Street Roots • April 1-7, 2016
STUMPTOWIM, from page 11
This is not to say that zoning never
comes into conflict with tree preservation.
Some local governments, including Portland,
have made bad zoning decisions that have
put trees in conflict with development But
those are just that, bad zoning decisions
that should be corrected, in part, through
smarter regulations that allow or require
more tree preservation. To suggest the
UGB or regional density goals are
responsible for local tree removal is to
distract from the real threats to a healthier,
more diverse urban forest
Myth # 5 Preserving more trees will
make Portland unaffordable. This argument
needlessly pits tree advocates against
affordable housing advocates by posing
another false choice. First, as noted above,
even a strengthened tree code need not
reduce housing supply which is only
partially related to land supply. Second, the
cost of preserving and planting trees is
small compared to the cost of permitting,
designing and constructing new
developments. The impact on affordability is
even smaller when you consider these costs
are as likely to be passed on to the previous
landowner (in the purchase price for land)
as they are to future homeowners.
Third, trees provide important public
health benefits such as reduced urban heat
island effect and improved air quality that
maintain and improve human health; these
values should not be pitted against
affordable housing. Cutting one to achieve
the other should be unacceptable. It was not
lo n g ago some developers used the same
arguments to fight stormwater management
re-quirements to control pollution. Today,
these requirements are simply another cost
of doing business and help create safer,
healthier, and cleaner neighborhoods for
everyone. Sensible tree preservation and
planting requirements should be no
different.
Portland is facing an affordability crisis
and Portlanders should be strong advocates
for both af-fordable communities and a
healthy urban forest. It turns out, there are
Commentary
plenty of City policies that negatively and
significantly impact housing affordability and
create even less space for trees. One of the
biggest culprits is parking (Myth #7).
Research by the city of Portland found that
parking requirements can add between
$3,000-$45,000 per parking space to the
cost of developing each new housing unit.
Myth #6 Portland’s new tree code forces
developers to remove trees. After trying to
pit tree advocates against forest and
farmland preservation advocates (Myth #4)
and then affordable housing advocates
(Myth #5), some try to divide tree advocates
against themselves. They argue the new
tree code actually forces developers to
remove trees. The argument goes like this:
“Rigid” rules for the protection of tree root
zones of preserved trees effectively force
developers to remove trees that they could
or would otherwise “preserve.”
The reality is that root protection rules
are not rigid. Title 11 allows developers to
encroach on 25 percent of root protection
zones without additional review. If that is
still not enough to accommodate
development, additional encroachment can
be permitted if the developer can'
demonstrate with the opinion of a certified
arborist that it won’t eventually kill the tree.
The opinion of a certified arborist is critical
because the vast majority of developers
aren’t arborists. Simply giving developers
free reign to encroach on root zones is folly
because it will result in situations where
encroachment could eventually kill trees
after the developer is long gone and
unaccountable for mitigating the loss.
There is sometimes uncertainty in
assessing tree survivability from root zone
encroachment. So in rare instances it is
possible for tree root zone protection and
tree preservation to come into conflict.
Some tweaks in the code might be helpful.
But most of these rare conflicts could be
headed off entirely if the city code outright
required some trees to be preserved in the
first place.
So no, Title 11 does not force developers
to remove trees. However, it is true that
other parts of the city code unrelated to
trees do. There are real regulatory barriers
to thoughtful developers who want to
preserve trees with their development
Myth # 7 Portland developers don’t care
about trees. The reality is most developers
under-stand the value of trees to their
developments and the exceptional developer
will go out of their way and above and
beyond code requirements to preserve
them. These stories don’t get told enough.
One recent example is developer Steve
Melkerson who responded to neighbors’
concerns by actually shrinking and
redesigning his “Paradox 50” development
in M t Tabor neighborhood in order to
preserve a massive Paradox Walnut as an
asset. This is a great success story of a
positive outcome.
But it should pose a question. Are
developers like Melkerson put at a
competitive disadvantage for such
responsiveness and creativity? Why should
developer Vic Remmers who held the
Eastmoreland sequoias hostage walk away
enriched? Shouldn’t the city make it easier
for thoughtful developers to save trees that
can be saved and harder for hasty ones to
remove the same trees?
The city could do a lot more to remove
regulatory barriers to tree preservation and
planting. Examples include flexible lot-line
set-backs and reduced height restrictions
and parking requirements in order to .
preserve trees. Parking in particular takes
up enormous amounts of space in the urban
environment and many outdated parking
requirements mean less space to preserve
and plant trees while adding to costs of
housing (Myth #5).
When it comes to public street
improvements, rules and processes could
allow or make it much easier to install tree-
friendly sidewalk designs or technologies
such as rubber sidewalks. In some situations
the city could consider charging developers
a fee in lieu of sidewalk construction and
redirect funds to where new sidewalks are
most needed, desired, and not in conflict
with large healthy trees.
The city should address theses types of
barriers to tree preservation and planting in
Page 13
the existing code head-on in the current
Residential Infill and Mixed Use projects.
Myth #8 City bureaus are held to a
higher standard of tree protection and
preservation. City bureaus are actually held
to a lower standard than private
development in many instances. For
example, PBOT has lobbied for and secured
reductions in mitigation required for street
trees deemed necessary for removal in
order to accommodate for “street
improvements.” PBOT argues they need
this special treatment because tree
regulations make these public works project
“less financially feasible.”
Portlanders should question these
policies and their rationale. What are these
“public improvements” that require the
unmitigated loss of healthy trees? Why does
preserving or mitigating trees make them
less financially feasible and for whom? What
exactly constitutes “financial feasibility?”
Urban trees provide multiple ecosystem
services. They include stormwater
management, improved air quality, reduced
urban temperatures, and enhanced wildlife
habitat, services that have value and cost
labor and resources- real money- to replace
or restore. Hence the loss of these
ecosystem services are costs that are born
by the community and sometimes the City
itself. The whole purpose of tree mitigation
is to compel developers and City bureaus to
internalize rather than externalize these
values of healthy non-nuisance trees and the
costs of their removal. To that end and as a
matter of simple fairness, agencies tike ,
PBOT should
helping raise rattier than
lower the bar for themselves.
The Upshot: Portland’s new tree code is
far from perfect especially in the current
real estate development market. It will need
sustained refinement and improvement over
time. But reform should be based on real
problems not distractions and false choices.
Reform should keep a laser focus on the
achievable goal of a healthy and diverse
urban forest accessible to all Portlanders,
new and old.
ÈZ
IPHC
N orthwest
5312 NE 148th Ave.
Portland, OR 97230
Free career training for persons w ith disabilities
in janitorial and building maintenance
Requirements:
• •
•
................ *** IV.
• . ■ • '
Documented proof o f disability
Profiaency in understanding and speaking
English
Pass criminal background check
At Health Share, we
believe good health is
more than what happens
inside your doctor's office.
Good health starts in your
community and includes
staying active, eating
healthy food and getting
regular check-ups.
Share your healthy habits
with family and friends. We
can all have better health
when we share it together.
Pass drug test
D isabilities:
Physical, m ental health, intellectual,
d e ve lo p m e n ta l, a n d learning
Q uestions ?
Please Call: (503) 261-1266
or (800) 874-7917
email: careers@phcnw.com
B etter health
together.
www.heatthshareoregon.org
Cuts & Checks Barbershop Bloot
Pressure Program I Terrell Brandoi
Barber Shop North by Northeas
Community Health Center
Legacy Emanuel Medical Centei