Public urges commissions for tree policy action
An overwhelming majority of testimony Tuesday night supported moving the Citywide Tree Project (CTP) forward to a vote by the Portland City Council.
About two dozen speakers—neighborhood association leaders, research scientists, concerned citizens, home builders and nonprofit leaders—testified in front of the Urban Forestry Commission and Planning Commission.
An analysis of all the public testimony, written and oral, shows that 33 submissions were in support, one was a no-vote, and three were against.
“Clearly, most speakers were interested in a system that promotes preservation of existing canopy, especially large trees,” said CTP Project Manager Roberta Jortner.
Bob Sallinger, conservation director for the Audubon Society of Portland, echoed a common sentiment among tree stewards that the biggest and most important challenge for the city is to preserve and protect the exiting trees in the ground.
“This is a wise and prudent investment,” said Sallinger, who also spoke on behalf of the Coalition for a Livable Future and the Urban Greenspaces Institute. “We’re simply not taking care of our trees to the extent that we should.”
Calling the benefits from trees “leaky,” U.S. forestry scientist Geoffrey Donovan used a banana to symbolize something—unlike a tree—that only benefits one person.
“If I was to plant a tree, she would benefit,” said Donovan, gesturing to a colleague sitting next to him, “Indeed, it would be hard to exclude her from those benefits.”
Issues like the protection of snags as important bird habitat, arborist training on new policy and enforcement of code were reiterated throughout the proceeding.
Of the two who spoke in obvious opposition, both represented home development and mentioned Portland’s urban growth boundary as a factor in tree conservation.
“This tree policy still creates a lot of problems for the housing industry,” said Jeffrey Fish, a local builder who took part in CTP stakeholder meetings. “We need to sit down and model this.”
Representing the Oregon Home Builders Association, Tom Skaar called the CTP “a work in progress” and the 26-33 percent canopy goal of the city “somewhat arbitrary.”
“A lot of the impetus behind this is not only tree preservation but infill development,” said Skaar. “We believe our region has done a good job at tree canopy protection already.”
Jortner and the other managers from the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability are aware of the issues, as they have come up during the 30-month process.
“The question is how best to improve tree preservation and tree canopy in Portland, while also meeting city goals for development and infill to maintain a compact urban form,” said Jortner.
Public municipalities weighed in on the CTP, too.
The water bureau and the Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) supported the measure while the Bureau of Development Services came out against.
All bureaus provided countless written suggestions for refinement. One of particular note came from the water bureau, suggesting a minimum size tree that apply to the city code.
Despite the lingering economic climate and strained city budgets, Jortner said she is hopeful to bring a revised proposal to the city council by summer.
For Ginger Edwards of the Arbor Lodge Neighborhood who shared her testimony, soon is likely a relative term.
Edwards lost a 38-inch diameter oak tree because it resided on a property line, leaving her helpless to intervene with the neighbor, the city or the developer.
“The tree is gone,” said Edwards. “This tree policy could have helped save that tree.”
–Toshio Suzuki