The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-09-11
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (16,565 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
The Portland City Council Climate Resilience and Land Use Committee met on Thursday, September 11, 2025. After a roll call and reading of the conduct statement, the committee considered two related items on Comprehensive Plan Map, Zone Map, and Title 33 amendments concerning the Portland-Gresham Urban Services Boundary, along with an associated intergovernmental agreement, presented by Bureau of Planning and Sustainability staff. Discussion covered technical boundary "cleanup" amendments in the Pleasant Valley area, coordination with Gresham and Multnomah County, and a request to continue the public hearing to a full Council time-certain hearing on September 18 at 2:30 p.m. No public testimony was offered on this item. Votes occurred, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. The committee then took up a resolution to adopt the Portland Urban Forest Plan, hearing a detailed presentation from Portland Parks and Recreation staff and an Urban Forestry Commission representative on canopy targets, implementation actions, community engagement, and funding approaches for street tree maintenance. Multiple community members testified in support of the plan, several urging stronger timelines and expedited funding mechanisms. Following discussion of proposed but unvetted amendments, the committee agreed to continue discussion of the Urban Forest Plan to its next meeting on September 25, 2025.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
0 Good morning. I call the meeting of the climate resilience and land use committee to order. It is Thursday, September 11th at 9:30 a.m. Diego, could you please call the roll?
1 Good morning. Canal here. Ryan, here. Novick here.
2 Claire, could you please read the statement of conduct?
3 Good morning, and welcome to the meeting of the climate resilience and land use committee to testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the committee agenda at Portland gov slash council agenda. Slash climate resilient resilience and land use committee. Or by calling 311. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior to the meeting. In person. Testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. If public testimony will be taken on an item. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the chair states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The chair preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, please state your name for the record. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. And finally, virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.
4 On another trip, she said she backed lobbying in dc.
5 Thank you claire. We have three items on our agenda today. The first two items, which shall be read together, are from the bureau of planning and sustainability on the Portland Gresham urban services boundary. And then we have the return of the Portland urban urban forest plan, which we had an informational meeting on in July and is now before us, is a resolution for committee consideration. Diego, can you please read the first two items?
6 Item one approve comprehensive plan map, zone map and title 33 amendments as a prose as a proposed in Portland Gresham urban service boundary amendments project item two direct city administrator to approve Portland Gresham urban services iga.
7 So again, that's two items on the Portland Gresham urban services boundary code amendments and an intergovernmental agreement. And I'll hand it off to director engstrom and staff to explain the decisions before us.
8 Good morning, councilors. For the record, my name is Eric engstrom. I'm the director at the bureau of planning and sustainability. And with me is Ryan singer, who's a principal planner in the bureau. And kyle jenkins. They're going to talk you through the details of this proposal to clean up some issues with the boundary that we use to keep track of who deliver services along the edge of Portland and Gresham. So I'll turn it over to Ryan.
9 Good morning. Councilors. You may recall at our briefing on the comprehensive plan in August, we mentioned that the urban service boundary was a component of the comprehensive plan map. The urban service boundary is the legal framework in Oregon for establishing where urban services like water, sewer, stormwater and transportation may be provided and by which jurisdiction such services are provided. It is different from the city boundary line, but it is related to it. This proposed amendment to portland's urban service boundary is a cleanup to better align the this component of the comprehensive plan, so that we're coordinating the provision of services with our regional neighbors. It will have no budget impact. I'll turn it over to kyle jenkins, who's the project manager for this, kyle.
10 Thanks, Ryan. Good morning. Councilors. As Ryan mentioned today we will be discussing the Portland urban service boundary amendments, which are a set of amendments to the Portland urban service boundary, specifically in the pleasant valley area. So just a little overview of what I'm going to be discussing the presentation. I'm just going to go over a short overview of usbs for for those of you that might not be super familiar with them going a little bit of the project background, some of the components of the project, and then the specific amendments. I'll give you guys a brief overview of what those look like, and then next steps and actions. So again just just a little overview to what urban service boundaries are and their purpose. We coordinate city of Portland coordinates with with our neighboring jurisdictions within the metro urban growth boundary, which is ugb which is separate another separate line from from a usb. This coordination of of services is is facilitated through where this urban service boundary is located, and then further implemented through adopting intergovernmental agreements, which speak more specifically to the services involved, like water and sewer or garbage or other other services. So. So that map there on the right, oops, sorry, gives us a little overview of of the area that we're looking at. If you can read the legend that that blue area, the light blue fill is the Portland urban service area. But it's the portion of it that's within Multnomah county. So we have two shaded areas that gray, which is the city of Portland, actual city boundary, and then that blue, which is the city of Portland urban service area outside of the city boundary. So the differences between those two colors is that the gray area is the part of the urban service boundary that's already within the city, and that blue is outside in Multnomah county. So what one of the things that urban service boundaries allow for is, is they dictate which which areas are permitted to be annexed, so that blue area on the previous slide is not currently in the city of Portland. But if those properties or the city wish to to annex those properties, they could be, in theory, annexed into the city of Portland. Anything outside of that area is not eligible for annexation to the city of Portland, and instead is either eligible annexation the city of Gresham or other cities, or not at all. So a little bit of background on the project. This is really a housekeeping amendment project that was prompted by inconsistencies along the urban service boundaries of Gresham and Portland, and even more specifically, within a very specific area down in the pleasant valley area, which is the southeast corner corner of the city. There are three types of inconsistencies we're looking at fixing here, areas that where there are gaps in between the usbs, which is that purple area on that map, which I know is a little hard to read. Then the second one is areas where the two usbs overlap, so properties are functionally within both urban service boundaries and then three just mapping errors where a lot of this mapping technology is coming from the 80s and 90s. So we're fixing that topologically with with better technology now. So those are the three types we're looking at as part of the project. So again just just to give you a little bit of a zoom out on where these where these amendments are located. That's the city of Portland city limits. And then that red rectangle at the bottom right there in the southeast is the area of the amendments. Important to note here, we're not looking at kind of a reevaluation of the urban service boundary. It's it's just a very specific area of, of of amendments here that have been identified as part of this kind of initial housekeeping work. So now jumping into the actual components of the project, we really have two different types of amendments that are there's there's four amendments in total. So amendments one and two are those the two most southerly amendments there. And they are two private properties because these properties are within the urban service boundary. That means they currently have city of Portland comprehensive comprehensive plan map designations, because they are proposed to be removed from the urban service boundary. We therefore have to remove their comprehensive plan map, zoning map, and associated plan district designations from those properties because they will no longer be eligible for annexation of the city of Portland and will not. We will not be doing the or. We will not be responsible for the land use planning for those two properties. So again, those are properties one and two labeled their amendments three and four, which are the two in the north end, are to public rights of way and therefore do not have those associated map changes because they do not have the right of way and they do not have those those map designations associated with them. So hopping into just the specifics of each of the amendments. So this is this is we're going from south to north here on that previous map. Previous map. Amendment one is to a property currently owned by the centennial school district, which is just off of southeast foster road. There, that yellow outline is the property line. And then the purple hatched is the area that is currently within the city of portland's urban service boundary. So as you can see, that only that small rectangle on on the west side of the property is even within portland's usb currently. And then the rest of that property is already within gresham's. So the proposed amendment essentially says, okay, we're just going to align this property or the urban service boundary with the property line so that we don't have a split service property. And I'll note as well that this property is currently vacant, and there's no there's no other existing development. Amendment two is is one of those, those other situations where there's actually overlap in the urban service boundaries. So currently the entire property is within portland's urban service boundary, which has that hatched area there. But then also that that northwest or excuse me, northeast triangle in the in the northeast corner of that is also within the city of gresham's urban service boundary. So a portion of this property is served by both or is is technically within both urban service boundaries. And that's something that that can create confusion with who's responsible for what services. The key element here is that this property has kind of a residential small farm operation on it, and it's already served by the city of Gresham sewer service off foster road there. So what we're doing here is we're shifting this out of the urban service, the Portland urban service boundary, to reflect that fact and clean up the area so that it's entirely within portland's usb.
11 Gresham.
12 Gresham. Sorry. Excuse me. So then the third one is is one of the two amendments to right of way. This one is is very straightforward. This is off of southeast jenny road which is a county operated road. Currently that the the port the Gresham city limits which is that that black line there essentially loops off about a 50 foot stretch of road that is otherwise within the city of Portland urban service boundary. So what we're doing here is we're shifting the usb east to a line with with the eastern edge of, of the southeast jenny right away to add it to the urban service boundary and remove it from gresham's. And the reason for that is just so the entire roadways within the city of Portland urban service boundary, and not just the, the, the pieces either side of that, that little chunk, the last amendment is to a property or not a property. The southeast 174th avenue right of way, which is just north of the springwater corridor. This is to reflect a 23 foot right of way dedication that occurred in 2017. The issue we're solving here is that when that right of way dedication occurred, the usb did not move with it. So there's this 23 foot gap in the in the urban service boundary there between the amended right of way and where the usb currently is. So all we're doing here is shifting the urban Portland urban service boundary east to account for that, that 23 foot right of way dedication. So as far as next steps, the council will take action on on the recommended usb comprehensive plan amendments and zoning changes. And also note that as part of today's motion, we do request that the public hearing be continued to a full council meeting with with the time certain. Also note here the important aspect is of the amendments. That is outside of our legislative process, that we have been coordinating with Gresham and Multnomah county on these amendments to ensure that as these properties are removed from the Portland urban service boundary and have their their land use designations removed as well, we are able to, in a timely manner, have Gresham in Multnomah county initiate their own processes to assign the proper zone and comprehensive plan designations that align with with those being removed, those Portland designations being removed, and then lastly the second the second item that is not tied to this specific comprehensive plan amendment, but the iga that you have before you implements some of those, those map changes that we just discussed and goes in a little more detail as far as how how the cities will approach those, those properties. So there are some actions for consideration here. Again, amending the comprehensive plan map to to amend the urban service boundary in those four locations I mentioned, remove the comprehensive plan designations from those two properties that currently have comprehensive plan map designations. Amend the zoning map to remove the zoning overlay and plan district designations from those same two properties. Amend the pleasant valley plan district map, which is part of title 33, to remove the two properties to remove the district designation from those two properties, and then lastly authorize the city administrator to sign that updated intergovernmental agreement between the two cities. Thank you.
13 Colleagues, any questions before we move on to public testimony?
14 Yeah, there's public testimony. Yeah. Process question are we.
15 We have not in the committees I've been on as part of referring also declared that there would be a time certain yet. Is that something that my understanding is that's something that is done through the agenda setting process at the full council?
16 Yeah, I would submit that was news to me too, is can we can we do that, refer it for a time certain without designation? And can we do it without designating what the time certain is?
17 Councilor I could respond to that. In this case, we have coordinated with the council president, and through that process, and the reason we're asking for that is with land use items. If you don't do that, we will have to notify the public of that hearing at at an additional expense. And so this is a saving money to not have to send out for notices.
18 Do you have what the time certain is.
19 We do actually. Okay. Yeah. September 18th at 2:30 p.m. Councilor councilor.
20 Ryan I didn't hear this part, but perhaps you said it in your presentation. It's good to see all of you. And thanks for the presentation. Is Gresham all in? There's no testimony from Gresham.
21 Yes. We have been coordinating with Gresham on this for about two years, and they they are all good on it. And then, as I noted in that last sentence, they'll also be initiating their own, their own legislative process to kind of fill in the gaps with some other amendments that are needed on their end.
22 Okay. So this is in sync. Yes. Thank you. Just need to hear that. And I didn't realize there was an unincorporated area where pleasant valley. Is it pleasant valley? Yes. A really cute elementary school there. I had no idea that was unincorporated. Thanks. That was a question.
23 And have I heard correctly that hillsboro and Beaverton are planning to send a peacekeeping force to pleasant valley to avoid further Gresham Portland hostilities in their future.
24 I believe that's metro's job.
25 Oh. That's right. Sorry.
26 Do we have diego? Do we have anybody signed up to testify?
27 No one has signed up.
28 All right, any further discussion? Then I'd like to entertain a motion to send the ordinance document number 2025. Dash 349 and the ordinance document 20, number 2025 350 to the full council with a recommendation to pass second. So I was asking for a motion.
29 Oh, I assumed that was what you just did. Okay. Yes. So moved second.
30 Councilor Ryan moves ordinance number 2025 349. An ordinance number 2025 350. And to full council with the recommendation to pass councilor Kanal seconds. Is there any discussion? Diego, can you please call the roll canal.
31 Thanks for the presentation and for the detail on it. So we didn't have to discuss, I vote aye.
32 Ryan.
33 Yes. Thank you I.
34 Novick I.
35 With three eyes. The motion carries and the ordinance document number 2025 349 and ordinance document number 2025 350 will move to the full council with a recommendation to pass.
36 And the Portland Gresham usb amendment and the intergovernmental agreement will be continued to a full council hearing on September 18th at 2:30 p.m. Time certain. Thank you folks.
37 Thank you.
38 Diego, can you please read the next item?
39 Item three adopt the Portland urban forest plan to improve public health, build resilience to climate change, and promote environmental justice.
40 Colleagues. In July, the committee had a thorough presentation from Portland parks and recreation on updates to the Portland urban forest plan. Our colleagues have returned with a resolution to adopt the Portland urban forest plan recommended draft. I'll hand it off to paul to get us started.
41 Good morning. Dca, donna paul is elsewhere. I will be kicking us off this morning. I'm sonia shimanski, I'm interim director of Portland parks and recreation. I have extremely brief comments and then we'll go to the team. Thank you so much. First for having us. We're very excited to be back with you, talking about this plan and on our way to full council. As councilor Novick mentioned, we were here in July seeking your input as a key group of experts and community leaders and decision makers as we formed the plan. We're back before you today to share an update about where we've landed and proposed to you. A final plan to come to council shortly. As a reminder, we are nearing the tail end here of several years of work, very deep in community with business and community organization partners, and in collaboration with other city bureau partners and regional and state folks. That's it for me. And we'll go to belinda, who is the has been the project manager for this work. And we have other folks here, too. We, I think, have some testimony and we are all available, of course, for discussion and questions at the end. Thank you.
42 Thank you. And good morning, councilors. I am belinda youdelman and I am the project manager for the Portland urban forest plan. I'd like to give you a brief overview of what's in the urban forest plan. Discuss some of the changes we made for the recommended draft, which we're bringing to you today, and leave the remaining time for councilors to ask questions. So starting with an overview of what's in the plan, the Portland urban forest plan is the guiding document for how we preserve, grow, and care for portland's trees. We also want to be clear that this plan is distinct from the tree code. It also does not provide any specific code amendments. Tree regulations are one of many tools that are available to us to help us achieve the goals that we establish in the plan. Programmatic options like increased tree planting programs, services such as city provided street tree maintenance, which can reduce the cost of tree care. Incentives for tree preservation are also all important and should be used to provide portlanders with the urban forests that they've told us they want to see through this planning process. This plan was developed with input from dozens of staff and thousands of community members. It presents a unified community vision and clear direction for city staff and leaders to guide investments, programs and policies in response to community feedback. The plan also establishes higher canopy targets than previous plans, including a 45% citywide canopy target and a 25% minimum canopy target for every neighborhood. It also has other sub goals to help prioritize efforts where they're needed most, and to reduce current disparities in tree canopy cover. The plan includes an implementation strategy with more than 50 actions, each of which was created with and assigned to one of several bureaus to implement. I also want to note that while this plan is action oriented, the purpose of the urban forest plan is really to provide high level direction and goals. So as we move into implementation, there will be many other ways outside of this planning process for community and others to directly influence urban forestry work and the implementation of the actions in this plan. Finally, the plan concludes with performance measures and a reporting protocol to track progress towards goals and promote accountability. As I mentioned, the plan includes many actions to help us manage the urban forest, but I just want to highlight a few for you now. There are actions to work to guide our work with community organizations and local businesses, to expand, expand tree planting, and establish the city's first comprehensive street tree maintenance program. There are also several actions to help us build a more resilient city and achieve multiple city city goals at once, including innovative programs and partnership with the bureau of transportation to create new space for trees in our streets. And the bureau of planning and sustainability has committed to an action to create a guide showing how trees can be incorporated into development projects, to promote the preservation of healthy trees and create space for canopy alongside the built environment. We also have actions to expand education, volunteer and partnership opportunities with community, and the plan includes actions to update our standards and codes, including improvements to our tree code. So moving on to the recommended draft specifically to help create this draft, which we bring to you today, we hosted a formal public comment period on the draft plan from February to April. And we've also continued to review community feedback into July and August. We received over 150 comments on the draft at councilor Morillo request. We also provided those comments along with a response to each comment after our last briefing to the committee, the comments we received were largely supportive of the plan, including being supportive of the vision, goals, canopy targets, and the topics covered by the actions. But we also received comments that the plan should acknowledge the importance of private property rights. To many portlanders. This was not a comment that we had heard strongly emphasized during our initial phase of community engagement, but it was important feedback which we heard and incorporated into the draft. These comments will also inform our upcoming tree code amendments. Based on the community feedback we received, along with feedback from the urban forestry commission, this committee and other stakeholders, we made several other improvements between the draft and the recommended draft. While many of the edits were to language and formatting, there were some substantive edits which we'd like to highlight. First, we heard loud and clear that portlanders are deeply concerned about the threats to public and environmental health presented by climate change. We updated the plan's language to communicate a sense of urgency on this issue, and the important role that trees play in climate mitigation and adaptation. We also worked with the bureau of planning and sustainability to revise the urban design section of the plan, which details how trees and landscaping can be incorporated into the urban environment to create healthy and vibrant neighborhoods and public spaces. Last, we worked with the bureau of environmental services to incorporate language about the role trees play in protecting water quality and lowering the temperature of streams and rivers across the city. The city's urban forestry commission is responsible, by code, for recommending the plan to city council. The commission, along with two other advisory bodies, were heavily involved in creating the plan, and at their August meeting, the urban forestry commission voted unanimously to submit the Portland urban forest plan to city council and recommended for adoption. So now I'd like to turn it over to urban forestry commissioner Melinda mcmillan to speak about the commission's recommendation.
43 Thank you. Good morning. My name is melinda mcmillan. I'm a member of the urban forestry commission. I appreciate you having me today, and I appreciate your time and service. The urban forestry commission is an 11 member volunteer advisory body to the city. We are recommending the body to the city for the urban. We're the recommending body to the city council for the urban forest plan. The urban forest commission has been deeply involved in the development of the plan over the past two years. We are pleased to submit the new urban forest plan to the city council and recommend its adoption in our statement to city council, which is attached in the resolution as exhibit b, we express that this plan is coming to you at a pivotal time for Portland as we experience hotter, drier and longer summers, leading to significant risks to public health. The most effective tool we have for mitigating and adapting to these climate risks. Our urban forest is stagnating. At the same time, we have an unprecedented opportunity to invest in the public and environmental health of our city. New funding provided from the Portland clean energy fund, along with existing funding from the parks levy, is helping the city plant more trees than ever along streets, in parks and on private property. And thanks to an investment from pcf for the first time in portland's history, street trees will be cared for and maintained by the city rather than private property owners. A continued commitment to fund treat street tree maintenance in perpetuity will result in longer lived, healthier street trees, leading to reduced summer temperatures along our streets. Fewer tree failures during winter storms, and, importantly, reduce maintenance costs. For portlanders, it's a critical investment in addressing the inequitable distribution of tree canopy in Portland. The number one reason portlanders site for not planting a tree, even when offered free by the city, is the cost of future maintenance. Relieving property owners of this obligation is essential to ensuring every portlander, regardless of income, enjoy the benefits of a robust and healthy urban canopy. Finally, the plan also reflects the reality that many of our challenges, be they climate, economic or public safety, are interconnected. When our streets and sidewalks are shaded and beautiful with healthy trees, walking, biking, and taking transit becomes a more enjoyable and pleasant experience. Supporting portland's transportation safety and decarbonization goals. This helps activate our public spaces, also creating welcoming and prosperous communities. The Portland urban forest plan is both a call to action and a guide. It it presents a community driven way forward amidst these challenges and opportunities, the plan states. Not only where we need to go, but how to get there through collaboration across city bureaus and in partnership with the Portland community. We thank you for your consideration of this plan and recommend that the committee vote to move the plan to the full city council for adoption.
44 Thank you very much. That concludes our presentation. We'd be happy to hear your feedback and questions.
45 Colleagues. Any questions? Councilor Kanal.
46 Thank you and thank you all for your work on this. I just want to mention before I get into my questions, I looked through the I think it's the second or third page, all the different people that were involved in this, and was impressed not only with the sheer volume of people, but also a lot of the the different representation and all the different groups from a variety of different communities, different types of expertise and just a lot of engagement. So in particular, malcolm and his team and also the cells folks who I know work on that appreciate their work. I have several questions that may involve teeing up amendments, and I just want to be up front about that because I was not present at the the July meeting on a work trip and have been engaging with this in a different timeline as a result. First, did this, I'm going to just kind of run through a couple. Did this plan involve formal, formal tribal consultation through the office of government relations or I guess, any other part of the city, but I think it would be ogre. Yeah.
47 Yeah, I can do. Want to speak to some of the engagement first and then. Well, I guess I would answer that it did not involve formal tribal consultation. We did talk with ogre about what that might look like, and it sounded like that may not have been the right direction for this specific plan, but we did speak with. We did involve.
48 Indigenous communities in our in the planning and outreach.
49 So more on the urban indigenous community side.
50 Yes.
51 Rather than formal government to government relations.
52 Thanks. I'm going to ask about a couple of the targets, how you arrived at them. So specifically, the 20% target for rivers that that area and then the 45% by 2065 target that. And whether or not there was debate on how low those are. Both of those.
53 Yeah, I can speak to the river overlay one specifically. So the river overlay I'm sorry, not overlay the river. River pattern area encompasses lots of north Portland along the columbia river, some of the northwest industrial areas. The canopy coverage there is currently, I believe, about 1,212%. The increase to 20 is a really significant increase. We did hear a lot of concern through all the community engagement that we had around shading along the columbia at the confluence of Willamette and the columbia, particularly with industrial areas as well. It's a very challenging area to be candid, to plant trees. There are a lot of uses within that site. We have we have a lot of industrial properties. The Portland airport is there, the saint johns landfill, which can't be planted on. There's also areas like the Smith, Smith, bybee wetlands, which have which have other ecological functions, not just tree canopy. So we'll be presented we felt was ambitious but also and achievable target that would bring about a 50% increase in the overall tree canopy within that area, while still acknowledging that there are a lot of other land uses there.
54 Okay. Did was there did was that disaggregated into the portion of that river's area that is residential versus not like I'm looking for the map right now. I can't find the page a lot here, but there's there's areas of that zone that looked, you know, it's not a detailed map that includes a lot of residential areas as well.
55 Yeah, I think the residential areas can also increasing canopy in those areas can be covered by our neighborhood minimums. That's why we felt it was important. In addition to having our pattern area goals, to also have our neighborhood goals.
56 Yeah.
57 You're correct, it's not divided.
58 Because it talks about a 28%, 29% increase in another one of the zones and an 8% increase in a zone that is primarily district two, which is already the the district that has the lowest tree cover. And so that was that was a concerningly low goal for me in in both the context of the I was going through the neighborhood by neighborhood list as well. And, but but in particular the that zone map I think is page 53. Find it here. Yeah. So if you see the inner neighborhoods would go from 26 to 45% cover. So that's a that that's 29, sorry. That's 19%. And then you have a 23% increase in the eastern section. And those are ambitious goals. And I think those are commendable goals. So to say 7% is also ambitious doesn't that doesn't jive for me with the goal being equity. I read that I really enjoyed reading that. The value statement in here, I just didn't see how that got carried over into that particular numerical goals.
59 Yeah, I mean, we did look so to set the canopy goals for the whole city. And within each pattern area, we're looking at how much canopy there is today and what we think our potential is for more, because we want to be as ambitious but also as realistic as we can with these goals. And so we're looking at things like available, how is the land being used, what space is there available, what space is designated to industrial or residential or streets? Parking lots. And I mean the rivers area is just a very challenging area because some of the land uses in that area do need those large spaces. But I think there is also there is definitely opportunity to increase in the residential areas. And that's.
60 And do you have the breakdown of what portion of the river's area is residential versus not, and what the goals are for those two parts of it?
61 We don't have separate goals for residential versus industrial. The feedback we received from our advisory committee was not to do a land use specific goal and from community input, so that's kind of where we landed with the pattern areas instead. Pattern areas and neighborhoods.
62 Okay, I think I could.
63 I can we can provide data on the canopy cover in and by land use for those areas. We do have that information.
64 Okay. I think I could probably we could go on this for a while so but I won't. Could you speak to the other part of the question though? Why is the 45, 20, 65 goals is felt pretty low?
65 Yeah, I mean, we actually feel that it is quite ambitious because it takes a long time for trees to grow and reach the maturity when those trees are going to provide that significant canopy. So looking at recent canopy trends, both before we started to see this stagnation, that's kind of how we modeled this, the growth of getting to 45%, why it would take until 2065. It's looking at what we think are realistic trends, given what we've seen in the past, and also recognizing that we need to sort of counteract the current trend we're seeing with the stagnation or slight decline.
66 Okay. The other thing I just wanted to mention just before we get to public testimony is that I, I know that public testimony, we try to daylight any amendments that may come up beforehand so that commenters can do that. I received several proposed amendments from community groups, and I wanted to just mention those. I'm not moving them at this time, but if that's okay with you, okay. So I'm going to read them all. I think I'm leaning towards two of them in particular, and I'll mention them as we go. But one would edit action, sorry. Add an action to six to establish a cross bureau committee to find a permanent funding mechanism for street tree maintenance and street tree related sidewalk repairs, and report back by March 2027. Second would edit action three two by adding at the end to complete a plan for funding and a goal for how many projects will be completed per year, with annual innovation progress reports to council starting in November 2026. Third would replace the text of action two three entirely with establish a plan for the city instead of the adjacent property owner to assume legal and financial responsibility for maintaining right of way street trees, starting with priority service areas, by modifying city code 11.60 .060 by November 2027. This is one of the two I am going to propose at this time. The fourth would replace the text of action two five entirely with, quote, establish a path for the city instead of the adjacent property owner to assume legal and financial responsibility for street tree related sidewalk repairs and priority service areas by modifying city code 17.28 .020 by November 2027. This is the other of the two that I'm going to propose at this time. The fifth would add an urban forestry priority service areas to two one. The sixth would edit action three five by adding as well as for the preservation and the creation of space for trees just before the end on where it ends on a variety of property types. And finally, seventh one adds to action seven five so it reads review and update as necessary the planning and zoning code title 33 to support alignment with the plan, and it would add and the integration of goals for tree canopy, climate resilience and development before continuing on with wildfire prevention, etc. So those are the seven things I just wanted to read them into the record that were sent to me. I think all of those were of interest, and I'd like to hear any comment that you have on any of those. I'm sure you've received them already as well. So this is the shade equity coalition list. And so but I'm definitely going to propose the third and fourth ones, which are the establishing path for the city. They both start that way instead of the adjacent property owner. So I wanted to mention that and see give you the chance while you're up here. If there's any comment you had on those seven things.
67 Sure. Yeah. Go for it. Great.
68 Okay. I think the first one is you.
69 Yeah. Would you like us to go through each of those individually or.
70 However you prefer?
71 Yeah. I think in general emphasize that.
72 Actually. Councilor Ryan has a question before we proceed.
73 I think it might help you as well. Councilor Kanal is, is there are these in writing anywhere?
74 Yeah. My understanding is those have been sent around already.
75 Our office hasn't received it. So I'm sitting next to a the same suite as you. And I'm like, where did this come from?
76 Yeah, I think we might hear more about it in the, in the public testimony on that side of it, but I'm happy to to email it to you right now.
77 And you all didn't know about these either.
78 We did receive them yesterday.
79 Yesterday. Yeah. Okay.
80 That's also my timeline for it. What's that. That's also one I received. So I want to be transparent about that. Yeah.
81 How about a summary.
82 Sure. Yeah I think I think first just to be helpful to provide just a little bit of context that all the actions in the plan were developed in partnership with our other bureaus. We didn't include anything without the approval of those bureaus that were represented through our technical advisory committee. Also emphasize that there are a lot of opportunities going forward to engage in this work. We have thai 11 amendment projects coming up. Pcef has convened a community advisory group that's going to be really guiding a lot of our tree planting investments and the development of the of the street tree maintenance program. So we want to encourage folks to continue to engage with those processes as well as the plans. That's a little bit more of a high level vision. I think I might speak to the two that you were really interested in proposing on the first one, with regards to establishing a path for the city to assume legal and financial responsibility. First, I want to just note that we are incredibly appreciative of the equity coalition's work in this area. Relieving property owners of this responsibility is something parks has been looking at for years, and we're honestly just thrilled to be at this point. So we have an initial allocation from PCEF, and we're developing that program right now. We've heard from our project consultants is typically in other cities. That's about a five year process from fundings available to actually fully develop street tree maintenance program. We have some early implementation steps that are going to be coming online this fall to move things along faster. But one reality that we're kind of facing is at the moment, property owners still play a really critical role in addressing potentially hazardous street trees. And we are a little bit public safety is one of our primary goals with this to ensure that dead or dying, dangerous street trees are addressed quickly before they become a risk to the traveling public. And so we're really mindful of creating sort of a a sort of gap in our ability to respond to dangerous street trees. If we remove that responsibility before the program is fully in place and able to address all of those issues. So I think that's why we didn't put a specific date around the legal liability issue, as we focused on actually building up the program to have capacity to address all those. I think the last thing I'll note is, I think in terms of legal liability, we're getting it's more of a potentially city attorney choice around what that language looks like. So that's why we as urban forestry haven't pursued that work right now.
83 So just to clarify that second to last part, the text that I'm reading says establish a path by November 2027, as opposed to the actual responsibility changing over by that point. Even if you assume that the code is modified by those dates, the actual ordinance that adopts new code could build in timelines, right? So if the concern is, is, is the concern solely the timeline or is it the actual content of it of of committing to that change?
84 I appreciate that clarification. I was reading it as implementing by that date. So I think from our perspective, establishing a path, we're in the process of doing that right now. So I think we'd be totally comfortable with that. I think in terms of just I don't want to speak to issues of legal liability and what potential complications may arise from that. But at least from our perspective, on developing a pathway to implementing this program and making that change happen, I think we're we're already doing that work as well. So, okay.
85 And then just to close out on the the lawyers side of things, I'd love to to hear from them. But I also know that we don't have until the, you know, we don't have the years it will take sometimes to get over some of the risk aversion there. And we might have to take a swing to try and protect portlanders from from climate change.
86 Thanks.
87 That's great. Thank you.
88 Councilor Ryan.
89 Yeah, I'll go ahead and hold off until I hear public testimony. Thank you.
90 I actually have a question that reflects a kind of a different position than councilor Kanal. I did not read this plan as committing us to in any way to forever taking over maintenance of street trees from everybody in Portland. And I think that's a decision that should, for one thing, if assuming that that's going to be paid for by the by PCEF, I'd want the PCEF committee to weigh in on. When I look at the action items, I see sustainably fund and implement a comprehensive citywide street tree maintenance program to reduce financial burdens for portlanders. But that does not say that no portlanders shall have any financial burden. And I personally question whether relieving people in Eastmoreland and the west hills, or the responsibility of street trees are the highest and best use to save money. So I just wanted to ask all of you, am I right in my assumption that this plan does not commit the city in any way to taking over responsibility for street trees from all portlanders?
91 I think that's correct. The plan has been adopted as a non-binding resolution, so it is setting high level guidance and expectations for what that looks like. It doesn't obviously doesn't bind future choices around funding or allocations of PCEF.
92 And I mean, yeah, go ahead.
93 Thank you. Council jen cairo city forester and I'll add the city code is the place where that would happen. Currently, the city's code title, 11 trees assigns the responsibility for street tree maintenance, a city owned asset to the adjacent property owner. So at some point, if council deems it appropriate, that could change or change in some ways.
94 And the path that we're on is not quite so categorical as as you described. You are correct.
95 Thank you.
96 I do have a.
97 Councilor Ryan.
98 Yeah.
99 I did have a clarification question. Sorry, I got a little flustered by all these amendments. So back to the appendix. I have a question on the neighborhood canopy by neighborhood. I just don't understand a couple of the columns, and I could be the only one in the room that doesn't. And that's okay. If you go to page 20 or 21 tree neighborhood canopy, I don't think you have a slide for this, but you all have it somewhere, right? Okay, great. So I'll just look at my own neighborhood. So it says when you follow along. Okay. Land acres. Got it. 2029 canopy percentage got it. Areas of canopy needed to reach 25% minimum. And then it says 26.1. So if something's over 25% in the previous column, it's zero. If it's lower than I expect to see a bigger number on the next column. But I'm having trouble doing basic arithmetic here to come up with, and I'm pretty percentages on coming up with what these are. So could you do the math for me? Somewhat. I'm stuck on this, and I think it's really important because we're talking about targeted goals and really being ambitious and have urgency. So I just want to make sure I understand what we're measuring.
100 Yeah. So I think this is looking at I'm looking at the right column. That last column on the right is describing the number of acres of tree canopy coverage that we need to increase by within that neighborhood, to bring that neighborhood up to that 25% minimum minimum goal. So looking at arbor lodge specifically, it's saying that it has 112 acres as of 2019.
101 Currently it has almost 113 acres, right?
102 Yeah. If we added 26 acres of canopy, that would that would bring us to 25% level.
103 Yes. Okay. We just did a switch a rooney on what we were. Got it. It wasn't logical until now.
104 So thank you.
105 I hope that helped at least one other person.
106 In reviewing the documents for reading.
107 You're looking.
108 At my read the materials.
109 Thank you. Very well.
110 We don't take that.
111 I actually am a big tree hugger. I'm a closeted tree hugger. Perhaps I'll just cancel, but I'm quite into it. I probably have the biggest garden on the council.
112 Noted.
113 Any further questions before moving on to public testimony?
114 Do you want to speak to council?
115 Let's not.
116 Councilor Kanal.
117 Yeah.
118 Do you have the neighborhood map relative to what portions of it are in these zones? Because you have it broken down by neighborhood here. And I'm seeing I'll just I'll be specific. St. Johns, you know, needing 315.6 acres.
119 Oh, yeah.
120 So which is, I think the second highest after northwest industrial area, which is a sort of separate conversation, I think. But what portion of saint john's is in your river zone? Because that map is not detailed enough to show the neighborhood lines.
121 We don't have it on hand, but that's something we can easily produce.
122 Thanks.
123 Councilor Ryan. Is that a legacy hand?
124 Kind of.
125 Okay.
126 I think I just want.
127 To get this out. It feels like an elephant in the room. So last night I was at a neighborhood association meeting, which I love going to, and someone described themselves as a tree nut, so I assumed they'd be here today, but they couldn't come and they were really going on about the relationship that we have with friends of trees. And so I do feel like I'm bringing up an elephant in the room before the testimony, and I just need to hear the legacy of that relationship and how we could partner with such groups going forward so we can meet the urgency of the need.
128 I want to share where we are specifically with friends of trees, and then maybe speak more generally to the intention of the plan.
129 Yeah, sure.
130 I can lead us. Off. So friends of trees is a long time valued partner for urban forestry, and within the next couple of days, we hope to be able to publicly announce that we have a contract with friends of trees. Right now, that's nearly $2 million worth for them to. Can you hear me? I'll be louder as well. We hope to announce within the next day or so. We've been working with friends of trees for some time to develop a new city contract for friends of trees to work with urban forestry, one of the many partners we work with for neighborhood tree planting with community members. And that is starting this winter. You will see that happening this winter. As for the history, friends of trees is a longtime valued partner for urban forestry. This is the second contract that we'll have had with friends of trees. Originally there were contracts friends of trees had with other city bureaus that expired, and we've taken the opportunity to reinvigorate those working closely with friends of trees to make sure the contracts reflected their needs, as well as our objectives for a climate resilient forest going forward. Thank you.
131 I'm off. Thank you. Councilor Kanal I we've had issues that have been documented in the media about planting trees and then not maintaining them in the first precious 3 to 5 years of their life, especially. And I know you're wanting us to stay up here, so pardon me that I'm going down literally into the weeds. Can you tell me what what the vision is going forward? So I think some of this was lapse between bureaus. You know, we do the whose responsibility is it to to water. And so in conversations with the urban forestry commission and such, I'm sure these conversations have come up that we don't want to have that embarrassment going forward. So what type of practices have you put in place as a leader to ensure that we don't see that happen again?
132 Thank you for the question, councilor Ryan. I'm pleased you brought that up. Urban forestry has had and continues to have a 95% average survival rate for all of the trees that are planted through our programs. And there are varieties, right? There are different ways of planting and and styles of programs for street trees, for yard tree, yard, tree giveaway, the average is 95%, which is very good. We can't expect 100% because there are individual situations that are challenging. Also, for the past three years, our contracts with various companies and community partners have included that if those trees do not survive, it is the onus of the contractor to replace them and make sure they survive through the establishment period. So I'm glad you brought that up, because that is what we have had in place and we'll continue to have in place. I think that that 5%, especially if it's in front of your house, is really important. And when those trees don't survive and become brown and crispy, of course folks are focused on those. Those get removed as soon as possible by the contractor, but it does take another season for them to plant and start again with those. So I think that those draw attention and as we you are correct, councilor Ryan, in my experience, there's been some some different planting by different bureaus that urban forestry wasn't necessarily involved in. I'm really encouraged by our one form of government that we have now, and the fact that we're in the public works service area, that we will continue to work ever more closely with those other bureaus to try to reduce those types of lost investments wherever possible. I would.
133 Hope.
134 That the entrenched silos are broken down. And to alleviate that.
135 I'd like to think so.
136 Yeah, and guess what? There's always 5% mistakes. I got it, and I appreciate how you thoroughly answered that question. I thought that was important to get in the public record. Thank you.
137 I can also add that we do have a action item in the plan to ensure that all trees planted by the city meet our survival goals, so it's something that we'll continue to look for opportunities to improve upon.
138 And I think when you say all you mean with, with PBOT or water or.
139 Yeah.
140 We've.
141 Already started having some conversations about the different ways that we can work towards that.
142 Okay. Sounds good.
143 No further questions. Thank you very much. We'll now proceed to public testimony, but don't leave. We might have more questions for you during committee discussion.
144 Individuals signed up to testify. First up, emily stebbins, followed by carol pinegar, barbara morton. Carol is going to join us online shortly.
145 Hi.
146 Good morning. My name is emily stebbins and I live in the jade district near southeast 82nd and division. I'm a parent and a business owner and a longtime portlander, and for the past few years, I've also been volunteering with 350 pdx and working to protect our urban forest. Thank you. Co-chair, Novick and councilor Kanal and Ryan for the opportunity to speak. I support the proposed plan draft of the urban forest plan. I appreciate the emphasis on trees as a common good and our collective responsibility to care for them. When my almost nine year old and I are biking through the city, we rely on trees for their cooling shade and relief from the traffic, noise and fumes in a sudden storm. We've been known to shelter under a doug fir as we scramble to find our rain gear. When a hill feels insurmountable after a long day, we rest in the shade of an oak tree, and it gives us strength. But our urban canopy is shrinking under the stresses of climate change. Having fewer trees makes walking, biking and public transit less appealing and less safe. With fewer trees, portlanders will spend more time indoors and in cars, worsening the situation further. Instead, we must rally to protect and expand our shade canopy throughout the city, and especially in the neighborhoods that need it most. The urban forest plan sets tree canopy targets to do just that. It could be stronger with more specific language. To reflect the urgency of the climate crisis. Please consider revising the action section to include an expedited timeline for trees in the curb zone. And as councilor Canal was mentioning, for city maintenance of street trees and sidewalk repair. But most importantly, please adopt the plan so we can move forward to protect and grow the urban forest. Thank you.
147 Carol. Feel free to unmute.
148 Thank you. Good morning. My name is carol pinegar. Like vinegar with a p. There will be a quiz afterwards. I lived in Portland for 40 some years and in cully since 2009. I volunteer with the forest defense team of 350 pdx and also the bird alliance of Oregon. I support the proposed draft of the 2025 urban forest plan, and commend all the work that urban forestry has done. It's very commendable. Historically, street trees have been planted as a nice amenity in some of portland's older, wealthier neighborhoods due to the rapid onslaught of climate change. The time is overdue for a shift in thinking about our street trees. The city should use this proposed urban forest plan to make clear policy that street trees are essential. Essential public health infrastructure. They cool our neighborhoods and enable active, carbon free transportation. And I think the draft plan could be amended to shorten timeframes for action items. As emily has mentioned, ten years is too long for any of the proposed actions. Some predictions say that by 2050, Portland will have the climate that sacramento has. Now. I would add. Yikes. When I moved within the city in 2009, I looked for a house in cully, in part because of the presence of large form trees in the neighborhood. I'm fortunate to have street trees shading my south facing house, and a large form street tree along the side of my corner lot, and I'm lucky to be able to afford an arborist when those trees need pruning. When I travel to east Portland in the summer, the need for shade created by large form trees is glaring. It's so hot there in the summertime. East portlanders need that same shade that I enjoy in my neighborhood. And when city policy makes it clear that street trees are essential infrastructure, east portlanders can count on the shade of trees in the future, as the city moves to assuming responsibility for planting and caring for street trees, as called for in this new draft of the plan. This can help guarantee cooler summers for east Portland into the future. Everyone in Portland deserves the cooling shade that street trees provide. Passage of this updated urban forest plan will set policy that ensures equity in the planting and maintenance of street infrastructure in our city. I commend urban forestry again for the forward thinking and proposing this draft plan, and I thank you, councilors, for your time and consideration of my testimony.
149 Barbara wharton, followed by barbara mica mescal, keel johnson, noel studer, spivak. Both mike and keel will join us online.
150 Good morning. My name is barbara wharton. I'm here today to testify on behalf of trees for life Oregon. We strongly urge you to recommend that the city council approve the proposed draft of the urban forest plan. It's critical to preserve and create space for trees throughout the city to protect public health and safety. Hotter peak summer temps juxtaposed with the effort to encourage non-car transportation modes, including use of public transportation bikes or walking to get to and from destinations, means that increased canopy and adjacent spaces is required to support the widespread adoption of these alternative modes, if they're to be healthy choices for humans with more severe winter storms, mature and productive, large trees in urban forests need regular maintenance to limit the losses incurred due to tree damage caused by storms, and young trees require maintenance to ensure they mature in an optimal form. Most resistant to damage or failure in storms, the draft urban forest plan recognizes the increasing risks and hazards of climate change and how the urban forests contributes to climate resilience and community and ecological health and safety. It includes new goals, implementation strategies, and tools the city must use for effective urban forest management. The plan includes setting area specific canopy targets to prioritize improvements in neighborhoods that suffer the greatest during weather events. It identifies current force conditions and problems, and spells out solutions such as designing and creating more space for trees. It also calls for a city sponsored street tree maintenance program to lessen the financial burden on property owners. The draft would be even better if it was strengthened in a few ways. First, there should be even a greater sense of urgency. Portland has already lost canopy and is in catch up mode. Just to get back to where we have been in the past. While climate change moves on without regard for human source delays and responsiveness, community health, safety and well-being requires that implementation of the plan get underway now. The city is currently focused on addressing serious issues that impact, amongst other things, safety and cost of living, noted as key drivers for people leaving Portland. Historically, people who moved to Portland cite our vibrant culture, outdoor lifestyle and environmental focus, including preserving Green spaces. It's important that while the current challenges are being resolved, we preserve and grow the urban forests. So Portland continues to stand apart as a special place for residents to live and thrive. We hope to help in any way we can to achieve many of the actions in this plan. Thank you.
151 You can unmute yourself. Micah.
152 Good morning, members of the climate resilience and land use committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the urban forest plan. My name is micah and I'm the urban conservation director for bird alliance of Oregon and hope to be there in person. But I'm feeling a little under the weather, so apologies. My organization, bird alliance, has been engaging in tree policy in Portland for over four decades, and we have been eagerly awaiting the update to the urban forest plan for some time. A robust urban tree canopy addresses multiple tenants of our urban conservation program. It promotes biodiversity, increases habitat connectivity, cleans air and water, increases access to nature, improves pedestrian safety, and buffers the impacts of climate change. All significant public benefits. Trees transcend public private boundaries to increase habitat connectivity, whether they are on public streets or residential yards. They stitch together urban Green spaces to form an interconnected ecosystem. Across the built landscape. Trees are essential parts of a livable, sustainable city, and that's why they've been central to our advocacy work with the city. And that's why I'm here today, to urge you to support the resolution in front of you and move the urban forest plan to full council for adoption. I can think I think of all I think all of the amendments that that councilor Canal is considering would all have a benefit, especially in moving the urgency of the plan forward. And I think you all should consider them around the plan. Urban forestry staff put in a lot of effort over the last few years to update this plan, which included significant collaboration with city bureaus, incorporating other citywide initiatives and, importantly, including the voice of community to ensure the plan took a holistic approach to improving the city's collaborative efforts in growing and stewarding our trees. The plan incorporates climate resiliency to both inform changing priorities and practices and, importantly, adds urgency to implementation strategies and actions. It is in better alignment with the cities equity goals, with renewed focus on equitable distribution of tree canopy and north and east Portland in reducing financial barriers for tree care, and in shifting the city towards managing our tree canopy as a critical infrastructure asset. It also proposes ways to better educate the public and make title 11 more navigable to everyday portlanders as they embark on caring for their trees on private property that can be achieved in the these. Many of these recommendations can be achieved in the upcoming title 11 amendment process next year, and overall it leans into prioritizing innovative multi bureau approaches to better incorporating trees into our transportation and other public right of ways to leverage their multi-benefit impact of building thriving communities. Portland's urban forest is a multi-billion dollar asset that is core to our environmental, human and economic health, and it deserves a robust, forward looking forest plan. And I urge the committee to pass this resolution and move it to full council for adoption. Thank you.
153 Kyle, you're welcome to unmute yourself.
154 Hello, everybody. Hello city councilors. My name is kyle johnson. And I just like to point out that today you've had the pleasure of listening to two kyle's that both spell their name k l. The first was kyle jenkins earlier before. So I think that is 100% of all the kyle's in Portland that spelled their name that way. I'm the vice chair of bike loud pdx, and I'm here today to urge you to support the portland's urban forest plan. The mission of bike loud is to hold the city accountable for its adopted 2010 bicycle plan. This plan calls for 25% of all trips to be by bike by 2030, and we are currently hovering around 3%. This disparity reflects the need to have strong plans with resources attached to them and regular check ins with city council. One way to increase the number of people riding bikes is to make the biking experience more enjoyable. Portland's climate models indicate that we will continue to experience hotter summers and wetter winters, having tree shaded streets that also provide rain cover will allow more portlanders to enjoy a bike ride year round and make it a more reliable transportation option. Personally, I go out of my way to ride down the tree lined streets of ladd's addition and irvington because they make me happier, and we need more streets like that all over the city. We support the amendments that create a path for the responsibility of trees to the city instead of private landowners. We don't rely on private property owners to build our bike infrastructure, and we shouldn't with our tree canopy either. We encourage additional language about funding and setting clear goals and regular check ins, and we cannot afford to let this plan sit on the shelf. When bill nye the science guy was on the board of seattle's bicycle advocacy group, he proposed a network of solar panels covering bike lanes to provide shade and keep people dry while riding their bikes. Today, we can do that by expanding our tree canopy, thank you very much and I hope you pass this plan.
155 Noel studer. Spivak.
156 Chair Novick and councilors, thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is noel spivak. I am the coordinator of the shade equity coalition with 350 pdx and a member of the cully neighborhood. Several shade equity coalition member groups collaborated on some suggested amendments just a few days ago. Our overall, we strongly support the plan, encourage the committee to pass it, and extend our gratitude to the urban forestry staff for their excellent work on this project. In a few areas, we'd like to see actions more closely reflect the urgency described in the narrative chapters by adding timelines, adding specific language to ensure priority service areas are helped first, and establish a timeline for the city to find a source of ongoing funding. It's clear at the moment if the committee wants. It's not clear at the moment if the committee wants to review amendments or if they'll be saved for the full council's consideration next week. We agree with some the concerns councilor Kanal brought up in his comments and encouraged the strongest possible tree targets, especially in priority areas and along rivers. We strongly support the urban forest plan coming before you today. It's the culmination of years of staff and community investment and truly represents a vision for our collective, livable future. I'm also here to underscore the historic nature of this document. According to Portland city archives, leaders have been calling for the transfer of street tree care to the city regularly in official documents going back to 1944. Cr written testimony for link to bruce nelson's exhaustive study. Nationally, it's very common for city cities of Portland size to manage street trees in Oregon, eugene, corvallis and Salem already do this. Our written testimony testimony includes a link to the table of municipalities that care for their trees. This is a really essential generational investment in our communities, and we really appreciate your time and careful consideration. Please pass this plan so that we can all enjoy a healthy future for our children and for those to come. Thank you.
157 That concludes testimony.
158 Any discussion.
159 Yeah, I have a couple questions. Overall, I just need to say that having dove into the weeds of permitting since 2021, I'm very reluctant to ever approve a walk on amendment. So I just need time to look at that. A lot of the challenges with our permitting where we had clutter, where it was really difficult for people to understand when they looked at the threat, the through line or the history of how that got there. It was often walk on amendments. So I have a bias to not do that. I appreciate the last testimony that said we could vet those. I'm not saying they're bad. I'm not saying I'm going to vote no on them, but I just have a bias to not do that based on diving into the permitting system that you all complain about. Right? I do like the thoughts of more timelines. I think I have quite a history of liking data that has measurable goals, and if you don't have annual targets, then you never get to that aspirational 20 whatever goal that you're talking about. And we see that over and over again in government. So I do think there's something in there that I'll explore. And I look forward to actually having a dialog with you. Councilor Kanal on these amendments, I did want to understand the I start asking this question because I learned that it's an important question to ask, and that is when we do our engagement. You said that the community, the community, I always want to know what the definition of community means. Like who? Who did we talk to? I know there's people that are here today and I appreciate all of them. They're quite passionate. They have jobs that are in the environmental industry. So they're here to they're here to testify. I get that. And so I always assume that's part of the community. But tell me more.
160 Yeah, I think I'll say a few things and then belinda can speak a little bit more about our engagement process. But yeah, we made a really concerted effort to hear from everybody and really specifically not only the groups that have historically showed up for projects like this. We had community open house events, we had online surveys. We also reached out to a lot of organizations directly who we didn't think we might otherwise hear from. So we engaged with some organizations like working working waterfront coalition, other, other business associations. We did a Saturday forum at the terwilliger plaza retirement community. So we really tried to be as holistic as we could, just because we know that there are some groups and people who are inclined to engage in processes like this, and it takes a little bit more work, we recognized to reach folks that may not just show up on their own.
161 Thank you. Because this is actually a relatable issue to so many portlanders. I mean, you can't campaign for this seat without hearing some horror stories about their street trees. And, you know, my job is to not dive into just that one example and make a policy about it, but try to understand what's the bigger systemic issue there. And so I appreciate that, and I'm happy to hear that you connected with working waterfront. And here's why. Because in district two, we border the Willamette and the columbia river. And we have probably the most industrial jobs through the working waterfront. And there hi there. They're working waterfront jobs tend to be family wage jobs, which portland's running out of. So I think that tension between the working waterfront industry and the environmental interest is a natural one. It's not a bad word, but when we don't lean into that tension, then I don't think we land good policy. So I just had to make sure that that there was inclusion keyword of groups that also have an interest in, in the river that provide the highway, if you will, to get our goods and services to the Portland area, which everyone seems to desire, to have those goods and services. So thank you for that. All right.
162 Appreciate it.
163 I have a question about maybe getting a couple of steps ahead of us, but I have a question about the timing for sending this to council and for adopting it. Is there some I mean, and frankly, I might be wrong about this, but I'm anticipating that councilor Kanal might propose amendments, that they might not get support, and then we might wind up, perhaps, for example, moving to counsel with no recommendation of councilor Kanal not comfortable with moving with a yes recommendation without amendments being adopted. Another option would be to do what we did when we were considering the FEMA floodplain amendments, which is councilor. Morillo worked with staff going over proposed amendments for a few for several weeks before the item came back. And I do have to say that I'm a little frustrated with seeing amendments submitted at the last minute when this draft I've drafted. This document has been available since February, and we considered it in in July, but I did want to ask staff, is are we facing any deadlines? Is there were there any be any concern about holding this over to another committee meeting?
164 I don't think there's any firm deadline. I think the only thing I would note is one of the very first implementation steps we have is beginning a title 11 amendment project. And so that's something that we are teeing up to start as soon as this plan is adopted. And we have that formal guidance to move forward. And no, no, what we're implementing. So delaying the adoption of the plan would potentially delay that work. I know we're all eager to see that happen, but I don't know of any other sort of like firm deadline that would be caused by that.
165 Are you saying that you can't start work on the tree code amendments until this plan has been adopted?
166 Oh, no, sorry, I don't I don't I don't mean to imply that. And we're actually doing some work with some consultants right now just to get that going. Just noting that this is something that allows us to really move forward.
167 I would say we have flexibility on that point.
168 Yeah.
169 Councilor Kanal yeah, I think for me, my hesitation is about two different things. One is just the simple fact that there's three of us here today, and that creates a bind here. We did not consider this. We had an informational presentation on it earlier, and I that's an important clarification. But but and I'm not trying to hold this up. I, I recognize that it is both important and advances things quite further than where it is now. And also I'm looking at the math on how we get to 45% and how that would be lower in district two, because district four is already higher than that. And assuming that it stayed constant, we'd be looking at about 40% canopy in district two. And again, that's a huge improvement from 20%. That's the that's the cap. If district four is canopy increased, then achieving this goal would actually require less than 40%. District two. And also that's 2065. And I don't think 40% is enough by then. So obviously I know trees take time to grow. That's a very good argument and an obvious one, but that's sort of a hesitation I have. And I'm not seeing how without the detail that I mentioned, the between the neighborhood, the the neighborhood table and the map of the areas does not seem to align to me. And I'm trying to make sure that we get 315 acres of tree canopy in st. Johns. There's a subway on lombard restaurant. I used to live pretty close to there, and walking from my neighborhood through that. It's now wrestling parking lot. It's the eagles lodge and having the the ground be 25 degrees difference in the summer is notable. And I'm also not looking at this map and seeing the district two is not monolithic. And getting back to recognizing cities staff's previous role, which is in your values page. And in this plan, the fact that historically black parts of district two are the lowest within the district, I mean, other than the industrial land. So those are my hesitations here, and I'm trying to square that with timing. So I appreciate the flexibility on that. I, I do think and I'd love to ask councilor Novick for clarification. From the outside, it felt like what happened with the FEMA thing was actually the best way to go about doing it, where instead of, as counselor Ryan pointed out, amending something from the floor, there was an attempt that seemed to be successful from my perspective, for councilors who had potential amendments to work with the staff to develop a way to get there that met with the structures and textual needs of the of the staff to. I just wanted to clarify, if you were saying that was a successful model or not.
170 It was. I mean, and I wish that that kind of process had been commenced before yesterday, so that those kind of conversations would have happened in the past few weeks. But that is exactly why I was asking staff whether there's how much urgency there is, because we could just decide to carry this issue over to the next committee meeting, or maybe some subsequent one. While you went through the proposed amendments, discussing with staff, went through the kind of process that councilor Morillo did.
171 I mean, I mean, again, this is the first time we're discussing the actual proposal as a committee. So I would have yeah, it would have been nice to have it before yesterday too. But I do think that that's an option that that appears to me to make sense. And I also want to say I doubt it would have been on the agenda next week anyway at the full council. I mean, I think you've all seen stuff take about three months to get on an agenda. It should be faster now that we're weekly starting next week, but I can't imagine it'll be that fast anyway.
172 So. I think that we should have space on the next committee meeting. We could probably take like half an hour at least. So do we want to just do that? Set this aside, and while you have some, whether it's conversations with staff, etc. About the amendments.
173 I'm happy to do that, but I'd love to know what councilor You have your hand up. So I.
174 Was yeah.
175 Councilor Ryan say that first.
176 I just had more curiosity questions, but on this point I'd be a no. If we voted on the amendment today for sure. And therefore, I think you'd probably want to pull this into your office and have a chance to socialize it with with people before we bring it back, because I, I just found out I got him this morning while we were talking.
177 Yeah.
178 In the meeting.
179 Yeah, I recognize that.
180 Okay. Well, you know life. Yeah.
181 So hope that didn't take the air out of the room. Everyone.
182 But I think.
183 That what you're seeing is that we're supportive of the overall presentation, but we just have new amendments that have interest, and therefore it doesn't make sense to rush this through. And it doesn't sound like it will stop productivity of the work. They're all they're all agreeing to that.
184 Right. Great.
185 So I guess I guess the motion would be to lay it on the table until two weeks from now. I don't want to. It didn't come from my office, so I don't know if it's a refer back.
186 Here we go. Yeah, I was told.
187 I was told I needed to shout out sprout chin.
188 Robertson from district three staff for.
189 When I use this book because it's their book, but I'll verify that.
190 Yeah, I do believe what page? Oh.
191 This is where my it got used as a bookmark in here. So. Yeah.
192 Okay.
193 So are you. You're we're not going to wait while you dig in.
194 I wouldn't definitely wouldn't. So a couple.
195 Oh go ahead.
196 Counselor okay I'm back to that appendix because I'm now more confused. If you look at back to page 20 and you look at bridgeton. And so what I know is that the measurement of the last column isn't there's a lot of variables that produce that number. It appears. So if bridgeton's at 17.9% canopy percentage at this moment with 18.8 acres, in order to reach the 25%, it's only 7.5. And I was alarmed by that. Since arbor lodge was at 20% right. And it took 26 acres to get them up to 25%. So I just assumed since bridgeton is 17.9, it would take a lot more than 7.5 acres to get to that goal.
197 Is it because.
198 I'm missing.
199 Harbor lodge is five times as big.
200 So it's that proportionality. That's the variable.
201 Yeah.
202 So the first column is the land acres for each neighborhood. And you can see the difference there.
203 So that's the denominator.
204 Yeah. Exactly. Yeah okay.
205 We're really going back to fractions now okay. Got it. Now it makes sense I really do hope I'm not the only one that's learning about how.
206 To use this.
207 Those are presented.
208 I think it's rather important if people are showing up and they care about urgency and they care about data, and they want to make sure that we reach our goals, and it's so important that we have a baseline understanding.
209 If we can. Let's add to that a like how to.
210 Use example.
211 Space.
212 By me you mean how. To a guide for dummies on this. I'm all in. Thank you. Which I'm curious now which recommendation do you think has the biggest impact and is the easiest to accomplish? Our city needs some wins all over the place. Like where is the one that you think would have the biggest impact and would be the easiest?
213 It's a great question. I do think that the street tree maintenance is the most impactful thing we can do in terms of implementing this plan, and I think it's I think one, it just fundamentally changes the relationship a lot of portlanders have with the tree in front of their house. I think for a lot of people, it's a potential liability, a potential burden, a potential cost, and it just inserts a little bit of anxiety into something that I think can be enjoyable. And we like to say in urban forestry that for a lot of portlanders, the tree in front of their house is the access to access to, to, to, to nature that they really have. And so I think we're leaving that as a burden, I think is one of the most impactful things we can do here.
214 And brian, I think you're right. I also think it's the most relatable this is. So if you're reading the room of Portland, I think you nailed it with that as well. And which one do you think would be the hardest? I have to do the flip side.
215 Hardest.
216 Probably also that one.
217 Yeah.
218 One of the most challenging. It's a really monumental effort that we're moving as quickly as we can. We have the same sense of urgency that I think is in the spirit of all of the amendments being proposed, but it is it is a really challenging shift.
219 And then I think it's important that we have this conversation, too. And we alluded to it a bit, but there are parts of our city that are structured, such as downtown, some of the riverfronts, the airport, you're obviously not going to plant trees and there's runways and there's a lot of rules and regulations from fda on any height near the airport. I think everyone here knows that. But and then, you know, we're a port city as well. And so in some of the working waterfront area, you have to have room for the, the infrastructure of that. And I know in some perfect world, we'd have more infrastructure removed from right along the water. And that's a gazillion bazillion dollar effort that I'm sure everyone would love to implement. So how do you factor in those realities when you're doing these maps? And so there are different goals for different neighborhoods because of that. And it's a it's an economic which is a social good reality.
220 Yeah, it's a great question in terms of like when we're setting our canopy goals, there are some established industry best practices that we use which try to take into account land uses, looking at what our pervious versus impervious surfaces. We also try to incorporate the buildable lands inventory into that as well. Because we're a growing city, we need to accommodate greater population. We have to solve housing challenges.
221 Us to be a growing city.
222 Keep going.
223 Yeah. Right. Exactly. And so I think that's from that sort of planning level. We do try to incorporate those things, recognize there are some limitations that are just built into the built environment or even the geographic topographical nature of the city. By that measure, we believe that Portland has a potential canopy citywide of around 52%. That's really utilizing all the spaces we have while allowing for all these other functions as well. So that's why we view the 45% as ambitious, but also achievable. Given all of that.
224 Thank you.
225 Well, and can I add briefly, I think that makes me think about the urban design work with bureau of planning and sustainability and the planting standards work with PBOT. The more we can creatively squeeze into development and into right of way, the less we're looking at those uses and parts of town that are really challenging to get into and like the more. Canopy will have in the places that can really take it. And it's it's also pushing us into innovation in ways that I think are really healthy overall.
226 And if I could add that design is a real solution to doing all of the things we want to do in the city and having all the infrastructure that we all need, as well as the tree infrastructure. So I'm backing up what interim director szymanski said that these design guides between the bureaus, I think, are a critical way for us to make space permanent, space for more trees.
227 I, I.
228 Like everything I just heard, I'm glad we're having this dialog. I think that the fact that parks and urban forestry is in infrastructure with the other public works should give us an opportunity to not have this be a one off or in the marginalization of trees within that area. So I think that we're on the right path with that. But it's a culture change and it's going to, you know, we're all be watching, I think, at this elevation, which is supposed to be high, we have to really just see indications that it is different than this conversation was a few years ago. Jen, we've had a couple conversations about this, but it was good to see that. There's another topic that I want to bring up that doesn't get a lot of attention. And I think I know why because it's complicated. It's, you know, we have a humanitarian crisis and unfortunately, it's manifesting itself as probably the most significant addiction crisis we've ever seen in our country. And it's because they're cheap, poisonous, accessible drugs and they're easily accessible. And we see it downtown on our streets. We see it out at delta park, but I've seen it when I've been out on nature walks, and I've seen where there's been unsanctioned camps that are left. And it's it can't be good for the environment. So I know that toxins and poisons are going into the into the soil around the trees. And I feel like we don't talk about this. But when I would talk to people in parks that would do restoration. I would notice they were pretty sad when they would do years and years of restoration work, and then they'd see it all for naught. Within a month, after a group of people chose to camp there and, and, you know, didn't leave it looking better than when they came, that's for sure. So what kind of dialog did you have about this issue as we continue to move forward with this plan? And if we're in denial about it, then I'm concerned.
229 That's a great question.
230 It is a great question and far from denial. This is front of mind for so many of us in parks. Our land stewardship team, who are the day to day property caregivers for all of our parks in the city. This is something they experience each day, and they're the folks that are leading the restoration of natural areas, as are bs staff doing natural areas and seeing those impacts and those investment losses. Our own crews and urban forestry experiences day to day in their work as well. They go out to work on a tree in a park and there's somebody living there, or there are some hazardous materials that are have to be addressed before we can actually go and do that work. I think the best way to link these in my mind right now on the fly is resolving the housing crisis and addressing mental health and addiction challenges is beneficial in every way, including for tree canopy and for all of our natural areas in the city and in some of our natural areas. It is an urgent situation.
231 Thank you for being on the record saying that. I think that the intersection of this humanitarian crisis, the mental health crisis, the public health crisis that our state and our county has been failing on for decades is showing up as an environmental devastation as well. And it doesn't get put on the public record enough. So I wanted to make sure I just had an opportunity to land that, because as a fourth generation Oregonian and as somebody that loves the land, it's been really devastating to see so many examples of that. And I found it that we haven't had a lot of conversations about it. So I want to make sure in this venue at this time, I did bring voice to it, and I appreciate that you're not in denial that you have these this dialog. And I hope when we continue to work with the joint office or the county's office of homeless services, the county's office of behavioral health, the county's office of public health, the county's office of mental health, that we start to have this dialog with them. Thank you.
232 Councilor Kanal.
233 I appreciate that entire conversation a lot. And it reminded me of another question I had that related a little tangential as well. But, you know, I started working next door in 2021. And when you saw just right outside here, this is maybe more geographically narrow, but deeper question in terms of the impact the the all of the different foliage out here was still recovering from the volume of tear gas and other chemicals that are local and federal governments put into this area. And I wanted to ask if there's ever been a study done or any information about the impacts on trees of the poisons that our government used on our civilians in 2020.
234 This is a really good question. Councilor Kanal. I can say I try to keep up with the journals. I can say that I haven't seen that, certainly not from our organization. That doesn't mean they don't exist. I just haven't seen them. We could certainly look.
235 Okay. And then I guess a related question is in the south waterfront area, we're seeing what is likely to be an appetizer level of poisons put into the area and into the groundwater, into everything. By right now, the federal government. And I think we're likely to see more of that in the future. Is there a plan for the maintenance of tree health in in south waterfront right now? And frankly, it'll be here, too, if we have the federal government try to invade our city. So do you have a plan for the for the tree health if if the feds come here? Okay. We should probably get on that. And I don't mean to be flippant about it, and I don't mean to imply that it's. You know, I just think that this is one of the thousands of different things that's going to get worse in that scenario. So I figured I'd ask about it. Switching back to an earlier point, you mentioned 52% was probably the the ceiling. At what year do you think we will achieve 52%? And can that year, whatever the answer is, be put in. What I was looking for is when do we hit 50%? I'll be fully honest that that's a little arbitrary and I get it. But it's it's, you know, so and I also the related question to this, I'll just ask them together is that seems to accept as a given that we're going to have some of the different things as barriers remain. For example, there's this really large area in linnton that has taken up by a lot of tanks. I would love to see trees there instead in the far future. And so I think there are at least for part of it. And there's there's areas that were there assumptions baked in in terms of land use that dictated the creation of that 52% figure.
236 The answer to that is yes, there were assumptions, but there are some. We are a city. We are not the hills and the forest and clearly are. There's a lot of infrastructure aside from trees that we all rely on every day wastewater, potable water, streets, etc. And so when the analysis was done to find out what the potential canopy 52% in the city was, those areas, as well as where development was expected to occur and things that are common sense, kind of like there's a parking lot there. We are not going to plant trees in the middle of the soccer field or those sorts of things. So it was it was an attempt to be a a reasonable assessment of maximum canopy that could be achieved.
237 I think your your point is well taken. And if we're taking a pause here and going to spend more time with your office, and if you are interested in referencing potentially in the resolution, what that 50% coverage scenario might look like, and what are the variables that would be important to look at to help us get there? I mean, this team knows that for sure, and we could definitely work on some language like that with you.
238 Yeah, I think the second half of that is maybe the more important part than just the what year do we hit 50%? I was more of a rhetorical, but but I think the variables is an important question. And I also think that we have a lot of surface area in the country, and certainly a little less in Portland, but still plenty that's taken up by parking lots. And I would love to see this plan help to be part of the impetus for reducing the grid over time. The amount of our surface that is covered in parking lots.
239 Yeah, let's think about that.
240 52% does include what would be applied to parking lots if our code is applied. So as those properties develop and they're required to put in more tree canopy, those numbers are factored into that 52%.
241 And that's an assumption within current parameters. And you're asking us to think maybe a little bigger than that. So yeah I mean we'll do that.
242 I think the question is what's driving what.
243 Right, right.
244 I think if our if our parking mandates and our parking are broad emphasis on car traffic and parking is driving the ceiling of our ambition on urban forests as opposed to the other way around. That's a different city. And I think that's worth at least exploring. That's all. And I really apologize for, like, shoehorning that into this. But I think this may not I can't think of a better place to to put it in and, and to start the process of, of reversing the causality here. I think the motion is to postpone to a time certain. And that would be 9:30 a.m. Or 9:35 a.m. If you prefer. On September 25th. Is that is that what you were looking for?
245 Actually, I wasn't sure what the appropriate procedure is. I was wondering if, could we just say that discussion of this matter is continued in the next without without a motion? So we can do that?
246 Yeah, we.
247 Can just say we continue discussion, continue discussion of this, of this issue on the 25th.
248 I works for me. Thanks.
249 All right. In that case, unless what further discussion. Our next meeting is Thursday, September 25th. We will continue discussion of this item, and we'll also have a presentation on the inner southeast infrastructure study from the bureau of planning and sustainability. Thank everybody very much. And I now adjourn the meeting of the climate resilience and land use committee.