►
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).
A
A
All
right
welcome
everybody
to
the
november
meeting
of
the
urban
forestry
commission
for
the
city
of
asheville
very
happy
to
have
everyone
here
with
us
today.
This
is
a
big
meeting.
We
have
a
lot
of
superstar
faces
in
the
crowd,
so
thank
you,
everyone
for
being
here
we'll
start
with
introductions,
we'll
just
I'll
call
on
people.
It's
just
a
little
easier
to
go
around
that
way,
starting
with
the
commission
members,
so
my
name
is
amy
smith.
I'm
the
chair
of
the
urban
forestry
commission,
patrick.
D
All
right
and
sharon-
sharon,
sumrall
urban
forestry,
commission,
trc
representative.
A
Thank
you
is
roy
smith
here
today,
nope
and
dawn.
A
H
J
Hey
everybody
good
afternoon
ben
woody
development
services
department.
A
Thank
you,
chris.
M
A
A
Yeah
we'll
come
back
all
right
how
about
dustin
clements.
M
Q
Oh
excuse
me
my
phone's
blowing
up
here:
hi,
I'm
laura
sapien
in
the
capital
projects
department
and
yes,
I'm
the
project
manager
for
the
vermont
avenue
project.
H
Hi
stacy
martin
long
range
planning,
planning
and
urban
design.
R
Hey
mark
foster
lantern
rouge,
as
they
say
in
cycling,
city
arborist,
public
works
department.
S
A
T
Hi,
I'm
ian
keller,
I'm
on
the
sustainability
advisory
committee,
so
we'll
I'll
be
sharing
with
hey
steve.
I
think
hartwell
and
I
we're
gonna,
give
a
presentation
in
a
little
bit.
A
Thank
you
did
I
miss
anyone
speak
up
if
I
missed
yeah.
Okay,
thank
you,
everybody.
So,
first
order
of
business
is
approval
of
the
minutes.
For
the
october
meeting,
those
were
posted
in
the
documents.
Do
I
have
a
motion
to
approve.
A
A
second
second,
second
we'll
take
ed
as
the
second,
so
we'll
do
a
roll
call
vote,
patrick.
B
L
A
L
A
H
A
G
A
I
So
our
first
public
comment
is
from
beth
eckle
at
13
north
oak
forest
drive.
She
says
she
would
like
to
ask
the
commission
if
rubber
sidewalks
have
been
considered
to
protect
trees
on
veronica
avenue,
while
working
in
the
san
francisco
bay
area,
several
cities
installed,
rubberized
sidewalks
to
address
trip
fall
hazards
from
uprooted
sidewalks,
allow
ongoing
maintenance
of
tree
roots
and
protect
urban
trees.
I
I
Second,
public
comment
comes
from
bernadette
wolfe
at
53
carrier
street
bernardette
would
like
to
say
I
am
writing
regard
to
the
90-plus
year-old
trees
along
vermont
avenue
in
west
asheville,
as
a
resident
of
asheville
for
over
35
years,
17
of
those
years
in
west
asheville
she's
witnessed
tree
canopy
vanish
from
neighborhoods
and
downtown
at
an
alarming
rate.
How
can
asheville
boast
of
our
environmental
awareness?
If
we
let
this
continue?
Can
we
please
take
a
different
approach
to
the
problem?
I
Vermont
avenue
is
certainly
wide
enough
for
the
sidewalks
to
move
to
this
to
the
street
side
of
this
trees.
Vermont
avenue
is
certainly
wide
enough
for
the
sidewalks
to
move
to
the
street
side
of
the
trees.
After
removing
the
old
sidewalk,
possibly
a
green
space
could
be
put
in
place.
This
is
not
a
unique
situation.
Climate
change
calls
for
thinking
outside
of
the
usual
box
of
deforestation.
I
I
That's
it
for
public
comment.
Well,
actually,
let
me
check
the
line,
make
sure
there's
nobody
on
for
live
public
comment.
Oh
wait!
No,
we
do
have
the
line.
If
there's
nobody
on
for
live
public,
oh
wait!
No,
we
do
have
yeah
so
one
moment
please,
and
I
will
allow
our
callers
to
come
in
for
public
comment.
I
K
Hi,
this
is
steve
rasmussen,
I'm
a
member
of
the
tree
protection
task
force
and
at
our
last
meeting
is
probably
here
later
on.
In
the
process
of
this
meeting,
I
raised
the
issue
of
the
vermont
avenue
maples.
The
capital
project's
plan
right
now
is
to
take
all
of
them
down
on
the
northern
part
of
vermont
avenue
and
replace
them
with
six
foot
wide,
concrete
sidewalks
and
with
kind
of
random
tree
replacements
and
planters
along
the
street
just
for
people
that
are
willing
to
sacrifice
their
curbside
parking
for
them.
K
K
I'm
most
concerned
that
the
sole
consultation
about
the
health
of
these
trees
has
been
with
our
poor
overworked
city
arborist.
Mark
who's,
probably
wasn't
even
asked
if
the
trees
could
be
saved
if
a
redesign
was
done
right
now,
they're
in
bad
shape,
because
of
the
bad
planning
for
when
the
original,
sidewalks
and
street
were
installed
around
these
trees.
But
I'm
pretty
sure
that
the
creative
minds
on
the
urban
forest
commission,
who
I
have
a
lot
of
respect
for,
can
work
with
capital
projects
and
come
up
with
better
solutions.
K
And
you
know
hopefully
find
a
solution
that
both
continues
to
keep
their
storm
water
and
shade
properties,
as
well
as
provide
safe
sidewalks.
Thank
you.
I
U
Okay,
yes,
queen
lady
passion,
member
of
tpft,
tp
tree
protection,
task
force,
general
troublemaker
and
favor
of
trees,
the
magnolias
downtown,
for
instance.
I
echo
my
maid's
concern,
steve
rasmussen.
U
It
does
appear
in
our
researches
of
this
that
a
couple
of
people
had
sort
of
steamrollered
ahead
and
worked
with
some
certain
staff
almost
to
the
exclusion
it
seems
of
many
of
the
other
residents.
We
abut
this
neighborhood.
We
have
a
new
neighborhood
association,
rhododendron
creek
community,
and
it
will
affect
our
neighborhood
as
it
will
affect
the
other
neighborhood
hood
on
the
other
side
of
vermont
avenue,
and
when
you
take
down
one
line
of
trees,
it
will
affect
the
other
line
of
trees,
opposite
the
road.
U
We
know
that
plants
communicate,
I
believe,
as
a
disabled
person
and
as
an
rn
for
almost
34
years,
that
permeable
pavement
can
be
ada
compliant
and
meet
the
needs
of
both
saving
the
trees
and
replacing
more
access
if
necessary.
That
is
just
one
of
many
many
options,
and
I
also
echo
some
of
the
input
that
you
got
public
input
that
you
got
from
people
telling
you
about
how
many
other
progressive
cities
have
managed
to
work
this
out
in
a
more
equitable
way
for
both
trees
and
humans
and
climate
resiliency.
U
So
I
would
also
encourage
the
the
you
ufc
to
work
more
closely
with
ecological
preservationists
and
not
just
a
steamroller.
That's
ahead,
while
people
aren't
looking
during
the
holidays
and
during
the
winter
months,
which
often
happens
so
those
are
some
of
my
concerns.
I'd
like
for
you
to
really
consider
the
possibility
of
permeable
pavement
or
other
options
to
save
and
preserve
the
trees.
I
do
not
believe
they're
dead.
I
believe
they're
struggling
and
stressed
out
because
of
the
concrete
that
does
press
on
their.
H
U
A
All
right
well,
thank
you
to
all
of
the
people
that
submitted
a
public
comment.
Obviously
we'll
be
hearing
about
this
particular
issue
a
little
bit
later
in
our
meeting
so
we'll
discuss
it
then
so
we
do
have
some
presentations.
I
invited
ann
keller
and
hartwell
carson
from
the
stormwater
task
force
to
give
us
a
presentation
and
overview
on
the
work
of
that
group
because,
as
we
know,
stormwater
ties
in
directly
with
the
work
that
we
do
with
trees
and
urban
forests
here
in
the
city,
so
ann
and
hartwell.
T
T
We
we've
given
this
a
few
times
so
some
folks
on
here,
like
vadilla
and
nancy
and
stacy
and
eric.
T
T
It's
a
little
bit
bigger.
These
pictures
could
be
smaller,
but
anyway
we
started
having
discussions
about
a
stormwater
task
force
and
I
guess
there's
been
more
than
one
in
in
the
past,
but
like
early
in
2019.
If
I
remember
right-
and
there
were
two
or
three
of
us
getting
together
talking
and
finally,
we
got
organized
a
little
bit
better
and
found
a
whole
bunch
of
other
people
whose
names
you
can
see.
T
If
you
look
carefully
here
this
list
of
folks
who
participated,
who
wanted
to
join
and
offer
their
expertise,
I
think
it's
a
stellar
group
of
people,
if
you
look
at
their
credentials
and
where
they
come
from,
it's
a
good
range
of
folks
with
different
kinds
of
backgrounds
that
certainly
are
relevant
to
the
topic
and
greg
schuler
was
our
city
liaison
next,
we,
you
know,
most
of
us
have
some
of
this
knowledge,
but
just
quickly
I'll
run
through
a
few
of
these
examples.
T
Water
quality
in
the
french
broad
river
has,
you
know
over
long
decades,
gotten
better
because
regulations
and
and
better
approaches
to
things,
but
in
the
last
five
or
ten
years,
especially
it's
especially
five
years.
It
started
to
get
a
little
bit
worse
and
that's
a
problem.
We
know
that
several
of
the
tributaries
in
the
city
and
in
the
river
arts
district
are
expected
to
be
listed
by
deq
as
impaired
waters
in
the
next
round,
whether
that's
next
year
or
a
little
later
because
of
staff
limitations.
T
We
also
know
that
heavy
flooding
and
rain
events
are
going
to
continue
to
happen
because
of
climate
change
and
more
development,
and
just
no
way
we're
going
to
get
around
any
of
that.
Those
are
just
facts
and,
sadly,
and
not
unusually,
a
lot
of
our
storm
water
system
is
old
and
it's
hard
to
replace
it.
T
Maybe
in
2007
there
was
another
flood
reduction
task
force,
set
up
to
look
at
the
bad
flooding
in
the
biltmore
area
and
other
places,
and
they
came
up
with
a
lot
of
recommendations,
some
of
which
may
have
been
implemented,
but
many
weren't
and
we
feel
like
we
don't
want
to
be
in
the
same
boat
in
five
or
ten
years.
Looking
back
and
saying,
gee
whiz,
why
didn't
we
do
something?
So
it's
kind
of
one
of
those
you
know.
Don't
forget,
don't
do
the
same
thing
again
next.
T
So,
as
we
begin
pulling
our
minds
together
and
are
trying
to
prioritize
what
we
could
work
on,
the
group
broke
up
into
three
different
subgroups:
those
who
wanted
to
look
at
the
stormwater
ordinance
to
see
what
could
be
updated
and
maybe
what
could
be
emphasized
a
little
more
another
group
we're
looking
at
what
the
impediments
to
using
more
green
infrastructure
might
be
and
where
we
were
already
using
it
as
a
city
and
how
other
people
were
doing
such
storm,
water
prevention
or
storm
water
treatment
in
their
communities,
and
then
the
third
group
looked
at
budgets
and
fees.
T
N
Yeah,
so
a
key
piece
of
this
was
to
look
at
the
stormwater
ordinance.
It
had
been
over
10
years
since
the
ordinance
had
been
revised.
N
We
thought
there
was
a
lot
of
potential
to
improve
the
ordinance,
but
to
make
a
long
story
short,
the
the
good
news
is,
we
found
the
ordinance
was
pretty
sufficient.
There
were
some
good
tools
in
the
ordinance,
but
there
were
a
couple
few
good
tools
that
were
not
really
being
used.
There
was
a
specifically
there
was
a
tool
put
in
there
called
the
watershed
overlay
zone,
and
this
was
a
tool
that
allowed
the
city
to
carve
out
certain
sub-watersheds
for
for
certain
reasons
and
and
allow
them
to
provide
extra
protection
for
that
sub-watershed.
N
N
Instead
of
kind
of
putting
blanket
new
rules
for
the
whole
city,
we
could
target
areas
that
you
need
it
the
most,
and
so
what
we're
suggesting
is
the
watershed
overlay
zone
be
used
as
a
tool
over
impaired
water
over
sub-watersheds
that
are
listed
as
impaired
and
that
they
have
additional
protections.
We're
allowing
we're
kind
of
calling
for
the
stormwater
administrator
to
come
up
with
most
of
those
recommendations.
But
we
have
a
few
recommendations
that
we
think
are
important.
You
can.
N
You
can
hit
the
next
slide,
so
just
a
few
of
the
ones
that
we
think
are
important
are
having
best
management
practices
that
are
specifically
designed
to
treat
bacteria.
So
bacteria
aka
e
coli
is
the
is
a
big
pollution
problem
in
the
in
the
french,
broad
river
and
so
best
management
practices
that
are
designed
to
treat
those
and
and
the
other
kind
of
key
areas
that
we
see
a
lot
of
storm
water
runoff.
N
A
lot
of
sediment
runoff
from
construction
sites
and
and
ground
cover
is,
is
the
most
important
tool
there
in
preventing
that
so
requiring
ground
cover
in
a
quicker
manner,
particularly
in
those
watershed
overlay
zones.
So
that's
a
super
brief
watershed
overlay
zone,
but
ann
told
me.
We
didn't
have
much
time
so
I'll
I'll,
try
and
be
brief,
but
feel
free
to
ask
questions
as
we
go
so
hit.
You
can
hit
the
next
one
and
the
other.
So
the
key
piece
is
that
we
thought
we
needed.
N
We
want
to
use
the
watershed
overlay
zone
and
then
we
thought
enforcement
is,
is
a
critical
tool
to
making
sure
folks
are
getting
storm
water
measures
right
on
the
up
front,
particularly
erosion
control
measures,
and
when
we
went
to
look
at
the
ordinance,
we
were
pleasantly
surprised
that
there
is
a
really
good
penalty
chart
in
the
ordinance.
The
penalty
chart
states
that
certain
violations
require
an
nov.
Certain
violations
require
an
immediate
fine,
others
require,
you
know,
working
with
the
the
property
owner.
N
You
know
they're
they're
kind
of
spelled
out
in
layers
of
severity,
but
for
a
variety
of
reasons
that
that
money
can
actually
do
a
really
good
job
of
expanding
upon
that
chart's
not
really
getting
used
like.
I
think
it
was
designed
to
be
used.
So
what
we're
suggesting
is
that
let's
go
back
and
figure
out,
why?
That's
not
being
used
and
tweak
that,
if
needed,
but
then
to
really
put
emphasis
on
making
sure
that
enforcement
is
done
on
the
upfront
a
lot
of
times.
N
So
just
taking
this
tool,
that's
already
in
the
ordinance
and
using
it
is
what
our
suggestion
is
and
tweaking
it.
If
necessary,
you
guys
excellent
and
then
really
recognizing
that
climate
change
is
going
to
play.
A
key
role
is
playing
a
key
role
in
all
of
this
as
we're
as
we're
looking
at
design,
storms,
rainfall
intensity,
incorporating
that
into
ordinance
changes.
I
think
is
important.
You
know.
N
Increasing
the
size
of
design
store,
may
be
a
critical
tool
used
in
the
watershed
overlay
zone
and
designing
best
management
practices
that
air
on
the
side
of
making
sure
they're
going
to
capture
those
bigger
storms,
as
opposed
to
how
it's
often
done
now,
which
is
not
necessarily
airing
on
that
on
that
level
of
caution.
Looking
at
the
next
one,
green
infrastructure
is
really
where
we
started.
N
I
mean
this
is
really
a
key
tool
that
we
want
to
make
sure
is
use
a
lot
more
in
the
city
of
asheville
and
green
infrastructure
is
basically
not
curb
and
gutter.
It's
it's.
You
know
running
your
storm
water
through
rain,
gardens,
storm
water,
wetlands,
some
sort
of
filtration
process
that
allows
it
to
soak
in
the
ground
and
filter
out
the
pollutants
before
it's
discharged
to
the
creek.
N
It's
it's
common,
but
but
still
what
we
found
in
the
ordinance
is
that
it
it
took
reading
between
the
lines,
to
rush
that
you
could,
you
could
use
green
infrastructure
in
the
city
of
asheville
and
what
we're
saying
is:
let's
flip
the
script
on
that.
Let's
say:
green
infrastructure
is
the
preferred
method,
let's
edit
the
ordinance
that
makes
it
clear
what
green
infrastructure
is
and
that
it's
not
only
allowed.
But
it's
encouraged.
N
But
but
we
have
a
lot
of
small
developments
in
the
city
of
asheville
and
and
this
could
play
a
key
role
as
well
as
well
as
offering
density
bonuses
for
green
infrastructure
fast
track
permitting.
You
know
really
really
making
it
clear
to
the
development
community
that
you
know
when
you
come
into
the
city
of
asheville.
This
is
what
we
want
to
see.
N
We
will
permit
other
things,
but
we
really
want
to
see
green
infrastructure
and
we're
encouraging
that
and-
and
that's
probably
a
staff
training-
a
piece
of
the
puzzle
too,
so
to
make
it
clear
to
everyone
that
this
is
the
direction
we're
heading.
We
go
the
next.
T
Relative
to
the
budget
and
fees
part
we
there
are
two
or
three
of
us
who
got
together
to
look
at
that.
How
do
we
compare
with
other
areas?
What
are
we
doing,
and
we
talked
to
greg?
Looked
at
the
last
budget
that
we
had
access
to
for
the
stormwater
department,
and
you
know
we
talked
to
cities
of
similar
size,
greenville,
south
carolina,
greenville,
north
carolina
and
roanoke
virginia
all
in
our
region.
Some
of
them
are
a
little
less
mountainous.
Some
are
more.
T
Some
of
them
have
a
few
different
challenges,
but
they
were
a
relatively
similar
size
next
nancy
and
we
pulled
together
this
kind
of
summary
chart
which
tries
to
compare
the
community
size,
budget
number
of
staff
fees
and
so
forth,
so
that
you
can
get
in
some
idea
of
where
we
fit,
and
you
can
see
that
we're
in
the
upper
level
of
population
size,
the
budgets
are
fairly
similar
across
the
board.
T
Staffing
seems
to
be
relatively
similar,
although
roanoke
has
a
few
more
and
we
look
at
the
the
standardized
monthly
fee,
which
is
per
thousand
square
foot
of
impermeable
surface.
So
we
could
kind
of
make
everybody
equal
here
and
we're
at
199
per
thousand
square
feet.
The
high
was
268
and
that
one
is
in
greenville
north
carolina.
They
right
before
covid.
T
They
had
finished
a
fee
study
and
got
the
results
back
and
went
to
city
council
and
got
an
approved
approval
to
increase
their
fees.
I
think
it
was
like
somewhere
close
to
25
up
to
2.68
cents
at
that
point,
I'm
not
sure
if
they
implemented
it.
Just
like
we
held
off
here
in
asheville,
implementing
some
fee
changes
during
cobit,
but
that's
what
they
had
approved
and
that's
what
they
did
was
look
at.
Obviously,
the
fee
studies,
what
we're
charging
now
versus
what
do
we
need
in
the
future
and
they
started
seeing
it.
T
T
What
we,
I
think,
probably
all
of
you,
have
a
sense
of
this-
that
we
don't
have
enough
funding
and
staff
to
adequately
address
the
current
needs.
T
T
That's
just
to
keep
keep
ourselves
steady
now,
when
you
start
looking
into
the
future
and
realize
that
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
more
years,
like
we've
had
this
year
and
in
recent
years,
which
you
know
heavy
rain
and
everything.
The
question
is:
how
do
we
get
ahead
of
that?
T
If
we're
just
barely
getting
by
now,
so
we
think
that
the
the
level
of
service
has
to
be
raised
or
increased
there,
which
would
which
would
cause
a
need
for
budget
increases
and
maybe
look
at
emphasizing
some
elements
that
might
be
part
of
the
stormwater
program
now,
but
might
need
to
be
more
like
strategic
planning.
I
know
from
talking
to
many
folks
at
stormwater
and
in
that
public
works
department.
T
People
want
to
do
more
planning,
but
they
have
a
challenge
with
not
enough
time
and
focusing
a
little
bit
more
on
water
quality
improvement,
maybe
than
we
have
in
the
past
and
getting
more
of
the
capital
improvement
plan
projects
funded.
So
our
suggestion
was
that
city
council
would
set
up
a
study
group
to
look
at
the
best
best
way
to
achieve
these
recommended
levels
of
service.
T
We
know
that
public
works
and
stormwater
are
shortly.
If
not,
maybe
nancy
can
tell
us
in
a
minute
here.
I've
already
put
out
an
rfq
for
a
fee
study
to
see
what
we
really
should
be
charging,
and
you
know
if
this
group
were
set
up.
We
could
work
and
not
we,
but
they
could
work
in
tandem
with
this.
Whoever
ends
up
doing
this,
the
study,
the
rate
study
next
nancy
and
finally,
what
we
really
first
of
all,
we
worked
really
well,
I
think,
with
the
city
I
think
hartwell
would
agree.
T
T
Somehow
I
had
a
tech
problem
and
couldn't
couldn't
get
onto
the
meeting,
but
kathy
ball
and
nancy
and
she
was
amy,
and
I
don't
even
remember
how
many
other
folks
from
the
city
were
there
greg
and
mark
ryan
and
whoever
all
kind
of
going
back
and
forth
about
what
we
could
be
doing,
how
we
could
work
together
on
this,
and
I
think
the
notes
I
saw
and
hartwell
can
certainly
you
know,
add
his
piece
after
this
seemed
like
there
was
a
lot
of
potential
for
coordinating
and
cooperating
on
getting
through
and
getting
talking
to
the
city,
council
and
other
people
in
the
community
about
how
to
do
this.
T
So
we
just
think
it's
really
important
that
we
that
we
take
care
of
not
only
the
requirements
of
ms4
stormwater
permit,
but
property
people's
well-beings,
obviously
protecting
the
river.
I
mean
it's
a
economic
driver
for
this
whole
region
and
we
don't
want
to
be
stuck
in
a
position
like
I
said
before:
I'm
not
not
implementing
these
the
requirements,
so
you
know
what
are
we
willing
to
do
as
a
city
to
address
this?
That's
a
real
big
question.
I
think.
How
are
we
going
to
tackle
it?
T
N
N
It
has
a
stormwater
permit
from
the
epa
that
requires
certain
measures
and
one
of
those
measures
says
if,
if
water
quality
is
declining,
if
the
city's
not
meeting
you
know,
if
we're
not
if
the
stuff
we're
doing
is
not
working,
we
have
to
do
more.
The
french
fraud
is
getting
worse
in
the
last
five
years.
A
D
Great
report
great
work.
Thank
you.
I've
been
waiting
a
long
time
to
see
this.
I
got
a
couple
questions
hartwell
who's,
our
stormwater
administrator
excuse.
N
Me
new
gentleman-
and
I
just
forgot
his
name-
that
you
put
me
on
the
spot.
D
And
hartwell,
a
great
idea
on
as
a
landscape
contractor
on
the
seven
days
to
get
ground
cover
down
now.
What
I've
noticed
is
our
seed
mix
that
they're
requiring
now
as
the
standards
and
specification
manual
will
hold
temporarily
to
keep
the
soil
from
sloughing,
but
it
doesn't
slow
water
down,
and
I've
noticed
here
that
we
don't
require
any
over
planting
of
shrubs
or
an
evergreen
ground
cover.
Excuse
me
that
will
actually
do
the
job
of
slowing
the
water
down
and
because
with
the
grasses
they
die
within.
D
N
N
It
applies
to
the
coast
and
the
piedmont,
and
I
think
we
all
know
that
the
mountains
create
unique
challenges,
just
like
what
you
were
saying,
like
grass
probably
works
great
at
the
beach,
but
you
know
it
may
not
be
sufficient
on
steep
slopes
here.
So
I
think
a
design
manual
for
the
mountains
would
be
great.
That
would
help
the
city
of
asheville,
as
well
as
every
other
municipality,
but
that
is
kind
of
a
big
that
is
probably
big.
Lift
bigger
than
the
city
wants
to
do.
N
D
N
No,
I
guess
we
can.
I
think
that's
a
good
point.
I
mean
a
lot
of
the
recommendations.
We
said
we
should
use
the
watershed
overlay
zone
and
then
we
should
use
the
expertise
of
city
staff
and
the
community
to
figure
out
what
those
extra
measures
are
and
you
you
may
have
hit
on
a
really
great
one
that
isn't
particularly
challenging
and
and
that
maybe
should
be
part
of
we.
We
left
it
intentionally
vague
because
we
didn't
want
to
prescribe
too
much
to
city
staff
because
they
ultimately
know
more
about
this
than
we
do.
A
E
Yeah
yeah
thanks
for
that
report
that
really
got
to
the
heart
of
things
really
quickly.
What
what
that
report
emphasized,
and
particularly
hartwell
when
you
were
talking
about
the
existing
legislation,
the
existing
rules
is
that
we
do
have
some
pretty
strong
ideas
in
place,
but
enforcement
is,
and
maybe
partly
it's
probably
because
a
lack
of
personnel
I
get
that.
E
But
even
when
things
are
reported,
I
mean
I'm
in
a
neighborhood
that
has
been
heavily
impacted
by
stupid
development
that
has
caused
a
red
river
to
run
down
my
road
after
heavy
storms
and
there's
been
no
enforcement
effort.
They
scolded
my
neighbor,
the
city
scolded
my
neighbor,
and
that
was
the
extent
of
it
and
I
don't
know
how
we
can
ramp
up
enforcement.
H
E
It
mean
we
need
more
backbone
in
the
people
on
the
ground.
Does
that
mean
we
need
to
impose
stronger
fines
on,
say
the
people
who
operate
the
bulldozers
you
know
if
they
they
do
things
without
a
permit
shouldn't
there
be
a
punishment
for
for
destroying
a
mountain
slope
without
a
permit.
I
mean.
N
It's
on
the
book,
it's
on
the
books,
I'll
give
you
my
two
cents,
but
I'd
love
to
hear
like
nancy
and
monty,
and
you
know
folks
that
do
this
and
I've
talked
to
monty
a
little
bit
about
this,
but
I
think
there's
there's
a
few
challenges,
one
certainly
staffing.
H
N
You
know
what
I
think
should
happen
is
a
lot
more
immediate
fines
when
you,
when
you
have
egregious
violation
or
your
repeat
offender,
you
should
get
immediate
fine
and
what
that
says,
the
development
community.
Is
you
better
get
it
right
on
the
upfront
or
you're
or
we're
gonna
hit
you
for
it?
That.
N
N
Erosion
control
they're,
making
their
money
building
houses,
so
it's
not
a
priority,
but
then
there's
also
there's
a
lot
of
bs
red
tape
that
comes
with
issuing
novs
and
fines.
It's
certainly
a
lot
easier,
if
you're
doing
inspections
to
say,
hey
man,
why
don't
you
fix
this
by
next
wednesday?
N
Q
P
P
The
only
all
the
only
other
situation
is
that
there
has
been
a
fairly
serious
sedimentation
of
a
waterway
at
which
point
the
state
comes
in,
because
the
state
issues
the
fines
for
the
waterways.
So
that's
that
becomes
their
deal,
one
of
the
other
big
problems
and
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
you
ever
overcome.
It
is
to
a
large
number
of
contractors
in
this
area,
getting
a
notice
of
violation
even
with
a
fine
is-
and
I
quote,
the
cost
of
doing
business
in
the
city.
P
You
know-
and
I
you
know
we
can
find
them
and
find
them
and
find
them,
especially
with
some
of
these
large
contractors.
It's
it's
a
it's
a
pin
prick.
You
know
it's
it's
nothing
to
them.
Yes,
as
far
as
staff
goes,
you
know.
Obviously
we
can
always
use
more
staff,
and
I
don't
know
at
the
rate
that
the
city's
been
growing.
I
don't
know
what
that
optimum
number
of
people
actually
is,
but
that's
that's
what
I
can
tell
you
right
now
believe
me.
We
would.
P
We
would
love
to
have
more
teeth
and
you
know,
obviously,
writing
notices
a
violation.
It's
it's
an
immediate,
it's
an
immediate
loss
of
money
for
the
city
and
because
there's
so
much
time
involved.
That
being
the
case,
it
really
it
it
really
doesn't
matter,
it's
not
really
a
deterrent.
For
us
I
mean
because
it's
our
job
to
do
it.
It's
just
a
matter
of
what
we
can
do
when
we
can
do
it
and
how
severely
we
can
do
it.
The
first
time
around.
N
Hey
money
all
right,
interesting
question:
I
actually
heard
a
guy
from,
I
think,
he's
from
raleigh
in
your
position
and
he
said
he
would
argue
that
the
fines
should
be
lower.
So
he
could
give
them
a
lot
more
and
people
would
would
accept
them.
And-
and
I
thought
that
was
interesting
when
he
first
said
it-
I
was
like
that's
a
terrible.
N
M
N
P
Let's
it's
true
and
that's
true,
and
I
guess
you
gotta
you've
got
to
figure
out
where
the
the
happy
median
is
between
again
is
two
three
four
hundred
dollars,
just
the
cost
of
doing
business
and
continuing
to
do
what
you
do
or
does
five
thousand
dollars,
although
it
may
be
a
legal
issue
on
this
project,
if
this
is
a
contractor
that
does
business
multiple
times
in
the
city,
something
that
maybe
would
be
a
deterrent
for
them
in
the
next
project
coming
along,
I
and
I
don't
know-
I
don't
know
what
the
right
answer
is
to
that.
A
All
right,
thanks
monty
just
a
heads
up
to
everybody,
we're
not
going
to
solve
this
problem
in
this
meeting,
so
we
can
take
questions,
but
we
do
have
to
move
on
to
our
next
presentation
as
well.
L
L
Yeah,
I
need
to
say
thank
you
for
a
great
presentation
and
I
I
have
a
little
different
concept
of
green
infrastructure
that
is
broader
than
what
we're
talking
about
here.
It.
The
concept
goes
back
many
many
years.
L
The
conservation
fund
was
a
pioneer
in
green
infrastructure
and,
if
you've
ever
done,
the
calculations
for
runoff,
which
I
did
for
years
in
water
retention
requirements
in
cities,
slope
and
and
cover
like
tree
canopy
or
hard
surface
are,
are
the
biggest
factors
in
water,
runoff
and
storm
water,
and
so
in
essence,
what
I'm
saying
is
the
urban
forestry
probably
is
the
biggest
determinant
in
a
lot
of
ways
of
what
what
happens
with
storm
water,
the
more
canopy
you
lose.
L
The
more
steep
slopes
just
develop
with
hard
surface
cover
the
more
problems
you
have.
I
used
to
do
calculations
in
asheville.
When
I
worked
for
a
private
firm,
we
did
hospital
planning
and
stuff
like
that.
It's
it's
a
major
problem.
Even
back,
then
it
was
a
major
problem,
so
we
we're
in
a
very
flood
prone
city
because
of
our
steep
slopes.
L
L
The
concept
of
green
infrastructure
includes
every
all
the
green
assets
of
the
city,
because
they
all
contribute
to
things
like
storm
water,
runoff
corridors
for
species,
wildlife
and
the
bigger
bigger
picture.
L
So
we
really
have
to
look
out
and
branch
out
into
everything
to
make
all
these
connections
and
that's
the
point
I
wanted
to
make
we're
looking
kind
of
at
a
subset
of
that
within
this.
L
The
the
waterways
and
drainage
part
of
green
infrastructure,
which
is
extremely
important,
and
it's
where
you
know
unca,
is
doing
demonstration,
work
and
green
infrastructure
and
part
of
their
systematic
approach
to
it
and
there's
you
know
that
we
do
have
some
requirements
in
the
city
for
water
retention,
of
course,
anyway,
that
I
I
just
think
we
need
to
think
all
these
connections
and
that's
where
we
fit
in,
is
a
commission
to
look
at
canopy
as
a
way
of
contributing
to
the
whole
picture
of
green
infrastructure.
A
Definitely
thanks
steve
yeah,
who
was
that
thank
you
so
much
patrick
go
ahead.
B
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
was
an
excellent
report.
I
agree
with
the
other
commission
members.
B
B
So
I
would
like
to
ask
if
perhaps
the
stormwater
task
force
would
be
willing
to
hold
a
meeting
or
two
with
our
budget
working
group
to
see
how
we
can
come
to
come
together
and
and
put
forth
a
reasonable,
comprehensive
request
for
budget
and
staff
that
would
meet
both
of
those
needs.
T
T
It
sounds
like
a
good
idea,
patrick
we've
already
been
talking
to
to,
as
I
mentioned
folks
in
the
city,
about
what
to
present
to
city
council
and
how
to
discuss
the
needs
sort
of
thing
so
we'll
have
to
look
and
and
see
what
how
this
might,
how
your
suggestion
might
fit
in
with
that,
and
then
we
can
let
you
know.
H
A
And
I'm,
I
believe,
I'll
speak
for
the
commission.
I
assume
that
at
least
individual
commission
members,
if
not
all
of
us,
would
agree
to
at
least
work
with
the
stormwater
task
force,
particularly
on
the
issues
of
green
infrastructure.
A
My
I
guess
idea
at
this
point
would
be
to
end
the
presentation
if
anyone
has
any
quick
questions,
but
I
think
we
could
bring
this
up
in
our
next
meeting,
we'll
have
a
meeting
in
december
where
we
could
potentially
bring
forward
a
written
recommendation
to
city
council
that
we
could
bring
forward
and
then
vote
on
at
our
next
meeting.
Haley
go
ahead.
I
Hi,
just
before
we
transition
on
to
the
next
agenda
item,
we
do
have
one
more
public
comment.
He
was
in
the
he
was
he
wasn't,
but
he
did
not
know
how
to
get
into
the
speaker
queue
and
he
emailed
me
about
it.
It's
a
very
quick
comment.
A
Sure
just
a
moment
we'll
get
to
that
so
commissioners,
does
everyone
agree
to
that?
Are
we
good
on
this?
For
now
we
can
bring
it
up
in
december.
Hopefully
have
a
recommendation
ready,
okay,
see
thumbs.
Ups
heart
will
go
ahead.
N
Oh,
I
was
just
gonna
say
that
I
think
that's
great
timing
where,
as
anne
mentioned,
we're
we've
been
having
conversations
with
staff
and
maybe
tweaking
or
fine-tuning
the
proposal.
So
I
think
we'd
be
hopefully
ready
to
come
back
and
say
here's
our
joint
proposal,
that's
supported
by
city
staff
and
the
task
force.
And
then
you
know,
then
I
think
at
that
point
be
ready
to
move
it
up
the
chain.
A
Awesome
well,
if
you
all,
could
send
any
of
those
updates
to
me
and
then
I'll
bring
it
to
the
group
for
our
december
meeting,
all
right
well,
once
again,
yeah
once
again,
thank
you
so
much
ann
and
hartwell
and
the
rest
of
the
task
force.
That's
not
here.
We
really
appreciate
your
work
and
it's
really
good
to
see
this
work
going
on
with
the
city
thanks.
T
To
everybody
for
taking
the
time
to
listen
and
and
look
forward
to
any
other
interactions
that
you
guys
want
to
offer.
Thank
you
very
much.
You
all.
H
I
I
A
Q
Hi,
yes,
thank
you
so
much
what
I'm
not
exactly
sure
I
was
asked
for
an
update,
so
I'm
not
exactly
sure
what
you
would
like
to
see.
Would
you
like
to
see
our
conceptual
plan?
Q
A
I
don't
know
if
you
were
there
last
time
we
got
an
update
on
this
was
actually
several
years
ago
when
it
was
just
in
the
very,
very
early
planning.
So
as
far
as
the
commission,
I
mean,
unless
anyone
was
able
to
attend
the
public
meeting
at
the
location,
we
don't
have
any
updates.
So
whatever
you
are
prepared
to
provide,
we
will
take.
Q
Okay,
I
I
there's
a
lot
of
history
since
then.
I
was
at
that
meeting
a
few
years
ago
and
there
has
been
a
lot
of
history
discussion
with
the
community.
We
held
a
public
engagement
meeting
in
2019.
Q
We
presented
different
options
and
we
we
had
input
on
the
options,
the
most
popular
option.
The
preferred
option
was
one
in
which
we
replaced
trees,
as
we
could
in
in
planters
in
street
planters.
So
you
could,
you
could
consider
them
landscape,
curb
extensions.
Q
If
you
will
to
restore
some
of
the
tree
canopy,
we
recognize
the
value
of
the
tree
canopy.
Certainly,
on
the
other
hand,
the
length
of
time
that
this
tree
canopy
will
be
available
is
another
issue
altogether,
as
we've
discussed
the
declining
health
of
these
trees.
Unfortunately,
they've
been
stressed
for
for
decades
confined
between
a
curb
and
sidewalk
and
in
a
very
narrow,
two-foot
strip,
which,
which
is
is
now
a
large,
larger.
The
tree
diameter.
The
trunk
diameter
at
the
base
is
now
larger
than
the
the
then
then.
Q
Q
Q
You
know,
and
and
aside
from
that
there
are
some
other
issues
here-
input
again
received
from
the
community,
the
the
immediate
community,
the
residents
affected
there
there's
on
street
parking
on
both
sides
of
the
road,
some
of
the
homes
they
don't
have
driveways
or
they
have
a
small
driveway,
maybe
and
can
only
fit
one
car,
but
they
have
two
cars
and
so
on
so
on
street
parking
is,
is
also
a
very
a
big
issue.
There
there's
not
a
lot
of
distance
between
the
street
and
the
homes
so
moving.
Q
You
know
here's
an
example
here
where
you
can
see
some
of
the
planters
and
then
the
top
portion
is
the
east
side
of
the
road
where
the
brew
pump.
I
think
it's
called
there
on
haywood
and
and
on
the
on
the
bottom
part
of
this
plan
view
is
the
west
side
of
the
road,
the
side
that
the
bank
is
on,
and
so
you
see
that
we've
replaced
the
broken
sidewalk
here
with
a
new
sidewalk
and
then
we're
installing
planters
and
again
because
of
the
commodity
of
on-street
parking.
Q
Q
Besides
this
project
and
and
these
individual
planters
and
that
being
something
like
greenworks,
where
the
city
could
partner
and
put
some
canopy
back
in
that
way,
we
did
a
poll
that
we
gathered
information
on
who
would
be
interested
and
of
those
that
responded
to
the
poll.
Q
75
percent
said
they
would
be
interested
in
having
a
tree
on
their
property
that
perhaps
someone
like
greenworks
could
help
us
with,
and
all
these
details
need
to
be
worked
out,
but
I'm
just
trying
to
show
that
we've
not
lost
sight
of
the
value
of
the
canopy.
A
Okay,
I
guess,
if
that's
all
you
have
formally,
we
can
go
with
questions
and
kind
of
work
through
it
from
there.
Q
So
go
ahead,
oh
I'm!
Sorry!
I
just
want
to
mention
now
that
you're
on
this
slide,
what
we
have
here
just
on
the
left,
with
kind
of
those
arrows
pointing
in
that's
a
raised
crosswalk,
one
of
the
other
bits
of
feedback
that
we've
gotten
from
the
residents
on
on
this
road
is
geez.
The
sidewalk
is
so
bad.
We've
been
walking
in
the
streets,
but
the
traffic
is
so
bad
that
that's
not
good
either.
Q
So
you
understand
the
increased
cry
for
the
safe
pedestrian
experience
and
what
we've
done
is:
we've
introduced
a
traffic
calming
device
and
that
is
that
raised
crosswalk
there
at
about
45.
I
believe
it's
45
vermont
avenue
just
between
maple
crescent
and
vance
crescent.
So
there's
a
lot
of
issues
here.
Certainly
we
can't
make
everyone
happy,
but
we
are
doing
our
best
to
try
to
address
the
situation
at
hand.
A
Thank
you,
ed,
go
ahead.
C
Yeah,
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
I
I
may
actually
have
a
hundred
questions,
but
I
don't.
I
know
we
don't
have
time
for
that.
I'm
not
seeing
the
existing
trees
shown
on
this.
Drawing
at
all.
Q
C
Well,
how
can
we
discuss
those
trees
without
seeing
how
they
might
be
impacted
by
the
overall
construction
and
seeing
where
they
are
in
relation
to
what's
going
on
and
knowing
exactly
what
their
condition
is
I
mean
typically
when
I'm
I'm
looking
at
proposed
construction
activities
as
it
relates
to
trees.
You
have
to
see
the
trees
on
the
plans,
and
I
I
just
can't
so
we're
working
with
only
half
the
information
I
mean:
do
you?
Do
you
have
drawings
that
have
the
trees
located
on
the
drawings.
Q
Yes,
I
do,
and
I
also
have
a
tree
report
looking
at
every
tree
photographs
of
every
tree
and
the
conditioned
assessment
of
each
tree.
C
Q
No
we're
looking
at
the
overall
condition
of
the
trees
and,
in
addition
to
being
confined
in
that
very
small
space
with
which
their
trunks
are
are
breaking
out
of
literally
they've,
also
been
aggressively
pruned
by
the
the
power
company
cleared
away
a
lot
of
branches
and
so
on,
leaving
open
cuts
for
water
and
so
forth
to
settle
into
so
that's
a
contributing.
A
lot
to
the
decay
limbs
come
down
each
year
as
I
understand
it,
and
I
also
understand
that
that
the
trees
are
removed
frequently
as
well.
Q
C
All
right
I'll
ask
one
more
question
and
then
let
let
others
ask
some
questions
too.
Last
year
the
city
passed
a
resolution.
City
council
passed
a
resolution
adopting
a
zero
net
loss
policy
canopy,
and
I'm
wondering
if,
if
because
it
sounds
like
some
trees
may
be
put
back,
it
may
become
more
of
greenworks
burden
to
make
sure
that
happens,
there's
not
an
exact
number
of
trees
that
will
be
replanted.
C
It
sounds
like
a
canopy
analysis
hasn't
been
done
specifically
to
this
project,
so
I'm
I'm
not.
I
don't
feel,
like
the
spirit
of
that
resolution,
is
embraced
in
terms
of
what's
being
suggested
here.
There's
just
not
a
lot
of
there's,
not
enough
information.
We
don't
have
information
to
even
react
to
so
I
I
just
thought
I'd
throw
that
out
there
that
I.
I
hope
that
there's
greater
transparency
and
we
do
have
more
access
to
information.
C
Q
Yeah
there's
a
link
that
was
put
together
by
our
cape
staff
and
it
includes
this
document
and
includes
the
the
tree
assessment
report
and
so
forth.
A
Because
that
was
my
question
was
what
thank
you
dustin?
What
parameters
were
used
for
the
assessment
report
and
what
information
was
attained
from
that?
So
we
can
try
to
look
that
up
there.
So
I
think
paren
was
next
with
question.
F
Thank
you,
amy
mississippi,
and
I
I
have
been
struggling
with
your
presentation
a
little
bit,
because
I've
heard
you
discuss
some
of
the
details
of
the
projects
that
are
somewhat
tangential,
such
as
planters
and
parking
and
property
owners
and
crosswalks.
F
What
I
I
didn't
hear
you
discuss
was
the
plan
to
cut
down
silver
maples
on
vermont
avenue
and
the
information
that
I've
gotten
from
steve
rasmussen
indicates
that
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
what
what
I
understood
was
being
proposed
is
cutting
down
every
silver
maple
on
vermont
avenue,
between
haywood,
road
and
olney.
Is
that
is
that
your
proposal?
F
Q
Q
F
You're,
the
urban
forestry
commission
and
and
our
first
concern
is
trees,
urban
trees
and
and
so
certainly
that
that's
a
a
good
detail
for
us
to
have
in
our
possession.
F
A
Thank
you.
Sharon.
D
Yeah,
so
the
only
information
I
could
find
was
the
article
that
came
through
online
in
the
act
and
I
pulled
up
the
report
that
showed
root
flare
and
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
again
how
many
trees
were
going
to
be
removed
in
there
are
some
silver
maples
trying
maples
and
sugar,
maples
and
acoustic
dogwood
on
that.
So
I
I
had
someone
ask
me:
when
did
you
do
the
survey,
and
you
said
2019
of
the
neighborhood
is
that
the
last
time
you
talked
to
the
neighborhood
was
in
2019.
Q
That
was
yes,
the
the
last
public
information
meeting
that
we
had
before
the
one
that
we
had
on
monday
october
25th
just
a
week
ago.
Q
D
So,
according
to
the
act
that
everybody
wanted,
the
2.5
hybrid-
which
I
didn't
quite
understand
that
said,
but
the
city
said
that
that
cost
too
much
was
that
2.5
hybrid
to
save
some
of
the
trees
and
work
on
one
side
of
the
sidewalk
and
not
the
other
side
of
the
sidewalk.
Q
Yes,
it
was
a
number
like.
I
said
there
were
a
number
of
scenarios
that
had
evolved
over
the
years,
even
some
of
them
before
I
came
into
the
project.
Alternate
concept
two
was
to
save
some
of
the
trees
and
to
construct
the
sidewalk
all
the
way
down
to
davenport
road
to
the
park.
Essentially,
so
we
would
have
sidewalk
on
only
one
side
of
the
road
and
we
would
save
only
half
of
the
trees.
The
other
half
would
be
gone
and
we
would
not
replace
the
trees
that
were
removed
and
concept.
Q
The
survey
is
posted
online
and
I
don't
recall
the
count
it's
it's
in.
I
believe
the
survey
link
there.
That's
posted
online
to
the
number
of
respondents.
D
And
the
reason
I'm
asking
is
that
the
response
we're
getting
from
the
ufc
shows
that
that
quite
a
few,
the
people
are
not
in
support
of
removing
these
trees.
So
I'm
wondering
where
the
city
got
the
information
that
most
this
neighborhood
was
in
support
of
removing
these
trees.
Q
I
think
we
have
a
lot
of
different
individuals
input
here.
D
D
I
mean
it'll
sport,
some
evergreen
shrubs
and
maybe
something
but
a
planter
by
and
large
is
not
going
to
do
any
better
supported
tree
than
what's
going
on
with
the
sidewalks
now,
and
I
do
understand
that
a
lot
by
my
estimation,
over
half
of
the
trees,
are
suffering
from
fungus
or
bacteria
or
just
bad
pruning,
and
then
poor
shape
need
to
be
removed.
But
there's
that
leaves
of
33
about
I'm
going
to
just
guesstimate
15.
D
That
could
be
worked
with
and
to
reiterate,
ed's
point
we
just
don't
have
enough
information
and
the
information
I'm
getting
is
that
the
trees,
the
people
want
the
trees
to
be
saved
that
are
in
that
neighborhood
and
it
sounds
like
the
sidewalk
is
tantamount
to
what
the
city
thinks
that
this
neighborhood
is
in
need
of.
C
Well,
the
other
thing
is
that
we're
not
sure
if
alternatives
have
been
considered
alternative,
sidewalk
material
or
ways
to
restore
soil
volume
where,
where
it's
been
limited
and
some
cities
have
been
able
to
do
that,
you
know.
One
last
point
is
that
you
know
the
the
immediate
neighbors
are
dealing
with
the
traffic
and
the
sidewalk
issues
and
the
traffic
and
all
that
the
trees
on
a
day-to-day
basis,
but
canopy
affects
the
community
at
large
too.
It's
not
just
a
very
isolated
thing,
so
the
whole
community
has
concern
over
this.
C
A
All
right
dawn.
G
Thanks,
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
I'm
not
sure
where
the
planter
idea
came
from,
so
I
didn't
see
that
in
the
original
concepts-
and
I
want
to
echo
the
point
that
sharon
made-
that
planters
are
not
really
a
vile,
well,
a
good
solution
to
replacing
trees
because
they're,
while
their
canopy
for
speaking
strictly
of
the
above
ground
tree
canopy
with
the
leaves,
could
potentially
replace
some
of
the
the
lost
tree
canopy.
G
Q
Yes-
and
I
I
understand
that
point
as
well-
and
I
I
completely
agree
that
the
sugar
maple
or
the
silver
maple
should
not
be
replanted
in
these
planters,
that
would
not
be
fair
to
those
trees
and
they
would
they
would
look
at
the
same
fate
as
what
we
have
today.
However,
we
have
also
discussed
using
these
planters
as
bio
retention
and
allowing
a
way
for
storm
water
to
infiltrate
into
these
planter
areas,
and
so
that's
not
something
that
we
have
a
proposed
plan
for,
but
it
is
something
that
we've
considered.
A
Q
Yes,
our
purpose
here
was
simply
to
present
a
concept
to
the
neighbors
so
that
they
could
see.
Okay,
there's
there
are
planters
here.
This
is
maybe
where
they
might
be
located.
Maybe
not.
Let's,
let's
get
some
some
input
from
those
immediately
affected.
H
A
For
the
sake
of
time,
I
think
what
it
sounds
to
me
like
is
that
the
urban
forestry
commission
would
really
appreciate
an
opportunity
to
be
at
the
table
to
help
with
this.
You
know
we
certainly
are,
you
know
not
necessarily
all
of
us
neighbors
in
this
area,
but
we
do
have
an
interest
in
the
tree
canopy
and
the
overall
planning
of
the
urban
forest
in
our
city,
and
so,
if
there's
a
way
that
we
could
provide
some
help
and
expertise,
we
would
really
appreciate
that
opportunity.
S
I'll
try
to
keep
this
as
procedural
as
possible,
but
what
I
saw
wasn't
in
the
plan
or
the
presentation
today
was
a
cost
analysis,
and
maybe
I
missed
that.
But
when
we're
talking
about
the
concepts,
the
three
different
concepts
and
what
the
fiscal
impact
is,
it
would
help
me
if
advisors
would
have
not
only
that
financial
impact
but
also
sustainability
impact.
A
This
might
be
the
type
of
situation
where
we
could
consider
supplementing
the
project
to
meet
canopy
goals
through
that
fee
and
loot
fund.
If
they
have
been
collected
in
the
same
resource
management
district
that
this
project
would
take
place
in.
So
that
would
be
something
that
we,
you
know
with
a
seat
at
the
table,
that
we
could
at
least
discuss
with
capital
projects.
S
Additionally,
that
we
are
getting
comments
from
neighbors
asking
about
ada
compliant
sidewalks,
which
vermont
is
lacking
because
of
what's
going
on
with
the
trees
and
the
sidewalks
collectively.
So
there
are
questions
about
option
two:
what
is
the
impact?
Not
only
the
fiscal
impact,
the
sustainability
impact,
but
the
equity
impact
if
the
trees
were
maintained
on
one
side
and
an
ada
accessible
sidewalk
was
built
on
the
other
side.
Q
That
is
a
big
cost
factor
in
the
project.
We
have
some
ada
curb
ramps
now,
but
they
don't
meet
the
pro-wag
perpendicular
crossing
requirements
under
the
newer
guidelines
and
so
we're
removing
eight
curb,
curb
ramps
and
putting
back
16..
So
that
is
a
a
big
cost
factor
that
was
not
planned
at
the
the
time
that
we
had
originally
budgeted
for
the
project.
So
that's
that's
again,
you're
absolutely
right.
One
of
the
issues
that
we're
dealing
with.
A
A
Excellent,
would
anyone
have
any
questions
at
this
moment
all
right?
I
think
oh
good.
F
I
did
I
want
to
throw
one
idea
out,
which
is
just
simply
to
say:
I
used
to
live
on
vermont
avenue
and
I
live
on
a
very
scarily
narrow
street
with
street
side
parking
now,
but
vermont
is
famously
overly
wide.
It's
it's
like
a
boulevard
that
people
love
to
stroll
down
the
middle
of
the
street,
so
that
my
point
is
just
to
say
that
there's
some
street.
A
F
To
play
with,
if
we
need
to
you,
know
it's
not
just
a
matter
of
simply
removing
street
side
parking
or
having
trees,
that
there
is
some
street
width
to
play
with
there,
and
so
that
could
be
a
part
of
the
solution,
as
well
as
making
some
more
room
for
trees.
Just
wanted
to
put
that
in
the
idea
bucket
at
this
conceptual
phase.
Thank
you.
Amy.
C
Just
a
general
comment,
but
but
this
type
of
issue
really
speaks
to
our
need
to
have
a
comprehensive
urban
forestry
master
plan,
so
we
have
some
direction
on
how
to
make
decisions
regarding
trees
and
infrastructure,
and
things
like
that,
so
I
just
had
to
throw
that
in
there
right.
A
An
urban
forester
could
be
our
go-to
person
to
help
with
this
agreed.
Thank
you
so
and
again
not
to
cut
off
anyone
with
other
key
points,
but
I
think
at
this
point,
if
laura
and
I
can
have
an
open
line
of
communication
and
then
I
can
bring
in
those
commission
members
that
would
be
most
interested
in
assisting
with
this
project.
A
Q
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
very
much
now
having
a
better
understanding
of
what
it
is
we're
looking
at
yeah.
So
thank
you.
A
A
All
right,
so
some
great
presentations
and
information
already
next
on
the
agenda
are
staff
report
reports
so
mark.
Did
you
have
an
update.
R
Yes,
ma'am,
I'm
pleased
to
announce
that
I
am
70
staffed.
No,
I
haven't
had
that
much
staffing
in
over
a
year,
so
I'm
pretty
excited.
Hopefully
nobody
bails
at
this
general
time.
Hopefully
you
can't
hear
the
person
outside
my
window
who's
banging
on
bricks
with
a
hammer,
hopefully
that
mike's
not
picking
that
up
yeah.
It's
driving
me
crazy,
though
they're
working
on
our
roof
we're
doing
some
pruning
for
asheville
city
schools,
so
they
can
get
the
buses
around
without
hanging
up
the
buses
in
the
trees.
R
So
that's
kind
of
our
current
thing.
We're
also
preparing
to
get
holiday
decorations
up
so
that'll
not
be
all
that
productive
in
terms
of
tree
work,
but
it's
something
we're
on
the
hook
for
we
are
we
by
we
I
mean
me
and
the
mouse
in
my
pocket
are
working
on
the
planting
plan
for
the
springtime
and
also
doing
inventory
updates
on
the
one
act,
not
one
asheville
that
online
tree
thingy
that
the
commission
wanted,
and
we
have
now
yeah
whatever
that's
called
sorry,
please
put
banging
out
there.
R
The
tree
map
is
that
yes,
asheville
treatment.
Thank
you
so
much.
Oh
excellent,
yeah!
That's
great!
And
let's
see,
I've
got
some
contractors
who
are
going
to
be
three
different
tree
contractors
who
are
going
to
be
doing
work
for
me
on
11
different
work,
orders
to
try
and
chip
a
small
piece
off
my
backlog,
and
let's
see
this
coming
thursday
and
friday
as
chair
of
the
north
carolina
armed
force,
council
I'll
be
helping
with
our
strategic
planning
retreat.
R
A
That's
great
any
questions
for
mark.
Thank
you
mark
all
right,
then
nancy
update
on
the
tree,
protection,
ordinance
and
fianlu,
and
we
can
see
it
in
the
table.
There.
A
Okay,
so
so
far
no
changes.
I
guess
I'll
talk
about
the
rest.
When
we
get
down
the
agenda,
any
questions
for
nancy
on
the
information
there
all
right
next
is
old
business.
We
are
going
to
talk
about
the
open
space
amendment
through
our
working
group,
real
quick
before
we
start
this
conversation
there's
been
a
lot
of
work,
that's
gone
into
the
open
space
working
group
and
the
amendment
and
going
on
in
the
in
the
back
end
and
the
sidelines.
A
We're
gonna
have
a
couple
presentations
and
discussions.
So
let's
let
everyone
have
their
time
to
speak,
have
a
full
conversation
about
this
and
then,
if
there
are
any
motions
or
recommendations,
let's
bring
those
up
at
the
very
end.
So
parent
is
first.
F
Thank
you
amy,
so
I
am
not
sure
if
I
should
be
screen
sharing
with
folks
for
the
resources
that
I
put
in
the
documents
for
the
meeting
you
all
can.
Let
me
know
if
you
want
me
to
show
what's
on
my
screen,
I
can
do
that
so
that
you
can
kind
of
follow
along
with
what
I'm
looking
at
is
that
is
that
desirable
to
see
sort
of
the
information
that
I
prepared
about
the
open
space
amendment?
Do
you
want
to
see
that
on
screen
right
now?
F
F
H
F
F
Yes,
I
can't
see
you
so
great
all
right,
so
the
open
space
amendment
is
finished.
I
know
the
first
time
this
came
to
my
attention
was
january
of
2020
when
vitilla
presented
to
the
to
the
ufc
about
the
open
space
amendment,
and
we
have
been
hard
at
it
ever
since
and
have
just
completed
the
draft
of
this
amendment
through
the
open
space
task
force.
F
Originally,
it
was
scheduled
for
a
vote
before
planning
and
zoning
tomorrow
that
has
been
delayed
because
stacy
and
knack
declined
to
take
a
position
on
the
open
space
amendment
because
they
felt
as
though
it
was
too
complicated
for
them
to,
and
they
were
feeling
like.
They
didn't
have
enough
time
to
fully
consider
the
proposal,
so
stacy
annette
called
for
more
time
and
the
process
has
been
delayed
because
of
those
requests
that
stacy
and
knack
made.
F
So
they
can,
they
can
have,
I
suppose,
this
next
month
and
decide
at
their
next
meeting.
So
this
won't
come
before
planning
and
zoning
until
december
pnz's
december
meeting.
What
hasn't
been
specified
is
whether
or
not
this
will
delay
the
open
space
amendments
consideration
before
city
council
on
december
14th,
which
is
where
it's
currently
or
was
previously
scheduled
to
be
announced.
F
So
what
I've
done
here
is
created
a
side-by-side
comparison
of
the
current
ordinances
on
open
space
in
in
the
code
in
the
munico
with
the
current
proposal
and
how
those
changes
would
shake
out
what
that
would
mean
for
the
urban
canopy
in
asheville
and
I've
also
put
in
a
third
column.
That
shows
where
the
ordinance
was
when
we
last
voted
on
it
in
august
of
2020.
So
we
can
kind
of
see
the
progression
of
this
ordinance
and
how
it's
changed
over
time.
F
So
one
thing
that
I
want
to
emphasize
is
that
two
things
to
emphasize
here:
number
one
that
the
all
of
the
recommendations
we
made
in
our
last
motion
when
we
voted
in
august
of
august
17
2020
to
oppose
unanimously
the
proposal
in
the
form
it
was
in.
At
that
time
we
made
four
recommendations
for
changes
to
the
open
space
amendment
and
you
can
see
them
here
on
the
screen.
I
hope
you
can
see
that
none
of
them
made
it
into
the
open
space
amendment.
F
They
were
all
rejected
through
the
open
space
task
force
in
in
one
way
or
another.
So
it's
important
to
know
that
our
key
priorities
for
changes
in
the
open
space
amendment
were
not
achieved
through
this
process.
F
The
next
thing
I
want
to
highlight,
as
a
preliminary
note,
is
that
the
urban
forestry
commission
has
always
taken
the
position
that
open
space
has
a
direct
relationship
with
urban
canopy
in
the
sense
that
open
space
is
space
within
a
developed
site
that
doesn't
have
a
building
on
top
of
it.
It
doesn't
mean
that
all
open
space
is
going
to
be
somewhere.
A
tree
can
grow,
but
certainly
a
good
amount
of
it
will
be
places
where
trees
can
grow
or
are
growing
or
are
allowed
to
continue
growing.
F
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
now
is
walk
you
through
the
changes.
There
are
many
changes,
many
details.
I
definitely
want
to
provide
opportunities
for
discussion
and
questions,
but
what
I'll
try
to
do
is
run
through
this
in
a
way,
that's
easy
to
follow.
F
I
hope,
as
easy
as
possible
to
follow
feel
free
to
just
yell
at
me
with
your
voice,
because
I
can't
see
you
if
you
need
to
interject
a
question
and-
and
I
say
that
to
the
members
of
the
urban
forestry
commission,
because
this
presentation
is
for
you.
So
I
would
invite
your
questions
if
you
need
to
ask
them
okay,
so
the
first
thing
I'll
cover
is
exemptions
from
open
space
requirements.
F
There
are
certain
districts
of
the
city
that
are
exempted
from
requiring
developers
to
provide
open
space
full
stop,
and
you
can
see
that
those
those
districts
changed
over
time.
So
in
the
current
co
current
code,
that's
downtown
cbd,
expansion
and
then
industrial
and
industrial
expansion-
and
as
you
can
see,
the
industrial
districts
are
no
longer
exempted,
but
the
rad
is
the
river
arts.
F
District
is
exempted
from
all
open
space
requirements
and,
as
I
mentioned
previously,
one
of
our
key
priorities
was
to
protect
the
river
arts
district
from
being
exempted
from
open
space
requirements,
both
both
so
the
river
arts
district
could
have
more
open
space,
but
also
so
that
fee
and
loo
money
could
be
raised
from
developments
in
the
river
arts
district
to
buy
public
lands
within
the
city,
and
we
did
not
succeed
in
in
getting
that
change
out
of
where
the
ordinance
was
back
in
august
last
year.
F
You
can
also
see
the
minimum
size
has
shrunk
progressively
over
time
for
these
smaller
urban
developments
gone
from
500
to
400
square
feet
and
for
the
suburban
minimum
size
of
open
space.
We've
gone
from
2
000
to
400
square
feet
and
that's
even
a
reduction
from
where
it
was
back
in
august
of
last
year.
F
Minimum
dimensions
have
also
been
shrunk
from
24
to
where
they
were
when
we
voted
on.
This
last
was
12
cubic
feet.
Now,
we're
at
10
cubic
feet
on
land
and
7
cubic
feet
on
rooftops.
So
that's
a
pretty
significant
drop,
obviously
71
reduction
in
the
case
of
rooftops
at
the
worst,
here's
something
in
section
c
here
you
you
see
something:
that's
actually
become
more
protective.
F
There
wasn't
a
minimum
contiguous
requirement
under
there
isn't
a
contiguous
requirement
minimum
under
the
current
ordinance,
and
it's
gone
up
from
40
to
50
of
the
open
space
being
required
to
be
contiguous,
meaning
that
it's
all
in
one
space
all
in
one
place
so
half
of
it
is.
It
would
now
be
required
to
be
all
in
one
place.
F
Now
now
we
get
into
the
actual
sort
of
baseline
amounts
of
the
open
space,
that's
required
of
different
developments
and
how
how
that
has
changed
over
time.
It
used
to
be
that
there
was
just
sort
of
a
straight
up
residential
requirement.
If
you
had
eight
units
or
more,
you
either
had
to
give
500
square
feet
or
15
of
the
parcel,
whichever
is
greater
and
now
under
the
current
proposal.
What
we
have
is
something
based
on
the
number
of
units
housing
units
you
want
to
build.
F
You
have
different
amounts
here:
10
15
or
20
percent,
and
keep
in
mind
that
these
percentages
are
nominal
percentages,
meaning
that
they
are
sort
of
the
baseline
amount
of
what
what
is
required
on
paper,
but
that
there
are
loopholes
and
exemptions
and
reductions
that
we'll
get
into
a
little
bit
later.
F
So
now
there
we
can
talk
about
subdivisions
now,
there's
not
always
a
direct
relationship
between
the
existing
code
and
the
proposed
code,
because
in
some
ways
they
came
up
with
new
categories
and
described
things
a
little
bit
differently.
But
this
is,
as
close
as
I
could
put
things
together
and
we've
gone
for
subdivisions
we've
gone
from
20
of
the
parcel
being
required
for
eight
units
or
more
to
15
for
multi-family
residential
under
the
current
ordinance.
F
My
best
understanding
is
that
it
would
just
be
the
basic
requirement
that
15
or
500
square
feet
so
now
for
one
acre
or
more
for
multi-family
residential
phenomenal
percentage
required
is
50
again.
Take
that
with
a
grain
of
salt
until
you've
seen
the
exemptions
and
reductions
that
are
available
in
the
current
ordinance.
We
have
a
category
of
something
that's
non-residential
in
a
residential
district
like
a
church
or
a
school,
and
there
was
a
20
requirement
under
that
category
and
there
is
a
20
requirement
under
the
current
ordinance
in
the
current
proposal.
F
F
So
that's
my
interpretation
is
that
you
would
jump
down
to
h
to
see
the
difference
for
what's
happened
to
g
under
the
current
ordinance,
so
in
in
the
current
ordinance.
You've
got
non-residential
district
requirements
depending
on
the
use
of
that
district
parcel.
So
there
can
be
urban
use,
suburban
use
or
industrial
use,
and
you
can
see
that
you
have
three
different
open
space
percentages
that
would
be
required
and
that's
percent
of
the
parcel
that
would
be
required
to
remain
in
open
space.
F
So
under
the
current
pers
proposal,
you
can
see
that
that
has
been
reduced
over
time
for
non-residential
developments
of
less
than
an
acre.
F
F
Now
it's
ten
percent
required
for
less
than
an
acre
or
fifty
percent,
essentially
in
name
only
so
then
you
have
mixed
use
mixed
use.
It's
not
really
spoken
to
you
directly
in
the
ordinances
currently,
so
you
have
to
look
at
the
above
categories
for
what
that
would
look
like,
but
under
the
current
proposal
we've
gone
from
15
for
less
than
an
acre
last
year
to
10
for
less
than
an
acre
today
and
for
more
than
an
acre
again
nominally
the
percentage
is
50
percent.
F
So
now,
let's
talk
about
the
reductions
in
the
open
space
required.
This
is
where
the
rubber
meets
the
road
and
in
vidyla's
words
at
one
of
our
last
open
space
task
force
meetings.
It's
not
expected
that
in
most
cases
or
really
in
any
cases,
that
developers
would
actually
provide
that
50
in
the
case
of
when
the
requirements
are
that
great.
F
In
name
only-
and
you
know,
as
vidyla
said
it
could
happen,
but
we
don't
expect
it
to
happen,
because
we
expect
the
developers
to
use
these
reductions
and
these
loopholes
to
drastically
reduce
the
amount
of
open
space
required
in
developments.
F
What
the
current
code
provides
is
that
the
planning
and
development
director
has
it
within
his
discretion
to
allow
requirements
to
be
reduced
for
open
space
to
be
reduced
if
certain
things
are
provided.
So
it
focuses
on
it,
focuses
in
on
the
availability
of
public
parks
and
recreation
facilities
being
adjacent
to
park
land
and
providing
access
to
that
park.
Land
can
allow
for
reductions
in
the
amount
of
open
space
required,
also
active
recreation
facilities
being
required
on
site.
So
that's.
A
F
That's
all
of
the
the
reductions
that
are
allowed
under
the
current
ordinance
today,
and
so
where
we
were
when
we
voted
on
this
last
in
august
of
last
year.
First,
they
they
are
allowed
to
reduce
their
open
space
requirements
from
the
that
nominal
amount.
We
talked
about
whether
that's
20
or
50,
or
what
have
you
down
to
the
requirements
for
less
than
an
acre.
F
So
if
you
have
more
than
an
acre
like
non-subdivision
developments,
you've
got
a
50
nominal
requirement
and
you
can
lower
that
down
to
the
requirement
for
less
than
an
acre,
10,
15
or
20
percent.
In
exchange
for
certain
things,
there
is
voluntary,
enhanced
stormwater
requirements
which
addresses
stormwater
control,
and
this
is
one
of
the
more
things
that
shocks.
The
conscience,
to
my
mind,
is
that
mandatory
stormwater
requirements
are
also
one
attribute
of
a
project
that
can
exempt
the
developer
from
being
required
to
provide
the
full.
F
Let's
say
in
this
case,
50
amount
of
open
space.
That's
nominally
required,
so
in
other
words
something
that's
mandatory
and
not
discretionary
of
the
developer
that
they
have
to
do
anyway
can
allow
them
to
bump
down
from,
in
some
cases.
Fifty
percent
to
ten
percent
open
space
doesn't
seem
like
the
city
is
getting
very
much
out
of
that.
Really
anything
at
all.
F
It
seems
like
we're
trading
away,
something
very
vital
for
some
for
something
that
is
required
of
the
developers
who
are
not
really
getting
anything
out
of
it
and
then
the
other
reduction
that
was
allowed.
What
for
subdivisions
of
any
size,
they're
allowed
to
reduce
the
amount
of
open
space
required,
the
total
open
space
required?
So
let's
say
it
was
ten
percent
required
by
a
further
five
percent,
so
that
would
be
down
to
five
percent
open
space
by
providing
contiguous
flat
rectangular
open
space
with
seating
again,
a
pretty
minor
amenity.
F
That
seems
like
a
an
important
thing,
but
not
something
that's
worth
trading
away,
potentially
50
percent
of
the
required
open
space
for
okay,
so
those
were
at
the
time
we
voted
on
this
last.
Those
were
the
reductions
that
were
allowed
under
the
open
space
amendment,
and
today
the
open
space
amendment
has
additional
reductions
that
are
allowed.
F
F
We
also
have
the
mandatory
stormwater
requirements
which
are
separately
required,
allowing
them
to
reduce
their
open
space
requirements
by
up
to
80
percent
of
the
total
open
space
required.
F
There
was
a
new
category
added
since
we
voted
on
this
last
for
what
is
referred
to
as
affordable
housing
and
if
they
provide
affordable
in
quotes
housing
for
30
years
and
if
half
of
the
affordable
units
accept
vouchers
for
the
payment
of
rent.
So
the
reason
I
put
the
word
affordable
in
quotes
is
because
the
definition
is
80
of
the
area,
median
income.
F
Of
course,
the
area
median
income
goes
up
every
year
because
with
gentrification
more
and
more
wealthy
people
moving
to
asheville
means
the
area.
Median
income
is
skyrocketing,
currently
making
this
standard
of
affordable
housing
less
and
less
relevant
to
people
of
the
working
class.
F
So
so
again,
there's
there's
a
question
about
how
affordable
this
housing
really
is.
There's
also
this
issue
about
the
housing
not
being
provided
permanently,
but
it's
a
30-year
provision
so
again
we're
trading
away
something
pretty
valuable
for
a
temporary
benefit
that
has
some
questionable
benefits
involved
with
it.
Okay,.
F
Again
in
in
the
ordinary,
in
the
open
space
amendment,
you
may
also
reduce
by
a
further
five
percent
of
open
space
with
by
providing
contiguous
flat,
rectangular
open
space
with
seating
and
so
combining
these
reductions
together,
either
the
storm
water
and
affordable
housing
or,
and
the
seating
provision
of
open
space.
You
can
reduce
your
total
required
open
space
from
fifty
percent
of
the
parcel
to
five
percent
of
the
parcel,
so
pretty
dramatic
cuts
and
in
a
lot
of
cases
for
getting
very
little
or
nothing
relative
to
what's
being
traded
away.
F
Now
here
are
the
the
last
points
to
make
about
reductions
that
were
added
to
the
current
iteration
of
the
open
space
amendment.
There
are
a
couple
of
things
that
are
required
of
developers
that
may
be
counted
as
open
space,
so
I
call
this
double
counting.
This
is
required
setbacks
and
required
property
line
buffers
so
required.
Setbacks
may
be
counted
for
up
to
half
of
your
open
space
requirements.
F
These
are
separately
required
anyway,
under
the
setback
provisions
and
the
property
line.
Buffers
for
some
developments
are
also
required
of
developers
separately
and
an
unlimited
amount
of
these
may
count
towards
up
to
100
of
a
developer's
open
space
requirements.
If
the
slope
of
those
property
line
buffers
is
below
15,
so
just
not
steep
slopes,
so
those
are
other
ways
that
open
space
can
be
created,
and
I
think
the
the
concern
here
is
that.
F
These
we're
not
gaining
anything
through
open
space.
If
people
can,
if
developers
can
double
count,
what's
already
required
somewhere
else
as
their
open
space,
there's
sort
of
an
impression
being
created
that
we're
gaining
something
when
in
fact
it
may
make
no
difference
at
all
in
the
development
and
the
amount
of
green
space
and
open
space
available.
F
There's
also
a
provision
in
here
to
encourage
eat,
greenway
easement
granting
of
easements
for
greenways
to
reduce
the
amount
of
open
space
counted
towards
the
requirement
and
finally,
in
conclusion,
on
these
details,
we
finally
reached
the
end.
Thank
you
for
hanging
in
there
with
me
the
the
open
space
is.
It
says
it
is
to
be
maintained
in
perpetuity
unless
an
amendment
to
the
plan
is
approved.
F
So
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
self-contradiction
there.
You
know
perpetuity
means
forever
and
clearly,
this
proposed
ordinance
is
not
contemplating
permanent,
open
space,
but
open
space
which
can
be
get
gotten
rid
of
and
and
then
the
last
note
sound
that
I'll
sound
here
on
the
details
of
the
proposal
are
that
there
was
a
missed
opportunity
in
this
process.
F
The
issue
of
how
to
spend
the
fee
in
lieu
funds
that
are
generated
through
open
space
fianlu
has
been
quite
controversial
and
the
reason
it's
controversial
is
because
there's
a
state
statute
that
says
that
the
money
produced
out
of
a
subdivision
or
development
for
open
space
fee
and
lieu
funds
must
be
spent
to
serve
residents
of
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
development.
F
F
But
it's
been
controversial,
and
when
the
city
attorney's
office
declined
to
provide
a
a
legal
opinion
to
the
city
about
how
to
spend
the
open
space
funds
and
instead
told
the
city,
we
think
you
just
shouldn't,
spend
them
until
a
series
of
lawsuits
are
resolved
on
this
issue,
the
open
space
task
force,
vidyla
decided.
We
were
not
going
to
address
this
issue
of
how
these
funds
can
be
spent.
F
So
there
is
language
in
the
open
space
amendment
that
says.
Essentially,
you
have
to
spend
the
money
to
serve
the
residents
of
the
development
from
which
the
open
space
fee
and
loot
funds
were
generated,
which
is
basically
the
exact
language
from
the
statute
that
created
the
controversy
in
the
first
place.
F
So
we've
missed
an
opportunity
here
to
define
how
to
use
the
fee
and
lieu
funds,
and
that
is
really
unfortunate,
because
the
city
is
now
in
a
position
where
we
have
money
to
spend
on
new
parks,
we're
going
to
start
generating
more
money
as
new
developments,
roll
in
and
generate
fee
and
lieu
funds
and
we're
currently
in
a
posture
where
you
know
at
the
city.
Attorney's
behest.
F
We're
we're
not
doing
anything
with
that
money
and
we
had
an
opportunity
to
define
how
we
would
use
that
money
and
the
choice
was
made
not
to
go
there.
And
I
think
that
that's
a
real
disservice
to
the
city,
because
I
think
we're
in
a
race
we're
in
a
foot
race
with
developers
to
acquire
land
that
would
make
for
good
city
parks
around
the
city.
F
So
those
are
the
the
details
that
I
have
generated
for
you
to
understand
the
changes
to
the
open
space
amendment
and
how
it
would
affect
urban
canopy.
As
I
mentioned,
the
the
there's,
a
direct
relationship
between
the
amount
of
open
space
available
and
the
potential
space
for
urban
canopy
within
the
city
of
asheville,
and
so
I
know
I'll
wait
to
bring
this
motion
until
after
we
finish
discussion.
F
But
I
did
summarize
sort
of
these
overall
changes
that
have
happened
to
the
requirements
for
open
space
within
the
ordinance
within
the
proposed
amendment
here,
and
I
just
want
to
run
down
those
for
you.
F
That's
required
in
exchange
for
compliance
with
mandatory
stormwater
measures
that
are
separately
required
under
city
law
anyway,
number
five.
Some
developers
would
be
able
to
eliminate
up
to
eighty
percent
of
the
amount
of
open
space
required
by
only
temporarily
providing
a
percentage
of
so-called
affordable
housing
units
number
six.
F
It
allows
developers
to
opt
to
further
reduce
their
open
space
requirements
by
significant
amounts
in
exchange
for
meager
pedestrian
amenities
in
combination
with
either
of
the
above
reductions.
In
the
baseline
requirement
mentioned
in
the
previous
two
items.
This
provision
would
allow
for
a
total
reduction
in
open
space
requirements
of
up
to
ninety
percent.
F
Seven.
It
allows
some
developers
to
meet
up
to
one
hundred
percent
of
their
open
space
requirements
via
compliance
with
mandatory
property
line,
buffers
that
are
separately
required
under
city
law.
As
long
as
the
buffers
are
not
on
steep
slopes
number
eight,
it
allows
some
developers
to
meet
up
to
50
percent
of
their
open
space
requirements
via
compliance
with
mandatory
setbacks
that
are
separately
required
under
city
law
and
number
nine.
F
So
with
that,
that
is
what
I
wanted
the
urban
forestry
commissioners
to
be
aware
of,
and
with
that
I
will
open
this
up
for
the
remainder
of
the
discussion.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
We
have
a
couple
questions
for
parent
and
then
vadilla
will
have
a
chance
to
so
cecil.
E
Yeah
mute
unmute,
whatever
paren.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
really
thorough
analysis
of
this.
I,
during
my
time
on
council
from
09
to
17.
I
was
constantly
amazed
at
what
the
city
staff
managed
to
try
to
justify,
and
you
have
so
totally
clarified
this,
the
the
hotel
across
from
the
grove
arcade.
E
E
I
mean
it
is
a
closed
space
and
yet
city
staff
justified
that
in
their
approach
to
council
and
said,
oh
yeah,
we
got
all
this
acreage
over
here
on
top
of
the
grove
arcade,
that's
open
space
city
staff.
E
E
I
don't
know
why
videla
has
has
worked
to
change
this,
that
the
plan
that
you
you
are
talking
about
today,
he
and
his
his
team
who
have
watered
down
what
we've
tried
to
do
to
actually
create
a
better,
a
better
future
for
asheville,
it's
being
decreased
and
decreased
and
decreased
until
what
we
were
trying
to
do
in
in
good
faith.
For
this
whole
year
to
make
the
open
space
thing
more
valuable
has
been
watered
down
to
a
thing:
that's
that's
a
total
giveaway
to
developers.
E
A
Patrick
you're,
on
mute
too
vidal.
I.
H
A
B
B
So
let
me
just
try
this
and-
and
you
madame
chair,
can
tell
me
if
I'm,
if
I'm
out
of
order,
my
understanding
is
that
the
city
of
asheville
has
certain
stormwater
management
regulations
that
exceed
what
the
state
requires
and
I'm
not
sure
how
the
city
of
asheville
got
to
this
point,
but
it
has
that
in
in
the
regulations.
B
My
understanding
is
and
is
that
correct
I'll
address
this
to
nancy
walker.
H
Yes,
that's
correct
and
we
got
there
because
we
are
a
designated
community
with
a
ms4
permit
and
that
mpdf
phase,
2
ms4
current
holder
as
a
city
itself.
B
Okay,
is
it
also
fair
to
say
that,
despite
the
fact
that
asheville
has
standards
that
exceed
the
state
and
it's
allowed
to
have
those
standards,
it
can't
require
developers
to
adhere
to
those
enhanced
standards.
O
I
think
I
know
what
what
you're
asking
patrick-
I
don't
know
you
didn't
direct
it
directly
to
me,
but
I
think
I've
got
what
you're
asking
so
where
our
limitation
is.
Is
that
state
law
says
that
we
cannot
require
developers
to
adhere
to
stormwater
standards
if
they're
not
adding
impervious
surface.
So
when
you
have
the
term
voluntary,
stormwater
compliance
there,
it's
because
that's
the
only
way
you
can
get
it
for
a
fully
paid
site,
so
give
you
a
picture
of
walmart
with
a
completely
paved
parking
lot
out
in
front
of
it.
O
State
law
says
that
the
city
of
asheville
cannot
require
that
developer
to
do
any
stormwater
detention
or
treatment
for
any
amount
of
surface
area
that,
where
they're
actually
decreasing
the
amount
of
impervious
surface
or
leaving
it
the
same,
even
and
so,
when
you
have
the
term
voluntary
compliance
there.
B
So
then,
if
you,
if
you
separate
the
the
portions
of
the
city's
stormwater
standards
that
exceed
the
state-
and
you
separate,
those
apart
what's
left,
are
essentially
the
state
standards
and
developers
are
required
to
meet
those
state
standards.
H
Yes,
so
the
portion
of
our
ordinance
that
exceeds
state
standards
is
that
we
have
detention
requirement.
State
is
only
water
quality,
so
that's
the
difference
and
state
also
says
you
can't
do
anything
on
existing
impervious
if
you
are
keeping
it
the
same
or
reducing
it.
So
our
thresholds
are
that
one
acre
and
50
percent
and
or
50
impervious
if
it
is
not
a
redevelopment
that
is
maintaining
the
same
amount
of
imperviousness
or
reducing
the
amount
of
imperviousness.
B
So
then,
then,
to
say
that
that
the
city's
stormwater
management
standards
have
to
be
adhered
to
by
developers.
O
You
get
off
the
trigger.
You
have
the
example
that
I
gave
of
like
a
kmart
or
or
walmart
with
a
100
impervious
surface
already.
No,
that's
dead
wrong.
That
would
that
would
there
would
be
no
stormwater
standards
that
applied
to
that
to
that
site,
because
we're
preempted
under
state
law,
so
in
hypothetical,
fully
undeveloped
blocks
within
the
city
of
asheville
that
are
in
excess
of
an
acre,
which
I
think
everybody
collectively
understands
how
many
of
those
there
are.
B
Okay,
thank
you
and
my
next
question
has
to
do
with
fee
and
lou,
and
I
think
parent
has
made
a
good
point
on
this,
but
I
do
want
to
get
some
clarification
and
I
believe
in
in
one
of
the
task
force
meetings
and
I
believe
in
our
last
urban
forestry
commission
meeting
you
eric
ex,
gave
an
explanation
about
the
fee
in
lieu
and
not
spending
the
fee
in
lieu
that
has
already
been
collected
or
will
be
collected
in
the
coming
say
several
years,
and
it
had
to
do
with
some
lawsuits
that
were
brought
against
municipalities
around
the
state.
B
My
understanding
is
that
the
basis
for
that
lawsuit
those
lawsuits
had
to
do
with
those
municipalities
taking
fee
and
lieu
funds
and
spending
them
outside
of
the
narrow
parameters
that
are
allowed
in
in
state
law
is.
Is
that
correct.
O
It
it
is
it
just
the
only
not
to
be
ticky
tacky,
but
the
the
phrasing
of
narrow
parameters
specified
in
law.
I'd
say
that
that
makes
it
sound
like
we're,
told
a
very
specific
thing
like
spend
it
within
500
yards
of
this
site.
O
The
lawsuits
are
fun,
are
they're
wholly
dependent
on
the
fact
that
there's
a
complete
ambiguity
in
what
is
the
immediate
area,
people
in
the
immediate
area
of
a
subdivision,
and
so
that
ambiguity
is
not
going
to
be
resolved
by
anyone
other
than
the
court
system,
and,
as
I
indicated,
there
are
at
least
three
lawsuits
that
are
proceeding
against
other
municipalities
now,
one
of
which
has
already
been
mediated,
which
failed.
O
B
O
We
would
never
know
so.
The
the
the
phrasing
of
in
the
immediate
vicinity
means
that,
regardless
of
how
close
we
do
it,
unless
it's
literally
adjoining
we're
going
to
catch
the
same
lawsuit
so
that
those
every
city
that
has
been
using
their
family
funds
has
received
a
lawsuit
over
this.
So
whatever
we
do,
unless
it's
literally
adjacent
to
where
we
got
the
fiance
from
it's
not
going
to
be
good
enough,
we
will
get
we'll
get
a
lawsuit,
and
so
the
the
guidance
that
I've
given
was
that
there's
no.
S
O
Who
knows
the
answer
to
that
legal
issue
of
what
is
in
the
immediate
vicinity?
And
so
it's
not
so
much
legal
advice
from
that
point.
It's
more
just
a
pretty
common
sense,
cost
benefit.
Analysis
of
we've
only
got
200
000
in
that
fee
and
loop
hot
right
now.
The
idea
of
voluntarily
raising
our
hand
and
receiving
a
lawsuit
as
a
result
where
the
fees
in
terms
of
defending
that
lawsuit
are
going
to
be
added
to
the
potential
risk
of
losing
that
lawsuit.
There's
just
no
there's
no
sense.
There's
no
there's
no
cost
benefit
analysis.
O
B
So
then
the
risk
is
is
directly
related
to
the
ambiguity
of
the
state
law.
O
That's
exactly
right,
and
so
that
one
case
that
has
gone
through
mediation
and
failed
they'll
have
dispositive
emotions
and
that
that
those
will
result
in
some
case
law.
It
won't
be
directly
binding
on
us
unless
someone
appeals
it
to
the
court
of
appeals,
which
would
take
more
time,
but
even
just
that
initial
ruling
of
a
of
another
superior
court
within
the
state
saying
this
was
good
enough.
Then
then
we
have
something
to
go
off
of,
as
opposed
to
now,
where
there's
just
just
no
certainty.
A
Thank
you.
I
want
to
acknowledge
that
it's
past
3
p.m,
we're
going
to
keep
going,
but
we
do
need
to
eventually
wrap
this
up
in
a
timely
manner.
Is
it
okay
steve?
Can
I
go
to
vadilla
next
I
saw
you
had
a
hand
up.
L
I
I
want
to
make
a
quick
point
and
vadilla
might
be
able
to
speak
to
this.
Okay,
since
the
city
is
lacking
an
urban
forest
master
plan
or
a
broad
green
infrastructure
plan
in
the
mapping
that
goes
with
it.
It
makes
it
hard
for
us
to
get
our
head
around
how
much
this
really
affects
this
amendment.
Open
space
amendment
affects
us
it
there.
It
could
be
very
significant
or
it
could
be
more
at
the
margin.
We
all
know
the
city
is
going
to
get
denser.
L
L
A
Okay,
go
ahead,
vadilla
with
your
piece
and
then
we'll
continue
discussion.
J
And
and
while
vadilla's
pulling
that
up,
hi
everyone,
I'm
todd
o'clochenny
and
I'm
the
city's
planning
and
urban
design
director.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
perrin
sharon
and
ed's
participation
on
the
task
force,
and
I
think
just
part
of
the
presentation
today
is
just
to
acknowledge
the
what
the
process
was
for
the
task
force.
J
So
everyone's
aware
of
what
we've
been
working
on
over
the
last
nine
months,
but
vidil
will
go
into
more
detail
about
the
representation
from
other
boards
and
commissions
and
just
want
to
kind
of
acknowledge
that
kind
of
the
give
and
take
and
difficult
conversations
that
occur
when
you
have
folks
from
representing
different
points
of
view
and
but
hopefully
again
you'll
see,
I
think
in
vidilla's
presentation
some
of
the
results
and
outcomes
that
that
were
a
result
of
the
work
from
the
task
force
and
certainly
just
appreciate
the
representation
from
this
board,
we're
proud
of
the
process
and
think
that
it
strengthened.
A
Thank
you
todd
we
actually
sent
patrick
perrin
and
ed
sharon
was
representing
the
coalition
of
asheville
neighborhoods.
J
D
And
that
was
knack
amy.
M
Yeah,
thank
you.
Everybody,
okay,
I'll,
try
to
be
brief.
I'm
sorry
we're
already
at
three
o'clock
next
slide.
Nancy.
Really
briefly,
I
want
to
highlight
that
this
was
recently
their
recent
history
is
a
process
of
nine
months.
M
So
our
key
changes
that
I
want
to
focus
on
and
you've
heard
of
some
of
them
are
removing
barriers
to
infill
development,
focusing
on
better
quality,
open
spaces
and
incentivizing
stormwater
management.
We
hear
a
lot
about
our
need
for
housing,
but
very
few
people
understand
this
specific
clause
and
how
difficult
it
is
for
housing
and
I'll
talk
specifically
about
that
next
slide,
please.
M
So
this
is
a
an
image,
a
graph
that
shows
how
residential
open
space
requirements
in
the
city
of
asheville
relate
to
other
cities.
So
you
have
two
different
colors.
The
the
blue
color
is
the
lower
end
of
the
range
for
the
city
and
the
red
is
the
higher
range
and
on
the
on
the
right
here
we
have
two
different
bars
for
asheville.
The
the
first
one
is
asheville
today,
so
our
current
regulations
and
then
the
other
one
is
our
proposed,
and
there
are
two
takeaways
from
from
this.
M
The
first
one
next
slide
is
that
all
of
our
minimum
requirements
are
roughly
the
same.
Some
winston-salem
has
a
little
bit
less
greenville
basically
has
it
copied
where
we
are,
but
we're
about
five
percent
for
the
minimum.
The
next
point
is
that
today,
currently
you
can
see
we
have
this
red
bar.
That
is
our
high
end
and
our
high
end
is
actually
a
minimum
for
small
scale.
Infill,
that's
a
little
hard
to
take
logistically
or
logically.
So
I
have
a
couple
of
images
to
talk
that
through
next
slide.
M
I
have
two
two
examples:
yeah
next
slide,
please
two
examples
of
of
sort
of
our
historic
buildings
that
existed
before
open
space
requirements,
to
show
you
what
our
open
space
requirements
today,
how
impactful
they
are.
So
this
is
a
building
that
my
wife
and
I
and
son
lived
in
for
about
a
year.
It's
it's
basically
behind
harris,
teeter
and
trader
joe's
20
units
next
slide
under
today's
proposal.
M
M
So
the
current
code,
I
think
is
very
clearly
heidi
highlighted
here
is-
is
incredibly
broken
and
that's
why
we
we
are
proposing
such
a
drastic
reduction
as
it's
been
described
because
it
was
so
incorrectly
put
together.
I
think
when,
when
the
open
space
code
was
first,
you
know
adopted
this
nuance
wasn't
taken
into
consideration
or
wasn't
considered
fully,
and
so
it's
it's
very
problematic
next
slide.
M
This
is
another
example:
smaller
site,
it's
a
10
unit
building
and
you
can
see
that
it's
kind
of
a
sort
of
a
small
apartment
house
next
slide
under
today's
regulation.
The
existing
regulation
open
space
would
require
the
the
entire
front
yard,
the
entire
area
of
the
building
and
the
parking
area.
So
again,
I
I'm
trying
to
make
the
case
that
the
problem
isn't
the
significant
reduction.
M
The
problem
is
the
broken
code.
Actually,
the
reduction
is
the
solution,
and
in
this
case
basically
the
the
proposed
open
space
is
more
or
less
the
front
yard,
an
area
about
14
feet
by
50
feet
next
slide.
So
now,
looking
at
commercial
property,
there
are
also
two
points.
The
first
point
is
that
there
are
many
cities,
actually
the
majority
of
cities
that
don't
require
open
space
for
commercial
projects.
M
We
do
we
require
open
space
today
and
in
the
proposed
scenario.
What
you'll?
What
you'll
see
is
this
red
bar
for
our
high
for
the
proposed
open
space
for
commercial
is
drastically
higher
than
today?
So,
what's
going
on?
What's
going
on?
Is
that
we've
created?
We've
made
a
very
creative
solution
in
order
to
address
stormwater,
so
we're
we're
using
open
space
as
a
to
create
a
secondary
benefit
for
a
creative
stormwater
solution.
M
Next
slide,
we've
talked
a
little
bit
about
this
and,
and
we
heard
a
whole
presentation
about
stormwater,
we
need
to
be
more
creative
in
how
we're
going
to
address
stormwater
and,
unfortunately,
under
today's
state
regulations.
Sites
like
these
that
eric
described
will
basically
never
treat
their
share
of
storm
water.
So
we
have.
We
think
what
we
think
is
a
very
good
solution.
M
Next
slide,
what
we're
proposing
is
that
larger
sites
that
are
an
acre
or
more
have
a
base
open
space
requirement
of
50
a
whole
half
of
their
parcel,
but
it's
it's
misleading
to
say
that
well
that
that
that
percentage
can
be
reduced
to
a
lower
lower
threshold
if
the
project
incorporates
stormwater
infrastructure.
M
So
when
you
look
at
that
at
face
value,
it
can
seem
like
a
very
large
reduction
up
to,
as
parent
was
saying,
it's
accurate
to
say
that
it's
up
to
a
90
reduction,
but
remember
that
in
this
case,
the
reduction.
The
goal
is
to
encourage
projects
to
make
the
reduction.
We
want
people
to
make
that
reduction
in
order
to
achieve
the
stormwater
benefit.
So
from
this
perspective,
having
projects
to
make
that
reduction
is
the
success.
M
I
only
have
two
more
slides
and
I'm
done
next
slide.
So
I
wanted
to
highlight
the
the
changes
that
occurred
as
a
result
of
the
open
space
task
force
and
I've
highlighted
in
in
blue
those
that
are
primarily
ufc
inspired
so
quickly.
I'll
just
highlight
some
of
these.
The
property
line
buffer
now
has
more
pedestrian
enhancements.
We
we
had
a
property
line
buffer
before
now.
M
We're
saying
that
open
space
cannot
exceed
50
hardscape,
but
it's
important
to
know
that
that
the
open
space
may
only
be
grass
it.
The
trees
are
not
required
in
any
of
these
open
spaces,
and
then
you
can
read
through
the
rest
of
the
the
the
lines
to
be
respectful.
Oh
sorry,
back
when
just
be
respectful
of
time,
I'll
just
highlight
this
last
one
which
I'm
most
proud
of,
and
I
think
ultimately
we
will.
M
M
A
M
A
Okay,
all
right!
Well,
that's
my
big
question
susie,
who
is
first
patrick.
H
B
So
to
to
pick
up
on
on
amy's
point,
it
would
be
a
fair
statement
to
say
that
if
there
was
no
open
space
at
all,
in
other
words,
if
there
was
no
7
11
4
developments,
at
least
for
an
acre
or
more,
would
still
be
required
to
adhere
to
the
tree.
Canopy
preservation
ordinance,
correct
statement,
yes
and
another
question
which
probably
would
be
directed
to
chris
collins
or
ben
in
relation
to
infill
development
or
development
that
is
less
than
an
acre.
B
K
So
projects
less
than
an
acre
could
still
contribute
to
the
protection
ordinance
if
they
meet
those
thresholds
of
being
a
new
building,
no
open
use
of
land
or
an
expansion
of
a
certain
size.
O
Worked
on
the
tree,
canopy
protection
ordinance
together,
and
so
I
I
think
I
know
where
he's
going,
and
I
think
I
know
the
genesis
of
your
question,
patrick
so,
yes,
they
would
absolutely
apply
to
all
sites
assuming
they're,
not
just
like
redevelop
a
redevelopment
of
an
existing
building.
O
I
think
the
distinction
between
the
acre,
I
think
that
may
relate
to
the
class
c
of
tree
canopy
preservation.
That's
in
that
ordinance.
I
think
there
are
different
standards
based
on
the
size.
Well,.
D
Yes,
the
subcommittee
stuff
for
what
was
going
on
with
that
was
great.
It
needed
to
be
done
and
videla
grabbed
the
ball
and
and
took
it
and
that's
very
encouraging.
It
was
the
best
part
of
this
whole
open
space
mess.
D
Heavily
leaning
and
some
of
the
conversations
with
the
on
the
development
side
were
to
the
point
were
laughable,
as
in
the
pollinators
and
and
the
birds
can
go
outside
the
city
to
get
their
trees
and
flowers
that
they
need
and
we
had
a
whole
load
of
unbelievable
responses
from
the
development
side.
We
also
had
very
smart
people
that
I've
worked
with
before
on
the
development
side,
but
I'm
hoping
that
parent
and
ed
speak
up
and
somebody
else
that
was
involved
in
this.
D
It
was
very
development,
heavily
leaning
and
that's
why
it
ended
up
being
the
way
it
is
for
me
on
everything
the
city
does
it's
one
size
fits
all.
I
know
it's
extremely
hard
to
change
an
ordinance
and
to
try
to
adapt
to
all
the
things
that
we
have
to
work
with,
but
trying
to
make
one
size
fits
all
in
an
ordinance.
Just
for
me
has
never
worked
on
any
ordinances
that
I've
worked
on
and
to
incentivize
storm
water.
It
had
to
be
an
open
space.
D
I
don't
know
why
we
couldn't
have
gotten
it
done
in
7-eleven
four,
but
other
people
smarter
than
me
said
we
could
not
incentivize
through
7-11-4,
so
it
had
to
be
done
through
open
space.
I
am
only
happy
with
the
subcommittee
stuff
that
came
through
this
and
I
sat
through
maybe
85
of
the
meetings
on
this.
So
that's
my
take
on
it.
A
Thanks
jen
next
was
ed
unless
somebody
wanted
to
respond
to
that,
but
go
ahead.
C
Yeah,
I
think
I'm
going
to
share
a
different
perspective
and
I
hope
I
don't
sound
like
I'm
rambling,
but
as
the
process
went
on,
I
I
became
less
engaged
with
the
working
group,
primarily
because
of
I
kind
of
hit
a
busy
bump
in
the
road,
but
also
the
the
larger
working
group
expressed
concern
that
we
had
too
many
voices
representing
the
urban
forestry
commission,
and
there
was
a
consensus
rule
in
play.
That
would
you
know,
having
having
more
than
one
rep
would
kind
of
throw
things
off
kilter.
C
But
my
my
understanding
going
into
this
process
was
the
overall
intent
of
the
process
was
to
reduce
open
space
requirements
to
encourage
infill
development
and
in
doing
so
take
advantage
of
some
stormwater
opportunities
and,
as
an
ecologist,
I
appreciate
encouraging
infill
development
as
opposed
to
ex
urban
sprawl
and
greenfield
development.
C
I
I
think
it's
it's
healthier
for
the
community
in
the
long
run,
particularly
if
you
have
canopy
protections
in
place
and
and
we're
moving
in
in
a
very
positive
direction
with
that
when
we
started
the
process,
we
we
had
four
major
objections
to
the
open
space
proposal
and,
and
those
objections
were
addressed,
I
wouldn't
say
that
we
had
a
happy
resolution
to
all
of
them,
but
but
they
are
addressed
and
and
the
the
the
stuff
that
that
apparent
listed
really
speaks
to.
C
In
my
opinion,
the
success
of
the
process,
because
what
we're
getting
is
what
was
intended
and
that's
a
reduction
in
open
space
requirements.
So
so
I
I
feel
like
an
opposing
voice
to
this.
C
I
I
think
that,
in
terms
of
the
urban
forestry
commission's
overall
overarching
goal,
which
is
to
improve
and
enhance
our
urban
tree
canopy,
we
can
accomplish
a
lot
more
with
the
canopy
amendment,
with
revisions
to
chapter
20,
by
adopting
a
comprehensive
urban
forest
master
plan
by
hiring
urban
forester
position
and
and
focusing
on
some
of
those
really
big
ticket
items
that
could
help
us
accomplish
our
goal.
While
we're
building
a
high
density
and
and
it's
a
doable
thing,
other
cities
with
high
density
have
good
urban
tree
canopy.
C
So
I'm
kind
of
from
the
position
that
I
you
know
I
want
to
support
the
city
and
what
they're
doing
with
storm
water.
C
I
I
recognize
the
need
to
encourage
infill
development,
and
I
I
don't
want
to
trample
on
the
credibility
of
this
group
in
opposing
this
open
space
ordinance,
because
I
don't
think
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
really
going
to
help
us
with
tree
canopy
that
much
so
that's
the
point
I
wanted
to
make,
and
and
it's
I
don't
mean
to
send
any
disrespect
for
the
hard
work
that
perrin
went
and
put
into
his
analysis.
A
F
F
The
problem
is
that
the
only
thing
that
this
policy
does
is
impact,
how
much
open
space
is
required
within
city
limits,
so
it,
in
other
words
it
does
nothing.
It
is
not
a
policy
about
urban
sprawl,
so
it
has
no
effect
on
urban
sprawl.
It's
just.
It
just
means
we're
getting
rid
of
open
space
within
city
limits
and
the
impacts
that
that
has
to
urban
canopy.
F
You
don't
fight
urban
sprawl
by
increasing
density
within
the
center
of
the
city,
because
they'll
just
keep
sprawling
out
of
the
city.
While
you
build
up
in
the
middle
of
the
city,
so
it's
not
a
zero-sum
game.
It's
it's
more
of
an
issue
of
where
does
regulation
apply,
and
in
this
case
the
regulation
only
applies
within
city
limits,
so
we
need
to
take
off
take
off
the
table.
The
idea
that
we
would
stop
urban
sprawl
by
increasing
density
within
city
limits,
because
that
is
not
true.
F
Secondly,
you
know
it's
good
to
hear
that
we're
all
in
agreement
that
you
know
what
this
proposal
is
about
is
getting
rid
of
open
space
and
increasing
urban
density,
which
you
have
to
get
rid
of
open
space.
To
do
that,
and
so
you
know,
vidilla
pointed
out
that
asheville's
standards
are
higher
than
other
cities
in
the
region
and
the
reduction
of
open
space
is
the
solution
in
his
words.
F
F
That's
why
we're
different
from
all
these
other
major
cities
throughout
the
region
and
why
we
stand
out
and
have
a
distinct
character,
and
so
you
know
the
idea
that
the
solution
is
to
get
rid
of
what
makes
us
unique
is
is
hard
to
swallow
from
my
perspective,
and
so
so
I
think
the
question
before
the
urban
forestry
commission
is
not
whether
or
not
we
like
urban
sprawl
or
we
want
to
fight
urban
sprawl.
It's
about
what
impact
will
this
proposal
have
on
the
urban
canopy?
F
We
are
the
urban
forestry
commission
to
say
that
you
know
the
amount
of
open
space
in
city
limits
being
drastically
reduced
in
some
cases
by
up
to
90
or
100
percent
in
the
case
of
paying
fee
in
lieu,
of
course,
is
not
going
to
have
an
impact
on
urban
canopy
is
just
wrong.
I
mean
we
know
it's
wrong.
F
We
know
that
it's
that
we
need
open
space
to
have
urban
canopy,
and
so
the
question
before
us
is
not
whether
or
not
we
like
stormwater
provisions
that
are
in
there.
If
we
like
the
tree
planting
standards
that
got
developed
there,
were
concessions
made
that
we
won
through
this
process
regarding
the
river
arts,
open
space
and
on
city-owned
property
and
the
tree
planting
standards
etc.
F
But
the
question
is
not
whether
or
not
we
got
something
out
of
the
process
or
if
we
might
lose
credibility
in
other
issues
by
fighting
on
this
issue.
The
question
before
us
is:
what
do
we
think
the
impact
of
this
proposal?
The
substance
of
this
proposal
would
be
on
the
canopy
of
asheville
and
based
on
our
analysis,
of
what
the
impact
of
this
proposal
will
be,
what
we
know
it
will
be
on
the
urban
canopy
of
asheville.
Do
we
support
or
oppose
it?
Do
we
think
we're
better
off
with
the
law
as
it
currently
stands?
F
The
issues
clear
and
I'd
like
to
keep
everybody
focused
on
that
issue
of
the
impact
of
the
drastic
reduction
of
open
space
on
the
urban
canopy,
and
with
that
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
make
my
motion-
and
we
can
continue
discussion
after
that.
But
I
just
don't
want
to
wait
any
longer
to
bring
this
motion
to
you.
F
F
All
right,
so
I
think
so
can
someone
say
out
loud
to
me
if
you
can
see
my
my
motion
here.
F
Thank
you
sharon,
so
I
have.
I
have
slightly
revised
this
motion
from
the
condition
it
was
in
when
I
put
it
on
the
agenda
because
to
tone
down
the
tone
and
to
highlight
some
of
the
concessions
that
we
obtained
through
the
process,
and
I
want
to
go
ahead
and
present
it
to
you
now
so
after
we
unanimously
opposed
the
open
space
amendment
and
recommended
four
changes
there
too.
F
Back
in
august
of
last
year,
we
worked
extensively
on
this
task
force
throughout
2021
and,
of
course,
throughout
2020,
with
by
dilla
one
on
one
since
january
of
2020.
In
pursuit
of
these
policy
priorities,
we
got
some
concessions,
there's
there's
the
new
tree
planning
standards
and
tree
care
standards,
as
we've
discussed,
as
well
as
the
tightening
of
development
standards
on
city
property
in
the
rad
along
the
river.
F
However,
all
four
of
our
key
priorities
for
changing
this
amendment
since
august
of
2020
were
rejected
and
failed
on
balance.
So
here's
my
point
on
balance.
This
time
were
on
the
open
space.
Amendment
only
grew
progressively
more
damaging
to
the
cause
of
protecting
asheville's
urban
canopy,
as
I've
presented
already.
F
The
open
space
amendment
poses
a
more
significant
threat
to
asheville's
urban
canopy
today
than
it
did
in
the
last
time
that
it
came
before
review
before
the
ufc.
The
planning
and
zoning
committee
and
city
council
and
the
status
quo
is
preferable
to
the
open
space
amendment
from
an
urban
canopy
protection
perspective.
F
F
It
would
eliminate
the
uniqueness
of
this
town
and
turn
us
into
a
charlotte
in
the
mountains,
because
a
significant
reduction
in
the
amount
of
open
space
in
nashville
would
have
a
tremendous
impact
on
the
total
tree.
Canopy
coverage
within
the
city
of
asheville.
The
urban
forestry
commission
has
an
interest
in
preventing
the
open
space
amendments
ratification.
F
So
I
am
moving
for
us
to
vote
that
the
asheville
urban
forestry
commission
opposes
the
open
space.
Amendment
proposed
news,
section,
711
4,
for
the
reasons
previously
noted,
and
that
the
urban
forestry
commission
urges
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
and
the
city
council
to
reject
the
open
space
amendment.
F
A
A
We
will
wait
on
a
vote
to
continue
discussion
so
steve
hendricks.
L
L
So
we
this
is
a
big
question
mark
hanging
over
this.
It
seems
like
I
would
be
inclined
to
support
the
new
open
space
amendment
if,
if
that
situation
were
resolved
or
we
had
some
indication
of
where
that's
going-
okay,
that's
it
for.
A
A
It's
true,
patrick.
B
B
Given
the
fact
that,
as
has
been
pointed
out,
that
if
there
is
no
open
space
whatsoever
and
the
tree,
canopy
preservation
ordinance
would
still
apply
to
these
projects.
B
If
you
take
the
premise
that
open
space
does
not
automatically
compute
into
trees,
it
could
be
grass,
it
could
be
other
greenery.
B
I
can't
support
the
premise
that
the
open
space
amendment
before
us
would
drastically
reduce
the
or
the
the
potentially
drastically
reduce
the
urban
tree
canopy
for
the
city
of
asheville.
B
B
It
would
be
making
significant
amendments
to
the
tree
canopy
preservation,
ordinance
that
would
strengthen
that
ordinance's
ability
to
preserve
more
trees,
whether
it's
putting
into
that
ordinance.
B
Language
that
would
protect
certain
trees,
heritage,
trees,
historic
trees
on
either
public
or
private
land.
B
And
it
would
be
getting
into
the
the
tree.
Canopy
preservation
ordinance
an
amendment
that
would
add
to
the
categories
in
which
the
urban
canopy
or
the
tree,
the
tree
canopy
requirements
apply
to
urban
centers,
which
would
require
a
20,
a
minimum
of
25
percent
tree
canopy
for
those
high
dense
developments.
B
It
would
also
get
city
council
approval
on
the
both
the
udo
changes
and
changes
in
the
standard
and
specifications
manual
significantly,
if
not
profound
improvements
in
the
tree
planning
standards.
B
That
would
help
sustain
the
longevity
of
the
trees
that
we
would
plant
in
the
future
so
that
they
grow
up
big
and
strong
and
have
a
wider.
A
larger
tree
canopy
would
also
be
revising
completely
the
chapter
20
that
deals
with
tree
regulations
on
public
property
and
putting
that
ordinance
into
the
21st
century
in
making
changes
that
would
improve
and
enhance
the
tree
canopy
on
public
land.
B
Now,
paren
and
I
understand
his
his
position
on
this-
wants
us
to
just
consider
open
space
and
what
has
transpired
from
what
what
what
we
have
existing
to
what
the
tree,
the
open
space
task
force
started
with
and
where
we
arrive,
where,
where
we
are
today
and
consider
nothing
else,.
B
I
strongly
disagree
with
that
narrow
focus,
and
I
do
so
for
a
number
of
reasons,
and
one
of
which
has
to
do
with
our
credibility
in
in
many
ways
which
all
enumerate.
B
And
the
concern
that,
if
our
credibility
is
damaged,
then
that
is
going
to
affect
our
ability
to
achieve
these
other
objectives
that
will
have
a
far
greater
impact
on
our
urban
tree
canopy
than
the
reduction
in
in
open
space.
B
B
If-
and
I
think
the
remarks
in
the
in
the
motion
that
the
status
quo
is
preferable
than
what
we
have
today
in
both
the
comparative
analysis
that
was
presented
to
us
and
in
the
motion,
it
starts
out
with
the
premise
that
the
four
things
that
issues
that
the
urban
forestry
commission
brought
up
in
august
of
2020
were
rejected
by
the
city
and
did
not
make
it
any
of
them
did
not
make
it
into
the
the
the
current
open
space
amendment
before
us.
A
I'm
sorry
to
we
are
almost
all
the
way
out
of
time
and
I'm
really
sorry.
I
know
that
some
city
staff
have
to
leave
at
4.,
so
I
don't
mean
to
cut
you
off,
but
if
you
could
maybe
wrap
it
up
soon.
I
appreciate
it.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
well,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
not
gonna,
go
through
the
four
things
in
depth,
other
than
to
say
that
they
were
resolved
ultimately,
and
they
are
in
some
ways
reflected
in
the
in
the
open
space
amendment
that
currently
exists.
B
Unfortunately,
without
going
through
that
in
detail,.
B
You
know
I
I
I
I
don't
know,
I'm
just
not
comfortable
with
the
way
that
the
amendment
is
worded
like
I
said
I
don't
I
I
think
it's
incomplete.
B
I
think
it's
there's
some
inaccuracies
in
there
and
the
process
was
a
process
of
consensus
and
we
went
in
and
did
the
best
to
articulate
and
get
and
make
improvements
in
the
open
space
amendment
that
we
could
some
that
we
were
successful
in
some.
We
were
unsuccessful
in
others,
but
the
consensus
was
the
consensus
and
I'm
just
concerned
how
the
the
wording
of
the
amendment
and
if
we
reject
the
open
space
amendment
without
an
end
game
in
mind,
how
that's
going
to
be
perceived
particularly
by
the
city
council.
A
Thank
you.
I
think
we
understand
where
you
were
going
with
that,
at
least
I
do
so.
If
there's
any
questions,
we
can
ask
them.
Sharon.
D
Real
quick,
my
eloquent
friend
patrick,
when
I
was
listening
to
you,
you
assume
we
will
get
significant
changes
in
urban
center
chapter
20
or
the
specific
specifications
design.
I
am
not
so
optimistic.
D
I
know
we
will
see
changes,
but
when
we
see
the
changes
I'd
like
to
see,
I'm
not
quite
sure
that
that's
why
I
got
involved
in
open
space
in
the
beginning,
and
then
you
stated,
our
credibility
could
be
damaged
from
opposing
what
an
ordinance
change
and
or
how
we
are
are
using
our
our
verbiage
with
council.
I
don't
think
our
credibility
be
damaged.
D
I
know
that
I
caved
without
saying
anything,
because
the
battle
was
just
too
great
with
the
development
side
of
things.
So
did
I
reach
consensus.
On
my
end,
no,
I
did
agree
with
some
things
that
I
wish
I
didn't
agree
with,
but
I
did
do
that.
I'm
embarrassed
I
did,
but
I
did
and
also
I
wanted
to
state
on
increasing,
affordable
housing.
D
We
will
probably
increase
density
with
housing,
but
it's
not
guaranteed
it's
going
to
be
affordable
and
a
voucher
system
is
in
in
limbo,
affordable
at
ami,
so
we
will
increase
density
with
housing,
but
I
wanted
to
say
real
quick
that
I
was
in
some
disagreement
with
you.
My
dear
friend,
I
agree
to
disagree
with
you
in
some
instances,
so
thank
you.
A
Thanks
parent
just
a
moment,
I'm
going
to
take
just
a
moment
to
address
a
couple
things
as
well.
It's
it's
still
not
completely
clear
to
me
that
a
reduction
in
open
space
will
automatically
decrease
canopy
cover,
because
we
know
that
open
space
has
never
been
required
to
have
trees
on
it.
It's
often
been
the
most
marginalized
land,
sometimes
with
trees.
A
Sometimes
without-
and
I
do
like
you
know-
and
I
really
like
the
work
you
did
perrin
with
the
side-by-side
analysis,
because
it
was
not
clear
to
me
what
the
incentives
were
and
how
they
were
laid
out.
So
I
really
appreciate
that
it
did
clarify
a
lot
of
detail,
but
for
me
it
clarified
some
of
the
really
good
aspects
of
this
ordinance
in
applying
incentives.
A
That
would
not
be
achieved
in
other
ways
and
I'm
not
seeing
any
discussion
of
what
these
other
ways
might
be
if
they're
not
here,
so
I
just
wanted
to
put
my
two
cents
in
with
that
part
there.
But
perrin
you
had
your
hand
up,
so
you
can
go
ahead.
F
Well,
it's
always
hard
to
respond
to
unspecified
allegations
of
misrepresenting
the
facts,
patrick,
but
I
think
that
your
concerns
my
way.
The
way
that
I
read
your
concerns
about
what
you
call
the
inaccuracies
in
the
language
of
the
motion
amount
to
a
difference
in
the
way
that
you
and
I
would
describe
the
same
facts-
and
you
know
in
in
a
motion
on
an
ordinance
of
this
scale.
With
this
many
details
to
deal
with.
There
is
no
complete
analysis.
F
So
you
know,
patrick,
you
have
a
different
perspective
on
this
issue
than
I
do,
and
so
you
would
have
written
a
different
analysis
that
would
have
emphasized
different
facts
and
different
aspects
of
the
proposal,
and
so
of
course,
I
I
wrote
a
different
one
than
you
would
have,
and
the
purpose
in
bringing
about
the
details
that
I
did
focusing
on
the
details
that
I
did
was
to
say
there's
a
relationship
between
open
space
and
urban
canopy.
F
We
know
that
that's
going
to
have
a
significant
impact
on
urban
canopy,
so
we
don't
have
to
it's.
We
don't
have
to
say
that
every
loss
of
open
space
will
lost
an
urban
canopy
to
say
that
a
systematic
loss
of
open
space
across
the
entire
city
is
certain
to
bring
about
significant
loss
of
urban
canopy.
F
We
do
know
that
for
a
fact,
and
so
I
I
think
we
can
get
a
little
too
too
detail-oriented
in
looking
at
that
issue
and
thereby
come
to
the
wrong
conclusion
about
the
relationship
between
open
space
and
urban
canopy.
So
so
I
think
that
that's
something
that
we
can
generally
agree
on,
that
there
will
be
some
significant
loss
of
urban
canopy
with
a
systematic,
significant
loss
of
open
space
across
the
city
in
in
many
places.
F
So
so
that's
you
know
that's
the
long
and
the
short
of
it.
I
think
I
think.
Obviously
we
have
different
perspectives,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
the
facts
are
that
asheville
is
losing
canopy
rapidly
and
that
this
is
a
plan
that
would
accelerate
that
loss
due
to
you
know,
an
accelerated
elimination
of
open
space
standards
and
that's
why.
F
This
proposal
and
that's
why
I
ask
everyone
to
vote
with
me
to
reject
it.
I
don't
think
I
think
the
last
point
I'll
make.
We
have
a
binary
choice.
We
don't
get
to
say
you
know
hey,
we
want.
We
want
to
support
it,
but
with
these
changes,
city
council
will
have
a
binary
choice
when
it
comes
before
council
to
either
ratify
it
or
reject
it,
and
they
don't
get
to
make
changes.
F
So
so
we
have
to
give
a
recommendation
either
yey
or
nay,
and
we
don't
get
to
sort
of
get
into
the
weeds
and
in
the
nuance
and
say,
but
we
want
changes
and
the
the
idea
that
you
know
sitting
this
is
in
the
bag.
On
city
council
is
not
clear
to
me.
I
was
speaking
with
kim
the
other
day
and
heard
that
the
mayor
actually
made
some
skeptical
comments
about
the
open
space.
F
Amendment
at
a
recent
city
council
meeting
doesn't
mean
she's
opposed
to
it,
but
she
raised
questions
about
whether
it
was
really
still
a
viable
thing
that
was
still
going
to
be
happening.
So
so
I
don't
think
it's
in
the
bag,
necessarily
that
city
council
is
going
to
approve
this
and
so
opposing.
It
may
actually
put
us
in
alignment
with
the
majority
on
city
council,
and
I
think
that
that's
important
to
note
as
well.
So
that's
what
I've
got.
B
Just
as
a
point
of
personal
privilege
to
clarify
parents
write
that
he
and
I
have
different
interpretations
of
this-
I
think
that's
healthy.
I
respect
his
interpretation
and
and
admire
all
the
work
that
he's
put
into
into
it,
and
I
wasn't
implied
that
he
intentionally
worded
the
motion
to
include
any
inaccuracies.
B
I
just
think
and
without
going
into
detail,
which
I
couldn't
do.
I
just
think
that
it
doesn't
tell
the
complete
story,
and
I
understand
that
he
his
position
on
balance-
and
I
don't
disagree
with
him-
that
if
you
put
a
weight
on
reducing
the
drastic
reduction
of
open
space
and
you
put
the
weight
on
what
isn't
in
the
open
space
amendment,
there
is
a
major
imbalance
there.
I
don't
disagree
with
that.
B
It's
just
a
matter
of
whether
that
imbalance
is
enough,
given
everything
that
we've
been
told
to
oppose
the
open
space
amendment.
So
thank
you.
C
Yeah
at
the
risk
of
sounding
a
little
bit
abrasive
just
because
someone
says
something's
a
fact
doesn't
mean
that
it's
so
and
and
I've
worked
with
many
many
communities,
not
at
the
conceptual
level,
but
on
the
ground
that
that
don't
have
any
open
space
standards
at
all,
but
they
have
very
good
canopy
protection,
ordinances
and,
and
so
the
fact
that,
if
we're
reducing
open
space
requirements,
we're
going
to
reduce
canopy
may
not
necessarily
be
true.
So
I
just
wanted
to
caution.
The
group
that
you
know
pax
in
this
day
of
the
internet.
S
This
is
kim
I
just
wanted
to
offer
some
clarification.
Members
of
council
in
our
check-ins,
which
are
not
public,
are
not
agenda.
Do
not
have
meanings
are
having
conversations
about
the
timing
of
when
this
could
be
on.
Our
agenda
is
currently
penciled
in
for
december
14th,
but
I
think
it
would
be
inaccurate
to
reflect
any
of
my
colleagues
voices
in
a
public
meeting
where
they
did
not
voice
them.
A
I
appreciate
that,
thank
you
all
right,
which
actually
brings
the
point
that
if
this
is
not
going
to
pnz
tomorrow
and
it
is
not
going
to
city
council
until
december,
we
actually
have
time
we
are.
We
can
vote
on
this.
We
can
table
this
motion
if
we
want
to
continue
our
discussion
because
of
the
late
hour.
So
we
do
have
some
options
with
this
group,
but
if
no
one
wants
to
take
that
up
all
right
council
in
january,
pnz
in
december,
is
the
likely
timeline.
A
So
if
anybody
would
like
to
table
this
for
further
discussion,
I
guess
is
that
my
role.
Do
I
make
that
decision
or
do
we
take
that
up
as
a
group?
I'm
not
sure,
but
we
could
continue
the
discussion
or
we
can
continue
to
a
vote.
So
parent.
F
Well,
I
suggest
that
we
continue
to
vote.
I
don't
think
that
there's
much
to
be
gained
through
delay.
In
this
conversation,
I
think
people
have
an
idea
of
where
they
stand
and
I
think
we
can.
F
I
don't
think
that
anyone's
mind
is
really
right
for
being
changed,
either
from
all
the
comments
that
have
been
made
from
people
who
have
expressed
opinions,
so
I
think
that
there's
value
in
putting
down
lane
making
a
record
of
our
position
on
this,
and
so
rather
than
rather
than
take
it
to
the
last
minute
and
delay
just
just
because
we
have
more
time.
I
think
that
the
question
is
right
to
be
decided
on.
A
B
A
B
C
L
A
E
A
E
My
vote
was
the
a
in
favor
of
the
of
the
proposition.
A
Okay,
then,
that
motion
does
not
pass,
which
means
that
we
still
need
to
clarify
our
position.
Based
on
our
previous
motion
to
city
council,
I
believe
I
don't
know
if
we
have
to
take
this
up,
but
it
was
from
whenever
we
first
discussed
this
in
2018
or
19,
where
we
voted
to
oppose
it.
Do
we
need
to
have
a
motion
to
either
if
anybody
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to,
I
don't
know
what
do
you
say?
Sorry,
it's
getting
late.
C
Since
we
have
time
before,
pnz
is
picking
this
next
meeting,
maybe
we
can
take
a
little
time
to
regroup
and
and
and
think
about,
what's
necessary
in
terms
of
emotion
to
address
our
opinion
on
the
open
space
amendment.
L
All
right,
I
think,
that's
a
good
idea.
I
think
we
could
entertain
an
alternate
motion.
A
Yes,
we
can
perhaps
all
right.
Well,
then
we
will
close
this
discussion
on
the
open
space
amendment
and
task
force.
A
I
do
want
to
say
again
that,
despite
this
disagreement
in
our
groups
that
I
am
personally
very
thankful
to
the
city
for
bringing
us
on
to
the
task
force
and
to
the
task
force,
members,
parent
and
ed
and
patrick-
for
the
work
you've
done
and
sharon,
even
though
you
weren't
with
ufc
work
on
it,
but
we
really
did
accomplish
a
lot
again,
even
if
we're
not
in
agreement
in
this
moment
and
the
subcommittee
on
planting
requirements
was
also
a
big
success.
So
we
will
continue
this
next
month
for
more
discussion.
A
If
anybody
wants
to
make
a
plan
for
that
all
right,
so
we
are
really
late,
but
that's
okay.
We
have
a
little
more
on
the
agenda.
If
you
all
can
stay.
The
next
is
the
urban
forest
master
plan
dawn.
Are
there
any
updates
from
greenworks
on
the
work
there
nope
all
right,
the
tree,
canopy
preservation,
ordinance
and
the
fee
and
lou
program?
A
So
our
next
meeting
will
be
hopefully
before
december.
So
we
can
bring
some
more
information
to
this
group.
They
may
have
any
questions
on
that
or
that
process
next
is
the
working
group
updates,
the
policy
working
group,
ed
and
others
with
chapter
20.
C
We
have
no
updates
this
month,
patrick
and
I
are
going
to
get
our
heads
together
in
the
next
week
or
so
and
and
work
out
our
next
steps
on
it.
B
Patrick,
the
only
update
is
that
we
are
working
on
a
presentation
to
give
to
the
city
council,
hopefully
in
december,
and
that's
our
main
priority
right
now
other
otherwise.
There
are
no
other
updates.
A
All
right
to
that
point,
I
did
request
that
we'd
be
put
on
the
agenda
as
soon
as
possible
with
city
council,
but
I
haven't
heard
back
from
the
mayor
so
kim
I
don't
know,
maybe
I'll
reach
out
to
you
and
we
can
see
if
we
can
at
least
hear
either
way.
If
we'll
be
able
to
have
time.
That
would
be
helpful.
A
Last
piece
there
is
collaboration
with
other
boards
and
commissions.
I've
been
invited
to
sacees
subcommittee
working
group
or,
as
they
call
it,
a
subcommittee
on
climate
action.
Their
next
meeting
is
this
friday,
and
so
I'm
going
to
give
them
an
overview
of
our
budget
requests,
sort
of
a
mini
presentation.
A
It's
not
going
to
be
very
long,
but
my
goal
with
that
is
to
see
if
stacy
would
be
able
to
bring
to
their
whole
group
a
motion
to
support
the
budget
requests
for
the
urban
forester
in
the
urban
forest
master
plan
as
there's
a
lot
of
correlation
with
their
climate
work
and
so
I'll.
Let
you
know
how
that
turns
out
we're
hoping
to
get
other
boards
and
commissions
to
either
sign
on
to
our
letter
of
recommendation
that
we
said
to
city
council
or
create
their
own
that
have
those
same
requests
and
recommendations.
B
B
Are
you
going
to
get
in
contact
with
the
storm
water
task
force
and
ask
for
a
couple
meetings
with
the
urban
forestry
budget
group
work
working
group.
A
Well,
based
on
the
discussion
with
ann,
there
will
be
in
communication
once
they
have
their
next
meeting
and
see
because
they're
not
totally
decided
on
their
next
steps,
so
yeah,
but
I'm
in
communication
with
anne
and
so
once
they've
decided
what
their
next
steps
are.
Then
we'll
see
what
else
we
can
do
to
collaborate
there.
A
E
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
somehow
make
clear
on
the
website.
It
says
that
we
do
not
have
a
december
meeting
that
we
skip
from
here
to
january
yep.
E
A
B
B
A
All
right
so
the
last
bit
here
is
the
meeting
schedule
for
this
group.
We
touched
on
it
last
month,
but
basically
the
decision
is
that
we
will
have
our
meeting
in
december
because
we're
at
the
beginning
of
the
month
in
december,
but
we
will
not
have
our
regular
meeting
in
january
because
it
falls
like
right
after
new
year's
when
city
staff
is
not
available.
A
What
I
propose
is
that
we
have
our
annual
retreat
toward
the
middle
or
end
of
january,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
get
some
feedback
or
hear
how
everybody
felt
about
that
scheduling.
A
A
Last
thing
I
want
to
offer
was:
we
normally
in
december,
have
a
get
together
like
an
informal
like
lunch
kind
of
thing,
and
I
wanted
to
see
if
anyone
wanted
to
do
that
and
in
person
get
together
for
the
end
of
the
year,
so
be
interested.
I
know
with
covet
a
lot
of
people
want
to
stay
behind
the
scenes,
but
I
wanted
to
offer
it
because
we
traditionally
have
that.
I
know
other
boards
and
commissions
are
having
their
annual
get
together.
L
Could
you
propose
some
dates,
maybe
send
out?
I
I
don't
know
I
don't
have
my.
A
A
C
A
I
A
Well,
I'll
put
it
out
with
some
options
for
dates
and
times
to
put
that
together
as
well,
so
all
right,
which
brings
us
to
new
business,
so
membership
and
elections.
We
do
have
two
terms
that
expire
at
the
end
of
2021.
A
A
So
I
want
to
take
just
a
brief
minute
to
say
that
how
much
we
appreciate
the
work
that
steve
has
done
as
the
former
chair
of
the
ufc,
and
I
want
to
highlight
that,
under
his
role
as
chair,
we
accomplished
the
gap.
Analysis,
the
canopy
analysis,
the
tree
protection
ordnance.
Amendment
has
been
an
incredible
amount
of
work
and
success
that
we've
had
with
steve
and
very
sorry.
I
think
he
won't
be
with
us,
but
the
posting
has
gone
out
for
a
new
member.
A
So
if
anyone
has
someone
in
mind,
encourage
them
to
apply,
and
by
the
end
of
the
year,
we'll
have
those
applications
to
go
to
city
council
with
a
recommendation
for
january.
So.
L
C
L
Just
have
a
good
working
team,
you
know
just
you
know,
we've
gotten
put
together
and
let's
hope
we
can.
You
can
continue
that
in
the
future.
C
L
C
L
A
Well,
thank
you,
steve
and
then
patrick
and
I
will
have
an
opportunity
to
review
the
applications.
But
again,
if
you
guys
have
a
recommendation,
let
us
know
if
you
know
someone
who
will
be
applying
all
right
and
then.
A
Lastly,
the
annual
report
I'll
be
putting
that
together
I'll
get
some
input
from
patrick,
but
if
anyone
had
anything
specific
that
you
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
miss
on
the
annual
report
feel
free
to
email
that
to
me
and
I'll
be
putting
that
together
for
the
january
deadline
with
the
city
all
right
anything
I
missed
anybody
have
any
last-minute
words
all
right.
The
updates
are
available
in
the
meeting
minutes
for
the
tree
protection
task
force.
Otherwise
I
need
a
motion
to
adjourn.
B
C
B
A
A
Yes,
dawn
phone
call
bye
and
I
vote
I
so
that
we
can
adjourn,
but
thank
you
very
much.
Everybody
for
a
good
meeting,
we'll
see
you
next
month
in
december
for
a
regular
meeting.
Thank
you
have
a
good
day.