Tree Matters by Bruce Nelson
This column also appears in the Trees For Life Oregon newsletter.
This month, Bruce informs us of the status of canopy in City Council districts 1 and 2. Subsequent columns will do the same for districts 3 and 4. With the hoped-for greater accountability coming with newly elected district-based council members, we present this information to help you relay your canopy concerns to your new district City Commissioners in 2025.
The State of Tree Canopy By City Council District
District 1
District 1 includes all of Portland east of I-205, the area near the airport, and much of the area between 82nd Avenue and I-205. Historically only one or two City Council members have lived or worked here. This district’s canopy is the lowest in Portland, with few street trees and few curbs or sidewalks. Its major roads were initially built for transporting farm produce. Post-World War II, they were gradually widened to carry increasing traffic. Lying outside of Portland until annexation in the late 1980s/early 1990s, these roads became unpleasant for pedestrians and deficient in street trees due to curb-tight sidewalks. See here for a history of some of these roads and an inventory of their current street trees.
Even after this area was annexed into Portland, it did not see significant investment in public services, parks, and street trees for many years, partially due to its residents’ lack of political clout. Over the past decade, many lower income residents have moved here, as housing has become unaffordable in other parts of Portland.
The City of Portland now recognizes the need to apply more of its resources to District 1 as a means of addressing its past lack of investment here.
Tell your District 1 City Commissioners that the City needs to:
■ Create pocket parks as a quick way to allow more people access to green space;
■ Develop incentives for businesses to plant trees in private property space abutting common pedestrian walkways;
■ Take over all street tree maintenance, including planting, pruning, watering for establishment, tree removal when dead, replacement of dead trees, and repair of sidewalks damaged by trees;
■ Continue Urban Forestry’s Free Yard tree program;
■ Better coordinate between City bureaus to prevent fiascos like the scant tree planting that occurred on Division Street because of water main conflicts;
■ Provide new support for volunteer neighborhood tree teams to foster community investment in tree canopy health and to supplement services offered by Urban Forestry;
■ Form a strong workforce development program that provides paid training for entry-level arboriculture jobs that offer tree planting, structural training of young trees, watering of newly planted trees, and tree mulching;
■ Financially support nonprofit organizations that supervise volunteers in planting, structural tree training, and watering and mulching newly planted street trees;
■ Reallocate Urban Forestry spending so more funds are dedicated to delivery of services in District 1.
District 2
Portland City Council District 2 includes all of north and most of northeast Portland. Portions of the district include large Douglas-fir trees that are increasingly threatened by new development and by safety concerns of residents about trees falling in storms. The northern edge of the Columbia Slough shares space with industrial lands, resulting in a mix of great natural habitat and challenging growing conditions for trees on industrial land.
City interpretations of state land use requirements that appear in the Economic Opportunities Analysis to set aside adequate land for the next 20 years to cover expected industrial growth often limit opportunities for tree planting in the Columbia Boulevard area on the northern edge of District 2. Another challenge is restrictions placed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on tree planting along levees built to help control potential Columbia River flooding.
Many areas in District 2 have long-established curbs and sidewalks with furnishing zones less than three feet wide. Urban Forestry policy adopted within the last six years is to not allow street tree planting in these narrow furnishing zones, based on the belief that these are unsuitable for healthy, long-term tree growth. This decision greatly reduced the number of street trees Friends of Trees was able to plant during its last years of community-based plantings in northeast Portland. An option that may become available in future is to take out selected on-street parking spots on residential area streets with narrow planting strips and make this space available for street-tree planting.
District 2 is experiencing multiple challenges to large existing trees—infill; storm damage; fear of large trees; code language exempting from large-tree preservation standards new development of affordable housing, lots under 5,000 square feet, and new development of multi-unit residential properties; and code that allows homeowners to remove any tree of any size within ten feet of a residence without demonstrating harm or threat to the building.
Several potential large-scale development projects over the next twenty years could also greatly affect tree canopy in District 2, especially in the district’s southwestern portion. These include repurposing the Lloyd Center area; covering the I-5 area near the Rose Quarter/Moda Center/I-5/I-84 junction; and, via the Albina Vision Trust project, increasing housing between Legacy Emanuel Medical Center and the Rose Quarter.
One type of tree-friendly design that should be noted in considering the final designs of new projects is found in Irvington. The first extensive housing development, which occurred there in the early 1900s, created wide furnishing zones, in excess of 8 feet, allowing growth of healthy, large-form street trees. This wide furnishing zone is a design element common to other historically better off, high-canopy eastside neighborhoods such as Laurelhurst, Eastmoreland, and Ladd’s Addition.
Within the last thirty years, District 2 has been the site of street tree planting by Friends of Trees through various projects that brought thousands of street trees to District 2, many of which are now providing significant community benefits.
Tell your District 2 City Commissioners that the City needs to:
■ Work at the neighborhood level to identify and remove street parking spots to be replaced by curb bump-outs to hold medium- to large-form trees, focusing on areas where street tree planting is restricted due to a furnishing zone under 3-feet wide or curb-tight sidewalks.
■ Actively engage residents in planning large-scale redevelopment projects to ensure that space for planting large-form trees is included and that healthy existing large form trees are preserved.
■ Change the City tree code in a manner that facilitates greater tree canopy in industrial zones in, or immediately adjacent to, District 2.
■ Develop financial incentives for property owners to preserve large, healthy Douglas-fir trees, which provide huge benefits.
■ Remove homeowner responsibility for street tree maintenance and tree-related sidewalk damage by transferring this right-of-way space to the City, funded through public means.
■ Develop strong neighborhood tree teams by expanding Urban Forestry’s Neighborhood Tree Steward Program. This will help educate residents about tree health and should include workforce development and volunteer efforts targeting street trees, trees at schools, and private trees–all of which are a community asset.
Sound Familiar? Some Things Don’t Change
I spend time at the Portland Archives and Research Center exploring the city’s tree-related history and want to share these comments written in 2000 to the City by a local resident about a proposed condo development. I have omitted text that could identify the location or the writer and have slightly edited for clarity:
“I have reviewed the site and am largely in disagreement with the assessment that the existing trees must go only to make construction convenient for the builder…
It is worthwhile to ask ‘upon whose benefit is this decision made?’ The neighborhood surely enjoys the existing trees, wants and seeks their protection, their color, aroma, and all that they provide. The future condo owners may equally want to share in their beauty and bounty, but removing them before they purchase the property and live in the area denies them the right to choose for themselves. The temporary property owner, the developer, has the least right to affect the neighborhood. Instead, it should remain the right of the neighborhood itself, including and in particular the new neighbors who live with these trees, to choose whether they want to have them removed and replaced. The builder/developer has the least interest at heart, save marketability, while the neighbors and future tenants have the most at stake… the decision should be made to affect the greatest benefit for the greatest good – the neighbors and future owners of the community.”