Lake Oswego Planning Commission Meeting – December 8, 2025

The Lake Oswego Planning Commission met on December 8, 2025, at 6:00 PM (local time) to consider routine approvals, a continued rezoning hearing, and a work session on tree regulation amendments. The meeting included approval of previous minutes, unanimous endorsement of a rezoning recommendation, and extensive discussion of four code concepts aimed at updating the city’s tree code.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes (October 27, 2025): The commission unanimously approved the minutes from the October 27, 2025, meeting as written. (Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded; all in favor, no opposition.)

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public comments were offered for items not on the agenda. The public hearing portion for the 4000 Cruiseway Place rezoning (LU 25‑0029) was closed at the previous meeting; no new testimony was taken.

Discussion Items

1. Findings for Home Occupation Standards (LU 25‑0002)

• Staff presented draft findings, conclusions, and order for the previously approved home occupation code amendments. The commission voted to approve the draft findings as written. Vote: 6–1 (Commissioner Mitchell voted no; all others voted yes). The findings will be forwarded to the City Council for final adoption.

2. Continued Hearing – 4000 Cruiseway Place Rezoning (LU 25‑0029)

• Staff Recap: Senior Planner Ellen Davis summarized the application to change the comprehensive plan designation from OCR3 to OCR0 and the zoning from OC to R0 for three parcels. The proposal does not include specific development. Staff found the rezoning compatible with surrounding uses, aligned with the Waluga Neighborhood Plan, adequate public facilities and traffic capacity, and feasible tree preservation. The proposal also supports the city’s housing production strategy.
• Commission Deliberation: Commissioners acknowledged community opposition but noted their role as a quasi‑judicial body is to evaluate whether the applicant met the criteria. All agreed the criteria were satisfied. Chair Mitchell moved to approve the staff recommendation and adopt findings; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. This is a preliminary decision; final adoption will occur after written findings are prepared.

3. Work Session – Tree Regulation Amendments (PP24‑0006)

• Consultant Sarah Goldstein (Cascadio Partners) and arborists Christine Johnson and Morgan Holin presented four code concepts to address state clear‑and‑objective standards, tree preservation incentives, appeals process, and consistency between development/non‑development permits. The tree task force and city council had provided prior feedback.
• Concept 1: Clear and Objective Standards for Residential Development – Three parts: (a) two options for retention (percentage of total trees or total DBH), (b) exemptions for small lots (≤5,000 sq. ft.), (c) bonus credits for native trees. Commissioners supported the direction, noting potential to incentivize middle housing. They requested data on how percentages would affect different lot sizes.
• Concept 2: Incentives for Tree Preservation – Options include exemption from public notice/appeals, small dimensional adjustments, and stormwater credits for developers who retain ≥50% of trees. Commissioners favored stormwater credits and exemption from public notice, but expressed caution about dimensional adjustments. They also suggested a higher retention threshold (e.g., 70%) for the exemption.
• Concept 3: Appeals Process – Proposed reducing notice period from three to two weeks, using a hearings officer instead of the Development Review Commission (DRC), and eliminating further appeal to city council. Commissioners supported the streamlined approach, noting only 1 of 15 appeals in five years was overturned. They confirmed that decisions could still be challenged in circuit court.
• Concept 4: Moderate Risk Tree Removal – A new exemption allowing removal of moderate‑risk trees (classified by a certified arborist) when no alternatives exist or there is a history of similar tree failure. Commissioners endorsed the concept while emphasizing the need for education and monitoring. They agreed with the city council’s preference for a two‑track system (clear‑and‑objective for housing, discretionary for non‑development).
• Next Steps: Staff will incorporate commission feedback, refine percentages and case studies, and present draft code amendments to the planning commission in May 2026.

Other Business

• Election of Chair and Vice Chair: The commission will elect a new chair and vice chair at the next meeting (January 12, 2026). Term is one year.
• Holiday Reception: Inquired about the mayor’s holiday reception; staff will follow up.
• Schedule Review: Next meeting January 12, 2026 (work session on Foothills Plan update and adoption of findings for 4000 Cruiseway Place). The Boards and Commissions Summit is scheduled for January 15, 2026.

Key Outcomes

• Approved: Minutes of October 27, 2025 (unanimous).
• Approved: Draft findings for home occupation standards (LU 25‑0002) – 6‑1.
• Approved (Preliminary): Recommendation to approve the 4000 Cruiseway Place rezoning (LU 25‑0029) – unanimous; final findings to be adopted later.
• No votes taken on tree code concepts; feedback will inform draft code amendments.
• Next Steps: Tree code draft to return in May 2026; chair/vice chair election at January 12 meeting.