City Council - Regular Meeting

MEDFORD CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, JULY 14, 2026, IS CALLED TO ORDER. MR. CLARK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

COUNCIL KELLEY. SECOND. COUNCIL LEMMING. PRESENT. COUNCIL MOLANE.

PRESENT.

COUNCIL SCOTT PELLEY. COUNCIL SCOTT PELLEY IS ABSENT. COUNCIL SINGH. I MOVE. VICE PRESIDENT LOZARO. Vice President Lazaro is absent and President Beers.

Present, five present, two absent. The meeting is called to order. Action and discussion items, 19-070 offered by Councillor Callahan, public tree ordinance. This will be a discussion of the public tree ordinance that we've been working on in some form since 2019. So let's finish it. I'm gonna pass it to Councillor Callahan.

Thank you. I always like to give a little bit of an overview for folks who maybe are tuning in tonight, but we're not following along since 2019. So this is a, we have three tree ordinances that we're working on to try and protect our trees and make sure we have a beautiful tree canopy here in Medford. The first one was the Tree Committee, which we passed this past November, and the Tree Committee is currently getting appointments and will soon be staffed with, not staffed, but it will soon have people on it, and it will be doing some good work. This ordinance is the Public Trees Ordinance. And essentially, it is asking the city to uphold what was written out in our urban tree management plan. So, you know, it just talks a little bit about, it has some definitions, and then it talks about notification for when trees are being removed. It explicitly states that we will do our best to go along with the urban forest management plan. So you know, it just has a number of things in it that basically help our city to follow through with our ability to support and sustain our tree canopy. Since the last time we met on this, which was last year, I have been in extensive conversations with the Department of Public Works, We've gone back and forth also with Therese Medford. And to that end there at the last minute there in the last couple of weeks, there were a couple of tiny changes requested by Therese Medford, then by the administration and by Therese Medford. And so I will be asking for one small amendment. But I'm excited for this relatively simple ordinance that I think will go a long way toward us having long term goals and maintenance of our beautiful tree canopy here in Medford. If you'd like, I would be happy to go ahead and state my amendment, which I believe I did also send to the city clerk. If that would be helpful at this point, I could do that.

That would be great.

Great. So currently there is a little bit of text in what people received today or received in the packet a few days ago that says, and this was a request, it was removed and it was re-added and so we've gone back and forth, and it says if a tree is removed from the sidewalk strip, the tree committee and residents within a block of the site must be informed of the intent to remove the tree and the plan for stump removal and replacement. And then heard back from our DPW commissioner that the word block is not a great word to use because sometimes our blocks are super short and sometimes they're super long. so he was preferring a little bit of different verbiage there and also they don't always replace a tree specifically in that spot because there may be a different spot that is nearby but would call you know for they may have reasons why um they might not exactly replace a tree so we workshopped it and um came up with language that everyone was happy with and I'll read the new language it says if a tree is removed from the sidewalk strip the tree committee and nearby residents shall be informed of the intent to remove the tree the anticipated schedule for stump removal and if known the plan for tree planting at that site the notice shall include contact information for obtaining information information regarding future tree planting and with that one amendment i feel pretty confident in saying that the administration is happy with this ordinance the trees medford folks are happy with this ordinance and i'm i'm hoping that after many years of waiting we can move forward with it great could you re-forward that amendment to the clerk just so we have it for the record i can i did send it by email we got it wonderful all right great um any comments from city councillors on this

proposed ordinance or the proposed amendment. Councillor Sang.

Thank you, President Behrs. Thank you for your presentation, Councillor Callahan, and for working so hard on it. I know this is this has been in front of the council for years and years before my time as a councillor. That was over five years ago. So real, real effort being put into this. And I think props have to be given to members of the community who've also really been pushing for this to get over the finish line. My question is about the penalties, the enforcement and penalties. Could you give us a sense? I mean, I have the language here, but could you explain to the public what those look like?

Hang on. Sorry, this copy is looks very different. Let me just take a look at the copy that I have. Sorry for the short delay here. Okay, enforcement and penalties. Citizen removal of a public tree. So this is only public trees. This is like if you cut down a sidewalk tree, right? If you cut down a tree in a park, right? I don't know that anybody has ever done that. So, but it says any person or entity damaging or removing a public tree without authority will be fined and the fines will be deposited in the tree fund. Enforcement shall be by the tree warden or the tree warden's designee or the police. Citizens may report damage or removal of public trees to the tree warden. Penalties. Any person who violates any section of this ordinance or violates any stipulation of a permit issued pursuant to this ordinance shall be fined and the fine shall consist of the cost of compensating the city for the cost of replacing the canopy that was lost. So there's a little bit more in there about how it's calculated, but that's essentially what is being talked about. But again, this is not for removing a tree on your property. This is only if you are chopping down a tree that is on a sidewalk or in a public park.

I just have a follow-up question.

Yep. Great. So I think the, from the section you read out, the fine is the sum of preparing the site, planting the young trees at the current, like whatever the contract rate is, the salaries and costs for the staff time of taking care of those trees. I wonder, so let's say there's an old public tree, it has pretty big, coverage, but the site maybe isn't huge. And so the DPW, let's say maybe it's like four trees that would comprise that, four young trees that would comprise that coverage. But because of some space constraints or because of the soil or geography or something, the city decides to plant just one or two trees in place. Do you know if the fine would be determined by the number of trees of the canopy coverage or by how many trees are actually planted to replace that tree being cut down?

I don't know anything beyond the text of the ordinance, which was run by the DPW and by KP Law and others. But outside of what the text says, I don't. I can't answer that question.

I just think it's maybe something we should try to clarify, just in case those numbers are different from each other. I could see this being somewhat, I mean, I don't know enough about tree plantings to know how often that is the case, but if it does come up, I think perhaps it's something we could clarify.

So you're, if I may, you're saying that in the situation that a large tree comes down, because it is pretty clear the compensation shall be calculated by measuring the canopy cover using recent aerial photography, determining the number of young trees that would have the equivalent canopy coverage, and then the sum of what you described. So what you're saying is if an old tree is taken down,

but there isn't enough room to... Yeah, let's say for whatever reason, maybe because of soil health reasons or because maybe there are rocks on site, it's just kind of impractical to plant the number of trees that would make up for the total canopy coverage. I guess like the language in here, I could just see it being contested because This I would I would guess that the the sentence with the word summon it is the operative sentence of how the fine is. Determined but it's saying planting those young trees and those I think refers to the number of young trees that would have the equivalent canopy coverage, but then the second half of the fine the some sentence. kind of suggests that we're really just looking at the number of trees that we end up planting in that place. So I think those two, I could see those two numbers potentially being different. And I just think maybe that's something we can iron out either tonight or get even if we report a committee to try to get Commissioner McGivern's input on just that hypothetical. But Yeah. I mean, again, I really appreciate all the work that's put into this. This is, I think, going to be really helpful for the city.

Do you have a language suggestion?

I think either... Let me take a look at it. I think there must be some suggestion I can come up with.

All right. Any other councillors have a comment on this proposed ordinance? Councillor Mullane.

Thank you, Councillor Callahan for bringing this up. I think this is great and certainly as we're seeing this kind of ordinance is needed more and more in terms of protecting our trees. I think the only questions I just had were just around the tree fund itself and I'm assuming this is something that would be managed by, or I guess I should ask, is this something that would be managed by the DPW, by the tree warden? Is this something that people could donate towards? Like how exactly would the tree fund work? What would be its purpose and who kind of would oversee kind of management budget of it?

Yeah, the tree fund is actually defined in this. And so I'll just read it for folks who may be listening in. An account established pursuant to this ordinance for the deposit of payments for mitigating tree removal in lieu of tree replanting. This fund may only be expended as a means of promoting a healthy tree canopy and will be applied to the cost of site preparation, tree replanting, and new tree maintenance. So do you mind re-asking your question?

Yeah, sure. So is this something that's like, is the oversight by DPW? Is it oversight by the tree warden? where would the budget or what would that look like in terms of what the needs might be for utilizing this type of fund? That is such a great question.

I will admit to being like these a lot of this has been so long and out of committee and so let me see if i can find some information on that or i don't know if the counselors have been here longer than i have because this was originally you know something um from uh counselor morel um so if anybody else has a memory of that i missed your question It's about the tree fund and like under what department is that fund? Like who would manage it? Is it DPW or is it?

I think it's the tree. Is it the tree warden? DPW tree warden, yeah.

All of it and then, okay.

Yeah, well commissioner of DPW and tree warden.

Okay, and it's a fundraising account I'm assuming if people wanted to give towards it or something as well or?

I think so. I think it's a special. Special. Special revenue fund.

Okay, great, terrific. Yeah. Great, thank you.

Any further comments by members of the council or questions? Councilor Hsing.

This is just to go back to penalties. I've kind of created two, I think they're not the most artfully written sentences, but I think they convey both options. So the first one being, This compensation shall be calculated by measuring the canopy cover using recent aerial photography such as Google Maps coverage or aerial photography. Actually, I feel like the second aerial photography is a little redundant. I agree. Reading out loud. Using recent aerial photography such as Google Maps coverage, determining the number of trees that would have the equivalent canopy coverage. The fine shall be the sum of the cost of preparing the site, planting replacement trees at the current rate, and salaries and costs for staff time for selecting, watering, and monitoring those trees. So that would be, that phrasing is for just however many trees are used to replace it. The second phrasing I have is based on canopy coverage, so it would be likely a higher number. This compensation shall be calculated by measuring the canopy cover using recent aerial photography, such as Google Maps coverage, determining the number of young trees that would have the equivalent canopy coverage. The fine shall be the sum of the cost of preparing the site, planting that number of trees at the current contract rate. And salaries and costs for staff time for selecting watering and monitoring, monitoring replacement trees. So there's those are Yeah, the question is, on a policy kind of, yeah, which the council prefers, which the council prefers.

Does everybody, so just to be clear, the question is, do we want to write it such that you're fined for the number of trees that we should plant or that you're fined for the number of trees that we actually do plant?

Great way to put it.

Sorry. I'd be, well, does anyone else have a thought? This has to go out of committee anyway. I think it's worth just passing that by DPW and I guess KP Law. Both of them. I don't know if there's a difference in what the city's authority would be.

Yeah, I don't know either.

The other thing I would say is that because they don't always plant within a certain amount of time, they may not have a plan when they need to extract the penalty. So in that case, I think the should is the only known. So that might have to be. That might be the only realistic option. Yeah, that makes sense.

I mean, I'd be OK also just voting this out of committee tonight and then for you to go back to DPW and KP Law to ask about if they have a preference. Honestly, my preference is what they prefer. So and then when this comes before regular account, like regular session, we can make amendments as necessary.

Yep.

Great. Any further comments on the motion? Oh, go ahead, Councillor Callahan.

My only final comment is I just really want to thank the volunteers at Trees Medford who have spent many, many years and done incredible amounts of research. They're happy to work with the administration. They are just excellent members of the team. They're optimistic, they're patient. They've been absolutely fantastic to work with. So I really want to make sure that they get a big shout out. Great.

Thank you, Councillor Callahan. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to refer the paper out of committee to the regular meeting as amended and with the questions offered by Councilor Tseng for DPW and KP Law, seconded by Councilor Mullane.

With my amendment?

Yes, as amended. Are there any further comments from members of the Council? All right, are there any comments by members of the public? Please raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in the chamber and you will have three minutes. Give me just a moment. I see Sarah. Sarah, if you could just give your name and city for the record, and you will have 3 minutes. Oh, sorry, I asked you to unmute. You're going to have to accept.

Hi, I'm Sarah Gerald and I'm in Medford and I am with Greece Medford. When the item that Councillor Seng mentioned was envisioned, it was envisioned as a compensation for the city for the entire canopy that was removed. And because of that, even though the trees may not be planted in that identical place, I would urge the council to accept that as the original and as the intent of that penalty section. In other words, if only one small tree is planted then the intent is not fulfilled. Trees, multiple trees can be planted nearby or in or the end that the money can be deposited in any case into the tree fund for safekeeping until that happens. That's all I have.

Thank you, Sarah. Any further public comments? Seeing none on the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

Councillor Kellyanne. Yes. Councillor Lemming. Yes. Councillor Mullane. Yes. Councillor Scarpelli is absent. Councillor Singh.

Yes.

Vice President Lazaro. Yes. And President Pierce.

Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Is there a motion on the motion to adjourn by Vice President Lazaro, seconded by seconded by Councillor Mullane. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

Councillor Callahan. Yes. Councillor Lemming.

Yes.

Councillor Mullane. Yes. Councillor Squirtle is absent. Councillor Singh.

Yes.

Vice President Lazaro. Yes. And President Peirce.

Yes. Sixth affirmative, one absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. We'll reconvene at 7 p.m. for a regular meeting. Thank you.