Commission transmits comprehensive‑plan tree protections and authorizes ULDC tree code changes; stakeholders urge balance with affordable housing

Alachua County commissioners on April 22 agreed to transmit a comprehensive plan amendment to the State Land Planning Agency and approved advertisement of related Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) changes that expand protections for high‑value trees and revise open‑space rules.

What the board approved: The proposed comp‑plan amendment (file Z25000006) adds “champion trees” and “landmark live oaks” to the county’s conservation/open‑space categories and creates new policies directing the ULDC to govern protections, measurement and mitigation. Commissioners voted unanimously to transmit the amendment to the state for review. Growth Management then presented a coordinated ULDC package — replacing and reorganizing the county’s tree code, clarifying definitions, establishing measurement rules for multi‑trunk trees, adding a tree‑rating methodology into code, and setting new thresholds and mitigation scales — and the board authorized staff to advertise that code package for public hearing.

Key details in staff proposals:

• Landmark live oaks: staff proposed a focused category for higher‑quality live oaks. The board directed staff to use a 45‑inch diameter threshold (down from prior 60 inches) and to require that these trees be rated “4” or higher on the county’s new tree‑rating table to qualify as a landmark live oak.

• Measurement & multi‑trunk trees: the draft code clarifies how to measure trunk diameters and specifies a pragmatic approach to multi‑trunk trees (if trunks are separate below six inches, treat as separate trees; otherwise treat as a single tree), addressing ambiguity that has complicated enforcement.

• Preservation hierarchy and open space: the package reorders priorities so that the county will consider champion trees, landmark live oaks and high‑rated heritage/specimen trees when locating required open space. The comp‑plan language removes a prescriptive requirement that open space must be contiguous at the periphery of a development; staff said that change is intended to allow the best natural features (including high‑value trees) to serve as open space when appropriate. The code includes grandfathering language so developments with valid preliminary approvals before adoption may proceed under the earlier terms for their approved open‑space and tree‑preservation layouts.

• Impacts and mitigation: the draft ULDC would allow limited impacts inside drip lines or tree protection zones for trees counted inside the required preservation minimum; staff proposed an allowance for “extra trees” (trees saved beyond the minimum preservation) to be impacted up to a defined percentage of drip line with reduced mitigation rates (details and thresholds set in the draft tables). Staff said landmark live oaks, champion and heritage red oaks would retain stronger protections that preclude the larger impact allowances.

Public and commissioner discussion: Dozens of stakeholders — developers, engineers, realtors, affordable‑housing advocates and arborists — participated in two rounds of public comment. Many supported stronger protections for critical trees but asked the county to avoid rules that would make affordable and workforce housing infeasible. Several commenters urged a mitigation carve‑out or reduced mitigation for developments that commit to providing affordable housing. Commissioners asked staff to analyze whether mitigation relief could be structured for affordable projects and to review conditions tied to already‑approved development plans to ensure those approvals remain enforceable.

Next steps: Staff will advertise the ULDC amendments for public hearing (first reading) and will return with adoption language after the state comp‑plan transmittal period and after staff reviews the specific requests regarding mitigation for affordable housing and the status of previously approved development orders.