A Giant Sequoia Straddling Two Properties Needn’t Be At Risk

A NE Portland homeowner asks the City to step in to effect a positive outcome—for an iconic tree and those who live near it.

By Claire Bollinger, April 2020

Standing in the side yard of our home at 4066 NE 12th Avenue is a giant sequoia, nine feet in diameter at breast height. It is one of NE Portland’s biggest trees, and could live to be one of its oldest. Neighbors tell us they can’t imagine being without it, and neither can we.

The tree has been targeted for removal by Urban Forestry because of the damage its roots have caused the foundation of our neighbor’s unoccupied house. The tree straddles two private properties, and therefore has shared ownership. Before issuing this order, the City included the next-door homeowner in discussions about removing the tree but did not include us. There are realistic options to keep this tree standing and provide safe and livable housing on both properties. We have applied for administrative review, and the case is currently under appeal. The City has an opportunity to make this right. Will it? 

Preserving this tree would signal that Portland is committed to more fully meeting its stated urban canopy goals.

This tree is a vital part of our low-canopy Sabin neighborhood. According to Canopy Analytics, ours is one of fewer than twenty trees in Sabin that are more than 90 feet tall. The tree’s benefits are extensive. It provides significant storm water mitigation and contributes to neighborhood character and charm. Climate change challenges and Portland’s position as the city with the fourth-worst urban heat island effect in the country will best be mitigated by large-form trees such as this giant sequoia. 

The Neighbor’s House

When purchasing our home in 2010, the neighboring property at 4058 NE 12th Avenue was a rental and had been since 2008. We met the owner, who didn’t seem concerned about the tree. He purchased his house over two decades ago.

In spring 2017 his last tenants left, reporting to the City their landlord’s inattention to the property. The owner told us on numerous occasions that he planned to repair and sell the house. We have offered to buy it. This is one of many practical alternatives that would meet the owner’s objectives without removing the tree. We nearly reached a deal, but the owner declined our offer and ceased negotiations.

The house itself needs far more repairs than a mended foundation. In 2017 the City yellow-tagged it as a dangerous building. It has been uninhabitable ever since. The property maintenance violation from that year listed 14 separate issues, including several “fire life safety” violations.  Now that the house has been vacant for almost three years, with its roof vents open to the elements, it likely suffers from additional damage.

In fact, the foundation damage has been going on for decades. The property owner purchased the home with full knowledge: in 1996 he applied for a permit to “replace portion of foundation wall damaged by tree roots.” The time, if there ever was one, to fix the house by removing the tree has passed. Non-removal options such as root-pruning or robust foundation repair could have mitigated the problem years ago.

The City’s Bureau of Development Services recently made a stipulated agreement with the owner that if he temporarily propped up the house, the City would issue a permit to remove the giant sequoia. So the owner is temporarily shoring up the hazardous structure.

Public records show that this agreement involved months of communication between the owner, lawyers, and three City departments. Yet neither the City nor the next-door property owner contacted us until they had already made their decision about this large-form tree partially on our property. This, despite the fact that we co-own the tree. The tree code confirms that since the tree spans two properties, it is jointly owned and both property owners must agree to cut it down.

The code also requires the City to explore all non-removal options. Without communication with us, how is it possible this was done? 

Over the past three years, the neighboring property owner has stopped by a few times, wanting to continue discussions about removing the tree. We have reiterated that we are not interested in razing the tree, and we continue to offer non-removal solutions. He applied for permits to move the house farther from the tree, but after several expirations and renewals he abandoned the permits in summer 2019. After that, he called Urban Forestry to look at the tree and his house foundation.

The temporary foundation-shoring next door, required by the owner’s agreement with the City, was done in March while we were away. The City issued no permits for the work, and made no plans available despite our and neighbors’ requests. No erosion control signs were posted. The City and the contractors have been vague and secretive about the situation, leaving many neighbors confused about the process.

Dealing with the City

Our first contact with the City was on April 2, 2020, when a violation, Notice to Correct Tree Nuisance, mandating the removal of the tree by July 2, was taped to our door. Citing violation PCC 11.70.030.A.2 of Portland’s tree code, the City ordered the tree removed due to “Allowing or causing a tree-related condition that…threatens to damage public or private property.” Yet, according to Portland Maps, both properties were listed with a “potential tree code violation” almost a year earlier.

We were given only the standard 15 days to file our administrative appeal, despite the Governor’s stay-at-home order and the partial City shutdown due to the Covid-19 crisis. We submitted this documentation on time. Given the latitude the City has provided our neighbor in dealing with his property, I can’t help but believe the bureaus are taking sides. 

If the tree were to be removed, we would be left with a tragic stump next to an uninhabitable house, a memorial to the City’s poor decision-making process. It could even be that the City, after the tree’s demise, will determine that our neighbor’s house is not repairable and must be demolished, leaving us with no tree for no reason.

Solutions

We continue to be optimistic that non-removal solutions can solve this problem. Now that the house is on temporary shoring and all foundation walls have been abandoned, other options are even easier to envision. The house could be moved to the other side of the lot or deconstructed. A lot line adjustment could offset costs; we are willing to pay in order to save this venerable tree.

The notice to remove “the tree nuisance” requires us to work with our neighbor, but the City provides no support for doing so when the relationship is contentious. Mediation is one very valuable tool that we hope our neighbor will consider. Although he is unwilling to pursue mediation, that is how we could put real numbers and real solutions behind what is an emotional topic for all of us.

The loss of this giant would be a loss to the entire city. There are ways to keep this giant tree standing. Together we have the power to apply creative solutions. We hope that the City, the next-door property owner, and the community can come together to let this be a win-win for everyone.

Watch local TV news coverage of this story.

Editor’s Note:

Since this essay was written, the giant sequoia has faced a dramatic turn of events. A tree-friendly developer who intended to preserve the tree—and work with Bollinger and her partner to explore a possible conservation easement for it—was slated to purchase the neighboring property. But that effort was quashed when, in mid-February 2021, Claire discovered foliage discoloration on the south side of the tree, the side facing and belonging to her neighbor. Someone, and still no one knows who, had drilled five holes, each a foot deep, spaced across a third of the tree’s south-facing circumference. In March, a lab produced a toxicology analysis of the tree, finding high levels of glyphosate, an ingredient found in the weed killer Roundup. Uncertainty over the tree’s long-term survival compelled the tree-friendly buyer of the next-door property to terminate his contract.

As of June 2021, the foliage damage has spiraled to the crown and the tree has started to drop needles. The giant sequoia appears threadbare from the south but vibrant from the north. Time will tell whether it will survive the attack.

Bollinger has learned that off-label pesticide use is a federal crime and that timber trespass is an Oregon state crime. The Oregon Department of Agriculture is investigating the incident; the perpetrator has yet to be found.

Bollinger is still waiting for a hearing date at Multnomah County Circuit Court to appeal the City’s order to remove the tree.