Friday July 11
Tim Litchet, Director of Neighborhood and Development Services for the City of Sarasota, announced today that the City is putting the plans to remove 26 palm trees from the 1262-1274 block of North Palm Avenue on hold pending direction from the City Commission. The full text of the announcement appears below.
While no explanation was provided for the time out, it was becoming apparent that earlier efforts to solicit input from city residents regarding the tree removal and new landscaping failed to attract the attention of many who would prefer to see the palms remain. In addition, new information regarding the historic status of some of the trees was overlooked earlier in the decision process.
"Mr. Miller, this email comes to verify our conversation this morning where I informed you that I had met with Marlon Brown, and he has directed that staff bring the Palm Avenue palm tree issue to the City Commission on August 18th to review the status of the project and to get any further direction from the City Commission that they may wish for staff to consider. Staff will prepare an agenda item that will suggest options including building the project as approved, not building the project, redesigning the project to save as many of the palm trees as possible while doing our best to improve drainage, and/or delaying the project until we have newly adopted code standards to work with related to the efforts of the Urban Design Studio. I will provide you a copy of that agenda item in advance of the meeting."
As noted in the announcement above, today's decision does not mean that the trees will be saved, only that the impending plans to remove them will be considered by the City Commission and that the trees are not immediately threatened.
A blog dealing with Sarasota County and the City of Sarasota.
Friday, July 11, 2014
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Fascinating Facts about the Palm Ave 26
Truth is Stranger (and more interesting) than Fiction
When I first went to my first Downtown Improvement District meeting on June 25th, I was told what seemed to be the official DID narrative about the palms in front of the 1262-1274 block of Palm Avenue. The palms, I was informed, were all "dumped" there in 1983 when Bay Plaza was built. Mr. Kauffman, a DID board member is certainly entitled to his opinion of the cabbage palms (and he has made it quite clear he hates them), but, to quote Senator Moynihan, he is not entitled to his own facts.His denigrating verb choice (dumped) suggests they were pushed off a truck and somehow grew into more or less vertical trees. That didn't happen. Someone went to the trouble and care to plant the Bay Plaza relocation trees there. He would have you believe there were no palms there previously and the palms at risk today have only been there a modest 31 years.
Cultural History is interesting, Natural History is interesting, but the intersection of the two is Fascinating!
I have been doing business in those storefronts continuously since 1975, and I didn't seem to recall a time when there were no palms there. The building was built in 1954, and it seemed unlikely there was just lawn between the storefronts to the curb from 1954 until 1983. So I drove out to the Sarasota History Center and looked at their beautiful 1957 aerial photograph of downtown. That picture was taken on March 10, 1957 and, lo and behold, it clearly shows a row of palm trees in front of that block. Because the canopies are full in the photo, and because it takes transplanted palms a while to recover and grow a new dense canopy, I think the odds are excellent they were planted in 1954, when the building was built.
Do I know for sure they are cabbage palms? Nope, can't prove it, but consider the state of the local nursery industry in 1954. True, there was Reasoner's, but the wide variety palms available today was not just there. The canopies are consistent with cabbage palms, and they are clearly not Royal or Cocoanut palms. So, having looked at aerial images of thousands of cabbage palms, I was pretty sure that in 1957 a row of probably 11(maybe 12) cabbage palms graced that block.
![]() |
This black and white photo from 1957 clearly shows a row of palms
|
What became of the palms that celebrated their semicentennial in 2007?
Seeing the 11 or 12 palms in the photo begged the question: what happened to them? I tried looking at the landscape architect's map to see if any lined up, but that seemed inconclusive. Then, this evening, July 9th, Julie and I went to look.
Mind-Blowing
We arrived in the evening, after eating dinner on Lower Main in one of our favorite restaurants: Two Senior Eaters (Thezla is an attentive server). The first palm, the furthest east and closest to the building was hard to interpret, but then things became clear. Seven of the 57-year old palms are still there! And, of course, it is quite likely that they have been there 60 years. How do we know? Because they look completely different than the more recent Bay Plaza rescues.
Four Distinct Differences
First of all, they are planted in a more or less straight line. Second, they are the palms closest to the storefronts. Third, they are a completely different diameter than the more recent palms (much smaller), and fourth, most show a swelling where the trunk suddenly gets wider.
That's where natural history and cultural history collide. The skinnier 57 year-old trees came from a locale with relatively poor growing conditions. When they got transplanted to Palm Avenue, the conditions were more to their liking, and the trunks got beefier. Go see for yourself. The Bay Plaza palms were coming from a block away, almost undoubtedly the same soil -- and their trunk diameter consequently doesn't show that variation.
A living natural/cultural history lesson.
So right there, on little 'ol Palm Ave., are 26 palm trees attempting to teach us about our city's history. And some of them have been there for probably 60 years (unarguably 57). Go check them out - you'll enjoy telling your friends or children about how the two batches of trees tell some of the story of Sarasota.
Better Hurry.
But you had best hurry, because the City of Sarasota is planning to remove every single one of them in just a month or two. Every 31-year old tree, and every 60-year old tree, and they will be replaced with two hollies, two Tabebuias, and eight Thrinax palms. And when they are gone, you'll be able to tell your friends and children how Palm Avenue used to have Palm stories.
-----------------------
If you are wondering why all these trees will be removed, the answer is simple. So that side of the street will match the side of the street next to the parking garage.
So that side of the street will match the side of the street next to the parking garage.
So that side of the street will match the side of the street next to the parking garage.
http://jono08.blogspot.com/2014/06/saving-palms-of-palm-avenue.html
http://jono08.blogspot.com/2014/07/sarasotas-plan-for-palm-ave-far-worse.html
http://jono08.blogspot.com/2014/07/sarasotas-plan-for-palm-ave-far-worse.html
Saturday, July 5, 2014
Sarasota's Plan for Palm Ave. Far Worse Than I Suspected
I first got interested in the City's plan to remove 26 cabbage palms from Palm Avenue because of my deep interest in and understanding of our state tree. But the more I learn about this project, the worse it gets. City staff tried to make me feel as though my suggestions were contrary to adopted policy, so they provided me with several folders containing their policy. What I learned is that the City has routinely ignored their own policies.
The City was supposed to promote retention of existing trees. They didn't. They were supposed to protect existing trees in the right-of-way. They didn't. They were supposed to provide shade trees. They already had them and propose to replace them with less shady trees. They were supposed to have canopy trees. They already have them and are proposing to get rid of them. Three separate manuals said they were supposed to have only one species of tree. They are proposing three. They claimed they were "undergrounding" utilities. There are more utilities aboveground in their proposal than exist now. They were supposed to favor trees with clear trunks and high canopies. They didn't.
And they claimed they wanted to provide a better pedestrian experience and a more walkable community. But their proposal will have 20 times less pedestrian space than exists now. In the graphic on the left, the public can walk on the green sod and the sidewalk adjacent to the storefronts. But the graphic on the right shows the landscape bed that will be packed with mulch, ground covers, shrubs, and a few trees. Bottom line: the City's proposal will result in far less walkable space than the present condition.
The next meeting of the Downtown Improvement District is Tuesday July 8th at 9:00 am. Please consider making the scene. If you can't, contact a city commissioner and let them know this is scandalous.
See also my previous post: Saving the Palms of Palm Avenue
The City was supposed to promote retention of existing trees. They didn't. They were supposed to protect existing trees in the right-of-way. They didn't. They were supposed to provide shade trees. They already had them and propose to replace them with less shady trees. They were supposed to have canopy trees. They already have them and are proposing to get rid of them. Three separate manuals said they were supposed to have only one species of tree. They are proposing three. They claimed they were "undergrounding" utilities. There are more utilities aboveground in their proposal than exist now. They were supposed to favor trees with clear trunks and high canopies. They didn't.
YOU MAY NEED TO CLICK ON THE GRAPHIC AND GO TO FULL SCREEN
TO ENLARGE IT SUFFICIENTLY.
TO ENLARGE IT SUFFICIENTLY.
And they claimed they wanted to provide a better pedestrian experience and a more walkable community. But their proposal will have 20 times less pedestrian space than exists now. In the graphic on the left, the public can walk on the green sod and the sidewalk adjacent to the storefronts. But the graphic on the right shows the landscape bed that will be packed with mulch, ground covers, shrubs, and a few trees. Bottom line: the City's proposal will result in far less walkable space than the present condition.
See also my previous post: Saving the Palms of Palm Avenue
Sunday, June 29, 2014
View from the Mainland
I was there 284 days ago, on September 18th 2013, when the Corps of Engineers showed up at a Sarasota County Coastal Advisory Committee meeting to pitch their hole-in-the-shoal solution to Lido Key erosion. I spoke and objected to both the process and the content of the proposal. I was there on October 22nd when the Corps pitched the idea to a joint meeting of the County and City Commissions and once again I complained. Since then I have appeared on a Tiger Bay panel, posted blog entries, given public presentations, and had a guest column printed in the Sarasota Herald Tribune. My objections have been consistent and, for someone with no financial or familial interests in either Lido or Siesta Keys, I suspect I have been one of the more engaged stakeholders. Aside from digging a deeper foxhole, the Corps has not shown much interest in alternative approaches, negotiating, or otherwise engaging the public, but now there is some reason to be optimistic.
Here's my take on the current situation:
Lido Key residents are understandably preoccupied with the current status of their beach, which has made them susceptible to desperation-driven decision-making because the Corps proposal has seemed to be their only hope. Their reluctance to negotiate reflects the Corps' pouty insistence that nothing can be tinkered with. While desperation of the Lido residents has made their position more motivated and powerful, it doesn't address any of the real-world obstacles that need to be overcome. These include the threat of additional legal actions from Siesta Key, the Corps re-starting the scoping process, the need to undertake a variety of studies and environmental assessments that must precede permitting, and the ultimate uncertainty of federal funding. These obstacles could easily take two to three years to address and even then there is no guarantee of federal funding.
Here's my take on the current situation:
Lido Key residents are understandably preoccupied with the current status of their beach, which has made them susceptible to desperation-driven decision-making because the Corps proposal has seemed to be their only hope. Their reluctance to negotiate reflects the Corps' pouty insistence that nothing can be tinkered with. While desperation of the Lido residents has made their position more motivated and powerful, it doesn't address any of the real-world obstacles that need to be overcome. These include the threat of additional legal actions from Siesta Key, the Corps re-starting the scoping process, the need to undertake a variety of studies and environmental assessments that must precede permitting, and the ultimate uncertainty of federal funding. These obstacles could easily take two to three years to address and even then there is no guarantee of federal funding.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Saving the Palms of Palm Avenue
I am on a quest. A quest to find out what the City of Sarasota (as represented by the Downtown Development District) thinks twenty-six cabbage palms are doing wrong.
![]() |
| The Palm Avenue Twenty Six |
The palms (ironically?, tragically?) are on Palm Avenue between Coconut and Main. This end of Palm is referred to as North Palm (shortened ominously to NPALM in City-speak), but this is the part of Palm that is turning almost due west.
| The Bay Plaza building in the center of the image wraps around the site in question |
| Compare the dense shade produced on the south side of the street with the plantings on the north side. |
I don’t think there is much question that the two most
engaging streets in downtown Sarasota are Main Street and Palm Avenue.
Thousands of towns have Main streets, but Palm avenues are far rarer those who
find themselves on a Palm Avenue anywhere deserve to be rewarded with a palmy
experience that affirms the subtropical potential promised by the name.
There are many palms on our Palm Avenue between Coconut and
Ringling and they represent many species. Intriguingly, the densest aggregation of palms
are found on this short (150 foot-long) block. These palms are not solitary
specimen trees in planters or emerging from the sidewalk, but rather a
collection of 26 palms emerging from a lawn – sort of a micro-park.
We know it is parklike because there is even a sign advising people to clean up after their pets. It is the only area along Palm Ave. between Coconut and Ringling where there is a non-trivial patch of grass – grass that the adjacent merchants and not the City maintain.
We know it is parklike because there is even a sign advising people to clean up after their pets. It is the only area along Palm Ave. between Coconut and Ringling where there is a non-trivial patch of grass – grass that the adjacent merchants and not the City maintain.
![]() |
| The presence of this sign recognizes the de facto status as an unofficial "micro-park". |
The palms happen to be our State tree, the native cabbage
palm. A professional arborist recently described these 26 trees as exhibiting
“good vitality and no signs or symptoms infection”. The trees are low
maintenance and, being planted so close together, they produce deep shade. The
area is extremely pedestrian friendly – people can, and do, walk through the palms on
the grass, or use stepping stones. The narrow palm trunks afford great views of
the businesses adjacent to the sidewalk.
These are the 26 palms the City of Sarasota wants to take
down and send to the landfill and replace with two hollies, eight (freeze sensitive) thatch palms,
two Tabebuias and two poisonous shrubs.
Let me repeat: replacing 26 mature shade producing trees with two hollies, two tabebuias, eight small palms, and two poisonous shrubs. The ground cover will either be paved or covered with “groundcovers or pine bark mulch” that will convert the open access, pedestrian friendly area into hardscape and planter beds that signal “keep out”.
Let me repeat: replacing 26 mature shade producing trees with two hollies, two tabebuias, eight small palms, and two poisonous shrubs. The ground cover will either be paved or covered with “groundcovers or pine bark mulch” that will convert the open access, pedestrian friendly area into hardscape and planter beds that signal “keep out”.
This represents approximately 35% of a $240,000 project, so
somewhere around $85,000 to $100, 000 to rip out a steadfast, low maintenance landscape
and replace it with something new and presumably trendier.
I know what you are thinking. Why? Why would the city spend
somewhere around a hundred grand to repudiate trees that have been quietly
doing the city’s bidding for decades? That's my question as well.
The Palm Avenue Twenty-Six are planted in front of a single story building that was built in 1954. I'm still trying to find out when the palms were placed there, but I suspect they have been there for many decades. These may actually be trees with historic import.
The City has scheduled a site visit on July 1 when I hope to get to the bottom of why every single one of these trees is slated to disappear. My fear/suspicion is that instead of starting with the existing landscape and modifying it to reach their goals, they started by assuming all the palms would vanish and they could start with a clean slate.
The Palm Avenue Twenty-Six are planted in front of a single story building that was built in 1954. I'm still trying to find out when the palms were placed there, but I suspect they have been there for many decades. These may actually be trees with historic import.
I've been told (in emails) that the goals of the city were widening the sidewalks, upgrading the landscaping, “undergrounding” of utilities,
and adding ornamental street lighting. I understand there was also a drainage
or flooding issue that needed to be addressed. If, in fact, those were the five
actual front-end goals of the project I am confused because I suspect virtually
all of those goals could be achieved in that location without removing any of
the palms.
![]() |
| View from the parking garage across the street |
As mentioned earlier, this is a project of the Downtown Improvement District (DID), creature of the Sarasota City Commission.
I was speechless to see that their website features a photo of Charleston, a City whose landscaping hallmark consists primarily of cabbage palms (known in South Carolina as palmettos). More irony. Any group intending to improve Charleston would be run out of town on a rail if they proposed removing more than two dozen palmettos.
If you happen to know any of the five directors of the DID
Please contact them and encourage them to reconsider this unfortunate proposal that will trigger an outpouring of outrage from citizens who are currently unaware of the threat.
| Actual image from DID website, ostensibly representing their admiration of the use of cabbage palms in Charleston |
If you happen to know any of the five directors of the DID
Ernest Ritz
Mark Kauffman
Eileen Hampshire
Thomas Mannausa
Ron Soto
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Lido Beach: "Critically Eroded"?
![]() |
| These two buildings were probably built too far seaward. |
But overall, is Lido Beach in bad shape? Based on a recent walk, I'd say no (see photo below), but the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation begs to differ.
| Image from the center of Lido Key. Many places in the US would love to have a beach like this. |
In June of 2012, not that long ago, DEP updated their publication CRITICALLY ERODED BEACHES IN FLORIDA. I'm assuming the term "updated" meant that it was up to date.
Here's their definition of critically eroded: Critically eroded area is a segment of the shoreline where natural processes or human activity have caused or contributed to erosion and recession of the beach or dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Critically eroded areas may also include peripheral segments or gaps between identified critically eroded areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects.
So according to DEP 23.9 miles of Sarasota County Gulf beaches are critically eroded. And .4 miles are non-critically eroded. So 98.35% of our beaches are critically eroded. Ninety-eight point thirty-five percent. Kind of takes some of the meaning out of the term doesn't it?
In other words, according the the State of Florida, a beach does not have to be critically eroded, or even eroded, to be deemed critically eroded. It could be growing. And that's reassuring, because they were characterizing North Lido as critically eroded.
Here's what the report says about North Lido: The north end of Lido Key fronting on New Pass is a critically eroded inlet shoreline area (R31, east 1500 feet) for 0.3 mile. Nearly all of Lido Key (R31-R44.5) has critically eroded beach that has threatened private development and recreational interests along 2.4 miles. Beach restoration has been conducted along the island and maintenance dredging material has been obtained from the federal navigation channel at New Pass.
Which is interesting because North Lido, out at the end of John RIngling Blvd. is wider now than I can remember it being in 43 years. I would say it was critically eroded when waves lapped at the rocks north of the parking area. But now you could rent camels to get people out to the water since it is about 650' from the parking lot to the Gulf shore.
![]() |
| This image from January of 2012 presumably represents the "eroded" condition of North Lido reported in the DEP document. |
So when you read that Lido Beach is "critically eroded", take it with a grain of salt. Or sand.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Ten More Questions about the Corps' "Hole in the Shoal" Proposal
I may have been a little hasty in assuming there were only ten top questions about this project. Here are ten more that need to be asked (and answered):
11. Has the City of Sarasota or the Corps of Engineers been cooperating and collaborating with Sarasota County on this project? If so, how, when, and to what extent?
12. Have there ever been any hearings on this project? (We are unaware of any County or City hearings. Did the Corps ever hold hearings?) Implicit in this question is whether any fifty-year multi-million dollar contract should be entered into by the City without public hearings.
13. There has been recent contention between the City and County regarding jurisdiction over new dredging projects within the City. This was believed to only affect a proposed navigation channel at the end of 45th Street. It is now clear the resolution could affect this project. What is the status of this jurisdictional dispute?
14.What are the exact City and County boundaries in the vicinity of Big Pass and out into the Gulf?
15. Has this project subverted or derailed the previous pattern of alternating sharing of New Pass sand between Lido and Longboat beaches?
16. How does the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan address dredging in previously undredged locales and adding hardening structures to beaches? Does the County Plan apply in municipalities?
17. Does South Lido Park have any covenants or management plan restrictions that would affect the placement of groins?
18. How do we reconcile the discrepancy between the recommended locations in the Corps proposal, which differs from the County's adopted Inlet Management Plan?
19. The state beach management plan mentions "offshore sources". How can the Corps claim their proposal is congruent with the state plan if it would be taking sand from the ebb tidal shoal and not offshore?
20. Does the model the Corps is using predict the existence and movement of Sand Dollar Island, which is important both recreationally and for wildlife? If not, why not?
11. Has the City of Sarasota or the Corps of Engineers been cooperating and collaborating with Sarasota County on this project? If so, how, when, and to what extent?
12. Have there ever been any hearings on this project? (We are unaware of any County or City hearings. Did the Corps ever hold hearings?) Implicit in this question is whether any fifty-year multi-million dollar contract should be entered into by the City without public hearings.
13. There has been recent contention between the City and County regarding jurisdiction over new dredging projects within the City. This was believed to only affect a proposed navigation channel at the end of 45th Street. It is now clear the resolution could affect this project. What is the status of this jurisdictional dispute?
14.What are the exact City and County boundaries in the vicinity of Big Pass and out into the Gulf?
15. Has this project subverted or derailed the previous pattern of alternating sharing of New Pass sand between Lido and Longboat beaches?
16. How does the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan address dredging in previously undredged locales and adding hardening structures to beaches? Does the County Plan apply in municipalities?
17. Does South Lido Park have any covenants or management plan restrictions that would affect the placement of groins?
18. How do we reconcile the discrepancy between the recommended locations in the Corps proposal, which differs from the County's adopted Inlet Management Plan?
19. The state beach management plan mentions "offshore sources". How can the Corps claim their proposal is congruent with the state plan if it would be taking sand from the ebb tidal shoal and not offshore?
20. Does the model the Corps is using predict the existence and movement of Sand Dollar Island, which is important both recreationally and for wildlife? If not, why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)











