Planning staff told the City of Pensacola Planning Board that a proposed amendment in the Phase 2 Land Development Code draft sets the mitigation value for replacement trees at $1,500 and that the replacement requirement will scale with tree diameter. Public commenters, arborists and several board members expressed concern that the change could impose significant costs on homeowners when large specimen trees cannot be replanted on site.
"As it's written right now, it's a $1,500 mitigation fee," said Amy Tudo, Public Works and Engineering Director, during the discussion. Staff and the city arborist described how the fee multiplies by a replacement-tree factor in a chart: for example, staff noted a 24-inch live oak that cannot be replanted on site would be valued at $1,500 times five, or $7,500, under the proposed table.
City arborist Moez Franklin said homeowners and property owners can use a certified tree-risk assessment to demonstrate hazard and thereby reduce mitigation to zero for a qualifying case: "Once that qualifies, it reduces that mitigation to nothing," he said. However, multiple commenters warned that the state statutory and case-law framework (discussed during the meeting) allows licensed arborists to remove certain trees by right if they provide required documentation, which limits the city's ability to review or block some removals.
Local tree-service representative Kyle Statham and resident Renee Borden urged the board to consider how the fee and replacement chart will affect long-time homeowners and canopy preservation as the city adds density. Statham urged clarity on whether the fee is per tree (staff confirmed the fee is per replacement tree) and stressed that large homeowners' mitigation bills could become unaffordable in some scenarios.
Board members suggested clearer wording and chart presentation so the code reads unambiguously (debate focused on whether to strike or restore words such as 'any,' 'all,' and 'each' so the table and text clearly show $1,500 per replacement tree). The board reached a consensus to have staff clarify the language; no formal vote was taken on the fee at this meeting. Staff said the Planning Board will take the LDC item as a vote next month, and if recommended it will go to City Council for consideration (staff expects council hearings in August).
The discussion included an exchange about statutory limits on the city's review authority (Florida Statute section 163.045 was cited in the meeting), and members asked staff to consider whether separate tree-ordinance amendments should be pursued at the council level. The board encouraged public involvement if residents want a stronger tree ordinance than the draft LDC provides; staff and board members said substantive tree-code changes likely would need to be council-driven and could involve workshops and additional outreach.