CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE July 18, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. in to City Commission Chambers Members Present: Shawn Dressler, Chair Members Mary Fuerst, Michael Gilkey, Jr., Rob Patten, Trevor Falk Members Absent: Michael Halflants, Vice Chair Member Chris Gallagher City Staff Present: Timothy Litchet, Director of Development Services and Secretary to the Tree Advisory Committee Joe Mladinich, Legal Counsel Mark Miller, Senior Arborist Don Ullom, Arborist Angela McLeod-Wilkins, Development Services I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL TAC Chair Dressler called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. Secretary Litchet read the roll call. TAC Chair Dressler reminded everyone to speak into the microphones for clear audio recordings. II. PLEDGE OF CONDUCT Secretary Litchet read the Pledge of Conduct adopted by the City Commission of Sarasota. III. CITIZEN's INPUT 1. Lou Costa = Mr. Costa provided a photo of a neighbor' S yard and stated that the property owner was unable to move a tree that was blocking a garage because it was healthy. Mr. Costa then provided a photo of his own property and stated that the yard was shell when he purchased it and that he had added several palm trees to the property. Mr. Costa then stated that after 10 years two of the trees had outgrown his lot and that he had decided that he would like to plant some shade trees. Mr. Costa stated that he was unable to remove the Royal Palm to create space for a canopy tree due to the healthy status of the tree. Mr. Costa stated that residential property owners are looking for reasonable flexibility in landscaping their properties. 2. Jono Miller - Mr. Miller recommended that right tree right place principle be addressed in the Form Base Code. Mr. Miller stated that the public would like information regarding the number of sought, approved, and denied permits, the number of valid complaints, the number of violations and whether there are repeat violators. Mr. Miller stated that he continues to support the idea of a bounty or gift certificate for new trees for citizens who remove invasive trees. Mr. Miller also stated Minutes of the Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting July 18, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 2 of 13 that he supports transplanting healthy trees. Mr. Miller provided the TAC with a flow chart of his recommendations on planting trees on private lots. 3. John Harshman - Mr. Harshman stated that he shares the same frustrations as many citizens regarding removal of unwanted trees on residential lots. Mr. Harshman then stated that he applied for a permit to remove one of three sabal Palm trees he planted 20 years ago at his office to update the landscaping and that the permit was denied. Mr. Harshman stated that the Palm has outgrown its benefit and drops debris causing pedestrian issues. Mr. Harshman explained that being prohibited from removing trees to re-landscape on private property creates reluctançe in planting trees. Mr. Harshman stated that most of the trees on Main Street, Palm Avenue, State Street, and Lemon Avenue are in the rights-of-way, not on private lots. Mr. Harshman added that with regard to trees in the urban core, sometimes more trees are not better and that trees in high density areas should be carefully placed. Mr. Harshman encouraged the TAC to recommend that trees be planted on public property and to allow private property owners remove and install trees without penalty. 4. jude Levy - Ms. Levy stated that she believes mitigation is the most difficult aspect of revising the Tree Ordinance and that she is pleased that the Tree Advisory Committee has taken the time to listen to many public opinions as the TAC begins to develop recommendations. Ms. Levy stated that she lives in the Rosemary district and that there is a real need for street trees in the area if it aims to be pedestrian friendly. Ms. Levy also stated that she is excited at the prospect of an Urban Forestry plan in the future. IV. JOE Russo - DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDIES Chair Dressler stated that Mr. Russo was unable to attend the Tree Advisory Committee meeting and therefore item #6 on the Agenda regarding development case studies had been cancelled. V. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 13TH MEETING MINUTES There was a motion by Member Patten to approve the June 13th meeting minutes. Member Fuerst seconded the motion. All were in favor. None were opposed. VI. REVISED APPROVED MAY 23RD MEETING MINUTES Chair Dressler explained that citizen, Dan Lobeck, had used sarcasm during citizen input at the May 23rd Tree Advisory Committee meeting and that the minutes were written literally. Secretary Litchet confirmed that was the case and suggested that the TAC change the minutes to reflect what Mr. Lobeck felt was his intent. Chair Dressler stated that since the correction came directly from Mr. Lobeck, he did not take issue with accepting the correction exactly as stated by Mr. Lobeck. Member Patten agreed and made a motion to Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting July 18, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 3 of 13 accept the correction provided from Mr. Lobeck. Member Fuerst seconded the motion. All were in favor. None were opposed. VII. REVIEW GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Chair Dressler stated that the TAC began to address Duty #1, as written in the resolution that created the Committee, at the last meeting and quickly realized that they should begin by assimilating all of the public testimony, TAC discussions, and information provided by City staff to create a statement of an overall goals and objectives. Chair Dressler stated that the goals and objectives have the flexibility to improve as the Tree Advisory Committee create recommendations. Chair Dressler suggested that the TAC review the document assimilated by Legal Counsel Joe Mladinich and provide insight. Overall Goal: The Purpose of these regulations is to promote a healthy, diverse, and resilient tree canopy while allowing for reasonable flexibility and fulfilling the following objectives. Chair Dressler stated that he agreed with the wording and wondered if details regarding how flexibility should be defined should be included in the statement. Member Fuerst explained that defining flexibility for a specific action or a specific type of] property owner may decrease flexibility, and that both residential and commercial property owners desire increased flexibility in the Tree Ordinance. Chair Dressler asked the TACifthey believed different groups should be noted. Member Gilkey stated that flexibility is necessary because no two situations regarding tree protection and tree removal are alike. Member Patten commented that flexibility has been a recurring theme throughout Tree Advisory Committee meetings, and that modifying the idea of flexibility: in the overall goal may decrease flexibility. A. Encouraging the use of: native and Florida-friendly trees. B. Facilitating the elimination of invasive species of trees. Member Gilkey questioned if the phrase should be 'non-desirable" rather than "invasive". Mr. Mladinich stated that perhaps the phrase "that threaten the native ecosystem" should be added. Chair Dressler stated that he prefers the phrase Mr. Mladinich recommended and was in favor of omitting the word "invasive", as it would be defined later in the ordinance. Member Patten asked Member Gilkey to repeat his wording. Member Gilkey stated that trees like Bischofia, Silk Oak and Chinaberry are fast growing, weak-wooded trees that compete with native trees, and added that removal of those species should be promoted. Member Fuerst suggested the phrase "facilitating the elimination of non-desirable trees". Chair Dressler provided the phrase facilitating the elimination of non-desirable species of trees" and the Committee agreed. C. Encourage the use of trees suited to local growing conditions. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting July 18, 2018, at: 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 4 of 13 Chair Dressler and Member Gilkey both stated that the statement is redundant. Member Fuerst suggested "facilitating the elimination ofnon-desirable species of trees by encouraging the use of trees suited to local growing conditions". Chair Dressler stated that the statement may not be appropriate because there are other ways to facilitate the elimination of trees. Member Gilkey suggested "Encouraging the use of native and Florida-friendly trees that are suited for our local growing conditions". The committee agreed on this phrase, and added wording to objective A. They agreed to eliminate objective C. D. Facilitating the placement of the right tree in the right place through careful consideration of the appropriate tree species for the specific growing space. E. Enhancing the overall appearance of the City of Sarasota. F. Improving air quality through the retention and installation of trees. G. Conserving water by protecting established and native landscaping. Chair Dressler questioned if the statement is meant to reference reduction in irrigation use. Mr. Mladinich suggested including a phrase that explains how native landscaping conserves water. Chair Dressler suggested "reducing water use through use of Florida- friendly and native tree species". Member Fuerst questioned whether stormwater runoff should be included in this objective. Member Patten stated that the intention of the objective is clear. Member Gilkey stated that the objective seems like a different level of detail than other objectives. Chair Dressler agreed and noted that varying levels of detail at this stage are not necessarily problematic as long as the TAC agrees on the content of each objective. Chair Dressler provided water conservation as an example and stated it could mean different things such as irrigation reduction and rainwater interception resulting in less runoff. Member Falk questioned whether stormwater and runoff are covered under this objective and stated stormwater and runoff should be addressed separately. Chair Dressler agreed and stated that this goal was intended to reference reduction in irrigation water use. Member Gilkey asked if objective A, in which Florida-friendly is noted, would cover irrigation. Member Falk asked ifit is always true that the use ofFlorida-friendly trees reduces irrigation water use. Member Gilkey confirmed that Florida-friendly trees use less water. Member Patten stated that there is no harm is reiterating water conservation and noted that listing water runoff as a separate objective as Member Falk suggested, is preferred. Secretary Litchet agreed. Senior Arborist Miller explained that the goal of flexibility may be impeded by promoting the protection of established landscaping. Chair Dressler noted that any set of goals will have conflicts and the details will be sorted as the Tree Advisory Committee moves through their recommendations. Chair Dressler stated that it is important to establish conservation as a goal SO that it can be referred back to as recommendations are created. Member Falk agreed that water conservation as goal is important, especially during periods of drought. Mr. Mladinich stated that he had enough information to split the objective into two objectives: one aimed at Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting July 18, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 5 of 13 irrigation reduction and one aimed at stormwater control. Chair Dressler noted "control stormwater quality and quantity". H. Increasing property value through the use of trees as a capital asset. Chair Dressler asked the TAC ift there were any objections to the wording ofthis objective. There were no objections. I. Providing a reasonable mechanism for the removal of trees and mitigation thereof. Member Patten suggested the objective include the word "protection" and noted that the ordinance is not only to provide a mechanism for removal. Chair Dressler agreed. Secretary Litchet asked Member Patten to repeat his suggestion. The amended objective is "providing a reasonable mechanism for protection and/or removal of trees and mitigation thereof". Chair Dressler asked the TAC ifthey had anything to add. All members were satisfied with the revised draft. VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING HOW TO BEST ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF CITY RESIDENTS WHO WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE A HEALTHY TREE IN ORDER TO RE- LANDSCAPE THEIR PRIVATELY-OWNED PROPERTIES Chair Dressler stated that this is the issue that has prompted the most testimony during Tree Advisory Committee meetings and that most oft the public has expressed that there is not enough flexibility to re-landscape their property because of existing trees, even in cases where the property owner was the person who originally planted the tree. Chair Dressler added that safety concerns with healthy trees have been expressed through public input. Member Fuerst stated that she agrees with guidelines provided by Member Patten at the previous meeting and added that those guidelines balanced reasonable flexibility with tree protection. Member Patten stated that homeowners should not be exempt from tree protection but that it should be easier for home owners of single-family residences to obtain tree removal permits of their primary home, and that they should be granted a simplified permit that could be approved at the site, with or without modifications, by a Certified City Arborist. Member Patten read aloud the amended list ofp principles that arborists should consider when making their determination for a simplified permit: 1. Does it adhere to the right tree in the right location? 2. Consideration is first given to relocating a healthy tree. 3. Does not diminish the overall canopy coverage of the lot when calculated using a full- grown tree. 4. Does not use plant or tree species on the prohibited list. 5. The new landscape plan does not remove a protected grand tree in good condition. Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting July 18, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 6 of 13 6. Drawing does not have to be drawn by a profession landscape architect or engineer. Member Patten stated that if a homeowner removes a tree and fails to obtain a permit, that tree removal would still be considered illegal. Member Fuerst stated that Member Patten's new list no longer stated "guarantees a 1-year survivability for transplanted and new trees" and questioned ifthat statement was purposely removed from the list. Member Patten stated that the omission ofthe statement was done in error. Member Gilkey questioned whether mitigation would still be required on all trees removed and stated that he is in favor of adopting the 1-year survival standard for mitigation trees. Member Gilkey questioned whether properties with different percentages of canopy should be treated equally and ift there is a goal that details standards ofthe City of Sarasota's residential canopy. Chair Dressler stated that the TAC: is trying to encourage an optimal canopy in the City but questioned whether that can be accomplished without putting specific canopy coverage requirements on individual properties that may conflict with the property owners' goals. Member Gilkey referred to the flexibility requested by Mr. Costa during citizen' s input for more palm trees which may be more appropriate due to the property's location on Bird Key. Member Patten stated that goals for public and private areas may be better addressed with an urban forestry program. Chair Dressler stated that principle #3 on Member Patten's list regarding overall canopy coverage is a great overall goal but may create unintended consequences on individual lots. Chair Dressler suggested that principle #3 be omitted. Member Patten agreed and reiterated that an urban forestry program would be a more appropriate place to address the goal. Member Gilkey explained his issue with the term "grand tree" and noted that sometimes a smaller caliper tree is a better candidate for the grand tree classification that a larger tree. Member Gilkey suggested that the removal oft trees up to a 16-inch caliper could be simple and lor fast tracked, but that trees larger than 16 inches should require a risk assessment from a certified arborist which should include the age ofthe tree, life expectancy ofthe tree, reason for removal, and whether the tree is a liability, to prevent the removal of20- inch caliper trees that are not classified as grand trees. Chair Dressler explained that Sarasota County utilizes a point system to address canopy, height, trunk, and health ofthe tree and stated that the TAC should consider developing a better definition of "grand tree" that addresses qualitative aspects oft trees. Member Fuerst stated the topic developing a definition of grand tree would be appropriate to address when other miscellaneous topics are addressed. Mr. Mladinich stated that the current code treats grand trees differently than other trees and explained that he assumed that grand trees were exempt from the discussion. Mr. Mladinich stated that the primary question that needs an answer is whether a healthy tree can be removed, and ift the answer is yes, is mitigation required, and if mitigation is Minutes of the' Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting July 18, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 7 of 13 required, how much mitigation is required. Mr. Mladinich stated that the TAC may want to consider the suggestion from the speaker from Tampa to replace canopy with canopy. Chair Dressler stated that the TAC has discussed mitigation with equal or better canopy and noted that Mr. Mladinich was correct that grand trees are treated differently than other trees and that redefining "grand tree" may not be appropriate at this time but added that because there are grand trees on private property, grand trees must be discussed. Chair Dressler began a discussion on mitigation costs. Chair Dressler stated that there are activities that are for the purpose of financial gain and activities for increased quality of life. Chair Dressler explained that activities for financial gain should incur a larger cost than those based on increased quality oflife. Chair Dressler suggested two sets of fees, by which homeowners would be exempt from paying mitigation fees but would remain subject to application fees. Member Patten requested clarification regarding mitigation fees. Chair Dressler stated that the exemption would apply to residential properties. Member Falk questioned ifthe exemption would apply to both new construction and existing construction. Chair Dressler acknowledged that there is a gray area and suggested that mitigation fees should be included in the cost of the construction of a new home. Member Gilkey stated that he agreed with Chair Dressler. Member Gilkey then stated that protected trees are a problem with the City's existing code and explained that currently any palm tree taller than 12 feet and any. herbaceous tree with a larger caliper than 6 inches is a protected tree. Member Gilkey suggested raising the standard of protection to apply to any tree with a 16-inch caliper or larger and noted that trees smaller than 16-inch caliper trees would still require mitigation but would no be protected. Member Patten suggested that the TAC assess large trees on a scientific basis. Member Falk referred to Mr. Costa's photograph as an example and asked if a tree growing in an inconvenient area, such as the one blocking the garage in the photo, would be a protected tree. Member Gilkey stated that such a tree would originally be protected due to its large size but that the tree has the potential to be disqualified from protected status through an assessment. Member Gilkey also stated that ifthe tree was not considered a protected tree, flexibility could be given to stafft to use protocols and risk assessments to determine appropriate mitigation. Chair Dressler stated that evaluation oft the placement of the tree in front of the garage may: meet the criteria for removal. Member Fuerst questioned the TAC about what should be done when a homeowner wants to re-landscape with a garden and does not want to replace the trees because they need the open space. Member Fuerst also asked if a homeowner's backyard activity is of concern to the TAC. Chair Dressler stated that ifthe garden was in the backyard he would agree that al homeowner should be able to remove a tree to plant a garden without replacing the tree, and that he would extend the removal of trees without mitigation to within the building setbacks for residential properties. Member Patten stated that he was not in favor of opening up the building pad for landscaping but stated that he agrees that flexibility regarding removal and re-landscaping on residential property is appropriate and agreed with having separate fees schedules for different types of projects. Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting July 18, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 8 of 13 Chair Dressler stated that the only variation in the current fee schedule is for affordable housing. Member Patten explained that every large developer that spoke to the TAC stated that they would pay more for flexibility. Chair Dressler stated that would normally be the case for activities that are for profit because most ofthat activity has a structure for projected profit, while home owners are on a different financial spectrum. Member Falk asked ifhomeowner would be eligible to relocate a tree toward the front of their property. Chair Dressler stated that relocating a tree may be in conflict with the goals and financial means ofthe property owner, and explained that transplanting trees is expensive, time consuming, and that the survival rates are lower compared with a new planted species. Chair Dressler stated that with regard to first giving consideration to relocating a healthy tree, he agrees with the principle as long as it does not reduce the flexibility of someone that does not want to transplant that tree. Member Patten noted that he used the word "consider" rather than "require" in an attempt to keep flexibility. Member Gilkey mentioned that the placement of mitigation trees should be installed at the owner's discretion. Member Gilkey also noted that mitigation trees do not count toward mitigation when planted in the right-of-way. Chair Dressler stated that trees serve as both aj public and private good when planted in the right-of-way and that trees planted in the right-of-way should be incentivized rather than discouraged. Mr. Mladinich excused himself from the meeting due to a prior engagement and stated that he would draft a document for the TAC's review. Member Fuerst presented an outline: "A residential property owner can apply for a tree removal permit to re-landscape their primary home, ifit involves the removal or relocation of a healthy, protected tree. 99 Member Fuerst noted that a grand oak or any tree that is located on water lines is an issue. Chair Dressler stated that the criteria for removal should address such an issue. Chair Dressler stated that the TAC must develop detailed criteria for removal and explained that the current criteria is extremely narrow, and fails to address many health, safety and welfare issues. Member Fuerst continued to read the list of principles noting that the word "plant" should be removed. Chair Dressler explained that the word "plant" may have been used to present the City with the intention to re-landscape the property as the reason for tree removal. Member Gilkey provided an example of a homeowner who is requesting removal of a Norfolk Pine that is leaning over their home but does not want to re-landscape the property. Chair Dressler stated that criteria for removal would address such an issue and that he would agree that such a tree should be removed. Chair Dressler stated that the word "re-landscape" should be broad and in the example provided by Member Gilkey, re- landscaping could simply mean removing the tree. Member Gilkey noted that providing a definition of what a protected tree is or is not will provide clarity. Chair Dressler stated "a protected tree does not impose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public or the private owner". Chair Dressler explained that if a tree meets the TAC's established criteria for removal, a formerly protected tree would no longer be protected and Minutes of the Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting July 18, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 9 of 13 would no longer require a landscape plan for removal. Member Gilkey added that any tree over a specific caliper is considered a protected tree and would require an assessment to move forward while trees smaller than that specified caliper could be removed with mitigation. Chair Dressler asked Member Gilkey if a landscape plan should be required if a tree is above specific caliper but imposes a safety risk. Member Gilkey stated that such a tree should require a landscape plan and risk assessment by a certified arborist. Chair Dressler stated that Member Gilkey's suggestion is favorable, but that he has concerns that each species of tree would require a different set of criteria. Member Gilkey stated that the assessment would be based on size rather than species. Chair Dressler provided the examples of a Norfolk Island Pine and a Live Oak and stated that different species of trees at the same size are not the same. Member Gilkey responded that trees, such as Norfolk Island Pines and Australian Pines would be on a list of undesirable trees and that they could be easily removed. Member Gilkey provided the opinion that larger trees are worth saving. Chair Dressler stated that more stringent tree regulations in certain areas hinder the desire for planting trees due to the fear of a lack of flexibility later. Member Patten stated that the #1 principle on his list, the right tree in the right location, addresses flexibility for residential and commercial property owners. Member Patten added that he thinks that the current mitigation standards need to be changed. Chair Dressler stated that the TAC has specific agenda items that will address mitigation. Member Patten asked the TACift they felt comfortable reviewing the list of principles provided to see where there was consensus and then move on to the next item. The TAC agreed to exclude principle # 3 - "does not diminish the overall canopy coverage ofthe lot when calculated using a full-grown tree". Member Falk asked if a mother-in-law suite would be included under the designation of primary home. Member Patten clarified that primary home is the home in which a person resides. Chair Dressler specified that one accessory dwelling unit could be allowed on a primary home and that this agenda item is talking about people who already own the home. Member Gilkey agreed but stated that the same risk assessment and removal standards should apply to for profit activities as for activities that increase the quality oflife. Chair Dressler read the list of principles: The residential property owner can apply for a letter permit to re-landscape their residential home ifit involves the removal or relocation ofa healthy tree protected by the tree ordinance. This should be a simplified permit that can be approved at the site, with or without modifications, by a certified City Arborist. A drawing will be submitted that incorporates these principles: The residential property owner can applyfor a letter permit to re-landscape their residential home - Chair Dressler suggested to use the word "simplified" rather than "letter". Arborist Miller suggested that the TAC recommend having the category ofa Landscape Tree Removal Permit, noting that when posted, people could see that the permit Minutes of the Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting July 18, 2018, at3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 10 of 13 offers more flexibility for removal on that property. Chair Dressler suggested stating that there would be a "simplified permit specific to this category of removal" and that City staff could name the category. Member Patten recommended the wording "homestead residence". Arborist Miller questioned why the TAC would not want to include rental properties as eligible for this type of permit. Chair Dressler agreed with Arborist Miller that the permit category should be open to rental properties. Chair Dressler suggested stating "single-family residential property owner" to create some protections. Ifit involves the removal or relocation ofa healthy tree protected by the tree ordinance = Member Gilkey asked Arborist Miller if undesirable trees currently require mitigation. Arborist Miller stated that undesirable trees require mitigation unless they are prohibited tree species. Member Gilkey stated that mitigation for some undesirable species is agreeable and suggested creating terminology for "undesirable", "protected trees" and terminology describing trees that require mitigation. Member Falk asked if the Norfolk Pine in Mr. Costa's example would be considered undesirable. Chair Dressler stated that it would be considered a protected tree and that the TAC would establishing the criteria for removal. Member Gilkey asked if there should be explanations of protected and undesirable trees noted near the statement to create clarity when the terms are used. Member Patten stated that there would be chart that could be referenced later in the ordinance. Chair Dressler explained the once the TAC addresses the definition of an undesirable tree, a section of the ordinance that states what can and cannot be done with an undesirable tree will be necessary. Secretary Litchet agreed. Chair Dressler read the amended statement: The residential property owner can apply, for a permit to re-landscape their single-family residence ifit involves the removal or relocation ofa protected tree. This should be a simplified permit that can be approved at the site, with or without modifications, by a certified City Arborist. A drawing will be submitted that incorporates these principles. 1, Adheres to the principle ofright tree in the right location? The TAC discussed the wording oft this principle. Secretary Litchet clarified that the section under discussion deals with people who want to re-landscape, which implies that they plan to replant. Secretary Litchet explained that Chair Dressler stated that trees presenting safety issues will be addressed later but reiterated that this section assumes that replanting will occur. Secretary Litchet stated that he is in favor of requiring a landscape drawing to be submitted that will incorporate certain principles, and he prefers that the principle of right tree in the right location be incorporated whenever possible because the City sees SO many mitigation trees that will have to come down due to incorrect placement. Secretary Litchet asked the TAC: ifthey assume that re-landscaping will require replanting and stated that the flexibility can be provided but that mitigation is necessary. Member Gilkey recommended it to be specified that trees will be mitigated for appropriately and that mitigation trees will be planted according to the right tree right location principle. Member Patten suggested the wording "proposed mitigation trees will adhere to the Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting July 18, 2018, at3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 11 of 13 principle of right tree in the right location". Member Fuerst clarified that trees that present safety issues would be addressed elsewhere in the ordinance. Member Gilkey asked what defines landscaping and whether the landscape has to be the complete yard. The TAC discussed the definition of re-landscaping. Member Patten questioned whether property owners have the right to remove all oft the trees ifthey want a putting green. Secretary Litchet responded that it is a policy question for the TAC and that he prefers that people do not remove all of their trees because it would conflict with certain citywide goals and the TAC's goal ofa stable canopy. Secretary Litchet also mentioned the option ofpaying into a tree fund for those who want to remove trees without replanting on their property. Member Gilkey stated that he favors providing some degree of mitigation for every tree removed. Member Falk asked if the TAC would loosen the fees for people who desire tree removal for quality oflife, sO that such person could pay a small amount into the mitigation fund. Chair Dressler stated that such an example can be addressed in the mitigation section ofthe ordinance. 2. Consideration is first given to relocating a healthy tree. Chair Dressler stated that the TAC is in favor of allowing relocation of a healthy tree to another location on the same property in any scenario. Member Gilkey suggested that incentives be provided for the relocation of! healthy trees. Member Gilkey suggested that double mitigation points could be given for relocated trees. Chair Dressler suggested the wording "to provide incentives for the relocation ofhealthy trees". Member Fuerst added that this could be for public and private land. Member Patten suggested that trees could be planted in the right-of-way. Secretary Litchet stated that there is no current prohibition on planting in the right-of-way, however it is not overly common due to underground utilities. Secretary Litchet clarified that the current mitigation standards specify mitigation trees should be planted on one's own property, then a nearby public right-of-way, and then an adjacent property owner's property. Secretary Litchet also stated that mitigation trees that are currently in public rights-of way tend to have issues. Secretary Litchet explained that the Engineering and Utilities Departments are required to sign off on any tree planted in the right-of-way and that a right-of-way agreement must be signed to ensure that the property owner will maintain the tree SO it does not become a burden to the City in the future. Member Gilkey expressed that he has received resistance by City staff on the issue. Chair Dressler stated that he understands that resistance occurs for many different reasons, but establishes the goal that trees are to the best public benefit ifthey are in the right-of-way. Secretary Litchet agreed and stated that Development Services is working with to Utilities Department to create increased flexibility. 3. Does not diminish the overall canopy coverage of the lot when calculated using a full-grown tree. The TAC decided to omit principle #3. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting July 18, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 12 of 13 4. Does not use plant or tree species on the prohibited lists. Trees on the City adopted invasive species list can be removed without a permit. Chair Dressler asked if principle #4 is redundant. Member Patten stated that he included it to accommodate homeowners. Chair Dressler responded that such information would be included with permit information. Member Fuerst questioned whether undesirable list" should be used rather that "prohibited list". Chair Dressler suggested the wording "undesirable species list". Chair Dressler stated that he does not believe that trees on the invasive species list can be removed without a permit. Arborist Ullom explained that permits are required for the removal ofi invasive species because the City wants to be sure that the tree being removed is actually on the invasive species list. Arborist Ullom explained that currently there is no fee for any of the six tree species on the prohibited list. Chair Dressler suggested that the statement "trees on the City adopted invasive species list can be removed without a permit" should be omitted. 5. The new landscape plan does not remove a protected grand tree in good condition. Chair Dressler explained that the only reason to mention grand trees here is ifthe TAC plans on having different criteria for grand trees in this case than in other areas of the Tree Ordinance, because grand tree criteria for removal already exists. Member Gilkey stated that if a limit is set for the caliper size of a protected tree, grand trees would automatically be included. The TAC discussed definitions of grand trees and protected trees and how they should be categorized. Secretary Litchet stated that he favors the wording of principle #5. The TAC agreed. Chair Dressler stated that he is comfortable moving forward but that he would like more time to consider 16-inch caliper size as a designation for protected trees. 6. Drawing does not have to be drawn by a profession landscape architect or engineer. Chair Dressler prefers wording that states that homeowners can produce the drawing and do not require the services of a professional landscape architect. Arborist Ullom explained that currently homeowners are allowed to provide hand drawn landscape drawings and that the placement ofthe trees do not have to be exact but needs to fall within 10 feet oft the location. Secretary Litchet stated that City staff will handle this with a policy sheet. Chair Dressler stated that it should be clear that homeowners do not need the help ofa landscape architect or engineer and that they also do not require the same capabilities. Member Falk asked ift there would be an example. Secretary Litchet explained that the City provides example drawings for homeowners. Chair Dressler asked if a motion needed to be give the direction to Secretary Litchet. Secretary Litchet explained that consensus related to the list of principles is needed. Secretary Litchet noted consensus. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting July 18, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 13 of 13 7. DISCUSSION OF UPCOMING TOPICS The next meeting will include the following: Recommendations regarding how to best address the issue of unsafe conditions caused by healthy trees on public property. Recommendations regarding how to best address the issue ofhealthy trees on public property that cause damage to public infrastructure or that impair or reduce the rights of private property owners to the use and enjoyment oft their properties. Recommendations regarding whether the same criteria be applied to determine whether to issue a permit to remove a tree classified as a Class II invasive species as is applied to determine whether to issue a permit to remove a native tree. 8. DISCUSSION OF NEXT MEETING DATE The date ofthe next meeting was confirmed for August 15th, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. The meeting will take place in the Commission Chambers. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Shawn Dressler, Chair Timothy Litchet Secretary