►
From YouTube: Urban Forestry Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
All
right,
I
guess
that's
me,
hi,
welcome
everybody
good
to
see
everybody
here
today.
My
name
is
amy
smith,
I'm
the
chair
of
the
urban
forestry
commission.
So
let's
start
off
with
introductions
today.
So
let's
see,
I
guess
I'll
just
call
on
people
so
patrick.
E
B
Colorado
right,
perrin.
G
B
All
right,
let's
see
we
have
some
city
staff,
so
haley.
H
A
Nancy
watford
site
engineering,
coordinator
development
services
and
staff
we
use
on
to
urban
forestry
commission.
B
Thank
you
and,
let's
see,
I
see
vadilla.
B
B
All
right,
if
not,
if
you're
here
for
alternative
compliance
or
public
comment,
if
you
want
to
go
ahead
and
just
introduce
yourself.
K
Yeah,
this
is
jim
coyle
civil
engineer,
greenberg,
fair,
representing
murphy.
M
Hi,
this
is
florin
sabrenica
with
greenberg
pharaoh.
We
also
have
alex
maddox
our
landscape,
architect
and
john
goetz
is
on
from
murphy,
usa
and
dorothy
volker
also
from
greenberg
pharaoh
here
to
present
and
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
So.
Thank
you.
B
All
right,
thank
you.
Is
there
anyone
who
wasn't
part
of
that
or
wants
to
introduce
yourself
separately,
go
ahead.
B
All
right,
I
think
that
looked
like
everybody
well
welcome
once
again,
everyone
to
our
july
meeting
we're
going
to
start
with
approval
of
the
minutes
from
june.
Hopefully,
everybody
had
a
chance
to
take
a
look
at
those
in
the
meeting
packet,
so
we
need
to
do
a
roll
call
vote
to
approve
those
minutes
and
need
a
motion.
C
B
Thank
you
all
right.
So,
let's
start
with
patrick
hi,
ed.
E
B
B
L
Yeah
I'll
be
filling
in
for
jennifer
blevins
she's
out
of
the
office
this
week,
so
I'll
be
presenting
the
case
that
you
have
before
you,
which
is
murphy,
express
located
at
120
airport
road.
The
pin
number
is
9653180833,
the
property
is
currently
zoned
commercial,
industrial
and
it's
about
a
1.47
acre
tract
of
land.
L
L
L
The
code
requires
a
total
of
five
large
material
trees
to
be
installed,
and
they
are,
they
do
have
the
ability
to
install
those
trees.
However,
there
are
some
spacing
concerns
that
they
have
and
that's
the
reason
they're
here
today
before
you
to
request
alternative
as
it
relates
to
spacing
between
two
trees.
L
The
code
requires
you
can't
space
farther
than
65
feet
apart
there.
They
do
have
one
gap
and
two
trees
that
are
78
feet
apart
and
also
they
want
to
request
a
spacing
deviation
from
the
distance
from
the
road
to
a
street
tree.
There's
one
tree
that
can't
position
within
20
feet
of
the
road
it'll
be
about
30
feet
from
the
edge
of
the
road.
L
In
reviewing
the
plan,
I
believe
jennifer
did
indicate
that
there
are
some
utilities
along
the
front
of
the
road
that
are
presenting
some
problems
for
them
meeting
the
strict
letter
of
the
ordinance-
and
I
don't
know
if
we
have
the
site
plan
up-
that
we
can
show.
B
N
Sure
enough,
member
of
the
of
the
urban
forestry
commission,
sorry,
I'm
a
few
minutes
late,
protecting
trees
out
back
just
now,.
B
All
right
well,
thank
you
glad
you
can
make
it.
We
just
started
with
alternative
compliance,
so
go
ahead.
If
anyone
has
any
questions
for
our
applicants,.
G
Yeah
mike
you
described
kind
of
generally
what
the
issue
is
with
tree
spacing.
L
Yeah
there's
some
water
line,
easements
and
possibly
some
sewer
lines
easements
as
well
running
along
the
front
of
the
property,
and
that
is
correct.
We're
basically
dealing
with
just
spacing
itself
the
number
of
trees,
rp's
being
provided.
L
If
you'll
notice,
the
street
tree
on
your
right
is
more
than
65
feet
from
the
property
line
itself,
and
so
the
code
says
it
needs
to
be.
It
can't
be
a
gap
there
more
than
65
feet.
So
I
think
there's
some
utilities
in
that
corner
there
that
are
preventing
the
placement
of
that
tree
as
well.
G
L
L
Yeah
one
tree
one
tree
is
farther
than
the
road
from
the
road
than
the
code
would
require.
The
code
says
they
got
to
be
within
20
feet
of
the
street.
The
the
street
tree
to
the
far
left
is
35
feet
from
the
street,
so
that
tree
right
there
doesn't
meet
the
spacing
requirements
that
the
code
identifies.
H
First,
we
would
need
to
open
up
a
comment,
but
we
don't
have
anybody
on
so
you're
good
to
go.
Okay,.
B
I
appreciate
that
all
right,
but
go
ahead
if
there's
more
discussion
or
emotion,.
C
B
F
E
B
E
B
B
B
K
B
B
And
then
dsd
a
report
on
the
tree
protection
ordinance
looks
like
we
have
some
stats
ready,
a
little
bit
of
data
that
came
in
so
I
don't
know
nancy.
If
you
want
to
go
over
that.
A
The
true
protection
ordinance
data
tracking,
so
this
is
permits
that
are
issued
and
the
date
was
actually
last
thursday
when
I
pulled
these,
but
we've
present
but
preserved
forty
three
thousand
eight
hundred
plus
square
feet
and
then
there's
been
six
thousand
one
hundred
and
sixty
square
feet
of
planted
canopy,
and
then
there
has
been
a
fee
in
loop
for
two
projects
at
35.
B
A
A
No,
so
there's
I
think
there
was
oh,
no,
I
wrote
it
down
and
it's
at
my
desk.
I
think
there
was
over
a
dozen
that
or
I
think
it
was
17.
E
A
Had
to
do
that
triggered
tree
protection
out
of
166,
they
potentially
could
have,
and
two
chose
to
do
the
fee
in
lieu
or
a
portion
was
fee
and
low.
So
I
think
one
of
them
with
the
portion
was
family
and
one
was
all
female.
I'm
not
sure
I
have
to
go
back
and
pull
the
numbers
to
that
specific
information.
A
F
So
if
the,
what
was
the
number
for
this
preserve
400
000
square
feet,
if
they
were
properly
protected,
those
trees
will
survive
and
we're
we're
looking
at
a
pretty
good
amount
of
canopy
saved.
But
if
they
die
from
construction
damages,
then
those
will
be
replaced
as
well.
F
E
Right:
okay,
as
as
we
develop
monitoring,
it
would
be
good
to
map
those
of
course,
so
we
can
see
what's
going
on.
B
Yeah
and
it'd
be
nice,
so,
as
this
data
starts
coming
through,
if
we
can,
you
know
have
it
in.
You
know
like
a
table
in
the
back
end,
even
if
that's
not
what
we
bring
to
the
meeting
so
that
we
can
track
it
over
time
as
well,
so
nancy
we
can
get
together
on
that
of
what's
available.
B
B
C
So
when
you
say
there's
six
thousand
and
some
square
feet
of
trees
that
have
been
planted,
you
mean
they're
earmarked
to
be
planted,
they
haven't
actually
been
planted
yet
correct.
A
C
A
C
So
I
would
assume
at
some
point
when
there
comes
a
time
when
those
trees
are
actually
going
to
be
planted,
the
urban
forestry
commission
would
be
involved
and
where
those
trees
would
will
be
planted.
C
B
Good
question
anything
else:
gonna
again
we'll
revisit
some
finer
points
of
the
ordinance
coming
right
up
here.
So
all
right,
thanks
nancy,
all
right.
So
next
we're
gonna
talk
about
old
business.
The
first
item
is
the
budget
request
update
so
for
the
upcoming
fiscal
year.
City
council
has
already
made
their
decisions
on
the
budget.
So
what
we'll
be
talking
about
now
is
how
do
we
move
forward
with
our
budget
requests?
What
do
we
want
it
to
look
like
for
the
next
request
cycle?
B
What
would
be
2223,
and
so
we
want
to
start
now
to
get
those
priorities
in
line
so
that
we
can
spend
as
much
time
as
possible
convincing
city
council
that
this
is
a
priority
for
everyone
in
the
city.
So,
let's
see
an
idea,
I
had.
I
just
wanted
to
bring
this
up.
This
is
not
it's
just
me,
so
this
is
totally
open
to
discussion,
but
we've
been
requesting
for
the
past
few
years,
an
urban
forester
to
be
on
staff,
which
is
great.
B
You
know
line
a
division
of
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
within
the
city
that
focuses
on
sustainability
of
the
urban
forest
and
coordinates
everything
that
goes
along
with
that.
You
know
the
ordinances,
the
enforcement.
You
know
all
these
pieces
that
we're
talking
about,
and
so
I
just
want
to
throw
that
out
there
that
would
it
help
us,
or
would
it
just
be
more
confusing
to
slightly
change
how
we
look
at
what
that
position
might
do
and
what
we
might
call
it.
So
I
just
want
to
put
that
out
there
for
discussion.
F
Yeah,
I
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
great
idea,
I
think
that
you
know
we
should
we
should
really
target
a
senior
staff.
Professional,
probably
somebody
with
you
know
an
advanced
degree
in
years
of
experience,
or
at
least
five
years
experience.
F
You
know
a
a
real
urban
forestry
professional
that
can
deal
with
some
pretty
complication
issues
that
we're
going
to
be
facing
in
the
future.
I
mean
we're
talking
about
developing
a
master
plan
with
criteria,
indicators
and
adaptive
management
and
a
plan
that
would
help
us
adapt
and
mitigate
climate
issues
and
what
you're,
what
you're
proposing
is.
I
think
something
that
might
dumb
the
position
down
and
and
really
not
allow
us
to
accomplish
what
we're
looking
for.
B
O
F
Yeah
ecosystem-based
approach
to
managing
a
very
vulnerable
and
complicated
and
necessary
resource.
I
think
that
we
should
really
think
big
picture
with
this
and
the
master
plan
yeah.
B
And
I
guess
that's
what
it
was
going
for
was
how
to
make
it
bigger
picture.
You
know,
but
yeah,
I'm
totally
open
to
keeping
the
name
of
it.
The
same
go
ahead.
Paren,
if
you
had
a
your
hand
up
next.
G
I
think
that
you
know
the
way
I
take
your
proposal.
Amy
is
that
you're
talking
about
adding
a
an
extra
skill
set
to
what
a
traditional
arborist
would
have,
and
that
would
be
sort
of
like
the
people
management
side
of
things
where
volunteers
can
be
wrangled
and
organized
to
do
projects?
And
you
know
coordination
can
happen
between
different
committees
and
and
and
commissions
of
the
city
and
that
sort
of
thing.
So
maybe
that's
what
I
thought
of
when
you
brought
up
the
ideas
sort
of
like
yeah.
G
We
need
these
hard
skills
of
an
urban
forester,
plus
somebody
who
can
wrangle
people
and
sort
of
keep
a
bigger
coordinated.
Almost
like
a
coalition
effort
going
across
the
city,
so
yeah,
I
think
to
ed's
point.
I
see
how
changing
the
title
might
scare
off
some
some
professional
foresters
who
who
might
see
it
as
less
prestigious
to
take
a
title.
That
sounds
a
little
more
like
an
organizer
and
a
little
less
like
a
forester.
So
it's
worth
thinking
about.
G
You
know
how
to
phrase
it,
but
I
think
your
point
is
well
taken
that
somebody
with
the
skills
to
wrangle
people
and
herd
the
cats,
in
addition
to
having
the
hard
forestry
skills
does
seem
like
it
will
be
necessary
eventually.
B
D
Yeah,
I
can
see
your
point
amy,
but
I'm
in
agreement
with
ed.
Only
for
the
fact
is,
if
we're
gonna
ask
for
something,
let's
ask
for
the
big
picture
for
the
amount
of
money,
because
I'm
afraid,
if
we
ask
for
something,
that's
less
technical,
they
give
it
to
us
with
less
money.
Then
we're
married
to
that
and
then
we've
got
to
go
re-ask
again
for
something
that
is
more
highly
technical,
involves
more
skill
set
and
more
money,
they're
going
to
go
like
they're
doing
now.
D
B
Yeah
and
I
my
intention
was
never
that
it
wouldn't
be
highly
skilled
on
the
forestry
side,
because
absolutely
and
so
then
I
guess
the
term
does
matter
in
that
case,
so
cecil
who's
next.
N
Yes,
the
amazing
thing
I'm
going
to
say
is
thank
you.
I
guess
you
could
one
could
look
at
what's
been
approved
by
council
in
the
past,
and
you
know
I
don't
know
if
a
coordinator
is
more
likely
to
get
council
approval
than
a
forester.
N
I'm
I
from
my
experience
on
council,
I
I
don't
have,
I
can't
think
of
which
was
more
likely,
but
sometimes
in
bureaucracy.
Speak
a
coordinator
might
be
more
appealing
yeah
than
a
forester.
Well,
we're
not
in
a
forest
business
we're
a
city
you
know
anyway,
I
I
think
your
suggestion
is
is
worth
considering
anyway.
I
yeah.
That's
that's
what
comes
to
mind.
B
C
C
I
think
it's
important
in
terms
of
the
skill
sets
that
will
be
required
for
this
position,
to
make
it
clear
not
only
to
parents
point
that
this
person
will
be
and
to
your
point,
amy,
that
this
person
will
be
coordinating
all
the
urban
forestry
programs
policies
for
the
city
of
asheville,
but
also
that
this
person
will
be,
in
effect
directing
city
staff
in
areas
that
they
do
not
have
an
expertise
in.
C
So
I
think
it's
vital
that
the
message
that
we
send
to
the
city
council
is
very
important
in
terms
of
what
this
position
will
do,
and
so
I
think
we
do
need
to
keep
to
to
consider
very
carefully
what
we
call
this
position.
F
We
have
to
get
the
position
funded
first,
and
you
know
I
think,
we've
all
done
a
very
good
job
right
now
describing
the
job
description,
which
is
something
that
we
have
to
put
together
and
describe,
and
what
we're
describing
is
pretty
typical
of
most
city
forester
positions
that
we've
talked
about
and,
in
addition
to
implementing
the
master
plan,
they
coordinate
between
departments
and
between
the
city
and
the
community,
implementation
of
the
plan
and
other
policies
as
they
relate
to
urban
forest
management.
F
So
you
know
what
we
call
right
now
is
is
really
not
an
important
thing
to
focus
on.
I
think
we're
all
on
the
same
page,
pretty
much
on
what
the
position
should
be.
Let's
just
get
that
thing
funded,
so
we
can
get
this
job
description.
You
know
written
out
in
detail.
I've
got
copies
of
job
descriptions
of
urban
foresters
from
around
the
country,
pretty
easy
to
produce.
E
Yeah
I've,
you
know
when
we
talked
to
city
council
before
we
met
with
some
of
them
individually
and
one
way
to
get
the
point
across
is
we're
talking
about
a
city
planner
for
trees.
Basically,
I
mean
we're
talking
at
the
at
that
level,
but
also
coordinating
a
program,
so
all
that's
kind
of
inherent
in
the
position.
You
know
people
have
said
that
in
different
ways.
I
think
that's
the
the
point.
We
have
to
get
this
integrated
into
the
system
so
this
so
the
whole
planning
system
works
properly.
B
Exactly
and
that
actually
kind
of
brings
us
to
the
next
piece
of
this,
so
I
think
you
know
we
can
discuss
this,
obviously
more,
but
it
sounds
like.
Obviously
our
request
is
going
to
continue
to
be
a
position
and
the
urban
forest
master
plan,
and
so
I
think
our
next
step
and
patrick
had
the
idea
that
we
really
should
put
together
a
working
group
to
work
on
what
will
our
steps
be
as
far
as
getting
this
through?
B
How
are
we
going
to
communicate
primarily
to
city
council,
but
also
getting
that
ground
level
support
to
really
get
this
push
through
for
the
next
budget
cycle?
So
you
know,
I
don't
think
it's
too
early
to
get
a
working
group
put
together
to
start
putting
those
key
ideas
in
place
so
that
we
can
start
really
hitting
the
ground
with
council
for
the
next
budget
cycle.
So
thoughts
on
that
ideas,
volunteers,.
F
B
Absolutely
I
think
we
rely
on
all
the
leverage
we
can
get
so
maybe,
within
this
group
a
smaller
working
group,
that's
the
spearhead
to
coordinate
that
larger
effort,
absolutely
so
yeah.
I
think
that's
what
we
did
a
couple
years
ago
that
I
think
got
us
really
close,
even
though
we
didn't
get
there,
but
I
think
that
same
sort
of
intensive
push
is
what
we
need
any
other
go
ahead.
D
Sharon
yeah,
I
agree.
Amy
I
mean
I
went
to
the
budget
meeting
and
I
don't
know
if
anybody
watched
it,
but
I
was
the
only
one
talking
about
the
environment
and
it
was
like
a
a
relief
from
everything
else
that
was
being
hurled
at
council.
D
So
I
don't
know
if
any
letters
got
out
from
anybody
else
that
went
to
council
for
this,
but
we're
gonna
have
to
really
really
keep
on
them
for
a
year
and
keep
this
in
their
purview
and
not
let
up
like
we
did
a
couple
years
ago.
So
I
agree
tree
protection
task
force
a
working
group
within
ufc
and
we
just
keep
it
up.
I
mean
it
was
wonderful.
A
couple
years
ago
was
that
two
years
ago,
before
covet,
that
was
an
exceptional
effort.
B
Yeah,
I
think
patrick
was
next.
C
Yeah,
I
would
just
like
to
suggest
that
that
ed
macy
be
the
chair
of
this
working.
F
But
you
know:
we've
been
sharing
some
really
good
literature.
That's
been
coming
across
the
internet,
lately
related
to
the
importance
of
trees
in
in
mitigating
climate
and
issues
related
to
trees
and
equity.
F
We've
we've
had
american
forests,
did
a
urban
forest
equity
scorecard
for
the
city
of
asheville
and
in
many
other
cities
across
across
the
united
states
and
and
we're
not
looking
very
good,
there's
a
lot
of
work
that
we
have
to
do
so.
There's
some
there's
some
real
real
critical
importance.
I
think
to
the
future
of
urban
forestry
for
the
city,
and
we
have
strong
arguments,
so
you
know
I
think
we
should
use
some
of
this
new
ammunition.
F
That's
that's
coming
to
us
to
really
build
a
convincing
case
and
and
and
patrick's
a
very
good
articulator
he's
a
good
writer,
and
I
really
think
that
seriously
I'll
I'll
help
out
as
much
as
I
can.
But
I
would
like
I
would
like
patrick
to
be.
You
know
co-chairing
this
team.
B
All
right,
we
can
talk
about
that
patrick
think
about
it,
but
parent
go
ahead.
Oh
hold
on
real,
quick
parent!
Sorry,
really,
quick,
I'm
so
sorry,
but
I
saw
that
kim
jumped
on
so
kimroni
our
council
member
liaison.
Can
you
introduce
yourself
real,
quick.
O
G
Hi
kim
well,
that's
a
good
segue,
because
actually
the
reason
I
raised
my
hand
was
just
to
bring
kim
into
this
particular
discussion,
we're
having
right
now
and
get
her
caught
up
to
speed,
hi
kim
we're
talking
about
the
requests
that
we've
had
before
city
council
to
get
an
urban
forester
and
and
push
fund
the
urban
forestry
master
plan.
G
And
so
we've
just
been
talking
about
tactics
and
strategies
and
coalition
building
around
that,
and
so
now
that
you're
here,
I
just
wanted
to
open
a
space
for
you
to
give
us
any
feedback
on
what
you
think
would
be
effective
in
influencing
a
majority
of
council
to
be
persuaded
that
this
is
a
worthy
priority
in
the
upcoming
budget.
O
Year
sure,
in
this
situation
of
course,
speaking
for
myself,
when
I'm
watching
the
news
about
how
our
mother
earth
is
showing
the
changes
and
the
impact,
especially
with
the
you
know,
the
heat
changes
what's
going
on,
not
just
in
our
own
pacific
northwest
on
this
continent,
but
also
across
the
globe.
O
The
urgency
is
more
visible
and
I
think
that
there's
there
are
some
updates
that
could
be
made
to
the
call
as
more
and
more
human
family
are
moving
to
western
north
carolina
because
of
our
temperate
climate
and
general
safety.
O
B
Thanks
kim
that's
great
yeah
right
before
you
jumped
on,
we
were
actually
talking
about
that
coalition
building
and
trying
to
build
upon
what
we
had
started
a
couple
years
ago
when
we
had
the
tree
symposium.
I
can't
remember
the
title
of
that
event,
but
you
know
something
along
those
lines
where
we
can
keep
those
big
pieces
of
momentum
pushing
through
through
the
whole
community,
so
yeah,
absolutely
that's
great.
Take
away.
B
So
any
other
discussion
see
parent
go
ahead.
G
O
O
If
you
are
looking
for
where
a
public
facing
conversation
would
happen,
I
would
say
it's
to
look
at
the
retreat,
where
the
top
four
council
priorities
were
identified
and
that
the
work
on
repairing
and
maintaining
our
urban
canopy
was
put
in
the
category
of
already
in
process
being
worked
on.
C
So
the
last
time
that
we
actually
met
face
to
face
with
city
council
members
was
before
the
most
recent
election,
so
unfortunately
the
the
people
that
seem
to
be
very
responsive
to
our
request
for
urban
forester.
You
know
that
dynamic
has
changed,
and
so
you
know
I
I
think.
If
I
remember
correctly
in
in
the
previous
council,
we
had
three
pretty
confirmed
supporters
behind
our
effort
and
at
least
one
more
that
appeared
to
be
seriously
considering.
C
Excuse
me
our
request,
but
unfortunately
those
people
have
changed.
So
I
think
only
one
person
who
was
firmly
in
our
camp
from
the
last
council
is
still
on
the
current
council.
C
So
we
do
have
a
lot
of
work
almost
going
back
to
to
square
one
in
terms
of
lining
up
support
from
the
various
council
members.
B
Absolutely
sharon
did
you
have
something
else.
D
No,
it's
a
comment
I
went
when
I
went
to
council
and
spoke.
I
talked
about
what
I
saw
as
failing
for
for
us
not
having
an
urban
forester.
I
saw
kim
pay
attention,
but
there
was
such
a
contentious
budget
meeting
that
I
don't
know
if
anything
I
said,
sank
into
any
of
the
council
members
up
there,
but
I
think
my
comments
at
that
time
could
go
to
the
subcommittee
about.
D
O
I've
put
a
link
to
the
city's
website
on
the
information
that's
currently
available.
This
process
with
the
listening
sessions
was
last
summer
and,
of
course,
you
know
we're
doing
it
during
a
pandemic,
but
it
it
would
seem
wise
to
see
where
we
could
link
up
with
more
information
and
engage
the
processes
already
in
place.
B
E
We
have
a
basically
a
spot
promised
to
us
as
soon
as
their
current
bookings
are
or
out,
which
goes
through,
probably
either
the
we'll
have
a
slot
beginning
of
next
year
or
at
the
end
of
this
year,
which
would
tie
in
okay
with
our
our
you
know,
our
budget
requests
and
so
forth
to
get
a
dynamic
speaker
that
would
be
paid
for
through
that
series
to
talk
about
urban
forest
and
green
infrastructure
is
part
of
building
a
city.
E
B
That's
great,
thank
you
all
right
did
anyone
else
want
to
get
ready
to
form
this
working
group.
We
can
switch
it
out
too.
We
can
you
know
if
it
starts
with
some
people,
someone
else
if
no
one
else
is
jumping
on
it
right
now,
then
I'll
jump
in
for
sure,
with
ed
and
patrick,
to
at
least
get
us
started.
F
Yeah,
I'm
sure
that
dawn
will
work
with
us
as
well.
I
can't
speak
for
her,
but
I'm
sure
she'll
say
yes.
If
you
ask
her.
B
Yeah,
I
will,
I
think
we
can
real
print.
Okay,
so
cecil
had
his
hand
up.
N
Yeah,
I
would
be
willing
to
jump
in.
I
haven't
jumped
in
on
any
working
groups
before,
but
I'd
be
thrilled
to
help
with
this
one.
B
H
B
H
B
B
Oh,
no,
no
problem,
yeah,
it's
stuff
hands
up
and
sound
okay.
Well
then,
for
now
we
will
you
know
what,
for
now
I'll
keep
my
name
on
it
until
dawn
officially,
but
it
would
be
good
to
have
that
coordination
with
greenworks.
So
for
this
minute
we'll
say
patrick
cecil,
ed
and
myself,
and
then,
if
dawn,
is
able
and
willing
to
take
over,
then
we'll
go
with
that,
so
patrick
ed,
cecil,
amy,
dawn,
okay,
wonderful
well,
then
offline!
B
The
working
group
can
just
get
started
with
brainstorming
sort
of
setting
the
vision
and
path
for
how
we
want
to
go
forward
with
the
request.
Before
I
get
ahead
of
myself.
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
actually
vote
or
anything,
but
I'm
assuming
we're
just
going
to
keep
pushing
with
urban
forester
urban
forest
master
plan
as
what
we're
looking
for
funding
on.
If
there's
any
other
discussion
on
that,
let's
go
ahead
and
talk
about
that
real,
quick
but
nope.
B
B
I
believe,
last
month
we
already
updated
this
group
on
the
couple
of
we
always
had
one
meeting
so
far
and
dawn
was
actually
with
through
greenworks
heading
up
the
bit
of
these
initial
conversations,
so
I'm
not
actually
sure
where
it's
at
at
this
moment,
I
don't
know
ed
if
you
have
any
updates
on
where
those
trainings
are
at
or
if
there's
anything
or
we're
just
waiting
for
some
more
coordination
through
green
works.
F
I
I
I
don't
know
what
the
calendar
is
for
those,
so
we'll
just
have
to
wait.
Till
dawn
can
join
us
next
month,
hear
more
about
it.
Okay,
I
do
know
that
she's
applied
for
some
grants
that
may
allow
us
to
lay
some
groundwork
related
to
some
of
the
more
social
components,
the
social
urban
forest
framework.
So-
and
I
don't
know
if
she's
got
it
gotten
the
funding
yet,
but
it
looked
pretty
positive,
so
we'll
definitely
have
more
to
report
next
month.
B
All
right
and
just
to
go
back
so
everybody's
on
the
same
page,
greenworks
received
a
little
bit
of
a
grant,
I
believe,
was
a
city
contract
to
just
start
doing
some
talking
sessions.
So
this
is
very
early
stage,
just
laying
sort
of
the
groundwork
with
the
city,
and
then
this
next
piece
would
be
to
possibly
have
vignettes
with
the
community
to
just
start
to
get
that
input.
Community
input
for,
like
ed,
was
saying
the
social
and
community
framework
side
of
the
master
plan.
So
that's
where
we're
at
so
far
updates
will
come
all
right.
B
So
next
is
the
tree.
Canopy
preservation
ordinance.
We
got
some
stats
from
nancy,
so
that
was
great.
What
we
need
to
talk
about
now
is
what
are
the
next
steps,
so
we
have
a
couple
things
that
still
need
to
be
ironed
out.
We
have
the
ordnance
in
place
that
provides
this
framework,
but
a
couple
things
that
we
need
to
talk
about
are
the
fee
in
lieu
portion.
B
How
does
that
money
get
spent
and
what
we
don't
have
right
now
is
any
sort
of
decision
matrix
or
framework
for
how
that's
gonna
go.
Who
makes
the
decisions
who's
involved?
What's
that
whole
process,
and
so
the
suggestion
was
possibly
a
working
group
to
coordinate
between
the
city
and
ourselves
on
what
would
we
like
to
see?
What
would
that
look
like?
B
How
should
that
process
go
because
right
now,
they're,
it's
just
a
small
amount
now,
but
there
will
be
more
money
in
there
and
some
big
decisions
will
be
made
and
we
know
that
anytime
there's
a
pool
of
money.
You
know
you
ask
10
people,
there
will
be
10
ideas
on
how
it
should
be
spent,
so
we
need
some
sort
of
framework
in
place
to
make
that
decision
process
work
for
everybody,
so
any
thoughts.
B
First
of
all,
in
that
fee
and
lou
part,
anyone
really
interested
in
doing
some
of
that
work
to
make
a
decision
matrix,
something
that
we
can
work
with
with
the
city.
G
Well,
I
I
I
do
think
this
is
a
really
vital
issue
and
I
think
that
if
we
you
know
there
are
a
variety
of
fianlu
provisions
baked
into
various
ordinances
that
are
being
developed
or
already
exists
that
relate
to
environmental
protection,
and
there
is
a
very
real
danger
that
if
it's
not
defined,
it's
just
going
to
be
spent
on
buying
pencils
for
somebody's
office,
so
that
you
know
we
do
need
to
define
it,
and
I
think
it's
very
important.
G
B
Well,
I'm
not
sure
if
ben
wants
to
jump
in,
but
what
my
understanding
is,
there's
not
a
lot
it's
just.
What's
in
the
ordinance
which
was
just
the
you
know,
it
has
to
be
in
a
specific
overlay
district
and
that
kind
of
thing,
but
so
ben.
I
don't
know
if
you
go
next
or
sharon
ben.
Why
don't
you
fill
us
in
on
where
we're
at.
I
I
I
won't
say
we
didn't
have
any
thought,
but
there
wasn't
a
lot
of
detailed
thought
around.
You
know
how
those
fees
can
be
leveraged
and
used.
I
will
say
that
there's
a
there's,
a
broad
amount,
I
would
say
I
would
argue
a
broad
amount
of
flexibility
in
how
that's
done.
I
I
think
that,
in
terms
of
staff
that
worked
on
the
ordinance,
we
did
always
envision
the
ufc
kind
of
playing
a
a
role
in
developing
that
policy
and
just
kind
of
the
manner
in
which
that
is
those
fees
could
be
used
to
pay
and
answer
your
question,
I
guess
really
directly.
Is
we
don't
have
a
preconceived
plan
of
how
that
should
occur?
A
I
will
turn
in
a
little
bit
that
chris
and
like
internal
staff
have
met
once
on
discussing
how
this
might
look
moving
forward.
I
haven't
really
come
to
any
conclusions,
but
there
are
it.
There
are
specific
legalities
tied
around
it
like
it
has
to
go
for
trees
and
tree
magnets
and
public
trees.
I
think
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
all
public
or
if
there
can
be
I'm
not
sure
about
that.
A
But
that's
why
we
have
eric
runes,
but
there
are
some
specifics
as
to
how
it
can
be
spent
and
it
you
know
it
does
have
to
be
spent
within
the
resource
districts.
B
Yeah
sharon
did
you
saw
something.
D
No
ben
and
nancy
summarize
the
whole
thing
we
discussed
it
through
the
whole
development
process
and
what
everybody
has
said
has
been
true.
B
Okay,
good
patrick.
C
Yes,
I
think
that
the
the
feen
liu
funds
can
also
be
go
toward
funding
programs.
I
think
the
only
restriction
for
the
funds
is
that
it
cannot
be
used
for
ongoing
operational
costs.
K
Yeah
I
had
some
notes
from
the
just
brief
notes
from
the
internal
staff
meeting
when
we
talked
about
this,
and
we
were
talking
about
being
able
to
pay
for
planting
and
maintaining
of
public
trees.
You
know
it's
not
necessarily
all
dedicated
toward
putting
new
ones
in,
but
also
taking
care
of
the
ones
we've
got.
B
Cool
okay,
that's
good
perrin.
G
So
so
there's
a
this
is
happening.
We're
talking
about
this
in
tandem
with
the
development
of
the
open
space
amendment,
which
also
includes
a
fee
and
loot
provision.
We've
been
leaning
and
favoring
in
that
discussion.
I
know
at
least
the
enviros
in
that
discussion
have
been
leaning
towards
the
acquisition
of
open
space
for
the
benefit
of
the
public.
G
That
would
but
the
open
space
fee
and
lou
funds
would
be
used
to
acquire
things
like
parks,
city
parks,
including
little
pocket
parks
downtown
to
create
little
patches
of
greenery
here
and
there
in
in
the
sea
of
development.
The
you
know
also
things
like
significant
watershed
protection
areas.
You
know
where
you
have
a
little
a
forested
patch,
that's
going
to
hold
the
hillside
up
and
keep
the
keep
the
stream
clean.
G
That
kind
of
thing,
so
we
could
think
about
this
in
that
context,
as
sort
of
in
tandem
with
the
open
space
fee
and
lou.
If
the
open
space
being
lou
were
to
go
to
public
space
acquisition
and
the
fee
and
lou
from
the
tree,
protection
ordinance
could
go
to
you
know
adding
more
tree
canopy
to
asheville.
G
I
think
that
that's
you
know
those
two
concepts
can
work
really
nicely
in
tandem,
including
you
know
that
money
could
be
spent
in
public
parks
to
add
more
trees,
and
that
sort
of
thing
it
sounds
like
it
sounds
like
vidil
is
chiming
in
with
a
detail
about
the
wait,
I
have
to
find
the
chat
about
the
money
needing
to
be
used
within
the
area
of
the
site.
G
I'm
not
sure
that's
true.
Actually,
I
know
a
lot
of,
and
I
don't
think
that
we've
settled
on
that.
I
I
think
what
we've
discussed
geographically
speaking
in
terms
of
limitation,
is
similar
to
what
we're
talking
about
today,
which
is
well.
You
need
to
spend
that
money
locally,
like
within
the
district
that
the
funds
were
generated
from.
So
I'm
not
sure
I
agree
with
by
dilla's
statement
there.
In
any
case,
you
know
I
just
want
to
encourage
okay,
so
legal
has
clarified
a
point.
G
Well
that'll
be
an
interesting
discussion
to
talk
to
legal
about
that.
In
any
case,
you
know
if
the
idea
that
fee
and
lou
in
open
space
could
only
be
spent
on
site
when
the
whole
purpose
of
open
space
being
lou
is
to
this
wasn't
provided
to
mitigate
the
lack
of
open
space
makes
no
sense
at
all.
G
Again,
I
completely
disagree
with
vidilla
and
we'll
have
to
hash
that
out
later
with
the
legal
department,
I
suppose
so
so
yeah
you
need
to
be
able
to
spend
that
money
off-site
so
that
open
space
can
be
provided
with
those
funds.
So,
back
to
my
point,
the
the
you
know
we
could
look
at
these
in
tandem
and
use
the
fee
and
loot
from
the
tree
canopy
protection
amendment
to
provide
trees.
G
It
sounds
like
there's
an
issue
with
them
being
used
for
maintenance,
though,
from
what
patrick
was
saying
that
there's
a
restriction
on
operational
funds
and
that
might
include
maintenance.
I
think
I'd
be
interested
in
hearing
patrick's
opinion
about
that,
but.
E
E
The
city
needs
a
way
to
create
suitable
open
space
in
green
space
and
canopy.
So
we
need
that
kind
of
thinking
so
that
these
things
are
working
together.
E
B
Exactly
it
has
to
be
broader,
just
you
wouldn't
have
anywhere
to
go
with
it.
One
place
to
look
is
charlotte,
has
a
two-prong
approach
to
their
fianlu.
They
have
the
like
tree
planting
and
programs,
and
they
have
a
whole
section
set
up
for
land
acquisition
as
part
of
their
fee
in
lieu.
So
I
definitely
think
that
land
acquisition
is
something
we
should
consider.
B
If
it's
possible,
it
can
be
hard
to
acquire
land
within
the
district
where
those
funds
come
from
at
times
it
really
depends
on
what's
available,
you
have
to
pay
market
price,
and
things
like
that.
So,
but
it's
definitely
an
option.
We
need
to
look
at,
especially
if
there
is
going
to
be
a
fee
in
lieu
with
open
space
and
how
to
coordinate
that
which
makes
this
whole
discussion
of.
B
C
You
know
these
funds
could,
for
example,
be
used
to
help
pay
for
an
urban
forest
master
plan
because
it's
a
it's
a
one-shot
deal,
but
it
couldn't
be
used
for
helping
to
fund
an
urban
forester
position
because
that
is
ongoing.
B
I
think
maintenance
needs
to
be
looked
at
whether
you're
talking
about
you
know
specialized
treatments
for
disease
and
pests
that
might
be
outside
of
the
typical
program.
You
know
something
like
that
versus
the
kind
of
maintenance
that's
already
being
done
through
public
works
right,
so
we're
not
going
to
pay
for
what's
supposed
to
already
be
covered,
you
know.
Does
that
make
sense,
but
if
it's
something
additional
that
would
benefit
the
city,
then
that
possibly
could
be
included
as
an
option,
but
I
think
that's
the
first
thing.
Obviously,
what
we're
looking
at
here
is.
B
B
It
sounds
to
me
like
we
need
to
have
these
detailed
conversations
with
the
city
and
with
the
legal
team,
obviously,
and
making
sure
that
we
have
all
of
those
pieces
before
we
can
then
decide
what
will
those
priorities
be
thoughts,
so
I
am
totally
ready
to
jump
in
on
this
one
and
if
anyone
else
wants
to
join
me,
I
don't
mind
being
a
working
group
of
one
and
I'll
bring
it
back
to
you
all.
But
if
somebody's
interested,
we
can
start
that
conversation
with
the
city.
E
I'll
be
happy
to
contribute
too.
F
No
I'm
good.
I
was
wondering
if,
if
something
the
policy
working
group
should
take
on,
but
it
seems
like
you're
starting
a
separate
group
and
that's
that's
fine.
I'm.
B
F
Well,
the
reason
the
reason
I
raised
that
as
a
possibility
is
because
it's
the
policy
working
group
that
worked
really
closely
with
development
services
and
crafting
the
canopy
amendment
to
start
with.
So
you
know,
I
don't
know
if
we
need
more
to
chew
on,
but
just
for
the
sake
of
continuity,
it
would
make
sense
to
do
it.
That
way.
That's
true.
B
E
F
C
Yeah,
I'm,
you
know
I
have
quite
a
lot
to
do
so.
If,
if
it's
all
right
with
the
herb
well
now
never
mind
forget
it.
D
B
F
Yeah,
I
guess
that's
that's
a
good
start
and
and
ben
if,
if
we
can
get
some
clarity,
ben
and
nancy,
some
clarity
on
exactly
what's
what
we
legally
can
do
with
the
money
or
not,
I
I
think
that
would
that
would
give
us
a
good
start.
You
know,
I
think
you
know
our
focus
should
primarily
be
on
enhancing
the
canopy
use
it
for
canopy
enhancement
enhancements
one
way
or
another,
but
you
know
if
we
had
some
good
clarity
on
on
what
what
we
can
do
with
the
money
from
a
legal
perspective.
I
I
We
we
have
some.
We
have
some
broad
ability
to
use
these
funds
in
a
positive
way.
I'm
really
excited
about
this.
Actually,
and-
and
maybe
what
we
can
do
is
if
we
can
get
an
initial
meeting
scheduled
of
that
policy.
Working
group
I'll
try
to
get
eric
edgerton
to
come
in
and
maybe
spend
some
time
with
us
and
just
kind
of
set
some
parameters
on
how
we
can
use
those
fees
and
then
we
can
kind
of
go
from
there.
I
F
That
sounds
great,
okay
and,
and
so
not
to
be
duplicative.
Is
that
a
word
karen?
Maybe
somebody
from
the
open
space
group
should
also
join
that
conversation
to
you
know
for
their
enlightenment,
with
respect
to
their
that
that
fianlu.
E
B
D
Yeah,
I'm
just
gonna
say
that
vadilla's
got
the
theolou
from
legal,
his
information
now
that
we
could
wade
through
and
then
see
exactly
how
much
we're
stuck
within
those
parameters.
If
that
makes
sense,
so.
D
F
F
D
Open
space
has
a
d
entirely
different
criteria
in
how
their
fee
in
lieu
is
operable
than
we
do
so
far.
Right.
B
Yeah
that'd
be
good,
have
as
much
information
as
you
can
get
before
your
meeting,
so
you
can
ask
questions
and
whatnot,
so
good.
All
right
and
paranoid
make
sure
it's.
Okay
with
you
and
steve
to
hand
that
over
to
the
policy
working
group
for
now
and
we'll
all
come
back
together
as
it
develops.
Okay,
that.
B
Okay,
great
all
right
well
under
the
tree,
canopy
preservation
ordinance.
The
other
piece
was
to
continue
our
discussion
on
adding
heritage
tree
language
and
protections
to
that
ordinance.
B
I
don't
think
there's
anything,
that's
very
minute
to
change
about
what
we're
doing
here
is
the
ufc,
but
there
has
been
discussion
outside
of
this
group
in
our
in
the
tree:
protection
task
force
and
other
community
members
bringing
up
the
idea
of.
Is
there
any
possible
way
to
go
beyond
just
the
tree?
Canopy
preservation,
ordinance
in
preserving
heritage
trees,
meaning
it's
a
broad
definition,
but
particularly
you
know,
large
or
historic,
or
you
know
otherwise
notable
trees
in
the
community,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
throw
this
open
for
discussion.
B
Is
this
something
that,
as
a
group,
we
would
like
to
take
on
separately
from
just
under
the
tree?
Canopy
preservation
ordinance.
So
we
know
we
want
to
try
to
integrate
it
there,
where
we
can
provide
differential
penalties
and
or
compensation
for
removing
or
preserving
those
heritage,
trees,
and
that
we've
already
talked
about
and
have
a
pathway
to
add
that
in.
But
aside
from
that,
is
there
anything
else
we
want
to
do
as
a
group
in
terms
of
heritage
trees?
There
are
potentially
other
options.
B
You
know
for
getting
more
of
those
preserved
within
the
city,
but
we
do
end
up
on
potentially
shaky
ground,
because
we're
already
doing
this
as
much
as
possible
for
public
trees
that
pretty
much
just
leaves
private
trees
and
or
development
sites.
But
I
just
want
to
throw
it
out
there
for
discussion,
because
this
is
something
that
our
community
members
have
brought
to
our
attention
as
a
priority.
So
good
sharon.
D
I
always
envision
this
in
719
one,
and
I
don't.
I
don't
know
whether
that's
what
you
said
or
you
were
saying
to
do
it
in
an
entirely
different
category
than
put
it
under
an
existing
ordinance
that
we
have
kind
of
like
what
wilmington
has
done,
where
it's
separate,
where
you
just
fill
out
an
application,
and
then
it
goes
to
their
urban
forester.
D
Who-
and
I
do
know
from
our
talks
with
eric
edgerton
in
the
past,
about
this-
the
process
that
he
envisioned-
that
it
went
through
through
council,
that
we
do
it
every
six
months
with
a
whole
list
of
trees
and
then
have
a
removal
policy
kind
of
like
that,
what
they
do
in
historic
areas.
D
You
can
remove
a
tree,
but
you've
got
to
have
a
darn
good
reason.
You've
got
to
have
a
plan
and
it
goes
before
a
board
kind
of
situation
before
you
get
rid
of
it.
So
I'm
thinking
of
all
these
different
ways
that
different
people
do
it.
But
I
was
listening
to
you
and
saying:
is
everything
open
or
did
you
guys
talk
about
having
it
in
a
particular
format?.
B
Currently,
it's
all
open.
This
is
out
there,
so
what
the
community
members
are
pushing
for
is
obviously
very
broad
and
large
scale.
You
know
full
protection,
all
large
trees,
all
historic
trees.
If
you're
going
to
cut
it,
you
know
possibly
a
permit
possibly
a
fee,
you
know
so
that's
you
know
would
be
sort
of
the
maximum.
B
C
Yes,
you
know
in
our
agenda
meeting,
particularly
for
this
discussion.
C
I
had
requested
and
hoped
that
eric
edgerton
could
join
us.
I
assume
he's
got
a
scheduling,
conflict
or
is
in
court,
but
it
would
be
good
to
I
think,
hear
from
him,
because
I
believe
that
was
on
his
recommendation
why
the
initial
reference
and
protection
for
harry
trees
was
taken
out
of
the
draft
tree.
Canopy
preservation,
ordinance-
and
I
don't
know
if
ben
has
insight
on
that.
C
But
during
our
discussions
I
think,
after
that
I
do
believe
that
eric
indicated
that
this
would
be
something
that
we
could
amend
into
719
after
the
12
or
18
month,
sort
of
study
period
that
development
services
requested
before
making
any
amendments.
C
So
I
don't
know
if
ben
has
any
more
information
on
that,
but
I
do
know
that
you
know
what
what
the
community
wants
and
it's
sort
of
symbolized
by
a
draft
resolution
that
was
written
and
presented
to
the
tree
protection
task
force
and
I
think
also
was
requested
to
have
a
discussion
within
the
urban
forestry
commission
and
that
resolution
called
for
protecting
heritage
trees.
C
Whatever
that
category
will
end
up,
including
in
all
both
public
and
private
properties,
and
of
course,
there
is
a
legal
issue
as
to
how
far
we
can.
C
Legislate
on
on
private
private
properties
that
are
not
subject
to
development,
so
yeah,
we
do
need
to
have
a
pretty
robust
discussion
on
not
only
where
we
go
with
this
in
terms
of
the
7
19,
but
also
the
ex
legal
extent
to
which
we
can
offer
coverage
for
harry's
trees.
So
ben
do.
I
You
I
couldn't
find
my
mute
button
for
a
second
now,
patrick.
Thank
you.
I
don't.
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
eric,
so
we
probably
do
need
to
talk
to
him.
I
don't
have
a
lot
to
add
patrick,
I
think
your
recollection
of
the
process
and
where
we
left
it
with
the
city's
legal
department
is
absolutely
correct.
I
B
So
ed,
I
see
your
hand
up.
This
actually
reminds
me
that
you
know
we
talked
to
the
city
about
having
this
year
or
so
to
look
over
the
new
ordinance
and
see
how
things
are
rolling
out.
But
you
know
we
should
probably
almost
start
scheduling
some
meetings
to
bring
those
groups
to
the
table,
probably
through
the
policy
working
group,
to
start
having
those
discussions
of
how
is
it
going?
F
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
giving
trees
special
protected
status
is
not
without
precedent.
There
are
communities
that
do
that,
even
even
on
single-family
homes
or
properties,
there's
at
least
a
permitting
requirement
for
trees
that
would
meet
that
heritage
status
and
there's
some
communities
that
would
deny
permits
if
the
trees
weren't
presenting
risk.
So
I'm
not
quite
as
clear
as
the
status
in
north
carolina,
but
you
know
I
could
throw
atlanta
out
for
an
example.
F
There's
just
absolutely
no
way
the
city
of
atlanta
would
permit
the
removal
of
a
heritage
tree
unless
it
was
presenting
a
risk.
There's
some
other
communities
in
in
georgia
that
I've
worked
with
that
require
permitting,
but
then
allow
the
removal
of
of
heritage
trees.
The
permitting
process
is
just
an
opportunity
to
educate
the
homeowner.
F
F
B
Anyone
else
I
I
don't
know
if
this
very
minute
this
is
something
we
need
obviously
to
decide
on,
but
I
agree
with
ed
it's
something
we
need
to
discuss
further.
You
know:
are
we
going
to
try
to
at
least
keep
this
on
the
table?
You
know
maybe
see
if
we
can't
put
together
some
sort
of
framework
look
through
existing
north
carolina
legislation.
You
know
see
what
might
be
possible,
and
so
I'm
you
know
not
to
put
more
on
policy
working
group,
but
just
something
to
kind
of
have
on
there.
B
G
Just
to
raise
the
1984
statute
that
applies
to
raleigh
in
asheville
and
empowers
us
to
make
special
laws
protecting
our
tree.
D
G
Here
in
asheville
specifically,
so
obviously
that
will
be
useful
in
pondering
this.
B
B
G
So
patrick
attended
the
last
meeting.
I
was
at
a
hearing
in
greensboro
during
the
last
meeting,
so
I
couldn't
attend,
but
generally
speaking
and
I'll
turn
this
over
to
patrick
in
a
minute
to
to
give
the
fine
level
details
of
what
happened
at
the
last.
G
But
you
know
it
seems
as
though
we're
we're
getting
to
a
point
where
we're
starting
to
whittle
down
to
the
last
list
of
sticking
points
which
has
been
complicated
by
new
ideas
being
introduced
at
this
late
stage,
controversial
new
ideas
being
introduced
into
the
process
at
the
late
stage.
G
That
seemed
to
have
very
little
chance
of
of
producing
agreement
by
the
the
group,
so
we're
kind
of
moving
in
two
directions
at
once.
We've
whittled
down
a
lot
of
the
final
sticking
points
that
the
group
has
and,
and
so
that
list
has
gotten
smaller
and
smaller,
and
we
gotten
to
the
point
where
videl
has
been
able
to
produce
a
list
of
you
know
here
are
the
issues
that
we
have
remaining,
that
that
we
need
to
resolve
before
we'll
be
done.
G
So
that's
a
sign
of
progress
that
we've
gotten
that
far
that
there's
there's
just
a
handful
of
issues.
You
know
adding
new
ideas
into
the
mix
doesn't
help
a
whole
lot
at
this
stage,
but
we
have
been
dealing
with
that
and
so
yes,
we
are
getting
close.
I
I
think
it
seems
like
a
lot
of
the
worst
ideas
have
been
raised
at
the
end,
strangely
enough,
so
that
the
process
has
been
difficult
to
follow
and
not
very
easy
to
understand
where
we're
at
in
the
process.
G
C
Well,
as
parents
said,
you
know,
we're
rapidly
whittling
outstanding
issues
down.
I
think
at
the
at
the
last
meeting
I'll
touch
on
one
one
particular
area,
because
it
was
part
of
our
initial
opposition
to
the
open
space
ordinance,
and
that
is
we
had.
C
One
of
our
points
in
opposition
was
that
there
was
would
be
no
open
space
required
for
the
cbd
and
for
the
river
arts
district
and,
of
course,
we
resolved
the
cbd
issue
in
that
the
urban
forestry
commission
said
that
it
would
drop
its
opposition
to
not
having
open
space
in
the
cbd
contingent
upon
making
significant
changes
in
the
udo
and
the
standard
and
specifications
manual
around
street
trees
in
the
cbd,
and
I
believe
that
ed
will
be
reporting
on
that
more
in
detail
with
the
urban
with
the
policy
working
group
update.
C
As
far
as
the
river
arts
district
is
concerned,
at
the
last
meeting
it
was
made
clear
that
both
the
riverfront
redevelopment
commission
and
the
group
representing
business
owners
in
the
rad
are
opposed
to
put
putting
open
space
requirements
in
the
river
arts
district
part
of
the
their
rationale
is
that
when
they
came
up
with
the
river
arts
district
form
code,
they
they
included
greenways
and
even
the
french
broad
river,
as
as
sort
of
substitutes
for
open
space.
C
I
think
there
was
a
concept
called
view
throughs,
that
is,
the
views
between
buildings
and
pedestrian.
Traffic
between
buildings
also
would
be
viewed
as
open
space,
and
they
were
just
reticent
about
changing
the
the
form
code
in
the
river
arts
district
to
require
open
space.
C
C
So
I
think
the
other
area
of
mainly
maybe
concern
for
the
urban
forestry
commission
had
to
do
with
protected
ecological
areas,
for
example,
aquatic
buffers
steep
slopes,
riparian
areas
and
whether
or
not
that
would
be
required,
whether
or
not
that
would
be
applicable
to
open,
open
space
or
be
exempted
from
the
open
space
requirements.
C
C
C
Does
that
meet
the
criteria
for
open
space
or
whether
there
would
need
to
be
pass
benches
things
like
that
in
the
aquatic
buffer
to
meet
the
definition
of
open
space,
and
we
went
back
and
forth
on
that,
and
I'm
not
sure
with
that.
C
We
reached
a
final
conclusion,
although,
although
vandella
could
correct
me
if,
if
he
wishes,
but
I
think
the
staff
position
is
that
a
percentage
of
protected
areas
could
be
counted
toward
open
space
and
I
believe
that
percent
was
50,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
whether
that's
going
to
be
on
the
up.
But
the
next
meeting
for
further
discussion
and
final
consensus
on
or
not,
but
so
those
would
be
the
two
main
areas
that
we
discussed
at
the
last
meeting
regard
that
would
be
of
interest
to
the
urban
forestry
commission.
C
I
do
think-
and
I
did
recommend
to
parent
that
before
the
next
meeting-
that
the
urban
forestry
commission
working
group
on
open
space,
as
well
as
the
representatives
from
stacy
and
knack
meet,
so
that
we
can
go
over
everything
to
date,
things
that
have
been
agreed
to
by
the
task
force
and
anything
that
is
still
outstanding,
so
that,
if
meeting
number
10,
which
will
be
held
on
july
14th,
is
the
last
meeting
that
we're
prepared
to
for
that
meeting.
C
G
Thanks,
patrick
and
and
just
to
add
to
that,
I
think,
there's
a
couple
of
things
it's
worth
taking
the
temperature
of
the
bigger
group
here,
while
we
have
everybody
on
the
urban
forestry
commission,
so
two
things
one
when
you,
when
you
describe
the
river
arts
district,
whether
or
not
there
would
be
open
space
required
in
the
river
arts
district.
It's
worth
noting
that
there
is
a.
G
G
So
so
it's
important
to
to
note
that
that
is
the
status
quo
and
that
you
know
the
business
folks
coming
in
from
the
river
arts
district
and
saying
we
just
want
no
open
space
whatsoever
is
actually
a
retreat
from
the
existing
protections
that
are
there.
So
I
think
we
should
consider
that
and
I'd
be
interested
to
hear
people's
opinions
about
whether
or
not
removing
protections
in
the
status
quo
is,
is
acceptable
to
the
group.
G
The
second,
I
think,
big
ticket
item,
that
that
I'd
like
to
solicit
feedback
on
is
this
idea
of
double
counting
areas
that
are
already
required
to
be
protected,
such
as
aquatic
buffers
and
allowing
those
which
have
to
be
protected,
regardless
to
be
counted,
double
counted
as
open
space
as
well,
whether
that's
50
percent
or
100
percent.
G
D
So
I'm
on
the
on
the
open
space
via
neck,
but
I'm
not
in
agreement
with
the
double
dipping.
I
was
in
agreement
for
offering
buffers
if
they
kept
buffers
as
a
as
a
a
b
and
not
reduced
it
to
30
feet
and
instead
because
a
lot
of
buffers
get
reduced
with
fences.
D
So
I
suggested
a
while
ago
that
let's
give
buffers
open
space
credits,
so
they
don't
reduce
them
if
they
don't
reduce
it,
but
that
has
turned
around
and
kind
of
backfired
on
the
fact
that
we
have
riparian
areas
and
I
don't
think
we
should
offer
that
on
any
type
of
open
space
credit
whatsoever
because
it's
protected
and
then
that
removes
any
additional
open
space.
That's
would
be
available
on
the
development.
So
I
am
in
complete
agreement
with
you.
D
Parent
protected
areas
are
protected
and
should
not
be
given
credit
for
any
percentage
as
open
space
and
then
also
view
I
made
a
note
in
comments
is
view.
Corridors
is
what
patrick
was
referring
to.
I
had
one
of
the
other
architects
send
me
code
information
that
there
is
view
corridors
required
in
the
rad,
meaning
that
my
fear
for
the
rad
is
that
it's
building
on
top
of
building
on
top
of
building,
even
though
they
say,
there's
open
space.
D
Now
we've
got
the
river
on
one
side
and
the
green
space
on
the
other
it
very
well
easily
could
be
built
out.
So
what
we
did
is
we
divided
up
two
sections
that
are
much
more
dense
and
saying.
Okay,
these
two
overlays
can
not
be
over,
have
open
space
because
they're
a
lot
denser,
but
then
this
whole
larger
area.
We
should
offer
and
have
open
space
in
these
areas
to
protect
for
the
future.
D
D
B
It
does
thanks.
Sharon
go
ahead,
patrick.
C
So,
during
the
open
space
meeting,
I
tried
to
make
the
point
that
if
there
were
no
open
space
at
all,
wasn't
even
in
the
ordinance,
then
developers
would
still
have
to
protect
aquatic
buffers
and
other
riparian
areas.
C
So
does
it
make
sense
then
to
if
they
already
have
to
preserve
those
areas?
Does
it
make
sense
that
they
then
can
count
that
toward
open
space?
And,
of
course,
the
response
from
the
development
community
is
that?
Well,
if
we
have
to
preserve
those
areas,
in
addition
to
providing
open
space,
that's
not
when
those
preserved
areas
are
not
counted
toward.
C
Then
that
reduces
the
area
that
we
have
left
to
development,
and
you
know
I
I
tried
to
make
my
argument
and
but
I
was
corrected,
that
open
space
is
not
about
development
so
and
then
sharon
sumrall,
of
course,
who's
knowledgeable,
whose
knowledge
about
everything
said
that
actually
the
protected
areas
like
aquatic
buffers
and
steep
slope.
G
But
the
statement,
which
is
the
first
paragraph
of
the
open
space
amendment
states
that
the
purpose
of
open
space
in
part
is
storm.
Water
control,
which
is
directly
tied
to
the
percentage
of
pervious
surfaces
on
site,
which
is
completely
dictated
by
how
much
development
happens
on
location
which
can
be
buffered
and
and
protected
and
mitigated
by
how
much
open
space
is
required.
G
How
much
undeveloped
space
on
site
is
required
and
that's
one
of
the
functions
of
open
spaces
to
help
us
with
stormwater
control.
So
so
yeah.
I
mean
it's
right
there.
In
the
first
paragraph
of
the
amendment,
I
I
think
there's
really
no
question
that
open
space
is
for
limiting
how
much
of
the
site
is
developed
so
that
we
can.
D
G
Flood
the
neighbors
as
much
as
as
we
can
manage
so
so
yeah.
I
I
mean
I
I
think
open
space
has
to
be
additive
to
be
useful
and
so
yeah,
I'm
against
the
double
dipping
but
interested
in
hearing
others.
Thoughts.
B
I
appreciate
all
the
work
you
guys
have
done
and
all
this
discussion-
and
I
do
think
you're
from
what
I
can
tell
representing
the
interests
of
the
urban
forestry
commission,
because
additional
open
space
does
improve,
even
if
not
specifically
canopy
the
rest
of
the
goals
that
we
have
here.
I
would
personally
agree
that
I
don't
think
you
should
double
dip
on
preserved
areas
and
so
push
that
through,
as
you
can,
would
be
where
I
would
sit
on
that.
So
go
ahead.
Steve.
E
Yeah,
I
I
have
a
little
difficulty,
I'm
a
visually
oriented
person,
so
I
I
kind
of
have
to
see
things
on
a
map
or
a
mapping
to
get
a
really
clear
picture,
but
I
I
pick
up
on
mo.
I've
picked
up
on
most
of
this
and
it
I
know
it's
a
complicated
but
very
worthwhile
discussion.
Here
I
tend
to
agree
with
the
idea
of
not
double
dipping.
E
In
most
cases,
some
sites
might
be,
quite
you
know,
consumed
by
riparian
area.
Perhaps
I'm
not
sure
you
know
I'd
have
to
see
that
on
a
mapping
system,
but
yeah,
not
double
dipping,
I
think,
is
generally
the
way.
What
I
would
would
think
we
would
want
to
propose,
because
we
we
do
want
to
get
stormwater
situation
in
natural
with
a
natural
mitigation
to
it
as
much
as
possible.
J
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
what
the
current
regulations
state
to
regarding
open
space
and
the
use
of
some
protected
land,
for
example,
wetlands
and
stream.
Buffers
50
of
that
is
currently
allowed
to
to
be
counted
as
open
space,
and
the
idea
is
that
open
space,
part
of
part
of
the
purpose
of
open
space
is
providing
a
location
that
is,
that
is
protected
and
and
useful,
so
that
you
know,
since
some
cases
it
may
not
be
protected
at
all,
maybe
an
urban
hardscape
that
is
mostly
pavement.
J
In
other
cases,
I'm
just
explaining
what
has
has
been
the
rule.
So
far,
it's
been
interpreted
that
that
some
of
your
stream
buffer,
it
makes
sense
to
allow
that
to
count
as
open
space,
because
in
reality
people
use
it
and
value
it.
For
that,
and
we
as
much
as
we
want
to
think
about
regulations
for
protection.
J
We
need
to
try
to
balance
our
multiple
goals,
city
gold,
because
we
know
we're
in
you
know
certain
housing
crisis
and-
and
so
we
can
choose
to
exclude
the
double
dipping
would
which
would
be
a
change
in
policy,
but
the
what
that
would
mean
is
more
down
or
downward
pressure
on
development
going
in
this
direction,
but
that
that's
definitely
something
you
can
do.
Thank
you.
B
Thanks
vidal,
and
that
is
good
to
know
that
currently
a
certain
percentage
is
allowed.
You
know
perhaps
changing
that
number.
You
know
maybe,
instead
of
50
it's
we
could
advocate
for
something
like
30.
You
know
as
a
compromise
just
an
idea,
but
any
other
comments
on
this
again.
I
think
you
all
are
doing
an
excellent
job
in
representing
us
as
the
ufc.
So
I
have
no
problem
with
proceeding
on
that.
So
go
ahead.
Paren.
G
Yeah,
just
in
response
to
your
comment:
amy,
the
the
trick
with
the
math,
if
you're,
if
you're
reducing
the
amount
of
double
dipping
that
can
occur,
is
that
the
whole
thrust
of
the
open
space
amendment
is
to
slash
dramatically
the
amount
of
open
space.
That's
required
on
site
in
most
developments,
and
so
it's
you
know
it.
If
you're
trying
to
make
the
math
work
out,
it
gets
tricky
because
it's
moving
directions.
A
B
Absolutely
like
I
said,
I
know
that
you
guys
are
you
know
this
deep
in
it,
so
I
totally
trust
the
expertise
that
you're
putting
into
it
any
other
input
from
our
group
for
them.
Thank
you.
We
look
forward
to
the
next
update
all
right.
Next
is
the
policy
working
group
an
update?
I
know
there
was
some
work
on
chapter
20.
F
F
I
think
the
next
step
to
that
is
that
the
group
has
a
meeting,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
all
want
to
meet
face
to
face
or
just
try
to
do
an
online
meeting,
but
we
should
schedule
something
within
the
next
couple
weeks
to
really
sit
down
and
start
making
some
substantive
changes
to
chapter
20.
sharon
and
patrick
steve.
Are
you
open
to
your
face-to-face
meeting.
E
Yeah
I
I
agree
that
would
be
good.
I.
D
F
F
Okay,
great
that
sounds
good
I'll
I'll
get
with
all
of
you
offline
and
we'll
schedule
a
time
when,
when
we
can
do
that,
haley
was
kind
enough
to
open
this.
F
The
draft
work
of
the
policy
working
group
on
the
google
cloud
drive
with
the
city,
so
we
have
a
place
to
keep
our
stuff
and
to
work
off
single
documents
instead
of
having
different
iterations
floating
around
so
so,
hopefully,
we'll
have
more
to
report
next
time
we
we
meet.
F
I
and
patrick,
mentioned
the
spinoff
working
group
or
spinoff
group
from
the
open
space
task
force.
That's
that's
looking
at
downtown
tree
enhancements
or
canopy
enhancements
and-
and
I
think
that's
one
of
the
good
things
that
came
out
of
this
open
space
discussion.
F
It's
a
it's
a
good
group
of
people
and
we're
having
some
some
some
good
discussion,
led
by
vadilla
on
ways
to
make
trees,
grow
and
survive
better
downtown
things
related
to
soil
volume
and
exposure
and
orientation
and
sidewalk
widths
and
other
creative
ways
to
to
do
a
better
job
of
what
we're
doing,
and
I've
asked
vidilla
to
join
us
next
month.
F
If
it's,
okay
with
you
amy
to
give
us
a
presentation
on
the
work
that
that
group
is
doing,
I
think
it's
going
to
make
some
really
positive
changes
to
the
standards
and
spec
manual
and
that.
B
F
Right
and
vadilla
just
sent
a
texting
and
possibly
expanding
those
changes
to
citywide
regulations
not
to
just
downtown,
so
I
think
possibly
is.
We
should
definitely
do
that.
So
it's
a
good
spinoff.
F
So
if
that's
good
with
you
amy
davila
said
he
could
be
available,
and
I
would
like
him
to
brief
the
group
on
the
work
that
we've
been
doing.
B
Yeah
that'd
be
great
vanilla,
we'll
put
you
on
the
agenda,
for
I
believe
it's
august.
The
third.
F
I
believe
that's
correct,
yeah,
yeah
and
then
one
last
thing
in
the
in
the
text.
In
the
message
box,
I
I
put
a
link
to
an
nc
state
publication
on
protecting
and
retaining
trees
for
municipalities
and
counties
in
north
carolina.
So
it's
a
pretty
useful
publication
that
begins
to
answer
some
of
the
questions
we
have
about
heritage
trees.
So
that's
all.
I
have.
B
Great,
thank
you
and
so
I'll
be
adding
a
line
item
for
you
all
to
update
us
on
going
for
the
fee
and
lou
decision
process
as
well.
So
just
a
heads
up
that'll
be
on
starting
next
month.
All
right.
The
next
working
group
is
the
mission
statement
working
group
and
in
the
packet
for
this
month
we
have
our
updated
draft.
We're
calling
this
version.
Two
there's
been
iterations,
but
I
don't
know
if
everybody
had
a
chance
to
look
at
that.
B
Would
it
be
possible
to
bring
it
up
on
on
the
screen
in
here.
B
B
As
far
as
the
working
group
is
concerned,
to
discuss
and
possibly
vote
on
this
and
then,
if
we're
in
agreement
on
the
wording
of
this
mission
statement,
then
we
can
proceed
through
the
working
group
to
talk
with
city
about
exactly
how
we
implement
that,
because
that'll
be
the
next
step
is
you
know
currently
in,
I
believe
it's
chapter
two
where
it
talks
about
the
creation
of
the
urban
forestry
commission,
there's
some
kind
of
similar
wording
in
there,
but
we're
not
exactly
sure
if
our
best
bet
is
to
try
to
update
the
udo
or
to
have
this
exist
in
some
other
way.
B
But
our
first
step
is
to
look
at
this
decide.
If
we
want
to
vote
on,
you
know
making
this
our
official
mission
statement
so
I'll
go
ahead
and
take
a
moment
to
read
it.
I
don't
think
I
need
to
read
it
out
loud
for
everybody.
B
B
For
anyone
just
listening
in,
I
will
go
ahead
and
just
read
the
last
part.
The
beginning
is
you
know
discussing
why
urban
forests
are
important,
but
our
mission
is
then
to
protect
and
enhance
the
urban
forests
of
the
city
of
asheville,
through
education,
collaboration
and
policy
initiatives
that
align
with
the
city's
living
asheville
comprehensive
plan
and
provide
for
environmental
equity
and
climate
resilience.
B
G
Amy,
I'm
so
sorry
to
do
this
to
you.
I
know
this
is
totally
my
fault,
because
I
have
not
been
available
for
the
last
couple
of
weeks
or
so
so
I
know
you've
been
trying
to
get
my
feedback
recently
and
there's
just
one
change
that
I
see
that
was
made
from
the
previous
iteration
and
I'm
just
not
sure
why.
H
G
To
bring
this
up,
the
final
sentence
of
the
first
paragraph
was
taken
out,
so
that
was
the
piece
that
sort
of
connected
the
the
benefits
of
the
urban
forests
to
the
work
of
the
urban
forest
commission
and
so
yeah.
Please.
B
Yeah
this
is
so
that
was
actually
a
suggestion,
from
dawn
and
after
dawn
added
the
piece
about
recognizing
marginalized
communities
and
those
most
effective
by
lack
of
tree
canopy.
It
became
redundant
because
that
was
basically
a
bit
of
that
last
sentence.
B
G
Yeah
I
mean,
I
don't
think,
there's
any
need
to
like
have
another
month
of
work
on
the
mission
statement.
I
just
I'm.
What
I'm
seeing
is
that
without
that
sentence,
I'm
I'm
wondering
if
we
should
just
put
the
sentence
back
in
even
if
it
is
slightly
redundant
just
because
without
it
it
doesn't
say
what
we're
going
to.
B
I'll
go
ahead
and
read
what
that
was,
so
that
everybody
has
it
so.
The
last
sentence
of
the
first
paragraph
previously
said
the
urban
forestry
commission
will
work
to
protect
asheville's,
urban
forest
and
green
infrastructure
to
preserve
these
benefits
for
the
city
of
asheville,
and
so
I
see
what
you're
saying
that
that
is
a
bit
of
the
directive.
That
then
ties.
B
E
Another
member
of
the
this
working
group-
I'm
I
I
don't
see
a
problem
with
adding
that
back
in
even
if
it
is
slightly
redundant.
I
mean
it
reiterates
a
point.
B
All
right:
well,
then,
what
we
can
do
if
you
know,
obviously
we
can
keep
this
discussion
going,
but
if
we
were
to
agree
on
that,
somebody
could
put
forth
a
motion
that
we
would
approve
it
as
written
with
the
inclusion
of
the
last
sentence
that
previously
read
the
urban
forestry
commission
will
work
to
protect.
G
B
D
C
F
E
B
I
and
I
vote
I,
with
the
amended
wording.
I
will
get
the
final
draft
with
the
amended
wording
to
the
city
as
adopted,
and
then
policy
are
the
mission
statement
working
group
we'll
get
together
with
nancy
on
what
our
next
steps
are
and
what
the
options
are.
So
we'll
bring
it
back
to
this
group
once
we
have
those
options
on
how
we
implement
the
mission
statement,
but
now
we
have
an
official
mission
statement.
So
thank
you,
everybody
for
your
work
on
that.
B
All
right
next
is
trc
working
group,
which
is
me
and
sharon,
so
I've
actually
finally
been
invited
to
a
trc
meeting.
So
the
next
step
there
is
just
for
me
to
attend,
get
to
know
the
process
and
then
we'll
be
putting
together
some
procedures
on
trc.
But
that's
where
we're
at
right
now
so
I'll
see
you
at
the
next
meeting
sharon.
I
won't
be
saying
anything
I'll,
probably
get
with
you
after
to
debrief.
So
all
right
is
there
an
update
on
4,
24
sunset.
D
Yes,
go
ahead.
I
finally
finally
got
to
the
report
and
submitted
it
to
ricky
hurley
part
of
delivering
that
had
ed
review
are
our
notes
that
we
took
in
its
pictures
and
part
of
the
discussion
with
ricky
is
that
the
grove
park
sunset
mountain
neighborhood
association.
We
get
a
copy
of
this
report
because
they're
the
ones
that
initiated
the
complaint
and
they've
been
following
our
our
processes
in
this.
So
they
did
get
a
comment.
D
I
mean
they
did
get
the
our
recommendations
and
they
are
going
to
also
have
a
comment
to
ricky
regarding
us
but
they're
in
agreement
with
what
we
said
and
we're
just
waiting
for
ricky
and
then
ricky
will
take
it
as
zoning
enforcement
officer
on
it
and
we'll
follow
through
with
it
and
I'm
sure,
he'll.
Let
me
know
what's
going
on
with
it,
so.
B
All
right:
do
you
want
to
stay
then
on
the
agenda,
keep
me
updated
for
next
month.
If
there's
something
new
to
talk
about
okay,
perfect,
thank
you
and
then
a
legislation
update
patrick
anything
new
on
the
north
carolina
state
bills.
C
No
nothing
new,
both
496
and
349,
are
still
in
their
respective
committees
and,
as
far
as
I
know,
there's
been
no
movement
today.
B
All
right,
thank
you
as
a
reminder
we're
just
keeping
an
eye
on
those.
If
anything
were
to
happen,
then
we
put
forth
a
recommendation
to
council
and
then
lastly,
a
discussion
on
the
well.
Lastly,
for
new
business
or
all
business.
Pardon
me
the
urban
place
udo
amendment
we
brought
this
up
previously.
This
is
the
a
few
spots
around
the
city,
where
a
specific
overlay
would
take
place
allowing
for
specialized
urban
development
and
patrick
had
an
update
for
us
on
one
issue.
C
Yeah,
so
the
government
relations
subcommittee
on
urban
place
had
a
series
of
meetings
with
the
planning
and
urban
design
staff
on
changes
to
the
urban
place
district
forum
code,
language
that
would
help
mitigate
the
impact
of
these
mixed-use
high-density
pro
projects
on
surrounding
neighborhoods,
and
you
know
I
will
give
the
planning
staff
their
their
due
together.
C
The
two
groups
made
some
significant
changes
in
the
language
that
would
help
mitigate
the
disparity
between
you
know
these
taller
buildings
and
nearby
residential
homes,
and
I
give
planning
and
urban
design
credit
for
that.
The
one
thing
that
we
did
not
reach
agreement
on
was
the
exemption.
C
Proposed
in
the
code
for
building
impact
trees-
and
we
presented
our
argument
and
along
the
lines
of
what
the
urban
forestry
commission,
I'm
sure
would
argue
that
these
high-density
projects.
C
There's
a
lot
of
buildings,
a
lot
of
impervious
surfaces,
and
while
there
are
the
other
elements
of
7
11
3
applies
to
these
projects,
for
example
residential
buffers
that
would
allow
six
trees.
C
There
is
the
the
tree
canopy
preservation
ordinance
would
apply
to
these
projects,
and
street
treaties
would
apply
to
the
project,
although
it's
not
clear,
because
there's
no
designs
that
have
been
implemented,
whether
there
will
be
interior
streets
within
these
projects,
so
our
concern
was
that
and
given
the
even
though
the
tree,
canopy
preservation
ordinance,
would
apply
to
these
projects.
C
Of
course,
developers
would
have
the
option
of
paying
fee
in
lieu,
which
is
most
likely
what
they
will
do
with
these
projects
and
finally,
with
the
four
project
areas
that
have
been
slated
for
phase
one
of
urban
place
overlay
districts,
there
are
few
tree
existing
trees
on
on
those
projects.
C
The
planning
staff
did
give
it
serious
consideration,
but
in
the
end,
came
back
and
said
that
the
exemption
to
the
ability
impact
trees
for
the
urban
place
district
form
code
was
in
line
with
other
urban
forum
codes,
for
example,
with
cbd
and
and
others,
and
that
the
the
real
emphasis
on
these
projects
was
not
so
much
in
buildings.
But
in
providing
high
density
resident
residential
units
for
for
people.
C
So
we
ended
up
agreeing
to
disagree
on
that
and
I
informed
the
planning
staff
that
I
would
bring
be
bringing
this
issue
before
the
urban
forestry
commission
and
I
have
written
a
draft
letter
to
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
which
will
be
taking
this
up.
I
believe,
tomorrow
and
in
the
draft
letter
you
know,
I
say
that
the
urban
forestry
commission
is
not
taking
us
a
position
on
the
proposed
urban
place
forum
district
code
before
the
planning
zoning
commission,
with
the
exception
of
the
exemption
on
building
impact
trees.
C
So
you
know
with.
C
So
it
just
seemed
in
incongruous
to
us
that
the
one
one-size-fits-all
approach
to
urban
design
denies
residents
of
urban
style
living
the
health
and
environmental
benefits.
C
Drive
from
trees
that
residents
in
not
in
more
suburban
areas
enjoy,
so
you
know
I'm
recommending
that
we
send
this
letter
to
the
planning
the
zoning
commission
asking
them
to
eliminate
the
exemption
for
building
impact
trees
and
the
urban
place
district
form
code.
B
J
I'll
just
be
real
brief,
I
guess
one
just
to
help.
You
all
understand
how
building
impact
works
and
just
for
future
projects.
So
we
don't
count
the
first
three
thousand
square
foot
of
building
footprint,
but
after
that,
basically
for
it's
one,
one
tree
per
thousand
square
feet,
one
tree
and
two
shrubs.
J
So
if
it's
a
153,
000
square
foot,
building,
that's
150
trees,
so
just
kind
of
an
easy
way
for
you
all
to
think
about
it,
but
just
a
couple
of
things
to
throw
in
really
quickly
and
I'll,
be
presenting
this
to
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
tomorrow
night.
So
you're,
all
welcome
to
you
know,
come
and
engage
in
that
process
if
you'd
like
or
to
just
submit
comments
on
your
own.
So
these
sites
that
were
identified
as
potential
future
growth
locations
for
the
city
and
the
comp
plan
are
primarily
large
parking
lots.
J
That's
the
way
I
like
to
think
about
it
that
they
currently
don't
have
trees
on
them.
So
you
know,
part
of
this
form
code
is,
is
trying
to
to
get
a
lot
more
housing
and
to
have
housing
happen,
alongside
with
commercial
development,
so
because
it's
a
form
code
we're
trying
to
be
consistent
with
the
other
form
codes.
We've
established
that
allow
for
a
higher
density
of
development.
To
be
close,
you
know
to
share
walls
and
things
like
that.
J
That
makes
it
more
difficult
to
plant
the
trees
that
are
related
to
building
impact
when
you
have
a
large
project.
So
I
just
let
you
know
you
know
these
projects
will
not
be
devoid
of
trees.
They
will
still
have
parking
lot,
landscape
street
trees
on
property
line
buffers
you
know
and
then
any
trees
that
would
be
in
the
open
space
which
don't
require
trees,
but
so
so
there
wouldn't
be.
You
know
completely
a
wasteland
of
urban.
You
know
heat
island,
so
just
want
to
chime
that
put
that
those
points
in
thanks
again.
B
Thank
you,
and
I
think
you
know
many
of
us
are
in
favor
of
smart
development
on
former.
You
know
brown
sites
and
things
like
that,
but
I
would
argue
that
just
because
something
was
not
in
a
previous
iteration
of
the
code
doesn't
mean
that
that
should
continue
so
right
now.
F
First,
I
want
to
tell
patrick
how
much
I
appreciate
the
work
he's
put
into
this.
I
think
it's
a
very
well
written
letter
and
it
really
it.
It
clearly
articulates
our
position
and
I'd
like
to
move
that
we
approve
this
letter
and
send
it
on
to
the
planning
commission.
B
C
B
C
C
Yeah
just
to
make
clear,
haley
or
nancy,
are
you
going
to
submit
it
before
the
five
o'clock
deadline
today.
C
B
A
Yes,
so
we
have,
as
you
all
saw,
it
came
out
in
email
last
week
too,
there's
a
new
ethics
policy
that
was
adopted
for
the
advisory
boards
and
commissions,
and
that
covers
you
all,
because
we
don't
have
a
separate
one
outside
of
the
one
from
the
city
or
the
overarching
one
of
the
ethics
policy.
So
it's
attached,
if
you'll
read
and
familiarize
yourself
with
it
part
of
this
came
from
the
160d
updates
that
there
was
more
definition
on
the
conflict
of
interest
as
part
of
it.
A
And
then
some
of
the
meeting
rules
in
decorum
came
from
having
the
online
meetings
and
so
just
to
touch
on
a
few
is
that
you
know
cause
y'all
are
generally
good,
with
most
of
them
of
like
being
civil
and
courteous
and
respectful,
and
all
that,
but
for
virtual
meetings,
which
we're
not
going
to
have
moving
forward.
As
we
know
right
now,
because
that
was
specifics
and
virtual
meetings
were
specific
to
the
emerge
to
the
pending
to
the
state
of
emergency.
A
A
That
generally
you're
not
allowed
to
act
on
behalf
of
the
full
body
of
the
board
or
the
city
of
asheville,
unless
you're
authorized
to
do
so,
that
sort
of
thing,
advisory
staff,
etc,
etc.
The
social
media
things
and
then
so.
The
specifics
of
the
con
conflict
of
interest
that
have,
I
think,
changed
or
been
more
clarified
in
160d,
is
that
it
specifies
that
includes
substantial
financial
interest
and
close
familial
and
so
160
defines
that
close
familial
relationship.
A
So
that's
helpful
for
us
and
the
one
thing
that
is
also
to
note
just
for
actions
that
if
someone
does
need
to
be
recused,
that
that
is
done
through
a
vote
by
the
remaining
board
of
the
commission
by
the
remaining
by
the
folk
by
the
remainder
of
the
commission.
A
G
So,
just
about
the
conflicts
of
interest,
I
just
want
to
highlight
what
you're
saying
so
everybody's
following
that
that
if
we
identify
that
we
have
a
familial
or
economic
interest
in
a
question
that
comes
before
the
commission
we
need
to.
G
We
need
to
identify
that
to
one
another
and
sort
of
volunteer
and
say:
oh
that's,
my
brother,
you
know,
or
whatever
and
and
then
you're
saying
that
the
rest
of
the
commission
members
would
vote
on
whether
or
not
you
need
to
abstain
from
voting
on
that
issue
and
recuse
yourself
and
abstain
from
voting.
A
G
A
Yeah-
and
I
mean
they
do
say
that
it
can
be
done
like
that,
you
know
identifying
that
conflict
interest
can
be
done
at
the
meeting
or
even
prior
to
with
the
staff
liaison
or
if
y'all
have
questions
like
the
that
the
city
attorney's
office
is
always,
you
know,
available
to
help
make
those
determinations
too.
C
Yeah
nancy,
since
you
brought
it
up,
if
this
is
our
as
we
know
it
now,
our
last
scheduled
virtual
meeting
and
the
august
meeting
would
be
in
person.
Do
we
have
a
a
meeting
place
in
mind
or
yeah?
Do
we
have
a
meeting
place
in
mind.
C
A
B
A
C
Yeah
does
it?
Has
there
been
a
decision
made
whether
the
alternative
compliance
participants
will
join
an
in-person
meeting
virtually
or
would
they
be
required
to
attend
in
person.
B
A
It
will
one
thing
to
remind
y'all
is
do
park
in
the
visitor
parking
and
if
there
is
no
visitor
parking
available,
come
in
and
get
make
sure
to
ask
us
for
a
parking
pass,
you
can
run
out
and
put
your
car
there.
Yes,.
B
B
C
Yeah,
just
in
addition
to
the
letter
that
will
be
submitted
to
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
later
today.
I
also
believe
that
sharon
will
be
attending
the
planning
zoning
commission
and
will
give
her,
as
a
member
of
the
urban
forestry
commission,
give
her
three
minute
speech
on
the
building
impact
tree
exemption
sort
of
following
the
lines
of
the
letter.
B
Great
thanks
sharon
and,
as
I
think
as
vadilla
pointed
out,
you
know
we
are
all
welcome
as
members
of
the
community
to
be
a
part
of
that
as
well
and
submit
comment,
but
thanks
jaren,
that's
great
all
right
then.
I
just
need
to
move
to
adjourn.
M
B
Thank
you
all.
So
much
we'll
see
you
in
person
next
month
have
a
good.