Tag: CTP
How trees clean our water
This is the second excerpt on Growth Rings from a series written by Friends of Trees Crew Leader Neva Knott about the value of city trees. In January, we published the opening story of her blog, “Why Do You Plant Trees?“
“Urban forestry is a blend of social and scientific necessity. With 80 percent of the US population living in cities, care of city trees as natural resources takes on a much broader context. As explained by the US Forest Service, ‘urban forests are dynamic ecosystems that provide environmental, social, and economic benefits.’
“Along these lines, Portland’s Climate Action Plan for Urban Forestry and Natural Systems broadens the initiatives of Grey to Green and Friends of Trees. It includes safe-guarding against tree loss during development; treating trees as part of the infrastructure of the city; putting in place codes and policies to maximize tree preservation; expansion of private and public urban forestry programs; removal of regulatory obstacles; reduction of the heat island effect caused by development. This, for sure, is a new way of thinking. Fresh, and aligned with the science of climate change as well as the ideas behind livable cities.
Citywide Tree Project to be revisited on March 9
On February 2, nearly a hundred people spoke out about proposed reforms to Portland’s city tree policies (the Citywide Tree Project): 43 testified before City Council and 55 wrote letters. City Council will address concerns raised at the meeting during another public meeting on March 9 at 2 p.m.
Despite Portlanders’ obvious passion for trees—City Commissioner Amanda Fritz commented on how great it was “to see both chambers filled” on February 2—reforming city policies is clearly taking time.
Reforms were first recommended by concerned citizens in southwest Portland more than five years ago. And last year, Portland’s Urban Forestry Commission and the Portland Planning Commission (now the Portland Planning & Sustainability Commission) held a series of public hearings on the reforms before unanimously approving the recommendations discussed on February 2.
Key points of the proposal include consolidating and simplifying city tree codes, providing more education and outreach about the value of planting and caring for city trees, and establishing regulations that provide more protection for existing trees.
The benefits
People who testified at this month’s meeting came from across Portland. They included homeowners, city planners, developers, and representatives from numerous city commissions, bureaus, and watershed councils. Among them were representatives from Metro, Portland Fire & Rescue, the Urban Green Spaces Institute, Audubon Society of Portland, East Multnomah Soil & Water Conservation District, and Friends of Trees.
At the meeting, Roberta Jortner of Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services, one of the staff members who spearheaded the Citywide Tree Project, said it was important to recognize trees as a “citywide asset” providing almost $40 million in benefits a year.
Mike Rosen, manager of the Watershed Division of Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services, noted that trees clean our air, cool our homes, provide habitat, cool and retain stormwater runoff, and protect pipe infrastructure. “Urban tree canopy is rapidly emerging to be one of our most important and productive infrastructure assets,” he said.
Friends of Trees
What Portland has done to improve our urban natural areas in the last 20 years, said Friends of Trees board member Fred Nilsen, the city needs to do for our “built environment.”
Nilsen has lived in the Richmond neighborhood for 34 years, worked for Portland Parks & Recreation for 30 years, and managed Hoyt Arboretum for 22 of those 30 years.
About Friends of Trees, he said, “I truly believe in its mission. … It both addresses the need for trees and it involves hundreds of citizens and community volunteers.”
Friends of Trees Executive Director Scott Fogarty was among the stakeholders who worked on the Citywide Tree Project for the past three and a half years.
“Dramatic increases in tree planting efforts over the past decade are undermined by lack of protection and mitigation requirements for trees on much of our landscape, confusing and sometimes contradictory regulations, lack of education outreach resources, and insufficient enforcement capabilities,” he stated in written testimony.
The challenges
One Portland resident told City Council about her attempts on a Sunday morning to stop the removal of many trees across from her home, including an 18-inch Douglas-fir. In the end, though the builder who cut the trees had not obtained the required permits to cut down the trees, he was only fined $500.
“It’s time to put our money where our mouth is,” said Nancy Seton, chair of the Southwest Hills Residential League Neighborhood Association’s Land Use/Planning Committee. “Without healthy, mature trees, we could be sliding down the hill into Goose Hollow or onto Highway 26.”
A good deal of controversy centered on whether Ladd’s Addition should be allowed an exception to the city’s restrictions on planting Norway Maples, which produce numerous seeds that travel many miles and threaten native species in natural areas. In addition, Norway Maples are susceptible to verticillium wilt, which is retained in the soil after a diseased tree has been removed and can infect new Norway Maples planted in the same location.
The February City Council meeting concluded with a call for delegates from the city’s Bureau of Environmental Services, Bureau of Development Services, Bureau of Planning & Sustainability, Portland Parks & Recreation, and a bureau overseen by Commissioner Fritz to review the testimony, proposed amendments, and input from city commissioners. The delegates will document the points they agree on as well as their points of disagreement, providing pros and cons for each point of disagreement.
What you can do
This city web page provides links to proposed amendments, submitted testimony, and a video of the February 2 City Council meeting. You can also read about a growing awareness across the country of the economic benefits that city trees provide in this Winter 2011 Wilson Quarterly article.
All are encouraged to comment on the Citywide Tree Project before the March 9 meeting. You can mail, fax, or email your comments to:
Council Clerk
1221 SW Fourth Avenue, Room 140
Portland, OR 97204
Fax: 503-823-4571
[email protected]
And, of course, the public is invited to testify on March 9. Most likely the new draft of the tree policy reform proposal will be ready for the City Council’s vote at that time.
–TR
Appreciating Oregon’s Trees
Scott Fogarty’s OregonLive guest column, Appreciating Oregon’s Trees, outlines a visionary way of valuing trees.
An excerpt from the piece:
By recognizing trees as capital assets, the I-205 project secured funding through a Nature in Neighborhoods capital grant from Metro’s 2006 voter-approved natural areas bond measure. The result: Thousands of native trees and shrubs will serve the neighborhoods and cities along the path—and the entire region–for years to come. And if ODOT Region 1 succeeds in inspiring other ODOT regions to fund greening of transportation corridors, Oregon may become a model for other states.
Greening our cities and transportation corridors encourages active, healthy lifestyles, protects our drinking water and cleans our air — reducing pollutants that exacerbate asthma and other respiratory diseases.
It also secures jobs in Oregon’s number two agricultural industry, the nursery industry. That’s one reason Boring-based tree grower J. Frank Schmidt & Son Co. has joined a budding list of local businesses supporting the I-205 greening project. Planting more trees in the “nursery state” provides jobs for arborists, city workers and others who maintain the trees’ health.
The piece concludes:
Considering trees as assets is a capital idea. It’s good for Oregon and our citizens. It’s time our state, known for its forestry industry as well as its green innovations, shows that its trees are appreciated.
Read the complete story here.
–Teri Ruch
Neighborhood Greenways means Neighborhood Trees
A new exclusive interview published today on BikePortland.org explains one of the main reasons why the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) changed the name Bike Boulevards to Neighborhood Greenways: trees.
Excerpts from the article:
The main reason for the change is to better reflect what these projects are all about. PBOT realizes that by calling them “bike boulevards,” some Portlanders instantly bristle and come to project open houses armed for battle against them. PBOT hopes the new name won’t elicit such a negative reaction to the non-biking public.
This conversation, according to PBOT traffic safety staffer Greg Raisman, will move PBOT from merely talking about transportation to a more concerted focus on “placemaking and community building.” One way to do that is by making more green spaces on our streets. Raisman says PBOT is working with Friends of Trees to place new street trees along entire routes of new neighborhood greenway projects. On one project in the works, there’s an idea to extend a park completely across the existing street (NE Holman) and maintain a cut-through only for bikes.
In addition to this exciting discussion, street tree policy in Portland is taking shape in accordance with the Citywide Tree Project (CTP) and the Portland Plan, too.
What do we think of combining bike traffic and street trees?
–Toshio Suzuki
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