Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) - 27 May 2026 - Minutes - PdfEnvironmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) May 27, 2026 MINUTES ESC Tree Sub-Committee Meeting Wednesday, May 27, 2026 - 6:00 PM City Hall, Commission Chamber 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 Present: Amy Palmer, ESC Member 2 Sarah Boren, ESC Member 4 Matthew Mattila, ESC Member Bruce Andrews, ESC Member 6 Daniele Giovannucci, ESC Member 7 Christina Kelcourse, ESC Member 8 Amy Franqui, ESC Member 9 Absent: Anastasia Houston, ESC Member 1 Todd Miner, ESC Member 3 Also Present: Payton Jamieson, Principal Planner (PP) 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. 2. COURTESY OF THE FLOOR (5 MINS.) Chair Bruce Andrews invited public comment. One member of the public was present — a newly relocated resident attending their first meeting. Dan Giovannucci welcomed the individual and noted that a seat on the committee would soon be available, extending a lighthearted invitation to consider applying. No formal public comment was offered. 3. CHAIR REMARKS Chair Andrews noted that the meeting would be focused on two principal matters: the Large Tree Protection discussion, and the preparation of the semiannual tree permit report that is required to be submitted to the City Commission twice per year. He stated that the report is due by June 29 for presentation at the July 13 Commission meeting. Chair Andrews mentioned that he had only just located the relevant document earlier that day. The committee briefly noted that the meeting room was without Internet connectivity. Principal Planner Payton Jamieson indicated she would inform IT staff the following day. 4. STAFF REPORTS A. Heritage Tree Application Planner Jamieson presented a Heritage Tree application for a property located at 2210 Oceanwalk Drive West, submitted on March 6, 2026. She reported that the application concerns three Live Oak trees located on the west side of the property, with measured diameters at breast height (DBH) of 31, 44, and 51 inches respectively. The trees were assessed by City Arborist Chris Delk as being in good condition and meeting the city's Page 1 of 12 Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) May 27, 2026 30-inch DBH standard for heritage tree designation. Staff recommended approval of all three trees for heritage designation, noting that the City Arborist conducts an on-site assessment prior to every heritage tree application — a process that has been applied consistently and is yielding an increasing volume of applications, which staff characterized as a positive trend. Giovannucci offered a comment regarding the photograph of one of the three trees, which he noted appeared to have slightly smoother bark than is typical of a Live Oak. He drew the committee's attention to the longstanding difficulty — acknowledged even by experienced local master arborists — of distinguishing between Live Oaks, Water Oaks, and Sand Oaks in this region, all of which share close visual similarities but differ substantially in lifespan. He suggested that, given City Arborist Chris's relative newness to the area, it may be worthwhile to encourage him to consult with local master arborists — specifically referencing a respected figure in the community — to ensure confident species identification going forward. Chair Andrews agreed that it would be valuable for the City Arborist to develop expertise in Quercus virginiana specifically, so the committee could be fully confident in species distinctions when making heritage tree determinations. MOTION: To recommend that the City Commission approve the designation of three oak trees at 2210 Oceanwalk Drive West as heritage trees. Motion: Sarah Boren Second: Amy Franqui Motion passed 7 to 0. Following the vote, the committee turned briefly to a related staff report item raised by Boren, who noted that City Arborist Chris had previously indicated he wished to bring questions to the ESC regarding the monthly tree report, but was unable to attend the meeting. Planner Jamieson confirmed that staff had been engaged in an internal review of the accuracy of the monthly tree report data. She explained that the core challenge is a timing issue inherent in the permitting process: tree permits are typically among the first permits filed for a project but among the last to be formally closed, sometimes remaining open for up to three years. As a result, the data previously presented in monthly reports may not accurately reflect conditions on the ground — trees described as removed may not yet have been removed, and trees originally planned for removal may ultimately be retained if plans change. Staff was exploring whether separating permits into categories — such as those associated with new construction versus pools or additions versus standalone tree removals — might produce more accurate and useful reporting. Giovannucci acknowledged the structural challenge but argued that the most statistically sound approach, given the constraints of the current system, would be to take the permit data at face value: if a permit has been filed, it should be assumed the removal will proceed. He cautioned against over-engineering the categorization process, noting that it would be difficult to justify Page 2 of 12 Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) May 27, 2026 the added staff burden without a clear policy purpose for the additional granularity. He stated plainly, "I don't see the case for doing extra work on that data personally." Boren respectfully disagreed, contending that more granular data — particularly the ability to distinguish new construction removals from minor project removals — would help the committee identify the right questions to ask, and that details had previously revealed important trends, such as the elevated frequency of removals under arborist letters. She indicated a preference for maintaining at least quarterly reporting and expressed interest in eventually adding data fields for heritage trees, city tree losses and plantings, and a general ledger of the tree fund. Franqui connected the discussion to the ESC's longer-term goal of producing a biennial State of the Canopy report, suggesting that improvements to the monthly permit report — such as categorizing the type of permit — could contribute meaningfully to that larger effort. She recalled that the committee had previously requested the addition of a field asking applicants to explain why they were removing a tree, which had yielded useful information. Planner Jamieson clarified the technical limitations of the City's current permitting software (referred to as the BSA system), which does not support fillable form fields, queryable data filters, or automated categorization. Filtering is currently limited to tree permits by year of submission and open or closed status. Arborist letters, she noted, are not submitted through the permitting portal — they are received via email, logged in a folder by date of receipt, and tracked manually. The numbers appearing in the monthly tree report for arborist letter removals are compiled by staff from that manual folder system, not from an automated database. Giovannucci noted that the committee had previously submitted a list of requested data categories — including type of removal, reason for removal, species, and inches — in anticipation of a new software platform that was supposed to automate the reporting. Planner Jamieson confirmed that the new system had not been programmed to support those categories. Chair Andrews redirected the discussion, asking when the committee could expect to receive the next monthly tree report in the current format — without changes to methodology — noting that the last report received was for March 2026. Planner Jamieson confirmed that staff had concerns about presenting data that was not fully accurate but acknowledged Chair Andrews's point that consistency in reporting methodology has value in itself. She indicated she would raise the matter with the Director, and the committee agreed that in the interim, staff should continue producing the report in its current format, with appropriate footnotes about the known limitations of the data. Chair Andrews raised a related point about staff transition, noting that responsibility for the mitigation matrix and monthly tree report had passed between multiple staff members over time, and expressing concern that such transitions should not interrupt the reporting cadence. Planner Jamieson confirmed that City Arborist Chris is now the primary owner of that work. The committee also discussed the preferred attendance arrangement for future meetings, with Chair Andrews suggesting it would be preferable to have City Arborist Chris present at tree subcommittee meetings and Planner Jamieson attending the regular ESC meetings, to the extent scheduling allows. Page 3 of 12 Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) May 27, 2026 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Current status of possible Chapter 23 changes 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Semi-annual tree permit report to the commission Report due to Amanda to include in the Commission agendas as follows:  by Monday, June 29, for the July 13 Commission meeting  by Monday, November 30, for the December 14 Commission meeting Page 4 of 12 Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) May 27, 2026 The committee reviewed the prior report, which drew on monthly tree report data through October 31 of the prior year, given that more recent months had not yet been finalized. Boren confirmed that monthly tree report data through March 2026 had already been included in meeting agendas and indicated that staff should be able to produce data through the end of May in the existing format in time for the June 29 deadline. Chair Andrews suggested the forthcoming report should cover the period from January through June 2026, with November and December 2025 data — which had not been included in the prior report — incorporated to provide a more complete historical picture. He proposed that the data methodology remain consistent with prior reporting, even if imperfect, in order to maintain continuity. The committee reviewed the data tables in the prior presentation. Chair Andrews observed that while the permit application count is likely fairly accurate, columns reflecting total trees removed, total inches removed, trees planted, inches planted, and total mitigation payments are all subject to the timing variability previously discussed. He concluded that the committee should not allow concerns about accuracy to prevent reporting and directed staff to continue providing the data in the current format. Giovannucci noted that the prior report had included an estimate for "not-permitted removals," drawing partly on anecdotal information from Parks staff regarding trees removed without permits — particularly a pattern that had been observed in prior years of tree removal companies working on Saturdays before city staff could respond. He clarified which numbers in the prior report were from the formal tree report data versus estimates. Discussion also addressed the process for tracking arborist letters. Planner Jamieson explained that arborist letters are received by email, organized in a dated folder, and that staff manually counts the trees listed in those letters for inclusion in the monthly report. They are not linked to addresses in the permitting system and cannot be queried. Giovannucci noted that the committee had previously requested that arborist letter submissions be standardized to include species, DBH, and other data fields, and that City Arborist Delk had independently proposed something similar. Planner Jamieson confirmed that the new system cannot accommodate automated data entry from letters. Boren acknowledged that an AI-based scraping approach — referencing a prior attempt involving a 13-year-old and a more recent effort by a staff member using AI tools — might be revisited as the technology has improved. Chair Andrews raised a distinct process observation: he had learned from a constituent that City Arborist Delk had visited a property, assessed a palm tree as dead, and authorized its removal without requiring a tree permit or arborist letter, which is consistent with the city's authority under the ordinance for clearly dead or dying trees. Chair Andrews expressed support for this approach in clear-cut cases but asked that the committee have an opportunity to hear from City Arborist Delk periodically about the types of field judgments he is making — both authorizations for removal and situations where he has persuaded property owners to preserve trees through alternative means. Page 5 of 12 Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) May 27, 2026 Planner Jamieson noted that City Arborist Delk had already been active in encouraging property owners to consider mitigation strategies other than removal, and that he had changed people's minds in several cases. She indicated she would ask him to speak to those experiences at the next tree subcommittee meeting. The committee briefly reviewed the narrative sections of the prior semiannual report, which included editorial commentary on the effectiveness of the tree ordinance. Chair Andrews suggested that the semiannual report should focus primarily on process oversight — how staff is administering the ordinance — rather than broader policy commentary, which is more appropriate for the State of the Canopy report. Boren proposed that future semiannual reports consistently address the following topics: data on permits and removals; a process section including any appeals and variances received; a visual flowchart illustrating how tree permits and arborist letters each work, to help the public understand the distinctions; and a recommendations section. She suggested one recommendation for the current report would be that staff develop a model arborist letter and a model tree permit demonstrating the quality and data fields the city expects, which could be shared with local arborists to elevate submission standards without requiring a change to the software system. Franqui noted the distinction between the semiannual report, the monthly tree report, and the State of the Canopy report, and suggested they should speak to one another coherently. The committee agreed that members wishing to contribute to the content of the semiannual report should send their written input to Giovannucci, with Director Askew copied and at least Franqui included, ahead of the next relevant meeting. The committee discussed whether additional staff input would be required before the regular June meeting or the second meeting in June, leaving the precise submission deadline to be determined based on staff availability. Regarding the data table, Chair Andrews proposed that staff be asked to analyze the most recent twelve months of tree permits and provide a breakdown of trees removed by species and by size category, specifically identifying oaks and using the following DBH groupings: under 20 inches; 20 to 24 inches; 25 to 30 inches; 31 to 36 inches; and greater than 36 inches. He acknowledged that species-level data beyond oaks would likely require manually reviewing individual PDFs and may represent too significant a staff burden. He suggested that, as a first step, the analysis be limited to oaks, since the mitigation matrix already tracks oaks separately due to the oak-for-oak replanting requirement. Planner Jamieson agreed to raise this request with City Arborist Delk and Director Askew. B. Large tree protection (email from Director Askew sent on May 19) At the May 26 meeting (Tuesday, rather than Monday due to the holiday), the City Manager has the topic of large tree protection on the under-city manager report for discussion. Page 6 of 12 Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) May 27, 2026 Staff has prepared a draft memo for the Commission, although it was not included in the published agenda materials. The memorandum recommends establishing a formal definition of “Champion Trees” and outlining potential protections and regulations associated with those trees. The City Manager intends for the Commission and the community to further discuss appropriate DBH standards for protections. As I previously shared with the City Manager, if staff input is considered, we would recommend that all maritime species at least 20" DBH be included within the definition of a Champion Tree. Staff came to the conclusion of a 20" DBH because these are trees are typically at least 100 years old. This is the language that was first presented to the city manager for his review with the focus just on live oak trees..... Champion trees are those trees in the city which have been identified as 20-inch DBH or greater (diameter-at-breast height) Live Oaks. Champion tree(s), as defined in Section 23-8, should be considered regulated trees in all areas of the city. Champion tree(s) removal is strongly discouraged. A tree permit is required to remove any champion tree(s). Prior to the removal of a champion tree(s), the owner shall give the city first right of refusal to relocate champion tree(s) otherwise designated for removal by the applicant. If a champion tree(s) is removed with certified arborist report, the city will obtain a 3rd-party arborist to provide an independent arborist report on the champion tree(s) to be removed. Champion tree(s) removal and/or relocation mitigation rate shall be determined by the city and equal to the cost of relocating the champion tree(s). If a champion tree(s) is removed without obtaining a proper tree permit, the mitigation rate assessed shall be doubled. Planting mitigation credits are only available with the planting of 4-inch caliper Live Oaks and require prior city approval of a landscape plan. Removing a champion tree requires approval from both the Community Development Board and the City Commission. Chair Andrews introduced the item, noting that a memorandum prepared by Director Askew had been distributed to ESC members via email on May 19 but had not been included in the published Commission agenda materials for the May 26 meeting. He reviewed his written responses to the memorandum, which he had shared with Director Askew and the City Manager. Terminology — "Champion Trees" Chair Andrews flagged that the term "champion tree" is already a formally defined designation in Florida — the state has maintained a Florida Champion Tree Register since 1975, recognizing the largest specimen of each species. The term also has national usage in the same context. He recommended that the city adopt different terminology to avoid confusion, suggesting the term "landmark tree," consistent with Alachua County's ordinance. He noted the ESC has previously used terms including "heritage" and "legacy," but expressed a preference for "landmark." Page 7 of 12 Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) May 27, 2026 Franqui agreed the point was well-taken, noting that the specific term "champion tree" carries established meaning in arboricultural and botanical contexts. DBH Threshold — 20 Inches The memorandum from Director Askew recommended a 20-inch DBH threshold for the new protected tree designation, on the basis that trees of that size are typically at least 100 years old. Chair Andrews questioned the accuracy of that premise, citing as an example two oak trees in his daughter's yard on Sea Oats — one measuring 20 inches and one 23 inches — that were planted by a prior owner approximately 35 years ago. He suggested the age rationale was factually imprecise, though he acknowledged the underlying goal of protecting significant trees was sound. Planner Jamieson indicated she would ask City Arborist Delk to send the committee an email explaining the specific arboricultural basis for the 20-inch threshold, noting it relates to growth ring spacing and is not simply an arbitrary estimate. Giovannucci suggested that the memorandum's language could be amended to say trees "may be" up to 100 years old rather than "are typically" 100 years old, to avoid factual overstatement. Mattila suggested framing the value of such trees in economic terms — noting that a tree of that size cannot be replaced for less than tens of thousands of dollars, if it can be replaced at all. Franqui noted that the committee had previously passed a motion recommending a DBH range of 24 to 30 inches as a minimum threshold for the special protection category, and that at a subsequent meeting, the committee had expressed willingness to support the staff recommendation of 20 inches. Chair Andrews acknowledged uncertainty about whether the latter position had been formally motioned, and expressed his personal view that 20 inches is too low, though he acknowledged it may be a useful starting point for Commission negotiations. A show of hands confirmed that a majority of members favored including multiple species — not live oaks only — in the large tree protection definition. Planner Jamieson confirmed that staff's position, as stated in the memorandum, is to recommend all maritime species at a minimum of 20 inches DBH. She noted discrepancies in the proposed language to the definition of champion trees and it's focus on live oaks only. The committee affirmed its continued support for a multi-species approach. Species Scope — Maritime Species vs. Live Oaks Only Chair Andrews reported that in a separate conversation, the Mayor had indicated a preference at this stage for focusing the protection on live oaks only. The committee acknowledged this perspective but reiterated its position in favor of including all maritime species, consistent with prior motions. Boren gave the example of large maples she had observed on Royal Palms that would not be covered under a live-oak-only definition. Page 8 of 12 Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) May 27, 2026 Relocation Concept — City's First Right of Refusal Planner Jamieson explained a concept establishing the city's first right of refusal to relocate large trees designated for removal, rather than simply requiring mitigation payments. She noted City Arborist Delk has done research on tree relocation. Under this framework, if a property owner sought to remove a large, protected tree, the city could elect to have the tree relocated and the relocation cost would serve as the mitigation rate, with the relocation cost serving as the mitigation rate. If the city declined to exercise that right, the owner would still owe a mitigation payment benchmarked to the estimated cost of relocating a tree of that size, which staff indicated would be substantial. The intent is both to create a genuine option for tree preservation and to use the high cost of large-tree relocation as a meaningful deterrent to removal. Kelcourse raised the question of whether the cost of relocation might in some cases be lower than standard mitigation fees, potentially creating an unintended easy-out for property owners. She also questioned what percentage of relocated trees would survive. Franqui raised concerns about ongoing maintenance costs — particularly watering — for a relocated tree of significant size. Mattila, referencing the data showing net canopy loss, expressed support for giving the city additional tools to protect inches, and noted that the city could simply decline to exercise the right if the economics did not make sense. MOTION: To support the relocation concept giving the City the first right of refusal to relocate large, protected trees. Motion: Amy Palmer Second: Matthew Mattila Amy Palmer (Moved By) For Sarah Boren For Matthew Mattila (Seconded By) For Bruce Andrews Against Daniele Giovannucci For Christina Kelcourse For Amy Franqui For Motion passed 6 to 1. Boren raised the point that a prior version of the staff proposal had included a requirement for applicants to demonstrate that removal was unavoidable — sometimes referred to as a "statement of infeasibility” but that this element appeared to have been omitted from the most recent draft presented to the Commission. She referenced the Alachua County Landmark Live Oak ordinance, which requires demonstration that development or construction cannot occur in any other location on the site, or that removal is unavoidable due to site conditions or design considerations beyond the applicant's control. Page 9 of 12 Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) May 27, 2026 Chair Andrews confirmed this language was in the Alachua County ordinance excerpt he had reviewed and expressed support for Atlantic Beach adopting similar language. Giovannucci suggested that staff, rather than the Commission, should be the initial decision- maker under this standard — with appeals or variance requests going to the Commission only when staff denies removal and the applicant wishes to challenge that decision. He cautioned that routing every large tree removal request directly to the Commission would generate an unmanageable volume of hearings, particularly if the threshold were set at 20 inches. Boren proposed that the committee recommend staff and the Commission consider Alachua County's infeasibility language, augmented by a provision requiring consideration of pruning or other risk-mitigation measures as an alternative to removal — reasoning that if a large branch could be removed to resolve a concern about site constraints, the infeasibility standard would not be met. C. Large Tree Protection (continued) Proof of No Feasible Alternative — Alachua County Language Boren raised the point that a prior version of the staff proposal had included a requirement for applicants to demonstrate that removal was unavoidable — sometimes referred to as a "statement of infeasibility” but that this element appeared to have been omitted from the most recent draft presented to the Commission. She referenced the Alachua County Landmark Live Oak ordinance, which requires demonstration that development or construction cannot occur in any other location on the site, or that removal is unavoidable due to site conditions or design considerations beyond the applicant's control. Chair Andrews confirmed this language was in the Alachua County ordinance excerpt he had reviewed and expressed support for Atlantic Beach adopting similar language. Giovannucci suggested that staff, rather than the Commission, should be the initial decision-maker under this standard — with appeals or variance requests going to the Commission only when staff denies removal and the applicant wishes to challenge that decision. He cautioned that routing every large tree removal request directly to the Commission would generate an unmanageable volume of hearings, particularly if the threshold were set at 20 inches. Boren proposed that the committee recommend staff and the Commission consider Alachua County's infeasibility language, augmented by a provision requiring consideration of pruning or other risk-mitigation measures as an alternative to removal — reasoning that if a large branch could be removed to resolve a concern about site constraints, the infeasibility standard would not be met. MOTION: To recommend that staff and the Commission consider adopting language based on Alachua County's infeasibility standard — requiring demonstration that development cannot occur in any other location, that removal is unavoidable due to site conditions or design considerations, and that pruning or other risk-reduction measures cannot serve as a feasible alternative — as the proof-of-no-feasible-alternative framework for large tree protection Page 10 of 12 Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) May 27, 2026 Motion: Sarah Boren Second: Daniele Giovannucci Motion passed 7 to 0. Process and Implementation — Decision Tree Giovannucci proposed that a visual decision tree be developed for use by staff in evaluating large tree removal requests, so that the vast majority of cases could be resolved at the staff level with clear criteria, and only contested cases would escalate to the Commission. Planner Jamieson indicated she would look into the feasibility of that approach. Alachua County Implementation — Research Request Chair Andrews asked Franqui, given her contact in Alachua County, to make inquiries about how that county's landmark tree protections are administered in practice — specifically, what staff's role is in applying the infeasibility criteria, at what point requests reach the Board of County Commissioners, and how frequently commissioners are called upon to make those decisions. Franqui noted anecdotally that her contact had described a dynamic in which developers seeking to remove large-caliper oaks for commercial projects would be told by the Commission that project approval would not be granted if the trees were removed, and that developers had in several cases redesigned their projects to accommodate the trees. She suggested the commission- level review may function as much through deterrence as through formal denial. Planner Jamieson offered a planning-side caution against direct comparison to Alachua County, noting that Alachua County is significantly less densely developed, with substantially larger lot sizes, making tree-by-tree comparison methodologically problematic. She suggested the committee seek reference points from municipalities with lot sizes and development patterns more similar to Atlantic Beach. Additional Consideration — Construction Protection and Surety Bond Boren raised a concern about a potential loophole under the current framework: a property owner may retain a large tree on a permit application, avoid mitigation fees, and then proceed to construct a pool, addition, or other structure in a manner that damages the tree's root system — ultimately killing the tree and permitting its removal under an arborist letter without any mitigation obligation. She suggested that large tree protection should include a surety bond or similar mechanism ensuring that a tree designated for preservation actually survives construction. Giovannucci noted that the forthcoming Chapter 23 revisions already address setback rules for construction near existing trees, and that this concern could be incorporated into that phase, particularly as it applies to large trees specifically. 7. MEMBERS CLOSING REMARKS Boren asked for clarification on whether, as a tree subcommittee meeting, reporting should be limited to tree-related matters. Chair Andrews confirmed that it should be. Boren acknowledged the clarification and noted she had intended to mention an upcoming film series but would refrain. Page 11 of 12 Environmental Stewardship Committee (ESC) May 27, 2026 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Attest: Amanda Askew, Neighborhoods Director Bruce Andrews, ESC Tree Chair Page 12 of 12