Good evening, folks.

I'd like to call to order tonight's planning commission meeting of December 8th, 2025.

Iris, would you please call a roll?

Mitchell.

Here.

Najrok?

Here.

Here.

Here.

Sly.

Here.

Twing.

Ruth.

Here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number three on tonight's agenda is approval of the minutes from our meeting of October 27th, 2025.

A copy of the minutes was distributed to the commissioners.

Commissioners, do we have any revisions or questions about those minutes?

Otherwise, do we have a motion?

I'll move to approve the minutes as written.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Item number four on tonight's agenda is the public comment section.

The purpose of this section is to allow community members to present information or raise an issue for items that are not on tonight's agenda.

Uh that would include uh the uh particular item later on in which there's a continued hearing.

So again, a reminder that this portion is only for comments on items that are not on tonight's agenda.

Iris, do we have any public comment either live or on Zoom?

No.

Okay, thank you.

Number five, the commission for citizen involvement.

I they don't have any general updates for this evening.

That'll bring us to item number six point one, uh the findings conclusions in order for the home occupation standards.

This is LU 25-0002.

Uh we had a preliminary we had a hearing on November 24th, and we issued a preliminary recommendation uh for the city council to approve the proposed community development code amendments and we directed staff to return with the draft findings conclusions in order.

Those draft findings were previously distributed to the commissioners.

So I'll ask uh commissioners if anyone has any comments, questions, uh, or proposed edits to the draft findings.

Okay.

Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the draft findings.

We have a motion to approve the draft findings as written.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay.

I guess maybe take a vote on this one if you don't mind, Iris.

Who seconded?

Thank you.

Mitchell?

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Sly?

Yes.

Wing?

Yes.

Ruth.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you, Iris.

Okay, moving along.

This will take them to item number seven on tonight's agenda.

This will be the continued hearing on the 4,000 cruiseway place rezoning application.

This is LU 25-0029.

Um, that is a request to amend the comprehensive plan map and zoning map to change the designation for the three parcels from a designation of OCR3 to OCR0, uh, and from a zoning designation of OC to R0 at 4,000 cruise waste uh cruiseway place.

Um again, this is a continued public hearing.

Uh we met, uh, I believe it was October 27th when we were here.

Um, and uh I just want to state that the test all testimony public and written that that portion of the the hearing is now closed, and we are here for to for the planning commission to just deliberate the testimony that has been given to us.

Um I will say uh I think to call out that at our last hearing, which was November 28th.

This wasn't on the agenda, um, but during the public comment of that set that hearing, uh, we had a woman testify uh and give try to give evidence on this, and I think that's probably constitutes an ex-party communication that we just have to call out uh that was given to us on the on 1128.

Mr.

Chair, to be clear, that information then, because it's not in the record, cannot be considered by the planning commission when you make a decision.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Krame.

Okay, and before we start our deliberations, I'll turn I'll turn it over to a staff just to give us a recap on where we are.

Great, thank you.

Um good evening, commissioners.

I just want to give a little overview of uh what we were talking about last time since it has been a few weeks since October 27th, last time we spoke about this.

My name is Ellen Davis.

I'm a senior planner for the city.

And tonight we are talking about uh 4,000 cruiseway place.

It's in close proximity to Cruise Way and Boons Ferry Road.

Um I'm sure you're all familiar with the site.

We talked about it last time.

I I'm just gonna keep going through these.

I've got pretty pretty short notes, so I'm gonna try and get you right to deliberations and questions if you have any.

Um the application has two parts to it.

It's both a request to change the comprehensive plan map designation for the property from OCR3 to OCR0.

Uh this is 4,000 Creeseway place, the location.

Um, and again, uh comprehensive plan map amendment and a rezoning request to go from OC to R0.

Um, and this application does not include any development at this point in time.

If an application for specific development is submitted in the future, it will be reviewed under the codes that are in place at the time of that application submittal.

Looking at compatibility between this site and neighboring sites, the requested R0 zone uh allows um uh high density residential uses.

Uh on this site, there are commercial sites to the west and southwest, and either assisted living facilities or high density residential existing to the north, the southeast, and the east of the site.

The proposal also aligns with the Woluga neighborhood plan uh policies, which require or recommend um locating higher density multifamily uses near arterial roadways, commercial businesses, and existing multifamily uses, not within low density residential areas.

So staff finds that the proposed R0 zoning would be compatible with the uses and development patterns on the neighboring sites and would align with the neighborhood plan.

Looking at adequacy of public facilities next, the applicant provided a conceptual util utility plan and a um technical memo from an engineering specialist.

Um both of these documents were reviewed by the city's engineering department, and they did find that the applicant's submittals are um demonstrate adequate capacity in our public infrastructure system, and that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezone do meet our uh requirements for adequate public facilities.

Moving on to roadways and traffic, the applicant provided a technical memorandum from a registered traffic engineer comparing the uses allowed on site today at the current commercial zoning with the proposed R0 zoning.

Even if the site is developed at a high residential density as possible, residential use will still decrease the rush hour traffic on the site because um it'll be a lower peak hour rush hour uh traffic demand than having a commercial site where everyone is entering and leaving the site at the same time.

I'll also note that there are some bus stops uh for TriMet that are in close proximity to the site, providing another avenue of transportation for this location, as well as being located on uh on and near arterial roadways and very close to I-5.

Looking at feasibility of tree preservation, which uh is included as policies, especially in the Waluga neighborhood plan.

The applicant has provided a rough conceptual site plan showing how the site could be developed with potential focused areas of tree preservation, both in the middle of the site and along the west edge of the site where there is a resource uh identified.

With this conceptual site plan, the applicant has demonstrated it is feasible to preserve existing trees on the site pursuant to the Waluga neighborhood plan.

And by increasing the allowable residential density on the site, the proposal aligns with the city's goal of providing additional capacity for needed housing.

As discussed in Wednesday's memo, the city's housing production strategy is still a strategy that we're continuing to work toward.

Um we we have not accomplished all of our goals yet.

Um so we do need to keep working on it.

This rezone from commercial land to residential, especially allowing multifamily development, is one of those strategies in our adopted housing production strategy.

Though this is an applicant initiated proposal, it does align with our broader goals to provide additional housing within the city.

Staff finds that the application meets all of the criteria, and we do recommend approval.

Um this closes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Davis.

Before we get into deliberations, does any commissioners uh have any questions on the on the recap of the report from staff?

Okay.

So I think if my process has me correct, then uh we will now move into the deliberations portion of this.

And I'll open the I'll open it to uh who wants to start.

Yeah, I don't mind starting.

Uh thank you, Chair Mitchell, and thank you, uh Ms.

Davis, for the presentation.

Um we've heard the comments from the community, and I think largely we've heard that there is some opposition to this project from community members that have expressed various concerns.

I think the city has done a good job sort of responding to some of those concerns.

And I think in our role as a quasi-judicial body here, our really our only task is to ensure that the applicant has met the standard for the application.

And although I you know I don't want to discount the the input from the community, I think that's very valuable.

Um I think in our role today as evaluating the criteria presented and the information presented by the applicant.

We need to approve this just based on it meeting the criteria as presented, and that's just based on our role as a quasi-judicial body here.

That's my impression of it, but I'm certainly open to hearing comments from the other commissioners.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I totally agree with that.

I I would say that's a good summary as well.

I would like to add to the community that uh this is just the first step of a development.

It doesn't mean that anything is happening yet, and that anyone who is taking steps to redevelop this site, that I would encourage everyone to continue to show up to meetings, show up to development commission review to continue to give your input because it is important that we utilize the community resources to keep guardrails on development to ensure that it is serving and meeting the needs of everybody.

I don't see in what's been presented a firm reason why we could deny this, but I would say to please keep doing your wonderful diligence on behalf of your neighborhoods and don't be discouraged because we do need the involvement of everyone to make sure that the end product isn't just serving one interest in the community but serving everyone.

Commissioner Majak.

I think that's very well put, and I agree with what James started with based on the criteria we're supposed to evaluate.

Chair Commissioners, yep, but thanks.

Uh concur with that as well.

Um I support this the proposal's consistent with the adopted policy of the city, um, reflects our growth smart principles.

Um supports a local property owner uh who is seeking to make improvements uh from a lower use to a higher use.

Um still requires the full support of city council level, other design review commissions, things like that.

Um, and just as a bottom line, like meets the criteria is presented.

So I support this.

I agree with everyone's comments and don't really have anything else to add.

Okay, thank you, Commissioners.

I think the next step would be a motion to vote and uh you know either approve or deny.

Um, but I think we need that motion to be made, and then we'll take the vote.

In general, you can have a motion to approve with the conditions uh presented in the staff report.

You could demand the conditions and approve as amended or deny.

It's up to you.

Do we have a motion?

I'd make a motion to approve the report.

Yeah.

I'll second that.

Yeah.

And just just to motion to approve the uh the uh recommend the recommendation by staff and move to find findings.

Thank you for clarifying.

Got it.

Umis, will you please take a vote?

Sure.

Who seconded?

Thank you.

Mitchell.

Yes.

Yes.

Najak?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Wing.

Yes.

Bruce.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Iris.

And I'll note again that this vote was only a preliminary decision, and the final decision will be made upon the adoption of rented written findings that will be presented to us.

Yeah.

So thank you.

Okay.

That brings us to item number 8.1 on tonight's agenda, and that is a work session for the tree regulation amendments.

This is work session number two, PP24-0006.

And we're going to receive receive a presentation on preliminary regulatory concepts for updating the city's tree regulations.

I think community development director Numalu is not here tonight, so I think maybe Eric Mr.

Olsen will take us through on this one.

Actually, I think director Numano is available remotely being commissioners.

Unfortunately, I I have a cold right now, and that's why I am participating remotely.

Should be there to present.

Yes.

I assume I assume Sarah is Sarah's episode.

Hi.

Hi everyone, I'm Sarah.

Are we able to get the slides up?

Thank you.

Then I use this to proceed the slide deck.

Oh, I guess you don't have that.

All right, so we won't be able to see Jessica.

I just want to confirm.

Or if she wants to make a comment, it will take over.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you for clarifying.

All right.

Hi everyone.

We're excited for this opportunity to present these code concepts to you and get your feedback today.

My name is Sarah Goldstein, like we just, like you just discovered.

I'm a consultant with Cascadio Partners supporting the city of Lake Oswego's tree regulation amendments project.

And before jumping in, I'd like Christine and Morgan to introduce themselves and Jessica as well.

Hi everyone, my name is Christine Johnson.

I'm a consulting arborist.

Sorry, I have a little cold myself.

So I'm just gonna be as quiet as I can.

Um, but I'm here just to provide technical tree assistance and interpretation of um best practices.

Good evening.

My name is Morgan Holin.

I'm the consulting arborist on contract with the city's planning department.

So one of my big responsibilities is reviewing tree removal applications and assisting staff with making findings and decisions.

Thank you.

I'd also like to introduce Brandon Nam, uh, who is the chair of the tree task force.

Uh he's available to come up and answer any questions or provide clarification uh if needed after the presentation.

Uh and the tree task force, which we talk about a lot today, is a diverse advisory body of 12 stakeholders that have many perspectives in and around Lake Oswego, uh, as well as council liaison John Wenland.

And it includes a lot of people who interact with the tree code frequently advising this project, like Arborists, conservationists, and developers.

And as a refresher, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the urban community forestry plan or this amendment project, but the objective of this project is to amend Lake Oswego's tree-related provisions, um, both in the community development code and as recommended by the urban community forestry plan.

Uh and the outcome of this project is to preserve the city's beautiful wooded character and promote a sustainable urban forest in alignment with the urban community forestry plan.

Uh, and it will integrate best practices in urban forestry around the region, enhance clarity and efficiency in tree regulations, and ensure meaningful community involvement throughout the process.

So most of the meeting today will be spent digging into uh four critical parts of the code uh that we're asking your feedback on.

And I know that you may have many questions or comments that came up in your review of the materials sent ahead of time.

Um we're looking forward to answering them.

Uh I'll give a comprehensive overview of each concept, and then we'll have space for discussion.

So we'll go one at a time.

So the objectives for this meeting today are to first review what clear and objective standards are, review the four code concepts and how they differ from the existing code today, and share how the tree task force and city council responded to these code concepts, and then get your input.

And so that we can translate these concepts into draft code amendments, which is the next phase of this project.

So today, the parts of the code that we're discussing impact a subset of type two applications.

They don't affect all tree removals.

These critical parts of the code we're discussing now ahead of some of the other key issues of this project because they will affect our approach overall.

And the a remaining issues will be addressed as we move through the project.

But beginning with these four kind of challenging policy-based items will help create a framework for the other key issues since all of the regulatory items are interconnected.

And it's important to note that a lot of the major part of the Lake Oswego tree code is not changing.

We're just going in and doing these targeted updates per the urban community forestry plan.

The code has been working well.

The city of Lake Oswego has over 50% tree canopy, it's close to 53%.

So the scope of this project is not to revamp the code and make it to make specific changes to comply with state law.

But as you know, Lake Oswego has a really beautiful big canopy, and we're not trying to change that in any way.

All right, so we are right in the middle of this project.

So this schedule highlights touch points with both the council and the planning commission.

So we will be coming back to you in early spring with draft code amendments as well.

So this project, as a first step, developed a key issues list that we are going to address with these amendments, and it is split into four categories.

And then there's also technical issues as well that are changes in edits like definitions and things that are minor and have insignificant policy implications or shifts.

They're just not extremely major, just tweaks.

And the list is also split into categories of development and non-development.

So those issues that touch on tree code that directly relates to construction of new buildings, and non-development issues which don't relate to construction.

So these are things like landscaping on infrastructure conflicts.

So this list on the right here, you may be familiar with it, is that list of key issues on the left are the substantive issues and the right are 25 technical issues.

And this list was developed with feedback from the city council, from tree task force input, city staff interviews and engagement with stakeholder focus groups as well as the public.

This was uh this was presented to the tree task force to provide feedback, and out of that came the code concepts.

So, yeah, when we did review this with uh the tree task force, there were some clear areas out of these 12 substantive key issues that people raised a lot of comments and questions about.

They're highlighted in blue here.

Um, and they just needed a bit of a deeper dive and to explore some of the levers of code that were there and kind of the push and pull of these concepts.

And so these four key issues that we'll be discussing today are creating clear and objective standards for needed housing, ensuring consistency and tree permitting between non-development and development, and evaluating the appeals process to reduce delays and conflicts, and creating incentives for tree preservation.

So, again, these relate to needed housing development and only a subset of tree removals.

Uh, they have important policy implications for the rest of the key issues list, uh, and they're really important to address at this point before we start drafting.

So what is a code concept?

I just want to make it really clear that it's preliminary, and we don't want to get really hung up on numbers and percentages.

We're just here to see how everyone is feeling about these concepts.

And it's not the same thing as draft code.

It's not set in stone, it's developed as a tool to encourage your reactions and get feedback.

And these were created after meeting with the tree task force and exploring how these alternative approaches that were developed as part of the best practices phase of the project were considered.

And the code concepts again are preliminary, nothing's been decided yet.

So we welcome all questions, but some of them might be kind of more related to draft code, where we are in like the conceptual phase of this project.

So something we're gonna talk a lot about today is clear and objective standards.

It's really important for all of these amendments for um in this project.

So I'm gonna give a brief overview on clear and objective standards so we're all on the same page.

So this is the Oregon state statute, which requires cities to adopt and apply clear and objective standards and procedures regulating residential development to ensure that the city does not use discretionary or subjective criteria to deny projects or discourage housing through unreasonable cost or delay.

As was mentioned in the previous presentation, uh there are some housing goals for Lake Oswego, and so this speaks directly to that.

And the term needed housing here that's used is defined in a separate part of uh regulations, but it essentially covers missing middle housing to address the state of emergency of housing in Oregon.

So Lake Oswego is required by state law to make the code clear and objective around housing development to reduce process time that's often expensive and costly to developers.

Um this will result in changes to a subset of type two applications.

So how do these uh how does this actually play out in Lake Oswego's code?

Um it looks like there was a PDF, but that is a PDF burp, but that was uh discretionary and subjective is the header on the left there.

Um a discretionary standard is subjective and requires interpretation by the reviewer and the applicant.

Uh on the left, there is an example from Lake Oswego's current code, and it states that the removal of a tree will not have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood.

And this is hard to interpret because it does not have clear measurable qualifications and different people can come to different conclusions.

A clear and objective standard has specific measurements and details.

That means that by right, if somebody does these things listed in the standard, they uh a permit can be administered and they can continue without delay.

So cities, including Lake Oswego are now required by state law to offer a clear and objective track, uh, so clear and objective option in code, although there can still be discretionary tracks as options as well.

Uh so does anyone have any questions of clear and objective standards?

I know that you all interact with the code very regularly.

This was okay.

Amazing.

Uh so like I mentioned before, the discussion around each of these four code concepts will be structured the same.

I'll give an overview of the existing code, an overview of the code concept, and then before we jump into questions and discussions, I'll share how the concept was received by the tree task force and the city council as well.

So this first key issue is kind of the mediest.

Uh it's creating clear and objective standards for residential development.

Um, it definitely is a pretty large concept, so I've just broken it into three parts.

I'm gonna refer to them as part one, two, and three, but that's not like important in any uh substantial way.

So uh this is part one.

Uh how the code works today.

Uh, if a site were being developed for housing and there were existing trees on the site, the process would be that a developer would apply for a type two tree cutting permit, and the city would then determine if they could or couldn't remove the trees based on the existing discretionary code, which is shown on the left here.

Trees are already being removed under this current code.

We have a graph here that shows uh different types of permits and how they are split up between the categories.

Uh tree removals for housing development are a large part of that 16% bar there, which shows type two permits for all development types, not just housing.

But housing does comprise a large portion of that 16%.

Uh and state regulation requires clear and objective standards to make it easier for staff to administer code, uh, clearer for developers, and to allow the city to align our regulations with the values outlined in the urban community forestry plan.

This is a good opportunity to be able to incorporate that plan.

So this is part one of the alternative concept.

Uh, it provides two clear and objective approaches that the applicant can choose from.

So these are both options, either to retain a percentage of total healthy trees on a lot, or retain a percentage of total DBH, which is diameter at breast height on the lot.

And so we're still in conversation about these percentages, like I mentioned earlier, um, but this is where they're at now.

I want to make sure not to get too hung up on them, but we're welcome for uh to take feedback on the percentages.

Uh we want to keep the focus though on whether these two approaches to the concept of the concept are appropriate and if there's a preference for one or the other.

So this is a diagram, an example site from the memo, which shows a lot with four trees on it.

The table shows how uh the this person could meet the uh standards set forth in this concept in two different ways, and how they might result in two slightly different outcomes.

Um, but this is the goal of this code concept is to provide some more flexibility for developers and sites while keeping uh a good standard level of preservation and uh tree retention.

I'm letting you all review the table.

Chair Mitchell, is it okay if I move on to part two?

We wouldn't have questions on this one.

Go ahead.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

And the second part of this alternative concept provides exemptions for trees within the building envelope for small lots.

So this was a suggestion by a tree task force member.

Um, and this would be uh for small lots around 5,000 square feet or less, or lots that are no larger than 15% of the minimum lot size required in that zone.

So the retention, the last meeting with the tree task force, somebody asked if this exemption would make it possible, you know, to subdivide a larger lot into many smaller lots and therefore avoid tree preservation, um, which is a good question.

Uh but the tree, the clear and objective standards that I presented in part one would still be required outside the footprint area of the building.

Uh so this would make it feasible to build if there are trees within the potential building footprint, but it wouldn't necessarily mean that they could subdivide and remove every single tree within the larger lot.

There's the so the exemption is not exemption from the clear and objective standards, it's like an exemption from get have require getting a permit at all.

It's an exemption requiring them to preserve the 33% of DBH or 50% of total trees for small lots where a building footprint would take up a lot of that space.

Okay.

But with the with the maximum building footprint in the lot, there's still going to be space on the lot that is not counted within that uh building envelope.

And if there's trees on that part of the lot in the setbacks, they would still be required to preserve the trees based on those total tree or DBH measurements.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

So when we brought this to the tree task force, counselor Wenland requested some data about how many lots this would affect.

And so currently, in all residential and mixed use zones that permit residential uses, it's about 25% of those lots that are 5,000 square feet or less.

And for the seven residential zones with minimum lot sizes, about 15% of those are small lots of 5,000 square feet or less.

So the data shows when looking at each zone and the size of the lots within the zone that the R3 high density zone would be impacted the most, both with the total number of lots that are zoned R3 and by the percentage of the lots.

It's 75% of R3 are small lots that would qualify for this exemption.

Here's a zoning map.

R3 is in red here.

And then on to the third part of the concept.

How the code works today is that if a tree removal meets the criteria for issuance of a type two tree cutting permit, but it's deemed a significant tree, it can't be removed.

So significant tree is not a clear and objective term, and it needs to be rewritten as part of these clear and objective changes.

And it needs to, so all trees that are considered significant trees now should need to be categorized the same.

One tree can't be significant unless that's very clearly written out in the code.

So it right now, significant trees can be removed with two exemptions.

The first is if there's anevitable damage by the tree to neighboring structures, infrastructure or utilities, sidewalks, or an alternatives analysis by an arborist deems that there are no alternatives to removal.

And right now, native trees are more likely to be considered significant or important, but there aren't any benefits or incentives to keeping them.

And the key here is that the discretionary term significant is removed, and the code concept provides bonus credits for native trees, which will be specifically listed out in the code with the updated tree list.

So when we asked the tree task force to provide their initial reactions to these three parts of the code, we asked them the questions on the left.

Is what the tree task force had consensus on.

And what is in blue is where council had general support.

We didn't do an official poll or vote with council, but they showed pretty uh pretty good support across the board for these concepts.

When we asked the tree task force to give us feedback and vote on these polls, uh consensus was two-thirds.

And we asked them to consider before voting do you think these options create clear and objective standards that are efficient, effective, and meet long-term sustainability goals of the urban forest.

And so we see here that the tree task force and the council both supported the option of retaining percentage of total trees or percentage DBH.

Uh so to allow both to introduce flexibility and how preservation can happen on the lot while still retaining trees within required thresholds.

And the tree task force supported exemptions for small lots only, which impacts a smaller portion of lots that have less flexibility around tree retention and where development can be severely limited.

But the council was indecisive on this and needed some more discussion and information, as well as maybe examples and case studies that shows how this concept may work on different sized and shaped lots.

It would need to be set high enough to discourage unnecessary removal, but not so high that it suppresses development.

Or they could choose the discretionary review pathway, which is still going to be maintained, even with these clear and objective changes.

So the both the tree task force and the council also were supportive of these bonus retention credits for native trees as well.

But now we would like to hear your thoughts about this concept and have the team answer any questions you have.

We have again project manager Jessica on the Zoom, Christine here and Morgan.

I jump in and just as a question, just so I make sure I understand that this only applies to residential development development.

What is the definition of development that we're using?

Let me rephrase that.

Does it apply to all types of house residential development, or is it apply only to sort of middle housing?

Or it could in theory apply to somebody building a 5,000 square foot single family home.

It would apply to all residential development.

So type two permits are development in general, and this would uh yeah, this would only affect residential, but all types of residential.

Okay.

And and development means if somebody existing house gets knocked down, a new one that qualifies as development.

Do add ons count they do?

Okay.

This might be a better question for Jessica, but I would think anything that you would need a building permit to would fall into this.

Okay.

Yes, I would just add uh that it we're talking about housing development.

So if someone was building a garden shed, or they were expanding a garden, or that they were just landscaping, that does not require us to uh provide clear and objective standards.

But uh like was already said, any new housing development of any type or an addition to that housing would uh require clear and objective standards.

And that includes mixed use as well.

Correct.

Thank you.

How much faster will this speed up the process from what's currently happening?

That's a good question.

I don't think we can give a specific time frame.

Um, but we have done focus groups with developers, uh, and there are developers on the tree task force, and something that can delay a uh project, you know, up to several months, uh, can be going through this discretionary process, going through notice and appeals, um, and especially having right now with the standards as they are, standards that aren't clear and objective, so there's uncertainty with the developer, and the developer when they're uncertain about you know the outcome of a discretionary process, um, they might decide not to do it, or they might have to go through this process, which could take several months.

So, of course, the discretionary process is still going to stay an option, um, but this could reduce a lot of time in that um in that timeline for the project.

I couldn't give an exact amount.

But thanks, Sarah.

And you will see in concepts that uh Sarah will be discussing here in a few minutes, that there are uh other concepts that are that get more at the time savings.

But one thing I can add, and I know uh Daphne Sissel, I believe, is in the audience, and she can probably back me up on this, is that with type two applications, um, particularly with development, DAFI spends an inordinate amount of time with applicants trying to get a complete application before they can even begin the noticing because of the discretionary standards and trying to make sure that they looked at all the alternatives that they've answered all of the criteria, et cetera.

So I would I would think that there would be some time savings there, but it would be hard for us to quantify.

Um, but going from that very discretionary to more clear and objective, I would assume would save time.

Um, but uh yeah, again, we wouldn't be able to quantify it at this point.

Um we'd have to kind of uh see how things uh pan out if this is the approach that we end up going with uh with the code amendments.

That's a great point.

I'm really glad you brought that up about um, you know, there's everybody's got a different sense of time of when they submit an application, but then we don't start the clock until you have a complete application, and that could be many weeks or months later as there's this back and forth of where you actually have to apply this or that, and then we can't even analyze like how long something takes until we have a fully complete application and everybody all that.

So that was a great point.

I just have one question.

Um, can you do you have an objective standard for the definition of a healthy tree?

Yes, I do.

I just uh a healthy tree.

Uh so this is suggested definition by the consultant team and also open to feedback.

Um, but the suggested definition is trees in fair, good or excellent condition based on the overall health and structure as determined by a certified arborist.

And a certified ISA, a board certified ISA arborist is kind of a a standard in all of this code.

Um they are the experts um that are pointed to in many parts of the code to evaluate the alternatives analysis, um, the health of trees and whether or not they might be at risk to structures or uh utilities.

Do you have any other comments?

Okay.

Who makes that decision?

When you say arborist, what arborist?

Um, the applicant um when when they're submitting a type two application, it has to be by an ISA certified arborist for the type two application, and the city can check their credentials online to make sure that they're actually qualified and credentialed to provide that.

It is subjective.

A fair, good, or excellent health rating is subjective, and that's why the city often makes or does make site visits to confirm the status and the health of the trees.

So if you know the city decided they didn't agree with a certain status of a tree's condition, that could be they could go back to the applicant and request additional information as to why they support that tree is in that condition.

Um, but does that answer your question?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have anything to add as the person who does these site visits?

So I think under this concept, um, an applicant would have an arborist create an inventory, so a list of the species size, condition, and to help with those calculations to demonstrate how the criteria are met.

Um and then I mean, currently I I go out and review every single type two application that comes in.

So I don't know if that would continue with the new process.

I kind of assume that it would.

And I'd go out and take a look and see if it's you know, fair, poor, good.

Um but you know, if most trees are fair or good, and if they're poor, then you know, they would qualify most likely for um a landscape reason for removal or a dead tree permit, something like that.

So, you know, we can really we can get very specific in the definition.

I mean, we can we can go to the landscape plant appraisal manual and have a whole table to help define good, fair, and poor.

Yeah, but trees are living things, so um, and their condition is often dependent on their site too.

So, what is a good condition for a tree in a forest setting is a is different for a tree that's a street tree.

Yeah.

I have another question.

Is it the underlying goal here is to remove a barrier to housing development, like at the end of the day, and tree and tree the time and expense in applications and tree removals has been identified as a barrier to housing development.

Because we all we need we need more housing as we know through our housing needs analysis.

Yeah, sorry.

Yeah, yeah, I it ties back to my other question, which is this uh application to all residential property and not like targeted to middle housing, like having this clear and objective standard targeted only to more housing, which is the underlying goal.

Yes, it is just targeted to all housing.

There it's not targeted towards missing middle housing.

Um, so it would uh single family residences would qualify.

And yes, this is the the ultimate goal uh of these code concepts are to uh remove unnecessary barriers and and time costs for development of housing, but it is also to align with the urban community forestry plan, which is a plan that is based around the health and sustainability of the forest.

So it is a balance.

And a lot of these code concepts are going to be a balance between the two.

Um, like I kind of mentioned before with the percentages uh for tree retention.

Um, like I kind of mentioned before with the percentages uh for tree retention, you can't make it you know too high because then all the developers would go to the discretionary track and nothing would really change.

But if you make it too low, then we might be losing trees at a higher rate than we would otherwise, and it could have a negative impact on the canopy.

Was there a discussion at the tree task force meetings that I'm limiting this to just applying to sort of middle middle housing or or or more dense housing and not allowing it to apply to single family homes, new development of single family homes?

Uh we can't do that.

Um state law specifically says that uh we have to apply clear and objective standards to needed housing.

Needed housing are the housing types that we are identified in uh as needed in our housing needs analysis, and as all of you probably recall on the commission, uh we need every type of housing in the city.

Uh so we cannot pick and choose which types of housing the clear and objective standards apply to.

It has to apply to all housing, it has to be available to any type of housing, including a large mansion, unfortunately.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thanks, Jessica.

Um, a follow-up question to that would be is there any way that there could be some sort of like bonus or like say, oh, you can do X percent for everyone, but an additional percentage bonus if it's for say like very low income housing.

Um yes, that is a great suggestion.

Did you have uh further comments about that?

I just see Jessica nodding.

So I didn't know if Jessica wanted to speak or I think it's a Jessica question.

Okay, yeah.

Sorry.

Yeah, I think it's possible to do that.

Um it's interesting.

So this is the tree code.

It's not a land use uh regulation.

It's in chapter 55, it's not in chapter 50.

Um, I you know, I'd want to think on that and uh consult with our our land use attorney, but it would seem to me that as an incentive, we could potentially do that.

So I think that's worth looking into.

Okay, thank you.

And there are other incentives that we'll be talking about shortly that are more tree related, but we could maybe tie that in um in another concept.

I have a question about the two proposed retention metrics.

There's the percentage of total tree count and then the percentage of total DBH.

Does staff have a preference?

Do we do you see uh ever recommending one or the other?

And how do we avoid an applicant quote gaming the system by just picking the metric that results in the lowest number of trees retained?

So I can respond to that.

Um, what we're going to plan.

So right now we're just looking at this as an overall concept, and that's one of the reasons why we didn't want to get too caught up in the in the percentages, because it's like, okay, well, let's look are the are these concepts something that are feasible?

Um, we're kind of generally hearing at least so far from the tree task force and the council.

Yeah, these are these seem like reasonable concepts.

Um, and there's really not a lot of other other things we can choose from that are purely clear and objective.

Um, but one of the things that we need to do as staff is um apply these to different case studies and see how these play out with different scenarios, different lot sizes, and different percentages, and then we'll be able to come up with a with a more concrete recommendation that we can then bring to the boards and commissions, city council, et cetera, for feedback and further refinement.

And I would just add that uh conceptually, we wanted to give two options so that people had more flexibility, which might result in preserving fewer trees but larger trees or the best existing, you know, healthy native trees on the site.

Um it, you know, other jurisdictions have similar standards, and it's often is a numbers game that you're playing.

But I think by having the two different options, quantity of trees versus diameter of trees, you you can look at it in in more ways and come out with a better solution.

But the case studies, I think will be really helpful.

Thank you.

Yeah, when I'm trying to give my kids two options, it's two options that I'm okay with, either one which they choose.

You can put your jacket on or carry it with you if you choose.

So kind of the same concept here.

Would you like me to put up the last slide, which covers like the three questions that are uh that we're kind of ending on with this code concepts to give any comments of you know, support or um concern uh before we move on?

Or do you want some more time for questions?

I did have a question about the smaller lots.

Are there any examples that you have of developments being denied because of tree coverage and tree code as existing, or is it just something that you're trying to prevent from happening in the future?

So we don't have any standards.

So I would say right now for the discretionary pro uh standards that we have for type two, there is no minimum uh tree uh retention requirements at all.

Um so someone could technically, if they show they have no other alternatives, remove every single tree from their site.

Um we require mitigation, of course.

Um, but we can't deny an application that meets uh all of our zone standards, and there's no other alternatives to its removal.

So if somebody came in and they were at a 5,000 square foot lot and they wanted to build a 2500 square foot home and they're allowed to do that under code, meaning they meet all the setbacks, the lot coverage, the height, et cetera, and that would take out every single tree, and there's no other alternatives, they would get approval.

We can't deny the housing in order to save the trees.

Or we can't make the tree, we can't make the house smaller than is allowed under the code.

So why make the specific carve out then for small lots if they're already allowed to do the development?

Well, we have to the idea is that if we're going to be talking to someone about saving the minimum percentage on the site, the smaller the lot gets, really the more difficult it is to feasibly save trees within the building envelope.

So the idea is once a lot gets to a certain small size, let's not focus our attention on the trees that are in the middle of the lot that are gonna come inevitably come out.

Let's focus the retention on the the uh trees that are remaining in the perimeter that are outside the setbacks and give some uh credit or incentive if they do save trees within the building envelope.

But it just sort of takes it out of the equation because at some point it's just not going to be feasible to save within the building envelope with the amount of development that they're allowed.

And I'll just add to that too that when we looked at the data, the R3 high density zone is the most affected and has the smallest lots.

And so that's where you're gonna see potentially more missing middle housing because that's one of the zones that allows for high density and would allow for duplexes, triplexes, multifamily.

Would we be able to pull back up the slides?

Thank you.

So I'd love to hear any kind of comments uh with support or concern about these the three parts of this code concept, and then we can move on to the other.

Personally, I think this is on track.

I mean, I understand the well the percentages are we're not getting into the granular details of the percentage.

Um, but I think this is this sounds like it's on track track to me, especially if the tree task force is um on board with it.

Um I think as noted my question about like trying to foster middle housing, I think Rachel had a great idea.

Like if we could comply with state law, but also further incentivize this to not end up with single family homes taking advantage of it, mansions.

Yeah.

I agree.

Any last comments before I move on?

Just don't want to cut anyone off.

Go ahead, Sarah.

Thanks.

Great.

So we're on to the second uh key issue, which we've already kind of touched on, but creating more tree preservation incentives.

Uh so how the code works today.

Currently, developers can go through a variance process to receive a 50% building setback reduction.

But they typically don't do this because they don't want to incur the time costs it takes for this variance application process.

Uh and so this isn't necessarily going away.

Um, the team is is totally willing to keep this as an option.

But the alternative concept puts forth uh another potential pathway for developers who retain 50% or more of the trees on the lot or that 33% DBH.

Uh and they could still apply for the variance, um, but they just couldn't uh get both.

It would be either they apply for this variance or they could do this other pathway uh which is here.

So if the clear and objective standards that we covered in part one of the first code concept are met, the applicant could be exempt from the public notice and appeals process and or be eligible for small adjustments and dimensional standards like setbacks, building height without going through the variance process and or stormwater credits because trees are proven to have stormwater benefits.

And so they would get some stormwater credits by tree preservation on the lot.

So all of the tree task force members supported small dimensional adjustments.

We polled them on the four options on the top four options.

We didn't pull them on the stormwater credits.

But all of the tree task force members supported the small dimensional adjustments.

However, consensus wasn't reached because of how the polling went out.

Some of the members voted for both, and some voted for small dimensional, but neither of those got a two-thirds majority.

So that's why you have the slight uh support uh thumb there.

Uh the council did not support the small dimensional adjustments.

Um they were concerned they would be too complex to administer, unpredictable, or create uneven application applications of development standards.

Uh they were, however, uh in support of the exemption from public notice and appeals, um which we will also dig into the appeals process in the next code concept.

And they were also in support of stormwater credits.

Uh so this concept is a lot more uh succinct, and uh we open it to your feedback questions and and concerns.

So the loss of the public appeal process is a pretty big change, is that right?

Uh correct.

So for this code concept, this would be a potential option for developers.

Um and they could uh, and that would be a significant change in the process because right now uh they go through public notice and appeals for all discretionary type two permits.

And the purpose of this is of course they have to save more than the minimum percentage.

So if our minimum percentage is 50%, maybe we say if you save 65% or more of the trees on the site, then you would be eligible for this.

So what we're trying to do, because uh the clearing objective standards is a very blunt tool, so it's hard for us to um kind of capture the significance of trees and trying to preserve characters.

So what we're trying to do is use this as a way to encourage developers and builders to preserve more than a min than the minimum.

So it's like, well, if you do you preserve a lot of the trees, then we're going to save you a lot of time and cost because we you don't have to go through a public notice and appeals process.

So it's not all type twos that it would apply to.

You'd have to preserve an extra percentage over the minimum.

This is the minimum just because the minimum as it exists now or the minimum as we're as it's being proposed here.

The minimum standard as it's being proposed.

So under that first option, the clear and objective.

Um, so let's say it was 33%, and then we set the if you saved 50% or more, then you would be qualified for this incentive that would allow you to not have to do public uh notice or appeal.

I mean, I I'm on board.

I think it's a I mean taking away public notice and appeal is always fraught with with uh things, but I understand the motivation behind it.

Um I think maybe 50% is too low if we're gonna like really gut a public a public appeal public notice and appeal process.

Like maybe it should be 70 or 75.

I don't now I don't know if that then guts the whole concept and nobody's gonna know develop that's not helpful to developers, which is the point we're trying to get to.

Like they have to retain 75% of the trees, well, then it doesn't matter.

I guess it'd be helpful to get some context on what those numbers really mean and what it looks like in reality.

Yeah, and that's that's a good point, and we would want to set that percentage to be high enough to be both effective and an incentive.

Yep.

And just to be clear, this is just to remove the public notice for the tree removal itself, not for any of the other portions of the just the tree removal.

So if they're already above the minimum standards, what's the point of making them go?

Is there really a way that a public hearing could postpone other than just postpone and delay?

Can they actually overrule the decision?

We have some more data in the next batch of slides.

There's been only a handful of public notice and appeals that have uh that have successfully been uh have successfully been accepted to prevent removal.

They uh often can be used as kind of a postponing and a delaying tool.

Um, but we don't have the numbers for all of those cases.

Um we just have the data on which ones went from the planning commission to council to be overturned.

And it was, I believe DRC to council.

The DRC to council, and it was, I believe one out of eight over the past five years was overturned.

It would have to be particularly significant tree, something like this.

Well, anyone can appeal an application for any reason.

So someone could appeal it purely just to delay a project.

They absolutely could.

Um, they don't really have to give a reason for appeal.

It may not be successful, but it'll be successful in you know and uh delaying the application.

Um, but we do actually have data that was included in your report on how many appeals we have had on average in the last five years.

And um what we found was that uh, and then how many got further appealed from the DRC to the council?

And of those, only one in one instant instance was the original staff decision overturned.

It only happened once in the last five years.

Yes, and I'm I'm seeing the the data that was given to you also.

Five fifth 15 appeals over the past five years.

So that's on average three.

It's not that many.

Yeah.

If I can chime in here, uh, as a housing and community developer myself, I would say the stormwater credit would be just from a tactical perspective, the most likely to uh incentivize me as a developer to preserve more trees on a site.

Thank you.

Yeah, I would kind of lean in favor of the way the council is on these ones.

I don't think that changing setbacks and those type of changes would be good.

That's there's too much um too many things that could go wrong tweaking those, but stormwater incentives sound great and the um unnecessary delay of a public hearing if they're over a substantial portion.

I agree with Chairman Mitchell, it should be a pretty big percentage, but I think that would be a great incentive.

Yeah, thank you.

And uh, like I mentioned uh at the beginning of this concept as well, like there is an existing exemption um from the setbacks from dimensional adjustments and setbacks.

There is just a variance process.

And so there is in that way um more of a barrier to getting that uh setback than this proposal here.

Um but it could still be possible for a developer to apply and get that uh incentive.

Any other comments, commissioners?

Sarah, do you have like direction from us on on this particular one you feel comfortable?

Yes, thank you.

And we can yeah, go back to the slide deck.

All right, so as we've just been talking about already and alluding to uh we are on the code concept uh of evaluating the appeals process to reduce delays and conflicts between groups and things like people applying uh appealing things just to postpone the process.

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

And if there is an appeal, it will go to the development review commission, the DRC, and then can further be appealed to city council if uh they aren't satisfied with the DRC's um ruling.

And uh, like we just mentioned as well, the data from 2020 to 2024 shows an average of three appeals per year.

Um there are 15 appeals over the past five years.

And over this five-year time period, eight of these appeals were then further appealed to council, but only one were overturned.

So that's one out of 15 appeals that were overturned.

This alternative concept proposes a reduction in the notice and appeals process for all applications to two weeks instead of three.

And if there is an appeal, it goes to the DRC or a hearings officer.

Uh the third part is that it may no longer be uh further appealed to the city council.

But we did pull these three pieces with the tree task force and got some uh feedback from the council as well.

Uh all tree task force members were in favor of having a more streamlined process that wasn't unnecessarily cumbersome if the clear enough standard, if the clear objective standards are met.

Um and the council was also in support of reducing the notice and appeals process to two weeks.

So both both parties supported this.

Uh and in a unanimous decision, all of the tree task force members supported the concept for a hearings officer instead of the DRC.

Uh, we got a bunch of comments in support of that.

There's one member of the DRC in the tree task force.

Um, and people on the tree task force felt like a qualified hearings officer can make informed consistent decisions more quickly than the DRC, which holds hearings twice a month.

And then, of course, if the public notice and appeals process kind of doesn't line up with those DRC meetings, it can further delay a process.

The council, however, was undecided about a hearings officer.

There were a lot of words of support, um, especially because it can reduce administrative time and budget, but there were also concerns about this new position's potential for bias, um, and uh you know, the community's reaction to this hearings officer.

Uh third, 60% of the tree task force members supported the idea that a hearings officer decision should be final and no further, um, not further appealable to city council.

So this wasn't a two-thirds majority, but uh 60% did support uh this concept.

Uh council also went back and forth on this one.

Um, with some saying it's important to have a path for public recourse, and others noting that there are such rare cases that appeals are overturned that it would just save a lot of time and resources uh to just go with the final decision of the hearings officer.

Uh so as you are all part of this existing process, um, what are your reactions to these alternative concepts?

Okay.

Who's the hearings officer and how is that person or a person's chosen?

Yeah, Jessica, do you have a sorry?

Yeah, we do have a hearings officer actually on contract.

Uh, we need to do that because by state law, we have to uh take expedited appeals of expedited land divisions to a hearings officer.

So our city attorney's office um uh went through the contracting process, and so we have them on retainer.

So anytime it comes up, uh we just contact them and um we sort of use them as needed.

So uh, but it is it the hearings officer is chosen uh through a competitive bidding process by our city attorney's office.

So lowest bidder based on cost, is or is that the criteria?

No, that isn't.

Cost is one of the criteria, but we also look at qualifications, we look at references, we look at the qualifications that we want as a community for this particular hearings officer to have.

Um a lot of them are either uh practicing or retired attorneys.

We tend to see that.

Um, but they are typically, I guess the advantage of a hearings officer is they understand how to apply code and how to apply standards and how to do it in sort of an even-handed way.

Um so they're professionals essentially.

Um, and there are a lot of communities out there that do utilize hearings officers.

All right.

Uh well, I was gonna take up three questions, so I don't want to sorry to jump.

Just to be clear, this apply this is an appeal of the type two application in general, right?

So it could be about something other than tree removal.

This is not, we're not just talking about limited tree removal, or do I have that incorrect?

I see Jessica and meeting.

Yes.

So the concept would apply to all type 2s.

So if we retain both a discretionary process for non-housing and then as well as the clear and objective process for housing, any application that's type two that's eligible to appeal would if you chose this, uh if we ultimately chose this concept, would go to the hearings officer.

Okay.

Were you asking Chair Mitchell about other types of appeals that aren't related to trees, though?

Is that what you're my understanding is that this would not impact that necessarily.

That's not the width on the scope.

I don't know enough about the permits to know whether that question was ridiculous or that question made sense.

Sorry.

I understand I misunderstood.

Um, it's just the type of tree removal.

Type two permits are one of our nine um type two permits are one of the nine permit types for trees, tree removal in Lake Oswego.

So it's just for trees.

Okay, got it.

But if somebody was doing some other land use process, like a uh just a regular partition or something like that, that would still go to the DRC and then to the city council.

This would only affect type two trees.

Okay.

I'm I'm hearing my question was ridiculous.

That's what I got.

When we talk about the DR, like they go through the DRC appeals go through the DRC versus using a hearing officer, how is the timeline affected?

How much quicker is it with a hearing officer?

The development review commission meets twice per month.

And so they meet on the first and third Mondays of a month.

And sometimes you have five Mondays in a month.

And so if you're trying, or sometimes they have a full schedule.

So sometimes if you're trying to um you're trying to schedule an appeal, that might have to be bumped out to a later time.

Whereas with the hearings officer, you can it's based on their availability.

So there would be a minimum appeal period time, but once that appeal is filed, then you you have more um flexibility in scheduling with the hearings officer, assuming that they have a more open schedule than the DRC.

Yeah, it's uh I mean um that last point I'm curious about whether the the hearing officer who's a retired attorney and doing this all the time might actually not have regularly, you know, DRC at least has regularly scheduled meetings.

So I'd be curious like, is the timeline actually faster with the hearing officer than then the DRC.

Well, one of the criteria that we would look at in contracting of a um hearings officer would be the timeline.

So we would specify that we would expect that if we needed to uh schedule a hearing with the hearings officer, that they would need to be able to turn that around within X number of days, whatever how whatever we want to specify on the contract.

So that would be something that they would be contracted to do.

Okay, that makes sense.

I'm sorry, my f my final question was this might be for you, Mr.

Crane.

Is there if we don't like the if they don't like the city council's decision, is there a process of regular appeal go through the courts?

If the city's final decision, presumably from the city council, um involves the city's land use regulations, it goes to the land use board of appeals.

If it involves any other kind of regulations, it goes to circuit court.

Okay.

So as relevant here, if I understood correctly, these tree ordinance, the tree ordinance, tree cutting provisions are not codified in your land use regulations.

They're in a separate part of the municipal code.

So an appeal from an exclusively a decision on a tree permit under the regulations we're discussing tonight, would go to circuit court, presumably on rate of review and not to the land use board of appeals.

Okay.

So there is recourse.

I'm trying to get at the question about cutting out going to city, like appealing to city council from the DRC or hearing officer.

Um I was trying to figure out well, do they have a further recourse if they want to just go in?

I guess they do go into circuit court, right?

So there is no government decision that can't be challenged in one court or another.

I figured I figured as much.

Yeah.

I will say just from experience, I know Clackmas County went to a hearings officer system uh because the and then set up their code so that hearing officer's decision would be appealed to the land use board of appeals and took the board of county commissioners out of the sort of tree code decisions, sign code decisions, all the stuff that was clogging their calendar.

And there might be value in that.

I don't know how this is set up, but there can be value in having a hearings officer to just take to offload a lot of this stuff too and preserve the big decisions for the city council.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sorry, Brian.

No, I was just gonna comment for for all of the discussion that just happened in these questions and these back and forth.

That's like I I support each one of these that had the thumbs up, either from council or the uh the tree task force, I support because if one uh example in 15 has been overturned, um this is just I the way I see it, this is just a burden on our on our on our public resources on all of you on staff time.

If these are continuing to go through to their different levels, and then they're not only one in 15 has been successfully appealed.

Like, let's try this.

And um our tree canopy is the NV of this all the other cities in the state right now.

So if we've made some huge mistake in two years, we can go back and undo that.

But this as it is right now, these these delays um are just not in the best interest of the taxpayer.

Thank you for your input.

Does anybody else have any comments or input before we move on to the next concept?

Thank you.

Uh so this is the last of the four items we're gonna cover today, which is consistency between development and non development tree permitting.

So the way the code works today is if a type two removal permit is granted, um, a type two removal permit is granted if it does not have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood, uh, like I mentioned earlier.

Um, but this is specifically broken down into the code as tree removals that are significant.

Uh so if it's deemed a significant tree, um, which is not a clear and objective term.

If it serves as a visual screen, if it is a street tree, comprises more than 50% of a stand of trees, or where the removal will alter the features or skyline.

And so if it does fall into these five categories, removal under a type two permit is only allowed through the following exceptions that I mentioned uh way earlier that are shown on the slide that uh if there's inevitable uh damage to the struct to structures nearby or utilities, or if an alternatives analysis by a certified arborist uh deems that there are no alternatives to removing this tree.

So currently moderate risk trees don't fit into either of these exemptions.

So there's no uh clear path to removal for these moderate risk trees.

Uh we heard in our engagement process, many people in the Lake Oswego community, including from the council, that it is a priority to have homeowners be able to remove trees that they feel pose a risk to their safety.

Uh and we want to address this, but we also want to avoid having having people remove perfectly healthy trees out of fear or um you know uh worry because this could significantly alter and impact the overall tree canopy.

So this alternative concept suggests an additional third exemption to these two exemptions here.

Uh this alternative concept allows applicants to remove a moderate risk tree, even if the removal will have a significant negative impact on the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood.

If a qualified arborist classifies the tree as moderate risk with their rubric and all of their uh criteria that they look at.

And either one determines that there's no way to reduce the risk rating to low through alternatives like maintenance or pruning, or they determine that there's demonstrable history of similar tree failure in the immediate area.

When we pulled the tree task force, 70% were in support of this concept as a mechanism to reduce the gap between the rate of approval in development and non-development permit types.

Um but they did bring up two significant concerns.

Uh, on one hand, that allowing moderate risk tree removal with no other concerns documented will increase the removal of trees.

And that Lake Oswego needs to provide homeowners with the ability to remove trees that don't fall into this category, but perhaps have routes that may affect walkways or interfere with people's decks and patios.

The council showed support for this concept and suggested consulting insurance companies to understand emerging standards related to tree risk as well.

So we welcome your questions and discussions about this exemption concept.

And again, this would be a third exemption added to the list of two exemptions for the discretionary track.

And this is strictly for non-development uses or both.

For both for housing or um would be for both.

Both, okay.

But it would be for both.

I mean, the type two can be for development or landscaping, but I think it you know it applies more to the landscaping reason for removal.

Um if you know your tree doesn't meet the criteria for a hazard permit because it doesn't rate high risk.

But you still want to remove it because you're scared of it.

Um, this would be the landscape more of a landscaping reason.

Um I am curious if there's been any discussion about related to this.

If I were say worried about my tree being at risk of falling over, causing damage.

I submit it through this process and it's denied, and then it does fall and cause damage of is the city then liable or is the arborist liable.

I I just curious if anyone has taken that uh approach to this idea, because I do see a risk there that people might you know go through this whole process in good faith, be denied, and then the city could be in a bad place with legal.

There's a lot of ways to answer that question.

There is.

I mean, I think one thing to keep in mind is um the city does have uh uh a different type of permit, a hazard permit process, and there's separate criteria for that, which does not include looking at significant negative impacts to the character or aesthetics of the neighborhood.

Um I mean, that's the thing about this is like you have this type two process for landscaping purposes.

Um if your tree is hazard, if it's high risk, you're gonna apply for a hazard permit instead.

And if it's an obvious hazard, you can submit some photographs and staff or I can verify that yeah, it's an obvious hazard and issue the permit.

If it's not so obvious, the code requires the applicant to contract a tree risk assessor qualified arborist to fill out the city's double-sided hazard evaluation form that already is consistent with uh International Society of Arboricultural Standards for risk assessment.

Um and if it rates high and there's no um reasonable treatment to abate that risk, you can get your hazard permit.

So when someone submits a moderate risk tree for a landscape improvement, um it often gets issued if there's no significant negative impacts to the character aesthetics of the neighborhood.

But there are the handful of trees that you know really are significant to the character of the neighborhood because of their species size, location, and relatively good condition, you know, it's only a moderate risk tree.

Um so this this code concept kind of puts an added burden on a type two applicant by requiring them to hire that tree risk assessor qualified arborist, assess the risk, it comes out moderate, but then go the next step, prove that there are no reasonable alternatives to reduce the risk, um, demonstrate that there is a history of failure of similar trees in the neighborhood.

Um, and then you can meet that exceptions criteria.

So, you know, I think there is some concern that it could result in more trees being removed.

But from what we've seen with it being a problems in the last couple of years since the the February 2024 storm, it's really only been a handful of applicants that have really run into that problem.

But to answer your question, I think staff would say you don't meet the type two criteria, go look at the hazard criteria and apply that way.

So I don't think that's been a concern as of yet.

But your original question.

I'll just say from personal experience, uh last January, February, we had one of those one or two of those days of snow and ice.

I thought there was a tree in my backyard that was you know about to come down and uh called the city and the folks were out that day or the next day and taking a bunch of pictures and walking through why it wasn't uh it wasn't as hazardous as of tree as it looked to me out my window.

So it was an incredibly fast response time from the city and yeah.

Yeah, I I did just want to um provide some clarification that uh um when an arborist is tree risk assessment qualified, they go through at least a two-day training um process.

Um, so they learn how to, you know, fill out this form properly, ideally, and they learned how to rate the likelihood of failure, the likelihood of impact, and the the consequences of that tree or tree part that is gonna fail.

So there's multiple aspects that influence how this can happen.

And so this is a very subjective and discretionary rating system, which is good that the city already has that included.

And um it's it will I I agree with Morgan that it will make it very hard and up the ante for somebody who's submitting with a type two, because they really have to prove things and um I think the tree code is robust here, and we're not gonna lower a standard just because you know they have this option now.

They still need to meet that moderate level of risk, which is is in itself is actually kind of hard to get to moderate too.

Most trees are low risk.

Yeah.

And I thought about this a lot, and I think you know, we're already really good at tracking our tree removal permit data.

And so if something like this were to be implemented, we'd really keep a close eye and see what the the implications of it are.

And if it became excessive, we could reevaluate it.

I wonder if there's any kind of education component getting to what you know, um, Commissioner uh Guinea's question, which I thought was a great question.

You know, I look out and I go, man, that tree looks like it's tilting over.

That's gotta be dangerous.

But someone that's a track certified arborist might look at other factors and say, no, clearly this is a low-risk tree.

Has there been any discussion about public education involving these changes to the tree code?

Uh yes, there has.

Uh public education and outreach is a large part of this uh project, and we have been through all of the folks groups uh and tabling events.

We have been creating a list of items that should be addressed with public education outreach.

Um Jessica can probably speak to this a little bit more on next steps in public education and outreach, but that is a major part of the urban community forestry plan.

And there is a lot of information that can be given to the public, um, especially about maintaining trees on their own property that can really help them understand how to have the healthiest tree and how to have the least amount of risk.

Yeah, so the city has an ongoing public education component.

Um, Morgan Holan, who's um sitting there and uh part of our project team does an incredible amount of work every single year.

Um she helps hold tree workshops, um, she organizes tree pruning workshops, tree planting, uh, tree protection.

Uh she uh organizes all of our Arbor Day events, which include a lot of education.

We also have a lot of educational materials that are on available on our web page.

Um, one of our most popular is right tree right place, making sure that um giving a list of various um species trees, where is where's the best place to plant them if you you know, depending on how big your planter's trip is, whether there's overhead utilities, etc.

So we already have a lot of resources.

Um, as far as hazard tree goes, it doesn't matter um for some people what you tell them or how much information you give them.

If they have a tree that they feel is a hazard, uh, particularly if it threatens, you know, it's next to their child's bedroom.

There, you can't educate them about anything.

They they want the tree to be removed.

And and that's what we have heard um through our public outreach.

Uh, the council wanted us to address that.

We've had people come and testify to the council about this.

So that's really what this is about is trying to give some sort of a relief valve to those situations where it doesn't qualify as a hazard, it doesn't qualify under our normal type two process.

So here is another option that someone can go through.

They have to provide some extra documentation, but it it gives them more confidence that that tree is either a if it's a moderate risk that they can do something to make it a lower risk, or if it's not, and or there's been a history of tree removal, like they saw a huge tree come down in their neighbor's yard in the ice storm, that they have other options.

Um so this this really was not something that was staff was proposing to do.

It's something that the community, we heard from the community and the council directed us to provide as an option.

Great, thank you.

So I have another slide here going off of this topic.

Uh so this is the question that we posed to council as we wrapped up these four uh code concepts.

Uh, should clear and objective standards be only applied when we legal where we legally have to apply it with needed housing, or should it apply to all uh tree removals?

The project team's recommendation is to keep a two-track system uh to avoid removal out of fear and overall uh increase tree removal citywide to avoid increased tree removal citywide.

And the council agreed that uh they ideally would retain a two-track process, uh maintaining a discretionary path for permitting that it's not related to residential housing development.

Um, and this preserves stronger protections overall while still providing a clear structured path for necessary removals for housing development.

So again, this is I'm turning this to you.

Um if you feel like these concepts have uh given a good clear and objective track that is an addition to the discretionary process that Lake Oswego already has to remove those barriers for needed housing.

Or if you disagree and you think that clear and objective standards should be across the board the same.

Did the T the tree task force vote on that?

Because I didn't see the green.

No, yeah, sorry, the tree task force did not um vote on this, but uh the council did.

Commissioners.

I just wonder will this have an impact and require additional staffing and resources to evaluate all these um changes.

It's gonna add some complexity with the dual track system and things like this.

Do we anticipate having the increased staffing?

Well, the clear and objective track would replace a lot of the existing discretionary type two permit processes.

So uh ideally it would reduce reduce the amount of staff time and process.

Uh but if Jessica and Morgan or Daphne have anything to add to that, um you're welcome.

Just interject.

I don't foresee it creating um the need for an additional staff person.

Yeah, I guess just I'm sorry to chime in here, but I would just point out that you know, basically, because we only have that discretionary track right now for a lot of things, you know, it would take a big chunk of what's going on going through the type two process and actually simplify that quite a bit.

So I I concur, but um, you know, I just want to point out I think yeah, it would it would actually make things considerably more streamlined.

And it depends, of course, which code concepts are moved forward to draft code, but there were a lot of pieces here that could uh reduce staff time, like the hearings officer and the reduction of uh or the elimination of uh going from the DRC or hearings officer to city council.

There are a lot of little levers that can be pulled with these code concepts that you know affect staff time, but ultimately we'd be reducing the number of discretionary type two permits that you know go across the counter-thank you.

I agree with city council and keeping the uh having clear and objective apply only to how uh development and keeping non-development as under the discretionary.

Anyone else?

Yeah, that's the that's my direction as well.

Yeah.

Great, thank you.

Uh well, we're wrapping up here, and I thank you.

Thanks for going back and forth this whole time.

Uh so we're wrapping up here.

The next steps is to present uh your feedback as well as the council's feedback to the tree task force and uh go back to the drawing board with the consultant and arborist team and start drafting code.

Um, there is a lot of kind of data polling that we're gonna uh grab in the process, and Jessica and the city team are going to be pulling some case studies, and we're gonna be kind of mapping out how these things would work and hammering down on those certain percentages and what those would look like.

Um draft code and then we will return to you in the oh my gosh, the schedule's really far back.

We're returning to you around May.

It's for a session on those draft code.

Great job so far.

Yep.

You everyone?

Thank you so much for coming down and the excellent presentation.

Appreciate it.

Yeah, thank you.

Have a good night.

Item number nine, other business.

Just a reminder that at the commission's next meeting, this is our technically our last meeting of 2025.

So at the next meeting, we will need to elect a chair and vice chair.

Um so just a heads up, just to start thinking a little bit about that and just a little bit of preparation and advanced notice.

How long would that term be for chair and vice chair?

For a year.

One year.

Yeah.

So we'll come back January of 2027 and elect another vice chair and chair.

Okay.

Can we make Chair Mitchell do it again?

Yeah, that's um, you know, unfortunately, Chair Mitchell's time is up in July, so I don't have a lot of things.

That's why I was asking.

Yeah.

But I'll take that as an endorsement.

Thank you.

Thank you for your service this past year.

You've been great.

Well, I'm not leaving, yeah.

I'm not leaving.

You won't hear any complaints for me.

But we don't have another meeting this year, right?

Yeah.

We're back in January.

The 22nd was listed in the hello.

I sent a message to Christina asking about that.

Anyway.

Um is there any word on a holiday party?

I know the last couple of years, the mayor has had a reception.

Is there not gonna be one this year?

I am not the person that can answer that for you right now.

I will look into it though and try to follow up the email.

I'm not sure if Jessica knows off the top of her head either.

But um, yeah, you know, I think um, yeah, apologies that I can't answer that for you.

Okay.

I I wasn't aware that the mayor held held a holiday reception.

So I I feel bad that I don't I I wasn't aware of that previously.

Of course, we do have the boards and commission summit coming up in January, but um yeah, we'll we'll look into it, but I have not heard anything.

That may have been what they did before.

Bringing all the boards and commissions together.

Item 10 schedule review.

All right, so back to the schedule here.

Um we will be um holding the net the planning commission's next meeting on January 12th.

Um that will be uh um two items mainly on the agenda that day uh work session where we're gonna talk a little bit about our existing conditions analysis for the foothills plan update.

So getting into a little bit more meat um now that we're a little bit further down the line with that work, as well as the consideration of findings for the continued hearing that we um heard your deliberations on this evening.

So um 4,000 cruiseway place rezoning.

We'll think about findings on January 12th.

Um actually, Jessica, I should have put the summit on the agenda here.

Do you remember what the date of the summit is off the top of your head?

Or can I I don't remember that, but I realized that I should give them a heads up about that.

So um that will be in early January as well.

Come to um sort of try to follow up with Deanna's uh comment.

I am looking at my schedule very quickly.

Well, I'll just go through January.

It is on uh yeah, it is on January 15th.

All right, so it's on a Thursday typically, so that'll be January 15th.

I'll put that on your schedule and we'll distribute that again just as a reminder.

You know, we're all encouraging, you know, that will be actually after our next meeting as the planning commission, but um it's important to um try to get um as many commissioners to attend that as possible.

That's really where you know we brainstorm and think about the council's works uh work plan for 2026.

Um a lot of collaboration and sort of thought is put into that event.

So I really encourage folks to make it to that.

And again, it's um a little bit of an oversight that I don't have it on your schedule here, but it is on the 15th of January, which is a Thursday.

And Eric, I can let you know it's from 530 to 7:30, and it looks like it's going to be at the uh Oswego Hall at the Lorac.

So it'll be in a new location this year.

It'll be a different facility.

We've hold we've held it at the adult community center the last few years.

So uh more of an early January celebration, I suppose, as opposed to a holidays one.

Yeah.

Um and the second meeting in January, we're going to dedicate that to discussing our work plan as a commission to fulfill the city council's goals.

Of course, this is all kind of an active conversation at the summit.

Um there's some other sort of city council meetings where they'll be developing their own goals, but we'll have an opportunity to touch base about that on the 26th.

Um we have some other items that are likely to pop up in February that I have not populated the schedule yet either, but those are are going to be filled in soon, just waiting for some confirmation from other staff that we're hoping to have come in.

Um but regardless, um yeah, we uh should have a full January.

And um, yeah, thanks for reminding me about the summit.

Hopefully we can all make it to that on the 15th of January.

No other questions or comments, thoughts adjourned.