AI-generated transcript of City Council Committee of the Whole 10-11-23

[Nicole Morell]: 1 9 0 7 0. Committee of the Whole meeting Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6 p.m. is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Present.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Collins. Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Sagan.

[Nicole Morell]: Present for present three absent a meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting now. of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, October 11th, 2023 at 6 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss paper 19070, the proposed tree ordinance. The city council has invited tree warden Agnew Chudin, DPW Commissioner Tim McGibbon, and Acting Building Commissioner Bill Fordy to attend this meeting. For further information, aids, and accommodations, contact the city clerk at 781-393-2425. Sincerely yours, Nicole Morell, Council President. So as I said, we're here to discuss the tree ordinance, proposed draft ordinance. The last time we met, the main motions we took was to actually separate the ordinance that exists or the proposed ordinance in three different sections that would be establishing the tree committee, the public shade trees and the private shade trees. And also one large motion was that regarding the private shade trees, uh, commissioner 40 would offer us a red line or just updated draft, basically outlining what, um, in his expertise and also just the ability of the city to enforce an ordinance, what he thought was possible. I'm happy to read through that as it's the first time having it before us, but Commissioner Forte, I don't know if you wanna give us a brief summary of that before I read it.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Are we there?

[Bill Forte]: Okay, very good, yep, thank you. Yes, again, thank you, Madam President. So I made a commitment to this body to make an attempt at dividing the ordinance. One of the things I saw in the first draft was that the conflict between the public and private way is something that probably need to be separated. So what I did was I redlined the original draft that I had and basically added language in that would enforce tree mitigation on private property. In my experience, with other zoning ordinances, there was a dimensional requirement for lot size, mostly in commercial, the number of parking spaces and how many trees per parking space and so forth. Here, the ordinance that I've proposed here basically just outlines a very minimal, dimensional requirement for when someone wants to Improve a property. I think what you'll find here in Medford mostly you're not going to see a lot of rebuild you're going to see a lot of remodeling and revamping of different properties and so My thing is being able to regulate this by right in the zoning limits I think will achieve at least the goals that are probably sought out in in private property ownership and Obviously that the city doesn't want all the trees cut down, you know and without mitigation and so I've attempted to kind of mitigate this in a schedule of The number of trees that are first, you know that are taken down and what is to be replaced These numbers probably need to go back Alicia had provided me with the planning director Alicia hunt had provided me with a document from the Environmental Tree Committee, the Energy and Environment Committee back in 2018, and they made some recommendations. I would strongly recommend that this go to them to look at some of the ratios that I have here. Specifically, what I've done with this is I've directed the building commissioner to have charge over the mitigation of trees on most single and two-family projects. This would be something other than what would be required for special permits. So if you're going for a site plan review, that tree schedule be mitigated and promulgated by the planning board. Same with the ZBA. If the ZBA sought out to have trees provided as part of their ruling on a particular special permit or dimensional variance, then they have the ability to be able to do that. So it excludes anything outside of a special permit. So this is just projects that would be dimensionally controlled by the building department. I was able to take some of the language out that would concern public waste, trees on public waste. I did add some language in there about emergency removal of trees that are endangering a structure. I try to put in some safeguards so that someone just can't come in and say, well, the tree's not safe. It doesn't look good. I'm not going to keep it. You know, you're actually required to have an arborist come in and certify that the tree is not viable or can't be saved. And then at that point, there would be you'd have permission to take that tree down. In addition to that, I've also given the option of a tree mitigation fund, which basically if a person say either didn't have the room on their lot or it wasn't conventional by some means, they would be able to make a mitigation payment. In lieu of that, I think that possibly that may be something that might have to go for some type of hearing, whether that be in front of The tree committee, whether that be to the tree warden, you know, I would direct that to another authority. I wouldn't make that determination as a building commissioner wouldn't expect that from anybody else but I was thoughtful in the process of just trying to make this somewhat dimensionally controlled and so the only comment I had from the mayor's office was that. They just want to make sure that the process in creating this and passing it is a public process and that there's been plenty of public input on the matter. Obviously, it's been advertised tonight, but I can make this draft available or it'll be part of the public record as of now anyway. So certainly I would be open to any comments, but that's really all I have for now.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you so much, Commissioner. Yeah, I think definitely we'll follow up and get this up on the council drive. And then I'm sure there'll be some motions coming up from tonight, as far as getting in front of some other groups, one being the energy environment tree folks. I'm sure trees Medford would have some comments that they'd want to add as well as just sending an updated draft. If we so move to get some comments from other department heads as well. So I just reminding folks on the call that if, and when this is reported out of committee, then it would go on our regular agenda. It would have to be voted on and that would go as an ordinance. It would have three, three hearings as well. So there's a, a whole process, and I think we've been, as the paper starts with the number one nine, we've been trying, we've been at this process for a number of years at this point. So there's been many bites at the apple, but hopefully, hopefully we start to move this forward. So I'm happy to read this as we just got this shared around our inbox this morning, but I don't know if the councilors have any questions for the commissioner before we get into that. Thank you. Vice Chair Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Commissioner. I guess my only questions are, obviously the private one is a significant change. Do you have any comments on the public way or the committee, the tree committee, or did you just restrict your comments to the trees on private property?

[Bill Forte]: Yeah, sure. I stayed in my lane. And so the zoning ordinance specifically restricts private property or regulates private property. And so I didn't really talk about encroachments onto the public way and so forth. I thought I would kind of leave that for the tree warden, you know, but, but yeah, this is, this is all like, if I was gonna take in a building permit and there were a number of trees on the, on the property, I would make the determination by count by size, you know, would it, you know, would you be able to save it? Would you, are you taking it down and what are you putting back? And if you're not putting back, then maybe you need to go pay a mitigation fee or maybe you need to go for a hearing or whatever it might be.

[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah. And I think I just, I wanted to say that because now that we've split them up into three ordinances, the zoning ordinance, that means an even higher bar requiring a two thirds majority and you know, public hearings and it would probably go to, go to CD board and that's after we sent it to an energy environment. So there'd be an extensive public process. Right. I don't think so. Yep. Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you for that. Yeah. All of this, the previous version had comments from KP Law in its earlier form, as well as Commissioner Gibbon and Warden Tudin had reviewed it and offered some comments. So there's still some comments existing from them on the tree committee establishment paper, as well as the public trees, which we can always get into later tonight if we so decide. So I will read this. I'll share my screen and I'll read, I'm just gonna read the changed portions of this since the previous portions have been shared a number of times. A lot of this is definitions that were, previously shared, so I'll just read portions of this. Give me one moment. All right, we should be just seeing, are we seeing the tree ordinance? Yes, thank you, just making sure we're not looking at any other documents. Okay, so going through, so this is the private property tree protection and preservation ordinance, and this is reflecting changes and updates as made by Commissioner Forty on the previous draft that we've been looking at for a few meetings now. So going into the caliper, so that under definitions, well, I'll just read the intent too, to see how it starts. The intent and purpose, this section regulates the removal of trees on private property in the city of Medford. A mature tree canopy maintains the natural beauty of Medford for all to enjoy today and in the future generations and protects the community in critically important ways. It reduces energy consumption and ambient summertime temperatures, air pollution, flooding, and soil erosion. It provides privacy, absorbs noise, and boosts mental health. It supports wildlife and increases resilience to climate change. Protecting the city's tree canopy is thus an essential community function. And I do want to say there's been a lot of people who have helped to write this first draft that is now being edited as well, not the least of which Trees Medford, as well as folks on the Energy and Environment Committee as well. So under Caliper, we just have the update of diameter of a tree trunk in inches is measured 12 inches above the ground for trees. up to and including a 10-inch diameter and 24 inches above the ground for larger trees. The code enforcement officer is defined as the building commissioner or their designee, and construction permit is defined as a building permit issued by the building department, allowing construction, demolition, or renovation of buildings and structures on a parcel of land. And then going into the definition for construction, any activity which affects trees, tree root zones, or is within the drip line and that requires a building permit or trench permit, including driveways, retaining walls, solar installation where trees are removed, site work on foundations, underground utilities, excavation, grading, and paving construction or alteration of a structure or structure where the drip zone of a tree would be affected. Any vegetation within five feet of a structure is excluded. I'm going to drip line, which is a vertical line running through the outermost portion of the crown of a tree where the branches are five inches or greater and extending to the ground. Pruning has been added to be defined as the act of removing, trimming, or looping any portion of a tree up to a maximum of 50% of branches greater than five inches in diameter that is overgrown or possesses a risk to persons or structures. Removal is the act of removing a tree, which includes removal of the stump by pulling from the earth or grinding it to a level below grade safe. Replacement trees are trees planted or relocated by or on behalf of the resident owner or contractor to mitigate approved tree removal which are a minimum of three inch caliper. Resident owner is identified as the legal owner of a property subject to this section who primarily resides at the property in which trees are disturbed for more than six months in a calendar year. Tree protection replacement and mitigation plan is a plan submitted to the building commissioner or designee for approval prior to the commencement of demolition and or construction on a property which trees defined in this section are located. Tree removal permit is a permit issued by the building department for removal of trees based on the appropriate application process on privately owned property. Undeveloped land is defined as a parcel of land or portion thereof that has remained undisturbed from construction activity or maintenance for more than 15 years. Applicability, the provisions of this section shall apply to the following activity on privately owned land. Removal of any tree with a caliper of 10 inches or greater at breast height for any reason. Construction, alteration, and demolition of a structure, parcel, accessory building, retaining wall, fence, or other structure where the removal of trees is necessary. Alteration of any portion of a lot or parcel for the purposes of expanding activity area or cleared open space for leisure outdoor activity space. Removal of any tree 10 inches or greater in diameter at breast height or portion thereof. And going to a schedule for mitigation and tree replacement. Mitigation and tree replacement shall be in accordance with the following schedule. Removal of one tree of 10 to 15 inches equals two trees of three-inch caliper. Removal of one tree of 15 to 30 inches equals three trees of three-inch caliper. Removal of one tree 30 inches and above equals four trees of three-inch caliper. Removal of multiple trees of any size or greater listed above are subject to a fee in accordance with the following schedule. The total clearing of a parcel of land of up to 7,000 square feet is a $1,000 payment to the True Mitigation Fund. The total clearing of a parcel of obtaining 7,000 to 20,000 square feet is a 2,500 payment to the True Mitigation Fund. And more than 20,000 square feet of total lot clearing is subject to slight plan review by the CDB in accordance with Chapter 94, Section 94-11.7. Resident owners must apply for a permit to remove trees from the property in which they reside for purposes of maintaining conditions near any structure. Protected trees, as defined by this section, are subject to review and approval from the tree warden. If, in the opinion of the tree warden, that the trees to be removed are significant, they shall refer the proposed tree cutting removal to the Tree Preservation Committee. Tree removal activity exempt from this section is a tree that poses an imminent risk of falling branches, rotted trunk base, or other indicators of failure as determined by a certified arborist. Removal of any tree or portion thereof for purposes of gathering sunlight for photovoltaic solar panel systems or arrays, trees damaged by storms, or other natural causes. protective and significant trees, trees that are 75 years or older as determined by a certified arborist or the tree warden shall be inventoried and preserved to the extent feasible, whether by resident owner or contractor approving the property. If in the determination of the tree warrant, a tree should be preserved, the tree warrant shall refer the applicant to the tree committee for a public hearing. The tree committee shall hold a public hearing within 30 days of receipt of application to determine the significance of the tree. Upon final decision, the tree committee shall provide a decision in writing to the building commissioner and tree warrant within 21 days of the closing and determination of the tree committee. The building commissioner or their designee shall enforce the provisions of this section in accordance with 94-11.0 Terminations by the building commissioner or their designees are specific to by right permits, special permits and site plan review by the CD board shall carry provisions of this section by order of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Community Development Board and the City Council. Do we have any questions or discussion from Councilors at this time? Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you for walking us through the new sections. Thank you so much for all your feedback on this draft. Your perspective is really appreciated here. Just quickly, could you walk us through your thinking for the new section underneath new construction or alteration of a parcel or structure relating to the standards for replacing removed trees of certain calipers with other trees? As well as you're thinking behind the fee schedule for total clearing of lots based on square footage, I kind of want to fact check this. Is this to set up a fee schedule for clear cutting of lots that are not so large as they go immediately, just like plan review?

[Bill Forte]: So a person with what I was able to write here. A person who was clear-cutting an undeveloped lot, okay, there is a certain number of trees that probably are going to be lost and, you know, the mitigation fund can be set at any rate. I think the principle of having A certain fee is obviously so that the monies that are forwarded there should be a special revenue account and should be designated to the tree preservation committee as such as it may be formed. And then that tree committee can make a determination as to where and how they want to use that money, whether it be planting trees in the city center, whether they be at a park, or whether they decide to maybe help out a person who has to get rid of trees, but may want more trees on their private property. Very similar to having, well, I'm sorry, not similar to, but the tree committee having that kind of control over the fund, I think is probably the best suited people. What I tried to be mindful about was we don't want to stall a project for any significant amount of time. I mean, we have other ordinances that need to be adhered to, such as historic, such as the regulations and stormwater management, and all these things take time. What this would require is a person who, let's just say a person wanted to take over a property that was overgrown, abandoned, that person would provide us with a site plan showing any kind of site improvement. It would have the trees already on there, similar to what you'd find in a conservation commission notice of intent, something like that. The trees need to be identified and inventoried on a site plan. the mitigation plan would be part of that proposed site plan. In smaller cases where there's not going to be a complete site redevelopment, let's just say somebody just wants to come in, cut some of the vegetation off the house, trim a couple of trees, get the branches off the roof. They should be able to do that by right without any significant charges or lost time. So we don't want to, we don't want to do the opposite of creating housing. We want to make sure that we incentivize it. And this, this ordinance speaks to just kind of the, you know, the everyday business that, that the bill and apartment might handle. I think that bigger projects that require, you know, I don't see that a person should be able to just come in and clear cut a lot that otherwise has been you know, vegetated for decades and all of a sudden, you know, the first complaint we get from a person from an abutter is that, oh my God, they're cutting down every tree. You know, they're clear cutting it. And a lot of cities and towns don't have regulations regarding that. And so, you know, in a case like that, that might be something that would require notification, perhaps maybe a, you know, maybe the tree committee might be the deciding body on that. If you're going to clear cut a lot, you have to go, to the tree committee, they would assess a determination on the fee, and then that permit would be issued separately, you know, tree removal permit. So there are some things to be worked out here, some complicated things that probably getting down to the nitty gritty, I think it's going to require a little bit more study. But my feeling about it is that in lieu of not you know, planting trees, you know, a mitigation fund or fee can be set up, you know, easily. It just has to be kind of enumerated by a person who has a different view. I'm looking at the enforcement and the zoning. I think that the value of the trees, I set the calipers of the trees a little bit less than what was in here originally to try and maybe mitigate some of the hearing requirements and the special permit requirements that an applicant may have to go through the clearing of vegetation near a house I think is something that should be exempt. But I think the general idea is that obviously we're trying to preserve the city's canopy and promote the green initiative here. And so I don't know that I've answered your question. I kind of got off track a little bit. But was I clear on something?

[Kit Collins]: No, that's helpful. I think just two clarifying questions followed up in the context I think is really helpful. In this section, just to make certain I have it right, is the thought that in these cases where this ordinance is coming into effect, say for example, removal of one tree, 10 to 15 inches or so, does the mitigation of replanting happen at the same time as a fee if both conditions are met? Or is it like one or the other? Like if you're taking down one or two trees and you have to replace them with the according number of trees of a certain size. And if that happens to happen in the context of clearing a lot, the fee is charged as well.

[Bill Forte]: Yeah, it wouldn't be a fee would be in lieu of not replacing a tree. Gotcha. So that would definitely be one for the other. So in cases where you have a very small lot. If you had a very small lot and you had to put in two trees but you didn't want to do it, then you would pay a fee, a certain fee for mitigation of that. Here, it doesn't give you the option of either putting in a tree or paying a fee because a lot of times a builder doesn't want to be bothered with a tree, especially if it's going to die in six months or a year if it's not properly planted. So I didn't really give a mitigation fee. This is in cases where it doesn't make any sense to replace the trees or mitigate them. You know what I mean? The fees right now are only set up for lot clearing. They're really not for anything else. And those monies help to pay for tree mitigation elsewhere in the city.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you. That's helpful. And then just one more thing, and just let me know if I'm sort of getting ahead of where we are in the process here. But I think the biggest point of, well, confusion for me right now is, looking at my notes to make sure I've phrased this. Or I think the thing that I want to get organized in my mind is what parts of this are regulating? In these sections, are we talking about projects that are not already anyway, going to go to site plan review because of other aspects of the project? Correct. Where does this process kick in versus where are we assuming that a tree mitigation process will happen? under another site plan review process that's going to happen.

[Bill Forte]: Sure, so this is dimensional like anything else in the zoning ordinance. When the building commissioner is directed to issue a permit for a certain dimensional requirement, whether that be a maximum or a minimum, that would fall within the purview of this ordinance. Anything outside of this ordinance, the last paragraph pretty much describes that anything that's got to go for site plan review which would be any significant commercial property, any commercial project, you know, that would fall into the category of the 25,000 square feet, that sort of thing, that would be something outside of it. So this does mitigate most of the buy-write projects that, and even if they went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, say for a variance, it would not alleviate or preclude anything in this ordinance. So unless the ZBA could give a dimensional variance for not planting trees, this ordinance would be enforced. Great, thank you so much for clarifying that, I appreciate it. Sure, yeah, of course.

[Nicole Morell]: Do we have, Councilor Tseng, or any questions from the public at this point? I know we have some folks from Trees Medford, as well as the Energy and Environment Committee on the call.

[Justin Tseng]: and Councilor Collins' questions basically reflect mine. So I feel okay.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Do we want to spend any more time on this draft or do we want to revisit the other two sections and, oh, here we go, we got Loretta. Loretta, name and address for the record, please. Oh, I should see, oops, sorry. Oh, hang on. At the same time. You should see the unmute box again. I'll stop touching, there we go.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Hi, Loretta James Sherman Place.

[Nicole Morell]: Go ahead.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Can you hear me?

[Nicole Morell]: Yep, we can hear you, go ahead.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Oh, thank you, Commissioner. I didn't get to read your proposal draft, but it was very informative. I'd like to read it more in detail and submit comments in the future. But there were a couple of things. And it's also for the city council to hear to that could be adjusted. And I'm curious. So I just want to bring up some points. And the 10 inch diameter was one of them that I heard. And the average across the Massachusetts with 21 to 25 ordinances is for tree preservation is generally eight inches is a few cities that have six inches. So that's one comment. Also, like I said, I didn't get to read in detail. I'm very detailed oriented your proposal. But I was curious about if the total aggregate of all trees that would be considered to be removed on private property was in your proposed draft, because it is in some of the ordinances in Massachusetts. For example, if someone has six trees on their property and they're all say eight inches, this is something for the committee and city council to consider. that could be removed if they're less than 75 years old. So that's a lot of trees. So that's something to consider is the total aggregate of all trees to be removed on a property. And as you said very clearly, and I did like that, this is not to stall or stop development, it's to enhance the city and preserve mature trees that probably cannot be replaced in our lifetime. And also prevent flooding, which comes back to the city because then we get the calls and the city has to pay for it. And it's just a cycle of our taxes will have to go up to mitigate flooding and buy more trees. So the other thing is, Just a few more things that I wanted to mention, and I think you did, Commissioner, is a landscape design plan should be submitted with any permits to remove trees to see what's there and tag, you know, identify the trees and also submit another plan with a proposal of what they're going to, the property owner is going to do. And then the other thing was, I think you said two-story homes. And I was like, well, what happened to three-story homes? So that's a question. And the other thing I wanted to bring out, and this is important to consider, is that moving forward, depending on funding, it's very important that you have a certified arborist Um, to review anything in particular, these, um, removal of trees, um, to make a determination. I'm not sure where this would fit in. Um, but if they are certified arborist, um, their determination can be enforced moving forward. If it has to be.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Laura.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Okay, thank you.

[Bill Forte]: No, so to address the concerns of the constituent, what I've tried to do here is balance the needs of the city for construction and housing and kind of what makes sense in a strike a balance with both development, and with the need for tree preservation, being on the Conservation Commission and the town of Holbrook as the chairman for a good number of years. We have a bylaw that restricts any tree removal of 50% tree removal within 50 feet or 100 feet of a buffer zone to require tree mitigation placement. And so I do understand the need for preservation of the tree canopy. When vegetation becomes, you know, sizable, it also poses threats to the structure. And so the balance I think that I try to strike here is that taking most of the determination out of the process by at least having some mitigation on private property I think is the goal of this ordinance this isn't really to this isn't an end-all and like a complete package this is just one portion I think of the ordinance that I saw the need to divide up and so that it could be regulated a little bit tighter and a little bit with a little less discretion, you know, if it's if it's issued, if it's issued by permit and by right in a dimensional table I think it makes more sense, and it accomplishes more for the city by having this, you know this mitigation, no matter how minor or small it might be or how much bigger it could be. I just feel as though this is a balance that could be stricken. with both development and with with the city's needs for uh for greens for green space so um you know this is this is about where i stand and again um this is just suggested language this is not my proposal i was just helping out the city council so just to be clear um for the public record i don't endorse or oppose anything i'm just here to kind of make sense and provide guidance on what i know about the ordinance and what might be able to work so

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you very much for that clarification, Joey. Yeah, you do us a big favor because I think it's an ordinance that we absolutely want to put everything in and it maybe got to a point where it was a little too cloudy and with the crux of all of our ordinances we pass, right, is can it be enforced? Is this something we actually have the ability to enforce or make sure people understand? So I appreciate the commissioner for giving us your point, Loretta. I'm absolutely sure we'll, you know, someone will motion or I will encourage them to motion to make sure we share this with our friends in the energy environment. committee for some comments as well as Theresa Medford, because I know there's a lot of folks like yourself that have a lot of knowledge in this area that your comments would be very much appreciated.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Going to Bob Payne. I'll unmute you and just name and address for the record, please.

[Robert Paine]: Yes, Robert Payne, address is 15 West Street. And I'm also the chair of the current chair of the Energy Environment Committee. Can you hear me okay?

[Nicole Morell]: Yep, we can hear.

[Robert Paine]: Okay, great. I noticed there was an addition of a definition for pruning and maybe I didn't catch it. Is that then pruning is exempt from need for permitting? I believe that was the intent of that definition. Hopefully that's the case. Also, there used to be, as I recall in previous version, a fee for removal of various sizes of trees that are protected. And does that not change then? I didn't necessarily see any comment on whether that was changed or not. So I would be looking for that when I get to see the whole thing. But it would seem to me that clear-cutting a lot might, you might want to know how many trees are you cutting? I mean, it shouldn't be a flat fee. You'd think it'd be proportional to the number of trees that are being cut rather than just a, just one, one number fits all in the lot. So I'm a little perplexed about that.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Bob. Again, I think to the commissioner's previous points, I think these are actually, these are all very important points and stuff for us to consider. And I think this is, the commissioner gave us a framework to work off of. So I think that's a, I, for one member of the council think that's a great point and something that we should consider looking at.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to speak at this time? Councilors, do we want to look at the pre committee draft again, or want to stay on this? Thoughts? Folks have any emotions at this time or were eager to wait for comments from random comments from people?

[Alicia Hunt]: I'm also happy to look at it. Madam Chair, I know that you get, one of the things you're planning to do is refer it to us. I just want to make sure that we technically refer it to my office. I understand very clearly from Commissioner Forty that what he wants to do is regulate sort of through his office things that are by right, and then refer to the planning board the things that are site plan review. And I want to just make sure that there's not a gap here, because site plan review looks at new residential that is six units or greater. But if it's under six units, it's not. And if it's just a renovation, it might not ever go to site plan review. And so like, what if this is a large property, you know, that exists and they just decide to cut down trees on it? We should just make sure that the language in here, if the intention is, we'll send it to the city board to review that. or if that actually falls under some of this, right? Like what if you have a large, I'm thinking some of our larger developers have that property. So we just wanna make sure that we're not missing any things. And technically, site plan review looks at what are you building? And it is not illegal in Medford for somebody to have a large parcel and to clear it before they ever apply for site plan review. So we wanna make sure that the language there ensures that it doesn't, that they can't clear cut the property that's over 20,000 square feet until and after going through site plan review. Just wanna make sure that we look at this, that the wording is what we intend it to be. So I don't have any technical suggestions for what that should be, but I just wanted to flag that those are some of the things we should be looking at.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I think that's a really good point about clear cutting, because I do think one of the things that originally prompted the introduction of this paper was the clear cutting of the law on Winthrop. where still nothing has been built.

[Alicia Hunt]: And technically, for example, that property has not even gone to site plan review yet. What it went to was subdivision. And so they got permission to build a road and subdivide that, but there's nothing in our ordinance that prevented the clear cutting. And as an aside, nothing that prevented or regulated any blasting. We should put that on our radar as well, as that's coming cost effective.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. And then I just so I just want to make sure I'm understanding that you're recommending referring to your office and you will help us identify any gaps that there may be.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I think that we, we need to that the planners in my office need to take a look at it in at the same time that you send it to the Energy Committee like I don't think we should wait on one or another. I think we should all look at it because I think it's helpful for the members of the committee, who I know are on the call because some of them just spoke, are aware that we'll look at it for technical gaps like that, but we're still looking to them for the research that they did on some of the things they were talking about. I kind of wonder if $1,000 is a right number. I know that the tree warden has talked before about we get good rates, we could plant, buy and plant a small tree for $300. So that's the equivalent of planting three trees with the city budget, like for a public street tree. Is that really the right amount for clear cutting a 7,000 square foot lot? So 5,000 square foot is the minimum to build a single family house. So if they were to take that lot, clear cut it and build a million dollar house on it is $1,000, the right amount. On the other hand, we've always been trying to balance this against, you know, the neighbor behind me just cut down a gigantic tree. She like was so guilty about it, but she's like the arborist came to prune it and showed me how it was, you know, it was not in good shape. But other neighbors cut down trees because they just feel like it. So.

[Nicole Morell]: Thanks much appreciate going to Amanda on zoom. Amanda name and address for the record. Please.

[Amanda Bowen]: Yeah. Hi, I'm Amanda Bowen 57 Madison Street. Um, I just wanted to mention a couple things that, that, that I didn't see here. I'm not absolutely clear that whether we're talking about whether there is any provision anywhere for trees. trees that are not involved in a construction project. It kind of looked like there was a place where it just said any tree getting cut down. But I hope that we will include provisions for trees being cut down that don't involve a construction project. And that has to go someplace else, because obviously it won't go to the building committee. The other thing is penalties. What about if someone ignores the process and cuts them down? Where are the penalties? And I didn't see that anywhere. So those were my two comments.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Amanda. Yeah, and to your first point, that is the intent. So, and again, we'll make sure that any gaps that may appear. Yes, Madam President.

[Bill Forte]: The fines for this would be any violation of the zoning ordinance at all. And again, specifically talking about this particular section in a box. The other thing I heard too, I just want to make sure that I'm clear on this. The $1,000 fee that I proposed for clearing a lot is just a nominal fee. It really should be up to a committee. There should be a tree count. There should be a mitigation fee that's fair. You don't want to charge somebody $10,000 or $15,000 to clear cut a lot if it's part of a development. But $1,000, I agree, is probably loose. And so that's why the public input here is good. I think it needs to just be carefully thought out as to what fees are going to be able to get digested, obviously. in balance with the construction. But the fees for the ordinance, any violation of the zoning ordinance are $100 the first day, or $50 the first day, $200 the next day, and $300 each day thereafter. Each violation constitutes a separate offense. So we do have that authority in the zoning ordinance. And again, I didn't put the finishing touches on the language. I do agree strongly that there should be language in there that says that no tree shall be removed unless it's in accordance with the following section. Yeah, you know what I mean? So that is probably something in the preamble that should be added. So, okay. Okay, great.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to speak? Bob, I don't know if you put your hand up again, or if it's still up.

[Robert Paine]: No, I wanted to lower it.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay, thank you. Any discussion from Councilors at this point? Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Just to say that I appreciate this feedback from our department heads and also from Energy and Environment Committee members, residents. I think for me, this is kind of exactly the point with this ordinance that I want us to be at, which is know, it is complicated. We've already broken it into three sections. And with this, especially saying, are we sure that at the point that we're trying to condition and regulate and provide for mitigation here, we have some instances where that's provided for by site plan review, we have some where that's provided for by this process, some where that's provided for by dimensional and just making sure that we're catching all of the circumstances that we do want to be regulating. in this, and I also do appreciate the discussion about are those fees where they should be? Obviously, going too high, we don't want to disincentivize development. Going too low, we don't want to egregiously undervalue our trees. So I think we're heading in a good direction with this. Thank you.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And I think Director Hunt kind of cleared up most of what I was thinking around the 20,000 square foot lot and site plan review. and you answered some more of this question. I guess my question is just the mechanism here, right? Is it, there's two pieces to my question. So if we're removing multiple trees of a greater size, total clearing of a parcel of land, that's happening through a permit and they're paying a fee. What if someone just clears without a permit?

[Bill Forte]: Um, I, so I think, I think that, um, and again, the language should be in the preamble that, uh, you know, that, that no tree shall be removed. Um, that's not in pursuit of construction. You know what I mean? So, um, we we've had this problem statewide, any, any jurisdiction I've ever worked in, this has always been a problem. It's always a kind of a, you know, kind of an empty spot and, um, it's never been enumerated. So I think that, um, you know, no tree shall be removed unless it's in accordance with the following. section of this ordinance, so I think it should be made very clear in that first, you know, in that first paragraph, you know.

[Zac Bears]: And then is the recourse if there's a violation, non-criminal disposition or is it like denial of a future permit for construction or

[Bill Forte]: How would that because that's just my I'm wondering what the Yeah, so a stop work order should be issued immediately upon tree, you know, if because the first thing that's going to happen is someone's going to get out the chainsaws and see the trucks pulling up, and we're going to get a call. So the first thing is to order a you know, a cease and desist right away. And I would say that if a person is not aware that they don't know what it is, and they just started and they're like, Okay, we'll wrap it up and go home. then probably no punishment might be ordered. What I envision with a lot clearing, what I envision with that is either very similar to Director Hunt saying about review by the city board and or perhaps maybe the tree committee could have some authority about clear-cutting lots that otherwise have been undeveloped and are, you know, that have foliated, you know, that might be something that the tree committee might consider in a public hearing, you know, that they might hold a hearing within 21 days of an application, very similar to the historic commission, you know. And they might determine and assess a value of the trees that are going to be clear-cut. In that proposal, in that hearing, a person might propose, hey, listen, I'm going to put in 10 trees of three-inch caliper, and I'm going to pay this much. And then the committee will say, yeah, OK, that's good. And then that's a condition of the building permit. So yeah, anything should segue into construction, because otherwise, why clear a lot unless there's construction, right? It makes the most sense. For any other purpose, I would say that even if you're clearing it to put a tennis court in, that's still construction. So yeah. Yeah, sure.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Going back to Loretta on Zoom.

[EO-vAhUJAKo_SPEAKER_21]: Hi, one suggestion that's very clear, Commissioner and City Council, is the occupancy permit would not be issued until everything's mitigated. Correct. I just want to bring that up. Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Laura. Any other discussion from councilors? I know, so we... No. Yeah, so we do have 2 other portions that we're considering. I do wonder if it's worth. Reporting this out and getting comments as that may pack at least the tree committee. Establishment, but I'm also happy to review it at this time. If folks just want to lay eyes on it again, as we haven't looked at it again for a few months at this point. Yeah. The public tree and, oh, sorry, going to Councilor Tseng. The public tree and the tree committee, we do have some comments from the public tree and commission we're giving couldn't be here tonight, so I do wonder if that's just something safe for when we can continue those conversations.

[Bill Forte]: You all set with me? You all set with me? We are good for you. Okay.

[Nicole Morell]: Now Councilor Tseng does have, I'm gonna go to Councilor Tseng, so he may have a question for you. Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, so I guess with the tree commission or committee ordinance, I think most of it looks pretty solid. I am curious about the point where we're not offering compensation for it. I just wonder, and our city staff might know better. I just wonder if we would be able to recruit the talent that we're asking for in the ordinance without commission or without compensation. but I don't have as much experience on this specific, in this specific area. So I'm just curious what you all think.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you for that. I think the question from Councilor Tseng, Director Hunt, I don't know if you could hear, just the last one standing at this point, is just as we're looking for people with specific qualifications for this committee, if we think we could attract folks without, you know, Should we establish a stipend for serving on this committee? Do we think that's essential to be able to attract someone like a certified arborist?

[Alicia Hunt]: So I think there's sort of two different things. If you're asking a certified arborist to go out and evaluate trees, then there's an expectation that they get paid for that effort, because you don't ask a lawyer for legal advice pro bono, right, as a general rule. So that's sort of the idea behind it. So, but it depends what we're asking, right? If the way this is written, this ordinance, I'm actually reading it that the private resident or contractor could hire a certified arborist who could then provide us with a report and they pay for it. It's not necessarily somebody on city staff the way this is written right now, which is actually not a bad idea. You want to cut down a tree I would hope that you're hiring a tree company that has a certified arborist who can give you a certified statement on it and put the burden on the person who wants to cut the tree. When we're talking about the committee and this tree committee that would review the presentations and decide if it's of significant, honestly, we get experts in all of these fields that volunteer their time out of the love of the city. I don't think we'd have any trouble finding people who have levels of expertise to serve. I couldn't tell you that you would always have an arborist. It's like with the planning board, we often have city planners and transportation engineers and landscape designers, but we don't always have one of each on the board. The reason for compensation is fair and equitable treatment of people. And we have been looking at the idea that the boards and commissions should be compensated because we're asking people to come give of their time. And for some people are privileged and they can just do that. And other people have to hire a babysitter and paid for transportation in this work to do it. And so there should be fair and equitable compensation, $25 a meeting, $50 a meeting. so that somebody for whom it's a cost burden will serve just as equally as somebody for whom they make plenty of money and they can do it, or they're retired or whatever. So the reason for doing it, I don't believe in my opinion, looking at our boards and commissions, is we wouldn't otherwise get qualified people. Somebody who is a certified arborist does not serve on our tree committee for the $50 a meeting. They serve because they care about the community But some people might need the $50 a meeting in order to make the time to attend the meetings or the ability to, so.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, I think that's helpful. I think we do have comments from Attorney Stein that said perhaps you could list it as it being. A preference to have, you know, a certified arborist, but it's not essential and I do wonder if I don't think it's in this language. Just having the tree warden as an as an ex officio member as well might also, you know.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right, I don't have a copy of that in front of me. I will tell you that the, I believe that the tree warden's position is a union position, and so there would be some considerations there as to how, when you ask somebody who is paid certain ways and is in the union to attend an extra meeting, an evening meeting, do they get time out of their day you know, do we allow comp time for that, or do they get a stipend for attending the meeting? Traditionally, the city of Medford has offered stipends to staff to support boards and commissions with that idea. But I just, having, frankly, having a professional on, you know, saying that the tree warden should be a member of that committee makes a lot of sense, or an ex officio member. If you look at our boards and commissions across the board, there are many that have different positions, usually they're department head positions that are members of the boards and commissions, or are supposed to, like, my position technically is the technical advisor to the community development board. I have a staff person who has paid a stipend to take their minutes, do their agenda, collect their, applications and stuff like that. So that actually is a consideration if they're going to be receiving applications and they're going to need staff support. Is there a stipend there for the staff person to receive those applications, attend an evening meeting, do the agendas and minutes? That's what we have been doing in the city of Medford.

[Nicole Morell]: Great, thank you. Yeah, and I think revisiting this document, I think that the crux of the concern from Attorney Stein, which is making sure that this is not written in a way that the tree committee would usurp any of the powers of the tree warden. So I think number one, it would need a little bit of update language, but I think number two, if that were something we could work out, I think working in concert would certainly help to avoid kind of undermining or undoing the expertise and the just the legally defined role of the tree warden. going to Councilor Collins, if you still have it.

[Kit Collins]: Oh, thank you. No, I, Director Hunt, I appreciate you weighing in on this. I think, you know, I say this every time we talk about a board or commission, it's I hold the opinion that we should be compensating all members of all boards and commissions just because it's the right thing to do. I think this is true of certainly all of our boards and commissions, but especially when we're talking about taking measures to take care of the tree canopy in Medford, which this tree committee would be integral to holding that conversation in Medford and pushing it forward. We know that, you know, the distribution of the tree canopy in Medford is not equally distributed and that neighborhoods that have less trees tend to be poorer and less well resourced and I think it's worth stating that, you know, especially in this case if we're going to have people from well-treated neighborhoods in Medford as well as less-treated neighborhoods that are more vulnerable to heat island effect and other adverse effects of not having trees. We want to make sure that all those perspectives are on the tree committee. Another reason to work towards a place where all of our board and commission members are compensated so that that equity and representativeness is better ensured. Thank you.

[Alicia Hunt]: So, Madam Chair, I think I found, I think I have a copy of what you might be looking for, looking at the version with comments from Tim, the Deputy Commissioner and the attorney. So the line about the members of the Treat Committee would serve without compensation. My recommendation would be to, at the very least, strike that line and be silent on that matter so that we are falling back on how do we handle all boards and commissions as a group, rather than putting it into individual ones. We have a couple of boards and commissions that receive compensation for the members, and I don't believe that it's actually in their ordinances that say they receive compensation. Thank you.

[Justin Tseng]: I would be happy to sponsor that motion.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay, so we have the motion from Councilor Tseng to, in the draft of the Tree Committee, strike this line that says the Denver Tree Committee members shall serve without compensation. Do I have a second? Seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. And I do think it may be worth just folks, Councilor Collins, if we want to make a motion to perhaps send this back to the tree warden again, and that's separate to see any comments or someone wants to just study it and study it against the tree warden as defined at the MGL level as well. Councilor Collins, I'll go to you as we wait for the clerk to type that up.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I was also going to, it sounded like we were floating. maybe taking out the language that said one must, one member must or shall will hold the license as a certified arborist. I don't know if that's something that we can't guarantee happening all the time. I guess the question in my mind is if for a six month, one year period, there isn't a certified arborist on the committee, what then? Like legally, can the committee function? Is it in limbo until there's a certified arborist? Is that something we should potentially strike or say? you prefer for there something to be encouraged, but not required for the functioning of the committee?

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, absolutely. We'll take Councilor Tseng first.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Paris. Yes. Councilor Caraviello is absent. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Scartelli is absent. Councilor Tseng.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Morell.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes. 4 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, 3 absent. Motion passes. We will strike that line from the draft. And then, Councilor Collins, you have a motion to update the language so that it's not required. That, sorry. I don't want to make anyone dizzy with my track changes. It's not required. Go ahead.

[Kit Collins]: Perhaps, like, whenever possible. We could just add two words. Whenever possible, at least one member of the committee will hold.

[Alicia Hunt]: you. Yeah it's Madam President. It's, um. Preference shall be given to appointing residents. But I think there is a preference shall be given. Because the difference is that you're not saying here this or this or that at least one member, blah, blah, blah, to the extent possible, or to the extent the appropriate candidates are available and willing to serve. Because I mean, we do actually run into with CPC, there's a requirement that members come from certain boards and commissions, and we do actually run in, that's state law, we can't change it, but we run into problems where you'll have a board And nobody on that board is willing to take on the extra commission of serving on a second board. And then we actually run into a problem with like, somebody gets pressured into doing it. But if we're looking at the whole community as a whole and saying, is there a certified arborist willing to do this? We could put the call out for it. But even if we know they exist in the city, nobody can make them serve.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, the CPC is preference. They're in choosing position persons for appointed positions, the mayor shop of preference to those residents who have expertise in our demonstrated interest in open space, recreation, historic preservation, affordable housing, etc.

[Nicole Morell]: So, so I have based on what Jeff said, could be Consideration shall be given that at least one member of the committee will hold a license as a Massachusetts certified arborist or international certified arborist or similar certification to the extent that appropriate candidates are available and willing to serve.

[Unidentified]: Is that?

[Nicole Morell]: So Councilor Collins, if you'd like to make a motion that we update that line.

[Unidentified]: I can chat it to you.

[Nicole Morell]: Sure. Consideration shall be given that at least one member of the committee We'll hold a license as a Massachusetts certified arborist. I can also just paste it to you in the chat. Okay. No, I can chat you. Just can't broadly chat. or international certified arborist or similar certification to the extent that appropriate candidates are available and willing to serve.

[Alicia Hunt]: Madam Chair, Madam President, I believe, I'm not clear that it says here or in our ordinances anywhere that members of the boards and commissions must be residents. I believe that we have a strong preference for that, but there, some communities will allow that a certain number of seats must be residents, but if you need a particular expertise, what if there was a certified arborist who was willing to be on the committee who, you know, maybe his business is in Medford, but he lives in Malden or Boston, do we need to actually write it in that that arborist, I think we would prefer to have a resident, but we'd be happy to have an arborist who doesn't live in the city if it's that or no arborist. And do we feel that that neat language needs to be in here? I do not believe that there's anything in our ordinances that says blankedly that you must be a resident. Some ordinances have written it in that you must be a resident.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Snider.

[Kit Collins]: I mean, kind of off the cuff, but I, I feel like in general where, to me, things get confusing with boards and commissions is where rules that may apply to all of them live in individual ordinances. So I think that it would be helpful to have that articulated overarchingly as applying to all of our boards and commissions. I think that from like an implementation standpoint, my impression, this could be wrong, I don't manage boards or commissions, is that when the question comes up, like, can we do this? It's helpful to have something in an ordinance to point to from a, like, how can we, who are we messaging this to do? How are we doing outreach here? So maybe it, my thinking as well, if it's, if it's not prohibited, then it should be known that it's fine. But clearly that confusion comes up and the question comes up. Um, you know, we're talking about this ordinance here, but I feel like you'll be more clear if that was just stated as relating to all boards and commissions, right?

[Alicia Hunt]: So I guess what I'm thinking is that it doesn't say that blankedly in our zone in our ordinances or in our charter, but maybe it will someday. And this might be a place where you might say that, um, residency is not required if necessary to fill this expertise, and that way you're mildly implying that residency is required in general, which I think is the city's preference. Honestly, I had somebody ask me this past weekend if, as a non-resident, they would be eligible to join the Affordable Housing Trust. And so I just, and I said, you know, I don't know legally. I know that our preference is that you be a resident.

[Kit Collins]: So I think that language makes sense.

[Nicole Morell]: So we'll add the motion with that. In addition to add to the end of that line, residency is not required if necessary to fill this expertise.

[Alicia Hunt]: I would say Medford residency.

[Nicole Morell]: If necessary to fill this expertise, and that would immediately follow the other sentence that Uh, we gave you that answer in order to serve.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, the CPC ordinance again says, uh, it does require CPC members to be domiciled in the city, but it's explicit because the rest of the ordinances or it's not, there's not, certainly there's no charter provision for it.

[Alicia Hunt]: I was just thinking it's simpler now to include the language in case our charter were to change and require and say that you need to be a resident to be in boards and commissions, unless otherwise stated in the ordinances.

[Zac Bears]: Right, unless otherwise stated in the ordinances, yeah.

[Nicole Morell]: I guess as we have this in front of us, too, I'm being reminded of, I think, the many areas of concern, too. where I think these first three is that it's too vague, working with the tree or working on public tree hearings, including documentation of tree hearings. And tree hearings are very explicitly, that process is very explicitly outlined in MGL. I feel like something that may be worth striking or consideration. Same thing with ensuring that the city adheres to provisions. I think ensure is too vague of a word. And then the same thing with the following on the committee's work will include consideration of management. I think that might be too vague. I think the rest is, you know, working to develop a recommended plan, working on annual reporting, promoting creation of manuals, promoting equity, engaging in projects. I think things like that make sense for this committee and I think is the intent. I do think some of this stuff may just sound a little too broad and run against the state level definitions of what the role of the tree ward is in the process for public shade trees.

[Zac Bears]: I also have two other, I think linking back to the private draft, right? If the tree committee is going to be considering and essentially approving mitigation plans for trees, you know, or if there's some sort of enforceable version of A and B here under duties, I certainly would want this to be, the mayor's appointees to be confirmed by the council. I think, I mean, my general perspective is that even if it doesn't have those duties, it should be that mayoral appointees are confirmed by the council, but especially if there's any sort of real, you know, authority to decide on, to make determinations that affect.

[Nicole Morell]: Do you want to add language to that?

[Zac Bears]: I think it's more just, if this is going out and coming back, I just want to put that out there, you know. I wonder if maybe the CD board is a better vehicle, for example, for the zoning related private trees determinations for, you know, I don't know. I don't know what Director Hunt thinks of that. I certainly don't know what the CD board members think of that. But yeah, I mean, I think if it's everything from C down, You know, that's one thing if it's having an active role in determining. Mitigation plans, especially on private property. I think we need to add a level of due diligence here.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I mean, it sounds like to me if we may. Feel like we're in a place where we would want to send these 3 back out or at least these 2 back out for comments and reconsider as. think having a much more streamlined version from Commissioner Forty kind of maybe informs a little bit these other things and also knowing we'll get more comments from folks as well.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'd be happy to move right now that, um, I know we have. Oh, sorry.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah. Uh, so we do have a motion on the floor from Councilor Collins, and that was to add the language, um, that clarifies that, uh, I'm just gonna I'm just going to summarize. It would be nice to have an arborist, a certified arborist or similar certification, but it's not required. And then also that if it is challenging to fill that role, resident of residency is not required for that specific role on the committee. So on the motion of Councilor Collins, it's seconded by- Second. Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Caraviello? No. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Sanders? Yes.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Four in the affirmed, zero in the negative, three absent, motion passes. Vice-Mayor Bears? Actually, Councilor Tseng, did you have something you wanted to add before we take the motion?

[Justin Tseng]: I was just basically going to say I agree with Vice President Bears on what he was saying. I agree with the due diligence part. I agree with the council approval votes. I wonder, I've heard some feedback that sometimes department heads are a bit more iffy on the council approval thing because of the time that it might take for us to approve. But I think it's reasonable that we can approve it in a pretty it's a reasonable time frame, and if there are concerns with that, I think we could put something in the ordinance to deal with it. But I agree with Vice President Bears' points.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I was just gonna make a motion to add the words subject to confirmation by majority vote of the city council after the word mayor in the first clause of 2A.

[Nicole Morell]: So we have a motion from Vice of Affairs to add the word subject to confirmation by the City Council afterward Mayor in under appointments section A. It is specifically it's subject to confirmation by a majority vote of the City Council. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, you're able to call the roll on that. Sorry, seconded by Councilor Collins.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello-Pelos, absent. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Lange? Councilor Scripp-Keller, absent. Councilor Sanders?

[Nicole Morell]: Yes.

[Unidentified]: Councilor Morocco?

[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Four in the affirmative, zero in the negative, three absent. Motion passes. Any further discussion or motions from the Council?

[Zac Bears]: Did we look at the... Sorry, I stepped out for a moment. Did we look at 8693 in the public tree ordinance?

[Nicole Morell]: There's still some... We have not. Okay.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm just wondering, One arm, I guess I could just read the committee that will report if there were motions last time, it looks like tree removal permit. There's just application hearing process, approval criteria, protection of significant trees, prohibited activities and emergencies, and then the enforcement and penalties section are still blank, at least in the version that I'm looking at.

[Adam Hurtubise]: do not have the minutes in front of me. Let me see if I can.

[Zac Bears]: Oh, I said this last time.

[Nicole Morell]: So it's still an open question.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I said the 8694 and 8695 need to be updated.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, folks don't have any ideas and updating them now, we can save it for a future meeting.

[Zac Bears]: The motion was that subsections B through G of 8693 be combined and updated to reflect the processes and practices of general law chapter 87. So I'll just let those motions stand. There's also one motion that passed to create a separate section of the ordinance to establish a tree fund. So I guess we should just figure out who should be doing these two things. Right. Yeah.

[Nicole Morell]: I think this is one of the times where we run up against the lack of in-house counsel, where historically we would have worked with them on this, but we do not have that.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, maybe we could refer, request that I don't, yeah, I'm not sure. I mean, enforcement of penalties, I don't think KP Law could, outside counsel could do that. The tree removal permit process. I mean, it basically seems like what the motion we asked for last time was that the tree warden just say, this is how chapter 87 says that this works, and we'll put it into our ordinances so that it's.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, I mean, I think we could refer out with the specific questions.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, maybe let's just refer the motion from the prior meetings to the Tree Warden and KP Law and ask for a response.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Specifically on the public one?

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, the motions regarding sections.

[Nicole Morell]: Do we need a vote on that? Since it's something we already voted on. Okay.

[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yeah, those motions are on page... the six of the committee of the whole report from March 8th.

[Nicole Morell]: When you do refer those out, can you just like CC me? Thank you. Any other discussion from the council or members of the public? I have

[Zac Bears]: So on the other two, on the tree committee and the private zoning ordinance, did we already do motions to refer? No, okay.

[Nicole Morell]: So I think we talked about referring it to simultaneously to PDS, energy environment, and then I guess share it with Trees Medford since they're, I mean, it would really refer to them since they're not a body within the city. under the city charter, but just request for comments. Yeah.

[Zac Bears]: So, and then Director Hunt, did Director Hunt say you'd prefer to be referred to PDS and you can pass it to the Energy and Environment Committee or doesn't matter.

[Alicia Hunt]: Literally, I think that if you refer to the Energy Committee, um, Clerk Kurt Abuse will send it to me and I'll forward it to them. So that's kind of, but it's, I think they appreciate that you're referring it to them for comment and that you're referring it to the Treat Committee for comment. Like they like it that you have actually asked them for comment. So, but we'll handle the logistics. Okay.

[Nicole Morell]: So motion for visors affairs to refer to planning development and sustainability, as well as the energy environment committee for comment and also request comments from Trees Medford.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Nicole Morell]: On the tree committee and the private trees. Yes. Yeah. And I'd be happy to send them. Energy environment committee. And then I don't know if we want to say request comments from trees Medford since they're not the official city committee. But their insight is also very important.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Nicole Morell]: So the draft ordinances, so the draft ordinance of the tree committee, the latest draft, which I can share back with you because we just made some slight adjustments to it, as well as the private trees draft ordinance. And you want to add to that, Vice President Bears, just that those also be loaded to the Google Drive, right?

[Unidentified]: Sure, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Nicole Morell]: So on the motion of Vice President Bears to refer this out to Energy and Environment Committee, PDS, and also request comments from Therese Medford. So let's get this up on the website. Folks can see it. And this would just be the tree community establishment and the private trees ordinance, and I think we'll also get the public one up on the drive too. So if folks want to look at it. Seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Councilor Caraviello is absent. Councilor Collins. Councilor Knight. Councilor Hilliard is absent. Councilor Sitt.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes. 4 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, 3 absent, the motion passes.

[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn.

[Nicole Morell]: On the motion of vice chairs affairs to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Collins. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes, or in the affirmative, zero to negative three absent the motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone.