CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TREE ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 28, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. in the SRQ Media Studio Members Present: Shawn Dressler, Chair, Michael Halflants, Vice Chair Members Mary Fuerst, Chris Gallagher, Trevor Falk (arrived 3:37), Michael Gilkey, Jr., Rob Patten Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mark Miller, Senior Arborist, Don Ullom, Arborist Kim DeNais, Development Services Angela McLeod-Wilkins, Development Services I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL TAC Chair Dressler called the meeting to order. Mark Milller read the roll call. TAC Chair reminded everyone to speak into the microphones for clear audio recordings. II. PLEDGE OF CONDUCT Mark Miller 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 - stated that the current tree mitigation fees are not reasonable; suggested that the City should reward when they remove an exotic and problematic tree, and ease the conditions for the removal of laurel oaks; recommended that the City needs a balanced system based on which people are rewarded for removing problematic trees, but the City needs to also improve the enforcement on compliance for the protection of valuable trees; added that there should be a different set of rules for residential and commercial properties; recommended that the Committee's presentation to the City Commission needs to be balanced; stated that he understands TAC's tendency towards a flexible approach but this needs to be coupled with strong reinforcement for the trees that have been deemed valuable for the community; and suggested that unless TAC acknowledges and addresses the violations that are currently taking place, TAC will not have the community support to move. forward revising the rules of the game. 2. Phil Smith - landscape architect, thanked TAC for their efforts; noted that in previous meetings, there has been reference to the Florida Exotic Pest Council on Invasive Trees Category I and Category II lists of trees; noted that the lists for these categories have been revised in the past year; pointed out that TAC: needs to focus on individual trees rather than adopting all items in Category I or Category II; explained that there are trees listed in revised Category I that are not harmful, or are protected by the State, and they are. found in Sarasota; clarified that if TAC recommends "Category I," instead of individual species of Minutes of thel Meeting of the' Tree Advisory Committee February 28, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in the SRQ Media Studio Page 2 of 13 trees, then certain trees in Category I that are not harmful, such as ficus and certain mangroves could be removed without permit and not be replaced; added that Category II also includes a lot of trees that are commonly used in landscapes; and noted that it would be better to use small trees, rather than require 3" caliper trees, in the sliding scale concept. 3. Judy Levy noted that the City has looked at sidewalks for trees and setbacks; submitted to the record what Karen Murphy, Urban Design Studio, has written about trees in her latest iteration of the Form Based Code; pointed out that Ms. Murphy calls the street trees canopy trees;" stated that the street trees need to be canopy trees; mentioned that the latest building permit rundown includes almost 2,000 rental units, 1,400 condominium units, 1, 000 hotel rooms; pointed out that with all the downtown residents, all the streets in the downtown area are becoming pedestrian streets; expressed support for TACS efforts to address the challenging and very important tree mitigation issue, because if it is not addressed successfully, the tree protection efforts will implode; recalled Ms. Pedersen's comments about the fact that City parks cannot take any more mitigation trees; also recalled Mr. Wilson'scomment that people pay into the mitigation fund, but nothing is being purchased with those funds. 4. Lou Costa expressed support to what Mr. Gallagher said in the previous TAC Meeting about the three sections of the City, namely the mainland, the downtown core, and the barrier islands, all of which have different needs; and pointed out that the challenges they face at the barrier islands is that they have to comply with a code that maybe fine for the mainland but does not represent what is needed on the barrier islands. IV. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 10TH MINUTES 1. Mr. Gallagher stated: p.8of12 " he would not call it a tree ordinance but an urban forest ordinance... should be revised to read: 1 he would not call it a tree protection ordinance but an urban forest ordinance... TAC Member Gallagher moved to adopt the Minutes from the January 10, 2018 TAC Meeting, as revised. TAC Member Fuerst seconded that motion. The motion passed unanimously. V. COMMITTEE TOPIC: SHOULD THE CURRENT "SLIDING SCALE" MITIGATION STANDARDS FOR TREE REMOVAL BE REVISED, AND IF SO, HOW? VI. 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 OWNER/DEVELOPERS OF COMMERCIAL PROJECTS? Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee February 28, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in the SRQ Media Studio Page 3 of13 TAC Chair Dressler summarized the topics that were discussed in the last meeting, as follows: What to do about a healthy tree for the purpose of re-landscaping property; What to do about unsafe conditions caused by healthy trees on public properties; How to address healthy trees on public properties that cause damage to infrastructure and reducing private property rights; and Whether or not there should be the same criteria for invasive VS. non-invasive species. TAC Chair Dressler noted that with these topics in mind, TAC members talked about the idea of creating an Urban Forestry Program, or Master Plan, or Fund, or all of the above, or some kind of a Board, something that plans for funds, implements and monitors high quality urban forestry within the City;added that also discussed were. features such as # 1 pay- and-go," where, if this is the means of collecting funds for new development, the home builder or commercial developer would have the ability to pay a fee that would go into the tree fund and be managed for the purpose of implementing a tree plan; noted that those funds would be used to install trees, replace trees, implement high quality root structure, sidewalk improvements, etc.; added that TAC also talked about thei idea of a hybrid system; explained that, if the urban forestry program were to be approved, maybe it does not completely replace the tree mitigation sliding scale or another type of mitigation fund, maybe they exist in tandem, and the two of them as a whole are used to address concerns; stated that while a hybrid system might solve a lot of the issues, one of his concerns would be that it would not address specific properties that today are zoned for high density residential, higher density commercial, and have a lot of trees; explained that these properties currently are cost prohibitive for development, and they are passed over, pushing development in other less desirable areas. TAC Chair Dressler continued, recalling that TAC also talked about separate trees and requirements for single family residential versus commercial, and further broke that down and had discussions about new single family residential versus existing single family residential, and what those requirements are; noted that TAC talked about trees existing in the buildable area of a lot versus the setbacks of the lot; noted that they discussed the implications of moving the tree that might be in the center of a lot, which is not casting shade on their neighbors, versus a tree that is basically functioning as a buffer or a shared amenity between the two, and whether that should weigh on TAC's recommendations; added that they also talked about the current biggest challenge for the management and facilitation of the tree ordinance, the tiered system for the replacement trees, on site, in a neighborhood, or pay into the tree mitigation fund; said that TAC discussed whether there should be a re-arrangement of that, or should there not even be an order, and should all just be an opportunity without having to justify the previous due, for example, if you pay as you go, and that was the best option for the development, or you can plant on site if that is an option for the development; pointed out thati it was mentioned in this meeting again, that right now it is really hard to find big trees, and part of the reason for that is the hurricanes. Another reason for that is that other municipalities allow for smaller trees for mitigation, and the trees get sucked up, and never reach a certain size, SO the larger trees are only found in specialty nurseries in a very limited supply. Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee February 28, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in the SRQ Media Studio Page 4 of 13 TAC Vice Chair Halflants showed aerial images of the canopy coverage of the City of Sarasota; showed a 1949 aerial image of Central Ave. and Coconut Ave., an area just north of the Rosemary District; he said that the question is what came first the trees or the residences, and it is clear through these images that residences came first; noted that the later images from the 1960s show how the trees matured and grew over the houses, and one cannot see the houses; shared several images from various locations in Sarasota, and said that the City can do better; continued with images from Johannesburg, where one can see the city grid because the trees line the streets; noted that there are many examples from different cities where the streets are lined with trees; asked this committee not to focus sO much on the trees in people's back yards, or rewards for planting a tree or removing an undesirable tree. It seems clear that people are doing quite well on their own, but we can do better in lining the streets with trees; asked where in Sarasota we. have tree lined streets that were planted by the city; continued to show images of tree lined streets from different cities and compared them with the City of Sarasota, noting that there are opportunities for planting in the rights-of-way. TAC Member Patten supported what was just said; noted that in coming up with a good street tree lining program and a good urban forestry program, the challenge for the City will be to interface with utilities, and public works and the other governmental agencies that will find a myriad reasons of why that tree is going to create a problem down the line; and added that as part of TAC's goal can be a vision of Sarasota streets looking like that, and to overcome the difficulties with agencies that worry about the sidewalks coming up, iti is a good challenge. TAC Chair Dressler noted that right now there is a structure in the tree mitigation policies and within our ability to implement them; pointed out that it is very focused, but the focus is sO stretched out that it would be difficult for the existing tree mitigation ordinance, and the structures that are built into the City right now, to focus on something like that; explained that the current system is focused on trying to manage every aspect of every development, rather than putting its public purview in the public areas that can create the most benefit; referred to one of the images shown earlier, and stated that the image shows that at that city there exists a municipally driven street tree program; said that at that city, it was decided that the street tree program was more important than making sure it was very easy to get to a manhole cover, and you can only do that if you are dialed-in and focused on it; and concluded that right now the City's tree mitigation code is undialed-in and unfocused, because it is trying to focus on everything, and by that definition you cannot do it. TAC Member Patten stated that the reason for that is that tree protection is part of a Code, the Zoning Ordinance, and just like they have different regulations about the location of the driveway, or the size of the brick, and then there are regulations for the trees; pointed out that the City is trying to manage a program through regulation, which cannot be done very well. TAC Chair Dressler added that it is done through regulation not planning. TAC Member Patten added that what is need is a combination of a focused managed well thought out urban forestry city street program, and also some kind of code enforcement relative to some trees, and some properties; stated that what is needed is not "either/or,": it Minutes of the Meeting of the' Tree. Advisory Committee February 28, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in the SRQ Media Studio Page 5 of 13 is a blend of those; repeated TAC Member Gilkey always says that there are trees that we ought to save but we cannot regardless of where they are; pointed out that maybe the best TAC can do is to hire someone, or a group, that can tell us how we can compromise on these issues relative to, as one said, ten years from now this may not be a great place for a tree, but we have a program to line the street sO lets figure it out; noted that sometimes we do a poor job of problem solving creatively in the City and we stop at the first issue that comes upi and concluded that he thinks it is a blend of focusing on a proactive program and tree protection of some sort, he supports the hybrid idea. TAC Chair Dressler concurred, pointing out that they cannot completely take the focus off of the desire to protect really high quality valuable trees in some way; suggested that currently there is a disproportionate amount of focus on protecting trees, SO much sO that ninety five percent of the trees we are trying to protect end up being the ones that are not a quality tree but we cannot remove them; added that lot of that focus needs to be shifted to planning for really high quality urban forestry in the public realm; said that there are trees that we should protect, but in the current iteration of our mitigation code, and the city structure, this protection has been at the expense of the high quality urban forestry planning, and it cannot be, it has to be the other way around, it has to air on the side of high quality urban forestry. TACVice Chair Halflants asked what about the person who has several quality canopy trees in his back yard, and he was to open it up to enjoy some grass there; stated that looking at neighborhoods and how trees grow, he would love for people to keep their oaks; pointed out that there is an enormous amount of resources that the City is spending to try to police individual owners; noted that when we look at the aerial images, overall, people love to plant their trees, and like to tend to their own backyards; said that it is a mistake for the City to try to police people on their own back yards; and concluded that he would have a hard time to tell somebody that he cannot take a tree down in his back yard if he wants to grow some grass. TAC Member Patten said that it was TAC Vice Chair Halflants' earlier presentation that made the point that if you give people the opportunity they will plant trees, they want to make it greener, sometimes they want a different kind of green, maybe they want grasses. TAC Vice Chair Halflants added that, overall, they want to make it greener without the City's help, but the TAC's focus should be on what can the TAC do to get the trees on the streets. TAC Chair Dressler noted that Mr. Costas' earlier point was good; pointed out that in his experience living in this City and everywhere he has lived, people, and particularly residential home owners, want a higher quality of residential life; added that there are very few people who think al higher quality of lifei is in "less landscape" and in "less high quality trees;" added that most people want to remove a palm only if it is in the wrong spot, and planning to put another one up in another spot, and that is likely true with most types of high quality trees; added that the point Mr. Jono Miller made earlier was also good, that the most numerous trees that we have in Sarasota are laurel oaks; added that they are native, and they are good trees for a purpose; pointed out that laurel oaks on residential lots, Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree. Advisory Committee February 28, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in the SRQ Media Studio Page 6 of1 13 particularly those that were planted with the plotting of the downtown area one hundred years ago, and they are reaching the end of their valuable life; asked why not extend the code to be able to remove those trees, without sO many barriers, particularly laurel oaks, which drop limbs a lot, since homeowners are going to want to put trees back anyway. TAC Member Patten added that there should be a reasonable mitigation plan that alllows them to do that, which we do not have now. TAC Member Fuerst recallled from the last meeting that the City does not have the right to plant trees on the rights-of-way, it has to be the homeowner. TACC Chair Dressler noted that there was some confusion about that. The City has the right to plant trees in the City's rights-of-way, he believes that what Ms. Pedersen was referring to trees outside the rights- of-way, located between the house and the street. TAC Member Gilkey pointed out that the maintenance of those trees falls on the adjacent property owner. TAC Chair Dressler added that happens if there is a development, and the developer gets into a developer's agreement with the City to maintain certain portions of the landscape in the City's right-of-way, as part of the continuing services of that development; added that it is probably trickier with residential areas; explained that if the City were to implement a street tree program down a residential street, they are essentially giving to each of those residents a tree to maintain, something they did not ask for; and added that this is the direction cities that have tree lined streets take. TAC Member Patten said that it is the bargain you make as a resident of a city that has an aggressive urban forestry design plan, you have to take care of the tree; added that it will be interesting, because the trees you get with pay-and-go, they have to go somewhere, and the areas where trees will go have yet to be identified. TAC Chair Dressler said that there are sO many streets that are well canopied, while others are not because of the utilities, we need to be planning streets for trees as opposed to planning streets for utilities and the trees are an afterthought; added that he expects that as a part of an urban forestry plan, whoever is developing that plan, would be working hand- in-hand with the Engineering Department and with the Building Department, they are will be looking at the Engineering Design Criteria Manual, looking at the street sections, and implementing language that requires, or at least allows, infrastructure to be outside of the sidewalk, or to be located in such a way SO that it is not precluding high quality tree canopy. TACI Member Gilkey thanked TAC Vice Chair Halflants for his earlier presentation, it was beautiful, but it was idyllic; added that he is thinking of all the people who are moving to Sarasota with the current influx of growth, which he does not see subsiding, and the current infrastructure, as well as the infrastructure the City will need in the next ten years to facilitate all the new people who are moving here, the renaissance that is happening in Sarasota, older houses coming down and being replaced by new houses, and how all that impacts this entire conversation; stated that this is wonderful, but he does not know how it Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee February 28, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in the SRQ Media Studio Page 7 of1 13 can happen outside of a "Celebration," or a Planned Community, at this point; maybe within the City streets it can be done within the residential neighborhoods, with the maintenance and some streets having trees planted; agreed with TAC Vice Chair Halflants, that the part of the yard that would not restrict building or property rights would be that right-of-way piece, and currently it is very difficult to plant in the rights-of-way within the City, because of engineering and utilities; stated that, if that can be figured out, to give the canopy and the trees, it would be very successful; added that there should be a sliding scale; thanked Mr. Mark Miller for the notes he provided TAC members about Tree Ordinances; He wondered if maybe there is an easy approach to this, such as these trees can be removed easily and the mitigation for these trees is easier, and then this set of trees are a little more difficult to remove; suggested that maybe that is how TAC can start looking about restricting some of the higher quality trees, start to designate; added that the same list will change and vary for residential, for barrier islands, for city commercial districts, etc.; agrees with Mr. Jono Miller on a strict penalty for illegal tree removal and the need for more flexibility in the Code; recalled Mr. Smith's earlier comments, saying that an invasive tree may: not be the best tree, but it still provides shade and habitat, and if we allow that tree to come out without any mitigation or replacement, he thinks that what is taking over that canopy or that habitat needs to be thought about also; he agrees with smaller mitigation and biodiversity within the community; pointed out that anything native, typically grows less and more specialized than something that is grown more commercially, like the flowering trees; commenting to Mr. Costa's earlier comments about the barrier islands, and noted that it is not only the barrier islands, it is also the lots on the bay and what grows on them, they have the feeling of a tropical aesthetics that they try to achieve and you look at the Zoning Regulations and the setbacks, how can a tree fit in with all that, it may not be appropriate, as opposed to when you get inland and you get larger lots and more green space, then obviously the trees are more appropriate. TAC: Member Patten noted that earlier Mr. Phil Smith advised against adopting a whole list, stating there are generalized lists for the state of Florida; added that if you consider both of the lists and say that you will get some trees from the mix, then the ficus on City island will come down without a permit, sO we. have to be careful about using lists, we. have to be more specific when we get to the point of making recommendations as opposed to saying that everything on the lists can go. Mr. Don Ullom noted that even if: it is an invasive tree, its removal requires a permit. Staff confirmed that it is an invasive tree and the permit is given without charge, and no mitigation requirements. TAC Chair Dressler pointed out that Mr. Phil Smith suggested that the removal of an invasive tree should require mitigation, even if it is listed with Category Iinvasive trees. TAC Member Fuerst noted that in Bradenton, in planting replacement trees, the idea of mitigation hinders on the growth of the remaining trees; explained that if there were three or more significant trees, the homeowner who had to take out the tree and then planted nine trees, and none of them are going to survive, there are sufficient trees there. He is just opening space up, allowing the other trees to grow more; added that in St. Petersburg they Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee February 28, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in the SRQ: Media Studio Page 8 of 13 are talking about "declining conditions" as "no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor," sO they are looking at the big laurel oak and you know that it is going down, down, down, if it has been certified that this is a "declining condition," then you still get a permit; concluded that in both of these situations they do not have to mitigate. TAC Chair Dressler noted that there are many good examples of adding flexibility into the Code for some of the trees which are: not high-quality trees; said that our Code uses the term advanced state of decline" as opposed to "declining conditions. " TACVice Chair Halflants responded to the earlier reference of "idyllic" and said that he does not envision all street to be tree lined, it will depend on where the utilities are. TACChair Dressler stated that the best time to find meaningful solutions to problems like these is when there is a lot of flux, because then you have the ability to collect development funds, as the development comes in, and the ability to open the road, because the road is affected by the development; added that the hardest time to make substantial changes is when nothing is going on, and you do not] have those: nexuses for bringing in money, opening up roads, doing major infrastructure projects, sO this is the best time to tweak some of the things we have here for a better more comprehensive planning focused direction towards trees. TAC Vice Chair Halflants recalled that about sixteen years ago there was a program at the City where if a resident could get a certain percentage of the residents on his street to sign something, lets say "we want trees on our street," - then the City would plant on trees on that street, and he thought that was a good program because it was not imposed on the residents. TAC Chair Dressler asked TAC Members if they have shared all their thoughts on items 7 and 8 of the agenda. TAC Member Patten said that at the last meeting he requested staff S input on these topics and their recommended solutions, particularly on the mitigation issues, because staff deal with these issues every day. Mr. Mark Miller said that he has initiated discussions with the director and other staff, and the general consensus is that the City needs to go down to 2 or 2 % in. dbh; added that he has reviewed Sarasota County, Bradenton, Orlando, they are all 2 in. dbh, Manatee County is at 2 2 in. dbh, while Tampa does not put a minimum size requirement until you get to at least a 30 in. dbh tree, at which point you mitigate inch-for- inch; and concluded that, in order to be able to get stock, they need to be around the 2 in. dbh, which is where the surrounding municipalities are. TAC Member Patten asked Mr. Mark Miller if he thinks the replacement ratio makes sense, because he does not agree with it; he thinks that the caliper and the replacement ratio must be addressed together; he does not want the replacement ratio watered down, although he understands what is available at the nurseries. Mr. Mark Miller said that he agrees with Manatee County, where if you remove a tree from your back yard or your side yard, you need no permit, but if you move at tree from you front yard you need a permit, because we want to get the canopy by the street, that is where the benefit for the public comes from. TAC Chair Dressler said this is an interesting approach; he also stated that there is a perception that if you reduce the size of the replacement tree you are watering down the mitigation that is being performed, which is not true; the reality is that most of the times, Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee February 28, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in the SRQ Media Studio Page 9 of 13 when you plant a young healthy tree with space for the roots to grow, that tree ends up outperforming a comparable tree of a larger size, and typically in pretty quick order; explained that a 2 in. caliper tree, say a live oak, that you plant in urban conditions will outperform a 5 in. caliper tree that you plant in the same conditions, because you have to compress a lot more roots into the same space and the roots do not fan out; added as the TAC decides what size caliper is the best for replacement trees, he thinks that TAC also has to think about what is the healthiest caliper size for a replacement tree, knowing that we will always have limited resources on good quality larger trees. Mr. Mark Miller suggested that they need to consider how much space a tree needs, for example St. Petersburg's regulations require one shade tree per fifty linear feet; Sarasota County requires one tree for each 2000 sq. ft. for a property less than half-an-acre; said that if we want a healthy urban forestry canopy, it does not make sense to shove fourteen trees on a lot, it is not healthy; pointed out that he is not trying to "water it down, - he is trying to make it make sense; concluded that he would like to see an outcome that is based on science and makes sense. TACMember Fuerst said that this is part of the right tree on the right place and asked what happens when you do not have enough room for the tree. TACChair Dressler noted that the space requirements in the two examples Mr. Mark Miller just described are based on the canopy; and recommends that the root space needs to also be considered; added that part of iti is also understanding what a tree is likely to do given a condition; explained that a tree that is planted in a field and a tree that is planted on a street are: not going to need the same space requirements; added that you can have a healthy, high quality, long living tree in an urban condition that does not grow to the size it normally would, but it is still a healthy tree, it just is not going to grow very big; concluded that one needs to be figuring out those spacing requirements, figuring out what the root area and root zone technologies are, that ought to be required as a baseline, sO that we get healthy canopy overtime. TAC Member Patten asked Mr. Mark Miller to further explain the Sarasota County requirements. TAC Chair Dressler added that those requirements do not apply to individual residential lots unlessi if they are part of a master planned community, they apply to commercial development and master planned residential development, and new construction residential, Discussion ensued. Mr. Mark Miller referred to the second page of the tree replacement and mitigation summary for Sarasota County Tree Ordinance; and read: "b. residential property greater than one half acre requires a minimum of eleven trees. " Conversation ensued about a document prepared by Mr. Mark Miller that was distributed at the first TAC meeting; this document is a compilation of brief summaries of, and useful notes about, tree Ordinances used in various jurisdictions. TAC Member Gilkey said that some science should support people's decisions relating to trees on their properties; added that homeowners need the assistance of a professional who Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee February 28, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in the SRQ Media Studio Page 10 of 13 knows the plan and can assess each situation accordingly. TAC Member Fuerst agreed, pointing out that St. Petersburg's regulations require that a certified arborist is involved in this decision; and stated she supports the creation of a board where people could go to resolve cases that cannot be resolved by the arborist's S assessment. TACMember Gallagher stated that at some points TAC wil dig into the details and discuss the specifics of the Ordinance. He pointed out that in this Ordinance, as in many other Ordinances, you start with the "Where as... 1 section, in order to get to the details; noted that TAC, as a board, will probably have to have some majority opinion about what the "Where as... I are; stated that one of the "Where as... " is that in the City of Sarasota, we haver not seen yet the evidence that the Tree Ordinance, as: itl has been implemented over the last "x" number of years, has helped improve, grow, enhance the City's urban forest; added that he has not seen yet any evidence that the sister cities that have been included in the packet can say in one way or another, that, by implementing their ordinances, they have enhanced their urban forest; it is pretty tough to move from there if you don't know if we were better off before we. had the Ordinance. TAC Member Gallagher continued stating that another "Where as.. # is that pretty much all agree that trees are a public good; said that he is trying to get these things straight based on the testimony' TACI has received and the conversations that have taken place; added that because arti is considered a public good, there is a fee on each downtown project for art, and he is wondering why the same cannot be done for trees; asked why make this sO complicated, instead of just having a tree fee, just like the public art fee, and not limit it to downtown, rather have it apply to the entire city; because it is a public good that we all share, everybody shares the costs, the upkeep and enhancement of that. TAC: Member Gallagher stated that the third thing in the "Where as.. is the idea that there are some transects, or districts, that are different; explained that what downtown needs are different than what the edge of the city needs, and is different than what the barrier islands need, and lets say: for a minute that we agreed to have a permit fee that is like the art fee for every project that was processed, the dollars will return to the district from where the dollars came, and it may be different kinds of plants, different capital improvement plans for different areas; TAC Member Gallagher continued, saying that if we think of the problems that we are trying to overcome, it is purely an administrative problem, staff being overwhelmed with doing all this; asked if there is a way to simplify this, pick five trees, or five sizes, beyond which, for everything else, you can deal on your own, as a property owner, but after a certain point TAC Member Gallagher suggested that maybe the "Where as.. / before this one, should be: if trees are SO important to this community, we will have several advising boards, this being a temporary one; added that there should be an advisory board that deals with tree issues and for certain circumstances you go to the tree board; noted that then the public is not concerned that it is done administratively, it is out in the public; explained that if a tree is coming down in your street, you go out to comment, but it cannot be about every tree; the thing that pains us is that the community does not come out in arms Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee February 28, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in the SRQ Media Studio Page 11 of 13 when a two inch tree comes down, but when a fifty-year-old tree comes down, and that is when you can invite public comment, and present evidence, and everything else about it. TACI Member Gallagher stated that the last "Where as... " hel has is addressing canopy trees versus palm trees; added that, regardless if all TAC Members agree or not, both canopy trees versus palm trees, are valid ways to do a street; noted that you will not plant palm trees 35 ft. away from each other, but we have several examples of palms planted close together and they have a wonderful effect on the sidewalk; stated that in terms of how TAC moves forward with the ordinance, there may be some big level thinking TAC Members need to do, to find out where the TAC sits on those things, maybe get rid of some of the little conversations, or help guide the conversation, because we have some fundamental ideas that we put forth, and they may be the foundational statements for the ordinance. TAC Chair Dressler agreed, saying that if the Ordinance is to address the issues that have been raised, and the "Where as.. / section has to be structured in such a way that is not ignorant ofi issues, SO that it flows from that... TAC Member Patten stated that in looking at the "Where as... u section of the Zoning Ordinance, he noticed that this section refers to the process not to the vision, property rights, etc.; added that TAC can elevate above that and go beyond the process and problems; noted that one needs to be careful with canopy trees and palm trees, because when planted a certain way, palm trees can create quality canopy, for example cabbage palms. TAC Member Dressler noted that if one wants a continuous canopy, and the main point is to create a certain amount of canopy, it requires more trunks of palm trees rather than other trees; added that if you are looking at what the required space is along the street, and you are trying to have a certain percentage of that street under canopy, let's say you have a development and you have requirements for development to take care of this portion of the urban forestry plan in lieu of paying into a fund, that spacing requirement ought to be different on palms, if they are going to use royal palms to create canopies as opposed to shady ladies. TAC Member Fuerst noticed that Sarasota County started their Ordinance differently, instead of "Where as.. " they started with "Finding of Facts" and "Definitions," which shows: this is where we are, this is what we believe in, this is what we will call stuff, and based on that...; added that this puts us together, describes our mindset and where we need to go, and it is readable. Mr. Mark Miller supported the idea of definitions, because terms are used differently by different agencies, and that can cause confusion; noted that people have gotten in trouble because they thought they knew, but they knew the Webster's definition and did not understand the City of Sarasota's definition; added that for certain terms like lollipopping the ordinance should include the definition and a picture; pointed out that definitions should not be at the beginning; explained that you go to your section for mitigation, you read in the part that says where mitigation is required, and then it mentions the words "substantially remodeled," now you go to the front of the document to the definitions to find out what that word means to the City of Sarasota, the definition should be in this section, SO that one would not have to go to the beginning of the document; pointed out that staff do not carry the zoning ordinance with the definitions to refer to them, Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee February 28, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in the SRQ Media Studio Page 12 of 13 and asked TAC to consider putting the definitions in the same section, for simplicity and to keep a few more people out of trouble. TAC Chair Dressler explained that the City's Zoning Zone has a large Definitions Section at the beginning of the document, which covers all the definitions that are relevant to the Zoning Code, and he supports the idea that TAC considers Mr. Mark Miller's suggestion; added that perhaps there is a definition section specific to the tree mitigation Code. VII. COMMITTEE TOPIC: TOPIC - DISCUSSION OF UPCOMING TOPICS/BE PREPARED AT NEXT MEETING TO DISCUSS THE TREE CANOPY ORDINANCE PROVIDED IN ORIGINAL BINDER TAC Chair Dressler stated that TAChas now discussed enumerated tasks 1 through 6, and task number 7 is the Canopy Tree Ordinance in our binder; suggested that TAC members need to take a look at the Tree Ordinance before the next TAC meeting and come with thoughts because it is specifically called out in the TAC duties, therefore, next time TAC will discuss the Tree Canopy Ordinance; noted that is the last specific topic, followed by the very last titled Anything Else," or "Miscellaneous, for anything that was not specifically mentioned; recommended that TAC Members think about things they know through professional capacity, or personal capacity, things that are issues with the Tree Code, and if they think TAC can make substantive recommendations on these issues prepare to talk about them at the next meeting. TAC Member Gilkey suggested, if TAC Members are thinking about the rights-of-way as good places to plant trees, and before promoting that idea, to have someone come for Public Works or Engineering to talk about the hurdles they face. TAC Member Dressler stated that it is a great idea, TAC Members talked about it last time, it makes sense, it may be a good idea to invite back both of those groups when TAC is making specific recommendations; added that TAC Members probably heard a lot of the challenges in Mr. Mark Miller's presentation on issues regarding trees and infrastructure, but it makes sense that TAC Members also hear from the Utilities Department, Building Department, Engineering Department, whatever representatives the City feels are most appropriate; and concluded that it makes sense to invite them to the next meeting. Mr. Mark Miller suggested that fori the purpose of order and efficiency, the Engineering and Public Works departments should be present at the same time. TAC Member Gallagher stated that we have Public Works, and Utilities who put pipes underneath sidewalks, Engineering who design sidewalks; added that one of the places to find room for street trees in urban areas is by eliminating some of parking spaces and pushing the curb line out; and suggested if TAC Members want to consider that, it may be a good idea to invite Mr. Mark Lions, from parking management, to talk about areas where that could happen. Mr. Mark Miller stated that in his discussions with the Director of Natural Resources of the City of Tampa, he found out that they are currently going through the same process of updating their existing tree ordinance, and seventeen different organizations are represented on their Committee, SO they have a well-rounded education, including the Minutes of the Meeting of the Tree Advisory Committee February 28, 2018, at 3:00 p.m., in the SRQ Media Studio Page 13 of 13 police department, the fire department, all the infrastructures, and they literally bring in anybody who they thing may be able to provide necessary and pertinent information. TAC Chair Dressler stated that it would be a good idea to have a workshop style meeting, because it is hard to get that many people organized at the same time; agreed with the invitation to Mr. Mark Lions; added that if TAC can organize a workshop type session, where that is the only item on the agenda, TAC can essentially start by summarizing what TAC has talked about and get their substantive feedback on all the issues. TAC Member Patten stated that such a workshop would be valuable to everybody. TAC Chair Dressler suggested that it may be useful to have the workshop after TAC reviews the Canopy Tree Ordinance, SO that they have discussed all assigned tasks except the Miscellaneous, because hearing from them, and talking with them, will probably help TAC identify the miscellaneous items; and suggested to talk about item Number 7, the Canopy Tree Ordinance, next time, and try to get this roundtable discussion on the following meeting. TAC Member Fuerst stated that Sarasota County has a Canopy Road Section in their tree Ordinance; and asked if anyone else has that. TAC Member Gallagher suggested that the roundtable discussion on tree issues is based on real examples from around the City, such as the location on First Street that has been discussed, instead of having an abstract discussion. TAC Vice Chair Halflants suggested that Mr. Cover, Planning Department Director also be included. VIII. DISCUSSION OF NEXT MEETING DATE Discussion ensued about potential dates. Next meeting will be on March 21, 2018 from 3:00 - 5:00 PM. IX. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 4:23:54 PM. 1h Shawn Dressler, Chair Timothy Litchet Secretary