CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 9, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio Members Present: Shawn Dressler, Chair Michael Halflants, Vice Chair Members Mary Fuerst, Chris Gallagher, Michael Gilkey, Jr., Rob Patten Members Absent: Trevor Falk City Staff Present: Timothy Litchet, Director of Development Services and Secretary to the Tree Advisory Committee Mark Miller, Senior Arborist Don Ullom, Arborist Angela McLeod-Wilkins, Development Services I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL TAC Chair Dressler called the meeting to order at 3:05 P. m. Secretary Litchet read the roll call. Secretary Litchet stated that Member Falk called to inform that he was detained at a job site and would be unable to attend the meeting. TAC Chair Dressler reminded everyone to speak into the microphones for clear audio recordings. II. PLEDGE OF CONDUCT Secretary Litchet read the Pledge of Conduct adopted by the City Commission of Sarasota. III. CITIZEN's INPUT - 3 MINUTE LIMIT (30 MINUTE TOTAL) 1. Jono Miller - Mr. Milller stated that a tree permit was obtained based on an extensive landscape plan for the property at 916 Indian Beach Drive. Mr. Miller stated that many trees were removed, the property was sold, and no new trees have been planted, and then suggested that a case study be conducted regarding the site. Mr. Miller also referred to previous discussions regarding offsetting tree losses by paying rather than planting trees and questioned whether the City has enough space to plant new trees, stating that the public parks are well canopied and that the right of way areas are not designed to accommodate a lot of trees. 2. Lou Costa - Mr. Costa approached the committee regarding the portion of the code that requires 50% native planting. Mr. Costa stated that he is most concerned about planting the right tree in the right place and suggested that the City provide the flexibility needed for the right tree in the right place. Mr. Costa also suggested planting Florida-Friendly plants and native plants where appropriate and inviting city employees from the previous month's TAC to gain their perspectives on right tree right place planting. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting May 9, 2018, at3 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio 2 of 6 3. Paula Lambert - Ms. Lambert stated that she has one shady lady" canopy tree on her property and several palm trees. Ms. Lambert explained that she would prefer to have only palms on her property and that she has concerns about her canopy tree due to it's proximity to the backflow as well as the tree's future impact on plumbing, sidewalks, and her driveway. 4. Mark Toomey - Mr. Toomey stated that he has a 5,100 square foot lot and has 25 plus trees on that lot. Mr. Toomey explained that he would like the option to remove a tree and replace with a different tree without applying for a permit. 5. Patrick Gannon - Mr. Gannon stated that he sent information that was collected on 10 development projects in the Rosemary district to the TAC. Mr. Gannon explained that the purpose of that information regarding tree removal and mitigation was to provide contextual information to assist with decision making. Mr. Gannon suggested that the TAC review the current cost of tree mitigation and estimated cost of future mitigation, and that the Tree Advisory Committee consider the loss of benefits, such as air pollution carbon sequestration, that occur due to the removal of mature trees. 6. Joe Russo - Mr. Russo stated that his company has been building homes in Sarasota for approximately 5 years. Mr. Russo suggested that the code be changed to accommodate each individual lot, stating that the types of trees planted should be at the homeowner's discretion. Mr. Russo noted that he finds the current City code to be too restrictive. IV. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 21ST AND APRIL 18TH MEETING MINUTES There was a motion to approve the March 21 minutes and the April 18 minutes. All were in favor. None were opposed. Chair Dressler recommended that agenda items #7 and #8 be reversed. All were in favor. None were opposed. V. COMMITTEE TOPIC - CASE STUDY RELATED TO THE CURRENT TREE ORDINANCE Howard Davis, a commercial property owner and developer, presented a case study regarding a property in the Downtown Core on Main Street. Mr. Davis stated that the setbacks for the Downtown Core are zero, and that in theory the actual lot footage, 12,738 square feet, and the buildable lot area should be the same. Mr. Davis explained that the buildable area was reduced by 9% for sidewalks and parking for a total of1,177 square feet, and that it was further reduced by 4,831 square feet, or 38%, for required tree protection which resulted in a buildable area of6 6,730 square feet or 53% ofthe lot. Mr. Davis regarded the reduction of buildable area to 53% as a significant impact. Mr. Davis explained that there are. some conflicts between the verbiage in the downtown master plan and the building requirements of the case study property regarding building frontage, the intervals for planting street trees, and the pattern of street trees. Mr. Davis expressed his disagreement with extensive preservation of trees on Main Street and stated that it fails to represent the Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting May 9, 2018, at3 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio 3 of 6 street's 's special place in the heart of the city. Mr. Davis stated that he desires predictability, certainty and fairness in zoning and tree protection, and that the rules regarding trees, specifically mitigation, should be clear and consistent. Mr. Davis explained that he does not believe that mitigation should be based on replacement trees and would prefer payments be contributed to a fund. Mr. Davis asserted that this approach should be easy to apply and could possibly utilize a chart noting the species of tree, size oftree, and mitigation payment amount. Mr. Davis also noted that he believes the fees should be substantial and the fee schedule should be re-structured. Mr. Davis's suggested that competing objectives in downtown that favor density, and coherent tree planting need to be reconciled with the tree ordinance, and that a plan bei implemented to avoid ad hoc approach. In addition, Mr. Davis stated that trees should be placed in downtown where they are wanted and that funds paid to support mitigation should be used to plant and maintain trees. Member Patten confirmed that the plans presented were prepared by the previous owner of the Main Street property who decided to sell the property due to the reduction in buildable area. Member Gallagher questioned the types oft trees on the property and stated that it looked like there may have been a house on the property at one time. Mr. Davis stated that the trees are very old and that there is no evidence of a building foundation on the property. Member Gallagher commented on Mr. Miller's earlier comment that there may not be enough space for trees. Mr. Gallagher stated the it would be hard to argue that the City lacks money for trees and their maintenance. Mr. Gallagher explained that the trees in the front of the case study property are in miserable shape, and that there needs to be a retreeing of the streets. Mr. Davis stressed the need for parameters and specifications in the planting of trees. Chair Dressler stated that input from the development community previous to the formation of the Tree Advisory Committee, implied the current and proposed changes to the tree mitigation ordinance were onerous from both cost and process perspectives. Chair Dressler noted that Mr. Davis expressed less concern regarding the cost of mitigation and more concern with predictability and stated that the property in question is one of the most treed lots in the Downtown core. Mr. Davis verified that he would prefer to pay in exchange for the predictability. Member Gilkey questioned ifMr. Davis would build on 100% ofthe subject lot if the Tree Code was of no concern. Mr. Davis stated that there are other considerations that would prevent him from building on the entire lot. Member Gilkey inquired if Mr. Davis had a decided on specific percentage that was suited best to building, to which Mr. Davis replied there is not a general rule for percentage. Member Gilkey then asked the City. Arborists about aj provision in the code that states trees may not restrict development. Arborist Miller stated that specifically grand oaks cannot preclude development of the lot or sacrifice parking by 25%. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting May 9, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio 4 of 6 VI. PRESENTATION BY THE FLORIDA URBAN FORESTRY COUNCIL Member Patten introduced Robert Northrop, an extension forester with the University of Florida. Mr. Northrop stated that he has worked with the City ofTampa for 12 years to help develop a comprehensive Urban Forestry program. Mr. Northrop gave aj presentation regarding development ofa a strategic plan for urban forestry using the City ofTampa as a model. Mr. Northrop explained that residents' values will determine the type of urban forest that is desired. Mr. Northrop stated that conservation is primarily a social endeavor and that success will be determined by how well the values of the community is interpreted and addressed. In this presentation, Mr. Northrop stressed collaboration within the City and outside agencies and identified the planning as a cycle. Mr. Northrop stated codes developed without vision and goals result in ineffectual codes and suggested that the City attempt to create its own data. Member Gallagher asked ifTampa defined their urban forest to include all trees in the city or just certain places? Mr. Northrop defined the City ofTampa's urban forest as consisting of the remnants of native forests found on private property, parks, medians and rights- of- way, and all planted trees and shrubs found on private and public property. Mr. Northrop advised that after the urban forest is defined, the look of a successful urban forest should be clarified, and key objectives should be created. He stated that the steering committee in Tampa never disbanded after the process, and staff would continue to work with committee during the development ordinances. Mr. Northrop stated that the urban forest in Tampa is monitored every 5 years to evaluate progress. Member Fuerst asked who monitors the urban forest in Tampa. Mr. Northrop stated that the City ofTampa has contracts, utilizes university staff and the he is involved in the data analysis. Mr. Northrop stated that the City ofTampa is aware ofthe canopy and how it may change down to each 6-inch square and with 95% certainty. Mr. Northrop noted that is very important to have the inventory data set up in a way that it is truly replicable and allows to tracking over time. Mr. Northrop noted that it is of equal importance to utilize nationally recognized standards for inventory systems and professionals, including foresters, for data collection. In addition, Mr. Northrop expressed that inventories have great moderating effect on the public. Member Gallagher inquired about the City ofTampa's inventory. Mr. Northrop stated that the inventory takes a 3-dimensional approach. Mr. Northrop explained that a 201 permanent plot sample that has GPS information specified to 6 inches is utilized to analyze such characteristics as size, conditions, crown density, species, ground cover, imperviousness, and juxtaposition to infrastructure. Mr. Northrop also explained that aerial photography is used to determine the surface area ofthe City ofTampa that has tree coverage. Furthermore, Mr. Northrop stated that satellite imagery and Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) is utilized to evaluate distribution of the tree canopy across the city. Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting May 9, 2018, at3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio 5 of 6 Member Gilkey inquired about the size of the sample plots. Mr. Northrop stated that the plot size is 1/10 acre. Vice Chair Halflants inquired as to the cost to perform the inventory for the City of Tampa. Mr. Northrop stated that it costs $500 per plot, equaling approximately $100,000. Vice Chair Halflants inquired about policy decisions that resulted from the evaluation oft the inventory. Mr. Northrop asked to postpone the answer until after he completed the description ofthe process. Per Mr. Northrop, following evaluation of the inventory, action should be implemented for objectives that are considered to have the highest priority. Member Patten clarified that Mr. Northrop had implied the development of an urban forestry plan can take several years before implementation and described the experience as a learning process for everyone involved. Mr. Northrop noted that part ofthe mitigation funds goes toward developing the urban forest program and the monitoring every 5 years. Mr. Northrop stressed that an urban forestry management structure must have clear goals and objectives that should shape the organization. Mr. Northrop mentioned that changes to the City's comprehensive plan to accommodate the forestry plan can be expected. Mr. Northrop stated that in the City ofTampa has strayed from mitigation based on the trunk size and now bases mitigation on the canopy size. Chair Dressler restated this point for clarification and asked ift the type of canopy was specific or formula-based. Mr. Northrop stated that the canopy is general, though it follows a tree matrix that includes 110 species of tree that was created by the City ofTampa. The matrix includes other information such as surface area, volume of soil needed, vertical or horizontal impediments to the desired planting space, and the necessary distance from a vulnerable built infrastructure, which guides the type of trees that can be used in the space. Vice Chair Halflants restated his question regarding the inventory, noting that the investment every 5 years is substantial. Vice Chair Halflants inquired about the development of policies resulting from use of the inventory as well as policy makers' determinations regarding improvement. Vice Chair Halflants requested a specific example. Mr. Northrup stated findings that there has been a loss of canopy in Tampa that was not statistically significant. Mr. Northrop explained that mature oaks have been found to make up a significant portion ofTampa's canopy, though they do not make up a large portion of the urban forest, noting that care must be taken to focus on the canopy and not the individual tree. Mr. Northrop also stated that the use of tree canopy as a metric has been recognized as preferable to use of tree trunks. Chair Dressler inquired about the funding mechanisms used to pay for the costs associated with the urban forestry plan for the City ofTampa. Mr. Northrop stated the mitigation funds are used to pay for studies but are not used for salaries for maintenance. Chair Dressler then inquired about funding beyond the studies and which mechanisms are typical. Mr. Northrop stated that there are some innovative ways to fund these types of endeavors, and then stated that the City of Tampa has not yet spent any money. Mr. Northrop stated that funds are not necessary until the plan is in its final phases of development. Mr. Northrop went on to explain that alternatives for action that require money, items that Minutes of the Tree Advisory Committee Meeting May 9, 2018, at 3:00 p.m. in SRQ Media Studio 6 of6 6 incurred a capital cost or incurred an increase in general funding, are not included in the plan for the first 5 years due to the type of work that will be required during that time. Vice Chair Halflants inquired regarding specific policies that have proven successful to grow and maintain the canopy in Tampa and stated that the committee is eager for specific information. Mr. Northrop responded by stating that the creation of pocket parks downtown and the creation of structured soil environments underneath the pavement in which tree roots can live for a longer period of time have been successful. Mr. Northrop stated that the City of Tampa requires permits for tree removal and they have a grand tree ordinance which is enforced. The City ofTampa is also expanding the use of mitigation funds, which were primarily used on public land, to provide trees for planting on private land. Member Gilkey inquired about the backgrounds oft the staff members in Tampa Urban Forestry division. Mr. Northrop explained that the Natural Resources Coordinator is an arborist with 40 years ofland use law and conservation experience. Mr. Northrup stated that there are several arborists in the division and a forester with a Master ofScience degree in urban forestry. Mr. Northrop also noted that the City of Tampa will be hiring one more person this year and that person will likely have a Master of Science degree in urban forestry. Chair Dressler asked if the City of Tampa has made any decisions on planning their infrastructure with the knowledge that they are will have urban forestry. VII. DISCUSSION OF UPCOMING TOPICS Next agenda will be a discussion of miscellaneous topics not previously addressed in the duties number 1 through 7. VIII. DISCUSSION OF NEXT MEETING DATE The date of the next meeting was confirmed for May 23rd, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will take place in the Commission Chambers. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:11 p.m. Hu Aulw Shawn Dressler, Chair Timothy Litchet, Secretary