piece of property, they already have to determine whether there are endangered species on this land or not. Isn't that right? >> Yes, that's correct. See, they >> So, how did we get to this point then? >> Yes, they're supposed to get all their permits or the clearance or um
>> or a bunch of shotgun shells and >> they use the shotgun shells to take out the blue the scrub jays and they use the five gallon buckets to to drown the gopher tortoises. I've seen it. >> They do this before they bring it out so that when the property is inspected,
>> oh, there's nothing there. Yeah. >> Yeah. I've seen it over and over again. It's it's unfortunate, but it happens. There are unscrupulous people and we have to find a way that we can hold them to to what the state statute and the federal statute say. And I think what I
think Laura Lee was heading in the right direction after said activities shall cease until until what what's the criteria? The criteria is that the state andor federal species have been are are being managed. I would assume in some way.
>> Yeah, I feel like that's where I was kind of trying to get in my mind. Sorry. >> That I that's where I was kind of going in my mind that once >> if they're identified the work stops then either the species have to be
relocated >> or some other course is taken to protect them, >> right? >> Or they get a take permit. >> Yeah. they have to mitigate >> or they relocate them, right? Or they develop their own mitigation bank on
site. >> I think all of these or this or this or this are kind of the benefit of the flexibility of the management plan acceptable to the city language. Those are all then conditions that could be sight specific that the city could require as part of that management plan.
>> But are we exist? >> Are we doing this though? >> So then we just leave it as it is. said activity shall cease until a management plan has been prepared by the developers and found to be acceptable by the city. >> Is there any example of this happening? >> I can't speak to that. I don't know.
>> That's what um Okay. So, >> a couple weeks ago, I tried to tried to send by email this question >> and uh I didn't get anywhere because people, you know, um actually
um I I'm not sure who all saw it. I know he saw it and he David saw it, but um people, you know, like let's face it, Brad and Lily have been at conferences, you know, and and this is just you just,
you know, like I didn't get a response from somebody who would know, for example, you know, um >> to about um you know, this management plan stuff.
>> No, I read that email. Yeah, she tried. Let's put it that way. Lily tried. Let's give Lily credit. She tried. It just uh was a little bit of a different question. >> Yeah, maybe I'm getting confused on the
question. And I like from what Mary and I are talking about just contextually, she'd asked when what are the criteria for specifically removing the trees going in there, cutting it down, and I had spoke with our um arborist and
>> I know what you I know that you were thinking I was referring like to um you know the tree clearing. That's what it Well, you asked at what point they go in and there's a section in our code 30-32, I believe, that lists all the reasons
you can go in and begin clearing. >> There's also a separate section for when >> so all of the site approvals can continue >> and then we wait for the site permit to be issued at a separate time. It's a separate step and that's actually when they sit down and talk and have the
construction meetings and um >> but by then the land is already cleared. >> Correct. >> Right. If they fall if they can follow >> that's too late. That's that's the cart before the horse >> chapter I would I would recommend maybe reviewing 30-30. Uh the 30
>> I I know that yeah that that I'm familiar with >> that's in the LDR though. >> Yeah. >> That's below this. This is a level >> Yeah, I know. I was referring to um you know um
I guess I was thinking of of uh habitat um that might not you know be you know loaded with trees and stuff like that you know what yeah be uh we're talking about um you know gopher tortoise stuff
um you know more sandy beach type >> right >> yes so so that's good information for sure that is definitely Definely good information and keep that in in mind for future reference because uh there's definitely a time to look at that
language. Um >> David, I have a a a question about this. Um the way we have this written, it says when one or more individuals of state or federally listed wildlife species are found on a site, then development
activities will cease until we develop a plan. Can these federal and state listed species they're requirements are they not that if they are there then they have to be managed. Is that not correct?
I'm not intimately familiar with all the contours of the state requirements or federal but generally yeah I mean at any rate you have to not undertake a take of any listed species which includes harassment damage to the so I mean
there's a portion sorry go on >> I was just saying so can we not rewrite this so that that's what we're saying here before that first bulldozer goes through and cuts a path or they're allowed to clear the first quarter, acre, or percent or whatever. Can we
make sure that these federally listed species requirements have been met and either they prove they aren't there or if they are there, they come with a plan? Isn't that what we're really trying to say here? So, I'm I'm looking up right now uh city
of Titusville, Florida Code of Ordinance Volume 2, Land Development Regulations Development Review Procedures Manual. And on 6.1.5, it says an environmental component including maps and analysis which determine the effect of the proposed development upon the con conservation,
preservation of native habitat, wildlife, flood planes, and so on. So, it looks like the the procedure is in place, but it's just not happening. So it's in there, >> but again that's at a level below where
we're working. >> True. >> We're we're defining like the vision and that's the the tasking. We need to clarify this sentence so that we make sure that all state and federal species have been dealt with properly and a
management plan developed. >> Isn't that incumbent upon the city though to make sure that that's done when the applicant comes in though? Right now, I think it's incumbent upon the applicant to say, "Oh, yes, I have endangered species." Or, "No, I've taken care of that problem already." >> But I think if an applicant's not uh
environmentally conscious, they'll they'll go the other way. >> They may just ignore it and say, "I don't even know if they're there." Like, I keep asking you about Brookshshire because that was a property that 25 years ago we fought to keep a Walmart from moving there. >> And and we brought um oh, what's the
guy's name from University of Florida? the tortoise guy. Um, >> oh, I'm drawing a blank on his name. >> Yeah, he did. Um, but he came down. Ray Ashton Ashton, >> Dr. Ray Ashton came down. He's the one who found and produced and showed that we could actually move gopher tortoises.
We could relocate them safely. And he he proved that and and and became the advocate for that. And he came down here and we found 60 83 gopher tortoises on that on that parcel of land. And yet when they went in and built Brookshshire, I heard nothing about anything. different developer, different
time, nobody's looking at it. Who's the police, as Hector said. So, this this one I think we really need to focus that these these policies are met before that first that first bit of soil gets
turned. So I think in a lot of the changes you made prior on the prior pages prior to 1.1.9 there were aspects strengthening needs for environmental studies and I think those are the more appropriate places for stronger language getting at what you're getting at as
kind of the pre- permitting stage and this seems to be the only >> post-p permitting back stop that's in here. So I wouldn't want to see you remove the back stop at the expense of trying to strengthen the prior provisions. >> Well then then I guess the proposal is
then for this one to to change under undergoing to slated and remove for which no management plan has been adopted. So that it reads, "When one or more individuals of state or federally listed wildlife species are found on a
site slated for development activities, said activities shall cease until a management plan has been prepared by the developers and found to be acceptable by the city." >> But if you say that, then the saying that the activities shall cease doesn't
really make sense because they haven't started yet. >> Say development activities cannot start until See, I I I think I'm reading this from a different timeline perspective of what you guys are because I I look at this and I I think that this is a protection
for when they have started clearing land and whether it's the developer being honest about it or if it's a concerned citizen that walks by the property and says, "I see a gopher tortoise." They can report that to the city and then construction stops until those species
are properly dealt with. I think the appropriate analogy as far as timing with this would be if you start excavation and start digging up some bones and kind of then an archae archaeological analogy. This is once you've kind of started the actual undertaking of the development and then
you discover something during that process. So it would be post all the permitting. >> That's the way that's the way I >> to not commence. Huh? >> Okay. So, we're back to what I said originally.
>> Pretty much >> you can't do what you don't know. So, we have to tell them. >> When I built my deck, uh I was going back and forth and uh with the drawings and stuff and they
just the city said, "Oh, did you file your your county form?" I said, "What county form?" So, I looked at all the paperwork to get me. There was no words telling me that I had to do that. >> We need to tell them to do that. >> So not commence or shall cease
immediately if they have commenced. How about if we say um when one or more individuals of state or federal listed wildlife species are found on a site
undergoing development activities um all act said activities shall cease until All applicable state and federal permits
have been obtained and a managed Wait, that's not going to work. We want to get something about the management plan and the the state or federal permits. That's what I think we should have. I think we should beef it up to, you know, to to say that they need a management plan to
deal with this right now. What are they going to do now that they got this problem? And that needs to be acceptable to the city. Um and all state and federal
permits um shall have been have have been sub submitted to the city or something like that. You know that they need to turn in their documentation that they got these permits. >> Well, wait a minute. How could they on second thought if they didn't didn't
know that they had the stuff? Why would they be getting these permits? >> Exactly. >> Exactly. So that's why it should say all set activities shall cease until >> all state and federal permits have been >> satisfied
>> obtained and a management plan has been prepared by the developers and found to be acceptable by the city. >> Boy, that sounds good, doesn't it? >> Boy, Lord, what do you think that sounds really good, Dave? >> Well, I don't know. Bill's the one that came up with the word obtained, and that
is really the key. All right. So, let's see. >> I still like slated for instead of undergo. >> Yeah. But see, that's that's that's different from this, you know, like um Jason said, you know, he sees this as
you know, they you know, they start and all of a sudden they find a an eastern indigo snake, you know, >> right? >> So, they weren't expecting to find that. They might have been horrified.
>> You know, >> I think we're more concerned with the developers coming in and uh trying to build out without doing any reconnaissance or figuring out if the land if the land has any environmental protection. So, this is a situation that
you described like if there are bones or something in the land that they didn't know prior to ever clearing it. So, this is a situation that I don't think we are the most qualified or this isn't really within our wheelhouse. We should be talking
about the developers who are coming to try and develop without getting uh a permit to protect the environment. >> Well, that's what we are talking about. >> This just seems like a a a special situation. >> Well, sometimes special situations or
holes that need to be plugged. Well, and I I don't necessarily see this as a I don't want to assume you mean when you say special situation. I I hear that as like something that doesn't occur all the time, but animals move. >> You know, new gopheres are born. They
walk around until they find the little piece of land they want to dig into, and then they dig in. >> So, I look at this as maybe the developer did everything they were supposed to do. They did all the surveys. They've done everything right, but then that shovel goes in the ground
and oh no, there's a gopher to now that wasn't there before. Now everything has to stop until that's dealt with. That's that's how I read that's how I interpret this. And that's why the undergoing I think is
is vital there because this means that just because you had a permit before saying there was nothing in danger there >> doesn't mean that that's still valid now. You have to stop and maybe the state gives you per or maybe whoever the permitting agency is gives you permission to go on or relocate that one
animal or whatever else. But it it it puts the brakes on until that can be ground truth as to what is actually there. Now >> it it's all about again timelines. Is this before the shovel goes in? If
that's the case, >> I don't think it is. >> Then it's very leak. Then it's very weak. If it's afterwards and somebody came in and say, "Here are all my permits and here are all my investigations. Uh, oh, and by the way, we did find a
turtle yesterday. That's where this would go. Time out if that is what we're looking for because there are two looks to that same paragraph. One is to bring the bulldozer and start
moving it or the bulldozer is already working based on the fact that they brought all this information and the turtle overnight cross the street along with the chicken >> which they do >> which they do all the time.
>> I and then you can you can put something like this that says thou shalt stop and we'll reook. So to me, that's the coin that we're flipping. >> So which side of the coin,
>> as as much as I know we were wanting to get through this stuff tonight, I feel like this policy needs to be needs to have more time put into it. I I think >> just the fact that we're all kind of looking at this from a different timeline perspective and everything else, I I think it needs more time.
>> Can I say something? >> That we could do that. We could um >> what you could do is look at everything but you know adopt everything but this policy and say we're working on it
and then then we'll go on to the conservation element if you don't mind because >> we're getting a little bit of I think that's and we'll we'll investigate in the meantime the three of us >> just for the record I'd like to read what what I have uh as amended for this
one um for our minutes. >> So, as I understand it, when one or more individuals of state or federal listed wildlife species are found on a site undergoing development activities, said activities shall cease until a state and
federal permits have been obtained and a management plan has been prepared by the developers and found to be acceptable by the city. That's that's what I have as our current amended. >> Well, you know what?
You you probably need to ask the people if they think that that's that's good because >> I think it sounds good, but I don't think it's quite there personally. >> I I agree. This is I'm just so it's in our minutes for next time and we can talk about it again. >> Agree with you totally.
>> I just did not want to lose the and state and federal permits have been obtained because that's >> that's the hook that I think we're >> Okay. So >> um >> and and >> okay so you have when one or more individual of state or
listed wildlife species are found on a site undergoing development activities >> then scratch for which no management >> which no management plan has been adopted >> and then back to said activities shall cease until a until excuse me all state
and federal permits have been obtained. ained and a management plan has been prepared by the developers. This is new. This is they came in, there isn't anything there. They started developing. Oops, we found something. Now we got to put a
plan in place. >> That's what we need. >> Lily, do you think a copy of what Michael is proposing? You got it written down, right? Right. >> I have it written down. >> Do you think and I read it in the record? Yeah, it's in the record now. >> It's in the record now. So, so
>> Oh, yeah. Okay. >> Lori will transcribe that when she goes through it. >> You got to Okay. So, >> but I do have a question for David in relation to this because this is >> this is on the back end. Where do we where do we work to fix this
on the front end so that these permits happen before the bulldozer? >> That's all we're really looking for. don't have an immediate provision I can point you to. It's something we could certainly look into, but I think that would require holding up the rest of this until another meeting.
>> Well, that's what we're thinking is we're probably going to just punt this 1.1.9 to the next meeting and then that'll give perhaps you some time to help us figure out where we can fix the other half of this. This catches it on the back end, but I'd like to get it on the front end. I think we're all in
agreement with that. Yeah, I think it would be right up by right up front, you know, up close to objective 1.1. >> Yeah, I think we got enough um you know, ammunition by the state law. This one um
sentence about, you know, um that the issuance of development permit shall include a permit condition. This is city city permits. The issuance of development permit shall include a permit condition that all other
applicable state or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development. So we may have enough ammunition we can work on this. >> You might be able to add it to policy 1.1.5. >> Yeah. And we can look into um adding it
in different places. Um yes, because that actually um you know was looking um at um that one too. >> Yeah, I think that's a lot about Yeah, we may be able to. So, we'll look at
that one too. 1.1.5. >> Yeah. And just add a sentence that says because they're already required to perform an environmental study. So if they find listed species, then they have
to get the permits, you know, before they can be approved their for their site plan. >> Yeah, >> that's what it seems to say. >> Well, it doesn't say it exactly. >> No, >> we can certainly work on language for that. think that exact proposal would
run into the issue with us holding up our permitting process in relation to state and federal permitting, but I can find language that accomplishes kind of what you guys are getting. >> Wonderful. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, that that'd be be a great idea. If you don't mind, we'll just go through the last two things and then you can
decide if you want to tenatively approve this as without those two um to have policy 1.1.5 and 1.1.9
uh reviewed again at the next meeting is um >> okay. >> But we'll get all the other ones checked off is >> first of all 1.1.10 10. The city shall protect existing natural reservations. Why it says that? Including recreation
and publicly protected conservation lands according to strategies set forth in recreation open space element. That's ridiculous. We don't want soccer field in these lands. Um that's my opinion.
And then this last policy is something that they probably had nowhere else to put. Um and this type of provision is also in the county um
you know language um as well. So it's just nothing to worry about. It's um you know a provision for if some if somebody
damages um an area and um they need to take responsibility for um you know fixing it. That that's nothing out of the ordinary. It's just that I I looked at various
places where that might be just looks like it plpped it in here. >> All right. >> So, um >> if I might summarize then um what we've worked on here with objective 1.1 for natural resources. Um we've made several
recommendations along the way and I think we're all in pretty much agreement with them. They're just a few tick marks and a couple edits. If we take 1.1.9 and 1.1.5 out, should we not just vote to make the
recommendations that we've already covered so that we can move on with this and and call this part done? >> Do we have to read them all into the record or are we okay with just saying saying that I mean
>> Well, Lori, what what do you need from us? What makes it easier for you to pull this together in the end? Oh, well, we're conscious. >> My a suggestion I would make personally just because we have had not only some
changes like you mentioned, but also just like some minor grammar fixes and things like that. I would propose that we table this and then next meeting this like corrected thing comes back and that
whole thing can be submitted to Lori as part of the motion if that makes sense. >> Gonna have to come back anyway. >> Yeah, >> you have your TEC motions and recommendations page. If you want to make a motion, I can just add what you've >> already talked about at all of this. So
that page would that document will just get longer. And I have um when you go back because you've done this for the flu policy, too. when you go back and make edits, I just make a little parenthesis saying motion made on this day with edits on this day and this day. So, if you want to keep working it, I
can I can take that motion and just put that in the TEC's recommendations page if that's what you want to do. >> Okay. >> Okay. So the only thing that I had was in 117 was it was changing the and to the or
and adding United State Fish and Wildlife Service that was the only >> there's also the transfer of development rights as >> the rights. Yes. >> WCC >> all that stays the same. Yeah. We're
going to keep the FFWCC. So, those are the only alterations. Shall we entertain a motion to move forward with this? I I'll make a motion that um all of these changes and grammatical
corrections that we've made on the different policies in objective 1.1 natural resources be added to our list of approved changes with the exception of um policy
1.1. 1.5 and 1.1.9 which we'll have further discussion on next next next month. >> Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second that.
>> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussions before we move on? Hearing none. Let's have a roll call vote, please. >> Member Young, >> yes. Member Delgado. >> Yes. >> Member Miller. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson. >> Yes.
>> Member Nico. >> Yes. >> Chairman Mek. >> Yes. Good. Progress. >> Okay. >> Conservation element 1.6. >> I would like to do that if you don't mind. At least start it. >> We got time.
>> All right. I know. Let We're getting, you know, We'll show we're cooperating. We're trying to get it done, >> right? >> Yep.
>> You got that hand out and Okay. She's got this hand out for me. Um, wait a minute. This is not this one. Conservation. Okay. Okay. So, um this um
strategy 1.6.1.1 6.1.1. In order to um fulfill a um recommendation in natural resources plan, we are going to put something
about um no net loss of wetlands. And here's the reasonable place to put it is the protection of wetland shall be determined by the functional value of the wetland in order to achieve no net loss of wetland's function.
And that is a reasonable place to put it in my opinion. Okay. Does that sound reasonable? >> All right. Let's go on to something that's going to be >> well is that the um the functional value is defined by the river management districts
>> the eight eightstep criteria which includes whether it's >> this is a little bit of um this okay we need to check the box on our natural resources plan. Some people think no net loss is just a a little bit
on the ridiculous side because we're you know how they count it. Um I happen to be in that category. Um but we will check the box. They want it. No net loss. Fine.
Um so um what happens um is that um there are conditional uses for
uh for impacts to wetlands in particular. the larger wetlands and the conditional uses that are reasonable
are access to uplands on the property. So they could develop the uplands, access through the wetlands to the uplands. This um okay, this was used in um
not only uh Verona but um the um Huntington Park. >> Yeah, Huntington Park. Huntington Park >> had to build a causeway >> because they had Yeah. And they only
impacted 1.8% 8% of the conservation land, but it it was not like a uh residential use. It it was providing access and this is in order to give them
property rights. Um and um I think that that's a reasonable conditional use that have to be voted on uh by the city council, but it they
could certainly ask for it and also um to provide utility right away. Um you know that would be the underground uh cable. Sometimes they have to run through a wetland, you know. So those
are the conditional uses that I think are clearcut and reasonable. I just have one problem and I don't understand the relationship between the
protection of wetlands and their functional value. Whether they're high functioning or low functioning, they're wetlands. And wetlands, I think, need to be protected. So why is the protection a function of
its function as a wetland? >> It it doesn't that doesn't make sense to me. Okay. >> If you're going to protect wetlands, you're going to protect wetlands. >> Okay. Um >> you're not going to protect >> the functional value that that's a state. um you know you you're you're uh
you know this is a a long uh you know an old requirement um probably back to 1988 of the uh the state and uh you know we just um yeah I don't think you're argu I
I think that you know you um you're picking the wrong uh topic to to get into uh because we won't make any progress with that. This is state law.
>> So, is this strictly access and utilities? >> That's what I proposed because here's here's the thing. >> Um what they had in strategy 1.6.2.1, 2.1 which I
got rid of um or proposing getting rid of. It says in addition to the permitted land uses identified in the future land use element, conditional uses may be considered as provided for in the land development regulations with criteria
based on the mitigation policy the US fish and wildlife service which is not an appropriate thing now but says as a minimum the criteria to be considered for approval of a conditional use shall include and this is old language. I I
think it's I think it's uh got loopholes in it and you'll see why this why change it says something clearcut is the use is ecologically sound. Well that might be fine. Use is water dependent or water related and there's a
documented public need. Um this might be okay. The use is the least environmentally damaging alternative. I mean really
um you know somebody could propose something really bad and say oh it's the least damaging because I could have done something far worse. That's ridicul I mean and this this is old language and and we never envisioned you know the
problems we're having nowadays with trying to save these huge wetlands it says and then number four which we got rid of in the future land settlement there is no practical alternative to ensure reasonable use of the applicant's
property remember Lieberman you know that's the 405 M You know, they wanted to impact 5.42 acres of that wetland
rated an eight, which is the best rating that you know, Mayor Diesel had ever seen uh in the city. And um they just said, "Oh, well, I I can't build enough apartment buildings on my
upland, so I need to impact um it's not reasonable for you to deny me the amount of apartment buildings I need to make money. That's ridiculous." See, that that's why we need to get rid of this
strategy 1.6.2.1. Or aren't they allowed to basically fill in 1.8% of their >> Yeah, that's not 5.42, right? That's what we're proposing. We're proposing that they can they can uh you know um
impact 1 uh 8% for residential use. But >> and that's that is an alternative give them reasonable use. >> Yeah. Yeah. that we try to get them reasonable use in the future land use.
Exactly. But we're not giving them exactly everything they want and we're not giving them an excuse to say, "Hey, I want more because you're being unreasonable and and sub and and having this uh just at the whim of the um
elected uh local government officials." And we know the city council makeup is going to is changed from time to time and um you're just I mean we cannot put our
large wetlands in danger. We cannot say oh you can argue that you have no practical alternative to ensure reasonable use of the applicant's property. We've given them something reasonable in the future land use element.
But let's not give them then on top of that the chance to say you guys are being just plain unreasonable. I can't make money right
then, you know, um the mitigation stuff. I'm number five. Well, whatever. But I I I looked for loopholes in it and I found one and I I thought that the only conditional uses and I looked at the
ordinance and the only conditional uses I could see that look clearcut were the access to uplands which the county has in uh in in in a certain
policy and uh the utility right away which um you know you'll see you know you see all kind of utility right away through Tulsa Hatchee for example wildlife management um area
so that's um and I am thinking that this might be acceptable to staff I am hoping
I think we got a pretty good response yesterday that people understand about why we would propose getting rid of there's no practical alternative to ensure reasonable use of the applicant's
property. Does that make sense? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, let's go on to the next page. We get an overview of what I'm doing. Okay. So, um
you know about the wetland maps, you know, strategy 1.6.3.2 is the key, the absolute key and recognized by the state is the
absolute key to our wetland protection. that at a minimum wetlands 5 acres or more in size shall be designated as conservation land use. That's it. And then wetlands less than five acres shall be
subject to review to determine what protection if any they should receive from development. And such review shall be based on the functional value criteria specified policy 1.6.4.
And then um if based on this determination protection is warranted then development may be permitted based on criteria set forth in the environmental performance standards of land development regulations. That has not been done
much in the ordinance. That is a future project to take care of these small wetlands if somebody wants to. But it is at a lower level than the comp plan. So that is not a subject we're covering with a comp plan, but we are covering
the criteria for the functional value uh assessment. And some of these mirror the state law size, that's our key one. And the state knows it.
It's a five acre cutoff. you know, you'll have greater protection if you're you should have good protection if your wetland's five acres or greater in size. And then the um smaller wetlands
um we have the opportunity to um to uh do more with the ordinance. has not been done in the past, but that's a topic uh you know for uh not for the comp plan,
it's for the ordinance and we're not going there. And you'll see I changed capacity for floor storage to flood storage. >> Yeah, we don't need to store many floors. >> And then uh you can read that.
I think it's >> I I was wondering if we need a number nine there because I like that you added proximity to the IRL or the St. John's River, but should drainage to the IRL or the St. John's River also be a
consideration? Yes, we could put proximity um should we put and drainage or should we put >> I think it should be separate. >> Okay, drainage to the Indian River.
Okay, great idea because the proximity could cover some of the um you know sea level rise stuff and then drainage to the >> you know drainage.
>> How do other people feel about that? >> Well, drainage is the issue that we have with the lagoon. You know, it's it's not just the the poisonous amounts of fresh water, but it's all of the all of the stuff that it carries with it, right?
>> Or should we just change proximity to drainage? >> I think maybe >> proximity to and drainage into the Indian River Lagoon and St. John's River. >> Well, they're two different things. >> They are. I mean you you you've got
um for example all of the stuff the chain of lakes you know properties are very very close to the St. John's River. Um but the wetlands on the other side you know that are over by 405 drain to
the Indian River. I I think their their drainage should be considered. I mean we're we're we're we're this thing says consideration of so
proximity is very different than drainage. >> So would you suggest like proximity to the to the Indian River Lagoon or St. John's River and number nine drainage to the Indian River Lagoon or St. John's River? Yeah.
>> Is that what you're suggesting? >> Yeah. Does everybody you'll have Michael? You have to find out if everybody agrees with that. >> Anybody have a complaint or problem with adding? >> No. Okay. I think so, too. So, we're all in agreement. We need a number nine.
>> Okay. I think that's a great idea because, you know, it's a problem. >> Well, that's that's in essence the the problem is the flow, >> right? if we could just figure it out how to recover all of that water, you know, make it into forever.
>> And you can what you can do is you can go into the land development regulations and and you know, write some code for it. >> I mean, this is not the object of this comp plan stuff, but once we get this in the comp plan, you know, you need to be
thinking about getting it in the ordinance. >> Yes. LDRs to follow >> and Okay. So 1.6.5 here's a loophole. I mean
in my opinion I can just see some of the activities whose impacts are assessed to be minimal. Okay. I mean anybody can say their impacts are just minimal and they could be you know
that's a subjective judgment or offset by mitigation measures. Well, they have to be offset by mitigation measures shall be addressed in the land development regulation and use the following criteria.
Okay. The activities necessary to prevent or eliminate a public hazard. Um that's a subjective. I'm just getting rid of the um subjective. Oh, I got you
know what's a public hazard or the activity would provide direct public benefits which would exceed those lost to the public as a result of degradation or destruction of wetlands. I mean
that's a little subjective too or the activities proposed for wetlands who function value while you're so limited that the loss does not significantly affect the public interest. Um and you know how some of these
developers will say how horrible their wetlands are. In fact, we got this big sobb story about Lieberman where they, you know, even though this was a eight on the you ma'am scale, the
highest um the mayor had ever seen yet we had the applicant crying because there well I can't say crying but he was promoting the idea that there's so many in uh invasive species that some people
actually bought this argument and started to sympathize with him and thought, well, his plan is great. And I thought to myself, man, I've seen some exaggeration in the past 30 years.
Um, but luckily, um, Joe Robinson was not buying all this stuff. Um, okay. So, um, you see why I got rid of
that? >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, now here's where we come to. This is something. There's not very much more left. All you got one with page. So, >> right. >> Um, I'll tell you what, we'll come back
to this. We're going to go through the last two and then we're going to come back to this one because um it's about the buffers. >> I love this. >> Yeah, I like >> Okay, so 1.6.6 that is new. Um first of all it's we got
rid of mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands which present possess significant functional values determined by functional assessment will be addressed in the land development regulations. Well that's the job of the um water management district right?
They're supposed to do the mitigation. However, however, if you, you know, let's say the city establishes a mitigation bank, the city um can also >> This is
>> um if I can have your attention. Um >> yeah, I'm just noticing what you've got up there and what I have in my hand are not the same thing again. I've got an older version. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Anyway, so do you want do you say you need another paper? Um
you're want to take this one up to him? >> I've got it. >> I' I've got it. I'm I'm I'm reading it right now. >> You got it? Okay. So, okay. Establish Okay, let's go through the policy. Establishment of wetlands mitigation bank within city limits will
>> be addressed in the land development regulations. I mean this is something new we could do right >> mitigation banking by the city shall be coordinated with state regulatory agencies to achieve optimal participation by applicants required to
provide mitigation. What that allows is if an EP if a wetland is um impacted in another city, they can still if Titusville has a mitigation bank, they can still um get mitigation credits in
Titusville and that will mean that our wetland is improved. That's a mitigation bank. >> So, we'll be receiving those funds. Yeah, you'll be receiving you'll be receiving funds to enhance the mitigation
uh you know in efforts on that wetland. In other words, to improve that wetland. Um and and what's happened is you know some of these uh wetlands banks, you know, they've received all these mitigation credits and they got their
wetlands in really good shape now. So, they're kind of out of business. And this is what happened with Mary A. And uh you know now they say the Farmington's just about done with with theirs. they've gotten so many requests wounded. And to top it off, I got to
tell you that if you establish a wetland mitigation bank, um, you know, Titusville could in addition to that, you know, in the LDRs,
you know, and I didn't put it in here because I think it kind of needs some more thought, but um, the water management district does not require mitigation for wetlands less than half an acre in
size. Well, Titusville sure could. This they they could require monetary compensation, which is what the county does. >> So, they're county's collecting money. You know, let's say you have a third of an acre wetland and you um get a permit
to um to fill it. Okay. Well, the water management district might give you a permit to fill it, but they're not going to collect mitigation fees on it. They're just saying, "Oh, it's too small. We'll just not bother with, you
know, collecting mitigation fees or getting med mitigation credits." Well, the so the county steps and says, "You want to do this in the unincorporated county, you need to pay us, you know, you need to give us um you know, some
mitigation, which I believe they accept in cash >> and we do that, too." So, that would be a little >> That sounds great. >> Yeah. So, you could do that and you could put that in the land development. um
you know regulations but as I understand that this uh mitigation you know for unavoidable impacts to wetlands um which possess significant functional values determined by functional
assessment will be addressed in the land development regulations was um thought necessary to keep because of the idea of mitigation banking. Well, let's get more direct about the mitigation banking.
You know, it's something that's needed and the city might want to try it. >> So, we can put that it's um that will be addressed in the land development regulations and and city can go from there. >> Can we strike the word wetlands?
>> Pardon me. Can we strike the word wetlands and just say establishment of a mitigation bank within the city because it could be a mitigation bank for gopher tortoises which as far as I know don't like >> this is a wetland seption >> I know but >> but I I I would not want to mess with
>> but gopher tortoise >> well I'm just saying >> okay what I'm saying >> there's other kinds of mitigation banking besides wetlands >> yeah but this is if you want to do that you you you know we tried to address that in the conservation element, >> right?
>> Um you know with re and actually in the future land use element so that um you know this can be done in the city even even on conservation land. >> Understand? I'm I'm just saying why are we why limited to just wetlands right
>> because this is a wetland section. >> It may be the wetland section but it a mitigation bank can be broader than just wetlands. >> I I agree with that. Nobody's arguing with David, is there any reason why we would need or shouldn't? >> Generally, the kind of hierarchical
nature means that any of the underlying strategies and policies have to match the overarching top objective which is specific to wetlands. So, keeping it wetlands here would be appropriate. If there's somewhere else that we want to explore putting other mitigation bank language into, there's better places for
it, but it has to kind of all be hierarchically consistent. >> Okay, I'll withdraw. Okay. So, um you know the okay this is policy 1.6.7.
Try to write this thing so that it would um sound legally correct. So David can look at it. You know monitoring shall be be required to ensure that all mitigation consisting of preservation and
maintenance is documented by deed restriction or conservation easement exe executed in favor of the city of Titusville remains legally compliant. In other words, we can inspect um
you know what has been um is now the city property um you know uh under deed restriction or conservation easement. Mhm. >> We'll let him look at it. Think see if he thinks it's reasonable
>> to bring up Hector's question from before. Who's doing the the monitoring, the policing? >> Well, okay. That's just what we're >> I'm sorry. Thanks for participating. >> Thanks, Jason. We really appreciate it. >> Yeah. >> What's that?
>> I said be careful driving. >> Yeah. Does that sound reasonable? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you only got one thing to do now. >> Accept it. >> Oh, great. All right. Great. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, and we got three minutes and we'll try to do it. All right. What we have we it's difficult the Okay. The water management district usually takes care of the buffer requirements when there's wetlands
impacts or you know some wetlands uh permitting required. Do they take care of a buffer requirement? City has now you you might think the city ties has no buffer
requirements. That is not true. Um and we can postpone this until next time too. I think we may want to. Um but the technical manual has a requirement for vegetated buffer
strips. Says vegetated buffer strips shall be created or where natural systems are used retained in their natural state along the banks of all water courses, water bodies or wetlands. The width of buffer should be sh here's the thing. The width of the buffer shall
be sufficient to prevent erosion, trap sediment in overland runoff, provide access to water body and allow for periodic flooding without damaging damage to structures and care must be taken not to harm the functional value
of wetlands and transitional vegetation. I actually I'm thinking if you wanna if you want to just take a you know postpone this till next time see if we can get some buffer
requirements um based on the uh technical manual. Then we can do that next time along with that the other other things because this is something new and uh you know
we can't um we can't take over the water management district's function. We already said we don't want we we will defer to the water management districts
on permitting. Now when the water management district is not uh involved such as you know um a a buffer that they don't require
then we can step in or if the wetland is less than five acres in size we can step in and ask for that mitigation. in the city can do that. But we can't we got to do the land use planning in
the city. We got to do land use planning, not permitting. So what we want to do is stay out of their hair. And so this thing says in the event wet and
buffer specifications are not part of a regulatory permit then we're going to go in and see what we can do about this buffer. And so that's the last topic here. And I don't know if you want to try to, you
know. Okay. Um what what else is in here? And um put that one off. >> I can make a motion. >> Please go ahead. >> All right. I I make a motion that we
approve all of the different things that we that we talked about with the strikethroughs and corrections with the exception of um policy 1.6.5. >> We did that one already and 1.6
>> well we we we struck through this but we're adding this language >> I see >> about the buffers. Right. >> Right. So it would be the 1.5 replacement language. >> 1.6.5 replacement language. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> And what else did we want? >> Adding number nine. >> Oh yeah. Well, that's that's yeah, that would be I mean we we all agreed to that. That's that's covered. you know, maybe come to think of it, you
know, maybe in maybe we should just um in case you know, anybody's um that's looking at this, not you, but thinking whether did the TEC do a good job, um maybe we should say we'll defer
the topic of policy 1.5 um until next time. because then we we she would not be writing down that we struck through all this and we didn't know what to do instead of it.
Okay. So, I'll amend my motion to say that we approved um well change to 1.6.1.1 1.6.2 1.6.2.1 2.1 >> 1.6.5
>> No, we're going to we're going to wait on 1.6.5 >> uh policy 1.6.4 and I think that's it because we talked about waiting on the the mitigation bank discussion until next time also, right?
>> Yes. >> Yeah. Or we can just wait and approve the whole thing next time. That might be easier. >> Well, it would be nice to have a clean unricken through copy to work with next time rather than all the strikethroughs
and >> Well, that's true. >> So, I I'm I have a motion. Do we have a second to approve what we've done so far? >> Yeah. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. So, can I ask uh Okay, so
what you're doing is you're um saying that you approve um everything under policy 1.6.1, >> right? >> Mhm. >> Everything under policy, you know, that that we have marked under 1.6.2,
>> right? >> You know, 1.6.3, 1.6.4, for you know that includes all the >> right plus plus the elimination of strategy 1.6 2.1 I forgot about that
>> 1.6 >> well I'm saying under that so yeah Lily does that make sense to you because you're going to have to there so you're approving all the changes on the first page right >> yes
>> and you're approving Yes. And then you're approving 1.6.6 and 1.67, right? >> No, I thought we said we were going to wait on those because we were talking about mitigation
>> right >> banks. >> No, I think not approve this mitigation bank things. >> Um, >> I was the only one that objected on 1.6.6 six and I found that to be wrong. So, we're going to leave it as wetland medication.
>> Oh. Oh, I see what you wanted to. Yeah. But >> so I think we accept it as it is. >> Okay. >> As written. >> Yeah. And we're going to review that again next time so that we can amend it
and make it work with um with 1.6.6. At least that's what I understood. You all good? Bill, you okay? >> This also included 1.6.7 or No, >> it included 1.6.6 and 1.6.7.
>> Okay. Thank you. And we will readress 1.6.6 along with >> 1.6.5. You readress, right? Yeah. Yeah. 1.6. >> Bring it back. But it'll clean the copy up that we're working with and make that that easy.
>> All right. Lori, can we have a roll call vote, please? >> Member Nico, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Thompson, >> yes. >> Member Delgado, >> yes. >> Member Young, >> yes. Chairman Majek.
>> Yes. Okay. And the rest shall be tabled to the next meeting. Is that what I'm gathering? Do we have to have a motion for that, too? Or do we know that we just need to put wetlands on the menu next time? >> Okay.
>> All right. Good. Good. semianual. >> So now we're up to the semiannual report on our agenda. >> And Jason said to me as he was leaving that he would be happy to present it if nobody else wanted to.
>> Yeah. Um your semianual report is on page 199 of 253. And if you have any changes um you can let me know. Otherwise this will go on the July city council agenda during the TEC commission
meeting. Um I I have a couple of things. >> So on um in the last line of the fifth bullet, one, two, three, four, five. Um the word B should be by
let's see one, two, three, four, five. So it starts out um summary of bulk edits to future land use policy 1.16.2. >> That last line it says decisions
be removing. It should be decisions by removing. >> Oh yeah, I see it. >> First line above the fifth bullet. And then the other change, and I think we have room to fit it in. It looks like
there's room at the bottom. Um, member Miller is the chair of the environmentally endangered lands selection and management committee. >> It's a big deal. >> That's a very big deal. >> I think he should get credit for that.
>> So, just change the member Miller who is also the chair of the environmental endangered lands committee. >> Yeah, I Yeah, I would say Yeah. who is also the chair of the environmentally endangered lands selection and
management committee. >> Yeah. Write it out. >> And then um on the last sentence it said I later organized and hosted a bus tour for the EELS SMC committee. you can just use SMC
because you've already spelled it out in at the beginning, >> right? >> But that that again that's that's the most important committee of all the committees of EES >> where >> sorry
the changing vice chairwoman Thompson >> later organized and hosted a bus tour >> for the EELS >> SMC committee. Great. And other than that, it looks great, Lily. >> I thought it was excellent. I didn't
even catch those. >> Anybody else have any recommendations? No. Okay. So, are we we going to accept this uh presentation? And and whom and by whom I should say,
do we want? >> Yes. Sure. I'll make the motion. >> Okay. What's your motion? >> And turn your microphone on. >> Well, somebody needs to approve the uh
the topic here for our report to city council. >> Two motions. I make a motion that we approve the excellent job that Lily did on our um semiannual report.
>> I'll second that. >> Done. Now, now we have something to talk about. Any other recommended changes? If not, then uh I guess let's all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion
passes unanimously. All right. >> So now the question is who's going to give the report? >> Jason said he would get it. He he gave the last one and he did a good job. >> Last one. >> Yeah. >> You'd like to hear from him. >> Okay. Then we will allow Jason to uh
seems to be the consensus. So I don't think we need a vote on that. No, he did a good job last time. He's a good speaker. That brings us to petitions and requests from the public present. I think we worn them all out unless Mary has something
she would like to bring additionally. No. All right. Then we'll move on to member reports. Bill, anything to say? >> Turn your mic on. >> Yes, turn your mic on.
Usually I do that. Um my report is um I'm going to be taking a trip so I'll be not here in July and August. So I thought let people know. Do I have to have permission or >> It's best if you ask permission of council. >> Can you ask permission that I can take
July and August off? >> Yeah. >> Do I need to do it? Do I need to go to the meeting? >> Um no. Technically, it's just three consecutive meetings that you need an excused absence, but you're also an alternate, so I think it's different for you as well. Um, but if you want to cover your bases, you can email me and I
can have it in writing. >> There you go. >> It just goes on the consent agenda anyway. >> So, I would do it just to make sure. >> Yeah. And then if you miss a third meeting, then you'd be out, you know. >> Okay. Yeah. Go for it.
>> Oh, stay now. No, you can send it. >> Send it to >> Oh, an email to her. Well, I used to get an email from her that says, "Am I coming to the meeting?" >> And I say yes or no. So, >> so I can write one just for that and send it to her. >> You sure can. >> Yep. It's how I do it every year.
>> Then the other thing I want to say is um uh I was part of a uh meeting so is Lily about um the uh I don't know if we should talk about that that Rollins College thing or no. Yeah, >> we can. >> Yeah, now's the time.
>> Okay. Uh Rollins College was doing u for co for Cape Canaveral uh seismic uh vibration and noise test. Uh they have a professor there. Um I forgot her name. uh Whitney and uh she
uh was doing a study in Cape Canaveral putting sensors on seven buildings to see what the vibrations of the of the missile launches were doing to the buildings structurally and uh we got hold I forgot how we got
hold of it but I got hold of it and she got a hold we had a little meeting with her and uh she's interested in doing more and making us part of it so Lou was going to check into that And I don't know where that is, but I just thought that I was part of that meeting and Mike
was part of it. And um years ago, 20 years ago, I did some putting solar powering on some sensors and I started digging through my old files. Mike sent me one of how I did it before. So, uh, but this, um, uh, Professor
Whitney, uh, has been doing it for a couple years and has experience. And so, uh, I'm not sure how we want to interact with that or how the city wants us to reenact it, but, uh, I just thought I'd bring that up that it's something that's my house shakes every time. Even when
the trains go by, my house shakes because it's up on blocks and it's 100 years old. So, um, I've been thinking about this for a long time. It's just there's always something else taking my money and time. So, um, so I might be part of this. I don't know. But, uh, I
thought I'd bring it up that that, uh, we may look at that because there's other things that happen. You know, it it shifts the the land and changes the water flow and things like that that the vibrations, how it impacts the land, uh, can be important to us. So I think we
brought that up talking about the pollution because they also she's me she's also measuring the uh air pollution and environmental impacts. So she has sensors for the physical and and for the chemical reactions and uh she's
supposed to give them a report the end of uh next month 2K Canaveral and it's whether we want to be part of this in the future and move forward soon. We've talked about this before about the pollution coming in and then we had that explosion. >> Yeah, I know that
>> and luckily the wind was blowing that way not this way. Okay. So um so there is some something going on that that this may be a cover reality besides us just talking about it. >> Right. >> Okay. So that's the two things I want to bring up.
>> Thanks for going to that meeting. >> No problem. Um, uh, what I just would like to share today is, um, I've been here for in Titusville for four years now and I drive by Sandp Point Park and I'm just
really excited and delighted that that is really come together so beautifully. Um, I'm really proud to live in Titusville and to go over that bridge and what it used to look like before and the kind of energy it used to bring before, how it's dramatically changed so far. Um, I'm really really happy for
this. So, thank you for everything you all have done as a as a community to make this happen. >> Hector, >> this time I'm good. I >> Oh, come on. We got to talk about this explosion. >> 2.5 on the Richter scale
>> over in Clear Water. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> and good thing the winds were blowing out to sea. >> And a good thing the winds were blowing out to sea, >> right? When I had uh my conversation with Whitney, um she seemed interested in expanding her scope of measurement
and I think personally that we should direct city council to start a program to start measuring. I think for maybe a hundred thousand or 150,000 they could put up a couple dozen sensors, maybe 30,
you know, and span from from causeway to causeway basically and and measure uh think of it like a web, you know, we want to measure that entire region and we do that by putting sensors divided
across the space. So both vertically and horizontally, we need to measure seismic on the ground. need accelerometers above on the air pressure, you know, for the windows and things on the top of the building. There's a couple of things that probably ought to be done, but having a system, a monitoring system in
place that monitors regularly when these things happen, we will be able to then figure out what's going on and what needs to be hardened and what doesn't. Um, I talked with Lily and David about this uh during our meeting last week and
I think the correct uh position to move this into is is into emergency management, not under environmental because it's going to if something were to happen, say that eightstory building, the assisted living facility were to
come down because it was undermined by a seismic rift, um that would put the city at risk. serious risk. So, our understanding of what's happening, I mean, the only defense that we're going to have is what we put up ourselves because nobody over
there is looking to protect us over here. And I'm sorry I'm keep looking away from you. It's not fair. But that's what I I think we need to come up with something and maybe we can put it on the agenda for next time and and talk about it some more in depth. But I I really
think the city needs to find a way to protect itself. You know, maybe it's nothing, but it might not be nothing. In which case, it could be something serious. >> Well, did she go to the city other people about this yet? You did? What What do they do?
I >> mean, we're mostly just exploring. I reached back out to her to as well to see if for like a follow-up call with more internal staff. She's traveling for the next two weeks. So when she gets back, probably start conversations again.
>> They're on summer break, right? >> Lily, what I would like is to see if we can get a copy of our report. >> I would like to see the parameters. I would like to see the distances
uh and then the compilation that she does with the local uh environment that happened on the day that she took the measurements like I like to see that that whole setup. Okay. Uh we have a different view of the
same thing. They have a north to south view. We have an east and west view. The paths are east of us. They're not east of Cape Canaveral. They sit differently. The plumes sit differently.
So therefore, I would like to see her data and just see what she got and then I think from there we can start assuming certain certain parameters if that's what we need to do. Okay. But what I'll leave you with is none of our insurance
that we have on buildings broken glass is covered by a launch. None. Now, I'll give you another data fact. NASA has never paid for a window in Bvard County from any launch that NASA has done.
>> Not even in the 60s. >> Not even in the 60s. >> How did they get away with that? >> They didn't. Nobody. Father Clint. Jeez. >> Oops. >> Okay. So, and I'll give you another one. What we're facing is we're facing a rocket that we have never launched
in Brevar County. So the only data that we have is what is happening in Bokhica, Texas. And that's the only the only way that we can put apples to apples and not apples to carrots. Okay? And and so we need to look that's
why it's important to look at how she gathers the data. Uh I'm somewhat skeptical of the pollution data. Okay. Because again they're not facing the pollution there. The pollution is
not going their way. So I don't know how she's doing that. So I have a lot of questions, technical questions because we can do the mesh that Mike was talking about to measure, but it's got to be for our exposure. Right.
>> Not theirs. >> Well, that's what we talked about was she was going to team with us, >> right? Okay. >> And supply the report when she's done for their >> very important that that we get a report so we can look at >> we got time. I mean, >> yeah, >> Starship is not flying until December at
the earliest. Artemis is not flying until beginning of uh 27. So therefore, the big bangers are not going by. Uh, I don't know if Blue Origin is going to be ready to launch this year due to the
fact that the pad was blown and they have to rebuild. So therefore, that remains to be seen. So all you have is a bunch of Falcon 9 and small stuff, which that that's just good data gathering and
and a few shake and pigs along the coast, but it's not going to be comparable to anything that we're going to see come December or the first quarter of 27, which is what we're going to need the data. Well, I have a question for you that
NASA has 27 weather stations that do uh environmental checkings. >> Yeah. >> Can you get a hold of those reports to see what impact it had on them? >> Uh we can probably see what they're collecting because Okay. So, let's keep in mind what's happening.
We're launching from pad 40 and 41 and 40. B 40 is on the air force side. It is not on NASA side. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. So, let's start with that. go back to my boundaries. Uh
and so therefore I don't know what their measurements are. I know we have measurements at the pad. We have measurements outside the pad in uh some of the old uh camera stations on playindo. There may be some measurements
there. looking. >> Well, I have a report from the 27 stations because I helped solar power them 20 years ago, >> but that that report is that I have was 20 years old. >> That's 20 years old. That that has changed dramatically. >> So whether they changed them or modified
them or I don't know what they've done with them since then. >> Well, I can tell you more than likely I have because I don't have reference to 20 years, >> but I do have reference after that. >> Aren't all those systems around at the gantry?
39 39B >> 30 39 39 A and B okay do have some measurements >> but they're more for their own knowledge okay they they are some measurements for
earthquake or seismic around the VAB >> or lightning >> okay the light the lightning is not going to bother you >> nothing's going to happen with the lightning that you don't know about. Channel 9 and channel 2 has
better lightning than probably they do at the gate. You know, in terms of knowing knowing now, if we get a direct strike, we got tremendous view of what the lightning is. But we do remember human flight has a 25
mile radius. Satellites have a five mile radius. As long as the lightning is within those radiuses and the balloons are coming back and the mill fields are within a certain parameter, you launch.
That's the extent. So therefore, that's what you have. >> So if you want to see one of these weather stations, just take highway uh 528 across to the port. And there's two of them on that bridge. and they are but
they they may be for temperature and uh >> yeah I don't know what all so I know on the bridge >> okay so all of us watch TV and sometimes you see Titusville is blank they don't have a temperature for Titusville and everybody else has a temperature and
that's because one of our weather stations on one of the bridges especially Maxwell bridge which has a weather station on the on the north side going east And that's basically a little bit of
wind, a little bit of temperature, and that's it. We won't measure anything else. Okay? And then that gets transmitted. Also, the local airports, they do send in their temperature to the the TV stations. Okay? But
sometimes you'll see that is just blank. A lot of nights we we're not reporting. So, but going back to to the to the data that is gathered by these people, I would like to see that and see how we got what we got before we go shopping
for anything. >> Well, I wouldn't >> No, she said, but she's going to share all that. She wants to share all that and do more work. >> I'm sure. I'm sure. >> So, anyway, >> shall we put this as a future agenda topic for this? Absolutely. Yeah, that's
a question for that. Do we need a motion or >> mot? I don't know if we need a motion. Do we >> Oh, say we need a motion. All right. >> Well, we need we need to do a followup. >> You know, when we get the data and then we need to have some time to look at it. >> So, let's have a motion to put it on the
agenda and next week, next month, we'll um >> don't have the um like report by then because I >> don't know when it publishes. Do you still want it on the agenda? Yeah, you you will tell us. >> You want to discuss it even if you don't
have the report. That's the question. >> What are we going to discuss? We we don't have the >> finish and move forward. >> Yeah. >> You know, >> we move forward when we have the data, right? I reckon >> and then we'll see what kind of budget,
if any, you know, we need to do. >> Maybe we go panhandling, >> selling bird on a stick or something. Well, no. Maybe we can do half halfacre uh things like the county does and charge for uh for the water,
>> you know. So, maybe a motion for um to put it on the agenda when the report's published or received. >> Yes. >> To talk, right? >> I think it's I think we need to do that, but the data that we're getting is nothing like we're going to be seeing.
>> No. So, we need to have data from Bokhica and I'm hoping that she will get some of that so we can overlay the data >> and see how it will behave on our side of the street and her side of the street because it's different.
>> Yeah. >> Any other topics that anybody would like to propose for the agenda? >> Yeah. One last thing, >> guys. I look on my balcony and I see a bunch of little rays, very juvenile. >> Is that what's going on there? They're probably cow nose rays.
>> Yes. >> They they have a long whippy tail. I learned that from your black face. Yeah. Those are they they're they come up in the estuary and use it as a nursery. I mean, sometimes you can stand on the bridge and see hundreds of them grow. >> No, I don't. I don't. >> Yeah, they're pretty cool.
>> It's just that the last few weeks it's been very active. That's why. >> Very good. Well, hearing no other agenda topics, then we are ajourned. >> No, actually have um well, I wanted to just
announce that the uh city is getting more involved in outreach opportunities through the chamber, local events, things like that. if we wanted to streamline and um systemize that. I know uh Laura Lee brought that up in the past
on what it is we want to bring forth and talk about at these opportunities. I attached your natural resources plan because there is actually a sizable portion in that plan uh that's called just titled increase public education
and outreach throughout the city. So there's a series of things there. I believe there's at least three. If you want to make that a strategy, that's another thing you could check off your natural resources plan as well or talk about, you know, how you want to approach that. Um, what sort of things
do you want to try to accomplish at those outreach events? I can also put that on your agenda for next time as well. >> That'd be good. >> It's going to be every Friday, the fourth Friday, I believe, of the month. we can consistently rely on potentially
having a tent for the city at u the chambers event and then other events that you want to attend. So like we did the enchanted forest. Um anything >> where is that? >> That's in downtown. It is at the welcome center.
>> Oh >> uh no that's that's the market. There's I mean you could do those too, but there's also the chambers um that big yellow building right next to the Pard House, that parking lot. >> They're doing events.
>> You'll email us and let us know. You're going to Are are you going to set up the tent and we can come hang out with you? Is that what you're saying? >> Well, I'm kind of I'm more asking like what do you for a strategy? What do you want to talk about? Do you want to have printouts? Do you want to have a signup sheet? Do you want what do you want to
educate them on? uh and if you do decide you want to go, I do need to advertise it because you are under sunshine. So I have to do that within a reasonable amount of time before you meet. So whereas the level of commitment on these outreach events and just something to put out there to potentially we can
discuss it in your July I can make it a an item that should probably be >> that should be an agenda item. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> I couldn't make the last one. >> I think so. that um yes that's okay with you. We'll
put that on your agenda. Did you want to make a >> That's perfectly fine. >> Okay. >> The more the better. >> Um and then my last part I did want to announce we did uh now that I have an intern. So something on the back burner. We put up a how to get involved page on
the website. There's a lot of things people ask me and I can send you a link about that as well. If you want to go through it and see if there's other opportunities to get involved um to try to be comprehensive. I'm sure I missed a bunch of stuff, but if you guys want to
put input, I included the boards, too, so people can know. >> When are we going to start working on storm water and flooding? >> That I did reach out to Vinnie um and he said uh August. I think he will be on the agenda for August. Okay, that'll be a start then.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Good. >> I think that's everything. >> Anything else, David? >> No report. >> No report. All right. I guess we're everybody. Lori, any report?
>> No. All right, then we're officially adjourned. I take it. >> All right. The future agenda items portion. >> Yes. I know I I touched on it in the report and I'm not trying to draw this meeting out, I swear. Um, but the storm water and flooding that was Vinnie's the outreach effort that will be on the next
agenda for July. Litter and waste strategies. I don't know if you guys want to do anything with that at this time or just keep it under future agenda items. The bylaws was a section brought up when you had talked about uh remote meetings and then hazard mitigation was
sort of the catchall when we were talking about All right. >> Eliminating hazard risk for the launches. That's kind of why that's there. So, if that's anything you want on the immediate next agenda, >> feel free to let me know. >> Up to you because you'll be chairing the
next few months. So, >> no on litter. >> Um, >> that's pretty straightforward. >> Um, I mean, if Vinnie's going to do the storm water thing and we could probably >> That's August, though. Uhhuh. >> It's not until August.
>> That's August. Okay. Well, I want to finish the wetlands and and do it right. So, I think >> I don't think we need a bunch of extra stuff on the agenda for ne next meeting. Let's finish up the what we're working on.
>> Okay. So, just so no outreach efforts or >> you can put it on and if we have time, we can talk about it. >> Okay. um and include the information in in our um packet. >> Yeah. >> Can I ask? >> Sure. >> He's um >> Michael,
>> it's in July. Yes, Mary. >> Uh Lily should know this. Okay. Um you know, I've written the uh ration. I would like to um work on ration for what
we have um approved in the uh the conservation element and uh finish up all the rationale and you can review the rationale. We need what I understand
from what I understand is that staff once they feel comfortable is going to um you know put the put this in the hands of city council is do they want to you know get this approved and
put on the back burner until this SB50 gets uh done. So I would have it all ready for you all the strategies and then we would have those three topics for next time.
Is that what you want the rationale there? >> What was the rational? >> Yeah. Because if we get the rationale I think that you know we got to explain to city council members um and staff why
we're doing all this stuff. and and and I've worked on the stuff that we've already approved, but I have not started a rationale for this and I will then have it for the next time. >> That sounds great. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Let's get ready.
>> Appreciate it, Mary. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Well, thank you all. You guys are great. Really? >> Yes. >> Well, we certainly couldn't have done this without you. >> Well, I'll tell you another thing. you guys really on that uh urban forestry
management plan. You did great and really amazing. You know, she was a she uh got that thing to work by making it a living document. Y >> everything turned out just right last night.
>> It did. It was a big win. >> Oh, and K, of course. I mean, Kay was really progressing >> when the line item is is created. And >> what about what about the changes to the
um landscape trust fund ordinance? Will we get to look at that or will the staff just do that? And then because it sound like the council wants it done like right away. Yeah, I think that's what Dire mentioned that she'd bring it back
for council review. So, >> will we get to look at it then at our next meeting or the council will meet before we meet >> before? Yeah, >> guess we don't get to look at it then.
>> We can look at it in the council packet. >> I can send it to you too when it's drafted. >> Okay. Well, nothing else. And >> Mike, you have a good summer. >> Thank you, >> Bill. You have a good time on wherever you're going. Have a good time.