AI-generated transcript of Medford City Council Committee Of The Whole 09-21-22

[Zac Bears]: Paper 19-070, Medford City Council, committee of the whole meeting notice, Wednesday, September 21st, 2022 at 6 p.m. A meeting is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello. Present. Councilor Collins. Present. I see Councilor Knight online. Present. Councilor Scarpelli.

[Nicole Morell]: Mr. Clerk, Councilor Scarpelli did tell me that he'd either, he'd be late and joining on Zoom if he's able to join. He has some family stuff he has to attend to.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Councilor Tseng? Present. President Morell? Present. Vice President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present, one absent. Meeting is called to order. This is a, I'll read it, read the notice. Sorry about that. There'll be a meeting of the Medford city council committee of the whole on Wednesday, September 21st, 2022 at 6 p.m. in the Medford city council chamber on the second floor of Medford city hall. Purpose of this meeting is to discuss the proposed tree ordinance, DPW commissioner, Tim McGivern, tree warden, Aggie Tudin, finance director, Bob Dickinson, and members of trees, Medford and the Medford energy and environment committee have been invited. And for further information, aids and accommodations, please contact the city clerk at 781 393-2425. Sincerely yours, Nicole Morell, Council President. So this meeting has been called to discuss the draft tree ordinance. We met in February and again in June regarding this draft ordinance. I'm gonna go quickly through some notes from our last meeting. There was an initial draft that had been provided that we were working off of. had made some motions to make amendments to it. We also had some proposed changes from Attorney Stein at KP Law that we considered at our June meeting. And there were also some comments from, you know, members of the city staff, as well as Councilors, for example, and members of the public, but just an example of that is Commissioner McGivern had raised a concern about staffing levels needed to administer this ordinance. you know, members of the public had had raised some concerns. Councilors had raised some concerns about the regulation of trees on private way and private property. And at the conclusion of that meeting, the city council moved to request that the city solicitor and our legal council take the proposed language of the tree preservation protection and replacement ordinance. and properly place the proposed changes within Medford's existing city ordinances that included changes to existing ordinance language regarding public shade trees that fall under chapter 87, creating a proposed general zoning ordinance for the protection of certain trees on private property. separating section six into a tree committee ordinance, a separate tree committee ordinance that would be placed in chapter two, article three of Benford's ordinances. And that would also include any other suggestions or proposed amendments that legal counsel deemed necessary while preserving the intent of the proposed language discussed at the council at our June meeting. My understanding is that we received a communication from KP law regarding that to say that they felt that there were too many policy based decisions to provide an update to the draft. So we do not have an updated red line version of that draft. I will defer to president Morell who had those discussions if she wants to provide any additional context on that. And I'll just conclude by saying that I think for the purposes of this meeting, we'd wanna have continued discussions on the draft, hear from members of the public, Councilors and members of the city staff about their views about it, about the draft, and then hopefully come up with some next steps to address policy questions that we could conduct while we are awaiting the legal review that we requested in June. I'm going to recognize President Morell if there's anything that I missed since I'm filling in.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you for covering that. Yes, so I did follow up with Attorney Stein after our June meeting, I forget may have been May 31 or June 1, to see if we could get that updated draft and as you said, she indicated to me that she felt that there were too many decisions policy wise the council still need to make before KP law. felt comfortable providing updated draft, I think, in part, this is the result of having an outside Council outside of the building. It is my understanding that in the past, city solicitors in the building would go kind of department to department to get their feedback on proposed ordinances, fold that in and provide updates and suggestions so we are kind of Um, due to the lack of that council right now, I think we're, we're forced to do this process in a few, um, and in reverse order, I guess at this point. Um, so I do have some, some motions for later, um, in the discussion, but I think there are some policy decisions we could make to tonight to decide, um, whether we want to strike some things or move them things out into separate ordinances, um, so that we could get a more clear draft. And I think there's also just the opportunity. to hear from the public some more as well. And possibly I would suggest moving this, I think, into a subcommittee at this point. I understand we're already in committee of the whole, but I think it may have been moved to a committee of the whole prematurely. And there is still some time to go into a working group and really hammer out some of the details to deliver it back to the full council. So that's all I have for right now. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I'm gonna recognize Councilor Knight and then any other Councilors if you have comments. Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Chairman Bares and through you to Madam President Morell. So what I'm understanding is that about two and a half months ago, three and a half months ago, we directed KP Law to provide us with the draft. And we outlined what we wanted to say in this draft. And there were various policy decisions that the council still had to negotiate. And when we asked them to give us a draft that outlined these policy decisions that we had to negotiate, they refused and said, no, go figure out your policy decisions, and then we'll give you a draft when we feel as though it's appropriate for us to do so.

[Nicole Morell]: Correct.

[Adam Knight]: Thank you very much, Madam President. Appreciate it.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. Well, I think the next steps that present were all laid out, makes sense given where we're at with what we need in order to go forward with this ordinance, but just to make sure that my understanding is correct. Here's what I recall from the last time we were discussing this ordinance. It seemed like a lot of the modifications that we were requesting was to take the bulk of this ordinance and the intent of it as written, knowing that some parts need to be massaged and modified and changed, and largely just sort of like cut and paste it into some of our existing ordinances, the ordinance on public shade trees, you know, sections of our ordinances that already exist. which strikes me as more of a formatting task. So just want to check my understanding on that. If that's one of the pieces of homework that we need to do in order to move this forward and that KP law wasn't able to do. And then as a next step, I think I'd appreciate clarity, you know, whenever we can find it on what are those policy decisions within the ordinance that we need to make decisions on like what specifically so that we know what we're working with. And I asked that just because it seemed to me like a large part of our next steps was just breaking this up into chunks and putting it in different places and moving forward from there.

[Nicole Morell]: Mr. Chair, if I could.

[Zac Bears]: President Morell. Yes.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Yes, Councilor Collins So, yes, that was our main director was chopping this up and placing it within our existing zoning, as well as the, the best use general law around public shade trees. Essentially what I was told by KP law and what I've run into in City Hall trying to get this done is there is. not staff with the bandwidth to do this. So again, this was something that would historically have been done by the solicitor's office. This is something that has been done by the solicitor's office in the past, as I'm sure other Councilors who were around during those times can confirm. But so we are not to say we're stuck. I mean, we can find paths forward to keep this moving, but that is why we are here again, seemingly having, you know, the same discussion we had in June, because we tried, we had a number of steps to move forward, And our outside counsel basically said that they would not take those steps for us. So I'm trying to figure out a way we can move forward. But to your also your point, Councilor Collins, I do believe the largest policy decision we were left with as if, are we looking to strengthen the public shade tree ordinance as outlined in Massachusetts general laws specifically for Medford? Or are we looking to set a process around private trees? And the answer may be both. But I think that was a large thing that this hinged on. And I think if we can answer that question, we can probably figure out some next steps. And again, me thinking through, are those next steps separating this into two different processes? There is also was originally raised the idea of a moratorium. if there is an interest there, which could allow for time to figure all this out. Because I understand we've been working on this longer than any of us would like, but I think we're all just trying to get it right.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, President Morell. Councilor Collins, anything further?

[Kit Collins]: Not at the moment. Thank you for the clarification.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Any other comments from councilors? I have a comment, but I'll wait for everyone else to have their chance. Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I agree with Councilor Miller. I think we have to break this up into the public. And, you know, according to the emails that I got from a bunch of residents, I think the only little bit, the backlash was coming from, was on the private property traits. I think that's really where the people, from the emails that I got, they just weren't in favor of us going on private property and having jurisdiction over that. But the rest of the stuff, I don't have a problem with. Thank you, Councilor Caraviello.

[Zac Bears]: Okay, so I do have a few thoughts and questions. I know that it was a long motion that KP law got, and I could try to simplify the language, but basically what we asked was for the existing ordinance, which has all of these different pieces put together into a single ordinance for it to be split up into an amendment modifying the city ordinance around public shade trees. taking anything that refers to private property and putting that in its own bucket. And then also taking the proposed tree committee and having that be kind of a separate piece since that would be fall under a different chapter of the existing city ordinance. So really what we had requested was just that that framework be laid out, that we take this single ordinance and split it up into three constituent pieces so that we can have a discussion on them and so that those items could you know, be adopted and or amended relative to the current structure of the city ordinances. So, you know, that to me, that whole motion is not really a policy question. At this point, when I kind of heard from Councilor Morell as a potential next step, was requesting, since we haven't had that legal support, requesting that the different relevant offices in city government provide comment on the current draft that we have. I believe I heard planning, development, sustainability, DPW, the building slash code enforcement and finance. And we do have some representatives from those offices here. So if they would be willing to answer these two questions, One, do you feel like you have enough information to have a meeting to provide comments on the existing draft? And two, and this kind of goes to the finance piece, do you think that those comments, you'd be willing to discuss any potential financial impacts on the city as part of those comments? I don't know if Mr. McIver or Aggie or Bob wants to go first, but.

[Tim McGivern]: Vice President Bears. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Thanks for hearing me out. So I did make some comments in the draft. It sounds like you may, there may be a version that's after this, but I did, I believe provide comments in the same draft that this time, but comments on as well. And I think one of the topics that you just brought up is really important. The public versus private. I mean, I read this and I see where it talks about what the city's responsibilities would be on private trees. But a lot of that seems to me, in my personal opinion, in direct conflict with existing mass general law when it comes to private trees and how they're protected. So I think those have to be sussed out and I think that's maybe what KP Law is kind of pointing out there. potentially. So I think that has to be sussed out and organized before myself and I think Aggie would agree with me to make substantial comments on the meat of the public tree portion. Because as I think everybody knows, the tree warden is in care and control of the public shade trees here in the city of Medford. So there's that. So I think sussing that piece out is critical. And then the other kind of big big overarching comment I think I have is, you know, something like this is obviously adds sort of layers to existing administrative processes and also adds new administrative processes in both the DPW and the building department code enforcement. So with an ordinance like this, I would want to see personally some sort of analysis of required FTEs, how that grows over time, and then what kind of operating budgets we're talking about for this type of human resource, because I think it's mostly a sort of a staff time thing, an administrative procedure type of thing. Anyway, so I think those are the two big issues for me that need to get sussed out.

[Zac Bears]: Just, and thank you for that, that's helpful. Just to confirm, if we took the existing content before you and split it up into public, private and tree committee, would that be enough work to feel like you can make substantive comments or would you really want us to look more in depth beyond doing that before?

[Tim McGivern]: I'm happy to make comments along the way. I think if we do it that way, I'd also want a bite at the apple when we're closer to like red line level. Yeah, well, of course, yes. Okay, thank you. I don't know if you want to add anything at the moment besides that. Great. Thank you. And I'm here for questions.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, any questions from members of the council for commissioner?

[Zac Bears]: I do see a member of the public, uh, Mr. Lincoln, I'm going to recognize you. Please give your name and address for the record, please.

[Tom Lincoln]: Uh, Tom Lincoln, uh, 27, uh, Gleason street. I've been following this process the best I can. And I know it's been a long road here. It's my observation. I think a lot of people concerned about this that we're kind of losing the battle on the canopy of trees in Medford in terms of despite the tremendous work that's been done by Aggie and the city, we're behind the eight ball on city shade trees. We still have a large number of stumps. All you have to do is look at, and I think they did some cleanup there, which is good, at the stump dump up near the Brooks Estate to see the volume of trees that have been cut down and moved to that site. So I think that if this is not comprehensive, it's not going to do very much good. The other thing I wanted to raise, wearing another hat here, is that the committee that's been working on the comprehensive plan, if you've looked at the draft there, this is a very high priority item in the draft plan, great public concern about trees, the shade canopy, it's related to issues of open space protection, both on public and private property in Medford. And I think that, it would be very good. We don't yet have the action portion of the comprehensive plan in front of us, but I'm very hopeful with the number of members of the committee that this will be a high priority there. So I think coordinating that in terms of what the comprehensive plan wants to do as a guide in the next 10 to 30 years, believe it or not, is going to be is going to be critical. The last thing I wanted to mention, and forgive me if I don't know where this is in the draft, is that it strikes me and I think other people that there is an issue about the relationship of this to zoning. For example, in terms of the zoning and planning and planning permission, in terms of trees removed, trees being replaced at least one for one or maybe a better ratio than that. the number of trees, which I don't think there's any requirement right now on large parking lots. I think of the place over on the Fells Way, which I go to a lot, you know, these big heat sinks sitting there and, you know, either onsite or compensatory trees. There are many cities in the United States that have good ordinances on that. I think this is a goal. an environmental goal and a climate goal, a mitigation goal, an aesthetic goal for the city and its residents that needs to be met on a whole number of fronts. And there are lots of places for trees. There's lots of places where we can do more, we can do better. We're not going to solve this issue next week or next year, but it's a matter of what the trend is. Unfortunately, we're at a point where we have made progress. I think last year, based on the street tree, I think more trees are planted last year than have been done in a long time, but we're still playing serious catch-up ball here. And certainly on my end of town here in West Medford, we have a lot of very large trees. I don't know much about the carbon picture exactly, but my guess is that a large tree is worth many, many small trees, many two and a half inch caliber trees that I'm always talking about. And, you know, you lose one of those, you know, you're way behind in terms of all the benefits. And I think that, you know, I think we need to do, I think we need to do a lot. I think we need to be thinking short term and long term here. And I think we need the framework for both encouraging people to plant trees, encouraging people to take care of trees, planting more trees, the whole shebang needs to be in there. Thanks.

[Zac Bears]: Mr. Lincoln, just relative to the zoning question that was one of the requests that we made at our previous meeting to city solicitor slash legal counsel that when they provide us a new draft, anything that would need to be in a zoning frame versus a general ordinance frame be separated out to its own amendment for zoning.

[Tom Lincoln]: Okay, thanks.

[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to President Morell and then we do have some members of the public but I'll go to President Morell first.

[Nicole Morell]: I'm going to Commissioner McIvern, thank you for being here. Apologies I couldn't be there in person. With regards to and this may dive into the area of legal so I understand if you can't answer but with regards to the private trees I mean is there a separation in your mind as far as you know one or two on a private property, or, you know, a developer buying up a lot and completely clear cutting, you know, a dozen trees kind of thing, as far as like your kind of level of comfort with potential legislation around that.

[Tim McGivern]: Sure, I can give you my opinion from a land development perspective. That one I know well. So as Mr. Lincoln was alluding to, there's ways to craft site plan regulations that involve landscaping requirements that involve trees. So when you're talking about developers coming in and saying, okay, I'm gonna tear down a couple of houses, maybe join a couple of parcels together, build a bigger building with a parking lot, that could happen. there's ways to do that through site plan review, you know, to sort of help control that and increase plantings. And then, so I'm kind of going to reverse, to touch upon your first statement about private trees in general, you know, obviously I'm not a lawyer, but I do have to work with that set of laws, chapter 87, for example. So my understanding as a commissioner of public works, is that a private tree on private property is private property, part of that land, part of the title of that land. So, you know, there's a whole host of mass general law. And I think Massachusetts is unique in this regard, having to do with private trees and what your neighbors, including municipalities, the people that are in the care and control right away, what we can and can't do to the trees on our neighbor's property. So anyway, hopefully that boils it down for you from my perspective.

[Nicole Morell]: Great, thank you. And if I could just to Mr. Lincoln's point, we did in the recent zoning update that was passed in March, we did have some performance standards for larger developments that are encouraged. They're not, I believe they don't have to be, but they are looked favorably upon the city if certain approvals are needed. So there is some language like that, and I think it's a starting block.

[Zac Bears]: Anything further, President Morell?

[Nicole Morell]: That's all I have for now, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other comments from fellow councilors before I go back to members of the public? We're going to go to Martha Andres. Name and address for the record, please.

[Martha Ondras]: My, okay, my name is Martha Andres. I live at 45 Kilgore Avenue in Medford. I, I'm concerned about the language that's been used that we would go on to private property if we regulate protection of trees. I think if I put a drain into my sump pump in my basement, the city regulates that. If I add to my house, the city regulates that. If I put a trench drain around my house, the city regulates that. I had never heard any of those regulations called going onto my property. So I honestly don't see why protecting trees is in a separate category in terms of the city's ability to protect the public interest. That tree is probably going to do more for water retention and drainage and shading on my property than a lot of other improvements that the city does regulate. I've also noted that a number of cities and towns in Massachusetts do regulate protection of private trees of a certain size or characteristics. So it's definitely possible to do that within Massachusetts General Laws. So that's my contribution here. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Martha. Much appreciated. Go to Barry. Name and address for the record, please.

[Barry Ingber]: Barry Ingber, 9 Draper Street. And I serve as a member of the Energy and Environment Committee along with Martha. President Morell, though I am not speaking on behalf of that committee. I'm speaking only on behalf of myself. And I don't know Mr. Lincoln, but I want to applaud everything that both he and Ms. Andrus have said. I have comments about the content of the ordinance that I am not going to bring up now. I just want to address the framework that You vice president bears brought up about dividing the ordinance into three ordinances Which You know, I don't have an opinion one way or the other on doing that but I think that there might if you do that be a fourth ordinance and and In the works or a second part of one of those ordinances, which is regulating the tree services and arborists that cut down trees. If I want to But in addition on my house, if I want to change out the electrical work, I need to call a licensed contractor and they need to get a permit. And I think that ensuring that tree work is done with the same care and professionalism and insurance is critical. So that I guess could be part of the private lot ordinance or could be a fourth ordinance. Thank you very much.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Ingber. That's helpful. President Morell, you still have your hand up.

[Nicole Morell]: Sorry, I'll put it down.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Actually, to Barry's point, Aggie or Tim, do we currently regulate the arborists who are, you know, tree companies who work in the city in any way? No. Okay. And we don't require a permit. Obviously there's a process through chapter 87 for a public shade tree, but for a private company, they don't have to have a permit or anything to come in and do work on a private tree or tree on private property. Okay.

[Adam Hurtubise]: All right.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other comments from members of the council at this time? Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. And thanks to everybody who's commented and thank you for the city staff for being here. My comments are more about, you know, where do we go from here and just my perspective on that. I think that, you know, this is an opportunity to make what progress we can. I think that the most organized way forward is indeed to break this up into, it looks to me probably three ordinances and move forward on those at the pace that we can, giving the legal resources and staff capacity that we have to work with. I think that we should strengthen the protections of public shade trees, where we can through amending that existing ordinance. I think that we should protect existing trees and maximally encourage tree planting on private lots in the most targeted way possible to try to do the maximum amount of good, you know, probably through performance standards and site plan review for large developments as part of the zoning recodification process. I don't love saying that because it feels like deferring it towards a process that we haven't begun yet, but I think that does make the most sense. I'm also fine with creating a tree committee. I think that my hesitation there is the same hesitation I have whenever we're talking about creating a new border commission, which is that I really don't love the idea of ascribing a lot of high capacity, fairly technical work to an unpaid body. I know that we don't have a lot of money to throw towards stipends, but I think that you know, the efficacy of that, how realistic that is really does give me pause. And I think that this is more of a general comment, but I like to make every time we're talking about boards and commissions, I think that we're not going to achieve diversity and parity on any of our boards and commissions until we start offering compensation. So I think that having a tree committee in general is good, but I also like to insert wherever I can, that I think that that needs to be overhauled as soon as we have the resources to do so, boards and commissions processes in general. So I'll, I'll end on that sidebar, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Great, we do have a couple more members of the public, and then maybe we could go into conversation about next steps. And I'm noting that we've kind of talked about next steps throughout, but I think we should have an explicit conversation about it. I saw Amanda Bowen on Zoom, but... Amanda has now gone. I do see we had one person in the chamber, and then I'll go to you, Kathy. But name and address for the record, please.

[Gaston Fiore]: Good evening, thank you, Vice President Bears. I'm Gaston Fiore, 61 Stickney Road. I'm also a member of the Med for Energy and Environment Committee, the Med for Bicycle Advisory Commission. However, all the thoughts that I'm gonna say are just my own and do not represent those of any other person or committees I belong to. I just want to say that I do believe that people owning a house and living in it should pay no tax to remove any trees from the private property. Note that developers buying existing houses would still have to pay a tax as they would not live there. So we should be able to determine whether someone is buying a house and goes to live there or someone is buying a house to flip it over and resell it. One of the people pushing for the ordinance said during the Medford Energy and Environment Committee September meeting the following, begin quote, I have problems with the rights of individual land owners. Being a socialist in the first place, I don't believe that people have rights over land. I think that there's not really any such thing as owning real property, end quote. So I ask, is believing that people don't have rights over land is thought that is shared by the majority of Medford residents? have there been any large-scale outreach campaigns to make residents aware of the huge tax that they're gonna have to pay whenever they remove a tree from their private property? Elected officials should govern for all residents in Medford, not only for those that voted for them, at least for a small number with radical views. Medford residents with trees giving shade to their house's roof, who decided to remove those trees to install solar panels, may not be able to pay the huge removal tax, and as a result, desist from going solar. The electricity not produced by those rooftop panels will need to be produced somewhere else. Placing an electricity generation far away from electricity consumers can lead to clearing forests and largest bodies of trees with even greater adverse environmental impacts. than cutting a few trees in cities. I should mention that I did send a link to document with citations for all of this to all the city councilors and anyone that would like it, I will be happy to send it. I'm almost done. So Medford should launch a massive educational campaign to teach residents about the diverse positive impacts of trees. This go beyond increasing resilience to climate change, supporting wildlife and improving the aesthetics of places. Handsome trees can also raise the sales price of a house. Educational efforts can decrease the number of residents who ever consider tree removal from their property. In conclusion, the proposed MET for tree ordinance encroaches too far on the rights of individual landowners by imposing a tree removal tax on residents owning their house and living in it. In addition, the trioleum fails to account for and makes it harder to exploit local roots of solar energy contributing to shift electricity generation elsewhere with the potential to nullify or even revert the positive environmental impact that this is striving to achieve. That's it. Thank you very much.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And just to your comments, It's a deliberative process to balance interests. The draft before you, I could guarantee you is not gonna be the draft that comes out at the end of the process and comments like yours, as well as the comments of everyone here in this meeting, help us to work through the process and craft the ordinance to be as beneficial as possible for the community. So thank you and I appreciate your comments. I'm gonna go to one more person in public, and then can I go to you? Thanks. Kathy, please, I'm gonna unmute you. Please give your name and address for the record.

[SPEAKER_00]: Hi, my name is Kathy Bull, 27 Monument Street. I support the ordinance, the proposed ordinance, and it sounds like it'll get probably even better in this process. I have watched developers in our neighborhood take down trees often as a first step when they approach land that they're going to develop or to take down a house to develop that in a new way. So I don't know if there's, if it should be, you know, written separately for different types of homeowners, whether like the previous speaker said, something more targeted. I'm not sure about that. It's just a thought. And I do think as far as what the, you know, kind of reaction to the idea of entering private property to have some governance over trees, it is a new idea in our community. And so I think It sounds maybe scary to some people at first, but I think in the ordinance, even as it is, there's quite a bit of flexibility about what a homeowner can do. It's not draconian. So I think part of it is like the previous speaker said, education. I think climate change certainly highlights our need for a for an abundance of canopy of trees. And I think we just need to keep that in mind because that impacts all of us and we all can contribute to that. So I applaud you all for the effort you've made to develop this ordinance to this point and your commitment to continuing with it, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Kathy. Councilor Caraviello, two more people on public participation, but do you want to, okay. We'll go to Sarah and then Tom. Sarah, I'm going to unmute you, name and address for the record, please.

[Sarah Gerould]: My name is Sarah Gerald. I'm at 29 Burbank road. I appreciate all of the comments of many of the people who have supported the audience of the ordinance and the work that we at Trees Medford have done to write that ordinance. It is a work that we consider very important for this city. Important because it goes directly to the way that climate is going to impact all of us. If everyone were to cut down all their trees for the purposes of even putting solar on their houses, we would all be worse off because our environment would be a lot hotter and everybody would have to pay the price of that heat. Even, and especially those who can't afford air conditioning. So I think trees are a resource that help us all. They help us all to keep our houses cooler. They help us maintain our mental equilibrium, if you will. They provide homes for wildlife, birds that delight us. They provide so many services, ecosystem services for hydrology in this city that I think we can't afford to just look the other way when people take vast numbers of trees down, even if it is on their own private property, because that impacts us all. It doesn't just impact them. It is attacks that they are imposing on us, in effect. And I think that, as the previous speaker said, we have a lot of, we've built in a lot of options for maintaining the canopy that we have in Medford that we should be considering and implementing. And that's all I have to say. Thank you very much.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Sarah. Next, I'm gonna go back to Tom. If you could just give your name and address again, Tom.

[Tom Lincoln]: Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to take too many bites at the apple here. Tom Lincoln, 27 Gleason Street. It occurs to me, and maybe you've done this already, that there's some sort of hierarchical list in terms of benefits, and to make a bad pun here in terms of low-hanging fruit, in terms of the ordinance. In other words, if you take, I'll just make up something here, if you take new developments, commercial developments and say, what's the potential for increasing trees there? What's the potential for, you know, controlling that? And what's the aggregate effect going to be on this? And then, you know, do the same sort of analysis and other, you know, the cemetery, for example, the Brooks Estate and, you know, any open space that the city controls, you know, is certainly in one category. I mean, Some things are very visible. A lot of people are upset by the number of large trees that get chopped down, as somebody mentioned earlier, as the first step in any sort of redevelopment. You think people could design around trees, but I guess it's cheaper just to cut them down and then build on a blank slate. So I think there's some opportunities there for, there's some carrots here as well as some sticks, to use a bad metaphor. for this whole thing. Because I think at the end of the day, we want to be in a position as a community where we're protecting what we have, what we're improving, you know, so we're not losing the battle, so to speak. We're improving the canopy. We're making some people, you know, we're trying to make, give some incentives here, perhaps through the zoning, through the development, through design. We don't even have design review in Medford, a terrible thing, I dare say, to have people kind of think more about this as part of the process of development. Because I think this is the kind of thing that at the end of the day, success is going to be made up of lots of little pieces and some big pieces all put together in some large aggregate.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. We'll go to Barry, and then anyone else, please raise your hand if you would like to speak.

[Barry Ingber]: Barry Ingber, Driper Street, and I'm getting weird messages here. Just two very brief responses to comments that were made. One, the notion of of having dominion over your own property in terms of trees is not really that different than the argument made by people who want to be able to dump toxic waste on their land or drain wetlands. We understand that the environmental impacts of those actions go beyond the the borders of one's property. And so we regulate those things. And we're here saying that trees fall into that same category. The comment that homeowners might be taken unaware by this and you need a massive education campaign in order to make sure that people don't make mistakes and get unfairly taxed. is an interesting one, but I think the idea is that if we do regulate tree service companies and arborists, then it's the same as the fact that I haven't a clue what has to be done when you change an electrical system. I hire an electrician and they are responsible for pulling a permit for knowing the rules and for keeping me safe. And I think that if we regulate arborists, we'll be doing the same thing. Homeowners won't be unaware cutting down trees illegally because the arborists won't be allowed to do that and wouldn't do that. Thank you very much.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Amber. I see both of you. Mr. Furrier, you can come first and then you can come up after.

[Gaston Fiore]: I just want to clarify what Barry was referring to. I think there's a misunderstanding. So what I was trying to say is that I'm guessing that members of the public are for the most part not aware that there's a tree ordinance that is being discussed. So that's why I was saying that there should be some sort of outreach campaign to make residents aware of what we are discussing here and how a tree ordinance might impact their private property. One thing that I've mentioned in the document that I sent is that, for example, a referendum. So I think If the decision is to have no exemption for residents that are homeowners and live in their houses, then it sounds personally fair to me to have a referendum on the issue and let Medford residents decide whether that's something that they want or they don't want. And then, in fact, if we do things properly, then we should also have quorum for the referendum, so meaning we should have greater than 50% participation rate, which is what happens in some European countries. So that's what I was referring to with the large outreach campaign, is to make people aware that you know, what's happening and the potential that they're gonna have to have a new, very large tax whenever they remove a tree from the property, something that they have never seen, they're not expecting, and they're not even thinking about. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Come up to the podium and just provide your name and address for the record, please.

[jMy4r_5VbVA_SPEAKER_20]: Hi, Peter Nersassy on 47 Alston Street. And I'm here because I think it's, I just want to reiterate the importance of both the public and private pieces of this because there are people. in Medford that are dependent on the value of the tree canopy, of the tree abundance that are not property owners and are at the mercy of either the city or property owners to have that asset, to have that necessity of our urban environment. I live on Alston Street. As I said, our street was, when I moved there in 2010, a lush green space. It was like a tunnel of green. Since then, on my side of the street, which has four houses, and one of which I'm a renter, and there are a lot of renters on that block, The three of those four houses on my side of the street have have taken down their largest tree and then I'm saying largest by far in during that time also there were six street trees on the block. By the time the street was reconstructed over the process of a year, I'm not even sure if it doesn't seem like it's even done yet. But those trees, there were two left. And when the street was reconstructed, all of the street pits were paved over, filled in. not a word as to future plans. I've asked several times. It doesn't seem like there was a plan going in. As I said, we are at the mercy of the city on one hand, on all the departments, whether it's public works, whether it's engineering, whether it's the tree warden, who's clearly asked more of than is even possible in keeping up with tree removal. Um, but on the other hand, we're also at the mercy of private property owners. Now, this isn't just about me and my street, but Anybody that walks down it, we have the Brooks School on my block. We have a senior housing facility at the end of the block. We have a church at the end of the block. We have disabled people. We have elderly people walking out in these sunbaked sidewalks. I walk all over town. I run all over town. There are places you can't even, in a summer where we've had more 90 plus degrees days than you can imagine, there's just no shelter. As one of the commenters mentioned, It's an energy issue at this point where we're cooling our houses because we've failed to protect them from the heat. We've definitely failed to protect pedestrians, just people out in neighborhoods. There are places where that's going to come down to private landowners. Private landowners are going to provide that where the city can. I don't know how this is going to apply to the city's backup sidewalk program, where I know that there's a way for individual landowners to get a city tree placed in their property. Is that going to be treated as a private tree or is that going to be treated as a public tree? I mean, that's a question that's out there. Anyway, I don't wanna go on and on, but it is very important to a lot of stakeholders in Medford that we have both components and they both be strong. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. One more person, then I'll get to you Councilor Caraviello. I think it's just best that we do the public at once. Go to Sarah and then Councilor Caraviello and then President Rhoads. Sarah.

[Sarah Gerould]: I would just, I know that this process takes some time, Um, and I know that I and many of the people who have spoken today are very serious about the needs to maintain our tree canopy. And I would encourage you to develop a moratorium so that we can maintain what we can while this process goes through. Many people are interested in this and want to make sure this goes through as soon as it can go through, but it's going to take some time and there are some thorny issues to resolve. And so I would encourage you to develop a short ordinance related to a moratorium so that we can, so that you have the time to do the work that you need to do.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. The gentleman just spoke a few minutes ago. We do have a back of the law tree. I think Aggie can explain to you. A lot of people don't take advantage of it. I think it's a good program for people like trees. But when you see private homes taking down trees, usually it's not a decision made lightly. A lot of those trees get taken down because they're diseased or there's some reason to it. And the decision to cut down a tree is quite costly. If you ever cut a tree down on your own property, you're looking at three, $4,000 just to cut the tree down, nevermind getting the stump out of there. So when people cut, it's not a decision that you just, hey, just cut the tree down. It's quite expensive and usually it's cut down for a reason. Private properties just don't cut down trees. I mean, I'm not talking about development. But private homeowners are pretty responsible. And they're not cutting trees down just to say they're cutting it down. They're cutting it down because they're old and they're diseased. And let's say it is quite expensive to do that. But, you know, the city of Medford is an old community and we have a lot of old trees. And I think, you know, Aggie will explain to you that, you know, we've had trees that are a hundred years old and, you know, we've had some storms where they've they've just come down over the years too. And we do our best to replant them. But as you can see, I know you're shaking your head there. We've got the stumps that we have. We're trying to get rid of the stumps now and plant new trees where those are. It takes time, it takes money. It takes time, it takes money. We do have a program. We are doing it now. And, you know, Tim, as you explained, you know, a lot of those people, when that stuff comes out, they're going to want a tree put back in there. And those trees came down because, all those trees came down because of weather and storms. They weren't just chopped down for no reason. They were taken down for a reason. So we are, you know, I know we're not on a pace that anyone would like, but The trees that were taken down were taken down for a reason. They weren't just taken down because we were being irresponsible. No, but people think that we're just cutting down trees. And let's say, yes, you have developers in the community that are irresponsible and just shave down trees. And I don't think that's right either. So I'm all in favor of, I live right down the street from you. I'm in favor of all the trees we can put in. So, but again, we're trying to catch up. It takes time, it takes money. And I say, you know what I say? If you have a tree, if you have space in your house, Talk to Aggie, she'll get you a treat in your yard.

[jMy4r_5VbVA_SPEAKER_20]: Again, Peter Nersessian, Alston Street. I am not saying that, I never commented on the justification of any tree being removed. What I'm talking about is maintenance of the canopy, about being ahead of it, about having the resources in place, about having the regulations in place to make sure that we don't continue to backslide. Because all the trees that you're talking about, there was no storm or anything that mandated filling in six tree pits on my block, okay? There is no, any land or any property owner that has a tree that has to be taken down, totally understandable, but there is no, There is no mandate to maintain the tree cover that we have. There's no replacement. That is the issue that we're talking about here. We're not talking about not cutting down diseased trees. We have a very small tree department here.

[Zac Bears]: Mr. Sena has the floor. I don't want, I tend to run a casual meeting because I think a discussion is important. I would ask that everyone direct their comments to me through the chair at this point. All right. Thank you.

[jMy4r_5VbVA_SPEAKER_20]: As I'm not a property owner, thousands and thousands, what is it, 50% of Medford is renters, something like that. We don't have the ability to take a tree on our property. We're at the mercy of property owners who cut down trees for very good reasons and then don't replace them. That's all I have to say.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Through the chair. Yes. If you could just direct your comments at me, Councilor. We have a very small tree department in the city. Do we need a bigger one? Yes, we do. I'm not going to say we don't. But again, we're struggling in our DPW department with a lot of things. And we're trying to hire people, trying to hire tree people to come out so we can build our department up to where it should be. We're trying. It's hard. You can ask your director and your A department of two, three people, they're doing the best they can to keep up with what we have. I'm gonna put it in perspective here.

[Nicole Morell]: Mr. Chair, if I could.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, Councilor Gabbard, I will now go to President Morell.

[Nicole Morell]: I know there's still, I don't want to hamper the conversation, but I have to just hop off to tend to my son. So if I could make just one motion while I'm still here, I would just, thank you. I would just motion that we request that planning development and sustainability, DPW and finance meet to provide comments on both the draft of the tree ordinance, as well as the proposed draft around the moratorium in advance of a future meeting.

[Zac Bears]: All right, so the motion is that PDS, DPW, and the finance department meet to discuss and make comments on the draft prior to a future meeting.

[Nicole Morell]: Correct, and including the moratorium draft as well.

[Zac Bears]: On the draft, on draft and moratorium.

[Nicole Morell]: And I do know there were, we do have comments from DPW already, if it's beneficial to just have that, you know, comments where different departments can talk to each other and understand how this might interplay.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, and Commissioner McGovern is about to get up here. I just wanna say that meeting may be a second step. There may be a step that comes before that meeting, because I'm gonna make a motion that would maybe get you something more actionable before you have that meeting. But if you wanna make your comment now, Commissioner.

[Tim McGivern]: I was just gonna see if I get some clarity on moratorium and vision. It means no cutting down of trees, but are we talking trimming too? I just wanna be very cautious when we're talking about moratorium for a whole bunch of different reasons.

[Nicole Morell]: President Morell. I have to, let me pull it up. But I think, I mean, the comments on the moratorium could be as simply as like, I don't think this is feasible. So I think just trying to get, because we were presented with that as well, our folks worked on that as well. I do not believe it's on, I believe it is on actual complete takedown of trees. Let me just see if I can, I just sent it out earlier.

[Tim McGivern]: It's okay, I can reserve for when I see it, and I can comment then.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay, great, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: And President Morell, I have that motion. I just have one question for you, if you do have to hop off. You mentioned referring this to a subcommittee. Do you have a preference on which subcommittee this should be sent to?

[Nicole Morell]: I would, I think environment and, I'm sorry, environment, sustainability, and transportation, I may be. That's what it is.

[Zac Bears]: All right. Great. I'll just note that for later. I'm sure someone will be able to make that motion other than me. Thank you, Madam President. Okay. So we have those two motions. Do you want to stay in vote? Yeah, we can vote on those now. We can continue discussion after those motions, but on the motion to request that planning development, sustainability, DPW and finance meet to discuss and make comments on the draft, as well as a draft moratorium ordinance, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight?

[Richard Caraviello]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli? Oh, Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell? Yes. Vice President Paris?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, none in the negative, one absent. The motion passes. The motion of President Morell to refer this paper to the Climate Subcommittee, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Who seconded President Morales' motion?

[Zac Bears]: That was Councilor Caraviello.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Here comes the roll call. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight? Councilor Knight?

[Nicole Morell]: I think I may have dropped off.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I think we may have lost him. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng.

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: President Morell. Yes. Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, if I'm the affirmative, it's none in the negative two absent the motion passes. I recognize Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. I want to let the public speak first because I think this is one of those important meetings where the public gives us their opinion and we take that into account and we fold that into the ordinance. And so I think it was important for me to let everyone, to hear from everyone first. I think generally there seems to be a lot of consensus around our shared goals, our overall goals. to increase our tree canopy, which right now is below what we ideally would have, to be proactive when it comes to climate action, to separate when it comes to the technicalities of it, to separate the ordinance into different sections. And I think there seems to be a lot of agreement around the more public property facing aspects of this ordinance. I think we also see an important role that we have is to balance different interests, which I think city government is uniquely positioned to do given the professional staff expertise on issues like this that we see in this audience today and working in city hall. and our roles as Councilors in liaising with the public and getting feedback and transmitting that to the people writing this ordinance. I think the importance of private property is self-evident, but I think it's also important to note that The trees are a public good as well. They lower surface heat in neighborhoods, the surface heat temperature in neighborhoods. They are important for our elderly population when it comes to heat waves and the danger of heat stroke and heat fatigue. And they can also help lower energy costs for households as well. My personal view is that the fine is economically sound, but I'm happy to have a conversation on that. And I also like the idea of an educational campaign that talks about how important preserving trees on people's private property is and how that can help private property owners, but I also think that this idea underscores the need for a better communication strategy from City Hall and a more comprehensive communication strategy from City Hall as well. We've already basically hinted at the way forward, but I mean when I do think about the way forward, I would be most comfortable Um, if, uh, with all the, with the departments that President Morell mentioned meeting, um, and then coming back to us for continued conversation on the details. And I, I think, um, from what we've heard from Commissioner McGibbon, this is, this is, this would be super helpful for, um, for all of us to get a better picture of the finances and the resources necessary for an ordinance like this. And I think another important note is our city has ambitious plans out there on climate action, on a comprehensive plan. And I wanna make sure that this tree ordinance aligns with our more general city plans as well.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. There's one more hand for public participation. And then I have a couple of comments and then requests for my colleagues to make motions, but I will go back to Martha first. Martha. You should be unmuted.

[Martha Ondras]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. I just wanted to... point out that the ordinance does create, does include language so that if a tree is diseased or presents a hazard, it can be removed a private tree on private property. No one is going to be penalized because they want to take down a tree that is at the end of its life, diseased or dropping branches. I think the fear that this would put people in that position is not warranted. I know I see in my neighborhood, West Medford, that a lot of the tree removal is motivated by the desire to create more parking spaces. which is probably not the best reason to take down the tree canopy. I also wanna point out that Mayor Wu today in Boston created an urban forestry division and expanded their staff from three to 16 because trees are one of the most important technologies in the city of Boston's climate plan. So that just reinforces the importance of maintaining tree canopy for all of us, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Martha. Before I comment, any further comments from remaining members of the council? Seeing none, just a few comments. My first comment is that I just reviewed these communications a little more deeply and what we received back from the KP Law legal consultants was actually very literally it said, have the departments draft this and get back to us. I just want to confirm, do you have the capacity to draft an ordinance within your department right now? No.

[Tim McGivern]: not in a timely manner like we're talking about. I don't think, and also from a legal writing perspective, we wouldn't have that capacity. We would advise the experts within the DPW could advise.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I found that to be a strange request. Mr. Dickinson, Director Dickinson, I have a question for you just in terms of, eventually, hopefully when we get a little bit of a clearer product over to you all to have a meeting, do you think that what Mr. McIvern mentioned as a potential outcome of that would be possible, you know, trying to generally assess or estimate the financial impact of what the DPW thinks they would need to fully implement the ordinance, is that?

[Bob Dickinson]: I would have to work with the DPW to figure out how many more people they would need. You'd have to put that into a budget.

[Zac Bears]: Okay. But doable within your existing staff capacity if we get you something.

[Bob Dickinson]: Yes, I can try.

[Zac Bears]: Okay.

[Bob Dickinson]: Not next week.

[Zac Bears]: Not next week.

[Bob Dickinson]: Please not next week. Yeah.

[Zac Bears]: A building department as well.

[Bob Dickinson]: Okay.

[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, and that's, I mean, realistically, I think what President Morell said earlier is like, I'm now trying to coordinate in a public meeting what the past city solicitor's office would have just communicated directly with your offices about to get your feedback and pull it together and then have a meeting with you to talk about the financial impacts. We are where we are. So I just wanted to clarify that with all of you before I start asking you to do stuff. Yeah. So my request to my fellow councillors would just simply be one thing that if someone would be willing to make this motion. So we had a motion from the June meeting that outlined a detailed request of the city solicitor and legal counsel, exactly how we wanted them to split up this ordinance and its draft so that we could provide it to city staff for their comment. I would like to if you would entertain the motion motion that we resubmit that to the mayor and the chief of staff and request an urgent response within 10 days from KP Law.

[Justin Tseng]: So moved.

[Zac Bears]: Okay on the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by councilor Caraviello that we resubmit the motions from motion to request input and updates of the proposed language from the city solicitor to the mayor and the chief of staff for response within 10 days from KP Law. Mr. Clerk, let me know when you have that. And I would like that to go up to the mayor's office tomorrow if possible. We can voice vote, yeah, once it's done. I just want to make sure he has it down for the notes and he is muted. So just.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I can do that, Mr. President.

[Zac Bears]: Great. You let me know when you're done and you have the full motion.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Let me read back because I was trying to transcribe as you talk. So it's going to be a little bit unwieldy. But let me let me let me read back what I have. Vice President Bears requested that if someone could move a detailed request to council and the solicitor to divide up this ordinance. He requested that someone move to resubmit this motion to the mayor and the chief of staff for response within 10 days from KP law. And then I said, Councilor Tseng so moved with a second from councilor Caraviello.

[Zac Bears]: I think how I would phrase it is Councilor Tseng moved to resubmit the motion from the June 1 2022 committee of the whole meeting regarding requests for city solicitor or legal counsel to update and review to update and submit, to submit an updated draft based on the parameters in that motion to the council so that it may be reviewed by city departments.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Can you, can you, can you go back, go back on that for me, go back over that one for me just quickly.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's a motion by Councilor Tseng we resubmit the motion.

[Adam Hurtubise]: June 1st committee holding.

[Zac Bears]: Yep, to the mayor and the chief of staff, the motion regarding requests for legal counsel updates.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah.

[Nicole Morell]: And Mr. Chair, I am back on the call just to ruin your voice vote.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, great. No, thank you. Welcome back. Even though we have to do a roll call.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. to resubmit the motion regarding request for legal counsel updates from the June 1st committee, the whole meeting to the mayor and the chief of staff.

[Zac Bears]: And request a response from KP law within the next 10 days. And on day 11, just do it. A second from Councilor Caraviello. President Morell, did you hear that?

[Nicole Morell]: I did, yes, I've been here for that.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Okay, when you're ready, Mr. Clerk, that'll be President Morell, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello.

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Collins. Yes. I believe Councilor Knight is still absent because of technical difficulties. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng. Yes, president Morell. Yes, vice president bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, five the affirmative zero and the negative to absent the motion passes. Any further discussion or motions on the floor. Second motion to adjourn by Councilor Kirby hello seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clark, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Collins?

[Kit Collins]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Nunez is absent. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell? Yes. Vice President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.