Portland is losing a great many valuable trees due to rampant development. After much public outrage and several committee and commission meetings/hearings later, Portland City Council will at last address the issue (temporarily) on Thursday, March 3, 2016. For more background info, please see this post.
Over the past couple of months, staff from the Bureau of Parks and Recreation and from the Bureau of Development Services developed proposals intended as tree preservation “stop-gap” measures until Portland’s entire tree code (Title 11) can be fully examined and reformed. Their proposals were then considered by the Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC) and the Urban Forestry Commission (UFC). Subsequently, the PSC and the UFC each made separate recommendations to City Council. The initial staff proposals, the recommendations by the PSC and the UFC, and a table comparing those proposals and recommendations are available here. The UFC proposal appears to be the most reasonable and fair.
More recently, Commissioners Amanda Fritz and Dan Saltzman put together their own proposal (Fritz/Saltzman Proposal). Unfortunately, it’s possible that the council members will consider passing the Fritz/Saltzman proposal as is, even though it contains a number of weaknesses, such as exemptions for lots less than 5,000 sq. ft., exemptions for trees growing on city, commercial, and industrial properties, and a requirement that neighborhood notice be given only for trees greater than 36 inches (which are few). Their proposal essentially requires no real preservation.
Please offer testimony at the March 3 City Council meeting at 2 PM (Council Chambers at City Hall, 1221 SW 4th Ave). If that’s not possible, please email your comments (before March 3) to CCTestimony@portlandoregon.gov (or mail to 1221 SW 4th Ave., Room 130, Portland 97204). It’s best to put the following suggested talking points into your own words.
♦ Portland’s urban forest is dwindling, with large, valuable trees being replaced by species (mostly nonnative) that are small in form and benefits. There are very few huge trees in the city, and it’s important to note that many species (even highly beneficial native ones) do not grow to a large diameter (or they are extremely slow-growing, as in the case of Oregon white oak). Removing young trees will eventually result in a lack of mature trees that are so aesthetically and ecologically appealing. The Urban Forestry Commission’s recommendations state that “… roughly no more than 2% of trees currently standing in Portland would benefit from [the Parks or BDS proposals]. The PSC proposal would affect ~4% of all trees currently being permitted for removal as tallied by BDS in August 2015.”
♦ The threshold for very large trees should be no more than 30 inches DBH (diameter at breast height).
♦ Mitigation is not preservation—it merely puts a price on trees and does not protect them. For those with enough money, it’s a weak and ineffectual disincentive. True preservation prohibits tree destruction and requires developers to protect and build around existing trees. To be most effective, mitigation should be based on size, but also species (especially native species), via inch-for-inch replacement for trees 20 inches or greater (with no cap on total fee). For smaller trees, the old fee-in-lieu of preservation should be updated with Urban Forestry’s current and actual costs of labor and materials for planting a tree and providing it with 2 years of care.
♦ Amendments should not include an exemption for lots less than 5,000 sq. ft. since valuable, healthy trees certainly do exist on small lots. The UFC considers it “a significant loophole that is likely to allow significant unregulated and unmitigated removal of significant trees during development … [and] recommends that these provisions apply to lots 3,000 sq. ft. and larger.”
♦ Amendments should apply to trees on private property, but also street trees and trees on city, commercial, and industrial land. Wildlife in need of trees to survive doesn’t care what type of land trees live on!
♦ At least 30 days notice should be given to neighbors and neighborhood associations for all trees greater than 20 inches DBH. Furthermore, Type II reviews should be implemented whenever there are plans to destroy significant trees.
♦ Amendments should only be temporary and be in effect for no more than 3 years.
♦ A complete and comprehensive overhaul of Title 11 is essential following implementation of a temporary stop-gap measure. It should be funded and undertaken ASAP.