CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TREE. ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 14, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Members Present: Shawn Dressler, Chair Members Mary Fuerst, Chris Gallagher, Trevor Falk (arrived 3:10), Michael Gilkey, Jr., Rob Patten Members Absent: Michael Halflants, Vice Chair City Staff Present: Tim Litchet, Director of Development Services Mark Miller, Senior Arborist, Don Ullom, Arborist Robin Carter, Development Services 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. CITIZEN's INPUT - 3 MINUTE LIMIT (30 MINUTE TOTAL) 1. Nathan Wilson, Arlington Park Neighborhood, thanked the committee for their work; suggested that, besides saving old native trees / an important consideration is to plant new trees to replace the ones lost; said the City has the money to do it; noted that, since July 2016, citizens are anticipating the tree inventory, the City received only one bid, the cost was $275,000 dollars, and the cost to maintain the inventory is unknown; stated that there are 250,000 dollars in the mitigation fund now, which could be used to plant a lot of trees; 3" caliper trees cost $375.00 dollars each, $325.00 for installation, and $300.00 dollars to maintain them until established; added that 251 trees could in the ground now with the money in the mitigation fund; and suggested that TAC should review the existing code provisions, recommend existing provisions are enforced, find out who is in charge of the mitigation fund, and bring all these things together. 2. Jude Levy - stated that Senator Stube is running into cross-winds in his Bill; referred to an item in the packet that has been published by a nationwide approved group relating to street trees and street treatments; stated that STOP has asked for a new review of issues relating to sidewalks because they want trees; explained that one cannot put trees on a 4-ft sidewalk, they need wider sidewalks; and encouraged TAC to use street trees that develop canopies because they can drop the temperature by 10-15 degrees on a hot day. Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 2 of 16 IV. PRESENTATION FROM CANDIE PEDERSEN, GENERAL MANAGER, PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TAC Chair Dressler introduced Ms. Petersen, General Manager of Parks and Recreation Department, who will speak about the criteria used to determine where to plant trees. Ms. Pedersen presented a slideshow, originally prepared by Dr. Gilman and Traci Partin, Urban Forest Hurricane Recovery Program, University of Florida, which she has updated with her own information and photographs; referred to a map, and said Sarasota is in Zone 9B which allows a lot of flexibility, because you can use trees from the adjacent Zones 9A and 10A; explained that the hardiness of the tree depends on the cold temperatures the tree can take; noted that when choosing the right tree, one considers what trees are growing in the area, visits local gardens and local nurseries, uses books, or web programs also sees what is growing in the neighborhood she pointed out that everything that is growing in the local nurseries may not do well in your yard; said that her previous job was in phosphate restoration, and she was required to purchase plants from nurseries within a 50 mile radius because the future well being of a tree depends on the area, the zone, where the tree grew; she suggested to get specific information about growing and selecting trees for your area; addressed site evaluation, including above ground site attributes, below ground site attributes, potential site modifications, maintenance practices and desirable tree attributes; Ms. Pedersen stated that above ground site characteristics include environmental factors and urban factors and stated that there is not much concern for slope exposure, but light exposure is of concern in the downtown area, due to the height of the buildings; explained that there are a lot of plants that do well in partial sun, but blooming plants have a hard time in the winter when the sun's position changes; added that the wind is of concern downtown because the structures create wind tunnels; pointed out that many locations in the City are within a quarter mile form saltwater and they are subject to salt spray. The plants in these areas need to be salt tolerant; noted that another concern is the salt and the higher Ph in the re-use water that is used to water plants; said that we plant trees near other trees for canopy coverage, but at the time of selecting a tree one must keep in mind the size of the fully grown trees; addressed overhead wires; noted that trees can catch on fire easily when they touch the wires and therefore utility companies and their customers pay over 1 billion dollars each year to trim trees way from power lines. We need to select trees that, when they mature, they will not touch the power lines; said that another urban factor to keep in mind is street and security lights; talked about street/s sidewalk clearance, and that bylaw, the trees need to be lifted 14 ft. over a roadway, for service trucks, fire trucks, moving vans etc., to pass, and 81/2 ft. over sidewalks; recalled that last year she had to remove three large oaks because of clearance issues; pointed out that another concern is signs, plant large trees near low signs and small trees near tall signs; sometimes trees are planted too close and block the view of signs, and showed an example of a tree on Orange Avenue that blocks the view of a STOP sign, and will have to be removed due to public safety concerns. She stated that trees planted near buildings is also a concern; people complain about the black olives and the oaks on Main Street, added they are required to have a canopy and to maintain the canopy, and when the tree is rubbing against building's canopy the people want the trees trimmed; she noted that the City has not done a good job selecting the right Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 3 of 16 trees, or giving in enough room to grow SO that we can have a canopy;added that sometimes the space is too narrow, and the trees are pruned SO that the building can be maintained or to keep the rats from coning on the roof; stated that some trees are planted too close to the building, the tree is trimmed on one side but this creates other challenges; noted that vandalism is a concern in the urban area; explained that when she plants small trees, she goes back to find that someone has picked them up an ripped them to shreds, and this happens frequently, sO the City is planting larger trees, but even then sometimes a limb will be cut off. Staff also has to comply with the requirements of the Tree Ordinance. She cannot remove a tree without consulting Mr. Mark Miller, Arborist, to inspect the tree, and confirm that they are in compliance with the Tree Ordinance. Ms. Pedersen continued with a discussion of below ground site attributes, including commonly seen exposed roots which means that the tree does not have enough room and it will be struggling soon; stated that staff takes soil samples, tries to identify good soils, and prevents soil compaction, sO that the soil is conducive to the development of a good root system in order to later have a good tree which will live a long time; pointed out that staff has to consider compaction, soil texture and soil Ph; noted that our soils are sandy; explained that most of the native Florida trees prefer acidic soils, but if there is construction nearby, the soils are more alkaline and mixed with cement products; said compacted soils have poor drainage, and also result in shallow root systems, which create concerns during storms; added that soil salinity and salt water intrusion are a local concern. The City lost three trees this year due to this issue; stated that instead of trying to modify the site, which is not always possible, it is best to select the tree that is best for the site; added that contaminants, such as petroleum waste products, can remain in the soil for a long time; suggested that if something is not growing in an area, one needs to take a soil sample, or find an alternative solution. Ms. Pedersen stated that the City does not plant many trees in the right of way because of the existing utility lines, or the space will be used in the future for utilities. For example right now they are talking about putting a force main on Osprey Avenue, sO some of the trees in the right-of-way must go because people need water and sewer services; said that they cannot always put trees in the public right of way because it has the potential to receive utilities, one cannot assume that if there are no utilities there now, there will not be in the future; added that some areas, like the Rosemary District, are very limited in their capacity to have trees planted in the right-of- way; recommended that when you are thinking about planting a tree always call " sunshine81l'for information; noted that the root space restrictions are the biggest challenge of the department, because the roots of large trees are damaging the sidewalks; added that the City has tried to solve the problems and has repaired the sidewalks several times, but the trees are aggressive and they create safety concerns; continued with descriptions of site modifications; stated that they work with the utilities department to find out where they are not planning to place utilities; added that one can change the soil, use soil boxes, and use gravel as the second layer of sidewalks SO tree roots can travel through; summarized the options for solutions to tree/sidewalk conflicts: root barriers, increased distance, alternative sub-base material, tree grates, channeling roots, cluster planting; elevated sidewalks; and street light and wire location alternative surface materials. Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 4 of16 Next, Ms. Pedersen discussed maintenance practices, pointing out that at the time one selects a tree one must think of the maintenance requirements of the tree, such as irrigation, pruning, especially structural pruning early-on in the tree's life. Fertilization is required twice a year 8-12, and in the summer 0-0-16, especially for the trees downtown, a pest control program, and regular clean up, especially collecting the cocoanuts before they mature and fall to hurt property and people; added that after all those considerations, one is ready to select a desirable tree based on its functions, including shade, erosion control, bark stabilization, and wildlife support, canopy density, growth rate, wood strength, etc.; and concluded that before one selects a tree, one has to envision that tree and its character and provide the components necessary for the tree to thrive. TAC Chair Dressler asked how, when, and where the City decides to spend money to plant trees in the public right-of-way, is there an active planning function for it; noted that there have been comments that there is money in the mitigation fund that we are not using, and TAC would like to confirm that. Ms. Pedersen stated that the City does not plant trees in the public right-of-way because by Ordinance, that space belongs to the adjacent property owner; pointed out that the City has trees on Main Street which are the property of the adjacent property owner, and the City has agreed to take care of all the trees; explained that the adjacent property owner, in order to plant a tree in the right-of-way, has to get a right- of-way- usage permit; pointed out that the City does not have the right to plant anything on the right-of-way because it is someone else's property, the City also has to get a right-of- way usage permit, and pointed out that then therei is the issue of who will maintain the tree. TAC Member Patten stated he thought the property line goes to the right of way, and the right of way belongs to the City. TAC Chair Dressler confirmed this statement; and asked how staff decides when to plant a series of trees down a median, or how to allocate trees for public parks. Ms. Pedersen said that they start off with what they have now, and what is planned for the future; explained that in the parks, they look at what is the future plan for that park; explained that if right now she planted twenty live oaks in a certain area of Payne Park, she knows that this may change in the future, it may be a soccer field, SO she would be wasting time and resources to do that; pointed out that there are very few spaces in the parks to do that, because they have taken many mitigation trees already, and al lot of trees are scheduled to come in the future; stated that parks are limited as to what they can take because they need room for development, especially in the larger parks. TAC Member Patten asked what regulations she would like to see changed to help her do her job. Ms. Pederson said that it works fine for her, the only challenges she faces in the downtown area with the canopy trees, there is always a canopy conflict downtown, but it does not relate to the Ordinance. TACMember Patten stated that one of the reasons TAC: invited her to speak was to find out if there is a plan for planting trees, and it appears it is more ad hoc, if someone asked to put some trees on a site you will consider it on that site basis, you will not go to a book and say here is what the City's plan is, and decide based on the availability of funds. Ms. Pederson Minutes of the Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 5 of 16 agreed, stating that since her department plants and maintains the medians, they have to coordinate with the department of transportation for their medians, which in most cases have trees; the right of way is: in question here, even though iti is outside the private property boundary. The ordinance says that any tree, shrubbery, and any landscaping is the responsibility of the adjacent property owner to maintain. TAC Member Patten asked what trees she recommends for planting in urban areas, considering the limitations of the urban area. Ms. Pederson stated that there is not one perfect tree, it depends on the site; described a program that the Cityl had, where if a resident requested it, the City would plant a tree in the adjacent right of way, but the program was not successful for a number of reasons, one of which is that residents did not take care of their trees; noted that one area where this program was successful is on a street near Morton's Market, where all residents agreed and requested trees for the median in the entire street; explained that they could not get the trees they requested because they would interfere with the power lines, and because the width of the median was only three feet; said that they got smaller flowering trees and it looks beautiful in the spring; added that there are different trees that can accommodate the site, the location, and any other challenges. There is a number of trees even non-native trees that work well here and she likes them all because they all have something different to offer, and staff does not have to choose only one or two specific trees. TAC Member Patten asked if she thinks it would be an advantage to having a systematic approach to tree placement regulations, sO that the City would have a centralized area, let's call it an urban forestry center, sO that people would come systematically and say OK we have $200,000 dollars in this fund, we want to plant some trees, or the utilities staff say stop planting in this area; noted that now it is done ad hoc; asked if staff does this in a systematic way. Pedersen said that they do not have systematic regular meetings, but her department communicates with other departments all the time, she talks to Mr. Mark Miller all the time, he is the law and she is the end user, SO she gets the benefit of his knowledge of the trees. V. CONTINUED COMMITTEE TOPIC: COMMITTEE TOPIC:HOWTO BEST ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF HEALTHY TREES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY THAT CAUSE DAMAGE TO PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE (E.G. UTILITIES), OR THAT IMPAIRED OR REDUCE THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TO USE AND THE ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTIES. TAC Chair Dressler explained that this topic is continued from the last TAC meeting; summarized what was discussed on this topic in the last meeting and the input he has received about this topic; said that there are two aspects of this, what do you do about the trees that are already there, you do not have new development, you have roots going "haywire, " views that are being blocked; noted that you have an existing problem and you do not know what to do about it; added that you also have the preventative measures, trying to prevent these things from happening again in the future, and what is the best way to achieve that; pointed out that from the preventative stand point TAC talked about the ght-reatthenghtphae concept, selecting the tree that best matches the application, and eventually having a list of trees, which would not necessarily be the only trees you can plant, but it would be a set of trees that a homeowner, a developer or someone who advises Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 6 of 16 them can say here is a set of trees the City approved for this context; added that TAC discussed the use of technologies, which are constantly evolving and entering the market, regarding root zones, keeping the roots out of the pavement, sidewalk technologies, different materials, root zone enhancement, structures of soil, etc., and related requirements to be followed in plantings of new projects; pointed out that TAC talked about existing trees, for instance the palm trees in front of the bank, and other places where sometimes they are allowed to remove and replace, not always with the same trees or the same size of trees, with some form of mitigation; said that they talked about requirements for new technology, which potentially they get implemented into the replacement to avoid the root problems in the future; added that TAC also talked about an expanded set of criteria for removal, where trees seem good candidates for removal but do not meet the set of the City's current removal criteria; explained that if potentially something is going to destroy infrastructure, now you cannot do anything about it because it has not destroyed the infrastructure yet, added that currently one cannot do anything about trees that have half of their canopy, and they are potential hazards, because when the next storm comes through these limbs are going to fall on an awning; noted that TAC heard about the idea of having a review board, because no code is perfect, we will not be able to predict every situation, sO the idea of having a group of experts, that then could weigh in with some guidance from the code but would allow flexibility, evaluating each case specifically; stated that TAC discussed the idea of a forestry program, which Mr. Patten was trying to allude earlier, and mentioned it in past meetings; explained that this is a group whose specific role is to be dedicated to urban forestry, and you may combine that with an urban forestry master plan, whose purpose is to: incorporate. high quality urban forestry in the City; added that then the focus of the City would be urban forestry, as opposed to focusing on limiting the removal of existing trees, a lot of which are not in good condition, are not in the right place . They were not the right tree at the right place when they were planted, but under the current code cannot be removed; and added that potentially this shifts the focus from mitigation to planning and planting trees that are in keeping with good forestry TAC Chair Dressler stated that the reason this item was continued from the last meeting is because TAC did not have time to talk about the elective removals, for example a property owner has other goals for his property, but removal is not alllowed by the code; stated that he is a firm believer of personal property rights, believes that if you work hard, save some money, buy a house, pay all the fees, taxes, insurance, or maintenance on that property, you probably ought to. have some pretty broad rights of what to do with it, and that should extend to trees; said that he understands that trees are a community good, and he agrees with that, but they are a community good that is paid for by individuals; said that he has three very large laurel oaks on his property, laurel oaks are notorious for dropping limbs, one came through a building on his property, and while they are community good and serve a lot of purposes, he did not get a check from the community to help him pay for the hole in the roof; and said that he wants TAC to discuss this because it represents a big conflict in the code. TACMember Fuerst stated that she has the same problem, she has thirty-three palms, three live oaks, and other trees, she actually planted trees, but she thinks she should be able to remove a tree from the property should she choses to do sO, because there is sO much shade, Minutes of the' Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 7 of 16 nothing else can grow at this point; added that her street will be one of the canopy streets, and asked if she removes a tree will she be causing a problem to. her neighbors, iti is a gray area; concluded that she will keep the trees as long as they can, but she also agrees with the constitutional property rights, it is her land. TAC Chair Dressler stated that City staff has done a greatj job of providing information to TAC Members; noted that there was a canopy coverage study done by Sarasota County that looked at the change of canopy between the years 2002 and 2013. Keep in mind the County has more lenient requirements that the City regarding tree removal on private property, they have a grand tree ordinance, the grand trees in the county have to be much bigger than the grand trees in the City, but there are no restrictions to electively removing a tree on your own property, unless it is a grand tree; noted that in the County, between 2002 and 2013, the canopy coverage actually increased from 30% to 35% under much less strict requirements; added that this is telling him that allowing people to remove trees is not the same thing as forcing them to remove them, and most people want to have trees on their properties; said that if there is a set of criteria that changes, that allows people to remove a tree from my property, people are not going down with a chain saw to remove all their trees, they want their property values to stay, but they also want to be able to reach their goals of what they wants to do with their property. TAC: Member Gallagher stated that for the last two meetings, he is trying to collect a list of principals that are emerging in TAC's conversations; made an analogy, with the City's Form Based Code process, and as he is watching that process, it occurred to him that there were some good reasons to want to do some rezoning, because there were some problem areas in the City where certain zoning districts bumping against some other created constant conflicts; added that there are lots of parts of the City were people are just happy, they do not want a new zoning code; asked why we universally try to resolve some very specific and isolated problems; said that what we have something similar with the trees; stated that there are different solutions to different things. A Citywide Ordinance has to be broken down to different parts and different ways to handle those, using different procedures, and different things that need to be done; stated that, the first principle is that whatever recommendations emerge here, they have to be sets of things that deal with trees in different areas; noted that the second principle.. recalled that when Duany came in to doi the downtown plan, fifteen years ago, hel had this principle, he said the we cannot make every street a primary walking street, there are: not enough resources and you have to live with the cars, so somewhere you have to allow for parking garages. He suggested therefore to focus on the streets that have the strongest likelihood of walkability, put the strictest standards there, and make them great streets, and as the City shifts and changes, it is upon the citizens every few years to look and say maybe we need to name some more primary streets, because look at what is happening here, all of a sudden there is a pedestrian attractor down this street, a lot of people are walking in this area; and concluded that there whatever resources and dollars we have, we cannot do it throughout the entire city. TAC Member Gallagher stated that the reason everyone is present at this meeting, every TAC member, the public that came to speak City staff is because all love a healthy and extended tree canopy, and agree that we need shaded streets and sidewalks; pointed out Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 8 of 16 that those are the two big goals, and how to get to these goals in a downtown primary street, versus on how to get there on a single family residential street located outside of the core; pointed out that after today's presentation, and all the presentations TAC has heard up to this point, having trees downtown is a bigger deal than just relying on the: next development project to come along and shove a couple trees there because we need a couple trees there; stated that it needs a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach such as the City saying these two streets have the worse problems with sidewalks. Let's do a really thought out comprehensive plan for that street and get it in the capital improvements program; added that the other thing he would say for the downtown program, where there is not enough room between the curb and the sidewalk, if he were putting together a "brain trust" to deal with this issue, street by street, one of the people on the "brain trust" would be the people who are dealing with parking; explained that putting a tree every 30: ft. - 40 ft. is different from saying that every 60 ft. we are going to give up a couple of parking spaces, we can push the curb out another 8. ft., and now we have a space of 12ft. by 25 ft. to actually get a decent tree in there; suggested that the "brain trust" needs to include the parking department, utilities department, maybe the building department and the zoning department, because when you design that stuffi it makes sense. For example, if you go down Main Street, and there are 25 ft. or 50 ft. property lines, you can say the trees should be 30: ft. apart. If there is aj property line there that is the best place to put the tree, not where the sign is going to be in the middle of the property, or where the front door is going to be; emphasized that it requires a thoughtful approach with all the different disciplines in there, and it requires a more comprehensive long term approach; added that we have a process right now that is very complicated for everyone trying to figure out how to get a permit and deal with it, as opposed to like the art fee; and said take the fee, let the City take the money and do more thoughtful plans about the right- of-way, as opposed to trying to require every private developer to negotiate a conversation whether the tree goes on a park or a neighbor' S place. TAC Member Patten agreed with all TAC Member Gallagher said; added that he hit on the bigger discussion about tree lined streets for the city, it has canopy, itl has trees, it has green space, it is done on a comprehensive unified smart basis with professionals who know what they are doing. Then if you have a situation where you have to put money into a fund, where does that money goi to, what is that money used for; pointed out thathe thinks TAC has the opportunity to recommend to the City that the citizens want a city with canopy, whatever that means, but we have the opportunity to say, Sarasota, we are a wealthy community, we can do what we want to do, we can set our own boundaries, we can set our own character, let's go ahead and make this an important part of our community, lets have an urban tree department that assesses these plans, who knows what to do with the money when it comes in for mitigation, that has a forward vision sO that thirty years from now we have something spectacular; repeated that he agrees with everything TAC Member Gallagher said; stated that TAC, as a citizen's group, has the opportunity to explore what that might look like, and tell the City that iti is worth spending the money because trees are important; continued talking about personal property rights; said that when he was in permitting a Iong time ago, he learned that there is a balance between the health, safety, and welfare of the community and the rights of the individual, and that this is the only way government can pass laws that address these things; pointed Minutes of the' Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 9 of 16 out that trees relate to all three of these, health, safety and welfare, and there has to be flexibility, a way that people can keep their property rights, and if there is cause for a tree to be moved then it has to be part of a larger plan of how is it going to improve our city somewhere else, where: is that tree going to go, where is that money going to go; noted that we do not. have that now; stated that the reason TAC was put together was to address these issues that staff has expressed concerns about; suggested that TAC address these concerns at the micro and macro levels, and have some flexibility as we go through the topics; stated that staff needs flexibility to move so that they can make best professional decisions; said iti is a wholistic approach, a smart approach; citizens in a group like this cannot solve these issues, but can encourage our City officials to put together a group like that to do this, and will give us the tree city that we all love; added one thing about the canopy in the county growing over the years without having tree protections on private property, it should be noted that the county was mostly built out on pasture land, improved land sO the trees will go in when the communities are built, where the City, to some extent, was an established canopy that has older trees; pointed out that the residents who live in these houses are not causing the problems, rather it is the people who come in, buy the lots, strip the lots of everything, max out their zoning, put in big old mansions, and put in a couple of sticks and call them mitigation, and put in something that may not be very appropriate for the future; said that is what generated his interest in TAC; people who own their homes want the trees in their homes. TAC Member Falk spoke about the non-permitted weekend cutting of trees that Mr. Wilson mentioned in his presentation, and asked if TAC lifts the restrictions, what would the difference be between a non-permitted and a permitted cutting of a tree; asked if pruning is considered a non-permitted cuttings or total removal of trees; added that if the permitting process is changed it will be harder to keep track of people who are removing trees; and expressed concern about increased non-permitted cuttings. TAC Chair Dressler stated that the group discussed the last time the topic of code enforcement and the Code itself, and in his opinion a Code with flexibility and easy enforcement will be better enforced; added that he supports the idea of keeping track of tree removals through the issuance of a permit even if the Code allows more. flexibility, but that is not going to change the people who are not using the permitting process the right way. TAC Member Fuerst stated that it is different when a homeowner wants to replace his laurel oak with another tree, from somebody buying and clearing a lot, which is what many residents saw happening in their neighborhoods; added that she would like to see an ordinance that is reasonable, allowing people to re-landscape if they want. TACMember Gilkey stated that he loves trees, but trees are perishable, every tree is going to die; noted that considering the: impacts of the development in the downtown core where we. have: new structures, new sidewalks, wider roadways, houses built, new drainage, new elevations required by FEMA, and we are causing professionals to try to save trees that will be dead in ten years, and we are expediting that process by not allowing them to take them out and potentially mitigate that; pointed out that we should want trees to be planted Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 10 of 16 year-round, sO that as mature trees are going away, we have other trees taking their place; added that as far as removing trees, if the tree is a liability, a hazard, or potential hazard this has been confirmed by a professional, then the tree should come out. We would not want to be in the way of damaging someone's S property or someone's health within that; said that we are restricting development on one's property; said if you want to take out a tree because you do not like it, you can do it ifiti is something that can be replaced in a five- year window, for example he likes cabbage palms, and the migratory birds love them, and he can have a truckload of them here at any time, all sizes, where as an oak tree that has been here for two hundred years, you cannot. He understands that. A holly tree is great, but at full maturity is twenty feet tall, and you can have that replaced in a five-year window; asked if one should geti in front of a person who wants to redevelop their property and they want a nice tree that reflects their architecture or their personal style; pointed out that where he would pause is in the cases of a native tree that is located outside of the buildable setbacks, it is in great shape but the homeowner says he does not like it; he does not have a problem with all the small trees, or understory trees or palm trees because that he can make those types of trees better in a very short period of time; said that he does not want to interfere with someone's plans to put a pool in his yard, but hel has a problem with someone removing a healthy native tree that is located outside of the buildable area of the lot, that tree will be there for two hundred years; concluded that he believes in property rights, but he finds these situations tough. TAC Chair Dressler made a point about the urban forestry aspect; noted that there are two parts to it, one is the plan itself, SO if one is developing a private property, it is on frontage, and the frontage is identified in a master plan to have trees that are sO many feet on center, the private property developer ought to have a choice to either pay into a fund and have an implementation come out of that fund, or because he wants to have a certain tree or wants to go to a certain nursery, he ought to have the right to plant those trees himself and not pay into the fund; added that the other aspect of urban forestry is the need for a dedicated person or group of people, or a department, that has the ability to evaluate non- standard situations where there is a conflict, but a decision needs to be made sO that in the end we have trees; stated that both these two aspects are important, the plan and the department, and the biggest advantage of that is that it takes away the chance aspect from the way we treat mitigation today in the City; explained that today if you have a lot in the downtown core, that has small buildable setbacks, regardless of its zoning, you have the ability to develop a lot of property there, it is very valuable; continued saying that if you happened to have ten large oaks, you are really unlucky, because you will not be able to develop that property, because currently, the way the mitigation is set up you either you will not be able to afford to replace those from the mitigation fee standpoint, and still have a viable project, and you are not going to be able to plant all the mitigation trees back on that site; said that the planned urban forestry setting, or a forestry masterplan, or a Forestry Department, as opposed to a strict mitigation set up is the best way to determine what our future canopy is, concluded thati it will yield into a high-quality development who will pay into the fund, or plant those trees based on a plan that exists. TAC: Member Falk stated that, unlike mitigation, urban forestry is susceptible to economic changes and dips; he feels that if the City went in the direction of an urban forest, and we Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at: 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 11 of 16 had another economic downturn, they can say we do not need this urban forestry department, just like the planning department, which was axed ten years ago and we just goti it back. He can see in an economic downturn the City saying urban forestry is no longer important, and we lose the Code, the mitigation, and perhaps we do not have the urban forestry program for the duration of the downturn, two, five, ten years. TAC Member Gilkey stated that mitigation will have to happen anyway; explained that if the Urban Forestry department allows us to have these larger islands where you can have the trees planted, we have that, we own it; pointed out that what is being discussed is that now we are forced to plant trees where we as professionals know they are not going to thrive; noted that in last week's testimony TACheard that the average urban tree has a life of nine to fifteen years; added that he visited the site of a medical building he did in 2000 to see the oak trees that he planted and had purchased at the best source in Florida; noted that the ones in the parking lot island show no vigor, and those outside of the island are much larger; stated that as a professional he would never suggest that a tree like that be planted in a ten foot square because he knows it will not survive, but the code mandates that we must have that; added that in the same building they were required to have "x" number of parking spaces of' "x" amount of square feet, sO it: is a complex situation of how you line that up; and suggested that this board that The TAC talked about earlier, can loosen and fix that, and say this is where the canopy trees go, because there is enough planting room to grow SO that the tree is viable for their one. hundred years lifespan. TAC Member Patten stated that the three things TAC Member Gilkey mentioned are not mutually exclusive, and mitigation can be part of them, and can help pay for the urban forestry group; said that you would not want to weaken the code because you have an urban forestry group. He would see the urban forestry group being the lead for managing these matters, and for helping tell where the money comes from, where they go, how to stay sustainable, SO if there is a downturn to the economy there is money coming in from some source, and maybe it is not taxes that fund it. He concluded they can be combined. TAC Chair Dressler stated that what he suggests is different than what was just said, it is not focused on the trees that are existing on a site from a mitigation dollars or replacement standpoint, but on the characteristics of the development and the size of the site; explained that if you have an one acre site and it has a certain amount of frontage and it is going to be a residential development that type of project would have to pay "x" amount of money into a fund, whether it is called a mitigation fund or an urban forestry fund; added that this way, regardless if you are in an economic boom or downturn, every development is going to pay into that fund, or plant what the plan would have said for them to plant on their property in the first place; pointed out that this will move the City to a place where we plant based on good planting practices rather than mitigating based on how many trees happened to be on the site in the first place; noted that some time you have no trees on the site, and you get no money in that case, sometimes you have too many trees on the site to produce a viable development resulting in unproductive land not contributing to the City but could have contributed to a forestry master plan. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 12 of 16 TAC Member Gallagher stated that TAC was specifically tasked with the Tree Protection Ordinance, which he will recommend at some point to be renamed, but there is another portion of the Zoning Ordinance that deals with parking lots and landscaping, and it includes a regulation that every fifteen parking spots we create this 8 ft. wide area where a tree is supposed to survive in, when it would be better if the tree was at the edge of the parking lot, where it would actually have some room to grow. TAC Member Patten added that in that scenario, you could neck out, loose a parking spot, give yourself a wedge where they can plant a tree, that kind of flexibility. TAC Chair Dressler stated that this evening's discussion skipped one item, and wants to step back to discuss agenda item 8. VI. COMMITTEE TOPIC: SHOULD THE SAME CRITERIA BE APPLIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO ISSUE A PERMIT TO REMOVE A TREE CLASSIFIED AS A CLASS II INVASIVE SPECIES AS IS APPLIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO ISSUE A PERMIIT TO REMOVE A NATIVE TREE? TAC Chair Dressler stated that in his professional experience Class II and some Class I invasive species are extremely dangerous to our high quality native and naturalized tree species and vegetation communities; noted that Class II invasive species should require a permit to be removed. TAC Member Gilkey supported the concept of permit for the removal of invasive species, but thinks that mitigation should be severely less, if at all, for the removal of an invasive species. Mr. Ullom, Arborist stated that permitting would help, because often people come down and they do not know the native versus the invasive, there is a protection aspect in that permit. TAC Member Falk agreed that there should not be a fee for the: removal of an invasive tree. TAC Member Fuerst said there should not be a fee, but there should be a permit SO that people are not messing around with trees that should not be taken out. TAC Member Patten added that something else should be planted to replace the invasive tree or money contributed to the mitigation fund. TAC Chair Dressler said he would differ as to whether or not one would be required to provide a replacement, or mitigation, or pay anything if you are removing an invasive plant, because by removing it you are producing a community good; said that a lot of times you will find strangler figs attached to light poles and have a significant diameter of their canopy that in some cases it is bigger than the light pole; he feels iti is a straight forward issue. Mr. Litchet said, to putiti in perspective, when there is controversy removing an invasive tree, the biggest issue he has dealt with was the false banyan trees and we have a lot of those. He thought if they met the criteria, they may not be controversial to remove; added that people are very attached to the false banyan trees. There was one on 4th Street and Central Ave. that generated something like 80 e-mails and threats of appeals, and staff asked the developer to get three separate arborist reports etc.; pointed out that this is the reason this topic is on the agenda, it is a real problem. This thing was cracking up sidewalks and he was not held at great esteem by many people when he said that it had to go; concluded that it is not an easy question, it needs discussion, he believes there should be a different standard, but the Code currently has the same standards, and if staff applies those, some people are really attached to some of the invasive trees. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 13 of 16 TACMember Gilkey asked if there is a goal of canopy percentage that we want; added that they are doing a development now, on a completely forested property; they feel that they are being dinged" by building on it, by all the mitigation that is required, the same thing goes for this Class IIi invasive species, a banyan tree that has a 100 ft. by 100 ft. canopy and it is 20 ft. tall versus a Brazilian pepper that is not giving any shade; asked if that come to play, what is the canopy that we are replacing on each particular site. TAC Chair Dressler stated that he has a couple thoughts on that; one thing that would be of great benefit of having a forestry master plan would be that we would have a clear idea of what the goal is; added that he does not know that this group is set up to answer the question of what is the percentage of canopy we should be striving for as a community; noted that this is in the purview oft the City and the community; pointed out that having a master plan that says this is what we decided on, this is what it is, and this is where we plant it will go a long way to resolve issues like the one Mr. Litchet just described. Where a lot of people rallied around Class II invasive species, people will understand the there is a plan for this street to be tree lined, and this development would have to pay into a fund or plant trees themselves; concluded that maybe that goes to alleviate some oft the concerns. TACI Member Patten added that people see a tree, they do not know Class I or Class II, they see a big tree being cut down, that is what 99% oft the people see. If they knew that another better tree is going to be planted, and it was part of a plan to make the City tree'd, he thinks they could swallow that a bit easier, and also explain to people that this is a digressive tree, thatprevents growth, it is not beneficial to the ecosystem, etc. This exchange ofi information would help, especially in the cases of removing a banyan, a beautiful tree that has been there forever. VII. COMMITTEE TOPIC: SHOULD THE CURRENT SLIDING SCALE" MITIGATION STANDARDS FOR TREE REMOVAL BE: REVISED, AND IF SO, HOW? TAC Chair Dressler stated that TAChas discussed this topic quite a bit without using the term sliding scale; added that he thinks a forestry masterplan or department could essentially replace this sliding scale, because you would have an overall master plan that identifies and shows physically what the goals are for trees in urban conditions in the city; it would be related to producing high quality, well planned, well placed, well maintained trees in the urban environment, rather than a sliding scale of mitigation based on the chance that you have a lot or a few trees on your property. TAC Member Patten suggested a combination of the two for residential developments. Discussion ensued about the Zoning requirements of planting trees in the parking lots, and also requiring residential developments to plant trees that are going to come down in 20 years, which is a problem. Mr. Litchet pointed out that the mitigation scale is a little different for a new development of multifamily or commercial, where one is required to have both a perimeter buffer around the new development of 5 ft. to 25 ft. and requires certain trees and certain bushes to be planted in that; added that there is also a requirement for your specific parking lot. You have to have a certain number of trees in the parking lot, in tree islands of small dimensions that are located after every 15 parking spaces; stated that the mitigation scale is different if you are taking trees down as part of the new Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 14 of 16 development; explained that then you also have to provide either a certain number of trees, or pay: into the mitigation fund, or put them in the right-of-way, or nearby private property; added that the mitigation scale slides. Mr. Ullom stated that if you are removing a tree 3"- 15" is $40.00 dollars per inch, 16" to 30" is $50.00 dollars per inch, above 30" is $70.00 dollars per inch. Mr. Mark Miller said that if you are removing a tree the number of mitigation trees are as follows: if you remove a 4"-15"tree, it requires one three inch mitigation tree; if your remove a 16"-29" tree, it requires is two 5" trees; added that if you remove a tree over 29" it requires three 7"mitigation trees, and the payment end of the scale is different, for a 4"-1 12" tree it is $40.00 dollars per dbh inch removed, for a 12"-23" tree: it is $50.00 dollars per dbh inch removed, and for a tree over. 23" it is $70.00 dollars per dbh inch removed. Mr. Litchet said that they try to have room to plant the tree on site, try to mitigate on site. If it cannot be done, then they try to work with Candie (Pedersen) to see if we can find a place in the right-of-way, or in a nearby park and if that is not possible because some of the parks have no more room for planting trees, then pay into the mitigation fund. That is how it works. TAC Member Gallagher pointed out that a development is required to do a site plan, but they do: not intend to get started for about a year, to be followed by a year of construction. So, let's assume that someone did not have room to put trees on site and now they are looking to put them in a public place, it is like you have put a reservation on that spot in the park and no one else can put a tree there; and concluded that it is very difficult to manage the whole thing from top to bottom. TAC Member Patten stated that the sliding scale, as is now, it is not workable; described his recent experience in one of his projects where, at the cost of $15,000 dollars, they replaced a laurel oak with another mature, larger live oak, a beautiful tree, but according to the Ordinance this was not sufficient mitigation; said that the Code has to be changed SO that it is sensible; added that if someone wants to spend the money to put in a nice big tree, instead of seven oak trees all over the place, next to each other, when maybe three will make it, and maybe four will not make: it, it is a weird planting anyway, we have to change the sliding scale or have some flexibility sO that a professional can look at that and say, you just took out this 25 ft. laurel oak which is in poor shape, you just put in a 35 ft. live oak which is in a great shape, we can see that it is an even switch; noted that this is not allowed now. TAC Member Fuerst said that this goes back to what was mentioned earlier about a "removal committee" sO in a situation like that, you can go to the committee and say well in this case, what you have done is right. TAC Member Gilkey stated that it will be hard to write a specific code to address all these weird variables, sO staff should have the authority to make a decision and be protected from repercussions. Regarding the sliding scale, he thinks there is a difference if you remove al holly tree or a cabbage palm, or an one hundred year oak tree, he does not know how the sliding scale works for that; he does not like planting 7" caliper trees, they will not be as healthy, typically in the nursery and in the street there are two ways to get 7" 'caliper Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 15 of 16 trees; you go to a nursery that specializes in that tree and you get a tree that is very expensive, or you get at tree that has been passed over for six years and seasons, and has not been maintained, and this tree is very inexpensive; noted that given the opportunity for a developer to spend the money on a quality 7" tree, it is easy for the developer to say I will save this $5,000 dollars and purchase this unhealthy tree; added that the number of nurseries that specialize in growing big trees are very narrow, the market value is very high, and also the variety of trees you can get are very narrow, sO you end up with a monoculture of one or two trees that even grow in nursery standards to that size; stated that on his projects he wants to have six or seven varieties of trees, and many of those grow up to 11/2 to 2" caliper, which most times they do not meet the requirements of any trees that are taken down and staff say these do not meet the requirements. He explained that next year these trees will be beautiful, but staff cannot do anything about it. TAC Member Gallagher noted that when we have storms like the one we. had in the fall of 2017, the stock is all gone, sO you run into problems with permitting and COs. The other thing is that if you are talking about human beings and you are talking about a three-year old versus eighty-year old, and you had to save one of them, you will probably save the three year-old; [laughter] let me put it in another way, the three year old would not have less value than the older one; the three year old has a long life span in front of it; it is implicit in this that an older tree is more valuable than a younger tree, and maybe that is true sometimes, because it has a canopy, but it certainly is not always true that an older tree is a more valuable than a younger tree. TAC Member Gilkey added that this is the reason that people go to the same trees, the live oaks which live over a hundred years and the laurel oaks that live 50 - 60 years. Mr. Mark Milller announced that in the middle of March there will be a seminar on the other coast of Florida about the future availability of mitigation trees due to hurricanes. Hel has registered to. attend and hopes to have some: new information on mitigation to share upon his return. TAC Member Gallagher noted that the other mitigation problem the City has now is that there are many trees in parks or right of ways around town that have clearly stunted growth, they are: not doing well, buti if you try to take any of those trees out to replace them with a healthy tree and do the right thing, it will cost you $2,500.00 dollars for each, SO developers choose not to spend the dollars and leave that tree there. Discussion ensued. TAC Member Falk referred to the best bad example Mr. Mark Miller showed to the committee, the new development in Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores, in a historical floodplain. This house that tried to meet the mitigation standards and they planted fourteen 7" caliber trees right next to each other, the direct result of the mitigation requirements; noted that this is a problem, even if you love trees; stated that if the current regulations lead to such results they need to be revised, we cannot have stuff like that happening in residential neighborhoods, those trees will never grow. Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting February 14, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Page 16 of 16 City Arborist Ullom stated that when people come. forward with a good plan that does not fit the Code, staff should be able to adjust situationally. For example, fourteen trees in one spot is tight, using a larger caliper tree should meet your mitigation requirements. TAC: Member Patten stated that the TAC could try to develop a sliding scale, which would be painful, but if staff wants to recommend something to improve it, write it down an put iti in TAC Member's email box, to see what they have to say; added that TACi is here to find some answers to the problems staff deals with every day, sO rather than the TAC trying to recreate the scale, be honest, you are professionals, make these calls; TAC is not going to vote on them just review them. TAC Chair Dressler stated that it is very useful to have this type of input; for the benefit of the audience, he summarized TAC's goal, explaining that they will move through all the topics that TAC has been charged with, discuss them at high level and in detail, and share ideas relating to them; added that he is tracking the specific ideas that deal with specific issues; said that onçe they have gone through all of the topics, they will come back and create some motions on how to deal with them; pointed out that TAC is not planning on making any motions for a little while, but ifTAChas specific suggestions from staff or from the public, The TAC is looking at them, and he is trying to bring up those suggestions at each meeting. TAC Member Gallagher noted that when you have that 4 ft. place to plant the street tree, the limbs of the tree should be 8: ft. above the sidewalk, how do you do that when you first get the trees, from day one you have a Code problem. VIII. COMMITTEE TOPIC: ARE THE CURRENT FEES CHARGED FOR TREE REMOVAL AND FOR MITIGATION OF REMOVED TREES FAIR AND REASONABLE? SHOULD THERE BE A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN SUCH CHARGES THAT ARE IMPOSED ON HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND ON OWNERDEVELOPERS OF COMMERCIAL PROJECTS? Item was postponed to the next meeting. IX. DISCUSSION OF UPCOMING TOPICS /1 DISCUSSION OF NEXT MEETING DATE Next meeting will be on February 28, 2018, 3:00PM - 5:00 PM X. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 4:57:40 PM. 1 LV Shawn Dressler, Chair Timothy Litchet Secretary