Committee outlines follow-up questions after Commission’s first reading of landmark tree ordinance

Committee members reviewed the amendments made during the City Commission's first reading of the landmark-tree protection ordinance and identified several items staff was asked to address. Dan Giovannucci asked staff to confirm whether the mitigation ratios in Chapter 23 are the current table or the committee's recommended (and stronger) table; members also wanted the doubling of mitigation in setbacks to clearly reference front, side and rear setbacks.

Members supported retaining relocation as an applicant-paid alternative in limited cases but asked staff to quantify feasibility and costs, including utility work and success rates. Giovannucci recommended that landmark-tree cases trigger early involvement of the City Arborist and that applicants provide licensed third-party professional reports when claiming infeasibility. "If they're struggling to deal with this tree ... you would come in at the earliest stages," Giovannucci said, arguing that arborist review can educate applicants and reduce unnecessary removals. Staff will return with clarified mitigation numbers, specific setback language, and guidance on relocation feasibility and third-party review for the Commission's next consideration.