CITY OF SARASOTA Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 10, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Members Present: Shawn Dressler, Chair Michael Halflants, Vice Chair Members Mary Fuerst, Chris Gallagher, Trevor Falk, Michael Gilkey, Jr. Members Absent: Rob Patten, Excused Unanimously City Staff Present: Mark Miller, Senior Arborist, Don Ullom, Arborist Kim L. DeNais, Administrative Assistant, NDS I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL TAC Chair Dressler called the meeting to order. Secretary Mark Miller read the roll call. Tim Litchet was absent due to family emergency. TAC Member Fuerst moved to excuse TAC Member Patten's absence due to an emergency. TAC Member Halflants seconded the motion. Motion passes unanimously excused for his absence from this meeting. II. PLEDGE OF CONDUCT Secretary Miller read the Pledge of Conduct adopted by the City Commission of Sarasota. III. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 6, 2017 MINUTES TAC Chair Dressler requested to postpone the vote regarding the minutes of the December 6, 2017 TACMeeting. It was approved by consensus. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT - 3 MINUTE LIMIT (30 MINUTE TOTAL) 1. Norm Dumaine- President of Glen Oaks HOA, requested: (a) balanced decisions regarding trees, for example a neighbor was not allowed to relocate a tree to a better location on his property! because the tree was deemed healthy; the homeowner felt that was an intrusion to his property rights; (b) there is an overgrown tree next to the Beneva Road entrance to their subdivision, and covers the.subdivision sign; they want to sell the tree and replace it with a smaller tree, and they hope there will be flexibility to do SO. 2. Dan Lobeck - urged the TAC not to weaken the City's Tree Ordinance; noted that he recommended to the City Commission to include representatives of the development community in the TAC, and he urged those TAC members to take their developer's hat Minutes of the Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting January 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio Page. 2 of 12 off, while serving on this committee, and vote for the public interest; pointed out that the importance of trees does not stop at the property line, they benefit the whole community; added that the city's tree canopy benefits the entire city; stated that trees improve air quality, and stormwater management; suggested this committee needs to balance issues and aim for the public benefit; and concluded that the existing Tree Ordinance is doing that. 3. Jono. Miller - supports the efforts of the TAC; stated that if people want to move trees around their property, they should guarantee a two year survival of the tree in its new location; suggested that the City should encourage the removal of exotic and invasive species by offering monetary incentives to property owners for the removal of such trees; suggested to allow the removal of small palm trees without being replaced, and to: improve the protection of larger trees; he is looking forward to working with the TAC towards increasing flexibility for the public while protecting Sarasota' s special trees. 4. Nathan Wilson - resident of the Arlington Park Neighborhood; noted that in 2015 they requested to update the Tree Ordinance but they were not allowed; recommended that TAC works closely with City staff, and to ensure that they will enforce the new concepts; noted that the 2003 Code was written but was loosely followed; stated that a tree survey had to be done before any trees are planted with mitigation money, and a- year-and-a-half later there was not al bid for that; stated that the city is not planting trees with that money; said that in 2007 a tree survey was done at great costs to the City of Sarasota, but it has never being used; added that the City has committed 1.3 million dollars to plant trees through the Green Canopy Partnership Program, but it has never materialized; stated that the money has always been there, but he thinks the problem is that issues are not been followed through; added that the current rules are strict but there are ways to work around them, and most can be broken; he also suggested that we need to change how we do development, and recommended 35% of a lot for the building and 60-65% lot coverage with pavers. 5. Jude Levy - resident of the Rosemary District, used to live in Laurel Park; referred to recent article in the newspaper about the trees, and stated that the public needs to be educated about what they are allowed to do with the trees in their yard. 6. Lou Costa - resident of Bird Key- noted that the one-fits-all Code has resulted in unintended consequences. for the barrier islands, because the trees on the barrier islands are different species than those in the mainland; noted that, in 2016, the barrier islands created a coalition with the intent to request that the City fine tune the Code; added that they chose to present their concerns to the Tree Committee, instead; and submitted to the record a document listing his concerns. 7. Robert Wright - Sarasota Audubon Society, Conservation Chairman; stated that trees offer a lot of benefits as habitats; supports flexibility to the rules, sO long as they are sensitive to the needs of the humans and the habitats; recommended to protect healthy trees, and to provide balance in mitigation sO that we do not end up with certain heavily forested areas while other areas have no trees. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio Page 3 of 12 V. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEM: RECOMMENDATION REGARDING HB 521 AND SB 574 (REMOVING LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL AUTONOMY AND AUTHORITY TO REGULATE TREE MITIGATION) TAC Chair Dressler asked TAC members if they want to address this issue, because this is not one of TAC's established responsibilities according the City Ordinance that established TAC; added that this item has a timeframe. TAC Member Gallagher stated he does not support TAC to act on anything outside the TAC responsibilities listed in the City Ordinance, because TAC is an ad-hock committee to serve a purpose, not a standing committee like the Sarasota Tree Advisory Council (STAC). TAC Chair Dressler stated that STAC has opposed HB521 and SB574; explained that these bills recommend to remove from the localjurisdictions the right to create their own laws for the regulation of trees, and the right to manage tree mitigation within their own jurisdictions; added that in his professional experience as a landscape architect, every city has its own rules, different types of trees and habitats, and different development pressures, sO he does not see the benefit of the proposed bills. TAC Member Halflants agreed with what was said and added that he would rather focus on the TAC assigned tasks during TAC's monthly meetings. TACMember Fuerst stated her opposition to the proposed bills because one-does-not-fit-all, every, jurisdiction is different. TAC Member Gilkey stated that he agrees with all that has been said; he also does not support the proposed bills, because every area has different climate and different development pressures. VI. COMMITTEE TOPIC: 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 TAC Chair Dressler stated that the committee's discussion this evening will focus on the appointed task #1, of how to deal with City residents who would like to remove a healthy tree in order to re-landscape their privately-owned properties. Mr. Mark Miller, Arborist, stated that TAC Members have been provided with copies of the Tree Ordinance with highlighted sections which represent the areas of concern for those in the field who try to implement the Tree Ordinance; referred to a list of talking points for this evening's discussion; explained that he will discuss these points one at the time. 1. Information that staffneeds to consider if the tree meets the criteria... a. Species characteristics - Arborist Miller stated that the Code needs to take into consideration species specific characteristics such as tree lifespan, invasive surface roots, weak wooded trees, etc.; illustrated in pictures, his concerns, pointing out that al healthy canopy does not indicate that the tree is healthy; added that trees suffering Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 10, 2018, at: 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio Page 4 of 12 from certain conditions need to be removed for the benefit of public safety; stated that the health of the tree can be determined though a resistograph and if the costs for this service ranges from $500 to $1500 dollars; stated that certain trees should not to be used in an urban environment, ilustrated his concerns about invasive roots of such trees that interfere with development, and pointed out that under the existing Code these trees cannot be removed; and concluded that certain trees should be included on the list of invasive trees, and should be removed by free permit. b. The future ofthe trees - The current Ordinance does not consider the future of the trees, and showed pictures of a tree that is being trimmed on one side because of the electricity power lines and on the other because it is over a garage, allowing the tree to grow in a narrow area; according to the Ordinance, this tree could not be removed, unless staff had argued that it was threatening public safety. TAC Chair Dressler asked if there is clear guidance in the Tree Ordinance relating to the criteria that categorize a tree as. hazard to public safety. Arborist Miller stated that this determination is left to staff's discretion and interpretation. TAC Chair Dressler asked if there have been discussions about identifying certain trees as a public safety hazard. Arborist Miller stated that he has discussed the issue of City liability in the cases when the removal of a tree is declined and subsequently the tree fails; added that when he declines the removal of a tree which citizens consider a public safety hazard, citizens have asked him who do they sue when the tree fails in the future. 2. Situations that arise often and are difficult for citizens to understand. a. Arborist Miller described the following situation: an owner wanted to remove and replace an existing deck, and, in doing sO, he had to remove a couple of trees including a grand oak tree; added that the site was surrounded by canopy trees to the point that grass would not grow in the back yard, and grass would grow only in a 10-ft by 10-ft square area in the front yard; stated that, if the owner were to remove the grand oak tree, the owner was required to plant three 7" trees and five 3" trees, and there was no sufficient space on the property for the new trees to grow; pointed out that the owner did not have the financial resources to meet the required costs for tree removal and mitigation, selected not to replace the existing deck on his property, and considered this situation unfair. Arborist Miller concluded that the Ordinance needs mitigation flexibility for cases like this; added that through his research, he has found that every situation is different, and needs to be evaluated on its own merits. b. Why does a homeowner have to wait for a tree to damage his property before he can remove it? Arborist Miller showed pictures of damage to exterior and interior spaces of residencies due to tree roots, and asked why citizens cannot remove the trees before the damage happens? Minutes of the Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting January 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio Page 5 of 12 C. Homeowners and public entities who want to remove healthy trees that are lifting a sidewalk or damaging infrastructure, i.e., urong-tre-trong.ylace, but there is a concern by the public that staff does not have specific guidelines on how to mitigate with an appropriate right-tree- right- place. Arborist Miller stated that unless there is visible damage attributed to the tree, he cannot authorize its removal; illustrated his point with pictures; and asked at which point can he authorize the removal of a tree. TAC Chair asked if the City has been sued for damages cause by trees whose removal had been denied by the City. Arborist Miller stated that he does not have this information. Arborist Miller illustrated through additional pictures that he has been placed in situations where he is expected to remove trees that do not meet removal criteria, and to protect trees that meet removal criteria. TAC Chair Dressler asked if the removal criteria extend to limit development on a site, but do not extend to the reasonable maintenance of the property. d. Requests from businesses and condo associations to remove grand oak and other trees from their parking lot islands; even though the trees meet the removal criteria, and the associations voluntarily replace the trees, there is concern that the replacement trees are not of the "like" kind; the language oft the Code does not give fexibility. Arborist Miller illustrated in pictures that if a canopy tree were to be removed it had to be replaced with another canopy tree; added that the Code allows you to substitute a canopy tree with an understory tree specifically for the presence of overhead power lines, and does not give consideration to other factors, such as planting island, growth area, etc., sO the problem reoccurs twenty years later. Flexibility with mitigation will be an issue. Way can I not move trees from my property? Given that some trees are messy, unattractive, they attract rodents, they drop fruit and leaves that stain, wrong tree at the wrong place, it is too big, tree falling on to structures, blocks the view, too close to another tree, etc, Should zue amend the removal criteria to accommodate these issues? Arborist Miller showed pictures of diseased trees that should be removed, but according to the Code they are considered healthy SO he has to reject the removal permit; added that, in these cases, in order to remove the tree, he needs to have documentation, which requires that the owner sends a sample of the tree to the University of Florida for examination; explained that, even though he is qualified to make this determination by looking at thei tree, he prefers to have the documentation, because it raises questions from the public. TAC Chair Dressler asked if the City has codified frigh-tree-right-plae: - Arborist Miller stated that they refer people to the Florida Power and Light Code, copy of which exists in the City Clerk's Office; added that the information relates to the location of the tree in the presence of power lines. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio Page 6 of 12 e. Many homeowners are not able to upgrade their landscaping when it requires tree removal, even if they are proposing significant nez trees, because oft the Code criteria. Arborist Miller described the case of an owner who wanted to remove two healthy holly trees from his frontyard to upgrade the landscaping ofhis residence; stated that the Code would only allow the relocation of these healthy trees on his property, but that did not fit his landscape vision. Arborist Miller stated that this was a small sample of the issues they face in the field; added that they are put in a position where they have to make decisions based on their knowledge and expertise, and some of that does not seem to be supported by the Code, such as species- specific characteristics, a very important concern; noted that without a proper structure one cannot function properly when it comes time for a wind event your weaknesses will show. TACI Member Gilkey stated that is not a reflection on Arborist Miller, it should be to the one who wants to prove that. Arborist Miller responded that often they are put in a position to justify, and the more documentation he can provide, the more understanding there will be in allowing him to do his job. TAC Member Dressler asked if the Code restricts Arborist Miller from applying the value of his experience in assessing trees. Arborist Miller stated that the Code needs to be science based. TACMember Gilkey added that the Code restricts landscape architects' assessments and restricts arborists' assessments; noted that the Code restricts all assessments; explained that if a person wants to prove a tree is diseased, he needs an arborist's S report; added that there is no wording for right-tree-rightplace, it requires a professional to assess that tree. TAC Member Halflants asked the date of the Tree Protection Ordinance. Arborist Miller stated that the original was in 2002, and they included thirteen changes that became effective in July 6, 2016. TACMember Gilkey asked about the City's position on over-pruning a tree to the detriment of its health. Arborist Miller stated that if the over-pruning proves harmful to the tree, it classifies as removing the tree; added a mis-pruned tree could be deemed a violation. TAC Chair Dressler stated that based on Arborist Miller's presentation, it appears that, unless there is a categorically-approved-in-the-Code reason to remove the tree, removing a tree on a property is very narrowly focused; asked if the committee wants to discuss the appropriateness: of the current list of the reasons that put a tree in a category to be allowed to be removed, which is a separate thing from the costs of how much you need to pay, or how much you need to mitigate. TAC Member Gilkey stated that if trees were living/breathing objects, every one of them would be different, every scenario is different, and he has a hard time understanding how a singular item is going to help; referred to the ISA Guide for Tree Risk Assessment 1:16:34, which is the International Society of Horticulture, it shows how they rate trees specifically for legal matters, such as land acquisition, it describes how one would assess the value of Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio Page 7 of 12 the tree, and takes a lot of things into account; added that this is a document of 130 pages full of charts and forms, because of the diversity of the trees; added that in his opinion, the focus should be on which trees should be saved and which trees should not be saved. TAC Member Halflants asked which trees should be in the same category, a preservation category, such as live oaks. TACMember Gilkey responded that many trees qualify for that category, most of them are slow-growing trees;n noted that earlier there was discussion about the laurel oak, which was specifically used to canopy our cities in the 1920s and 1930s, because they grow quickly; explained that when they are used with live oaks, the laurel oaks provide canopy first, as the live oaks catch up, the laurel oaks died off, sO the live oaks provide canopy; stated that decisions should be made case by case, it is like going to the doctor; stated that when one has the sniffles, one does go on line to see what to do, one, goes to the doctor to be checked out, because we are all different; stated there should not be a cut-and-dry approach to permitting; pointed out that, if a healthy tree needs to be removed, a specialist should be consulted to recommend the appropriate course of action or mitigation, or to recommend this root to be trimmed and done in such a way; emphasized that professionals need to be involved; expressed concern about putting the staff arborists, at their professional capacity, in a position to decide when a tree should be removed, rather than supervising the information that is collected by the professionals in our area. TACChair Dressler stated that it appears TAC Member Gilkey is promoting the creation of list of trees that should be preserved, and a list of trees that should be removed. TAC Member Gilkey confirmed that. TAC Member Fuerst noted that if one cannot buy it or plant it, why can one not remove it, particularly if you are, going to replace it with something farl better, it makes no sense; added that in her research she found that other local governments have longer lists of prohibited trees that are Ionger than the City's list, maybe that needs to be reviewed.1:20:20 TAC Member Halflants noted that last week the City Mayor suggested that a distinction between new development and existing development may be necessary, and he thinks the mayor's suggestion is a good idea;he believes there is a real incentive for someone who has al house to have trees around the house, they provide shade when it is hot outside; added that he does not know how much has been achieved since 2002; asked if the Code is protecting the neighborhoods; noted that he lives in an older, heavily treed, established neighborhood, and it did not happen like that, there was an ordinance that required the people who have the house to keep their trees; thinks that they can do something with the new development; efforts should be focusing on putting more trees on the streets, and on ways that empower the City to line the streets with trees; added that he does not think anything is achieved by focusing on removing or adding a tree in existing residential neighborhoods; pointed out that Sarasota County does not. have requirements like that. TAC Member Gallagher agreed with TAC Member Halflants; referred to a Planning Board Meeting, about a year ago, when he asked Mr. Tim Litchet, how many trees are cut illegally, and he responded that, in a year's time, maybe five to six trees; stated that if he were to re- write this Ordinance he would not name it a Tree Protection Ordinance but an Urban Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio Page 8 of 12 Forestry Program, focusing on the protecting trees that need to be protected and enhance and create the future, because it is not only about protecting trees, it is about a whole set of strategies applied in order to have a healthy thriving urban forest; added that TAC: members have to decide what is it that they are supposed to accomplish, and ask staff if they can provide some baseline information, such as, what do we know about the canopy of the City at this time, how many trees, what has happened before or after 2002, what is the problem; asked how all the people that Arborist Miller mentioned in his presentation, feel about planting another tree; recalled another Planning Board meeting when Ringling College was putting up a temporary parking lot, in a location where their Future Master Plan called for the future construction of a building in that vicinity, and some Planning Board Members were questioning the applicant's decision to plant the minimum required number of trees; added that, he stated in that meeting, that if he were Ringling College, he would not be putting any more than the minimum required trees, because when the time comes to build that building, they do not own those trees anymore, the public owns those trees, and they will have a difficult time to try to build that building; sO they were completely discouraged from putting more trees in. TAC Member Gallagher stated that everyone who is a member of the Tree Advisory Committee (TAC) took an oath that they will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State; after reviewing the references to property rights in both constitutions, he understands why some people have the point of view of"this is their back yard;" referred to the Fifth Amendment of the USA Constitution that states that private property cannot be taken for public use without compensation; added that the Section 2 Article 1 of the Florida State Constitution calls the following rights 'inalienable rights," the right to acquire, possess and protect property; pointed out that everyone present at this meeting loves trees, wants more trees, loves to have a great urban forest, loves the canopy of the City, but by driving crazy the citizens who want to do something in their back yard, they are not serving the purpose of creating incentives for the public; stated that requiring the planting of trees of the same age is also a factor to be considered, because the trees will age and die all at the same time; added that if one were to walk down the Mall in Washington, one would see trees of all ages, he is not sure if it has happened purposely or by accident, but is far healthier to have trees of different ages, sO that they age and replace each other as they go along; added that he thinks there is a bigger mission here, one that aims at protecting, enhancing, and growing the City's urban forest, and TAC shouldn'tlose sight of it; noted that people are not cutting trees left and right; added that what happens at the urban edge is different than what is happening in the urban core; pointed out that in the urban core we want tree lined streets; sO let's put our resources on that; he pointed out that there are three different topics to be addressed: (a) private existing residential properties, (b) new development; and (c) the subject of the transect; said that it is different to build on forty acres than building on a little lot downtown, everything is different, lot coverage, setbacks, and needs to be handled differently. TAC Member Fuerst noted that Manatee County has no Ordinance about back yard and side yard trees; and wondered how iti is working for them. Arborist Miller stated thath he has not been in contact with them, but he would do it if it is the wish of the TAC. TAC Member Gallagher suggested that Arborist Miller invites Manatee County Arborists to one of the Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio Page 9 of 12 TAC Meetings. TAC Member Halflants noted that based on the earlier presentations, it appears that individual homeowners are better able than the Code in identifying the trees to be removed, because the Code cannot determine every situation. TAC Chair Dressler noted that earlier there was mention to unintended consequences; added that no one is disputing the intent of the Code, because all have similar intentions, but he is concerned that, if not careful on the ways they structure the Code, we will end up with consequences that are not what we intend; added that one of the consequences he is concerned relates to where the high quality ecosystems exist, and how the City incentivizes or dis-incentivizes development; pointed out that as a tree mitigation code becomes more strict, especially in the transect, and focuses on the overalll canopy, instead of the canopy in the public areas, you end up dis-incentivize development in the denser areas, and incentivize it in the less dense areas, in the rural areas, in the areas where right now you have really high quality ecosystems, where currently there is higher canopy coverage, and most likely less tree mitigation; added that this creates a reverse vacuum, where you push development away from the denser areas and ending up destroying the highest quality ecosystems of the community, based on the Code that intended to do the opposite. TAC Member Gallagher requested staff submits some baseline information to provide context for the discussions of the TAC, such as: total number of square miles in the City; square miles of land, as opposed to water; square miles of private property; square miles of right-of-way; square miles of park land; and the square miles of single family houses. TAC Chair Dressler stated that he likes the idea of a set of lists that name the high-quality trees which contribute to the quality of the canopy, the environment, and the air, and those trees that represent hazards in urban conditions; added that another is a list of conditions that should have no barriers to the removal of the tree, such as a live oak that has roots on one property but its canopy spreads to another property, or the reasonable maintenance of aj property; noted that the existing list is a short list and does not address any of the issues presented this evening. TACI Member Gilkey stated that he would like to ensure that the right tree is selected and is planted at the right location, sO as to avoid future problems. TAC Member Fuerst pointed out that there should be different provisions for the barrier islands, furthering the right- tree-at-the-righeplace argument. TAC Member Halflants asked Arborist Miller if there have been situations where the tree was healthy, and planted in the right location, but the owner wanted to remove it, and if sO what were the owner' S justification for the removal request. Arborist Miller stated that this happens, and the justifications are the tree is messy, aesthetics, maintenance issues, cannot grow grass, if one wants to remove a tree to plant a vegetable garden or replace an ornamental tree with a fruit tree, he cannot allow them to do that. TAC Member Gallagher asked if there are any places in Florida that have extraordinary success with their urban forest, to invite them to talk to TAC. Arborist Miller named Orlando, Winter Haven, and possibly Tampa, and noted that every situation is different. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio Page 10 of 12 TAC Member Gallagher stated that he is looking for general strategies. Arborist Miller showed an example of an information binder he is compiling for each of the TAC members, which includes information on the latest technology relating to trees, like root barriers, rubber sidewalks, flexi-pave, tree growth regulators, scientific research, case studies, etc.; added that he has spoken with people in the field, to public works, to parks and recreation, to engineering regarding sidewalks and plantings in small areas in the median; added that the information binder includes an article on co-funded urban tree planting trial, which means that the City could goi into. aj partnership with that company;stated that the company would provide the materials, the personnel to train the local staff on how to install the products, and will attend the first installation; added that the City would get the equipment at a substantially reduced cost; he noted that he did not research this any further, because he did not know if the TAC would be interested in it, and has not spoken to Mr. Litchet about it yet; added that he would feel much more comfortable to have a partnership and a cost reduction for the City when doing a trial; noted thathe has also talked with the Natural Resources Director of the City of Tampa; explained that they are also in the process of updating their Ordinance; added that they also have a lot of development, and they are considering to reach out to the contractors, share this information with them and recommend that they use some of these new approaches. Arborist Miller noted that he spoke to the Public Works department and they have identified test locations where they will try a couple suggestions with concrete, however the Engineering Department does not like what Public Works does, sO he is in the middle, because whatever he finds, there is a disadvantage to it, somewhere, because everything is situational. TAC Chair thanked Arborist Miller for his work and presentation this evening; continued with a discussion about removing a healthy tree. for the purpose of re-landscaping privately owned property; stated that in this meeting TAChas discussed potential solutions such as (a) lists oft trees to be removed without barriers, (b) improving the existing list of situations that allow removal of trees without barriers, and (c) talked about the federal and state constitution and private property rights; asked if anyone else has other ideas or suggestions relating to the removal of a healthy tree from private property. TAC Member Falk suggested that they look what the Sarasota and Manatee county are doing when they want to remove a healthy tree. Arborist Miller stated that in Sarasota County, and property owner ofless than five acres can do on their property what they want. TACMember Falk wondered if this has had more positive, or less desirable effects, for the counties; added that if there could be a comparison of tree coverage of the residential properties, county VS. city, maybe it would show if this Ordinance has improved the coverage in residential areas. Arborist Miller noted that the county has a larger area and has more land coverage. TAC Chair Dressler suggested that a substantial comparison would have to involve similar size lots with single family residences; added that in this meeting there have been many references to issues that relate to GIS, and wondered if it would be a good idea to invite GIS staff to attend a TAC meeting SO that they can respond to these questions. TAC Member Halflants stated that it is an easy task, one can go to Google, select an area and enter different dates, then one can see. how the area changes. TAC Chair Dressler stated Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio Page 11 of 12 that numerical data is also needed for comparison purposes to determine the factors that create better tree coverage. TAC Member Falk said he is interested to find out about the social aspect of this issue, such as how neighbors deal with different tree situations. TAC Member Halflants stated that it would be useful to have a comparison of how things were within the city before 2002 and after 2002. TAC Member Gallagher said thatl he has a copy of the National Arbor Day Foundation, they have a publication callled How to Write a Municipal Tree Ordinance, which is a checklist of things to do, they charge $3.00 per copy of this; added that the city is a "Tree City," sO is Sarasota County, this publication has four standards that qualify an area to be a Tree City, they must have (a) a Tree Department or Tree Board, (b) a Tree Care Ordinance, (c) a Community Forestry Program with an annual budget of $2.00 per capita, and (d) an Arbor Day observance and proclamation. Arborist Miller stated that the ISA has a substantial sized document which also guides you through and points out what to take into consideration; and agreed to print some of those checklists for the TAC. TAC Member Falk noted that on Arbor Day, in one of the last two years, the National Arbor Day Foundation worked with the City of Sarasota and helped plant trees in the Rosemary District, and it looks good. TACC Chair Dressler stated that he does not think that TAC is at a point to making motions and taking final decisions during these early meetings. Asked if there are any other comments relating to Agenda Item VI. TAC Member Gilkey stated that he is struggling with the idea or personal property VS. community property; the structures outlive the occupants, and the vegetation, if cared for properly, will grow with the structures, and he is thinking of the situation of a singular owner changing that. TAC Member Fuerst has concerns about trees that do not stop at the property lines; added that she has five live oaks on her property and the entire neighborhood enjoys them. TAC Member Halflants suggested that they should look at neighborhoods, not at single family lots. TAC Member Gilkey suggested that there should be 5-year or 20-year goals for the outcomes. VII. DISCUSSION OF UPCOMING TOFICS/DISCUSSION OF NEXT MEETING DATE TACI Member Gallagher requested the following for next meeting: additional information / clarification of the terms: Tree List; Category I; Category II;and Invasive Species for the City of Sarasota; and when does a plant become a tree, (3 inches, or 5 inches) depending on species characteristics. TAC Chair Dressler requested to postpone a vote on the minutes of the December 6, 2017 minutes. It was approved by consensus. Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 10, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 12 There was discussion on which topics to discuss in the next meeting. It was decided that they will discuss Topic 3; and talk about issues relating to healthy trees and unsafe conditions for trees on public property. Prior to the next TAC meeting on January 31, 2017, staff will provide the following additional items to TAC members: New technology information; and Hurricane information, relating to the impacts of hurricanes on different species of trees. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:08:35 PM. Ah Shawn Dressler, Chairman Tim Litchet, Secretary