3. Resolution on the death of Bob Richards.   Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey

R-3     Jan 7, 2019
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY

WHEREAS: The City Council was deeply saddened at learning of the death of Robert E. “Bob” Richards on Thurs, Dec 19, 2018; and

WHEREAS: Bob was born on July 7, 1938, and became a lifelong resident of Cambridge, where he was a well-respected member of the community known for his keen knowledge of local politics, community activism, and as a champion for social justice; and

WHEREAS: Bob was a long-time physics teacher, basketball and golf coach at Rindge Technical School and an administrator at CRLS; and

WHEREAS: Bob’s passing will leave a void in the lives of all his surviving family, his wife Jane (McGuirk), and his children Robert, Susan, Paul, and Kathryn; grandchildren Robert and Stephen Richards, Elijah and Olivia Scott, Lucy and Ella Richards, and Max Montpeller; as well as many nieces and nephews; and

WHEREAS: Bob will be sorely missed by all those he taught and loved; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: That the City Council go on record extending its deepest sympathy for the family of Bob Richards at this time of such personal loss; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a suitably engrossed copy of this resolution to the Richards family on behalf of the entire City Council.

COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM OTHER CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from Councillor Mallon, transmitting notes of the 3rd meeting of the Mayor's Arts Task Force.

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Jan 7, 2019  Amended
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: On Jan 1, 2019, a new law took effect in New York City that allows residents and parents to indicate a third gender category “X” on birth certificates, allowing transgender and gender non-binary people born in that City to amend their birth certificates without having to go through burdensome medical and administrative barriers; and
WHEREAS: New York City joins the states of Oregon, California, Washington and New Jersey in offering a third gender category on birth certificates, granting residents more control in defining for the government who they are and affirming their humanity and dignity; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge strives to be a welcoming community to all—including our transgender and gender non-binary friends and neighbors—a goal that the Council can advance by joining other jurisdictions in offering a third gender category and removing barriers for residents born in this city to amend their birth certificates; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Solicitor be and hereby is requested to draft a home rule petition to the state legislature that would allow the City of Cambridge to begin to offer a third gender category “X” on birth certificates, and to collaborate with the LGBTQ+ Commission on this effort.

O-4     Jan 7, 2019
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: The recently approved “AN ACT REGULATING AND INSURING SHORT-TERM RENTALS,” signed by the Governor on Dec 28, 2018, allows a city to impose a local excise upon the transfer of occupancy of a room in a short-term rental located within that city by an operator at a rate of not more than 6 percent of the total amount of rent for each such occupancy; and
WHEREAS: Chapter 337 of the Acts of 2018 also allows a city to impose a community impact fee of not more than 3 percent of the total amount of rent for each transfer of occupancy of a professionally managed unit that is located within the city, and upon a short-term rental that is located within a two-family or three-family dwelling that includes the operator’s primary residence; and
WHEREAS: The legislation requires that not less than 35 percent of the community impact fee collected under this section shall be dedicated to affordable housing or local infrastructure projects; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor to review the recently adopted “AN ACT REGULATING AND INSURING SHORT-TERM RENTALS” to ensure compliance with Cambridge’s short-term rental ordinance, and to report back to the Council on the steps necessary to impose and access revenue generated from the excise and community impact fees.

O-5     Jan 7, 2019
COUNCILLOR MALLON
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: A robust and stable funding source is necessary to maintain a thriving arts community; and
WHEREAS: The FY19 City Budget allotted only $1,068,210.00 for the Cambridge Arts Council and Public Celebrations budgets combined; and
WHEREAS: Key FY19 objectives of the Arts Council are to promote and support artists as well as commission and conserve public art, both of which take significant financial resources to accomplish effectively so that artists are paid living wages for their work; and
WHEREAS: There are opportunities in the City Budget to increase municipal funding for the arts, including allocating a percentage of the projected $14,4000,000.00 of the City’s hotel/motel tax revenue (which in June will include additional revenue generated by the implementation of the short term rental ordinance) in FY20, as well as a percentage of the additional 3% tax imposed on adult use cannabis sales; and
WHEREAS: According to a 2015 Arts and Economic Prosperity Report, the total revenue generated for local government in Cambridge due to spending by arts organizations and their audiences in that year was $7,038,000.00, showing a robust return on investment in the arts; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Cambridge Arts Council and Department of Finance to explore options for allocating at least 15% of the City’s hotel/motel tax revenue in FY20 to the arts, as well as allocating a percentage of the additional 3% municipal tax imposed on adult use cannabis sales to the arts; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council in time to inform the FY20 budget process.

O-6     Jan 7, 2019  Amended
COUNCILLOR MALLON
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: Central Square is our City’s Arts and Culture District, a designation awarded to the Square by the Massachusetts Cultural Council in 2011; and
WHEREAS: Cultural Districts come with only limited State funding, as the $3.5 million allotted is divided between 329 local cultural councils, averaging approximately $4,500.00 to each cultural district per year; and
WHEREAS: This amount of State funding is helpful but not sufficient in funding cultural district initiatives in Central Square and for example, the recent and very popular Mural Project that was sponsored by the Central Square Business Association in partnership with the Cambridge Community Foundation had a total cost of over $140,000.00; and
WHEREAS: Section 20.304.6 3(b)(1.)(i) of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance establishes the Central Square Improvement Fund, which waives minimum parking and loading requirements if the developer makes a cash contribution to the fund in an amount equal to fifty (50) percent of the cost of construction of the parking spaces not provided; and
WHEREAS: One of the allowed uses for funds paid to the Central Square Improvement Fund is “programming, events, and infrastructure that contribute to the Cultural District established in Central Square”; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Cambridge Arts Council, Traffic and Parking Department, the Community Development Department, and the Central Square Advisory Committee to establish the Central Square Improvement Fund; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Cambridge Arts Council, the Central Square Advisory Committee, and the Central Square Business Association to implement a distribution procedure for funds paid into the Central Square Improvement Fund, with no less than 25% of funds paid being allocated to the arts; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-7     Jan 7, 2019  Amended
COUNCILLOR MALLON
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: In 1979, the City of Cambridge enacted its 1% for arts ordinance, which requires that 1% of all construction costs for public projects are allocated to on-site public art; and
WHEREAS: This ordinance is now over 40 years old and aspects such as site-based public art, the accessibility of the art, and the art discipline that is being funded and created have yet to be revisited; and
WHEREAS: As construction costs have increased over time, the 1% rule has not been equally applied, as the City often meets the 1% mandate for less expensive projects, but fails to reach this benchmark for other, more costly projects where the amount allocated to public art would be much greater; and
WHEREAS: It has been recently unclear as to whether or not a $100,000 cap for the arts applies, as this cap appears nowhere in the ordinance but has been imposed on select projects over the years; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Cambridge Arts Council and Community Development Department to determine:
  • Which projects have met the 1% threshold and which have fallen short
  • Why the 1% threshold is met with certain construction projects but not others
  • The origin of the $100,000 cap, and whether or not it still applies to current projects
  • Equity considerations related to site-based art, such as whether the art is publicly accessible (in the case of the King Open School), or whether art is concentrated in select neighborhoods
  • The distribution method of funds and whether it can be adjusted to account for ensuring that all mediums and disciplines of art, including live performance art, receive funding;
and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council on this matter as soon as possible.

O-8     Jan 7, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
MAYOR MCGOVERN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: Shortly after the 2018 midterm elections, there was a groundswell of grassroots support for a proposal from then Rep-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to create a “House Select Committee on a Green New Deal”; and
WHEREAS: Such a Green New Deal would address the climate crisis at the scale of intervention called for by the recent IPCC special report on climate change, a report that was ultimately rejected by the US and other oil exporting countries at COP 24 in Poland last month; and
WHEREAS: Such a Green New Deal would also create many new jobs for hard working Americans who have been left behind by globalization and automation; and
WHEREAS: Sunrise Movement and other advocacy groups organized more than 250 visits to district offices around the country around this issue in just over a month’s time, winning the support of more than 40 members of congress including both members of Cambridge’s House delegation, Ayanna Pressley and Katherine Clark; and
WHEREAS: House Democratic Leadership has since proposed the creation of a “Select Committee on the Climate Crisis” which will not explicitly be charged with creating Green New Deal legislation, will not have subpoena or legislative powers, and will include legislators who have accepted contributions from or who have themselves made significant investments in the fossil fuel industry, including in leadership positions; and
WHEREAS: This proposal from House Democratic Leadership does not address the climate crisis with the urgency that is required to avoid the worst consequences of climate change including extreme heat, drought, fires, flooding, natural disasters, and poverty; and
WHEREAS: The United States is indeed already experiencing these impacts, from devastating hurricanes in Puerto Rico and Texas to the “Camp” wildfire in California that demolished an entire town; now therefore be it
RESOLVED: That the Cambridge City Council go on record in full support of a Green New Deal that includes both a rapid shift away from fossil fuels and creating jobs for American workers in renewable energy and associated industries; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Cambridge City Council go on record urging our Congressional Delegation to continue advocating for such a Green New Deal and to make addressing the climate crisis a top priority in 2019 and beyond; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this resolution to Rep. Katherine Clark and Rep. Ayanna Pressley on behalf of the entire Cambridge City Council.

O-9     Jan 7, 2019  Amended
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: On Dec 23, 2018, a City water main burst on Craigie Street; and
WHEREAS: Several properties in the vicinity had extensive water damage and property owners have questions about the cause of the pipe’s failure and the emergency response protocol; and
WHEREAS: There have been at least three five other water main breaks recently, including ones on Pleasant Street, Clay Street, Inman Street, Berkshire Street, and Marney Street; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consider the possibility of holding an informational meeting with affected community members; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Water Department and the Department of Public Works to report to the City Council on the age of City water mains and the status of any preventive maintenance and replacement plans, including the installation of cathodic protection to prolong the usable lives of pipes.

O-10     Jan 7, 2019  Amended
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: Affordable housing continues to be a major issue in the City of Cambridge that constituents demand our government addresses; and
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge’s Comprehensive Housing Plan issued a recommendation for a Real Estate Transfer Fee; and
WHEREAS: House Bill 4196 “An Act supporting affordable housing with a local option for a fee to be applied to certain real estate transactions” received a favorable review from the House Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government and is now moving forward to the House Committee on Steering, Policy and Scheduling with a recommendation that it pass; and
WHEREAS: The Metro Mayor’s Coalition Regional Housing Task Force, composed of 15 cities and towns, including Cambridge, has identified implementing a local transfer fee as a key strategy; and
WHEREAS: The Envision Housing recommendations have listed the local real estate transfer fee as a high priority; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge City Council proposed a municipal transfer fee ordinance on Feb 29, 2016, and was supported unanimously but there has been no progress since then; and
WHEREAS: The City of Somerville passed a Home Rule petition for a transfer fee that was reported favorably out of the Massachusetts House Steering, Policy and Scheduling Committee; and
WHEREAS: The City of Provincetown’s voters approved a 0.5 percent transfer fee in 2010 that was rejected by the state legislature, but representatives from Provincetown have advocated for said fee every year since; and
WHEREAS: The City of Pittsburg instituted a .5 percent transfer fee in 2017 that they estimate will generate $10 million in revenue annually; and
WHEREAS: The City of Toronto instituted a transfer fee that contributed about $640 million to the city’s operating budget in 2017 alone; and
WHEREAS: The affordable housing crisis affects the lives of millions of residents around the country, and Cambridge has consistently led the way in addressing local, state and global problems; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the Cambridge City Council consider a Real Estate Transfer Fee Home Rule Petition for residential and commercial properties sold over $2 million, with the funds raised allocated to the Affordable Housing Trust for the creation and preservation of affordable housing in the city; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager instruct the Assessor’s office to provide data on possible revenue generated from a transfer fee and the impact on the housing market; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to prepare a draft Home Rule petition for consideration by the Ordinance Committee for further deliberation and discussion.

O-12     Jan 7, 2019
MAYOR MCGOVERN
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge has adopted a Complete Streets policy and has formally committed to Vision Zero, with goals of eliminating transportation fatalities and serious injuries, as well as continuing to reduce the crash rates for all modes; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Bicycle Plan, adopted in 2015 and currently undergoing further revision, was developed “to enable people of all ages and abilities to bicycle safely and comfortably throughout the city,” and set goals to:
  1) Make a significant shift towards bicycling as a sustainable transportation mode;
  2) Create a transportation system that is safe for users of all ages and abilities; and
  3) Innovate and be an early adopter of best practices in bicycle infrastructure; and
WHEREAS: Although progress has been made on certain streets to expand bicycle infrastructure and improve safety for all modes of transportation, a network connecting these segments and allowing residents to commute and recreate by bicycle safely, security, and comfortably is not yet complete; and
WHEREAS: Promoting bicycle ridership will also allow the City to pursue parallel objectives in improved health for cyclists (especially seniors), reducing the carbon footprint of residents, decreasing traffic congestion, and expanding accessible infrastructure for residents who cannot afford to own or maintain a car; and
WHEREAS: The attached ordinance is intended to help the City achieve the goals it set in the Cambridge Bicycle Plan, and to increase bicycle ridership, decrease motor vehicle speed and the number of trips taken by single occupancy vehicles, and promote public health, safety, and sustainability; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the attached “Cycling Safety Ordinance” be forwarded to the Ordinance Committee for discussion and recommendation.

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE
In the Year Two Thousand and Nineteen
AN ORDINANCE
In amendment to the Ordinance entitled “Cambridge Municipal Code.”

That the Municipal Code of the City of Cambridge be amended by adding in Title Twelve entitled “Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places” a new Chapter 12.22 entitled “Cycling Safety Ordinance,” which reads as follows:

Chapter 12.22 Cycling Safety Ordinance

Section 12.22.010 Short Title
This Chapter may be cited as the "Cycling Safety Ordinance" of the City of Cambridge.

Section 12.22.020 Purpose
This Chapter seeks to eliminate fatalities and injuries on City streets in accordance with the City's Vision Zero goals through safety improvements and the construction of a connected network of permanent separated bicycle lanes across the City.

Section 12.22.030 Definitions
A. “Adequate Directionality” shall mean (1) a two-way street with a separated bicycle lane or lanes that allow bicycle travel in both directions, or (2) a one-way street with a separated bicycle lane or lanes that allow bicycle travel either in the direction of the flow of vehicular traffic or in both directions.

B. “Connectivity” shall mean the provision of a Permanent Separated Bicycle Lane system that reflects desired routes between all major origins and destinations in the city.

C. “Cambridge Bicycle Plan” shall mean the plan adopted by the City of Cambridge in October 2015 to create a framework for developing a network of complete streets, and which is entitled “Cambridge Bicycle Plan: Toward a Bikeable Future”.

D. “Five-Year Sidewalk and Street Reconstruction Plan” shall mean the City of Cambridge Department of Public Works’ five-year work plan of May 1, 2018, as it may be amended from time to time.

E. “Improvements” shall mean the construction of new City-owned streets, or the reconstruction of an existing City-owned street, including but not limited to full depth reconstruction, expansion, and/or alteration of a roadway or intersection. Improvements shall not include routine maintenance, repairs, restriping of the road surface, or emergency repairs to the surface of a roadway (collectively “Maintenance”), provided that existing bicycle lanes will be restored to existing conditions or better.

F. “Permanent Separated Bicycle Lane” shall mean a bicycle lane separated from motor vehicle traffic by a permanent vertical barrier that shall remain in place year-round, including but not limited to granite or concrete barriers and raised curbs, provided, however, that the bicycle lane need not be separated from motor vehicle traffic by a permanent vertical barrier for short stretches to accommodate crosswalks, curb cuts, accessible parking, intersections, and public transportation, and provided further, that existing bicycle lanes may be temporarily removed during construction of Improvements or Maintenance, so long as they are restored to existing conditions or better.

G. “Separated Network” shall mean the proposed set of bicycle facilities identified in the Cambridge Bicycle Plan (Figure 5.14), or any plan superseding it, provided, however, that any such plan shall maintain Connectivity.

Section 12.22.040 Requirements
A. Whenever Improvements are made to a City-owned street under the City’s Five-Year Sidewalk and Street Reconstruction Plan, the City Manager shall cause such Improvements to comply with the Cambridge Bicycle Plan, or any plan superseding it; provided, that if Improvements are made to a segment of the Separated Network, a Permanent Separated Bicycle Lane with Adequate Directionality shall be installed along that segment.

B. Full compliance with the provisions of Subsection A above is not required where the City Manager can demonstrate through a written alternatives analysis, to be made public, why it is impractical to comply with the provisions of Subsection A above, and where there will be a loss of Connectivity if the provisions of Subsection A are not complied with, how Connectivity could be otherwise advanced, if possible. Full compliance with the provisions of Subsection A above will be considered impracticable only in those rare circumstances where the City Manager determines that the characteristics of the physical features or usage of a street, or financial constraints of full compliance prevent the incorporation of a Permanent Separated Bicycle Lane with Adequate Directionality.

O-13     Jan 7, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: The Government Services Agency (GSA) awarded MITIMCO the contract to construct a new Volpe Center facility for the U.S. Department of Transportation to replace the existing federal buildings on the Volpe site in Kendall Square in exchange for the right to redevelop the rest of the 14-acre parcel; and
WHEREAS: As a federal facility, the new Volpe Center will not be subject to the zoning or special permit requirements set out in the PUD-7 Zoning District that the City Council created in October 2017; and
WHEREAS: Under the terms of the exchange contract, MITIMCO must complete construction of the new Volpe Center before redeveloping the rest of the site; and
WHEREAS: As yet, no information has been shared with the Council or the public about the design of this building, its size and siting, or the schedule for its construction and completion; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to seek and share regular project updates from the GSA and MITIMCO on the new Volpe Center, and to report back as soon as possible.

O-14     Jan 7, 2019
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: Major public building projects in the City, such as the construction or substantial renovation of a school, fire station, or other public facility, are conducted with the guidance of Selection Committees; and
WHEREAS: Selection Committees determine the architects and designers who will oversee construction processes for these projects; and
WHEREAS: The public has a major interest in the outcome of these projects, as well as in the ability of the selected companies to mitigate and minimize construction impacts in project areas, and deserves that their interest be represented; and
WHEREAS: The public could and should be represented by having at least one City Councillor on the Selection Committee for any major public building project; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consider how to provide public representation on such major project Selection Committees and report back to the City Council on how this will be accomplished.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Dec 5, 2018 at 3:01pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to explore the legal options Cambridge does and does not have when permitting existing, new and emerging mobility platforms in Cambridge; said uses will include the ability for Cambridge to regulate platforms that operate on both City and Non-City property and the differences between streets and sidewalks when considering what permits are needed and any regulatory gaps that might exist where City permitting authority is unclear but desired and how the City may get that necessary authority.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Kelley, Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Vice Mayor Devereux; Councillor Siddiqui; Councillor Zondervan; Director of Environmental and Transportation Planning, CDD, Susanne Rasmussen; PTDM Officer Stephanie Groll; Inspectional Services Commissioner Ranjit Singanayagam; Sisia Daglian, Deputy Commissioner, Inspectional Services; Public Works Commissioner Owen O’Riordan; Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation Joe Barr; Rachel Talenhouse, Disability Commission; City Solicitor Nancy Glowa; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Patrick Bench, Bird.

Councillor Kelley convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He provided copies of an email sent to the City Manager (ATTACHMENT A). He had a presentation (ATTACHMENT B). He spoke about micro-mobility and where the City is from a licensing and permitting perspective. He stated that the goal is safety and to look at new platforms and how they could best work on City streets. He asked if there are enough resources available in City government to address this issue. He stated that with Uber the use was ahead of the regulations and the result was not as favorable for Cambridge as we would have liked. He outlined all the street furniture and signs that occupy the City’s streets and sidewalks. He asked about the City’s authority to license and permit these micro-mobility platforms. Does this authority come from the State and does the City have to ask the state for new regulatory powers to manage these uses? He spoke about partnering and implementation on a regional basis. He stated that this frames the discussion.

Councillor Kelley asked about on-street parking stickers and how does this work.

Ms. Rasmussen stated that City departments have met with MAPC and other communities since September to achieve influence on the state regulation on scooter regulation and micro-mobility devices and what is necessary to have them operate in the City and what the City needs to continue to regulate. The other issue was for a model regulation for micro-mobility with a similar set of requirements. The hope is to really start formulating ideas and working on this issue in January and in the spring to have a set of regulations to be adopted. She stated that Cambridge, Somerville, Boston, Brookline and MAPC are partnering.

Mr. Barr stated that resident parking permits are only for the personal use of residents. The program is allowed under state enabling legislation. The Bonzer request was made by a Cambridge resident who failed to adequately share that the stickers were for car-sharing vehicles. It has been clarified for 2019 that the Bonzer car shares will not be eligible for the resident parking permits. He stated that “floating” car sharing is different than traditional car sharing. The City Is not necessarily non-supportive but the implications may be problematic in the future. City Solicitor Glowa explained that the legislation is for residential parking stickers only.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked how the Bonser business model is different and why would it lead to more miles driven. Mr. Barr stated that vehicles float around the City while with a traditional car sharing lie Zipcar the vehicles need to be returned to the place of origin. Drivers may driver them wherever, whenever rather than for discrete tasks. He stated that the impacts are unknown at this time. That “floater” cars are parked on the street is a factor. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that this is equivalent to dock-less bikes.

Councillor Zondervan commented that Zipcar does not have resident parking stickers. Mr. Barr explained that they are typically not ticketed if parked in a residential area because they are being used by residents for transient purposes such as drop-off/pick-up.

Councillor Kelley stated that the City has an exclusive contract with Bluebikes and cannot allow other operators to conduct bike sharing. Ms. Rasmussen stated that the City owns the Bluebike system and in the contract with Motivate there is language that another bike share use is not allowed. The City has invested a lot of money in this program.

Councilor Kelley stated that dock-less scooters are not the same as bikes. The sidewalk vending permit requires a location and how would an application be obtained for a dock less scooter that has no fixed location. City Solicitor Glowa stated that there are three sections in the Municipal Code that requires a permit for a vehicle on the street. She stated there are sections in the Municipal Code that could apply; some language is “adjacent” to and the City can permit things without specific locations. Councillor Kelley noted his concerns about using sidewalk vending permits as a way to regulate these vehicles. He asked is the City thinking of any other way to achieve this. Ms. Rasmussen stated that current shared scooter equipment does not comply with state regulations and the hours of operation. The sidewalk vending permit was a secondary issue. The city cannot permit something that does not meet the state regulations. The collaboration with MAPC and other communities is to come up with state regulations for micro-mobility vehicles to operate legally under municipal regulations.

City Solicitor explained that under the City’s Home Rule power the City can regulate other than under state regulations as long as it is not inconsistent with state law. Other local permitting schemes are also relevant. The sections of the City Ordinance are applicable and were properly used.

Councillor Kelley stated that the challenge is that these vehicles are seen all over. The use itself is not necessarily illegal, but the regulations under discussion are focused on the use of City property to host the scooters. City Solicitor Glowa stated that this is regulating city property for businesses. City sidewalks are not prohibited for personal use devices or vehicles on City property. Councillor Kelley noted that it is the use on City property that is currently at issue because the City told the scooter share company they did not have the right permit to use City property for their scooter rentals. City Solicitor Glowa stated that these devices are often left on City property between uses and this is the issue with businesses. Ms. Rasmussen stated that the clear majority of scooters are not able to operate in the public way because of inadequate equipment and the time of use restrictions and there are traffic regulations so, all in all, scooter use is generally illegal even for a private individual.

Mr. Barr stated that Chapter 23 of the Traffic Regulations of the City Code has requirements: helmets, must be 18 years of age to operate; these can be changed to be more restrictive than state law. The one proposed state regulation he has heard about would put these vehicles in the same model as a Transportation Network Companies and would leave the City less regulatory power and financial reward and would take control out of the City. He does not think this would be a good idea.

Vice Mayor Devereux spoke about private property and ANT bikes on Harvard University property. She stated that the City cannot regulate as the rental property takes place on non-City property. City Solicitor Glowa responded that the zoning district must be viewed. She added that there are state requirements for the equipment that needed to be on these vehicles. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that bikes are different from scooters. City Solicitor Glowa noted that zoning amendments were made for City to enter into a contract with Motivate and this might prohibit this use. Ms. Rasmussen stated that there is no provision for a private bike share in the contract. Cambridge zoning only allows public bike share and thus private bike share is prohibited by the Cambridge zoning ordinance anywhere in the City. Vice Mayor Devereux asked who would enforce ANT bikes on Harvard property. The response was the Inspectional Services Department. Councillor Zondervan spoke about the language of the contract with Motivate and asked if it is only a public service. City Solicitor Glowa stated that the language in the Motivate contract was negotiated to only allow public bike share which is clearly outlined in the zoning ordinance. She stated that the legislation that exempts the MBTA from local zoning is geared to the public transportation system, but private bike share use on MBTA property has not been determined. She stated that there are complexities.

Councillor Kelley asked how the special permit process works and does it always have to be Hubway in the special permit. Mr. Barr stated that the City requires developers to use public transportation as well as Bluebikes, The Easyride Shuttle, MBTA and car sharing parking and electric vehicles. The City could propose parking for electric vehicles and scooter charging without mentioning any vendor but requiring an overall category. That has been the City’s general approach in making the special permit more generic and to keep the City from picking winners and losers.

Councillor Kelley asked can insurance or license be required for the operators. City Solicitor Glowa stated that some insurance can be insisted on by the City to be provided for the use and would be required more by the business rather than the operators.

Councillor Kelley noted that under state law the scooters are challenging and need instructions and would this be in regulation. Ms. Rasmussen stated that seeking to require this from the operator. She stated that to operate a Bluebike the operator has to read through instructions on how to safely ride the vehicles. She stated that there are a whole range of considerations (ATTACHMENT C) including data sharing and security. This is what might be required for anyone who is operating in the City.

Councillor Kelley stated that E-bike or E-scooters are different and are defined by the state and wondered if the state might define these vehicles in a way that would prevent City-specific permitting. City Solicitor Glowa responded that if it is not doing something inconsistent with state law under the home rule the City can have a municipal regulation. If the state says there’s a speed limit, we need to pay attention to that. We may want to address our concerns early on with these regulatory issues. Councillor Kelley asked does Cambridge need to be aggressive with the state to licensing things. City Solicitor Glowa responded that the City cannot be less restrictive than state law but could provide different rates of speed in congested areas of the City.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there is any consideration for the City to have a municipal-owned micro-mobility device like Blue Bikes and is this prevented in state law. City Solicitor Glowa stated that she does not think so and the City would be able to enter a contract with a provider if allowed by zoning. Vice Mayor Devereux asked would the City have ownership of the vehicles. City Solicitor Glowa noted that this would have to be analyzed. Mr. Barr stated that a consideration would be if the City is owning a system and not allowing other vendors to participate in the market. Vice Mayor Devereux commented that it was decided with bikes to have this control.

Councillor Zondervan asked would another model operator and users plug into the same operator equipment. These platforms require different applications to operate. He spoke about having a universal system. Mr. Barr stated that a centrally owned system would require a strong regional system. This has been an issue with Blue Bikes. TNCs like Uber and Lyft are thinking of combining apps, and we may want to push that as far as we legally can.

Councillor Kelley opened public comment at 3:56pm.

Patrick Bench spoke on behalf of Bird. He wanted to have a pathway for scooters in 2019 and collaborating with the regulations. He spoke about micro-mobility vehicles in other communities. He wants to collaborate with Cambridge and MAPC.

Councillor Kelley closed public comment at 3:57pm.

Councillor Carlone stated that looking toward the future with bike use increasing and as these other vehicles increase a 5-foot bike path may not be enough and there is a shift. He stated that the speed of bikes needs to be considered. The available space may be boxed in. Every time there has been a transportation improvement there has been an impact on roadways. More devices passing each other at different speeds will be challenging and we’ll see an impact on other road uses like cars. He spoke about what the numbers may be. He stated that if more staff is need or more funding let the City Council know. He wanted the staff to give the City Council this information.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that the she is being asked when and why this is taking so long. The regulations can be created but the City but cannot control personal control. Councillor Kelley stated that the clock will not be turned back on this.

Mr. Barr stated that Cambridge is not the only community facing these questions. Some are further ahead of us. The City is trying hard through peer network to keep on track with what is happening around the country and bring this back to Cambridge for best practices. No one has come up with the perfect way to do this. We do not want to be too far on the bleeding edge on this issue. We need to keep our unique legal and other challenges in mind when permitting.

Ms. Rasmussen explained that the City staff regularly speaks with other peers. She stated that scooters are a highly dynamic issue with the business climate and delivery models and one trend is for communities to permit, then pause for a time and deal with mergers and so forth. MAPC is preparing the best business practices on this and sharing information.

Councillor Carlone stated that the pedestrian percentage should have the same percentage of the right of way; this is what is done in Germany. Germany has pedestrian transportation engineers. Germany’s pedestrian areas work. He stated that eventually the amount of transportation use in Cambridge will tell the future. We will figure out a lot about the future of transportation based on who’s going where and how.

Councillor Kelley thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:07pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Dec 4, 2018 at 5:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

The purpose of the hearing was to review the preliminary LiDAR-based canopy study results from Apr 1, 2018 and to discuss potential reasons for the precipitous decline in our tree canopy and any other related matter.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Zondervan and Vice Mayor Devereux, Co-Chairs of the Committee; Councillor Carlone; Councillor Kelley; Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq; Director of Environmental and Transportation Planning, CDD, Susanne Rasmussen; Project Planner, CDD, John Bolduc; Public Works Commissioner Owen O’Riordan; Deputy Public Works Commissioner John Nardone; City Arborist and Tree Warden David Lefcourt; Superintendent of Urban Forestry Andrew Putnam; Project Manager, Urban Forest Master Plan, Public Works, Catherine Woodbury; GIS Project Manager Jeff Amero; and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.

Also present were Matt Huisch, 110 Adams Mail Center; Charles Teague, 23 Edmond Street; Susan Ringler, 82 Kinnaird Street; Gretchen Lester, HDS; Shane Brodie, Harvard Divinity School; and John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He announced that the hearing was being audio and video recorded. He stated that it was announced that the canopy has decreased, and the City has conducted a LiDAR study. He stated that these studies have occurred in 2009, 2014 and April 2018. He stated that over this period the City has been able to diagnose the canopy decline which is taking place over all the categories of the land use including residential, City-owned, commercial and institutionally owned. He stated that today he is hoping to get more insight about what is known and why this canopy loss is happening and more about the work of Urban Forestry Masterplan Task Force that will provide the City with recommendations as to how to turn this around.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the presentation will review the scope of work associated with the ongoing Master Plan. He gave a presentation (ATTACHMENT A). The Urban Forestry Master Plan began nine months ago with the hiring of consultant, Reed Hilderbrand, and have been trying to move the project along. A significant piece of this work involves looking at the existing canopy and the City is dependent on the LiDAR information in addressing some of the issues. He stated that Mr. Amero will address the issues associated with LiDAR.

Mr. Amero stated that LiDAR is a new technique to GIS. The first data set was received in 2009. The LiDAR technique used is light that is captured from an airplane. He explained that LiDAR is light detection and ranging but is really a light pulse rather than a radar pulse and it comes back and the data layer used is a million of points from these pulses that collects an enormous amount of data. The pulse is sent to ground and back to the airplane and goes side-to-side. The return will be from the top of the tree canopy and another return from the ground. Buildings under trees are captured. It is important to classify the points. He stated that the data can be collected anytime. He stated that the vendors process the data and remove the points that are noise. He gave an example of the draft data from 2018 which is missing the City Hall tower. He noted that there are times that trees are missed. He stated that LiDAR is a great tool to evaluate the tree canopy, but not the only analysis that needs to be done to get the numbers. He spoke about the 2009 LiDAR which was done by the City of Boston. He stated that this data is not the resolution that there is currently and had basic classifications. A flight was done on 2014 and was done for homeland security and was a UASI grant and was for the whole region. This data was received from the vendor and was not scoped out by the City. This data was better than the data in 2009. In 2018 the City hired a vendor to do our own LiDAR and the specifications were increased to include more points per square meter, a higher resolution and classifications. He stated that this is the best data so far. The 2009 flight was done in the fall and the 2014 and 2018 flights were done in the Spring.

Councillor Zondervan stated that it was his understanding that this was always done when there are no leaves on the canopy. Mr. Amero stated that the aerial photos want to see the most coverage. He stated that the City has never got a data set when the canopy is full, meaning June, July and August. He stated that the data is from the tree branches but will never be as good as if it were done in July. He stated that the University of Vermont has done the 75 tree canopy reports in the US and in Canada and they have the process down with the development of protocols. The data is getting more refined as time goes on. An aerial photo review and data from the arborist, field work and metrics are all needed to get a good picture.

Councillor Zondervan asked who actually does the fly over and who collects the data and when does City get the raw data. Mr. Amero responded that there have been different vendors; they either have the planes or rent the planes that have expensive sensors. He named Sandborn Maps, WSP and Pictometery and stated that these are companies that have the sensors and will send processed data and they send the final product to the City. He stated that with the 2018 data he thinks that the final draft is ready. He explained that the University of Vermont is looking at the City’s data. The 2009 and 2014 data will not be changed.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the University of Vermont took the 2009 data set and it was estimated that the canopy coverage for the City of Cambridge was approximately 37% of the overall land area for the City. He stated that in 2016 the 2014 data set was reviewed and estimated it in terms of the land area that there was a 2% reduction in the overall canopy which translated using the 2009 canopy as the denominator, there was 7.5% canopy reduction. As part of the Urban Forestry Master Plan, Hildebrand was asked to look at the 2018 fly over and provided an initial assessment that the canopy was now about 29.3% of the land area of the City. This was a significant decrease in the overall size of the canopy. This was based on raw data and there have been numerous revisions to that data. He stated that at this time the expectation is that the University of Vermont will again look at the data set using a consistent methodology associated with 2009 and 2014 and will generate another estimate of the canopy based on the revised 2018 data set. The expectation is that this information will be known late winter or early spring. Councillor Zondervan asked if the expectation is that this will come in around the same canopy coverage as the initial assessment, or do we expect a major revision? Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this (major revision) is not the expectation at this time.

Commissioner O’Riordan spoke about the Urban Forestry Master Plan. He stated that the goal of the plan is to maintain, plan, build and sustain a health connect to the urban forest at a time when the urban forest is more important than ever given the pressures of climate change. He stated that the scope of the work was wanted this to be data driven, based on sound science and that there was significant community engagement and outreach with this project. There have been a group of sub-consultants that have been selected are providing this level of commitment in terms of the scope of the work that they have provided to the City. He turned the presentation over to Ms. Woodbury.

Ms. Woodbury stated that the City is working with consultants and with the Urban Forestry Task Force of 18 members that represent a broad spectrum of the Cambridge community including residents, non-profit groups and institutions. The task force is charged to provide feedback and direction to the work being done by Reed Hilderbrand. She explained that they have been meeting monthly since June with the members of the task force. She stated that the initial duration that was asked for commitment was twelve months. All information and presentations are on the Urban Forestry Master Plan website. She spoke about the context of what the percentages mean. She stated that this was a comparison put together by the MIT’s Sensitive Cities Lab which compares the green view index which is a canopy assessment of various cities throughout the world. Cambridge is in the top tier of canopy communities. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if it is a coincidence that the 25.3% is the same for the tree index. Ms. Woodbury responded it is a coincidence. Councillor Zondervan asked if this is current data. Mr. Bolduc noted that the data is two years old. Ms. Woodbury commented that as part of the Urban Forestry Master Plan the task was to look at canopy loss across the City and see where the canopy is being lost. She stated that in the 2009 changes to the 2014 and to today the City has lost 228 acres over 10-year period. She explained that the Master Plan is looking at where the losses are occurring across land uses. The City is looking at the different categories of where the canopy loss is. She stated that the makeup of the tree canopy is also being looked at and the tree species that make up the canopy is being reviewed. She noted that the top three tree species make up for 30% of the canopy and if there was a loss of these three species it would be a significant blow the City’s tree canopy. The urban heat island is also being reviewed through the work being done by the Climate Change and the Preparedness Plan as well as in partnership with the Envision process on how to look into the future. She stated that the red heat areas correspond with the lack of tree areas and follows large transportation corridors. Vice Mayor Devereux added large parking lots.

Ms. Woodbury stated that under Urban Forest Master Plan the City is trying to understand the causes and losses. She stated that more research is needed to look deeper into what is causing these losses. She stated that they are questioning why the red areas are popping up in the City and this is being researched. She stated that the cycles are seen; development and the forest is beginning to grow again. She stated that more trees are being planted during this period of time. She stated that some of the trees are starting to age out. This is a reason for the decline. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that other issues will be reviewed such as permeable space being reduced in the residential areas and whether this is an indication of development or build out on residential properties. He stated that more loss is being seen in residential areas. He stated that turnover of houses is being looked at and whether these are the reasons. He stated that after more analysis more details will be provided.

Ms. Woodbury stated that canopy is declining annually and how will this be stopped or reversed. This is an area where the Urban Forestry Master Planning team and task force still need to explore further. She noted that the City is almost half way in the study and there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. She spoke about stemming the loss and continue to grow trees to make up for the loss. Councillor Zondervan asked where did 6.5% (annual canopy loss modeled) come from. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that Earthwatch did a project in 2013-2014 and concluded that the natural mortality with the urban canopy is about 4.5 % and 2% was added due to issues of climate change and additional disease. Councillor Zondervan questioned the 4.5% base rate does this include trees being cut down.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the information was based on a study looked at 13-14 large communities and included trees cut down and natural mortality. Ms. Woodbury stated that the future impacts is to include change in flooding, drought, but if the stem of 6.5% is not stopped there will be a significant reduction in the tree canopy. Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the City does nothing there is 200 acres less and a 220-acre loss is a significant loss for a decade. Vice Mayor Devereux noted that the City was planting trees and the canopy is at a loss. Councillor Zondervan stated that the City is not currently losing trees at 6.5% a year (because that is a gross decline being modeled, not a net decline, so it does not take into account any new growth nor new plantings). Commissioner O’Riordan commented that the City is planting trees in the public right of way. Ms. Woodbury stated that this represents the total tree canopy in the City, both public and private trees. She spoke about reducing 6.5% to 3% and start planting new trees. The importance of both of these actions will be beneficial over time, but it takes time for new canopy to grow.

Councillor Zondervan stated that the projection is based on the planting of 2,500 trees per year, both public and private. He noted that based on the net the City is not gaining canopy. He asked how many trees are being currently planted totally. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this information is not captured. He stated that the information on residential tree planting is not provided to the City. Councillor Zondervan asked is it possible to subtract the loss to figure out what kind of replacement is taking place. He asked how the 2,500 trees per year compares to what is currently happening or are we currently planting 1,000 trees per year. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that over 25-year period the tree size (on average) will grow from 5 to 30 inches in diameter. He stated that now one can calculate the number of trees that need to be planted to get to the number on an annual basis. He explained that the City is struggling to water 1.5 thousand trees in the public right of way. He stated that it is one thing to plant trees and another to maintain, grow and care for the trees.

Councillor Zondervan asked how many trees are planted in the public right of way. Vice Mayor Devereux stated that is important to note that the City is planting the trees. Commissioner O’Riordan responded that the City plants 350-550 trees per year. He noted that in 2019 the City expects to plant 600 trees. Vice Mayor Devereux commented that the rest needs to be planted on private land. Councillor Zondervan stated that 20% of the City’s canopy is in public property. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that the maximum that the City can account for to have a full canopy on the right of way is 20%. Councillor Zondervan stated that this seems doable and the question is who pays for this.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that this seems ambitious for the land area where trees are being planted. She stated that she does not know if all the private acreage where trees can be planted has been surveyed. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that there is 10% more potential on residential private property than on the right of way. Ms. Woodbury stated that as part of the UFMP process the goal is to stem loss and grow the canopy and to determine where this can happen. She stated that the best practices are being looked at. The best watering and soil given a tree the best chance the tree has of surviving. She stated that as part of the public participation and outreach a survey of attitudes was done on the views of Cambridge residents, employees and businesses and will be closed on Dec 7, 2018. She noted that over 1,000 responses have been received. She stated that the City is trying to guage people’s thoughts on trees and are they concerned with trees, whether there is focus on private or public trees and what are the public views on trees. She stated that Cambridge has a strong forestry division with 10 employees that includes 7 certified arborists. She stated that Cambridge’s (tree) budget per capita is strong compared to other communities. She explained that Mr. Lefcourt will discuss the work of the forestry division and regulations that cover the urban canopy and the tree warden’s duties.

David Lefcourt outlined the laws he follows as a tree warden. He stated that for the City of Cambridge there are 13,000 trees in the public right of way. He explained that the City is responsible for trees planted within 20 feet of a right of way if municipal funds were used to plant the trees and if a resident wanted to remove such a tree, there would need to be a formal tree removal hearing. He stated that the state shade tree law states that healthy shade trees need to go through a public hearing process to be removed. He further stated that any shade tree that poses a hazard could be removed without a tree removal hearing. Councillor Zondervan asked if the City wanted to extend the 20 feet distance to plant more trees on private property, with the permission of the property owner, would the state law have to be changed. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this is only applies if the tree was planted within 20 feet of the right of way using public funds. Councillor Zondervan asked if a tree could be planted with public funds 30 feet into private property without amending the state law. Mr. Lefcourt stated that this is being reviewed with the Law Department. He stated that if it were 30 feet there may be more takers to have trees planted on the side of homes or in backyards. Councillor Zondervan noted that currently, any private tree could be cut down without input. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that during Arbor Week seedlings are given out. Mr. Lefcourt stated that the regulation involved with trees on private property is the shade tree ordinance in place which requires that if a large-scale development over 25,000 square feet is to take place the project needs to submit three plans to the arborist showing what exists, what is planned to protect and or remove and the mitigation plan. He stated that anything eight inches or greater needs to be accounted for either by replacement on the site and/or payment into a tree fund.

Charlie Teague asked how many tree hearings have been held this year and how many trees were not allowed to be removed. Mr. Lefcourt stated that there have been three tree hearings for 2018. He stated that he only does tree hearings as a last resort for a removed. He stated that if he can mitigate the risk within the tree the tree is pruned, and he tries to preserve the tree. He stated that tree hearings are held typically when there are development projects where the proposed development is looked at to minimize the impact to the trees in the public way. Mr. Teague asked how many trees have been planted in the spring and the fall. Mr. Lefcourt responded that 200 trees were planted in the fall and 400 trees were planted in the spring. Mr. Teague asked how many were replacement. Mr. Lefcourt responded either 79 or 89 trees were replaced this fall. Mr. Teague stated that 6.5% was developed from the status quo from 2014. He stated that if 400 trees are planted per year and this included those cut down and bundled into the 6.5%.

Commissioner O’Riordan stated that he cannot confirm that the trees planted were in the 6.5%. Mr. Teague asked what your definition of residential is. Commissioner O’Riordan stated that this is a land use category defined in the zoning maps. Mr. Teague stated that residential is allowed in every zoning district in the City. He wanted a report back on this. Commissioner O’Riordan responded in the affirmative. Mr. Teague asked for the chain of custody on the data sets.

Mr. Amero stated that the 2018 is the only contracted flight on behalf of the City. He stated that the first round of data has been sent to him and he sent it to the University of Vermont and there have been a few iterations. There is a final data set in hand and has come back 4 times.

Councillor Zondervan opened public comment at 5:57pm.

Shane Brodie stated that he lives in Arlington and is a master student at Harvard University Divinity School. He spoke about the Divinity School and is disappointed in the school because Harvard Divinity School has decided to cut down a 100-year-old red oak tree. He noted that red oak trees can live between 200-400 years. He spoke about the canopy filling the courtyard and it has sister trees on the campus and is part of the original landscape of the actual school. He stated that the school has decided to make a giant conference center and cut down this tree. He stated that the tree is loved by the students on campus. The tree has a healing initiative and the school talks about fostering caring but does not model their actions. He stated that he does not want this model replicated.

Susan Ringler, 82 Kinnaird Street, suggested that the City Council make the Divinity School tree a historical landmark. She stated that on July 28, 2014 she addressed the City Council on the subject of the Silver Maple Forest and that climate change is serious and this is crisis. She spoke about the need to reduce emissions on the planet. She stated that Cambridge has squandered it’s time for the last 5 years. She stated that the tree canopy is decimated from what it was five years ago. She stated that the City needs to have a private tree ordinance which requires a hearing for every single tree over a certain size and it was needed 3 years ago. This is unconscionable. Every large tree matters now because of the squandering. She stated that magically the tree canopy will be reduced by 3% with no idea of how to achieve this. She stated that the assets that can protect us are being thrown away with no idea how climate change will affect us.

Gretchen Legler, Harvard Divinity School, stated that she has a background in environmental literature. She stated that that the loss of the canopy is being caused by one tree at a time being cut down or dying and are not being replaced. She stated that Harvard University students are applying for a Massachusetts Legacy Tree Status for this particular tree. She stated that this tree is 140 inches in circumference and more than 74 feet inches tall and the crown spread is more than 74 feet. She stated that the she estimated the age at about 178 years old which means that it sprouted in 1840. This is an old tree with a lot of historical importance to the City of Cambridge. She stated that this tree will be cut down for improvement to Andover Hall which it predates. She stated that administration did ask the architects is there was a way for a large meeting space without cutting the tree. The architects responded in the negative and stated that if you want your large meeting space the tree needs to be cut down.

John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street, complained about the colors of the graph. He stated that communication is critical to the mission of the task force and the graphs are important. He asked what the tree growth per year is. The heart of the task force is communication to motivate the public. He asked how one tree can be translated into something that people can get their hands around. He spoke about the impact by blocks being the most useful tools going forward to communicate with the public. He did not want to reinvent things that are working well. He stated all in the City should be tree stewards. He wanted more options and what will mobilize the people to take better care of the trees.

Adam Liebling, stated that he has watch the flora and fauna since 1980. He spoke about trees being cut down and the more affluent areas the trees are well cared for but in Area Four the trees are being cut down. He stated that he lives behind the HMart and he understands that the parking lots, trees and shrubs are controlled by Public Works. He stated that he has seen hundreds of trees planted here over the years because small saplings are planted in a busy parking lot and the trees are destroyed and are cut down. He stated that in PA and NY the saplings are protected. If trees are planted there should be investment to ensure that the trees will survive. He stated that something absurd is going on particularly in Area Four.

Steven Nutter, Executive Director, Green Cambridge, thanked the task force. For the last 100 years trees have not been high on the agenda. He stated that if 60% of the trees were gone from the first slide Cambridge would not be Cambridge. Cities that are being built are being modeled off of Cambridge neighborhoods and the urban form combined with the flora and fauna produce. This is the signature part of our City. He stated that it is about strategy and what is valued, and this is not being communicated to new residents and buildings that Cambridge values trees. Unless trees are at the top of the agenda Cambridge will have problems that technology nor engineering can resolve.

At 6:20pm Councillor Zondervan closed public comment.

Vice Mayor Devereux stated that she was disappointed that only two City Councillors attended this hearing. She stated that communication is key and why do we care. There are people passionate and committed to the idea that the tree canopy is in crisis and the City has not done a good job communicating why this is so important to care about and trees are pitted against other issues in the City. She noted that this needs to be connected to social wellbeing and environmental justice. The survey will be hard to assess the critical need of trees and the level of awareness in the community about the level of crisis. In the City Council goals, the tree canopy was not ranked and whether it should be considered. She noted that the picture of City Hall in the LiDAR showed that there is no tree on the Inman Street side of City Hall. She suggested planting a large tree on this side of City Hall. This is the City example of the City’s commitment to plant trees.

Councillor Zondervan spoke about that the Harvard Divinity School tree. He stated that he and Vice Mayor Devereux sent a letter to the school and are planning to meet to discuss the tree. This is an example of the challenge of saving one tree. He is committed to keeping this tree alive. He stated that there will be a Tree Ordinance hearing scheduled for Jan 9, 2019 at 5:30pm. He stated that Vancouver diagnosed this problem in the 1990s and passed a law that forbid the removal of any tree on private property unless dead or about to die. It is important to do the City’s due diligence to study this question. He stated that stop cutting down trees and planting more trees is the solution. He stated that the correspondence received from residents showing where trees are being cut down. This is a sample of what has happened in the City for ten years. He stated that this is a direct conflict between planting trees and building buildings. He stated that he planted three trees in his small yard. There is potential plantable area. He looks forward to the recommendations from the task force and wanted preliminary findings and urged that the City Council be sent these as reached, the sooner the better.

Councillor Zondervan and Vice Mayor Devereux thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 6:30pm.

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Co-Chair
Councillor Quinton Y. Zondervan, Co-Chair