Miami Tree Ordinance Advisory Committee First Working Meeting - October 23, 2026

The Tree Ordinance Advisory Committee (TOAC) held its first working meeting. The session focused on outlining the committee's iterative process, discussing takeaways from initial public outreach and a prior staff question-and-answer session, and putting a first set of ideas on the table regarding regulatory changes. The committee did not take any formal votes but laid substantial groundwork for future meetings.

Consent Calendar

• No consent calendar items were presented.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No members of the public were present to provide oral comment during this meeting.

Discussion Items

Committee Process Overview

• Facilitator Raphael described the four-part structure for the committee's work: 1) Regulations (Code, Plans), 2) Process (Permit Review, Enforcement), 3) City Actions (Planting, Pruning, Parks), and 4) Overarching Issues (Trust, Transparency). The group will generate ideas, receive information from staff, rate concepts, and ultimately present recommendations to the City Commission. A second round of public comment on the committee's draft ideas is planned for early 2027.

Takeaways from Staff Q&A and Community Input

• Legal Pathways (Abra): Abra asked for a formal explanation of the city's ability to make changes that impact county or state regulations, specifically questioning whether county rules are an absolute floor that prevents any changes at that level.
• Data Needs (Dina): Dina requested specific data on the number of plan reviewers in Environmental Resources, their current workload volume, and the status of a comprehensive tree survey of the public right-of-way.
• District Disparities (Dina, Andy, Lindsay): Members noted that public feedback varied significantly by district. Dina suggested grouping overlapping ideas versus outliers. Andy emphasized that a single standard cannot fit all transect zones (T3 vs. T6). Lindsay observed that many public concerns are already addressed in the existing code, indicating a potential implementation gap rather than a policy gap.
• Thomas's Four Themes: Thomas Lawrence distilled public feedback into four primary concerns: inadequate replacement trees, low removal fees, a lack of preservation incentives relative to mitigation, and insufficient city inspection and enforcement of Chapter 17.

Proposed Regulatory Changes

• Revised Tree Valuation and Mitigation (Chris, Thomas): Chris Barolado proposed overhauling the mitigation table to be based on a composite measure of a tree's ecological value (diameter, height, canopy volume) rather than a simple linear trunk diameter, ensuring replacement fees reflect true value. Thomas noted public interest in using canopy area as the primary metric.
• Tiered Fee and Fine System (Lindsay, Mariela, Andy): Members proposed a tiered fee schedule distinguishing residents (homesteaded properties) from commercial developments. Lindsay suggested raising the minimum replacement tree size from a 2-inch caliper to a 4-inch caliper. Andy called for significantly increased punitive fines for intentional, after-hours removal of protected trees, arguing the current fine is merely a cost of doing business.
• Preservation of High-Canopy Non-Native Trees (Dina): Dina proposed allowing exemptions for valuable non-native trees (such as the historic Ficus trees on Coral Way) from blanket prohibitions on exotic species, provided they offer significant canopy and community value.

Proposed Process and Implementation Changes

• Self-Certification (Abra, Dina): Abra proposed allowing residents to use licensed landscape architects for self-certification of routine tree pruning or dead tree removal to reduce city staff burden. Dina clarified that certified arborists, unlike landscape architects, are not state-regulated licensed professionals.
• Appeals Process (Abra): Abra suggested requiring appellants in tree hearings to demonstrate they have reviewed and are citing specific code violations, increasing transparency and reducing appeals based on general dissatisfaction.
• Trust Fund Transparency (Abra, Lindsay): A call for codified transparency regarding how payments into the city's tree trust fund are spent.

Zoning and Incentive Proposals

• Zoning Flexibility for Preservation (Aaron): Aaron DeMaio presented a detailed proposal previously developed for the Climate Resilience Committee and indefinitely deferred by the City Commission. It suggests amending Miami 21 to allow floor area transfers (e.g., moving unbuilt ground floor square footage to a second or third story) within T3 single-family lots in exchange for preserving existing specimen trees and their critical root zones.
• Developer Incentives (Andy, Mariela): Andy urged the committee to understand what specific incentives work for developers, such as expedited permitting or height and setback relief. He requested a future session with local for-profit developers to discuss the economics of tree preservation.
• Tree Banking (Chris, Abra): The committee discussed creating a city-supported tree bank to temporarily hold and allow for the relocation of displaced trees off-site, with mitigation credits granted for successful relocation.

Technology and Education Needs

• Technology Seminar (Andy, Dina): Andy requested a dedicated presentation on modern tree preservation technologies, including air-spading, bridging over root zones, and canopy projection modeling. Dina noted that the City of Coral Gables recently completed a full LiDAR canopy analysis and digital twin that could serve as a useful model.

Legal Constraints and Staff Responses

• Members discussed the impact of state statute HB 1555/SB 180, which allows single-family homeowners to remove hazardous trees with a certified arborist report without a city permit. Staff agreed to provide a comprehensive overview of all state and county statutory constraints in the next meeting to clarify the committee's true scope of authority.

Key Outcomes

• No Formal Votes: As this was a working session, no formal votes were taken on any of the discussed ideas.
• Information Requests Granted: Staff committed to providing a legal overview of jurisdictional pathways and constraints, specific data on city staffing levels and tree inventories, and answers to operational questions at the next meeting.
• Member Presentations Scheduled: Chris Barolado will distribute his research on a volumetric tree valuation methodology to the full committee. Aaron DeMaio will share the link to his full zoning flexibility proposal for committee review.
• Scheduling: The committee aims for three to four more meetings. Staff will circulate a scheduling poll for available dates on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday afternoons, with a goal of having a set of conceptual recommendations ready by early 2027.
• Public Engagement Roadmap: The initial public input portal will close shortly to formalize the first round of idea collection. A second round of public comment on the committee's drafted recommendations is scheduled for January or February 2027.