Committee Report #3 - Jan 27, 2020 Cambridge City Council
HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE - Wed, Jan 22, 2020
Attending: Zondervan (Chair), McGovern, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler
The Health and Environment Committee will meet on Jan 22, 2020 at 2:30pm to discuss the recommendation from the Urban Forest Master Plan Taskforce and outline potential amendment to the Tree Protection Ordinance, including an extension of the current moratorium.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Welcome everyone, we're going to get started. I will read the call to the meeting: The Health and Environment Committee will meet on Jan 22 to discuss the recommendation from the Urban Forest Master Plan Taskforce and outline potential amendment to the tree protection ordinance, including an extension of the current moratorium. So, we have the policy order that was referred by the Council a week and a half ago, that includes an extension of the moratorium. And then we'll also hear a little bit from the Department of Public Works about the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force process and the recommendations that came out from that. And the plan is to forward the moratorium extension back to the Council for a vote on that, and then we'll have follow up meetings of this committee to further dig into the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force recommendations. So with that, I'd like to welcome my colleagues and the staff and the public, thank you for being here. And I'm joined by fellow committee members Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler and Councillor Nolan, and the Department of Public Works. So with that, I'll hand it over to you.
Councillor Patricia Nolan
Thank you. Since this is my first committee meeting of this body, what is the general process, and I assume we'll hear from the public? Just how will it unfold and what's the order of business just so that I can understand? Maybe I should know that already, but I don't. So I would appreciate some forgiveness for me, ensuring that I understand the process as we move forward. Thank you.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Yes, thank you, Councillor Nolan for asking and my apologies for not explaining that better. So the rough agenda for this meeting is that we'll hear from Department of Public Works, we'll ask a few clarifying questions only, we won't have any debates. Then we'll hear from the public. And then we'll come back to the committee for further discussion and final actions. Thank you.
DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, perhaps I should introduce the other members of DPW staff that are here today. So to my left, Catherine Daly Woodbury, Catherine was the project manager associated with the Urban Forestry Master Plan, which is still ongoing. And then I've Andrew Putnam. Andrew is the Superintendent of Urban Forestry at the Department of Public Works. On the desk behind, John Nardone. John is the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public Works. David Lefcourt. David is the City Arborist. And then we have Abby Bentley. Abby has just recently come on board, and Abby is the Assistant City Arborist with the Department of Public Works. And so I think that's us in terms of the Department of Public Works at this point in time. So we have a presentation that we will go through in a few minutes, but perhaps for the benefit of the new Councillors, it might be worthwhile providing some context associated with how we got to where we are at this point in time. Perhaps the best place to start is back in 2009, when UVM working with the city conducted a LiDAR flyover of the city. In other words, a remote sensing of the city's canopy at that point in time, and estimated that about the 30% of the city had tree canopy at that point in time. They then did a similar flyover or the similar flyover was conducted in 2014 and they conducted an analysis after that, and indicated that in terms of the overall area of the city, that the canopy had been reduced by 2%, or specific to the actual canopy that had been there in 2009, was equivalent to about 7.8% loss in canopy between 2009 and 2014. They then conducted another study on the basis of a flyover that was conducted in April of 2018. On this occasion, the canopy was indicated to be just less than 26%. So, a further reduction in the canopy scale. And again, equivalent to about 17.8% reduction in canopy between 2009 and 2018. At this point in time, 17.8% specific to the canopy that existed in 2009. Going back, you know, I think City Council became concerned about this in 2016. There were there was a hearing held in 2016. The primary focus at that point in time was on what was the city doing in terms of its own design standards, its own practices in terms of maintaining the canopy that is by ordinance required to manage in the city. And so there was a significant focus on our practices in terms of planting and maintaining our trees and indeed, the processes associated with the taking down of public shade trees in accordance with chapter 87 of state law. Then as time moved along, I think there was an increased understanding that a lot of trees that we're losing were not on the public right-of-way. And so I think people became more concerned about that. And in early 2018, there were hearings about setting up a task force to begin to look at this. And so we hired a consultant team, Reed Hildebrand early in 2018. And a task force was brought together, consisting of 18 people from different parts of the community. I think one of the more significant issues that emerged from those early meetings associated with the task force was the fact that a significant amount of the canopy was being lost on residential property. In fact, the vast majority of canopy loss was on private property. There's loss across all land uses in the city, but a significant amount of it was on private property. And the most significant of all was on residential private property. In early 2019, there was a hearing that was held at the Health and Environment Committee, where there was a proposal to institute an amendment to the existing Tree Protection Ordinance to impact the taking down of trees on private property. Previous to this, the Tree Protection Ordinance which was ordained initially in 2005, spoke specifically to development projects: large special private projects and projects in excess of 25,000 square feet. And so the request was to extend that to cover all properties. And specifically what it came to mean in terms of this passage was that no permits would be issued to anyone in the city outside those associated with special permits and large projects unless the tree was dead or dangerous, unless there was significant emergency (and we can get into the details of what that meant). Utility projects, there were projects associated with other environmental concerns, or indeed if there was an instance where a structure might be impacted. So over a period of I would say maybe a month and a half, it was a relatively short period of time, we came back to City Council with an amendment to the Tree Protection Ordinance together with a body of regulations. And so those have been in effect for about the last 11 months. Those will sunset on Feb 25 of this year. And so I guess one of the things that you have to make a determination about is whether or not that should extend. In terms of the Urban Forestry Master Plan and Task Force, you know, we have in front of us here and I think there's a copy online and we give you hard copies of this. This is a 280 page Urban Forestry Master Plan Technical Report. It is online. There is another 750 pages of this document in appendices. I would say this is an extraordinarily comprehensive report. It took a lot longer for us to complete it than we initially thought, but I think at the outset we said this is going to be a data-driven science-based community engagement project. And I think this document is true to that, in that there is an enormous amount of data analysis incorporated in this. I think the recommendations that are provided for in this as well, are science-based and also come out of a lot of the interactions that were had, both with the task force and with the community through three community meetings. We met on 12 occasions with the task force. I think everybody in the task force was hugely committed and extraordinarily knowledgeable. And like I said, represented all elements of the community. I think given the scope of this project, my sense is that we brought this back to the task force in early December, for their consideration in terms of prioritizing some aspects of this in terms of policy and practice and design and so forth. Quite truthfully, I think it may have been too early for us to actually glean everything that we could glean from the task force at that point in time. And, it very much depends on the will of the City Council but our wish would be that we could go back to the Task Force for one additional meeting, so as to be able to further filter through all of those aspects of this associated with permitting specifically that the task force fields are most important, and put those in front of you. And we would do that in early February, again, with the blessing of City Council. We would not do this unless we had the blessing of City Council to do it. And I do think that if indeed we can move this reasonably rapidly through the task force again, you know, last year it took us maybe I would say, four or five weeks to actually amend the existing ordinance and put an amendment together. We'd certainly commit to being as quick as we possibly can and putting changes to the existing ordinances together so that we could have something in place for late spring, early summer. I recognize that we had committed to get this done earlier than we ultimately got it done. But I think it's not because we slowed down and didn't commit resources to it. I think quite the opposite. I think we committed a lot more than we ever anticipated committing to this, and so I would ask for some latitude in terms of your sense as to us being late with regard to this document. Also, in terms of extending the existing amendment, I would, I think we would be in favor of an extension of the existing amendment. I don't think it would necessarily need to be extended for a long period of time, but I think given the commitment that the community and the task force have given to this, and also your instruction to us last year with the amendment that was excuses, it's important that we'd be able to report back to you in terms of recommendations in the not too distant future. And again, that would be our commitment that we will try and get a recommendation back to you sooner rather than later. So with that, perhaps we should get into a little bit more detailed presentation. And then could ask Catherine and Andrew to help me go through this.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you, Owen. DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan Okay, so we'll just talk a little bit about the amendment for a second. And again, what it did was, it basically said that specific to tree removal on properties not associated with special permits or large projects, people would be required to get permits from the Department of Public Works if they expected to take down trees on those properties. However, for a period of one year, we would not issue permits unless a tree was either dead or dangerous, or there was an emergency circumstance (and we describe that in more detail in the regulations), where a significant utility project was be undertaken with state or federal regulations or programs associated with it, city park projects where there were, again community engagement in advance of that, or in instances where the canopy would benefit from the removal of a number of trees so that perhaps native trees would grow that much more healthier. And then instances where a tree would impact a structure. And again this is all associated with significant trees. Significant trees were defined as trees that have DBH in excess of eight inches. And so that was ordained in February of last year, and became effective on March 11 of last year. And again, this goes to again significant trees over eight inches in DBH. Again, a one year restriction for significant tree removal with exception of those instances that I've already spelled out to you.
And then there were specific mitigations put in place for people who had residential tax exemptions in the city. So for people who had residential tax exemptions, the mitigation fee that they would have to pay, if indeed they felt that they had to remove a tree without a permit, would be 10% of the replacement cost, as determined by the existing City of Cambridge contract. The existing contracts in the city, when we purchase a two inch tree, we pay $1700 dollars for that tree. And so we basically said it is $850 per inch you would have to pay the city, and that money will go into a tree fund. But if you're a resident with a residential exemption, you would only have to pay 10% of the cost. And if you are someone who is receiving financial assistance, federal financial assistance, there would be no cost for you in that instance. And then for all others, you would have to pay full replacement costs associated with that tree. And so it’s been in existence for the past year. Immediately before it became effective, we sent out a postcard to every resident in the city. And this is a copy of that postcard and again, just going through the same details. And I think this was effective. We also obviously used social media. We contacted all the landscapers in the area, all of the arborists in the area. And so our feeling was that, you know, we sent this out to 41,000 households at a significant cost to the city. But we felt that we had done a good amount of outreach before this became effective. And quite frankly, I don't think that we have had many instances where people were ignorant in terms of what happened in terms of the ordinance changes after this point in time. Again, the existing amendment terminates the 25th of Feb 2020. And I know that there's a proposal to extend that for the full of this year at this point in time. That was proposed at last City Council meeting. So just specific to the requirements associated with this, I know there's been some concern in the community about how onerous this is. We require, if you're going to take a tree down, we require an arborist to certify that the tree is dead or dangerous. That means there is a certification that they have to sign. They also have to complete an ISA tree risk assessment relative to that tree. For emergency circumstances we need those described by the property owner, and in terms of utility projects, we have to describe in detail as to what's required in that instances. I know that there's been some concern in the community about the cost of bringing an arborist on-site. And we can talk a little bit more about that as we move through today's conversation. Andrew, do you want to talk a little bit about the permits that we've received and so on?
Andrew Putnam, Superintendent of Urban Forestry and Landscape
So we took the time to go through all of the permit applications and flush out multiple applications that were either applied for under the wrong category or rejected because either they didn't meet the requirements or the application was incomplete. And so spending that time, we found that there's been a grand total of 347 permits issued out of 366, meaning that 19 were denied and you can see sort of the breakdown where dead or dangerous are about 76% of the approved applications, and for emergency circumstances 2%. City park projects make up about 10%. The healthy canopy 6%. Poses significant negative impact on an adjacent structure is 3%, and significant utility infrastructure projects is about 3%. And then the reasons that most of them were denied was because the application was incomplete so either we didn't have, from our administrative point of view, all of the necessary documentation required to approve the permit, and then the applicant never followed up with us or just simply did not meet the category requirements, and so it was rejected, which is 37%. And did not reapply as they were in the incorrect category and then never followed up. Typically that is if we have a discussion with either the arborist or the homeowner and sort of describe the parameters for getting approved for a permit and they realize that their tree doesn't actually qualify so then they don't follow up with a permit. And this is just sort of anecdotal community feedback from residents, whether it's through talking to them on the phone or other people. So the majority of residents do understand that Cambridge is trying to protect trees through this ordinance, and some of the other additional pros are that residents and property owners are learning that pruning for clearance along their buildings can be an appropriate alternative to removals. I've heard of a few different circumstances where construction has been redesigned or additions have been changed to preserve trees that didn't qualify for a removal permit. There's also a couple instances where it sparked discussions among neighbors about tree preservation. A new property owner had bought a piece of property and was going to pave a backyard, and through the neighbors reaching out to see if this tree qualified for a permit it started a discussion with the new property owner who then changed that design layout to actually preserve that tree. And then also, we'll get into it a little bit more on the next slide, but practicing arborists working within the city are fairly supportive of the amendment. Some cons that we've heard, the primary one so far is that the current amendment does not allow for replanting to offset mitigation. So even if a plan were to replace more caliper DBH inches than the tree that's coming down in the final step, there is no language that allows for a permit to be issued under that they would still have to pay the mitigation through the payment through a fine. There is no protection for tree roots or aggressive pruning under the current amendment, so in theory, an abutting property owner could do a significant amount of damage to tree roots that would eventually lead to killing a tree.
Same with aggressive pruning, that's some feedback we've had from abutting property owners and residents in the city. There is no language that allows for the removal of invasive species, or species perceived as to be invasive. So it's a blanket application and it just refers to the canopy and trees and not specific species. Some feedback also is the cost of the arborist assessment specifically in regards to having a dead tree removed and an arborist coming out to make that determination. And then just some other anecdotal phone conversations, somewhat short conversations with people who said that well, I will just wait until it sunsets and then we'll proceed with the removals that we have planned. And then we spoke with some practicing arborists in the area to kind of get an idea of what a range of prices may be for a resident in the city to apply for a permit. And we found that the range of tree care companies could charge between $250 to $300 to do a site visit and the online permit application. The residents themselves can apply for the permit on their own, they just need the documentation from the certified arborist. A consulting arborist can charge $600 to $800 per tree and will adjust their price accordingly if it's a multiple tree assessment on the property, Some tree care companies charge $50 to $150 to visit a site to notify the property if it even would meet the requirements from first glance. So if they come on the property, they'll come on the property for $50 to $150 to say, yes, a tree is dead, I'll fill out a permit and it will most likely be approved because it is dead. And then if that's the case, they'll charge the remaining balance, which on average was that $250 to $300. So that just sort of illustrates that that the range $50 to $150 for that first determination, is the tree dead or dangerous and will it actually get approved for a permit in the arborist's professional opinion. And again, this was sort of covered in the previous slide but most residents understand why the city has enacted the tree ordinance. And after the practicing arborist explain that reasoning to them, some still obviously complain about the amendment for different reasons. And some say they'll wait until the ordinance expires.
DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan
Okay, so just back to the Urban Forestry Master Plan and the task force. And so the task force started meeting in June of last year. The first meeting was in June 2018, a year and a half ago I beg your pardon. And there were 18 taskforce members, again, representing different communities in the city: institutional members, members from different neighborhoods, people of different backgrounds, race, and so on and so forth. And we felt that we had a really strong, knowledgeable group of people who were very committed to working with us on this. Again, they met 12 times during 2018 and 2019, and provided a lot of input to the consultant team. And again, a very large consultant team, given the fact that there was a lot of analysis that was done by arborists, soil scientists, landscape architects, engineers, and so on. And I think, you know, the interaction of the task force with the team significantly shaped this report and I think something that they should be very, very proud of in terms of what has been born as a result of that effort. Again, we also had three public meetings, there was a Health and Environment Committee presentation that was made in November of last year. Together with a presentation that was made before CPAC earlier this year. In terms of just some of the strategies associated with curbing loss and growing the canopy, in chapter four of this document, it goes through that in great detail. And we're happy to spend time talking about that perhaps at a subsequent meeting, because I do think that there's a lot that can be discussed associated with various strategies here. But just in summary, again, there are 19 policy strategies, a lot of those associated with ordinances. There are design and practice strategies that we at the Department of Public Works will certainly look to incorporate in much of what we do. And then I think one of the areas that we feel very strongly about addressing moving forward is outreach and education. And I think we'd also say public engagement. It's our expectation in terms of community outreach, that we would meet with different communities in the city over the next year and work with a consultant team so as to allow people to understand in more detail, the appropriate trees to grow in the city, the value of trees in terms of clean air, clean water, carbon sequestration, and so on, so forth. And just to increase the prominence of trees in terms of urban infrastructure in the city and their importance as we move into a period where climate change is going to become a more significant and difficult reality for us. And so, again, we'll be more than happy to talk to these at a subsequent meeting. I want to have our consultants necessary for those if that's what is necessary. I think one of the challenges for us moving forward, and for the City Council, in terms of discouraging tree removals is that can act against encouraging planting subsequent to that. And so trying to make sure that we balance our strategy so that we encourage people to plant more trees, while at the same time trying to protect the existing canopy is something that is a real challenge to grapple with. And I think one of the errors that we made last year, quite frankly, in the amendment that was ultimately voted on was that for those people who are taking down trees in their property, we did not allow them mitigate that loss with the planting of new trees and that's something certainly we've taken to heart over the last year. We recognize that a tree canopy is a cyclical thing, tree canopies decrease and then go back up again because it's just the nature of tree loss and growth and so on. And so we want to encourage, where possible, for further tree planting. Even if it's not on the person's in their on their private property, maybe it's in their neighbor's private property. We are committed to increasing the extent to which we're planting trees and taking care of trees in the city. And that will continue to grow over the next number of years. It's challenging for us, as a Department of Public Works and indeed as a city, to legislate for people planting on their property. We recognize that and so that's where outreach and education and perhaps other financial mechanisms are appropriate so as to provide for that. And that's something that we again, we'd like to talk about a trust at some time in the future that could provide private finances toward planting on private property. There is an allowance in Chapter 87 at this point in time of the state law that provides for the city planting on private property within 20 feet of the public right-of-way. However, if someone wants to take that tree down subsequent to it being planted, they are subject to a public tree hearing, so that serves to discourage people as well. But again, I think there are other ways to tackle this as we move forward. And again, these are some of the more significant strategies. I think a significant tree up now has been defined as 8 inches DBH or larger. I think for most communities within the immediate area and across the country, six inches is generally the standard there and I think it's worthwhile having a look at that. We can provide you more data in terms of the number of trees that one would then immediately have under the jurisdiction of an amendment that that changed from an 8 to a 6 inch DBH. Again, we want to strengthen the Back of the Sidewalk problem, perhaps not using city funds, but perhaps using private funds or perhaps using mitigation funds in a different way. Again, to the same effect, using community grants to encourage people to plant trees in their property. Using nonprofits in the city that perhaps could work with us to to encourage that. We want to again review the mitigation costs, because I do think that residential neighbors feel that it's punitive. I'm not sure we fully agree with that but I do think there's a conversation that should be had there. Again, I think it's a benefit that the Tree Protection Ordinance extends to all properties, not just to large development but rather to residential properties, given the fact that a significant majority of our trees are on private property and a significant amount of the loss over the last 10 years has been on residential property. And then I think one of, you know, again, we've increased our staff over the last couple of years. And we recognize that there's more rigor required in terms of inspecting the large development. They commit to planting trees and so on, then we go out and we inspect that prior to Certificates of Occupancy being issued for those projects. And that's something that we're committed to doing as well, if indeed it is the will of City Council that be incorporated in a subsequent ordinance. And again, this is just further exemplifying that. I think our expectation is obviously we will always provide for dead or dangerous trees be removed. The arborist evaluation can be reduced somewhat for a dead tree. We at this point in time require people to complete an ISA assessment, which provides rigor, but if a tree is dead, perhaps that's not necessary and so we can reduce that and reduce the cost to the homeowner on that basis. We do want to have a permit on file. Again, we set up an electronic system of permitting last year. We think that's been successful. I think there was some problems at the outset for our arborists, but they've all become used to that over the last five or six months. And so that doesn't seem to be a problem. And, again, the idea of perhaps a replacement tree being offered to a neighbor who takes the tree down is something that's worth considering. There are anti-aid issues that we need to work out with our Law Department around this issue, but we're in conversation with them as well about that. And again, just removal strategies, like I said, if you can't remove it on your own property, perhaps you can plant it on a neighbor's property who would like to have a tree. That's something that we would certainly be open to. The idea of a replacement tree is something that we would also be open to. And again, not all trees need to be treated equally. Maybe perhaps we need special protections for larger trees, for exceptional trees in the city. And something that I think it's worth thinking about: a 30 inch tree with a large canopy, it's equivalent to eight smaller trees. And so you lose one of those larger trees, it has a profound impact on the canopy and indeed in the neighborhood potentially. And again, this is just a further exemplify that. And then again, from our perspective, it's just a question of, it was a sensitivity in terms of process, you know, we can have a simple process or a complex process, I think we'd like to start with something that's relatively simple. You know, we have been discussing all of these various strategies with the Urban Forestry Master Plan Task Force. I think in terms of making this understandable to the residential community, it needs to be relatively straightforward. I think the other thing that should be noted that there's a difference between replacement cost and the inherent value of a tree.
You know, if I look at the inherent value of a tree, for example, we lost a tree on Gore Street maybe a year and a half ago when the gas company took down that tree. That tree's value was something in the order of $60,000. That's the inherent value of the tree. When we talk about replacement costs, as of now, we're not talking about that cost, we lose that value and so some level of replacement mitigation as it should be required, but it doesn't equate to the inherent value of that tree. And again, this is the balance of trying to encourage planting and discourage removal and how do we continue to achieve that balance? I think that's about it for us for the moment. Thank you.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you very much. I do want to welcome some colleagues who have joined us, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, and committee member, Councillor McGovern. I do want to thank DPW as well. I know this amendment process has been a little bit arduous and was executed quite rapidly. And I think it's been very successful considering the short time frame that we had to implement it. And thank you again for this presentation and for the update on how it's been working in our community so far. So at this point, I'll open it up to my colleagues for clarifying questions only. We're not discussing or debating yet we're just asking any questions of the staff about their presentation. Councillor Nolan?
Councillor Patricia Nolan
This is just clarifying questions, right? Not discussion. Okay. So I wanted to make sure that I understood the chart. The 366 applications, only 5% of people who applied to take down a tree were denied a permit and most of them were denied simply because they didn't complete the application. Is that correct? That's the entire universe of people during the time of this moratorium, who applied was the 366. And only 5% of them were denied. And most of that 5% was just they didn't complete the application. Just want to make sure we're clear on that, because it looks like pretty much nobody was denied who completed a full application.
Andrew Putnam, Superintendent of Urban Forestry and Landscape
Yeah, that percentage is correct. And then it's about 60% were incomplete application, and then almost 40% were just didn't meet the requirements.
Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon
And that's only 5% of the whole applications. Correct. Okay. Then the other question, at the end, when you talk about all the suggestions for an eventual ordinance, that's not for immediate adoption that would be for when the ordinance is rewritten over the course of the next, as you said it could be expedited, maybe four to six weeks, but that it would be during that expedited process that's the kind of thing you see yourself building on, the Urban Forestry Master Plan, to be included in the new ordinance. Okay.
DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan
Yes, that's correct Councillor.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you. Just to follow on that, I believe what I heard the commissioner say is that they could turn around specific recommendations to us in about four to five weeks, but of course it's up to us as the council how long it takes us to amend the ordinance fully. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler?
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
We talked a little about the fines and the enforcement side which is a question I had. How many times were there folks who were fined for being in violation of the ordinance in this time period?
Andrew Putnam, Superintendent of Urban Forestry and Landscape
There's been a total of four. Two were for transparent, you know, the contractor or homeowner came to us and applied for the permit that then we rejected and they took it down and they paid the mitigation costs. And then early on when the program started, we responded to two reports of people taking them down and issued them the violation.
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
That's one of my questions, thinking through more is the enforcement piece. I mean, we can get into more in the discussion, but just if it's sort of relying on folks reporting, then I think there's studies that show the lower income parts of the city are less likely to sort of proactively report and so thinking about, you know, whether it's ISD, or something else that could help with the enforcement, there's something I think we need to think through. And then I just had one other question about the Urban Forestry Master Plan. It is a great report, I really appreciate it and the graphs and maps are really helpful, and the fact that 72% of tree loss is on private property is really interesting and useful. I was wondering if there was any breakdown in the report by ownership size, of whether that loss on private property is owner-occupied homes or whether it's buildings owned by asset management companies, or if there's any sense of sort of ownership?
DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan
Through you, Mr. Chair. Councillor, we did try to further investigate as to why trees were taken down on private property. And we looked at three different circumstances. We tried to see if there was a correlation between lost impervious area and tree loss. And that would to some extent perhaps represent either the person putting a driveway or putting an extension on their property. Or there was infill development happening on their property. We also looked at building permits and tree loss, and we looked at changes in ownership in properties, I think that was it, I think. And so there was no great correlation that we found between those three, now we haven't looked at the size of the property, or indeed, again, building permits perhaps might be similar to that, which you were thinking about in terms of development and so on. And again, there wasn't a significant correlation there between those, as far as we could tell. And again, we're looking at sort of a sparse amount of information over a short period of time. And so perhaps over a longer period of time, we might find that there is a greater correlation there then we could actually identify in the work that we did.
Councillor Patty Nolan
That would be great and I'd be really interested in seeing that analysis to just understand if, you know, it's one particular ownership company that has a couple hundred units and they're sort of going around, you know, taking trees down on all their properties and that would be useful both from an enforcement side I think, and then from a policy side, to sort of tailor if we knew it was more, you know, owner-occupied single family homes, or someone who owns, you know, a hundred triple deckers cutting down a tree at each of their properties.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thanks. Just follow on that, part of the purpose of putting in this amendment separate from the moratorium was so that we would be able to start gathering that information because prior to that amendment being in effect, we had really no information about who's cutting down trees and why. And I believe, as the commissioner explained, we will likely get a recommendation to maintain the permitting requirement, so that we'll be able to track better who was applying to remove trees and why. Any other questions from my colleagues? Vice Mayor?
Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon
Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you to the Commissioner. Thanks for this presentation, I know it was not originally on the agenda so thank you for pulling it together, and thanks to the chair for allowing this hearing to happen today. I have a couple of questions. One, just going back to the Back of the Sidewalk Program and trying to strengthen that. You mentioned something about how, and I've heard this too, if we want to strengthen that program, all of a sudden, you know, we buy the tree, we plant it, and then it's their problem in the future, right? Like if they'd wanted to take it down or if somehow the roots were growing into their structure, all of the things that we identified as exceptions, right? It would then become their issue to remove that tree?
DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan
Councillor, as matters stand, if the city were to plant a tree on private property within 20 feet of the right-of-way, it's the owners tree, but if the owner wants to take that tree down, that tree is subject to a public hearing, if it's planted within 20 feet of the right-of-way. That's covered by Chapter 87 I think section three of state law at this point in time, if public finances are involved.
So we have been looking at ways around that so that there's people have more discretion with what they do with the tree on their property. Given that we want to encourage people to plant back of sidewalk trees. And so the question is whether or not those mitigation funds that come in from development could be used, in other words, can they be identified as not municipal funds and be directly transferred to entities who would then encourage planting on private property. And so they would not become then subject to Chapter 87 of state law. That's something that we're continuing to investigate. Or indeed if there was a trust that was setup with private funding, could the trust working with nonprofits or whomever encourage people to plant trees on back of sidewalks or areas. And again, those would not be subject to Chapter 87. And let me further clarify that. That's a tree hearing. The fact that you have a tree hearing doesn't mean that you can't take your tree down. It's just that you're subject to public process around that. There have been many instances, as you know, where we've had tree hearings, and people have objections to the tree coming down, but the tree eventually comes down. And so we could think about perhaps a set of rules that could manage that, but they'd still be subject to a tree hearing.
Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon
Thank you. And just one more question about that, who would be responsible for the cost of taking that down, through a tree company, in that situation and scenario?
DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan
In all probability, that would be the private property owner. If indeed the private property owner wanted the trees out, then the private owner would be responsible for taking it down. So if the private property owner agreed in the first place to have a tree planted by the city within 20 feet of the right-of-way, 10-15 years later said, you know, I'm fed up with this tree, it's disturbing me, I've got leaves in my yard every fall, I can't do it anymore. And they want to take it down. They would have to have a public hearing and then given the way the rules are written today, they would be responsible for taking it out.
Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon
Okay, so given that we are trying to encourage people to do this type of planting and there is a greater opportunity for us to increase the tree canopy through this Back of Sidewalk Program, will there be recommendations from your team, and from the task force, in the four to five week window? Like will we be able to review your recommendations based on this, based on maybe having mitigation funds that can be used to pay for this or some kind of trust, like, will that be in the next four to five weeks? Or is that kind of down the road?
DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan
So Councillor, my expectation is that in the next four to five weeks, we will provide you recommendations associated with the taking down of trees on private property. In terms of encouraging the planting of trees on private property moving forward, that is further down the road. That's a separate matter that we would like to have further discussion on, but just in terms of the amendment so as to preserve canopy by reducing the number of trees that are taken down on private property, that's something that we've committed to try and get back to you as soon as we possibly could.
Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon
Okay, thank you. And I have one more question. On this slide where it says in all cases, always allow removal of dead or hazardous trees. This is something that will be a recommendation? Or this is, it says get arborist evaluation, file permit. This is part of the ordinance now?
DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan
So Councillor, that's provided for in today's ordinance. And so we would continue to provide for that in the future. I think one of the things that we've been looking at, given the fact that we've heard from neighbors saying, look, my tree is obviously dead. Why do I need to bring an arborist on-site and have them complete this two-page detailed summary of the condition of the tree? What we would say is that I think we still want to be rigorous. And so we still want a professional to say the tree is dead. But you do not need to go beyond that and complete this. And so if you look at the scale of cost, you can get an arborist out on-site for $150 perhaps, rather than the $300 that is required to do all of the auxiliary work. So we will try and simplify that the extent that we can, but I do think that it's still extremely important that there be rigor. If you vote to continue to have an amendment, it's important I think that it be robust enough to be able to withstand frivolous circumstances that might rise for people who want to take trees down. And it's your word against mine that it's a dead tree or not. I do think that we need a certain amount of rigor associated with this moving forward. But I think we can reduce the cost to the homeowner, recognizing that there have been concerns expressed around that.
Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon
So thank you for that. And just to speak to some of the concerns that you've heard, we've heard, around this Tree Protection Ordinance and how it is. When you have a dead tree on your property, it's obviously dead, I'm just wondering if, you know, we are going to get a recommendation four to five weeks, it is going to take us a little bit of time to work through the Ordinance Committee hearing and then go through the City Council process. Is there something that we could do in amending what we have right now, in between now and when we have a full recommendations from the task force, and put together a whole recommendation to think about just in this case, right. So that you have to get the arborist evaluation, and I understand we're reducing the cost to $150 so they don't have to go through the rest of that process, but could we use our city arborist to get that? I'm speaking to your rigor piece, right. Like we don't want people willy-nilly taking down trees, this is the whole point of this. But at the same time if you have an obviously dead tree on your property, amending or doing something in the interim, between now and when we fully update this to be even more rigorous, and speak to some of the other concerns. Is there something that we can do now in terms of dead or hazardous trees to reduce the barriers and costs for homeowners on something that is clearly dead and going to come down? I just want to try to speak to some of the concerns that we've been hearing. And you know, I know everybody is worried that this is going to go on until the end of 2020, and that's not the case. We've heard that today. However, it could be six months from now. Right? So if I have a dead tree in my yard, and between now, and six months from now, perhaps there could be something we could be doing differently? I know, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Sorry. Maybe if we can defer that to the discussion session, because that's not really a clarifying question. We're getting into a little bit of policy debate. Councillor McGovern?
Councillor Marc McGovern
Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair. So maybe I can phrase that in a question, because I had a similar. when I was looking at the list of, I guess it's on page five of the handout, I don't know what slide it is but, of the cons. You know, two that have been brought up to me mostly have been the cost of the arborist assessment. So I know that was discussed last year when we were talking about, could the city go on private property and do that? And there were some so, so I guess in framing that in a question, is that something the city can start doing because that has been a concern that's been raised? And then the other was the not allowing removal of invasive species. And I told this story at the last City Council meeting where I was talking to someone in West Cambridge who said that his neighbor had an invasive species, wanted to cut the tree down, could not, wasn't allowed to. The tree ended up falling on his roof, not on the owner's roof, but on the neighbor's roof, costing tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage. And, you know, if he had been allowed to cut that tree down, that wouldn't have happened. So I guess there are two questions. One is can we do something to alleviate the cost? And secondly, would allowing the removal of invasive species completely undermine this policy? Would it be negligible? Why wouldn't we include it?
DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan
So maybe to the first clarifying question that you both asked. And so I think we've already committed to revisiting this. I think we stated last year in the latter that we had sent with the proposed amendments to the ordinance that we did not want city arborists assessing private property trees. And there is a liability issue that we are concerned about with regard to that, and arborists unless invited are not allowed on private property. Surveyors are one of the few professionals working for a community that are allowed. I think the liability issue is a significant one. So it's all well and good saying an arborist goes out on-site and he makes a determination that a tree is dead. But there are many instances, some of them that may be frivolous, where people will say, Look, let me just get an arborist out here, let's just have a go, let's take a chance at it. We want to do something or other we want to get rid of this tree. And so we might be caught in instances where the tree is obviously alive, but people are just trying to see if they can get rid of the tree. There's also an instance where the arborist in his professional opinion says I think this tree is not dead. And then there's a windstorm the day afterwards and the tree falls on a house. And then the city then has perhaps some liability based on his professional opinion. And so there's real concern about that. But I mean, we can go back and talk in more detail with our Law Department about this, because there may be ways around that. But I'm not the person to speak to the liability issues and indemnification issues that inevitably arise when we talk about us working on private property. But I'm happy to further that conversation with the Law Department and get maybe perhaps a more comprehensive response back to you.
Councillor Marc McGovern
Before you answer the invasive species question. So I mean, I would also think, you know, I don't know this for sure. But I would hope we could work something out. I would trust the city a little bit more to make that determination. If I'm a private arborist, who is going to, you know, make an assessment and then further get paid to remove a tree, I have a financial incentive to maybe declare something dead that may not be dead. Or, you know, maybe, encourage or I would trust the city that doesn't have a financial stake in the game maybe to make that determination. And then just the invasive species question, is there a reason we wouldn't allow for those to be removed?
DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan
You know, I think in terms of invasive species, obviously, we don't want them planted in the city. But I think we don't actually want to cull invasive species at this point. I think the tree you talked about is an ash tree, which is not an invasive species, but rather one that perhaps may be subject to a beetle that has obviously become problematic in terms of our ash tree population in the city. But I don't think we want to cull invasive trees at this point in time. But rather, obviously, we don't want them planted.
Councillor Marc McGovern
A couple more, Mr. Chair, please. Others in this room may know this, but for me, just to sort of understand sort of where we are in the big picture. You know, we've talked a lot about 20%, 17 to 20%. And you mentioned, Mr. O'Riordan, that the tree canopy loss is sort of a cyclical thing. So is this something that we've been through before in our history? Is what we're seeing now worse or on-par with what's happened in the past? And where does this kind of, how have we dealt with it in the past?
DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan
Councillor, I think there's evidence to suggest that at the turn of the 20th century, that there was a lot of tree planting that occurred in that city. And so we benefited from that for the last hundred years. And I think that there is a certain amount of dieout that has occurred. Proportionately, again, that was not one of the things that we could divine in terms of the analysis that was completed. Certainly, I would say this: that if I look at trees in the public right-of-ways and to trees in private property, trees in private property are distinctly more healthy than trees in the public right-of-way and that's for good reasons. There's not much permeable surfaces in the public right-of-way. They're subject to much more difficult environmental circumstances, be it cars, be it salt and what have you. Trees in the private way provide I think it's maybe 60% of the canopy overall. And it is critically important to us, if indeed we want to preserve trees, that they continue to be protected in some form or fashion. Be that encouraging people to plant, or reducing the extent to which trees are taken down. But I can't speak specifically as to how different the natural cycle the present circumstance is.
Councillor Marc McGovern
Mr. Chair, I know we're talking a lot about the tree removal ordinance, but can I ask a general question about the forest master plan as well, is that on the table?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
That is in order, yes.
Councillor Marc McGovern
So just, and maybe it's me, I'm sorry, if I missed in here. But just so what do you think will be the most important policy changes we can make that would yield the largest percentage of gain in the tree canopy? What are sort of your top three or four things that we need to do?
DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan
We've asked each member of the task force to provide us with their top five. I don't know if we've necessarily aggregated all of that as of yet. And so, there may be a different answer that might come out of the task force. But I would say this. I forgot my train of thought. Yes, I know there's been a lot of talk about the amount of canopy in the city being at 30%, and I know people are advocating for 40%. There were three values that were identified as being most critical in this exercise: resilience in the face of climate change, shared responsibility be it public responsibility and private responsibility. But then I think perhaps the most significant from our perspective, in light of climate change, in light of, you know, healthier neighborhoods, was the idea around equity. And, you know, if you look at some of the maps in the Urban Forest Master Plan, you know, where you have the least canopy is in those communities that are most under stress, in where there's poverty, where English is a second language. And so it's important from our perspective moving forward that we concentrate not so much on the 30% canopy, but rather providing more canopy in the public right-of-way. Where again, more people can take advantage of it. Providing more canopy in those areas of the city where the impact of urban heat island is most significant. And so I think that is the area where we think that we should be placing more emphasis moving forward. And quite frankly, that's a heavy lift. And certainly in the east of the city where just the urban form is one that is more challenging in terms of providing more canopy. But I do think that in terms of this master plan, those are the values that present themselves I think to us as being the most significant and important.
Councillor Marc McGovern
That's all for now, Mr. Chair.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you, Councillor. Alright, so we'll hear from the public if you haven't already done so please sign up. So we can call your name and I do want to note that we did receive numerous communications. And we received from, from private residents and then we received one letter from Green Cambridge in support of extending the moratorium and a letter from Harvard University in opposition. So, if you've signed up to speak, please come forward to the mic and I will go retrieve the signup sheet while you do that. Kristine Jelstrop.
Councillor Patricia Nolan
Here we go.
Kristine Jelstrop, 120 pleasant street, member of Mothers Out Front. That was a really interesting presentation. I appreciate the DPWputting that together. Esteemed city councillors. My comments are pulled from a letter posted to the urban forestry masterplan website and the green Cambridge opinion piece which appeared in Cambridge day and which I wholeheartedly support. Our trees are living infrastructures that are essential to Cambridge is livability and resilience in the face of accelerating climate change. Trees mitigate flooding, reduce energy consumption, cool urban heat islands and improve public mental and physical health. The trees clean the air and help to stabilize the climate by sequestering carbon above and below the ground. It is in the interests of the entire community to protect our existing trees and at the same time expand the canopy by planting more. To make Cambridge more resilient to climate change we must act quickly and decisively. Trees are part of the natural system that reduces carbon pollution and protects us all. The tree protection ordinance is critical because it gives the city space to work and take recommendations laid out in the excellent Task Force technical report, jointly written by Reed Hildebrand and the city and find an agreed upon method to implement them. The top level strategies in the report were clear; curb the loss of trees and grow the canopy. We can't do either if the ordinance is about to expire, especially with so many people standing at the ready to take down their trees when the [sic] moratorium expires. I hope that the city council will vote unanimously to extend the moratorium through 2020. Thank you.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you, Kristine. Byron Cohen.
Good afternoon. Thank you for the presentation. My name is Byron Cohen. I'm a lifelong resident of Cambridge, a graduate of the amigo school and CRLS and an active voter. Currently I reside in Harvard Graduate Student Housing but for most of my life, I lived in our family home on 11 Donald street, and my family actually moved into that home the day I was born 25 years ago. During the time that I was growing up, the tree landscape of our property has experienced many changes, but it's always been green with the lush tree canopy that many people would expect on a large lot. My parents Peter Cohen and Michelle Mentis Cohen have moved very slowly in making changes to the tree scape trying to be conservative in the best sense of the word, as they share the city's goal of preserving the tree canopy. They've only replaced trees that were killed by disease or remove trees that were either causing damage to the two buildings on our family property, or which were damaged and at risk of falling representing a safety hazard. For example, in 1998, when I was about four years old, my parents planted approximately 15 hemlock trees dividing them up into the north, west and south sides of our property. Each group of trees had a different fate. As I grew older the group in the north side did well initially growing by leaps and bounds as I did as well. The group on the west side did all right, growing slowly, and the group on... of trees, about eight of them on the south side all died for reasons that were unclear at the time. Being optimistic my parents replaced all of those eight dead hemlocks, and most of them died again about 15 dead trees. In total. They had soil tests done and consulted with various experts, who eventually reached a consensus that these hemlocks were being killed by the neighbors adjacent Norway maples. Then in the early 2000s, a new problem arose our surviving had hemlocks were suddenly attacked by an invasive species known as the hemlock woolly adelgid, which had moved up from Southern climes as a result of climate change. So when I was about nine years old, these trees began to look more and more sickly. It became apparent that they were dying and that they weren't going to return to good health and so my parents with a heavy heart, and to hit to their pocketbook, removed these diseased, dying trees and replace them with arborvitaes. So today of those original 15 hemlocks only two still stand. So I know that my parents would like to plant more trees on our property. But I also know that living in 125 year old house with a 50 year old roof and a need for maintenance, there's competition for limited household dollars in terms of property maintenance and improvement. And we feel that anything that unnecessarily increases the cost of tree care over the tree life cycle makes it less likely rather than more likely that people like my parents will be able to plant more trees, specifically the provision of the ordinance that requires property owners to obtain permits to remove dead or dangerous trees. And which effectively requires them to spend 250 to 300 dollars per tree in fees to obtain certifications of those trees being dead by certified arborists. Its... are both unfair and counterproductive to Cambridge's goal which we share of retaining a robust tree canopy.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thanks Byron, if you could wrap up
Okay, so had they been subject to this ordinance at that time. My parents would have been subjected about three and a half thousand dollars in mandatory arborist fees simply to certify the death of our hemlocks. Clearly that discourages tree planting. We don't want that to happen. We want Cambridge to have a vibrant robust tree canopy, but people have to plant trees for that to happen in the long run. So thank you.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you. Trumbull Barrett.
There we go. Good afternoon. My name is Trumbull Barrett. I live at 11 King Street. And I also happen to be the president of a Barrett Tree Service East in Medford. And I want to thank the folks at the DPW, particularly David and Andrew for all the work they've done in implementing this ordinance. The Councillors and the task force for all the work you've put in. Over the course of the last 11 months or so, our company has removed about 50 trees under this ordinance. And I think it might be worth pointing out that the cost of complying with this ordinance is, on average, less than about 10% of the cost the removal, so that might, you know, help speak to the conversation about the cost of meeting the needs of the ordinance. I was just thought it'd be worthwhile sharing that. My comments I think we're on the slideshow. The majority of our clients recognize that the ordinance is important and recognize the need to comply with it. It's been my experience that folks were annoyed by the ordinance. I think it's more about the city enforcing the city's will on their personal property. And it's not often as much about the finance. And my last piece of... my last thought rather, is that, um, you know, for me on a practicing level, the ordinance has been pretty straightforward, I think thanks to the hard work of the DPW. And if the council sees it fit to proceed with the ordinance, I would, I would very much support an allowance for replacement. And I think that that would really help folks understand and be able to comply with the ordinance moving forward. So thank you for your time.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you. Former Vice Mayor Jen Devereux.
Hi, everyone. Nice to be back to my former committee and to be talking about a subject that's near and dear to my heart. If you need my address. It's 255 Lakeview Avenue. And I am now a board member of Green Cambridge. So I think Kristine has already paraphrased some of the comments that you received by email and that were in Cambridge Day, and a longer set of comments that were sent to the urban forest master plan task force, which like all of the public comment are posted on that project webpage, which I encourage anyone who hasn't seen the range of comments to take a look at those. So I'm here to amplify what Green Cambridge has already said. And also speaking for myself, just to remind us that, that list of the pros was... the pros and cons, on the pro side was perhaps a little scant on the actual pros of why this is such an important thing. I mean, yes, it is a pro that Cambridge residents are by and large now sort of on board with this, but I think it's really important for us to bear in mind that it is one of the city... you know, it complements all of the city's larger priorities. So we're not really just talking about trees, we're talking about our urban environment and other priorities, like increasing safety and walkability on our streets. It helps promote street level retail, and it has measurable public health outcomes. I don't think that gets talked about enough in terms of both air quality and cooling.
And those are especially important to vulnerable residents, children and seniors. And they make all of our housing whether it's low income or market rate housing more attractive, they enhance our parks. So there's a huge public benefit to everybody getting behind this. I agree that if we can in the eventual amendment of the tree protection ordinance, if we can include a way for people to replant as mitigation that seems sensible. I support increasing the or decreasing the diameter. And I also would support a different set of mitigation for particularly large or significant trees because those are really hard to replace. But for now, I would encourage you to keep it simple, to extend the moratorium and not try to figure out how to amend the moratorium while extending it. If as Commissioner O'Riordan says he can have a set of recommendations to amend the ordinance more fully within four or five, six weeks that will give you time to do this and this won't drag on forever and ever. So I hope you'll do that. And I look forward to following along. Thanks.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you so much, Fritz Donovan.
Chairman Zondervan, Councillors. I'm Fritz Donovan, 42 Irving street Cambridge. First I want to thank you for being here today on behalf of our dangerously threatened environment.
Undoubtedly the most important issue that faces us today. It is difficult to save a planet without inconveniencing people. One need only observed the aggressive attempts of the current Washington administration and their inconvenienced billionaire backers to overturn all the major environmental victories achieved by previous administrations. But our planet definitely needs saving and everyone in this room knows it. So how do we get that done? The key is balance.
Every new ordinance imposes restrictions that do not previously exist and the impact of those restrictions falls on different people in different ways. So the successful ordinance has to balance the impact to achieve the goals our planet desperately needs without unfair burden on anyone. Our recently published urban forest master plan points out that the vast majority of Cambridge trees are on private property. There's nothing private about the huge benefits those trees provide. But restricting private owners rights to benefit the public as a whole is a delicate process. The current ordinance has been criticized for imposing major expense on some private tree owners without providing any financial offset. The City of Cambridge can easily afford to mitigate that expense through subsidized landscape services, tax rebates and other means.
This committee needs to work out fair and balanced methods to do so. At the same time, the ordinance needs to be broadened to include a wide range of trees this current ordinance does not protect at all. But those protections must have teeth, sharp teeth. It is hard to imagine a per tree dollar penalty for unlawful destruction of a healthy tree. That is high enough to prevent the developer of a multi-million dollar project from simply destroying all the trees in their way. And just adding the fine to the cost of the project. Preventing this abuse may be the highest challenge of all, but it has to be done. Cambridge has the intellectual and financial resources to protect our health and environment in this vital area. We are all rooting for this committee to do it, no pun intended.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thanks Fritz. Peter Cohen.
Good afternoon, members of the council. Nice to see many of you again and see for the first time some of you I haven't met before. I'm Peter Cohen. My wife Michelle and I live at 11 Donnell Street in Cambridge, where we've lived since July 14, 1994. Prior to that I lived most of my life in the Agassi neighborhood. We have a large lot with two buildings on it. And they're 40, count them of 40 trees on our property. So we like trees. I grew up with a lot of trees, I love trees. But the current ordinance is really giving me daily heartache and likelihood of more heartache. During the time we've been there, we've had different species and sizes and there's been constant change. People get this picture that trees are just some kind of static thing. But if you look at over time, it's actually much more dynamic system. We have three problems that are caused by this ordinance. Problem number one is unreasonable burden caused... relating to the removal of dead trees. Four of our 40 trees are now dead. Three are currently subject to the current ordinance and require individual removal permits. And the quotes I have gotten out, making some inquiries are $250 to $300 per thing. So to give you the numbers, I have a quote to remove just two of the tree is $1900 to take down the trees by relatively reasonably priced person, and then $500 on top of that for the certification. That increases the cost of the removal by 26%. Now, at that point, we just have a tree that's cut to the ground. We don't we haven't even gotten into stump grinding, preparing soil for a possible replacement. I can tell you that one of the reasons we move slowly, is we like to protect existing trees and another is cost.
We're not made of money any more than anyone else is. And so this notion that really the marginal costs, whether it's 10% or, or, or 25% more isn't important is just wrong. So I have here in this forum of November and in public meetings and in private meetings, again and again invited the city arborist come look at my dead trees. And dare him to say that they're not anything but dead. This notion that the city can't come on my properties is just nonsense. City asserts authority to regulate. It can issue stop work citations, it can issue huge penalties. But when I invite them to come, they can come apparently.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thanks, Peter.
I have more to say, a lot more to say.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
We need to move on. Thank you. Florrie Wescoat. Thank you. Florrie Wescoat.
Just for the record, I'm going to be submitting the rest of my stuff then in writing since I've now been cut off. I haven't gotten past point 1. I hope you read it because I want to keep showing up at city council member meetings.
Florrie Wescoat, I live at 33 Market Street. And I'm a member of the Committee on Public Planting and also served on the task force and also a member of mothers up front. And I'm here just to urge you to extend the moratorium for the trees and just to point out that the technical report, which is a really long read, really well written, but on page 247, it's strongly recommends that we don't let that protection ordinance lapse. In general, it was good to see on the presentation that most residents understand the importance of maintaining and protecting the trees. They are a community asset, and it's our responsibility as citizens to protect them. I did want to just briefly comment on a couple of comments that councillors made. I do agree that it would be good to streamline the process somehow, when trees are just dead and make that a little bit easier for residents. And I think ultimately, to take into account species might be a good idea also, especially trees that emit toxic chemicals from their roots like Norway maples, the young man spoke about them, because that's a particularly pesky problem. But I think ultimately, the reworking and the refining of the tree protection ordinance will be better for residents. I think the consultant is very capable and anyway thank you very much.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you Florrie. Chantal Eide.
Hello, I'm Chantal Eide, I'm 20 Ellsworth Avenue. I'm also on the committee for public planting. I'd like to request an extension for the tree protection ordinance. The urban forestry master plan recommendations have not yet emerged but there's overwhelming data that Cambridge is losing tree canopy at an accelerated rate. The volume of canopy of a mature tree is so significant compared to a new tree which may not thrive. So I would like to request extending the tree cutting moratorium until a considered response can be made to the urban forestry master plan. Thank you.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Okay, thanks so much. Steven Bolotin.
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Steve Bolotin. I live at 7C Donnell Street since July 4 of 1996. I'm going to start by saying I don't have a personal issue with any trees on my property. I'm also going to start by saying I don't think anybody here is against trees. So I think we can take off the issue of the rape of the land. What we have here is an issue of an ordinance. An ordinance which obviously shows some measure of unpopularity as I keep hearing from the committee, that many people are waiting for it to expire to go and start cutting down trees. So obviously we have an issue in terms of the ordinance, it would be obviously far better to have an ordinance that people are more interested in complying with than waiting to try and avoid. Some very good suggestions have been made by the, by the commission members regarding options. Offsets for new planting, streamlining of the application process, reducing cost. These are critical if you're going to get community participation. And that's what we're really looking at. If the goal is to increase the canopy, it needs to be done in a manner that encourages planting, rather than just discourages the cutting down of a tree. We can all sit there and wait for a tree to die, take it down and then do nothing.
Or alternatively we can encourage somebody to take a sick tree or a tree that's not working in the community and encourage its removal and replacement. I urge the committee to work towards that directive. Thank you very much.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you. Lee Farris.
Good afternoon, Lee Farris, 269 Norfolk Street. Responding to the testimony that I heard today I had a few questions as well as a few thoughts. I'm wondering if the city could ask the tree maintenance companies and the arborist how many trees they were called out to look at or inspect, but they did not apply for a removal permit? Because I suspect that is perhaps the reason why we only have 5% disapproval. Then I would also like to gather more data. I would add like the city to ask the arborist and the tree maintenance company to say why in their opinion, a tree died, not with any liability on the tree maintenance company or the arborist but again, just so we can try to gather data. I think there was some discussion about did it happen because driveways paved over the trees, watershed or the trees roots got damaged. But if we could be more systematic trying to collect that data, that would be helpful. And I asked Mr. Barrett, if that was asked for now, and he said no. I'd like to also to know what was the number of reports by neighbors of illegal cutting. So for example, I saw a tree that looked healthy to me on my street, very large cut down, and I was pretty upset about it, but I went and talked to the homeowner instead of calling up the city and asking if they had a permit? And she said, yes, they did indeed have a permit because the tree was much sicker than it looked from the street. But I don't know if anybody did report illegal cutting. So I, I would like that to happen. And I would like us to think how to encourage that. So looking at the new ordinance going forward, once we get to the master plan recommendations, I'd like there to be a component of notifying neighbors of applications to remove trees. So that neighbors can be involved in the process because it does impact you.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thanks Lee if you could wrap up.
Okay, thanks. The last one is, can... this is a question, can CHA and other nonprofits get back of the sidewalk trees now? Thank you.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you. That concludes the list. I recognize Tom Lucey and Maggie Booz.
Good afternoon, Tom Lucey with Harvard University. We submitted a letter and I encourage you to read it. And... but I did want to add, Councillor McGovern asked about the policy, potential policy thing that could help here. And one of the things that I think you could look at as a council probably not the urban tree Task Force is your parking ratios. Your parking ratios in your zoning haven't been updated in decades. They drive and force you to put impervious surfaces in many cases to provide the parking for this. They also discourage people from greening over because then you'd have to create structured parking. I know at the Divinity School we paved... we did a parking over we had some capacity, we could do it. But in other areas where we could green over surface parking, the creation of structured parking is so expensive that it's a discouragement to do that. So I think that's one area you could look at. I think you could create further green space and further areas the plant in your city. And again, please read my letter.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thanks, and I did. Maggie.
Hi, I'm Maggie Booz. I live at 27 Lawn Street in Cambridge. I'm a... I'm the co chair of the Committee on Public Planting, and I'm also a member of the tree task force for the urban forest master plan. I'm also an architect. I have an architecture... a small architecture firm in Cambridge for 25 years now. And I wanted to just speak anecdotally about how the moratorium has helped me as an architect encourage people to keep trees. Actually just have an excuse to, to convince people to keep trees because I've had a couple of projects in the last year in which my clients really wanted to cut down trees, whether for the, for the purpose of the projects that we were doing residential additions, or whether they just in the other case, just didn't like trees at all, one of which is right next to Peter Cohen's property. In fact, he'll be happy to know that all the trees are saved in the, in the project as a result of this moratorium. And it's, it's because I can point to this moratorium and, and just remind people that it exists, and we've done pretty significant workarounds on small residential projects. And it's, it's save trees. So there's the tree moratorium in which, you know, permits have been applied for whatever it is 350 and, you know, 80 to 100 trees have been saved through that permitting process. And then there are the residual results of the moratorium that in which no one applied for a permit. The trees were saved nonetheless. So I'd encourage you to extend the moratorium until which time you can come up with a great ordinance that addresses the concerns of citizens like Peters.
Where, where you know, the hiring of the arborist is expensive, etc. Perhaps consider what the building department does, which is that a homeowner can apply for his own building permit even though does he doesn't have a contractor's license. You know, maybe there's a way of working that as, as, you know, evaluation of the trees. And I'd also like to lend great support to the Department of Public Works, which is committed to an engagement with the public that will make the, make the make the citizenry cognizant of how important these trees are, how essential they are to our, to our good health and the beauty of our city. Thank you so much.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you. Yes, please come forward and speak and then we will have to close public comment. So we run out of time. Please give us your name.
Yes. My name's Pamela Hart. I live also on Donnell street number 18. So I just was hoping that there could be some consideration given to people who have planted or plan to plant additional trees. And I'm wondering if it might be possible for people who want to get permission to remove an undesirable tree, whether it's in poor condition, or its invasive or whatever reason, that if they agreed plant a tree that would become a comparable size that this could be taken into consideration. I also think we need to consider other kinds of plants as well. There are instances where people would really like to have a vegetable garden or they want to have small lawn for their children to do somersaults or for whatever reasons, I would like there to be some consideration of individual circumstances. Thank you.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you so much. I'll entertain a motion to close public comment. So on closing public comment, all in favor please say aye. Any against. Alright, so public comment is closed. So we'll return to discussion of both the moratorium as well as the urban forest master plan task force report. And we have about 20 minutes. So if we could keep that in mind. So any questions or comments? Councillor Nolan.
Councillor Patricia Nolan
Thanks. I really appreciate our colleagues started the conversation before. And I’m really impressed with the with the whole report. I didn't read every single page, but I did look through it. And it is really comprehensive, scientifically based and extensive. I understand it did take longer than expected, which is why we're here discussing the possible moratorium for that huge report to come out in November. It would be unreasonable to think in a month or two that a new ordinance could be drafted. I do think a few of the things that, that struck me in reading the report was that the draft goals which I believe the commissioner talked about are equity, shared responsibility and resilience as all things and then under each of those, there's a number of areas that are very specific recommendations that would come forward in a new report. I think. What I don't know is when I hear the commissioner say he's committed to coming forward in four to six weeks with, in essence a draft new ordinances that... and then my understanding is that would come forward, and then it would be up to the council to then take that in, would it take then a couple months maybe to, to pass it? And if so, we are talking about it's now January by end of February there's the draft ordinance from public works. And then another couple months for us. So we should be able to wrap this up by spring, but let's say it doesn't maybe they've been in the summer. That seems like a reasonable timeframe. Within that to just keep it simple. Keep the existing moratorium in place. Understanding that yes, it will be challenging for some folks who feel like they... look, I think we all agree some of the cons are not so great about not being able to trade off a replacement tree. But every single one of those cons, my understanding and looking at them, every single one can be addressed and part of the new ordinance. In fact, it's in the master plan and some of the recommendations that all of those cons about not allowing replanting, no protection for tree roots. The question of invasive species I think has been answered and the cost can all be incorporated in any kind of new ordinance.
And... which I’m in favor of doing I really want us to get to a much more robust ordinance, build on this incredibly important report. And the other another striking thing that is informing my thinking on this from the report is that many other cities also have a goal. So we have a goal of 30% regarding back up to 30%. There's a striking chart in the report that shows that even with really aggressive planting of hundreds and hundreds of trees that we will not get there unless we combine, in essence, a moratorium and a very strict incentive program combined with aggressive planting to even reach that goal. And I will say that is lower than Boston's goal of 35%, New York City's goal of 36%. And so I want us to do everything we can and to listen to and adhere to what we've also heard, which is, I think we're all united in... while this seems somewhat punitive, we want to do everything we can to incentivize people to plant to have not just a stick but a carrot. And in the... one of the things I really enjoyed about in the urban forestry mastery plan is there's a lot of incentives in there in ways that through education, others that we would address, one, the equity, the geographic equity issue across the city, which is going to be the biggest challenge for that part of the city that has less tree. This is not a super onerous thing if I'm correct. If we're all committed and tell me if I'm wrong, that we actually can get this done within... While it may not be this spring as we would like by March or April, but that we could definitely by May or June, which seems to be a reasonable period of time.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you. Anyone else? Councillor McGovern.
Councillor Marc McGovern
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, my guess is that we are... we will extend this for a period of time. I do think, you know, the folks who I... who I've talked to who have had concerns, I think that when we talk about people are waiting for this to expire. I sort of envisioned someone sitting there, you know, twiddling their hands. I can't wait to... you know, most of the people that I've talked to that have that issue with this are reasonable people who are having an issue with trees on their property and, you know, maybe... and you know, people have different priorities. It is as Mr. Donovan said, it is a difficult, challenging balance to... you know, I bought a house I want to put a deck on because I want to have barbecues with my grandkids. And the city comes in and says you can't do that because we want to save the tree. I mean, we are infringing on someone's personal rights on their property. That's not something we should just kind of take, take lightly. And so you know, I do, you know, either this is going to become permanent, or it's going to expire at some point, in which case, people may be waiting. Maybe they thought they were waiting until did we decide, was it February 11? Is that when? March?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
February 25.
Councillor Marc McGovern
We get we got an answer to that?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
But just to clarify, there's no interest in making this permanent. What we're doing... what we're talking about is reworking the ordinance.
Councillor Marc McGovern
I'm just I'm just I'm just saying that at some point, if it's going to expire, then that date will come where people will wait, whether it be in March or December.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
That's not correct because the assumption is that we will amend it. And so there will still be protections after the moratorium.
Councillor Marc McGovern
We will see when we get there. But so I do think that there's, you know, and in the ordinance and I and Councillor Mallon, you know, asked for this in the original ordinance to be mindful of folks that, you know, were lower income who, you know, a 5, 6, 7, $10,000 fine, you know, significant. But there's a lot of people who don't qualify for a... What are we saying? What's the word we use to achieve established forms of financial assistance? Were a couple thousand dollars is significant to them. And so if we're going to extend this, which I think we will, are we planning on doing another mailing to people how are we planning on letting people know because if you are someone who is, who thinks this is going to expire in March and you're waiting for a good reason, not passing judgment, to remove a tree. And now we extend it and you don't know it's extended and you cut down the tree and you get a fine for $6,000. I'm not sure that's really fair either. So are we planning to do another outreach to people once we extend this.
DPW Commissioner Owen O'Riordan
Through you Mr. Chair. Councillor not wanting necessarily to predict that you will extend or change. But we certainly would commit to doing another mailing and more outreach to the community. If indeed either a new ordinance or this amendment was to be extended, so we'd be happy to take that on.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Yes.
Councillor Patricia Nolan
This would be really quick because the postcard that I also got. I'm a property owner, I one tree on my property. Didn't have an end date. It just said effective March 11. There was a tree ordinance it didn't say this will only be in place for a year. So I don't know what
Councillor Marc McGovern
But, I would say in conversations and in papers that people know.... I mean, we can on one hand, say people waiting for this to expire in March and then say people don't know what's expiring in March. Right? So obviously people know. So if we're going to extend that, let's inform them, so we don't have any unintended consequences.
Councillor Patty Nolan
Thank you. Yeah, I think, just to reiterate, my colleagues points, I think we need to extend the tree protection ordinance, because if there's a gap, it sort of defeats the purpose in some ways. And that's I am... I'm sympathetic to the idea of having a dead tree on your property having to call an arborist to come and that "yup, dead tree", and that there might be some way to work with that. Whether it's city sort of refunding the fee if it is dead, and you can certify that and sort of looking at what the costs would be, if that's possible. Not wanting to extend the burden on the DPW and the arborist but if they're, you know, are if we just put in the budget the fee for another city staff arborist specifically look at dead trees that would then be able to take off the cost. Maybe that's a possibility. And then just sort of, sort of reiterate the point before around enforcement. I think it's just something we need to think about. Maybe have a list on the website of trees that have gotten permitted, for cutting down. I think, we, I've been at city council meetings where folks have said, You know, I just saw these trees coming down the other day, and I thought we had a tree protection ordinance now and wanting sort of have an answer for them. And to just avoid sort of reporting of having to folks telling their neighbors in order for it to really be enforced, and that there are parts of the neighbor, parts of the city where, you know, they're more folks who are working class, have less income at this time who are less likely to report, you know, whether that's their neighbor, who's a homeowner owner, whether that's a big developer or someone who's violating the ordinance that there might be times where folks aren't reporting and so just trying to figure out whether that's, you know, ISD doing an inventory when they look at properties or some other way to sort of keep track that way. I would be interested in sort of figuring that out on the enforcement side.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thanks. Vice Mayor Mallon.
Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon
Thank you. I think we heard a couple of really great comments today around. We really do need to be thinking about this as encouraging tree planting, not just encourage... discouraging removals. I think one of the earlier public speakers was talking about... I know Miss Nolan just mentioned it. So I would really challenge the DPW in, through this process to think about how we can be creative about using funds and staffing to encourage tree planting. Including what Mr. Lucey brought up from Harvard around what are the other city barriers for us to be encouraging tree planting on places where, you know what, what are the places where we can as a city as a government be looking at to decrease... parking ratios is an excellent example. I'm sure that there are others. So I would challenge us all to be thinking about what those other things are. I do think, I was appreciative of the data that was afforded to us here. But I do, I wonder about how many trees were called for that didn't meet the requirement. And so we never saw that data. And I'm wonder if there is a way to collect that for the next meeting, whether that's working through the arborist to find out were there, were 500 calls that went out that the arborist went out to calls to say, you know, what this actually does... We have a tree protection ordinance and a moratorium and so you can't apply. So, you know, there are... I think the data is a little bit incomplete. I do wonder if there is a way... I was just thinking about it when people were talking about, you know, you see a tree coming down and you think I thought we had a tree protection ordinance. Is there a way that the DPW could put up a sign? Like you know what, when you're a team, when the DPW is doing tree work, right? There's a there's a sign so that I don't ever show up to my house where I'm surprised the DPW is there because there's been a sign up for a week that says that the tree is coming down. Is there a way to design a sign so that homeowners who have received a permit to remove a tree can put it up in front of their house?
So neighbors aren't wondering, did they get a permit? Did they go through the process? I do think that that's just an easy quick way for us to communicate to abutters and to neighbors that the neighbors have followed a process much like the we do the tree work signs. So I am looking forward to continuing this conversation because I do think that there are some really good strategies for consideration in the next ordinance. I do want to call attention to the fact, when we were having this conversation at the City Council level that there was a I don't want to put words in your mouth, Councillor McGovern, but there was an amendment on the floor around changing the no such permits will be issued until Dec 31 2020 or until a new ordinance has been put forth based on the recommendations of the urban tree task force. Again, I don't want to put words in your mouth. But I do think that that might put some minds to rest and give a little more clarity around what we're talking about. That this isn't just going to be an indefinite moratorium and moratorium forever but that there is a clear thing that we are looking at, to put a stop to this.
But thank you very much again, for all of your work. I know. This was a tremendous effort. And I commend you all for for putting in that effort and making it easy for our residents.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thanks, Vice Mayor. So just respond to that suggestion, and I certainly considered it myself even when first putting in place this moratorium, but we decided at that time that it's not necessary to put that in. It's also a little bit confusing, because how do we decide what we consider substantial amendments, but at the end of the day as Councillor Nolan outlined, it's quite likely that we could get through a process of amending the ordinance by this summer, maybe it spills into the fall. But certainly we would hope that we could get this done before the end of the year. And as part of that amendment process itself, we would simply remove the moratorium. So even though we are amending it, proposing to amend it now, this say expires December 31. At any point that we are ready to amend the overall tree protection ordinance, we can simply remove that phrase and the moratorium. So I don't think it's necessary to put it in there to say, you know, December 31, unless we amended first because that's essentially what we're going to do so we can explain that to people but we don't necessarily have to put that in the actual text. So that's just my opinion. I did want to briefly ask a few questions, and then I will entertain a motion to forward the proposed amendment to the, to the full Council. So at the Nov 12, 2019 meeting of this committee, we also got an update on the permit applications at that time. And the data we received, according to my notes was 349 permits applied for and 298 issued that was about 51 not issued at that time. But today we're hearing 347 issued out of 366 so 19 not issued so is that because many are most of those 51 ultimately were issued between then and now.
Andrew Putnam, Superintendent of Urban Forestry and Landscape
Correct. They were either filed submitted under the wrong category or with insane with insufficient amount of data and then they were resubmitted. So this is actually kind of, more of a tree basis. If you think about it that way that 347 trees to be removed, and then a total of 19 were denied. Got it.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Thank you. I wanted to quickly speak to the back of the sidewalk program, which I've been able to participate in quite happily. The tree’s doing well. And I was really glad to receive that tree. It was a substantial tree, it wasn't a stick you know. It was a significant tree when it was planted, which is the advantage of this kind of a program because that would be a significant cost to homeowner to purchase such a tree. And it is correct that as part, as a participant, I'm agreeing to take care of the tree and so if at some point I need to remove it, I would have to bear that that cost. Of course, that's also true if I plant the tree myself. And I think because, more because of the 20 feet limit than other, than any other reason, I think it's really limited program. We just so happened in my case that there was one spot where we could squeeze it in. And so I think, as we consider different options, I would be in favor of a program that is more free ranging right that, that allows us to fund planting a tree on private property. And, and also that we consider a kind of insurance program where we would also fund in the future removal of such a tree and replacing it if it was sick or dying, or otherwise needed to be removed. So that the participating property owners would know that they would really not bear significant cost down the road? If, if the tree needs to be removed or replaced. And, you know, obviously we have to get around the anti-aid amendment. But that's a general issue. And we have ways to do that. So I'm not terribly concerned about that. And then I want to highlight what Councillor Nolan brought up and others as well that what we don't know is how many trees will not cut down, because we have this moratorium in place and Maggie Booz spoke to that as well. So I think it is really important that we extend that protection. Give ourselves the time that we need to fully amend the ordinance and that we do commit to our, to our residents that we are going to do that as speedily as we can so that we're not intending to continue this extension process. This is a one-time extension because of the delay which is quite understandable and has ultimately delivered a much deeper and more thorough report. So with that I would entertain a motion to refer the amendment to the full council with a favorable recommendation. Councillor Nolan.
Councillor Patricia Nolan
I'm just interested. I understand, Mr. Chair, you're concern. But would we rather put in the phrase that Councillor McGovern had suggested, which is prior to Dec 31 2020, or such time as a new tree ordinance is approved? I think we should do that. So I don't know how the process is? Do I move an amendment? Is it a friendly amendment? Or do you? You should move it.
Councillor Marc McGovern
I was. You beat me to the punch.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Yes. So that that would be an amendment, which is in order. I will say that, again, it's... I understand and, and support the intention, but it is also confusing in, in that wording, because what do we mean by a new tree protection ordinance. So I, you know, I think it's unnecessary, and it complicates the process and I would not be voting for it.
Councillor Marc McGovern
So if I may, Mr. Chair, so I would say, I don't think it's confusing because we're talking about passing the tree protection ordinance in the springs. That's what we're talking about. Right. So when that ordinance...
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
Point of information, we have a tree protection ordinance. So what we're talking about is amending it further. So what, what we would have to specify is what constitutes a sufficiently comprehensive amended to.
Councillor Patricia Nolan
Do we have a hard stop at 4:30? Because we have to do this in a minute if we do.
Councillor Marc McGovern
There's another committee meeting... or until a... So I would move that after Dec 31, 2020. That we add or until a new city wide tree protection ordinance is passed. You don't second.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
We do not second so the amendment is on today. So we will have discussion, any comments?
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Just to say I'm fine with it either way. I think sort of, in fact, if we have an ordinance [sic] sort of replaced what we have with the moratorium now, I don't think we need it. I don't think it changes that it if we do have it. No super strong feelings.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
So what I will say again, I don't think that is clear language. What do we mean by a new Tree Protection Ordinance? I don't know what that means, if we could amend it to change one word, and then is the moratorium now no longer the fact. I just don't think this is useful, but that's my opinion.
On the amendment, all in favor? Opposed? I'm opposed. So the amendment carries with two in favor and one opposed and one present. On the motion.
Councillor Marc McGovern
Motion as amended move to send to the council with a favorable recommendation.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan
On the motion. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay, the motion carries. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. All in favor. Thank you.
1. TPO Extension PO
RESULT: REFERRED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.
2. A Report was received from the Department of Public Works entitled Cambridge Urban Forest Master Plan, Nov 12, 2019.
3. A communication was received from Florrie Wescoat on behalf of the Cambridge Committee on Public Planting, regarding comments on UFMP Technical Report.
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE
4. A communication was received from Steven Nutter on behalf of Green Cambridge regarding support for tree protection extension.
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE
5. A communication was received from Helen Snively, 1 Fayette Park, regarding Tree canopy protection...please extend it.
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE
6. A communication was received from Elisabeth Werby, 7 Wright Street, regarding trees matter and support for extending the moratorium.
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE
7. A communication was received from Carol O'Hare, 172 Magazine Street, regarding extend tree protection moratorium.
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE
8. A communication was received from Abra Berkowitz, 16 Walden Street, regarding support for extension of the tree moratorium.
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE
9. A communication was received from Florrie Wescoat regarding support for extending the tree cutting moratorium.
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE
10. A communication was received from Thomas J. Lucey, Harvard Public Affairs & Communications, regarding 1-22-20 Health & Environment Committee - Harvard Univ. Comments
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE