All right, let's do a roll call, please. Chairman Mjack, here. Vice Chairwoman Thompson here. Member Berdett here. Member Tucker here. Member Walter here. Member Delgado here. Member Browning here. Alternative member
Young here. here. Thank you. All right. So, appears we have a quorum. That's nice. I just did the pledge of allegiance out of order. Oh well. Um I'll take a motion on approval
of the minutes from the last meeting. I'm move to approve the minutes from the um April what was it? April 9th meeting. Second. Have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Any
opposed? Show the motion passes. That brings us to petitions and requests from the public present. Stan Johnston and um I sent you an email uh yesterday the 13th and it's retitled. It says, "Why doesn't our media publish
expose important front page real news such as photos, videos of cities, uh city managers, fire, police, council, and so forth? um closed doors, refusals to respond, and coverups of errors, nonsense, dishonesty, false reports,
fraud, corruption, violations of laws. So, what I I sent sent you was was uh an email like this, and this is photographic proof of city's corruption. Uh I think you most of you have seen
this already before. It has uh uh some photos of sewage flowing and so forth like that. Now, I want you to remember is that is that uh gosh, maybe it's been as much as a year ago or oh, it's over a year ago is that uh uh I had an overhead
projection of a sewage spill. And what it was is was it had video also of of manholes lifted because sewage is coming out of the manhole, videos of that. And we had a sewage leak in um Baker subdivision has Greenwood Street, Linda,
Beatatric, Carol and so forth streets. And I photographed it, photographed a big puddle of sewage and so forth and the city denied it. City denied we ever had a sewage problem. I contacted uh FD and everything. All everything's denied.
This is unbelievable. So, I want you to understand is is you I've had a a a sign that says sewage spray and so forth like that. I've had so much criticism about that sign saying, you know, that's happened a long time ago. The dishonesty continues. It
continues. So, I'm I'm trying to warn you is that you cannot trust what the city is doing. And I I I've I've sent you this which is um my email is is down right now. So I sent it I cop I made
copies of of this uh what I meant to send you by email today. It says agenda item number 11 that's possible future item agenda items. And at the bottom number 18 I'll read it to you. says problems having te facilitator such as
Edy Brad lily or whoever to have matters sent to or acted upon by council and I put example and it didn't doesn't even show there but uh the example was uh our uh uh our continuous toxic fluidation of
drinking water beginning in 1982 that I was uh I called Lily about that and she said uh when that two counts two minutes ago and she said it's not it won't be presented till May the 13th and uh that was yesterday. It it
didn't come off. It wasn't there. I complained to Mr. Jack about that and he's um I don't know how but he he he doesn't feel good about it but the thing is I don't feel good about it because what this is asking we understand is that the
state is is probably knocking out this flidation but our request is very different. I think you'll agree with me. Don't remember your name, but you'll agree with me. But what what happened was is that is that the complaint from the TEC is that this special toxic type
of flidation from the phosphate industry is toxic and it's been here since 1982. This is horrible. This should be shown to the council, not just put under the rug. This is a serious item.
I I've listed another a number of serious items here for for future that you probably don't some of you you don't want them at all. But it it's serious what's going on. The dishonesty and fraud, false reports, nonsense that's
coming from this city is unbelievable. It's over it's overwhelming to me. It's outrageous. And I come to you as not just a PE, but I'm a PE, professional engineer. And my duty as per Florida statute is to
protect the health and safety of the public. The problem is our council is instead of protecting the public, they're they're protecting something else. They're protecting the city from liability and so forth. That's what's happening here. It's it's
it's completely nonsense. I'm ready to hear any questions or comments of the say denials of what I'm saying. I'm ready to let's say defend what I'm saying and I'll do it in court. They know I'll do it in court. They don't have their professional engineers to
contest me because the contest the professional engineers won't do it because I'll report them to the board if they do. It's all lies. So, I'm here to receive your questions or comments. Uh, so as far as just the matter of
fluoride, Yes, sir. that is actually entirely out of council's hand now, uh, because of the Senate Bill 700 that ended up passing. Um, it's out of everyone's hands because now it is being banned across the whole state of
Florida. uh that specific compound in the water is is uh I'm assuming each um water plant is being advised uh to take it out and so um Mr. Cook I believe
on the 12th announced that they would be complying with that. Okay. Um, so what I'm saying to you is I want to disagree with you even though you have promoted this is because I believe the the item that we requested
for them was to remove this particular type of fluoride. Let's suppose if they they start again and saying, "Hey, we're going to allow fluoridation that goes back." But what we're doing is what the TEC has you've
had you've had your chance already. You've asked your questions and there was that was the only response you had from the board. This isn't a dialogue right now. There's I think he's asked me a question. I think I should be able to answer it. Did you ask Stan a question? Member Berdett.
I thought Well, in other words, he's he's saying something. Well, I can't respond. In other words, you won't allow me to respond to what he said. I This is not the forum for which to do that. If you'd like to have a discussion, we should do so afterwards. But you've had your five minutes to speak. You've heard that there's been a state law that's
changed. It's going to be removed from our water and that's the answer. Okay. Thank you, Stan. I can I can I'm sorry, but I think I think you should understand that the city is is doing some bad things and this is one of them that's going on. Thank you. In in
essence, it's it's the same end result that we that we wanted because it is being removed. It's just being removed a different way than we expected. the result I wanted. I wanted and in instead of the council removing it, it's the Senate, the the Florida Senate that is
removing it, which in the end is actually better because it's removed. It's going to be have to be removed from Coco as well. So, even their water that we get won't have it. Thank you. Thank you.
Anybody else from the public? Mary. Yes. Mary Spar Coco. Um, I'm speaking under public comment tonight because I'm nervous about the fate of the multifamily canopy ordinance. And Brad told me that the multifamily
canopy ordinance, the CRZ ordinance, and the native landscaping ordinance will all be discussed by city council on May 27th to get direction from council on the next steps. Now, at the
last Now, at the last TEC meeting, staff floated a new version of the multifamily canopy ordinance exempting all residential developments of 50 units or less from the requirement for tree
canopy areas. This includes both subdivisions and multifamily units. In response, you voted to send to council a very different version incorporating a
suggestion from K St. Anave only exceptions to multifamily developments of two acres or less. These two versions are miles apart. Miles apart.
Brad said he would send the TEC recommendation to council. It's going to be on May 27th and that's all I know for sure. I've been a volunteer environmental activist for 30
years and so I'm experienced in seeing trouble ahead. The fact is that staff is very influential with the city council and it's also a fact that generally staff
has more influence on council than TEC does. Not a good situation when staff's proposal is miles apart from the TEC recommendation. I did talk to Brad
um about the miles apart situation. I believe that staff is willing to try to work towards a creative solution that would be at least halfway okay with both sides. assuming that such a creative
solution adequately addresses council's desire to encourage infill. I told him that Kay's idea was an attempt to come up with a reasonable ex
exemption and we wanted to be reasonable and were willing to consider other ideas. Now, what is needed to reach a reasonable creative solution to the
multifamily canopy dilemma? I have three suggestions. First, provide clear definitions of duplex, town home, and condominium in the land development regulations.
Platting and ownership must be identified as part of each definition to avoid confusion. And there is confusion now at least on my part. This suggestion is likely to resonate with everyone. Now please bear with me on the
second suggestion. It's complicated. If you have questions, please ask later. This suggestion is to finish up up finish updating the parks and open space ordinance which was initially authorized
in February of 2019. A couple years later, at the February 22nd, 2022 5:30 city council meeting, council agreed with the
direction staff was proposing for this ordinance. Now, staff's idea included limiting the open space credit given for traditional storm water ponds to 50% instead of the 100% given
now. Actually, staff could additionally allow open state space credit for LIID storm water features that incorporate trees. That would definitely encourage
LIID and blend in beautifully with the tree ordinance which says quote canopy areas may include portions of low impact development storm water management features incorporating existing and or
planted trees and native vegetation. Now, at the moment, our object is to reduce the miles between staff's version of the multifamily canopy ordinance and TEC's. If we can encourage more tree canopy
areas in ways that are doable in multifamily developments, some of the smaller multifamily projects would not need an exemption from the canopy requirements. Can I finish? I just have not too much
more. Okay. Actually, I strongly suggest that TEC asks for an update on the parks and open space ordinance at a future meeting. The sooner the better.
In summary, a reasonable creative solution to the multifamily canopy dilemma can be aided by finalizing the revision of the parks and open space
ordinance. Third, base the solution to the multifamily canopy dilemma on data analysis. We can't just be throwing around language for multifamily infill development exemption without knowing
what kinds of projects are being proposed and are likely to be proposed in the future. And K will address the data analysis. In conclusion, provide clear definitions for duplex, town home, and
condominium. finish the parks and open space ordinance, hopefully in a way that blends with the tree ordinance and LID ordinance and base any canopy requirement exemption on data
analysis. Do you have any questions? Okay. Do you have questions? Right. Go right ahead. Mary, do you have something put together as like a template for us for, you
know, so we got a starting point? Okay. Um, what what I am sensing from staff and and this is Brad is that he sees that these two
versions are miles apart. He gets it. We're not on the same page. Um, and he is looking for reasonable ideas to come closer
together. He wants to do that. Now, obviously, it always pays to be reasonable, and I'm sure that the tree um proponents would like to be reasonable as well. But the problem that we have is
um the scheduling. I mean, are we gonna just dump this, you know, our proposal on council and who knows what he's going to say about, you know, the staff's ideas without trying to get a little
closer together. Um, that I do not know. And I actually tried to find out by email, but I think Brad's been on vacation or something. Yeah. Yeah. And so, um, I haven't gotten any answer as to, you
know, whether he what he's going to do about, um, staff's version, but, um, I just I did float the idea of that that might be a little premature and maybe we should put off that one ordinance only
until a future date and when we can have a little bit more discussion. But that didn't fly. And um so um I think that I don't I mean I I this thing is very complicated. It requires
data analysis um to to find a reasonable exemption for infill properties. I know staff has many tools to to do
this analysis now. Um you know K is going to show you a try that's made by a citizen. I mean, and we can do some of this, but if we could figure out what infill properties exactly we're talking
about, maybe map them, and then uh try to come up with common characteristics for an exemption, a fair exemption for multifamily. Um, I I think it I think it would be
good, but it uh maybe you could direct staff to work on some analysis, data analysis. Um, you know, Kay's going to show you some and then staff could certainly do some, but
um that would be good and um because that's what we need what we need to see. Um and because I think that the common characteristic between staff and the
tree proponents is we all want to be reasonable. So, it's not an unsolvable problem. It's just that we're um you know coming right near a hard deadline of of May 27th. And
if TEC could ask for some data analysis, maybe show them what K's done, um which you'll show you in a minute. Um that would be good. the um I do think that
you know in any version these definitions uh in the at the end of the LDRs there's a section for definitions and I do think that they need to be clarified which I believe um staff also
is in agreement with yeah for clarifying definitions. Yeah. And then um the other thing is when um actually starting before the tree
ordinance was passed, it dawned on me, you know, because we were working on this for over two years that the way to make the tree ordinance work well, we we
need to um use u two tools that the city uh has and one was one was um to to use the um PD uh zoning because that
requires 35% open space for these developments. Now you can do a lot in 35% and you have to do it and it's not something that's just Titusville. you see this kind of requirement for PDS
where they cluster um the homes, you know, um and then uh save um land as open space and
um that is being w um widely used. But the other big tool we have which has been stalled on the back burner since 2019. Although in 2022 Brad had hoped
that it would be coming back in a few months is the parks and open space ordinance. Because what that what happens in that particular ordinance is
the requirements for open space are stated. What can you count as open space? Most unfortunately you can count traditional storm water ponds at 100%.
So you can fill, you know, almost all of your open space with storm water ponds. Well, of course that's going to discourage trees, you know, and
um staff had actually proposed to reduce that percentage from 100% to 50%, you know, um which would be a great improvement. You know, obviously you could do more, but um let's be
realistic. This is a this is a um provision that I've actually heard debated last year in Palm Bay. Um, you know, if it came down to 50%, you'd get
a lot more LI because what you need is the LI ordinance, the tree ordinance, and the parks and open space ordinance to all be working together to promote
the goals of the other two ordinances. We want parks and open space. We want LI and we want tree canopy and they all need to work together. Just like the tree ordinance now works hand in hand
with the LI ordinance, the parks and open space ordinance needs to join that effort. So I would suggest that TEC ask for an update. you've asked for
an update on a lot of ordinances, but um you know, nothing's happened on on this one since 2022 as far as I know. And you, Lily, you may know differently. I have no
idea. That's all I know. Yeah. So, that's my suggestions to you. Um, Lily Mary raises a very good point when she answered um, vice chair's question. How many infill parcels do we
have and what sizes and ranges are we talking about? Because if we're talking about, you know, there's like two onetenth acre parcels here and a quarter acre parcel there or maybe two acres here or there. That's not the kind of thing that you
really are going to be able to put 50 units on. Those are really pretty small. So, making it come down to 50 units basically means that anything under four or five acres would
basically have no need for a tree ordinance. It would just be washed away. So I think her idea of doing a bit of data analysis and see how many parcels infill parcels do we really have of size
and and and how many of each so that we can get a hysteresus curve of of what what the challenge is. Because if it's being blown up that, oh, we've got to have at least 50 units for these small infill places and there's two, why are we making an ordinance for
just such a fine? It's supposed to be across the whole city and equal. So, that to me does not sound like a good ordinance if we were going to be doing something like that. So, are you asking to remove the infill part? No, no, no.
I'm I am I'm saying that what Kay said she said that we need to be doing some data analysis and I got or not Kate um Mary she indicated Kay is going to have some more for us but this idea of doing this analysis to see how many of these
infill parcels we do have available for build would be worthwhile in comparison to this overall discussion. You know, like when we talked about it, I explained it that, you know, if you take any parcel, any rectangle and cut it up into six pieces, one of those needs to
be set aside for canopy. That's 16.6%. We are trying to achieve a canopy. Well, the city council said 25%. We were hoping for closer to 40 when we developed the tree ordinance, and I think we could easily do 40 45% in
the city for an urban forest. I don't think that's out of the question. The trouble is going to be in how we get there. Okay. I'm just trying to clarify the action that you you want us to find all the infill properties that would be we're we're about to have a discussion
about raising the number minimum number of dwellings on an infill parcel to not have to deal with the tree ordinance. And I I mean to basically wave the environmental plings that would
normally go around such a place. Okay, that would one for that would not be consistent with the development around it currently existing. That's that's one complaint that I have. But two, if we're trying to achieve an overall canopy
through the city, then anything that we do that is less than that goal of canopy is an error is is a mistake is is incorrectly done. So, the way I'm looking at it, 16% one sixth of any
parcel, pick whatever size you want, should be set aside for canopy, for native vegetation. Now, it doesn't have to be a particular little square in the middle of another rectangle. It can be spread throughout the property, but the area, the size of it needs to be equivalent to that. And the reason that
I say that is that I think that should be where we draw a line in the sand. That should be enough degradation of the parcel. What happened off of Highway 50? Where we go again? We clear everything
except the measly little 5-ft perimeter and it's moonscaped. And the viability of life in that area or being able to restore living vegetation is is very difficult.
And as long as we continue to to work in this this way, I think if we don't have the data to understand what it is that we're arguing about, then then we're going to have a problem going forward with any ordinance. So I think what Mary's saying is that we should get a handle on the data. How many parcels are
we talking about when we talk about bringing down to 50 50 units? 50 units on what size acreage are we talking about? Okay. So are you you don't want this to go before council? Are you
No, this is something I'm asking you to do for us. What's going to council is going to council. What I'm saying is that going forward, what Mary and I assume Kate because she hasn't spoken yet. What they're talking about is that we don't have a good
understanding of the data that we're talking about building on, do we? We we don't have a collection right now. We can't say there's 134 properties and they range in size from this to that with a median and a we we don't know that data. We don't have that analysis.
We could be arguing about something that might be generally moot. You know, if there's Yeah, there's a ton of parcels, but they're all less than a quarter acre, you're not going to get 50 units in a quarter acre. So, basically what you're doing is stripping this ordinance from that parcel.
And as I said before, if our goal is to get a canopy through the city, then I think the 16% or 16th of of any piece that gets built needs to be landscape. It needs to be native landscape, needs to have
canopy. Okay? And this is a way to get there is first to understand the data of what it is that we're asking. If Brad's coming to us and saying, "We need 50 units for an infill to make it viable." I want to know what size parcel and why
he can't leave one sixth of it for canopy. It It doesn't make sense to me. I have the two acres listed for the one that's going to council. I don't know. That's what we propose, right? But what staff is proposing is that less than 50
acres, it's it's a wash. Mr. Chairman, that's Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have a question for you. Yes, sir. Uh, I thought we sent um something different to the uh staff and asked them
to or directed them or recommended to them to send what we had spelled out earlier. Yes. To council. Yes. It sounds like there's some information that I'm not aware of that that's going
to change and that's not what's going to be put before council that staff is going to go ahead and put this uh threshold of 50 units out there is am I missing something? As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, Lily, but
that's going to be staff's version and this is going to be our version and they're both going to be presented to council. And as Mary said, they're miles apart. Let's Let's wait until we get ourselves. I don't have a version that's with the
50. I'm looking at You're looking at what we propose. This Yeah, I'm looking at Brad's binder and I don't have one that says 50. I don't know. But he's also not here, so I don't want to speak for him. I have a question. So, Mr.
chairman. So, have we heard that staff is going to present their version in contradiction to what we had um asked to be submitted to council? I don't know what staff's going to present and I don't think Lily knows
what staff's going to present because Brad's going to be the one presenting it, right? Yeah. So, you had a question? Yeah, I do. I do. Um If this is going to council on May 27th,
we don't have time for staff to gather information for us. I mean, this is this is for future work. This is this is for future work that we're going to be doing. We've already put forward our our best effort to city council on what we
believe and that's the the twoacre size. Yeah, that made a lot of sense to me as does setting, you know, a certain amount of of canopy that we the city council said that they were going to require. Why it doesn't need to be required across the board, I don't know. I know
that they're going to be talking about it on the 27th. And I understand from Brad that he's pushing this 50 unit minimum, less than 50 units or up to 50 units, it doesn't apply. And I I I
disagree with that because I I think the whole idea is to add canopy through the city and and everybody needs to have trees around them. I mean, the whole city needs to be not a heat island in my opinion. But that's but if if council goes ahead and they go with the 50
units, what good is this research that we're going to ask staff to spend time on if if if it if they already run over us? if they come back and they show that this affects all of two properties and I've got to ask them why this was so
important. Yeah, but they're not going to have time to do that analysis before May 27th and we're not going to be able to look at it. Um I think you know un unless we can
propose that this not go before city council on May 27th so that staff has time to do that analysis. That makes sense. That will give us time to do the parks and open space query as well.
Yeah. I mean I I think we're we're going at this way too fast. But I also get the sense that council wants to move forward with this and the developers and everybody wants to move forward with this because they want
to cram as many units on a piece of property as they possibly can. And and member Delgato, Madam Chair, you're done. Yes, I'm done. Okay. Just want to make sure. Yeah. This
this should not be us against staff, staff against us. Uh, I believe that the right way to do this is to take it off the calendar for the next date
and have a back and forth whether it be our next or a special meeting whatever if it needs to be required if developers are pushing and all of that I can understand that they are on a timeline but it it
should never be us against staff. or staff against us. That that's not what needs to go to council. And I think we need to ask that it be taken out of the schedule in order for us to get with Brad and see in the name of
reasonleness. What is it that we're calling reasonleness? Okay. And so I think it's very important that we define what that is. Right now what we have is one version versus the other. and we're asking council to make a choice
and that's we should not the city should not be run that way. I think I can clarify a lot of this discussion if you'd give me a chance. Of course. Yes. But I stand by what I said. Yes. Okay. Member Walter, you still had your light on. Do you want to
let K go or show? Yeah. I I I kind of agree with you. It's I whatever gets done on the 27th, we can still compile information and recommend an amendment to anything that they do if we find out that something works better. You know, I
agree. You know, it's not we don't have to make the decision tonight, this month, but we need more information from staff on you know, the same thing came up when Stan was talking about the ponds and the fountains. So, we got to get rid of all the fountains and all the ponds. And how many do we have? 12.
You know, it it it was not a monstrous problem. And most of them had already been replaced. So, all right. K, please. Sorry for the K Maryland Avenue Titusville tree. Let me just clarify. Mary met with Brad and
he said that May 27th it would not be going to council for a first reading. It would be a discussion, right? To discuss all the different options. And yes, in the past with the tree ordinance, uh, oftentimes, uh,
council was presented with various versions, a TEC version, a PNZ version, a staff version, and council had needed to discuss all these different versions. And that is why we're concerned that they will be bringing up staff's
version. and staff version says all residential developments with greater than 50 units are required to meet the minimum requirements of preserving total canopy area. So staff's version says nothing about infill. It does not say anything about
infill. It just says all residential developments, which would include subdivisions, which is what the tree ordinance is about, with greater than 50 units, are required to meet the minimum requirements of preserved in total canopy area. So, he's not specifying
infill and he's not delineating that it's multifamily. He's saying all residential developments which would undermine the tree ordinance that's is currently subdivisions. those residential developments that they're divided into plat as you know.
So I just wanted to clarify that. But um back to what I had intended to say on January 14, 2025, the city adopted an ordinance stating that city council desires to encourage development of infill lots to reduce urban sprawl. This
is what the ordinance says. City council desires to encourage development of infill lots to reduce urban sprawl. Maximize efficient use of existing infrastructure and reduce impact to existing natural areas by decreasing setbacks for multifamily medium and high
density residential properties 2 acres or less consistent with the future land use policy 1.77 defining infill development. So council adopted that ordinance defining
infill. Okay. and TEC picked up on that and I suggested to you two acres or less. And so on the next day, one day later, TEC met and you recommended
approval and in April 9th again recommended uh sending on to council a draft multifamily canopy ordinance stating section 3031B1 residential subdivisions including town homes and multifamily projects. Excluding single duplex units
on properties 2 acres or less and multifamily projects on properties 2 acres or less that that satisfy the comprehensive future land use element policy 1.774 infill development and are required to meet the minimum requirements of preserved and total tree
canopy areas. So both the January 14 infill ordinance that council adopted and TEC's draft multifamily canopy ordinance define infill lots as being 2 acres or less that satisfy Paul the
comprehensive plan 1.77. That's why I suggested the two acres or less. So they're in agreement that that's what an infill is. that Brad's residential uh sub residential developments with greater than 50 units says nothing about
infill whatsoever. So you need to have that clear in your mind. Um TEC by recommending this uh multifamily ordinance on January 15th and again on April 9 is encouraging multifamily
infill by excluding them from canopy requirements. They're going along with council. Yes. Council wants to encourage uh multifamily infill and tec. Yes. Yes. Let's encourage them by excluding them from canopy. So now we we're understanding that there are many vacant
infill properties in Titusville that could be developed multifamily. Many many the western west Titusville has lots and lots of them over there where Tony lives. Yeah. Many of them west of the railroad track. So today I provided
you with a chart that I spent hours and hours on um by comparing the city's website um um that's called applications under review. I hope most of you have seen that as of May the 12th 2025 I
compiled this information. I was able to get the acreages off the by comparing it to the Bvard property appraiser site. Right? So I made this chart. This is what is currently being reviewed at this time. This is a snapshot in time. Mo
virtually all if not all of these developments and it includes multifamily developments as three categories. Multif family, town homes or condos and single family. Virtually all of these have already started the review process and so they're grandfathered in place. No
new ordinance will apply to these. This is a snapshot for you to see what kind how much is being currently being reviewed at of these different types. So the first page is all apartment complexes that uh those in
red is what the TEC version would provide exclusion for canopy requirements. Those that are in blue is what uh specifically the staff version would exclude. but also because uh staff version says less than 50 units. You can
see the red ones would be excluded by staff as well. And the second page, I've taken out the town homes or condos because town homes, my understanding is that they are subdivisions. They're platted. That's how I've always
understood it and that's how I've seen the city uh working is that town homes are owned by the person who owns that little piece of land and therefore they're a subdivision and they the tree ordinance
as it is right now applies to town homes and condos. I do believe that. But Brad is not here to ask him that question. Do you Lily? Do you know? Okay. So that ordinance that either whichever version goes forward, even if no version goes
forward, I think the LDRs need to have a definition of town homes. And I heard Brad say that that he wanted to pro provide clarity on the definition of town homes. Are they subdivisions? Do they meet the qualifications of the
current tree ordinance that says residential subdivisions must meet tree canopy? I believe that's how the city has been applying the tree ordinance that town homes I've even spoken in front of city council when there was a reasonzoning
and and said that these this development is town homes and therefore they must preserve 25% and the developer was sitting right there didn't contradict me so I I you know don't know for sure that's why we need a clarification that's why we need a definition so the
second page has the listings of current town homes and condos being reviewed and being built right now. These are already uh going forth. Then at the very bottom, the the last segment se page two and
page three are the single family subdivisions being built right now. Virtually I believe all of these were grandfathered in with the tree protection ordinance. they were already being reviewed and therefore the tree protection ordinance has not been
applied to these. The only one exception might be this falcon roose, but it doesn't have any trees on it to begin with. So, it's not really a a big issue. So, um I hope you'll take the time and thoroughly understand this. If you read the part at the top, you'll
see that the red is what the TEC version will exclude from canopy. the blue and the red is what staff will because it just so happens that all of these that the are in red are less than 50 units. Um that's not all the but now when you
get to the town homes uh some of these um yeah they're 42 48 36 32 28 units and so they they also would be excluded by staff staff version. So um there's a lot of data here. It may take you a little
while to look at it. I spent I would say five hours compiling it. I made one version and I said this is not good enough. Got to do it again. Yeah. So, please do take the time to look at it uh and and consider it. The most I I I do
want to say there are advantages and disadvantages to infill. I've spent some time on the websites all throughout the country talking that are talking about uh the advantages and disadvantages of infill. The disadvantages uh is that in
the urban center it increases urban temperatures, right? Um it increases flooding, increases polluted runoff. These these disadvantages can be mitigated by tree canopy requirements. And that's what we're trying to do, right? Isn't that what we're trying to
do? And yes, I do believe that in high density areas, even multi-family highrises can provide tree canopy because I've seen it when I go to fancy hotels and urban centers where they have all this landscaping to so that they'll
attract their hotel clientele. Well, we want to have such beautiful multifamily uh apartment buildings, too. whether it's dense or whether it's out in a little bit more in the outskirts, we want beautiful canopied multif family.
Um whether it's highrises or not. So I would suggest to you highly that some of you go to the May 27th city council meeting and speak your mind. Tell them why you want these three ordinances
adopted. uh express to them why your recommendations are warranted and include that to comply with the comprehensive plans policies to preserve and protect trees and native vegetation. These three ordinances need to go
forward. But maybe not the multifamily that night. Maybe the multif family needs to be tabled and reconsidered. Maybe all three need to be tabled and put together as a package. That is up to you. But I will also be there and asking
that council do what is right for the trees and for the natural environment to the best of my knowledge. Anyways, so that's what I have for you tonight. If you have any questions, I hope I cleared up a little bit of of what was being discussed. And if I went too fast,
forgive me. When you said three ordinances, which three were you referring to? The multifamily CRZ and the native plants. Those three are according to Brad and Mary talking with Brad. I wasn't there but Mary gave me a blowby-blow. She said that that's what
he said that all three would be presented to council. That's always subject to change though. You know, uh sometimes they table things at the last minute u because their agenda is so full. But that's what he said. It was going to be discussed. Not a first reading, but a discussion. See where
they want to go. Th those were the three ordinances that Kimley Horn reviewed and we spent a great deal of time discussing at the last fixing it. Yeah, I remember. Anybody have any questions or have any
questions? Anything I had to say? Thank you for doing this chart. It's really helpful. I hope it's helpful to you. I do want to make sure that you understand they are probably already grandfathered in. They're in the works. Um but it is a
snapshot in time so to speak. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So Lily um about this parks and open space ordinance. Where are we with that? It's
not in my binder. So I don't think it's coming up. We should poke the bear and find out where it is. It's been idle for too long. Yeah. Um I also really appreciate having a good definition for
duplex, condo, and town home. I think that's that's pretty clear. And I'd like what Mary had to say about the relationship between the tree ordinance and the um open space and
recreation ordinance as well and how they tie together. So it may be that some of the definitions that we put in that one might help clarify how this they all fit together. So can we work on those getting getting those definitions put into ordinance?
Can I emote? and a motion. Okay. Would somebody care to make that motion since I'm the chair? What I what I'd like to see is I would like to see in ordinance definitions for duplex condo and town homes as Mary suggested that that would
help clarify some of our other ordinances. Do we want [Music] to impose more work on staff before we get these what we're working on now
resolved? Or should we try to focus on what we're working on now so that we don't get sidetracked and we get what we're working on now taken care of before we recommend any
further action and work for staff and us. I think the request from Mary is valid and I don't see it as work for us or interfering with our work. This is something that we've noted now that needs to be addressed and I think a
recommendation from the commission to staff that we need to get these definitions in the ordinance would be helpful. That doesn't interfere with our future work. It might actually help. Mike. Yes, sir. Come the end of the
month, they're going to be talking about two sets of papers. Yes. That are not that remotely the same. I know. Okay. And so, one, I agree with our Lee that
adding more stuff may not be the right timing, but that's a timing issue. Okay? So, I'm not really arguing with you on that, but we've already made that decision last month. We did. I'm not talking about changing anything we've done before. I'm talking about what
we're going to be doing going forward. And I think going forward, we need to have definitions for condos, town homes, and whatever the heck it was, right? That bunch. Yeah. Okay. But I go back to the meeting at the end of the month.
Our meeting? No. No. For city council meeting. I I that's out of our hands. Well, no, we can we can we can recommend to staff since they they themselves the wording that was used
was to come together in reasonableness. Okay. I don't think we're there. I don't think they're there. Okay. And so again, what I'm trying to avoid is council having to
even in a discussion choose this or that. Okay. Okay. I don't I don't think we're there. We're I think we need to come closer to whatever metal Brad and the staff has done and what we done. We
know what we've done. And so to me, the more logical path is to take it off the agenda and get with Brad and see all the pieces that he that he wants to put together versus our pieces and see how
that goes and see how we can get there. uh and and that's what what I would like to aim for is to even at the discussion phase go in with very few items that perhaps we may
be a part of. Okay. So, uh I I can make a motion that uh we yours that we uh request that this be taken off the calendar. with this what
what this the the multif family twoacre the twoacre the two acre okay and and so for for further discussion with staff since staff has a different view of that world so that we can come closer uh to
present to to present to council a more united front want to have a workshop uh again you call it you got the floor I'm just suggesting okay it's your motion We can we can have a workshop with staff. Uh we
can have a special meeting with staff since they come anywhere. Brad said that we can call a workshop and have it the hour before our regular meeting. Okay. So again, I think a workshop will be the way to go if if the rest of the commission agrees. But the
first item will be I would like to make a motion to ask that this item be be tabled at the next meeting and that we find a slot to have a workshop with staff to go over our our differences if
you want to call it that. Okay. So there's a difference between tableabling it and removing it from the city council's agenda. I think you want to remove it. Yeah. Okay, please. Thank
you. Withdraw. Oh, withdraw. There you go. We're asking staff to withdraw. We have two or three before city council. You'll still have the critical root zone discussion and the native vegetation
requirement discussion going on. City council will have plenty of stuff to discuss on May 27th if we pull this one item out of the three. Right. So, I don't think about what motion we working on here. We're working on the
motion. Well, I I can't make a motion. We cannot make a motion, but I'll make a motion that we that we request that the multif family uh multif family will be taken out of the uh agenda for uh the next city council
meeting. Well, it's not just multifamily because it it that has crossed over into um single family residential which as Mary pointed out will be not good for the tree canopy ordinance. So again, help me
out with I don't know what you call what staff has come up with but exactly staff has papers. Mary All right. So, um, what I think you're
asking is that there on the I the item that he's planning on bringing to council on the 27th of May, which will be a discussion of three ordinances
recommended by TEC. that is the CRZ, the multifamily canopy and the um native plant one that out of those
three that before he finalizes the agenda um and this would not be just a decision of Brad but of other people in the city administration as well to um remove that
plan to um con to discuss the multifamily canopy ordinance and that what there would be is two ordinances that would be up for
discussion that what likely said is the CRZ ordinance and the native plant ordinance and then um you can go from there in an effort to come come up with something reasonable.
We can't keep calling it the multifamily ordinance because what staff is suggesting has has taken it out of the realm of multifamily that may be units. That may be true.
That is very true. That is a very good point and that's why we need to uh um have a discussion about what is reasonable. Is that reasonable? That's one of the
questions to ask about what's reason. What can we agree on is reasonable. I believe that that subject may be able to be resolved at a workshop. So sir clarify that now. Okay. Let let
me see if I can translate all of that. Okay. And and please uh join me in in correcting my in correcting me. But what I I would like to make a motion that we request staff to remove the item for multi multif family
uh out of out of the out of the discussion from the 26th agenda on the 26th agenda. 27 27 27 and bring it back to a workshop with the TE and bring it back to TEC and have a workshop with us.
Mhm. Uh to resolve the differences. Any differences? That sound good to you? Yeah. Except I still have heartburn over calling it multifamily. Couldn't we call it the tree tree canopy protection
discussion? And I'm I'm good with that. It it's just I don't know what they're calling it. Huh. But Lily, it it is labeled the multif family canopy or what I thought under everything, right? Well, that's that's a good call that. Yeah. Okay.
That's what I didn't want to change titles and then they get confused. That sounds good to me. They have done that in the past. All right. Is there a second? I'll second it. Okay. Laura Lee seconds for discussion. Okay. Now we can talk about it. Anybody have an opinion?
Don't be the first one to hit your button. Enough discussion. Have we had enough discussion? Maybe we don't need anymore. All right, let's call the question. Shall we do a roll call on this one? Yes. All right. Yes, please.
Me. Um, member Berdett. Yes. Member Delgado. Yes. Member Browning. Yes. Member Tucker. Yes. Vice Chairwoman Thompson. Yes. Member Walter. Yes. Member May. Yes. Okay. Anything else for petitions and
requests? I have one short announcement. All right. Bring it up. K. Oh, okay. Why not? Before we get into the next one, I wanted to say it when I sit up, but I didn't want to disrupt the flow of thoughts. You know, June 18th at the
Isaac Campbell Community Center and Park, the tree team is going to have a tree planting event and the children of the community center will be participating in tree planting. 30 trees will be planted, live oaks and wax myrtles. And these little children,
there are 60 of them, ages 5 to 12, will be participating. And their parents are invited. You are invited. Yes. And I've sent some of you emails and I will send the rest of you emails about this June 18th at 10 o'clock. It's a Wednesday. I
know some of you have to work, but uh if you can consider coming uh and participating, this will be our if once we plant these 30 trees, we'll have planted 200 trees in City Parks of Titusville. So, it's a big event and
we're also going to be uh having two uh interactive lessons the week before for the children so that they're they will understand fully why it is that we are planting trees in the park, why we're asking them to help us plant trees so
that they understand why how it is that trees benefit and that they will be able to watch these trees grow throughout the years and receive the benefits of them. So again, Wednesday, June the 18th at 10:00 at the Isaac Campbell Park and Community Center. Thank you. You
K. All righty then. On to the Native Municipal Tree Canopy Landscape Management Trust Fund. Anybody like to jump in and lead off? member Browning for say I think you
had some studies on this did you not you would like me to lead the discussion chairman if you're ready if you feel like it I'm just looking for somebody to get it started Mr. Chairman, you you brought this item
to the TEC, right? Yes. I brought it to the TEC because I remember back in 96 when the St. John's River Water Management District told all of the cities along the Indian River Lagoon that excess storm water was a
problem and that our lagoon had too much fresh water. And the terms being used were poisonous amounts at the time. And so they decided to do a del plant to try to remove fresh water and that failed. So they came down with a mandate that
indicated that the cities should all do more to try to reduce runoff. And part of that was to plant trees. And they created a mitigation fund for trees that were taken out. And any tree 6 in or larger at that time was paid a
mitigation fee whenever the land was cleared. This took time. You'd have to do a tree survey first to find out where all the trees were, how many there were, what sizes they were, they had to be located, and then then they would be mowed down. Well, the when we created
the tree preservation ordinance, part of the parlay between development and the tree team was how are we going to actually do that? How are we going to come to terms together? And that was one of the things that kind
of went by the wayside. So, so last month we had a discussion about these funds going into the uh what are we calling our current?
Well, they repository. It got moved into a basically a beautifification fund. Yeah, it's a beautifification fund. then used to create um the entryways there wi-i which leads to the one overarching
um thought that I've had probably because this is more in line with my expertise and that's that these funds instead of going to beautifification um wholly or in part um mostly if not
wholly need to be dedicated to uh um promoting um large canopy shade trees. Those are the workh horses for storm water management. And when we um extract funds from developers for taking down
trees, most of that money needs to be um devoted towards putting back large canopy shade trees in those places throughout the city where um in conjunction with um every everybody all the stakeholders.
It needs to be uh prioritized where those large canopy shade trees are developed. It's good for business. It's good for um you know the way public works manages their department um particularly storm
water management. Uh we couldn't do anything better than um take whatever money we can get and devote it towards large canopy shade trees. There are some other elements of this landscape management trust fund where we talked about
um you know native ground plane and we talked about um rain gardens and things like that to me not having the tree ordinance where we want it yet. Those ground plane items are diversions. They're
digressions that I I wish we wouldn't get into to be honest with you because we haven't covered large canopy shade trees like we should have um long time ago. So my preference um would would be to um take any of
these funds that are now going towards beautifification um and put them towards um an urban forest uh program. Um that could include everything from hiring a forester to manage the program
um maintenance to a lot of other things and then come up with some other means for um funding beautifification. Well, the city council has already decided that half of the fund is going to continue in their beautifification
realm and half of it can come back to us. So this in in a sense is that policy that we're trying to craft how this should work, how this should function and include things like
what we had talked about rain putting rain gardens in with citizens who want to have it done. We can provide maybe a grant of 50% funding or something like that through some of these funds. Yes, there will be enough income to actually hire somebody full-time to run and
manage our urban forest. If you just count the the money that we have coming in now, $88,000 is more than enough to pay for somebody to run our urban forest and Titusville. And and that's just from this fund alone. And there's still other
resources to go. So having somebody on staff that would be responsible for the urban forest, it would help plant that urban forest, plan where it goes, be a participant in in the overall planning of of how this is going to grow out. Um
I think is is paramount to to what this this is the resource. This is where the funds get scraped off the road and we have to figure out how to bring them back to make the city grow again and live again, you know, because we're we're losing it left and right. We don't even count the number of trees we take
down. We only count the number that we plant and and that's kind of like what the BAP does with taking care of the lagoon. It only looks for PNN and it doesn't look for fresh water or anything else. That's We don't count the trees we take down. We don't count the trees we take down. Then how do we determine how
much money is um to be charged in fees to the developer? Because we only count the trees that are larger than 24 in or whatever wherever the fine 20 in over the minimum threshold. Yes. Minimum threshold. Used to be 6 in. Now it's three times that size. So we've lost a
lot of income from the development community as far as impact goes by changing this from 6 in to to 20. That was a a real concession on our part, on the trees trees part. I' I'd like to hear what K
had to say about the 50 5050 split because I thought the 50/50 split was still in in place. Do you think it's not? Why? Okay. I admit I'm old and my memory is a
little foggy sometimes, but um April 8th uh city council heard uh landscape trust fund advisability was in the consent agenda for April 8th and um what they were asking is that
um a certain amount $65,000 now wait a minute I'm they were asking that some of the landscape trust fund be utilized to to match the urban forestry grant. Okay. So, they needed I
think it was $65,000 from the trust fund to go to match the urban forestry grant. And at that time there was a discussion about how much money was in the landscape trust fund. And then there was a discussion about well is uh did did
the ordinance change the the resolution regarding the landscape trust fund did it change at some point so that only 50% of it was going to be used for planting trees in public places and they said no that never actually occurred. Yes it did. Well that's what they said at the
city council. So that's something you need to find out from staff. Um, you know, all I can report is what I heard. And like I said, I pre I told you from the beginning that I have a foggy brain and I didn't bring all those notes about it, but that's when the discussion was
held, April 8th, and and we can look back on that city council meeting. It was under consent agenda items, landscape trust fund, and you can find the details. It was long before April that I heard. Yeah. it. I think the 50% is still there because I mean we we beat
this up. You know, we we had like six or $700,000 in the in the in the landscape trust fund and then they wanted to do all these gateway projects and we the TEC was saying no, the money is supposed
to be spent on canopy trees. That's what got then young got taken down. That's what it should be used for. and the city council said, "No, we're going to use all of the money to do these um the these gateway things and then after the
gateway things are finished, then we're going to split it 50/50 with you guys." That was that was well before April. That was two years ago. I know that. But in April they said if you know unless I'm just dreaming this that indeed that
5050 decision that TEC recommended 50% for the canopy trees was never implemented. It was never actually adopted by council is what they said. It would be good if we could find out because we don't want to go on that
assumption and then get blindsided. April 8th listen watch the video. I know that but staff might be wrong. Yeah, they may be incorrect. I as far as I remember that was the deal. We're going to spend every
dime of the vote was taken. Yeah. They said we're going to spend every penny of the landscape trust fund and we're going to do these gateway projects which by the way are already full of weeds and they're not even been being maintained.
There's considerable money in the trust fund and the gateway projects have been funded. As what I understand, as of uh August 28 24, there was $640,000 in there. Now, I I believe that
some of it has been used for the gateway, but that's those are staff should have that information at your fingertips. So, I all I'm saying is you need to look into it. Okay. I I think that you might the story might not be
Yeah. Well, we need clarification. There you go. You know, is the landscape 100% now to be spent on canopy trees or is it still 50/50? And I think we need clarification on that. And if the if it is still 5050, I think we need to fight
to get 100% of the landscape trust fund back into landscape urban forest, our urban forest and not planting flowers out by 95.
Um, at least it's not cord grass drawn in the gopher tortois, you know. And basically when when we re you know when we when we find out what we are actually entitled to then I think that whatever
you know whatever that whatever the landscape trust fund it should be replaced with this along with um I would like to see um member myjack's version. I'd like to see member Berdett's
suggestions incorporated into member Mijjack's version so that we're looking at one document instead of trying to go back and forth looking at two documents. That would be helpful. But I guess we need to discuss member Berdett's suggestions and and make sure
that we like them. I mean, I like them, but I would like to see the two documents combined. But I think we need to get more aggressive about the the landscape fund because it got hijacked
and um that and and it's not being used for what it was supposed to be. And then we still I don't think have ever resolved with council how the $2 per capita from the um tree board tree tree
board how that's supposed to be spent. That that never was resolved either. No, that's supposed to be our decision, I think. Well, is it is it still going to be used for streetscaping and trimming? I thought that was a separate account.
It is it is it's a totally separate account or it's not an account. It is a requirement for us to be a tree city but what the tree city would like for those
funds to be spent on city's not spending them on that. I mean, those funds could be used for an arborist. Absolutely. But the city is using those funds just to do tree maintenance, like tree trimming or
taking out a dead tree or when it gets near a truck or something. That That's something that could change when a urban forest professional gets on board. All right. Shall we go through um shall we go through member Berdett's u
additions or suggestions here? Okay. Before we Oh, before we do that. Okay. Yes. Member Delgado. This year alone and last year I've been asking for the sheet of paper that says, "Here's the money. This is the money.
This is how much we spent trimming. This is how much we spent on maintenance. this is how much we spend on the the gateways and all of that. And we've never gotten that. This is why we keep talking about 50% or 2% or
whatever. And uh Brad was here two meetings ago and we had a discussion about that. I believe you had just started. Yeah, I sent you guys an email on the 10th, April 10th about where I saw the estimate of the fund
you're talking about. The 65,000 that she's talking about is a separate fund that sunseted and got merged into. So, there were two, now they're one. And that's all I know. Right. But that doesn't resolve big the
big questions on the on that budget. Okay. Uh there's got there's got to be some in accounting the city of Tatis. So somebody's keeping track of that money. So an audit of the account and and and so short of an
audit requesting an audit of that fund. Uh I think that that should be made available uh back to us. Clarify and I can try and find it. Uh that's not what's captured in the email that I was talking about.
Yes, I have it at home on my computer. I can send it to you. Okay. Okay. I I know exactly where it is. But but that's part of the discussion that needs to happen. But everyone using the same numbers
and I don't think that has happened. We've gotten pieces here and pieces there and conversations here and conversations there and and some data being sent. But there is no accounting sheet that says for 2024 this is how much money we collected. Uh this is how
much money we spend. This is how we spend it. And I remember last year we did get something similar but the it it wasn't granular enough to even get to where Mike is talking about. That's when we were talking about how to create or
develop uh what this fund is going to do. So, if you could help us out uh trying to get that and I'm sure Laura Lee has it in her computer, but like I said, it's I would like to see the Yeah,
maybe if she can send me that, I can look at it because Yeah. I don't Yeah. Yeah. I'll send that to you. Now, this this was a thing that I think Kevin Cook put together or maybe Bill Klein put it together, but it has columns and then it
it has Yes, I remember. Yeah, that's what I have, you know, and it shows where we planted zero trees some years, two trees some years. Um, yeah, it's very it was very sparse as far as tree
planting and and the types of things the money was being spent. basically on maintenance that the that regular maintenance that the city should be doing anyway, but I I'll send that to to Willie when I
get home tonight. Okay, member Walter, you're up next. I mean, does anybody have a definition of this account? You know, where you know where the money should be spent? I mean, originally it must come up with something.
Originally, it was called the native tree mitigation fund or trust fund. And that's that got morphed about 10 years later into a beautifification fund that allowed them to spend it on things other than just canopy trees. And now we're
trying to pull that part of it back. In addition, we as the Tree City Tree board been designated uh we're required to have a $1, it $2 $2 per capita. Okay. Uh
to as a budget for our urban forest efforts um with 50,000 people, that's roughly 49,000 people 900. It's roughly $99,000 that we should have. Yeah. uh in an annual budget that we can decide how
to spend for our urban forest. And my thinking would be a good portion of that would be first paying for somebody to manage our forest because maintenance is the biggest issue going forward, right? And then the rest as it accumulates over the years would then be how we would
apply that maintenance and apply future plantings perhaps using the Maka method or something like that you know where we have a focused means or methodology anybody right
so shall we we all right member Berdett you want to you want to take off on uh on your section here. Yeah. So, um when I first started, um drafting this, I wasn't exactly sure what the
scope of the trust fund was. So, some of it might be very much just ideas. Uh but nonetheless, uh they're they're still there. Uh one of them is already being implemented by public works. uh the tree
boxes. Uh they're they've already been uh doing projects and building tree boxes. Uh so that's one method that's already being done. Um other than that, I had briefly talked in one of our
other meetings about the uh tree map. Um but I also had thought a little bit more about it. Um because there is kind of an issue
of uh public versus private. Um but my thought on that was if we could involve the if we could involve private citizens
in if they ask someone to come and map theirs that uh that's how we can actually estimate like the storm water uh discount or something like that uh that you've mentioned before. Uh so we actually can
gauge how much storm water um their land um or what they have planted uh takes up. Um let me see what else here. Uh one of the other things was the Milwaukee
forest um or basically rapid reforestation. U this would be just something to use in like high runoff areas. to mitigate. Um I think it would be
useful just as a as a general tool for areas. Um otherwise there's also uh public private sponsorships. Um, if we can get any of the bigger companies
uh to help us in helping the environment, that would be awesome cuz um they're here doing business and uh they like doing business here. Uh but if
we can get them involved in in helping us, that would that'd be awesome. Uh most most of what I have is is all written out. Uh some of it's more integration uh how to put this onto the other
document. Um but I also tried to put down the application of how it would apply to Titusville as well. Let me know if anybody has questions about it too. Yeah, the tree boxes. The tree boxes have been a question of mine.
Um, do they and and this might be more of a question for member Browning. Um, do the tree boxes limit the overall growth of the tree? They can if they're not designed with an arborist
input. Yeah, trees need a certain volume of soil to do well in an urban environment. And um I I haven't studied the tree boxes that we have going in now since 800 and
something thousand grant. Is that right where they came from? I have to ask Lily. I don't know. I don't I don't remember. Came from the save our Indian River Lagoon fund. Oh, sorrel fund. Okay. Information on please if you can add it. K. May 13th, council uh agreed to an
amendment to add additional sums to the sorrel grant for the tree boxes um to boost it from 25,000 to 26800. But it also says that on July the 23rd, 2024, city council approved a grant
agreement between the city of Titusville and the state of Florida D in the amount of $467,760 towards the same project. Oh, that's big-time money. Um, so now we're talking about uh almost
$500,000 towards these uh tree box fil tree boxes. And according to this uh report to council of that day, May 13, 50% is complete. Um I interacted with Sandra Weller about this over a year ago
uh when they were first considering these tree boxes and she sent me this information. Um and you're welcome to it because I have it online. So I'll give it to you, Michael. It actually has a picture of a tree box.
So yeah. drainage. Obviously, it's supposed to go into the TRG box and it has certain medium in that and then at the bottom it has a a a pipe that goes off into the lagoon after everything's filtered is how I understand it. I don't
um I she also sent me a map aerial photograph of where the tree boxes were going to be and there was 15 of them in the downtown area there. um you know what the parking lot is there between downtown and the Indian River
Lagoon there you know and 15 of them scattered along there some pretty close to city hall so I haven't actually seen them myself but apparently some of them have been built 15 50% of them so um that's what I know about it thank you
thank you K I'm curious about the amount of shade that we're going to be able to get from one of these boxes. I mean, I I think of the streets I grew up with when I would visit my grandmother in Detroit
and there were these elm trees on on the boulevards and you were just in this canopy of trees. And that's kind of what I'd like to see happen here is that we have a canopy that shields, you know, the concrete and the asphalt as much as possible.
You can't do that with a 10-ft tall buttonwood. You know, you're not going to get that 40, 60 foot wide canopy that's going to do the kind of shade that a live oak would do. And I don't know that a live oak would would be inadequate or sufficient in in the
baffle, these boxes, these these tree boxes that we're planting. That's my concern is that okay, we've got tree boxes and we're putting in this crepe myrtle or this. I I share that concern. I think the if there's going to be a tree in the boxes, it needs to be a
shade tree. I agree. That's capable of intercepting rainfall. And um you know, uh there are other plants that are typically put in tree boxes and they're responsible for
helping to um filter the first flush of water that comes off a roadway. And but it if you want canopy shade, you still whether you're doing a tree box or just a pit in the sidewalk, you've got
to have enough dirt in there and enough drainage for the and there are there's all kinds of specks out there that are easily found. James Urban's up by roots. It's all about planting trees in urban environments.
Um so yeah, I agree with you. Um, I I tend as a landscape architect to try to do the lowhanging fruit first. And if we can get trees in downtowns with adequate um space, that's where the
heat island mitigation needs to happen is the the urban core. So, um I I like what Andrew's come up with. Can I comment on a couple things? Sure, please. Um take the floor. Is it appropriate at this time? sir. Um the
GIS systems, you know, there there are tools like that and ite is another one that's used by the Forest Service and um I I think the urban forestry program is going to want to have certain tools to use to
inventory trees, keep track of them. Um they keep track of everything. Um that's how they prioritize what sort of work needs to happen to the city trees that that um if public works is going to
maintain them. What is that based on? Is it it it it should be based on the um notes and um recommendations of a forester, an urban forester who's managing the program and establishing
priorities for where certain work uh needs to be done. Trees that are healthy and going gang busters, you know, probably not much needs to be done, but other trees are not going to be like that. And so
um that leads to this um Maya forest u concept. And I think again the urban forester as Andrew said there are going to be some areas where it's important um to plant a lot of trees of different
species um so that you cover the ground quickly and you do a lot of good things with all those trees coming together. That's another um sort of a uh priority that might get identified by the urban forest manager. Um tree
boxes. I I came from Atlanta in my last gig and Atlanta was already implementing and requiring uh in urban areas uh things like tree boxes. And those tree boxes also had the correct amount of soil to allow those
trees to thrive in an urban streetscape. Um, and again, I think if the urban forester said we really don't have enough canopy shade downtown, um, how do we improve that? And um these
these u boxes, if you will, um would be um something that my old firm in downtown um Savannah um their rodeo drive is Broen Street that has been completely retrofitted for
tree boxes now. And um it's done. You can visit Savannah on Broton Street and see how those work. Um, unfortunately, um, I didn't have anything to do with Chinese elms being planted, but, uh, they were, and it's a good urban tree.
Um, but it's exotic and it's not native. It grows fast and establishes canopy quickly. But, um, lastly, this this public private partnership, um, I think that's the way to go. it's not that
difficult to sell to get a a corporation to partner up with the city um to provide funding for all kinds of things. So, all of these are really great ideas and I um won't get into the application, but
um there's all kinds of ways to apply. So, um I'm all on board with this. um if we I I'd be ready, willing, and able to help write this um
program. I I don't know who else would want to help do that. Maybe Andrew or somebody else. Jonathan. Jonathan, excuse me. Andrew, you mean you'd be willing to take the two documents and fuse them together?
Why not? That would be awesome. That would be amazing if you could do that. It would it would certainly make it easier for us. I just don't see it I don't see it getting done in a 1-hour workshop before our meeting. No, no, no, no. And and and we also in, you know, in
addition to combining these two documents, we need to know, you know, legally where do we stand with the tree mitigation fund? Is it
Did the 50% ever get put into a uh legal language? Um we have no idea. Somebody has to figure out what is what is you know what is the standing now that the gateways have been done and
most of the money's been spent. Do we get all of it now or do we only get 50%. And if we only get 50%, I think we need to go after the other 50%. What about the gateway on US1 coming in from the south? That's not that hasn't
been redone. They just did 407. They they only did I95s. Yeah. A and only only the east side of I95s. They didn't do anything on the west side of I95. So, it's the two I 95
exits, Garden Street and State Road 50, and only on the east side of I95. And they didn't plant hardly any trees. They planted they planted a they planted a Chinese fan palm that appears
to be dying. Um but and and and a few sable palms, no canopy trees at all. But um they said that DOT wouldn't let them plant canopy trees because of visibility
that it it would hinder visibility for cars. That's what they said. Oh boy. Can I say something? Yes, member Young. Um, I've complained about it before that my neighbor cut down all their trees in
their yard uh because they didn't want the leaves in a swimming pool. And I says, "Well, where are you going to get the oxygen to breathe?" And I gave you a brochure, a flyer about how much oxygen trees it takes to. And I was called stupid because it's more
important to keep the leaves out of the pool than have trees for oxygen. So, how are you going to overcome this? So we're an environmental committee. So we kind of think that. So you're trying to develop a tree plan. And I showed people
my little tree farm except one or two. And uh having a tree plan is part of what I have to do. Uh so how do you deal with you see the politics we have to deal with and in dealing with all this of where the money is going and not
going and uh on the interstate they plant palm trees uh rather than shade trees. So if you go to my house next door you'll see there's a two giant oaks in front that supplies shade over the road in my house on on
the sidewalk. Okay. So when they uh but other places when they put new sidewalk, they kill the trees to put the sidewalk in because they don't want to have to mess with the sidewalk. So it's based on the contractor who they hire to do that
job. So I stood here and I came to the city council meeting and says, "I'm sorry, but you're not cutting down my trees." And they said, "Okay, we'll not cut down your trees, but they cut down other people's trees to put a new sidewalk in." So, the politics of all
this is chaos, okay? Because everybody has a different belief and feeling. So, I'd be glad to help you work on a plan. I I already have my plan for my forest, but what I call my forest is a landscape forest. In other words, there's a
mixture of trees. It's not just one kind of tree. For those who looked at the book, there's multiple trees because you want them to grow at different species, different times, different environments, and add different nutrients to the
ground. So my tree, when you looked at my thing, you have all different kinds of trees in it so that they all help each other grow so they become a community. So that's so you're you're you're online where to go with this is how we get
other people to back us and provide money to this. So um we've also talked about conservation easement. So I've given you a picture of my trees and I've given you not a copy of my plan but I have a plan and I have a conservation
easement. So So I have a not they're not worded like what you would use but there's something you could use as a guide. So, if you want to get copies of them, I didn't give out copies except that thing on how many trees it takes to breathe. And hopefully we can get people
to change their minds. Maybe we put a bubble over their house and if we put a bubble over with no trees, they'll choke and realize they need a tree when they can't breathe. So, I don't know how to solve this problem, but I just thought I might mention I've offered up some
information if you want more. Thank you. I appreciate that. Seven to eight trees, huh? Per person. That's interesting. Member Browning, I'd be happy for you to pick it up and and and run with it. I'm
going to be gone for the months of July, August, September, October. So, I'll be gone for four months. I've asked the council for a leave of absence. So, in my absence, please, please take it over. Yes, Bill. You just reminded me I'm going to go on I'll I'll be gone July
and August too. You have to turn in your letter to Lily. You have to send her an email so that she can make a formal request to council. Okay. I'll send you Okay. Can you send him like a word version of this? Um I think Lily has it.
It's obviously included here in our on our agenda. Is is this a PDF or is this like a word? You can translate back and forth now. It doesn't matter. Yeah. When are you going to be gone, chairman? I'm We're leaving the 16th, I believe,
of June of next month. Yeah, I'll be here for the next meeting, but I'm leaving the Monday after. You've gone July through August of October back in November. Yeah, I'll be available by email. We got a good
connection up there, but I just won't be here physically. So, you could read a draft. Absolutely. any comment? Um, actually I have a question for Lily about that. How given the sunshine law
do we work on a shared document? Yeah, I don't think that's allowed, but I can check if you'd like. Do we find out from from legal? What what do we do? How do
we go about developing this? do we do it, send it to you, and then you in grade all the changes and then that puts a lot of honest on you. Whereas if we had like just a Google doc that we could all make comments into, that would be different. But okay, I I don't know if that's legit. I have to ask legal. Yeah,
please. Thank you. I submitted a card. Okay. Do we have any K St. Yes. Imagine that. Thank you, Kate.
Um, I think all these ideas that you're considering are really important, really valid, and I encourage you. Um, I wanted to say to Lauri and to all of you that I will look up that council meeting that I was at April 8th and tell you what they
said the landscape trust fund currently has and what they said about that 50% one way or another. I'll I'll send it out to an email to all of you. Um March 27th, I was at council meeting when they authorized the mayor to sign the
agreement to create an urban forestry master plan. As you know, we got that grant and then uh council agreed to take to match the grant 50% $50,000 to match that with money from
the landscape trust fund. Okay. But at at that council meeting March 27th when they authorized the mayor to sign the agreement creating to create an urban forestry master plan um I spoke to them. I also want to inter interrupt myself. I
have the grant proposal right here for the for that urban forestry master plan specifying what it is to include. So, uh, when I spoke to council about it, I said to them that according to the grant
proposal, this plan will implement key findings from the 2023 urban tree canopy assessment. We did get an urban canopy assessment and it it had a lot of information, a lot of data. If you haven't read it, I can send it to you or
she can send it to you. it's available the tree canopy assessment and all the data that it came up with is really pertinent to the TEC. Um so um uh that assessment so that the grant the
urban forest master plan is supposed to implement the key findings of that 23 2023 urban tree canopy assessment. That assessment indicates Titusville's trees provide $47 million in annual benefits
by absorbing 130 by absorbing 130 million gallons of water, producing oxygen, reducing pollutants, lowering temperatures, and improving public health. So, increased canopy will bring increased health benefits to our residents. The assessment indicates it
can be you used um to identify the best locations on city-owned property to focus future tree planting and canopy expansion. So the urban forest master plan is supposed to
identify and implement best locations of city- owned property to plant trees on for canopy expansion. So that's what we're looking I'm looking forward to this you guys. The assessment recommends developing a proactive tree
program to plant and manage street trees. And the urban forestry master plan is supposed to implement that the planting of street trees and management of them to ensure healthy trees are distributed equally equitably across the
city. Our town could certainly benefit from well-placed street trees as well. The assessment indicates Sandpoint Parks 28 acres are available for sable palms, live oaks, and other native shore stabilization species. So that um Maka
plan uh could be utilized in Sandp Point Park. Um I've studied that extensively. Um, so FEMA has been under undergoing shoreline stabilization at Sandp Point Park and once that is is completed, then
trees could be planted along that peninsula. And I've offered the services of if the city won't do so, the tree team will be happy to plant live oaks. You know, they're small, but we're willing to plant trees along there. And
so I'm excited about the urban forestry plan. it they I would think that the city will they had a a timeline of all the workshops and everything the citizens involvement in the urban forestry grant. I assume that's been
updated and should be presented to the public pretty soon. I don't know when that's going to be. Maybe you don't. Maybe she'll tell us. I'll sit down and let Lily talk. Thank you, Kate. No, she's Yeah, she's right. It's actually out for bid right now and it'll
be due on the 29th. Good. 29th of May, the bid will be end of the month. That's good. Okay. And then after that, we have public engagement and everything, right? Well, it's uh it goes through the formal bid process. So, I have to there's like
a selection and then it starts the actual task that you're talking about to do. There's all those task items, right? Yeah. and an implementation plan. Lily, would you clarify again? I didn't didn't quite hear all that. What is it that's being put out for proposals?
The city's first urban forestry management plan. It's this this big thing I brought in. Yeah. It's also that book that I emailed you guys is was written by other people who had helped other cities develop
plans. I uh invited somebody who uh has a nonprofit that plants trees and they get donations. Uh invited them to Kay's uh planting tree thing and I invited him to the meeting tonight. But tonight I got a an hour before this I got a call that
says he wouldn't be able to make it. But, uh, Barry Perry, he has a nonprofit and he plants trees and he would be glad to bring his organization over here and help us. He was going to come tonight and talk about it, but hopefully he'll
make the next meeting. Okay. Um, so I got a question to Lily and Member Browning is going to pick up the document, I guess, for this round. Do you want to have an update for us at the next meeting? Send it to Lily a week before.
Yes. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Excellent. That'll be wonderful. Yes. This is it's just it's such a broad subject to be able to think about how we can take funds and actually get them implemented all the way to maintenance
because I've found in my view of the city that maintenance seems to be the one thing that nobody ever thinks about. It's not funded initially. It's just an afterthought and it never gets done. And that's why we end up redoing things like Scobby Park because we didn't have any
maintenance in plan to keep the place going. And people being what they are, it's sad that we have to redo things. But okay, if there's no other discussion on this, then we'll move to the
bylaws and approve a specific election month. That's kind of where we're we're at with this after our last discussion. Is there anybody that would like to take off on this one? I I move that we
um move our um election of officers until the month of January. Okay. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Okay. Shall we discuss?
We had a long discussion about November and December which we don't meet and is that a reasonable conclusion that January was okay since I was party to that. Yes sir. Uh, and I proposed out of sheer why
don't we do it January and that had to do for those that were not here that had to do with the fact that we don't control council when they make decisions of appointments and because of the fact
that it was brought up that sometimes they don't even know when our terms are up. Uh and so that happened I believe last year we were party to that to Sen and so my my thought was so well if they
cannot make up their mind we'll make up ours and we're going to pick a month that is going to be beyond their November December time frame and that's when the new chair and vice
chair will be uh selected. And that that in my mind, maybe feeble, but in my mind, that will give us at least a couple of months uh for them to make up their mind and and we get the new members appointed and
they also get to know everybody and each other and those that left and those that are staying. And so that was the logic in getting January as a kickoff month. It's not set in stone or cement. It was
just a something to use a calendar and see if we can get there. So with that, I'll take the floor for discussion. Okay. Anybody else have any other suggestions,
recommendations, or shall we call the question? Do you have a question, please? Now's the time. Does it affect us now where we're sitting now? It like my term expires in November. It won't expire till like January now or how No, no. The the
question was when do we as a commission vote to elect the officers of the commission? When we when we elect ourselves. So the thought was that it would be better if it was after everybody was appointed, which usually happens in November usually, which we
found isn't always the case. So, so January it is. Yeah. Remember Browning, you're stewing over there. I can see it. Okay. All right. Then let's call the question. Can I have a roll call, please? Member
Walter? Yes. Vice Chairwoman Thompson? Yes. Member Delgado? Yes. Member Berdett. Yes. Member Browning. Yes. Member Tucker. Yes. Chairman Mek. Yes. Very good.
Okay. That leaves us to petitions and requests from the public present. No. Did I miss something? Oh, the 33300. I didn't see that. All right. Still on item C. 7 C.
Now, what did what do we have in here? I got to scroll down. Okay. The rule sets three minimum criteria for urban trees and green space. At least three trees in sight of every home, school, and
workplace. At least 30% tree canopy in every neighborhood. and no more than 30 m 300 meters between every home and the nearest park or green
space. It's about a quarter mile. I have a card. You have a card. Shall we call the cards, please? K St. Orange. Yes. Okay. First off, thank you for even studying this. I I really just
um never thought it'd be put on the agenda. I just thought you would look at it and find it interesting. So, I I did a bunch of research and I pulled together some excerpts of from the research and everything. And most of this is from a US forestry service
article entitled measuring the third 33300 rule to help cities meet nature access thresh thresholds and also planet geo who did our assessment they have an article about urban forestry new benchmark 33300 rule. So from that I I
gleaned this 33300 is a set of objective benchmarks for cities seeking to provide their residents with adequate access to nature and the benefits of exposure to natural settings. The goal states that everyone should be able to see at least
three wellestablished trees from their home, workplace, or place of learning, have at least 30% tree canopy coverage in their neighborhood, and live within 300 m or 984 feet of a high quality
public green space of at least 1.2 acres. That's really a wonderful goal. I like it, but but it it it it's definitely a goal. Uh cities can use this rule to determine how they fare on urban green space
proximity. So you can use it to evaluate yourself tree canopy coverage and access as well as where to target investments for the future. This three-pronged rule requires multiple measurement strategies. A 2023 study identified
seven main measurement options. Uh how do you determine if you meet these goals? Well, you have to measure. I Mr. Delgato believes in measuring. Yeah. And how do you measure? So, here's the seven main measurement options. Vegetation indexes, street
level analysis, tree inventories, questionnaires, window view analysis, land cover maps, urban green space property maps. Um so questionnaires and window view analysis are used for the three component highresolution land
cover maps for the 30 component and urban green space property map with network analyses for the 300 component. The rule covers three types of nature exposure. The ability to see the urban nature from the windows of your home and workplace. Living among trees and
vegetation in your neighborhood and accessing a park or green space for recreational purposes. Studies have shown that each type of nature exposure creates varied positive health impacts. And there was pages on pages of that differentiating how each one of these
different exposures affects positively your health. This approach leverages a vast and growing literature demonstrating the importance of trees and public green spaces, especially close to where people live, work, and play for mental health, physical health, and climate adaptation. views of natural
vegetation. The three visible tree components have been shown to help with stress recovery, long-term improvements in people's well-being, enhanced job performance, and more. Tree canopy coverage. The 30% component is connected with a host of positive associations
such as reducing extreme urban heat. I think that's really important here. Lower all causes of mortality and improve childhood development. The 300 component aligns with the recommendations of the World Health Organization that residents should have
access to public green space of at least um one hector within 300 m or 984 ft from their homes roughly a 5-minute walk away. So that's the World Health Organization saying that that should be stipulated. So the
330300 rule has been gathering steam since its inception in 2021 and has attracted considerable attention from urban foresters and planners. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe included the rule in a policy brief and it's making its way into municipalities
such as St. Piusburg, Florida. Adoption of the 33300 rule will accelerate once measurement strategies become standardized. So that's my little um compilation of all these various uh
websites and if you would like a copy of that let me know and I'll send it to you. Thank you. Yes. Any comments? Yes. What do you think about putting in the 330300? We kind of are are already
there kind of. We we have a uh tree canopy protection ordinance that gives us 25% tree canopy, right? In residential developments, right? So it's getting close to the but only in resial not and that's only in residential not
in multif family and not in puds and uh right so basically nobody's building that way anymore and then and then also in our um comp plan one of our goals is to have
um a park within a 10-minute walk of everybody that lives in the city. That's one of our goals in the comp plan. So, that's kind of like the 300 meters, but 300 meters is a lot shorter than a 10-minute
walk, but you know, we're we're kind we're kind of wobbling, you know, towards this. Well, what I was thinking was we we voted to remove what was
it? I forgot I wrote down the ordinance. I can't find where I wrote it. We voted to remove one thing from city council's meeting. Maybe we could put this in place of it. You don't want to get an advisability from them on this? No, not yet. No,
they got enough to talk. they have enough to talk about on the 27th without us, you know, side hitting them in the side of the head with something new that that No, I don't I don't think this
needs to go on on the 27th. I agree with uh Miss Thompson. Um I you know the 330300 principle is applicable in my mind to what the urban forester is doing
which is prioritizing planting areas. And so that's a good um thing to have uh to know about um if you agree with it that it helps that person prioritize where we plant trees um in the city.
that's going to come up in a workshop or something when when we have a public workshop um to help the new urban forester um sort of get a running start. Um we can bring up this 330300 rule and
make sure that he or she incorporates that into their priorities list. See, I was thinking of incorporating this more in the comp plan directly where we were talking 10-minute walk. Instead, we're saying 300 meters. But sure, remember Walters? What what are we
defining as a neighborhood? Yeah. You know, if we're talking distances, we're going to have to have some sort of definition of what a neighborhood is. you know, I don't see us in this problem now except for
the the nearest pack of green spaces, but uh looking forward down the road. Yeah, I I I I agree with this, but just said I Well, how do we define a neighborhood? Well, the rule is not actually trying to define the neighborhood. the rules
trying to define how and where trees are laid out within a neighborhood. Well, the question is what do we do with it from here? Do we want to go forward with it? Do we want to drop it? Do we want to make a motion that we agree with it? What what what do we
do? You're the board. Well, I think we should just, you know, in include this when we get the urban forester person hired, make sure that he is familiar with this this concept also.
But we we can't we got to pick something to go with. We can't just keep adding stuff and finding a new idea and trying to add that and incorporate. I think we need to define what it is we want and
then concentrate on that. Okay, I agree. Just like the U canopy assessment, it's one of those things that the urban forester needs to look at really close to define how to get off to
a running start. And we can recommend the 33300 rule as a part and parcel of u things like the canopy assessment that that person needs to um understand that this is what this
community wants. So can I just please yes comment that I see this as just another tool to be used for the overall right plan that that we desire. It just puts a a stick in the ground says this this is one thing that
we stand for. Yeah. This 330300 you know and I think by making a motion that this is something that we agree with and that's something that we carry going forward. If it's something we want city to also adhere to then we need to make a motion to send it to council as a recommendation. Motion.
Yes. I would love a motion. I I make a motion that we um recommend incorporating the 33300 rule um within the future urban forest program. Okay.
Go here. Second. I'll second that. Ah good motion in a second. Now we can discuss like we have it. Any comments? Member Delgato. No, it's it's just a guide. Yeah. Of what we
believe our society should develop into. We're not there yet. That's right. Okay. But we're trying to to get there. So therefore, we put it out there that this is what we believe a tatas should look like in some time, delta time. Uh and so
therefore now we have a guy, you know, the develop benchmarks for it. Exactly. Okay. Okay. So if it's well understood and there is no uh big deal about it uh then should be
adopted as our baseline. Very good. Anybody else? Nope. Okay then I guess we'll call the question. We just um all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That was easy.
It's almost too easy. Thank you, Kay, for bringing that to our attention. Now we can go on to petitions and requests, I think. Oh, well, no staff updates come after. Yep. Any last comment?
Okay. All right, Lily, the show is yours. Okay. So, you the semiannual report uh will be on your next agenda for the TEC and then that will go before council if approved. So, I'm just giving you all a heads up. Uh the natural resources plan
was adopted by council at the April 22nd meeting. Um as well as that same day, they h they got their annual report update on the sustainability action plan that was also added to the website. Uh
we also published an LI story map that was added to the website under the land development regulations for developers to use. Also added all of the videos related to the sustainability action plan and its updates to the sustainability section on the website.
added pollution notices from if you want to sign up for the FD notification of pollution that's now on the website and the Indian River Lagoon monitoring dashboard dashboards is also under programs and resources and
sustainability and also available on the website. Cool. That's it. My lights on. Did you want to tell them about how many people have been using L? uh 32% last year. How about that in our
city? And why was that? What did you attribute it to? It's just a guess, but uh we talked with MRC and they had questions to why our community is more likely getting it
adopted. They seem to think that um the preapps help in and our developer one-on- ones. Yep. getting together with the developer before they turn that final permit in makes a wonderful difference. Thank you for that. So, um,
Lily, can would it be possible to for um you to send out the I'm not sure that we've ever received like the final completed natural resources report, you know, after we made the comments and they came
back and and we've got a couple of new members that have probably never seen the natural resources report. So, can you send out the final version of that so that we all have it? I did. You did? Oh, I'm sorry. Um, on the 2nd, it should
be in your emails if you hadn't get if you haven't gotten it. Okay. Thank you. But I will I'll put it on the website, too. Very good. Great. Okay. I guess member reports, shall we? Bill, anything from
down there? I think I kind of said that um I invited a um a tree planting association member here and he didn't come. So uh I did show you my tree farm and my uh uh stewardship uh u
conservation easement if anybody wants to look at it who didn't get to see it earlier. Uh I only made one copy. So if you want to look to see what I've done, I have it here. Thank you. Good. Member Browning, any anything to report?
Sir, I was just originally I was going to mention it, but I mentioned it kind of towards the beginning uh that we kind of got the results that we wanted out of the fluoride since it's now banned across Florida. Uh second state to do it. Yeah.
Let's see. attended a meeting along along with Lor Lee uh on the BMAP uh for the area and I think there were some very good comments that were put there and some eye opening that areas that they were not covering
and so maybe we can get something going and and bring our friends from across the river uh into because they they do play they they are getting a lot of uh launches planned and and and that will
definitely the nitrogen especially will will change uh as you burn uh RP1 which is what you're going to do. Well, that's that's what I understand from Virginia Barker was that the mass majority of nitrogen found in
the North Indian River Lagoon is from atmospheric deposition. That is air pollution. Absolutely. 100% nitric oxide. Yep. which is a residue of burning RP1. Yep. Kerosene. Kerosene. Lots and lots. More
difficult RP1. Well, here's, you know, talking about RP1, I don't know that besides the Falcon that that's going to be much going forward, but you even if we go to methane, which is what what the super
where where's the depot going to go that's going to hold that much methane? Well, and then what is that going to produce on the surface of our waters in this area? Right. And also I I brought
up the fact to the team that was there that the fact that the switch capacity on the air force side is going to be increased by over 50%. And they already funded it. It's being funded by Spaceport Florida, right? Out of a state budget. Yes. and
and so where is that affluent go? Uh because right now basically it's a much smaller processing facility. Okay. Uh and so and again depending on how Starship goes, you're going to need a lot of deluge water for Starship. Yeah.
And and you don't have the ponds capacity because those were not done for that kind of rocket. And and so it's going to have to be done. And we have our friends in Blue Origin that also going to be uh burning methane. And that's another hydrocarbon.
They're also bollocked up trying to park all those launch vehicles once they come back on drone ships. Where are they going to go? You know, they don't even have the port is another issue together. Anyway, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. No, no. But anyway, but but
anyway, that's that's what I was doing last week and giving comments also for the IRL uh on the same subject. Very good. Member Walter, you have anything to report? Nothing to report, but I'm just as
probably the newest member on this board, I'm impressed the way it moves forward. Okay. And and the work and the the input from everybody in the city that is really concerned. You know, I said I come from up north and things are run a little different,
but you know, I think we got a pretty good board here. They move forward. Good. Member Thompson. So, I took some um angels and stuff that belonged to my mom to um um Gypsy at the
cafe paradiso paradiso. So, I I came down Mariner Way and I hadn't really come down Mariner Way in a while. And I was shocked to see the condition that all of those Sylvester palms are in. They all
seem to have lethal bronzing. So, are we just going to let them sit there for another year until they all look like folded down umbrellas before we cut them down? Or what what what is this? What's
the city's plan on all those all of those Sylvester palms that are infected with lethal bronzing? And the ones on US1 don't look too good either. So, we we've got a problem with lethal bronzing in the Sylvest Sylvester
Palms in in downtown Titusville. I noted that uh when we were driving out to Orlando uh earlier this week that on the north side of Highway 50 from just beyond the great outdoors almost all the
way to the St. John's River, all of the palm trees within 100 ft of the road north were all dead. The south side's fine. The trees beyond 100 feet to the north are all fine over in the St.
John's Preserve. But right there along the road, it's almost like someone had systematically sprayed every single one of the cabbage palms along the way. They're all all brown, every one of them. And I don't know if that was done by St. John's, the people that managed
that or or whom, but um I I just thought it was atrocious because and it was indiscriminate. was just just those poems and um you think it's something moving I don't know it you know if if it was something like this bronzing disease and it was moving with traffic you know
and somehow but why would it only be on the north side it should have been on the south side of the road it's a wide open area and that that didn't make any sense to me anyway the other thing I wanted to say is um regarding the oyster bags at
Scobby Park I spoke with Tyler at the zoo and um he said that the zoo will remove those oyster bags if we can get permission from UCF. And so Lily's already been in in an email um
discussion with Dr. Walters at UCF. So UCF is like fine. Yeah, just if you have any oysters that are live that you run across, you know, put them back in the water. But they're okay. But now the water levels come back up. So, we're probably going to have to wait until
next winter to do it, but we do have a commitment from um the Brevard Zoo that that they will they will use their their personnel to remove those oyster bags. I was very happy about that. Yay, that would be good.
Member Tucker, nothing to report. Sure. For those of you that go by the Maxwell Bridge, the rays are back. The rays, the little manta rays. Oh. Oh. Oh. Okay. And uh that that's a cow nose rays
is what those are. I call them rays. Yeah. Okay. But they're back. If you get on the edge going up towards the top of the bridge, you can see them on the sand side. Nice. On on the south side. And I bet they
like all that new sand that's since I go there just about every day. I've been counting anywhere between 10 and 15 of them uh alongside the bridge. So, it's an event that happens along with the mullet runs and the the horseshoes and
and all that and and so if you want to see some earthwork also on the south side, they they've extended the beach uh a good 30t 40T and so that should help. Yeah, it should. Yeah. It's funny when
you come over the bridge and you see those palm trees in the middle of the sand. Well, where those palm trees are sticking up out of the sand, that's where the shoreline was. Exactly. And all those ugly rocks and everything, it's all gone. It's all It's It's wonderful. They They brought a lot of
dirt. Yeah. It's going to be really good. Anyway, the only thing that um that I had to report was that the uh environmental assessment on on the Falcon doubling the number of launches is still open through the 15th if you have any comments that
you'd like to make. Um we've made some from the round table mostly referencing the sustainability issue the fact that they only look at current and not the impacts that they have not cumulative impacts around them. Um
they're I think it was the the different EA um on the Atlas they're going to be doing three launches or launch every three days and they're planning on using a
100,000galon 160,000galon pond to do their 100,000galon deluge. But the question is, can the pond recover in three days? You know, and where does the water
go after they've used it? It's fresh water and it's going into an estuary, which obviously unbeknownst to the St. John's River Water Management District, too much fresh water in an estuary is
not a problem. And and yet that's that's the situation that we have. They don't look at it as an estuary being different because it's brackish. They look at it as just fresh and that's wrong. And and as long as we continue to look at that in the wrong way, our BMAP and our solution is going to be wrong. So,
garbage in, garbage out. And that was an interesting report too that Lily sent out. You guys need to look at that. But, um, that was a noise report from the Falcon fifth and sixth
launch. not the Falcon, the um Starship, it was Starship, fifth and six, the comp comparison of the noise level from launch number five and six and they there is a map in there and um most of the city of Titusville is is is within
um 100 an area where you can have damage to buildings from the from the rocket launches. Yeah, most of the city is within the 100 decel range and a good portion of the southern part of the city from about I'd say halfway from downtown
to Highway 50 and south, all of that is within 110 dB which is definitely enough to cause structural damage, broken windows, things off the wall, that kind of stuff. So, it's it's a lot. And and the study, I also should point out the
study was for a perfect launch. No problems, no extra humidity, no easterly breeze to blow the sound. I mean, all these things compound. You know how some rocket launches are louder than others, right? We're not new to
this. So, we understand and and that none of those things were those conditions were not considered this. This is just a perfect launch straight here. This is what it's going to sound like in a perfect condition. And it could be as much as 20% more and wider.
So, yes. And by the way, that data came from Bokh Chica, Texas. Yes, directly. It It did not come from here. Spaceship has not launched from here. It will next year more than likely. So, we'll get we'll get to see and here uh and here or
not. And we'll see how much water they determine because we got to understand the first launch from Bokh Chica did not have delouch water and they almost blew up their pad. They did. They did blow up their wellad. Okay. I was giving them a little credit since
I do know them. Uh but uh they did have a lot of damage. Yeah. Uh and came close to blowing their methane tanks and uh very ugly stuff and the hold down for the for the rocket got damaged severely. And so they had to spend a lot of money
and effort to do a deluge system even though they were told in E1. But and to give you a comparison, PAD A has a 300,000galon water tank that was built for the shadow program, not because of the noise. It
was to keep the vibration away from the tiles so that the tiles will not suffer. And that helped of course. So, we dumped 300,000 gallons, some big rainbirds by brand. They donated it uh onto the mobile launcher and it went into the
ponds that are they were built there before. So, more to come on that. Uh they're going to have to somehow capture that water that they're going to put and they're going to need over much more than 300,000. But by all figure half a
million is right. So, Lots of changes coming. Welcome to Florida. Anything else? Going once. Bill. Yes. Uh I saw you at the meeting last night, city council meeting. Yeah. And uh after
you left, uh the police uh gave a police report about speeding in the school zones. And some of the schools have 4,000, 5,000, 7,000 cars driving by. and they were giving report of how many were
speeding. So I got up and said, "Well, if the city keeps approving more development and we keep adding more and more people to the city, your numbers will go from 7,000 to 10,000 speeders at
a school zone. And if your police department is upset that they can't control the speeding, they're scared of people and children getting hurt from so much crowding, that the traffic is so bad on the roads in front of the schools that
they can't control the safety of the children. I said, "We'll wait until you city council approve even more development and you have more people here. See what happens then." I just thought I'd let you know I made that comment. But I'm not sure I'll be batting on this committee again after
that. Point well made. Lovely article. Lily, was this from from you? This one on the uh enchanted forest in the middle of the talking point. No, actually I don't that was really really nice to see.
Anyway, thank you. All right, we're journ. Thank you everybody. Sorry you you had item 11 was on. I have item 11. future agenda. It's on Oh, it didn't make it on my hard drive. It made it. What, if anything, would you kind folk
like to add to our agenda next month? Well, open table the the the um combined version of the native municipal tree canopy and landscape management trust fund document should be
done by then. Yes, I imagine we'll be spending quite a bit of time on that. Um yeah, that should be on the agenda for sure. But we're done with the bylaws. So that can finally go.
Do we know if there is an arborist on staff at the public works or I believe we have there's two arborists that work for the city but they're so busy doing other stuff they can't do their not doing arbor