2026-09-23 - Tree Ordinance Review Committee

00:06Okay, call to order the tree ordinance

00:09review meeting. Um, hi everybody.

00:13>> Hello.

00:14>> Um,

00:18would

00:21I would like to actually step down as

00:23chair and nominate Lloyd Singleton in

00:25order to be a more effective team.

00:33make a motion or anything.

00:35>> Is that his motion?

00:37>> I second.

00:40Any discussion?

00:42I'm happy to do it.

00:44All right. [clears throat]

00:49>> All [clears throat] in favor?

00:51All in favor?

00:53Hi

00:56>> Rhonda.

00:59You have a vote.

01:05No problem.

01:09Do you do you uh do you vote to change

01:12the chair from Robin to

01:15[snorts]

01:16>> to Lloyd?

01:20Okay. Thanks, Rhonda.

01:23Oh, okay. Motion passed. Anybody? Nobody

01:26opposed. So, motion pass. So, Lloyd,

01:28thank you for uh for doing this and uh

01:32Robin, thank you for volunteering

01:33previously and uh look forward to

01:35continuing to work with you, Robin. So,

01:38the tree ordinance review commission

01:40committee is a committee created by the

01:43Wilmington Tree Commission. Members of

01:45the committee have volunteered to

01:46analyze the current tree ordinance and

01:49recommend amendments to the land

01:51development code in effort to improve

01:53canopy quality and increase tree

01:56retention in new development and

01:58redevelopment across the city. This

02:01moment to introduce staff. We have Sally

02:03Pigpen who's the assistant director of

02:06asset and property management. Linda

02:08Pinker, director of planning and

02:10development. Travis Henley, community

02:14planning manager, and Haley Hopkins,

02:17planner, community planning. Thank you

02:19staff for being here.

02:21>> We also have uh Todd Broadwalker who's

02:23on planner three in our development

02:24review section and Brian Chambers who

02:26stepped away but will be back. Who is

02:28our honey?

02:31I hadn't seen you because Tom's too

02:33wide.

02:35[laughter]

02:39And then commissioners

02:41that are on the committee, please

02:42introduce yourselves. I'm Lloyd

02:44Singleton,

02:45>> Tom Bolan,

02:46>> Susie,

02:51>> Robin,

02:54and then Rhonda.

02:57>> Hey Rhonda. I'm Rhonda.

03:00Great.

03:03So to first step would be a motion to

03:06approve the minutes from the August 26

03:10meeting

03:12which was in your um packet.

03:16[clears throat]

03:17>> I make a motion to approve the August 26

03:20uh committee meeting minutes.

03:26>> Second.

03:27>> All in favor say I. I I any oppose?

03:31>> I the minutes are approved. Thank you.

03:36Next, we have a presentation that staff

03:38is working.

03:40You would have the two minute public

03:42comment right now.

03:44>> I don't think we have any public on Oh,

03:47except for Isabelle. Um, I was

03:50suggesting that we um, if anybody from

03:54the public wants to make any comments,

03:56we have a public comment period at the

03:58beginning.

04:00>> I feel I I've submitted our our

04:03feedback. So, um, at this time I'll

04:06stand down uh, and I'm here as a I'm

04:11here for questions as they come if there

04:13are any. Okay.

04:15>> Thank you.

04:17Thank you. So, um, yeah, if we could see

04:20this presentation that you all put

04:22together, I think it's it's wonderful.

04:26[clears throat]

04:35[sighs]

04:36Just trying to share it.

04:40Um,

04:54everyone can see it.

05:05All right. Do you guys mind if I stay

05:06right here? Okay. No, we're here.

05:10I'm just going to kick us off. Um, so we

05:12didn't get this last time, but really

05:14the goal of this presentation is to kind

05:16of walk back through your timeline at

05:18the end. That's what we'll close with,

05:20but also go over the initial amendment

05:22ideas that staff has thought through and

05:24that you guys have already shared with

05:26us. Um, just to kind of kick off what's

05:28existing, what's the broad idea, and

05:30then prioritize based on what you hear

05:32today, what you would like to pursue.

05:34Um, and then at your October 14th

05:36meeting, when you hear from your subject

05:38matter experts, that can help you refine

05:41your prioritization, maybe add some new

05:43ideas, um, and define your path by the

05:45end of October. This might work.

06:00Just went over the calendar agenda for

06:02today.

06:04So, some neat ideas. You guys have

06:05talked already several times about this

06:07right tree, right place idea of making

06:10sure that our um recommended fancy lists

06:13are specific to site constraints, soil

06:16quality, the aesthetics that they're

06:18looking for, but are still native and

06:20are the right fit for the right piece.

06:22Um, currently our lists are divided by

06:25kind of where they're being planted. So,

06:27street yards, parking, and bumpers. Um,

06:30but there is potential to make more

06:31specific versions of these that are more

06:34sight specific.

06:37And I will let you guys kind of decide

06:38if you'd like to discuss these as we

06:41talk about them or to discuss them at

06:43the end.

06:44>> I'm sorry I couldn't hear you.

06:46>> Uh, I would leave it up to you all if

06:48you would like to discuss as we talk

06:49about each item or if you want to talk

06:51about all of them at the end.

06:52>> I'd rather we hear the whole thing

06:54first.

06:57That's one initial u minimum tree save

06:59areas. Right now we're really about

07:01individual trees and their size and

07:04species. Um so one other way to do this

07:06would be to focus on saving groups of

07:10trees. That could be a percentage. It

07:12could be based on lot size. Um one thing

07:15to note here is we would need to create

07:18a plan for the sites that are being

07:19redeveloped or sites that are really

07:21small there. This would be kind of an if

07:23then um situation in our code.

07:29Um we can revisit the protected tree

07:31species and sizes. Um so we have our

07:34regulated significant and specimen trees

07:37um that are all different forms of

07:38protections for trees and they are

07:40specific species at specific sizes. So

07:43um it may be of interest to you all to

07:45relook at what species we're protecting

07:47and the sizes that they're beginning to

07:49protected at.

07:59And we could look to create more

08:01flexibility in our critical roof zone

08:03standards. Currently, it's 1.25 ft for

08:07every inch of front diameter. Um, and

08:10you're not able to disturb more than 20%

08:13of that area. Um,

08:17this could look like allowing an

08:18arborist to define the CRZ for specific

08:21trees and predict potential health

08:23impacts um and help us better define

08:25encroachment where they can still save

08:27the tree um even when they're impacting

08:30more than 20%. This might create more

08:34flexibility in trees that are retained.

08:42Um, next you all shared an interest in

08:44rethinking kind of our exemption

08:45structure. Um, currently single dwelling

08:48and multi multiple dwelling lots of 1

08:50acre or less um, if they have a single

08:53family home are exempt from housing

08:55permits. Free permits are required for

08:58any commercial property properties in

09:00the historic district in flood zones or

09:02conservation areas and vacant

09:03residential lots. Um, one idea for this

09:07would be to require planting for new

09:09single family development based on lot

09:12size. So even if the large subdivision

09:14was divided, it would still require some

09:17base plantings.

09:20Or this could also look like tree save

09:22areas um in larger subdivisions.

09:31Um, we could look to create more

09:33flexibility in parking lot shading.

09:35Currently, tree requirements in parking

09:37lots are specifically based on shade,

09:40which is to mitigate urban heat created

09:42by all asphalt in parking lots, but this

09:44can result in smaller islands with one

09:46tree per island. Um, we could look into

09:49ways to preserve groups of trees through

09:51islands that better preserves the

09:53ecological value of a group of trees um

09:55and can help their survival rate.

10:03You came [clears throat] in front of my

10:03screen here. I'm sorry.

10:17>> Sure. So, um I did a review of the urban

10:20forest master plan um for

10:23recommendations

10:24uh of code revisions. So, I just listed

10:28some of the um the top ones that were in

10:32that document here. Um including

10:35revising, this is exactly what we're

10:37doing, revising codes and ordinances to

10:39strengthen protections for public trees

10:42and incentivize preservation on private

10:44property, establishing penalties for

10:46encroachment within the critical root

10:48zone, um requiring adherence to the

10:51ANA300 standards for best management

10:54practices.

10:56Um, I don't believe that ANCA300 is

10:58referenced in the code at the moment.

11:01Um, establish a formula for determining

11:04the monetary value of removed or damaged

11:06public trees. Um, developing an invasive

11:10species policy.

11:12Uh, and then um a revision of the

11:15technical standards and specifications

11:17manual um as as another um top

11:21recommendation coming out of the plan.

11:25And Tom had recommended that we take a

11:28look at that, which is great because

11:29this is our guiding document for our

11:31urban forestry program and um it was um

11:37completed by Davey Tree Service.

11:44>> That's kind of what we're starting with.

11:47um right tree right place minimum free

11:49save bar areas um revisiting tree

11:51species and sites that are protected

11:53flexibility in CRZ standards potentially

11:56rethinking exemptions and flexibility in

11:59parking lot standards and then things

12:00that have come directly out of the

12:02forestry master plan

12:05are there any in particular you guys

12:06would like to start off your discussion

12:08with

12:13>> some questions

12:15Let's do them in order.

12:18Have comments from committee members on

12:22right place. Could you take us back to

12:24that slide?

12:38Any thoughts on the [clears throat] the

12:40ideas that are proposed by staff yet?

12:43provide

12:46native tree species recommendations for

12:49specific site constraints, uses or

12:51aesthetic goals.

12:55Oh, I mean right tree right place. Um

12:59the big question is here um

13:06how do we determine

13:09the place? So, what I'm what I'm

13:12thinking about is

13:15um

13:18planting a tree, but we don't know what

13:19the soil type is or anything like that.

13:22Um, we could potentially be planting a

13:25tree that is um already uh has a higher

13:30uh rate of failure because we don't know

13:34what the place is like. Um and I guess

13:38that's my only concern here is not you

13:42know right place uh trying to determine

13:47uh what the place is before we determine

13:50that that is the right place.

13:52>> Well I think that's why the idea

13:53includes site constraints that would

13:56include soil types

13:58>> and amount of sun shade water that sort

14:01of thing. So I think right tree, right

14:04place is just a good title

14:06>> for the issue.

14:09>> I would say it would be kind of up to

14:11your creativity to decide how you want

14:14to categorize them. It could be by soil

14:17quality or volume. It could be other

14:19site constraints that you want to divide

14:21the list by. I think the more specific

14:25we are in

14:29um the wording of this I think it would

14:32only help the developer because for a

14:36landscape architect because if you're

14:37doing parking here's this is your school

14:42and you know like I have a spreadsheet

14:44you know that I use for my reasoning

14:48I need everything

14:51you know

14:52clay soil sun, you know, I I think that

14:57would be an easy way to do it.

15:03You know, just figure out what what our

15:06categories are, soil type, size,

15:12evergreen, deciduous, and we figure out

15:14what are those categories in your list.

15:17So then you're just going ahead, you

15:20know,

15:22clay soil. I mean, evergreen 20 foot

15:25high.

15:28>> Is that

15:30I think this is just the preliminary

15:34framework of what we need to fill in the

15:37blanks on, right? That's your

15:38recommendation.

15:40>> So, um, I I like the idea. I think

15:43that's appropriate. Um, and the idea of

15:47having a do not plant list is important,

15:51too.

15:53And I'm not familiar with the chapter

15:56six,

15:58landscaping the technical standards.

16:00>> That is where this list lives. So,

16:02>> speak up, please.

16:04>> That's where this list lives. It's

16:06actually not in the land development

16:08code. The land development code

16:09references this section of our technical

16:12standards.

16:13>> Okay. Is that something that's

16:14modifiable then?

16:16>> Yes.

16:16>> Okay.

16:19But my other question is is right tree,

16:22right place, does does that account for

16:26um

16:29you know shrubs? I mean

16:33>> understory stuff.

16:34>> Understory stuff. I think there would be

16:36some you could consider a waxy mer or

16:39yopan holly as tree or large shrub but I

16:43think

16:45I'm just I'm I'm just trying to make

16:47sure that we're focusing you know do we

16:50want to focus just on trees or the whole

16:54ecosystem.

16:58So the ecosystem is one of the things

16:59that I kind of feel strongly about

17:02because I feel like there's an

17:04opportunity for us um to

17:10um do these like pocket forests.

17:14part of that. But

17:16>> you know, maybe we're um

17:19when you talk about the minimum training

17:22the same like instead of just

17:25this is a live, we're taking everything

17:27out around it.

17:29>> This is a dog room. We're taking

17:31everything out around it. That maybe

17:34that's something that we can address.

17:38>> My voice is trailing off. I'm very hard

17:40of hearing. I'm sorry. problem with my

17:42hearing aids not working.

17:44>> So

17:44>> speak up.

17:45>> So when we talk about the right tree,

17:47right place and the minimum tree safe

17:50area,

17:51what I think would be something that

17:53would be important for us to address is

17:56not just saving that live oak, but the

18:01space around it and not just the

18:03critical root zone, but that's an

18:05environment that that has been

18:07established there. So if we have say a

18:10live oak that are other plantings around

18:13it and I just wanted to bring up like

18:16that pocket forest the idea of how you

18:19know having a pocket forest instead of

18:22just saving one tree

18:25>> you know.

18:25>> Yeah. So I mean is that covered under

18:28one of the other areas?

18:30>> It is okay. So

18:32>> so yeah.

18:33>> So the pocketfor is the I'm just

18:34thinking

18:35>> undisturbed area.

18:37I'm just thinking here do we al do we

18:40want to include shrubs and saying the

18:43right shrub in the right place too or

18:45just again I don't know just the thought

18:52>> Robin

18:54>> yeah I think shrubs are important which

18:56should be included

18:58>> maybe even vines

19:02>> all right well let's let's go on get

19:05through the

19:06>> presentation

19:07So our next area to talk about is the

19:11minimum three save area

19:14and I have a couple of comments there.

19:16Um

19:18number one um under the tree type

19:22magnolia

19:24are grouped with other flowering trees

19:27yet magnolia are actually a large

19:30specimen tree. Um, and I don't feel that

19:36the 4-in caliber is appropriate to make

19:39it a protected species for a magnolia

19:43magnolia Virginia anyway. Um, and I

19:46think we need to revisit some of these

19:49regulated tree types, this actual

19:52species.

19:54And then secondly, I'm concerned how

19:56does this compare to New Hover County's

20:00list of regulated trees? Um, and I think

20:04that would be a great assignment for

20:06maybe one of our committee members to

20:10check that out and let's make it easier

20:12for development to understand this if

20:16they're on one side of the city limit

20:17versus the other. See if we can't make

20:20it consistent.

20:27I didn't want to

20:29any other

20:32specific

20:34minimum tree area.

20:40On that point, I also wanted to say that

20:43I agree, sorry,

20:46that

20:48the chart that we have right now for

20:50minimum tree saved area and what we're

20:52saving, I think we should address that

20:54and be more specific in that

20:58>> because right now it's so general.

21:02>> What What is the minimum tree save area?

21:05>> It's on different thing. It's a it's a

21:06chart right here.

21:09It's not a percentage of area on site.

21:12It's an individual tree,

21:14>> right?

21:14>> Yes.

21:15>> Okay.

21:16>> And it's chart, but it's

21:18>> Yeah. I was thinking more of a area

21:20percentage area. So,

21:23>> I think the percentage area gets up the

21:25minimum tree area. I think the

21:27conversation right now about species is

21:29to my mind more falls under us

21:31revisiting what's in that table.

21:33>> Correct.

21:34>> Right. Right. [clears throat]

21:37So, so go back to the

21:40minimum tree save area.

21:43Do we have a minimum tree save area?

21:45But, but like you said, it's an

21:46individual species, individual trees.

21:50So, and it's based upon if it's a

21:52specimen or if it's a um I forget what

21:56the other ones are, but yeah.

21:59>> Yes. But like to Lloyd's point is like

22:02he a very valid magnolia is a specimen

22:05tree. It's not just a regular you know

22:11I think this chart we need to be much

22:13more specific

22:16>> and I think that we need to address this

22:18>> for sure.

22:19>> So the chart is actually on another

22:20page.

22:22>> If you go back

22:25[clears throat and cough]

22:26>> right there. Oh

22:27>> okay. Sorry.

22:31Is there ability for comments during

22:35this period

22:37from the public? If the answer is no,

22:40I'm totally fine.

22:41>> I think it should be held. Okay. This is

22:43discussion.

22:44>> Yeah, that's totally up to chair.

22:47>> I can't hear what anyone's saying.

22:49>> Could you all move closer? Really? Let's

22:53>> Lloyd, it's up to the chair if you would

22:55like to consider public comment during

22:58the meeting.

22:59>> Oh, absolutely. I would love to have

23:02public comment during the meeting. We

23:04have a great representative here, but if

23:07would you staff, please? I'm sorry I'm

23:10hard of hearing, but I we can get mics

23:13for future meetings.

23:14>> Yeah. And I was also gonna suggest since

23:16the question is about we're talking

23:18about the species of the truck but also

23:20about tree safe area. If staff could

23:22just go over what tree saved area

23:24currently exists in the code. Is it just

23:26the 15?

23:27>> It's easy because

23:28>> right no tree save area but there is the

23:31minimum of 15 trees that are required.

23:34>> Right. But it's it's it's just across

23:36the site a minimum number of trees per

23:39acid

23:41area need.

23:42>> Thank you.

23:44So let's have comments then please.

23:47>> Hi. Sorry. Now that we've all adjusted I

23:49barely remembered what I wanted to say.

23:51Um but uh in any case um I just wanted

23:54to point out that really what the issue

23:57that we have heard at the alliance from

23:59developers is that they are getting

24:00dinged for every 4inch magnolia that's

24:04coming up. And so because magnolia are

24:07grouped in with the other ornamental

24:10flowering trees, I think what developers

24:12would love to see is if a magnolia was

24:14perhaps listed in terms of a specimen

24:17tree, but perhaps not at a lower DBH for

24:21a regulated tree type. I'm just saying

24:24what I what we have heard from the

24:26development community is that that is um

24:29uh incredibly costly when the magnolia

24:32are popping up just about everywhere. Um

24:35and I do want to say tree safe area

24:37would be an entirely separate um matter.

24:40What we have heard is um both concerns

24:43in terms of the species that are

24:44included on this table. Um and then

24:48separately uh even I think we've even

24:51heard from some developers that a tree

24:53safe area would be preferred because it

24:55is more so about just preserving an

24:58entire undisturbed area of land and the

25:00trees therein rather than these singular

25:03trees bit by bit. So I just want to I

25:06want to echo that I think those are are

25:08two separate topics each of which are

25:10deserving of their own uh attention.

25:14>> Thank you. What do you think on that,

25:16Haley? You agree?

25:19>> I think that that's a a great point. I

25:22think that the tree save area doesn't

25:24have to completely negate the saving of

25:26individual trees. I think there's a way

25:28to pair them together, right? So that we

25:30still look at these species and what's

25:31in the table and what's being regulated.

25:33And then we have kind of either an

25:35alternate or an add-on for tree saving

25:38area.

25:44Any other thoughts,

25:47Suzanne?

25:48>> I just think I already said it. I just

25:51think that we're as at CMS, we're so

25:54focused on saving one tree. Instead, we

25:57could save a lot more because it's

26:00different than I already said.

26:03>> Okay. And I think you're the idea that

26:07was listed by staff to the stronger

26:10ecological services provided by a group

26:12of trees. I think that's a very good

26:15good focus for us.

26:18>> We also want to encourage when we see

26:21new plants that they're working with

26:22what's already on the site. So when they

26:24already have these these strong natural

26:26areas, can we get them to think of that

26:28first? Right.

26:34So what is the next uh topic here?

26:39>> Uh revisiting protected trees species

26:42and site

26:46>> which we also noted the concern with

26:48magnolia or internal also have concerns

26:52with the magn.

26:54So I mean magnolia are under regulated

26:58they're under significant

27:00but

27:02under specimen

27:05>> no

27:09>> so the question is is

27:13well the from the feedback we get is on

27:17the magnolia the 4 in we should remove

27:21the significant trees should we keep

27:23magnolia Is it 8 in or should you just

27:25put magnolia is only in specimen trees?

27:32>> I mean only significant is not currently

27:35right.

27:35>> I think he's suggesting moving it to a

27:38specimen tree.

27:39>> Yeah.

27:43>> Or to treat um Magnolia Virginia as a

27:47hardwood

27:49>> in the significant category. So at 18

27:51inches that would kick in.

27:53>> Yeah.

27:56>> Oh, that's a good point. Yeah.

27:58>> So we're talking specifically Jana.

28:01>> Okay.

28:02>> And in keeping that as a specimen tree

28:05would be our recommendation

28:07>> as a specimen tree, but also what about

28:09in under significant tree as a hardwood

28:12at 18 in.

28:19Yep.

28:25I I agree. Now there's also Lavali Bay,

28:28Magnolia,

28:31whatever. So we need to we need to stop

28:33just doing genus or common names.

28:37Gotcha.

28:38>> We need to include species

28:40and botanical names in some cases.

28:43>> Yes.

28:44>> In fact, really ought to be consistent

28:47in my opinion. It should not be hard to

28:50treat. It should not be dog woods

28:54because

28:57not all dogwoods are the same,

29:00>> right?

29:02Silky dog wood there's

29:04>> Yeah.

29:05>> Florida

29:06>> and Sophie dogwood you wouldn't regulate

29:08it at the same

29:10as you would another home because

29:13they're not moving their pest. Sally,

29:15what are your thoughts on moving to

29:16genus and species?

29:20>> I think that's a lot to include in a

29:22table like this.

29:25Um, from what I understand, specimen

29:28trees were selected because they are

29:30special and unique to the to the city of

29:33Wilmington.

29:35Um but for Magnolia certainly you have

29:39to make that distinction

29:42because I think the desire for um those

29:46trees to be regulated at that size is

29:48because they wanted they wanted to

29:50preserve and I wasn't here when this was

29:52done but um my understanding is that

29:55they wanted to preserve flowering trees

29:57throughout Wilmington where possible

29:59because they're beautiful and people

30:00love them and they're great for the

30:02environment. So, um I think that's why

30:06some of these specific species were

30:08selected to be on this list and

30:10prioritized for preservation. But I do

30:14think that it if we're talking about

30:16trees like and you're talking about any

30:18type of university um other towns, other

30:22places pretty much when you're talking

30:24about plants or trees, you should use

30:26specific genies because a dog wood from

30:30Japan is not saying Silkia. Are we are

30:34we conserving dogwoods from Japan?

30:37Are we like that if if our focus is to

30:42move towards native

30:46you I I think we need to be specific and

30:49we should use the scientific name

30:52because that's what that's that's

30:56specific. If I may, I think also one of

30:59the goals of this table is for this to

31:01be um easy for developers to use and I

31:05think the more you get into the

31:06scientific names, the the more it

31:09becomes gobbledegook to them and harder

31:11for them to follow. So I I do think

31:14there's a um what we have heard from the

31:16developers that they're already puzzled.

31:19Um so I I think uh it's really important

31:22to keep sight of that that we're not

31:25working with um SC we're not working

31:27with arborists we're working with

31:29developers but we could categorize it

31:31where we could have magnolia magnolia

31:35Virginia you know we we could have it in

31:38a

31:41plain English and the scientific name

31:48Let's look at the text where you spell

31:50these things out right by place.

31:52>> Yeah.

31:54>> The detail would be the text statements.

31:56The more general rule that development.

31:59>> Yeah. Yes.

32:01>> Online. Rhonda said manually should be a

32:05specimen, but how big should they be? Um

32:08she said that we could include the

32:10scientific names in the text from the

32:12document but the specific common names

32:13in the table which could point to the

32:15text standards. Um, and that having

32:17built things in the table would likely

32:19be too long.

32:23>> There's one

32:25picture

32:27somewhere. Um, but maybe it doesn't have

32:30to be in this

32:32exact thing like what like what you're

32:35saying.

32:37>> So, this will need some work. Yeah.

32:39Thank you. Let's move on to the flexible

32:42critical. Hang on.

32:43>> I'm gonna give you your mouse back in

32:44just a second. All right.

32:47technical go.

33:06So the disturbance is included in the

33:08exam shall not exceed 20%.

33:12Um,

33:13and I think there's a little bit of

33:15problem with that. Um,

33:19I from my experience with trees, if you

33:22took that 20% all on one side of the

33:26tree, you can encroach into some pretty

33:28critical roots. Um, but I don't know how

33:33to do that yet. But the idea here to let

33:35a certified arborist identify critical

33:38root zone might be a good thing to do.

33:44>> I think that's a really good idea.

33:47>> I think that's a really good idea.

33:49>> Little more subjective then for

33:54different species and situations.

33:58>> But I'll Okay, go ahead.

34:00>> I was just going to just Sorry.

34:03in regards to what Isabelle was saying

34:06about developers and it being awfully

34:08good. They're going to be hiring an

34:09armrest.

34:11So the artist part of their anti-

34:14standards is that they know the

34:15scientific

34:17so that that's happening first of all.

34:20So it's it you know my dad is he doesn't

34:24know a tree species for anything but he

34:26would hire an arborist and so the

34:29arborist would know

34:30>> yeah that's the joy of the tech

34:31standards though is it gets into a

34:33little bit more of those nitty-gritty

34:35the table is more so for general

34:37overview

34:40>> sorry

34:41>> critical root zone

34:42>> yeah critical root zone I I agree that

34:45we should have arborist provide input

34:49the question Then becomes

34:52to the other point about what what if

34:58what if

35:02is there any repercussions if they're

35:04wrong?

35:05[laughter]

35:06>> Well, that would be a big part of the

35:09further discussion is the point

35:11[clears throat] Joshua brought up too.

35:13>> Yeah. Yep.

35:16um enforcement I guess since that

35:20>> right now and we're not going to discuss

35:22enforcement right now right now.

35:24>> Um we also talked about um creating some

35:29basic standards for encroachment. So say

35:31you're encroaching and then having

35:32either in the tech standards or in the

35:34LDC like if you are encroaching these

35:36much these are the maintenance things

35:37that you need to do um past root pruning

35:40because I believe we only include root

35:42pruning. So are there other things that

35:43they need to do to ensure the survival

35:45of that tree that [clears throat] we can

35:47require in the LBC?

35:49>> So it's root pruning, not actual uh limb

35:52pruning or anything like that.

35:54>> Um I believe it's only root pruning for

35:58preparing soils, those types of things.

36:00But right now speaking to how they prune

36:02the roots, there's other things on the

36:03harvest. So kind of speaking out of

36:05school here, there are things you do to

36:06prepare the tree for the impact that

36:08you're going to put on.

36:09>> Correct. Yeah. I don't I'm not going to

36:11pretend like I know what those things

36:12are, but I've seen a laundry list and

36:14just got

36:17>> Tom, some examples might be like

36:19supplemental water, supplemental mulch,

36:22right?

36:22>> Could be trunk injections,

36:25could be pruning. I think there's a host

36:27of things that could be done

36:29>> as an mitigation for tree impact.

36:33>> So, let's move on to rethinking

36:35exemptions. Um

36:38uh Isabelle, I think you might have some

36:40thoughts on the exemption

36:43ideas.

36:44>> Uh yes. Um so rethinking exemptions. Uh

36:49so this is based on this is the one

36:50that's based on lot size, right? So, um,

36:54essentially, uh, as it stands right now

36:56for developments, um, if you split, uh,

37:00if you split a development up into units

37:03that are into lots that are less than

37:05one acre, you are exempt from the, uh,

37:08from any sort of tree regulations. We

37:11had suggested um, removing that

37:13exemption. Obviously, we want individual

37:15homeowners to still maintain use of

37:18their private property. Um, but that

37:20exemption should not be utilized for

37:23developers to then not have to deal with

37:25tree uh ordinances. I will say that this

37:28is more of an issue in the county than

37:30it is in the city. The city doesn't have

37:32a ton of large parcels uh able to be

37:35developed, but it is something to

37:36consider.

37:38>> And what was your recommendation there,

37:40Haley, regarding the single family

37:43development based on lot size? What was

37:45the lot size you were you all were

37:48thinking for that? I don't think we have

37:49a number in mind. We haven't started

37:51drafting text or numbers here. These are

37:53bigger ideas. Um, if you don't mind me

37:56leaning on Utah, Todd, this was

37:58something that you had brought up.

37:59>> Yeah. Uh, so I first ran into this 25

38:04years ago when I was working for the

38:06town of Cornelius on Lake Norman. um

38:10where we required every single family

38:13home to plant back trees anywhere from

38:16one tree in the front yard, one tree in

38:18the rear yard, all the way up to three

38:20trees in the front yard, three trees in

38:21the rear yard, depending on the lot

38:24size. Um when I took the planning

38:26director job in Surf City, that was

38:28something that I put into their

38:29ordinance and is still in the Surf City

38:32ordinance today. Um and it just seemed

38:35like some a place where there was a

38:37miss. um or a a a opportunity to

38:43expand the tree canopy within the city

38:46um where we currently don't potentially.

38:50>> So, how receptive were your the

38:55individual?

38:57>> Helas has been doing it for probably 30

38:59plus years and Surf City's been doing it

39:02since 2003. Gotcha.

39:09example,

39:10>> why is that even in there?

39:13I guess I'm wondering what was the

39:14thought why uh why that um thing going

39:20one anchor why was that in there?

39:23What was the thought process of that

39:25being?

39:27>> Does anybody

39:27>> I can only it's been in the code for 30

39:30years. I would think that um just the

39:34the proper property rights of a single

39:35family home

39:37>> uh enforcement would be a nightmare. You

39:40got 20,000

39:42single family lots. If somebody goes out

39:44on a Saturday and cuts a tree down,

39:45we're not we're just not going to know,

39:47but some and something in between like I

39:49I don't know specifically because we

39:51weren't obviously part of those

39:52conversations, but that seems like the

39:54reasonable reason that

39:56>> that kind of knew. So then is it

40:00possible for us to

40:06somehow have that be if you I don't know

40:10how I don't know how to word this but is

40:13there a way to kind of single it out for

40:17developers and homeowners

40:20but then what if a homeowner who

40:24>> hasn't Yeah. I don't I like to kind of

40:27>> I think what you were speaking to is if

40:29somebody comes in with a subdivision,

40:30which again we're not going to have

40:31single family subs in the city, but

40:33there are going to be some

40:35>> you would look at the overall site for

40:37tree save before you cut the lots and

40:39then once the lots are sold, then it

40:41would just transfer to that. But you're

40:42actually looking at a tree save in

40:44advance of that. you're looking at tree

40:46save areas

40:47>> where you can set aside where maybe it's

40:48a common area that is not part of lots

40:51that kind of thing where you're you're

40:52doing the tree save in advance but once

40:53it is a lot then you would have that

40:55exemption kick in so if a homeowner

40:57wants to cut down a tree in their

40:58backyard they can do that because they'd

41:01be exempt

41:01>> yeah um and was it

41:04>> okay sorry I don't know who met the word

41:07um uh can you tell me a little bit more

41:09I'm just curious um I haven't heard of

41:12this of what you did so I'm curious So,

41:15it's mandating that even on a even on a

41:17smaller than one acre individual lot

41:215,000 square foot lots and less.

41:23>> Okay.

41:24>> It applied on the island.

41:25>> Okay.

41:26>> And then it applied to our new

41:27neighborhoods. Well, all neighborhoods

41:29on the mainland as well. So, you could

41:31have lots that were, you know, 30,000

41:34square feet, 20,000 square feet.

41:35>> And they still had this requirement.

41:37>> Still had the requirement.

41:37>> Cool. Very cool. I I love that. I had

41:40not heard of that.

41:42>> And how did you enforce it?

41:44I mean, it's certainly easier when

41:46you're a small town like I mean, Brian's

41:48kind of alluding to um because you can

41:50kind of keep track of it. But it was uh

41:55in Meckllinburgg County and Cornelius,

41:57the county get tree permits, tree saving

42:00permits that went to the county and when

42:01they went out to do their inspections

42:04uh on the city permits at CO, they would

42:07look for those trees. uh at the insert

42:10city when it was time for CO I would go

42:13out there and I didn't sign off on the

42:15zoning until you know those trees were

42:17planted.

42:18>> So certificate

42:27county called it holds on the property.

42:30>> Okay.

42:32Let's uh move to flexibility and parking

42:35lot shading.

42:38Just

42:39touch on this as far as your

42:41recommendations.

42:47Um like I said, it's currently based on

42:50shading and tree canopy. So like trying

42:52to cover certain area of the parking lot

42:55to mitigate heat really is the purpose.

42:58Um, but that often leads to just one

43:00tree being planted in one landscape

43:02island, which doesn't always lead to

43:04healthy outcomes for that singular tree.

43:06Um, so there may be ways we can tweak

43:08language for groups of trees to be saved

43:11by islands that still shade the water.

43:17>> Then the urban forest master plan

43:19recommendations.

43:24>> I don't have that. Do you guys have

43:26that?

43:28Do you not have that? That's not Was

43:31that part of your presentation? What?

43:32>> What you emailed us?

43:34>> Oh, that was added after the urban

43:37forestry master plan. Okay. Upon Tom's

43:39request, we added that that slide.

43:41>> So, um, for our committee members, I

43:44want to recommend that you all

43:46>> review this master plan. It's online and

43:50it is really, really a good read. a very

43:53good comprehensive overview of some what

43:57some professors think. Then I'm trying

44:00to be cognizant of our time and um I

44:04think also that you have the subject

44:07matter expert meeting planned October

44:1014th

44:11at 10:00 a.m. It's 10:00 a.m. to 12,

44:15right? Yes.

44:16>> Correct.

44:17um and the folks that you intended to

44:22invite.

44:24Um I wondered if you had specific

44:26recommendations for the categories

44:30like who you would invite.

44:32I also wanted to make a recommendation

44:34that we give each expert

44:38a topic and the topic would be what do

44:42you see as the deficiencies,

44:45the overreach

44:46and the need for clarification

44:49of the ordinance or something like that.

44:52So they have an opportunity to say this

44:54is too much, this is too little and this

44:57is what I don't understand

44:59from their background.

45:02Um, what does staff think of that

45:06deficiencies, overreach, and

45:07clarification?

45:10>> Would that be collecting that beforehand

45:12or having them start the meeting with

45:14sharing those three things?

45:16>> I would ask every subject matter to give

45:18a 10-minute presentation on those items

45:22>> questions to follow.

45:24>> I'm sorry.

45:25>> With questions after.

45:27>> Yes. Right. Well, so seven minutes to

45:29present and then three minutes for

45:31questions or something.

45:32>> So I recommended two people to Sally and

45:37Haley and then I have another

45:39>> Speak up please. I recommended two

45:41people to have a sub subject matter

45:45experts and then I have another um

45:51person that is actually um

45:55a urban forest urban restoration

45:58ecologist. Sorry that was a lot of

46:00words. and she um is from Ruckers and

46:04she could zoom

46:08um that's what everything that she did

46:12like her whole doctorate she's she's

46:15studied urban forestry for years that's

46:18all she's ever studied

46:20and I think that that would be a good

46:25information session and then if Rhonda

46:27is it Rhonda is going to the Yes, Rhonda

46:31is going to the

46:33>> to have an opportunity for her to also

46:36share what she's

46:42>> So, who were the folks you were thinking

46:45of regarding the development community?

46:47You had three different categories here.

46:51Affordable housing, urban mixes, and

46:54single family and subdivisions.

46:56Um, I'd say we're still identifying

46:58specific names. Okay.

47:00>> Um, we have kind of a few that are just

47:02we see their projects a lot and that's

47:05what we were going to stick with is our

47:07frequent flyers.

47:09>> I'd also ask Isabelle to consider who

47:12you would recommend after your work with

47:15several team.

47:16>> Yeah, absolutely. Um, two that uh I

47:19think of top of mind would be Dave

47:22Spatrino and Mike Brown. I'm sure

47:25they're also uh on

47:27>> they're on Ireland. Yes. So Dave Petrino

47:29and Mike Brown um I think they have

47:31provided very reasonable uh feedback in

47:35the past.

47:37>> So who's who's developing the one that

47:40Josh was talking about that area? What

47:43Josh was talking about?

47:45>> That's WHA or that's the one with the

47:48housing authority.

47:49>> Okay.

47:50>> It's a big project. So, but are they

47:52subcontracting out that or

47:56um I'm just curious develop yeah the

47:59developer maybe we have have them come

48:01in just as a subject matter expert. I'm

48:04not

48:05>> one of the people I suggested is a

48:07developer.

48:10>> All right. Con

48:12uh so we had someone here earlier today

48:13who had to leave uh uh and he represents

48:16base which is business alliance for

48:19economy and so he they will be

48:22participating in this and I he was

48:24probably going to circulate that to some

48:25of his members office as well.

48:37Yeah.

48:39>> So, utilities, who are you going to

48:40reach out to? Duke

48:42>> Duke Energy and CFPUA.

48:45>> CFPUA.

48:47Forget Pastor.

48:51We got to talk about all the competition

48:52for space, all the competitors, right?

48:54Yeah.

48:57>> Who did you have in mind for

48:58environmental advocacy?

49:01Well, the alliance

49:03trees most certainly um was on our list.

49:05Um we were struggling to identify other

49:08like environmental organizations that

49:10have a tree focus. Um we considered

49:12coastal land trust, but we would love to

49:14hear other ideas from you all. Sierra

49:17Club.

49:20>> Um,

49:25Land Trust has a new

49:29>> executive director, development

49:30director. They've got new they've got

49:32new everything over there.

49:34>> Sierra Club.

49:35>> No, at um Coastal Land Trust.

49:37>> Coastal Land. Yes.

49:39But um one of the people

49:43the new person at Cost is not from here

49:47and he's worked in a lot of different

49:49areas and so I think

49:52it would be nice to hear other people's

49:54opinions besides just you know like that

49:57have been and seen other things in other

50:00places

50:02to see how we can

50:05improve

50:08online.

50:10Uh Rhonda suggests said she knows a

50:12UNCCW

50:14expert that did some of the re research

50:16on the ghost forest if we would like to

50:18invite them.

50:20>> Okay.

50:21>> And that she would be willing to talk

50:22about her experience at the conference.

50:26>> I mean the other Jim Gregory

50:32wanted to reach out to Mr. Gregory if

50:34he's Jim Gregory would be fantastic.

50:37Yeah,

50:39>> he used to be on the street.

50:42>> Um Roger Shu

50:45would be another good one.

50:46>> Yeah, that's a great idea.

50:48>> Especially since Roger um uh cares a lot

50:53about not just trees in particular, but

50:56also Susie, I know you, as you've been

50:58speaking about how they relate to native

51:01vegetation around the trees. I think

51:03natural areas are something that Roger

51:05is really focused on.

51:07He's he's also he loves the long leaf

51:10pines. So,

51:11>> yes,

51:12>> very much.

51:13>> I love them.

51:14>> Which I would just like to throw in a

51:16small hitch uh that the diameter breast

51:19height for a specimen longleaf pine be

51:22made smaller because they have a smaller

51:25less of a growth rate. Um but they have

51:28more ecological significance locally.

51:30So, I would love to see that taken down

51:32from 24 in.

51:35It's at 24.

51:38>> It's got to be It's got to be a big old

51:40lovely

51:4336 county. So, [laughter]

51:46>> good luck. That's crazy. But sorry, but

51:50that's

51:50>> no shade on the city. Just

51:52>> saying [laughter]

51:56evolving processor since they put one

51:59in.

52:00>> I'm just glad we have one. I'm just I'm

52:02I which I tout all the time when people

52:05get angry about the tree ordinances like

52:07let's just be real here. I'm glad we

52:09have one.

52:12>> Then your landscape architect choices

52:16you

52:16>> the same as our frequent flyers. Who do

52:18we typically see on our site plans? Um

52:21there's probably about three or four

52:22names I think we see very frequently.

52:29um commercial landscaper that was

52:30actually recommended by Susie as the

52:32category and she shared a name with us

52:36contact. Same with a local nursery.

52:41>> I also want to suggest a category. It's

52:43a little bit of a stretch but local

52:45nursery that grow trees because a lot

52:49>> Yeah, I recommended a that's what she

52:51was just saying. I recommended a local

52:54nursery.

52:56That's [laughter] okay. That's a good

52:57idea. Everybody's thinking the same

52:59>> great minds think alike

53:00>> there. I would say either

53:03Potinga

53:05Richard Johnson

53:07>> or uh the new owner of Five Oak Nursery.

53:10>> I had I gave her Chris's number.

53:12>> Gave her what?

53:13>> Chris from Five Oaks.

53:18>> Yeah.

53:19>> Chris Miller.

53:20>> Yeah. He's actually the one who's been

53:23manic tree farm.

53:26>> In Burga. He's been the new owner

53:29>> doesn't really know about free

53:31experience.

53:32>> Yeah.

53:34>> Um

53:37I just want to say like it's great that

53:39we're doing this. I think it's really

53:40important. But my point of having a

53:43commercial landscaper in a local nursery

53:45is because we can do we can, you know,

53:48make this land use develop, but if if

53:52we're still putting like recommending

53:54trees that are are not commercially

53:56grown,

53:57>> right?

53:58>> It it they're going to get subbed out

54:01for whatever that landscaper can find

54:05that day. Um,

54:09so who should we invite student

54:13[laughter]

54:18at our at our future meetings? We

54:20certainly want to once you guys kind of

54:21decide on your path, make sure our our

54:23arborist and landscape superintendent

54:25are involved consistently. Um, if

54:28there's things that come from the tech

54:30standards, engineering wise you guys

54:31have questions on, we're happy to invite

54:33our design construction staff. Um, I

54:36think that expertise really depends on

54:38the path forward that you guys come up

54:41with.

54:42>> We'll try to be as comprehensive as

54:43possible because we're not going to be

54:44able to predict for these conversations,

54:46guys. So, we'll bring everybody at once

54:48and if we don't need them, they can kind

54:50of disperse. Got it.

54:51>> I I recommend I'm I was telling you

54:55about the the woman that I I got from

54:58Amy Long. She I had a drink with her the

55:01other day and she was telling me when I

55:03said, you know, like we what we're doing

55:08if we can't get her, it would be good to

55:11have an urban planner

55:16from somewhere else that focuses on tree

55:20canopy.

55:21Not necessarily

55:23someone from here, like someone where

55:25they've had a successful,

55:28you know, urban

55:31planting

55:34tree saving area and I'm not sure

55:38where that would come from and I'm happy

55:40to like do a little bit more research

55:41but I think that

55:44if there's somewhere that even if it's

55:48in you know somebody in North Carolina

55:50or someone from somewhere else because

55:52they can zoom in you know just to

55:56get some insight from other places that

55:59have

56:01done had some successful tree canopy.

56:04I'm from San Francisco and we had we

56:06were really hard.

56:08>> Um I'm not saying necessarily that but

56:12um

56:14>> so

56:15>> some place that has had

56:16>> isabel um when when you were

56:19benchmarking other cities which which

56:22city would you recommend? Charlotte.

56:25>> Yeah.

56:26>> Charlotte Tree Charlotte program or the

56:28city

56:28>> uh the cities. The city of Charlotte um

56:32has a very cool program. They have both

56:34a city arborist, but they also have

56:37someone who specifically reviews

56:39development proposals. So, and by by

56:42someone I mean specifically an arborist

56:44that reviews development proposals. So,

56:46they come at it from both um angles

56:49which I think is uh really great and a

56:52cool model.

56:54They also have a tree save area already.

56:57So they would um they would have good

57:00guidance there about how to institute

57:02that. I'd be also curious to know how

57:04they manage some of the CRZ hurdles that

57:08we

57:11>> CR

57:12>> critical root zone.

57:13>> Oh, okay.

57:14>> Come on.

57:15>> I think [laughter] CRC

57:18I I didn't hear the C. I'm sorry. I

57:21don't know what's CRC.

57:25>> I could also recommend Bark Fair with NC

57:27State University. He's a train

57:30professor, tree expert,

57:37got a lot of people. So,

57:39>> we only have two hours.

57:41>> Well, but we need a lot of people. I

57:43mean, the you know,

57:44>> perspectives would be helpful.

57:46>> Yeah,

57:46>> we can probably come just the same

57:48opinion. Well, a session is can we fit

57:50that many people within two hour time

57:52slot? I

57:53>> I think I think if you break it by

57:55topic, I think the tough part of it is

57:57with the presentations. We're going to

57:58have too many people. We're going to

58:00have too many people to do the idea of a

58:01seven minute presentation Q&A, but maybe

58:04we have an agenda that's put into these

58:06topics that lets people, you know, we

58:09ask the questions like the same

58:10questions that we have and we can prep

58:13them with those questions in advance.

58:14What are the deficiencies? Where is the

58:17overreach? Where is it unclear for

58:20experts from other areas? What are

58:22things that you know we're missing? What

58:24are some innovative tools and ways to

58:26address this that we're not looking at?

58:28And so if if you're okay with it, then

58:31maybe it's grouped by the same things

58:32we've proposed and then an other

58:34category. What else do you want to talk

58:37about?

58:38>> Because I think the developers will come

58:39in, you know, they may they may have

58:42thoughts on all this and that's driving

58:44me crazy right now.

58:45>> Yeah. Um but they may have other things

58:47that they want to bring up and so kind

58:50of make so you have that ability then to

58:51have an open forum

58:53>> what are you know so does that make

58:55sense

58:57>> and examples like in Pender County they

58:59require water

59:09>> I also want to mention that I would love

59:10to hear or have a little conversation

59:13about

59:14the tree mitigation fund. I mean,

59:18there's a pot of money out there and

59:21it's only it's limited on what it can be

59:23spent on. And to me, you need a whole

59:27lot more staff. And I think we need to

59:30visit the idea of asking for spending

59:33those

59:35punitive funds to help with these

59:38arborists to go verify stuff and things

59:41like that. Um, can we

59:43>> what she's saying about what Charlotte

59:45does?

59:46>> Yeah.

59:47Yeah. But how much money is in that

59:50fund? It's six figures, isn't it?

59:53>> It's it it's extensive right now. The

59:55what the one caution I would give you um

59:58and we have some data that we pulled I

1:00:00want to say back in February to show

1:00:02like what has come in over the last

1:00:03several years. It is not a consistent

1:00:06source of funding. It varies from year

1:00:09to year depending on what is being

1:00:11developed and whether or not someone is

1:00:13opting to use the V and LO program

1:00:16instead of the tree credits and and

1:00:19preserving trees on site. So, it's not

1:00:21there are many ways that you can address

1:00:23your mitigation requirements that do not

1:00:25require you to write a check to the

1:00:27city. And so, we have years when we

1:00:30collect $100,000. We have divers when we

1:00:33collect there was one we I want to say

1:00:35we did 800,000 to about a million and

1:00:38that was quite frankly we had one

1:00:39project in that time frame where the

1:00:42mitigation fee was over $500,000

1:00:45and that developer just wrote us a

1:00:47check. So I when I was reading through

1:00:52the

1:00:54um

1:00:56the land use development code,

1:00:59one of the things that kind of like that

1:01:04like if our goal is to save trees, why

1:01:06are we allowing somebody to just write a

1:01:08check for $500,000?

1:01:11Like why are we

1:01:13why is it like if our goal as a city of

1:01:18trees is to save trees, why are we

1:01:21allowing them to write a check in lie of

1:01:25saving trees?

1:01:28>> Well, just just for take one step back.

1:01:32>> The the the payment, the fine, the

1:01:34penalty, whatever you want to call it,

1:01:35that is our absolute like last option

1:01:38that we want to pursue. If you we want

1:01:41to preserve trees on site, we want to

1:01:42tree safe, we want tree preps, we want

1:01:44to plant trees, all those things are

1:01:47more a higher priority than collecting a

1:01:49fee in the water. The [clears throat]

1:01:50fee is down there as kind of a catch all

1:01:52where like I've got a site if I have to

1:01:55take this tree down. I literally cannot

1:01:57plant a tree on the site and that's it's

1:01:59like a last it's like a blast worst case

1:02:02scenario kind of situation. Now, if it's

1:02:04in the code, some people just choose the

1:02:07worst case scenario, but is there a way

1:02:09to structure it where they have to go

1:02:10down the list to get people

1:02:13>> raise unreasonable or you know like

1:02:20Well, and I would say like the feedback

1:02:21we get is they think the development

1:02:24community already thinks they are

1:02:25unreasonably high to be fair. Yeah. I

1:02:27and I think especially in the city of

1:02:29Wilmington because the plots that

1:02:32they're developing are not very large.

1:02:34So when you tap on a $600,000

1:02:38tree fine, um they're going to sue the

1:02:41city at a certain point if it gets to be

1:02:43too high. Um

1:02:45>> so it's a lot of mixed use going in in

1:02:47the city at this point. It's not

1:02:49>> there's a lot the the plots to be

1:02:51developed are just not that large. So

1:02:54then if you slap on a really large fine

1:02:58to make it worthwhile to develop that

1:03:00plot is generally untenable. So then

1:03:03you're essentially making the plot

1:03:04unbuildable and you're removing their

1:03:06private property rights. I don't know,

1:03:08Linda, is that a like that's the

1:03:11argument they're going to make.

1:03:12>> That's the argument I've heard.

1:03:13>> That's the argument they're going to

1:03:14make. Um, like the the example we gave

1:03:17of the developer that paid $500,000, one

1:03:19of our local developers called them and

1:03:22said, "Why on earth did you pay this?"

1:03:25Like $500,000. He thought they were

1:03:28insane.

1:03:28>> Yeah.

1:03:29>> Because it but they were out of state

1:03:30and they and for them they're just like

1:03:32cost to do a business and I need to keep

1:03:35this project moving so I get my bonus

1:03:36bonus. I have a contingency fee.

1:03:38>> Okay. So,

1:03:40this might seem crazy, but in San

1:03:44Francisco, of course,

1:03:46you've got giant buildings. You know,

1:03:49that that's just the way it is. But in

1:03:51their code,

1:03:53um, you had to have green space on the

1:03:56roof. You had a certain percentage of

1:03:59green space that building. And is that

1:04:01something that we can look at? Like I

1:04:04mean I did some pocket forests on groups

1:04:08like it's really amazing. You would

1:04:10think if you were going to for us and so

1:04:14is that something if we're talking about

1:04:16mixed use talking about

1:04:20affordable housing we we kind of have to

1:04:23go to you know apartments condos

1:04:26whatever we have to build up.

1:04:29Is that something that we can because if

1:04:31a developer who says, you know, this lot

1:04:35is so small and I'm building a 10story

1:04:38condo building on it, if we require them

1:04:42to have a

1:04:45now in San Francisco, it had to be

1:04:48public access.

1:04:51I don't know if we would do that here. I

1:04:53don't know. But they they were required

1:04:56to have a certain percentage of trees

1:04:59and shrubs and basically create an

1:05:01outdoor environment

1:05:03>> for the public to enjoy

1:05:05>> the roof. So the public had to have

1:05:07access to the roof.

1:05:09>> Yeah.

1:05:10>> I remember that one.

1:05:11>> Yeah. I mean I think

1:05:13>> and amazing parks and playgrounds on

1:05:15roofs of buildings in San Francisco. I

1:05:18mean, amazing.

1:05:20>> And maybe that's a way we can

1:05:26consider. It's not just San Francisco. I

1:05:28mean, they do it all.

1:05:29>> I've never,

1:05:32>> you know, I think we can explore. I

1:05:34think that's where the development

1:05:35community is going to come in because

1:05:36they may they may look at that and we

1:05:39don't have the density or the the size

1:05:41of building that San Francisco does. And

1:05:43so we may not we may not be at that

1:05:45point where putting a rooftop green

1:05:48space makes sense economically. They may

1:05:50look at that the same way they look at

1:05:52the tree navigation. But I'm also

1:05:54looking at it as here's another option

1:05:56that you can do

1:05:57>> and you know because we one of the

1:05:59things that we've Brian has talked to

1:06:02about is anytime someone's removing

1:06:05trees and has mitigation we need to be

1:06:07hammering here are all the ways that you

1:06:10can mitigate that removal

1:06:12because

1:06:14a lot of times they skip over that. They

1:06:16go to the check and then they complain

1:06:18about the size of the check. And so a

1:06:20few years ago, we had an industrial

1:06:22project and we had to write a memo for

1:06:24city leadership like here are all the

1:06:25ways that they could produce and they

1:06:29can address their mitigation that does

1:06:30not require a check. I mean

1:06:34the these rooftop gardens um you know

1:06:37the people who lived in those buildings

1:06:39like that was an advantage. That was a

1:06:42selling point. You got an outdoor space.

1:06:47you know the

1:06:49>> it's worth looking into.

1:06:50>> It's something to think about.

1:06:52>> If it's a unique solution for a unique

1:06:54situation, that's what we got to come up

1:06:55with. We're going to have more and more

1:06:57of those things going forward. I mean,

1:06:59if we're talking about making housing

1:07:01more affordable in the city, you

1:07:05have to have and and they also had every

1:07:08building had to have a certain

1:07:09percentage of those condos available

1:07:13firsthand for teachers uh at uh an

1:07:16affordable price and firsthand for

1:07:19people who have gone through um

1:07:21different programs, financial programs.

1:07:24So every new building, condos, whatever,

1:07:28there had to be a certain percentage of

1:07:30uh housing available firstand for

1:07:33teachers and second for low income

1:07:36families.

1:07:38>> Unfortunately, North Carolina does not

1:07:42get going.

1:07:43>> Let's make sure that staff is feeling

1:07:46comfortable with invites for 14th

1:07:50meeting. And um would you mind

1:07:53communicating with me at least who you

1:07:55have decided or who's responding or

1:07:59something?

1:07:59>> Yes. So we can provide that the list of

1:08:02who we're going to invite.

1:08:04>> Um also this committee before you leave

1:08:06this meeting, you need to vote on the

1:08:09change and schedule for the 14th because

1:08:11we're extending it. But

1:08:13>> we're going to provide the people with

1:08:15questions what she was talking about.

1:08:18Yes. Are you guys going to come up with

1:08:20that?

1:08:21>> Yes, ma'am.

1:08:22>> And I think I think Void came Void gave

1:08:24us a good basis of like here are the

1:08:26things we want you to be prepared for.

1:08:28Sally, on the schedule since the regular

1:08:30commission changed their meeting to the

1:08:3221st, do we also need to change this

1:08:34meeting to the 21st?

1:08:37>> Yes.

1:08:38>> And I realize it is literally one week

1:08:40following the 14th, but

1:08:43>> but we've got to get through this

1:08:44because we already missed the week.

1:08:46>> Okay. So we're first off

1:08:48>> it would automatically happen, right?

1:08:50Because the commission voted on

1:08:52>> No, they vote on their schedule.

1:08:54>> Okay.

1:08:54>> So our committee Okay. First, let's

1:08:57vote. Time for the 14th would be from 10

1:09:00to noon.

1:09:02>> Okay. Do I hear a motion?

1:09:05Second.

1:09:07That's our next meeting.

1:09:08>> I'll second.

1:09:11>> I'll second the 14th.

1:09:14And then the following

1:09:17[laughter]

1:09:18meet week is our

1:09:20our meeting prior to the tree commission

1:09:23meeting

1:09:24>> October 21st

1:09:25>> on it's October 21st that will be at

1:09:309:30

1:09:329:30 to 10:30 for our commission

1:09:34committee meeting. Can we come up with a

1:09:37different name for the committee?

1:09:40Committee and commission are just too

1:09:41close.

1:09:43work group

1:09:45task force.

1:09:48>> How do you think I can't get it

1:09:50straight?

1:09:51>> So, I I make a motion to have our next

1:09:55meeting on October 21st at 9:30 for the

1:10:01pre-ordinance review committee. Thank

1:10:03you. [clears throat]

1:10:04>> You'd be rescheduling your

1:10:06>> rescheduling.

1:10:07>> Your next meeting is the 14th.

1:10:10Yes. What? For the meeting after the

1:10:1314th. Oh, after the 14th.

1:10:15>> Okay. I work for myself. If you send me

1:10:17a Google appointment, I'll be there. But

1:10:20I public know.

1:10:22>> Yes. And because you have an adopted

1:10:24schedule. So if you deviate from your

1:10:26adopted schedule, you have to vote on

1:10:28it.

1:10:28>> Okay. And we did talk about let you

1:10:32mentioned it in the

1:10:35committee meeting that the people no in

1:10:38the commission meeting that the

1:10:40committee members would choose when

1:10:42they're going to meet.

1:10:43>> Right.

1:10:44>> Right.

1:10:45>> Right. So we are choosing or we're

1:10:48voting to meet at 9:30 on the 21st of

1:10:52October.

1:10:55>> That was Tom's motion. I second. All in

1:10:58favor?

1:10:59>> I

1:10:59>> I

1:11:00>> I

1:11:02>> So, do we have a meeting in the

1:11:05beginning of October?

1:11:06>> No.

1:11:07>> Yes.

1:11:08>> October 14. On October 14th.

1:11:10>> Well, when you say beginning,

1:11:12>> well,

1:11:13>> for that like the 7th,

1:11:14>> it has been moved to be at 10 a.m.

1:11:17instead of 11. So, on October 14th,

1:11:20it'll be 10 to 12 instead of 11 to 12.

1:11:22>> Okay.

1:11:23>> And that's the the subject matter expert

1:11:26meeting. they will be invited. That's

1:11:28where you get to have that deeper

1:11:29conversation with them.

1:11:31>> And one of the reasons we actually

1:11:32scheduled that for the mid October was

1:11:35to allow it give us time to get those

1:11:37invitations out and let them know

1:11:39>> this is whatific

1:11:42you so they can especially for any

1:11:45experts that are not votable. I think

1:11:47our development community could walk in

1:11:49tomorrow and tell us what they think,

1:11:51but once we start talking about other

1:11:53folks that don't know our ordinance,

1:11:55we're going to have to send them the

1:11:56ordinance uh with the specific

1:11:57questions.

1:12:04>> Do I hear a motion that this meeting be

1:12:06adjourned?

1:12:08>> Yes.

1:12:08>> Yes.

1:12:09>> I second.

1:12:10>> Second. All in favor? I

1:12:14>> Thank you, staff.

1:12:15>> Thank you. over here too. That helps me.