CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 27, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers Members Present: Shawn Dressler, Chair Michael Halflants, Vice Chair Members Mary Fuerst, Chris Gallagher, Michael Gilkey, Jr., Rob Patten, Trevor Falk (arrived at 3:05 p.m.) Members Absent: All members were present. City Staff Present: 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 Dressler called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Arborist Miller read the roll call. TAC Chair Dressler reminded everyone to speak into the microphones for clear audio recordings. II. PLEDGE OF CONDUCT Arborist Miler read the Pledge of Conduct adopted by the City Commission of Sarasota. III. CITIZEN's INPUT 1. Barbara Campo Ms. Campo stated that at a 2015 Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations (CCNA) meeting, citizens from many different neighborhoods complained about canopied lots being cleared by developers. Ms. Campo stated that SOS - Trees held 2 meetings at City Hall where city staff and neighborhood tree experts provided education related to caring for trees and the City's tree removal policies. Ms. Campo explained that this meeting led to the passing of a resolution to improve the Tree Protection Ordinance, after which mitigation became an issue. Ms. Campo stated that people are stuck in what they see as a heavy-handed interpretation of the code. Ms. Campo thanked the Tree Advisory Committee for their attention to the Tree Protection Ordinance. 2. Norman Dumaine - Mt. Dumaine stated that the issue of flexibility related to the Tree Ordinance has been a constant part of the discussions in the TAC meetings he has attended. Mr. Dumaine stated that, as the President of Glen Oaks Estates Homeowners' Association, he has observed the need for flexibility with the Tree Ordinance in the Glen Oaks neighborhood. Mr. Dumaine stated that the residents of the neighborhood have cared for trees in the City right-of-way for years and that some of those trees have had to be removed due to storm damage, insect infestation and disease. Mr. Dumaine explained that as an organization, the homeowners' association is unable to participate in the City's Tree Mitigation Plan, and that available funds for tree mitigation cannot be used for planting trees in the City right-of-way. Mr. Dumaine stated that the City has a long-term vision for a successful mitigation plan and noted that Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting September 27, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 2 of 11 may provide reasonable guidance for situations that do not fit neatly into determinations of the Tree Ordinance. Vice Chair Halflants asked for confirmation regarding Mr. Dumaine's statement related to the inability for the homeowners' association to utilize mitigation funds for City rights-of-way. Arborist Miller explained that mitigation funds can be used to plant in City rights-of-way with an agreement from the Utilities Department stating that there are no underground utilities. Arborist Miller stated Mr. Dumaine was referring to a program in which single-family homeowners can sign up to receive a free tree who would like to plant that tree in the right-of-way rather than on their private property. Arborist Miller explained that even if there are not utilities currently in the right-of-way, the: right to install future utilities has been reserved. 3. Jude. Levy- Ms. Levy stated that she would like the' TAC to have flexibility, common sense and economy regarding tree removal and mitigation for homeowners. However, she stated that she is in favor of increased mitigation for developers and large-scale builders both in tree formulas and mitigation fees. Ms. Levy urged the TAC to consider that it can take quite a long time for mitigation trees to provide benefits comparable to the large trees they are replacing. Ms. Levy pointed out that large caliper trees are extremely expensive. Ms. Levy suggested that aerial photos be taken to observe the current tree canopy in the City. 4. Renee Gluvna Ms. Gluvna spoke to the TAC regarding 5 Canary Island Date Palms that have been lost to insect infestation, disease, and storm damage. Ms. Gluvna stated that the homeowners' association is unable to replant the trees because they are in the right-of-way and requested increased flexibility for such situations sO that unused funds can be used in neighborhoods that do not have common property. 5. David Lough Mr. Lough stated that he is Co-Chair of the Rosemary Open Space Committee and presented several photos of the. Rosemary District. Mr. Lough stated that his group is in the process of doing an inventory of areas that have poorly maintained landscaping and are currently taking steps to mitigate with better trees. 6. Lou Costa (letter read by Mary Fuerst) - in his letter, Mr. Costa stated that there is $275,000 in unused mitigation funds. Mr. Costa explained that currently Glen Oaks Manor residents are unable to plant in the right-of-way even if they ate willing to care for the landscape. Mr. Costa then stated that there has been sO much concern about tree. issues in Downtown Sarasota but that outlying areas are not being addressed. Mr. Costa stated that flexibility will be necessary in an urban forestry program and specifically requested flexibility to plant in neighborhood rights-of-way with the caveat that underground utilities will not be harmed. IV. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 30TH MEETING MINUTES There was a motion by Member Patten, seconded by Member Fuerst to approve the August 30th meeting minutes. All were in favor. None were opposed. Arborist Miller asked for the record to reflect that Member Falk arrived at 3:05pm. Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting September 27, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 3 of 11 V. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING WHETHER THE CURRENT "SLIDING SCALE" MITIGATION STANDARDS FOR TREE REMOVAL SHOULD BE REVISED, AND IF SO, HOW? Chair Dressler identified the four main issues that require determinations: 1. The size of mitigation trees - Chair Dressler stated that the TAC has agreed that smaller mitigation trees should be allowed. Chair Dressler suggested 2. inches as the caliper size and 8 feet as the minimum height for mitigation trees and noted that trees of this size are more readily available at nurseries, there is a larger variety of trees of this size, and that 2-inch caliper trees are vigorous gtowers. Member Patten expressed the opinion that 2 inches is not a large enough caliper for mitigation trees and that he would prefer the minimum caliper to be 3-inches and the height requirement be 8 to 12 feet. Chair Dressler stated that 2-inch caliper trees perform better over time than 3-inch caliper trees. Chair Dressler explained that each time the caliper or pot size of a tree is increased, the number of available species decreases. Member Gilkey noted that: itis easy to get the best quality tree at the 2-inch caliper size and that using smaller caliper trees protects against planting inferior quality trees to save money. Chair Dressler stated that he is in favor of citizens being able to gain extra credits for planting larger trees but pointed out that if the caliper size requirement is too large, the City will run the risk of a streetscape monoculture. Vice Chair Halflants noted that the City Commission was right to appoint experts to be on the Tree Advisory Committee and that other committee members should look to the landscape architects to make determinations. Member Fuerst questioned whether flexibility should be written into the Tree Ordinance for various situations or whether a board of review should be implemented to deal with such issues. Member Gikey stated that moving toward an aggregate caliper inch requirement could be a way to provide some flexibility in the Tree Ordinance. Member Patten noted that flexibility has been the ongoing theme throughout the TAC meetings. Chair Dressler stated that a minimum caliper size is necessary due to wear and tear on site and stated that 2 inches is the ideal size because it is readily available and also sturdy. Member Falk questioned whether "sticks" or canopy would be the metric used in the determinations. Chair Dressler clarified that caliper inches would be the metric used for mitigation trees. Chair Dressler also suggested that the TAC members continue to discuss an urban forestry program as they finalize their recommendations. Member Patten noted Member Falk's point regarding canopy and urged the TAC to read the City ofTampa's tree regulations. Member Patten also noted that the TAC has clearly discussed the desire to maintain the City's canopy. Member Falk questioned whether this recommendation could lead to counting sticks rather than canopy. Chair Dresslet compared planting fewer large trees versus planting smaller trees. Member Falk stated that he is in favor of the using smaller caliper trees to create flexibility for mitigation. Vice Chair Halflants stated that he understands Member Falk is apprehensive regarding the aggregate rather than the minimum tree size, he noted that it is a good point to look at it in terms of canopy and gave the example of questioning whether the same canopy lost could be regained within 5 years with mitigation. Vice Chair Halflants also noted that discussions regarding canopy size will present a clear understanding that the goal is to rebuild the canopy with more trees. Chair Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting September 27, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 4 of 11 Dressler questioned the time horizon that should be applied and stated that a code should not necessarily have such a high level of complexity. Chair Dressler noted that such details would be better served in an urban forestry master plan. Member Gilkey stated that he thinks the urban forestry program was concerned with sticks, and that the canopy calculation was easier due to aerial observations sO they weren't concerned about the number of "sticks". Member Gilkey explained the importance and benefit of understory trees to a substantial tree canopy. Member Falk stated that he favors a minimum standard but explained that the TAC has seen examples of several 2 or 3-inch trees right next to each other just sO the mitigation standard would be met. Member Falk questioned if a decision about the minimum caliper size will address those types of examples. Chair Dressler stated that creating a minimum caliper size will address the issue of planting small trees too close together and explained that his suggestion includes the option of planting less larger trees rather than having to plant many small trees. Chair Dressler provided that one 8-inch caliper Live Oak tree could be substituted for four 2-inch trees as an example. Member Gilkey cautioned against Chair Dressler's substitution suggestion and stated that he favors replacing a smaller tree for a larger tree, but that he does not agree that a larger tree should be able to be substituted for several smaller trees. Member Patten stated that the goal of the TAC is flexibility and simplicity when possible. Member Patten read recommendations from the Executive Summary: Clarif certain landscape standards and mitigation requirements in the code such as, wbat are tbe suitable site rplacement factors. Clarif the bypes of frees required in certain locations. Estabksh qualily requirements for preserved trees. Create mitigation requirements that are based on the results of the City's free canopy study. Member Patten stated that staff would prefer flexibility to be sensible about replacing trees in mitigation situations and the TAC would prefer some certainty relative to maintaining or improving canopy and that those two goals should be addressed at the same time. Member Patten stated that he is in favor of voting for a reduction in caliper size for the sake of flexibility, but that he would prefer such a decision to be included with something more substantial due to the multiple factors that exists beyond caliper size. Chair Dressler agteed and stated that an urban forestry plan would be best suited to address the need for flexibility. Member Patten stated that the language used to make this recommendation should include the minimum caliper size as well as larger caliper sizes and that the arborist will need the flexibility to determine whether a 2-inch caliper tree is appropriate or if something larger is required. Chair Dressler agreed and stated that this could also relate to the topic of planting on site, planting nearby of paying into a tree fund. Member Patten suggested continuing to discuss all oft the points before voting because there may be a latger motion that could contain several discussion topics. Chair Dressler stated that he prefers the flexibility to allow the person who is removing a tree to decide which mitigation option makes the most sense for their situation. Member Patten mentioned the importance of survivability. Member Falk asked how often smaller trees become stunted. Member Gilkey stated that the smaller the tree is, the better the survivablity, and that structural pruning is completed before the tree reaches 2 inches. Member Gilkey also noted that 2-inch caliper trees rarely become stunted and have lowet requirements than larger caliper trees. Chair Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting September 27, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 5 of 11 Dressler mentioned that monetary difference between the quality of trees decreases as the size of trees decrease. Arborist Miller stated that the City currently requires that mitigation trees live for 1 year, but that zoning required trees are not included, and suggested that the TAC may prefer to create protection of those trees. Arborist Miller stated that the City also currently requires a minimum 4-foot canopy spread, and that ifthe TAC is leaning toward reducing the caliper, they may want to consider also reducing the canopy spread of mitigation trees. Arborist Miller also mentioned that there is currently no penalty for removing trees smaller than 4 inches. Vice Chair Halflants stated that removal of trees from one property to be planted on another after the 1-year survival period has passed seems rare. Member Gilkey suggested that the TAC should try to have mitigation trees planted on site, where it makes sense, and promote planting in the right-of-way. Member Gilkey explained that he has an issue planting mitigation trees off site due to liability and insurance. Member Gilkey suggested that a portion of the monetary savings that will result from the decreased size of mitigation trees should go into the permit fee to pay for things such as an urban forestry program. Chair Dressler questioned Member Gilkey regarding whether the TAC make planting on site a requirement and if it should be incentivized. The TAC discussed the number and size of trees that should be required for a site, and the hierarchy of preferred planting location. Member Gallagher stated that he is not: in favor ofmany ofthe TAC's suggestions. Member Gallagher suggested that there should be a tax for everyone in the community and if that is not favorable, then permits should include a fee similar to the Art Fee that would include that whether you have trees or not, money will go into a fund. Member Gallagher stated that the best placement for canopy is in the streets and parks for public use and noted that one of the problems is that the architect and a landscape architect may have different ideas about how to landscape a newly developed property after the building is complete. Member Gallagher stated that he thinks that the process is more cumbersome than necessary, that the Art Fund idea translated for trees would be preferable and noted that fees could be reduced for those who would like to plant trees on their properties. Member Gallagher stated that the TAC has been talking about an ordinance to protect trees when it is really about planting trees and having a plan for planting trees, not using staff time and energy for tree protection. Chair Dressler stated that he agreed with much of what Member Gallagher expressed and noted that having a minimum tree size and the ability to aggregate would allow developers to plant the number of trees that make sense on a property, design the landscape plan well, and pay into a tree fund for any required mitigation that does not work with the plan. Chair Dressler stated that payment into the fund is substantial enough to begin to fund aj program for the planned planting of trees. Vice Chair Halflants stated that he would further simplify by designating a minimum amount that everyone must pay into the tree fund and let property owners plant on their property if they choose to do sO. Member Patten pointed out that several of the TAC members have wealthy clients and work downtown and mentioned that he would like to make sure that the TAC's discussions are Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting September 27, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 6 of11 going to help people who do not have a lot of money. Member Patten questioned whether there need to be different standards for members of the community or associations that are not wealthy. Member Patten asked Arborist Miller what his experience is regarding single family home owners. Arborist Miller stated that it is his opinion that single family homes should be classified differently than new construction, and that fees and mitigation should be separate. Mr. Mladinich asked the TAC if there is a majority that wants to have separate standards. Chair Dressler stated that he would like to make a motion, though it is his opinion that this information is more related to fees. Member Patten stated that if there is a sense that the TAC views single family residences differently than larger development or redevelopment of a City lot, the TAC would want to ensure that homeowners do not get saddled with excessive cost. Member Fuerst stated that she considers the homeowner of existing single-family homes to be different from large-scale development or redevelopment. The TAC discussed the number of categories of development situations and how they are defined. Mt. Mladinich expressed concerns for practical limitations regarding Vice Chair Halflants' suggested tax if on site planting is not incentivized and stated that if many people chose not to plant trees on site, the City could end up with a lot of funds to plant mitigation trees and no space to plant the trees. Member Gallagher stated that the amount of money that could be spent on street trees could be almost infinite. Member Gallagher also stated that the planting of a tree on Main street may be a $15,000 operation rather than a $250 operation, if done correctly, and noted that there are. many of examples ofimproperly planted trees. Member Gallagher also stated that with more money in a tree fund, the City could have more expensive projects, such as planting urban trees, rather than small scale projects on individual properties. Member Gilkey stated that he would like to promote the planting oft trees from a residential perspective. Member Gilkey stated that he does not want to remove too many tree planting requirements within the Tree Ordinance. Member Gilkey noted that he would like to simplify the code but also that he prefers the planting of trees tather than being able to only pay into a fund. Mr. Mladinich stated that his previous comment was directed at not providing the option of planting trees on a site or requiring only a fee, and that the option of planting the trees or paying the fee provides flexibility. Chair Dressler stated that he has done a lot of work on large developments and that he has never been part of a development that did not prefet to plant trees on site. Chair Dressler stated that developers want to put that value on their site SO that they can sell. Member Gallagher stated that the same thing happens with the Art Fee. The TAC discussed the details and process of paying into a tree fund versus planting trees in a particular location. Minutes of the Tree. Advisory Committee Meeting September 27, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 7 of 11 Member Patten reminded the TAC that they have been tasked with providing recommendations regarding 7 specific items and that the Zoning Code is separate from the Tree Ordinance. Member Patten suggested different categories of development, such as existing single-family residential versus new single-family construction versus commercial large-scale residential, are considered when the new Tree Ordinance is drafted. Chair Dressler stated that he would like to make motion but would like more input. Member Fuerst stated that some categories may require subcategories and that low-income should be a subcategory. Member Fuerst stated that she would prefet that low-income new projects be considered differently. The TAC discussed making a motion to view existing residential single-family, new single-family development with a subcategory for low-income housing, large-scale commercial development and existing multi-family with no new construction, as different categories. Member Gallagher asked. if the TACis suggesting that there will be different solutions based on the category. Chair Dressler stated there is a different criteria and different sliding scale and/or current fees based on the category. Member Gallagher question whether that would only apply to the sliding scale. Chair Dressler clarified that the 2 criteria being discussed were sliding scale and current fees, and that the TAC has decided that they need to consider those criteria categorically. Mr. Mladinich stated that the categories could be viewed as mitigation/ sliding scale for tree removal, and an added fee on new construction regardless of tree removal. Chair Dressler clarified that the TAC is considering that those 2 instances could apply to 4 different categories: new development - not single-family, new single-family, existing single-family, existing other property. Member Gilkey stated that each category has a different reason for wanting to remove a tree. Member Gallagher stated that the building code has a more stringent requirement in a multi- family building than a single-family building for safety reasons and questioned how a case could be made to give single-family homeowners more flexibility than other types of properties or construction. Member Gilkey stated that the motivations for tree removal for each category is different: 1) the homeowner that lives in the house will be motivated by protecting and beautifying their property; 2) the homeowner for new development is motivated by gaining more square feet; 3) the developer is motivated by monetary gains of the project; and 4) the existing developments are motivated by maintaining the property. Member Gallagher questioned whether the categories should instead be existing versus new. Chair Dressler stated that he could agree. Vice Chair Halflants stated that a homeowner living in their homestead property is very different from othet situations and should be afforded more flexibility in the landscaping of their property than a for a commercial building. Vice Chair Halflants stated that separating into 4 categories would provide more clarity. The TAC continued a discussion regarding categorical distinction properties. A motion was made by Vice Chair Halflants to consider the Tree Ordinance in 4 categories: 1) existing single family, 2) new single-family, 3) existing development that is not single-family, 4) new development that is not single-family, and an exception for affordable housing. The motion passed 6-1. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting September 27, 2018, at: 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 8 of 11 2. Planting location of mitigation trees - Chair Dressler stated that a large part oft the TAC's discussion has been whether there should be a requirement for mitigation trees to be planted first on site, then nearby, and finally, fees be paid into the mitigation fund. Chair Dressler noted that the TAC would be more likely to strike a balance between providing flexibility and providing good quality trees or funds for an urban forestry program if the current succession of planting preferences were instead implemented as equal options. 3. Will mitigation be required for undesirable trees? - Chair Dressler stated that the SIPS acronym created by Member Patten may be appropriate for defining undesirable trees and noted that aj permitting process will be required for the removal of such trees but questioned the necessity of mitigation. 4. Like/kind tree for mitigation = Chair Dressler stated that currently there is a requirement for mitigation with a like/kind tree. Chair Dressler stated that the TAC needs to reach a decision as to whether this requirement is necessary. Chair Dressler explained that the current Tree Ordinance states that trees must be replaced with a like/kind tree and that the Director ofDevelopment Services must decided whether to allow a variance from the ordinance. Member Fuerst asked Arborist Miller if he could foresee issues arising from discontinuing the use of the language *like/kind" and replace it with "right tree, right place". Arborist Miller stated that he is concerned with the ambiguity of the term "right tree, right place" and stated that it complicates the meaning of tree mitigation which raises concerns that shade trees may be replaced with palm trees. Chair Dressler stated that there are currently requirements for native and Florida-friendly trees that must be met on each project. Member Gilkey stated that there are not current requirements for residential uses of exclusively native trees. Arborist Ullom clarified that Florida Native and Florida-friendly trees exclude prohibited species and any tree listed on the exotic pest plant list. Chair Dressler clarified that if a tree is not considered prohibited or an exotic pest species, it is already considered Florida Native or Florida-friendly. Arborist Ullom confirmed. Member Patted asked Arborist Miller about residential mitigation issues. Arborist Miller stated that it is problematic when someone wants to mitigate with a palm tree and that the current issue is the availability of tree species. Arborist Miller provided the example of removal of an Oak tree and replacement with a Magnolia Tree and stated that this scenario is usually not problematic. Member Falk asked for clarification regarding replacement of palms for other trees. Arborist Miller stated that if the owner ofa property is not on the barrier islands and they want to replace an Oak tree with a palm, it is an issue, but that if someone would like to replace an Oak tree with another type of shade tree, there is typically not an issue. Member Gilkey clarified that like/kind is canopy for canopy, understory for understory, palm for palm. Arborist Miller confirmed and stated that he does not require species for species replacement, but rather canopy for canopy. Chair Dressler suggested that from a new development perspective, changing the phrase from like/kind to like/category would enable mitigation issues to be quickly resolved because fees can be paid into a fund for usein public spaces if mitigation requirements are not met. Chair Dressler explained that that this would prove more problematic from an existing single-family home perspective due to a lack of resources that could result in financing issue. Minutes of the' Tree Advisory Committee Meeting September 27, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 9 of 11 Arborist Miller stated that there are very few situations in which a homeowner of existing property has to mitigate if no there is no active construction. Member Gilkey stated that it seems like there is no mitigation because those homeowners are not allowed to remove trees without construction. Member Patten stated that the TAC is trying to address that issue with #2 of the duties oft the Tree Advisory Committee and questioned ift the language would create issues for existing residential homes. Mr. Mladinich stated that if the like/kind phrasing was removed it could create the issues for single-family existing residential homeowners. Mr. Mladinich explained that the TAC can choose to remove the phrasing if they choose to or add new language that addresses canopy. Member Falk stated that tree protection is important in addition to the planting of new trees and questioned if the issue of increased variety of trees can be addressed with a smaller minimum caliper size. Member Gilkey stated that he agrees with the like/kind phrasing but stated that he has 6 Live Oak Trees on his property and if one of them had to be removed, he does not feel it would be appropriate to mitigate with a like/kind tree. Arborist Ullom stated that would be a situation in which flexibility should be used. Member Gilkey stated that he does not take issue with the moniker of like/kind and worries that other issues can arise if it is removed. Chair Dressler stated that like/kind is confusing and suggested changing like kind to like/category. The TAC discussed mitigation and canopy coverage. Mr. Mladinich suggested that a consensus, motion, or vote regarding the earlier discussed 2-inch minimum caliper mitigation tree, aggregate DBH, of payment of a certain amount of dollars for an aggregate DBH that is not replaced, could add a lot of direction. The TAC discussed making 3 separate motions or combining them into 1 motion. Member Gallagher asked if someone would be able to mitigate the removal of a palm with the planting of an oak tree. Chair Dressler stated that an oak could be planted but would not count toward mitigation. The TAC discussed mitigation concerns. Chair Dressler made the following motion: To allow a minimum size of 2-inch caliper, that the sliding scale categories stay the same, and that the number of trees required for mitigation in those categories stay the same for all mitigation trees. Allow to aggregate caliper inches into fewer trees of latger sizes, sO long as it is incremental of 2-inch calipers sO that they add to the total amount that would have been required to be replaced. To make that functional, it would be necessary to have the ability to select whether mitigation trees will be planted on site, nearby in the same neighborhood, or pay into the tree fund at the option of the agency who is mitigating. Also, replace the requirement for like/kind with a restriction on mitigating canopy tree removals with palm trees. The motion was not seconded. Member Patten stated that the motion is 3 separate motions and asked for it to be parsed into 3 motions. The TAC discussed the sliding scale for the purpose of clarity. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting September 27, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 10 of 11 Mr. Mladinich questioned the aggtegate and stated that he understood that when a tree is removed, it can be replaced with any number of trees so long as the total combined caliper inches of the replacement trees was equal to the number ofinches of the tree removed and the minimum size of the replacement trees is 2 inches. Chair Dressler explained that currently if a 21-inch tree were removed they would have to be replaced with two 5-inch minimum caliper trees and that the motion would decrease the minimum caliper amount to 2 inches, enabling a 21-inch caliper tree to be replaced with two 2-inch minimum caliper trees. The TAC continued a discussion regarding Chair Dressler's motion, for the purpose of clarity. Chair Dressler amended his motion: To allow a minimum size of 2-inch caliper, that the sliding scale categories stay the same, and that the number of trees required for mitigation in those categories stay the same for all mitigation trees. Allow to aggregate caliper inches into fewer trees of larger sizes, sO long as it is incremental of 2-inch calipers sO that they add to the total amount that would have been required to be replaced. The agent must guaranty the survival of mitigation trees for a minimum of 2 years. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Halflants. The motion passed 6-0. Chair Dressler made a motion: To make that functional, it would be necessary to have the ability to select whether mitigation trees will be planted on site, nearby in the same neighborhood, or pay into the tree fund at the option of the agency who is mitigating. Member Patten expressed that he was not in favor of the motion based on the option of payment into a tree fund in lieu of mitigation. The TAC discussed the appropriateness of the fees option for mitigation. Chair Dressler amended his motion: The agent providing the mitigation trees will plant on site. If the agent is unable to plant on site, they will have the option of planting nearby or paying into a fund, at their discretion. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Halflants. Member Patten requested clarification. The TAC discussed planting trees on site. The TAC decided to postpone the discussion until the next meeting. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING WHETHER THE CURRENT FEES CHARGED FOR TREE REMOVAL AND FOR MITIGATION ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IF THERE SHOULD BE A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN SUCH CHARGES THAT Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting September 27, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers 11 of 11 ARE IMPOSED ON HOME OWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND ON OWNER/DEVELOPERS OF COMMERCIAL PROJECTS. This Agenda item was not discussed. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED CANOPY TREE ORDINANCE. This Agenda item was not discussed. VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS IN ADDITION TO ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7 OF THE DUTIES OF THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. This Agenda item was not discussed IX. DISCUSS UPCOMING TOPICS Chair Dressler stated that the next meeting would be a continuation of the discussion from this meeting. X. DISCUSS NEXT MEETING DATE The date of the next meeting was confirmed for October 10, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. The date oft the meeting following the October 10th meeting was confirmed for November 19, 2018. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:18 p.m. - Chair to the Tree Advisory Committee Timothy Litchey, Secretary