Among a list of suggestions to strengthen Miami’s tree protection ordinance at a community forum Monday, the District 2 commissioner says citizens should have their say.
Two City of Miami citizen committees should review a controversial proposal to update the city’s tree ordinance and submit recommendations to the city commission, District 2 City Commissioner Damien Pardo said at a community forum Monday night.
“Even if it is a hurdle, let it go through the process,” Pardo said. “Hear the experts and see where it is going. If it looks bad, then the pitchforks come out.”
The forum, sponsored by the Coconut Grove Village Council, allowed community members to voice their concerns about the proposed ordinance and to share ideas to promote tree canopy growth in Coconut Grove.
On Thursday, the commission postponed until January 23 consideration of the tree ordinance update after its sponsor, District 1 Commissioner Miguel Gabela, called for a deferral because of growing opposition to his proposal. This is the second time the matter has been deferred.
Pardo said the committees – the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) and Climate Resilience Committee (CRC) – would provide a mechanism for broad community input prior to a commission vote.
Critics of the proposed changes to Miami’s trees laws say they would hasten the loss of Coconut Grove’s signature tree canopy by loosening permitting requirements for both developer and ordinary property owners.
CRC member Silvio Frank Puzo-Casio, who spoke at the forum, agreed that his committee should conduct a full review of the proposed update. He suggested that Gabela attend the committee meetings and take part in the discussion.
Chris Baraloto, director of land and biodiversity at FIU’s Institute of Environment and a member of the Coconut Grove Village Council, also urged the commission to move more slowly on any possible amendments to the laws, suggesting that the present proposal, if approved, could severely hasten canopy loss.
More than 30 people attended the forum, held at FIU’s International Center for Tropical Botany at the Kampong Tropical Botanical Garden.
“The message I have for everyone is that the [city’s existing] tree ordinance we have right now may be better than the one proposed by Gabela,” Baraloto said in an interview with the Spotlight. “But even with that tree ordinance, we are losing canopy.”
According to Baraloto, “data-driven” policy solutions can allow trees and development to coexist in the Grove.
Among the suggestions aired at the forum was a proposal to reduce the allowable building footprint on the first floor of new single-family homes and add that loss to the allowable size on the second floor. The smaller first-floor building area would reduce tree removal and leave more green space for trees and other plants on the property.
Baraloto believes better data collection – and education – can help sell city officials and residents on the befits of robust tree protection.
To begin with, he suggests undertaking a new countywide Urban Tree Canopy assessment, which was last updated in 2021. Such data, he suspects, will illustrate the dramatic toll recent development patterns have taken on tree canopy, not just in Coconut Grove but citywide.
City officials also should consider the latest science on how the tree canopy cools neighborhoods and mitigates storm water runoff.
And when trees must make way for development Baraloto recommends planting new ones as close as possible to those removed. Such polices can be written into guideless for administering the city’s Tree Trust Fund, which is supported by fees paid by developers and property owners granted removal permits.
“One side wants preservation at 100 percent,” Baraloto observed. “Another side wants the tree ordinance as it is. If we do that, we’re losing canopy. We’ve demonstrated that. It’s unreasonable to think that we can preserve all trees and not allow any development. We need to find a compromise that is amenable to all stakeholders.”
Thank you for covering this. I have to disagree with Chris Baroloto’s last quoted statement, that one side wants preservation at 100 percent. No one ever said that. The more accurate statement is that one side (developers) want zero restrictions. They are already clear-cutting lots and they want to do it by right. Just as the commissioners gave themselves the ability to install whatever recreational facilities in our City parks they want, BY RIGHT, yesterday at the Commission hearing.
The key word here is right, as in rights. Our rights are being chipped away to the point where our quality of life is being determined by three people (a majority of the five commissioners that sit on the dais). Commissioner Carollo repeatedly calls outpourings of resident opposition to any of the items he supports, a vocal minority. The true minority are the three commissioners who can band together and push through unpopular legislation.
Is Coconut Grove vocal? Yes. But it’s only because City Hall is in their backyard, and many of the residents have flexible jobs that allow them to take the time off to go down to stand up for other residents who are unable to afford to leave work to fight for the rights that shouldn’t be infringed upon to begin with.
It costs residents transportation costs and lost wages to go down and speak at a hearing.
The larger cost is the demoralization of showing up and being dismissed as ‘activists’, as Commissioner Diaz de la Portilla used to call residents who showed up to voice opposition.
The commissioners work for the constituents, not the other way around. The least they could do is spend the time to really find out what constituents want, especially on contentious issues. When they get an outpouring of comments, that to me should be a signal to have town meetings (including zoom), craft surveys, and go door-to-door with a significant sampling size to find out what a broader swath of constituents want. It’s a time to reach out to community organizations for input. Gabela did this with this ordinance. It was the right thing to do. I’m not sure why he didn’t do it in the areas he said were requesting the changes, but I’m hoping those town halls are coming in the next month as well.
In contrast, Carollo’s response to opposition to his project in Ferre Park was to take away residents’ right to object by removing the warrant process. That tactic may get him what he wants, but it leaves us with a very unhappy city.
I, for one, value inquiry. It may take longer, but at least you get the chance to get it right.