Petitioners urge limit on paved park paths to protect Cambridge tree canopy; planning board issues unfavorable recommendation

Marty Bacall, a petitioner, told the Cambridge Ordinance Committee that residents filed a citizen-initiated zoning change to curb the expansion of paved paths in parks and protect mature trees. Bacall said the petition would amend table 4.3 (transportation) to prohibit paved ways greater than 10 feet wide as a principal use in open-space districts and would limit increases of paved area within a contiguous open-space area to no more than 2 percent over a two-year period.

The petitioners framed the proposal as an implementation tool for the city’s Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP). "The city lost 18% of tree canopy," Bacall said, citing UFMP materials, and argued that wider paved paths reduce planting area, damage roots when excavated and increase local temperatures. He showed images from Dennehy Park and Linear Park to illustrate where designs and grading could cut into trees’ critical root zones and where permeable surfacing like stone dust may compact over time and become effectively impermeable.

At public comment, Jeb Mayes of North Cambridge urged approval, saying the petition would help protect canopy in heat-island neighborhoods and make parks safer for people using wheelchairs, strollers and walkers. "Limiting the pavement protects the mature trees that cool our neighborhoods," Mayes said.

Jeff Roberts, director of zoning and development in the Community Development Department, told the committee the Planning Board held a public hearing and ultimately issued an unfavorable recommendation. Roberts said the board supported the petitioners’ environmental goals but concluded that embedding pavement limits in zoning could be overly prescriptive, constrain the city’s ability to design and program parks, and create unintended consequences that would require frequent zoning relief.

Committee members pressed both sides on trade-offs. Councilor Susie said she sympathized with the goals but asked CDD staff whether zoning is the right tool or whether strengthening the city’s tree protection ordinance or incentives might better advance canopy goals. Assistant City Manager Melissa Peters said park design requires balancing multiple objectives — environment, access, play and connectivity — and that flexibility is important to accommodate site-specific constraints and ADA requirements.

Petitioners signaled a willingness to negotiate some details: one petitioner said the group was not "wedded" to the 10-foot number and would discuss alternatives such as special permits or variance pathways. Mr. Teague, another petitioner, praised DPW work but said the city has not fully implemented the UFMP across departments and described the petitioners’ role as advocates for better interdepartmental coordination.

Councilor Nolan, while acknowledging the petition’s intent to protect trees, said he was not inclined to advance the measure as presented because staff and the Planning Board raised concerns about loss of design flexibility and whether the zoning change would directly increase tree planting. "If that's the goal, then we should really be talking about our tree protection ordinance or how to incentivize trees," Nolan said.

Procedurally, the committee took a roll-call motion to close public comment; the clerk reported the motion passed with six members recorded in the affirmative and three absent. The committee did not take a final vote on the zoning petition during the meeting; members asked staff and petitioners to continue discussions about scope, ADA implications and possible alternative approaches.

The petitioners asked the committee to consider the petition citywide for open-space districts; staff and several councilors urged caution and recommended further work with CDD to identify measured language that protects trees without constraining site-specific design or required accessibility improvements.