5-02-26 Town Hall Adopted MinutesMINUTES
Town Hall Meeting
Saturday, May 2, 2026 -10:00 AM
Commission Chamber
City Hall, 800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
ATTENDANCE:
Present:
Also Present:
Curtis Ford , Mayor -Seat 1 (At Large)
Bruce Bole, Commissioner -Mayor Pro Tern Seat 2 (District 1308)
Thomas Grant, Commissioner -Seat 3 (District 1307)
Candace Kell y , Commissioner -Seat 4 (District 1306)
Jessica Ring , Commissioner -Seat 5 (District 1312)
Kevin Hogencamp , Interim City Manager (CM)
Michelle Weippert, Records Management Specialist (RMS)
1 TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Tree protection code improvement opportunities
Mayor Ford discussed the importance of trees and presented a handout (which is attached
hereto and made a part of the official record as Attachment A).
The following speakers provided their comments to the public:
Ellen Glass er
Amy Palmer
Sara Milo
Mark Gabrynowicz
Sara Boren distributed a handout that was given to the commission (which is attached
hereto and made part of the official record as Attachment B)
Bruce Andrews
05-02-26 Attachment A
05-02-26 Attachment B
2 PUBLIC COMMENT -OPEN TOPICS
The following speakers provided their comments:
Leurie Lee
Jackie Beckenbach
Town Hall
May 2, 2026
Attest:
Ron Taylor
Bootsy Haas
Penny Rauckis
(Unknown Speaker)
Anastasia Houston
Bruce Andrews
Mark Gabrynowicz
Sara Milo
Sara Boren
(Unknown Speaker)
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12 :00 PM.
Michelle Weippert , Record s Management Specialist
Date Approved: __ 5J_1_2_(p_,._/_2_0_'2_0 ____ _
Town Hall
May 2, 2026
Attachment A to
5-2-26 Minutes
Tree Protection Code Improvement Opportunities
City of Atlantic Beach I May 2026
This City staff-prepared document is a compilation of recommendations from residents , the
Environmental Stewardship Committee , City Commission members , staff, builders , and
regional best practices . While an effort has been made to include all recommendations ,
similar items have been consolidated to improve the report's clarity and conciseness .
This report is not a blanket proposal ; rather , it serves as a toolkit to inform the community's
critical conversation on strengthening Chapter 23 of the City Code. Our goal is to preserve
our maritime forest with a specific focus on the preservation of live oaks.
I. Protecting Heritage Trees and High-Value Canopy
Focusing on preservation mandates and financial safeguards for our most significant natural
assets.
1. Automatic Heritage Status: Eliminate voluntary designations . Automatically
classify all maritime trees 30" DBH as "Heritage Trees."
2. Oversight: Require City Commission approval for removal permits .
3 Design-Around Mandates: Require a certified "Statement of Infeasibility" to prove
tree removal is unavoidable , paired with a Performance Surety Bond to cover
potential construction damage or negligence.
4 . Expanded Heritage Umbrella: Update criteria to include more trees based on age ,
ecological significance , and a Species Value Rating (e.g., Champion/Landmark
status) to prioritize superior crown density.
5. Preservation Funding Reform: Rebrand the Tree Conservation Fund to the "Tree
Trust Fund ." Use adjusted mitigation fees to fund a Conservation Easement program,
purchasing development rights on private lots to save high-value trees.
6 . Setback Protections: Prohibit tree removal within required setbacks to ma i ntain
vegetative buffers .
7. Retention Mandate: Require a 20% Canopy Retention mandate for all projects to
prevent clear-cutting.
II . Balancing Property Rights & Stewardship
Providing flexibility and incentives to encourage a "Maritime Forest-First" approach.
8. Administrative Flexibility: Grant the City Manager au t hority to allow automatic
setback variances (e .g ., shifting structures) if it results in saving a protected tree .
9. Financial Stewardship Incentives: Offer rebates or m itigation relief for property
owners who enter long-term preservation covenants or already maintain a significant
existing canopy .
Attachment A to
5-2-26 Minutes
10 . Strategic Replanting Credits: Implement a sliding scale for mitigation; offer double
credit for maritime species (Live Oaks) and 100% Florida-Friendly plans, while
reducing credits for palms or non-natives.
11. Site Feasibility Solutions: Establish a Total Mitigation Cap for space-constrained
lots and permit planting in stormwater areas and rear yards to maximize available on-
site canopy.
Ill. Technical Design and Enforcement
Strengthening physical protections and closing procedural loopholes.
12 . Enhanced Root and Canopy Protection: Expand the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) to 10
feet for standard trees and 15 feet (or 50% of drip line) for Heritage Trees. Require
steel plates or heavy mulch to prevent soil compaction.
13 . Rigid Protection Barriers: Mandate durable , non-moveable fencing for protection
zones. Any canopy reduction for clearance requires City approval and specific
pruning prescriptions.
14. Closing the "Lot Split" Loophole: Require a full tree survey prior to any lot split; deny
splits or restrict building envelopes if the proposed property line bisects a Heritage
Tree.
15 . Standardized Maintenance: Clarify pruning definitions to ban "topping."
16 . Recovery: Require all replacement trees to meet a 4" DBH minimum with specific
spacing requirements to ensure long-term survival.
IV. Community Character and Operations
Codifying the long-term vision for Atlantic Beach.
17 . Citywide Canopy Goals: Formally adopt a Tree Canopy Coverage Goal in the
Comprehensive Plan (targeting 2040-2050).
18 . Corridor Protection: Expand the Historic Corridor protection to include Seventh
Street.
19. Administrative Enhancements: Increase construction permit fees to fund
dedicated mitigation oversight and site inspections.
20. Mitigation Accountability: Require formal mitigation plans to be submitted within
30 days of calculation to ensure timely replanting and compliance.
CJTYO A
rs o 11
Attachment A to
5-2-26 Minutes
PALM ES
P I l 2
EE UST
Life $ an I FAS
80-150 years (can excl! d 200 Ir,
n ur I t n s)
50-150 Years
50-100 Years
Common Name
Cedar, Red
Crnpe Mvr tic
Elm , Wing ed
Hollv, American
Holly, Dah oon
Holly, East P;,latka
Hollv, Ya upon
Oak , Myrtle
Oak Sand Li ve
Podocarpus, '(_e_w
Priv et , Glossy
Privet, Japa nese
Redbud
Wax Myrtle
(Supp. N o . 511
Attachment A to
5-2-26 Minutes
UNO RSTORY OR OR M E AL TREES
Botanical Nam e
Junlperus virginian a
Las.er stroemia lndica
Ulmus ;it.rta
lle,c opaca
llex cas slne
lie• attenuata
llex vomitoria
Quercus myrtifot ia
Quercus gemln ata
Podocarpu s ma croph yllus
Ligustr um lucldum
ligustrum j apon icum
Cercis canadensis
Myrica cerifera
Pii ge 2 ot 2
Life Scan OFASI
100-300 ye ar s
30-50 years
60-100 yea r s
80-150 years
50-100 years
30-50 years
30-50 vear s
50-100 years
100-300 years
50-100 vears
50-100 years
40-80 years
20-30 years
20-40 years
Cnat..t: 2tb •H •2l 11 :U .n (15IJ
.. Attachment B to
5-2 -26 Minute s
Policy Roadmap + Key Findings
01 Take Stock of
• Mature Trees
Key Findings :
1. Mature urban trees are undervalued.
2. Publicly available city-wide data on
tree loss and new plantings aids in tree
preservation .
3. Involving certified arbo rists in initial
proj ect design enables creativity and
flexibil ity.
Adopt Baseline
Protectio ns
Key Fin din gs:
7. Baseline policies and laws
establish a necessary foundation
to r preservin g mature trees on private
lands.
Engage
Stakeholders
Key Findings :
4. Increasing density can accommodate
the retention of mature urban trees.
s. Tree preservation can provide a return
on investment.
6. Mature urban trees provide collective
benefits beyond and across private
property lines.
04. Provide Support
Key Findings:
8. Incentives, financial support, and
technical support can aid in the
ach ievement of baseline protection
standards.
POLICY AD VISORY I STRATEGIES TO VALUE AND
RE TAJ N MATURE URBAN TREES ON PRIVATE LANDS
PAGES
Attachment B to
5-2-26 Minutes
''What policies can cities
pu r sue to preserve mature
urban tre es on private lands?''
In very simple terms, this policy advisory advocates for cities to take four steps to preserve
mature urban trees: take stock of existing trees, engage stakeholders, adopt baseline
protections, and provide incentives and financial and technical support to help landowners
achieve baseline protections. All of these steps have been implemented by various
localities but rarely comprehensively to address all four steps to effectively communic ate,
evaluate, and track progress towards the preservation of mature trees on private lands.
The first three steps create a foundation for tree protection and include assessing the state
of existing mature trees, taking meaningful steps to engage stakeholders, and providing a
regulatory baseline to ensure that mature·trees are protected. The underlying fourth step
involves the creation of mechanisms to support private parties in achieving these
protections through incentives and financial and technical support. The following
discussion of key findings seeks to provide assistance, information, and support to cities
looking to implement all four elements of the policy advisory roadmap.
City Ac t ion Sequence: Mature T ree Protection
1: t• Stock of
Exlstq Assets
4: Reinforce with Incentives,
Financial Support, and
T echnlcal Support Mechanisms
t __ t _ _::::-___:::-_J J
Attachment B to
5-2-26 Minutes
Step 3 Table: Baseline Regulatory Protections for Mature Trees
Note : Full table with citations included in appendix
Trees beyond a minimum
size
Special Tree Designation
Designate special
protection zone
Minimum canopy % with
emphasis on existing trees
Green retention policy with
emphasis on existing trees
Tree Permit
Public Notice
Tree Preservation Plan
Tree Service Provider
Registration
Trees beyond a minimum size on private lands are protected
from removal exce pt in limited circumstances
Special protection for trees beyond a specified size or age ,
such as heritage tree designation
Retention in high -value locations (such as steep slopes,
riparian/wetland buffers, historic districts, and commercial
corridors)
Specified retention of mature trees in minimum canopy
requirements
Prescribed minimum levels of green infrastructure that
provide enhanced credit for retention of existing trees
Permit required to prune or remove protected trees on private
lands
Public notice required prior to tree removal
Pre-development plan prepared by certified arborist
designating mature trees for protection during development
Registration and oversight of tree service providers to
regulate compliance with tree protection regulat ions
• Austin Tree Protection
• Toronto Private Tree Bylfil'l
• Atlanta No Net Loss of Trees Policy
• San Francisco Significant and Landmark Trees
• Washing!O.Q,,.lli;_,_§gecial. and Herjtage Trees
• Atlanta Soecimen Tree
• TaJ!lP..al?pecimen and Grand Trees
• Portland Overlay Zones and Plan Districts
• Asheville Steeo...s.!Qpe Zone
• AsheviUe Tree CanopY. Preservation
.B,eguirements
• Portland Onsjte Density Reguirements
• Boone (~ Preservation of Existing~
• Seattle Green Factor
• !nmamwol is Green Factor
• Austin Tree and Natural Area Protection
• San Francisco Permjt to Remove Landmark
~gnificant Trees
• To!!)oa Tree Permits for Pruning and Removal
of Protected Trees
• Atlanta Posting of Notice of Tree Removal
• Portland Public Not ice Reguired to Remove
Tree Over 36" Diameter
• Austin Tree and Natural Area protection
• Norfolk Tree canogy...Elrul
• Portland Tree Plan Requirement
• Seattle Tree Service provider Reai.fil!:aliQD.
• .c.i.!Y. of Falls Church (VA) Tree Contractor
.ful.!lQ
Pnl 1r.v AnVISClRY I STRAT F[;IES TO VAL UE A N D
Attachment B to
5-2-26 M inutes
Step 3 Table (Cont.)
Fines
"Stop Work" Orders
Restrictive Covenants
Conservation Easement
Public Ownership, Private
Management
Specifications for root zone
and crown protection
Tree Protection Board
Financial penalties for removal of mature trees without
approval
Ability to issue stop work to prevent removing mature tree
without approval
Property deed restriction required by locality or adopted
voluntarily to protect mature trees
Prope rty easement provided to protect mature trees or to
allow access for care and maintenance
Programs to permit private management of mature trees on
public property, or vice-versa
Designation and fencing of area protected from construction
impacts
Required posting of a monetary bond to guarantee tree
protection during construction, and if the tree is harmed, the
party will reimburse for the loss
• WashingtQ.O.,...ru;;.,£.fil!..a!lY. for Removal of
.soecial Tree without Permit
• Ifilnpa Failure to Obtain Tree Permit
• WashingtQ.O., DC, Urban Forest Preservation:
Enforcement
• Atlanta Injunctive Re!ief
• Portland Enforcement Actions
• Seattle Covenant Required for Trees Protected
.!2,'. Modified DeveloP.ment Standards
• Ventura County (~ Restrictive Covenant to
Guarantee Protected Tree Mrtigatio.o.
• Atlanta Conservation Easement and Fee
Simple Donation
• San Francisco Street Parks
• Portland Green Streets
• Atlanta Root save Area
• Portland Tree Protection Specjficatjons
• Miami Tree Protection Bond
• Q!Y. of Redmond ('ti.h'J Performance Bond
• Q!Y. of Falls Church (y'b) Tree Preservation
and Maintenance Agreement and Bond
POLICY ADVISOR Y I STRATEGIES TO VALUE AND
RETAIN MA TU RE URBAN TRE ES ON PRIVATE LANDS
PAG E 20
• ... Attachment B to
5-2-26 Minutes
Step 4 Table: Incentives, Financial and Technical Support Policy
Mec ha nisms Note: full table with citations included in appendix
Creating Value for Retaining Mature Trees on Private Lands
Tran sfer of Development
Rights
Density Bonuses
Carbo n capture and
Biodiversity Credits
Transfer of development density lost from mature tree protection to
another parcel
Increased density abOve that allowed by code in exchange for the
preservation of mature trees
Mechanism that allows landowners to monetize the carbon
sequestration and biodiversity benefits of preserving large mature
trees
Regulatory Flexibility for Development Retaining Urban Trees
Flexibility in Site Design and Allowed departures from site design requirements to aHow for the
Regulatory Compliance preservation of mature trees
Expedited/Streamlined Provide faster/less process in exchange for tree preservation Approval
Altern ative Equivalent Approval of non-standard designs that protect mature trees
Compliance
Financial Support
Redu ce d Tax Liability Lower tax rate for property that retains mature trees
Tax Credits Tax credit to aid in preservation and maintenance of mature trees
Fee Reductions Reduction in local government lee tor retention of mature trees
• Portland Transferable Floor Area Ratio Density ~
• Seattle euilding..l::Willh1...12m
• Seattle Floor Area Ratio Densay em
• Lakewood (WAl r,ee Preservation tncen~ves
• Atlanta Carbon credit Program
• King county Urban Forest Preseryaljon ecoiei;L
• London Bjodiyersjty Net Gain Credh
. seanJe Reguiceroeats for Trees :idH:□ ~~l!.ll2!0011
.P(QUQSed...
• sama Bw:ba,:a Atfordable t:iousjng s11:eamlined
8~
• 81.1stin AUematii,:e 1;;ouj~en1 comr21I11oce
.
.
. . .
Qnta.cio Managed fore51 Tws ID'-ll □1ille PCQ9til.m
t:l~i ~ce12tjg!lll.l rrei: rws t;iellui;tioo
~ !116I!:ISWJd[ia !YAl SIQ!IllYl'.il.11:[ VlililY. Eee Credll
~nta ga,:a ~aJli:1t I0ters;i:111!1!: l[ee Cre~it
SeaWi: Qrwnagi: Eee :J.Q~ l!Il12Act'.'. PiliCQIIDI
POLICY ADVISORY I STRATEGIES TO VALUE AND
RFTAIN IAATI IRI' 1 IRRAN TRFE.S ON PRIVATE. LANDS
Atta chmen t B to
5-2 -26 Minute s . . .
Step 4 Tab l e: Inc enti v es, Fi nanc ial and Tec hnical Su pp o rt Poli cy
Mechanisms Note : full table with citations included in appendix
I •:• I -.-.·----•" -·--·~.,i·-,-:· -~ '"•: .. :r-";~ ---, •!1, • ., r,--c•-;··. """, ... :1--1:-~-"';-~:·=:• • .....,-. ~ ,f -...... c:$~1·fJJ J ... , .
• "i • ~ t
-~;.,~
Dedicated Protection Funding Mechanisms
. ~l :rw: ece~rvatioa ,aag elilaling
Desi gnated Fund Fund created from city revenues specillcally dedicated to green Eurul
infrastructure, including preserving mature trees • &l~D LIISIID Ellllllil ~[il[II . fortland fl:Cl.fllll 112! ~[IIID Ellllll
Impact Bond Levy of bond to raise reve nue for dedicated purpose • WIWlinOIIID ~ l;!lldCII OIDlllllll lllKlllkl a!:11111 5 . BilJlllgb ew:~ a12011 Blllll[IIDIILIII
Land Transfer Tax Tax imposed by city when real estate title is transferred used to fund
conservadon • ~WlWl.llf:I B11111 Estate IrWJSll[ EIIII
Green Benefits District Voluntary tax district to support investments in green infraslructure • Sill! Erancisco GCHD t'!i:ni:lil Qilil!i~
Tax lncremem Finan cing Directed investment of future property tax gains to fund preservation of . .ci1Y. 111 Bockforll aw JJE e~
mature trees • AUlillO lOlilllll[ {;[II.ti~ ru 101.[llllllllll EiOIIQi;i[l(I_
Self-tax ing district established by property owne rs to enhance . WIWlinlll2D !;2i;; lailiiDII~ IWDrovelJJIQI 12iil[~
Business Improvement District . !;l:OIII[ C~ Qililli!;I {P!lil~ll2hiil Plll!ll CIIOIII[ Cilx comme rcial area through maintenance and care of existing trees fwgwn.
lndlvklual Homeowner SUpport
• lloa&(QB) 1~110~11 EualliDII tg MIIDliiiD l2illii11Cli1Wt
Tree conservation paymem Payment to Individual homeowner to care for and maintain mature tree l:illillll~
• L!2DIIQO (Qnla!illl I!~ canol2Y. CQD~!Yili!l!l EC!lllW!l
• ~giaie 12QE 1:111cllr,:QW;l lailieli:it C12S-Sberi: eci20wn 35
Technical support
. c1w112ne Ga®llY ~ra.m..
• Maresw (YA) l;i11,1catjon. lUIW, AAII ISliilileOCII
Tree care and maintenance Program to prov ide direct assistance for maintenance of mature trees . BllLllllt Ctlidl211111ildlli: Irllll ecllSIIIYA!iQO 36 . ~gioie QQE 1:112meowa11c 6:liilillll!:11 we Ucbaa 11011
c12mm11oltv E-Of11strv . . !W::iill!:Olii1
35 The Hardwood In itiative Cost-Share Program provides cost share to private landowners (individuals , companies. LLCs, NGOS) who complete
eligible hardwood management practiees as recommended by a DOF forester .
36 Program offering free tree care to preserve mature tree s in two low-Income areas of Charlottesvil le, VA.
POLICY ADVISORY I STRATEGIES TO VAL UE AND
RET AIN MATURE URBAN TREES ON PRIVATE LANDS
PAGE30