CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 12, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers Members Present: Michael Halflants, Chair Michael Gilkey Jr., Vice Chair Members Mary Fuerst, Chris Gallagher, and Rob Patten Members Absent: Member Irevor Falk City Staff Present: Timothy Litchet, Director of Development Services and Secretary to the Tree Advisory Committee Mark Miller, Senior Arborist Don Ullom, Arborist Joe Mladinich, Legal Counsel Angela McLeod-Wilkins, Development Services I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL TAC Chair Michael Halflants called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Secretary Litchet read the roll call. Chair Halflants asked all in attendance to mute or turn off their cell phones and teminded those who would be speaking to speak into the microphones. II. PLEDGE OF CONDUCT Secretary Litchet read the Pledge of Conduct adopted by the City Commission of Sarasota. III. CITIZEN's INPUT 1. Jude Levy - Ms. Levy stated that she has been trying to protect trees for the last 15 years. Ms. Levy referenced an article that was in the Sarasota Herald Tribune the previous week and noted that using better technologies and planting forests was recommended in the article. Ms. Levy stated that the City has an opportunity to create an urban forest, that she appreciated the time and effort of the TAC, and that she appreciated the format followed by the previous TAC Chair. 2. Norm Dumaine - Mr. Dumaine stated that he is the President of Glen Oaks Estates and that 6 palm trees were lost at the entrance to the community. Mr. Dumaine thanked members of staff for their assistance with the matter but stated that Live Oak trees would not be ideal to plant at the entrance due to issues with the stop sign visibility, entrance visibility, and maintenance costs. Mr. Dumaine also asked the TAC to focus on the vision of expanding the City's tree canopy. Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 2 of 16 IV. PRESENTATIONS BY CARL SHOFFSTALL AND Lou COSTA Mr. Shoffstall introduced himself as the Chair of the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association. Mr. Shoffstall stated that the diversity of the City should be recognized based on the following: 1) Byi identifying downtown, the barrier islands, and the outlying areas, as diverse areas of the City and developing different tree requirements for each area. 2) By advocating a primary vision of expanding and maintaining a healthy tree canopy, in all varieties, throughout the City. 3) By avoiding unintended consequences to a one size fits all approach. 4) By creating flexibility with a reasonable Tree Ordinance for everybody. Mr. Costa stated that flexibility is needed in the Tree Ordinance, especially on the barrier islands, and stated that the section of the code that prevents mitigation ofhealthy trees is vague and requires absolute clarity. Mr. Costa stated that the TAC needs to provide guidance regarding the following situations: 1) Should home owners be required to mitigate if they are removing trees due to an overgrown density problem. Mr. Costa stated that he would like an answer to each one of the 7items he will be presenting. Mr. Costa then asked the TAC for answers regarding homeowners' requirements for mitigation if the homeowner is removing density. Chair Halflants stated that the members may have different answers to the question and that he would like to discuss it at the current meeting. Mr. Costa stated that he was going to ask for answers to each question in writing at the end of the meeting and stated that the problems he is presenting are problems that everyone is having and that have not been discussed by the TAC. 2) Does the TAC support the vision to increase the citywide canopy on an overall citywide increase approach or a lot by lot approach (each residential lot has 30-40% lot coverage)? Mr. Costa asked what the TAC would recommend and stated that a lot by lot approach could create major problems as opposed to a citywide approach. Mr. Costa noted that he would like an answer in writing. 3) Residential property owners should be allowed the flexibility to either mitigate on their property or pay into a mitigation fund without the City priority mandates. Exceptions should also be made for some protected canopy trees in front yards, as some such trees should be allowed to be removed on ac case by case basis for reasons such as lifespan. Mr. Costa stated that he would like the first 3 questions answered because they are major problems for private property homeowners. Mr. Costa recommended unlimited flexibility for homeowners and the ability to payi into a fund if they do not want to plant certain types or numbers oft trees on their properties. Mr. Costa reiterated that he would like answers in writing. 4) Is a palm considered to be a tree? Ms. Costa asked to have the question answered. Minutes of the Meeting of the' Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 3 of: 16 Senior Arborist Miller stated that the City code defines a palm as a tree. Mr. Costa asked Vice Chair Gilkey if a palm is considered a tree. Vice Chair Gilkey explained that all of the items presented by Mr. Costa have been discussed by the TAC. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that his duty is to speak about the 8 points assigned to the TAC by the City Commission and that he does not know if he is forced to respond to any of Mr. Costa's questions. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that he was appreciative of all that Mr. Costa was asking. Mr. Mladinich reminded Mr. Costa that his purpose in appearing in front of the TAC was to provide a presentation. Mr. Mladinich stated that the presentation was not intended as an interrogation and that the TAC was not required to answer any questions or provide anything in writing, though they could if they chose to do SO. Mr. Shoffstall stated that he agreed and explained that the questions were being asked of Mr. Costa and himself by members of the public. 5) Removal of right-of-way trees/palms if they are not planted by the City. 6) Mitigation of a deciduous tree with a non-deciduous tree. 7) The mitigation of trees shading a residential backyard pool. Mr. Shoffstall spoke to the' TAC regarding the tree canopy. Mr. Shoffstall recommended flexibility and a Board to help with decision-making Member Patten stated that Mr. Costa's questions are included in the TAC's discussions, and that the TAC is in beginning to make decisions. Member Patten stated that he would like Mr. Costa to let the TAC know if they have failed to provide answers to any ofhis questions once the TAC has reached the end of the process. V. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 19TH MEETING MINUTES Member Patten requested an amendment to the November 19th meeting minutes. Secretary Litchet stated that staff would check and amend the minutes to be more specific. The November 19th meeting minutes were approved with corrections. VI. DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC TOPICS ASSIGNED TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS AT THE NOVEMBER 19TH MEETING Chair Halflants stated that his topic for presentation was recommendations for developed sites and explained that he had reviewed documents prepared by Senior Arborist Miller that detailed how other municipalities encourage the planting of trees and handle tree removal, for commonalities. Chair Halflants stated that defining trees, in terms of grand trees, is very important and stated that Sarasota County analyzes trees based on a point system rather than the trunk size alone. Chair Halflants stated that he reviewed definitions for the following tree designations: Specimen Tree (City of Orlando) trees of outstanding, mature size, excellent form and healthy example of the species. Grand Tree (Sarasota County) = a point system based on how the tree has matured. Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 4 of 16 Chair Halflants stated that criteria for removal of a tree is that a tree cannot unreasonably prevent development of a lot or physical use thereof, and that this phrasing was used across several municipalities. Chair Halflants stated that the City ofSarasota specifies that a tree can only be removed if it prevents more than 25% of the lot from development, which he stated was enormous. Chair Halflants stated that it should be possible to remove a tree and pay into a tree fund. Chair Halflants presented the fees required for tree mitigation in different municipalities and stated that the City of St. Petersburg required only $100 per tree while other cities require $100 per inch DBH and stated that in Sarasota County $200 per inch DBH is required for removal of grand trees. Chair Halflants stated that the TAC has discussed differentiating the code in terms of types of development and stated that cities such as Savannah and' Tallahassee do the same. Chair Halflants recommended that the TAC create a better definition of grand tree, stated that Vice Chair Gilkey has spent a great deal of time regarding such designations, and noted that grand trees should be defined as something everyone could imagine as a grand tree. Chair Halflants recommended that Sarasota include the same language for criteria of removal as other municipalities: Trees should not unreasonably prevent development of a lot or physical use thereof. Chair Halflants explained his recommendations regarding mitigation fee amounts and noted that he would recommend $150 per DBH for grand tree removal. Chair Halflants recommended adding a grand tree preservation incentive in order to encourage property owners to keep existing grand trees. Chair Halflants also suggested allowing developers to recapture square footage lost due to preservation of a grand tree and use it on up to 2 additional floors on a building with proportional density. Chair Halflants recommended that property owners be given the option to mitigate onsite or pay into a tree fund and noted that currently that option is not available, and that the first priority is the mitigate onsite or find a site to mitigate. Chair Halflants stated that if there are set mitigation fees developers can pay, the City's treasury could be increased and the money could be spent on planting street trees. Chair Halflants stated that he favors the simplicity of Sarasota County's rule of 1 tree per 2,000 square feet. Chair Halflants suggested that each member present their topic and after the presentations are complete, the TAC members engage in a discussion related to the presented recommendations. Member Patten stated that most of Chair Halflants' presentation focused on development. Chair Halflants clarified that most ofhis presentation was related to undeveloped sites, but that the last item he mentioned considered single family homes and clarified that developers of undeveloped sites would have the option to pay into the mitigation fund if they are unable to mitigate on site. Chair Halflants stated that the mitigation fee would be expensive and that he favored Member Gallagher's suggestion of setting a fee based on construction cost, but that it may be more difficult to get approval from the City Commission. Member Fuerst asked Chair Halflants to repeat what he had stated regarding Sarasota County. Chair Halflants restated that Sarasota County requires 1 tree per 2,000 square feet on a developed site and that if implemented in the City, he would allow many of those trees to be palm trees and stated that Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 5 of16 2,000 square feet is not much space when there is a house on the property. Chair Halflants suggested that the TAC research what works for other municipalities and adopt those aspects for the City. Member Patten stated that he favored moving through each presentation before discussing recommendations. Member Patten stated that the TAC needs to define the areas that the rules will be applicable to, such as commercial development versus. residential development, or removal of old houses for new construction versus landscaping changes or additions only. Chair Halflants considered that dollars per DBH makes more sense downtown than on a single-family lot and noted that removal of a large tree in order to construct a single-family home may be cost prohibitive. Chair Halflants stated that making fees a percentage of construction costs allows for flexibility. Chair Halflants also stated that it would easier to convince the City Commission that payment into a mitigation fund is favorable if the TAC increases the dollars per inch per the current table. Member Patten asked Chair Halflants whether the rule that states a grand tree can be removed if it prevents development of 25% of a lot is only applicable to residential lots. Chair Halflants stated that the rule applies to all lots. Senior Arborist Miller clarified the rules for removal of grand trees and stated that even if the tree meets all requirements for removal, the application for removal can still be denied. Senior Arborist Miller clarified that if trees that are not grand trees prevent reasonable development of a property they can be removed per Zoning Code Section VII-320. Secretary Litchet and Senior. Arborist Miller verified that grand trees must meet the. 25% requirement of buildable lot space. Chair Halflants stated that the requirement for grand tree removal is stringent and clarified that the only trees that are currently classified as grand trees are oak trees that have DBH of 24 inches or more. Member Patten stated that if a tree: is in the middle of a commercial lot where a condominium would be built, the impact is significant on the commercial lot versus a larger lot area where it is possible to design around a grand tree. Member Patten asked if there has been an instance where someone was unable to develop their lot due to an existing tree. Chair Halflants stated that he understands that there are some properties that will not sell due to existing grand trees. Member Patten stated that it seems like properties that sell for for a lot of money eventually discover ways to remove grand trees from those properties. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that realtors and buyers know that removal of grand trees can be problematic for development and stated that he often receives emails from contractors and realtors asking if tree removal will be an issue for a specific property. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that the selling potential of a property can be affected by an existing grand tree. Vice Chair Gilkey added that it is known in the industry that large oak trees can be problematic to development, particularly if they are. healthy. Secretary Litchet stated that he is currently working on two commercial properties with grand trees, that they are trees that the City believes can be saved, and that he just sent a written determination on a tree that stated the developer will have to keep the tree and design aroundi it. Secretary Litchet stated that a grand tree in the middle of a downtown lot could easily go over the 25% requirement and that it easier Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 6 of 16 to save grand trees in residential neighborhoods where there are setbacks. Secretary Litchet stated that, in the downtown core, the City can request a developer to move buildings back to the 5 feet maximum. Secretary Litchet noted that such a request would be dependent on the structure of the tree. Senior Arborist Miller stated that he has met with people regarding multiple properties across the City because the properties will not sell due to the existing grand trees. Senior Arborist Miller agreed with Secretary Litchet that it is difficult to save a tree downtown due to zero lot line and there are many other considerations, including drainage, elevation, and utilities. Member Patten ask Secretary Litchet if he can only ask someone to design around a tree when it takes up less than 25% lot space. Secretary Litchet stated that if a grand tree takes up more than 25% of buildable lot, it meets one of the four reasons that a grand tree can be removed but stated that he has the ability to hire an outside architect and look at different designs they may not have considered to attempt to save the tree. Member Patten asked which of the 7 duties of the TAC relates to grand tree removal. Secretary Litchet stated that grand tree removal relates to #8 of the duties and possibly one other duty. Chair Halflants read the exact wording of the 25% rule and noted that additional foundation or bridge foundation to go over the roots adds costs. Chair Halflants stated that such a tree may not be in the right place ifiti is on private property rather than in the right-of-way. Member Fuerst stated that she spent a lot of time reviewing Chair Halflants' and Vice Chair Gilkey's recommendations after she researched canopy roads, and that she is beginning to agree with Member Gallagher regarding homeowners rights on their privately-owned property. Member Fuerst explained that her other concern is that when grand trees are removed, a piece of history is lost that cannot be recaptured. Member Fuerst stated that she favored Vice Chair Gilkey's idea related to "Champion Trees" because it applies to more species than oak trees and that not all Live Oaks are equal. Member Fuerst suggested that property owners should be able to make reasonable determinations regarding their landscaping. Member Fuerst presented her findings related to canopy road ordinances. Member Fuerst stated that Tallahassee's canopy roads are not citywide but designated to certain streets. Member Fuerst stated that in Sarasota County, anyone can nominate a street for canopy street classification and that a specific percentage ofa agreement from thei neighborhood is not required. Member Fuerst stated that the County will not grant canopy road designation if there is vocal opposition. Member Fuerst explained that there are restrictions on residents regarding tree removal and tree pruning on streets with canopy road designation. Member Fuerst added that her personal property contributes a great deal to her neighborhood's canopy and that she has pruned her canopy trees to prevent limbs from falling on her home. Member Fuerst stated that she doe not want to have to pull a permit every time she has her trees pruned and also stated that she has discovered that there is no penalty for trucks who ignore signage designating a canopy road, sO the only penalty is on the homeowner. Member Fuerst stated that it is very nice to have signage stating that the road is a canopy road, but that it does not offer any additional protections for damages except for other homeowners, and the reality is that most people living in an area with a lot of canopy live there because it is their preference to do SO. Member Fuerst stated that Sarasota County suggested that instead of a canopy road ordinance, the City may want to have a canopy road recognition program. Member Fuerst explained that it would be a program that neighborhoods could apply to and would not require votes. Member Fuerst stated that she is not sure if shei is in favor of a strict canopy road ordinance because she sees no benefit to homeowners who provide the canopies Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 7 of 16 for the road. Member Fuerst stated that 70% percent of her neighborhood could vote it in and that many of those homeowners would not have the hard work and penalties that she would be subjected to due to her large canopy. Member Fuerst stated that if the TAC would like to have a canopy tree ordinance they should consider giving more weight to the votes of homeowners who would be directly involved with providing the canopy. Member Fuerst suggested that the TAC consider protections for "Champion Trees" and perhaps require the same number of trees, but that thel home owner should be able to determine which trees they would like to plant and where they would like to plant them. Member Fuerst stated that her feelings have changed since the development of the TAC and that she now believes that trees should be planted in the rights-of-way where they can be enjoyed by the public. Member Fuerst stated that most neighborhoods want trees, and that areas that are not treed are the Rosemary District, downtown, and mobile home parks. Member Gallagher stated that anyone who visits any of the tall buildings in downtown can look out and see the swathes of trees, but that someone looking out on the City 30 years ago would not see thei number of trees and they would not have enjoyed walking down the Main Street that we have today. Member Gallagher stated that an option that the TAC: has not discussed with regard to canopy roads is that there is nothing preventing neighbors coming together to create private covenants for the properties and designate themselves as a canopy street. Member Gallagher stated that if they all agreed, it would be written into their paperwork, which would bind the property owners to the agreement. Member Fuerst stated that one of the reasons she and her neighbors wanted the designation was due to large trucks traveling the street and damaging the trees, but there is currently no restriction for such vehicles. Member Fuerst question how protections for canopy roads could be enforced. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that if the TACi is planning on planting trees in the rights-of-way, canopy roads will be more important than they are presently, both the designation and the tree that will provide the canopy to the street. Member Gilkey stated that he would take issue with any tree that does not allow travel by normal traffic and that street trees should have high enough canopies that trucks can drive under their canopies without damaging them. Member Fuerst noted that Sarasota County and the City of Sarasota have rules regarding canopy height. Secretary Litchet stated that the state fire code specifies 13 % -foot clearance and there is a section in the City code that specifies 14-foot clearance. Secretary Litchet stated that the City evaluates limb by limb with the clearance heights noted in the code as the goal. Mr. Litchet stated that Sarasota County does not always prune their trees to the specified clearance height and will post signs informing the public of the canopy height. Member Patten stated that it seemed like the canopy ordinance was addressing a problem in the wrong direction. Member Patten stated that trucks were the problem and that a canopy road designation could solve that problem. Member Patten stated that he appreciated Member Fuerst's analysis and recommendation and that he tends to support it. Member Fuerst started that Vice Chair Gilkey was correct in his statement, and that maintenance for canopy street trees is a consideration. Vice Chair Gilkey suggested that there be increased protections for right-of way trees and canopy streets, and that pruning standards should be explained as a simple guideline related to safety for vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Minutes of the Meeting of the' Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 8 of 16 Chair Halflants asked Vice Chair Gilkey about the size of "Champion Trees". Member Gilkey stated that the size is a DBH and that he would like staff input on all of his recommendations regarding fees, specific trees, and size. Member Gilkey stated that he would like to create something easy that has multiple applications, and that he is concerned that it may become burdensome. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that his recommendations aim to provide flexibility, person property rights, and protection. Member Gilkey stated that he. found it interesting that during the urban forestry presentation, opinions of the citizens were the first consideration. Vice Chair Gilkey presented his recommendations: Vice Chair Gilkey stated that he has been a resident of the City of Sarasota for 20 years and that, as a landscape architect, he has a great deal of experience removing and planting trees. Vice Chair Gilkey state that he believes the City's current Tree Ordinance is a knee-jerk reaction to cutting down trees and stated that he would like to address the reasons trees are removed as well as the future of the City's canopy. Vice Chair Gilkey provided definitions for the following concepts: Champion Trees - a group of long lived trees that are appropriate for the City of Sarasota, who should be afforded more protection, and should be planted more often. o Vice Chair Gilkey noted that he is finding it more difficult to plant a Live Oak in the City because clients are concerned that once the tree is planted, it cannot be removed. Preferred Tree Canopy trees, understory trees, and palm trees that are Florida-friendly, Sarasota specific, and provide flexibility to mitigation. Undesirable Tree Based on Class Iinvasive species. Vice Chair Gilkey noted that he would like to have. input from the City Arborists to add to the list. Habitats - It's not only a tree, it could be a habitat for birds. Member Gilkey stated that the next few definitions are important to address the flexibility the TAC feels are necessary: Risk Assessment - a species specific, detailed inspection based on the health of the specific tree o Vice Chair Gilkey noted that such an assessment would need to be conducted by a certified arborist. Landscape Management Plan - Plan would have to be provided by a landscape architect and would be site specific. Tree. Advisory Board - made up of citizens, arborists and landscape architects with the goal to assess the: information presented. Code Modification Recommendations: What is a grand tree versus some other definitions needs to be clarified Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 9 of 16 Ability to remove tree roots over 3 inches for some trees if accompanied with a management plan Any tree over 16: inches should be assessed by an arborist or a landscape architect Vice Chair Gilkey noted that city staff is very qualified and should be able to make that determination in the field as well. Tree removal: 0 Trees smaller than 16-inch DBH no mitigation is required 0 1 to 1 mitigation of 2-inch trees $10 per caliper inch and the standard processing fee mentioned by Arborist Miller at the last meeting If mitigation is done with a tree from the Preferred Species list, the mitigation fee is waived. 0 Trees larger than 16: inches that are not worthy of preservation Tree can be removed Tree can be mitigated 1 to 1 with a 2-inch caliper tree $25 per caliper inch unless using a tree from the Preferred Tree list Standard processing fee unless using a tree from the Preferred Species list. , Healthy trees larger than 16 inches that are not Campion Trees $50 per caliper inch - half oft the fee can be waived if using a tree from thel Preferred Tree list 0 Champion Trees $50j per caliper inch - half of the fee can be waived if using a tree from the Preferred Tree list Champion Tree that could be a grand tree If graded worthy of preservation and removal is desired the proposed Tree Advisory Board could determine removal status. $250 per caliper inch if removal is approved by the proposed Tree Advisory Board. Mitigation trees should have a minimum caliper size of2i inches and 8 feet in height. Remove the language for planting offsite. Add language for right tree, right location principle. Add language stating that canopy trees cannot be placed within 10 feet of hardscape or within 15 feet of a structure. Mitigation fees employ a point system that allows non-profits and low-income residents to pay 10- 15% of the standard fees. Homeowners who currently live at the property they own - 50% of the standard fees Different amounts for new residents and commercial construction Chair Halflants stated that he agreed with many ofVice Chair Gilkey's recommendations, but that he found the definition of"Champion Tree" too generic if any tree over 16inches would be considered a "Champion tree" Vice Chair Gilkey stated that trees with a 16-inch DBH or more would be graded with an assessment to determine their health and whether they are of preservation quality. Mr. Mladinich stated that rather than changing a definition, the TAC could provide an exception where the density of trees in a specific area is such that it does not contribute to health of any one tree or is detrimental to the health of a mature tree, and an arborist would have to make that determination to address the issue of crowding. The TAC discussed Vice Chair Gilkey's recommendations. Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 10 of 16 Vice Chair Gilkey stated that he thought that Senior Arborist Miller and Arborist Ullom could make some calls in the field, but if they were not comfortable, they could go to an advisory board rather than the Director of Development Services, and the citizen who has an issue would have the opportunity to discuss it. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that citizens desire such an avenue for resolution. Chair Halflants stated that he would like the Iree Ordinance to be as clear as possible sO that the proposed Tree Advisory Board would rarely be needed, and he noted that going to an advisory board for resolution should be a last resort. Vice Chair Gilkey agreed and stated that the advisory board would only be utilized in cases where the City Arborists do not feel comfortable making a determination. Vice Chair Gilkey added that he has concerns about removing restrictions to create flexibility. Member Patten stated that he supported Vice Chair Gilkey's definitions of"Champion Tree", "canopy tree", > "preferred tree", > and "undesirable tree". Member Patten stated that mitigation for "champion trees" should be larger than a 10-foot spread. Member Patten presented photographs of 60-gallon trees to illustrate size. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that mitigation for a high-quality "champion tree" should be accompanied by a management plan that would address the appropriate mitigation for the specific tree and circumstance. Vice Chair Gilkey also stated that if a property owner wanted to plant a very large tree, the $250 per caliper inch would be reduced. Member Patten stated that in some instances 2-inch caliper trees with 8-foot height would not be appropriate and suggested that container trees have a better chance than field grown trees with roots that are pruned and then covered with burlap, also called b and b trees. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that the issue with container trees is that they are often root pruned improperly which creates circling roots and that it is easier to be certain of the root systems of b and b trees. Member Patten stated that overall, he found Vice Chair Gilkey's recommendations to be very professional and that they implement a scientific approach and best management practices for mitigation and tree removal. Member Fuerst asked Vice Chair Gilkey to explain SPP. Vice Chair Gilkey explained that it is an abbreviation he uses for Cabbage palms and also means species. Member Gallagher explained that he does not want to create laws that determine that property owners have to hire landscape architects to landscape their property. Member Gallagher stated that he tried to be as careful as possible about statements that were factual rather than his opinion. Member Gallagher began developing his recommendations based on the fundamental idea that all of the TAC members would like a beautiful, healthy community and strong and thriving urban canopy, but stated that he cannot divorce himself from his devotion Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree. Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 11 of 16 to uphold the state and the US constitution. Member Gallagher stated that he noted some established facts, with regard to what the TAC knows about the tree canopy, tree ordinance, and how much property is in public and private hands. Member Gallagher stated that the City does not have a master plan for managing trees in its rights-of-way and that there 1S a failure of vision. Member Gallagher stated that he is concerned that if all the TAC accomplishes is refining the text ofthe current Tree Ordinance, Sarasota will not look any different in 20 years than it does currently. Member Gallagher stated that the TAC members all agree that they favor tree-lined streets, shady parks, and treating different areas of the City differently. Member Gallagher stated that he has concluded the following as a result of public input: 1) Most people love trees. 2) Most people will plant and care for trees on their own property without the force of government. 3) Most people enjoy shady streets and sidewalks. 4) Most people would like the freedom to manage their own crop of trees on their own property. 5) Some people like to control other people's freedom to manage trees on their property. Member Gallagher stated that he believes there is a fundamental divide between public and private property in terms of how the TAC proceeds and stated his proposed goals for private property: 1) Promote healthy, expanding tree canopy 2) Protect all persons' inalienable rights 3) Need to not create disincentives to the planting of trees on private property 4) Use City resources wisely Member Gallagher stated that he would like to establish to following as they relate to private property: 1) For decades, in advance of the Tree Protection Ordinance, City neighborhoods had significant tree canopy. 2) City neighborhoods have significant tree canopy. 3) Downtown Sarasota rights-of-way have significantly more trees than they did in the 50's, 60's of 70's. 4) There is no mention of trees in the Florida State or US constitution but private property is identified. Member Gallagher presented the following regarding trees on City Streets: 1) Healthy, expanding tree canopy 2) Beautiful, shady, walkable streets 3) Use City resources wisely Member Gallagher stated the many of the statements of fact he has listed are from JeffSpeck's Walkable City Rules and stated that Mr. Speck would be speaking in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers in January 2019. Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 12 of 16 Member Gallagher stated the following specific recommendations to the 7 duties assigned to the TAC: 1) How! best to address the issue ofresidents who would like to remove a healthy tree to re-landscape: Remove the regulation of existing trees on private property. Member Gallagher stated that if trees area public good, should the City not be compensating them for the value that the tree has brought to the City for the decades that the property owner has cared for the tree rather than taxing them when they decide to cut the tree down. 2) How best to address the issue of unsafe trees on public property: Create a master plan. Create a street tree committee. Member Gallagher stated that he spent 10 years on Sarasota County's street tree advisory committee and that most of the time was spent overseeing plans for County rights-of-way. Member Gallagher stated that the members offered very different points of view, some members were interested in aesthetics, some interested in safety. 3) How best to address healthy trees: Same answer as number 2. Member Gallagher stated that his recommendations for duties 1-7 are the answers he provided for duties #1 and #2. Member Gallagher provided the following comments and recommendations: 1) Get off private property, and leave people alone, they will plant trees on their own and they want to do that, they are frustrated with the code 2) Create a street tree: master plan by the City to deal with the rights-of-way and public areas 3) Create a permanent street tree committee to evaluate situations as they arise 4) Funding that is similar to the art fund - either put the trees on your property or put money into the fund Member Gallagher stated that neighborhoods would be involved with the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in the master plan for their particular neighborhood. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that he appreciates and agrees with Member Gallagher's position but expressed concern that the City Commission would not supportive of completely removing the regulation. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that he believes in flexibility and personal property rights. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that he also believes there needs to be some level of restraint, but that there should be an avenue for tree removal when it is appropriate. Member Patten stated that there were more trees in the City of Sarasota before there were people, and when the City was first developed, there were no controls and developers cleared much of the land. Mt. Patten noted that there were a few areas in downtown that were luckily not cleared. Member Patten stated that the City had to be replanted to regrow the canopy, and that while he agrees that there are more trees now than in 1930 and 1940, if you look back before the area was developed for human habitation, maps show native habitat of pine and palmetto or oak hammock with cabbage palms. Membet Patten stated that if controls are removed, it may be assumed that people will plant trees. Member Patten explained that while Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 13 of 16 it may be true of a certain time period, it should be noted that the people before that scraped the land clean. Chair Halflants stated that, in that sense, Member Patten supports the idea that generally people will plant on a developed piece ofproperty, and that there would be a separate rule for undeveloped property to prevent completely clearing lots. Chair Halflants stated that it does not seem like there needs to be much regulation for existing single-family properties because in time homeowners tend to plant around their homes. Member Patten provided the Southgate area and noted the planting of Norfolk Island Pine trees to illustrate that there is value to which species of tree is planted on a property. Member Fuerst stated that Member Gallagher's point is well taken but that she agrees with Vice Chair Gilkey that the TAC should not attempt to remove all regulations for residential property. Member Fuerst provided an example of a healthy Royal Palm neat an oak tree to illustrate that there may be situations in which mitigation for removal of a healthy tree is not appropriate. Member Gallagher provided several examples of scenarios to illustrate that he believes that personal opinions of neighbors should not have any control over a property owner's rights on their privately-owned property. Member Patten stated that the difference is that plants function as a habitat and act like a community of plants, and planting more and less beneficial plants together creates a beneficial landscape with regard to habitat, stormwater, and shade. Member Patten stated that he believes there is a benefit to knowing the right thing to do to help the ecosystem. Member Gallagher stated that he does not disagree with Member Patten's points, but that government involvement is frustrating for property owners, and that many problems can be solved privately. Member Gallagher stated that, in his opinion, the City will not be better or more beautiful if the focus is on policing as opposed to developing a vision, a masterplan, and obtaining funding to implement the plan. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that the TAC has discussed starting an urban forestry program, and that the TAC is looking to the future. Member Gallagher asked how an urban forestry program would be funded. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that some funding will come from the fees that are imposed for removal of trees and that his recommendations support an increased cost in fees for removal and a decreased cost for trees. Member Gallagher stated that he does not believe that the fees would be enough to cover the cost of an urban forestry program, no matter how much protection or policing is involved, and referred to his recommendation of a fee similar to the art fee for funding. Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 14 of 16 Vice Chair Gilkey stated that he fully supports having a fee on new development to help fund an urban forestry program, but that trees that could live for several hundred years deserve a conversation to make sure that removal is appropriate. Chair Halflants stated that he agrees with Member Gallagher's conclusions but that he does not agree with the way he arrives at those conclusions. Chair Halflants stated that, as a private property owner, he does not have the right to burn plastic in his yard or pour oil into the ground because it effects his neighbors, and that tree removal in one yard may affect the neighborhood. Chair Halflants stated that he generally agrees that most private property owners will not remove large trees. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that owners who are: invested in their property may not remove such trees but noted that Sarasota is currently experiencing a great rebirth and if the restrictions are removed, and if a person is motivated by money rather than their lifestyle, that raises concerns. Chair Halflants suggested implementing an exception for homesteaded property. Vice Chair Gilkey stated that he believes his recommendations can allow flexibility for homeowners. Member Patten presented his recommendations to address TAC duty #8 that are specific to an urban forestry management plan: Member Patten stated that he borrowed from Mr. Northrop's presentation and is aimed at protecting, promoting, and enhancing the City's long-term, sustainable canopy. Member Patten stated the following items as necessary components to an urban forestry program: The process for development of: an urban forest begins as a planning process. Development of an urban forestry team assembled by the City Commission made up of citizens, elected officials, city staff, academic institutions, and non-profit organizations Council will spend 1-2 years identifying community values - Success will be measured on how well community expectations are met Member Patten noted that he believes the process is one worth the investment, that it will take a few years, that it should be collaborative, and that it should utilize all available resources. Member Patten stated that he does not believe it is a very expensive process in the beginning and that cost will remain unknown until the until the City goes through the process. Member Patten stated that the TAC has continually discussed how to develop an urban forestry management plan that creates a sustainable canopy for Sarasota and that includes streetscape, parks, and canopy on private property. Member Patten stated that an asset value determination calculated the urban forest in the City ofTampa at 4.2 billion dollars in 2007 and noted that the urban forest is a capital asset. Member Patten stated that if the community and the City Commission believe the plan is worth the investment, the City will find a way to fund it. Member Patten continued describing components necessary for an urban forestry plan: Inventory of the canopy Member Patten suggested that some monies from the mitigation fund be used toward an inventory. Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 15 of 16 Member Patten stated that the authors of the urban forestry management plan should be all of the directots of all departments in the City because they will have the one to enforce the plan and it will make the plan consistent, sustainable and institutionally supported. Member Patten added that if the TAC can reflect back in 10 years and know that they developed a unified, sustainable, concentrated plan to increase the streetscape, the canopy, and walkability of the City of Sarasota, they will feel like all of theit time and effort was well spent. Chair Halflants stated that he is in support of Member Patten's ending summary and is in support of funding a plan but does not support funding an inventory. Chair Halflants stated that the TAC is in agreement on a number of things, including an urban forestry plan and providing increased flexibility. Chair Halflants stated that he would be happy with all of the 3 suggestions presented by the TAC members to improve to the current tree ordinance and added that the TAC must decide on their direction. Secretary Litchet stated that the TAC asked staff to provided recommendations, and he explained that the packet provided to each member contained a cover letter, staff recommendations on each of the 8 duties assigned to the TAC, the specific zoning code sections that staff feels would be impacted, and a packet with all of the TAC meeting minutes for each meeting. Secretary Litchet stated that in terms ofl his cover letter, he reviewed all of the meetings to the best ofhis ability and attempted to synthesize what he felt were points of agreement. Secretary Litchet noted that many of those points were obtained from work that Member Patten sent to the TAC: members, after each meeting, which outlined areas of discussions that he felt were agreed upon, as well as points that were noted in the minutes by the former Chair. Secretary Litchet stated that there were items that he did not incorporate that may have been in agreement and stated that he tried not to support anything that specifically deluded the existing tree ordinance, as the TAC asked for staff recommendations. Secretary Litchet provided the example of the minimum tree inches and stated that the TAC may want to incorporate 2-inch trees, but staff recommended 3-inch trees. Secretary Litchet explained that he took some liberties regarding the dollar amounts for tree mitigation and noted that some of the numbers he recommended were very close to some of the numbers discussed by the TAC at the current meeting. Secretary Litchet stated that in section #8, thete are recommendations of support by staff regarding an urban forestry plan. Secretary Litchet also stated that staff had some specific recommendations regarding champion trees" and explained that staff considers a "champion tree" tol be a tree thatis a champion within a certain species. Secretary Litchet added that staff prefers the term "grand tree". Secretary Litchet stated that the TAC has met the 12 months provided by the City Commission to take public input and stated that he would like to have specific recommendations completed by the end of February. Secretary Litchet explained that he prefers the end of February as a deadline because it is when the City begins discussions regarding the the next fiscal budget. Secretary Litchet stated that if the TAC plans to recommend an urban forestry program, Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee December 12, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 16 of 16 beginning that process is going to take money and there will need to be a discussion with the City Commission regarding which monies will be used for funding. Secretary Litchet stated that it is critical that the TAC get back to the City Commission with a preliminary report in March or early. April at the latest. Secretary Litchet suggested that all members should review staff: recommendations and arrive at the next meeting with written motions. Secretary Litchet explained that the TAC's job is to convince the majority of their board of specific recommendations. Secretary Litchet noted that any dissenting opinions will be noted in the final report and will also be documented in the meeting minutes. VII. DISCUSS UPCOMING TOPICS TAC members will present prepared motions at the next meeting. VIII. DISCUSS NEXT MEETING DATE The date of the next meeting was confirmed for January 16, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. The date of following meeting was confirmed for January 30, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. - - - M Michael Halflants, Chair Himothy Iitchetbecretary