 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
MEMO BLOG | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | Home |
LEE PERLMAN
THE MID-COUNTY MEMO
 |
| After a lengthy process, trees like these Douglas Firs at John Luby Park, and those on private property will soon come under an agreed upon set of regulations. TIM CURRAN/Mid-county Memo |
 |
 |
| Tortured trees like these, on common areas near private property, will come under the new regulations when approved. |
Three years in the making, the project would rewrite the city's laws on the planting, cutting and pruning of trees on all public and private land. In the words of Project Manager Roberta Jortner, it would set “clear, objective standards” for actions, “flexibility” in regulations governing development, and a 24-hour hotline for reporting violations. (Regarding this last, Jortner suggested calling 911 to report a violation in progress on a weekend. Commissioners Randy Leonard and Amanda Fritz protested that this is not proper use of the emergency response number.)
Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission Chair Don Hanson, whose commission reviewed the proposal, said that in the course of several meetings different groups protested that it “goes too far and not far enough.” Current regulations regarding trees are “a mess, hard to find and inconsistent.” By contrast, the proposed rules are “understandable, rational and clear,” he said.
One of the plan's most controversial features is new regulations for tree cutting on developed single-family home sites.
Several homebuilders criticized aspects of the proposal, with varying degrees of negativity, saying that increased regulation and fees would retard development. One, John Fiocchi, said, “I'm just about ready to move out of the city” due to such issues. While saying that he “loves trees,” and that he understood the proposal's “lofty goals,” he complained that development fees now amount to $33,000 per unit, of which $8,500 currently relate to trees. More fundamentally, he said, “This is my private property: I own it, I bought it, I pay taxes on it.” Turning to council he said, “You guys are all smart; look into this more.”
Other developers called for specific changes in the proposal. For instance, it would currently exempt lots smaller than 3,000 square feet, and development projects with more than 90 percent lot coverage, from regulation; builders propose to change these numbers to 5,000 square feet and 80 percent, respectively. Some complained that the proposals made the code too complex.
In contrast, southwest Portland resident Simone Goldfedder said the draft provided “many options to approach a (development) site instead of a prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach. There's no one solution, but many possibilities.” She added, “It's clear that much of the existing canopy is in the more affluent parts of the city. Loss of canopy affects the form and health of neighborhoods.” The new regulations on development offer “many options instead of a prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach. This doesn't limit an owner's right to develop; it only emphasizes the importance of tree preservation.”
Jim Chasse of the Powellhurst-Gilbert neighborhood also brought up the issue of geographic equity. “We've probably seen more canopy removed than any other neighborhood,” he said. For violations, “The fines need to be more stringent,” he said. “For neighborhoods that are rapidly developing, this is very important.”
Mid-County parks advocate Linda Robinson, responding to the criticism that the proposals made the code too complex, replied, “It's not, not compared to what we have now. Much of what is in the document is background. Inspections need to be made by people with tree knowledge. We need to fund public education and incentives for preservation.”
Some advocates felt the proposals did not go far enough. Annette Mattson of Lents said, “I'm mostly in favor of this. Policies until now have been confusing and inadequate.” However, she said, “The proposed changes are not enough. Penalties for violations should be significant enough to be a deterrent, not just a nuisance.” Further, she said, any fees received from tree-related issues should be spent where they were collected. Mattson did agree those lots of 3,000 square feet or less should be exempt from regulations but added, “Too much of east Portland is zoned for 3,000 square foot lots. We have too many clear cuts.”
The proposals would require permits for tree cutting on developed single-family lots, but would not require the replacement of cut trees, on the lot or elsewhere, if they were less than 20 inches in diameter. Both Chasse and Robinson felt that this was too large, and the replacement requirement should apply to any tree over 12 inches.
So did Bob Sallinger of the Portland Audubon Society, who warned, “We're losing trees for a variety of reasons.” He also said the regulations should apply to all properties regardless of size; owners could always meet requirements by planting trees off-site, he said. “The cost is a bargain, and you get a great return on your investment,” he said. Regarding requirements for the planting and preservation of trees on industrial lands he said, “Postpone this discussion if you have to do anything at all, but don't exempt them.”
Mike Houck, one of the city's best-known naturalists, said, “We're spent a lot of time looking at the details. It makes no sense not to pass this ordinance.”
Arborist Lorin Fielding of Scappoose argued against the new regulations, saying, “Personal property rights are quite dear to most people. What we have in place is quite adequate.” Requiring people to replace a 20-inch tree after cutting it down could be an incentive to cut it before it reached that size, she said.
Another arborist, Jim Wentworth Plato, told the council, “You should approve and fund this.” To those intimidated by the size of the project document, he noted that only 20 percent of this contained regulations, with the rest being background.
Zari Santner, Bureau of Parks director, and Mike Rossen of the Bureau of Development Services' Watershed Division endorsed the proposal. Paul Scarlet, director of the Bureau of Development Services, said he supported the project's goals, but had concerns about some of its specifics, and especially its complexity.
Leonard, who oversees BDS, complained at length that a bureau planner, Rebecca Esau, had not had a chance to see a set of proposed amendments. “Communication between the bureaus has not been as good as it should be,” he complained. Mayor Sam Adams suggested that representatives of affected bureaus meet, attempt to resolve their differences, and reach agreement by March 9. To this Susan Anderson, director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, replied, “I'm virtually sure there won't be 100 percent agreement.”
Fritz said she would propose some amendments of her own. Commissioner Dan Saltzman said that the goal should be on public education as to the rules. “I'm less interested in penalizing people for illegal tree cutting than in preventing it in the first place,” he said.
Council scheduled the matter again at 2 p.m. March 16.
 |
 |
 |
 |
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home