Attached is a good discussion of our tree canopy. Ruth From: <livablecambridge@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Patricia Nolan <pattynolanz@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 9:17 PM To: "Blier, Suzanne" <blier@fas.harvard.edu> Cc: Gilberte Houbart <ghoubart@gmail.com>, Lee Farris <Lee@leefarris.net>, Subject:Re: Tree Protection Hearing All: Attached is the presentation, which is a public document Lots of information - clear the city has spent time thinking about this issueand raised good questions and laid out options to consider. Patty On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 6:58 PM Blier, Suzanne <blier@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: Great summary and questions – see my comments below! From: Gilberte Houbart <ghoubart@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 6:42 PM To: "Blier, Suzanne" <blier@fas.harvard.edu> Cc: Lee Farris <Lee@leefarris.net>, Subject: Re: Tree Protection Hearing I attended the hearing today and I'm still trying to wrap my head around the various aspects of the issue before I write to the council members. I'd love to have a copy of the deck presented but here are some high level items that really resonated with me (please correct any mistakes or misunderstandings): ask for it –patty? - Except for MIT area 2 (athletic fields), east Cambridge is already very dense (not much room to plant trees). Yes. - Most of the canopy is in west Cambridge (which is clear just by looking at a Google earth map and walking around) (this is also the area targeted for increased density based on the recent housing overlay that was passed). Yes! - Most of the loss is due to trees cut on private property (yes? numbers were shared) My guess is that most of the tree loss is in Condo conversions and similar “upgrading” of properties – as well as developers (commercial and housing). - A very significant part of the tree canopy is on private property (70-80% verify this) Probably - In 10 years about 150 ha were lost (another way to look at the 20% of canopy loss) - To make up for the loss we need to plant 2,700 trees /year (which appears to be unrealistic given the rate of on-going loss as well, lack of resources to plant, prune and maintain trees). I have been in a hearing pre-Covid where new crabapple trees well established in East Cambridge were removed to be replaced by "newer" trees because they were in the way.... No way we can do that, and there is a HUGE loss of newly planted trees (60-70% loss plus all the decades to get to maturity). And the cost! - Funds in Tree Trust are ONLY for trees on public property. Suggestion was made to earmark funds to help plant on private property. Yes Good point - but you can ask for one on your street front. - the presentation included creating the category of "exceptional tree" which I thought was great (over 30" in diameter). These trees would be handled with specific rules to recognize their unique value. I believe they represent 3% of the canopy (and again more often than not on private property and most likely - yes? - attached to single family homes that have the land to host them). 30 is massive – why not 20? - There are 6 categories of situations when one applies to cut a tree (dead or dangerous (73%), emergency e.g after storm, utility work necessity, city park, ...). - Mitigation is a big issue when it comes down to authorizing to cut a healthy tree - you can buy the right to cut a tree (which I find very troubling) ????? (just say no). We don’t allow people to buy the right not to include affordable housing. - various "make up" strategies were presenting, the current ones don't seem to differentiate very well the real value of a true (i.e. one mature tree is worth a lot more than 6 or 8 trees if you go by diameter). Exactly. - it does not take into account tree size (mature trees in particular). Key point - would like to educate and encourage property owners (developers?) in planting trees rather than just paying into the tree fund. Also in the importance of maintaining trees. - you are not obligated to replant a dead tree (which seems odd to me). Interesting and important, because in my experience, trees are often taken down to put a building there instead, although some trees are too close to the foundations so one would not want to replace them so close. - Budget is needed to hire a crew (or expand it?) to not only plant but also prune and maintain trees, monitor what happens after a tree is cut (i.e. that the owner or developer actually does what they committed to). Prune and maintain trees is key on private and public lands. Suggestions made during the hearing - Attach tree rules to regular building permits (not sure if I got that right, seems like it would be for any building permit). Good - Dennis Carlone asked why pick 30" for exceptional trees, 24" would still be very large. Seems like a standard. This is somewhat like landmarking certain trees which I like - Low income owners are exempt from paying but 1) it was suggested that if the property is sold for a significant amount then the fee could be paid once the transaction is complete, 2) the city could step up to help. OK – but then the owner would already be in a better financial position. - Same if cutting a tree is part of an Affordable Housing project. They should NOT be cutting mature trees for AHO or any other development. I thought this was a no go o - One member of the public spoke (Chris Schmidt) asked 1) to be proactive in maintenance protecting trees before utility companies cut them to the point where the tree has reduced changes of survival, 2) incentivize private owners. OK - Patty Nolan suggested efforts to "extend" the life of existing trees - NYC pledge to plant 1M trees. NYC is MUCH bigger, but good to extend life. It cost $850 per inch to "buy the right to cut" a tree: $6,800 for an 8" tree. If you own a multi-million dollar home I would guess that this might not be sufficiently dissuasive. At least it does happen. Interesting! ---- The idea of creating a category for "exceptional" trees with special protection recognizes the special value of those trees to the ecosystem and to prevent heat pockets very effectively. Consider writing to the Council in support of that. Yes. Affordable Housing and trees: my understanding is that, as it was voted, the AHO leaves it at the discretion of the developer to take down trees of any size and they could be large mature trees 30" or more. This tree ordinance would have to include protection for trees on land purchased for affordable housing development. Yes. It needs to include affordable housing. Lower income residents also need trees. Realistically, if a backyard is eliminated to increase density, chances are it won't be possible to replant trees that were cut. My guess is that it's what happened in East Cambridge over the years. Yes that is a huge problem with this push to add even more density to an already OVER DENSE city. More meetings will take place on this topic due to reach a conclusion on the exact language in December when the current ordinance expires. Consider writing about your ideas and concerns (council@cambridgema.gov, and cc: clerk@cambridgema.gov) All the best, Gilberte On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:45 PM Blier, Suzanne <blier@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: Thanks for sending – I just wrote to Council re. tree protection. From: East Cambridge Planning Team <east-cambridge-planning-team@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Lee Farris <Lee@LeeFarris.net> Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 1:43 PM To: Cambridge Residents Alliance google doc <cambridge-residents-alliance-core@googlegroups.com>, Cambridge Neighborhood Association Google Group <association-of-cambridge-neighborhoods@googlegroups.com> Cc: East Cambridge Planning Team <east-cambridge-planning-team@googlegroups.com>, Fresh Pond Residents Alliance <fresh-pond-residents-alliance@googlegroups.com> Subject: [ ECPT ] Link Re: Today, 3pm: Tree Protection Hearing; Wed.: Broadband, Traffic Enforcement by Police For the Tree Protection Hearing, here is the direct link for public comment and watching via Zoom (two separate links): https://www.cambridgema.gov/citycalendar/view.aspx?guid=b898e7d2dce6442c8fca... On Oct 13, 2020, at 12:57 PM, Lee Farris <Lee@LeeFarris.net> wrote: Hi neighbors, I wanted to let you know about three Council hearings this week: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 3:00 PM The Health & Environment Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force. See agenda and more info below. Wednesday, October 14, 2020 10:00 AM The Public Safety Committee will meet to discuss traffic enforcement and PO 2020 #178. (Whether personnel other than police should do traffic enforcement.) Wednesday, October 14, 2020 2:00 PM The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the process for conducting the feasibility study for municipal broadband and the Request for Proposal. Best, Lee -- View this message at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/portersquare/topic-id/message-id -- To post to this group, send email to portersquare@googlegroups.com Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/portersquare To unsubscribe from this group, send email to portersquare+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Porter Square Neighbors Association" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to portersquare+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/portersquare/409A9AF6-8B2F-4BC3-B410-81EB3....