Tree Ordinance Advisory Committee Workshop on Preservation: Q&A with City Administration, October 23, 2026

The Tree Ordinance Advisory Committee met on October 23, 2026, for a question-and-answer workshop with City administration about the existing regulatory framework for tree preservation, protection, and canopy. Facilitators from the FSU Consensus Center, Rafael Montalvo and Hal Birdal, led the session. No agenda or minutes were provided in the source materials; this summary is based on the raw transcript. No public attendees were present, and the transcript indicates the meeting was approaching 4 p.m. near its close.

Discussion Items

• Quorum and attendance: Seven members were present at roll call, meeting the six-member quorum. Chris Baralotto was initially absent but joined later; Thomas Lawrence was absent. Committee member Andy Parrish urged that vacancies be filled so future meetings are not canceled for lack of a quorum.
• Workshop purpose and future meeting format: The session was deliberately unstructured to let members ask detailed questions. Facilitators announced that an interim compilation of public input from the August/September workshops would be distributed after the meeting. It contains more than 100 pages of input plus more than 1,100 online comments from about 400 respondents. The comments are grouped into four categories: regulations; process; direct city actions; and overarching issues such as trust, transparency, strategy, and public education. One category will be introduced at each of the next four working meetings; the next meeting will focus on regulations.
• Permitting process overview: At the start, a show of hands indicated five of the seven members had direct experience with city permitting or development review. Eureka Kulangis, Building Services Manager, described the five-step permitting process: application in the iBuild portal, plan review, permit payment, construction inspections, and final certificate. Review is concurrent across disciplines; zoning is always required, and environmental review is flagged when tree impacts are identified. A standalone tree permit can be submitted separately from a master permit. Applicants may seek same-day permitting help, walk-in assistance, and the city offers a homeowners assistance clinic.
• Tree plan submittal requirements: Sean Smith, Acting Chief of Environmental Resources, said projects with tree activity require a tree disposition plan, tree protection plan, superimposed site plan, and tree replacement plan when removal is proposed. Boundary surveys must depict trees when required. Arborist reports are requested on nearly every project although not explicitly required by code. For commercial projects, submittals must be prepared by a Florida licensed landscape architect; for residential projects, a homeowner or representative may prepare them. Sean Smith also noted that demolition permits generally do not allow tree removals unless trees block access or become unsafe due to structure removal, and new-construction tree activity is reviewed as a subpermit so conflicts can be assessed.
• Environmental review staffing and workload: Asked about capacity, Sean Smith said his division has seven reviewers plus himself. Tree plan reviews number in the thousands each year. Committee members raised concerns about whether site visits can keep pace with that volume.
• Site verification: Environmental Resources does not visit every site. Staff use aerial imagery, Google Street View, historical imagery, and tools such as Zillow to check conditions, and conduct site visits for many canopy and specimen trees. Drones are not currently used. Lindsay Corrales questioned relying on possibly outdated imagery; staff said they use whatever tools are available.
• Tree relocation and mitigation decisions: Sean Smith explained that the first question is whether a conflict exists. Preservation in place is the first priority for specimen trees; redesign may be required. Relocation is considered based on size, species, age, condition, the availability of a feasible landing spot, and the tree's likely long-term viability. Supplemental arborist reports and tree-mover vetting may be required.
• Review time and transparency concerns: Ian Wogan said the tree review is often the longest part of the permitting process and that back-and-forth is not visible to the public. He suggested separating or duplicating the tree submittal process to improve transparency. Staff explained current public access options: iBuild accounts, public records requests, on-screen review at the building department, and the environmental resources page on the city website. The committee indicated that increased transparency should be considered in future recommendations. Eureka Kulangis said she did not have an exact count of applications that should have been flagged for environmental review but were not, and that it was minimal; committee members asked that the number be tracked and made public.
• Interdepartmental coordination: Plan review is concurrent, and a joint plan review process exists when needed. Departments also consult directly because many review staff are on the same floor. Asked how much authority Environmental Resources has to force plan changes, Sean Smith said he does not personally have power, but Chapter 17 governs the process and departments generally work together to preserve trees, including on specimen-tree and right-of-way conflicts.
• Pre-application and planning-stage review: Dina Bellown described Coral Gables' practice of requiring tree surveys, tree disposition plans, tree protection plans, and parking plans before a project can move to preliminary design. She asked why the city does not require equivalent information at the pre-application stage. Planning and zoning staff responded that pre-applications are optional except for rezones and variances, so landscape plans cannot be demanded in an optional meeting; landscape and environmental review occur by cycles once plans are submitted. Committee members suggested evaluating whether earlier tree review should be required.
• Legal, state, and county constraints: Senior Assistant City Attorney Patricia Aria discussed legal limits on a stricter tree ordinance. Florida Statutes Chapter 163 and 163.045 were cited as state preemption provisions, and the city cannot go below Miami-Dade County requirements. She also discussed Senate Bill 180, tied to hurricanes Debbie, Helene, and Milton, which may limit certain stricter regulations, potentially through October 1, 2027, depending on hurricane tracking details. She did not give a definitive answer, noting it depends on what the committee recommends. Private providers may perform plan review only for Florida Building Code disciplines; environmental resources review is not among those disciplines.
• Urban canopy data and right-of-way planting: Thomas Lawrence could not attend; his emailed questions were read and answered. The city quantifies urban tree canopy using GIS-based UTC assessments derived from aerial and satellite imagery, tracking progress toward the 30 percent canopy goal. The city will ground its tree keeper inventory software within the next 60 days to supplement countywide assessments. Right-of-way tree plantings are requested through multiple avenues, including 311, commission district offices, the Department of Resiliency and Public Works web page, phone, and email, not only by residents.
• Potential future agenda topics: Andy Parrish asked for specific code sections to be printed and discussed, requested legal analysis of the court decision Cube 3585 v. City of Miami, and proposed exploring incentives such as additional height or expedited permitting for developers who preserve trees. Chris Baralotto requested relevant code citations be attached to each regulatory category and asked for access to canopy data and metadata to verify city statements. Marieta Lopez de Alviar cited an illegal weekend tree removal with what she described as a minimal fine and urged stronger enforcement and higher fines.

Key Outcomes

• No formal motions, votes, or recommendations were adopted; the meeting was framed as a question-and-answer workshop.
• The interim compilation of workshop and online input will be sent to committee members after the meeting; the next working meeting will focus on the regulations category.
• The audio recording of the workshop will be available so member comments can be carried into future discussions.
• Staff committed to providing some written information, including an explanation of planning and zoning application types and environmental review triggers.
• The committee's next meeting will require members to bring calendars; a focus on the first category of public input was set, and follow-up topics including transparency, earlier tree review, incentives, code citations, and Cube 3585 were placed on the table for future sessions.