Audubon Comments to Portland City Council on Colwood Golf Course

September 11, 2008

Mayor Tom Potter

Commissioner Dan Saltzman

Commissioner Sam Adams

Commissioner Randy Leonard

Commissioner Nick Fish

City of Portland

1221 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 340
Portland, Oregon 97204

Dear Mayor Potter and Portland City Commissioners,

I am writing on behalf of the Audubon Society of Portland and our 10,000 members in the Portland Metropolitan Area to express our opposition to the proposed Plan Map amendments and zoning change for Colwood National Golf Course. We believe that this parcel should be retained in its current designation as “open space” for the benefit of fish and wildlife, water quality and the community. Rezoning large portions of this property for industrial development is inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and would represent a change which is contrary to the best interests of the community. We urge you to reject the requested changes and retain Colwood Golf Course in its current “open space” designation.

The need for large open spaces along the Columbia Slough was first identified more than 100 years ago by the Olmsted Brothers in their 1903 Report to the Portland Park Board. They wrote that there was a need to “secure many hundred if not several thousand acres” along the Columbia Slough to serve as a “meadow park” that would provide “an entirely different type of landscape which is made up of great stretches of meadow land bordered by groves of trees.” They observed that “No other form of park has ever proved so attractive and so useful to the masses of the people as a meadow park…” [1]

Unfortunately the City failed to heed the Olmsted’s advice. Today Cully Neighborhood is recognized as one of the most park and natural area deficient neighborhoods in the Portland and the City has spent millions of dollars attempting to restore the Slough following decades of environmental neglect. Colwood Golf Course represents a unique opportunity to remedy this open space deficit, establish a critical anchor habitat along the Columbia Slough for native wildlife, and achieve a significant piece of the Olmsted vision. We are not suggesting that the City take the golf course by eminent domain. However we are suggesting that the highest and best use for Colwood is to remain in its current open space status. If the owners wish to retain Colwood, they should maintain it as a golf course or in some other appropriate open space usage. Should they choose to divest themselves of the property, we would urge the City to acquire the entire parcel as a permanently protected park and natural area.

Some have suggested that some sort of “balanced compromise” be struck that allows for both development and protection on this parcel. Indeed, the owners of Colwood have offered to donate a small portion of Colwood along the Slough to the City to be protected as natural area while converting the vast majority of the property to industrial usage. We view this type of approach as faulty at best. The environment surrounding Colwood is almost entirely industrialized. Allowing significant portions of Colwood to be converted for further industrial development would be neither balanced nor  compromise; it would simply represent a further reduction of open space in a neighborhood that is already well-recognized as one of the most open space deficient neighborhoods in the city. We believe that the hearings officer got it exactly right when he considered the need for both industrial land and open space along the Columbia Corridor and concluded that “The Colwood site open space is unique, is a practically irreplaceable asset, and therefore this application should not be approved.”

We would highlight several specific reasons for our opposition:

1)     Cully Neighborhood, in which Colwood is situated, is one of the most park deficient neighborhoods in Portland. Removing the open space designation would further exacerbate existing park deficiencies in a neighborhood which is already recognized by the City as severely park deficient and in which the City has targeted significant resources to remedy this situation. If the current owners do not want to continue to manage this site as a golf course, the community would best be served by bringing it into public ownership as a permanently protected natural are for the enjoyment of the neighborhood and the entire city and to help restore fish and wildlife habitat and water quality along the Columbia Slough.

2)     Public acquisition of this site as open space from a willing seller would allow for a variety of protection levels and passive recreation opportunities on this parcel ranging from more extensive human uses near Columbia Blvd. to intensive protection and restoration for fish, wildlife and water quality closer to the Slough. Natural areas that offer this type of continuum within the City are still far too rare resulting too often in situations where natural areas are overburdened with conflicting human recreational uses. Colwood’s size offers the potential to harmoniously establish passive recreational opportunities, opportunities to quietly commune with nature, and opportunities to set aside areas solely for the benefit of wildlife.

3)     Colwood has outstanding restoration potential. There is a need not only to protect habitat directly adjacent to the Columbia Slough, but also to protect large anchor sites at various points along its length. Most of the 209 bird species that pass through Portland each year can be found along the Columbia Slough. Many of these species require larger tracts of land to breed successfully. Colwood is also a very important area for bats. Eight of the fifteen bat species that typically occur in Oregon have been found at Colwood—a very high percentage. Finally, Colwood provides important habitat for western painted turtles which are currently listed as “sensitive” by the State of Oregon. While painted turtles can be found throughout the Slough, the upland habitat, such as is found at Colwood, that they require to successfully lay eggs is extremely limited.   It is not enough to protect only the areas immediately adjacent to the Columbia and Whitaker Sloughs---we also need some large upland habitat areas. Colwood offers a unique opportunity to accomplish this objective.

4)     Colwood is NOT part of the City’s inventory of industrial lands and it was never anticipated that this parcel would be converted for industrial use. It should remain as part of the city’s network of open spaces, parks and natural areas. Retention of Colwood’s open space designation is most consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan regardless of whether the current owners choose to retain possession of this parcel

5)     The owners of Colwood propose to sell the northernmost part of this parcel to the Port of Portland. Audubon is deeply concerned that future Port developments might not only destroy important opportunities to protect and restore habitat on the lands that it acquires, but may also have significant impacts on the small portion of habitat along the Columbia and Whitaker Sloughs which the Colwood owners currently propose to transfer to the City to be protected as natural area. The Port has not been able to give a clear indication of how this property would be utilized but has recognized that development as a third runway for Portland International Airport is a potential use sometime in the future. Because of the need to remove obstructions from the flight paths of arriving and departing planes and also because of the potential conflicts between birds and aircraft, a third runway extending onto the north portion of the current Colwood site would necessitate extensive habitat removal not only on the Port acquired property but also in proximal natural area along the slough. Existing Port operations already have necessitated significant habitat removal on the lands surrounding PDX as well as significant wildlife management programs. Potentially extending these types of activities into the Slough which the City has spent tens of millions of dollars restoring is contrary to the community’s long-term commitment to protecting and restoring this important natural resource area.

6)     An independent hearings officer made a strong recommendation to reject the proposed changes at Colwood. In making his recommendation the Hearings Officer looked specifically at the City’s Comprehensive Plan and found that the two most important policy areas for consideration were “open space/ environmental” and “economic development.” After considering both of these policy areas he found that “The Colwood site open space is unique, is a practically irreplaceable asset, and therefore this application should not be approved.”

We strongly urge you to reject the proposed Plan Map amendments and zoning changes. Thank your for your consideration of our comments.

Respectfully,

Bob Sallinger

Conservation Director

Audubon Society of Portland