CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 31, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Members Present: Shawn Dressler, Chair Michael Halflants, Vice Chair (arrived at 3:19:45) Members Mary Fuerst, Chris Gallagher, Trevor Falk, Michael Gilkey, Jr. Rob Patten Members Absent: City Staff Present: Tim Litchet, Director of Development Services Mark Miller, Senior Arborist, Don Ullom, Arborist Kim L. DeNais, Administrative Assistant, DS I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL TAC Chair Dressler called the meeting to order. Tim Litchet, as Secretary to the TAC, read the roll call. TAC Chair reminded everyone to speak into the microphones for clear audio recordings. II. PLEDGE OF CONDUCT Tim Litchet, as TACSecretary, read the Pledge of Conduct adopted by the City Commission of Sarasota. III. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 6, 2017 MINUTES TAC member Gallagher moved to adopt the December 6, 2017 minutes with a minor correction on the spelling ofhis name. TACFuerst seconded thei motion. The minutes from the December 6, 2017 TAC: Meeting, as amended, were approved unanimously. TAC Chair Dressler, noted that the time limits for Citizen's Input can be short for citizens that have a lot of information to share; explained that the format in the meetings will continue (3-min. limit), and encouraged citizens to submit input electronically; added that he will review the electronic input, will bring it to the attention of the TAC Members, and share it at the TAC: Meetings as it relates to the topic of the meeting; and encouraged TAC Members to look at their City email on a regular basis and acknowledge receipt. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT - 3 MINUTE LIMIT (30 MINUTE TOTAL) 1. Jono Miller - Suggested that Citizen's Input should be heard before reviewing the Minutes, because citizens may have comments regarding the Minutes; noted that he has submitted written comments, which he will summarize in this presentation; encouraged the TAC to move towards some data analysis, to enable them to reach better Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 2 of 17 conclusions; expressed uncertainty the number of violations per year; added that, in addition to hurricane damage, the data analysis should look into cold damage; noted that there are two types of rights-of-way and he summarized why trees are problematic in an urban setting; added that it is sad to plant a tree now and have to remove it in 20 years; noted that the overall goal is to increase canopy, but he questions if this goal will be achieved, considering lot coverage requirements, relaxed regulations on removing trees, and utilities that do not want trees in the right of way; and pointed out that the data from the prior Arborist was problematic and should not be included in the data analysis. 2. Joshua Bryant - representing Cadence Bank 25 South Links stated that there are four oversized palms by their building, that are causing concerns in terms of safety, because the palms are lifting the sidewalk; noted that the city tried to address the problem, but, since then, the sidewalk has been lifted more; pointed out that another concern is the damage the trees cause; explained that the Ordinance requires an awning at the front door, which comes within 12 inches of the tree; expressed concerns about potential damage and safety issues these trees can cause in the event of a major storm, when the tree will hit the awning; mentioned that there is also an inconvenience factor; explained that the trees are rubbing against the building, there are restaurants in the area, rodents are reported in their attics and crawl spaces; added that the aesthetics are a concern as well, because the trees are old, have not been taken care of for years, and there are. ferns and all sorts of growth on the outside of the tree; stated he is new to the area, he used to work for the City of Palm Springs in southern California, where they have some forward thinking ordinances that allow a business to remove a tree that has outgrown the space and replace it with a tree that will fit in that space; and encouraged the TAC to consider these types of options. 3. Nathan Wilson resident of the Arlington Park Neighborhood; emphasized how this issue has affected their neighborhood, presented pictures that he has taken since 2014, including pictures of Floyd Street, pictures of trees that have been removed, by permit or illegally, in his neighborhood; noted that this was done by a couple builders; and concluded that when trees are removed, it affects the neighborhoods. 4. Jude Levy - resident of the Rosemary District; wants the TAC to get as much information as possible; referred to two issues from last week: (1) Home Rule - recommended that' TACmembers review the letter of supportfor Home Rule, authored by the Sarasota County Tree Advisory Council, and the related article in the Observer; added that the Mayor went to the CCNA, which represents forty neighborhoods, and all the neighborhood presidents signed the letter; pointed out that this is the first thing TAC decided not to act on. (2) Removal of trees - said it is a big deal; stated that she was the president of Laurel Park for fourteen years, she never saw a removal permit, rather the residents would hire people to cut and remove the tree on Saturdays; suggested citizen education, because people come here and are unaware of the local regulations. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page3 of 17 5. Christine Slazenger - did not wish to speak. 6. Lou Costa- resident of Bird Key, retired principle engineer; stated that he spent 10 years as the head of the Bird Key Landscape Committee; noted that the TAC will not be able to put together a law that will catch all situations; suggested the creation of a board, consisting of three architects who would review any disputes; explained that one of the architects should be predominantly working with residential developments, one with commercial developments, and one with the City; and added that the people bringing the dispute can pay a fee, and these experts can tell them what to do. Mr. Litchet stated that the City Commission has prepared a Resolution to send to Tallahassee regarding Home Rule. V. COMMITTEE TOPIC: How TO BEST ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF CITY UNSAFE CONDITIONS CAUSED BYI HEALTHY TREES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY (E.G. ROOTS LIFTING SIDEWALKS) TAC Chair Dressler summarized a couple of items discussed in the last meeting that affect thei topic this evening, including how to address thei issue ofl healthy trees that cause damage to public infrastructure, and utilities, the reduced right of property owners to the use and enjoyment of their properties, and how to best address safety issues caused by trees, such as. lifting sidewalks; mentioned that Mark Miller, City Arborist, has provided many pictures to support these concerns; added that the TAC has discussed that the concept of "right - treeat-therigheplace" has not been codified; added that TAC has also discussed the benefits of canopy trees, and technological solutions to having canopy trees grow in places where they would not be able to grow, otherwise; listed some of these technological solutions; noted that Mr. Miller provided to TAC Members an information packet about new technologies and case studies; cautioned that the TAC, in its effort to ensure right-tree- right place, does not reduce the number of trees; added that one of the reasons people choose to come to Sarasota is the trees; thanked Mr. Miller for the summaries he provided via email; and stated that he asked the City of Sarasota ift there have been any litigation cases relating to the Tree Ordinance, and he was told that there have been no documented cases. TAC Member Patten noted that the TAC is asked to provide specific language about trees, sidewalks, canopies etc.;noted that other municipalities have a Forestry Division that helps citizens go through a project like this; added that he hopes the TAC can talk about the advantages of a recommendation to the City Commission for an Urban Forestry Division, and get this to the hands of the people who look at these issues; emphasized that it may be the best use of TAC's time to recommend that the City creates an Urban Forestry Division, and get this assignment to the hands of professional people; pointed out that the reason people move to Sarasota is because of the diverse architecture, and because of the canopy; also he noted that all his neighbors are professionals, sO he does not understand the separation between businesses and residents; stated that we are a business community and a neighborhood community; expressed hope that the TAC discusses an Urban Forestry Division for the City, how it works, how it is funded, possibly without adding to taxes, and what the Division's responsibilities; noted that the TAC can help with that formula; and Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee. Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 4 of 17 concluded that this looks at the larger picture, but he thinks it needs to be done for trees in Sarasota. TAC Member Gilkey stated that the TAC is talking about liability issues for both utilities and for the well-being and safety of the public; suggested that there should be an avenue to follow; offered the example of what can happen with the Washingtonians, which he thinks is not a tree that should be saved, because it is easily replaceable; added that every time he goes to a class for continuing education, he learns more about the liability of the selection of trees, and the types of standards that should bei in place; pointed out that there is a lot of litigation about people who have been hurt or died because of trees; and expressed concerns about having a' Tree Code fori the City that allows trees in public spaces when they are being a hazard or potential hazard, when there are professionals out there who can help. TAC: Member Fuerst, stated she is from the Tahiti Park neighborhood; pointed out that they value trees and hope to be the first canopy neighborhood; quoted someone who said, "if you can't buy it, or plant it, why can you not remove it," if it is a Washingtonian, we can replace it with a much better, healthy tree, rather than to leave something in place which will cause issues; suggested that one: must consider the future of the tree, it may look healthy now, but is it a "ticking bomb, " because it has been poorly pruned and maintained; asked if the City has pruning standards; added if a tree is causing damage to public infrastructure, she would rather spend the money to move the tree somewhere else, than allow it to cause problems; pointed out that one of the great things about Sarasota is how walkable iti is, when there are no trees it is no fun, so we need the trees, but they need to be the-right-tree-at- the-right-place; and she referred to a meeting she attended the night before, where FPL talked about the troubles they get, when someone plants the wrong tree under a power line. TAC Chair Dressler agreed, and noted that some of the problems seem to be the result of Code violations, rather than the Tree Ordinance; added that there is the Code, and the administration of the Code, and then the tracking of, and penalties, for Code violations; pointed out that these are three different things; and asked TACMembers for their insights on challenges relating to these three things over the years, and how the city has approached these challenges. Mr. Litchet agreed that these are different issues; stated that the City has revised the Tree Ordinance to strengthen some of the tree protection barriers, education of contractors, they did Code Orders on contractors who did not comply, addressed numerous code compliance cases relating to illegal tree removals; pointed out that it is a constant effort, which is the reason the City has hired a weekend Code Enforcement person; noted that they receive a lot of illegal activity on the weekend; added that the City has an Arborist, as a result of the efforts by Mr. Wilson and the CCNA; stated that tracking is very important, and Arborist Mark Miller keeps tracking information on spreadsheets; added that currently the City is in the process of implementing a new computer system that will have a much better reporting capability; explained that the current building system is a 2000 Y2K System; noted that they are in the middle of the installation of the new computer system, and next month they will work on a new building module, which is "Tree Permitting, which will be aligned with the "Tree Compliance" module; noted that in the end they will have a much greater capability Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 5 of 17 for tracking, which is very important; stated again that he agrees with a lot of what has been said; and pointed out that compliance is a different issue, it relates to infrastructure and trees in the right-of-way. TAC Chair Dressler stated that he lives in Gillespie Park, and, just like many other neighborhoods, they have regular meetings; noted that one of the frequently discussed topics in these meetings is that the neighborhoods are also responsible to help the City with code compliance, by calling the City when residents of the neighborhood witness illegal activities and code violations; pointed out that he wanted to mentioned this, because code compliance maybe a little out of the scope of this committee; suggested that the best group to talk about issues relating to code compliance is the City Commission; and concluded that that a less cumbersome code will be easier to administer and to maintain compliance with. TAC Member Falk asked if there were any numbers about last year's costs relating to trees damaging public property, or private property, and repairs on sidewalks, or buildings. Mr. Litchet responded that he could probably get a number from public works, because they handle the shaving down of the concrete, concrete grinding, and things like that; added that in a recent conversation with the City Attorney, he found out that a City Commissioner had requested information about "trip-and-fall" law suits, which is a large part of their work; said that he would rather wait until the Attorney offers his numbers; pointed out that the law suits happen because wrong trees are at the wrong places; noted that it is not that we do not want trees, but we. have to get a tree and be able to deal with it. TAC Member Falk asked if Mr. Litchet had an idea on the numbers of private businesses being damaged by healthy trees. Mr. Litchet replied that he had been to a few of those with Arborist Mark Miller. Mr. Miller stated that he can only relate to the permit applications that. have been filed, and he has been involved in and noted that the number of commercial people who have come in with damages from a tree is minimal, about six per year. TACChair Dressler noted that this may be "minimum" as it relates to the overall numbers; added that there are two issues for discussion before the Committee at this meeting, public and private, damage caused by trees, and rights of property owners to use their properties; stated that, as it relates to the public realm including parks, streetscapes, medians, there are two things that could fix the majority ofi infrastructure damages: Part I: the concept of"right- tree-right-place; and thei incorporation of this concepti in the. Zoning Ordinance, by creating of a list of trees that the City has approved for various categories, such as street, median, park; added that landscape architects should be allowed to recommend alternative trees to those named on the list, because our climate changes, there are limitations to the trees that are available in nurseries, and we are learning new things all the time; pointed out that there should be flexibility; and the liability would then fall on the landscape architect. TAC' Vice Chair Halflants pointed out that the performance of the trees needs be considered. TAC Chair Dressler stated that there should be a list of trees the City accepts in certain situations, to make it easy for the developers, or a homeowner, to pick from the list, but it Minutes of the Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 6 of 17 would also allow a landscape architect or other certified professionals to recommend another tree; stated that Part II is the use of technology, particularly in the public realm, where the City spends community and pubic funds to install, maintain, and care for trees over time; noted that the City should be requiring a high level of installation practices, utilizing the new technologies, to protect the sidewalks, to protect the root systems of the trees, to provide the space the trees need, sO that the urban places and public places of the City can continue to have high quality tree canopies. TAC Member Gallagher agreed that there are two parts in this discussion, trees in the public realm and trees on private properties; stated that, in his research, he found a technical document from the National Arbor Day Foundation which describes how to write a tree ordinance, discussing various suggested sections for a tree ordinance; pointed out that what attracted his attention was that they first focused on trees in the public realm, streets, parks, cemeteries; noted that the same document treats differently trees on private property, and even differently the trees one wants to see in the downtown, addressing the different conditions; added that it is difficult for the private sector to get involved; noted that the City can develop standards and can coordinate with utilities, but getting the private sector involved in this is a known recipe for creating confusion, and arguments; added that it would be beneficial for TAC to discuss each topic from the private and the public point of view; referred back to the technical document noting that it covers, in an orderly manner, a variety of issues regarding tree ordinances, and it is available for purchase on line; stated that another important thing is baseline information, the total square miles of the City, how many of those are covered by water, how much of the land is private, how much is public, how much of that are streets, parks, cemeteries, how many trees there are in the City in the public and private realms, what percentage of canopy cover the City has, are there any known trends, in the last several decades, as shown in permits and in violations, information about neighborhood tree committees, etc. He added that if one looks at the section on trees of the Form Based Code, a lot of work needs to be done on that section, based on what we have discussed in the short time the TACi is meeting; talked about tree lined streets; noted that unlike other topics, all of us like tree lined streets, however iti is difficult to accomplish that, because of thet trade-offs between the width of the sidewalk, parking, utilities; stated that he does not know how effective the private developers of the adjacent properties are in this matter, and how much falls on the City to work out; noted that the strongest recommendation in the National Arbor Day Foundation document is that the City must have a Tree Advisory Committee to constantly weigh in on tree matters; said that in order to have a tree lined street, it takes the coordination of many City departments; pointed out that another thing that appears in many ordinances is people pay a fee and go on their way; asked why couldn't a private developer do that, instead of dealing with planting trees, let that tree fund build, because to plant that tree in an urban street, to do it well, it may cost you a couple thousand dollars, as compared to planting a tree somewhere else where it may cost you only two hundred dollars; and concluded that trying to do tree lined streets on a piece meal basis, as opposed to doing iti in ai more coordinated effort through an urban forestry program, we will continue to struggle. Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 7 of 17 TAC Chair Dressler stated that there is a Request for Proposal (RFP) out for an Urban Forestry Plan, or Urban Forestry tree count. Mr. Litchet stated that he attended a meeting with Purchasing and the Parks Departments earlier in the day, and he recalled that they have received only one response to the initial RFP; explained that the initial RFP was for a City-wide tree survey, to document all the trees in the public realm, their type, size, health, canopy etc.; noted that the City was not satisfied with the response that came in, SO they are making modifications to the RFP, they are simplifying it, they are getting their GPS coordinates again, a simpler listing of the health of the tree, and specifics; stated that the survey would document trees in the public realm, trees on the right of ways, in parks and City owned parcels; added that they would also do a tree canopy analysis using digital overhead technology, and they would work with the City's GIS coordinator; added that City staff did a study in 2007, which they will try to digitize, print and use in the establishment of baseline data. TAC Member Patten stated that when people started raising their voices about trees being removed in the City, they were talking mostly about trees on private properties, around the neighborhoods, and the downtown area, not about trees in the public realm; and asked if there is enough money to do the canopy analysis. Mr. Litchet stated that the RFP is calling for the canopy analysis to provide percentage of canopy; noted that the City Commission has authorized $75,000 dollars from the Tree Mitigation Funds to go for this project, based on the idea that before using the money to plant trees all over, iti is better to know where the older trees are and keep thei new plantings where they are appropriate. TAC Chair Dressler stated that it appears like a "baseline data first step" for a future Urban Forestry plan; and asked if that has been talked about. Mr. Litchet said that one: needs this type of baseline data before talking about an Urban Forestry plan. TAC Chair Dressler addressed TAC Member Gallagher's earlier comments; noted that it is relatively easy to generate the number of square miles of land and water in public and private lands, but when: it comes to canopy coverage we: may have to rely on this study;and asked if they have discussed the timing of this survey. Mr. Litchet stated that they will issue the new RFP in thirty days, they will leave it out for forty-five days again, and then they will review; he hopes that they will get someone working on this in time for the recommendations of the TAC to be incorporated in their work. TACI Member Patten asked Mr. Litchet if he had any discussions with the City Commission about creating an Urban Forestry Division, SO that it is not a Building and Zoning Code Enforcement issue, but rather a pro-active natural resources based department; asked if there been discussions about that, or what it takes to put something like that together, or if some of the mitigation money should be used to do that. Mr. Litchet stated that he has not been directly involved in such discussions, however he knows that it all comes down to money, and that is the decision for the City Commission. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 8 of 17 TAC Member Patten stated that it is different than Code Enforcement or what is the City's plan; added that he read the Open Space Plan, which is excellent, it has all the right stuff in it; asked where is the Urban Forestry Plan, we do not have one in the City; noted that is what we: need eventually, and it will take some: money and some people; continued talking about trees in the public realm; noted that they are talking about existing trees and what to do where there are problems, trees that have been planted by the City in the right of way, trees that may have been planted by homeowners and businesses in the right of way; pointed out that these are all different things; noted that earlier there was talk about flexibility in the Code, so that people know where they are heading, but we also need to have flexibility in the Code for the staff in the field; described a recent experience in one of his projects, when they spent $100,000 dollars on trees to mitigate one laurel oak and one slash pine, and concluded that staff needs more flexibility to be able to make some field calls. TAC Vice Chair Halflants noted that contributions to the tree mitigation fund should be enough money sO that as the mitigation fund grows, one can actually do things with it, and buy trees; stated that the City has done a poor job in lining the streets with trees; he pointed out that in the Indian Beach: neighborhood, where he runs on Bayshore Street, there are 100- years-old Washingtonians, and there has been nothing since; but you look on Los Angeles, where there are street after street lined with trees; noted that the City is currently spending a lot of money on code enforcement, and reviewing development by development, instead of having a master plan; questioned the ability of the tree survey to move things forward; recalled Mr. Wilson saying that they spent $10,000 dollars to plant 300 trees, it is not expensive to plant a tree; and suggested that the focus should be on putting trees in the ground. TAC Member Patten agreed that there is need for a master plan; asked which City department is responsible for planting trees. Mr. Litchet said that his department is Code Enforcement, it is the Parks and Recreation Department that plants trees, Jerry Fogle is the head of that department, and Candi Pedersen is the main contact; added that he does not think there is a master plan. TAC Member Patten asked if there is any value in inviting them to attend a future TAC: meeting, he would like to hear about the criteria and standards they use for planting trees in the public right of ways. TAC Vice Chair Halflants talked about a program in Denver where every time one paid their water bill they would get a tree; said that it is actually inexpensive to give trees to people to plant; stated that the focus should be to get more trees planted in the City; expressed interest in finding out how much money has been spent for the Tree Ordinance up to this point, when he hears that Mr. Litchet, as Director, and his staff spend most of his time on tree issues; said that this is hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigate or to try to save one tree, as opposed to building a tree mitigation fund, and get trees on the streets, or give trees to people to plant and let them grow. TAC Chair Dressler noted that the TAC has discussed the public aspect of trees, both existing trees and proposed trees; acknowledged TAC Vice Chair Halflants' suggestion to focus on planting more trees as opposed to protecting existing trees; and asked for Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 9 of 17 comments. TAC Member Gilkey stated that there are some existing trees that need to be protected such as the mangroves. TAC Chair Dressler added that trees that do not impact development have to be protected; TACI Member Falk pointed out that the trees cannot be divided to existing and proposed; expressed preference in the concept of a list of appropriate trees from which a homeowner can easily select a tree; added that if one wants to remove a tree, then one needs the opinion of a professional as to the reasons the tree is proposed for removal, and what impact the removal will have on theneighborhood and the community, such as the percentage of canopy that will be lost, and what is the plan of getting it back; explained that it may be that one 7" caliper tree or three 3" caliper trees is not the: right choice for that particular location, but a homeowner would not know that, that is up to a professional and a plan that is provided to the professional, or it is not the right location for a tree. TAC Chair Dressler stated that one of the frustrations of landscape architects is the Code requirement that the order of mitigation is plant outside, plant nearby, or pay into a fund; iti is frustrating because there are many sites, particularly in the downtown area, where it is difficult to plant mitigation trees, and to plant nearby and negotiate with another property owner is also difficult; said that this results in lost time which is the biggest problem for any development; noted that this matter should not be left to operations, rather it should be "here are the three things you can do;" pointed out that developers want to put the trees on their site, they do not want to spend that much money enriching someone else's site; pointed out that not everyone will be paying into the fund, because it was not like that before the Code existed; noted that it makes sense to pay into a tree fund, and keep moving, in order to maximize the value, and the return on the land values, of the small tightly controlled downtown parcels; then the City can have that money for the implementation of an urban forestry master plan. TAC: Member Falk asked if the developer would save money paying in the tree fund rather than doing the hard work. TACChair Dressler stated that it would depend on how the tree fund is set up. TAC Vice Chair Halflants noted that right now the tree fund is too inexpensive, and most developers would gladly pay in the tree fund than deal with tree mitigation procedures; added that every development benefits from having tree lined streets in Sarasota; and stated that he would be in favor for a set tree mitigation fee fund payment for all developments, based on square footage, or length of the site or the cost of construction, sO that a true. mitigation fund is established. TAC: Member Patten stated that this goes back to what has been said, the reactive nature of the Code, code violation enforcement, or a community that should take pride, we should be talking about something that is larger; if we put the money into a fund to implement a plan, where: is the plan for tree lined streets? He thinks iti is best that they are discussed separately; he likes the idea of having more flexibility, and that the money that goes to the mitigation fund can pay for a street department, and have that higher level pro-active group overlooking what happens to the City, and at the same time help solve some of the code enforcement issues; he hopes that TAC can talk pro-actively as well as reactively, and that TAC will encourage the City to create an Urban Forestry Department. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 10 of 17 TACMember Gallagher noted that because the City does not have baseline information, we have no idea about the percentage change of the canopy over time; one of the public speakers said how terrible it is to see a tree go down, and he agrees, but there are many other things that make him sad, like replacing the beautiful details of an old house with aluminum siding, or someone tearing down an old building, or painting the houses in wild colors, or the person who used to live in a house had flower boxes and now the new tenant does not have them, iti is sad when these things happen, but there are too many things to try to control in your neighborhood, it is painful to the person next door, as it is painful to live next door to an unpleasant person, but in the bigger scheme of things, if the canopy of the City is growing because of the way a plan is written, then we are addressing the issue globally as opposed to one property at the time; stated that the list of nuisances from the neighbors goes on and on, and up to a point we need to live with our neighbors good and bad, instead of creating new Ordinances to control every nuisance; pointed out that one may get great pleasure from the neighbor's tree, but he is not the one who worries every night about the tree falling on his roof, or having to clean the leaves; pointed out that, without baseline information, it is hard to deal with these things; stated that maybe the County has identified some canopy trends, and maybe they would apply in the urban areas, it does not take long; noted that if one looks at a 1960's S photograph of the downtown, there were no trees in the downtown area then, SO at least in the last fifty years, we have greatly increased the number of trees in the downtown. TAC Member Patten asked if TAC: Member Gallagher would support the completion of the survey sO that we know if we are going backwards or forward, the data is needed, and he is aware that this data has been requested for the last two years. TAC Member Gallagher confirmed that and added that both the tree survey and the canopy analysis, have great value, but he thinks that the canopy analysis can be done faster and less costly. TAC Member Patten stated the TAC can encourage the City to have the RFP re-written quickly and have it out on the street again. TAC Member Fuerst stated that in her research about Tree Ordinances, she found out that they talk about public and private, and proactive VS. reactive approaches, have a list of what is the ghetefortenghtplase have the technology to put the right staff down sO it doesn't have issues, pay into the mitigation fund; said that maybe the City can use the money from this fund when they re-do Lemon Avenue, and take care of it without having problems; added that there should be flexibility; said that the roots are coming up every year, we trim and trim, we. have to be reasonable about it, it is not the right tree for the right place it is causing considerable problems, let's look at replacing it with something better. TAC Chair Dressler added that we should have a consistent tree mitigation fund that the City can dip into for these issues, would probably be beneficial to be able to replace those problem trees in problem areas; commented about the earlier said statement that "the current mitigation is cheap, saying that it: is not true in all cases; added that in some cases the current mitigation is extremely burdensome, because it is completely based on what one currently has on their site; in terms of what happens to be growing on an unmaintained lot, he knows cases where redevelopment did not happen because of mitigation costs, and on one case there was not one live oak on the lot; added that there is a way to move forward Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 11 of 17 with mitigation, as has been said, based on the size of the lot, or the frontage of the lot, and come up with a mitigation formula that is not overall burdensome, it provides consistent money back to the mitigation fund; noted that the way the mitigation fund is set up today, mitigation on some lots is very cheap because there are no trees on the lot, while you cannot develop on other lots, and they are right in the areas that need to be developed to maximize the urban spaces, SO that we stop clearing thousand of acres in the suburbs. TAC Member Patten asked how much money would be appropriate for mitigation, hundreds of thousands of dollars, or tens of thousands of dollars. TACMember Falk stated that currently it is $70.00 per inch, for a tree of 36" would be $2,520.00 dollars. TACMember Patten asked if the developments that did not go through, in his earlier example, were large developments. TACChair Dressler said it was a lot of about two acres, they were proposing to do a mixed commercial and residential development. TACI Member Gilkey asked who maintains the public trees now. Mr. Litchet said that they are maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department. TAC Member Gilkey asked if the City follows Code in the removal of trees, and would it be the City's responsibility to assess the hazard of trees and the potential damage to utilities. Mr. Litchet stated that the City follows the Code, and City staff assesses the potential hazard of public trees; added the flexibility issue staff experiences is based on the fact that the Code does not have clear enough standards on what is hazardous, what is dangerous, and it does not address trees on the wrong place; added that this makes it difficult for staff to say this tree should be removed, because staff will be severely criticized, and yet, when someone trips there, staff is asked why did you not remove the tree; stated that staff is looking forward to clear directions, if a tree is in the wrong place and creates hazards, remove it, but it will be mitigated and this is the way we will put the new tree in; noted that the proper technology should be used, sO that, in the long term, it will not become a problem again; added that it may not be the same tree, a canopy tree may need to be replaced by another tree; noted that the current tree requires that like-kind tree should go back, and as a result, we are re- creating the problem for some twenty years down the road; stated that staff has no problem enforcing the current ordinance, but he sees problems, and he has said to the City Commission that we continue creating long term problems. TAC Member Gilkey said that when his agency is doing liability assessments, he contacts an arborist that they use in all projects, who subs a secondary arborist to do liability assessments, because of the liability associated with assessing a tree and its potential hazard, and the legal ramifications associated with it; and asked, is that something the City wants to do in house, or should they outsource it because of the liability involved with assessing the hazard of a tree or a sidewallk. Mr. Litchet suggested that TAC invites Candi Pedersen who manages the City program, to discuss the specifics; added that he feels the City has excellent arborists who can assess. He said we also can get other opinions from other arborists, he feels that staff can provide a good opinion on whether a tree is a hazard or will be a hazard, there is no problem with that right now, but we all need to be on the same page with what needs to be done. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 12 of 17 TACMember Gilkey said that he has a project now where a tree is next to an FPL: lift station, and FPL has to get a line from the lift station to the new residence, sO they have to cut a tree to the point that it is in danger of falling over, and asked how does one deal with that, the tree becomes a hazard only after it is trimmed to access the utilities we must have. TAC Chair Dressler noted that there was a lot of correspondence on this issue; added that it is critical that the staff City hires with public dollars have extensive experience and education in dealing with these issues, and they ought to also have the flexibility to make a field decision, to say that tree should be removed, because we have to provide utilities to the property, and we also have to provide safety around that tree. It is a health and safety issue. Mr. Litchet pointed out that three of the City Arborists are Tree Risk Assessment qualified; added that the City has staff with the appropriate qualifications. TAC Chair Dressler said that he is aware that the City has qualified staff, however they are not allowed to use their qualifications. TAC Member Fuerst noted that the Code says a tree must be "replaced with a like tree," and asked if there would be a problem if these words were changed to read replaced with the right tree at the right space. TAC Chair Dressler spoke about the situation described by TAC Member Gilkey, and said that, instead for waiting for the Code to be amended, the Code should have the flexibility to allow staff to say this tree has to be removed, we have money in the tree fund to plant additional trees, the right of way, in that area, or to a public park nearby, sO let's remove the tree and continue with the process. TAC Member Gilkey asked how often staff makes recommendations to the City. Arborist Miller said every time he is asked, he provides the requested information. Arborist Miller said he will no longer recommend root barriers, based on his recent research. Discussion ensued about the City's use of technology. TAC Chair Dressler said that his agency, as a consulting firm, recommends the use of technology, but sometimes, when the development team are not going be the ones maintaining the site in perpetuity, they want to have a nice looking project, but they want to spend as little as they can to get a nice project, and if the City Code does not require it, they say "Thanks, for the recommendation, but will move without it". He added that the developers need to make a profit; stated that the Code should require these technologies, especially in the downtown area; said that he works in the SunTrust Building on Main Street, and in that parking lot are the finest live oaks in downtown, the parking lot has been resurfaced several times during the maintenance of that property, and you can probably run a laser across the surface of the parking lot, there is not a bit of root intrusion or uplift, because of a fabric they used under the asphalt; if we could determine this type of technologies, then we could incorporate them into the Code. TAC Member Patten asked if there are any professionals in this meeting that have been called to excavate the meat of the roots, put in gravel and pour concrete over it to replace concrete sidewalks; added the roots do not come up through the gravel, but he has never done that. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 13 of 17 TAC Chair Dressler stated that they have very few projects with existing problematic roots, and to deal with them was almost cost prohibitive, the best solution is to take care of it when you plant the tree. Discussion ensued about ways to keep the live oak roots under control. TAC Chair Dressler stated it is a matter of using the right technology; noted that there is a difference between cityscape and residential uses; stated that in cases of redevelopment; you almost have to start over; said that at Southside they have a picture of the area, and there is not one tree between Southside and Hillview; added that when they were developing Publix, they created a 40-ft by 40-ft island, and deep down 4-ft., for the old oak tree; noted that the money could have been spent sO much better to make sure that in fifty years they would have no problems and have the canopy they wanted. TAC Member Gilkey added that as hard as it is to think the old live oak removed, if they had used the same 40-ft by 40- ft area to plant a new live oak tree it would have a better life with the appropriate plantings. TAC member Gilkey noted that it is a different conversation when we talk about residential neighborhoods; added that he lives in Arlington Park, and sees it all the time; said that one thinks he will start from the beginning, but with a little effort you could work around that tree, and it is nothappening, it is two separate conversations. TAC Member Gallagher noted that the bulk of the agenda for this meeting was problems created by trees in the public realm; added that in reviewing the criteria fori issuing permits, presuming that there was a problematic tree on public property, and followed the process, it appears that the City would not care for mitigation for a City tree removal, you are shuffling City money around; noted that the existing criteria say that if the tree causes significant damage, it could be removed and not mitigated in the same spot; pointed out that if the code were a little more specific, it would give staff more precision where staff could say we can remove that tree, and if it is not on the list of desirable trees, then it is a no brainer, it can go. TCA Member Patten asked if they can do that now. TAC Chair Dressler said only if it is within the Code; added that if there is a master plan in place, one does not worry about moving an individual tree, because the plan would identify areas where the tree should be replanted. TAC Member Halflants stated that for private property it is important to separate if someone will keep their house in the same location versus tearing the house down and rebuilding; said that the people should be left alone if they are not demolishing the house, they can have their back yard; noted that most homeowners are doing a good job about taking care of the trees they want in their house; pointed out that looking at old pictures of some oldi neighborhoods, they had no trees; pointed out that one issue is removing trees for the ease of construction, but, in general, in thei neighborhood, once you plant a treej just leave it alone, we will get more tree canopy like that, than trying to do something where everybody has to justify why they removed a specific tree. TAC Member Gilkey stated that if the removed tree is a native tree in its habitat and has been on site for 80 years, three generations, then a professional should be consulted, to Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 14 of 17 discuss the reasons for which the tree needs to be removed and how they are mitigating for it, instead of just removing it; added that about ten percent of the trees we are talking about fall in this category; concluded that all trees should have an avenue for removal at some point, just give a little more thought to the process. TAC Chair Dressler shared something he saw on SNN; said it was a 1927: farmhouse cottage in Laurel Park, and it was a big story at the time, because, many people may know Devin Rutkowski, he managed many rental properties in Laurel Park; said that there was this green tarmhouse cottage, and they wanted to move it about 500 feet to another property that he owned to develop that site, but to move the house he had to remove three live oaks on the right of way of Osprey Avenue; added that the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association came up against it, and the City ultimately decided to favor the Association; noted that those three live oaks that were planted in the median, in the right of way, were more important that the 1927 house, of which there is not a similar one in the entire neighborhood; pointed out that the house was irreplaceable, and those trees could have been replaced, the trees were no more that 30 years old, and the house was 90 years old; concluded that it was the result of the Code which we still use today, virtually, with a few variations. TAC Member Patten wanted to see if there is support among the TAC, and if there is he would propose a motion, to invite the person who is in charge of trees in the public realm to come to the next TAC: meeting, or to the appropriate TAC: meeting, to let' TACI know what is the plan, how they replace, how they plant, where are the areas where they are looking to exchange trees, are they handling the RFP, etc.; added that he would like to have that person come to tell TAC what the public realm plan is. TAC Chair Dressler stated that he supports this idea and it does not require a motion to request that staff from the Parks and Recreation Department come to a' TAC meeting to give an update on how they decide when and where to plant trees in the public realm. TAC Member Gallagher suggested that they also invite someone from Engineering and someone from Utilities to provide TAC with an idea of the issues they have relating to planting trees. Discussion ensued regarding the way these three City departments make their presentations to TAC, all in one meeting or in separate TAC. Meetings. Mr. Litchet stated that he thinks there is a consensus and therefore there is no need for a motion. He suggested that he talks to Jerry Fogle and Candi Pedersen; he further suggested that TAC first hears their presentation, see where they are with plantings, and what challenges they have; added that it is not a bad idea to have someone from Utilities visit TAC,however they just had a new Director in the Utilities Department, and he has to work to coordinate that, it will be helpful. TAC Member Gilkey asked for clarification and an example relating to the last phrase of item 7 of the agenda, which states: "or that impaired or reduce the rights ofprivate property owuners to the use and enjoyment oft their properties. Minutes of the Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 15 of 17 TAC Chair Dressler explained that this relates to cases that were discussed in the last meeting, where homeowner wanted to upgrade the landscape on their private residential property and Ihave a tree where I do not want to have a tree, I feel I ought to be able to remove the tree. Mr. Litchet offered the following examples of trees in the public realm; staff receives many calls from business owners who say that the tree in front of their business shields their business from visibility from the public, and cover their signs; recently he got a call from a condominium owner who complained because he had a view of the bay, and now the black olive trees have grown huge, taking away the view of the bay and creating dark dangerous conditions in the area, they are a dirty tree creating slick patches. Staff denied the removal of the trees. TAC Member Gilkey stated that he is fine with giving City staff the authority to make liability assessments on hazardous trees, if they are ready to take the liability for it. TAC Chair Dressler agreed with that; and added that should already be happening because the safety and welfare of the public is very important. TAC Member Falk asked what percentage of these trees are grand-trees." Mr. Litchet pointed out that in the public realm there are not many grand-trees, there is one on 24th Street, but generally those are: not the trees creating a problem. TAC Member Gilkey asked how often the hazardous trees on private properties are grand-trees. Arborist Mark Miller said that he is processing an average of eighty permits per month, the overall percentage of grand trees is small, but if they need to be removed they are hard to remove; stated that when it comes to development, it is a big point for saving the grand trees, when you say to someone that the grand tree is the most protected tree in the City, that means something. Mr. Litchet added that the criteria for removing a grand-tree are very strict, and some developers do not like that, but we have worked with it. Itis difficult when the tree is on private property and the owner feels they are creating problems at the storms, and this or that, it is getting to a dying stage, but the language in the Code is "eminent hazard," " it is hard to tell a mom holding her baby that the limb of this tree over their house is not an eminent hazard, when it is definitely dying; that is where staff has a problem. VI. DISCUSSION OF UPCOMING TOPICS/DISCUSSION OF NEXT MEETING DATE TAC Chair Dressler noted that it is about ten minutes to the end of the meeting, and asked TAC: members to decide about the next meeting, and also give direction if he can work with Mr. Litchet on the agenda; stated that they have consensus to invite Candi or Jerry and a member of the Utilities Department to the next meeting to talk about how and when they make decisions about planting trees in the public realm; and have some input from Utilities on some challenges. TACMember Patten added that he would like to hear if there is a plan for planting on public land, and if there is none, can TACI help them get that plan, or if we can help them get what they need. He wants to know where the problems are but also wants to know what the plan is going forward. TAC Chair Dressler noted that TAC Members need to decide on a topic for next meeting's agenda. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 16 of 17 TAC Member Gallagher suggested the following items of interest: Landscape standards for parking lots, and samples for trees that go into these wells in parking lots. If you do a search on trees in urban areas, you realize that streets are a tough place to grow a tree, it is challenging everywhere, but more challenging in places like Sarasota, because the tree cannot grow roots 20 feet down in the soil because of the terrain and the water-table do not allow for that, SO it would be useful to all of us to have someone from the Extension Service to talk to us about that; it is going to cost you more per tree in downtown, SO we have to think differently about how we mitigate for trees. Every time he drives by the bus station on Lemon Avenue he sees those trees that are doing sO poorly, and they have been there for ten or fifteen years, they are falling apart in front of us, but to remove them and replace them is crazy; some people may say that this is the nature of things, but what is the life expectancy of an urban tree, because it is so difficult to stay healthy in the urban area. Arborist Milller said the life expectancy of an urban tree is eight to fifteen years. Discussion ensued about the topic for the next meeting. TACChair Dressler said that it will be Topics 4 and 5; explained that the process for TAC is to get through the breadth of the topics, talk about them; added that the advantage of organizing it this way, is that' TAC can publish a public notice on what will be discussed, and the public can provide input; stated that once TACI has heard about all of the topics, and the: related background data, opinions, and challenges, then TAC can make substantive organizational and content suggestions to form a new Code. The next meeting will be on February 14, 2018, 3 - 5 at a different location. TAC Chair Dressler stated that at the last meeting TAC: members did not think it was part of the Ordinance directing TAC to have the authority to weight on the Steube Bill; noted that most of the TAC members tallked about it and weighed in, but did not feel that they could make a motion; added that TAC: members also compared the County's' Tree Advisory Committee, which is a standing committee, with a broader charge than the City's TAC, which has a specific directive to review the Tree Ordinance. Mr. Litchet said that it is going to be on the Commission's: agenda on February 5th, but TAC members are welcome to come and speak during Citizens input; he added that he heard the TAC discussion on that, and he feels that TAC has the ability on an relative item like that to make motions, and staff will pass it along to the commission; pointed out that TAC is an advisory board, and he does not think it would be inappropriate to express an opinion, because it has an impact on the overall work TAC is doing, but he also understands the hesitation; said that the Commission believes in Home Rule, and he thinks they will strongly pass the Resolution, copies of which staff] has provided to TAC: members, SO at this point, TAC Members can email the City Commissioners or come to the meeting. Minutes of the Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting January 31, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall Room 112 Page 17 of 17 TAC Chair Dressler said that what gave him pause was item a. which ties this Committee to the Tree Ordinance. TAC Member Patten said that when he was absent, he listened to the discussion and he would like to: make a motion to support the City's letter from the Mayor, and support Home Rule for tree protection, and the City's Resolution. TAC Member Gilkey was the seconder on that motion. Speaking to his second, TAC Member Gilkey stated that Steube is responding to what he feels is too restrictive of the Tree Code, and that is something to think about, the pendulum swings if things are too restrictive and have no flexibility. The motion passes with a 6 to 1 with TAC: member Gallagher voting against the motion. Mr. Litchet stated he will email to the City Commission the motion and the vote on the motion sO that they have it before the meeting on Monday. VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:01:30 PM. Shawn Dressler, Chair Timothy Litchet, Secretary