Item 8C - Tree Code RevisionsCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM # 8C
MARCH 9, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Tree Code Revisions
SUBMITTED BY: Jeremy Hubsch _f70-J
Building and Zoning Directo7 f(
DATE: February 24, 2015
BACKGROUND:
A repmt on the Tree Code was given to the Commission in October of 2014. The Commission
then tasked staff with making changes to improve the code. Staff then discussed the Tree Code
and presented possible changes to the code to the Community Development Board. The CDB
voted on 3 recommendations at their February 1 i 11 meeting, and have more 2 recommendations
to fine tune. The recommendations are:
1. Require a tree removal pennit for the removal of any tree within 24 months of
construction with a value over $10,000 and that the removal of all trees in excess of 6
inches in diameter require an on demand tree removal permit. The motion caiTied
unanimous! y.
Staff recommended that the city require a tree removal permit any time a tree is removed.
The Community Development Board was not supportive of this recommendation. It was
pointed out that a resident may plant a tree in their yard, and then seek to remove that tree
a few years later. The board felt that it is not fair to require a prope1ty owner to mitigate
for the removal of a tree they may themselves have planted. The board generally agreed
that residents are doing a good job of maintaining the tree canopy. They believe that the
loss of the canopy can mostly be attributed to new development. Therefore, they choose
to recommend extending the tree permit requirement from 6 months to 24 months. This
means a tree permit would be needed whenever a tree is removed within 24 months
before or after of construction that exceeds $10,000.
Additionally, the board recommended that all trees removed must file an on demand
permit. An on demand permit would essentially be a tool for staff to track trees that were
removed. If a tree was removed, then 8 months later a property owner attempted to
obtain a building pennit, staff would be able to require the prope1iy owner to
mitigate for the tree that they had already removed.
2. Eliminate the interior/exterior zone aspect of the code and have all trees 6 inches or more
in diameter be defined as private regulated trees. The motion catTied unanimously.
CuiTently, the tree code states that protected trees (private regulated trees) are all trees
that are 6 inches or larger in the "exterior zone" of a property. The exterior zone is
everywhere outside of the buildable area on a lot. All trees over 20 inches are protected in
the "interior zone", or buildable area of the lot. The logic behind this is that it should be
easier to preserve trees outside the buildable area on a lot. However, this provision allows
AGENDA ITEM # 8C
MARCH 9, 2015
trees up to 20 inches in the interior of the lot to be removed without any mitigation.
Additionally, trees up to 20 inches are given preservation credit for mitigation.
Hypothetically, a prope1iy owner can remove a 38 inch tree, get 19 inches of preservation
credit for maintaining a tree, and then later cut down the 19 inch tree that it got credit for
with no mitigation required (the 19 inch tree is not protected). There is also an argument
that if the city allows every 15 to 20 inch tree to be removed with no mitigation, the city's
future canopy will suffer.
One impmiant thing to consider with this proposed change is it will also impact the
amount of preservation credit prope1iy owners get. The code cmTently only gives
preservation credit to trees that are not protected (less than 6'' in exterior zone and less
than 20" in interior zone). If this section is changed to 6 inches, only trees below that
size will be given preservation credit. This means property owners will likely have to
mitigate more in the form of replacement or payment into the tree fund. This will
minimize the overall loss of trees on a property.
3. Make the mitigation rate payable to the tree fund $175.00 per caliper inch. The motion
carried unanimously.
Atlantic Beach has used the same dollar figure that the City of Jacksonville uses for
payment into the tree fund. Up until recently that number was $49 an inch. The City of
Jacksonville recently changed this to $113 to more accurately reflect cmTent market
costs. The Community Development Board has recommended an even higher number of
$175 per inch.
There are two staff recommendations that the CDB would like refined before they vote to
recommend to the Commission.
1. Strengthen Protection of Oaks.
Oaks are a treasured species by many in Atlantic Beach, and greatly contribute to the
character of the community. They are one of a few things that distinguish Atlantic Beach
from its neighboring beach communities. Staff is recommending that mitigation be
increased on oaks from 1 :2 to 1 : 1. Currently if you remove an oak, you have to mitigate 1
inch for every two inches removed (same as other trees in Atlantic Beach). Strengthening
protection of oaks will not prevent their removal, but it will make it more cost prohibitive
to do so. The code also says that only new oaks can be used to replace removed oaks.
This means a property owner would need to mitigate 40 inches if they remove a 40 inch
oak. This is simply not physically feasible on many prope1iies and would likely force the
prope1iy owner to pay into the tree fund. However, staff would like to ensure that some
mitigation is provided on site. Staff is also recommending that a ce1iain percentage of
mitigation be provided on site in the fmm of replacement oaks (25%). If a property owner
removed a 40 inch oak, they would need to provide at least 1 0 inches of mitigation on
site. They could then pay the remainder into the tree fund.
AGl~NDA ITEM # 8C
MARC II9. 2015
T he Co mmunit y Deve lo pment Board was ge ne rally in favo r of increas ing th e miti gat io n
ratio to 1:1. Tl owevc r, th ey wanted to s pecifi ca ll y limit thi s to prot ec ti on of Liv e Oaks
a nd Coastal Oaks. The reaso n be in g th at th e tw o other pre va lent oak species in Atlanti c
Beac h (Wat e r Oaks and La urel Oaks) ha ve s ho rt e r li fe spa ns th an other oaks, and arc
more di sease prone. T he board dec id ed to vo te on this at th eir Marc h 17'11 meetin g.
2. Give rep lacemen t credit for palm s. As th e co de is currentl y wr itlen, prope rt y owners are
o nly give n rep l.acement c redit fo r pa lms when they a re re placing removed palm s. Palm s
arc native to th e beach an d arc mo re sa lt tolerant th an some oth e r species . One impo rt ant
point to note is that oaks mu s t be rep lace d by oaks, so prop erty owners wi ll not be ab le to
usc palm s to repla ce oaks. Staff wou ld lik e th e Communit y Developme nt Bo ard and
Co mm iss ion to conside r a ll owi ng pa lm s to ge t rep la cement credit whe n replac ing oth er
removed s pecies. T his co uld be a citywid e provi si on, o r one th a t is spec ifi call y
geograph ica ll y rela ted, s uch as all areas eas l of Eas t Coast Drive and Se min o le Drive
n orth of it s termin us wi th Eas t Coast Drive. The idea be in g th at pa lms may thri ve better
than other s pecies in immedi ate prox imit y to th e beach.
Th e boa rd was ge nerall y s upporti ve of thi s recom mend ati on, but wa nt ed to limit it o nl y
to a se lec t few palm spec ies , prim a ri ly ones that are indi ge nou s and o r s ub sta nti a l size.
Th ey also p lan to address thi s at their March I i 11 mee ting .
BUDGF.T: No ne.
RI!:COMMENOATION: Direct sta ff to draft a n ord ina nce to am end Chapter 23 o f th e Land
Develop ment Co de (Protecti on ofTrees and Nati ve Vege tati on) based 0 11 reco mm endati ons
ATTACHMENTS: Co mmunity Deve lo pm ent 13oa rd Staff Report
REVIEWED HY C ITY MANAGER :
AGENDA ITEM
STAFF
STAFF COMMENTS
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SB (TREE CODE REVISIONS)
JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONI NG DIRECTOR
AGEN DA ITEM #8C
MARC II 9, 2015
The City Commiss ion asl<ed city staff to a naly ze the city's tree code and make recommendations for
improving the code las t fall. In October 2014, s taff gave a presentation to the comm iss ion abo ut t he
tree code a nd ways it co ul d be strengthe ned. After furt her review of the code, be low arc proposed
recommendations for amending Chapter 23 of t he Atlantic Beach Code (Protection of Trees and
Native Ve getation).
1. Amend Sections 23-21 a nd 23-22, w hi ch outli ne wh en a permit is needed. Currently a t ree permit
is needed when: new in fill d evelopment occurs; where constru cti on ove r $10,000 occu rs on a site;
a nd wh ere und eve loped land is go ing to be cleared for future developmen t. Th e re a re eight
different scena r ios where tree remova l ca n be exempt from a r e quiring a tree removal permit. 1.
No development ac tivity. 2. Emergency s itu ation . 3. Safety hazard. 4. Diseased or pest-infested
t rees. 5 . Noxious invasive trees. 6. Utility ope ratio ns. 7. Surveyors/engineers. 8. City crews.
Staff is recommending that the exemption related to deve lopment activity be r e mo ved. The way
the code is currently written, peop le can remove a tree for any reaso n, so long as th ey a re not
co nductin g a ny construction o n the ir home with in 6 month s. Removing th is provis ion wou ld on ly
a ll ow peop le to remove trees without a permit if th ey had ca use to do so. The burd e n of proof
wo ul d then be on the owner to s how that th ey are exempt from a permit.
2. Strengthen Protection of Oaks, Oaks are a treasur ·cd species by many in Atlanti c Beach, and greatly
contri bute to t he cha rac ter of t he community. Th ey are one of a few th in gs that d is tinguish
At la ntic Beach from its ne ighboring be ac h commun ities. Staff is recomme nding that mi t igation b e
in cr eased on oaks from 1:2 to 1:1. Currently if yo u remove an oak, yo u have to mitigate 1 inch for
eve ry two inches removed (same as other trees in Atlantic Beach). Strengthen in g protection of
oaks w il l not prevent their remova l, but it w ill make it more cost proh ibitive to do so. Th e co de
also says that on ly new oaks can be used to replace removed oaks. Thi s means a property owner
wou ld need to mitigate 10 inc hes if they r emove a 40 inch oak Thi s is simp ly not physicall y
feasibl e on many p r operties a n d wou ld lik ely for ce t he property owner to pay in to the tree fund .
How eve r, staff wou ld lik e to e nsu re that some mi tigation is provided on site. Staff js a lso
r eco mm e ndin g that a certa in percentage of mitigation be provided on site jn the form of
I.e.P-lacement oaks (25%). If a property owner r emoved a 40 inch oak, they would need to prov id e
at least 10 inches of mi t igation o n s ite. They cou ld then pay the remaind e r in to th e tree fund.
AGENDA ITEM# 8C
MARCH 9, 2015
3. Change the definition of "private regulated tree". Currently, the tree code states that protected
trees (private regulated trees) are all trees that are 6 inches or larger in the "exterior zone" of a
property. The exterior zone is everywhere outside of the buildable area on a lot. All trees over 20
inches are protected in the "interior zone", or buildable area of the lot. The logic behind this is that
it should be easier to preserve trees outside the buildable area on a lot. However, this provision
allows trees up to 20 inches in the interior of the lot to be removed without any mitigation.
Additionally, trees up to 20 inches are given preservation credit for mitigation. Hypothetically, a
property owner can remove a 38 inch tree, get 19 inches of preservation credit for maintaining a
tree, and then later cut down the 19 inch tree that it got credit for with no mitigation required
(the 19 inch tree is not protected). There is also an argument that if the city allows every 15 to 20
inch tree to be removed with no mitigation, the city's future canopy will suffer. Staff is
recommending that the definition of "private regulated tree" be changed to all trees over a certain
size. Staff has no precise. scientific way to arrive at a recommended size. but would like the
Community Development Board and Commission to consider changing it to either 6. 8. or 10
inches.
One important thing to consider with this proposed change is it will also impact the amount of
preservation credit property owners get. The code currently only gives preservation credit to
trees that are not protected (less than 6" in exterior zone and less than 20" in interior zone). If this
section is changed to either 6, 8, or 10 inches, only trees below that size will be given preservation
credit. This means property owners will likely have to mitigate more in the form of replacement or
payment into the tree fund. This will minimize the overall loss of trees on a property.
4. Give replacement credit for palms. As the code is currently written, property owners are only
given replacement credit for palms when they are replacing removed palms. Palms are native to
the beach and are more salt tolerant than some other species. One important point to note is that
oaks must be replaced by oaks, so property owners will not be able to use palms to replace oaks.
Staff would like the Community Development Board and Commission to consider allowing palms
to get replacement credit when replacing other removed species. This could be a citywide
provision, or one that is specifically geographically related, such as all areas east of East Coast
Drive and Seminole Drive north of its terminus with East Coast Drive. The idea being that palms
may thrive better than other species in immediate proximity to the beach.
5. Change the dollar amount required for mitigation. Atlantic Beach has used the same dollar figure
that the City of Jacksonville uses for payment into the tree fund. Up until recently that number was
$49 an inch. The City of Jacksonville recently changed this to $113 to more accurately reflect
current market costs. Staff will continue to follow the City of Jacksonville's rates and charge $113.
unless directed otherwise by the City Commission.
Page 2 of 2