FPNA reviews land use proposals affecting our neighborhood across the City of Portland and Multnomah County. We automatically receive land use notices about development within our boundary and can appeal decisions at the city level without charge.
Current status of the Harborton Phase 3 case — a coalition effort that protected Forest Park from a proposed transmission expansion.
PGE’s Harborton Reliability Project (Phase 3) proposed clearcutting approximately 4.7 acres of mature forest along a PGE easement through Forest Park to expand transmission capacity. The proposal moved through the City of Portland’s land use process in 2024 and into 2025.
The city council responded to overwhelming community opposition and denied the PGE permit. The unanimous reversal at City Council was a significant moment for Forest Park’s protection. It reflected both the strength of the Natural Resources Management Plan (see below) and the coordinated response of residents along with a coalition consisting of the Forest Park Conservancy, the Forest Park Neighborhood Association, and the Bird Alliance of Oregon. City councilors determined that the utility expansion directly conflicted with the long-standing Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan, which aims to preserve the area as a self-sustaining ancient forest.
Case LU 24-041109 CU EN
FPNA's land use work — appeals, comment letters, and legal review — is supported by donations from neighbors and partners. Contributions are tax-deductible to FPNA as a 501(c)(3) Oregon nonprofit.
Prefer to send a check? Make payable to "Forest Park Neighborhood Association" and mail to the District Four Coalition address (see Contact).
The Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP) is the City of Portland's governing document for activities in Forest Park. FPNA helped write it — and it remains the substantive standard against which projects affecting the park are judged today.
The NRMP sets the rules for what can and cannot happen in Forest Park — from trail work and habitat restoration to utility infrastructure decisions like the PGE Harborton case above. Any project affecting the park is evaluated against the NRMP's three management zones and its substantive standards.
The NRMP was developed between 1994 and 1995 by Portland Parks and Recreation and the Bureau of Planning. Development was overseen by a Citizens Advisory Committee with representation from neighborhood associations, conservation groups, and city staff. The plan was adopted by City Council in February 1995 (Ord. 168509).
FPNA was represented on the Citizens Advisory Committee that helped develop the NRMP. The work of writing the plan three decades ago is a substantial part of what makes effective land use advocacy possible today.
The NRMP is organized in eight chapters covering background and policy, existing natural resources, three management zones, and implementation. Plan Summary and Implementation are the most useful starting points for residents trying to understand how a specific project will be evaluated.
The most recent neighborhood-wide record of what FPNA residents value — and how they want the area to be protected from further urban growth boundary expansion.
In February 2006, the FPNA board authorized a neighborhood-wide survey of residents, property owners, and business licensees. Surveys were mailed March 8, 2006 to 1,255 valid addresses in the neighborhood. 261 responses were received, with 239 conclusive responses on the UGB question.
Of 239 conclusive responses, 84% opposed further Urban Growth Boundary expansion into the Forest Park Neighborhood. The result was decisive and has informed FPNA's land use positions in the years since.
Survey respondents most valued wildlife and open space, proximity to Forest Park, the rural character of the area, and quiet. Concerns centered on traffic, development pressure, and protecting headwater streams that feed into the park.
The 2006 survey remains the most recent documented record of neighborhood-wide priorities on UGB expansion. The values it documented — wildlife corridor protection, rural character, headwater streams — continue to inform how FPNA evaluates land use proposals affecting the area.
Source: Forest Park Neighborhood Vision Survey Results Summary, Carol Chesarek, July 26, 2006.
FPNA reviews land use applications for code compliance and comments on those we don't think comply. Residents can submit comments on any land use proposal directly to the city or county. If there's an application you're concerned about and you want to let us know, you may also share the concern with FPNA's Land Use Committee.
Any person or group, inside or outside the FPNA boundary, may submit an item in writing for consideration by the board. Per bylaws Article XII §§1–4. You may email the board president to share your ideas or submit an agenda item for a meeting.
president@forestparkneighbors.org →The FPNA boundary spans the City of Portland and unincorporated Multnomah County, and touches Washington County. Different rules apply depending on jurisdiction.
City of Portland Title 33 governs zoning and development within incorporated Portland — most relevantly, chapter 33.430 Environmental Conservation (which covers Balch Creek and other sensitive resources).
Multnomah County land use rules apply to unincorporated areas of the neighborhood. The county has its own notice and appeal processes.
Forest Park itself is governed by the NRMP (above) for projects affecting park land, in addition to whatever jurisdictional rules apply to the surrounding parcels.
