Mayor.

All right, good evening, everyone.

This Tuesday, May 5th, 2026 meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council is now called to order.

Miss Hawkins, are you please call the role?

Mayor Beck.

Here.

Councilor Mabu.

Councilor Wenlin.

Here.

Councilor Frederick is excused.

Councilor Corgan.

Here.

And Councilor Hapkin.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Now, everyone, will you please stand, remove your hats and join us in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God with liberty and justice.

Well, folks, this month we honor the histories and contributions of Jewish Americans as well as the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities.

We reaffirm our commitment to building a community rooted in respect, connection, and belonging for people of all backgrounds and faiths.

The city invites everyone to join us on Sunday, May 17th from 12 to 3 p.m.

at Millennium Plaza Park for a community celebration featuring AA and HPI owned businesses, artisans, food vendors, and local nonprofits.

This month, we also proclaim our support for mental health awareness by encouraging our community to support one another and take steps to improve the mental health and well-being of themselves and those around them.

We will hear more on educational opportunities and mental health support offered by NAMI Clackamas in just a few moments.

But to recognize the uh historic preservation uh month and award, I'm gonna ask our associate planner, Mr.

Paul Espy to please come forward.

Hi, Mr.

SP.

Good evening.

Well, honorable mayors and members of the council.

It's really great to be here this evening.

Every year during the month of May, communities throughout the nation celebrate preservation month, first created in 1971 by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Over the past several years, Lake Oswego has celebrated Preservation Month in May with a presentation of the Merit Award to recognize those who have made significant contributions to the city's history.

This year, Mary Bosch will be um uh vice chair of the historic resources advisory board.

Will present this award to members of the Lakeridge High School Technology Program for their work on the self-guided walking tour that provides an historic overview of the Lakewood neighborhood.

Before we do the awards, I just want to do a brief presentation on our program.

Um the city of Lake Oswego is now accepting applications for the historic preservation grants for the rehabilitation and repair of historic buildings listed on our list on our uh landmarks list.

And this year, the city received five of these applications, including the Davison House at 257 Iron Mountain Boulevard, pictured in this slide here, who has completed their project consisting of the replacement of the balcony and uh railing.

Um the city also has received four neighborhood education grant applications for the Lakewood neighborhood for the self-guided history tour for the reason we are here this evening.

And then uh the Lake Oswego Hunt Club, the Oswego Heritage Council, and Respond to Racism, which is a community-led nonprofit organization created to discourage racism in uh the city of Lake Oswego.

They are developing a public island installation project, which would be located in front of the Lake Oswego Public Library.

The Oswego Heritage Council has completed their permanent exhibit on the history of Lake Oswego.

And the uh new exhibit consists of an expanding time plot timeline, which was literally printed on wallpaper and placed up on the walls, which was really cool.

If you've had a if you have a chance, you should go up and take a look at it.

Um then the uh city has also completed the selective reconnaissance level survey of the McBay, South Shore, and Hall inland neighborhoods to gain a better understanding of the remaining historic and architectural properties.

These properties were surveyed so that they could be considered for future designation, but of course, not without the consent of the property owner.

On May 14th, HRAB invites the community to celebrate preservation month with a fascinating evening exploring the origins, history, and distinctive architecture of Mountain Park, one of the city's most iconic neighborhoods.

Home to 2,735 households across 600 acres.

Mountain Park is one of Lake Oswego's largest.

This event will feature unique insights and personal stories from those closely connected to Mountain Park's creation, including members of the Halverson family.

And Carl Halsen played a key role in the design and development of Mountain Park in 1968.

Halverson Island was also the original name of what we now know as Jansen Island.

Other notable attendees include Robert Orringdolf, the architect of the clubhouse and key contributor to the community's design, and Sarah Mason, whose family helped build the neighborhood's streets, trails, and infrastructure.

So join us on May 14th for an evening of history, storytelling, and discovery, including additional historical antidotes, a self-guided architectural tour that will bring Mountain Park legacy to life.

And this also has a brochure that goes with that, so you can follow the map and look at all of those great iconic homes up there.

On behalf of the City of Lake Oswego and the Historic Resources Advisory Board, Mary Bosch, the vice chair of the historic resources advisory board, would like to present the Jeannie McGuire Historic Preservation Award to John Sperry, computer science and engineering instructor, Doug Gast, and the Lakeridge High School Technology Program student members Alvin Wang, CJ Hansen, Leon Lee, and Alan Wang for all of their great work on the self-guided walking tour that provides the historic overview of the Lakewood neighborhood.

Lakewood's history would be described with photos and information about these historic properties.

The information will be accessed through a phone app similar to the Gallery Without Walls Walking Tour Guide.

And this project was developed through a unique collaboration between the school district and the Lakewood neighborhood and the city of Lake Oswego.

Through John's and Doug's leadership, the Lakeridge High School Computer Science students designed and developed the complete technology component and the application for this project, which is really pretty amazing, actually.

And Mary, if you know you can chime in, you can feel free to chime in on any of the stuff since you did so much work.

The only thing I want to acknowledge is we had a Lake Oswego business owner, Doug Gastick with Germinate app development participate and provide some deep technical consultation, all volunteer, hundreds of hours of volunteer time.

Excellent, excellent.

So this is the page that you land on when you first open up the app, apparently.

And then this is where you go, I think on the second page, or it's part of the first page, I'm not really sure, but that provides an overview of the available sites.

And you know, they're still it's a work in progress, so they're still loading up the photos as we speak.

So we just wanted to give you an example of what this would look like once you once you um get the QR code on that app.

And then uh this is an interactive map to access the individual properties.

And now I'd like Mary to uh come on up, and she's already up here.

Do we have the awards?

We do and uh present the awards, and I can get those.

I can't say enough about um the time and talent of this dedicated team.

Really, we started work on this over two years ago.

Um representing the Lakewood neighborhood.

We also had 20 Lakewood team members working on doing their own home historic research.

And the hope is that now that the wheel's been invented, we will be sharing with other neighborhoods the opportunity to also highlight the historic homes in their neighborhoods.

So send us your recommendations.

So welcome me and congratulating.

Alan Wang.

Wang uh Leon.

Leon.

CJ Hansen.

The incredible John Sperry, devoted instructor.

We're so grateful to you and honor, honor all your work, and look forward to spreading the word like wildfire as soon as the app has ready to load.

Download.

So thank you.

Thanks so much.

I had a nice ass out.

Congratulations to you all.

Thank you very much.

And Mary and Paul.

I think this team represents sort of the tip of the iceberg, but this is the core, hardworking students, weekends, nights, street time, not just the occasional volunteer.

So grateful.

It's a preservation award, unlike we've had uh before.

Good job.

It's very creative.

Yeah.

Good job, you guys.

Thank you.

And now, in recognition of Mental Health Awareness Month, I would like to invite Dave Hunt, the executive director of NAMI Clackamas to please come forward.

Mr.

Hunt, good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here.

Um I'm Dave Hunt, as the mayor said, and appreciate the opportunity to share with the council tonight.

It is Mental Health Awareness Month.

And so we appreciate you taking some time on your busy agenda to focus on an issue that frankly we all should be more focused on.

And I think as a society, we are making progress on mental health, but we still have lots of challenges.

I think one of the one of the questions that best illustrates the challenge we've got, and I'd be curious in your thoughts as what is the average time between someone thinking I might have a mental health condition and someone actually taking action to seek treatment for it.

Any thoughts about what you think the average time gap is between the first thought and actually taking action on it?

One year.

Sadly, it's 11 years.

That's why we don't play the prediction markets.

Now, yes.

Now, there are a variety of reasons for that.

Some of it's lack of access to health insurance, some of its lack of access to sufficient therapists, some of its lack of access to therapists that accept the right insurance that you might have.

But the biggest factor for sure is stigma around mental health.

And even though that time gap is slowly narrowing, that if there's one thing we can do collectively to dramatically decrease that gap when someone thinks they might have a mental health condition and actually cease treatment for it.

I don't know what the numbers are, but imagine if someone breaks their arm.

What's the time gap between someone thinks I might have a broken arm and see treatment for it?

I'm sure the numbers are worse for men than women because we tend to be stubborn, but it's not 11 years.

And so we can do things about mental health.

And that's really what NAMI is all about, providing that education, support, and advocacy.

And I just wanted to give you a glimpse into what some of the free resources that are available to all the citizens of Lake House We go and our entire county.

Everything we do is 100% free, doesn't require diagnosis, doesn't require insurance, doesn't require uh there's no barrier to access.

We do a lot of classes, uh probably our most popular classes are family-to-family class, which is really just life-changing for family members of those with a mental health condition, not only to get some good information, it's an eight-week class, and they get good information about about it, but they're also all of a sudden in a group where they walk in thinking I'm the only one who has a family member who's struggling with this.

All of a sudden, everyone in the class has a family member who's struggling with mental health.

So those are uh we're actually right in the middle of a cohort.

The peer-to-peer one is online right now, the family-to-family one is meeting in person.

Uh that will change up based on what people signed up for.

We have a ton of support groups.

I won't go through them all.

Some are open to all, some were specific to a specific cohort, some are in person, some are virtual.

But we've just had a dramatic expansion in the number of peer support groups of people really wanting a group either as a peer with a mental health condition or as a family member where they can get access to uh support and encouragement.

This has been a dramatic change for us in the last couple of years.

We're now doing in the Clackmas County jail three days a week of mental health classes.

Plus, last year we started a weekly men's support group in the jail, and next month we will start a weekly women's support group in the jail.

That's really been life-changing because there's such co-occurrence between the criminal justice system and mental health conditions.

We also have weekly volunteers in the Clackmas County mental health courts providing resources for family members.

So the focus on the criminal justice system has been a real increase for us in the last couple years.

We also have three staff who are available for free peer support.

They're trained peer support specialists, they're not therapists, but they are trained peer support specialists.

And again, they are available to meet with people for free, no diagnosis, um, no uh insurance required.

We have lots of presentations too.

In fact, I've done a couple presentations in Lake Oswego neighborhoods uh this past year.

But if you're part of a civic club or a neighborhood association or a faith community or whatever it may be, we're happy to come out and uh provide a presentation at a length you will dictate to us uh about mental health and resources that are available.

Again, all of it completely free.

I thought you might be interested in a few upcoming opportunities.

Because all our services are free, we really rely on last year.

We had 131 volunteers, and we also have a few events each year.

We just completed our uh our comedy night in March, which was great.

We have our walk coming up, uh, which will be at Peninsula Park, and we do that with the other NAMI affiliates from the region on May 16th.

And then we have our uh our auction, which will be at Gray Gables on uh on September 17th.

One new partnership we formed is with Clackmas Repertory Theater.

We'll do a theater night.

You know, this year it's gonna be on Thursday, June 25th.

If you haven't been to Clackamas Rep, which meets on the college campus at CCC.

Uh, it's a great theater company.

They do three productions a year.

They've given us a whole block of tickets, and so all the sales 100% benefit the free services of Nami Clackamas.

So encourage you to check that out on our website.

As I said, lots of volunteers, tons of opportunities for additional volunteers to uh to participate.

With that, I'd be happy to take any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you so much.

Do you uh uh aside from from the donations, is is not does NAMI receive stable county level funding, state funding?

We do.

Fortunately, we receive no federal or state funding, but we do receive uh probably about one-sixth of our budget is a contract with Clackmas County.

Oh, Raleigh heavily so substantive, but not over.

I mean, a lot of nonprofits are really struggling because they were overly dependent on federal or state resources.

We are not.

Really uh appreciate the work, the resources and uh that you provide and that the organization does throughout the county.

It's very important.

We appreciate taking the time to be here tonight.

Thank you.

And I'll I gave you each actually a str there's a stress ball and a brochure that uh your clerk will pass around, and I'll leave a few more brochures on the back table for members of the audience.

Yes, we'll need those tonight for sure.

All right.

Pass out those balls.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

And folks, you'll find all of our uh proclamations uh on the city uh on the city website.

And now we are going to move into what I think most of us are here for tonight, and that is to award the winner, the local winners of this year's If I were mayor contest.

So I'm gonna get up and come to the front air.

Thanks, Laurel.

Okay, so the if I were mayor contest.

So every year, the Oregon Mayor's Association hosts the If I were Mayor contest, and it's a contest that takes place in communities all throughout the state of Oregon, according, of course, here in Lake Oswego.

And the contest is for students in grades four through twelve, all the way through high school, to share their creative and inspirational ideas of what the city would look like if they were mayor.

And this year, Lake Oswego received over 60 very creative and interesting entries.

And while not every entry could be selected as a winner, each was very, very helpful and informative and understanding what is really important to some of the youngest members of our community and and their peers.

So we have first, second, and third place winners in the poster category, which is for grades four and five, and the essay category, which is for the middle school, grades uh six through eight, and then a digital media for uh grades nine through twelve in the in the high school.

And because there were so many good entries, we also included an honorable mention in the poster and essay categories.

Now I have the honor of being joined up here tonight by my friend Sophia Liu.

Sophia is a past uh winner of the If I Were Mayor contest in 23 years ago.

2023, when you were in middle school.

Yeah.

And now she's in high school.

And she's a junior.

That has happened.

And she is involved in her school's student government, the speech and debate, ethics bowl, science bowl, DECA clubs, as well as the uh LOHS student news newspaper, Lake Views, um, and our city's youth leadership council, and volunteers at Lake Osigo Middle School speech and debate club and summer camps in her free time.

And that's all she does.

And she was we were so glad to have her help judge as a return as a winner, judge this year's uh contest, and thank you for being here tonight to help present the uh the winners.

So, the winners, I'm gonna call you all to come forward and join us here in the horseshoe.

We have Zaki Taylor, Jacob Plett, Archie Parker, Colin Sun, Clara Watson, Lila Cooley, Grace Malajai, Keenan McGee, and Vedant Ramakrishnan.

Come on up, everyone.

Okay.

Now we're gonna go through, we get to go through the posters and the essays one by one, and then Sophia will give you your certificate, and then just stay up here because at the end, we're gonna take a we'll take a picture.

Okay.

So let's begin.

So, with like I said, with so many creative entries, we were gonna start with the posters.

We decided to include an honorable mention, Colin.

Colin, where are you?

Colin coming forward.

Came on here.

So Colin's poster earned honorable mention in the poster category, and in his poster, which we have up here on the screen, Colin focused on the importance of a three-day weekend.

He pointed out oh, wow.

Okay.

Oh, lots of support for that.

He pointed out that implementing a three-day weekend would provide more time uh to exercise, more time for some RR, and to allow better focus for kids and more preparation time for teachers.

It may not be surprising that this was a favorite amongst the staff judges in the contest.

Colin, will you tell us a little bit about why this topic was so important to you?

Uh, because like uh sometimes feel like like too tired to go to school.

That's a great idea.

Congratulations, a very good job.

Thank you, Colin.

Archie.

Okay, Archie.

Archie won third place with his well-organized and thoughtful poster that supports public safety by adding crosswalks and making uh crossing flakes available, working with an arborist to support and encourage people to trim trees uh in order to protect homes.

We're talking about trees later tonight, uh, to support outdoor activities so that kids can have fun and not ruin their eyesight by looking at screens, and by building food banks because everyone sometimes um needs a little bit of help, and that's an important resource.

So, Archie, congratulations.

Tell us a little bit about your favorite topic on the poster.

Um, the outdoor activities, because I already have b bad eyesight.

What's your favorite outdoor activity?

Um baseball.

That's great.

Everyone give round two big round of applause.

Congratulations.

Now, Jacob.

Jacob, right here.

Jacob.

So Jacob took second place in the poster category, and with with uh really good use of illustrations and clear written communication.

Jacob had two main goals that he would pursue as mayor.

The first a new mall.

This mall would be located in a 250-foot-high tower, which is illustrated in the poster.

It would have wonderful shops and outlets and an observation deck for those who would like to view the lake instead of shop, as well as a glass-domed elevator going up and down this tower.

And second, Jacob would focus on the need for more sidewalks in the neighborhoods.

Jacob, tell us about your favorite element of the poster.

Uh, I like drawing the observation tower.

I thought it was really cool and idea.

What would be what would be the ideal location in town for this for this mall?

I don't really know, but like maybe uh very probably very close to the lake.

Um, maybe there's an island in the middle of the lake, maybe there, but I don't know though.

We'll put it next to the airport.

Okay.

Jacob, congratulations, really good job.

Give him a round of applause.

Zaki.

Okay, Zaki, come forward.

Zaki earned first place in the poster uh uh in the poster portion of the contest with a detailed poster that includes illustrations, photographs, and maps that allow people to better visualize his goals, which include installing cooling stations in city parks to help protect the public during extreme heat, by creating a walking map that showcases fall colors and spring blooms as well as local businesses to encourage people to get outdoors and support the local business community, and by encouraging kids to become involved in politics by organizing a kids' city council.

Great idea.

And as a forum to hear new ideas, this council would give kids an opportunity to see how their local government runs and to discuss topics important to them with community leaders.

And so you also focused on the need for more sidewalks and bike lanes, especially near school.

You did a great job.

That's a beautiful, it's a beautiful poster.

Tell us about your your favorite goal of all those we talked about.

Because I love the outdoors and it would be a good thing to get outdoors and cooling stations.

Good idea.

Congratulations, everyone gives Aki a big round of applause.

Okay, now we're gonna move on to the essay contest.

And again, we had an honorable mention, Keen Keenan.

Keenan, come here, Keenan, congratulations.

So Keenan had a very thought-provoking narrative that won the honorable mention.

And in Keenan's essay, he points out he recognized that the mayor does not have absolute power, but don't tell anyone that.

And his suggest uh and his suggestions all have to fit within a budget.

And with those restrictions in mind, Keenan focused on pedestrian and traffic safety.

Sidewalk improvements by removing bumps caused by tree roots, adding safety lights at certain crosswalks.

We love those, and cutting plants on the corners of roads so that uh bikes um and drivers can see better around the corners.

That's another thing we really like to do.

So Keenan, we were very especially the judging panel was very impressed by the cost analysis you included with all of those goals.

You are the future Jeff Goodman.

He's right out there.

This is Keenan, you too.

Kendred spirits.

So Keenan, tell us a little bit about yourself and about your favorite idea.

Um I'd say probably the sidewalk improvement is my favorite idea because I go biking around the town with my friends a lot.

So that would just like make it easier so we don't have to worry about falling off our bikes.

Would you go biking more if there was more sidewalks?

Yeah, probably.

Of course.

Yeah, well, good job on your essay.

Congratulations.

Everyone give Keenan a big round of applause.

Sophia has your successor case.

Okay, Grace.

Grace.

Grace won third place in the essay contest with a clear with clear organization and very compelling writing.

Grace's opening and closing paragraphs summarize her focus as mayor, which is bringing youth together with adults and elders to make Lake Asigo a more connected and thriving community.

The changes that she would make as mayor include bringing a free trolley system to our town, which would help provide people of all ages, but especially older folks and younger children who can't drive on their own.

Uh, Grace discussed how this would be funded.

Encouraging children from the ages of 10 to 15 to volunteer in local Lake Asigo businesses, allowing children to gain valuable work experience while supporting business, youth labor for free.

We love that.

Introduce a kids' market similar to an ordinary Saturday market, but where kids can run it all on their own.

And this would help kids grow independence by running their own stand and help with creativity by making making it more beautiful and unique.

Grace, congratulations.

Please tell us about your favorite topic on your in your essay.

My favorite topic is probably the trolley system because it'd be easier to get to like downtown Lake Oswego.

It's a great idea.

Like a circulator trolley.

Oh, we've been talking, I know.

City manager, no, we've been talking about this for a long time.

Grace, congratulations.

Let's give Grace a big round of applause.

Lila.

Lila.

Lila took second place in the essay contest, and her essay focused on one innovative and rather attainable idea: a mend and lend program.

The Mendon Lit program would build on our library's library of things program.

People could bring items that need small repairs to the library, and then volunteers would fix them if possible.

And then once fixed, people choose to keep their item or to donate it to donate it so that others can check it out.

The program would be run by volunteers, including high school students who are required to complete volunteer hours.

And in addition to reducing waste and saving money, students would learn valuable skills.

It's a great idea.

But you had a good idea and people really enjoyed it.

So tell us a little bit, how did you come up with this idea?

Well, I like to go to the library with my grandma a lot, and I saw how much people liked the library of things, so I thought about what I could add to it.

Do you think you can make it happen?

Yes.

I think so too.

Okay, everyone.

Let's give Lila a big round of applause.

Congratulations.

Great idea.

Okay.

And then Clara.

Clara.

Clara took first place in the in the and and I should have mentioned too.

Our first place winners in the categories all get advanced to the statewide competition, and then they're judged against all the other first place winners from the from the other cities.

So both the Clara and Zaki were advanced to the statewide competition.

So Clara, great essay that demonstrated the importance of talking with and listening to members of the community to better understand their concerns and ideas.

And to prepare her essay, Clara interviewed staff from the city's fire department and spent time spent time talking to people in Lake Oswego.

Her well-crafted and organized essay addressed what she heard from those discussions, which included building a better library that would include a separate children's, tweens, and teens sections, music practice rooms with soundproof walls, a cafe, local art on display, comfy chairs, and a lot more books.

Also, she heard about the need to protect the environment by making the city more bike friendly, by working with the city's transportation department to achieve this, and by placing a therapy or trained dog at each fire station for the Lake Oswego fire staff.

Well, that's a great idea.

In addition to providing comfort to fire staff, the fire dogs could go to schools with firefighters to help teach kids about fire safety.

What do you think would be the best kind of dog to do this?

Dalmatian.

Of course, the Dalmatian, yeah, it's a great idea.

Let's give Clara a big round of applause.

What's Clara, what's your favorite idea from your essay?

Probably the library because the kids' section is like picture books and stuff, and the teens section is like really enough said.

Yeah, we we know what you're talking about.

Clara, good job again.

Okay.

And now, finally, Vedant.

Vedant come forward.

So Vedant received first place in the digital media presentation category.

And like the others, he was entered into the statewide contest.

In his video, Vedant emphasizes his goal of ensuring our city remains a place where opportunity, community, and local character continue to thrive.

And we all get the privilege of watching your video.

My name is Vedant Amakrishnan, and I'm a sophomore at Lake Oswego High School.

If I were mayor of Lake Oswego, my goal would be simple.

To make sure our city remains a place where opportunity, community, and local character continue to thrive.

We have done a great job expanding access to affordable housing.

So another priority I would focus on would be furthering educational opportunities for younger students.

Some elementary school students lack access to tutoring or extra academic help outside of schools.

To fix this, I would create a city-supported tutoring program connecting high school volunteers with elementary school students who need extra help.

High schoolers would gain leadership and mentorship experience while younger students receive support that can shape their academic future.

Additionally, I would focus on protecting the local restaurants that give Lake Oswego its unique character and vibrant community.

As mayor, I would focus on implementing three strategies to help our local businesses.

First, I would strengthen collaboration through the Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce.

So restaurant owners can advocate together for fairer policies and incentives.

Second, I would create an annual Lake Oswego restaurant week to drive traffic, celebrate our local food culture, and help residents rediscover the businesses that make our city special.

And third, I would start a student-led digital marketing program where high school students help local restaurants with social media and online promotion.

If I were mayor of Lake Oswego, my focus would be clear.

Building a community that is more inclusive, more connected, and more supportive of the people and the businesses that make our city what it is.

Thank you.

Let's give Vidon a big round of applause.

Congratulations.

Vedon, like Sophia also serves on the city's youth leadership council and has also been a um uh youth member of our uh DEI advisory board.

Okay.

Um now, like I said, we submitted all of our first place winners into the statewide competition, and we got we got some news today, and it's pretty exciting.

I have a couple pieces of news.

First, Clara and Statewide won second place overall in the essay.

It's a big deal.

They're competing against all the other cities throughout Oregon.

And Zaki won first place.

Congratulations.

So they you both win additional cash prizes that they are going to send to me, and then I will give to you.

Yes, I I promise I will give it to you.

So congratulations to you.

Let's give all of these folks another bigger.

Okay, we are back in order.

Thanks for your patience, everyone.

Uh next on the agenda is public comment.

If you're here to provide public comment, please fill out one of the white uh requests to provide comment cards if you haven't already done so.

Um they're on the table in the back, and then please hand it to Ms.

Hawkins forward here.

Uh I'll call you forward to the presentation table when it's your turn to speak.

Uh please speak into the microphone.

Uh, just state your first and last name, and then you'll have up to three minutes to share your thoughts.

There's a little timer on the on the desk there to keep track.

Um, please keep in mind that the timer lights on the presentation table, they will indicate how much time you have uh remaining, that when the time is up, the light blinks red, and we appreciate uh you keeping it to that three uh minute time limit.

So, first though, we have someone on Zoom, Nolan Wenker.

Yep.

Mr.

Wenker, uh, good evening.

Can everybody hear me okay?

Yes, loud and clear.

Okay, perfect.

Uh mayor, city counselors, uh, good evening.

My name is Nolan Winker.

While I am not a resident of Lake Oswego, I have served this community for the past nine years as head golf course superintendent at Oswego Lake Country Club, bringing over 20 years of experience managing landscapes like this.

I have also participated in stakeholder discussions regarding updates to the city tree code.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to LU twenty six-rourte, specifically the amendment that would prohibit golf courses from using the forest management permit.

I spoke to the I spoke at the April 13th Joint Planning and Development Review Commission meeting where both commissions and numerous members of the public supported maintaining eligibility for golf courses.

The data simply does not support a categorical exclusion of access for golf courses to utilize this permit.

From 2021 to 2025, Oswego Lake Country Club accounted for less than half of one percent, but less than one half of one percent of total tree removal citywide while occupying about 2% of the city's total land area.

This is a somewhat limited footprint and a very small share of removals.

Tree management at the club is not unregulated.

Mitigation and replanting are required and consistently implemented as part of a structured accountable process.

The purpose of the forest management permit is to sustain forest health and reduce risks, such as wildfire, drought, pests, and disease.

These goals apply equally to golf courses, which often contain significant tree canopy and large contiguous green spaces that contribute to water quality, habitat, and overall community well-being.

Excluding golf courses removes an effective tool for managing these landscapes and does not advance the city's environmental goals.

A more balanced approach would be to retain the eligibility while maintaining current oversight through mitigation and replanting requirements.

I encourage the council to continue supporting golf courses by preserving their access to the forest management permit.

And I thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate your comments.

Jeff Shear.

Good evening.

Good.

Good to see you.

Good evening, Council.

My name is Jeff Shear.

I'm speaking tonight on the proposed forest management permit change to our tree code.

I've lived in Lake Oswego since 1968.

I graduated from Lake Oswego High School.

I've served on the development review commission for eight years, two as chair.

I currently serve on the tree committee.

In addition, I learned to play golf at the Muni as a kid, and I'm a member of Lake Oswego Country Club.

The council has taken time to set up an extensive process for the changes to our tree ordinance.

In practice, when processes work, they have a few common themes.

They have good data collection.

They have good data dissemination in a form easy for understanding.

The data is reviewed and analyzed at committee and commission levels, followed by good decision making at the highest level based on committee and commission recommendations who have thoroughly vetted the information.

It's been my experience when these processes are followed.

Good lasting decisions are made.

When a process gets hung up with outside noise, the process decisions are flawed.

Don't and flawed and don't serve our committee and do not stand the test of time.

I believe listening to outside noise could be an issue in this manner.

In closing, I'd like to say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Having removed less than 1% of the total trees removed over the five-year period, implanted the required replacement trees.

In addition, two commissions have rejected this change, and it has never been brought before the tree committee.

Thank you for your time and the work you do for our community.

Thanks, Jeff.

Appreciate you being here.

Oh, oh, good, good, good, good.

Mr.

Mayor, Counselors, City Manager, staff, I'm Chris Durkey, 2356 Glenhaven Road.

With me are Kerry Love and Jeff Goodman.

We are the directors of the Leak Oswego Fire Station Rebuild PAC.

Here to give you a final update before election day, May 19th on our campaign to pass ballot measure 3635.

But first, I want to recognize key members of our campaign who are here playing specific roles.

So if you folks would stand.

We have Karen Sampson.

Karen is organizing the letters to the editor and also helped organize all the letters that are now in your voter pamphlet.

And Derek Schmidt is the chair and uh of the Old Town Neighborhood Association and has been a passionate and hardworking advocate on our team.

And Mary Kay Larson, we could not do without.

She's a Palisades resident, and her experience running the school bond has been invaluable to our team.

Jenny Cherry Tree, who you met last week is running the art contest, which is just about to be completed with an exciting finish.

Thank you.

Thank you again for having us.

Of course, vote yes on the measure, but also urging our residents of Lake Oswego to turn in their ballot.

You'll see that across all of our venues, meaning social media, um, website, print materials, our two mailers will touch over 10,000 mailboxes between now and election day with that message.

Again, the art contest had over almost 50 entries for LO students, and the judging is complete as Chris mentioned.

Thank you, Mayor Buck.

And the winners will be announced at the Saturday Farmers Market at the opening market.

Um, I have also volunteered at the open houses at the South Shore Fire Department, as well as canvassing my neighborhood.

And during these times, I've found from all of my neighbors in the Palisades, neighborhood, and beyond that there is great great support for this measure, great support for our fire department, and also just really thankful for the efforts to make this happen for community safety.

Jeff.

Thank you.

It's been a pleasure to be a part of this terrific team, and Chris has done a marvelous job of hurting all the cats and keeping us moving forward.

My responsibility has been to make sure we comply with all regulatory requirements, both at the state at the local level to stay on top of the budget.

Our budget was approximately 14,200.

It came from a wide variety of sources and ranges of dollars with a wide range, but it reflects the community support for what we're going to do.

I'm also pleased to support to say that we will spend the entire $14,200 down probably to the nearest penny.

But it's been a good campaign.

Looking forward to the community support to pass this bond to replace the fire station.

My overall takeaway leading up to this election day is that this community cares deeply and is ready to act for the Lake Oswego Fire Department.

There's strong support for replacing the South Shore Fire Station, not just as an infrastructure project, but as an investment in firefighting firefighter safety and health, community resilience, and the future of Lake Oswego.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

Thank you, Kerry, Jeff.

And all of you, thank you very much for your good work.

We're all now in the final stretch.

Gonna get people to turn in the ballots.

Turn in the ballots.

Done a good job.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Janet Paul.

Good evening.

I'm Janet Paul.

I represent the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association.

And this is Teresa Aguilar, who also represents the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association.

And we're what prompted our concern is the new construction that's going to go on Boone's Ferry on a triangular lot just south of I can't think of the name of it.

Anyway, it's going to be on the south side of Boone's Ferry.

Do you know what it's a mixed use?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Sort of.

What's the name of the hair salon?

Tray Chic.

So it's it's the lot south of Trachic and our east, toward the freeway from Trachic.

Anyway, of uh about 30 trees, they're planning to remove at least 22 of old growth, some old growth trees, um, because it's a relatively small lot, and they're putting in mixed, you know, this large mixed-use.

It'll take up most of the lot, the mixed-use uh apartments and retail.

Um so we're concerned that we're in Lake Grove.

Lake Grove represents a huge tree community.

We love our um tree canopy, um, the environmental effects of having the trees is great.

And it seems like every um new construction development removes the vast majority of trees on the lot, and we're opposed to that.

Um we think that build, you know, most buildings, homes and buildings can be designed to allow trees to be maintained on the lot.

And basically that's why we're here, and we're hoping we've talked to the design committee um a few weeks ago, and we're hoping to get the council to support us in just making sure that we don't remove all the trees from lots and um you know, allow our canopy to stay, the environment to stay, the wildlife that has homes in the trees.

Um, it just is important to maintain the the greenery in Lake Grove.

Otherwise, we have to change the name from Lake Grove to Lake No Grove.

So anyway, Teresa will say something now.

Yeah.

Yeah, I have a public comment on there, so it's my time looks like it's going.

Hi, I'm Teresa Aguilera.

I am a, as Janet said, I'm speaking as a resident of Lake Grove and a board member on the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association to express concerns our neighbors have brought us about uh large and small developments leading to excessive tree removal.

Uh, and that's changing the character of the neighborhood.

Removal for safety is necessary, of course, and housing and development drives a lot of the loss, though, that we would consider not optional.

We want progress.

We love our neighborhood being mixed use.

That's one of the things that brought me to that neighborhood.

However, economic and housing factors are just a couple of threads that build the tapestry of a strong, attractive community.

Um walkability, bikeability, the AARP, livability index, these things are all measures that are important and aim and aim to make spaces feel good to be in together, and that's what we are really after here.

So I'm here because none of the indices that I just mentioned can fill in for the personal testimony of residents, and all our residents can't make it here.

So I'm here to speak on their behalf.

Um, since joining the board of the LGNA last October, I've heard from no fewer than 10 households about this matter, and more a lot of them this week.

Um, in customers in customer service and uh and tech and business.

I know that 20 one complaint represents about 26 others that people who haven't spoken up.

So I can understand that there's a lot more out there, people who are concerned about this.

Lake Grove itself only has about 700 households.

So that's a large proportion of our constituents that I would presume are concerned about this issue.

Um I'm here to represent these neighbors, and they cite a variety of concerns, which Janet already uh mentioned a lot of at the just general attractiveness of the neighborhood, um, the shade, diversity, habitat of species for species like eagles, which have been seen.

I saw one the other day right on Boone's Ferry.

Um I also hear about impacts to climate and environment and including runoff, erosion, and tree health.

We now know, for instance, that Doug Furs in particular are stronger in groves, they're more resilient to uh extreme weather.

New science, it's not even new anymore.

Dr.

Simard has pointed out decades, a decade ago that uh saving a single old growth tree is just not as impactful or the same as saving a grove of them, a family of trees, as she puts it.

So I would thank you for this opportunity to bring these considerations to light, and I look forward to continuing this valuable dialogue.

It's by no means finished, I'm sure, and I appreciate this opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you, Teresa.

Thank you, Janet.

Is there anyone else who'd like to provide public comment?

Okay, thank you, everyone, for your comments.

We're now gonna move on to the consent uh agenda.

We have one item on the consent agenda.

It's a public improvement contract for the construction of new sidewalk and stormwater facilities.

This is on the McEwan Road project, which is fantastic and exciting.

Is there a motion to adopt the consent agenda?

The consent agenda.

Second.

All right, motion was made by Councilor Corgan, seconded by Councillor Moop.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, motion passes five zero.

All right.

Now our first item of uh council uh business.

We have the uh recommend recommendations for uh interviews.

So, as you know, we had um we had a dozen, a dozen folks uh who applied for the the vacant spot on the the council, and we appreciate the widespread interest in the position.

Uh all of the council had an opportunity to review those applications, which were all very thoughtful.

Applicants took a good deal of time responding uh to a series of questions so we could get to know them uh a little bit better.

Um and uh we ranked those um uh we we ranked the answers to the different questions, and then uh that enabled me to kind of narrow that 12 down to uh uh a little smaller uh field so we can bring folks in for the interviews.

The interviews take a little bit of time, so it would be um challenging to interview every single one of the applicants.

Um but I just want to say that I really uh am grateful for all the folks who want to serve with us on this kind of short-term basis.

As many of you know, this opening once the appointment is made, just fills um uh former council Raff's uh term going through the end of this calendar year.

Um but I I think that everyone applied, which is great to see that interest because we you know um and I hope folks continue to stay involved.

So with that said, the uh I want to advance the kind of top four scores um of those uh 12 to join the council for interviews, and those top four scores were Jackie Edmonds Manns, Jeff Goodman, Larry Lindstrom, and Suzanne Miles.

And um I'd like to ask the city manager pro Tem, would you like to talk to us kind of about next uh steps?

Yeah, uh pretty uh straightforward, but following the council approval of those four uh staff will move forward with scheduling interviews for a special city council meeting on May 28th for a decision.

And I just want to say thank you to Laurel and Madison for all the hard work on this as well as all the other boards and commissions openings at the same time.

Um so it's been it's been a very busy couple weeks, but uh we're making progress.

Yes, good job.

Thank you, Laurel.

It's been a lot of a lot of recruitment, a lot of interviewing.

Um so is there a motion to invite the city council finalists to interview for the vacant position?

I move to invite the city council finalists to interview for the vacant position.

The motion was made by Councillor Afghan, seconded by Councillor Winland.

Is there any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, motion passes uh five-zero.

Again, thank you to everyone who applied and finals.

We look forward to seeing you on the 28th.

Okay.

So now we are going to hold a public hearing uh regarding resolution 26-13.

This is the standards and procedures to be used for the recruitment and selection of a city manager.

And I invite our assistant city manager and HR director, uh, Ms.

Feelin' and Brian Cosgrove from GMP consultants to come forward.

But before we begin with their report, I'll ask Ms.

Tatoyan to please review the hearing procedures for us.

We will now open the legislative public hearing on the standards and procedures to be used for the recruitment and selection of a city manager, starting with a presentation by staff.

Testimony will then be received by the public.

So it's uh this time we're ready for the staff report.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, council.

Um, my name is Megan Phelan.

I'm the assistant uh city manager and human resources director, and with me here this evening at Brian Cosgrove from GMP Consultants.

We are here this evening for a public hearing and to recommend that the city council adopt resolution 26-13, which outlines the hiring procedure, standards and criteria, and policy directives to be used at the hiring of a city manager.

As mentioned just a moment ago, we have selected GMP consultants as the executive search firm to conduct the city manager recruitment.

And Brian Cosgrove sitting next to me will be our lead recruiter.

In summary, the hiring process begins by advertising the position to solicit applications from qualified candidates.

This will include advertising with professional associations, internet job postings, and direct contact with potential candidates who meet the criteria for the position.

Once the position is closed, the recruiter will review all applicants and based on their professional judgment, they will prepare a recommended list of candidates for the city council to consider an executive session.

Upon review of the recommended list of candidates, selected candidates will be invited for an interview with the city council as well as uh possibly with city staff and members of the community.

The city council may invite certain candidates for subsequent or final interviews with the city council.

A comprehensive and complete background check will be performed on any final candidates.

The city council in an open public session shall then select the final candidate to be appointed the city manager.

It is important that throughout the entire process, the city will honor the commitments of confidentiality of candidates to the fullest extent possible, subject to the requirements of Oregon Public Meetings Law and Public Records Law.

The hiring procedure, standards and criteria, and policy directives for the city manager are provided as a draft, but may change in light of public testimony and/or through city council consideration and discussion this evening.

GMP consultants has conducted stakeholder interview meetings with the mayor, city councillors, and city staff.

From these meetings, GMP has prepared a job profile brochure to advertise and recruit candidates for the position.

A copy of that Joe job profile brochure was included in the city council meeting packet.

And I'd like to invite Brian to say a few words.

Good evening, Mayor Buck, members of the council, good to see you again.

As as Megan mentioned, we did uh stakeholder interviews with all of you and with some of your key staff, and those those were uh conducted on April 13th and 15th.

And from that, we put together the uh profiles before you tonight.

Assuming that you approve that tonight, then we will launch this advertisement beginning tomorrow, and then it will stay uh live for five weeks.

And then after that, we will uh I will do the first screening of applications on the the 14th of June and then select some semi-finalists to bring back to you the week of uh June 28th.

Uh we will, I believe, have that conversation in executive session.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Um and then after that, we will have you narrow that field down and we'll schedule final interviews.

And I believe the dates we have selected for final interviews are July 23rd and 24th, which I think will be ideal for candidates, especially if you get some from out of state, because that'll be a Thursday and a Friday.

Um, so that'll be I think better for just scheduling purposes.

That's kind of all I have.

I was told in advance, and because I I did that job for 31 years, I know you have a full agenda, so I don't want to say any more than I have to, other than it's been a pleasure working with you all, and I look forward to continuing on with this profit process.

And as always, if you have questions throughout the process, feel free to go through uh Megan or the mayor, and I'll be happy to respond.

So that's all I have.

Thank you, Brian.

Thank you, Brian.

Thank you, Megan.

Um, lastly, council, before we move into the actual public hearing, I just wanted to mention that when the city manager position became vacant, I conducted a um salary survey for the position to make sure that we were within market, and we want to always make sure that we're current with our salary ranges so that we can be competitive.

Um I did propose a salary range in the staff report.

Um we believe that will help ensure the city's wages are competitive with the market and will help to attract qualified candidates to apply for the position.

And so the proposed salary range has been included in the draft job profile brochure for the city council's consideration.

And with that, we'd have you take any questions.

Thank you, Megan.

So have any questions for Megan O'Brien?

Councilor Afghan.

Uh you mentioned that the job will be uh advertised for five weeks.

That's it generally feels short.

Can you elaborate why five not seven or twelve?

Five is kind of industry kind of best practice.

Um and also I I think a job like this, you're gonna get some good applications.

So I don't think that's going to be an issue.

Um I think for city managers, they're used to that five to six uh week window for advertising, so it it is kind of customary that length of time.

Yep.

Thank you.

Questions?

No?

Okay.

Um we are going to uh open the public hearing and take testimony.

Yeah, if you would like, is there is there anyone here who would like to testify on this resolution?

26 13.

Okay.

I know we don't have anyone here to testify.

So I'm gonna then uh close the public hearing and entertain a motion to adopt resolution 26 13.

Move to adopt the resolution 26 13.

Second.

All right.

That motion was made by Councilor Winland and seconded by Councillor Corgan.

Is there any discussion?

All right, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes five uh zero.

Thank you, Megan.

Thank you, Brian.

Appreciate the good work.

Okay.

We are now going to move into a study session on the tree code tree regulation code amendments.

This is LU26-0014.

I invite our community development director, Jessica Numanalu to please come forward, join my big team or other friends.

Great to have you all here.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, counselors.

Uh I'll start off by uh introducing our project team.

Uh I'm joined by Sarah Goldstein.

She is with Cascadia Partners and uh the project consultant.

Uh we have Morgan Holan, who is our wonderful uh city and longtime city contract arborist.

We have Daphne Sissel, who is an associate planner that administers our tree code and does a fantastic job at that.

And then I do see that we have Courtney Wilson, our urban forest uh for urban forester excuse me in the audience as well, and she has joined our project team since she started with the city last year.

And I don't believe I just wanted to make sure we didn't have any tree task force members.

Oh, Jeff Shear is here.

Thank you.

Um, Jeff Shear is one of our tree task force members, so I want to acknowledge him.

And then a special uh thanks to Councillor Wendlin for being the council liaison to the tree task force and coming to our meetings and providing his input and guidance.

We we really appreciate it.

Fun, fun.

Trees are always fun.

Uh so I just have some brief uh opening comments before um Sarah begins the presentation.

Uh this is the four steps fourth study session that the council has had on the tree code amendments, and um we just have four light policy issues for you to discuss tonight.

Um, not really, but uh we do need your direction before we finalize the draft amendments uh before the planning commission hearing in June.

And uh we did begin this project a year ago this month, and it is on schedule to be completed in July, which we are are very much looking forward to.

And as was recommended in the urban and community forestry plan, as well as directed by council uh at the start of the project.

I just want to remind you that this is not an overhaul of the tree code.

Really, these um the as much as people love to hate the tree code, it actually is pretty effective.

And that was what we found in um in sort of investigating uh out in the public as well as uh during the urban and community forestry plan process.

Um it's pretty, you know, we have a 53% tree canopy cover.

I know we cite that a lot, but it is something to be very proud of, and I think uh one of the highest tree uh canopy covers in the region.

The project of objectives are specifically to improve regulatory clarity and efficiency, support sustainable forest management, and ensure compliance with state law.

out in the public as well as uh during the urban and community forestry plan process um it's pretty you know we have a 53% tree canopy cover I know we cite that a lot but it is something to be very proud of and I think uh one of the highest tree uh canopy covers in the region the project of objectives are specifically to improve regulatory clarity and efficiency support sustainable forest management and ensure compliance with state law and we do have a list and attachment to to your report all of the key issues along with a kind of a a chart showing which objective each of those key issues meets for the project I do want to make you aware of a state bill another state bill that just recently passed in the last legislative session it's HB4037 and that bill includes a new law that limits public notice and appeal opportunities for applications subject to clear and objective standards and so that would include the new clear and objective type two track that we're proposing as part of these amendments.

The bill will become effective on July 1st and it will only allow notice to properties within 100 feet of the site and it will only allow applicants to appeal a staff decision or a decision of a hearing body to the land use board of appeals I want you to make be aware that the draft amendments have not yet been updated.

We're still conferring with our city attorney before making those updates because it happened so recently but we that will be updated before the planning commission hearing in June and do please keep this in mind as you go through your first policy discussion will which will be on appeals of type two applications.

And then finally I just want to acknowledge the many comments that we received on this application on for the Oswego Lake Country Club we we did receive a lot of comments as well as part of the planning and develop planning commission and development review commission study session and it's about the the Oswego Lake Country Club and their ability to maintain eligibility for the forest management permit.

We do appreciate the input I in hindsight I don't think it was that I framed the policy correction policy excuse me issue correctly and so tonight what I'm what we're going to do is we're going to reframe that policy discussion and really focusing on the criteria that applies to all forest management permits rather than focusing on whether golf courses should be eligible for this permit type so I just wanted you to be aware of that as we go into the the presentation moving forward.

And so with that without further ado I will pass it off to Sarah.

Thank you for having us today we're looking forward to getting council's direction on these topics here is the agenda for today first I'll give some background on the project and a high level overview of the key code amendments you received draft for in your meeting packet and it's very dense so we're gonna just give you kind of a high level overview of some of those changes but most of our time today will be spent discussing those four policy discussions outlined in your meeting packet with this with the small changes around the forest management permit.

So our objectives today are to review and understand the project background goals and timeline and understand the draft and alternative policies for the four key code amendments the first policy area is of the appeals process for specifically the discretionary type two applications for tree removal so again not all tree removals just type two discretionary second maintenance responsibility for trees in the public right of way three forest management permits criteria and four hazardous trees on private property so we'll discuss the policy options and look to council to provide a policy direction for the final draft code so Jessica already briefly covered this but just to put this slide up to ground everyone in the project objectives and outcome the project objective is to amend Lake Oswego's tree code and tree related provisions in the community development code as recommended by the urban community forestry plan which is a guiding plan for this project and the outcome will be to preserve the city's wooded character and promote sustainable urban forests while supporting responsible development and complying with state law namely the clear and objective standards for needed housing and this project will integrate best practices and urban forestry and enhance the clarity and efficiency of tree regulations through meaningful community involvement so speaking of the meaningful community involvement at the beginning of this project the team reviewed current tree regulations and developed a list of key issues by bringing a list of key issues to a number of groups we brought this issue these lists of issues to city council to the tree task force which is an advisory body of 14 people that regularly interact with the Lake Oswego Tree Code like developers, tree professionals, neighborhood representatives we engaged with city staff through three group interviews we conducted seven stakeholder focus groups and engaged the public in several different methods through an online open house but also by tabling at the urban forest summit and tabling at the Lake Oswego emergency preparedness fair.

So with this robust engagement, the list that was originally presented to council went from 12 substantive issues, went from originally nine substantive issues to 12 substantive issues and an additional 25 technical issues, which are more surgical technical revisions to the code, like definitions and things like that.

So here is the project timeline, and we are again almost almost towards the last stage here.

With this revised list of key issues, the best practice research was conducted where the consulting team looked at peer jurisdictions, what they were doing, and looked at uh alternative approaches to the current code to address these key issues.

We brought these alternative approaches to the task force, and it became clear that we needed to provide some more concrete code concepts for how we were gonna approach some of these really big substantive issues like the clear and objective standards.

So code concepts were developed, and the last time we were here, we presented you with four of these code concepts, and you all provided really great direction for us there.

So today we're gonna be reviewing the uh draft four of six.

Uh, city staff and the city attorney reviewed the first draft.

Tree task force reviewed draft number two.

Draft number three was brought to two work sessions.

One was a joint work session with the planning commission and the development review commission.

And the second work session was with the Sustainability Advisory Board and the Parks Board.

So both of them reviewed draft three.

We made revisions based on feedback, and draft four is what you received with that with those revisions incorporated.

So after today, we'll take your direction and revise draft five that we'll bring to the tree task force one last time before hearing and hearing and adoption.

So in total, the draft includes 33 primary amendments that consist of 12 substantive changes, so it's those bigger changes with more policy implications, and 21 technical updates.

These technical updates, again, are kind of smaller tweaks, but this doesn't mean that they're not significant, as we'll talk about today.

And there are an additional 35 general technical revisions that were identified by staff during the drafting of these amendments to address minor consistency and clarity issues that have been brought up.

The four sections of the code that are affected by these amendments are chapter 55, the tree code, chapter 50, community development code, and also Article 42 sidewalks and article 34 types of nuisances, and this relates to the maintenance of trees in the right of way.

So the kind of the most talked-about substantive key issue for this project was developing a new clear and objective track.

And so this is one of the most major changes that you're seeing in this draft.

We created a two-track process for tree removal for type two permits.

So again, this is there's a lot of different permit types, there's nine different permit types, and this is for just for type two removals.

So there is the existing discretionary track that applies to type two removals that are not residential development.

Um, and the residential development can also opt into this track if they would like.

So developers can still opt into this track.

We're just providing them two potential options.

And this would include removals of trees over 15 inches, DBH, we're gonna say DBH a lot, that's diameter at breast height, and generally retains the existing criteria with some small with some updates that clarify the definition around significant tree.

The new clear and objective track applies as required by state law and establishes minimum retention standards based on either tree count or total diameter, and applicants are given an option for how they calculate.

We also added an allowance under the discretionary track to deal with trees that may not qualify under a hazard permit, but may be moderately hazardous.

This gives more opportunity to applicants to address semi-hazardous trees without just opening regulatory doors for widespread removal for residents who perceive that a tree is is uh is as risky.

Uh if there's a significant negative impact to the following criteria um erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees and existing windbreaks, or the character and aesthetics of a neighborhood.

So this is discretionary and this is remaining as the code for the discretionary track.

The proposed amendment and the proposed clear and objective track is a clear and objective standard that is putting forth the concepts that we presented to council in uh November.

And the applicant can choose between one of two calculation methods for this total retention.

Um the first is based on total trees, and the second is based on DBH.

This excludes dead declining EAB susceptible invasive species, fruit trees, hazard trees, or emergency trees.

Um and in our review, we landed on 45% for both of these uh calculations based on an analysis of tree removal data from the past year and feedback from the planning commission and the DRC and the tree task force.

Uh, if for some reason the developer can't achieve this 45%, uh, we're still keeping the uh a fee in lieu.

So for instance, if if they're a little short, they can pay into a mitigation fee if the minimum standards cannot be met.

And we have not um the mitigation fee has not been set yet by the team.

It's uh to be decided.

Sarah, can I ask what could you have a question?

Um the uh going back to that new hazard um or allowing for the removal of moderately hazardous trees.

Is that a type?

Is that a is that a form of type two of the hazard tree?

Oh, it is a type two.

Yeah, it would be added as an uh as one of the I think it's an alternative.

It's an exception, excuse me, an exception that would allow the removal if they can demonstrate that the tree is moderately hazardous and that there are um examples of similar trees failing uh in nearby uh or um Megan or Morgan, you probably have the Yeah, top of your mind.

Or um if there's no abatement options to reduce the risk to low?

Yeah, it can't be achieved through pruning or maintenance.

Um the resident would have to hire an arborist that would do an evaluation and and moderate risk and severe severe risk and mild risk are all official.

Um moderate, high or extreme.

So currently to qualify for a hazard permit, you have to rate high or extreme under that standard methodology.

So this process allows folks an alternative when the tree rates moderate and you know they're really worried about it.

Right.

So is is the process then to just including moderate in the same current process there is for the high and severe risk.

No, it would actually fall under the type two permit.

So it would be a type two permit for a landscaping purpose.

And if the removal were going to have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood, they would have to address the exceptions criteria, which then, as the code amendment is drafted, it requires you to have a tree risk assessor qualified arborist, fill out the hazard evaluation form, demonstrate the risk potential is moderate, describe that there are no reasonable abatement options.

Um it can also help if there is a history of failure of similar trees in in your immediate area.

Um is another way to substantiate that moderate risk.

That makes sense.

Yeah, no, I'm confused about what so you know, we all know how this came about.

This are the trees folks said it's really difficult to remove hazardous.

We know that they're they're on their way to becoming hazardous, and there's very oftentimes no way to abate it.

Um but we require it to you know reach this severe uh point in Arborists were even saying it's hard to remove the trees of that hard to climb them to remove them.

So um, so I we're on the right track, but I'm just wondering why do we have this under the type to process because what are the else are they supposed to do with it if we determine that it's hazardous?

They have someone come out and score it just like they would have to do.

I mean, unless I'm guessing the thing is just obviously hazardous, like it's tipping tipping over, you can just see it with a naked eye.

Well, if it really is hazardous, they can just get a hazardous tree permit.

So the problem today that we have is is someone might apply for hazard, they don't qualify as a hazard, and then they come in for a type two and they don't qualify as a type two either.

Right.

So we uh still push them into the type two, but we now provide this criterion that says, well, if it doesn't call enough high, if it's not high enough to be a high or extreme hazard, which is the criteria to issue a hazard permit today, if it at least qualifies as moderate and it can't be abated and there's a history of failure, then they have this avenue to get it removed for landscaping purposes, but for the fact that it is moderately hazardous and cannot be abated.

So it gives them that a path that doesn't exist today to remove that tree under a type two.

Why not just why not just um make it like a current hazard tree then?

I think it doesn't align with best management practices for tree risk assessment.

Um moderate risk trees are not all that uncommon.

And so the threshold that the city has for a hazard tree is rating it high or extreme.

Um and that the whole methodology is very standardized.

I mean, these tree risk assessor qualified arborists go through three days of training, they have to pass an exam, they have to maintain these credentials over time.

Um, and so you know, we're trained to use this methodology to determine what that likelihood of failure is, what's the likelihood of failure impacting a target and assigning a risk rating to that?

So just I think if the city were to redefine hazard tree as a moderate risk tree, that would be opening up to much more removal.

Are all communities valued the same way?

In other words, everyone has to have an extreme or high uh no, no, I think you know, different communities, different jurisdictions rate hazard or define hazard trees in different ways.

Um I think Lake Oswego is one of the one of a handful that I can think of locally here that um does use the International Society of Arboriculture methodology um for high or extreme risk.

Right, but what I'm I guess my point is is are we an outlier where we only allow high or extreme um and no, I don't think that's unusual.

No, okay.

So it's it's often defined in different terms, but the threshold for a hazard tree is a high threshold in in any jurisdiction I do work in.

Okay, okay.

I'm just trying to doubt so it is this is just that so you go out, you have the arborists come out, first of all, just like you would be required to for any hazard tree, unless again it's obviously you know half falling down.

You get the arborist to come out, they say, well, it's moderately it's a moderate risk.

Okay.

But then you say, well, is there anything so in some cases you can mitigate the risk?

Is that why it's a type two to give that opportunity to I get why are we opening is because this is open up to public comment appeal.

I guess I'm just don't understand why we don't say the criteria are you have the tree assessed, it's moderate risk, you also have the it it be determined by the arbors that there is no way to mitigate it.

And as long as you check these boxes, permit.

If you don't check the box, no permit I think that it's important to keep in mind that the reason we put it into the exceptions criteria of the type two application is because you only have that added burden of demonstrating it's a moderate risk and that there's no abatement options if removal will have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood.

If you meet all of criterion three, um, and there's no significant negative impact, you could get a tree removed for a landscape improvement if it was in poor condition or you were doing a renovation or something like that.

It's those cases where those particular trees will have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood aesthetic, you know, a big oak in someone's front yard, a standalone Douglas fir.

Um those trees that you know, generally those are the ones that we find the public comment to be most helpful on.

So that added burden is only there with the exceptions criteria.

Only with the exceptions criteria.

Yes.

So if you meet criterion three, there's no significant negative impacts.

You don't have to address the exceptions criteria.

You meet the criteria, you get your permit.

You don't have to hire an arbist, you don't have to show it's moderate risk, you just get the permit.

And again, how do we determine the significant impact?

There's a whole list of the well, there's the whole list, right?

So it could be a significant tree, it could be located in the public right-of-way.

Um removal would be considered to um alter skyline aesthetics.

It could be a visual screen between differing zones or 50% or more of a stand of trees.

So all of those are part of that criterion three.

Okay.

And just sort of as a quick uh reminder, a hazard tree is I know we're updating the mitigation standards.

So would they all be regardless of the type of hazard permit be required to mitigate?

No.

Oh no.

We are not proposing to mitigate for hazard trees.

We are proposing to uh mitigate for type one trees, which are probably the highest percentage of tree removal that we have in the city, but we do not want to discourage the removal of dead or hazardous trees by um requiring mitigation because that can often be a deterrent.

So we purposely did not require that.

Now there are a few instances that we do require it, and that is if it's in a sensitive lands area, or if um if it's in the public right of way and there is sufficient area to plant another tree.

Does that include this moderate risk tree?

There is mitigation required for all type twos.

All type of things.

Okay, okay, so that's the severe.

Okay.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Counselor Afghan.

I guess I have the same uh view as the mayor does.

If it's a hazardous situation, whether it's high, medium, then it goes, it should go through this process.

We seem to just put it in a different process, but you go left, right, up, down, why can't it just be hazardous?

If it's high, it's immediate, eminent danger, it's gonna happen in the next 48 hours, you're clear to go.

If it's medium, then you have to have your arbores show us that yes, this is going to be dangerous in the future.

So take it out.

Why can't we take it out of the type two and deal with it that way?

I think just as you know, I don't want to repeat what Morgan said, but you know, our concern is that if you if if you kind of open up our hazard to moderate risk, there's a lot of trees that are moderate risk, and so this could significantly increase the amount of trees that can be removed.

And so what we were trying to do is put it through another filter to make sure that if it does have a if it if it doesn't have a significant negative impact, you get the permit, no problem.

But if it does have a significant negative impact, we want to make sure that we have vetted it and um uh you know put it through an extra filter so that we aren't sort of, I don't want to say opening the floodgates, but it does create a lot more opportunity for people to apply for moderately hazardous trees and remove them.

And that's a concern that we had.

Um, and that is why we're proposing it this way.

Of course, um the council can direct us to do otherwise, but that was uh the recommendation of uh staff.

Okay.

I I think also uh what was baked into the design of this moderate risk uh discretionary process is that a lot of the fear around trees falling on your home or uh destroying infrastructure or catching on fire, a lot of that could be resolved through education.

Um, and this process kind of requires what well, one, there's going to be a large education push from urban forestry as well, but this process requires somebody to go out and hire an arborist if they if they are certain that their tree is of moderate risk, the arborists can talk to them about you know, maybe what they could do in terms of pruning maintenance, and they can learn what they can do to reduce the risk for whatever they're worried about.

And then they can it's so it's also kind of a learning process and just another another step because there's so much like they're not misinformation, but there's a lot of confusion around trees and their potential risk to people and their their other houses and and sheds and things like that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for explaining all of that one and just chew through it.

Can Mr.

Mayor, can I finish my thought there?

We have a fear that a whole lot of people are gonna step forward and want to cut their trees, and then the other side has a fear that it's gonna come down on their house and kill their kids and family members, and I don't see us being able to to close this gap.

And it's I think we talked about this before.

I believe that climate change is real.

I truly believe in our uh council goal that we have to combat uh climate change.

And you've seen me talking with the council and say combat means we have to put our armor on and go out there and find it.

So I believe that.

I also believe that we have to be flexible, and whatever anybody wants to do, if it impacts any other residents, then we step in and make sure that the process is fair and equitable.

Right now, I believe that if we don't capitalize on our situation, every single tree has a life expectancy.

And fast forward to a hundred years from now, what are we going to have as a canopy?

What are we going to have as a city with trees or no trees a hundred years from now?

Because we're so married to every single tree that's going to die in the future.

So capitalizing on what we're doing, it means when we take down a tree of 30 inches for any reason, whether it's a fear of coming down on my house or opening up my view, or for any reason, what can we do in order to replace that tree that is better for the environment five years from now?

And I don't see those conversations.

And I think we brought this up to study a goal.

So if somebody is and I've had at least four people approaching me over the last three years, and their fear is that this tree is going to come down on their house.

And we sit here and say DRC or B or City Council says you cannot cut this tree.

At the same time, a developer comes, they clear the whole lot.

That's not fair and equitable.

So I'm I want to stay with the process you've put in front of us with these are the four questions we have for you.

Great.

But every time I step into this conversation, my thoughts on my values and my thinking about this whole thing is preventing me from staying quiet.

So where is the fair and equitable?

I know that when I build my house, we had a sick tree 30 inches, cut it down and didn't have a place to put another tree.

So here's 200 bucks.

That is not fair and equitable.

Thank you, Councillor African.

Yeah, I want to keep us on track because we have this is near one of the topics of this.

But you know, thank you for making that.

Well you've all articulated is makes a lot of sense as well.

I mean, we just wanted to have an option.

I didn't I think we just want to make sure that the option we're providing for these monitored trees is not um, you know, just for show that it's a legitimate option people people can use, and um I hear where you're coming from on that and appreciate the explanation.

Thank you.

Can just one more quick thing though on the clear and objective track.

So is that um for clarification?

Are those will those permits be subject to review appeal for the clear and objective track?

We cannot provide notice to uh more than prop uh more properties than are within 100 feet of the site.

And so we we have a question in to our city attorney's office.

Like, I don't even think we can post a sign on the site for that.

Um I I think public comment is allowed, but only the applicant is eligible to appeal under HP 4037.

Okay, if the city uh um denies they can appeal the application, the applicant is the only can appeal if the city denies it.

Okay, thank you.

That's helpful, thank you as well.

And I I hear your concerns, and I actually think that we're going to be touching on some of those pieces as we walk through the policy uh discussions today.

We have uh a couple the the last policy option today is talking about you know, when your neighbor on your your private homeowner neighbor has a dangerous tree and they're not doing anything about it, and we've kind of carved out a new process for that.

Um there are a couple uh amendments as well that are aimed at reducing the discrepancy between developers and residents and trying to put them on a little bit more uh even even playing field, especially with the mitigation trees, and um, yeah, so the mitigation for the this for the discretionary type two moderate hazard trees, uh that is an advantage.

Um, the mitigation uh of that instead of having the moderate hazard trees fall under the hazard permits, and so that is to encourage um continuous replanting when possible for um you know the purposes of climate change and and and maintaining an increasing canopy.

But uh I will move us along to our our key takeaways here, some other notable changes um that are included in the many amendments in this draft number four of the the code.

Uh there are program-specific permits for use in sensitive lands, and we discussed this uh with the parks board and the sustainability advisory board.

There are simplified permits to allow for proactive removal of trees that are susceptible to emerald ash borer EAB, which is a very high concern for parks, city staff, and many, many arborists alike in Lake Oswego.

And the amendments also address expanding mitigation requirements and street planting requirements as well.

So I will cover each of these four policy discussions similarly.

I'll go through them each the same way.

First, I'm gonna provide some context and considerations for each, uh, as well as the policy options that we included in your staff meeting packet.

And after that, we'll pause for questions and discussions before we move to the next one.

We're looking for clear direction on what changes should be moved forward to draft five.

So, first, should the appeals for discretionary type two permits continue to be heard by the development review commission with further appeal to counsel, or be heard by a hearings officer with no further appeal.

And this was one of the code concepts we brought to council last time we were here in November.

And so we we already had a preview discussion about this.

So currently, notice and appeals, uh, the notice and appeals process for type two removals is three weeks.

And if there is an appeal that pops up, it currently goes to the development review commission.

When they make their decision, uh it can then be further appealed to council.

And so you've all received some of these over the past few years.

We pulled data from 2020 to 2024.

So there have been approximately three appeals annually.

Uh, and eight of those in that period of time for those of you who've been on council for a while.

Um, only one out of eight were appealed to counsel after the DRC's decision was overturned.

No, eight were eight.

Eight were appealed to council.

Eight were appealed to council, but only one of the decisions was overturned.

Yes, thank you.

And that was partially.

So, option, policy option A would be to keep the existing process where the appeals for the type two discretionary applications go to DRC and then council if they're further appealed.

And some advantages of this process is that it maintains this quasi-judicial appeal structure that the public is used to.

The public has been doing this for a while.

Um, there wouldn't be any changes to this process.

Uh, and this provides multiple opportunities for public review and input, as well as higher public accountability, trust, and transparency.

Some disadvantages are that there are longer timelines for applicants, and there is a higher administrative burden when appeals are filed, which uh Mayor Buck kind of referred to at the last session that we had.

Um, and as noted from the previous slide, there was only one instance in the past five years that the hearing body overturned the staff decision.

This is often a very contentious process.

And also, as we've been discussing with House Bill 403, uh there is a greater disparity, there would be a greater disparity between the appeals process for the discretionary track and the clear and objective track.

Since now with House Bill 4037 for the clear and objective track, the applicant is the only one allowed to appeal and is the only one with standing to appeal for the clear and objective track.

Um, so with this new House bill, it incre it increases the difference in appeals between those two tracks, and this also addresses kind of putting developers and residents on a similar playing field.

Um we've heard that they want kind of less disparity for those two groups and the two processes of discretionary and clear and objective.

The policy alternative, option B as drafted, responds directly to the key issue identified at the beginning of the project, evaluating the appeals process to reduce delays and conflicts between groups.

This amendment changes the review body for the discretionary type 2 tree permits from DRC council to a hearings officer that will be appointed by city council that allows for more flexible and timely scheduling of hearings.

And the hearings officer would have the final decision on discretionary appeals instead of the city council to reduce appeal timelines and remove the second round of appeals.

Some advantages of this are that it's a little bit more streamlined and more efficient.

It improves procedural equity between the two tracks, the discretionary and the clear and objective track, while still maintaining an appeal opportunity by the public for the discretionary track.

This will reduce staff and council workload.

Hearings officers are also independent and impartial professionals that are trained in the code and how to make these decisions consistently that have experience with evaluating applications for compliance with criteria.

Some disadvantages that we've heard about this and some disadvantages to this alternative are that it eliminates council oversight on tree decisions.

And the hearings officers are very focused on code and evidence.

So this limits the considerations that they might have regarding neighborhood context and community values compared to when it's presented at a hearing body and there's public comment.

So we have can we ask a question?

Well, she's gonna finish them once.

Yes, I'm I'm opening it up to questions now.

All that I have uh as a note on this slide is with those thumbs up, we're showing that those three advisory bodies have provided direction that they support policy option B for the hearings officer.

The tree task force was officially polled and they had a unanimous um consensus for a hearings officer.

The development review commission and planning commission didn't do an official vote, but they uh did very much support the hearings officer, especially the DRC.

Great.

Okay.

Um Councilor Clover, then Councilor.

Yeah, like everybody knows my position about this.

It's uh for me, a hearing officer.

You you it's not uh the number like eight appeal, one over turn, it means it's not efficient.

It's a we live in a democracy, and the people have to have some sort of power in the decision making in their community.

Like you cannot have someone come out there.

And it's all the idea it's it's sort of like what is reality or what is like I have all the knowledge.

They cannot, uh one officer cannot have all the knowledge the community that lives here have in their trees in their neighborhood that they come.

We've seen it, our Supreme Court is destroying laws that are not it's just because it's political, they go to decide, they destroy all these laws, but we know it's not normal.

So I cannot trust in all objective any officer that we have here.

I like public oversight, that's their city, they have to have a say.

We cannot.

If we anyway, if you if it's what all these that I respect people on the tree code, I respect the DRC and everything, but on this one, they got it wrong.

There have to be DRC, or maybe they just no one wants these are hot potatoes, no one wants to be there to discuss them.

But it is necessary in a democracy that ideas clashes that people bring their oversight.

It's all all these because, oh, it's fast, we want a developer, I'm losing money, but it's worth it.

We cannot just have, oh, I need two weeks to decide to cut all these trees.

No, the neighbors have to say we have folks come here and say they're a growth of trees that someone will cut.

I discuss with the I take pictures when I travel in Mexico.

I saw it last year in Mexico.

I saw it in places where housing are more expensive than in Lacos Rigo.

People build with the trees inside.

They are saving them.

We just can't allow a community where you come, you cut clear cut.

And you know, it's the same thing as the golf course and everything.

All of these people have to have an in like a say.

We are not doing this.

But you know, I don't, I don't see this is not fair.

It's not a fair process if we allow that an officer will come, or you you decide, and okay, it's okay, you can cut the trees, or no, you can't cut.

We have to discuss.

So the the hearings officer, they would uh the public would come to the hearing, right, and provide testimony, or is this a hearings officer just reviewing kind of a record?

Yeah, the that's a great question.

Um, they could hold a hearing, and we have done that.

We recently had a hearings uh officer oversee uh an appeal of a business license, and they did hold a public hearing.

So, yes, we could set it up uh that process.

Um I see.

Well, I do think that would be important to have the you know, the same process we have now, just heard by the hearings officer.

Um counselor advocate.

Thank you, counselor.

My assumption is that this officer is an independent contractor?

It's to be so we actually have uh two hearings officer on contract right now.

We are required to because we have to have a hearings officer here expedited land division appeals, and the the hearings officer is generally a an attorney.

Okay so both of the ones that we have on uh and who pays for that time or that appeal?

So we charge a fee for an appeal, but it does not cover the cost of an appeal.

Uh so the city does uh pay for the hearings officer.

Okay.

And if this officer makes a decision and the applicant doesn't like it, do they have an uh a different path for uh escalation?

No.

So right now, if the city council makes a decision and the applicant doesn't like it, don't they have another step they could court?

Yeah, I believe it goes to circuit court.

I mean, I would I would defer to to our uh city attorney, but uh but if it's on a land use matter, which um potentially the if it involves the development of housing, then it potentially could be appealed to Luba instead of the circuit court.

So I guess my my question is if there is an officer and the applicant doesn't like that decision, do they have the next step to go to the courts or not?

I don't think we have the authority to stop them from going anywhere, do we?

Right.

I think and speaking completely uh cold, I think what you would submit uh they would submit a writer review to the circuit court.

So there's a time frame from the decision to file that with the circuit court.

Okay, thank you.

Those were my questions, the deliberation later.

What do you think about when we're deliberating right now?

Uh my thinking is that the existing system is best, because if it these type of things end up in court, then the city slash city council is accountable for the outcome.

So we would want to be in the conversations as the decisions are appealed before it goes to any courts.

Okay, so that's two for existing counsel winlet.

Thank you, Counselor Afghan.

Well, I would go with policy option B without hesitation.

A green thumbs.

Uh three green thumbs from um groups that have been intimately far more intimately involved in the process than we are.

And I guess I want to remind people that we are not decision makers when it comes to an appeal on whether it's right or wrong.

Our only decision in an appeal is whether the process was followed correctly.

So we are not politicians at those hearings.

We're not policymakers at that hearing.

We're just a judicial review to make sure the process was done correctly.

So I would say to some of the comments made previously, it would be a far better use of time of city council to redo policy if you feel things are not working, then to hang on to a appeal process that really um as experienced as I am with all the appeals that we've heard for the last eight years.

Um not one of them really.

Uh and I would even say the one that we did a little bit of a correction on had any uh judicial merit.

So um, and I've heard from many DRC and planning commission members as well as the tree task force that anyone who's been involved in this work, um they say it's the uh uh the least fun part of and the most uh time uh that these people have to spend on things that should be fairly obvious.

And I would say that the hearings officer is uh far more experienced than we are uh in making sure that the process was followed correctly.

So that's where that's where I'm at.

I would imagine that uh things, Councilor Wenland, that we would see less, we don't see that many appeals to begin with, but all the ones we've seen, except for one I can remember where the person said they were allergic to the tree.

I think it would they it was a denial and and they appealed the that denial.

Um and we affirmed it.

But the um uh it it's all development related.

And I think with the clear and objective um path, folks are following that path will just have less the discretionary trees will be more of the ones that don't get appealed.

They're the probably most of the removals in town, actually, that no one so it's always with the addition of housing.

That's when people come and appeal because I don't know if they're really appealing the you know, the and like I said before, I mean, in in my years on the council, I find that the staff has really done a good job both engaging with the community with whoever's doing that particular project, you know, and that per person the project that by the time it comes to a decision, like it has kind of been worked out and complies with the code.

And it is um it has not really been a great use of time, you know, other than allowing people to vet uh their feelings, um which maybe has some therapeutic value, but certainly in terms of just administering the tree code.

I mean, it's has not had much of a value.

I would think differently.

If we were coming and finding like wow, this this something was really missed.

The staff has really got this one wrong, and we were constantly overturning it'd say, well, hey, there's something to that.

But I would also think if that is happening, a hearings officer is also going to be the one to catch that.

So I think that it is important the community have uh uh a voice in it, but I think these appeals have not because we've all been there.

I mean, we've I mean none of us have ever changed any of them.

But the voice of the people have you know community voice then I would ask you then community voice.

Why doesn't the the people get to have an appeal for every issue that they have with the city?

Yeah, but why are you just allowing it for trees?

What not the we allow it?

For everything there's a code.

John, I am the difference we have you and I is very clear.

For me, I am not that person that excludes the voice of the people.

It is very elitistic to think the guy what what is the knowledge of an officer who is a lawyer that have more than a person who lives next door to a tree that is cut.

It is sense of it's an epistemology.

The one who is there, it's like you be.

It's it's it's way more than what you think.

It's not about they know what do they know?

What is knowledge in the policy?

Yeah, but what's the policy?

They want to also heard from council corner.

Yeah, the policy is the three code.

I just I just have one last point that we haven't talked about the economics.

And when you put somebody through a long appeal process, every person on this council has said we need to reduce the cost of housing.

Um and we need to reduce the cost of of um living here.

And all this does is add more money and time.

And for those who don't agree with that, then you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I don't agree with that.

And how about the money that the city is paying for someone?

Well, why the city paying?

No, you said we pay for the we are paying for what you think.

No, no, no.

No, no, no, I'm not saying that, but for the person we get.

No, one way or the other.

Okay, Counselor Bruce.

I know we hear you for the thing.

Yeah, this is capitalistic view that I am very big time.

It's a bit five for one.

Uh Counselor Corrigan.

Okay, so what you have to say is right, and what you have to say is right.

And the where I'm coming from is trees are very high value in this community.

I've lived here 35 years.

And we heard our previous um the public comment.

Lake No Grove.

I mean, that's a reason people live here has a lot to do with the trees.

So I understand where you're all coming from, but I'll tell you what, HB 4037 that says only the applicant may appeal the staff.

That's almost offensive to me.

These laws that are coming from the state, I understand that they're well intentioned, but they are taking voice from local community members, and that to me doesn't feel right.

That doesn't sit well with me.

So this was the tipping point for me.

And a community members deserve to be heard whether or not their opinions change, current decisions, their views can be influential to future actions with regard to what our community wants to value.

So you know, I think on this one I'm gonna come down and I say I think the council needs to hear these.

We need to go through the through the same program.

Maybe there will be some some shift in the future where people can feel heard that wouldn't require better that that's when that's how I feel.

That's what that's how I feel.

Thank you, Councilor Corey.

And so just so I understand, we're with with um with that House Bill, Councillor Corgan mentioned.

So that those that would apply to discretionary no, no, no.

That's just clear.

I see.

That's the process that, yeah.

Okay, so less appeals on those.

Yeah, there wouldn't only the applicant can appeal.

Um for yes.

Well, so I'll go back to I I kind of think again, we're not gonna be hearing many appeals anyway, because of these revisions.

So I don't want us to, you know, think this is and we don't honestly heal that here hear all that many now.

So I I you know do think it would just be uh uh wiser and to follow the recommendations of the the other groups, all of our fellow community members who also opined on this.

Um but I hear um, you know, we hear our colleagues, and and again, this isn't the final decision because we'll still have a hearing on it, and we're missing two more missing one colleague and then a future colleague.

So we'll have to see how the whole group verroids it out.

But it looks like right now it's policy A with a little footnote that that is um, you know, that could change.

Thanks for your good comments, everyone.

Oh, can we move on though?

Uh please give me one minute.

Thank you.

I think this is a good example of when we use data and possibly when we don't use data.

If the way we're going with option B, AI could make a decision.

Do you comply with this?

Yes, yes, no, no.

Here's the decision.

But we're talking about our community, our neighbors, the people who want to be heard in order to for a decision to be made.

So this for me was a great interaction because I'm usually going with the data.

But in this case, I go, wait a minute, the data says this, so we can be very productive, very efficient, reduce the cost, but is that good for the residents?

That's what I was going through when I made the comment that I would like to stay with the existing.

And just to clarify, I don't think anyone on this diocese suggesting that we don't hear from the community.

No, because again, any process provides a voice for the community to make their voice heard.

So no one's saying that.

I want to correct you there.

It's not just the one process where people can make their voice heard.

It's just that do you we want to politicize it by having politicians do it or people who are gonna be objective about it?

We always have to put on our objective hats during during the hearings, but that can be difficult because we wear both.

So that's all we're saying, but in no way do we want to cut the community out of any of these processes.

Those are very good point, Mr.

Me.

Mayor.

Okay, yes.

Council, would it be helpful if we prepared an explanation of what the public hearing process would look like under a hearing's office or under our current code so you can see exactly what the public participation looks like?

Sure.

That'd be great.

Yeah, that'd be helpful.

Great idea.

Thank you.

And and I just want to make sure, I just want to make sure you understand very clearly that with HB4037 development, don't the only appeal is the applicant, no public appeal at all.

The discretionary, you would still put them through the two the staff decision, the DRC appeal, and the city council appeal.

And so it just kind of increases that disparity between those two processes.

And that is that is something, and I uh the only reason I'm bringing it up is something that a theme that came up over and over again in the public comment was we feel like developers get treated differently, and that just magnifies that a bit when someone is has to balk at all this extra appeals, they go through that the a developer doesn't have to.

Now, again, I'm just letting you know that from informational purposes.

No, I just no, no, I'm just uh the boom outs.

It's no, it's not like it's maybe the first time that I see John agreeing with Salem.

What the governor signed in April is also it's a it's a like you I feel hurt, and I think uh the governor doesn't have the right to exclude people from what is happening, and this is pressure of the construction lobby.

Those are the politicians.

We are not the politician at Tina Cortex and his folks out there who are putting this is shameful to have this for the 4,037 house bill.

It's it's shameful.

It shouldn't be signed.

And all those house bill folks, the house, the Democrat, Republican, or all those folks, they are bought by lobbies.

We know that they go in Salem here.

There's no lobby.

This is the community that's talking and we're listening to them.

We are not politicians.

They are.

And this is shameful that I come I'm the only one that appealed.

Why what is that?

Exactly.

Like what is that?

Okay.

Thank you all for the good comments and discussion.

Okay.

One technical question.

What's the average length of time for an appeal?

Would it be a change either under A or B.

Length of an appeal.

It's all dependent on timing for the DRC scheduling.

And then so it's months.

Six months.

Probably.

That's on the longer end.

Three, I think would be more two or three months to DRC.

And then if they get further uh appealed to council, it can be up to six.

Yeah.

And I've seen longer.

I mean, I've seen just because of timing with council, sometimes it's gone over to eight months.

So it can be quite the process.

Okay.

So you're stalling a project.

No the arguments.

We know.

Okay.

Just make it true points.

Okay.

Yes, yes.

I agree with you.

Yeah.

I know.

Outnumbered.

Next.

Thank you for your discussion.

Um, so I'm I'm hearing that it's it's pretty split.

And so that means that that means that the direction here that we're hearing is that we need to go back and kind of uh develop some more information around what a hearings uh a hearing would look like around a hearings officer, and potentially the project team will will consider some some other avenues before we we come back to the council uh with this again.

But for now we can move on to City Manager.

No, the the thing is option A for what is happening.

There's no the majority of the council decide option A.

There is no coming back.

So this is a work session.

No, but it's a work session, but that's in the work session what we decide in our work.

Yeah, of course.

But yeah, we all I always favor.

Yeah, but yeah, but this is oh, I love public hearing.

Yeah.

Okay.

But we need to say what is the summary of the debate.

That's it.

Mayor, council.

I think what we've heard is that you do want a little bit more information to come back.

Uh what does the process look like?

But we're clearly hearing right now on the council that there is a leaning towards option A.

Um, but new information will always be coming before you're missing too much.

Um, along with the public hearing that's still coming up.

So is that a good summary?

Yes.

Okay.

Right.

So we'll move on to this next policy topic.

Uh asking uh counsel, should the code clearly state that abutting property owners are responsible for the maintenance of trees in the public right of way.

So under current code, responsibility for tree maintenance and the removal of dead and hazardous trees that are located in the public right of way, so n namely street trees most of the time.

Um this language is ambiguous in the current code.

And as a result, the city receives numerous requests from private property owners uh from to trim and to remove trees uh along their property frontages.

Although the city has periodically performed trimming and removal of hazardous trees in the right-of-way, um, the volume of requests that the city currently receives exceeds the available resources, and they cannot address all of these uh requests coming in from residents in a practical or equitable manner.

Uh and so this is being addressed in the code amendments because one of the key issues identified in the beginning of this project was to clarify street tree maintenance responsibilities, and this was also a key issue in the urban community forestry plan as well.

So there are a few considerations for option A, which is to maintain the current code, make no changes and kind of continue with responsibility being slightly ambiguous in the existing code.

One of the advantages of this is that it avoids imposing new obligations, but there are several disadvantages that include continued confusion about responsibility for who is responsible for these trees that are in the public right of way.

Um, since the city is stepping in in certain cases and taking care of it.

There it are high costs currently for the city.

Um, and these are only expected to be exacerbated in the future.

Um, as trends in pests and EAB continue.

Um, there's a lot of ashtries in Lake Oswego, and luckily there hasn't been EAB found yet.

But as it's appearing in more and more places, this is a trend that the that the set that the city staff team are kind of preparing for, especially the parks team and urban forestry.

Uh, and another disadvantage is that it's inequitable.

The city tends to maintain trees in the right of way when there are a lot of complaints when there's a really high risk, um, but they're getting a lot of calls just day in, day out.

People are calling about a specific tree, and and they've gone out and taken care of it.

Um, and this isn't equitable for many reasons.

So, policy option B is the revisions that you saw in draft four.

Um, that and they clarify that the abutting property owner is responsible for tree maintenance in the right of way.

This set of amendments clarifies uh that this that they are responsible for this management, but it also clarifies that the city would maintain authority to manage trees in the right of way for specifically city projects and infrastructure maintenance.

Um clarifying responsibility will establish consistent expectations across the board and improve administrative efficiency and align city regulations with common municipal practices, which typically require the abutting property owner to maintain trees and vegetation along the street frontage of their property.

So the city still does retain the right to manage trees on an as-needed basis for emergencies.

Um but the abutting property owner is ultimately responsible and liable for the street trees according to these changes in draft four.

So this likely will reduce liability for the city, um, but this still is an ongoing discussion with the city attorney.

Umthough the city does not have budget for street tree maintenance like Portland does with all of the new PCF funds coming in.

Um also the city does not have budget for street tree management currently, um, where like cities like Portland do.

Um, and so the city, if the city does not want to establish a budget and take over street tree maintenance for residents in Lake Oswego, they would need to establish a budget and a program for doing so.

Uh most cities in Oregon delegate maintenance of street trees to the abutting property owner.

So this includes cities Westland, Tiger, and Milwaukee.

Uh there's a couple advantages to uh clarifying that the abutting property owner are responsible.

Uh and this aligns with many other cities.

Um this eliminates existing ambiguity about who's responsible for street tree maintenance and addresses the city's limited capacity to maintain all of the right-of-way trees in the city.

And it reserves more city resources for addressing uh Emerald Ash for maintenance in the right-of-way in the future.

Uh, some disadvantages include that tree maintenance costs may be difficult for some to afford and can create inequities.

Um, and that there's inconsistent maintenance quality when uh property owners are performing their own maintenance on street trees.

So I'd like to open this up for discussion.

I have the exact changes to the code are are the text is too long to put on the screen, but ultimately these are the three parts of the code on the left on the on the left and the right that have amendments.

Um so policy A is no changes, and policy B would have these high-level changes in the title of the code, but then there's also changes to each of these three sections in the draft.

I I have uh uh a thought on this to share with you guys.

So I think I like to distinguish because we have these you know, right-of-way trees.

We know this for ICO, there's right-of-way and then there's right-of-way.

So we have the city-built right-of-way sidewalks with like street trees and and in, you know, like whether they're in the sidewalk in the infrastructure and stormwater planters, etc.

And then we have the right-of-way that is really functions as private frontage, you know, and it's technically right, it's never been developed, undeveloped right-of-way.

And so I do understand that we have folks who will call, they'll have a tree, they'll know.

They'll be one of the ones who know who understand that that's actually right-of-way functioning as their front yard, and they'll say, hey, there's a tree, and they'll ask the city to do the maintenance on that tree.

I think that the um responsibility should kind of follow the the function.

So if the area is functioning as private frontage, I think that that should be the responsibility of that property owner to maintain it.

But if it's city-built infrastructure, then I think the city should be maintaining that infrastructure, street trees, sidewalks that are because one thing is I hate we're putting in all this infrastructure, and hate for say, oh, we're putting this in and enjoy the enjoy that responsibility, and sometimes it's already kind of, you know, it's with supported, but sometimes people, you know.

Um I I'm wondering if there's a way to kind of break this up in between against the city built infrastructure and having the city maintain the responsibility.

Because I know other cities do do it, they make people pay and it's expensive maintaining these sidewalks.

But I'd like to see, I think we can do a little bit better than that.

Um but then not taking on responsibility for trees that are really just you know in the front yard that have been there.

Could you give an example?

Well, I'm saying so.

An example would be um the city builds a sidewalk and it had maybe inputs in sidewalk trees.

Yes.

And I'd say the city should, if that tree in the sidewalk dies, the city, or if that tree in the sidewalk buckles the sidewalk, the city should maintain that tree, replace that tree and help keep the side and keep the sidewalk in good repair.

That would be as opposed to an undeveloped right-of-way.

So you have just a front yard where it's just never been developed.

There's no sidewalk there.

It functions as it looks like front yard, and there's a tree there, but technically it is in the right-of-way.

I think those should be maintained by the abutting property owner.

Okay, understood.

Thank you for the example.

That would be no currently, currently the property owner next to the sidewalk owns making sure the sidewalk is safe and the trees are trimmed.

So we're saying you're suggesting we apart from that.

I think the trimming is one thing.

Okay.

But I'm talking like because trimming is easy, you know.

And sometimes the trimming comes from it could come from the right-of-way tree, or it could come from the private side over.

So I think it's important to maintain that's and that is helpful because you can imagine the CP sidewalks cleared, huge undertaking, but um for the city as an entity to do that is a huge thing.

But when everyone pitches in and does in front of their property, their business.

By the way, I'm not disagreeing.

I'm not sure.

No, it's a good question.

But when it's like uh the tree dies, and we're the sidewalk buckle, well, that's a larger project, and I think that the city should maintain that in city built infrastructure.

That's what I'm saying.

But the what do you think about that?

Mr.

Mayor, can I add some additional information for the council to consider the reason we are putting that this proposal in the code, so this came out as part of the urban community forestry plan, because there's a lot of confusion with our staff as to when this the city should go out and take care of trees and when when we should, and it and it is not being applied evenly throughout the city currently.

Um, what complicates it further is that we have a policy that is an uh it's just a department policy that was written by a former city manager that's 25 years old that states that if uh a street tree is damaging a sidewalk, in some cases, if it's in a residential area, the city will actually pay for removal of the tree as well as replacement of the sidewalk or repair.

But if it's in a commercial area, for instance, this just happened here on the corner.

Um a tree was taken down because it was buckling in the sidewalk and it couldn't be pruned sufficiently.

Um, and which case the city paid for the tree removal and the business paid for the sidewalk repair.

And that has been going on for a number of years.

What this policy addresses is it doesn't address that because the code is crystal clear that the property owner abutting a property or the sidewalk abutting a property owner is responsible for maintaining that sidewalk.

So actually, our policy already conflicts with our code.

There is it doesn't say anything about maintenance of trees in the right-of-way.

And so what we want to address not doesn't have anything to do with sidewalks.

We don't want to get into that.

What we would suggest is that we would come forward in a separate study session if you want to talk about that policy, and I think that our attorneys uh city attorney would have some um input as to whether or not that is a uh a policy you may want to continue uh based on uh various issues, uh, which we won't get into today.

But I I just don't want to um sort of sideline this process by introducing the sidewalk into it because that's already covered in the code.

It's clear who is supposed to be maintaining sidewalks, it's not clear who's supposed to be maintaining trees.

So this will address if someone just has a dead or or a hazard tree or it needs to be trimmed and they're calling the city and asking us to maintain it, then we would say no, you know, the code per the code, that is the property owner's responsibility.

I think we would still maintain our existing policy until we're told otherwise with regards to uh sidewalks, uh, that sort of in written policy from a prior city manager.

And I will point out to you that the removal of this tree here was six thousand dollars.

So even though that wasn't uh and that tree wasn't dead, it was just buckling the sidewalk.

That's a pretty significant cost because even though that tree, it was fairly large, but it it wasn't as large as some of the trees, we can get it uh get quite large in the right of way, but it also involves um you have to uh have uh management of the right-of-way, so you have to close it, you have to have flaggers, you have to grind the stump in order to be able to replant a tree back.

So it gets expensive very quickly.

So even if the city were to maintain to take that responsibility, it's it's a pretty high cost.

Well, exactly.

And otherwise you put it on the the business to get flaggers out there and everything is nuts.

But but here we're just trying to focus on dead hazard trees and um trimming and not really covering the sidewalks.

We'd be happy to come back in a separate session if you like.

Well, can we talk about though the difference between street tree, uh uh a sidewalk tree and a right of way, undeveloped right of way tree.

Yeah, I think we could for the for the purposes of the tree itself, not whether the tree is damaging the sidewalk.

Yes, just for the tree itself.

Yeah, if it's dead or hazardous or otherwise needs to be treated.

We can keep the conversation to that.

Yeah, yeah.

But but what if it's damaging the sidewalk?

Well, we're gonna talk about that later.

Then we have a current policy that conflicts with our code.

And um in discussions with our uh our uh consulting city attorney, there's concerns with our current with that policy, and we probably need to have that discussion, but I don't want it that to sideline this process.

Okay, but we will, yeah.

Uh well, I mean it I I think that's a great approach, and I support that.

So my thing that I it's um part of it on the tree is when the owner maintains the tree, um they may say, oh great, I'm just gonna have my do-it-yourself teenager go out with a chainsaw and take the tree out so that it doesn't drop any leaves.

So you remove all the branches and you have a pole sitting there.

I I would say to define maintain, um, because I I worry a little bit about if we put all the onus on to the homeowners or to the residents, it um and I'm not that's one thing.

The other part is I have no idea what the economics are on this.

I mean, it's great to talk philosophically policy-wise, but um what Jessica just said, six thousand dollars at a pop, and if we have 10 10 trees a week, that becomes pretty expensive.

Um, and we have some very mature trees in some very mature areas that could start erupting over the next 10, 15 years.

Um, so that is something that I um not that I want to push all the all the costs on to residents, but I think there is there's that consideration that um when you make policy, you'd like to know based on something.

Um and I don't know whether it's um uh you know, and then getting an arborist out and to determine and all this kind of stuff, you're adding up pretty big costs.

Um I'm not saying that we can solve it, but I do think that we need to have some consideration of of you know possible liability that we have in making whatever decision we're making.

Council, would it be helpful to I'm just gonna look at uh both Jessica and Erica about whether it would be possible to do a fiscal impact of pasts over the years, what this policy as is has cost.

Would that be helpful?

So uh Miss Rooney uh did provide some information about the contracted work that they spent to either trim or remove trees in fiscal year 23-24, they had 129 tree calls and it was 145,000 that they spent.

Um fiscal year 24-25, it was 114,000.

Um but this is just for tree removal, it doesn't have to do with sidewalks.

Um apparently the city spends between 100 to 150,000 per year to assist homeowners with sidewalk repair and replacement in neighborhood uh neighborhoods when it is directly associated with trees.

So that gives you some idea, but again, we are not addressing all of the calls that are coming in.

And I think that's part of the problem is that there's a disparity.

So if you get someone who complains a lot or or is just not taking their care of the trees, then we'll step in.

But you know, we aren't we aren't doing that for every property owner, and so it's just not equitable.

Right.

And it's mostly at their call, right?

We're not actively going out.

Correct.

Correct.

Just reactive to calls from residents to the city office.

Right.

Right.

But if the word gets out that city's paying, I mean, depending upon which way you fall on this policy.

If they go, geez, I want my trees trimmed and I want this, that I want that.

Yeah.

So I don't, yeah.

That's but can I ask question just about your idea?

Who planted the tree?

Like who planted the trees.

Well, it depends.

So if it's in an area like Westlake, for instance, which has a lot of sidewalks, um, they were usually a requirement of the subdivision.

So when the developer built the subdivision, they were required to put in sidewalks and plant street trees.

But there are plenty of examples.

I mean, you drive along South Shore where they're just trees that volunteer trees or people or some are trees that people planted that are in the right-of-way.

Um it it just depends.

But you know, we have plenty of roads in the and streets in the city that don't have any sidewalks uh with trees in the right-of-way.

Yeah, we we can't estimate, I guess, not knowing how much right of way versus undeveloped right-of-way you have.

We just didn't pull that information, but we could we could look into that and follow up potentially if there is existing data.

No, there's not existing data on that.

Okay.

We're going to do a tree inventory.

Um, that is something that we're working on.

Uh, we do not have that data right now, but we are absolutely doing a tree inventory.

This is uh something that our urban forester will be working on in the coming year.

Yeah, I guess uh all I was saying is that policy, policy A and policy B.

Um, you know, there would have to be a budget uh developed for policy B.

And there would also be a budget for uh the proposal that that uh the mayor suggested where you're separating it out between the right-of-way trees and undeveloped right-of-way trees.

So both of those would result in an increased budget, and right now we don't know what the the extent, the uh um the extent to which that budget would need to grow in order to only address those in the developed right-of-way.

Yes, or shrink, because right now we're maintaining uh at people's calling these other trees.

Uh counselor Afghan, thank you for Did you go back one page?

The uh limbs, branches, leaves, and other vegetable vegetative allowed to project less than nine feet above sidewalk and 13 and a half feet above the level of street.

Can you make clear clarifying clarify that for me?

What does that mean?

Do you want to talk about that, Erica?

I mean, that's an engineering policy, so I don't it was added by uh so the they there that's existing language, the underlined in bold is proposed new language, and that was added by um uh actually uh Will Farley uh suggested that language just to clarify because um we want to make sure that trees are maintained not only above the sidewalk but also above the street level, yeah.

Um mayor counselor's Erica Rooney Public Works Director.

So those dimensions, if that's what you're asking about, they come from um uh common dimensions that are used for clearance for ADA of sidewalks, clearance for um vehicle passage, so that when the truck is going down the street, doesn't hit the limbs.

So those have been um dimensions we have used for many many years here.

You can find them in other cities as well, when they try to give clear and objective detail uh uh direction to folks um to maintain the vegetation that's the nine foot, I understand it.

Uh so we want nine foot clearwalk above the sidewalk, that makes sense to me.

What I don't understand is the 13 and a half feet.

So are we saying that the tree is going to be between nine feet and 13 and a half feet?

What does the 13 and a half feet above the level of the street mean?

It cannot be 14 feet, right?

That's just for the over the overhanging limbs and branches.

So the tree could be any height, okay.

Yeah, but in order for a large truck to pull up and park or pass by trees, got it.

Thank you so much.

Uh can you go to the next page?

Uh the last sentence under option B a notice to repair or maintain sidewalk or street trees.

It's very, very subjective.

I know you say how to deliver this, but as a homeowner, now I'm supposed to repair the tree and then maintain this street tree.

I don't know what that means to people.

So this is the title section of the um it's called the title is notice to repair, maintain uh sidewalk or street tree, how delivered.

And there's a whole section, so we couldn't fit all the text on here.

But essentially, if you read through that, there are instances where you have to keep a sidewalk, for instance, in good repair.

So when we say repair, it's really not referring to the street trees.

There's other walk, no problem.

I understand all of that, but when we apply those things to a street tree, uh, for me that gets to be ambiguous.

Uh a car comes and bumps against a tree where we don't have a sidewalk.

Now I'm supposed to go repair that.

It's like it doesn't make sense to me.

No, the car have the insurance.

If you come to Old Town, there is a tree that's outside of the sidewalk and it car can go right into it.

Outside, so in the developed under what the there's the sidewalk.

Yeah.

There's a green space.

Yeah.

There's a tree, and there is no curb between the tree and the street.

So a car can bump against it.

And with this, we're saying that the homeowner.

Well, that sounds like developed right-of-way.

So that would be the city.

Under well, under one or so.

So are you in favor of what we're proposing here?

Kind of.

Yes.

Okay.

I am Mr.

Mayor, can I?

Well, uh yeah, yeah, were you uh was that a final.

I'm complete.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

No, I just what are you saying?

I just wanted to say if there was an option for like sharing cost.

Because what the mayor said, it happened to me when we were doing our conditional use permit, like the trimming we did.

I remember Mayor Kent was not really happy that they subjected us to like it was that one was even pulling a pole away from the right of that was on the right-of-way that we didn't put there.

But in this, I really hear that 100,000, and it's not even maybe one-third of the people objectively, the city cannot take that.

When we see what we can do, we cannot do that.

We don't have the money that Portland have to do that.

Right.

So maybe we should think of a sharing, like a cost sharing.

Say that maybe you can trim these, or like I I'm pretty sure you can give us something on the cost sharing if we accept that that the city and the owner, you know, uh putting the property would be like using something, you know, discuss something to share the cost.

If there is any damage or it's if there is any maintenance to do, I think it would be a fair way to you know help, or if we have programs in the city that can help, like programs that you can apply for a grant to trim or to take care of that, because there are some property owners who would not be able to do this either.

And it would be something, so I it's just like a creative solution.

I'm trying.

I don't know if it's feasible, but uh are you are you more concerned about the city incurring the cost or the how much?

No, I'm in both, honestly, both.

Like we have to be objective also.

We defend the our constituent, but also the city, we know what we have in terms of in if we talk to Erica engineering, we are having we barely can fix barely can build some.

Well, I guess we're trying to kind of split that through this, where you know what I mean.

So the cities right now, it's kind of they're doing everything.

They the only one doing buttons.

Yeah, trees that function like private trees are maintained like private trees.

Private trees trees that function in the right-of-way are maintained by the public.

By the city, yeah.

Yeah.

I see what you're saying.

Okay, instead of having all, yeah.

Yeah, because of having any time those costs, she gets complicated real quick, you know.

Yes, it's a good idea.

I see what you're saying.

Uh we didn't have it from council court.

So I'm in agreement with the we have trees, your proposition.

If we have trees that are being used by property owners as their trees, then that's one thing.

And if you've got something that's really in the right of way, that's a different thing.

So if we could I really think what's bad is the ambiguity with these big trees or trees that are that's the real problem.

So I think that the proposal that you put forward makes sense.

Okay.

Sound good.

Oh okay.

What did they hear?

Yeah.

I think they'll be bad.

Maybe can you can you recap it for us?

Because I'm trying to understand.

I understand that you want the trees only that are in undeveloped right-of-way, so to speak.

Responsibility.

That'll be the responsibility of the property owner, but I'm not a city would be responsible for trees in the developed right-of-way.

Correct.

Yes.

But there's no cost sharing or something that you want to do.

Okay.

No.

Got it.

Thank you.

Great.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Plus you have money to spare.

No, but I donate it.

Yeah, if you want to donate.

So we're moving on to policy topic.

There may be there may be exemptions or special cases, like if we walk through first edition.

Uh there may not be a sidewalk, but the tree may be in the right-of-way.

So we should also look at some of those examples for this study session.

Those says no.

Most of those would be undeveloped rights of way.

There's a few sidewalks along first edition, but most of them would fall under the undeveloped rights of way category.

So in the case that we were just suggesting who would be responsible for those trees.

Okay.

Thank you.

So just to clarify, so if the development put in sidewalks.

Um and the homeowner would be responsible for it.

It's only if the city put in sidewalks.

Not the way you have it.

Like, for instance, in Westlake, there's lots of sidewalks in Westlakes.

Those are all built as part of those subdivisions.

The city didn't put it in, although the city required them to be installed.

Right.

Yeah.

Right.

So what is, I mean, so are is Westlake responsible for any trees.

Right now it's ambiguous, but um, no wonder the present HOA.

The proposal we we would we would help maintain those trees.

Okay.

Yeah.

Gotcha.

If they're dead or hazardous.

Yeah.

Just oh, only if they're dead or hazardous.

That's key.

Yeah, the maintenance, remember, we so we're saying the maintenance is still the abutting, because that's the easy part.

Get the loppers out, you know.

There's three parts of the code that there's edits that all fall under this category.

And some of them are more extreme, like a dead or dying tree removing it.

Some of them are less extreme, like trimming, like trimming the tree on the sidewalk.

It's good.

The city's been doing a good job getting people to do the maintenance.

And you know, we've run up against those.

We had that separate discussion where if they don't do it, then we will go out and then charge them for it.

So maintaining the trees and the shrubs and everything is still with the property owners.

Yeah.

If the sidewalk gets crooked and it's a trip, talking about the sidewalk.

We're not talking about the sideway.

Thank you for the correction.

That's a goal for next year.

Yes, thank you so much.

All right, thank you.

So we're on to the third policy topic, and this is the one that we received public comment about from the golf course.

Should the minor forest management permit criteria be revised to require a clear connection between tree removal and forest management objectives.

So the intent currently of the forest management permit is to sustain forest cover and health and assist property owners in managing forested properties on specifically lots that are a minimum of one acre in size that contain at least one acre of tree canopy.

This permit type was added to the code in 2015 in response to a council goal.

And the purpose is to provide a more flexible tree removal permit process for large land parcels, focused more on urban forest management principles rather than regulating individual tree removal.

Uh while still maintaining the wooded character of the city.

So there are two types of forest management permits.

There are minor and major.

During the update to the urban community forestry plan in the early study sessions with council, there was a perception that there are many loopholes in the forest management permit type that allow areas that are normally considered to be a forest to qualify for the permit.

Golf courses were cited as an example.

So there are an average of 19 trees removed per year since the forest management permit was added in 2015.

And for context, between 2020 and 2024, an average of 2,930 trees are removed annually from the city.

Removal of 19 trees per year for the forest management permit removals.

This represents less than 1% of trees removed annually.

It's 0.65%.

Since 2015, 14 forest management permits have been submitted by six applicants.

Three of those applicants accounted for 154 of the 226 trees removed.

These are some aerial photos that show one of these three properties.

In 2015 on the left and 2025 on the right, a total of 78 trees have been removed from the site using minor forest management permits since 2015.

The second example here are from the Oswego Lake Oswego Lake Country Club in 2015 and 2025.

A total of 63 trees have been removed from the site under minor forest management permits in this period of time.

A total of 13 trees have been removed from this site under minor forest management permits.

This map shows private and public properties in the city that are at least one acre in size with one acre of tree canopy.

So showing the properties that would qualify for the forest management permit.

And the red outlined properties are properties that are ineligible because they are covered or mostly covered by sensitive lands.

So option A that currently reflects the current draft code amendments you received in the meeting packet is to retain existing code and not make any changes to the forest management permits.

Some advantages here are that this impacts the impacts of the minor forest management permits are small given the very low percentage of overall tree removal.

As we, as I mentioned previously, it's less than 1%.

So it also treats all large properties the same.

Disadvantages include that refraining from making disadvantages include that it lacks alignment with the intent implied by forest management, that the public may continue to perceive a conflict with the use and the intent of the forest management provisions.

And this reflects concerns that I mentioned earlier were discussed in a meeting with council.

Policy option B would revise the minor forest management permit criteria to require applicants to show tree removal supports defined objectives, to show that tree removal supports certain defined objectives.

Examples of the objectives could include fitting for health of tree stand, hazard reduction, storm storm damage, or pest management.

And if this option is chosen, staff will draft the objectives for consideration at the upcoming public hearings.

This is a new policy alternative that was developed for our meeting today.

The project initially considered making golf courses ineligible for forest management permits since the land use may conflict with sustaining tree canopy cover, and the use was cited as a concern as being eligible for a forest management permit.

This issue was discussed during a joint work session with the planning commission and DRC.

After considering public comments on the matter, there were two in-person and over 20 written comments.

Commissions discussed that forest management permits comprise a very small portion of trees removed from the city annually, and that the local golf courses have demonstrated to be good stewards of their properties and recommend that they should remain eligible for these forest management permits.

Additional considerations that we shared with the group during this work session.

Sorry, additional considerations for this policy option B that we did not go over with the planning commission and DRC since this was not one of the policy options at the time.

Is that this aligns permit use with forest management objectives for all applicants?

Directly addresses concerns about the intent and potential misuses of this permit type, and it allows golf courses to remain eligible for this permit type.

Some disadvantages is that it would add review complexity and potential subjectivity of meeting forest management objectives.

And also that it requires a separate type two permit for free removal of non-forest management objectives, even though removal impacts are small.

Here is a third policy option developed today after feedback on the uh from the planning commission and DRC meeting to refine the definition of the large forested track.

So this policy option would revise the definition of large forested track in the code to specify that to count in the minimum one acre of tree canopy, clusters of tree canopy must meet a minimum size threshold to be determined.

This would prevent single trees or small clusters of trees from being counted in this one acre canopy minimum that currently is required for forest management permits.

If this policy option is chosen, staff will draft a minimum cluster size for consideration at the public hearings.

This option could also be combined with the previous option, option B, but that would further limit eligible properties that may have trees or small tree clusters scattered across a large site, like the apartment complexes or uh golf courses.

Some advantages of this policy option is that it better aligns eligibility with what is commonly understood as forest, and it limits use of permit types on dispersed or ornamental tree groupings.

Some disadvantages are that it would likely exclude all or a portion of some larger properties that are currently eligible for the permit.

And legitimate forest management issues can also apply to disperse and ornamental trees, and this would remove flexibility of that.

So here are those three policy options.

These are options that we did not present to the DRC or planning commission.

Um they voted for no change.

Uh, they didn't vote.

Sorry, I misspoke.

They had a consensus that there should not be change and provided us direction to remove the provision to disqualify golf courses from the draft code.

And so we made that change for the draft that you saw.

Um we are now presenting a policy option B and C as new options that did not uh that have not been reviewed by any advisory bodies, and we'd like to hear your feedback on this.

Thank you.

I I think I remember I was on the council back when we you know passed this forest management programs last time we did the tree code update.

And um, I don't think that the the you know the intent was really to help folks who really want to actually like log their land, which again would not be that many folks, but to actually do legitimate forest management.

Um I don't think at the time they envisioned the the way that it's been applied, but at the same time, I think that we have seen some good success with the way it's been applied as well.

It's been provided some flexibility.

Um but I think it's important that we still stick.

I wouldn't want to remove that flexibility for the properties that it's been applied to.

Um so I kind of lean towards this policy option B where we just ensure that yeah, well, let it have the wider applicability than we kind of first envisioned, but just ensure that it that uh those applications are meeting the forest management uh principles and um either under the minor or the major uh variant of that application, because I think that sticks to the community's intent with the um with this code provision is kind of a um uh and is kind of a win-win, if you will, you know, in ensuring that it's meeting the objectives of what the um this provision was about.

Councilman.

Um I say no change.

I mean, there I I'm not quite sure how this got on in the first place.

I mean, I I understand there's kind of rearrangement of different comments or whatever, but um I think everybody, if you look at the examples that were shown from the aerials, um unless you have ISPY abilities, there's really no difference.

Um the landowners obviously have taken care of their properties.

We've had good um uh management of properties.

Um we're a golf course, and uh like us who owns a golf course.

We took 300 and or 290 trees out um so that we could get uh a golf course to be a golf course.

Um and we did it responsibly, and we planted, I don't know, 600 trees.

I don't know.

It was like I mean, uh I guess we're just trying to narrow things down to where we're doing making policy that that's what if, what if, what if, what if, what uh what if?

Well, we have decades of experience of people taking care of things, and so I say one decor.

It's encroachment.

Um, and I say no change, but um I'm sure I'll probably get output it.

It's not necessarily true of counselor.

No, I mean, yeah, I mean, kudos to the you know, golf club that they took care of their trees and everything.

I just uh for this this the story is uh three years ago or four years ago, I was uh told that the golf course was taken, removing 72 trees.

I am kind of I don't know when you say in 10 years they only took 69.

I yeah, maybe let me let me explain.

And I apologize, I should provide more context.

So I'm just focusing on minor forest management permits.

That's it.

So in since 2015, they have legitimately with that process only taken out, I think 65 trees or 68, I can't remember the exact number.

Um it does not mean they have not taken trees out for other purposes.

So they have applied for type twos, uh, which are subject to public notice and appeal um through separate processes.

So they have removed more trees than than 65 or 62.

But it was under different process.

So I'm just focusing on the minor forest management permit.

No, yeah, that's yeah, and yeah, but it's fair.

But I just when I heard that, I said no, they took more than that.

Yes.

Yeah, it's always good for the public perception that we say what happened.

It's not we, you know, we are here for the public.

And uh the golf course, we take pride of having a golf country club in Lake Oswego.

It's part of our who we are, it's part of our city.

But no one should be above the law.

Every old citizen should be taken, you know, in a real like uh face value.

We have to, this is what you need to do.

We need to know.

And that's why I think you know, we did we cannot remove them from they already have the status of being like have the status of having forest management.

We can't, but we have what happened that many people were shocked about that.

I went there myself to protest that inside there to see the and for me, they were removing those trees for the convenience of golfing.

It's uh we also like we always have to stick to the reality and to what we are.

We just cannot when it's a convenient, it's this.

When it's not, it's this.

I don't think it's fair to remove trees just because you want to golf.

That's like clear.

It's like a neighbor out there has also the right to clear a tree because they want to uh kick balls with their kids.

So we have to keep them accountable.

All I'm not saying only the golf course, but everyone.

And that's why I would go for revised, but they have to have the forest management thing.

This is uh they have it, they have trees, and they've been no even with those uh problems, they've been good steward of that thing, but they need to be required to show tree removal support every time.

And I'm that's why I want to go to option B.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, thanks, Councillor Boop.

Counselor Afkin.

For me, this is not about the golf course or not golf course, but the golf course is a good example to talk about.

So of the 60 some trees that have been cut over the last 10 years.

Uh, do we know what the reasons were?

Uh so they can the way that it works is you can remove any number of dead hazard invasive emergency um what am I forgetting?

Invasive trees.

Um, and then you can remove up to six trees per acre per year.

And there's just no questions, actually.

I I I think it's akin to our type one process for um you know over-the-counter permits just on uh on residential properties.

Um so they don't have to specify a reason, but we did kind of look at the application, and some of them were that the trees were had poor structure or had girdling roots, but some of them were probably because they were blocking the fair.

I don't I don't know the terminology, so I don't I'm not gonna they were blocking whatever you need to block to play golf.

Um obviously I'm not a golfer.

Uh so uh yeah, so the it doesn't it they don't have to specify a reason, um, but it does really limit.

I mean, six trees out of an acre is not a lot of trees.

Right, but it is it's still trees, and so I'm I'm not suggesting that it isn't um important.

20 acres is golf course, 123.

Oh gosh.

Yeah.

It it's a lot, it's more than you think it is, but yeah, you answered my question.

Yeah, here's uh my thought process.

Five acres is the public golf course.

No, it's more than that.

Club has been a good partner with the city as well as a responsible property owner.

It's they've done the minimum and they have done uh a great job.

So that that I have to say.

The original people back in 2015, when they said forest management, I think they had good intent, but it has evolved over the last 10 years to something that it wasn't supposed to be.

Again, this has nothing to do with the golf club.

When we call something forest management, minor forest management, forest to me has a black and white uh definition.

It what we probably thought it's it's supposed to be a large canopy property, not a forest.

And that distinction, if we can make that distinction that these are not forests, these are private properties that uh are owned by private private citizens, but they just happen to have one acre or larger canopy, and at that time we wanted to give them some flexibility to maintain it's not a forest, it's a private property.

And if that is the case, we should apply the same rule consistently across everyone.

Again, the golf club has been a responsible people, and then if the shift comes and somebody else new comes, and they 120 acres times six trees, they can take out 700 trees in one year, and we can't say nothing about it.

And that's that's a holdup for me.

So option B for me, regardless of if they're good responsible people or not, we want to be consistent across the board.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilor AfCAN.

Councilman Court.

I I would say is since we're now moving to a canopy-centric management system, looking at the overall, it probably does make sense for our forest management permit holders to demonstrate the benefit of what they do for the canopy system whereas you know the the um country club has been they have been good stewards, they are good stewards, and so I don't think they should have trouble uh have trouble with a system that where they just show us what it is they're doing.

I mean, obviously they're doing taking good care of it.

So I would I guess I would favor the um revise the minor forest management criteria.

Well, and and it seems like uh that option B really is kind of what's happening in practice.

Even large property owners, they are applying for the management permit and still having to apply for type twos in certain situations anyway.

So I think this clarification though just better aligns the intent of this um uh code with with with um with with what's going on in in practice.

owners they are applying for the management permit and still having to apply for type twos in certain situations anyway so I think this clarification though just better aligns the intent of this um uh code with with with um um with with with what's going on in in practice so I I think you did a good job coming up with these options here because it's also doesn't just remove this from the the handful of property owners who have been able to take um advantage of it and so it still allows folks the flexibility with uh with the large land and um entries for that um more streamlined management while while meeting the intent of the code and the broader community objectives okay thank you everyone last issue and no yeah I just no I I just wanted to add like that uh it's uh the the definition of the a forest would be very important also to put because uh when you drive on the golf course or you go dead there is no forest I don't that was my confusion I say where is the forest you can have trees like the or unless the definition of forest depends in my place that it's a forest we can apply the thing we have two acres of fire it's a dense over there it's not a forest that also is something we have to you know when people write letters that we receive that also we also think the only reason I lean with this no I'm I'm not it's just they someone for some reason that I don't understand gave them the identity of a forest that in my view is not a forest it's a golf course a golf course is not a forest maybe you folks have a technology you know like you have criteria that you use to define what a forest is but the golf course is not a forest maybe you give them that in order for them to have some you know like and for that reason that's why I'm saying that okay let's use policy B so that we can check what they're doing but it's not a forest it cannot be considered as because any property like that can say we are a forest it is not a forest and that's the letters I receive and I'm responding to that there's no forest that's thank you.

Yeah thank you for thank you Counselor Boop uh counselor afkins I did say this is not about the golf club uh now I want to turn it about the golf club uh they have a fear of something and when I read everything in the documentation uh I didn't understand the fear uh I I don't know if we know what their fears are and if so as the mayor said streamlining the process for this area at least we can address those fears so again when I read this it's like if DRC says says yes and planning commission says why are you looking at this it's like tell me about your fear or we need this in order to maintain okay you're doing that already but what it what is the real fear so we can address that in the streamlined process.

Thank you.

Thank you Counselor Afghan last comment from counselor wallet well I I mean I think the conversation tonight is that we're unclear as to what really forest is and why is golf course land inside this policy and so I don't know I think we have no reason to say that we've had any um action uh by people that live under this current policy that has been I mean it's I don't know why people have a fear that all of a sudden they get to do anything they want when you look at the policy that's in place now there's a lot of limitations of what they can do.

And it's not like they have free reign to do anything they want to do with their property is that correct yeah I I don't we don't know that I don't want everything we have so much stuff going on.

You know what you guys talking well this is my right the discussion you can comment Council but we're done with the question and answer periods make your comments then let's move on please okay then I'm gonna make a lot of comments I think in the big picture we've heard from our community um about change for maybe to counselor apkans um question they're unsure exactly of what how this will affect them and I think that's and there were I didn't hear any overwhelming reason why we needed to change policy on them because they've been good stewards.

Um large landowner.

It's not just the golf course.

So anyway.

That's just, I think we need more clarity.

Um, we certainly got a lot of feedback.

Um they're a huge constituency of our of our um communities.

So I think it it um it's important that we listen to them and they're they own property, and I think there are certain property rights that come with it.

So that's all that I'm saying.

Thank you, Council Winland.

Okay, let's move on to the next topic.

Thank you.

So we are on our our fourth and last policy discussion item here.

Hazardous trees on dead hazardous dead trees on private property.

We're asking counsel if the city should enforce the removal of dead trees on private property that pose risk to nearby private property.

So, as you can see from the existing code on the left here, currently requires property owners to address dead trees that are a hazard to the use of public property or public right of way.

So this does not include any situations between two private homeowners, neighbors that are not the public.

The key issue that we're addressing with these changes are uh was identified at the beginning of the project to evaluate options for addressing dead and hazardous trees on neighboring properties.

Current practice is to advise property owners that this is a private matter and offer uh resources for mediation services.

Public engagement and stakeholder engagement.

Several residents mentioned that the code does not adequately address this issue, although one stakeholder interviewee who expressed this concern was able to find resolution through their uh HOA, and they were able to resolve this through the HOA.

This code section was actually modified in 2013 by ordinance number 2617 to limit dead trees as a nuisance only to those trees threatening public property as it is now.

The change was made in response to a large number of complaints received by code enforcement staff from private property owners that wanted the city to force neighbors to remove a tree that they believed was dead or dangerous.

The code was modified due to the amount of staff time and resources it takes to resolve these types of complaints.

And the code amendment was drafted as drafted, would resort back to the pre-2013 code.

If we proceeded with the policy A to maintain the current approach, an advantage would be that this avoids new regulatory enforcement burdens on the city, and it would limit the ability of enforcement staff to address other priority issues, but it would also continue the reliance on private resolution and could result in potentially unsolved safety risks.

Policy option B expands the responsibility to private property owners.

And this update gives the city the authority to require private property owners to remove dead trees that are within striking distance of specific types of buildings or infrastructure.

And this establishes a process for addressing dead and potentially hazardous trees on neighboring properties.

Non-dead and has potentially hazardous trees would still be addressed through methods that don't involve the city.

Upon receiving a nuisance complaint for a dead tree on private property, the city would need to contact the property owner, arrange an inspection, and determine if there is a dead tree within striking distance of a target.

And if the nuisance condition is met, the city would order the removal of the tree.

Some advantages of these changes are that it addresses public safety concerns that we heard, and it addresses it reduces the risk to neighboring properties as well as providing an enforcement mechanism, which was asked for by residents.

Some disadvantages include that increased enforcement responsibility, reduces the capacity of code enforcement staff to address some of their other priorities, and if there's non-compliance, the only tool to address non-compliance is a citation.

This process takes months.

So if this is this tree is dangerous, the issue may still not be resolved through this enforcement mechanism.

There's also potential cost burden on property owners.

A particular concern are those that cannot afford to pay for the removal and for the citation fine.

So I have the two policy options here side by side, and we'll open it up to questions and then discussion.

So no change, it just stays to the right hazard in the on public property or in the public right-of-way.

Right.

Well, could you talk to us about the concerns you might with the enforced removal?

Yeah, so if it was purely on private property, I mean, there's a number of concerns that come up, and our our current code enforcement officer is not a fan of this proposed policy.

I'll just say that because it was changed in 2013 because we do get a lot of volumes of calls, unfortunately.

Um and uh some of the issues that come across are the fact that sometimes the trees are not clearly dead.

I know it can seem that you can go out there and okay, well, yeah, if a tree has no leaves and it's a fur and it, you know, it's clearly dead, but it it often isn't that clear.

And so we have to then get into the issue with them as to whether the tree is in fact dead.

Uh sometimes there's it's unclear whose tree it belongs to, and so then there's sometimes a property ownership dispute that that arises out of it.

Uh sometimes uh the neighbors are just not getting along, and then we're we're kind of getting uh embroiled in that type of process.

And in a situation where there's a neighbor who is an absentee property owner and is hard to get a hold of, then it takes staff time to track that person down to try to um you know give them the notice, etc.

So it there's a lot of things that um add to the time and effort and costs that go into these types of um of complaints.

So it is something that the city has done in the past, uh, but it does take away from the ability to focus on other priorities.

Um so this would be a reversion back to a prior policy, and so I just we wanted to make it clear that this actually was changed in 2013 for this very reason that it was uh staff intensive.

Why is it back?

What's that?

Why is it back?

It is back because it was an issue that was um brought up as needing to be addressed.

It was something actually the council had heard testimony on and asked um us to address it as part of us.

Oh I apologize, but it you did get testimony and asked us to look into it.

Okay, Council Corgan, go ahead.

So it's messy, it's messy either way.

The thing that I find really unacceptable is potential unresolved safety risks risks.

If there's a big tree out there, I think we're gonna have to take it on to ignore it, I think is just not responsible.

So you favor the B.

Yeah.

Okay.

Council African.

Uh has the city attorney send this language putting the city between the property owners.

The city, we did have our land use attorney review all of the code amendments, yes.

Okay.

Um I'm struggling with option B putting the city in a private dispute.

So um no change.

Okay.

It's a tough one.

I mean, but all of them are tough ones.

Yeah, no, I know, but this the honesty option B.

For me, it's a it's unacceptable that you have a tree, it's dead and you don't want to remove it.

It's just uh you refuse.

There should be some authority that say you have to remove the trees.

If you don't maybe even go further that we are gonna remove it and you pay.

But uh I think I would go on to enforce removal.

I mean uh.

Uh COVID.

No, uh no change.

I think you're getting into a lot of different things.

I mean, I I don't know if people realize that if a tree falls down and hits your house from a neighbor, it's not your neighbor's fault.

Your insurance covers it.

So I think the insurance companies deal with all this stuff all the time, and I think the less we get involved in it.

You do we have a lot of trees falling out of neighbors' homes that are dead?

I personally am not aware of any.

I I'm not gonna say it doesn't happen though, but I'm not personally aware of that.

I've never um and I did speak to an insurance agent uh broker about this, and the um council Rundland is right.

Um, generally, if a tree either healthy or dead falls from a property onto another property, it's the property it fell onto is is responsible for it.

He um did indicate that if a property owner puts the neighbor on notice that there is a dead or hazardous tree and it falls, then that person is more likely to be held liable rather than the property that it falls on.

That's right.

And sometimes the insurance companies will get involved at it, because if it really is dead and they're put on notice, they'll say, hey, you have to remove this, or we're not gonna ensure your home, you know.

Yeah, and I did I did ask him about that too, and he actually said that um dead trees on neighborhood properties.

They said your insurers usually don't have a particular issue with that unless it is right next to a house to be insured.

So if it's just a dead fruit tree or something, of course, yeah.

Well, I do think in I can understand what people would be concerned about this.

And if it it seems simple, like, oh, well, there's a dead tree, they're not doing something about it.

The city comes, everyone cooperates, and they just and it goes away.

But that is never how it works.

They will trespass the city from their property.

They won't even let code enforcement come take a look.

They'll fight it for months, and it wastes you guys talk about costs.

You want to know how much this costs?

A tremendous amount of city time and resources between what is oftentimes just a dispute amongst neighbors, and this is just a symptom of it, not really the um not really the uh the issue at all because two neighbors that are otherwise getting along, they cooperate.

You go and say, hey, I'm concerned about this tree, you have it looked at, and and they do it.

These are folks that are fighting for everything, you know, and then they involve the city as to be the arbiter, and and it's a it's a challenging position for us to be in.

It is messy.

And I do think there is other recourse that people can uh take through um insurance, and and again, it's and they're oftentimes not even the dead, they're just concerned trees.

I'm concerned about the neighbor's tree.

That's what we hear from, but they're not dead.

They probably wouldn't even be the moderate risk.

So I I also um favor policy option A.

But but we recognize there's a little divide on this, and we do have two counselors missing.

So like the other, like the first topic.

Note the lean.

Yes, thank you.

It's been nutted.

All right.

So I know it's getting late.

So we have concluded our final of the four policy options.

And of course, if there's anything else pressing, we can we can answer questions.

But before we open it up to that, um, there's some next steps that I'd like to just go over quickly.

Um, there is going to be the final tree task force meeting.

That's our advisory board on the 20th of this month, and we will update them on the direction we got from council today, and we'll update them on any changes that we're making before hearing.

Uh, the planning commission hearing will be on June 8th.

Uh, and then we will be coming back to council in uh July.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you, uh Sarah for leading the presentation tonight.

Jessica, Morgan, Daphne, thank you all support team.

Great job taking us through these amendments.

Now, if there are other difficult ones for you guys, they were in a window though.

So let us know if there are, because I know there were lots of items that were very difficult to get kind of consensus.

We've had lots of of broad feedback on a lot of these topics.

So I guess when we come to the final public hearing, you can make us aware of any remaining you know, items that are still kind of question question marks.

But we really appreciate all of you and all of the community members, all of our advisory boards and so many other community stakeholders who have weighed in, because this is just a snapshot.

I mean, although the rest of them have gone through and really helped narrow down all of these other broad policy topics, and they're doing a really good job thinking through uh these items, and you're doing a good job leading them through the discussion.

So thank you.

Thank you.

We'll pass on your words when we see the task force as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's take a just a quick five-minute uh recess.

Good job.

Right, the lighter summertime.

And that's kind of the development works.

We're in the winter if you're if you're if you're wondering.

Oh, okay.

We've been for a few years now.

Okay, so we are back uh back in order.

And at this time, I'm going to uh recess the city council meeting and call to order the redevelopment agency, um, the meeting of the Lake House Cigar Redevelopment Agency.

And we have one item of business on the on the Laura agenda, and that is an update on the North Anchor project.

So we are joined tonight by um Eric Crest with Urban Development Uh Partners, and we also have um and of course his team, um, the NATOs and the um and Megan Bronstein, who is our redevelopment and economic development program manager.

I think is this this is this your first time before the council?

It's great to have you here, Megan.

Yes, thank you.

Step one, get the mic to work.

And thank you all for being here.

So, Eric, we'll turn it over to you.

Actually, I think I'm gonna do the introduction.

Oh, you're doing it.

That's okay.

Okay, please.

Uh Mayor, board members, my name is Megan Brunson, as he just stated, the new redevelopment and economic development um program manager.

I'm excited to be here.

Um before we let urban development partners give an update on where we are with the North Anchor project.

Before we let urban development partners give an update on where we are with the North Anchor project, I wanted to give you a little bit of background just to make sure that we are all starting from the same space and not still talking about trees or Cinco de Mayo.

So just as a reminder, where we started was the Laura board had created when creating the East End Urban Redevelopment Agency or plan, excuse me, had identified that they wanted a boutique hotel and they wanted mixed-use projects specifically along B Avenue.

The Laura board went out and purchased property to implement this objective.

And then in 2021, signed a DDA, a disposition and development agreement with urban development partners.

This was the second group that they were hoping to partner with.

But luckily is the one still working with us today.

Since 2021, the urban, the DDA itself has been amended five different times.

The first few were to extend the timeline just a little bit, six month increments for those first few.

However, when we got to amendment number four, we ended up extending it for two years.

The reasons for the two-year extension were that they had just met some wonderful partners on the hotel side that they wanted to create a joint venture agreement with to help with the equity.

They wanted to then partner with that new joint venture partner and go out to find the rest of the equity and the debt partners that they were going to work with, and they needed time to do that.

They wanted to value engineer the design so far, make it um hopefully a little bit cheaper.

Um, so a little bit less funds that were needed to go into it.

And they wanted to pursue proceed with due diligence regarding the acquisition of each of the three properties.

A few months later, UDP came back.

So now we're in October 2024, um, came back and gave the Laura board a um an overview of data as to really where was the market at that point in terms of what had happened with COVID and what had happened after COVID and where they were at that time, stating the financial markets at that time were still not back to the space where finding money was easy for projects like this.

Um has was able to give uh this group an update was last September in 2025.

And it was specifically to say that they were ready to purchase two of the three properties and they wanted to do it a little bit out of time.

And so that was amendment number five of the DDA.

Since that time, UDP has actually purchased the two properties, but very exciting.

Um they have continued to pursue financing and investment options that they're gonna give you an update for today.

And they most recently met with planning staff specifically to discuss some modifications to the land use um agreements or approvals that have been made for the multiple multifamily um buildings.

The pre-app for that um is scheduled in a couple weeks.

So we don't have the final decision, um, but we did want to let you know that staff does believe that there is a path forward if it is taken to um for those to be minor amendments that would be staff level approvals.

And so hopefully that will help the timing of getting construction started on the multifamily specifically a little bit shorter.

But with that background, I then want to turn it over to Eric Cress and so he can introduce his team.

Uh thank you, Megan.

Um good evening.

Uh joining me, I have Cody McNeil.

Or sorry, Cody's over here.

Cody McNeil, Will NATO and uh Bob NATO.

And uh we did lose our financing uh Nick Santangelo, our uh financing agent.

He um is putting his kids down, so got a little bit late for him.

Um so I'm gonna fill in for Nick.

Uh we um first of all, I wanted to acknowledge as Megan did this has been a long journey.

Um we're still here and we're still working and we're still um committing time and money um to these projects because uh we do believe in them.

I will say up to a couple years ago, our uh sentiment was that we might see some relief in interest rates or things will loosen up and development capital become more available nationally.

Um that has not happened.

Um then two years ago, uh City Council was uh gracious enough and and we're thankful for that to give us a two-year runway in which we not only did we um uh make some changes to our hotel program, but we also changed our strategy for financing the property uh essentially for the multifamily.

We went a syndication route, which is a very difficult and long route as opposed to finding a single institutional LP partner.

Um institutional LP partners are not active right now in development period.

Um there's just not happening anywhere, and there's almost nothing happening in Oregon when it comes to private uh institutional LP partners.

There's one or two projects going on that I'm aware of in the multifamily space.

But if you're not building a data center, um, which doesn't seem appropriate for downtown, that is it's very difficult to attract um LP capital into um hospitality or multifamily um types of projects.

Uh so we um we'll talk a little bit more about that, but that's um where we're at, and that's what that those two years allowed us to do.

Um so I'm thankful for that, but also uh agree that the timeline has been disappointing.

Um I can we will share some good news uh today, and then um also some uh some good news, but not as good a news as we'd hope to be at today as well.

Um so maybe we'll start with the I think we uh gonna start with the hotel.

All right.

Um I'll start by saying we do have a debt term sheet from a prospective uh lender, um, particularly uh as it uh uh with seatpace.

Um Bob and Will have been really uh leading the charge with uh the CPACE work.

Um and by the way, I should say this work in the hotel.

We've spent uh about two and a half million dollars to date in titling and working on the designs of the hotel and some additional monies with uh uh internal program design, and we've spent a lot of effort in uh financing, including uh with our partners here, um, Donatus.

Actually, Will's over here.

Well, sorry, I keep doing that.

Yeah, I think uh one of the uh major milestones that we've made for the capitalization of the hotel portion of the project is that uh as of last week, Clackmas County has authorized this uh commercial pace program.

Uh the property assessed clean energy program, which is a voluntary assessment program uh funded by private lenders uh that enables uh property owners to finance uh seismic improvements, uh energy efficient uh equipment uh related to the project and and other similar improvements and essentially opens up another source of capital uh to finance the hotel.

This we've been working with Clackamas County staff since uh last fall, and they were very helpful in pulling out CPACE from a larger package of other uh economic incentives and uh expediting uh their uh implementation of that program.

Uh and so I've got an email sitting in my inbox from Clarkmas County staff, and they're ready to uh discuss moving forward with CPACE with us and our uh lender uh that Eric mentioned from whom we have a term sheet.

So that's very very positive on the hotel, and uh kind of fills in a uh missing middle, so to speak, in our capital stack on the project.

Um we've got uh I'll say that that's been probably the uh most positive uh portion of the of our uh hotel finance.

Um, in addition to uh executed term sheet that we have uh with one prospective lender, we also have indicative term sheets from several other lenders, so I think there's multiple avenues to uh move forward with CPACE on this project.

And then uh I can also talk about the the programming.

Um we've uh there's been one major change uh to the to the hotel, and that's the addition of uh this uh thermal spa.

I don't know if you recall, but the hotel had a uh 1300 square foot um kind of massage therapy focused traditional spa in the program.

Um we've since expanded that to a much more substantial contrast therapy uh focused spa to bring the kind of the hotel amenities in line with uh market and also bring the economic returns uh also in line with market expectations as we go and speak to potential equity partners.

Um we've also brought on a full uh consulting team to assist with that uh endeavor uh including um programming and um spa business consultants uh additional uh design staff uh and that uh uh process continues.

Uh and then Eric has also uh made excellent progress uh on uh shifting our parking strategy at the hotel because the uh expansion to stay within the um envelope of the hotel building, it does uh reduce the amount of on-site parking um inside the building.

Yeah, I'll simply say we have a parking solution that works through some negotiations.

We don't have a signed LOIL that we have a close to negotiated LOI for to solve for the parking.

Um I'm confident we'll get to a solution if we have the opportunity to do so or when we have the opportunity to do so.

Um in terms of timing, uh not much is changed in terms of timing.

We need uh 12 months from equity commitment to break ground on hotel.

The we have one investor in particular who's interested and is looking at the uh met him a couple weekends just the past couple months.

It was out with a drone last weekend, if you a couple days ago, you may have noticed or not.

Um so there is uh is some activity, and we have strong, it's well said lender interests, but we're really it feels like we're at we're we're at the spot where we were with the um with the multifamily, you know, eight months ago, uh, where we had we were starting to get um interest from debt, uh a couple of debt providers, but equity continued to be um a um a significant significant lift until we uh move forward with the closing on the land, which um kind of unleashed some things in terms of syndicating the property.

I think that's uh I guess for so for the hotel.

What I would say is that we would uh what we're requesting is a more modest um uh more modest request in terms of uh DDA DDA amendment is to give us a little bit more time through the end of the year to um wrap up these or work through these conversations that we have with current equity providers that are looking at the hotel.

Um I will say that by the end of the year we would we would likely request a check-in just to see you know how much stamina we collectively have uh with the hotel.

Um, even though we feel like we're making really strong progress.

We understand that the city is and we all are uh have been waiting a long time for this, so we're open to exploring other options, but we'd certainly like to have some time to to wrap up these current conversations that we have that could turn into a reality for us.

Do you want us to ask questions on the hotel now?

Um we're gonna get through the whole thing.

I would prefer to just push through the apartments if it's okay.

That's fine.

Um I mean if if that but I will I won't say uh shut you down.

Um high level on the apartments uh project.

We've spent uh including the land acquisition, five million dollars to date.

Um our current plan, uh assuming uh if uh city council approves our request is to uh spend another million dollars in equity that uh we have raised through the end of the year to um uh demolish the uh current office building at first and be it that's in parcel B, which we do we have on sorry, do we have a map of parcel B?

There's a thumbnail.

Okay.

If you squint, you can see apartment parcel B.

That's the um uh office building that um some of you, and particularly Commissioner, uh sorry, Councilor Afghan has pointed out is problematic, and we would uh move forward with the demoing that uh along with completing uh required permitting that we need to do.

Um we have to take the property back in through building permits because of the time that's a lot that's lapsed.

Um so we would expend those monies over the next uh few months and proceed with that demo and in preparation for uh breaking ground on uh parcel B.

The um we have uh we've made a lot of progress in the last two years, but even in the last uh eight months in terms of debt.

We have eight debt term sheets right now.

They're attractive uh from from prospective lenders.

Um a couple things have happened.

One, like I said, we've acquired the land, two, we've made some refinements, minor refinements to the building, and we have a uh game plan for additional refinements that we hope to be able to get through staff review that will um bring those term sheets to fruition.

And uh we've also had some success with raising uh capital, um, partially because there's been a little bit of um uh uh lowering of construction costs.

Um I think you're are you up, sorry, you up next to talk about programming?

Yeah, uh building on what Eric had mentioned.

One of the key updates since the execution of amendment five in the fall was the approval by the EQ at the state level for the underground storage tank abatement that we know to exist on parcel C.

Um the city had done some work prior to us acquiring the sites in the fall, but we know more work remains.

So this was our uh efforts to uh get that state approval on what our remediation plan will be.

And as of December, I think it was December 30th, we now have that approval in hand.

Um we've also been working since the amendment five execution in the fall on uh as Eric and Megan mentioned, refining the design to best meet the market without uh jeopardizing or sacrificing the design excellence of the apartment buildings.

Um I have an outline of what those scope refinements entail.

Uh the key points to recognize are the progress made on the pre-application conferences.

We had one in March.

Uh as again as Megan mentioned, we have a follow-up in the next two weeks to review with staff the path forward on how best to fit these design improvements through a staff level review, which will save the project approximately two months of time.

Um that third bullet uh I want to reiterate is that nothing that we are proposing to change the design by will erode the design quality that we've set out, and that was included in the original solicitation.

Uh that stays at the forefront of each of these proposed refinements, uh, but we are looking to improve the construction feasibility and the simplification of where we can smartly.

Timing.

Um right now we are, as our mentioned, prepared to spend an additional million dollars uh through the rest of the year to demolish the existing office building on parcel B.

Uh we are also expecting to incur additional pre-development costs as we take that uh design refinement package through its approval process, uh, and then that leads to permit application and permit review process.

If you add all that up, currently we are expecting the groundbreaking early into 2027 on the apartment project.

But the important note to make on that is that we now have an opportunity to accelerate to beat that groundbreaking timing by up to two months, um, which would put us into December more or less of this year, 2026, as the groundbreaking event for the multifamily or the mixed use component as it's sometimes referred to.

Um the coming weeks we will validate that path forward to realize the schedule savings.

So it won't go, won't be hypothetical at that point.

We will have certainty on the on the path ahead.

Um the last two bullets there speak to once we do break ground, how long does it take?

Um right now the project is contemplated as a single phase delivery totaling 18 months.

That would be for both parcels B and C.

Um sequential or phased delivery scenario, parcel B would start first, uh, followed by parcel C.

In a phased delivery approach, the total duration of construction would be the 34 months you see there.

And the reason we're presenting two scenarios is as of today, we have a very high degree of confidence we can um uh execute on a two-phase delivery.

Uh we have those monies raised and we have the debt term sheets reflect that we can do that over the next uh few months.

Uh frankly, our gap is not huge to be able to do a single uh delivery, but we just want to convey that if nothing else.

I don't know.

If something else, I know if we have another black swan event, like we tend to have uh at least we can commit to doing a two-phase delivery at this point.

Um but we uh fully expect to do a one-phase.

For closing here.

Okay.

Um so the uh request with the amendment is to give us enough runway to just move through brute force execution and move to construction on uh the is it uh as it attains to the apartment delivery, so we can just get moving and break around and get tractors out there and clean up that site and get a building up.

Um so with the uh I guess we're back here asking one more time for a little bit more time, um, but we're in a higher, much much higher uh place of confidence uh uh in terms of being able to get uh actual work done uh within uh by the end of the year.

And in terms of uh demolition, we can certainly have that done by the end of the year with a little bit of help from um Megan and uh and uh the city staff team here.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um this so just on the multifamily, you know, just to recognize this is kind of a new uh role new plan here, this phasing of the two parcels, right?

And part of our interest all along has been ensuring that you know the financing is in place before and we you know carved out the exception to um uh to close on the property with you all with with with the claw back, knowing that that provided um uh uh you know just better circumstances for you all to um finance the project, you know.

So we understood that um, but that uh you know our concern with any partner would be once they start, are they gonna be able to finish it?

And so now we have this, you know, you're asking us to allow you to start on the middle parcel of the two block without the financing to do the parcel C.

Um, is there can you help us understand is there so that's a big risk, you know, and then extending the can the construction period, almost doubling it, you know, and that's a big impact to all of the neighbors, you know, down in that in that area.

Um can is is there something about the phasing itself that would aside from more time that would um help facilitate the the final financing for parcel C.

Yeah, um it's uh fairly common strategy actually when financing is difficult uh for a project is to phase it.

Um you'll see it.

I mean, if you're in this business, you see it fairly often.

Uh in order to build any building, you have to show margin.

So there's we'll generate margin, so the building's gotta be worth more when that when we complete it than it costs to build it.

Um so that margin is posted up as additional collateral to start the second piece.

Um so if we didn't raise any more money, we'd post up the entire first building to start the second building and complete that without having to uh uh raise additional monies if uh financing continue to be difficult.

Um I think probably what is more likely is it wouldn't that 34 month period is a uh kind of a worst case scenario, right?

You have to complete the entire first building, you're not doing any more financing work, and you're just moving on to the second building.

Uh that's uh kind of our worst case scenario that we're laying out.

Um the best case extreme and the very worst case extreme.

Um I expect we'll uh land at my expectation is we'll start the project uh both of them together.

Um but there is risk that we're not able to, so the mitigation for that risk is we'll start parcel B and we'll continue to uh raise additional monies to start parcel C.

Could be, I mean, if we're going to their same rate, we'll we won't even have to phase the project, but if it's a little bit slower, we might start parcel C three months later.

But we have an incentive to start parcel C as quickly as our can as we can.

It's not a creative for us to you know extend this out for 34 months.

It's not a very big project.

We have to staff it as if it were, and it's it's kind of like building two small projects.

So it's not ideal for us, but um, but uh that's the kind of stopgap situation if uh if we're just not able to get additional um equity monies for the project.

Again, I don't expect that at all.

Would it not increase the overall cost of the project?

It does a little bit.

It does.

Um because you you're you have more overhead over the longer, you know, uh longer period of time.

Um a lot of that we will we just absorb as a company in terms of our staffing.

Um but with the contractor staffing, there's additional overhead.

Um that we'll just uh anyway, that's contemplated in the plan.

What a what about just uh operationally, you know, trying to lease out one building, the successes and the tenants on the ground floor with the you know ensuing construction right next door.

It's not ideal, but frankly, we deal with that all the time working in urban environment.

But I'm talking about the people living there in the tenants.

I know we deal with the we work with tenants in that situation all the time.

Okay.

Um we built number multiple buildings next to construction projects.

We've owned multiple buildings next to construction projects.

We've built next to multiple buildings.

So that is kind of the urban environment.

I mean, if that were a big issue, I would suggest that you don't build anything else in your downtown.

Because people are affected around the construction.

So part of the process of what we do is we mitigate that impact.

Um impact.

Yeah.

Um you only do you only um work during certain hours during the day.

Um is one thing you do, you just that's just that it's part of city code, frankly.

Um you uh I mean um during the most intense periods of construction, usually have to provide some concessions to those tenants that are nearest to the construction.

Um the uh I mean it's it doesn't it's not for the full period, but you know, you certainly have probably a month or so where you have to do that.

Uh thank you, uh Councillor Afgan, go ahead.

Uh the DEQ topic you talked about, is that the environmental cleaning plan that was approved, or did you get a permit to start cleanup?

It was the approval of the plan.

Okay.

Um not the good for, do you know?

I don't recall offhand, but I know that the permit is expected to follow uh in the coming six months.

Uh when you said you're going you're ready to start demoing, were you referring to parcel A, B, C combination, all of them, or just parcel B.

Uh just parcel B by the end of the year, so that we would uh uh demo that site and prepare it for uh construction.

Um yeah, I wouldn't commit to parcel C for a couple reasons, unless we were starting construction on that that site.

Uh for one thing, um we would probably um use it for uh staging and a construction office, at least initially.

Um hopefully not for very long, but if there if that building is not uh demoed or being occupied, we can save for money, some money by actually using it as an office.

Okay.

Uh the hotel, the current contract is start construction in July.

Do I remember that that correctly?

Yeah.

Yes, okay.

That's the current contract.

All right.

Uh I'm wondering why you picked parcel C in a parcel B to start construction and not parcel B C.

You I confused all of my B's and C's.

I'm wondering why you pick parcel B instead of parcel C um the well, for one thing, it's uh the the building is a liability, the parcel B building is a liability.

Um because of the gas station.

No, well, parcel B is in the middle.

That's the big office building.

Um that's that the big kind of vacant office building there, not the gas station.

Yeah, so that building is a liability.

The gas station's less of a worry and it's a little bit more usable as the staging site.

Got it.

Uh this is a fun comment.

I've talked with the previous city project manager about this.

I've talked to this previous city manager about this, but I'm going to be on public record now, so I make sure you hear what I'm saying.

Parcel C where the dry cleaners used to be.

That I believe is a piece of history of Lake Costwego.

And if we can save that and use it someplace within parcel B or C construction, I think we have done ourselves a service preserving part of the history of Lake Caswigo.

If we cannot save it, no problem.

But I think we should look at it and see if that's something we can do.

Mr.

Mayor, thank you so much.

Thanks, Councilor.

Um happy to do that.

Uh signs like that.

I mean, actually don't recall the sign, but um we have taken signs like that and used that as inter or here are in the lobbies and things like that in buildings.

So it's we and it's nice, it's a value to the project to retain that as history if we can do it on the site.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Counselor.

So we've talked about the apartment.

So why don't you give us the kind of the current market conditions of building hotels?

That would probably be helpful for us to know kind of and we're I know I think it's good that you have had some wins, but um my understanding is that it's uh not the greatest environment to be building hotels.

Is that your experience or speak to that?

Yeah, yeah, I would say that's accurate.

Um I was just reading a um hotel uh market report uh forward looking for this year, uh and it started out by uh stating that there are 16 full service hotels under construction in the US right now.

Um and I think that in our discussions, of course, a high quality project in any market is uh going to be attractive, and I think that we've done a lot of work over the last two years to improve the economics of this project, uh to de-risk the uh especially revenue from the rooms apartment by adding uh additional amenities at the hotel.

So I I feel very good, and we've had very good conversations.

I think uh the uh national perception of Portland continues to be challenging, uh especially with talking to lenders uh based out of the market, and the farther afield uh that a lender is from us, uh the more challenging those conversations are um once you can get them out to Lake Oswego and they can walk the site, walk downtown, uh exist in the community for 48 hours, those conversations become easier, but uh getting people on site uh to look at the property, uh it's it's challenging.

Uh it's a difficult time for hotel development, and uh you know uh although uh our in our last round uh we were value engineering the hotel.

Now we've added a lot of uh additional scope onto that project.

Uh and so uh cost control is still uh challenging for us.

Well, you should talk a little bit more about the thermal spa and what that adds to the hotel.

Yeah, so um one of the uh major trends in hospitality in the last um five to seven years has been a shift from focus on um food and beverage to a focus on wellness and um kind of the merging of the wellness industry and the hospitality industries um in a more substantial way, um, where you're now seeing um projects that aren't five-star destination hotels have a serious um focus on wellness and a serious wellness component in in that project.

And so we're just trying to address uh that change in consumer preference in this project, and I think that the concept that we have is really good.

I think it's a really great fit.

We've gotten excellent feedback from people who understand wellness a lot better than me about that, and I'm um I'm just really happy with the team that we brought on in that in that additional programming in the hotel.

And the and the other piece that I think uh is going to really be additive to the hotel is the uh day pass to use the spa and the uh plunge pools and uh yeah, the yeah, the spa isn't isn't just an amenity for a hotel guest, it's really a community amenity focused on uh day pass and membership users, not so it's not we hope that there's a large guest capture um because we've modeled that on our underwriting, but uh I really think that these types of contrast therapy spas are um they're they're make made or broken by their acceptance in the community, and I think that the one that we've planned for this project is uh really aligns on with Lake Oswego.

So and the change is the room configuration fairly stable from what it was before, or are you changing that whole model as well?

Got rid of all the cars.

Yeah, we yeah.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, we just tried to add additional you know, revenue generating space into the existing envelope and and leave the guest rooms and guest floors alone and then take some space that was kind of underutilized uh and and just activate that.

My dearly beloved cocktail lounge is going to be serving, God help me.

Smoothies and things with vegetables all I want are all, but it'll be a little bit more interesting than smoothies and things with vegetables, but designer vegetables and designer smoothies, right?

But designer vegetables and designer smoothies, but you can probably spice them up a little bit.

So in the concept, are we like still dreaming of putting a hotel in?

Are we like think we it's still going to be a reality?

Do we kind of the thing that was hard was that you had to have the county approve this loan program, and everybody's using CPACE and coupling it with a conventional lender.

So basically they split the loan portion between them and then kind of moderate their um risk that way.

And so now that the county has officially approved this, the you know the next phone call uh to Will or the email was here, we need to sit down and write the program and make the loan.

And so it got actually the term sheet that we have, and then there are other C-Pace lenders, and they often partner with a uh private lender on um because they're kind of co-um right lending on the on the project.

And then I think uh you know, we haven't wanted to go out and syndicate the equity when we didn't know where when or if or what the pricing would be on the debt.

But uh I think we're the you know it's all kind of coming together quickly.

We do have equity partners interested, or we or are we is that a startup?

That's uh uh gonna be kind of a startup.

Yeah, I mean we have uh um we've had one uh equity partner look at it and underwrite, another is looking at underwriting right now, like actually is underwriting heads had staff out.

Um but it's not an overwhelming, there's not overwhelming demand as uh as Will mentioned.

I would say where we're at with the hotel is in some ways similar to where we were, you know, nine, twelve months ago with multifamily where you were seeing these shocking um trades of uh apartment buildings um that you know pre-foreclosure numbers that uh we're eye raising, similar to uh almost like office.

So we had a number of those that were uh shocking and um scared off uh capital.

We're just at a point um of green shoots on the multifamily.

I mean, I think haven't done research on this, but I would love to see the number of uh public-private partnerships that were privately financed in the state of Oregon in the last five years.

Um I would gather that this may be the only first one that will break ground.

Um uh assuming we get an approval uh uh over the next months over the last five years, but maybe not.

Maybe there's one or two others, but I'm not aware of them.

Um so I would say, you know, we're probably that's we're at a spot, you know, a few months uh maybe nine months ago or 12 months ago where that's what it felt like with the multifamily, and we were able to um see some some positivity and just some hard work rolling over sleeves and changing our financing strategy with the hotel.

Um we uh you know we have one institutional investor looking at it as I mentioned, but they've not signed anything yet.

Um so we don't have them, you know.

I can't tell you that we have a partner right now.

Um and with the debt in place, we can uh take you know the remaining of the year to uh uh similar to the multifamily um pivot on our strategy for how we capitalize it.

Uh need to chase down this one uh uh large partner that's that has shown interest and um see if we can turn this into a reality.

I mean, we're business people, we run businesses, we don't we can't invest in in dreams, so we're spending time.

It's it's it'd say it's more in a dream, but it's also not like I can't come here and say I'm uh you know 90%, even 90% confident, but that by the end of the year we'll have this capitalized.

But I do think that there's a reasonable chance that we can get pull it together by the end of the year.

Um, but we're not, I mean, like I said, we're at where we're at the place with the multifamily, you know, a number of months ago uh with the hotel now.

So just last question then.

So from the the bigger picture, um now that you have sort of these finances financing pieces in place, does that kind of tell the private sector or whoever capital, whoever's going to provide it, say, okay, this is more of a go of a project and uh typically I know things are not typical, but in the normal processing uh 100%.

The first thing to ask is do you have debt?

So the equity asked, do you have debt?

Um they don't want to waste their time screwing around looking at a uh a building that doesn't have a a uh real term sheet.

Um and uh we have not had that until more recently.

We had a term sheet, but it was contingent upon CPACE approval uh at this point.

Um we can say, you know, what we're confident we'll have uh this term sheet's a reality, you know, within what do you what do we think we're gonna see um actually get the administrative components in place, do you think?

I don't think well, yeah, we give it as a timeline, but okay 90 days.

So yeah, they're I mean they're accelerating to get the administrative components of C Place CPACE in place.

So we can you know confidently say look, this is this that is around the corner.

You can look at this um from an equity standpoint and then write based on these terms that we have.

Um so that's uh that is a big uh change.

And you know, we we put in our time with uh with Clarkamas County and with lenders to get that done.

Frankly, it's just a general win.

Um, but it's uh certainly a uh significant progress for the hotel.

Good.

But just with the ownership though, you mentioned you know the same issue with the multifamily, not not having ownership.

Yeah, the equity component is hard.

I mean, we have we'll we'll own a portion of it, but um we'll need to partner with the uh uh other equity providers to um complete.

So you have you really need to close on the hotel property to really be able to capitalize the project.

Um what do you mean by closing the you mentioned that without having closed on the property it was difficult to um uh difficult to raise the equity?

Oh, you mean on the land?

Uh-huh.

No, I don't think I don't think so.

I think for the um how well it could potentially help.

We have to explore that with the um we could do the same 1031.

Yeah, we could do that with the multifamily.

We had a couple of interested parties that were interested in closing on the property, which instantly turned into equity that we could use to complete the construction of the um the multifamily.

Frankly, we haven't talked about doing that with the hotel, but that is a that would be a strategy.

Okay, but it's not a barrier.

Maybe I misunderstood.

Pardon?

It's not a barrier to it's not a barrier, it's just uh it's it helps.

Like it helps with the multifamily.

Got it.

Right.

Because if we were to say, look, we raised another two and a half million dollars, we have a significant investor who's very interested and has a lot of confidence, and um, it also gives kind of you know people work in groups, I'd say.

Okay, more people that uh feel good about your project, the more people want to jump in on it.

I just know for the record that um councillor Corrigan had to had to leave.

Um counselor.

Yeah, I'm kind of confused, but uh first of all, I'm glad that we are seeing some signs on the Martai family.

And my question is like on the term the debt term sheet on the hotel, is it for the whole or just some investment that's a part of the construction, or is it for the whole construction?

That is the debt component of the um hotel.

So um, you know, just like when you're buying a house, you have the equity component and the debt component, so it's the debt component of the hotel for construction, yeah.

And the way C-Pace worked, it's it's a construction um permanent loan.

So it actually rolls into um, I think it's a minimum of how many years?

It's uh usually uh I think ours is a 25-year-old.

Yeah, and and I know the challenges of Oregon, you know, in hospitality's highest taxes and everything makes it not attractive to investors to come in this market.

But uh the hotel market is like starting to we we have some movement in even in Portland, in spite of all the negative things.

When I was doing my research, I saw that like there was some the load of building of hotels nationwide this year, like thousands, 132,000 rooms are being built.

Challenges happen everywhere in Florida, in California, in Oregon, but uh our challenge is different.

My colleague used to say that, you know, the taxes.

I mean when you see that Oregon has the highest hospitality tax in the nation, it's like kind of difficult for people to bring their money.

But I'm just like uh happy that you're still doing the hotel, and that it's uh maybe in less than a year.

I just really want to hear that because I have been here like uh now we are our six years on council, and it's uh we've been giving, you know, you know, because we know you are in good faith, but also we want people to understand that Lake Oswego is the good partner to do business with that we are understanding, we work with all investors that are coming to our city.

But you know, but what people are asking me every time, what is it going with North Anchor?

And sometimes I just don't know what to say.

I'm glad today you show their progress that we're gonna break ground soon for the multi-family, and maybe and my question also is that while we are uh if it's like the uh parcel B is occupied.

I hope the building, what I want to say that the hotel building will start sometime after you break ground, you break ground uh for parcel B because I don't see people living in like these properties are just one street away, and the noise, even though you did it, it's a problem.

And when it comes from the same owner, it's even more problematic for people who you know, if it's uh the neighbor who's doing that, you can explain.

Oh, it's the neighbor I can, but it's us like it's you own this and you are making the the problem for the occupant.

You know what I mean?

So I don't know what we can do, some magic to, you know, like when we break ground here, we start studying the the construction of the hotel so that you know we don't have because building a hotel is not gonna be like a year, it can be more than a year to build to complete.

And a year of noise in uh in this will be a little bit problematic.

Yeah, it will take more than a year, but and I uh agree with you, counselor, it's um worse for you if it's if it's not neighborhood.

It's actually better for the for the actual residents if it's the same owner.

Um when we did work on Division Street, we did multiple buildings and we can actually just manage it better because we own the next building.

So we can tell the contractor, look, we said don't start before 8 a.m.

Um if it's the if it's someone else's contractor, it's just harder.

There's a longer communication chain for that.

Um we can also mitigate by giving gifts and things like that to our tenants, and uh we can um appropriately assign the cost of those gifts to the project that's causing the disruption, which is easier when you're dealing with your financier who's wondering why you know you're having to give concessions because your neighbors making you know, so it's just less dispute.

Um so but it is harder for us because we're having to put more management into it.

So that's why we would prefer to um uh well, particularly B and C to start all at once.

The hotel, um let's say we would prefer to start the hotel.

We would prefer to, yeah, at the same time.

It's just unlikely we'll actually start all three at the time.

But do like uh what's the likelihood that you start both construction, the hotel and uh or it's not like foreseeable, like it's not possible.

We're further along in the design of the apartments, um, and the path between today and groundbreaking is shorter on the apartment than it is on the hotel.

But how the might as a question, which may not be fair, but like uh do you think that in December when you come here, you're gonna have the financing of the hotel?

Like everything, like six months.

We're we're gonna do everything we can to bring that in in the six months in the next six months.

I mean, uh I mean over that six month period, so um you know it's an uncertain world, so I'm not gonna sit here and tell you, yes, we're gonna have it, but we're gonna do everything we can.

And um, we're just we've just pulled uh that together with the CPA, so it's kind of a new opportunity for us to uh reach out and uh uh see what kind of traction we can get with on the equity side.

Yeah, because honestly, like I I just want like in six months in December you come and there is no hotel.

What like what are you gonna tell us?

Like, is it fair that we say okay?

Maybe maybe you cannot pull out this thing.

Maybe you cannot do this project.

Is it what is it fair to say that that because it's been like every time six months a year, and we've been doing like and and we will work with you, like for sure, but there is some point when we say maybe objectively, like we should see some that's a conversation we'll be willing to have with you and um work with you on that.

If we're not seeing progress by the end of the year, it's gonna be on that front.

That's gonna be hard for us as well.

Not just the city.

Yeah, that's right.

Yeah, so I'm yes, and I hope you the best.

I hope for the best.

I guess uh I was very encouraged when I saw Mr.

NATO coming.

We discussing all of that.

I have an Eric, I know also all the hard work you're putting in this, but you know, we just uh everybody wants this thing to be done, like you know, and I would like uh John won't be here to put the things it's been eight years.

Yeah, so yeah, but if you're I was a teenager when we started this project, I just wanted a barn 21.

Well, I've had well, particularly when I was working in California.

I'd had I had kids over the span of time of getting up the project going really well.

People want it because it's a very attractive project.

Um you're bringing forth something that's very desirable.

Um, and I think all of us can see the effort that you're putting into it, the pivots you've had to make on all respects on um the cost side on the program side into continuing to try to bring um the project forward.

So we definitely see all that.

Um you've given us um you know items to consider uh that we have to um uh to go back and think of, and then I know we'll all be talking again here soon.

Um well at the next meet next meeting.

Next meeting, yeah, at the next meeting.

Um, yes.

So it's late and we have to have further discussions.

So I really appreciate you all being here, sharing the updates with us.

We do we we appreciate your hard work um and uh your creativity in this project and working to to continue to deliver it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Uh Lake O's a good city to work with.

Um, and I also want to convey my uh our thanks to the uh the staff and your team.

You have a good team here, and um they're realistic and um they're willing to problem solve and work creatively with us, which is really move the needle with the uh multifamily and get us to the point where we are where we are, and we hope to get there with the hotels well.

Thank you, thank you, Eric.

Bob Well, thank you, Cody.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um with that, I'm going to um adjourn the redevelopment agency meeting and reconvene the city council meeting and then ask if there's any information from council.

Hearing none, any information of city manager.

Okay.

With that, the council will now enter executive session.

Uh Mr.

Toyon, will you please read the statutory basis for the executive session?

City Council now meet in executive session under ORS 182.660, sub two sub D to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations and subsection F to consider information or records that are exempt by law from public inspection.

Pursuant to ORS 192.660 sub four represents representatives of the news media are excluded from this executive session.

No final decisions will be made in executive session.

Following that, the Lake Oswego redevelopment agency will meet in executive session under ORS 192.660, sub two, sub E to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions, and subsection F to consider information or records that are exempt by law from public inspection.

Representatives of the news media and designative staff are allowed to attend this executive session and are specifically directed not to report on any of the deliberations except to state the general subject of the session.

No final decisions will be made, and then at the end we will adjourn the meeting.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we will uh recess and