so essentially staff noticed um that the zoning district titles um in the code... are different than the titles in our zoning map.

This is just a situation in which uh this portion of our code was not updated to match the rest. So there's no um substitute substantive Oh, wow. Change in our code.

if you were to interpret the definition to mean that a heritage tree is also significant, you can I guess selectively say well, I because this is also a significant tree, it's going to be included in my total inventory that is used to determine what my removal allowance is going to be. Wouldn't that make it more though? It would allow for a higher um that 25% would produce a higher number for your removal allowance. And that's the amount that you can remove without replacement. So it's more trees removed without a replacement mandated for the project.

is it essentially true that this amendment is writing in explicitly the way we've interpreted it from the beginning in the way it was intended... this isn't a shift really in any there's not a policy question here. This is really what we would call an administrative cleanup and the city forester has noticed clever developers are exploiting this ambiguity to argue with him about what a significant tree and a heritage tree is.