[Robert Paine]: All right, why don't we start the meeting? I'm gonna do a roll call of the committee members I see. I don't think I see any guests yet. So, okay, we have the municipal staff. We have Alicia and Brenda. For the committee, Luke McDealey, Barry Ingber, John Rogers, Benji Hiller, Bob Payne, Paul Teslimi, Martha Andres, Lois Grossman. Anybody I missed? Oh, Will Sherwood is connecting, so we'll add him to the list, too.
[Alicia Hunt]: Bob, just before you start the meeting, I'm, oh, never mind, it wasn't you. I noticed, I thought it was you that was showing his host. It's just Brenda. Brenda, do you want to make me and Bob co-hosts, so it's more than just you? What'll happen is if one person is the host and they get disconnected, it will randomly pick somebody else and make them the host. And who knows who that would be. Right. So it's better to always have. Yeah. Just a couple. Cause you never know. Sorry about that.
[Robert Paine]: Also joining. So we got a super quorum. Okay, so I'll add Loretta and Will to the list, and Kathleen is joining. Okay, great.
[Lois Grossman]: Our cup runneth over.
[Robert Paine]: Let's see, let's go on to the review of minutes from the November meeting, which I sent out. Thanks, Brenda, for getting those together. Do we have any discussion or any suggested edits before we vote on admitting, you know, accepting those minutes? I hear none so far. So I'm gonna do a roll call for accepting the minutes. Okay, Jessica is also joined just to add to the list here. All right, so for accepting the minutes from the member meeting that I sent out about a week ago. Let's see, say yes if you accept Loretta.
[Unidentified]: You're on mute, but you can say a thumbs up if you.
[Kathleen McKenna]: Yes, hi.
[Robert Paine]: All right, Kathleen, are you able to?
[Kathleen McKenna]: Yes, I only caught the end of it, but what I read looked good. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Luke? Yes. Barry? Yes.
[Robert Paine]: John?
[Unidentified]: I wasn't at the meeting, so I'm going to abstain.
[Robert Paine]: Thank you. Jessica? Yes. Benji? Yes. Bob, I also accept. Paul?
[MCM00001610_SPEAKER_11]: I wasn't at the meeting, so I'll abstain.
[Robert Paine]: Okay, thank you. Martha?
[Martha Ondras]: I was not at the meeting, so I'll abstain.
[Robert Paine]: Thank you. Lois? Yes. Will?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Robert Paine]: All right, I think I've called everyone that I know is on the list, so by unanimous claim, they are accepted. Okay, I'll entertain administrative updates from Brenda or Alicia.
[Unidentified]: I don't know of any administrative updates, Alicia, unless you have anything.
[Robert Paine]: Anything, I mean, I guess, due to the election results, we don't expect to see any change in the mayoral initiatives.
[Brenda Pike]: No, and We had a meeting with the three new city council members, just to sort of educate them about the things that our office works on, and that seemed really useful for everybody.
[Unidentified]: Alicia, anything you'd add?
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, there was a little water spillage catastrophe in my house, so I have no idea what you guys are just talking about.
[Robert Paine]: Talk about the election results and any follow-up from those for next year.
[Brenda Pike]: And I was just saying that we met with three of the three new city councilors to just update them on what our office does.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, yes, that is very good. They are very interested in connecting with people, with groups, with understanding, with understanding things they can move forward. They are extremely interested in climate, and all three of them walked out with copies of our climate plan, as well as our comprehensive plan. Those are absolutely priorities for them. So yeah, if If anything, I think the balance in the coming two years is going to be making sure that things don't change so fast that there's a backlash, right? Like that people are like, wait, we can't handle this. However, if you're not making people unhappy, then you are not actually making useful change. Sometimes we have angry people. And I always remind my staff that if if everybody likes you, then you're not actually making real change and making a difference because people don't like change. So So yeah, so that's, I think that's in a very high level. They are doing a recount, because some of the candidates asked for it. But my understanding of the numbers are such that the difference between the lowest vote getter on the council that got in and the next highest one is I want to say more than 900 votes. Maybe it's more than 700 votes. And out of the number of votes that were cast.
[Barry Ingber]: It was 870 something votes.
[Alicia Hunt]: OK. Close to 900. They're not making that up in a recount. If the difference had been under 50, then you could imagine something. But anyhow, that's kind of what I know.
[Robert Paine]: Okay, great. Let's go on to selection of committee co-chairs for 2024. Last month we, by the way, Paul, just to bring you up to date, I've been pinch-hitting as acting chair since you had your disaster. And Last month, three members expressed interest in being co-chairs for next year. And if you are still interested, you could also, those people were Dan Papo, Sarah Singh, and Will Sherwood. For those who weren't at the meeting and didn't read the minutes. Only, oddly enough, only Will is on the call right now, as far as I know. Will, are you still willing to act in this capacity?
[rov34HMcKiU_SPEAKER_27]: I would take some passings of knowledge and the torch and things. I would need to learn a few steps in the middle there. And I'd hate to do it alone, but I'm definitely still interested.
[Robert Paine]: Okay. I have not heard any difference in the expression of interest from Dan and Sarah, but they aren't here to speak for themselves. Anybody who wasn't at the meeting last month, such as Paul, who would be also interested, although I don't know how many we can accommodate in this. It would be like a lot of people to carry the torch.
[Alicia Hunt]: Bob did you say that we were good you the committee was going to do elections in January.
[Robert Paine]: I didn't I think this meeting.
[Alicia Hunt]: If that's OK unless we have to then why don't you don't express your opinions because you're the chair and you have carry a lot of weight and let the committee have their thoughts and their opinions and vote.
[Robert Paine]: It's just trying to express what I know as to the current expressions of interest. Well, okay, any discussion then? I'm gonna shut up and let other people speak.
[Unidentified]: Can everyone hear me? Yes. Yes. Yeah, I'm, I'm, I think I'll take
[MCM00001610_SPEAKER_11]: a bit of a break from taking on that responsibility. I would get, I'm interested, but I can't afford the time. So mid-year, I'll have more resolution on things, but now I can't do it, so.
[Robert Paine]: But you'll still be a committee member?
[MCM00001610_SPEAKER_11]: Yes, of course. And anything I can do in, in that capacity to help, I'm willing to do, bringing on speakers or not. So, yeah.
[Unidentified]: Any other comments?
[Martha Ondras]: I'll just comment as an observation that it seems to have worked pretty well when there were two people sharing the responsibility in the past?
[Barry Ingber]: Um, I'd like to comment that, um, um, I, I would think that Sarah would be an excellent choice. Um, but I'm not really comfortable with somebody who doesn't live in Medford being a chair of the committee, even if it's allowed. Um, and I would rather have the co-chairs be Medford residents.
[Robert Paine]: Let's see is that sorry is going to be moving is that right.
[Barry Ingber]: That is what she said yes, yeah last week she said that.
[Robert Paine]: I guess it's still OK for to be a member right.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, we don't have anything in Medford that actually says you must live in the city to be a member of a committee. And we have offered to people who have moved before that if they wanted to stay, especially because this is an ad hoc committee, it's not like a board that votes on permits, for example. It's more like a group that gets stuff done. that people could stay on the committee if they moved. And in my experience over the last 13 years, when that happens, if somebody stays involved for a little while, and then they start to get involved with their new community. And it's nice to have some transition time and for them to sometimes it helps them transition into this type of group in their new community. So yeah, so there's no problem with her staying on the committee.
[Lois Grossman]: I would venture to say that there are ways we can harness her energy and know how, even if she isn't a co-chair.
[Unidentified]: And I would certainly want to.
[Robert Paine]: Any other discussion? I guess that someone could We can always you know we can always vote on this in in just in January. I can set up the minutes one more you know the agenda one more time. If you want to wait for that. So we could either consider voting today or voting in January. Especially since 2 of the members who express interest are here to speak for themselves. I'm a little nervous.
[rov34HMcKiU_SPEAKER_27]: I was going to comment the same. I would feel strange making this decision without them present. OK.
[Barry Ingber]: I would note that we have 12 out of 14 people present, and that's extraordinarily good turnout. So that is the other side of that coin.
[Robert Paine]: Well, let's see. Does anyone have any objections? Okay, so I hear that Barry would rather see maybe Sarah be in more of a backup role than a routine co-chair. Is there any, so the other candidates are Dan and Will. So we can either, we can either, I think I'll entertain a motion to either vote today or vote in January.
[Unidentified]: I move that we vote in January. I second. I second.
[Robert Paine]: Any discussion before we take the roll call? All right. We'll go through the roll and see. All right, Loretta, if you say yes, that means you defer the vote until January. Loretta?
[Kathleen McKenna]: Yes.
[Robert Paine]: Yes. Kathleen?
[Kathleen McKenna]: January, please.
[Robert Paine]: Luke?
[L5Dn-1_BzKM_SPEAKER_12]: Yes, January. Mary?
[Robert Paine]: I'll abstain on that one. OK. John? Yes. Jessica?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Robert Paine]: Benji? Yes. Bob? Yes. Paul?
[Unidentified]: Yes. Martha? I guess maybe you made the motion. It looks frozen. I'll get back to her.
[Robert Paine]: Lois? Yes. will yes okay and martha did we um are you back you can even put your thumbs up or down if you can't you're on mute martha
[Martha Ondras]: I actually seconded the motion and I also vote for it.
[Robert Paine]: Okay, very good. All right, then the motion is carried to move the vote on the co-chairs to January. The meeting will occur on January 8th. We are going to meet on a holiday.
[Alicia Hunt]: Bob, this is a great point for me to actually insert an administrative thing that I hadn't While you were saying this, I realized that this is a great time to mention it. Since everybody is here, Brenda, I'll check in with the two members who are not here. tomorrow, people may not be aware that if for some reason you can't make a meeting, even if it's at the very last minute, sending an email to Brenda and Bob or a text if you have their information or whatever, some message is extremely helpful. If you know in advance you can't make a meeting, letting us know in advance, because we have had times when it's really hard to make quorum with this group. And if we know that it looks like half the people can't come, then we won't waste everybody else's time and we'll figure something else out. But I just wanted to mention that, that not everybody may realize that sending, letting Brenda and Bob know if you're not coming. It used to be me, but I'm kind of passing the torch to Brenda. And if for some reason you do message me for whatever reason, or like you can text me, but you can't text Brenda, I'll pass the message along. So thanks.
[Robert Paine]: We talked last month about having occasional in-person meetings, and I don't know if we need to do that on January 8th, but it could be considered. I'll open the floor for discussion. I think we were thinking about once a quarter or so, but I'll open the floor for discussion on frequency of in-person meetings versus Zoom.
[Unidentified]: I think it's a good idea.
[Robert Paine]: To have an in-person meeting.
[MCM00001610_SPEAKER_11]: Yes, I think it's a good idea to occasionally, you know, find out if we're all real or not.
[Unidentified]: Check.
[L5Dn-1_BzKM_SPEAKER_12]: Okay. I will also agree that occasional in-person meetings are certainly good. I definitely appreciate the opportunity to participate in these meetings remotely, though, for a number of reasons. This is very convenient and effective from my perspective. But I do also enjoy the opportunity to actually see people in real life.
[Lois Grossman]: Especially if it's in Bob's backyard, right?
[MCM00001610_SPEAKER_11]: It should always be there. Just kidding.
[L5Dn-1_BzKM_SPEAKER_12]: I put the little radar in there.
[Robert Paine]: So, should we, especially since we're going to have a meeting of the possible co-chair, should we try for January 8th being an in-person meeting? Where, Bob? Well, City Hall, room 201. Where would it be, Alicia? Same room as we used to be four years ago?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes, sorry I'm having a little trouble with my computer so if I'm taking a little while. Um, you could certainly use to a one that's the larger of the conference rooms. that it's not booked very often anymore because so many public meetings are remote now. We could also, depending on the schedule for the school committee, have access to the city council chambers. I do find that the sound is very hard to hear in there, even though some people prefer to be in the bigger space. But for those of you who haven't been in room 201, that conference room seats I'm going to say 12 around the table. And there are additional chairs. So it's a pretty reasonably sized, it's big for everybody to sit at the table.
[Robert Paine]: Yeah, so our last meeting there was in March of 2020, believe it or not.
[Unidentified]: Wow.
[Robert Paine]: So it'll be almost four years. But I would say, I guess I can move that we will have our next in-person meeting on January 8th in room 201. Anyone second that motion? Second. I'll take a roll call quickly here. Say yes if you agree to that meeting being in person. January 8th, 630 Loretta. Yes. Kathleen? Yes. Luke? Sure. Yeah. Mary? Yes. John? No. Okay. That's all right. Jessica?
[Unidentified]: I'll be there if it's on, but yeah.
[Robert Paine]: Got it. I know. Yes. Benji? Yes. Bob? Yes. Paul?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Robert Paine]: Martha?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Robert Paine]: Lois? Yes. Will? Yes. OK. Probably a good thing for the selection of co-chairs to have people actually seeing them in person.
[Kathleen McKenna]: I have a question, Bob. Yes. Is there going to be an option if someone just cannot, hasn't, I don't know, they have to stay home for a child?
[Robert Paine]: That's a good question. What's the story, Alicia, on that?
[Alicia Hunt]: It is possible for us to set up a hybrid meeting. Teresa has done it a couple of times with something called an owl that like is this like weird camera that sits in the middle and like looks at different people, which makes for a very interesting experience for the people who are on Zoom. But we certainly even if we didn't use that, if we just used a regular laptop and computer and a TV screen, we can set up hybrid.
[Robert Paine]: Sounds like a good idea for those who can't make it, especially if it's bad weather.
[Unidentified]: Well, that's what my thought was, is if it's bad weather, it's tough to get anywhere.
[Robert Paine]: Yeah, I don't know if we have a Zoom backup if it's going to be bad weather, we can still meet.
[Alicia Hunt]: If you advertise it as hybrid, in-person and remote, and the weather is just iffy and some of you aren't comfortable driving, that's fine. More people join via Zoom. And if it turns out that, you know, everybody says we'd rather be remote, that's fine. Even if it's been posted, Brenda or I can stay in City Hall unless, you know, if City Hall gets closed for weather, then, you know, you might want to consider canceling the meeting just for fun. Because that's pretty bad weather.
[Robert Paine]: Well, I guess we can say if City Hall is closed due to a weather emergency, it'll be a Zoom meeting. All right, we'll have to work out the language on that, but okay, that's what we'll try to do. Try to have the hybrid option. Okay, the only other quick thing on administrative is last Wednesday's winter extravaganza, Brenda and I were at the table. Had a few contacts there. Brenda, would you like to elaborate on that?
[Brenda Pike]: Sure. I think it was a great event. I hadn't been to it before, so I was surprised by the number of people who came through. And especially the number of people who stopped at our table to talk to us. They seemed very interested in things like the mass save home energy assessments and more information about the aggregation. Is that what you saw too, Bob? We trade it off sometimes.
[Robert Paine]: Some people said, well, I would like to do this project, but even to get started, I had to spend $6,000 to fix my knob and tube wiring. So how could I even proceed? So there's a lot of financial roadblocks on getting this done. A heat pump system where you want to put in the insulation, but you can't put the insulation in if you have to do an electrical upgrade. And so, you know, It's, there's a lot of financial challenges to this climate change stuff.
[Brenda Pike]: I also think that's a, that's, that emphasizes sort of how important it is to get information out there, because for instance, for Novantube wiring, there are, there is funding available for barrier mitigation for things like that through, through the MassAve program. So, um, just sort of the more details about things like that, that we can get out there, the better.
[Robert Paine]: So that was it was good to get some experiences like this because I will help us to better educate. Our citizens are you know of Medford. The real process to get this done. I'm going to go on now to, we're going to change the order of our meeting a little bit to work on the updated tree ordinance draft and participation by Trees Medford, because I see Amanda Bowen has joined from that organization. I'm going to turn it over to Loretta and Lois from our committee as well as Amanda to lead a discussion on possible reviews of the drafts that were submitted to our two committees and any comments collected so far on any potential changes to those drafts.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Hi everyone. Can you hear me OK?
[Robert Paine]: Yes.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Hello. OK, so I just want to give a brief introduction to where we're at with this. A lot of the members have not been participating. So and I did see today that the email I sent out very late did bounce, which is the first time I've seen so many email addresses. So it looks like I will have to change my email address. So I just sent it out again individually to everybody. So the city council has updated the tree ordinance that was submitted by trees mentioned a few years ago, 2021. And they split it into the city council, split it into three ordinances. That's the original a summit. So that was private trees. Public trees and the tree committee. At a recent City Council meeting. The City Council asked for comments to the air updated drafts that they're working on from the energy and environment that energy environment committee and also trees matter. So that was in October. Since that time, we have had to go back to looking at those drafts, the three separate drafts that the city council wrote and what was originally submitted and some of the changes along the way so that we could actually make comments That makes sense. And it was a bear of a project. And I ended up calling it an elephant of a project to go back through several years of what changed. So Lois and I from the Energy Committee said that we would be the liaisons to trees method. and attend their meeting and see what information they had. Also to share with our committee in hopes that, well, first, the Energy and Environment Committee would submit comments or maybe just a letter to the City Council with comments and also support their updated drafts or their comments. So we started looking at comments. We asked the energy committee to submit comments to us and us. Unfortunately. We've got very few responses. I think well it's not really disappointed in there. Tonight we're supposed to talk about that from the net energy environment committee's point of view. And Lois and I have done a tremendous amount of work with Trees Medford because they asked for our comments to help them also think clearly through the city council drafts. And we put in lots of hours. So they submitted today, Trees Medford to me and Lois, their updated draft which is an answer to some of the comments on the original city council October. It sounds confusing. There's a lot of elements here. The city council's drafts that they want comments, they've updated that with their answers, including the comments from the few energy and environment people that were submitted. So, They gave me permission very, very late today to submit their drafts. They're not completed. Amanda, I will give the floor over to Amanda in a minute. It's Tree's-Medford's ordinance, but the city council wants our comments, if we have any. But our comments, most of them have been incorporated, in my opinion, into their updated draft. So what I emailed later today. Very late was after 5.30 was there. The City Council. Private tree ordinance that treaty's method has updated with comments that includes some of the suggestions that we have made and What else? Where did I end? That's what I emailed to the Medford Energy and Environment Committee. It's our hopes that we align with them to end up writing a letter of support for what they write. And we may have additional comments. They're not done yet because it's such a large project. So what you have in your emails as of now, because I sent them separately to all of you, I hope, is their updated comments draft in a clean version that they intend to submit to the city council. And we ended up working, Lois and I ended up working with them quite a bit to offer suggestions.
[Lois Grossman]: Did I leave anything out, Lois? I just want to check in with Lois. Yes, there's one thing, and that's Barry's comments that he made.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Right, I'm trying to find out particular people, but I will get to that.
[Barry Ingber]: You know, I'm sure he's going to show a point me out, particularly because that way I'll know what you're talking about.
[Lois Grossman]: So, yeah. Yeah. Specific comments. Loretta, I don't know if you saw Barry's comments.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Yes. I've read everything. I've read everything. So if you want to speak to that, I will. Okay. So Bob, is that okay with you if I share your comments?
[Robert Paine]: Oh yeah. Who did you get comments from by the way?
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Two people. you and Barry.
[Robert Paine]: Okay. No one else. That's fine.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: So with Bob's comments, they were pretty simple. And that was on the diameter of breast height of trees that are protected. And yes, um, you know, the city council said 10 or 12 inches. I don't have to pull up all these documents. And that was advised to go down to eight, which you had suggested. So eight inches would be the diameter of breast size would be the recommended suggestion to the city council.
[Amanda Bowen]: And also landmark. I just want to make sure everybody knows that that's the number that constitutes a protected tree. Right.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: things. And landmark trees was changed to a suggestion of 50 years old or more or particular slow growing trees. So I think that was about it for Bob and Barry had several. suggestions that were included, except for since we got them just last night or today. Let me see if I can find his.
[Unidentified]: Give me a second.
[Robert Paine]: I'm going to say, Loretta, that I also comment on the land developers fees, which I thought were. Right.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: If you see the new one, Let me just pull these up. Give me a second.
[Barry Ingber]: I can, I can help you with that, Loretta.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: I mean, I can read my comments rather than you. That'd be helpful because there's so many documents I have now. Okay.
[Barry Ingber]: So I divided it up by ordinance. So some of the comments are repeated. First on the tree committee ordinance, I wrote that I agreed that having a member with professional expertise was a good idea. But wrote however I would suggest that since the members of this committee will not actually be working on trees. But practices certified arborist is to narrow a credential the secret just as well be filled by a person with training in forestry natural resources management or ecology. In fact, having an arborist, you know, the proverbial not being able to see the forest for the trees could be quite literal in this sense. So I really think that that should be expanded. On the public tree ordinance, The definition of protected tree and significant trees still does not exclude invasive and noxious species. I think it's critical that those be excluded. It's very simple to do. All you have to do is refer in the ordinance to EOEEA's prohibited plant list. And You know, I mean, you could end up in quite a pickle. Norway maples are really long-lived, and there are many that exceed 75 years, and we might want them out of there. You know, tree of heaven and black locust can grow quite large, too. I'm not sure that they live to 75 years. But I think that we really need to exclude those from the definitions. My comments on the private tree ordinance were more extensive. Again, there's the issue of invasive and noxious species with a little bit more particularity, because there you're talking about DBH of 10 inches or greater, and lots of invasive trees could have a DBH of 10 inches or greater. Their second comment was regarding mitigation and tree replacement. I think I talked about this a little bit last time, but the ordinance calls for replacing a 10 to 15 inch tree with two trees of three inch caliber, a 15 to 30 inch tree with three trees of three inch caliber, And a 30-inch or more tree with four trees of three-inch caliber, which are, I mean, I'm not even sure why bother. That's so lax. In terms of ecosystem services, even the previous, this is worse than the previous version of looking at total diameter, but the idea that two, three-inch trees could replace the ecosystem services of a 12-inch tree is kind of ridiculous. And that's the just, you know, that's the purpose of this ordinance, right? That's what's laid out as the purpose is these ecosystem services. You, a closer approximation of of reaching equivalent ecosystem services would be the area of a cross section. So the number of three-inch trees to replace a 12-inch tree would be around 16. And the number of three-inch trees to replace a 24-inch tree would be about 24. And the number of three-inch trees to replace a 30-inch tree would be about 100. That's when you begin to have, that's when you have equivalent mitigation effects in terms of hydrological impacts and everything else because it's not the diameter, it's the total size of the tree. How much shade is it providing? How much water is it drawing? How much of a root system is there to hold the soil in place? You know, three-inch trees don't do it, not compared to a 30-inch tree. So, I mean, you might not want to stipulate the equivalent. It might be kind of onerous to say that you need 100 to replace a 30-inch tree with 100 trees, because there might not be a place to put 100 trees. but for trees is really extremely lax.
[Lois Grossman]: Ari, can I interrupt you to get you to consider something? There is wording in the document that talks about paying a fee per tree that will go into replacing trees and go into budget for tree services. I'm not quoting it directly, but there's something there that says the money has to be used either to buy trees or essentially to service trees that we do have.
[Barry Ingber]: I think that We give the it does give the person cutting down the tree the option and I'm saying that this option is not adequate in terms of the fees I don't remember what the option for cutting down trees where I just looked at the mitigation fees for land clearance and those were so poultry that I'm not even sure that it's worth implementing them in comparison to the to the costs of of maintaining the program I mean you're talking about large lots. The clearing large lots for a 1000 or $2500 let's like. you know, for a developer, that's like, that's pocket change.
[Amanda Bowen]: Can I just interrupt here for a sec? I'm not sure what version we're talking about because we, the latest version doesn't allow for any clear cutting whatsoever. And it says that no more than 30% of any lot with no matter what kind of mitigation, um, only 30% of any lot could, could be considered even if, you know, if, if it were a big project or something like that. So, That's a different version than maybe the one you were looking at. I'm not sure.
[Alicia Hunt]: But to be clear, Amanda, you're talking about, Amanda's talking about the version that Trees Medford is proposing back to the city council. The version that Barry's looking at is, to be clear, not something that the city council has voted on, but the version that the building commissioner put forth to the city council. So they didn't actually say they liked that version, they just said they wanted comments on that version.
[Amanda Bowen]: And I just wanted to add to what Loretta said, that what we intend to submit at whatever point it gets submitted is a marked up version of what they gave us, so that it's clear what changes are made, and then a clean version that is a new proposal, you know, more or less a new proposal, and then You're freezing. We are talking, trying to show them where we, how we got from where, where they were to, to where we are now. But, but I, I welcome all these comments.
[Barry Ingber]: Okay. So my comments are on the ordinance as written. I don't, I haven't seen, I'm not familiar with the, uh, the current trees Medford version. I haven't. Yeah.
[Amanda Bowen]: We totally agree that what was submitted was completely inadequate.
[Barry Ingber]: Okay. Yeah. A third comment, um, in a different vein where, uh, all of my other comments are, are, uh, saying this isn't strong enough here. Uh, this is one that's, um, expressing concern about affordable housing, which, um, I think that we need to create exclusions or allowances for affordable housing. that we always need to be considering equity when we attempt to address environmental concerns. The city in the region are in the midst of a housing crisis we need to make allowances to enhance housing opportunities. So I would recommend excluding from the ordinance housing developments where at least 50% of the units are affordable according to government standards where at least 25% are affordable to low income households. And with a little comment, the drip lines of trees are not suitable shelter for human beings. And I have seen them used in that way within the geographic boundaries of the city. And a fourth comment was regarding the exclusion for solar panels. I disagree with that as a blanket exemption. I think that the environmental benefits of the photovoltaic array need to be properly weighed against the loss of ecosystem services and benefits on a case-by-case basis. Removing a 20-year-old chokecherry to construct a full roof array, sure. losing a 150-year-old American beach to install a small array in a single-family home. Do we really want to permit that? So that's my comments.
[Martha Ondras]: I I've been waiting a few minutes, so I'll jump in here. I was sorry I wasn't able to comment on this. I did not receive the draft by email. I did see Barry's email. Because he copied me. With his comments, but I did not receive his attachment that had his comments, so I'm coming somewhat. I didn't know it. And yeah, you did. But the other the other version, the other emails were not sent to me. So I'm just like to comment that. Responding to various comment about the replacement, appropriate replacement for a 30 inch tree, I have once in my career replaced a 30 inch tree. It was replaced because the alumni of Simmons College were so upset about cutting down a beach that they raised the exorbitant amount of money it took to move a large tree rather than replacing it with a smaller tree. And I think you have to recognize that there's a The cost of increasing the caliper size of the tree does not increase proportionally the cost of planting. It increases exponentially. So you will not realistically find a replacement for a 30-inch tree that is affordable within the context of a development.
[Barry Ingber]: I'm not saying that though. I was saying equivalent numbers as small trees would need to be larger.
[Martha Ondras]: No, yeah, yeah, yeah, I do agree with that. But I think I would just caution that we can't. The math is a little more complex than just taking the the area of the existing tree and and using that as a basis. I do think, I do think it's good that the group, the council split this into three ordinances. It makes it much more manageable to deal with. And I do think that the exemption or at least mitigation for affordable housing is appropriate. I think they had also had, I recall they also had some tiered pricing, tiered fines for homeowners versus non-resident developers, which is a good idea. And I'll look forward to seeing Trees Medford's draft at some point. That's all.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: I'll send it to you now, Martha.
[Brenda Pike]: I'll just add that if you can access the chat, I dropped the links to the commented version and the clean version in there.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Thank you very much.
[Lois Grossman]: There's another point I wanted to raise. that came to me while I was reading Barry's remarks, which I agree by the way. At some point, Medford has to identify potential urban forest sites. We have to say that there are certain places in and around Medford that could certainly have more trees It could be the cemetery, it could be any number of places. I think we would be remiss if we don't require the city of Medford to keep track of open spaces that can have more trees planted so that when people have to mitigate and pay fees and so forth, We don't start running around looking for a place to put a tree. We have places already marked out that can handle more trees and that will increase our canopy. It's something we haven't really talked about at all, nor in our meetings, Amanda, but it's something to think about. Let's look for places that we can enrich and not have to start searching at the last minute.
[Alicia Hunt]: Lois, is there some reason why you think we don't? Because the city, for example, planted 200 trees between September and the start of December this year. Our tree warden has a pretty solid idea of places that we own where we can put more trees in.
[Lois Grossman]: But it's not in the ordinance, Alicia. Okay, perhaps it should be under the purview of the new tree committee. that the tree committee will track.
[Alicia Hunt]: It's very complicated. Residents can't just figure that out because of all the constraints around where you can publicly plant things like that. You have to understand the engineering, legal ownership of the parcels, protectiveness of parcels. She doesn't have trouble figuring out places to put them, although sometimes people object and that's the problem.
[Lois Grossman]: Well, no matter what, it should be spelled out somewhere that the tree warden has a register of places that can take trees. It shouldn't look random. It should look planned. It should be accounted for.
[Brenda Pike]: My understanding is that an urban forest master plan is underway and the city has hired what Weston and Sampson to develop a scope for that. So it seems like what you're talking about might be part of that urban forest master plan. Is that true, Alicia?
[Alicia Hunt]: They got an MVP grant to do an urban forest vulnerability assessment, which is the first step to doing the master plan, is to first understanding what do you have and where is it. And Weston and Sampson is in fact doing that now. They were at the Energy Festival with the table talking about it.
[Lois Grossman]: The only point I'm trying to make, Alicia, is that the tree ordinance that we submit has to make mention of this somehow to be comprehensive. It's just a question of language.
[Alicia Hunt]: What is your goal in mentioning it in this ordinance? What's your goal? Why did you want to include that?
[Lois Grossman]: so that somebody knows where the trees are gonna go.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, and that's under the state gives that authority to the tree warden. So, and I think Loretta actually may know better than I do what the state authorities to the tree warden are and assigns to them.
[Lois Grossman]: I just wanna see it spelled out in the ordinance. I think it's critical. Lois.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Lois. Can you please write your thoughts and email it, what your suggestion is? Because there's a lot, think about it and just write to the committee, just like we did.
[Lois Grossman]: No, I'll go back through the materials and find where I think it should go.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: I, you're somewhat new to this. I think the tree canopy goal was suggested. Well I know what was suggested to when trees management that in their thoughts. that we allow for more than what the city council had to cover ourselves to include up to 40% tree canopy coverage to 60% depending on equity, the location, the lack of tree canopy and all that. So if you're referring to that, that was suggested to trees method and I'm suggesting that to the committee too, our committee. But if that's not it, just write it so we can understand your thoughts.
[Lois Grossman]: I'll write it and insert it in the place I think it should go.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Yeah, remember that a lot of these decisions where trees are going are in areas where the tree canopy is already lacking. That's the first priority for public trees. But maybe you want it on the private trees area too. I'm not sure. It's difficult. It's difficult. I just wanted to add, I made a lot of comments on the public tree ordinance. I didn't, nobody actually submitted any comments to Lois and I, because- About emergency situations, but- Oh, okay. I'm sorry, Bob.
[Robert Paine]: that if it pre-falls on my house or something like that, I don't have to wait for the pre-warden to say I can get rid of it. If it's an emergency. There's no exceptions right now.
[Lois Grossman]: That's spelled out. That is spelled out.
[Robert Paine]: I don't think it is, not in the public one. There's no exceptions for emergencies that I know of.
[Lois Grossman]: I'm pretty sure when I read it today, I saw something about that. Well, on the public.
[Robert Paine]: I would have to go back to just want to make sure that's in there.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: No, I think that's an important point, because you know what, we shouldn't have to wait for a permit. Because what about the weekend? And yeah, I just want to go over a couple of things.
[Barry Ingber]: And Loretta, I also had that comment on on invasive and noxious species.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Right, I think that's included in there, in the updated one that Therese Medford had, but not in the city one. So yeah, they changed this so much. And Therese Medford is putting back a lot of the original suggestions to make it clearer, because we're also teaching the city council what's possible too, by reading these alternative measures. and administration. Going back to the private tree ordinance, in my opinion, that was pretty good. I'm looking for the suggestion I made, not the private, I'm sorry, the tree committee. The tree committee ordinance, for me, there was a huge paragraph that was taken out from the city council once. And that was the state legislator has granted municipalities, the right responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare. So they put that back in trees method to their comments and suggestions that that was great. But the thing I'm also concerned about is the appointments and the limited amount of members. that are in the City Council draft. So I suggested to Therese Medford and to this committee. And what it says is the committee shall consist of five Medford residents, one in the details. I'm suggesting, let me just expand mine. My opinion more members will be needed to do the work outlined why limit to only 5 members suggest at least 5 method residents in a tree committee total of up to 12 members. I think that's really needed, that they have that flexibility. They may end up helping with some permits and tree site work. So that was pretty much my two comments on that. Oh, no, I actually had one more. I suggest that the duties may include assisting with the review of tree removal permits that will reduce cost to the city. And there was a couple of things in that I didn't understand because the city council took out item Q on the tree committee. So I don't know what that was. And the attorney, Robin Stein had made a comment and I didn't understand that. So it's hard to track, you know, the previous things. So those, those are, A couple of things on also going the private tree ordinance was the most work and I made a lot of suggestions. Most importantly at all trees should be permitted that are under the guidelines protected tree and so that we can keep track of the tree canopy. I mean, we don't have permits. What do they decide there? Whatever the cost is, how are we going to keep track of a tree canopy if we don't know what's being taken down? And then also, I'm not sure where to include this, but I would suggest that they do have a certified arborist on staff. to mitigate concerns. And I'll read you at the end. Oh, there's so many versions here. Sorry, give me a minute. At the bottom of the edited drafts, I want to make some comments. And previously I'd sent the Energy Committee the Planet Geo tree preservation ordinance video link when they met with Arbor Day Foundation and those links are available to watch. And it's about ordinances across the country and the speakers were talking about what's important to include and how they got there and questions and answers. So what I took from that in response to some comments that we may make to the city council, is that this is at the bottom of the document that left my comment on the links that I sent you. It's important to state a tree canopy coverage goal in the ordinance to look at past and current. Also, I add to the tree committee outline. So I think there should be a goal in there. But they did address it, Tracy mentioned. At the beginning, they said we're only at 29% tree canopy coverage. But I think that they should have some flexibility and say we should go to 40 to 60. But that's my opinion. Balance tree removal with future tree canopy coverage goals. Track when trees are removed. The permits will help with that to see the canopy and where planting is needed. They also suggest from the Plano Geo and Armadato Foundation with ordinances to municipalities, must have a certified arborist, ISA preferred, experience in building development, review all permits, provides credibility, and limits losses. This could be implemented for review and approval of permits of certain types of tree removals to reduce the cost, such as landmark trees, clearing loss, or site plan review. And that's a whole other conversation on how they can afford it or not afford it, which we didn't get into really here. It's important to provide incentives to keep trees, modify setbacks to be flexible to allow to keep trees, design flexibility, reduce parking requirements, et cetera, especially for landmark trees. And then I also said to add, These are suggestions, the maintenance of trees planted for any development projects post surety bond and occupancy permit not approved until tree work is done that would change the draft. Since it states replacement trees can be planted within 12 months. question, why allow 12 months after completion of a project to plant replacement trees or move them? Most development projects finish the landscaping by the time the building is open for occupancy. So Trees Medford actually did address that. And I sent the link in the email to a possible addition that would bring that down. then exclude the 12 months after the project's completed and make it earlier. The other suggestion, the tree fund or two if required, because that was confusing, make sure mitigation funds are aligned and reviewed fee in lieu of those funds used for maintenance, tree planting, salary of tree department, arborist to incentives and rebates. These are suggestions that from the Plantageo ordinance review. Flexibility in using the funds received for mitigation for replacement of the tree canopy, such as the offsite mitigation and other replacement solutions to provide ecological benefits. And these are all things that would be important to state in the ordinance. And that's a new thought, that's a new thing that's coming about. And also, you know, the 40% tree canopy coverage is changing very quickly. And some, it depends on the city and the state, some areas are going with 58% to 60% because tree canopy laws. But I just like to see more flexibility in that. I'm going to stop talking. I want Amanda from Treesman to speak.
[Amanda Bowen]: Amanda? I just was hoping that we could agree on, I'm sorry that everybody's seeing different versions. Everybody's seeing the versions that the city council was talking about in October. We've been working very hard on on some new versions, which I'm afraid weren't in good sort of finished order to supply to you guys early enough for this meeting. So I just wanted to get a sense. We agreed we wanted to have a united front. We wanted this group to agree on whatever version we give back. And you haven't seen what we've come up with, with Loretta's help and Marianne's help, who's here too, and lots of other and other good people. So in order not to lose too much time, because obviously trees are being cut down all over town all the time. Should we just plan on trying to have finished versions to you well before your next meeting? So that then you can agree on them and that we and then we could submit them to the new city council, which will be in place in early January.
[Robert Paine]: I agree. Yeah, this is Bob. I would like to see the way the best. exactly composite version you can come up with no and we will have that shortly we just didn't have it for tonight and i'm sorry that's fine we that's why we're getting a status update and we'd like to discuss it at our january 8th meeting i think then um i was also going to ask there might be frequently asked questions and What is okay? I'm a homeowner and I want to cut down a tree. What do we need to do? How much is it going to cost and how long is it going to take for the process to occur? I think we need to spell that out also for developers because there's going to be the other side they're going to say well Now I can just, you know, cut down a tree willy-nilly. And what are you going to make me do? And is it going to be impossible? So I think you need to have like a frequently asked question document that says, okay, this is what you need to do. And are there, does the city have resources to accomplish this. Do you have to hire people you can't get a hold of? Do you have to get a permit that you can't, you have to wait months for? So I think you have to consider that side of things too. Are you putting in place something that can be, can work? And can citizens understand what they need to do? Is it going to be too onerous? Because that's going to be what the city council is going to get from the public as well. What does this mean? And so I think you need to write something out that's clear to address those concerns.
[Amanda Bowen]: That's good. Yeah, but we definitely want want to make sure that you have have what our best efforts for your next meeting. Sorry.
[Robert Paine]: That sounds great. Yeah, I look forward to that. And hopefully I'll have time after Christmas to review it.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: I'm hoping that once those are reviewed, that we can write our letter to the city council. that we support that the document that the trees meant that would be submitting. And also we have any additional comments that they decided to not include or were skipped we can add that to the letter. That would make it a lot easier. You know because we still have to address them.
[Robert Paine]: If you had a question.
[Alicia Hunt]: Well, I just sort of wanted to share a comment and a big picture thing to be thinking of as you're all looking at this. I will tell you that I just did not agree with most of what the building commissioners recommendations were, particularly in the details. But there was a spirit that he was trying to get at that I think is worth thinking about. And that was, there are a certain amount of work that gets done that people agree should happen. And that's both in the emergencies, but it's like, you know, you're building a house, you need to be able to remove the tree to put the house on the lot. and then plant some other trees. For example, the housing authority needs to redevelop their lot, and they're happy to plant new trees, but they need to be able to remove trees in order to lay out this in a way that makes sense. And so he was looking for mechanisms whereby he could do math, he could look at plans, and he could check things off and say, here is the math. Okay, now you can go. And, like, for example, he said $1,000 to clear cut a lot. That's Ridiculous. But if it said $50,000 to clear most of the trees from a lot or all the trees smaller than 30 dbh, that might actually be something that would be worth considering. And if it was clear-cut enough that a contractor could pay the amount and get the permit and move, And then we might actually end up with a lot of money for trees that might in fact be worth it to us. And he was looking for ways also that if you had a single family house that was trying to do some work and trying to add an addition or whatever, that there was a way that he could do some math and just issue it in a way that would make people think twice, not make them just randomly do it because they wanted to do it, but would also not tie them up for months over something that maybe they were then permitted to do or something. And so just having that conceptually that having some way of it being transactional at some level. was what he was looking for. So I just wanted to sort of put that conceptually as an idea that we need to work out the details to make it work. But if there is some way where you can say at this dollar amount for this amount of stuff, it makes sense. And I just want to also make sure you're aware that there is a process called site plan review, which is the point at which we look at a developer's project and the community development board thinks about the layout and the circulation and the everything and If it is illegal to cut down any trees before the building permit is issued, then they're still there for the CD board to take into account and make them, keep them as part of it and help work it through. And that's something that we do see happen, is that somebody clear cuts a lot before they come in front of any board or commission because they can. And so it may be that they are allowed to clear cut the lot in order to build the building in the end, but they're not allowed to do it until they have all of their permits. And at the very least, what you've just done is you've probably kept that benefit for the environment for another year or two, or maybe three. We have, you know, we actually have some things that have been talking about coming to site plan review for years. And we have others that have come for site plan review, gotten some levels of permits, but they don't actually have a building permit yet. And so for them to not be allowed to cut down their trees until they're actually ready to start construction, it would help. It doesn't solve the end problem, but it's better than them cutting them at the very beginning. And I just wanted to, in a big picture way, give you those thoughts as well. My office has also been asked to submit comments. And I would rather work with your version than for me to go back to the council. Like I don't want to publicly go to the city council meeting and say, I completely disagree with everything the building commissioner has said. I would say that to them privately. I don't want to embarrass a colleague like that, right? I don't want him to go to a council meeting and say, I disagree with everything the director of planning and sustainability says. So how do we sort of manage that? And granted, this is a public meeting too, and I just said it, but it's different, right?
[Kathleen McKenna]: Very difficult, yeah.
[Amanda Bowen]: I just want to remind folks that one of the big differences between that whole process, that whole process, I feel like we've got some support from at least the current building commissioner to work with us on this. It sounds like from his draft. But the other element of this is private trees where no construction is taking place. That is in our draft, and it's not very usual. Most of the other cities and towns are pretty much sticking to construction. And so I would welcome your thoughts about that, especially when you see the draft, because that is different than that, and that is The evaluation and enforcement of that is different than using the building inspection process to go through. And that's one of the issues. Is there the staffing in place? And maybe the tree committee helps with reviewing any of these private tree removals that don't involve construction.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. And actually, I want to encourage you to include that because I live in North Medford. And I'll just speak from the personal perspective. I had a neighbor take down three large trees because she was terrified and convinced that those trees were going to fall on her house. I am convinced that those trees had been holding up the slope that her house sits on top of. And she hired a random tree company that was willing to come cut down those trees. And my gut, but I'm not an arborist, I don't know my gut, is it was a bad move. But she is older than my parents, right? She's definitely in her 80s. And she was just nervous. And it's not even leaves, they were pine trees. And there was just no convincing her from, you know, that that was not an issue. I will say, though, that my other neighbor cut down a large tree recently, and I was kind of horrified. And she spent 40 minutes afterwards explaining to me how she hated to do it, but the arborist who came from the tree company to prune it told her that the tree really needed to come down, that it was, It was sick and it was rotted. And honestly, I never had the heart to go over and look at the pieces myself and know if they were lying to her or not. But she was really unhappy about cutting down that tree. But right again, it's the private company. And is it the private company that you trust or is it a private company that makes its profit on tree removal?
[Amanda Bowen]: Well, that's it. I keep seeing different removal, tree companies around. I mean, they're not even tree companies, they're like landscape companies. I'm not even sure they're very good at taking trees down or anything. I mean, it's just so random, it's so uncontrolled. There's so many of them, I feel like I want to go around and take pictures of all of their names and numbers, but the fact is there's so many of them. I mean, I see new names every day of companies and they have no, there is nobody on their staff that knows enough about trees to really know what's a valuable tree and what's not a valuable tree.
[Alicia Hunt]: Amanda, is the Tree Committee consulting the Conservation Commission at all?
[Amanda Bowen]: Well, the tree committee doesn't exist. You mean us? Yes, you guys. Sorry. We are in touch with the Conservation Commission.
[Alicia Hunt]: Because I know that they have situations where they need to permit trees to be taken down for various reasons. There's actually a dam safety reason right now that they're going to be taking those. Yes, they said they can talk to you guys about it. But they came up with a ratio of replacement for those trees. So the trees that are being removed because of dam safety reasons, the Winchester Dam, they're gonna be replacing, I think it's 40 trees around the city of Medford, but it's not even a one-for-one replacement that they're requiring. So I just, I put that forward that it's perhaps a useful conversation to have explicitly with them is why are they using the ratio they're using?
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: One of the things that we have brought up at MIF and the Indian Environment Committee is, and this was supported in the past year anyways, is having an ordinance, or I don't know what ordinance it would be in, or if it's a separate ordinance, is having these three companies, being registered with the city, be certified avarice, and have requirements just like other contractors in the city have to. And I think Barry and I talked about this. I don't understand why. I've had some neighbors have three different tree companies come out for the same trees. because they weren't done right to begin with. And some they lost because they trimmed more than 35% of the tree and the tree died, which is not recommended. And I don't think that's a hard thing to ask. So I would highly recommend that somehow we recommend that. I'm not sure if we put this in one of the comments. when we're writing back to the City Council, the MedFed Energy and Environment Committee, that they have to register. You know, if they're filing the permits, which we're requiring the permits for tree removals and tree pruning on landmark trees, that they're filing a permit and they're registered. They're certified. They have insurance. They know what they're doing. Any comments about that from the committee? Who's going to enforce it, Loretta? And can we enforce it? They're filing the permit, right, with the building commission, commissioner, office, the building department to remove trees, right?
[Lois Grossman]: That's ones that are filing. What do we do about somebody who calls and says, I'm worried about these trees in my yard, they might fall on my house and have them removed, like Alicia's neighbor?
[Barry Ingber]: I mean, we deal with it the same way we deal with somebody who wasn't a licensed plumber replacing a heating system. Well, I think it's just internal.
[Lois Grossman]: Somebody's got to complain to bring it to the attention of the city.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Well, OK, that's that's why a lot of this ordinance has been delayed because of my opinion, because of all these little details. The idea is to get the ordinance done. Yes. How are they going to do it can be suggested to them, but it's not possible. OK, so if I'm an electrician, I have to file a permit. Right? Most electricians or a tree contractor will have a letter that the city sends out saying these are the new requirements in Medford. And they can have a list and find the list, the city of all the tree companies or and landscape providers. So it'd be well documented to those companies our requirements. That's the first step. That's not a lot of work.
[L5Dn-1_BzKM_SPEAKER_12]: And to Barry's point, I would just add, fortunately, unlike plumbing or electricity, electrical work inside of a house, tree work is very noticeable. And so if a neighbor who knows that there must be a permit is able to say, I think that there's somebody who's taking down trees without a permit, that would be A. A report that could be reasonably like, we could have an easy path to reporting. Um, any issues yeah, I was thinking a little more than.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: not so much that of, you know, unreported tree removals. I'm thinking more of the responsibility of the type of company that's coming into the city doing the work. I agree with you on that. Absolutely. I think that for us, because this gets all over the place, I know you know what I'm talking about, but for others, It's targeting the quality of the tree companies coming in and their responsibility to act within ISA certification arborist guidelines. and not the hack-a-lots that are causing so much damage or landslides, which have happened in Medford because of tree companies in Colton Heights and up near the high school and horrific things that end up costing the city and the taxpayers more money because it's our property taxes and rents that are paying for this mitigation. If you agree, where do we put that? Does that go in the letter to the city council that we highly recommend this?
[Martha Ondras]: Loretta, I would recommend that we propose it. I think it's worth a discussion like why did the building inspector, that was in there at one point in the draft.
[Unidentified]: It was?
[Martha Ondras]: Yeah. It got taken out. I don't think it was in trees. It was discussed at the council, I believe, as you know, would have to register as well as get a permit for tree removal. And I think it's a good idea. There may be counter arguments to it that we ought to hear, but I think putting it out there at least puts it on the table for discussion.
[L5Dn-1_BzKM_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah in this ordinance than where else in a letter in a letter to them.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Miss comments. I mean that's what this is about is that our response to comments. And trees meant for this as their work we can also support that but we can add additional comments to their consideration.
[Robert Paine]: We need to bring this discussion to a close but I guess. Thanks. We're in the lowest for your work and I guess we look forward to your newest drafts that we should all try to look at as best we can before the next meeting and if you have any suggestions for additional comments, put that into the draft as well.
[Lois Grossman]: Let the record reflect that Loretta has done 90% of the work and she's been generous to include me because she's right, I am very Johnny-come-lately on this.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Yeah, I will try Bob I will try I think you know trees method is doing an excellent job And I hope you understand the process. It was too hard to do two sets of comments It was a nightmare I mean so I was like what am I doing? Let me go to the airs the same document from the City Council as the comments if they take them they do they don't and try it and then Explaining it's been days of work So, you know, it's I would like to have seen more input and consideration from this committee. I am concerned that the new. If we have new chairs. that they're, you know, one of the priorities is to have the members show up and contribute more so we can move this agenda, but many other ones like what Brenda's working on and her grant proposal, you know, there's a lot. And I just think we need to have more participation.
[Robert Paine]: Okay we'll look for your latest draft and we'll have it as an agenda for the January 8th meeting. Thank you very much. I want to now go to Brenda for her climate update. Thank you for Redford's participation in this meeting as well.
[Brenda Pike]: Thank you. I will try to be quick. We have quite a bit of things on this list. So the specialized code, the specialized energy code was approved in its third reading by city council on November 14th. So that's just going to the mayor for signature and it will be in effect starting July 1st of next year. The EV charging station at Roberts Elementary is already up and running, so people can use that outside of school hours. We're still working on the other ones that are in process. I think most of them will be available by the end of this year, although I think the ones at the DPW and at the police station will probably be, it will probably be next year. There were some changes around that because they will be used for fleet, at least primarily for DPW and completely for the police department. So there were some changes around where those were going to be located. The Climate Equity Council's first meeting was last Monday, and that was basically a level setting meeting where it was sharing a lot of information about the Climate Action Plan, getting some ideas of what areas the Council wants to focus on. And so for the next meeting, which will be the third Monday of the month moving forward, they'll be voting on a chair, and we'll be talking about some issues like flooding, mass save incentives, and emergency shelters. Those are things that they had identified as things that they were very much interested in. And I know members of this committee attended that as guests. Did you have any feedback from that meeting that you wanted to share?
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: I thought it was great. Lois and I attended. I think Barry was there for some of it. I really thought it was great. And they brought up concerns that I actually have, you know, like the emergency shelters. That has been something that we've talked about for years. You know, if we have no, we go to electrification, you don't have electricity, where do we go? We have no heat, you know, so we really, need an emergency shelter to go to. And I was curious about a couple of things. There were certain groups I didn't see represented in there, but maybe they weren't at the meeting. And I was wondering about seniors. Are seniors part of that group?
[Brenda Pike]: I don't think there are any seniors that are part of that group currently. Right now, when we started that council, it was really focused on groups that have been underrepresented and a lot of the feedback that the city has received around the Climate Action Plan. And so there's a lot of focus, there's been a lot of focus on getting feedback from, you know, folks who speak languages other than English as their primary language, people of color, folks who we haven't necessarily had as much participation from in the past. Although this is just the first group, I know moving forward as people, you know, as people leave the committee and new people come on, there might be others that are included as part of that.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: I'd like to recommend that group. I meet a lot of seniors and we've seen a lot of seniors reach out to us that really have no clue and they need assistance or advice or want input. That's a large majority of homeowners and renters here that just need that extra group participation and to know what's available. Maybe. Yeah. isn't it, maybe this isn't it. And the other group, I didn't see, ethnic-wise, I'll just say Asian influence?
[Brenda Pike]: I believe we do have a person who speaks Mandarin as part of the, that might be the liaisons, actually, and not the connectors that I'm thinking of right now, but that's the point.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Is it two different groups?
[Brenda Pike]: There are some groups that are, there's a group that's a part-time city employees who help people more with public health related things like signing people up for mass health and things like that. There's some community liaisons, I think is what they're called. But if you do hear people who are, you know, have questions and who, about the sorts of things that we're talking about there, especially like Mass Save and things like that, definitely please bring that to our attention. I would hope that anybody in this group who does would do that too. Speaking of emergency shelters, though, I wanted to mention that we are working on a project at the Andrews School where we'll be doing some rewiring to put additional things on the emergency circuit. So there's currently a backup generator there, and this would be putting things onto that emergency circuit. So in addition to some rewiring that will happen with some HVAC electrification that we're hoping to do, in the near future, that that school will be able to be used as an emergency shelter.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: You know, it's interesting, in the, I don't know, in the past, I'm going to say old days, but it used to be that all schools, you know, in the 50s and 60s, 70s and whatever, were considered emergency shelters. Is that, Something talks about it. There were emergencies. And you know, and I had them in the electricity and the water and you know, some of them had back up food that they would rotate every year is still something that exists.
[Brenda Pike]: There might be a different focus because it was so much focused on bomb shelter. We're more focused right now, I think, on emergency, on extreme weather type of things where people might lose power or they might not have heat to their homes.
[Barry Ingber]: I'd like to point out that This is not to minimize the need for emergency shelter when when there's a loss for power but that electrification doesn't make a difference and that because fossil fuel heated homes also depend on electrical systems in order to work. So when your electricity is out you have oil like I do. your heat is out. And in fact, as we go through electrification and homes are better insulated and weatherized, the need will probably be slightly less, but still there.
[Brenda Pike]: People will be able to stay in their homes for longer because they won't lose the heat quite so quickly if they have a better envelope. Definitely. Yeah.
[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: I just threw that out there, Brenda, because I was curious if the old shelters are still in existence and can also be used for consideration. Most people don't know.
[Brenda Pike]: That's a good question. I don't know. I should look into that. Yeah. I don't know. So also with the Andrews School, we're looking to add solar to the roof. And so that's something that we are Working on getting at least a letter of intent done by the end of this year so that we can file for some for smart incentives before they change at the end of this year for that project. We're also working on a school bus electrification plan so the state has some free technical assistance for municipalities to develop plans. And so it's basically looking at, you know, multiple options that would be available to us. So we're working with the Met for Public Schools to look at ownership options, lease options, everything across the board so that a decision could be made about how that could be done. And there's a lot of federal funding available for that and state funding for, you know, once we get past this technical assistance phase to actually purchasing the buses, although they are a lot more expensive than regular buses, so that's needed. And we submitted our Green Communities Annual Report last week. Bye, Alicia. Thanks for joining. Yes, we submit our green communities annual report last week. It looks pretty good. It looks like weather normalized. We are energy use has dropped from for municipal buildings has dropped. I think 15% roughly since 2009. So definitely could be doing better. But it's a it's a drop from last year as well so I think that's a good sign. Always do want to do more. And then, Bob, you asked for sort of a summary of the state's climate chief's recommendations that came out last month. And it's really very broad, a lot of different things across the entire state. the entire state programs. So this is really looking at sort of like a whole government approach to climate change action and really trying to just like break down silos across all of these different departments. One of the things that talked about was a new federal funds and infrastructure office was created and they have proposed a capital investment in debt reduction fund, which is $750 million in state matching funds for municipalities that are applying for federal grants, which is really important. So if Medford is applying for federal funding, there are matching requirements for that, and it can be hard for the city to come up with that match. So something like this would really help. And this has been proposed to the legislature. but that hasn't been approved yet, but that would really be very welcome from our perspective. They talk a lot about different, you know, funding options, capital investment changes, things like that. I'm trying to highlight a few things that I think you'd be particularly interested in. They're looking to incorporate the CECP and resilience mandates into municipal grants. So those are like the carbon emission, the greenhouse gas emissions goals and the resilience goals into municipal grants moving forward. So that'll be really important for us to keep an eye on for any sort of like capital projects that we're doing that we're getting state grants for. We'll need to make sure that We're incorporating these goals into them as well. It recommends strengthening the MIPA forest clearing reviews and developing MIPA EJ, environmental justice guidance on urban tree canopy. and incorporating the social cost of greenhouse gases into environmental reviews for MEPA. So I don't know if that's going to affect Medford directly. Maybe the urban tree canopy guidance would be something that we could look into once that gets developed. They are looking to increase funding to MassCEC. which would be amazing. They provide lots of grants for a whole host of clean energy projects. They want to analyze what the best use would be for mass save funding. whether that is a utility run program or if it's something else entirely, and establishing a decarbonization clearinghouse by 2024. And so, you know, sort of a central place that's pointing out to all the programs as sort of a first step to, is there going to be some sort of transformation to the Mass Save program into something that's really more focused on a total decarbonization? focus rather than just energy efficiency. Another thing that they talk about is MSBA, the school funding source, Municipal School Building Association, I think that's what it stands for, requiring that they fund only all electric school buildings moving forward. and that they incentivize net zero and resilient buildings. And they're already incentivizing, you know, improvements over sort of the baseline right now, but this would be taking it a step farther. And then it talks about public health, mostly really focusing on data and planning around that. workforce, including a Climate Service Corps, curriculum changes, and economic development plans. So there's a lot of things saying we need a plan for this and then to implement whatever that plan is. So, but I think it's all, you know, really good next steps, definitely. And some of these specificities that are in the report are really helpful. or will be if they actually get accomplished. And then I think, Bob, you also asked for an update on the clean heat platform that Green Energy Consumers Alliance is sending around for comments to legislators. Its main areas are focusing around an equitable transition away from fossil fuels, focusing a lot of funding on low and moderate income households, environmental justice communities, having an equity advisory council, and putting $300 million into a fund for affordable housing and public buildings in environmental justice communities and gateway cities. They talk about electrification, including saying that hydrogen should not be injected into our natural gas pipelines. There shouldn't be subsidies for hydrogen to heat buildings. They want to add incentives for additional incentives for electrification and only have subsidies for biofuels if they come from waste feedstock. and updating Mass Save for decarbonization assessments, not just energy efficiency. They talk about moving beyond gas, so removing the cap on the fossil fuel demonstration project, which is currently only 10 cities that can participate, and opening that up to more cities. Requiring gas companies to make annual plans to meet the greenhouse gas mandates, including electrification and pipeline retirement. Allowing gas companies to sell thermal energy, so geothermal projects like Eversource is doing as a demonstration project right now. No gas pipeline expansion and no cost recovery for gas pipelines after 2050. and no new large fossil fuel projects. It talks about a performance standard for large buildings. And so that's 20,000 square feet and up. So they would have to report their emissions and stay below certain emission standards. And then updating existing programs like green communities to go further than it goes right now. Repealing the alternative portfolio standard and replacing it with a clean heat standard, which has credits for electric systems and reporting for heating fuel suppliers. And then moving the solar ready mandate from the specialized code into the stretch code so that it would apply to more communities without them adopting the specialized code. And I think that that's the majority of it. I mean, I think they're summarizing a lot of what people have been saying for a long time. I don't see anything in there that's particularly alarming. I'm pretty much in agreement myself with everything that they list there. So it's definitely a good thing. focus, I think, for a lot of the advocacy that's happening around this.
[Robert Paine]: Thanks for that summary. Maybe you mentioned this, the grant that you were talking about, the $300,000 grant or $150,000 grant, what's the status of that again?
[Brenda Pike]: Oh, for the electrification, the Electrify Medford campaign. I haven't heard back about that. We received some questions before Thanksgiving on the application, and we responded to them. So we're still waiting for the final decision there.
[Robert Paine]: When do you think, will we know that by the next meeting?
[Brenda Pike]: We should. They said December is when we could expect it.
[Robert Paine]: Great. Okay. We'll cross our fingers. Is that it?
[Brenda Pike]: That's all that I have, unless anybody has any questions about any of it.
[Robert Paine]: We're getting to our last five minutes, so we can talk about obviously 2024 initiatives in our next meeting, if we have time. But Brenda, you're leading the charge in many of these areas, and if we get this grant for electrification, that'll be a key component, I think.
[Lois Grossman]: It's really encouraging to hear how long that list of things you talked about was, how full it was. When I first started with this kind of stuff, it was one thing here, one thing there. It's comforting to hear how many things are being talked about.
[Unidentified]: definitely very busy right now, and it's just going to pick up.
[Robert Paine]: All right, well, good. It's good to have you as a key municipal component to this committee. We'll obviously keep your time slot open in all future committee meetings. Well, I'm gonna wish you all a safe and happy holiday season and hope to see you in person on January 8th in City Hall.
[MCM00001610_SPEAKER_11]: All right. I just wanted to say that COP28 is going on and I can provide a 10-minute, 15-minute summary of that at the next meeting. if that's of interest to the people here.
[Robert Paine]: Thanks a lot for that.
[MCM00001610_SPEAKER_11]: I'm getting more and more infuriated by today, but you know, I'll lay it out all on the table for you guys to see. Thank you for that.
[Barry Ingber]: I'm glad you won't be adding to my fury by not being infuriated by it. I'm with you there, brother.
[MCM00001610_SPEAKER_11]: I'm with you there, brother.
[Robert Paine]: All right. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn then. Second. And does anyone object?
[Unidentified]: See you in January then.