a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on January 9, 2019 to discuss a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.66 entitled “Tree Protection” to amend section 8.66.40 entitled “Applicability” and by adding a new section 8.66.055 entitled “Procedure for other projects.” THE QUESTION COMES ON PASSAGE TO BE ORDAINED ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 18, 2019

ATTACHMENTA City of Cambridge 0-14 IN CITY COUNCIL June 18, 2018 COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN COUNCILLOR CARLONE COUNCILLOR KELLEY ORDERED: That the proposed amendment to Chapter 8.66 entitled "Tree Protection" be amended in section 8.66.40 entitled "Applicability" and also by adding a new section 8.66.055 entitled "Procedure for Other Projects" be referred to the Ordinance Committee for a hearing to review and consider the attached proposed amendments. In City Council June 18, 2018. Adopted by a yea and nay vote:- Yeas 5; Nays 4, Absent 0 Attest: - Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk A true copy; ATTEST:- Damnia P. Kope Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk

Attachment (changes in red) AMEND SECTION: 8.66.040 - Applicability This Chapter shall apply to all trees located on lots specified in the following sections: §8.66.050 and 8.66.055. This Chapter shall not apply to any project of the Affordable Housing Trust o otherwise for the construction of low and moderate-income housing meeting the standards established pursuant to any City, State or Federal housing program designed to assist low and moderate-income households. ADD SECTION: 8.66.055 - Procedure for Other Projects a. For any project not subject to 8.66.050, which requires removal of a significant tree, except for emergency circumstances, a permit request will first be submitted to the City Arborist. In all cases, the City Arborist shall keep a record of the type and size of tree removed, the reason for the removal, photographs of the tree documenting the reason for removal, the date, the contractors) involved, and the name and address of the property owner.

ATTACHIMENT second best time is now! The best timelto planta tree is 20 years ago, the Tree Protection Ordinance

fund instead Trees over 8" diameter Affordable housing projects • One year prior to special permit application • To be clear, the ordinance DOES NOT cover: • The ordinance applies to a limited part of the canopy Trees that are cut down outside of large project review projects • Large project review, 25K sq.ft. (exempts affordable housing entirely) • Details about caliper inches and $$; basically they can just pay instead of replace Trees that are cut down more than one year prior to permit for large project review The Current Tree Protection Ordinance 2004) • The current ordinance is great, but doesn't actually protect any trees! • The ordinance requires a replacement plan, and allows for payment into tree

• Non-large project review • Permit would be discretionary The amendment before you would Proposed Amendment • Preserve affordable housing exemption • Exempt dangerous/emergency situations • Almost nobody cuts down their own large trees! • More than one year prior to special permit application (retroactively) • Require a permit for trees > 8" that are removed as part of: • Contractors would be informed about permit requirement and would obtain permit DPW/Traffic already require street/sidewalk permits when those are being blocked Permit would document reasons for removal and facilitate conversation about the need

• Lost 18% canopy in 9 years if we don't cut down a lot less It is urgent that we act! amendment (suspected some loss) recommendations at some point, but we need to act now. • The task force is doing great work and will be putting forward not eliminate all loss (trees do die from natural and unnatural causes) • We didn't know the full extent of the loss in June 2018 when I filed this • Task force analysis show more loss in the future, we can only minimize but • We also need to plant more but that's a separate conversation and won't help

ATTACHMENT C Cambridge Tree Protection Hearing Speech In response to the call for a complete Moratorium on all Cambirdge tree cutting untill the successful Creation of a new Tree Protection Protocal In accordance to the new system of tree protection put forth by Councilman Zondervan, I request the inclusion and consideration of the following knowledge and guidelines. I request that all trees in The City of Cambridge are completely protected by our City's systematic processe's of protection. I request that this protection applies to all trees on our Public, Private, Commerical, State and City properties and preservations. I request that the implementation of this protection be effective to all trees of any kind. I request that the trees be protected especially on private land. Trees are features of the land and of our natural planetary environment, therefore all trees of this city are beings of this earth, like humans, and are to be respected for their life and being. Trees provide oxygen into the air space and are a part of the reason we are currently breathing, trees filter the air of the entire planet and contribute to the ecoystem of all planetery life. By this defining knowledge trees are therefore not "owned" by the city or its people even though they may grow on legally owned land or the land of private owners or in public space. So the concept of the ownership of a tree is out of the hands of any one person, and thus it can be seen that trees do not fail under the ownership of people at all. Some examples of the preservation of nature being in coexistence with the United States Legal System, are "Gods 10 Acres" in Worcester, Massachusetts. 10 acres of land were bought by a wealthy person and landowner and legally deeded to God. Another example is the "Tree That Owns Itself" and "The Son of the Tree That Owns Itself" in Athens, Georgia. Another wealthy person and landowner of a similar mindset bought the land in an 8 foot perimeter around a white oak tree (the biggest tree in Athens and the most famous in the United States) and legally deeded the land to the tree itself, when the tree tell a new tree was planted from one of the acorns and grew on the same fand under the same protection of legal tree self-ownership. Since the cutting of trees has become a matter of Public concern and legality in the City of Cambridge, I request that with the implementation of this city's creation of a tree protection system, that the knowledge I have provided be applied, and all our trees be protected and acknolwedged as the lifeforms that they are by the Best of the City's Officials and Representatives, and of course the The new Cambridge Tree-Care Task Force. 1 request also that the Tree Task Force experience a new name change to the Cambridge Tree-Care Task Force, a name that I creatively came up with all on my own.

I propose that the removal of any tree in Cambridge become illegal an result in a substanitally large fine and jail time. This would apply to the removal of any tree over 2 inches in diameter. The descion to remove a tree will be solely based on whether or not the tree is a threat to the environment around it. A tree that is smashed, damaged or dead may be removed, a tree may also be removed for safety reasons. For asthetic purposes and commercial and city development purposes trees may not be removed. The priority of the trees protection and the accomadation of their healthy growth is to be viewed as a priority over the ways in which we develop our already wonderfully fantastic and creative city. Private landowners, buissness owners, and community persons have any right to appeal to the city to have a tree removed from their property when there is a risk of it falling on peoples heads, or a tree has begun to rot and needs to be pruned or cut down, sick trees that pose the threat of the spread of disease into the natural environment may also be removed with the same permissions. Otherwise all trees will be held compietely under the protection of the City it self and the Cambridge Tree-Care Task Force. To reiterate and emphasize, 1am proposing that the only way to have any tree removed is by appealing to the City's Tree and Envrionmental Protection Representatives, Tree Care Task Force, (or whomever would be in charge of deciding the fate of the tree under speculation) Healthy Trees may not be removed under any cicrumstances, the cutting of a tree based upon the defining quality the "maturity of trees" will be replaced by the attententiveness to the risks of wounded and sick trees at risk of collapse on all properties in the City.

AtTACHMENT D-l "You (the City Council) need to vote tonight for an immediate moratorium on cutting all trees in Cambridge until the Tree Protection Ordinance is revised based on the recommendations of the Urban Forest Task Force.*" *Public and private, all trees more than 6" caliper at 4.5 ft, that do not present an immediate safety hazard. This will probably take about 6 months, maybe less. SUSAN RINGLER 82 KINNARD ST 9 JAN 2019

ATTACHMENT D-2 100 Annual Carbon Sequestration (kg) 0-7 62-76 47-61 31-46 77- 8-15 16-30 D.B.H. Class (cm) Figure 2. — Average annual carbon sequestration by individual urban trees by d.b.h. class (kg/year). Average Annual Carbon Stored by an Individual Tree, based on SIZE (DBH = diameter at breast height) So a 12" (30 cm) diameter tree, pulls 22 Ibs (10 kg) from the air, but a 30" (75 cm), pulls 220 Ibs (90 kg). 2.5 times the TRUNK size, pulls NINE times the carbon from the air. Source: Chicago Urban Forestry Ecosystem Results, MacPherson 1994 - p. 88. USDA Forest Service publication https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_ne186.pdf Submitted by: Susan Ringler 82 Kinnaird St. 9 Jan 2019

ATTACHMENT E Lopez, Donna From: Carol O'Hare <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 4:06 PM To: City Council Cc: Lopez, Donna; O'Riordan, Owen; Lefcourt, David; Putnam, Andrew; 'Maggie Booz;' Florrie Wescoat' Subject: [Corrected] Ordinance Committee: Tree Protection Hearing, 1/10/18, 5:30 PM Typos corrected. Apologies. Please replace my previous email with this. CO Dear Councillors Carlone and Kelley, Chairs, and Ordinance Committee Members: 1. Only Reporting...? I support every effort to get a tally on tree removals. But, more important, we need vigor and rigor to effectively curtail tree removals and soon. If this amendment merely requires notice to the city arborist of planned tree removals for smaller projects, that's pretty minimal. 2. Proposed Amendment - Critical Omission! As I read it, the amendment would apply to the removal of a significant tree only if it is associated with a "project" that "requires" the tree's removal. But, what if there is no project other than the tree-removal itself? No reporting requirement Say, for example, a property owner wants less shade or hates to rake leaves, may he or she simply remove the significant tree without even first reporting it?1 3. Moratorium, with exceptions? I think a carefully crafted moratorium on removal of significant trees (with specified exceptions and, perhaps, a waiver process) should be seriously considered, even for smaller properties. For example, see Atlanta - https://tinyurl.com/y9vr49yg; South Miami - https://tinyurl.com/y72h9qlf; Lake Forest Park - https://tinyurl.com/ybtf2ebf. Thank you, as always, for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Carol O'Hare 172 Magazine St. 1 In fact, that's exactly what my long ago landlord did years ago. He shamelessly girdled two, healthy, mature ailanthus trees on his rental property, which killed them while standing. His rationale: "These trees have no value to me. No fruit. Just messy leaves to rake and dispose of." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girdling Cc: Donna Lopez, City Clerk - Please file this, including the supplement below, with the Official Record. References Proposed Amendment AMEND SECTION: 8.66.040 - Applicability This Chapter shall apply to all trees located on lots specified in the following sections: §8.66.050 and 8.66.055. This Chapter shall not apply to any project of the Affordable Housing Trust or otherwise for the construction of low and moderate-income housing meeting the standards established pursuant to any City, State or Federal housing program designed to assist low and moderate-income households.

ADD SECTION: 8.66.055 - Procedure for Other Projects a. For any project not subject to 8.66.050, which requires removal of a significant tree, except for emergency circumstances, a permit request will first be submitted to the City Arborist. In all cases, the City Arborist shall keep a record of the type and size of tree removed, the reason for the removal, photographs of the tree documenting the reason for removal, the date, the contractors) involved, and the name and address of the property owner. Highlighting added. Existing Cambridge Tree Ordinance: https://library.municode.com/ma/cambridge/codes/code_of ordinances?nodeld=TIT8HESA CH8.66TRPR Virus-free. www.avg.com

Comments of Alian Field Juma, 3603 Forare Are, Kambhage. Dl fully support this amendwent with strengthenig require public notie (on site and permitting of rewig-tol do 3) The aty has a lang history of restricting what propery dress can so on thair ovan propety. in their vizinty. - Carbon sequestation - Spawny radiall and reducing flooding are to the large amount I water hell an leaves. An crample de my pant ready prank pran l ernes Giles more than some doners. 6) I note that there are all kinds of nas i had to ut sour two hat reasons to ant tea? neighbors devening. But I planted make that engh tides. for thee appetinty to concurent. Then your sluite.

ATTACHMENTG Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Nancy Donohue and 1 am the Director of Government Affairs for the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. We know that tonight's hearing is one step in addressing Tree Protection in the City of Cambridge, but the Chamber would like to go on record to say that we have heard from many of our members who are concerned about certain aspects and possible unintended consequences that could possibly arise. We look forward to future dialogue; and our members being included in the ongoing discussion. Thank you for your time.

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT H From: Kelly Dolan < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 6:46 PM To: Carlone, Dennis; Devereux, Jan; Kelley, Craig; Lopez, Donna; McGovern, Marc; Zondervan, Quinton; Mallon, Alanna; CDDat344; City Manager; Clerk; Simmons, Denise; Toomey, Tim Subject: No More Tree Canopy Destruction Please! Dear City Councilors- We are asking you to please impose a moratorium on cutting down any more trees in the City of Cambridge and push the Urban Forest Task Force to quickly institute a comprehensive strategy to protect our Tree Canopy. We all seem to be in agreement on the role that trees play in mitigating climate change impact by cleaning our air, shading our city and managing flood waters. If so, we need to assign correlating protections to start treating our tree canopy as the valuable asset as it exists. Limiting property rights is a difficult decision, but as we become a denser urban center and we begin to experience the effects of climate change the time has come for the collective well being of the citizens and the tree canopy to supersede the personal rights of individual property owners. We don't allow private landowners to operate anything that would harm the air or water of our community, two protected assets we value and regulate. We need to start thinking about trees with the same mindset. Having clean air and water is a social justice issue, and so are the benefits bestowed by having enough trees. In addition to the physical benefits to our environment, there are growing amounts of evidence showing us the psychological and physiological benefits trees have on the health of humans. Until we have better protections for the Tree Canopy we need to put an end to reducing this very important and vital asset to our City. Sincerely Kelly Dolan Greg Berndt Allegra Berndt Sara Berndt Juli Berndt Upland Road Here are some articles on the human health benefits of trees "the study found that an increase of 11 trees per city block was "comparable to an increase in annual personal income of $20,000 and moving to a neighborhood with $20,000 higher median income or being 1.4 years younger." https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11610 Psychologists' research explains the mental and physical restoration we get from nature-- and has important implications for how we build our homes, work environments and cities. https://www.apa.org/monitor/apr01/greengood.aspx 1

Trees prevent $7 billion in health costs every year by filtering air pollution—not to mention their psychological effects. New research says the closer you can live to trees, the better off you are. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/trees-good/375129/ Recent research has shown that trees clean the air, and our feelings https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-being-around-trees-help-people-feel-good/ Trees not only improve our psychological health when we are near them, but they also serve an important purpose in preserving our health by combating air pollution, especially in dense urban areas https://www.gatewaygreen.org/trees-improve-mental-health/ Kelly Dolan Sent from Gmail Mobile

( League ATTACHMENT I TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT MORATORIA Effective Date Ordinance # Area 4/10/78 891 Arsenal Sq. 3/13/78 Alewife/N. Camb. 892 1/29/79 Arsenal Sq. ext. #891 910 Residential Conversion 930 3/24/80 Res Conversion ext. #930 9/8/80 943 Res Conversion ext. #930 952 2/23/81 12/16/85 N. Mass Ave. Ht Limit 1028 6/23/86 Central Sq. Fast Food 1034 11/3/86 1044 North Point 1054 6/15/87 Central Sq. ext. #1034 North Point 6/22/87 1055 12/28/87 Central Sq. ext. #1034 1061 6/6/88 Central Sq. ext. #1034 1071 7/25/88 Cambridgeport IPOD 1073 5/22/89 1077 Cport IPOD Ht amendment 5/22/89 E. Cambridge IPOD 1079 9/11/89 1089 • Cport IPOD 12/1/89 4/2/90 1098 E. Camb IPOD 6/30/90 4/2/90 Cport IPOD 6/30/90 1099 11/30/90 Cport IPOD 1107

2/28/90 E. Camb IPOD 1113 Backyard Infill 3/2/98 1196 Ind C. 9/30/98 1202 5/4/98 Larkin moratorium 1/24/00 1234 18 months Riverside Moratorium 10/16/00 1235 18 months Riverside Moratorium 11/19/01 1256 extension 1356 4/22/13 Interim Regulations for Medical Marijuana Uses

ATTACHMENTJ Gretchen Friesinger 18 Orchard St I speak in support of Councillor Zondervan's proposal. WHY? I live in Porter Square, identified as a heat island. I'm a block from Mass Ave, a hot corridor that is getting hotter. Heat islands and hot corridors align with a lack of tree canopy, as presentations by the Urban Forest Master Plan group make clear. We know that the city is losing canopy at alarming rates. There's more heat in our future, so we need MORE canopy not less. Where and why are we losing our trees? How do we manage our canopy for GROWTH not decline? Councillor Zondervan's proposal allows the city to track where and why trees are being cut down. I support this proposal to gather more data. It's a useful step. I also support the idea of a tree-cutting moratorium for the next few months, until the Task Force completes its work and makes its recommendations. They will have ideas for how we reverse our forest's drastic decline and start growing it again. I've attended some task-force presentations and been impressed by the data they're collecting, and the depth and thoughtfulness of their analyses. If you can't attend meetings, they post all their presentations online. "Business as usual" is not helping grow our canopy. We should take a break and let the Task Force finish their work and make some recommendations. That work must inform what we do next. On Monday the City Council talked about supporting the Green New Deal proposal coming out of Washington. Where is Cambridge's Green New Deal? One green thing to do would be to protect our trees and grow our urban forest. Let's have a Green New Deal here in Cambridge.

ATTACHMENTK My name is Share Baodie l am a graduate Student at Harvard Divisily School. I have een despiratell fighting Harvard a block cher propsooal to cut down a massive, historic tree on our compans. I and other Agassin neighlors reed: your help f you representation. Please acting Support the proposed amenduet to strengthe tree prolectim. I als suppert a moritorium give the Sometimes difficult proceso to clevelar I inglement better atenaiship, Acase lead the way by hering let wo -peceive our Shared environme sincerely, Shone Broder 19/19

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT L From: Bjorn Poonen < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 9:22 PN To: City Council; Lopez, Donna amendment to Tree Protection ordinance Subject: (Donna Lopez: Please add the letter below to the file for the January 9, 2019 Ordinance Committee Meeting.) Dear Ordinance Committee: I support the proposed amendment to add a Section 8.66.055 to the Tree Protection chapter of the Municipal Code, and to adjust Section 8.66.040 accordingly. Because the removal of a significant tree affects not only the owner of the property with the tree but also all residents of the city through its effect on local climate, it makes sense for the City Arborist to request a permit and to record details such as the reason for the removal. This holds whether or not the tree is part of a large project; a tree is a tree. Best, Bjorn Poonen 303 3rd St Unit 416, Cambridge, MA 02142 P.S. A minor comment: In the proposed Section 8.66.055, perhaps the phrase "significant tree" should be capitalized, as it is elsewhere in Chapter 8.66? I suppose that this is to make clear that this phrase refers to the definition in Section 8.66.030.

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENTM O'Riordan, Owen From: Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2019 11:48 AM To: Lopez, Donna; Crane, Paula Subject: Fwd: January 9th Public Hearing to Change the City Tree Lau FYI Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "O'Riordan, Owen" <ooriordan@cambridgema.gov> Date: January 5, 2019 at 11:47:57 AM EST To: Charles Studen <[email removed]> Subject: Re: January 9th Public Hearing to Change the City Tree Law Dear Mr. Studen, Thank you for your comment and I will forward to the City Clerk so that such becomes part of the record as revisions to the tree ordinance are considered, Sincerely, Owen O' Riordan, Commissioner, DW Sent from my iPhone On Jan 5, 2019, at 10:55 AM, Charles Studen <[email removed]> wrote: I understand the City is considering an amendment to the 2004 tree law to prevent tree loss on private property. While the amendment is well-intentioned and worthwhile, it fails to address the fact that much tree loss and damage is to street trees that are terribly pruned/disfigured by the power/telecommunication companies every year. Because power lines are above ground in many areas of the City, beautiful street trees are brutally pruned each year in an attempt to minimize downed power lines in storms. RECOMMENDATION: TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, I AM ENCOURAGING THE CITY COUNCIL TO PREPARE AND ADOPT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UNDERGROUND ALL OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES WITHIN THE NEXT 20 YEARS. Until this is done, it is pointless to continue planting street trees in areas with overhead wires. In addition, when the power lines are placed underground, the required infrastructure for FIOS or other type of high speed internet can finally be installed City-wide. It is frankly 1

surprising that the City doesn't have FIOS in 2019. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Charles Studen 98 Erie Street #13 Cambridge, MA 02139 [phone removed] 2

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT A From: Maria Ritz <[email removed]> Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2019 5:01 PM City Council To: Clerk Cc: Subject: Support of Policy Order# 8.66.055 M. Clerk, please enter this correspondence into the council record: I support the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.66 entitled ' "Tree Protection". Thank you, Maria Ritz

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT Martha Older < [email removed]> From: Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2019 8:04 PM To: Lopez, Donna; Kelley, Craig; martha wd: Fwd: Re: Ordinance Committee meeting about tree removal permitting this Subject: Wednesday, 5:30-7:30 PM Attachments: Forwarded message Surprising, relevant item from https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2017/07/05/greater-boston-heat-islands "With help from the state, Chelsea has planted 2,000 trees since 2013. But again, inside this dense, urban heat island, there are setbacks. Roughly 30 percent of the trees have died. "Part of that is from gas leaks underground that are killing off the trees, methane gas leaks," says Roseann Bongiovanni, executive director at the nonprofit GreenRoots. "*'' This could presumably affect us, too. /Martha Older -- forwarded message attached —-

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT P From: andrea simpson <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 3:05 PM To: Lopez, Donna Cci Kelley, Craig Subject: Proposed Tree Ordinance I am writing in support of the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code in Chapter 8.66 to Protect Trees. Specifically, the proposed amendment, 8.66.055, would require a permit to remove significant trees. I strongly support this ordinance because it will help to protect the Cambridge tree canopy which is diminishing at an alarming rate. Trees have so many important functions, most importantly, absorbing carbon dioxide, providing shade and reducing storm water runoff. We need to increase the number of trees in Cambridge. This proposed amendment will help that effort. I urge the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Andrea Simpson 2 Hutchinson Street Cambridge 1

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENTQ From: Marilee Meyer <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 20191:09 PM To: [email removed]; City Council Cc: Lopez, Donna; O'Riordan, Owen; Webster, David; Lefcourt, David; Putnam, Andrew; maggie @smartarchitecture.net; [email removed] Subject: Re: Ordinance Committee: Tree Protection Hearing, 1/10/18, 5:30 PM Attachments: broadway and prospect st trees 1 jpg; broadway and prospect st trees 2jpg Thank you Carol. Aevel, his is an important issue. While some officials complain about this ordinance as a ploy for obstructing I like to think this is bigger than that. Indeed, when the big copper beech tree at 1010 Mass Ave was threatened for a massive resident project, protests forced a redesign of the building to cut back and go around the big tree-protecting it. Now it is a local guide post and revered part of the neighborhood. Instead of clear cutting- why can't trees be incorporated in master plans for a better product? Considering trees as part of the topography should be part of any zoning and taken more seriously. And with the pending units going on a driveway sliver of land next to Broadway Gas at Broadway and Prospect sts, (see attached) Why do all those trees have to come down? It is shoe-horning mass and height as it is and stripping away any green on that comer. (What about setbacks?) There are a couple of trees identified that could be considered to stay. Since Cambridge is purportedly ahead of their quota schedule for housing perhaps it is time to slow down and reassess what will be lost and how to do better planning towards the city's intended goal. Building for building sake without a bigger more imaginative plan (so we don't lose vintage affordable housing, and protect historical properties while including new units in them), deserves a serious look concerning the tree canopy. And frankly, we need more people out and about to do some trimming before they impact properties. Last time I called, there was a 6-8 month back up. Healthy trees, yes! thank you. Marilee Meyer 10 Dana St [email removed] —Original Message From: Carol O'Hare <[email removed]> To: Cambridge City Council <Council@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: 'Lopez, Donna' < dlopez@cambridgema.gov»; 'O'Riordan, Owen' <ooriordan@cambridgema.gov»; dwebster <dwebster@cambridgema.gov»; 'Lefcourt, David' <dlefcourt@cambridgema.gov>; aputnam <aputnam@cambridgema.gov»; 'Maggie Booz' < [email removed]»; ' Florrie Wescoat' <[email removed]> Sent: Wed, Jan 9, 2019 12:44 pm Subject: Ordinance Committee: Tree Protection Hearing, 1/10/18, 5:30 PM Dear Counciliors Carlone and Kelley, Chairs, and Ordinance Committee Members: 1. Only Reporting...? I support every effort to get a tally on tree removals. But, more important, we need vigor and rigor to effectively curtail tree removals and soon. If this amendment merely requires notice to the city arborist of planned tree removals for smaller projects, that's pretty minimal. 1

2. Proposed Amendment - Critical Omission! As I read it, the amendment would apply to the removal of a significant only if it is associated with a "project" that "requires" the tree's removal. But, what if there is no project other than the tree-removal itself? No reporting requirement at all? Say, for example, a property owner wants less shade or hates to rake leaves, may he or she simply the significant tree without even first reporting it? 3. Moratorium, with exceptions? I think a carefully crafted moratorium on removal of significant trees (with specified exceptions and, perhaps, a waiver process) should be seriously considered, even for smaller properties. For example, see Atlanta - https://tinyurl.com/y9vr49yg; South Miami - https://tinyurl.com/y72h9qlf; Lake Forest Park - https://tinyurl.com/ybtf2ebf. Thank you, as always, for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Carol O'Hare 172 Magazine St. 1. In fact, that's exactly what my long ago landlord did years ago. He shamelessly girdled two, healthy, mature ailanthus trees on his rental property, which killed them while standing. His rationale: "These trees have no value to me. No fruit. Just messy leaves to rake and dispose of." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girdling Cc: Donna Lopez, City Clerk - Please file this, including the supplement below, with the Official Record. References Proposed Amendment AMEND SECTION: 8.66.040 - Applicability This Chapter shall apply to all trees located on lots specified in the following sections: §8.66.050 and 8.66.055. This Chapter shall not apply to any project of the Affordable Housing Trust or otherwise for the construction of low and moderate-income housing meeting the standards established pursuant to any City, State or Federal housing program designed to assist low and moderate-income households. ADD SECTION: 8.66.055 - Procedure for Other Projects a. For any project not subject to 8.66.050, which requires removal of a significant tree, except for emergency circumstances, a permit request will first be submitted to the City Arborist. In all cases, the City Arborist shall keep a record of the type and size of tree removed, the reason for the removal, photographs of the tree documenting the reason for removal, the date, the contractors) involved, and the name and address of the property owner. Highlighting added Existing Cambridge Tree Ordinance: https://library.municode.com/ma/cambridge/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=TIT8HESA CH8.66TRPR This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com 2

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT R From: Pamela Hart <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 3:01 PM To: ordinancecommittee@cambridgemagov; Clerk Subject: hearing on tree laws Dear Councillors and staff, Please support a moratorium on cutting mature trees on private property until we can better determine how to reverse the current drastic loss of trees. Thank you. Pamela Hart

Lopez, Donna ATTACHMENT From: Catherine jaffe < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 5:48 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk Subject: Support the policy # regarding Cambridge trees Dear Clerk, Please register this correspondence into the council record. I am unable to attend the meeting now but | do want it known that I am completely against cutting down any more trees in Cambridge. We need our trees for so many reasons: just to name a few:including reduction of carbon, biodiversity and improved air quality. Sincerely Catherine Jaffe 1