►
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,
thank
you.
All
right!
Welcome
everybody
to
the
december
meeting
of
the
asheville
urban
forestry
commission
glad
everybody
could
be
here
today
we're
hoping
to
get
a
couple
more
commission
members
logging
in
now
my
name
is
amy
smith,
I'm
the
chair
of
the
urban
forestry
commission
and
we'll
go
ahead
and
kick
it
off
with
introductions
and
then
we'll
have
to
loop
in
people
who
might
be
logging
in
late.
So
again,
my
name
is
amy
smith,
I'm
the
chair.
So
I'm
just
going
to
call
on
commission
members
kind
of.
G
Cecil
cecil
bothwell
member
of
the
urban
forestry
commission.
B
B
E
Hey
everybody
good
afternoon
ben
woody
development
services
department.
A
N
Ricky
hurley,
with
dsd
playing
supervisor.
B
Thank
you
and,
let's
see,
I
see
michael
o'brien,
you
want
to
introduce
yourself.
B
That's
okay
and
then
I
see
one
other
call
in
an
828
number.
O
If
this
is
kim,
I'm
just
calling
in
today
temporarily
until
I
get
to
my
computer.
P
B
B
All
right,
you
are
just
in
time
we
just
finished
introductions
unless
I
missed
anyone
go
ahead
and
speak
up,
I
think
we
got
everybody
all
right
well,
once
again
welcome
everybody
we'll
call
this
meeting
to
order.
First,
we
need
to
approve
the
minutes
from
last
month.
Don't
get
a
chance
to
review
the
action
minutes
in
the
packet
and
we've
seen
a
motion
to
approve.
B
G
Q
B
J
B
H
Mike
wheeler
might
still
be
out
ricky
hurley.
Are
you
on
this
call?
You
might
have
to
stand
in
for
mike
if
he's
still
out
today,
I
know
he
was
out
yesterday.
N
I
haven't
heard
from
mike
today
on
that
I
thought,
because
he
said
he
was
going
to
be
handling
that.
So
let
me
check
in
really
fast
was
that
that's
news
to
me
that
he's
not.
H
B
All
right,
then,
let's
go
ahead
and
we
can
do
staff
reports
if,
if
someone
wants
to
try
to
touch
base
with
mike
so
first
we
have
the
city
arborist
report
from
mark
and
he
gave
us
some
notes
here.
But
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
highlight
anything
on
here
mark
no,
no,
he
says
all
right.
He
says
he's
preparing
contracts
for
the
outsourced
tree
work,
finalizing
the
planting
list
for
the
spring
attended.
M
And
there
was
you
got
knocked
out
of
the
call
or
something
you
were
kind
of
freeze
frame.
B
Next
week,
okay,
great
and
the
rest
of
the
holiday
decorations
will
be
hung
in
the
city.
B
And
then
the
dsd
tree
canopy
preservation
report
so
nancy
provided
us
with
some
information
on
our
year
to
date
and
month
to
date,
canopy
planted
preserved
in
fee
and
lou
funds.
B
B
All
right
anything
else
from
city
staff
for
updates
and
then
did
we
figure
out
how
we're
going
to
run
alternative
compliance,
we're
still
waiting.
D
Yeah
so
nancy,
I
have
a
question
for
you
actually
about
the
the
doki
and
liu.
I
was
looking
through
our
previous
meeting
materials
because.
H
H
D
K
I
I
recall
it
as
roughly:
this
is
vadilla
from
planning
200
000
right
and
I
can.
I
can
dig
it
up.
While
this
meeting
is
going
and
drop
it
the
drop
it
in
the
chat,
the
at
least
the
the
spreadsheet.
B
A
B
N
B
A
B
And
then
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
there,
we
go
run
the
slides,
perfect.
Thank
you.
So
I'll
go
ahead
and
ricky.
Hopefully
you
know
enough
to
maybe
just
run
through
these
slides
for
us
and
give
us
the
overview.
N
N
So
they
are
doing
a
substantial
improvement
to
the
building
and
as
such,
that
75
trigger
causes
a
full
site,
compliance
with
level
one
which
also
includes
landscaping,
and
so
obviously
the
biggest
thing
in
downtown
settings
is
the
street
trees.
N
And
we
also
know
that,
as
in
past
er
in
the
urban
settings
that
there's
the
constrained,
right-of-way
and
or
building
frontage
lines,
so
we're
you
know
we're
all
competing
for
a
very
small
area.
N
So
in
this
case
we
also
have
overhead
utility
lines
and
I
think,
what
they're
showing
their
plan
to
maintain
the
existing
18
inch
tree
along
south
market,
and
so
that
would
address
that
that
frontal
on
south
market,
I
think
they're,
looking
for
an
alternative
compliance
along
the
eagle
street
front
and
proposed
to
install
one
small
maturing
tree
within
the
existing
sidewalk,
and
I
believe,
there's
utilities
underneath
the
ground
and
the
saddle
seen
the
request
to
exempt
the
second
tree.
N
So
we
have
an
aerial
view
here
and
we
have
eagle
street
runs
north
south,
I
think
that's
actually
reverse
yeah
eagle
street
runs
north
south
and
so
left
is
east
right
is
west
and
we're
looking
and
south
is
up.
So
we
kind
of
got
a
rotated
version
here
next
slide.
Please.
N
So
again,
these
are
google
street
views.
I
guess
that
large
maple
is
in
the
top
right
hand,
pitcher
confirm
that
with
me
and.
N
Thank
you
thank
you,
ben
and,
and
then
obviously
you
see
on
the
left
picture
and
the
lower
right.
There
are
utilities
that
are
basically
about
a
foot
back,
a
curve
that
run
along
eagle
street
next
slide.
Please.
N
H
Yeah,
if
you
it'll,
be
the
next
set
of
slides
after
the
staff.
N
L
Yeah,
so
the
existing
tree
there
along
market
street
is
in
kind
of
its
own
little
island
and
it's
quite
large.
It's
an
18-inch
damage,
linden.
L
Okay,
yep,
so
that
would
roughly
equivalent
to
three
tree
credit
so
on
the
market
treats
side
we're
meeting
the
requirement
with
the
existing
tree.
L
L
There
are
a
lot
of
utilities
in
the
road
and
near
the
sidewalk,
especially
right
there
in
the
corner,
and
it's
not
easy
to
see,
but
almost
right
right
above
it
is
overhead
utility
lines,
so
just
basically
due
to
space
constraints
in
that
existing
fire,
hydrant
and
a
whole
lot
of
other
things
going
on
in
that
corner,
there's
really
not
enough
room
for
two
trees,
so
we
we
proposed
one
in
the
space,
that's
left
and
we're
asking
to
be
exempt
from
the
second.
L
B
All
right,
so
that
was
yeah
that
one
there
so
the
staff
finds
that
the
site
is
restrained
by
physical
conditions,
they're,
not
a
result
of
the
applicant's
own
actions.
This
is
also
a
historic
building,
so
I
think
it's
nice
to
upgrade
and
keep
what's
existing.
L
Sure
so
you
know,
if
you
go
down
the
street
a
little
bit
on
that
picture,
it'd
be
to
the
bottom
of
the
page.
You
can
see
where
the
development
next
to
us
put
them
like
out
in
the
street
for
a
couple
of
them.
A
couple
of
them
are
in
their
sidewalk,
so
the
but
in
our
particular
location
we
have
a
fire
hydrant
on
one
side,
we've
got
electrical
overhead,
we've
got.
You
know
water
coming
into
the
building.
L
On
the
other
side
along
eagle
street
there
and
there's
you
know
electrical
duct
banks
and
all
sorts
of
things
near
the
intersection.
D
What's
your
primary
barrier
to
having
a
if
you
had
to
pick
one,
what
is
it.
L
C
How
many
feet
from
the
pit
to
the
water
line?
Do
you
know.
C
L
Right
so
this
is
a
narrow
sidewalk.
It's
only
about
seven
and
a
half
feet
wide,
so
we're
going
to
go
with
the
longer
pit,
but
I
think
it's
like
four
feet
by
was
it
eight
or
I
forgot
the
red
conditions,
it's
about
yeah,
so
four
feet
by
nine
and.
C
So
my
take
on
it
is,
I
can
see
we
can
fit
a
tree
in
there,
but
I
can
see
on
as
a
contractor
how
difficult
that
would
be
so
I'm
out
to
say
I
would
like
to
see
a
tree,
but
I
understand
the
constraints
you're
looking
at
and
to
be
practical.
It
probably
shouldn't,
in
my
opinion,
be
a
tree
put
there,
even
though
it
needs
one,
because
there's
none
on
that
street
at
all.
L
It
also
it'll
fit
especially
a
small
tree,
but
the
existing
building-
I
don't
know
if
you
can
see
it
in
that,
drawing
there's
a
dash
line,
there's
an
existing
canopy
on
that
building
as
well.
That
sticks
out
over
the
sidewalk.
C
L
At
the
moment,
I
don't
know
that
we've
100
settled
on
it,
but
my
opinion.
Given
the
utilities
above
and
the
the
canopy
right
there,
I
would
love
to
do
like
a
crepe,
myrtle
or
something
like
that.
That
can
kind
of
be
trained
to
be
more
straight
up
and
down
and
not
as
tall.
L
So
yeah,
both
on
market
street
and
eagle
street,
currently
have
on-street
parking,
so
a
bump
out
certainly
could
be
done
if
we
remove
some
of
the
on
street
parking.
The
problem
is:
is
that
it'll
put
you
right
on
top
of
the
existing
water
main.
P
Okay,
if
I
could
mention
two
that
that's
also
a
an
accessible
parking
space,
so
if
we,
if
we
lost
that
we'd
lose
an
accessible
space.
B
Yeah
and
I
was
going
to
suggest
if
any
other
commission
members
have
a
suggestion
for
species,
but
it
sounds
like
you're
going
to
have
to
just
do
your
best
to
keep
it
alive,
keep
on
it
all
right,
any
other
questions
or
comments.
I
Sorry
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
I
agree
with
sharon
what
sharon
said,
and
you
know
it
might
be
better
not
to
have
a
tree
there
at
all.
It's
going
to
just
be
subjected
to
poor
conditions
and
lots
of
maintenance
might
not
survive.
B
And
that
could
be
a
recommendation
we
make
as
a
motion.
If
someone
were
so
inclined
all
right,
any
other.
B
As
a
note
just
for
future
planning,
I
would
like
to
suggest
that
we
do
take
a
look
at
reducing
parking,
not
necessarily
in
this
project,
but
in
others.
Hopefully,
our
future
world
will
have
fewer
cars
and
better
walkability,
and
so
that
might
be
a
better
option
for
some
of
these
projects
would
be
more
bump
outs
for
trees,.
F
I
was
trying
to
throw
this
in
the
chat
box,
but
I
think
a
service
berry
might
be
a
good
tree
for
that
spot,
both
because
of
its
growth
habit
and
its
ability
to
grow
in
tough
sites.
B
B
I
don't
know
I
personally
I'd
like
to
see
it
tried,
but
I
hear
you
yeah
that
maybe
it's
not
but
ed.
F
Go
ahead,
yeah!
No!
I
think
it's
worth
a
try
if
you
put
the
right
species
in
there
and
do
the
right
amount
of
soil
preparation-
and
I
you
know
tree
like
service
berry,
for
example-
might
might
do
okay,
there
and
and
crepe
myrtle
would
do
very
well
too
it'd
be
a
good
spot
to
have
crepe
myrtle,
because
the
overhead
utilities
so
either
one
of
those,
I
think,
would
make
it.
J
B
All
right
I'm
gonna,
take
it
then
we're
ready
to
vote.
Okay
dawn
hi
karen
hi.
L
B
And
I
vote
I
so
this
motion
passes.
We
re
approve
the
alternative
to
the
request.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
that
one,
and
here
we
have
white
labs
on
172,
south
charlotte,
so
ricky,
were
you
gonna
help
run
through
this
one
again.
N
N
So
if
there
were,
we
could
automatically
default
to
that.
But
in
this
case
there
are
not.
So
that's
basically
the
center
of
the
request.
You
know
the
building
is
built
in
early
1900s,
so
it
predates
all
development
regulations
and
so
and
we
have
existing
street
tree
grapes.
So
if
it
were
approved
they
would
just
basically
take
out
the
river
birch
and
put
in
this.
I
think
they
had
mentioned
service
mary,
and
so
we
can
move
on
next
slide.
Please
so
again,
here
is
the
google
street
view
here
on
the
left.
N
C
N
And
and
then,
of
course
to
the
right,
we
have
a
aerial
photo
from
google
and
the
street
front
just
to
the
upper
left
hand
corner
next
slide.
Please,
and
I
believe
mr
hauser,
can
you,
can
you
verify
this?
Is
the
proposed
site
plan
or
is
it
existing
prior
level?
One?
N
That's
fine,
we'll
keep
we'll
keep
driving
then,
but
in
any
case
it's
the
same
number
of
trees,
they're
not
asking
for
any
less
or
more
so
just
be.
You
know
one
for
one
swap
out
next
slide,
please
if
there
is
a
slide
okay
and
then,
of
course,
these
are
the
staff
findings
that
are
for
your
your
review
and
amy.
I
will
stop
there.
B
All
right,
thank
you,
ricky,
so
it
doesn't
look
like
we
have.
We
don't
have
anyone
any
applicants
here.
Well,
we
can
just
discuss
and
send
them
our
results
or
we
could
wait
if
they're
not
here,
but
go
ahead.
Ed.
N
That
maple
tree
is
within
the
ncdot
right-of-way,
and
so
they
I
they
may
be
applying
for
a
selective
vegetation
removal
and
that
that's
one
of
the
things
about
having
vegetation.
As
we've
talked
about
in
the
d.o.t
right-of-way,
we
do
not
control
the
right-of-way
and
certain
sized
trees
within
x
number
of
feet
of
the
pavement
edge
or
travel
lane.
I
think
it's
like
four
inches.
I
don't
speak
out
turn
mark.
Am
I
right,
I
think.
M
N
N
They
are
requesting
it's
actually
not
on
this,
this
actual
site-
it's
adjacent
there
too,
so
it
was.
It
was
not
part
of
the
original
level
one
review,
so
it
is
not
a
tree.
That's
required
for
the
white
light.
Excuse
me
the
white
labs
redevelopment,
so
it's
on
there
showing
it
on
here
actually
kind
of
confuses
the
situation,
because
it's
not
actually
part
of
the
request
and
not
part
of
the
level
one
approval.
N
So
it
is
good
for
you
to
know
that,
though,
but
I'll
tell
you
that
with
svrs
I'll
just
say
this:
we
don't
have
we
get
notified
by
those
and
the
city
does
review
those
and,
as
I've
said
in
the
past,
I
do
my
best
to
work
with
those
requests
to
try
to
minimize
as
much
removal
as
possible.
Even
though
I
we
have
no
ability
to
preclude
that
it's
a
state,
it's
a
state
allowance
and
d.o.t
right
away,
especially
on
the
interstates.
N
We
do
make
a
strong.
We
advocate
to
preserve
as
many
trees
as
possible.
We've
had
a
couple
successes
in
the
past.
I've
said
that
trying
to
advocate
preservation
of
trees
in
the
d.o.t
right-of-way
to
try
to
educate,
but
yes,
yes,
sir
mr
macy,
they
are
seeking
to
remove
that
maple.
C
So
I
went
out
to
look
at
it.
I'm
gonna
guess
those
birch
trees
are
multi-trunked
about
what
five
years
six
years,
maybe
and
and
there
was
enough
room
on
the
sidewalk-
I
mean
there-
isn't
a
whole
load
of
people.
I
know
I
live
on
easton
valley
and
there's
a
lot
of
people
that
walk
back
behind
that
fence
and
walk
around
it,
but
that
that
is
not
a
heavily
traversed
street
and
those
birches
to
me.
C
When
I
looked
at
them
they
could
be
selectively
pruned
on
the
ones
that
are
overhanging
the
street,
because
they're
old
enough
now
where
they
could
be
what
we
call
limbed
up,
because
they're
not
they're,
not
that
big
to
be
in
the
way.
When
I
walked
around
it
and
went
to
see
how
bad
it
would
be
on
the
pedestrian
side
of
things
to
be
yanking
these
out
and
single
trunk
trees.
They
probably
should
not
have
been
multi-trucked,
but
you
know
they
can
be
worked
around.
C
I
see
mark's
hands
up,
so
maybe
it's
got
a
different
opinion
than
I
do,
and
then
I
looked
at
the
maple.
Not
knowing
was
ncdot
and
that
thing
can
be
selectively,
pruned
and
fit
that
area,
but
I
know
ncdot
doesn't
like
to
selectively
prune
anything
unless
they
chop
the
main
leader
off
and
make
it
a
bush.
C
But
you
know
sorry
for
my
political
statement,
but
I
I'm
I'm
liking
the
fact
of
the
the
birch
is
there.
I
think
they
can
be
dealt
with
unless
mark
says
it's
a
maintenance
nightmare
for
him.
J
M
Well,
you're,
looking
at
the
guy
who's
been
limbing
them
up,
actually
so
been
doing
it
personally
and
yeah.
There's
plenty
of
overhead
clearance
for
walking
by
as
those
trees
mature,
though
I'm
a
little
concerned
that
having
a
triple
stem
tree
erupting
from
the
middle
of
a
tree,
grate
right
next
to
the
side
of
a
building.
It's
going
to
all
of
those
are
going
to
outgrow
that
space.
M
So
there
is
that,
as
far
as
the
service
berries,
I'm
kind
of
hoping
that
maybe
they
look
toward
a
single
stem
variety
of
service
barrier
instead
of
triple
that
way.
You
don't
have
three
stems
at
pedestrian
height,
where
you're
looking
at
you
know,
take
having
to
take
a
bunch
of
tree
off
to
try
and
keep
that
a
walkable
space
because
it
tapers
down
at
the
end
there
toward
that
zelkova
that's
planted
in
the
landscape
bed.
It
gets
a
little
tighter
there,
and
especially
with
people
trying
to
give
each
other
six
feet
of
space.
M
C
It's
unfortunate
that
the
pits
are
so
close
to
the
building.
I
mean.
K
Thanks,
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
comment
on
the
larger
tree
that
dot
is
proposing
to
remove
I'm
not
sure
how
exactly
what
I'm
thinking
of
saying
here,
except
that
we've
had
a
lot
of
experience
with
dot
and
in
trying
to
lobby
for
a
greater
flexibility
in
allowance
for
trees
within
the
right-of-way.
K
I
know
the
ncdot's
road
design
manual
allows
for
flexibility.
They
typically
don't
act
like
it
does
act
like
it's
a
requirement
to
remove
these
trees,
so
I
just
would
like
to
maybe
throw
out
there
if
this
group
separately
could
think
about
this
or
where
we
could
talk.
I
think,
the
more
that
we
emphasized
at
dot
that
these
are
important
as
a
as
a
city
standard
or
a
policy
to
preserve
the
better
likelihood
we
will
have
to
preserve
them.
K
K
That
you
know
kind
of
goes
counter
to
their
their
institution,
so
this
is
a
little
bit
potentially
outside
of
the
purview
of
this
group,
but
I
just
wanted
to
share
some
of
those
ideas.
B
D
For
the
time
being-
and
I
don't
think
that's
a
good
enough
reason
to
eliminate
established
trees
in
favor
of
smaller
vegetation
that
doesn't
serve
as
great
it
doesn't
provide
as
great
of
a
benefit
as
more
established
trees.
Do
I
hear
what
mark
is
saying
that
one
day
this,
you
know
they're
going
to
outgrow
their
grates
and
it's
going
to
become
unwieldy.
D
Let's
cross
that
my
suggestion
is:
let's
cross
that
bridge.
If
and
when
we
come,
and
rather
than
eliminating
the
the
existing
vegetation,
we
have
for
smaller
vegetation
that
won't
serve
the
same
purpose
for
years
or
won't
provide
the
same
level
of
benefit
for
years.
D
Let's
let
these
trees
stand,
let's
continue
the
pruning
and
let's
see
how
they
do
and
and
if
it
gets
to
a
point
where
it
just
becomes
unmanageable,
then
then
this
proposal
can
be
brought
back
to
the
commission.
B
O
B
M
Yeah,
I'm
I'm
leaning
on
a
stitch
in
time
saves
nine.
It's
the
triple
stem
birches.
That
was
the
wrong
tree
for
that
location,
slammed
right
up
against
the
side
of
the
building
in
a
narrow
tree,
grate
they're
growing
great,
and
so
we
know
where
they're
going
they're
going
to
the
point
where
they're
not
going
to
fit
in
the
space,
and
it's
going
to
be
easier
and
less
expensive
and
more
seamless
to
replace
them
now
than
when
they're.
M
You
know
30
feet
high,
and
it's
not
going
to
be
this
developer,
coming
back
needing
to
replace
them
with
something
else.
It's
going
to
be
me
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
get
those
stumps
out
of
the
sidewalk
without
destroying
the
sidewalk,
so
I
can
get
new
trees
in
the
larger.
The
tree
gets
to
be
downtown,
the
more
of
a
not
just
me
being
able
to
handle
in
the
tree
section
replacement,
but
needing
a
sidewalk
repair
because
of
the
damage
that
ensues
trying
to
get
the
stumps
out.
So
that's
that's
my
point.
B
C
I'm
in
agreement
with
perrin,
for
the
simple
reason
is
that
I've
seen
birches
kind
of
bonsai
themselves
into
a
location
and
kind
of
dwarf
themselves
when
they're
crammed
and
also
agreement
with
mark
that
they
can't
outgrow
the
size,
but
even
with
the
service
berry
there
they're
so
close,
those
pits
are
so
close
to
the
building
that
the
service
berries
are
going
to
have
issues
but
flattened
off
on
one
side.
So,
no
matter
what
goes
in
there
there's
going
to
be
a
problem
in
the
beginning.
C
I
suppose
that
they
should
have
been
rethought,
how
those
if
we
could
have
done
a
bulb
out-
or
I
don't
know
something
else
other
than
the
pit
right
up
against
the
building,
but
I'm
in
agreement
with
er
with
perrin.
I
think
they
should
stay
and
because
they're
beautiful
and
they
look
great
now-
and
I
know
the
foreseeable
future-
that
they're
probably
going
to
be
maybe
an
issue.
But
I
see
the
service
bear
is
going
to
be
an
issue
as
well.
I
see
anything
we
put
in
there
going
to
be
an
issue.
B
F
The
one
thing
that
I'm
not
clear
on
and
maybe
mark
can
clarify
the
the
owner
of
white
lab
is
proposing
to
make
this
change
now
correct,
and
but
what
mark
is
suggesting
is
that
if,
if
we
deny
this
request
and
the
trees
become
a
problem
in
the
future,
then
it's
going
to
be
on
the
city
to
to
correct
the
dam
images
and
replace
and
remove
and
replace
the
trees.
F
M
When
the
developer
wants
something,
that's
the
time
when
they're
willing
to
pay
for
it,
but
when
they're
done
with
the
situation,
that's
when
I
inherit
it
and
I
get
to
unravel
the
mess
that
ensues
right.
M
F
H
B
I
B
D
B
G
B
Q
B
C
B
And
I
vote
I
so
the
motion
passes
one
two,
three,
four,
five,
six
to
two
all
right,
thank
you,
everybody
and
I
think
we
did
actually
discover
some
good
points
that
we
can
move
forward
with,
in
particular,
potentially
working
with
the
city
with
ncdot
and
also
continuing
to
evaluate,
permitting
and
right
tree
right
place
issues
all
right.
B
A
And
as
a
general
reminder,
if
there's
anyone
on
the
line,
call
in
comments
will
be
limited
to
three
minutes.
H
J
Hi
there
my
name
is
andrew
rainey,
I'm
a
citizen
here
in
asheville
general
comment
token
to
bring
up
is
in
relation
to
the
urban
forestry
commission's
some
conversation.
I
heard
considering
neutrality
and
fun
to
advocate
and
kind
of
maintain
that
the
urban
forestry
commission
really
has
to
take
a
position
on
the
open
space
amendment,
because
that's
the
purpose
of
the
forestry
commission.
J
B
All
right,
thank
you,
so
thank
you
caller
we
did
receive.
I
believe
it
was
three
emailed
public
comments.
First,
I
want
to
acknowledge
that
we
received
them.
Hopefully
everyone
had
a
chance
to
read
them
and
second
I'll,
just
summarize,
they
all
basically
have
the
same
suggestion
that
the
ufc
opposed
the
open
space
amendment.
B
One
public
comment
did
include
some
extra
suggestions
relating
to
the
tree:
canopy
protection
ordinance
and
there's
one
other
point
on
there.
We
will
be
addressing
actually
all
of
the
points
made
in
the
public
comments
as
we
get
to
other
points
of
the
agenda
so
nancy.
I
believe
that's
sufficient
that
I
just
acknowledge
that
we
received
and
read
the
public
comments
all
right.
So
thank
you.
Everyone
who
submitted
public
comment,
oh
also,
a
reminder
that
the
deadline
anything
that's
received
before
the
deadline
we
get
for
this
meeting.
B
A
B
Perfect
5
pm
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much,
so
I
believe
now
just
a
moment
did
you
have
something
related
to
public
comment?
Oh.
D
A
Oh,
so
there
were
four
that
were
sent
in
before
5
p.m.
Yesterday,
so
those
are
the
four
one
record
that
got
sent
first
and
then
the
ones
that
we
received
before
8
30,
I
sent
to
the
commission,
but
those
will
be
formally
put
into
public
comment
as
part
of
the
board
packet
for
the
next
meeting.
A
B
Oh
yeah
and
the
other
point
was
that
the
hub
stays
open.
So
if
you're
making
a
public
comment-
and
it's
late-
you
don't
like
you're,
not
really
notified,
but
just
keep
an
eye
on
the
time
that
it's
before
5
pm
that'll
get
to
us
for
the
the
meeting.
The
next
day.
A
B
B
Second,
we
cannot
bring
up
the
same
motion
so
we'd
have
to
talk
about
other
options
now
you
know,
I
know
we're
all
familiar
with
this
whole
process
that
the
city
brought
forth
the
open
space
amendment
proposal
over
a
year
ago
that
we
were
part
of
the
task
force
to
try
to
work
through
some
of
the
potential
issues
and
concerns
that
we
had
with
the
open
space
amendment
specifically
related
to
tree
canopy,
but
also
related
to
other
issues
like
the
fee
and
loop
through
that
whole
process.
B
B
There
are
many
options
available
to
developers
for
taking
the
required
open
space
and
potentially
meeting
certain
requirements
to
reduce
their
open
space
amount.
However,
we
don't
know
what
developers
will
choose.
The
fee
in
lieu
option
has
always
been
on
the
table
where
developers
can
just
pay
in,
and
you
know
bypass
that
as
a
side
note,
but
something,
I
think
is
equally
important.
Conditional
zoning
is
also
on
the
table
for
developers.
You
know
that
would
bypass
all
of
these
systems
that
we
have
in
place,
and
so
I
think
you
know
taking
this
as
a
whole.
B
We
need
to
look
at
all
of
those
issues.
I
am
encouraged
that
the
open
space
amendment
includes
things
like
voluntary
stormwater
improvements.
I
think
that's
really
important.
There
are
limitations
from
the
state
of
what
we
can
do
with
stormwater
and
having
ways
to
voluntarily
improve.
That
is
a
good
thing
to
do.
Is
this
the
right
place
for
it?
You
know-
maybe
hopefully
this
would
be
the
right
place
for
that.
I'm
personally
encouraged
that
open
space
would
be
more
usable
for
actual
people.
B
I
think
that's
also
important
for
long-term
city
planning
on
the
flip
side,
I'm
concerned
that,
as
I
think,
most
in
this
group
are
reducing
open.
Space
does
potentially
reduce
places
for
trees,
not
always
because
many
developers
may
choose
to
add
trees
to
their
open
spaces,
because
that
is
desirable
by
people.
B
But
there
is
that
potential
problem
that
a
lack
of
open
space
would
be
a
lack
of
room
for
vegetation,
including
trees.
There
is
concern
with
the
whole
fee
and
loo
program.
We've
talked
about
this,
a
lot
that
we're
collecting
these
funds
and
yet
have
no
outlet
for
acquiring
more
land
that
would
provide
space
for
trees
and
other
vegetation,
as
well
as
public
access,
which
would
be
the
goal
of
using
those
fee
in
lieu
funds.
B
We
are
concerned
that
some
of
the-
and
I
say
we-
I
I
believe
this
is
something
we
have
talked
about
and
agreed
upon-
that
we
are
concerned
that
some
of
the
provisions
as
they
appear
in
the
open
space
amendment
as
it's
proposed
right
now
include
compliance
with
already
mandatory
buffer
and
stormwater
requirements,
and
so
that
is
a
concern
on
the
negative
side.
B
Now,
I'm
through
all
of
this
and
through
the
public
comment,
I
do
want
to
say
that
I
took
all
of
those
public
comments
very
seriously
and
it's
a
big
concern.
I
do
want
us
to
do
the
best
for
the
trees
and
for
the
community,
but
I'm
personally
really
torn.
I
don't
know
enough,
based
on
what's
been
presented
on
how
this
will
play
out.
We
don't
know
what
options
developers
will
choose.
We
don't
know
how
it's
going
to
look
on
the
ground.
N
B
Is
to
continue
to
push
the
city
to
provide
us
more
information.
I
would
like
the
city
to
continue
to
collaborate
with
us.
You
know
if
this
goes
into
effect.
I
want
to
be
a
part
of
how
does
it
work
on
the
ground?
How
can
we
improve
it
in
the
future,
knowing
eventually
what
kinds
of
choices
developers
are
choosing?
How
does
it
actually
look
on
the
ground
with
specific
projects?
B
So
thank
you
for
listening
to
me.
Those
are
my
concerns
and
things
that
I
like
about
the
open
space
amendment,
but
I
don't
think
it's
perfect
and
you
know
I
don't
know
if
we
fully
oppose
it.
If
we
fully
approve
it,
or
can
we
take
some
other
option
that
opens
the
door
for
continued
collaboration
with
the
city,
knowing
that
there's
pieces
we
like
and
pieces,
we
don't
like,
so
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
open
it
up
for
discussion.
I
see
cecil
had
a
hand
up.
G
B
Well,
let's
go
ahead
and
discuss
it
then
there's
been
a
motion
and
a
second:
what's
our
discussion,
I
think
perrin
was
next.
D
Thank
you
amy,
so
I
I
I
regretted
that
last
month
we
we
got
sidetracked
in
our
discussion
about
this
in
conversations
about
laying
blame
for
particular
ways
that
certain
things
turned
out
in
the
open
space
amendment
or
pointing
fingers
at
people
on
city
staff
in
the
planning
and
urban
design
department.
D
D
That
strictly
focuses
on
the
substance
of
the
open
space
amendment
as
it
affects
our
mission
on
the
urban
forestry
commission
in
terms
of
the
impacts
to
the
urban
canopy.
That
is
completely
free
and
divorced
of
all
distractions,
about
process
or
people
or
personalities
or
fault
finding
on
anybody's
part.
So.
D
I
have
introduced,
or
around
this
resolution,
to
all
the
commission
members
which
just
lays
out
how
the
open
space
amendments
provisions
interface
with
our
priorities
on
the
urban
forestry
commission
in
terms
of
urban
canopy
protection.
D
So
I
think
you
know
amy
to
respond
directly
to
your
point
about
how
many
uncertainties
there
are.
I
certainly
agree
with
you
that
you
know
because
and
stephen-
and
I
were
discussing
this
yesterday,
because
the
city
has
never
really
mapped
our
urban
infrastructure,
our
green
infrastructure
in
the
city
of
asheville,
and
has
never
inventoried
our
green
infrastructure
throughout
the
city
of
asheville.
We
don't
really
have
a
baseline
point
from
which
to
start
measuring
and
modeling
the
impacts
of
complex
policy
proposals
like
the
open
space
amendment.
D
So
you
make
a
completely
valid
point
amy
that
there's
a
lot
of
uncertainties
here.
We
would.
This
conversation
would
be
much
better
informed
by
an
extensive
inventorying
of
green
infrastructure
throughout
the
city
of
asheville
and
modeling
of
the
specific
impacts
over
time
of
the
open
space
amendment
on
that
green
infrastructure,
including
urban
canopy.
D
However,
we
are,
we
are
two
two
years
into
my
involvement
in
this
particular
controversy
about
the
open
space
amendment
and
two
years
on
with
collaborating
with
everybody.
We
can-
and
you
know
doing
our
best
to
make
our
voices
heard
within
the
process
that
gave
rise
to
the
open
space
amendment.
D
It
has
only
gotten
worse
since
in
in
terms
of
urban
canopy
impacts
since
august
of
2020,
when
we
unanimously
voted
in
opposition
to
the
open
space
amendment
because
of
the
impacts
it
would
have
to
urban
canopy,
and
so
I
don't
you
know
personally,
I
don't
see
that
going
any
further
with
trying
to
shape
the
open
space.
D
Amendment
will
have
a
different
effect
because
the
more
we
participated,
the
worse,
the
open
space
amendment
got
from
the
standpoint
of
urban
canopy
protection,
so
I
I
think
the
direction
of
their
open
space
amendment
is
very
clear
and
very
well
established,
and
the
trajectory
has
been
consistent
over
time.
So
I
don't
think
that
rish
trying
to
reshape
the
open
space
amendment
will
have
a
different
effect.
D
I
also
know
that
we
don't
have
time
to
do
the
modeling
and
the
inventory
that's
necessary
to
be
able
to
make
the
kind
of
projections
you're
talking
about
that
would
be
so
helpful
to
analyze
what
the
impacts
of
the
open
space
amendment
would
be
specifically
on
the
urban
canopy.
So
all
we're
left
with
is
looking
at
the
policy
and
sort
of
drawing
conclusions
about
the
kinds
of
effects
that
it
would
have
and
so
we're
dealing
with
generalities.
I
agree
with
you.
D
It
would
be
great
if
we
had
the
data
on
hand
to
to
deal
with
specifics,
but
but
we
don't-
and
so
so
I
think
we
just
have
to
look
at
the
policy
from
the
standpoint
of.
Is
it
a
good
policy?
Are
they
good
ideas
or
is
it
bad
policy
on
balance?
Do
the
pros
outcome?
The
weight
outweigh
the
cons
or
do
the
cons
outweigh
the
pros?
So
clearly,
I
have
come
to
the
conclusion
that
the
cons
are
much
greater
than
the
pros
from
the
standpoint
of
the
urban
canopy
and
I've
introduced.
D
I
I
have
sent
around
this
resolution
to
all
of
you.
I
know
that
you
all
have
had
a
chance
to
read
it
and
I
don't
want
to
eat
a
whole
bunch
of
the
of
our
time
in
in
going
over
this
word
by
word,
but
I
will
I
will
do
my
best
to
summarize
my
resolution
so
that
it's
in
the
record,
since
it's
not
on
the
agenda,
so
you
know
making
the
point.
D
My
resolution
resolution
begins
by
saying
that
our
open
space
that
we
have
in
asheville
is
made
up
of
green
infrastructure,
including
impervious
open
ground
and
mature
canopy
trees.
D
This
green
infrastructure
provides
vital
ecosystem
services
to
our
quality
of
life,
storm
water,
preventing
storm
water,
induced
erosion
and
flooding,
protection
of
air
quality,
cooling
of
neighborhoods
sequestration
of
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
provision
of
a
diversity
of
habitat
for
wildlife
and
pollinators
reduction
of
urban
noise
and
protection
of
the
public
health.
Specifically
with
regards
to
heat,
stroke
and
respiratory
ailments,
we
have
taken
the
position
on
the
urban
forestry
commission.
We
advocate
for
restoration
of
the
urban
canopy
from
where
it
is
about
44,
today
to
50
by
the
year
2040
to
improve
the
services.
D
Urban
canopy
is
serving
the
community
with
trees,
require
pervious
open
ground
in
which
to
sink
their
roots.
We
have
an
existing
open
space
ordinance
at
7-eleven
for
and
the
open
space
amendment
is
purpose
is
to
reduce
open
space
requirements
to
facilitate
high-density
development
of
our
neighborhoods
and
commercial
districts.
D
We've
lost
1.4
square
miles
of
tree
canopy
in
over
the
previous
decade,
or
so
we
are
intensively
intensively
intensively,
developing
cities,
neighborhoods
and
business
districts
through
the
open
space.
Amendments
facilitation
would
would
result
in
a
significant
further
loss
of
open
space,
green
infrastructure
such
as
urban
canopy
and
the
ecosystems
they
provide.
D
50
reduction
in
the
overall
baseline
amount
of
open
space
required
up
to
an
eighty
percent
discount
in
exchange
for
mandatory
stormwater
required
stormwater
measures
that
are
required
anyway
elsewhere,
and
I
just
wanna
say
that
that
kind
of
trade-off
where
we
discount
the
amount
of
open
space
required
in
exchange
for
something
that's
already
required
in
the
law,
is
the
hallmark
of
bad
policy.
Making
I
mean
it
looks
corrupt.
D
It
looks
like
a
free
giveaway
to
an
industrial
interest
and
that's
bad
policy,
just
plain
and
simple,
so
being
able
to
excuse
up
to.
H
D
Of
the
open
space
required
through
mandatory
property
line,
buffers
up
to
50
of
the
open
space
required
discounted
in
exchange
for
mandatory
setbacks,
the
inclusion
of
balconies
on
high-rise
buildings,
for
example,
in
order
to
satisfy
open
space
requirements.
D
This
is
clearly
something
that
is
going
to
provide
no
urban
canopy
benefits
and
reduces
the
benefits
that
open
space
provides
for
the
urban
canopy
and
being
able
to
reduce
further
the
amount
of
open
space
required
by
up
to
90
percent
by
putting
together
storm
water
requirements
or
affordability
or
affordable
housing
requirements
with
benches
in
a
flat
rectangular
area.
D
So
excusing
up
to
90
of
the
open
space
required
through
these
discounts
and
that's
again,
probably
not
worth
the
trade-off
for,
what's
being
provided
and
being
able
to
excuse
100
of
the
required
open
space
in
exchange
for
fee
and
lieu,
when
there's
no
plan
for
and
no
policy
in
place
for
how
to
spend
those
fee
and
loot
funds
to
acquire
new
city
lands.
D
And
there
are
three
particular
concerns.
I'm
highlighting
here,
one.
The
lack
of
an
open
space
b
and
lieu
policy
to
guide
and
enable
the
acquisition
of
city
parks
to
compensate
asheville's
green
infrastructure
for
the
loss
of
open
space
is
unacceptable.
From
the
standpoint
of
urban
canopy
protection.
D
And
third
and
lastly,
the
reduction
in
existing
urban
canopy
that
would
result
from
steep
reductions
in
open
space
across
asheville
would
be
detrimental
to
city
residents.
Through
the
loss
of
ecosystem
services
and
the
degradation
of
public
health
and
quality
of
life,
so
that
is
my
resolution.
That
is
what
I
ask
my
fellow
commissioners
to
vote
yes
on,
so
we
can
take
a
position
now.
D
I
don't
think
that
the
this
process
will
will
result
in
any
further
dividends
than
the
what
we've
been
able
to
secure
to
date,
and
so
I
think
it
is
time
to
take
a
position
one
way
or
the
other.
My
suggestion
is
that
we
take
a
position
of
opposition
from
what
I
understand.
The
neighborhood
advisory
committee
has
taken.
A
stance
of
opposition
and
stacy
has
chosen
the
path
of
neutrality,
but
we
certainly
would
not
be
alone
if
we
were
to
oppose
it.
Thank
you
for
your
indulgence
and
your
time.
B
My
goal
would
be
to
collaborate
after
once
we
have
it
in
place
whatever
if
it
gets
passed
or
even
if
it
doesn't,
you
know
but
analyzing
further,
like
you
said,
with
gathering
more
data,
and
I
think
your
point
that
we
do
not
have
an
inventory,
we
don't
have
a
master
plan,
we
don't
know
a
lot
of
pieces
about
it.
I
do
appreciate
you
putting
together
this
resolution.
B
I
did
also
want
to
make
one
more
quick
point
that
by
not
putting
the
resolution
as
printed
specifically
on
the
agenda,
I
also
didn't
put
any
other
emotions
or
resolutions
specifically
on
the
agenda,
because
I
wanted
to
give
us
the
full
capacity
to
discuss
without
anything
being
like
set.
If
that
makes
sense,
because
I
know
a
lot
of
times,
we
just
we,
we
agree
and
we
have
a
lot
of
consensus,
and
so
it
makes
sense
to
put
it
in
writing
beforehand.
B
In
this
case,
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
had
full
capacity
for
discussion.
You
know
at
the
meeting,
so
I
just
want
to
make
it
clear
that
I
wasn't
trying
to
shut
down
any
particular
point
of
view.
I
was
actually
trying
to
leave
it
as
open
as
it
could
be,
so
I
just
want
to
clarify
that,
so
we
have
some
hands
up.
I
think
ed
was
next.
F
Yeah
yeah,
I
think
I'm
I'm
sort
of
in
your
court
amy,
there's
just
not
enough
information
that
that
we
have
to
make
an
appropriate
decision
and
when,
when
you're
in
negotiations
over
something,
when
you
don't
have
enough
information
to
make
a
decision,
you
go
back
into
caucus
mode
and.
F
There
really
hasn't
been
an
analysis
done
on
the
potential
impact
of
this
open
space
amendment
to
potential
urban
tree
canopy.
I
can't
say,
as
parent's
recommended
resolution
states
that
will
have
a
profound
impact
on
ecosystem
services.
If
this,
if
this
thing
is
adopted
or
if
it's
not
adopted,
there
hasn't
been
a
thorough
analysis
on
it.
We
have
no
idea,
and
so
I'm
kind
of
I'm
kind
of
uncomfortable
the
to
me
the
open
space
amendment
language
is
muddled.
It's
really
hard
to
understand.
F
Perrin's
parents
recommended
resolution
is
hard
to
understand.
There's
percentages,
stacked
on
top
of
percentages
makes
it
very
confusing
and
and
from
the
public
comments.
I'm
sensing
that
the
the
folks
that
felt
strongly
about
enough
about
this
to
comment
also
don't
understand
the
open
space
amendment.
F
If
anything
it,
it
should
be
simplified
and
somehow
developed
in
a
way
that's
at
least
more
understandable,
but
we
have
to
have
some
analysis
to
understand
the
impact
and
then
one
last
point
I
have
is
just
as
a
point
of
procedure:
I'm
uncomfortable
redoing,
a
vote
that
we
did
last
month.
I
I
just
don't
understand
how
that
fits
in
with
rules
of
order.
B
Yeah
we'll
say
we
have
some
leeway
because
we
don't
have
very
precise
rules
of
order
printed
out
for
our
boarding
commission,
so
we're
kind
of
in
this
gray
area.
But
I
agree
that
that
could
be
problematic.
But
I
think
we
have
enough
leeway
to
kind
of
do
what
we
want
at
this
point.
But
that's
something
we
need
to
address
going
forward
is,
and
it's
something
I'm
working
with
the
city
on
to
make
more
clear
some
of
our
operational
points
of
interest,
but
anyway.
I
F
F
Well,
my
recommendation
would
be
that
we
send
a
letter
to
the
city
and
ask
the
city
to
continue
on
with
the
process
and
do
some
analysis
so
that
we
can
fully
understand
what
the
impact
might
be
on
urban
tree
canopy,
because
at
this
time
it's
just
as
clear
as
mud.
I
just
have
no
idea
what
the
impact
is.
B
Yeah
all
right,
thank
you.
Ed
next
was
sharon.
C
Well,
you
know
how
I
feel
about
it.
I
voted
for
some
of
this
and
I'm
sorry
I
did.
I
was
hoping
on
some
of
the
votes
that
I
did
to
capitulate
with
the
development
community
and
hoping
to
get
some
capitulation
from
them
and
I
didn't
find
any
so.
C
I
should
have
never
done
that
and
that's
how
I
feel
about
this
open
space
setbacks
being
counted
as
open
space,
but
I
want
to
kind
of
because
I'm
on
knack,
I
wanted
to
say
what
ed
said:
knack
is
afraid
of
the
open
space
for
the
neighborhoods.
C
The
legacy
neighborhoods
are
worried,
they're,
seeing
a
lot
of
development,
a
lot
of
removal,
a
lot
of
these
homes.
People
are
passing
away,
they're,
all
big
properties
and
they're,
building
densely
and
they're,
not
talking
to
the
neighbors
or
the
neighborhood
and
letting
them
know
what's
going
on,
and
the
legacy
neighborhoods
frankly
are
worried,
big
time
worried,
and
they
made
the
most
comments
about
this-
that
they
don't
feel
that
they
were
asked
to
participate
in
this
process.
C
The
process
was
not
going
to
them,
but
they
wanted
the
like
one
excuse
me
shiloh
in
particular,
said
they
wanted
to
be
part
of
this
because
they're
seeing
massive
impacts
so
and
it
worries
them
and
also,
as
ed
stated,
they
don't
know.
What's
in
this,
they
don't
understand
it.
They
didn't
get
a
lot
of
explanation
from
myself
on
it,
because
we
didn't
have
a
lot
of
time
to
discuss
it
and,
as
we
all
know,
it
takes
a
huge
amount
to
try
to
explain
this.
C
We
have
an
open
space
amendment
now
that
is
less
onerous
than
the
one
that
we're
presenting
and
it
does
not
offer
our
storm
water
improvement,
which
is
something
we
do
need,
but
the
open
space
that
we're
working
with
now
it
has
less
impact
on
the
community
until
we
find
something
that
is
more
understandable,
clearer
and
makes
more
sense
to
the
community.
C
So
I
don't
see-
and
I'm
worried
even
with
the
tree
canopy
protection
amendment-
that
I've
got
notes.
It's
been
three
months,
and
god
knows,
city
staff
is
overwhelmed
with
stuff
and
we've
got
so
much
information
that
we
like
to
go
back
on
that
amendment
and
work
on,
and
we
just
haven't
had
the
time,
the
wherewithal
or
staff
to
pay
attention
to
all
that
needs
to
be
revised
on
it,
and
that
is
a
fairly
very
simple
amendment
and
open
space
to
wade
through
that
and
try
to
unwind.
C
If
it's
already
been
done,
is
going
to
be
a
mess
to
unwind
that
if
we're
going
to
vote
to
pass
it,
whether
council
passes
it
or
not,
it's
going
to
be
a
mess
to
unwind
when
we
go
try
to
fix
it.
Well,
after
you
know
that
barn
door
after
the
horse
is
out
kind
of
thing.
So
as
far
as
the
amendment
aspect,
I
talked
to
a
couple.
C
People
on
robert's
rules
orders
to
find
out
if
this
was
acceptable
and
could
be
done
and
was
told
yes,
it
could
so
is
it
appropriate.
Who
knows,
but
I
was
willing
to
give
it
a
go.
I
felt
it
really
needed
to
be
brought
up
and
discussed
as
it's
being
done
now.
So
thank
you
for
having
it
on
the
agenda.
B
Thank
you.
Sharon
steve.
Q
Yeah,
I'm
not
on
mute
anymore.
I
I
agree
with
most
of
what's
been
said.
I
have
a
a
little
different
approach.
I'd
like
to
propose-
and
some
some
of
you
have
touched
on
it
amy.
You
did
a
really
good
summary
of
the
pros
and
cons
and
and
paren
you
did
a
good.
Q
Q
I
think
in
many
cases,
infill
development
is
a
is
appropriate
if
you
look
at
the
10
smart
growth
principles
that
are
adopted
widely
kind
of
the
best
management
practices
for
planning,
you
have
to
achieve
some
kind
of
balance
between
open
space
and
development,
whether
it's
dense
or
single
family
or
what?
But
it's
all
about
about
balancing
things
and
my
concern
about
the
open
space
amendment
as
it's
proposed.
Q
Is
it
one
number
one,
the
the
lack
of
clarity
about
how
we
how
we
deal
with
the
potential
loss
of
of
green
space
and
tree
canopy?
Perhaps
it's
not
clear
how
much
and
where
I
mean,
I
think
the
planters
could
come
up
with
some
kind
of
estimates
and
how
does
it
at
some
point?
It
interacts
with
the
our
tree
protection
ordinance,
but
there
is
a
potential
downside
in
city,
climate
resilience
and
the
whole
deal
that
we
might
lose
capacity
for
urban
forest
canopy.
Q
Q
That
would
be.
If
that
were
more
operative
and
more
vigorous,
it
would
be
perhaps
a
way
to
justify.
You
know
a
positive
response
to
the
to
the
open
space
amendment.
I
think
it's
a
tactic.
That's
been
used
by
some
development
interests
around
other
cities
are
having
the
same
problem
to
prevent
those
funds
from
being
used
to
by
city,
land
or
open
space
or
conservation
easements
or
whatever.
Q
Number
three:
we
we
don't
have
an
analysis
or
any
sort
of
inventory
baseline,
except
the
the
closest
thing
we
have
probably
is
what
we
did
a
few
years
ago
with
the
with
the
mapping.
We
did-
and
I
think
that's
where
the
real
crux
of
the
issue
is
that
the
city
has
not
adequately
looked
ahead
of
where
we're
going
with
open
space
and
green
space,
a
green
infrastructure
approach.
Q
Q
It
has
mentioned
this
writing
a
letter
to
the
city
with
our
concerns
and
recommending
that
they
that
they
move
with
urban
forest
master
plan
green
space
planning
so
that
we
have
starting
with
an
inventory
and
baseline
so
that
in
the
future
we
can
make
clear
the
city
can
make
clear
decisions
about
what
they're
trying
to
do
right
now,
it's
just
a
big
muddle
mess
kind
of
so,
and
maybe
this
is
not
right
for
a
boat,
even
with
city
council,
I'm
not
sure
a
vote
on
our
part
up
or
down
that's
going
to
help
either
way.
Q
I
think
it
would
be
better
to
send
some
recommendations
to
them.
Saying:
hey
you're
def.
You
have
deficient
in
this
area.
Q
Here's
some
recommendations
to
improve
that,
and
you
should
ask
the
city
planning
department
to
do
at
least
some
analysis
of
what
what
this
all
means
in
the
future
for
the
city
before
they
vote
before
his
right
for
a
vote
anyway.
Q
I'm
happy
to
try
to.
I
think
we
could
write
a
letter
pretty
easily.
Q
B
Thank
you
steve.
I
actually
think
that's
an
excellent
idea
and
I
think
that,
no
matter
how
we
vote
or
don't
vote,
I
I
think
we
should
proceed
with
some
recommendations
that
apply
because
it
sounds
to
me
like
what
you're
suggesting
is
recommendations
that
would
address
not
only
the
open
space
amendment
but
also
some
of
the
other
long-term
planning.
Q
Q
Those
three
points
and
say
look
the
only
way
to
resolve
this
is
to
have
some
kind
of
analysis
and
programmatic
look
or
plan.
You
know
like
we
like
we're
pushing
the
urban
forest
master
plan.
This
is
a
big
key
piece
of
that
and
they're
just
going
to
keep
fighting
the
same
battles
over
and
over.
If
they
don't,
you
know,
have
some
kind
of
direction.
B
All
right,
excellent
suggestion,
so
we
can
decide
to
take
action
on
that
in
a
moment.
So
next
was
cecil.
G
G
I
I
continue
to
believe
we
need
to
oppose
the
the
current
form
of
the
you
know
the
open
space
amendment
amy.
I
I
I
appreciate
your
discussion
about
that.
We
don't
know
how
developers
will
use
this
new
version,
except
that
we
do
know
how
developers
will
use
this
new
version.
They
will
push
it
absolutely
to
the
limit.
G
G
Also,
they
included
the
swimming
pool,
there's
up
on
the
fifth
or
sixth
floor.
Whatever
on
that
thing
was
also
part
of
the
quote
open
space,
I
don't
I
mean:
what
do
we
mean
by
open
space?
G
G
Pervious
surface
is
now
open
space.
Is
that
what
we
really
want,
if
you,
so
you
can
pave
your
whole
damn
parking
lot
and
call
that
open
space?
That's
not
anything
to
do
with
saving
the
tree
canopy
and
we
are.
Our
goal-
is
to
save
the
tree
canopy
to
increase
the
tree
canopy
and
to
me
I
I
find
no
basis
on
which
we
can
approve
the
current
open
space
amendment.
Thank
you.
Q
Yeah,
I
think
we
should
be
more
concerned
about
green
space
and
you
know
how
it
relates.
That's
that's
our
focus
well,.
G
B
I
So
that
was
kind
of
the
perfect
segue
into
what
I
was
planning
on
saying
is
that
when
I
first
learned
about
the
open
space
ordinance
before
any
of
the
work
had
been
done
on
amending
it,
I
was
confused
about
what
open
space
was
in
my
head.
It
meant
green
space
and
I
thought
the
two
were
synonymous
and
I
I
know
now
as
many
people
probably
still
don't.
You
know
in
the
general
public
that
open
space
is
not
green
space.
Necessarily
it
could
be,
but
it
also
could
be
a
pool.
I
I
When
we
get
to
to
that
discussion,
that's
questioning
the
whole
basis
of
having
an
amendment
around
open
space.
That's
why
some
of
the
arguments
that
have
been
posed
for
why
we
should
oppose
the
open
space
amendments
that
are
based
on
increasing
tree
canopy.
I
I
I
I
Also,
the
I
think
the
fiat
lou
funds,
the
the
disbursement
of
those
funds
and
the
use
of
those
funds
needs
to
be
a
separate
conversation
and
deserves
attention.
So,
whether
or
not
an
open
space
amendment
is
passed,
we
have
funds
that
are
sitting
unused
that
need
to
be
addressed
and
how
we're
going
to
use
them
or
how
the
city
is
going
to
use
them,
and
so
I
think,
that's
a
separate
matter
that
also
needs
to
be
picked
up,
but
perhaps
separated
out
from
the
open
space
amendment.
B
K
Thanks
amy
and
to
piggyback
on
dawn's
thoughts
a
little
bit,
and
I
read
the
comments
that
came
in
so
this
is
much
for
the
public
just
to
clarify
that
open
space
as
it's
written
does
not
require
trees.
So
in
some
cases
it
might
be
just
a
lawn.
K
So
the
concept
was
flexibility,
and
so
for
for
people
who
are
maybe
confused
tree
trees
are
never
required
as
part
of
open
space,
in
some
cases
it's
great
if
they're
there,
but
but
it's
not
required.
I
I
want
to
highlight
a
couple
of
things.
One
cecil's
comment
that
parking
areas
could
be
open
space.
That's
not
true.
Parking
is
expressly
prohibited
currently
in
the
ordinance
and
proposed.
K
K
So
if
we
go
back
to
stephen's
comment
about
balance,
I
think
that's
what
we
were
aiming
at
from
the
beginning
of
this,
and
what
we're
proposing
is
to
realign
the
language
to
allow
for
housing
to
occur
in
the
city,
so
we're
not
pushing
it
into
green
lots
at
the
edge
of
the
city
or
outside
of
the
city,
ideally
to
have
more
infill,
but
still
maintaining
open
space
and
increa,
making
it
more
accessible
to
people,
because
what
some
of
you
said
is
accurate.
K
The
current
regulations,
basically
in
lots
of
cases,
create
open
spaces
at
the
periphery
of
a
project
where
the
land
is
not
hospitable
to
to
people
who
use
it.
So
it's
both
it's
for
people
for
balancing
the
needs
of
housing,
which
is
very
important,
and
if
we
don't,
if
we
don't
pass
this
we're
gonna
have
to
figure
out
some
some
other
way
to
amend
the
open
space
resolution,
because
if
housing
is
important,
this
is
currently
a
major
obstacle
in
allowing
it
to
happen.
Thanks.
B
Thank
you,
vadilla
all
right,
patrick.
E
Yeah
for
clarity-
I
have
a
question
for
steve
is
steve:
are
you
suggesting
that
the
the
letter
that
you
suggested
to
go
to
city
council
would
ask
would
be
asking
them
to
postpone
action
on
the
open
space
amendment.
Q
That
that's
my
initial
thought
is
to
say
until
some
more
a
range
of
impacts
are
brought
forward.
Q
We
don't
know
what
we're
voting
on
and
they
don't
know
what
they're
voting
on
you
know
if
we
can't
figure
it
out
exactly.
I
mean
I
understand.
We
understand
the
difference
in
green
space
and
open
space
in
general.
However,
how
this
interacts
when
you
get?
What
are
the
possibilities?
What's
what's
the
mild
days
of
writing
environmental
impact
statements,
you
had
to
disclose
what
what
the
cumulative
impact
was.
Q
Q
So
and
I
think
people
would
have
a
maybe
their
fears
would
be
allayed
and
you
know
it's
it's
not
some
of
the
problem
we
anticipate
it
being,
but
I'm
not
sure.
B
All
right,
thank
you
for
the
clarification,
so
I
think
perrin.
D
Thank
you
amy,
so
I
would
like
to
respond
to
the
issue
of
whether
the
connection
between
the
open
space
amendment
and
urban
canopy.
There
is
a
definition
section
of
open
space
typologies
in
the
open
space
amendment.
It
defines
exactly
what's
included
in
open
space.
One
is
recreational
open
space.
One
is
natural
open
space,
including
water,
wetlands
aquatic
buffers,
flood
plains,
designated
steep
slope
areas
when
providing
pedestrian
access,
and
so
we
also
have.
D
Oh
sorry,
that's
a
separate
section,
so
greenways
historic
resources
and
constructed
storm
water,
amenities
and
property
line
buffers.
So
that's
the
those
are
the
types
of
open
space
included
in
the
the
definition
of
open
space.
So
to
to
don's
point
about
how
you
know
this
is
necessarily
about
tree
cover.
Open
space.
Doesn't
equal
tree
cover,
always
that's
true,
as
the
definition
demonstrates.
D
However,
if
we
think
about
open
space,
you
know,
with
the
exception
of
I
guess,
it
would
be
setbacks
and
property
line
buffers,
and
there
might
be
one
more
I'm
I'm
missing
here,
but
with
those
exceptions,
open
space
generally
speaking,
is
anywhere
a
developer
can't
put
a
building
on
a
property
that
they're
developing.
D
You
know,
with
some
exceptions,
it's
not
that
simple,
but
that's
that's
one
way
to
think
about
it,
and
so,
if
you
just
look
at
asheville
from
overhead
and
you
look
at
what
is
in
all
those
spaces
where
there
are
no
buildings,
there's.
Q
D
There,
as
vidilla
mentioned,
you
know
it,
doesn't
include
streets
or
parking
so
get
that
pavement
out
of
the
way,
but
you've
got
lawns.
You've
got
tree
tree
cover,
you've
got
patios,
you've
got
swimming
pools,
etc.
D
The
point
is
that
a
tremendous
amount
of
the
open
space
in
asheville
today
is
tree
cover,
and
therefore
we
know
that
some
significant
portion
of
the
loss
of
open
space
within
the
city
of
asheville
will
entail
the
loss
of
urban
canopy.
We've
talked
about
how
we
don't
know
what
the
numbers
will
be.
The
the
exact
data
is
on
how
much
we
will
lose.
So
I,
my
point,
is
that
we
don't
have
to
say
a
loss
of
open
space,
equals
the
loss
of
urban
canopy
100
of
the
time.
D
This
policy's
impacts
will
be
on
the
urban
canopy
and
one
conclusion
that
we
can
readily
make
is
that
you
know
one
portion
of
what
we
will
lose
when
we
lose
open.
Space
is
urban,
canopy
and
pervious
open
ground,
that's
available
for
the
planting
of
new
trees
and
the
restoration
of
urban
canopy
to
to
50
from
where
it
is
now
about
44.
D
So
I
just
wanted
to
to
put
that
in
there
that
you
know
we
can
get.
We
can
get
a
little
too
distracted
in
definitions
and
lose
lose
sight
of
the
forest
for
the
trees,
so
to
speak
with
regards
to
affordable
housing.
I
I'm.
I
regret
that
the
definition
of
affordability,
that's
in
the
open
space
amendment,
is
not
relevant
to
working
class
people
80
of
the
area.
D
Median
income
is
the
standard
for
what
who
would
be
able
to
afford
the
quote-unquote,
affordable
units
that
are
included
and
that
we
would
give
an
80
discount
on
open
space
for
in
exchange
for
so
these
are
30
for
30
years.
They'd
have
to
maintain
these
units
at
80
percent
area,
median
income,
so
as
gentrification
continues
and
more
and
more
millionaires
move
to
asheville
area.
D
D
Housing
the
standard,
that's
in
the
open
space
amendment,
to
give
away
open
space
in
exchange
for
this
so-called
affordable
housing
is
not
actually
providing
housing,
that's
affordable
to
working
class
people
that
we
think
of
as
needing
affordable
housing,
so
that
aspect
of
the
open
space
amendment,
in
my
estimation,
is
not
providing
the
service
that
it's
advertising
to
the
city
to
provide
truly
affordable
housing.
So
I
do
want
to
respond
to
that
issue.
D
I
also
want
to
make
the
point
that
trying
to
deal
with
housing,
affordability,
crises
with
a
building
boom
is
counterproductive
in
the
sense
that
when
developers
build
near
your
property,
your
property
values
go
up
and
your
property
taxes
go
up.
So
the
more
building
there
is
the
more
expensive
housing
becomes
overall
for
everybody.
D
B
All
right,
thank
you.
I
agree
that
the
definition
of
affordability
is
flawed
in
this
and
other
policies
that
we've
seen
the
one
thing
I
like
is
that
at
least
there's
an
attempt
to
address
it
because
I
think
that's
important
and
I
think
that
some
of
the
voices
out
there
that
are
advocating,
for
you
know
all
of
these
and
I
get
it
for
advocating
for
trees.
B
But
in
the
flip
side
it's
somewhat
advocating
for
no
change
in
our
community,
and
I
think
that
we
do
need
to
be
aware
of
smart
growth
and
if
we
are
stagnant
and
don't
make
any
changes,
then
yeah
we
might
benefit.
You
know
a
few
of
us
here,
landowners
and
things
like
that.
But
how
does
that
benefit
everyone?
And
so
I'm
conflicted.
There
are
things
in
here
that
can
help
you
know.
Will
they
be
perfect?
B
We
don't
know,
I
don't
know,
and
so
I
agree
with
you-
that
the
definition
of
affordability
in
this
amendment
and
others
needs
to
be
addressed,
but
at
least
there's
an
attempt
to
add
something
in
that
hopefully
could
help.
So
that's
where
I
I
look
at
that
piece
and
think
you
know
at
least
we're
trying,
and
maybe
we
need
to
tweak
the
definition
and
change
the
parameters
but
having
it
in
there
as
an
option.
I
think,
is
beneficial
I'll
go
ahead.
Cecil.
C
Yeah,
I
want
to
talk
about
the
neighborhoods
that
are
concerned
legacy
neighborhoods
about
staying
in
their
houses,
that
they're
in
being
able
to
afford
the
property
taxes
and
what
their
neighborhoods
look
like.
It's
very
much
a
concern,
this
open
space
amendment
for
the
old
neighborhoods,
because
everybody
knows
that
we
need
more
housing.
I
mean
that
is.
I
came
from
a
city
where
there
was
slow
growth
and
low
growth
and
it
became
unaffordable
for
so
many
of
us,
but
as
been
said,
this
open
space
is
not
a
amendment.
C
It's
not
a
panacea
for
all
of
this.
It
needs
to
be
more
developed
out
more
thought
out.
God
knows
it's
been
a
two-year
process.
I'm
thinking
it
just
needs
to
have
more
people,
smarter
people
involved
to
make
this
look
like
something
that
can
really
be
applicable
to
the
city
of
asheville
and
not
scare.
Some
of
these
older
neighborhoods,
where
all
they're
seeing
is
their
property
tax,
is
going
up
and
they
can't
afford
to
stay
in
their
houses.
B
I
agree:
that's
a
concern
to
you.
Okay,
we
have
talked
for
a
lot,
it's
good
good
discussion.
So
vidalia
did
you
want
to
address
this
slide
that
you
put
up.
K
I
just
wanted
to
put
this
up
so
that
everybody
had
some
context,
because
we
were
talking
a
lot
about
what
the
proposal
actually
is
and
sometimes
there's
confusion.
So
this
is
a
good
summary
slide
that
that
boils
it
down.
K
B
Thank
you
so,
where
we're
at
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
the,
I
guess
recommendation
is
that
how
you
wrote
it
resolution.
D
B
That
a
resolution
that
parent
proposed
that
opposes
the
open
space
amendment
primarily
based
on
ecological
potential,
negative
effects
of
the
urban
canopy,
is
that
a
fair
summary.
B
I
do
think
that,
no
matter
how
this
vote
plays
out,
we
can
move
forward
with
letter
of
recommendations
to
city
council
around
all
of
these
issues.
I
think
that
would
be
excellent,
so
the
decision
right
now
is,
if
we
oppose
this
as
it's
presented
the
open
space
amendment
and
then
continue
to
provide
recommendations
or
if
we
do
not
oppose
it,
do
we
just?
I
guess
neutrality
would
be
the
right
word,
but
it's
more
of
a
wait
and
see
how
it
plays
out
and
provide
recommendations
to
city
council.
B
So,
as
I
see
it,
those
are
kind
of
our
options,
but
the
first
step
would
be
to
vote
on
the
motion
on
the
table.
So
any
other
comments,
all
right
don
might
have
had
to
go.
Actually
would
you
mind
taking
the
slide
down
just
so
I
can
see
all
the
little
boxes
here
appreciate
that.
Thank
you
all
right,
yeah
she
had
to
go.
Okay,
so
dawn
had
to
leave
so
we'll
start
with
parent.
B
Q
Open
space
amendment
I
understand-
and
I
I
have
some
incarnation
to
vote
in
that
manner,
but
my
my
I
have
another
option
that
I.
Q
In
a
letter,
the
three
points
that
I
mentioned
and
with
the
recommendations
to
the
city
that
essentially
saying
they
shouldn't
the
city
council,
shouldn't
vote
on
it
unless
they
have
a
better
understanding
of
the
impacts.
G
Q
B
O
I
hope
that
to
offer
something-
and
others
may
be
able
to
add
at
this
point,
the
words
call
to
question
weren't
used.
I
did
hear
the
chair
ask
for
a
vote
on
this
motion.
Members
can
make
a
friendly
amendment,
unfortunately,
the
opposite
of
that
is
a
hostile
amendment.
I
don't
really
like
that
language,
but
if
steve
was
making
a
friendly
amendment,
it
would
need
to
be
accepted
or
seconded,
but
right
now
my
understanding
is.
You
have
a
motion,
a
call
to
vote,
which
is
different
than
a
call
to
question.
O
A
call
to
question
means
all
the
discussion
stops
and
a
vote
continues.
So
just
so
you
know
that's
where
I'm
seeing
it
right
now.
I
appreciate.
O
Q
Q
Recommend
that
city
council
not
voting
for
this
until
they
have
more
information
and
that
so
there's
more
clarity
and
the
impacts
of
on
green
space
in
the
city.
O
So
this
is
kim
again.
I
would
just
say
that
now
the
there's
the
way
I'm
hearing
it
there's
a
motion
to
accept
parents
resolution,
as
drafted
there's
been
a
friendly
a
moment
amendment
to
add
to
that.
So
now
you
would
be
voting
on
the
resolution
with
also
a
letter.
B
B
E
B
I'm
gonna
vote.
I
so
that's
four
to
three
so
currently
that
means
that
we
will
oppose
the
open
space
amendment
with
parents
resolution,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
if
we
actually
put
this
in
the
motion,
we
might
need
to
vote
again,
but
I
would
like
us
to
I
guess
we
might
as
well
vote
again
whether
we
can
draft
a
letter
with
recommendations
that
would
accompany
the
resolution.
Does
that
make
sense?
So
is
there
a
motion
to
draft
a
letter
of
recommendations
to
city
council
that
will
accompany
the
resolution
to
oppose
the.
B
Thank
you
right,
bye,
second,
okay,
we'll
vote
on
that.
So
again,
this
is
for
letters
of
recommendation
to
accompany
our
opposition
to
the
open
space
amendment
so
dawn's,
not
here,
perrin.
A
B
All
right,
I
do
want
to
say
that
I
recognize
that
this
was
unusual
for
us
to
have
such
different
points
of
view.
I
think
it
actually
points
to
the
confusion
of
the
amendment
and
the
uncertainty
not
to
specific
disagreement
within
our
group,
and
I
hope
that's
the
case
moving
forward.
I
do
appreciate
the
public
comment
and
again
I
think
that
it's
something
we
need
to
work
on
educationally
to
clarify
and
gain
more
information,
so
steve.
B
I
know
that
you're
getting
ready
to
leave
us,
so
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
spearhead
in
your
short
time
remaining
putting
together
the
points
of
the
letter.
Q
B
Q
Wonderful,
thank
you
and
I
don't
think
we
have
that
much
disagreement.
I
think
I
think
we're
just
have
a
little
different
approach.
How
we
wanted
to
do
this.
I
agree.
I
think
I
do.
I
think,
the
long
term
we're
in
agreement
with
what
to
do
we're
just
it's
reaching
a
balance
that
makes
sense
and
it's
hard
to
if
we
don't
have
all
the
information
it's
hard
to,
pin
it
down.
O
So
typically,
I
would
be
putting
together
liaison
report
to
send
to
the
full
council,
but
I'm
hearing
that
I
should
wait
a
moment
to
receive
the
letter.
First.
B
D
I
just
want
to
say
thanks.
You
know,
thanks
amy,
to
your
steady
hand,
in
guiding
us
through
this
difficult
topic,
and-
and
thank
you
stephen
for
your
excellent
friendly
amendment.
Well,
it
did
didn't
get
adopted
as
such,
but
I
take
it
as
such.
In
any
case,.
B
B
Okay,
so
don
had
to
leave
I
put
on
the
agenda.
The
urban
forest
master
plan,
which
actually
in
in
light
of
this
discussion
we
just
had,
is
becoming
more
and
more
critical.
The
update
here
was
to
see
where
greenworks
was
at
with
grant
funding
and
things
like
that,
but
we'll
get
more
update
on
that
as
we
move
forward.
I'm
sure
everyone
here
at
least
obviously
supports
that
this
is,
as
we
can
see
more
than
ever
to
get
these
key
points
passed
and
funded
by
the
city.
B
Next
is
the
tree:
canopy
protection
ordinance
discussion,
the
fee
in
lieu
program,
I'm
actually
meeting
with
chris
collins
and
somebody
some
other
city
staff
tomorrow
to
look
at
the
gis
parameters
that
we're
able
to
use
to
help
inform
decision
making
and
I'll
report
back
on
that
next
month.
B
The
other
part
of
the
ordinance
that
we
need
to
talk
about
and
this
this
kind
of
ties
in
with
our
policy
working
group,
but
I
wanted
to
separate
it
out
just
slightly
there's-
been
concerns
from
the
community
about
the
exception
or
exemption
for
lots
that
are
under
two
acres
that
are
subdivided
no
more
than
three
parcels.
Hopefully
I
got
that
correct
now.
B
I
did
want
to
say
that
this
has
been
in
all
of
our
trainings
and
in
all
of
our
discussions
you
know
it
may
not
have
been
highlighted
to
the
extent
that
you
know
some
people
would
like,
but
it
was
in
there.
I
went
back
and
looked
so
it's
not
a
secret.
It
is
something
that
came
down
from
state
ordinances
and
mandates.
B
However,
I
do
think
that
it's
something
we
could
look
at.
You
know
whether
it's
a
loophole
or
not
or
something
that
we
have
to
deal
with.
I
do
think
it's
something
that
we
should
look
at
and
address
if
possible.
You
know,
obviously
with
the
goal
of
maintaining
as
much
tree
canopy
as
possible,
if
there's
a
way
to
bring
more
projects
under
that
umbrella,
you
know
whether
it's
something
we
can
mandate
or
whether
it's
something
maybe
we
bring
in
some
voluntary
incentive
type
of
you
know
carrots
to
try
to
bring
that
up
to
speed.
B
F
Yeah,
the
the
committee
that's
working
on
the
tree,
planting
standards
and
specs
is
recognizing
that
there's
some
interaction
between
the
work,
we're
doing
and
the
possible
need
to
amend
the
canopy
amendment
anyway
and
since
that
thing
has
been
in
effect
for
now
about
a
year
or
so,
there's
probably
other
bugs
and
patches
that
that
canopy
amendment
might
need.
So
it's
it's
really
time.
I
think,
after
the
first
of
the
year
to
reconvene
that
policy
committee
with
chris
collins
and
others
and
revisit
the
amendment.
B
Perfect,
that
was
something
that
something
that
will
definitely
be
on
our
retreat
agenda
that
is
tentatively
planned
for
the
end
of
january.
So
I
think
that'd
be
a
good
time
to
at
least
start
the
the
big
scale
work
of
that
right:
okay,
excellent,
all
right
anything
else:
okay,
working
group
updates,
so
ed
the
policy
working
group.
You
mentioned
the
standards
and
specs
group,
any
other
updates.
There.
F
From
the
policy
working
group-
yes,
you
and
don-
and
I
had
a
meeting
with
with
deborah
campbell
last
week
to
discuss
our
request
for
an
urban
forester
position.
Urban
forest
master
plan
and
two.
F
Okay,
well,
the
counter
cross
is
over
okay
policy.
I'm
sorry
that
that
too
we
chapter-
20.,
patrick
and
I
did
another
review
of
chapter
20-
to
address
the
city's
comments
to
our
revision
and
we're
through
working
with
that
patrick's
gonna
clean
it
up
now
and
we're
going
to
send
it
back
to
the
city
for
their
second
look
over
it.
And
I
think
after
that
point
there
might
be
a
little
bit
of
back
and
forth
tweaking.
But
you
know
I
think,
they'll
be
ready
to
move
forward.
B
F
Right
is
that
me
again
too
yeah
you
can
start
okay.
We
had
a
meeting
with
deborah
campbell
last
week
to
discuss
our
budget
request
and
amber
weaver
was
president
along
with
ben
woody,
and
it
was
very,
very
good
discussion.
F
Very
candid
deborah's
comments
to
our
request
were
what
wouldn't
would
typically
expect
at
this
point
in
the
budget
process,
which
is
that
there
are
a
lot
of
urgent
needs
and
there's
limited
resources,
which
you
know
is
not
not
a
surprise
to
hear,
but
but
it
was
a
good
discussion
and-
and
I
think
debra
has
a
better
understanding
of
the
urgency
of
filling
an
urban
forester
position
now,
especially
that
the
canopy
amendment's
in
place
and
that
there's
fee
and
lieu
that
that
has
to
be
managed,
amongst
other
things,
of
the
need
for
field
enforcement.
F
Things
like
that
she
did
ask
the
question:
if
we
had
to
set
priorities
is,
is
the
position
more
important
than
the
urban
force
master
plan
and
our
answer
was
they're
both
really
important?
But
if
we
had
to
make
a
choice,
the
position
is
is
most
important
because
it's
the
position
that
will
manage
development
of
the
urban
forest
master
plan,
so
you
can't
do
one
without
the
other
and-
and
I
think
that's
about
it-
am
I
missing
anything
amy
you
were
there.
B
No,
that
was
that
was
the
big
takeaway
was
if
we
are
asked
of
the
priority-
and
I
think
we
all
agree
feel
free
to
chime
in
that
the
position
is
the
the
the
cog
you
know
that
runs
the
whole
thing:
oh
sharon.
B
The
last
thing
I'm
going
to
say
about
that
is
the
other
thing
that
came
up
in
this
and
other
discussions
that
we
all
need
to
be
thinking
about,
because
this
is
the
question
we
get
from
people
out
there
you
know
is
why.
Why
do
we
need
this?
What
does
it
do?
You
know
so
be
thinking
about
the
answer
to
that
question,
because
it's
very
obvious
to
us,
but
it
becomes
less
obvious
to
others
who
are
working
on
these
other
priorities.
You
know
so
a
big
takeaway
as
we're
having
these
conversations
coming
forward
is
tying
in.
F
Right
sharon.
I'm
sorry,
one
last
point
before
we
move
on
and
it's
the
next
step
now
is
that
ben
is
going
into
a
department
head
budget
retreat.
I
think,
towards
the
end
of
this
month
and-
and
we
did
provide
a
lot
of
that
information
to
ben,
to
answer
the
question:
why
it's?
Why
it's
important
so
he's
got
ben!
You
have
that
in
your
hands.
C
C
I
heard
that
was
our
only
request
from
dsd.
This
is
all
we're
asking
for.
Is
the
urban
forester
there's
no
other
staff
positions
that
ben
you're
asking
for?
Is
this
the
our
only
ask
in
your
department
that.
C
And
do
we
have
a
ed,
you
had
a
job
description
at
one
time
for
an
urban
forester.
Did
we
ever
get
that
out
and
take
a
look
at
it
when
people
ask
why
that
we
can
take
off
all
the
reasons
why,
from
the
job
descriptions
of
a
a
good
urban
forester
other
than
the
fact
that
it
fits
through
the
job
description
of
the
comp
plan
in
10
million
places,.
F
I
I
have
some
generic
job
district
descriptions
for
urban
forester
positions
that
I
could
make
more
specific
for
the
needs,
our
needs,
but
yeah.
That's
something
that
we
could
throw
together
pretty
easily.
C
F
We
I
do
have
a
very
specific
bullet
list
of
why
why
it's
critical
and-
and
I
can
share
that
with-
I-
don't
know-
I
guess
I'll-
it's
it's
in
a
it's
in
a
google
file.
That's,
I
think,
open
or
well.
Maybe
it's
not
available
to
any
everybody.
So
I
was
just
thinking
ed.
Actually.
A
B
I
can
go
ahead
and
share
that
with
the
entire
group
both
of
those
they're
very
similar,
but
that
does
bullet
out
a
lot
of
those
about
the
position
and
the
urban
forest
master
plan.
You
know
why
is
that
important
as
well
so
I'll
share
that
with
everybody.
F
C
As
I'm
thinking
you're
discussing
a
public
input
like
there's
the
editor
op-eds
and
that
kind
of
thing
as
well,
so
I
mean
that
would
play
into
that
as
well.
C
F
Right
well,
I
I
think
that
it's
probably
a
discussion
we'll
have
with
the
tree
protection
task
force
next
month.
Right
now
we're
just
working
working
with
the
city
internally,
but
it's
I
think,
it's
probably
time
to
start
externalizing
this
a
little
bit
like
without
getting
too
rambunctious.
B
Yeah,
I
think
the
beginning
of
the
new
year
would
lead
into
engaging
that
community
support,
especially
if
we
can
get
the
one-on-one
meetings
with
city
council
members
sort
of
in
that
interim
time
period.
B
E
Yes,
the
language
that
was
in
house
bill,
496
that
would
prohibit
municipalities
or
actually
local
government
from
enacting
tree
protection
organization
ordinances.
Without
the
express
authority,
approval
from
the
state
legislature
was
stripped
out
of
the
budget
bill
105.
E
B
All
right,
thank
you
for
the
update
all
right
for
our
meeting
schedule
coming
up.
So
hopefully
everybody
got
the
email
that
I
sent
out.
We
have
finalized
a
date
for
our
end
of
year
celebration
it'll,
be
a
lunch,
get
together
on
december
13th,
that's
monday
at
1
pm.
Let
me
know
right
away
if
there's
any
conflict,
we
have
to
finalize
that
by
tomorrow
to
put
out
public
notice.
B
So
as
far
as
the
location
I'm
still
open,
I
was
suggesting
the
home
ground,
coffee
and
deli
on
amboy
road
across
from
carrier
park.
Hopefully,
if
the
weather's
nice,
they
have
really
nice
outdoor
space
and
they
have
enough
room
inside
if
we
get
inside.
So
I
know
sharon
said
possibly
white
lab
also,
which
is
an
excellent
location
as
well.
They
have
outdoor
and
indoor
space.
Does
anybody
have
any
ideas?
I
mean
this
is
really
open.
It's
just
a
chance
to
get
together,
but
if
there
are
any
preferences.
B
B
That's
excellent,
okay.
Well,
then,
we're
decided
and
hayley
I'll
forward
this
to
you
for
public
notice,
so
we'll
go
with
white
lab
and
they
have
parking.
That
was
my
other
thing.
I
wanted
a
place
that
had
good
parking,
so
let's
go
with
white
lab
on
charlotte
street
1pm
next
monday,
and
I
totally
understand
for
those
of
you
who
are
not
comfortable
in
person.
B
We
understand
we
will
miss
you.
Maybe
we'll
set
up
a
little
facetime.
I
don't
know,
but
we
are
looking
I'm
looking
forward
to
seeing
everyone
in
person
all
right,
I'll,
send
out
notification
of
that
location
and
haley
will
as
well
all
right.
Q
B
A
B
Middle
right,
okay,
so
then
for
january
we
will
be
canceling,
and
this
has
already
been
noticed.
We'll
cancel
our
regular
meeting
because
it's
like
the
second
or
fourth
of
january
right
after
the
new
year,
but
we
will
have
our
annual
retreat
toward
the
end
of
january
I'll
be
in
touch
with
possible
dates.
For
that
I
don't
know.
Maybe
a
tuesday
at
one,
we'll
just
kind
of
see,
obviously
we'll
make
sure
that
everyone
can
attend.
That
and
that'll
be
another
long.
One
we'll
do
that.
B
I
think
we
did
four
hours
last
year,
we'll
schedule
it
so
that
we
have
plenty
of
time
to
talk
and
discuss
and
make
our
plans
and
priorities
for
the
year
so
be
in
touch
on
scheduling
that
the
annual
report
I'm
working
on,
outlining
what
our
accomplishments
goals
and
priorities
were
for
the
year
I'll
send
out
a
draft
of
that
just
to
make
sure
I
didn't
miss
anything
so
when
you
see
that,
hopefully
in
the
next
week
or
so
feel
free
to
send
me
back
any
comments,
so
I
can
touch
that
up
all
right
anything
else.
B
Okay,
so-
and
I
guess
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
say
this,
but
patrick
notified
me-
that
he
was
interested
in
stepping
down
as
vice
chair
to
just
take
care
of
his
personal
time.
And
so
I
don't
know
if
anybody
had
a
new
recommendation.
I've
heard
some
ideas
but
I'll
go
ahead
with
ed,
raise
the
hand.
F
Yeah,
I'd
like
to
first
thank
patrick
for
his
service,
as
vice
chair,
patrick
you've,
done
a
great
job.
We
appreciate
it.
I
would
like
to
nominate
don
is
vice
chair
for
the
coming
year.
I
spoke
with
don.
She
had
to
leave
the
meeting
because
she
has
a
sick
child,
but
she
she
said
that
she
would
accept
that
nomination.
Oh
good.
B
All
right,
I
will
I'm
happy
to
continue
his
chair.
I
don't
know
if
anybody
wants
to
ask
me
go
for
it.
I
can
also.
B
Time
for
myself,
but
okay.
B
For
next
okay,
so
we
can
go
ahead
and
vote.
Let's
vote
on.
I
don't
know,
let's
vote
on
chair
first,
so
we
are
voting
on
me
to
remain
as
chair.
So
parent.
B
A
G
C
A
B
I
don't
know
if
I
get
a
vote
so
it
passes
so
I'll
remain
his
chair.
I
appreciate
it.
I
am
having
fun
it's
good
experience
to.
You
know.
B
All
right
so
now
we'll
vote
on
nomination
of
don
chavez,
as
vice
chair
in
her
absence,
but
I
I
heard
also
that
she
would
accept
that
nomination.
So
parent.
Q
B
And
I
vote
I
all
right
excellent.
So
next
year
we'll
start
with
don
and
myself
as
chair
and
vice
chair.
So.
D
Well,
I
just
wanted
to
join
in
amy's
thanks
actually
now
I
can't
remember
who
said
it,
but
I
just
want
to
join
in
thanking
patrick
for
his
service
to
the
urban
forestry
commission,
and
I
want
to
say
you
know
my
hat's
off
to
you,
patrick,
for
all
the
all
the
battles
you
waged
for
the
urban
canopy
on
behalf
of
the
urban
forestry
commission
and
asheville,
and
I
know
that
that
work
will
continue.
So
thank
you
for
what
you've
done
for
us
until
now,
and
what
you'll
continue
to
do
for
us
in
the
future.
E
Q
B
To
work
with
patrick
as
vice
chair,
so
I
really
appreciate
all
of
your
help,
which
actually
brings
us
nicely
to
our
last
item.
Under
new
business,
we
have
a
resolution
to
recognize
the
work
of
stephen
hendricks
as
a
commission
member
and
former
chair
of
the
urban
forestry
commission.
This
is
where
I
really
am
going
to
cry.
I
don't
know
if
we
have
it,
I
didn't
print
that
out
of
all
the
things
that
I
have
here,
did
we
have
that
ready,
patrick?
I
just
want
me
to
touch
on
the
highlights.
H
B
B
Oh,
I
was
doing
so
good
there.
It
is
okay,
all
right,
also
known
as
the
gap
analysis
which,
for
the
first
time,
laid
out
the
need
for
a
city,
urban
forester
and
a
comprehensive
urban
forest
master
plan
and
stressed
the
necessity
for
updating
city
ordinances,
strengthening
tree
protections
during
development
and
adoption
of
a
tree
urban
tree
canopy
policy
and
whereas,
during
his
tenure
as
chair,
stephen
hendricks,
guided
the
urban
forestry
commission.
In
undertaking
the
recommendations
of
the
gap
analysis
in
the
following
ways.
B
The
commission
wrote
and
presented
to
the
city
council
a
resolution
establishing
a
zero
net
loss.
Urban
tree
canopy
policy
for
the
city
of
asheville,
which
was
adopted
by
city
council
on
october,
27
2020,
providing
a
framework
for
providing
asheville
a
healthy
environment,
environmental
quality
of
environmental
equity,
climate
resilience
and
provide
for
a
sustainable
future
and
therefore
be
it
resolved
for
all
of
the
above
achievements
that
the
city
of
asheville
recognizes
and
thinks
stephen
hendricks
for
his
leadership.
F
Do
we
have
to
vote
to
prove
this
resolution
to
forward
it
to
city
council?
I
think.
F
B
Yes,
that
was
very
good
wow
the
accomplishments
were
so
many.
How
long
did
it
take
to
read
that
and-
and
we
really
appreciate
your
service-
it
was
a
great.
It
was
a
group.
B
Q
B
G
E
B
Oh
so
that
passes.
B
E
If
we
were
in
an
in-person
meeting,
we'd
probably
stand
and
give
steve
an
applause,
so
I
think
we
should
at
least
give
him
an
applause
at
this
meeting.
Yeah.
Q
Q
B
We
really
really
appreciate
it
steve,
and
I
really
can't
express
enough
how
accomplished
you
were
how
much
we
were
able
to
get
done.
Q
Well,
I'm
sorry
to
leave
this
group
because
I
think
it's
going
great
places.
I
hope
that
you
know
you
know
it's.
It's
we're
asking
the
right
questions
and
I
think
we're
moving
the
right
way.
You
know
we're
pushing
the
city
a
little
bit,
which
is
what
what
we
need
to
be
doing.
Yeah.
Q
D
And
and
steve,
based
on
my
conversation
with
you
yesterday,
I
hope
I'm
not
talking
out
of
school
here,
but
I
sure
got
the
sense
from
you
that
you
don't
plan
on
stopping
to
advocate
for
green
infrastructure
in
the
city
of
asheville.
So
I'm
looking
forward
to
seeing
what
what
you'll
be
involved
with
next.
Q
Yeah,
I'm
looking
forward
to
just
keeping
pushing
the
city
in
different
ways,
and
you
know
getting
getting
a
balance
of
what
we
need
in
the
city.
You
know
can't
be
all
development
at
all.
You
know
in
all
nothing
happening.
There's
got
to
be
some
kind
of
balance.
B
A
B
I
B
And
I
vote
I
thank
you,
everybody.
It's
really
great
meeting,
really
appreciate
all
the
hard
work
and
hopefully
see
as
many
of
you
as
possible
next
week.
Thank
you
so
much.